Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered - The Preterist Archive

as yet been revealed. The Damascus Document takes the same approach to David's 'multiplying wives
unto himself' (a practice it described as 'fornication' in a previous column), explaining that this ban did
not come into effect until 'the coming of Zadok' whenever this was, it was obviously conceived of as
being after David's time (v. l - 5). This approach is portentous for the history of Western civilization,
because Paul uses this point and in Gal. 3 and Rom. 4, makes it the centerpiece of his approach to
Abraham and the Law, i.e. Abraham came before the Law and therefore was not 'justified' ('made
Righteous') by it. Muhammad interestingly enough also uses a variation of this to describe his
approach to Abraham, namely that he came before both Judaism and Christianity.
Here the Genesis Florilegium somewhat laconically adds the words, 'and he reproved him' (Line 5). In
other words, it makes it clear that this was all Reuben did. We will find the same words actually used
in a text dealing with matters of 'bodily emissions' involving Community discipline at the end of this
work. However in noting that Reuben was only first theoretically and implying that Judah would be
first in actuality, it again inadvertently reveals its main concern Jacob's blessings on Judah to follow.
The issue of the Amalekites is a different one, but also interesting. Column 4.1 distinctly designates
them as the issue of another questionable relationship with a concubine, i.e. 'fornication' again. 4.2-3's
almost word-for-word evocation of a speech of Moses from Exod. 17:14 shows the modus operandi of
the author, i.e. 1. he knows the entire Bible text (at least those books mentioned above), and 2. he is
doing Biblical commentary on or exegesis of it.
The addition of the eschatological phrase 'the last days' in the same line, which our text deliberately
adds to the speech attributed to Moses in Exod. 17:14, is also instructive. Otherwise both speeches are
identical. This, of course, highlights the eschatological themes with which the text ends, as it does
what is expected in 'the last times' regarding Amalek.
This leads to another point. Moses predicts the absolute eradication of the Amalekites, i.e. their name
would be 'blotted out from under Heaven'. Though the text in 4.1 refers to Saul's smiting the
Amalekites (showing once again that the author knows that Biblical story as well), and it is possible to
think that for him, this fulfilled the Biblical prophecy, the point is that Saul did not do so. Samuel had
put the Amalekites under ban, but Saul did not carry this out, and even though, according to the Bible,
he later repented of this, he was 'rejected' (note - again the use of the tell-tale word ma’as repeatedly
throughout the Biblical account).
Saul's failure to do this leads directly to the anointment of David in 1 Sam. 16. This is crucial, and the
author of our text is most surely aware of it. But that is what he is interested in - the anointment of
David and the elevation of Judah to be set forth in an eschatological manner in the interpretation of
the 'Shiloh Prophecy' that follows. With the deftest hand and the most delicate of brush strokes, our
author is doing extremely sophisticated Biblical criticism.
Also illustrative is the completely unbending and militant attitude in evidence here. This is absolutely
characteristic of the attitude of Qumran and is consistent across the corpus. No peaceful Essenes
these. The addition of 'the last days' or 'end of days' to Moses' speech is also then purposeful and
clearly eschatological. Since Saul failed to do it, the memory of Amalek will only 'be erased from
under Heaven' properly in 'the last days'. And who will do it? Clearly the Messiah, with whom the text