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

198 DUALISM IN THE ESSENE COMMUNITIES
At that time, the men of the Community shall set apart a House of
Holiness…As for the property of the men of holiness who walk in perfection,
it shall not be merged with that of the men of falsehood who have not
purified their life by separating themselves from iniquity and walking in the
way of perfection. They shall depart from none of the counsels of the Law to walk in
the stubbornness of their heart but shall be ruled by the primitive precepts in
which the men of the community were first instructed until there shall
come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel
I argue that this interpretation of the underlined sentence is linguistically
and contextually impossible.
In my opinion, the dependent clause following hymrh y#n) should
be understood as a definition of this phrase, namely:
Mymtb tkllw lw(m ldbhl Mkrd wkzh )wl r#)
Mbl twryr# lwkb tkll w)cy )l hrwth tc( lwkmw Krd
“Who have not (totally) refined their (old perverse) conduct by separating
themselves from iniquity and walking in the way of perfection; but (on the
other hand) have not gone astray from all the (obligations of the)
Community of the Torah by following their own (perverse) will.”
Thus, this dependent clause defines the hymrh y#n) as neither righteous
nor rebels.
The numerous difficulties in the prevailing interpretation are quite
apparent:
1. The syntax is irregular: prohibitions in the DSS begin with the negated
predicate rather than with the object. Such a prohibition would have been
formulated as follows:
Mbl twryr# lwkb tkll hrwth tc( lwkm [#dwqh y#n)] w)cy l)
2. The “men perfect in holiness” have already been defined as “walking in
perfection”; there is logically no point in prohibiting those who walk in
perfection from following their own (perverse) will (Mbl twryr#b tkll).
3. According to the prevailing interpretation, the sentence beginning
My+p#mb w+p#nw Mynw#rh is meaningless. It can hardly refer either to
the righteous or to the wicked.
4. The reason for mentioning the prophet (Elijah) is also totally unclear
according to the prevailing interpretation.
5. The mentioning of the sharing of property also has no meaningful purpose
according to the prevailing interpretation.
The second passage is CD 20.20–25 (according to my reading): 4
4. See Magen Broshi, ed., The Damascus Document Reconsidered (Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1992), 47.