4Q174

[John2]

Looks like my "John T" thread has been taken down, and that's fine with me, if so.

Regarding 4Q174, I found an interesting article on it by Philip Church, in which he discusses certain resemblances between it and Hebrews:

Ever since 4Q174 was first published, scholars have noted connections with the Epistle to the Hebrews, usually related to the appearance of 2 Sam 7:14 (4Q174 1 III 11) and Ps 2 (4Q174 1 III 18). Hebrews 1:5 juxtaposes 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 2:7, and Ps 2:7 also appears in Heb 5:5. As Brooke maintains, "both authors were acquainted with a tradition whereby 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 belong together," although I would add that the authors do different things with these texts. But there is more than this to 4Q174 and Hebrews. In what follows I will discuss 4Q174 II 19 – 1 III 13 and will then turn my attention to Hebrews and draw out some similarities between the two texts. This essay is an exercise in the mutual illumination of these two texts.

http://www.academia.edu/4977012/_4Q174_ ... rgias_2013

This is what I mean about the DSS and Christianity. It doesn't matter to me if all the DSS were from the first century BCE (or earlier) and not the first century CE. These kinds of resemblances make me think that if 4Q174 (and the related Damascus Document) isn't from the first century CE then there must have been a sect or a way of thinking that was like Christianity (at least in certain respects) before there was Christianity (as Wise and Knohl propose).

The article also uses the Wise, Abegg, Cook translation of 4Q174 -but not the line about the sons of Zadok!

And here is the translation (page 355) and the Hebrew (line 17 on page 354) from Martinez and Tigchelaar:

This (refers to) the sons of Zadok and (to) the m[e]n of [the]ir council, those who see[k jus]tice eagerly, who have come after them to the council of the community.

https://books.google.com/books?id=6RfYx ... ez&f=false

I have to say that I'm not sure how to take this translation now. It follows this citation of Ezekiel 44:10:

"And (this refers to) those about whom it is written in the book of Ezekiel, the prophet, that they [the Levites] should not defile themselves anymore with all their idols."

My rough translation of the Hebrew (using a dictionary, out of curiosity) is:

They are the sons of Zadok and the men of their council who pursue righteousness who come after them to the council of the community.

The only part that confuses me here is "who come after them" מאחריהמה

I can't figure that one out, and that looks like the part I don't really understand in Martinez above ("who have come after them to the council of the community."

Who is "them"? Are they the idolatrous Levites in the underlying Ezek. 44:10? And what does "come after" mean here?

[John2]

Here we go. This helps.

Florilegium [4Q174] continues its explanation of Psalm 1 with a citation of Ezekiel.

And this refers to those about whom it is written in the book of Ezekiel, the prophet, that '[...] their idols' [this may be the lacuna spin was talking about]. This refers to the sons of Zadok and to the men of their council, who pursue righteousness, who have come after them to the council of the community [this is pretty close to my "translation" above].

The problem comes with identifying what passage in Ezekiel is cited in the missing section. Vermes first suggested that it is an abbreviated quote from Ezek. 44:10 ... presumably Vermes chose this passage because of its connection to the sons of Zadok and its suggestion of a new priesthood (Ezek. 44:15). But since the quoted material was negative, Vermes was forced to translate Florilegium's interpretation in a negative, and unlikely, sense: "They are the sons of Zadok who seek their own council and follow their own inclination apart from the Council of the Community."

Other editors, presuming that the initial word in the quote is 'not' ... have proposed as the source Ezekiel 37.23, 'that they should no longer defile themselves with their idols' ... This allows a reasonable translation of the pesher of line 17 (above), and the words fit the gap in the manuscript. However, it is more difficult to see what connection the author of Florilegium saw between Ezekiel 37.23 and the other passages (Psalm 1; Isaiah 8).

Another passage, Ezekiel 20.18, has not yet been suggested as the source of the quote. 'And I said to their children in the wilderness, "Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers, or keep their ordinances, or defile yourselves with their idols. This passage has the disadvantage of using the negative participle אל instead of לוא, and not having the same word order as the quoted material in Florilegium. This is not a significant problem; as we have seen, the DSS often make mild changes to quoted material, especially when the wording is influenced by similar passages. but Ezek. 20.18 has three significant advantages over the other proposed passages. First, like Ps. 1.1 and Isa. 8.11, Ezek. 20.18 uses 'walk' terminology to describe separation ... It seems likely that the author of Florilegium connected the three passages around this common admonitory usage of הלך. The other proposed passages (Ezek. 37.23; 44:10) do not offer as clear a connection to Psalm 1 and Isaiah 8.

Second, Ezek. 20.18 advances the interpretation of Psalm 1 and of Florilegium as a whole. Ezek. 20.18 is a call to separate from the corrupt ways of 'the fathers.' That is the point of the interpretation of Psalm 1 -not to walk in the ways of the wicked (Ps. 1.1) or in the ways of 'this people' (Isa. 8.11). Using Ezek. 20.18 is also consistent with one of the arguments of 4Q174, that the community is separate from apostate Israel. Ezek. 44:10 is consistent with that argument, but does not sit well with the interpretation of Psalm 1, and also requires and awkward and unlikely translation. Ezek. 37.23 is not as effective in advancing the argument of Florilegium. Despite the occasional exegetical back flips that Florilegium demonstrates, it presents a coherent line of thought. The reconstruction of the quote should take the coherence of the passage into consideration.

Finally, of the three proposed sources, Ezek. 20.18 is the verse most susceptible to a sectarian interpretation ... The combination of elements -wilderness, separation, idolatry of the fathers, correct statutes, and correct Sabbath observance- fit well into the particular emphases of the Qumran Community.

Thus, although the current editions do not suggest Ezek. 20.18 as the source of the damaged quote in 4Q174 1.16, it offers some advantages that the other proposed sources do not have.

https://books.google.com/books?id=7WyvA ... um&f=false

[spin]

Looks like my "John T" thread has been taken down, and that's fine with me, if so.

It got moved to ~~Nowhere in Particular~~, where a lot of moribund threads end up.

Regarding 4Q174, I found an interesting article on it by Philip Church, in which he discusses certain resemblances between it and Hebrews:

Ever since 4Q174 was first published, scholars have noted connections with the Epistle to the Hebrews, usually related to the appearance of 2 Sam 7:14 (4Q174 1 III 11) and Ps 2 (4Q174 1 III 18). Hebrews 1:5 juxtaposes 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 2:7, and Ps 2:7 also appears in Heb 5:5. As Brooke maintains, "both authors were acquainted with a tradition whereby 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 belong together," although I would add that the authors do different things with these texts. But there is more than this to 4Q174 and Hebrews. In what follows I will discuss 4Q174 II 19 – 1 III 13 and will then turn my attention to Hebrews and draw out some similarities between the two texts. This essay is an exercise in the mutual illumination of these two texts.

http://www.academia.edu/4977012/_4Q174_ ... rgias_2013

This is what I mean about the DSS and Christianity. It doesn't matter to me if all the DSS were from the first century BCE (or earlier) and not the first century CE. These kinds of resemblances make me think that if 4Q174 (and the related Damascus Document) isn't from the first century CE then there must have been a sect or a way of thinking that was like Christianity (at least in certain respects) before there was Christianity (as Wise and Knohl propose).

There is a limited pool of theological resources in Hebrew for religious speculators to draw from. Christianity draws from the Hebrew bible, just as Jews did.

The article also uses the Wise, Abegg, Cook translation of 4Q174 -but not the line about the sons of Zadok!

And here is the translation (page 355) and the Hebrew (line 17 on page 354) from Martinez and Tigchelaar:

This (refers to) the sons of Zadok and (to) the m[e]n of [the]ir council, those who see[k jus]tice eagerly, who have come after them to the council of the community.

https://books.google.com/books?id=6RfYx ... ez&f=false

I have to say that I'm not sure how to take this translation now. It follows this citation of Ezekiel 44:10:

"And (this refers to) those about whom it is written in the book of Ezekiel, the prophet, that they [the Levites] should not defile themselves anymore with all their idols."

My rough translation of the Hebrew (using a dictionary, out of curiosity) is:

They are the sons of Zadok and the men of their council who pursue righteousness who come after them the council of the community.

The only part that confuses me here is "who come after them" מאחריהמה

I can't figure that one out, and that looks like the part I don't really understand in Martinez above ("who have come after them to the council of the community."

Who is "them"? Are they the idolatrous Levites in the underlying Ezek. 44:10? And what does "come after" mean here?

First, the Florilegium is a string of pesharim on individual verses, so those verses are more like jumping off points for the pesher than sources of literal reading. I would not read "Levites" back into the Ezekiel verse. We have (in a very lacunous passage reconstructed with exactness of the space requirements from the present text of Ezekiel) "they should not defile themselves anymore with all their idols." The pesher from this is quite positive and refers to the upper echelon of the community, the sons of Zadoq who come first (to the council of the community) and they are followed by the rest of the council. There is a social hierarchy here, with the sons of Zadoq who enter the council first and the rest of the council members (presumably the lay members) come after them. There is an order throughout ancient associations, with senior coming before junior. Things are complicated when those associations have religious factors to be considered in that order. There is a seating order and a speaking order as well.

[Secret Alias]

I have a question for spin. How many centuries do you think it would take to explain the facts to "John and John" before they change their mind? I put it at about 23 centuries. Maybe I need to be more optimistic. 22 centuries perhaps.

[MrMacSon]

This is what I mean about the DSS and Christianity. It doesn't matter to me if all the DSS were from the first century BCE (or earlier) and not the first century CE. These kinds of resemblances make me think that if 4Q174 (and the related Damascus Document) isn't from the first century CE then there must have been a sect or a way of thinking that was like Christianity (at least in certain respects) before there was Christianity (as Wise and Knohl propose).

... Christianity draws from the Hebrew bible, just as Jews did.

As supported by commentary by Stuart E. Parsons in Ancient Apologetic Exegesis: Introducing and Recovering Theophilus's World James Clarke & Co, July 2015; p. 129:-

Albl ..."holds that first century1 Christians used testimonia in school settings because of analogous practices, as indicated by the Qumran discovery of 4QTestimonia and 4QFlorigelium, as well as common Greco-Roman use of anthologies in school settings"

reproduced in another thread on BC&H here

• 1 I'd contend that claiming "first century Christians used testimonia in school settings" is speculative or wishful-thinking: maybe mid-late 2nd century Christians did

[Peter Kirby]

Looks like my "John T" thread has been taken down, and that's fine with me, if so.

It got moved to ~~Nowhere in Particular~~, where a lot of moribund threads end up.

Parts were also salvaged for viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2844 ("The Dead Sea Scrolls & the New Testament").

[John2]

This issue has been an eye opener for me. In the big picture, I see it as just another example of how Vermes (and I suppose any translator) should be taken with a grain of salt and that it's always best to read the original language if you can.

I think my interest in the DSS stems from my broader interest in disputed places, like the West Bank, Golan Heights, the Temple Mount, Cyprus, Taiwan, etc. (I recently learned about Market Island, for example, which is shared by Sweden and Finland and has the craziest border I've ever seen). Does this mean I know all there is to know about these places? Of course not. I just think that they're interesting and enjoy learning about them in my way. And even though I think I presently have a pretty good understanding of these places, I learn something new about them all the time ("Oh, I didn't know that lake was there"). Same with the DSS.

And as far as dating the DSS goes, I'm generally flexible on carbon dating and paleography, whether we are talking about the DSS or whatever. This is simply the impression I get from what I have read about carbon dating and paleography (again, not that I know all there is to know about these things, but based on what I have read over the last twenty years, and I'm open to considering anything that might sway me from this perspective). Flint puts the situation this way:

At least 941 scrolls were discovered in the Qumran caves (715 in Cave 4 alone). They are dated on paleographic and radiocarbon grounds to between ca 250 b.c. and a.d. 68, when the site was destroyed by the Romans ... Some scrolls illuminate our understanding of Jesus and the early Christians. None of the Qumran scrolls was written by or for Christians, but several are relevant for understanding the historical context of Christian origins. The three books most commonly found at Qumran are Psalms (36 scrolls), Deuteronomy (30), and Isaiah (21). These are 66x, and Deuteronomy 54x. This is hardly a coincidence, but speaks to similar messianic expectations and covenantal themes among the Qumranites and the early Christians.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstet ... rolls.html

I suppose there is a "camp" of people who think the DSS have something to do with Christianity, whether as a precursor (like Flint) or directly (like Eisenman), and I see myself as simply being in this camp.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think my interest in the DSS stems from my broader interest in disputed places, like the West Bank, Golan Heights, the Temple Mount, Cyprus, Taiwan, etc. (I recently learned about Market Island, for example, which is shared by Sweden and Finland and has the craziest border I've ever seen).

IMHO the border between Belgium and the Netherlands, especially at Baarle-Nassau (involving zigzag borders and both enclaves and exclaves), is even crazier than the border on Märket.

[John2]

Ha! That's great. Thanks, Ben. I never noticed that one. Makes me think of the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan (or Jewish and Palestinian areas of the West Bank). Or Swiss cheese.