The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

190 SOME WORKS OF TORAH AND PAUL’S GALATIANS
that these Jews were so-called “separatists” because they tried to separate
themselves within or even from the rest of Israel, again with the clear
implication that the motivation was based on purity rules and interpretations
of Torah (Law). 15
Not least of interest here is the evidence that the author(s) of MMT
advocates what later sources indicate to have been a Sadducean
halakhah 16 and that their opponents in view sound more like Pharisees. 17
Nevertheless, the usage here to express a clearly sectarian attitude is striking.
And the fact that this is the first time the term prsh appears in early
Jewish literature 18 adds immeasurably to the significance of MMT.
In this first case the possible point of contact is Paul’s description of
the action of Peter, followed by the other Jewish Christians, who “separated
himself” from the Gentile Christians in Antioch, having previously
eaten with them. The suggestion that Paul’s use of the verb “to separate”
(aphorizein) in Galatians may echo his own previous experience of selfseparation
as a Pharisee is an old one. 19
What is new? Simply this: we now have a text roughly contemporaneous
with Paul 20 that uses precisely this language to describe a sectarian
self-separation from the rest of the larger Jewish religious community 21
for purity reasons. They chose to avoid “associating (or participating)
with” other Jews (cf. García Martínez, 93; Qimron, C8). We now possess
an unprecedented and striking parallel in early Jewish literature to Paul’s
language. The inference is appropriate that the motivation behind Peter’s
withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile Christians in Antioch (Gal
2:12) was of a similar character and rationale as the withdrawal of the
MMT group from their larger Jewish community.
15. Cf. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. and
ed. G. Vermes et al.; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973–87), 2:396–97; cf. e.g.,
Ulrich Kellermann, a)fori/zw, in Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (ed. H.
Balz and G. Schneider; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980), 1:443; ET Exegetical Dictionary
of the New Testament (3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–1993).
16. Schiffman contends that the “views of the author of MMT are representative
of Sadducean halakah.” Lawrence H. Schiffman, EDSS 1:559 (added by JHC).
17. Qimron and Strugnell, ibid. (DJD 10), 111, 115–17.
18. Ya(akov Sussmann, “The History of the Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls,”
Appendix 1 in Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqsat Ma(ase ha-Torah (ed. E. Qimron and J.
Strugnell; DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 192.
19. See Theodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Leipzig: Deichert, 1905),
61–62, with reference to Gal 1:15.
20. Qimron and Strugnell put the composition of MMT in the period 159–152
B.C.E. (idem, ibid. [DJD 10], 121), but also note that the manuscripts date from
about 75 B.C.E. to 50 C.E. (109); that is, the memory of the “separation” was preserved
alive at Qumran in the copying of the text.