the-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls

228 THE SCROLLS’ IMPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON HEBREWS
she-goat”: the pl[ace of slaughter is to the north of the camp.] 32 And we
think that the temple [is the place of the tent of meeting, and Je]rusalem 33
is the camp; and outside the camp is [outside Jerusalem;] it is the camp of
34 their cities. Outside the ca[mp…]… (Composite text)
The symbolic equation of Jerusalem and the “camp” (hnxm) of the
desert generation is not surprising, given the presence in the city of
the temple, the holiness of which is so important to the letter. Outside the
camp/city is the realm of impurity, where lepers and the unclean must
reside (4QMMT 67–69). 97 Direct dependence is unlikely, but Hebrews,
in its use of the spatial metaphor for social reality, attributes the same
value to the “outside” as it does the scroll. But paradoxically, the text
urges its readers to welcome the conventional negative judgments associated
with the “outside” because, as the next verse indicates, they have a
different city to which they belong (13:14).
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURES
During the course of this exploration of certain key themes within
Hebrews, the parallels between its scripturally based “word of exhortation”
and the scriptural expositions of the scrolls have surfaced on more
than one occasion. Ever since the discovery of the scrolls, scholars have
noted similarities and debated their significance. 98 The major feature
shared by Hebrews and many of the scrolls is an eschatological horizon,
a conviction that the readers of Scripture are living in the “latter days,” 99
whose events are in some sense foreshadowed by sacred Scripture.
Within that broad horizon, both Hebrews and the scrolls evidence
considerable flexibility in the appropriation and use of Scripture, 100 and
97. From 4Q394 frag. 3 14–16; 4Q396 frag. 1 3.5–7. Note the insistence on the
purity of the community in which the angels reside at 1QS 11.8; 1QSa 2.8–9, noted
above (in n29).
98. For a review of most of the significant literature, see Hurst, Epistle to the Hebrews,
61–65; and George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends
in Research,” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2003): 271–94. Among earlier literature of
particular importance is Friedrich Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als
Schriftausleger (Regensburg: Pustet, 1968). Recent studies of exegetical techniques
include Martin Hengel and Helmut Lohr, eds., Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und
im Urchristentum (WUNT 73; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994).
99. Heb 1:1: e0p_e0sxa&tou_tw~n h(merw~n tou/twn; 1QpHab 2.5; 1QSa 1.1; 4QFlor (=
4Q174) 1.12 (Mymyh tyrx)b).
100. On exegesis in the scrolls in general, see Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran; Michael
A. Fishbane, “Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran,” in Mikra: Text,