Instances of Exegetical Closeness between the DDS and the New Testament, and Their Implications
Serge Ruzer
Serge Ruzer In this paper I shall discuss three instances of parallel biblical exegesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. The first, attested as I am going to claim not only in the Synoptic tradition but also in Qumran (1QS I), is the presentation of the "double love command" (Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18) as the essence or great principle of Jewish Scripture. The second is the interpretations of Amos 9:11-12 in 4QFlorilegium and Acts 15. The third is the use of Gen 2:25-26 for establishing marital halakha in CD-A IV and Matt 19:3-9. In each of these cases, the particular religious ideas to which the biblical interpretation is tailored may differ and even stand in sharp opposition. Hence, there is apparently no reason to suppose a direct influence. Yet, despite the differences, the traditions in question seem to rely on and make use of common exegetical patterns, which they develop in different directions. I would suggest that rather than pointing to any direct connection, the appearance of these basic patterns both in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament point to their broad circulation in the first century CE. I shall also present instances of early rabbinic exegesis in an attempt to define the borders of that circulation and distinguish between, on the one hand, characteristic features of Qumran or nascent Christian exegesis and, on the other hand, exegetical patterns common to a variety of late Second Temple Jewish groups.
It is clear that if we take seriously the thesis that both the Qumran community and the nascent Jesus movement were merely two among a number of Jewish groups, we should use the (earlier) Qumran texts to illuminate (later) New Testament traditions. However, in the third case, which I shall discuss in greater detail, I shall suggest that we should also more intensely introduce New Testament evidence into the discussion of texts from Qumran and, in combination with those texts, into the discussion of the late Second temple Judaism. This third case highlights both the potential and the limitations of such an approach; while discussing it I shall not venture to provide definite answers but rather sum up my preliminary observations and formulate some questions for further discussion.

I. Matt 22:34-40 / Mark 12:28-31 / Luke 10:25-28 --- 1QS I 1-12
Alongside sayings, which determine the importance of the ever-expanding system of commandments as a whole, tannaitic sources document traditions exemplifying the opposite or complementary trend. This converse trend can be discerned in attempts at formulating a concise set of principles that represent the whole Torah. The debate on the question "What is the core commandment in the Torah?" which is related with certain variations in the Synoptic Gospels, (Matt 22:34-40, Mark 12:28-31, Luke 10:25-28), has been examined in research in this context. The Gospels give a double answer to the question "What is the greatest commandment in the Torah?": the love of God with all one's heart and with all one's soul and with all one's mind (and/or strength) (Deut. 6:5), and the love of one's neighbor (Lev 19:18), are the two precepts upon which the whole system of religious conduct is based. This coupling of Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 is the identifying feature of the tradition related here in the Gospels. Another notable mark that characterizes the first half of the answer referring to Deut 6:5 is the textual variants in the Gospel manuscripts oscillating between a three-part formulation corresponding to the biblical version of Deut 6:5 and its targumic versions, "with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind/strength", found in most manuscripts of Matthew, and several manuscripts of Mark, and a four-part formulation, "with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind (dia/noia)", which occurs in several manuscripts of Matthew, in most manuscripts of Mark, and in all manuscripts of Luke. The endeavor of trying to outline the Jewish hermeneutical context of the pericope is justified, both considering the existence of a general exegetic tendency in Second Temple Judaism which emphasized the " ואהבת . . ." ("And you shall love . . . "), commandments (hereafter: love commands), and in light of the internal indications in the Gospels themselves that the answer to the question of the great(est) Torah precept constitutes a point of agreement, or overlap, between Jesus and his Pharisaic environment.
In a recent article I tried to demonstrate the relevance of the opening section of the Rule of the Community to the understanding of the Gospel pericope's Jewish setting. As far as I know, the text from Qumran has not been given proper attention in this context.
According to the opening paragraphs of the Rule, it is a scroll that determines the set of rules of conduct for the members of the community, and also the procedures for entrance into the "community of covenant", or for the yearly renewal of the covenant. The scroll is intended for the משכיל (enlightened one), that is, for the leaders of the community or, alternately, for its each and every member. Hence the opening paragraphs constitute a kind of programmatic declaration of intentions.
|1 ל [משכיל ...]שים לחיו [ספר ס]רך היחד לדרוש
|2 אל ב [כול לב ו]בכ[ול נפש ]לעשות הטוב והישר לפניו כאשר
|3 צוה ביד מושה וביד כול עבדיו הנביאים ולאהוב כול
|4 אשר בחר ולשנוא את כול אשר מאס לרחוק מכול רע
|5 ולדבוק בכול מעשי טוב ולעשות אמת וצדקה ומשפט
|6 בארץ ולוא ללכת עוד בשרירות לב אשמה ועיני זנות
|7 לעשות כול רע ולהבי את כול הנדבים לעשות חוקי אל
|8 בברית חסד להיחד בעצת אל ולהתהלך לפניו תמים כול
|9 הנגלות למועדי תעודותם ולאהוב כול בני אור איש
|10 כגורלו בעצת אל ולשנוא כול בני חושך איש כאשמתו
|11 בנקמת אל וכול הנדבים לאמתו יביאו כול דעתם וכוחם
|12 והונם ביחד אל לברר דעתם באמת חוקי אל וכוחם לתכן
|13 כתם דרכיו וכול הונם כעצת צדקו ולוא לצעוד בכול אחד

Already in the second line the combination "בכול לב ובכול נפש" ("with all {one's} heart and with all {one's} soul") appears, which seems to allude to that group of sayings in the Pentateuch containing this combination, appearing at times with an extra component, ("בכל מאדך" "with all your might"), such as Deut 6:5, or without one, such as Deut 10:12; 30:10. This declaration of intentions also includes the claim that to cling to God "with all one's heart and with all one's soul" is the essence of what God commanded "through Moses and through all his servants the prophets" ("ביד משה וביד כל עבדיו הנביאים") (line 3). Moreover, the commandment as it is worded here is, in the mindset of the scroll's compiler, the foundation of the covenant (1QS I 16-17).
The author from Qumran also clarifies what the interpretation for loving God is: "to love everything which he selects and to hate everything that he rejects; in order to keep oneself at a distance from all evil," ("לאהוב כל אשר בחר ולשנוא את כול אשר מאס ולרחוק מכול רע ולדבוק בכול מעשי טוב ולעשות אמת וצדקה ומשפט") (lines 3-5). From this we learn that the definition of love necessarily includes the element of hate (to hate everything that the loved one hates).
In lines 9-10, a transition occurs from God being the recipient of love to another person being the recipient of love/ hate - the exegetical elaboration of the command to love God from Deut 6:5 is complemented by a reference to loving one's fellow man, employing the same contrast between love and hate: "to love all the sons of light, each one according to his lot in God's plan, and to detest all the sons of darkness, each one in accordance with his guilt in God's vindication," (lines 9-11). The command to be enlightened and discern between the sons of light and the sons of darkness is reiterated later in the scroll, and its appearance here in the opening remarks of the Rule of the Community strengthens the view that it is one of the central principles of the sect. There are clear indications that the command to love all the sons of light and to hate all the sons of darkness is not put forward here as an independent general principle, but rather serves as an interpretation of the second love precept from Lev 19:18, "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." Therefore, the core separatist tendency of the sect is intrinsically connected here with its peculiar interpretation of Lev 19:18, an interpretation which stands in contrast to alternate exegeses that existed at the end of the Second Temple period in other Jewish circles. I also suggested that the appearance of dia/noia (mind, opinion) in the Gospels as either the third or the fourth element of Deut 6:5 admonition (מאד in the Masoretic text) might be better understood in light of what seems to represent the Qumranic interpretation of מאד found in 1QS I 11-12:
And all those who submit freely to his truth will convey all their knowledge, their energies [strength], and their riches to the Community of God in order to refine their knowledge in the truth of God's decrees and marshal their energies in accordance with his perfect paths and all their riches in accordance with his just counsel, ("וכול הנדבים לאמתו [של האל] יביאו כול דעתם וכוחם והונם ביחד אל לברר דעתם באמת חוקי אל וכוחם לתכן כתם דרכיו וכול הונם כעצת צדקו.")
The appearance of the words כול הונם (all their riches) testifies, in my opinion, that the text goes on here with exegesis on the Deut 6:5 love command started in line 2. The exegete from Qumran may be seen as adopting the interpretation in which "מאדך" refers to one's possessions. If this is true, what is the explanation of "דעתם וכוחם" (their knowledge and their energies/ strength)? Since the Septuagint already attests to strength as an accepted interpretation of "מאדך," there is a basis for supposing that knowledge, in this context, is merely one more exegetical suggestion for understanding מאד. If the above proposal is true, then, our current text records a number of different interpretations of the word מאד from Deut 6:5 side by side, in a manner not unlike the one attested in m. Ber. 9:5.
The conclusions may be summed up in the following way. The interpretation given to the two love commands in the Rule of the Community differs in significant details from that advocated by the Gospels. An obvious difference in the Gospels is the lack of reference to possessions, הון, as an interpretation of מאד-a difference in exegesis that may be plausibly connected to differences in social circumstances. There is another not less important difference: based on the content of the Sermon on the Mount, (Matt 5:43-48, cf. Luke 6:27-36), and on the parable of the good Samaritan recorded in Luke's Gospel as a kind of clarification of the debate on the question "What is the greatest commandment in the Torah?" (Luke 10:29-37), one can conclude that hatred toward enemies does not characterize the exegesis of Lev 19:18 attributed to Jesus. Alternatively, Mark's Gospel presents Jesus and his Pharisaic milieu as sharing the opinion that the double love command is more important than "all offerings and sacrifices." Moreover, the two traditions are at variance concerning the anticipated goal/ reward of the right religious stance: contrary to the Gospels, which advocate the Pharisaic emphasis on חיי עולמים, (eternal life- whatever their understanding of the expression is), the Rule of the Community separates חיים (life) from עולמים (eternity), blessing all those who walk blamelessly in the way of the double love command with שלום עולמים (eternal peace) and דעת עולמים (eternal wisdom).
However, despite all the differences in exegesis and ruling, is seems that both traditions rely on and make use of a common basic exegetical structure, which they develop in different directions. Hermeneutical reliance on the pair of love precepts from Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 is evidenced both in the Rule of the Community and in the Gospels. In both traditions, the double love command is presented as a summation of the Law of Moses, (Law and the Prophets in Matt and the Rule of the Community), with an eternal goal as a reward for its fulfillment. Thus, in my opinion, the opening paragraphs of the Rule of the Community should be added to the list of early sources where the paired love commands appear. One of the reasons for the importance of this witness is that, as opposed to compositions such as the Testament of Issachar and the Testament of Dan, usually mentioned in this context, the Rule of the Community is dated with certainty to the pre-Christian era. Therefore, it is able to provide a clear indication for the existence of this type of exegetic pattern prior to Jesus.
Owing to the differing ways of interpretation between the Rule of the Community and the Gospels, there is apparently no particular reason for speaking about a direct influence. It is more likely that the two traditions, as stated above, engage the same basic hermeneutical pattern, which would comprise the pairing of the two love commands as a kind of sum of the covenant stipulations. The fact that both the Rule of the Community and both Jesus and Pharisees in the Gospels adopt this shared hermeneutic pattern testifies to its wide acceptance at the end of the Second Temple period. This basic pattern seems to signify a point of overlap between different groups' approaches, among them that of the early sages, and that of the members of the Qumran community. The substantial dissimilarities in outlook among these groups find their expression in the different directions in which each of them develops their exegesis of Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18: it has been noted that such conspicuous Qumranic traits in the exegesis attested in the opening paragraphs of the Rule of the Community as the sharing of possessions, and the love-hate dichotomy are absent from the Gospel pericope under discussion. It is of interest that alongside the substantial divergences in exegesis, there is also an overlap in certain details. Thus the Gospel interpretation of the third component of the love command from Deut 6:5 (dia/noia) is better understood in light of the exegesis found in Qumran.

II. Acts 15: 14-21 --- 4QFlorilegium I 10-13
In his discussion of the end of days scenario the author of the 4QFlorilegium pesher adopts what seems to be the "standard" messianic interpretation of 2 Sam 7:12: זרעך = kingly Messiah, descendant of David (צמח דויד: line 11), an interpretation that serves his objective of firmly establishing the place of the Qumran community as the subject of the salvation of Israel -- in light of its conflicts with other Jewish groups. However, he does not stop at that: the reference to Amos 9:11 allows him to introduce another eschatological character, the Interpreter of the Torah:
|10 וה]גיד לכה יהוה כיא בית יבנה לכה והקימותי את זרעכה אחריכה והכינותי את כסא ממלכתו
|11 [ל³עו]לם אני אהיה לוא לאב והוא יהיה לי לבן הואה צמח דויד העומד עם דורש התורה אשר
|12 [...]בצי[ון בא]חרית הימים כאשר כתוב והקימותי את סוכת דויד הנופלת היאה סוכת
|13 דויד הנופל[ת א]שר יעמוד להושיע את ישראל

It is difficult to decide whether in 4QFlorilegium this Interpreter of the Torah is equated with the "booth of David" (סוכת דויד) or is charged with the task of erecting it (lines 12-13) -- he and not the Davidic Messiah! The latter interpretation is especially plausible in light of a passage from the Damascus Document, where the same verse from Amos is discussed and it is stated unequivocally that the books of the Torah, interpreted by the Interpreter of the Torah, the true star and the leader of Israel, are that very "booth of the king" the prophet speaks about. In any case, the Interpreter of the Torah is presented here as the ultimate agent of salvation, a figure of even higher status than the "branch of David" (צמח דויד-- lines 11-13). If the identification of the Interpreter of the Torah here as the Priest of the last days, as suggested by some scholars, is accepted, the polemical shift performed here turns out to be similar to the one discerned in the Qumran interpretation of Isaiah: some kind of mighty patron (Interpreter of the Torah? Aharonic Messiah?) is attached to the Davidic Messiah in the last days; it is according to that patron's will (according to his interpretation of the Holy Writ!) that the kingly Messiah will have to act. It is worth noting that our pesher does not show any interest in the continuation of the Amos prophecy where the place and function of Gentiles in the days of salvation is addressed. Lines 3-5, however, indicate that the basic stance of 4QFlorilegium is far from being universalistic.
Let us turn now to the passage in Acts 15. After Paul's arguments for bringing the gospel to the Gentiles without demanding that they embrace the ritual obligations of the Torah, as well as Peter's reaction have been presented to the reader, it is James' turn to formulate his position. The discussion of the exact relationship between Peter's stance and that of James, as well as between this passage and the tradition attested in Acts 21:18-25, is beyond the scope of the present discussion. Suffice it to note that historically the position formulated here by James seems to have been a compromise destined to solve the issue of common meals that arose at Antioch, while presenting it as a resolution of the Jerusalem council is a well-calculated move on the part of the author of Acts, tailored to back his linear presentation of the initial stages of the Church history. Since the author of Acts is generally believed to have been responsible for composing the speeches, we have reason to consider the interpretation of Amos 9, attested here as part of the book's overall exegetic strategy.
Although the particularities of the exegetic move performed here may remain obscure, its main point is clear: possible reservations notwithstanding, James gives Paul's "universalistic" move his consent, quoting as a biblical proof-text the same passage from Amos 9 of which 4QFlorilegium also made use. As emphasized above, the Qumran exegete is not at all interested in bringing Gentiles into the "fold of the last days' salvation" even as submissive subjects of the Davidic Messiah: he ignores the continuation of the Amos passage, which speaks about the fate of the Gentiles, concentrating instead on the "internal relationship" between the Davidic Messiah and his "booth," the Interpreter of the Torah.
As Acts 15:21 seems to indicate, the compiler of James' speech not only related to the same passage from Amos but was also aware of the exegetical link established--e.g., in Qumran--between the "booth of David" and preaching/interpreting the Torah. Yet his emphasis differs greatly from that of 4QFlorilegium. It has been noted that the quotation in Acts 15 is a conflated one but that on the core point it is close to the Septuagint understanding of Amos 9:11-12: the booth of David is going to be restored so that "all men shall seek the Lord." This understanding contradicts both the Masoretic reading and the Aramaic targumic interpretation, according to which the result of the restoration will be Israel's rule over "all the sons of Edom." It is admittedly difficult to establish what exactly the Septuagint version reflects here: Hebrew text variant or peculiar exegesis; but whatever the case, the "universalistic" tendency of this version is of undeniably polemical character, and it is this "universalistic" feature that seems to have prompted the author of Acts to use the Septuagint-like reading.
To sum up, the interpretation of Amos 9:11-12 suggested in Acts 15:13-21 may be characterized as a polemical combination/reworking of exegetic traditions relating to a stock proof-text of messianic exegesis. A Davidic Messiah-centered interpretation is adopted here: but not unlike the Qumran pesher, the compiler of Acts ignores, or at the least subdues, the kingly aspect of his Davidic Messiah, thus rejecting interpretation of the kind attested in the Targum. As in 4QFlorilegium, the emphasis is shifted from the kingly Messiah himself to the "booth of David," although the objective here is different: not to introduce, as in Qumran, a competing messianic figure of priestly descent but to substitute the gentiles' "search for God" for the rule of a Davidic Messiah over the nations. The link between the "booth of David" and the (interpretation of the) Torah, a link that is attested in Qumran, also undergoes a polemical re-evaluation in James' speech: it is not exclusively via accepting the Torah, which is preached in all the synagogues of the Diaspora, but rather via the Gentiles' "turning to the God of Israel" that the "booth of David" is restored.
The expectation for a Davidic Messiah clearly belonged to a broader spectrum of the Second Temple Judaism distinguished patterns of messianic belief -- thanks both to notions of the distant past that had found expression in a number of biblical texts and to certain exegetical traditions connected with those texts. In eschatologically oriented groups like Qumran or nascent Christianity this seems to have resulted in a problematic situation: on the one hand, the biblical books, containing the proof-texts of the Davidic messianship ("stock quotations", e.g., Amos 9:11-12), enjoyed in these groups the sacred status of Holy Writ, while the corresponding exegetical traditions were widely known and could not be simply ignored. On the other hand, the emphasis on the Davidic Messiah and/or particular elements of salvation scenario pertaining to his mission did not exactly fit either "group interests" (as in Qumran) or a type of experienced eschatological reality (as in nascent Christianity). Therefore, each of these communities developed its own modified, polemically flavored, brand of exegesis, which was supposed to alleviate the problem.

III. Matthew 19:3-9/Mark 9:2-12 ---- CD IV 20 - V 2
Lust, adultery and divorce are bound together in the discourse on "You shall not commit adultery" (Exod 20:13) in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:27-32). The discussion in Matt 19:3-9 again discusses adultery, this time, in connection with divorce, but addresses the issue from a different exegetic angle. If the tradition attested in Mark 10:2-12 is seen as the source of the Matthean version, we may observe that the Matthean redactor, mindful of the precedent in the Sermon on the Mount, inserts into the passage the ruling from Matt 5:32. I have dealt elsewhere with the traditions presenting idolatry and lust as two basic expressions of the evil impulse and with the fact that in a number of sources dating from the late Second Temple period and further on, idolatry was presented as having become obsolete. Lust therefore came to be portrayed as the main outlet of the evil impulse-or at least as one of the limited number of "capital sins" constituting a major danger to the Covenant. Such is the assessment attested in a number of later rabbinic sources; and this seems also to be the stance of CD-A IV 15-18 and Luke 16:14-18.
The perception attested in Qumran, according to which the prohibition of adultery and other immoral behavior represents Torah prohibitions in general, may indicate the centrality of the issue in a broader social context. And this in turn may inform our appraisal of the fact that it is repeatedly addressed not only in the New Testament passages mentioned above but also elsewhere in the New Testament. It should also be noted that in CD-A IV the discussion of lust/fornication is coupled with greed as another of Satan's snares. The same coupling characterizes the Gospel section in question (Mark 10:17-31, Matt 19:16-30) and some later rabbinic elaborations on the theme. The appearance of this combination in Qumran and the New Testament indicates its broad circulation already in the Second Temple period; the specifics of the application may be attributed to the differences in social context. It is worth noting that in their discussion of dangers connected with personal wealth and greed - in contradistinction to lust/fornication - neither the Damascus Document nor the Gospels care to put forward exegetical proofs. We have seen, however, that the motif does get midrashic upgrading elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament.
Menahem Kister is planning to discuss the exact halakhic intentions of both the Qumran and the Gospel sections. I will therefore limit myself to a number of general observations on the exegetic patterns used there and then relate briefly to possible implications for solving the halakhic conundrum. First, it should be noted that the discussion in Matthew 19 (and Mark 10) is linked to the key theme of the Gospel, namely, the kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God. There have been a variety of suggestions as to the nature of Jesus' perception of the kingdom, among them Flusser's thesis of the intermediary position Jesus' kingdom of heaven held in the overall redemption scenario between the "covenantal past" and the eschaton of the last judgment.
The passage from Matthew we are investigating may provide a useful test case for Flusser's thesis. My interpretation is that the function of the saying on the little children brought to Jesus (Matt 19:13-15) is to ameliorate the preceding sayings on eunuchs: although those "who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 19:12) are to be duly appreciated, this does not mean the rejection of marriage and childbearing. Moreover, if we take a clue from Matt 18:3 and similar sayings, it may be gleaned from our passage that children are accepted into the kingdom on account of some precious qualities supposedly pertaining to childhood and not because the apocalyptic end of time is due to arrive within their lifetime. Flusser's suggestion, then, sits well with the Gospel section under discussion.
A comparison with 1 Corinthians 7 is instructive here: Paul's letter seems to represent a different stance. His advice against remarriage is put forward as being derived not only from the needs of the intermediate phase, needs that in fact pertain to every time and every period, but also from acute expectation of the imminent end (1 Cor 7:26,29). The New Testament treatment of the issue is thus characterized by a variety of perceptions. Moreover, we may discern here a certain development of the motif from its initially non-eschatological provenance to its eschatological re-interpretation. Paul states explicitly that the interpretation he is propagating is the fruit of his own contemplation - he is not aware of any teaching on the topic that may be safely ascribed to Jesus. Whatever the case, the core motif of Paul's elaboration is explicitly stated at the very beginning: "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor 7:1). Jesus' appraisal of marriage, as represented in less eschatologically charged Matthew 19, is definitely much more positive.
The Dead Sea Scrolls in general, and the Damascus Document in particular, are believed to represent a variety of eschatologically flavored religious outlooks. Some of them are centered exclusively on the upcoming end of days, while others are mainly interested in the interim period characterized by the more or less prolonged existence of the sect governed by its rule and surrounded by the sons of darkness. The New Testament evidence prompts us to ask: What measure of eschatological tension, if any, should be ascribed to the CD IV ruling on marital halakha? Or, taking the same question from an opposite point: How should the CD ruling inform our appraisal of the Damascus Document's eschatological stance?

*****
In the Sermon on the Mount, it is not the validity of Deut 24:1 but conflicting interpretations of a difficult expression (ערות דבר) found in the biblical verse that constituted the exegetical crux of the polemic. In contradistinction, the same verse is presented in Matt 19:7-8 as an ad hoc regulation (a reaction to the people's "hardness of heart") with a limited time span of application.
An analogous exegetical move tailored to serve the purpose of "adjusting God's pronounced demands" to Israel's de facto performance may be discerned in CD-A V 1-8. The urge to tackle the problem of this discrepancy seems to have been shared by all those who appealed to the ideal state of affairs prevailing in the days of creation. However, the solution offered in CD-A V was devoid of "liberal qualities"-far from considering the possibility that Moses on his own initiative added to the "initial Torah," it ascribes Torah's concealment to problematic periods of history-inter alia, that of David. This seems to reflect the CD programmatic stance, according to which the written Torah, the one the members of the group share with the rest of Israel, forever retains its status, while in actuality it is re-interpreted according to the revelation of the new covenant.
Yet the notion of ad hoc Torah regulation (הוראת שעה) is attested in later rabbinical sources, and Philo already creates a tripartite division of the Torah material: God's words, Moses' own deliberation, and a mix of the two. So, it is rather vis-?-vis these tendencies, not CD V, that one must examine the "liberal" position with regard to the Holy Writ attested in our Gospel pericope. It seems that in this instance also the reasoning of Matthew's Jesus was supposed to reflect an inherited exegetic pattern.
Beyond that "liberal" quality of the statement in Matt 19:7-8, verses 4-6 establish that for the true/eternal principles of marital union one has to look to the story of creation. This is one of the characteristic midrashic features discerned in traditions ascribed to the school of Shammai--the same school that Jesus sides with, against the opinion ascribed to the school of Hillel, with regard to lawful reasons for divorcing a wife in Matt 19:9 (and, before that, in Matt 5:32). According to the Mishnah, the school of Shammai posits the story of creation as one that establishes the basic structure of marital relationships. The saying from Gen 1:28 is used there for creating a halakhic midrash: man finds his fulfillment in procreating; hence one should adopt a lenient attitude to allow for an additional marriage union. Although the specific halakhic decision at which the Mishnah arrives here may characterize only Shammai (or some of his followers), the technique of using the creation story to define basic principles of marriage seems to represent a wider midrashic trend.
Let us have a closer look at Matt 19:4-6:
(4) Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' (5) and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? (6) So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.
Here the argument is presented as a midrashic combination of Gen 1:27 and 2:24. A number of rabbinical sources put Gen 2:24 to halakhic use with regard to problems pertaining to marriage, whereas Gen 1:27 is mostly referred to in connection with the androgyne-centered notion of the first man's nature. Yet there is a marriage-centered midrash on Gen 1:27 in b. Yeb. 63a, where R. Elazar refers to Gen 5:2 (=Gen 1:27): "One, who does not have a wife is not a man (Adam) because it is said, 'Male and female He created them'." It is worth noting, however, that the talmudic discussion here centers on encouragement to marry-seemingly detached from the call to procreate-not on the prevention of divorce and/or second marriage.
Hence the importance of the evidence from CD-A IV 15-18, where Gen 1:27 is used, like in Matthew 19, for establishing the marital halakha:
הם ניתפשים בשתים בזנות לקחת שתי נשים בחייהם ויסוד הבריאה זכר ונקבה ברא אותם
They…are caught twice in fornication: by taking two wives in their lives, even though the principle of creation is (Gen 1:27) "male and female he created them."
There has been much discussion on the exact meaning of the above admonition. Does it refer to remarriage and thus directly correspond to the Gospel pericope? If so, then the prohibition derived from Gen 1:27 pertains to "their lives," meaning that it is not absolute. If read in light of 11QTemple 57:15-19, the text may be understood as suggesting that second marriage after the death of the first wife is not forbidden. Should we then suppose that the same position is taken by Matt 19:9 (absent in the Marcan parallel, where it sounds like a total rejection of divorce?) Other scholars, however, put forward strong arguments for the anti-bigamy (anti-polygamy?) leaning of the passage. I shall return to this basic problem later, but for now suffice it to say that while halakhic and non-halakhic decisions derived from the discussions of the marriage-divorce issue might have differed from tradition to tradition, the appeal to Genesis 1-2 and, even more specifically, to Gen 1:27 is common to the New Testament and Qumran and thus seems to represent - in both traditions - an inherited, and hence rather early, midrashic feature.
Now, there is a telling difference between the Gospel and CD passages in their choice of the additional biblical proof-text. As noted earlier, the tradition ascribed to Jesus midrashically combines Gen 1:27 and 2:24, presenting marriage as the restoration of the ideal bond described in Gen 1:27. Let me emphasize again that this move indicates a high appraisal of marriage, including the aspect of physical intimacy (ei)sin mi/a sa/rc=are one flesh). CD instead picks up Gen 7:9 ("two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah"), where the distinction between the sexes is kept intact with no "union in flesh" in sight. Since CD seems to perceive sexual intercourse as intrinsically unclean, connected with "lust" (זנות) and permitted only for procreation, with the possible implication that some, or even a majority of the group do not marry at all, this overlooking of Gen 2:24 may be more than mere coincidence. It may be remarked that this frowning upon the "flesh" is not restricted to CD but, rather, constitutes a highly visible feature of a number of Qumran texts of central importance that propagate the "flesh-spirit" dualism.
In this instance also Paul's stance is instructive:
Do you know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one flesh." But he who is united with the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun immorality (pornei/a). Every other sin, which a man commits, is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? …So glorify God in your body. (1 Cor 6:15-20)
Difficult to believe, but in his passionate admonition against lust and immoral behavior Paul applies Gen 2:24 to the despicable intercourse with a prostitute! In rabbinic sources there is a tendency to glean from the creation account rules pertaining to the marital laws of the Gentiles. It is possible to speculate on the extent to which Paul's reasoning here is influenced by the fact that the Epistle addresses a Gentile audience and/or is linked to an existing midrashic tradition: in fact, there is a tradition attested in a later rabbinic source that both applies Gen 2:24 to the Gentiles and interprets the ending of the biblical verse ("and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh") as describing sexual relations with a prostitute! Whatever the case, Paul, unlike Jesus in Matthew 19, understands Gen 2:24 as an etiological saying describing a pitiful state of affairs and not as God's commandment --an illuminating indication of how far reservations concerning the "flesh" could go. It should be emphasized that while in his complex argumentation Paul also uses an explicitly Christological motif of members of the community as "members of Christ" (1 Cor 6:15), the rest of his reasoning is centered on the story of creation and the body as temple of the Holy Spirit and is not immediately connected to the messianic kerygma. It stands to reason that before being incorporated into Paul's Christology this "non-kerygmatic" section could have had an existence of its own.
As noted, the exact meaning of the CD admonition is problematic-that is, whether it is directed against polygamy, divorce, remarriage or some combination of these. A number of solutions have been suggested based on the philological analysis of the passage (inter alia, attempts to solve the problem of the masculine plural suffix of בחייהם in CD IV 21) or on reading it in the context of the Qumran, and even broader general Jewish, halakhic tendencies. New Testament material has been mostly excluded from the consideration. I mean that New Testament evidence has only rarely been recruited to elucidate the meaning of CD IV, and then rather hesitantly. Tom Holm?n, however, did refer to 1 Cor 7 as indicating that a particular interpretation of בחייהם, and correspondingly of the CD admonition as a whole, is possible-namely, that, although remarriage is not rejected in principle, it is acceptable only after the ex-wife/husband has died. As he put it, although this kind of approach "may seem baffling to us, it cannot be regarded as impossible for the Qumranites. At least Paul seems to have cherished the same kind of opinions." The wording seems to express doubt as to how one should evaluate Paul's reasoning here. What does it mostly reflect: the apostle's peculiar kerygmatic stance, his agenda vis-?-vis the Gentile audience, or inherited patterns of Jewish religious thought? As I have already suggested, the bulk of Paul's reasoning in 1 Cor 7 bears witness to existing patterns of belief; hence, to my mind, 1 Cor 7 may be used with more confidence in our discussion.
*****
I would like to introduce additional New Testament evidence that, as far as I am aware, has not yet been discussed in this context. The passage, Rom 7:1-6, opens with the rhetorical "Do not you know, brethren, for I speak to them that know the Torah." There have been attempts, unconvincing to my mind, to interpret even this passage as addressed to a Gentile audience. In any case, the opening presents the reasoning that follows as imbedded in traditional Torah-centered teaching. There are no valid reasons in this case to dismiss the apostle's words as sheer rhetoric-as a rule, Paul's discourse is distinguished by a sharp differentiation between various types of truth: revealed, transmitted by a tradition or attained in the process of the apostle's own contemplation.
The passage itself allows for a similar differentiation: while verses 2-3 represent the inherited thema, verses 4-6 promote the new Christological rhema. What parameters of the inherited tradition underlying Rom 7:2-3 may be gleaned from the text? It discusses the possibility of severing the marital bonds and presents it as unlawful except after the death of the spouse-in that case remarriage is presented as a desired development. It is worth noting that the discussion is characterized by repeated use of the expression "in his (man's/ husband's) life" (t%= zw=nti a)vdri\, zw=ntoj tou= a)ndro\j), a close parallel to the enigmatic בחייהם from CD IV. How can the observed characteristics of Rom 7:1-3 inform our interpretation of CD IV and vice versa? There are certain limitations. Paul's switch from "a person" (a)nqrw/pou) in verse 1 to "a married woman" (u(/pandroj gunh\) in verse 2 may indicate that the inherited argument used here could in principle be applied in both directions; so, we can hardly derive from the passage a sure indication regarding the gender behind בחייהם of CD IV. It is clear, however, that Paul's wording, reminiscent of CD IV, does not mean, "all the time while they live together (are married)." Hence, it could not be used in favor of the interpretation of the CD prohibition as concerned exclusively with polygamy.
Neither divorce nor polygamy are present in Paul's reasoning here-neither of them would fit the message the apostle is propagating. Of course, it does not necessarily prove that the same is true for CD IV; although each of the two traditions build on the same basic pattern, it does not immediately follow that their contents are identical. Yet it seems clear to me that all limitations notwithstanding, Rom 7:1 should be taken seriously in any discussion of CD IV. Even now, at the initial stage of the inquiry, it may be concluded that the perception of death as the natural limit for application of Torah's halakhah (not present in Matt 19:3-9!) underlies both sources and thus reflects a more general trend. Paul's rhetorical move in Rom 7:1 emerges as fairly adequate after all.
*****
The introduction of Rom 7:1-6 also prompts raising the question of genre. It is clear that Paul does not have any halakhic interest here-the marital law centered thema is used as a pretext for presenting one of Paul's core religious ideas concerning salvation through (identification with) Jesus' death and not through following the Torah commandments. Matt 19:3-9 is also characterized by a mix: after the ideal based on Gen 1, 2 is presented, the practical halakhah is suggested, halakhah that turns out to be based on Jesus' (=Shammai's) interpretation of the same verse from Deut 24, which has just been branded a compromise initiated by Moses:
He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives (in Deut 24:1), but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity (ערות דבר from Deut 24:1 interpreted as דבר ערוה), and marries another, commits adultery. (Matt 19:8-9)
It has already been suggested that what CD IV 21 - V 1 propagates is "the ideal of matrimony" without actually claiming that the current practice should be prohibited. To what extent should the New Testament evidence make us take that assessment further and reconsider the perception of CD IV 21-V 1 as a piece of marital halakhah?

*****
Finally, let me make one more observation. The fact that neither Matt 9:3-9 nor Rom 7:1-6-nor 1 Cor 6, 7 for that matter-relate to polygamy should be taken seriously into consideration. As noted, the polygamy-oriented interpretation of CD IV may be sustained even vis-?-vis the opposing New Testament evidence. But if it is sustained, this should inform our understanding of the social background of the CD IV polemic, and, more specifically, of the group that is represented by the "builders of the fence" (בוני החיץ). While many scholars, starting with S. Schechter, have identified the "builders of the fence" with the Pharisees, others have seen the admonition as directed by the author against contemporary Jewish society in general. It is instructive that in the New Testament not only Matthew, distinguished by his love for Jesus vs. the Pharisees "controversy stories pattern," but also his Marcan source presents lenience in matters of divorce as the characteristic feature of the Pharisaic approach. There is no particular reason to doubt this kind of presentation, which, on the one hand, does not seem to be influenced by any immediate messianic concern (kerygma) and, on the other hand, is substantiated by tannaitic evidence that attributes such an approach specifically to Hillelites. Moreover, among all Jesus' controversies with the Pharisees, whether it in the form of discussion or invective, polygamy never features. Thus if we both adopt the polygamy-centered interpretation of the CD IV invective and take the New Testament evidence seriously, the least we should say is that Jesus' Pharisees and the "builders of the fence" do not represent the same distinctive outlook. The question as to whether the difference should be explained as pointing to a diachronic development within the same group or to different groups is one that warrants further deliberation.