Dead Sea Scrolls

T H E O X F O R D E N C Y C L O P E D I A OF THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE Michael D. Coogan EDITOR IN CHIEF VOLUME 1 Acts-LXX OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS THfe ANGUS L MACDONALD I ST. FRANCIS XAVIER UNIVER a n t ig o n is h , N.S. OXFORD U N IV ER SrT Y PRESS Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works th a t further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town D ar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala L um pur M adrid M elbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto W ith offices in A rgentina A ustria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece G uatem ala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine V ietnam Copyright © 2011 by Oxford University Press Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 M adison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 www.oup.com Oxford is a registered tradem ark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No p a rt of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transm itted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or oth er wise, w ithout th e prior perm ission of Oxford University Press. The editors and publisher gratefully acknowledge perm ission to quote from th e New Revised Standard Version of th e Bible, copyright © 1989 th e N ational Council of the Churches o f Christ in the USA. Used by perm ission. All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication D ata The Oxford encyclopedia of the books of th e Bible / M ichael D. Coogan, editor in chief, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-19-537737-8 ( s e t: aik. paper) 1. Bible-Encyclopedias. 2. B ible-Introductions. I. Coogan, M ichael David. II. Title: Encyclopedia of the books of th e Bible. BS440.O93 2011 r 2 2 0 .3 - d C 22 2011013649 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 P rinted in the U nited States of America on acid-free paper D e a d Se a S c r o l l s S m ith -C h risto p h er, D an iel L. “T h e B ook o f D an iel.” In The New Interpreters Bible, vol 7, e d ite d b y L ea n d e r Keck, p p . 19-152. N ashville: A bin g d o n , 1996. T hom p son, H en ry 0 . The Book of Daniel: An Annotated Bibliography. B ooks o f th e B ible 1. N ew York: G arlan d , 1993. Wills, L aw ren ce M. The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends. H a rv a rd D iss e rta ­ tio n s in R eligion 26. M in n eap o lis: F o rtress, 1990. Carol A. Newsom D e a d Se a S c r o l l s The label “Dead Sea Scrolls” can be used in both a broad and a narrow sense. Broadly, it refers to the m anuscripts discovered in at least eighteen loca­ tions in the Judean desert since 1947, including Qumran, Wadi Daliyeh, Ketef Jericho, Khirbet Mird, Ain Feshka, Wadi Nar, W adi Ghweir, Wadi M urabbacat, Wadi Sdeir, Nahal Arugot, Ein-gedi, Nahal Hever, Nahal Hever/Seiyal, Nahal Mishmar, Nahal Se’elim, Masada, and Khirbet Qazone. More narrowly, the “Dead Sea Scrolls” refers to the m anuscripts from eleven caves near Qumran, close to the northw est shore of the Dead Sea. The m anuscripts were w ritten in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, on papyrus, leather, and even one on copper. This article focuses on the scrolls in the narrow sense, but a few finds from the other sites m erit m ention here. Of the 173 docum ents from M urabbacat, four were of biblical texts, includ­ ing a scroll of the Minor Prophets. Notably, the Masada finds included texts from Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, Psalms, Sirach, Jubilees, and Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifices. Brief History of the Discoveries. The first seven of the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered by Bedouin shepherds in the w inter of 1946-1947, near a site called Khirbet Qumran. In 1947, they brought their finds to a shoem aker and antiquities dealer in Beth­ lehem by the nam e of Khalil Iskander, also called Kando. Kando brought some of the scrolls to Mar Athanasius Samuel of the Syrian Orthodox church, who identified the script as ancient Hebrew, bu t did not perceive how old the script was. In late 1947> Eliezar Sukenik of the Hebrew University learned of the scrolls. He eventually acquired three of them: the War Scroll, the Thanksgiving Hymns, and p art of a scroll of Isaiah. Sukenik was the first to identify the authors of the scrolls with the Essenes known from Josephus, Philo, and Pliny. The Hebrew University published these three and the Genesis Apocryphon in 1954-1956- In early 1948, M ar Samuel sent a scroll of Isaiah, a com m entary on Habakkuk, and a copy of a sect’s Community Rule to the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem (ASOR) to authenti­ cate them, and consequently John Trever was able to photograph them. ASOR published these three in 1950-1951. The Bedouin initially did not reveal the location of the cave, but once this inform ation becam e known, the Jordanian D epartm ent of Antiquities, the Pales­ tinian Archaeological Museum, and the Ecole Biblique excavated the cave th at came to be called Qum ran Cave 1, since several other caves containing scrolls were discovered in the vicinity between 1949 and 1956. The site of the ruins was excavated in 1951, 1953 - 1956 ,1967-1968,1984-1985, and 1995 - 1 9 9 6 . Notable Caves. The m ost notable scroll from Cave 3 is the Copper Scroll on which see below. Despite the archaeologists’ efforts, the m ost am azing dis­ covery was by the Bedouin, who brought in scrolls from a fourth cave near Qumran, this one just up the cliff from the ruins. Archaeologists subsequently excavated the cave and discovered fragm ents of the same scrolls provided by the Bedouin, confirming that they had come from the same place. Techni­ cally there were two caves: 4a and 4b. By far the largest num ber of scrolls come from Cave 4: h u n ­ dreds, including 21 tefillin (for wearing in boxes on the arm or head during the m orning prayers) and 7 mezuzot (for doorposts), but in a very fragm entary state. Cave 7 yielded only a few m anuscripts, bu t is significant in th at it is the only cave with mainly Greek scrolls. Cave 11 held some relatively wellpreserved scrolls: a large scroll of psalms, the Tem­ ple Scroll, and a Targum. Caves 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are called “m inor” caves because the scrolls found in them are relatively few. Publication Process. After the initial publication of the large scrolls from Cave 1, the scrolls have for the m ost p art been published in the series 174 D e a d Se a S c r o l l s Jericho Jerusalem Cave 11 Cave 1 Cave Bethlehem JUDAH Murabba' • Hebron Nahal Hever« Masada « 0 0 15 15 30 Miles 30 Kilometers The D ead Sea Scroll Caves. Caves n ear Qumran, where m any of the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. © O x f o r d U n i v e r ­ s it y P r ess Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (DJD). The few exceptions include the Targum o f Job, the Temple Scroll and the fragments of l Enoch. The initial editorial team was small but productive while fund­ ing was available, but publication slowed in the 1960s through the 1980s, raising accusations of con­ spiracy to conceal the contents of the scrolls. These accusations were shown to be baseless once the contents and photos of the scrolls were made fully available to the public beginning in the 1990s. Description of the Finds. There are about 930 m anuscripts represented in the surviving fragments from Qumran. The exact num ber of scrolls discov­ ered in the Qum ran caves is difficult to determ ine because of the fragm entary state of m any of the finds. There are over 15,000 fragm ents from Cave 4, parts of over 600 scrolls. It is possible th at some of the fragm ents currently thought to be from dif­ ferent m anuscripts m ay in the future be identified as parts of the same scroll. M ost of the scrolls are leather, with a few m ade of papyrus and one of copper. Most are in Hebrew, with a minority (about 130) in Aramaic, and a few (27) in Greek (only in Caves 4 and 7). Nomenclature fo r Scrolls. There are three stan­ dard ways of referring to a specific text from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The m ost general is by the title of the work, for example, the Great Isaiah Scroll, the Community Rule, or the Thanksgiving Hymns. More precisely, an identifier is given con­ sisting of up to six parts, in this order: the cave num ber the scroll is from, “Q” indicating “Qumran,” (optionally) an indication of the m aterial or script, an abbreviation of the title of the docum ent, (op­ tionally) the language, if not Hebrew, and, if more than one copy of th at docum ent was found in that cave, also a superscripted letter indicating which copy of th at docum ent is m eant. For example, the Great Isaiah Scroll is identified as iQIsaa. To be even m ore precise, all scrolls except the very D e a d Se a S c r o l l s Q u m ran Caves. Of the eleven caves discovered betw een 1947 and 1956, the largest num ber of scrolls cam e from Cave 4 {center). G. E r i c a n d E d i t h M a t s o n P h o t o g r a p h C o l l e c t i o n , P r i n t s and Ph o t o g r a ph s D iv is io n , Libr a r y of Co ng r e ss earliest discovered are also given an inventory num ­ ber th at can be used in place of the abbreviation and superscripted letter. For example, the second scroll of the Thanksgiving Hymns from cave one is also known as iQHb or 1Q35. References to specific passages in the scrolls are given by column and line number; in the case of fragmentary scrolls, the fragment num ber is also given, before the column number, e.g., 4QpapToba ar frag. 11 col. II, line 6 could also be given as 4Q196 fn II, 6. Provenance. The antiquity of the scrolls was not immediately perceived until the spring of 1948, when F. M. Cross recognized where the shapes of the letters fit into the chronological development of the Hebrew script. According to Cross’s typology, the m anuscripts were produced from the third cen­ tury b .c .e . to about 70 c .e ., with only a few at the extremes of this range. The few historical referents in the scrolls all are from the first century b . c .e . Although it is possible th at the scrolls could have been collected from all over Judea or Jerusa­ lem, were hidden in these caves by Jews fleeing the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 68 c .e ., and therefore have nothing to do with the Qumran site, his theory has not gained m uch acceptance. Support for the scrolls’ connection to Qum ran is found in a letter w ritten on pottery, discovered at the Qum ran site in 1996, th at appears to record the transfer of an individual’s property over to the com ­ munity, but this interpretation has been challenged. Most scholars are convinced by several archaeo­ logical indications th at the scrolls were produced by the inhabitants of the Qum ran site. The jars in which some scrolls were found are of the same type as others found there. W hen inkwells were discovered at the site, the connection was strengthened, with some claiming evidence of a “scriptorium .” Tabs and ties used in scroll production were found in Cave 8. But if the Qum ran scrolls were the product of the scriptorium, one would expect to find multiple m anuscripts w ritten w ith the same handwriting, but this occurs only a very few times. However, two different scribal tendencies are attested at Qumran. Most of the m anuscripts are w ritten with the same scribal tendencies as other writings from th at time, but a set of 167 m anuscripts exhibits a tendency to spell words with extra vowel letters and use distinc­ tive morphological forms. This second tendency is used in alm ost all docum ents specific to Qumran, resulting in the label “Qum ran scribal practice.” 175 D e a d Se a S c r o l l s Most recently, in 2010, the leather from some scrolls was tested by an Italian team, which found the che­ mical content of the scrolls consistent with th at of the Dead Sea. Genres. A further indication of the unity of the collection is th at despite great variety in the physical form of the scrolls, there is a definite consistency in the contents of m any of the nonbiblical scrolls, which reflect the teachings and descriptions of a Jewish sect. All of the docum ents are Jewish, b u t they do not represent the various texts and perspectives known to Second Temple Judaism; for example, the books of Maccabees are absent. The m anuscripts found at Qum ran are alm ost exclu­ sively literary; only a few are documentary. About a quarter of these literary texts are from the Hebrew Bible or Old Testam ent, w hether copies of entire biblical books or collections of various biblical pas­ sages, or tefillin or mezuzot. Roughly another 20 percent reflect the viewpoint of a Jewish sect dis­ satisfied with the adm inistration of the Jerusalem Temple and holding to a solar calendar. The docu­ m ents com posed by m em bers of this Qum ran sect are mainly rules and rule-like docum ents (including policies, procedures, and the reasoning behind some of them), com m entaries and elaborations on biblical passages, and hymns. It is not clear to w hat extent the liturgies and wisdom poetry reflect the sect specifically. The rem aining docum ents (about half of the texts) are neither biblical nor sectarian. It is not always easy to distinguish between a sectarian and nonsectarian docum ent, bu t the criteria pro­ posed by Carol Newsom have been widely accepted: these nonsectarian works can be recognized be­ cause they enjoyed circulation beyond this extinct sect, and include, for example, the pseudepigrapha Jubilees and Enoch (included in the Ethiopic canon) and other works w ritten in Aramaic. Description of Important Texts Biblical Texts. It is of course somewhat anachro­ nistic to call texts “biblical” before there was a fixed collection known as “the Bible.” Here we will use the term to refer to books that later became part of the Jewish canon (and subsequently formed the Protes­ tan t “Old Testam ent”). Book Number of manuscripts P salm s D e u te ro n o m y Isaiah 34-36 G enesis E xodus L eviticus D an iel T w elve P ro p h e ts N u m b ers Je re m ia h E zekiel R u th 2 0-21 16 12-13 8 8 L a m e n ta tio n s Ju d g es 1 -2 S am u el P ro v erb s Jo b S ong o f Songs Jo s h u a 1 -2 K ings E cclesiastes E zra N eh em ia h 1-2 C h ro n icles E sth e r 3 0 -3 2 21 6 -7 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 l l 1 0 I n e a c h cav e: Cave Biblical manuscripts 1 2 16-17 3 4 5 3 6 6 -9 0 2 7 8 16-17 148-149 7 9 0 10 11 0 8 -9 According to the above numbers, there are 211-218 biblical m anuscripts, about 23 percent of the total m anuscript count. Clearly some books of the Hebrew Bible were m ore popular than others. Parts of every book of the Hebrew Bible except Esther have been discovered (until 2008 it was D e a d Se a S c r o l l s thought th at no p art of Nehemiah had survived). It is likely however th at the story of Esther was known at Qumran, since some expressions in the scrolls depend on it. The historical books are not well represented, and the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Isaiah appear m ost frequently. After these, the parabiblical books of Jubilees and 1 Enoch are m ost common, with 15-16 and 11 copies, respectively; see further below. The Book o f Giants appears in 9-10 copies as well. It is interesting th at the scriptures m ost commonly quoted in the New Testam ent (Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah) were also the ones m ost common at Qumran. This shared preference indi­ cates a set of interests and em phases held in com ­ mon between early Christians and the Qum ran sectarians. The biblical texts appear in a variety of physical forms. Some of the copies of the Pentateuch and Job were w ritten in the old paieo-Hebrew script. A few Aramaic translations of biblical books were found: one of Leviticus, and two of Job, including a rela­ tively large scroll from Cave 11. Biblical texts also appear in tefillin and mezuzot. M ost were found in Cave 4, although a few tefillin were found in other caves, and one m ezuzah was also found in Cave 8. The wording of these excerpts from scripture varies from th at of the received Masoretic Text, sometimes agreeing with other ancient versions. Finally, we may also call “biblical” some texts that vary considerably from the Masoretic Text. These texts may have a claim to originality equal to th at of the M asoretic Text. Examples include 4Q123 (on Joshua), 4Q127 (on Exodus, in Greek), and 4Q158, 4Q364-4Q367 (on the Pentateuch). Parabiblical Literature. Texts that more clearly are dependent on the scriptures, in th at they im itate or are based on the biblical texts but are not them ­ selves biblical, may be called “parabiblical.” As m en­ tioned above, some of the texts m ost com m on among the Dead Sea Scrolls did not later become part of the canon of the Hebrew Bible, although they might have held canonical status in some circles. Some of these were known before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and are included am ong the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Of the texts in the Apocrypha, copies of four works were found: Tobit, Sirach, the Letter of Jere­ miah, and Psalm 151. Tobit appears in m anuscripts 4Q196 to 4Q200, four in Aramaic and one in He­ brew. Before this discovery, the oldest copies of Tobit survived only in Greek. All fourteen chapters are represented, and all copies agree with the longer form of the book. Sirach appears in a scroll from Masada, in 2Q18, and nQ Psa has Sirach chapter 51 in its collection of Psalms. The Letter of Jerem iah (found in Baruch chapter 6) appears in 7Q2, but none of the rest of Baruch has survived. Psalm 151 was previously known in Greek from the Septuagint version, and appears in Hebrew at the end of the collection in nQ Psa. Some of the Pseudepigrapha (1 Enoch, Jubilees, Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs) were known from Greek or Ethiopic translations m ade in the early centuries c .e ., but others were previously un­ known. We noted above th at Jubilees appears in m ore copies at Qum ran than any biblical book ex­ cept Psalms, Isaiah, Genesis, Exodus, and D euteron­ omy. It is a retelling of the biblical story up to the events at Mt. Sinai. Its popularity has led some scholars to suggest th at Jubilees was considered canonical am ong the Qum ran sectarians, especially since it is cited as an authority in the Damascus Document, one of the books of com m unity “Rules” described below. First Enoch likewise was very popular at Qumran. It was originally w ritten in Aramaic, but was pre­ viously known only in its Ethiopic translation. In its Ethiopic form 1 Enoch consists of five sections, or “books.” Seven of the Qum ran m anuscripts have three of the five books, and four of the m anuscripts have only the section called the “Astronomical Book.” None of them have the second book (the “Parables” or “Similitudes”), which has led some to suggest this book was a later com position or unknown to this strand of Judaism for some other reason. The version of the Astronomical Book is m uch longer than the Ethiopic version, and clearly presents a calendar consisting of 364 days. It is perhaps the oldest of the Qumran m anuscripts, w ritten as early as the third century b .c .e . First 177 178 D e a d Se a Sc r o l l s Enoch proposes an alternative account for the origin of sin than the garden of Eden: it was the result of divine beings inappropriately mingling with hu­ mans. The Book o f Giants is another text th at tells the story of the offspring of this illicit m iscegena­ tion. It is attested in nine Aramaic copies at Qum­ ran, and this large num ber has suggested to some th at perhaps the Book o f Giants held the place in the five-part collection of 1 Enoch th at the Similitudes now holds. The Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs was a collection previously known in Greek, but the He­ brew “testam ents” found at Qumran were not yet developed into such a collection. Instead they prob­ ably later served as sources for the Testament o f Naphtali (4Q215), the Testament o f Judah (3Q7; 4Q484, 4Q538), the Testament o f Joseph (4Q539), and the Testament o f Levi (4Q213-4Q214 and possibly 1Q21), in which the character of Levi is rehabilitated. Other previously unknown writings about biblical characters include texts about Noah (1Q19; possibly 4Q246 and 4 0 5 3 4 ), Jacob (4Q537)* Joseph (4Q3714 0 3 7 3 )* Q ahat/K ohath (4Q542), Amram (4 0 5 4 3 “ 4Q548), Moses (1Q22, 1Q29; 2Q21; 4 0 3 7 4 - 4 0 3 7 5 * possibly 376, 377, 388a, 389, and 390), Joshua (4 0 3 7 8 - 4 0 3 7 9 )* Samuel (4Q160; 6Q9), David (2Q22 and nQ Psa), Jerem iah (40383-40384 and 385b, 387b), Ezekiel (possibly 4 Q3 8 4 - 4 0 3 9 i)» Daniel (4Q242-4Q245, and possibly 4Q551)* and possibly Esther (4Q550). There are also retellings of parts of the Penta­ teuch th at diverge too m uch from the biblical text to be considered an alternate version, yet are clearly derived from and dependent upon the biblical text. They do not reflect specifically sectarian views. The two m ost significant of these are the Temple Scroll and the Genesis Apocryphon. The Temple Scroll (iiQTa) was acquired from Kando by Yigael Yadin in 1967, and was published in 1977. It presents m aterial from the Pentateuch with God apparently speaking in the first person, rather than being quoted as in the Pentateuch. It presents instructions for a new temple, sacrifices, the courts of the temple, and exclusions from the pure temple. It differs from later rabbinic teaching, agreeing instead in some cases with w hat is known of other ancient Jewish groups, notably the Essenes. The Genesis Apocryphon (lQapGen ar) is an Ara­ m aic narrative elaborating on some of the stories from Genesis, from Enoch to Abraham and Sarah. In it, Enoch explains that Noah would have a divine role in God’s judgm ent against the sin of the sons of God (Gen 6:1-3). The retelling of the incident in which Pharaoh w ants to take Sarah sanitizes Abra­ ham so th at he is not a deceiver. Commentaries. The writings found at Qumran include several com m entaries on the biblical text, specifically on the Psalms and the prophets. The com m entaries use vocabulary and reflect views characteristic of the sectarian community. The com m entators assum e th at these scriptures are pro­ phecies about the last days, and th at the com m en­ tato r him self is living in those last days, as explicitly stated in Pesher Habakkuk (lQpHab) col. VII: “And God told Habakkuk to write w hat was going to happen to the last generation, but he did not let him know the consum m ation of the era Its interpretation concerns the Teacher of Righteous­ ness, to whom God has m ade known all the mys­ teries of the words of his servants, the prophets.” The com m entaries took two forms: continuous, in which a biblical text was explained verse by verse in order; and them atic, in which the verses explained were gathered from various biblical books by virtue of a shared theme. The continuous commentaries include six on Isaiah, drawing out the messianic implications of the prophecies, three on various psalms, two on Hosea, two on Micah, two on Zephaniah, one on Nahum, and one on Habakkuk The best preserved of these commentaries are those on Psalm 37, Nahum, and H abakkuk In the com m entary on Psalm 37, a priest is identified as the “Teacher of Righteousness” and is opposed to a figure called the “Wicked Priest.” 4QpNah, the Romans are called “Kittim,” and the historical figures Demetrius and Antiochus are named. A character called the “Angry Lion” is said to hang “seekers of smooth things” on a tree, and is commonly thought to refer to Alexander Janneus, who crucified Pharisees. In lQpHab, the Chaldeans D e a d Se a S c r o l l s are interpreted as the Romans (Kittim), and here too there is m ention of the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest, as well as the Liar, the New Cove­ nant, the Priest, the House of Absalom, and the House of Guilt. The them atic com m entaries are the Florilegium, Testimonia, and Melchizedek, as well as a com m en­ tary on selections from Genesis. The Florilegium (4Q174) m entions them es of Davidic sonship, the sanctuary of people, the Branch of David, the Inter­ preter of the Law who will arise to save Israel. The Testim onia (4Q175) collects passages on leaders predicted in Deuteronomy, Numbers, and Joshua, and curses brothers who fortify Jerusalem. nQM elch is eschatological and dualistic, m entioning the Sons of Heaven, the destruction of Belial, and the spirits of his lot. The com m entary on various passages from Genesis, 4Q252, is concerned w ith chronology, and m entions a 364-day year. Rules. A large num ber of m anuscripts at Qumran contain w hat m ight be described as “Rules,” th at is, documents explaining the policies and procedures of the sect. A well-preserved copy of the Community Rule (1QS) was one of the first scrolls read by scholars, and was initially called the “Manual of Discipline.” Many copies were subsequently found in Cave 4 (4Q255-4Q266), with possibly some copies also in Cave 5 (5Q11 and 5Q13). Another docum ent (4Q265) resembles both the Damascus Document and the Community Rule. The first two columns of lQS describe a covenant renewal ceremony and the hierarchical unity of the com m u­ nity (II, 19-25). The sectarian doctrine of predestina­ tion is clear in columns III-IV (III, 15-16, 21-23), as is dualism in III, 21-24 and IV, 15-18, where “according to lot,” the “Sons of Light” are opposed to the “Sons of Darkness.” The next columns describe the regular evaluation of members (5), the rules for joining (6), the council of the Community, including “the many” and penalties for violations (7-8), the superiority of prayer and right conduct over sacrifice (9), and the dual Messiahs of Aaron and Israel (IX, 11). The Com­ munity Rule ends with a poem of praise. The Community Rule is intended for a “com m u­ nity” that shares possessions and makes no provision for marriage, women, or children. However, the policies described in the Community Rule are not always entirely consistent with those of the other Rules. On the same scroll as lQS are two appendixes, identified as lQSa (the Rule o f the Congregation), which does have provisions for wom en and children, and lQSb (the Rule o f Blessings). lQSa describes the rules for a messianic banquet, in which the priest and the messiah of Israel both play a role (II, 11-22). Elsewhere in the Qum ran documents, this messiah is called the “Branch of David” or the “Prince of the Congregation;” here he is instructed by the priest. lQSb includes benedictions for com m unity leaders. The Damascus Document is m ade up of an intro­ duction, an “Exhortation” or “Admonition,” a legal section, a penal code, and a covenant-renewal liturgy. It was actually known to scholars before 1947* because two copies of this text were found in a medieval genizah in Cairo and published by Solomon Schechter in 1910 as “Fragm ents from a Zadokite Work.” The standard num bering of this work into columns and lines still follows the Cairo Damascus m anuscripts, identified as CD-A and CD-B. The copies found at Qumran are 4Q 2664Q273; 5Q12; and 6Q15. The Exhortation section invites “you who know righteousness” (I, 1) and “you who enter the covenant” (II, 2) to follow God’s ways in “the land of Damascus” (VI, 19). The causes for the separation of the sect from the rest of Israel are given in III, 13-15, and col. V; the calendar, defiled sanctuary, and marriage violations are spe­ cifically mentioned. The legal section discusses such topics as joining, living, and governing the covenant community; purity of priests’ sacrifices and the body; marriage; and farming. It refers to the com ­ m unity as the “cam p” or “assembly,” implying th at its m em bers are living among other people. The document teaches a dualistic predestination (II, 6-10). On the side of the good, there is the “Teacher of Righteousness,” and the “guardian” as an adm inis­ trator within the community. The enemy, “Belial,” is a spiritual being. 4QMMT. Perhaps the m ost controversial of the docum ents seeking to explain the com m unity’s teachings is called the Halakic Letter, 4QMMT 179 D e a d Se a S c r o l l s (4Q394-4Q399); the abbreviation stands for Miqsat M acase ha-Torah, “Some of the Works of the Law,” a phrase used tow ard the end of the work. This letter appears in six copies in Cave 4, and was sent from the sect’s leader (possibly the Teacher of Righteous­ ness) to the sect’s opponent (possibly the Wicked Priest) to amicably convince the recipient regarding twenty-two points of legal disagreement. They dif­ fered regarding the calendar, ritual purity, and m ar­ riage laws. In some cases, the position espoused in the letter agrees with w hat we know of Essene and Sadducean teachings rather than with Pharisaic/ rabbinic teachings. 4QMMT also contains a state­ m ent th at has been used in discussions of the devel­ opm ent of a tripartite scriptural canon, in that it m entions “the book of Moses and the books of the prophets and David” (4QMMT C 10). Texts Used in Worship. Some of the texts used in worship are of sectarian origin, and some are not. The best preserved hymns are the Cave 11 Psalms Scroll (nQ Psa), which m entions fifty-two songs for Sabbath offerings (XXVII, 7) (implying a solar year b u t with no other sectarian characteristics), and the Thanksgiving Hymns or Hodayot (iQHa), which is clearly sectarian. The nam e comes from the phrase “I thank you, Lord,” which begins m ost of the hymns. The Hodayot were found in two copies from Cave 1, and 6 or 7 copies from Cave 4. Since the initial publication of iQHa by Sukenik, Stegemann and Puech have corrected the num bering of the columns and lines, so th at two referencing systems may be encountered in the secondary literature. The hymns are typically categorized into two main types: the “Hymns of the Teacher” and the “Hymns of the Community.” The Hymns of the Teacher are more personal; in them typically the poet complains of false teachers scheming against him with their “sm ooth things,” and even driving him out “like a bird from its nest,” but he is confident that God’s law is hidden within him and th at the m embers of the covenant listen to him, although this hidden mystery causes problem s even with friends. In the “Hymns of the Community” hum ans are described as God’s lowly creatures of clay. The wicked attack the righteous, bu t God rescues them, providing knowledge and covenant, so th at the righteous sing God’s praises and are raised to an “everlasting height,” where they com m une with angels. Predes­ tination and moral dualism are frequently evident. Although the Thanksgiving Hymns do not indicate how they were used (whether in public or in pri­ vate), the Benedictions of lQSb specify th at they are for the Leader. Other texts used in worship appear to include the Psalms o f Joshua (4Q3784Q379)> some Apocryphal Psalms (4Q380-4Q381), the Barki Nafshi, and other liturgical works. The Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice (ShirShabb) appears in eight copies, and includes thirteen poems, one for each Sabbath in a quarter of a solar year. The work assum es correspondence between the liturgy of the angels and th at of hum ans. Although this docum ent has some sectarian characteristics, a copy was also found away from Qumran, at Masada. Finally, note should be m ade of the M ishm arot texts, which m en­ tion the annual festivals to be celebrated: Passover, Unleavened Bread, the Waving of the Omer (the first-fruits of barley), the Festival of Weeks (the firstfruits of wheat), the New Wine Festival, the New Oil Festival, the Wood Festival, the Day of Atone­ m ent, and the Festival of Booths. Wisdom Texts. The “W isdom texts” include the docum ent known as the Wiles o f the Wicked Woman (4Q184) as well as 4Q185, and 4Q408, 410-13, 41522,423-26,472-76,525, and possibly 560 would also fall into this category. Eschatological Texts. Many of the principal Qum­ ran docum ents, w hether specifically sectarian or not, are heavily eschatological, describing or offer­ ing instruction for the end of days (lQSa, 1 Enoch, Jubilees, the Pesharim, 1QS, the Hodayot, and the Temple Scroll's final temple). Here should also be noted two texts not previously mentioned: the War Scroll and the New Jerusalem texts. One copy of the War Scroll was found in Cave 1, and six copies in Cave 4. It describes the final con­ flict between the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. There are apportioned times predeter­ m ined by God in which each side has the upper hand. But the docum ent is not so m uch concerned with instructing its readers on w hat to do in this D e a d Se a S c r o l l s Copper Scroll The Copper Scroll (3Q15) photographed in situ, 1952. It is about 12 inches (30 centim eters) wide. ASOR P h o t o g r a p h C o l l e c t i o n , A r c h i v e s o f t h e A m e r i c a n S c h o o l s o f Or ie n t al Re s e a r c h battle as it is in describing the trum pets used and the qualifications of the warriors. It offers praise to God for a victory anticipated on the basis of histor­ ical precedent. The Aramaic New Jerusalem (NJ) text was found in seven copies in five caves. It describes a tow n plan, including its temple, in the form of an angeli­ cally guided tour with m easurem ents. Non-literary Texts. Non-literary texts include the famous Copper Scroll (3Q15), and a few docum entary texts (4Q342-4Q358). The Copper Scroll is unique for the m aterial on which it was written. Because the partially deterio­ rated copper was so fragile, it could not be simply unrolled, so it was not opened until four years after its discovery, and then by sawing the scroll into strips. John Allegro translated it in i960, bu t it was officially published 1962 by J. Milik. It is dated to about 100 c .e ., and contains a list of sixty-four places of hidden treasure: tons of gold and silver and other valuables. Its purpose is a mystery. The quantities of precious m etal are so astounding th at it could hardly be intended literally. Yet why else stam p these locations into copper? Perhaps the treasure was from the Temple, hidden from the Romans, or perhaps it was the wealth of Bar Kokhba’s suppor­ ters. Searches for the treasure have been unsuccess­ ful, even though John Allegro excavated some of the sites in 1962. The docum entary texts are very fragmentary, so m uch so th at for m any of them it is difficult to know w hether the language is Hebrew or Aramaic. In addition to the nam es of the people involved, enough has survived to indicate th at ownership of personal property is being transferred. Brief History of the Qumran Community. The history of the Qum ran com m unity can be recon­ structed to some extent from the available evidence, including the physical evidence of the site and the scrolls, and the w ritten evidence from the scrolls and other ancient authors. Because this disparate evidence som etimes points in differing directions, the reconstructions rem ain som ewhat tentative. Written Evidence. W ithin the scrolls themselves, we m ight hope to find m ention of specific historical persons or events th at would help place the history 1 81 182 D e a d Se a S c r o l l s of the authors’ com m unity into a framework of known history. However, such nam ed references are sparse, appearing for example in the Nahum Pesher (4Q169), where Demetrius is mentioned, in 4Q448, where a king Jonathan is the subject of a prayer, in 4Q331 and 4Q332, which m ention Salome Alexandra, and in 4 0 3 3 3 *which m entions Aemelius Scaurus. The N ahum Pesher is clearly sectarian, but it is unclear w hether 4Q448 was com posed by a m em ber of the Qum ran com m unity or not, since its paleography and orthography differ from the typical Qum ran style. It is not even clear w hether the attitude tow ard Jonathan is positive or negative. In any case, all nam ed historical figures are from the Hasm onean period. Allusions to Historical Events. Other events in the history of the com m unity are alluded to in various parts of the scrolls. The m ost direct historical state­ m ents are in CD 1, 5-11, where a shoot is said to have sprouted 390 years (from Ezekiel 4:9) after the de­ struction by Nebuchadnezzar, which would be 196 b . c . e . Twenty years of groping followed, a n d then the Teacher of Righteousness came to lead them. The “Hymns of the Teacher” in the Hodayot are often used in an attem pt to reconstruct the life of the Teacher of Righteousness, but the personal ex­ periences m entioned there are too vague to yield any confidence in writing a history of the com m u­ nity. At this tim e the “Scoffer” (CD 1, 14) or Liar (VIII, 13; XIX, 26; XX, 15) also appeared, with the “m en of w ar” th at w ent with him. The Pesher Habakkuk m entions him with those who were not faithful to the covenant and did not listen to the Teacher. He confronted the Teacher of Righteousness, who was not defended by the “House of Absalom.” 4QpPsa I 27 indicates th at the followers of the “Man of Lies” did not listen to the “Interpreter of Knowledge.” Another opponent is the “Wicked Priest” (prob­ ably a play on “high priest,” a negative figure for the sectarians), who pursued the Teacher of Right­ eousness on the Day of Atonement, the Sabbath of “their” rest (lQpHab XI, 4-8), perhaps implying a difference of calendars. In lQpHab VIII, 9-13 it is said of him, “when he ruled over Israel his heart becam e proud, he deserted God and betrayed the laws for the sake of riches,” indicating th at the problem was not one of legitimacy as high priest. According to 4QpPsa IV, 8-9, someone, perhaps the Teacher of Righteousness, wrote a “Torah” to the Wicked Priest. Perhaps 4QMMT, described above, is this “Torah.” The disagreem ents m entioned in CD and 4QMMT have to do with calendars, ritual purity, and marriage. (This is not to say th at the Qum ran com m unity invented or created the solar 364-day calendar, since First Enoch, which was writ­ ten centuries before the Teacher of Righteousness lived, already has the 364-day calendar.) CD III m en­ tions a covenant with a rem nant, which then sinned, was forgiven, and was established with a sure house. In CD VI, the converts of Israel dug the “well” (the law) w ith the “staff’ (the “interpreter of the law”). The Teacher of Righteousness was “gathered” in CD XX, 13-15 and XIX, 35-20.1, implying th at he had already died at the tim e the Damascus Document was composed. Finally, the reference in 4QpNah f3~4 I, 6 -7 to hanging “seekers of sm ooth things” on a tree has been understood by many scholars as a reference to the crucifixions of Pharisees by Alexan­ der Janneus in 88 b .c .e , as described by Josephus. Physical Evidence. The physical evidence for the history of the Qum ran com m unity includes the m a­ terial finds from the Qum ran site: the buildings, coins, ceramics, furniture, and of course, the scrolls themselves. In the 1950s, Roland de Vaux excavated the Qum ran buildings and cemeteries: the main cem etery immediately to the east of the site in­ cluded four extensions tow ard the east, the south cem etery was across the W adi Qumran, and the north cemetery was a ten-m inute walk away to the north. The coins found at the site provide the most reliable dating of periods of occupation. Twelve are Seleucid, from 223-129 b . c .e . One hundred and fiftyfive are Hasm onean (110-37 b .c .e .), 143 of which are from Alexander Janneus’s reign (103-76 b .c .e .). Only a small num ber of coins (10) are from Herod the G reat’s reign (37-4 b . c .e .), and 16 from Herod Archelaus (4 b . c .e .—6 c .e .). There are 58 Procuratorial coins (6-41 c .e .) and 78 from Agrippa 1 (41-44 c .e .). Fortysix are from Nero’s tim e (54-68) and 88 from the Jewish W ar (67-69). In addition, a hoard of 561 D e a d Se a S c r o l l s Q u m ran B uildings. Remains of living quarters, constructed and occupied c. 103 B .C .E . - 6 9 c .e . P h o t o g r a p h by M a r k A . W i l s o n Tyrian coins was dated to the tim e of Archelaus. It appears then th at occupation took place in two main periods: during the tim e of Alexander Janneus, and from Herod Archelaus until the end of the Jewish War. The buildings have thick walls, but not thick enough for a fortress. They do not appear to have been destroyed in a m ilitary attack (contra Golb 1995), and they are not laid out like other fortresses in the area. There are m any cisterns, but the aqueduct was exposed to any enemies. The silt in the cistern implies a period of no habitation, presumably between the two periods of occupation determ ined from the coins. As noted in detail below, when the buildings were reoccupied, they were re­ built in a m anner similar to th at of the first period “Phase 1,” and this period in the rebuilt buildings is labeled “Phase 2.” Of the cemeteries, the m ain cemetery seemed initially (after de Vaux’s excavation of 28 of the 1,200 graves) to include only men, the north ceme­ tery had 12 graves, of which two were excavated, and the south cemetery had 30 graves, of which four were opened. In total, de Vaux excavated 43 graves, and Steckoll excavated a further ten. Although it is not always possible to identify the num ber and gender of the skeletons precisely, in these 53 graves, the remains of 58 to 63 individuals were found, of which eight to eleven were wom en and five or six were children. The scrolls themselves provide some physical evi­ dence for the history of the community, in th at they can be dated by paleography and by various analyses of the material. It appears that the following scrolls were produced during the first half of the first cen­ tury b . c .e .: 1QS, lQSa, 4QD, nQ Ta, iQHa, ShirShabb, Daily Prayers, iQIsaa, Enoch, and Jubilees. But m ost of the scrolls were produced in the first century c .e . The Essenes. Scholars have sought to identify the inhabitants of the Qum ran site with Jewish groups known from literary sources. If such an identifica­ tion is correct, it is possible to com plem ent our knowledge of th at group derived from the literary sources with firsthand data from Qumran, and to interpret the finds from Qum ran in the light of the literary descriptions. The known groups from the Hasm onean and Herodian periods include Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Hasidim, and Scribes. To make the identification, scholars have com pared the 183 184 D e a d Se a S c r o l l s physical and m anuscript evidence from Qumran with the descriptions of the sects from Josephus, Philo, Pliny, and other ancient literary sources. But this m ethod can be challenged on methodological grounds, since it assum es th at the site and the m anuscripts are related, and th at the m anuscripts speak with a unanim ous voice. If it could be proven th at the site and m anuscripts are from the same sect, and if clear agreem ent were found between the two (with no discrepancies), then one type of evi­ dence could be used to interpret the other. However, since some discrepancies do appear (among the m anuscripts, am ong the literary descriptions, and between the m anuscripts and the descriptions) the enterprise is less useful than m ight be hoped. More­ over, because there were m ore sects in Judaism than those described by Josephus, Philo, and Pliny, this sect m ight be one for which we have no external literary evidence. In th at case, it would be im proper to im port the literary evidence regarding a different Jewish sect to interpret the Qum ran evidence, and equally wrong to use the Qum ran evidence to under­ stand th at other sect. W ith these cautions in mind, the m ost useful external w ritten evidence comes from Josephus and Pliny. Josephus. In his description of the three Judean “philosophies,” (War 2 .1 1 9 - 1 6 0 and Ant. 1 3 .1 7 1 -1 7 3 ) Josephus describes the Essenes along with Pharisees and Sadducees. He dates the activity of these groups from the m id-second century b .c .e . to 7 0 c .e . Of these groups, he spends the m ost tim e describing the teachings and practices of the Essenes, which share some striking similarities to the teachings and practices described in the Qum ran scrolls (a proba­ tion period lasting years, possessions in common, com m on meal). At the same time, Josephus explains the m otivation for their asceticism as a mind-body dualism rather than the m oral dualism we see in the scrolls. As an afterthought, Josephus m entions a second type of Essenes who do m arry for the pur­ pose of procreation {War 2 .1 6 0 ) . Notably, he also indicates there was no high priest around 1 5 0 b .c .e . {Ant. 2 0 .2 3 7 ; 1 2 .4 3 4 ; 13-4 6 ). Pliny. In his Natural History (written in 7 7 c .e .) Pliny the Elder places Essenes at the Dead Sea, and says th a t Ein-gedi is “below” {infra) their location. Scholars debate w hether by “below” Pliny m eant “south” (i.e., dow nstream for the Jordan) or “down­ hill,” so th a t the Essenes would be located in the hills above Ein-gedi. Only if “below” m eans “south” can the Qum ran com m unity be identified with the Essenes Pliny described. But Pliny seems confused in other respects about Ein-gedi, since he describes it as the m ost fertile place in the vicinity. Was Pliny confusing Ein-gedi with Jericho, which was m ore fertile than Ein-gedi? Furtherm ore, he does not indicate the Essenes were Jews, b u t calls them their own “people” {gens). Finally, he was aware that Jerusalem and Ein-gedi were heaps of ashes at the tim e he wrote, bu t his use of the present tense implies th at the Essene com m unity still survived in his time. Others. The accounts of Philo (lived ca. 2 0 B .C .E .-50 c .e .) in That Every Good M an is Free and Hypothetica 1 1 .1 -1 8 are probably the earliest description of the Essenes, and it is similar to th at of another group of Jews near Alexandria he calls “Therapeutae,” with its assemblies and sacred meals {Contemplative Life 71). The writings of Dio Chrysostom (lived 4 0 c .e . to at least 112 c .e .) are quoted by Synesius of Cyrene ( 4 0 0 c .e .) , to the effect th at the Essenes form a prosperous city near the Dead Sea, not far from Sodom. None of these ancient authors m ention a fortress in the area. Finally, since the Qum ran docum ents take issue w ith the leadership of the Temple, the story told in 1 M accabees 10 m ight be relevant, supposing th at the high priest replaced by Jonathan could be the Tea­ cher of Righteousness. Early Reconstruction o f the History. The initial interpretation of the evidence was th at a monastic com m unity had occupied the site. Sukenik’s first suggestion, in 1 9 4 8 , was th at this com m unity might be the Essenes. Two alternative theories posit that the site was not a religious com m unity at all, but a r fortress or a villa. Roland de Vaux used the evidence available to reconstruct a history of the Qumran com m unity in phases. The site seems to have been initially used in the tim e of the monarchy, b ut it was abandoned for centuries until the sectarians arrived in the m id-second century. D e a d Se a S c r o l l s The small num ber of coins from Herod’s reign implies th a t the Qum ran site was uninhabited from 3 1 b .c .e . to 4 b .c .e . As noted above, the period before this tim e is called “Phase 1,” and the period after is “Phase 2.” The site was used before the m ain influx of people in the tim e of Alexander Jannaeus, bu t little is known about this first p art of Phase 1 (“la ”). Judging by the texts found, this was the m ain period of literary composition, not scroll production. It was the period when the site was at its largest (100m by 80m), and when the aqueduct was built. De Vaux took 1QS II, 21-22 and CD XIII, 1 at face value, and thought th at large num bers of people lived at Qumran, b ut in separate groups: the celibate men described in 1QS at the site itself, and the families described in CD in m anm ade caves nearby. Judging by the ash underneath the Phase 2 layer (the Herodian period), Phase lb ended with a fire and earthquake. M ost of the m anuscripts were copied during this second phase. The ruined buildings from Phase lb were rebuilt in m uch the same way as before. Phase 2 ended when the site was destroyed by the Romans in the Jewish War. De Vaux’s interpretation m ust now be slightly revised. The w ater supply could have supported no more than 200 people, perhaps as few as 25. The families m entioned in the Damascus Document are said to live in “cam ps” in the towns of Israel, accord­ ing to CD XII, 19, 23. Connecting the Essenes with the Site and the Scrolls. M ost scholars see convergence between the textual and physical evidence from Qumran. Although the word “Essene” does not appear in the scrolls (the closest is “doers” [c6sim\ of the law), neither do the writers call themselves by any other known sect name, and the Essenes are the known group with the closest resemblance to the policies we read about in the scrolls. The relevant data from the scrolls will first be summarized, after which some attem pt at synthesis will be made. The Community Rule offers points of com parison with Josephus’s description of Essenes on points of entrance requirem ents (VI, 13-23 implies a twoyear initiation whereas Josephus in War 2.137-139 describes a three-year period), initiatory oath (1QS has it at the beginning, Josephus at the end, of this period), determ inism (also in 1QM; iQHa; CD; 4Q180, in agreem ent w ith Josephus, A n t 13), com ­ m unal property (in Josephus, War 2, although 1QS VII, 6 -8 also has private property, and so does Josephus, War 2.134), a pure meal (1QS V, 13-14; VI, 2-6,13-23), prohibition on spitting (VII, 13; Josephus War 2.147; cf\yBer. 3:5), separation to the wilderness (VIII, 12-16), and no m ention of marriage or adoption (Josephus describes two types of Essenes: celibate and marrying; Pliny has them completely celibate). The Thanksgiving Hymns offer a point of com par­ ison in the life of the soul w ith angels after the body has died, similar bu t not identical to w hat Josephus describes in War 2. Although Jubilees (23:31) says the bones of the just shall rest in the earth, and their spirits shall have m uch joy, 4Q521 m entions reviving the dead, implying physical resurrection. The Halakic Letter (4QMMT) claims th at a li­ quid stream carries defilement, possibly explaining Josephus’s claim th at Essenes avoid oil on their skin (War 2.123; see also CD XII and com pare m. Yad. 4:6-7). The Damascus Document indicates th at individual property was not totally abolished, since it speaks of ownership of property and form ­ ing associations for buying and selling. The Rule o f the Congregation (II, 11-22) describes one kind of pure meal, but, contrary to w hat we would expect from reading Pliny, includes legislation for families. The War Scroll (VII, 5-7) and the Temple ScrollXLVL, 13-16 offer points of com parison regarding toiletry with Josephus, Jewish War 2.147-149. 11QT has the latrines 3000 cubits outside the city (the Sabbath limit was 2000); Josephus says they do not go to stool on the Sabbath, and on other days they dig a hole with a kind of hatchet to bury their excrement. The physical evidence from Qum ran is largely b u t not completely com patible with the external literary descriptions of Essenes. A hatchet resembling Jose­ phus’s description was found in Cave 11. The cem e­ teries have a disproportionately large proportion of adult males, bu t not exclusively, whereas Pliny and Josephus both depict the Essenes as celibate. Those seeking to defend the celibacy of the sect have suggested th at the wom en and children m ight be 185 186 D e a d Se a S c r o l l s visitors or travelers, or th at the sect was not celibate at all times of its history. The Groningen Hypothesis holds th at the Essenes were the m other sect from which the Qumran sec­ tarians and the Therapeutae described by Philo both emerged. This hypothesis is able to explain the similarities between the ancient descriptions of the Essenes and the scrolls, and at the same tim e accounts for the differences. The m ovem ent did not rem ain static, bu t evolved over time, so some incon­ sistency am ong the various recensions of the rules is to be expected. Description of the Sect. The m ovem ent was organized hierarchically, with priests, elders, and others according to their rank. Leadership titles include the maskil (who instructed), the mebaqqer (who m anaged the property), and the paqid (the m an “appointed” at the head of the many, in lQS VI, 14). These term s, however, may have been differ­ ent nam es for the same role. The scrolls depict at least two separate groups: one with families in the towns, and one apparently in isolation, with no m ention of women or children. The former are represented by the Damascus Docu­ ment, Temple Scroll, War Scroll, the Halakic Letter, and the Rule o f the Congregation, and the latter by the Rule o f the Community. The isolated men, unlike their m arried counterparts, avoided Temple services, ate at a com m on table, and held their property in com ­ mon. In the Rule o f the Community, the penalties are m eted out by the council, b ut in the Damascus Docu­ ment, there are ten “judges of the congregation.” En­ trance to the Qum ran desert com m unity involved a probation period of two years (lQS VI, 13-24). How­ ever, those who had grown up in the sect could simply swear an oath of the covenant (CD XV, 6; lQSa 1, 6-9). The Qum ran com m unity was governed by a council, which at tim es appears to be constituted by the whole com m unity (lQS VI, 14-15), but also can refer to twelve m en and three priests (lQS VIII). r Sessions of the council had strict expectations of decorum, with infractions punishable by cuts in rations or expulsion (lQS VI, 24-VII, 25). Significance. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been described as “the greatest m anuscript discovery of the 20th century for Jewish studies of the Second Temple Period and biblical studies” (Lim 2005, p. 120). They contribute to our understanding of the textual history of the Hebrew Bible, of early Judaism, of the varied contexts in which the Jesus m ovem ent arose, and of early Christianity and the New Testam ent. Textual Criticism o f the Hebrew Bible. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the textual evidence for the Hebrew Bible was the Hebrew M asoretic Text, the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the Sam aritan Pentateuch. Although the Septuagint translation was m ade beginning in the third century b .c .e . (represented by Codex Sinaiticus from the fourth century c .e .) and the Latin translation was m ade in the late fourth cen­ tury c .e . (its oldest m anuscripts date back to the seventh century c .e .), these are translations of the Hebrew. The oldest Hebrew M asoretic Text is re­ presented in the Cairo Codex of the Prophets (827 c . e .) and the Aleppo Codex (c. 930 c .e .). The Samaritan Pentateuch (recension c. 100 b .c .e .) survives in manu­ scripts as old as the twelfth century c .e . The Qumran biblical manuscripts, some of which are as old as the third century b .c .e ., are therefore twice as old as the oldest Hebrew biblical m anuscripts previously known. The Qum ran biblical m anuscripts do not all agree with each other, but exhibit diversity. That said, the diversity does not affect Jewish or Christian doc­ trines except perhaps those regarding the transm is­ sion of scripture, since the quest for the “original” text now seems m ore impossible th an ever. The corrections in the m anuscripts tend to be toward w hat becam e the Masoretic Text, indicating th at the m ovem ent was from diversity to standardization of the text. Some books appear in two recensions, one longer than the other. Some collections of psalms exhibit varying order. Some m anuscripts are written in the peculiar Qum ran style of spelling, morphol­ ogy, and script. The m anuscripts fall into four texttypes: those aligned with the M asoretic Text (the large majority), those aligned with the Septuagint, those aligned with the Sam aritan Pentateuch, and those th at are not aligned with any of these. D e a d Se a S c r o l l s The M asoretic-aligned texts (e.g., iQIsaa) confirm the antiquity of the Masoretic consonantal text, but they call into question the antiquity of the Masoretic vocalization. The Qum ran biblical m anuscripts are of special value to text criticism when they can lay claim to greater antiquity than the M asoretic Text. This is the case when the Qum ran scrolls agree with an independent textual tradition, against the M a­ soretic Text. M ost often, this kind of agreem ent is between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. Examples include Exodus 1:5 (with 75 rather th an 70 descendants); Deuteronom y 32:8 (“sons of God” rather th an “sons of Israel”); 4QJerb (the shorter version); Jerem iah 10:6-8,10 (absent); 1 Samuel 17:4 (Goliath’s height 4 cubits rather than 6). Qum ran readings have even been adopted in m odem transla­ tions. For example, the NRSV includes the story of Nahash in 1 Samuel 11 on the basis of the 4QSama agreement with Josephus and some Greek copies. It appears to have dropped out of the Masoretic tradition when a scribe’s eye skipped a paragraph. Early Judaism. The Qum ran m anuscripts have m uch to tell us about Judaism at the tu rn of the era. Not only do they provide evidence of the lan­ guages in use at th at tim e in Judea, they also con­ tribute to our understanding of canon form ation and even the form ation of m any biblical books. The language of the vast m ajority of scrolls at Qumran is Hebrew. Only a very few Greek m anu­ scripts were found, and those in Aramaic (such as 1 Enoch, Genesis Apocryphon) were mainly com ­ posed before the sect began. However, the Targums, translations of the Hebrew biblical text into Ara­ maic, appear to have been copied as early as the second century b .c .e . (Leviticus) and as late as the first century c .e . (Job). The need for such Targums is unclear, since the com m unity was certainly very familiar w ith Hebrew, to the point of forming their own dialect. Studies of canon form ation can now call upon the evidence from Qumran. The relative im portance of books can be surm ised based on the num ber of m anuscripts preserved, and the num ber of times they are treated as authorities. For example, Jubilees was found in m ore copies than any biblical book except for the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Isaiah. Like­ wise, 1 Enoch is m ore popular than m ost biblical books. On the other hand, the book of Esther has not been found at all (and lists of festivals from Qumran do not include Purim), even though other stories related to Esther do appear. Likewise, the additions to Daniel are absent, bu t other Daniel stories (e.g., the prayer of Nabonidus) were found. Of course, the biblical books are frequently cited as authorities, often w ith citation formulae (e.g., “God said,” “it/h e said,” “Moses said,” God said “by the hand of the prophet Ezekiel,” “as it is w ritten in the book o f.. . . ”), b u t Jubilees and the Apocryphon o f Levi were also quoted w ith a citation formula in the Damascus Document. The Damascus Document also nam es the “Book of Hagu” (meditation?) as a proper object of study, but this m ay actually refer to the Pentateuch. Only the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Lat­ ter Prophets have com m entaries interpreting them . The other non-biblical Qumran docum ent with strong claim to authority is the Temple Scroll, by virtue of its rephrasing of the Torah in the first person so that the scroll implicitly claims to be God’s direct words. But the Temple Scroll is not used authorita­ tively in the same way as is the Pentateuch. Proponents of a tripartite division of the canon have found evidence for their view in 4QMMT C IX X, which m entions the Law, Prophets, and David. But this assum es th at “David” stands for the whole of the “W ritings” section of the Tanak. The Qum ran scrolls show th at the order and perhaps even the contents of the psalter was still flexible, since nQ P sa has the familiar psalm s in different order, along with some new psalms. The com position history of m any biblical books has been a subject for debate. It was hoped th at the scrolls m ight provide evidence th at indicates when the various parts of Isaiah came together into one book and how Daniel came to be com posed of Ara­ maic and Hebrew parts. In both these cases, the Qum ran m anuscripts exhibit the same text form as the Masoretic Text, indicating th at the final form of these books had already taken shape. The special nam e of God, the tetragram m aton, ceased to be pronounced at some tim e around the 187 188 D e a d Se a S c r o l l s tu rn of the era. Although the Qum ran scrolls cannot tell us unequivocally w hether the nam e was pro­ nounced or not, they do indicate th at the nam e was treated in a special way, since some m anu­ scripts record the nam e in a different script than the rest of the m anuscript. Although one of the causes for the separation of the Qum ran sect was halakic, few points of contact exist with the later rabbinic literature, perhaps be­ cause the rabbis were not influenced by this separa­ tist sect. It is true th at the calendar was im portant to both groups, but more specific points of com par­ ison are rare. One such comparison, however, has to do w ith the flow of im purity along a stream of liquid as described in 4QMMT. In this case, the Qumran teaching is in agreem ent with th at attributed to the Sadducees in mishnah Yadayim 4.7. It is not in the rabbinic literature but in the later Jewish mystical traditions th at we find the strongest parallels. Angels and dem ons are prom inent, and ways to protect oneself from or attract these spiri­ tual beings are described. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide a link between the book of Ezekiel and the later Hekhalot literature. Early Christianity. The Dead Sea Scrolls shed considerable light on the various Jewish contexts in which the Jesus m ovem ent arose. The connections are not as direct as some have falsely claimed, th at parts of the New Testam ent were found at Qumran, or th at Jesus or John the Baptist was a m em ber of the Qum ran sect. Rather, the significance lies in dem on­ strating where Jesus and the early church shared features with other branches of Second Temple Judaism. Attitude to Scripture. The Qumran sectarians were clearly centered on the scriptures, which they viewed as inspired by God. The scriptures were thought to be revealed to prophets who recorded the words God gave them . There was no attem pt to understand the m eaning of the words of scripture in their original context. Rather, the scriptures, being w ritten by prophets, predicted the future, the ulti­ m ate future of the end of days, in which God would act decisively. The Qum ran sectarians believed they were living in the end of days, and therefore read the eschatological message of scriptures as if they were referring to their own time. This attitude to scrip­ ture is similar to w hat we see in the New Testament, where Jesus says scripture “cannot be broken,” is given by prophecy, and is the record of God’s mes­ sage. Similarly, the early Christians understood the scriptures to be referring to their own time, as is evident by the fulfillment formulae especially of M atthew ’s gospel, and the “last days” of Joel’s pro­ phecy in Acts 2:17. Sectarianism and Differentiation. The scrolls, especially the sectarian documents, indicate a social context in which divisions within Judaism were pro­ m inent. The Qumranites were evidently concerned to distinguish themselves from other Jews. The vows of 1QS, the dualistic language of the sons of light and the sons of darkness in lQM, the concern in 4QMMT to clarify points of difference, the vitriol toward opponents in the pesharim, the history described in the Damascus Document, all point to a tendency to m ark carefully the boundaries between “us” and “them .” This boundary-marking evinces a concern to correctly understand the truth, and an expecta­ tion of followers to devote themselves to the correct interpreter of th at truth. It was of crucial impor­ tance for a disciple to choose the right teacher and rightly interpret the scriptures and follow his teach­ ings in order to not cross the fine line between truth and falsehood. The rise of Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and other Jewish sects are comprehensible in this context of exaggerated boundary-marking. While the strongest boundary-m arking was reserved for parties within Judaism, the gentile government was no friend of the Qum ran community. The Kittim were those who invaded and defiled, according to the pesharim, and their demise was anticipated in the W ar Scroll. Jews in the New T estam ent and in the Scrolls looked forward to divine riddance of the Romans. r The leadership at the Jerusalem Temple fared little better, and som etimes worse. The Jerusalem Temple was the center of worship for the majority of Jews, but the Qum ran com m unity differentiated itself from the Jerusalem Temple in several ways. Although it is not stated explicitly, the Qumranites D e a d Se a S c r o l l s apparently thought the high priesthood had been defiled and had forfeited its legitimacy. The author­ ity and purity of the high priest was certainly not unanimously acknowledged by all Jews. F urther­ more, whereas the liturgical calendar used at the Temple was based on the cycles of the moon, the calendar the Qum ranites lived by was based on a solar year of 364 days. Other rituals are even less clear, given th at the com m unity at Qumran rejected the sacrifices offered at the Temple, and instead considered “works of the Law,” prayer, and “perfection of way” (lQS IX, 4-5) to substitute for anim al sacrifice. But the reason for the rejection of the Temple sacrifices was not so m uch an objection to animal sacrifices as to the defilement of the priest(s). The Law. The Qum ran attitude to com m and­ ments was strict; the placem ent of the latrines was such th at it was impossible to reach them w ith­ out breaking the rule regarding Sabbath travel. Yet despite its insistence on observing the Law, the commentary on Habakkuk 2:4 shows significant si­ milarities to the way Paul interpreted the verse in his letter to the Galatians 3:11: “Interpreted, this con­ cerns all observing the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will rescue from the House of Judgem ent because of their toil and because of their emundh (faith in/loyalty to) the Teacher of Righteousness” (lQpHab VIII, 1-3). One is saved by observing the law and by faith. Immersion fo r Purification. The im m ersion pools (mikvaot) at Qum ran indicate the im portance of ritual immersion. The texts indicate th at washing was for purification and occurred with confession and the cleansing of the holy spirit (lQS IV, 20-22). In contrast to Christian baptism, this washing took place recurrently. Eschatology. The religious context of Judaism at the turn of the era indicates a heightened eschatological awareness. Almost every sectarian docum ent looks forward to im m inent intervention by God to destroy Belial and his evil sons of darkness. They expected the world to be destroyed by fire (iQpZeph; iQHa XI), and God would then set things right. A New Jerusalem would be established, and a prosperous and peaceful era would ensue. The writers of the Rule o f the Community, the Rule o f the Congregation, the Rule o f Blessings, the War Rule, the Thanksgiving Hymns, and the pesharim assume th at they were living in the last days, and that the time the prophets foresaw was taking place. They expected God to act decisively through two anointed figures: the priestly messiah “of Aaron” and the royal messiah “of Israel.” These were sepa­ rate people, divine in origin but not in essence. Like the Christians, the Qum ran com m unity used messianic terminology to describe how God would intervene to set things right. In fact, labels for the messiah show remarkable overlap between expres­ sions used in 4Q246 (“Son of the Most High,” “son of God,” etc.) and in Luke 1:32-33, 35. Also like Chris­ tians, they expected two messianic roles: priestly and royal. However, whereas the Christians held these two roles in one person, Jesus, the Qum ran sectarians expected two separate messiahs (lQSa; lQS IX, 9-11; CD XTV, 9). The royal messiah was called the “Branch of David” at Qumran; Jesus is Davidic in Acts 2:29-31, and is called the Root of David in Revelation 5 and 22. Jesus is a priestly messiah in the letter to the Hebrews. And whereas the Christians expected two comings of the Messiah, the Qumran sectarians expected only one coming. The early Christians likewise expected the Day of the Lord (2 Pet 3:10) in which the present world would pass away and be replaced by a new heaven and a new earth in Revelation. Christians expected to help with the judging of the nations (M att 19:28; Luke 22:30; 1 Cor 6:2). One further parallel should be mentioned: the socalled “Pierced Messiah” text, 4Q285, which Robert Eisenman claimed referred to a Messiah who was pu t to death, just as Jesus was. The text is incom ­ plete and therefore ambiguous, but Eisenm an’s reading was that the “the Branch of David” would be killed, ignoring the fact that this text was an interpretation of Isaiah 11, in which the Branch kills the wicked. There is therefore no direct parallel in 4Q285 with the Christian-crucified messiah. Son o f Man. Jesus refers to himself as the “Son of M an” in the Synoptic Gospels. The expression 189 190 D e a d Se a S c r o l l s occurs in the Dead Sea Scrolls only as a circum locu­ tion for “hum an being,” usually in the plural, and often with a negative connotation as one who is inferior to God. Those parts of 1 Enoch in which the expression occurs are solely in Book 2 of 1 Enoch, the Similitudes, which is not attested among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Kingdom o f God. In 4Q521, God “will honour the pious upon the throne of an eternal kingdom” in term s taken from Isaiah 61, the same passage Jesus read in the synagogue in Luke 4, and claimed was fulfilled in their hearing. Although at this point Jesus does not connect the passage to the kingdom of God, by 4:43 it is clear th at he considered his preaching “the good news about the kingdom of God.” Miracles. The Songs of the Sage (4Q510 and 4Q511) contain poem s referring to the subjugation of evil spirits, and were likely used in exorcism. According to the gospels, exorcisms were a large p art of Jesus’ activity. The difference, however, is th at Jesus did not use ritualized m ethods to exorcize the spirits, but did so by his authoritative command. Mystery. The sectarians apparently held that com ­ m union with the angels was possible, although it is not completely clear w hether th at com m union was thought to take place already, before the final de­ struction of Belial, or afterward, in the new creation. A key com ponent in their salvation was knowl­ edge, which the Teacher of Righteousness could convey. Those who held this special knowledge thought of themselves as having been rescued and raised to an eternal height. This saving knowledge was known only to those of the community, revealed by the speaker of iQHa XIII, 25: “And about the mystery which you have concealed in me they go slandering to the sons of destruction. In order to show my [pa]th and because of their guilt you have concealed the source of understanding and the foundation of truth.” Similarly, M atthew 11:2527 has Jesus revealing special knowledge to h isr followers, and 1 Corinthians 4:11 and Ephesians 1:9 speak of Christians as holders of a divine mystery. Dualism. The strong dualism between the sons of light and the sons of darkness has parallels in Jesus’ teaching, especially in John’s Gospel. For example, John 12:35 use the same expression “sons of light.” The sons of darkness are called the “army of Belial” in 1QM I, 1, and Belial is the preferred nam e for personified evil in the Dead Sea Scrolls. He has spirits (CD XII, 2; 1Q33 XIII, 2) and m en (lQS II, 5) in his “lot,” and can be “in” one’s heart (lQS X, 21; 4Q88 X, 10). In the New T estam ent the nam e Beliar does appear once, in 2 Corinthians 6:15, where Christ is opposed to Beliar, but the preferred nam es for the leader of evil are of course “Satan” and its Greek translation “devil.” Some expressions of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels are similarly dualistic (M att 6:24; 12:30, b u t cf. Luke 9 :5 0 ). Devotion. Jesus’ demands for utter devotion are comparable to those of the Qumran community. In Luke 14:26, those who wish to be Jesus’ disciples are required to “hate” their relatives and their own life. They are required to choose between two masters: God or Mammon. Similarly, those volunteering to join the Qumran community m ust give up their possessions. Leadership. The title of mebakker as “overseer” may correspond to the Christian “episkopos,” often translated as “bishop” in the New Testam ent (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:2). Decision-making by casting lots is attested in both lQS VI, 18 and Acts 1:26. Decisions by com­ m unity consensus can be seen in lQS 6 and Acts 4:32. Communal Property. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain m uch in the way of economic transactions. The Rule o f the Community (6.17, 19-20, 22) reflects the voluntary com m unalization of individual prop­ erty, a feature attributed to the Essenes by Josephus (War 1.122) and Pliny (Natural History 5-73)- In the Damascus Document there are stipulations about forming business associations. Evidently communal living was not so unique th at it needed to be defended or explained in the Rules. Similarly, Acts 2 claims m em bers of the earliest post-Easter Jesus movement shared their property and even brought the proceeds of selling their private property to the group. Women. The scrolls themselves do not address celibacy, but the cemeteries imply at least reduced levels of reproduction. The Damascus Document at tim es assumes families and children, and occasion­ ally m entions wom en in positions of authority. D e a d Se a S c r o l l s That the Qum ran com m unity was prim arily male has been surm ised from the overwhelmingly male language in lQS, the infrequent m ention of women, and the few female graves in the m ain cemetery. Yet at least some wom en held positions of respect, since the title “m others” in the Damascus Document (4Q270 f7 1, 14) seems to refer to such women. Likewise, the New Testam ent shows a mixed atti­ tude tow ard women: although Jesus and the twelve apostles were male, evidently wom en were am ong his followers (Mark 15:40). A few wom en appear to have had leadership roles in the early church, such as Junia (Rom 16:7) and Chloe (1 Cor 1:11). Melchizedek. The enigmatic character of Melchizedek appears briefly in Genesis, and is picked up again in Hebrews. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, nQMelch also m entions this priest, but here Mel­ chizedek has a role more similar to that of Jesus in Hebrews: he is a heavenly high priest who expiates the sins of the Sons of Light, but also leads the fight against the sons of Belial. This high priest m ay also be referred to in the Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice. Sermon on the M ount In Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, according to Matthew, a num ber of expres­ sions appear rem iniscent of those in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The “poor in spirit” sounds like 1QM XIV, 7, the beatitudes like 4Q 525, the antitheses are phrased like 4QMMT, and the teaching to repay evil with good appears in lQS X, 17-18. Calendar. The difference in calendar has been used to explain why the Synoptic Gospels differ from John’s Gospel regarding the day on which the Last Supper took place: before or on the Passover. The Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that at least two calendars were in use in first-century Judea. Jaubert suggested that the Synoptics followed a solar calendar (like that of the Dead Sea Scrolls) and John followed the official calendar. But this suggestion is implausible since there is no other m ention of calendrical differences in the New Testament, and it would be unusual for the two calendars to differ by one day at Passover. Ritual Meal. The pure meal of the Qum ran community may be com pared to the Last Supper of Mark 14:22-25 or Lord’s supper of 1 Corinthians 11. In lQS VI, 4 -6 the m ain elem ents of the meal are the bread and wine, as in the Christian supper. In lQS, the food is blessed by the priest, as it was by Jesus. Furtherm ore, the Qum ran meal was exclusive (lQS VI, 16-17,20-21; VII, 16); n ot everyone was perm itted to partake of it, just as in 1Corinthians 11:27-30. The Rule o f the Congregation (lQSa) also describes a com ­ parable meal th at is eschatological, messianic, and pure, includes a blessing, and is a regular event. [See also 1 Enoch; Jubilees\ Pesharim; Targumim; and Text Criticism, subentry Hebrew Bible.] BIBLIOGRAPHY Editions Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. 40 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1951-. Official publication series. Includes translations into English or French. Garcia Martmez, F., and E. J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1997-1998. Includes English translations. Lim, T. H., and E. Tov, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Electro­ nic Reference Library. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1997. Parry, Donald W., and Emanuel Tov. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. 6 vols. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2004-2005. Includes English translations. Sukenik, E. L. The Dead Sea Scrolls o f the Hebrew University. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1955. Tov, E. The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche. With S. J. Pfann. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Yadin, Y. The Temple Scroll 2 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983. English Translations Abegg, M., P. Flint, and E. Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999. Translations of the biblical scrolls, showing variations from the Masoretic Text. Eisenman, R., and M. Wise. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncov­ ered. Rockport, Mass.: Element, 1992. An early, some­ times sensationalist, translation. Garcia Martmez, F. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1994- 1995. Vermes, G. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. 5th ed. London: Penguin Books, 1997. Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. 2d ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005. Reference Works Abegg, Martin G. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2003. 192 D e a d Se a Sc r o l l s F itzm y er, J. A. A Guide to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. G ran d R apids, M ich.: E e rd m a n s, 2008. Reed, S. A. The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue: Documents, Photographs and Museum Inventory Numbers. Atlanta: S cholars, 1994. Schiffm an, L aw ren ce H., a n d Ja m e s C. V an d erK am , eds. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2 vols. N ew York: O xford U niv ersity P ress, 2000. Bibliographies Fitzm y er, J. A. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study. A tlan ta: S cholars, 1990. G arcia M artin ez , F lo ren tin o , a n d D o n ald W. Parry. A Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah 1970-1995. L eiden, N e th erlan d s: Brill, 1996. P in n ick , Avital. The Orion Center Bibliography of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1995-2000). L eiden, N eth erlan d s: Stegem ann, H artm u t. The Library of Qumran, Leiden, N etherlands: Brill; G rand Rapids, Mich.: E erdm ans, 1998. U lrich, E ugene, a n d Ja m e s V an d erK am , eds. The Com­ munity o f the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. N o tre D am e, Ind.: U niv ersity o f N o tre D am e P ress, 1994. V an d erK am , Ja m e s C. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. 2d. ed. G ra n d R apids, M ich.: E erd m a n s, 2010. V an d erK am , Ja m e s C. a n d P. W . F lint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. S an F ran ­ cisco: H arp erC o llin s, 2002. V aux, R o lan d de. Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. L o n d o n : O xford U niv ersity P ress, 1973. V erm es, G„ a n d M. G o o d m an . The Essenes According to the Classical Sources. Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield A ca­ d em ic, 1989. Brill, 2001. O nline see h ttp ://o rio n .m s c c .h u ji.a c .il/. Surveys C am pbell, J. G. Deciphering the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2d ed. L on d o n : B lackw ell, 2002. C ollins, J. J. “D ead Sea Scrolls.” In Anchor Bible Diction­ ary; e d ite d b y D. N. F re e d m a n , vol. 2, pp. 82-101. N ew York: D oubleday, 1991. F lint, P e te r W., a n d Ja m e s C. V an d erK am , eds. The Dead Journals Dead Sea Discoveries. L eiden, N eth erlan d s: Brill, 1994Qumran Chronicle. K rakow : E nigm a, 1 990Revue de Qumran. P aris: G abalda, 1982-. Monograph Series S tu d ies o n th e T ex ts o f th e D e se rt o f Ju d a h . Leiden, N e th erlan d s: Brill, 1957-. Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assess­ ment. 2 vols. L eiden, N e th erlan d s: Brill, 1998-1999. K en M. P en n er G arcia M artin ez, F., a n d A. S. v a n d e r W o u d e. “A ‘G ro n in g en ’ H y p o th esis o f Q u m ra n O rigins a n d E arly H isto ry .” In The Texts of Qumran and the History of the Community, e d ite d b y F. G arcia M artin ez, p p . 521-541. P aris: G abalda, 1990. Golb, N. Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? L ondon: M ich ael O’M ara, 1995. K ugler, R o b ert A., a n d E ileen Schuller, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty. A tlan ta: S cholars, 1999. Lim, T im o th y H. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Very Short Introduction. N ew York: O xford U niv ersity P ress, 2005. M agness, J. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. G ran d R apids, M ich., a n d C am bridge, U.K.: E erd m a n s, 2002. N ewsom , C. A ‘“Sectually Explicit’ L iterature from Q um ran.” In The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, edited by B aruch H alpem , W illiam H enry P ropp, a n d David Noel F reed­ m an, 1:167-187. W in o n a Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Schiffm an, L aw ren ce H. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, and the Lost Library of Qumran. P h ilad elp h ia: Jew ish P u b lic a tio n Society, 1994. Schuller, E ileen M. The Dead Sea Scrolls: What Have We Learned? Louisville, Ky.: W e s tm in s te r J o h n Knox, 2006. De u t e r o n o m y Deuteronom y may well be the first book to pose the problem of modernity. Its authors struggled with issues conventionally viewed as exclusively modern ones, such as the historical distance between past and present, the tension between tradition and the needs of the contem porary generation, and the distinction between divine revelation and hum an interpretation. Deuteronomy challenges contempor­ ary readers and thinkers, w hether religiously com­ m itted or secular, w hether Jewish or non-Jewish, actively to confront these problem s by m aking para­ dox central to its structure. As the book narrates the story of its formation, it also anticipates its prior existence as a complete literary work. Moreover, the book’s editors intentionally preserved varying and often inconsistent perspectives on a full range of key issues central to Israelite religion. On w hether the revelation of the Decalogue at Horeb (often called