Jeremiah at Qumran

The eminent status of Jeremiah’s prophecies is well reflected in late biblical books of the Second Temple era, focused as they are on the Jeremianic prophecy forecasting seventy years of Israel’s servitude to Babylon (Jer 25:11–12; 29:10). They proposed various interpretations (see Zach 1:12; 7:5; 2 Chr 36:20–21; Dan 9) and the interest in this prediction continued well into the last centuries of the Second Temple period (e.g., 1 En 10–12; 89:59–90; 93:1–10; 91:11–17). The owners of the Qumran library shared this interest. Beside five copies of Jeremiah prophetic compositions, surfaced among the Scrolls, the Qumran texts contain various allusions and quotations from Jeremiah's biblical prophecies, including some concealed pesharim. This chapter surveys them in its first section. In its second part the chapter reviews and analyzes the references to the prophet’s personality and life, elaborated in the Damascus Document 8:20 and in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C.

The Damascus Document

The Damascus Document is an ancient Hebrew text that is one of the longest, oldest, and most important of the ancient scrolls found near Khirbet (ruins of) Qumran, usually referred to collectively as the Dead Sea Scrolls for the proximity of the Qumran settlement and eleven nearby caves to the Dead Sea. Its oldest parts originate in the mid- to late second century BCE. While the earliest discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls occurred in 1947, the Qumran Damascus Document fragments were discovered in 1952 (but not published in full until 1996), mainly in what is designated as Qumran Cave Four (some ten manuscripts altogether). However, it is unique in that two manuscripts (MS A and MS B) containing parts and variations of the same text were discovered much earlier, in 1896 (and published in 1910), among the discarded texts of the Cairo Geniza, the latter being written in the tenth-eleventh centuries CE. Together, the manuscripts of the Damascus Document, both ancient and medieval, are an invaluable source for understanding many aspects of ancient Jewish (and before that Israelite) history, theology, sectarian ideology, eschatology, liturgy, law, communal leadership, canon formation, and practice. Central to the structure of the overall text, is the intersection of law, both what we would call “biblical” (or biblically derived) and “communal,” and narrative/historical admonitions, perhaps modeled after a similar division the biblical book of Deuteronomy. A suitable characterization of the Damascus Document, to which we will repeatedly return, could be “bringing the Messiah through law.” Because of the longevity of its discovery, translation, publication, and debated interpretation, there is a long history of modern scholarship devoted to this ancient text.

Introduction

The Introduction sets the stage, in broad strokes, for the volume as a whole. It introduces the reader to a close study of the Damascus Document, its historical allusions, and relevance for the origins of the sectarian communities reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Texts, Translations, Notes, and Commentary

The chapter provides a critical representation of the text(s), based on manuscript comparison and consulting of digital images, an English translation that cleaves to the original Hebrew while rendering it in accessible prose. Critical Notes to both the Hebrew text and its English translation, and a Commentary that seeks to highlight and interconnect the overarching themes and rhetorical strategies of the text, as it might have been communally performed in the intellectual and ritual life of the Qumran community (or communities). Suggestions for Further Reading are incorporated into each section. The Notes, which form the largest part of this chapter, identify and analyze the plenitude of both explicit (citation) and implicit (allusion) scriptural interpretation, both legal and non-legal, as well as convergences and divergences with a panoply of ancient Jewish sources, including, in addition to the Hebrew Bible, other scrolls, other second temple Jewish literature, New Testament, and early rabbinic sources, the last of which is a particular feature of this commentary in comparison to its antecedents (see Ancient Source indices). These cross-references will serve to better understand and appreciate the Damascus Document in its broader historical and cultural contexts. The Comments on each editorial unit seek to frame the text in relation to broader consideration of the identity formation, reinforcement, and transmission of both individuals and communities, of both veteran members and novices. Particular attention is given to the seeming polemical nature of much of the text, as well as its intra-mural educational purposes. The commentary takes seriously the self-designation of the community, through this text (CD [MS B] 20:10, 13), as a studying and practicing community, “the house of the Torah.” Another important feature of the Damascus Document, and hence its commentary, is the different types and functions of human leadership of the community which sees both it leaders and itself as divinely elect and in possession of esoteric wisdom and discernment.

The Non-Masoretic Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek Ezekiel (LXX967/LXXB), Other Non-Masoretic and Proto-Masoretic Ezekiel Texts: Evidence from Quotations of and Allusions to Ezekiel in Second Temple Judaism

In Second Temple Jewish Literature, more than a hundred quotations of and allusions to Ezekiel are preserved. Although only a few of them are text-critically relevant, these cases may help to shed light on the complex textual history of the book. In this article, eleven cases of quotations and allusions are analyzed in detail: Six cases should be regarded as evidence for the existence of the non-masoretic Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek Ezekiel. In two of these cases, non-aligned textual elements appear as well. Taken together with two non-aligned cases in the Damascus Document, these quotations and allusions substantiate the assumption that even more non-masoretic Ezekiel texts were in use until the beginning of the first century BCE—alongside proto-masoretic Ezekiel texts, which are attested by three cases of quotations and allusions.

Two Damascus Document Fragments and Mistaken Identities

Two of the unidentified Cave 4 fragments preserving text of the Damascus Document which were mistakenly associated with 4Q269 should instead be assigned to 6Q15, since they join to 6Q15 fragment 1. This is the first case of a join between fragments claimed to have come from different caves. Also PAM 41.734 does not clearly distinguish between all Cave 4 and Cave 6 fragments.

Register and Rhetoric

Despite 4QMMT having been informally called a “Halakhic Letter” since its first publication, more recently some scholars have expressed skepticism as to the original genre of this text. This article aims to provide empirical and theoretical support for what one might call the orthodox position: that this text was in fact a letter originally. By means of a detailed linguistic comparison between 4QMMT and the Damascus Document, it will be shown that despite many surface similarities between these texts in terms of structure and rhetoric, they present extremely divergent grammars. This in turn raises a fundamental question: how could two texts likely produced by the same community be so different linguistically? It will be argued that the most plausible explanation is that these two texts were written in distinct registers in order to accommodate to distinct literary genres. While the language of MMT can reasonably be called closer to the contemporary vernacular, the Damascus Document seems to be patterned after the language of the higher register of biblical narrative. From here, sociolinguistic research will be employed in an effort to show that the epistolary genre reliably reflects a lower register across languages and cultures, thereby justifying the orthodox position with respect to MMT.