of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Vol. 2: Iss. 2, Article 1 (February 2016)
J. Randall Price
Center for Judaic Studies
Recent unrest in the Middle East regularly stimulates discussion on the eschatological interpretation of events within the biblical context. In light of this interest it is relevant to consider the oldest eschatological interpretation of biblical texts that had their origin in the Middle East – the Dead Sea Scrolls. This collection of some 1,000 and more documents that were recovered from caves along the northwestern shores of the Dead Sea in Israel, has become for scholars of both the Old and New Testaments a window into Jewish interpretation in the Late Second Temple period, a time known for intense messianic expectation. The sectarian documents (non-biblical texts authored by the Qumran Sect or collected by the Jewish Community) among these documents are eschatological in nature and afford the earliest and most complete perspective into the thinking of at least one Jewish group at the time of Jesus’ birth and the formation of the early church.
Concerning this eschatological focus, New York University professor Lawrence Schiffman has stated: “From the very beginning of the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it has been clear that the documents of the Qumran Sect place great emphasis on eschatology.” George Brooke, in concluding his study of the use of the Old Testament at Qumran, which primarily consisted of the Torah the Prophets, affirmed “one cannot approach this usage without presupposing that such use was guided by an overall eschatological perspective.” Taking this thought further Hebrew University professor and Scroll scholar Shemaryahu Talmon has declared that the Qumran Community was "the most decidedly millenarian movement in Second Temple Judaism and possibly in antiquity altogether, Christianity included." As such, their apocalyptic literature offers us an unparalleled glimpse into the eschatological setting of contemporary Judaism and especially of Jesus and the New Testament writers. The Sect's proclivity for prophecy is attested by what books they chose for commentary, the very books that formed the perspective and practice of the Sect. As Professor Shemaryahu Talmon observes: “We have indications of the trust they put in biblical prophecy and of their preference regarding this or that prophet. For instance, we have the remnants of over ten copies of the book of Isaiah; more than any other prophet. This book obviously must have been important to them. The [book of] Ezekiel also played an important role, and on it they built their own interpretation of history. For example, the War Scroll clearly is based on the story of the battle of Gog of Magog in Ezekiel [38-39]. They included Daniel, not as one of the writings, but as a prophet.”
Prophetic interpretation is most obvious in the Sectarian writings, which formed the core of the Community's beliefs. The continuous Pesharim (those commentaries that contain a verse-by-verse interpretation of the text) are on the biblical prophets: six on Isaiah, three on the Psalms (since they considered David a prophet, cf. 11QPsa 27.11), two each on Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah, and one each on Nahum and Habakkuk. Isaiah was especially prominent as a prophetic text, and the marginal markings of the Isaiah Scroll reveal how highly it was regarded as a source of messianic prophecy and eschatology. That Qumran eschatology has similarities with New Testament eschatology should be expected since the movement developed within Second Temple Judaism, as did early Jewish Christianity, shared an affinity for the prophetic corpus and adopted a similar hermeneutical approach expecting a near future fulfillment of the prophetic texts.
The Eschatological Perspective at Qumran
The prophetic perspective of most of the major Sects of Judaism during the Second Temple period was that inspired prophetic interpretation on the order of the biblical prophets had ceased with the destruction of the First Temple was no longer possible (cf. TB Berakoth 34b). By contrast, the Qumran Sect believed that they were living in the "Last Days," during which time prophecy was expected to be restored (cf. TB Baba Metzia 59b), that this restoration had already begun with some of their own leaders. For this reason, the Sect’s foundational documents, and especially the Pesharim, give evidence that the Community believed they had been authored under prophetic guidance. Thus, Arthur Sekki, who has carefully studied the function of the term "spirit" at Qumran has concluded: “The evidence, then, points to Qumran as an eschatologically oriented community which saw itself as the heir of God's eschatological Spirit and regarded this Spirit as the basis and source of its spirituality.” On the one hand the Community awaited the universal renewal of prophecy as a sign of the coming age of redemption (cf. 1QS 9:10-11), while on the other hand they maintained a prophetic continuity with the biblical prophets. This took the form, as Gershon Biran notes, of appointing themselves "as the living substitute for the defunct office of the prophet." Though with the Judaism of their day they awaited the return of the messianic Prophet, for the Community of the Scrolls, their own Teacher of Righteousness was a present prophet, superseding the earlier prophets in his understanding of the ages. Therefore, the Qumran Sect was uniquely still the recipient of men who were inspired by the Spirit to interpret the future divine program. This was because, as German Scroll scholar Annette Steudel has pointed out in her exhaustive study of the concept of the "Latter or Last Days" at Qumran, they were very conscious that they were living in this final period. Therefore, as the Israel of the Last Days, they stood in the unique position of continuing the prophetic gifts of the First Temple period, since it was a restoration of this time they believed would shortly come with the advent of the Prophet and the Messiah(s) of Aaron and Israel (1QS 9.11; cf. 4Q175 5-7). As a result, Old Testament prophetic texts, and some apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts, that spoke of the "Last Days" were interpreted by the Sect as applying to them and their time. In addition, the Community produced new prophetic texts and their inspired Teacher of Righteousness, who in messianic fashion would teach righteousness at the End of Days, provided special prophetic guidance. In the eschatologically oriented Pesher Habakkuk it is declared that the Teacher received special revelation from God concerning "all the secrets of the words of His servants, the prophet's" (1QpHab 7. 4-5). The Teacher was described as one who wore the mantle of the maskilim (the "wise ones" of the Book of Daniel). He was especially gifted with prophetic insight to interpret accurately the hidden mysteries of the apocalyptic announcements concerning the Land of Israel and the People of God (cf. 1QpHab 2. 8-10). In fact, it was held that the biblical prophets lacked the insight to understand their own predictions (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10-12). This had been reserved for their Legitimate Teacher who as God's inspired interpreter at the end of the present age was able to unravel the agenda set for the Age to Come. There is also mention of a figure known as "the Interpreter of the Law" (doresh hattorah), who was raised up to assist the wise among the priests and laymen with the halakhic (legal) interpretations that would govern the Community (CD 6. 2-11).
The Eschatological Method of Interpretation
From about the fourth-century B.C. onwards, prophetic literature developed in the apocalyptic genre and is characteristic of the eschatological material of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among the works discovered at Qumran are commentaries on the books of the Prophets and the Psalms which scholars refer to as pesher because this noun is used frequently in the scrolls themselves for the “interpretation” of a raz, an Aramaic term for “mystery.” The Qumran pesher apparently developed through the prophetic influence of Daniel (where the term appears) as a special means of reconstructing the hidden history revealed to the prophets concerning the time of the end, but reserved in mystery form for the generation upon whom the end would come. The apocalyptic vision of Qumran’s pesher literature is derived from its understanding of human history as being built up in stages determined by God and linked together to move toward an inevitable goal, the eschaton. John Collins referred to this as patterns projected into the eschatological future which disclosed the dominance of the hostile order of Belial (desecration motif) and the affirmation of an alternative order (restoration motif), at present eclipsed, though practically experienced by the Elect, but yet to be completely revealed in the future. David Flusser argues that: “This is not an evolutionary approach containing the concept of progress, for in this view, it is precisely before the end that the worst time will come, troubles of a kind not seen since the beginning of the world. History and its stages have been predetermined, one after another, by God. And after the final crisis (the War of Gog and Magog, or an invasion of monstrous enemies, or …of a terrible and wicked king, who corresponds with the Christian Antichrist), after all this, the final peace will come; men will live a thousand generations, evil will be destroyed, and an ideal world will come about.” The Pesharim of the Sect interpreted the biblical text in light of its own time. The reason for this was not arbitrary, but based on their observation of the prophetic corpus. When they read the Prophets, they saw that in most cases the prophet intended his message for the latter days rather than for his own time. The Sect had come to believe that they were the generation(s) of the First Temple for whom these prophecies were intended, and that they were living in the latter days, the days of fulfillment. Hence, it was incumbent for them to search the Scriptures, unravel the mysteries of prophets, and interpret the text for their times. Since they often apply the text to historical figures of their day they thought were fulfilling the prophet's words, they also provide some clues to the historical situation of the Community.
When the writers of the scrolls sought to apply to their present the prophetic announcements of the past, they did so with the realization that they were actualizing the prophecies of certain key prophets. They especially identified with the prophet Habakkuk who had grappled both with the spiritual declension of his day and the impending judgment of God which he knew must come. When the prophet wrote: "… I must wait quietly for the day of distress, for the people to arise who will invade us" (Hab. 3:16), the Community at Qumran understood this as for their own community living in the Last Days. However, they saw Habakkuk's revelation as imperfect next to that of their Teacher, who was "divinely inspired" to alter even the prophetic scripture in his interpretation. Therefore, in his interpretive commentary on Habakkuk he pictured the Community as the faithful remnant waiting for the day of judgment that would fall upon the idolaters and wicked of the earth (1QpHab 13:3-4), and especially on the Last Days' army of the Kittim and Jerusalem where the Wicked Priest performed his acts of defilement (1QpHab 9:5-11; 12:5-13). After this would come the final age disclosed to Habakkuk as coming without fail (Hab. 2:3). In the Qumran commentary, the prophet Habakkuk is said to have been told by God "to write what was going to happen to the last generation, but He did not let him know the end of the age" (1QpHab 7:1-2). Rather, this knowledge was reserved for their Teacher of Righteousness, who interpreted it as a time extended beyond the prophets, that though possibly delayed, would still come at the appointed time within the divine program (1QpHab 7:4-14). For this time the Sect of Qumran was chosen to wait and prepare.
The Eschatological Program of the Sect
Former Hebrew University professor David Flusser has said that: “The Dead Sea Sect … was the only group within Second Temple Judaism to develop a systematic theology … a system which later influenced the history of all mankind.” If this is so we should be able to distinguish the eschatological doctrine of the Sect, keeping in mind the guidelines of James H. Charlesworth in recovering their theology in general. The Scrolls depict a defined order of the ages that unfolds progressively and successively in predetermined periods of time, or in keeping with biblical usage "generations," as in 1QS 4:13 (cf. Deut. 32:7; Isa. 41:4 et. al.). The order of these ages according to 4Q180 (The Ages of Creation) consecutively enumerates these periods, beginning with the time prior to the creation of man (cf. CD 2:7; 1QS 3:15-18; 1QH 1:8-12). The history of mankind is traced from the Creation (1QS 4:15-17) and leads up to the eschaton or the "latter generation" or the "end-time," an inverted technical term, cf. 4Q169 3-4 iii. 3; 173 1, line 5), finally culminating in the "latter days" (1QpHab 4:1-2, 7-8, 10-14; cf. 2:5-7). This culminating period also looks forward in its description of this age ending the era of wickedness as "the decreed epoch of new things" (1QS 4:25; cf. Dan. 9:26-27; 11:35-36; Isa. 10:23; 28:22; 43:19). The dividing point of this order of the ages is the destruction of the Temple (586 B.C.), with ages preceding it termed "the generations of wickedness," and those that follow after (the post-destruction/post-exilic period) as "the generations of the latter days."
Eschatological Development and the History of the Sect
The eschatological perspective of the Sect may be understood in part by re-tracing the Sect’s historical development (see appendix 1). The First Temple had been destroyed because of Israelite unfaithfulness to the covenant, and specifically because of ritual violations related to the Temple cult (Jer. 7; Ezek. 8-11). Those who returned to Judah after the destruction and exile to rebuild the Temple expected a national restoration and spiritual revival according to that predicted by the pre-exilic prophets and re-enforced by the post-exilic Prophets. But the Persian authorities granted the Judean Remnant only limited autonomy in the sphere of Temple-building (cf. Ezra 1:1-4; 4:8-23; 5:3-5), an act which at the same time reduced the status of Israelite government while enhancing the status of the priesthood (cf. Ezra 7:11-26). The ideal government (the Messianic Kingdom) envisioned by the Prophets combined the offices of King and Priest, as typified at the beginning of this period by the Davidic descendant Zerubbabel and the High Priest Joshua. Their union of monarchy and priesthood, guided by "a counsel of peace," was the insignia of the Messiah, who would build the ideal, eschatological Temple with the help of the Gentile nations as a sign of a complete restoration (Zech. 6:13-15).
But the post-exilic community never realized this union, nor did the Temple built by Zerubbabel achieve the glory the prophet Haggai had predicted for the First Temple's successor (Hag. 2:7-9). Why did the predicted restoration fail to follow at the end of Jeremiah's predicted period of 70 years exile? Those Jews that were to settle the Qumran Community answered this by observing that Ezekiel's symbolic act depicting the Judean exile (Ezek. 6:4-6, 9) signified a much longer period of 390 years (vss. 5, 9) before God would end the exile and begin the restoration (CD 1:3-8). At the conclusion of this period, in what they termed "the age of wrath" (CD 1:5), they believed God planted their community as the righteous remnant that would usher in the restoration. Subtracting 390 years from 586 B.C. (the beginning of the Babylonian exile) we arrive at 196 B.C. Subtracting another 20 years (which CD 1:8-11 reveals was a time of pre-establishment period of preparation for the Community) we arrive at 177 B.C., the approximate time for the commencement of the Community at Qumran. Professor Talmon explains the Sect's thinking from this point: “So they found another prophecy - the 390 years of Ezekiel. When these 390 years passed and nothing happened, the Zadokite Fragment says, ‘we were,’ and I paraphrase this freely, ‘we were groping like blind men in a chimney stack, we were lost.’ This was because there was a pre-appointed timetable [which did not come to pass]. They groped for twenty years and then God let arise for them the Legitimate Teacher (I think this is a better term than the Righteous Teacher). He explains to them why their hope had not been realized and became their sole leader for [at least] twenty years. We have 390 + twenty + twenty = 430 years, which we have in Ezekiel and which is the length of time given for the Egyptian slavery. Symbolic figures from one stage of history are carried forward [and applied] to their own [age].”
From the beginning of this period they apparently interpreted the 40 days of Ezek. 6:4 as 40 years - one generation - and expected the 40 year eschatological war (of Gog and Magog) to take place at its conclusion. Their first 20 years of "groping" (searching for direction), ended when the Teacher of Righteousness arose. He was a priest (possibly a high priest) who apparently claimed to have the gift of prophecy. Under his leadership and instruction in the desert (CD 1:8-11) during the next 20 years they applied to themselves the role of Isaiah's messianic preparer "a voice crying in the wilderness" (Isa. 40:3; 1QS 8:12-16). This wilderness - Egypt and Babylon in one - was probably also viewed as a typological "Damascus," since Amos 5:27 had predicted that God would take Israel into exile beyond Damascus (cf. CD 7:13-14), and Zechariah 6:8 had from there they would escape in the time of God's visitation of judgment [upon the wicked], (CD 7:20-21). This 40-year period is the same as that given for the duration of the climatic war between the "Sons of Light" and the "Sons of Darkness" (1QM 2-3). At this time they were to conquer all the non-aligned (i.e., non-New Covenant) Jews, all foreign nations and especially the Kittim, who embodied the oppression. To explain these events within their calculated chronology, some have argued that the Sect may have attempted to appropriate Daniel's "Seventy Weeks" Prophecy, since its "seventy sevens" (490 years) are matched by the 390 years of Ezekiel + the 20 years of groping + the 40 years with the Righteous Teacher (CD 20(b):14-15) + the 40 Year War expected after the Teacher's death (= 490). During this period they believed that their chronology was divinely ordained and so waited patiently for the appointed day.
When the end of this period failed to produce the expected ends, the Community seems to have not attempted further calculations, however, some feel that the 70 years of wrath of Daniel 9:3 (mentioned in the War Scroll) could have been employed as a means to determine the end of the Roman oppression of Judea (cf. 4Q243-245). Nevertheless, with this chronological failure, they apparently reformulated their earlier expectations to accommodate a divine postponement or delayed judgment, and adopted a militaristic posture in light of the urgent need for intervention to bring about the next age. Ultimately this perspective may have influenced a flight to Masada to join the Zealots when the Romans destroyed their community in A.D. 68.
The Eschatological Terminology of the Sect
The eschatological perspective of the Scrolls is seen in its terms to describe its expectation of the days about to arrive on the historical scene: "the latter days," "the end of days," "the appointed time," "the new Creation," and the "visitation," i.e., divine retributive judgment, intervention. The eschatological scheme of the Scrolls (see appendix 2) was a two stage eschatology (now and then), with the past being the condition of exile imposed by the destruction of the First Temple, and the present characterized by a non-restoration of the proper spiritual order with the Second Temple, hence, an age of wickedness that served as a time of trial and testing (i.e., refining) for the Elect Remnant (the Qumran Community), cf. 4QCantenaa 2:9-10; 4QFlor 2:1. This age was to see the visitation of Elijah as the precursor of Messiah (4Q521) and the advent of the Messiah(s), who would slay the wicked (the correct interpretation of 4Q285) in the great Gog and Magog war (cf. 1QM; 4QpIsaa 7-10; 22-25; 4QpIsab 2:1; 4Cantenab 3:7-8), at the Day of the Lord (4Q558). Then would follow the promised2 age of Messianic rule and righteousness (cf. 1QSa 2:14; 4Q554 11:20-22). This, however, was not the final age, for with Daniel (12:1-2) it was held that the righteous would be resurrected (4Q521 1:1, line 12; cf. 1QH 4:18-21; 11:12; 1QS 4:7-8).
Several of these themes, especially that of the evil interim age preceding the advent of the Messiah(s), needed to atone for Israel, and establishment of the messianic Kingdom, are important for study in relation to Judaism and for comparison with New Testament eschatology. In my book Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1996) I discussed in detail the eschatological perspective of the Qumran Community with respect to the Messiah, the Temple, and the evil age climaxed by the messianic war. Our purpose here will be to summarize these perspectives in order to gain an overall picture of the Sect’s eschatology.
The Eschatological Temple of the Sect
Only in the Dead Sea Scrolls do we find reliable references to a Jewish theology of the Temple. However, one must be careful not to draw incomplete inferences by deduction from this theology. The idea that the present age Temple "built by human hands" (cf. Acts 7:48) would be replaced with a divinely-ordered eschatological Temple is presented in the Book of Enoch, a favored book of the Sect: … till they covered up that old house … And I saw till the Lord of the sheep brought a new house greater and loftier than the first, and set it up in the place of the first (1 Enoch 90:29). One of the most explicit Qumran texts in its description of the eschatological Temple is the Aramaic work from Caves 1, 2, [primarily 4, 5], and 11 known as The New Jerusalem (4Q554; 55Q15). This text, obviously written under the influence of the eschatological Temple of Ezekiel 40-48, but which extends the description into an ideal Restoration Jerusalem, is largely instructions for measuring the new Temple based on Ezekiel's scheme. However, Michael Wise in his Chicago University dissertation on the Temple Scroll has also shown how favorably this text compares with the measurements given in this text for the Qumranic Third Temple. While many details of the text remain elusive because of hapax legomena and multiple breaks in the manuscripts, we can discern that the author envisioned an immense rectangular city (13 x 18 miles) with a surrounding wall containing twelve gates (one for each of the twelve tribes of Israel with Gate of Levi center most, aligned with the sacrificial altar and the Temple entrance), and with nearly 1,500 towers (100 feet tall) guarding the city. Dr. Magen Broshi, former curator of the Shrine of the Book, has observed that these dimensions clearly indicate the eschatological nature of the Temple as well as help pinpoint the time of the: “The New Jerusalem document is found in Qumran in several copies in Aramaic, although we believe that everything Qumranic was composed in Hebrew. It has incredible figures for the Temple, (like the Temple Scroll) which must have been as big as the whole city today. I believe it would take million upon millions of hours just to level the ground before building could [commence]. Therefore, although it is almost impractical in this sense they didn’t worry because the Lord is the one who is going to build it, or enable it to be built. Jerusalem, according to New Jerusalem, must have been gigantic, bigger than any modern city [nevertheless] they were very accurate about all the architectural details. Their design shows a very good knowledge of Hellenistic architecture. Therefore the Temple Scroll could not have been a product of the Persian period, it has too many Hellenistic conceptions.”
In addition, another eschatological element in the New Jerusalem text is seen in the specific reference made concerning the Kittim (cf. Dan.11:30), which appear frequently in Qumran apocalyptic literature, but here are joined in column 11 with a probable reference to the Messianic Kingdom. If this is the proper reconstruction of the text, then the Kingdom may be that first introduced in Daniel 2:45, and paralleled in the collection of Pseudo-Daniel texts (4Q243-245). The Temple then would be the eschatological Temple of the Messianic Age.
This understanding helps prepare us for the Sect’s quest for the ideal Temple as expressed in the Temple Scroll. It must also be remembered that the Dead Sea Community selected their site for a reason, and one such reason could be its prominence in the biblical accounts of the restoration of the final days. When the eschatological Temple is constructed, waters will flow from beneath the Holy of Holies and freshen the Dead Sea (Ezek.47:8-9; Zech. 14:8). Perhaps their Community existed to witness the fulfillment of this eschatological event. Since the description of this eschatological Temple will be drawn in detail from the Temple Scroll, it will be necessary to introduce this text with a brief description of its provenance and purpose.
The Temple of the Temple Scroll
Johann Maier of the University of Cologne has presented one of the most detailed studies to date on the architectonic structure exhibited in the Temple of the Temple Scroll (11Q19). His conclusion after examination of the data compared with that of the Second Temple was that not only was the plan an actual reflection of realistic concepts and traditions of the Jerusalem school of architecture, but that it possibly served as one source of design-style for the Herodian restoration of the Second Temple. Furthermore, the Scrolls themselves give the impression, as Chilton has pointed out, “that the Essenes saw themselves as a new camp in the wilderness, awaiting their rise to power and control of the Temple.” If this is so, then they had a detailed architectural plan in hand to complement their victory. There is still a difference of opinion as to whether the Sect believed that they would themselves erect the Third Temple, or whether it would strictly be an act of God.
However, the details of the Temple Scroll do not match any Temple ever built, whether the post-exilic Second Temple of Zerubbabel (cf. Mishnah tractate Middot), or its Herodian enlargement (cf. Josephus), or even the eschatological pattern of Ezekiel 40-48. Rather, the Temple Scroll proposed a square-shaped Temple Mount after the polluted Jerusalem Temple was removed. This Temple is to be surrounded by three concentric square courtyards. The innermost courtyard would encircle the altar and Sanctuary and was to be restricted to only qualified priests (11Q19 35:5-9). The middle courtyard was only accessible to Israelite males over twenty years of age (11Q19 39:7-10). The outer court was accessible to all ceremonially clean Israelites (11Q19 40:5-6). The Temple and the city of Jerusalem were to be transformed from a city with a Temple, to a Temple City (i.e. “the city of the Sanctuary”), whose dimensions would encompass most of what was then the holy city. This Temple City reveals a sacred interrelationship between the concepts of Temple and city, with each being an entirely new construction and combination, superseding any previous. In a functional sense, the city would serve as a hedge around the Temple at its center, with the result being a radical elevation and change in status for Judaism. While the dimensions of this Temple are much larger than those of the Second Temple (the outer court measuring about a half mile on a side), and differ in many other respects, the design itself may have reflected the idealistic expectations of the Jerusalem school of architecture, and may very well evidence a plan underlying Herodian construction. Johann Maier demonstrated such a limited correspondence from its architectonic structure in a study of the architectural history of the Temple based on the Temple Scroll. It has often been supposed that the reason that the Temple Scroll presented a differently structured Temple from that of Herod's Second Temple was because the authors of the Temple Scroll were opposed to the Jerusalem Temple. However, nothing in the Temple Scroll gives any impression that they had anything but reverence for the Jerusalem Temple.
Interestingly, a prophecy cited by Josephus concerning the destruction of the Temple may relate to the Temple Scroll's square Temple design. In Josephus' concluding description of the Second Temple's destruction, he notes that on the eve of the Roman's assault "false prophets" attempted to persuade the people that the Temple was inviolable and that the deliverance of the Temple was imminent (Wars of the Jews 6.5.3§285-315). In addition, and of particular importance here, was Josephus' statement that after the destruction of the Antonia Fortress the Jews had made the Temple platform square, even though Jewish tradition (not Scripture) had warned that when the Temple was made square it would be destroyed (Wars of the Jews 6.5.3§311). Also, he noted that there was the belief that they were in the messianic age and that the prophesied universal Jewish rule was on its way (Wars of the Jews 6.5.3§312). This places Josephus' statement about the prediction of the square Temple in an eschatological context. Since there is no biblical or rabbinic source for the prediction of the destruction of a squared Temple platform, the source may have been the Temple Scroll. As Yadin conjectures: “Perhaps Josephus - as in other instances … - set down something he had learned from the Essenes writings in general, and from our scroll in particular? He may have arrived at the notion that somewhere in the writings of the sect … there is a hint that before the Lord will create His Temple, the Temple must be square, as set forth in the scroll.”
If this was so, then the Temple Scroll's influence in Judaism may have been wider than the Qumran Community, since Josephus says it was in the Jewish records (without distinction). Also, with this understanding of Josephus' statement, the "false prophets" were providing the false assurance that the Temple's destruction was all part of the divine plan to rebuild a better Temple, and that with the destruction of the Temple would come the messianic advent and the destruction of the Roman army. However, such false assurance only hastened the destruction and prevented people from leaving the Temple area in order to preserve their lives. Nevertheless, the "false prophets" were basing their ill-timed counsel on a tradition that continued to be accepted in Judaism. Concerning this Dr. Dan Bahat comments: “What is this square Temple Mount. Where does it originate? How should we look at it? Should we refer to the square Temple Mount as the one which is the Maccabean one, which we believe is still underground by the water walk - I don’t know the answer. But one thing I can tell you - during the Second Temple period a squarish Temple Mount played an important role in the ideology of the people, not only of the Dead Sea Scroll people, because Ezekiel represented ordinary Judaic beliefs.”
In this light it may be noted that the tradition of a modular Temple and even city, goes back to the First Temple, and is that presented for the eschatological Temple of Ezekiel (Ezek. 40:47). It is also the preference in the Talmud (cf. 'Erub. 6.10, p. 145; Bar. b. 'Erub. 56.5, for the New Testament's New Jerusalem (cf. Rev. 21:16). These may have been (or allude to) sources for Josephus other than the Temple Scroll, although since he does not say the source was biblical, the Temple Scroll remains a valid candidate.
Is the Time of the Temple's Construction Eschatological?
The question to be asked after a review of the idealistic architecture of the Temple of the Temple Scroll is whether this Temple is to be built during the interim period of the eschatological age, or in the eschatological period following the forty-year war. In either case we are speaking about an eschatological Temple because from the Sect's perspective the present age was already part of the eschatological age. However, if it is the former age we have two Temples presented in the Temple Scroll and if it is the latter, we have one: the divinely created Temple of the Age to Come. Yigael Yadin, who first published the Temple Scroll, believed there would be two Temples: “The author [of the Temple Scroll] was definitely writing about the earthly man-made Temple that God commanded the Israelites to construct in the Promised Land. It was on this structure that God would settle his glory until the day of the new creation when God himself would "create my Temple … for all times" in accordance with his covenant "with Jacob at Bethel."
Other scholars have agreed with Yadin's conclusions that the Temple Scroll does not refer to the final, but an intermediary pre-messianic Temple. Therefore a restored Third Temple was envisioned as a replacement of the Second Temple, which was considered desecrated. Its plans represented the only legitimate way to construct the Temple and legislate its cult until the divinely created Sanctuary would appear. Even though the Sect withdrew from the Jerusalem Temple, they never ceased to regard the Temple Mount as the only legitimate site for the Temple. If the Dead Sea Sect intended to implement the plans of the Temple Scroll, the present problem that existed for them as the true Remnant of biblical Israel was to gain control of the Temple Mount. One this was accomplished and the site properly sanctified, they could begin to rebuild the Temple according to their restoration ideal of the pattern established at Sinai. Other scholars have argued that only one Temple could be in the context, since God says that He will dwell among Israel at this Sanctuary forever (cf. Ezek. 37:26-28). How could its temporary status "until the day of Creation …" be reconciled with this promise of permanency? The leading proponent of the one-Temple theory, Qumran scholar Ben Zion Wacholder, therefore translates the Hebrew adverb 'ad not as "until," but as "during," or "while," with the sense that God's glory would settle only on one Temple. However, if the text is read "until," it does not deny continuity between the two Temples with the Divine Presence. Just as the Shekinah was "present" with the Tabernacle and at the Tent of Meeting, and then filled the First Temple without a sense of discontinuity, so they could have argued that it would remain forever when their man-made Temple gave way to the divine creation.
This man-made Temple is interpreted as a rebuilt Temple during the present age for several reasons. First, the Temple Scroll does not discuss the End of Days/Age to Come. This can be seen in the distinct terms its author uses here as opposed to the sect's eschatological writings. An example is the use here of the term hacohen hagadol ("the high priest") rather than cohen harosh ("the chief priest") found in the eschatological literature. There is also no mention of "the high priest" in Ezekiel's account of the eschatological Temple in chapters 40-48. Second, as Yadin has noted: "the Temple laws presented in the [Temple] Scroll are those conveyed by the Lord to Moses … as an eternal command for the Children of Israel." These commands from Exodus 25-31 were understood in rabbinic Judaism to apply to any time within this present age when it becomes possible to rebuild the holy Temple. Third, the Temple Scroll explicitly states that this Temple is to be rebuilt in this age, even contrasting it with the new one to be built by God in the age to come: “And I will consecrate My [T]emple by My Glory (Shekinah), (the Temple) on which I will settle / My Glory, until the day of blessing (= the End of Days) on which I will create My Temple / and establish it for Myself for all times, according to the covenant which I have made with Jacob at Bethel” (11Q19 29:8-10). The covenant made at Bethel included the vision of the heavenly ladder (which may also have messianic connotations, cf. Jn. 1:50-51). For Jacob this experience constituted the place the "house of God" (Hebrew, Beth - "house," + el - "God") and "the gate of heaven" (Gen. 28:12-17). In the same manner, the Temple of the Temple Scroll would have restored to it from heaven the heavenly Presence - the Shekinah glory, constituting it as the legitimate "house of God."
The Eschatological Messiah of the Sect
Lawrence Schiffman has cautioned, "Serious methodological problems - better, pitfalls - await anyone who seeks to investigate this area [messianic interpretation] of Qumran studies." Nevertheless, Schiffman himself investigated the messianic perspective of the Sect and, while aspects of their messianism are still debatable, most scholars agree that the Messiah of the Sect was clearly eschatological. Such an expectation at Qumran is evidenced in a one-page text consisting of four messianic "proof texts" from the Old Testament known as 4QTestimonia (4Q175 [4QTest]). These messianic passages are strung together without commentary, but obviously represent those texts of greatest eschatological significance. Even though the term "messiah" does not appear, the text is dominated with messianic terminology, and according to F. Garcia Martinez "is an important text for the history of Qumran messianism." Other texts indicate that the Messiah’s coming is at "the end of days," and is royal (Davidic), priestly (Aaronic), and prophetic (Mosaic) in nature. Once the number of references using the technical term for the eschatological messiah (mashiach) was thought to be only four (1QS, 1QSa, CD, 4QPBless). Today, however, that number has risen to 17 manuscripts. Even so, only 11 of these contain unambiguous references; while the others offer the possibility, employ a non technical sense of "anointing." All of these occurrences are in eschatological or apocalyptic contexts. The overriding theme is one of royal messianic expectation. The support for this expectation is built upon citations or allusions from Gen. 49:10 and Isa. 11:1-4 and two of the aforementioned biblical messianic titles: "Prince" (cf. Ezek. 34:24; 7:25), and "Branch of David" (cf. Jer. 23:5; 33:15). These terms appear in some of the Cave 4 fragmentary texts recently made available to scholars (see below). Apocalyptic scholar John J. Collins summarizes the eschatological nature of the Qumranic messiah(s) laying stress on the inclusion of the messianic terminology when he says: “In modern, and indeed in traditional Jewish and Christian usage, "messiah" is an eschatological term, nearly always referring to the King Messiah at the end of days. In the Scrolls, the term can also refer to figures from the past, notably the prophets, and to various eschatological figures, including at least a priest as well as king, and possibly also a prophet … it is of fundamental importance that figures who are called "messiahs" or "anointed ones" in the Scrolls can also be referred to in other terms. The royal messiah is simply the eschatological king, whether he is called "messiah" or "Branch of David." The priestly messiah, equally, is simply the eschatological High Priest, whether or not he is called "messiah of Aaron" in a specific text.”
The Genesis Florilegium (4Q252 5.1-4) gives a thematic pesher of the blessing of Judah from Gen. 49:10 in which it is said: "The Scepter will not pass from Judah, nor the Staff from between his feet until Shiloh comes, to whom the peoples will gather." In the scroll text we find that both Jeremiah's "Branch" (Jer. 23:5; 33:15) and the term Shiloh (Gen. 49:10) are identified with the Messiah, identification lost to later Judaism. These messianic epithets are connected with Davidic descent and the "Staff" or object of rule. The eschatological picture here is of a coming Messiah, of the tribe of Judah, of the lineage of David, who will rule in a over Israel for "everlasting generations." This text not only provides further evidence of the well-established notion of the Davidic Messiah as King Messiah, but in its reference to "everlasting generations" also may imply that the Qumran Community's understanding of this Messiah was more than a human religious and/or military figure who would act as God's agent in delivering Israel. The implication of a divine Messiah may also be present in other texts.
The Eschatological Age of Evil
The present post-exilic age is called the "epoch of wickedness" (CD 4:10; 12:23; 14:19; 15:7, 10), "the epoch of Israel's Sin" (CD 20:23), the "epoch of the desolation of the Land [of Israel]" (CD 5:20), and the "epoch of the punishment of the forefathers" (CD 7:21a). Its chief characteristic is of a wickedness that escalates until the final conflict between the "sons of darkness" and the "sons of light." According to the War Scroll the final age was to be preceded by a period of tribulation or "birth pangs [of the Messiah]" (1QH 3:7-10), which "shall be a time of salvation for the People of God …" (1QM 1). One such reference to this time of eschatological woe is in the third hymn of the Thanksgiving Hymns: “7 I was in distress as a woman in travail with her first-born child, when her pains come upon her, 8 and violent pains upon her womb, causing writhing in the crucible of the pregnant woman. When children come to the waves of death; 9 and the one bearing a man suffers in her travail, because in the waves of death she gives birth to a man-child; and in deadly travail (or birth-pangs of Sheol) there will break forth 10 from the crucible of the pregnant woman, a wonderful thing; counsel in his might and the man-child will be delivered from the waves …" (1QH 3:7-10).
Interpreters have compared this text to those "tribulation texts" in the Old Testament (esp. Isa. 26:16-18) where Israel is described as suffering like a woman in the birth process in the eschatological "Day of the Lord" (cf. Isa. 13:8; 25:17-18; 66:7-8; Jer. 22:23; 48:41; 50:37; Hos. 13:13; Zeph. 1:14-18; Micah 4:9-10; 5:1). The New Testament also uses this figure to describe the unparalleled experience Israel will face in the "Great Tribulation" (cf. Matt. 24:4-8; 1 Thess. 5:2-3). Such an age is also predicated on the Old Testament teaching of a period of distress in the End time (cf. Dan. 12:1-2), also known as "the time of Jacob's trouble" (Jer. 30:7), from which Israel will be delivered into the Messianic Age. In this sense, the Qumran Community, as the pure Remnant of Israel, was presently suffering tribulations as a sign of the imminent Great Tribulation in which the Forty Year War would see them bringing forth the Messiah to wage a priestly war of righteousness (1QM).
Central to this coming age of conflict is the image of eschatological evil rulers and deceivers (counterparts to the true Messiah(s)). The Dead Sea Sect saw a cosmic conflict (dualism) between the “Angel/Spirit of Truth/Holiness”/Prince of Light” and the “Angel of Darkness/Spirit of Perversity/of the Pit.” The conflict (dualism) on the human level was between the members of the Qumran Sect, characterized as the “sons of light” (1QS; 1QM) and “sons of truth” (1QS; 1QH; 1QM), and their opponents, referred to as the “sons of darkness,” (1QS; 1QM), “sons of perversity,”(1QS; 1QH), and “sons of the Pit”(CD). J. Daniélou has declared this conflict between the forces of light (good) and darkness (evil) “nothing else but the leitmotif ["main motive"] of Qumran.” These cosmic eschatological desecrators were mirrored by the conflict between the Sect and two figures: the “Wicked Priest/priests,” and the “Man of Lies.” We will first consider this earthly dualism and then proceed to the negative element of this cosmic dualism.
The Eschatological Enemies of Qumran
The image of eschatological enemies is portrayed in significant detail in the apocalyptic Scrolls. The Sect saw a cosmic or heavenly conflict (dualism) between the “Angel/Spirit of Truth/Holiness”/Prince of Light”) and the “Angel of Darkness/Spirit of Perversity/of the Pit”). The earthly conflict was between the members of the Sect who characterized themselves as the “sons of light” (1QS; 1QM) and “sons of truth" (1QS; 1QH; 1QM) and their opponents who they referred to as the “sons of darkness” (1QS; 1QM), “sons of perversity” (1QS; 1QH), and the “sons of the Pit” (CD). These eschatological enemies were mirrored by the conflict between the Sect and two figures: the “Wicked Priest/priests,” and the “Man of Lies.” Let us first consider this earthly dualism and then proceed to the negative element of this cosmic conflict.
The Figure of Belial
The figure of Belial (“worthlessness”) in the New Testament has been considered a cognomen of Satan (cf. 2 Cor. 6:15; 2 Peter 2:15; Jude 11; Rev. 2:14), and on this parallel usage the term has been said to be used for the figure of the Devil at Qumran (cf. 1QS 2:19-25). Since Temple pollution is one of the three "nets of Belial" according to the Damascus Document (column iv), this figure is as central in the use of the desecration motif at Qumran as it was in other apocalyptic literature (e.g., 3 Sibylline Oracles 63-74).
The Rule of the Community clearly describes the present age as the "dominion of Belial" (1QS 2:19). This rule of Belial (like the influence of the Angel of Darkness, see below) was in accord with the predestined plan of God, which included his evil actions in bringing about the sin of Israel. This is evident from the statement in 1QM 13:9-11: “And from former times You [YHWH] appointed the Prince of Light to help us … and You made Belial to corrupt …” We also find that the desecration of the cultus by religious syncretism and violations of the purification laws were the result of Belial’s corruption of the Nation: “And the Levites shall recite the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their guilty rebellions and their sins, accomplished under the power of Belial” (1QS 1:22-24). Conversely, the righteous man is the one who resists the power of Belial, and thereby will be rewarded at the Restoration. For example, we read in a Qumranic psalm called "The Second Letter on Works Reckoned as Righteousness" (4Q397-399): “…and to keep you far from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you will rejoice at the End time …(lines 32-33). Thus, the desecration of the Temple, Land, and exile was part of the cosmic conflict, with the movement being toward an eschatological restoration at the eschaton, the day of deliverance for the righteous, yet both positively and negatively with reference to the rule of Belial.
Belial also follows in the developmental progression of typical desecrators, begun in our study with Pharaoh. For example, in the Damascus Document Belial is portrayed as a ruling angel in opposition to the Law of God: "At the beginning Moses and Aaron arose through the hand of the prince of light, but Belial, in his wickedness, raised up Jannes and his brother …” (CD 5:17) Notice that in this instance, Belial is equated with Pharaoh as a type of divine opponent as an oppressor of God’s agents (hence God Himself). In the Damascus Document it is stated that the “Prince of Lights” is directly opposed by Belial (cf. CD 5:18).
The Angel of Darkness
There is still debate as to whether the “Angel of Darkness” and “Belial” are one figure or two. Many scholars have assumed this is the case and have identified Belial with the “Devil,” as the Angel of Darkness, opposed to Michael, the “Angel of Light.” On the other hand, while the consensus of scholarly opinion has been that 1QS 3:13-4:26 (the most representative text for the dualism concept, and the possible influence for other such texts) reveals an eschatological cosmic conflict of two warring spiritual forces, it has been contended that at times this dualism approaches the “psychological” arena.
The arguments in favor of this position have been predicated on the use of the Hebrew term ruah ("spirit") in the Old Testament, where it is thought the idea of incorporeal entities is never meant. However, A. A. Anderson has correctly pointed out that in the Scrolls, ruah is used frequently to denote supernatural beings or angels, as an apocalyptic development in comparison with the usage in the Tanach. Therefore, what approaches the “psychological” may be simply a reflection of the ethical power exerted over men by these beings, a thought certainly in harmony with predestinarian ideas found within the scrolls. Further, the distinctions drawn between "angel" and "spirit," as well as statements depicting the spirits under the command of (in this case) the single Angel of Darkness (e.g. 1QS 3:24), seem to make the equivocation of angel with spirit impossible.
The influence of the Angel of Darkness was explained as one that had produced desecration historically, and would continue to do so until the final conflict. The language of cultic pollution, and particularly Temple pollution, runs throughout the whole of Qumran literature (e.g., the Damascus Document), and one means of assuring the eventual restoration of the Temple and the Remnant to a purified state was to see this as the resolution to a cosmic enmity that was greater than any one religious Sect or political regime. It appears that the author of 1QS 3:13-4:26 felt that the recognition of the existence of an “Angel of Darkness” resolved the problem of the failure of the post-exilic community to attain proper purification and holiness and to receive the promised restoration: “And through the Angel of Darkness all the sons of righteousness stray and all their sins, their faults, their defilements and their acts of disobedience are caused by his rule,” (1QS 3:22). Thus, if the problem of desecration was part of a predestined plan (under the rule of evil forces), so must also the resolution through restoration (under godly forces) be the expected climax of that plan. In this theology, this evil entity, also called the “Spirit of Perversity,” was seen as the cause of greed, falsehood, pride, deceit, hypocrisy, lust, and all other evils in the world. Since a similar role of seduction to evil is given to Belial (see below) we perhaps should not distinguish the two, however, it may be possible that the Angel of Darkness functions primarily as a pervasive evil influence, much like the Angels of Mastemoth, in conjunction with Belial, whose figure has supernatural proportions, but is better defined as an evil adversary to the Community and their Teacher of Righteousness, and ultimately Messiah (probably = Satan).
One of the primary characteristics of Qumran dualism is the eschatological dimension, and we must always keep these figures of desecration and destruction in the eschatological perspective. Indeed, the oldest form of dualism found at Qumran is represented by the War Scroll, which has as its emphasis the imminent eschatological combat. The decisive apocalyptic intervention of God and the triumph of the “sons of light” was always a future act. In this context, the ultimate outcome for the Angel of Darkness as well as for Belial and the “sons of darkness,” is “destruction” or “annihilation” in a final battle at the eschaton (the final judgment): “until the time of decreed judgment” (1QS 4:14, 19b-20a; cf. 1QM 1:4-7). The main subject of the War Scroll is this war which will take place between the tribes of Israel, assisted by the powers of light and justice and the angels appointed over them, against the enemies of Israel at whose head is the nation called the Kittim (Romans), assisted by Belial and the powers of Darkness. This war will end only when the sons of Light and Darkness have been victorious three times. In the seventh struggle victory will be achieved by the Sons of Light through the intervention of the hand of God. Professor Talmon summarizes this final war that would end the period: “The apocalyptic war described in the War Scroll will go on for forty years, a schematic figure from the Bible for one generation. Thus forty years is subdivided in two stages, each of twenty years. The first twenty years all the external enemies (and they enumerate them) are done away with. This is taken from the judgments against the foreign nations in the Bible. But since these people considered themselves as pious Jews, they would rest every seventh year. This is a nice arrangement because the enemy also lays down their weapons after every sixth year. The second twenty years is for fighting against other Jews, especially the followers the Wicked Priest. After this last war, a new world of total peace will come in, as described in the Hebrew Bible.”
The Eschatological “Antichrist” Figure
While Belial may be generally equated with the image of Satan, his role as an evil spiritual influence appears in many texts to become focused in the temporal sphere as an end time human Desecrator. In some texts there appear a contrasting pair of figures: “Melchizedek” and “Malkiresha,” the latter of which fits this description as an evil human oppressor. Consequently, some have identified this figure with that of the Anti-messiah or Antichrist. However, more significant comparisons appear in Second Ezekiel (4Q385-389), where reference is made to both a "son of Belial" and a "blasphemous/boastful king" who will arise and oppress the Jewish People. These terms occur in texts (both in fragmentary form) which are within a context alluding to the national regathering and restoration of Israel from the vision of the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37:4-6, which is immediately followed by a prayer concerning the time of this end-time regathering. The lines which follow and describe the "son of Belial" and the "blasphemous/boastful king" may give the answer as a time during which this individual desecrator functions. At any rate, the description of this individual reveals significant details of his role in desecration: “And YHWH sai[d]: 'A son of Belial will plan to oppress My People, but I will not allow him to do so. His rule shall not come to pass, but he will cause a multitude to be defiled [and] there will be no seed left (4Q385 3.2.3-4). In] those [days] a blasphemous king will arise among the Gentiles, and do evil things […] Israel from [being] a People. In his days I will break the Kingdom (4Q385 4-6.9-10).”
From these lines we can see that this one will be future Gentile king who will seek to so oppress the People of Israel that they are annihilated completely, will be destroyed by God. In the same context are references to Babylon, to God's hiding His face until Israel has filled up the measure of its sins, and of a period of apostasy, characterized by breaking the Abrahamic Covenant. There is also the interesting comment concerning the wicked before they are taken in judgment: “Just as they will say, 'Peace and quiet is ours, so they will say 'The Land rests quietly'.” All of this is reminiscent of passages concerning the "prince that shall come" of Daniel 9:26-27, the deceptive security before the War of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38:8-16 (cf. Jer. 6:14; 8:11; 1 Thess. 5:3). Eisenman and Wise suggest that these terms may have parallels in Pseudo-Daniel (4Q243-245) in the terms "Kings of the Peoples" and "Kingdom of the Peoples" which appear in a similar context during which time "[ev]i[l] has led astray …") and "the called ones will be gathered" (lines 33-34, cf. lines 51-55).
Other texts at Qumran also appear to be referring to this "son of Belial" by different descriptive terms. In CD 6:10; 1QpHab 5:7-8, texts that depict a period of great spiritual declension on the part of Israel, this apostasy is spearheaded by a figure called “son/man of sin,”(cf. CD 6:15; 13:14; 1QS 9:16; 10:19). This expression is quite similar to the Greek “son of destruction,” an expression found in the Pauline description of the eschatological desecrator, the Antichrist, in 2 Thessalonians 2:3b. It is complemented by another term: “son of iniquity” in 1QS 3:21, which can be further compared to another phrase in this reference: “the man of lawlessness.” In addition, the phrase: “the mystery of lawlessness” (found only in 2 Thess. 2:7), the Pauline Antichrist context, has an almost identical corresponding expression at Qumran: "mystery of iniquity" (1QH 5:36; 50:5). Some scholars have also claimed found another parallel in the Scroll's use of “detain” (1Q27 1:7) with the cryptic Pauline term “restrains,” (2 Thess. 2:6, 7). Though the sense of “hold back” may not be exactly represented by the Qumran usage, Dupont-Sommer, on the basis of this comparison, nevertheless translated the complete line of the text: “And all of those who detain [unjustly] the marvelous mysteries …”
David Flusser has also claimed to have identified a Qumran "Antichrist" in the Aramaic pseudo-Daniel fragment known as 4Q246, where a foreign Syrian king who seems to hold universal dominion, attacks Israel, usurps the place of divinity as "Son of God and Son of the Most High," and then is finally put down by the triumphant Jews (see chapter 11.2). If the figure in this text can be interpreted negatively (as anti-Messiah), rather than positively (as Messiah) there may be an allusion to Daniel's fourth beast/kingdom (Dan. 8:23-7) or 9:27 (cf. 11:36-45; 12:1), which may have served as the original seedbed for an apocalyptic Antichrist imagery. It also bears several parallels with the deification of the "man of sin" text in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
F. Garcia Martinez has criticized Flusser's argument primarily on the basis of his use of Jewish apocalyptic parallels which he believes form a Jewish Antichrist tradition and thus support the concept in 4Q246. Martinez complains "the New Testament influences are so evident that it appears futile to me to search for the remnants of an ancient tradition." Even so, Martinez does see the idea of an Antimessiah as a human antagonist in the Messianic Testamonia (4Q175), but with the same characteristics as other angelic antagonists (Belial, Melki-resha, Mastema, Prince of Darkness, etc.). He agrees with Flusser that the Antichrist concept as an eschatological opponent of Messiah is Jewish and pre-Christian, but still denies that it has the New Testament elements of divine self-proclamation and is present in 4Q246. However, it is appropriate to find in Qumran the roots of ideas and expressions, which appear in the New Testament (which Martinez concedes), but Flusser is not projecting these later conceptions into the ancient texts as Martinez argues. He has based his argument primarily on the text and its context, which appear to argue favorably for both an apocalyptic setting as well as for a negative figure usurping divine prerogatives. One could equally argue that the predisposition to see the terms "Son of God" and "Son of the Most High" used positively (as does Marinez) is influenced by New Testament usage. Yet, even though a negative usage in 4Q246 can be demonstrated apart from New Testament parallels, one must still explain where the New Testament, which was contemporaneous with the last period of the Qumran Community, got its concept if not from an ancient Jewish tradition informed by the Old Testament (cf. Dan. 8:1-14; 9:27; 11:36-45). Apparently from this same source the authors of the Scrolls developed their concept.
As can be seen from this preliminary study of the prophecy of the Scrolls, the Sect was controlled by an eschatological expectation. As Lawrence Schiffman has observed: “The Dead Sea Sect expected that the end of days would inaugurate an era of perfection in which they would see the culmination of the rituals and regulations practiced in the present pre-messianic age. The eschatological community would be structured as a reflection of the present community.”
Therefore, this eschatological ambition governed their daily lives, sustained them in the midst of their separation and persecution from other Jews in their society, and supported them in their purpose as a vanguard for the age to come. In summary, they held that God had predestined history in cycles of time which consisted of two opposing ages: (1) the Present Age - "the age of evil" when wickedness would flourish, Satan (Belial) and his agents (Anti-messiah, wicked angels) would increase their attacks on the righteous (the "time of travail," or "birth pangs"), until the climatic conclusion of the age came with divine intervention, and the production of a military and priestly messianic leader(s) to wage the Messianic Forty-Year War; (2) the Age to Come - the Messianic interregnum, which would last for a thousand years and during which a divine dominion, a restored national Israel, and a ritual purity would be pervasive and complete.
The Sect’s View of Eschatological Resurrection
Although a view of resurrection by the Sect is still doubted by many, owing to the thought that the Community expected to see the coming of the End of Days in their lifetime, a few texts speak of a resurrection along the terms predicted in Ezekiel 37:1-14 and Daniel 12:1-2. One of these texts is 4Q521 or the Messianic Apocalypse but also entitled by some On Resurrection. The lines pertinent to resurrection (lines 11-12) read in the context as follows: 5 For the Lord seeks the pious and calls the righteous by name. 6 His spirit hovers over the humble and He renews the faithful in His strength. 7 He will honor the pious upon the th[ro]ne of His eternal kingdom, 8 freeing the captives, opening the eyes of the blind, raising those who are bo[wed down]. “9 And for[ev]er (?) I (?) shall cleave to [to] the [ho]peful and pious […] in his lovingkindness 10 […] shall not be delayed […] and 11 then the Lord do glorious things which have not been done, just as He said. 12 For He shall heal the critically wounded, He shall revive (or resurrect) the dead, He shall send good news to the afflicted.” The biblical text behind this thematic pesher is Psalm 146:6-7, which has an eschatological context focusing on changes to take place in a future state. In this case, the activities of restoration, healing, and resurrection all take place at the time of the Resurrection, in which transformed bodies are no longer subject to these maladies or even death. The passage looks at present experiences of restoration in which the action is of God, but clearly projects toward the consummation in the eschaton. The more familiar resurrection theme, based on the prophecy of the dry bones in Ezekiel 37:1-14 is found in Pseudo-Ezekiel of the Prophetic Apocryphon in 4Q385 2:5-8 and also 4Q386 and 4Q388.
In April 2007 the text of a newly discovered stele from the Dead Sea region was published. This text of 87 lines written in ink on prepared limestone, is known as “The Gabriel Revelation” based on the prominent mention of the Angel Gabriel/ Written in the first-century B.C., this “Dead Sea scroll in stone” speaks of the resurrection of a national messianic figure who was slain in battle. The unique element in this resurrection is his being called back to life after three days. Israel Knohl, the Yhezkel Kaufmann Professor of Bible at the Hebrew University who studied the text has stated its unique contribution to the eschatological thought of the late Second Temple period and the formation of Christianity:
"The text, like other texts of its time (which survived only in later adaptations), presents a Messiah quite different from the conventional messianic view: not the heroic son of David, but the suffering son of Joseph, who will die in battle and be resurrected three days later. The death of the Messiah son of Joseph is, according to this tradition, a necessary stage in the redemptive process. The sign of the Messiah’s shed blood rising to the heavens, will hasten God’s descent onto the Mount of Olives to avenge the shed blood and save His people … Its unusual portrayal of the Messiah sheds new light on Jesus’ act of self-sacrifice …”
The Dead Sea Sect’s perspective of and use of the eschatological portions of the Old Testament, as well as select apocryphal and pseudepigraphical apocalyptic literature, set them apart from other sectarian groups of the Second Temple period. This Jewish group, who revered the Old Testament scriptures and lived in the expectation of the end time fulfillment envisioned by the prophets has been historically characterized as an eschatologically-oriented movement, a feature that uniquely aligned them with early Jewish-Christianity. Moreover, their method of interpreting current events in light of the biblical prophetic texts exhibited a method employed by the New Testament writers and argues for its legitimacy as an exegetical tradition. Following this example, the interest and eschatological discussion engendered by recent Middle Eastern events is appropriate in a Christian context.
 Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, and the Lost Library of Qumran. The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 231.
 CD 16:2 speaks of the Torah as that wherein “all things are strictly defined,” and 1QS 1:1-3 outlines the aim of the Covenanters as “to seek God with a whole heart and soul, and to do what is good and right before Him, as
He commanded by the hand of Moses and all His servants the Prophets.” We have also seen (above) how 1QpHab. 7:4-5 declares that the “Teacher of Righteousness” can interpret all the words of the Prophets.
 Cf. George J. Brooke, “Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 29 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), p. 356.
 S. Talmon, The World of Qumran From Within (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989), p. 278.
 For a list and description of the foundational documents of the Sect that are apocalyptic in nature see R. Price, Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), chapter 3. The following Qumranic texts represent the Sect's apocalyptic literature as found primarily in the Cave 4 material: (1) Hebrew Pseudepigrapha: Jubilees (4Q176:19-20; 4Q216; 4Q218-224; 1Q17-18; 2Q19-20; 3Q5; 11Q12; cf. 4Q482-483), Pseudo-Jubilees (4Q217; 4Q225-227), Testament of Naphtali (4Q215), Words of Moses (1Q22), Moses Apocyphon (2Q22), Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385-388; 4Q391), Pseudo-Moses (4Q385a; 4Q387a; 4Q388a; 4Q389-390), Pseudepigraphic Work (4Q459-460), Prophetic Fragments (4Q522; 1Q25; 2Q23; 6Q10), (2) Aramaic Texts: Book of Giants (4Q203; 4Q530-532; 4Q533(?); 1Q23; 1Q24(?); 2Q26(?); 6Q8, New Jerusalem (4Q554-555; 1Q32; 2Q24; 5Q15; 11Q18), Visions of Amram (4Q543-548), Aramaic Levi (4Q537; 4Q540-541), Testament of Qahat (4Q542), Patriarchal Pseudepigrapha (4Q538-539), Aramaic Apocalypse (4Q246), Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242), ProtoEsther(?) (4Q550), Daniel-Susana (4Q551)(?) Elect of God (4Q534), Four Kingdoms Apocalypse (4Q552-553), Vision(?) (4Q556-558), Words of Michael (4Q529), Tobit (4Q196-199), Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20), 1 Enoch (4Q201-202; 4Q204-207; 4Q212), Astronomical Book [related to 1 Enoch] (4Q208-211), Miscellaneous (4Q535536; 4Q549). For a general discussion of these texts cf. Devorah Dimant, "Apocalyptic Texts at Qumran," The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ed. E. Ulrich, J. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 10. Ed. G.E. Sterling (Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), pp. 175-190.
 Interview with Shemaryahu Talmon, Jerusalem, November 12, 1995.
 For an extended study of the Pesharim and their historical allusions that identify the Community’s chronological setting see James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and the Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002).
 According to New Testament archaeologist Jack Finegan, who did a study of these marks in the Great Isaiah Scroll, the paleo-Hebrew letter Taw, which appears as a cross mark (either + or X used interchangeably) was used to single out passages of messianic import, Jack Finegan, "Crosses in the Dead Sea Scrolls," Biblical Archaeology Review 5:6 (November/December, 1979), pp. 40-49. This mark has a long history of usage prior to the Christian era, where it was often used as a mystical or magical mark of protection. During the Second Temple period, the Semitic Taw became the Greek Tau and the Latin letter "T,” and because of its form was considered equivalent to the Greek letter Chi (written both as + and X). For additional details on the equivalence of the Taw and Chi cf. Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York: P. Feldheim, 1965).
 The traditional position is that only books written in Hebrew and certified to have been authored before the cessation of prophecy with the Latter Prophets (thought to have occurred in the late Persian period around 150 B.C.) were considered part of the biblical canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. No books written in Greek or written after the incursion of Hellenism were qualified. Books written in Hebrew which claimed (pseudononomously) to be ascribed to a biblical author were rejected, simply because they sought candidacy into the canon after it was closed. Books written in Hebrew whose biblical status was uncertain were also rejected. Even books written in Hebrew, which were ascribed to the biblical period, but were inconsistent with the rabbis, accepted halakhic teachings were excluded. For further study of the relationship of the early canon to prophetic interpretation cf. Sid Z. Leiman, “Inspiration and Canonicity: Reflections on the Formation of the Biblical Canon, Aspects of Judaism in the GrecoRoman Period in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Ed. E.P. Sanders (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981) 2: 5663.
 Such a conviction was acknowledged by the writer of the Thanksgiving Hymns: “I have insight, I know You, my God, through the Spirit which You have given me, and what is sure I have heard in Your wondrous council. Through Your Holy Spirit You have opened to my innermost parts the knowledge of the mystery of Your insight” (1QH 12:11-13).
 Arthur E. Sekki, The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 110. Eds. J.J.M. Roberts, C. Talbert (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), p. 223.
 Gershon Biran, "Biblical Prophecy in the Qumran Scrolls" [Hebrew], Sha'arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Ed. M. Fishbane, E. Tov, with W. Fields (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1992), pp. 101-112.
 If the Essenes are to be rightly connected with the authors of the scrolls, then Josephus in his account of the prophetic character of the Essenes (cf. Antiquities 13. 171-3; 18. 12-15) even offers us names of some of their leading prophets: Judas (Wars 1. 78-80; Ant. 13. 311-13), Menahem (Antiquities 25. 371-9), Simon (Wars 2. 111113; Ant. 27. 345-8).
 A. Steudel, “ ????? ????? in the Texts from Qumran (1)", Revue de Qumran 62:16:2 (December 1993): 225-246. See also, John J. Collins, “The Expectation of the End in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Eds. Craig Evans and Peter Flint (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1997), pp. 74-90.
 Cf. John J. Collins, "Teacher and Messiah? The One Who Will Teach Righteousness at the End of Days," in The Community of the Renewed Covenant, pp. 193-211.
 Research into the development of apocalyptic has provided evidence of its developmental link with prophetic eschatology. Edwards has concluded: "What, then, marks the transition from prophecy to apocalyptic? … it is the combination of spiritual readiness and historical events. So the visions of the prophets become extended, elaborate and literary, as their symbolic acts are turned into symbols. The close relationship of these writers is seen in their concentration on the two focal points of time: the historical event of the fall of Jerusalem and the despair it brought; the historical fall of Babylon and the hope it brought. And between, the picture of the reactions of a displaced people," Grace Edwards, "The Historical Background of Early Apocalyptic Thought," Scripture in History & Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam. Edited by A. L. Merrill and T. W. Overholt (Pennsylvania: The Pickwick Press, 1977), p. 202.
 The term “Apocalyptic” is used commonly to signify the sudden catastrophic intervention of God in the affairs of earth to right all wrongs and to terminate human history. In general, the term has come to designate a literary genre "apocalypse" (derived from Greek ajpokaluyivß "revelation, disclosure"), and the special type of eschatology contained therein, separating from prophetic literature in only minor respects, cf. H. H. Rowley, The Relevance of Apocalyptic: A Study of Jewish and Christian Apocalypses from Daniel to the Revelation (New York: Association Press, 1963), p. 23.
 A.D. Crown, "The Eschatology of the Qumran Sectaries," The Dead Sea Scrolls. Symposium at St. Andrew's College, May 20-21, 1963 (Surry Hills: The Wentworth Press, 1967), pp.49-50.
 Cf. for discussion O. Betz, "Past Events and Last Events in the Qumran Interpretation of History," Prodeedings of the Sixth World Congress on Jewish Studies in Jerusalem 1976 (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977) 1: 27-34.
 John J. Collins, “Patterns of Eschatology at Qumran,” Traditions in Transformation. Edited by Baruch Halpern and Jon Levenson (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1981), p. 375.
 David Flusser, The Spiritual History of the Dead Sea Sect. Translated by Carol Glucker (Tel-Aviv: MOD Books, 1989), p. 75.
 Cf. Timothy H. Lim, "Eschatological Orientation and the Alteration of Scripture in the Habakkuk Pesher," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 49:2 (1990): 185-194. Nevertheless, George Brooke, based on his study of 4QFlorilegium, has cautioned that "one cannot approach the use of the Bible at Qumran presupposing that such was guided, for instance, by an overall eschatological perspective," Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 29. The Dead Sea Scrolls Project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity 2 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), p. 356.
 David Flusser, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Beginnings," paper distributed in class at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1978, p. 2.
 James H. Charlesworth, "The Theologies in the Dead Sea Scrolls," Introduction to the Expanded Edition of Helmer Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. xv-xxi. Charlesworth has proposed a seven-fold caution for the study of the doctrines of the Scrolls. These guidelines help the modern student exercise selectivity in the use of the Qumran literature and to develop a "Qumran theology" in distinction from a "Scroll theology," which was the approach of earlier writers in this area. These criteria are as follows: (1) The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha are not from Qumran. However, although they represent the theological views of other contemporaneous Jewish groups, several were important to the formation of the Sect's beliefs: Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and early versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. (2) Some Scrolls originated outside the Qumran Community, but may have been edited at Qumran. These documents may reflect ideas that antedate the founding of the Community and may or may not reflect their own doctrinal views. Among these are included the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll. (3) Some Scrolls originated outside the Community and were not edited at Qumran. These documents should not be used in developing a theology of Qumran because they may not reflect the Sect's actual beliefs. Among these are the Pseudepigraphic Psalms (4Q380-381), the Prayer of Joseph (4Q371-372), and Second Ezekiel (4Q385-389). Charlesworth had also included the Copper Scroll (3Q15) in this list. However, both the identification of Scrolls hidden with the Copper Scroll (assuming they were hidden contemporaneously) and the recent confirmation by Hanan Eshel and Magen Broshi of trails leading from Khirbet Qumran to the area of the caves (in which Cave 3 of the Copper Scroll is located) imply a connection with the Qumran Sect. Therefore, it should be allowed as a witness to their views (see chapter 12). (4) Scrolls composed at Qumran must be the focus of Qumran theology. These are the foundational documents known as the sectarian Scrolls: Community Rule (1QS), Rule of the Congregation (1QSa), Rule of Benediction (1QSb), War Scroll (1QM), Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH), Angelic Liturgy (4Q400-407), and the Pesharim (especially 1QpHab, 4QpNah, 1QpPs68). (5) There is no single Qumran theology. Just as many scholars now contend that there was no mainstream or normative Judaism during the Second Temple period, so at Qumran there was no single theology that would characterize of all members of the Community. Although we often contrast the Sect as following a solar calendar as opposed to a lunar calendar for the rest of Judaism, the Sect's calendar was actually luni-solar. This is still a significant distinction from the strictly lunar calendar of the Jerusalem Temple, but it reflects that various theological views were tolerated in the Community. Other examples of differences in doctrine might be seen in the expectation of a single or dual Messiah(s), and in differing explanations for double predestination. (6) Qumran theologies held certain convictions in common. Despite the lack of a single theology, there were doctrinal distinctives that united the Sect. Some of these were the same distinctives that united all Jews: the belief in the One God (Deut. 6:4), the authority of the Mosaic Law (Ex. 20:1-17), and a messianic expectation (Deut. 18:15). Others were shared with other groups in Judaism: a cosmic dualism, a developed angelology, belief in miracles/resurrection. Still others are what made them a separatist community: an inspired prophet/Teacher, an intermitent angelic presence in the Community, an eschatological imminency, and a predestinarian perspective. (7) The coherence of Qumran theologies does not lie in disparate concepts. Even though we will attempt to present the concepts of the Community in individual categories, the ideal method of understanding these doctrines is within each distinct context and then their related expression throughout the foundational documents.
 This division is similar to that of the biblical post-exilic era, cf. Zech. 1:4; 7:7, 12 where the prophets of this era are called "the latter prophets" and Hag. 2:3-9; cf. Ezra 3:12 which refer to the Second Temple (of Zerubbabel) as "the latter Temple."
 Ezekiel's prophecy took on the same meaning as had Jeremiah's, and was regarded by Talmon as an example of "millenarian arithetics" or "messianic numerology," The World of Qumran From Within, p. 282, and n. 18.
 So Ben Zion Wacholder has reasoned in The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 8 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1983), pp. 177ff; cf. James C. Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994), p. 100.
 Interview with Shemaryahu Talmon, Jerusalem, November 12, 1995.
 Damascus is also taken literally as the capital city of Syria to which the disillusioned members of the Sect fled. This is possible, but since Qumran is also viewed as Egypt in the same sense of exile, Damascus could also have this typological sense.
 Cf. F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (London: The Tyndale Press, 1960), p. 68.
 On the predestinarian position of the Community in relation to eschatology see Eugene H. Merrill, Predestination at Qumran: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975), pp. 51-54.
 Eisenman and Wise suggest that they applied this figure to the first outbreak of revolutionary activity at the time of Herod's death in 4 B.C. and looked for the end in A.D. 66, the time of the Jewish uprising, which they believed would usher in the final battle of the End of Days, Eisenman and Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Massachuttes: Element, 1992), p. 64.
 E.g., Ernest L. Martin, based on the Temple rejection texts and their historical situation in the Hasmonean period, especially with reference to Simon, argues that the Temple of Solomon was originally built on the Ophel, that the Hasmoneans destroyed the site and much of Jerusalem for their own building projects, including a new Temple in the wrong place. It was for this reason that the Sect's Teacher of Righteousness opposed Simon (the Wicked Priest = the Man of the Lies = Scoffer) and the use of this misplaced Temple. His evidence is drawn from Josephus' statements that the Essenes "offered their sacrifices by themselves," from apocryphal (Maccabees) and pseudepigraphical (Enoch) sources, and negative statements about the Temple in Pesher Habakkuk (on 2:17), and especially CD about "removing the landmark," which he equated with changing the location of the Temple. In my opinion, the Qumran Temple references cannot be interpreted in this manner to support such a hypothesis, however, cf. "Where Did Solomon Build His Temple?" An A.S.K. Historical Report #00078 (Portland, Oregon: Associates for Scriptural Knowledge, 1996).
 For a translation and analysis of the New Jerusalem Scroll see Michael Chyutin, The New Jerusalem Scroll from Qumran: A Comprehensive Reconstruction. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 25. Eds. Lester Grabbe and James H. Charlesworth (Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).
 Cf. Michael O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. SAOC 49 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990), pp. 64-86.
 Interview with Magen Broshi, Shrine of the Book, Jerusalem, November 10, 1995.
 The Kittim are usually considered to be the Romans, whose ships in Daniel 11:30 came from the west past Cyprus (= Kittim) to defeat the army of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Egypt. However, I Maccabees 1:1 equates them with the forces of Alexander the Great.
 The text (according to the reconstruction by Eisenman and Wise, DSSU, p. 43) reads: "the Kittim after him, all of them after another …among all nations, the] Kingdom … and the nations shall ser[ve] them," column 11 [or later], 16, 21, 22.
 Cf. Johannan Maier, “The Architectural History of the Temple in Jerusalem in Light of the Temple Scroll,” in Temple Scroll Studies, edited by George J. Brooke (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 7, 1987), pp. 23-62. For the translation and commentary on the Temple Scroll see Elisha Qimron, The Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions. Judean Desert Studies (Beer ShevaJerusalem: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press and Israel Exploration Society, 1996), and Johann Maier, The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 34. Eds. David Clines and Philip Davies (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985).
 Cf. Bruce Chliton, The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program Within a Cultural History of Sacrifice (Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), p. 83.
 Cf. arguments for a Temple built with human hands by Yigael Yadin, op. cit. I, p. 184; II, p. 125, and P. Callaway, “Exegetische Erwägungen zur Tempelrolle XXIX, 7-10,” Revue de Qumran 12 (1985-1987), p. 97, n.5.
 Cf. for arguments on a Temple created by God Himself, B. Z. Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983), p. 23.
 Cf. Wayne O. McCready, “Temple and Temple Scroll: A Sectarian Alternative,” Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, August 16-24, 1989. Division A: The Bible and Its World (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 1990): 203-204.
 Cf., Magen Broshi, “The Gigantic Dimensions of the Visionary Temple in the Temple Scroll,” Biblical Archaeology Review (Nov.-Dec., 1987), pp. 36-37.
 Cf. Johannan Maier, op. cit., pp. 23, 50-52.
 Cf. commentary of Gaalya Cornfield in Josephus the Jewish War. eds. G. Cornfield, B. Mazar, Paul Maier (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), p. 428.
 Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (1983), 1:198.
 Interview with Dan Bahat, Meveseret Tzion, November 12, 1995.
 Cf. Michael Chyutin, "The New Jerusalem: Ideal City," Dead Sea Scroll Discoveries 1:1 (April 1994): 95 (top).
 Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law of the Dead Sea Sect (New York: Random House, 1985), p. 113.
 Cf. Zion Ben Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983), pp. 22-30.
 Cf. 11QT 15:15; 25:16.
 Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll 1: 182.
 Lawrence H. Schiffman, "Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls," The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. The First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins. ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 116. The reason for Schiffman’s pessimism is the recognition that the Scrolls do not present a uniform conception the Messiah. For example, at times the Messiah appears as a singular "Anointed," but on other occasions as a dual "Twin-Anointed;" usually the Messiah is a human being, but on occasion he may be described as a heavenly (or divine) character. Hence, on the one hand we find texts, which speak of "God begetting the Messiah" (1QSa 2:12), of the Messiah as a "first-born son" (4Q369), and of the Messiah as subordinate to the priests (1QSa 2:14-20). On the other hand, one text reads "the heavens and earth obey the voice of His Messiah" (4Q521 line 1), while another speaks of the Messiah "raising the dead" (4Q521 line 12). These differences may have resulted from different origins for these documents, with some coming from outside the Sect, or from a developing messianism within the Sect, as reflective of the Judaism of the Second Temple period.
 Florentino Garcia Martinez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramiaic Texts from Qumran. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 9. eds. F. G. Martinez, A.S. Van Der Woude (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p. 174.
 See James Charlesworth, The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, pp. 25-26.
 These texts are: CD 2:12; 6:1; 12:23; 14:19; 19:10; 20:1; 1QS 9:11; 1QSa 2:12, 14, 20; 1QM 11:17; 1Q30 1 2; 4Q252 1 v. 3; 4Q266 [Da] 18 iii. 12; 4Q267 [Db] 2 6; 4Q270 [De] 9 ii. 14; 4Q287 10 13; 4Q375 1 i. 9; 4Q376 1 i. 1; 4Q377 2 ii. 5; 4Q381 15 7; 4Q458 2 ii. 6; 4Q521 2 ii. 4 1; 8 9; 9 3; 6Q15 [D] 3 4; 11QMel 2:18. This number (in my opinion)57 could be raised to 21 if we also include messianic terminology such as "Prince," "Scepter," "Branch of David," and perhaps a reading "First-Born" (1QSb 5:20, 27; 4Q161 5-6 3; 4Q174 1:11; 4Q175 12; 4Q285 4 2; 5 3, 4; 4Q369).
 For a detailed study of these terms in their contexts see John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1995), pp.20-67.
 John J. Collins, "Messiahs in Context: Method in the Study of Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls," Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. eds. M. Wise, N. Golb, J.J. Collins, D. Pardee (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), p. 214.
 The Hebrew word shiloh is usually translated in Jewish versions of the Bible as "to whom it belongs" (taking the term as she-lo, lit. "that [which is] his"). For instance, Targum; LXX, Bereshit Rabbah 99. It has also been taken as the two words shai lo ("a gift/tribute to him"), cf. commentaries by Jewish scholars Rashi, Lekach Tov, and the Jewish Publication Society's Torah and Notes on the New Translation of the Torah, ed. Harry M. Orlinsky (Philadelphia: JPS, 1969), p. 142 Cf. for survey of views, G.R. Driver, Genesis. Westminster Commentary (), pp. 385-386, and esp. Excursus II (pp. 410-415). Another view is that shiloh comes from the root nsl and the phrase should be rendered "until the exile comes," cf. Sh'muel ben Chofni. However, some Jewish commentators did preserve a messianic connotation albeit with the messianic age in their translation of the term as "tranquility," cf. Sforno; Torah Sh'lemah 157; Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, The Living Torah (Jersusalem: Maznaim Publishing Corp., 1981), p. 135. In many Christian Old Testaments a capitalized transliteration "Shiloh" appears to signify an understood messianic appellation. This view also finds support from the Jewish Talmud (Sanhedrin 98b), Targum Onkelos (on Gen. 49:10), and the midrash Bereshit ("Genesis") Rabbah (99) where shiloh is understood as a proper noun, the name of the Messiah.
 This expression appears also in the New Testament (cf. Matt. 24:8; Mk. 13:8) and especially in rabbinic literature in which it became a technical term for the Tribulation (e.g., Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 97a). The origin of the phrase is the Old Testament prophetic teaching on the judgment of Israel (cf. Isa. 13:8; 26:17; 66:7-9; Jer. 4:31; 22:23; 49:22; 50:43; Hos. 13:13; Mic. 4:9-10). For a study of this phrase and the related concept see the author's "Old Testament Tribulation Terms," in When the Trumpet Sounds (Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), chapter 3.
 Cf. John Pryke, "Eschatology in the Dead Sea Scrolls," in The Scrolls and Christianity: Historical and Theological Significance. ed. Matthew Black (London: SPCK, 1969), pp. 50-51; Dale C. Allison, The End of the Ages Has Come. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. ed. John Riches (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1985), pp. 8-10.
 This dualism most likely may be traced to the division of light from darkness in Genesis 1:3-5.
 The terminology in this light-versus-darkness motif has long been considered synonymous and interchangeable, cf. G. R.. Driver, The Judean Scrolls, The Problem and a Solution (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), p. 545; F. Nötscher, “Geist und Geister in den Texten von Qumran,” Mélanges bibliques: rédigés en l’honneur de André Robert. Trauvaux de l’Institut Catholique de Paris 4 (Paris, 1956): 305-316. James Charlesworth, “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3:13-4:26 and the ‘Dualism’ Contained in the Gospel of John,” New Testament Studies 15 (1968-1969): 400, observes that the probability of these terms being synonymous is strengthened by the fact that YHWH is also is given various names. He also notes that "light" and "darkness" denote origin and qualify the actions of the respective beings.
 J. Daniélou, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Primitive Christianity (Baltimore: Helicon, 1963), p. 107. This motif however, is a unique paradigm to Qumran, and its contrast with other sects of Judaism, e.g. Christianity, has been demonstrated by H. Kosmala, “The Parable of the Unjust Steward in the Light of Qumran,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute. Edited by H. Kosmala (Leiden : E.J. Brill, 1964) 3: 114-121.
 This dualism most likely may be traced to the division of light from darkness in Genesis 1:3-5.
 The noun “Belial" is entirely absent from early compositions such as the Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns), though it is peculiar to later texts. For example, “Belial” occurs as a nomen proprium in the Damascus Document six times, and since this scroll was composed later than the earliest portion of the rule, it is thought that “Belial” is a substitute for “Angel of Darkness.” In the War Scroll, the term appears twelve times, and since it is the latest of the major sectarian scrolls, it strengthens the probability of the term becoming a surrogate for “Angel of Darkness.” Further, “Belial” is found only in the preface (1QS 1:18, 24; 2:5, 19) and the concluding hymn (1QS 10:21) of the Rule, again, sections probably added at a later date.
 The primary motive for this association has been the Christian tradition of Lucifer as the leader of the fallen angels and the arch angel Michael as the leader of the Elect angels, although this idea was certainly influenced by the Old Testament (cf. Daniel 10:13, 21; 12;1) and the apocalyptic literature (cf. I Enoch 6:1-6; 7:1; 10:8-9; Jubilees 5:1-2).
 Cf. P. Wernberg-Møller, “A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community (1QSerek 3:13-4:26”,” Revue de Qumran 11 (1961): 423, who argues entirely for the psychological interpretation. In this case, the two spirits are equivalent to the rabbinic notion of the “good inclination” and the “evil inclination.”
 Cf. A. A. Anderson, “The Use of ‘Ruah’ in 1QS, 1QH and 1QM,” Journal of Jewish Studies 7 (1962): 298. He argues that where this terminology differs, it is the result of differences in authorship, date, and nature of the writings. It also appears that the Johannine meaning of the terms “Spirit of Truth” (Jn. 14:17; 15:26; 16:13) and “sons of light” ( Jn. 12:36), have been read back into the Qumran text. Frank Moore Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Studies (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1961), p. 213, has noted: “The “Spirit of Truth” in 1QS is an angelic creature who is at a greater distance from God than the “Spirit of Truth,” who in John is God’s own Spirit.”
 The source of evil in 1QS is external to men and not as Werberg-Møller has suggested “created by God to dwell in man.” Rather, in 1QS 3:18 the text says that God allotted the spirits unto man.” Furthermore, 1QS suggests that men are divided into two mutually exclusive camps (“sons of light” or “sons of darkness”). W.D. Davies, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins,” Religion in Life 26 (1957): 246-264, has pointed this out saying, “that [these spirits] are not merely inherent properties of man, as such, emerges from the use of the term “angel” to describe the two spirits: this preserves the ‘otherness’ of the two spirits even when they appear to be immanent.” Therefore, U. Simon, Heaven in the Christian Tradition (London, 1958), p. 173, concludes: “The struggle in the heart of man is inseparable from the cosmic array of powers (1QS 4:18).”
 Cf. A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966): 43 notes: “The tendency to personify as angels the powers which control the stars and to identify God himself with the Urlicht may be paralleled by the identification of the two spirits with personal supernatural beings.”
 However, if these two are one entity, then the Angel of Darkness may be construed as the deceptive functioning of Satan, much as in the New Testament, cf. Satan "appearing as an angel of light," (2 Corinthians 11:14), and "deceiving the whole world" (Revelation 12:9; 13:14; 20:3).
 Interview with Shemaryahu Talmon, Jerusalem, November 12, 1995.
 This is certainly the case for the term "son of Belial" (the more significant term), which occurs immediately following this context in column 3, while the term "blasphemous king" occurs in fragments that are thought to follow this context.
 Eisenman and Wise, DSSU, p. 65.
 Cf. Joseph Coppens, “‘Mystery’ in the Theology of Saint Paul and its Parallels at Qumran,” Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and James H, Charlesworth (New York: Crossroad, 1990), p. 141.
 A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran. Translated by Geza Vermes (Oxford: Blackwell, 1961), p. 327.
 David Flusser, “The Hubris of the Antichrist in a Fragment from Qumran,” Immanuel 10 (Spring, 1980): 31-37.
 This fragment from Cave 4 was bought from Kando the antiquities dealer on July 9, 1958 and officially assigned to J. T. Milik of Harvard. Milik's failure to publish the text or his translation motivated the Jesuit priest Joseph A. Fitzmyer to publish an unauthorized translation of part of he text in “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament,” New Testament Studies 20 (1973-1974): 391-394. First credit for full publication goes to Emilé Peuch, “Fragment d'une apocalypse en arameén (4Q246 = pseudo-Dand) et le ‘royaume de Dieu’”, Revue Biblique 99 (1992): 98-131, who succeeded Milik as the officially designated editor. Following the release of a photograph of the text by the Huntington Library of San Marino, California, Fitzmyer published his own complete translation with commentary, cf. "4Q246: The 'Son of God' Document from Qumran," Biblica 74:2 (1993), pp. 153-174. It was originally entitled Pseudo-Daniel, with the sigla 4Q psDanAa or Dand 209, because of the mention of "Daniel" in column 1, line 2, although this Daniel only appeared as a man falling before the throne, yet there was also an allusion to the eternal Kingdom of Daniel 2:44, which warranted this signification. However, the exceptional appearance of the term"S/son of God" and the interpretation of this text as an allusion to Daniel 7:13, has become the basis for the title and sigla.
 F. Garcia Martinez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah IX. eds. F. Garcia Martinez, A.S. Van der Woude (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p. 172.
 Lawrence H. Schiffman, The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Study of the Rule of the Congregation. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 38. eds. A.Y. Collins, E.F. Campbell, Jr. (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1989), p. 68.
 As mentioned by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 153. This objection that their theology lacked a belief in resurrection because they would experience the redemptive age in their lifetime fails when it is remembered that a large cemetery of sectarians existed adjacent to the Community whose expectation as part of the Yahad was surely to rise and join their fellow priests in the promised End. In addition, in light of their acceptance of other eschatological themes in the prophets, it would be doubtful that this theme in such books as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Daniel would have been dismissed.
 Here I have reproduced lines 5-12 which make up part of the context of lines 1-13 in the two fragments (frag. 2 + frag. 4, col. 2) placed together to show the destiny of the pious who will experience a reversal of their previous condition when the Kingdom comes.
 The translation follows that of Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr. and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996), p. 421.
 This would remove the text from direct comparison with Matthew 11:5 and Luke 7:22, in which Jesus as the Messiah uses the texts of Isaiah 35:5-6 and 61:1-2 as evidence that his works are messianic in nature. However, none of these texts mention resurrection, which was certainly an authenticating work of the Messiah according to the Gospels (cf. Jn. 11:25-27, 42, 47; 12:9-11). Perhaps this is because they focus on a present age in which the "good news" is proclaimed through redemptive acts (Isa. 61:1), rather than the eschatological age to come in which the Messiah will raise the all the dead. Furthermore, the text is ambiguous as to whether it is the Messiah in line 1 or the Lord (God) in line 5 that here performs these miracles.
 Professor Knohl proposes that the historical background for the erection of this monumental stele was a revolt against the Roman-backed Herodian monarchy, probably shortly after the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C., by a rebel force centered in the city of Karak (near the Dead Sea in modern Jordan). The leader, Simon, had proclaimed himself king and had announced that the redemption of Israel was at hand. He was regarded as a messiah or at least embodied his folower’s messianic hopes. He was killed in a ravine during the battle and the monument was erected with the eschatological hope of his resurrection to complete the national redemption.
 Israel Knohl, Messiahs and Resurrection in “The Gabriel Revelation.” The Kogod Library of Judaic Studies 6 (New York: Continuum, 2009), xiii.