BOOK REVIEW from the H-JUDAIC list:

John Joseph Collins. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian
Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids William B. Eerdmans
Pub. Co., 2010. xii + 266 pp. Illustrations. $25.00 (paper), ISBN
978-0-8028-2887-3.

Reviewed by Alex Jassen (University of Minnesota)
Published on H-Judaic (October, 2010)
Commissioned by Jason Kalman

Revisiting the Origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls

[...]

Into this fray enters John J. Collins’s new book _Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls_. The bulk of its pages carefully assess the merits and drawbacks of many of the prevailing theories on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran. At the same time as Collins deftly critiques sixty years of scholarship, he offers his own vision for the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls and their relationship to the site of Qumran. Collins is well positioned to undertake both tasks, having long been active in the study of the scrolls. His sobering approach to the material allows the evidence to speak for itself–rather than the phenomenon Collins observes far too often, of scholars speaking for the text (and, of course, saying far too much). In this sense, a good deal of this volume consists of a careful deconstruction of other approaches, many of which are rendered speculative at best by the textual or archaeological evidence. His analysis of the textual evidence is restrained, perhaps too restrained for many. But, in the end, this judicious approach often leaves the reader in agreement with Collins versus the alternatives.

[...]

————————–

GOOGLE’S PLAN with the IAA to put the Dead Sea Scrolls online (noted here) has received endless media coverage, most of it repetitive. But here’s an interesting little photo essay from National Geographic.

JAMES CHARLESWORTH is interviewed by the BBC about the new Google Dead Sea Scrolls archiving project.

Background here.

————————

THREE MORE Dead Sea Scroll fragments have been acquired by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:

Fort Worth seminary obtains more pieces of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Posted Friday, Oct. 22, 2010 (Star-Telegram)

FORT WORTH — Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has acquired three more fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the seminary announced this week.

The fragments were obtained from a private collector in Europe through a gift from a friend of the seminary, according to a news release. Early analysis shows that the new fragments include two portions of Deuteronomy and one of the Psalms.

[...]

SBTS obtained three additional fragments early this year.

———————————

BOOK REVIEW in BAR:

The Dead Sea Scrolls, A Full History, Vol. 1

by Weston W. Fields

Leiden/Boston, Brill, 2009, 592 pp.
$99 (hardcover)

Reviewed by Charlotte Hempel

This lavishly illustrated volume contains a virtual mini-archive of the momentous events relating to the discovery, acquisition and early publication history of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Fields interviewed all the living major, as well as some minor, players or their family members in different parts of the world. Among them are Arab nomads, local Arab antiquities dealers, scholars, wealthy collectors and librarians. Fields studied the archives of universities and institutions in various countries and reproduces much of what he has discovered word for word.

[...]

———————————–

THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS is coming out in the UK in a week, and a couple of weeks later in the USA. Follow the link for details. The Amazon link is here. Professor Timothy Lim, co-editor of the volume, also has sent the table of contents. I [Jim Davila] have contributed an article on the Scrolls and mysticism.

Introduction: Current Issues in Dead Sea Scrolls Research
Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins

PART I ARCHAEOLOGY OF KHIRBET QUMRAN AND THE JUDAEAN WILDERNESS
1. Khirbet Qumran and its Environs
Eric M. Meyers

2. The Qumran Cemetery Reassessed
Rachel Hachlili

PART II THE SCROLLS AND
JEWISH HISTORY
3. Constructing Ancient Judaism from the Scrolls
Martin Goodman

4. The Origins and History of the Teacher’s Movement
Michael O. Wise

5. Women in Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Tal Ilan

PART III THE SCROLLS AND SECTARIANISM
6. Sectarian Communities in the Dead Sea Scrolls
John J. Collins

7. The Classical Sources on the Essenes and the Scrolls
Communities
Joan E. Taylor

8. Sociological Approaches to Qumran Sectarianism
Jutta Jokiranta

9. Qumran Calendars and Sectarianism
Sacha Stern

10. The Book of Enoch and the Qumran Scrolls
James C. VanderKam

PART IV THE BIBLICAL TEXTS, INTERPRETATION, AND LANGUAGES OF THE SCROLLS
11. Assessing the Text-Critical Theories of the Hebrew Bible after Qumran
Ronald S. Hendel

12. Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Timothy H. Lim

13. Rewritten Scripture
Molly M. Zahn

14. The Continuity of Biblical Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls and Rabbinic Literature
Bilhah Nitzan

15. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in the Qumran Scrolls
Jan Joosten

PART V RELIGIOUS THEMES IN THE SCROLLS
16. Purity in the Dead Sea Scrolls
Jonathan Klawans

17. Apocalypticism and Messianism
Michael A. Knibb

18. Exploring the Mystical Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls
James R. Davila

19. Wisdom Literature and Thought in the Dead Sea Scrolls
Armin Lange

20. Iranian Connections in the Dead Sea Scrolls
Albert De Jong

21. Was the Dead Sea Sect a Penitential Movement?
David Lambert

PART VI THE SCROLLS AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY
22. Critical Issues in the Investigation of the Scrolls and the New Testament
Jo¨rg Frey

23. Monotheism, Principal Angels, and the Background of Christology
L. W. Hurtado

24. Shared Exegetical Traditions between the Scrolls and the New Testament
George J. Brooke

PART VII THE SCROLLS AND LATER JUDAISM
25. Halakhah between the Dead Sea Scrolls and Rabbinic Literature
Aharon Shemesh

26. The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Study of Ancient Jewish Liturgy
Daniel K. Falk

27. Reviewing the Links between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Cairo Genizah
Stefan C. Reif

PART VIII NEW APPROACHES TO THE SCROLLS
28. Rhetorical Criticism and the Reading of the Qumran Scrolls
Carol A. Newsom

29. Roland Barthes and the Teacher of Righteousness: The Death of the Author of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Maxine L. Grossman

30. The Scrolls and the Legal Definition of Authorship
Hector L. Macqueen

—————————————————————————

Steve:

I’m new to your Heavenly Ascents blog – it looks fascinating and well researched.

I have two questions, if you would be kind enough to consider them: I was introduced to the ascent motif via the work of the late Morton Smith, who postulated that a mystical method of heavenly ascent was extant in Jesus’ time and that Jesus and his disciples may have had some personal experience with this practice. I realize that some of Smith’s statements were likely issued with a twinkle in his eye (did he forge Secret Mark, etc.), but he does seem to make a serious case for ascent in Jewish culture even before Jesus’ time, e.g., he points out that at least one other person “ascended” – one member of the DSS community, as reported in 4Q 491, who claimed to have ascended into the angelic assembly and to have gained divine wisdom thereby.

First question: But there are claims that most Jewish ascent literature came after Jesus’ time, too late to influence and/or be expressive of primitive Christian beliefs. I am unclear on this timeline. Some say, for example, that some of this literature was too late to have been strongly influential in nascent “Jewish Christianity”, with Enoch maybe dating from that time but maybe from a later time. So would you be able to firm up for me the time frame of ascent literature as it might bear on the religion of Jesus, his disciples, and their Jewish successors, say, until after the Second Revolt in CE 135? I.e., can we date extra-biblical ascent literature from Jesus’ own lifetime up until just after the final Jewish War?

The second question concerns what, from my admittedly meager reading, poses a mystery vis a vis the Jewish nature of ascent literature. I understand that with the rise of rabbinical Judaism post-Jamnia, orthodoxy was stressed, e.g., per Alan Segal, the rabbis came down on anything smacking of a “Two Powers in Heaven” belief, beliefs concerning a Chief Assisting Angel, and beliefs about God’s human form or “Kavod”. What puzzles me is that post-70 ascent literature – IF Jewish – seems to be replete with just those kinds of beliefs that were being more and more strongly condemned by the rabbis. Do we conclude from this (if my assumption is correct) that ascent authors and communities were not Jewish; or if they were Jewish, they were by definition heretical? And if they were heretical, by what means were these ideas promulgated and texts preserved?

Thanks for your consideration.

Regards,

Steve Bastasch¹

——————————————————–

Me:

Dear Mr Bastasch,

Thank you for your excellent and very relevant questions. Before I give my response, just as a forewarning, although my website is called Heavenly Ascents, I cannot claim to be an expert (yet!) on the topic, so bear that in mind as I give you my best answers to your questions.

I will begin by saying (and this may shape your opinion of my overall answer!) that in my estimation, the ascent to heaven motif is of great antiquity, much older even than the mentions attested to in the Qumran texts. It may not have been conceived of in exactly the same ways that it is later expressed in the Christian era, but I think that later texts build on these earlier attestations of the motif.

When I say much older, I believe that a form of heavenly ascent was practiced as a ritual in the pre-exilic times, the First Temple period. I base this conclusion partially on what I see as evidence for the idea in the liturgical setting of some of the Psalms. I believe that psalms such as 24, 47, 68, 118, and 132 (and others, cf. 139:8) describe a procession(s) that involved ascending the temple mount in order to reach the throne of God in the Temple. The Hebrew word for ascent (ʽālâ), is often used in this context. The expressed purpose of the ascent, according to Psalm 24:6, was to “seek the face of the God of Jacob” (see RSV or similar translation). The features of this ritualized ascent share many of the same features as the later ascent narratives, including passing through gates with guardians (Pss. 15, 24, 118 imply that there is a question-and-answer dialogue between those desiring to be found worthy of entry and the gatekeepers), seeing the Lord on his throne (Ps. 24:6; cf. Isa. 6, etc.), exaltation and enthronement of the individual (Pss. 2, 110, 89, etc.), and other similar features. While I can’t give a full description here, I believe that all this describes a practice of a primitive heavenly ascent ritual. The holy mountain with the temple at its pinnacle, while obviously located physically on earth, represented the mountain of God that reached into the heavens upon which God’s throne was located.

Whether one accepts these ideas and others in the Hebrew Bible as authentic precursors to the later ascent literature or not, I think there is still very good evidence that the belief in and practice of heavenly ascent was common in Jewish circles well before the Christian era. You mention the works of Morton Smith — he did some good research on this topic. However, you should take a look at the more recent work of James Davila in his article on heavenly ascents in the Dead Sea Scrolls in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (vol. 2; Brill, 1999), edited by Peter Flint and James VanderKam. Besides the one example of the anonymous figure ascending that you mention (4Q 491), Davila cites five other examples of ascent found at Qumran, including narratives of the heavenly ascent of Enoch, Melchizedek, Levi, Methuselah, and perhaps also Noah (4Q534) and Moses (4Q374, although this text is very unclear). Besides these, there are phrases from some of the sectarian literature that perhaps assume a belief in heavenly ascent. For example, in the Hodayot there are lines such as “You have exalted his [man's] glory beyond flesh” (7:21) and “[s]ons of God to be united with the sons of heaven” (frg. 2 10) and 11:19-23 where the speaker claims to have been “raised eternally to an exalted realm in communion of praise with the angels” (quoting Davila’s summary). Although the nature of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is much debated, and Davila expresses doubts in this article, elsewhere he and also other scholars such as Crispin Fletcher-Louis, have described this text as possibly narrating a heavenly ascent ritual performed at Qumran. In the Davila article above, he emphasizes the fact that there seems to be a “ritual context” and “experiential component” behind these ascent texts. For me, this is all pretty clear evidence for the practice of a heavenly ascent ritual before the time of Jesus Christ. If you look at some of the works of Old Testament scholar Margaret Barker, this is the assumption that she is working with as well.

As far as the age of the Enochic literature, I follow the general opinion that the oldest sections of 1 Enoch were likely written around 300 BC and the latest sections around the first century BC. Martha Himmelfarb, in her classic Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses considers 1 Enoch’s “Book of the Watchers” (ca. 3rd Century BC) to be the earliest “ascent apocalypse”. 2 Enoch, which has a much clearer account of the ascent to heaven, is a much later text, probably from the first century AD. It is debatable whether this is originally a Jewish or Christian text. Coming up with a timeline for specific texts is very tricky and scholars have widely diverging opinions on when some of these texts were originally penned and by what group — Jewish or Christian. There certainly seems to be a blooming of this type of literature in the first few centuries of the Christian era, and these texts are preserved more often by the hands of Christians than Jews — this fact, however, does not mean that they were not originally written by Jews, and it is possible that some of these texts are considerably older than the attested examples. It is very difficult to tell. I’m sorry that I don’t have more specific details for you, but in my opinion, we can be quite certain, based on the examples I mentioned above and others, that the ascent idea was quite prevalent in at least some Jewish circles well before the time of Christ, and may have even been a main feature of the pre-exilic Israelite religion. Although Martha Himmelfarb is one that would perhaps deny this, I also believe that beyond, and perhaps in some cases accompanying, the ancient narratives regarding ascent, there was also an ascent praxis.

For a great treatment of the idea of the “mysteries” in connection with human access to the divine council at Qumran, see Samuel I. Thomas’s very recent book, The “Mysteries” of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It doesn’t go into the “heavenly ascent” idea in much detail, but I think connections with ascent literature are not hard to make.

Why do we get so much talk of chief angels and the anthropomorphic Kavod in the ascent literature? My opinion is that these ideas are perpetuations of very old motifs that for some reason are well-preserved in this type of literature. If you look at the studies of scholars like Gabriele Boccaccini and others, you get the idea that there was a much larger degree of pluralism in early Judaism than most imagine. There seem to have been several different Jewish sects (even beyond the Pharisee, Sadducee, Essene, etc. divisions that we usually hear about). Some scholars claim that some of these Jewish sects preserved the older Israelite religion better than others. In the Second Temple period, some of the mainstream groups seemed to be very interested in reforming and reshaping the Jewish religion — censoring older ideas that they now found heretical. Theoretically, many of these ideas that they wanted to discard involved the possibility of heavenly ascent, of seeing God on his throne, of any “Two Powers” notions, etc. It seems that these issues were hotly debated well before the rise of Christianity. According to some, this may have been why the “sectarians” went to Qumran. The religious tenets that they held to had become unacceptable by the mainstream. Rabbinical Judaism would develop out of this mainstream of “Zadokite” Judaism and would continue to try to purge Jewish culture of these beliefs that they found heretical. It appears that the early Christians had beliefs that were in line with, or similar to, some of these “other” Jewish groups that were unacceptable to the Rabbis.

I don’t believe that all of the post-70 ascent literature was Christian. I think that a lot of it was originally Jewish, but that it came from Jewish groups that were outside of the Rabbinic mainstream. I think a lot of the literature was eventually preserved only by Christians because they had very similar beliefs and because the Jewish groups that would have possibly written the texts and could have preserved them eventually waned under Rabbinic suppression. However, we do see that there were Jewish circles that did preserve many of these more “mystical” ideas into medieval times and beyond (e.g. merkavah mysticism, hekhalot texts, Kabbalah, Sefer Yetzirah, Zohar, etc.). It seems that some of the groups that preserved these traditions were more ascetical and priestly and were generally opposed by the Rabbis. If you look at E.R. Goodenough’s work on the Dura Europos synagogue, which is full of mystical and ascent motifs, you can get an idea for how and by whom some of these ideas were perpetuated in Jewish circles. I believe that both Christians and these “sidelined” Jewish groups preserved this material because they believed that it was part of a more authentic ancient Israelite belief system that had roots in the First Temple period and that had not been so altered by reformers.

For more on this line of thinking, see Margaret Barker’s The Older Testament, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God, Temple Themes in Christian Worship, or pretty much any other book of hers.

I’m sorry if my thoughts here are more general than specific, but feel free to ask me any further questions. I would enjoy further discussing these ideas.

Cheers,

David

1. Author’s name reproduced with permission

I won’t quote from or go into the content of his paper, but I wanted to present some of the notes I took from Professor Davila’s remarks after the presentation. He said some interesting things that are helpful for understanding how some Jews, in the couple of centuries leading up to the life of Jesus Christ, thought about the role of the Messiah. My notes are far from a complete and accurate rendering of what Professor Davila said, so please bear with me.

Professor Davila:

Messianism in Second Temple Judaism is a very messy problem because the problem of Jesus is bigger than the problem of messianism when you define Messiah simply as “anointed one” — for the case of Jesus, we also need to look at the early Jewish ideas surrounding divine mediator figures, principal angels, charismatic spiritual leaders, etc.

(See Davila’s article “Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron: Introductory Reflections on Divine Mediators and the Origins of the Worship of Jesus” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism (Leiden: Brill,1999) and also his online outline Methodology for Studying Divine Mediators)

The idea of a “messiah” encompasses two ideal figures: the Davidic King and the High Priest. However, these two characters became very complex in Second Temple Judaism:

• The High Priest can be eschatological or celestial
• Davidic king ideal can draw from Past — King David or Melchizedek
• Melchizedek can be both eschatalogical and celestial
• and so on…

For the figure of Melchizedek, there are some background issues that need to be addressed — See Gen. 14 and Psalm 110 — these should be considered when studying 11QMelchizedek (a Dead Sea Scroll)

In Gen. 14, Melchizedek is both a king (of Jerusalem) and a priest who offers sacrifice — he was a human being originally (like Jesus).

In Psalm 110 — a “royal psalm” — the only other reference to Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible — the Davidic king is enthroned at the right hand of God, and made a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek — the Davidic king is a Melchizedek priest sitting at the right hand of God (heavenly ascent, although not explicit, can be read into this)

Melchizedek is a human being who was exalted to be a god, which has connections to Jesus.

In a couple of places in 11QMelch, Melchizedek is called a god — for instance, where Psalms 82 and 7 are cited regarding him(Psalm 110 is probably in the background of 11QMelch. as well).

Anciently, both king and priest were anointed — so Melchizedek is anointed on two accounts. He would certainly be considered an “anointed one.”

Matt. 11:2–6 (Luke 7) and Luke 4:18–19 — Jesus identified himself as being the one anointed by the Spirit as mentioned in Isaiah 61 and then Isaiah 35:5–6.

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (Dead Sea Scrolls) are also of interest. They likely refer to Melchizedek as a priestly angelic figure, which reinforces 11QMelch.

Margaret Barker thinks that Jesus was aware of this Melchizedek tradition — the 70 weeks (10 Jubilee periods) mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls is supposed to have ended at the Great Revolt (according to Gospel writers and Josephus) — the 10th Jubilee was supposed to be “the end” — Jesus was aware that at the beginning of the 10th Jubilee, the Messiah was supposed to be active — he saw himself as the Melchizedek figure.

Qumran seemed to believe in messiahs (plural) of Aaron and Israel. [One of the big questions that was discussed in the student paper and in class was whether Jesus fit either or both of these conceptions of the messiah of Aaron -- a priestly, atoning messiah -- or the messiah of Israel -- the conquering Davidic king. The student had concluded, based on his research, that Jesus didn't fully fit either tradition.]

In the pre-exilic period you had the king and a Zadokite priest under him.  In the post-exilic period, the Jews were under Persian overlords, so there was no king — there was a governor, Zerubabbel, and a high priest, Joshua. Zerubabbel was of the line of David, but not allowed to be king. The people began to want to be independent (ca. 520 BC) and shirk Persian control. In the last verses of Haggai, Zerubabbel is the “messiah” — he will be the true king:

Haggai 2:21–23  1 Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;  22 And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother.  23 In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.

We should note that Haggai seems to be cut short abruptly. Zechariah has similar themes:

Zechariah 6:11–13  11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;  12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:  13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

The instruction is to set crowns (plural) on the high priest Joshua, who appears to be called here “the Branch”. However, it seems more likely that the Branch should have been Zerubbabel (the Davidic king as a tree was an ancient idea), but he was later omitted in the text. Zerubabbel then disappears from history and the governors are never from the line of David again. The High Priest remains as the ruling figure in Jewish society.

The Qumran texts are looking at this history of kings and priests and the early pre-exilic diarchy (king and high priest ruling together), and saying that this is the ideal. There must be two messiahs — one priestly (Aaronic) and the other a Davidic king (depicted as a conquering warrior). The Qumran texts seem to make the priestly Messiah more important. Why?

Interestingly, the Jewish pseudepigrapha don’t generally mention a priestly messiah. Also, the Rabbinic texts don’t have a priestly messiah, only Davidic. There may be many reasons for this. The Dead Sea Scrolls do seem to  have the two messiahs idea.

4Q285 — “they will kill the prince of the congregation” — this used to be taken as “suffering Messiah” text, but now is not generally accepted as such.

4Q174 — the “teacher of law” is called the “star” that comes out of Jacob

The Book of Revelation should not be ignored in this matter. Jesus is not only the priestly, atoning messiah, he is there depicted as an eschatalogical warrior. Mark 13 and parallels paint Jesus as the Son of Man coming as a conquering figure — this is more evidence for Jesus as the Davidic messiah figure as well.

My (brief) thoughts on this subject:

I believe that the Aaronic (priestly) vs. Davidic messiah dichotomy is post-exilic. The pre-exilic “messiah”, who was the Davidic monarch,  was both a priestly figure (connected to atonement) and a royal warrior figure (connected to the battle against the nations). He was associated with the figure of Melchizedek. The conception of the priestly messiah should likely have originally not been connected to Aaron at all (this is a post-exilic invention), but should have been the priest after the order of Melchizedek, as Christ is described in the Epistle to the Hebrews. I think this is where 11QMelch comes into play — Melchizedek, the ancient example of the ideal priest-king, would have embodied both messianic expectations — the priestly and the royal.  The Davidic kings were anointed following the example of Melchizedek — as both priest and king (see Psalm 110).  This is the pattern that we see in Jesus as the Messiah — he would have been considered to be the two conceptions of messiah in one — the atoning High Priest and Davidic King. However, Christians believed that his role as conquering warrior would only be fully accomplished with his Second Coming. The fact that this role was not apparent during his lifetime may be one of the main reasons he was not accepted as the expected Messiah. Furthermore, the fact that he was not an Aaronic high priest, but claimed to be after the ancient (and repudiated) order of Melchizedek, was probably another reason why the Jewish leadership felt so threatened by his claims.

(For more on the background for these politics of the priesthood, see my post here.)

LDS readers, if you don’t know already, should be pleased to hear that Professor Tov has been to BYU on a number of occasions and has worked with many BYU professors, including Donald Parry, Stephen Ricks, Dana Pike, Noel Reynolds, David Seeley, Andrew Skinner, Kent Brown, and others (those are all that I could remember him mentioning off the top of my head). Many of these have worked with him on the translation and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and on the Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library, a project that BYU produced in an effort to make the DSS available in an electronic format (now part of the Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Reference Library of E. J. Brill Publishers (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2006)). Professor Tov indicated to me that he has greatly enjoyed working with these BYU professors and commented on their notable devotion to their Church.

Without further ado, here are my notes from his lecture on Thursday, April 15th, 2010.  I would just add that these are my own personal notes and they do not necessarily represent Prof Tov’s comments in full nor his exact wording.

Introduction by University of St Andrews Professor Kristin de Troyer

…We owe the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls to Emanuel Tov…

Professor Tov’s Lecture: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible

We will be talking about the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls (found between 1947 and 1956) and about the Hebrew Bible.

We should know that our modern translations of the Bible are based on the Masoretic text — this is the text that is also used in synagogues and in scholarship.  The Masoretic text, however, comes from medieval times — it is very late.

Therefore, all our commentaries are traditionally based on these late biblical manuscripts. Were we misleading the world? No, the Masoretic text was very good, but it was late.

We’ll go back now 60 years in scholarship, when the first scrolls were found. There were (eventually) fragments of 930 scrolls found near the Dead Sea. They are mostly non-biblical. About 1/4 are biblical.

To cite some examples, the great Isaiah scroll was very complete; The scroll containing Chronicles, however, was only a very small fragment; the biblical scrolls found are of varying size.

(Commenting on the nature/appearance of the scrolls) They were sheets of leather sown together.

There were many scrolls found at Masadah — 23 biblical scrolls and many other non-biblical texts.

(Commenting on the people who formed the Qumran community) The keepers of DSS left the city and went to live a communal life in the desert.

Finding these scrolls of the Bible was a very great opportunity; for the first time we were able to see what this type of scroll looked like.

(On the nature of the biblical scrolls found) For example, 4QGenesis – the text of Genesis found on this scroll is exactly the same as the Masoretic text. The books of the Bible were found at Qumran in different quantities.

There were found 16 or 17 scrolls of Genesis.

• 14 or 15 of Exodus
• 36 of psalms (collections of psalms, but not full biblical Psalter)
• 20 of Isaiah
• only 1 of Chronicles

Everything around these scrolls is mysterious, we know nothing! There are as many theories as there are scholars. We know they are old — they are about 2000 years old. They date from around 250 BCE to about 70CE. It seems that the Qumran community liked the book of Deuteronomy, likely because of its preacher-like style, which the community tried to imitate. They liked the psalms because they must have used them for their daily prayers — they were used as a prayer book. There were many copies of the book of Isaiah, and it had much influence on the thinking of the people there.

Those that went to Qumran took phylacteries with them as well.

We get a good picture of what the biblical text looked like at that period. Among the scrolls we have found the square Hebrew script (Aramaic script) and also the older Paleo-Hebrew script (20+ examples). There is also a cryptic script — which was intended to give a “hidden” message from the leader to his followers. There were also some Greek and Aramaic fragments found.  The Qumran community was living there for approximately 170 years.

There is no scroll of the “Bible” — nothing like a codex — it’s too early for that. There is one example of three books combined; or the  minor prophets combined; but otherwise all books are separate.

4QDeuteronomy is a copy of Deut. 32, “The Song of Moses”– it has some very important content (which will be discussed later).

Some scrolls had only Psalm 119 alone (which means it was probably significant for them as well).

(Professor Tov begins commenting on the history of biblical texts)

It is hard to define what we mean by “original text” — it’s not necessarily what the prophet originally said (for example, if we had a recording of Jeremiah’s words which he spoke in the Temple), but we take into account the long history of how the text came to us.

As important as the DSS are, they are still removed by several stages from the earliest stages of the text.

When we talk about the Hebrew Bible, it is not just the text that we hold in our hands today. The text of the Bible is BOTH  the text we hold in our hands (the Masoretic text) and also the other ancient texts that exist. The Masoretic text is the “received” text — from 250 BCE to today it hasn’t changed much.  It already existed among the DSS, but was not the only version used there. At Masadah, we see the Masoretic text (really the proto-Masoretic text, because it was not yet vocalized). At Qumran, there was something very close to the Masoretic Text — and this is the largest group of texts. This was the proto-Rabbinic text.

There is a very small group of Hebrew texts at Qumran that is close to the Greek Septuagint (LXX). The LXX was produced around 280 BCE in Alexandria and Palestina (although we don’t often remember that it was also in Palestina). Some of the features of the LXX are reflected in these scrolls at Qumran.

The “Song of Moses” (Deut. 32) at Qumran has an extra line not found in the Masoretic Text — “Be happy with him you heavens and prostrate to him all you gods (sons of Elohim).” It speaks of more than one god — the “sons of God”. This is the same as the Greek text, but the line does not exist in the Masoretic Text. It was probably not included in the Masoretic Text because it was probably disturbing to some — for strict monotheists, it sounds very polytheistic. There are other places in the Masoretic Text (e.g. in some psalms) where this idea was not censored, but here it appears to have been. That is why the Masoretic Text is a shorter text here.

There is also, at Qumran, a shorter version of the Book of Jeremiah than what we have in the Masoretic Text. There are some Qumran texts that are close to the Samaritan Pentateuch as well. There are some texts that use a very different type of spelling from the Masoretic Text. There are other “non-aligned” (not similar to any known version) texts as well.

The Masoretic was a major text at Qumran (in quantities), but was not the only text — we need to look at all the texts in order to get the big picture.

Question and Answer Period

(Question regarding which biblical texts were found and when ? )

Answer: Check Discoveries of the Judean Desert, no. 39 — it gives a chronology of all the scrolls.

All the books of the Bible are there, except Esther.

(But that doesn’t mean that this was their “canon” of Holy Scripture) I haven’t mentioned Jubilees, Enoch, ben Sira, Temple Scroll (paraphrase of Deut.), etc. (other religious texts that are not included in our Bible). We do not know if these were part of their “canon” — we simply don’t know. They do quote Jubilees, Enoch, etc. in their own writings, so that may mean that they were considered authoritative. They probably used the familiar books of Hebrew Bible — plus others.

(Question from President Daryl Watson, LDS Stake President of the Dundee, Scotland Stake — Were there more polytheistic texts at Qumran than the one you mentioned?)

Answer: Yes, there were many more — look at Ps. 29:1, Job, etc.  If you look at Anchor Bible Dictionary under “polytheism” or something similar, you should find an explanation of the situation at Qumran.

There were some ancient utterances that talked about plural gods, but these things were brushed aside in later biblical thought.

We can see that censorship is at work in our biblical text, that what we have is not the original form. A censor, maybe a Pharisee, censored these things out.

You could also see Bart Ehrman, for example, who shows that certain strains of Christianity censored the New Testament text for theological reasons.

Announcement by Prof Kristin de Troyer

There will now be an Emanuel Tov Scholarship at the University of St Andrews for PhD students doing text criticism of the Bible.

Melchizedek the Priest-King blessing Abram

The title of this post is actually somewhat deceptive as it implies that the post is going to be about Melchizedek, who can be considered a king, a priest, and also a god, and about the “Forbidden Degrees” (sounds tantalizing, eh?), which the title seems to suggest have some connection to Melchizedek. Well, as far as I know, there is no direct connection, so sorry if that was misleading.

But this post is about two exciting, if apparently unrelated, subjects that I’ve read about recently.

Melchizedek: King, Priest, and God

First, I would like to post a few very interesting remarks on the person of Melchizedek that I was recently re-reading in an article by my PhD supervisor, James Davila, entitled “Melchizedek: King, Priest, and God” (in The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response, ed. S. Daniel Breslauer (Albany: State University of New York) 217-34). This article contains some of the most current, thorough, and exciting research on Melchizedek I’ve seen. It covers the Melchizedek traditions from the Old Testament (Gen. 14; Ps. 110), the New Testament (Hebrews), the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QMelchizedek; Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice), Gnostic texts (2nd Book of Jeu, Pistis Sophia, a Coptic Gnostic tractate), and comparisons with the Ugaritic (Canaanite) traditions.

I highlight here some of the most significant ideas.

Davila addresses the first mention of Melchizedek, in Gen. 14:18–21.  Here, Melchizedek is presented as the king of Salem (which Davila later identifies as Jerusalem) and priest of God Most High (El Elyon). He notes that scholars have difficulty dating this passage and identifying its source.  John Van Seters wants to date it to the post-exilic period, imagining that Melchizedek describes the priestly leadership of the Second Temple period. Davila, on the other hand, rejects this view, explaining:

I see no reason for the post-exilic priesthood to hold up a non-Israelite priest-king as an example unless he had already been firmly established in the traditions of the First Temple period. I read Genesis 14 as an epic tale of the heroic exploits of the Abram that, in its present form, serves to show the ancient roots of the priesthood held by the line of Davidic kings. ((Davila, 218))

Psalm 110, Davila suggests, “unambiguously associates the priesthood of Melchizedek with the king in Zion.”¹ This psalm, one of the “royal psalms”, is the only other mention of Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible.  Most scholars agree that it had its life setting “in the pre-exilic Judean royal cult located in Solomon’s temple during the period of the Judean monarchy.” It is often associated with an annual New Year enthronement festival. The key verse (v. 4) in this psalm reads: The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. This promise of Melchizedek priesthood is given to the Davidic king.  Davila notes:

[T]here are other indications that the Davidic line of kings also carried out priestly functions. In 2 Samuel 6 we are told that  David himself wore a priestly ephod and danced before the ark of the covenant when it was brought into Jerusalem. The list of David’s court officials in 2 Sam. 8:15–18 also informs us that “David’s sons were priests” (v. 18). Thus, Psalm 110 associates a priesthood of Melchizedek with the Davidic royal cult in the Jerusalem temple.²

So, in summary, the Hebrew Bible presents Melchizedek as (apparently) a mortal man who is both the king of Jerusalem and a priest of God Most High. He was seen as the model for the Israelite kingship ideology, and the Davidic kings were likewise seen as both king of Jerusalem and priest of God Most High. Besides the passages in Genesis and Psalm 110, Melchizedek is not mentioned again in the Hebrew Bible — which we may think odd considering his apparent stature and influence in pre-exilic times.  Of course the great histories of the Bible were written just before and after the exile, and these scribes had varying (mostly negative) opinions concerning the monarchy, as well as significantly different religious ideas from that of the royal cult of pre-exilic times. It is only in the New Testament book of Hebrews that we hear tell of Melchizedek again. We read in Hebrews 7:1–3:

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;  2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;  3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Davila comments:

It is then argued that Melchizedek was greater than both Abraham and the Levitical Priesthood, and that Jesus is a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek as described in Psalm 110. For the writer of Hebrews, Melchizedek is a preexistent and immortal priestly divine being “like the Son of God.”³

He next turns his analysis to the Qumran text 11QMelchizedek, which although fragmentary, gives some incredible insights regarding the community’s view of this figure, which differs greatly from the simple treatment in the OT and gives possible insights into the thinking of the writer of Hebrews. Davila explains that this text speaks eschatologically and “seems to give a chronology leading up to the eschaton and then describes the final judgment as administered by a divine being named Melchizedek.” Melchizedek is supposed to come at the end of the “tenth jubilee”, on the Day of Atonement, to judge the nations, save the good and destroy the wicked. Furthermore, Davila notes:

…[I]n line 10 of this text Melchizedek is called a “god” (elohim)…So in this document from Qumran Melchizedek is pictured as an angelic or divine being (an elohim) who may have priestly associations and who is an eschatological judge.⁴

Davila goes on to highlight some of the other beliefs expressed in further texts from Qumran and from Gnostic sources.  In most of them, Melchizedek is described as an angelic high priest or god and even identified as Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. What are we to make of all this? Davila is right on with his analysis of it all. He says, summarizing the trajectory of these traditions:

He begins as a king and priest of pre-Davidic Jerusalem and then, some centuries later, is described also a a divine heavenly being, a god (elohim or theos) who defeats and destroys the forces of evil at the last judgment and delivers souls from the underworld. I submit that the problem of the development of this tradition has never been squarely face by scholars. How do we get from Melchizedek the priest-king to Melchizedek the god? My proposal is this: his divinity was not invented in the Second Temple period; rather it was suppressed in the Hebrew bible. In other words, the apparent change from man to god is a matter of suppression of older traditions that were excluded from the biblical canon, not of innovation in the Second Temple literature.⁵

This conclusion is remarkably significant. According to Davila, we are to assume that in the royal religion of the First Temple, Melchizedek would have been seen as a priest-king who was deified.  I think it stands to reason that we could say, then, that the subsequent kings of Jerusalem of the Davidic line could have been viewed in like manner. This helps us understand why in Psalm 45:6 the king is specifically addressed as a god.

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

While the idea that the king is somehow divine is common in Egyptian and other Ancient Near Eastern religions, the idea has not been readily accepted for the Israelite/Judean kings, and that has to do greatly with the fact that there is not much evidence for the idea in the Old Testament as we now have it. However, as Davila states it, it is very likely that these ideas did exist, once upon a time, but were suppressed by later writers and editors that no longer followed that belief system.

The Seal of Melchizedek

The Forbidden Degrees

The following is taken from Dr. Andrei Orlov’s blog (see the specific post here; don’t worry that some of it is in Russian, most is English). For those who haven’t followed this blog long, Andre Orlov was my adviser for my MA program in Theology at Marquette University.  Orlov (who has also written much on Melchizedek), is an expert in the mystical traditions of early Judaism.

I have reproduced some passages that he posted on his blog from the Hagigah (or Chagigah), a Jewish treatise found in the Babylonian Talmud.  I am no expert on these writings, so I really couldn’t share much background info on them with you. It seems that the word hagigah signifies “festivity” and refers to a “festal-offering” that was given at one or more of the three principal pilgrimage festivals of ancient Judaism. The writings apparently give rules for ritual cleanliness and guidelines for the offerings, but offer rules for many other subjects as well. Again, I’m no expert on this, but from what I’ve seen and what I quote below, there is some very interesting material, if you can get past all the technical language and debating over ritual requirements.

A word of warning: the following is not easy to get through and even less easy to understand.  If you can get anything out of it, consider yourself a true sage and enlightened soul!

One more introductory thought: the rabbis (R. Johanan, etc.) cited here were under the belief that certain mystical doctrines were too sacred to speak of (only under certain circumstances with worthy and prepared individuals). These include, as you can read below, the “forbidden degrees”, the “Story of Creation”, and the writings of Ezekiel concerning “the Chariot” (God’s throne). There were certain consquences (good and harmful) when these topics were spoken of, so the greatest of care was needed in addressing them, and they were never expounded on in public. I am not quite sure what the “forbidden degrees” refers to (I can speculate, but may be wrong). I have seen other lists of these forbidden topics, and from what I can remember, I believe the topic of sacred marriage (perhaps as discussed in Song of Solomon?) is sometimes cited. If anyone has any further insights on this, please let me know!

UPDATE: In an email, Dr. Orlov directed me to Rachel Elior’s opinion on what the “forbidden degrees” were as explained in her book, The Three Temples. She indicates that they may have had reference to “the sexual union of the Cherubim” in the Holy of Holies of the temple (I wasn’t far off!).  Now, if the rabbis wouldn’t talk about it, I probably shouldn’t either. I will say that there are some Jewish traditions that say that the cherubim that were in the Holy of Holies were (at least at times) understood to be entwined in a conjugal embrace which likely has something to do with the reason that holiest place was sometimes called “the bridal chamber.” To read more about this, have a look at Raphael Patai’s The Hebrew Goddess, and also Eugene Seaich’s A Great Mystery: The Secret of the Jerusalem Temple, The Embracing Cherubim and At-One-Ment with the Divine.

Here is the text, thanks to Dr. Orlov’s blog:

m. Hagigah 2:1 The forbidden degrees may not be expounded before three persons, nor like Story of Creation before two, nor [the chapter of] the Chariot before one alone, unless he is a Sage that understands of his own knowledge.

Whoever gives his mind to four things it were better for him if he had not come into the world — what is above ? what is beneath ? what was beforetime? and what will be hereafter? And whosoever takes no thought for the honour of his Maker, it were better for him if he had not come into the world.

b. Hagigah 13 R. Johanan said to R. Eleazar: Come, I will instruct you in the ‘Work of the Chariot’. He replied: I am not old enough. When he was old enough, R. Johanan died. R. Assi [then] said to him: Come, I will instruct you in the “Work of the Chariot’. He replied: Had I been worthy, I should have been instructed by R. Johanan, your master.

The Rabbis taught: There was once a child who was reading at his teacher’s house the Book of Ezekiel, and he apprehended what Hashmal was, whereupon a fire went forth from Hashmal and consumed him. So they sought to suppress the Book of Ezekiel, but Hananiah b. Hezekiah said to them: If he was a Sage, all are Sages! What does [the word] Hashmal mean?-Rab Judah said: Living creatures speaking fire. In a Baraitha it is taught: [Hashmal means], At times they are silent, at times they speak. When the utterance goes forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they are silent, and when the utterance goes not forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they speak. b. Hag 14b Our Rabbis taught: Once R. Johanan b. Zakkai was riding on an ass when going on a journey, and R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak was driving the ass from behind. [R. Eleazar] said to him: Master, teach me a chapter of the ‘Work of the Chariot’.2 He answered: Have I not taught you3 thus: ‘Nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a Sage and understands of his own knowledge’? [R. Eleazar] them said to him: Master, permit me to say before thee something which thou hast taught me.4 He answered, Say on! Forthwith R. Johanan b. Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up,5 and sat upon a stone beneath an olive tree. Said [R. Eleazar] to him: Master, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? He answered: Is it proper that whilst thou art expounding the ‘Work of the Chariot’, and the Divine Presence is with us, and the ministering angels accompany us, I should ride on the ass! Forthwith, R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak began his exposition of the ‘work of the Chariot’, and fire6 came down from heaven and encompassed all the trees in the field; [thereupon] they all began to utter [divine] song. What was the song they uttered? — Praise the Lord from the earth, ye sea-monsters, and all deeps . . . fruitful trees and all cedars . . . Hallelujah.8 An angel9 [then] answered10 from the fire and said: This is the very ‘Work of the Chariot’. [Thereupon] R. Johanan b. Zakkai rose and kissed him on his head and said: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, Who hath given a son to Abraham our father, who knoweth to speculate upon, and to investigate, and to expound the ‘Work of the Chariot’ — There are some who preach well but do not act well, others act well but do not preach well, but thou dost preach well and act well. Happy art thou, O Abraham our father, that R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak hath come forth from thy loins.

Now when these things were told R. Joshua, he and R. Jose the priest were going on a journey. They said: Let us also expound the ‘Work of the Chariot’; so R. Joshua began an exposition. Now that day was the summer solstice; [nevertheless] the heavens became overcast with clouds and a kind of rainbow appeared in the cloud, and the ministering angels assembled and came to listen like people who assemble and come to watch the entertainments of a bridegroom and bride. [Thereupon] R. Jose the priest went and related what happened before R. Johanan b. Zakkai; and [the latter] said: Happy are ye, and happy is she that bore you; happy are my eyes that have seen thus. Moreover, in my dream, I and ye were reclining on Mount Sinai, when a Bath Kol was sent to us, [saying]: Ascend hither, ascend hither! [Here are] great banqueting chambers, and fine dining couches prepared for you; you and your disciples and your disciples’ disciples are designated for the third class. But is this so? For behold it is taught: R. Jose b. R. Judah said: There were three discourses: R. Joshua discoursed before R. Johanan b. Zakkai, R. Akiba discoursed before R. Joshua, Hanania b. Hakinai discoursed before R. Akiba; — whereas R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak he does not count! — One who discoursed [himself], and others discoursed before him, he counts; one who discoursed [himself], but others did not discourse before him, he does not count. But behold there is Hanania b. Hakinai before whom others did not discourse, yet he counts him! — He at least discoursed before one who discoursed [before others].

1. Davila, 219
2. Davila, 219
3. Davila, 221
4. Davila, 222
5. Davila, 224