11.10.2012 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

200 DUALISM IN THE ESSENE COMMUNITIES<br />

Finally, one should note that both of <strong>the</strong> expressions in <strong>the</strong> 1QS passage,<br />

denoting <strong>the</strong> sharing of <strong>the</strong> common fate on <strong>the</strong> one h<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> rebellion<br />

against God on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r, are also found in <strong>the</strong> long discussion of<br />

CD preceding <strong>the</strong> passage under discussion: hdwb(bw Nwhb wm( tw)y l)<br />

19.7 <strong>and</strong> Mbl twryr#b wklyw 9–10. (Note also <strong>the</strong> mentioning of <strong>the</strong><br />

Messiahs in 19.1.)<br />

C. JURISPRUDENCE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY<br />

In order to establish my interpretation of <strong>the</strong> passage in 1QS, I must deal<br />

with <strong>the</strong> various usages of <strong>the</strong> hymr (y#n)) <strong>and</strong> glp tyb in <strong>the</strong> Dead<br />

Sea Scrolls.<br />

The first term occurs in a juridical context in 1QS 8.21–24:<br />

hymrb w) hmr dyb h#wm trwtm rbd rb(y r#) hmhm #y) lwk<br />

dxyh tc(m whxl#y<br />

wtc( M(w wnwhb #dwqh y#n)m #y) br(ty )wlw .dw( bw#y )wlw<br />

hgg#b M)w .rbd lwkl<br />

)wl r#) +p#mh w#rdw hc(h Nmw hrh+h Nm ldbwhw h#(y<br />

l( l)#y )wlw #y) +wp#y<br />

Mymy Mytn# hc( lwk<br />

Every man among <strong>the</strong>m who deliberately or through negligence transgresses<br />

any precept of <strong>the</strong> Law of Moses, shall be expelled from <strong>the</strong><br />

Council of <strong>the</strong> Community <strong>and</strong> shall never again return. No one among<br />

<strong>the</strong> men of holiness shall be associated in his property or his counsel in any<br />

way whatsoever. But if he has acted inadvertently, he shall be excluded<br />

from <strong>the</strong> Meal <strong>and</strong> from <strong>the</strong> Council <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y shall interpret <strong>the</strong> rule (as<br />

follows): for two years he shall take no part in judgment or be asked for<br />

advice on any matter.<br />

Surely, this text bears on <strong>the</strong> passage under discussion. It too deals with<br />

three kinds of transgressions: intentional transgressions, unintentional<br />

transgressions, <strong>and</strong> transgressions by hymr. Vermes translates hymrb<br />

here: “through negligence.” This underst<strong>and</strong>ing is very appealing <strong>and</strong><br />

philologically suits my interpretation of y#n) hymrh in 1QS 9. Yet<br />

here transgressors through negligence are excluded from <strong>the</strong> congregation,<br />

while in 1QS 9 <strong>the</strong>y are not. How can one explain this apparent<br />

contradiction?<br />

I hereby suggest <strong>the</strong> following solution: each of <strong>the</strong>se two passages<br />

deals with different kinds of comm<strong>and</strong>ments. Column 8 apparently<br />

deals with <strong>the</strong> comm<strong>and</strong>ments of <strong>the</strong> Torah that are not controversial;

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!