Once More the Wicked Priest
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JBL 97/2 (1978) 191-205 ONCE MORE THE WICKED PRIEST B. E. THIERING UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY, SYDNEY 2006, AUSTRALIA HERE is now a certain orthodoxy about the history of the Qumran sect. TSome facts have come to be accepted as established and are finding their way into textbooks and standard works. There is all the more reason, then, for ascertaining that they are well-based, and have not become accepted simply through repetition and lack of serious opposition. One of the most widely circulated is that the Wicked Priest, ΐηδΠΠ ]ΓΤΟΠ, of lQpHab and 4QpPssa was a reigning high priest, the official incumbent of the Jerusalem high priesthood. The identification was made early, on what seemed to be adequate grounds. The Wicked Priest "ruled over Israel" (lQpHab 8:9-10). The day of atonement episode (lQpHab 11:4-8), in which the Wicked Priest "pursued after the Teacher of Righteousness to swallow him up" and "caused to stumble" his followers, was easily explained as an attack on the Teacher, who was a Schismatic high priest,1 by his official counterpart in Jerusalem. The occasion was the sect's celebration of a different day of atonement according to an unofficial calendar. The deep hostility shown for the Wicked Priest is consistent with the feelings generated by the breach between the Hasidim and the Hasmonean house. The only difficulty was thought to be his exact identity: which of the usurping high priests of the period of Essene origins fits the data best? G. Jeremías, whose authoritative study of the Teacher of Righteousness2 is now an essential tool of research, carefully assembles all the known facts about the Wicked Priest, and selects the main fact useful for identification, that he met his death at the hands of Gentiles. For the period in question, this fits only Menelaus (172-162) and Jonathan (161-142). Menelaus is too early, and could never have been approved at first by the community ("was called by the name of truth when he first arose," lQpHab 8:9, understood by Jeremías to mean that he had a good reputation with the Essenes at first, but they later changed their minds). Jonathan fits the facts best, in Jeremías' view. He would have been approved by the sectarians until he officially adopted the Ή. Stegemann, Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde (Dr. Theol. dissertation, Bonn, 1971) 102, nn. 328-29; G. W. Buchanan, "The Priestly Teacher of Righteousness," RevQ6 (1969) 553- 58. 2G. Jeremías, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit (SUNT 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963). 192 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE high priestly office, some years after he became ruler. His character is not known to correspond to the arrogance and greed of the Wicked Priest (8:2- 12), but we must allow for the polemical style. His association with violent men and his robbery of the people (8:11) could reflect an episode when he and his brother attacked members of a wedding to avenge their brother's death (Ant. 13.1.4 §§18-21). He probably also took temple treasures, like all his successors. His death at the hand of Gentiles is not known to have been painful (cf. lQpHab 9:1-2, 9-12), but the sources are simply silent on the subject. Stegemann and Murphy-O'Connor,3 the more recent writers on Qumran history, agree that the Wicked Priest is Jonathan. The latter follows Jeremías' view of "called by the name of truth": it refers to the "honeymoon" period before Jonathan adopted the high priestly office. His "temporizing character" led him to ally himself with the ruling classes who loved wealth and pleasure; he profited by their depradations. This fits lQpHab 8:11. In a book published in 1973, F. M. Cross4 has re-affirmed his view that 4QTestim 21-30 must be taken into account as evidence for the Wicked Priest. It speaks (he believes) of a "cursed man" and his two sons, who rebuilt Jericho. This and the other data fit Simon Maccabeus (142-135), who with his two sons was murdered by his Idumean son-in-law Ptolemy while on a tour of Jericho. Jeremías5 dismisses Cross' view, on the grounds that there is no evidence that the document refers to the Wicked Priest, even if it refers to Simon. It will be observed that the only exact correspondence that Jeremías and those who follow him can find with Jonathan is the fact that he was put to death at the hands of Gentiles. This is not sufficient to make the identification certain. There is no other exact correspondence. The main emphasis of the lines dealing with the Wicked Priest's death is on its painful nature (9:1-2,9- 12): nothing corresponding to this element has been found. If "called by the name of truth when he first arose" means that he was approved by the Essenes before he was proclaimed high priest, it must be demonstrated conclusively that Josephus is wrong when he says that Judas Maccabeus, Jonathan's predecessor, was popularly accepted as high priest (Ant. 12.10.6 §414,12.11.2 §434), although (as is implied in Ant. 20.10.3 §237) not officially appointed. It must also be established that "called by the name of truth" has the rather vague meaning that Jeremías gives it ("had a good reputation, was acceptable") in writings where both "name" and "truth" have exact and special connotations (see below, section II). And would the sect have called him "the Priest," a titular term, as Stegemann shows,6 if he was to them illegitimate? 3H. Stegemann, Die Entstehung; J. Murphy-O'Connor, "The Essenes and their History," RB 81 (1974) 215-44. 4F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge/ London: Harvard University, 1973) 337-40. Wer Lehrer, 72-73. bDie Entstehung, 102. THIERING: ONCE MORE THE WICKED PRIEST 193 Cross is not wrong in finding that 4QTestim 21-30 is evidence for the Wicked Priest. Both the "cursed man" and the Wicked Priest "shed blood" (4QTestim 29-30, lQpHab 9: 8-9), were associated with violence (DDn 4QTestim 25, lQpHab 9:8-9, 12:1-2), built a city/house (4QTestim 25-26, lQpHab 9:12-10:1), and committed wicked deeds in Jerusalem (4QTestim 29-30, lQpHab 12:7-8). The addition of this evidence, especially the reference to two sons,7 makes the identification with Jonathan more difficult. But it does not point to Simon, whose murderer was his Idumean son-in-law, not Gentiles. (The passage does not make Jericho part of the data for the Wicked Priest. Jericho is not mentioned in the quotation or what follows, and the fact that it was in the scriptural story behind the passage does not mean that it was taken literally: cf. Chaldeans = Kittim in lQpHab; Nineveh = Jerusalem in 4QpNah.) Other identifications with reigning high priests have also proved unsatisfactory.8 Is there any other reason, apart from the paucity of our data, why the Wicked Priest will not comfortably fit into the facts for any reigning high priest? It is the purpose of the present article to put again9 the case for the Wicked Priest being the same as the Man of a Lie, the sectarian rival of the Teacher. It will be argued, first, that the view that they are different does not fully take into account the Qumran principles of biblical exegesis; and secondly, that certain words used in connection with the Wicked Priest have a strictly sectarian meaning and give new facts about him. It will then be shown that the day of atonement episode may be interpreted satisfactorily in the light of the identity of the Wicked Priest and the Man of a Lie. (The Man of a Lie, in Jeremías' well-founded conclusion,10 was "the teacher of a larger group which split off from the Teacher's community and became a formidable danger to that community, because followers of the Teacher went over to it in considerable numbers. The split occurred in the lifetime of the Teacher.") 7Lls. 24-25 Γ\ΏΓΜ& nitrtt. ] losn. The subject of ID» may be the same as that of ΐΏ\ΰ in 1.24, the "cursed man." A father and two sons are required by the biblical text. 8J. Carmignac ("Interprétations de Prophètes et de Psaumes," in Les Textes de Qumran Traduits et Annotés (éd. J. Carmignac et al; 2 vols.; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1961, 1963) 2, 53; "Conjectures sur les écrits de Qumran," RevScRel 2 (1957) 140-68; "Notes sur les pesharim," RevQ 3 (1962) 533-38) argues for Alexander Jannaeus as the Wicked Priest. H. Burgmann ("Gerichtsherr und Generalankläger: Jonathan und Simon," RevQ 9 [1977] 3-72) gives points refuting Carmignac's case (pp. 34-57): e.g., the lapse of fifty years between the foundation of the community and the appearance of the Teacher; Alexander Jannaeus did not give sufficient reason for the break of the sect with the temple; he did not meet death at the hand of Gentiles. See also M. B. Dagut, "The Habakkuk Scroll and Pompey's Capture of Jerusalem," Bib 32 (1951), 542- 48. 9Held also by K. Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer (BHT 15; Tübingen: Mohr, 1953); A. Dupont-Sommer, Observations sur le Commentaire d'Habacuc découvert près de la Mer Morte (Paris: Payot, 1953); M. Delcor, "Le Midrash d'Habacuc," RB5% (1951) 521-48. 10Der Lehrer, 126. 194 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE I. The Qumran Principles of Biblical Exegesis Some important questions must be asked about the way the pesharists understood the overall meaning and specific terms of the biblical passages in which they found the Wicked Priest.