Dualism in Qumran

LIBRARY OF SECOND TEMPLE STUDIES

76 formerly the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series

Editor Lester L. Grabbe Editorial Board Randall D. Chesnutt, Philip R. Davies, Jan Willem van Henten, Judith M. Lieu, Steven Mason, James R. Mueller, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, James C. VanderKam

Founding Editor James H. Charlesworth

This page intentionally left blank

DUALISM IN QUMRAN

EDITED BY

GÉZA G. XERAVITS

Copyright © Géza G. Xeravits, and contributors, 2010 Published by T&T Clark International A Continuum imprint The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038 www.continuumbooks.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-567-23435-3

Typeset by Pindar NZ, Auckland, New Zealand Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham, Wiltshire

CONTENTS

Abbreviations Introduction: Dualism in Qumran Géza G. Xeravits 1. DUALISM IN THE QUMRAN WAR TEXTS Philip R. Davies

vi 1 8

2. LOOKING FOR SAPIENTIAL DUALISM AT QUMRAN Matthew Goff

20

3. ANOTHER LOOK AT DUALISM IN QUMRAN WRITINGS Paul Heger

39

4. THE TREATISE ON THE TWO SPIRITS AND THE LITERARY HISTORY OF THE RULE OF THE COMMUNITY Charlotte Hempel

102

5. EVIL, DUALISM AND COMMUNITY: WHO/WHAT DID THE YAḤAD NOT WANT TO BE? Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer

121

6. LIGHT AND DARKNESS IN THE TREATISE ON THE TWO SPIRITS (1QS III 13–IV 26) AND IN 4Q186 Mladen Popović

148

7. DUALISM AND PENITENTIAL PRAYER IN THE RULE OF THE COMMUNITY (1QS) Emmanuel O. Tukasi

166

Index of Passages Index of Authors

189 196

ABBREVIATIONS

AB ANTJ AThANT BASORSup BETL Bib BiOr BJS BWANT BZAW CBQ CBQMS CQS CRINT DBSup DJD DSD EDSS ER ET EtBib HR HSM HTR IEJ

Anchor Bible Arbeiten zum Neuen Testament und Judentum Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Supplements Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblica Biblica et orientalia Brown Judaic Studies Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur ZAW Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Monograph Series Companion to the Qumran Scrolls Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Dictionnaire de la Bible, Suppléments Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls Encyclopedia of Religion (ed. M. Eliade, London: Collier Macmillan) Eglise et Théologie Etudes Bibliques History of Religions Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Israel Exploration Journal

Abbreviations

IOS JAAR JBL JJS JNES JSJ JSJSup JSOT JSOTSup JSP JSPSup JSS LDSS LHB/OTS LNTS LSTS NovTSup NTL NTS PTSDSSP RB RevQ RHPR RSR SBLAcBib SBLDS SBLEJL SBLSP ScrHier SDSSRL STDJ SUNT TDOT TWAT VT

vii

Israel Oriental Studies Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of Judaism, Supplements Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplements Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplements Journal of Semitic Studies Library of the Dead Sea Scrolls Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Library of New Testament Studies Library of Second Temple Studies Novum Testamentum, Supplements New Testament Library New Testament Studies Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project Revue Biblique Revue de Qumran Revue de l’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuse Revue des Sciences Religieuses SBL Academia Biblica SBL Dissertation Series SBL Early Judaism and its Literature SBL Seminar Papers Scripta Hierosolymitana Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament Vetus Testamentum

viii

VTSup WUNT ZAW ZTK

Abbreviations

Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

INTRODUCTION: DUALISM IN QUMRAN

Géza G. Xeravits (Sapientia College of Theology, Budapest) The material of the present volume began to be formed in 2006, when I called a number of scholars to reflect on the complicated question of the concept of dualism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Below, the reader will find contributions by those who responded positively to the editorial initiative. The volume – seeing the importance of the question and the limited space available for the contributors – is naturally selective and incomplete. Yet, I believe, it could add a worthwhile contribution for clarifying the issue, and could open new directions in re-evaluating the position of the theological theme ‘dualism’ in the Qumran Library. –— The importance of dualistic thinking within the material of the Dead Sea Scrolls had already been emphasized in the very beginning of Qumran Studies.1 The high esteem this topic obtained came from the fact that the material of the firstly published texts from Cave 1 – or previously published material seen now in connection with the Qumran findings – provided a good number of passages characterized by typically dualistic language. Seeing the fact that a dualistic world-view and terminology are present in such writings which were considered as core documents of the religious sect that produced the fragments hidden in the caves of the shore of the Dead Sea, scholars quickly believed that members of this sect shared 1 The first monograph-length study devoted to the question was by H. W. Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten. Der Dualismus der Texte von Qumran (Höhle I) und der Damaskusfragmente. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Evangeliums (AThANT 34, Zürich: Zwingli Verlag 1959), which was preceded and followed by a number of detailed articles by various authors.

2

Dualism in Qumran

a predominantly dualistic theological outlook. The greatest impetus for this opinion seems to be based on the fact that three writings judged by scholars as pre-eminent examples of the sect’s self-identification and view of history contain lengthy dualistic passages: the Rule of the Community (1QS), the Damascus Document (CD), and the War Scroll (1QM). The impression of the dualistic interest of the Dead Sea Scrolls seemed to be further emphasized by the additional publication of various fragments from Caves 4 and 11, which are also witness to the use of obvious dualistic terminology.2 The meagre quantity of this material compared to the totality of the written fragments from the Qumran Library notwithstanding, scholars subscribed for a long time to the opinion that the community’s thinking was characteristically dualistic – some even considered this theological outlook as more or less a distinctively Qumranic proprium of the time. Subsequent research in the next two decades – up to the beginning of the seventies – tried to explore the various types or models of the dualism of the Qumran texts, with special interest in the inner theological development of this theme within the ideology of the community, or its possible origins, mainly from outside of Israel.3 Some of the earlier studies – especially that of P. von der Osten-Sacken – were sensitive to the problem of the complex literary development of the writings in question. Yet it was Jean Duhaime who – from the middle of the seventies – consistently called attention to the fact that the dualism of the Qumran scrolls can be evaluated correctly only when taking into account the chronological sequence of the various literary levels, especially of the Rule of the Community and the War Scroll.4 This approach helped scholars to clarify what they thought

2 A sort of catalogue of the dualistic texts of the Qumran Library was compiled by J. Frey in his ‘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 (eds M. J. Bernstein et al., STDJ 23, Leiden: Brill 1997) 277–8. 3 The most comprehensive treatment was made by P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran (SUNT 6, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1969). See further, for example, H. Wildberger, ‘Der dualismus in der Qumranschriften’, Asiatische Studien 8 (1954) 163–77; A. Dupont-Sommer, ‘Le problème des influences étrangères sur la secte juive de Qumrân’, RHPR 35 (1955) 75–94; D. Winston, ‘The Iranian component in the Bible, Apocrypha, and Qumran: a review of the evidence’, HR 5 (1966) 183–216; J. H. Charlesworth, ‘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, reprinted in John and Qumran (ed. J. H. Charlesworth, London: Chapman 1972) 76–106. 4 J. Duhaime, ‘L’instruction sur les deux esprits et les interpolations dualistes à Qumrân

Introduction

3

to be a sort of doctrinal development of the Qumranic dualistic thinking – for example, the mutual relationship of cosmological, ethical and eschatological dualisms – yet the results of this approach depend mainly on how one comprehends the literary progress of a given document. In the last two decades the research on Qumran dualism seems to be outside the centre of scholarly interest. Only two longer studies have been devoted to the theme. The first is a study by Marc Philonenko about the origins of the Qumranic dualistic doctrine.5 Unfortunately, this study cannot be taken seriously in its entirety, for the renowned French scholar did not take into account the results of previous research on the literary complexity of the writings in question; moreover, he seems to consider the Qumran Library as a more or less unified collection from a doctrinal point of view. The second is a lengthy and magisterial essay by Jörg Frey,6 in which he postulates different patterns of dualisms in the corpus of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which freely circulated side by side within the thinking of the community. The main result of Frey’s paper is to support the conviction that one cannot postulate compelling doctrines in the ‘theology of Qumran’ – the group did not want to develop a sophisticated doctrinal system; rather, they collected and mediated various aspects of the theology of their times without so much as being champions of several infallible dogmas.7 –— Since virtually all the Qumran material has been published, it is now time to evaluate several oft-debated topics of scholarly research. The theme of ‘dualism in Qumran’ is one of those areas that needs fresh investigation. The contributors of the present volume begin this work and open up new fields that might stimulate further reflection on the problem. Charlotte Hempel focuses on one of the central passages in related

(1QS III,13-IV,26)’, RB 84 (1977) 566–94; ‘La rédaction de 1QM XIII et l’évolution du dualisme à Qumrân’, RB 84 (1977) 210–38; ‘Dualistic reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran’, CBQ 49 (1987) 32–56; ‘Le dualisme de Qumrân et la literature de sagesse vétérotestamentaire’, ET 19 (1988) 401–22. 5 M. Philonenko, ‘La doctrine qoumrânienne des deux esprits: ses origines iraniennes, et ses prolongements dans le judaïsme essénien et le christianisme antique’, in Apocalyptique Iranienne et Dualisme Qoumrânien (eds Philonenko et al., Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve 1995) 163–211. 6 Frey, ‘Different patterns’, see n. 2 above. 7 The last comprehensive treatment of the topic is the encyclopaedic article of Jean Duhaime, ‘Dualism’, in EDSS 1: 215–20.

4

Dualism in Qumran

discussion: the Treatise on the Two Spirits of 1QS iii 13–iv 26. She overviews all the Rule manuscripts from the Qumran Caves, and confirms the suspicion that the Treatise was not a genuine part of the Rule of the Community; rather, it can be considered in its entirety as a late addition to the material of this important document. She calls further to attention that the overall dualistic approach of the Treatise could not penetrate the legislative material of the Rule, in which the distinctive dualistic terminology of the Treatise is entirely absent. The starting point of Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer’s paper is also the Treatise on the Two Spirits, and she asks about the social function of this passage within the community. She finds an interesting contradiction that in the Treatise, ‘the sons of light’ appear to be a kind of marginalized intellectual elite, while sectarian writings of the Qumran Library interpret the ‘sons of light’ as referring to the community. A study of sectarian material leads to the observation that the community used dualistic material concerning the entrance or expulsion from the community: thus dualism is only relevant at what she calls the community borders. The function of the Maskil is important as the person who not only instructs the sons of light about the workings of evil but also keeps it away from them by selecting the knowledge and the people that may enter the community. The paper of Mladen Popović contrasts two non-sectarian compositions of the Qumran Library: the Treatise on the Two Spirits and 4Q186, an impressive physiognomic-astrological catalogue. He finds that unlike the Treatise on the Two Spirits, in 4Q186 the human spirit is not the object of inquiry, and light and darkness are not dualistic categories. What interconnects these documents is the world-view of evil spirits that invade the sons of light, cause them to stumble, and that need to be resisted and fought. If 4Q186 is interpreted on the basis of the thinking of the Treatise on the Two Spirits, one should allow for the possibility that the zodiacal spirits were seen to be part of either the division of the spirit of light or the spirit of darkness. Emmanuel Tukasi also studies the Rule of the Community, yet, his focus is on passages that display characteristics of the literary genre ‘penitential prayer’. He argues that the language of these passages is influenced by dualistic thinking. Penitential prayer is composed in ethical terms to show that the deeds of the penitent do not correspond to what God approves in the theological categories ‘good’ and ‘evil’. For those who choose to belong in the ‘good’ category, penitential prayer provides access for the transition.

Introduction

5

In his essay for this volume, Philip Davies returns to a text which he studied with predilection throughout his scholarly career, the War Scroll. He reconfirms the opinion that the dualistic passages belong to a later literary layer of both the Rule and the War texts – which he classifies as the only ones containing ‘explicit dualistic doctrine’ in the Qumran Library. Davies argues that one can find a sort of internal logic which helped to formalize dualistic ideology in these texts, yet he also argues that Zoroastrian doctrine played a significant part in at least the formulation of the dualistic system. He is of the opinion that one can find a dualistic world-view, even ‘theology’ in the thinking of the community, without however, assigning to it a central significance. Matthew Goff researches the inner biblical backgrounds of the dualistic systems found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. He is aware that there is certainly ethical dualism in the Old Testament sapiential tradition, and one can also find a harsh opposition between right and wrong throughout the Old Testament. As a pre-eminent example, he analyses the personification of wisdom and folly as women in the Book of Proverbs – this theme, however, is absent in the Treatise on the Two Spirits. He argues that the wisdom tradition is undoubtedly one of the traditions that influenced the Treatise. But isolating specific forms of influence that can be directly traced to the wisdom tradition is difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish. Finally, Paul Heger contributed to this volume with a provocative essay in which he maintains that the harsh predeterministic dualism of some Qumran documents is in contrast to biblical thinking. Also, he is convinced that the Iranian influence on the world-view of the community is less than previously thought. Furthermore, according to him, it is entirely natural that the Scrolls display conflicting theological systems, as, during the age of their production Judaism did not intend to develop a coherent ideological system. –— There are several issues that join the contributions of the present volume. I mention just three of them: the origin of Qumran’s dualism; the literary growth of the passages in question; and the social/ideological setting of the dualistic passages within the Qumran Library. As for the origin of the dualistic thought incorporated into some Qumran documents, the authors of this volume are generally reluctant to

6

Dualism in Qumran

see a strong Persian influence.8 This theory is most vehemently opposed by Paul Heger, who consistently argues that Persian dualism and the dualism of, for example, the Treatise on the Two Spirits have a completely different purpose and subject. While other contributors might leave some space for possible Persian inspiration for the composers of the Qumranic dualistic passages, the limitations of such connections are emphasized. More telling is the position of Michael Goff, who, after analyzing the influence of the sapiential tradition of the Old Testament on Qumranic dualism concludes that ‘[t]here is not enough evidence . . . to assert unambiguously that the sapiential tradition is an important source for the dualism of the Treatise on the Two Spirits’; nevertheless, his article lacks any treatment of Persian influence. Most of the contributors stress that we find a complicated literary evolution of the dualistic texts of the Qumran Library. Seeing the fact that now all the related texts have been published and important secondary literature has been produced on various aspects of the literary growth of the passages in question, some contributors could shed fresh light on the gradual refining of the topic by subsequent Qumranic authors/redactors. Although Paul Heger tries to reject en passant this possibility, for, as he states ‘they [the Qumran authors] were not conscious of the fact that their ideas could indicate a dualistic world-view, and hence there was no fundamental doctrine for further development’, one can hardly deny the complex Vorgeschichte of the dualistic passages of the Qumran Library. The editor has read with interest the hint of Charlotte Hempel that the insertion of the dualistic Treatise into the text of the Rule of the Community might have been the result of the activity of the scribe of 1QS, which further stresses the theological creativeness of this member of the community – as was earlier my impression when studying the ‘messianic’ passage of this document.9 Finally, one aspect of the papers in this volume that deserves attention is the question of the setting of the dualistic passages in the Qumran

8 More generally, to the possibility of Persian influence on ancient Jewish thinking see, for example, the balanced essay of J. Barr, ‘The question of religious influence, the case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity’, JAAR 53 (1985) 201–35. See more recently, L. L. Grabbe, History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period 1: Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah (London/New York: T & T Clark International 2004) 361–4. 9 See G. G. Xeravits, King, Priest, Prophet. Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library (STDJ 47, Leiden: Brill 2003) 21.

Introduction

7

documents. Seeing the fact that every contributor agrees that the dualistic viewpoint did not belong to the core doctrines of the community, it might be important to locate the reason for its incorporation into the Yaḥad’s thinking. According to Jutta Leonhardt-Baltzer’s opinion, there is a sort of social setting behind it, the self-identification of the community against other currents of contemporary Judaism; while Emmanuel Tukasi – noting the context of the community’s penitential prayer – opts for an ideological rationale to differentiate between the categories ‘good’ and ‘evil’. –— The editor of the volume is pleased to acknowledge the invaluable help of various persons and institutions when working on this material. Just to highlight some of them: Florentino García Martínez, Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Lester L. Grabbe helped to find the media of publication, while the Sapientia College of Theology (Budapest) provided a convenient institutional background for the editorial work.

1 DUALISM IN THE QUMRAN WAR TEXTS

Philip R. Davies (University of Sheffield, UK) In the early phase of Qumran research, when only the Cave 1 texts were known, dualism was generally understood to be one of the basic doctrines of the ‘Qumran sect’. The presence of a dualistic Treatise in 1QS iii 13–iv 26 and the dualistic aspect of the Final War in 1QM suggested that dualistic thinking may have been characteristic of the entire corpus.1 But the doctrine of two divinely-created spirits in predetermined opposition is not expressed, or clearly reflected, in any other of the Cave 1 manuscripts. The publication of the entire manuscript archive has confirmed that the presence of an explicit dualistic doctrine is confined to the S and M texts. A case has been made for a dualistic system in the Hodayot (H).2 But the usage of key terms does not make the case. xwr occurs over 60 times, but of a human attribute or of divine beings in the plural, and these are never divided into good or evil, nor are ‘holy’ and ‘evil’ spirits (or equivalent terms) personalized.3 The word l(ylb occurs eleven times (1QHa x 16,22; xi 28, 29, 32; xii 10, 13; xiii 26, 39; xiv 21 and xv 3), but in every instance is either used adjectivally, in a noun-pair, or can be interpreted as an abstract noun more readily than a personal name. The phrase l(ylb lwk at xi 26 is probably not a scribal error: see 4Q428[4QHb] 5 3 and 4Q432[4QHf] 4 ii 3 which illustrate very well that ‘Belial’ can be used to mean ‘wickedness’

1 A comprehensive and coherent system of thought for the entire Cave 1 corpus was in fact argued by J. Licht in his study of 1QH: ‘The doctrine of the Thanksgiving Scroll’, IEJ 6 (1956) 1–13 and 89–101. 2 S. Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (Lund: Universitetsvorlaget 1960) 296; B. Kittel, The Hymns of Qumran (SBLDS 50, Chico: Scholars Press 1981) 175. 3 A. E. Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran (SBLDS 110, Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press 1989), for 1QS iii 13–iv 28, see 193–219.

Dualism in the Qumran War Texts

9

or ‘evil’ or ‘folly’, without referring to a dualistic protagonist. The contrastive use of ‘light’ and ‘darkness’, and their respective spheres of dominion, in 1QHa xx 4–10 is also far from expressing a dualistic theology: Cqm dymt Nnthw l^p^nthl hlptw twdw[h lyk#ml] 4. rw) )wbm M( Cql lwdg rw)m twqwxl wnwktl Mwy twpwqtb[ wtl]#mml 5. )cwmw br( twnpb twn^p^l wtpwqtb hlyl d(wml K#wx tl#mm ty#rb rw) 6. ... Cqbw rqwb

The reference is to the periods of daylight and darkness, and though they can be metaphorically applied or can even inspire a dualistic opposition, this conception is not present. There is also in H some battle imagery suggestive of an eschatological war.4 The manuscript 4Q491 (4QMa), originally classified as a recension of M, has now been divided into three separate manuscripts by Abegg and ms C (the Self-Glorification Hymn) redesignated as having closer relationship to H. It does not refer to a war. In respect to spiritual warfare, it seems more accurate to conclude that insofar as the theology of H does approach the dualistic doctrine of S, it is closer to the ‘ethical’ dualism of the second part of the Treatise than the cosmic dualism of the remainder of the Treatise or of M. The Damascus Document (D) also exhibits some features utilized in the dualistic conception of 1QM. Belial is present as an individual figure (CD iv 13,15; v 18; viii 2; xii 2; xix 14). But in nearly every case he is an agent of temptation or destruction rather than one of two equally powerful and divinely created spirits. In v 18 [plus parallels in 4Q266, 267] he is paired with Myrw) r#, though the scope and actions of each are limited to one incident and do not seem to represent universal activity.5 This ‘Prince of Lights’ appears nowhere else in any D material and a single reference of this kind is too slight for any secure conclusion. CD xii 2 [+4Q271] also refers to the l(ylb twxwr ‘ruling’ (l#$m cf. M:

4 Kittel, The Hymns, 175. 5 A passage in 4QAmram relates a dream in which two presumably angelic beings ‘rule’ (Nytl#m) over all the ‘children of Adam’ (4Q544 1 12; [+4Q545, 547]). See P. J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchirešac (CBQMS 10, Washington: CBA 1981) 24–48.

10

Dualism in Qumran

l(ylb tl#$mm) over an individual. Yet the wisdom discourses in CD i 1–iii

21, while asserting the predestination of the elect, make no reference to a dualistic view of things. The view that emerges from this document is of a present age, a period of divine anger during which Belial dominates and draws humans into evil. It can certainly be concluded that we have here a chronological dualism, a concept of two ages, the evil present and the good future. Finally, the eschatological expectations of D do not include a war. The Cave 4 texts have also revealed evidence of a literary history to both of the ‘dualistic’ documents, permitting the critic to gauge the degree to the dualistic material as a relatively early or late feature. In the case of S (1QS, 4QSa–j [4Q255–264], 5Q11 and 5Q13), the manuscript evidence, being somewhat fuller and clearer than for M, makes it possible to conclude that an earlier recension (4QSd+e) commenced with the heading found at 1QS v 1 (though in a slightly different wording), and that the introduction of the dualistic passage appears only at a later stage.6 Even if this were not the case and 1QS represented the earliest version we possess,7 it can be stated that the Rule of the Community is not a dualistic document, but only a document containing a dualistic section (which, on Alexander’s account, would later have been omitted). The status of 1QS i 21–iii 12 is interesting. As Metso comments,8 it ‘probably has an independent existence before its insertion in the Rule’; and, as she also observes, it has received relatively little attention. It appears to be very largely non-dualistic. The ‘dominion of Belial’ in i 23–4 (as in i 18 and ii 19) refers, like D, to the present period of wickedness and not to one of two cosmic or even ethical spheres. The ‘lot of Belial’ (ii 5) is also contrasted with the ‘lot of God’ (ii 2); no ‘Prince of Light’ makes an appearance, but rather the ‘spirit of the true counsel of God’ (tm) xwr l) tc() and ‘holy spirit of the community’ (rxyl x#$wrq xwr). The contrast throughout is between the justice and mercy of God and the iniquity of Israel. However, the possibility of some editing in the direction of the following Treatise is possible – unless we take the view that the Treatise takes its point of origin from this material.

6 This theory of textual development has been argued in detail by S. Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ 21, Leiden: Brill 1997) and has been widely accepted. 7 As argued by P. S. Alexander, ‘The redaction-history of Serekh ha-Yaḥad: a proposal’, RevQ 65–68 (1996) 437–56, largely on the basis of the palaeographic dating. 8 Metso, Textual Development, 113.

Dualism in the Qumran War Texts

11

The case of M is similar to S in that, while the Cave 4 manuscripts are not as full nor as clear in their evidence of recensional history, they do enable some account to be given, and they suggest that the Cave 1 recension is the latest, or at least one of the latest. And while it may seem, unlike 1QS, to be thoroughly dualistic, its dualistic material is in fact less than half of the total. But whereas the dualistic section in 1QS can be extracted without disturbing the remainder of the contents, the dualistic material in 1QM is part of a total reworking of an earlier concept of the Final War and represents a reworking of several earlier literary traditions that describe that war. It is thus possible to compare the dualistic and nondualistic material in 1QM in a way that 1QS and its various recensions do not allow, and to reveal the structure of a well-developed and non-dualistic war tradition. The Development of Dualism in M Following the earliest commentaries in which literary unity of 1QM was taken for granted,9 the earliest attempt to trace a history of dualism at Qumran by literary-critical means was by P. von der Osten-Sacken,10 who did not have the benefit of the Cave 4 manuscripts apart from Hunzinger’s provisional publication of 4QMa (4Q491).11 He began (17–27) with a literary-critical analysis of the 1QS Treatise, in which he argued that iii 13–iv 14 and iv 15–26 were from different authors, on grounds of vocabulary and concepts. The notion of a ‘cosmological’ dualism of two mutually exclusive forces in the first part had, he argued, been supplemented and indeed qualified by an ‘ethical’ dualism in which light and darkness affect all humans in differing measure. These conclusions remain disputed, but the literary-critical arguments are quite solid and to my knowledge have not been refuted by any better analysis.12

9 Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1962 [original Hebrew edition 1955]); J. Carmignac, La Règle de la Guerre des Fils de Lumière contre les Fils des Ténèbres. Texte restauré, traduit et commenté (Paris: Letouzey et Ané 1958). 10 P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran (SUNT 6, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1969) 29–115. 11 C. H. Hunzinger, ‘Fragmente einer älteren Fassung des Buches Milhamah aus Höhle 4 von Qumrân’, ZAW 69 (1957) 131–51. 12 Osten-Sacken’s conclusions were extended by J. Duhaime (‘La rédaction de 1QM XIII et l’évolution du dualisme à Qumrân’, RB 84 [1977] 210–38), who sees both sections of the Treatise

12

Dualism in Qumran

Osten-Sacken thus viewed the ‘cosmological’ as the earlier form of dualistic doctrine at Qumran, and sought its basis in the ‘eschatological war-dualism’ of 1QM. He regarded the scheme of the Final War as inspired by the Book of Daniel and by other biblical traditions of the ‘day of YHWH’, and hence the Qumran dualistic tradition was a Jewish development rather than an Iranian borrowing.13 Hence dualism at Qumran was rooted in the tradition of the Final War. It is not impossible that 1QM does represent the earliest form of Qumran dualism, but Osten-Sacken’s view that the war depicted in 1QM is grounded in a dualistic scheme is not satisfactory. In a study of the literary growth (again without the benefit of Cave 4 texts apart from 4Q491), I argued that an earlier nationalistic war tradition had been converted into a dualistic one.14 Similar conclusions were independently drawn by J. Duhaime.15 The structure of this earlier war tradition can be reconstructed from within the text of 1QM itself, but the publication of the remaining Cave 4 texts clarifies further the shape of the tradition.16 What can accurately be called the process of ‘dualizing’ the war in 1QM has been undertaken in three areas.17 The earliest is in the depiction of the first part of the war. According to ii 7–10 the total length of the war is forty years, of which the first six years (followed by a sabbatical year) will be waged by ‘the entire congregation [sc. of Israel] together’. According to

having been supplemented in iii 18b–23a, 23b–25a and iv 23b–26. M. Delcor’s analysis also distinguishes between the two sections (‘Qumran. La Règle de la Communauté’, DBSup 9 [1979] 851–7; 960–70). See the discussion in Metso, Textual Development, 137–40, which supports the analysis but suggests that the introduction in iii 13–15a, which presents the contents as teaching for the Maskil, was composed specifically to integrate the section with the surrounding material for the Maskil, material that otherwise consists of community rules. 13 Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 30–41, 81. 14 P. R. Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran. Its Structure and History (BiOr 32, Rome: Biblical Institute Press 1977). 15 Duhaime, ‘La rédaction de 1QM XIII’ and ‘Dualistic reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran’, CBQ 49 (1987) 46–51. 16 The textual evidence is available in the DJD edition of the Cave 4 manuscripts (M. Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4.III [4Q482-4Q520] [DJD 7, Oxford: Clarendon 1982]) and in Duhaime’s critical edition of all M and related manuscripts (J. Duhaime, ‘War Scroll’, in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume II: Damascus Document, War Scroll and Related Documents [PTSDSSP 2, Tübingen: Mohr and Louisville: John Knox 1995] 80–203). See also the convenient summary in Duhaime, The War Texts. 1QM and Related Manuscripts (London: T&T Clark 2004) 12–44. 17 The following summary is developed from the analysis and conclusions in Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran.

Dualism in the Qumran War Texts

13

1QM i, this first phase represents a battle between the ‘children of light’ against the Kittim and the ‘children of darkness’. However, the earlier portrait implied in ii 10 of a war fought by all the tribes of Israel has not been obliterated: the ‘children of light’ are defined as being from ‘Levi, Judah and Benjamin’, joined by the remaining tribes (‘exiles of the children of light’) from the ‘desert of the nations’ (i 2–3),18 while the enemies include those occupying or threatening the land promised to Israel: hence, alongside the ‘Kittim’ and ‘children of darkness’ are Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites and Philistines.19 Indeed, even the ‘Kittim’ are defined as ‘Kittim of Asshur’. The first stage of a war that presumably was originally presented as a liberation of the land of Israel has however, been transformed into a dualistic confrontation, in which the ‘horn of Belial’ will be ‘cut off’, the ‘lot of Belial’ entirely eliminated and the ‘dominion of the Kittim’ removed (i 4–6). This encounter will comprise seven stages in which victory will be gained alternately until the final divine intervention. Columns xv–xix describe only this dualistic phase and its seven ‘lots’ (Mylrwg). The remainder of the war, according to col. ii was to be fought against the remaining nations of the world, and this scheme, including remains intact. No dualistic language has been introduced into columns ii–ix, where various collections of data about the war are gathered. But these subsequent conquests are given a dualistic gloss in i 8–9, as effecting the gradual spread of divine light to the ‘ends of the world’ (i 8–9). The dualistic revision of the entire scheme of the war in col. i, however dramatic its effect, does not therefore seek to obliterate the already existing non-dualistic scheme, but as far as possible to accommodate it. Obviously, only in this way was it feasible to reuse so much of the material already in existence. The dualizing also extends to emending the liturgy in columns xv–xix, and can be detected because in the collection of liturgical pieces in columns x–xiv we find an item together with its rubric. In the hymn sung by the righteous after their first victorious engagement (1QM xiv 4b–8a) the victorious combatants characterize themselves as a Myl#$wk, smn bl, wtpr, Mycrb, Mykm and Km( tyr)#$$. The wicked are correspondingly described as h(#$r y)wg. This language implies an army of foreign nations

18 The overall logic of the composition and especially the statement in ii 9 suggests that the restoration of all Israel is envisaged before the conflict commences rather than as a consequence of the liberation of the land. 19 t#$lp can be read after a short lacuna at the beginning of i 2.

14

Dualism in Qumran

gathered by God for destruction, and the hymn conceptualizes the confrontation in terms appropriate to the Israel-nations war of columns ii–ix that also underlies col. i. In the hymn immediately following (xiv 8b–12a), the opposition is Belial and his ‘spirits of destruction’ (wlbx yxwr, xiv 10). Yet even here the language of ‘covenant’ (tyrb, xiv 10) and ‘ancestors’ (twb), xiv 8) is invoked. A precise literary-critical analysis of the hymn is difficult, but there is clearly a mixture of dualistic and nationalistic language that suggests a light dualistic reworking. But this piece of liturgy, as already noted, is found in the central section of 1QM (x–xiv), whose place within the overall structure of the document is unclear; it appears between a description of a nationalistic war (ii–ix) and a dualistic one (xv–xix). The collection is largely devoid of dualistic language and concepts, though col. xiii contains some very strongly dualistic material.20 Clear differences can be seen between the rubrics in col. xiv and those that precede the liturgical items in xv–xix (xv 4–xvi 1; xvi 13–xvii 9; xviii 5–xix 8; xix 11–14). The liturgical pieces themselves do not seem to have been constructed specifically for a dualistic encounter, but to have been taken over, with some adaptation, from existing non-dualistic liturgies. For example, in the first item, the enemy’s deeds are said to be ‘in darkness’ (xv 9) and ‘wicked spirits’ (h(#$r yxwr) are mentioned; in xvii 6–7 Michael is mentioned as Israel’s champion, but not Belial as his opponent. The crucial dualistic characterization occurs only in the rubrics, and it is this material that should be compared with its counterpart in xiv 2–4. The most striking difference between them is that xiv 3 refers to the ‘enemy’ (byw)), a term that is absent from the liturgy within xv-xix, where ‘Kittim and the army of Belial’ (xv 2–3), ‘children of darkness’ (xvii 16), and ‘Kittim, multitude of Asshur’ (xix 10f.) are used instead. There are also formal differences. In the description of the dualistic war in 1QM xv–xix the liturgy is led by the Chief Priest (#$)rh Nhwk), who ‘approaches’ (#$gn) and ‘stands’ (dm(), at a certain ‘place’ (M#$). The speeches are also prefaced with the phrase rm)w hn(. The framework of the liturgy in xiv 2–4 is very similar, except that there is no Chief Priest, nor any priest, mentioned; the verbs are all plural, with the subject unexpressed.21 The participants

20 This dualistic hymn may, however, have been revised. See Duhaime, ‘La rédaction de 1QM XIII’ for an analysis. 21 But note in 4QMa 8–10 ii 1 hmxlml #$wrh Nhwkh, suggesting an original reference to a ‘priest designated for war’, partially corrected to ‘chief priest’.

Dualism in the Qumran War Texts

15

‘return’ (wb#$) to ‘their place’ (Mdm(). But this place is specified as the spot where the battle-lines had been arrayed, not as a designated place for the priest to speak; and it is here that the combatants all wrm)w wn(. These differences, of course, do not directly reflect a dualistic shift, but they are characteristic of a systematic revision, and presumably the same revision that converts the ‘enemy’ and the ‘nations’ into the forces of the ‘Kittim’ and ‘Belial’. The dualizing revision can be seen in one more area, already mentioned. The war between ‘light’ and ‘darkness’ consists of seven stages, with victory alternating and the final stage involving a decisive divine intervention. This sequence is spelled out in columns xv–xix, by means of repetition of virtually the same battle-sequence. Its effect is not only to dramatize the encounter but also to underline the absolute equality between both sides and the necessity of God’s final judgement to determine the outcome. It also requires the introduction of a speech intended to reassure the ‘children of light’ after their reverses (xvi 13–xvii 9), an eventuality that the scheme represented in col. xiv probably did not envisage. A comparison of the passages within xv–xix that narrate the battle sequences can be compared with the corresponding material in vii–ix, where the context is of the war between Israel and the nations. Here the most striking terminological difference, apart from the seven stages of the dualistic war, is the replacement, again, of byw) in vii–ix by Myytk in xv–xix. Dualism within the Qumran War Tradition The comments above show the main features of the evolution of the war in 1QM from a nationalistic one towards a dualistic one. But more detailed comparison within 1QM itself and between 1QM and the other M manuscripts shows a more complex evolution of the Final War tradition. Following Duhaime,22 we should probably consider that 4Q492, 494, 495 and 496 are ‘copies of a similar recension’, since the textual differences are minor. ‘Copies of other recensions’23 are represented by 4Q471, whose contents are similar to 1QM ii, but with no Chief Priest or ‘chiefs of

22 Duhaime, The War Texts, 20–3; cf. also E. Eshel and H. Eshel, ‘Recensions of the War Scroll’, in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery (eds L. H. Schiffman et al., Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society 2000) 351–63. 23 Duhaime, The War Texts, 23–31.

16

Dualism in Qumran

divisions’.24 4Q491 is now probably to be distributed among three manuscripts (mss A, B, C),25 of which A is perhaps a similar recension to 1QM, B is not comparable, and C contains a Self-Glorification Hymn absent from 1QM.26 4Q493 has material that belongs with 1QM vii–ix but not parallel (1QM ii–ix is very probably a selection of materials available). 4Q497 has no parallel text. 4Q285 and 11Q14 mention Michael, the ‘Prince of the Congregation’, and the Kittim and perhaps relate to a different recension. A number of provisional comments can be made on the basis of the various manuscripts. One is that there exists more material relating to the Final War than is represented in 1QM. As already remarked, both ii–ix and x–xiv seem to be less than complete collections, and suggest that some descriptions of military manoeuvres and some pieces of liturgy have been omitted, whether or not deliberately we cannot tell. More cautiously, one may suggest a broad trajectory in the evolution of the account of the Final War. The tradition originates as a non-dualistic, nationalistic scenario where Israel defeats foreign nations. Whether or not these elements were all present at the outset, in all of them a role is played by the Kittim (as leaders of a foreign coalition?), by Michael as a supernatural helper, and by a ‘Prince of the Congregation’, who may perhaps loosely be regarded as a ‘messianic’ figure. In 1QM, however, Michael and the ‘Prince of Light’ are each mentioned only once in 1QM (xvii 7 and xiii 10 respectively), and neither plays any direct role in the fighting. It is God himself who is usually described (even in col. i) as assisting the righteous. The ‘Prince of the Congregation’ also makes no personal appearance and the fighting is directed entirely by priests. The protagonists include, however, both ‘Asshur’ and ‘Kittim’. The implication of this is that the author of 1QM had a fully developed tradition from which certain elements were omitted or downplayed in aid of the new dualistic presentation.

24 A detailed analysis of this manuscript will be found in E. Eshel and H. Eshel, ‘4Q471 1 and Ma ‘amadot in the War Scroll’, in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March 1991 (eds J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner, STDJ 11, Leiden: Brill 1992) 2: 611–20; but see M. Abegg, ‘4Q471: A Case of Mistaken Identity?’ in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (eds J. C. Reeves and J. Kampen, JSOTSup 184, Sheffield: Academic Press 1996) 136–47, who connects it rather to the Temple Scroll. 25 See M. Abegg, ‘Who ascended to Heaven and returned to tell the tale?’ in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds C. A. Evans and P. Flint, SDSSRL 1, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1997) 61–73. 26 Abegg, ‘Who ascended to Heaven’, 71–2.

Dualism in the Qumran War Texts

17

Some Cave 4 manuscripts seem to represent the non-dualistic account of the war and to preserve material that was either added after 1QM was created or was omitted in that manuscript. The question of the origin of the war traditions themselves is interesting but not our concern here. Rather, the issue is to account for the dualistic reworking represented in the recension represented by five of the Qumran manuscripts. The answer cannot be given without considering the dualistic passage in 1QS which, as noted earlier, is also a relatively late intrusion into an existing literary work. There is no doubt that the 1QS Treatise offers a more developed account of dualistic theology than 1QM. The very limited appearance in the latter of the ‘Prince of Light’ and its association of both ‘children of light’ and ‘children of darkness’ with ‘Israel’ and ‘nations’ respectively may be interpreted to imply that 1QM’s dualism represents an earlier stage. But given that we are dealing in 1QM not with a selfcontained composition, like the Treatise, but a (rather slight) dualistic revision of an already well-developed scenario, it is unwise to compare the dualistic theology of the 1QM reviser with that of the author(s) of the Treatise. We can be more confident in concluding that both are the result of a dualistic revisionism that has otherwise affected very little of the Qumran archive. Dualism within the Qumran Corpus Is the dualism a natural evolution within the ideologies of the writers and readers of the Qumran scrolls, or a radical revision of them? Was it inherited from pre-Qumranic texts? These questions are hard to resolve, and addressed elsewhere in this volume. I shall offer only brief remarks. For Osten-Sacken, as mentioned earlier, Qumran dualism emerged from biblical Holy War traditions; this view was opposed by J. Collins,27 who found in 1QM a decisive shift away from the Jewish mythology of Holy War and a clear dependence on Zoroastrian ideas.28 Lange has argued for a development from the biblical wisdom tradition via an eschatologized

27 J. J. Collins, ‘The mythology of Holy War in Daniel and the Qumran War Scroll: a point of transition in Jewish apocalyptic’, VT 25 (1975) 596–612. 28 Ibid. ‘The War Scroll does not derive its basic structure from the Canaanite chaos myth, but from the Persian dualism of light and darkness’ (page 604). But see the response to Collins’s overall thesis in P. R. Davies, ‘Dualism and eschatology in the Qumran War Scroll’, VT 28 (1978) 28–36.

18

Dualism in Qumran

wisdom evidenced in other Qumran texts.29 It can certainly be argued, retrospectively as it were, that the notion of a war between an Israel aided by Michael against the Kittim – a concept that can certainly be developed from the Book of Daniel – is already a step towards a dualistic struggle involving spiritual and human forces. It is also clear that the personification of Belial/Beliar/Mastema/Azazel is also reflected in Jewish literature of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid eras in Palestine, and in the case of the Enoch myth of the heavenly descent, the notion of a host of evil spirits. As Lange remarks,30 belief in predestination is also attested in CD, though in my view it can be seen as evolving from a (sectarianized) doctrine of election as much as from wisdom categories of thought. One cannot regard as unexpected the emergence of a formal dualism among those who were familiar with the ideas and vocabulary of the non-dualistic works in the Qumran archive. There are, indeed, a number of features of other Qumran texts that have been put to service in the articulation of the dualistic doctrine. The appearance of (#$ryklm in 4QCurses [4Q280] and 4QAmram [4Q543–8] suggests a dualistic opposition of heavenly beings, if he represents a counterpart of qdcyklm (cf. also wmwl# K)lm, 4Q228 1 i 8) (the phrase rw)h ynb is also found in 4Q280 1). But the text is too fragmentary to be certain whether the figure of 11QMelchizedek (whose activity is cultic and not military) has been identified with one of the two equal spiritual forces created by God, and whether the struggle for the souls of humans has been universalized into a cosmic scheme.31 The more fruitful comparison may lie with 1QS i 21–iii 12 rather than the Treatise. On the other hand, the manner of formulation, at least of the 1QS Treatise, suggests some inspiration from Zoroastrianism. It would not be surprising, either, if a Jewish author familiar with the traditions represented in the Qumran archive and formulating a dualistic theology were guided by an existing theological tradition, especially if embraced by near neighbours.32 Indeed, the influence of Zoroastrianism on other features of early Judaism is often debated:

29 A. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18, Leiden: Brill 1995). 30 Ibid., 233–67. 31 On the Melchizedek material, see Kobelski, Melchizedek, esp. 75–98. 32 Ibid., 84–98 has a succinct discussion of Iranian influence on the ‘heavenly opponent’ figures.

Dualism in the Qumran War Texts

19

I am the maker of light and creator of darkness, I make peace and create evil; I YHWH do all these things. (Isa. 45:7)

It is certainly excessive to speak of ‘the Qumran sect’, or even the Yaḥad, as simply having embraced a dualistic theology. But we may consider that among them were those who entertained a dualistic interpretation and formulated a world-view in which ‘Israel’ and ‘nations’ were replaced by ‘light’ and ‘darkness’, and whose familiarity with Zoroastrianism prompted a limited exercise in literary revision. Unfortunately, the dualistic editor of 1QM did not clearly separate his own conception from that of the existing tradition – ‘Belial’ from ‘Kittim’, or from ‘Asshur’; Israel from ‘children of light’; or ‘nations’ from ‘children of darkness’. It was this kind of confusion (which is not without scriptural antecedents: ‘foreign nations’ are often cast as opponents of God) that may have contributed to the defeat of the ‘children of light’ in the war against the Kittim that was to come.

2 LOOKING FOR SAPIENTIAL DUALISM AT QUMRAN

Matthew Goff (Florida State University)

Introduction Scholars have long understood that several core Qumran texts are dualistic, in that they give prominence to two opposing principles in their construction of reality.1 The parade example is the section of the Community Rule known as the Treatise on the Two Spirits (1QS iii 13–iv 26). The work teaches that the human proclivities for good and evil operate against a supernatural backdrop of opposed angelic forces of light and darkness.2 The composition offers starkly opposed fates for the righteous and wicked

1 Scholarship on this topic includes: H. Wildeberger, ‘Der dualismus in den Qumrânschriften,’ Asiatische Studien 8 (Berna 1954) 63–77; H. W. Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten. Der Dualismus der Texte von Qumran (Höhle I) und der Damaskusfragmente. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Evangeliums (AThANT 34, Zürich: Zwingli Verlag 1959); P. von der OstenSacken, Gott und Belial. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran (SUNT 6, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1969); B. Besch, Der Dualismus in den Kernschriften von Qumran: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion über Wesen und Herleitung des Qumranischen Dualismus (Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana 1996); J. 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, Cambridge 1995 (eds M. J. Bernstein et al., STDJ 23, Leiden: Brill 1997) 275–335; D. Dimant, ‘Dualism at Qumran: new perspectives,’ in Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947–1997) (ed. J. H. Charlesworth, North Richard Hills: Bibal 1998) 55–73. 2 Among the many discussions of this text, see C. A. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (STDJ 52, Leiden: Brill 2004) 91–190; A. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18, Leiden: Brill 1995) 121–70; P. Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline (STDJ 1, Leiden: Brill 1957).

Looking for Sapiential Dualism at Qumran

21

after the final judgment, which are also described in terms of light and darkness (1QS iv 7, 13). The War Scroll (1QM) is another major dualistic text, since it puts forward an eschatological Holy War in terms of a radical dualism of light and darkness. Determining the background of the dualism of the Treatise has been a topic of much academic discussion.3 The possibility that Zoroastrian religion, as mediated through Jewish apocalypticism, is a source for the dualism of the Treatise in particular has been a topic of interest.4 There are also other Qumran texts in which a dualism of light and darkness is crucial, which may shed light on the background of the Treatise.5 In this essay I examine the frequently made assertion that the sapiential tradition constitutes an important source for the dualism of the Treatise. I address two issues that can contribute to our understanding of sapiential dualism vis-à-vis the Scrolls: 1. 2.

What is sapiential dualism and is there a kind of dualism that is clearly recognizable as distinctive to the wisdom tradition? With the full corpus of Qumran wisdom texts now available, do they shed any light on the issue of sapiential dualism in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Regarding the question of whether there is a form of dualism that is readily identifiable as sapiential or not, in my judgment the answer is yes – the personification of wisdom and folly as women in the Book of Proverbs. Neither allegory, however, appears in the Treatise and 1QM. Indeed, no Qumran composition opposes Woman Wisdom and Dame Folly in a way that is comparable to Proverbs. The wisdom tradition is doubtlessly one of the many streams of tradition shaping the dualism of the Treatise. But to demonstrate that this is the case would require the identification of a

3 For the history of scholarship, see J. Duhaime, ‘Dualistic reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran,’ CBQ 49 (1987) 32–56 (esp. 35–9). 4 Scholarship on this topic includes K. G. Kuhn, ‘Die Sektenschrift und die iranische Religion,’ ZTK 49 (1952) 296–316; H. Michaud, ‘Un myth zervanite dans un des manuscrits de Qumrân,’ VT 5 (1955) 133–47; Frey, ‘Different patterns,’ 276–7. See also A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning (NTL, London: SCM Press 1966) 46–56; S. Aalen, Die Begriffe ‘Licht’ und ‘Finsternis’ im alten Testament, im Spätjudentum und im Rabbinsmus (Oslo: J. Dybwad 1951). 5 4Q186, for example, understands the human condition in terms of a dualism of light and darkness. 4QVisions of Amram (4Q543–48?) opposes angelic forces of light and darkness. See J. J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (LDSS, London: Routledge 1997) 45–7.

22

Dualism in Qumran

dualistic trope which can be confidently connected to the wisdom tradition that is in turn unambiguously appropriated by a Qumran text. It is not clear that this can be done. Excluding the Treatise, the Qumran wisdom texts contain dualistic elements but they do not constitute a prominent feature of this corpus. It is not evident that sapiential dualism exerted a significant influence on the Scrolls. The Wisdom Tradition as a Source for the Treatise on the Two Spirits The dualism of the Treatise has often been associated with the wisdom tradition. Osten-Sacken, whose 1969 book Gott und Belial is a common starting point for scholarship on Qumran dualism, understood the Treatise as containing ethical dualism and he connected the text to the Schöpfungsüberlieferung represented by the sapiential tradition.6 He argued that the eschatological dualism of the War Scroll is the oldest type of dualism attested at Qumran and that 1QM should be situated historically in the context of Daniel and the Maccabean crisis.7 He considered the dualism of the Treatise to be a later development. He argued that 1QS iii 13–iv 14 constitutes the oldest layer of the Treatise, and that its dualism was later given an eschatological formulation (iv 15–23a) and then, in a third layer, cast in anthropological terms (iv 23b–26).8 B. Otzen argued that the dualistic thought of the Treatise is attested in Proverbs ‘in an embryonic form.’9 He discerned evidence for this position in the catalogues of vices and virtues in the Treatise, as in 1QS iv, which he considers to be a direct development from sapiential ‘parenetic catalogues’ such as Prov. 6:16–19.10 He laid out three types of dualism in the Scrolls: 1.

‘psychological-ethical dualism,’ the idea that human nature is defined by two opposing spirits of light and darkness;

6 Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 120, 125. 7 Ibid., 239. 8 Ibid., 165–70. 9 B. Otzen, ‘Old Testament wisdom literature and dualistic thinking in Late Judaism,’ in Congress Volume: Edinburgh, 1974 (VTSup 28, Leiden: Brill 1975) 146–57 (esp. 152). See also J. G. Gammie, ‘Spatial and ethical dualism in Jewish wisdom and apocalyptic literature,’ JBL 93 (1974) 356–85. 10 Otzen, ‘Old Testament wisdom literature and dualistic thinking,’ 153.

Looking for Sapiential Dualism at Qumran

2. 3.

23

‘cosmic-ethical dualism,’ which posits that the natural order is defined by rival forces of light and darkness; and eschatological dualism, which contrasts the present order, under the dominion of Belial, with the future epoch defined by God’s ultimate victory over evil. He argues that in the first type ‘influence from [the] Wisdom tradition is perceptible and conspicuous,’ whereas the sapiential tradition plays no major role in the other two kinds of dualism.11

In contrast to Osten-Sacken, Jean Duhaime argues that the Treatise is older than the War Scroll.12 He has argued that the most original layer of the Treatise is defined by ethical dualism, which was then reconfigured into a cosmic dualism of light and darkness (1QS iii 18b, 23b–25a) and that a later redaction gave the dualism an eschatological (iv 15–23a) and anthropological (iv 23b–26) dimension.13 He observes similarities between the ethical dualism of Qumran and that of the biblical wisdom tradition. Duhaime writes ‘Le dualism éthique de Qumrân se situe dans la ligne traditionnelle représentée’ by sapiential texts.14 He is more concerned, however, with establishing the priority of the Treatise over against the War Scroll than delineating the relationship between the Treatise and the wisdom tradition. Jörg Frey has attempted to resolve the differing viewpoints of Duhaime and Osten-Sacken by understanding ‘a multi-dimensional, ethically oriented cosmic dualism’ (Treatise) and ‘a sheer cosmic dualism dominated by the opposition of two angelic powers’ (War Scroll) as ‘different but conflating patterns of dualistic thought.’15 He understands the first type as rooted in the sapiential tradition and the second in the priesthood.

11 Ibid., 157. 12 J. Duhaime, ‘Le Dualisme de Qumrân et la literature de sagesse vétérotestamentaire,’ ET 19 (1988) 401–22; idem, ‘L’Instruction sur les deux espirits et les interpolations dualistes à Qumrân (1QS III,13–IV,26),’ RB 84 (1977) 566–94, idem, ‘La Rédaction de 1QM XIII et l’évolution du dualisme à Qumrân,’ RB 84 (1977) 210–38; idem, ‘Dualism,’ EDSS, 1: 215–20. 13 Duhaime, ‘L’Instruction sur les deux espirits,’ 572–92. 14 Duhaime, ‘Le Dualisme de Qumrân,’ 416. He also writes: ‘on reste frappé par le grand nombre des textes de sagesse qui présentent des traits dualistes ou quasi dualistes et dont on peut rapprocher les écrits de Qumrân’ (ibid., 421). See also idem, ‘Dualistic reworking,’ 42. 15 Frey, ‘Different patterns,’ 288. His point is that in the Scrolls one does not find ‘one uniform type’ of dualism, ‘nor a unilinear development of thought, but a complicated web of different threads of dualistic thought.’

24

Dualism in Qumran

Frey contends that the concept of the two spirits in the Treatise ‘might be explained as a stage of further development of the ethically oriented sapiential dualism.’16 Indeed, he asserts that ‘there is a growing consensus that the instruction on the two spirits should be interpreted against the background of later sapiential theology.’17 The above review of scholarship demonstrates that the wisdom tradition is often considered an important source for the dualism of the Treatise. With different nuances, most of the views summarized above discern in the Treatise ethical dualism, understood as a simple opposition between good and evil that is distinguished from later strata that contain light–darkness and eschatological kinds of dualism, that should be related to traditional wisdom. The cosmic and angelic construal of the operation of good and evil in this world is pivotal to the moral vision of the Treatise. Thus it seems gratuitous, if not impossible, to distinguish a purely ethical dualism rooted in the wisdom tradition from the work’s conception of the natural order. Even if one were to grant the view that the oldest strand of the Treatise comprises an ethical dualism devoid of eschatology or light and darkness, it would not be clear that the dualism of this hypothetical original stratum should be attributed to the wisdom tradition. No-one would dispute that ethical dualism, a rigid contrast between right and wrong, is at the core of the Book of Proverbs. But one could say the same about many texts, both biblical and non-biblical. It is not necessary to posit that any text that gives prominence to ethical dualism learned about this polarity by reading Proverbs or some other wisdom text. It is not clear that one needs to posit a source at all for a text’s distinction between good and evil. Ethical dualism is so ubiquitous that it has been alleged that it contributes little to an understanding of the nature of dualism. Bianchi has gone so far as to assert that ‘mere ethical dualism, stressing the moral opposition between good and evil,’ ‘is not properly dualistic in the religio-historical and phenomenological sense.’18 While one need not agree fully with this sentiment, moral dualism in and of itself is not distinctively sapiential

16 Ibid., 300. 17 Ibid., 287. 18 For him oppositions should not be understood as dualisms unless they are construed as ‘two fundamental causal principles underlying’ the natural order. See U. Bianchi and Y. Stoyanov, ‘Dualism,’ ER 4 (1993) 506–12 (esp. 506); U. Bianchi, ‘The category of dualism in the historical phenomenology of religion,’ Temenos 16 (1980).

Looking for Sapiential Dualism at Qumran

25

and thus not a sufficient criterion to demonstrate a line of development from sapiential dualism to Qumran dualism. This raises the question, is it possible to identify a distinctively sapiential type of dualism? Dualism in the Book of Proverbs Wisdom literature typically encourages the search for meaning and coherence. The tradition stresses that the world has a coherent structure that can be understood.19 The wisdom that humans can possess is generally understood in this tradition as the ability to perceive the natural and social order and act accordingly. An important part of the understanding of human life that Proverbs endorses can be reasonably classified as ethical dualism. The book operates with a rigid distinction between wise men and fools, whose behaviour results in opposing fates. The collection of Solomonic proverbs in chapters 10–29 begins with sayings that illustrate this sort of dualism: ‘A wise child makes a glad father, but a foolish child is a mother’s grief. Treasures gained by wickedness do not profit, but righteousness delivers from death’ (10:1–2). There are a number of oppositions used in the book that reinforce a pervasive sense of moral dualism – right/wrong, righteous/wicked, wise/foolish. Those who make astute and ethical decisions will lead long and successful lives, in harmony with the world’s inherent order, whereas those who make short-sighted and immoral decisions will not. This broad perspective underpins the Book of Proverbs. But Proverbs offers more than a simple distinction between right and wrong. The book expresses its teachings about proper conduct and how to understand the world through elaborate dualistic structures that involve female characters. There are four major women in the book – the Strange Woman (hrz h#) ), Woman Wisdom, Woman Folly (or the ‘foolish woman’; twlysk t#) ), and the Woman of Substance (lyx t#) ).20 19 J. L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (rev. ed., Louisville: Westminster John Knox 1998 [orig. pub., 1981]). 20 L. G. Perdue, Wisdom Literature: A Theological History (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press 2007) 52–8; A. M. Sinnott, The Personification of Wisdom (Burlington: Ashgate 2005); C. A. Newsom, ‘Woman and the discourse of patriarchal wisdom: a study of Proverbs 1–9,’ in Gender and Difference (ed. P. L. Day, Minneapolis: Fortress 1989) 142–60; C. V. Camp, Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible (JSOTSup 320, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 2000); J. Webster, ‘Sophia: engendering wisdom in Proverbs, Ben Sira, and the Wisdom of Solomon,’ JSOT 78 (1998) 63–79.

26

Dualism in Qumran

These figures comprise a structural element in Proverbs since the book as a whole is framed by Woman Wisdom, who appears in chapter 1, and by the Woman of Substance, since a poem about her concludes the work (31:10–31). Woman Wisdom is an allegory of wisdom personified as a woman who offers knowledge and instruction that people should heed (for example, 8:1–9).21 She is also identified with divine wisdom, or the wisdom of God that is evident in the ordered structure of the natural world (8:22–31). The Woman of Substance is presented as an ideal, if overworked, wife. Her skill and acumen in the market and the management of her household illustrate that she is a living embodiment of wisdom in the sphere of ordinary life: ‘She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness’ (31:26–27). If Woman Wisdom is an abstract allegory that symbolizes the wisdom that one should attain, the Woman of Substance is an example of wisdom in praxis, the application of wisdom to ordinary life. She embodies in a very real sense the wisdom that Woman Wisdom represents. This helps explain the similarities in the portraits of the two females. Woman Wisdom and the Woman of Substance are both more valuable than jewels (Mynypm; 3:15; 8:11; 31:10; cf. Job 28:18). They are strong (8:14; 31:17) and portrayed as ‘rejoicing’ (8:30, tqx#m t( lkb wynpl; 31:25, Nwrx) Mwyl qx#t). The ‘rejoicing’ of the Woman of Substance seems to be a consequence of the wisdom that makes her successful and that of Woman Wisdom allows her to appreciate the nature of God’s created order. Not all the women in the book are so laudable. Far from it. As there are two females in the book who are associated with wisdom, there are two connected to iniquity and folly. The Strange Woman is mentioned by this name only in Prov. 2 and 7. She is a much-debated figure. Much of the discussion has to do with the meaning of the word ‘strange’ (rz). The word could imply that she is an ethnic foreigner or should be related to a foreign

The translation ‘Woman of Substance’ is from C. Roy Yoder, ‘The woman of substance (t#) lyx): a socioeconomic reading of Proverbs 31:10–31,’ JBL 122 (2003) 427–47 (esp. 427); idem, Wisdom as a Woman of Substance: A Socioeconomic Reading of Proverb 1–9 and 31:10–31 (BZAW 304, Berlin: de Gruyter 2001). 21 Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, 80–2; C.R. Fontaine, ‘Wisdom in Proverbs,’ in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie (eds L. G. Perdue et al., Louisville: Westminster John Knox 1993) 99–114.

Looking for Sapiential Dualism at Qumran

27

cult.22 The term may mean that she is not known by the male addressee or part of his household. Not being ‘known,’ she is not a sanctioned sex partner within the domain of marriage. While the ethnicity of the Strange Woman is never an explicit topic of discussion, marriage and sexuality are, suggesting that the word rz should be understood with respect to this woman in relation to these themes. She is married to another man but nevertheless attempts to seduce the envisioned male addressee: ‘You will be saved from the strange woman, from the alien woman (hyrkn) with her smooth words, who forsakes the partner of her youth and forgets her sacred covenant’ (Prov. 2:16–17). Succumbing to the allure of this woman, the book teaches, is disastrous and eventually leads to death: ‘her house inclines towards death, and her paths to the shades; those who go to her never come back, nor do they regain the paths of life’ (vv. 18–19). Prov. 7:5–27 puts forward a more elaborate version of this same basic scenario. The erotic overture to the man is explicit: ‘I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take our fill of love until morning; let us delight ourselves with love’ (7:17–18; cf. Song 4:14). The chapter also includes a vivid portrait of her lurking alone in the streets at night (not in the attendance of her husband or a male family member), looking for unsuspecting young men. Her marriage is explicitly mentioned (vv. 19–20) and here too she represents a way of life that leads to death: ‘Her house is the way to Sheol’ (7:27). The vignette in chapter 7 is prefaced by a lesson on the dangers of adultery (6:20–35), and the book teaches that sex within marriage provides enough satisfaction, so that one has no need to be enticed by other women (5:15–20). The Strange Woman is a pedagogical construct that helps Proverbs teach sexual ethics to its students, who, it can be safely assumed, were for the most part young men. She is a caricature of the kind of woman they were to avoid. This is an important point for understanding the dualism of the book. The Strange Woman is not an abstract allegory for folly. While an exaggerated portrait, she represents a type of woman the intended male audience could encounter in daily life – women who are promiscuous, enticing and ultimately dangerous. In this sense she is better understood as a foil to the Woman of Substance, or the wife of the addressee, than Woman Wisdom.23

22 Camp, Wise, Strange and Holy, 323–44; J. Blenkinsopp, ‘The social context of the “Outsider Women” in Proverbs 1–9,’ Bib 72 (1991) 457–73. 23 M. V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9 (AB 18a, New York: Doubleday 2000) 262.

28

Dualism in Qumran

The Strange Woman and Woman Folly are not the same figure. They are separate but similar. Woman Folly appears, strictly speaking, only in Prov. 9:13–18. While the Strange Woman represents a kind of ‘real’ woman, Woman Folly is better understood, as many scholars do, as the personification of folly, allegorized as a woman. The Strange Woman, much like the Woman of Substance vis-à-vis Woman Wisdom, gives concrete expression to the values Woman Folly represents. Understanding this helps explain why the descriptions of the two wicked females overlap. Both are set in urban contexts (7:12; 9:14) and seek out the simple and dim-witted (7:7; 9:16). They lead men to ways that result in death (2:18; 7:27; 9:18). Woman Folly, however, does not lurk through city streets or lay in ambush for her victims in the manner of the Strange Woman. There are also parallels Woman Folly shares with Woman Wisdom rather than the Strange Woman, illustrating that the female allegories of wisdom and folly should be viewed in opposition to one another. Woman Folly has a house, like Woman Wisdom (9:1, 14). The woman of folly calls out to passers-by and invites them to her domicile: ‘She sits at the door of her house, on a seat at the high places of the town, calling to those who pass by’ (9:14–15). Woman Wisdom does the same (8:5; 9:5). The foolish woman does not utter any explicitly sexual statements akin to Prov. 7:16–18 but the one proverb with which she is associated endorses illicit pleasures: ‘Stolen water is sweet and bread eaten in secret is pleasant’ (9:17; cf. 30:20). With Woman Folly, Proverbs offers a counter-portrait to Woman Wisdom. They are both allegories that give expression to the overarching ethical dualism of the book – there are two opposed ways of life, one characterized by wisdom, the other folly, and one should know which to embrace and which to avoid. The Woman of Substance represents the ideal wife and the Strange Woman the opposite of that ideal – she is a threat to a male married addressee and, flouting her own marriage, achieves adultery through seduction. To be sure, the portrait of an ideal wife and its opposite certainly function as broader metaphors about the right and wrong path, like Woman Wisdom and Woman Folly. But the Strange Woman and the Woman of Substance represent real females who embody the practice of wisdom and folly, respectively, in the ordinary life of a male addressee. That both are prominently associated with marriage helps make this point. Woman Wisdom and Woman Folly do not represent ‘real’ women but rather symbolize abstract principles. This perhaps explains why both

Looking for Sapiential Dualism at Qumran

29

are presented as teachers who urge people to heed their instruction. The Strange Woman, by contrast, never teaches but engages in seduction that can disrupt married life. The Woman of Substance also never encourages people to hear her teachings. Rather she is engaged in the maintenance of a productive and fulfilling household. By viewing Proverbs as having only a simple opposition between wisdom and folly it is difficult to appreciate a complex set of dualisms in the book. There is an opposition between wisdom and folly, at an abstract level, each allegorized as a woman. Another opposition emphasizes the expression of these two principles in daily life, as expressed by portraits by an ideal wife and a woman who threatens marriage. This structure in turn produces other relationships – between the Strange Woman and Woman Folly, and the Woman of Substance and Woman Wisdom. Each set (two women associated with wisdom, two women associated with folly) comprises one unit that is more abstract and another that is more concrete. Proverbs teaches that wisdom and folly are complex entities presented both as abstract principles and concrete factors in the conduct of one’s daily life. None of the four women of Proverbs are found in any other book of the Hebrew Bible. The juxtaposition of personified wisdom and folly as women is reasonably considered a distinctively sapiential form of dualism. Wisdom and Folly as Women in the Dead Sea Scrolls Neither the Treatise nor the War Scroll gives a prominent role to either Woman Wisdom or Woman Folly. The dualistic opposition of personified wisdom and folly is not found in any text from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Several Qumran manuscripts, however, show familiarity with female characters from Proverbs.24 But they never reproduce the ways in which Proverbs dualistically juxtaposes female characters. To illustrate this requires examination of 4QWiles of the Wicked Woman (4Q184),

24 Manuscripts of the biblical book are among the Qumran finds, although not many copies are extant (4Q102–3). See further É. Puech, ‘Qumrân e il Libro dei Proverbi,’ in Libro dei Proverbi: Tradizione, redazione, teologia (eds G. Bellia and A. Passaro, Casale Monferrato [Alessandria]: Piemme 1999) 169–89; R. J. Clifford, ‘Observations on the text and versions of Proverbs,’ in Wisdom, You are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (ed. M. L. Barré, CBQMS 29, Washington: Catholic Biblical Association 1997) 47–61.

30

Dualism in Qumran

4QSapiential Work (4Q185), 4Q525 (4QBeatitudes) and columns 18 and 21 of the large Psalms Scroll from Cave 11.25 First I examine the extent to which Woman Wisdom and the Woman of Substance are attested in the Scrolls. While marriage is an important issue in several texts (for example, CD iv 15; xii 1–2; 4Q502), I am not aware of any mention of or allusion to the lyx t#) of Prov. 31 in the Dead Sea Scrolls. As for Woman Wisdom, the Qumran sapiential corpus, indeed the Dead Sea Scrolls in general, contains not a single account of her as elaborate or vivid as Prov. 8 or Sir. 24. Several texts, however, personify wisdom. Referring to wisdom, 4QBeatitudes claims ‘she cannot be obtained with gold,’ presenting wisdom as superior to items of value, much like Prov. 3:14–15 (4Q525 2 iii 3).26 4Q525 24 ii preserves portions of a poem in which a female speaker, in the first person, ‘pours out’ speech, as does Woman Wisdom in Prov. 1:23. This small fragment is the only Qumran text that can be reasonably construed as describing personified wisdom uttering speech in the Qumran corpus. The woman of 4Q525 24 ii has a domicile that is associated with agricultural abundance and water, evoking the banquet at the house of Woman Wisdom in Prov. 9. The trope of a banquet at her house also influences the poem in column 18 of the Psalms Scroll.27 The poem, also known as Psalm 154, combines the themes of praise of God and his gift of wisdom. 11Q5 xviii 10 describes ‘her voice’ (hlwq; cf. Prov. 1:20) coming ‘from the gates of the righteous’ (Myqydc yxtpm). Within these gates the righteous eat and drink: ‘When they eat with satiety she is cited (hrm)n), and when they drink in fellowship together, their meditation is on the Torah of the Most High’ (lines 11–12). This text indicates that the ‘voice’ of wisdom is the Torah. In Proverbs the teaching of Lady Wisdom is located at her ‘gates’: ‘Happy

25 M. J. Goff, Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls (VTSup 116, Leiden: Brill 2007); D. J. Harrington, Wisdom Texts from Qumran (LDSS, London: Routledge 1996); S. White Crawford, ‘Lady Wisdom and Dame Folly at Qumran,’ DSD 5 (1998) 355–66. 26 This text is best known for its beatitudes that are reminiscent of the Sermon of the Mount and its explicit identification of wisdom as the Torah (4Q525 2 ii + 3 3–4). See É. Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes Hébreux (4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579) (DJD 25, Oxford: Clarendon 1998) 115–78; idem, ‘The collection of beatitudes in Hebrew and in Greek (4Q525 1–4 and Mt 5,3–12),’ in Early Christianity in Context (eds F. Manns and E. Alliata, Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press 1993) 353–68; White Crawford, ‘Lady Wisdom and Dame Folly,’ 364–5. 27 The official edition of this work is J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Cave 11 (DJD 4, Oxford: Clarendon 1965) 64–70. For additional scholarship on this text, see Goff, Discerning Wisdom, 240–7.

Looking for Sapiential Dualism at Qumran

31

is the one who listens to me, watching daily at my gates (yttld), waiting beside my doors (yxtp)’ (8:34). 11QPsa xviii could refer to a ritual meal along the lines of 1QS vi, but there are no real stipulations for this sort of communal act elsewhere in the text. It is more likely that the partaking of food and drink is symbolic expression of the wisdom possessed by the righteous through the Torah. The image is reminiscent of the banquet of Woman Wisdom in Prov. 9. 4Q185 urges one ‘to seek God’s wisdom and follow his will’ through the themes of Torah piety and the personification of wisdom as a woman.28 4Q185 1–2 ii 13–15 describes the search for wisdom in romantic terms, urging one not to ‘play tricks’ against wisdom or attain her with ‘flatteries.’ This continues the tradition in Proverbs that the male seeker of wisdom must strive for her sincerely with a whole heart. 4Q185 is consistent with the elaboration of this tradition evident in Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon, both of which refer to wisdom as a ‘bride’ that a man should love his entire life (Sir. 15:2; Wis. 8:2).29 An erotic metaphor for one’s devotion to wisdom is expressed in the version of Sir. 51:13–30 attested in column 21 of 11QPsa. This poem likens the search for wisdom to a man in love with a woman. This is evident, for example, in lines 11–12: ‘I was a young man before I had erred when I looked for her. She came to me in her beauty and up till the end I searched for her.’ The passionate language conveys the intensity of the speaker’s love of wisdom. Wisdom personified as a woman is accorded central positions in the books of Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon (Sir. 24; Wis. 6–9). From this one could reasonably conclude that the personification of wisdom is a central feature of the Jewish wisdom tradition during the late Second Temple period. The Dead Sea Scrolls complicate this view. In the corpus

28 T. H. Tobin, ‘4Q185 and Jewish Wisdom literature,’ in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism and Christian Origins (eds H. W. Attridge et al., Lanham: University Press of America 1990) 145–52 (esp. 146); H. Lichtenberger, ‘Der Weisheitstext 4Q185 – Eine neue Edition,’ in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (eds C. Hempel et al., BETL 159, Leuven: Peeters 2002) 127–50. The official edition of this text is J. M. Allegro, Qumrân Cave 4.I (4Q158-4Q186) (DJD 5, Oxford: Clarendon 1968) 85–7. See also J. Strugnell, ‘Notes en marge du volume V des Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan,’ RevQ 26 (1970) 163–276 (esp. 269–73). 29 G. von Rad has called this tradition ‘intellectual love’: ‘This invitation on wisdom’s part to give oneself intellectually to her and this gift of hers to men are no longer means towards a purpose for life, they have become ends in themselves.’ See his Wisdom in Israel (London: SCM Press and Valley Forge: Trinity Press 1972) 173.

32

Dualism in Qumran

of wisdom compositions from Qumran, wisdom personified as a woman is present but not a central feature. Numerous sapiential texts, including the lengthy 4QInstruction, never mention hypostatic wisdom. The texts that personify wisdom often do so in the context of describing how one should love and strive for wisdom. They never associate personified wisdom with creation. Woman Wisdom is never presented as a teacher in her own right, except for 4Q525 24 ii. She is never directly opposed or compared to Woman Folly. In terms of the wicked women of Prov. 1–9, the key Qumran text is 4Q184.30 This composition, attested mainly in one fragment, describes a woman in highly negative terms. The text begins: [From] her [mouth] she brings forth vanity . . . she constantly seeks [to] make [her] words smooth. Mockingly she says smo[ot]h things together with speaking scornfully with l[ips] of iniquity. Her heart prepares a snare and her kidneys tr[aps] (lines 1–2).31

The portrait of this figure derives from the Book of Proverbs. Both texts use the verb br) to describe a woman lying in wait for victims (Prov. 7:12; 4Q184 1 11). The woman of 4Q184 and the Strange Woman of Proverbs are in the ‘squares’ (twbwxr) of a city (Prov. 7:12; 4Q184 1 12; cf. Prov. 9:14). 4Q184 1 2 discusses the woman’s smooth speech, using the verb qlx, and in line 17 she deceives people with ‘flatteries’ (twqlx). Prov. 7:5 exhorts one to follow wisdom and insight ‘that they may keep you from the strange woman, an alien who speaks smooth words (hyrm) hqylxh)’ (cf. 2:16; 6:24; 7:21).32 White Crawford argues that the female of 4Q184 ‘can be clearly associated with Dame Folly.’33 While it is not evident how clearly the author of 4Q184 distinguished between the Strange Woman and Woman Folly, the description of the female in this Qumran work resonates with texts

30 Allegro, DJD 5: 82–5; Strugnell, ‘Notes en marge,’ 263–8. See also M. Goff, ‘Hellish females: the strange woman of Septuagint Proverbs and 4QWiles of the wicked woman (4Q184),’ JSJ 39 (2008) 20–45. 31 For discussion of the transcription upon which this translation is based, see Strugnell, ‘Notes en marge,’ 264, 266; Goff, Discerning Wisdom, 106. 32 S. C. Jones, ‘Wisdom’s pedagogy: a comparison of Proverbs VII and 4Q184,’ VT 53 (2003) 65–81 (esp. 75); Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 238. 33 White Crawford, ‘Lady Wisdom and Dame Folly,’ 360.

Looking for Sapiential Dualism at Qumran

33

from Proverbs that discuss the former woman rather than the latter.34 All the Proverbs texts that have so far been discussed in relation to 4Q184 describe the Strange Woman. While it is obvious that the female of 4Q184 is wicked, that she personifies an abstract idea or functions as an allegory is never an explicit topic of interest. 4Q184 takes liberties with Proverbs in the development of its own female figure. In comparison to the Strange Woman, the woman of 4Q184 is less erotic, although she too seeks out men (lines 15–17). Her speech is less seductive than that of the Strange Woman. 4Q184 1 1–2 (cited above) describes her speech as insulting, whereas the words of the Strange Woman are always alluring and enticing.35 In contrast to Prov. 1–9, the topics of marriage or sexual ethics are never explicitly mentioned. Also while at times the woman of 4Q184 is clearly situated in the human realm (like the Strange Woman), at others she is presented as a resident of Sheol. She dwells in ‘tents of silence in the midst of eternal flames’ (lines 7–8). Her beds are ‘couches of the pit’ (line 5). The female of 4Q184 is associated with the underworld to a greater extent than the Strange Woman. This is presumably an elaboration of the motif that she leads men to Sheol (Prov. 2:18). The work’s portrait of a wicked female is never accompanied by a counterpart woman who symbolizes wisdom. The Dualism of the Treatise and the Wisdom Literature of Early Judaism The case for the classification of the Treatise as a wisdom text can be made but it is not clear-cut. The work identifies itself as an instruction (1QS iii 13), and it is a self-consciously pedagogical composition. The Treatise uses language that is reminiscent of the sapiential tradition. 1QS iv 23–24, for example, reads: ‘Until now the spirits of truth and injustice feud in the heart of man: they walk in wisdom or in folly (tlw)w hmkxb).’ But the Treatise is very different from what one finds in Proverbs. It contains no proverbs or practical advice regarding specific areas of ordinary life. Major elements of the Treatise such as dualism of light and darkness, the activity of divine agents in the human realm and the opposed eschatological fates of the righteous and wicked are all more in keeping with 34 No Qumran text mentions directly the twlysk t#) of Prov. 9:13–18. 35 J. N. Aletti, ‘Séduction et parole en Proverbes I–IX,’ VT 27 (1977) 129–44.

34

Dualism in Qumran

apocalypticism than traditional wisdom (but see Prov. 4:18–19). If one considers the work a sapiential text, it is one that is markedly different from the traditional wisdom of Israel. The publication of 4QInstruction (1Q26; 4Q415–18, 423) and 4QMysteries (1Q27; 4Q299–301?) has provided a new context for understanding the Treatise vis-à-vis the wisdom tradition of early Judaism.36 There are numerous affinities between the Treatise and these works. Lange and Tigchelaar have identified the core parallels but explain them in different ways. 4QInstruction and the Treatise both put forward a deterministic theology substantiated by an understanding of the created order. They both use the word hb#xm to describe God’s deterministic plan for creation (4Q417 1 i 12; 1QS iii 15; iv 4); the term twdlwt refers to the nature of humankind in each work (4Q418 77 2; 1QS iii 13). The Treatise and 4QInstruction employ the epithet ‘the God of Knowledge’ (tw(dh l)) when making deterministic statements (1QS 3:15; 4Q417 1 i 8); the term occurs in fragmentary contexts in the Book of Mysteries, which is also deterministic (4Q299 35 2; 4Q299 73 3; cf. 4Q299 3a ii–b 10–13). All three texts also proclaim some form of eschatological judgment. Tigchelaar argues that the second stratum of the Treatise, which he identifies as 1QS iii 13–18 and iv 15–26, has a provenance from the same circles that produced 4QInstruction (and some of the Hodayot poems).37 Lange argues that the Treatise takes concepts from 4QInstruction and Mysteries and develops them further.38 If one were to take the position that 4QInstruction and Mysteries fill out the sapiential background of the Treatise, this would do little to explain its dualism. 4QInstruction, arguably the most important wisdom text among the Dead Sea Scrolls, is not a particularly dualistic composition. One 36 The Book of Mysteries, like the Treatise, can be reasonably considered a sapiential text, but it is a debatable point since the work does not have a great deal of affinities with traditional wisdom. For further discussion of this issue, see Goff, Discerning Wisdom, 93–9. For the official edition of 4QInstruction, see J. Strugnell and D. J. Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2. 4QInstruction (Mûsār Lĕ Mēbîn): 4Q415ff. With a re-edition of 1Q26 (DJD 34, Oxford: Clarendon 1999). The official editions of Mysteries are D. Barthelémy and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD 1, Oxford: Clarendon 1955) 102–7; T. Elgvin et al., Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1 (DJD 20, Oxford: Clarendon 1997) 31–123. See also E. J. C. Tigchelaar, ‘Notes on the readings of the DJD editions of 1Q and 4QMysteries,’ RevQ 81 (2003) 99–107. 37 E. J. C. Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (STDJ 44, Leiden: Brill 2001) 194–207. 38 Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 168.

Looking for Sapiential Dualism at Qumran

35

can find concepts that are intended to oppose one another (for example, 4Q417 1 i 6–7), but its conception of the natural order is not dualistic in any prominent way. A contrast between light and darkness is not a major topos in the work. Light–darkness dualism is a theme in the Book of Mysteries.39 The text describes an eschatological transformation of the world. Its core passage, a composite text that utilizes 1Q27 i 1–12, 4Q299 1 1–9 and 4Q300 3 1–6, reads in part: . . . in order that they might know the difference between good and evil, and between falsehood and truth . . . the mystery that is to be and the former things they do not understand. They do not know what will happen to them. They will not save their lives from the mystery that is to be. And this shall be the sign to you that it is taking place: when those begotten of iniquity are locked up, wickedness will disappear before righteousness, as darkness disappears before light. As smoke vanishes and is no more, so will wickedness vanish forever. Righteousness will be revealed like the sun (throughout) the measure of the world and all those who hold fast to mysteries [of wickedness] will be no more. But knowledge will fill the world and folly will never be there again.40

The first part of this passage lays out moral opposites and connects them to a moment of divine vindication, in which the wicked will be destroyed. The text mentions light twice and darkness once when describing the elimination of the wicked and the subsequent flourishing of righteousness on the earth. The Treatise similarly recounts the spread of truth after the destruction of injustice: at the ‘appointed time of the visitation he will obliterate it forever. Then truth shall rise up forever (in) the world (lbt tm) xcnl )ct z))’ (1QS iv 18–19). The dualism of Mysteries is not nearly as extreme as that of the Treatise. The imagery of light and darkness in this work is explicitly associated with the moment of judgment and its aftermath, not the normative created order (cf. 4Q299 6 ii 10).

39 Studies of this text include Goff, Discerning Wisdom, 69–103; E. J. C. Tigchelaar, ‘Your wisdom and your folly: the case of 1–4QMysteries,’ in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (ed. F. García Martínez, BETL 168, Leuven: Peeters 2003), 69–88; Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 93–120. 40 For discussion of the text upon which this translation is based, see Goff, Discerning Wisdom, 74.

36

Dualism in Qumran

4Q184 also contains a dualism of light and darkness, although this is not a prominent feature of the text. The text frequently associates the woman with the darkness of Sheol (for example, lines 4, 6) and claims that ‘none of her inheritance is among all who shine brightly (hgwn yry)m)’ (lines 7–8).41 Light is distinguished from darkness in the context of describing people’s ultimate rewards after death. The divine powers of light and darkness in the Treatise, in contrast to Mysteries and 4Q184, are used to explain the regular flow of human history rather than post-mortem rewards and punishments. The envisaged eschatological moment is to bring the normative natural order to an end by disrupting the eternal struggle between the forces of light and darkness (1QS iv 18–22). Moreover, in Mysteries light and darkness function as metaphors that convey the defeat of injustice and the victory of truth, as in 1Q27 1 i 5: ‘wickedness will disappear before righteousness, as [da-] rkness disappears before light (rw) wnpm K#w[x] twlgk).’ Light and darkness are not real cosmic forces. This is markedly different from the Treatise. If Mysteries is understood as a source for the dualism of light and darkness of the Treatise, it should not be considered an important source. Additionally, one can construe Mysteries (or 4QInstruction) as a source for the eschatological dualism of the Treatise, but Mysteries is far from unique among early Jewish texts in its affirmation of opposed fates for the righteous and the wicked after death. It is feasible, but not particularly compelling, to posit Mysteries as a source for the dualism of the Treatise. It is also difficult to a find a clear precedent for the dualism of the Treatise in Ben Sira, a major example of the Hebrew wisdom of early Judaism. The Jerusalem sage has a dualistic conception of the natural order. He famously teaches: ‘As evil contrasts with good, and death with life, so are sinners in contrast with the just; see now all the works of the Most High: they come in pairs, the one the opposite of the other’ (33:14–15).42 This is a kind of cosmic dualism. He appeals to the theme of pairs as part of his argument that creation is ordered and determined

41 The distinction is generally interpreted as an indirect reference to a life of eternal anguish for the wicked in the netherworld and a luminous afterlife for the righteous that can be compared to Dan. 12:3. See Harrington, Wisdom Texts, 33. 42 For this translation, see A. A. Di Lella and P. W. Skehan, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39, New York: Doubleday 1987) 394. The extent to which Ben Sira can be considered dualistic has been recently challenged by G. W. Schmidt Goering, ‘To whom has wisdom’s root been revealed? Ben Sira and the election of Israel’ (PhD diss., Harvard Divinity School 2006) 56–64.

Looking for Sapiential Dualism at Qumran

37

in accordance with the will of God. But Ben Sira does not understand the human condition by appealing to the machinations of divine forces of light and darkness. The dualisms of the Treatise and Ben Sira, while both cosmic in their scopes, are substantially different. In the context of the wisdom literature of early Judaism, the Treatise’s appeal to a dualism of light and darkness to understand the natural order is unique. Conclusion It is common for scholars to relate the Treatise on the Two Spirits to the wisdom tradition. But it is misguided to posit a smooth unilinear development from a core layer of the Treatise defined by simple contrast between good and evil that derives from traditional wisdom to later strata that contain more complicated forms of dualism involving light and darkness, and eschatology. Proverbs expresses its ethical dualism in terms of an opposition between wisdom and folly personified as women. While several texts from Qumran show familiarity with personified wisdom, including 4Q185 and 4Q525, none of the Dead Sea Scrolls appropriates the juxtaposition between personified wisdom and folly that is so prominent in the Book of Proverbs. The sapiential tradition was doubtlessly one of the many traditions that influenced the composition of the Treatise and other Qumran texts. But isolating the impact of the wisdom tradition on the dualism of the Treatise is difficult to achieve. It is not clear that one can identify a direct link of development between types of dualism in Proverbs and the Treatise. The Treatise can be profitably understood in relation to the wisdom texts of the late Second Temple period. There are numerous connections, in terms of both theme and terminology, between 4QInstruction and the Treatise (and the Book of Mysteries). But placing the dualism of the Treatise in a sapiential context achieves mixed results. The eschatological dualism of the ultimate fates facing the righteous and the wicked proclaimed in the Treatise is compatible with what one finds in 4QInstruction and Mysteries. The theme of eschatological judgment is part of the sapiential tradition by the second century BCE.43 It is possible that the eschatological dualism of the Treatise can be derived from the sapiential 43 Scholars generally date 4QInstruction to the second century BCE. For further discussion, see Goff, Discerning Wisdom, 65–7.

38

Dualism in Qumran

tradition, but this kind of dualism is widespread in early Jewish literature. A dualism between light and darkness is attested in some Qumran wisdom texts, namely the Book of Mysteries and 4Q184, but it is by no means prominent in this corpus. It is possible that one can trace the development of this type of dualism in the Treatise to the wisdom tradition of early Judaism, but there seems to be little warrant for this view. Aside from the Treatise, dualism is not a prominent or especially characteristic feature of Qumran wisdom literature. There is not enough evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls or biblical wisdom literature to assert unambiguously that the sapiential tradition is an important source for the dualism of the Treatise on the Two Spirits.

3 ANOTHER LOOK AT DUALISM IN QUMRAN WRITINGS

Paul Heger (University of Toronto) Introduction The discovery of the three related scrolls, the Manual of Discipline, the War Scroll and the Hodayot, has resulted in a trend to perceive in these writings, particularly in the Treatise on the Two Spirits (1QS iii 13–iv 26), certain peculiar beliefs transplanted from the Zoroastrian religion. I refer in particular to the theory of dualism, the fundamental element of the Iranian creed, and the interconnected theory of predestination. This inclination to detect Iranian influence within Israelite faith has precipitated arguments about what seems to be an unrestrained tendency to find dualism and predestination in Qumran literature. Initially, most scholars did not dare to contradict the general trend and the few contrary voices were ignored. Only later did scholars realize that most of the assumed dualism within Qumran texts cannot be considered as representing cosmic dualism, and proposed a number of different dualisms – psychological, ethical, etc. Yet despite these limitations and the many questions that arose as a result of a meticulous scrutiny of the relevant texts, the label ‘dualism’ seems to be indelible, possibly also motivated by an ideological preconception to perceive a trend or even a shift towards a new direction in Israelite doctrines. My impression was that these issues had been amply discussed and that there was no scholarly interest in renewing the debates. However, in a recent study, Levison concluded his compilation of scholarly studies on dualism in Qumran with the assertion that the issue is not resolved because of ‘a bewildering lack of consensus.’1 This statement has motivated me to 1 J. R. Levison, ‘The Two Spirits in Qumran theology,’ in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth, Waco: Baylor University Press 2006) 2: 169–93, at 193.

40

Dualism in Qumran

challenge the supposed dualism examples in Qumran writings, initially generated by an assumption of Persian influence, and demonstrate the affinity of the relevant texts with, and their origin in, Scripture. I do hope that my audacity in challenging the very comprehensive scholarly opinions, and particularly some of the nefilim (‘Giants’), will not prevent the reader from considering my exposition without prejudice and evaluating it on its own merits. After 60 years of study of the Manual of Discipline, it is time now to reconsider entrenched opinions. 1.1. Methodological Issues Scholarly scrutiny of Qumran literature, and deliberations on its intrinsic theological/philosophical essence, are often based on the assumption that this literature had a defined and consistent philosophical system, and that these writings attempted to offer answers to questions posed by our contemporary way of thought. This is far from reality – dilemmas such as the source of evil, theodicy, and the exact definition of angels did not concern them as fundamentalist believers, as is explicitly stated by their contemporary, Philo,2 just as they do not trouble modern believers. Nor were they concerned with apparent theological inconsistencies – the Bible offered them a model for such inconsistencies. The fact that the concept of dualism is utterly in conflict with defined and unquestionably established Israelite doctrines was – after the first enthusiasm – duly considered by scholars, but not enough significance was granted to this conflict to promote any challenge to this trend. The same may be said regarding the assessment of Qumranic use of scriptural terms and concepts. Their theological significance was inadequately evaluated and this led to a particular approach to their writings; the likelihood of inner Israelite religious development was overpowered by the search for foreign influence. I have given more significance to the above issues, considering that it is inappropriate to impute to Qumran a theology blatantly in contradiction with explicit scriptural dicta, on the basis of interpretations and deductions

2 We read in Quod omnis probus liber (Every Good Man is Free), §80, in Philo’s portrayal of the Essenes: ‘and leaving the logical part of philosophy, as in no respect necessary for the acquisition of virtue, to the word-catchers, and the natural part, as being too sublime for human nature to master, to those who love to converse about high objects (except indeed so far as such a study takes in the contemplation of the existence of God and of the creation of the universe), they devote all their attention to the moral part of philosophy, using as instructors the laws of their country which it would have been impossible for the human mind to devise without divine inspiration.’

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

41

founded on our contemporary manner of thought. The study will attempt to substantiate my proposition of Jewish sources for Qumran concepts3 through analysis of the relevant Qumran texts, comparison with scriptural and rabbinic4 citations and logical considerations. I will not attempt to cite and debate each scholarly opinion separately.5 I will limit myself to those that clearly conflict with or support my thesis, entirely or partially. Nevertheless, it is impossible to avoid certain repetitions, for which I ask the reader’s indulgence. My rebuttal of dualism in Qumran will proceed as follows: I will first offer a caveat against the argument of foreign influence in general and Persian influence in particular. I will then argue that there is actually an unbridgeable chasm between apparently similar Persian and Jewish concepts and a blatant conflict between dualistic concepts and scriptural and Jewish doctrine. In my opinion, scholars have not granted enough significance to the fact that dualism conflicts with Israelite doctrines. Next there is an examination in detail of various Qumran concepts that have been related to dualism, such as evil, light and darkness, the essence of angels, and the problematic text of 1QS iii 19. The study will then attempt to refute the arguments that induced scholars to attribute dualism to Qumran; as part of this reasoning, I will show there was a lack of concern in Qumran regarding a coherent theology and resolution of theological dilemmas. I will then attempt to substantiate the proposal that Scripture was the origin of the Qumran Two Spirits theory. I wish to state explicitly that my postulate is a hypothesis, as, in my opinion, are all the other scholarly assumptions; it is impossible to

3 D. Dimant, ‘The Scrolls and the study of Early Judaism,’ in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty (eds R. Kugler and E. Schuller, Atlanta: Scholars 1999) 43–59, writes that ‘the tendency of the early research [was to] emphasize the affinities observed between the scrolls and the New Testament rather than their links with contemporary Judaism’ (43). That may be the reason for scholars postulating Qumran ideologies that would explicitly conflict with scriptural dicta. In consequence, Dimant further declares: ‘The qumranic stringent practice of biblical law had no real place in such a picture (44) . . . Its Jewish character and links to Second Temple Judaism are well recognized today’ (46). 4 A. Baumgarten, ‘Who cares and why does it matter? Qumran and the Essenes, once again,’ DSD 11 (2004) 174–211 states: ‘Rabbinic texts do not have to be identical to Qumran texts to assist us in understanding one from the other’ (188). L. Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect (revised and updated translation; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary 1970), maintains that just as the Damascus Document helps explain rabbinic law, rabbinic philosophy/theology can also help us to understand Qumran thought. 5 Levison, ‘The Two Spirits’ presents a quintessential summary of published studies on the Two Spirits Discourse.

42

Dualism in Qumran

establish the essential principles of even a modern author by deductions from his writings, and this process is all the more unlikely with respect to documents composed in the distant past and in particular circumstances. I agree fully in this respect with Professor F. García Martínez in the methodological premises of his article.6 1.1.1. Incorporation of Terminology versus Influence On the question of foreign influence, Professor García Martínez appropriately asks the primary question of how is it possible to discern whether an apparently innovative custom or idea in one culture represents foreign influence through contact with another culture, or instead consists of an inner development. He then establishes parameters for such a resolution. One of these is the appearance of the Persian term Asmodeus in Tobit; here, in his opinion, we possess evidence of Iranian myths in Jewish writings of this period, a fact which renders probable a similar impact on Qumran, in the library of which this book was collected. Another factor is the mention of a bridge, ‫תהומות גשר‬, in lines 11–15 of 4Q521 7+5 ii, during the passage of the dead after their final judgment; this is said to be unquestionably Persian myth. I will first comment on the clues that are held to attest similarity between the Israelite and Persian myths, and then indicate the great factual and theological dissimilarities. I wish to stress at this juncture that it is not within the scope of this study to discuss the possibility of Persian influence on Scripture. Even given such an influence, Qumran’s concepts are still based on Scripture and this reflects an internal development of Jewish sources. In contrast, James Barr,7 among other scholars, disputes the validity of the evidence of cultural influence from the occurrence of the Persian8 term Asmodeus in Tobit and from loanwords generally; these indicate a marginal cultural contact, which undeniably existed, but not a religious, theological influence. He also demonstrates, with relevant examples, the utter disinterest of the Jews in Persian religion and customs; there is no mention in the Jewish literature of that time of Persian beliefs and customs.

6 F. García Martínez, ‘Iranian influences in Qumran?’ in Apocalyptic and Eschatological Heritage. The Middle East and Celtic Realms (ed. M. McNamara, Dublin: Four Courts 2003) 37–49. 7 J. Barr, ‘The question of religious influence, the case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity,’ JAAR 53 (1985) 201–35, on 211–17. 8 Barr questions its Persian influence and suggests the probability that it derives from the Semitic root ‫‘ שמד‬destroy’; he cites a demon by the name Shimadon in midrash Gen. Rab. 36.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

43

The graphic portrayal in Scripture of some customs at the Persian court are necessary props for the literary set-up of the drama,9 and show the Jews’ interest in and knowledge of the administrative workings and court procedures and its intrigues; but it also demonstrates their lack of interest in the Persian way of life, manner of cult, and religious beliefs. This disinterest is confirmed by noting in contrast the curiosity of the Greeks, for whom Herodotus wrote his Histories with ample details of the life in foreign lands, court plots and religious customs and beliefs. Thus the fact that some Persian terms indeed penetrated into the Hebrew language does not attest to the incorporation of any theological elements, particularly regarding ideas conflicting with well-rooted Jewish beliefs. The absorption of loanwords and of ideas are utterly different processes and must be considered accordingly. 1.1.2. Israelite Accommodation to Foreign Myths and Customs Israel has no doubt been influenced, throughout its history, by many Eastern myths and customs, and also by innovative Persian religious concepts, but it has always, with noteworthy persistence, changed the inappropriate details of the customs and concepts it has integrated, as well as in most cases their motives. They bestowed on such customs and concepts an utterly different ideology, appropriate to the Israelite credo;10 these were in effect ‘judaized’ and their original significance completely obliterated.11 The biblical narratives of creation, the flood, Noah’s offering after the flood and the motive behind the three main holidays – whose previous rationale remained in Scripture – are only a few examples of Semitic myth and customs integrated into Judaism in a style, manner and theological significance totally different from their origins. The allusions to God fighting with and annihilating a dragon and similar primeval creatures, as,

9 See R. N. Frye, ‘Ritzenstein and Qumran revisited by an Iranian,’ HTR 55 (1962) 261–8. 10 A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (Leiden: Brill 1977), in his conclusion regarding mythological motifs, writes: ‘Israelite culture, as is normal in cases of cultural contact, not only shared the ideas, but transformed them to fit its own scheme of things. The mythology recorded in early Daniel and Enoch traditions was monotheistic’ (261). J. C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQMS 16, Washington: Catholic Biblical Association 1984), writes: ‘Jewish writers reworked foreign myths and legends and pressed them into service in their ideological compositions (11).’ 11 P. Wernberg-Møller, ‘A reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community (1Q Serek III,13–IV,26),’ RevQ 11 (1961) 413–41, cites this consideration regarding the possible Persian influence on the Qumran Two Spirits theory (418).

44

Dualism in Qumran

for example, in Isa. 27:1, 51:9, Jer. 51:34, Ps. 74:13, whose origin may have been Mesopotamian, were definitely perceived as metaphoric in the period of Qumran, and do not represent a dualistic world-view of YHVH battling an evil cosmic power. This process continued in the post-biblical period. The water libation and the procession with willow branches around the altar at the Sukkot festival, known to Qumran scholars,12 are two examples of customs of foreign origin,13 probably Canaanite, for which the Rabbis attempted to reveal a biblical source,14 and bestowed upon them a Jewish ideology. The concepts of reward and punishment after death, of Paradise15 and Hell, and of the general resurrection of all the righteous (or of all) Jews have no hint in Scripture before the Persian era.16 These innovative concepts in Judaism, which we know were not accepted by the Sadducees, were integrated into Pharisaic/rabbinic credo. They became normative in rabbinic Judaism after the Temple’s destruction and the disappearance of the different sects, and in Christianity. These beliefs may have been influenced by contact with Persian or other dogma,17 as well as by the vivid portrayals of what occurred on the way to and inside the next world. Some are imaginative embellishments of the main idea of reward and punishment after death, which the Jews preferred not to delve into for valid theological motives.18 But others are of crucial significance, and in conflict with Jewish belief. In the Zoroastrian view, for instance, there is a waiting period of three days19

12 See P. Heger, Cult as the Catalyst for Division (STDJ 65, Leiden: Brill 2007), ch. 4 about the identification of the Boethusians, quoted in rabbinic literature in connection with this disputed custom. 13 We note the dance around the altar by the prophets of the Baal in 1 Kgs 18:26. It is suggested that the Hebrew term ‫ חג‬for holidays derives from the ancient pagan custom to surround the altar on holidays, as a sign of reverence and worship; the term describes a circle. 14 See t. Sukkah (Lieberman) 3: 1 regarding the willow procession and b. Zevah. 110b on the water libation. 15 The term Paradise, a common name for the place in which good people are rewarded after their death and judgment, is also of Persian origin (meaning ‘the king’s enclosed forest’). 16 Resurrection is hinted at in the late Book of Daniel. 17 This is not absolute evidence, as these myths may also have been influenced by the Egyptian belief in an afterlife and final judgment. But in this case as well, details regarding obstacles on the way to the afterlife, the mummification of the bodies and the provision of food, drink and other domestic objects in the burial chamber were removed. 18 Jewish theologians have deliberately left such issues in a nebulous status; this avoids enforcing a particular fixed dogma and leaves such issues open to each person’s imagination, relative to his/her intellectual faculties. 19 S. A. Nigosian, The Zoroastrian Faith (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press 1993) 91ff.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

45

between death and judgment in which the deceased and his relatives have a chance to improve his standing before the council of judges.20 Humans are judged on what they have done in this life to aid the cause of goodness, that is, to assist the good god Ahura Mazda to win his ultimate war with the evil god Ahura Mainyu. Those deemed worthy of Paradise are led there by a beautiful maiden, and those consigned to Hell are seized by a horrid hag.21 Those ideas that were incompatible with significant concepts of Jewish belief were duly eradicated. The foreign ideas that served the Jews as enhancements of their belief were integrated into their theology, but only after possibly harmful customs and ideologies were purged and the ideas adapted to their fundamental beliefs. For example, the Jews bury the dead, since not burying them pollutes the land (Deut. 21:23), whereas the Persians do not bury them to avoid the pollution of the land. Persian ideas may have stimulated Jewish intellectuals to conceive similar doctrines, assisted them in their literary formulation, or even induced them to take over the terminology.22 They adopted the labels, but not the essence:23 the names were given a different meaning. Thus the similarity of terms or of concepts is not evidence of intrinsically identical characteristics.24 Again, the fact that Qumran mentions a bridge in its description of the occurrences after death does not serve as evidence that Qumran adopted Persian ideologies in their original essence. The relevant text is extremely deficient. Though rabbinic Judaism removed the bridge from their belief

20 Some lesser divine spirits are the judges. Mithra presides, flanked by Sraosha and Rashnu. M. Boyce, Zoroastrians (London: Routledge 1979) 27. 21 Ibid. 22 S. Shaked, ‘Qumran and Iran: further considerations,’ IOS 1 (1972) 433–45, compiles a list of such similarities, but notes also differences in the relevant conceptions (443). 23 J. J. Collins, ‘The origin of evil in apocalyptic literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls,’ in Congress Volume, Paris 1992 (ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 61, Leiden: Brill 1995) 25–38, states that the four beasts who rise from the sea in Dan. ch. 7 show analogy with the Canaanite myth of the conflict with the forces of chaos, and the pattern of four kingdoms in Dan. chs 7–8 derives ‘from a Persian schematization of history.’ This may be true, but Collins does not argue that this indicates that the author of Daniel has taken over Canaanite or Persian religious theology related to these myths. 24 Barr, ‘The question,’ 211, states that Persian loanwords in Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic of the earlier period seldom show signs of acquaintance with the major ideological systems of the Iranian people. This may be true in many instances, but my statement refers to the general situation regarding other religions’ influence on Jewish customs and doctrines. There are indications that the Jewish beliefs in reward and punishment after death were probably inspired by Persian myth; but in this case, as in others, significant elements that were incompatible with fundamental Jewish doctrines were rejected.

46

Dualism in Qumran

system together with the other imaginative details, its existence in Qumran literature is understandable. Judgment, reward and punishment after death, was a relatively new theological concept in Judaism, and it is plausible that it initially included some innocuous details from the original Persian source, particularly those which did not conflict with established Jewish faith. Later, other factors were considered, and it was decided to purge anything inappropriate or damaging to Jewish theology. A Comparison of 1QS with Persian Dualism I now wish to assess whether the Treatise on the Two Spirits in 1QS reflects any sort of dualistic theology. I would argue, first, that there is a complete incompatibility between Persian dualism and Jewish belief.25 There is in some respect a resemblance between the good and evil spirits in 1QS iii 18, the ultimate disappearance of the evil spirit at the end of days, and Iranian myth, with its two primary cosmic powers, a good and an evil, in constant battle for domination of the world until the demise of the evil and the triumph of the good. However, their fundamental ideological bases are completely incompatible. Their resemblance is rather like that of an ocean and a brook: both contain water. 2.1. Persian Cosmic Dualism versus 1QS The first great difference between Israelite belief and Persian dualism depends on the character of Persian mythology. Since it is not within the scope of this study to elaborate on Zoroastrian dogma, I will limit my description to what is necessary to make my point. Two trends dominate the portrayal of Persian belief by contemporary scholars. One perceives two principal powers, a creator who represents the principles of goodness, and its adversary, the creator of all evil, natural and moral, representing the principle of evil. They are in constant battle for domination of the world. At the end of days, the good will triumph over the evil and all evil will disappear.26 The concept that the world is ruled by the antagonistic forces of good and evil is a dualistic world-view, 25 See subsequent substantiation of this statement. 26 Nigosian, The Zoroastrian Faith; R.C. Zaehner, The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism (New York: Weidenfeld & Nicholson 1961), considers this type of Zoroastrian dualism Mazdean (179). The good god is the absolute light, and therefore light is worshipped. The origin of the world was both light and darkness and there is a struggle between them. Qumran could never envisage such ideology.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

47

different from a true monotheism. For this character of Zoroastrian doctrine that the world is ruled by two principal and independent antagonistic forces of good and evil, Thomas Hyde, an English orientalist, coined the term ‘dualism’ in his chief work, Historia religionis veterum Persarum (1700). The two warring powers represent the authentic Iranian cosmic dualism theory; It would be outrageous to associate Qumran with such a dogma that must have been perceived as patently heretical to Jewish minds and to the fundamental belief that God is the only ruler of the world.27 S. Shaked maintains even Iranian dualism cannot be applied too rigidly, as representing two equal powers, the two extremes of good and evil, because ‘such faith does not seem to have existed anywhere.’28

2.2. Persian ‘Monotheistic’ Dualism versus 1QS The other Iranian doctrine asserts the existence of one superior primordial god, who engendered twins,29 one of whom chose to be good and the other to be evil; they fight constantly for domination of the world until the demise of the evil one. This Zoroastrian doctrinal structure does not represent a cosmic dualistic world-view, since there is one supreme god.30 He did not create evil, which is not a metaphysical entity: evil is a

27 M. Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking Press 1958), had already recognized that the ‘dualism of the sect . . . was not a metaphysical dualism’ (291). 28 Shaked, ‘Qumran and Iran,’ 433. 29 S. Shaked, Dualism in Transformation (London: School of Oriental and African Studies 1994), offers another view of the later Sassanian Zoroastrian theology. On page 1, he notes: ‘. . . as to what extent religion in Sassanian Iran can be defined as dualism is the question to what extent Sassanian Zoroastrians defined themselves as dualists.’ As I am trying to show, throughout much of the Sassanian period the Zoroastrians were probably not self-consciously dualists. Though in Shaked’s view (6) the two primary powers, Ohrmazd the good and Ahreman the evil, were, in a way, partners in the act of creation (a theory totally incompatible with Israelite theology), he questions whether this type of Iranian religion can still be considered dualistic, and maintains that the Iranians did not consider themselves to be dualists. How can we, therefore, envisage Qumran’s scholars and the authors of their writings to be self-consciously dualist? 30 F. Mehr, The Zoroastrian Tradition (Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers 2003) 103, writes: ‘The dualist theory can be supported neither by the Gathas nor by the beliefs of most practicing Zoroastrians.’ Zaehner, The Dawn, calls the followers of this ideology ‘Monotheists,’ and states that this ideology ‘is not dualistic at all’ (180). A third sect, the Zurvanites, had a complex theogony, but it is also not dualistic, since there was an Infinite Time who was the father of two spirits: the Holy Spirit and the Destructive Spirit. He divided the world in two spheres: the one above in endless light and the other below in endless darkness (181–2).

48

Dualism in Qumran

phenomenon arising from human choice – scholars call this an ethical or moral dualism.31 One may debate the resemblance of this idea of two spirits in the monotheistic type of Persian religion to the Jewish Two Spirits theory, but it is also poles apart from Jewish theory, however we interpret it. The differences are abundant and I will specify only the most crucial. 2.3. ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ Compared in Persian Theology and Qumran One of the thorniest issues that torment theologians of all religions that believe in a god who cares for its creatures is the question of why a beneficent god created evil, and how he can be considered a righteous judge condemning and punishing those whom he has created who carry out evil deeds: evil has been created to be performed.32 Zoroaster offered a logical answer of two battling powers, with the good god triumphing in the end. Manichean dogma, in its attempt to find a solution to this problem, denies the infinite perfection of God and postulates two equal and opposite powers, a real cosmic dualism. Gnosticism maintains the existence of one supra-cosmic, supremely spiritual divine being, by whose error a demiurge came about, the creator of the imperfect world. Cosmic dualistic theories offer one solution, but these are definitely not in the realm of Qumran belief. The monotheistic Persian dogma resolved the dilemma by asserting that the supreme god did not create evil, only humans create it; god as a perfect being cannot originate an imperfect creation.33 But Hebrew Scripture states otherwise, and we read in Isa. 45:7 ‫יוצר אור ובורא חשך עשה שלום ובורא רע אני ה' ע שה כל אלה‬ I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I the Lord create all these things.34

31 Mehr, Zoroastrian Tradition, 91. 32 H. Stegemann, ‘Zu textbestand und grundgedanken von 1QS III,13–IV,26,’ RevQ 49–52 (1988) 95–131, writes in his commentary to the above lemmata that evil was created deliberately by God, since ‘jegliches Handlen in der Welt, das nur teilweise “gut” sein darf, teilweise aber “böse” sein muss. Denn sonst gäbe es für Gott keine Möglichkeit die Welt zu “überprüfen”’ (‘every deed in the world may be only partially “good”, but must be partially “evil”. Otherwise God would have no possibility to “test” the world’). This is one solution offered by theologians to justify the creation of evil. 33 Mehr, Zoroastrian Tradition, 109. 34 This is the translation of the KJV. The NIV translates: ‘I bring prosperity and create disaster,’ which does not essentially change the basic idea that God also created evil, that is, disaster. The LXX translates with the term kakav ‘evil, wicked,’ in a moral sense.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

49

This verse follows two declarations stressing the reality that ‘there is no else, no God besides me’ (in v. 5, with similar wording in v. 6). Thus God is the sole creator of light and darkness, of good and evil. We must assume that Qumran did not overlook or ignore this explicit declaration that God created evil.35 The significance that Qumran granted to

35 H. G. May, ‘Cosmological reference in the Qumran doctrine of the Two Spirits and in Old Testament imagery,’ JBL 82 (1963) 1–14, which zealously maintains the existence of dualism and predestination in Qumran theology, attempts to reconcile between this alleged theology and Qumran’s monotheistic belief. He asserts that ‘the Qumranians were not theologians seeking a system of belief neatly and consistently set forth in theological terms’ (5). I do not disagree with his general assumption, but its application must be limited. This assumption can explain minor ideological inconsistencies in their writings and/or lack of consideration of how their declarations would be understood by later generations, and what philosophical definitions they might have deduced from their utterances, but one cannot apply it to reconcile ideas imposed on their writings by contemporary scholars that blatantly conflict with scriptural pronouncements. The theory of dualism as perceived by many scholars would border on heresy; predestination conflicts with explicit scriptural declarations and with the fundamental biblical maxim of repentance and forgiveness, the antithesis of predestination. The disregard of such crucial elements in certain scholarly assumptions regarding Qumran theology, which posit the impact of foreign influence in preference to obvious scriptural origins, is sometimes astounding and incomprehensible, unless one assumes a strong preconception on the part of these scholars. One example is May’s allegation that ‘since the nations [in the song of Hab. 3:12–15] are Yahweh’s enemy, the conflict is cosmic’ (8). He does not consider that this hymn, like many other biblical hymns and narratives depicting God as a warrior, is strictly symbolic; the portrayal of God overpowering sea monsters (Ps. 74:13–14) and similar descriptions seem to be utterly innocuous poetic expressions in a hymn describing the divine supremacy, rather than a concrete account of a cosmic battle of Mesopotamian origin. But if they were remnants of such mythology, inefficiently concealed, they would by no means indicate such a qumranic belief. In reality the Qumran authors pray for and expect divine or angelic supernatural assistance to the Israelite fighters, without delving into the issue of how this would be accomplished; to ask questions about the manner in which God acts would be tantamount to disbelief in God’s omnipotence. Abraham did not ask how God will provide him with a son at his age: ‘And he believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness,’ as we observe it in Gen. 15:6. In contrast, God remonstrated Sarah for her laugh, alluding to her doubt of God’s promise, as we read in Gen. 18:14: ‘Is any thing too hard for the Lord. At the set time I will return unto thee, when the season cometh round, and Sarah shall have a son.’ This idea appears implicitly in many biblical narratives, and I will cite one that is relevant to our subject. During the exodus from Egypt, when the Israelites were terrified at the pursuit of the mighty Egyptian army, Moses did not know and did not ask how God would save them, but said: ‘Do not be afraid, stand firm and you will see the deliverance the Lord will bring you today’ (Exod. 14:13); he concluded his speech with the declaration: ‘The Lord will fight for you; you need only to be still’ (14:14). Only then did God command Moses how to concretely proceed. In Exod. 17:16 and 1 Sam. 15:3 the circumstances seem reversed but still denote the same principle of cooperation between God and his people with regard to warfare. In Exodus, regarding the hostility of the Israelites against Amalek, it is stated: ‘The Lord will be at war against the Amelekites from generation to generation.’ In Sam., God commands the people to fight them: ‘Now, go attack the Amalekites.’ In Deut. 20, the rules of war, there is a portrayal both of the divine action and of the fighting by the people. We read in v. 4: ‘For the Lord your God is the One who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory,’ and in v. 13: ‘When God delivers it

50

Dualism in Qumran

the prophets36 and particularly to Isaiah is well known,37 particularly with respect to the eschaton;38 there is thus a strong likelihood that even the Persian monotheistic type of dogma that denies God’s capacity for evil was incompatible with Qumran belief. Ahura Mazda’s ‘goodness extends to the good and evil alike, for his nature can never contemplate evil of any kind.’39 This attribute is a crucial element of the Persian dualistic theology, the ultimate separation between all that is good and all that is evil. The God of Israel, in contrast, hates and destroys His enemies.40 The entire scholarly basis of the alleged dualism in the Treatise on the Two Spirits, founded on the supposed dilemma concerning the source of evil, falls apart, if Qumran believed that God created evil. Many other fundamental elements of the Persian division between good and evil cannot be reconciled with basic scriptural principles.41As one example, there is the division between good [the city of the enemy] into your hands . . ..’ God’s help is unseen, as is His going with the people, and it is the people who perform the actual fighting; nevertheless it is considered that God fights and delivers the enemy to his people. There are no questions of how this is done, or regarding the nature of God’s presence among the people. This behaviour has served as a model for faithful Jews, from the period of Qumran until today. In contrast, God’s punishment of a people is done through the intermediary of another people; see for example Judg. 3:12. Of a slightly different character is Jer. 43:10–13, in which God sends Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, to attack Egypt and bring death and destruction upon it (vv. 10–11). In the following vv. 12–13 there is a mixing-up of divine acts and Nebuchadnezzar’s acts, similar to the cooperation described above: God will set fire, an intangible element of divine origin, to the temples (written in first person), but Nebuchadnezzar (in third person) will burn them and will shatter the obelisks. A similar confusion between acts of an angel and those of God is found at the theophany before Moses at the burning bush, in Exod. 3:2–4:17; in 3:2 the angel of the Lord appears in the blazing bush, but in 3:4 God calls Moses from the midst of the bush. (The KJV translation conforms to the Hebrew text, while the NIV translates all verses in third person.) Qumran authors followed this style in their aspirations and writings. 36 J. Carmignac, ‘Les citations de l’Ancien Testament, et specialement des Poèmes du Serviteur, dans les Hymnes de Qumrân,’ RevQ 7 (1960) 357–94, prepared an impressive list of the biblical citations in 1QHa Hodayot that show the reliance of Qumran authors on Scripture. 37 G. Brin, ‫מחקרים בספרות הנבואה הקלסית‬, Studies in the Prophetic Literature (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Bialik 2006), stresses on page 38ff. that great significance is bestowed upon the prophets in Qumran thought. This is quite noticeable in their writings, though they do not often cite the prophetic source verbatim or by name. They developed ways to connect the biblical prophetic literature and their contemporaneous circumstances, revealing in the prophecies justification for their own actions and the expectation of future advantages. 38 See the explicit reference to the prophecy of Isaiah regarding the circumstances of the eschaton in 4Q174 and 4Q177, particularly with respect to the evil group, a crucial element of the Two Spirits Discourse. 39 Nigossian, The Zoroastrian Faith, 73. 40 God’s destruction of His enemies is mentioned throughout Scripture. God also hates His enemies; see Mal. 1:3 and Ps. 11:5–6. We encounter the same ideas in Qumran literature; see, for example, CD xi 13 and 15 regarding hate and 1QS v 19 regarding destruction. 41 M. Philonenko et al. (eds), Apocalyptique Iranienne et Dualisme Qoumrânien (Paris:

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

51

animals and bad animals, associated respectively with Ahura Mazda and Ahriman. The Jewish prohibition against consumption of some animals does not, by any means, indicate that these animals are associated with evil; all were created by God on the fifth day of creation and confirmed to be good (Gen. 1:21). Further, in contrast to dualism, there is a very human focus in 1QS. However we interpret the Treatise on the Two Spirits in 1QS and its at times vague pronouncements, there is no doubt whatsoever that its principal object is humankind, and, in my opinion, only the Israelite people. The Treatise is relevant to humans, instructing them about human nature, not about the cosmos, as is evident in its first sentence iii 13. Its goal is to enlighten the human heart and to establish in it respect for the precepts of God (iv 2). The attributes of righteousness and wickedness in the concluding verses 1QS iv 15–26 refer unquestionably to humans, as its introductory phrase announces: ‫באלה תולדות כול איש‬. ‘In these lies the history of all humankind.’ The cataclysmic end at the eschaton described in iv 12–14 will also affect humans. In contrast to the Treatise on the Two Spirits, whose goal is to influence human life and behaviour, and to offer an explanation for human misdeeds, as I will subsequently argue, Persian dualistic theology is concerned with the nature of God. Further, in 1QS the topic of angels is secondary and incidental to that of humans; while in many Persian doctrines, the role of humans is, at most, minimal. There is thus an unbridgeable chasm between the purpose and principal subject of the Treatise on the Two Spirits and Persian theology. 42 Adrien Maisonneuve 1995), endorses Dupont-Sommer’s assertion that the Two Spirits Discourse bears the hallmark of Iran (170). He ignores, however, the Gatha’s assertion, cited on the same page: ‘Les deux Esprits, lorsqu’ils se sont rencontrés, ont creés le monde’ (‘the two Spirits, when they met, created the world’). I wonder how such an affirmation could be deduced from the Discourse and how one could impute to the Qumran authors the professing of such blatant heresy. But Philonenko seems unconcerned about it, as we observe from another Iranian dualistic cosmogony he cites. Maintaining the conception of Zervanite influence on the Qumran Two Spirits theory, he cites (173) its creation narrative: God bore in his breast two twins, and he had in mind to nominate the first-born as king. Ahriman, the evil spirit [probably aware of this decision] pierced the divine breast and emerged [first]. Zervan asked him: ‘Who are you?’ And he replied: ‘I am your son.’ Zervan retorted: ‘My son is perfumed and bright, and you, you are dark and stinking.’ Any comment as to the assumed likeness between the original story in Iranian dualism with Qumran theology seems to me superfluous. 42 VanderKam, Enoch, writing about the Enoch’s Apocalypse of the Weeks, states that though there are similarities between its narrative and Persian dualism, ‘the marked differences ought not to be ignored. They center in this case around the issue of dualism – a doctrine that lies at the heart of the Persian systems. The ApW is not dualistic in the sense of the Iranian material (155). He then enumerates the differences.’

52

Dualism in Qumran

Scholarly Sub-Categorizations of Dualism versus 1QS It is interesting that this chasm appears to have been overlooked by those scholars who allege a Persian influence on Qumran, rather than a scriptural influence; the main focus of Scripture is also human life and behaviour. Through meticulous scrutiny of Qumran texts scholars have challenged the initial unqualified idea of dualism43 that was allegedly discovered in 1QS.44 However, they came up with a great array of additional types or classes45 of dualism in Qumran literature,46 with the intent, it seems, of saving the label of ‘dualism’ attached by previous scholars47 as well as some

43 J. 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, Cambridge 1995 (eds M. J. Bernstein et al., STDJ 23, Leiden: Brill 1997) 275–335, writes that the texts ‘labeled dualistic, show notable differences in content and terminology . . . the uniform form of dualism in the Qumran texts needs further refinement’ (278). 44 P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran (SUNT 6, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1969), whose study is imbued with the theory of dualism, states in his conclusion (239) that the dualism in QS is of an ethical character, that is, of a ‘softened’ type. He considers the dualism in 1QM a ‘stronger’ eschatological dualism: Israel against the world. I am disputing his view of QM in a separate study. Shaked, ‘Qumran and Iran,’ conjectures that Qumran’s dualism may be called an ‘unbalanced dualism,’ since God prefers and assists the good spirits; hence there are no equal powers, the condition precursory for a dualistic world-view. 45 Not an absolute or dialectical dualism, but a relative or softened one; there are different types of dualism in the Qumran literature, but with some unique underlying preoccupation, such as ethical. See J. Duhaime, ‘Dualistic reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran,’ CBQ 49 (1987) 32–56, 35; and J. H. Charlesworth, ‘A critical comparison of the dualism in 1QS 3:13–4:26 and the “dualism” contained in the Gospel of John,’ in John and Qumran (ed. J. H. Charlesworth, London: Chapman 1972) 76–106, 80. 46 In addition to ‘moderate’ and similar expressions indicating a mitigated dualism versus a radical one, Charlesworth, ‘A critical comparison,’ 76, n. 1 lists such attributes as psychological, physical, metaphysical, cosmic (I dispute the occurrence of these two types in 1QS), ethical/moral, eschatological and soteriological dualisms. Other scholars add spatial, theological, anthropological, radical, softened, dialectical, procosmic, anticosmic, absolute, relative, etc. See, for example, Duhaime, ‘Dualistic reworking.’ 47 D. Flusser, ‘The Dead Sea sect and pre-Pauline Christianity,’ ScrHier 4 (1958) 215–66, quotes W. F. Albright: ‘The same ethical dualism [as in the Scrolls] appears throughout the New Testament’ (215). He then declares: ‘a well-known feature of Qumran doctrine is its dualism’ (217), without any qualification as to type. Noting the terminology of Light versus Darkness, he perceives a ‘basic dualistic outlook leading to a fundamental division of all mankind into two camps’ (218) – in other words, a cosmic dualism. He also speculates on a possible flesh versus spirit dualism in Qumran (261ff), apparently ignoring the incompatibility of such an ideology with the explicit scriptural declaration that at the eschaton God will give the Israelites ‫‘ לב בשר‬a heart of flesh (Ezek. 11:19 and 36:26). It is unwarranted to assume that Qumran authors would ignore these verses and create a conflicting ideology. The phrase ‫‘ בעוון בשר‬a sin of the flesh’ (1QS xi 12) and similar expressions do not declare that the flesh is the source of sin; they describe the fact that the

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

53

association with Persian dogma.48 P. Wernberg-Møller49 is an exception: in an earlier study he still perceives dualism but notices its weak points; in his words, it ‘is not consistent,’ since ‘God is the one who created the spirits.’ In a later study,50 he changes his mind completely, refuting any foreign influence on the Treatise on the Two Spirits and demonstrating that 1QS was a Jewish document composed by a community that regarded the Hebrew Bible as their sacred book.51 M. Treves, on the basis of a diligent reading of scriptural texts,52 and a comparison of Qumran texts to Persian theology, reached a similar conclusion to Wernberg-Møller and rejected the theory of a Zoroastrian dualism in 1QS; he perceived the source of Qumran theology to be in Isa. 45:6–7.53 G. R. Driver54 also tried to find biblical sources for the development of the Two Spirits theory in Qumran. It is thus remarkable how some scholars, driven by a bias in favour of foreign influence, seem to ignore scriptural pronouncements, and inaccurately interpret Qumran texts.55 Even Wernberg-Møller, for example, flesh, that is, the human body, performs evil deeds. This does not imply a dualism of flesh versus spirit. 1QM vii 5 bundles together the perfection of flesh and spirit: ‫ותמימי רוח ובשר‬. There is nothing wrong with flesh: it is the ‘bad spirit’ that corrupts the flesh/body to sin. 48 The distinction between different types of dualism induced some scholars to analyze every line in the Two Spirits Discourse regarding its distinct type of dualism, and led to questions regarding its redaction. Similarly, there are various propositions regarding whether 1QS was written prior to or later than 1QM. See, for example, Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, who maintains that the text of 1QS iv 15–18 indicates an eschatological dualism, whereas iv 23–26 illustrates an anthropological dualism; hence, he wonders why the anthropologic segment was not set at the beginning of the lemma, as one would logically expect (26). Other scholars have proposed later interjections in the text, to solve similar problems. It is to be wondered at that these scholars have not considered the likelihood that the Qumran author had no knowledge of anthropology, and did not analyze his writings according to the many contemporary categories of dualisms. 49 P. Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline (STDJ 1, Leiden: Brill 1957) 66. 50 Wernberg-Møller, ‘A reconsideration of the Two Spirits.’ 51 Ibid., 415. 52 M. Treves, ‘The Two Spirits of the Rule of the Community,’ RevQ 11 (1961) 449–52, contends that the term ‫‘ רוח‬never meant – in Old Testament language – an incorporeal being, and hence the ‘spirits’ in QS are simply the tendencies or propensities which are implanted in every man’s heart’ (449). As I will argue below, even the angels do not represent cosmic powers in Jewish myths. 53 Treves, ‘The Two Spirits,’ 450. 54 G. R. Driver, The Judean Scrolls (Oxford: Blackwell 1965) 551–2. 55 H. G. May, for example, sees in many prophetic pronouncements remnants of ancient Canaanite cosmic battles between God and the dragon, concluding that there is a theology of cosmic struggles between good and evil in Qumran writings. He also states, however, that ‘the author never intended the oracle to be taken literally in all its fantastic details’ (‘Cosmological,’ 8), which seems contradictory to his theory. While it is true that one may find in Scripture traces of ancient foreign mythologies, one cannot allege that Qumran built a theology upon them; these mythologies had long been discarded in the Jewish faith, but not completely deleted from the texts, and were used

54

Dualism in Qumran

in his Manual of Discipline, written before his ‘conversion,’ interpreted the expression ‫ בד בבד שמן אל‬in 1QS iv 25 as ‘God has set them apart,’ since the correct translation, ‘God appointed them [the good and the evil] in equal parts’56 would contradict the theory of predestination associated with dualism. In his later study he criticizes such practice by the ‘dualistic’ scholars,57 and states ‘the wish is here father to the thought.’58 I perceive his arguments as persuasive, and therefore will limit myself to add only new arguments or different interpretations of relevant Qumran texts.59

in a manner utterly different from that which he proposes. For instance, he considers ‘loving kindness [‫ ]חסד‬and truth [‫ ]אמת‬have met’ in Ps. 85:10 not as poetic symbolism, but as ‘angelic beings,’ comparable to ‘the Iranian Spentas.’ Any comment seems to me superfluous. A similar premeditated interpretation is found in Philonenko’s statement in Apocaliptique Iranienne, 166: ‘according to the Instruction of the Two Spirits (1QS iv 2), the world, like mankind, is the theatre of the conflict. The two Spirits confront themselves “in the world” ‫ בתבל‬and “in the heart of everybody” ‫בלבב גבר‬ (iv 23).’ To reach his goal, he combines the first subject ‘the world’ from line 2 with the second subject from line 23, though line 2 contains both the terms ‘world’ and ‘heart.’ I propose that the interpretation of line 2 alone would indicate the flaws in his inference. There is a gap between iv 1 in which the term ‘path’ appears in singular and line 2 in plural; hence it is doubtful to whom the term is attributed and I assume that it refers to the good spirits. The context of line 2 indicates unquestionably that their path, that is their task in the world, is to enlighten the heart of man. The term ‫ תבל‬must therefore in this occurrence be interpreted as referring to the terrestrial world, in which humans live, as the boundary of their work, and not the ‘cosmic’ extraterrestrial universe. Philonenko was probably aware of this circumstance and preferred, therefore, to combine two separate verses to attain his purpose. 56 The term ‫ בד בבד‬in Exod. 30:34 must be translated as ‘in equal parts’ from the context. This corresponds to the translations of the LXX, KJV and NIV. 57 In ‘A reconsideration of the Two Spirits,’ Wernberg-Møller quotes a similar incorrect interpretation by scholars of 1QS iii 18: ‘These opposing spirits were both created by God at the beginning of times,’ as intended to fit the Iranian dualistic theory of two primary powers. He demonstrates that the text states explicitly that these spirits were created after man’s creation (414, n. 3). May, ‘Cosmological,’ contests the rejection of dualism in 1QS by Wernberg-Møller and Treves. He interprets the creation element that is employed by Wernberg-Møller for the corroboration of his theory in a totally opposite way. 58 Wernberg-Møller, ‘A reconsideration of the Two Spirits,’ 415, n. 5; M. Wilcox, ‘Dualism, Gnosticism, and other elements in the pre-Pauline tradition,’ in The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament (ed. M. Black, London: Scribner 1969) 87 writes: ‘There is no real reason why the dualism of Qumran should be seen as “foreign to the OT”. We should be justified in regarding it as an attempt to present what its writers firmly believed to be genuine OT teaching in thought-forms more appropriate to its own day and circumstances.’ Though his opinion does not concur entirely with my thesis, it demonstrates the reality of internal development of biblical sources in Qumran ideas. 59 Wernberg-Møller, ‘A reconsideration of the Two Spirits,’ 415, n. 5, demonstrates that expressions such as ‫ לרוחותם‬refer to a verity of ‘spirits’ and hence cannot be dualistic. I do not disagree with his arguments (see my comments below on the use of the plural), but I would like to add my conjecture that this expression in other occurrences also hints at the ranks within the group, founded upon the intellectual abilities of each member. The spirits of good and evil are placed in

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

55

I too question the function and effectiveness of attaching to 1QS the label of dualism, regardless of what qualifications, such as ‘ethical’ or ‘anthropological,’ are attached to it.60 I believe that what we are seeing in this source is really an issue of polarity,61 like the distinction between big and small, tall and short, wide and narrow and so on; in other words, rather than dualism, this is the rational idea that every concept in human life has its opposite. Moreover, even if we concede a theory of moral or anthropological duality in the Treatise on the Two Spirits, what has this in common with Persian cosmic dualism, which was the primary stimulus to those scholars who attempted to reveal an innovative, unconventional idea in Qumran’s theology62 that was contrary to scriptural and rabbinic ideology? Such Qumran dualities have common ground with Jewish doctrines, and there is no need to search for a Zoroastrian influence on Qumran; again, similar terms are not evidence of identical ideology. Dualistic entities such as body and soul, spirit and matter can be perceived as dualistic primary principles, but these are not relevant to our study; both contrasting

each person in equal parts (1QS iv 25), as is the faculty to discern between good and evil (iv 26); but intellectual facility is not equally bestowed upon each person, and it is the allotment of wisdom in each person that establishes his status in the community. 60 See Heger, Cult, 149ff., regarding the occasionally misleading consequences of the labeling of Qumran MSS. See also A. Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata.b) (STDJ 13, Leiden: Brill 1994) 151, which convincingly states that 4Q 174 and 4Q 177 ‘um ein und dasselbe Werk handelt’ (‘are one single opus’), but 174 is labeled Florilegium and 177 Catena. 61 M. J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran (JSPSup 11, Sheffield: Academic 1992), attempts, it seems, to avoid a categorical assertion with regard to dualism in 1QS and shifts the onus to others: ‘Because various mutually opposed pairs can be identified, the Discourse is commonly described as dualistic’ (145). Despite this indecisive statement, he affirms that ‘the Two Spirits Discourse is predicated on a dualistic view of cosmic reality’ (149). He supports this by asserting that ‘there are two opposing camps,’ as if the angels were organized in two opposing camps; in fact, however, the everlasting hatred between the two groups and the incompatibility in 1QS i 10 and iv 17–18 relate to humans, and specifically to Israelites, not to the heavenly spirits, and hence this is not a cosmic controversy. His discussion demonstrates the general reluctance to give up the ingrained doctrine of dualism in Qumran. 62 Wernberg-Møller, The Manual, 66, lists the scholars who noticed a ‘strong foreign [Zoroastrian] influence’ in the Two Spirits doctrine. In his subsequent study, ‘A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits,’ in which he rejects his previous allegation of dualism in the Two Spirits Discourse, he debates at length the dualistic theories of K. G. Kuhn, D. Flusser, J. Licht, Dupont-Sommer and others. These scholars interpreted the Two Spirits Discourse as a war between cosmic beings, drawing upon external parallels with Zoroastrianism, strangely disregarding any scriptural foundation. See also Levison, ‘The Two Spirits,’ 172–3.

56

Dualism in Qumran

principles are created by one god63 and are not of a cosmic nature;64 they are not elements of Qumran theology65 and were not imputed to them by scholars. These entities agree with Jewish doctrines, and do not reflect Zoroastrian influence. A Rebuttal of Dualism in Qumran Writings 4.1. Was ‘The Source of Evil’ the Foundation of a Comprehensive Qumran Theology? I now wish to examine in detail certain concepts alleged to form part of a Qumran dualism. First there is the concept of evil. Qumran did not have any concern with the fact that God created evil,66 a prominent constitu-

63 Maimonides in The Guide of the Perplexed, III: 8 (ed. S. Pines, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1963) 430, calls the two principles ‘matter’ and ‘form,’ and explains that ‘man’s disobedience and sins are consequent upon his matter and not upon his form, whereas his virtues are consequent upon his form.’ His view on the two primary principles is totally opposed to Manicheism and Gnosticism; it demonstrates the orthodox perspective regarding two opposing elements, which have no relationship to a heretical type of dualism. Maimonides did not conceive that his theory could be suspected of dualism, and the same applies to the author of the Two Spirits Discourse. 64 I will not elaborate on the similarity or identity of metaphysical and cosmic concepts, as this is not relevant to our investigation. 65 See Driver, The Judean Scrolls, 551. 66 I dispute the theory suggested by some scholars, following P. Sacchi, L’Apocalittica Giudaica e la sua Storia (Brescia: Paideia 1990), that the narrative of the fallen angels, the Watchers, in Jub. 5 and 1 Enoch 7 was composed to resolve the dilemma of the source of evil, to exclude it as something created by God. From that narrative, Sacchi construed that evil was attributed to a supernatural source, antagonistic to God, and on that basis the theory of cosmic dualism is founded. Aside from the double speculations of this theory, I think that this narrative cannot serve as evidence for the creation of a serious theological viewpoint. These narratives, as it seems to me, were compiled by preachers, as were many rabbinic Midrashim, to create interest in their sermons regarding short or obscure biblical narratives, such as Gen. 6:1–4 and others, and not to resolve thorny issues. Steudel, Der Midrasch, calls 4Q174 and 177 Eschatological Midrashim. They are fundamentally comparable to 1QM; their distinction lies solely in the specific subjects within the ambit of the eschaton. See VanderKam’s opinion on the popularity of such stories in a paper published on the Web, consisting of an introduction and concise summary of his book Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. He writes: ‘The story provided powerful sermonic material by picturing an egregious example of evil and how God responded to it.’ See also n. 93 on this issue. The assertion in Jub. 7:22 ‘and they made the beginning of uncleanness,’ does not refer to evil; it is only one of the three wrongdoings enumerated antecedently in v. 21 as the three main transgressions for which the flood came upon the earth. Moreover, I do not assume that the highly intellectual authors of Qumran literature would base their theology on esoteric homilies; the Rabbis did not do so with respect to their Midrashim. See also Collins, ‘The origin of evil,’ which disputes the influence of the Watchers narrative on Qumran writings (33). I will dedicate a separate study to corroborate this assumption.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

57

ent of scholarly theories of dualism in Qumran.67 I have serious doubts whether they had the same notion of evil as we have; I would speculate that their perception of evil was the transgression of divine rules68 – rather than, for example, David’s brutal killing of the Ammonites, as recorded in 2 Sam. 12:31.69 Moreover, as noted above, dualism would not resolve the question of evil, as some scholars suggest, since both good and evil spirits are created by God; He is ultimately the source of evil.70 We may compare this to the attitude of the Rabbis, who did not attempt to defend or justify the prophetic statement of Isa. 45:7; they accepted it as is, without questioning its theological rectitude.71 I conjecture that Qumran was concerned with another dilemma of a Jewish character, similar to the one that induced the Rabbis to propose the Two Impulses theory, ‫ יצר טוב‬and ‫יצר רע‬, essentially identical in all aspects to Qumran’s Treatise on the Two Spirits.72 Both groups were troubled by

67 See, for example, A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning (NTL, London: SCM Press 1966) 44, and n. 150. 68 If this is true, as we may deduce from scriptural and Qumran writings, then the narrative of the Watchers would not offer a solution to the dilemma regarding God as the source of evil. Adam was the first transgressor of a divine command, and hence his wickedness must have originated from God, his creator. 69 I chose this narrative as its translation history supports my supposition. This verse was translated literally by the traditional commentators, the LXX, and the KJV, whose translation I will cite: ‘He set them under saws, sharp iron instruments, and iron axes, and made them pass through the brick kiln.’ The modern translator of the NIV, for example, in his sensitivity to such brutal conduct by the revered King David, disregarded the syntax and grammar of the original text, and interpreted it as ‘consigning them to labour with saws and with iron picks and axes, and he made them work at brickmaking.’ Ethical attitudes had changed dramatically in the relatively short period of less than three hundred years. 70 See Charlesworth, ‘A critical comparison,’ 80 on this issue. 71 This verse, with a slight change, was introduced without hesitation by the Rabbis as a blessing in the obligatory daily liturgy. It is true that the second part was changed to ‫עשה שלום ובורא את הכל‬ ‘[God] makes peace and creates everything,’ but the reason for the change, which in effect also includes evil, is explained in b. Ber. 11b as the desire to avoid using a dire expression and instead stating the opposite. This is a common procedure in rabbinic writing; for example, when they wish to say that God will punish the Israelites harshly, they refer instead to the enemies of Israel (b. Sanh. 63a). Similarly, a blind person is regularly called ‫[‘ סגי נהור‬one who has] much light.’ The English language calls the Friday of the Crucifixion ‘Good Friday,’ though it is really a day of lament and fast, as it is called in German. There are many speculations on the origin of this apparently peculiar name, but it may also be the result of a process similar to the rabbinic method of reversing an evil description referring to a revered entity. 72 Wernberg-Møller, ‘A reconsideration of the Two Spirits,’ 423, states: ‘The difference between 1QS and the rabbinic doctrine is thus of terminology only.’ May, ‘Cosmological,’ 3, disputes this statement of Wernberg-Møller, not on its own merit, but because of the ‘apocalyptic framework of the Qumran doctrine.’ The issue of whether the Qumran community were apocalyptic

58

Dualism in Qumran

the question of why humans sin. God has given humans wisdom to discern good from evil, a faculty expressly emphasized at the beginning of the Treatise on the Two Spirits. In 1QS iii 15; ‫‘ אל הדעות‬God of Knowledge,’ is the initiator of the state of affairs as subsequently portrayed, including the concluding verse iv 26: ‫‘ וינחילן לבני איש לדעת טוב ורע‬a legacy to the sons of man so that they know good and evil.’ Therefore it is deemed incomprehensible that a person sins – that is, does what he knows a priori is wrong. We encounter a similarly pragmatic utterance by the author of 4 Ezra,73 who indicates that he is searching for an explanation for a contemporary dilemma, not for a solution to an apparent theological embarrassment. The Rabbis also addressed this question, and the answer can be found in b.Sotah 3a: ‫‘ עבירה אא"כ בכבם בו רוח שטות אין אדם עובר‬A person does not sin unless a spirit of foolishness entered him.’ Both Qumran and the Rabbis provided in essence the same answer, though using different terms, and it is logical that Qumran preferred a Jewish way of thought to foreign influence.74 It was only in the Middle Ages that Maimonides, the renowned philosopher, attempted to explain in his Guide of the Perplexed a great range of baffling theological questions raised in the Jewish intellectual community that had been inspired by the surrounding Muslim philosophical milieu, the Kalam.75 Some of his statements are clarifications of confusing biblical expressions, as for example, the anthropomorphic terms used in the

is not an opinio communis and is debated by scholars; see, for example, P. R. Davies, ‘Qumran and apocalyptic or obscurum per obscurum,’ JNES 49 (1990) 127–34, and C. A. Newsom, ‘Apocalyptic and the discourse of the Qumran community,’ JNES 49 (1990) 135–44. The fact that certain apocalyptic writings have been found in their library does not render Qumran an apocalyptic community, nor lead to a conclusion that their theological writings are apocalyptic. Their writings do not become apocalyptic simply because they believed that their leader, the Priest, was placed by God to interpret the words of the prophets (1QpHab ii 8–9). This is a long way from the character of Enoch’s apocalyptic style. The fact that human spirits follow the leadership of respective angels does not serve as evidence for a cosmic dualistic theology, as I will demonstrate, the angels are not independent powers. Nor is May’s comparison with John 1 convincing. His comparison would assume that Qumran was influenced by John, yet light and darkness are definitely metaphors, not cosmic concepts, in Jn 1:4–5. Scripture perceives light and darkness as metaphors for good and evil, as I will demonstrate, and both Qumran and John use the terms in their writings in the same way. 73 We read in 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) 4:23: ‘For I did not wish to inquire about the ways above, but about those things which we daily experience.’ 74 Charlesworth, ‘A critical comparison,’ p. 79, states that ‘the treatise [1QS] is essentially Jewish.’ 75 A movement within Islamic thought, whose practitioners, the Mutakallim, investigated the being and attributes of God.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

59

Bible,76 but others are apologetic, as for example regarding the source of evil,77 or animal sacrifices.78 We should not wonder that Qumran scholars, who were fundamentalist believers, as is evident from their ideological and halakhic writings, did not ask basic ideological questions, just as contemporary believers do not today; they were not concerned by the fact that God created evil,79 and with other topics that are dilemmas in our eyes, such as predestination, on which we shall take the same position in another study. Qumran investigated biblical contradictions in an attempt to solve practical halakhic questions,80 but did not discuss ideological inconsistencies in the Bible. When dilemmas emerged, as for example the righteous falling in battle in 1QM xvi 11,81 contrary to expectations, these are perceived as intended by God according to His mysteries;82 there was no attempt to search for complex theological solutions for such events, which according to their belief and expectations should not occur. The apparent diversity among different texts was not the consequence of later redactions or interpolations, as Duhaime and others suggest; it was the result of attempts to resolve current dilemmas ad hoc, and of inadvertently overlooking possible inconsistencies due to the lack of a comprehensive theology, as is also evident in rabbinic literature. The creation of a comprehensive and coherent theology (as far as it is

76 Maimonides, Guide, I: 1–70. 77 Ibid. III: 10–12 (pages 438–48). 78 Ibid. III: 32 (pages 525–34). 79 Levison, ‘The Two Spirits,’ asserts that Qumran ideology was not shaped by systematic abstract reflection on the origin of evil (185). 80 There are no explicit deliberations in Qumran writings on halakhic inconsistencies, as we observe in rabbinic literature; but we are able to deduce from some of their decisions, which are apparently not in accordance with the relevant biblical commands, that discrepancies or inadequate details in the text were the motives behind their decisions. 81 We read there: ‫‘ ובהתאזר בליעל לעזרת בני חושך וחללי הבינים יחלו לנפול ברזי אל‬When Belial girds himself to assist the sons of darkness, and the slain of the infantry start to fall in accordance with God’s mysteries.’ See succeeding note. 82 This is the common translation of the term ‫רז‬, influenced, in my opinion, by extraneous predispositions. I would rather translate it by the plain and comprehensible term ‘secret,’ that is, something we don’t know, but could comprehend it, if revealed to us. The term ‫ רז‬appears often in Qumran literature associated with the term ‫( דעת‬1QS iv 6), ‫( שכל‬1QS iv 18), and demonstrates comprehensibility. I will quote one of many citations in which the term ‫ רז‬cannot be translated as mystery: in 4Q300 3 3 we read ‫ רזי פשע‬translated by García Martínez as ‘mysteries of sin,’ but by Wise as ‘secrets of sin.’ In fact, the term ‫ רז‬in Dan. 2:18–19 is translated as ‘secret’ like the context requires: the meaning of the dream is comprehensible after being revealed.

60

Dualism in Qumran

possible to attain this) is a slow and ongoing process in all religions. It is the result of an attempt by theologians to resolve logical inconsistencies as they come up in the minds of believers. We may observe the slow advance of this process in the narrative of the census performed by David. In 2 Sam. 24:1 we read ‫‘ ויסת את דוד‬and he [God] incited David’ to carry out a census, an illicit procedure which had dire consequences. The redactor of 1 Chron. 21:1, aware that attributing to God such an incitement to act sinfully does not fit with the image of an upright and compassionate deity, changed the statement to read: ‫‘ ויעמד שטן על ישראל‬And Satan rose up against Israel.’83 I do not wish to enter into the question of the time interval between the compilation of Samuel and Chronicles, but there is no doubt that a sizeable period had elapsed; we observe the lack of sensitivity or the perplexity regarding the apparent divine behaviour by the Samuel redactor. I wish, however, to emphasize that the stimulus for this change cannot be compared to the issue of why God created evil. A direct incitement by God to perform a wicked deed is embarrassing; but this issue is utterly different from the creation of evil that empowers humans with a free choice as to whether or not to carry it out. The latter was not the sort of issue to provoke a dilemma. In the rabbinic period we again encounter attempts to resolve current dilemmas84 without much attention being granted to the fact that these solutions were at times in outright contradiction with other rabbinic dicta.85 Many problems were raised in

83 See P. Evans, ‘Divine intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21. An overlooked aspect of the chronicler’s theology,’ Bib 85 (2004) 545–58, and P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: Satan in the Hebrew Bible (HSM 43, Atlanta: Scholars 1988) 130ff. on this issue. 84 We encounter a rabbinic pronouncement that corroborates the postulate that theological maxims were developed to resolve ad hoc dilemmas. We read in b. Mo’ed Q. 28a: ‘Rava said: [Length of] life, [the number of] sons and [the level of] assets do not depend on [a man’s] merit, but on fate/luck. [We conclude this from the following] since Rabah and Rav Hisda were both righteous Rabbis: the one prayed, and rain occurred, and the other prayed and rain occurred. [But] Rav Hisda lived to the age of ninety-two years and Rabah forty; in the family of Rav Hisda there were sixty feasts and in the family of Rabah sixty bereavements. In the house of Rav Hisda, fine wheat flour was available for the dogs and nobody asked for it, in the house of Rabah there was no barley bread for humans.’ We observe that Rava, the author of this theological maxim, came to his conclusion by his observation of the facts, which conflicted with the belief that God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked. In order to resolve the dilemma, he devised a ‘bypass’ theory, but at the same time was not concerned that it conflicted with another talmudic homily that declares the complete opposite, as we shall see in the ensuing note. 85 We read in t. Arakh. 20a: ‘Rabbi Yose b. Hanina said: Come and see how grave consequences occur because of a minor transgression of the rules of the seventh year fruits. If a man sells the fruits he collected [which were granted by God to be consumed or donated (Lev. 25:6, 7 and 13),

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

61

later periods and attempts were made to solve them, often without great success; this nevertheless did not undermine the strength of the faith. There is every reason to assume that identical circumstances prevailed in the Qumran community, and that there was a similar lack of concern for such issues as the source of evil. There is definitely no justification to impose upon Qumran a comprehensive and wide-ranging theology that would conflict with explicit scriptural statements, simply because of our interpretation, founded on our contemporary thinking, of a lemma of their writings that seems to us influenced by an alien theology. They certainly did not perceive themselves to be adherents of a dualistic theology, and this is the crucial point to consider in the analysis of their writings when we try to identify their mindsets and ideologies. 4.2. Scholarly Proposal of Developmental Stages in Qumran Dualism Reading the disagreement of Osten-Sacken86 and Duhaime87 regarding the developmental stages of dualism in 1QM and 1QS and the emergence of various types of dualism, one gets the impression of a scenario that seems, to say the least, inconceivable. I will briefly summarize the dispute. Once a dualistic theory was identified as the basis of Qumran theology, the necessity to identify its different types became evident. This classification indicated a concentration of an eschatological dualism in 1QM, and of other distinct types in 1QS. There naturally arose a scholarly question regarding the developmental stages that would account for this diversity, and the related question of chronology. Osten-Sacken perceives that the eschatological dualism of 1QM was the basic principle, from which emanated a second stage, the Two Spirits type. Thus there was a transformation of the eschatological dualism into an ethical dualism, effected in two steps: a) the conflict between truth and perversity and b) the anthropological dualism in

his financial standing deteriorates and] he starts to sell his movable assets.’ The dictum then continues: if he does not become aware that he is being punished for his wrongful deed and continues, he is compelled to sell his house, his field, his daughter and in the end himself as a slave. This homily, deduced from a midrashic interpretation of relevant biblical verses, contradicts explicitly the maxim quoted in the antecedent note. It also contradicts a midrash in Sifre Deut pisqa 118, which attempts to resolve the apparent contradiction between Deut. 15:4, in which it is said that there will be no poor people in Israel, and 15:7–8 which commands one to help a poor Israelite. The first is interpreted to refer to a situation when the people fulfill all precepts, and the second to a situation when they fail to do this. Here, good deeds are rewarded financially and evil ones by poverty. 86 Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial. 87 Duhaime, ‘Dualistic reworking.’

62

Dualism in Qumran

each person. The Melchizedek text, on the other hand, indicates a revival of the earlier eschatological dualism. This in his view was the essence of the expansion and refinement of the first, primitive principle of dualism. Duhaime does not dispute the developmental process, but assumes that ethical dualism was the primary idea, with different stages of expansion. Verses that do not fit the theory are deemed to be later interpolations.88 It is not plausible to assume the existence of stages in the development of a Qumran dualism. Such a contingency would imply the existence of a panel or council of Qumran theologians, who decided, at a certain moment in their history, to adopt the overarching principle of dualism in Qumran theology, whatever its first incarnation. In subsequent meetings of this panel, further derivatives of the theory would have been decided upon, and published as new texts or as insertions in existing writings. I do not assume that such circumstances are plausible.89 Qumran authors did not create a theological principle of dualism; they were not conscious of the fact that their ideas could indicate a dualistic world-view,90 and hence

88 Frey, ‘Different patterns,’ disputes this assertion of a later redactional stage (287). 89 Frey, ‘Different patterns,’ objects to the theory of a ‘unilinear development of dualistic thought,’ postulated by Osten-Sacken and Duhaime, but proposes a conflation of different patterns of dualistic terminology and thought expressed in different texts, which underwent further development in the community. He perceives in the Treatise on the Two Spirits ‘a multi-dimensional, ethically oriented cosmic dualism,’ the result of an amalgamation of other sapiential texts and presumably influenced by ‘the sheer cosmic dualism’ of the War Scroll (288). This general proposal represents a more plausible scenario than that proposed by the other two scholars. Elsewhere, however, he seems to agree with their developmental theory. He states that the Two Spirits idea seems to be a novelty in Jewish religious thoughts, which ‘might be explained as a stage of further development of the ethically oriented sapiential dualism’ (300). His subsequent argument of ‘a general impact of Persian thought on Judaism,’ the ‘original sin’ of the dualism theory, explains Frey’s incoherence. It even induces him to assume an ‘opposition of God and Belial in 1QS i 16–26,’ a statement to which I find no clue in the text or scholarly support. It does not answer the questions I posed, and will further pose, regarding the rationale of the ‘cosmic dualism’ attributed to spirits and angels, and the purpose of attaching the label dualism to Qumran writings for the portrayal of merely contrasting concepts. 90 We observe in 4Q397 (4QMMT) 14–21 7–8 that they ‘have segregated themselves from the multitude of the people’ because of halakhic dissents, but at the same time, it seems, pleaded with the leader of their contenders to repent and recreate the unity of the people. The enmity and ideological schism that developed in later stages (see Heger, Cult as the Catalyst, 313–18, on this issue) created an instinctive hostility and a consciousness of being themselves the righteous while their opponents were the wicked. This attitude does not indicate a novel dualistic theory. Scripture abounds with contraposition of the righteous and the wicked, and nobody, as far as I know, imputes dualism to the Old Testament. We may note, for instance, Abraham’s indication of the division between the righteous and the wicked that will occur before imminent destruction (Gen. 18:23), and a similar dictum in Mal. 3:18: ‘And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked,’ when the day of reckoning arrives.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

63

there was no fundamental doctrine for further development. This is the process employed by modern scholars for the analysis of ancient texts, but does not fit the circumstances of the Qumran period. I have postulated a plausible inducement for the development of the Two Spirits theory that does not include dualism, as will be discussed further below. 4.3. A Comparison of the Concepts of ‘Light,’ ‘Darkness’ and the Essence of Angels How does 1QM relate to the concept of evil? The text describing the eschatological war was an extension and a detailed portrayal of the brief and non-specific prophetic promises of a perfect world to come after a Holy War.91 The dire conditions prevailing at the time and the belief that the end was imminent induced the author to unravel the modus operandi of the foretold monumental event. Thus he composed the War Scroll, similar to many midrashim that expanded upon sparse biblical narratives,92 adding dramatic details.93 Such tales related to biblical narratives were in circulation in that period in Israel.94 In some instances, we encounter similar tales in Qumran and in rabbinic literature;95 this demonstrates their wide

91 Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, deliberates extensively about the anticipated Holy War in the prophetic ‘Jom-Jahwe-Tradition’ (34–41). 92 G. Ibba, ‘Alcune considerazioni sul Tempo Escatologico di 1QM I,’ Henoch 19 (1997) 283–93, writes (translation from Italian): ‘The writer of the War Scroll knows that a conflict will erupt, narrated in a prevalently symbolic way, and will determine the final liberation and salvation of the people of Israel’ (283). 93 The various texts of the Genesis Apocryphon are imbued with a host of details that have no theological or other motive, and are there simply to present a vivid picture, as far as possible true to life, to enhance its emotional impact on the listeners and grant it credibility. We note, for example, the many insignificant details in 1QApGen xii 13–16, such as: where Noah planted his vineyard, how many years it took to produce vine, the exact day when he started to drink it, the type of vessel used and the details of those who attended the festive event. These can be compared to the portrayal of the battles in the War Scroll. According to Y. Yadin, ‫מגילת מלחמת בני אור ובני חשך ממגלות מדבר יהודה‬ (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Bialik 1957) 16, the terminology used originated from external military sources and reflects the reality of the period. Credibility was thus ensured. Davies, ‘Concept of War,’ perceives an admixture of reality and fantasy in the War Scroll, but states, at the same time: ‘fantasy is an important ideological mechanism’ (230). I do not dispute this general statement, but it does not affect my thesis that the many details do not constitute ideological elements of faith. 94 We encounter collections of such Midrashim in rabbinic literature, in the Apocrypha, in literature found in Qumran and in Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. 1 (ed. C. R. Holladay, Chico 1983). They show a great similarity in content and style. 95 For example, we read in 4Q225 2 i 9–10: ‘and the Prince of Mastema, (Animosity) came to God and accused Abraham with regard to Isaac,’ as the motive behind God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. The writer of this tale, intended as a complement to Scripture, thus added a motive for the divine test of Abraham, but left us, incomprehensibly, in limbo about Mastema’s argument.

64

Dualism in Qumran

popularity in Israelite society in this period, and at the same time the lack of commitment to a particular ideology. 1QM had in common with 1QS the expectation of the ‘End of Days,’ in which evil and evildoers would disappear, while the righteous, the Sons of Light – the members of their own group, the remnants of the true Israel – would be saved. Dualism had no place in the consideration of the authors.96 4.3.1. The Essence of Angels in Scripture and Qumran Writings These various oppositions between light and darkness have also induced scholars to perceive Persian influence. First, there is the involvement of opposing angels, the Prince of Light and the Angel of Darkness (1QS iii 20), who are apparently cosmic entities; there is also the conflict and strict division between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. Light and Darkness are perceived as independent cosmic entities fighting for domination, and hence are deemed to represent a real dualism in Qumran doctrine. I shall discuss each concept in turn. The involvement of opposing angels (1QS iii 20), and the contrast between light and darkness, perceived as cosmic events, induced scholars to detect Persian influence. The Jews may have adapted an expanded angelology from the Persians,97 but maintained their belief that angels are God’s messengers, obeying His commands, and are not independent entities.98 The identical tale appears in b. Sanh. 89b, which does reveal the argument. When Abraham made a great feast at the occasion of Isaac’s weaning, Satan said to God: ‘Look! You gave this old man of one hundred years a son and from the great feast he made, he did not think to offer to you even a young bird or dove.’ God answered him that Abraham was willing to offer his son to God, and therefore He commanded him to offer Isaac. Such expansion of a biblical text may be perceived as exegesis, if it is viewed as an interpretation or explanation of the text. The latter question is debatable here, as this is not an explanation of a clear text: it is rather a solution to a problem raised by the reader’s imagination and not founded upon the text. But an example cited by G. Barzilai, ‘Incidental biblical exegesis in the Qumran Scrolls and its importance for the study of the Second Temple period,’ DSD 14 (2007) 1–24, seems to me definitely an extension of the text, not an exegesis. Barzilai quotes the addition of ‫‘ והגבורים לאו נמלטו‬and the giants did not escape’ from the flood in 4Q370 i 6. This is not an interpretation of the biblical text of Gen. 7:23; it is an addition of a phrase by the author to stress a subject that seemed to him significant regarding his elaborate attribution of a motive for the flood. 96 I utterly dispute Frey’s assertion that ‘the War Rule expresses a pure type of cosmic dualism’ (‘Different patterns,’ 312). There is no cosmic-dualistic-type event; humans fight, assisted by extraterrestrial entities, who are constrained by and subservient to God, and who assist the humans in an incomprehensible, ethereal way. 97 The first mention in Scripture of a ‘patron’ angel of Israel with a name, Michael, occurs in Dan. 10:13, along with an unnamed Prince of Persia as their ‘patron’ angel; Persian influence is plausible here. 98 Barr, ‘The question,’ 223, writes that it ‘does not make impossible the idea that Iranian angelology influenced Hebrew, but it must have been seen quite out of their Iranian context and detached from it.’

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

65

The functions conferred upon them by God are their entire raison d’ être, whether God nominated some to attempt to corrupt the Jews, and hurt them,99 or to assist them against their enemies, or for occasional assignments.100 The essence of the angel in Jewish mythology is utterly different from the Persian idea of lower divinities, the Bounteous Immortals101 (sometimes thought of as angels102). The latter are not angels; they are divinities that are worshipped, and though they have been created by the supreme god, they have totally different functions than the Jewish angels do.103 Each of these divinities has a particular name, personifying on the spiritual side specific virtues, such as The Good Mind, Immortality, the Desirable Kingdom, Wisdom, etc.; on the physical side each presides independently104 over some material object, such as water, the animal kingdom, fire and so on. This system has a great affinity with the classical polytheism of Greece and the Middle East, and cannot be assumed to have been adapted by Qumran or by the Jewish society of that time. Qumran did adapt the idea of ‘patron’105 angels for persons or defined groups,106 but these in essence 99 Evans, ‘Divine intermediaries,’ writes: ‘Satan in 1 Chr 21,1 need not be viewed as the Devil but merely a divine intermediary doing Yahweh’s work’ (548). 100 For example, the angel sent with a message to Hagar (Gen. 16:7–11), the messengers sent to save Lot (Gen. 19:1–22), and the angel sent to warn Balaam (Num. 22:22–35). 101 Zaehner, The Dawn, 63. 102 Nigosian, The Zoroastrian Faith, 80. 103 Barr, ‘The question,’ 222, writes: ‘The names and functions of the Ameša Spentas, and the nature of the entities revealed by them, are very far removed from what counted as angels in most stages of Judaism.’ 104 It seems that in Persian mythology these lower divinities, though created by Ahura Mazda, act independently after assignment of their function, and are indeed cosmic powers. In Jewish mythology, in Scripture and in Qumran writings, God has constant control over the actions of angels, and He decides when they should start and cease. See the narrative in Jub. 10:7–8, concerning the chief wicked angel Mastema’s plea to God to enable him to continue his task to corrupt humans. 105 It seems that under the influence of Dan. 10:13 and 21, and particularly 12:1, which states: ‫‘ ובעת ההיא יעמד מיכאל השר הגדול העמד על בני עמך‬at that time Michael the great prince, the protector of your people,’ Qumran concluded that every people, group and definable entity had an angelic leader/protector in heaven. This conjecture fits into their belief that the two worlds, that of earth and that of heaven, correspond: the earthly entity is a mirror image of the heaven. I have therefore chosen the term ‘patron,’ a term used in the Catholic Church in a similar way; every state, city, village, trade, organization, etc., has its patron saint, its protector and advocate who pleads for his protégés before God. This hypothesis would explain the host of angels in Qumran literature, and their different names. P. R. Davies, ‘The biblical and qumranic concept of war,’ in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), 2: 209–32, 223, also uses the term ‘Patron’ for the angels of each nation. Segal, Two Powers, writes that the Dead Sea sectarians believed that ‘each of the moral forces, good and evil, had a captain’ (21). P. Sacchi, Regola della Communità (Brescia: Paideia 2006), calls them arcangel ‘archangel’ (65). 106 T. Elgvin, ‘Wisdom with and without apocalyptic,’ in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical

66

Dualism in Qumran

have no independent will or power.107 They do not have power over their protégés; they cannot ensure that the righteous avoid sin; and the angels of darkness cannot compel them to sin,108 as we observe from the text of 4Q184;109 she must attempt seduction. Even in their ‘patron’ function, they are limited in their modus operandi as divine messengers, and must carry out God’s commands, which may vary from time to time.110

Texts from Qumran (eds D. K. Falk et al., STDJ 35, Leiden: Brill 2000) 15–38, has an inverted theory. He writes that the ‘Angelic evil powers are represented by empires and ungodly rulers on earth’ (35), whereas I perceive the angels as their Patrons in heaven. According to 1 En., God governs the world and its natural cycles by the intermediary of spirits/angels; the name ‘the Lord of spirits’ confirms this. Hence, we observe, for example, that spirits preside over clamour and terror (1 En. 20:2), they regulate the performance of the Luminaries (v. 4), and the angel Raphael presides over the spirits of men. We read in 59:4 that spirits regulate the winds and the springs and the power of the moon’s light. Jub. 2:2 states (partly repeated in 4Q216) that God created the first day, together with heaven, the angels of the spirit of the winds, of the spirit of the clouds, of darkness, of snow, of hail, of frost and of the voices of the thunder and of the lightning, etc. Whether Qumran accepted as mandatory these Gnostic myths is dubious, in my opinion, but they certainly believed that God created the angels as messenger/intermediaries to regulate through them the world, physically and spiritually, according to the divine commands and plans. We read in 4Q286 3 3–6: ‘meteor]s and lightnings [ ] the angels of rain c[loud]s, [and] of light clouds of water, heavy (clouds) and dewdrops [ ] and all the spirits of dominions of [ ] when they were created.’ Similarly, in 4Q392 1 9: ‘[For on] high [he made w]inds and lightnings [his messengers and s]ervants of an inner sanctu[ary.] From his presence go forth the lu[minaries’ (tr. D. Falk). This demonstrates unequivocally their activity as God’s servants, acting on his commands: He decides when rain should start and cease. We observe in Scripture and in Qumran writings that though Israel has a preferential status and is governed directly by God, this is not exclusive, and at times an angel performs the task, when assigned to it by God. Some angels have fixed functions and others are appointed for occasional temporary commissions. 107 We read in Ps. 104:4: ‫‘ עשה מלאכיו רוחות משרתיו אש להט‬He makes wind his angels/messengers, flames of fire, his servants.’ A midrash in Gen. Rab. 50 demonstrates the limited authority of the angels, stating that one angel does not perform two errands. 108 We read in 1QS iii 24 that their function is to cause the Sons of Light to stumble. This is a more suitable translation, used by Wise, of the Hebrew ‫ להכשיל‬in Hifil, related to the term ‫ מכשל‬in Lev. 19:14. The term suggests that they are seduced by means of enticements, not by forcing them to sin against their will. We observe this explicitly in 4Q545 (Visions of Amram) 1 12: ‘Which of us do you choose to be ruled?’ Though the end is missing, it is evident that Amram had free choice and did not choose Melki-resha. Philonenko, Apocalyptique Iranienne, in his zeal to demonstrate cosmic dualism in Qumran states on page 167: ‘Les deux anges ont reçu pouvoir sur tous les fils d’homme’ (‘the two angels have received power over all mankind.) He has ignored the fact that Amram was asked by them whom he chose, and granted more significance to their unfounded allegation: ‘We rule over all the sons of Adam’ (line 11). 109 See J. M. Baumgarten, ‘On the nature of the seductress in 4Q184,’ RevQ 57–8 (1991) 133–43. He makes the connection between this text and that of 1QS, and notes five parallel expressions denoting darkness in 4Q184. I would also take the term ‫ עול‬used in 1QS as a generic term for evil. The portrayal of a seductress, on which Baumgarten focuses, is prevalent in the text of 4Q184. 110 We do not know the regular function of the Angel of Presence in Jub. 1:27, but he is present from the beginning of creation until the establishment of God’s sanctuary. Segal, Two Powers,

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

67

From the etymology of the term ‫מלאך‬, as well as from biblical and Qumran narratives, we may clearly discern the essence of angels as messengers in Jewish literature.111 The root of the term ‫ מלאך‬is ‫לאך‬, a deviation from the root ‫‘ הלך‬to go.’ In Arabic and Semitic Ethiopian it means ‘to send.’ The Greek term avgge,llw used by the LXX for the translation of ‫ מלאך‬has the identical meaning of ‘messenger’ or ‘envoy,’ and the derivatives of that root have the same semantic range, such as ‘message,’ etc. In fact, it seems the Greek term has its root in the Persian term for a mounted courier, ready for carrying the royal dispatches (Liddell and Scott). The term ‫ מלאך‬for a metaphysical entity is similarly used in Scripture, sometimes in close proximity to references to human messengers, as for example in the Balaam narrative. In Num. 22:5 it refers to human messengers sent by Balak (“So he sent messengers to Balaam the son of Be’or to Petor, which is by the river”), and in 22:22 and the succeeding verses it refers to a metaphysical angel, sent by God (“And God’s anger burned because he went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way as an adversary against him”). In contrast to the names of the Persian divinities, that specify their independent character and permanently established prerogatives and functions, the Jewish angels, who have defined functions with regard to the Jewish people, have theophoric names such as Michael, Gabriel, Raphael – that is, “who is so [great] as God,” “who is so strong as God,” “God the Healer,” etc. – demonstrating their dependence on God and their regular function of worshipping Him.112 writes that in 11Q13 Melchizedek is seen as the duly enthroned agent of God who will inaugurate the Jubilee year and the salvation for Zion (195). Again, God establishes the angel’s functions, for defined tasks, as the occasion requires. 111 Shaked, ‘Qumran and Iran,’ 435, perceives the Princes of Light and Darkness as metaphysical entities. He argues that the term ‫‘ רוח‬spirit’ in 1QS is used in ‘three senses: a) the two poles of the ethical dualism, in a “cosmic” manner; b) the two opposing qualities inherent in man, corresponding to the cosmic dualism of a, and c) the numerous qualities in man’ (436). We observe his hesitancy about the use of the term ‘cosmic’ and his abstention from using the term ‘dualism’ in an unqualified manner. It is obvious that the angels are extraterrestrial or metaphysical entities, but I dispute the label cosmic dualism, because they have no independent power and authority: they are ethereal entities but have no independent cosmic power. 112 See Ps. 103:20–22 and Isa. 6:3. D. A. Knight, ‘Cosmogony and order in the Hebrew tradition,’ in Cosmogony and Ethical Order (eds R. W. Lovin and F. E. Reynolds, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1985) 133–57, speculates on the motive for the lack of the record of the creation of angels by God, considering the effectively established picture of YHWH as creating all other heavenly beings. He postulates that such a narrative would ‘have allowed for an enfranchisement of them being alongside God’ (141).

68

Dualism in Qumran

From biblical narratives we observe the absolute obedience of the angels to the divine, sometimes changing, directives, within their eternal function as messengers. When God reversed the decision to afflict the Israelites after David’s census, we read in 1 Sam. 24:16: ‫וישלח ידו המלאך ירושלם לשחתה וינחם ה' אל הרעה ויאמר למלאך המשחית‬ ‫בעם רב עתה הרף ידך‬ And when the angel stretched forth his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented of the evil and said to the angel who was working destruction among the people: It is enough! Withdraw your hand.

Though the command for the angel to activate the plague is not explicitly stated in the narrative, we must assume that the redactor thought it evident and thus not needing an explicit statement. The command to the angel to cease his action is, however, important for the story, to demonstrate the divine mercy. We do not posses in Qumran literature such an explicit narrative, but we can deduce such obedience from the portrayal of the course of the eschatological war. For instance, we read in 1QM vii 6, xii 4 and 8 that the angels are together with the group’s army. In xi 17 the Qumranites declare their confidence that God will fight for them from heaven. In xiii 14 they proclaim that no angel or prince is an aid like God; when they suffer heavy casualties and are in danger of retreating, ‘in accordance with God’s mysteries’ in xvi 11, the High Priest instills courage in them, assuring them that God, to whom they prayed and whom they have praised, will send them his everlasting aid, the angel Michael, to assist them (xvii 6). The High Priest stresses in xvii 7 that it is God who exalts Michael above all angels (gods). In xviii 1 we read that ‘the mighty hand of God will be raised against Belial,’ and the Qumranites will win the battle. We observe from 1QS iii 24 that the angel of God’s truth, a probable sobriquet for the Prince of Light or another prominent angel, is not capable by himself of assisting the Sons of Light to withstand the evil instigation of the bad spirits: he needs divine cooperation for his success. Further, the Israelite patron angel of the righteous, the ‫שר אורים‬, and its opposite, the patron angel of evildoers, the ‫מלאך חושך‬, are not two

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

69

antagonistic powers who fight one another:113 this is not their function. We read in 1QS iii 24–25: ‫וכול רוחי גורלו להכשיל בני אור ואל ישראל ומלאך אמתו עזר לכול בני אור‬ all the spirits of his [the angels of Darkness] cause the Sons of Light to fall. However, the God of Israel and the angel of his truth [the Prince of Lights] assist all the Sons of Light.

Thus they do not fight, as one would expect of a dualistic pair; it is the righteous and the evildoers, imbued with the respective spirits, or the Israelites and their enemies, who fight the battles.114 Their ‘patron’ supervisors assist in a supernatural way115 the groups they were assigned by God 113 I dispute Elgvin’s assertion that there is ‘an eschatological confrontation between the spirits of good and evil’ (‘Wisdom,’ 34). God destroys the spirit of evil/injustice, as is written in 1QS iv 18–19: ‫‘ ובחכמת כבודו נתן קץ להיות עולה‬God, in the mysteries of his knowledge and the wisdom of his glory has determined an end to the existence of injustice’ at a time determined by Him; it is not the spirit of good that will put an end to the spirit of evil, like in Zoroastrian doctrine. 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, Cambridge 1995 (eds M. J. Bernstein et al. STDJ 23, Leiden: Brill 1997) attempts to support his thesis of cosmic dualism in Qumran writings with the text of the Visions of Amram (4Q544 and 548), maintaining that it demonstrates the ‘opposition of two angelic powers’ (288). I do not perceive any power at all in the two entities; they compete for dominion over man by allure, not by power. There is no direct confrontation between the angels of Light and Darkness in this vision; they both converse with man. I believe that the occult texts, almost exclusively in Aramaic, cannot serve as evidence for serious Qumran theological thought; in any event, this case demonstrates the opposite of Frey’s conclusion, the powerlessness of the angels of Light and Darkness. E. H. Merrill, Qumran and Predestination (Leiden: Brill 1975) writes: ‘Between the two “lots” of men there is a constant conflict, a microcosmic struggle reflective of the universal cosmic war between the spirits of light and darkness’ (52). This is a linguistic contortion to defend the ‘cosmic’ theory for an ongoing intellectual struggle within man. A. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18, Leiden: Brill 1995), in his quest for the foundation of cosmic dualism in 1QS, goes even further and asserts that the world is dominated (‘regiert’) by two spirits, the spirit of darkness and the spirit of light. Both spirits confront one another in battle (169). I have not encountered any hint in Qumran literature that would rationalize such a radical statement, or any scholarly assertion that the world is dominated by the Two Spirits. 114 We observe in CD v 18–19 that Belial, the enemy of Israel, ‘raised up Jannes and his brother’ against Moses and Aaron, aroused by the Prince of Light. There is no strife between the angels, but between men. 115 Davies, ‘Concept of war,’ 212, writes: ‘The conduct of war is the business of the dynastic kings, and the all-Israelite militia.’ On the other hand, he writes on page 214 that Yahweh’s enemies are also cosmic forces, founding his statement on the text of Ps. 74:14. See my interpretation of this line that disputes such a deduction in n. 35. In the texts of Exod. 15:8–12 and Judg., cited by Davies (215), the sea, the winds and the stars are God’s messengers, accomplishing His

70

Dualism in Qumran

to lead (1QM xvi 11),116 in accordance with the divine orders they receive from time to time. The leading angels and their assistant angels,117 the ‫‘ רוחי גורלו‬the spirits [or angels, in this occurrence, of the leading angel of enmity in 1QS iii 23–24]’ will not be destroyed at the end of the days, as we read in 1QM xvii 15,118 when they will have accomplished the divine commands (iii 24).119 The dictum in 1QS i 10–11, ‫ולשנוא כול בני חושך איש כאשמתו בנקמת אל‬ ‘and to detest all the Sons of Darkness, each one in accordance with his guilt in God’s vindication,’ refers only to the evil people, the Sons of Darkness, because they go in the paths of darkness, as we read in iv 11: ‫‘ עורון עינים וכבוד אוזן קושי עורף וכובוד לב ללכת בכול דרכי חושך‬. . . blindness

commands; they are not His enemies, as Davies writes. I also question his statement (224) that the Maccabean victory was a human victory, ‘not a heavenly intervention, as chapter 12 [of Daniel] envisages.’ 1 Macc. 3, describing the first battle of the few Israelite fighters against an overwhelming Hellenistic army, stresses Judah’s address to his warriors, instilling courage by the assurance of unlimited divine power to assist them (3:18–22). The Maccabees stressed divine assistance in their battles in their letter to the Spartans, thus explaining the motive for not approaching them for help. God’s involvement in the battles of Israel did not have a single and permanent character: it was actualized in different ways, and the Israelites did not inquire how it would occur on each occasion. 116 We read there: ‫‘ ובהתאזר בליעל לעזרת בני חושך‬When Belial girds himself to assist the sons of darkness.’ 117 García Martínez usually translates the term ‫ גורל‬literally with the common term ‘lot,’ but Wise interpreted it contextually as ‘the spirits allied with him,’ as most of its occurrences in 1QS must be understood. For example, the expression ‫ וכאשר יצא הגורל‬cannot be literally translated as ‘depending on the outcome of the lot,’ since the decision of the group to accept or reject a member depends on the outcome of his interrogation, not upon a gamble by lottery. We must interpret the term here as ‘decision.’ The same applies to the term in 1QS ix 7. In 1QS i 9–10, we find ‫כגורלו‬, ‘in order to love all the sons of light each one according to his lot’; the term should be interpreted as one’s ‘standing’ in the Community of God, and in iv 24 as ‘his share/proportion’ in evil. The term ‫ גורל‬must therefore be interpreted distinctively according to its context. Cf. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, who writes on the metaphorical use of the term ‘lot’ in Qumran and other contemporary literature (39–41). Regarding Lange’s interpretation of ‘fate’ as having a predeterministic character, I will debate his assertion in a separate study. 118 We read there: ‫‘ גדוודי בליעל נגפים לפניהם‬and the troops of Belial [not Belial himself] will be defeated in front of them.’ We observe the same idea in 1QM i 5–7: ‫וכלת עולמים לכול גורל בליעל‬ ‘and everlasting destruction of all the lot [the followers] of Belial,’ and ‫ופלטה לוא תהיה לכול בני חושך‬ ‘and there will be no escape for the sons of darkness.’ The distinction between the fate of the people and that of Belial is quite clear. 119 This statement is not founded solely on a logical deduction: it is evident from the text of iv 11–14. In iv 13 we read of the calamities that characteristically befall humans, those who walk in the paths of darkness (lines 11–12), executed by the hands of the angels of destruction (line 12), until their total destruction (line 14). It is clear that evildoers will be destroyed at the end of days by the assistant angels of the Angel of Darkness, who will be their executioners, and subsist. In my separate study of 1QM, I will demonstrate that the text does not conflict with this assumption.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

71

of eyes, hardness of hearing, stiffness of neck, hardness of heart in order to walk in all the paths of darkness.’ They, together with the evil impulses inherent in humans, will be destroyed, as we read further on: ‫‘ עד כלותם לאין שרית ופליטה למו‬until their destruction, without there being a remnant or a survivor for them’ (v. 14); and ‫‘ נתן קץ להיות עולה ובמועד פקודה ישמידנה לעד‬and on the appointed time of the visitation he will obliterate it for ever’ (1QS iv 18–19).120 The profound difference in essence between the lesser Persian divinities, the good and the evil, and the angels in Israelite mythology is evident and the latter cannot be perceived as reflecting a cosmic dualistic ideology.121 Though Jewish biblical mythology contains a concept of angels as divine messengers, their specific character or way of life remained enigmatic, in contrast to pagan myths that recounted concrete, at times bizarre, actions and occurrences in the life of the primary and secondary gods and their descendants. Jewish mythology did not discuss the intrinsic character of angels and how they interact with humans; this remained a mystery, like the essence of the Deity. It is evident that as heavenly entities they are invisible, but we do not encounter any question or explanation of how or when they became visible to those to whom their task brought them. Qumran literature envisages communion and communication between their group and angels, but gives no details whatsoever as to how a meeting with invisible, superterrestrial beings would occur; they accepted the narratives in Scripture without any skepticism or investigation.122 As I

120 As I have argued, one must discern between the spirits of the various features in heaven and the impulses in humans; they bear in this treatise the identical name, but are entirely different entities. 121 It seems that the term ‘cosmic’ has some aura, as one would expect, and some scholars use it without being aware that it contradicts their own theory. Elgvin, ‘Wisdom,’ writes: ‘The Two Spirits Treatise demonstrates eschatology and dualism with apocalyptic traits’ (34); in other words, this is not cosmic dualism. He then states (35) that in the War Scroll, which portrays the eschatological war, ‘the sons of darkness are identified as the army of Belial. But also Belial is subordinate to God.’ But then he states that 1Q/4QMysteries refer ‘to cosmic evil powers.’ I have not found in these texts any terms that differ from those in 1QS and 1QM with respect to light and darkness, and perceive them as contradicting his above-cited assertions. On page 36 he writes that Qumran learned from its predecessors of the ‘cosmic struggles between light and darkness and the spiritual forces that oppose the sons of light. The present as well as the future were interpreted on light of this apocalyptic dualism.’ We observe a continuous mix-up between an apocalyptic dualism and cosmic powers, founded on the contrast between light and darkness. 122 J. H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (PTSDSSP 2, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1995), perceives in Qumran literature a ‘consciousness of a mystical communion between human and heavenly beings’ (88). Mysticism

72

Dualism in Qumran

stated earlier in the study, fundamentalist believers do not ask questions: they accept what they have received by tradition or are told by their spiritual leaders. This is a known fact and does not need substantiation. Nor did Qumran authors use specific designation for the angels123 and for the psychological impulses in humans, or specify the identity of the various types of angels in their literature:124 apparently, the same angels had many names. The Angel of Darkness was also called Belial and ‫משטמה‬. Similarly, we encounter the designation ‫‘ שר אורים‬Prince of Lights’ and ‫‘ מלאך אמת‬Angel of Truth’ and we may assume that they refer to the identical figure.125 In 1QS ii 6 we encounter Belial as the leader of the cursed evil men, but in iii 20–21 it is the Angels of Darkness who dominate the sons of deceit; it seems both the humans and their leaders are identical, as the Sons of Darkness, but all are described with other names. Davidson asserts

dispenses with any questions. Levison, ‘The Two Spirits,’ 185, asserts that Qumran ideology was not shaped by systematic abstract reflection on the nature of angels. 123 In addition to the unambiguous ‫ מלאך‬for angels in Qumran literature, the terms ‫ אלים‬and ‫ רוחות‬are also used, according to Yadin, ‫מגילת‬, 210–11. But the term ‫ רוח‬is ambiguous, and there are certainly many occurrences in which one cannot perceive this term as angels – for example, when it refers to the two spirits implanted in humans. The text of 1QS iii 18 declares explicitly: ‫‘ וישם לו שתי רוחות להתהלך בם עד מועד פקודתו‬and placed within him two spirits so that he would walk with them until the moment of his visitation [the end of days, or each person’s death].’ This cannot refer to angels implanted in humans, to which Davidson, Angels, 154, agrees. Burrows, More Light, 291, writes that these ‘spirits’ correspond ‘to common biblical usage, by which “spirit” often indicates a person’s disposition, character, or self.’ A reliance on biblical texts is the most effective way to understand Qumran concepts and writings. Scholars have toiled to establish the semantic range of ‫רוח‬, and various speculations have been proffered. Davidson, Angels, 152–6, discusses this issue at length, and concludes that the term encompasses a number of concepts, including supernatural beings, that is, angels. He therefore concludes (156) that the spirits of the Angel of Darkness are ‘evil angels.’ Since they are in conflict with the Prince of Light, the Good Angel, and possibly his entourage of angels, he concludes that ‘this idea is consistent with the overall cosmic dualism of the Two Spirits Discourse.’ Since I dispute this statement of cosmic dualism, I also disagree with his deductions. I postulate that the Qumran author and his readers did not attempt to classify the ‫רוחות‬ ‘spirits,’ which refer to the psychological impulses in humans, and have no relationship whatsoever with ‘angels’ except their incorporeity, or to establish the different nature and functions of the angels; the ‫ רוחות‬were supernatural entities, and beyond human perception. The Qumran authors were not concerned with determining the precise essence and functions of the angels, or of any being of the supernatural world; they were superterrestrial entities, and beyond human perception. 124 Davidson, Angels, declares, for example, that the angel of darkness in 1QS iii 21–22 is identical to Belial. He quotes Yadin (without an exact source) in identifying the Prince of Lights as Michael (148). Wernberg-Møller, The Manual, 71, n. 60, asserts it is Uriel. Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 116, identifies the Prince of Lights as Michael and the Angel of Darkness as Belial. 125 Later in the study I will suggest a hypothesis with respect to the character of the two concepts of Light and Truth.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

73

that Belial is the same as the Angel of Darkness.126 We would expect the latter to be the leader of the spirits who attempt to corrupt and mislead the righteous, but in iii 23–24 the dominion of ‫ משטמה‬accomplishes this task. Yadin perceived this figure as identical with Belial,127 which would give three names for the same angel. P. Alexander elaborates on the evil angels/demons and their different names and functions, and declares that in Qumran writings ‘it is not always clear whether demons or angels are referred to’; further, ‘the Qumran inventory of demons, on analysis, turns out to be vague.’128 This terminological inconsistency demonstrates the utterly different approach of Qumran sages to that of modern scholars with respect to enigmatic issues, and the futility of attempts to deduce from their texts philosophical and theological considerations through attempting to classify such terms. The Qumran sages wrote for their contemporary readers: they did not envisage that scholars would analyze their literature two thousand years later, and in particular attempt to decode enigmatic topics. We should not impose on Qumran authors our different ways of thought.129 Davidson,130 in his pursuit to preserve the concept of dualism in Qumran literature, and particularly in 1QS, practises, in my opinion, linguistic acrobatics. He first states: ‘We can speak of cosmic dualism, in which two spirit-beings, or groups of beings are in conflict, each seeking to rule the cosmos.’131 He then states: ‘The Two Spirits Discourse is predicated on a dualistic view of cosmic reality. There are two opposing camps [angels or people? – P. H.], the one led by the Angel of Darkness and the other by the Prince of Lights.’132 I believe I have substantiated the thesis that in Jewish mythology133 no

126 Davidson, Angels, 147. 127 Yadin, ‫מגילת‬, 213. 128 P. S. Alexander, ‘Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,’ in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment (eds P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam, Leiden: Brill 1998–1999) 2: 334, 336. 129 See n. 106, in which I speculate that indeed Qumran had no belief in separate angel protectors for every virtue; in consequence, the Angel of Truth is not identical with the Prince of Light, and could have been subordinate to him in the angelic hierarchy. 130 Davidson, Angels, 145ff. 131 Ibid., 145. 132 Ibid., 149. 133 Davidson, Angels, grants the importance of Jewish thought in our attempts to interpret Qumran texts (see, for example, a citation of Sjöberg, 161), but nevertheless writes that ‘reality as conceived by the author of the Two Spirits Discourse does involve conflict in the heavenly realm,

74

Dualism in Qumran

angel and certainly no spirit implanted within humans seeks to rule the world. The angels are not in conflict among themselves, but dominate the spirits of righteousness and evil implanted in humans: only those specific groups who are assigned to their domination are in conflict. The Princes of the angels and their assemblies of all classes are all created by God,134 and it is He who decides when to end their function:135 they are not independent, warring, primary powers representing a dualistic world-view. Each angel accomplishes only the task decreed by God. The domination of the spirit is also not exclusive, as one would expect from a dualistic view of ‘two opposing camps.’ Qumran admits that the spirit of darkness sometimes succeeds in corrupting the righteous, and causes them to sin; hence, at times, the righteous are under the dominion of the Angel of Darkness. We must also assume, by the same token, that the wicked perform some good deeds and at that time come under the dominion of the Prince of Lights. The 1QS author was not concerned with such a contingency: his assignment was to portray the sons of darkness as utterly wicked. In contrast to other scholars, Davidson considers136 the confrontation between light and darkness as portraying ethical dualism.137 On the other hand, he perceives the confrontation between the Princes of Light and Darkness as a ‘cosmic dualism involving angels’:138 these are metaphysical entities and hence cosmic powers. I would accept his theory if ‘cosmic’ were qualified as describing supernatural entities. However, his assertion that they represent in the Treatise on the Two Spirits ‘a dualistic view of cosmic reality’ 139 does not seem to concur with his succeeding statea cosmic dualism’ (162). As I have demonstrated, and as in my opinion some of his own assertions confirm, I cannot see how this declaration agrees with Jewish normative thought and principles. 134 Alexander, ‘Demonology,’ 343, writes that the lemma in 1QS iii 25–26 affirming the creation of the Two Spirits by God, ‘was necessary if the sect was to remain within the bounds of theism, and to avoid falling into an absolute dualism.’ 135 We read in 1QS iv 18–19: ‫ואל ברזי שכלו ובחכמת כבודו נתן קץ להיות עולה ובמועד פקודה ישמידנה לעד‬ ‘God, in the mysteries of his knowledge and in the wisdom of his glory, has determined an end to the existence of injustice and at the appointed time of the visitation will obliterate it for ever.’ 136 Davidson, Angels, 150. 137 H. W. Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten. Der Dualismus der Texte von Qumran (Höhle 1) und der Damaskusfragmente. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Evangeliums (AThANT 34, Zürich: Zwingli Verlag 1959) 113, states that the Qumran dualism is a relative dualism, an ethical–cosmic dualism, because for the Jews of Qumran monotheism is primordial; God alone is the source of everything. It is ethical because there is no eternal anti-God, and it is cosmic because man is placed between the two worlds of light and darkness. 138 Davidson, Angels, 161. 139 Ibid., 149.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

75

ments. He writes that according to the texts of 1QS iii 13–iv 26, ‘God is the creator of all spirits,’140 ‘the angels operate to fulfill God’s will’141 and ‘are rather to be understood as God’s obedient servants who execute his judgment.’142 The label of cosmic dualism is absolutely inappropriate for the general theology of the 1QS author, as I understand it, from 1QS iv 18–19 and other lemmas. In fact, Davidson retracts his unqualified attribution of cosmic dualism to 1QS, referring in his conclusion to the blurred notion ‘Ethical Dualism in the Cosmic Context.’143 Further, the Treatise on the Two Spirits and the task of the respective angels, the ‘patrons,’ relates, as far as I understand it, exclusively to the Jews, and is not of universal application.144 The Qumran group represents the Sons of Light, and the wicked Jews – their direct and vicious opponents – are the Sons of Darkness. The task of the evil spirits of the Angel of Darkness is to cause the Sons of Light to sin, and this can only refer to Israelites and Qumranites. Gentiles are not obliged to obey the divine commands of the Torah, given exclusively to Israel, and hence they do not sin by not performing them or transgressing them. The God of Israel and the Angel of Truth do not assist the gentiles (1QS iii 24–25) to withstand the seduction of the Angel of Darkness and its entourage. They are not the ones to be punished by God for transgression of the law, as Qumran expects and believes will soon occur. The gentiles are punished for their criminal actions against Israel,145 but will not be annihilated, as we read in

140 Ibid., 159. 141 Ibid., 157. 142 Ibid., 158. 143 Ibid., 150. 144 Steudel, Der Midrasch, 167–8, states that the expression ‫ בני בליעל‬in 4Q174 and 4Q177, which are close to the Two Spirits Discourse in 1QS from the perspectives of ideology and language, refers to Jews. Wernberg-Møller, The Manual, 27 and 88, on the other hand, maintains that the text of 1QS iv 24–25 refers to ‘man generally,’ not only to members of the community. There are so many indications in the text that convey the opposite that we must interpret the generic terms ‫ גבר‬and ‫ בני איש‬as referring to the Jews only. Qumran’s perception of the world was that the Jewish people, their precepts, and the service at the Temple were the center and the pillars of the world. This is not the place to elaborate on this issue, but I would only refer to b. Yoma 54b and Semahot 1:1, in which it is stated that the foundation stone of the world was in the Jerusalem Temple. I assume that on the basis of this legend, maps of the world were drawn in the Middle Ages showing Jerusalem at the center of the world. 145 Prophetic literature abounds with such utterances. I will mention a few that are explicit: Jer. 50:29, 51:24; Amos 1:3 and Zeph. 2:10. See also Davies, ‘Concept of war,’ 212 on divine wars.

76

Dualism in Qumran

1QM xix 6,146 which Qumran does expect to occur to the wicked Jews.147 Hence, from this crucial aspect there is again no cosmic element in the Treatise on the Two Spirits.148 Finally, the question of whether angels, being supernatural, are cosmic entities is a semantic issue, but does not affect our thesis. Even if these entities are perceived as cosmic, the Israelite angelology does not represent a dualistic concept: it does not include two independent powers fighting for cosmic/world domination. The angels are unable to shape or change the established world order by their own initiative: everything they do is commanded and controlled by one God. Even Osten-Sacken, who regards the Two Spirits as autarchic, anthropological powers149 and the dualism of the Two Spirits as two primordial creatures that dominate humanity, as well as perceiving Iranian influence on the Two Spirits theory, significantly restricts this. He declares that one cannot consider these factors as showing a direct dependence on Persian myth, because the dualism in 1QS is of a different structural character. In 1QS, in contrast to Iranian myth, the spirits are unequivocally subordinate to God, and hence limited in their status.150 4.3.2. ‘Light’ and ‘Darkness’ in Scripture and Qumran Writings The other concept that may have induced scholars to see Persian influence in Qumran is the apparent association of the cosmic elements of light and darkness with the source of good and evil. The theory that light struggles with darkness, rain with drought, warmth with icy conditions, is a dualistic Weltanschauung in the Zoroastrian two-powers belief, which perceives the universe as an eternal battleground in which a pair of co-existent

146 We read there: ‫‘ ומלכיהם ישרתוך והשתחוו לך כול מעניך‬Their kings shall serve you and all your oppressors shall bow down before you.’ The apparent contradiction between this statement and 1QM i 6: ‫‘ לאין שארית‬with no remnant remaining’ that relates to the Kittim demonstrates the lack of concern for inconsistencies within Qumran literature. It may also allude to an exclusively extreme punishment for the Kittim, presumed by some scholars to be a sobriquet for the Romans. 147 We read in 1QS iv 13–14: ‫‘ עד כלותם לאין שרית ופליטה‬until their destruction, without there being a remnant or a survivor for them.’ Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, 154, draws to our attention that the source of this phrase is Ezra 9:14, and there it relates unquestionably to Jews. It also demonstrates the utmost dependence of Qumran on Scripture, pragmatically and ideologically. 148 Segal, Two Powers, 20, writes: ‘In the Manual of Discipline of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ethical dualism is boldly outlined,’ and confirms this again on 21: ‘Although the Dead Sea Sectarians seem to be dualists, they also believed in one transcendent God above all the angels.’ 149 Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 19, 26, 132. 150 Ibid., 139.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

77

divine and warring principles combat.151 In the Jewish monotheistic view, founded upon Scripture152 and confirmed by Qumran,153 God establishes a harmonious relationship between the cosmic conditions, and there is no struggle between light and darkness. The entire thesis of dualism in Qumran therefore falls apart. This concept is not part of the monotheistic version of Persian belief, which is comparable from this point of view to the Israelite belief. In his description of this version, Mehr154 compares the Zoroastrian view to the biblical narrative of God separating light from darkness in the act of creation; there is no primordial combat here. Light and darkness simply represent opposites, since no concept without its opposite is perceivable by humans in our world. One may refer for an illustration to the Ten Principles of Pythagoras, also known as the Table of the Opposites, which lists limit and unlimited, odd and even, one and plurality, good and bad, light and darkness, etc. In Israelite belief, founded upon Scripture, the concepts of light and darkness are metaphors for various ideas of goodness and evil.155 151 Nigosian, The Zoroastrian Faith, 8. 152 We read in Jer. 31:34 (35 in KJV): ‫כה אמר ה' נתן שמש לאור יומם חקת ירח וכוכבים לאור לילה‬ ‫‘ רגע הים ויהמו גליו ה‘ צבאות שמו‬This is what the Lord says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar – the Lord Almighty is his name.’ 153 We read in 4Q392 1 4–7: ‫הוא ברא חשך ואור לו ובמעונתו אור אורתם וכל אפלה לפנו נחה עמו להדביל‬ [... ‫בין האור לחשך כי לבני אדם הבדילם לאור יומם ובשמש לילה ירח וכוכבים ועמו אור לאין חקר ואין לדעתו ]ו‬ ‫כי פלאים כל מעשי אל‬. These lines show textual and grammatical difficulties (see M. Kister, ‘4Q392 1 and the conception of light in Qumran “dualism”,’ in Meghillot [eds M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant, Jerusalem: Bialik 2005] 3: 125–42). I will cite García Martínez’ translation: ‘He created darkness and light for himself; and in his dwelling the perfect light shines, and all the shades rest before him; and he does not need to separate light from darkness, because for the sons of the man he separated them as the light at daytime and with the sun, at night the moon and the stars, And with him there is an unsearchable and unknowable light for all the works of God are wonderful [to understand, as in Job 42:3 ‫‘ ממני ולא אדע נפלאות‬things too wonderful which I would not know’ or in Ps. 131:1 ‫‘ ולא הלכתי בגדלות ובנפלאות ממני‬I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me].’ The context absolutely requires this meaning. We deduce two things relevant to our study: a) The natural cycle of light and darkness, created and regulated by God for humans, without any connotation of dualism or hidden theology, and b) man cannot understand divine essence and must not attempt to delve into searching for it. 154 Mehr, Zoroastrian Tradition. 155 Driver, The Judean Scrolls, 551, writes: ‘these terms are thus used in the Scrolls not in the literal but in a figurative or metaphorical sense.’ G. Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1998) 60–1, writes: ‘Light stands for everything true, good and righteous. Darkness stands for everything deceitful, unrighteous, and evil.’ He indicates subsequently, in conformity, in my opinion, with the above assertion, that the Qumran dualism is not absolute (61). I understand in the same light his statement that the Qumran sectarians had a dualistic world-view that made God the source of both good and evil (187), that is, not an absolute dualism. Leaney,

78

Dualism in Qumran

The apparent association in Qumran of the cosmic elements of light and darkness with the source of good and evil is unlike the Zoroastrian dualistic Weltanschauung of two powers that perceives the universe as an eternal battleground of light with darkness, rain with drought, warmth with icy conditions. In the Jewish monotheistic view, founded upon Scripture, God establishes the harmonious relationship between the above cosmic conditions, as we also see at Qumran (4Q392 1 4–7), and the concepts of light and darkness are metaphors for various ideas of goodness and evil. A great array of biblical verses serve as evidence for the metaphorical nature of light and darkness, and it is of utmost probability that this metaphor was adapted by Qumran. We also encounter in 2 Baruch the comparison of sin to black and dark waters, and good deeds to bright waters; hence, sins and the virtuous deeds are the main subject of the comparison, not the brightness and darkness that serve as a metaphor and a concrete representation of the intangible concepts of goodness and evil.156 I will also cite here two biblical examples.157 The most striking example of this metaphor is in Isa. 5:20: ‫הוי האמרים לרע טוב ולטוב רע שמים חשך לאור ואור לחשך שמים מר‬ ‫למתוק ומתוק למר‬ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

The Rule of Qumran, 129, pondering on the meaning of the expression ‘the lot of God’ states that it constitutes a ‘curiously anthropomorphic metaphor used for the “portion” of God or of light.’ He quotes (130) a striking phrase, attributed to God, from 2 Cor. 4:6 that unequivocally demonstrates the metaphoric sense of light and darkness: ‘Light shall shine out of darkness, which has shined in your hearts for the enlightenment of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.’ 156 I will quote relevant excerpts from 56:6–57:3: ‘And goodness languished. What therefore can be blacker or darker than these things’; ‘darkness of darkness was produced’; and ‘after these (waters) thou didst see bright waters: this is the fount of Abraham.’ There is no cosmic allusion in this portrayal. 157 I will quote a number of further examples. We read in Ezek. 32:8: ‫כל מאורי אור בשמים אקדירם‬ ‫‘ עליך ונתתי חשך על ארצך‬All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land.’ Mic. 7:8 states: ‫‘ אל תשמחי איבתי לי כי נפלתי קמתי כי אשב בחשך ה’ אור לי‬Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me.’ Light and darkness are not to be taken literally in these verses, as they are in many others: they are metaphors for good and evil of all kinds. See also Joel 2:2; Amos 5:18 and 20; Zeph. 1:15; Job 3:9, 12:25 and 30:26; Isa. 9:11, 42:16, 58:10 and 59:9; Lam. 3:2 and Ps. 112:4 and 139:12.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

79

In Eccl. 2:13 we encounter light as a metaphor for wisdom and darkness as a metaphor for folly, significant concepts in the Treatise on the Two Spirits.158 We read there: ‫וראיתי אני שיש יתרון לחכמה מן הסכלות כיתרון האור מן החשך‬ ‘Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness’ (KJV translation).159 There is a compelling example of Qumran’s perception of these terms in 1Q27 1 i 5–6: ‫וגלה הרשע מפני הצדק כגלות חושך מפני אור וכתום עשן ואיננו עוד כן‬ ‫יתם הרשע לעד והצדק יגלה כשמש‬

158 We read in 1QS iv 3: ‫‘ ושכל ובינה וחכמת גבורה‬intelligence, understanding and potent wisdom’; in line 10, its opposite, regarding the spirit of the Sons of Darkness, ‫‘ ורוב אולת‬much foolishness’; and in line 24 the contrasting qualities: ‫‘ יתהלכו בחכמה ואולת‬they walk in wisdom or in folly.’ Line 26 states: ‫[‘ וינחילן לבני איש לדעת טוב ורע‬God] has given a legacy to the sons of man so that they know good and evil.’ The author stresses the divine endowment of wisdom on humans that enables them to discern between goodness and evil, and thus their ability to choose goodness. 159 I wonder that J. J. Collins, ‘The mythology of Holy War in Daniel and the Qumran War Scroll: a point of transition in Jewish apocalyptic,’ VT 25 (1975) 596–612, perceives in Amos 5:18 ‫‘ הוי המתאוים את יום ה’ למה זה לכם יום ה’ הוא חשך ולא אור‬Woe to you who long for the day of the Lord! Why do you long for the day of the Lord? That day will be darkness, not light,’ ‘a point of contact for Jewish and Persian religion’ and a new dimension of dualism in biblical terminology’ (607). I think that the concept of light as representing good and darkness as evil is a natural and universal axiom and serves as a metaphor, as is evident from this line. The author did not use the terms ‘dark’ and ‘light’ literally, but figuratively in the sense calamities versus good fortunes, supporting my proposition that they are metaphors, as is also evident from a great array of other biblical citations. For example, one of the ten plagues of Egypt was darkness. In Ezek 32:8 we read: ‫כל מאורי אור‬ ‫‘ בשמים אקדירם עליך ונתתי חשך על ארצך‬All the shining lights in the heavens I will darken over you; I will bring darkness over your land, declares the Sovereign Lord.’ It is evident that the prophet does not intend to convey the occurrence of a solar eclipse; darkness represents symbolically, in poetic language, the aggregate of all calamities that will befall Egypt, enumerated antecedently and subsequently in the prophecy. Collins is mindful not to allege explicitly a Persian influence on Amos, who delivered his prophecy before any contact between Israel and Persia, but he nevertheless attempts to impute a dualism ideology to Qumran literature and trace it to ‘Persian influence,’ which replaced the Canaanite chaos myth with the battle of the Prince of Light against the Prince of Darkness. From his complex speculations, it would result that Canaanite sources are the primary origin of the biblical dualism theory, forged in its final configuration by Qumran. He concludes on page 608 that the majority of motifs in the War Scroll are biblical; ‘however the end-product . . . can be directly attributed to Persian influence.’ I find it odd that in his opinion the essence of the dualistic world-view would thus be a biblical idea. In a lengthy argument P. R. Davies, ‘Dualism and eschatology in the Qumran War Scroll,’ VT 38 (1978) 28–36, disputes Collins’s analysis and deductions with regard to dualism in 1QM, concluding that the ‘various dualistic sets of terminology within 1QM are perhaps incapable of a straightforward solution’ (36). On the other hand, in his later study, ‘Qumran and apocalyptic,’ Davies perceives ‘a cosmic battle between light and darkness’ in 1QM (132–33). The confusion arises because of the zealous attempt to reveal dualism and Persian influence on Qumran literature, if necessary even labeling polarities as different types of dualism, which have nothing in common with Zoroastrian cosmological theology.

80

Dualism in Qumran Evil will disappear before justice as darkness disappears before light. As smoke vanishes, and no longer exists, so will evil vanish forever.

Here there is the reverse situation: evil is compared to darkness and justice to light. This demonstrates the metaphorical understanding of light and darkness in Qumran literature, and contradicts any notion of their cosmic character. We observe a similar use in Mt. 4:16: ‘The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.’ Again, light and darkness in Qumran literature do not indicate dualism, but rather two opposites, like everything in our life.160 Since goodness includes many virtues, of which a considerable number are set out in 1QS,161 the author of this text utilized for literary purposes162 the scriptural metaphorical concept of light to encompass all these virtues;163 its opposite, darkness, encompasses all evil.164 4.3.3. The Expressions ‫ בני אור‬and ‫ בני חושך‬in 1QS Related to the concepts of light and darkness as the cornerstones of the dualism theory are the expressions ‫ בני אור‬and ‫בני חושך‬, the presumed

160 Cf. Shaked, ‘Qumran and Iran,’ which, as it seems, ignores the metaphorical character of light and darkness in Scripture, and hence perceives a tension between the psychological aspect of certain 1QS pronouncements and the instances of light versus darkness with a cosmic connotation (435). He conjectures that this ‘indicates the two spiritual entities which represent the two poles of the ethical dualism, in a “cosmic” manner’ (436). One wonders what exactly this composite phrase means in simple language. 161 For example: to practise truth, justice and righteousness; truth, genuine humility, love of charity and righteous intent; the paths of true righteousness; plenteous compassion upon all who hold fast to truth; to do that which is good and upright before Him; to hate everything He rejected; to love all the Children of Light; to let him order his steps to walk faultless in all the ways of God; humility, patience, abundant compassion, perpetual goodness, insight, understanding and powerful wisdom; a spirit knowledgeable in every plan of action, zealous for the laws of righteousness, holy in its thoughts. The great majority of these quotations are mentioned in the Treatise on the Two Spirits, and only a few in columns I and II. 162 Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, states that the metaphor of light versus darkness ‘seems to provide a fundamental antithesis in all poetry, religion and primitive philosophy’ (37–8). Subsequent to an extended deliberation on this topic, he observes the common uses of the light/darkness metaphor in the Jewish way of thinking (42). 163 Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 81, states that it was attested that the light and darkness dualism in Qumran cannot be attributed to Iranian influence. On page 139 he posits a possible influence, but not a dependence on Iranian dogma, since the structure of the dualism in 1QS is of a different character than that of the Iranian: the spirits are unequivocally subordinate to God and have a limited status, in contrast to the Iranian authority and independence of the two primordial powers. 164 We encounter in Sir. 11:16 the association of darkness with error/sin. (missing in Greek version): ‘Error and darkness had their beginning together with sinners.’

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

81

cosmic adversaries. These terms are used abundantly in 1QM, which is definitely associated with 1QS,165 but it is extremely odd that the term ‫בני אור‬ appears only three times in the Treatise on the Two Spirits,166 while ‫בני חושך‬ is totally absent.167 There, the term ‫ בליעל‬is mainly used;168 the identical pattern is found in the related 4Q174 and 177 texts. Hence, the world does not consist of two powers, light and darkness, in constant struggle. This demonstrates the fallibility of founding a dualistic theory on the contrast between the concepts of light and darkness: the attachment of a ‘dualism’ label to Qumran theology is unfounded.169 In the detailed description of the nature of the two opposing groups, in which their attributes are mentioned, the expression ‫ בני צדק‬appears in iii 20, and ‫ בני אמת‬in iv 5 and 6, instead of the expected ‫בני אור‬. The oddity in iii 20 is most striking; one would in particular expect that the ‫שר אורים‬ ‘Prince of Lights’ should dominate the ‫בני אור‬, not the ‫בני צדק‬. Regarding the contraposition of ‫ מלאך חושך‬to ‫שר אורים‬, apparently two different entities, in May’s view, it is plausible that the ‫‘ שר האורים‬Prince of Lights’170 is the patron of all goodness, the highest rank in the angelic hierarchy, while the other angels, the patrons of specific virtues such as the Angel of Truth, 165 See Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 116, and Duhaime, ‘Dualistic reworking,’ 36. 166 In the detailed description of the nature of the two opposing groups, in which their attributes are mentioned, the expressions ‫ בני צדק‬appear in iii 20, and ‫ בני אמת‬in iv 5 and 6, instead of the expected ‫בני אור‬. The oddity in iii 20 is most striking; one would in particular expect that the ‫‘ אורים שר‬Prince of Lights’ should dominate the ‫בני אור‬, not the ‫בני צדק‬. 167 One would in particular expect here that the ‫‘ מלאך חושך‬the Angel of Darkness’ should dominate the ‫בני חושך‬, but the opposite of the sons of justice in iii 20 are the ‫‘ בני עול‬sons of deceit/ the wicked’ in iii 21. In iv 2–8, as noted earlier, a long list of the good features of the sons of light is enumerated, and in 9–11 there is a similar list of those of the wicked, though they are not named. Line iv 9 refers to the spirit of deceit, but from the text one understands that the features refer to humans dominated by this evil spirit. Since there is a vacat between the first part of line 8 and the beginning of line 9, it is possible that the name of the group is missing; at any rate, it does not seem plausible that the expression Sons of Darkness is missing, since at the conclusion of the treatise the opposing concepts of ‫ טוב‬and ‫‘ רע‬good and evil’ are introduced. 168 The good and evil attributes of the respective groups are portrayed as including a great array of characteristics. In contrast to the primary thesis of the Two Spirits found in 1QS, these MSS use a less rigid literary style. 169 Steudel, Der Midrasch, does not deem the absence of the term ‫ בני חושך‬as a parallel to ‫ בני אור‬to negate the supposition of a light and darkness dualism, and perceives ‘dualistic titles’ in the two MSS (167). 170 This may explain the use of plural ‫ שר אורים‬for the Prince of Light (1QS iii 20), instead of the singular ‫ אור‬in ‫בני אור‬. Davidson, Angels, acknowledges the existence of ‘a contingent of assistants’ to the Princes of Light and of Darkness (149). Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, cites another explanation: it may be due to the fact that this angel controlled the stars. I think my postulate is more reasonable, and is supported by Davidson.

82

Dualism in Qumran

are subordinates of the Prince of Lights.171 Since God sides with goodness against evil, the author does not grant to the patron of evil such an elevated status, and therefore juxtaposes the Angel of Darkness to the Prince of Lights (1QS iii 20–21).172 The terms ‘Sons of Light and of Darkness’ in Qumran, absent in the Zoroastrian language, are metaphorical, as in Isa. 43:6, Ezek. 16:21, and Hos. 2:1 (1:10 in KJV) in which the Israelites are called God’s ‘sons.’173 In my opinion, this pattern supports my proposition that the expression ‫ בני אור‬represents, for literary expediency, a general epithet for ‘good’ Israelites, the members of the Qumran group, whose behaviour is described at length, in contrast to ‫בני חושך‬, the ‘wicked’ Israelites, who behave in the opposite way. The apparent disparity in terminology between the ‘Prince of Lights’ and his ‘subjects’ the ‘sons of justice,’ and the replacement of the ‘sons of light’ with ‘sons of justice’ or ‘of truth’ by the author of the treatise, must be perceived as deliberate; it demonstrates his intent to emphasize the distinction between the all-encompassing concept of goodness and the virtuous attributes of those who wish to be under the protection of the heavenly patron of all goodness. This has no affinity with the Persian understanding of the primeval, independent powers of light and darkness. In 1QS the author’s objective is the portrayal of the opposing entities, and without the few references in 1QS, we could not identify the ‘Sons of Light,’ the main subject of 1QM.174 In 1QM in contrast, the focus is the description of the eschatological war; therefore the comprehensive classification of the opposing groups in 1QM would be superfluous, and the generic designations ‘the Sons of Light’ and ‘the Sons of Darkness’ were sufficient. This explains the dissimilarity between 1QS and 1QM 171 See also notes 103–5 and 121–2 on this matter. 172 Wernberg-Møller, ‘A reconsideration of the Two Spirits,’ 425ff., considers this difference of power and status between the Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness as evidence against dualism, in which the ranks of both conflicting entities are equal. 173 The terms ‫ בני אלהים‬and ‫ בני אלים‬in Scripture (Gen. 6:2 and 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 and respectively Ps. 29:1 and 89:7) for angels are similarly the source of the term ‫ אלים‬in Qumran writings, demonstrating again their attachment to scriptural style and concepts. 174 Cf. Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 116, who states that 1QM is to be perceived as prior to 1QS. Davies, ‘Concept of war,’ also challenges ‘the consensus that the dualism of the Qumran texts was primary’ (226); they ignore my question regarding the lack of knowledge for the real meaning of Light and Darkness, and the identification and attributes of the Sons of Light and Darkness, cited without any indication in 1QM, suggesting that this is well known from another source. This opinion is rejected by many scholars. See the list in Duhaime, ‘Dualistic reworking,’ 36, n. 21.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

83

with respect to the occurrences of the expressions ‫ בני אור‬and ‫ בני חושך‬in these interconnected treatises. Further arguments support my proposition. We read in 1QS iii 24 regarding the Angel of Darkness ‫‘ וכול רוחי גורלו‬and all the spirits of his [the Angel of Darkness’] lot,’ with ‫ רוחות‬in plural. This demonstrates the many evil features included in the metaphorical concept of darkness. For a reference to darkness as one evil power fighting the good power of light, the singular would be appropriate. We must derive the same conclusion from the expressions ‫ דרכי אור‬and ‫‘ דרכי חושך‬paths of light and darkness’ in iii 20–21. The plural indicates the many elements embodied in the symbolic concepts of light and darkness, and this is further corroborated in the expression ‫ בתויוה חושך‬in iv 13, which I understand as the many calamities that are associated with darkness. García Martínez and Tigchelaar interpret this as ‘abysses of darkness,’ but Wise and Abegg175 translated it as ‘happenstance.’ I do not know García Martínez’ source for his translation, but I think that Wise’s translation of this problematic term is etymologically more appropriate. The term occurs only once in Scripture in Exod. 9:3, as the singular ‫הויה‬,176 which has given a lot of difficulty to traditional and modern interpreters.177 In my opinion, taking the root ‫‘ היה‬to be’ as the source of the biblical expression, I would follow the LXX evpe,stai, in essence ‘will attack,’ which is more specific concerning the evils of darkness; this fits the context, and agrees conceptually with Wise’s translation and with the all-inclusive connotation of darkness.178

175 M. O. Wise, M. G. Abegg, and E. M. Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperCollins 1996). 176 The term ‫ הויה‬occurs in many instances in rabbinic literature, clearly having its root in ‫היה‬ ‘to be’; it has the connotation of ‘becoming’ – for example, to be married, to get married. 177 The traditional interpreters offered different explanations for this unique term. The KJV interpreted it as ‘will come,’ the NRSV as ‘will strike,’ the NIV as ‘will bring,’ Noth’s English translator has ‘will fall.’ The LXX translation ‘to come upon, to happen’ with a hostile connotation, fits the Hebrew root ‫ היה‬and the context. 178 May, ‘Cosmological,’ 2, who rejects Wernberg-Møller’s denial of dualism in 1QS, brushes off the significance of the plural used for ‫‘ רוחות‬spirits’ in 1QS, which challenges the dualistic theory. He maintains that ‘the context in general is certainly concerned with two spirits.’ Though I dispute his assertion in this occurrence, I do not disagree that texts in general and Qumran texts in particular can be interpreted in different ways due to their odd, at times cryptic, language, and occasionally inconsistent assertions. Considering this evident fact, I think the key for a reasonable interpretation should be first its conformity or lack thereof with clear scriptural utterances, and then a diligent exploration of the plausibility of biblical sources for its language and ideology. Only when there is failure to reveal a biblical source should one investigate foreign influence, and this should be examined both with respect to ideology as well as language.

84

Dualism in Qumran

Leaney179 perceives a confusion in the text regarding the two opposing spirits and writes: The writer is not clear whether he wishes to teach that man as such is a combination of a good and bad spirit or that mankind is divisible into the good (arising from light) and the bad (arising from darkness).

The first assumption would definitely deny a dualistic world order, whereas the second (if one interprets 1QS iii 19 literally), would hint at dualism. Apart from the different interpretations of 1QS iii 19, as argued later in the study, we observe again that the dualistic theory is founded upon a problematic interpretation, not on solid ground. It is not warranted to impute to Qumran a theology that goes against scriptural theology, based on such a shaky foundation 4.4. A Proposed Interpretation of 1QS iii 19 We must also understand symbolically, and not as indicating definite precision, the problematic text of 1QS iii 19: ‫במעון אור תולדות האמת וממקור חושך‬ ‫תולדות העול‬, the core of scholarly proposals regarding the cosmic dualism theory. García Martínez has translated this: ‘From the spring of light stem the generations of truth, and from the source of darkness the generations of deceit.’ Wise translated: ‘Upright character and fate originate with the habitation of Light, perverse, with the Fountain of Darkness.’180 As we are able to observe, these are both interpretations, rather than translations of the awkward verse, with terms added to or removed from the original text.181 As one would normally expect a conceptual parallelism of the two phrases, García Martínez has interpreted the term ‫ מעון‬as ‘spring.’ In Scripture this term always means a dwelling of various types, but never ‘spring.’ Further, the preposition ‫ ב‬in ‫ במעון‬would mean ‘in,’ not ‘from.’ Wise tried to circumvent this hurdle by translating this term as ‘originated with,’ in the sense of ‘together with,’ instead of the usual ‘from’ with ‘originate.’ In their quest to create a parallel between the two elements

179 Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, 37. 180 Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 19, interprets ‫ במעון‬as Quelle, ‘source’; the questions relevant to the other translators are similarly relevant to his interpretation. 181 This is a common procedure of the traditional translators/interpreters. The awkward term ‫ מעון‬in 1 Sam. 2:29 was translated as ‘dwelling’ in the KJV and NIV; the NRSV ignored it altogether, and the LXX also ignored it but added ‘seen shamelessly,’ absent in the text.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

85

of the verse and to equalize them with the prepositions ‘from’ or ‘with,’ the translators seem to have ignored the intent of the author to distinguish between the two elements by using the distinctly different prepositions ‘in’ and ‘from.’ 4.4.1. The Meaning of ‫תולדות‬ The meaning of the term ‫ תולדות‬creates another significant dilemma. In iii 13 García Martínez interpreted this as ‘the nature,’ a term that seems contextually appropriate. Wise interpreted it as ‘character and faith.’ ‘Character’ is synonymous with García Martínez’ ‘nature,’ but ‘fate’ is blatantly the addition of a concept that is absent in the text. But in iii 19 the identical term ‫ תולדות‬was interpreted by both translators as conveying ‘originated from.’ García Martínez followed the Hebrew text, whose grammar does not need a verb, and Wise added the verb ‘originate.’ Yet both also interpreted it in a way that is completely conceptually different from their interpretation of the same term in iii 13 to express the idea that the two spirits, the good and the evil, originate respectively from light and darkness. This interpretation supports or promotes the theory that cosmic dualism exists in the text, influenced by the Zoroastrian dogma.182 I understand that the translators could not delve into this issue in their translation, and were simply following common opinion. I am convinced that on the research level one cannot ignore these issues, as well as others regarding the intrinsically related expressions ‫ בני אור‬and ‫ בני חושך‬in 1QS. The difficulties raised by the term ‫ תולדות‬are reflected in the various hypotheses raised by scholars.183 I will propose another hypothesis, founded upon rabbinic concepts. In my opinion the use of such concepts is an appropriate method for the understanding of ambiguous qumranic texts and expressions.184 We encounter the terms, ‫‘ אבות הטומאה‬principal agents of pollution’ (m.Kel. 1:1), ‫‘ אבות מלאכות‬works that are prohibited to be performed on Sabbath’ (m.Shabb. 7:2) and ‫‘ אבות נזיקין‬principal damaging agents’ (m.B.Qam. 1:1), where ‫ אבות‬has the sense of ‘principal [parent] categories.’ There follow the respective subordinate derivatives of these 182 Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, perceives this passage as metaphorical, since ‘it is not easy to show the logical connection between the spirits “set in” man and the sources (dwelling and well) from which the two “generations” of men respectively arise’ (37). 183 See, for example, a list of such propositions in Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 19, n. 1. 184 See Heger, Cult as the Catalyst, ch. 2.

86

Dualism in Qumran

categories, which are termed the ‫תולדות‬. The ‘parent’ categories are primarily items mentioned specifically in Scripture, while their ‘offspring’ are items conceptually similar to them.185 Some offspring are legally equal to the parent,186 while others have a different status.187 Considering this meaning of ‫תולדות‬, I would postulate its interpretation in iii 19 as ‘offspring’ in the sense of ‘subordinates,’ and would read the text as: ‘In the realm of light are the offspring [or the subordinate ramifications] of truth, and from the source of darkness are the ramifications of wrongdoings.’ Such an interpretation indicates what attributes are included in the metaphorical concepts ‘light’ and ‘darkness’; it does not indicate a cosmic primeval source of evil, as in the Persian mythology, which is perceived by J. J. Collins188 and other scholars. The association of evil attributes with darkness and of good attributes with light in iii 19 may be due to the influence of Isa. 29:15189 and Ezek. 8:12,190 in which it is said that the wicked perform their evil deeds in darkness to avoid a defiant and unconcealed affront to God. In that period there was no doubt in Israel about the existence of an omnipotent God, whom all feared; the wicked believed they might avoid His ire and punishment by acting in darkness where God would not see. Darkness is therefore the source of wickedness: without darkness, wickedness would not occur.

185 See b. B. Qam. 2b. 186 For example, regarding works prohibited on Sabbath, blowing glass, which is not a principal work, is prohibited because of its similarity to building (y. Shabb. 7:2, 10d). 187 For example a person touching a corpse is unclean seven days, but one who touches him is unclean only one day (Num. 19:22); the corpse is the ‫‘ אבי אבות הטומאה‬the primary ancestor,’ the person who touches it is ‫‘ אב הטומאה‬Father of uncleanness,’ the principal bearer of pollution, while those who touch him are the ‫תולדות‬, the subordinates, the third degree in rabbinic terminology. There are various different rules in rabbinic literature. Regarding principal categories of damage, we may note, for example, the rule regarding damage caused by the horn of a goring ox (Exod. 21:28). This is the principal damage caused by an ox; damage caused by a kick or a bite or a push by an ox are ‫תולדות‬, secondary damages, of which some are legally identical to the principal and some are treated differently (b. B. Qam. 2b). 188 Collins, ‘The origin,’ Congress Volume (ed. Emerton) 33. See note 186. 189 We read there: ‫‘ הוי המעמיקים מה' לסתר עצה והיה במחשך מעשיהם ויאמרו מי ראנו ומי יודענו‬Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the Lord, who do their work in darkness and think, “Who sees us? Who will know?”’ 190 We read there: ‫ויאמר אלי הראית בן אדם אשר זקני בית ישראל עשים בחשך איש בחדרי משכיתו כי‬ ‫‘ אמרים אין ה’ ראה אתנו עזב ה’ את הארץ‬He said to me, “Son of man, have you seen what the elders of the house of Israel are doing in the darkness, each at the shrine of his own idol?” They say, “The Lord does not see us; the Lord has forsaken the land.”’

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

87

4.4.2. Use of ‫‘ אמת‬Truth’ versus ‫‘ עול‬Wrongdoing’ in the Treatise on the Two Spirits A further issue in this text that has puzzled scholars is the opposing of the term ‫‘ אמת‬truth’ against ‫‘ עול‬wrongdoing’ instead of against ‫ כזב‬or ‫‘ שקר‬lie,’ which would accord with our conceptual understanding of the opposite of ‘truth.’ Both terms appear in Qumran writings. The second appears in 1QS iv 21. 4.4.2.1. The Range of Meaning of ‫ אמת‬in Jewish Thought. As I have stated here and elsewhere, we must turn first to Jewish literature when we encounter what seem to us enigmatic expressions or ideas in Qumran literature.191. The term ‫ אמת‬in Scripture does have the meaning of ‘truth,’ but also expresses in many occurrences a much wider concept of ‘goodness’ or ‘doing what is right.’ I will cite a few examples in which this last interpretation is absolutely imperative. There are many instances in Scripture of the phrase ‫חסד ואמת‬, commonly translated as ‘faithfulness and truth,’ concepts that make no sense without the context of asking these favours of God or man, or giving thanks for them. In the first occurrence of this phrase in Gen. 24:27 Eliezer thanks God for His ‫ חסד ואמת‬to Abraham and prays for the success of his mission. The NIV and NRSV translate this as ‘faithfulness,’ the KJV as’ truth,’ as do Onkelos and the LXX. But when Eliezer thanks God in Gen. 24:48 for having directed him to the right people and uses the term ‫דרך אמת‬, all translators interpret this as ‘the right way,’ a translation that would seem to us inappropriate if we understand ‫ אמת‬only as ‘truth.’ We must, however, consider how the Jews of the period in question understood these terms. The expression ‫ אנשי אמת‬in Exod. 18:21 must be perceived, according to its context, as ‘impeccable men,’ that is, faultless, fit for judges. We also observe the significance of ‘truth’ as an all-embracing concept including all virtuous attributes of humankind and the antithesis of wickedness in 1QS iv 21. And just as the Red Heifer mixture purifies humans from ritual impurity, the symbolic sprinkling of the ‫‘ רוח אמת‬spirit of truth’ will cleanse them from all wrongdoings and make them predisposed to attain the highest rank, the comprehension of the insight of the Most High and the wisdom

191 Davies, ‘Concept of war,’ 221, writes regarding a similar issue that a solution for Old Testament dilemmas must be found within the ambit of a Jewish document, not in the New Testament.

88

Dualism in Qumran

of the sons of heaven. Similarly, we encounter the concept of ‫חוקי האמת‬ ‘the laws of truth’ in 4Q215a 1 ii 6, which will be actualized at the Time of Righteousness. In Mal. 2:6: ‫תורת אמת היתה בפיהו ועולה לא נמצא בשפתיו‬, interpreted by the NIV as: ‘True instruction was in his mouth and nothing false was on his lips’ (the KJV has ‘unrighteousness’ instead of ‘false’), we have the exact parallel to our 1QS iii 19, contrasting ‫ אמת‬with ‫עול‬.192 These terms should be understood in this occurrence as generic references to righteousness versus evil. The term ‫ עול‬usually represents the general idea of wrongdoing in Scripture, which is the foundation of Qumran’s use of this term with the identical connotation.193 I dispute, therefore, Collins’s194 assumption of Persian influence on Qumran literature because of the use of the term ‫‘ כזב‬lie’ in CD and in the Gathas. The use there is limited particularly to the wrong/false interpretations of Scripture, similar to the accusation against ‫‘ דורשי חלוקות‬those who seek smooth things’ in 1QH x 15 and other instances. In the Treatise on the Two Spirits, the alleged dualistic text, on the other hand, the term ‫ עולה‬is utilized, and this serves as evidence against Persian influence. Looking now at ‫עול‬, we note that the phrase ‫ ואין עול‬as a divine attribute in Deut. 32:4 is translated by the KJV as ‘without injustice,’ and by the NIV as ‘who does no wrong,’ in essence the same as the LXX avdiki,a ‘[without] wrongdoing.’ In Deut. 25:16, the concluding verse of a range of rules including wrongdoing of all kinds,195 we read: ‫כי תועבת ה’ אלהיך כל‬ ‫עשה אלהכל עשה עול‬. The NIV interprets this as: ‘For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.’ The translator takes this phrase, in my opinion incorrectly, as referring only to the dishonest deeds cited immediately antecedent to it. The term ‫ תועבה‬is used in Scripture mainly for sexual misbehaviour and idolatry, but never in connection with pecuniary injury. Moreover, the literary style of this verse is in the common duplication mode, and hence the term ‘abomination’ relates to both elements of the verse; therefore the concluding verse

192 The two terms are also set in contrast in Isa. 61:8 and Ezek 18:8. 193 Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, 153, interprets the phrase ‫‘ ולרוח עולה‬the spirit of deceit’ in 1QS iv 9 as the source of the list of vices enumerated subsequently; he also compares this to citations from the New Testament. 194 Collins, ‘The origin,’ Congress Volume (ed. Emerton) 33. 195 The statutes and judgments of the Moab covenant start with ch. 12 and end with ch. 28. However, there are no prohibitions of wrongdoings at the end of chs 25–28; therefore, I consider v. 16 as concluding the rules.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

89

must include all the wrongdoings enumerated in the foregoing chapters, beginning with chapter 12, in which the term ‫ תועבה‬occurs eight times. The KJV translates the term in question as ‘acts unjustly,’ which is a generic concept, as does the LXX, translating it as avdiki,a ‘wrongdoing.’ We observe that the author of 1QS in the verse in question uses generic oppositions in both instances: ‘light’ versus ‘darkness’ and ‘truth’ versus ‘wrongdoing.’ The latter two concepts definitely have no connection to Persian dogma, and support my thesis of a purely scriptural influence on the theology/ philosophy of the Treatise on the Two Spirits and on its literary language. The conception of truth as a term comprising all that is good or righteous can be explained by looking at contemporary Jewish orthodox thought,196 and supported by the connotations of the term ‘truth’ in many occurrences in the New Testament. The Jewish orthodox person believes that he knows the truth: the omnipotent and omniscient God has given the law to the Jews, and this knowledge197 of the truth requires the right behaviour in thought and deed. Knowledge of the ultimate truth is therefore the foundation of faith, faultless doctrine and virtuous deeds; its opposite, the ignorance of truth, is the cause of all evil. We encounter the same idea in 1QH xiii 25–26: ‫למען אשמתם סתרת מעין בינה וסוד אמת והמה הוות לבם יחשבו‬ and because of their guilt you have concealed the source of understanding and the foundation of truth. They plot within their heart.

Truth and understanding are linked; they are two complementary elements of good behaviour,198 and the lack of these elements is the cause of 196 Such method of drawing parallels between some of the writings of Qumran and contemporary ultra-orthodox Jewish community is also used by other scholars. A. Schremer, in ‘“They did not read in the sealed book:” Qumran halakhic revolution and the emergence of Torah study in Second Temple Judaism,’ in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds D. Goodblatt et al., STDJ 37, Leiden: Brill 2001) 105–26, relying on Y. Liebes, ‘The ultra-orthodox community and the Dead Sea sect,’ in Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University 1982) 137–52 (Hebrew), writes: ‘in order to explain a certain aspect of the Qumranic revolution and its historical consequences, I shall start by drawing attention to an interesting development in orthodox Judaism of our own day’ (105). 197 Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, ponders the possible meanings of the term ‘knowledge,’ which might refer to the knowledge of God or God’s knowledge of man (121). With respect to our subject matter, I think it refers to the knowledge of God. 198 We read in 4Q413 1–2 2: ‫‘ כי כאהבת ה’ את איש הרבה לו נחלה בדעת אמתו‬For according to God’s

90

Dualism in Qumran

‘plotting evil in their heart.’ In the New Testament there are also a great number of similar occurrences of the term ‘truth’ that are not the opposite of ‘lie’ but have a much wider and all-encompassing meaning. Grace and truth are realized through Jesus (Jn 1:17); truth makes one free (8:32); Jesus is the way and the truth (14:6); one is sanctified in the truth (17:19); and finally, in Jn 16:13, in a lemma similar to our study of 1QS, the spirit of truth guides into all the truth. 4.5. The Significance of ‘Wisdom’ and its Linkage to ‘Truth’ Real wisdom, like real truth, is the faculty to comprehend correctly what God requires from humans/Israelites and to live one’s life accordingly. So we read in 4Q215a 1 ii 5 of the circumstances prevailing at the Time of Righteousness: ‫ומלאה הארץ דעה ותהלת אל‬: ‘the earth will be filled with knowledge and praise of God.’ This indicates the type of knowledge as the one that will lead to the praise of God. Its opposite, the lack of real wisdom, is the root of all evil, as we observe in 4Q177 i 12. Similarly, the evil behaviour described in CD v 16 is attributed to the fact that ‫כי לוא עם‬ ‫‘ בינות הוא‬it is a people without knowledge/wisdom.’ The utmost significance of wisdom, associated with light, given to humankind for proper and virtuous living, is also clearly evident from many Qumran texts. As one example, there is 1QS ii 3.199 The priests bless the members of the community: ‫ויאר לבכה בשכל חיים ויחונך בדעת‬ ‫עולמים‬. ‘May He illuminate your heart200 with wisdom for living and grace you with eternal knowledge.’201 The significance given to the wisdom of each individual to prevail against evil inclinations is explicitly evident in 11QPsa xix 14–15, in which the author prays for the absolution of his sins and divine assistance to avoid misconduct in future. He starts with: love of man he increased his inheritance in the knowledge of his truth.’ 199 Shaked, ‘Qumran and Iran,’ stresses the ‘prominence attached to the concept of da’ath in the Qumran Scrolls,’ and indicates the similarity with the good Iranian god Ohrmazd who possesses this faculty, in contrast to the evil Ahreman (440). Though Qumran’s concept of knowledge may be similar to Iranian mythology, there is a great difference between them. While one of God’s attributes is also ‫‘ אל הדעות‬God of knowledge’ (1QS iii 15), Qumran underlines in their prayers and hymns the granting of knowledge to man. See, for example, 1QS ii 3: ‫ויחונכה בדעת עולמים ויאיר לבבך בשכל חיים‬ ‘May he lighten your heart with life-giving wisdom and grant you eternal knowledge,’ and similar notions in iv 4, 6, 22; ix 17, etc. 200 I have translated this line according to the Hebrew text; the result is a fusion of the interpretations of García Martínez and Wise. 201 Elgvin, ‘Wisdom,’ writes that the Two Spirits Treatise ‘abounds with sapiential terms and motifs’ (33).

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

91

‫‘ רוח אמונה ודעת חונני‬Bestow on me a spirit of faith and knowledge’ and continues: ‫אל תשלט בי שטן ורוח טמאה מכאוב ויצר רע אל ירשו בעצמי‬ Let Satan202 not dominate me, nor an unclean spirit; let pain and the evil inclination not possess my bones (translation of Vermes).

Wisdom as the foundation of virtue is acclaimed in many instances, as is its want the reason behind evil, as in 1QS xi 1 and 3 and in 1QH xi 22–23, in which the world’s destiny depends upon knowledge. The rank of a community member, a position of great importance in a tightly organized group with no individual independence, is also defined by the degree of wisdom. We read in 1QH xviii 27: ‫ולבני אמתך נתת שכל עד ולפי דעתם יכבדו איש מרעהו‬ To the sons of your truth you have given intelligence everlasting and to the extent of their knowledge they are honoured, as the one more than the other.

that is, the wisdom to correctly understand Scripture and its consequent obligations.203 Similarly, the expression ‫ שכלו ומעשיו‬is a criterion for the differences in rank, as we read in 1QS v 21: ‘his wisdom/insight [following García Martínez, or ‘understanding,’ following Wise/Abegg] and his deeds in the Torah.’204 The spirits of, or inclination towards, goodness and

202 Satan has no precisely defined function in Qumran literature, which demonstrates the futility of expecting a consistent and fully coherent theology in these writings. Here, he instigates the corruption of Israelites, whereas in other instances, such as 1QHa xxii bottom 6; xxiv middle 3; and 4Q504 (4QDibHama) 1–2 iv 12–13 (García Martínez’ classification), Satan is definitely an executor of dire acts against Israel. 203 We read a similar statement in 1QHa vi 18–19: ‫‘ לפי שכלו אגישנו וכרוב נחלתו אהבנו‬according to his intelligence I bring him near, I love him in proportion to the abundance of his inheritance.’ Merrill, Qumran and Predestination, quotes this line and perceives it as a ‘curious idea that the elect have different stages or degrees of inheritance and that the Psalmist, therefore loves him according to their particular position in the community’ (29). My postulate renders intelligible this and similar ‘curious’ pronouncements. 204 I translate ‫ שכל‬as ‘wisdom,’ the most common scriptural meaning of the term, as in Ps. 111:10 and 1 Chron. 22:12. The LXX translates it as sofi,an, ‘intelligence, practical wisdom’ in Chron. and as su,nesij ‘intelligence’ in Ps. 111. I consider the degree of understanding/wisdom

92

Dualism in Qumran

evil are given in equal degree to every person, as appears in 1QS iv 25 ‫‘ בד בבד שמן אל‬God appointed them [the good and the evil] in equal parts.’ However, the degree of intelligence or wisdom in each person is different, as is evident from the above text and further substantiated in 1QH xviii 28: ‫‘ וכן לבן אמתך הרבית נחלתו בדעת אמתך‬and so for the son of your maidservant you have increased his legacy in the knowledge of your truth.’ The expression ‫‘ לפי נחלת איש בין רוב למועט‬according to each person’s spiritual heritage, whether great or small’ refers to the degree of wisdom,205 as does the expression ‫‘ וינחילן לבני איש לדעת טוב ורע‬and has given them as a legacy to the sons of man so that they know good and evil.’ The distinction

as the crucial factor for distinction, rather than ‘his deeds,’ since each member of the community is expected to fulfill the divine rules in the same manner. Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 173, also sees ‘his deeds’ as secondary, but grants more importance to the expression ‫‘ לפי רוחותם‬their spirits,’ according to his deterministic attitude (see antecedent note) than to the many expressions of wisdom/understanding. Moreover, he understands that the rank of each member in the community depends ‘vom verschiedenem Grad der Einsicht und Geistesstärke’ (‘the different level of insight and vigor of the mind’). Apparently ‘vigor of the mind’ would also mean ‘understanding,’ but he associates the expression ‫לפי רוחותם‬, ‘their spirits,’ with the Two Spirits theory, which is completely different from my interpretation. He does not consider the practical question of how the strength of the anthropological inclination to good and evil could be judged within the Qumran community, especially when the author admits in 1QS iv 19–22 that the members also sin. Further, he makes no distinction between the members: all are equally included in those whom God will ‘cleanse . . . from all the abhorrence of deceit and from the defilement of the unclean spirit.’ 205 The term ‫ נחל‬is used in connection with wisdom, here and in iv 26. There is a similar use in 4Q417 2 i 16: ‫ וינחילן לאנוש‬followed in lines 17–18 by: ‫‘ כי לא ידע בין טוב לרע‬for he did not know the difference between good and evil.’ We observe that the term ‫ לחנ‬does not refer to the Two Spirits; for them the term ‫ שים‬is used. In iii 18 we read: ‘ “‫ ”וישם לו שתי רוחות להתהלך בם‬and placed within him two spirits so that he would walk with them.’ The distinction in terms between the two different subjects is stressed in 1QS iv 16: ‫לפי נחלת איש בין רוב למועט לכול קצי עולמים כי אל שמן בד בבד עד קץ אחרון‬ ‘dependent on what might be the birthright of man, great or small, for all eternal times. For God has sorted them into equal parts until the last time.’ It is unequivocal that the two terms ‫ נחל‬and ‫שים‬ relate to two different subjects; this is further substantiated by the fact that each indicates a distinct benchmark: one is unequal and the other is equal. The author portrays two disparate ideas in two independent sentences, each with its own verb and subject. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, in his translation of iv 16, hints that the expression ‫ לפי נחלת איש‬relates to the two spirits (139), and in his comments on iv 26 he declares explicitly that the expression ‫ וינחילן‬relates to the two spirits (140). He ignores the two separate sentences and the dissimilar verbs, which indicate their distinction. He explains the connection of the two apparently different topics in iv 26 as follows: the purpose of the two spirits in humans is to enable every person to discern between good and evil (164). This interpretation seems to me illogical: the faculty to discern between good and evil depends on wisdom, not on the two spirits that attempt to seduce humans to follow their path, as we observe explicitly in 4Q544 (Visions of Amram) 1 12: ‘Which of us do you choose to be ruled?’ Man’s wisdom to discern between good and evil assists him to choose the right path, as Amram probably did. The text of these lines, like many others in Qumran writings, are vague, but it seems to me Lange’s interpretation cannot be acknowledged.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

93

between the two attributes appears in many occurrences, such as 1QS ii 23, iii 14,206 v 21 and 23, vi 2, 9, 14, 18 and 22 and ix 12 and 15. In 1QS iv 3 we find the combination of ‫‘ שכל ובינה‬intelligence and understanding’ as the foundation of righteousness among the attributes of the Yaḥad, probably taken from 1 Chron. 22:12;207 this demonstrates the significance of wisdom in general and as the particular criterion for establishing rank in the community. This interpretation of the concept ‫נחלה‬, ‘inheritance/legacy/birthright’ and the contextual interpretation of the term ‫גורל‬208 also undermine the theory of double predestination, which alleges that different ratios of goodness and evil were given to humans at birth that establish their evil or good behaviour during their lifetime. It is only the degree of intelligence, a special gift from God,209 that varies from person to person; but the inclinations to good and evil are implanted equally in all humans, and it is up to them how they behave during their lives. The Source of the Two Spirits Theory 5.1. The Cognate Concepts of ‫רוח‬, ‫ יצר‬and ‫ לב‬in Scripture and Qumran The source of the Two Spirits theory is not Zoroastrian dogma; rather,

206 In this occurrence, we must interpret the expression ‫ לפי רוחותם‬in relation to Qumran’s understanding of the many other attributes that establish the rank within the community. As we have seen, the term ‫ רוח‬has many connotations; given the unsystematic style of the Qumran writings, at least in our eyes, we must use our logic when one pronouncement conflicts with another, or is vague. For example, in 1QS v 21 we read: ‫שכלו ומעשיו בתורה‬, but in line 23, on the same issue, the term ‫בתורה‬ is not mentioned. Moreover, the precise meaning is vague, since all members are obligated to follow the rules exactly, and are constantly supervised and strictly punished or expelled for transgressions. 207 We read there: ‫‘ אך יתן לך ה’ שכל ובינה ויצוך על ישראל ולשמור את תורת ה’ אלהיך‬May the Lord give you discretion and understanding when he puts you in command over Israel, so that you may keep the law of the Lord your God.’ 208 The term ‫‘ גורל‬lot’ is interpreted by scholars as having the connotation of a lottery drawing, suggesting that God establishes, by a type of ‘lottery’ before birth, who will be good and who will be evil. I will discuss at length this rather preposterous allegation, which suggests that God’s relationship with humans is indifferent, like that of the Greek gods. This is not the place to elaborate on the absurdity of such an ideology, which conflicts with a most essential and decisive element of Israelite religion. As with many other Qumran terms, we must interpret ‫ גורל‬in various ways in accordance with the context. Similarly, the English word ‘lot’ has a great variety of meanings and synonyms, some of which are suitable for our purpose. See also n. 117 on this issue. 209 We read in Prov. 2:6: ‫‘ כי ה’ יתן חכמה מפיו דעת ותבונה‬For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.’ See D. J. A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern (JSOTSup 292, Sheffield: Academic 1998) 2: 530. There is a similar dictum in Job 28:28: ‫ויאמר‬ ‫‘ לאדם הן יראת אדני היא חכמה וסור מרע בינה‬And he said to man: the fear of the Lord is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding.’

94

Dualism in Qumran

it is an internal Jewish development of biblical concepts, expressed in different terms (though Qumran might possibly have adapted Persian terminology to their own characteristic beliefs).210 The scriptural term ‫לב‬ ‘the heart,’ perceived to be the seat of human emotions and passions,211 was considered the source of inspiration for good or bad behaviour. Qumran scholars, possibly due to their developed angelology, chose the term ‫רוחות‬ ‘spirits,’ a related image.212 But at the same time they were well aware of the linkage between the biblical terms ‫ לב‬and ‫ יצר‬and human inclinations; it appears often in their writings.213 For their identical theory the Rabbis adopted the term ‫‘ יצר‬impulse,’ plausibly because of the biblical association of the terms ‫ לב‬and ‫ יצר‬in Gen. 8:21, ‫‘ כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעריו‬even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood.’ In essence all three terms and their ramifications with respect to our study are identical. I will quote a few biblical verses to demonstrate that Scripture used the term ‫‘ לב‬heart’ for the identical purpose as the term ‫‘ רוחות‬spirits’ was used by Qumran. We read in Deut. 15:9: ‫השמר לך פן יהיה דבר עם‬ ‫‘ לבבך בליעל‬Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought.’ The translators have interpreted the term Belial as ‘wicked,’ (LXX ‘lawless’) but for our study it is significant that the term is connected with the heart. In 1QS v 4, the priests bless the members of the community with enlightenment of the heart with wisdom for virtuous living,214 to enable them to resist the opposite way and ensure that

210 Barr, ‘The question,’ 229–30, concludes his comprehensive study on possible Zoroastrian influence on Judaism and Christianity by stating that there may exist certain common concepts, but their function is different in each religion; thus their existence does not indicate submission to the other religions system. The awareness of Persian dogma may have facilitated the task of the Qumran author to creating a sophisticated formulation of his own idea. Often a person has difficulty putting an idea into words and creating a comprehensive thesis; reading someone else’s phrasing of even an opposing idea may help him to formulate his own. Charlesworth, ‘A critical comparison,’ 79, writes ‘that in no other Jewish document did this schema attain so high a level of sophistication.’ 211 See H. J. Fabry, ‘‫לב‬,’ TDOT 7: 412–34. 212 Wernberg-Møller, ‘A reconsideration of the Two Spirits,’ 419, rejects his previous metaphysical understanding of the term ‫ חור‬in 1QS that was appropriate for the dualistic theory, and states that ‘every single individual has his own “spirit”, as indeed, is the case in the Old Testament, when ‫ רוח‬is used of the emotional or intellectual centre of the soul.’ 213 We read in 1QS iv 2–5 the expressions: ‫‘ להאיר בלבב איש‬enlighten the heart of man’ with the purpose ‫‘ לפחד לבבו במשפטי אל‬to establish in his heart respect for the precepts of God’; further, ‫‘ קודש ביצר סמוך ומחשבת‬a holy intent with steadfastness of heart’ (tr. Vermes). Evil schemes are linked to the evil inclinations in 1QH xv 3: ‫‘ השם לבבי ממחשבת רוע כי בליעל עם הופע יצר הוותם‬my heart is horrified at evil schemes, for Belial is present when their destructive inclination becomes apparent.’ 214 See original text and translation above.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

95

‫אשר לוא ילך איש בשרירות לבו לתעות אחרי לבבו‬ ‘he should not walk in the stubbornness of his heart in order to go astray following his heart.’

The evil behaviour of the Wicked Priest, Qumran’s most detested enemy who persecuted the Teacher of Righteousness, is rationalized in 1QpHab xi 4–16: ‫‘ כי לוא מל עורלת לבו‬because he did not circumcise the foreskin of his heart.’ Similarly we read in Deut. 5:26 ‫מי יתן והיה לבבם זה להם ליראה אתי ולשמר את כל מצותי כל הימים למען ייטב‬ ‫להם ולבניהם לעלם‬ Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children forever (KJV 29).

The heart is the seat of both virtuous and evil inclinations. In this sense it is identical with the rabbinic term ‫יצר‬, and with the biblical concept of the heart’s ethical function.215 D. R. Seely216 cites instances of the term ‫ לב‬in Qumran literature in which its meaning corresponds to the rabbinic concept of ‫ ; יצר‬he also cites instances of the biblical coupling of the terms ‫‘ מול‬to circumcise’ and ‫‘ לב‬heart’ to convey symbolically the substitution of the bad inclination for the good one.217 In 4Q436 1 i 4–5, ‫ותחזק על לבי ללכת בדרכיכה לבי פקדת וכליותי שננת בל ישכחו חוקיכה‬ and you have strengthened upon my heart to walk in your path and you sharpened my kidneys so that they do not forget your laws (transl. García Martínez and Tigchelaar),

215 Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, states that the belief that God created both the warring spirits in a man is in harmony with the later rabbinic doctrine of the two inclinations (44). 216 D. R. Seely, ‘The “circumcised heart” in 4Q434 “Barki Nafshi”,’ RevQ 65–8 (1996) 527–35. 217 For example in 4Q434 1 i 4; 4Q504 4 11; and an association of circumcision with the term ‫יצר‬, unquestionably a bad inclination in this instance, in 1QS v 5.

96

Dualism in Qumran

we observe an intervention into the existing heart. This verse is a perfect parallel to the divine and angelic assistance to the righteous to withstand the seduction of the evil spirit in 1QS iii 24. Seely writes:218 ‘In the Barkhi Nafshi texts there is an occurrence of the phrase ‫‘ יצר רע‬evil spirit’ juxtaposed with ‫‘ לב טהור‬a pure heart’: ‫לב האבן גערת ממני ותשם לב‬ ‫‘ טהור תחתיו יצר הרע גערת מן כליותי‬The heart of stone that you have driven with rebukes far from me, and hast set a pure heart in its place. The evil inclination thou hast driven with rebukes from my inward parts’ (4Q436 1 i 10). In 1QS iv 20–21, we read of the ultimate disappearance of the bad impulse in Israelites, identical to the end of evil: ‫להתם כול רוח עולה מתכמי בשרו‬ ‘ripping out all spirit of injustice from the innermost part of his flesh.’ This is equivalent to Ezekiel’s prophecy for the days to come, the ultimate salvation of Israel, in 11:19: ‫ונתתי להם לב אחד ורוח חדשה אתן בקרבכם והסרתי לב האבן מבשרם ונתתי‬ ‫להם לב בשר‬ And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh.

A host of similar scriptural verses corroborates this argument.219 We see the close relationship between Qumran’s mindset, theology and terminology and the rabbinic equivalents, confirming Qumran’s adherence to fundamental Jewish thought and scriptural terms, and further arguing against the presence of a foreign-influenced dualism. If Qumran’s statement of two spirits, good and evil, embedded by God in man before his birth, is perceived as dualism, then both Scripture and rabbinic literature are dualistic as well. However, this is not what the scholars who perceived dualism in Qumran had in mind: they identified a Zoroastrian type of dualism, alien to the traditional Jewish thought.220

218 Seely, ‘The “circumcised heart”,’ 533. 219 I will quote, as examples, lines found in various scriptural books, in which the function of the heart is identical to that of the Two Spirits in 1QS and the two rabbinic impulses: Exod. 4:21, 25:2; Num. 32:9; Deut. 15:9; Josh. 14:8; 1 Sam. 24:5; 1 Kgs 3:9; Isa. 6:10; Jer. 4:14; Ezek. 11:19; Hos. 13:8; Obad. 1:3; Zech. 7:12; Mal. 2:2; Ps. 141:4. 220 Collins, ‘The origin,’ Congress Volume states: ‘Dualism was instituted by God as part of

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

97

5.2. The Concept of Hating Sinners I would also reject the idea that hating sinners and the avoidance of any dealings with them, concepts that appear often in Qumran writings, are a consequence of a dualistic Weltanschauung, as the dualistic scholars allege. They are an internal development of biblical ideas. Many biblical verses indicate the divine hatred of evil and evildoers, as well as solemn pronouncements promoting the virtue of the righteous who also hate them.221 For instance, we read of the divine hatred of evildoers in Prov. 15:26: ‫‘ תועבת ה’ מחשבות רע‬The Lord detest the thoughts of the wicked,’ and in Ps. 11:5: ‫‘ ה’ צדיק יבחן ורשע ואהב חמס שנאה נפשו‬The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates.’ On the virtue of hating evil, we read in Amos 5:15: ‫שנאו רע‬ ‫‘ ואהבו טוב‬Hate evil, love good,’ in Ps. 97:10: ‫‘ אהבי ה’ שנאו רע‬Let those who love the Lord, hate evil,’ and its culmination in Ps. 139, vv. 21–22: ‫‘ הלוא משנאיך ה’ אשנא ובתקוממיך אתקוטט תכלית שנאה שנאתים לאיבים היו לי‬Do I not hate them that hate you, O Lord? And do I not loath them that rise up against you? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies.’ The isolation of Israel from other peoples to avoid their bad influence is a cornerstone of biblical theology, as is the distinctive prohibition of intermarriage with members of the seven nations in Deut. 7:3–4, and extended by Ezra. This is explained in v. 4 with the motive: ‫‘ כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי ועבדו אלהים אחרים‬For they [the alien partners] would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods.’ The precarious circumstances of the Qumran group, their harassment by the authorities, and their sociological motivations, amply discussed by scholars, for isolating themselves from the general public, induced them to promote these and many similar biblical maxims in their writings and apply them in practice. The sharp division between the Qumran group, the Sons of Light, and their opponents, the wicked Jews, the Sons of Darkness, is the outgrowth of such biblical dicta applied to contemporaneous circumstances. It is not the opposing of light and darkness, ‘congenial to a sectarian view of the world,’ as Collins asserts.222

creation itself,’ and further, ‘It is the myth of Persian Dualism.’ 221 See E. F. Sutcliffe, ‘Hatred at Qumran,’ RevQ 7 (1960) 345–56, particularly 346–50. 222 Collins, ‘The origin,’ Congress Volume 38.

98

Dualism in Qumran

An Innovative Approach to the Dualism Theory by S. Hultgren In a recent publication, S. Hultgren attempts to find evidence for a cosmic dualism in Qumran in three major sources: Aramaic Sacerdotal Texts, Sapiential Tradition and 1QS iii 13–iv 26.223 I came across this book after having finished writing my study, but as it represents a different approach to the issue of dualism in Qumran, I would like to include my response to it. Hultgren refers to particular expressions of 4Q544 (4QVisions of Amram ar); his evidence is founded on Melki-zedek and Melki-resha’s declaration that they ‘have received control and rule over all the sons of Adam’ (i 11–12) and that ‘one rules over all darkness and the other on all light’ (ii 4–6). Hultgren cites J. Frey224 in support of his theory that this document expresses ‘a strongly expressed cosmic dualism with the notion of opposed heavenly powers and the strict division of humanity into two opposed groups.’225 As I have shown, the Treatise on the Two Spirits in 1QS, the authentic Qumran writing, conflicts with the Aramaic visions; there it is said that God places both spirits/inclinations in man before his birth and the patron angel of darkness attempts to seduce humans, with no mention of ruling or receiving control over humans. What is referred to are not independent cosmic powers: their power is limited from above and below. God granted them strictly defined authority and can retract it, and humans are not ruled by them; though they can choose their patron, they are not obliged to obey their rules; they must be lured by temptation and always be able to cross, at their own will, from the domain of one to another, by repenting or sinning. I also maintain that the Two Spirits theory of 1QS refers exclusively to Israelites, and hence there is no ‘strict division of humanity into two opposed groups dominated by the respective leader.’226 Moreover, I do not believe that it is appropriate to deduce from writings in Aramaic, whose origin227 and purpose is unknown, any Qumran ideologies that are con-

223 S. Hultgren, From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community (STDJ 66, Leiden: Brill 2007) 317. 224 Ibid., 319. 225 Ibid., 322. 226 Ibid. 227 E. Puech and other scholars assume Samaritan origin. Hultgren, From the Damascus, 322, n. 12 quotes the various scholarly postulates on this issue.

Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings

99

trary to entrenched Jewish doctrine,228 and at worst not extant in genuine Qumran writings. We do not encounter any authentic Qumran writings in Aramaic, and the fact that they were found in Qumran ‘libraries’ does not serve as evidence that they represent qumranic ideologies. All Aramaic writings must be perceived as a collection of ‘non-canonic’ visionary tales by folk preachers without ideological influence on the sophisticated Qumran scholars. For his claim regarding the Sapiential Tradition, Hultgren quotes again non-sectarian sources229 that cannot serve to construct a theory founded on speculative deductions; in none of these writings is an explicit dualism proffered. The tortuous path taken to allege that already in Proverbs and Ben Sira there is an ethical dualism between the wise and the foolish, the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad,230 and a ‘dualistic structure in creation,’ through a linkage of both to ‘the divine wisdom,’ seems to me remarkable. I wonder why Hultgren ignores the explicit scriptural statements in Deut. 30:15: ‘See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction’ and Isa. 45:7 cited in the study, which assert that it is God who has created the good and the bad, life and death, blessings and curses (Deut. 30:19). If Qumran follows this scriptural pattern of polarity, what dissident/revisionist/reform ideas have scholars revealed in the massive corpus of research literature on Qumran writings? The third type of evidence, from the Treatise on the Two Spirits, is amply discussed in the study, and it would be redundant to repeat my arguments. The Astrological Text 4Q186 Finally, I would like to briefly comment on the astrological text 4Q186. I do not believe that this questionable document, cited by some scholars as support for the dualism theory, represents a real challenge to my postulate against dualism in Qumran. It is a unique specimen, heavily damaged, whose real origin we do not know, and contains a bizarre and vague text. The fact that it was found in a cave together with other authentic Qumran

228 I have used the Vision of Amram to demonstrate an idea which concords with both general Jewish and Qumran doctrines. 229 Hultgren, From the Damascus, 330. 230 Ibid., 331.

100

Dualism in Qumran

writings does not serve as evidence of its real source; it is definitely not enough basis on which to assume that Qumran scholars built a significant ideology that blatantly ignores biblical opposition to astrological beliefs and divinations,231 and has no logical compatibility with other Qumran writings and ideas. For instance, if it were possible to recognize the character of a person through exterior traits of body and face, there would be no need for the meticulous interrogation of new members, and they would have avoided the shocking frustration of apostates. I cannot be persuaded that the highly intellectual authors and leader of the Qumran community would create a significant theology on the foundation of such a bizarre idea. Conclusion In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that there are a number of scholars, some of whom I quoted in the study, who have opposed the notion of cosmic dualism and/or any dualism at all in Qumran writings.232 I believe I have added new evidence against the perception of a rigid, absolute dualism in Qumran and the attempt to maintain any of its derivatives, such as ethical, anthropological and similar categories of dualisms. Similarly, I quoted some scholarly reservations about Iranian influence on Jewish religion in general and on Qumran in particular, and I have added my considerations to weaken, if not to exclude, the effect of such influence. I have demonstrated the plausibility or credible probability (depending on the reader’s evaluation of the biblical quotations) that the source of the Treatise on the Two Spirits and the terminology utilized is to be attributed to Scripture, rather than to Persian influence, as well as the affinity of the Treatise with rabbinic concepts. I have attempted to interpret accordingly certain equivocal verses of 1QS, in conformity with my conviction that where interpretation is in doubt we should first attempt to reveal appropriate biblical sources as the key to their understanding; we must do our best to avoid an interpretation that is flagrantly in conflict with scriptural dicta and principles. I doubt whether scholars would have revealed these dualisms in 1QS iii 13–iv 26, if it were not for certain

231 See Deut. 18:9–14 and Isa. 47:13. 232 See, for example, H.