What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary
This composite edition of the Damascus Document and scrolls from Khirbet Qumran (with translation and commentary) presents a new understanding of the relationship of these texts, time and purpose; shedding additional light on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
- GenresHistory
426 pages, Leather Bound
First published November 29, 2006
1 person is currently reading
4 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 9, 2022
Wacholder’s is a highly technical book. Tremendous efforts are spent to put up a textual critical version of the Damascus Document based on Qumran finds and medieval CD text (11-12 cen AD). I am concerning myself mainly first with the broader scheme to locate this text in the proper context in relation first to Second Temple Periold, and then Christianity.
Majority opinion dates the composition by c. 150 BC, such as Boccaccini (1998). And Stegemann (1993) suggests 110 BC, which is about decade before the Qumran settlement began its operation.
Wacholder dates its composition by prior to 200 BC, based not least on the MTA's perceived "indifference" about the struggle between the Hasmonean Jews and the Syrian government. "Furthermore, much of what is in MTA echoes Ezekiel, further strengthening an early date of authorship." (p.3)
That MTA/CD has its theology and vocabulary following closely to Jubilees is beyond much doubt. Jubilees is a newer development that somewhat legitimizes Mosaic revelation with the mainline Enochic tradition (Boccaccini, 1998). Since there is more or less a scholarly consensus to date the Enochic founding texts (on Watchers & Luminaries) back to 300 BC. It is then possible give that room to both Jubilees and MTA.
Wacholder brought attention to the fact that Jacob al-Qirqisani in 947 have commented on Karaite version of CD as parts of the fulfillment of Zadokite revelation. Al-Qirqisani ascribes the foundation of the Zadokites to Boethus and Zadok, describing the latter as passing down half of the revelation. Anan, the 8th century founder of the Karaite movement, revealed the rest of it- through the Boethusian line. This unattested statement is nonetheless the critical basis on which Wacholder insists that "the Essene sect, said to have vanished during the Roman conquest of Judea in 68–73 c.e., continued to produce its literature during the Middle Ages. This provides crucial evidence that elements of the Essene sect thrived during the late Middle Ages. Evidence suggests, therefore, that sectarian material was available throughout the centuries after the destruction of the Second Temple. (p.6)
I shall disagree here. Stegemann (1993) made a very strong case that the Karaite rennaisance is based a serrendipitous rediscovery of ancient texts stored in Qumran cave 3. Buried among them was CD too. I should add that, interestingly, the Boethusian (Hebrew: בייתוסים) is a secterian tradition whose legacy is claimed by the Sadducees at the turn of the common era.
The Karaites may well claim these to be the missing Boethusian/Sadducees legacies, since 1) the location of this cave finding is geographically close to Jerusalem; 2) the specific content reveals priestly elements and teaching distinct from the Rabbinic/Pharisaic line. So while historically speaking Boethus and Zadok were 3th cen BC figures, we can't apply this referecne to dating the composition of CD.
Wacholder (2006) makes a bold move to translate the Qumran Aramaic MTA with a futurist tone: The teacher of Righteousness is not a historical figure, but an eschatological one, and so is his counterpart, the Wicked Priest, and the specific command concenring the Yachad (commnity) is also about an eschatological community, rather than a prospective or nacent one:
"It is important to say a word concerning the role of verbs and time in this work. The text frequently shifts from the perfect to the imperfect and vice versa, especially when it uses the so-called w-hhypwk (conversive waw), which in an unvocalized tradition may often refer to the consecutive past or the future. Nothing can be said definitively about time, except by context." (p.16)
"MTA is the idea of migration to Damascus or the claim that the community migrated from
Judea to Damascus.... No other DSS text knows of such mobility. ...In my opinion moreover, the migration to the north in MTA is not historical but a prediction that it would occur in the future." (p.10)
This differs significantly from both Stegemann (1993) and Boccaccini (1998). Boccaccini (1998) is of the opinion that it's a codename for Bablyon (previous forced exile), and Stegemann (1993) has suggested a literal reading, conjecturing a 20 year sojourn in Syria as many Hasidim chose flee to from the Palestinian turmoil ensuing the Macabean revolt with Onias IV. Whille I am doubtful of Wacholder's new suggestion, he offers reasons that could weaken the validity of Stegemann's literal reading (though for me it remains the strongest one and I take this to be the default hypothesis to be fine tuned).
For one thing, why is there such details about the Damascus sojourn in the prologue, but no corresponding info offered regarding the identity of the Teacher? If it is the sojourn that is important, why isn't there any other attestation? If the Teacher is an important historical figure, why can't any trace be found regarding his true identity? Wacholder solves this by pointing out that both are figurative. But this interpretation remains to be tested.
The MTA/CD is a polemical text that wages an internecine cold war against some "boundary shifters". Are they post-Macabean Pharisees, Saducee adherents of lunar calandar, or?
"[Here is “The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah.” It is incumbent upon the so]ns of light to keep separate from ([literally, "be unto the Nazirite") the wa[ys of the sons of darkness . . . Now from the Age of (God’s) Anger during the desolation of the land] until the completion of the period of remembrance at [the end of the epoch of evil there have arisen the Shifters of the Boundary. But] God, [rememb]ering each and every deed, (and) wreaking hav[oc] against the e[arth, will not leave a remnant] to the Shifters of the Boundary... (MTA 1:1-4)" (p.118)
"Now during the epoch of the desolation of the land (587 B.C.E.) the Shifters of the Boundary arose and misled Israel. And the earth has turned into wilderness because they spoke deviant counsel against the ordinances of God through Moses, and even through the anointed holy ones. And they have prophesied false hood to make Israel turn away from God. (CD 5:20–6:2a)" (p.121)
Wacholder compares the veral usage with the introductory section of Rabbinic Mishnah Avot, where he fairly concludes that the schism over a more strigent or more lenient interpretation of the Law has arisen since the destruction of the first temple, henceforth the polemical context in MTA/CD cannot be the post-Macabean era.
I shall challenge this reading in my defense of Stegemann (1993) and majority opinion by four accounts:
1) Wacholder too hastily equates "the desolation of the land" in CD 5:20 to the destruction of the FIRST TEMPLE, whereas it could as well mean the desacreation of the SECOND TEMPLE during 175-154 BC. Evidence suggests that the calendrical issue which the preoccupies CD fits the latter context.
2) "Even through the anointed holy ones" (CD 6:1) clearly means the high priesthood. Is this the second temple Zadokite prieshood, as Wacholder seems to suggest, or is this more specifically the Hasmonian priesthood? We shall see that the way the early Enochians employed to demote the second temple Zadokites is to emphasize the pre-Mosaic priesthood of Enoch and Melchizedek. CD however follows the vein of Jubilees in recognizing Moses (and thus early second temple Zadokites). The "Boundary-Shifters" cannot fits the image of Ezra. If such Boundary-Shifters existed in the 5th cen Judaism as a school of thought, pre-Pharisaic or however you name it, they were of no importance to deserve the polemical tone of CD, and they didn't fare well with the "anointed holy ones" either.
3) It befits both the Rabbinic tradition and the Essenic tradition to claim themselves to be true heirs of the second temple and retroject their lineage far behind their actual birthday. Boccaccini (1998) made a good case that the Enochic Essenes behind Jubilees and CD may have felt entitled to further align themselves with Mosaic and Zadokite legacies, where were looked down upon by early Ezekiel-Enochic literatures, because the Hasmonians are not true Zadokites.
Rabbinic "offical" account is also full of romanticized myths tha decorate their lineage, robbng Essenic and Sadducee intellectual property when they were no longer vocal.
Therefore, a pre-Macabean origin of MTA/CD is not much likely. Things which Wacholder (2006) takes for granted, I am afraid, are not so much so. And consider this:
"And these are the verdicts by which they shall be judged through the Midrash-Yachad according to (their) commands. (1QS 6:24)" (p.111)
Wacholder asserts that peculiar combined words of "Midrash-Yachad" is clearly "linking the works MTA and Rule of the Community as a hybrid. (p.111) However, he then sidetracks and uses this formulation to establish the true title of CD being Midrash on the Eschatological Torah (MTA), all while overlooking the significance this would have in binding MTA-1QS together in an ideological continuum and transmission chain. 1QS is sectarian and Qumranite, and it offers directives for a real community. "Midrash-Yachad" wording in 1QS would virtually sabotage the putative context Wacholder crafts for MTA to be read as addressing a "futuristic community" not already taking shape. The "Midrash-Yachad" formulation is unaccountable if the composition of MTA and 1QS is over 100-150 years apart by Wacholder's construal. Instead, Boccaccini (1998) has all the reasons to lable MTA/CD as "presectarian" and 1QS "sectarian".
These being said, the main body of this book being a textual critical edition of MTA/CD is invaluable. I picked up this book because there are research questions I cannot rely myself on non-textual critical translations. Such is a book you need to navigate the vast sea of second temple Jewish literature in their original Aramaic/Hebrew language.
Majority opinion dates the composition by c. 150 BC, such as Boccaccini (1998). And Stegemann (1993) suggests 110 BC, which is about decade before the Qumran settlement began its operation.
Wacholder dates its composition by prior to 200 BC, based not least on the MTA's perceived "indifference" about the struggle between the Hasmonean Jews and the Syrian government. "Furthermore, much of what is in MTA echoes Ezekiel, further strengthening an early date of authorship." (p.3)
That MTA/CD has its theology and vocabulary following closely to Jubilees is beyond much doubt. Jubilees is a newer development that somewhat legitimizes Mosaic revelation with the mainline Enochic tradition (Boccaccini, 1998). Since there is more or less a scholarly consensus to date the Enochic founding texts (on Watchers & Luminaries) back to 300 BC. It is then possible give that room to both Jubilees and MTA.
Wacholder brought attention to the fact that Jacob al-Qirqisani in 947 have commented on Karaite version of CD as parts of the fulfillment of Zadokite revelation. Al-Qirqisani ascribes the foundation of the Zadokites to Boethus and Zadok, describing the latter as passing down half of the revelation. Anan, the 8th century founder of the Karaite movement, revealed the rest of it- through the Boethusian line. This unattested statement is nonetheless the critical basis on which Wacholder insists that "the Essene sect, said to have vanished during the Roman conquest of Judea in 68–73 c.e., continued to produce its literature during the Middle Ages. This provides crucial evidence that elements of the Essene sect thrived during the late Middle Ages. Evidence suggests, therefore, that sectarian material was available throughout the centuries after the destruction of the Second Temple. (p.6)
I shall disagree here. Stegemann (1993) made a very strong case that the Karaite rennaisance is based a serrendipitous rediscovery of ancient texts stored in Qumran cave 3. Buried among them was CD too. I should add that, interestingly, the Boethusian (Hebrew: בייתוסים) is a secterian tradition whose legacy is claimed by the Sadducees at the turn of the common era.
The Karaites may well claim these to be the missing Boethusian/Sadducees legacies, since 1) the location of this cave finding is geographically close to Jerusalem; 2) the specific content reveals priestly elements and teaching distinct from the Rabbinic/Pharisaic line. So while historically speaking Boethus and Zadok were 3th cen BC figures, we can't apply this referecne to dating the composition of CD.
Wacholder (2006) makes a bold move to translate the Qumran Aramaic MTA with a futurist tone: The teacher of Righteousness is not a historical figure, but an eschatological one, and so is his counterpart, the Wicked Priest, and the specific command concenring the Yachad (commnity) is also about an eschatological community, rather than a prospective or nacent one:
"It is important to say a word concerning the role of verbs and time in this work. The text frequently shifts from the perfect to the imperfect and vice versa, especially when it uses the so-called w-hhypwk (conversive waw), which in an unvocalized tradition may often refer to the consecutive past or the future. Nothing can be said definitively about time, except by context." (p.16)
"MTA is the idea of migration to Damascus or the claim that the community migrated from
Judea to Damascus.... No other DSS text knows of such mobility. ...In my opinion moreover, the migration to the north in MTA is not historical but a prediction that it would occur in the future." (p.10)
This differs significantly from both Stegemann (1993) and Boccaccini (1998). Boccaccini (1998) is of the opinion that it's a codename for Bablyon (previous forced exile), and Stegemann (1993) has suggested a literal reading, conjecturing a 20 year sojourn in Syria as many Hasidim chose flee to from the Palestinian turmoil ensuing the Macabean revolt with Onias IV. Whille I am doubtful of Wacholder's new suggestion, he offers reasons that could weaken the validity of Stegemann's literal reading (though for me it remains the strongest one and I take this to be the default hypothesis to be fine tuned).
For one thing, why is there such details about the Damascus sojourn in the prologue, but no corresponding info offered regarding the identity of the Teacher? If it is the sojourn that is important, why isn't there any other attestation? If the Teacher is an important historical figure, why can't any trace be found regarding his true identity? Wacholder solves this by pointing out that both are figurative. But this interpretation remains to be tested.
The MTA/CD is a polemical text that wages an internecine cold war against some "boundary shifters". Are they post-Macabean Pharisees, Saducee adherents of lunar calandar, or?
"[Here is “The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah.” It is incumbent upon the so]ns of light to keep separate from ([literally, "be unto the Nazirite") the wa[ys of the sons of darkness . . . Now from the Age of (God’s) Anger during the desolation of the land] until the completion of the period of remembrance at [the end of the epoch of evil there have arisen the Shifters of the Boundary. But] God, [rememb]ering each and every deed, (and) wreaking hav[oc] against the e[arth, will not leave a remnant] to the Shifters of the Boundary... (MTA 1:1-4)" (p.118)
"Now during the epoch of the desolation of the land (587 B.C.E.) the Shifters of the Boundary arose and misled Israel. And the earth has turned into wilderness because they spoke deviant counsel against the ordinances of God through Moses, and even through the anointed holy ones. And they have prophesied false hood to make Israel turn away from God. (CD 5:20–6:2a)" (p.121)
Wacholder compares the veral usage with the introductory section of Rabbinic Mishnah Avot, where he fairly concludes that the schism over a more strigent or more lenient interpretation of the Law has arisen since the destruction of the first temple, henceforth the polemical context in MTA/CD cannot be the post-Macabean era.
I shall challenge this reading in my defense of Stegemann (1993) and majority opinion by four accounts:
1) Wacholder too hastily equates "the desolation of the land" in CD 5:20 to the destruction of the FIRST TEMPLE, whereas it could as well mean the desacreation of the SECOND TEMPLE during 175-154 BC. Evidence suggests that the calendrical issue which the preoccupies CD fits the latter context.
2) "Even through the anointed holy ones" (CD 6:1) clearly means the high priesthood. Is this the second temple Zadokite prieshood, as Wacholder seems to suggest, or is this more specifically the Hasmonian priesthood? We shall see that the way the early Enochians employed to demote the second temple Zadokites is to emphasize the pre-Mosaic priesthood of Enoch and Melchizedek. CD however follows the vein of Jubilees in recognizing Moses (and thus early second temple Zadokites). The "Boundary-Shifters" cannot fits the image of Ezra. If such Boundary-Shifters existed in the 5th cen Judaism as a school of thought, pre-Pharisaic or however you name it, they were of no importance to deserve the polemical tone of CD, and they didn't fare well with the "anointed holy ones" either.
3) It befits both the Rabbinic tradition and the Essenic tradition to claim themselves to be true heirs of the second temple and retroject their lineage far behind their actual birthday. Boccaccini (1998) made a good case that the Enochic Essenes behind Jubilees and CD may have felt entitled to further align themselves with Mosaic and Zadokite legacies, where were looked down upon by early Ezekiel-Enochic literatures, because the Hasmonians are not true Zadokites.
Rabbinic "offical" account is also full of romanticized myths tha decorate their lineage, robbng Essenic and Sadducee intellectual property when they were no longer vocal.
Therefore, a pre-Macabean origin of MTA/CD is not much likely. Things which Wacholder (2006) takes for granted, I am afraid, are not so much so. And consider this:
"And these are the verdicts by which they shall be judged through the Midrash-Yachad according to (their) commands. (1QS 6:24)" (p.111)
Wacholder asserts that peculiar combined words of "Midrash-Yachad" is clearly "linking the works MTA and Rule of the Community as a hybrid. (p.111) However, he then sidetracks and uses this formulation to establish the true title of CD being Midrash on the Eschatological Torah (MTA), all while overlooking the significance this would have in binding MTA-1QS together in an ideological continuum and transmission chain. 1QS is sectarian and Qumranite, and it offers directives for a real community. "Midrash-Yachad" wording in 1QS would virtually sabotage the putative context Wacholder crafts for MTA to be read as addressing a "futuristic community" not already taking shape. The "Midrash-Yachad" formulation is unaccountable if the composition of MTA and 1QS is over 100-150 years apart by Wacholder's construal. Instead, Boccaccini (1998) has all the reasons to lable MTA/CD as "presectarian" and 1QS "sectarian".
These being said, the main body of this book being a textual critical edition of MTA/CD is invaluable. I picked up this book because there are research questions I cannot rely myself on non-textual critical translations. Such is a book you need to navigate the vast sea of second temple Jewish literature in their original Aramaic/Hebrew language.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews