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

JOHN R. LEVISON 185
1QS 3–4 on internal grounds, could: individuals within the community
were ranked by the mixture or varieties of the spirits of truth and deceit
within. Taken in tandem, with the caveat that neither adequately explains
every reference to spirit in 1QS 3–4, these complementary approaches
account quite satisfactorily for both the cosmic and anthropological
aspects of this teaching.
The cogency of both sets of analyses, despite their onesidedness, suggests
why subsequent scholars preferred to interpret 1QS 3–4 as a combination
of cosmic and anthropological elements. This does not mean
that scholars agree over the fundamental issue at stake in 1QS 3–4; we
have seen that they do not. Nor is there consensus about which particular
references—of which there are sixteen—in 1QS 3–4 are to human
spirits and which are to cosmic spirits. Sekki’s survey of scholarly opinions
on each reference to “spirit” in 1QS 3.13–4.26 catalogues the bewildering
disagreement of scholars concerning which particular texts refer
to angelic spirits and which to human spirits. 43 Despite this lack of consensus,
scholars do affirm virtually unanimously that 1QS 3–4 is a teaching
concerned both with the struggle within human beings and the cosmic
struggle that has an impact upon their ability to live righteously.
The community at Qumran, however, was not so much shaped by systematic,
abstract reflection upon the origin of evil or the nature of angels
as by their scriptures. It was the ability of the Teacher of Righteousness
to interpret Torah and prophets that lent him status in the community. In
this respect Seitz’s suggestion that the teaching of the two spirits is the
product of the creative exegesis of 1 Sam 16:14 is essential to a holistic
interpretation of 1QS 3–4. His interpretation, moreover, can be strengthened
if it is juxtaposed with those of Kuhn, Dupont-Sommer, and
Wernberg-Møller, for a weakness of Seitz’s interpretation is its inability to
address a disparity between 1 Sam 16:14 and 1 QS 3–4. In 1 Sam 16:14,
the evil and good spirits do not coexist within Saul; the evil spirit enters
after the departure of the good spirit. In 1QS 3.18, both spirits coexist
within a human being. This conceptual shift can be explained by the
influence of a Judaism that was shaped by Persian dualism; the mutually
exclusive spirits of 1 Sam 16:14 may have been interpreted as two spirits
that coexist within a human being in the context of the cosmic coexistence
of the prince of light and the angel of darkness.
43. Meaning, 193–219.