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

GORDON M. ZERBE 341
Parallel in form to the law articulating the meaning of Lev 19:18a (CD
9.2–4), this passage refers to the situation of personal conflict, in which
someone accuses another of an offense against the former. The context
may indicate that the accusation is about stolen property, or perhaps
some sort of defrauding. When such an accusation incites the accused to
swear innocence in the “open field” (hd#), where there are no potential
witnesses (cf. Deut 22:23–27), and not in the presence of the judges, the
accuser is guilty of transgressing the precept against taking justice into
one’s own hand. This precept does not appear explicitly in Scripture, but
was undoubtedly deduced from the narrative of 1 Sam 25, 68 which proscribes
seeking violent revenge on one’s own (25:26, 31, 33, 39) and also
demonstrates that God is the one to whom vengeance is to be deferred
(25:29). A similar precept seems to lie behind the interpretation of Lev
19:18a in the Septuagint, and in turn the ethical code of Philo. 69 Similarly
to CD 9.2–8, we see 9.8–10 proscribing actions that fall outside the established
procedures for gaining redress, reproof, and formal indictment.
The swearing of oaths in the situation of personal conflict is appropriate
only for court. 70 The surviving, fragmentary penal code of the Laws does
not include a reference to this precept, although the original form probably
once did, since a parallel item on this topic is extant in the penal code
of 1QS (6.25–27).
No prohibition against retaliation or vengeance in relation to outsiders
can be found in CD (in contrast to 1QS). Judicial (avenging) action
against Gentiles is implied as permitted in restrictions of such activity.
CD 12.6–8 legislates that no killing of Gentiles is permitted for the purpose
of increasing (one’s own) “wealth and gain” (cbw Nwh).
67. Cf. 4Q477, which includes either “rebukes by the overseer,” or the “overseer’s
record of rebukes”; see Charlotte Hempel, “Who Rebukes in 4Q477?” RevQ 16
(1995): 655–56.
68. Baumgarten and Schwartz, ibid., report that the formula rm) r#) (“concerning
the saying,” CD 9.8–9) was used by Qumran exegetes “for things implied or
derived from Scripture as well as that what was explicitly stated.”
69. The LXX translation of Lev 19:18a reads: ou)k e0kdika~tai/ sou h( xei/r. On not
taking justice “into one’s own hand” (au)toxeiri/a) in Philo, see Spec. 3.91, 96; 4.7–10;
cf. Mos. 2.214. And for other references to “saving with one’s own hand,” see Judg
7:2; Deut 8:17. See further Gordon M. Zerbe, Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New
Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts (JSPSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1993), 61–62.
70. This is the one place that comes close to corroborating the claims of Josephus
(J.W. 2.135) and Philo (Prob. 84) that Essenes shunned oaths, from which Josephus
himself exempts oaths of initiation (J.W. 2.139, 142). CD shows that in addition to
the oath of entry (15.5–16.9), oaths were to be reserved for formal judicial procedures
(9.9–16; 15.1–5; 16.10–12), and presumably shunned only in day-to-day relationships.