Zadok

And concerning the prince [i.e., the king] it is written, He shall not multiply wives for himself294 As for David, he did not read the sealed book of the Torah, which was in the Ark (of the Covenant). For it was not opened in Israel from the day (that) Eleazar and Joshua and the Elders died, (nor) when (the children of Israel) served (the goddess) Ashtoreth;295 and it remained hidden (and) was (not) revealed until Zadok arose. And David's deeds were praised, except for Uriah's blood,296 and God forgave him for that.297

According to the above passage, Zadok brought to light the "sealed book of the Law, which was in the Ark." It had been kept secret from Israel until his coming. I take the view that Zadok (or Saddok) was the opponent of the high priest Simon, the son of Boethus, or perhaps his father in ca. 24 BC. Josephus was probably incorrect in placing him with Judas the Galilean in AD 6 298 Zadok surely did not find the Temple Scroll (11QT) in the Ark. God must have revealed it to him, as the new Moses.299 He wrote it in 22-21 BC and it was probably known as the "book of the Second Torah."300 The sect probably believed that

295. Jos. 24:29-31, 33; Jg. 2:7-10, 11-4. According to these biblical verses, it was only after the death of the Elders that the people of Israel began worshipping Baal and Ashtoreth. I have tried to translate this passage with this idea in mind.

299. Dt. 18:15: "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me [Moses] from among you, from your brethren — him you shall heed."

300. Florentino Garcia Martinez & Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1997), Vol. 1, 367 (4Q177, 3:13-4) (italics mine).

Hilkiah, the high priest during King Josiah's reign (i.e., 628-609 BC) found the book of the First Torah in the Temple.301 The "book of the law" discovered by Hilkiah "was" or at least "contained" the book of Deuteronomy.302

King David was excused for having many wives, because he did not know the Deuteronomy passage (i.e., the king "shall not multiply wives for himself").303 The true meaning of it was disclosed by the following prohibition in 11QT: "He [i.e., the king] is not to take another wife in addition to her; no, she alone shall be with him as long as she lives."304 The Deuteronomy passage did not just restrict the king to taking only a "reasonable" number of wives, but it actually restricted him to taking only one wife. In the view of the sect, since 11QT was not brought to light until the time of Zadok, King David could not have known that he was prohibited from taking more than one wife.305

CD 4:7-8 states that "all those who entered (the Covenant) after them (i.e., the first ones) are "to act according to the exact tenor of the Torah in which the first had been instructed." How could the first ones and those who came "after them" have practiced the same Torah, if the former did not have the book of the Second Torah (i.e., 11QT)? The writer of CD must have believed that, although the first ones did not have a written book of the Second Torah (Zadok wrote it many years later), they were practicing it nonetheless, because of their great wisdom and piety.

A priest or at least someone extremely knowledgeable of the Temple ritual must have composed 11QT. Although our sources do not state that Zadok was a priest, what makes this identification likely is that in the scrolls it is the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are called the "sons of Zadok."306 This designation also reveals the special standing accorded to Zadok by the sect.

301. 2 Kgs. 22:1-23:30, 2 Chr. 34-5. 2 Kgs. 22:8: "And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, 'I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD.' And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it."

302. The New Oxford Annotated Bible, eds. Herbert G. May and Bruce M. Metzger (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), 214 (Introduction to Deuteronomy), 487-8, note 8-10 for 22.1-20.

303. King David reigned from 1000 to 965 or 961 BC. The book of Deuteronomy only came to light when the high priest, Hilkiah, found it during the reign of King Josiah (i.e., 628-609 BC).

304. 11QT 57:17-8, cf. CD 4:20-5:1. All quotations of 11QT in this chapter are taken from Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Tanslation (San Francisco: Harper, 1996), 457-92.

305. Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law of the Dead Sea Sect (New York: Random House, 1985), 227-8. However, I do not agree with him that Zadok was the Teacher of Righteousness and the founder of the Dead Sea Scroll sect.

306. 1QS 5:2, 9; 1QSa 1:2, 24, 2:3; 1QSb 2:22; 4Q174 1:17. The only exception is CD 3:21-4:4 where, commenting on a unique version of Ezek. 44:15, a symbolic meaning is given to the term.

The Pentateuch307 and other sources were probably used in its composition. It has been suggested that the scroll is made up of four separate units, which are the following: 1) a festival calendar, 2) a collection of purity laws, 3) a law for the king, and 4) a description of the Temple and its courts.308

Some evidence that old sources were utilized in its composition is as follows:

1. 11QT 47:7-18 states that only the skins of clean animals that had been sacrificed in the Temple could be brought into Jerusalem. According to Josephus,309 the Syrian king, Antiochus III (223-187 BC), because of the help he received from the Jews, granted them certain concessions. In a proclamation, he stated (among other things) that the skins of unclean animals were not to be brought into Jerusalem. However, 11QT expands on this ruling by excluding from the city even the skins of clean animals that were not sacrificed in the Temple.310

2. 11QT 34:6 mentions "rings" in the slaughterhouse of the Temple. Various Talmudic sources state that John Hyrcanus I (135/4-104 BC) introduced rings into the slaughterhouse.311

3. 11QT 64:7-13 has a ruling that traitors should be hung alive on a tree (i.e., crucified). The source of this ruling is probably derived from Alexander Jannaeus' crucifixion of the Pharisees, who initiated a treasonable correspondence with the Syrian king Demetrius III in 88 BC.312 I quote the passage below:

If a man is a traitor against his people and gives them up to a foreign nation, so doing evil to his people, you are to hang him on a tree until dead. On the testimony of two or three witnesses he will be put to death, and they themselves shall hang him on the tree.

If a man is convicted of a capital crime and flees to the nations, cursing his people and the children of Israel, you are to hang him, also, upon a tree until dead.

But you must not let their bodies remain on the tree overnight; you shall most certainly bury them that very day. Indeed, anyone hung on a tree is accursed of God and men, but you are not to defile the land that I [God] am about to give you as an inheritance.313

307. The Pentateuch is the first 5 books of the Old Testament, which are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It is synonymous with the Hebrew Torah.

308. A. M. Wilson and L. Wills, "Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll," Harvard Theological Review 75 (1982): 275-88.

310. Yadin, The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law of the Dead Sea Sect, 186-8.

311. Yadin, The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law of the Dead Sea Sect, 136-40.

4. In referring to the king's bodyguard, 11QT states, "twelve thousand warriors . shall never leave him alone, lest he be captured by the nations."314 Also, they "shall stay with him always, day and night, in order to protect him from any sort of sin and from a foreign nation, lest he be captured."315 These rulings may very well be alluding to Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BC). When he was fighting Obedas, king of the Arabs, he was ambushed and almost did not escape with his life.316 However, it may be alluding to other Hasmonaean rulers as well: Jonathan (161-143/2 BC) was captured and put to death by Tryphon,317 Simon (143/2-135/4 BC) and his two sons were slain by his son-in-law, Ptolemy318 and Anti-gonus (40-37 BC) was executed by the order of Antony.319

Sifting through the research that has been done on 11QT, I believe the following passage is correct:

The Jewish king seems to be a reality, not just a rather abstract speculation. Our document presents through biblical notions of kingship an antithesis to some real Jewish king, and its author is willing to correct the defects of kingship which he has observed.320

Thiering has placed the composition of the scroll in ca. 20 BC during Herod the Great's reign (37-4 BC). However, she curiously reasons that the scroll was composed by the Essenes in the "hope of persuading Herod to re-establish the Zadokite high priesthood in power." Because he intended to rebuild the temple, "they produced their own plan, in the form of a 'lost' biblical book, to ensure that it would be built in an acceptable way."321

I believe that Thiering is on the right track in placing the composition of the scroll during Herod's reign, but a careful study of it will show that it is clearly anti-Herodian. It is not in any way supportive of Herod or even hopeful that he could be persuaded to accept its tenets. The evidence shows that the writer had

320. M. Hengel, et al., "The Polemical Character of 'On Kingship' in the Temple Scroll: An Attempt at Dating 11Q Temple," Journal of Jewish Studies 37 (1986): 31.

321. B. E. Thiering, Redating the Teacher of Righteousness (Sydney: Theological Explorations, 1979), 205-6.

to have been a contemporary, who disapproved of Herod the Great's reign. Let us review some of the evidence below.

11QT, following Deut. 17:15, states the following: "From among your brethren you shall appoint a king. You must not put a foreigner over you, he who is not one of your brethren."322 This rule has perfect relevance regarding Herod. Jewish tradition declares that the determination of whether the offspring of a married couple is Jewish follows the mother's ancestry.323 Herod's father, Antipater II, was an Idumaean. Antipater I, the father of the latter, was probably forcibly converted to Judaism by John Hyrcanus I in his conquest of Idumea in 129 BC.324 Dt. 23:8 states that Idumaeans of the third generation "may enter the assembly of the Lord."325 Based on this biblical passage, Herod would have been an Idumaean of the third generation. However, Herod's mother, Cypros, was of a noble Nabatean (i.e., an Arabian) family326 and there is no evidence that she converted to Judaism. On this basis, Herod was not Jewish and could not be king according to 11QT! Regardless of the facts, Herod's friends spread the belief that he was a Jew descended from the first families who returned from the Babylonian exile. His enemies spread the belief that he was a Philistine (i.e., a pagan) whose ancesters were natives of Ascalon.327 Correctly following his mother's ancestry, the Slavonic Josephus calls Herod "an Arabian, uncircumcised."328

The scroll states that the king "may not take a wife from any of the nations. Rather, he must take himself a wife from his father's house — that is, from his father's family. He is not to take another wife in addition to her; no, she alone shall be with him as long as she lives. If she dies, then he may take himself another wife from his father's house, that is, his family."329 This passage is first a prohibition against the king marrying a non-Jew (she must also be from his father's house and family)330 and secondly it is a prohibition against polygamy

323. L. H. Schiffman, Who Was aJew? (Hoboken: KTAV Publishing, 1983), 9-14.

325. Dt. 23:7-8: "You shall not abhor an Edomite [i.e., an Idumaean], for he is your brother ... The children of the third generation that are born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord."

327. Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vols. I, II, III.1, III.2, rev. and ed. by Geza Vermes, et al. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973/87), Vol. I, 234, note 3.

328. Josephus, Bk. III, Appendix, p. 636. Need I remind the reader that this discussion of genealogy only has relevance before the time of John the Baptist?

330. It is interesting that after the death of her husband, Aristobulus I, Salome Alexandra married his brother, Alexander Jannaeus. Since she was in Jannaeus' house and family, their marriage would have been in conformity with this ruling (Ant. XIII, 320-3, 405-8, War I, 85, 107-9).

and divorce. The relevance of these prohibitions with regard to Herod is clear. He had ten wives, nine of whom were living at the same time, and probably an unknown number of concubines.331 It appears that only Mariamme (the Hasmonean princess) was given the title of queen.332 It is known that Herod had a wife (Malthace) who was a Samaritan.333 There is no evidence that she converted to Judaism.334 Furthermore, Herod divorced his first wife Doris in order to marry Mariamme, whom he later executed in 29 BC.335 He also divorced the other Mariamme, the daughter of the high priest, Simon, the son of

Boethus.336

11QT 66:15-7 states that "no man is to marry his brother's daughter or his sister's daughter; that is abhorrent." It is known that one of Herod's wives was the daughter of his brother.337

A large portion of 11QT is concerned with a detailed description of the ideal temple that should be built in Jerusalem.338 Herod started the rebuilding of the temple in either 23-22 BC (the fifteenth year of his reign)339 or 20-19 BC (the eighteenth year of his reign).340 The actual temple building itself was completed in one and a half years, but the entire structure was not completed until AD 624.341 It was Herod's greatest building achievement, but it was not anything like the temple described in 11QT. Our writer is again revealing his opposition to Herod. At no other time from 200 BC to AD 70, but only during Herod's reign, was there an actual effort made to rebuild the temple. For the building of such a massive and elaborate structure, a period of time was unquestionably required for planning the whole operation. I think Schurer is correct in understanding the 23-22 BC date (i.e., the fifteenth year) as "the start of building preparations."342 The date 20-19 BC (i.e., the eighteenth year) was the date that the building actually began.

334. Samaritans were despised by the Jews and were considered to be on par with Gentiles. In the fourth century AD, conversions of Samaritans to Judaism were actually prohibited. See Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 352-8.

335. Ant. XIV, 300; XV, 232-9; War I, 431-3, 443-4, 590-1.

342. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. I, 292, note 12.

The high priest is envisioned as superior to the king: "He [the king] must not go to battle prior to coming to the high priest to inquire of him about the judgment of the Urim and Thummim."343 Also, there was to be a council of twelve laymen (called "princes"), twelve priests, and twelve levites, who "are to deliberate with him [the king] on matters of justice and Law, and he [the king] must not become too proud for them or do anything on counsel other than theirs."344 This reduction of the king's authority is completely relevant to Herod, who had complete authority over the state as the emperor's nominee and who appointed or deposed high priests as he saw fit.345

According to the scroll, the army was to be made up of only Jewish men346 and they "must guard themselves against all manner of impurity, indecency, iniquity, and shame."347 Furthermore, twelve thousand men selected from the army were to be the king's bodyguard at all times348 and they "must be truthful men, God-fearing, despising unjust gain, mighty warriors."349 However, if the enemy was completely destroyed in a war ordained by God, which was prognosticated by the high priest,350 booty could be taken and divided among the king, priests, Levites, and the army at a stated amount.351A condemnation of mercenaries is certainly implied here. Herod's army included mercenaries composed of Thacians, Germans, and Gauls.352

11QT 57:20-1 states the following: "Nor is he [the king] to desire any field, vineyard, wealth, or house, or any precious thing in Israel, so as to steal [it] [...]." It is certain that Herod had the Hasmonean nobility and their supporters killed, confiscating all their wealth.353

11QT 58:3-15 seems to envision a peaceful state with little concern for offensive warfare, but a great deal of concern for the defensive kind. There seems

343. 11QT 58:18-9. The Urim and Thummim were precious stones connected to the breastplate of the high priest, which were used to determine God's will.

345. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. I, 316-7; Ant. XV, 161-82, War I, 433-4 (Hyrcanus II, the Hasmonaean high priest, is executed); Ant. XV, 322 (Jesus, the son of Phiabi, is removed from the high priesthood); Ant. XVII, 78 (Simon, the son of Boethus, is removed from the high priesthood); Ant. XVII, 164-7 (Matthias, the son of Theophilus, is removed from the high priesthood).

353. Ant. XIV, 174-5; XV, 5-10; 260-6; War I, 357-8.

to be a real need for protecting the interior of the country from a possible invasion from outside. It always stresses that a portion of the army must remain in the cities to protect them, while the other portion is to go to battle.

Although the possible revolt of his own subjects was certainly a major cause of anxiety for Herod,354 there was some reason to be concerned with invasion from outside as well. The Romans under Marcus Licinius Crassus experienced a disastrous defeat against the Parthians at the battle of Carrhae in 53 BC and the latter invaded Syria and Judea in 40 BC355 and again in 38 BC.356 Until 20 BC, when the Parthians finally returned to Emperor Augustus the prisoners of war and the standards captured at Carrhae,357 there must have been anxiety at least among the common people that the Parthians would invade Syria and Judea again. Anthony's retreat following his invasion of Parthia in 3634 BC358 would certainly not have lessened their anxieties. Furthermore, the Arabs (Nabateans), since the time Herod made war with them as a result of Cleopatra's instigation in 32-31 BC, were hostile to him.359 In 10-9 BC, another war actually broke out between Herod and the Arabs.360 In the light of all these concerns, it is understandable why Herod built or strengthened many fortresses throughout the land (especially two called Herodium,361 Alexandrium,362 Hyrcania,363 Macherus,364 and Masada365) and established the military colonies of Gaba in Galilee and Esebonitis (Heshbon) in Perea.366

Among the variations to Dt. 17:16 in 11QT 56:15-7, there is one noteworthy addition. The latter passage states the following: "The king is not to multiply horses for himself, nor shall he return the people to Egypt to wage war and thereby increase for himself horses,367 silver, and gold. I [God] have said to you, 'You shall never again return that way.'" The meaning of the words in italics is not

355. Cook, et al., eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. X (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952), 47-50; Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. I, 278-28 0, 28 2.

356. Cook, et al., eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. X, 50; Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. I, 251-2, 282-3.

357. Cook, et al., eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. X, 254-64.

358. Cook, et al., eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. X, 71-4.

367. It is interesting that according to Josephus Herod "distinguished himself above all by his skill in horsemanship ... " (War I, 429).

clear. It could mean that the king could not start a war with Egypt, but the more likely meaning is that the king could not send troops to help Egypt against her enemies.

Herod was closely involved in Egyptian affairs in the early years of his reign because of his support for Antony, the Roman general, and the marriage of the latter to Cleopatra, the queen of Egypt, in 37 BC. Civil war broke out between Antony and Octavian in 32 BC, but Octavian was finally victorious at the naval battle of Actium in September 31 BC. Realizing the predicament he was in for supporting Antony, Herod quickly took measures to transfer his support for Octavian. In August 30 BC, Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide.368 Thus, whether it was to support Antony or Octavian later on, there was at least a concern that Herod would send troops to Egypt.

Even after Octavian became Emperor (Augustus) and Egypt was made into a Roman province, there was still anxiety that Herod would send troops to Egypt for various reasons until peace was made between Rome and Ethiopia in 22-21 BC.369 C. Cornelius Gallus (the first Roman governor of Egypt) could have been given aid in order to crush revolts there and to protect the borders.370 In 25-24 BC, Herod actually did send five hundred soldiers to Egypt to help Aelius Gallus (the successor to C. Cornelius Gallus) in his campaign against Arabia.371 Then, C. Petronius (the successor to Aelius Gallus) could have been given aid in his conflict against the Ethiopians.372 Thus, possible military excursions to Egypt until 22-21 BC were indeed a cause for concern and the writer alluded to this fact by adding the words in italics when he composed 11QT. This was especially true for him, since God was supposed to have said, "You shall never again return that way."373

11QT 59:13-8 states the following: "But the king whose heart and eyes whorishly depart from My [God's] commandments shall never have a descendant sitting on the throne of his fathers. Indeed, I shall forever cut off his seed from ruling Israel. If, however, he walks in My precepts, observing My commandments, and does what I regard as upright and good, then he shall never fail to have one of his sons sitting on the throne of the kingdom of Israel, forever." Further, 11QT 57:19-20 states, "he [the king] must not pervert judgment or take a

368. Cook, et al., eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. X, 66-115, 318-21; Schurer, The History of theJewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. I, 296-302.

369. Cook, et al., eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. X, 242.

370. Cook, et al., eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. X, 239-41.

371. Cook, et al., eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. X, 241, 247-54; Ant. XV, 317-8.

372. Cook, et al., eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. X, 241-2.

bribe to pervert righteous judgment." After Herod's death in 4 BC, a Jewish delegation in Rome asked Augustus to put an end to the Herodian line. In recounting Herod's reign, they accused him of many things including savagery of the worst kind, executions and confiscation of property, corruption, and perversion.374 In defense of the king, his friend, Nicolas of Damascus, could only say that the accusations should have been brought up when he was alive and could have been tried for them, not when he was dead.375 Surely, this characterization of Herod is in complete opposition to the king envisioned in the passages of 11QT. Zadok (or Saddok), who composed the document in 22-21 BC, was again revealing his opposition to the king.

The leadership structure that is envisioned in 11QT is as follows (the higher up the table, the greater the authority):376

Ranking

The Community Leadership Structure

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment