Contents

Introduction 2

1. David in the Old Testament 3

1.1 Deuteronomistic Works 3

1.2 Chronicles 6
1.3 The Psalms 6
1.4 Qumran Manuscripts 9
1.4.1 Samuel 10
1.4.2 Chronicles 11
1.4.3 Psalms 11

2. References to David in Non-Biblical Writings

at Qumran 12

2.1 Clearly Sectarian Texts 14

2.1.1 4Q177 and 11Q13 14
2.1.2 CD 15
2.1.3 4QMMT 19
2.1.4 1QM 21
2.1.5 4Q457b 21
2.2 Texts Subject to Debate 22
2.2.1 11Q5 22
2.2.2 11Q11 26
2.2.3 4Q522 27
2.2.4 4Q504 28
2.2.5 4Q385a 29
2.3 Non-Sectarian and Very Fragmented Texts 30

Conclusion 32

Bibliography 34

1
 David in the Qumran Community:
The David of the Old Testament?

Introduction

David is a prominent and important figure in both the Old and the New Testament. In
the Old Testament, David dominates 1 Samuel 16-1 Kings 2, and 1-2 Kings tells the
story of the Davidic dynasty. In Chronicles, sections of his story are retold. David is
also very important in the Psalter, with nearly half of the psalms assigned to him,
some to his son Solomon and some designated as ‘King-Psalms’. Even in the
prophetic scriptures, David also features. In the New Testament, David features
prominently as an ancestor of Jesus (e.g. Mt 1:1,6); some texts suggest that the Holy
Spirit speaks through David (Acts 1:16; 4:15) when they quote psalms, thereby
making David a prophet; and in Rev 5:5, the ‘shoot of David’ marks the beginning of
a new eschatological era. Thus, the expectation of a Davidic messiah had a great deal
of influence on the New Testament. With this background, one could expect
numerous references to David in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Apart from a few texts that
pick up the idea of a Davidic messiah, however, only a handful out of the hundreds
of documents found in eleven caves near Qumran includes references to material on
David as he appears in the Old Testament, the figure that also functions as the
forefather of the messiah.
Three articles have been written on David in Qumran, all of which present a selec-
tion of texts and group the references into topics.1 Neither Jucci nor Coulot mentions
the question of whether a given text is sectarian or not. However, this distinction is
important, since texts that do not originate from the Qumran Community cannot
provide information on its specific picture of David, even though they, like other
Early Jewish literature, are useful for determining what influenced the Community’s
view. Evans gives a superficial overview and mainly draws connections to the New
1
E. Jucci, 'Davide a Qumran,' RSB 7 (1995), 157-175; C.A. Evans, 'David in the Dead Sea Scrolls,' in
The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After, eds. S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 183-197; C. Coulot, 'David à Qumrân,' in Figures de David à
travers la Bible, eds. L. Desrousseaux and J. Vermeylen (Paris: Cerf, 1999), 315-344.

2
Testament; he also argues that there seems to be no difference between sectarian and
not clearly sectarian texts where David is concerned.2
Therefore, in this essay, I shall attempt to discuss all Qumran documents with
references to David, excluding texts that speak of a Davidic messiah, in order to find
out whether there is a difference between those documents that are probably authored
within the sectarian community and those that are more likely to have come from
outside. First, I will provide a survey of different functions attributed to David in the
Old Testament, including a short overview of the copies of the books of Samuel,
Chronicles and the Psalms that were found in Qumran and can therefore be seen as
the scriptural basis on which the Qumran Community built its picture of David. Then
I will discuss the Qumran documents with reference to David, grouped into sectarian,
possibly sectarian and non-sectarian texts. Lastly, I will discuss which picture of
David it is that is discernible in Qumran and how this relates to the way(s) David is
portrayed in the Old Testament.

1. David in the Old Testament3

1.1 Deuteronomistic Works

The books of Samuel and Kings describe David in many different and sometimes
ambivalent ways. The most significant descriptions are outlined below:
In 1 Sam 16:11-13, David is introduced as shepherd. In 2 Sam 5:2, the designation
‘shepherd’ is not connected with David’s biography anymore but is a metaphor 4
alluding to the king’s duty of caring for his people.
David’s musical and poetical skill is most important in the Psalms. However, he
is introduced in 1 Sam 16:18-23 as exorcising with his lyre, and lyrics are assigned to
him in the books of Samuel, such as 2 Sam 1:19-27 and 2 Sam 23:1-7.5

2
Evans, 'David,' 185.
3
This dissertation does not offer an historical-critical analysis of biblical traditions about David, but
seeks to determine what the ancient writers understood those traditions to signify. Biblical text is cited
from the NRSV, unless noted otherwise.
4
This metaphor is widely used in the OT and the Ancient Near East, cf. E.-J. Waschke, Der Gesalbte
(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001), 28. In Ps 78:70-72, biography and metaphor are connected. H.
Gottlieb, 'Die Tradition Von David Als Hirten,' VT 17 (1967), 190-200, 194-196 argues that this
metaphor is the reason why David is connected to shepherding in the first place.
5
These two pieces are ‘bracketing his reign’, M.D. Coogan, The Old Testament. A Historical and
Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 252.

3
 1 Sam 17 pictures David as exceptionally pious: when facing Goliath, David
repeats that he comes ‘in the name of the LORD of hosts’ (v. 45) and that ‘the battle
is the LORD’s’ (v. 47), thus expressing confidence in the help of his God. Another
example of David’s respect for God is his refusal to kill Saul in 1 Sam 24:7 and
26:11: Saul is ‘the anointed one’ of God and therefore no one, not even the new
anointed one, is allowed to touch him. A third clue for David’s piety is the prayers in
the books of Samuel and the Psalms.
The most severe sin David commits is the adultery with Bathsheba and the subse-
quent indirect killing of Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband, in 2 Sam 11:2-27. However,
David repents for this serious matter, which is also picked up in the heading of Ps 51.
David has a connection with God. Soggin stresses that in the opinion of the
Deuteronomists, the fact that David was elected by God is more important for him
becoming king than either his military success or the fact that the elders of both
peoples chose him.6 The spirit of God is with him, as is made explicit in 1 Sam 16:13
and 18:12,14. According to McCarter, the spirit is ‘the vital force of the deity’7 and
can have the form of ‘prophetic ecstasy’.8 Furthermore, the phrase ‘the God of your
ancestor David’ in 2 Kgs 20:5 and Isa 38:5 points in the same direction of David
having a special relationship to the God of Judah: it is reminiscent of the phrase ‘the
God of your ancestor, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob’ that can be found
in e.g. Ex 3:6,15,16.
In 2 Sam 6, David is connected with priesthood: he is ‘girded with a linen ephod’
(v. 14), something that is usually restricted to priests, and in 6:17-18, it is David who
offers burnt-offerings and offerings of well-being, without another priest being men-
tioned. In 2 Sam 8:18, David’s sons are listed as priests. This is surprising because
all official priests had to be descendants of Levi, and David as king might have acted
like a priest sporadically, but is never called ‫כהן‬. 9 However, if Ps 110 is read in
conjunction with its MT heading, and if the heading is understood literally with the ‫ל‬
meaning ‘for’, then verse 4b says with regard to the David appearing in the heading:
‘You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek.’ In Gen 14:18,

6
J.A. Soggin, 'The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom,' in Israelite and Judaean History, eds. J.H. Hayes
and J.M. Miller (London: SCM Press, 1977), 332-380, 335.
7
P.K. McCarter, I Samuel, AB 8 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), 182.
8
Ibid., 183. This is the case for Saul in 1 Sam 10:10.
9
Soggin discusses several explanations for the presence of David’s sons in this list, cf. Soggin,
'Kingdom,' 357.

4
Melchizedek appears as king and priest. If this association was indeed meant by the
person adding the heading to Ps 110, David is a ‫ כהן‬there.
David has prophetic qualities to a certain extent. He can ask God for signs and
receives answers directly from God (e.g. 1 Sam 23:2,4,9-12), and in 2 Sam 23:2,
‘David’s last words’ begin with ‘The spirit of the LORD speaks through me, his
word is upon my tongue.’ The opening formula in verse 1 resembles that of the
prophecy of Balaam in Num 24:3-4.10 However, sometimes David needs an official
prophet in order to understand what God wants, for example in 2 Sam 7 and in
24:11-18.
Jerusalem, one of the most important places for Israel in and beyond the Old
Testament, was made the capital city by David. He re-named it ‘City of David’
(2 Sam 5:9), a name that did not last for long.11 However, as Jerusalem belonged
neither to Israel nor to Judah, but was located between them and inhabited by a tribe
of Canaanites, David could claim it as an independent place standing for all the
tribes, belonging completely to the king.12
The most obvious feature of David is his kingship. He is not only king, but also the
founder of the dynasty that would dominate the subsequent history of Israel/Judah. In
2 Sam 7, God promises that David will sustain this dynasty forever, without condi-
tion. As king, David is anointed, and as the first relevant king of Israel/Judah, he is
the anointed one par excellence. The term ‘anointed one’ is thus directly linked to
David, and it is not surprising that once an eschatological leader was conceptualised,
this figure was linked to the first and most influential national leader and his distinc-
tive feature of being anointed.
This list could be extended by further connotations that are less pronounced in the
text or in the reception history, such as his skill as warrior, his political skill or his
role as the leader of a group of outcasts after leaving Saul.

10
P. Abadie, 'La figure de David dans le livre des Chroniques,' in Figures de David à travers la Bible,
eds. L. Desrousseaux and J. Vermeylen (Paris: Cerf, 1999), 157-186, 159.
11
In 1 Kings, it is mentioned during the reign of Solomon four times in connection with his building
activity and subsequently twelve times as the place where the king is buried. Apart from this, the
name occurs only in Isa 22:9 and Neh 3:15, 12:37, apparently referring to a part of Jerusalem.
12
Cf. Soggin, 'Kingdom,' 350.

5
1.2 Chronicles

Compared to the diverse picture that the books of Samuel provide of David, Chroni-
cles narrow David down to being the ideal king that all subsequent kings of Israel are
compared with. Passages that either do not have David and his kingship as centre or
that seem to present David in a negative light, including the Bathsheba-Uriah-
episode, are left out intentionally.13 Abadie highlights the striking importance of the
Temple singers and the way that David is described as a parallel to Moses, with both
having a prophetic gift and playing an important role in the cult as legislator and
organizer respectively.14 Indeed, it is striking that nearly all the organization of the
cult is attributed to David here, including preparations for the building of the Temple
(1 Chron 22:2-19, 28:11-21), the music at the Temple (1 Chron 16:4-43) and the
division of the priests and Levites (1 Chron 23-26). This last activity is the creation
of the Mishmarot that are very important in Qumran.15

1.3 The Psalms

In the Psalter, David is important in two distinct ways: in the actual text of some
psalms and in the Psalm headings.
a) Psalms 18, 78, 89, 122, 132 and 144 mention David in their text. Ps 18 also
appears in 2 Sam 22 in a fairly similar form.16 The last verse mentions David as ‘the
anointed one’ of God and also seems to allude to God’s promise to keep up the
Davidic dynasty. Here David is the same prototype of a king that he is in most parts
of the Hebrew Bible. Ps 78 lectures the hearer about Israel’s faithlessness in Egypt
and in the desert. At the end, God chooses his servant David ‘to be shepherd of his
people’ (71). According to this psalm, all problems between God and his people
come to an end because David functions as mediator and guide for the people. In
Ps 89:4,21,36,50, God’s covenant with David and his anointing are highlighted; in

13
S.L. McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press,
1984) 36-37.
14
Abadie, 'Chroniques,' 170.
15
‘Understanding this fairly simple institution is crucial to grasping what is said in the Qumran
calendars’, J.C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (London, New
York: Routledge, 1998), 72.
16
2 Sam 22 is preserved on 4QSama. For a thorough comparison of this text in 4QSama, 2 Sam 22
(MT) and Ps 18, cf. D.W. Parry, '4QSama and the Royal Song of Thanksgiving (2 Sam 22 // Psalm
18),' in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran, eds. D.K. Falk et al. (Leiden: Brill,
2000), 146-159.

6
50, it seems to the psalmist that God has turned away from him and should be
reminded of his earlier mercy that he had also shown to David and promised him for
eternity. Ps 122 is a prayer for Jerusalem and the Temple. David features in verse 5
as founder of the dynasty, the ‘house’. According to Ballhorn, this is dependent on
David’s appearance in Ps 132:1,10,11,17 where David is referred to as exemplary in
his zeal for God, and the ark is connected to God’s promise for the Davidic dynasty;
Haglund regards David in Ps 132 ‘as the Founder of the cult.’17 Ps 144 appeals to the
glory of God and his power to care for and rescue human beings. In verse 10, one
example of God’s power is that he ‘rescues his servant David.’ In the LXX, this
psalm is headed tw Dauid proj ton Goliad (MT: ‫)לדוד‬.
b) The Psalms’ headings show the importance of David in a more obvious way.
There is a broad scholarly consensus that the headings are secondary18 and may well
have been added in the Second Temple period. 73 psalms have headings containing
the name ‘David’,19 13 of which give further biographical information on David that
can be matched more or less to events narrated in 1-2 Sam.20 But these 73 psalms do
not exactly correspond to the psalms normally counted as ‘Davidic’ psalms. On the
one hand, some commentators do not include the ‘songs of ascent, of David’ (Pss
122; 124; 131; 133) in their lists21 because the songs of ascent form a distinct group
and most other psalms ‘of David’ are grouped together to form several David-
Psalters. On the other hand, most commentators do include Pss 71 and 72 even if 71
does not have a secondary heading at all and the heading of 72 attributes that psalm
to Solomon. The reason for this inclusion lies in 72:20, a redactional addition itself
stating that ‘The prayers of David son of Jesse are ended.’ Waschke notes further that
Ps 72 as a king psalm is spoken implicitly by David ‘for Solomon’, reading the
Hebrew preposition ‫ ל‬as pointing not to authorship, as most modern translations
17
Haglund, Historical Motifs in the Psalms (Stockholm: Liber, 1984), 107.
18
Cf. e.g. A. Pietersma, 'David in the Greek Psalms,' VT 30 (1980), 213-226, 213.
19
The heading of Ps 133 is subject to debate: two Hebrew manuscripts, the Lucian recension of the
Greek, the Coptic version and the Targum omit ‫ לדוד‬and therefore the NRSV also does not translate it.
However, this is not a strong case against the relative originality and therefore this heading should be
treated like the ones of Psalms 122; 124; 131 that appear in exactly the same form and have a
similarly weak textual basis.
20
These are Psalms 3, 7, 18, 34, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 142. E. Ballhorn, '"Um deines Knechtes
David willen" (Ps 132,10). Die Gestalt Davids im Psalter,' BN 76 (1995), 16-31, 21-22 includes Ps 30:
‘A Psalm. A song at the dedication of the temple. Of David.’ However, this is definitely not a
situation of David’s biography and judging from the order of the elements constituting the heading,
the name David seems to have been added after the psalm was connected to the dedication of the
temple.
21
E.g. E. Zenger, 'Das Buch der Psalmen,' in Einleitung in das Alte Testament, ed. E. Zenger
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2006), 353.

7
imply, but to the recipient.22 ‫ ל‬was interpreted as signalling authorship only some
time after the headings were added, as shown by Rösel: he analysed the psalm
headings in the Septuagint23 and found only four psalms (26, 27, 28, 37) in which the
preposition is rendered with a genitive article, pointing to authorship, instead of a
dative article that, in a strict sense, comes closer to the Hebrew preposition. 24
Pietersma showed that these instances stand on a weak textual basis anyway and
should be emended to read the dative.25 According to Waschke, the heading ‫ לדוד‬was
an offer to read the psalms ‘in regard to David,’26 meaning that every Israelite could
identify himself with David. Most of these headings precede psalms of lament, and
so the reader is reassured that God will help him just as he helped David. This
interpretation is reinforced by the biographical additions in 13 headings that are
mostly pointing to situations in David’s life when he is in trouble. 27 With this
evidence, it is clear that in the headings David is remembered as the righteous man
who was in distress and was then rescued by God. As Auwers puts it, David is here
‘configuré à l’image de son peuple de pauvres et (…) devient ainsi un modèle pour
Israël dans son abaissement et son errance.’28

22
Waschke, Gesalbte, 98.
23
It is subject to debate where and when the Greek translation of the Psalms was made. J. Schaper,
Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 45 assumes a Palestinian
translation in the second half of the second century BCE, in the time of the ‘evolving Hasmonaean
dynasty.’ Gzella is more cautious; although he mentions similar data, he does not make a suggestion
but merely says that a date sometime in the second, rather than the first, century BCE seems probable
because the Psalter was such an important book, as is attested by the many Psalms scrolls found in the
Judaean desert, and a Greek translation was surely needed sooner rather than later, H. Gzella, 'Die
Wiege des griechischen David,' in Der Septuaginta-Psalter, ed. E. Zenger (Freiburg im Breisgau:
Herder, 2001), 19-47. H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1914), 25 argues that the Greek versions of Chronicles and Esther,
dating from the second century BCE, presuppose the Greek version of the Psalms.
24
M. Rösel, 'Die Psalmüberschriften des Septuaginta-Psalters,' in Der Septuaginta-Psalter, ed. E.
Zenger (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2001), 125-148, 130. In a wider sense, authorship could also
be expressed by that heading, if the lamed is read as lamed auctoris, qualifying the psalm as ‘properly
belonging to David as the author,’ W. Gesenius and E. Kautzsch, Gesenius' Hebrew grammar, trans.
G.W. Collins and A.E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon, 1898), 440.
25
Pietersma, 'Greek Psalms,' 215-217. Sanders calls the prose text ‘David’s Compositions’ in a
Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (see below 2.2.1) ‘the earliest literary evidence of belief in the
Davidic authorship of the Psalter,’ J.A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11, DJDJ IV
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 92.
26
Waschke, Gesalbte, 97. The first modern scholar to interpret ‫ לדוד‬as not meaning ‘by David’ was de
Wette in his 1811 commentary on the Psalms. Goulder reports that de Wette translated ‫ ל‬as ‘for’ or
‘about’, M. Goulder, The Prayers of David (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 13.
27
Ballhorn, 'Gestalt Davids,' 24.
28
J.-M. Auwers, 'Le David des Psaumes et les Psaumes de David,' in Figures de David à travers la
Bible, eds. L. Desrousseaux and J. Vermeylen (Paris: Cerf, 1999), 187-224, 222.

8
 c) Waschke introduces the position of the two king psalms 2 and 72 at the begin-
ning of the first and at the end of the second book of Psalms respectively as the last
stage of the Davidisation of the Psalter. In Ps 2, David is not mentioned explicitly,
but can be identified implicitly as the king of Zion mentioned in verse 6a (‘I have set
my king on Zion’) because David is the first king to reign in Zion. To this can be
added that verse 7b (‘You are my son; today I have begotten you’) recalls 2 Sam
7:14, where God promises David that he himself will be a father to David’s son, and
Ps 89:27, where David is made to be God’s own son. In Ps 72, David is then the
royal speaker, asking for a righteous reign for his successor; this goes well with the
heading ‘“for” Solomon’. This bracket implicitly includes kingship into the picture
the Psalter shows of David.29

From this overview we can see that there are remarkable differences in the way that
David is portrayed in the different writings or groups of writings. While in the books
of Samuel and Kings, David is painted in many, sometimes contradictory, colours,
including human weakness and behaviour that should not be expected from the
model king, 30 the Chronicler provides a nearly unambiguously positive picture,
presenting David mainly as the founder and organizer of the cult. The picture in the
main text of the Psalms resembles that of Chronicles, whereas the psalm headings
convey two different yet compatible notions: David as psalmist, which is more
reminiscent of Chronicles, and David in distress, which is mainly narrated in Samuel.

1.4 Qumran Manuscripts

For the following section, Ulrich’s statement that ‘if one group tampered with the
text of Scripture in order to promote its views, it would be open to immediate
demonstrable refutation’31 is assumed: we cannot expect to find ‘sectarian’ variants
in the Qumran ‘biblical’ scrolls. I now include a short discussion of the relevant
manuscripts in order to establish the ‘scriptural’ basis of the Qumran Community for
information on David.

29
Waschke, Gesalbte, 98.
30
Coogan, Old Testament, 238 summarises David in 1 Sam as being ‘modest and pious’ and a hero,
whereas in 2 Sam David appears as an ‘anti-hero’ (248).
31
E. Ulrich, 'The Absence of "Sectarian Variants" in the Jewish Scriptural Scrolls found at Qumran,'
in The Bible as Book - The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, eds. E.D. Herbert and
E. Tov (London, New Castle: The British Library, Oak Knoll Press, 2002), 179-195, 181. Note also
his careful circumscription of the scrolls in question, which is preferable to the term ‘biblical scrolls’
which I use because of its shortness.

9
1.4.1 Samuel

Among the three manuscripts from Cave 4 that contain the book of Samuel, 4QSama,
dating from ca. 50-25 BCE,32 is most famous because of its great importance for
textual criticism: it is close to the Vorlage of the LXX. Furthermore, it agrees with
the account of Josephus in some instances that are not present in MT or LXX.33 It
also shares 42 readings with Chronicles against the MT of Samuel, which is believed
to be severely corrupted.34 However, as Ulrich observed, this does not mean that
4QSama has the distinctive interests of the Chronicler but merely that it is ‘much
closer than [the MT] to the Samuel textual basis used by the Chronicler.’35
4QSamb (4Q52) dates from ca. 250 BCE and is an exceptionally good textual
witness. 36 It cannot be relevant for the question of how David was seen by the
Qumran sect because it predates the Qumran settlement and most probably the
movement itself37 and because even if it has readings that are different from MT and
LXX, these readings are probably the original ones and not special variant readings.
4QSamc (4Q53), dating from 100-75 BCE, was written by the same scribe as 1QS
(Community Rule), 4Q175 (Testimonia) and other sectarian documents;38 therefore,
‘it holds one of the strongest claims to being a biblical manuscript that was copied at
Qumran.’39 Most of its variants are either clear errors of a comparatively careless
scribe or are superior to the MT. Therefore, this manuscript also is irrelevant for our
discussion.

32
F.M. Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4, XII: 1-2 Samuel, DJD XVII (Oxford: Clarendon, 2005), 3.
33
D.W. Parry, '4QSama (=4Q51), the Canon, and the Community of Lay Readers,' in The Bible and
the Dead Sea Scrolls ed. J.H. Charlesworth (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2006), 167-182,
175.
34
For a summary of literature on the text and its corruption, cf. ibid., 172.
35
E. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), 163-
164.
36
Cross et al., 1-2 Samuel, 220-223.
37
The pre-Qumran movement probably goes back to the early second century BCE, cf. J.C.
VanderKam, 'Identity and History of the Community,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years, eds.
P.W. Flint and J.C. VanderKam (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2.487-533, 527. Dimant states that ‘No
sectarian writing survived in a copy earlier than the last quarter of the second century B.C.E.’, D.
Dimant, 'Qumran Sectarian Literature,' in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M. Stone
(Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 483-550, 489. This is a clear indication for 4Q52 not being copied by a
member of a pre-Qumran sect.
38
F.M. Cross, 'The Development of the Jewish Scripts,' in The Bible and the Ancient Near East.
Essays in Honor of W. F. Albright, ed. G.E. Wright (New York: Doubleday, 1960), 133-202, 198 n.
116.
39
E. Ulrich, '53. 4QSamc,' in Qumran Cave 4, XII: 1-2 Samuel, eds. F.M. Cross et al., DJD XVII
(Oxford: Clarendon, 2005), 247-267, 247.

10
1.4.2 Chronicles

The only fragment of the book of Chronicles found in Qumran, 4Q118, contains
parts of 2 Chron 28:27-29:3.40 There is so little text preserved that it is impossible to
determine with certainty whether it really comes from a copy of Chronicles; it could
be part of a text citing Chronicles or of a paraphrase. Nevertheless, it is clear that the
Qumranites knew and had access to Chronicles. Some argue that because of this
sparse evidence of ‘biblical’ text, the community must have built their picture of
David mainly on the evidence of Samuel. But this is not decisive; the Chronicler’s
text was present and its picture of David also resembles the one apparent in the
Psalms, which were highly valued in Qumran.41

1.4.3 Psalms

The Psalter is the biblical book represented by the greatest number of manuscripts in
Qumran. 37 manuscripts have been found, along with some pesharim on psalms.
Apart from the pesharim on Psalms (1Q16, 4Q171, 4Q173), this kind of biblical
interpretation, relating biblical locutions to events contemporary to the Qumran
community, is reserved for prophetical books.42 Flint interprets this fact as an indica-
tion for David being seen as prophet in Qumran.43
There are, at least parts of, 126 of the 150 MT-psalms preserved in the relevant
Dead Sea manuscripts;44 fifteen additional compositions, nine of them unknown until
the discovery of these manuscripts, are inserted into various Psalms scrolls. In some
of the scrolls, the psalms are arranged in an order different to that found in the MT,
especially in the fourth and fifth book of the Masoretic Psalter.45 The most important
Psalms scroll is 11Q5 which has both a different order and additions scattered among

40
J. Trebolle Barrera, '118. 4QChr,' in Qumran Cave 4, XI: Psalms to Chronicles, eds. E. Ulrich et al.,
DJD XVI (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 295-297, 295.
41
According to Ballhorn, 'Gestalt Davids,' 26 n. 30, Ps 78 shows ‘Nähe zum chr Davidsbild.’ Of
course this can also mean that the Qumranites used the Psalms’ picture of David whenever there
seems to be a Chronistic view. This is only true for the Psalms themselves and not for their headings.
42
S. Berrin, 'Qumran Pesharim,' in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. M. Henze (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2005), 110-133, 110.
43
P.W. Flint, 'The Prophet David at Qumran,' in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. M. Henze
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 158-167, 165-166.
44
I.e. the 40 Psalms scrolls (including the two from Masada and the one from Nahal Hever), pesharim
and others, P.W. Flint, 'Psalms and Psalters in the Dead Sea Scrolls,' in The Bible and the Dead Sea
Scrolls, ed. J.H. Charlesworth (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2006), 233-272, 234.
45
Ibid., esp. 240-241.

11
the psalms;46 one of the additions, ‘David’s Compositions’ from col. XXVII 2-11,
will be discussed below, 2.2.1. Sanders assigned to this collection a scriptural status
within the Qumran community and even proposed Qumran origin for the compilation
and for some of the apocryphal parts. By contrast, Schiffman believes that this scroll
was produced as a liturgical work and does not, therefore, count as a copy of the
scriptural book of Psalms.47 Ulrich notes that the additions in 11Q5 ‘are composed
like other biblical psalms’ as opposed to the Hodayot, ‘which sound post-biblical and
reflect the theology of the Qumran commune.’48 Like Sanders, he assumes scriptural
status for the 11Q5 type of Psalms Scroll, 49 which is also attested in 11Q6 and
4Q87. 50 Recently, Flint has reassessed Sanders’ theses and convincingly rejected
Qumran origin but accepted the scriptural status of this version of the Psalter, at least
for Qumran, but possibly also for other Early Jewish groups that followed the
364-day solar calendar, which underlies 11Q5.51

2. References to David in Non-Biblical Writings at Qumran

Before the discussion of David in non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, a few preliminary
remarks are necessary. We have to distinguish ‘Qumran texts’ from ‘sectarian texts’:
with the former, I refer to texts found in the Qumran caves, regardless of their
character. The latter term is used for texts that were probably composed by the
community that settled at Qumran, even if they might have been composed by that
community before its arrival at Qumran.52 This discussion does not presuppose the
identification of this community with a known early Jewish group; I will refer to this

46
For the principal edition, see Sanders, Psalms Scroll .
47
L.H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 178-180. This
view was originally suggested by S. Talmon, 'Pisqah Be¸emsa Pasuq and 11QPsa,' 5 (1966), 11-21,
esp. 12-13 and M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, 'The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa): A Problem of Canon and Text,'
5 (1966), 22-33.
48
E. Ulrich, 'The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 17-33, 30.
49
E. Ulrich, 'The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew Scriptural Texts,' in The Bible and the Dead Sea
Scrolls, ed. J.H. Charlesworth (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2006), 77-99, 88.
50
Flint, 'Psalms and Psalters,' 243.
51
Ibid., esp. 249-250. The issue of a possible Qumran origin will be discussed below, 2.2.1.
52
Newsom’s remark that ‘sectarian’ can refer to authorship, readership and content/ideology is
important: C. Newsom, '"Sectually Explicit" Literature from Qumran,' in The Hebrew Bible and Its
Interpreters, eds. W.H. Propp et al. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 167-187, 173-179. However,
it also makes it nearly impossible to make distinctions. Therefore, like most scholars, I use the epithet
‘sectarian’ as explained above. For texts that include sectarian ideology but do not seem to have been
authored by the Qumran Community, cf. Dimant’s third category introduced below.

12
group by ‘Community’.53 The term ‘Qumranic’ is used as an adjective for the place,
not for the Community or its texts and ideas. Furthermore, only sectarian texts are
decisive for the community’s specific picture of David; those documents mentioning
David that are not clearly sectarian, or of which it is impossible to decide for or
against sectarian origin or redaction due to their fragmentary state, are included
because they could have influenced the sectarian picture of David. The criteria for
identifying sectarian texts have changed significantly over the last two decades:
while Chazon (1992) starts from the hypothesis that documents are sectarian unless
one can prove that they are not, 54 most other scholars work from the contrary
assumption that the sectarian character of a document must be proven. Lange (2003)
makes a distinction between ‘excluding’ and ‘including’ criteria;55 Hempel (2003)
lists ten criteria that have been proposed but suggests that only one of them, namely
distinct sectarian terminology, can be decisive for sectarian authorship or redaction.
She also emphasizes that the literary development of certain documents has to be
taken into account; that is, a document composed by a pre-Qumran group or entirely
outside the Community could have been modified by the Qumran Community. 56
Recently, Dimant has introduced ‘a third, intermediate category, between the
sectarian literature proper and writings devoid of any connection to the

53
The initial identification of the group with the Essenes by Brownlee is founded on accounts by
Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder, cf. W.H. Brownlee, 'A Comparison of the Covenanters of the
Dead Sea Scrolls with Pre-Christian Jewish Sects,' BA 13 (1950), 49-72, 56-66; R. De Vaux, 'Fouille
au Khirbet Qumrân,' RB 60 (1953), 83-106, 105. While this identification had been scholarly
consensus for some decades, in the last years doubts were raised and meanwhile most scholars are
more cautious. A. Baumgarten, '"Who Cares and Why Does It Matter?" Qumran and the Essenes,
Once Again!,' DSD 11 (2004), 174-190, 190 suggests to ‘jettison’ the ‘Qumran-Essene identification’
in favour of a common parent group or similar relationship. Broshi contradicts him and carefully
proves him wrong in almost all respects, concluding that Qumran was an Essene settlement: M.
Broshi, 'Essenes at Qumran? A Rejoinder to Albert Baumgarten,' DSD 14 (2007), 25-33.
54
E. Chazon, 'Is Divrei ha-me'orot a sectarian prayer?,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of
Research, eds. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 3-17 discusses four criteria
and applies them to 4Q504-4Q506. She also assumes that the origin of the community and its
settlement at Qumran have about the same date; therefore in her view a palaeographic date earlier than
the settlement can prove non-sectarian origin of a given document (8). Her way of looking at the texts
goes back to Dupont-Sommer’s governing assumption that a text can generally be classified as Essene
if it is non-biblical and was found in a Qumran Cave, A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from
Qumran (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973).
55
A. Lange, 'Kriterien essenischer Texte,' in Qumran kontrovers, eds. J. Frey and H. Stegemann
(Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003), 59-69. The more including criteria a given document fulfils, the more
probable is a sectarian (‘essene’) origin (69). If one or more excluding criteria applies, however, the
text cannot be sectarian (65).
56
C. Hempel, 'Kriterien zur Bestimmung "essenischer Verfasserschaft" von Qumrantexten,' in
Qumran kontrovers, eds. J. Frey and H. Stegemann (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003), 71-85.

13
community,’57 in which she includes the Temple Scroll, the Book of Jubilees and
other documents that have several features in common with the sectarian literature
but do not fulfil the criterion of terminology.

2.1 Clearly Sectarian Texts

Of the following, some texts are counted among the principal sectarian texts and are
even used for defining criteria for sectarian terminology and theology.58 Therefore, in
this section any discussion of provenance of a text is left aside, although there is
some debate concerning authorship or genre for some of the texts. Texts in which
David is mentioned only in psalm headings and texts that refer to a Davidic messiah
are not included in the discussion; however, two exegetical texts are dealt with
briefly as examples for David as psalmist:

2.1.1 4Q177 and 11Q13

Two eschatological midrashim that are clearly sectarian relate to David as author of
the psalms: 4Q177 and 11Q13 ‘Melchizedek’. 4Q177 5-6 7 quotes the beginning of
Ps 11 with David in the heading, and on frgs. 12-13 I 2, Ps 6:2-3 is introduced ‘at the
end of days as David said’;59 both psalms have David in their heading in the MT, so
this is neither surprising nor overly significant. However, 11Q13 II 10 introduces the
beginning of Ps 82 as follows: ‘as is written (10) about him in the songs of David,
who said’.60 This psalm is assigned to Asaph in the MT. Therefore, we can assume
that David’s importance grew over time and more and more 150 MT-psalms were
assigned to him. In Qumran, Ps 82 has only survived in this manuscript,61 so we
cannot be sure as to whether it might be one of the additional psalms with a Davidic
heading; however, this seems unlikely, as it has a different heading in the MT.
Moreover, Ps 123, which has the heading ‘[A Song of] David. Of Ascents’ in 11Q5,
has no heading at all in the MT.

57
D. Dimant, 'Between Sectarian and Non-Sectarian: The Case of the Apocryphon of Joshua,' in
Reworking the Bible, ed. E. Chazon (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005), 105-134, 106.
58
Ibid.
59
D.W. Parry and E. Tov, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 2: Exegetical Texts (Leiden,
Boston: Brill, 2004), 13.
60
Ibid., 25.
61
Flint, 'Psalms and Psalters,' 267. It features, however, on one manuscript from Masada, MasPsa.
According to Flint, there are no variants in 82:1, P.W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll and the
Book of Psalms (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 83.

14
2.1.2 CD

The Damascus Document (CD) mentions David twice in the first part, usually termed
‘Admonitions’ (col. 1-8.19-20). He does not feature in the second, legal part (9-16).
Col. VII 16 refers to the ‘tent of David’ in a quotation from Amos 9:11; the context
is messianic, as is also underlined by a quotation from Num 24:17 later in that
column. The beginning of col. V is more illuminating for how the ‘biblical’ David
was received. After a quotation from Deut 17:17, 62 prohibiting polygamy for the
leader, the author deals with the problem that David had had several wives:

(2) And David did not read the sealed book of the Torah which (3) was in the Ark (of
the Covenant), for it was not opened in Israel since the day of the death of Eleazar (4)
and Joshua and the elders. For (their successors) worshiped the Ashtoreth, and that
which had been revealed was hidden (5) until Zadok arose, so David’s works were
accepted, with the exception of Uriah’s blood, (6) and God forgave him for that.63

This passage, which serves to exculpate David for his polygamy and for not reading
the law, contains several problems, including: What is meant by the ‘sealed book of
the Torah’ and why was it not opened? Who is this Zadok? What does the remark on
Uriah say? Three major suggestions have been made concerning these questions:
a) Ginzberg64 identifies the ‘sealed book’ with the book of the Law that the priest
Hilkiah found in the days of Josiah according to 2 Kgs 22:8. Modern scholarship has
identified this book with the Deuteronomy. According to 1 Chron 9:11, Hilkiah is the
grandson of a priest called Zadok; therefore, Ginzberg emends the CD text so that it
reads ‘(son of) Zadok’. Wacholder refutes this by rejecting the textual emendation
and by stating that for the author of CD, no one but Moses could have authored the
book of the Law.65 VanderKam further objects that the author of CD would have
used the name Hilkiah instead of the ‘curious circumlocution’ ‘son of Zadok’.66

62
Wacholder argues that CD does not quote Deuteronomy directly, but the Temple Scroll, which in
turn modified a quote from Deut 17:17, cf. B.Z. Wacholder, The New Damascus Document. The
Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and
Commentary (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2007), 191.
63
J.M. Baumgarten and D.R. Schwartz, 'Damascus Document (CD),' in The Dead Sea Scrolls.
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and
Related Documents, ed. J.H. Charlesworth (Tübingen, Louisville: Mohr Siebeck, Westminster John
Knox, 1995), 4-57, 21. Schwartz was responsible for the Admonition, col. 1-8.19-20.
64
L. Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,
1970).
65
Wacholder, New Damascus Document, 196.
66
J.C. VanderKam, 'Zadok and the SPR HTWRH HHTWM in Dam. Doc. V, 2-5,' RevQ 11 (1984),
561-570, 563.

15
 b) Wacholder suggests to identify Zadok as some Second Temple period figure, in
his opinion the author of the Temple Scroll and Jubilees.67 He argues that this figure,
whose name is nowhere explicitly recorded, is the founder of the Qumran
Community and, in their view, ‘the most righteous legislator since Moses.’ 68
Wacholder assumes that, for the author of CD, Moses had written two Torahs: the
Pentateuch for his own day and an eschatological Torah, which Wacholder identifies
with the Temple Scroll. Of this latter work, Moses made two copies, a hidden and a
public one. But because he knew that parts of Israel would become unfaithful and
therefore unworthy of the eschatological Torah, Moses commanded Eleazar to hide
both copies until the rise of Zadok. This interpretation of Wacholder’s is possible
because it is only the Temple Scroll and not Deuteronomy that makes it perfectly
clear that a king cannot have more than one wife, so that only when the Temple
Scroll became available under Zadok was this commandment in effect in this strict
way. Wacholder argues that for the author of CD, this coincided with the beginning
of the Eschaton.
Against this, VanderKam holds that column V of the Damascus Document cannot
possibly point to the eschaton because it focuses on the historical David.69 But this
does not necessarily constitute a problem because in Qumran David frequently
receives an eschatological interpretation. However, Wacholder’s assumption that the
founder of the Community and the author of the Temple Scroll are the same person is
conjectural, and his claim that this person is called Zadok is based on the 10th-
century Karaite writer Jacob al-Qirqisani, who ‘identifies the founder of the sect as
Zadok.’ 70 While this is not impossible, it is rather improbable: Grossman more
cautiously writes that al-Qirqisani reports ‘an anti-Rabbanite movement of
Sadducees, under the leadership of “Zadok and Boethus.”’ 71 We know neither
whether there was such a figure as Zadok, leading a sect, nor anything about the
identity of that sect.

67
Wacholder, New Damascus Document, 196.
68
B.Z. Wacholder, 'The "Sealed" Torah versus the "Revealed" Torah: An Exegesis of Damascus
Covenant V, 1-6 and Jeremiah 32, 10-14,' RevQ 12 (1986), 351-368, 365.
69
VanderKam, 'Zadok,' 565 n. 520.
70
Wacholder, New Damascus Document, 197.
71
M.L. Grossman, Reading for History in the Damascus Document (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2002),
221.

16
 c) VanderKam identifies Zadok with the priest who appears in the list of David’s
officials in 2 Sam 8:17.72 He argues that from the point of view of the author of CD,
the sealed book, which VanderKam also identifies with Deuteronomy, has not been
opened during the period of the Judges because in the book of Judges, nothing of that
sort is narrated. Therefore, the book is forgotten. It only appears again when David
transfers the ark, which contains the book, to Jerusalem in 2 Sam 6. VanderKam
points out that David takes all his wives prior to this date, at least according to the
narrative sequence in Samuel – except for Bathsheba, whom he marries in 2 Sam 11.
So David is not guilty for taking any of his wives, except for Bathsheba; this is
picked up in lines 5-6. Although most points of Wacholder’s critique of
VanderKam’s thesis are unconvincing,73 he correctly states that VanderKam places
Zadok’s rise too early. David does not stop marrying when the book is available; as
VanderKam himself writes, the Chronicler reports that David takes another wife
while the ark is on its way (1 Chron 14:3). I think it is unlikely that, for the author of
CD, the law prohibiting polygamy becomes available at any point in David’s time,
because David is pictured as exceptionally pious at several places in the Bible and in
the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g. 4QMMT C25, see below 2.1.3). Surely he would
have taken some action: VanderKam’s objection that David could not simply divorce
his wives is not convincing; David is not known for his mercy and care for women.
VanderKam’s explanation for David taking Bathsheba after the presumed ‘rise’ of
Zadok is equally weak: CD V 5-6 picks up ‘Uriah’s blood,’ which does not
necessarily refer to Bathsheba but could just as well mean David being responsible
for Uriah’s death. 74 Concerning him, David not only violates the law against
polygamy, but also several other laws, so in the context of David being expiated it is
worth dealing with this major misbehaviour and finding a solution regardless of Deut
17:17.
Although Grossman does not discuss this problem, she implicitly solves it. She also
seems to identify Zadok with David’s priest, but places his ‘rise’ after David’s death.
According to her, the ‘sealed book’ is only opened after the Zadokite line of priests

72
VanderKam, 'Zadok'.
73
Wacholder, New Damascus Document, 192. He completely misses VanderKam’s point by focusing
his criticism on the absence of the ark while it was in the hands of the Philistines according to 1 Sam
4-6. However, this episode was completed before David entered the scene and VanderKam’s
explanation includes it but does not depend on it.
74
Note the similar phrase in 1 Kgs 15:5 ‘David did what was right in the sight of the LORD, (…)
except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.’

17
takes over from the Aaronite line. She traces the history of the priesthood according
to CD and notes that different priestly lines were important at different times: first
the Levites are the priestly leaders, this is then narrowed to the Aaronites. In David’s
succession narrative, Abiathar of the house of Eli, an Aaronite priest, supports
Adoniah as David’s successor, whereas Zadok supports Solomon. After David’s
death, Solomon banishes Abiathar (1 Kgs 2:26-27) and sets Zadok in his place
(2:35). In Grossman’s analysis, this marks the transition of the priesthood from the
Aaronite to the Zadokite line. This change, or ‘rise’ from the Zadokite point of view,
is where Zadok takes office.75
If her suggestion for Zadok’s rise is combined with VanderKam’s analysis of the
text and the history of the ‘sealed book’, the following solution becomes apparent:
only when a worthy priest is in charge, and not one of the condemned house of Eli
(cf. 1 Sam 2:27-36), the ‘sealed book’ can be opened again, even if theoretically it
has been available inside the ark in Jerusalem. The law becomes available only after
David’s death and David cannot be guilty of transgressing it. Kugler also notes that
in the Bible itself, David’s polygamy is nowhere a problem, while Solomon’s many
wives are judged negatively.76 So we can assume that for the author of CD, the law
prohibiting polygamy becomes available early in Solomon’s reign and does not
remain hidden until the second century BCE.
The remark on Uriah in lines 5-6 has received different interpretations, usually
taking one of two principal lines: a) David is forgiven for his deeds against Uriah, or,
b) David is made responsible for Uriah’s blood. The interpretation partly depends on
whether the last part, ‫ויעזבם לו אל‬, is seen as referring to all of David’s deeds or just to
the blood of Uriah. If the plain text with its plural suffix is read, ‫ עזב‬refers to the
deeds and then the text says ‘And the deeds of David rose up – except for the blood
of Uriah – and God left them to him.’ Thus the murder77 of Uriah does not rise up –
which again can mean either that all his deeds are accepted but the murder is not,
therefore David is guilty; or that all his deeds are taken into account, except for the
murder, which is overlooked and therefore David is not made responsible for it. If
the last part refers only to its (singular) direct antecedent, the murder, the

75
Grossman, Reading for History, 171-172.
76
R. Kugler, Art.: 'Zadok,' in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000), 1005. 1 Kgs 11:3 states that ‘his wives turned away his heart’, and this is true not only for the
foreign women who led Solomon to worship foreign gods but apparently for all his wives.
77
‫ דם‬is interpreted as murder by most commentators. However, VanderKam, 'Zadok,' 569 seems to
interpret it as referring to Bathsheba.

18
interpretation is just as ambiguous: it could read ‘and God forgave him (so it does not
diminish his otherwise excellent record)’ or ‘and God left this to him (so he was
guilty for it).’ De Roo gives a comprehensive overview of the different possibilities
and their respective supporters. She concludes that in conjunction with 4Q174 and
4QMMT this passage should be translated ‘And the works of David were offered,
except the blood (murder) of Uriah, and God left them to him.’78 In 4Q174 III 6-7, a
‘temple of human beings’ is introduced in which good works are offered as sacrifices
to God, and David’s works should be understood in that sense; they are offered –
except for the murder – and therefore God does not wipe them out and remembers
David. 79 Coulot examines the structure of the Admonition and concludes that the
reference to David is parallel to the reference to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in CD III
2-4 who ‘walked’ in the ways of God. Therefore David is not referred to because of
his polygamy but because of his righteous deeds, and he is forgiven even for what he
did to Uriah.80 It is tempting to follow Coulot and see here mainly a reference to
David’s virtues – however, if this was the case, the author probably could have found
another place for this reference so as not to place David amidst the section on
polygamy, making it necessary to first exculpate him and then insert a historical
explanation before David’s deeds can be judged honourable.
If the lines on David are read as one unit, it appears that David is judged positively,
even if his actions against Uriah are singled out as error. Moreover, as line 5
explicitly mentions this episode as the only time that David misbehaved, we can
assume that his polygamy falls under the category of all his works that ‘rose up’.

2.1.3 4QMMT

In 4QMMT, a halakhic treatise written from the perspective of a ‘we’-group and

addressed to a ‘you’-group, David is mentioned up to three times. All three possible
occurrences can be found in the third part, the exhortation. First, in C 10 (4Q397
14-21 10) David might feature in the phrase ‘so that you may study (carefully) the
book of Moses and the books of the Prophets and (the writings of) Dav[id.’81 Most

78
J.C.R. De Roo, 'David's Deeds in the Dead Sea Scrolls,' DSD 6 (1999), 44-65, 49.
79
Ibid., 50-60. But cf. P. Heger, 'Did Prayer replace sacrifice at Qumran?,' RevQ 22 (2005), 213-233,
229 who argues that at Qumran, sacrifices are not replaced by anything, not by prayer and not by good
deeds.
80
Coulot, 'David,' 335.
81
D.W. Parry and E. Tov, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 1: Texts Concerned with Religious
Law (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004), 333. Square bracket mine.

19
commentators interpret this as one of the principal proofs for the existence of a
tripartite canon in the Second Temple period. They assume that ‘David’ is short for
‘(the writings of) David’, which they identify with the Psalms, and some even in-
clude other parts of the Writings into this non-Mosaic and non-prophetic part of
scripture as apparently assumed by the author of MMT. If correct, this would be of
special significance because it would show that two different Early Jewish groups,
the ‘we’- and the ‘you’-group, accepted the same or a similar scriptural basis. This
interpretation is, however, debated. In fact, the word ‘David’ is not fully legible.
Ulrich shows in a careful study that the principal editors’ reconstruction82 is by no
means as cautious as it should be, including the presentation on the plates and the
commentary. Their presentation reflects the maximum of possible interpretation;
Ulrich proves that the overall reconstruction is unlikely for textual and syntactical
reasons and that therefore this passage does not point to a tripartite canon.83
Second, David is mentioned in C 18 (4Q398 11-13 1). The fragmented text inter-
prets the blessings and curses of Deut 30:1-2 and probably once said that the
blessings were fulfilled ‘in the days of Solomon the son of David.’ 84 Therefore,
David is here remembered as the father of the king in whose days Israel was blessed,
which blends into his role as model king and founder of the model dynasty.
Third, David is called ‘‫ ’איש חסדים‬in C 25-26 (4Q398 14-17 II 1): ‘Think of David
who was a man of righteous deeds and (26) who was (therefore) delivered from
many troubles and was forgiven.’85 Coulot places this into the context of MMT as a
letter of one group to another group: the author intends to encourage the addressee(s)
to act like David and the other kings that feared the law. In 1 Sam 26:24, David asks
to be delivered from trouble, and in Sir 47:11, he is forgiven. If the addressee acts
like David, this will also happen to him.86 Evans explains that although ‫ חסדים‬are
usually ascribed to God, the Chronicler also reports them of two kings, Hezekiah
(2 Chron 32:32) and Josiah (2 Chron 35:26). David’s ‘kind deeds’ in the Bible are,

82
E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, V: Miqsat Ma'ase ha-Torah (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1994), 58-59.
83
E. Ulrich, 'The Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT,' CBQ 65 (2003), 202-214. He also
examines the two other Second Temple texts that are interpreted as evidence for a tripartite canon, 2
Macc 2:13-14 and the Prologue of Ben Sira, and concludes that they are no better witnesses for the
canon than MMT.
84
Parry and Tov, eds., Religious Law, 335. While the beginning of the line is lost, the reference to
Solomon is followed by ‘And the curses’ and a reference to Jeroboam.
85
Ibid.
86
Coulot, 'David,' 338. In line with his interpretation of CD V, Coulot also mentions this passage as
an example for David being forgiven.

20
according to Evans, mainly his actions towards Jonathan’s son (2 Sam 9). Further-
more, Evans connects the ‘deliverance’ to 1 Sam 17:37 and David’s confidence that
God will deliver him from Goliath.87 In sum, David is remembered in a positive,
even model, way, although the references remain rather general and do not obviously
relate to specific events in his life.

2.1.4 1QM

The War Scroll 1QM describes the eschatological war between the Sons of Light and
the Sons of Darkness. Col. X-XIV comprise prayers for that war, and the prayer at
col. XI 1-12 mentions David’s victory over Goliath: ‘(1) Indeed, Goliath the Gittite,
a mighty man of valour, (2) You delivered into the hand of David, your servant,
because he trusted in Your great name and not in sword and spear. For the battle is
Yours.’88 The last phrase, ‫כיא לכה המלחמה‬, is a refrain that is illustrated by this and
other examples. It does not occur literally in the Hebrew Bible, but David’s reply to
Goliath in 1 Sam 17:45-47 comes very close. As Duhaime shows carefully, nearly all
of the expressions in these lines are borrowed from this chapter or other parts of the
David story, so it must have had a great deal of influence on this prayer. No details of
the encounter are given, one must be familiar with the original story in order to
understand what is meant; this brings into clear focus the theological meaning that
David’s trust in God and his holy name was decisive for the outcome of the battle, as
opposed to any details.89 Other Qumran texts that (possibly) allude to 1 Sam 17 give
further details but do not stress David’s pious attitude as much. In 1QM, this attitude
is aimed at the Sons of Light before they set out to fight: trust in God is seen as the
most important weapon in the eschatological war. This kind of encouragement,
which uses history as a model, is also found in 1-2 Maccabees, with the defeat of
Goliath remembered in 1 Macc 4:30.90

87
Evans, 'David,' 188-189.
88
Parry and Tov, eds., Religious Law, 227.
89
J. Duhaime, The War Texts (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 106-110.
90
J. Duhaime, 'War Scroll,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English
Translations: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents, ed. J.H. Charlesworth
(Tübingen, Louisville: Mohr Siebeck, Westminster John Knox, 1995), 80-203, 89.

21
2.1.5 4Q457b

The ‘Eschatological Hymn’ on 4Q457b, consisting of the beginnings of some lines in

two columns, features David in II 2: ‘David rejoiced to bring back.’ Chazon believes
that this refers to ‘a historical event in David’s lifetime’91 and proposes several possi-
ble identifications, the most appealing of which is David bringing the ark to Jerusa-
lem. Although ‫ להשיב‬does not occur at either of the places where this is narrated
(2 Sam 6:12; 1 Chron 15:25; 13:18), it could have one of the following meanings: if
the root is ‫ישב‬, it could mean ‘make it dwell’, whereas if the root is ‫שוב‬, one would
have to think of ‘spiritual rather than physical restoration since David did not return
the ark to Jerusalem, but rather brought it there for the first time.’92 This text is too
small for a discussion of its sectarian or non-sectarian origin; it is included here
because it has the ‘hymnic and eschatological context’ and the ‘historical reference
to David’ in common with 1QM and Chazon proposes that 4Q457b should be read in
light of 1QM.93

2.2 Texts Subject to Debate

The following texts have been classified by some scholars as sectarian but by others
as non-sectarian, as not clearly sectarian, or as compatible with sectarian ideas but
lacking specific terminology. A discussion of their affiliation is therefore provided
for each document.

2.2.1 11Q5

As described above (1.4.3), the best-preserved Psalms scroll from Qumran, 11Q5,
differs significantly from the MT Psalter in both order and content; therefore I deal
with it under the heading ‘non-biblical writings’. This does not imply a decision on
the matter of status and origin. The differences have caused major discussions on its
nature and its possible specific sectarian character. If one accepts the view of Flint
and Ulrich that 11Q5 is a representative of a distinct but equally scriptural version of
the ‘biblical’ Psalter, the question remains as to who produced it – regardless of the
question whether it was compiled and rearranged from a proto-Masoretic version or
91
E. Chazon, 'J. Prayers,' in Qumran Cave 4, XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2, ed. E.
Chazon, DJD XXIX (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 391-419, 417.
92
Ibid., 418.
93
Ibid.

22
whether the development was parallel. Wacholder supports a (proto-)sectarian origin
of the scroll and also proposes that the compiler assigned the compositions not to the
historical but to an eschatological David. 94 Sanders is more careful when he
describes several of the non-MT compositions in 11Q5 as ‘not necessarily composed
at Qumran’, but ‘clearly compatible with their beliefs’.95 The most intriguing piece is
‘David’s Compositions,’ col. XXVII, lines 2-11:

2 And David, the son of Jesse, was wise, and a light like the light of the sun, and literate,
3 and discerning and perfect in all his ways before God and men. And the Yahweh gave
4 him a discerning and enlightened spirit. And he wrote
5 3,600 psalms, and songs to sing before the altar over the whole-burnt
6 perpetual offering day (after) day, for all the days of the year, 364;
7 and for the offering of the Sabbaths, 52 songs; and for the offering of the New
8 Moons and for all the days of the festivals and for the Day of Atonement, 30 songs.
9 And all the songs that he composed were 446, and songs
10 for making music over the stricken, 4. And the total was 4,050.
11 All these he composed through prophecy which was given him from before the
Most High.96

While Vermes is convinced of the sectarian origin of this text,97 Flint thinks that it
‘was probably not written by the Qumran community.’98 He agrees with Sanders that
the ideas of ‘David’s Compositions’ are compatible with the Qumran sectarian
teachings but that the 11Q5 Psalter was probably also used in wider Jewish circles.99
‘David’s Compositions’ has at least four implications for the views of the commu-
nity/ies that used the 11Q5 Psalter:
First, it shows that David was idealized. Wacholder uses the uncritical and positive
presentation of David in the first lines as a means for dating it before the composition
of CD, where in col. V David is criticized.100 Nickelsburg rather sees a description of
David’s wisdom, which is enhanced by ‘several non-canonical sapiential psalms’ in
11Q5. 101 Both read ‘David’s Compositions’ as an interpretation (Wacholder:

94
B.Z. Wacholder, 'David's Eschatological Psalter 11Q Psalmsa,' HUCA 59 (1988), 23-72. J.C.
VanderKam, 'Studies on "David's Compositions" (11QPsa 27:2-11),' EI Frank Moore Cross Volume,
26 (1999), 212*-220*, 218* contradicts this view.
95
J.A. Sanders, 'Non-Masoretic Psalms,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts
with English Translations: Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers, ed. J.H.
Charlesworth (Tübingen, Louisville: Mohr Siebeck, Westminster John Knox, 1997), 155-215, 156.
96
Ibid., 215.
97
G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, revised ed. (London: Penguin Books, 2004),
308.
98
Flint, 'David,' 164.
99
Flint, 'Psalms and Psalters,' 251; Sanders, 'Non-Masoretic Psalms,' 213.
100
Wacholder, 'Eschatological Psalter,' 63-64. See above, 2.1.2.
101
G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 'The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,' in Jewish Writings of the Second
Temple Period, ed. M. Stone (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 89-156, 139.

23
‘pesher’, 32) of 2 Sam 23, the last line of which is copied on the scroll directly
before ‘David’s Compositions’. VanderKam also notes the similarities between the
two pieces but disagrees with the conclusion because this cannot be proven and 2
Sam 23:1, the verse with the closest similarity, has not survived in the scroll.102
Second, it describes David’s poetical activity: he composed 4,050 psalms or
poems, many more than have survived in his name. 103 Sanders interprets this
emphasis as not being directed to the readers of the scroll within its community but
rather ‘to those who might doubt the Davidic authorship of the Psalter’104 and sug-
gests that this sheds light on what Jews in that period generally believed of David
and his poetical activity. The number 4,050 should be read in light of 1 Kgs 5:12
which states that Solomon composed 4,005 poetical pieces.105 Probably the author
wanted to make sure that no one, not even Solomon, has a more impressive poetical
record than David.
Third, this text proved that the Qumran sectarian year had 364 days as it was the
first text published that explicitly mentioned the number 364 in line 6.106 Some of the
other individual numbers of different kinds of poetical works also attest to a calendar
different from the 354-day lunar calendar that was practised at the Second Temple in
Jerusalem; 52, for example, is the exact number of weeks in this calendar and 3,600
is a multiple of 360, the number of days a year had according to 1 Enoch 74-75.107
Noam suggests that this was done out of ‘a desire to attribute this calendar to King
David himself.’108
Fourth, this text carries the most obvious reference to David as a prophet; in the
Hebrew Bible, this notion can be found only in 2 Sam 23:2. It is noteworthy that this
is the only occurrence of the term ‫ נבואה‬in the Scrolls. The author seems to have used

102
VanderKam, 'David's Compositions,' n. 6.
103
Some scholars took up the quest and tried to track down further psalms of David that might be
scattered among ancient literature and are not recognized as what they are, cf. J. Strugnell, 'More
psalms of "David",' CBQ 27 (1965), 207-216.
104
Sanders, 'Non-Masoretic Psalms,' 213.
105
Nickelsburg, 'Bible Rewritten,' 139. But cf. VanderKam, 'David's Compositions,' 214* who
proposes that all the numbers have their own calendrical significance and the comparison with
Solomon is probably just an additional advantage.
106
VanderKam, 'David's Compositions,' 213*. Another text providing this number explicitly is 4Q252
Commentary on Genesis A 2:1-3, and this number is in accordance with the calendrical documents, cf.
ibid,' 217*.
107
VanderKam, 'David's Compositions,' 215*.
108
V. Noam, 'The Origin of the List of David's Songs in "David's Compositions",' DSD 13 (2006),
134-149, 136. She assumes that the compiler of ‘David’s Compositions’ had an existing list of biblical
festivals at which psalms were sung over the sacrifice as his source and offers this as an explanation
for the number 30 in line 8. Therefore, in her opinion, ‘30’ does not attest to the solar calendar.

24
it instead of directly calling David a prophet, which might have seemed inappro-
priate; nonetheless, the author’s choice of the term demonstrates his belief in the
divine inspiration behind the whole collection in its form, in its accordance with the
solar calendar, and in the fact that David composed much more than the ‘canonical’
psalms.109 In her article on the literary ways in which ‘parabiblical’ works gain scrip-
tural authority, Dimant shows that a special prophetic authority is assigned to the
Davidic Psalter: other similar compositions like the Hodayot and the texts in 4Q380
and 4Q381 are not attributed to David and therefore, if ‘David’s Compositions’ is
taken into account, they are not seen as prophetically inspired.110
Psalm 151 is significant because of its prominent place at the very end of 11Q5. It
retells parts of 1 Sam 16-17, and in the Qumran scroll it is divided into two parts,
Psalms 151A and 151B, by a blank line. In 151A, a first-person David describes how
he as shepherd and youngest brother sings to the praise of God and how Samuel
anointed him despite his brothers’ more impressive look. 151B continues with the
appearance of Goliath; the rest of the column is lost. In 1964, Dupont-Sommer
suggested that Ps 151 is of Essene origin, a view that has been heavily criticised.111
While Sanders explains that the (non-Essene) original form is preserved in 11Q5 and
that the Greek Psalm 151 is a conflation of two poems,112 a view that is supported by
Talmon,113 Haran tries to show that the longer, Hebrew, version includes artificial
expansions of a text that is otherwise quite close to the Vorlage of the Greek version.
He attributes this ‘straightforward rewriting’ to ‘the scribes of Qumran themselves’
and claims that Sanders’ assumption of two separate poems is not justified. 114
Considering Flint’s assessment that even if the actual scroll 11Q5 was copied at

109
Cf. Flint, 'David,' 163.
110
D. Dimant, 'Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha at Qumran,' DSD 1 (1994), 151-159, 156-157.
111
A. Dupont-Sommer, 'Le Psaume CLI dans 11 Q Psa et le problème de son origine Essénienne,'
Semitica 14 (1964), 25-62. For more literature on this suggestion and its rejection, cf. J.H.
Charlesworth and J.A. Sanders, 'More Psalms of David,' in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed.
J.H. Charlesworth (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 2.609-624, 610.
112
J.A. Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967), 94.
113
Talmon, '11QPsa,' 20.
114
M. Haran, 'The Two Text-Forms of Psalm 151,' JJS 39 (1988), 171-182, 178. In another
publication, Haran questions Sanders’ similar assessment of the poem that is common to 11Q5 and
Ben Sira 51:13-20, saying that it is so closely connected to the wisdom figure ‘Ben Sira’ that Sanders’
claim that the 11Q5 version is very close to the original must be discarded, M. Haran, '11QPsa ‫המגילה‬
‫ובעית חיבורו של ספר התהילים‬,' in "Sha'arei Talmon". Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near
East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, eds. M. Fishbane and E. Tov (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
1992), 123*-128*, 128*. The context is Haran’s attempt to disprove the generally accepted
assumption that the compiler of the 11Q5 Psalter attributed all its components to David.

25
Qumran, its Vorlage was probably brought there from outside, 115 ‘Essene’ or
Qumran sectarian origin for the compilation or any part of its pieces becomes very
unlikely.
With this assessment of 11Q5, I would add the scroll including ‘David’s Composi-
tions’ to the third, intermediate category Dimant introduced for the classification of
the Qumran writings. This type of Psalter does not originate from Qumran, but can
nevertheless be termed authoritative for the Community. 116 David is clearly of
special importance in it, with the autobiographical psalms 151A and 151B at the end
and the enumeration of his works, framed by praise of his virtues, in col. XXVII.
Thus, the following characteristics of David are highlighted: his poetical and musical
skill, his wisdom, his prophetic gift, his youth as a shepherd and his victory over
Goliath.

2.2.2 11Q11

11Q11 is labelled ‘Apocryphal Psalms’, and Flint lists it in his overview as a Psalms
Scroll.117 Parry and Tov, however, classify it as ‘Exorcism’ and present it in their
section on ‘Magic and Divination.’118 David appears in col. V 4 in a heading for one
of the exorcisms: ‘Of David. A[gainst An incanta]tion in the name of
119
YHW[H.’ Fernández-Marcos shows how the attribution of exorcisms to David
connects with 1 Sam 16:14-23: ‘David was the first to charm evil spirits by playing
the kithara.’ 120 It is uncertain how many separate pieces this scroll contained
because, due to the poor preservation of the scroll, it is not always clear where one
ends and another begins.121 Puech argues that the scroll originally contained four
psalms, all of which are partly preserved and were once attributed to David, even if

115
Flint, Psalms Scroll, 199-201.
116
For example, the connection between the solar calendar and this scroll shows that its ideas are
compatible with the thought of the Community.
117
Flint, 'Psalms and Psalters,' 254.
118
D.W. Parry and E. Tov, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 6: Additional Genres and
Unclassified Texts (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004), 214-221.
119
Ibid., 219. Sanders reconstructs ‘To David. Conce[rning the words of inc]antation…’, J.A.
Sanders, 'A Liturgy for Healing the Stricken,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
Texts with English Translations: Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers, ed. J.H.
Charlesworth (Tübingen, Louisville: Mohr Siebeck, Westminster John Knox, 1997), 216-233, 227.
120
N. Fernández Marcos, 'David the Adolescent: On Psalm 151,' in The Old Greek Psalter. Studies in
Honour of Albert Pietersma, eds. R.J.V. Hiebert et al. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001),
205-217, 213.
121
M. Henze, 'Psalm 91 in Premodern Interpretation and at Qumran,' in Biblical Interpretation at
Qumran, ed. M. Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 168-193, 189.

26
‫ לדויד‬has survived only in the heading of the third psalm;122 several more scholars
identify the exorcisms on this manuscript with the four songs ‘over the stricken’
mentioned in ‘David’s Compositions’ line 10. 123 This composition, too, can be
placed in Dimant’s intermediate category: Puech describes it as ‘pré-essénien par son
attribution “davidique” et l’emploi du tétragramme pour les uns, essénisant par sa
théologie pour d’autres.’124 It shows that the heading ‫ לדויד‬was not only used for
psalms that found their way into the Masoretic Psalter but also for other poetical
pieces.

2.2.3 4Q522

4Q522 has been termed ‘Psalm of Joshua,’ ‘Prophecy of Joshua’ or ‘Apocryphon of

Joshuac,’ and Flint lists it as Psalms manuscript.125 According to Dimant, it is a copy
of the ‘Apocryphon of Joshua’ preserved on 4Q378-379. 4Q522 dates from around
50 BCE. Col. II of frg. 9 ‘presents a discourse of Joshua concerning the Tent of
Meeting and the future Solomonic Temple.’126 Puech’s view that this document is
centred on David and his son, rather than on Joshua, and that it is not connected to
the Apocryphon of Joshua on 4Q378-379, is rejected by Dimant and others. Never-
theless, the connection with David is clear: line 3 reads ‘for, look, a son is born to
Jesse son of Perez son of Ju[dah,’127 and the following lines relate to the capture of
Jerusalem and preparations for the construction of the Temple. ‘His younger son’ is
mentioned in line 6, probably as builder of the Temple. But because only the begin-
nings of the lines are preserved, we do not know who ‘shall serve as priest there’
(beginning line 7). Puech reconstructs ‘David,’ thus suggesting that David was the

122
É. Puech, 'Les Psaumes Davidiques du Rituel d'Exorcisme (11Q11),' in Sapiential, Liturgical and
Poetical Texts from Qumran, eds. D.K. Falk et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 160-181. The attribution to
David, ‘the biblical exorcist par excellence,’ is also endorsed by Henze, 'Psalm 91,' 191.
123
J.v.d. Ploeg, 'Le Psaume XCI dans une recension de Qumran,' RB 72 (1965), 210-217; É. Puech,
'Les Deux Derniers Psaumes Davidiques du Rituel d'Exorcisme, 11QPsApa IV 4-V 14,' in The Dead
Sea Scrolls. Forty Years of Research, eds. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992),
64-89; Flint, Psalms Scroll, 199. Talmon offers an alternative interpretation of the term ‫ הפגועים‬in
‘David’s Compositions’: he relates it to the ‘four leaders at the head of the months,’ the term then
‘refers to an intercessory prayer.’ Talmon, '11QPsa,' 13.
124
Puech, 'Derniers Psaumes,' 89.
125
Flint, 'Psalms and Psalters,' 253. However, he does not count it when he provides a number for
Psalms Manuscripts from Qumran.
126
D. Dimant, 'The Apocryphon of Joshua–4Q522 9 ii: A Reappraisal,' in Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew
Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, eds. S.M. Paul et al. (Leiden,
Boston: Brill, 2003), 179-204, 182.
127
D.W. Parry and E. Tov, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 3: Parabiblical Texts (Leiden,
Boston: Brill, 2004), 339.

27
first person to officiate as priest at the Temple. For this interpretation, he refers to
2 Sam 24:18-25, esp. 25a, where David offers on the site he bought from Araunah.128
What is new is that in Puech’s interpretation, this first offering is placed after the
building of the Temple. Jucci presents Puech’s reconstruction without questioning it,
accepting his suggestion that David was king and priest. 129 Most commentators,
however, reject this view and suggest ‘Zadok’ or ‘Zadok the priest’ at the end of line
6. 130 That way, the Apocryphon seems to follow the Chronistic version of David
taking care of extensive preparations for the building of the Temple. This is under-
lined by Ps 122 featuring in frgs. 22-26; in this psalm, a prayer for Jerusalem, David
appears as father of the dynasty. One most interesting implication of the Apocryphon
is Joshua’s obligation to consult the Urim and Thumim, relating to Num 27:21.
Dimant links this with 11QT 58, which applies this obligation to every king. She also
provides Talmudic texts with a similar interpretation and notes that Joshua acts like a
king in 4Q522. 131 This would make him the first Israelite king, and it would be
interesting to investigate the relationship between Joshua ‘as king and prophet,’ ‘a
model for all subsequent Israelite kings’132 on the one hand and David, the king that
is usually interpreted as the first king and the model all subsequent kings should
follow, on the other hand.
Dimant uses the ‘Apocryphon of Joshua’ as an example for developing her
‘intermediate’ category of texts that do not contain specific sectarian terms whilst at
the same time being compatible with the Community’s ideas. Her arguments for
assigning it to this category are convincing.133

2.2.4 4Q504

Three manuscripts of ‘Divrei ha-Meorot’ have survived, 4Q504-506. The oldest and
best preserved, 4Q504, dates from about 150 BCE. 134 The document consists of
seven prayers, which are assigned to the days of the week. Each prayer contains a

128
É. Puech, 'La Pierre de Sion et l'autel des holocaustes d'après un manuscrit hébreu de la grotte 4
(4Q522),' RB 99 (1992), 676-696, esp. 682.
129
Jucci, 'Davide a Qumran,' 170-172.
130
Cf. for example Dimant, who points to Zadok being the first priest at the Temple in 1 Chron 29:22,
Dimant, 'Apocryphon of Joshua,' 190.
131
Dimant, 'Sectarian and Non-Sectarian,' 120-121.
132
Ibid., 121 incl. n. 134 with references in Early Jewish literature for this notion.
133
Ibid., esp. 133-134.
134
Chazon, 'Sectarian prayer,' 8. This date seems generally accepted, although Vermes considers it
‘exaggeratedly early,’ Vermes, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 377.

28
historical review parallel to the seven ‘historical’ weeks of the Apocalypse of Weeks
that appears in 1 Enoch 93:3-9. 135 The prayer for Thursday concludes with the
construction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and in this context, David is remembered,
4Q504 XVII (frgs. 1+2 IV recto): ‘(7) You have established Your covenant with
David, making him (8) a princely shepherd over Your people, that he may sit before
You upon the throne of Israel (9) eternally.’136 This passage recalls clearly God’s
promise to David in 2 Sam 7:8, but also his anointing by the tribes of Israel in 2 Sam
5:1-5. In the preceding lines, Jerusalem, Israel and Judah are remembered as chosen
by God, and in the following lines, David’s reign is described as prosperous and
peaceful. Coulot mentions two sectarian texts, 4Q174 and 4Q252, in which the
Community expects the fulfilment of God’s promise to David in its own time and
links this expectation to the belief that God has established a covenant with David, as
expressed in 4Q504.137 Chazon uses this document as a case in point for her treat-
ment of criteria for sectarian texts. She concludes that it most probably predates the
Qumran community but was used and copied by it over several centuries. 138
Schniedewind’s claim that it is ‘clearly a sectarian composition’139 seems to be based
on orthographic observations, which cannot account for the provenance of any text
but merely of the copy, if at all. David is remembered as shepherd over God’s
people, therefore as king; as king, he is idealized, which is communicated by his dy-
nasty being established and his reign being a blessed period in the history of Israel.

2.2.5 4Q385a

In 4Q385a ‘Apocryphon of Jeremiah,’ a reference is found to Solomon and his

predecessor. Frg. 1 a-b II probably contained a short narrative or some other kind of
treatment of David’s life, which seemed to be glorified. The editor points to Sir 47
and the beginning of ‘David’s Compositions’ in 11Q5 for similar short idealizing

135
H. Eshel, 'Dibre HaMe'orot and the Apocalypse of Weeks,' in Things Revealed. Studies in Early
Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone, eds. E. Chazon et al. (Leiden: Brill,
2004), 149-154. He suggests that the author of DibHam adopted the division of history into seven
periods from the Apocalypse of Weeks (153).
136
Translation from D.W. Parry and E. Tov, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 5: Poetic and
Liturgical Texts (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004), 253.
137
Coulot, 'David,' 331.
138
Chazon, 'Sectarian prayer,' 17 n. 43.
139
W.M. Schniedewind, 'The Davidic Dynasty and Biblical Interpretation in Qumran Literature,' in
The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery, eds. L.H. Schiffman et al. (Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 2000), 82-91, 88.

29
accounts and observes that this follows ‘the tradition of the Chronicler.’140 The con-
text is a historical review, involving events from the time in the desert up until the
author’s own time. While Dimant initially classified this work as non-sectarian,141
she discusses possible affiliations with the Community at length in the principal
edition.142 Wacholder maintains that this work is part of Pseudo-Ezekiel, which he
thinks is not only clearly sectarian, but even ‘one of the fundamental manifestos of
the sect.’143 Brady calls for more caution and concludes that sectarian origin may be
possible but is not certain.144 Therefore, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah would be an-
other candidate for Dimant’s intermediate category, as she suggested herself.145

2.3 Non-Sectarian and Very Fragmented Texts

The following texts are included in this essay for the sake of completeness. The first
one probably alludes to David and the other three mention his name without much
context. They cannot be classified as sectarian, although, due to the small amount of
text preserved, the lack of sectarian features is not significant.

4Q373 ‘Narrative and Poetic Composition’ consists of three small fragments and
overlaps with 4Q372 19 and 2Q22, ‘Apocryphon of David (?)’.146 In the preserved
parts, it appears that a first-person speaking warrior defeats ‘a mighty opponent of
huge proportions.’147 Because of the occurrence of a ‘half cubit’ in the description of
the height of the opponent and of ‘sling,’ characteristic for Goliath and David

140
D. Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts, DJD XXX (Oxford: Clarendon,
2001), 134.
141
D. Dimant, 'An Apocryphon of Jeremiah from Cave 4 (4Q385B = 4Q385 16),' in New Qumran
Texts and Studies, eds. G.J. Brooke and F. Garcia Martinez (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 11-30, 11 and 30.
142
Dimant, Pseudo-Prophetic Texts, 110-112.
143
B.Z. Wacholder, 'Deutero Ezekiel and Jeremiah (4Q384-4Q391): Identifying the Dry Bones of
Ezekiel 37 as the Essenes,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery, eds. L.H.
Schiffman et al. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 445-461, 450.
144
M. Brady, 'Biblical Interpretation in the "Pseudo-Ezekiel" Fragments (4Q383-391) from Cave
Four,' in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. M. Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 88-109.
She provides a summary of the discussion and makes rather minimalist claims as to what we can
know about the document at all; she does not even accept Dimant’s theory of two separate documents,
‘Apocryphon of Jeremiah’ and ‘Pseudo-Ezekiel’. Although I present Dimant’s version of two
documents, Brady’s approach is to be preferred because of her rare use of conjectures.
145
Dimant, 'Sectarian and Non-Sectarian,' 134. Note that Dimant classifies Pseudo-Ezekiel as clearly
non-sectarian, Dimant, Pseudo-prophetic texts, 7.
146
M. Baillet, 'Un apocryphe de David (?),' in Les 'Petites Grottes' de Qumrân, eds. M. Baillet et al.,
DJDJ III (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 81-82, 81.
147
E. Schuller and M. Bernstein, '371-373. 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona-c,' in Wadi Daliyeh
II: The Samaria papyri from Wadi Daliyeh and Qumran Cave 4: Miscellanea, Part 2, eds. J.C.
VanderKam and M. Brady, DJD XXVIII (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 151-204, 199.

30
respectively, both Baillet and Schuller assume that 1 Sam 17 is alluded to; because
the name ‘David’ is mentioned nowhere in either of the manuscripts and because of
the name ‘Og’ in 4Q373 1 2, Talmon has suggested that this is an account of Moses’
battle against Og.148 The latter view could find support in the occurrence of the name
‘Bashan’, the city of Og, in 4Q372 2 9. However, in these manuscripts several differ-
ent events of Israel’s past are alluded to,149 so there is no need to assume that frgs. 2
and 19 of 4Q372 necessarily relate to the same event. The mentioning of Og can be
explained as a means of comparison with Goliath.150 According to Schuller, this text
is clearly non-sectarian because it lacks typical verbal and theological features; it
uses the tetragrammaton in normal script; and it was probably composed in
Maccabean or even pre-Maccabean time.151

The badly preserved ‘Text mentioning descendants of David’ on 4Q479 comprises

three fragments.152 Frg. 1 reads in line 4 ‘the descendants of David’ and in line 5
‘David, went out.’ In combination with frg. 3, one could conjecture a messianic
context: line 2 ‫‘ וכסוכה‬and like a booth’ and line 5 ‫‘ יקום‬he will arise’ recall Amos
9:11 ‫‘ ביום ההוא אקים את סכת דוד הנפלת‬On that day, I will raise the fallen booth of
David.’ This verse has received messianic interpretation in 4Q174 1-2 I 12-13 and in
CD VII, 16. Both readings, lines 2 and 5, seem certain, but from such a small textual
basis nothing can be said for sure.

4Q245 ‘Pseudo-Danielc ar’ consists of four fragments, the first of which preserves
parts of a list of priests; in line 11, David and Solomon feature at the beginning of a
list of kings (‘and David, Solomon’). This list ‘probably began with Saul and ended
with Zedekiah’ according to the editors; 153 they do not give a reason for this

148
S. Talmon, 'Extra-Canonical Hebrew Psalms from Qumran-Psalm 151,' in The World of Qumran
from Within: Collected Studies (Jerusalem, Leiden: Magnes, Brill, 1989), 244-272.
149
Schuller and Bernstein, '4Q371-373,' 153.
150
Baillet, 'Apocryphe de David,' 81. Cf. also Schuller and Bernstein, '4Q371-373,' 202 and E.
Schuller, 'A Preliminary Study of 4Q373 and Some Related (?) Fragments,' in The Madrid Qumran
Congress, eds. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2.515-530, 520.
151
Schuller, 'Preliminary Study,' 525. The oldest preserved manuscript, 4Q371, was written ca. 100-75
BCE, Schuller and Bernstein, '4Q371-373,' 154. Wacholder, 'Eschatological Psalter,' 61 states that
‘one must suppose the passage of a decent interval of time between the composition or editing of a
given work and subsequent copies’ and suggests fifty years as a ‘reasonable rule of thumb’ for a
‘decent interval’ – without giving reasons for this figure.
152
E. Larson and L.H. Schiffman, 'I. Miscellaneous Texts,' in Qumran Cave 4, XVII: Parabiblical
Texts, Part 3, eds. G.J. Brooke et al., DJD XXII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 295-304.
153
J. Collins and P.W. Flint, 'D. Pseudo-Daniel,' in Qumran Cave 4, XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3,
eds. G.J. Brooke et al., DJD XXII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 95-164, 161.

31
conjecture, but it was probably the waw before ‘David’ that let them conclude that
David must have been preceded by another king. As it is written in Aramaic, this text
can safely be classified as non-sectarian.

The papyrus 6Q9 ‘Apocryphon of Samuel-Kings’ consists of some 72 tiny

fragments, most of which contain only a couple of letters. Frg. 22 4 reads ‫דויד‬, the
rest of the line is lost and the single words in the preceding and following lines are so
common that they do not provide any specific context. From scattered place names
on other fragments pointing to the Philistines, one can guess that this is a retelling of
at least parts of David’s life or of events that happened during his lifetime.154

Conclusion
At the end of his own article, Coulot concludes that the Qumran texts are mainly
interested in David’s youth and the beginning of his kingship; everything later than
Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Sam 7 is hardly referred to. He explains this with the
observation that ‘les auteurs ont été plus intéressés par la personne morale et
spirituelle du roi que par sa geste.’155 However, I think that this bias in what is picked
up is more due to the fact that nearly everything that comes after 2 Sam 7 does not let
David appear in a positive light. There is nothing that could be used to glorify David,
apart from 2 Sam 23. Moreover, as we have seen, David is diversely portrayed not
only in the Old Testament, but also in the Qumran writings. Because the textual basis
is rather slim, we cannot be sure that it is representative; but if we assume that it is,
since no other evidence is available, the following distinction becomes apparent:
The sectarian texts mostly pick up the ‘historical’ David in his role as king. While
they provide a generally positive picture, at times idealizing (e.g. 4QMMT C25),
David’s faults are not entirely forgotten; even 4QMMT C26 mentions that David was
‘forgiven’, which implies that there is something he has to be forgiven for. In 1QM,
David’s youth is picked up as well as his military success as king, and 4QMMT C10
possibly alludes to David as psalmist. If we accept that 11Q5, although not compiled
at Qumran, was normative for the Community, we can assume that David was indeed

154
M. Baillet, 'Un apocryphe de Samuel-Rois,' in Les 'Petites Grottes' de Qumrân, eds. M. Baillet et
al., DJDJ III (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 119-123.
155
Coulot, 'David,' 342.

32
the principal psalmist; this is also supported by 4Q177 and 11Q13. Furthermore, a
number of texts expect a descendant of David as the messiah; these, however, are not
the focus of this essay as they relate to a future concept and not to King David, a
figure of the past. In general, the sectarian texts portray David as he appears in
Samuel-Kings and the Psalm headings.
By contrast, in the documents of the intermediate category, no criticism has
survived. The references are more equally divided between David as ‘historical’
figure and as poet. Where David is remembered as king, he is idealized; 11Q5
(especially ‘David’s Compositions’ and Ps 151) provides an exceedingly positive
account of his youth and of his virtues. This uncritical view comes closer to the
Chronicler’s account of David than to what is narrated in Samuel-Kings; it is also
compatible with the picture in the Psalms texts. Since, as Ulrich argues,156 there are
no sectarian variants in biblical manuscripts, the affinities of 4QSama with Chroni-
cles, which, one could think, could point to a ‘chronistically’ positive picture of
David, do not allow this conclusion. However, this feature of 4QSama is at least
compatible with what is found in the non-biblical manuscripts.
It appears that David is portrayed more positively in those writings that do not
belong to the sectarian literature proper. Therefore, we can assume that the texts that
were brought there from outside did not have much influence on the picture the
Qumran Community had of David. Considering the small amount of text from
Chronicles that has survived, we can also assume that despite this book being present
at Qumran, the books of Samuel played a more significant role in forming the
Davidic reception in the Community, even if the Qumran Samuel manuscripts seem
to be closer to Chronicles than the MT; this only applies to textual variants in parallel
passages, and those parts that let David appear in a negative light are still preserved.
The question remains as to what other texts might have influenced this ambivalent
picture of David. This relates to the wider context of Early Jewish literature that was
not found in Qumran: how is David portrayed in these writings? Is this picture
different from the one in Qumran sectarian writings, that is, is it in accordance with
‘intermediate’ documents? This investigation would contribute to our knowledge of
how David, the figure after which the messiah is modelled, was conceptualised and
perceived in a time in which this messiah was longingly expected.

156
Ulrich, 'Absence'.

33
Bibliography

Abadie, Philippe, 'La figure de David dans le livre des Chroniques,' in Figures de
David à travers la Bible, eds. Louis Desrousseaux and Jacques Vermeylen
(Paris: Cerf, 1999), 157-186.

Auwers, Jean-Marie, 'Le David des Psaumes et les Psaumes de David,' in Figures de
David à travers la Bible, eds. Louis Desrousseaux and Jacques Vermeylen
(Paris: Cerf, 1999), 187-224.

Baillet, Maurice, 'Un apocryphe de David (?),' in Les 'Petites Grottes' de Qumrân,
eds. Maurice Baillet et al., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan III
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 81-82.

—, 'Un apocryphe de Samuel-Rois,' in Les 'Petites Grottes' de Qumrân, eds. Maurice

Baillet et al., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan III (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1962), 119-123.

Ballhorn, Egbert, '"Um deines Knechtes David willen" (Ps 132,10). Die Gestalt
Davids im Psalter,' Biblische Notizen 76 (1995), 16-31.

Baumgarten, Albert, '"Who Cares and Why Does It Matter?" Qumran and the
Essenes, Once Again!,' Dead Sea Discoveries 11 (2004), 174-190.

Baumgarten, Joseph M. and Daniel R. Schwartz, 'Damascus Document (CD),' in The

Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English
Translations: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents, ed.
James H. Charlesworth (Tübingen, Louisville: Mohr Siebeck, Westminster
John Knox, 1995), 4-57.

Berrin, Shani, 'Qumran Pesharim,' in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. Matthias

Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 110-133.

Brady, Monica, 'Biblical Interpretation in the "Pseudo-Ezekiel" Fragments (4Q383-

391) from Cave Four,' in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. Matthias
Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 88-109.

Broshi, Magen, 'Essenes at Qumran? A Rejoinder to Albert Baumgarten,' Dead Sea

Discoveries 14 (2007), 25-33.

Brownlee, William H., 'A Comparison of the Covenanters of the Dead Sea Scrolls
with Pre-Christian Jewish Sects,' The Biblical Archaeologist 13 (1950), 49-72.

Charlesworth, James H. and James A. Sanders, 'More Psalms of David,' in The Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City:
Doubleday, 1985), 2.609-624.

Chazon, Esther, 'Is Divrei ha-me'orot a sectarian prayer?,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls:
Forty Years of Research, eds. Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport, Studies on
the Texts of the Desert of Judah 10 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 3-17.

34
—, 'J. Prayers,' in Qumran Cave 4, XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2, ed.
Esther Chazon, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXIX (Oxford: Clarendon,
1999), 391-419.

Collins, John and Peter W. Flint, 'D. Pseudo-Daniel,' in Qumran Cave 4, XVII:
Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, eds. George J. Brooke et al., Discoveries in the
Judaean Desert XXII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 95-164.

Coogan, Michael D., The Old Testament. A Historical and Literary Introduction to
the Hebrew Scriptures (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Coulot, Claude, 'David à Qumrân,' in Figures de David à travers la Bible, eds. Louis
Desrousseaux and Jacques Vermeylen (Paris: Cerf, 1999), 315-344.

Cross, Frank M., 'The Development of the Jewish Scripts,' in The Bible and the
Ancient Near East. Essays in Honor of W. F. Albright, ed. G. Ernest Wright
(New York: Doubleday, 1960), 133-202.

Cross, Frank M., Donald W. Parry, Richard J. Saley and Eugene Ulrich, Qumran
Cave 4, XII: 1-2 Samuel, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XVII (Oxford:
Clarendon, 2005).

De Roo, Jacqueline C. R., 'David's Deeds in the Dead Sea Scrolls,' Dead Sea
Discoveries 6 (1999), 44-65.

De Vaux, Roland, 'Fouille au Khirbet Qumrân,' RB 60 (1953), 83-106.

Dimant, Devorah, 'Qumran Sectarian Literature,' in Jewish Writings of the Second

Temple Period, ed. Michael Stone (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 483-550.

—, 'Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha at Qumran,' Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994),

151-159.

—, 'An Apocryphon of Jeremiah from Cave 4 (4Q385B = 4Q385 16),' in New

Qumran texts and studies, eds. George J. Brooke and Florentino Garcia
Martinez (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 11-30.

—, Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts, Discoveries in the Judaean

Desert XXX (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001).

—, 'The Apocryphon of Joshua–4Q522 9 ii: A Reappraisal,' in Emanuel. Studies in

Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, eds.
Shalom M. Paul et al. (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2003), 179-204.

—, 'Between Sectarian and Non-Sectarian: The Case of the Apocryphon of Joshua,'

in Reworking the Bible, ed. Esther Chazon (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005), 105-
134.

Duhaime, Jean, 'War Scroll,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
Texts with English Translations: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related
Documents, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Tübingen, Louisville: Mohr Siebeck,
Westminster John Knox, 1995), 80-203.

35
—, The War Texts (London: T&T Clark, 2004).

Dupont-Sommer, André, 'Le Psaume CLI dans 11 Q Psa et le problème de son

origine Essénienne,' Semitica 14 (1964), 25-62.

—, The Essene Writings from Qumran (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973).

Eshel, Hanan, 'Dibre HaMe'orot and the Apocalypse of Weeks,' in Things Revealed.
Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone,
eds. Esther Chazon et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 149-154.

Evans, Craig A., 'David in the Dead Sea Scrolls,' in The Scrolls and the Scriptures:
Qumran Fifty Years After, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 183-197.

Fernández Marcos, Natalio, 'David the Adolescent: On Psalm 151,' in The Old Greek
Psalter. Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma, eds. Robert J. V. Hiebert et al.,
JSOT.S 332 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 205-217.

Flint, Peter W., The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll and the Book of Psalms, Studies on the
Texts of the Desert of Judah 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1997).

—, 'The Prophet David at Qumran,' in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed.

Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 158-167.

—, 'Psalms and Psalters in the Dead Sea Scrolls,' in The Bible and the Dead Sea
Scrolls, Vol. 1, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Waco, Texas: Baylor University
Press, 2006), 233-272.

Gesenius, Wilhelm and Emil Kautzsch, Gesenius' Hebrew grammar, Translated by

G. W. Collins and A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon, 1898).

Ginzberg, Louis, An Unknown Jewish Sect (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary
of America, 1970).

Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H., 'The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa): A Problem of Canon and
Text,' Textus 5 (1966), 22-33.

Gottlieb, Hans, 'Die Tradition Von David Als Hirten,' Vetus Testamentum 17 (1967),
190-200.

Goulder, Michael, The Prayers of David, JSOT.S 102 (Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press, 1990).

Grossman, Maxine L., Reading for History in the Damascus Document, Studies on
the Texts of the Desert of Judah 45 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2002).

Gzella, Holger, 'Die Wiege des griechischen David,' in Der Septuaginta-Psalter, ed.
Erich Zenger (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2001), 19-47.

Haglund, Historical Motifs in the Psalms (Stockholm: Liber, 1984).

36
Haran, Menahem, 'The Two Text-Forms of Psalm 151,' Journal of Jewish Studies 39
(1988), 171-182.

—, '‫ ובעית חיבורו של ספר התהילים‬11QPsa ‫המגילה‬,' in "Sha'arei Talmon". Studies in the
Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon,
eds. Michael Fishbane and Emanuel Tov (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992),
123*-128*.

Heger, Paul, 'Did Prayer replace sacrifice at Qumran?,' Revue de Qumran 22 (2005),
213-233.

Hempel, Charlotte, 'Kriterien zur Bestimmung "essenischer Verfasserschaft" von

Qumrantexten,' in Qumran kontrovers, eds. Jörg Frey and Hartmut Stegemann,
Einblicke 6 (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003), 71-85.

Henze, Matthias, 'Psalm 91 in Premodern Interpretation and at Qumran,' in Biblical

Interpretation at Qumran, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2005), 168-193.

Jucci, Elio, 'Davide a Qumran,' Richerche storico bibliche 7 (1995), 157-175.

Kugler, Robert, Art.: 'Zadok,' in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2000), 1005.

Lange, Armin, 'Kriterien essenischer Texte,' in Qumran kontrovers, eds. Jörg Frey
and Hartmut Stegemann, Einblicke 6 (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003), 59-69.

Larson, Erik and Lawrence H. Schiffman, 'I. Miscellaneous Texts,' in Qumran Cave
4, XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, eds. George J. Brooke et al., Discoveries in
the Judaean Desert XXII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 295-304.

McCarter, P. Kyle, I Samuel, The Anchor Bible 8 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1980).

McKenzie, Steven L., The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, Harvard
Semitic Monographs 33 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1984).

Newsom, Carol, '"Sectually Explicit" Literature from Qumran,' in The Hebrew Bible
and Its Interpreters, eds. William Henry Propp et al. (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1990), 167-187.

Nickelsburg, G. W. E., 'The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,' in Jewish Writings of

the Second Temple Period, ed. Michael Stone (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 89-
156.

Noam, Vered, 'The Origin of the List of David's Songs in "David's Compositions",'
Dead Sea Discoveries 13 (2006), 134-149.

Parry, Donald W., '4QSama and the Royal Song of Thanksgiving (2 Sam 22 // Psalm
18),' in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran, eds. Daniel K.
Falk et al., Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 35 (Leiden: Brill, 2000),
146-159.

37
—, '4QSama (=4Q51), the Canon, and the Community of Lay Readers,' in The Bible
and the Dead Sea Scrolls Vol. 1, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Waco, Texas:
Baylor University Press, 2006), 167-182.

Parry, Donald W. and Emanuel Tov, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 1:
Texts Concerned with Religious Law (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004).

—, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 2: Exegetical Texts (Leiden, Boston:
Brill, 2004).

—, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 3: Parabiblical Texts (Leiden, Boston:
Brill, 2004).

—, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 5: Poetic and Liturgical Texts (Leiden,
Boston: Brill, 2004).

—, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 6: Additional Genres and Unclassified
Texts (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004).

Pietersma, Albert, 'David in the Greek Psalms,' Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980), 213-
226.

Ploeg, J. van der, 'Le Psaume XCI dans une recension de Qumran,' Revue Biblique
72 (1965), 210-217.

Puech, Émile, 'La Pierre de Sion et l'autel des holocaustes d'après un manuscrit
hébreu de la grotte 4 (4Q522),' Revue Biblique 99 (1992), 676-696.

—, 'Les Deux Derniers Psaumes Davidiques du Rituel d'Exorcisme, 11QPsApa IV 4-

V 14,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Forty Years of Research, eds. Devorah Dimant
and Uriel Rappaport, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 10 (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1992), 64-89.

—, 'Les Psaumes Davidiques du Rituel d'Exorcisme (11Q11),' in Sapiential,

Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran, eds. Daniel K. Falk et al., Studies
on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 35 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 160-181.

Qimron, Elisha and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, V: Miqsat Ma'ase ha-Torah,
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert X (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).

Rösel, Martin, 'Die Psalmüberschriften des Septuaginta-Psalters,' in Der Septuaginta-

Psalter, ed. Erich Zenger (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2001), 125-148.

Sanders, James A., The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11, Discoveries in the
Judaean Desert of Jordan IV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965).

—, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967).

—, 'A Liturgy for Healing the Stricken,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek Texts with English Translations: Pseudepigraphic and Non-
Masoretic Psalms and Prayers, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Tübingen,
Louisville: Mohr Siebeck, Westminster John Knox, 1997), 216-233.

38
—, 'Non-Masoretic Psalms,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
Texts with English Translations: Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms
and Prayers, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Tübingen, Louisville: Mohr Siebeck,
Westminster John Knox, 1997), 155-215.

Schaper, Joachim, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, Wissenschaftliche Untersu-

chungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe 76 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995).

Schiffman, Lawrence H., Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Doubleday,
1994).

Schniedewind, William M., 'The Davidic Dynasty and Biblical Interpretation in

Qumran Literature,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery,
eds. Lawrence H. Schiffman et al. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,
2000), 82-91.

Schuller, Eileen, 'A Preliminary Study of 4Q373 and Some Related (?) Fragments,' in
The Madrid Qumran Congress, Vol. 2, eds. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis
Vegas Montaner (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2.515-530.

Schuller, Eileen and Moshe Bernstein, '371-373. 4QNarrative and Poetic

Compositiona-c,' in Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria papyri from Wadi Daliyeh
and Qumran Cave 4: Miscellanea, Part 2, eds. James C. VanderKam and
Monica Brady, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXVIII (Oxford: Clarendon,
2001), 151-204.

Soggin, J. Alberto, 'The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom,' in Israelite and Judaean

History, eds. John H. Hayes and James M. Miller (London: SCM Press, 1977),
332-380.

Strugnell, John, 'More psalms of "David",' Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27 (1965),

207-216.

Swete, Henry B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1914).

Talmon, Shemaryahu, 'Pisqah Be¸emsa Pasuq and 11QPsa,' Textus 5 (1966), 11-21.

—, 'Extra-Canonical Hebrew Psalms from Qumran-Psalm 151,' in The World of

Qumran from Within: Collected Studies (Jerusalem, Leiden: Magnes, Brill,
1989), 244-272.

Trebolle Barrera, Julio, '118. 4QChr,' in Qumran Cave 4, XI: Psalms to Chronicles,
eds. Eugene Ulrich et al., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XVI (Oxford:
Clarendon, 2000), 295-297.

Ulrich, Eugene, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus, Harvard Semitic
Monographs 19 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978).

—, 'The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls
and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 17-33.

39
—, 'The Absence of "Sectarian Variants" in the Jewish Scriptural Scrolls found at
Qumran,' in The Bible as Book - The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert
Discoveries, eds. Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov (London, New Castle:
The British Library, Oak Knoll Press, 2002), 179-195.

—, 'The Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT,' Catholic Biblical

Quarterly 65 (2003), 202-214.

—, '53. 4QSamc,' in Qumran Cave 4, XII: 1-2 Samuel, eds. Frank M. Cross et al.,
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XVII (Oxford: Clarendon, 2005), 247-267.

—, 'The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew Scriptural Texts,' in The Bible and the
Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 1, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (Waco, Texas: Baylor
University Press, 2006), 77-99.

VanderKam, James C., 'Zadok and the SPR HTWRH HHTWM in Dam. Doc. V, 2-
5,' Revue de Qumran 11 (1984), 561-570.

—, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (London, New York:
Routledge, 1998).

—, 'Identity and History of the Community,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty
Years, Vol. 2, eds. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam (Leiden: Brill,
1999), 2.487-533.

—, 'Studies on "David's Compositions" (11QPsa 27:2-11),' Eretz-Israel Frank Moore

Cross Volume, 26 (1999), 212*-220*.

Vermes, Geza, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, revised ed. (London:
Penguin Books, 2004).

Wacholder, Ben Zion, 'The "Sealed" Torah versus the "Revealed" Torah: An
Exegesis of Damascus Covenant V, 1-6 and Jeremiah 32, 10-14,' Revue de
Qumran 12 (1986), 351-368.

—, 'David's Eschatological Psalter 11Q Psalmsa,' Hebrew Union College Annual 59

(1988), 23-72.

—, 'Deutero Ezekiel and Jeremiah (4Q384-4Q391): Identifying the Dry Bones of

Ezekiel 37 as the Essenes,' in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their
Discovery, eds. Lawrence H. Schiffman et al. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, 2000), 445-461.

—, The New Damascus Document. The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the
Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary, Studies on
the Texts of the Desert of Judah 56 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2007).

Waschke, Ernst-Joachim, Der Gesalbte, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 306 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001).

Zenger, Erich, 'Das Buch der Psalmen,' in Einleitung in das Alte Testament, ed. Erich
Zenger (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2006).

40