Re: [Megillot] osey hattora

[RUSSELLGMIRKIN]

Hi Soren,   Talmon (among others) identifies "sectarian" texts using yachad as a marker term.  There are some minor overlaps in terminology between the writings of the earlier community founded by the Teacher and the later Serekh literature.  These include the use of the term yachad, the use of a covenant enrollment ceremony and speech, and some minor phrases such as "those instructed in the first ordinances" (CD 20:31; cf. 1QS 9:10-11, discussed by Philip Davies in "Communities at Qumran and the Case of the Missing 'Teacher' " in Sects and Scrolls: Essays on Qumran and Related Topics, ed. Philip R. Davies, 139-150. SFSHJ 134. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1996b.).  These are accounted for by historical developments, since: (a) the Teacher already possessed followers in Judea before his exile; (b) not all of his loyalists went into exile with him in the land of Damascus; (c) some of these Judean followers likely participated in the later Judean movement that produced the Serekh literature, and some terminology was inherited by the latter as a result.  Unfortunately the use of the overlapping term yachad obscures the fact that there are two different "sectarian" literatures at Qumran (and indeed I doubt that the social entity behind the Serekh literature was a religious sect in the usual connotation).   Note that while the early covenant enrollment ceremony in the earliest parts of CD was of a national (not sectarian) character, the later covenant enrollment ceremony in 1QS was highly divisive with a blessing of loyalists and cursing of enemies.  The Serekh literature is extremely homogeneous within the Qumran corpus, having characteristic literary forms, vocabulary, subject matter and legal outlook.  One characteristic is the use of Serekh or Rule to describe a set of legal or organizational prescriptions.  The term Serekh is also applied to enlisting soldiers, military formations, to a class of officers in the army, and to the community as a whole (“Serekh of the Community”).  The term Serekh is also applied to the act of organizing the temple cult and appointing temple officers.   The Serekh literature deals largely with rules governing the community described as the serekh, the camps, the many, the yachad, or the ‘edah.  Included within these rules is the process of enrollment into the yachad.  This process entailed the instruction of youths prior to enrollment, testing by the Inspector, the oath of enrollment, speeches during the enrollment of new inductees at a yearly ceremony, and the formal recitation of blessings on the members of the community and curses on outsiders.  Special regulations existed for various sessions of the community, including the yearly convocation and special assemblies for the convocation of war or other collective actions.  Regulations existed for community funds and communal meals.  Other regulations regarded punishments (suspension of community privileges, probation or permanent expulsion) for various infractions against the community.  Record was made of those enlisted in the community and those expelled.   Officers in the community figure prominently in the Serekh literature.  These include the Instructor, Inspector, judges, and military officers.  Foremost in authority were the priests and levites, the Sons of Zadok having special prominence in some of our texts.  The military had its own class of officers, including tribal officers that supervised conscription from the twelve tribes and other army officers, all under the authority of a secular leader, the Prince of the Congregation.  A special characteristic of the Serekh literature is the specification of age requirements for every stage of advancement in the community or the army.   It has often been noted that the community was organized along military lines.  Not only the army, but also the yachad was organized by 1000’s, 100’s, 50’s and 10’s.  A minimum quorum of ten was required at all times for communal functions.  The yachad existed in a constant state of military preparedness.  Entry into the community, for males, coincided with enlistment into the “army of the congregation” and enrollment in the register.  Presumably at enlistment they were assigned a specific unit of the army (and could recite to which 1000, 100, 50 and 10 they belonged).  The Serekh literature includes specific laws governing conscription and for the session for the convocation of war and envisioned wars subduing foreign nations.    Another characteristic of the Serekh literature was dualistic language.  Society was divided into two “lots”, the sons of light and the sons of darkness, the latter also called the sons of the pit under control of the evil spirit Belial or Mastema.  The most advanced _expression_ of this dualism was the “Instruction of the Two Spirits”.  This dualism received institutional _expression_ in ritual hymns involving the blessing of the sons of light (by priests) and the cursing of the sons of darkness (by levites) at the yearly convocation, the assembly as a whole assenting with “amen”. The belief in the presence of angels in the assembly of the men of name and in the war camps also attests to this dualism.  An eschatological orientation is perhaps also implied by the mention of the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.  The current period was termed the “age of wickedness”. A remarkable characteristic of the Serekh literature is the almost complete absence of direct scriptural quotation.  There is, similarly, virtually no pesherim embedded in the Serekh literature.  Several Serekh texts refer to an authoritative “book of Hagy” in which members were to be trained from youth and which contained legal material authoritative for daily life in the community.  This may refer to the Torah or books of Moses:  yet the Serekh literature elsewhere contains routine references to the “law of Moses”.  More likely, the “book of Hagy” also contained “hidden” legal rulings specifically revealed to the community.   Another extremely striking characteristic of the Serekh literature is the almost complete absence of halakhah or legal rulings on matters of purity, etc.  The Serekh literature assumes a higher level of purity in the camps due to the presence of angels and on this basis excludes from the camp the same categories or persons excluded from the temple.  Authority is also given to priests or levites to exclude members from the camp for leprosy.  Yet these matters are touched on only to the extent that purity issues affected admittance into the camps.  The Serekh literature appears exclusively interested in the organizational implications of purity issues.   The organization focus, military orientation, names of officers, etc., are completely absent from such halachic texts as 4QMMT and 11QT (although the Rule of the King has some overlapping interests) or early portions of CD, but it is clear that the Damascus exiles had contact with the Serekh group and adopted their organizational rules.  The pesharim lack Serekh terminology except for 4QpIsa(a) and (d) which date after the time when the Damascus group came joined up with the Serekh group.    Best regards, Russell Gmirkin     Hi Russell   Thanks for the thorough update!   You say that "the pesharim ... are completely lacking in Serekh terminology, as are the hymns" I would have said that one of the marks of "sectarian" provenience is the use of "yachad" in an undisputably nominal sense. There are some cases where an earlier pan-Essenic view of the Qumran finds led scholars to translate yachad as "community" in places where it might as easily just mean "together" as in the Bible, but when it occurs with the definite article, I would say it looks like an _expression_ unique to the sectarian scrolls -- and it's found BOTH in 1QS and in the pesharim (pretty much all of them except pNah), although its occurrence in 1QHa is debatable.   Is this outside of what you define as "Serekh terminology"? I guess you were talking primarily of "halakhic" / religio-legal (trying to come up with a neutral term) issues?   thanks again Soren