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

Re: 4Q521

Regarding Jim West's question of resurrection among
Qumran texts:

In addition to to 4Q521, there is also 
4Q385, which, however,  reworks Ezekiel 37.
Some of the departures from the biblical text, including
the rising of people who bless YHWH Sebaoth, might be
of relevance.

For further discussion on this point and others, I
recommend the excursus on Resurrection in John J. Collin's
commentary on Daniel (Hermeneia series) 394-397. He
observes on p. 397 that "even if 4Q521 is accepted as a
sectarian document, the evidence for resurrection in
the Qumran corpus remains remarkably sparse."

Given the sparseness of our data ( 2 texts at most) it is difficult
to make any kind of global claims about the presence or absence
of " a Sadducean thread in Qumran belief, " an issue in itself already
fraught with difficulties of method. Given the disparate nature of
of the collection of Qumran texts, these two texts are not sufficient
proof for or against such a claim.

Alternatively, given the sparseness of our data, it difficult to
claim that the other writers of the Qumran texts were "denying"
 resurrection as opposed to being simply uninterested in it. 
Finally, it is important to  keep in mind at what point 
our sources were written. For instance, Collins argues that,
in contrast to earlier times, a "belief in some
form of resurrection was widespread in Judaism was widespread
by the first-century C.E. (398). Consider at what stage in the process
the Qumran materials and the materials about Sadducees (Josephus,
Gospels,  Rabbinic literature) might have been written. If the
time-frame is a important factor, the distinction between the Qumran
material and the beliefs ascribed to the Sadduccees is not purely

Naomi Jacobs
Brandeis University