Abstract
This paper explores the references to atonement for the land in Early Jewish literature. The notion that sexual misconduct, idolatry, and bloodshed defile the land is well known from such scriptural texts as Lev 18:6–25, 27 and Num 35:33–34. Recent biblical scholarship distinguishes between ritual and moral impurities and places the defilement of the land within the latter category. For such moral impurities, the Torah makes no provision for a ritual removal. And yet, the book of Jubilees and Genesis Apocryphon depict Noah as offering a sacrifice to atone for the earth immediately after the Flood. Moreover, 1QWords of Moses (1Q22) in its description of the Day of Atonement mentions an atonement for the land. Finally, such sectarian texts as Community Rule (S), Rule of the Congregation, and 4QMiscellaneous Rules (4Q265) depict the sectarian community(ies) as atoning for the land. Looking closely at all these sources, this paper suggests that underlying all of them is a shared halakhic tradition that land can and should be atoned for by means of a sacrifice.
Three compositions found among the Dead Sea Scrolls—Community Rule, Rule of the Congregation, and 4QMiscellaneous Rules (4Q265)—relay a vision of a sectarian community(ies) atoning for the land. The references to the atonement for the land in these texts are brief and enigmatic, yet the general idea they convey seems to be clear. Hannah K. Harrington summarizes it as follows:
. . . “to atone for the land” (1QS 8:6) . . . refers to rectifying the adverse effect sin has had on the land of Israel . . . The sectarians, as true Israel, are trying to protect their own favor with God by offering atonement for the wickedness which has permeated the land.
1
The writings of the Yaḥad are not the only Early Jewish texts mentioning an atonement for the land. In Jubilees and Genesis Apocryphon (GA), Noah atones for the earth after the Flood, while the composition known as Words of Moses (1Q22) incorporates an atonement for the land in its description of the Day of Atonement. Although all these references have not gone unnoticed by scholars, to the best of my knowledge there has been no attempt to bring all of them together to bear on the development of what appears to be a shared halakhic tradition positing that the land defiled by sin can and should be atoned for by means of a sacrifice, a notion absent from the Hebrew Bible. In this essay I seek to fill in this gap. I begin with a brief discussion of the biblical references to the defilement of the land. From there I proceed with the sectarian Community Rule, Rule of the Congregation, and 4QMiscellaneous Rules. Next, I turn to the non-sectarian texts: first to Noah’s atoning for the earth in Jubilees and GA and then to the Yom Kippur regulations in the Words of Moses. Overall, I suggest that this shared halakhic tradition, associated with Noah in Jubilees and GA and Moses in 1Q22, appears in the writings of the Yaḥad with a sectarian twist: they claim that their temple-like community provides a better way to atone for the land than animal sacrifices.
Atonement for the land in the Hebrew Bible?
The Hebrew Bible names three offenses that defile the land: illicit bloodshed (Num 35:33–34; cf. Ps 106:38), idolatry (Jer 3:1–2, 9 [cf. Deut 24:4]; Ezek 36:18b), and sexual misconduct (Lev 18:6–25, 27). 2 The defilement caused by these sins cannot be removed by means of ablutions or sacrifices. Polluted by idolatry, sexual depravity, and bloodshed, the land eventually disgorges its inhabitants (Lev 18:24, 28). 3 Recent scholarship, distinguishing between ritual and moral impurities, places the defilement of the land within the latter category comprised of impurities that cannot be ritually removed. 4 And yet, in the case of a defilement caused by a murder, the Torah uses twice the language of atonement. Thus, Num 35:33 states that the blood defiles the land, and that this pollution can only be atoned for by the blood of the murderer: “and the land can have no expiation for blood (ולארץ לא יכפר לדם) that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.” 5 A similar view is found in Deut 32:43, where God atones for the land, וכפר אדמתו עמו (“and cleanse the land of His people”), defiled by the blood of His servants by taking revenge on his foes. 6 It is this language of atoning for the land that one finds in the sectarian texts from Qumran.
Atoning for the land in the sectarian texts from Qumran
Community Rule (S)
The sectarian composition known as the Community Rule (S) is represented at Qumran by some twelve manuscripts revealing a complex history of literary growth and transmission. 7 The best-preserved copy of the Rule, 1QS, includes three pericopae mentioning an atonement for the land: 1QS 8:1–7a; 8:8b–10a; and 9:3–6. The larger segment of the text in which they are all embedded, 1QS 8:1–9:11, has been compared to a “mosaic” of “thematically related but verbally distinguishable units.” 8 Significantly, a large piece of this “mosaic,” 1QS 8:15–9:11, is missing from one of the Cave 4 manuscripts of S, 4Q259 (4QSe). 9 All three passages depict the sectarian community as a sanctuary, a temple. In fact, they have a lot in common, both in terms of the topics they discuss and the language they use. For Charlotte Hempel, these similarities, along with the aforementioned absence of 1QS 8:15–9:11 from 4Q259, suggest a “pattern of repetition and gradual expansion.” 10 Much has been written about the temple metaphors embedded in these passages and their implications for assessing sectarians’ attitude toward the standing Temple. 11 Here I focus on one aspect of this temple-like community—its claim to atone for the land expressed in all the three passages by means of the verb כפ”ר and nouns רצון and ארץ. 12
The first of the three pericopae, 1QS 8:1–7a (with partial parallels in 4Q258 6:1 and 4Q259 2:13–16), begins with a description of the emerging “council of the community” comprised of fifteen members. It then depicts the community as “an eternal plant,” 13 “a holy house for Israel,” and “a most holy assembly for Aaron.” 14 The language of atonement for the land follows in line 6: 15
The key phrase for this discussion, ובחירי רצון לכפר בעד הארצ, is not an easy one to interpret. First, the noun רצון may stand for (God’s) good will or pleasure, 19 but also for an acceptable sacrifice. 20 Second, ארץ can be understood as referring to the land (or entire earth 21 ), its inhabitants, 22 or both. 23 Third, “sandwiched” between the phrases עדי אמת למשפט and ולהשב לרשעים גמולם, the atonement for the land might be interpreted as a retribution, a reading that would be quite in line with the aforementioned Deut 32:43 (ונקם ישיב לצריו וכפר אדמתו עמו), to which our לכפר בעד הארצ ולהשב לרשעים גמולם bears a resemblance. 24 At the same time, the cultic רצון and לכפר seem to hearken back to the preceding community-as-sanctuary imagery. In fact, in this passage atonement for the land is the only aspect of the community that aligns with its temple metaphors.
The second passage follows on the heels of the first one. It describes the community as a “holy dwelling for Aaron . . . to offer up a soothing odour a house of perfection and truth in Israel.” Its role in establishing the covenant is mentioned twice. First it is the “covenant of judgement” (or “justice”), 25 and then that of “the eternal statutes.” The atonement for the land appears here as an interlinear addition. It is absent from 4Q259 2:17–18, while the badly damaged manuscript 4Q258 6:4 seems to have just enough space to accommodate it in the main text:
The thrust of the key phrase והיו לרצון לכפר בעד הארצ appears to be the same as that of the first one. One notable difference between the two, however, is the use of the construction והיו לרצון. Whereas in the first passage רצון may be understood as either a good will/pleasure or an acceptable sacrifice, the biblical uses of the formula היה לרצון strongly suggest that the community here is an acceptable sacrifice atoning for the land (e.g., Isa 56:7). 28 Once again, the cultic language links this formulation to the preceding temple metaphors, though its association with the “judgement of wickedness” and its destruction (“and there is [or “shall be”] no iniquity”) is also there.
The third pericope, 1QS 9:3–5, absent from 4Q259 yet present in 4Q258 7:4–6, begins with a portrait of the community as “a foundation of the spirit of holiness” and then proceeds to describe its atoning functions:
Several aspects of this passage are notable. First, the phrase ולרצון לארצ, which I render, in accordance with the biblical uses of the construction -לרצון ל, as “acceptable in the land’s favor” (cf. Lev 22:20), leaves no doubt that the community is depicted here as an acceptable offering for the land. 30 What is somewhat unclear, however, is whether the preceding “to atone for the guilt of wrongdoing and sacrilege of sin,” is a general statement on the community’s atoning for human sins (e.g., of its members, as in 1QS 5:6) or a more specific claim to atone for the sins that defile the land. In my opinion, it is likely that the entire focus of this formulation is the atonement for the land.
This leads to the second and much-debated aspect of this passage. The prepositions -מ (מן) in מבשר עולות ומחלבי זבח has been subjected to several interpretations. 31 For some, the comparative force of -מ (מן) suggests that this community offers a more “acceptable” (לרצון) atonement then the “flesh of burnt offerings and fat of sacrifices.” 32 Others prefer a more neutral “without.” 33 Yet another rendering—“by means of” 34 or “through” 35 —is favored by those who argue that the community did not claim to replace Temple and its sacrifices. 36 Indeed, the interpretation of these -מ became entangled in the much wider question of the sectarians’ views on the Temple. 37 Yet, in my opinion, this passage has a narrower focus. I suggest that the phrase ולרצון לארצ מבשר עולות ומחלבי זבח makes a specific claim about the community’s atonement for the land. As I will argue below, it is in this “uncharted territory,” where the Torah prescribes no ritual, that this community proclaims its means of atonement to be more acceptable to God than the animal sacrifices. The readings that circumvent the comparative meaning of -מ miss this point entirely.
Third, the notion of the punishment of the wicked seems to be absent from this pericope. Perhaps, it is because the passage focuses on the more effective means of atonement. Yet it is also possible that it is implied in the phrase ותרומת שפתים למשפט. This collocation has been rendered as an “offering of the lips fittingly (offered).” 38 However, an “offering of the lips for judgement” is equally possible and, given the mention of the community’s role as “witnesses of truth for judgement” in the first pericope, is probably even preferable. 39
Rule of the Congregation
I turn now to the composition known as the Rule of the Congregation. This work provides regulations for the community in the last days. In its introductory statement, it describes the Yaḥad’s faithful members as those who kept God’s covenant when the wickedness was rampant (1QSa 1:3; with a parallel in 4Q249g [4Qpap cryptA Serekh ha-ʿEdahg] 1–2 4):
40
המה אנישי עצתו אשר שמרו בריתו בתוך רשעה לכפ֯[ר בעד האר]ץ֯ these are the men of his counsel who have kept his covenant amidst evil to aton[e for the lan]d
The text suggests that it is by keeping God’s covenant during the age of wickedness that the sectarians atoned for the land. There is no mention of the community as an acceptable sacrifice or of a punishment of the wicked. Perhaps, it is assumed that the latter has already taken place.
4QMiscellaneous Rules (4Q265)
The fragmentary scroll 4QMiscellaneous Rules (4Q265) preserves a passage (frag. 7) sharing phraseology with all the three aforementioned S pericopae. 41 It reads according to Qimron’s recent edition: 42
In addition to the mention of רצון, most likely “an acceptable sacrifice” paired here with ריח ניחוח, atonement for the land, and judgment, which are found in all the three S passages, the reference to the council of fifteen members has a parallel in the first pericope, sweet odor occurs in the second and the third, while the end of injustice is evoked in the second. Qimron’s new reading and reconstruction, מ̇ז[בח, “than a sacrifice,” has a parallel in the third pericope. 43
Next, I discuss three texts mentioning an atonement for the land/earth that are believed to originate within wider Second Temple Jewish circles. These are Jubilees, GA, and Words of Moses.
Noah’s Atonement for the earth in Jubilees and GA
Gen 8:20 reports that after the Flood Noah built an altar and offered sacrifices on it, “taking of every clean animal and of every clean bird, he offered burnt offerings on the altar.” While Genesis does not explain the motivation for Noah’s offerings, Jubilees and GA claim that thus he atoned for the earth.
44
Jubilees 6:1–3
45
On the first of the third month he left the ark and built an altar on this mountain. He made atonement
46
for the earth, took a kid and atoned with its blood for all the sins of the earth because everything that was on it had been obliterated except those who were in the ark with Noah. He placed the fat on the altar. Then he took a bull, a ram, a sheep, goats, salt, a turtledove, and a dove and offered (them as) a burnt offering on the altar. He was pouring on them an offering mixed with oil, sprinkled wine, and put frankincense on everything. He sent up a pleasant fragrance that was pleasing before the Lord.
Rewriting Gen 8:20, Jubilees modifies the biblical text in several ways. 47 First and foremost, Noah’s sacrifice here has a clearly designated purpose—it atones “for all the sins of the earth.” Although the text does not say that the earth became defiled because of the antediluvians’ sins, most commentators agree that Jubilees reads the Flood story through the lens of such Pentateuchal passages as Num 35:33 and applies them to the entire earth. 48 Indeed, the three sins of the Flood generation in Jub. 7:20–25—fornication, impurity, and injustice—match at least two of the biblical offenses polluting the land. “Fornication” here stands for the “illicit intercourse” between the Watchers and the women, also called “the first (acts) of impurity,” while “injustice” refers to the antediluvians’ “shedding innocent blood.” 49
That Noah atoned for the earth by means of a sacrifice, however, puzzled scholars. As was mentioned earlier, such a procedure is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Bible.
50
Moreover, the two passages using the language of atonement in the context of land’s impurity—Num 35:33 and Deut 32:43—imply that the death of the murderer atones for the land.
51
In the context of Noah’s story, this has been clearly accomplished by the Flood itself. To explain this seeming contradiction, Jacques van Ruiten argues that since Num 35:33 requires an expiation by the blood of the murderer and the blood of the antediluvians was unavailable to Noah, kid’s blood had to be used instead.
52
Daniel Falk and James VanderKam follow suit.
53
This solution, however, seems to be forced. Rather, it appears that for Jubilees the death of the sinners was insufficient to atone for “for all the sins of the earth.” A sacrifice was needed! That purification of the earth/land requires a ritual is implied elsewhere in this book. Thus, Jub. 4:26 describes an eschatological sanctification of the earth/land:
For there are four places on earth that belong to the Lord: the Garden of Eden, the mountain of the east, this mountain on which you are today—Mount Sinai—and Mount Zion (which) will be sanctified in the new creation for the sanctification of the earth.
54
For this reason the earth will be sanctified from all its sins and from its uncleanness into the history of eternity.
Although the language here is that of a “sanctification,” and not of an atonement, the idea appears to be the same, as is indicated by the references to the earth’s “sins” and “uncleanness.” 55 How exactly a future sanctification of Mt. Zion will sanctify the earth is not specified. However, since Zion is associated in Jubilees with the Jerusalem Temple (cf. Jub. 1:29: “the temple of the Lord . . . on Mount Zion”), it is likely that the sanctification will be accomplished by means of (a ritual in?) the eschatological Temple which will be built by God’s own hands (Jub. 1:28–29; 4:26).
To recast Noah’s sacrifice as an atonement for the earth, Jubilees modifies it in three ways. First, it introduces an offering of a kid, most likely a “purification offering” (חטאת), for it is only its fat that Noah offers on the altar (cf. Lev 4:26).
56
Second, it clarifies the list of the animals that Noah presents as burnt offerings: a bull, a ram, a sheep, goats, a turtledove, and a dove. Third, Jubilees includes an offering of oil, wine, and frankincense. In search for the biblical parallels to this sacrificial procedure, Falk suggests that it is modeled on the biblical “purification offerings for the congregation.” In his opinion, Jubilees harmonizes here Lev 4:13–21 and Num 15:22–26, places the purification offering before the burnt offerings (as does the Temple Scroll), and includes a meal and a drink offerings.
57
VanderKam notes several other biblical rituals that incorporate an offering of a kid/goat, including the Day of Atonement (Lev 16: 9, 15–16; cf. also Num 29:11).
58
In support of the latter proposal, Anke Dorman points to the echoes of Yom Kippur in Jubilees’ Flood account (Jub. 5:17–18; 6:2).
59
In my opinion, one feature of the biblical Day of Atonement is particularly interesting in this regard. Moral impurity is known to defile the sanctuary.
60
Lev 16:16, outlining what the High Priest had to do with the blood of the goat supplied by the people of Israel as a purification offering, provides for a removal of moral impurity from the sanctuary:
61
Thus he shall purge the Shrine of the uncleanness and transgression of the Israelites, whatever their sins; and he shall do the same for the Tent of Meeting, which abides with them in the midst of their uncleanness.
Surely, this is a description of the purging of the Tabernacle, and not of the entire land (or earth).62 Still, a ritual removal of moral impurity from a physical structure could be potentially extended to other objects.
Genesis Apocryphon 10:13–17 63
A comparison between GA and Jubilees’ accounts yields several observations. 64 First, in GA, Noah’s atonement is emphatically all-encompassing: “for all the earth in its entirety.” Second, GA places even more weight on the order of the sacrifice by numbering its respective stages. Third, the description of the offering here is more detailed. For instance, GA explains what Noah does with the blood and includes an offering of the salt. 65 Finally, there is yet another notable feature about GA’s account. Further on, in GA 11:1, after the sacrifice, Noah appears to be still in the ark. Moshe Bernstein proposes that GA reorders the sequence of the events so that the sacrifice takes place before disembarkment (11:1). He hypothesizes that Noah refrained from leaving the ark while the earth was still impure. 66 That a defiled land could render its dwellers impure is hardly a biblical point view—moral impurities are not contagious. Yet, such a stance, fusing moral and ritual impurities, is attested to in the rabbinic sources. Thus, Mishnah Ohalot 2:3 lists “a foreign country” (וארץ העמים) among entities and substances conveying uncleanness by contact and carrying. 67
Words of Moses
Finally, I turn to the composition known as the Words of Moses (Divre Mosheh). Found in two copies at Qumran—one represented by a single fragment and another by remains of some four badly damaged columns (1Q22)—this composition is cast as Moses’s farewell discourse as Israel is about to cross the Jordan. 68 It thus assumes a literary setting of the book of Deuteronomy. 69 And like Deuteronomy, it opens with Moses’s exhortation and then proceeds with presenting legal matters which it arranges topically. One of such topics is the Day of Atonement. The extant text of 1Q22 here is highly fragmentary. Still, it is quite clear that Words of Moses significantly reworks its biblical sources, Leviticus 16 and Numbers 29. Thus in 3:8–12, there is an expansion presumably associating this festival with the Israelites’ wanderings in the desert. 70 Column 4, line 1 continues with what appears to be an aggregated list of sacrifices that were offered during that day. This line seems to conclude with a statement explaining the purpose of these offerings—an atonement for the people and an atonement for the land. 71
Elisha Qimron restores the second line as follows: 72
Admittedly, the text is highly fragmentary, and much remains conjectural. Even the key words כפ’’ר and ארץ are partially reconstructed. And yet, it is one of those cases where the reconstructions appear to be quite plausible. For instance, the collocation ]שפך בארץ with a preposition -ב (and not על) in line 2 may point to Num 35:33: לא יכפר לדם אשר שפך בה. Hence is Qimron’s reconstruction לטהרם] מן [הדם הנ]שפך בארץ]. I would, however, suggest [הדם] מן [לטהרה], “ [to purify it] from [ the blood],” as in our sources the illicit bloodshed defiles the land, and not the people.
Needless to say, the atonement for the land is missing from the biblical prescriptions for the Day of Atonement. Significantly, here it is presented as Moses’s command right before Israel enters the Promised Land. The authority of Moses is undoubtedly an excellent way to support a halakhic innovation. Moreover, the timing is perfect—this command becomes relevant only now, as they cross the Jordan. Of course, if viewed from the vantage point of Jubilees and GA, this is not an innovation at all, but rather a continuation or a renewal of the practice that goes back to Noah. Only now the atonement for the land is a part of an annual celebration, the one during which not only the people of Israel are purified from their sins but also their land.
Conclusion
The foregoing discussion leads to three suggestions. First, I propose that all these texts are familiar with a halakhic tradition positing that in order to remove a defilement from the land a sacrifice is required. Jubilees and GA place the origins of this tradition with Noah and provide a detailed account of the appropriate sacrificial procedure. In the Words of Moses, it is Moses who evokes an annual atonement for the land as a part of the Day of Atonement ritual.
Second, I suggest that such a halakhic tradition, assuming that the defilement of the land, a moral impurity, can be removed by means of a sacrifice (a purification medium reserved in the Hebrew Bible for ritual impurities) is best understood in light of the shifts in Jewish views on purity and impurity in Second Temple period. Jonathan Klawans has demonstrated that sectarian texts from Qumran reflect a “nearly complete” identification of the moral and ritual impurities. 73 Our halakhic tradition, attested to in both sectarian and non-sectarian texts, appears to be another example of such a fusion between the two. 74
Third, I posit that Jubilees, GA, and the Words of Moses provide the background to better understand the sectarian claim to atone for the land. The use of the temple imagery and cultic language in the sectarian texts suggests that they are familiar with a “variant” of the aforementioned halakhic tradition that situates the atonement for the land in the Tabernacle/Temple, as is the case in the Words of Moses. This, in turn, leads to two observations. First, it appears that the community’s claim to offer a more acceptable atonement for the land than the animal sacrifices should be understood as a polemic, not against the Temple and its sacrificial cult in general, but against the efficacy of a halakhic procedure akin to that of the Words of Moses. The sectarian community seems to accept the main premise of this halakhic innovation, that is, that a ritual atonement is required to remove the defilement, yet claims to provide a more effective means of such an atonement. 75 Second, in this regard it is curious that while in Jubilees and GA Noah offers purification and burnt offerings, 1QS 9:3–5 states that the community’s atonement for the land is more acceptable than the flesh of the burnt offerings and the fat of purification (?) sacrifices. And as with Noah’s sacrifice (be it in Genesis, Jubilees, or GA), so in S there is a mention of the pleasant “odor.” Hence, one wonders whether S might be familiar with the sacrificial procedure underlying the account of Noah’s atonement in Jubilees and GA.
Given the paucity of the evidence, these suggestions are to be taken with a grain of salt. As one delves into our texts, it becomes clear that what they have to say on the atonement for the land is only the tip of the iceberg. It is also evident that the matter was of much concern for some circles, both sectarian and non-sectarian. Indeed, as E.P. Sanders puts it: “The Land of Israel must be atoned for; else it would have to be destroyed . . .” 76 It is hoped that this short study serves as another step toward a better understanding of the Second Temple Jewish views on the defilement of the land and its atonement.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for her or his helpful suggestions. The responsibility for the final version of the article is my alone.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
1
Hannah K. Harrington, “Identity and Alterity in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Jewish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba (ed. Benedikt Eckhardt; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 71–89 (82–83); Hannah K. Harrington, The Purity and Sanctuary of the Body in Second Temple Judaism (JAJSup 33; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019), 198.
2
Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22, AB (Garden City: Doubleday, 2000), 1571–84. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible one also finds general references to the defilement of the land wherein the precise nature of the sins that caused it is not made explicit (see, e.g., Isa 24:4; Ezek 36:17; Ezra 9:11).
3
Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22, 1573–74.
4
On the ritual and moral impurities see Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 26–31. On the defilement of the land as a moral impurity see Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22, 1573–74; Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 88–89.
5
Unless noted otherwise, I follow here the new JPS (Tanakh) translation.
6
The somewhat difficult reading אדמתו עמו found in the MT should be compared to אדמת עמו of 4Q44 (4QDeutq) 5 ii 1 and SamP. The LXX Exodus also reflects the latter reading: τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ. The Aramaic Targummim, however, read this phrase as referring to both the “land” and its “people.” See TgO: על ארעיה ועל עמיה, TgN: על ארעא ועל עמא, and TgPs.-J.: על חובי ארעיה ועמיה.
7
Charlotte Hempel, The Community Rules from Qumran: A Commentary (TSAJ 183; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), 2–3, 15–53.
8
Carol A. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (STDJ 52; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 152.
9
On this manuscript see Hempel, The Community Rules from Qumran, 38–44.
10
Charlotte Hempel, “Emerging Communal Life and Ideology in the S Tradition,” in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Florentino García Martínez and Mladen Popovic, STDJ 70; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 43–61 (50).
11
In addition to the studies cited below, see Eyal Regev, “Community as Temple: Revisiting Cultic Metaphors in Qumran and the New Testament,” BBR 28 (2018): 604–31, and bibliography cited there.
12
The similarities (and differences) in the ways the three passages use these textual elements are discussed in Jacob Licht, The Rule Scroll (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1965), 172 (Hebrew).
13
1QS appears to employ here an imagery of an “eternal plant,” למטעת עולם—a metaphor used elsewhere in S (1QS 11:8), as well as in other Second Temple writings. At the same time, 4Q259 reads here ש֯̇פ̇ט[למ]עולם֯, “for] eternal [ju]dgement (or [ju]stice).” Hempel, The Community Rules from Qumran, 222, suggests that the former is a corruption of the latter, while Philip Alexander and Geza Vermes, DJD 26:143, believe that 1QS preserves a better reading.
14
See Hempel, The Community Rules from Qumran, 217–32.
15
Here and below the Hebrew text of S follows (with some adjustments) the edition by Sarianna Metso, Michael A. Knibb, and Chad Martin Stauber, The Community Rule, EJL 51 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2019). The English translation is based on that of Hempel, The Community Rules from Qumran, with alterations.
16
There is a deleted he prior to the word עצת.
17
There is a deleted lamed next to the word באמת.
18
There is a deleted yod after bet.
19
Thus, among others, Hempel, The Community Rules from Qumran, 219: “ch{.}osen by the will (of God).” Alexander & Vermes, DJD 26:143, prefer “good pleasure.”
20
See, for instance, Licht, The Rule Scroll, 172; Paul Garnet, Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls, WUNT 3 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1977), 67; Susan Haber, “They Shall Purify Themselves”: Essays on Purity in Early Judaism (ed. Adele Reinhartz, EJL 24; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 115.
21
Licht, The Rule Scroll, 173.
22
Gudrun Holtz, “Inclusivism at Qumran,” DSD 16 (2009): 22–54.
23
This possibility is entertained by Licht, The Rule Scroll, 173.
24
Peters, Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 179.
25
For the rendering “judgment,” see James H. Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community (1QS),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translation: Volume 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. James H. Charlesworth, PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), 1–51 (35); Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 159. For “justice,” see Geza Vermes, The Compete Dead Sea Scrolls in English: Revised Edition (London: Penguin, 2004), 109; Hempel, The Community Rules from Qumran, 219.
26
There is a deleted word above להקם.
27
In the following interlinear addition there is a deleted word between רשעה and ואין.
28
See, for instance, Preben Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline (STDJ 1; Leiden: Brill, 1957), 128; Licht, The Rule Scroll, 172–73.
29
On מעל as “sacrilege” see Daniel Falk, “Scriptural Inspiration for Penitential Prayer in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Seeking the Favor of God: Volume 2: The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2007), 127–57 (147–56).
30
Moreover, that לרצון here is a cultic term denoting an acceptable sacrifice is supported by the ensuing כנדבת מנחת רצון where all the three nouns are borrowed from the sacrificial domain. Cf. Vermes, Compete Dead Sea Scrolls, 109: “and they shall be an acceptable offering.”
31
A parallel text in 4Q248 (4QSd) 7:5 reads וחלבי זבחים. See Hempel, The Community Rules from Qumran, 242.
32
Thus, for instance, William H. Brownlee, The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1951), 34; Licht, The Rule Scroll, 173; and more recently Devorah Dimant, “The Volunteers in the ‘Rule of the Community’: A Biblical Notion in Sectarian Garb,” RevQ 23 (2007): 233–45 [240] (reprinted in her History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls, FAT 90 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014], 289–99).
33
See Vermes, Compete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 110 (“that they may obtain loving-kindness for the Land without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of sacrifice”); Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” 39 (“so that [God’s] favor for the land [is obtained] without the flesh of burnt-offerings and without the fat of sacrifices”; 39); Florentino García Martínez and Eibert Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition: 2 Volumes (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 1:91 (“and for approval for the earth, without the flesh”). For discussion see Haber, They Shall Purify Themselves, 116–17.
34
See Jean Carmignac, “L’utilité ou l’inutilité des sacrifices sanglants dans la ‘Règle de la Communauté’ de Qumrân,” RB 63 (1956): 524–32.
35
Michael Owen Wise, Martin G. Abegg, and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, rev. ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), 130.
36
Hempel, The Community Rules from Qumran, 242–43.
37
This is, for instance, the main argument for a rejection of a comparative reading of -מ in Hermann Lichtenberger’s “Atonement and Sacrifice in the Qumran Community,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Volume 2 (ed. William Scott Green; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), 159–71 (161–62). For a succinct argument against a claim that Yaḥad rejected the Temple, see Martin Goodman, “The Qumran Sectarians and the Temple,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Contexts (STDJ 90; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 263–73.
38
Thus Hempel, The Community Rules from Qumran, 242. Vermes, Compete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 110, prefers “of righteousness.” Similarly Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline, 35, translates “sacrifices of right offerings.” García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 91, render למשפט as “in compliance with the decree.”
39
For this rendering see Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” 39. If correct, one wonders whether the assumption that this phrase implies such activities as prayer and study (Dimant, “Volunteers,” 241) should be reconsidered or extended. Perhaps, it is the testimony against the wicked that is (also?) meant here.
40
The Hebrew text is from Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew Writings from Qumran: A Composite Edition (Tel-Aviv: published electronically, 2020), 1:235 (Hebrew). The English translation is from James H. Charlesworth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Rule of the Congregation (1QSa),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translation: Volume 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents (PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), 108–17 (111 with alterations).
41
See discussion in Hempel, “Emerging Communal Life,” 58–59; Hempel, The Community Rules from Qumran, 52–53.
42
Qimron, Hebrew Writings from Qumran, 3:50. I have left out most of his reconstructions. The English translation is from Joseph Baumgarten, DJD 35:70, with alterations.
43
Baumgarten, DJD 35:70, reads here [מנ֯[חה.
44
Van Ruiten observes that modern commentators oscillate between expiation and thanksgiving. See Jacques van Ruiten, Primeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis 1-11 in the Book of Jubilees (SJSJ 66; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 224–25.
45
All the quotations from Jubilees are from James C. VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018), 2 vols.
46
The majority of Ethiopic manuscripts read here “he appeared.” VanderKam, Jubilees, 1:305, follows a minority opinion assuming a scribal lapse, as the two verbs are quite similar graphically. Cana Werman, however, insists on the reading “appeared.” Since Genesis Apocrypon also presents Noah as atoning for the earth, she argues that the author of Jubilees, who was familiar with the Apocryphon, intentionally changed the language from atoning to appearing thus de-emphasizing “the notion, introduced by the Apocryphon, that the Earth is still defiled after the Flood.” Cana Werman, “Qumran and the Book of Noah,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Esther G. Chazon, Michael E. Stone, and Avital Pinnick, STDJ 31; Brill, 1999), 171–81 (175–77); Cana Werman, The Book of Jubilees: Introduction, Translation, and Interpretation (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2016), 223 (Hebrew).
47
On Jubilees’ dating of the sacrifice to the third month as an attempt to situate the covenant with Noah in the month this book associates with covenants, see VanderKam, Jubilees, 2:304.
48
See van Ruiten, Primeval History Interpreted, 222–28; VanderKam, Jubilees, 1:303–8. Werman, Book of Jubilees, 223, however, argues that the phrase “and atoned with its blood for all the sins of the earth” is a scribal lapse. Instead of “the sins of the earth,” in her opinion one should read here “people of the earth,” while the atonement is for those who were in the ark. For a detailed refutation of her arguments see VanderKam, ibid., 1:305–6.
49
VanderKam, Jubilees, 1:331.
50
As observed by Werman, Book of Jubilees, 223.
51
One might note that Jub. 7:33 cites Num 35:33 and applies to the entire earth: “For the earth will not be purified of the blood which has been shed on it; but by the blood of the one who shed it the earth will be purified in all its generations” (partially preserved in 4Q219 2:19; cf. also Jub 21:19).
52
Van Ruiten, Primeval History Interpreted, 226.
53
Daniel K. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 71; VanderKam, Jubilees, 1:306 (with reference to the parallel account in Genesis Apocryphon).
54
VanderKam considers “land,” but prefers “earth” in light of the tone of the passage. VanderKam, Jubilees, 1:262.
55
For an attempt to read this passage as referring to the inhabitants of the earth, see Todd Russell Hanneken, The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 190. This discussion renders his interpretation highly unlikely.
56
As was noted (with reference to the parallel account in Genesis Apocryphon) by Moshe J. Bernstein, “From the Watchers to the Flood: Story and Exegesis in the Early Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran (ed. Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant, and Ruth Clements, STDJ 58; Brill, 2005), 39–63 (58). For rendering חטאת as “purification offering” see Jacob Milgrom, “Sin-Offering or Purification-Offering?,” VT 21 (1971): 237–39. For a list of occasions when this sacrifice was to be offered, see Gary A. Anderson, “The Interpretation of the Purification Offering (חטאת) in the Temple Scroll (11QTemple) and Rabbinic Literature,” JBL 111 (1992): 17–35 (22).
57
Falk, Parabiblical Texts, 69–70. On Lev 4:3–21 and Num 15:22–31 see Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadelphia: JPS, 1990), 402–5; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 264–69.
58
VanderKam, Jubilees, 1:304–8.
59
Anke Dorman, “‘Commit Injustice and Shed Innocent Blood’: Motives behind the Institution of the Day of Atonement in the Book of Jubilees,” in The Day of Atonement: Its Interpretations in Early Jewish and Christian Traditions (ed. Thomas Hieke and Tobias Nicklas, Themes in Biblical Narrative; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 47–61 (54).
60
For instance, in Lev 20:3 an alien resident offering his offspring to Molech defiles the sanctuary.
61
Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 30.
62
Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 30 and n64; Milgrom, Numbers, 444–45.
63
The Aramaic text and its English translation are from the forthcoming study by Dan Machiela and Rob Jones, “The Beginnings and Ends of Sacrifice: A Shared Reimagining of the Cultic Past in the Genesis Apocryphon and the Aramaic Levi Document.” I am grateful to Professor Machiela for sharing with me a draft of this paper.
64
Falk, The Parabiblical Texts, 70.
65
Machiela & Jones, “Shared Reimagining,” consider this sacrifice to be “a paradigmatic ‘super sacrifice’ of sorts, a basic framework for future sacrificial practice . . .” They compare these sacrificial instructions to Isaac’s teaching to Levi in ALD 8 and argue for a strong literary affinity between the two works.
66
Bernstein, “From the Watchers to the Flood,” 59.
67
Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 30.
68
Published by Józef T. Milik in DJD 1:91–97, 1Q22 was subsequently re-edited by Qimron and myself. Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, Between Bible and Mishnah (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013), 2:104–106; Józef T. Milik, Hebrew Writings from Qumran, 104–6; Ariel Feldman, “1Q22 (Words of Moses),” in Ariel Feldman and Liora Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation (ed. Devorah Dimant, BZAW 449; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 225–66. For the identification of the 4Q fragment of this work see Eibert Tigchelaar, “A Cave 4 Fragment of Divre Mosheh (4QDM) and the Text of 1Q22 I 7–10 and Jubilees 1:9, 14,” DSD 12 (2005): 303–12.
69
Ariel Feldman, “Moses’ Farewell Address According to 1QWords of Moses (1Q22),” JSP 23 (2014): 201–14.
70
Feldman, “1Q22,” 244.
71
Feldman, “1Q22,” 245. In the beginning of line 1, I read ]אלים ◦[, “rams” (Lev 16:3, 5; Num 29:8–9), whereas Milik (DJD 1:95), followed by Qimron (Hebrew Writings from Qumran, 2:106), places there a small fragment reading ו֯̇בעדת אלים (“and in the council of gods/god-like ones”). In my opinion this placement is unwarranted.
72
Qimron, Hebrew Writings from Qumran, 2:106.
73
Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 49, 75–88.
74
Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 155, makes a similar suggestion regarding the references to atonement for the land in S.
75
Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 89, suggests that our texts reflect a hope for the eschatological purification of the land. There is, however, no need to assume that S passages speak of the last days. And this is certainly not the case with 1Q22.
76
E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 303.