STRUCTURAL ASPECTS OF QUMRAN MESSIANISM IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT WILLIAM M. SCHNIEDEWIND UCLA I argued in' arecent article that a duality and balance between king and priest was the ideology of the postexilic retumees as seen par­ ticularly in the book of Chronicles. I Although the retumees' hope for a restoration of the Davidic monarchy alongside the Jerusalem temple was unrealized, this frustrated expectation found both mun­ dane and eschatological expressions in the Qumran community.2 The present paper develops some of the institutional and exegetical struc­ tures behind the duality of Qumran messianism as reflected in the Damascus Document. The Problem Although once the consensus, the duality of Qumran messianic thought has been repeatedly challenged recendy, as have almost all the accepted canons of early scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, James VanderKam argues that "neither Jubilees (in con­ nection with Levi) nor the Qumran documents (with regard to the 1 William M. Schniedewind, "King and Priest in the Book of Chronicles and the Duality of Qumran Messianism," ]]S 45 (1994): 71-78. The article played off obser­ vations made by Shemaryahu Talmon who had argued that the duality of Qumran messianism reflected dependence on a pattern plan of bicephalic leadership as described in the Book of Zechariah and, in particular, the joint appointment of king and priest "with harmony between them" (Zechariah 6: 12-14); cf. Shemaryahu Talmon, "Waiting for the Messiah: The Spiritual Universe of the Qumran Cove­ nanteers," in ]udaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn qf the Christian Era, ed. Jacob Neusner et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 123-31. 2 Also compare Zechariah 4:2-3,11-14; 8:9-17; Haggai 1:12-14. Some advocate a complex development of messianic thought at Qumran associated with the polit­ ical activities of the Hasmonean dynasty; see Jacob Liver, "The Doctrine of Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in the Time of the Second Commonwealth," HTR 52 (1959): 149-85; cf. Frederick Strickert, "Damascus VII, 10-20 and Qumranic Messianic Expectation," RevQ 12 (1986): 327-49; John J. Collins, "Messianism in the Maccabean Period," in ]udaisms and their Messiahs, 97-109. The balance of power shifts toward the priest in some sectarian literature (e.g., 1Jud 21:2), but the 524 WILLIAM M. SCHNIEDEWIND messiah from Aaron) make explicit reference to these prophetie books" of Haggai and Zechariah, and he therefore doubts that the duality of Qumran messianism was in fact based on a biblical model. 3 Michael Wise and James Tabor caIl into question whether Qumran mes­ sianism was in fact dualistic at all. 4 And, in arecent issue of Dead Sea Discoveries, Martin Abegg surveyed a number of texts in order to emphasize the fluidity of the understanding of messianism in the Dead Sea ScroIlS. 5 These challenges beg the question: what do we me an by the terms "Qumran" and "messianism"? Obviously not everything found in the Caves was composed by the inhabitants of Khirbet Qumran nor do they necessarily reflect the community's own beliefs at aIl points.6 messianic priest and king both still have a place in the properly balanced leader­ ship of the eschatological kingdom. A survey of the types of messianic expectation is found in Shemaryahu Talmon, "Types of Messianic Expectation at the Turn of the Era," in Kinl5> Cult, and Calendar in Ancient Israel (Jerusalern: Magnes, 1986), 202-24. 3 James C. VanderKam, 'Jubilees and the Priestly Messiah of Qumran," RevQ 13 (1988): 365. 4 Wise and Tabor write, "only once in any Dead Sea Scroll text is the idea of two messiahs stated unambiguously," Michael O. Wise and James D. Tabor, "The Messiah at Qumran," BAR 18/6 (1992): 60; their argument is overly fixated on the term n'tDr.l; see also Michael O. Wise andJames D. Tabor, "4Q521 'On Resurrection' and the Synoptic Gospel Tradition: a Preliminary Study," JSP 10 (1992): 149-62. Although Wise and Tabor propose a consensus among scholars about a dual mes­ siah, there is some debate; George J. Brooke, "The Amos-Numbers Midrash (CD 7: 13b-8: I a) and Messianic Expectation," ..('A W 92 (1980): 397-404 and "The Messiah of Aaron in the Damascus Document," RevQ 15 (1991): 215-30; Emil Wcela, "The Messiah(s) ofQumran," CBQ26 (1964): 340-49; Kar! G. Kuhn, "The Two Messiahs of Aaron and Israel," in The Serolls and the New Testament, ed. Krister Stendahl (New York: Harper, 1957), 54-64. Also see Marinus de Jonge, "Two Messiahs in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs?" in Tradition and Re-interpretation in Jewish and Earry Christian Literature, ed. J. Henten et al. (Leiden: BrillI, 1986), 150-62; Robert B. Laurin, "The Problem ofTwo Messiahs in the Qumran Scrolls," RevQ 4 (1963/64): 39-52. 5 Martin Abegg, "The Messiah at Qumran: Are We Still Seeing Double?" DSD 2 (1995): 131. 6 Devorah Dimant distinguishes between "documents employing terminology con­ nected to the Qumran Community" and "works not containing such terminology." Clusters of terms and ideas concern four areas: (I) practices and organization, (2) history and present situation, (3) theological and metaphysical outlook, and (4) pecu­ liar biblical exegesis. Dimant emphasizes that religious concepts and ideas them­ selves are not sufficient (e.g., I Enoch; Jubilees) except when they are accompanied by distinctive terminology; er. Devorah Dimant, "The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance," in "Time to Prepare the Wqy in the Wildemess": Papers on the OJimran Serolls by Fellows qf the Institute Jor Advanced Studies qf the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989-90, ed. Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffinan (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 23-58. Hartrnut Stegemann defines the community's literary corpus much more nar-.