The Communal Identity as Israel in 1QS and 1Peter

The Communal Identity as Israel in 1QS and 1 Peter

by

LEUNG CHUN HO BERNARD (95032)

A Thesis Submitted to China Graduate School of Theology

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology

September, 2006

Abstract Some characteristics shared by 1 Peter and 1QS have long been recognized (e.g. the identity of the elected and priesthood, the images of stone and sanctuary etc). The resemblance of the communities behind these two literatures indicates an in-depth comparison of them is needed. This paper examines and compares the communal identity as understood in 1 Peter and 1QS around three shared features: 1) the identity of sole covenant partner of God, 2) with a specific priestly function that somehow played the cultic role of temple/sanctuary, and 3) an ahistorical tendency disregarding the presence of ethnical and national Israel. The result of comparison suggests that the resembling features are mainly formal regarding their common use of OT and Jewish tradition. At a closer look to these common features, the two communities display greater discontinuity which we seldom notice before.

(

)

1)

2)/

3)

Table of Content page Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Study of early Judaism and the New Testament 1 1.2 The Jewishness of 1 Peter 1 1.3 Diversity of Second Temple Judaism(s) 4 1.4 The Unity of early Judaism 7 1.5 Israel in Early Judaism 12 1.6 The Aim of this Study 13

Chapter 2 Textual History of 1QS and its Relationship with CD 2.1 Classical theory on the group(s) behind Dead Sea Scrolls 15 2.2 The History of the Texts and its Groups 16

2.2.1 The relation between S and D 17 2.2.2 New Light from the Cave 4 manuscripts 18

2.2.2.1 The Complicate Situation 19 2.2.2.2 Methodological Limitation 20

2.2.3 Structural division of 1QS 23 2.2.4 Textual development of 1QS in comparison with 4QS 26

Chapter 3The Communal Identity in 1QS 3.1 Communal-identity as Israel 28

3.1.1 Redaction emphasizing the identity of Israel 28 3.1.2 The use of la rvy that does not directly refer to dxy 33 3.1.3 Preliminary Conclusion 35

3.2 Communal Identity as Sanctuary 36 3.2.1 Sanctuary in 1QS VIII 4-10 37 3.2.2 The atoning function of the Community in 1QS 43 3.2.3 Preliminary Conclusion 47

3.3 Ahistorical Identity of Israel in 1QS from the perspective of CD 48 3.3.1 Covenant and History 48 3.3.2 CD as a reference to the historical dimension of covenant 49 3.3.3 The historical awareness in CD 49 3.3.4 Absence of covenant history: The ahistorical identity in 1QS 52 3.3.5 Cosmic Dualism and Ahistorical Identity 54 3.3.6 Preliminary Conclusion 59

Chapter 4 Covenant and Communal Identity in 1 Peter 4.1 The framework of covenant in establishing the identity of Christian

ii

in 1:1-2:10 60 4.2 Christian community as the Israel 65

4.2.1 The Four Epithets in 1 Peter 2:9 65 4.2.2 Other languages denoting the identity of Christian community

as Israel 70 4.2.3 The eschatological dimension of Communal identity in 1 Peter 72

4.3 Christian community serving as the Priest and Sanctuary 73 4.3.1 The structure of 1 Peter 2:4-10 73 4.3.2 Languages and Images referring to the Temple in 2:4-10 75 4.3.3 The images of Levitical Priesthood in 2:4-10 76 4.3.4 The Two Priesthoods in 1 Peter 77 4.3.5 The meaning of the Spiritual Temple and Priesthood 78 4.3.6 Preliminary Conclusion 80

4.4 Christian community exists as Israel ahistorically 81 4.4.1 The problem of ahistorical Israel in 1 Peter 81 4.4.2 Historical awareness in Roman 9-11 81 4.4.3 Ahistorical identity of Israel in 1 Peter 82 4.4.4 The Exception of ahistoricity: 1:10-12 85 4.4.5 Preliminary Conclusion 87

Chapter 5 Conclusion: A comparison of Communal Identity as Israel in 1QS and 1 Peter 88

Abbreviations 93

Bibliography 94

- 1 -

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Study of early Judaism and the New Testament

New Testament scholars today take no denial that the early Jesus movement emerged from the Jewish context of Palestine in the first century A.D.1 This statement claims that we cannot rightly understand the words and deeds of Jesus and his followers unless we put them against the Jewish background. At a deeper level, it refers to the continuity between the movement and her parent group at large and more significantly between their religious systems.

We can see the fruitful contribution of the study of Jewish background and the early Judaism to certain New Testament areas in the second half of the last century.2 However, this still does not reach some New Testament books. 1 Peter is apparently one of them. Before the mid-twentieth century, form and tradition criticism dominated Petrine study, focusing on the use of Christian traditions in 1 Peter, especially catechetical and liturgical materials. The epistle was treated either as a composite letter literally dependent on other New Testament Epistles or a creative synthesis of various traditions.3 In the near recent, Greco-Roman literary study,4 compositional analysis,5 social-scientific6 and rhetorical7 methods were applied to the study of 1 Peter. Most of these approaches threw new light to our reading of 1 Peter8 but few of them took the study of early Judaism very seriously as an approach to evaluate the Jewishness of 1 Peter.

1.2 The Jewishness of 1 Peter

Two commentators on 1 Peter considered the Jewishness in 1 Peter not

1 Dunn (1991, 11-14) listed the historical reasons in the last few decades for this renewed interested in

the Jewish context of early Christianity. They are 1) the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls, 2) accessibility of the texts and study of apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, 3) development of traditional-historical analysis of the rabbinic traditions, 4) recent significant reappraisal of the character of the early Judaism, and 5) recognition of Christian anti-semitism within NT scholarship. 2 Pauline study witnessed the paradigm shift of understanding Rabbinic Judaism, beginning with W. D.

Davies and later by E. P. Sanders and J. D. G. Dunn. Another area that felt the impact of Jewish study of the so-called Third Quest of historical Jesus (Neill & Wright 1988, 379-403). 3 See Elliott 2000, 20-37.

4 Balch 1981 and Martin 1992.

5 Schutter 1989.

6 Elliott 1981 and 2000. For a concise summary of applying this method to 1 Peter, see Elliott 1993,

70-100. Other studies employing social-scientific approach include Bechtler 1998; Campbell 1998. 7 Thuren 1990; 1995.

8 Especially the social-scientific approach pioneered by J. H. Elliott (1981). But Elliott tended to force

the data to fit into this model, overlooking the metaphorical aspect of the language and the theological implication

- 2 -

only as another way of speaking about the abundance of the Old Testament allusion,9 but part and parcel of the epistle. Michaels (1988, xlv-lv) discussed the genre and audience of 1 Peter in association with the tradition of Diaspora letter in Judaism. He noticed that the author not only treated the predominantly Gentile Christian audiences as the people of God, but also simply ignored the actual Jewish community (xlix) and bypassed entirely the issue of the Jews salvation (li). This interesting insight becomes an important point of contact with the contrasting treatment of the same issue in Roman 9-11, and in turn a significant starting point of understanding the communal identity in 1 Peter in relation to early Judaism. An important clue to this comparison is the self-understanding of the community as Israel in early Christianity and in early Judaism. 1 Peter does mention the readers as Gods People (2:9-10) but not Israel, either in its ethnical or religious sense. However, Michaels suggestion of 1 Peter as a Diaspora epistle following the tradition of Jeremiah 29 (also 2 Apoc. Bar. 78-87 and 2 Macc 1-2), just as the cases in James and the letter of Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), entails the recipients in dispersion to be a Jewish community as a collective entity, i.e Israel. 10 To Michaels, the Jewishness of 1 Peter indicates a shared self- understanding because:

The author sees himself and his readers as a community situated in the world in much the same way the Jews are situated, and sharing with the Jews a common past. This tendencywhether we call it judaizing or philosemiticis based on the hearing and acceptance of certain Jewish stories, both biblical and extrabiblical. (Michaels 1988, l)

In agreement with Michaels, Achtemeier (1989; 1996) appropriates Israel in 1 Peter from another perspective: the use of metaphor. The author of 1 Peter adopted various languages and concepts from the Old Testament to describe the Christian community. Each image is directly related to the experience of the historical or biblical Israel: the exodus, the exile, covenant making, election, sacrifice, suffering etc. Achtemeier calls for an overarching controlling metaphor, which may be useful to organize all these diverse individual metaphors or themes. He claims that:

Israel as a totality has become for this letter the controlling metaphorIn 1 Peter, the language and hence the reality of Israel pass without remainder into the language and hence the reality of the new people of God

9 For example, Brown & Meier 1983, 133-34.

10 See Michaels 1988, xlvi-xlix. It does not indicate that diaspora (diaspora/j) in 1 Pet 1:1 has to be

understood literally referring to the Jewish Diaspora. The author of 1 Peter only followed the tradition of Diaspora epistle as a genre which helps to establish the collective identity of the readers as Israel.

- 3 -

(Achtemeier 1996, 69)

If metaphor is a way of understanding and experiencing one thing in terms of another experience,11 the author of 1 Peter, in Achtemeiers view, is articulating the Christian community in terms of Israel with all its properties, nothing more and nothing less. Jewishness in 1 Peter means possession of this very identity of Israel in its totality.

Achtemeier takes one more step further in his argument beyond what Michaels has done. For Michaels, the self-understanding of Christian community is based on a shared common past with other Jews which is constituted by accepting the Jewish stories as their own. The self-affirmative designation of Israel by the Jewish people to distinguish themselves from other peoples is not the point made by the author.12 But for Achtemeier, Christian community and Israel are two congruent ideas in 1 Peter. He correctly establishes the identity of Israel for the audience of 1 Peter despite the absence of this term, which is an important point that I will confirm in this study, but it is an exaggeration to claim that the reality of Israel pass without remainder intothe new people of God (italic mine). His claim contains at least two drawbacks. First, the images, themes, metaphors and language appropriated from OT in 1 Peter are representative but not exhaustive. Some important experiences of Israel are missing in 1 Peter, e.g. giving of the Law to Moses, establishment of monarchy etc. It is invalid to equate the sum of a few themes with their totality.13 Moreover, some elements from OT had been transformed or Christianized to fit into the authors theological scheme, e.g. the OT prophets had the Spirit of Christ in them (1:11); the women of the past used to put their hope in God (3:5), just as the Christians (1:3, 13, 21); Noah being saved through water prefigured Christian baptism (3:20-21) etc.14 Israel is not a static or unchangeable concept simply borrowed and applied by the author to the Christian community. The reality of the Christian community transformed the authors understanding of Israel.

Second, this claim overlooks the distinction and tension between the Jewish people and the Gentile Christianity community. The community identifies itself with

11 Lakoff & Johnson 1980, 5.

12 See Dunn 1995, 234-35: Israel is the name which the people uses for itself, whereas Jews is the

non-Jewish name for it. In other words, Jews is more the term used, by (Hellenistic) Jews (Philo, Josephus, Aristeas, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Hecataeus) as well as other, to distinguish the people so designated from other people; whereas Israel is a self-affirmation by reference to its own distinctively apprehended heritage. 13

Brown & Meier (1983, 133-34) also treated the OT citation in 1 Peter as outline of the history of Israel. 14

These examples come from Michaels 1988, l.

- 4 -

Israel and neglects the actual Jews who also claim to be Israel. In other words, the separated group (i.e. the sect) claimed the true identity of its parent group but at the same time dismissed the historical role of and their continuity with that parent group. This is a very unique mode of communal self-understanding in the New Testament regarding the relationship between Gentile Christian and Jews. Achtemeier (and also Michaels) tends to include the Gentile Christian and Jewish people under the same umbrella of one chosen people, i.e. the Israel, and harmonize their tension as what Paul did in Roman 9-11 with the image of one olive tree.15 This inferred view of resolving the tension caused by the communal self-understanding as Israel is not attested in 1 Peter.

In sum, both Michaels and Achtemeier rightly valuated 1 Peter for its Jewishness, and noticed this Jewishness as identifying the community with the Israel, the chosen people of God, and at the same time disregarding the actual Jews who also claimed themselves as the legitimate Israel. However, they not only lost sight of the peculiar characteristics and implication of that designation in 1 Peter, they also did not pay much attention to the meaning of Israel as an identity term within second Temple Judaism.

1.3 Diversity of Second Temple Judaism(s)

There were diverse Jewish groups16 existing in the land of Palestine in the second Temple period, not to mention numerous others in the Diaspora. Josephus introduced only three of them by names: Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.17 He also attested the Fourth Philosophy and other revolutionary groups, such as Sicarii and Zealots.18 Dunn (1995, 240-42) further suggested the existence of more Jewish groups in Palestine known in NT, including Christians (or the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5)), Samaritans, Hellenists (Acts 6:1, 9), Herodians (Mark 3:6; 12:13) and some possible baptismal sects etc.19

15 Achtemeier 1996, 72: If anything, the implication appears to be that Jews and Gentiles alike have

now been taken up into one chosen people. Cf. Michaels 1988, l: Although he does not use the metaphor, Peters vision is fully consistent with Pauls notion of one olive tree representing one people of God. 16

Group, according to sociological use in Saldarini (2001, 311), means in its most general definition, any collectivity of humans. More specifically, any collectivity bound by principles of membership and a set of rights and duties. In this study, group refers inclusively to any such collectivity of people. 17

War 2.8.14 162-66; Ant. 13.5.9 171-72; 18.1.3 4-23; 18.1.5 18-22; Life 2 10-12. 18

The Fourth Philosophy (Ant. 18.1.1, 6); Sicarii (Ant. 20.8.8 186-87 etc.); Zealots (War 4.3.3-9 135-61 etc.). 19

See further Grabbe 1992, 463-554 on the issue of sects and movements in this period. He includes more groups. The problem of Grabbes detail analysis on various groups is that he (and Dunn) makes no distinction between classes or parties, which carry political tones, and those groupings which concern more with religious matters. The variety of these groups demands further categorization

- 5 -

Most of these groups had left no literature for us to investigate their natures and beliefs.20 We have only obscure knowledge of them from very limited external sources.21 This pluralistic and difficult situation is further complicated by the vast corpus of Jewish writings belonging to this period. 22 These writings and the ideological trends or theological themes represented by some of them (e.g. apocalyptic, priestly or cultic, revolutionary or messianic, and sapiental etc.) open the possibility of the existence of some social entities behind them. We have no idea of any connection between these literature and those groups we know of, except the Essene group at Qumran and the early Christian communities. However, scholars are tempted to postulate some new groups (and corresponding Judaism) to fill in the role that we expect to have behind any writing. This kind of argument is common in NT study, e.g. each Gospel written with a corresponding community (the Matthean, Markan, Lucan, and Johannine communities) and with a distinct theology.23 If this argument is applied to the situation of second Temple Judaism, similar conclusion results: every Jewish writing (or set of writings) represents part of the Judaism of the group that produced it, and the implication is clear: we have no single second Temple Judaism but a plenty of distinct Judaisms in the plural.

However, this argument on the relation between documents, social groups and religions is disputable because we are not sure whether any feature found in a writing (or a set of writings) is originated from one Jewish group or under the influence of a shared thought or style (e.g. apocalyptic writings) which was quite common at that period among various groups. So the basic problem is the question of how representative and influential these writings were.24 Moreover, there is nothing unusual for a group to create writings with variations in the interpretation of their beliefs, or for several writings in different perspectives to be read by the same group without causing any controversy. Such various interpretations or profiles of the same religion do not necessarily represent different Judaisms.25 Conversely, a document might be received by several different groups as a common literature without the

beyond the general concept of group. 20

E.g. The Essene groups in Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls), the Christian communities (NT), and the Samaritans (Samaritans chronicles) are the clearest exceptions. Further connection between other groups and existing literature is an unknown to scholars. 21

Mostly from the historical account of Josephus and the attestation of apocrypha, pseudepographa and Rabbinic literature. 22

Including apocrypha, Jewish pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus and even the NT etc. 23

Another example is scholars construction of the Q community. 24

Dunn 1995, 244. 25

See Bauckham 1993, 137 and Barclay 1996, 401.

- 6 -

feeling of another Judaism not their own inherited in that literature.26 In short, the three levels of the problem, the literary level of the documents, the social level of the groups, and the ideological level of Judaisms, are not easily related.

To ensure the working of social group behind any Judaism and the related literatures, Chilton & Neusner (1995, xii) define religion as a composite of worldview (or belief), way of life (or religious practice), and social entity (or people).27 More importantly, since social order is the basic concern of religion, they set priority not in doctrine (their writings) or rite (their practice) but in the community (the social entity). This approach highlights the essentiality of the community and hence the diversity of Judaism because the communities are diverse. The Jewish writings are still the starting point of studying Judaisms, but the focus has been shifted from studying all writings of a given time (e.g. first century AD) in order to discover a single universal Judaism out of them, to one writing (or a specific set of similar writings) clearly related to a community through which a particular Judaism can be identified.28 This approach distinguishes documents speaking for an individual (i.e. the writers) from those making a statement on behalf of a delineated community. In this way, they deny the validity of studying Judaism(s) in Enochic writings, Philo, Josephus or even some books of NT (1995, 17). However, individual author expresses a perspective representative to a social group/class which he belongs. So their writings are still a window to the thought world of that social group/class. Also, we do find clear social perspective of a communal identity (us) defined against the enemy (them) in many Jewish writings of this period. This consciousness of a social identity indicates the existence of social group behind such texts. For example, the sons of light against the sons of darkness in the Qumran literature and the righteous against the sinners regarding the calendrical matter in Enochic corpus etc.29 Whether a document displays an individual view on certain matters or a corporate view of communal identity, the social dimension of the religious thought world is always presupposed.

In sum, we should recognize the pluralistic nature of the second Temple Judaism. However, this plurality does not necessarily require us to express this phenomenon of religion as Judaisms in the plural, consisting of various different

26 Bauckham (1993, 138) named Pseudo-Philos Biblical Antiquities as an example for a possible

common literature among various group to be read with interest and profit, without identifying it belonging to another Judaism. 27

This definition is typical of Neusners treatment of Judaism and Christianity, and in fact the chapter introducing this definition in Chilton & Neusner 1995 is firstly drafted by Neusner (xix). 28

Chilton & Neusner 1995, 7. It is exactly the point that Neusner accused of Sanders notion of common Judaism in Sanders 1992. According to Neusner, Sanders premise is the existence of universal common denominator Judaism at a period time. But it seems a misunderstanding to Sanders. 29

See the examples in Dunn 1995, 242-44.

- 7 -

freestanding Judaic systems. The keystone of this plurality is the particularity of Judaism according to a specific writing (or set of writings), within which a corresponding social entity is always presumed. On the one hand, this perspective of plurality emphasizes the study of documents in its own historical and literary context before extrapolating to a religious system (Grabbe 1992, 527). On the other hand, it allows comparison of particular religious system according to different documents. The refusal of employing Judaisms to describe the pluralistic situation of Judaism entails a unity of Judaism within its diversity, and universality in the particularity.

1.4 The Unity of early Judaism

The unity of early Judaism is an abstraction to describe the commonalities among various forms of Judaism. In principle, it is justifiable to search such theoretical construct by comparing, extracting, and synthesizing the similarities of all the particular Judaic systems from the whole Jewish documents. It is an inductive approach to search the essential elements among the diverse religious systems. But in practice, it seems unavoidable for one to be selective and subjective in this process, especially facing such a huge amount of Jewish writings. Sanders (1977) had been accused of comparing the essences between Judaism with Paul (Charlesworth 1985b, 51), but the most disputable part in his study is the problem of being selective in his use of sources30 and his pattern of religion posited from somewhere else rather than observation on the texts. There is no reason to discard totally the value and possibility of searching these common factors in Judaism. Similarly, Sanders model of common Judaism was also challenged as suggesting a single Judaism that encompasses all other Judaisms (Chilton & Neusner 1995, 49). The problem with the notion, common Judaism i.e. what the priests and the people agreed on (Sanders 1992, 47), is the association of the common elements of Judaic religion with a concrete historical mass of Jewish people. Sanders gives fresh to the spirit of the universal features of a religion, making this common Judaism like another real Judaism, and even a normative one. However, a classification defined by some common factors does not itself constitute a member. Boccaccini describes this relation in terms of genus and species,

Judaism properly denotes the genus, that is, the whole family of monotheistics systemsTo denote the many species of which the genus Judaism is composedwe should use only more specific terms, such as

30 See Charlesworth 1985, 52. Sanders overemphasized the role of Rabbinic Judaism and overlooked

the significance of Jewish pseudepigrapha.

- 8 -

Samaritan Judaism rabbinic Judaism and Christian Judaism (1991, 19).

While finding it neither necessary nor helpful to refer to Judaisms, Barclay also (1996, 401) highlights social identity (esp. the ethnic bond) as the core of Diaspora Judaism,

If Judaism is defined-as it should be-as a social and not just an intellectual phenomenon, it is hard to see how the plural Judaisms could apply to the Diaspora. (Italic original)

And obviously this claim to Diaspora also applies to Palestine. Similarly, Davies (1994, 71 n.2) distinguishes the public and intellectual aspects of Judaism, with the former denoting the commonalities of Judaism, and the later its variety:

It (Judaism) is not necessarily a single religious system; perhaps it is better defined as a genusif Judaism is not necessarily a single system, it may have comprised a largely homogeneous set of public practices, as Sanders has argues. It seems to me that at the level of history of ideas or of intellectual systems, the notion of Judaisms is preferable, while at the level of religion as a public activity, Sanders account works better.31

Grabbe (1992, 465) is more straightforward in using the term Judaism:

I use the term Judaismto refer to the umbrella religion, with all its subvarietiesparallel to the usage of the term Christianity to include everything from Jehovahs Witnesses to the Armenain Orthodox Churchreaders should be aware that Judaism in this book covers all the various Jewish systems (Judaisms) and implied no monolithic or orthodox view of the religion. What I emphasize here is the variety.

In other words, Judaism becomes a generic category with various specific

31 Davies further employed the model of Christian denomination as an analogy to this relation in

Judaism: Both forms of description could be applied with equal validity to twentieth-century European or North American Christianity: Catholicism, Calvinism, fundamentalism are different intellectualsystems, while as a public religion, Christianity in all of these forms exhibits a certain homogeneity. Bauckham (1993, 138-39) argues that this denominational model does not fully apply to the partings of the ways suggested by Dunn. And Barclay (1996, 401) thinks that this model may lead the historian astray to consider that the difference between social and intellectual aspect of Judaism is necessarily different in social reality. However, I find the denominational model still a useful analogy/model to describe the relation between unity and diversity of early Judaism.

- 9 -

forms of religious system. This distinction allows us to study the nature and relations of commonalities of Judaism and compare their various manifestations in different particular forms of Judaism.

Scholars propose various sets of common features that are representative of the Second Temple Judaism;32 the most significant of them is Dunns four pillars, i.e. Monotheism, Election (covenant people and promised land), Covenant focused on Torah, and Land focused in Temple (Dunn 1991, 19-35). These four are the axiomatic convictions round which the more diverse interpretation and practices of the different groups within Judaism revolved (35). The aim of his proposal is to recognize the Jewish context and characters of earliest Christianity by inquiring the partings of the ways between Christianity and Judaism, i.e. where the Jesus movement found it necessary to question and redefine each of these four axioms in greater or less degree--at any rate, to a degree unacceptable to mainstream Judaism(35). Under this agenda, Dunns description of the four pillars follows the historical development of the controversies between the Jesus movement and Judaism, basically in four waves of breach corresponding to the common features of Judaism. However, Dunns historical treatment puts less weight on the theological relationship between the four pillars as such within the context of early Judaism. The most obvious theme that associates election and Torah is covenant. Dunn makes a concluding remark on this relation: God had make a special covenant with Israel to be his own, and as integral to that covenant had given Israel the law to provide Israel with the means of living within that covenant (1991, 25; italic original). This statement captures the essence of the classic statement covenantal nomism by Sanders (1977), further summarizes by Dunn: Torah as given to Israel as part of Gods covenant with Israel, obedience to the law of Moses as Israels response to Gods choice of Israel to be his people, nomism as the way of living within the covenant, maintaining and manifesting status as the people of Yahweh (1991, 24; italic original).

We need a wider theological framework that may embrace and explain the

32 Cohen (1987): The focal points for Jewish sectarianism are Law, Temple and Scripture. Grabbe

(2000): Jewish identity was bound up by institution of Temple and cult, the land, monotheism, belongs to the chosen people, rejection of images in worship, Torah and circumcision. However, in a earlier work, Grabbe mentioned briefly that There was a center to the religion: worship at the Jerusalem temple. Most Jews accepted the sacredness of the temple and the general teachings of the Torah. But there was no official orthodoxy (in Christian sense), for it is clear that there were many interpretations of the Torah and many different views about hoe to apply the law outside the temple (within the temple, the priests were in control) (1996, xii. Italic mine). For Davies (2000a, 2000b): Israel, Temple, Torah, Messiah, and land; Davies (1999): Torah, Land, the People, and the Messiah; Sanders: Temple, People, Law Theology, Hopes (1992).

- 10 -

four pillars so that the notion of Israel in our study may find a place. Wrights (1992) outline of the First Century Jewish worldview is very useful. Worldviews are like the foundations of a house: vital, but invisible (125). They are embodied in four elements: (1) stories through which human beings view reality; (2) answers to the basic questions that determine human existence; (3) cultural symbols expressing the stories and answers; (4) praxis, a way-of-being-in-the-world (122-26). It is elements (2) and (3) with which we are concerned in the discussion of the four pillars. For (2), the basic questions (i.e. who are we? where are we? what is wrong? and what is the solution?) and the solutions belong to the task of theology, which normally come into sight in sets of beliefs and aims (125). The three major beliefs of first-century Jews are monotheism, election and eschatology (248-79). For (3), the four key symbols that anchored the first-century Jewish worldview are: Temple, Land, Torah, and Jewish ethnicity. Two comments should be made on Wrights treatment. First, it is wise to make a distinction between beliefs and symbols, i.e. between ideology and material/culture, because the former provides theoretical foundation for the latter, and the latter makes the former concrete. The two seem confusing in Dunns four pillars scheme. Second, while Israel was understood as including both the people and the land for Dunn (1991, 22), Wright emphasized Israel as an object of Gods election (ideological) as well as an peculiar identity constantly needed maintenance through various identity markers (cultural), i.e. through the symbol of Jewish ethnicity.

It should be reminded that not only the four symbols and the three beliefs are interrelated. It is the Israels stories that inform and support them (Wright 1992, 124-25). Israels basic story line runs like this (216-23): God created the world but it suffered from the power of evil, He intended to rescue and restore it through Israel. However, Israel fails in history and itself needs Gods deliverance. This long waited expectation found no fulfillment in the second temple period and caused a major problem of God for the presence of evil in the world. Various Jewish groups attempted to provide their own version of solution to complete that story. However, they generally missed the initial aim of God to make a wise rule over humanity through Israel.

We can see a two-level story here: firstly, the call of Israel has as its foundational objective the rescue and restoration of the entire creation, and secondly, since Israel was in its own sin and suffering, God has to remake and restore Israel from the state of exile (268). This basic double story line already reflects the structure of the beliefs and symbols. Monotheism entails Gods creation and providence of the

- 11 -

world, but the reality of evil directly called Gods sovereignty into question. For the Jewish people in the second temple period, the question is not about the origin of evil but what God is going to do about it. It is covenant theology that provides an answer to it:

If creational monotheism entails an eschatology (the creator must restore that which he made), covenantal monotheism intensified this eschatological entailment: the creator remains committed to giving order and peace to his world, and as the covenant god he remains committed to doing so through Israel (Wright 1992, 252. Italic original.)

In other words, monotheism, covenant and eschatology are closely linked in the story of Israel. Gods creational and providential oneness (monotheism) brings him to deal with the evil and restore the creation (eschatology). Gods covenant with Israel becomes the way to accomplish this target and the focus of the redemptive history of Israel (election/covenant). It is these core beliefs of early Judaism that embrace the four symbols of Temple, Land, Torah, and racial identity in a tight way. Wright explicates the relation of them in details (1992, 260-79) and we do not have to repeat everything he argues about. What is important and relevant to our study can be summarized as follow:

(1) Torah is embedded in Gods covenant with Israel as a condition which Israel may demonstrate its covenant fidelity to God.

(2) The consequence of Israels fidelity to God through obeying the Torah is the gift of the Promised Land in its blessing and peace.

(3) Otherwise, disobedience results in the curse of exile. However, the sin of the Israel can be undone through the sacrificial system of the Temple.

(4) After the Exile, the covenant will be renewed: the Temple will be rebuilt, the Land cleansed, the Torah perfectly kept by a new-covenant people with renewed hearts (280).

We can see the Torah is the operative core among the symbols. It regulates the living of Israel in the Land and the sacrificial system in the Temple. Torah also guides the daily life of Israel to maintain its ethical and ritual purity in distinction from the gentile. This distinction is explicitly expressed in ethnic terms: endogamy, circumcision, Sabbath keeping, and food laws etc. In other words, Torah provides identity markers that Israel may stay within their ethnic boundary. In the situation of exile or Diaspora (i.e. without the Temple and the Land), studying and practicing the

- 12 -

Torah even substituted the status of the Temple and the Land. Torah becomes a portable Land, a movable Temple (Wright 1992, 228).33

This complicated but fruitful treatment by Wright also illustrates the notion of the unity of early Judaism and is best articulated in a cluster of interrelated concepts rather than in a few prepositions or even in a few terms. This concept cluster is best designated with a master kernel concept, the covenant-relation. This insight makes the number of the common features summarized by various scholars less significant. It is not very crucial for one to claim that there are four, three or six pillars of early Judaism, but how they are interrelated within the kernel covenant-relation. So the description of early Judaism by Wright is not incompatible with that of Dunn and others. But for the sake of simplicity, in this study I will follow Dunns four pillars description with Wrights analysis in mind. The covenant-relation or covenant context of understanding the common features of early Judaism is so important that it gives the orientation of approaching various Jewish groups in this period to us in viewing their past, understanding the present and hoping for the future.

1.5 Israel in Early Judaism

Many early Jewish writings employed the term Israel explicitly as their communal self-designation, or addressed their audience on the premise that they formed the Israel implicitly.34 This awareness of belonging to a people chosen by God reflects the covenant that YWHW made with Israel is valid to them. It is significant that the epithet Israel is appropriated for the group rather than other terms like Jews. For Jews (from vIoudai/oi) denotes a group identified by the ethnic origin (people from Judea) and religious practice (worshipping God in the Jerusalem Temple) distinct from other groups around in the Second Temple Period.35 So Jews is a term primarily used for the people from the perspective of outsider, i.e. non-Jewish people.36 But Israel is the epithet which the people used for themselves,

33 From another perspective, Wright employs Griemas diagrams to represent the basic narratives in a

heuristic way to relate God, Israel, Torah, and Temple (1992, 221-23). Israel is the receiver of Gods rescue with the Torah as agent and pagans as opponent (221). When the rescue was delayed and the Torah was intensified (with the help of new leadership through new teachings), the new groups found their places as helpers to the Torah (to give new interpretation) and identified other renegade Jews as opponents (222). Finally, in the larger story, Israel is the agent with the help of Torah and Temple to bring the world under Gods rule (223). The important clue missed by Wright is that the new leadership sometimes belonged to the new groups and viewed themselves as the true Israel. It is just the case in Dead Sea Community. 34

Dunn 1995, 246; Chilton & Neusner 1995, 7. 35

Dunn 1991, 144. 36

Kuhn, Karl G. 1964. VIsrah.l, VIsrahli,thj, VIoudai/oj, VIoudai,a, VIoudai?ko,j, VIoudai/zw, VIoudai/smo,j,

- 13 -

from an insiders perspective. They define themselves in relation to God, His election and covenant promise rather than by relating to the land and by differentiating from people of other lands.37

1.6 The Aim of this Study

As we have already mentioned, 1 Peter displays a peculiar communal identity of Israel in particular and certain Jewishness in general. This Jewishness and the respective communal identity make comparison of a peculiar communal identity within respective Jewish contexts between 1 Peter and other early Judaism a meaningful exercise. This approach avoids doing comparison only at a lexical level, searching some occurrences of key terms rather than dealing with ideas and concepts within a Jewish religious system.38

The candidate among Jewish literatures of second Temple period that suits our purpose of comparison is the Community Rule of Cave 1 from Qumran (1QS). Since the discovery and early publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1950s, New Testament scholars already noticed the similarity in various aspects between this mysterious Jewish sect and the early Christianity. The major issue that brings 1QS (with other Qumran literatures) and 1 Peter together under scholars attention is their common use of cultic language, especially when they both consider themselves constituting the temple. 39 Also, 1QS exhibits a deep-seated self-understanding as the true Israel which further favors a comparison of the similar identity found in 1 Peter. Final, a less discussed feature shared by both 1QS and 1 Peter is their communal identity of Israel characterized by an ahistorical or unethnical tendency, i.e. each community claiming the identity of Israel in covenant with God while ignoring their continuity with the historical, ethical or biblical Israel.

~Ebrai/oj, ~Ebrai?ko,j, e`brai/j, e`brai?sti,. TDNT 3.359-65. 37

Dunn 1991, 145; 1998, 505. 38

For example, studying the concept of covenant in Pauls letters is different from doing word study on the key word covenant. Similarly, that the word Israel is absent in 1 Peter should not restrict us from comparing its concept with other Jewish literature that has more frequent occurrence of it. 39

For the cultic language in Qumran and in 1 Peter, see Schssler Fiorenza 1976 and Betz 1982. David Flusser (1958. The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity. Pages 215-66 in Scripta Hierosolymitana 3. Quoted in Elliott 1966, 210-12) undertook the comparison between 1 Peter and 1QS, and suggested 1 Peter 2:4-6 represents a quotation from a Hebrew prototype resembling 1QS 8:4-11. See also Snodgrass 1977, 101-102. For the discussion on Temple in 1 Peter and Qumran, see Best 1969 and esp. Grtner 1965. The insight of Flusser is followed by Goppelt (1993, 36) who stated that Behind the first part (1:3-2:10), in which the author expresses his understanding of the essence of being a Christian, stands a complex of tradition that proceeds from the self-understanding of the Qumran community.

- 14 -

It is the aim of this study to investigate the peculiar traits of these three common features found in both 1QS and 1 Peter. We will begin with the feature of communal identity as Israel, an important covenantal identity which constitutes the covenant-relation with God. Embedded in the identity of Israel is the self-designation as temple with specific function. We will explore the significance and meaning of atonement of this priestly function in 1QS and the Christianized missiological function in 1 Peter. Finally, the ahistorical feature of that identity will be surveyed in 1QS and 1 Peter with respective to other literatures in the broader contexts (i.e. CD in the Qumran literature, and Rom 9-11 in early Christianity) which display a more substantial historical framework.

15

Chapter 2 Textual History of 1QS and its Relationship with CD

2.1 Classical theory on the group(s) behind Dead Sea Scrolls

Soon after the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars quickly associated the scrolls with the Essene party attested in ancient sources of Pliny the Elder, Josephus and Philo.1 In the following half-century of Dead Sea Scrolls studies, other theories had been proposed to explain the origin of the documents and the archaeological sites at Qumran,2 however the Essene hypothesis is still dominating the academic discussion. The classical understanding of this hypothesis is that the Qumran community was identical to the Essenes. Any discrepancy in the description of the sect within the scrolls and ancient literary sources,3 and between the scrolls and the external sources, 4 are explained by the factors of (1) various stages of development, (2) varying reliability of the witnesses, and (3) the diversity of the readership addressed (Vermes 1999, 125-26).

Other hypotheses of the Qumran community generally accepted by most scholars are basically modifications of the Essene hypothesis, especially further built on the argument that the Qumran community was formed as a sect breaking away from its Essene parent movement when the Teacher of Righteousness entered the scene. This two steps theory of Essene-Qumran formation is a sound way to resolve the internal contradiction between different Sitz Im Leben of the group(s) described in CD and 1QS, which is not easily explained away as reflection of different stages of

1 The first scholar who identified the Essene background of the scrolls was Eleazar Sukenik at 1948

(Vanderkam 1994, 5, 71; Vermes 1999, 230 note 14). 2 In the early years of Qumran studies, many possible groups had been suggested as associating with

the scrolls, e.g. mediaeval sect of Karaites (Zeitlin), zealots (Driver), Pharisees (Rabin), Sadducees (North). See Garca Martnez and Barrera 1995, 64. More recently, the theories of Judaeo-Christian origin had been suggested by J. L. Teicher, Y. Baer, B. Thiering, and R.Eisenman, but it was abandoned by most scholars, especially after the radiocarbon tests of 1990-91 and 1994 that confirmed the earlier dating of the manuscripts. See Vermes 1999, 115. Other theories include identifying the Qumran community with Sadducees (mostly advocated recently by Schiffman 1994) or totally not relating the documents from the caves to the Qumran archaeological sites (Golb 1995). Golb suggested the manuscripts were from Jerusalem and hided in the caves at the time of First Jewish Revolt, while the Qumran site was a military fortress having no connection with the caves. 3 Discrepancies within the scrolls and the ancient sources include: (1)1QS envisages common

ownership, but CD legislates in matters of private property, (2) Pliny, Philo and Josephus emphasize the Essenes were celibate, while Josephus hints elsewhere there were also married members, (3) Philo and Josephus state that Essenes were opposed to slavery but CD prohibits the sale of a slave converted to Judaism to a Gentile, implying the ownership of such slave to the Qumran members. See Vermes 1999. 125. 4 Contradictions between the scrolls and the ancient sources include: (1) absence of the title Essenes

in the scrolls, and (2) the oath is the first act in the initiation procedure at Qumran, but it is the last in the record of Josephus. See Vermes 1999, 125.

16

the same group. For example, whereas in 1QS, the group lived in the Qumran desert,5 the members of the group in CD XXII 19, 23 lived an urban or village life with their families in cities (ry [) and camps (h n xm cf. CD XXIII 7; XXIV 3) among other Jews and Gentile neighbors. The debate then turned to focus on when and where the Essene movement originated from. Murray OConnor (followed by Davies 1983) pushes the beginning of Essene movement back to sixth century B.C. at Babylon (the Damascus). They became a sect soon after returning to Judea at the period of Maccabees. The Groningen hypothesis (Garca Martnez 1995, 77-96), on the other hand, proposes Essenes movement being originated from the apocalyptic tradition of Palestine in the third century B.C. and the schism occurred at the time of John Hyrcannus (late first century B.C.). More subversively, Stegemann (1992) reverses the status of Essene to the main Jewish Union6 (dxy h) led by the Teacher of Righteousness at the mid-second century B.C. The splinter groups were the Hasmonean rulers who resisted the organizational pattern of d xy h and claimed the position of official Judaism while condemning the d xy h as non-conformist group of the time. The Qumran settlement was just a study center for all members, wherever they usually lived, without any connection to the politics of the time.7

It is important that the Essene hypothesis and its variances lead scholars to reconsider the people related to the Qumran texts and ruins not constituting a homogeneous community. The manuscripts from the caves clearly reflect the dynamics of the group(s) behind the texts. At the social level, there were groups co-existing at the same time with their members living in different life situations. We simply cannot simply designate them as the Qumran community or Essene/Qumran sect in the singular. Comparison of some foundation documents (e.g. CD (with 1QSa) and 1QS) can easily display this plurality of social grouping. However, at the historical level, each group experienced development or evolvement in their organization, thoughts and practices during their long history. This group evolvement can be detected in the development of some of their important texts, such as CD and 1QS again. The early studies on these texts already observed their composite nature with a long history of complicated editions and redaction. Recovering this literary process surely allow us to have a glimpse on the groups history.

2.2 The History of the Texts and its Groups

5 Except the section 1QS vi 1c-8a which seems addressing to a wider Essene movement: In these

(ways) shall they all walk in all their dwelling-places (a c m n h)(See Knibb 1987, 115). 6 A term for dxy h which Stegemann renders in his study.

7 Collins (2003) holds similar view as Stegemann.

17

The dynamics of the groups behind CD and 1QS, and the development of each document over time had already been noticed among scholars of the scrolls in the past. They can rather confidently establish various theories and project the respective coherent outlooks of the people related to Qumran and Essene in broad brush. However, the full publication of the cave 4 materials on early 90s not only brings new data to the discussion, confirming some fundamental consensus, but also complicating and challenging the accepted scenario of the social organization behind the scrolls.

2.2.1 The relation between S and D

First of all, we should note that other than cave 1, there are 11 more manuscripts related to 1QS in cave 4 (4QSa-j=4Q255-264) and cave 5 (5Q11).8 All these fragmentary manuscripts contain variant readings of the most complete text of the Community Rule (d xy h krs), i.e. 1QS. These 12 manuscripts form a family of texts designated by the letter S (stands for SerekRule). Another family of texts designated by D (stands for Damascus Document) constituted of 12 manuscripts excavated at cave 4, 5 and 6 (4QDa-h= 4Q266-273; 5Q12; 6Q15) plus two incomplete medieval copies (CDA and CDB) already found half a century before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, in a storeroom (genizah) of an old Cairo synagogue, and hence the name Cairo DamascusCD.9

The relation between S and D raises a very difficult question to Qumran scholars over the last few decades. Joseph Fitzmyer once made a statement, about two decades before the full publication of the cave 4 manuscripts, This (i.e. the relationship of S and D) is probably the most difficult question to handle in the discussion of Qumran literature today. It complicates the identification of the Jewish group from which the documents have come.10

It is not the place here to summarize the similarities and differences between the two groups of manuscripts in detail, but we can highlight a few significant points of contact between the two most representative documents of S and D, i.e. 1QS and CD. First of all, they share many general features, such as genre (e.g. penal code and regulations), terminology (e.g. terms for the community and the

8 Another manuscript 5Q13 may be inspired by 1QS and CD, quoting 1QS iii 4-5 (Garca Martnez

1994, 514). Also 4Q502 fr.16 may include a quotation from 1QS iv 4-6 (Vermes 2004, 97). 9 CD was also named Zadokite Fragments, Damascus Covenant or Damascus Document

(Vanderkam 1994, 55-56). 10

Prolegomenon to the reprint of S. Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries. Vol. 1: Fragments of a Zadokite Work (New York: Ktav.). Quoted in Hempel 1999, 69.

18

leaders), organizational pattern (e.g. gathering of 10 persons with a priest, 1QS vi 3; CD xiii 1-2), themes (e.g. admission procedures), and theological ideas (e.g. covenant). Their differences are also plenty and significant, especially when one investigates in detail into what seems similar between them at first sight. For examples, while 1QS describes three groups of people in the community (priests, elders/Levites and rest of the people, see 1QS VI 8-10; II 19-22), CD has a fourth group called rg (alien CD XIV 4). The organizational terminology in the two documents also has different uses and functions at a closer look, e.g. both rq b m h (mebaqqerthe inspector) and ~ y b rh (rabbimthe many) are found in 1QS and CD, but they have different tasks. Also, 1QS employs d xy h (yahiadthe community) as its self-designation, but CD uses (mahianeh) instead. The terms dy q p h vy a h (paqidthe instructor) and ly kf m h (miskilthe wise leader) are only found in 1QS but not in CD. The mostly debated discrepancy between 1QS and CD is certainly their different life situations (living in camps, cities(CD) or in the desert (1QS)) and practice of celibacy (with women and child (CD, cf. 1QSa) or men only (1QS)).11

In the years after Fitzmyer made his comment, scholars tended to simplify the problem and propose that there were two communities at the time (both belong to the Essene party), one associated with S and the other with Da view now becoming a consensus. The S community centered at Qumran to live a stricter live of celibacy and the D community spread around Palestine residing in towns with their family among other Jews and gentiles. According to Vermes (1999), the two communities co-existed at the same time in harmony, but he provides no convincing explanation for their different life forms.12 Other sees D as somehow earlier than S and the S community probably made a transformation of the D materials into S (Davies 1983; 2000)

2.2.2 New Light from the Cave 4 manuscripts

New evidence from more recently published cave 4 manuscripts dramatically altered the picture of the relation of S and D discussed above. The cave 4 copies of 1QS and CD confirm the composite nature of the two documents. So when one investigates the textual history of S and D (e.g. by comparison of 1QS and 4QS, CD and 4QD), one should pay more attention to individual section of the works than the whole document as a final redactional product (Metso 1998, 188). And various studies found that the penal code section is the key to understand the relation between

11 For a fuller comparison of 1QS and CD, please read Rowley 1952, Burrows 1955 and Hempel 1999.

12 Cf. Knibb 1984, 115

19

S and D (Hempel 1997b, 337).

2.2.2.1 The Complicate Situation

There is basically no direct parallel passage between 1QS and CD,13 but some cave 4 manuscripts seem to form a bridge to them. First of all, some 4QD materials have parallels in 1QS, e.g. the fragments 4QDa 10 II 2-15 and 4QDe 7 I 1-11 shared similar penal codes with 1QS VII 8-21 (Metso 2000, 88 note 6).14 This section concerns misbehaviors within the community, e.g. speaking foolish thing (vii 9), falling asleep during a session (VII 10), spitting in a session (VII 13) etc., and the codes are expressed in the format of case law, i.e. beginning with the condition whoever and followed by the period of penalty. 15 Most of the parallel transgressions and punishments shared by 1QS and 4QD are nearly identical in wordings and order, but while both 4QD and 1QS have fining as punishment or penance,16 it is only the 4QD manuscripts that consistently have an extra punishment of exclusion from the community for each offence. Also 1QS has a few additional offences in the penal codes that shared in common with 4QD, including retaliating (VII 11), spitting in the session (VII 15) and murmuring against community (VII 19). An even more difficult textual variant in 1QS VII 10b-11a and 4QDa 10 ii is the different positions of the term ~ y b rh (the Many) in the two documents.17 All these similarities and differences indicate that either direct literal dependency or sharing of common literal source may explain their similarities whereas continuous updating and contemporizing of each text according to new situation may explain their

13 Except the end of CD XIV which indicates a new section on penal code but it is absent in the

genizah Damascus Document. 14

For the description and translation of 4QDa,e, see Vermes 2004, 146, 152-54. 15

For a full lists and comparison of the 16 parallel penal codes in 1QS and 4QD, please see Appendix A in Metso 2004, 335. For the verbal comparison of the Hebrew texts of 1QS and 4QDa,e, please see Hempel 1997b, 339-41, where she added CD XIV 20 for comparison. 16

From vn [, means indemnity, fine (BDB 778), so does Knibbs translation (1987). Since 1QS VI 25 has the verb form with complement a quarter of his food, this specific kind of penalty may be implied in the following context (Wise et al 2004 consistently translates the word to be punished by (a period) reduced rations; cf. Knibb 1987, 126). Vermes (2004) interprets it more mildly as penance. Other English translations have a neutral one punish(ment) (Garca Martnez 1994; Qimaron and Charlesworth 1994) 17

In the case of unreasonably leaving a session trice. 1QS VII 10b-11a: and the same (applies) to the man who goes away at a session of the Many without permission (hc [b) (Qimron and Charlesworth). 4QDa [and likewise, whoever has] left [without he consent of the Congregation (~y br h t c [b] and gratu)itously as many as three ti[mes in] one session (Vermes 2004). Hempel claims that this variant reading indicated that it seems most unlikely, therefore, to suppose that a reference to the many that was present in an earlier version of the penal code came to be left out in 1QS. It seems more probable to me that the reference to the many in 4QDa has been added to an earlier version of this offence. (Hempel 1997b, 343) But she missed the similar redaction that in the very same phrase of Hebrew text, there is another variant reading in which 1QS has ~y br h bvw m b (session of the Many) while 4QD left it out. This is a typical case that no definite evidence may help one to side with either position.

20

differences.18 For example, the rule governing the offence of spitting in the session in 1QS VII 15 may be added to address the new problem in the community. However, there is no convincing evidence and argument that a definitive judgment can be made.

Similar complex situation occurs in other cave 4 manuscripts. The most interesting example is the hybrid Serek Damascus or 4QSD (4Q265), which contains features of 1QS (i.e. some specific penal code), CD (i.e. Sabbath regulations, mention of women and children) and 4QD (i.e. double punishment of fine and exclusion). 4QSD also shared the introductory formula of biblical quotation and organizational terminology used in 1QS and CD. 19 Other examples include: Rebukes by the Overseer 20 (4Q477) which contains rebukes of misbehavior listed in 1QS and organizational terms y n x m (camp) particular to CD (Metso 1998, 205); Communal Ceremony (4Q275) and Order of Assembly (4Q279), 21 the former has words resembling the description of entry into covenant in 1QS I-IV and the latter lists a hierarchical order parallels to CD XIV 3-6 and 1QS II 19-25 (Metso 1998, 205-7). Any resemblances between the texts are usually explained by that hypothesis that either one text depends directly on the other or they draw materials from the same source. Any discrepancy is viewed as a result of peculiar application of the tradition to specific context. All these fragmentary cave 4 manuscripts indicate some links between S and D, but also wreck that simple picture of the community(ies) postulated by scholars, because the data from cave 4 substantially complicates the situation in view. No balanced judgment can be made on that either/or option. The relation between S and D, as viewed from the limited but new light of the cave 4 materials, remains unclear.

2.2.2.2 Methodological Limitation

The methodological implication from the new light of 4Q materials is

18 Hempel (1997b, 343) tends to prefer S depends on D literally, but Metso (2004, 322) states that it is

more probable both S and D had reworked independently on an earlier version of the penal code. I think the option of Metso is more convincing when one takes the complexity of data seriously. 19

Introductory formula bw t k r va k rp s b and bw t k r vak in 1QS and CD are also found in 4QSD, indicating the present of biblical quotation in the lost part of the fragmentary document (Metso 1998, 203). Also the shared organizational terminology includes: ~y br h bvw m (session of Many), d x y h t c [ (council of Community) and ~y br h l[ r qbm h f ya h/d x y h l[ r qbm h ~y br h/bf w m l[ r fa r qbm h(Overseer/Examiner) (Metso 1998, 204). 20

A title given by Esther Eshel who published the manuscript in JJS 45:111-22 (Metso 1998, 204). She considered 4Q477 as a list of rebukes carries out in the public by r qbm h (the Overseer) in the form of They rebuke X because he It is more likely that the rebukes originated with witnesses of the offences reported to the Overseer who was to make a record based on CD IX 16-20 (cf. CD IX 2-4). See Vermes 2004, 244. 21

4Q275 and 4Q279 were named formerly as 4QTohotot Ba and 4Qtohotot D?, see Garca Martnez 1994, 496. 4Q275 is also called Order of Initiation

21

significant to the Qumran studies. The studies of Sarianna Metso, an expert on the textual history of 1QS, stimulate us to raise two reflections on the methodological issue. First, the habitual reasoning of scholars in reconstruction of community history from the texts needs revision. The literary dependency of one on the other vs common source dichotomy no longer serves as an appropriate model for linking up texts and history. Metso observed that there exists a huge gap between text and history in Qumran studies, as she put a doubt on the accepted base of historical reconstruction:

If various groups may have used common sources and borrowed material from each other, how can the groups behind the manuscripts be identified and categorized? If large parts of the material included in various manuscripts are borrowed and modified, what is the criterion that enables us to assign whole manuscripts to particular groups (e.g. a celibate community versus a community in which marriage was a common practice)? (1998c, 202-3)

The basic problem was embedded in the scholars earlier treatment of the two Qumran rules, 1QS and CD, which were later conceptually developed into two independent types of texts, S and D. This apparent neutral convention of scholarship to categorize and label one type of texts against another actually links texts (or type of texts) to hypothetical groups and their history implicitly. It also sets up normative categories to evaluate the fragmentary cave 4 manuscripts and describe them either belonging to the known categories or a new hybrid of unknown origin. What would the picture of Qumran community look like if the copy of Community Rule were not found in cave 1 but badly preserved in cave 4 while the copy of, say, 4QSe were firstly discovered in cave 1 in good condition? What if the Damascus Document of Cairo had never been found and that we have very little knowledge of this document except the fragmentary 4QD? Metso raised the similar question when she found that 4QSh and 5Q13 shared so many features that they may be the same document.

Both manuscripts contain hymnic or poetic material, and both have a passage parallel 1QS. Why is one manuscript assigned as a copy of the Community Rule, while the other is seen as quoting itif we were to approach the covenant ceremony from the direction of 5Q13 and 4Q262, and not from that of 1QS as we normally do, how would it change our views concerning the liturgical details of the ceremony?(2004, 330)

22

If a whole document does not associate with a group (with its history) in a direct or simple way, and 1QS and CD specifically are no longer the coordinates to describe the Qumran community (communities) and their theology (theologies), the second methodological adjustment in Qumran studies (especially in studying 1QS) is to focus on the smaller unit and its redactional history. It is an inevitable step as one notices the internal discrepancy22 of 1QS and its composite nature through comparison with 4QS materials. So, it is methodologically misleading and practically impossible to reconstruct the history of a group out of a complete manuscript. Metso highlighted the difference between a groups redaction of a part and the groups adaptation of the whole document:

This (editorial activity) probably means that one group formulated the material, which presumably matched the activities of that group. When a different group borrowed that material because they thought it was valuable, it is not necessary to conclude that the new group acted out every detail of the passage; thus it would be misleading to make the direct connection between that groups texts and its historical activity.(2004, 331)

What we can properly do is to study the redactional activities detected in individual unit that reveal a small piece of history of that unit and the tradition behind the text rather than the history of a group. This allows us to determine the intended emphasis made by the scribe through that redactional activity. However, the relation between various sections/units in a document is not so securely established because, just as Metsos comment indicated above, the readers of a document do not necessarily treat every part of it possessing the same level of importance and relevancy.

These two reflections are heuristic to the following study on the communal identity in 1QS. We cannot investigate an idea in 1QS on its own, without consulting its textual resemblance, i.e. 4QS. The primary focus should be upon the redaction activities in individual units made by the scribe of 1QS that reveal the theological emphasis. This does not exclude the importance of two things: 1) the received and unaltered idea from 4QS, and 2) the relation between larger blocks of section in 1QS. For 1), not every received material has the same importance and relevancy as the

22 1QS incoherently contains three penal codes and two admission procedures

23

redacted unit. Discernment should be made on individual case. For 2), although the structure of 1QS does not display a clear flow of thought, the preservation of some larger sections does indicate the hidden theological rationale of the scribe.

2.2.3 Structural division of 1QS

The relatively intact copy of Community Rule, 1QS, had been considered with certain unity in the past. For example, Devorah Dimant (1984) treated the doublets (of penal code) in 1QS not necessarily the result of editorial process but a literay characteristic of the Rule, unobserved up to the present (501). She suggested that 1QS is characterized by chiastic pattern (502)23 and hence implying that a master plan was in the mind of the final editor. An earlier scholar Pierre Guilbert, after doing structural analysis on 1QS, viewed this document as a homogeneous and coherent whole.24 They both did not dismiss the possibility of borrowing by the author of 1QS but these borrowings were recast into a new whole. However, it is undeniable that incoherence does exist in 1QS.25 We should not accept unity of document as a prior understanding of the nature of ancient literary before we find any convincing clue to explain that incoherence or even contradiction. For the aim of making division on 1QS, the structural analysis of Guilbert (1959) is still a very useful approach which virtually laid the foundation of later studies on 1QS (e.g. Leaner, Vermes, Knibb, Charlesworth etc.). The recent publication of cave 4 manuscripts and the respective study on the textual development of Community Rule did not alter the basic agreement on the division but only further confirm it. Most of the divisions become consensus among scholars except the section 8.1-9.11, which reflects most complicated redactional and scribal activities in the textual transmission process.

Guilbert observed three textual indicators and scribal marks and a clear

23 Dimant observed 1QS IX, 12-26 appears to parallel III, 13-IV, 26, and proposed the following

chiastic pattern (1984, 502): Introductiongeneral aims, I, 1-15 Entrance into the covenant, I, 16-III, 12 Ideologyto the Maskil, III, 13-IV, 26 The life of the community, V, 1-VI, 23 The penal code, VI, 24-VII, 25 The model community, VIII, 1-IX, 11 Instructionsto the Maskil, IX, 12-26 Hymns, X, 1-XI, 22 24

Guilbert, Pierre. 1959. Le plan de la Rgle de la Communaut. RevQ 1: 343-44. Quoted in Gagnon 1995, 73. 25

For example, 1) the designation of community members shifted from the men of the Community (V 15) to the men of holiness (VIII 17, 20, 23); 2) the doublets of penitential codes in VI 24-VII 25 and VIII 16-IX 2; 3) the authority given to the priest in IX 7 in contrast to V 2-3, 9, in which the Sons of Zadok shall rule with the multitude of the men of the Community.

24

division can be made26: (1) introductory formulas addressing to the maskl (I, 1(?); III, 13; V, 1 (in 4QS ms.); IX, 12, 21), or beginning with demonstrative pronouns this is (h z) or these are (h la) (IV, 2; V, 1, 7; VI, 8, 24; VIII, 20; IX, 12, 21), or beginning with the preposition b followed by an infinitive construct, denoting a temporal clause (I, 18; VIII, 4, 12; IX, 3). (2) Paragraph indentations and blank spaces (I, 21; II, 4, 11; coinciding the introductory formulas III, 13; V, 1; VI, 24; IX, 12). (3) Signs (a small hooks or other symbols) on the right margins of the texts for unit recognition (III, 18; VII, 25; XI, 15).

Based on these division indicators, 1QS is structurally divided as follows: A I 1-15---General introduction B I 16-III 12---Entry into the Community

a. I 16-18---Prolegomena b. I 18-II 18--- The ritual of the covenant entry ceremony c. II 19-III 12---Rules regarding covenant entrance i)II 19-25a---order of precedence in the ceremony ii)II 25b-III 12---sincerity of the converts

C III 13-IV 26---The doctrine of the two spirits a. III 13-15a---Introductory Summary b. III 15b-IV 1---Two spirits, two humanities and two angels c. IV 2-14---The two ways and two visitations d. IV15-26---Eschatological destiny of the two spirits D V 1-VII 25---The internal regulation of the Community

a. V 1-VI 8a---General and personal rules i) V 1-7a---basic obligation of community members ii) V 7b-20a---Covenant binding oath iii) V 20b-VI 8a---instructions for community interaction b. VI 8b-23---General rules of the session of the Many i) VI 8b-13a---rules for session of the Many ii) VI 13b-23---rules for full membership c. VI 24-VII 25---The penitential code

F VIII 1-IX 11 a. VIII 1-16a---definition and aim of the community i) VIII 1-4a ii) VIII 4b-8a

iii) VIII 8b-12a iv) VIII 12b-16a

26 See Gagnon 1995, 69-73.

25

b. VIII 16b-IX 11---regulations for the community i) VIII 16b-19 ii) VIII 20-IX 2 iii) IX 3-11 G IX 12-XI 22---Rules for personal training of new members

a. IX 12-21a---the maskls role as instructor of candidates and members b. IX 21b-XI 22--- i) IX 21b-26a---what maskl should love and hate ii) IX 26b-X 8---the times of prayer iii) X 9-XI 22---final hymn

Murphy OConnor further explicated the formation of 1QS in terms of literary growth in four stages, which somehow are correlated with the periods of occupation of Qumran known from archaeological evidence. 27 The literary evolvement through history is basically around a core part of earliest stage in the pre-Qumranic period, called by Murphy OConnor a Manifesto (1QS VIII 1-10a, 12b-16a, IX 3-X 8a), which is thought of being composed by the Teacher as a blueprint for the community consisting of fifteen men (twelve layman and three priests) (Davies 1987, 60). The next stage of the growth of 1QS includes two pieces of non-homogeneous penal legislation (VIII 16b-19 and VIII 20-IX 2) plus an interpolation (VIII 10b-12a). This stage was the beginning of the Qumran Community of relatively fewer members in the archaeological period 1a (pre-100 B.C.).28 The third stage, represented by the section 1QS V-VII (except V 13b-VI 8a)29 which composed of more detailed regulation of the community, marched well with Period 1b when extensive rebuilding took place at Qumran apparently to accommodate larger size of membership, indicating a marked transition to institutionalization, democratization and heightened self-definition in the community (Gagnon 1995, 79-80). The final stage composed of 1QS I-IV and X 9-XI 22, plus the interpolation V 13b-VI 8a. This last stage of edition is characterized by the desire to rekindle the decreasing fervor of the community.30

This fourfold literary development of 1QS allows us to grasp the

27 See Gagnon 1995, 76. The major thesis of Murphy-OConnor is found in Murphy-OConnor,

Jerome. 1969. La gense littraire de la Rgle de la Communaut. RB 76:528-49. It was followed closely by Pouilly (Pouilly. 1976. La rgle de la Communaut de Qumrn: Son evolution littraire. Cahier de la Revue Biblique 17. Paris: Gabalda) with minor revision. The following discussion is mainly based on Gagnon 1995 and Davies 1987. 28

See Gagnon 1995, 79; Garca Martnez and Barrera 1995, 51. 29

Murray OConnor originally considered within 1QS V-VII, only V 13b-15a belonging to last stage of formation of 1QS. But he later extended the section to VI 8a. See Gagnon 1995, 80-1. 30

Pouilly 1976, 537 quoted in Gagnon 1995, 81.

26

relation of various sections with respect to the history of Qumran community as suggested by the archaeological findings. Although the articulation of the literary growth seems too tidy that some may put doubt on its textual ground, it provides a basic scheme of development for us to correlate roughly the chronological sequence. The basic agreement among scholars is that VIII 1-X 8 (i.e. the stage 1 and 2 materials) is the oldest part.31 The new light from cave 4 materials also confirms that scheme of development in a broad way. Firstly, 4QSd and 4QSe, which are both dated to be composed earlier than 1QS, have a beginning that parallels 1QS V 1ff., indicating that col. I-IV of 1QS is a younger section.32 Secondly, 4QSe does not end with the hymn of 1QS X 9-XI 22,33 but a calendric text 4QOtot,34 indicating col. X-XI are also of later period. However, the inclusion of col. X-XI to 4QSb,d and col. I-IV to 4QSb independently occurred at different stages and Sitz Im Leben. Their final abridgement into 1QS does not necessarily imply that at the time of its composition, the two section 1QS I-IV and X-XI refer to the same situation of covenantal renewal ceremony to evoke the same kind of emotional remembrance of a once intense commitment as suggested by Murphy-OConnor (Gagnon 1995, 83). Also, no cave 4 materials displayed evidence that 1QS V-VII and VIII-IX did ever exist separately, although the two sections are apparently of different natures (Metso 1996, 108-9). It only proves that an earlier combined version of the middle block of 1QS (col. V-IX) was already formed well before the editions of 4QS material that are available to us.

2.2.4 Textual development of 1QS in comparison with 4QS

The literary criticism by Murphy OConnor was mainly built on detail textual analysis of the single copy of 1QS to investigate its stages of formation. As we have briefly discussed above, the basic result of Murphy OConnor concords with the preliminary comparison with 4QS. A full study on the relation of 1QS and 4QS allows us, on the one hand, to trace the textual traditions in 1QS as represented by some 4QS

31 Knibb 1987, 77-8. For other modifications on and opposition to Murphy-OConnors thesis, please

see Gagnon 1995, 83-4; Metso 1996, 109 note 4. It is worthy to mention theory proposed by Peuch (Peuch, E. 1979. Recesion: J. Pouilly, La Rgle de la Communaut de Qumran. Son evolution littraire. RevQ 10:103-111) that 1QS developed in 3 stages (against the 4 stages of Murphy-OConnor): 1) col. VIII-IX, 2) col. V-VII, and 3) col. I-IV and X-XI (See Metso 1996, 148; Gagnon 1995, 83). 32

4QSb contains materials parallel to both section of 1QS I-IV and V-X. Metso believes that it belongs to the same tradition of 4QSd and originally begins at 1QS V 1ff. It is only at a later time that an earlier version parallel to 1QS I-IV was added to 4QSb. 33

The exact beginning of the final section (the hymn) is controversial. It depends on whether one treats IX 26-X 8 as a part of the former or later unit. See Metso 1996, 108 note 2. Alexander and Vermes (2004, 66-7) believe that the extremely fragmentary 4QSe Col. IV (Frag. 4a-d) line 1-8 followed 1QS IX 20-25, and then at line 9 the text of 4QOtot begins. So it may indicate that the section corresponding to 1QS IX ends at IX 25 rather than X 8. 34

Vermes (2004, 123) argued the other way round, considering it is the editor of 4QSe who replaced the section parallel to 1QS X-XI with 4QOtot.

27

manuscripts, and on the other hand, to recover the redaction of 1QS, which directly concerns our investigation of the communal identity of 1QS.

Metso observed that out of the ten 4QS manuscripts related to 1QS, 4QSb, 4QSd and 4QSe are especially important for plotting the lines of textual tradition behind 1QS. One of the traditions behind 1QS is represented by 4QSb and 4QSd that are a shorter version loosely parallel to 1QS V-IX35 plus the hymns closely parallel to 1QS X-XI.36 This tradition lacks the biblical citations (e.g. Zeph 1:6 in V 11; Lev 22:16 in V 14; Exod 23:7 in V 15; Isa 40:3 in VIII 13-14 etc.), various phrases and key words found in 1QS, especially having the title Many instead of the sons of Zadokite (1QS V 2, 9; 4QSb 5 3, 7; 4QSd 1 I 2, 7). Another line of tradition is represented by 4QSe that is a version parallel to 1QS VII-IX, with some minor verbal variants but missing the whole section 1QS VIII 15b-IX 11 just after the citation and interpretation of Isa 40:3 at 1QS VIII 14-15a. In other words, if 1QS is a compilation based on these two traditions, the redactor on the one hand followed the tradition of 4QSb,d to include the hymnal section (1QS X 26b-XI 22) instead of the calendrical text 4QOtot, and inherited the liturgical and theological text parallel to 1QS I-IV from 4QSb. The redactor also had the intention to provide scriptural legitimation for the regulations of the community and to reinforce the communitys self-understanding (Metso 1996, 105). On the other hand, the redactor included the insertion 1QS VIII 16b-IX 11 (two penal codes with a duplicate of VIII 1-1137) as 4QSb,d and made some minor alternation to the length of penalty to bring the text of 1QS up to date. He also made some adjustments to the text to strengthen the communitys self-understanding.

35 As we have explained above, 4QSb, with the addition parallel to 1QS I-IV, belonged to later period

in this tradition. 36

Actually, the sections near the end of both 4QSb,d follow closely 1QS X 1ff. 37

the duplicate themes includes: expiation for the land (VIII 6,10; IX 4; grounding of the community in truth (VIII 5; IX 3), the holy house for Aaron and Israel (VIII 5-6, 8-9; IX 6), the offering of a ssoothing odour (VIII 9; IX 4-5), separation of those who walk in the way of perfection (VIII 10-11, 13; IX 5-6, 9). The third unit of the insertion, IX 3-11, became a fulfillment of the of the ideal in 1QS VIII 1-11 (Metso 1996, 72).

28

Chapter 3 The Communal Identity in 1QS

3.1 Communal-identity as Israel

The first feature of self-understanding of the community in 1QS is their identification to Israel as the covenant partner of YHWH. Our task here is to investigate the occurrence of this name and its specification in 1QS V-IX.

3.1.1 Redaction emphasizing the identity of Israel

la rvy occurs 16 times in 1QS,1 four of them in col. I-IV and the remaining twelve in col. V-IX. la r vy refers either to the covenantal people of God as a whole, i.e. the Israel, or more specifically to the laity, in contrast to the priestly group, i.e. the sons of Aaron.2 In the Jewish cultural map, the national Israel as Gods possession is sacred in the sense that a social boundary is set up between the Israel and gentiles. Within the Israel, the holiness associated with the priestly group is significantly different from the relatively profane lay people that another social boundary is set up within Israel, i.e. between the priests and the general Israelites. This differentiation is reflected on the spatial boundary between the area of sanctuary (Holy of holies) limited to the priests and the court area where common Israelites, the laity is accessible.

Through this scheme, we may be better in understanding the presentation of the self-identification of the community with Israel in 1QS V-IX. For example, in 1QS V 5b-6, after a long characterization of the dxy (community), the l+infinitive pattern is resumed: They shall lay a foundation of truth for Israel, for the Community of the eternal covenant. They shall atone for all those who devote themselves, for a sanctuary in Aaron and for a house of truth in Israel, and for those who join them for a Community.3 The underlined phrase and words are absent in the parallel 4QSb,d texts. The exegetical question is how we can understand the series of prepositional phrases beginning with l after the predicative infinitive ds y (to lay (a foundation)). For the sake of clarity, the phrases are arranged according to the parallel structure without the

1 1QS I 22, 23; II 22; III 24; V 5, 6, 22; VI 13; VIII 4, 5, 9, 11, 12; IX 3, 6, 11. (see Abegg et al 2003)

2 Knibb 1988, 21, 107, 114, 131. This understanding of Israel is typical of post-exilic social structure,

occurs in later biblical book (Qimron 1986, 91). 3 Translation followed Qimron and Charlesworth 1994. They shall lay (d s y l) resumed the last

infinitive in line 2 in order to become a Community. This predicative use of infinitive (modal) is especially frequent in 1QS. The succession of infinitives in 1QS I 1ff.; VIII 2ff.; IX 12ff. is interpreted in this way (Qimron 1986, 71).

29

insertion in 1QS, i.e. the more original text of 4QSb,d is as follows4: (lamed=for) la rvy l5c

(lamed=that is) dxy l 5c (lamed=that is) ~ y b dn tm h lwb l 6a (lamed=as) !wrh a b vdwq l 6b (lamed=as) la r vy b tm a h ty b lw 6c (lamed=to) d xy l ~ h y l[ ~ y wln h w 6d

Though we cannot assume the lamed here follows the usage of classical (biblical) Hebrew, it is still necessary to make the most from the context and the relevant knowledge of Hebrew syntax. Four specific uses of lamed fit mostly the case here: the lamed of advantage (5c, for), apposition (5c and 6a, that is), purpose with regard to altered status (6b, 6c, as), and direction of motion (6d, to).5 The two participles ~ y b dn tm h (6a, those who willingly offer themselves) and ~ y wln h (6d, those who join themselves), joined by w, form a pair that shared the lamed in 6a, which is in parallel with the lamed in 5c, indicating an appositional relation with Israel: for the Israel, that is a community, that is all those who freely offer themselvesand those who join themselves.6 The other two lameds in 6b and 6c indicate a purpose of altered status (as) associating with the first participle: those who willingly offer themselves as a sanctuary in Aaron and as a house of truth in Israel The last lamed in 6d marks object (the community) the motion (join) leads toward: those who join themselves to a community. Of course the two usages of lamed, apposition and purpose of altered status, seem indistinguishable from each other in this case. However, we can notice clearly that the community (d xy), even in their more original version reflected in 4QSb,d, identifies themselves to the Israel by (1) direct reference, and by (2) claiming themselves to be constituted of the priestly group (as a sanctuary in Aaron) and the laity (as a house of truth in Israel).7

4 Two minor variant readings exist in 4QSb,d except the underlined word: 4QSb,d have in a house of

truth for Israel rather than for a house of truth in Israel in 1QS. This may be explained as a correction to the syntax by the scribe of 1QS. 5 For these usages and their biblical examples, please see Waltke and OConnor 1990, 205, 207, 209,

211. 6 Vermes (2004, 104) interprets there are three groups that benefit from the atonement: They shall

atone for all those in Aaron who have freely pledged themselves to holiness, and for those in Israel who have freely pledged themselves to the House of Truth, and for those who joined them Similar division into three groups is found in Wise et al (2004, 23) except the third group is strangely designated as Gentile proselytes, which may be influenced by CD XIV 4 or the use of ~ y w l n h in Isa 56:6. 7 The two phrases Holy of holiness in Aaron and house of truth in Israel together not only denote

the communitys self-understanding as the whole Israel comprising of the priests and laity, it also reflects the self-understanding of the community as the temple (sanctuary, house) where the covenant God, YHWH, dwells and expiation of sin found possible. This important notion will become clear in 1QS VIII 1-10. We will also discuss it in the next part.

30

1QS inserted three words, rp k l ~ lw[ ty rb ((a community) of eternal covenant. They shall atone (for))8 in the series of lamed between line 5 and 6. The insertion of the verb rp kl altered the function of lamed (6a) associated with the two substantival participles (6a, 6d) from introducing a relation of apposition to advantage. 9 More importantly, the theological intention of this redaction is to emphasize the identity of dxy as the covenantal partner of YHWH with particular cultic or priestly function to expiate the members, a character of the community that will be made more explicit in col VIII.

Another similar passage is 1QS V 20c-22 which highlights the dual authority of the priests and laity in examination of new members:

And they shall examine (l.21) their spirits within the Communityunder the authority of the Sons of Aaron who dedicate themselves within the Community to establish (l.22) his covenant and to observe all his statues which he commanded to do, and upon the authority of the multitude of Israel who dedicated themselves to return to his covenant through the Community.

In the earlier 4QSd, the conjunction w is absent at the beginning of the second phrase of line 22, rendering a difficult construction which he commanded to do upon the authority of. But the duplicated wordings ~ y b dn tm hy p l[(under the authority of who dedicate themselves) in lines 21 and 22, even as understood in 4QSd, clearly indicates the parallel authority of the priests and laity, that the addition of w in 1QS aims to clarify this (cf. 1QS V 2). The dual authority of Sons of Aaron and multitude of Israel confirms the self-understanding of dxy as the whole Israel. The establishment of covenant relation by the Sons of Aaron is already attested in the earlier 4QSd but 1QS further strengthens this