The Use of Sobriquets in the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls

Matthew A. Collins

• Publisher: T&T Clark
• Year: 2011
• Print ISBN:
  9780567629630
• eBook ISBN:
  9780567652454
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

This book constitutes an examination of key sobriquets found among the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls. Its primary focus is literary rather than historical and concentrates on the function of the sobriquets as labels utilised positively or negatively within the sectarian compositions. Noting the presence of 'standard' and 'variant' forms of these designations, this study examines the differing form and function of the sobriquets across the range of texts in which they appear. More specifically, it attempts to demonstrate that over time they underwent a developmental process, changing in form and perhaps denotation.

Adopting a chronological schema that posits a Formative, Early and Late Sectarian Period, and concentrating on the sobriquets 'the Teacher of Righteousness' and 'the Spouter of the Lie', this investigation observes a development from contextualised scriptural typologies towards titular forms constituting discrete elements of sectarian terminology. A more general evolutionary trend towards a definite ('standard') form is also highlighted, with so-called variants representing earlier stages in this process (further demonstrated by means of a supplementary case study involving the sobriquet, 'the Seekers of Smooth Things').Comparison of these results with sociological insights, drawing upon the sociology of deviance and 'labelling theory', suggests that this phenomenon can be understood against a wider context of labelling practices. Thus it is demonstrated that the sobriquets function as tools for labelling deviance and affirming positive counterparts. Furthermore, it is suggested that the move towards definite titular forms reflects a process of role engulfment, increased prototypically and the ultimate acquisition of 'master status'.

Chapter 1

THE SOBRIQUETS AND THE SCROLLS

1. Introduction

More than sixty years have passed since the discovery of the first Qumran-related Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 and during this time numerous theories have been proposed concerning the origin of this enigmatic find. Most assume the existence of a discernible movement behind the collection and tend to link the scrolls in some way with the nearby site of Khirbet Qumran. Such theories have often sought to identify this group, either by comparing what we learn ideologically (or theologically) from the texts themselves with Jewish religious groups known to have existed at the time or by attempting to match up apparent historical references in the scrolls with known historical events from the Second Temple period. Central to most of these reconstructions have been the so-called Qumran sobriquets, ‘nicknames’ that occur with some frequency among the sectarian texts and are commonly taken to denote key individuals or groups in the life or history of the sect.¹ Indeed, many have considered that unlocking the identity of such principal characters as ‘the Teacher of Righteousness’

and ‘the Wicked Priest’

might be the key to unravelling the origins of the scrolls.

As a result, attempts to identify the referents of the sobriquets have been at the heart of most historical reconstructions and have formed the basis of numerous and varied hypotheses. Largely, however, these approaches have been inconclusive and have not led to a widespread consensus. Instead, the field of Qumran studies is littered with the debris of hard-fought, often bitter, battles over the identity of the sect.² Some theories have fallen, others continue to be vigorously defended, but none have survived unscathed. Many scholars have found themselves forced to adapt and refine their arguments in response to either the discovery or publication of new evidence or, more often than not, the criticisms of other scholars. This state of flux can make it quite difficult to outline the different major hypotheses in anything other than broad brushstrokes. Nevertheless, in this chapter we shall first endeavour a brief overview of these attempts to ‘contextualize’ the scrolls before examining the problems with such an approach. Subsequently we shall turn our attention to the nature of the sobriquets themselves and propose a fresh line of enquiry, one concerned with the apparent ‘variant’ forms and the possibility of sobriquet development. Finally, we shall attempt to chronologically layer key sectarian material as a backdrop to our investigation. Let us, therefore, begin by surveying some of the more notable scholarly hypotheses proposed since the scrolls’ discovery, regarding the identification of the movement responsible and the referents of the sobriquets.

2. Contextualizing the Scrolls

a. Dating the Scrolls

A combination of textual and archaeological evidence allows us to establish a general time-span of some two hundred and fifty years or more in which to seek a historical context for the collection, ranging roughly from 180 BCE to 70 CE.³ Dating of sample scrolls by palaeography and Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (Carbon-14) reveals that most appear to have been written within this period, though this of course only provides a terminus ad quem for their composition.⁴ The AMS date of 1QpHab (sometime in the first century BCE) is particularly significant as it has been taken to indicate a latest possible date for the existence of ‘the Teacher of Righteousness’, ‘the Wicked Priest’ and ‘the Spouter of the Lie’, one that is notably prior to the Christian era.⁵ In addition, the few people who are mentioned by name in the scrolls are likely from the second or first centuries BCE: e.g.,

(4Q169 frgs. 3–4, 1.2);

(1.3);

(4Q331 frg. 1, 1.7);

(4Q331 frg. 1, 2.7; 4Q332 frg. 2, 4);

(4Q332 frg. 2, 6);

(4Q333 frg. 1, 4, 8);

(4Q448 B.2; C.8).⁶

Archaeological evidence from Khirbet Qumran has yielded a general consensus that, following an initial settlement in the eighth or seventh centuries BCE, the site was re-inhabited around 100 BCE (though this date often varies in scholarly hypotheses by up to fifty years either way) and occupied until its destruction by the Romans in 68 CE (a date that is also presented variously). Roland de Vaux, who led the initial excavation, believed that the ruins were those of an Essene ‘monastery’ inhabited by the writers of the scrolls between c.130 BCE and 68 CE (1973). However, his failure to produce an official site report has prompted scholars to review the evidence in recent years (e.g., Galor, Humbert and Zangenberg [eds] 2006) and in some cases arrive at very different conclusions regarding either the interpretation of the site (Donceel and Donceel-Voûte 1994; Donceel-Voûte 1993; Golb 1994; 1995; Hirschfeld 2000; 2004; 2006; Magen and Peleg 2007) or the dates of occupation (Magness 1998; 2000; 2002).

De Vaux suggested, on rather scanty evidence, that the site had been inhabited on a smaller scale for a short period in the latter half of the second century BCE (Period Ia: roughly 130–100 BCE).⁷ Jodi Magness disagrees, rejecting the existence of Period Ia entirely (claiming it to be the product of de Vaux’s desire to date the occupation of Qumran as close as possible to the reign of Jonathan Maccabee) and presents a revised chronology, arguing that the site was only inhabited from the first half of the first century BCE (Magness 2002, esp. 63–69).⁸ De Vaux also claimed that an earthquake in 31 BCE (cf. Josephus, Ant. 15.121-22; War 1.370-72) caused the site to be abandoned for about thirty years, being reoccupied only at the beginning of the first century CE. Magness, however, noting the limited damage done by the earthquake, suggests that the inhabitants continued to live there until forced to leave when the site was apparently burned in 9/8 BCE, returning to Qumran around 4 BCE (1998: 57–59; 2002: 66–69). On the other hand, James Charlesworth argues that the site was abandoned as early as 40 BCE, at the time of the Parthian invasion, and left vacant for nearly forty years (2002: 50–52). According to the consensus view, the next phase of occupation (Period II) began around the turn of the era and lasted until June of 68 CE when the Romans destroyed the site and used it themselves as an outpost for a short time (Period III).

The result of this combined textual and archaeological evidence is that a context for the history of those responsible for the scrolls has been sought chiefly within the second and first centuries BCE (and to some extent the first century CE), drawing upon the historical framework(s) provided by the books of 1–2 Maccabees and the works of Josephus.⁹ It is to these proposals that we now turn.

b. An Overview of Sobriquet Hypotheses

1. The Second Century BCE
Pre-Maccabaean Hypotheses

In 1952, with only the evidence of Cave 1 and the Cairo Damascus Document (CD, see Schechter 1970) at his disposal, H.H. Rowley tentatively proposed that ‘the Teacher of Righteousness’ be identified with the deposed Zadokite High Priest, Onias III (190–175/4 BCE).¹⁰ After being supplanted by his brother, Jason, in 175/4 BCE, Onias was forced into exile where, in 171/70 BCE, he was murdered at the instigation of Jason’s successor, Menelaus (172–162 BCE). It is this latter, non-Zadokite High Priest, that Rowley identifies as ‘the Wicked Priest’ of the pesharim, while suggesting that the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE), should be considered ‘the Man of Scoffing’/‘the Spouter of the Lie’ (

Rowley equates the two sobriquets on the basis of CD 1.14-15).¹¹ He also suggests that the reference in 1QPesher on Habakkuk to ‘the House of Absalom’ (

1QpHab 5.8-12) might refer to the largely pro-Seleucid Tobiad family, who were intermarried with the priestly Oniad line yet without access to the High Priesthood (1952a: 69; 1952b: 383).

New evidence, arising from the discovery of further Qumran-related material in Caves 2 to 11, was soon incorporated by Rowley so as to support his proposed Onias–Menelaus–Antiochus context for the scrolls.¹² With regard to 4QPesher on Nahum, he suggested that the Demetrius mentioned was Demetrius I Soter (162–151/50 BCE) and that ‘the Lion of Wrath’ (

frgs. 3–4, 1.5-6; cf. 4Q167 frg. 2, 2) be identified with:

either Antiochus [IV] himself, or, more probably, his agent who was in charge of his affairs in Palestine, and who carried through with such ferocity the persecution ordered by the king. (Rowley 1956: 193)

More recently, and with the entire body of evidence now available, Russell Gmirkin has agreed with Rowley’s central tenet, that ‘the Teacher of Righteousness’ should be identified with Onias III and ‘the Wicked Priest’ with Menelaus (Gmirkin 1998; 2000; so too Pfann 2004; note the competing theory identifying Onias III with ‘the Wicked Priest’: Freedman and Geoghegan 2006). However, Gmirkin emphasizes what he perceives to be the Hasidic nature of the scrolls, arguing that Onias was the leader of the conservative Hasidim. He consequently identifies the group’s opponents, ‘the Seekers of Smooth Things’

, with the pro-Hellenists and their apparent leader, ‘the Man of the Lie’

, with Jason (Gmirkin 2000: 493–94).

A variation on these hypotheses is that of Paul Rainbow (1997), who begins by examining Josephus’ two accounts regarding the founding of the temple at Leontopolis in 162 BCE.¹³ He makes an argument for doubting the identification of Josephus’ Onias (IV?)...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• Key to Symbols in Translated Passages
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: The Sobriquets and the Scrolls
• Chapter 2: Formative Sectarian Period
• Chapter 3: Early Sectarian Period
• Chapter 4: Late Sectarian Period
• Chapter 5: The Development of the Qumran Sobriquets
• Conclusions
• Bibliography
• Index of References
• Index of Authors
• Footnotes