PRESCIPTIONS AND PRACTICES: THE CASE OF
THE COMMUNAL OATH
Sarianna Metso, Albion College
A
person aspiring to be admitted into the Essene community was required to swear
an oath to follow the Law of Moses and to separate from outsiders. That aspect
of the admission procedure will be used in this article as a test case for
studying the process of generating halakhah in the Essene community. The
special focus here will be to explore the derivation of rules such as these in
the light of the varying manuscripts the Community Rule and the Damascus
Document, and the degree of their authoritativeness in the life of the Essene
community in relation to the laws of the Torah. This topic has been discussed
earlier by Lawrence Schiffman, Philip Davies, and Moshe Weinfeld, but the
evidence from Cave 4 raises a new interesting possibility: some of the
community legislation seems to have been derived not from Scripture, but simply
from the exigencies of communal life, and only secondarily argued as resting on
scriptural authority.
The
first part of this article will briefly discuss the oath of the candidates in
its textual contexts as descriptions of community practice. The second part
will analyze the relevant sections of the Community Rule and the Damascus
Document especially in the light of the redactional development illumined by
the Cave 4 material. The third part will demonstrate that it was not always
scriptural exegesis, but it was sometimes the exigencies of community life that
generated halakhah. The stipulations of this particular oath serve as an
example of how halakhic traditions could emerge independently from Scripture,
and only secondarily acquire scriptural legitimation.
I
The Oath in Its Textual Contexts
The Community Rule has been preserved in
two different editions in the manuscript tradition: a shorter one in 4QSb,d,
and a secondarily expanded one in 1QS. The general differences in the quantity
and content of text between the earlier and the later editions are observable
also in this instance regarding the oath (1QS V,7-20//4QSb
IX,6-13//4QSd I,5-7). The version of 4QSb,d makes no
reference to the Scriptures in its discussion of the two stipulations of the
oath, whereas in the redacted version of 1QS we find a possible allusion to Num
30:13, an indirect quote of Lev 22:16, and explicit quotes of Ex 23:7 and Isa
2:22. In the Damascus Document, where the oath is also discussed, the first of
the stipulations, to return to the law of Moses, is supported with quotes from
Jer 31:31 and Ex 34:27, but interestingly, the second stipulation requiring
separation from outsiders is absent (CD XV,5-XVI,6). The community’s ritual
purity, however, was of concern for the writer, for the text states that no
person physically or mentally impaired was allowed to enter the community.
The
admission procedure described in the Damascus Document differs in many respects
from the picture provided by the Community Rule (1QS V,20-24 and VI,13-23), but
like the Community Rule, the Damascus Document identifies joining the community
with entering the covenant. Whereas the Community Rule seems to be concerned
only with newly recruited members, the Damascus Document talks about “children
who reach the age to be included in the registrants” as well. Apparently, this
refers to boys who had reached the age of twenty by the time their fathers were
entering the community (cf. 1QSa 1:9-10). The candidates are referred to as
those “who repent of their wicked ways”—a phrase quite different from those
“who enter the council of the community” used in the Community Rule. Taking the oath allowed initiation in the
rules of the community. In the text of the Damascus Document, imposing the oath
on the candidate was a duty assigned to the Overseer. After the candidate had
sworn the oath, the community was free of his blame, if he transgressed.
This
covenantal oath of the Essenes makes an exception to the community’s general
attitude towards oaths. Josephus writes that the Essenes avoided making oaths,
believing that “one who is not believed without an appeal to God stands
condemned already” (War II.8.6. [165]). It seems that the Essene thinking
corresponded to that of Ecclesiastes (5:1-6; 8:2-3), Ben Sira (23:9-11) and
Philo (On the Special Laws 2:1-2; Decalogue 84), all of whom advised
restraint in the use of oaths. This was clearly linked with community’s
extremely reverent attitude towards the divine name. Misuse of the divine name
was punished by permanent expulsion (see 1QS VI,27-VII,2). Uttering the divine
name was forbidden, but apparently, swearing by “the oath of those who enter
into the covenant vows” was permitted in the community’s judicial proceedings
(CD XV,1-5). The text of CD most likely talks about the same oath as our
passage in S. Outside the judicial proceedings, however, the use of any oath
was strictly forbidden (CD IX,8-10).
II
Stipulations of the Oath in the S and D Traditions
a.
The Community Rule (1QS and 4QSb,d)
The description of the oath follows an
introductory passage describing the general principles of community life (1QS
V,1-7 par.). The differences in
the quantity of text between the two editions are particularly noticeable in
the passage regarding this oath (1QS V,7-20//4QSb IX,6-13// 4QSd
I,5-11). The passage is included in your handout. In order to highlight
the differences between the versions, the parts included in 1QS but not
included in the version of 4QSb,d are in italics in the translation
of 1QS, and the parts involving scriptural quotes or allusions are underlined.
Both
versions agree that the oath consisted of two stipulations: to return to the
law of Moses and and to separate from the men of injustice. Whereas the version
4QSb,d speaks of a binding obligation (rsa), 1QS V,8 perhaps
stresses the seriousness of the commitment by adding the word ‘oath’ (rsa
t[wbç). In the Hebrew Bible, the word rsa occurs only in Num 30 where the
fulfillment of vows and oaths is discussed. Neither 4QSb,d nor 1QS appeals explicitly to Scripture,
but it is possible that by secondarily inserting the word t[wbç in the text,
the redactor of 1QS wanted to create a clearer association with the text of
Numbers, for the expression ‘binding oath’ occurs only in Num. 30:13.
For
the phrase in 4QSb,d “in accordance with the council of the men of
the community” (djyh yçna tx[ yp l[) 1QS has the long phrase emphasizing the
role of the community and the Zadokites in particular as the true keeper of the
covenant in 1QS V,9-10. Thus, 1QS has added a possible reference to Scripture,
a clarification to the community’s
interpretation regarding revelation, and a claim that the Zadokites are the
true keepers of the covenant.
The
second stipulation of the oath, to separate from outsiders, is also treated
differently in 1QS compared to 4QSb,d. First, the redactor added an
attribute characterizing “the men of injustice” as “those who walk in the way
of wickedness” (h[çrh ˚rdb µyklwhh; 1QS V,10-11). Then, he combined loosely
borrowed phrases from Scripture in order to create a justification for the
necessity to separate from the men of injustice in 1QS V,11-13.
Two
biblical proof-texts, Lev 22,16 and Ex 23,7, not in 4QSb,d, but
included in 1QS V,13b-15a, clarify and confirm the basic statement of the oath
to separate oneself from outsiders. The first one—“lest he burden him with
iniquity and guilt”—is cited implicitly (cf. Lev 22:[15-]16 hmça ˆw[ µtwa wayçhw...alw),
but the second one is a direct quotation: “for thus it is written, ‘You shall
keep away from everything false’.” The citation is preceded by an introduction
formula bwtk ˆk ayk which is followed by the citation qjrt rqç rbd lwkm (Ex
23:7). The introduction formula bwtk ˆk ayk is a standard one used in the texts
found at Qumran. The conjunction
ayk proves to be the redactional instrument by which the proof for the
basic regulation to separate from outsiders is created in 1QS, for there are
five sentences beginning with the conjunction ayk following one another.
In
a passage elaborating the prohibition of contact with the men of injustice (1QS
V,16b-18), we find yet another proof-text. Although the text is quite
fragmentary both in 4QSb IX,11-12 and 4QSd I,10, it is
clear that the lacunae of 4QSb,d could not possibly have included
the whole of the lengthy passage in 1QS V,16b-18b, with the citation from Isa
2:22. The quotation is followed by an interpretative comment, an element which
the previous citation did not have. Obviously, the writer played with the verb
bçjn “be accounted, be esteemed” and twisted its sense to bear the meaning
“being reckoned in the community” (cf. the occurrence of the same verb in 1QS
V,11).
With
regard to redactional development, the insertion of theologically weighted
words into the text is to be expected, whereas their omission is difficult to
explain. Intentional scribal omission takes place usually only when the text is
considered to contain elements somehow questionable or perhaps outdated. But
compared to 4QSb,d, the text of 1QS yields more authority when the
rules of the community are scripturally legitimized. One may still consider the
possibility that the quotations could have been deemed self-evident and
therefore were omitted. A look at 1QS V,16b-19a seems to speak against this
possibility, however, for the redactor apparently assumed that the quotation of
the biblical passage alone did not provide sufficient proof for the community’s
regulation and thus an explanation was necessary. Even with a clarifying
interpretation, the regulation appears to have been somewhat arbitrarily
connected to the quotation supporting it.
The
shorter version appears to be the more original also in the light of linguistic
analysis. In the version of 4QSb,d the text flows smoothly without
any cumbersome elements interrupting the line of thought, whereas in 1QS the
text is awkward both grammatically (unusual shifts between sg. and pl. forms)
and in content. In 1QS the thought which is interrupted at the end of line
13 continues at the end of line
15. The syntax of the passage 1QS V,13b-15a suggests editorial revision, as
well, with the five-fold use of ayk. The thought of interpolation is further
supported by the physical apperance of the manuscript: a blank space has been
left in the middle of line 13 in 1QS V, and a paragraphos mark is placed in the
margin. In the version of 4QSb,d the problem with the shifting back
and forth of the singular and plural does not occur at all, for the passage 1QS
V,13b-15a as well as the preceding passage in the plural form in V,11b-13a are
missing. The second passage containing a citation in 1QS (V,16b-18a) but not in
4QSb,d is better incorporated into the context; however, line 18a
functions somewhat like a resumptive clause, repeating lines 10b-11a.
b.
The Damascus Document
In the Damascus Document, the oath of the
community members is discussed in the context of the admission procedure into
the community, and thus into the covenant CD XV,5-XVI,6 (par. 4QDa 8
i,1-10//4QDe 6 ii,1-21//4QDf 4 ii,1-7). This passage
serves as a kind of excursus to a more general discussion on vows (CD
XV,1-IX,1), and the passage describing the admission procedure appears quite
different from the surrounding material. Quite obviously, here one has to
reckon with originally separate passages having been redactionally joined, as
argued by C. Hempel in her recent redaction-critical work. She assigns the
surrounding discussion on oaths to “a stratum of halakhah, ” whereas the admission
procedure, save a few interpolations, she assigns to “a stratum of community
organization.” In CD the text is fragmentary at the end of column XV, but two
manuscripts from Cave 4, 4QDa and 4QDf, make a partial
restoration possible. The passage is in your handout.
The
biblical proof for the stipulation of the oath to return to the law of Moses is
provided by quotes from Jer 31:31 and Exod 34:27. Because the text is
fragmentary both in CD and 4Q271 (4QDf), it is unclear whether the
word rm¿ayw? preserved in 4Q271 formed part of an introduction formula for the
quote from Jer 31:31: “He will make a covenant [with the house of Israel and
the house of Judah]” (tyrb hdwhy tyb taw larçy tyb ta twrky). In order to fit
the quote in the context, the scribe changed the first person consecutive
perfect (ytrkw) into a third person imperfect (twrky). He also dropped the
attribute hçdj defining the word tyrb. The purpose of the second quote from
Exod 34:27 is to identify the covenant specifically as the one God made with
Moses: The quote is introduced by the formula rwmal, and except for a different
preposition (µ[ instead of ta), prepositional suffix (2nd pl. instead of 2nd
sg.) and the word lk, it follows the Masoretic text
(larçy lk µ[w tyrb µkm[ ytrk hlah
µ?yrb¿dh yp ?l[ ¿, CD XV,21-XVI,1).
The
final element of the proof is a clause, beginning with the formula ˆk l[, that reinforces the established
regulation: “Therefore let a man take upon himself the oath to return to the
Law of Moses, for in it everything is laid out in detail.” The writer must have
felt that an explanation after the two quotes was necessary, for neither the
word ‘oath’ nor ‘the law of Moses’ is explicitly mentioned in the either of the
quotes. The word qdqwdm (‘laid out in detail’) must have prompted a reference
to the book of Jubilees, called here “the Book of Time Divisions by Jubilees
and Weeks.” Earlier commentators have suggested that this reference in lines
3-4 forms a gloss, specifying (qdqwdm) the times during which Israel would be
blind to the laws.
Interestingly,
the Damascus Document makes no mention of the oath’s second stipulation listed
in the Community Rule to separate from outsiders. This is no surprise, if we
assume that the Damascus Document was addressed to the Essenes living in the
towns and villages rather than to those living in isolated settlements such as
the one in Qumran. The ritual purity of the community was, however, of concern
to the writer of the passage in CD, for the text states that no physically or
mentally impared was allowed to enter. The reason given for this restriction is
the presence of angels in the community.
III
The Process of Generating Community Halakhah
Although the intent of the Essene
redactors was to create a link between the laws of the Torah and the
community’s practice of requiring an oath of its candidate, there is no law in
the Torah mandating a specific vow to (re)turn to the Law of Moses. The
parallel closest to the Essene oath of admission can rather be found in Neh
10:28-29, according to which the Exilic returnees who had “separated themselves
from the peoples of the lands to adhere to the law of God” made a pledge to
“enter into a curse and an oath to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses
the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our
Lord and his ordinances and his statutes.” Significantly, the Qumran texts
provide no evidence that the Essene writers had knowledge of Nehemiah as
Scripture. And even if the text of Nehemiah had been known in the community, it
clearly seems not to have been considered as scripturally authoritative by the
writer of our passage, for he emphatically associated the communal oath with
texts in the Mosaic Torah (and once with Jer 31:31, which interestingly makes a
reference to Moses), and not with the text of Nehemiah.
The
picture emerging from this analysis corresponds to that of a recent study by
Hindy Najman regarding the authorization of post-exilic political and legal
practices in the traditions included in the writings of Ezra-Nehemiah. Najman
demonstrates that an explicit Pentateuchal basis was not always necessary to
ascribe some law or practice as ‘Torah of Moses,’ but that legal innovations
could be pseudonymously attributed to Moses as a means of authorization. She
considers this as “one of the main strategies through which Second Temple
Judaism sought to authorize itself.” As our analysis shows, this strategy was
used by the Essene writers as well. Regardless of whether the Essene oath
described in Qumran texts and by Josephus represents a specifically Essene
practice or an already existing Jewish practice simply adopted by the Essenes,
the fact remains that a tradition that had no pentateuchal basis received
authorization in the hands of the Essene scribes who associated it with the
Torah of Moses.
In
the Essene community, the practice requiring the candidates to swear an oath
committing themselves to the principal goals of the community was a pragmatic
way to protect the community’s existence and integrity. Joining the community
signified entering the covenant, since the community saw itself as the true
keeper of the laws of the covenant. Separation from outsiders was necessary,
for contact with them would place in jeopardy the commuity’s ritual purity that
was based on the priestly and Levitical ideals of the Torah. Separation was
also necessary to keep the ‘secrets’ hidden from outsiders. Redactional activity with its emphasis
on the community’s role as the true keeper of the Mosaic law is very
understandable, if enthusiasm within the community had begun to decrease and
the need for separation was being questioned. The community practices thus were
based on practical exigencies, but at a secondary stage challenges may have
been brought, and the practices may have required justification. This
justification was given with the highest authority possible: the Scriptures.
The
fact that we find a community tradition originally based on practical necessity
now presented as derived from Scripture suggests that the community treated the
laws of the Torah and community regulations as equally authoritative. This
assumption is supported by the community’s penal codes, in which the same
punishment of permanent expulsion is applied on the one hand to the case of
“transgressing a word from the law of Moses presumptuously or negligently” (1QS
VIII, 21-23), and equally on the other hand to the cases of “slandering the
rabbim” (1QS VII,16-17, par. 4QDe I,6-7), “making complaints about
the authority of the community” (1QS VII, 17), and “deviating from the
fundamental principles of the community” after full ten years of membership
(1QS VII,18-25).
While
it is certainly true that much of halakhah was derived through scriptural
exegesis, an earlier view that it was the only avenue for generating halakhic
traditions proves to be too narrow. The exigensies of communal life were an
important source for new legal traditions, and their authorization by claims of
Mosaic origin was a major strategy to guarantee adherence to practices protecting
the community’s integrity. Certain halakhic traditions emerged independently
from Scripture, and they were secondarily connected with the texts of the
Torah; in some cases the ‘exegetical hooks’ discernible in the ancient writers’
halakhic discourse turn out to be the end result, not the starting point of the
process. Schiffman and others have shown how halakhic exegesis affected the
behavioral patterns of the community, but the direction of the process was also
the reverse: the community’s behavioral patterns resulted in innovation of new
halakhah.
This
introduces the question as to whether halakhah has been appropriately
characterized in the discussion concerning Essene legal traditions. The term
itself, of course, is an anachronism; as a terminus
technicus it is used nowhere in the Scrolls. The question is rather whether
the concept of halakhah has been
correctly understood in the context of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many Qumran
scholars appear to consider scriptural derivation as the defining characteristic
of halakhic traditions. Davies, for example, defines halakhah as “a body of law
governing Jewish behaviour which in practice or in theory derives from
scripture and acquires its authoritative status thereby.” This definition
allows him to posit a clear distinction between the laws included in the
Damascus Document and those included in the Community Rule, arguing that “the
term ‘halakhah’ is appropriate to the one and not to the other.” In my view,
the two results of my study, namely that (1) scriptural exegesis was not the
only way to create halakhah, and (2) the community treated its own rules as
equally authoritative with the rules of the Torah, speak against positing such
a distinction.
A
second characteristic assigned to halakhah appears to be that it was addressed
to all Israel, not only to a specific community. Weinfeld writes: “One must
distinguish between divine commands sanctified by the Torah which belong to the
sphere of the covenant between God and Israel, and the regulations of the sect
which relate to the social organization of the sect, and as such do not apply
to the people of Israel as a whole but to a specific group which is bound by
rules accepted voluntarily by its members.” Hempel, too, while using the term
mainly to distinguish between the different redactional strata in the Damascus
Document, appears to follow Weinfeld’s line of thinking, albeit not without
reservation, for she defines halakhah as “legislation that is general in its
formulation and application and which does not refer to a particular organized
community.” The Essene community, however, clearly understood itself as the
true representative of Israel, and considered its own existence as fulfilling
the Mosaic ideal assigned to God’s people. It seems to me that halakhah, while
always intended as the universally proper way of behavior, is always created
and applied within a specific group. Just as the Pharisees considered their
rules as correct and valid for ‘true Israel,’ and we view their rules as
‘halakhah,’ so too the Essenes considered theirs as universally correct and
valid for ‘true Israel’; should we not call their rules also ‘halakhah’?
The
process of generating community halakhah, then, in some cases appears to have
originated in the exigencies of community life. At a secondary stage a
scriptural basis was added to provide explicit authority. At the original
stage, were the community regulations considered on the same level with
halakhah derived from Scripture?
On the basis of the above examples from the penal code, one can say that
they were treated equally, but it
remains an open question whether there was reflection on this issue and a conscious affirmation that the two had
equal authority. To my knowledge, there is no way to definitively answer that
question. In fact, it may well have been reflection on the issue that generated
the second stage. That is, those redactors who provided the scriptural
quotations presumably ended up seeing the two on the same level, but that
realization may have arisen only after someone had challenged the authority of
the community’s rules of practice.