Here Is a Renewed Interest in Studying the Messianic Beliefs of the Qumran Community

THE EARLY HISTORY OF QUMRAN'S MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS

In recent years there is a renewed interest in studying the messianic beliefs of the Qumran Community. During the nineties many new texts have been published which help to set this topic in a new and more comprehensive light1. We note, however, that a great number of unsolved questions remain concerning the texts known to the scholarly public since the very beginning of the Dead Sea Scrolls research. The exact teaching of these works has not been so far unanimously clarified. Based on the data provided by the recently published material, many scholars want to revise earlier established views on several general questions of the Qumran Community, including their messianic expecta- tions2. This essay will focus on the messianic loci of two texts, the Damascus Doc- ument and the Rule of the Community. These are the texts that have been most frequently cited in discussing the messianism of Qumran3. Generally, scholars refer to both texts to support the general Qumranic picture of the expectation of the double messiah4. Working on my doctoral dissertation on the Qumranic

* This paper was written during a scholarship at K.U. Leuven provided by the Soros Foundation. I would like to thank Prof. Johan Lust for his valuable suggestions on the earlier form of the paper, and Beáta Tóth for the grammatical revision. 1. To mention only some major examples, see the following texts: 4Q521: E. PUECH, Qumrân Grotte 4. XVIII. Textes hébreux (4Q521-4Q528, 4Q576-4Q579) (DJD, 25), Oxford, Clarendon, 1998, pp. 1-38; 4Q246: G.J. BROOKE et al., Qumran Cave 4. XVII. Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD, 22), Oxford, Clarendon, 1996, pp. 165-184; 4Q369: J.C. VANDERKAM et al., Qumran Cave 4. VIII. Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD, 13), Oxford, Clarendon, 1994, pp. 353-362; 4Q541: E. PUECH, Fragments d'un apocryphe de Lévi et le personnage eschatologique. 4QTestLévic-d (?) et 4QAJa, in J. TREBOLLE BARRERA – L. VEGAS MONTANER (eds.), The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991, vol. I-II (STDJ, 11), Lei- den, Brill – Madrid, Ed. Complutense, 1992, pp. 449-501. 2. See, e.g., M.O. WISE – J.D. TABOR, The Messiah at Qumram, in BARev 18/6 (1992) 60-65; M.G. ABEGG, The Messiah at Qumran: Are We Still Seeing Double?, in DSD 2 (1995), 125-144. 3. M. BURROWS, The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery. Vol II, Fasc. 2: Plates and Transcriptions of the Manual of Discipline, New Haven, ASOR, 1951; P. ALEXANDER – G. VERMES, Qumran Cave 4. XIX: 4QSerekh Ha-Yahad (DJD, 26), Oxford, Clarendon, 1998; J.H. CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. I. Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Vol. II: Damascus Document, War Scroll and Related Documents (The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 1- 2), Tübingen, Mohr; Louisville, John Knox, 1994, 1995; S. SCHECHTER, Fragments of a Zadokite Work (Fragments of Jewish Sectaries, 1), Cambridge, University Press, 1910; C. RABIN, The Zadokite Documents, Oxford, Clarendon, 1954; J.M. BAUMGARTEN, Qum- ran Cave 4. XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273) (DJD, 18), Oxford, Clarendon, 1996. 4. See inter alia: J.J. COLLINS, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient Literature (ABRL), New York, Doubleday, 1995, pp. 74-83; F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ – J. TREBOLLE BARRERA, The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their Writ- 114 G. XERAVITS picture of the mediator of salvation I came to the recognition that the consensus on this question is not wholly acceptable. What made me further investi- gate the issue was the fact that contemporary research seems to be trying to get away from a diachronical description of the messianic expectations of the Qumran Community. The authors of the newest monographs and essays mainly concentrate on great thematic blocks, and thematic development does no longer have a central role5. Going somewhat against this tendency, this essay also looks for the place these texts have in the early history of the Com- munity itself.

1. The Problem

(a) The Explicit Messianic Passages of the Damascus Document On the sheets of the Damascus Document found in the Cairo Genizah, the term ciwm occurs six times. From the point of view of this study, the first two references (CD 2,12; 5,21–6,1) are irrelevant, for these passages do not speak about eschatological persons, but rather about figures of the past who obtained their function through a ritual of anointing (the prophets, and analogously Moses). So “the anointed one” – in agreement with the usage of the Old Testa- ment – is simply their epithet6. The four other passages, however, are of crucial importance:

1. CD 12,22–13,1: [hvnc]m[e] bwvm çrs ezv eywre xqb elab jiklehme larwiv frea 7cvwm dvmy dy

2. CD 14,18-19: jeb vtpwi] rwa jitpwme wvrp ezv larwiv frea c[iwm dvmy dy ]jnvy rpkiv

3. CD 19,10-11: edqpe xqb vtlmi ela brcl vrsmi jirawnev larwiv frea ciwm avbb

4. CD 19,33–20,1: jiwnae lk fk qwmd xrab ewdce hirbb vab rwa jiice jim rabm vrvsiv vdgbiv vbwv ings, Beliefs and Practices, Leiden, Brill, 1995, pp. 177-179; E. PUECH, Messianisme, eschatologie et résurrection dans les manuscrits de la Mer Morte, in RevQ 70 (1997) 267-271. 5. See all the works mentioned in the previous footnote. 6. Cf. K. SEYBOLD, masîaÌ, in TDOT 9, 49-53. This usage is not unfamiliar at all for the qumran writings, we can cite many similar examples of the expression, see, e.g., 1QM 11,7-8; 4Q377 2 2,4-5. 7. The reading is generally corrected for ciwm, on the analogy of the other similar references. THE EARLY HISTORY OF QUMRAN’S MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS 115

vbhki al vbhkbv jy dvsb vbwci al 8dicie ervm 9usae jvim larwimv fream ciwm dvmy dy

As a first observation, we note that all of these passages are situated in their context in a similar manner: their only role is to mark the temporal delimitation of certain ages. None of them is a messianic passage in the strict sense, however: their aim is not to speak of the messiah(s); rather, they serve as an auxiliary topic for the better understanding of another, more fundamental message of the author. In all four cases ciwm is in the singular. Those scholars who classify the Da- mascus Document among the texts that speak about two messiahs have made many attempts to prove that the author of the Document used the formal singular for some plural subjects. The attempts are mainly twofold: either palaeographical or grammatical, but, as M.G. Abegg has recently demonstrated, these approaches are both incongruent10. As for palaeography, a recently published fragment of the Damascus Document found in Cave 4 contains the same singular reading11; as for grammar, the applicability of the distributive sg. construct in this instance is fairly problematic12. The “singular” interpretation is supported by the fact that in the only locus where the person has a finite verb, and not an infinitive form (CD 14,19), the verb is clearly in the singular (in the case of the distributive sg., the plural verbal form would be correct, cf. Gn 14,10). The palaeographical and grammatical considerations thus speak in favour of a single anointed figure, just as does the evidence provided by the whole Docu- ment. In fact, in CD none of the messianic titles mentioned in the Qumran texts appear in an eschatological context13, except for this one (ciwm). In the famous midrash of Amos-Numeri (CD 7,13–8,1), however, the expressions “sceptre” (tbw) and “Prince of the Congregation” (edye aiwn) can be found in an eschatological context, but from a text-critical point of view, this passage shows an obvious independence from the context. (The midrash is probably secondarily inserted into the Urtext of the Document.) The ciwm passages are situated in two distinct parts of the Document (part A2 and part B). A2 contains legal material, whereas B is a narrative. The only messianic locus in part A1, as stated above, is an insert (CD 7,13–8,1). Moreover, it

8. Some scholars think that this word is not other than a misspelling of dci (“community”), see E. QIMRON, The Text of CDC, in M. BROSHI (ed.), The Damascus Document Reconsidered, Jerusalem, IES, 1992, p. 47. 9. The interpretation of the expression is much debated among scholars, since the verb usae, which has the meaning “to gather”, can in some cases refer to the death of a person in biblical Hebrew (and also in Qumran). On this question, consult the following paper: B.Z. WACHOLDER, Does Qumran Record the Death of the Moreh? The Meaning of he’aseph in Damascus Covenant XIX, 35, XX, 14, in RevQ 49-52 (1988) 323-330. 10. See ABEGG, The Messiah at Qumran, pp. 129-130. 11. 4Q266 10 1,12: DJD 18 (1996), 72-73, the analysis of the passage in question: M.J. BAUMGARTEN, Messianic Forgiveness of Sin in CD 14,19 (4Q266 10 I 12-13), in D.W. PARRY – E. ULRICH (eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Technological Innovations, New Texts and Reformulated Issues (STDJ, 30), Leiden, Brill, 1999, 537-544. 12. Cf. P. JOÜON – T. MURAOKA, GBH § 136l; G. XERAVITS, Précisions sur le texte original et le concept messianique de CD 7,13–8,1 et 19,5-14, in RevQ 73 (1999) 47-59. 13. E.g., divd cmo, edye lvk aiwn, tbw, bkvk. 116 G. XERAVITS does not contain the expression ciwm. The occurrences of the expression ciwm in A1 have the general, technical meaning of the word. It is worth mentioning furthermore, that part A1 – in which the midrash Amos-Numeri shows a clear double-messianic expectation – consistently omits all the messianic passages of part B which speak clearly of the arrival of a single anointed.

(b) The Messianic Text of the Rule of the Community The Rule of the Community contains only one explicit messianic passage, 1QS 9,11:

jinvwre jitpwmb vtpwnv jb 14rsihl dcie iwna vlce rwa larwiv fvrea iciwmv 15aibn avb dy

The interpretation of this text is quite clear: the grammatical form of the word ciwm is unambiguously plural, the two following singulars are both nomina recta. The real problem of this passage lies not on the grammatical level, but in the very fact of its absence from a fragment found in Cave 4 (4Q259). This fragment raises some serious questions. First, a great debate has been going on among scholars concerning the date of its writing. J.T. Milik dated the copying in the second half of the second century B.C. F.M. Cross at first thought to attribute it to the beginning of the first century B.C., but later on he modified it to a date between 50-25 B.C., which seems to become more and more accepted by other scholars16. S. Metso, however, called attention to the fact that the copyist of the fragment used a hardly identifiable type of script17. So it might be wiser to leave open the question of the dating of the fragment (the palaeographical considerations have in any case only a secondary importance for reconstructing the redac- tional history of the work). In fact, the really important question for the present research is whether the copyist of 4Q259 committed an error by omitting the passage in question, or whether the passage was not yet part of the Rule the time 4Q259 was copied. It seems that the whole of 1QS 8,15–9,11 fit well in its context: at first sight there is no reason to suspect that it is the result of a secondary amplification. It is per- haps possible that in the manuscript the copyist of 4Q259 relied on, this passage formed an entire column which the scribe unwittingly skipped. This possibility is not inconceivable knowing that the readings of 4Q259 are in most of the cases less reliable than those of 1QS18. Others think that the reading of 4Q259 emerged

14. Lege: rsihel. 15. With a corrected, supralinear bet. 16. F.M. CROSS, Appendix. Palaeographical Dates of the Manuscripts, in CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. I, p. 57, further: DJD 26 (1998), pp. 20 and 133-134. 17. S. METSO, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ, 21), Leiden, Brill, 1997, p. 48: “the hand of 4QSe is very extraordinary and contains elements of several known script types”. 18. J. MURPHY O'CONNOR, La genèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté, in RB 76 (1969), p. 532: “Dans un certain nombre de cas, les variantes fournies par 4QSe sont moins bonnes que celles de 1QS”. THE EARLY HISTORY OF QUMRAN’S MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS 117 as the result of an intentional scribal omission of a passage that has a highly problematic structure19. However, the opinion of those scholars who attribute a redac- tional priority to 4Q259 seems to be better established20. I would argue that the reading of 4Q259 is not due to scribal omission, because a whole, logically organic unity is missing (1QS 8,15b–9,11), not only some words or lines as is the case in “regular” scribal errors21. Moreover, the text gives an intelligible reading even without this unit. Considering all that, it seems that the tradition- and redaction historical relationship between these two text-types of the Rule is not describable by concentrating only on this passage. The larger context confirms the opinion of those who consider 4Q259 as an earlier version. Both its theological concept and the picture of the community seem to antedate the material contained in the great scroll of Cave 122.

(c) Conclusion The Damascus Document expects the arrival of one messiah, except for CD 7,13–8,1 where two eschatological protagonists are present. The Rule of the Com- munity scroll from Cave 1 using the same expression as does the CD, with the only difference that in 1QS the grammatical form is obviously plural (mesîÌê ‘aharôn weyisra’el), describes the expectation of two messiahs. 4Q259, which reflects an earlier tradition of the Rule, does not contain the messianic passage of 1QS.

2. An Attempt Towards a Solution

It is not easy to situate these texts within the early history of the Community and to settle the question of their origin. Palaeographical analysis can provide useful information only for the time of the copying of the manuscripts. It can help, however, to establish the terminus ante quem. The scroll 1QS dates from the first quarter of the first century B.C., and the earliest exemplar of the work (the extremely fragmentary 4Q255) was copied some time in the second half of the second century. The dating of 4Q259 was already treated above23. The oldest,

19. The late date of 4Q259 in comparison with 1QS was defended by P.S. ALEXANDER, The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Yahad: A Proposal, in RevQ 65-68 (1996) 437-456, and ID., in DJD 26 (1998), pp. 9-12. Similarly, PUECH, Messianisme, eschatologie et résur- rection, pp. 267-268, attributes priority to the 1QS version, without explaining, however, the reason of the emergence of the reading found in 4Q259. 20. See, e.g., S. METSO, The Primary Results of the Reconstruction of 4QSe, JJS 44 (1993), p. 307; ID., Textual Development, pp. 143-149; J.H. CHARLESWORTH – B.A. STRAWN, Reflections on the Text of Serek ha-Yahad Found in Cave IV, in RevQ 65-68 (1996) 403-435; J.H. CHARLESWORTH, Challenging the Consensus Communis Regarding Qumran Messianism (1QS, 4QS MSS), in ID. et al. (eds.), Qumran-Messianism. Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tübingen, Mohr, 1998, pp. 120-134. 21. E.g., J. STARCKY, Les quatre étapes du messianisme à Qumrân, in RB 70 (1963), p. 482: “Tout le paragraphe VIII, 15b à IX, 11 qui manque dans cet exemplaire et il en allait sans doute de même dans l'ouvrage original”. 22. On this question see especially CHARLESWORTH – STRAWN, Reflections, pp. 421-432, and CHARLESWORTH, Challenging the Consensus Communis, pp. 123-129. 23. See Cross, Appendix, p. 57; DJD 26 (1998), pp. 20 and 133-134. 118 G. XERAVITS clearly identifiable exemplar of the Damascus Document can be dated to the middle of the first century B.C. (4Q266: between 75-50). There are four very uncer- tain fragments from the end of the second century – their identification however is extremely doubtful24. What is sure is that the final redaction of the Damascus Document took place after the death of the Righteous Teacher (there are some concrete hints to this event, and to the entire activity of the Teacher). In the present form, the Document is the work of the Qumran Community. Furthermore, it shows a close dependence on the theology and on the historical vision character- istic of the Book of Jubilees (in CD 16,2-4 Jubilees is cited explicitly; see also CD 10,8-10). Jubilees goes back to the middle of the second century B.C.25. Therefore, the beginning of the formation of the material in the Document could have been started after this date, and could have received its final form in the first half of the first century B.C.26. A date between 125 and 75 B.C. appears to be a rea- sonable assumption. As for the Rule of the Community, despite there exist great differences with regard to its history27, scholars agree that the Rule is clearly the product of the Community, and its various parts carry the characteristics of the stages in the development of the Community. Both the complicated literary structure of the great scroll of the Rule found in Cave 1 and the testimony of the fragments from Cave 4 call attention to the fact that the Rule received its final form after a long process of evolution (as did the Damascus Document). Several of its versions may have existed simultaneously and may have been copied within the Commu- nity. The case of 4Q259 highlights this fact: it reflects an earlier form of the work than that of 1QS, but the manuscript itself is posterior to the larger scroll. This brings me to one of the central questions of the research on the Qumran Community: the role of the eschatological, and more precisely, the messianic themes in the ideology of the Community, and in its separation from the society of their time. In dealing with this question, one must take into consideration another Qumran text, the letter called 4QMMT, which expresses the Commu- nity's early self-identification28. Its author – either the Righteous Teacher or some other early representative of the Community – summarised all the teachings in which the Community took a different stand from the others. It is obvious from the letter that it was written to find a way of avoiding a schism. The themes men-

24. See J.M. BAUMGARTEN – M.T. DAVIS, Cave IV, V, VI Fragments Related to the Damascus Document, in CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. II, pp. 59-60; and DJD 18 (1998), pp. 193-194. 25. J.C. VANDERKAM, The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Jubilees, in M. ALBANI et al. (eds.), Studies of the Book of Jubilees (TSAJ, 65), Tübingen, Mohr, 1997, pp. 3-24. 26. It is incontestable, that the Document uses a great amount of pre-qumranic material, but the statement of P. R. Davies is highly problematic, that “the Damascus Document existed in very nearly its present shape before the Qumran community received it” – The Damascus Covenant. An Interpretation of the Damascus Document (JSOT SS, 25), Sheffield, Academic Press, 1983, p. 201. 27. To mention some well-known attempts only: MURPHY O'CONNOR, La genèse lit- téraire, pp. 528-549; J. POUILLY, La Règle de la Communauté de Qumrân. Son évolution littéraire (Cahiers RB, 17), Paris, Gabalda, 1976; E. PUECH, La croyance des esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle? (ÉB, n.s. 21-22), Paris, Gabalda, 1993, pp. 421-422, and most recently: METSO, The Textual Development. 28. E. QIMRON – J. STRUGNELL, Qumran Cave 4. V. MiqÒat ma‘ase ha-Torah (DJD, 10), Oxford, Clarendon, 1994. THE EARLY HISTORY OF QUMRAN’S MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS 119 tioned are exclusively halakhic, that is, they are concerned with the right interpretation of the Mosaic Law. The further history of the Community shows that this conciliatory voice was not crowned with success, and the relationship of the Qumranites with those outside and particularly with the official leaders of Judaism, became more and more hostile. This break, which, as far as we know, was caused solely by halakhic reasons, created an entirely new situation for the ideology of the Community. In this new situation, they had to reflect not only their own position in salvation history, but they had also to evaluate the situation of their opponents, who disposed of the central traditions of Judaism, the Temple and the anointed leadership. The initial situation is mirrored by 4Q259, which is a version of the Urtext of the Rule which seems to belong to an earlier stage of tradition than that reflected in 1QS. This Urtext – parallel to 4QMMT – does not show any interest in eschatological themes: the messianic passage of 1QS is absent from it, just as are the apocalyptic-dualistic Instruction on the Two Spirits (3,12–4,26) and the closing hymn (10,5–11,22; instead it may have contained a calendrical text, 4QOtot)29. 4Q259 has the characteristics of a work which contains regulations for the every- day life of the members of a community and which focuses exclusively on the present. What is more, another important Qumranic rule-text, 1QSa (1Q28a) most probably underwent a similar development30. As C. Hempel has recently shown, the original text of this work, generally interpreted as an explicitly eschatological rule31, did not contain hints to eschatology or messiah. These topics were inserted in the work at a later stage of its formation32. These writings demonstrate that the Qumranites were originally not burning with messianic fever33: their attention was seized by quite different questions. At first, the Community had to face the fact that they found themselves in a mar- ginal position with regard to the “official” leading circles of Judaism. In this situation, if the Community did not want to give up fidelity to their halakah, they could do only one thing: they had to separate themselves permanently from the rest of Judaism. And, parallel to this process, it became necessary for them to rework some of the essential traditions according to their own interpretations and theological views, and also to systematise their non-legal inheritance. A clear sign of this is the fact that from the very beginning of the first century B.C. one can notice the copying of many texts with an eschatological content34. This topic – entirely secondary in the time of the composition of the oldest texts – gradually became more imposing. This second stage in the Community's history (still not too far away from its beginnings) is reflected in an early version of the Damascus Document. This ver-

29. METSO, Textual Development, pp. 48-54. 30. D. BARTHÉLEMY – J.T. MILIK, Qumran Cave I (DJD, 1), Oxford, Clarendon, 1955, pp. 107-118. 31. The most elaborated explication of the question is: L.H. SCHIFFMAN, The Eschato- logical Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. A Study of the Rule of the Congregation (SBL MS, 38), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1989. 32. C. HEMPEL, The Earthly Essene Nucleus of 1QSa, in DSD 3 (1996) 253-269. 33. As thought by, e.g., S. TALMON, Waiting for the Messiah – The Conceptual Uni- verse of the Qumran Covenanters, in ID., The World of Qumran from Within, Jerusalem, Magness; Leiden, Brill, 1989, p. 278: “The founding members of the dci can best be described as a group of Jews possessed by an ardent messianic vision”. 34. See, e.g., the following works: 4Q175, 4QpIsa (4Q161), 1Q28b. 120 G. XERAVITS sion contained the material of parts A2 and B. Whether these sections were originally part of one and the same work, or were brought together later on cannot be decided but is not essential in this matter. In these parts of the Damascus Docu- ment the emergence of the eschatological-messianic themes is clearly detectable. It must be noted, however, that these themes do not have central importance in the texts. No doubt certain historical events were at the background of the interest in the figure of the (eschatological) messiah. Most probably, the Qumranites had to confront some crisis concerning the leadership of their Community. The death of the Teacher could have been such an event that had provoked this development. It was his charismatic personality that held the group together. Further- more, the historical figure of the Teacher shaped the way (per analogiam) in which this future person was depicted. I do not claim that they expected the return of the Teacher itself (though the idea of the return of a redivivus was not unfamiliar in Qumran35), but they made an effort to attribute features to this ideal future figure that connected him with their deceased leader who built up the Community from its beginnings. The above-mentioned passages of the CD do not contain many data concerning the person of the expected messiah; at the very least, however, it is clear from 14,19, that he was defined as one having a priestly character36. This shows close connection with one of the peculiar features of the Teacher37. The next stage in the development was the generalisation and deepening of dualistic structures (in the time of the first formulation of the rules and laws this aspect was not essential). These structures had been introduced into the theology of Judaism in the post-exilic age, by the strengthening of apocalyptic thinking: the Community did not touch upon an unknown area when it started to use them. The final (?) recension of the Rule of the Community, and part A1 of the Da- mascus Document, were clearly shaped in this spirit. The Rule was completed with the “Instruction on the Two Spirits”, which from this time on had set the fundamental tone of the whole work, and with the closing hymn (that created a dualistic inclusion for the Rule). At the same time, part A1 of the Damascus Document shows traces of another type of thinking, focusing on a bicephalic historical view on the past, present and future38. That world-view stemmed from the classical post-exilic theory of the dual leadership of the chosen people, and was extended in Qumran to the entire

35. See, e.g., the figure of Moses or Elijah on 4Q521, or on the Moses-pseudepigrapha (4Q374-377): DJD 25 (1998), 1-38; J.J. COLLINS, The Works of the Messiah, in DSD 1 (1994) 98-112; J. STRUGNELL, Moses-Pseudepigrapha at Qumran: 4Q375, 4Q376, and Similar Works, in L.H. SCHIFFMAN (ed.), Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin (JSP SS, 8; JSOT/ASOR MS, 2), Sheffield, JSOT, 1990, 221-256. 36. BAUMGARTNER, Messianic Forgiveness of Sin, pp. 539-541. 37. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ – TREBOLLE BARRERA, The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 53-55, on the debate concerning the very person of the Teacher see, e.g., J. CARMIGNAC, Qui était le Docteur de Justice?, in RevQ 38 (1980) 235-246; H. BURGMANN, Wer war der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit, in RevQ 40 (1981) 553-578; M.O. WISE, The Teacher of Right- eousness and the High Priest of the Intersacerdotium: Two Approaches, in RevQ 56 (1990) 587-613. 38. On this question, see W.M. SCHNIEWIND, Structural Aspects of Qumran Messianism in the Damascus Document, in D.W. PARRY – E. ULRICH (eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 30), Leiden, Brill, 1999, pp. 523-536. THE EARLY HISTORY OF QUMRAN’S MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS 121

Community, down to its smallest elements39. This sociological situation pene- trated the expectations concerning the future and – alongside with the teaching of the foundational documents of the Community – gave the possibility for such reworking. In view of the dual picture of leadership presented by part A1, the expression mesîaÌ ’aharôn weyisra’el could easily be reformulated into an explicit plural form in 1QS 9,11 and also in the midrash Amos-Numeri. In the midrash the nature of the other anointed One was also expressed: royal terminology, based on Num 24, was inserted. It is worth mentioning, however, that the messianic themes had not yet vital importance in the thinking of the Community: their role was still the same as in the earlier material of CD, that is, they gave the temporal limits of certain ages. Although in the midrash Amos-Numeri there are some specific activities attributed to the eschatological persons, those activities did not differ from the picture depicted by the classical biblical texts about the messiah (victorious liberator and warrior).

3. Conclusion

The examination of the messianic passages in the Rule of the Community and in the Damascus Document yield the following conclusions. The messianic expectations of the Qumran Community started to crystallise around only one personage. This figure had an undoubtedly priestly character, and the memory of the priestly Righteous Teacher may have played an important part in the way of presentation. This conclusion strongly suggests that the figure of the priestly anointed stood at the origins of Qumran's messianism40. In fact, the royal messiah – a common figure of Judaism – had never come to a position within the Com- munity similar to the priestly one: it is not accidental that texts describing their relationship (explicitly so in 1QSa) always underline the priestly predominance against the royal one. The classic Israelite picture of the royal messiah was a secondary development in the originally non-messianic theological system of the Qumran Community.

Toportyán u. 21 Géza XERAVITS H-1213 Budapest Hungary

39. SCHNIEWIND, Structural Aspects, pp. 532-533. 40. Contra H. STEGEMANN, Some Remarks to 1QSa, to 1QSb, and to Qumran Messia- nism, in RevQ 65-68 (1996) 501-505.