[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: question



On Wed, 3 Apr 1996 STONE@vms.huji.AC.IL wrote:

> 
> I have a query that has come out of writing the article on Qahat for
> the Encyclopedia of the DSS. It is this:
> Qahat refers to an opposition of light and darkness (cf. col. ii).
> 
> Puech in his edition of Qahat points out this dualistic aspect.
> 
> He also thinks, as Milik suggested, and I concur, that Qahat is
> dependent of Aramaic Levi. Qahat is dated second century, i.e.,
> after Aramaic Levi (itself dated, not the least, because it is
> used by Jubilees, and so must be early second century at the
> (sorry, please put a parenthesis after Jubilees!) earliest and
> late second century (by the paleography of the Ms) at the latest.
> Aramaic Levi is, therefore, pre-Qumran. Qahat bears no sectarian
> signs.
> 
> However, Aramaic Levi uses the 364 day calendar and also has
> language of two spirits and other such features, as Jonas Greenfield
> and I showed in our article in JBL a couple of years ago.
> 
> Milik pointed out such dualistic language also in 4QVis Amram.
> 
> This seems to indicate that in a sacerdotal wing of Judaism,
> in the third century or early second century, there were people
> who held a 364 days' calendar, dualism of light and dark, two
> spirits etc. The particular range of sectarian language of the
> undisputedly Qumran documents is missing. These documents are
> all three in Aramaic.
> 
> I would appreciate any other evidence net members may have
> about this pre-Qumran sectarianism.

Michael
 
	Some years ago, in "Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest" (HUCA 50[1979]: 
115-35) I concluded that the fallen Watcher story in 1 Enoch 6-16 was a 
sectarian polemic directed against the priesthood and suggested that it 
pointed to the development of sectarianism in the third century.  
Subsequently, I read a paper entitled "The Priesthood and Apocalyptic" in 
a national SBL section chaired by Jacob Milgrom, in which I argued that 
not only was this polemic directed against the priesthood but that it 
also seemed to come from priestly sources which might also be involved in 
the development of apocalypticism.  The problem I sought to address in 
the paper was how apocalypticism, which at that point was being 
associated with groups or even conventicles coming from the periphery of 
society could be associated with priests, who seemed to represent more 
the theocratic center of society.
	In think that you are correct in looking for the origins of 
sectarianism in the third century, and it seems to me that the Enoch 
literature (at least, 1 Enoch 6-16) forms a kind of counterpoint to the 
priestly testaments you're working with.  The dualism of the passage from 
Enoch is one of heaven and earth, tracing the origin of sin to the 
illegitimate mixing of the two realms, rather than light and dark, and 
therefore is not so heavily charged with the opposition of good and evil 
as the two-spirit theology of the scrolls.  What I find interesting is 
the way in which these two traditions flow together in the literature of 
the period.  In Jubilees, the Watcher story is featured alongside the 
appearance of Mastema, while in the Testament of Amram Belial and Michael 
both seem to be considered Watchers or (irin.  I had assumed that the 
two-spirit dualism was subsequent to the heaven/earth dualism of Enoch 
(with the assumption that the move from one to the other reflected the 
emergence of a more radical sectarian movement); however, from your post 
it seems that the two may appear contemporaneously but separately in the 
third century.  Perhaps we should be sensitive to the possibility of 
varieties of dualism in the literature of the period (I'll need to dredge 
up a reference to a JBL article of some years ago by John Gammie on this 
subject) and ask how one goes about moving from varieties of dualism in 
the literature to conclusions about sectarianism (more on this in a 
subsequent post).
 
Best,
 
David Suter
Saint Martin's College