Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-n7qbj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:11:48.257Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sacrifice and Worship among the Jewish Sectarians of the Dead Sea (Qumrân) Scrolls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

Joseph M. Baumgarten
Joseph M. Baumgarten
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Following the publication of S. Schechter's Fragments of a Zadokite Work in 1910, some scholars examined the possibility of an Essene origin. This idea was suggested by such points of contact as the stricter observance of the Sabbath, the emphasis on ritual purity, and the avoidance of oaths. One of the main objections to this identification was the recurrence in CDC of laws relating to animal sacrifice and the Temple at Jerusalem. For R. H. Charles this fact alone was decisive: “The Zadokites were not Essenes, since they inculcated the duty of animal sacrifice.” This judgment was based on the widespread belief that the Essenes were unalterably opposed to the sacrificial cult and the priestly tradition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 1953 , pp. 141 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Since this article was written, the discovery of several new caves containing numerous manuscripts in the Dead Sea area has made necessary a change in the designations for the first scrolls found. R. P. R. de Vaux has proposed the following abbreviations for the documents of the first cave at Khirbet Qumrân (I Q):

IQpH pesher on Habakkuk for the Habakkuk Commentary (DSH)

IQS Serekh hayyaḥad for the Manual of Discipline (DSD)

IQM Milḥemet bnê 'ôr for the War Scroll (DSW)

IQH Hôdayôt for the Psalms of Thanksgiving (DST).

2 This document is now called “Cairo Fragments of a Damascene Covenant” (CDC).

3 Lagrange, M.-J., “La secte juive de la Nouvelle Alliance au pays de Damas,” Revue Biblique IX (1912) p. 344Google Scholar; Charles, R. H., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Oxford (1913), II, p. 790Google Scholar; Leszynsky, R., Die Sadduzäer, Berlin (1912), p. 148 f.Google Scholar; Lévy, I., La Légende de Pythagore de Gréce en Palestine, Paris (1927), 290–292Google Scholar.

4 Op. cit., p. 790.

5 No attempt will be made in the following discussion to assign the historical allusions found in the sectarian documents to any particular sequence of events from the period of the Second Temple. The purpose will rather be to clarify the issues which figured in the withdrawal of the group from the main body of contemporary Judaism. I am indebted to Professor W. F. Albright and Dr. S. Iwry of the Johns Hopkins University, who read this paper and offered many valuable suggestions.

6 This teacher may perhaps be identified with the Teacher of Righteousness, who was one of the main leaders of the sect.

7 Cf. Psalms of Solomon 8:10–12:

They committed adultery, every man with his neighbor's wife.

They concluded covenants with one another with an oath touching these things;

They plundered the sanctuary of God, as though there was no avenger.

They trode the altar of the Lord, (coming straight) from all manner of uncleanliness;

And with menstrual blood they defiled the sacrifices, as (though these were) common flesh.

The passage refers to the inhabitants of Jerusalem who were punished through Pompey.

8 CDC 5:6–7; cf. 20:23, “they defiled the Sanctuary.”

9 “See Louis Ginzberg, “Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte,” MGWJ 56 (1912), P. 548Google Scholar.

10 The LXX version of the same passage (Amos 5:25–27) was used by Stephen in an apparent attempt to link the origin of the Israelite sacrificial cult with idol worship (Acts 7:42–43). Cf. Hans Joachim Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, Tübingen 1949, p. 222.

10a G. Hölscher's attempt (ZNW XXVIII (1929), 21–46) to interpret all the sacrificial laws in CDC as figurative references to priestly donations has not been successful. There is no doubt that they refer to real offerings.

11 Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 683.

12 Ibid., pp. 445–6.

13 S. Schechter, op. cit., p. XV; Adolph Büchler, review of Documents of Jewish Sectaries by S. Schechter, JQR NS III (1912–3), p. 457; against this view, see Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 446.

14 Outside of the Samaritan sanctuary, which was destroyed by John Hyrcanus, we know only of the Temple of Onias in Egypt, which was not recognized by the authorities in Palestine. Cf. Emil Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, Vol. III, 4th ed. (1909), pp. 146–7.

15 Cf. Psalm 99:9; a similar term (from the root s-g-d, to prostrate oneself) is the Egyptian-Aramaic masgedâ (shrine) which was applied to the temple at Elephentine (A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford 1923, no. 44, line 3). The Arabic masjid is probably borrowed from Aramaic (P. Leander, Laut und Formenlehre des Agyptisch-aramaischen, Göteberg 1928, p. 86).

16 Tamid VII, 3.

17 Cf. Mishnah Tamid VII, 1; Yoma VI, 2.

18 Op. cit., p. 547.

19 CDC 13:3–4 provides for replacement by a Levite, if the priest is not sufficiently experienced.

20 The “repentent ones of Israel” is a general designation for the sectaries; cf. CDC 6:5.

21 Professor Saul Lieberman has recently pointed out that the word rabbîm in this expression refers to the common possession of ritually clean articles by the sectarians (JBL LXXI (1952), p. 203). In DSH IV, 2, however, rabbim is used to interpret the word “kings” of Hab. 1:10 and is in parallel with nikbadîm. It seems to mean something like “great ones” (cf. Job 32:9 where rabbîm is in parallel with zeqēnîm (elders) and the Aramaic rab, meaning master, superior, or teacher). The word is often applied in DSD and CDC to the members of the sect. Cf. Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 565 and H. Yalon, Kiryath Sefer XXVIII, (Feb. 1952), 66–8.

22 Cf. the Rabbinic term tohorôt referring to food or other articles, prepared with the observance of Levitical precautions. Prof. Lieberman has called attention to the similarities, with regard to ritual laws, between the Dead Sea sectarians and the ḥaberîm, members of orders for the observance of levitical purity found in Rabbinic sources (op. cit., pp. 199–206). He notes that the ḥaberîm were also referred to as the rabbîm. The “purity” was not water used for ablutions, as might be supposed, for DSD 5:13 f. refers to immersion in water as a preparation for touching the “purity.” See below.

23 Cf. CDC 5:11 where it is said of the opponents, “they have defiled their holy spirit” (cf. Ginzberg, op. cit, p. 33f.). In DSD 3:7 a “spirit of holiness” is held to be a prerequisite for atonement.

24 H. yesôd rûaḥ qodeš le- ‘emet ‘ôlām. The preposition le before 'emet breaks up an extended construct chain, as it often does in Hebrew (Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebrew Grammar, 129 d). Cf. DSD 5:1 has-serek le-'anšê hay-yaḥad,” the order of the men of the community” and DSD 4:6 sôdê rûaḥ libnê ‘emet tēbēl, “the councils of the spirit of the sons of universal truth.”

25 Cf. Brownlee, William H., The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline, BASOR, Supplementary Studies, Nos. 10–12, New Haven 1951, p. 34Google Scholar.

26 Cf. DSD 10:6 where the term “offering of the lips” occurs in a partially obscure list of periods of prayer. The periods enumerated include sunrise, sunset, new moons, festivals, and the beginning of the year. The word terûmat is also to be restored before šefātayim at the beginning of this list (DSD 9:26). The same term is found in an interesting connection in DSD 10:14. The passage reads:

And I shall bless him (with) the offering of the expression of my lips

from (or in) a battle array of men (ma'areket ‘anāšîm).

The meaning is made clear by the Dead Sea War Scroll (DSW; published by Sukenik, E. Y., Megillot Genuzot, Jerusalem 1948, Vol. I, pp. 18 ffGoogle Scholar.). DSW provides for two war prayers. The “prayer for the period (or assembly) of the war” (tefillat mô ‘ed ham-milḥāmāh) was recited by the priests to the arrayed warriors before they went out to battle, while the “praise of the one who causes to return” (tehillat ham-mēsîb) was sung by all the men after a victory. On the morning following a battle, the warriors were to “return to their stations where they had arranged the battle array before the slain of the foe had fallen and to bless there the God of Israel” (ibid., p. 24). Thus the battle array was at the same time an array for prayer. In DSD the term “array of men” (ma'areket ‘anāšîm) means the array of the congregation for prayer. The verb 'rk is also employed for congregational prayer in the fourth of the Dead Sea Psalms of Thanksgiving published by Sukenik (op. cit., Vol. II, Plate IX, 11. 20–21):

weya'arôkû lekāh besôd qedôšîm

“and they arrange (prayer) unto thee in the council of the holy”

The passage refers to a union of prayer between the heavenly and the earthly congregations, as I hope to show elsewhere. Cf. also Psalm 5:4. It is significant to note the sacrificial character of the terminology used by DSD for prayer: “the portion of my lips” (menat šefātai) is another phrase used in this way (DSD 10:8; see Brownlee, op. cit., p. 41, note 29). The idea of prayer as a substitute for sacrifice is an old one. In Psalm 69:31–2 the praise of God with song and thanksgiving is preferred to animal offerings. Ben Sira 35:1 ff. equates observance of the law and piety with the standard sacrifices. In the Prayer of Azariah (1. 14 ff.) “a contrite heart and a humble spirit” are offered in place of sacrifice. The destruction of the Temple brought this conception into even greater prominence. The phrase “and we shall complete bullocks with our lips” (Hosea 14:3) is rendered by the Targum:

And may the words of our lips be received before Thee like bullocks as an acceptable offering on the altar.

(Cf. Midrash Rabbah, Song of Songs IV, 11; Abot de R. Nathan IV; b. Berakot 32b). In his Book of Precepts, Anan attempted to establish the synagogue and the liturgy as literal equivalents of the Temple and the sacrifices, respectively (cf. Leon Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, New Haven 1952, pp. 211–2). Fasting, charity, the study of the Law, the table in the home, and various other observances were also held by the Rabbis to have the value of sacrifice.

27 According to Rabbinic law, it is possible to immunize solid foods against uncleanliness by preventing them from coming into contact with liquids. Liquids, themselves, however, are always susceptible to impurity. See the important article by Prof. Lieberman (op. cit.).

28 In DSW the warriors were required to “wash their clothes and to cleanse themselves of the blood of the slain” before reciting the blessing following a victory. (Sukenik, op. cit., I, 24.)

29 The Judaeo-christian successors of the Essenes, the Ebionites, also believed firmly in the inter-relationship of ethical and ritual purity. They placed extreme emphasis on lustrations, which were for them a form of divine worship. Jesus, they held, had replaced the fire of the altar with the waters of baptism (Schoeps, op. cit., pp. 202 ff.). The identification of the Dead Sea sectarians with the Ebionites, however, which has been proposed by Teicher, J. L. (Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. II, Nos. 2 and 3 [1951])Google Scholar is contrary to the archaeological evidence from the Dead Sea caves (W. F. Albright, “The Chronology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” postscript to BASOR, Supplementary Studies nos. 10–12, 1951, p. 58). It is also impossible to reconcile the sacrificial laws of CDC and the concern for the purity of the Sanctuary with the outspoken oppositon of the Ebionites to both the sacrifices and the Temple (Schoeps, op. cit., 219–255). The same objection does not apply to the earlier Essenes (see below). The Ebionites have behind them “a long tradition of baptismal sects on the fringe of Judaism” (ibid., p. 206).

30 DSD 4:10; cf. 5:14, 19–20.

31 Prof. S. Zeitlin (The Zadokite Fragments, JQR Monograph Series, No. 1, 1952, p. 26) dismisses the Tosefta (quoted by Lieberman), which records an important exchange between the Pharisees and a sectarian group in the matter of lustrations, as “having no bearing on the Hebrew Scrolls.” Why?

32 The same union is reflected in the eschatological hope for the coming of the “prophet and the anointed of Aaron and Israel” (DSD 9:11). In CDC 12:23 f. the Messiah is to be descended “from Aaron and Israel.” Cf. Brownlee, op. cit., p. 50.

33 DSD 8:5–6; cf. 8:8–9 and 9:6.

34 DSD 5:2–3, 5:9, 5:21–2, 6:19 and 8:9.

35 Dr. S. Iwry would interpret the latter regulation as referring only to the future (Brownlee, op. cit., p. 35, note 13).

36 CDC 10:4 ff. provides for a court of ten judges, four from Levi and Aaron and six from Israel.

37 DSD 6:3–4; cf. CDC 13:2.

38 DSD 6:8; cf. CDC 14:3. In accordance with Deuteronomy 20:2–4, DSW provides that the prayer before battle be recited to the assembled warriors by the high priest and his colleagues (Sukenik, op. cit., I, p. 26).

39 For this and the similar Essene custom, cf. the Baraita b. Horayot 12b:

“And thou shalt sanctify him (the priest)” (Lev. 21:8); this refers to all sacred functions: to read the Law first, to recite the blessings first, and to receive a choice portion first.

40 Neither the text nor the content of the blessings is defined in Deuteronomy. The Rabbis (b. Soṭah 37b) deduce by analogy that the blessings, too, were to be recited by the Levites and were to include both general and specific blessings.

41 Mishnah Tamid V, I; Soṭah VII, 2; Rosh Hashanah IV, 5; Ta'anit IV, 1.

42 The covenant ceremony also included another element of the Temple liturgy, the formula for confession of DSD 1:24–5. See appendix.

43 Colson, F. H., Philo, “Every Good Man is Free,” The Loeb Classical Library, Vol. IX, Cambridge 1941, p. 55Google Scholar

44 Antiquities, XVIII, 1, 5.

45 Cf. Fr. Kaulen, Flavius Josephus’ jüdische Alterthümer, p. 594. epiteleōthusias has here the general meaning of performing a religious ceremony; cf. Liddel and Scott, Greek Lexicon, s.v. epiteleō. It is very unlikely that the Essenes sacrificed outside of the Temple at Jerusalem.

46 The view of some scholars (notably R. H. Charles, who used it as the main standard of Essenism in his study of the Pseudepigrapha) that the Essenes completely rejected the idea of animal sacrifice is substantiated only for the later Ebionites. The Christian Ebionites considered the sacrificial cult as the chief sin of the people and declared all Biblical passages dealing with animal offerings to be false pericopes. They welcomed the destruction of the Temple as an inevitable punishment for the failure to recognize the true prophet, who had come to put an end to all animal sacrifice (See Lightfoot, J. B., Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, London 1890, p. 326Google Scholar and the recent study by Schoeps (op. cit., ch. 4), which utilizes new sources for the Ebionites). A very similar attitude is displayed by the (Ebionite ?) author of the fourth book (usually dated a. 80 after Christ) of the Sibylline Oracles:

Happy shall those men be throughout the earth who shall truly love the Mighty God, blessing him before eating and drinking, staunch in their godliness. Who when they see them, shall disown all temples and altars, vain erections of senseless stones, befouled with constant blood of living things and sacrifices of four-footed beasts. (11. 24–30)

The danger of attributing the same doctrines to the Essenes becomes apparent when they are used as criteria for determining the authorship of Pseudepigraphic works. The Assumption of Moses could not, according to Charles, have been written by an Essene, “for the entire book is interpenetrated with national hopes and aspirations” and “the greatest interest is taken in all the fortunes of the Temple” (Charles, op. cit., Vol. II, 411). While we agree with W. Bousset's characterization of the Essenes as a Sakraments-gemeinschaft, it is not necessary to suppose, as he does, that this involved any abandonment of the Aaronide priesthood (Die Religion des Judentums, 3rd ed. 1926, p. 461). R. Leszynsky (op. cit. p. 151) recognized clearly that the Essene avoidance of the Temple was based on differences over ritual purity. The evidence from the “Zadokite” literature makes desirable a reconsideration of Ritschl's theory of a priestly origin for some of the Essene customs (Cf. Schürer, op. cit., II, 668 ff.).

47 Jewish War II, 8, 10.

48 As suggested by L. Ginzberg (op. cit., pp. 445–6), it may be this practice to which the law of CDC 11:18–21 refers. The Damascus sectaries also sent votive gifts to the Temple, but they insisted that the messenger be ritually clean.

49 Jewish War I, 3, 5.

50 I. Lévy (op. cit., p. 267 ff.), following E. Mittwoch (Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie XVII (1903), 75–82), would see in the “hall of the silent ones” (liškat ḥaša'im) found in the Temple (Mishnah Sheqalim V, 6) an Essene vestige. From the context, however, it is clear that the liškat ḥaša'îm was simply the treasury for anonymous (“silent”) donations to the poor. Moreover, the Tosefta (Sheqalim II, 16) tells us: “Just as there was a liškat ḥaša'îm in the Sanctuary so there was one in every city. Although Mittwoch's etymology is possible, we cannot conclude that the Essenes ever frequented this hall in the Temple.

51 Jewish War V, 4, 2.

52 Although the exact location is unknown, this gate was in the Eastern wall of the city, close to the Temple.

53 The lack of uniformity is illustrated by the Essene oath “to keep faith with all men especially rulers, since no ruler attains his office save by the will of God” (J. W. II, 8, 7) and the similar statement by Philo that there was not among the Essenes “any person making weapons or engines or plying any industry concerned with war” (Every Good Man is Free XII). In the war against Rome, however, John the Essene was one of the chief Jewish generals. Josephus describes him as a man of “first-rate prowess and ability” (J. W. III, 2, 1). It is historically quite conceivable that a pacifistic group should under changed circumstances display marked belligerence. The pious Hasidim were the first to flock to the Maccabean ranks in protest against the religious persecutions of Antiochus IV. Dr. Albright has called my attention to the extremely pacifistic stand taken by American Methodists before World War II, which was abandoned in the face of national emergency. W. H. Brownlee (Biblical Archaeologist, September 1950, 65–6) suggests that the Covenanters be identified with the order of marrying Essenes which i s distinguished by Josephus from the celibate majority.

54 Antiquities XVIII, I, 5; see Schürer's discussion of this passage, op. cit., II, 666.

55 Cf. Derenbourg, J., Essai sur L'Histoire et la Géographie de la Palestine, Paris (1867), pp. 141–2Google Scholar.

56 The defilement of the Temple and the sacrifices is a prominent theme in post-Biblical literature (cf. Enoch 89:73, Testament of Levi 16:1, Psalms of Solomon 8:11 ff., the Assumption of Moses 5:3, and II Enoch 45:3).

57 See the valuable studies by Brownlee (op. cit.) and M. Burrows, (Oudtestamentische Studien, VIII 1950, 165 ff.).

page 158 note 1 This restoration is made absolutely certain by the remnants of the letters on the MSS.

page 158 note 2 Cf. DSD 11:9. CDC 20:28–9 also has the text of a confession, but the MSS is blurred.

wytwdw Ipny 'I ht'nw [ ] [ ] 'nhnw gm 'bwtynw

and they shall confess before God: “we have sinned [ ] [ ] both we and our fathers.”

Schechter read rš‘nw in the first lacuna; it cannot be seen clearly on the facsimile recently published by Prof. Zeitlin (cf. the facsimile of p. 20 in Schechter's volume). It appears that the formula of CDC was abbreviated to only two units of confession: ḥṭ'nw rš'nw.

page 158 note 3 Exodus 34:7, which has the three words in the same order is a list of divine attributes rather than a confession. In Psalm 51:5 we have only two elements, pešā'ai followed by ḥaṭṭā'tî.

page 159 note 4 The controversy between R. Meir (flourished a. 150) and the Rabbis is recorded in a Baraita (b. Yoma 36b). R. Meir based his conservative opinion on the evidence from Exodus and Leviticus. The Rabbis held that αωônôt were wilful sins, pešā'îm were rebellious acts, and ḥaṭâ'îm were inadvertent errors. They, therefore, favored the confession arranged according to the degree of offense.

page 159 note 5 The Gemara (ibid.) records the incident of a public reader who was rebuked for reciting the confession in the order of R. Meir. He replied that he was merely following the order found in the Bible. The fact that this reply was left unchallenged in the Gemara led the Gaon Saadiah and R. Hefeç. (both 10th cent.) to assume that the minority opinion of R. Meir was sustained. In a responsum to this question Sherîra (later 10th cent.) explained the incident and decided in favor of the majority. He is followed by all later authorities (cf. B. M. Levin, ‘Ŏçar Hag-ge'ônîm Jerusalem 1934, Vol. VI, 19–20; cf. Maimonides, Yad Ha-ḥazāqāh, Laws of the Day of Atonement Service, chapter 4, law 1).

page 159 note 6 Pesiqta Rabbati XXXV, 160b:

Truly, we have sinned, we have perverted ourselves, we have done wickedly, we have transgressed, we have revolted, and we have rebelled.

This is the standard formula to which Mar Zutra (d. 417) refers by its first three words: “Truly, we have sinned …” (b. Yoma 87b). The order here agrees with the majority opinion of the Rabbis. The same is true of the other specimens quoted by A. Büchler (JQR NS Vol. III, 1912–3, p. 555). It was only in the actual confession, however, that the modified order of the Rabbis was adopted; in the prayers for forgiveness we find variations:

… grant me atonement for all my transgressions, forgive all my iniquities, and pardon all my sins.

(Yerušalmî Yoma VIII, near end).

(This arrangement of elements agrees with that of Psalm 51:3–4; cf. Job 7:21). In Leviticus Rabbah III, 3 the older order of R. Meir is retained in the prayer for atonement:

… that you may forgive all my iniquities, pardon all my transgressions, and grant me atonement for all my sins.

page 159 note 7 In 1912 A. Büchler asserted that the synonyms for sin in the confession formula of CDC were taken from the Medieval form of the prayer and that the author of CDC knew the confession in the liturgy of the Jews in Talmudic times. Büchler, however, knew only the defective formula of CDC which consists of the last two elements of the full confession in DSD. We have seen that the latter is in full agreement with the ancient order of the Temple.