This 2paper requires the fonts .

Shared Intertextual Interpretations in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament1

George J. Brooke

University of Manchester


I. Introduction

The principal purpose of this paper is to begin to describe the literary character of similar combinations of scriptural passages which appear in some Qumran and some New Testament texts. There have been many studies on individual scriptural passages which are found in both a text from Qumran and in the New Testament,2 sometimes with strikingly similar intentions, and there are also extensive studies on some texts like 4Q175 (4QTestimonia) which use scriptural texts in a combination, the parts of which are then variously used in diverse places in the New Testament.3 However, there has been little attempt so far to isolate those passages in both Qumran texts and in the New Testament where a common combination of scriptural passages seem to be used. Various reasons might be given to explain the lack of study of this phenomenon: maybe this is because there are relatively few cases of such shared combinations, or maybe it is because the recent generation of New Testament scholars has tended to focus on explicit quotations alone, thereby reducing the possibility of perceiving combinations of the use of scriptural passages, one of which may be explicit whilst others are somewhat concealed in allusion.

There is indeed a certain danger inherent in this task. It is often difficult to be certain that particular scriptural passages lie behind certain Qumran or New Testament phrases. And yet the need for undertaking a study such as this arises in order to underline the complexity of the evidence when faced with claims that the movement reflected in the sectarian texts left its mark in very concrete ways on the early churches and even on Jesus himself. The starting point in an investigation of this sort must be the literary character of the presentation of combined scriptural passages, not the simple question of whether New Testament authors have simply copied the combination of scriptural passages they variously use from a text now found at Qumran. This starting point requires a literary sensitivity which is not immediately drawn towards making assertions about the possibility of the dependence of one author upon another, about the possible historical connections between texts, about cause and effect. Thus, because a literary approach like this makes more of each author's own integrity, undoubtedly the tendency in this investigation is to discern more of the differences between the early Christian writers and the authors of the compositions which have been found at Qumran.

The very paucity of texts in both the Qumran corpus and the New Testament where a solid case can be made that the latter is quoting from the former (or something very like it) goes some way towards demonstrating the point. So, for example, it is intriguing that in CD 4:19-5:2 four scriptural passages (Mic. 2:6; Gen. 1:27; 7:9; Deut. 17:17) are used in close proximity in an argument against divorce or polygamy or both; the similar use of Gen. 1:27 both there and in Mark 10:6 has often been highlighted to underline the proximity of Jesus' reasoning to that of the Damascus covenanters, even to the point that the Genesis verse is introduced in a similar fashion in both texts.4 Even though the subsequent use of Gen. 2:24 in Mark 10:7-8 seems somewhat redundant to the argument that Mark represents Jesus as making and so implies that the New Testament passage is quoting from a source,5 since Gen. 2:24 does not feature in the argument of CD 4:19-5:2, we must conclude that the CD passage cannot be that source. The similar introductory phraseology in both passages (CD 4:21: h)yrbh dwsy) may also suggest some commonality between them. However, it is also notable that it is only the one scriptural passage that both texts actually share.

Another important introductory point also needs to be made. The recent tendency amongst New Testament scholars in particular to focus on explicit quotations6 has often resulted in studies that do little more than discuss the textual affinity of the quotation in its New Testament setting.7 Furthermore such an approach tends to lead to discussion of the use of such scriptural quotations as if they were generally taken directly from a scriptural text. There is little concern to show how scriptural passages may be meaningful, not just in themselves in isolation but because of the interpretative traditions associated with them over generations. A search for common exegetical combinations is thus an attempt to say that it is likely that most scripture is used by individuals and their communities as mediated to them by their contemporaries and immediate forebears.

The study of so-called comparative midrash, which may include New Testament examples, has been around for a long time, but, again, this has generally been carried out in relation to single scriptural phrases, verses or pericope.8 It is the arrival of intertextuality9 on the scholarly scene which enables the kind of study proposed here to be undertaken with some awareness of methodological insights gained from a variety of literary critical approaches.10 In light of this it is only right to define what is intended here by the term intertextuality. What I mean is that all texts present their own meanings only inasmuch as they are in dialogue, primarily with other texts. Diachronically this dialogue is nearly exclusively with other texts, though this should not be understood as a matter of any author simply having sources; rather there is "transposition" of earlier material into something new.11 This means that intertextuality is not primarily about identifying what has influenced any writer, but about observing the transformation of influences. The tendency, therefore, is to notice the distinctiveness of the new text whilst acknowledging that no text is a closed system. Synchronically the dialogue can be with social reality apprehended in a variety of verbal forms. The dialogue may sometimes be on a one-to-one basis, though those concerned with intertextuality would suggest this was seldom the case. More commonly a text reflects the outcome of a dialogue with several partners who in turn are the products of their own dialogues; moreover as the texts from Qumran show only too well, the continuous dialogue produces multiple redactions and recensions.

The explicit citation of other texts is the most obvious way in which the dialogue between texts is visible to the reader. But generally a whole range of other allusions inform a text's representation of ideas. This can be seen most readily in poetry, so that it is not surprising that critics concerned with intertextuality often begin with poetry, but it is no less the case with nearly all non-poetic genres. So the purpose of this study is not to investigate any text's single dialogue partner, but to expose how similar intertextual clusters may recur in more than one place. This analysis may say little or nothing about the dialogue partner's original intention, but in juxtaposing texts from Qumran and the New Testament will show on the one hand something of where the common exegetical traditions may most pertinently lie and on the other, by default, where the differences are between these two groups of roughly contemporaneous literature.


II. Shared Intertextual Interpretations

The examples of shared intertextual interpretations listed and described briefly here are presented in the canonical order of the principal base text which is quoted first. Since there are common features in many of the examples, there is no attempt at this stage to present the material in some kind of taxonomy.


A. 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 in 4Q174 and Hebrews 112

The principal fragment of 4Q174 contains two sections of explicit scriptural interpretation.13 The first seems to be the end of an eschatological exegesis of the oracle of Nathan in 2 Sam. 7:5-16. The precise extent and structure of the exegesis is difficult to discern. The extant lines 1-2 contain a citation of 2 Sam. 7:10-11aa which is then interpreted through the subsidiary quotation of phrases from Exod. 15:17 and Deut. 23:3-4. Then in the middle of line 7 without a break, 2 Sam. 7:11ab is quoted after the introductory formula
rm) r#)w; in turn this is interpreted, the interpretation being introduced solely by r#). Line 9 ends approximately 18 letter spaces short of the average left hand margin. Lines 10-11 then present an abbreviated quotation of 2 Sam. 7:11b-14a, the interpretation of which is introduced by a pronoun and which contains a secondary quotation of Amos 9:11. It is worth noting both that the term r#p is nowhere used in this section of interpretation and also that although the oracle of Nathan appears to provide the running text for the thematic exegesis, it is not cited in its entirety, nor are all parts of this base text presented in the same way.

A new section of interpretation then begins at the right hand margin in line 14 of this principal fragment of 4Q174. This section opens with the striking formula Nm #rdm which introduces a quotation of Ps. 1:1a which is followed by an interpretation introduced by a formula containing the technical term r#p. This interpretation contains explicit subsidiary quotations of parts of Isa. 8:11 and Ezek. 37:23. The interpretation ends a few letter spaces before the average left hand margin in line 17. Line 18 seems to begin a new section by citing Ps. 2:1-2; the first words are missing from both lines 18 and 19, but it is widely agreed that Ps. 2:1 was not introduced formulaically and that the whole of Ps. 2:2 including the last word wxy#m was cited. As with Ps 1:1 the interpretation is introduced with a formula including the word r#p. Although there is little or nothing individualistic about the interpretation which survives at the top of column 2 in the fragment, it seems likely not only that wxy#m is understood to refer to an individual, but also that it is a major part of the link between the midrash on Psalms 1 and 2 and the exegesis of Nathan's oracle in 2 Samuel 7.

This detailed description is necessary to establish the connection between the two sections of exegesis in this principal fragment of 4Q174, since elsewhere in each separate section it is more or less clear how the various subsidiary quotations can be associated with the principal text which they are being used to interpret. Sometimes this is done through catchword association, sometimes through other means.14 But the two sections of exegesis, that on 2 Samuel 7 and that on Psalms 1 and 2, display distinctive characteristics and so may not automatically and deliberately follow on one from the other. This is most obvious in that none of the interpretations in the first section are introduced with technical formulae using the word r#p, whereas it is consistently used in the interpretations of the Psalms. Might it be the case that the two sections of interpretation are no more closely related than that one represents exegesis of the prophetic section of an emerging collection of scriptures, the other the writings, as É. Puech has suggested?15

That there is some closer link between the two sections of exegesis on this principal fragment of 4Q174 seems to emerge from consideration of the content of the interpretations themselves. It is clear that in both the phrase Mymyh tyrx) features prominently, so much so indeed that A. Steudel's recent analysis of the text has used the phrase, as have others before her, to determine the character of the whole manuscript and how it may be related to other manuscripts.16 Given this minimal thematic relationship, it is then possible to argue that in fact the citations of the opening verses of Psalms 1 and 2 function merely as incipit phrases, phrases which imply the rest of the Psalm. The intertextual relationship of the two exegetical sections becomes a little clearer as a result. It is noticeable that in the final section of the citation and interpretation of 2 Samuel 7, which comes to consider the son of David talked of in 2 Sam. 7:14 as referring to the Shoot of David, the kingly messiah, all those phrases which might imply that the text of Samuel was only referring to the actual physical son of David, namely Solomon, are omitted.17 The subsequent implied citation of the whole of Psalm 2 makes the interpretative purpose clear, since from Ps. 2:2 it is obvious that the son of Ps 2:7 also refers to the messiah, the kingly one as Ps. 2:6 makes clear.

Thus 4Q174 seems to offer citations and interpretations of 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 which show that the two scriptural passages are mutually interdependent, are held together through mutual intertextuality.18 That 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 were thought of in this way as mutually illuminating is confirmed by the New Testament counterpart to the principal citations in 4Q174. In the Letter to the Hebrews the opening argument concerns the place of the son in the hierarchy of things. The author sets out immediately to argue that the son is superior to the angels through presenting a catena of proofs from the Psalms and other texts. The catena begins with the citation of Ps. 2:7, which is followed immediately by 2 Sam. 7:14. Perhaps Psalm 2 was used because of the mention of the inheritor, the heir (cf. Ps. 2:8), in Heb. 1:2; or maybe Psalm 2 was used because its usage elsewhere in early Christian circles (cf. Mark 1:11; Acts 13:33) was well-known to the author of Hebrews. Whatever prompted its usage, the author reinforced the purpose of citing it by referring immediately to 2 Sam. 7:14.

It must be noted that the evidence of Hebrews 1 does not imply any form of literary dependence of the author of Hebrews on some Qumranic forebear, even though there may be plenty of scrolls' influence detectable in the work as a whole.19 The point in drawing attention to the parallel is to show that both authors were acquainted with a tradition whereby 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 belong together. The two texts are mutually suggestive of one another and need not be considered to have come from a written source. Thus we are dealing here with intertextual exegetical tradition rather than literary dependence.20 This seems to be confirmed inasmuch as 4Q174 begins with 2 Samuel 7, whereas in Hebrews Psalm 2 comes first. Also, as argued above, the author of 4Q174 is presenting material which he took to refer to the kingly messiah. The author of Hebrews knows this to be the case too, since, although the term Christ is not used until Heb 3:6, as soon as the term is used it is explicated in terms of sonship: "Christ, however, was faithful over God's house as a son."

On first impression the similar conjunction of 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 in passages discussing the role and status of the messiah seems striking. On closer analysis the similarities are not so great. Most notably the texts are cited in a different order, and for Psalm 2 each text explicitly cites a different element, even though those elements both describe something of the one who is taken to be the messiah. There is no need to suppose any literary dependence of Hebrews on Qumran messianism; rather, in contexts of messianic discussion, two texts have independently used a combination of scriptural passages which are in themselves mutually illuminating. Their intertextuality is self-suggested. Nevertheless, it is quite reasonable to suppose that the general setting of messianic debate within turn of the era Palestinian Judaism contributed to the parameters of what might have been found to be useful in both secondary exegetical contexts.


B. Isaiah 5 in 4Q500 and with Psalm 118 in Mark 1221

This example of shared intertextual interpretation is of a rather different kind. 4Q500 fragment 1 contains the remnants of just a few lines which J.M. Baumgarten has discussed most fully.22 He has proposed convincingly that the text is part of a blessing addressed to God, based principally on the metaphor of the vineyard in Isaiah 5. It is interesting to note that clearly other scriptural passages have also influenced the reworking of Isaiah 5 as it is represented in the new way now visible in the fragment. Several features of the fragmentary lines echo Isaiah 5: the winepress (bqy, line 3; Isa. 5:2), the planting ((+m, line 5; (+n, Isa. 5:7), the delights (My(w#(#, line 6; Isa. 5:7), and even the vineyard itself (hkmr[k, line 7; Mrk, Isa 5:1). As a liturgical text, it is poetic and lacks any obvious explicit citation of scripture, but in association with allusions to Isaiah 5 there are several other phrases which in particular recall certain psalms.23 Overall the principal fragment of 4Q500 belongs in the tradition of those texts which link the vineyard with Jerusalem and the various features of the vineyard with parts of the temple mount and the sanctuary.24 4Q500 uses the Isaiah 5 vineyard material in intertextual interpretative association with other scriptural phrases which then allow for the whole text to be "a description of the temple, either heavenly, or, more probably, earthly, which is the suitable place for the people (Isaiah's own interpretation) to bless God (possibly the genre of 4Q500)."25

Notable in this line of interpretation is the language of building. In Isa 5:2 the beloved builds a watch tower; in tg. Jon. Isa. 5:2 this is referred to the building of the sanctuary with its altar.26 It seems natural that the particular understanding of the vineyard as Jerusalem, or the temple mount or part of it, should require an emphasis on the buildings in it. Part of this emphasis may arise out of the need of those who use this image from Isaiah 5 to interact with Isa. 5:7 in a particular way; there Isaiah's own interpretation of the vineyard is that the vineyard is the house of Israel, "the people of Judah are his pleasant planting." The stress on building facilitates the interpretative transition to refer the vineyard to Jerusalem and the temple. This same exegetical development can be seen in the New Testament in Mark 12:1-12 (// Matt. 21:33-45; Luke 20:9-19) where the vineyard of Isa 5:1-7 is used in a parable and is interpreted as referring to Jerusalem and/or the temple from which the beloved son is cast out (Mark 12:6-8 //). The building motif is to be found in the parable in the secondary use of Ps. 118:22-23 which is linked to Isa. 5:2 through the catchword of building (oi0kodome&w): "the stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner."

As with the previous example there is no need to suggest the literary dependence of the New Testament exegetical tradition upon its Qumran parallel. Both reflect the understanding of Isaiah 5 as referring to Jerusalem and the temple, and both seem to clarify those references by drawing on the motif of building in various ways. The interpretative approach in each seems to be based on similar intertextual resonances. In the parable of the vineyard in the New Testament these resonances become explicit, and christologically so, through the use of Psalm 118 which features elsewhere in early Christian thought (Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:7). The modern interpreter's task is to perceive the suggestive elements in the source text and to hear their echoes in other texts. When this is done with sensitivity, then the intertextual associations discerned in one text assist in the better understanding of others.


C. Isaiah 35 and 61 and Psalm 146 in 4Q521 and Luke 7

Since its preliminary edition by É. Puech in 1992,27 4Q521 has attracted very wide attention.28 Such interest has been focused around the identity of the messiah and whether it is he or God himself who "makes the dead live" (hyxy Mytmw, 4Q521 2 ii + 4, line 12). In fact, apart from all the parallels listed at the outset by Puech, little detailed work has yet been done on the scriptural phrases alluded to in 4Q521 fragments 2 ii and 4. For the sake of this study the parallels in Luke 7:18-23 and Matt. 11:2-6 will be allowed to control which lines of these two fragments of 4Q521 are investigated here. The picture is very complicated and it is surely far from certain that because both 4Q521 and the Jesus saying both contain reference to "giving life to/raising the dead" and "preaching good news to the poor," in that order, we must conclude, as J.J. Collins has done, that "it is quite possible that the author of the Sayings source knew 4Q521."29

If Luke 7 is taken as the starting point for comparison, then there are six elements in what Jesus is supposed to have said to John the Baptist's disciples concerning how they and their master should be able to recognize the significance of who he is: (1) "the blind see (tufloi\ a)nable&pousin);"30 (2) "the lame walk"31 (3) "lepers are cleansed" (4) "the deaf hear"32 (5) "the dead are raised" and (6) "the poor have good news preached to them."33 This list is commonly supposed to be based on a combination of LXX Isa. 35:5, which mentions "the blind" "the deaf hearing" and "the lame," together with LXX Isa. 61:1, which mentions the poor having good news preached to them and the blind seeing.34 There seems to be no parallel in the LXX for the lepers being cleansed nor for the dead being raised. The former does recur in Matt. 10:8, an independent version of the saying which makes the picture more complex still as it lists healing the sick, raising the dead, cleansing lepers and casting out demons. The latter, giving life to the dead, is common to Luke 7:22 (// Matt. 11:5) and 4Q521.

There are two lists in 4Q521 2 ii and 4 in close proximity to one another which are relevant to this discussion. In the first, in line 8, there is mention of the release of captives, giving sight to the blind, and raising up the bowed down ([Mypw]pk Pqwz Myrw( xqwp Myrws) rytm). This list is an almost verbatim representation of Ps. 146:7-8 (Myrws) rytm hwhy
Mypwpk Pqz hwhy Myrw( xqp hwhy ),35 though giving sight to the blind is also in Isa. 35:5 and 61:1 (LXX). The second list in 4Q521 is in lines 12-13: "heal the wounded (Myllx )pry)" (cf. Matt. 10:8, "heal the sick"), "give life to the dead (hyxy Mytm)" (cf. Luke 7:22 // Matt. 11:5; Matt. 10:8), "preach good news to the poor (r#by Mywn()" (cf. Isa. 61:1; Luke 7:22 // Matt. 11:5), "satisfy the weak ([(y]b#y M[yld])," "lead the cast out (lhny My#wtn)," and "enrich the hungry (r#(y Myb(r)" (cf. Ps. 146:7). The opening item in this second list is intriguing, since it is echoed in the list in the independent saying in Matt. 10:8, but more significantly seems itself to echo Isa. 61:1, but not in the form found in the MT or the Qumran manuscripts, but in the Vorlage of the Isa. 61:1 LXX, the second element of which is "to heal (i0a&sasqai) the broken-hearted," an element which strangely is not in any witness for the programmatic quotation of Isa. 61:1 in Luke 4:18 or the lists in Luke 7:22 // Matt. 11:5. Furthermore, as Puech has noted,36 the combination of "healing" and "giving life" is to be found in Deut. 32:39.

Only two elements are common to the second list in 4Q521 and Luke 7:22 // Matt. 11:5, "giving life/raising the dead," and "preaching good news to the poor." The first of these elements is unique to these two lists, and the order of the two elements is the same in both. Beyond that the parallels end. Luke 7:22 // Matt. 11:5 is a complex combination of parts of Isa. 35:5 and 61:1. Apart from "preaching good news to the poor," 4Q521 is a combination of different elements of Isa. 61:1 with motifs from other passages, possibly Isa. 49:9, Ps. 107:9, and Ps. 146:7, the last of which, if correctly restored, neatly ties the second list in 4Q521 back to the first which is exclusively from that Psalm.37

What can be made of all of this? When it is remembered that in the one striking parallel pair, "giving life to/raising the dead" and "preaching good news to the poor", the first element is represented in the two traditions partially in synonymous translation, then the similarity of the pair is slightly weakened. Overall a string of scriptural passages mostly from Isaiah and the Psalms lie behind the two developments in 4Q521 and Luke 7:22 // Matt. 11:5. In one pair of elements there seems to be a striking similarity which needs to be qualified slightly; in the rest the scriptural passages are re-presented in a rich variety of ways, suggesting anything but literary dependence. Here is a collection of scriptural passages to be associated with the activity of God (and his anointed agent) in the last days. The scriptural texts suggest each other, and this suggestive intertextuality is inherited and expressed variously in these later traditions.38


D. Isaiah 61 and Leviticus 25 in 11Q13 and Luke 439

In this instance the juxtaposition of two scriptural texts is quite explicit in the text from cave 11, but less clear in the New Testament counterpart. In 11Q13, 11QMelchizedek, there are remnants of three columns of writing, but it is column 2 that is most substantial.40 The use of scripture in this column has often been studied,41 but its intertextual significance in comparison with Luke 4 bears some further comment.

Though the precise placing of a few fragments remains debatable, it is clear enough that in 11Q13 column 2 the exegesis is dependent upon Lev. 25:9-13 as its base text. At the top of column 2 Lev. 25:13 is supplemented with explicit reference to Deut. 15:2 in which the sabbatical year is described as a time for the remission of debts, in a way similar to that which should take place in the jubilee year according to Leviticus 25.42 The use of the idiom rwrd )rq in Lev. 25:10, "you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants," is echoed, possibly deliberately on the part of the composer of the oracle, in Isa. 61:1. The author of 11Q13 knew this and throughout the rest of the column there are allusions to Isa. 61:1-3 as description of the ultimate jubilee which is linked to the end of the tenth jubilee period and initiated on the Day of Atonement.

According to the story in Luke 4 at the very outset of his public ministry Jesus is in the synagogue at Nazareth and is handed the scroll of the prophet Isaiah from which he seems to read Isa. 61:1-2, but in fact reads a conflation of Isa. 61:1a, b, d; 58:6d; 61:2a. The presence of this conflated text is one of the keys to appreciating how Luke may have intended an allusion to the jubilee material of Leviticus 25, even including its association with Deut 15:2. The key word which links the phrase from Isa. 58:6 to Isa. 61:1 is a!fesij, the word used in Leviticus 25 for both rwrd and lbwy. The same Greek term is used in Deut. 15:2 to render h+m#. Through the stress on this word Luke seems to make a connection with the jubilee legislation of Leviticus 25 which Isa. 61:1-2 may itself do. In the same way that the author of 11Q13 makes the connection between Isaiah 61 and Leviticus 25 explicit, so the conflated quotation in Luke 4:18-19 implies something similar.43

In addition to this intertextual allusion which is virtually suggested by the text of scripture itself, either in Hebrew or in Greek, various arguments have been adduced concerning the possible connection of this prophetic reading with the Day of Atonement; apart from hints in 1Q22, they are all problematic, given that little or nothing is known about what might have formed part of a lectionary cycle in the first century CE.44 But two other matters should be noticed. Firstly, if Isa. 61:1-2 is designed to be programmatic for Jesus' ministry as depicted in Luke, then one can justifiably ask at what point Jesus may be considered to release prisoners. In light of 11Q13 J.A. Fitzmyer wonders whether this phrase does not rather refer to imprisoned debtors.45 A concern with debt is visible at several places in the traditions associated with Jesus, notably in the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11:4 // Matt. 6:12), but it does not seem to be a special feature of Luke's writings as the programmatic use of Isa. 61:1-2 in Luke 4 might have implied. Although a link with the Jubilee may be possible, it may be preferable to see the reference to the release of prisoners as programmatic for the activities of the apostles in Acts.

A second matter is also intriguing. In Luke Jesus's ministry begins in the synagogue at Nazareth rather than with the call of the disciples as in the other Synoptic Gospels. There is a deliberate reordering of tradition at this point. Reordering has also taken place in an earlier section of material so that, directly before the temptation account which Luke adjusts for his own purposes and places immediately before the public ministry of Jesus, Luke has placed the genealogy of Jesus. The genealogy of Jesus is immediately relevant to the debate which follows the reading and interpretation of Isa. 61:1 at Nazareth: in Luke 4:22 all speak well of Jesus, but enquire (rhetorically?46) "Is not this Joseph's son?" The content of the genealogy also gives some grounds for reading the adjusted quotation of Isa. 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18-19 as to be understood in terms of the jubilee.

Luke's genealogy consists of seventy-seven generations from Adam to Jesus. R.J. Bauckham has pointed out that the key to understanding the Lukan schematization does not depend upon seeing Jesus as inaugurating a twelfth set of seven generations, but in noticing that something Enochic lies behind the composition.47 The seventh and seventy-seventh places are significant (cf. Gen. 4:24; Matt. 18:22), the one occupied by Enoch, the other by Jesus; "furthermore, we should remember that for a mind concerned with the symbolic significance of sevens special significance also attaches to seven times seven - the jubilee figure of forty-nine. It cannot be accidental that in the Lukan genealogy the name Jesus occurs not only in seventy-seventh place, but also in forty-ninth place - where the only namesake of Jesus among his ancestors appears (Luke 3:29)."48 In 1 Enoch 10:12 Michael is instructed to bind the Watchers for seventy generations until the great day of their judgement, the day of judgement at the end of world history. Thus as in Luke's genealogy so in 1 Enoch world history is schematized into seventy-seven generations. Much detailed analysis is required to discover how Luke's genealogy is constructed, especially the view that the messiah is descended from David through his son Nathan, but the schematic parallel with 11Q13 is what is significant for the purposes of the best understanding of the use of Isa. 61:1-2 in Luke 4. In 11Q13 the great Day of Atonement occurs at the end of the tenth jubilee period, just as the judgement of the Watchers in I Enoch 10 occurs at the end of ten periods of seven generations each. The periodization of history in all three texts (1 Enoch, 11Q13, Luke) is similar and for understanding the genealogy of Luke these Jewish parallels disclose that Luke's Jesus can be understood to belong at the end of the tenth jubilee period from Enoch.

What is the significance of this similar usage of the combination of Levitcus 25 and Isaiah 61 in both 11Q13 and Luke 4? The texts are mutually illuminating in several respects, with regard to the eschatological fulfilment of the jubilee chronology in the activity of an anointed one. But the similarities are not so great when the two texts are looked at closely. In 11Q13 Leviticus 25 is the base text with which other secondary texts from the law, prophets and the psalms are associated through a variety of means, mostly in terms of explicit citation, often with introductory formulae. There are no significant variants from the MT in the forms of text which are cited. In Luke 4, on the other hand, it is Isaiah 61 which controls the narrative and secondary allusions (Isaiah 58; Leviticus 25; Deuteronomy 15) are contained not within the narrative as explicit scriptural quotations but within the form in which Isa. 61:1-2 is itself cited. The intertextual combination of scriptural passages is somewhat similar in both passages as is the exegetical outlook, but the detailed means of quoting the texts differs and the application of the passages in relation to different figures (Melchizedek and Jesus) is obvious.


E. Ezekiel 1 and 10 in 4Q385 and Revelation 449

4Q385, known as Pseudo-Ezekiela, currently has eight fragments assigned to it.50 Frag. 4 contains a rewritten version of the throne chariot vision of Ezekiel 1. As the text of Ezekiel 1 is re-presented there appear to be identifiable elements of the parallel visionary passage in Ezekiel 10. By tabulating the parallels between the scriptural texts of Ezekiel 1 and 10 and the rewritten form in Pseudo-Ezekiel, the editors of the text have been able to show that it is precisely at the point where there is the most obvious overlap between the phraseology of Ezekiel 10 and Pseudo-Ezekiel that the order of Ezekiel 1 seems to be disregarded. This happens in lines 9-12 of fragment 4.51 With regard to this process they comment: "Another interesting addition refers to what is seen on both sides of the wheels. This is one of the few details which seems to betray the influence of the parallel Merkabah vision in Ezekiel 10, especially 10, 2, 6-7, where the place of the coals of fire amidst the Cherubim is repeatedly referred to."52 A similar clarificatory intertextual interweaving can be seen in 4Q405, frags 20-22.53

The same kind of interweaving of elements from Ezekiel 1 and 10 can be found in Revelation 4. Elsewhere I have set out the details in a tabulated form.54 At the end of 4Q385, frag. 4 there is allusion to Ezek. 1:25; Rev. 4:2 has Ezek. 1:26-28 controlling the vision from 4:2 onwards, with a secondary allusion to Ezek. 10:1. Rev. 4:5 alludes to the lightning of Ezek. 1:13, a verse used in the summary of 4Q385 4 12. Rev. 4:6 refers to the sea of glass, like crystal, with a possible allusion to Ezek. 1:22, a verse in fact associated with Ezek. 1:13 in 4Q385 as well. Then Rev. 4:6b introduces the four living creatures (Ezek. 1:8) who have eyes in front and behind like the wheels of Ezek. 1:18; this same juxtaposition of creatures and wheels can be seen in 4Q385 4 12. Though referring to the creatures in series, the four faces of Rev. 4:7 correspond with those mentioned in Ezek. 1:10 and 4Q385 4 8-9. The six wings of Rev. 4:8 are almost certainly derived from Isaiah 6.55 It is noticeable that when Pseudo-Ezekiel and Revelation 4 are laid side by side, the only significant differences concern the use of Ezek. 1:8 and 16 in 4Q385 4 9-11. Thus these two verses alone are out of order in 4Q385 and of the verses of Ezekiel 1 represented in 4Q385 they are the only ones not represented in Revelation 4.

One feature of the close analysis of this kind of shared intertextuality is its possible use in the correct reading of some of the fragmentary exegetical material from Qumran. In other words where the juxtaposition of texts seems clear in the New Testament passage, it might be possible to use such juxtaposition to provide suitable readings and restorations in a fragmentary Qumran passage. A case in point concerns the problematic line 7 in 4Q385 frag. 4. According to its editors, at least in their preliminary work, this reads hy]lgr yt#w tx)h hyh Klt Myt# l( rwx). They understand that the phrase refers to legs: "upon two each living creature was walking."56 Since Ezekiel does not refer to the number of legs each creature had, Dimant and Strugnell draw attention to the possible similarity between the description in this line concerning legs and the description of the Seraphim's six wings in Isa. 6:2, where the function of each pair is described.57 In light of the clear use of Isa. 6:2-3 in Rev. 4:8 where each of the four living creatures is described as having six wings, it seems appropriate to view 4Q385 4 7 in this way.58 However, the reading of lgr at the end of the extant line is far from certain. None of its letters are obvious on PAM 43.503, and it may be preferable to restore the last word of the line with some form of Mypnkh.59 This means that the whole line could refer not to the legs or feet of the living creatures but to their wings. Ezekiel 1 and 10 seem to agree that the creatures each had four of these, two for movement, touching the wings of their neighbour, and two to cover their bodies (Ezek. 1:11; 10:21). Revelation might then be the earliest text to introduce the idea of each creature having six wings.

As a result of paying attention to these details, the similarity to one another of 4Q385 frag. 4 and Revelation 4 can be assessed cautiously. Both texts show evidence of weaving Ezekiel 1 and 10 together. 4Q385 includes some allusions to Ezekiel 1 out of order and, intriguingly, Revelation 4 makes no reference to those same Ezekiel passages. In Revelation 4 there is clear reference to Isa. 6:2-3. That same passage is hinted at in 4Q505 and may possibly lie behind a phrase in 4Q385 4. Furthermore it should be noted that the order of the four living creatures is different in all the sources, Ezekiel, 4Q385 and Revelation 4. There is no literary dependence here, but a complex variable representation of a spiritual experience which can only be adequately expressed by reference to more than one scriptural text.


F. Ezekiel 37 and Leviticus 26 in 4Q119, 11Q19 and 2 Corinthians 6

Some scriptural phrases become almost proverbial as they are used and reused, so that it is not always clear which passage may be the source of the allusion and which the passage which is making the allusion. Something of this kind of intertextuality can be seen in the way in which the text of Lev. 26:9 in 4Q119 (4QLXXLeva) seems to reflect something of Ezek. 37:26.60 4Q119 reads kai estai mou h diaqhkh en umin whereas the LXX reads kai\ sth&sw th_n diaqh&khn mou meq'u(mw~n. The relevant phrase of Ezek. 37:26 is Mtw) hyhy Mlw) tyrb (diaqh&kh ai0wnia e!stai met'au)tw~n).

Something similar can be seen in 11Q19 (11QTa) 29:7-8: Mlw(l Mhl hyh) ykwn)w M(l yl wyh. As Y. Yadin observed the closest parallel to this is Ezek. 37:23: Myhl)l Mhl hyh) yn)w M(l yl wyh.61 Lev. 26:12 may also be in mind (M(l yl wyht Mt)w Myhl)l Mkl ytyyhw) as also Jer. 31:33 (M(l yl wyhy hmhw Myhl)l Mhl ytyyhw). The justification of making a reference to Leviticus at this point may come from noticing that it is the covenantal language of the closely proximate passage, Lev. 26:42, which can best explain some elements in 11Q19 29:10. In other words, this redactional passage of the Temple Scroll seems to give us a good example of the intertextual relationship of Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel 37.

This same relationship features in 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1,62 a passage which has commonly been discussed in relation to the Dead Sea scrolls, especially 4Q174.63 The text contains a string of scriptural quotations, beginning with Lev. 26:12 and Ezek. 37:27, followed by Isa. 52:11 and 2 Sam. 7:14.64 It seems as if there is a common set of passages which are mutually suggestive and represent the ideology of a particular tradition. But again, attention to detail hints at a more complex picture. Uniquely of the witnesses to Lev. 26:12 4Q119 reads eqn[oj] instead of lao&j; as Ulrich comments, "it is very difficult to imagine eqnoj being substituted - intentionally or in error - for an original laoj... Thus it would appear that eqnoj was the OG translation here at 26:12, with lao&j as the routine revisional substitution."65 In other words the very manuscript of scripture at Qumran in which there seems to be something of the intertextual cross-fertilisation of Leviticus and Ezekiel represents a unique form of text. Once again, it is not possible to compare like with like in the scrolls and the New Testament but to see as with the relationship between Leviticus 25 and Isaiah 61 that a shared intertextual interpretation is rooted in the text of scripture itself and that is variously used in later and almost contemporary exegetical passages.


G. Psalm 82 in 11Q13 and John 10

As part of the subsidiary argument in column 2 of the principal fragments of 11Q13 Ps. 82:1-2 is cited, though the two verses of the Psalm are split by some secondary argument that refers to Ps. 7:7-8. Psalm 82 is also quoted in John 10:34. In 11Q13 the purpose of the reference is to highlight who are the suitable angelic judges. The use of Ps. 7:7-8 makes this clear.66 It is not Belial (and those of his lot) but Melchizedek who is the heavenly judge, acting as God's agent.

In its address Ps. 82:6 repeats the initial suggestion of verse 1, that the angels are "gods." Too often the use of Ps. 82:6 in John 10:34 has been read in ontological terms concerning the nature of Jesus' relationship to God. The passage is read as being a debate about Jesus' status in an argument from the lesser to the greater, namely, that since in the lesser case the angels are called gods, so therefore in the greater case must the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, and who himself does the works of the Father, be considered as in a more intimate relationship to God than the angels, a more proximate expression of the nature of God himself, even though he is a man (John 10:33). But it is also noticeable that according to John 10:34, in citing Ps. 82:6, Jesus refers to the text as written in the Law. Some have taken the term Law here as implying simply a shorthand for the scriptures as a whole,67 but others have sought a passage in the Law which suggests something similar to the content of Ps. 82:6, such as Deut. 32:43 as in 4QDeutq: "Worship him, all you gods."68

For the better understanding of how John 10:32-39 reflects an interest in judges and right judgement R.E. Brown shows how, when taken in context, Ps 82:6 is part of the castigation of unjust judges.69 Since one of the Fourth Gospel's themes is that Jesus is the judge par excellence, passages in the Hebrew Bible describing how judgement belongs to God (e.g., Deut. 1:17) or which speak of Israel coming before their human judges as appearing before God himself (e.g., Deut. 19:17; Exod. 21:6; 22:9) can be assumed as part of the setting for how Jesus' audience should perceive that through Jesus divine judgement has come upon them. Though the same verse is not cited in both 11Q13 and John 10:34, the overall subject matter which lies behind the use of the Psalm in both contexts is probably to be understood as very similar.70

As with the previous examples here are two exegetical uses of the same Psalm, and the theme of the intepretations is very similar in the two contexts where the Psalm is cited. In 11Q13 another Psalm is interwoven to draw out the meaning of the reference to Psalm 82; in John 10 the broader context of Jesus as judge assumes allusions to other scriptural passages as is implied in the use of the term "your Law." There is much that is shared, but much is common simply because of the way Psalm 82 is understood as part of the argument in both passages.


III. Conclusions

Seven passages in the New Testament have been considered in this study. They have been set alongside a slightly larger number of passages from the scrolls found at Qumran. In both contexts the scrolls and the New Testament seem to share combined references or allusions to scripture. It is not a matter of a single quotation alone, but of shared intertextual interpretations. What can be said by way of conclusion in drawing out the significance of this investigation?

Firstly it needs to be stated clearly that no New Testament work explicitly cites any literary work found in the Qumran caves. Some scriptural passages, such as the famous Isa. 40:3, are indeed found quoted explicitly in both corpora, but the literary contexts of each usage are distinct. Perhaps the closest a New Testament work comes to citing a Qumran text is Mark 10:6 (// Matt. 19:4) on divorce, where not only is Gen. 1:27 cited explicitly as in CD 4:21, but also the preliminary phraseology, "from the beginning of creation" is indeed not unlike what is found in CD's h)yrbh dwsy. But we have noticed that these similarities need to be handled carefully.

Secondly some Qumran and New Testament quotations of scriptural passages clearly represent the same text form, even though the former is in Hebrew and the latter in Greek. So, for example, Amos 9:11 in 4Q174, CD 7:16, and Acts 15:16.71 However, this similarity in text form does not mean that the New Testament author is quoting from a Qumran version of the text and translating appropriately as he goes. It is much more likely that we are now just beginning to realize what every New Testament scholar should have known all along, that in the first century CE, whilst there is a move towards some kind of standardization of the Hebrew text form, there remains plenty of evidence for a plurality of text types extant in Palestine during the first centuries BCE and CE. This omnipresent diversity means that the coincidence of variant readings in more than one source is not all that remarkable.

Thirdly, perhaps the most intriguing and significant conclusion of this investigation can be expressed as follows. In several examples there is considerable overlap in shared intertextual exegetical combinations in the text found at Qumran and the New Testament, but it is also obvious that there are many differences which should not be forgotten. Having more than one exegetical matter in common with a contemporary text does not necessarily imply that there is any direct literary relationship between those two texts. This unexpected conclusion needs some elaboration. The increasingly sophisticated methodological awareness of those interested in intertextuality, that all texts reflect a dialogue with other texts, written and unwritten, has enabled students of texts to perceive that texts which assume some kind of authority often produce or are the products of echoes of other texts. As is well known, the Hebrew Bible is its own witness to developing literary traditions and the scrolls found at Qumran attest how scribes in copying its books often behaved intertextually themselves, introducing phraseology that was reminiscent of other passages of scripture. This may happen both deliberately as two scriptural texts with related subject matter are associated with one another; or it may happen unconciously as the idiomatic phraseology of one passage comes to influence the scribe as he works on another. This attests to the phenomenon that some scriptural texts (and no doubt others too) readily suggest their own intertextual spheres. Those that reappear most intricately in subsequent traditions are primarily attesting the suggestiveness of the exegetical base text, rather than defining a particular social group or groups who read the text in an exclusive way through the generations. Thus the more shared intertextual combinations there are between groups of various persuasions, the greater is the suggestiveness of the base text and the less the likelihood of direct literary dependence of one group on another - unless, of course, quotation of a literary source can be unequivocally demonstrated.

There are many similar concerns in the scrolls, both the so-called sectarian ones and in the non-scriptural non-sectarian ones, and in the New Testament writings. These are most obvious in the common features of their community organization and the common elements of their eschatologies, especially when messianic hopes and claims are the issue. However, these seem to be the common inheritance of the Judaisms that live primarily under eschatological motivation, rather than the products of the self-reflection of limited numbers of people, isolated in well-defined groups, familiar with one another's ideas. In those very passages in both the scrolls and the New Testament where there are similar intertextual echoes, this study has observed that the interpretative differences are as numerous as the similarities. Attention to intertextuality shows the distinctiveness of each set of writings but also that much in the New Testament is the common stock of eschatologically oriented first century Palestinian Judaism; the scriptural exegesis in the extant texts of the first two generations of Christians does not show that Christianity is an Essenism that has largely succeeded.72


1 I am very grateful to the Hebrew University's Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature for inviting me to participate in its international symposium on "Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls." [Back to text]

2 The most significant starting point is the essay by J.A. Fitzmyer, "The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament," NTS 7 (1960-61) 297-333; reprinted in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: Chapman, 1971) 3-58. Further bibliography can be found in J.A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study (SBLRBS 20; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 173-79. [Back to text]

3 See, e.g., J.A. Fitzmyer, "4QTestimonia and the New Testament," TS 18 (1957) 513-37; reprinted in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, 59-89. [Back to text]

4 The statement of J.A. Fitzmyer can be considered typical: "One of the most striking cases of accommodation which occurs in the Qumran literature is found in the following passage [CD 4:19-5:2], in which four Old testament passages are used. It also has a striking parallel in the New Testament" (Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, 36). [Back to text]

5 A possibility drawn to my attention by D.R. Schwartz. [Back to text]

6 As, e.g., C.D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS 74; Cambridge: University Press, 1992). [Back to text]

7 This was the intended hallmark of the study by J. de Waard, A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament (STDJ 4; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965), but many studies proceed little further. [Back to text]

8 See the landmark studies by G. Vermes as collected in his Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (SPB 4; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 19832). [Back to text]

9 The term was adopted and adapted for literary theory by J. Kristeva in her essay "Word, Dialogue and Novel," first published in French in Séméiotiké: recherches pour une sémanalyse (Paris: Seuil, 1969) and available in English in The Kristeva Reader (ed. T. Moi; Oxford: Blackwell, 1986) 35-61; see also J. Kristeva, La Révolution du langue poétique (Paris: Seuil, 1974) 59-60. [Back to text]

10 The literature on intertextuality is very extensive: a useful guide is M. Worton and J. Still, eds, Intertextuality: Theories and Practices (Manchester: University Press, 1990); there are also some very instructive comments in S. Stewart, Nonsense: Aspects of Intertextuality in Folklore and Literature (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978). Particularly influential on some aspects of the current study have been R.B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) with respect to the NT, and D. Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990) with respect to Jewish exegetical traditions; also noteworthy is Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (ed. S. Draisma; Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1989). [Back to text]

11 "The term intertextuality denotes this transposiiton of one (or several) sign-system(s) into another; but since this term hsa often been understood in the banal sense of 'study of sources', we prefer the term transposition because it specifies that the passage from one signifying system to another demands a new articulation of the thetic - of enunciative and denotative positionality": J. Kristeva, "Revolution in Poetic Language," in The Kristeva Reader, 111. [Back to text]

12 See G.J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTS 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985) 209-10. [Back to text]

13 For the text of 4Q174 see now É. Puech, La Croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle? Histoire d'une croyance dans le Judaïsme ancien (EB 22; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1993) 572-87; A. Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEchata.b): Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 ("Florilegium") und 4Q177 ("Catena A") repräsentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden (STDJ 13; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994) 5-53. [Back to text]

14 See G.J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 166-69. [Back to text]

15 É. Puech, La Croyance des Esséniens, 573, n. 20. [Back to text]

16 A. Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde, 161-63. [Back to text]

17 See G.J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 111-13. [Back to text]

18 As described recently by J.J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 1995) 61, cf. 23. [Back to text]

19 Influence initially outlined most extensively by Y. Yadin, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews," Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta Hierosolymitana 4; ed. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 19652) 36-55; and continued subsequently in the extensive debate over whether the figure of Melichizedek in 11Q13 lies behind the same name in Hebrews 5-7, on which see P.J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa' (CBQMS 10; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981) 115-29. [Back to text]

20 Nor need we suppose a middle way, as for example does H.W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989) 50: "The form of this material resembles the catenae or florilegia found at Qumran, which share some of the texts found here. Such collections of messianic proof texts probably circulated in early Christian circles and it is likely that the author used such a traditional collection at this point." Attridge also notes the widespread criticism of such a view. [Back to text]

21 See my detailed study: G.J. Brooke, "4Q500 1 and the Use of Scripture in the Parable of the Vineyard," DSD 2 (1995) 268-94. [Back to text]

22 J.M. Baumgarten, "4Q500 and the Ancient Conception of the Lord's Vineyard," JJS 40 (1989) 1-6. [Back to text]

23 Baumgarten points to Ps. 84:7 ()kb; cf. 4Q500 1 2); Ps. 65:10
(Myhl) glp; cf. hkdwbk yglp, 4Q500 1 5); Ps. 46:5
(Myhl) ry( wxm#y wyglp rhn). [Back to text]

24 Cf. Isa. 32:2; Ezek. 47:1-12; Tg. Jon. Isa. 5:2
(Nwhy)+x l( )rpkl tybhy yxbdm P)w Nwhynyb y#dqm tynbw); t. Suk. 3:15 (Mgw xbzm hz hb bcx bqy lkyh hz ykwtb ldgm Nbyw
ty#h hz wb bcx bqy); 1 Enoch 89:50. [Back to text]

25 G.J. Brooke, "4Q500 1 and the Use of Scripture in the Parable of the Vineyard," 272. [Back to text]

26 See notes 22 and 23 above. [Back to text]

27 É. Puech, "Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521)," RevQ 15 (1990-92) 475-519; reprinted in an adjusted form in É. Puech, La Croyance des Esséniens en la vie future, 627-92. [Back to text]

28 See especially M. Wise and J. Tabor, "The Messiah at Qumran," BAR 18/6 (1992) 60-65; J.D. Tabor and M.O. Wise, "4Q251 'On Resurrection' and the Synoptic Gospel Tradition: A Preliminary Study," JSP 10 (1992) 149-62; J.J. Collins, "The Works of the Messiah," DSD 1 (1994) 98-112; J.J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 117-22; G.J. Brooke, "Luke-Acts and the Qumran Scrolls: the Case of MMT," Luke's Literary Achievement: Collected Essays (ed. C.M. Tuckett; JSNTSup 116; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 75-76. [Back to text]

29 J.J. Collins, "The Works of the Messiah," 107; The Scepter and the Star, 122. [Back to text]

30 This is not a direct quotation of Isa. 35:5, since the verbal phrase there is
a)noixqh&sontai o)fqalmoi\ tuflw~n; a)nable&pw occurs in Isa. 61:1. [Back to text]

31 Only the noun is the same in both Luke 7:22 // and Isa. 35:5. [Back to text]

32 Both verb and noun are the same as in Isa. 35:5. [Back to text]

33 This is clearly an allusion to Isa. 61:1, but the structure of the Gospel saying means that in each phrase the noun precedes the verb, whereas in Isa. 61:1 the verb precedes the noun. The grammatical forms are not quite the same in any case. The influence of Isa. 61:1 in other parts of the Gospel tradition (e.g., Matt. 5:3 // Luke 6:20) and the possible influence of those passages on Luke 7:22 // should also be borne in mind, but cannot be dealt with in detail here. [Back to text]

34 There is no overall counterpart to the LXX's tufloi=j a)na&bleyin in the MT or Qumran MSS of Isaiah; perhaps this is an example of intertextual influence of some kind within the transmission of Isaiah, not necessarily at the stage of translation. Though it seems as if xqp is taken to refer to the opening of the eyes as in Isa. 35:5, the Greek of Isa. 61:1 does not use a form of a)noi/gw. Other secondary Isaianic influences should also be considered (Isa. 26:19; 29:18-19; 42:7, 18) as well as possible allusions to the Elijah and Elishah stories for items 3 and 5 (1 Kgs 17:17-24; 2 Kgs 4:18-37; 5:1-24). [Back to text]

35 The influence of Psalm 146 is visible elsewhere in the fragment too: e.g., with lines 1-2 compare Ps. 146:6. [Back to text]

36 "Une apocalypse messianique," 493. [Back to text]

37 The three elements in the list from line 13 are somewhat uncertain. Tabor and Wise read only h#(y M[b] h(ry lhny My#w[dq, "... he will lead the [Ho]ly Ones, he will shepherd [th]em. He will do..." ("4Q521 'On Resurrection'," 150-51). [Back to text]

38 It would be unwarranted indeed to suggest in light of 4Q521 and the possible links of John the Baptist with the movement part of which is reflected in the Qumran texts that the reply Jesus gives to John's disciples in the Gospel tradition was deliberately meant to fit John's expectations with a precise literary allusion to a text found at Qumran. [Back to text]

39 See M. de Jonge and A.S. van der Woude, "11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament," NTS 12 (1965-66) 301-26; J.A. Fitzmyer, "Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11," JBL 86 (1967) 25-41 (reprinted in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, 245-67); J. Carmignac, Le document de Qumrân sur Melkisédeq," RevQ 7 (1969-71) 343-78; J.T. Milik, "Milkî-edeq et Melkî-resa' dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens," JJS 23 (1972) 95-144; G.J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 319-23; T.H. Lim, "11QMelch, Luke 4 and the Dying Messiah," JJS 43 (1992) 90-92. [Back to text]

40 For the text of 11Q13 see most recently É. Puech, "Notes sur le manuscrit 11QMelkîsédeq," RevQ 12 (1985-87) 483-513; La Croyance des Esséniens en la vie future, 516-26. [Back to text]

41 In addition to the studies listed in note 31 see, e.g., M.P. Miller, "The Function of Isa 61:1-2 in 11Q Melchizedek," JBL 88 (1969) 467-69; D.F. Miner, "A Suggested Reading for 11Q Melchizedek 17," JSJ 2 (1971) 144-48; J.A. Sanders, "The Old Testament in 11Q Melchizedek," JANESCU 5 (1973) 373-82; J.A. Sanders, "From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4," Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty (SJLA 12; ed. J. Neusner; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975) 1.75-106. [Back to text]

42 The LXX makes the connection too, using a#fesij to render both lbwy of Lev. 25:13 and h+m# of Deut. 15:2; also 1Q22 column 3 may be best restored with reference to both Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15. See J.A. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, 256. [Back to text]

43 This is well brought out in relation to the whole text of Luke-Acts by A. Finkel, "Jesus' Preaching in the Synagogue on the Sabbath (Luke 4.16-28)," The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. C.A. Evans and W.R. Stegner; JSNTSup 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 325-41. [Back to text]

44 See especially C. Perrot, "Luc 4,16-30 et la lecture biblique de l'ancienne Synagogue," Exégèse biblique et Judaisme (ed. J.-E. Ménard; Strasbourg: Palais Universitaire, 1973) 170-86; and more generally his essay "The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue," Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. M.J. Mulder; CRINT 2/1; Assen: van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988) 137-59. [Back to text]

45 J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX: a New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 28; Garden City: Doubleday, 19832) 532. [Back to text]

46 J.A. Fitzmyer says of the question in Luke 4:22: "The query could in itself be one of cynical indignation or one of pleasant surprise or admiration; in my opinion, it records the latter" (The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 535). Fitzmyer also refers back to Luke 3:23 for appreciating the significance of the question. [Back to text]

47 R.J. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990) 315-73. [Back to text]

48 Jude and the Relatives of Jesus, 319. [Back to text]

49 See especially G.J. Brooke, "Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts," The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the Intenational Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: E.J. Brill; Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1993) 332-36. [Back to text]

50 See D. Dimant and J. Strugnell, "4Q Second Ezekiel (4Q385)," RevQ 13 (1988) 45-58; "The Merkabah Vision in Second Ezekiel (4Q385 4)," RevQ 14 (1989-90) 331-48. For the most recent information on the assignation of particular fragments to manuscripts of Second Ezekiel see also D. Dimant, "New Light on the Jewish Pseudepigrapha - 4Q390," The Madrid Qumran Congress, 408-409. That information renders obsolete the presentation of the fragments of various manuscripts in B.-Z. Wacholder and M. Abegg, A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four (Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1995) 3.228-63 which is controlled by the allocations of fragments made according to the Preliminary Concordance. [Back to text]

51 D. Dimant and J. Strugnell, "The Merkabah Vision in Second Ezekiel," 344-45. [Back to text]

52 "The Merkabah Vision in Second Ezekiel," 345. [Back to text]

53 See C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) 307-21, especially 315 on lines 9-10. [Back to text]

54 G.J. Brooke, "Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts," 333-34. [Back to text]

55 Enoch's vision in 1 Enoch 14 is a similar combination of elements from Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1 and 10, together with other scriptural passages. [Back to text]

56 "The Merkabah Vision in Second Ezekiel," 335. [Back to text]

57 "The Merkabah Vision in Second Ezekiel," 338. [Back to text]

58 C. Newsom (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 316) also finds traces of Isa. 6:3 in 4Q500 20-23 10. 4Q385 4 3 seems to combine part of Ezekiel (Ezek. 16:47) with part of Isaiah (Isa. 26:20). [Back to text]

59 B.-Z. Wacholder and M. Abegg (A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls, 230) propose Mypn]kh yt#w. The Preliminary Concordance makes no suggestion, though the traces of letters are registered. [Back to text]

60 See E.C. Ulrich, "The Septuagint Manuscripts from Qumran: A Reappraisal of Their Value," Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990) (ed. G.J. Brooke and B. Lindars; SBLSCS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 58-59. In the principal edition of 4Q119 nothing is made of the possible influence of Ezekiel on this manuscript of Leviticus at this point: P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD 9; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992) 161-65. [Back to text]

61 Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University, Shrine of the Book, 1983) 128. [Back to text]

62 There is an extensive literature on this pericope: J.A. Fitzmyer, "Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1," CBQ 23 (1961) 271-80; reprinted in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, 205-17; B. Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (SNTSMS 1; Cambridge: University Press, 1965) 49-56; J. Gnilka, "2 Cor 6:14-7:1 in Light of the Qumran Texts and the testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs," Paul and Qumran (ed. J. Murphy-O'Connor; Chicago: Priory Press, 1968) 48-68; reprinted in Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. Murphy-O'Connor and J.H. Charlesworth; New York: Crossroad, 1990) 48-68; G. Klinzing, Das Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament (SUNT 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 175-82; H.D. Betz, "2 Cor 6:14-7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment?" JBL 92 (1973) 88-108; M.E. Thrall, "The Problem of II Cor. vi.14-vii.1 in Some Recent Discussion," NTS 24 (1977-78) 132-48; G.J. Brooke, "Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts," 331-32. [Back to text]

63 See, e.g., G.J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 211-17. [Back to text]

64 Cf. the proximity of Ezek. 37:27 and 2 Sam. 7:14 in Rev. 21:3 and 7 respectively. [Back to text]

65 "The Septuagint Manuscripts from Qumran," 61. [Back to text]

66 As highlighted by P.J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melkiresa', 62-63. [Back to text]

67 As, e.g, R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966) 403. [Back to text]

68 Cf. LXX proskunhsa&ntwsan au)tw~| pa&ntej ui(oi\ qeou~. [Back to text]

69 The Gospel According to John I-XII, 409-11. [Back to text]

70 This is brought out best in studies by J.A. Emerton, "Some New Testament Notes," JTS 11 (1960) 329-32; "Melchizedek and the Gods: Fresh Evidence for the Jewish Background of John x.34-36," JTS 17 (1966) 399-401. [Back to text]

71 See the discussion in J. de Waard, A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament, 24-26. [Back to text]

72 To paraphrase Renan. I am grateful to A. Lerner for discovering the precise reference in Renan's writings: Histoire du peuple d'Isräel (Paris: Calman Lévy, 1891) 5.70. [Back to text]

Please send comments or inquiries to the Orion Center at