{"id":1887,"date":"2018-12-23T12:50:00","date_gmt":"2018-12-23T11:50:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/?p=1887"},"modified":"2018-12-23T12:50:11","modified_gmt":"2018-12-23T11:50:11","slug":"qumran-and-jerusalem_-studies-in-the-dead-sea-scrolls-and-the-history-of-judaism-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/2018\/12\/23\/qumran-and-jerusalem_-studies-in-the-dead-sea-scrolls-and-the-history-of-judaism-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Qumran and Jerusalem_ Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism-1"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Separation from the\nTemple<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That such ritual debates did indeed cause the sectarians to separate\nfrom worship in the Jerusalem temple is claimed by the Zadokite Fragments.<\/em> This text, originally known only in the two\npartial copies preserved in the Cairo Genizah,19<\/a><\/sup> can now be examined in\nthe Qumran copies published by J. M. Baumgarten.20<\/a><\/sup> It is most probable\nthat the Zadokite Fragments<\/em> are to be\ndated to ca. 120 b.c.e., soon\nafter the separation of the sectarians, both spiritually and physically, from\nthe Jerusalem establishment. This document sets off three cardinal areas of\ntransgression in which the opponents of the sect are said to have engaged.21<\/a><\/sup>\nThese opponents are termed \u201cbuilders of the wall,\u201d clearly a sobriquet for the\nPharisees.22<\/a><\/sup> In particular, we encounter there the transgression of\nrendering the temple impure (CD 4:17\u201318<\/a>). This, in turn, is explained as not\nmaking the proper distinctions according to the Torah, violating laws\npertaining to impurity of women as a result of blood flows, and also marrying\none\u2019s niece (5:6\u20138<\/a>). The latter practice is known to have been\naccepted among the Pharisees and the Tannaim. Later on, in a list of\ntransgressions of which the opponents of the sect are presumably guilty, we\nagain find reference to failure to make proper distinctions between that which\nis impure and that which is pure (6:17<\/a>). There as well, we find reference to\nimproper observance of the Sabbath and festivals (6:18<\/a>). The latter may be a reference to failure\nto observe the holidays according to the sectarian calendar. All these\ntransgressions of proper temple practice are blamed on the sect\u2019s opponents,\nthe Hasmonean high priests, those Sadducees who continue to cooperate with\nthem, and the Pharisees whose views dominated the temple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, the Zadokite\nFragments<\/em> prohibit members of the sect from entering the Jerusalem temple\nto offer sacrifice there (6:11\u201312<\/a>). Temple sacrifice according to the\nprevailing norms was considered explicitly by this text to be null and void. This\nstrong judgment was, no doubt, based on the many halakhic disagreements between\nthe sectarians and the priestly establishment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There can be no question, therefore, that the\nsectarians decided in the aftermath of their initial conflicts with the\nJerusalem establishment to remove themselves from participation in the\nJerusalem temple. It should be noted that the Essenes, as described by\nJosephus, had special arrangements in the temple whereby they were able to send\nvotive offerings without entering the temple, thus maintaining their own\nstandards of purity.23<\/a><\/sup> In this respect, their practice contrasts\nwith that described in the Zadokite\nFragments<\/em>, which expects absolute abstention from temple sacrifice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Sect and Its Rituals as a Substitute for the Temple<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Numerous passages in sectarian literature indicate that once the\nsectarians had decided to refrain from temple rituals, two basic strategies\nwere adopted: seeing the sect as a substitute for the temple and using prayer\nas a substitute for sacrifice. It must be emphasized that the sectarians did\nnot offer sacrifices at Qumran, despite claims to the contrary by some\nscholars.24<\/a><\/sup> There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that would\nindicate the presence of a cult site or temple at Qumran.25<\/a><\/sup>\nFurther, the animal bones that were buried around some of the buildings at\nQumran cannot be taken as indicative of the performance of sacrificial rituals\nsince no requirement to bury bones is known from any system of Jewish\nsacrificial practice.26<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A number of passages speak of the sect itself\nas a \u201choly house\u201d (\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9), clearly a metaphorical\ndesignation for the temple. Whereas Israelite religion assumed that God could\nbest be approached through the sacrificial system in the temple, it was the\nview of the sectarians that, in light of the impure state of temple worship,\nlife in the sect, following its principles and its laws, would best bring\nhumans into close contact with God. This notion is of sufficient importance\nthat an entire section of the Rule of the\nCommunity<\/em> is based on this motif.27<\/a><\/sup> There we find that the\ncouncil of the community is described as \u201can Everlasting Plantation, a House of\nHoliness for Israel,28<\/a><\/sup> and an Assembly of Supreme Holiness for\nAaron\u201d (1QS 8:5\u20136<\/a>).29<\/a><\/sup> The text continues in a\nsimilar vein, speaking of<\/p>\n\n\n\n

a most holy dwelling30<\/a><\/sup>\nfor Aaron with everlasting knowledge of the covenant of justice, and they shall\noffer up sweet fragrance. It shall be a house of perfection and truth in Israel\nthat they may establish a covenant according to the everlasting precepts. And\nthey shall be an agreeable offering, atoning for the Land and determining the\njudgment of wickedness, and there shall be no more iniquity. (8:8\u201310<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here we see the sect itself serving as a substitute for the temple in\nwhich the sons of Aaron would normally serve. This \u201choly house\u201d is a place\nthrough which to gain atonement. Still further on we find similar motifs in\nwhich the sectarian group is described as atoning for guilt and transgression.\nThe text specifically describes gaining acceptance through sacrifice of animals\nand prayer in terms of \u201cthe gift of the lips\u201d and \u201clike a sweet-smelling\noffering for righteousness\u201d (9:4\u20135<\/a>).\nThese expressions describe the perfect way of life that is like \u201ca voluntary\nmeal offering for acceptance\u201d (9:3\u20135<\/a>).\nIn these passages and others the sacrifices appear only figuratively. Rather,\nit is the life of the sectarian within the context of the group that provides\nthe opportunity for atonement, just as would have been the function of the\nvarious sacrifices had the sectarians participated in temple rituals in\nJerusalem.31<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In order to create the appropriate atmosphere\nwithin the sect to accomplish these goals, temple purity laws were transferred\nto the lives of the sectarians, a phenomenon especially apparent in the Rule of the Congregation<\/em>. Here, in\ndescribing the community of the end of days, the text basically creates a\nmirror image for the messianic era of present-day, nonmessianic practice. For\nthis reason, practices that were part of the everyday life of the sect appear\nin this document in the form in which they would be observed in the messianic\nera. Those laws that, according to the book of Leviticus, disqualified priests\nfrom service in the temple (Lev 21:16\u201324<\/a>) and those that disqualified\nsacrificial animals (Lev 22:17\u201325<\/a>) were all brought to bear on\nparticipants in the eschatological community (1QSa\n2:3\u201311<\/a>). Those who were not fit for the roles of priest and\/or\nsacrifice were disqualified from participation in the community.32<\/a><\/sup>\nWe should assume, therefore, in light of the Zadokite Fragments<\/em> as well,33<\/a><\/sup> that such laws were\nobserved by the sectarians in their present, premessianic environment.\nAccordingly, the life of the sect was conducted as if the community were a\nvirtual temple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other elements of this same approach may be\nobserved in the purity laws that served as the basis for entry into the sect.34<\/a><\/sup>\nThose who went through the novitiate and sought full status in the sectarian\ngroup became increasingly eligible to come in contact with pure food as they\nrose through the ranks. Initially, after passing two examinations, they were\npermitted to come in contact only with solid food that had a lesser\nsusceptibility to impurity than drinks. After a third examination a year later,\nthey were permitted to come in contact with liquid food that was of much\ngreater susceptibility.35<\/a><\/sup> One who violated sectarian regulations\ncould be temporarily demoted, being permitted to come in contact with solid\nfood but forbidden to come in contact with liquid food. For a more serious\ntransgression, one could be demoted even to the level of losing the privilege\nof touching the pure solid food of the sect.36<\/a><\/sup> This system can\nonly be understood if the sect itself was regarded as a temple and, therefore,\nit was obligatory to maintain temple purity laws within the context of the life\nof the group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like the rabbinic Jews later on, the Qumran\nsectarians and other similar groups were in the process of shifting from temple\nworship to prayer even before the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e. The destruction simply hastened a\nlong, ongoing process taking place in Judean society throughout the Second\nTemple period. The significance of prayer as a mode of experiencing God was on\nthe increase.37<\/a><\/sup> It is no surprise, then, that the Qumran\nsectarians included in their library prayer texts which they or others recited.38<\/a><\/sup>\nThese texts were no doubt intended to substitute for participation in the\ntemple that was made impossible either for reasons of distance or, as was the\ncase with the Qumran sect, because of ideology. In many ways, it can be said\nthat the Qumran sect, deprived of participation in temple worship by its\nseparatism, traveled the same road that the Pharisees would eventually travel,\nonly much earlier. Long before the Pharisaic-rabbinic Jews were forcibly separated\nfrom their temple, the Qumran sectarians had eschewed sacrifice in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Study of the Laws of Sacrifice<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Dead Sea sectarians, according to the Rule of the Community<\/em>, devoted one-third of each night to studying\nthe Torah. We have little specific information about what this study entailed,\nexcept insofar as the results of study sessions of the sect were assembled into\ncollections of laws that became the building blocks of the various communal\nrules.39<\/a><\/sup> It does seem, however, that laws pertaining to temple\nsacrifices were studied and discussed by members of the sect.40<\/a><\/sup>\nEvidence for this may be cited from the Zadokite\nFragments<\/em> that include various laws pertaining to qualifications of the\npriesthood and purity and impurity. But it might be argued that, because this\ntext does not contain specific laws regarding the nature of the temple or the\nsacrificial system, these subjects were not part of the regular study program\nof the Qumran sect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several works of substantial size, however,\nindicate that some sectarians studied texts that discuss the temple and\nsacrifices. These texts seem for the most part to stem from groups that existed\neven before the Qumran sect was formed. This is certainly the case regarding\nthe book of Jubilees<\/em> that contains in\nit numerous references to sacrifices for various occasions as well as to\nspecific procedures required for sacrificial offerings.41<\/a><\/sup>\nThe same kind of expertise seems to have been in evidence in the composition of\nthe Aramaic Levi Document.<\/em>42<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most extensive collection of sacrificial\nlaws available to the sectarians, in addition to the biblical codes of\nLeviticus, Deuteronomy, and Ezekiel,43<\/a><\/sup> are the no-longer-extant\nsources used by the author\/redactor of the Temple\nScroll<\/em> writing early in the Hasmonean period.44<\/a><\/sup> While the Temple Scroll<\/em> was no doubt put into its\ncomplete form at a period close to that in which the Zadokite Fragments<\/em> were assembled, the sources are certainly\npre-Maccabean and may reach back even into the third century. Laws in these\nno-longer-preserved sources concerned sacrificial procedure, ritual purity and\nimpurity, and the ritual calendar. In addition, similar texts apparently served\nas sources for related documents such as 4Q365a<\/a>,\npart of an expanded Torah scroll with additional material parallel to certain\npassages in the Temple Scroll<\/em>.45<\/a><\/sup>\nDocuments like this, as well as the final or redacted Temple Scroll<\/em>, must have been studied extensively by the sectarians\nsince teachings found in them are also enshrined in the Zadokite Fragments.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We shall call attention here to one particular\nlaw that exemplifies the existence of sources of sacrificial law that predate\nthe extant Qumran documents. The Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition ruled that the\nfourth-year produce, about which the Bible said that it was to be given \u201cto the\nLord\u201d (Lev\n19:24<\/a>), was to be brought by the owners to Jerusalem where they\nwould eat it. Already in 4QMMT<\/a>, the point was made that in the sectarian\ninterpretation of this law, no doubt representing the Sadducean trend, the\nfourth-year produce, like the so-called second tithe, was to be presented at\nthe Jerusalem temple and given to the priests.46<\/a><\/sup> This law was to\nfind its way as well into the Temple\nScroll<\/em> and Zadokite Fragments.<\/em>47<\/a><\/sup>\nCertainly, both of these texts derive this law and its scriptural basis from\nsources such as those that served the redactor of the Temple Scroll<\/em>. Such interpretations and the laws that emerge from\nthem must have been part of traditions of Torah study that took place among\nmembers of the sect and related groups. Thus, as expected, we find that, even\nwhile remaining separated from the temple ritual, members of the Qumran sect\ncontinued to study and cherish laws and interpretations of the Torah that\npertained to the correct procedures for temple worship and related regulations\nof purity and impurity.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Control of the Temple<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It seems clear that the sectarians expected that at some point in the\nfuture they would come to control the Jerusalem temple and to be able to\noperate it according to their legal rulings and sacrificial procedures. Most\nlikely, they believed that this would take place as part of the unfolding of\nthe divine plan that would lead to the eschaton. The War Scroll<\/em> describes a series of battles in which the sectarians\nwould emerge victorious after destroying all the forces of evil within the\nJewish people and in the nations surrounding the land of Israel.48<\/a><\/sup>\nWhile the end of this text is not preserved, it is probable that the final\nsheet would have dealt with prayers and songs recited by the sectarians upon\ntheir return from the battlefield to Jerusalem, most probably prayers of\nthanksgiving, and sacrifices would have been offered in the Jerusalem temple.49<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The notion that the sectarians would at some\npoint come to control the temple is implicit in a number of Qumran texts, among\nthem 4QFlorilegium<\/a>,\nwhich makes clear that the future temple will be conducted only for those of\nappropriate Israelite lineage.50<\/a><\/sup> Clearly the assumption of\nthese passages is that the illegitimate priesthood currently in control of the\ntemple will be replaced in the end of days by the Zadokite priests of the sect\nwho will maintain the proper standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Architecture of the Temple<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the Babylonian exile, the author of the last chapters of Ezekiel\ndreamt of an expanded temple precinct that would take its place as part of a\nutopian plan for the city of Jerusalem and the land of Israel. Apparently, such\nutopian plans were not unique to this author alone. Writing sometime most\nprobably in the third century b.c.e.,\nthe author of an Aramaic text entitled New\nJerusalem<\/em> wrote of a city of gargantuan proportions that would include an\nenlarged temple complex.51<\/a><\/sup> Unfortunately, the details of this temple\nplan are not extant in the preserved portions of the text. These examples\ndemonstrate the tendency in this period for a variety of Jewish groups to plan\nlarger and improved temple complexes. These very same tendencies would\neventually lead Herod the Great to execute the building of his temple structure\nfrom 18 b.c.e. on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is apparent from the existence of several\ncopies of the New Jerusalem<\/em> text in\nvarious caves at Qumran that this composition was widely read by members of the\nsectarian group.52<\/a><\/sup> To be sure, they would have derived from\nit, among other things, the dream of an enlarged and refurbished temple that\nwould accord with their specific ritual requirements. But much more information\non the very same subject was contained in the prose temple plan that was\nincluded in the Temple Scroll<\/em> by its\nauthor\/redactor.53<\/a><\/sup> This temple plan has been found to share\ncertain architectural details with that of the New Jerusalem<\/em>, no doubt because both of these visionary temples\nwere designed in the Hellenistic period.54<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This plan set forth the architect\u2019s greatly\nenlarged temple that would be built according to architectural principles\nembodying very different religious ideas from those attributed to King Solomon\nor evident in the temple of Herod the Great. Specifically, this temple was to\ninclude an additional courtyard, approximately 1500 cubits square, that would\nserve to distance the temple from ritual impurity. The middle court occupied\nessentially the same function as that of the outer court\u2014the women\u2019s court\u2014of\nthe other temple plans. In the middle, of course, was the temple surrounded by\nthe inner court.55<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This temple plan was based on the assumption\nthat the courtyards would be arranged concentrically, with the temple building\nitself in the middle.56<\/a><\/sup> By contrast, in Solomon\u2019s temple as well\nas that of Herod, the courtyards were arranged sequentially such that the\nworshipper entered further and further into the temple precincts. Each area was\nof ascending holiness, each essentially behind the other.57<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

These two architectural approaches bespeak\ndifferent theological approaches. The Solomonic and Herodian approaches\nindicate that the temple was regarded as a sanctum into which people might\npenetrate to differing extents depending on their state of ritual purity or\nimpurity and their status as priests, Levites, or Israelites. The concentric\napproach of the Temple Scroll<\/em>,\nhowever, is based on the similar plan of the Israelite camp in the wilderness\naccording to Numbers 10<\/a>. Here the concept was rather of an\ninner sanctum from which holiness radiated to all areas of the temple, the city\nof Jerusalem, and the surrounding land of Israel.58<\/a><\/sup> Those who read the Temple Scroll<\/em>, and certainly its\nauthor\/redactor, would have prayed for and expected a temple of this kind. The\nultimate purpose of this new temple structure, which, of course, was never\nactually built, was to insure the greater sanctity of the temple and its\nsacrificial worship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What interests us here is that apparently this\nalternative, utopian temple plan was studied by members of the Qumran sect both\nbefore its redaction into the Temple\nScroll<\/em> and after. But it is important to emphasize that according to the Temple Scroll<\/em> itself the plan put\nforward was expected to be built in the present age, before the messianic era;\nit was not a messianic temple.59<\/a><\/sup> It would allow the\nfulfillment of the specific halakhic views of the group even before the coming\nof the messianic era. Even if in the present they had withdrawn from temple\nworship, they continued to study its laws in preparation for the day when they\nwould return to worship once again at the mountain of the Lord.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sectarian Law and the Sacrificial System<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The sectarians clearly expected that the temple that they would control\nat the end of days would function according to law as they understood it. In\norder to facilitate this development, it was expected that an eschatological\nhigh priest would be designated. According to one particular scheme, rather\nwidely distributed in the sectarian scrolls, one of two messiahs would be of\nAaronide descent. This messiah would be superior to the temporal messiah who\nwould be known as the messiah of Israel. An alternative view expected only one\nmessiah who would be Davidic. In this case, a separate high priestly figure\nwould be appointed.60<\/a><\/sup> The role of the messianic high priest in\nthe end of days was one of great prominence, as it was expected that sacrificial\nworship would occupy a major role in the life of the nation. It is possible\nthat this eschatological priest is to be identified with the interpreter of the\nlaw who is expected to reappear in the end of days according to sectarian\nideology (CD 6:7\u20138<\/a>). This interpreter of the law was\nexpected to provide accurate legal rulings on all subjects, no doubt including\nmatters of sacrifice and temple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clearly, the halakhic basis for the conduct of\ntemple worship, in the view of the sectarians, was that of Sadducean law.61<\/a><\/sup>\nRulings such as those contained in 4QMMT<\/a>, the Temple\nScroll<\/em>, the Zadokite Fragments<\/em>,\nand the various minor halakhic tracts found among the scrolls were expected to\nbe put into effect in the future temple. The sectarians\u2019 calendar with its\nexpanded list of festivals would be adhered to. The omer<\/em> count (Lev 23:9\u201322<\/a>) would commence on the first Sunday\nafter the last day of Passover such that the festival of Shavuot would always\nbe celebrated on Sunday.62<\/a><\/sup> Other important principles would include\nthe observance of the Sadducean view that sunset was required at the end of\npurification periods63<\/a><\/sup> and that in cases in which the Torah\nrequired seven-day purification periods, ablutions would also be required on\nthe first day.64<\/a><\/sup> Many other examples of such principles of\nsectarian law could be cited as laws expected by the sectarians to be observed\nin the temple of the future.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Final Temple<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several texts from Qumran, paralleled also by some rabbinic texts,\ntestify to the notion that in the messianic era a new temple, actually\nconstructed by God, would descend from the heavens to replace the temple that\nhad previously been built by humans.65<\/a><\/sup> In the Temple Scroll<\/em> it is stated that its laws and temple plan would be\nin effect until such time as there would come a day of blessing66<\/a><\/sup>\u2014or\nthe day of creation, according to another reading of the text.67<\/a><\/sup>\nAt that time God would cause his temple to dwell among his people. Such ideas\nare also found in some apocryphal works of the Second Temple period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This concept is much more prominent, however,\nin 4QFlorilegium<\/a>\n(also known as 4QMidrash on Eschatology) in which there is a direct allusion to\na temple that God will build in the end of days in accord with Exod\n15:17<\/a>. In the interim, God had allowed a temple to be built by\nhumans.68<\/a><\/sup> This temple probably refers not to the temple of the\npresent day that the sectarians regarded as impure but rather to the sect that\ncould be said to be a virtual temple in which sanctity and holiness were\nattained by living a life according to sectarian principles. But the text makes\nclear that in the end of days a true temple will be built by God for his\npeople. So the sectarians expected that the present-day temple from which they\nabstained because of ritual disagreements would eventually be replaced by a\nperfect structure of divine creation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Qumran sect played out in advance an important aspect of Second\nTemple-period Jewish history. Whereas it was the destruction of the temple in\n70 c.e. that forced most of the\nJewish community to adapt itself and emphasize alternative modes of piety to\nsacrifice, namely prayer and study of Torah, the Qumran sectarians, like the\nJews of the Diaspora, had to face the absence of a temple much earlier.\nDiaspora Jews were separated from the temple by physical distance, but the Jews\nof the Qumran sect were separated because of their disapproval of the manner in\nwhich the Jerusalem priesthood conducted temple worship. Further, if the\nsectarian calendar was indeed practiced, it would have served as an additional\nfactor distancing the Dead Sea sectarians from the Jerusalem temple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite some claims to the contrary, the\nsectarians did not practice sacrificial rites at Qumran. They believed, on the\none hand, that sacrifice was only permitted in Jerusalem, the place that God\nhad chosen, and on the other hand, that the rituals and priesthood of the\nJerusalem temple of their own day were illegitimate. The sectarians saw their\ngroup as a virtual temple in which, through purity regulations, prayer, and,\napparently, through study of God\u2019s law it was possible to achieve the spiritual\nconnection with the divine that had been vouchsafed to Israel in God\u2019s central\nsanctuary according to the Bible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, numerous works discovered at\nQumran indicate that the sectarians continued to treasure and study\npre-Hasmonean texts that featured sacrificial laws and regulations, like Jubilees<\/em>, the Aramaic Levi Document<\/em>, and the sources of the Temple Scroll<\/em>. Sectarian documents, like 4QMMT<\/a>,\nthe Zadokite Fragments<\/em>, the redacted Temple Scroll<\/em>, and the War Scroll<\/em>, testify to the continued\ndevotion of the Qumran sectarians to the ideal of sacrificial worship and to\ntheir belief that in the end of days they would once again be restored to\nleadership of Israel\u2019s sacrificial worship in the Jerusalem temple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

chapter 5<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Political Leadership and Organization in the Dead Sea Scrolls Community<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The corpus of some eight hundred scrolls or, mainly, fragments of\nscrolls that emerged from the Qumran caves can generally be classified into\nthree groups: (1) Hebrew Bible, (2) apocryphal compositions, including many\npreviously unknown texts, and (3) the literature of the Qumran sect, considered\nby many scholars to be identical with the Essenes described by Philo, Josephus,\nand a number of Greek authors. This study will concentrate primarily on the\nlast group of texts, those that tell us of the teachings, beliefs, and way of\nlife of the Qumran sect.1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a variety of ways, these texts exhibit a\nsense of the separation of powers that the sectarians believed was required by\nbiblical law. We will examine the manner in which the separation of powers\naffected a number of areas of sectarian thought: the division of king and\npriest, the division of executive and legislative functions, and the\ninterrelationship of religious and temporal power (what we term \u201cchurch and\nstate\u201d) in the ideal Jewish polity. During the period in which the Qumran sect\nflourished, we can also discern a shift in political power and leadership from\nan elite group of Zadokite priests to a broader-based constituency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kings and Priests<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We will begin with a text that lies somewhere on the borderline between\nthe sectarian corpus and the literature that preexisted it. Among the most\nenigmatic of the Qumran documents is the well-preserved Temple Scroll<\/em>, a kind of rewritten and reedited Torah. Its\nauthor\/redactor rewrote the sacrificial and legal sections of the Pentateuch in\norder to express his own particular views on the nature of the temple and its\nsacrifices, the political system of Hasmonean times, and Jewish law on a\nvariety of topics. The text was compiled some time in the latter half of the\nreign of the Hasmonean king John Hyrcanus (134\u2013104 b.c.e.) or early in the reign of Alexander Janneus (103\u201376 b.c.e.).2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This document was initially thought to reflect\nthe teachings of the Qumran sect. Nevertheless, numerous differences between\nthe approach of this document and those of the Qumran sectarian texts were\nimmediately recognized after it was published.3<\/sup><\/a> When the existence of 4QMMT<\/a>,\nalso known as the Halakhic Letter<\/em>, a\nfoundation document of the Qumran sect, became known in 1984,4<\/sup><\/a>\nthe true nature of the Temple Scroll<\/em>\nbecame clear. It turned out that, despite the date of its completion sometime\nin the Hasmonean period, this scroll was actually composed of a variety of\nsources that were earlier than the complete scroll.5<\/sup><\/a> These sources\nwere most probably Sadducean in nature and provenance.6<\/sup><\/a> Among the\nlatest of the sources of the Temple\nScroll<\/em>, reflecting Hasmonean times in a variety of its polemics, is that\nknown as the \u201cLaw of the King.\u201d7<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This section of the scroll, actually a\nrewriting and expansion of the Law of the King of Deuteronomy (Deut\n17:14\u201320<\/a>), puts forward a demand for a thoroughgoing reform of the\nexisting political order in the Hasmonean period. Following Deuteronomy, the\ntext requires that, upon assuming office, the monarch must have a Torah scroll\nwritten for him that he is to have with him at all times. Here the text is\ncalling for restoration of a constitution based on the Torah that the author\nsees as violated by the Hasmoneans. We must remember that by this time, the\ndescendants of the Maccabees who had fought so valiantly against Hellenism and\nforeign influence were already conducting themselves in a Hellenistic manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the clearest demands of this scroll is\nthat the position of king be separated from that of high priest. Indeed, this\ntext demands that there be a royal council, the supreme legislative and\njudicial body, to consist of twelve priests, twelve Levites, and twelve\nIsraelites. All decisions of the king are to be subject to ratification by this\nbody. In this way, the power of the king is severely limited by the proposed\n\u201cconstitutional monarchy.\u201d Further, the document makes clear that the king is\nforbidden to conduct an offensive war without the approval of the high priest\nand consultation of the Urim and Thummim, the oracle that the high priest wore\non his breastplate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All this is clearly a reflection of the severe\nobjection of the circles that produced this document to the system of Hasmonean\nkingship in which those actually of priestly lineage were for all intents and\npurposes functioning as kings. In fact, in later Hasmonean times, the priestly\nrulers even styled themselves kings on their coins. The authors of the Law of\nthe King of the Temple Scroll<\/em>, no\ndoubt followed by the members of the Qumran sect, saw this usurpation as a\nviolation of biblical constitutional law. What was at stake here was the\nseparation of temporal and religious powers, and the authors objected to their\nconfluence in the hands of the Maccabean priest-kings. At the same time,\naccording to this scroll, the king, who was forbidden to be a priest, had to\nanswer to a mostly Levitical council, and the high priest was in some matters\nthe king\u2019s superior. Even this separation of powers bordered to some extent on\na kind of constitutional theocracy, if we may coin such a phrase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those who produced this text, and the Qumran\nsectarians who read and preserved it, were not the only ones to object to the\nHasmonean arrogation of both priestly and royal powers. The MMT\ndocument itself, in our view, testifies to unhappiness on the <\/a>part of\nSadducean priests with the Hasmoneans having taken control of the high\npriesthood.8<\/sup><\/a> The Hasmoneans had originally been rural members of\nthe lower clergy, not descended from the Zadokite high-priestly family. But for\nthe most part, this document indicates specific objections to the legal rulings\nthat guided the Hasmonean temple.9<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet the strongest opposition to the Hasmoneans\ncame from the Pharisees, the forerunners of the talmudic sages, as described in\na baraita preserved in the Babylonian Talmud.10<\/a><\/sup> This source informs\nus that the Pharisees were willing to tolerate Hasmonean kingship, even though\nthis Aaronide priestly family was not of the house of David, as required for a\ntrue Jewish king. However, they disputed the rights of this family to serve as\nhigh priests, asserting that the mother (or grandmother) of Alexander Janneus\n(John Hyrcanus in the account preserved in Josephus11<\/a><\/sup>) had been a captive\nand, hence, that her descendants were disqualified from the high priesthood.\nThe Pharisaic objection to the Hasmoneans as high priests eventually led to\ncivil strife and later to war and devastation in Judea, but that is a story\nbeyond the scope of this study.12<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opposition of the Temple Scroll<\/em> and other such documents to the Hasmonean house\nresulted from the fact that the Hasmoneans served as kings. They were regarded\nas having violated the age-old separation of royal and priestly powers that the\nBible had required. A similar separation was carried over into the complex\norganizational structure of the Dead Sea sectarians as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Priests and Laymen<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Qumran sect came into being as a discrete group in the aftermath of\nthe Maccabean revolt when the Hasmonean high priests decided to ally themselves\nwith the Pharisees against the hellenizing priests, many of whom had been\nSadducees.13<\/a><\/sup> A group of pious Sadducees left the temple and protested\nto no avail the abandonment of Sadducean priestly practice for the halakhic\nrulings of the Pharisees. This group, after failing to sway their colleagues\nand the Hasmonean leaders by means of the Halakhic\nLetter<\/em> (4QMMT<\/a>), eventually relocated to Qumran, where\nthey lived lives of piety and holiness, preparing for the end of days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The sectarian group that eventually came into\nbeing, certainly by the sect\u2019s heyday after ca. 134 b.c.e., saw itself as a corporate group. This is clear from\nthe various names of the sect. It is often called \u05d9\u05d7\u05d3 (ya\u1e25ad)<\/em>,\n\u201ccommunity,\u201d a nominal use of an adverb usually meaning \u201ctogether,\u201d and this\nterm may occur in a construct together with other terms.14<\/a><\/sup>\nThis is the case with \u05e2\u05e6\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d3, \u201ccouncil of the community,\u201d\nprobably identical with the assembly to be discussed below, and \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d3,\n\u201ccovenant of the community,\u201d a term indicating that the sectarians saw\nthemselves as banding together to observe the \u201crenewed covenant\u201d of God with\nhis chosen ones, the members of the sect.15<\/a><\/sup> Further, we should note\nthat the term \u05e2\u05d3\u05d4, \u201ccongregation,\u201d designates the community of the end of days,\nto which we will return below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The corporate nature of the group is further\nindicated by the archaeological remains of Qumran, which apparently functioned\nas a sectarian center for those who left their scrolls in the nearby caves.\nHere we can observe facilities for the meals that the sectarians sometimes ate\ncommunally as well as for the various occupations such as pottery making,\nhusbandry, and small farming pursued by members. While the actual sleeping\nquarters cannot be identified, it seems that the members of the group lived\neither in the nearby caves or tent shelters.16<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The initial leadership of the sect was made up\nof Sadducean priests, termed the Sons of Zadok over and over in the scrolls.17<\/a><\/sup>\nThis family descended from Zadok, high priest at the time of Solomon, whose\ndescendants had virtually uninterruptedly held the high priesthood in First and\nSecond Temple times. For this reason they felt that they were entitled to\ncontinue in office, even after the Maccabean victory and the appointment of\nJonathan, the brother of Judah the Maccabee, as ruler in 152 b.c.e.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Zadokite priests who started the sect were\napparently soon sharing power with laymen as part of the general tendency\ntoward lay power and democratization in Judaism during the Second Temple\nperiod. This general trend abetted the transfer of leadership from the\npriesthood to lay sages also in Pharisaic-rabbinic Judaism, laying the\ngroundwork for the institution of the rabbinate. Evidence for this transition\nin the scrolls is found in the requirement of the Rule of the Community<\/em> that decisions be made according to the\nrulings of the Sons of Zadok18<\/a><\/sup> and the majority of the\nmen of their covenant.19<\/a><\/sup> Apparently, at a later stage in the history\nof this group, this formula and the political reality behind it were replaced\nby the rabbim<\/em>, the \u201cmany,\u201d an\nassembly of members of the sect.20<\/a><\/sup> All those who had\ncompleted the stages of the initiation process into the sect, attaining\nascending levels of ritual purity and knowledge of the sect\u2019s teachings, could\nparticipate in the assembly.21<\/a><\/sup> Besides its legislative\nfunctions, which were linked to its ability to properly interpret Scripture\nunder divine inspiration, the rabbim<\/em>\nalso served as the supreme judicial body, and it appears to have been\npredominantly lay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We cannot see this assembly as truly a\ndemocratic institution because it did not grant rights beyond a small circle.\nOnly full-fledged members of the sect were permitted to join and, of course,\nwomen could take no role in this body. This form of \u201cdemocracy for the\nminority\u201d was typical of the so-called democracies of ancient Greece and the\nHellenistic cities, in which voting rights were extended only to a minority who\nhad attained the required status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have some indication of how this assembly\nfunctioned. Each person who wanted to speak had to get the permission of the\npresiding mevaqqer<\/em> (\u201cexaminer\u201d), and\nit was forbidden to speak out of turn. Generally, members spoke in order from\nhighest to lowest status. Anyone who fell asleep during sessions was penalized\nwith a reduction of his food ration. According to most interpretations,\ndecisions were made by voting, following majority rule, a principle thought by\nthe rabbis to have been enshrined in the Bible (Exod 23:2<\/a>).22<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While it is not possible to trace the exact\nhistorical development of the increase in lay power, it seems that the Zadokite\npriestly leadership was increasingly eclipsed as the sect developed, even if to\nsome extent they retained formalistic symbols of their earlier oligarchic\u2014or\nbetter hieroarchic\u2014prerogatives. By some time in the Roman period (after 63 b.c.e.), what we might term legislative\npower had shifted almost entirely from priestly hands to those of the lay\nmembers of the sect. Even so, it seems that a priest continued to preside over\nthe meetings of the assembly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When it came to the everyday functioning of the\ngroup, however, members were not all equal. There was a roster that listed\nmembers from those of highest to lowest status, and those lower on the list had\nto follow the directives of those above in regard to matters of sectarian law\nor the conduct of the sect\u2019s affairs.23<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The courts of the sect are described in the Zadokite Fragments<\/em>, also known as the Damascus Document.<\/em> This text was first\ndiscovered in two manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah, and later ten manuscripts\nemerged from the caves of Qumran.24<\/a><\/sup> The composition of the\nsectarian courts as prescribed here provides for a balanced grouping.25<\/a><\/sup>\nThe basic sectarian courts were of ten judges, probably patterned on the court\nof ten that appears in the book of Ruth (4:2<\/a>).\nThe ten were to consist of four of the tribe of Aaron and six from Israel. It\nhas been rightly concluded that the four Levitical members represented the\nAaronide priests and the three families of Levites\u2014Gershon, Kohath, and Merari.26<\/a><\/sup>\nAccordingly, the basic court consisted of one priest, three Levites and six\nIsraelites, not an unfair distribution of clerical and lay power for an ancient\nJewish court. Indeed, the rabbis required the presence of all three\nclasses\u2014priests, Levites, and Israelites\u2014in the Great Sanhedrin, the high\ncourt.27<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

These various elements indicate that the Qumran\nsect sought to create a balance between the power of the priesthood with its\nGod-given prerogatives and aristocratic connections and the common Israelites\nwho, after all, were the vast majority of Jews. Even in this biblicizing, conservative\ngroup, the forces of democratization were at work long before the destruction\nof the temple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Courts and the Rights of the Accused<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although we have concentrated so far on the issue of separation of\npowers in Qumran sectarian literature, some remarks about the rights of members\nof the sect before the courts will also be of interest. Just as in the\nPharisaic-rabbinic system enshrined in talmudic literature, in the legal system\nof the Dead Sea Scrolls there were specific requirements for witnesses to\nensure that only reliable individuals could testify.28<\/a><\/sup> While some have\nsuggested that women were permitted to testify, this view is based on a corrupt\npassage,29<\/a><\/sup> and it must be admitted that the Qumran sect disqualified\nthe testimony of women. To be sure, women could not serve as judges or\nsectarian leaders either, although the texts flatly contradict the suggestion\nof some scholars that the sect was celibate.30<\/a><\/sup> Witnesses had to be\nat least twenty-year-old males and full members of the group, thus guaranteeing\nthat they were truly observant Jews who would testify honestly. Age\nrequirements also existed to guarantee that judges would be experienced enough\nfor the job yet at the same time to exclude those who had become senile.31<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ancient Jewish law was concerned to guarantee\nthat the accused had been fully cognizant that his actions violated the law and\nthat he knew of the punishment for his crime before committing the forbidden\naction. Otherwise, he could not be considered a purposeful violator and could not\nbe punished. To deal with this problem, the sectarians required that the\noffender be reproved for a previous commission of the same offense before he or\nshe could be punished for the infraction. For the same reason, the rabbis\ninstituted the requirement of hatra\u2019ah<\/em>,\n\u201cwarning,\u201d by which the witnesses had to warn the offender and apprise him of\nthe punishment for his act before the commission of the crime.32<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As in all Jewish legal systems, circumstantial\nevidence, hearsay, and evidence not based on testimony (forensic evidence) were\nexcluded. All these regulations tipped the scales way in favor of the accused\nand guaranteed a fair trial to the greatest extent possible. The Temple Scroll<\/em> (11QTemple\n51:11\u201318<\/a>) prohibits judicial corruption and commands the death\npenalty for corrupt judges who take bribes.33<\/a><\/sup> Further, it\nprohibits the king from taking the property of his subjects by the use of\ntrumped-up legal procedures (11QTemple 57:19\u201321<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While human rights as we know them were not a\nsubject of discussion in ancient Israel, it is clear that in continuing the\nsystem of biblical jurisprudence and expanding on it the sectarians continued\nto guarantee a fair trial and an equitable system of justice. Accordingly, some\nform of due process was provided by sectarian law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sectarian Leadership<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In discussing the issue of separation and balance of powers, it is\nimportant to note the nature of the sectarian leadership. The Teacher of\nRighteousness was the leader who led the group from its initial opposition to\nthe manner in which temple worship was being conducted in the early Hasmonean\nperiod to the sect\u2019s full-fledged incorporation as a sectarian body with\ndistinct ideology and organization.34<\/a><\/sup> The Teacher must have\nfunctioned in the early years of the Hasmonean dynasty, in the days of Jonathan\n(152\u2013143 b.c.e.) or Simon\n(142\u2013134), one of whom was regarded by the sect as the Wicked Priest, the sworn\nopponent of the Teacher. The Teacher of Righteousness was clearly a priest as\nwe know from direct evidence in Pesher\nHabakkuk.<\/em>35<\/a><\/sup> Part of his duties included that of\nlegislator. He showed his followers how to put the Torah into effect by\nrevealing to them the divinely-inspired nistar<\/em>,\nthe hidden or secret interpretation that was known only to the sect and\nrevealed to them by the Teacher. Therefore, his teachings had as much validity\nas the Torah itself. The sect always believed that it would be rewarded for its\nsteadfast adherence to the Teacher\u2019s authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though it is difficult to be specific on this\nmatter, it seems that the sect suffered a crisis with the death of its first\nleader. It had expected that the messianic era was soon to dawn and that no\nsuccessor to the Teacher of Righteousness would be needed. Nonetheless, the\nsect weathered this crisis and was able to replace its leader with various\nofficers who later managed its affairs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The duties of the Teacher of Righteousness were\napparently carried out after his passing by two officials of the sect, the mevaqqer<\/em> and the paqid.<\/em>36<\/a><\/sup> The mevaqqer<\/em>,\n\u201cexaminer,\u201d may very well have been a priest, although there is no direct\nevidence of his status. The mevaqqer<\/em>\nwas a teacher and guide to his followers, responsible for their spiritual and\nphysical welfare. He tested new members and had to approve their entrance into\nthe community. He supervised all members\u2019 business transactions, was\nresponsible for approving marriages and divorces, and he was required to treat\nhis people with love and kindness. The examiner had to be between thirty and\nfifty years of age. He organized the members in the order of their ranks, from\nthe senior to the most junior, that determined the order in which they spoke at\nthe sectarian assembly and their mustering for the annual covenant renewal\nceremony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paqid<\/em>\n(lit., \u201cappointed one\u201d) was a priest as well. He is known from the Rule of the Community<\/em> as the official\nwho administered the initial test of those wishing to join the sect. The Zadokite Fragments<\/em> call him \u201cthe priest\nwho musters at the head of the community\u201d and say that he must be between\nthirty and sixty years old.37<\/a><\/sup> This detail confirms that he must be a\ndifferent person from the mevaqqer<\/em>,\nalthough scant information is available about him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The sect also had various lay leaders known as maskilim<\/em>, who are described in the Rule of the Community<\/em>.38<\/a><\/sup>\nThis name derives from the verb meaning \u201cto enlighten or instruct.\u201d The maskil<\/em> was to enlighten the sectarians\nabout the nature of the Sons of Light, those who follow the sectarian ways, and\nthe Sons of Darkness, the rest of the peoples of the world, both Jewish and\nnon-Jewish. Presumably, the maskil<\/em>\nwas responsible for conveying the ideology and theology of the Qumran community\nto other members of the group. The maskil<\/em>\nwas also expected to be a master of the sectarian legal tradition. He also led\nthe recitation of blessings found in the Rule\nof Benedictions<\/em> that apply to those who fear the Lord,39<\/a><\/sup>\nthe Zadokite priests,40<\/a><\/sup> and the Prince of the Congregation.41<\/a><\/sup>\nThe maskilim<\/em> were a class of scholars\nbut not priests, and although they shared their knowledge with their fellow\nsectarians and were perhaps role models for them, they do not seem to have been\nassigned any specific administrative functions; the mevaqqer<\/em> and paqid<\/em> filled\nthis role.42<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

All in all, in regard to the conduct of the\naffairs of the group and its decisions concerning Jewish law, a process of\nlaicization and, hence, democratization was going on throughout the sect\u2019s\nhistory\u2014from Hasmonean times through the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e.\u2014similar to that in evidence in the\nPharisaic-rabbinic context as well. Further, it is interesting that the sect\nseemed to tend toward a division of executive, judicial, and legislative\npowers. Yet this division was limited in that the assembly, which was primarily\nlegislative in function, served also as the highest court. Indeed, the same was\nthe situation in the rabbinic legal system described in the Mishnah and Talmud.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Royal and Priestly Messiahs<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An entirely different arena in which to look at these questions is that\nof the sect\u2019s dreams for the messianic future.43<\/a><\/sup> This is especially\nthe case since we know that the sect modeled its life in the present\npremessianic age on its eschatological aspirations. It sought to create in the\npresent the experience of purity and holiness that it expected would finally\ncommence with the dawn of the end of days.44<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equally important to the sectarians was the\nimmediacy of the end of days. They anticipated that the old order would soon\ndie and the messianic era would be established in their lifetimes. The sect\nlived on the verge of the end of days, with one foot, as it were, in the\npresent age and one foot in the future.45<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two separate messianic ideologies coexisted in\nthe sectarian documents. One, like that of rabbinic Judaism, speaks of an\nindividual messiah who is to be a \u201cbranch of David,\u201d that is, a Davidic scion.\nA totally different approach speaks of an Aaronide priestly messiah, who is\neffectively an eschatological high priest, and a temporal messiah of Israel,\nwho is to rule over political matters.46<\/a><\/sup> Both messiahs would\npreside over the eschatological banquet.47<\/a><\/sup> Described in the Rule of the Congregation<\/em>, it would usher\nin the new age that would include worship at the eschatological temple.\nSacrificial worship would be conducted according to sectarian law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This messianic paradigm of two leaders, based\non the Moses\/Aaron and Joshua\/Zerubbabel model, would later be applied to Bar\nKokhba and the high priest Eleazar in the Bar Kokhba revolt (132\u2013135 c.e.).48<\/a><\/sup> To the sect, the\ncoming of the messiahs of Israel and Aaron and the eschatological prophet\naugured the restoration of the old order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These restorative tendencies are based on\nbiblical prophetic visions, but the Qumran sect went much further. Reflecting\nthe apocalyptic trend,49<\/a><\/sup> it anticipated that the advent of the\nmessianic age would be heralded by the great cataclysmic battle described in\nthe War Scroll<\/em> and radical changes in\nthe world order resulting in the victory of the forces of good over those of\nevil, in heaven above and on earth below. After forty years the period of\nwickedness would come to an end; then the elect would attain glory. In essence,\nJews in the messianic age would surpass their current level of purity and\nperfection in observing Jewish law. Here in the sphere of Jewish law we again\nfind the utopian trend. Only in the future age will it be possible properly to\nobserve the Torah as interpreted by the sect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to the dual messiahs of Aaron and\nIsrael and the single messiah of the House of David, the Qumran texts also\nmention other eschatological figures who will appear in the end of days.50<\/a><\/sup>\nThe Teacher of Righteousness is expected to arise to interpret the law, and the\nPrince of the Congregation (\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d3\u05d4) will serve as the sect\u2019s\nmilitary leader in the eschatological battle described in the War Scroll.<\/em> It is also possible that\n\u201cprince\u201d simply is an alternate name for the king who will rule in the\nmessianic era. Some texts also speak about an eschatological prophet who will\nannounce the coming of the messiah, a figure similar to Elijah in the rabbinic\ntradition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The concept of the dual messiahs certainly\nenvisages a division of powers between the religious and temporal, but, as we\nnoticed before in our discussion of the Temple\nScroll<\/em>, the priest holds the superior status of the pair. This is reflected\nwhen he is commanded to enter first in the description of the messianic\ncommunal meal in the Rule of the\nCongregation<\/em>,51<\/a><\/sup> an eschatological appendix to the Rule of the Community.<\/em>52<\/a><\/sup>\nSo again we have the expectation of constitutional theocracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even when a Davidic messiah is indicated in\nQumran texts, it is expected that there will also be a messianic high priest.\nBut in these texts there is no sense of the superiority of the priest as there\nis in those Qumran sectarian texts that expect two messiahs. Just as the\nsectarians demanded a balance of power in the present between priestly and\ntemporal power, they looked forward to the same in the end of days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Messianic Assembly<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the Rule of the\nCongregation<\/em> (1QSa 1:25\u201327<\/a>), in the end of days there will also\nbe an assembly, which will have specifically-defined powers. This group will\nalso serve as the highest court; it will also be the legislative assembly, but\nin addition, it will have the power to declare war.53<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this regulation, we again see that the king\nis limited in his powers, so that he may not commit the nation to war without\nthe approval of the assembly. This may very well be a further polemic against,\nor better, reaction to, the Hasmonean rulers who attacked neighboring territory\nsimply to expand their empire. A similar regulation in the Zadokite Fragments<\/em>, for the present age, requires that offensive\nwar only be undertaken with the approval of a council or gerousia<\/em>, the \u05d7\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc.54<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The community of the end of days would reflect\nall the sect\u2019s aspirations and dreams. The assembly, therefore, would govern\nthe sect under the leadership of the messianic leaders, expanding the functions\nand procedures of the assembly of the present and allowing all sectarians to\nparticipate in the shaping of the society of the end of days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors of the Qumran sectarian documents and related texts dealt\nwith a variety of issues pertaining to the organization of the Jewish people as\na whole as well as of their own sectarian community in the present age and the\nfuture. They saw their community as the ideal Israel, structured and organized\npolitically and religiously in a way that mirrored their utopian views of the\nideal world of the end of days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The sectarians knew all too well from their own\nunderstanding of the Hasmonean dynasty that the concentration of temporal and\nreligious power in the hands of the same people was unjust. Accordingly, they\nhoped for the day when the two powers would be separated as they understood the\nTorah to require. They further distinguished the powers of the executive from\nthe legislative, expecting different individuals to be involved in each.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over time, greater democratization of the sect\ncan be observed, such that lay members attained greater power while that of the\npriests was reduced. The sectarians balanced priestly and lay members in the\ncourts and in the king\u2019s council, protected the rights of the accused to a\ntrial before honest and competent judges, and called for the death penalty for\njudicial corruption. Only the most reliable witnesses could be employed to\nconvict an offender. In the end of days they expected similar regulations to be\nin force and, therefore, expected a division of power between priestly and lay\nmessiahs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In enacting all these various regulations, the\nDead Sea sectarians were following their interpretation of the Hebrew biblical\ntradition, which to them constituted a guide for life in the present age and in\nthe utopian era of the end of days. They earnestly sought a society following\nthe biblical ideal in which powers would be balanced and separated, as a means\nto the attainment of the perfect holiness of the end of days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

chapter 6<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The New Halakhic Letter (4QMMT<\/a>) and the Origins of the Dead Sea Sect<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the years since the initial announcement of the Qumran text entitled 4Q<\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/a> (4QMMT)<\/a>,1<\/sup><\/a>\nit has become clear that this text is very significant for our understanding of\nthe history of Jewish law and, in particular, for unraveling the difficult\nquestion of the provenance of the Temple\nScroll<\/em> and its relationship to the Qumran sectarian corpus.2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet the text is important for another issue,\nnamely, the origins of the sect and the early history of the community. This\ndocument purports to be a letter from the leaders of the nascent sect to the\nleaders of the (probably priestly) establishment in Jerusalem. The text sets\nout some twenty laws on which the writers disagree with the Jerusalem\nauthorities regarding matters of sacrificial law, priestly gifts, ritual\npurity, and other matters. Stated in polemical manner, these laws clearly\nrepresent the views of the founders of the sect, as opposed to those of their\nopponents, whom they call upon to accept their view. The laws are set within a\nframework that may allow us to learn much about the ideology of those who\nauthored the text. Such conclusions, together with those that are being\ngathered from the study of the main body of the document dealing with matters\nof Jewish law, allow us to draw important conclusions regarding the significance\nof this text for the question of the origins of the Qumran group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Above, we were careful to note that this\ndocument, preserved in six manuscripts, purports to be a letter. It still\nremains to be determined if it is an actual letter, dating to the earliest days\nof the Qumran group, or if it is an \u201capocryphal\u201d text, written some years, or\neven decades, later to express the fundamental reasons for the break or schism\nwith the Jerusalem establishment.3<\/sup><\/a> In any case, as indicated by the\nnumber of copies that have survived, this letter was undoubtedly significant in\nthe life of the sect.4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study will discuss the substance of the\nintroductory sentence and the concluding paragraphs of the document in order to\nanalyze its stated ideology. Taking into consideration the halakhic content of\nthe text, some general observations on the historical significance of 4QMMT<\/a>\nwill be offered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Structure and Content of the Text<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To best understand the matters we will discuss, some sense of the\noverall structure of the text is necessary. The text can be divided into three\nsections: an introductory sentence setting out the nature of the letter (B 1\u20133<\/a>); a section listing the halakhic\ndisagreements that the founders of the group claim to have had with the\nJerusalem authorities (B 3\u201382<\/a>); and a concluding section that raises\nseveral issues related to the group\u2019s separation (C 1\u201332<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In at least one of the manuscripts in which\nthis section is extant (4Q394<\/a>), the text proper is copied immediately\nafter a 364-day soli-solar calendar of the type known from some of the Qumran\nscrolls, Enoch<\/em>, and Jubilees.<\/em>5<\/sup><\/a> Immediately after\nthis calendar, the MMT text proper begins. Before it lists the halakhic\ndisagreements that the founders of the g<\/a>roup claim to have had with the\nJerusalem authorities, it has an opening sentence that sets out the nature of\nthe \u201cletter.\u201d This initial introductory sentence states that what follows are\nsome of \u201cour words\u201d (note the plural usage by the senders), which are legal\nrulings (\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd, as in its use in later Palestinian Hebrew).6<\/sup><\/a>\nThese are rulings \u201cwe hold to\u201d (restored: \u05d0\u05e0\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd).\nFurther, the text tells us that these rulings concern only two topics, one in\nthe lacuna and laws of purity (better: rituals of purification). The lacuna\nmust have contained a term like \u05de\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea (gifts to the temple and\npriests) or \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea (sacrifices). Such a term would fit the list of laws which then\nfollows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From this sentence alone, one can grasp the\nfundamental point of the text. Yet the more significant aspects for our study\ncome at the end of the \u201cletter,\u201d when the authors have completed the accounting\nof the twenty or so matters of Jewish law that in their view resulted in the\nschism and the formation of the sect. Presently, we will examine the concluding\npassage in detail. Yet we must first emphasize the importance of the halakhic\ndisagreements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The key point made in this section is that the\nfundamental disagreements that led the group of dissatisfied priests to\nwithdraw from participation in the ritual of the Jerusalem temple pertained to\nmatters of Jewish law. Indeed, the major conflicts of Second Temple Judaism\nresulted not from the many disagreements about messianism and other such\ntheological matters, but rather from issues of Jewish law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This does not mean that there may not have been\nmixed motives. Rather, we speak now of the self-image of the founders of the\nQumran sect who saw Jewish legal matters and interpretation of the Torah\u2019s\nprescriptions as the cause of the schism. Indeed, the entire sectarian corpus\ntestifies to such reasons for the split, and this text is in perfect accord\nwith the picture presented by the Zadokite\nFragments<\/em>, for example.7<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opening of the \u201cletter\u201d contains no\ndesignation for the document. The authors use the expression \u05db\u05ea\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5,\n\u201cwe have written\u201d (twice, once restored), which does indicate a written text.\nNormally this text uses \u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 as a rubric for quotation of\nthe Hebrew Bible. Alongside the word \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 for\nthe Pentateuch, the Torah is referred to as \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05de\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4,\n\u201cthe Book of Moses,\u201d or (\u05d4)\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8, \u201cthe Book\u201d (i.e., Bible in\nthe literal sense\u2014Greek to biblion<\/em>).\nBut there is actually no formal term used to characterize MMT as a\nwhole. The name of the text, <\/a>Miq\u1e63at\nMa\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em>, was given by the editors of MMT based on the descript<\/a>ion\nof its contents at the end of the text, but is not intended by the authors as a\ntitle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Concluding Section<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the final law, the text turns to the concluding section that\nraises a number of general issues. We first provide a detailed outline of this\nsection of the text.8<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. The authors state that they have separated (\u05e4\u05e8\u05e9\u05e0\u05d5)\nfrom the mainstream of the people (\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d4\u05e2\u05dd)9<\/sup><\/a>\nin accepting the rulings listed above and that, accordingly, they had to\nwithdraw from participation in these rituals as performed by the majority of\nthe people. This assertion is backed up by a general statement that the\naddressees (plural, \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05dd) know that the members of\nthis dissident group are reliable and honest, meaning that the list of laws is\nindeed being strictly observed as stated by the authors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. At this point the letter explains its\npurpose: the sectarians have written to the addressee (now in the singular) in\norder that \u201cyou\u201d (singular) will investigate the words of the Torah (termed the\nbook of Moses), the Prophets, and David and the history of the generations.\nThis passage, we should note, assumes the threefold canon of Scripture: Torah,\nProphets, and Writings. The Writings here are still not closed, yet the text\nmay specifically be referring to the book of Chronicles, the main subject of\nwhich is David.10<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Now the text turns to what is to be found in\nthose documents. The addressee is told, again in the singular (after a lacuna),\nthat it was foretold that he would turn aside from the path (of righteousness)\nand, as a result, suffer misfortune.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. This leads MMT to an adaptation of Deuteronomi<\/a>c\nmaterial (the passage is to a great extent fragmentary). The following texts\nare quoted: Deut 31:29<\/a>;11<\/a><\/sup> 30:1\u20132<\/a>.\nThe text of MMT foretells that in the <\/a>end of days you (singular) will return to\nGod (in the first person as is common in the Temple Scroll<\/em>)12<\/a><\/sup> and that all this is in accord with what\nis written in the Torah (again called the book of Moses) and in the Prophets.\nThis time the Writings are not mentioned, probably since the blessings and\ncurses referred to in this section of MMT do not occur in the Writings at all,\nwhereas the earlier reference concerned the period of the monarchy that does\nappear in those texts. (Then follows another lacuna of sev<\/a>eral lines.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. The text now returns to the discussion of\nthe kings, recalling the blessings that were fulfilled during the time of\nSolomon, son of David, and the curses visited on Israel from the days of\nJeroboam, son of Nebat, through the time of Zedekiah (the last king of Judah).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. The writers (plural) now state that in their\nview some of the blessings and curses have come to pass and that this (their\nown day) is the period of the end of days. Israel is called upon to repent\nrather than to backslide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. Accordingly, the addressee (singular) is\nexhorted to recall the events surrounding the reigns of the kings of Israel and\nto examine their deeds (ma\u2018a\u015behemah<\/em>)\nand to note that those who observed the laws of the Torah were spared\nmisfortune, and their transgressions were forgiven (partly restored). The text\nbrings as an example King David whom the addressee is asked to remember.13<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. The authors (plural) sum up why they sent\nthis text to the addressee (singular). Here the phrase \u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05ea \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\nappears, meaning \u201csome of the legal rulings of (i.e., pertaining to) the\nTorah.\u201d They state that the letter was intended for the benefit of the\naddressee (singular) and the nation. The addressee is said to be wise and to\nhave sufficient knowledge of the Torah to understand the halakhic matters\npresented in the letter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9. The writers call on the addressee (singular)\nto mend his ways and to remove all incorrect thought, i.e., incorrect views on\nmatters of Jewish law. This, he is told, will lead him to rejoice at the end of\nthis period (of the end of days, \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05ea), when he comes to realize\nthat their views are indeed correct. His repentance will be considered as a\nrighteous deed, beneficial both for him and for all Israel, presumably in the\neschatological sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nature of the Addressee<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the interesting features of MMT is the manner in which the number\n(in the grammatical sense) of the addressee shifts. In the hortatory section,\nthe letter is addressed to an individual (<\/a>\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05da),\nbut in the list of laws, the dispute of the authors is with a group (\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05dd,\n\u201cyou,\u201d plural). When the list of laws is concluded, and the text returns to its\nmain argument, the singular is used.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The addressee is admonished to take care lest\nhe go the way of the kings of First Temple times. Here, the text is clearly\naddressing a figure who would find it possible, because of his own station in\nlife, to identify with the ancient kings of biblical Israel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It appears that this letter was written to the\nhead of the Jerusalem establishment, known to us as the high priest.14<\/a><\/sup>\nThe comparisons with the kings of Judah and Israel must have been particularly\nappropriate to one who saw himself as an almost royal figure. True royal\ntrappings were only later to be taken on by the members of the Hasmonean house\nwho already styled themselves kings on their coins. Yet the transition must\nhave been a gradual one.15<\/a><\/sup> What we must have here is a letter either\nactually written or purporting to have been written to a Hasmonean high priest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a significant parallel between this\ntext and the Temple Scroll<\/em>.16<\/a><\/sup>\nBoth texts include sections in which Pentateuchal materials referring to the\npeople of Israel are taken to refer to the king himself. In MMT, <\/a>Deut\n31:29<\/a> and 30:1\u20132<\/a> appear referring exclusively to the king\n(as can be seen from the text that follows). Deut\n31:29<\/a> is in the plural and seems (if the restorations are correct)\nto have been adapted to the singular. In this way it was brought into agreement\nwith Deut\n30:1\u20132<\/a>, which are in the singular but which in their original\ncontext clearly refer to the people of Israel.17<\/a><\/sup> It may be that the\nauthors of this document actually understood the singular use of Deuteronomy to\nrefer to the king, but the context makes this unlikely. Most probably, we are\ndealing with the adaptation of passages dealing with the people of Israel to\ntheir ruler. The same phenomenon is observable in 11QTemple\n59:16\u201321<\/a>, in which the biblical rebuke passages directed in\nScripture against the people as a whole are modified so as to make them refer\nto the king.18<\/a><\/sup> In any case, this usage strengthens our\nassertion that MMT in its concluding paragraphs is addressing the\nruler of the nation.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no mention in MMT of the Teacher of\nRighteousness or any other leader known from the sectarian docum<\/a>ents. The\nofficial history of the sect presented in the Zadokite Fragments<\/em> claims that the sectarians\u2019 initial separation\nfrom the main body of Israel took place some twenty years before the coming of\nthe Teacher (CD 1:9\u201310<\/a>). It seems most likely, therefore, that\nthe halakhic letter, MMT, was written by the collective leadership of the\nsect in those initial years. Hence the Teacher does not appear.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Possible Qumran Allusions<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two tantalizing allusions in Qumran scrolls might be understood as\nreferring to this letter. Most important is a passage in Pesher on Psalmsa<\/sup><\/em>, to Ps\n37:32\u201333<\/a>.19<\/a><\/sup> As restored by Yigael Yadin, this passage\nrefers to a \u201cTorah\u201d that the Teacher of Righteousness sent to the Wicked\nPriest. Yadin suggested that this might be a reference to the Temple Scroll<\/em>.20<\/a><\/sup> It has been\nsuggested that this Torah was instead the text of MMT.<\/a>21<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The latter suggestion seems to us most\nunlikely. This text of MMT explicitly uses the term Torah and various synonyms\nseveral times, and yet never refers to itself by that name. Unlike the author\nof the <\/a>Temple Scroll<\/em>, who sees\nhis text as a complete Torah scroll, these authors are fully aware of the\ndistinction between the \u201ccanonical\u201d text of the Mosaic Torah and the letter\nthey are writing. Second, if indeed this halakhic letter is a foundation\ndocument, or if it purports to be such, it would refer to a time before the\nTeacher of Righteousness began to take a leading role in the affairs of the\nsect. The reference in Pesher on Psalms<\/em>\nand all other accounts that seem to point to events in the life and career of\nthis sectarian leader would have to have taken place after MMT\npurports to have been penned.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In view of these strictures, any attempt to\nrelate the \u201csecond book of the Torah\u201d of 4QCatena<\/a>,22<\/a><\/sup>\nalso mentioned by Yadin,23<\/a><\/sup> must be discounted. We have to reckon\nwith the possibility that MMT is not alluded to in<\/a> other sectarian\ncompositions, just as the major Qumran documents do not quote one another. MMT cannot\nbe identified with a previously known text.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nonetheless, the reference to the \u201cTorah\u201d sent\nby the Teacher does indicate that such epistles were not out of the question\nwithin the chronological and cultural context in which the sectarian scrolls\nwere authored. That a letter such as MMT might have been sent is not beyond\nthe realm of possibility.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Historical Ramifications<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4Q<\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/a> has wide ramifications\nfor the history of Judaism in the Hasmonean period. In the twenty or so\ndisputes listed in this text, the opponents of the emerging sect usually agree\nwith the Pharisees or the Tannaim as their views are related in rabbinic\nliterature. In those cases where tannaitic texts preserve the corresponding\nPharisee-Sadducee conflicts regarding the same matters discussed in MMT,\nthe view the writers of this document espouse is that of the Sadducees.<\/a>24<\/a><\/sup>\nOnly one possible explanation can be offered for this phenomenon. The earliest\nmembers of the sect must have been Sadducees who were unwilling to accept the\nsituation that developed in the aftermath of the Maccabean revolt. The\nMaccabees replaced the Zadokite high priesthood with their own, and the\nZadokites were reduced to a subsidiary position for as long as Hasmonean rule\nlasted. It had long been theorized that some disaffected Zadokites separated\nthemselves from their brethren in Jerusalem and formed the Qumran sect.25<\/a><\/sup>\nThis origin would explain why the sect so often refers to itself or its leaders\nas \u201cthe Sons of Zadok.\u201d26<\/a><\/sup> If this is true, our text makes clear\nthat Sons of Zadok is to be taken at face value. The founders of the Qumran\nsect were Sadducees who protested the following of Pharisaic views in the\ntemple under the Hasmonean priests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This theory would also explain why the writers\nof MMT constantly assert that their views are known to be correct by the\naddressees. Their halakhic polemics (addressed to a plural opponen<\/a>t) were\naimed at their Sadducean brethren who stayed in the temple and accepted the new\nreality. It was they who now followed views known to us from Pharisaic-rabbinic\nsources and who, in the view of the authors of the letter, knew very well that\nthe old Sadducean practices were otherwise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This theory has been challenged to explain the\nmore sectarian or radical tendencies, including the animated polemic and the\nhatred for outsiders, so often found in the later sectarian texts. The\nradicalism of these later texts is a result of the schism. After attempts like\nthe Halakhic Letter<\/em> (MMT) to\nreconcile and win over the Hasmoneans and the remaining Jerusalem Sadducees to\ntheir system of temple practice, the Qumran Zadokites developed over time the\nsectarian mentali<\/a>ty of the despised, rejected, and abandoned. Subsequently,\nthey began to look upon themselves as the true Israel and to condemn and\ndespise all others. All history, ancient and contemporary, now came to be\ninterpreted as figuring and prefiguring this history.27<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Put another way, the MMT text is a sectarian\ndocument from the earliest stage in the development of the sect, when its\nmembers still looked for a return to participation in temple worship. It is not\neven certain that this text postdates the physical <\/a>self-imposed exile of\nthe sect. MMT represents the halakhic disagreements that led to the formation of\nthe sect. It was later that the Teacher of Righteousness and other leaders,\nmost probably priestly, developed the sect into what we encounter in the corp<\/a>us\nof sectarian texts as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is for this reason that many of the\nagreements between MMT and the <\/a>Temple\nScroll<\/em> exist.28<\/a><\/sup> We must bear in mind that disagreements,\ncertainly in detail, do exist. These two texts cannot be regarded as linearly\nrelated in any way. Yet at the same time, the similarities do point to the\nnotion that the sources of the Temple\nScroll<\/em> also lie in the Sadducean tradition.29<\/a><\/sup> If so, Qumran is\nnow providing us with insight into this tradition never before available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, MMT<\/a> leads to a reevaluation of\nsome of the older theories regarding the scrolls. A few of these ramifications\nwill be sketched out here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is apparent that the theories which seek to\nlink the sect and its origins with the Hasidim must be abandoned. This designation,\nwhich actually described not a sect but a loose agglomeration of people,30<\/a><\/sup>\nmust be discounted as a solution to the problem of sectarian origins. The\nattempt of some to see the sect as emerging from some subgroup of the Pharisees\nis certainly to be rejected now. The dominant Essene hypothesis, if it is to be\nmaintained, would require radical reorientation. It would be necessary to\nassume that the term Essene came to designate the originally Sadducean\nsectarians who had gone through a process of radicalization and were now a\ndistinct sect. The notion that the collection of scrolls at Qumran in no way is\nrepresentative of a sect but must be seen as fairly representing the Judaism of\nthe time must also be rejected.31<\/a><\/sup> There is no question\nthat the community that collected these scrolls originated in sectarian\nconflict, and that this conflict sustained it throughout its existence.32<\/a><\/sup>\nMMT\npreserves evidence that this conflict was with those in control of the temple\nin Hasmonean Jerusalem. Further, the nature<\/a> of the collection, even if it\ncontains many texts not explicitly sectarian that might have been acceptable to\nall Jews in Second Temple times, is still that of a subgroup of society with\ndefinite opposition to the political and religious authorities of the times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There can be little question that the\npublication of 4Q<\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2019a\u015be\nha-Torah<\/em><\/a> has necessitated the reevaluation of many aspects of\nQumran studies. Among these is certainly the question of Qumran origins and\nearly history. Henceforth, any theory of sectarian origins must place the\nearliest, pre-Teacher stage in the offshoots of intrapriestly contention and\nmust reckon with the Sadducean halakhic views of those who formed the sect.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

chapter 7<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Place of 4QMMT<\/a> in the Corpus of Qumran Manuscripts<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4Q<\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/a> (MMT<\/a>, or\nthe Halakhic Letter<\/em>) is a composite\nof six fragmentary manuscripts that have been arranged into one text by Elisha\nQimron, based on the work he and John Strugnell did together on this text.1<\/sup><\/a>\nThe reconstruction of this text is, as Qimron asserts, a matter of scholarly\njudgment. Nevertheless, the overall structure of the document, as suggested by\ntheir research, seems to be clear and will be taken as the starting point for\nthis discussion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The composite text may be divided into three\nparts: (A) the calendar at the beginning, (B) the list of laws, and (C) the homiletical\nconclusion.2<\/sup><\/a> The suggestion that MMT<\/a> is originally two documents rather\nthan one3<\/sup><\/a>\nwe find unacceptable, since two manuscripts (MS d and e) definitely contain\nelements of both the legal and homiletical sections of the text.4<\/sup><\/a>\nEach of the three sections that make up MMT<\/a> can be studied with regard to its\nlinks with other elements of the Qumran corpus. This analysis will better\nenable us to understand the document as a whole and its evidence for the\nhistory of the Qumran sect and the Judaism of the time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Calendar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the earliest discussions of 4QMMT<\/a>,\nafter its announcement (or better: debut) at the 1984 conference on biblical\narchaeology in Jerusalem,5<\/sup><\/a> it was already clear that the\nrelationship of the calendar to the text that followed was a matter of question\nfrom a literary point of view. The calendar\u2019s conclusion is found in MS a (4Q394 3\u20137 i<\/a>), which is immediately followed, on\nthe same fragment, by the introductory sentence to the list of laws and then by\nthe laws themselves.6<\/sup><\/a> The editors, in the series Discoveries in the Judaean Desert<\/em>,\nplaced another fragment (4Q394 1\u20132 i\u2013v<\/a>) above it and restored much of the\ncalendar from parallel Qumran calendrical texts, on which we will have more to\nsay below. This fragment, however, seems out of place since it sets out the\ncalendar in five columns, while the concluding section, that found in the\nfragment containing the beginning of the legal section, is written in the\nnormal way across the entire column. For this and other reasons, it has\nrecently been suggested that this five-columned fragment should be detached\nfrom MMT<\/a>\nand that the text be restored in such a way that it would be written across the\npage. In any case, we would have to reckon with the presence of the very same\ncalendar text.7<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That the calendar is indeed to be restored\nabove the legal section, and that the calendar to be restored is indeed the\nso-called sectarian calendar, can be shown from the final words of this\nsection:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[\u2026 The twenty-eighth\nday of it (i.e., the twelfth month)] is a Sabbath. To it (the twelfth month),\nafter [the] Sab[bath, Sunday, and Monday, a day is to be ad]ded. And the year\nis complete8<\/sup><\/a>\u2014three hundred and si[xty-four] days.9<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 364-day calendar is, of course, the calendar known from various\nQumran texts, such as the so-called Mishmarot<\/em>\ndetailing the priestly courses and the Temple\nScroll<\/em>, as well as previously known pseudepigrapha also found at Qumran\u2014Jubilees<\/em> and Enoch.<\/em>10<\/a><\/sup> Regardless of whether 4Q394 1\u20132 i\u2013v<\/a> is to be joined to the beginning of\nMMT<\/a>\nor which restorations are to be accepted, such a calendar certainly was copied\nat the beginning of MMT<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Qimron-Strugnell reconstruction,11<\/a><\/sup>\nthe calendar mentions, in addition to the solar months, the specific extra day\nadded after three months of thirty days at the equinoxes and solstices, as well\nas the ninety-one-day quarter that is the basic division of the year.12<\/a><\/sup>\nFurther, it also mentions the wine festival on the third day of the fifth month\nand the oil festival on the twenty-second of the sixth month, as well as the\nfestival of the wood offering starting on the twenty-third of the same month.\nAll these are among the extra festivals associated with the solar calendar in\nthe Temple Scroll<\/em>.13<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the beginning there has been a question as\nto whether this calendar is to be considered integral to the text of MMT<\/a> or\nnot. It ends in MS a (4Q394 3\u20137 i line 3<\/a> = composite text A 21<\/a>) after the first word of the line, and the\nrest of the line is blank. The text begins the halakhic section on the next\nline with the incipit, \u201cThese are some of our rulings\u201d (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05ea \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u2026\n[line 4<\/a> = composite text B 1<\/a>]), and the laws follow. Since the substance\nof this incipit returns towards the end of the homiletical section (C 26\u201327<\/a>) that contains similar wording (\u05d5\u05d0\u05e3 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05ea\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05da \u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05ea \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4), it seems certain that the legal and homiletical section are\nto be considered as one unit. But it appears to us most likely that the\ncalendar at the beginning of MMT<\/a> was placed there by a scribe who copied (as far\nas can be known only in one MS) the sectarian calendar immediately before the\nso-called halakhic letter or treatise.14<\/a><\/sup>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1<\/sup><\/a> E.\nQimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.\nV: Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018ase ha-Torah<\/em>. DJD 10 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 44\u201357. See the\nearlier articles, Qimron and Strugnell, \u201cAn Unpublished Halakhic Letter from\nQumran,\u201d in Biblical Archaeology Today:\nProceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem,\nApril 1984<\/em>, ed. J. Amitai, 400\u20137 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Israel\nAcademy of Sciences and Humanities, in cooperation with ASOR, 1985); and (a\ndifferent article by the same name) IMJ<\/em>\n4 (1985) 9\u201312.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2<\/sup><\/a> Cf.\nQimron and Strugnell, DJD 10:109\u201311.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

3<\/sup><\/a> R.\nH. Eisenman and M. Wise, eds., The Dead Sea\nScrolls Uncovered<\/em><\/a> (Shaftesbury, Dorset: Element, 1992) 182, 196.\nFor the controversy regarding this book, see the section entitled \u201cEthics of\nPublication of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Panel Discussion,\u201d in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran\nSite: Present Realities and Future Prospects<\/em>, ed. M. O. Wise et al.,\n455\u201397. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722 (New York: New York\nAcademy of Sciences, 1994); and F. Garc\u00eda Mart\u00ednez, \u201cNotas al margen de <\/a>The Dead Sea\nScrolls Uncovered<\/em><\/a>,\u201d RevQ<\/em>\n16 (1993) 123\u201350.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4<\/sup><\/a> Qimron\nand Strugnell, DJD 10:25\u201328, 34\u201337.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

5<\/sup><\/a> See\nthe description of that event in L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead\nSea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost\nLibrary of Qumran<\/em><\/a> (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,\n1994; repr. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1995) xvii\u2013xviii<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6<\/sup><\/a> See\nQimron and Strugnell, DJD 10:7\u20138, 109\u201310. See the photograph on pl. II.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

7<\/sup><\/a> The hesitations about the present join and reconstruction are engendered\nby the unlikely scribal technique involved in having five columns of\ncalendrical material on the top of a column (a page) followed by full-width\ncolumns below. Such an approach is not impossible, but certainly is very\nunlikely in light of what we know of the Qumran corpus. For such irregularly\nshaped columns, see the Jonathan Prayer (4Q448<\/a>)\nin E. Eshel, H. Eshel, and A. Yardeni, \u201cA Qumran Composition Containing Part of Ps. 154 and a Prayer\nfor the Welfare of King Jonathan and His Kingdom<\/a>,\u201d IEJ<\/em> 42 (1992) 200; E. Eshel et al., Qumran Cave 4. VI: Poetical and Liturgical\nTexts, Part 1.<\/em> DJD 11 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) 403\u201325.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8<\/sup><\/a> Cf. Jub.<\/em><\/a> 6:30<\/a> for a similar expression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9<\/sup><\/a> Adapted from Qimron and Strugnell, DJD 10:45.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10<\/sup><\/a> For a brief survey of the calendar issue, see Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls<\/em>, 301\u20135<\/a> and bibliog. on 443<\/a>. See also S. Talmon, The World of Qumran from Within<\/em> (Jerusalem: Magnes and Leiden:\nBrill, 1989) 147\u201385.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

11<\/sup><\/a> DJD 10:44.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

12<\/sup><\/a> The mention of a Day of Remembrance on the first day of the fourth month\nindicates that the ritual sequence of this calendar differed from that of the Temple Scroll<\/em>, which celebrated only the\nfirst days of the first and seventh months. The Days of Remembrance are a\nregular feature of 4QMishmarota<\/sup> and 4QMishmarotb<\/sup> as well\nas of the calendar text known as 4QSe<\/sup>. In addition, they are known\nfrom Jub.<\/em><\/a> 6:23\u201329<\/a>; see L. H. Schiffman, \u201cThe Sacrificial\nSystem of the Temple Scroll<\/em> and the Book of Jubilees<\/em>,\u201d SBLSP 1985<\/em>, ed. K. H. Richards, 228\u201329 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1985).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

13<\/sup><\/a> See Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll<\/em><\/a>\n(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Shrine of the Book, 1983) 1:116\u20139.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

14<\/sup><\/a> This same position is taken by Strugnell in an appendix to Qimron and\nStrugnell, DJD 10:203; also published in J. Strugnell, \u201cMMT: Second Thoughts on\na Forthcoming Edition,\u201d in The Community of\nthe Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls<\/em><\/a>,\ned. E. Ulrich and J. C. VanderKam, 61\u201362. CJAS 10; Notre Dame: University of\nNotre Dame Press, 1994). Strugnell further argues that it is most likely that\nthis calendar was not part of MS b (4Q395<\/a>)\nbecause \u201cenough uninscribed leather is preserved before Section B to make it\nhighly probable that no text ever stood before it.\u201d This comment is difficult\nto understand from the photo reproduced as pl. III, at the bottom, unless he is\nreferring to the blank space to the right of the text as being too wide for a\ncolumnar margin.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\\af<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

66<\/sup><\/a> 11QTemple<\/a>a<\/sup><\/a>\n29:9<\/a>, reading hbrkh<\/em> with\nYadin, Temple Scroll<\/em>, 2:129.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

67<\/sup><\/a> E.\nQimron, The Temple Scroll:\nA Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions<\/em><\/a> (Beersheva:\nBen-Gurion University of the Negev and Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,\n1996) 44. Qimron\u2019s reading of hbdyh<\/em>\nis already alluded to by Yadin based on Qimron, \u201cLe-Nus\u1e25ah shel Megillat\nha-Miqdash,\u201d Le\u0161<\/em> 42 (1978) 141\u201342.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

68<\/sup><\/a> Brooke,\nExegesis at Qumran<\/em>, 178\u201393; D. R.\nSchwartz, \u201cThe Three Temples of 4QFlorilegium<\/a>,\u201d RevQ<\/em> 10 (1979) 83\u201392; M. O. Wise, \u201c4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Man<\/a>,\u201d RevQ<\/em> 15 (1991) 103\u201332.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1<\/sup><\/a> See\nthe detailed study of the Qumran library in D. Dimant, \u201cThe Qumran Manuscripts:\nContents and Significance,\u201d in Time to\nPrepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of\nthe Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989\u201390<\/em>,\ned. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman, 23\u201358. STDJ 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1995).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2<\/sup><\/a> See\nL. H. Schiffman, \u201cThe Temple Scroll<\/em>\nand the Nature of Its Law: The Status of the Question,\u201d in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the\nDead Sea Scrolls<\/em>, ed. E. Ulrich and J. VanderKam, 37\u201355. CJAS 10 (Notre\nDame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3<\/sup><\/a> First\nnoted by B. A. Levine, \u201cThe Temple Scroll: Aspects of Its Historical Provenance and\nLiterary Character<\/a>,\u201d BASOR<\/em>\n232 (1978) 5\u201323; cf. H. Stegemann, \u201cThe Origins of the Temple Scroll,\u201d VTSup 40\n(Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986<\/em>, ed.\nJ. A. Emerton; 1988) 235\u201356. We cannot accept the dating for the sources of the\nScroll proposed by Stegemann.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4<\/sup><\/a> Cf.\nL. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead\nSea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost\nLibrary of Qumran<\/em><\/a> (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,\n1994; repr. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1995) xvii\u2013xviii<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5<\/sup><\/a> A.\nM. Wilson and L. Wills, \u201cLiterary Sources of the Temple Scroll<\/a>,\u201d HTR<\/em> 75 (1982) 275\u201388; M. O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from\nQumran Cave 11.<\/em> SAOC 49 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, University of\nChicago, 1990) 35\u2013194.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6<\/sup><\/a> See Schiffman, \u201cThe Temple Scroll<\/em>,\u201d\n46\u201348.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7<\/sup><\/a> Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll<\/em>\n(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Shrine of the Book, 1983) 1:344\u201362.\nA full discussion of this text is found in L. H. Schiffman, \u201cThe King, His\nGuard and the Royal Council in the Temple Scroll,\u201d PAAJR<\/em> 54 (1987) 237\u201359. Cf. M. Weinfeld, \u201c \u2018Megillat Miqdash\u2019\n\u2018o \u2018Torah la-Melekh,\u2019 \u201d Shnaton<\/em>\n3 (1978\/79) 214\u201337 [English trans. \u201cThe Temple Scroll or \u2018The Law of the\nKing,\u2019 \u201d in Normative and Sectarian\nJudaism in the Second Temple Period<\/em> (London T. & T. Clark, 2005)\n158\u201385].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

M<\/a>MT Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

8<\/sup><\/a> \u201cThe New Halakhic Letter (4QMMT<\/a>) and the Origins of the Dead Sea Sect,\u201d\nChapter 6<\/a> below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9<\/sup><\/a> A full discussion of the laws in this document is found in E. Qimron and\nJ. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4. V: Miq\u1e63at\nMa\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah.<\/em> DJD 10 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 123\u201377.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10<\/sup><\/a> b. Qidd.<\/em><\/a> 66a<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

11<\/sup><\/a> Ant.<\/em><\/a> 18.288\u201396<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

12<\/sup><\/a> See Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead\nSea Scrolls<\/em>, 236\u201338<\/a>. See also D. R. Schwartz, \u201cOn Pharisaic\nOpposition to the Hasmonean Monarchy,\u201d in Studies\nin the Jewish Background of Christianity<\/em> (T\u00fcbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992)\n44\u201356.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

13<\/sup><\/a> Cf. F. M. Cross, \u201cThe Early History of the Qumran Community,\u201d in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology<\/em>,\ned. D. N. Freedman and J. C. Greenfield, 70\u201389 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971).\nSee also Chapter 6<\/a> below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

14<\/sup><\/a> S. Talmon, \u201cThe Sectarian <\/a>y\u1e25d<\/em><\/a>\u2014a Biblical Noun<\/a>,\u201d VT<\/em> 3 (1953) 133\u201340.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15<\/sup><\/a> This phrase is taken from S. Talmon, \u201cThe Community of the Renewed\nCovenant: Between Judaism and Christianity,\u201d in Ulrich and VanderKam, Community of the Renewed Covenant<\/em>, 3\u201324.\nTalmon\u2019s essay also provided the title for the volume.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16<\/sup><\/a> R. de Vaux, Archaeology and the\nDead Sea Scrolls<\/em> Schweich Lectures 1959 (London: Oxford University Press,\n1973) 1\u201348; Schiffman, Reclaiming the\nDead Sea Scrolls<\/em>, 37\u201357<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

17<\/sup><\/a> J. Liver, \u201cBene \u1e62adoq shebe-Khat Midbar Yehudah,\u201d ErIsr<\/em> 8 (1966\/67) 71\u201381; L. H. Schiffman, Halakhah at Qumran.<\/em><\/a>\nSJLA 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 72\u201375.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

18<\/sup><\/a> 1QS 5:2\u20133<\/a>, 9\u201310<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

19<\/sup><\/a> 1QS 6:19<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

20<\/sup><\/a> Schiffman, Halakhah at Qumran<\/em>,\n68\u201370.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

21<\/sup><\/a> For the initiation rites, see Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls<\/em>, 97\u2013103<\/a>; Rabin, Qumran Studies<\/em><\/a>.\nScripta Judaica 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957), 1\u201321; S. Lieberman,\n\u201cThe Discipline in the So-Called Dead Sea Manual of\nDiscipline<\/a>,\u201d JBL<\/em> 71 (1951)\n199\u2013206.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

22<\/sup><\/a> Cf. Rabin, Qumran Studies<\/em>,\n102\u20137.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

23<\/sup><\/a> Schiffman, Halakhah at Qumran<\/em>,\n66\u201367.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

24<\/sup><\/a> J. M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.\nXIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266\u2013273).<\/em> DJD 18 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

25<\/sup><\/a> See L. H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in\nthe Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code.<\/em><\/a> BJS\n33 (Chico: Scholars, 1983) 23\u201330.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

26<\/sup><\/a> J. T. Milik, \u201cMegillat mil\u1e25emet\nbene \u2019or bivene \u1e25oshek<\/em> by Y. Yadin (review),\u201d RB<\/em> 64 (1957) 585\u201393.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

27<\/sup><\/a> Sifre Deut<\/em> 153 (ed. L. Finkelstein, 206).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

28<\/sup><\/a> Schiffman, Sectarian Law<\/em>,\n55\u201363.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

29<\/sup><\/a> J. M. Baumgarten, Studies in\nQumran Law.<\/em> SJLA 24 (Leiden: Brill, 1977) 183\u201386.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

30<\/sup><\/a> Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea\nScrolls<\/em>, 127\u201343<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

31<\/sup><\/a> Schiffman, Sectarian Law<\/em>,\n63\u201365.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

32<\/sup><\/a> Schiffman, Sectarian Law<\/em>,\n97\u201398; \u201cReproof as a Requisite for Punishment in the Law of the Dead Sea\nScrolls,\u201d Jewish Law Studies II: The\nJerusalem Conference Volume<\/em>, ed. B. S. Jackson, 59\u201374 (Atlanta: Scholars,\n1986).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

33<\/sup><\/a> L. H. Schiffman, \u201cThe Prohibition of Judicial Corruption in the Dead Sea\nScrolls, Philo, Josephus and Talmudic Law,\u201d in Hesed ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs<\/em>, ed. J.\nMagness and S. Gitin, 155\u201378. BJS 320 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1998).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

34<\/sup><\/a> Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea\nScrolls<\/em>, 117\u201321<\/a>; G. Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigskeit<\/em> (G\u00f6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963); G. Lambert, Le\nMa\u00eetre de justice et la communaut\u00e9 de l\u2019alliance<\/em>.<\/em> ALBO 2\/28 (Louvain: Publications\nuniversitaires, 1952); F. F. Bruce, Second\nThoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977)\n92\u201397; G. W. Buchanan, \u201cThe Office of Teacher of Righteousness<\/a>,\u201d RevQ<\/em> 9 (1977) 237\u201340.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

35<\/sup><\/a> 1QpHab 2:8<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

36<\/sup><\/a> Cf. J. Priest, \u201cMebaqqer, Paqqid<\/em><\/a> and the Messiah<\/a>,\u201d JBL<\/em> 81 (1962) 55\u201361; R. Marcus, \u201cMebaqqer<\/em><\/a> and <\/a>Rabbim<\/em><\/a> in the <\/a>Manual of\nDiscipline<\/em><\/a> VI, 11\u201313<\/a>,\u201d JBL<\/em>\n75 (1956) 398\u2013402. R. C. Steiner, \u201cThe <\/a>MBQR<\/em><\/a> at Qumran, the <\/a>Episkopos<\/em><\/a> in the Athenian Empire, and the Meaning of <\/a>LBQR\u2019<\/em><\/a> in Ezra 7:14: On the Relation of Ezra\u2019s Mission to the\nPersian Legal Project<\/a>,\u201d JBL<\/em>\n120 (2001) 623\u201330<\/a>, 643\u201346<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

37<\/sup><\/a> CD 14:6\u20138<\/a>=D<\/a>b<\/sup><\/a> 11 ii\n10\u201313<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

38<\/sup><\/a> 1QS 9:12\u201326<\/a>; cf. 3:13<\/a>\nand CD 12:20\u201322<\/a> and 13:22<\/a>. Cf. H. Kosmala, \u201cMaskil,\u201d JANESCU<\/em> 5 (1973) 235\u201341.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

39<\/sup><\/a> 1QSb 1:1<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

40<\/sup><\/a> 1QSb 3:22\u201328<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

41<\/sup><\/a> 1QSb 5:20\u201329<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

42<\/sup><\/a> Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea\nScrolls<\/em>, 121\u201325<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

43<\/sup><\/a> For messianic ideas in the Qumran scrolls, see S. Talmon, The World of Qumran from Within<\/em>\n(Jerusalem: Magnes and Leiden: Brill, 1989) 273\u2013300; F. Garc\u00eda Mart\u00ednez, \u201cMessianische Erwartungen in den Qumranschriften<\/a>,\u201d\nJBTh<\/em> 8 (1993) 171\u2013208; J. J. Collins,\nThe Scepter and the\nStar: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature<\/em><\/a>.\nABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1995).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

44<\/sup><\/a> L. H. Schiffman, The Eschatological\nCommunity of the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/em><\/a> SBLMS 38 (Atlanta: Scholars,\n1989) 68\u201371.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

45<\/sup><\/a> Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea\nScrolls<\/em>, 321\u201322<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

46<\/sup><\/a> \u201cMessianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls,\u201d Chapter 16<\/a>\nbelow; W. S. LaSor, \u201cThe Messiah of Aaron and Israel<\/a>,\u201d VT<\/em> 6 (1956) 425\u201329; J. Liver, \u201cThe Doctrine of the Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in\nthe Time of the Second Commonwealth<\/a>,\u201d HTR<\/em> 52 (1959) 149\u201385; K. G. Kuhn, \u201cThe Two Messiahs of Aaron and\nIsrael,\u201d in The Scrolls and the New\nTestament<\/em>, ed. K. Stendahl and J. H. Charlesworth, 54\u201364 (1957; repr. New\nYork: Crossroad, 1992); L. Silberman, \u201cTwo Messiahs of the Manual of Discipline<\/a>,\u201d VT<\/em> 5 (1955) 77\u201382; R. B. Laurin, \u201cThe Problem of the Two Messiahs in the Qumran Scrolls<\/a>,\u201d\nRevQ<\/em> 4 (1963) 39\u201352; G. J. Brooke, \u201cMessiah of Aaron in the Damascus Document<\/a>,\u201d RevQ<\/em> 15 (1991) 215\u201331.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

47<\/sup><\/a> Schiffman, Eschatological\nCommunity<\/em>, 53\u201367.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

48<\/sup><\/a> Cf. E. Sch\u00fcrer, The History of the\nJewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 <\/em><\/a>b.c.\u2013a.d.<\/em><\/a> 135)<\/em><\/a>,\nrev. ed. by G. Vermes and F. Millar, with P. Vermes and M. Black (Edinburgh: T.\n& T. Clark, 1973) 1:544.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

49<\/sup><\/a> On apocalypticism at Qumran, see C. A. Newsom, \u201cApocalyptic and the Discourse of the Qumran Community<\/a>,\u201d\nJNES<\/em> 49 (1990) 135\u201344; H. Stegemann,\n\u201cDie Bedeutung der Qumranfunde f\u00fcr die Erforschung der Apokalyptik,\u201d in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World\nand the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on\nApocalypticism<\/em>, ed. D. Hellholm (T\u00fcbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1983) 495\u2013530;\nJ. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic\nImagination<\/em><\/a>, 2nd ed. BRS (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998)\n145\u201376; \u201cWas the Dead Sea Sect an Apocalyptic Movement?\u201d in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea\nScrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin<\/em>, ed.\nL. H. Schiffman, 25\u201351. JSOTSup 8. JSOT\/ASOR Monographs 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield\nAcademic, 1990); Apocalypticism in the\nDead Sea Scrolls<\/em> (London: Routledge, 1997); P. R. Davies, \u201cQumran and Apocalyptic or Obscurum Per Obscurius<\/a>,\u201d\nJNES<\/em> 49 (1990) 127\u201334; J. Starcky, \u201cLes quatre \u00e9tapes du messianisme \u00e0 Qumran<\/a>,\u201d RB<\/em> 70 (1963) 481\u2013505.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

50<\/sup><\/a> \u201cMessianic Figures and Ideas in the Dead Sea Scrolls,\u201d Chapter 16<\/a>\nbelow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

51<\/sup><\/a> 1QSa 2:11\u201322<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

52<\/sup><\/a> Schiffman, Eschatological\nCommunity<\/em>, 53\u201367.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

53<\/sup><\/a> Schiffman, Eschatological\nCommunity<\/em>, 29\u201332.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

54<\/sup><\/a> L. H. Schiffman, \u201cLegislation Concerning Relations with Non-Jews in the <\/a>Zadokite Fragments<\/em><\/a> and in Tannaitic Literature<\/a>,\u201d RevQ<\/em> 11 (1983) 382\u201385.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1<\/sup><\/a> E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, \u201cAn Unpublished Halakhic Letter from\nQumran,\u201d in Biblical Archaeology Today:\nProceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem,\nApril 1984<\/em>, ed. J. Amitai (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Israel\nAcademy of Sciences and Humanities, in cooperation with ASOR, 1985) 400\u20137.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2<\/sup><\/a> L. H. Schiffman, \u201cThe Temple Scroll and the Systems of Jewish Law in the\nSecond Temple Period,\u201d in Temple Scroll\nStudies<\/em>, ed. G. J. Brooke, 245\u201353 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989); \u201cMiq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015beh ha-Torah<\/em> and the Temple Scroll<\/em>,\u201d RevQ<\/em> 14 (The Texts of Qumran and the History of the Community:\nProceedings of the Groningen Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls 3, 1990) 435\u201357.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3<\/sup><\/a> Cf. J. Strugnell, \u201cMMT: Second Thoughts on a Forthcoming Edition,\u201d in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The\nNotre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls<\/em>, ed. E. Ulrich and J. C.\nVanderKam, 57\u201373. CJAS 10 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4<\/sup><\/a> See F. M. Cross, \u201cThe Development of the Jewish Scripts<\/a>,\u201d in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays\nin Honor of W. F. Albright<\/em>, ed. G. E. Wright, 149 (Garden City: Doubleday,\n1961), where Cross dates one of the manuscripts of this work to around 50 to 25\nb.c.e. He studies this manuscript,\nthen numbered 4QS135b<\/sup>, on pp. 186\u201388, and, in the summary (p. 188),\nhe states that this and the other manuscripts of this semi-cursive type \u201cbelong\nto the late Hasmonean period, or, at latest, to the beginning of the early\nHerodian era.\u201d Full publication of the manuscripts and a paleographic study by\nA. Yardeni are found in Qumran Cave 4. V:\nMiq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015beh ha-Torah<\/em>, ed. E. Qimron and J. Strugnell. DJD 10 (Oxford:\nClarendon, 1994) 3\u201342. Yardeni dates the manuscripts as follows: 4Q394<\/a>,\nno later than the early Herodian period; 4Q395<\/a>,\nearly Herodian; 4Q396<\/a>, early or mid-Herodian; 4Q397<\/a>,\nfirst half of the Herodian period; 4Q398<\/a>, early Herodian; 4Q399<\/a>,\nmid-Herodian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5<\/sup><\/a> See S. Talmon, \u201cThe Calendar Reckoning of the Sect from the Judaean\nDesert,\u201d in Aspects of the Dead Sea\nScrolls<\/em>, ed. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin, 162\u201399. ScrHier 4 (Jerusalem: Magnes,\n1958; repr. in Talmon, The World of\nQumran from Within<\/em> [Jerusalem: Magnes and Leiden: Brill, 1989] 157\u201385).\nNote that this was not the only calendar known at Qumran. The daily prayer\ntexts were tied to a luni-solar calendar such as that known from tannaitic\nsources. See \u201cThe Early History of Jewish Liturgy and the Dead Sea Scrolls,\u201d\nChapter 13<\/a> below; J. M. Baumgarten, \u201c4Q503 (Daily Prayers) and the Lunar Calendar<\/a>,\u201d RevQ<\/em> 12 (1986) 399\u2013407.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

6<\/sup><\/a> See Qimron and Strugnell, \u201cAn Unpublished Halakhic Letter,\u201d 401 and 406,\nn. 5; DJD 10:139.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7<\/sup><\/a> CD 4:12\u20135:14<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

8<\/sup><\/a> A photograph of one of the manuscripts of the conclusion of the text\nappeared in E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, \u201cAn Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran<\/a>,\u201d IMJ<\/em> 4 (1985) 10.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9<\/sup><\/a> Cf. Prov 14:28<\/a>: \u05d1\u05e8\u05d1\u05be\u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05ea\u05be\u05de\u05dc\u05da, \u201camong a\nlarge number of people is the glory of the king.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10<\/sup><\/a> But see E. Ulrich, \u201cThe Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT<\/a>,\u201d\nCBQ<\/em> 65 (2003) 202\u201314.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

11<\/sup><\/a> Cf. Deut 9:12<\/a>, 16<\/a>;\n11:28<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

12<\/sup><\/a> \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d4 here refers to the\nblessings promised for the end of days, and \u05e7\u05dc\u05dc\u05d4 denotes the catastrophic\nperiod that is to precede the onset of the eschaton. Cf. 11QTemple<\/a>a<\/sup><\/a>\n29:9<\/a> in which, according to the reading of Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll<\/em><\/a>\n(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Shrine of the Book, 1983) 2:129, yom ha-berakhah<\/em> refers to the \u201cEnd of\nDays.\u201d E. Qimron, \u201cLe-Nus\u1e25ah shel Megillat ha-Miqdash,\u201d Le\u0161<\/em> 42 (1978) 142, however, reads yom ha-beri\u2019ah<\/em>, written bryh<\/em>\n(cf. Yadin, Temple Scroll<\/em>, 1:412).\nWe, however, note the lower part of the kaf<\/em>\nin pl. 14* 2 (infrared photograph) in vol. 3: Supplementary Plates.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

13<\/sup><\/a> David appears as well in CD 5:1\u20136<\/a>. On this passage, cf. L. H. Schiffman, The Halakhah at\nQumran.<\/em><\/a> SJLA 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 30\u201331.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

14<\/sup><\/a> Strugnell and Qimron, \u201cAn Unpublished Halakhic Letter,\u201d 400, suggest\nthat it is from \u201ca leader of the Qumran sect (possibly the Teacher of\nRighteousness himself) to the leader of its opponents (possibly Jonathan or\nSimon).\u201d Cf. also their article of similar title in IMJ<\/em> 4 (1985) and DJD 10:117\u201319. Below we will explain why, in our\nview, the letter must predate the Teacher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15<\/sup><\/a> Josephus said of Aristobulus I (104\u2013103 b.c.e.)\nin Ant.<\/em><\/a>\n13.301<\/a> that he transformed the government into a kingdom. See L. H.\nSchiffman, \u201cThe King, His Guard, and the Royal Council in the Temple Scroll<\/em>,\u201d PAAJR<\/em> 54 (1987) 258.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16<\/sup><\/a> The halakhic agreements are the subject of Schiffman, RevQ<\/em> 14 (1990) 435\u201357.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

17<\/sup><\/a> Targums Pseudo-Jonathan and Neophyti translated the entire passage (Deut\n30:1\u201310<\/a>) in the plural, whereas Onqelos preserved the\nsingular of the MT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

18<\/sup><\/a> Cf. Yadin, Temple Scroll<\/em>,\n1:269\u201370; and Schiffman, PAAJR<\/em> 54\n(1987) 255\u201357.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

19<\/sup><\/a> J. M. Allegro, Qumran Cave 4. 1\n(4Q158\u20134Q186).<\/em> DJD 5 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) 42\u201350. Cf. J. Strugnell, \u201cNotes en marge du volume V des \u2018Discoveries in the Judaean\nDesert of Jordan,\u2019<\/a> \u201d RevQ<\/em>\n7 (1970) 216, whose corrections must be used.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

20<\/sup><\/a> Yadin, Temple Scroll<\/em>, 1:396.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

21<\/sup><\/a> This suggestion is raised by Qimron and Strugnell, IMJ<\/em> 4 (1985), who say that \u201cthe mss of MMT may well be exemplars of\nthat letter.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

22<\/sup><\/a> Allegro, DJD 5:67\u201374; Strugnell, \u201cNotes en marge<\/a>,\u201d RevQ<\/em> 7 (1970) 236\u201348.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

23<\/sup><\/a> Yadin, Temple Scroll<\/em>, 1:396\u20137;\nsee his restoration there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

24<\/sup><\/a> Some comment on our use of the term \u201cSadducee\u201d is necessary. Despite the\ndiffering pictures of the Sadducees found in the works of Josephus and in rabbinic\nliterature, we take the view that we are dealing here with one group that, as\nhappens so often, is perceived and portrayed differently in various ancient\nsources. These differing perceptions, as always, result either from differences\nof opinion on the part of authors or from historical development regarding the\ngroup in question. Nonetheless, we see Josephus\u2019s Sadducees as the \u1e63edoqim<\/em> of rabbinic literature, and\nthese, it is now turning out, are closely related to the bene \u1e63adoq<\/em> (\u201csons of Zadok\u201d) who apparently founded the Dead Sea\nsect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

25<\/sup><\/a> On the priestly origins of the sect, see F. M. Cross, \u201cThe Early History\nof the Qumran Community,\u201d in New Directions in\nBiblical Archaeology<\/em><\/a>, ed. D. N. Freedman and J. C. Greenfield,\n63\u201379 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1969); and D. R. Schwartz, \u201cOn Two Aspects of a\nPriestly View of Descent at Qumran,\u201d in Archaeology\nand History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in\nMemory of Yigael Yadin<\/em>, ed. L. H. Schiffman, 157\u201379. JSOTSup 8. JSOT\/ASOR\nMonographs 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

26<\/sup><\/a> See esp. CD 3:20\u20134:4<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

27<\/sup><\/a> Cf. CD 2:16\u20133:14<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

28<\/sup><\/a> Schiffman, RevQ<\/em> 14 (1990)\n435\u201357.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

29<\/sup><\/a> H. Burgmann, \u201c11QT: The Sadducean \u2018Torah\u2019,\u201d in Temple Scroll Studies<\/em>, ed. G. J. Brooke, 257\u201363. JSPSup 7\n(Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), asserts this thesis in his title but fails to argue\nfor it in a sustained manner, dealing only with Levitical favoritism in the Temple Scroll.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

30<\/sup><\/a> For a complete examination of the sources, see J. Kampen, The Hasideans and\nthe Origin of Pharisaism: A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees<\/em><\/a>. SBLSCS\n24 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988). However, our conclusion differs from his.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

31<\/sup><\/a> This is the view of N. Golb, \u201cThe Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Perspective,\u201d American Scholar<\/em> 58 (1989) 177\u2013207. A\npolemical treatment in book-length form is Golb\u2019s Who Wrote the Dead\nSea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret of Qumran<\/em><\/a> (New York:\nScribner, 1995). This theory has been shown to be impossible in a detailed\nexamination of its underpinnings by F. Garc\u00eda Mart\u00ednez and A. S. van der Woude,\n\u201cA \u2018Groningen\u2019 Hypothesis of Qumran Origins and Early History,\u201d RevQ<\/em> 14 (The Texts of Qumran and the\nHistory of the Community: Proceedings of the Groningen Congress on the Dead Sea\nScrolls 3, 1990) 521\u201341.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

32<\/sup><\/a> Golb is certainly correct in reminding us that the scrolls preserve many\ncompositions authored outside of the group. We see these, however, as assembled\nby the sectarians because of their affinity for or adherence to the teachings\nof these texts. The scrolls also preserve much information about other groups\nof Jews in this period: the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Hasmoneans, and\nothers known only from their literary compositions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MMT <\/a>Miq\u1e63at Ma\u2018a\u015be ha-Torah<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n


<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Separation from the Temple That such ritual debates did indeed cause the sectarians to separate from worship in the Jerusalem temple is claimed by the Zadokite Fragments. This text, originally known only in the two partial copies preserved in the Cairo Genizah,19 can now be examined in the Qumran copies published by J. M. Baumgarten.20 … <\/p>\n

\u201eQumran and Jerusalem_ Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism-1\u201c <\/span>weiterlesen<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1887","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1887","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1887"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1887\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1890,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1887\/revisions\/1890"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1887"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1887"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1887"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}