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

JOHN R. LEVISON 179
community, exhibits in varying measure the characteristics of these spirits,
and it is the mixture of these characteristics which determines, as in 1QS
3.14, “all the ranks of their spirits.” The exegetical basis for this inference
is that the sons of truth are referred to twice in the first list, but the sons
of perversion are not mentioned at all in either list. The intent of these
contrasting lists, therefore, is not to distinguish between the righteousness
of the children of light and the evil of the children of darkness, but to
depict the nature of all people, who participate to varying degrees in good
and evil. The children of darkness do not even come into the picture. 28
(6) 1QS 4.17–18 describes a fierce struggle, and 4.23 locates this struggle
in the human heart: “Until now the spirits of truth and of injustice
feud in the heart of man and they walk in wisdom or in folly.” The nature
of this struggle determines the particular share one has in the spirits of
truth and perversion. 29
These observations, among others, formed the basis for Wernberg-
Møller’s contention—made in direct opposition to K. G. Kuhn and A.
Dupont-Sommer—that
The difference between light and darkness, righteousness and sin was, of
course, felt to be radical; but the domains of these opposites were not kept
strictly apart. Perversion and darkness made inroads upon the realms of
truth and light because the sons of righteousness, in spite of their name and
election, like the rest of mankind, had two “spirits,” two opposing inclinations
(III, 18) constantly at war with one another (IV, 23), of which, at the
moment, the “perverse” one had the upper hand. 30
Wernberg-Møller’s analysis of 1QS 3–4 served as an important corrective
to Kuhn’s and Dupont-Sommer’s explanation of 1QS 3–4 via
Zoroastrianism. His exclusive emphasis upon the anthropological dimension
was nonetheless as one-sided as their emphasis upon the cosmic
dimension. H. G. May later contended, for example, that even a reference
to “all their kinds of spirits” (1QS 3.14) is set in a context replete
with references to the spirit of truth and deceit or the prince of light and
the angel of darkness, 31 and J. H. Charlesworth justifiably observed that
“anyone advocating a psychological rendering of this passage must necessarily
explain why here particularly ‘Angel of Darkness’ or ‘Angel of
Truth’ should be drained of their cosmic force.” 32
28. Ibid.,429–31.
29. Ibid., 433.
30. Ibid., 427.
31. “Cosmological Reference,” 2.
32. “Critical Comparison,” 398. Charlesworth also observed (396) that 1QS 3.18 is
not about the placement of two spirits within human beings but the allotment of two