WHERE DOES THE DWELL? BETWEEN THE DEAD SEA SECT, DIASPORA JUDAISM, , AND CHRISTIANITY

Noah Hacham The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

One of the well known theological conceptions of the Dead Sea sect is its approach to the Temple, its sanctity and the resulting question of the location of the One who was supposed to dwell therein. The sect denied the sanctity of the Temple of their time, claiming it did not function appropriately, and advocated withdrawing from it. The sect members perceived their own group, the “Council of the Community,”as a spiritual substitute for the . As the Community Rule states: “The Council of the Community shall be truly established . . . a house of holiness for Israel and a foundation of the for . . . chosen by God’s will to atone for the land.”And in the continuation of the Rule: “It shall be the tested wall, the costly cornerstone, its foundations shall neither be shaken nor be dislodged from their place. Holy of holies dwelling for Aaron . . . and a house of perfection and truth in Israel.”1 This is patently based on Isa :: “Thus said the Lord God: ‘Behold, I will found in Zion, stone by stone, a tower of precious cornerstones,

1 My translation of QS VIII:–: ãåñå ìàøùéì ùãå÷úéá ... úîàá ãçéä úöò äðåëð åòæòãæé ìá ø÷é úðô ïçáä úîåç àéä ... õøàä ãòá øôëì ïåöø éøéçáå ... ïåøäàì íéùãå÷ùãå÷ ìàøùéá úîàå íéîú úéáå ... ïøäàì íéùãå÷ùãå÷ïåòî .íîå÷îî åùéçé ìáå åäéúåãåñé;andsimilarly: CD :–: “And all who were brought into the covenant (are) not to enter the sanctuary to light his altar in vain.” íðç åçáæî øéàäì ùã÷îä ìà àåá éúìáì úéøáá åàáåä øùà ìëå (J.M. Baumgarten and D.R. Schwartz, “Damascus Document [CD],” in The : Hebrew, , and Greek Texts with English Translations,vol.:Damascus Document,WarScroll,andRelatedDocuments[ed. J.H. Charlesworth et al.; The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ], –, ).Onthesect’sattitudetowardtheTemplesee,interalia:B.Gärtner,The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), –; L.H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple: The Qumran Community’s Withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple,”in Gemeinde ohne Tempel / Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kultus im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum (ed. B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer; WUNT ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ), –, esp. –.  noah hacham exceedingly firm; he who trusts need not fear.’”2 The parallelism is clear; but while the prophet speaks of “Zion,”the sect identifies the “Council of the Community” as the subject of the prophecy, and believes that the sect itself realizes this prophecy regarding “Zion.”3 Clearly, then, if the sect is a “house of holiness,”a “foundation of the holy of holies,”the “holy of holies dwelling,” and a “house of perfection,” and its members are intended to “atone for the land,” then it functions as a temple, the place of God. God, therefore, is exiled from His place, and dwells among a commu- nity who, like Him, are exiled. The notion of disengagement from the physical place is obviously Diasporan; that is, it limits the importance of the tangible physical location, and enables the sect members to find God in their midst, though they are not bodily in the place of God. This idea constitutes an important component of the theology and self-perception of the scrolls sect, and has been extensively discussed within these con- texts. The discovery of such a position among a group living in Judea in thesecondhalfoftheSecondTempleperiodmakesasignificantcontri- bution to our understanding of the historical continuity of the manner in which the reality of the absence of the Temple was confronted. In this paper I wish to present the development of this historical continuity, from its biblical beginnings to its later manifestations in rabbinic literature. My assertion is that this perception must also be examined diachronically, namely as an inner progression of Diasporan Judaism. To this end, I will focus special attention on two witnesses representing such a stance: one appearing in Hellenistic Jewish literature, and the other in rabbinic literature, and will examine the content and meaning of the testimony within this continuity.

2 NJPS translation of: ùéçé àì ïéîàîä ãñåî ãñåî úø÷é úðô ïçá ïáà ,ïáà ïåéöá ãñé éððä ... 3 On the importance of this verse in this context see: D. Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, ), –, esp. –; M. Kister, “Some Observations on Vocabulary and Style in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde; STDJ ; Leiden: Brill, ), –; N. Hacham, “An Aramaic Translation of Isaiah in the Rule of the Community,” Leˇs  (): – (Hebrew). In this paper I pointed to the affinity between several passages from the scrolls, all using the verb òæòãæä, and I suggested that an Aramaic translation of Isaiah that translates åùéçé as ïåòæòãæé was known to all these scrolls’ authors. I regret that when writing my study I was unaware of Kister’s important suggestions. He also pointed to the affinity between those passages, and noted that the word ïåòæòãæé appears in the AramaictranslationofIsaiah.However,ourconclusionsdiffer;Ifinditreasonableto assume the existence of an Aramaic of Isaiah in the first century b.c.e., while Kister does not find this satisfactorily proven.