WASHING IN WATER

Academia Biblica

Steven L. McKenzie, Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Editor Sharon H. Ringe, New Testament Editor

Number 23

WASHING IN WATER Trajectories of Ritual Bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature

WASHING IN WATER Trajectories of Ritual Bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature

Jonathan David Lawrence

BRILL LEIDEN BOSTON 2006

WASHING IN WATER Trajectories of Ritual Bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature

Copyright © 2006 by the Society of Biblical Literature This edition published under license from the Society of Biblical Literature by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, Society of Biblical Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lawrence, Jonathan David. Washing in water : trajectories of ritual bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature / by Jonathan David Lawrence. p. cm. — (Society of Biblical Literature Academia Biblica) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-90-04-14670-9 (cloth binding : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 90-04-14670-9 (cloth binding : alk. paper) 1. Mikveh. 2. Purity, Ritual—Judaism. 3. Judaism—History—To 70 A.D. 4. Bible. O.T. —Criticism, interpretation, etc. 5. Greek literature, Hellenistic—Jewish authors—History and criticism. 6. Dead Sea scrolls. I. Title. BM703.L39 2006 296.7’5—dc22 2006029196

ISSN: 1570-1980

Printed in The Netherlands on acid-free paper

For Nancy Lapp, in gratitude for her help and encouragement.

CONTENTS
TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................xiii PHOTO CREDITS............................................................................................. xv ABBREVIATIONS .........................................................................................xvii CHAPTER 1: QUESTIONS ABOUT RITUAL BATHING ............................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 STATE OF THE QUESTION ................................................................................. 3 METHOD ........................................................................................................ 13 CONTRIBUTIONS............................................................................................. 21 CHAPTER 2: WASHING IN THE HEBREW BIBLE ..................................... 23 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 23 VOCABULARY ................................................................................................ 25 WASHING FOR RITUAL PURITY ...................................................................... 26 General Washing ...................................................................................... 26 Priestly Washing....................................................................................... 30 Washing for Theophanies......................................................................... 31 Distribution............................................................................................... 33 METAPHORICAL USES OF WASHING............................................................... 35 Distribution............................................................................................... 38 OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 38 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 42 CHAPTER 3: WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE......... 43 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 43 VOCABULARY ................................................................................................ 45 vii

viii

WASHING IN WATER

WASHING FOR RITUAL PURITY ...................................................................... 46 General Washing ...................................................................................... 47 Priestly Washing....................................................................................... 52 New Uses of Washing in the Second Temple Period ............................... 56 Distribution............................................................................................... 64 METAPHORICAL USES OF WASHING............................................................... 64 Distribution............................................................................................... 70 INITIATORY USES OF WASHING...................................................................... 71 Distribution............................................................................................... 77 OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 77 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 79 CHAPTER 4: WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS............................. 81 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 81 VOCABULARY ................................................................................................ 84 WASHING FOR RITUAL PURITY ...................................................................... 85 General Washing ...................................................................................... 86 Agreements that Washing was Required.............................................. 86 Agreements That Washing was not Required ...................................... 97 Cases where the Scrolls Lack Washing Seen in the Hebrew Bible ............ 101 Priestly Washing..................................................................................... 104 New Uses of Ritual Washing in the Dead Sea Scrolls............................ 109 Distribution............................................................................................. 118 METAPHORICAL USES OF WASHING............................................................. 119 Alternate Forms of Washing................................................................... 120 References to Other Forms of Impurity.................................................. 123 Other Isolated Metaphorical Uses .......................................................... 126 Allegorical Explanations ........................................................................ 129 Living Water........................................................................................... 132 Distribution............................................................................................. 134 INITIATORY USES OF WASHING.................................................................... 135 Distribution............................................................................................. 141 PRACTICE OF RITUAL WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS ....................... 141 OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS ................................................................... 149 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 154 CHAPTER 5: DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING: STRUCTURES AND PRACTICES ..................................................................................... 155 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 155 EVIDENCE FROM DIFFERENT REGIONS ......................................................... 158 Ancient Palestine .................................................................................... 158 Dating of Miqva’ot ............................................................................ 158 Style and Architecture........................................................................ 160 Divided Steps ..................................................................................... 163 Other Common Features ................................................................... 164

CONTENTS

ix

Volume ............................................................................................... 164 Single and Double Pools.................................................................... 165 Diaspora.................................................................................................. 168 Transjordan............................................................................................. 168 Tell es-Sa idiyeh ................................................................................ 169 Tell el- Umeiri ................................................................................... 170 Al-Maghtas ........................................................................................ 171 Machaerus ......................................................................................... 172 Atruz .................................................................................................. 172 Qumran................................................................................................... 173 Date of Pools at Qumran ................................................................... 174 Styles of Miqva’ot at Qumran............................................................ 175 Relationship between Ritual Bathing Structures and Other Practices .... 179 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 183 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION......................................................................... 185 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 185 OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................ 185 ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 192 FUTURE DIRECTIONS.................................................................................... 201 FIGURES......................................................................................................... 203 APPENDIX A: COMPARISON OF PURITY IN THE HEBREW BIBLE, SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE, AND DEAD SEA SCROLLS......... 219 APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES.................................................... 221 APPENDIX C: MIQVA’OT ............................................................................. 251 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................... 269 AUTHOR INDEX ........................................................................................... 281 SCRIPTURE INDEX....................................................................................... 285

TABLES
TABLE 1: CATEGORIES OF RITUAL WASHING ..................................................... 17 TABLE 2: OCCUPATION PHASES AT QUMRAN ................................................... 174 TABLE 3: QUMRAN MIQVA’OT ........................................................................... 179 TABLE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF WASHING USES ..................................................... 187 TABLE 5: PRESENCE OF MIQVA’OT BY REGION AND PERIOD ............................. 192 TABLE 6: TIMELINE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING AND MIQVA’OT . 195 TABLE 7: DEVELOPMENTAL PHASES OF JEWISH RITUAL BATHING ................... 199

xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the faculty of the Theology Department at Notre Dame. In particular, I would like to thank my advisor Dr. James C. VanderKam and my committee for all of their guidance and support throughout this project. I would also like to thank my colleagues Eric Stewart, Brant Pitre, and Brian Gregg for the many chances to discuss my research. I would like to acknowledge the following agencies for the funding which allowed me to travel to Israel and Jordan in 2000 while researching this project: USIA/CAORC Fellowship at the American Center of Oriental Research, Amman, Jordan; USIA Junior Fellowship at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem; Catholic Biblical Association for a Memorial Stipend and Archaeology Research Stipend; American Baptist Churches, USA, Doctoral Study Grant; University of Notre Dame, Zahm Travel Grants; and American Schools of Oriental Research, Dorot Travel Grant. I would also like to thank the following archaeologists for their advice and assistance in locating sites for my research: Eric Meyers, Jonathan Reed, Kati Galor, Jerome Rose, Chang-Ho Ji, Nahum Sagiv, Hanan Eshel, Ronny Reich, Stefanie Hoss, Doug Clark, Stuart Miller, Mohammad Waheeb, Nancy Lapp, Sy Gitin, and Pierre Bikai. Thanks especially to Leigh Andersen, Bob Buller, Steve McKenzie and everyone at the Society of Biblical Literature publishing office for their help and guidance in bringing this to print. Thanks also to the technology staff at the University of Notre Dame and Canisius College for their assistance with scanning and formatting, and especially to the Dean’s Office and Kathleen Coughlin for her help with indexing and proofreading. Finally, I would like to thank my wife and family for their love, support, and patience through all my years of study. xiii

PHOTO CREDITS
In addition to my own photographs (Figs. 15-22, 25) I would like to acknowledge and thank the following sources for photographs and previously published material: Roland de Vaux, O.P., Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford, 1973, Pl. 39. Adapted to highlight pools. With permission of the British Academy. (Fig. 23) Gideon Foerster, Masada V, 1995, figures 303 and 306. With permission of the Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem. ( Figs. 6 and 7) Larry G. Herr, et al., Madaba Plains Project: The 1987 Season at Tell-elUmeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies (MPP 2). Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1991, p. 37: Fig. 3.16 and p. 38: Fig. 3.17, with permission. ( Figs. 13 and 14) Catherine M. Murphy, personal photos, with permission. ( Figs. 9, 10, 24) Ehud Netzer, "Winter Palaces," BASOR 228 (1977), Figures 3 and 6. Reprinted with the permission of the author and the American Schools of Oriental Research. ( Figs. 3 and 4) Ehud Netzer, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, 2001, vol. I, Ill. 84. With permission of the Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem. ( Fig. 8) James B. Pritchard, Es-Sa idieyeh, 1985, Fig. 187, with permission of the University of Pennsylania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. ( Fig. 12) Ronny Reich, Miqva’ot, 1990, 376–377 (f. 1 and f. 2), and 74-80, 310 adapted for charts and Appendix C, with permission. ( Figs. 1 and 2) Eugene C. Ulrich, personal photo, with permission. ( Fig. 11) Yigael Yadin, Masada 1963/1964, 1965, Pl. 16A. With permission of the Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem. (Fig. 5) xv

ABBREVIATIONS
Primary Texts Second Temple Period Literature A.J Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae. B.J Josephus, Bellum judaicum. Contempl. Philo, De vita contemplativa Hypoth. Philo, Hypothetica Jos. Asen. Joseph and Aseneth Let. Aris. Letter of Aristeas Prob. Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit QG Philo, Quaestiones et soutiones in Genesin Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles Spec. Philo, De specialibus legibus Dead Sea Scrolls DJD I DJD VII DJD X DJD XI DJD XIII D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik. Qumran Cave 1. Oxford, 1955 Baillet, Maurice. Qumrân Grotte 4. III (4Q482–4Q520). Oxford, 1982. E. Qimron and J. Strugnell. Qumran Cave 4. V: Miqsat Ma’ase ha Torah. Oxford, 1994 E. Eshel, et al. Qumran Cave 4. VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1. Oxford, 1997 H. W. Attridge, et al. Qumran Cave 4. VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Oxford, 1994

xvii

xviii

WASHING IN WATER

DJD XVIII J. M. Baumgarten. Qumran Cave 4. XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273). Oxford, 1996 DJD XIX M. Broshi, et al. Qumran Cave 4. XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Oxford, 1995 DJD XXII G. J. Brooke, et al. Qumran Cave 4. XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. Oxford, 1996 DJD XXIII F. E. García Martínez, et al. Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 11 (11Q2–18, 11Q20–30). Oxford, 1997 DJD XXVI P. Alexander and G. Vermes. Qumran Cave 4. XIX: 4Qserekh HaYahad. Oxford, 1998 DJD XXIX E. Chazon and D. Falk. Qumran Cave 4. XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Oxford, 1999 DJD XXXV J. M. Baumgarten, et al. Qumran Cave 4. XXV: Halakhic Texts. Oxford, 1999 TS Yadin, Y. The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983. Rabbinic Literature Avod. Zar. Avodah Zarah b. Babylonian Talmud (followed by name of tractate, folio, side) Ber. Berakot Hag. Hagigah Hul. Hullin Ker. Kerithot m. Mishnah (followed by name of tractate, chapter:paragraph) Mak. Makkot Maks. Maksirin Mid. Middot Miqw. Miqwa ot Mo ed Qat. Mo ed Qatan Neg. Nega im Pesah. Pesahim Sanh. Sanhedrin Šabb. Šabbat Šeqal. Šeqalim t. Tosefta (followed by name of tractate, chapter:paragraph) T. Yom Tebul Yom y. Jerusalem Talmud (followed by name of tractate, folio, side) Yad. Yadayim Yebam. Yebamot Zebah. Zebahim

ABBREVIATIONS Secondary Texts ABD ADAJ BAR BASOR CBQ DCH EAEHL EDSS HBD JJS JSJ NEAEHL NRSV OEANE OTP REJ RelSRev StL TDNT

xix

TDOT

TLOT

TWOT ZAW

Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Catholic Biblical Quarterly Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by D. J. A. Clines, Sheffield, 1993– Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by M. Avi-Yonah. 4 vols. Jerusalem, 1975 Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. Vanderkam. 2 vols. Oxford, 2000 HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. Edited by P. J. Achtemeier et al. 2d ed. San Francisco, 1996 Journal of Jewish Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by E. Stern. 4 vols. Jerusalem, 1993 New Revised Standard Version The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by E. M. Meyers. New York, 1997 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York, 1983 Revue des etudes juives Religious Studies Review Studia Liturgica Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–1976 Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, 1974– Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by E. Jenn, with assistance from C. Westermann. Translated by M. E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass., 1997 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr. 2 vols. Chicago, 1980 Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

1 QUESTIONS ABOUT RITUAL BATHING

INTRODUCTION Most recent discussions of the origins of Christian baptism have acknowledged that Christian baptism and Jewish ritual immersion were somehow related, but have claimed an inability to be certain as to the nature and origins of these practices, even while still interpreting their significance.1 A close analysis of the textual and archaeological evidence for early Christian baptism and Jewish ritual immersion could be very fruitful, but a necessary first step is to discuss the origins of Jewish ritual immersion.2 This project attempts to provide such a background, examining relevant texts from the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple literature, and the Dead Sea Scrolls along with archaeological

For general discussions of ritual bathing in the Bible and the ancient Near East, see the following: Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Origin of Christian Baptism,” StL 19 (1989): 28–46; John S. Kselman, “Bathing,” HBD 107; David P. Wright, “Unclean and Clean (OT),” ABD 6:729–741; and Hermann Lichtenberger, “Baths and Baptism,” EDSS 85–89. 2 This dissertation is part of a long-term examination of the connections between ritual bathing and baptism. In 2000 I travelled in Israel and Jordan researching the archaeological evidence for these practices in the fifth and sixth centuries C.E. This preliminary research suggests that Jewish ritual bathing continued to influence the practice of Christian baptism in some areas up until this time but in later centuries this influence diminished.

1

1

2

WASHING IN WATER

evidence to provide a better description of the origins and forms of Jewish ritual bathing. Some recent examinations of ritual bathing have focused on its role in the entire ritual purity system, especially the reasons why bathing was performed.3 These details are important, but such a focus on practice overlooks other texts related to washing which are not necessarily involved in ritual purity. Thus this project will examine the way each text describes ritual washing, looking to uncover its understanding as well as the way it was practiced. Therefore each text will be examined for what it says explicitly about ritual washing, rather than later assumptions and interpolations about its use.4 This focus on how washing is explicitly described applies to how the texts will be categorized as well. Some scholars have discussed purity in terms of ritual and moral, or sometimes metaphorical, purity, based on the reason for purification.5 Such studies are very useful, but when texts are placed in similar categories in this project, this is done on the basis of how washing or purity is described, not the reason it is done. Thus most texts that are classed as ritual are not given an explicit metaphorical justification, but that does not mean that they have no symbolic or metaphorical significance, only that it is not given in the text. Ritual purity plays an important role in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature, but this project will focus only on one segment of that system, the intersection of ritual washing and ritual purity. Of necessity some texts that refer only to purification and not to washing will be discussed, but texts speaking of washing as part of purification will be emphasized. It will become
3 See Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1991); Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities Part 14 – Literal and Historical Problems, The Judaic Law of Baptism: Tractate Miqvaot in the Mishnah and the Tosefta: A Form-Analytical Translation and Commentary and a Legal and Religious History (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995); Benjamin G. Wright, III, “Jewish Ritual Baths—Interpreting the Digs and the Texts: Some Issues in the Social History of Second Temple Judaism,” in The Archaeology of Israel (ed. Neil Asher Silberman and David Small; Sheffield: Sheffield, 1997), 190–214. 4 For instance, consider the debate over whether women had to bathe after menstruation when these rules were first instituted. Milgrom and others say they did, by extension from other cases of impurity, yet the text in Lev 15:19–24 clearly leaves out such a command. (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 435; Hannah K. Harrington, The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 113–116). The fact that later writers made the same assumption as Milgrom supports his case, but it is also possible that such a tradition was left out of Mosaic law. 5 Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford, 2000), 22–31. For instance, ritual purity deals with natural situations like birth, death, menstruation, etc. which pollute the temple and is regained through washing and sacrifice, while moral purity deals with sins like murder, incest, and idolatry which pollute the land and is regained only through exile.

QUESTIONS ABOUT RITUAL BATHING

3

clear throughout this project that some texts within the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature clearly link washing and purification while others do not. STATE OF THE QUESTION The textual and archaeological development of ritual bathing has been discussed in great detail in the last several decades, inspired in part by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and excavations at Qumran and Masada.6 Unfortunately, these studies have not always integrated textual and archaeological materials, favoring one at the expense of the other.7 In addition, most of these studies fall into one or more of the following tendencies: 1) Anachronistic use of textual materials; 2) Emphasis on ritual uses of washing over other references to washing; or 3) Exaggerated polemics against ritual purity and ritual washing, generally by Christian writers. These tendencies do not eliminate the value of such studies, but they obscure the larger spectrum of uses of ritual washing in the Second Temple period which this project attempts to outline. First, there have been many studies which use textual evidence anachronistically, applying the Torah’s information about the Tabernacle to the Second Temple period as if there was a continuous tradition from the Tabernacle to the First and Second Temples.8 Some cite details found in the Mishnah as
See Roland de Vaux, O.P., Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Oxford, 1973); Jodi Magness, Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (4 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983). 7 Thus, for instance, Ronny Reich’s useful collection covers the archaeology, but falls into some of the problems listed here. Neusner looks at texts, not archaeology, while Wright and Sanders attempt to do both, but almost give short shrift to both, as will be described below. See Neusner, Judaic Law of Baptism; Ronny Reich, “Miqva’ot (Jewish Ritual Immersion Baths) in Eretz-Israel in the Second Temple and the Mishnah and Talmudic Periods” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1990); E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief: 63 B.C.E.—66 C.E. (London: SCM, 1994); Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 190–214. 8 This despite the fact that many scholars doubt the historicity of the Tabernacle tradition and the date of the Priestly source is still debated. (See Richard Elliott Friedman, “Tabernacle,” ABD 294–295, for a summary of the debates about the Tabernacle). Despite that skepticism, many archaeologists and other scholars have linked Second Temple bathing practices to an origin with the Tabernacle or at least with the Levitical texts as if they were part of one continuous tradition. See for instance, Collins, “Origin,” 31; Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 208–212. Reich acknowledges the problems of dating the Priestly source, but does not challenge these theories of the origin of ritual bathing (Reich, “Miqva’ot,” English Summary, 12). Sanders describes other washing rites in the Jewish diaspora which did not originate with the Levitical regulations, but he still seems to accept the idea that ritual bathing originated with Leviticus (Sanders, Judaism, 214–
6

4

WASHING IN WATER

explanation of the archaeological findings from the Second Temple period. On the other hand, Jacob Neusner is so skeptical of the Mishnah’s relevance to Second Temple period practices that he leaves the Mishnah out of the discussion of Second Temple practices. Each of these approaches is problematic in expecting either too much or too little from the texts. Certainly the fact that the Mishnah outlines a procedure for linking two immersion pools is not proof that this was the only way to purify a miqveh in the Second Temple period, but it is still useful as a possible explanation of a practice that might otherwise be inexplicable.9 Similarly, just because the Torah says that certain washing practices were linked to the Tabernacle does not mean that ritual bathing was practiced in exactly the same context and manner in the Second Temple period. In other words, the texts are quite relevant to this enterprise, but they cannot always be taken at face value. For instance, E. P. Sanders argues that the authors of the Mishnah drew upon earlier traditions by weaving together various biblical passages and ideas to create an understanding of how bathing should be practiced. Ronny Reich takes a similar approach, gathering rabbinic references to support his examination of ritual bathing practices in the Second Temple period.10 On the other hand, Neusner argues that there is no continuity in ritual bathing between the Mishnah and the Bible, since the Mishnah includes too many details not found in the Bible.11 In either case, these scholars focus on the Mishnaic texts,
230). Finally, in his study of miqva’ot, Aryeh Kaplan traces the practice of immersion back to Abraham (Gen 18:4), placing the origins of immersion even further back in history (Aryeh Kaplan, Waters of Eden: The Mystery of the Mikvah (New York: National Conference of Synagogue Youth / Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, 1982), 22–23). 9 m. Miqw. 6:7–11. 10 Reich, “Miqva’ot,” English Summary; Sanders, Judaism, 215. However, Reich discusses only those passages which specifically refer to ritual immersion of people or objects, overlooking other passages about other forms or aspects of washing which could illuminate the practice of ritual bathing. He has also examined the relationship between ritual baths and other cultural influences, such as the spread of synagogues and GrecoRoman public baths, concluding that there is little actual relationship between ritual baths and either synagogues or public baths, despite some parallels in form of construction. This relationship needs further study. See Ronny Reich, “The Hot Bath-House (balneum), the Miqweh and the Jewish Community in the Second Temple Period,” JJS 39 (1988): 102–107; and Ronny Reich, “The Synagogue and the Miqweh in Eretz-Israel in the Second-Temple, Mishnaic, and Talmudic Periods,” in Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery (ed. Dan Urman and Paul V. M. Flesher; Studia Post-Biblica Leiden: Brill, 1995), 289–297; and Yaron Z. Eliav, “The Roman Bath as a Jewish Institution: Another Look at the Encounter Between Judaism and the GrecoRoman Culture,” JSJ 31 (2000): 416–545; W. S. LaSor, “Discovering What Jewish Miqva’ot Can Tell About Christian Baptism,” 13, no. 1 1987): 52–59). 11 Neusner, Judaic Law of Baptism, 1–2, 180–205. Neusner argues that even though a few elements of rabbinic teachings about miqva’ot came from the Hebrew Bible, most

QUESTIONS ABOUT RITUAL BATHING

5

which are too late to indicate reliably how bathing was understood in the Second Temple period. Neither approach offers any definitive explanations for Second Temple period practices and ignores other evidence which does exist.12 In addition to this retrojection of rabbinic texts, some scholars have searched for the roots of Second Temple Jewish practices in earlier materials, such as the Hebrew Bible and literature of the time. Although they have not found specific references to the use of specially built bathing structures like miqva’ot, they have found some materials relevant to Second Temple period practices. For instance, Reich and Sanders have discussed ritual bathing in relation to the bathing regulations in Lev 11–15 and Num 19.13 Similarly, Sanders and Benjamin Wright have catalogued passages about bathing in Second Temple texts, including Josephus’ A.J. 3.258–264, 6.236, Philo’s Spec. 1.119, Jdt 12:7–8, 2 Macc 12:38, and Jos. Asen. 14:12, 15.14 In both cases, they have focused on texts that may be related to archaeological evidence for bathing practices, ignoring the overall use and understanding of washing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple period.

of these teachings must have come from elsewhere for three reasons: 1) the Bible emphasizes the situations in which a person must immerse but says nothing about the condition of the water, something central in the Mishnaic passages; 2) there are no biblical precedents for m. Miqwa ot’s two primary concerns—the need for at least 40 seahs (h)fs;) of suitable water and the effect of 3 logs of drawn water on pools with less than 40 seahs; and 3) the idea that human activity disqualifies water for immersion seems to be drawn from m. Parah 4:4, not from the Hebrew Bible. Thus from his perspective, the Mishnah has no scriptural basis. Although he argues that the principles of m. Miqwa ot were developed before 70 C.E., the fact that they were formulated by anonymous sages, and are therefore undateable, the historical value of this tractate is questionable (Neusner, Judaic Law of Baptism, 180–191). 12 If there were more evidence for the practice of ritual bathing in the Second Temple period, these texts might be more useful. One possibility would be to follow up on the common observation that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain many parallels to rabbinic teachings, with the Scrolls leaning towards the stricter interpretations (Hannah K. Harrington, “Purity at Qumran,” EDSS 724–727, for instance). An examination of these parallels might allow us to distinguish between elements of the Mishnah which were known during the Second Temple period for the Qumran community to respond to, and those which might be later additions. However, this question is beyond the scope of this project. While the anachronistic use of rabbinic materials creates historical problems, such texts will be discussed in this project as later comparisons and parallels to developments in the Second Temple period. 13 Reich, “Miqva’ot,” English Summary 1, 12; E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM, 1990), 215, 227. The story of Na’aman from 2 Kings 5 and the celebration of the Passover from Ezra 6:20 could provide hints about practices before the Second Temple period, but neither Reich nor Sanders discuss them. 14 Sanders, Judaism, 223–224; Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 205–214.

6

WASHING IN WATER

A second tendency is to focus only on texts describing rituals and ritual contexts for washing, homogenizing the background of biblical texts and overlooking texts which treat washing in a more metaphorical sense, not as a ritual that could actually be performed. Such a tendency should not be surprising in studies attempting to outline the practice of ritual bathing, but they overlook the wider context of washing terminology in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature and create a skewed perspective which would seem to support some of the polemical views of ritual purity which will be discussed below. Such an approach suggests that only texts describing rituals are useful for understanding ritual bathing, ignoring many of the metaphorical texts that this project will examine. This approach also overlooks references in the Deuteronomistic History to purification in the First Temple without any explicit mention of washing.15 Evidence of this sort of omission will prove useful in discussing the development and application of ritual washing. In that sense, this tendency is closely linked to the first, using the textual traditions uncritically as a source of history. For instance, in the Hebrew Bible, the levitical outlines of ritual bathing which Reich and Sanders have discussed are certainly important, but they are not the only way in which bathing is used. In the Pentateuch, ritual bathing plays a central role in protecting the purity of the Tabernacle, but bathing is also presented as part of a communal preparation for special occasions such as the theophany at Mount Sinai in Exod 19:9–15 and the crossing of the Jordan River in Josh 3:5. Reich and Sanders have discussed the first context at length, but have largely ignored the second.16 In Lev 11–15, people who have become impure through childbirth, leprosy or bodily discharges, or exposure to carcasses of unclean animals, or someone else with leprosy or bodily discharges are required to bathe before they may enter the tabernacle. In certain cases, unclean people are not even allowed in the Israelite camp until they have been declared clean again. The explanation for these requirements is that impurity among the Israelite people will defile the tabernacle, even if the impure individual does not actually enter the tabernacle.17

This is not to say that these scholars ignore the larger context of the texts they have studied. Both Sanders and Wright do address the question of how to compare texts from the Diaspora with those from Palestine. Wright argues that there is little evidence of differences between the two regions, while Sanders is more hesitant to merge the two. (Sanders, Jewish Law, 258–271; Sanders, Judaism, 223–227; Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 206, n. 54). Even so, they treat “Second Temple Literature” almost as if it were a homogeneous entity and not a widely diverse collection of texts. 16 Wright speaks about preparation for contact with the Divine, but does not mention these passages (Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 209). 17 Lev 15:31, Num 19:13.

15

QUESTIONS ABOUT RITUAL BATHING

7

However, it should be noted that in most of these cases, the water bath is only part of the purification process. There are several other factors involved in this purification. First, in most cases, except for persons who have touched the carcass of an unclean animal, some sort of sacrifice is required. Second, in almost every case, the individual is not considered clean until a certain amount of time has passed, usually after sunset.18 Finally, when the impurity was caused by a disease, washing does not occur until the individual has been completely healed. Jacob Milgrom suggests that these added factors besides bathing reflect an attempt by the Priestly writer to distinguish the Israelite cult from other ancient Near Eastern traditions.19 Some of these other traditions also used bathing as a prerequisite for contact with a deity. However, such baths frequently involved magical actions and incantations to prepare the water and to remind the individual of water’s dual role in both life and death.20 In contrast, bathing in the Hebrew Bible involves no incantations or prayers, never mentions water as a source of life and death, offers little discussion of the nature of the water, and separates bathing from healing.21
The two exceptions in Lev 11–15 are a woman who has given birth (Lev 12:8) and a leper (Lev 14:9, 20). However, in each of these cases, a sacrifice is required, so the bath itself is not the only requirement for purification. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 967, for further discussion. This concern for waiting until sunset becomes very important in the Dead Sea Scrolls and rabbinic literature, where it is referred to by the term, tevul yom, Mwy lwb+. Milgrom argues that the concept of Mwy lwb+ originates in an earlier stratum of the Torah and is preserved by the later Priestly writers. 19 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 957–966. Milgrom observes that the different Pentateuchal sources use different vocabulary for washing. For instance, the non-Priestly texts use #$dq or #$dqth, as in the theophany at Sinai and the crossing of the Jordan, while the Priestly texts reserve #$dq for sanctified people and objects and use Cxr, rh+, or occasionally sbk instead (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 967). The precise use of these terms in the different sources, and their use in the rest of the Hebrew Bible will require further study. It is unclear whether the use of distinct washing terms in the rest of the Hebrew Bible has any significance. 20 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 958–963. 21 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 963. While healing by a deity may have been common in ancient Near Eastern bathing stories, it is rare in the Hebrew Bible. There are only two cases in which an individual who bathes is healed directly, but Milgrom offers other explanations. In the case of the adulteress in Num 5:1–31, Milgrom suggests that the writer’s intent was to create a cooling-off period for the couple, rather than to say anything about the healing effects of bathing. The other case is Naaman, who bathes seven times in a river and is healed immediately (2 Kings 5). Milgrom suggests that this story is intended as an anti-polytheistic polemic (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 964–965). Milgrom’s discussion of the ancient Near Eastern parallels is very useful and his extensive commentary is invaluable, as is his analysis of ritual purity as a coherent system (Jonathan Klawans, “Ritual Purity, Moral Purity, and Sacrifice in Jacob Milgrom’s Leviticus,” RelSRev 29 (2003): 19–28). However, his attempt to extrapolate washing to contexts where it is not explicitly mentioned in the Hebrew Bible obscures the
18

8

WASHING IN WATER

While the Pentateuch builds the Israelite cult around the Tabernacle, the rest of the Hebrew Bible focuses mostly on the Temple. However, there are very few Temple-related references to bathing in the Hebrew Bible outside of the Pentateuch.22 In fact, while bathing was mentioned in connection with certain activities related to the Tabernacle, there is little mention of bathing in parallel events involving the Temple. For instance, the ordination of Aaron and his sons and the dedication of the Tabernacle in Exod 29 and 40 both involved bathing, while no washing is mentioned at all in the dedication of Solomon’s Temple in 1 Kgs 8 and 2 Chr 5:11.23 This discrepancy may be related to questions about the historicity, compositional sequence, and dating of the various parts of the Hebrew Bible, but these are issues beyond the scope of this project.24
texts themselves. For instance, he may be right in assuming that women had to immerse after menstruation, but while a logical argument can be made for such an assumption, there could have been a reason why it was not practiced. As this project will demonstrate, by the Second Temple period, such extrapolation or conflation was practiced by some writers, but that still does not mean that such an assumption holds for the very earliest practices. Thus it seems useful for this project to focus on what is explicitly said in the texts, rather than trying to prove such assumptions. In a similar way, many ancient Near Eastern texts speak specifically of living water and its use for purification. While this term resurfaces in the early Jewish and Christian traditions, it appears only once in the Hebrew Bible, in Lev 15:13 (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 963). Further, while detailed study of ritual bathing and purity in other cultures of the ancient Near East would help to further contextualize this project, it is beyond the scope of this project. 22 Consider for instance, the references to the Temple furnishings such as the molten sea in 1 Kgs 7:23–26 and 2 Chr 4:6 and the bronze basins in 1 Kgs 7:40–47 which may have been comparable to the Tabernacle’s bronze basins from Exod 30:17. The story of David and Bathsheba is one of the few instances of bathing in the Hebrew Bible outside of the Pentateuch. In 2 Sam 11:4, the text says that she was bathing as part of purification (t#$dqtm). However, this does not necessarily prove Levine’s assumption that #$dqth always involves bathing even if it does not mention it (Baruch A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel (ed. Jacob Neusner; Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity; vol. 5 Leiden: Brill, 1974), 34, n. 85). 23 2 Chr 5:11 does say that the dedication of the Temple and some of the events taking place there involved the “consecration” of the celebrants, but unlike the events at the tabernacle, the Temple texts do not usually mention water specifically. Levine has assumed that “consecrate” (#$dqth) involved bathing, but I do not believe that is completely clear (Levine, Presence of the Lord, 34, n. 85). 24 Thus while the Hebrew Bible presents a continuation of bathing practices from those taught by Moses in the Wilderness on through the postexilic period, these texts may suggest a different picture. Perhaps the absence of bathing in texts concerning Solomon’s Temple and its presence in Second Temple literature indicate that the early Israelite cult did not practice ritual bathing and that it was only introduced in the postexilic period, perhaps in imitation of Babylonian practices. The presence of ritual bathing in the Pentateuch could then be explained if we assume a postexilic redaction of the Pentateuch. These conjectures raise interesting possibilities, but are tangential to the focus of this

QUESTIONS ABOUT RITUAL BATHING

9

Apart from the texts that speak of literal physical washing, there are several texts in the Hebrew Bible which use washing language in a metaphorical sense. For instance, Pss 73 and 26 speak of washing one’s hands as a sign of innocence.25 Ps 51 and Jer 4:14 speak of washing as moral cleansing, rather than cultic purification. Finally, Is 4:4 uses washing as an image of an eschatological moment which will transform the world.26 By the Second Temple period, the Pentateuch’s bathing guidelines for entry into the Tabernacle had been extended to the Temple cult as well. In fact, ritual bathing before entering the Temple is prescribed for most of the same sources of impurity as listed in Leviticus in the context of the Tabernacle, with only a few variations.27 However, as Wright demonstrates, Second Temple period ritual bathing was not limited to the context of the Temple. In his examination of Second Temple period texts, he divides them into essentially four groups: 1) washing for Temple purposes, 2) washing for non-Temple activities such as prayer and Sabbath observance, 3) hand-washing, and 4) discussions of acceptable water.28 By examining aspects of washing apart from ritual immersion for participation in the Temple Cult, Wright thus demonstrates that the idea of ritual bathing was widespread and important in the Second Temple period, but the practice of ritual immersion itself might not have been as central as Sanders and others have tried to suggest.
project. However, in the course of this research, it may be possible to uncover new evidence for these questions of the redaction of the Pentateuch and the origins of the Israelite cult. 25 It should be noted that Ps 26:6 also speaks of walking around the altar in prayer. This text then is a combination of cultic situation, metaphorical use, and washing for prayer, something not specifically described elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. 26 Of course, this is not the only case in which the prophetic literature uses cultic language in metaphorical ways. See for instance Mic 6:8 in its response to sacrificial practices. 27 See Josephus, A.J. 3.258–261, 6.236; Philo, Spec. 1:119, 126. See also Lichtenberger, “Baths and Baptism,” 85–89; Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 210. 28 Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 205–210. Wright does not list or name these categories as such, but this is essentially how he discusses them. It is unclear where the story of Joseph and Aseneth fits into this framework. Wright places it alongside other hand-washing texts which were unrelated to the Temple cult (Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 205). In one sense, it fits under non-Temple washing, since her bath is supposed to symbolize her repentance. On the other hand, it could almost count as initiatory, since she bathes before she marries Joseph. Even so, it could just be an initial purification to allow her into the community, with no emphasis on the initiation (Collins, “Origin,” 32–35). In any case, this example demonstrates the difficulties in categorizing some of the texts, especially one like this which deals with relationships with Gentiles. Most of these texts cited by Wright are still ritual texts; his study ignores other texts which might show a wider spectrum of understandings for ritual washing. His approach is still a useful alternative to the retrojection described above, but it offers an incomplete picture of the understandings of bathing in the Second Temple period.

10

WASHING IN WATER

In the Dead Sea Scrolls, bathing is presented as the way to maintain the community’s purity. As with some of the other Second Temple texts, passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls continue to list some of the same situations under which bathing must be performed as were found in the Hebrew Bible. The concern over the sequence by which purity is regained is also perpetuated here, with the concept of Mwy lwb+. There are however some distinctions from the Hebrew Bible’s usage of washing. First, 4Q414, 4Q512, and a few other texts present prayers which may be said during the process of bathing, something clearly absent in the Hebrew Bible.29 Second, washing is presented several times as part of the initiation process which welcomes new members into the community.30 It is still unclear, however, if the initiate actually became a member of the community through the bath, or if the bath provided the necessary degree of purity which allowed the initiate to participate in community rituals.31 Finally, several texts speak of bathing as repentance, a theme which is found only a few times in the Hebrew Bible.32 The third main tendency in studies of ritual bathing is a pronounced antiJewish polemic found in many Christian writings, both ancient and modern. This is despite a rich tradition of spiritual interpretations of the ritual act of washing in both Jewish and Christian traditions. For instance, although the Hebrew Bible is largely silent on the spiritual implications of ritual washing, Second Temple writers like Philo of Alexandria discuss both ritual and spiritual meanings of bathing.33 A text from m. Sotah links purity to various virtues and ultimately to the resurrection of the dead.34 Such significance is still given to
Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Purification Liturgies,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2:200, nn. 2–3, 201. 30 Baumgarten, “Purification Liturgies,” 211. See 1QS 5:13 for one example. 31 To a certain extent, this same question could be asked regarding so-called proselyte baptism in the early Jewish community. While immersion became a required element of Jewish conversion at some point, some have speculated that its primary role was to guarantee the proper level of purity which would allow converts to enter the temple. Collins, “Origin,” 32–35. 32 Baumgarten, “Purification Liturgies,” 207–211; Bilhah Nitzan, “Repentance in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 144–170; Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 205, n. 52. 33 Spec. 1.257–266. 34 R. Pinhas b. Yair says,
Heedfulness (twzyrz) leads to cleanliness (twyqn), cleanliness leads to cleanness (hrh+), cleanness leads to abstinence (tw#$yrp), abstinence leads to holiness (h#$dq), holiness leads to modesty (hwn(), modesty leads to the fear of sin (h+x t)ry), the fear of sin leads to piety (twdysx), piety leads to the Holy Spirit (#$dqh xwr), and the Holy
29

QUESTIONS ABOUT RITUAL BATHING

11

ritual washing by many modern Jews, such as Aryeh Kaplan’s suggestion that ritual bathing in one sense represents a rebirth.35 Such metaphorical interpretations are also found in Christian writings, from the Gospels to Chrysostom’s Baptismal Instructions, to the contemporary Roman Catholic RCIA, Rites of Christian Initiation for Adults.36 Throughout all of these sources, both Jewish and Christian, consideration is given to both the proper ritual performance as well as the spiritual significance. Even so, many Christians have downplayed or even denigrated the significance of Jewish ritual washing, and ritual purity in general, as “merely ritual,” lacking the spiritual significance of Christian baptism. Such a tradition can be traced at least as far back as the polemics of Justin Martyr, who contrasted the Christian “bath of salvation,” which only needs to happen once to bring eternal life, with Jewish bathing, which required repetition and only imparted physical cleanliness.37 Ever since, this has been a common Christian view, sometimes expressed in the sense that Christians created baptism in imitation of Jewish ritual bathing, rejecting the whole purity system and replacing it with a spiritual understanding related to eternal life. To a certain extent, this attitude grows out of John’s statement that he baptizes with water, but the one coming after him will baptize with water and the Spirit. Since many have linked John’s baptism to Jewish practices, some Christians automatically valorize Christian baptism in water and Spirit over Jewish baptism in water. Such attitudes, spoken and unspoken can be found in many discussions of ritual
Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead (Mytmh tyxt), and the resurrection of the dead comes through Elijah, blessed be his memory, Amen. (m. Sotah 9:15)

(The Mishnah—A New Translation (trans. Jacob Neusner; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988)). 35 Kaplan, Waters of Eden, 12. Kaplan’s book is not a critical work, but for that matter, neither are some of the modern Christian treatments of baptism that will be cited. However, these works offer useful illustrations of ongoing interpretations and understandings of the use of ritual bathing and baptism. 36 For New Testament examples, see Mt 27:24, Rom 6:3–4. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instructions (trans. Paul W. Harkins; Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1963). Consider, for instance, the Inscription of Sixtus III, 432–440, on the Baptistery of the Lateran Basilica, which begins:
Here a people of godly race are born of heaven; The Spirit gives them life in fertile waters. The Church-Mother, in these waves, bears her children like virginal fruit she has conceived by the Holy Spirit.

(Maxwell E. Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999), vii). 37 Justin Martyr, Dial., 13, 166, Mark 7.

12

WASHING IN WATER

purity and ritual bathing, as indicated by both Mary Douglas and Klawans. They can also still be found in Christian writings, such as Oscar Brooks’ study of baptism which places Christian baptism in historical context by subtly denigrating Jewish practices. 38
See for instance, Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966), 25–27; Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 19; and Sanders, Jewish Law, 137. As an example, Sanders summarizes the following sentiment found in the New Oxford Annotated Bible:
the Pharisee thought that he was acceptable to God because of ‘ritual observance.’ Why is avoiding extortion and adultery ‘ritual’? Because we ‘know’ that Pharisees were interested only in externals and trivia, and ‘ritual’ is a code word which expresses disapproval of these. The only righteousness that a Pharisee could have would be ‘ritual.’ ‘Purity’ is used in about the same way: the Pharisees were greatly interested in it, and this proves their lack of inward, truly moral religion.
38

See also, Oscar Stephenson Brooks, The Drama of Decision: Baptism in the New Testament (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987), 21–32; Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 399, 409–410; Jacob Neusner, Judaic Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: A Systematic Reply to Professor E. P. Sanders (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 111. Despite this interest and assumption that Second Temple purity grew out of long-standing Israelite practice, several recent discussions of Israelite cult and religion are silent on the issues of purity and washing. See for instance, David P. Wright, “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity,” in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (ed. Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan; Sheffield: Sheffield, 1991), 150–182; P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., “The Origins of Israelite Religion,” in The Rise of Ancient Israel ( Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992), 118–141; Bill T. Arnold, “Religion in Ancient Israel,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches (ed. David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 391–420. See Brooks, Drama of Decision, 26. He favorably describes Jewish proselyte immersion as, “the rite dramatizing that new beginning” of rebirth for a Gentile who was becoming a Jew. However, when he compares John’s baptism to Jewish proselyte immersion, he sees some similarities, but he contrasts Jewish purity and exclusiveness with John’s baptism, concluding that:
In repenting in favor of John’s message the candidate rejected as final the religious security offered by the temple and its ceremony, the assurance of acceptability before God through the synagogue and its oral law, the militant course of the Zealots, and the monastic way of Qumran. The ones being baptized even rejected their privileged status as Israelites. The were accepting as valid Johns demand to stand under the judgment of God’s immediate inbreaking.

Perhaps he is more respectful of Second Temple Jewish practices than some writers, but he still valorizes the origins of Christian practices in John’s baptism against a

QUESTIONS ABOUT RITUAL BATHING

13

Thus, although some scholars have focused on the cultic ramifications of bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature, other forms and uses of bathing can be found in these texts. These scholars may be correct in tracing the transmission of cultic bathing from the Hebrew Bible to the Second Temple period and on to the rabbinic literature. However, this ritual trajectory cannot be considered in isolation from other understandings of bathing. That is to say, while the Hebrew Bible emphasizes bathing for cultic purposes, it also includes other uses of bathing which are then continued and expanded in the Second Temple literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the New Testament. Only by considering how these divergent trajectories of bathing ideas were used and understood by the different groups within the spectrum of Second Temple Judaism can we properly understand the significance and practice of ritual bathing in Second Temple and later Judaism. METHOD This project will utilize a historical-critical approach to the texts in question. That is, when relevant, it will discuss the historical, textual, and thematic context of the passages under consideration. In particular, it will discuss the thematic context, the way in which the particular passage emphasizes or ignores certain categories of washing, such as washing for cultic purposes, washing for initiation, and washing in metaphorical contexts. In other words, this project will discuss more than the presence of washing in a particular text. The fact that washing is mentioned by certain authors and communities and not by others is important in itself, but there are other important considerations. Thus it will try to determine how a particular reference to washing relates to the rest of the text in which it is found, other texts within the same body of literature, and what we know about the author, community, and era in which it was written.39

simplified account of Jewish practice (Brooks, Drama of Decision, 29–31). Similarly, Philip Larere mentions that baptism in water was practiced by Jews, but emphasizes the change brought by Jesus’ baptism in the Spirit, insinuating but never stating that Jewish immersion was inferior (Philippe Larere, O.P., Baptism in Water and Baptism in the Spirit: A Biblical, Liturgical, and Theological Exposition (trans. Patrick Madigan, O.S.B.; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1993), 14–18). LaSor cites a quote from George F. Moore who downplayed a link between baptism and “the many baths prescribed in the law for purification” (LaSor, “Discovering,” 59, n. 25). 39 For instance, the occurrence of bathing in the story of Joseph and Aseneth must be considered not only in the context of the text itself and in comparison to other contemporary practices, but also in terms of the story’s depiction of Gentile-Jewish relations.

14

WASHING IN WATER

This project will present texts about washing in an approximately chronological sequence, starting with the Hebrew Bible, and moving on to the Second Temple literature, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Within each corpus of texts, the focus will be on passages which mention washing, purity or both.40 As mentioned above, special emphasis will be placed on texts which mention both washing and purity, but texts with only one of the two are also important. Texts mentioning washing only can show the existence of other understandings and contexts of ritual washing that have often been overlooked, while those discussing purity only can help illustrate the overall development of purity practices, of which ritual washing is one part. In each of these passages then, the presence or absence of washing in the following categories will be discussed: ritual purity, initiation, and metaphorical uses of washing. When appropriate, as in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I will discuss relevant archaeological discoveries related to a specific group of texts. However, grouping the various texts in a canonical framework as Hebrew Bible, Second Temple literature, and Dead Sea Scrolls, raises some methodological problems. First, the boundaries between the Hebrew Bible and these other groupings are somewhat vague. Second, there has been much debate about the date and redaction history of some of these texts, especially those from the Pentateuch.41 However, this division will be kept for the sake of simplicity and because the focus is not on composition history, but the way in which the various themes and understandings of washing appear in each group of texts. Third, some texts within the Hebrew Bible show Second Temple period influence and some Second Temple period texts discuss groups like the Essenes, complicating this division. However, Josephus’ descriptions of the Essenes need to be discussed in the context of his corpus and other Second Temple writings, so it still makes sense to keep his texts all together. Some cross-referencing will be necessary, but for the sake of organization, the project will keep these texts as

40 These passages have been identified through the use of concordances, indices, and close reading. There is a chance that some relevant texts will be overlooked, but as this project continues it is hoped that most such passages will be located. 41 For a discussion of the latest views on the dating of the Pentateuchal sources, see T. Desmond Alexander, Pentateuchal Criticism Today: A Guidebook for Beginners (Leicester: Religious and Theological Studies Fellowship, 1998), 47–72; Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1–30; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “P and J in Genesis 1:1–11:26: An Alternate Hypothesis,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. Astrid Beck et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 1–15; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch,” ZAW 108 (1996): 495–518; David M. Carr, “Controversy And Convergence In Recent Studies of the Formation of the Pentateuch,” RelSRev 23 (1997): 22–31.

QUESTIONS ABOUT RITUAL BATHING

15

they are commonly grouped, despite the chronological overlap between such groupings. A project of this sort could easily become unmanageable without certain limits placed upon its scope. While there are many other interesting texts that could be useful in this study, this project will be restricted in the following ways. First, it will focus on the literature of the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple period, ending in 70 C.E. with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. There are of course many later texts with roots in this period, such as most of the New Testament, Didache, and the Mishnah, but it is necessary to stop somewhere and the literal end of the Second Temple period seems logical. However, the texts of the Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls are limited by canonical considerations or the location of their discovery, respectively. In contrast, there is no agreedupon definition of Second Temple Jewish texts. For the most part, the discussion of Second Temple literature will focus on Greek texts which can be confidently dated between the second century B.C.E. and the first century C.E. This excludes most texts with uncertain provenance or date, especially since some texts contain such extensive Christian redaction that it is often impossible to separate the original Jewish traditions present in the them. Similarly, ancient Near Eastern texts from the time of the Hebrew Bible are excluded, not because they are irrelevant, but in order to keep the scope of the project manageable. For those groups of texts that are discussed, it will not be possible to discuss each passage or even the composition and setting of those selected texts in great detail. Appendix B will list and categorize relevant texts for each chapter, in an attempt to outline the overall spectrum of ritual washing in the Second Temple period. This listing attempts to be as comprehensive as possible, but will not be exhaustive, especially for the material in Chapter 3, Second Temple literature. While each of Chapters 2 through 4 covers an important group of texts, the examination of the Dead Sea Scrolls will be the most involved for several reasons. First, certain passages from the Hebrew Bible will be left out of Chapter 2 because it will be more useful to contrast them with texts from the Second Temple literature and Dead Sea Scrolls in subsequent chapters. Second, as has already been discussed, certain texts with roots in the Second Temple period have been excluded due to questions related to their composition and provenance. Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls offer us a comprehensive body of texts to examine for tendencies in the Second Temple period. The Scrolls are by no means unified in their provenance, date, or authorship, but the presence of each manuscript among the library of scrolls found at Qumran allows us to discuss them together in a way not possible for other Second Temple period texts. Texts like Judith, the Letter of Aristeas, 2 Maccabees, and the writings of Josephus and Philo are linked by the period of their composition and a connection to Jewish communities, but they represent different contexts. Even though certain of the scrolls come from different periods in the Yahad’s history or from authors with different perspectives, there is still the chance to draw

16

WASHING IN WATER

closer connections between the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls than between other Second Temple texts. Thus Chapter 4 will be substantially more detailed than the other chapters. When the archaeological record is examined in Chapter 5, the evidence will be considered geographically, rather than chronologically as is done in Chapters 2, 3, and 4. Thus, the presence and use of miqva’ot, Jewish ritual baths will be summarized for each region: Palestine, the Diaspora, Transjordan, and Qumran. For each, the dating of any miqva’ot in that area, their style, their setting at a particular building or site, and any relevant texts describing usage in that region will be discussed. In this project, uses of washing terminology will be divided into three major categories: Ritual, Metaphorical, and Initiatory. Each of these uses will then be further subdivided based on the specific context or form of washing. For instance, ritual washing entails the act of washing used to accomplish a religious or cultic goal, often purity.42 This usage can then be separated into four subcategories: general washing, priestly washing, washing for theophanies, and new or extra uses of washing. General washing, such as the washing of healed lepers in Lev 13, applies to all Israelites. In contrast, priestly washing, related to service in the Tabernacle or Temple as in Exod 30 and 40, applies only to the priests or Levites. Washing in preparation for theophanies, encounters with YHWH as in Exod 19, could be considered an example of General washing since it applied to all Israelites, but this use will be considered separately for reasons which will be discussed later. These categories and subdivisions are outlined in Table 1.43
42 The examples given here will be examined at greater length in subsequent chapters. 43 As Appendix B indicates, there are certain uses of washing terminology, particularly in the Hebrew Bible, which do not fit easily into any of these categories. Some are unusual uses of the terms in ways that have nothing to do with washing or purity and thus have little relevance for this project. Others deal with activities like the washing of guests’ feet as sign of hospitality, as in Gen 19:2a. This action fits the definition of a ritual, as will be described below, but with no immediate cultic or religious significance. In addition, there is no direct correlation between such washing and concepts of purity. Even so, there are cases in the Hebrew Bible and elsewhere in which breaking the rules of hospitality, of which footwashing is part, is seen as a cause for theological condemnation, as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, Gen 19. In addition, some cases of footwashing, as in John 12:1–8 have been interpreted as ritual preparation for burial. (See Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Footwashing in John 13:6–11: Transformation Ritual or Ceremony?” in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (ed. L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995), 202, n. 10.) Such washing is absent in the Dead Sea Scrolls and rare in the Second Temple literature, missing even in Josephus’ retellings in Antiquities of biblical stories which involved footwashing. While these actions may have ritual significance, foootwashing is excluded from discussion in this project since its overall

QUESTIONS ABOUT RITUAL BATHING TABLE 1: CATEGORIES OF RITUAL WASHING
Category Ritual Subcategory General Priestly Theophany Extra uses in Second Temple Period Non-literal Explanatory or Allegorical ---

17

Metaphorical Initiatory

General and Priestly washing continue from the Hebrew Bible into the Second Temple period, while washing for theophanies does not. However, new uses of washing unknown in the Hebrew Bible, such as washing before prayer as in Jdt 12:7b–9, are first attested during the Second Temple period. These uses will be grouped together as “Extra,” although there is little to unify them apart from the fact that these uses are not found in the Hebrew Bible. All four of these subcategories of ritual washing generally include references to purity, although the reverse is not true. There are many references to purity and purification that do not mention washing. This will become important in the analysis of the uses of washing terminology. Metaphorical washing includes non-literal uses of washing, instances where extra meaning is added to ritual uses of washing, and explanations which are given for the meaning behind a ritual act.44 Jer 4:14, “Wash your heart clean of
concerns are separate from other cases of washing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature. However, these passages are still included in Appendix B for the sake of completeness due to their use of washing terminology. Another alternative would be to group texts by their form or genre, for instance as legistlative texts, narratives, and poetry. These aspects are important and would help avoid some of the problems discussed here, but they would create other difficulties as well. For instance, there would still be some overlap between groupings, since there are cases where both legislative texts and narratives discuss the same issues of ritual purity, as in the case of Exod 29 which outlines the instructions for the ordination of priests and Exod 40 which describes their implementation. Further, such a division does not resolve the issue of differences in usage between the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Thus this project will be organized by the explicit use of vocabulary, despite the difficulties mentioned above. Form, genre, and other issues like theological agenda will be discussed when relevant, but a full treatment of these issues is beyond the scope of this project. 44 I began developing this scheme before reading Jonathan Klawans’ book, which presents a system of ritual vs. moral of purity but discusses other attempts to systematize biblical purity and discusses the role and nature of symbols and metaphor (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 32–36). I found his discussion useful in clarifying my own ideas, but in the end our systems are quite different. The explanation of metaphor which he uses was extremely useful: “Literal language operates within a single semantic field, while in

18

WASHING IN WATER

wickedness,” is an example of non-literal washing, since people cannot physically wash their hearts the way they can wash their hands, bodies, or feet. On the other hand, Ps 51:2, “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin,” draws on ritual language while adding new layers of meaning to the concept of washing. Finally, metaphorical explanations, such as Philo’s discussion of the significance of the use of water and the ashes of the red heifer in Spec. 1.263–266, provide an interpretation of ritual actions described elsewhere. Although the Hebrew Bible does provide explanations for other rituals, extended analyses of washing like these are not found until the Second Temple period. Some of these metaphorical uses make reference to purity, but many do not. Finally, initiatory washing, as in Christian baptism, marks a step in the process by which an individual is welcomed into a religious group. It is unclear, however, whether initiatory washing is intended to provide the necessary level of purity to join a group, or if it carries significance of its own as a rite of initiation.45 Some passages link purity with this form of washing, but others do not. This use is unknown in the Hebrew Bible, but it gains importance in various texts from the Second Temple period. Any attempt to form categories of this sort will be problematic, as Klawans outlines in his introduction.46 Even terms that are specific enough to identify a
metaphor, at least two semantic fields are operative simultaneously. It is the incongruity between the two (or more) semantic fields that signals to the audience that the utterance in question is metaphorical” (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 33, n. 77). Klawans’ emphasis on ritual vs. moral purity, which can also be found in Milgrom’s work, is important, but not necessarily useful to this project, since most of the moral purity texts do not mention washing. A closer comparison of Klawans’ “moral” impurity and what others have described as metaphorical might be useful but lies beyond the scope of this project. 45 Collins, “Origin,” 32–35. 46 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 3–20. The difficulty comes not only from selecting appropriate titles for the categories, but also determining how to divide them. Other divisions like public versus private or individual versus cult and sanctuary seem to be logical options, yet they do not fit the usages of washing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature. The four categories used for this project seem to provide a system that is both flexible enough to account for diverse uses, yet simple enough to allow for analysis and comparison. The division between ritual and metaphorical uses is blurred in the rabbinic texts, since the rabbis often link bathing and the use of miqva’ot with repentance, salvation, and spiritual transformation. However, even for these texts the distinction might still be possible. A detailed study of such texts lies beyond the scope of this project. There were many options for creating a system of categories, each with its own benefits. The system presented here was refined frequently over the course of the project. Many important issues could be considered, including the use, implications, interpretations, and significance of different texts. These aspects will be addressed in this study, but the focus of the categories is on how washing terminology is used in the text as a starting point for all of the other considerations.

QUESTIONS ABOUT RITUAL BATHING

19

limited group of uses will have connotations or alternate interpretations that complicate their application. For instance, “ritual washing” has negative implications for many readers, as discussed above, but that still seems to be the most appropriate term for this usage. In addition, no matter how precisely defined the categories are, there will be overlaps. For instance, should Philo’s explanation of the parah ritual in Spec. 1.263–266 be considered ritual washing or metaphorical? It refers to an actual, performable ritual, yet it provides metaphorical explanations which are lacking in the Hebrew Bible.47 Essentially it is both, but if all cases of overlap between uses were classified in both categories, the system would become repetitive. In this project, texts which overlap between categories will be discussed in both contexts but will be identified in Appendix B as the less frequent category so that the rare uses do not get overlooked.48 In the case of Philo’s example, then, it would be identified as metaphorical, since that usage tends to be less common. Finally, distinguishing between ritual, metaphorical, and initiatory uses of washing creates problems as well. First, as was already mentioned above, the term “ritual washing” has negative connotations, especially in the comparison between “merely ritual” acts and moral implications, but it can still be used as a category if all pejorative interpretations are left out. Further, while there is no universally accepted definition of ritual, rituals are in essence enacted symbols, actions which point to a larger meaning beyond their literal physical significance.49 Thus to separate ritual from metaphor as if
See further discussion of this text in Chapter Three. This is intended as a way to highlight unusual uses of washing so that they do not get absorbed into the larger category and overlooked, not as an attempt to skew the evidence. 49 Even though many scholars use the term “ritual,” there is currently little agreement as to its definition. For instance, David P. Wright refers to definitions of ritual as both prescribed performances for specific times or circumstances and as a form of community bonding (Wright, “Spectrum,” 173, 177, n. 2). The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion describes ritual as “a system of actions and beliefs that has a beginning, a middle, and an end, and is directly related to superhuman beings,” while saying that many give symbols preference over rituals and belief (Jonathan Z. Smith, ed. The Harper-Collins Dictionary of Religion (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995), “Ritual,” 930–932, “Symbol,” 1038–1041). Finally, Catherine Bell notes that despite the disagreements over the meaning of ritual, there are certain consistent factors: “ritual is a type of critical juncture wherein some pair of opposing social or cultural forces comes together.” She herself focuses on the interaction of thought and action (Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (New York: Oxford, 1992), 16). See also, Catherine Bell, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (New York: Oxford, 1997), 1–3, 61–68; Ronald L. Grimes, Beginnings in Ritual Studies (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1982). A cross-cultural study of ritual washing could be fruitful, but was beyond the scope of this project. For this project, ritual will be understood as actions intended to represent symbolic meanings. Sometimes the symbolic meanings are explicitly stated in the texts, while other
48 47

20

WASHING IN WATER

they were mutually exclusive categories is impossible. Rituals refer to concepts beyond the specific actions involved, and symbols have no meaning without a referent, here an action and not an object, which points to the symbol. Initiation is itself a ritual, so distinguishing initiatory washing from ritual washing seems counterintuitive. At first this system of categories seems to collapse into one overall category, ritual, rendering the distinctions meaningless. However, these apparent contradictions arise only when we view the different uses and understandings of washing as mutually exclusive categories. If instead we look at the categories as tendencies, allowing a specific instance to represent the competing pull of different tendencies, the contradiction may be eased. Then ritual actions and metaphorical meanings can be viewed together under the common heading of ritual, although most cases lean more towards one pole or another. What we have then is a spectrum of uses, not discrete, exclusive categories. From this perspective, domestic and initiatory washing become subsets of the ritual side, but can be considered by themselves due to their unique characteristics. Similarly, metaphorical uses and interpretations of washing still fall under the overall heading of ritual, but can be viewed apart from ritual actions.

times they are not. Although other writers have suggested a hierarchy of values between actions and symbolism, no such assumption is made here. They are simply presented as two poles of a larger spectrum. There is no indication, however, that the writers of these texts understood the two concepts to be distinct. Even so, the distribution of these uses and the details of their presentation in the Bible suggest that these categories do represent actual differences in usage, not just an artificial construction. Given the scope of this project, it was not possible to consider the implications of ritual theory any further. However, this is an area I intend to examine further, especially in the ways that ritual theorists would understand the various categories used. In addition, there is much cross-cultural data related to bathing and purity which lies beyond the scope of this project but will provide a useful comparison for the results of this study. One important direction will be to consider bathing practices in the Greco-Roman world to determine how these practices may have influenced the development of both Christian baptism and Jewish ritual bathing. However, bathing and purification are common in many world cultures and a comparison to these other traditions will be necessary as well. A particularly promising area is a comparison to the development of Jewish and Christian bathing practices in India, away from the Greco-Roman influences but surrounded by other practices. These cross-cultural comparisons and considerations of other groups of texts will be important but were not possible in order to keep the focus on what had to be essentially a case-study.

QUESTIONS ABOUT RITUAL BATHING CONTRIBUTIONS

21

Thus this project adopts a new thematic approach to the study of ritual bathing which includes texts that involve total immersion as well as partial washing and those that use washing language metaphorically. I believe that such an approach will illuminate the entire spectrum of Second Temple understandings of the idea, as well as the act, of washing. Furthermore, a comparison of how these different themes are emphasized or ignored in different texts may help us begin to understand how the idea of washing was transmitted and transformed by various groups such as the early Jewish community and the Qumran community, as well as early Christians. That is, examining the use of washing in the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple literature, and Dead Sea Scrolls may help to place the archaeological evidence for bathing in the context of practices and interpretations that preceded the construction of bathing pools. By demonstrating the diverse uses of washing, we can better understand the diversity of Second Temple period bathing practice as reflected in the archaeological evidence. Thus the different forms need no longer represent orthodox versus unorthodox practices, but merely different interpretations and understandings of traditions which were diverse even in the Hebrew Bible. In turn, the archaeological evidence can help fill in gaps in our knowledge of the textual development concerning ritual bathing. Finally, the compilation of a comprehensive collection of texts related to ritual purity and ritual bathing can serve as a resource for further investigation into these issues. Therefore this project can make several contributions to our understanding of ritual bathing, in particular, and Second Temple period practices, in general. First, it will illuminate the overall spectrum of bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature, something that has not yet been done. Second, it will demonstrate the diversity of bathing practices and understandings in various texts and communities during the Second Temple period by using archaeological evidence and compiling a catalogue of references to ritual purity and ritual bathing. Finally, it will trace the roots of this diversity to the Hebrew Bible by following the ways different themes were emphasized and changed over time.

2 WASHING IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
INTRODUCTION Before we can consider the diverse ways in which washing terminology was used in the Second Temple period, it is necessary to examine how these terms are used in the Hebrew Bible. The writers of the Second Temple literature, Hellenized Jews in the Diaspora and Palestine, the Qumran community, and the earliest Christians all drew upon texts from the Hebrew Bible to explain and defend their own practices.1 Modern scholars have thus looked to the Hebrew Bible for the background and origins of ritual bathing. However, in some cases, these scholars have oversimplified the material from the Hebrew Bible, overlooking details of composition and historicity that might elucidate the development of ritual bathing. Thus, a systematic examination of washing and washing terminology in the Hebrew Bible is a necessary prelude to a consideration of later views of ritual bathing.
1 The term “Hellenized” is used here to refer to Greek-speaking Jews in the Second Temple period. Shaye Cohen raises valid concerns about the use of such terms, but there do not seem to be any more appropriate ones (Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 35–45). Similarly, “Qumran community” will be used to refer to the writers and audience of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in an attempt to avoid the question of whether they were Essenes. Finally, some parts of the New Testament cannot be considered “Second Temple period” due to their possible second century composition, while there are other Early Christian texts that could be considered such. Even so, for this project, the entire New Testament will be utilized as a window into developing Christian ideas and other texts will be left out.

23

24

WASHING IN WATER

While several recent studies have addressed issues related to the development and use of ritual washing, they have fallen short in several ways. Some have discussed the relationship of biblical washing to later practices without accounting for the diversity within the Hebrew Bible or its composition history.2 Others have looked at the composition of the texts, but have focused so much on the Pentateuchal material that they overlook other uses of washing in the Hebrew Bible.3 Finally, some have focused so much on a single use of washing that they have overlooked other elements in the overall use of washing.4 This project will build on the work of these scholars to try to construct a more systematic understanding of ritual washing in the Hebrew Bible and later literature. This chapter will present a systematic analysis of the usage and distribution of washing terminology in the Hebrew Bible and the relationship between this terminology and the idea of purity. It will begin with a discussion of the terminology under consideration—words describing acts of washing and those describing a condition of cleanness or purity which results from washing. Then it will proceed to outline the way these terms are used in each of three primary categories of usage—ritual, initiatory, and metaphorical. For each category, examples will be provided to demonstrate the variety of contexts included in that category along with a summary of the overall distribution of that usage throughout the Hebrew Bible. Following this outline of the distribution of each of the categories, there will be several concluding observations and an analysis of the use of ritual washing in the Hebrew Bible.

Ronny Reich and E. P. Sanders have discussed the rabbis’ use of biblical texts in their search for the origins of Second Temple period practices, but have not addressed the composition of the Hebrew Bible (Reich, “Miqva’ot,” “English Summary”; Sanders, Jewish Law, 214–227). In contrast, Neusner denies any connection between the biblical tradition and Second Temple period practice, yet he too seems to view the biblical text as completely unified. (Neusner, Judaic Law of Baptism, 1–2, 180–20). Similarly, Adela Collins refers to “Levitical” washing, but she does not discuss how those traditions fit into the rest of the Pentateuch or the Hebrew Bible as a whole (Collins, “Origin,” 35). 3 Jacob Milgrom sees some differences between the Priestly source and non-Priestly materials, but he does not use this to propose any stages in the development of washing (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 967). Similarly, Levine focuses on the Priestly text, arguing that it is all preexilic, also overlooking later complications in the use of washing, which will be discussed below (Levine, Presence of the Lord, 34, n. 85). 4 For example, Benjamin Wright focuses only on actual bathing, thus finding no precedent for the use of miqva’ot in the Hebrew Bible, while overlooking other uses of washing terminology which may help illuminate the development and usage of miqva’ot (Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 190–214).

2

WASHING IN THE HEBREW BIBLE VOCABULARY

25

The number of terms used to describe washing and the results of washing complicates the study of ritual washing in the Hebrew Bible. While there are several terms describing different forms of the act of washing or cleansing, there are even more options for describing purity, the state which develops from that act.5 The situation is even more complicated by figurative uses of largely unrelated terms, and the fact that major divisions of meaning exist within each group. Terms of washing include washing of both people (Cxr) and objects (sbk), sprinkling or pouring (qrz and hzn), rinsing (P+#$), and cleansing through washing (xwd).6 While Cxr and sbk account for most of the references to washing in the Hebrew Bible, the others do appear quite a few times, although sometimes the roots are used in a way that has very little to do with washing in either a literal or metaphorical sense.7 These terms all differ both in the type of washing described and the way in which washing was accomplished. Thus it will be more difficult to make any immediate generalizations about all washing in the Hebrew Bible.8 On the other hand, there are two primary terms related to purity—to be or make pure and clean (rh+), and be sanctified (#$dqth).9 Even so, there are

5 This division between actions and the resulting states comes form Benjamin Wright, but it really needs to be subdivided further (Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 206– 207). 6 For xwd, see H. G. Stigers, “ xwd,” TWOT 1.185; David J. A. Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (4 vols.; Sheffield: Sheffield, 1993–1998), 2.425. For qrz, see G. G. Van Groningen, “qrz,” TWOT 1.254; Clines, DCH, 3.144–145. For sbk, see J. N. Oswalt, “sbk,” TWOT 1.428; André, “sbk,” TDOT 7.40–42; Clines, DCH, 4.358–359. For hzn, see R. Laird Harris, “hzn,” TWOT 2.566; H. J. Fabry, “hzn,” TDOT 9.300–304. For Cxr, see W. White, “Cxr,” TWOT 2.843. For P+#$, see V. P. Hamilton, “P+#$,” TWOT 2.918. While immerse (lb+) is frequently used by the rabbis for bathing, in the Hebrew Bible it is used primarily in the sense of dipping (i.e. a finger or object) and is only used for bathing in 2 Kg 5:14 (Clines, DCH, 3.341). 7 Cxr is always used for the body, and sbk is always used for objects, except perhaps in Lev 17.16, but some of the other terms have non-washing uses. (See Chapter 3 for more discussion of Lev 17.16.) For instance, qrz is used for “scatter seeds” in Is 28:25; P+#$ is used in noun form as “torrents” of water in Job 14:19 and elsewhere; and hzn is used as “spattered” in Is 63:3. 8 For instance, we cannot generalize about what kind of water is used, since only some verses refer to the kind of water. Some verses even describe sprinkling with blood for purification (Lev 16:19, Exod 29:21). Some forms of washing suggest washing of the entire body (Lev 16:4), while others only refer to individual parts such as hands and feet (Exod 30:21). Thus there is no single way in which washing is accomplished. 9 For rh+, see F. Maass, “rh+,” TLOT 2.482–486; Helmer Ringgren, “rh+,” TDOT 5.287–296; E. Yamauchi, “rh+,” TWOT 1.343–345; Clines, DCH, 3.342–348.

26

WASHING IN WATER

some other terms used as well for the process of cleansing or the state of purity.10 Some of them are used in a metaphorical sense, but none of them immediately involves water. WASHING FOR RITUAL PURITY There are basically three contexts in which ritual uses of washing or purification are presented in the Hebrew Bible: 1) “General” washing, or ritual purification of impurities which affect all people; 2) “Priestly” washing, or ritual purification that applies only to the priests or levites; and 3) and washing for “Theophanies,” ritual washing of the entire people in preparation for a theophany or other public event.11 In the following, examples of each of these three uses will be analyzed, and their appearance in the rest of the Hebrew Bible will be discussed. GENERAL WASHING Lev 11–15 outlines several sources of impurity that may affect any Israelite and the means of restoring purity in each case—unclean animals (11), childbirth (12), skin diseases and mildew (13–14), and bodily discharges (15).12 While each kind of impurity has its own specific rituals for purification, depending on the type of impurity and degree of contact, all involve some combination of the

For #$dqth, see H.-P. Müller, “#$dq,” TLOT 3.1102–1118; T. E. McComiskey, “#$dq,” TWOT 2.786–789. 10 See for instance, qqz (strain or purify), Kkz (to be clean or pure), and rrb (clarify or cleanse) (Clines, DCH.275–276, R. Laird Harris, “rrb,” TWOT 1.134, V. Hamp, “rrb,” TDOT 2.308–312). 11 The first two ritual uses are focused towards protecting the purity of the sanctuary, while the third seems focused on protecting the purity of the people. These contexts will be discussed below. Klawans distinguishes “ritual” purity which protects the sanctuary and “moral” purity which protects the land, although most of his cases of moral purity do not involve washing and are thus can be left out of this study. This is an issue that will need further examination (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 21–31). For a summary of Milgrom’s work on Leviticus and how it relates to Klawans’ framework, see Klawans, “Ritual Purity,” 19–28. 12 There is almost unanimous agreement that the term tsar’at (t(rc) commonly translated as leprosy is not the same as Hansen’s disease known as leprosy in modern times. Even so, for the sake of simplicity, the term leprosy will be used for this condition. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 775, 816–824; Lester L. Grabbe, Leviticus (Sheffield: Sheffield, 1993), 51. The terms zav and zavah, from the Hebrew root bz will be used to denote men and women with genital discharges to avoid the constant use of awkward euphemisms. These terms are actually a much later rabbinic abbreviation, and thus their use here is somewhat anachronistic, but they will be used here for the sake of simplicity.

WASHING IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

27

following elements: washing the body, washing the clothes or other objects, waiting until sunset, offering a sacrifice, and examination by a priest.13 Lev 15 serves as a useful example of the ritual use of washing for purification. This chapter deals with genital discharges, both normal and abnormal.14 It outlines several different scenarios, including the spread of contamination from individuals with a discharge to other people and objects around them, as well as different kinds of discharges—seminal, menstrual, unavoidable, and illness-related. Each scenario spells out a slightly different process for purification from such contamination, but 15:13–15 and 16–18 will serve as a useful examples for this discussion:
When the one with a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, he shall count seven days for his cleansing (wtrh+l): he shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in fresh water, and he shall be clean (wr#&b Cxrw wydgb sbkw rh+w Myyx Mymb). On the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons and come before the LORD to the entrance of the tent of meeting and give them to the priest. The priest shall offer them, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering: and the priest shall make atonement on his behalf before the LORD for his discharge. (Lev 15:13–15) If a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water (wr#&b-lk-t) Mymb Cxrw), and be unclean until the evening ()m+w br(-d(). Everything made of cloth or of skin on which the semen falls shall be unclean until evening. If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. (Lev 15:16–18)15

Milgrom argues that in general the sources of impurity represent death in one form or another, and the rituals and sacrifices for purification represent life through the use of sacrificial blood (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 766–768, 1000–1004). 14 In some ways, Lev 13–14 would be a more apt example, since some Second Temple period writers use the purification of those with tsar`at as the model for other purifications, including those of the zav and zavah. However, the purification of those healed of tsar`at is actually quite complicated and involves unique rituals which distract from the general principles outlined in this chapter. In addition, there is no discussion of contamination of other people or objects by people with tsar`at, a major issue for other forms of impurity. Further, there is a contrast between being confined for seven days and living outside the camp, both of which are described as applying to tsar`at (Lev 13:4 and 14:8). Milgrom argues that Lev 13–14 form an original unit from P1, and that the only changes were the addition of the sections on mildew in fabric by P2 and H. He does not address this specific contradiction (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 886). 15 Unless otherwise noted, all biblical quotations are from the NRSV. See Deut 23:11 for slightly different instructions. Further, unless noted, all emphasis has been added to the quotations.

13

28

WASHING IN WATER

Between these two cases, most of the elements of purification mentioned above can be found: washing the body, washing the clothes, waiting until sunset, and offering a sacrifice.16 According to the definitions of the categories given earlier, these clearly fall under ritual washing. These verses represent actual actions, performed for religious purposes, without any larger metaphorical explanation being offered, thus they are “ritual.” Further, they exhibit the pattern of terminology that is found in many other ritual washing texts, particularly those from the Priestly source—the combination of Cxr (bathe), sbk (wash objects), and rh+ (be clean). While these three terms appear individually in many other places, they appear together only in Priestly texts on ritual washing. In fact, these elements of bathing one’s body, washing one’s clothes, and becoming, or being declared, clean form a common refrain in Lev 11–15, although the exact sequence varies.17 It should be noted here that these purification and healing rituals are not unique to the Israelite tradition. According to Milgrom, there are parallels from Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hittite and Greek traditions, in which bathing and sacrifices were commonly part of the healing and purification process. However, he suggests that the writers of the Pentateuch intentionally separated the processes of healing and purification to remove any hint of magic or supernatural action from purification.18 Certainly these two examples and the rest of chapter 15 bear that out—in the scenarios in which the discharges result

See Harrington, Impurity Systems, 28–43 for further discussion of the biblical and rabbinic systems of purity. See m. Zabim 1.1–6, m. T. Yom 2.2–3 and Sipra Shem Sher 8:9 for rabbinic discussions of these matters. 17 The concept of Mwy lwb+, waiting until the next day (i.e. sundown) is mentioned several times in the Hebrew Bible, but is not emphasized. This issue becomes important in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in rabbinic literature. Milgrom suggests that washing removes impurity to the point that it will not contaminate the sacred, but the passage of time or sacrifice are necessary to prevent the possibility of contaminating the sacred (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 982–983). See Chapter 5 for further discussion. It is also important to note that Cxr is always used for washing the body, while sbk is used for objects, with one possible exception, Lev 17:16, but that may just be a scribal error. The usage of Cxr and sbk is important because the pattern is changed in the metaphorical uses. (See below.) 18 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 958–965. The one exception in Lev 11–15 is the healing of those with tsar`at, who may bathe and/or shave, or perform other rituals during the time of their illness as well as after they have been declared healed and can then go on to be purified. Milgrom acknowledges two other exceptions—Naaman’s healing in 2 Kings 5:10–14 and the suspected adulteress in Num 5:1–31. Naaman is healed by bathing rather than before bathing and purification begin. As indicated above, further study of bathing in these other cultures would be useful, but there is not enough space to address it properly here.

16

WASHING IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

29

from an illness, the individual must first wait seven days after the discharge has ended before beginning the purification process.19 As will be discussed further below, there is one unusual factor to this passage from Chapter 15—it presents the following statement about the significance of these rituals of purification:
Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate (Mtrzhw) from their uncleanness (Mt)m+m), so that they do not die in their uncleanness (Mt)m+b) by defiling (M)m+b) my tabernacle that is in their midst. (Lev 15:31)

In other words, even though affected individuals may not be regular participants in activities at the tabernacle, their impurity due to discharges was a serious matter, potentially defiling the tabernacle and threatening their own death.20 Thus these sources of impurity, seemingly very personal and private, are a matter that affects the entire community and the tabernacle. Hence there is a need for specific rituals and declarations of what is to be done for any person who has any of these impurities.21
See Lev 15:13, 28. In other words, purity did not begin as a requirement just for priests, as some have argued (Sanders, Judaism, 431–437). Milgrom suggests that it is not an individual matter, but addressed to the entire nation, since the pollution of the sanctuary will lead to the destruction of Israel (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 945–946). Klawans concludes:
20 19

Rather, Israelites are obliged to remain aware of their ritual status at all times, lest they accidentally come into contact with the sacred while in a state of ritual impurity (Lev. 15:31). As long as they remain aware of their status, there is little chance of danger or transgression. (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 25).

See also Lev 11:44–45, Num 19:13, 20 for similar statements. See also Philip J. Budd, Leviticus (ed. Ronald E. Clements; New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 221 and Bernard J. Bamberger, Leviticus (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1979), 154. The term used for this separation is Mtrzhw, to dedicate or consecrate, from the same root rzn, as the Nazirites. 21 For the other sources of impurity each calls for its own response, but there are common elements to purification in the Hebrew Bible, including exclusion from the camp, washing, passage of time, and sacrifices. For instance, Lev 13 outlines how certain people suspected of leprosy had to undergo two seven-day cycles of confinement and examination, at the end of which they could wash their clothes and be clean, while others are declared clean upon examination and not required to undergo any purification according to Chapter 13. Similarly, in Chapter 15 a menstruating woman is impure for 7 days, but becomes clean without any stated purification at the end of that time, while anyone who touches her must wash clothes, bathe, and wait until sunset to be considered clean. On the other hand, a woman who has given birth must perform a sacrifice of atonement once her time of impurity has ended (Lev 12:2–8). Thus the common elements

30 PRIESTLY WASHING

WASHING IN WATER

In contrast to the above impurities and ritual washings which applied to all Israelites, there are also references to special situations and practices which applied only to certain individuals, specifically the priests. A few verses from Exod 29 and 30 describing the consecration and service of Aaron and his sons will suffice as an example of this group of texts. Exod 29 describes the process by which Aaron and his sons were consecrated (#$dql, 29:1). Before they could be dressed in their priestly vestments or offer the proper sacrifices, Moses was instructed, “You shall bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance of the tent of meeting, and wash them with water (Mymb Mt) tcxrw)” (Exod 29:4).22 They were then to be consecrated through a series of animal sacrifices, during which some of the blood would be placed on Aaron and his sons.23 Chapter 30 describes the way in which Aaron and his sons were supposed to wash before serving in the tabernacle:
You shall make a bronze basin (t#$xn rwyk) with a bronze stand for washing (hcxrl). You shall put it in between the tent of meeting and the altar and you shall put water in it; with the water Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet (Mhylgr-t)w Mhydy-t) wcxrw). When they go into the tent of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister, to make an offering by fire to the LORD, they shall wash with water, so that they may not die. They shall wash their hands and feet, so that they may not die: it shall be a perpetual

of exclusion, washing, passage of time, and sacrifice appear in different combinations and sequences. See Appendix A for a summary of the treatment of each reason for washing in the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple literature, and Dead Sea Scrolls. These contexts will be discussed in further detail in Chapters 3 and 4. 22 See also Lev 8:1–36. Although the emphasis is on washing, it would appear that Aaron and his sons were purified by the combination of washing and sacrifice. Milgrom and Neusner have both suggested that in other contexts washing was insufficient and either the passage of time or sacrifice was needed for complete purification (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 982–983; Neusner, Judaic Law of Baptism, 200–202). In Lev 8 it would appear that each stage of the ordination process has a specific purpose. The washing (Lev 8:6) initiated purification, while the anointing (Lev 8:10), and perhaps the sprinkling of blood on Aaron and his sons (Lev 8:22–24) marked their consecration and ordination. Milgrom suggests that the anointing was a rite of passage for the priests, marking their elevation to their priestly role. Aaron and his sons all went through it, although subsequent generations of priests were born into the priesthood and did not need to be anointed. After this one-time ceremony, only the high priest needed anointing (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 553–555, 566–569). Similarly, Aryeh Kaplan argues that the washing during ordination marked a change in status, not a process of purification. (Kaplan, Waters of Eden, 11). For a comparison of Exod 29 and Lev 8, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1– 16, 545–548. 23 This conjunction of #$dqth and Cxr is unusual, as Milgrom indicates (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 967).

WASHING IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
ordinance for them, for him and for his descendants throughout their generations. (Exod 30:18–21)

31

These two passages clearly represent ritual washing, but they are also distinct from the general rituals described above which applied to all Israelites. As in those cases, this extra priestly washing is also a serious matter, threatening the death of those who disobey and applicable to all generations.24 In addition to all of the other washings to which they were subject, the priests were required to wash their hands and feet before serving in the tabernacle.25 The use of the vocabulary is another difference between these texts and those considered previously—where the purification rituals above linked washing and purity directly, these texts mention washing only.26 Given the emphasis elsewhere on priestly purity, we might assume that the priests were already washed and purified of any impurities. The consecration of Aaron and his sons in Exod 29:4 does not specifically refer to purity either, but it does use the term #$dql, or sanctify, with washing. Perhaps as was suggested in connection with ordination, this additional washing served a different purpose.27 WASHING FOR THEOPHANIES Finally, there are a few texts which present washing and/or purification as preparation for a special event, not just for the priests but for all Israelites. Several of these events involve theophanies, but there are other special occasions involved, such as the crossing of the Jordan River (Josh 3:5).28 However, since the crossing of the Jordan River only speaks of consecrating (w#$dqth) and not of washing, Exod 19:10–15 will serve as an example of this usage of ritual washing:

Milgrom suggests that this washing of hands and feet was less a matter of purity than of holiness. He compares it to other verses, including Exod 40:32, Lev 21:23, Lev 10:9, and Exod 28:43, all of which deal with the desecration of the tabernacle by those entering it inappropriately (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 753, 1017). 25 There are references to the washbasins used for washing hands and feet in the layout of Solomon’s Temple, as will be discussed below, but few references to actual practices there, so it is hard be certain whether these practices were present in Solomon’s time. 26 These are Priestly texts, but they do not follow the normal Cxr / rh+ pattern described above. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 967. 27 See the discussion of the distribution of ritual washing below. Consecration and purity are often linked without reference to washing, so these verses are unusual. 28 There are common components to theophany accounts, but no unanimous sequence of activities. They can include actions like washing, lying face down, removing sandals. These components would make an interesting study, but that question is tangential to this project.

24

32

WASHING IN WATER
The LORD said to Moses: “Go to the people and consecrate (Mt#$dqw) them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes (Mtlm#& wsbkw) and prepare for the third day, because on the third day the LORD will come down upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. You shall set limits for the people all around, saying, ‘Be careful not to go up the mountain or to touch the edge of it. Any who touch the mountain shall be put to death. No hand shall touch them, but they shall be stoned or shot with arrow; whether animal or human being, they shall not live.’ When the trumpet sounds a long blast, they may go up on the mountain.” So Moses went down from the mountain to the people. He consecrated the people, and they washed their clothes (Mtlm# wsbkyw M(h-t) #$dqyw&). And he said to the people, “Prepare for the third day; do not go near a woman.” (Exod 19:10–15)

Washing of this sort is certainly a ritual use, although quite different from both of the previous uses. Unlike both general and priestly washing, this sort of washing is not directed toward the sanctity of the tabernacle or sanctuary, but the Mountain or other place of meeting with God.29 However, like the priestly service, but unlike general washing, this washing is not in response to an explicitly stated specific source of impurity.30 The usage of vocabulary is also similar to the washing for priestly service— rh+, referring to cleanness or purity, is not mentioned, but #$dqth, or consecrate / sanctify is. However, here, only sbk, or launder, is used, because the people are only instructed to wash their clothes, as with some cases in Lev 11–15. However, just as the sequence of washing, healing, and purification is sometimes unclear in Lev 11–15, the sequence here is also unclear.31 Exod 19:14b says, “He consecrated the people, and they washed their clothes.” This verse implies that washing came after consecration, rather than being an actual part of it. The two processes are related, but washing is not the essential act of consecration, leaving us to wonder how Moses was to consecrate them.

In a sense, Mount Sinai functions as a sanctuary, making this a subset of the general washing above. However, the fact that most of the theophany stories appear outside of the Priestly source suggests that it will be useful to consider these few cases of washing separately. For instance, Exod 19:10, 14; Exod 24:10, and Num 11:18 are all from the Yahwist source, and Joshua 3:5 and 22:17 are from the Deuteronomistic history. 30 Although the passage does not specifically name sources of impurity which are being cleansed, there is a hint that sexual relations are involved, in the warning “do not go near a woman” (Exod 19:15). The same idea may be behind Uriah’s unwillingness to visit his wife while others are at the battlefield. (2 Sam 11:8) 31 Again as above, it appears to be the combination of washing and the passage of time (Mwy lwb+), which conveys purity.

29

WASHING IN THE HEBREW BIBLE DISTRIBUTION

33

The above examples serve as representative texts for each of the ritual uses described above—general ritual purity, priestly service, and theophanies.32 Now it remains to consider how each of these ritual uses appears throughout the Hebrew Bible. In what follows, the distribution of each of these uses of washing in the various sections of the Hebrew Bible will be discussed, beginning with the Pentateuch. In the Pentateuch, general washing is limited to ritual purity uses as described above, and almost all of these texts belong to the Priestly source and/or the Holiness Code, depending on how they are identified.33 Similarly, washing for priestly service is found mostly in the Pentateuch, also in the Priestly source, although this use is much less common than general washing. Finally, most of the theophanies are also in the Pentateuch, but in the Yahwist, not the Priestly source.34 In the Deuteronomistic History, there are many references to washing, although fewer than in the Pentateuch.35 However, except in very rare cases, even those in situations related to ritual purity, there is no mention of purity. Where “wash clothes ((Mydgb) sbk), wash body, ((r#&b) Cxr) and be clean (rh+w)” was a common refrain in the Pentateuch, the final part about being clean is almost never included in Deuteronomy or the Deuteronomistic History.36 Most of the texts in these books fall under the subcategory of general washing.
See Appendix B. There is some debate as to which of came first, P or H, although many now lump them together as a unit even while discussing their differences. (See Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 21–22.) Klawans distinugishes ritual purity in P which protects the sanctuary from moral impurity in H which protects the land (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 21–40). Milgrom, on the other hand notes the differences between P and non-P in terms of their use of #$dqth (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 149, 967). 34 The following are examples of other theophanies: Exod, 19:10, 14; 24:10; Num 11:18; and Josh 3:5, 7:13, 22:7, although Josh 7:13 only refers to sanctification, not washing. 35 See Appendix B. 36 See for instance, Lev 15:13 rh+w Myyx Mymb wr#&b Cxrw wydgb sbkw. 2 Sam 11:2, the story of Bathsheba is an exception to this pattern. Levine generalizes from this to argue that all uses of #$dqth assume the practice of washing, but that is not necessarily evident from the above examples (Levine, Presence of the Lord, 34, n. 85). Also 2 Kgs 5, the story of Naaman combines washing and purity, but the rest of the ritual is completely different from those in Lev 13—the only parallel is “bathe and be clean.”
33 32

34

WASHING IN WATER

Priestly service is largely absent from these texts, despite the fact that the Temple existed during the latter half of the Deuteronomistic History. 2 Sam 12:20 describes David washing before going into the House of the Lord to worship, but other than that, there is very little reference to washing in relation to either the Tabernacle or the Temple.37 For instance, the dedication of the Temple in 1 Kgs 8 does not make any reference to consecration or washing, even though its antecedent, the dedication of the Tabernacle in Exod 40:12–13 described the washing and consecration of Aaron and his sons. There are
Deut 23:10–11 instructs:
If one of you becomes unclean because of a nocturnal emission, then he shall go outside the camp; he must not come within the camp. When evening comes, he shall wash himself with water, and when the sun has set, he may come back into the camp.

While the references to washing and waiting until evening parallel the Priestly materials discussed above, this passage has no reference to purity. Since rh+ does not appear in Deuteronomy, we might conclude that purity is not a major concern in this book and thus the absence of rh+ in the reference to nocturnal emissions indicates differing emphases rather than differing practices. (Deuteronomy does include several references to purging (r(b), as in Deut 13:5, but again there is no direct reference to purity.) However, given the rest of the distribution pattern described here, we might conclude instead that Deut 23:10–11 represents an early washing ritual which was then absorbed into the purity system by the Priestly writers. Further, if D preceded P, as many now assume, such a progression seems reasonable. Tigay notes the parallel to Lev 15:16, mentioning only the addition of exclusion from the camp, not the absence of any reference to purity. The exclusion from the camp, an important issue in certain of the Dead Sea Scrolls, is related to YHWH’s presence in the camp (Deut 11:14). Tigay further suggests that armies sometimes abstained from intercourse to maintain purity for similar reasons (Lev 15:18, 1 Sam 21:6, 2 Sam 11:11) but that this is not mentioned here because the text “takes such abstention for granted or because it regards it as unnecessary” (Jeffery H. Tigay, Deuteronomy: The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 213–214). Another passage in Deuteronomy, 21:6–11, describes a ritual demonstrating the innocence of the elders of a town where a corpse has been found. They wash their hands over a heifer whose neck has been broken as a sign of their innocence to purge (r(b) themselves of the guilt of innocent blood. Again, there is no direct reference to purity, although the use of washing to proclaim innocence echoes the metaphorical uses which will be discussed below. As with 23:10–11, this may be a precursor to the Priestly purity system. The sacrificial ritual here replaces the monetary penalty the townspeople faced under comparable ancient Near Eastern laws (Ian Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 187–188; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 191–193). 37 This discrepancy was observed by Wellhausen, who used it to argue the late date of the Priestly source, since most of the cultic matters from the Pentateuch are absent in the Deuteronomistic History (Julius Wellhausen, Prologomena to the History of Israel: Reprint of the Edition of 1885 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 3; John Burton, “Source Criticism (OT),” ABD 162–165; Jacob Milgrom, “Priestly (“P”) Source,” ABD 464–461).

WASHING IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

35

however many references to purification, but without washing.38 This discrepancy raises the question of whether washing for purification was known in the time of the first Temple, an issue which will be discussed at greater length later. The same situation applies to Chronicles as well, with several references to purification, but few to washing. The only specific reference is to the presence of the basins in the Temple, in 2 Chr 4:6, 10. However, it is interesting to note that 2 Chr 35:6 refers to the observance of the Passover, “according to the Law of Moses.” It is unclear exactly what observances were included under that heading. This pattern continues even in Ezra and Nehemiah as they discuss the rebuilding and rededication of the temple—purification is mentioned, but there is no mention of washing. This suggests that washing for purity is a Second Temple period development, coming after these books were written down.39 Finally, there are a few ritual references in the Nevi’im, and none in the Ketuvim outside of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, but these references are too scattered to make any argument about dating, development or their inclusion in these books.40 METAPHORICAL USES OF WASHING There are two kinds of metaphorical uses of washing terminology in the Hebrew Bible. One involves cases where the washing being described cannot be performed literally, while the other involves the use of washing terminology in situations that give them added significance.41 The following are some examples of metaphorical use of washing terminology:
Whoever is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem, once the Lord has washed away the filth (t(c t) ynd) Cxr) of the daughters of Zion and cleansed (xydy) the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning. (Is 4:3–4)

38

See for instance 2 Kgs 23, Josiah’s reformations, purification of Temple and the

priests. See for instance Ezra 6:20, Neh 12:30, 45, 13:9, 22, 30. See Ezek 24:13, 44:26, Is 66:17. These are the same dynamics described by Klawans, although he concludes that much of what others have called metaphorical impurity is not metaphorical but literal (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 32–36. See also the definition of metaphor that he cites, given above.)
40 41 39

36

WASHING IN WATER
O Jerusalem, wash your heart clean (Kbl h(rm ysbk) of wickedness so that you may be saved. How long shall your evil schemes lodge within you. (Jer 4:14)42

In both of these examples, there is a non-literal element to the use of washing. In the first one, Jerusalem is to be washed by spirits of judgment and burning, neither of which is tangible or part of the forms of washing we considered above. In the second example, Jerusalem’s heart is being washed, making it doubly non-literal. The city does not literally have a physical heart, and even if it did, the heart cannot be washed apart from the rest of the body. These two examples, and others like them clearly cannot be taken literally, and need to be considered apart from the ritual washings above. The book of Psalms provides several examples of a different metaphorical use of washing language. Ps 26:6 says, “I wash my hands in innocence (ypk Nwyqnb Cxr)) and go around your altar, O Lord.” Ps 51 contains three similar references:
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity (ynw(m ynsbk hbrh), and cleanse me from my sin (ynrh+ yt)+xmw). (2) Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean (rh+)w bwz)b yn)+xt), wash me and I shall be whiter than snow (Nybl) gl#$mw ynsbkt). (7) Create in me a clean heart (yl-)rb rwh+ bl), O God, and put a new and right spirit within me. (10)

Despite similarities to the ritual uses of washing described above, these verses must be considered in a metaphorical sense, not just a ritual sense. These passages transform the significance of cultic activities. For instance, Ps 51:2 pleads “wash me thoroughly from my iniquity (ynw(m ynsbk hbrh),” echoing the ritual washings of Leviticus, yet at the same time the passages in Leviticus make clear that washing is only part of the purification process, something left out in this verse. In fact, Ps 51 essentially turns the purificatory process from Leviticus on its head. In Lev 11–15, some sort of sacrifice often followed the ritual washing, and only after the sacrifice would the individual be declared clean. Yet, Ps 51:16–17 denigrates the sacrificial system, substituting “a broken and contrite heart (hkdnw rb#$n-bl)” for a burnt offering. These
42 It is difficult to say whether Is 1:16 “Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doing from before my eyes,” fits better under the non-literal usage or as an example of the “metaphorical” usage below. Although it could be nonliteral, the final phrase, “remove the evil of your doing from before my eyes,” suggests that it can be considered metaphorical, as it adds to the meaning of the cultic language. In any case, this passage seems to fit better as metaphorical than as ritual washing.

WASHING IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

37

verses illustrate the juxtaposition of different “semantic fields” that Klawans suggests as a way to understand metaphor.43 Similarly, even though Ps 26:6 makes reference to the altar, it does not fit exactly into any cultic context described in the Pentateuch. There are references to hand-washing before approaching the altar, such as Exod 30:19–21, but they are not described in terms of innocence, and they are required of the priests, not the king.44 Ezek 36:25 offers another example of how a metaphorical use of washing terms can transform a cultic context: “I will sprinkle clean water on you (Myrwh+ Mym Mkyl( ytqrzw), and you shall be clean from your uncleannesses (Mkytw)m+ lkm Mtrh+w), and from your idols I will cleanse (rh+)) you.” This verse resembles the rituals of Leviticus, in its reference to clean water and cleansing, yet there are differences. In Leviticus and the rest of the Priestly source, sprinkling is mostly limited to the placing of blood on the altar and the sprinkling of parah-water on those with corpse contamination.45 Further, while idols may be a source of uncleanness, certainly one of Klawan’s “moral impurities,” they are not something specifically described in Leviticus as a source of impurity for which one can wash.46 Thus these verses differ from ritual uses of washing in the fact that they bring elements from the ritual setting, but then add new contexts and layers of meaning, essentially falling under what Klawans explains as metaphor.47 However, there is another difference—these verses use the washing vocabulary in a new way. Several of these verses break the pattern of terminology set by the ritual washings of Leviticus. As described above, Cxr was always used for the washing of humans, while sbk was always used for clothing and other objects. In several of these passages, including Ps 51:2 and 7, as well as Jer 2:22 and
Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 33, n. 77. Although the dating of individual psalms is largely unclear, the date of this material could help clarify the development of understandings of ritual bathing. Dahood suggests that many of the psalms have Bronze Age Canaanite parallels in style and vocabulary, and may thus precede the Israelite period. However, he allows that some may actually be Davidic (Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1–50 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), xxix–xxx). 44 Of course there was no king in the time of the wilderness, but this juxtaposition of cultic elements with non-cultic practices still suggests that this text is different from the ritual ones considered above. 45 See for instance Lev 16:19 (altar), Num 19:12 (parah), and Lev 14 (tsar`at). While Collins does not specifically describe Ez 36:25 as metaphorical, she calls it an “ethical” and “eschatological” use of washing (Collins, “Origin,” 35-36). 46 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 26, ff.. It is fair to ask, however, whether Ezekiel should be expected to follow the example of the P material. According to Milgrom, Ezekiel was using the Priestly material after it was compiled, but there is still some debate about this (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1–12). 47 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 33, n. 77.
43

38

WASHING IN WATER

4:14, this pattern is reversed. Now sbk is used for people or parts of their bodies. Granted, the terms are very close in meaning, but since sbk literally means “to launder,” the idea of laundering a person’s body is unusual. DISTRIBUTION Thus in three different ways the metaphorical uses of washing can distinguish themselves from ritual washing, although not necessarily all three for each case: in their non-literal nature, in their extra layers of meaning added to a ritual setting, and in their unusual uses of the term sbk. Passages of this sort can be found in both the Ketuvim and Nevi’im, but not in the Pentateuch. However, there are not really enough of these passages to suggest a pattern of which books do and do not include metaphorical uses of washing. OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS Having outlined the uses of washing terminology in the Hebrew Bible, it remains to make several observations and discuss the implications of these findings. Some of these observations will serve as a useful comparison to the material from later groups of texts to be discussed in subsequent chapters. First, it is clear now that there are two primary uses of washing terminology in the Hebrew Bible—”ritual” uses and “metaphorical” uses. These uses are distinct both in their distribution throughout the canon and in their application of the various vocabulary terms. Even so, these different uses are not entirely exclusive—some “ritual” uses have metaphorical elements and some “metaphorical” uses draw heavily on ritual language. In any event, despite the limitations of the definitions, the distribution of these uses in the Bible makes it clear that there are two distinct forms—ritual and metaphorical. Ritual washing is found primarily in the Torah and Deuteronomistic History, with only a few references in the Ketuvim or the rest of the Nevi’im. Outside of the Pentateuch, ritual washing is only rarely associated with purity.48 On the other hand, metaphorical washing is found only in the Prophets and Writings and is also rarely associated with purity. Ritual washing passages tend to use Cxr and sbk in closely-defined roles—Cxr for bathing people’s bodies, but sbk for clothing or other objects. In fact, the two formed a sequence with rh+: Cxr, sbk, rh+ were all common elements of purification. Metaphorical passages use Cxr in the same way, but those with sbk reverse the usage—sbk is now used to refer to washing people’s bodies or parts thereof. With only one of the two observations,

48

See Appendix B.

WASHING IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

39

it might be possible to doubt whether the two types are really distinct, but with the two observations combined, it becomes more likely that the uses are distinct. An issue that will become more important as we move into later groups of texts is the context in which bathing is presented. As described above, ritual washing is focused in three contexts in the Hebrew Bible—general washing applicable to all Israelites, priestly washing to preserve the holiness of the Sanctuary, and washing in preparation for theophanies or special events. The land, a context which Klawans emphasizes in his study of “ritual” and “moral” purity, does not appear as much in terms of washing as it did in terms of purity. In contrast, at first glance, the contexts of metaphorical uses of washing do not seem to follow any pattern.49 These contexts will serve as useful comparison in later chapters as we follow the development of ritual washing. Next, it should be observed that most, if not all, of the examples of “ritual” washing are presented matter-of-factly, without any added explanation or symbolism. In contrast, consider the command to observe the Sabbath, which is described as a reminder of either the creation of the world in Exod 20:10–11 or slavery in Egypt in Deuteronomy 5:14–15.50 This observation will become especially important when we look at the use of washing terminology in the Second Temple period, where ritual acts are sometimes described along with a statement of their significance. This is not to say that the rituals in the Hebrew Bible were insignificant, just that no explanations are given. After all, rituals are essentially enacted symbols, we simply cannot always understand the intended symbolism anymore.51 Finally, we must consider what the distribution and use of washing terminology might tell us about the development of ritual washing. As described above, some scholars seem to assume a continuous development of ritual bathing practices from the Israelites’ time in the wilderness and the construction of the Tabernacle to the First Temple and then the Second Temple period.52
In any case, there is no clear division for washing between sanctuary as the focus for ritual purity, land for moral as Klawans argues for purity in general (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 27). 50 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 37. 51 Note, however, that in the Hebrew Bible, purity in general, not just washing for purity, can be found in both ritual and symbolic uses. Its distribution is not as welldefined as that of washing terminology, and there is no indication of development from one to the other, but there is a definite distinction between the uses. 52 Sanders does not specifically speak about practices in the First Temple period, but he takes the biblical material at face value without much consideration for its composition history. He may be right in assuming that late Second Temple period practices follow the Hebrew Bible, especially since many of the Hebrew Bible’s texts were considered authoritative by that time, as Grabbe suggests (Sanders, Jewish Law, 134–151; Sanders, Judaism, 211–230; Lester L. Grabbe, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh (London: Routledge, 2000),
49

40

WASHING IN WATER

However, the use of washing terminology in the Hebrew Bible as outlined here effectively challenges such a claim. The washing texts from Leviticus describe purification washings as a way of maintaining the holiness of the Tabernacle. That is their central goal. It is further true that some of the purification rituals described in Leviticus mention the Tent of meeting and the altars, as do the references to priestly washing in Exodus. However, if we assume that the Pentateuch is historically and chronologically correct in its description of the Tabernacle, then it would seem logical to expect similar descriptions of washing and purification to be found in references to Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, the successor to the Tabernacle. This is not the case. In fact, with rare exceptions, namely Naaman and Bathsheba, the purity system outlined in Leviticus and elsewhere does not appear anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible.53 Even the rest of the Pentateuch does not link purification and washing the way the Priestly source of Leviticus does. Similarly, all references to purification in the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles lack both washing and details as to the actual nature of the impurity being redressed. Finally, even the description of the postexilic rebuilding of the Temple under Ezra and Nehemiah does not link washing to purity and still gives no details about purification. For instance, Neh 12:45 says, “They performed the service of their God and the service of purification, as did the singers and the gatekeepers, according to the command of David and his son Solomon.” There is no reference to washing, or even to Moses’ instructions. This is not to say that ritual washing and purification are absent from the Deuteronomistic History—they are present, but they are not linked in the way they are in Leviticus. How then do we reconcile the Torah’s historical claims of practices with the evidence found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible? One possibility is that the writers of the Deuteronomistic History assumed that their readers would know the details of what was being described and could fill in the blanks. That is to say, where there are references to the Priests purifying themselves, readers
156–157). On the other hand, Brooks implies that the Hebrew Bible’s account of purity practices was historically accurate (Brooks, Drama of Decision, 21–32). Similarly, Neusner seems to assume that the Parah practices originated with the Tabernacle and were carried over into the Temple (Neusner, Jesus to the Mishnah, 111). Considering the fact that many scholars of the Pentateuch suggest that the Tabernacle is a later retrojection, modeled after the Jerusalem Temple, it is surprising that these scholars would continue to treat the Levitical purity rituals as historical (Friedman, “Tabernacle,” 6:292–300; Grabbe, Leviticus, 22–23, 28). It is entirely possible, as George Barton suggests, that the rituals were remnants of ancient practices even if the texts were written down later, but that is unreliable as historical evidence (George A. Barton, The Religion of Ancient Israel (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1961), 172). 53 As described above, the details of these passages differ greatly from the Priestly system in Leviticus.

WASHING IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

41

would know how and why the priests were purifying. Another possibility is that the Priests in the Solomonic Temple knew how purity had been attained in the days of the Tabernacle and chose not to implement the system in their own time. Finally, perhaps washing for purity was a later development inserted into the story of the Tabernacle to lend authenticity. The first two options do not fit the usage of washing terminology outlined above. If the writers were trying to avoid unnecessary repetition by not mentioning washing and the details of purity, why did they go into such detail about the construction of the Temple? Similarly, it makes no sense that the Israelites would eliminate the purity practices originating with the Tabernacle when the first Temple was built, only to reestablish them centuries later in the Second Temple period. Thus the idea that ritual washing for purification was a later development, inserted into earlier versions of the Torah, seems the most promising. If ritual washing for purification was a later development, when did it originate—how late is late? Two observations from the foregoing discussion may help clarify this problem. First, there are no reliable references other than the stories of Bathsheba and Naaman, to washing for purification in either the Deuteronomistic History or other texts like 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Although the exact dates of composition for these texts may be uncertain, it seems unlikely that washing for purification was practiced in the historical periods described in these texts, or otherwise more references to such a practice would have survived.54 Second, almost all of the texts that explicitly link washing and purification come from the Priestly source. While the dates that scholars attribute to the Priestly sources vary, there are three main tendencies—preexilic composition, postexilic composition, or Hellenistic composition.55 Even before this project, this writer tended to agree with the Postexilic approach, but this project confirmed those views—the data makes the most sense with a late P. If P is early, why are there no references to washing and purification in the First Temple?

We return to the question of the composition history of these various documents in Chapter 6. For further discussion, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 3–35, 61–63; Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 21–22; Alexander, Pentateuchal Criticism; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 1–30; Blenkinsopp, “P and J in Genesis,” 1–15; Blenkinsopp, “Assessment,” 495–518; Carr, “Controversy And Convergence,” 22–31. 55 For example, Milgrom posits a preexilic date, Blenkinsopp argues for a postexilic date, while Thomas Thompson and the Copenhagen group argue for a Hellenistic date (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 3–35; Blenkinsopp, “Assessment,” 495–518; Thomas L. Thompson, The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past (London: Jonathan Cape, 1999); Thomas L. Thompson, The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (New York: Basic Books, 1999)).

54

42

WASHING IN WATER

Ideally it would be possible to suggest a sequential development from either metaphorical uses to ritual uses or vice versa, but as it stands right now, the uncertainty over dating of P and other biblical texts makes that impossible. This is the same conclusion Klawans came to in discussing the relationship of ritual and moral purity.56 CONCLUSION Thus we can distinguish between ritual washing and metaphorical uses of washing language in the Hebrew Bible, increasing the scope of material for a discussion of the development of ritual bathing. While these different uses of washing draw on some of the same vocabulary, we found differences within the way these terms are used and subdivisions within ritual bathing – general washing, priestly washing, and washing for theophanies. Finally, we found indications that the priestly system of ritual washing for purification developed relatively late since many of the Hebrew Bible’s historical works lack references to washing for purity. Having established the existence of two different primary uses of washing in HB, ritual and metaphorical, and suggested influences that may have inspired the linkage of washing to ritual purity in postexilic period, it now remains to show how these patterns continue and change during the Second Temple period by looking at a series of Second Temple texts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Some uses will continue into these later texts, while other new uses will be attested as well.

56 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 35. In Chapter 6 we will return to these questions and discuss the provenance and Sitz im Leben of ritual bathing.

3 WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE
INTRODUCTION In Chapter 2, we found ritual and metaphorical uses of washing in the Hebrew Bible and observed a disagreement between the washing described for the Tabernacle in the Pentateuch and the actual practices of the First Temple described in the Deuteronomistic History. An examination of this discrepancy led to the suggestion that ritual washing was a postexilic development, but it was impossible to pinpoint the origin of this practice further from the evidence in the Hebrew Bible. In this chapter we will examine several texts from the Second Temple period to see whether the patterns from the Hebrew Bible continued after the exile and restoration, in the hopes of clarifying the development of ritual washing for purity. The Second Temple period is generally considered to be a turning point in Jewish history. However, scholars disagree on several questions. First, how closely did Second Temple Jewish practices follow earlier, preexilic practices? Second, which outside influences were most important in determining the shape of Second Temple Judaism – Persian, Greek, Roman, or other? Finally, what historical resources can be used to illuminate Second Temple practices, and how reliable are they? For instance, can the writings of Josephus and Philo, or even

43

44

WASHING IN WATER

the later rabbis be accepted as accurate?1 These questions will be in the background throughout this chapter and will necessitate a certain degree of caution in drawing upon various Second Temple texts. There are of course a large number of texts written during the Second Temple period or purporting to describe life during that time. Out of necessity this chapter will address only a small selection of such texts. We have already discussed some texts from this period in Chapter 2, specifically Ezra, Nehemiah, and Ezekiel. Other texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls will be examined in the following chapter. However, even after excluding these texts, there is still a large body of material to be covered—the works of Philo and Josephus, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha, so it has been narrowed further to focus only on those passages which deal with washing or purification.2 These washing texts have been narrowed further by excluding texts that are generally considered to have a late provenance, particularly those that have been edited by Christian redactors so much that the Second Temple elements are nearly impossible to locate reliably.3 Thus this chapter will deal specifically with passages from Josephus and Philo, Joseph and Aseneth, the Letter of Aristeas, Judith, and 2 Maccabees, and others.4 In what follows, the same basic outline as Chapter 2 will be used. After a brief discussion of the vocabulary used for washing in these texts, the major uses of washing (ritual, metaphorical, and initiatory) will be considered, with examples of each and a discussion of the distribution of each type of use in the

See Cohen, Maccabees to the Mishnah, 13–26; Lester L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 1–15; Harrington, Impurity Systems, 35–43, for further references. 2 Such texts have been located through the use of indexes, concordances, crossreferences from other texts, and close reading to find thematic references that might be missed otherwise. Some relevant texts may have been overlooked, but as they are located, they will be added. 3 One possible exception to this exclusion is Joseph and Aseneth, which Ross Kraemer dates as a later text of indeterminate authorship, while Humphrey and others still posit a Second Temple period composition, arguing that early Christian acceptance of this text indicates that it was written before Jews and Christians separated. See Ross Shepard Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered (New York: Oxford, 1998), 304; Edith M. Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth (Sheffield: Sheffield, 2000), 29–37. Burchard dates it to between 100 B.C.E. and 132–135 C.E. (C. Burchard, “Joseph and Aseneth,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985), 2.187–188). 4 Unless otherwise noted, English translations are from the Loeb series for Josephus and Philo, from the NRSV for the Apocrypha, and from James H. Charlesworth, ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 vols., (New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985) for Pseudepigrapha.

1

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE

45

Second Temple literature. Brief observations, analysis, and conclusions will follow. VOCABULARY In Chapter 2, we found that Wright’s distinction between words describing acts of washing or cleansing and those describing a state of purity, which could result from such acts, helped clarify the terms used for washing and purity in the Hebrew Bible.5 There we found Cxr and sbk used most commonly for washing, and rh+ and #$dqth used most commonly for purification, although each term had its own specific uses and texts in which it was most common. The same schema applies well to the Second Temple literature. Wright summarizes the Greek terminology: for washing: a)polouw, baptizw, e0kniptw (e0knizw), louw, proaspoplunw, loutron, and r(antoj;6 for purification: a(gneuw, a(gneia, a(fagnizw, kaqai/rw, kaqareuw, and faidrunw;7 and two words that overlap between the two: a(gnizw and perirrainw.8 Since the number of Second Temple texts dealing with washing is very small, some terms are used so infrequently it is difficult to get a sense of their use. The Septuagint offers a useful comparison for this process. As it was translated during the Second Temple period, it should be no surprise that many of the terms are used in the same ways they are in other Second Temple period

Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 206–207. For a)polouw, see Oepke, “lou/w,” TDNT 4.295–307. For baptizw, see Oepke, “bapti/zw,” TDNT 1.529–46. For e0kniptw (e0knizw), see Hauck, “ni/ptw,” TDNT 4.946–948. For r(antoj, see Hunziger, “r(antoj,” TDNT 6.976–984. 7 For a(gneuw and a(gneia, see Hauck, “a(gneu/w,” TDNT I.122–124. For kaqairw, see Hauck, “kaqai/rw,” TDNT 3.413–417, 423–431, Meyer, 3.418–423. 8 For a(gnizw , see Hauck, “ a(gnizw,” TDNT I.122–124; Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 206–207. I disagree with Wright’s assumption that the use of both a(gnizw and perirrainw show an overlap between washing and purification in the Second Temple literature. In most of the cases where a(gnizw is used in the Second Temple literature, no washing or water is mentioned. Some have assumed it to be implied, but as we saw in Chapter 2, that assumption does not always work for the Hebrew Bible, so it should not apply to the Second Temple period either. (See Appendices A and B.) Concerning perirrainw, it is true that Liddell-Scott suggests a purifying use of this term in other Greek texts, but that use is not evident in either the Septuagint or other Second Temple period texts (An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon Founded Upon The Seventh Edition of Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889), 631). When perirrainw is used, it often replaces either hzn or qrz, two terms which refer to an act more than a process, and in most of those verses, there is another term included for purification, so perirrainw could easily refer only to the act of sprinkling or throwing a liquid—generally blood or water in these texts.
6

5

46

WASHING IN WATER

texts.9 However, a quick glance at the use of washing vocabulary in the Septuagint indicates that the use of specific words for washing is much more complicated than we found in the Hebrew Bible and to a certain extent, more complicated than Wright suggests. In the Hebrew Bible there were two main terms for washing, with a few less frequent terms: Cxr for bodily washing and sbk for washing objects, although we found the usage shifted somewhat in metaphorical uses. In the Septuagint, Cxr is translated as niptw for the washing of feet, hands, and face; plunw for the washing of sacrificial offerings; and louw for bathing of the body.10 sbk is represented almost always by plunw.11 Since plunw is used for both Cxr and sbk, it thus becomes more difficult to search just by the Greek term without reference to the context in which it is used or the Hebrew term it is translating. Other vocabulary complicate matters even further. P+#$ (rinse) is often translated as niptw or plunw, and xwd is translated as niptw, as well. qrz and hzn do not overlap with these other terms, but there is a connection between the two of them, since they are both translated with terms like r(ainw and its related roots. Thus in the Septuagint and in the related Second Temple literature, the usage of specific words is quite unpredictable and complicates any attempt to verify the scope of a particular term. WASHING FOR RITUAL PURITY In Chapter Two, we described three different types of ritual uses of washing in the Hebrew Bible: general uses which applied to all people in everyday situations, priestly uses which applied only to priests and levites, and uses in
Despite the historical setting of Ptolemy’s reign provided by Aristeas, Grabbe places the translation of the Pentateuch in the mid-third century B.C.E., based on its use by the Jewish writer Demetrius before 200 B.C.E. He claims the rest of the books of the Septuagint were translated by 100 B.C.E. (Grabbe, Judaism, 200–201). However, as Emanuael Tov notes, it took quite a while for an agreed-upon version of the Septuagint to be accepted. There were still multiple variants in the first century C.E., and it was not stabilized until the second century (Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Modern Research (Jerusalem: Simor Ltd., 1981), 42). Thus, while the texts of the Septuagint were available at the time, various versions of the Greek manuscripts continued to circulate and we cannot be certain which versions were available to each writer. Shutt places the Letter of Aristeas from 150–100 B.C.E., but this is still debated by some (R. J. H. Shutt, “Letter of Aristeas,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1985), 2.8; Grabbe, Judaism, 179–180). 10 In some cases the Greek root is modified by the addition of a preposition, as in a)polouw, e0kniptw, etc. 11 The Septuagint lacks the confusion we found in the Hebrew text of Lev 17:16. It includes an object, ta i9matia, after the verb plunw, keeping this verse in line with other verses in Leviticus, so that it no suggestion that plunw was referring to washing the body.
9

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE

47

theophanies which described washing in preparation for meeting with God or some other special event. The first two uses are found in the Second Temple literature, although the last one is not. In addition, there are some new ritual uses not found in the Hebrew Bible, mostly focused around the practice of prayer. General and priestly washing are usually presented with the same details and situations as were found in the Hebrew Bible. However, there are some differences. In the following sections, examples of each kind of usage will be examined, with appropriate subdivisions. The distribution of each use in the Second Temple literature will also be considered. GENERAL WASHING In the Second Temple literature, we find general washing mandated for most of the same circumstances as were described in the Hebrew Bible, namely: leprosy, genital discharges, childbirth, corpse impurity, and contact with carrion. However, as will be seen below, the details presented by Second Temple texts do not always match the details found in the Hebrew Bible, raising questions as to what versions of the Bible were available to them and whether the differences between their writings and the Hebrew Bible reflect actual Second Temple practices. Josephus’ descriptions of Israelite purity practices offer a useful example of this process of borrowing from the Hebrew Bible while changing the details:
He banished from the city (a)phlase de thj polewj) alike those whose bodies were afflicted with leprosy (lepra)and those with contagious disease (kai touj peri thn gonhn r(eomenouj). Women too, when beset by their natural secretions, he secluded until the seventh day, after which they were permitted, as now pure, to return to society. A like rule applies to those who have paid the last rites to the dead: after the same number of days they may rejoin their fellows. But a person who exceeds this number of days in a state of defilement is required to sacrifice two lambs, of which one must be devoted to the flames and the other is taken by the priests. The same sacrifices are offered in a case of contagious disease; but he who has an issue in his sleep will, by plunging into cold water, exonerate himself, like those who lawfully cohabit with their wives. Lepers, on the other hand, he banished outright from the city, to have intercourse with no man and as in no way differing from a corpse. But if any by supplications to God obtains release from this disease and recovers a healthy skin, such an one returns thanks to God by diverse sacrifices of which we shall speak hereafter. Women after childbirth are forbidden by him to enter the temple or to touch the sacrifices until forty days have elapsed, if it is a male infant; double that

48

WASHING IN WATER
number is prescribed for the birth of a female. But they enter at the end of the aforesaid term to offer sacrifices, which the priests apportion to God.12 (A.J. 3.261–265, 269)

Josephus compresses many topics into this section, each of which is discussed at length in the Hebrew Bible.13 He addresses leprosy (Lev 13–14), menstruating women (Lev 15:19–24), corpse impurity (Num 19), nocturnal emissions (Lev15:16–18), impurity after childbirth (Lev 12:2–8), and “contagious disease (gonhn r(eomenouj),” which is not discussed specifically as such in the Hebrew Bible. However, he combines the details for these different sources of impurity as if they were all handled in the same way. As discussed above in Chapter 2, there are common elements to purification in the Hebrew Bible, including exclusion from the camp, washing, passage of time, and sacrifices. However, each source of impurity calls for its own unique response. For instance, Lev 13 outlines how certain people suspected of leprosy had to undergo two seven-day cycles of confinement and examination, at the end of which they could wash their clothes and be clean, while others are declared clean upon examination and not required to undergo any purification according to Chapter 13.14 Similarly, in Chapter 15 a menstruating woman is
There is no reference in Leviticus to quarantining someone with a “contagious disease,” (gonhn r9eomenouj) which Thackeray identifies as gonorrhea, nor are there references to the form of sacrifice described in A.J. 3.263, where one lamb is burned and the other is taken by the priests (Josephus, Ant. 3.263 (Thackeray, Josephus IV 443–445, 443 note f)). The Septuagint uses the term o9 gonorruhj in general for a discharge, as in Lev 15:32–33. 13 Here Josephus appears to be combining the different traditions from the Hebrew Bible. This approach is also seen in rabbinic materials, where for instance the use of miqva’ot (i.e., bathing in “living water”) becomes required for all sorts of impurity, even though initially required only for the zav. Specifically, Sanders says that m. Miqwa ot combines the idea that water in a cistern cannot be contaminated (Lev. 11:36) with the immersion of a zav in “living water” (Lev. 15:13). (Sanders, Jewish Law, 215). See also Harrington 113–116. It should also be noted that Josephus sometimes uses camp and city, as well as tabernacle and temple interchangeably (Thackeray, Josephus IV, 443, note f). See for instance Ant. 3.261 and the discussion of 4QMMT’s references to the camp in Chapter 4. In Tob 2:9, Tobit says that after burying a corpse, “That same night I washed myself (kai e0n au0th th nukti a0nelusa) and went into my courtyard and slept by the wall of the courtyard.” Num 19 calls for sprinkling and bathing on the third and seventh days, not the first evening, but as we will see in Chapter 4, there may have been alternate traditions involving bathing on the first day. Since the date of Tobit is imprecise, ranging from 500 to 200 B.C.E., it is hard to know when such a practice might have developed (Grabbe, Judaism, 176–177). 14 Lev 14 outlines “the ritual for the leprous person at the time of his cleansing,” and most commentators have assumed that Chapter 14’s purification ritual applied to all recovered lepers, but there seems to be some disagreement on that issue between chapters 13 and 14 (Lev. 14:1). See Chapter 2, above.
12

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE

49

impure for seven days, but becomes clean without any stated purification at the end of that time, while anyone who touches her must wash clothes, bathe, and wait until sunset to be considered clean. On the other hand, a woman who has given birth must perform a sacrifice of atonement once her time of impurity has ended (Lev 12:2–8). Thus the common elements of exclusion, washing, passage of time, and sacrifice appear in different combinations and sequences. Despite the contrasts with the sources of impurity in the Hebrew Bible, Josephus combines several sources as if they were handled in the same way.15 For instance, he treats lepers, those with “contagious disease,” women, and mourners who have paid last rights as if they all were quarantined or excluded from the city until the seventh day.16 Except for the contagious disease which is absent from the Hebrew Bible, each of these does mention the passage of seven days. Suspected lepers are quarantined for seven days before they are examined (Lev 13:1–8). Women are impure for seven days after menstruation, but the Leviticus says nothing about their being secluded, just that they are impure (Lev 15:19–24). Likewise, mourners are unclean for seven days and are then purified by sprinkling on the third and seventh days with the specially prepared mixture of water with the ashes of the red heifer (Num 19). Nowhere is there any mention of actual seclusion.17 In a similar manner, Josephus glosses over the details of purification for those with discharges, lepers, and women after childbirth, by focusing on the sacrifices they offer. Leviticus does require them all to offer sacrifices, but there are other specific details that Josephus omits. To a certain extent, such an
We will see this pattern in Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls as well. It may be possible to find potential settings for such harmonization, as Milgrom does in his study of the Temple Scroll (Jacob Milgrom, “Deviations from Scripture in the Purity Laws of the Temple Scroll,” in Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (ed. Shemaryahu Talmon; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991), 159–167). However, given the fact that Josephus, Philo, and the Dead Sea Scrolls all harmonize this material differently, the best we can say is that these texts may represent localized practices in the Second Temple period, but certainly not universal practices. Philo lived from about 20 B.C.E. to 50 C.E. in Alexandria, while Josephus lived from 37 C.E. to sometime in the early second century C.E., first in Judea and then in Rome. The Dead Sea Scrolls were primarily written between the second century B.C.E. and 70 C.E. While there is some overlap between these three sources, they come from very different contexts and thus it should not be surprising that the three sources do not always agree (James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 16–20; Grabbe, Judaism, 5–6, 370, 372). 16 According to Lev. 13 only confirmed lepers are actually excluded from the city until they are healed. After they have been healed, they may be examined by the priests again and if declared clean undergo purification, as described in Lev. 14, involving: a sacrifice, sprinkling, and two rounds of washing clothes, shaving, and bathing on the first and seventh day, and another final sacrifice on the eighth day. 17 Sanders, Judaism, 438–440. See m. Nid. 9:9, m. Hag. 2:7.
15

50

WASHING IN WATER

approach is understandable given that Antiquities is an introduction to Judaism for those who know nothing. Yet at the same time, he retains other details that might be less important to such an audience. Further, there is no indication that ritual bathing would have been offensive to his readers, something which could have explained this omission. Philo of Alexandria takes a similar approach to Josephus, combining details from different purity practices. For instance he writes:
As for the body, it purifies it with ablutions and sprinklings (loutroij kai perirranthrioij kaqairei) and does not allow the person to be sprinkled and washed once for all and then pass straightway within the sacred precincts, but bids him stay outside for seven days and be twice sprinkled on the third and seventh day, and after that, when he has bathed himself, it gives him full security to come within and offer his sacrifice. The following regulation also shews a farsighted wisdom which should be noted. In almost all other cases men used unmixed water (a)migei u9dati) for the sprinkling. By most people it is taken from the sea, by others from the rivers, and by others it is drawn in ewers from the wells. But Moses first provided ashes, the remnants of the sacred fire, obtained in a manner which will be explained shortly. Some of these, he says, are to be taken and thrown into a vessel and afterwards have water poured upon them. Then the priests are to dip branches of hyssop in the mixture and sprinkle with it those who are being purged. (Spec. 1.261–262)

Here Philo seems to be drawing on Num 19, the instructions for the red heifer, but his reference to exclusion for seven days with sprinkling on the third and seventh days sounds more like the leper’s purification in Lev 13–14. It is unclear which he intends, or perhaps he meant to combine the two. If that is the case, did he mean that this practice applied to all situations?18 Sometimes in addition to omitting information and combining different practices, Josephus also adds information and practices that are not found in the Hebrew Bible. For instance, certain forms of impurity do call for sacrifices such as those described in 3.262, although the Hebrew Bible does not call for such

Klawans notes that Yadin and Milgrom saw a similar process in 11Q19, calling it “harmonization” and “homogenization,” respectively (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 50–51, nn. 62–63). However, this process involved more than just bringing different texts into agreement. Neusner’s concept of “analogical-contrastive” exegesis suggests a process of extending one purity ruling to parallel situations in both positive and negative senses. That is, if an item was pure, parallels will be pure and any parallel to the item’s opposite will be impure (Harrington, Impurity Systems, 41–42). In many cases, though, we are able to observe that a process of standardization occurred, but cannot tell which principles were used to guide the process.

18

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE

51

sacrifices if someone waits past the set time for purification. In fact, Num 19:12–13, 20 specifically forbids such delay:
Any who are unclean but do not purify themselves ()lw )m+y-r#$) #$y)w )+xty), those persons shall be cut off from the assembly, for they have defiled ()m+) the sanctuary of the Lord. Since the water for cleansing has not been dashed on them, (wyl( qrz-)l hdn ym) they are unclean ()m+). (Num 19:20)

Overall, even though these general washing texts disagree with the Hebrew Bible on details, or combine several different passages, most do not give new information about how ritual bathing was practiced. However, there are a few texts that add such details. For instance, Josephus speaks of the necessary rites for those who waited too long for purification, and suggests that the Essenes remained clothed for washing (B.J. 2.161). Other texts refer to the type of water, or describe washing as “going down” (into the water), suggesting the possible use of a structure like a miqveh.19 The question remains with all of these descriptions, as with much that Philo and Josephus wrote, how many of the details reflect innovations by these writers and how many represent actual Second Temple practices.20 While it is enticing
19 See for instance A.J. 3.263, B.J. 2.129, 2.161. These passages and their usefulness for understanding the practice of ritual bathing in the Second Temple period will be discussed in Chapter 5, below. 20 As suggested in an earlier note, this process of conflation is found not only in Josephus, Philo, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but also in the rabbinic writings. However, each of these sources has drawbacks for use as a direct historical record. The details of Josephus’ “histories” are clearly influenced at times by his apologetic goals and the historiographic methods of his contemporaries which would be imaginative at best by modern standards. Similarly, Philo’s writings are affected by his desire to present Jewish religious ideas in a Greek philosophical framework. (For a bibliography of current research on Philo and Josephus, see Grabbe, Judaism, 4–13, 372–374); Grabbe, Judaic Religion, 89–94. The Dead Sea Scrolls represent an extended period of development and the work of many different writers, several of whom defined themselves in opposition to their enemies. Thus they do not represent a single writer or unified group but must be looked at individually (VanderKam, DSS Today, 71–75, 99–108). Finally, while parallels in rabbinic writings are intriguing, they are not useful for the history of the Second Temple period, since they were compiled much later. This is a problem with Sanders’ discussions, since he often cites the rabbis as reliable sources for this period (Sanders, Judaism, 222–230). This is not to say, however, that no historical conclusions can be made from these materials. At the minimum, the different treatments of washing and purity in these different texts suggest a great deal of flux and diversity concerning these issues during this period. Second, even though Philo excludes certain impure individuals from the Temple, while Josephus bars them from the city, the fact that they agree on the idea of quarantine and a seven-day period is significant. This concept will be seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls material as well. As suggested above, all of these accounts may reflect reality

52

WASHING IN WATER

to believe that these two writers are reporting on reality, we cannot be certain. Coming from a priestly family, we might expect Josephus to be loyal to traditions and hesitant to innovate, but his apologetic enterprise indicates that he had other motives as well. However, even if they are incorrect, their writings demonstrate that there were many ideas about washing and purity circulating late in the Second Temple period. PRIESTLY WASHING As with the general washing above, the descriptions of priestly washing, related to the Temple or Tabernacle largely agree with the Hebrew Bible. This should be no surprise, as many assume that descriptions of the Tabernacle in the Hebrew Bible are based on the later Temples, retrojected into the past to describe a Tabernacle that may or may not have existed.21 In any event, Second Temple period writers, particularly Josephus and Philo, describe the history of the Tabernacle and practices in the Second Temple in largely the same terms as in the Hebrew Bible, albeit with some small discrepancies as already seen above. As with the general washing texts above, there are also a few texts that give us added information. In describing the construction of both the Tabernacle and Solomon’s temple, Josephus mentions the basins for washing. In A.J. 3.114, he says “Within the gates stood a laver of bronze, on a base of the same material, where the priests could wash their hands and sprinkle water on their feet.” This is very close to Exod 30:17–21, which calls for the priests to wash their hands and feet before entering the tent of meeting or approaching the altar.22 Similarly, in describing Solomon’s Temple he says,
And in addition, he also wrought ten round basins or lavers of bronze, each of which held forty choeis, for they were four cubits in height and the diameter of their rims was the same distance. And he placed these lavers on the ten bases called Mechonoth. Five of the lavers he placed on the left side of the temple, which was the side toward the north and the same number on the south-east. In the same part he also placed the Sea. And, having filled the Sea with water, he set it apart for the priests to wash their hands and feet (e0n au)th taj xeiraj kai to podaj mellontaj a)nabainein e0pi ton bwmon) when they entered the temple and were about to go up to the altar, while the lavers were for cleansing

in the writers’ locations, but at the moment it is difficult to identify universal practices in this period. 21 See Friedman, “Tabernacle,” 6:294–295, for a discussion of the historicity of the Tabernacle. 22 The text says nothing specifically about purity, this is done “so that they may not die.” (Exod 30:20)

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE
(kaqairein) the entrails and feet of the animals used as whole burnt-offerings. (A.J. 8.85–87)

53

This passage is very close to 2 Chr 4:2–8, although, as Thackeray points out, the note about the diameter of the lavers is left out of the biblical parallel.23 In both of these cases, Josephus records nearly identical details to those found in the Hebrew Bible. Throughout the rest of his summary of Israelite history in the first ten books of Antiquitates, he often adapts and expands the biblical narrative, sometimes departing significantly from it. His close reliance on Chronicles in this instance may suggest that he felt it important to show the historical precedents for the Temple practice, building an ancient background for current practices.24 Josephus and Philo also describe priestly activities in the Temple. For instance, Josephus speaks of the consecration of the Levites as follows:
Now Moses, having segregated the tribe of Levi from the general community, to make of it a holy tribe, purified it with the waters of perennial springs (h0gnize phgaioij u9dasi) and with the sacrifices which on such occasions they offer to God as by law ordained.25 (Josephus, A.J. 3.258)

While Josephus is drawing on biblical tradition, he simplifies matters a great deal. Exodus 29 mentions washing with water and some very specific sacrifices in the ordination of Aaron and his sons, but it is unclear if those are the sacrifices Josephus mentions.26 Philo describes restrictions on impure priests and their purification as follows:
If, however, leprous eruptions appear upon him or he is suffering from seminal issue, the priest must not touch the holy table (mhte trapezhj i9eraj yaauetw) or any of the prizes to which his clan is entitled until in the one case the issue has ceased, in the other the leprosy is converted into a resemblance to Josephus, Antiquities (Thackeray, Josephus V 619, note i). See also Ant. 15.380, ff for Josephus’ description of Herod’s Temple. While 2 Chr 4:6 and 1 Kgs 7:38–39 largely agree in their descriptions of these basins, Josephus appears to be following 2 Chronicles, since he follows its placement of the basins on the right and left, rather than North and South as in 2 Kings. Much of Josephus’ discussion has a historical focus— events in the past with current significance, where Philo often blends past and present, with little distinction. 24 This is an important question, but its resolution lies outside the scope of this project. 25 See Num 3:5 on the Levite’s duties. 26 See also Exod 40:14–15, describing washing and anointing for consecration, Lev 8:10, which has anointing only, and Jdt 4:3, which describes the consecration of the Temple after exile and return.
23

54

WASHING IN WATER
the hue of healthy flesh. Further, if a priest touches any impure object or, as often happens, has an emission during the night, he must not during that day partake of consecrated food but bathe himself (lousamenoj), and after sundown he should not be debarred from its use. (Spec. 1.117–119)27

Here Philo is very close to the regulations in Lev 22:4–7, although it should be noted that these verses from Lev 22 do not fully agree with Lev 11–15. In Lev 11–15, anyone touching something unclean, such as a bed a menstruant has slept on or something touched by a zav, must bathe, wash clothing, and wait until sundown, not just bathe and wait until sundown. In this case, however, Philo is following an inconsistency in Leviticus, not simplifying matters by himself. Even so, he is simplifying matters by saying that a leprous priest may eat consecrated food again once he is healed, although according to Lev 13–14 there would actually be a period of waiting, examination, purification and sacrifice before such an individual would be declared clean and able to eat again. In both of these cases their writings reflect differences from the traditions outlined in the Hebrew Bible, although perhaps not as many as in the general purity rules discussed above.28 In addition to Second Temple period texts which echo the Hebrew Bible, there are some that offer additional information about purity and Temple activities which are not found in the Hebrew Bible. For instance, the Letter of Aristeas says the following about the city of Jerusalem:
Since the city is built on a hill, the layout of the terrain is sloping. There are steps leading to the thoroughfares. Some people make their way above them, others go underneath them, their principal aim being to keep away from the See Lev 22.4–7, Philo, Specialibus Legibus (Colson, Philo VII, 167 note c). A detailed analysis of the Septuagint’s preservation of the purity codes in the Hebrew Bible and the ways Philo and Josephus use these materials is necessary, but beyond the scope of this project. However, a brief comparison of Lev 11–15 and Num 19 in the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint indicates that the Septuagint preserves the details of the Hebrew version very closely. Except for Lev 11:40, where the Septuagint includes kai lousetai u0dati concerning one who carries a carcass, while the MT lacks Cxr, the Septuagint and Hebrew Bible appear to agree on the basic details of whether washing clothes, bathing, and/or waiting until sunset are required for each type of impurity. Since the Septuagint and Hebrew Bible agree on these issues, and it is generally established that Josephus and Philo used the Septuagint as their source, their deviations from the Hebrew Bible cannot be due to their use of the Septuagint or their ignorance of Hebrew. See James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 140, 144; James D. Newsome, Greeks, Romans, Jews: Currents of Culture and Belief in the New Testament World (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), 368. It will be necessary to look for other explanations, just as Milgrom does in his treatment of this issue in the Temple Scroll (Milgrom, “Deviations from Scripture,” 159–167). However, a search for such explanations for each deviation goes beyond the scope of this project.
28 27

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE
main road for the sake of those who are involved in purification rites, so as not to touch any forbidden object. (Let. Aris. 105–106)

55

The designation of certain paths for those involved in purification is not found in the Hebrew Bible, but it does resemble the description in m. Šeqal. 8:2 of divided staircases in Jerusalem.29 Similarly, Jdt 16:18 says, “When they arrived at Jerusalem, they worshiped God (prosekunhsan tw qew). As soon as the people were purified (kai h9nika e0kaqarisqh), they offered their burnt offering, their freewill offerings, and their gifts.” Like many passages from the Hebrew Bible discussed in the previous chapter, this passage does not specify how the people purified. However, it is distinctive in that purification comes first, and it describes the entire people as being purified, without mentioning the priests at all. These texts raise the question debated by Sanders and others whether purity in the Second Temple period extended to people besides priests and to circumstances unrelated to the Temple.30 Certainly the Hebrew Bible implies
29

M. Šeqal. 8:2 says:

All utensils found in Jerusalem on the path down to the place of immersion must be deemed unclean; but [if they are found] on the path back they may be deemed clean; for the path by which they are taken down is not the same as that by which they are brought back. Ny)m+ _ hlyb+h tybl hdyry Kdd Myl#wryb Ny)cmnh Mylkh lk ;Ntyl( Ntdyry Krdk )l# ;Nyrwh+ hyl( Krd

The subjects of the two passages are different, but they share a common concern – protecting the purity of those undergoing purification. See Sanders, Jewish Law, 218. See also Lev 16:24, which says that the High priest bathes in a holy place. It is unclear whether a specific location near the Sanctuary was intended, but the clustering of miqva’ot near the Temple Mount suggests that by the Second Temple period many visitors to the Temple bathed, perhaps not just the priests. This matter will be discussed further in Chapter 5. 30 See also Jub. 21.15–17a:
And at all of the (appointed) times be pure in your body and wash yourself with water before you go to make an offering upon the altar. And wash your hands and your feet before you approach the altar. And when you have completed making the offering, wash your hands and feet again. And let there not be seen any blood upon you or your garments. (O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1985), 2:96).

This text parallels the priestly washing of hands and feet before entering the sanctuary, but it is presented as Abraham’s instructions to Isaac for his own rituals, not as instructions to the priests. This is not surprising, given Jubilees’ attempt to entrench the

56

WASHING IN WATER

that all people were required to maintain purity in the camp and in order to enter the Tabernacle, but did all people maintain the priestly double purity hinted at by Josephus in A.J. 3.277–279, particularly in terms of meals?31 That is still not clear. Thus in these Second Temple period texts, priestly washing is described in largely the same way it was described in the Hebrew Bible, with a few differences. NEW USES OF WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD In addition to the general and priestly uses of washing which we already saw in the Hebrew Bible, there are several new ritual uses of washing which are not mentioned specifically in the Hebrew Bible. For instance, we find handwashing in various contexts, washing in preparation for prayer, and washing after defecation. In addition, there are references to new situations requiring purification which were not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, although they do not specifically describe washing. While several of these practices are described only once or twice in the Second Temple corpus, the appearance of these new uses of washing and purification in this period reflect diversity and innovation in practice. Hand-washing is mentioned several times in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature, but usually as a preliminary step to worship in the Temple or Tabernacle, and not as a ritual by itself. See for instance the discussion of the basins above. The only passage in the Hebrew Bible which might describe handwashing as a ritual of its own is Ps 26:6–7: “I wash my hands in innocence, and go around your altar, O Lord, singing aloud a song of thanksgiving, and telling all your wondrous deeds.” The conjunction of washing and worship, represented by “go around your altar” suggests some kind of ritual, but without any other details in the Pentateuch or the rest of the Hebrew Bible, it is hard to be certain what it was.32

Torah’s regulations in pre-Mosaic history and its claim that the men of Abraham’s line are priests. Jubileees was written some time in the second century B.C.E., presumably before the formation of the Qumran community since it does not reflect any split between its writers and the Jerusalem Temple (Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 2:43, 45; Grabbe, Judaism, 234). 31 Sanders, Judaism, 431–440; Harrington, Impurity Systems, 267–282 (App. A). 32 Dahood compares this verse to Ps 73:13 and suggests that it means the writer kept himself free of sin (Dahood, Psalms I, 162). J. Clinton McCann, Jr., on the other hand, sees Pss 15, 24, and 26 as entrance liturgies, making verses 1–5 an anticipation or preparation for temple activities and verse 6 a ritual preparation for entry into the sanctuary (J. Clinton McCann, Jr., The Book of Psalms (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 780–783). Similarly, Paul Mosca has described this as the private prayer of a priest (Paul

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE

57

There are, however, a few texts from the Second Temple literature which portray hand-washing as a separate ritual, apart from anything to do with the Temple or Tabernacle. Some of them pick up on the theme of hand-washing and innocence seen in Ps 26:6–7. Some of them also describe hand-washing as a preparation for prayer, as will be discussed later. The Letter of Aristeas describes how the translators washed their hands in the sea during a morning time of prayer:
At the first hour of the day they attended the court daily, and after offering salutations to the king, retired to their own quarters. Following the custom of all the Jews, they washed their hands in the sea in the course of their prayers to God, and then proceeded to the reading and explication of each point. I asked this question: “What is their purpose in washing their hands while saying their prayers?” They explained that it is evidence that they have done no evil, for all activity takes place by means of the hands. Thus they nobly and piously refer everything to righteousness and truth. (Let. Aris. 304b–306)

According to the writer, this hand-washing was included during prayers as a sign of innocence, but in this case there does not seem to have been any explicit interest in purity or preparation for the translation which followed the washing. Even with the explanation given in this passage, there are several unanswered questions. First, if this is the “custom of all the Jews,” why are there no other attestations of this practice outside of the texts we will examine below? If it is not a universal custom, is it just an Egyptian custom that Aristeas knows? Finally, why would a Jewish writer, as many presume the writer of this text to be, need to ask for an explanation of this practice? We may be able to resolve some of these questions by looking at two other Second Temple parallels to the story.33 Josephus gives a slightly different account of the story, although it seems most likely that he borrowed from Aristeas:
And early each day they would go to the court, pay their respects to Ptolemy and then go back to the same place and, after washing their hands in the sea and purifying themselves (kai th qalassh taj xeiraj a)poiptomenoi kai kaqairontej) would betake themselves in this state to the translation of the laws. (A.J. 12.106)

Mosca, “Psalm 26: Poetic Structure and the Form Critical Task,” CBQ 47 (1985): 213–237). See Chapter 2 for further discussion of such texts. See also, Deut 21:6–11. 33 For further discussion, see Letter of Aristeas, (Shutt, “Aristeas,” 2:2, 7–11); Josephus, A.J. 12.106 (Marcus, Josephus VII, 52–53, notes b,c), and Grabbe, Judaic Religion, 75–76 ; Grabbe, Judaism, 179–180.

58

WASHING IN WATER

Note here that Josephus has left out any reference to prayer or innocence. However, he makes clear that they were purifying themselves for the task of translation. It is unclear, however, whether the hand-washing itself purified them or whether there was some other activity involved as well.34 Finally, Philo’s description of practices among the Therapeutae offers a parallel, focusing on hands and prayer, without washing:
So then they assemble, white-robed and with faces in which cheerfulness is combined with the utmost seriousness, but before they recline, at a signal from a member of the Rota, which is the name commonly given to those who perform these services, they take their stand in a regular line in an orderly way, their eyes and hands lifted up to Heaven, (kai taj o0yeij kai taj xeiraj eij ou0ranon a)nateinantej) eyes because they have been trained to fix their gaze on things worthy of contemplation, hands in token that they are clean (taj de o9ti kaqarai lhmmatwn eisin) from gain-taking and not defiled through any cause of the profit-making kind. So standing they pray to God that their feasting may be acceptable and proceed as He would have it. (Contempl. 66)

Here, as in the Letter of Aristeas, the hands play a role in prayer and an explanation of the actions is given. As above, the focus on the hands indicates a sense of innocence, although Philo goes into more detail than Aristeas. However, unlike both of the previous examples, Philo does not mention any washing of the hands, and is less clear about the time of day. Furthermore, where Josephus and Aristeas described rituals which preceded the activity of translating the Bible, Philo’s Therapeutae declare their purity in preparation for eating. Philo also describes how the Therapeutae pray at dawn:
Thus they continue till dawn, drunk with this drunkenness in which there is no shame, then not with heavy heads or drowsy eyes but more alert and wakeful
34

See Josephus, A.J. 12.106 (Marcus, Josephus VII, 52–53, notes b,c). There are two other texts with roots in the Second Temple period which describe a similar process: T. Levi Oxford C 1–8, 22 – D3 and Sib. Or. 3.591–593. The Testament of Levi, written sometime after 250 B.C.E., will be discussed briefly in Chapter 4 in connection with its counterpart in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Aramaic Levi. However, the surviving manuscripts of these two texts appear to contain Christian interpolations, complicating their usefulness as descriptions of Second Temple period practices (Robert A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 170–174; H. C. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1983), 1:775–781; John J. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1983), 1:360–361; Grabbe, Judaism, 235, 354–361).

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE
than when they came to the banquet, they stand with their faces and whole body turned to the east and when they see the sun rising they stretch their hands up to heaven (taj xeiraj a)nateinantej ei0j ou0ranon eu0hmerian) and pray for bright days and knowledge of the truth and the power of keen sighted thinking. And after the prayers they depart each to his private sanctuary once more to ply the trade and till the field of their wonted philosophy. (Contempl. 89)

59

As with his previous statements about the Therapeutae, there is no washing and they raise their hands to heaven during prayer. However, in contrast to the earlier passage, he specifies the time of day, specifically dawn, and leaves out the explanation for their actions. Thus each of these hand-washing texts draws from a set of common elements: hand-washing or other actions with the hands, prayer, purity, innocence, and morning activities, while sometimes including their own additional elements as well.35 Having looked at these four texts, we are now in a better position to speculate on the universality of this hand-washing practice. Since three of the texts, the Letter of Aristeas and the two from Philo, have direct links to Egypt and the fourth by Josephus draws from the Letter of Aristeas, it seems safe to assume that this practice was found in various forms in Egypt during the Second Temple period.36 Lacking references apart from Josephus, it seems less likely that hand-washing was practiced or even known outside of Egypt, but there is no way to be certain. Like hand-washing, prayer is an activity from the Hebrew Bible which seems to undergo transformation in the Second Temple period.37 In the Hebrew Bible, prayer is mentioned in general as part of various rituals, and we also find descriptions of prayers given by individuals such as David and Solomon.38
Jos. Asen. 14:12–13, 15 speaks about washing face and hands, but it does not share any of these other elements. Instead, it shares some elements with other texts dealing with initiation, so it will be discussed below in section 3.5. 36 Sanders has suggested that these texts represent a specific Alexandrian washing rite, with particular emphasis on Spec. 1.261, 3.205–206 (Sanders, Jewish Law, 263– 270; Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 206 n. 53). See Sanders, Jewish Law, 255–271, for a discussion of purity practices in the Jewish Diaspora. For that matter, Joseph and Aseneth is Egyptian too, although for reasons just stated it was not discussed here. See Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth, 29–37. 37 For further discussion of prayer, see Grabbe, Judaic Religion, 170–175; VanderKam, Early Judaism, 210–211; Sanders, Judaism, 195–208, 518 n 28. See also M. Kiley, ed. Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology (London: Routledge, 1997); and R. Hachlili, “The Origin of the Synagogue: A Re-assessment,” JSJ 28 (1997): 24–47. 38 See for instance 2 Sam 7:18–19, 22–26 for a prayer attributed to David and 2 Chr 6:14–15, 17–21 for a prayer attributed to Solomon. See also Neh 1:4–11, Dan 9:3–19, and Neh 9:6–37. For further discussion, see VanderKam, Early Judaism, 210–211); Lee
35

60

WASHING IN WATER

However, in the Hebrew Bible, prayer is almost never associated with washing, except perhaps for the reference in Ps 26:6–7, which was discussed above: “I wash my hands in innocence, and go around your altar, O Lord, singing aloud a song of thanksgiving, and telling all your wondrous deeds.”39 However, in the Second Temple literature, there are some texts that specifically link bathing with prayer. For instance:
She went out each night to the valley of Bethuliah, and bathed at the spring in the camp (e0baptizeto e0n th parembolh e0pi thj phghj tou u9datoj). After bathing (kai w(j a0nebh), she prayed the Lord God of Israel to direct her way for the triumph of his people. Then she returned purified (kaqara) and stayed in the tent until she ate her food toward evening. (Jdt 12:7b–9)

In this passage, bathing, purification, and prayer are all linked. However, the text does not specifically state the purpose of the bathing—was it for purification, or in preparation for prayer, or in preparation for the meal she was about to eat? Another question is whether the bathing or the prayer purified her, since we have seen above that bathing alone was often insufficient for purification.40 Even though this one text links bathing and prayer, a subsequent passage does not link them:
Then Judith prostrated herself (e0pesen e0pi proswpon), put ashes on her head, and uncovered the sackcloth she was wearing. At the very time when the evening incense was being offered in the house of God in Jerusalem, Judith cried out to the Lord with a loud voice, and said... (Jdt 9:1)

I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998), 160–165. 39 Hand-washing is required before the priests enter the tabernacle and temple (see above), but the emphasis is on preparation for sacrifice and the burning of incense, not for prayer. 40 Carey Moore considers Judith’s bath to be preparation for prayer, although he finds a midrashic parallel in which the heroine’s bath marks the purification after menstruation, at which point intercourse is allowable (Carey A. Moore, Judith (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 219). On the other hand, Lawrence Wills suggests that she was cleansing herself from Holofernes’ impurity as a Gentile. According to the story she never had intercourse with him, but her presence in his tent implied the possibility, so she purified herself anyway (Lawrence M. Wills, The Book of Judith (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 1158). See Baumgarten for a discussion of similar questions concerning liturgical statements from Qumran (Baumgarten, “Purification Liturgies,” 200–212). The date of composition is unclear, but probably sometime during the Maccabean to Hasmonean periods, around the mid-second century B.C.E.

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE

61

Thus Judith is a problematic source for the relationship of prayer and washing in the Second Temple period, but the linkage made between them in 12:7b–9 is still important. Josephus’ description of the Essenes B.J. 2.128–129 suggests a different relationship between prayer and washing:
Their piety towards the Deity takes a peculiar form. Before the sun is up they utter no word on mundane matters, but offer to him certain prayers which have been handed down from their forefathers, as though entreating him to rise. They are then dismissed by their superiors to the various crafts in which they are severally proficient and are strenuously employed until the fifth hour, when they again assemble in one place and after girding their loins with linen cloths, bathe their bodies in cold water. (zwsamenoi te skepasmasin linoij ou9twj a)polouontai to swma yuxroij u9dasin tauthn thn a(gneian ei0j i0dion) After this purification, they assemble in a private apartment which none of the uninitiated is permitted to enter; pure now themselves, they repair to the refectory, as to some sacred shrine. (Josephus, B.J. 2.128–129)

In this case, the prayers are first, followed after an interval by the bathing, which seems intended to purify the Essenes in preparation for their common meal. There is also an allusion to initiation, a topic which will be addressed below. It is not clear from this passage whether initiation would involve bathing, but the clustering of so many issues in one passage suggests a possible relationship.41 In both cases there is no clear statement as to the intent and meaning of the washing and how it relates to prayer. The Letter of Aristeas, discussed above, is more specific, but still unclear as to the relationship between washing and prayer. These texts suggest the development of new washing practices, but the evidence is inconclusive. There is one final Second Temple text which prescribes washing in a context where it was not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. After describing in great detail how the Essenes handle defecation, Josephus says:

Given the small number of references to these issues, we do not have conclusive evidence—more a process of linking circumstantial evidence so to speak. It is also unclear how and when personal prayers such as Judith’s became more important, necessitating interest in purity during prayer. Was it a natural byproduct of Temple worship? Was it related to the development of synagogues and other changes in the Diaspora? It is hard to say. These are important issues beyond the scope of this project. Heather McKay’s study, in which she argues for the late development of Sabbath and synagogue buildings may help clarify these issues (Heather A. McKay, Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1994)). See Grabbe, Judaic Religion, 170–175, for further references.

41

62

WASHING IN WATER
For this purpose they select the more retired spots. And though this discharge of the excrements is a natural function, they make it a rule to wash themselves (a)polouesqai) after it, as if defiled. (Josephus, B.J. 2.149)42

In contrast, Deuteronomy does not mention washing when it says:
You shall have a designated (Kl hyht dyw) area outside the camp to which you shall go. With your utensils you shall have a trowel; when you relieve yourself outside, you shall dig a hole with it and then cover up your excrement. Because the Lord your God travels along with your camp, to save you and to hand over your enemies to you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you (twr( Kb h)ry-)lw) and turn away from you. (Deut 23:12–14)

Josephus’ description of the activity and his explanation resemble the passage from the Hebrew Bible in part, but they both leave some confusion. It is unclear whether excrement itself is considered defiling or if the primary concern is controlling the exposure inherent in defecation. In either case, this appears to be another difference from the Hebrew Bible.43 In addition to these cases where new uses of washing are introduced, or at least mentioned for the first time, in the Second Temple period, there are also several texts which add new contexts for purification. For instance, purification is a preparation for the New Moon and for the Sabbath, and there are a couple texts which describe the use of oil for purification.44 Second Maccabees describes purification in preparation for the Sabbath:
Then Judas assembled his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was coming on, they purified themselves according to the custom (kata ton e0qismon a(gnisqentej), and kept the Sabbath there. (2 Macc 12:38)

As with the Letter of Aristeas above, it is important to ask what “according to the custom” means. Did they purify themselves according to customary
See Josephus, Jewish War (Thackeray, Josephus II 380, note a). See the discussion of latrines in Chapter 4 and Yadin, TS, 1:294–304; Harrington, Impurity Systems, 100–103. 44 Josephus also discusses purification as part of fortune-telling among the Essenes:
43 42

There are some among them who profess to foretell the future, being versed from their early years in holy books, various forms of purification and apophthegms of prophets; and seldom, if ever do they err in their predictions. (Josephus, B.J. 2.159)

Exod 22:18 and Deut 18:10 forbid rituals of sorcery and soothsaying, although fortune-telling itself is not forbidden. However, washing and purification are not mentioned in connection with these practices in the Hebrew Bible.

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE

63

methods, perhaps by washing? Or was the custom that they purified themselves for the Sabbath?45 In any event, the linkage between purification and the Sabbath is another difference from the Hebrew Bible. Similarly, Josephus describes purification at the time of the New Moon:
The next day, which was the new moon, the king, after purifying himself as the custom was (a(gneusaj w(j e0qoj ei0xen), came to the feast; and when his son Jonathan had seated himself on his right side and Abener, the commander of the army, on his left, he marked that David’s seat was empty, but held his peace, surmising that he had been delayed by not finishing his purification after sexual intercourse. (Josephus, A.J. 6.235)

Again, it is not entirely clear what “as the custom was” refers to. Does it refer to the mode of purifying, the impurities he was eliminating, or the connection of purification to the New Moon feast? Thackeray suggests that this passage is actually talking more about nocturnal emissions, following the rabbinic interpretations which also read a sexual meaning into the Hebrew text. Even so, both intercourse and nocturnal emissions are known as sources of impurity in both the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature.46 That still does not clarify Josephus’ concern in this passage. Is he implying that someone would stay away from the meal while still impure to prevent contamination of everyone else, or is he suggesting that it was a special concern because of the New Moon? That is unclear, but if the focus was the New Moon celebrations, we have very little information in the Hebrew Bible. The New
Goldstein notes that the writer of 2 Maccabees wanted to emphasize the rebels’ faithfulness in Sabbath observance. He suggests that they “did not merely bathe; they ritually purified themselves (hagnisthentes),” even though there is no direct reference to bathing. He compares this purification to Num 31:19–24, where purification after battle took seven days. Concerning the reference to custom, he compares it to law, since there were no rabbinic regulations for washing on the Sabbath, except for the washing of face and hands in warm water before the Sabbath, as described in b. Šabb 25b. Even without rabbinic instructions on this matter, there are still some who practice the custom of washing on the Sabbath (Jonathan A. Goldstein, II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 447). For further discussion of the Sabbath, see Sakae Kubo, “The Sabbath in the Intertestamental Period,” in The Sabbath in Scripture and History (ed. Kenneth A. Strand; Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1982), 57–69; Gnana Robinson, The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A Comprehensive Exegetical Approach (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1988). Goldstein concludes that 2 Maccabees was not written before the rule of John Hyrcanus (134–104 B.C.E.) and not after Pompey’s conquest of Judea (63 B.C.E.) (Goldstein, II Maccabees, 71; Grabbe, Judaism, 224). 46 According to Thackeray, “This interpretation of 1 Sam. xx.26 ‘it is an accident’ (A.V. ‘something hath befallen him’) is similar to that of the rabbis, who took miqreh, lit. “happening,” in its physiological sense of nocturnal emission” (Thackeray, Josephus V, 283, note d). See also Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 927, for further discussion.
45

64

WASHING IN WATER

Moon is mentioned once in Num 29:6 and a few times in the Prophetic literature, usually in a negative sense. Apart from that, we have no way of knowing what was practiced by the Israelites, or for that matter what Josephus was describing. These three passages leave many questions unanswered. Each appeals to custom, but the actual nature of the custom is still unclear. We cannot even tell whose customs they were—those of a small group or all Jews.47 We also cannot tell what mode of purification was used. In any event, the presence of texts like these suggests that not only were the uses of washing changing during the Second Temple period, but the uses and understanding of purity were also changing. DISTRIBUTION Texts from Josephus and Philo dominate in each category of usage, as is to be expected from the sheer volume of their works. In fact, the General uses of washing come solely from Josephus and Philo. Similarly, the Priestly uses come mostly from Josephus and Philo, with a few from Judith and the Letter of Aristeas and others. There are no Second Temple washing texts that can be termed theophanies, but there are quite a few which describe new uses of washing and purification not found in the Hebrew Bible. These texts come equally as often from Josephus and Philo as from other texts of the period. In a sense, these innovations and disagreements with the Hebrew Bible reflect the diversity of the Second Temple Jewish communities. METAPHORICAL USES OF WASHING In Chapter 2, we saw two different forms of metaphorical uses of washing—non-literal uses where the action described could not literally take place, such as Isaiah 4:3–4, and use of washing language in a new sense which transformed its meaning, such as Ps 51:2, 7, 10. These two uses are less distinct in the Second Temple literature, so they will be discussed together. However,

This is the same problem we find with three passages which speak about the purifying or contaminating nature of oil. In Ant. 3.197, Josephus describes how the priests were purified with oil, although the Hebrew Bible speaks only of anointing or sanctifying with oil. (See for instance, Exod 29:7, 21; 40:9; Lev 8:12; 21:10, 12.) Similarly, in Jos. Asen. 8:5, Joseph refers to the “blessed ointment of incorruptibility,” also unknown in the Hebrew Bible. Finally, in B.J. 1.122, Josephus says that the Essenes consider oil to be a source of defilement. It is difficult to determine whether these were common views and uses of oil, or relatively rare. In any case, the different opinions suggest diversity during the Second Temple period.

47

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE

65

there is a new metaphorical approach in the Second Temple texts—allegorical or symbolic explanations of ritual actions.48 We have already seen passages of this sort in the discussion of new ritual uses of washing, specifically in the texts that described hand-washing and offered explanations of the significance of such an action. Many of the metaphorical texts from this period deal more with purity than washing.49 However, there are some that use washing or cleaning terminology in metaphorical contexts. For instance:
So we see that they who mean to resort to the temple to take part in sacrifice must needs have their bodies made clean and bright (te swma faidrunesqai), and before their bodies their souls. (Spec. 1.269)

There are many cases in the Hebrew Bible where people are declared clean, but as Colson’s notes indicate, Philo’s wording seems to indicate something beyond normal cleaning. 50 This is made even more evident when he goes on to say that not only their bodies but their souls should be made “clean and bright.”
48 As discussed previously in Chapter 2, while such explanations are occasionally found in the Hebrew Bible, as in the explanations given for some of the Ten Commandments, they are not found in conjunction with washing terminology. For comparison, consider the explanations for the Sabbath law given in Exod 20:8–11 and Deut 5:12–15. 49 Consider for instance:

... They (the Essenes) have shown themselves especially devout in the service of God, not by offering sacrifices of animals, but by resolving to sanctify their minds. (a)ll ) i9eroprepeij taj e9autwn dianoiaj kataskeuazaein) (75) Their love of God they show by a multitude of proofs, by religious purity (e0pallylon a(gneian) constant and unbroken throughout their lives, by abstinence from oaths, by veracity, by their belief that the Godhead is the cause of all good things and nothing bad; their love of virtue, by their freedom from the love of either money or reputation or pleasure, by self-mastery and endurance, again by frugality, simple living, contentment, humility, respect for law, steadiness and all similar qualities; their love of men by benevolence and sense of equality, and their spirit of fellowship... (84) (Philo, Prob. 75, 84)

Colson says this religious purity refers to ritual purity, but all of the subsequent items are moral situations or behaviors, suggesting that religious purity have a moral sense as well (Philo, Prob. (Colson, Philo IX 58, note b)). There is however, no connection to Klawans’ ideas of moral purity which specified certain transgressions which threatened permanent exile from the land (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 64–66). 50 The term is faidrunw, not just clean, but colloquially “spick and span”—see diakekosmhmenoj in 270 (Philo, Specialibus Legibus (Colson, Philo VII 255 note d)).

66 Elsewhere he says,

WASHING IN WATER

For it would be a strange inconsistency if, while each of the victims consumed in the burnt-offering is only dedicated when found to be free from mischief and blemish, the mind of the worshipper should not be purified in every way and washed clean and fair by the ablutions and lustrations, which the right reason of nature pours into the souls of those who love God through ears that are sound in health and free from corruption. (Spec. 1.191)

Here he uses some of the same terms used elsewhere for physical washing with water, loutroij and perirranthrioij, but he uses them in a metaphorical way to describe the purification of the mind and soul. Further, he links the physical perfection of the sacrifices with the need for spiritual purity in the one presenting the sacrifice. Finally, he says:
All this the lawgiver observed and therefore did not permit his people to conduct their festivities like other nations, but first he bade them in the very hour of their joy make themselves pure by curbing the appetites for pleasure (a(gneuein e0pistomizontaj taj e0f 0; h9domnhn o9rmaj). (Spec. 1.193)

Here he is talking about purity, but he speaks metaphorically. He uses the same term used elsewhere for ritual purity, a(gneuein, but instead of prescribing washing or sacrifice or any visible action, he suggests purification by selfdenial, or discipline, a form of e0gkrateia. This is a performable action, but not one normally seen as part of purification.51 In addition to these metaphorical uses, there are several passages which not only use washing and purification metaphorically but also give allegorical explanations. For instance, Philo contrasts the purification of the body described in the Hebrew Bible with the purification of the soul:
51 See also Jub. 1.22–25 for a metaphorical description of purification and circumcision:

And the LORD said to Moses, “I know their contrariness and their thoughts and their stubbornness. And they will not obey until they acknowledge their sin and the sins of their fathers. But after this they will return to me in all uprightness and with all of (their) heart and soul. And I shall cut off the foreskin of their heart and the foreskin of the heart of their descendants. And I shall create for them a holy spirit, and I shall purify them so that they will not turn away from following me from that day and forever. And their souls will cleave to me and to all my commandments. And they will do my commandments. And I shall be a father to them, and they will be sons to me. And they will all acknowledge that they are my sons and I am their father in uprightness and righteousness. And I shall love them.

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE
The law would have such a person pure in body and soul, the soul purged of its passions and distempers and infirmities and every viciousness of word and deed, the body of the defilements which commonly beset it. For each it devised the purification which befitted it. For the soul it used the animals which the worshipper is providing for sacrifice, for the body sprinklings and ablutions (loutrwn kai perirranthriwn) of which we will speak a little later. For precedence in speech as well as elsewhere must be given to the higher and more dominant element in ourselves, the soul. (Spec. 1.257–258)

67

Here he uses washing terminology, loutrwn kai perirranthriwn, in a literal sense to refer to the bodily washing known in the Hebrew Bible which we have discussed at length above. However, he emphasizes soul purity over ritual purity, focused around the elimination of the passions.52 Philo then proceeds to use washing language metaphorically for the soul:
How then is the soul purified? (tij ou0n h( tauthj kaqarsij) “Note, friend,” says the lawgiver, “how perfect and utterly free from blemish is the victim which you bring selected as the best of many by the priests with all impartiality of mind and clearness of vision, the result of the continued practice which has trained them to faultless discrimination. For if you observe this with your reason rather than with your eyes you will proceed to wash away the sins and defilements (e0kniyh ta a(marthmata) with which you have besmeared your whole life, some involuntary and accidental, some due to your own free will. For you will find that all this careful scrutiny of the animal is a symbol representing in a figure the reformation of your own conduct, for the law does not prescribe for unreasoning creatures, but for those who have mind and reason. It is anxious not that the victims should be without flaw but that those who offer them should not suffer from any corroding passion. (Philo, Spec. 1.259–260)

Here when he uses e0kniyh, he seems to mean scrutiny or soul-searching, rather than ritual washing. He then extends the image with a further metaphor emphasizing this scrutiny, suggesting that the law is intended for humans, people with reason, and is not focused toward physical perfection, but spiritual perfection, as demonstrated by the absence of passions. Thus in this passage,

This is different from Klawans’ comparison of ritual and moral impurity, where some of the issues Philo mentions for the soul might be called moral impurity, but in the Hebrew Bible they would require sacrifice, not a mental or spiritual purification the way Philo suggests (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 64–66). Philo mentions animals for sacrifice, but then he gives a completely different explanation. For instance, in Spec. 1.259–260, he discusses the physical perfection of sacrificial animals, but as a symbol of moral perfection and self-control, not as a description of the proper means of sacrifice.

52

68

WASHING IN WATER

Philo is using washing terminology in both literal and figurative senses, as well as adding metaphorical explanations to his imagery.53 Philo follows a similar approach when he describes the rituals of purification, combining metaphorical uses with explanations:
The reason for this may be aptly stated as follows. Moses would have those who come to serve Him that IS first know themselves and of what substance these selves are made. For how should he who has no knowledge of himself be able to apprehend the power of God which is above all and transcends all? Now the substance of which our body consists is earth and water, and of this he reminds us in the rite of purging. For he holds that the most profitable form of purification is just this, that a man should know himself and the nature of the elements of which he is composed, ashes and water, so little worthy of esteem. For if he recognizes this, he will straightway turn away from the insidious enemy, self-conceit, and abasing his pride become well-pleasing to God and claim the aid of his gracious power Who hates arrogance. For that is a good text which tells us that he who sets his hand to words and deeds of pride “provokes” not only men, but also “God,” the author of equality and all that is most excellent. So then, whilst they are being thus sprinkled (perirrainesqai), deeply moved and roused as they are, they can almost hear the voice of the elements themselves, earth and water, say plainly to them, “We are the substance of which your body consists: we it is whom nature blended and with divine craftsmanship made into the shape of human form. Out of us you were framed when you came into being and into us you will be resolved again when you have to die. For nothing is so made as to disappear into non-existence. Whence it came in the beginning, thither will it return in the end.” (Spec. 1.263–266)

Philo draws on some of the same ideas in Spec. 1.80–81 when he discusses the bodily perfection expected of priests:
With regard to the priests there are the following laws. It is ordained that the priest should be perfectly sound throughout, without any bodily deformity. No part, that is, must be lacking or have been mutilated, nor on the other hand redundant, whether the excrescence be congenital or an aftergrowth due to disease. Nor must the skin have been changed into a leprous state or into malignant tetters or warts or any other eruptive growth. All these seem to me to symbolize perfection of soul (peri yuxhn einai teleiothtoj). For if the priest’s body, which is mortal by nature, must be scrutinized to see that it is not afflicted by any serious misfortune, much more is that scrutiny needed for the immortal soul, which we are told was fashioned after the image of the Self-existent. And the image of God is the Word through whom the whole universe was framed.

53

(See Lev 21.17–21, 22.4, Philo, Specialibus Legibus (Colson, LCL 7, 146, note a)). Here Philo does not specifically mention either washing or purity, but his use of teleiothtoj seems linked with those concepts. As with the examples above, he then adds an allegorical exposition on this perfection, comparing the immortal soul to God.

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE

69

Here again he uses washing and purification terminology, but in both literal and figurative senses. He is clearly referring to the “sprinkling” used in purification, and from the details he gives, specifically the sprinkling with the mixture of water with the ashes of the parah. Yet at the same time, the purification he describes as a result of this sprinkling is not a purification focused towards the Temple or Tabernacle as we saw in the Hebrew Bible, but instead towards selfknowledge of one’s role and insignificance in the universe. He expands on this by suggesting that the water and ashes represent the basic elements of nature, which then speak to the person being purified. As with many other passages in his writings, Philo is clearly drawing on the biblical tradition, even while transforming it to his own purposes.54 Finally, there is one metaphorical explanation of purity in Josephus’ Antiquities:
Nor is it only during the sacred ministrations that purity is essential: they must see to it that their private life is beyond reproach. That is why wearers of the Although Philo often emphasizes metaphorical over literal meanings, he does not fully reject literal readings of Scripture, as David Hay has observed. There are several passages in which he responds favorably to literalists, or at least does not criticize them. (See for instance, QG 1.32, 81; 3.52, 4.64, 121, 123, 145, 196, David M. Hay, “Philo’s View of Himself as an Exegete: Inspired, But Not Authoritative,” in Heirs of the Septuagint: Philo, Hellenistic Judaism, and Early Christianity—Festschrift for Earle Hilgert (Studia Philonica Annual III) (ed. David T. Runia, David M. Hay, and David Winston; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 85). In fact, Tobin has suggested that Philo considered some literalists to be “divinely inspired men” (Spec 1.8; T. H. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1983), 154, 157; Hay, “Philo’s View," 43, n. 5; David M. Hay, “References to Other Exegetes,” in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus (ed. David M. Hay; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 85). Further, some of Philo’s most vehement criticisms are reserved not for the literalists, but those Hay calls “Critics,” who read Scripture literally but conclude that the literal meanings and by extension, Scripture, are unrealistic and unreliable. Philo complains that they remain on a literal level (QG 3.43, 53) and even alleges that they are “incapable of allegorical insight” (QG 3.3, 43, 4.168; Hay, “References,” 85–86). While some have questioned whether such “Critics” actually existed or were rhetorical devices, Hay suggests that they were real, possibly influential members of the Alexandrian community, against whom Philo was competing (Hay, “References,” 87, 89). Referring to those who read Scripture literally and scoffed at its meanings, Hay concludes:
Philo’s anger toward such exegetes is obvious, and he implies that good exegesis is a product of sound faith and character as well as of technical competence and ability to see “beyond the literal.” (Hay, “References,” 87).
54

Thus while Philo emphasizes metaphorical or allegorical explanations over literal readings, he does not reject literal readings outright.

70

WASHING IN WATER
priestly robes are spotless, immaculately pure, and sober (peri panta kaqaroi kai nhfalioi), for wine is forbidden them so long as they wear the robe. (A.J. 3.278–279)

Here Josephus refers to the literal purity of the priests, but his explanation uses their robes as a symbol of their purity, which seems to a certain extent to reverse the intent of the biblical instructions.55 These passages, then, use washing and purification terminology as they expand on the biblical tradition. These terms are used both literally and metaphorically, but they are then followed by extended metaphorical explanations of the true significance of the practices, something that is generally absent in the Hebrew Bible when it comes to washing and purification.56 DISTRIBUTION In the Second Temple literature, metaphorical uses of washing are limited almost exclusively to Philo’s writings, which is to be expected considering his emphasis on symbol and allegory.57 He uses washing terminology both in ways that are non-literal or transform the biblical context and in passages that combine metaphorical uses with extended metaphorical explanations of the true meaning of a practice. There is one passage from Josephus with such an allegorical explanation, but all the rest are from Philo.
55 Exodus 28 and 29 describe the priestly garments, with the implication that the priests are wearing their pure, spotless garments as outward signs of their purity. There are also references to the white robes of the Essenes (B.J. 2.137) and Therapeutae (Contempl. 66) which probably had special significance, but as it was not explicitly stated they have been left out of this discussion. 56 Philo’s descriptions of the morning prayers among the Therapeutae, discussed earlier with examples of new washing practices in the Second Temple period, follow a similar pattern. He adds a metaphorical explanation to the description of the practice:

So then they assemble, white-robed and with faces in which cheerfulness is combined with the utmost seriousness, but before they recline, at a signal from a member of the Rota, which is the name commonly given to those who perform these services, they take their stand in a regular line in an orderly way, their eyes and hands lifted up to Heaven, eyes because they have been trained to fix their gaze on things worthy of contemplation, hands in token that they are clean from gain-taking and not defiled through any cause of the profit-making kind. So standing they pray to God that their feasting may be acceptable and proceed as He would have it. (Contempl. 66)

There are a few allusions to repentance, a metaphorical use of washing that will be more important in Chapters 4 and 5, in Joseph and Aseneth (particularly Ch. 11), but as they do not specifically mention washing or purification, they have not been discussed here.

57

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE INITIATORY USES OF WASHING

71

Unlike domestic washing which is found in only one text, there are several references to initiation in the Second Temple literature, although some are more oblique than others. Most of the references do not give many details about the process and significance of initiation, but a comparison of the different texts will offer some commonalities between these texts. There is almost nothing about initiation in the Hebrew Bible. Exodus describes how a resident alien must be circumcised in order to celebrate the Passover:
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance for the passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, but any slave who has been purchased may eat of it after he has been circumcised; ... If an alien who resides with you wants to celebrate the passover to the Lord, all his males shall be circumcised (rkz-lk wl lwmh); then he may draw near to celebrate it; he shall be regarded as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it; there shall be one law for the native and for the alien who resides among you. (Exod 12:43–49)

This text deals only with the question of whether non-Israelites can celebrate the Passover, although the statement, “he shall be regarded as a native of the land,” (Exod 12:48) is somewhat ambiguous. Does it mean a circumcised sojourner is treated as a native in terms of passover alone, or does it mean that he is now considered an Israelite, with all that goes along with such a designation?58 Regardless of the resolution to this question, it appears that even before the Second Temple period circumcision was seen as part, or even the only part, of initiating an outsider into the Israelite community.

Ashby, Brueggemann, and Propp all seem to agree that the alien (rg) who was circumcised in order to participate in the Passover was then considered an Israelite. Thus circumcision could be seen as the means of conversion in the Hebrew Bible (Godfrey Ashby, Go Out and Meet God: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 59); Walter Brueggemann, The Book of Exodus (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 783; William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1999), 417– 420). However, Propp suggests that this text addresses a very unlikely situation, since slaves were already required to be circumcised in Exod 12:44 and Israel’s neighbors also circumcised their males, so there would be few cases in which this rule would actually be applied (Propp, Exodus 1–18, 420). See also the story of Shechem and Dinah in Gen 34 although the focus there is the trickery and violence, not the form of conversion. Compare this to the treatment of this incident in Jub. 30, where there is no conversion, just revenge and the death of Shechem and his compatriots, along with a statement that there is no forgiveness for anyone who marries his daughter to an uncircumcised foreigner. Perhaps the writer of Jubilees felt that no conversion of outsiders was possible.

58

72

WASHING IN WATER

Shaye Cohen has argued that the Hebrew Bible is silent about conversion and initiation because before the exile, “Israelite” was considered an ethnicity, something you either were or were not born into and nothing could be done to change that. During that time, even if someone wanted to become an Israelite, there was no way she or he could, so the Bible is silent on the issue. On the other hand, after the exile, he says, Jewishness was a religion and thus something to which you could convert, thereby making means of conversion necessary.59 Several of the texts from the Second Temple period include references to initiation, although one needs to read between the lines. The Qumran community will be discussed at length in the next chapter, but references to the Essenes are included here since they appear in texts outside the Dead Sea Scrolls.60 In the Second Temple literature, there are some references to initiation that mention washing and others that do not. By looking at both groups, we can start to piece together a more general picture of initiation in the Second Temple period. First, consider the story of Joseph and Aseneth.61 The purpose of the story is to explain how Joseph, a key figure in Israelite history, could marry a Gentile woman. In this story, when Joseph and Aseneth meet, he ignores her because she is an idolatrous Gentile, while she is clearly smitten by him. Through the course of the story, she ultimately becomes an acceptable bride for him, in part due to a visit by an angel who instructs her to wash her face and hands:
And Aseneth rose and stood on her feet. And the man said to her, “Proceed unhindered into your second chamber and put off your black tunic of mourning, and the sackcloth put off your waist, and shake off those ashes from your head, and wash your face and your hands with living water, and dress in a new linen robe (as yet) untouched and distinguished and gird your waist (with) the new twin girdle of your virginity. And come (back) to me, and I will tell you what I have to say.” And Aseneth hurried and went into her second chamber where the chests (containing) her ornaments were, and opened her coffer, and took a new linen robe, distinguished (and as yet) untouched, and undressed the black tunic of mourning and put off the sackcloth from her waist, and dressed in her distinguished (and as yet) untouched linen robe, and girded herself with the twin girdle of her virginity, one girdle around her waist, and another girdle upon her breast. And she shook off the ashes from her head, and washed Cohen, Maccabees to the Mishnah, 49–58. For discussion of the Essenes and others such as John the Baptist, see Collins, “Origin,” 28–46. 61 For a more detailed analysis, see Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph,; Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth.
60 59

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE
her hands and her face with living water. And she took an (as yet) untouched and distinguished linen veil and covered her head. (Jos. Asen. 14:12–13, 15)

73

Even though the text never says explicitly that she washed her face and hands as part of her conversion or initiation, there are several reasons why it can be considered as such. First, in the story her acceptance by Joseph follows this washing incident. Second, as will be seen below, the reference to wearing a new or untouched article of clothing resembles elements of other initiatory texts. Third, the reference to living water, while rare in the Second Temple texts has parallels to initiatory passages in other literature which will be discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. None of these points is conclusive in and of itself, but they are sufficient reason to keep this text in mind when discussing initiation in the Second Temple period. While the story of Aseneth deals with initiation into the Israelite community, the other texts with initiatory washing from this period address initiation into a smaller group, either the Essenes, or the followers of John the Baptist. Again, there are no distinct statements that the washing described in these texts is the cause of initiation, but there are reasons to support such speculation. For instance, Josephus describes the stages of initiation into the Essene community as follows:
A candidate anxious to join their sect is not immediately admitted. For one year, during which he remains outside the fraternity, they prescribe for him their own rule of life, presenting him with a small hatchet, the loin-cloth already mentioned and a white raiment (leukhn e0sqhta). Having given proof of his temperance during this probationary period, he is brought into closer touch with the rule and is allowed to share the purer kind of holy water (kaqarwterwn twn proj a(gneian u0datwn), but is not yet received into the community. For after this exhibition of endurance, his character is tested for two years more, and only then, if found worthy, is he enrolled in the society. But before he may touch the common food (koinhj a(yasqai trofhj), he is made to swear tremendous oaths: first that he will practise piety towards the Deity, next that he will observe justice towards men: that he will wrong none whether of his own mind or under another’s orders; that he will for ever hate the unjust and fight the battle of the just; that he will for ever keep faith with all men, especially with the powers that be, since no ruler attains his office save by the will of God; that should he himself bear rule, he will never abuse his authority nor, either in dress or by other outward marks of superiority, outshine his subjects; to be for ever a lover of truth and to expose liars; to keep his hands from stealing and his soul pure from unholy gain; to conceal nothing from the members of the sect and to report none of their secrets to others, even though tortured to death. He swears, moreover, to transmit their rules exactly as he himself received them; to abstain from robbery; and in like

74

WASHING IN WATER
manner carefully to preserve the books of the sect and the names of the angels. Such are the oaths by which they secure their proselytes. (B.J. 2.137–142)

While this text alludes to washing as “the purer kind of water,” and it certainly addresses initiation into the community, it is by no means clear that the washing was actually part of the initiation. It could suggest that once members have been accepted, they can now bathe in the purer water, but every new member will have a first bath, and in a sense that could be viewed as an initiatory step.62 On the other hand, Josephus emphasizes the oaths they take, making the oaths seem like the major element of initiation. In the end it is debatable, although the texts give tantalizing hints. We encounter a similar problem with Josephus’ reference to the Essenes’ preparations for their common meals:
... When they again assemble in one place and, after girding their loins with linen cloths, bathe their bodies in cold water (zwsamenoi te skepasmasin linoij ou9twj a0polouontai to swma yuxroij u9dasin). After this purification (a(gneian), they assemble in a private apartment which none of the uninitiated (e9terodochn) is permitted to enter; pure now themselves (kaqaroi), they repair to the refectory, as to some sacred shrine (a(gion ti temenoj). (B.J. 2.129)63

Again, bathing and initiation or its lack are linked, but we still face the problem of sequence. It is unclear if the focus is on the fact that they are still uninitiated or on the fact that they have not bathed? In either case, the point of the sentence is a different matter entirely, the fact that they washed to purify themselves for eating. Finally, consider Josephus’ description of John the Baptist:
For Herod had put him (John the Baptist) to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practise justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism (xrwmenoij baptismw sunienai). In his view this was a necessary preliminary if baptism was to be acceptable to God. They must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by right behaviour. (A.J. 18:117) See Collins, “Origin,” 32–33, for further discussion. One difference she notes is that witnesses were required for proselyte baptism, but not for a first immersion. 63 This text is not explicitly initiatory. However, the exclusion of the uninitiated suggests that such bathing might have been involved in initiation. Certainly a first bath would have been required of new members in order to join these gatherings. What is unclear is whether that first bath was seen as initiation in and of itself or just as purification.
62

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE

75

Scholars disagree as to the origin and exact significance of John’s baptism and the nature of the community into which he baptized them, if it can even be described in that way.64 However, most would agree that it was an initiation of some sort. Even so, this passage does not make clear the role baptism played in initiation—was it a preliminary step, or the final act symbolizing and recognizing the spiritual changes which had already occurred? Josephus implies that it is the latter, mirroring the Gospels’ emphasis on repentance and baptism, but that does not eliminate the connection of baptism in water with initiation. These four passages mention some form of washing in connection with a process of initiation, even if the exact relationship between the two is unclear. Let us now look at some Second Temple period initiation texts that do not mention washing to see if there are any common elements. In the book of Judith’s description of the conversion of Achior, we find the only reference to circumcision as part of initiation:
When Achior saw all that the God of Israel had done, he believed firmly in God. So he was circumcised, and joined the house of Israel (e0pisteusen sfodra kai perietemeto thn sarka thj a)krobustiaj autou kai proseteqh ei0j ton oi0kon Israhl), remaining so to this day. (Jdt 14:10)

It is significant, however, that belief and circumcision are the only elements necessary—not washing.65 This would suggest that proselyte baptism was either unknown or localized at the time Judith was written. As far as circumcision is concerned, it should be no surprise that this is the only reference to circumcision and initiation. Circumcision could not have been required of Aseneth for obvious reasons, and Josephus’ description of John the Baptist’s audience and the Essenes as Jews suggests that they would have been circumcised already and thus not in need of circumcision. In contrast to the simplicity of Achior’s conversion, we already saw that initiation into the Essene community was quite time-consuming according to Josephus. Furthermore, according to him new initiates gave up all of their property upon entering the community:
They have a law that new members on admission to the sect shall confiscate their property to the order (nomoj gar touj ei0j thn ai9resin ei0siontaj dhmeuein tw tagmati thn ou0sian), with the result that you will nowhere see either abject poverty or inordinate wealth; the individual’s possessions join the common stock, and all, like brothers, enjoy a single patrimony. (B.J. 2.122)

64 65

For a summary of the debates, see Collins, “Origin,” 35–36. See Cohen, Maccabees to the Mishnah, 52–55.

76

WASHING IN WATER

Josephus describes it as a benefit, providing mutual support, but in any case it does not appear to have any relation to purity, washing, or the other matters of initiation at issue here.66 Even with so few initiatory texts from this period, there is a great diversity of ideas concerning the requirements and processes of initiation. Some of the difference comes from the fact that conversion and initiation were different for men and women, since women did not need to be circumcised.67 Other elements of difference arise from the fact that the different texts describe different communities—the Jewish people as a whole, the Essenes, and the followers of John the Baptist.68 Despite all of these differences, these texts do share some elements concerning initiation. First, as has already been observed, several of them involve some form of washing with water, even “living water.” Several of them refer to special clothing worn either by the newly initiated, or by all initiated members of the group. Finally, several refer to some special behavior expected of initiates, whether it be giving up property, professing belief, taking oaths, or leading righteous lives.
66

In his description of the Therapeutae, Philo speaks of initiation in a different

sense:
In each house there is a consecrated room (oi0khma i9eron) which is called a sanctuary or closet (semneion kai monasthrion) and closeted in this they are initiated into the mysteries of sanctified life (semnou biou musthria telountai). They take nothing into it, either drink or food or any other of the things necessary for the needs of the body, but laws and oracles delivered through the mouth of prophets, and psalms and anything else which fosters and perfects knowledge and piety. (Contempl. 25)

Here the initiation, telountai, is not as much into the group as into the spiritual secrets the group pursues. In a sense this is comparable to the philosophical societies like the Pythagoreans who were initiated through instruction and education. Furthermore, the way he describes it, it sounds more like a continuous process than a single event or series of events the way other texts seem to describe it. There is little connection between Philo’s description of initiation here and all of the other references discussed above. However, just as Philo spiritualizes other aspects of rituals and spoke of purification of body and soul, he seems to be suggesting the application of initiation to both body and soul. He goes on in the passage to describe the soul as a council chamber where the soul can be enlightened, parallel to the monasthrion in which the individual is enlightened (Contempl. 25). This text widens the range of ideas concerning initiation that were circulating during the Second Temple period. 67 Cohen suggests that women could be officially converted through marriage. Cohen, Maccabees to the Mishnah, 54. 68 It is especially difficult at times to separate these statements about the Essenes and John the Baptist from descriptions in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament respectively. The different sources can be used to explicate each other, but they must be used critically.

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE

77

The Essene initiation in B.J. 2.137–142 is the only passage which actually involves all three of these elements, and the others have one or two. This is not to say that a text cannot be initiatory if it lacks all three, but the presence of these factors helps indicate an initiatory aspect to passages that might not otherwise be thought to involve initiation. DISTRIBUTION As the preceding discussion shows, texts dealing with initiation in this period are rare, so washing texts dealing with initiation are even more scarce. Having said that, there are quite a few in this group of texts, all things considered. There are washing texts connected to initiation in both Josephus and Joseph and Aseneth, and there are initiatory texts that do not involve washing in Josephus, Philo, and Judith. Considering the relatively small number of texts discussed in this chapter, there are thus a significant number of initiatory texts. OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS As outlined above, there is a great deal of continuity in the use of washing from the Hebrew Bible into the Second Temple period. On a broad level, ritual and metaphorical uses can be found in both groups of texts. More specifically, two of the kinds of ritual washing, general and priestly, span the two periods. However, there are changes as well. Some uses, like washing for theophanies, are not found in the Second Temple literature, despite the fact that theophanies and heavenly visions are quite common in this period.69 Further, some texts change details found in the Hebrew Bible, possibly to harmonize disagreements in the biblical text, or possibly to reflect practices of the time. Other texts describe new practices not known in the Hebrew Bible, such as washing for prayer, new hand-washing rituals, washing after defecation, and purification for the Sabbath. Another new use during the Second Temple period is washing as part of conversion or initiation. Although no text explicitly states that washing was part of initiation, several texts make a sequential link between the two and comparison to other initiatory texts supports this identification. With so few washing-related texts in the Second Temple literature, it is not completely clear how significant the distribution of these uses is, especially considering the uncertainty of the dating and provenance of these texts. In contrast, this was an important concern in examining washing in the Hebrew Bible, where the presence or absence of washing in texts from a certain period
69 Some visions mention the presence of water, but do not state that any washing occurred. See for instance, Ezek 1:3.

78

WASHING IN WATER

or section of the Bible helped indicate stages in the development of ritual washing. Even so, the distribution of the different uses of washing in these texts is still important. Ritual washing is mostly limited to Philo and Josephus, with a few other texts. Metaphorical washing is found almost entirely in Philo. Finally, hints of initiatory washing are found in Philo, Josephus, and Joseph and Aseneth. The limitation of metaphorical uses to Philo indicates that such symbolism was an important concern to him, natural considering his tendency to allegorize. Similarly, the presence of initiatory washing in several different sources suggests a growing interest in such a use, even if the different texts disagree as to its practice or significance. As many of these texts claim to describe practices from their time or earlier times, it becomes necessary to ask how reliable these descriptions are. The issue of washing in the times of the Tabernacle and First Temple has already been discussed in Chapter 2, leading to the conclusion that ritual washing for purification was not practiced until after the exile, after the First Temple had been destroyed. Even so, both Philo and Josephus speak of washing in those periods as if they actually happened as prescribed in Leviticus. They go even farther to describe Second Temple period practices as if they were based on the practices of the Tabernacle. How are we to interpret this conundrum? Are Josephus and Philo correct in their description of practices in their own times and earlier? Many have certainly used their writings in support of such a conclusion. On the other hand, it seems more likely that Josephus and Philo are correct about practices in their own time, but that the ancient texts had been modified early in the Second Temple period to reflect new practices, thereby giving these new practices authentication.70 Even if Josephus, Philo, and the other writers attempted to be faithful in their descriptions of practices in their own times, we must still question how reliable they are as a historical source. These writers, all from the same general time period, describe practices differently and they disagree with the Hebrew Bible. In a few cases, as with the hand-washing described by Aristeas, Josephus, and Philo, we can speculate as to the regional setting of a practice. However, in most cases, we cannot link specific practices with regions where they originated or rank one practice as more reliable than another. Even so, the very diversity of practices described in these texts suggests that this period saw a great deal of innovation in the practice of ritual washing and its significance. We cannot say unequivocally how a certain practice was performed, but we can be confident that these practices were being performed in some way and were considered quite important. That is quite significant in and of itself.

70

Friedman, “Tabernacle,” 6.292–300.

WASHING IN THE SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE CONCLUSION

79

Our overall picture of washing in the Second Temple period is thus rather complicated. Unlike the Hebrew Bible where we could see certain patterns of development and influence, there are fewer overall patterns in the ways washing is used in the various texts apart from a tendency to homogenization between different forms of impurity. In a sense, that could be due to fact that this chapter deals with an eclectic group of texts, all those texts which do not fit in the Dead Sea Scrolls or New Testament, without any other consistent reason to consider them together. On the other hand, these texts illustrate the diversity of practices, ideas, and regions in this period. During this time the Jews faced internal and external pressures which encouraged the growth of different practices and ideas. Out of this chaos grew several groups who followed their own traditions, among them the Qumran community, the early Christians, and the rabbis.71 Despite this diversity and confusion during the Second Temple period, we can find some patterns in the use of ritual washing. Two uses of washing, ritual and metaphorical, persisted from the time of the Hebrew Bible into the Second Temple period. During this time another use was added—washing as part of initiation. It is unclear when, where, and how this practice originated, but it is clearly linked in some way to the earlier practices. In the texts of this period we also see some differences from the details of how washing was used in the Hebrew Bible. In addition, there are some new contexts or uses for washing which were unknown in the Hebrew Bible—prayer, hand-washing, and defecation. This chapter has attempted to place these new practices in context with other practices of the time and with the practices outlined in the Hebrew Bible. Having examined the use of washing in these general Second Temple period texts, representing many different settings, we will now shift focus to its use in one of the groups which arose during this time, the community at Qumran.

Although the rabbis say much that is relevant to the study of ritual bathing, their texts do not always help us understand what was happening in the Second Temple period since they were compiled later. The rabbinic materials will be cited where appropriate for comparison, but not discussed at length in this project.

71

4 WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
INTRODUCTION In the previous two chapters, we saw that Second Temple writers adopted much of the ritual washing described in the Hebrew Bible, with certain changes and additions. Specifically, there seemed to be a movement towards standardizing the purificatory practices for different kinds of impurity, along with an extension of washing and/or purification into other activities such as prayer and the Sabbath. This chapter examines similar tendencies in the the Dead Sea Scrolls to see whether the writers of the Scrolls fall into this same Second Temple pattern. Since the discovery of the first ones in 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls have offered both controversy and clarification of life during the late Second Temple period.1 On some issues they overlap with Josephus, Philo, the New Testament and other texts from this period, but in many others they offer the only available descriptions of certain ideas and practices. Despite their usefulness, the scrolls also present several methodological problems. Specifically, there are debates over who wrote these texts, how they were related to the Essenes as described by Josephus and to other Jewish groups

See Adam S. VanderWoude, “Fifty Years of Qumran Research,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years (ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1:1–46, for a summary of research into the Dead Sea Scrolls since their discovery.

1

81

82

WASHING IN WATER

of the time, how were they related to the archeological remains at Qumran, and how the various texts from Qumran fit into the history of the occupants.2 The Scrolls’ usefulness for historical reconstruction is further tempered by several factors. First, even when the texts can be dated by script or historical references, we often cannot tell exactly what is being described because of the cryptic codes used by the writers.3 Second, the fragmentary nature of many of the texts makes commentary and analysis difficult or impossible. Beyond noting the fact that certain terms or ideas are mentioned, we are often unable to comment further, lacking a textual context and the remainders of significant sentences or paragraphs. Finally, there are two tendencies which will be discussed further below—a tendency to abbreviate or use shorthand terms for larger concepts and a tendency to standardize or harmonize the purity regulations for different forms of impurity. When a single term such as Cxr or sbk is used to represent larger concepts and actions and the details for lepers, zavim, and corpse impurity are harmonized, it becomes difficult at times to determine what exactly is being discussed. Many scholars have commented on the strong interest in purity outlined in the scrolls and some have suggested that the writers of the scrolls sought to tighten the Levitical prescriptions, beyond that done by their contemporaries the
2 For a discussion of the identity of the Scrolls’ authors, see VanderKam, DSS Today, 71–98; Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 32–46; Cohen, Maccabees to the Mishnah, 152. For recent examinations of the archaeological evidence, see Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, J.-B. Humbert and A. Chambon, Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn Feshka I (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1994). For a summary of the community’s history, see VanderKam, DSS Today, 99–108. While we can note thematic connections between many of the manuscripts, there is little consensus on their dates and thus it is difficult in many cases to suggest the sequence or influence of one text upon another. When firmer dates become available, it may be possible to outline phases in the development of ritual bathing in the Scrolls, but for now that is not feasible. 3 For instance, consider the references to the “Kittim,” the group the writer of the Habakkuk Pesher claims is represented by references to the Chaldeans (1QpHab II 12– 15, 1QM I 12). We cannot be certain who the Kittim were, but some have identified them as the Romans (Timothy H. Lim, “Kittim,” EDSS 469–471; VanderKam, DSS Today, 48). Much effort has been made to determine the dates of the different scripts used in the Scrolls manuscripts. While these different styles can suggest the relative sequence of composition between one text and another, they are limited in precision. For instance, while we can determine which manuscripts were written in the earliest script style, we cannot know their dates of composition based on the scripts, only the approximate date those manuscripts were written. Similarly, it is possible that some scribes intentionally used archaic scripts, out of loyalty to tradition or for regional differences, thereby complicating the attempt to date these texts. (See VanderKam, DSS Today, 15–19, for a discussion of the options for dating the Scrolls. See Frank Moore Cross, Jr., “The Development of the Ancient Jewish Scripts,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East (ed. G. E. Wright; Garden City: Doubleday, 1961), 133–302, for further background on the various scripts.

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

83

Pharisees.4 With such a concern for purity and the regulations of Leviticus, ritual washing is frequently mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even so, purity and purification are often mentioned without specific reference to washing, raising some of the same questions addressed to the material from the Hebrew Bible. As this chapter will demonstrate, many of the same uses of washing found in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature appear here as well as some new uses. However, there is one significant shift—in the Dead Sea Scrolls general washing, the practices applying to all people, is expanded and discussed at greater length, while priestly washing as such is discussed less frequently than before. One possible explanation for this is that in separating themselves from a supposedly corrupt system in Jerusalem, the members of the Qumran community saw themselves as replacements for the Jerusalem Temple and priesthood. Such an attitude appears to drive this statement in the Community Rule:
When such men as these come to be in Israel, then shall the society of the Yahad truly be established, an “eternal planting” (Jubilees 16:26), a temple for Israel (l)r#yl #dwq tyb), and—mystery!—a Holy of Holies for Aaron (Nwrh)l My#dwq #dwq); true witnesses to justice, chosen by God’s will to atone (rpkl) for the land and to recompense (b#hl) the wicked their due. (1QS VIII 4–7)5

This passage will be discussed further below, but its sentiment is important in the explanation it offers for the shift from priestly to general washing.6 This chapter will follow the same general format as the previous chapters. Brief remarks about the vocabulary used for washing will be followed by a survey of the different categories of washing, ritual, metaphorical, and initiatory, along with their distribution throughout the Scrolls. This will be followed by some general observations and analysis. Due to the size of the Qumran library and its fragmentary nature, only a limited number of texts can be discussed at

Harrington, Impurity Systems, 47–67. Whenever possible, relevant Hebrew terms for washing and purity will be inserted into the first instance of each quotation, but there are some cases where texts such as 4QMMT have been reconstructed but the wording is still unclear and thus will not be included here. 6 Magness takes a similar view: “We have seen that because the sectarians viewed themselves as a replacement for the temple and created by means of the sect a substitute for the sacrificial cult, they extended the temple regulations to all of their members” (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 140). See also, Sanders, Judaism, 376. For similar ideas in the New Testament, See 1 Cor 13:16–17, Eph 2:21–22, 1 Pet 2:5, 9.
5

4

84

WASHING IN WATER

this time. In general, the most important and most complete texts will be emphasized, with occasional reference to significant fragmentary texts.7 VOCABULARY For the most part, the washing vocabulary used in the Dead Sea Scrolls follows the pattern set in the Hebrew Bible.8 Specifically, Cxr is used for washing of the body, while sbk is used for washing clothes or other objects. As in the Hebrew Bible, rh+ is used for purification, while #dq, rather than #dqth is used for sanctification. Terms like hzn (sprinkle) and lb+ (immerse) which are used rarely or not at all in terms of washing in the Hebrew Bible are used more frequently in the Scrolls. One significant difference between the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the usage of these terms is found in the application of the term sbk. While Cxr often appears by itself in the Hebrew Bible, sbk almost never does. Usually there is some object or referent, such as clothes, bed, etc. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, sbk sometimes has an object, but many times it appears by itself, perhaps implying a sort of shorthand which would have been recognized by the original audience.9 One final issue of vocabulary concerns the many references to Myyx Mym or living water. This term will be discussed below along with the metaphorical uses of washing in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but in some cases it seems not to be a metaphorical term but a technical term.10 This is certainly the case in rabbinic literature, where living water is one alternative for filling miqva’ot and required
7 It could be useful to look for citations of passages related to washing in the scriptural texts from Qumran to determine if washing is treated the same in the Bible and in the scrolls. Specifically, it would be interesting to find out if some of the changes to Biblical practices which are described below are also reflected in the biblical citations among the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, such an inquiry must be left for another time. 8 See the discussion of these terms in Chapter 2. As in the Hebrew Bible, Cxr and sbk are the primary terms for washing, although other terms are used occasionally. As Baumgarten observes, lb+ is rarely used for bathing, just like the Hebrew Bible. #dq, in the sense of sanctifying, appears to be used in place of rh+ more often than in the Hebrew Bible, but rh+ is still the most common term for purification (see J. M. Baumgarten et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXV: Halakhic Texts (DJD XXXV. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 105, Clines, DCH, 3.341). 9 See for instance, 4Q514 1 I 1–6 and 4Q274 1 I 8–9 which provide no object for sbk, unlike 4Q274 1 I 1–4 which does. Translators have often concluded that clothing was the intended object, but it may be more useful to translate passages like this literally by leaving out the object. (See Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 101–103, for such an assumption.) With the exception of Lev 17:16, which was discussed in Chapter 2, all ritual uses of sbk in the Hebrew Bible include an object. (See Clines, DCH, 4:358–359.) This is an issue which will require further consideration beyond the scope of this project. 10 See for instance 11Q19 XLV 15–17, Lev 14.5, 50–52; 15:13, Num 19:17.

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

85

for mixing with the ashes of the parah to prepare water for sprinkling. Even in the rabbinic literature the exact meaning of living water is unclear, but there are more hints in the rabbinic literature than in the Scrolls. There it seems to mean either running water, fresh water, or minimally water untouched by human hands.11 To a certain extent it makes sense to translate these technical instances as “running water,” or “fresh water,” as many translators have done. However, given the metaphorical sense which will be discussed below, it is useful to keep the idea of “living water” in the translations so that the metaphorical aspects are not overlooked. WASHING FOR RITUAL PURITY In the previous chapters, we have seen different uses of washing—ritual, metaphorical, and initiatory, which continue in the Dead Sea Scrolls with many of the same subdivisions. In what follows, examples of each kind of usage or subcategory will be considered, along with their distribution throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls. As in the Second Temple texts discussed in the Chapter Three, there are three types of ritual uses of washing in the Dead Sea Scrolls: General uses, applying to all members of the Yahad; Priestly uses applying only to priests and levites in their service in the Temple; and new uses not found in the Hebrew Bible.12 As in Chapter Three, these new uses represent the description of washing in new purity contexts where neither purity nor washing are described in the Hebrew Bible. However, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the distinction between general and priestly washing is not as clear as it was in the previous chapters. As will be shown below, certain issues that were previously linked to priestly washing, such as the eating of sacred food, are now mentioned in the context of washing applicable to the entire community, not just priests.13 This is likely
See m. Miqw. 1.8, m. Parah 8.8. See Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 135; Kaplan, Waters of Eden, 51, 62–68. 12 It remains to be seen whether the “Priestly” uses in the Dead Sea Scrolls represent actual practices of the Yahad or their idealized conceptions of what should happen in a restored Temple. This is especially important when considering the Temple Scroll (Harrington, Impurity Systems, 52–57; Yadin, TS, 1:182–187). In a sense, though, the same question applies to the descriptions of the Tabernacle, which seems equally as idealized and ahistorical in the Pentateuch (Friedman, “Tabernacle,” 6:294–295). In the Hebrew Bible we saw a few uses that could be categorized as washing in preparation for theophanies, something not seen directly in the Second Temple literature or Dead Sea Scrolls. This issue will be discussed in terms of prayer and visions, but will not be treated as a separate category here. 13 1QS I 21 – II 10 refers to the actions of the priests and Levites in the initiation of new members but does not specifically mention non-priests. However, 1QS VI 18–19 speaks of “the priests and the majority of the men of their Covenant,” suggesting that
11

86

WASHING IN WATER

related to the idea that the Community itself was a replacement for the Temple, placing all members under the obligations of priests. GENERAL WASHING In the last chapter, we saw that other Second Temple writers presented general washing in some of the same contexts as it was found in the Pentateuch’s description of the Tabernacle system. Certain details in these contexts changed, such as the sequence of purification activities or the number of days involved, and in some cases washing was added to purity contexts where the Hebrew Bible lacked it for that situation. The writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls follow this same pattern, adopting Tabernacle purity and washing regulations for their own period with some variations. In this chapter several additional examples will be used to illustrate the ways in which the writers of the Scrolls adapted the Levitical traditions. This section will be further divided into 1) situations where the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew Bible both require washing for purification, even if the details are different, 2) situations where the Scrolls and the Hebrew Bible agree that washing is not required, and 3) situations where the Hebrew Bible requires washing, but the Scrolls do not. In Chapters Two and Three the purification of the zav, a person with a genital discharge, was used as an illustration of the treatment of ritual impurity, but several other contexts will be discussed here as well due to the degree of differences between the Scrolls, the Hebrew Bible, and other Second Temple literature. Agreements that Washing was Required The treatment of the zav in the Dead Sea Scrolls is a prime example of this process of adoption of traditions from the Hebrew Bible with some changes. Here, as in the Hebrew Bible, the emphasis is on the length of the period of impurity and the means of purification. Thus the Temple Scroll says:

some members of the Yahad were not priests. See also CD A XIII 5–7. It would thus appear that the Yahad included both priests and laypeople, but all were held to the standards of priestly purity. This question suggests a contrast between the Yahad and their contemporaries the Pharisees. Where the Yahad created new rituals based on priestly purity and practices, the Pharisees kept their rituals but expanded their purity regulations. This is due in large part to the fact that the Pharisees could still visit the Temple, while the Yahad had separated itself from what it saw as a corrupted Temple in Jerusalem. (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 140; Sanders, Jewish Law, 229–230, 431–440; Sanders, Judaism, 258–271; Harrington, Impurity Systems, 267–282; Eyal Regev, “Non-Priestly Purity and its Religious Aspects According to Historical Sources and Archaeological Findings,” in The Heritage of Leviticus (ed. M. J. H. M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 225–229).

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
Any man who wishes to purify himself from a genital emission must count seven days as a cleansing period. On the seventh day he must launder his clothes and bathe his entire body (wr#b lwk t) Cxrw wydgb … sbkyw) in running water (Myyx Mymb). Afterwards he may enter the temple city. (11Q19 XLV 15–16)14

87

This text agrees with Lev 15:13–15 on both the length of the cleansing period and the requirement to wash clothes and bathe. In addition, they agree that the zav should bathe in “living” or running water (Myyx Mym) and they agree in leaving out any discussion of whether he is clean after bathing or only after sundown. However, where Lev 15:13–15 makes it clear that this period of cleansing cannot begin until the zav is healed and that a sin offering is required on the eighth day, neither of these is mentioned in this text.15 Further, as Yadin observes, the Temple Scroll repeats the reference to the seventh day, adding y(yb#h Mwyb where the Hebrew Bible lacks it.16 While this pericope does not
14 Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from the Dead Sea Scrolls are taken from Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996). Emphasis in the form of boldface characters is added. When reference is made to the Hebrew texts of the Scrolls, those readings are generally taken from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tighchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition 2 vols., (Leiden: Brill, 1997). If a reading comes from the DJD series or another source, it will be indicated. 15 Yadin, TS, 1:386–387. See Harrington, Impurity Systems, 85–94, for a discussion of the zav and related impurities in the Scrolls. However, Lev 15:13–15 makes it clear that the individual is already clean after the washing, and the sin offering is for atonement, not purification. It appears that none of the references to zavim in the Scrolls suggest a sacrifice after cleansing. Many texts among the Scrolls discuss details of the sacrificial system, such as calendar, types of offerings, etc. (Jacob Milgrom, “Sacrifice,” EDSS 807–812). However, few purification texts explicitly mention sacrifice as part of purification in the way it is specified in Lev 14 for lepers. This could be due to the isolation of the Scrolls community from the Jerusalem Temple, as has been observed in other aspects of the Scrolls. However, Harrington argues that the Yahad continued to discuss sprinkling for corpse impurity although it could only be resumed in the renewed Temple, not in their present isolation (Harrington, Impurity Systems, 76; Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 140). As will be discussed below, such sprinkling was extended to other forms of impurity as well. By this reasoning, one would expect sacrifice to still be required for those impurities like leprosy which required sacrifice according to the Hebrew Bible. It could not be practiced in their present situation, but could in a restored temple. This is not the case, since sacrifices are rarely mentioned as part of purification. Perhaps this omission was due to the process of creating new rituals for the community, which Magness described (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 140). This is an important issue which will require further consideration beyond the scope of this project. 16 Because the Qumran community was in exile from the Jerusalem Temple, much of the regulations in the Temple Scroll are idealized visions of how the Temple would be run, much like Ezekiel’s visions and the book of Revelation. (Yadin, TS, 1:182–187; Harrington, Impurity Systems, 52–57). This idealized nature can thus help explain some of the variant practices described in the Temple Scroll, although in a sense this project is

88

WASHING IN WATER

exclude the zav from the city during his uncleanness as is specified in Num 5:2, this issue is addressed in the next column’s discussion of the creation of places where zavim, lepers, and others will be quarantined.17 Another passage from the Scrolls further illustrates this change:
[...] woman [...] no one may eat [...] for all the un[cl]ean [...] to count for [himself seven days of wa]shing. And he shall bathe and wash on the d[a]y of [his] uncleanness (Mtrh+ M[w]yb sbkw Cxrw) [... And no man] may eat who has not begun to be clean from his seminal (?) f[low. Nor may he eat] in his primary uncleanness. And on the day of their [cl]eansing all those who are unclean of days (Mymyh y)m+ lwkw) (i.e., unclean during the seven days) shall bathe and wash in water and shall become clean (Mymb wsbkw wcxry wrh+). (4Q514 1 I 1–6)

The surviving text of this passage does not specifically mention seven days, but the editors have inserted that to match the descriptions in the Hebrew Bible.18 Even if we cannot be certain of the length of time involved, this text does suggest that bathing was required, along with specified time period, but there is no mention of either sacrifice or waiting until sunset, an important concept in the rabbinic period.19 Like the previous text, this passage mentions bathing and washing clothes as cleansing for the zav, while omitting any mention of sacrifice. However, it focuses more on when and how the individuals may eat in purity, an issue primarily affecting the priests in the Hebrew Bible.20 Since these texts do not
more concerned with the ideas and interpretations presented in the various scrolls than with the motivations behind each manuscript. 17 Yadin, TS, 2:194. 18 Maurice Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4. III (4Q482–4Q520) (DJD VII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 295–296. See also 4Q514 1 I 1–11, Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 204–205. 19 The question of waiting until sunset, known as Mwy lwb+ in rabbinic writings, is connected to the debate over the interpretation of the biblical passages which specify that an individual must wait until sunset before being declared clean. See for instance, Lev 11:25, 28, 15:2–11, 16–18, Num 19:19. In contrast, Lev 14:8–10 does not mention waiting until sunset, but does require a sacrifice to complete purification. The rabbis said that a person who had bathed was clean and could eat pure food before sunset. (M. Tebul Yom. See Harrington, Impurity Systems, 113–121. In contrast, as will be seen below, the Scrolls, especially 4QMMT and 11Q19 require the individual to wait until sunset and sometimes even until the next day to be cautious. (Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4. V: Miqsat Ma’ase Ha-Torah (DJD X. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 166, see m. Neg. 14.2–3, 8–9) 20 Several passages from Leviticus describe the allocation of grain and meat to the Priests, which must be eaten “in a holy place.” For instance, Lev 2:3, 10 describe how leftover grain offerings are given to Aaron and his sons, and are considered “a most holy part of the offerings by fire to the LORD” (Exod 2:3). This text does not specify where

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

89

specifically mention priests, they are discussed here as a general washing context affecting all people. These texts illustrate the Scrolls’ shift from Priestly to General washing which will be discussed below. There are however, some texts dealing with discharges that depart significantly from the biblical tradition. For instance:
he shall begin by reducing his rank (?). (wnwkyt lyphl lxy) 21 he shall lie down on a bed of trouble (bk#y Nwgy bk#m), and in a dwelling of grief (b#y hxn) b#wmw) shall he dwell. He shall dwell apart with all the unclean, at a distance of twelve cubits from the pure when they speak to him. He shall dwell to the northwest of any habitation at a distance of the same measurement. Any one of the unclean [wh]o h[as a dischar]ge, shall bathe in water and wash his clothes and then he may eat (lk)wy rx)w Nydgb sbkyw Mymb Cxry). For as it says, “Unclean, unclean” (Lev. 13:45), he shall cry ()rqy )m+ )m+) all the days of the discharge; [this is an afflic]tion. (4Q274 1 I 1–4)

There are several unusual elements in this passage. First, the references to “a bed of trouble,” and “a dwelling of grief” have no immediate parallel in the Hebrew Bible.22 Second, the cry “Unclean, unclean,” is required of those with
and how they were to eat their portion, but Lev 6:15 and 18 give more details for the leftover grain offerings , saying “It shall be eaten as unleavened cakes in a holy place; in the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it.” Lev 6:24, 7:6, and 7:15 present the same kinds of details for other offerings. Eating the food in a holy place is mentioned in several of these passages, but Lev 7:20 actually goes farther and specifically forbids people to eat the sacrifice of well-being while unclean. Lev 7:21 mentions several sources of uncleanness in this context: human uncleanness, unclean animals, and unclean creatures. While most of these texts deal with Aaron and his descendants, i.e. the priests, some have concluded that those offering the sacrifices prepared and ate the rest of their sacrifice outside the sanctuary (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 418). Thus, while the laypeople may have eaten parts of their sacrifices, only the priests ate the portions “in a holy place” and had the expectation of purity placed upon them. Thus in the Hebrew Bible, purity for eating the sacrifices appears to have been limited to the priests, not the Levites or the laypeople. In the Dead Sea Scrolls all authorized members participate in the community’s holy meal, not just priests, and all were expected to be pure before eating. Since the Yahad had isolated itself from the Temple, its members could not offer sacrifice, but instead they adapted the rules for eating priestly portions to cover their communal meals (Harrington, Impurity Systems, 52, 66; Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 140; Sanders, Judaism, 156–157, 229–230, 431–437). 21 Baumgarten translates wnwkyt lyphl lxy as “[let him not] begin to cast his supplication,” while García-Martínez translates “he shall begin to lay down his rank” (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 101 line 1; García Martínez and Tighchelaar, eds., DSS Study Edition, 629). 22 Baumgarten challenges Milgrom’s assumption that this passage actually speaks about lepers by noting the references to b#wm and bk#m, seat and bed, two terms mentioned in it for zavim, but not for lepers (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 101).

90

WASHING IN WATER

tsar’at in Lev 13:45, never of those with discharges.23 Similar conflation of the treatment of different purity contexts was also seen in the writings of Josephus and Philo. This issue will be discussed further below. This passage continues as follows:
And she who is discharging blood, for seven days let her not touch the man who has a discharge or any of the vessels [t]hat he is using. And if she has touched anything, she shall wash her clothes and bathe (hcxrw hydgb sbkt) and then she may eat. In [n]o way may she intermingle (br(tt)24 during her seven days that she might n[o]t defile the camps of the hol[y ones of] Israel. Nor may she touch any woman [who has had a dischar]ge of blood for man[y] days. And the one who is counting (the seven days), whether male or female may not tou[ch ...] during the infirmity of her period, unless she is clean from her m[enstruatio]n. For behold, the blood of menstruation is considered as a discharge for the one who touches it. And if a flow of semen is disch[arged] it is an affliction. And he shall be unclean […and anyo]ne who touches any of these unclean people, he may [no]t eat during the seven days of [his]

However, the Hebrew Bible mentions neither a distance nor dwelling apart in its dealing with zavim, although isolation does apply to lepers (Lev 13:45–46). 23 According to Baumgarten, the writers of the Scrolls were not the only ones to apply this public warning to issues beyond leprosy. Sipra Tazri’a 12:9 reads,
)rqy )m+ )m+w rmwl dwmlt My)m+h r)# twbrl Nynmw And whence (do we know) to include the rest of the unclean? The Teaching says, And unclean, unclean shall he call out. (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 101).

This supports Baumgarten’s conclusion that this entire passage refers to zavim and not lepers. The requirement to call out, “Unclean, Unclean!” is a change from the Hebrew Bible, but the reference to other elements related to zavim and the Sipra parallel support this reading. Another passage in the Scrolls develops the treatment of zavim even further. 4Q266 6 I 14–16, containing passages from the Damascus Document, specifies that an individual suffering a discharge as a result of impure thoughts (h[mz] tb#xm) must be considered a zav. This idea is not mentioned at all in Leviticus and is counter to m. Zabim 2.2 which exempts such individuals. In addition, m. Zabim 1.1–3 requires multiple occurrences before an individual is considered a zav—discharge on two successive days to be considered impure and on three successive days for an offering to be needed (See Joseph M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4. XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (DJD XVIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 54, and his discussion in James H. Charlesworth, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr / Paul Siebeck, 1994–), 2:69). 24 Baumgarten questions Qimron’s assumption that “intermingle” (br(th) implies intercourse in line 5. Instead, he points to similar uses in discussions of ritual purity in 11Q19 XLV 4, CD A XI 4 (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 102).

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
impu[rity], just as he who is unclean through contact with a corpse [and he shall b]athe and wash (sbky Cx[ry]) and the[n] (4Q274 1 I 4–9)

91

This passage follows the pattern of Lev 15:19–30 by requiring an individual to wash clothes and bathe after contact with someone with a discharge. However, it departs from Lev 15 in several important ways. First, it does not require the woman who has touched a source of discharge-impurity to wait until evening, but allows her to eat immediately after washing. Second, the text specifically equates menstrual blood with semen, a claim not made in Leviticus.25 Finally, the text implies that the woman in question was herself discharging blood, which according to Lev 15 would make her unclean, so it is surprising that she is allowed to eat the food in the first place26 In the end it is unclear whether her purity or that of others in the camp is most important in this passage. The text suggests that she cannot contact a man with a discharge or a woman with abnormal bleeding; otherwise she would have to restart her counting of seven days. On the other hand, the reference to “not intermingling” during her seven days could suggest that the primary concern is over the purity of the rest of the “camps of the holy ones of Israel.” In a sense, perhaps this text is raising the standards for both a woman with a discharge and the rest of the community. Again, without other references to these specific ideas, it is hard to be certain what this passage is discussing. Finally, there are references to quarantining those with discharges:
You shall also make three places to the east of the city, separated from one another, where those with a skin disease (My(rwcmh), a genital flux (Myzhw), or a [nocturnal] emission (hrqm hmhl hyhy r#)) shall go [...] (11Q19 XLVI 17–18)

This issue will be discussed at greater length below, but there are two significant issues at work in this text. First, the idea that those with genital fluxes or nocturnal emissions should be quarantined like those with skin diseases is not
Despite this difference it is clear that the writers were drawing on Lev 15 since they follow the same sequence: zav, menstruant, and woman with excessive flow (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 102). Menstruation will be discussed further below. Other Scrolls texts make a similar comparison between corpse impurity and other forms of impurity. See for instance 4Q284 1 I 7–8, which seems to require sprinkling after intercourse (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 83–87, 104). 26 It is unclear from the text whether this passage refers to a zavah, i.e. a woman with a discharge, or to a woman at the end of her menstrual period. The various translations have not specified which one is being discussed. In Leviticus, neither of these women is required to bathe, so the absence of bathing for this impurity is not useful in determining which one is dealt with here. Baumgarten notes rabbinic parallels that equate a menstruant with the zavah, in contrast to Samaritan practices which made menstruant more impure than the zavah (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 102).
25

92

WASHING IN WATER

found in the Hebrew Bible. There only those with skin diseases are quarantined or banished, except for the priest who burned the red heifer, who is excluded from the city until he bathes, washes his clothes, and waits for sundown. This juxtaposition adds to the possibility that the writers of the scrolls were trying to harmonize the different sources of impurity as suggested above in reference to the requirement for zavim to cry out, “Unclean, unclean!”27 Further, the fact that the three classes of unclean individuals, and menstruants as will be seen below, are to be separated from each other, as well as excluded from the city is significant. Presumably this is due to the different requirements for purification and lengths of waiting. Contact between individuals with different sources of impurity could have caused recontamination and required them to start their counting of days all over again. However, by that reasoning, one zav who was just starting his purification could contaminate a zav on his last day, but individuals with the same kind of impurity were not separated from each other according to this passage.28 The treatment of lepers in the Dead Sea Scrolls displays a similar combination of biblical and non-biblical elements. For instance 4QMMT discusses the treatment of lepers after they have been declared clean:
Concerning lepers, we have de[termined that] they [may not] enter any place containing the sacred pure food for “they shall be kept apart (ddb yk), [outside the camp (?).] Indeed it is written that from the time that he shaves and washes he must dwell outside [the camp for seven d]ays. But now, while they are still unclean, le[pers must not enter] inside [any place wi]th sacred pure food. And you know [that the one who unknowingly breaks a command] because the matter escaped his notice, he must bring a sin offering. But as for [the one who intentionally sins, it is writ]ten that he is a despiser and a blasphemer. [Indeed, while th]e[y are yet] lepro[us], they may not eat from the holy food until sunset on the eighth day. (4QMMT B 64–72)
27

4Q274 1 I 1–4. Even so, there are no references to quarantining those with corpse impurity, even though it too lasted seven days and some texts link it to other kinds of impurity. 28 An examination of the specific groups excluded from the Temple City and other cities suggests that the concern was less for the individual’s status and purification than for protecting the sanctity of the Temple City. Thus 11Q19 XLVIII 14–17 excludes lepers, zavim, menstruating women, and those who have given birth from cities where the community dwells, but 11Q19 XLVI 17–18 excludes only lepers, zavim, and men with nocturnal emissions. Yadin explains this difference by suggesting that women were excluded from the Temple City automatically, so there was no need to list menstruants or those who had given birth separately. Similarly, men with nocturnal emissions were not a direct threat in the normal cities, but did pose a threat in the Temple City and thus needed to be excluded (Yadin, TS, 2:200). Thus the emphasis here is on protecting the Temple City itself, not the purity those within it or the purity status of those who are being quarantined.

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

93

Like Lev 14, this passage starts once the lepers have been declared clean and refers to shaving and bathing. However, here the healed leper must stay outside the camp after the initial shaving, washing clothes, and bathing, while in Lev 14:4–9 such an individual may return to the camp but stays outside his tent another seven days before shaving, washing clothes, bathing, and making a guilt offering on the following day.29 As above, there is no reference to sacrifice; instead he is required to wait until sunset on the eighth day, a change from Leviticus.30
4Q272 1 I 1–13 discusses the diagnosis of leprosy in much greater detail than the Hebrew Bible, introducing new factors such as wounds and blood flow. There, the determination of whether an individual has a skin disease seems to follow the same pattern as in the Hebrew Bible, although references to specific lengths of time were either left out or placed in the lacunae. This passage also extends the regulations to cover wounds and exposed arteries, two issues not mentioned in Leviticus. However, this passage makes no mention of washing or sacrifices, two issues emphasized in Lev 13–14. It is possible that they were addressed in the missing portions, but there is no way to be certain. See Harrington, Impurity Systems, 78–84. While 4Q272 discusses the details of diagnosis, 4QMMT focuses less on diagnosis and more on keeping lepers away from the Temple. Since 4QMMT includes polemical attacks against the community’s enemies, it is important to pay especially close attention to the statements made here. For instance, while Abegg translates line 68 as “le[pers must not enter],” Qimron suggests instead that it should read “le[pers enter].” He reads this as a polemical statement criticizing those who allow lepers to come near pure food rather than keeping them isolated (Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 362; Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 55). Further, it is interesting to note that the reconstruction of line 70’s discussion of intentional sins draws on Num 15:27–31 rather than Leviticus. (Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 54. Qimron points also to Sipra Numbers, b. Sanh. 99b, and 1QS V 11–12 for similar polemical usage). In other words, this passage is a polemic against those who take a more relaxed approach to the purification of leprosy, allowing individual’s to come near or even eat pure food while they are still unclean. The ones who intentionally sin would then be those who know the stricter tradition but do not follow it. 30 While the Scrolls are generally stricter than either the Hebrew Bible or the rabbis, this text is even stricter than most other texts in the Scrolls (Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 169–170). In Leviticus and rabbinic texts, there are three stages to the purification of healed lepers. (See Lev 14:1–32, m. Neg. 14:2–3, 8–9.) Drawing on Qimron’s outline, they are as follows: 1) After the first round of shaving and immersing, Lev 14:8 declares that the leper is pure (rh+w), but he may not enter his tent. The rabbis conclude that he is now only slightly impure and no longer causes impurity when he enters a house. 2) After shaving and immersing again on the seventh day (Lev 14:8), the rabbis consider him Mwy lwb+, ritually pure and thus able to eat second tithe. 3) On the eighth day, Lev 14:20 says that he must bring an offering so the priest can atone for him and make him pure. The rabbis emphasize that he has waited until sunset of the seventh day and brought his offering on the eighth day, allowing him then to eat other pure food (Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 166–167). In contrast, 4QMMT specifies that the leper is not pure and may not eat holy food until sunset on the eighth day. This adds an extra level of precaution—waiting until the
29

94

WASHING IN WATER

As with the zav above, this passage details the regulations for allowing a cleansed individual to eat the pure food (#dwqh trh+, line 65). Although most such references in the Hebrew Bible deal with the regulations for the priests as they eat their designated portions, as argued above, this text may refer to the sacred and pure meals of the community, rather than just the regulations for priests. Other sections of 4QMMT specifically identify priests as their subject, but B 63–72 does not. Further, since other passages in the Scrolls indicate that there were priests, Levites, and others in the Yahad, it is clear that such an expansion of priestly conditions applied to all members.31 Other passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Hebrew Bible on the need for washing, but significantly change other details.32 For instance, 11Q19 XLV 7–10 follows Lev 15 in calling for bathing after a nocturnal emission, but requires three days of purification, not the one day outlined in Lev 15:16–18:
No m[an] who has a nocturnal emission (hlyl hrqm wl hyhy yk [#y])w) is to enter any part of My temple (#dqmh lwk) until three [com]plete days have passed. He must launder his clothes and bathe (Cxrw Nydgb sbkw) on the first day; on the third he must again launder and bathe (Cxrw Nydgb sbky); then, after the sun has set, he may enter the temple. They are not to enter My temple while unclean, for that would defile it. (11Q19 XLV 7–10)33

end of the eighth day, not just of the seventh. It is stricter than Leviticus and the rabbis in excluding the possibility of Mwy lwb+, but it is also stricter than other texts in the Scrolls in its specification of the eighth day (Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 166–167). It should be noted here that Yadin argues that the sectarians began their day at sunrise, not sunset (Yadin, TS, 1:269, 334). As noted above, some other cases of purification lack sacrifices found in comparable biblical contexts, so the sin offering here is likely in response to the violation, not part of the purification. 31 See 4QMMT B 63–72 for a discussion of the allocation of the tithes to the priests (Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 165). The Hebrew Bible contains some references to laypeople eating pure food in connection to sacrifices, such as Lev 7:15, but most of the texts in Lev 6–7 dealing with pure food refer to the priests only (See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 382, 418). On the other hand, there is the passage in 1QS VIII 4–7 which describes the Yahad as “a Temple for Israel,” which may suggest an elevation of all members to a role like that of priests, as was already discussed. However, it is clear from other references in the Community Rule that the Yahad still made distinctions between priests, Levites, and others, as seen in the roles of priests and Levites in initiation (1QS I 16–2.1) and in the reference to “the priests and the majority of the men of their covenant” (1QS VI 18–19). 32 Similarly, 4Q284 2 I 1–4 refers to waiting for a week and washing, but does not give enough details to determine whether it originally referred to either a zav or a leper. 33 The Temple Scroll describes different levels of quarantine for the Temple City and other cities. Lepers, zavim, and men with nocturnal emissions were excluded from the Temple City, (11Q19 XLVI 16–18), while lepers, zavim, and women who were menstruating or had given birth were excluded from the other cities (11Q19 XLVIII 14–17). If women were excluded from the Temple City, as Yadin and others assume,

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

95

Where Lev 15:16 requires bathing once (but not laundering) and waiting until sunset of the same day, this text requires both laundering and bathing and calls for them to occur twice, on the first and third days, before waiting until sunset. Similarly, Deut 23:10–11 specifies exclusion from the camp, bathing with water, (Mymb Cxry br(-twnpl hyhw) and reentry into the camp after sunset.34 At first, this would appear to be a significant departure from the biblical regulations. However, there are two additional factors involved, both of which might help explain this text. First, Exod 19:9–10, 15 describes a three-day period of preparation before YHWH appears to the Israelites at Mt Sinai. It also provides a potential link to issues of intercourse and genital discharges, since Moses instructs the Israelites, “Do not go near a woman” (Exod 19:15). However, despite these similarities, the practical details differ. First, there is only laundering and not washing in the Sinai account. Second, in Exodus the washing of clothes occurs on the first and second days, not on the first and third.35
their absence in the first list makes sense. However, the reason for the absence of men with nocturnal emission from the second list is unclear. Perhaps it represents a heightened expectation of purity for the Temple City. In other cities, a man with a nocturnal emission could purify as normal, but in the Temple City his presence could contaminate the sanctuary (Yadin, TS, 1:285–289, 2:192). 34 There is some uncertainty over the need to wait three complete days and what exactly is meant by the “City of the Temple.” As Yadin notes, there is a conflict between this column of the Temple Scroll and XLVI 16–18, which specify that those with nocturnal emissions are banned from the Temple City, not just the Temple (Yadin, TS, 1:285–289, 2:192). The unclear reference to #dqmh lwk in XLV 7–8 creates this confusion. Yadin resolves this by suggesting that column XLVI’s ban applies to all men with nocturnal emissions, quarantining them outside the city until their three days are up, while column XLV suggests that they were allowed to return to the city after washing on the third day, but not allowed into the Temple until after sunset (Yadin, TS, 1:286–287). 35 See Yadin, TS, 2:192. As was outlined in Chapter 2, Exod 19 appears to be one of the earliest traditions of ritual washing in the Hebrew Bible, tracing to the J-source. The conclusion of this project will argue that the purification at Sinai inspired the rest of the purity system. Yadin’s assertion that Exod 19 underlies the Scrolls’ purity system supports this conclusion, but the fact that certain scrolls follow such a pattern does not mean that all ancient writers or even the writers of the Pentateuch understood it that way (Yadin, TS, 1:288). Yadin cites two other passages as parallel situations. He notes that 1 Sam 21:6 (21:5 in NRSV) describes a similar avoidance of women during military campaigns, something also seen in 1QM VII 3–4. The three-day period is echoed in 1QSa I 25–26, which calls for three days of sanctification when the assembly is called for judgment, a council, or for war:
Whenever the entire congregation is required to assemble, whether to deliver a legal verdict, as a society of the Yahad, or as a war council, then the Levites shall consecrate them for three days, insuring that everyone who comes is properly prep[ared for the counc]il.

96

WASHING IN WATER

A second factor is the linkage discussed above between corpse impurity and discharge-related impurities. Num 19:12, 19 specifies that anyone who touches a corpse must be sprinkled with parah water on the third and seventh days, bathe and launder on the seventh day, and then will be clean at sunset. As noted above, there are several cases where discharge-related impurities are compared to corpse impurity, thus heightening the severity of the impurity. Num 19 calls for sprinkling without bathing on the third day, while this text from the Temple Scroll calls for both sprinkling and bathing but leaves out bathing on the seventh day. Even so, this text could reflect a similar process of conflation between the two traditions.36 Another text agrees with Leviticus on the need for washing and purification after intercourse, but suggests a different kind of washing:
[...] water of cleansing (hdn ym) that [a ma]n might sprink[le ...] (wzhl) [... If a man has] sexual relations ((rzh tbky#) [with a woman], [they shall bathe with water and shall be unclean until evening ... who shall] be unclean to him. (4Q284 1 I 6–8)

Because of its fragmentary nature, it is unclear if the reference to the water of cleansing is part of a separate statement from the discussion of intercourse. However, Baumgarten clearly sees a relationship, suggesting that hdn ym, “water for sprinkling, water for lustration,” had uses beyond purification from corpse impurity.37 Thus this passage retains the washing after intercourse
(See Yadin, TS, 1:289.) See also the discussion below of the ban on intercourse in the Temple City, which Yadin interprets as a ban on women in the city (Yadin, TS, 1:288). Harrington suggests that the Temple Scroll presents an eschatological ideal, describing practices that would be enforced once the proper Jerusalem temple was rebuilt in the eschaton. In the meantime, the sectarians followed the rules for an ordinary city, not the Temple city, as described in the Temple Scroll. (See Harrington, Impurity Systems, 54–57.) Despite the importance of Exod 19 to discussions of ritual purification, this pericope has been largely ignored by some commentators. For instance, Ashby and Larsson hardly discuss it (Ashby, Go Out and Meet God, 80–87; Göran Larsson, Bound for Freedom: The Book of Exodus in Jewish and Christian Traditions (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999), 134). Childs discusses the command to wash and abstain from intercourse as a separation from ordinary things in preparation for an extraordinary event, receiving the covenant. He compares it to the preparations for other special occasions, such as Gen 35:2 and Josh 3:5 (Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 368–369). 36 See A.J. 3.261–265, 269 for a similar approach in Josephus’ writings. 37 Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 125, lines 7–8. He suggests 4Q277 1 II 9, “other [defilement when the pri]est [spr]inkles the lustration water upon them to purify [them …],” as another example of this extension. See Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 83–86, for further examples. He cites Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1–20 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 463–464, for the suggestion that hdn is actually a variant of hzn, “to spatter”

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

97

specified in Lev 15:18 along with the command to wait until sunset, but it adds sprinkling with water, something reserved for corpse impurity in the Hebrew Bible. Agreements That Washing was not Required In addition to these texts which agree with the Hebrew Bible that washing is required, there are also passages which follow the Hebrew Bible’s example in not requiring washing as part of purification. For instance a description of impurity after childbirth says:
There[fore, if she conceives and bears a male child,] she shall be ceremonially unclean (h)m+w) seven days; as at the time of her menstruation she shall be unclean. And [she shall remain for thirty-three days in the blood of her p[u]rification. And if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean [for two weeks as in her menstruation; and for sixty-six days] [she shall rema]in the blood of her purification. No holy thing [shall she touch, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed]. (4Q265 7 II 13–17)

Abegg harmonizes this passage with the Hebrew Bible, inserting the proper numbers into the lacunae.38 However, the context of this passage suggests that the focus is on the need for purification before entering sacred spaces, rather than on the specific details of childbirth. This concern is made evident in the

(Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 125). Note also, that #dq is used here for sanctification or purification, as it is in Exod 19:10, 14. 38 Lev 12:2–8 describes purification after childbirth as follows:
If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days; as a the time of her menstruation , she shall be unclean. On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Her time of blood purification shall be thirty-three days; she shall not touch any holy thing or come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed. If she bears a female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; her time of blood purification shall be sixty-six days. When the days of her purification are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. He shall offer it before the LORD, and make atonement on her behalf; then she shall be clean from her flow of blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, male or female. If she cannot afford a sheep, she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement on her behalf, and she shall be clean.

The same information appears in Jub. 3:8–14. Baumgarten drew upon these two sources for the reconstruction. (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 72).

98

WASHING IN WATER

suggestion that Adam was excluded from Eden until he had been cleansed (4Q265 7 II 11–14). Another passage combines discussion of childbirth with menstruation and other discharges:
[The regulation pertaining to the woman with a bodily discharge ... Whoever has intercourse with a menstruating woman] contracts the defilement caused by menstruation; and if she sees a discharge again but not [when her period is due, she is unclean] seven days. She shall not eat of the consecrated food or (#dwq lkwt l)) enter the sanctuary until the sun sets on the eighth day (ynym#h Mwyb #m#h )wb d(). A woman who [becomes pregnant] and bears a male child [shall be unclean] seven [days] as in her menstrual weakness ([…]tdn [ym]y[k]) [...] (4Q266 6 II 1–6)

Here, as in 4QMMT, the individual waits until sunset on the eighth day, not the seventh day as specified in Leviticus. As above, there is no mention of any sacrifices as part of purification.39
39 Josephus claims that women could not enter the Temple after giving birth, although this would have prevented their offering the proper sacrifices for their purification (Josephus, Ant. 3.269). Lev 15:19–31 addresses women’s discharges as follows:

When a woman has a discharge of blood that is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. Everything upon which she lies (bk#t) during her impurity shall be unclean; everything also upon which she sits (b#t) shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed (hbk#mb) shall wash his clothes (wydgb sbkw), and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening (br(h-d( )m+w Mymb Cxrw). Whoever touches anything upon which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening; whether it is the bed or anything upon which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening. If any man lies with her, and her impurity falls on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean. If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness; as in the days of her impurity, she shall be unclean. Every bed on which she lies during all the days of her discharge shall be treated as the bed of her impurity; and everything on which she sits shall be unclean, as in the uncleanness of her impurity. Whoever touches these things shall be unclean ()m+y), and shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. If she is cleansed of her discharge, she shall count seven days, and after that she shall be clean. On the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons and bring them to the priest to the entrance of the tent of meeting. The priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make atonement on her behalf before the LORD for her unclean discharge.

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS Another passage heightens the contamination caused by menstrual blood:
For, behold, the blood of menstruation is considered as a discharge for the one who touches it. And if a flow of semen is disch[arged], it is an affliction. And he shall be unclean [... and anyo]ne who touches any of these unclean people, he may [no]t eat during the seven days of [his] impu[rity], just as he who is unclean through contact with a corpse [and he shall b]athe and wash and the[n] ([r]x)w sbkw Cx[ry]) (4Q274 1 I 8–9)

99

Lev 15:19–24 says that a menstruating woman is unclean for seven days and anyone who touches her or any object she has touched becomes impure and must bathe, wash his clothes and wait until sunset. Here, menstrual blood is compared to semen and the impurity lasts seven days, comparing it to the case of someone who touches a corpse (Num 19:14–20). However, the details do not match. Contact with semen requires bathing and washing clothes, as described here, but lasts only one day. On the other hand, corpse impurity does last seven days, but requires sprinkling on the third and seventh days with parah water, followed by bathing.40 As will be discussed below, the writers were clearly familiar with the Hebrew Bible, so we must assume instead that they were trying to harmonize or strengthen the legislation for the different sources of impurity. A different passage refers to a three-day period instead, perhaps strengthening the comparison to corpse impurity:
[... and he shall] rinse [in water ...] [... N]o one may lie (bk#y) [with an unclean woman ... And any furniture] which she shall sit (b#t) [upon shall be Baumgarten notes that the rabbis required the woman to have abnormal flow for three days before considering her a zavah, while the Samaritans allowed an even longer period (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 56 lines 2–3). Note also the emphasis on sunset and the eighth day, another argument against Mwy lwb+. Lev 12.4 excludes a new mother from the sanctuary, but in 4Q266, the ban is extended to menstruants. See also 11Q19 XLVIII 14–16 (Baumgarten, DJD XVIII, 56 lines 3–4). Thus while the ban on contact and lack of washing for menstruants and women with discharges are parallel to Leviticus, the reference to eating consecrated food, entering the sanctuary, and waiting until sunset are all added here from other contexts. 40 Esther Eshel argues that references to first-day immersion in 11Q19 XLIX and 4Q414 indicate the existence of an alternate ritual for use in cities near cemeteries. Some of these cemeteries had miqva’ot associated with them, as at Qumran, Jericho, and the Tomb of Queen Helena of Adiabene in Jerusalem. In most cities, individuals with corpse impurity needed to be sprinkled on the third day and then bathe and be sprinkled on the seventh day. According to Eshel, those cities with miqva’ot near their cemeteries also required bathing on the first day so that people could begin purification before entering the city (Esther Eshel, “4Q414 Fragment 2: Purification of a Corpse-Contaminated Person,” in Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (ed. Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 3–10; Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 154).

100

WASHING IN WATER
unclean ... And] if he has not touched it, [he shall be clean ... on the th]ird [day], those who touch [... any]one, contact with the bed [...] in the place [...] (4Q278 1 1–8)

Lev 15 says nothing about three days of cleansing for women with discharges, so perhaps this passage represents a similar attempt to link purification of those in contact with menstruants to corpse purification. Despite the fragmentary nature of this text, the references to sit and lie (b#t and bk#y) suggest that a menstruant or zavah is being discussed.41 Washing is not mentioned as part of purification for women in these contexts in either the Scrolls or Hebrew Bible. Some of these texts describe washing for men who come in contact with such women, but nothing specifically about washing for the women in question. However, Jacob Milgrom assumes that washing was implied and practiced in this context. He begins by arguing for this assumption in other cases where washing is not explicitly mentioned in Leviticus. For instance, he argues that bathing after contact with an animal carcass, not just laundering clothes, is implied in Lev 11:24–25 by extension from the fact that vessels touching a carcass are washed. If vessels must be washed, all the more so humans.42 Similarly, concerning the treatment of menstruation in Lev 15:19, he says “Still, all statements regarding the duration of impurity automatically imply that it is terminated by ablutions.” He draws this conclusion from Lev 11:24–25, corpse contamination in Num 19:19, and by extension from the requirement of ablution for a minor impurity such as seminal discharge (Lev 15:16). If a minor case like seminal discharge requires it, all the more a major discharge like menstruation.43 He applies the same logic to the woman who has given birth (Lev 12:2), concluding:
Thus ablutions must be omitted from these three major impurity cases for women—the parturient, the one discharging chronically, and the menstruant— because they are taken for granted. Note that when their performance is essential to the narrative, the writer mentions them (2 Sam 11:4). Furthermore, because laundering is also prescribed for severe impurities (seven days or

Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 122. See Harrington, Impurity Systems, 85–94. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 667–678. He assumes that “shall be impure until evening,” br(h-d( )m+y (Lev 11:24b), implies that bathing occurred. He cites Mek. Yitro 3 as an example of rabbinic arguments along these lines, although that passage draws on Exod 19:10, not Leviticus. He also points to 11QT LI 2–3 as an even stricter view, calling for laundering and bathing after contact with a carcass, although again that passage is not based on Leviticus (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 667). 43 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 934–935. Concerning Num 19:19, he cites Keter Torah, and for seminal emissions he cites Maimonides, “Forbidden Sexual Unions,” 4:3.
42

41

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
longer; cf. 14:8, 9; 15:13; Num 19:18) it must also be assumed for the menstruant. Nor is there any mention of sacrifices. Here, however, none is to be expected. First, menstruation is a normal condition and is, therefore, not to be compared with abnormal genital discharges (vv. 13–15, 28–30). More important however, is a practical consideration: are we to expect a woman to bring a sacrifice to the sanctuary every month?44

101

It is clear from Milgrom’s argument that the rabbis made the assumptions he describes. This seems a logical application of the regulations outlined in Leviticus. However, it is not evident from these passages that the writers of the Scrolls came to the same conclusion, which is surprising considering their tendency to be stricter than the rabbis.45 Further, it is not clear that this is actually what was practiced in the time that Leviticus was written. Given all of the other details that are provided in Leviticus which ancient readers might have been presumed to know, it is equally likely that the explicitly stated regulations actually reflect ancient practice, despite the apparent inconsistencies that then arise. For the time being it seems more useful to discuss what is explicit in the texts and how those statements were interpreted by later writers than to force later practices into the discussion of Leviticus.46 Cases where the Scrolls Lack Washing Seen in the Hebrew Bible Finally, there are some cases where the Dead Sea Scrolls do not specifically mention washing in contexts where the Hebrew Bible does. For instance, the Damascus Document does not describe the means of purification after intercourse, but says only:
A man may not lay (bk#y l)) with a woman in the city of the Temple, defiling ()m+l) the city of the Temple by their uncleanness. (CD A XII 1–2)

Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 935. See Chapter 3 for further discussion of this issue. Harrington, Impurity Systems, 62. 46 While there are certainly cases where the rabbis extend regulations beyond what is stated in a particular verse of Scripture, often by bringing other biblical passages into discussion, there are also cases where the rabbis adhere closely to the explicit statements in the Torah. For instance, Qimron argues that the writers of the Scrolls require waiting until sunset for any situation where rh+w is mentioned, the rabbis only enforce that in the cases that specifically call for waiting until sunset (Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 153–154).
45

44

102

WASHING IN WATER

Similarly, the Temple Scroll says:
If a man has intercourse with his wife ((rz tbk# bk#y), he may not enter any part of the temple city (#dqmh ry() (where I shall make My name to dwell) for three days. (11Q19 XLV 11)

Lev 15:18 requires a man and woman to bathe after intercourse and wait until sunset to be clean, but there is no prohibition about proximity to the Temple. However, this ban can be compared to the ban on intercourse prior to the theophany at Sinai. As discussed above, in Exod 19, the Israelites were commanded to wash their clothes, told “do not go near a woman,” (Exod 19:15) and prepare for the third day, at which time they would meet God. This appears to have been the rationale for the three days of purification after nocturnal emissions as well, which was discussed above.47 There are several other issues at work in these texts. First, it is unclear exactly what is meant by the Temple City—the Temple compound and surrounding buildings or the entire city of Jerusalem where the Temple is located.48 In any event, the Temple Scroll treats the Temple City as a category by itself, requiring different regulations from other cities. If the Temple City requires extra care to preserve its purity, it seems strange at first that these two quotes do not specify the means of purification for those in the Temple City who have had intercourse. This is especially surprising given the discussion of nocturnal emissions in the Temple City in 11Q19 XLV 7–10, discussed above. Perhaps, as both Yadin and Baumgarten suggest, it was a moot point. Baumgarten argues that the ban on intercourse in the Temple city was equivalent to a requirement of celibacy for those living in the city. On the other hand, Yadin suggested that all women were banned from the Temple city. Since menstruants and new mothers were excluded from the city by 11Q19 XLVI 16– 18, all women were excluded by extension.49 If they are correct that the men of the Temple city were celibate or at least living apart from women, then descriptions of washing after intercourse are unnecessary. Sexual intercourse
Yadin, TS, 2:192. As noted above, in some cases the texts themselves are not clear whether they are talking about the temple or the city. See for instance, 11Q19 XLV 7–8 (Yadin, TS, 1:289). See also Qimron’s discussion of correspondences in MMT between Camp, Tabernacle, and Tent in the Hebrew Bible with the Temple and other places during the Second Temple period (Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 142–144; 4QMMT B 59–62; Harrington, Impurity Systems, 57–58). 49 Note that the text from the Damascus Document bans intercourse outright, while the Temple Scroll only bans entry into the Temple city before the purification is complete. Yadin cites Lev 15:18, Lev 19:20, Num 5:12–13, Josephus, War 2.119–121, and 1QM VII 3–4. See Baumgarten in Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:51, n. 180, Yadin, TS, 1:288, 2:193.
48 47

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

103

will not take place and thus does not need cleansing, while nocturnal emissions are still possible and must be dealt with.50 One final issue concerning these texts is the emphasis on a three-day waiting period after intercourse in 11Q19 XLV 11. Obviously, no waiting period was necessary in the Damascus Document if the men were celibate. Why then did the Temple Scroll specify three days of waiting, rather than the one day of washing and waiting until sunset prescribed by Lev 15:18? One explanation is that the writers were trying to link this to the theophany at Sinai in Exod 19, where God appeared to the Israelites on the third day, as discussed above.51 However, Exod 19 implies that the washing took place on the first day and God appeared on the third, Lev 15:18 prescribes waiting until sunset after washing on the same day, while the Temple Scroll describes three days of waiting and does not specify what time of day on the third day the man may reenter the Temple city.52 Thus, while the idea of three days is shared between Exod 19 and 11Q19 XLV 11, the implementation of those three days differs. Perhaps, instead, this is another case in which the writers were trying to relate other forms of impurity to corpse impurity which required bathing on the third and seventh days, as discussed above. 53
Even so, 11Q19 XLV 11 bans men from the city only for the three days of their impurity after intercourse, but it does not specify how such purification was to take place. This is a case where it could be extrapolated from the Hebrew Bible and from the purification after nocturnal emissions, but it is also possible that all that was required was the passage of time, as seen with the menstruant and post-partum mothers, as seen above. 51 Yadin, TS, 1:288. 52 Given the Temple Scroll’s disagreement with the idea of Mwy lwb+, discussed above, it seems surprising that the writers are silent on this issue. 53 One final case where the scrolls fail to mention washing where it might be expected from the Hebrew Bible concerns graves. See for instance, Num 5:2, 19:18, 31:19. For rabbinic parallels, see m. Kelim 1.7, 2.1, 11.2, b. Mo ed Qat. 15b (Harrington, Impurity Systems, 69–77). m. Parah 3.2 expresses concern over the possibility that there might be graves hidden underground and that someone might unintentionally step over them. Given these traditions, it is surprising to see that the Copper Scroll says that the 57th cache is “at the grave of the common people—it is ritually pure” (3Q15 XI 9). Wise, Abegg, and Cook suggest that this hiding place is in the Kidron Valley, a well-known area of burials in that period (Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 197). Note that García Martínez translates lines 8-9 as “In the grave which is underneath the ‘knife’: forty talents. In the grave of the sons of Abet of Jericho …” (García Martínez and Tighchelaar, eds., DSS Study Edition, 239). (See Chapter Five for discussion of miqva’ot at cemeteries.) If graves are considered defiling, why would the writers describe this one as ritually pure? This reference is confusing and to date there has been little discussion of it. In addition, there are no references to unclean animals or animals in general, except for a reference to animal skins, 4Q271 2 II 10–11: “one may not bring in any skin or clothing or any thing made with them that can defile a human [being un]less it has been sprinkled properly (+p#mk wzwh M)) [...].” Here there is a reference to sprinkling, presumably as purification, which the editors relate to Lev 11:32 (Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea
50

104 PRIESTLY WASHING

WASHING IN WATER

In the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature, we saw quite a few references to washing practices that applied specifically to priests, centered around their service in the Temple. There are a few such references in the Scrolls, but they represent a much smaller proportion of the washing references than in the previous chapters. Even priestly purity situations that involved washing in the HB often lack such washing in Dead Sea Scrolls.54 As with the general washing above, some priestly washing texts parallel the Hebrew Bible with minor changes, while others offer additional information and details about washing. One priestly situation which parallels the treatment in the Hebrew Bible is the preparation and use of the water of cleansing, made from the ashes of the parah, commonly known as the red heifer. For instance:
[And he shall throw the cedar bough] and the hyssop and the [crimson material into the midst of its burning. Then the one who does the burning shall wash his clothes] and a man who is pure from any corpse uncleanness [shall gather the ashes of the heifer and store them; kept for the sons of Israel for the water for cleansing.] [It is a purification offering. And] the priest who makes atonement with the blood of the heifer and all [... shall] pu[t on] [...] seam [...] they made atonement by them, the ordinance of the [red heifer (?) ...] [...] with water. [And he shall be unc]lean until the [even]ing. The one who carr[ies the p]ot of the water for cleansing shall be un[clean. He shall bathe in water and wash his clothes.] [And no] man [shall sprinkle] the water for cleansing upon the unclean [...] except a clean priest [...] [... upo]n them fo[r] he [shall] make atonement for the unclean. One who is negligent (or a child) may not sprinkle on the unclean. And o[ne who...] [... the] water for [cl]eansing. And he shall enter the water (wr[h]+yw Mymb w)yb)w) and shall be cleansed from corpse uncleanness [...] [...] another. [The pr]iest [shall sp]lash (qwr[zy]) the water for cleansing (hdnh ym) upon them to cleanse [them from ...] [...] however, they [shall] be cleansed, and their flesh shall be c[lean.] And

Scrolls, 64). (This fragment (f) of the Damascus Document was formerly numbered 4Q272 1 II 3 (Baumgarten, DJD XVIII, 174).) See also, Harrington, Impurity Systems, 95–99. 54 In the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are no explicit references to washing by priests in texts that deal with their purity. There are two references in manuscripts of the Testament of Levi from other sites (Mt Athos and Ox Geniza C 22 – D 3. See Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 255), but they do not appear in the Scrolls’ versions of this text. 4QMMT B 13–16, which will be discussed shortly, may imply washing for priests involved in the parah ritual, but it is not explicitly stated. In part, these references may be missing because the relevant columns are missing from the manuscripts, but in at least some cases, nearby pericopes appear to be present in the scrolls, but these references are not included.

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
everyone who touches [...] [...] his discharge [...] and is not rinsing [his] ha[nd] in water. They shall be [un]clean [...] his [b]ed and [his] dwel[ling ...] they have touched his discharge, it is as an unclean affliction. [The] one who touches [... shall be un]clean until [the] evening. The one who carries [the pot and] the boughs (?) of [the tr]ees, shall be unclean until the [ev]ening. (4Q277 1 1–13)

105

This text resembles Num 19 in its emphasis on the role of the priest in purification of corpse impurity and the requirement for those being purified from corpse impurity to bathe and be sprinkled. However, unlike Num 19, there is no reference to washing on the third and seventh days, something so important that those forgoing it would be cut off from the people of Israel according to Num 19:2. According to Baumgarten, this and other texts concerning the parah ritual reflect ongoing debates over the halakah for purification of corpse impurity. Thus this passage forbids children to sprinkle the parah water, against the tradition in m. Parah 3.2–4 which allows them to sprinkle.55 This passage also appears to challenge the idea of Mwy lwb+, in its reference in lines 5 and 13 to br(h d( )m+, being impure until evening. The suggestion that the one who gathers the ashes must not have impurity that requires waiting until evening challenges the idea that purity was conferred by the process of washing.56 The exact relationship between the two issues in this passage, the parah ritual and contact with discharges, is unclear, but one possibility is that it is an
55 Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 118. Another text on the topic, 4Q276 1 1–9, calls for the priest to wear normal garments, ones not worn for sacred service, when he slaughters the heifer, against traditions such as Sipra, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Num 19:4, m. Parah 4:1 which specify the wearing of white garments (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 112). 56 As Abegg notes, (Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 284), this passage disagrees with the Mishnah:

There was a place of immersion there: and they had [first] rendered unclean the priest that should burn the Heifer, because of the Sadducees: that they should not be able to say, ‘It must be performed only by them on whom the sun has set.’ (m. Parah 3:7b)

See also m. Parah 3:6 concerning graves and 4QMMT:
Concerning the purity of the heifer of the sin offering, the one who slaughters it, the one who burns it, the one who gathers its ashes, and the one who sprinkles the [water of] purification—for all of these, the sun must se[t] for them to be pure—so that the pure might sprinkle the water of purification on the unclean. (4QMMT B 13–16)

However, even if they waited until sunset, it is unclear from the text whether sprinkling occurred at the moment of sunset or on the next day. Yadin, for instance, has suggested that the day at Qumran began with sunrise, not sunset (Yadin, TS, 1:269, 334).

106

WASHING IN WATER

indication that corpse purification is effective, even if an individual had other impurities.57 Another possibility is that it is a reference to the conflation of different kinds of impurity, as seen above in the requirement for a zav to shout “Unclean, unclean!” as lepers had to do. (4Q274 1 I 3–4) There are also references in non-sectarian literature from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the washing of feet and hands during priestly service. This practice is described several times in the Hebrew Bible and other Second Temple period texts, and hinted at in descriptions of the Temple’s layout. For instance, Exodus 30:21 and 40:31 describe how Aaron, his sons, and all future priests after them must wash their hands and feet before serving at the altar. 2 Chr 4:6–10 describes the basins and sea in the Temple which may have served the same purpose.58 References to this practice are found in the Testament of Levi and Jubilees:
When you rise to enter the house of God, bathe first in water, then put on the priestly vestments. When you are dressed, once more wash your hands and your feet before you come near the altar. When you begin to sacrifice whatever is fitting to place on the altar, once again wash your hands and feet. (Testament of Levi—Oxford Geniza C 1–8) When [you have placed] any of these kinds of wood on the altar and the fire begins to kindle in them, at that moment you should begin to sprinkle the blood on the sides of the altar. Then once more wash off your hands and feet from the blood and begin to put on the salted pieces. (T. Levi—Oxford Geniza C 22–D 3)59 Keep this commandment and do it, my son, so that you might act uprightly in all of your deeds. And at all of the (appointed) times be pure in your body and wash yourself with water before you go to make an offering upon the altar. And wash your hands and your feet before you approach the altar. And when

Baumgarten suggests this, citing Sipra Zutta as a parallel (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 118, lines 8–10). 58 See Chapter Three for discussion of Second Temple period references to the basins. 59 C 1–8 is not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts, but C 22 – D 3 is reflected in 4Q213 1 I 6-10. 4Q214 appears to cover some of the same sections. These manuscripts are so fragmentary though that they can only be reconstructed by reference to the Greek texts of the Testament of Levi (For further background on Aramaic Levi, see Kugler, Patriarch to Priest; G. J. Brooke et al., Qumran Cave 4 .XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD XXII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 27–31)

57

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
you have completed making the offering, wash your hands and feet again. (Jub. 21:15–16)60

107

These texts were known beyond Qumran during the Second Temple period and are quoted here in the more widely known versions, because the Scrolls manuscripts of these passages were so fragmentary. While Jubilees and Aramaic Levi were clearly known by the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this practice of hand-washing is not found anywhere else in the Scrolls. It is particularly surprising that this practice is not described in the Temple Scroll, given biblical references to handwashing by priests.61 One biblical issue which is reflected in The Temple Scroll is the ordination of priests and the High Priest. These texts resemble the Pentateuch’s version in many details, especially in terms of the burnt offerings. However, there are no references to the sprinkling of blood on those being ordained, and no requirement that they wash first.62 Finally, there are a few texts which describe additional details of purification for the priests which were not discussed in the Hebrew Bible. For instance, the Scrolls’ descriptions of the Yahad’s battles with its enemies introduce another potential source of impurity—human blood:
60 Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 2:96. This text appears in 4Q219 II, although as with the Aramaic Levi manuscripts, this one is fragmentary as well (Harold Attridge et al., Qumran Cave 4. VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD XIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994)). See (Kugler, Patriarch to Priest, 23–59), for a discussion of the reconstruction of Aramaic Levi. 61 Exod 30:21, 40:31. Fragments of Tobit were also found among the scrolls, although Tob 2:9, the reference to washing after burying a corpse is not preserved in any of the Scrolls manuscripts of Tobit (4Q196–200). 62 See 11Q19 XV 3, ff for the annual ordination of priests, and XVI 2, ff for references to the High Priest. See also Exod 29, 40:12–15; Lev 8, 21:10. One issue on which the Scrolls and the Hebrew Bible agree is the anointing of such priests with oil. For instance, consider, “you are to come before [the pr]iest who has been anointed, upon whose head has been poured the anointing oil (hxw#mh Nm#)” (4Q375 1 8–9). This line quotes Lev 21:10 in its reference to a priest in this way, although it says only Nhk and not ldgh Nhk (Magen Broshi et al., Qumran Cave 4. XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD XIX. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 114). See also “[...] the anointed priest [upon whose head has been poured the anointing oil ... and he shall offer a bul]l of the herd and a ram [...] for the Urim.” (4Q376 1 I 1–3) However, despite the use of oil in this way, oil was considered to be a pollutant, according to both Josephus and the Scrolls. For instance, see Josephus, B.J. 2.123, 4QMMT (4Q397 6–13), CD A XII 15–17 (VanderKam, DSS Today, 81–82). Ultimately, it appears that oil was not considered impure on its own, but it could conduct impurity and thus was dangerous, although it was still used for anointing, as evident in other texts such as 4Q493 5–6 which uses “oil” as a shorthand for anointing and 1QM IX 7–8 which forbids profaning “the oil” of the High Priest. See also Yadin, TS, 1:1, 399, Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 80–91.

108

WASHING IN WATER
Thus they shall not profane the anointing (Nm#) of their priestly office [with the blood of the s]lai[n]. [And] they shall not approach any battle formation of the infantry.” (4Q493 5–6)

There is no reference to washing here, but the concern over protection of the priests, and perhaps the sanctuary, from human blood is a new issue unknown in the Hebrew Bible. This matter will be discussed below when warfare in the Scrolls is considered. Finally, the Temple Scroll mentions a practical detail not specifically mentioned in the Hebrew Bible concerning the rotation of priests:
Let each division [come] to its own area (wmwqm l) rm#m) and encamp. On the eighth day one comes and the other leaves. The incoming division shall purify the chambers (twk#nh t) Myrrh+mw), one after another, at the time that the old division exits. There must be no intermingling (tbwr(t). (11Q19 XLV 4–7)

Yadin interprets this as an attempt to be stricter than necessary for the idealized vision of the Temple City.63 He further suggests that the eighth day here is Sunday, not the Sabbath as Josephus claims.64 Again there is no discussion of the means of purification, but this text underscores the degree of effort the Yahad took to protect the sanctity of the sanctuary.65

TS 1:268–271. See, for instance, Neh. 12:38, Ezek 46:9; m. Mid. 2:2, m. Zebah. 6.3; m. Yoma 2.9–10; m. Šeqal. 8:2. 64 TS 2:191, 1:269. See Jos Ant. 7.365, t. Sukkah 4:24–25. 65 While many Scrolls texts appear to hold the priests in high regard, one text in the Damascus Document displays a different attitude:
But if it is a case of the law of skin diseases, then the priest must come and be present in the camp and the Overseer shall instruct him in the details of the Law and even if the priest is ignorant, it is he who must isolate the one suffering from skin disease, because that duty is the priests’ alone. (CD A XIII 5–7)

63

This appears to address a setting in which there are other educated leaders but the priests are still given the sacramental role in purification. Harrington discusses a similar attitude in rabbinic writings, suggesting that the rabbis highlighted the role of the sage, while the writers of the Scrolls still upheld the role of the priest, even when the priests were less knowledgeable. See also m. Neg. 3.1, t. Neg. 3.1 (Baumgarten and Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:55, n. 197, Harrington, Impurity Systems, 80).

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS NEW USES OF RITUAL WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

109

In the previous chapter, we saw that ritual washing was extended beyond the circumstances outlined in the Hebrew Bible to include hand-washing, prayer, and defecation, in addition to several situations where purity was extended as well without washing. These new contexts are different from the changes discussed above which represented changes to usage of washing and purification in purity contexts known from the Hebrew Bible.66 These contexts represent the extension of purity concerns beyond those known in the Hebrew Bible. This development makes sense since the Second Temple Jewish community was confronted with a variety of influences and this period saw adaptation of tradition to new situations, and new practices, including synagogues and ossuaries.67 This tendency applies to the Dead Sea Scrolls material as well. In addition to the new details of washing discussed above, there are several cases where washing is described in new contexts unknown in the Hebrew Bible. Some, like prayer are found in other Second Temple period texts, while others, like washing on the Sabbath, are unique to the Scrolls. As outlined in the previous chapter, washing before prayer is a significant development in the Second Temple period, although it is not always clear whether the two are intentionally linked. For instance, in Jdt 12:7b–9, Judith bathes before prayer and then returns to the camp to eat in purity. The bathing could be in preparation for prayer, for eating, or for both. With a description of her intent, the relationship between bathing and prayer is unclear.68 This uncertainty applies to the references to prayer and washing in the Scrolls as well. For instance, a passage from Aramaic Levi reads:
[Then] I [washed my clothing and purified them with clean water,] [and] I bath[ed all over in fresh water, so making] all [my ways correct. Then] I raised my eyes [and face] to heaven, [I opened my mouth and spoke,] and my fingers and hands [I spread out properly in front of the holy angels. So I prayed and] said: (4Q213 1 I 6–10)

In some cases, the new contexts are due to the community’s circumstances, such as the issue of being in an enemy camp as described in 1QM. 67 Cohen, Maccabees to the Mishnah, 43, 89–92. 68 See Collins, “Origin,” 34, and Baumgarten, “Purification Liturgies,” 200–212. Just as it is unclear whether proselyte baptism was initially considered a special occasion or simply the first of many baths, it is unclear if such bathing was a preparation for prayer or the completion of prayer. We will return to these questions in the Conclusion (Chapter 6), but it is possible that washing for prayer was another outgrowth from washing for theophany.

66

110

WASHING IN WATER

Despite the gaps, it seems clear that the bathing described in this passage was linked to prayer, since the rest of the column provides the words of Levi’s prayer. However, as the next column describes his heavenly vision, this passage could also be considered as a preparation for theophany.69 In the previous chapter, we saw one example where purification for the Sabbath was mentioned, in 2 Macc 12:38, but the text did not specifically state that washing was involved in such purification. In the Scrolls, however, there are several references to washing on the Sabbath. For instance:
[... whi]ch he sprinkles (wzy) on him the first time, and he shall bathe and wash before [... he shall imm]erse him the seventh time on the Sabbath (y(yb#h tb# Mwyb). He may not sprinkle (zy l)) on the Sabbath because [...] the Sabbath da[y]. He may not touch the pure food (hrh+b (gy l)) until he changes [his clothes ...] anything which touches a discharge of semen, whether it be a person or any vessel, he shall immerse (lwb+y),70 and the one who carries it [shall immerse ...] and he shall immerse the garment which is on him and the vessel which he carries [...] And if there is a man in the camp whose hand or fo[ot] has not reached [...] the garment which has not touched it. Only, he may not touch his food. And the one who touc[hes it] [shall immerse ...] he shall dwell [alone]. If he has not touched it, wash [his clothes] in water and if [...] [...] and he shall wash. And concerning all the holy things he shall wash in water [...] (4Q274 2 I 1–9)

This passage addresses the purification of a zav, allowing him to bathe on the Sabbath if the last day of his purification fell on the Sabbath.71 Like some of the

See the Mt Athos MS of the Testament of Levi. As discussed in Chapter 3, the development of prayer and synagogues in the Second Temple period is still subject to much debate. It is interesting to note that although no reference to washing hands remains in this text, the raising of eyes, face, and hands to heaven as seen in some of the texts described in the previous chapter. See for instance, Let. Aris. 304b–306, A.J. 12.106, Contempl. 66, 89, Sib. Or. 3.591–593. 70 The Hebrew Bible generally uses Cxr and sbk, never lb+ (immerse) except for 2 Kg 5:14, the story of Naaman. The Scrolls generally follow this pattern, with 4Q274 the only known use of lb+. In contrast, lb+ is used by the rabbis who interpreted the biblical Cxr as full immersion. Baumgarten suggests that the contrast between Cxr and lb+ in 4Q274 2 I 1 and 4–5 indicates that Cxr did not always imply immersion in the Scrolls, but in this case washing “is adequate to permit eating on the day of purification by sprinkling, but contact with semen requires immersion” of both the individual and the garment (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 91, 105). 71 The reference to immersing for the seventh time is confusing, since in the Pentateuch there are references to waiting seven days (Lev 15), and washing on the seventh day (Lev 14) or the third and seventh days (Num 19). The only biblical parallel to washing seven times is in the story of Naaman, 2 Kgs 5. Baumgarten suggests that it should read “seventh day,” i.e. the Sabbath (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 104). In that

69

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

111

texts discussed above, this one specifies the form of washing, immersion and discusses washing garments and vessels as well. However, it raises some important issues. First, why is sprinkling forbidden when washing is allowed? If sprinkling is not allowed on the Sabbath, is the individual still allowed to eat pure food? First the question of sprinkling. This text and another in 4Q265 7 3, 8–9 suggest that sprinkling was forbidden on the Sabbath.72 In the Hebrew Bible, purificatory sprinkling is confined to corpse purification, where the parah-water is sprinkled after the baths on the third and seventh days. Sprinkling is seen as the final step of purification, not the bath, sacrifice, or even waiting until sunset. Here sprinkling is expanded to include other forms of impurity as we have already discussed.73 Why is sprinkling forbidden on the Sabbath? Perhaps because it would involve the work of scooping water for sprinkling, as will be discussed below. In m. Pesah. 6:2, Rabbi Akiba argues that any step of preparation for the paschal sacrifice does not override the Sabbath, although the sacrifice itself is allowed. In contrast, Rabbi Eliezer allows both.74 These rulings do not explain why sprinkling was forbidden, but they indicate that such questions were circulating later and may have been present in the time of the Qumran community. If sprinkling is forbidden on the Sabbath, how would this affect the status of those needing to be sprinkled before bathing for purification?75 Baumgarten suggests that “the restriction of sprinkling on the Sabbath made necessary a relaxation of the ban on eating before purification, but not of the strict standards pertaining to food kept in purity.”76 There are not many references in the Scrolls
case, the “first time” in line 1 could refer to washing on the third day and the seventh day would refer to the final washing as for corpse impurity (Num 19). 72 Baumgarten suggests that 4Q265 refers to the Day of Atonement, not the Sabbath, although references to the Sabbath in lines 1 and 2 suggest that reconstructing the following lines as discussions of the Sabbath is not impossible (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 71). 73 Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 83–85. See also 4Q277 I 2, b. Yebam. 465, b. Ker. 9a. 74 Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 71, 104. See also 4Q 251 I 6. 75 According to Lev 14:2–9, a healed leper was sprinkled with special water made from bird’s blood, cedarwood, hyssop, and crimson yarn before washing his clothes, bathing, and shaving. He could return to the camp but had to live outside of his tent for seven days, at which time he shaved, washed his clothes and bathed again to be clean. These ablutions were followed by a sacrifice on the eighth day. Num 19:19 calls for someone with corpse contamination to be sprinkled with parah water on the third and seventh days, followed by washing clothes, bathing, and waiting until sunset. The text does not specify whether these ablutions occurred on both the third and seventh days or just the seventh day, but 11Q19 XLIX 13–17 suggests that the writers of the Scrolls interpreted it as both the third and seventh. 76 Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 105.

112

WASHING IN WATER

to such a situation, but 4Q514 1 I 5, 8 suggests a solution which may apply here and in 4Q274 3 II 2. There a person whose impurity lasts several days must wash to remove the first level of impurity before eating, even though one would expect his food to become unclean by contact with him.77 Thus, at least in this instance, the Sabbath laws held precedence over purity laws, although there was still an attempt to uphold the purity laws. This conjunction of allowed washing with forbidden sprinkling seems strange at first, but a text from the Damascus Document may help clarify the principle:
If he was on a journey (Krdb) (on the Sabbath) and went down to bathe (Cwxrl dryw), he may drink where he stands, but he may not draw water into any vessel ([y]lk lk l) b)#y l)w). (CD A XI 1–2)

Here, the distinction is between bathing and drawing water, not bathing and sprinkling.78 However, since sprinkling requires taking water from a source, even if it is done by hand, this passage could be extended to forbid sprinkling as well. Charlesworth notes that drawing water in vessels on the Sabbath, was also banned in Jub. 2:29 and 50:8.79 These rulings are likely related to the principle underlying the suitability of water for the parah ritual in m. Parah 4.5. There, only naturally flowing water, not drawn water, is suitable for the preparation of the water of cleansing, since the human activity of drawing water would disqualify it. Perhaps this passage reflects the same concern, allowing washing in water that arrived without human assistance, but forbidding actions that would require the work of drawing water on the Sabbath.

Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 108. The idea that someone would be travelling on the Sabbath is surprising, given the regulations for how far a person could walk on the Sabbath. (See Yadin, TS, 1:294–304.) It is possible that the text refers to a Sabbath that occurs while the individual is travelling, but there is still no indication of the regulations for Sabbaths when one is not travelling. This passage goes on to say, “A man may not put on filthy clothes or clothes kept in wool unless he washes it in water or if they scrub it with spice” (CD A XI 3–4). While the context would suggest this is an issue of ritual impurity, such a form of purification is unknown in the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple writings, and elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls. We find references to special clothes for certain individuals or occasions in Josephus Ant. 3.279, War 2.123, 126, 132 as well as b. Šabb. 113a (Sabbath), but nothing like this practice. These lines say nothing to indicate if this form of purification applies only on the Sabbath or at any time. Baumgarten identifies the spice, blbona, as frankincense (Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:47, n. 163). Milgrom discusses the practice of ablutions in other ancient Near Eastern cultures, but does not mention the use of any other materials like spice (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 957–963). This issue will require further study beyond the scope of this project. 79 Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 47, n. 163.
78

77

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

113

Purity for the communal meal is an important theme in the Scrolls, and washing appears to play a part in that purity.80 For instance:
If he does proceed in joining the society of the Yahad, he must not touch the pure food (hrh+b (gy )wl) of the general membership before they have examined him as to his spiritual fitness and works, and not before a full year has passed. Further, he must not yet admix his property with that of the general membership. If it be ordained, in the opinion of the priests and the majority of the men of their Covenant, then he shall be initiated further into the secret teaching of the Yahad. They shall also take steps to incorporate his property... The initiate is not to touch the drink (hq#mb (gy l)) of the general membership (Mybrh) prior to passing a second year among the men of the Yahad. When that second year has passed, the general membership shall review his case. If it be ordained for him to proceed to full membership in the Yahad, they shall enroll him at the appropriate rank among his brothers for discussion of the Law, jurisprudence, participation in pure meals (hrhw+lw), and admixture of property. Thenceforth the Yahad may draw upon his counsel and judgment. (1QS VI 16–24)

While there are no explicit statements that a special act of purification preceded meals or that the purification involved washing, this passage indicates the emphasis placed on purity in the Scrolls community. Such pure meals can be compared with the restrictions on how the priests may eat their sacrificial portions as described above. Some have suggested that Pharisees lived as if they were priests to maintain purity for their own meals, just as it appears the writers of the scrolls were trying to apply similar purity rules in their own community, including “priests and the majority of the men of their Covenant” (1QS VI 18). Such a claim is still being debated, but given the Scrolls’ claim that the Yahad, both priest and lay, forms a “temple for Israel … a Holy of Holies for Aaron,” such an expansion of purity practice is understandable (1QS VI 4–7). Thus the rules for priestly food are expanded to the whole community.81

As discussed above, this development seems related to the Scrolls’ tendency to shift priestly purity concerns onto the general membership. 81 For further discussion of the communal meal and possible parallels to practices among the Pharisees, see Matthew Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961), 102–115; Harrington, Impurity Systems, 267–282; Sanders, Judaism, 431–437; and Inge Nielsen and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen, eds., Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998), especially Per Bilde, “The Common Meal in the Qumran-Essene Communities,” in Meals in a Social Context (ed. Hanne Sigismund Nielsen and Inge Nielsen; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998), 145–166.

80

114

WASHING IN WATER

This text does not explictly mention washing in preparation for the meal, but other texts suggest such a practice may have been implied. For instance,
all [these] th[ings...] when he is cleansed (wrhw+b) from [his] f[low ... cl]eansing of Isr[ael,] to eat (lwk)lw) and to d[rink ... in their] inhabited [ci]ties, to be a [holy] people [...] (4Q512 XI 1–3)

While this text is fragmentary, the concern for purity before eating is clear. 1QS III 4–6 and V 13–14, describe purifying waters inaccessible to the unrepentant and “perverse.” Josephus’ statements in B.J. 2.129 about preparations for the Essenes’ meals are useful here, assuming that the Qumran Yahad were members of the Essenes.82 In any case, the link between purity and eating certain foods is clearly established. We may be able to deduce the practice of washing for such meals, but it is not explicitly stated in the Dead Sea Scrolls.83 A passage from the War Scroll describes another kind of washing, the washing away of blood after battle:
After they have withdrawn from the slain to enter the camp, all of them shall sing the hymn of return. In the morning they shall wash their clothes (wcxrw Mhydgb wsbky), cleanse themselves of the blood of the sinful bodies (hm#)h yrgp Mdm), and return to the place where they had stood, where they had formed the battle line before the slain of the enemy fell. There they shall all bless the God of Israel and joyously exalt His name together. (1QM XIV 2–4)

Here, washing clothes forms part of a celebratory or thanksgiving ritual after battle—first they sing “the hymn of return,” then they wash their clothes, Mhydgb wsbky and cleanse themselves (wcxr) from the blood of their enemies, and then sing praises to God. This ritual seems closest to the rules for contact with animal carcasses, as outlined in Lev 11. Where most of the other sources of impurity required both washing of clothes and bathing, carrying the carcass of an unclean animal required only the washing of clothes and waiting until evening. However, in this passage from 1QM they wait until the following morning to wash, rather than washing clothes and waiting until evening. It is significant, though that this purification after battle does not follow the rules for corpse contact, which

VanderKam, DSS Today, 71–87, Cohen, Maccabees to the Mishnah, 152. There is at least one text which suggests that regular food could be eaten without such strict purification. 4Q274 2 I 7, 9 distinguishes between regular food (wmxl) and pure food (My#dwqh). The Yahad’s system of purity likely applied, but bathing before meals may not have been required for normal food (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 105, lines 7, 9).
83

82

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

115

specify seven days of uncleanness and purification with the parah-water on the third and seventh days.84 In addition to these situations where the Scrolls discuss washing in contexts where it is not required in the Hebrew Bible, there are also several cases where the Scrolls extend the biblical purity regulations without washing, just as we saw in the Second Temple literature.85 Some of these are presented as purity situations, while others take what might be expected to be a purity concern and emphasize another aspect. New purity situations include defecation, festivals, marriage, and gleaning the harvest. For instance, in B.J. 2.147–149, Josephus clearly stated that the Essenes washed after defecation. Several texts in the Scrolls that mention the location of latrines, but none specifically mentions washing. For instance:
You are to build them a precinct for latrines (dy Mwqm) outside the city. They shall go out there, on the northwest of the city: roofed outhouses with pits Except for 4Q271 2 II 10–11 (= CD f) which speaks of animal skins, there are hardly any references to impurity from animal carcasses in the Scrolls, so there is little basis for comparison here. There are however references to the need for purity in battle. 4Q493 (=4QM 3) 5–6 instructs the priests to avoid battle so that they are not contaminated by blood. The references is to the blood of the “slain,” so it could be blood of the enemy or of their fellow soldiers. See also 1QM IX 7–8, 4Q375 1 8–9 and 3 3, 4Q376 1 I 1–3, 11Q19 XLVII 7–18, LI 15, LII 13–21, Mal 2:10, Harrington, Impurity Systems, 95–99. 1QM also forbids certain individuals from participating in battle:
No youth nor woman shall enter their encampments from the time they leave Jerusalem to go to battle until their return. No one crippled, blind, or lame, nor a man who has a permanent blemish on his skin, or a man affected with ritual uncleanness of his flesh; none of these shall go to battle. All of them shall be volunteers for battle of spirit and flesh, and prepared for the day of vengeance. Any man who is not ritually clean in respect to his genitals on the day of battle shall not go down with them into battle, for holy angels are present with their army. (1QM 7.3–8)
84

Interestingly, these restrictions resemble those for priestly service in Lev 21 and 22, where the crippled, blind, lame, etc. are forbidden to enter the sanctuary. While the priests themselves are not allowed to join in battle, it appears that the soldiers are held to priestly standards. The exclusion of a man with genital impurity is interesting in that no provision is made for his purification and in the reason given for his exclusion. The concern expressed here is not that he would contaminate his fellow soldiers but because angels are present with the army. (See 1 Cor 11:10, Duhaime and Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:89) 85 One context which was quite important in the Second Temple literature of Chapter 3 was hand-washing. Except for the texts from Aramaic Levi discussed above with priestly uses of washing, most of the hand-washing references in the Scrolls seem to be metaphorical and do not represent any explicit rituals. Some references include 1QH VII 19, 4Q417 2 I 23–24, 4Q525 2 II 2–3. These texts will be discussed below as metaphorical uses of washing and purity.

116

WASHING IN WATER
inside, into which the excrement will descend so as not to be visible. The outhouses must be three thousand cubits from any part of the city. (11Q19 XLVI 13–16)

In contrast 1QM VII 6–8 locates the latrines two thousand cubits from the camp, warning that shameful nakedness ((r rbd twr() should not be seen near the camp.86 In either case, this distance would be too far to travel on the Sabbath, suggesting that they avoided defecation on the Sabbath.87 While the Scrolls disagree with Josephus on the issue of washing after defecation, they agree in making the issue important. Another partial agreement with the other Second Temple material is found in the discussion of festivals, where purity was mentioned for the Sabbath and the New Moon:

86

A similar concern appears to be at work in the Community Rule:

Anyone who walks about naked (Mwr() in the presence of a comrade, unless he be sick, is to be punished by reduced rations for six months. A man who spits into the midst of a session of the general membership is to be punished by reduced rations for thirty days. Anyone who brings out his penis (wdy) from beneath his clothing—that is, his clothing is so full of holes that his nakedness is exposed—is to be punished by thirty days’ reduced rations. Anyone who bursts into foolish horselaughter is to be punished by reduced rations for thirty days. A man who draws out his left hand (wlw)m# dy) to gesture during conversation is to suffer ten days’ reduced rations. (1QS VII 12–15)

Some of these behaviors seem related to purity issues, yet they are not fully treated as such in this text. Nudity or exposure is a serious concern in the Hebrew Bible and elsewhere, especially in the context of the Sanctuary. (For instance, see Exod 20:26.) Spitting is forbidden in Josephus in War 2.147 and in y. Ber. 3.5. Yet several of the other issues appear to be social status issues, not actual purity issues (Richard L. Rohrbaugh, The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 19–41). This is underscored by the fact that the response to these behaviors is not to require bathing but to reduce the individual’s rations. Such a penalty seems to be punitive, not purificatory. See also, Harrington, Impurity Systems, 100–103. The reference to the left hand is particularly intriguing. The text itself does not indicate why the use of the left hand would be banned, although Qimron suggests that the specificity of “left hand” distinguishes it from the euphemistic use of “hand” for penis (Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:31, n. 188). It is possible that this reflects the ongoing practice among some Middle Eastern cultures in which the left hand is only used for cleaning after defecation. An examination of other references to the left hand could prove useful, although that is beyond the scope of this project. 87 See Yadin, TS, 1:294–304, 497, for discussion and rabbinic parallels. See also 11Q19 XLVI 16–18 and XLVIII 14–17 for discussion of quarantine areas in the Temple city and other cities. Qimron suggests Ugaritic parallels for (dy Mwqm), the term used to indicate latrines (Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 1, 33, n. 185).

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
[...] and for the feast of the Sabbath, on the Sabbaths of all the weeks of [... and the ] fea[st of ... and] the four feasts of [... and] the feast of the harvest, that is, of summer, and the be[ginning of] the first [m]onth [...] [...] in water (Mymb) [...] to consecrate oneself (#dqthl) [...] he shall [bless] and shall say [in response,] “Blessed are You, [O God of Israel ...] to have compassion [on us ...] [...] and I [...] [...] in impuri[ty ...] [...] purity [...] (4Q512 33&35 1–3, 5–10)

117

The phrasing “in water [...] to consecrate oneself” may imply washing, but even if that is not the case, this text suggests a concern for purity in connection with the Sabbath and festivals. More study of the community’s calendar and festivals is necessary, though to be certain about this.88 One text speaks of purification before marriage, something not mentioned in either the Hebrew Bible or other Second Temple literature:
Let no man marry such a one (woman with a bad reputation, etc.) unless [under the supervision of] dependable and knowledgeable [women] she is purified at the command of the Overseer (rqbmh rm)mm twrwrb) who is over the [...]. (4Q271 3 13–14)

There is no statement of how the purification is to be performed, but the suggestion that purification could be required before marriage is significant all the same. Some have suggested that women proselytes were to be immersed before conversion to eliminate the impurity from their Gentile idolatry.89 This may be a related situation, depending on the kind of reputation the woman in question had, but that is unclear. Another new purity situation not seen in the Hebrew Bible or other Second Temple literature is the practice of gleaning:
[he may gle]an it [but] they shall [not] glean them [...] [who] does not touch the drink of the general membership, for these [...] [he may glean] it but the figs and the shrubs [...] their [drinks] he may bring out just [as] he squeezes (?) all of them, they may glean [in a state of ritual purity ...] (4Q284a 1 2–5)90

See A.J. 6.235 for a reference to purification at the New Moon. This passage was discussed in Chapter 3. This passage only specifically mentions the “be[ginning of] the first [m]onth,” but it is possible that beginnings of other months were celebrated as well. 89 See Collins, “Origin,” 32, 34, b. Yebam. 46a, and Cohen, Maccabees to the Mishnah, 50–58. Cohen refers to the idea that women could convert by the act of marrying. (53) 90 However, nonmembers and those who had been excommunicated could not glean and members could not buy gleaned materials from them (Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 290–291).

88

118

WASHING IN WATER
[... all of] them may glean in purity ([h]rh+b w+wqly) [...] [...] and each will glean [...] any of the men of the Yahad [...] [...] purity [...] [...] clean [...] [...] unless [...] (4Q284a 2 2–7)

In the Hebrew Bible, gleaning is reserved for the poor, as in the story of Ruth. Pure food, as in food for the Temple and priests would need to be harvested in purity.91 Presumably this would also apply to food for the members of the Yahad. While this passage clearly indicates the importance of purity in gleaning, the context is unclear. Gleaning may have been allowed for all members or reserved as an option for members who were temporarily excluded from the meal. With such fragmentary references, it is difficult to be certain. DISTRIBUTION Given the number of references to purity in the Rule of the Community and other texts, we might expect to find frequent references to ritual washing throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls. Surprisingly, washing itself is not mentioned in many of these texts, even in cases where purity and washing are linked in the Hebrew Bible. This observation leads to the question whether washing can be assumed even in those cases where it is not mentioned, which will be discussed later in this chapter. For now, a brief summary of where and how the different forms of ritual washing—general, priestly, theophany and extra are used. As has already been discussed, most of the ritual washing in the Dead Sea Scrolls is presented as general washing, applying to all individuals. This includes some contexts which were considered priestly in the Hebrew Bible, understandable in light of the community’s self-understanding as a replacement for the temple. All members of the community, priest or not, took upon themselves some of the stricter rules applied to priests. Examples of such general washing can be found mostly in the Temple Scroll, 11Q19, with a few isolated references in 1QM, 1QS, the Damascus Document, and other manuscripts such as 4Q272(CDg), 4Q274, 4Q284, 4Q414, and 4Q514. The corollary to this observation about the broadening of priestly washing into general washing is that there are few references to washing that specifically target the priests or priestly activities. 11Q19 and 4QMMT both contain a few references to priestly washing, and the Testament of Levi describes washing hands and feet before and after approaching the altar, although these references are not found in the surviving manuscripts of Aramaic Levi from Qumran. The only possible cases of washing for a theophany come from the Testament of Levi, references to washing before his prayer and vision. Parallels
91 See Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 132; Sanders, Judaism, 440, n. 56. This issue will be discussed further in Chapter Five.

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

119

references may exist in the manuscripts fragments of Aramaic Levi, but this use is even more uncommon in the Scrolls than it was in the Hebrew Bible. Finally, extra uses of washing, contexts not seen in the Hebrew Bible, are scattered throughout the Scrolls. Washing, or at least purification, before prayer, on the Sabbath, before meals, after battle, after defecation, before festivals and marriage, and before gleaning are mentioned briefly in various texts. Thus the Temple Scroll contains both general and priestly washing, while most other texts contain general washing or scattered new uses of washing. If the dates for the various manuscripts were more clearly defined, we might be able to suggest a progression, particularly between the Temple Scroll, the Rule of the Community, and the Damascus Document, but uncertain dates for these texts make such analysis unreliable for now. METAPHORICAL USES OF WASHING In the previous chapters, we saw different forms of metaphorical usage of washing language. In the Hebrew Bible, metaphorical uses were divided into two groups—non-literal uses and transformation of cultic contexts. In the Second Temple literature, these two uses were combined into one group and a new division was found—metaphorical explanations. This division persists in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the following discussion, metaphorical washing in the Scrolls will be divided into similar groupings, and further subdivided by themes. In addition, a special theme, living water, will be discussed at length. While the focus will be on metaphorical uses of washing terminology, references to cleansing and purity will be considered as well. As in the previous chapters, non-literal uses of washing and metaphorical transformation of washing present washing terminology in ways that cannot be performed literally.92 In the Dead Sea Scrolls, non-literal uses can be broken into three divisions: 1) references to other forms of cleansing and purification besides physical washing, 2) references to other forms of impurity, and 3) other uses which occur only once or twice but are significant in their theme or message. Some of these passages mention purity alone and do not explicitly mention washing, but they are useful in defining the range of understandings for washing available to the writers of the Scrolls.

In the Hebrew Bible, there were also non-literal uses that seemed to refer to a ritual, using that ritual as a metaphor, such as Ps 26:6, but such uses are not evident in either the Dead Sea Scrolls or other Second Temple period texts.

92

120

WASHING IN WATER

ALTERNATE FORMS OF WASHING Many of the texts which describe alternate forms of washing suggest some form of divine assistance, either from God or the Holy Spirit. For instance the Community Rule states:
By His truth God shall then purify all human deeds, and refine some of humanity so as to extinguish every perverse spirit from the inward parts of the flesh, cleansing from every wicked deed by a holy spirit. Like purifying waters (hdn ymk), He shall sprinkle (zyw) each with a spirit of truth (tm) xwr), effectual against all the abominations of lying and sullying by an unclean spirit. (1QS IV 20–22)

This text combines the suggestion that God will purify humans, cleansing them spiritually, with the image of washing by sprinkling. However, although this cleansing applies to all human deeds, only some of humanity will be “refined,” presumably a reference to the members of the Yahad.93 Furthermore, while it says “purify all human deeds,” the specific deeds mentioned are “the abominations of lying and sullying by an unclean spirit.” In a sense, this seems comparable to Klawans’ division of texts into ritual and moral impurity, since moral impurities came from actions like lying, not ritual sources of uncleanness.94 However, as will be seen below, many of the references of this sort do not mention the specific infractions from the Holiness Code that Klawans outlines as markers for moral impurity.95 Lacking such indicators, it is difficult to say if the writers of the Scrolls were continuing the Holiness tradition of moral purity. Another passage continues the theme of purification coming from God:
They tolerate none who trans[gress] the true Way, nor is t[her]e any unclean in their holy ranks. [The precepts governing the hol]y ones has He inscribed for them, that all the eternally holy might thereby be sanctified (w#dqty). He has purified the pure (yrwh+ rh+y) [who belong to the light, that they may recom]pense all those who transgress the true Way, and make atonement for those who repent of sin, obtaining for them His good pleasure. (4Q400 1 I 14–16) For references to the idea of a remnant, see: Is 11:6, Joel 3:5, Zeph 3:11–20, Jer 23:3–4, Ezek 11:13. See Lester Meyer, “Remnant,” ABD 5:669–671; Jeremiah Unterman, “Remnant,” HBD 923–924. See also CD A I 4–5, 1QH VI 8. 94 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 23–26. Klawans notes that in the Hebrew Bible, )m+ is used for both ritual and moral impurity, while Pnx, pollute, and hb(wt are used only for moral impurity (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 26, 37). 95 Nor are the implied penalties the same (i.e., exile) as they are in Holiness Code. Klawans argued against calling his “moral” impurity metaphorical, but in this section they seem clearly metaphorical (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 23–26, 32–33).
93

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

121

This text suggests a double concern for both proper behavior and purity. There is no reference to washing, since it says only, “He has purified the pure.” However both the reason for this purification and its implementation are unclear. “He has purified the pure,” could suggest that they were already pure, perhaps by means of the washing rites described above, especially since they are also “eternally holy,” although it could also mean that they are pure because He has purified them. However, this passage also seems to suggest that once purified, the members of the Yahad could make atonement for newly repentant people, a concept unknown elsewhere.96 Another passage continues the idea of God performing the purification, combining it with the idea that the community represents a doubly-purified subset of a larger group:
G[o]d with all flesh, and a judgment of vengeance to wipe out wickedness and by the fierce anger of God among those who have been refined sevenfold. But God will consecrate (#dqml) some of the holy ones for Himself as an eternal sanctuary; a refining among those who are purified (Myrbnb hrh+w). And they shall be priests, His righteous people, His army, and ministers, His glorious angels. They shall praise Him for His awe-inspiring wonders. (4Q511 35 1–5)

Again there is no reference to washing, but the suggestion that these holy ones were already purified before being “refined” could imply that the purifications discussed above had taken place.97 However, unlike 4Q400, the emphasis is on the role the holy ones play for God, not for others. In 4Q400, the holy ones make atonement for others who repent, but here they become “an eternal sanctuary,” working as God’s servants while praising him as well. A passage from the Thanksgiving Hymns attributes purification to the Holy Spirit:
And because I know that You have recorded the spirit of the righteous, I myself have chosen to purify my hands (ypk rbhl) in accordance with your wil[l]. The soul of Your servant a[bho]rs every work of injustice. I know that no one can be righteous apart from You. And I entreat Your favor by that spirit which You have given [me], to fulfill Your [mer]cy with [Your] servant for [ever], to

96 See Mal 3:1–3. Regarding this text, Newsom suggests that the concern for purity in the heavenly temple is paralleled in the purity of the earthly temple. Thus some texts criticize the Jerusalem priests who polluted the Temple (CD A IV 17–18, V 6, XX 23, 1QpHab XII 8–9) and other texts protect the Yahad’s purity because of the presence of angels in worship and war (1QSa II 3, 1QM) (Esther Eshel et al., Qumran Cave 4. VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts (DJD XI. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 182). 97 See Ps 12:6 (12:7 in Hebrew), 1QH V16, XIV 3, Mal 3:3. For lines 2–3 see 2 Chr 30:8 (Baillet, DJD VII, 238).

122

WASHING IN WATER
cleanse me by Your holy spirit (K#dq xwrb ynrh+l), and to bring me near by your grace according to Your great mercy [...] in [...] (1 QH VIII 18–21)

As in the previous passage, there is a hint of some sort of purity ritual in the reference to “purify my hands in accordance with your will.” Yet the focus of this passage is on avoiding injustice, not avoiding the forms of impurity discussed above. No matter what form of purification is implied, the writer felt that further cleansing was needed, here by God’s holy spirit.98 Finally there are non-literal metaphorical references to alternate forms of purification which do not specifically mention either washing or God. For instance:
[...] insight and seekers of understanding [... lov]ers of compassion and the humble of spirit, purified of [... by] affliction (ynw( yqqwzm) and purified by the crucible (Prxm yrwrbw) of [...] who strengthen themselves until [...] Your judgments (1QHa VI 3–4)

Even though the passage is fragmentary and unclear, the suggestion of purification by affliction is quite intriguing.99 In some ways it echoes Klawans’ idea of punishment by exile.100 This text offers a second image—purification in a crucible, linked to prophetic imagery in the Hebrew Bible and found in several other texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. For instance:
the swords shall be of refined iron (rwrb lzrb), purified in the furnace (rwkb rwh+) and polished like a face mirror, the work of a skillful workman, artistically done, with figures of ears of grain of pure gold embossed on both sides. (1QM V 11–12)

98 Klawans suggests that in the Scrolls ritual and moral impurity are combined to the point that sin is understood as causing ritual impurity. As a result, repentance and purification are also linked (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 75, 85–88). Concerning the references to the spirit, see Collins, “Origin,” 39–40; Baumgarten, “Purification Liturgies,” 206–211. 99 García-Martínez translates “refined by poverty and purified in the crucible” (García Martínez and Tighchelaar, eds., DSS Study Edition, 152–153). Holm-Nielsen interprets this as purification by keeping the statutes, observing that qp) appears only twice in 1QH, here and in line 9, pointing to comparable metallurgical imagery in 1QHa XIII 16, XIV 8; 1QS IV 20 (Svend Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms From Qumran (Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget I Aarhus, 1960), 218). Mansoor reads Myqp)t[m] in line 4 as refrain, rather than strengthen (Menahem Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 180). 100 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 26–31, 88–90.

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

123

It is not entirely clear if this sense of purify is intended to describe ritual purity or the quality of the metal. Even so, this image echoes uses in the HB.101 These examples demonstrate that while the water purifications inherited from the Hebrew Bible may have been central to the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, other ideas of washing were known, particularly washing by God. REFERENCES TO OTHER FORMS OF IMPURITY In addition to these passages which describe alternate forms of purification, there are also several which discuss alternate forms of impurity, apart from the sources of ritual impurity discussed above. For instance, a passage from the Thanksgiving Hymns says:
And You, in Your compassion and Your great mercy, have steeled the spirit of man against the agony of [...]. You have cleansed it from the abundance of iniquity (Nww( bwrm htrh+), that it might recount Your wonders before all Your creatures. (1QH IX 31–33)

Unlike the ritual impurities discussed above, here the individual is being cleansed from iniquity.102 In general terms, this text could be seen as an example of Klawans’ category of moral impurity. However, the text does not specify exactly a behavior or punishment, important considerations in Klawans’ scheme.103 There are also a few verses that specifically describe impurity in relation to sin, a concept that Klawans discusses at length. For instance:
No man belonging to the Covenant of the Yahad who flagrantly deviates from any commandment is to touch the pure food belonging to the holy men (#dwqh y#n) trh+b). Further, he is not to participate in any of their deliberations until all his works have been cleansed (wkzy) from evil, so that he is again able to walk blamelessly. (1QS VIII 16–18)104

See Dan 11:35, 12:10; Jer 4:11, Is 52:11, Ezek 20:38; Clines, DCH, 2:275–276. Agony, (gn, appears elsewhere in 1QH as affliction or persecution at the hands of enemies (16.27) as well as temptation from God (17.10–12) (Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot, 27 n. 66). 103 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 22–31, 41–42, 88–90. 104 1QS VIII 19 applies this to new initiates as well:
102

101

No man of the men of the Community of the covenant of the Community, who strays from any one of the ordinances deliberately may touch the pure-food of the men of holiness nor know any of their counsel, until his works have become purified from all deceit by walking with those perfect of the Way. Then he may approach the council according to the Many, and afterwards he may be enlisted in his rank. And this precept

124

WASHING IN WATER

Here the penalty is for intentionally breaking any commandment, not just the specific ones mentioned in the Holiness Code that Klawans emphasizes in his discussion of moral impurity resulting from sin.105 Furthermore, the penalty is solely on the individual, not on the sanctuary or land, in contrast to Klawan’s claim that moral impurity defiles the land. Similarly, 4QMMT states:
Concerning lepers, we have de[termined that] they [may not] enter any place containing the sacred pure food for “they shall be kept apart, [outside the camp (?).] Indeed it is written that from the time that he shaves and washes he must dwell outside [the camp for seven d]ays. But now, while they are still unclean (Mhm( Mt)m+ twyhb ht(w), le[pers must not enter]106 inside [any place wi]th sacred pure food. And you know [that the one who unknowingly breaks a command] because the matter escaped his notice, he must bring a sin offering. But as for [the one who intentionally sins,107 it is writ]ten that he is a despiser and a blasphemer. [Indeed, while th]e[y are yet] lepro[us], they may not eat from the holy food until sunset on the eighth day (ynym#h Mwyb #m#h )wb). (4QMMT B 64–72)

Two issues are at work here—questions regarding lepers and Mwy lwb+, and the intentionality of sinful actions. While the writer starts with a polemic against those who allow Mwy lwb+, the real question is whether the sin is intentional. If the sin is unintentional, a sin offering will suffice, but if the sin is intentional, they are now “a despiser and a blasphemer” and nothing will restore them.108
(shall be) for everyone who joins the Community. (1QS VIII 16–19, Qimron and Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 1.37).

The subsequent lines (20–27) summarize the rules by which the members are judged. Even unintended sins bring a penalty of two additional years of probation. 105 These regulations specifically dealt with idolatry, incest, and murder (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 26–31). 106 Qimron’s translation brings out the polemic in this statement by translating line 68 as “lepers enter” suggesting the criticism of those who allow lepers to enter the Temple before completing their purification (Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 55). The issue here is Mwy lwb+, the question whether one who has bathed but not waited until sunset is clean, as has been discussed previously. Where Lev 14:1–32 outlines 3 stages of purification, each of which ends with rh+, the rabbis saw them as degrees of becoming pure again (m. Neg 14:2–3, 8–9) and said that individuals who had bathed and were waiting for sunset could eat pure food. The Sectarians challenged this practice, specifically waiting until sunset on the eighth day. (See 11Q19 XLV 17–18 (Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 166–167.) 107 This restoration of line 70 is based on Num 15:27–31, Sipra Numbers, b. Sanh. 99b, and 1QS V 11–12 (Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 165). 108 See similar comments in initiation discussion below. Once a member has joined, there will be no second chances (1QS III 4–6).

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

125

At first this resembles Klawans’ distinction between ritual impurity, represented here in the question of Mwy lwb+, and moral impurity, i.e. sin. However, intentionality does not fit in Klawans system—the acts—idolatry, incest, and murder, are by definition sinful, regardless of the intent. A similar idea of sins as impure appears in 11Q5, (11QPsa) with a different potential penalty:
Forgive, O Lord, my sins, cleanse (ynrh+) me from my iniquities! Favor me with a constant and knowing spirit and let me not be shamed by ruin. (11Q5 XIX 13–14)

Again the petitioner is asking for cleansing from iniquities and forgiveness of sins, not purification from ritual impurity.109 However, the concern over being “shamed by ruin” suggests a possible parallel to Klawans’ moral impurity. Since Klawans argues that moral impurity brings exile, destruction, and the defilement of the sanctuary, this threat of ruin comes closer to such a penalty than any of the other passages.110 However, this passage differs from Klawans’ scheme in that there is no reference to sacrifices for the atonement from this sin, only a plea for forgiveness.111

This passage resembles Ps 51 and is close to 11Q5 XIX 1–16, which was used for the reconstruction (Florentino García Martínez, et al, Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 11 (11Q2–18, 11Q20–30) (DJD XXIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 381). See also, “Cleanse me Lord, from evil’s affliction and let it not again return” (11Q5 XXIV 12). 110 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 26–31. 111 4Q370 offers a similar idea: “Because of their guilt, they shall seek [...] The Lord will justify [...] He will cleanse them of their transgression [...] Their evil, in knowing [...]” (4Q370 II 1–4). Again the focus is on transgressions and evil, not on impurity, with the resolution coming through a petition to God, not through sacrifice or washing. There is also a reference in the Testament of Levi to purifying the heart:
Purify my heart, O Lord, from all impurity, that I myself may be lifted up to You. (T. Levi Mt Athos, Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 252)

109

In a sense, this passage confuses the categories outlined for the other texts in this section. Where the other texts focused on sin or iniquity, issues separate from the ritual impurity discussed previously, this text calls for purification of impurity. However, it asks “purify my heart ... from all impurity,” something which is literally impossible if we are talking about ritual impurity since such impurities are cleansed by physical washing. This text is also unusual in that its aim is “that I myself may be lifted up to you,” rather than participation in the pure meals of the community as so many of the previous texts desired. As with other passages from the Testament of Levi discussed above, this passage is not found in the Scrolls fragments of Aramaic Levi, but it still provides an interesting comparison to ideas in the Scrolls.

126

WASHING IN WATER

Thus this group of non-literal texts introduces other sources of ritual impurity not known in the Hebrew Bible—iniquity, intentional sin, and affliction. Unforgiven, these sins have various penalties—exclusion from the community meal, condemnation as a “despiser and blasphemer,” and being “shamed by ruin.” Some of these penalties, such as exclusion from the pure meal, resemble the penalties for ritual impurity, while the others more closely resemble the penalties for moral impurity as Klawans describes them.112 Several of these texts attribute cleansing to God, as the previous group of texts did, while one, 4QMMT B 64–72, does not suggest that cleansing is even possible. Finally, the results of purification vary greatly in these different texts: recounting “Your wonders before all your creatures,” renewed access to pure food and being able “to walk blamelessly,” and being “lifted up to you.” Some of these resemble the results of ritual purification known in the Hebrew Bible, namely renewed access to the Sanctuary. Others, however, are less tangible results. Thus these texts which describe alternate sources of impurity with nonliteral washing language do not fit exactly in either ritual or moral impurity as Klawans describes them. OTHER ISOLATED METAPHORICAL USES In addition to non-literal washing texts describing alternate forms of purification or impurity, there are several passages which introduce significant concepts of purity not seen in any of the texts discussed up to this point.113
Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 26–27. Most of these involve purity without washing, but as we have seen in the previous chapters, it is important to consider developing ideas of purity to provide a larger context for the development of ritual washing. One passage in the Damascus Document includes the following cryptic reference:
113 112

The Man of Mockery appeared, who sprayed on Israel lying waters (l)r#yl Py+h bzk ymym), he led them to wander in the trackless wasteland. (CD A I 14–15)

While various texts in the Scrolls refer to opponents of the Yahad, such as the “Man of Mockery,” the reference to spraying or sprinkling “lying waters” is unique to this text. (bzk ymym l)r#yl Py+h)While the exact meaning is unclear, this phrase could refer to a kind of washing rejected by the Yahad. Baumgarten identifies Py+h as “sprinkle” or “preach.” See also CD A 4:19–20, where the same root is used for spitting (Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:12–13 n. 11, 18–19). Given other references to sprinkling, it could then indicate an actual ritual. On the other hand, given the implication that the “Man of Mockery” misled Israel, the metaphorical use as preaching is significant. The question that arises then is whether particular forms of washing were known and identified as belonging to a particular group so that a washing motif like sprinkling would be used in this way to refer to an individual and his followers. One solution would be to identify these lying waters as Second Temple Jewish ritual bathing, but considering the

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

127

The Thanksgiving Hymns contains a passage which appears to link purity with eternal life:
For Your glory’s sake You have cleansed man from transgression, so that he can purify himself (#dqthl (#pm #wn) htrh+) for You from all filthy abominations and the guilt of unfaithfulness (l(m tm#)w hdn twb(wt), so as to be joined wi[th] the children of your truth; in the lot with Your saints (hky#wdq M( lrwgb). That bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might rise up from the dust to an et[ernal] council; from a perverse spirit to Your understanding. That he might take his position before You with the eternal hosts and spirits [of truth], to be renewed with all that shall be and to rejoice together with those who know. (1QH XIX 10–14)

The phrases “filthy abominations” and “guilt of unfaithfulness” offer parallels to Klawans’ notion of moral impurity, but as with other texts, there is no reference to the penalties that Klawans says follow moral impurity. Instead, according to this text, God cleanses people from transgressions so that they can then purify themselves and gain eternal life. In a sense this resembles Philo’s attempt to discuss the cleansing of soul and body in Spec.1.257–261. Some scholars have interpreted this as a reference to resurrection, but others like Holm-Nielsen have questioned its connection to both ritual washing and resurrection.114

sectarian nature of these texts, it could just as easily represent a minority practice within the Yahad which was then banned. In the Hebrew Bible, the only type of purifications that involved sprinkling was the use of the parah water in Num 19 as the final step for purification from corpse contact and the purification of lepers in Lev 14. We have already seen that the Scrolls expand such sprinkling from corpse purification to use in other contexts as well. This text could possibly indicate disagreement within the community over changes in ritual bathing, but there is no way to be certain. 114 Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot, 186–187, n. 23. Holm-Nielsen suggests that the expressions for impurity refer instead to “sin which clings to earthly man from birth.” The idea that purity and resurrection are linked appears in a text from m. Sotah. Note that the Holy Spirit plays a role too, something we have already seen in other metaphorical texts.
R. Pinhas b. Yair says, “Heedfulness (twzyrz) leads to cleanliness (twyqn), cleanliness leads to cleanness (hrh+), cleanness leads to abstinence (tw#yrp), abstinence leads to holiness (h#dq), holiness leads to modesty (hwn(), modesty leads to the fear of sin (h+x t)ry), the fear of sin leads to piety (twdysx), piety leads to the Holy Spirit (#dqh xwr), and the Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead (Mytmh tyxt), and the resurrection of the dead comes through Elijah, blessed be his memory, Amen.” (m. Sotah 9:15) (The Mishnah—A New Translation (trans. Jacob Neusner; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 466).

See Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 1:16, and Jacob Neusner, A Religion of Pots and Pans? Modes of Philosophical and

128

WASHING IN WATER The Community Rule includes a reference to purifying knowledge:
All who volunteer for His truth are to bring the full measure of their knowledge, strength, and wealth into the Yahad of God. Thus will they purify their knowledge in the verity of God’s laws (l) yqwx tm)b Mt(d), properly exercise their strength according to the perfection of His ways, and likewise their wealth by the canon of His righteous counsel. (1QS I 11–13)

This text uses the language of purification in a new context. Unlike other references to purity, it does not state what sort of uncleanness is being removed such as ritual impurities or iniquity. Further, it specifies the instrument of purification—not water, but the “verity of God’s laws.”115 Perhaps this passage describes the Yahad’s focus on purity, applying it even to issues that would not normally involve purification. More likely, it is a metaphorical application of the concept of purification to something, i.e. knowledge, that cannot be purified in a literal or physical sense.116 Finally, there are some references to repentance in the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of which are linked to purification.117 For instance, 4Q393, “Prayers for

Theological Discourses in Ancient Judaism—Essays and a Program (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 35, for further discussion of this passage. 115 l) ykwx tm)b Mt(d rrbl Qimron translates rrbl as “strengthen,” although as we saw above, rrbl is used in both the Hebrew Bible and the Scrolls for purification in the sense of refining metals (Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:7, line 12). The triad of knowledge (mt(d), strength (Mwhk), and wealth (Mnwh) in lines 11–12 is then repeated in the expansions in lineS 12–13. Structurally, we might compare this to the triad of heart (Kbbl), soul (K#$pn), and might (Kd)m) in Deut 6:5. 116 Two other passages have intriguing references to purity, but the meaning is unclear due to fragmentary nature and lack of similar statements.
Blessed are yo[u, O God of Israel ...] [ and Yo]u inscribed a purification of truth for Your people, for [...] [... to] cleanse them from all their uncle[aness] to [sanctify them ...] (4Q284 3 1–5) [... the se]cret of the gods of purity with all those who know how to prai[se] eternally. [And to ble]ss Your glorious name through all [eterni]t[y]. (4Q286 7 I 6)

Nitzan, “Repentance,” 2:145–170; Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 85–88. One passage suggests that reptentance is necessary before purification, an idea echoed by John the Baptist’s baptism of repentance and the Apostle’s call to, “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38).
Ceremonies of atonement cannot restore his innocence (Myrwpkb hkzy )l), neither cultic waters his purity (hdn ym rh+y )wlw). He cannot be sanctified by baptism in oceans and rivers (twrhnw Mymyb #dqty )wlw), nor purified by mere ritual bathing (Cxr ym lwkb rh+y )wlw). Unclean, unclean ()m+ )m+) shall he be all the days that he rejects the laws of God, refusing to be disciplined in the Yahad of His society. For

117

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

129

Forgiveness,” includes references both to repentance and purification. Fragment 1–2 II echoes Ps 51: “O, our God, hide Your face from [our] s[ins and] blot out [al]l our iniquities, and create a new spirit (h#dx xwr) within us.” (II 4–6)118 This is not exactly an expression of cleansing or washing, but is in the same spirit.119 Another fragment compares the repentant ones with stubborn people who “did not purify themselves nor sanctify themselves, but have exalted themselves above everything.” (3 5–6) The implication then is that the faithful people did purify and sanctify themselves, even if we do not know how they did so. The fragment goes on to recall God’s promises to Abraham, “to give us houses filled [with all sorts of goods, cisterns, pool]s of water, vineyards, and olive groves from the inheritance of the people.” (4Q393 3 8–9)120 Here, as elsewhere in the Scrolls, water is seen as a blessing, the reward for repentance and obedience. The reference to cisterns and pools could be a reference to their own situation at Qumran where many pools have been identified as miqva’ot, although there is no indication that miqva’ot were actually constructed inside residences at Qumran like those that were found in Jerusalem.121 Thus the non-literal metaphorical uses can be further broken into three subgroups—those describing alternate forms of purification; often emphasizing God’s role in the process; those describing alternate sources of impurity; especially sin and iniquity; and other isolated references. Some of these texts mention washing, but many do not. ALLEGORICAL EXPLANATIONS There are also passages which give allegorical explanations for the need for purity and washing. In the Second Temple literature, we saw several cases where Philo referred to practices of ritual washing and purification while
only through the spirit pervading God’s true society can there be atonement for a man’s ways, all of his iniquities; thus only can he gaze upon the light of life and so be joined to His truth by His holy spirit, purified from all iniquity. Through an upright and humble attitude his sin may be covered and by humbling himself before all God’s laws his flesh can be made clean. Only thus can he really receive the purifying waters and be purged by the cleansing flow (ykwd ymb #dqthlw hdn ymb twzhl wr#b rh+y). (1QS III 4–9)

Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 357 Falk suggests that this reworking of Ps 51 brings in the sectarian dualism of two spirits, and transforms the Psalm’s request to “teach sinners thy way” into a plea for God to instruct the writers. See also Ezek 36:26, 11:19, 18:31, 1QS IV 19–22, 25 (Esther Chazon and Daniel Falk, Qumran Cave 4. XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (DJD XXIX. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 52). 120 Deut 6:10–11, Neh 9:25, Josh 24:13 all give different lists of rewards linked to the Promised land (Chazon and Falk, DJD XXIX, 55). The reference to pools, (Mym [ywqm]) is a reconstruction based on Lev 11:36. 121 See Chapter 5.
119

118

130

WASHING IN WATER

offering allegorical explanations. To a certain extent this process is repeated in the Scrolls, although the metaphors are usually not as complex as in Philo. These explanations are lacking in both the rest of the Scrolls and the Hebrew Bible. Consider the following examples. First, there are several texts which use the presence of angels in the camp as justification of the need for purity and for excluding certain individuals from activities.
For the holy angels (#dwq yk)lm) are [a part of ] their congregation. If [one] of these people has some[thing] to say to the holy congregation, let an oral [de]position be taken, but the man must n[ot] enter [the congregation,] for he has been smitten. (1QSa/1Q28a II 8–10)

This text excludes both unclean individuals and those with physical handicaps from entering the congregation. Apparently they can remain part of the Yahad, since there is provision for them to send messages, but they may not join the community’s meetings. In a sense, this parallels the many statements in the Hebrew Bible explaining certain regulations as necessary because God dwells with the Israelites.122 The concern over angels resembles Paul’s instruction regarding the need for women to cover their hair, “because of the angels” (1 Cor 11:10). These references to purity concerns are termed allegorical because of the additional reason given for purity. Considering these as allegorical or metaphorical does not suggest that the Yahad was mistaken in believing in angels, only that the reason given for purity is removed from the system of purity as it has been discussed so far.123
See for instance, Exod 25:8, 29:45–46, Num 5:3, etc. This idea appears in the Temple Scroll as well:
No blind man may enter it as long as he lives, lest the city in whose midst I dwell be defiled. For I, the Lord, shall dwell among the children of Israel forever and ever. (11Q19 XLV 1)
122

See also Lev. 21:17, ff, 2 Sam 5:8. Lev 21 provides a list of individuals excluded for physical reasons, but here the writer of the Temple Scroll only excludes the blind, although Yadin suggests that others were excluded, from Israel and the Temple city, not just from the Temple (Yadin, TS, 2:193). 123 A similar idea is found in the War Scroll, citing angels as the reason for excluding some from battle, rather than from the congregation:
No youth nor woman shall enter their encampments from the time they leave Jerusalem to go to battle until their return. No one crippled, blind, or lame, nor a man who has a permanent blemish on his skin, or a man affected with ritual uncleanness of his flesh; none of these shall go to battle. All of them shall be volunteers for battle of spirit and flesh, and prepared for the day of vengeance. Any man who is not ritually clean in respect

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

131

A more complicated metaphor is found in 4QMMT. Here reasons are given as to why the deaf and blind are excluded from the Temple—their disabilities prevent them from protecting the Temple:
[Concer]ning the blind, who since they cannot see, are not able to guard themselves from any defiling mix[ture]. They cannot see the defilement of the [g]uilt offering. [Co]ncerning the deaf, who have not heard the statute, the judgment, and the purity ruling, who have not heard the commandments belonging to Israel. For the one who has not seen or has not heard does not [k]now how to perform according to the law. They may, however par[ticipate] in the pu[re] food of the sanctuary. (4QMMT B 49–54)

Here blindness and deafness are seen as barriers to following the law, so the individuals cannot enter the sanctuary.124 As in the previous passage, blindness, deafness, and other handicaps are known in the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple literature, and Dead Sea Scrolls as reasons for excluding people from the priesthood. 4QMMT and Lev 21 agree on the exclusion of the deaf and blind from the sanctuary and on their permission to eat the holy food, but they disagree on the reason. Although it is never explicitly stated, the reasoning of Lev 21 is that those serving in the sanctuary must be physically perfect just as the sacrificial animals must be perfect. 4QMMT, on the other hand, suggests that they are excluded because their handicaps prevent their service, not any inherent impurity. Such explanations of purity concerns are uncommon in the Scrolls, as they were in the Hebrew Bible. The presence of a few examples, comparable in a sense to Philo’s exegesis, suggests that during the Second Temple period, even while the details of a ritual system were being completed, some writers were looking for explanations for these practices, not just for the details of how they should be practiced.

to his genitals on the day of battle shall not go down with them into battle, for holy angels are present with their army. (1QM VII 3–7)
124 This passage follows a discussion of others excluded from the congregation or sanctuary for physical reasons (4QMMT B 39–49). For parallels, see Lev 21:17–23 and m. Hul. 1.1 for 52–54 (Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 361). Given the polemical nature of 4QMMT, as discussed earlier in this chapter, it is possible that this passage is responding to abuses by some who have ignored the restrictions on the participation of certain individuals in the Temple rituals.

132 LIVING WATER

WASHING IN WATER

One final metaphorical use in the Dead Sea Scrolls involves references to living water. This term (Myyx Mym) appears in the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple literature, and New Testament, both as a descriptor of the kind of water used for certain rituals and in a metaphorical sense. For instance, Myyx Mym appears as part of purification rituals in Lev 14:5, 50–52 and 15:13. Such uses are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.125 In contrast, the following biblical passages use the idea of living water in a metaphorical sense:
For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water (Myyx Mym rwqm), and dug out cisterns (twr)b) for themselves, cracked cisterns that can hold no water. (Jer 2:13) O hope of Israel! O Lord! All who forsake you shall be put to shame; those who turn away from you shall be recorded in the underworld, for they have forsaken the fountain of living water (Myyx-Mym rwqm), the Lord. (Jer 17:13)

Here the image of a “fountain of living water” is used to represent God, the source of life which has been rejected by God’s people. Other references speak of living water as something God will offer to restore people and the world.126 Several of the references to living water from the Scrolls pick up these themes, even if they do not always use the term Myyx Mym itself.127 For instance:
125

For instance:

Any man who wishes to purify himself from a genital emission must count seven days as a cleansing period. On the seventh day he must launder his clothes and bathe his entire body (wr#b lwk t) Cxrw wydgb … sbkyw) in running water (Myyx Mymb). Afterwards he may enter the temple city. (11Q19 XLV 15–17)

(See Yadin, TS, 2:194.) There are other cases where Myyx Mymb is mentioned in ritual contexts, but this translation masks the significance of this term by translating it as fresh or running water. See also 4Q213a 1 I 6–10. 126 See also Zech 14:8, “On that day living waters shall flow out of Jerusalem,” Is 44.2–3, “Thus says the Lord who made you, who formed you in the womb … For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my spirit upon your descendants, and my blessings on your people.” For New Testament uses, see John 4:10–14, 7:37–39. 127 Some other living water texts in the Scrolls are:
But You, O [G]od, You protect its fruit with the mystery of powerful warriors, holy spirits, and the whirling flame of fire so that none may [come to the] fountain of life, nor with eternal trees drink the waters of holiness, nor make his fruit flourish with [the plan]t

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
The desires of His will, which Man should carry out and so have life in them, He opened up to them. So they “dug a well,” (r)b wrpxyw) yielding much water (Mybr Myml). Those who reject this water He will not allow to live. (CD A III 15–17)

133

While this passage does not specifically use the term living water, the message of the text seems very close to the two passages from Jeremiah, both in the idea of digging wells and in receiving or rejecting the water. In Jer 2:13, it was the rebellious people who dug the well, rejecting the living water, while here it is the faithful who “dug a well” and received this water which brings life. While this text is not reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts of the Damascus Document, it suggests an ongoing interpretation of the idea of living water—in the Hebrew Bible and during the Second Temple period.128 Another extended passage uses the idea of living water in an image of paradise:
I g[ive thanks to You, O Lord, for] You set me by a fountain which flows in a dry land (h#byb Mylzwn rwqmb), a spring of water (Mym (wbmw) in a desolate land, a well-watered garden [...] You [plan]ted a stand of juniper and pine together with cypress for Your glory; trees of life at the secret spring, hidden among all the trees by the water so that a shoot might grow up into an eternal planting. Taking root before they shoot up, they stretch out their roots to the watercourse, that its trunk might be open to the living water (Myyx Myml) and become an eternal fountain (Mlw( rwqml). On its leafy branches every wild animal of the forest shall graze, and its trunk shall become a gathering place to all who pass and its branches roosts for all the birds. All the tre[es] by the water rise over it, for in their stand they grow tall but they do not stretch out their root toward the watercourse. The shoot of h[o]liness grows up into a planting of truth, hidden and not esteemed. And because it is not known its secret is sealed up. But You, O my God, have placed Your words in my mouth, as showers of early rain, for all [who thirst] and as a spring of living waters (Myyx Mym (wbmw).

of the heavens. Namely, the one though he sees has not recognized, and considering has not believed in the spring of life and so gives [...] eternal. I have become the mockery of flooding rivers, for they toss up their slime over me. (1QHa XVI 11–15) Open your lips as a spring to bless the holy ones, and give praise by the eternal spring [...] he has separated you from every carnal spirit; so you, be separate from everything he hates, and abstain from every abomination of the soul, for He made everything and bestowed an inheritance on everyone. (4Q418 81 1–3)

We already noted another metaphorical use of water imagery in CD A I 14–15, the spraying of lying waters. This image seems embedded in the writers’ self-image as set against their opponents.

128

134

WASHING IN WATER
The heavens shall not fail to open, nor shall they run dry, but shall become a stream pouring out up[on ...] water and then to seas without en[d]. (1QH XVI 4–11, 16)

Here the writer has brought in elements from the Garden of Eden in Gen 2–3, with the idea of rivers and trees of life, along with the prophetic image of birds roosting in the tree as in Ps 104:12, 17, Dan 4:10–12, and Ez 31:6, 13, and perhaps even the image of a tree planted by the water in Ps 1:3.129 However, the writer’s reference to a fountain in a dry land, a “secret spring” could also be referring both to the physical location of Qumran and to the Yahad’s special teachings and interpretations. That this poem contains more than just an image of paradise is evident in line 16 when the writer links “Your words in my mouth” with a “spring of living waters.” Here we may have a connection to the passages above where the living waters were God’s desires and providence, without which those who rejected it would perish. This is a complicated passage, but it illustrates the multiplicity of uses the idea of living water could take. DISTRIBUTION While metaphorical uses of terms for washing and purification are less common in the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are found in many different manuscripts. Such uses are most common in 1QHa and the Damascus Document and less common in the Community Rule and Temple Scroll. Of the different kinds of metaphorical uses seen in other chapters, non-literal forms of washing are the most common, with the most references in the Hodayot 1QH and scattered throughout other texts. This type of metaphorical use includes references to alternate forms of purification or sources of impurity, in addition to some isolated examples not seen elsewhere in the Scrolls. There are a few cases of metaphorical explanations for washing concepts, as were seen in Chapter 3, but they are relatively uncommon. There is also one specific metaphorical image that appears frequently in the Scrolls, the idea of “living water,” Myyx Mym. In the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature it is used occasionally as both a technical term for running water as well as a metaphor for God’s blessings. Both uses appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well, scattered throughout the corpus.130

129 See Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot, 142–170 and Mansoor, Thanksgiving Hymns, 153–158 for further discussion and parallels. 130 As with ritual uses of washing above, it is not possible to suggest any chronological pattern for the development of these metaphorical uses of washing on the basis of which texts contain such uses. If and when a consensus on the dating of the various texts becomes available we may be able to return to this question.

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS INITIATORY USES OF WASHING

135

While there are descriptions of the process of initiation into the Yahad, there are only hints as to the rituals involved, particularly the role of bathing. Based on Josephus’ descriptions of the Essenes, it is very likely that the Qumran community used bathing as part of initiation, but that is not evident in the scrolls.131 This section will discuss the overall process of initiation and the hints given about the role of washing. As we saw in Chapter 3, initiation and conversion do not appear as issues in the Hebrew Bible. There are a few instances which address the expectations for slaves or sojourners among the Israelites, but such individuals are still considered foreigners, not adopted members of the Israelite people.132 In the Second Temple literature, we saw a few texts which addressed the question of conversion and initiation, describing the special behavior expected of initiates, special clothing worn for the occasion, and the use of water or even living water in initiation.133 However, we saw that when washing or purification is mentioned as part of initiation, it is not always clear whether such washing was considered a special event, as in Christian baptism, or as the first bath required of a newly converted Jew.134 This uncertainty applies to the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls as well. Not only do most references to purity neglect to mention washing, as described above, but most references to initiation are similarly silent on the issue of washing. This observation has led some scholars to conclude that washing was not part of initiation at Qumran, despite the parallels in Josephus’ writings on the Essenes.135 The Scrolls do however provide much useful information on the process of initiation and the potential involvement of water. First, let us consider the process of initiation as described in the Scrolls. As described in the Community Rule, candidates wishing to join the Yahad underwent a two-year process of preparation:
If anyone of Israel volunteers for enrollment in the society of the Yahad, the man appointed as leader of the general membership shall examine him regarding his understanding and works. If he has potential for instruction, he is to begin initiation into the Covenant, returning to the truth and repenting of all B.J. 2.129, 137–142. See VanderKam, DSS Today, 71–98 and Collins, “Origin,” 31–32, nn. 13–16. Collins argues that washing at Qumran was intended for ritual purity, not initiation, but “at some point immersion became also a symbol of higher purification and consecration” (Collins, “Origin,” 31, n. 16). 132 See for instance, Exod 12:43–44. 133 Jos. Asen. 14:12–13, 15; B.J. 2.137–142. 134 See Collins on proselytes and the question of whether initial use of immersion intended to remove gentile impurities (Collins, “Origin,” 32–25). 135 Collins, “Origin,” 31, ff.
131

136

WASHING IN WATER
perversity. He shall be made to understand all the basic precepts of the Yahad. Subsequently in the process, he must stand before the general membership and the whole chapter shall interrogate him about his particulars. According to the decision of the society of the general membership, he shall either proceed or depart. If he does proceed in joining the society of the Yahad, he must not touch the pure food of the general membership before they have examined him as to his spiritual fitness and works, and not before a full year has passed. Further, he must not yet admix his property with that of the general membership. If it be ordained, in the opinion of the priests and the majority of the men of their Covenant, then he shall be initiated further into the secret teaching of the Yahad. They shall also take steps to incorporate his property, putting it under the authority of the Overseer together with that of the general membership, and keeping an account of it—but it shall not yet be disbursed along with that of the general membership. The initiate is not to touch the drink of the general membership prior to passing a second year among the men of the Yahad. When that second year has passed, the general membership shall review his case. If it be ordained for him to proceed to full membership in the Yahad, they shall enroll him at the appropriate rank among his brothers for discussion of the Law, jurisprudence, participation in pure meals, and admixture of property. Thenceforth the Yahad may draw upon his counsel and judgment. (1QS VI 13–23)

Several important issues are raised in this passage. First, joining the community is a long process, two years of instruction before the actual ceremony of initiation into the Yahad.136 Second, during the first year, the candidate may not
136 The Damascus Document suggests that this process is only one year long (CD A XV 13–15). Another text speaks of an alternate route to joining the community—by maturity or marriage:

Then, at age twenty, [he shall be enrolled] [in] the ranks and take his place among the men of his clan, thereby joining the holy congrega[tion.] He must not app[roach] a woman for sexual intercourse before he is fully twenty years old, when he knows [right] from wrong. With the marriage act she, for her part, is received into adult membership. From this time on he may bear witness to the statutes of the Law, and take his place among the ranks for the ceremonial proclamation of the ordinances. (1QSa, 1Q28a I 8–11)

Deut 1:39 and Is 7:15 suggest an age of reason through references to understanding right and wrong. See D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD I. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), for further discussion. See also Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:110–113, Cohen, Maccabees to the Mishnah, 54, where he discusses purification for marriage and conversion by marriage for women. References to the initiation of women and of youths who have apparently grown up within the Yahad could indicate the existence of other practices or communities as seen in Josephus’ accounts of the celibate and non-celibate Essenes (B.J. 2.120–121, 160–161, also Hypoth. 11.14 and

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

137

touch or eat the pure food of the community, but during the second year, he may eat the pure food but cannot touch the community’s drink.137 This separation suggests that even prior to the actual ceremony of initiation, the candidate is purified, either by the process of instruction or by some unmentioned method. Third, moving from the first probationary stage to the second stage and then to membership requires the candidate to be examined by the entire Yahad. Fourth, joining the community also involved surrendering one’s property to the community after the first year of probation.138 If a candidate passed the two years’ probation, he could then join the Yahad as a full member, although the statement, “they shall enroll him at the appropriate rank among his brothers,” (1QS VI 22) indicates that there were still levels of hierarchy within the Yahad. The examinations required of candidates were also mandatory for all members. The Community Rule states:
When anyone enters the Covenant—to live according to all these ordinances, to make common cause with the Congregation of Holiness—they shall investigate his spiritual qualities as a community, each member taking part. They shall investigate his understanding and works vis-à-vis the Law (hrwtb wy#(mw wlk#), guided by both the Sons of Aaron, who have jointly volunteered to uphold His Covenant and to observe all of the ordinances that He commanded them to execute, and by the majority of Israel, who have volunteered to return, as a community, to His covenant. They are to be enrolled by rank, one man higher than his fellow—as the case may be—by virtue of his understanding and works. Thus each will obey his fellow, the inferior his superior. They shall examine spiritual qualities and works (Mhyc(mw Mxwr) annually, promoting a man because of his understanding and perfection of walk, or demoting him because of failure. (1QS V 20–24)

Again the examination is not by an individual, but the entire community. However, in this case, both his “understanding and works vis-à-vis the Law” are

the comparison of the Essenes who farm with the contemplative Therapeutae in de Vita Contemplativa). In telling the story of the circumcision of the men of Shechem, the Testament of Levi presents circumcision as the only necessary step for conversion, but this passage is not present in the Scrolls manuscripts of Aramaic Levi:
And we said to them [... If] you want our daughter, so that we all would become br[others] and partners, you must circumcise your penis, so that you may appear like us and become sealed like us with the [true] circumcision. (T. Levi Cambr A 19–22)
137

See Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 89–91, for a discussion of the impurity of War 2.124–127.

liquids.

138

138

WASHING IN WATER

examined, suggesting that both knowledge and practice were examined.139 Failure could bring demotion, although this text does not suggest that it would also bring exclusion from the pure food as happened to the individual found in error in 4Q265 4 II 3–7.140 Once an individual passed the two years of probation, he could then be initiated into the community. Columns 1–2 of the Community Rule describe the ceremony of initiation, which involved alternating prayers by the Priests and Levites.141 In a sequence reminiscent of the covenant ceremony in Deut 27–30, they recounted God’s blessings upon Israel, and Isarel’s sins and then blessed the faithful and cursed the unfaithful. At each point, the initiates were to respond “Amen, Amen.” In addition to these prayers, each candidate then took “a binding oath to return to the Law of Moses.” (1QS V 8)142
139 4Q265 4 II 3–7 describes a re-examination for one found in error (“if his [und]erstanding fails him,” line 4). It is unclear whether this is an individual who had already joined the Yahad or one who was still under probation. Baumgarten suggests that the reference to understanding [term] means that the individual was intelligent but lacked command of the law and thus needed further instruction (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 66–67, line 4). 140 The two texts could both reflect the practice of annual reviews of all members, but 4Q265 could also be read as an indication that this review was held only for members found in error, not for all members. 4Q265 does not indicate whether such an individual had to undergo any specific ritual to regain access to the pure food or if passing the examination at the end of the year was sufficient. For that matter, texts like 1QS VII 12–15 which describe exclusion from the pure food for various lengths of time as a penalty for certain infractions do not describe how a person regained access to the pure food, either. 141 1QS I 16–2.10. 142 See B.J. 2.139–142. In addition to the oaths, there are a few texts which include blessings which may have been involved in initiation. For instance, 4Q275 and the fragments of 4Q414 (1 I 4 and 3 I 4) have been identified as a “Rule of Initiation,” but some have suggested that they belong more with a covenant renewal ceremony or Shavuot instead (Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 283, P. Alexander and Geza Vermes, Qumran Cave 4. XIX: 4QSerekh Ha-Yahad (DJD XXVI. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 210). Another passage includes prayers and references to bathing, but it is unclear whether it has anything to do with initiation:

For You made me [...] Your will that we cleanse ourselves befo[re ...] and he established for himself a statue of atonement [...] and to be in rig[hteous] purity and he shall ba[t]he in water and sprinkle up[on ...] [...] And then they return from the w[ater ...] cleansing His people in the waters of bathing [...] second time upon his station. And he shall [say] in re[sponse, “Blessed are You, ...] [...] Your purification in your glory [...] [...] eternally. (4Q414 12 1–10)

See Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 135–154, for further discussion of this text. Abegg entitles it “A Baptismal Liturgy,” but it could only be baptism read loosely as immersion, not initiation (Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 390).

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

139

Even though the process of initiation mentions the issue of purity, there is no indication in these texts that purification itself was part of initiation and certainly no reference to the initiatory bathing that Josephus describes among the Essenes in B.J. 2.137–138. There are, however, some texts that have been read as hints that water was seen as part of initiation.143 For instance, some have noted the proximity of the following passage in the Community Rule to discussions of initiation:
Ceremonies of atonement cannot restore his innocence (Myrwpkb hkzy )l), neither cultic waters his purity (hdn ym rh+y )wlw). He cannot be sanctified by baptism in oceans and rivers (twrhnw Mymyb #dqty )wlw), nor purified by mere ritual bathing (Cxr ym lwkb rh+y )wlw). Unclean, unclean ()m+ )m+) shall he be all the days that he rejects the laws of God, refusing to be disciplined in the Yahad of His society. For only through the spirit pervading God’s true society can there be atonement for a man’s ways, all of his iniquities; thus only can he gaze upon the light of life and so be joined to His truth by His holy spirit, purified from all iniquity (wtwnww( lwk rh+y). Through an upright and humble attitude his sin may be covered and by humbling himself before all God’s laws his flesh can be made clean (rh+y). Only thus can he really receive the purifying waters and be purged by the cleansing flow (ykwd ymb #dqthlw hdn ymb twzhl). (1 QS III 4–9)

While Collins is correct in observing that there are no explicit links between this passage and the nearby discussions of initiation, there may still be indications that this text describes more than Levitical purity.144 First, most of the references to ritual bathing described in this and the preceding chapters speak of bathing to restore purity, not innocence, at least not explicitly. The fact that this passage speaks of innocence and sanctification as well as purity suggests that there may be something different here, other than the ritual washings we have already described, perhaps a special form of ritual washing for initiation or re-initiation of repentant members.145 Although outsiders, “the perverse men” are not allowed to enter the Yahad’s waters according to 1QS V 13–14, this text suggests that repentance and return to the community are possible, in this case through a
Collins, “Origin,” 31, n. 13. Collins, “Origin,” 31. 145 Baumgarten has suggested that the different forms of washing described here are alternative forms for ritual bathing, specifically the use of sprinkling water (hdn ym) for impurities other than the corpse impurity described in the Hebrew Bible (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 92). He is very likely correct, especially considering that similar lists of alternate forms of water also appear in m. Miqwa ot and m. Parah and in the Didache. (See Chapter Five for further discussion of these parallels.) Even so, the specific terms used here deserve more consideration to determine whether the references to atonement, sanctification, and purification represent regular ritual washing or special rituals in the case of a repentant member.
144 143

140

WASHING IN WATER

process of repentance and washing in water.146 If such is the process for a disciplined member of the community, by extension, we might conclude that new members of the community also join through a similar process, especially given that the candidate’s oath to “return to the Law of Moses” is, in a sense, repentance (1QS V 7–8). Collins challenges the use of the following passage as an indication of ritual bathing for initiation as well:
None of the perverse men is to enter purifying waters used by the Men of Holiness (#dwqh y#n) trh+b t(gl Mymb )wby l)) and so contact their purity. (Indeed, it is impossible to be purified without first repenting of evil, inasmuch as impurity adheres to all who transgress his word). (1QS V 13–14)

She may be correct in identifying this as normal ritual washing, not an initiatory bath, but the fact remains that candidates for membership would have undergone an initial bath at some point during their candidacy and initiation. This text makes it clear that the Yahad’s baths were seen as distinct from those of other contemporary groups, so even if a candidate had been used to ritual washing elsewhere, he would not yet have been considered to have washed properly. The question then, is when this first bath would have occurred and whether it was seen as initiatory or simply the first of many ritual baths.147 Given that zavim and others had to be purified by bathing before returning to the community’s pure meals, as seen previously, we might assume that a candidate had to begin bathing no later than the beginning of the second probationary year when he was allowed to touch the pure food but still excluded from the community’s drink.148 However, given that contact with impure individuals could contaminate full
146 The reference to “unclean, unclean,” (line 5) regarding the unrepentant member is intriguing given the connection made in 4Q274 1 I 1–4 between the zav and the leper who must shout “Unclean, unclean!” However, this issue does not seem to have been examined yet. Unlike the “perverse men,” it would appear that such a member in error was excluded as long as he refused the discipline of the community (line 6), but if he truly repented, he could then be purified by water (lines 6–9). 147 This is of course the question that Collins raises with regard to proselyte immersion. While later sources indicate that bathing was an option and later mandatory for proselytes, it may have begun as the first time a proselyte bathed as an observant Jew, not a special event in the way Christians see baptism (Collins, “Origin,” 31–33). In B.J. 2.137–138, Josephus does not mention a specific ritual of initiation, but access to the “waters” precedes participation in the rest of community activities. During the preliminary stage of initiation, candidates are instructed in the rules, but are excluded from community life. Then they are allowed access to the waters of purification, but are under probation for two more years. If they are successful, they then take their oaths and enter the community. 148 1QS VI 16, 20. As discussed above, a zav could not touch food or drink until he had been purified. See for instance, 4Q274 2 I 1–9.

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

141

members of the community, we might also conclude that a candidate began bathing at the beginning of his first probationary year, even though he could not yet join in the meals, so as not to contaminate the rest of the Yahad.149 Since washing is not explicitly mentioned in the Scrolls, as Collins has noted, it is impossible to be certain exactly when candidates bathed for the first time, although it seems likely that it occurred sooner rather than later in their probation. Since bathing was likely a part of a candidate’s life in the Yahad even before sharing in the pure food and since bathing is described as part of the process of repentance and readmission to the community in 1QS III 4–9, we may still conclude that bathing was part of initiation even though it is never explicitly stated. In addition, Josephus’ descriptions of initiation into the Essenes then give further support to the idea that bathing was involved. DISTRIBUTION Thus there are no explicit references to washing as part of initiation into the Scrolls community. 1QS, the Community Rule, contains a few references that hint at the involvement of washing, as do a few other isolated passages. The rest of the Scrolls say little about initiation, but if they do they have no reference to washing. Apart from Josephus’ reference to candidates having access to the “waters of purification,” there is very little reason even to suggest that washing was part of initiation in the Yahad.150 PRACTICE OF RITUAL WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS Several texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls make statements that give hints as to how purification and washing were practiced, details which are generally missing from the Hebrew Bible. First, many of the washing texts say only “sprinkle” (hzn) or “bathe and wash clothes” (Cxr, sbk), but as in the Hebrew Bible, these texts do not specify whether the whole body is covered with water, whether the individual is naked or clothed, and whether there were any accompanying prayers linked to the washing.151 There are however, several texts which offer descriptions of the manner in which ritual washing is carried out.
149 The description of the prayers, blessings and curses, and oaths described above do not actually specify whether they applied to candidates at the beginning or end of their probation for that matter. (1QS I 16– II 10, V 7–8) 150 B.J. 2.137–138. 151 See the discussion of Hebrew vocabulary for washing earlier in this chapter and in chapter 2. There are a few exceptions to the use of Cxr for the bathing of the body and sbk for laundering, such as 4Q274 2 I 9–2 II 1, which pairs sbk with wr#b. See Lev 13:55–58 for a more typical use of sbk (Baumgarten et al, DJD XXXV, 105).

142

WASHING IN WATER

First, there is a passage which speaks about immersion, rather than just bathing:
[... whi]ch he sprinkles on him the first time, and he shall bathe and wash (sbkyw Cxrw) before [... he shall imm]erse him the seventh time on the Sabbath. He may not sprinkle (zy l)) on the Sabbath because [...] the Sabbath da[y]. He may not touch the pure food until he changes [his clothes ...] anything which touches a discharge of semen, whether it be a person or any vessel, he shall immerse (lwb+y), and the one who carries it [shall immerse ...] and he shall immerse the garment (dgbhw l[wb+y … lwb+y]) which is on him and the vessel which he carries [...] And if there is a man in the camp whose hand or fo[ot] has not reached [...] the garment which has not touched it. Only, he may not touch his food. And the one who touc[hes it] [shall immerse ...] he shall dwell [alone]. If he has not touched it, wash [his clothes] in water and if [...] [...] and he shall wash. And concerning all the holy things he shall wash in water [...] (4Q274 2 I 1–9)

This text goes into other issues as well, such as sprinkling (hzn), discharges, and washing on the Sabbath, which will be discussed below.152 While Wise, Abegg, and Cook translate (y(yb#h) in line 2 as “the seventh time,” Baumgarten instead treats it as “the seventh day,” perhaps underscoring the link between discharge-impurity and corpse impurity which appears in this passage, already discussed above. He suggests specifically that the use of lb+ in this passage serves to make the statement, “he shall immerse” emphatic.153 However, the fact that 4Q274 mentions immersion (lwb+y) is significant. As mentioned above in the discussion of vocabulary, there are a few other terms used for kinds of washing, but most references to washing in the Scrolls, Hebrew Bible, and Second Temple Literature use Cxr or sbk. Full immersion becomes quite important in rabbinic tradition, as well as some Christian traditions.154 However, it is unclear from the texts of the Scrolls whether all
152 By referring to sprinkling, this passage seems to be combining Sabbath concerns, discharges, and corpse uncleanness, since in the Hebrew Bible only corpse impurity required sprinkling (and then with the parah-water). In at least one of the Sabbath texts, CD A XI 1–2 , the concern is not bathing itself but whether an individual can drink from the water while bathing, or if that would be considered drawing water, which is work. 153 Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 105, line 5. 154 lb+ as immersion is found only once in the Hebrew Bible, in 2 Kg 5:14, the story of Naaman. The rest of the time it is used for the action of dipping, as in Exod 12:22 (Clines, DCH, 3:341). Likewise its only appearance in the Dead Sea Scrolls is in this text, 4Q274. Baumgarten suggests that we can derive full immersion from the context of the various terms used, Cxr, sbk, etc. (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 91). See his discussion of the rabbinic usage, Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 91. As Stauffer outlines, some of the earliest Christian traditions appear to have advocated full

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

143

ritual washing involved full immersion, or just certain situations.155 While many of the structures at Qumran were certainly large enough for full immersion, as will be discussed in Chapter 5, we can only speculate as to how they were used and cannot be sure if full immersion was mandated. While other Second Temple period texts describe the attire for bathing, there is very little explicit discussion of this issue in the Scrolls. One passage refers to the act of kneeling and covering up nakedness:
[...] [and when] he [has completed] the seven days of [his] puri[fication ...] [... then] he shall wash his clothes in w[ater and bathe his body ...] and he shall cover his nakedness with his clothes and kneel (Krbw wyd\gb t) sbkw) up[on his knees ... And he shall say in response, “Blessed are You,] O God of Isr[ael] [...] (4Q512 10–11 2–4)

The text is too fragmentary to be sure of the exact purity context, be it leprosy, zav, or some other, but the reference to “cover his nakedness” is interesting. Josephus suggests that the Essenes bathe clothed, yet this text implies that they bathe naked and cover themselves immediately.156 The reference to kneeling

immersion, but as time went on aspersion or pouring, sprinkling, and chrismation replaced full immersion. The size and shape of baptismal fonts changed accordingly as time went by (S. Anita Stauffer, On Baptismal Fonts: Ancient and Modern (Bramcote, Nottingham: Grove Books, 1994)). 155 CD A X 10–11 forbids washing in water that is dirty or “too shallow to make a ripple” (Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 68). This guideline does not help us reconstruct the actual practice, but it suggests that the amount of water used was becoming important. There are also references to washing the entire body, as in 11Q19 XLV 16, where the zav is commanded to “bathe his entire body in running water,” that is in “living water.” Finally, there are several suggestions in the Scrolls of alternate acceptable sources of water. For instance, 1QS III 4–5 refers to “cultic waters … baptism in oceans and rivers … mere ritual bathing.” 1QS III 8–9 speaks of being “sprinkled with waters of purification and sanctified with waters of purity” (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 92). Baumgarten suggests that these terms are not “mere metaphor,” but represent actual forms of usage, in contrast to the list of different kinds of water in m. Miqw. 1.1 which he describes as a “scholastic” list rather than a description of actual practices (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 92). 156 For instance, Aseneth bathes and then receives a new linen robe (Jos. Asen. 14:12–13), while Josephus describes how the Essenes gird their loins with linen cloths and then bathe (B.J. 2.128–129), then later the candidates receive their white robes (B.J. 2.137–142). (See also B.J. 2. 161, which suggests that among the married Essenes the women wear dresses for bathing and the men wear loincloths. The text does not specify whether men and women bathe separately or together.) Finally, Philo describes how the Therapeutae wear white robes for prayer (Contempl. 66). There is no mention of purification in this context, but it offers an important parallel to the preceding texts.

144

WASHING IN WATER

suggests a possible additional stage to the ritual, kneeling in prayer, but again the fragmentary nature of the text makes it all unclear.157 As will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5, there are few references in the Scrolls to the amount and kind of water to be used for bathing. The Damascus Document specifies that:
About purification by water. A man may not wash himself in water that is filthy and too shallow to make a ripple (#y) ly(rm ydm My+w(mw My)wc Mymb). A man may not purify (rh+y) any dish in such water or in any stone cistern that does not have enough water in it to make a ripple and that something unclean has touched, for its water will defile the water of the vessel. (CD A X 10–13)

While this statement is not as specific as the Mishnah’s insistence on 40 seah’s of water, it indicates a concern for the nature and amount of water, not just the act of washing or immersing as seen in the previous texts.158 The Community Rule states concerning someone who rejects the Yahad’s teachings:
Ceremonies of atonement cannot restore his innocence (Myrwpkb hkzy )l), neither cultic waters his purity (hdn ym rh+y )wlw). He cannot be sanctified by baptism in oceans and rivers (twrhnw Mymyb #dqty )wlw), nor purified by mere ritual bathing (Cxr ym lwkb rh+y )wlw). Unclean, unclean ()m+ )m+) shall he be all the days that he rejects the laws of God, refusing to be disciplined in the Yahad of His society. (1QS III 4–6)

While the point of this passage is that repentance and acceptance of the Yahad’s rules are required before purification, the references to cultic waters (hdn ym), oceans (Mymy), rivers (twrhn), and “mere ritual bathing, (Cxr ym lwkb)” (sic) suggests that several different forms of washing were known and recognized as suitable. Such issues are found in texts from other sources as well—the Didache, m. Miqwa ot, and m. Parah.159 Baumgarten has argued that the list in m. Miqw. 1:1–8 represents an ideal and not actual variations, but the presence of such lists indicates that even as the Qumran community and others were developing their bathing pools other forms of immersion were likely still known and practiced.
157 Baillet finds reference to covering one’s nakedness, wydgb t) hskw, in Ezek 18:7, with a similar use in Jonah 3:6, while kneeling, [wykrb l]( Krbw, is found in 2 Chr 6:13 (Baillet, DJD VII, 271). 158 See Chapter Five for further discussion. 159 See Chapter Five. M. Parah 8:10 judges the waters of the Jordan River invalid for washing because they are mixed, fresh and brackish. While the Mishnah was compiled almost two centuries later, this puts John the Baptist’s baptisms in the Jordan River in an interesting light.

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

145

Another important development in the Scrolls is the combination of the action of washing with blessings to be recited. For instance:
And you shall clean[se him for Your holy statutes ...] for the first, [the third and the sixth ...] in the truth of your covenant [...] to cleanse oneself from uncleanness [...] and then he shall enter the water (Mymb )wby) [...] And he shall say in response, “Blessed are Y[ou ...] for from what comes out of your mouth [...] men of impurity [...] (4Q414 2–3 II 3–5)

The phrase “he shall enter the water” lends itself to the bathing structures at Qumran, although again with relatively few references it is hard to be sure what the practice was.160 The blessing, however, is quite significant. While there are several other references to blessings in connection with washing and purification in the Scrolls and in rabbinic literature, they are completely lacking in the Hebrew Bible and in the rest of Second Temple literature Some have suggested that this silence was intended to remove any hint of magic from the purification rituals.161 In any case, the presence of these blessings in the Scrolls marks an important step in the development of bathing rituals. Other texts appear to describe blessings for special cases of purification. For instance, 4Q284 describes the bath for a menstruant:
They shall leave [...] in the menstrual impurity of [...] holy ones and no[t...] from food the seven [days of her uncleanness ... after the setting of] the sun on the seventh day [... and he shall say in response,] “Blessed are You O God of Israel [...] forsaking [his] peace for [...] (4Q284 2 II 1–6)

This reconstruction suggests that the menstruant’s bath occurred after sunset on the seventh day, something not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible or elsewhere in the scrolls.162 A few other texts seem to discuss blessings as part of initiation. For instance:

The reference to “enter the water” Mymb )wby in 4Q277 1 8, comparable to Ndryb lb+yw dryw in the story of Naaman, 2 Kg 5:14, could suggest immersion or a specific action, but without other references, that is unclear. 161 Baumgarten, “Purification Liturgies,” 200 nn. 2–3, 201, Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 963, 968. 162 As discussed above, Lev 15 never even specifies that the menstruant needs to bathe. Another fragment from 4Q284 says further:
Blessed are yo[u, O God of Israel ...] [ and Yo]u inscribed a purification of truth for Your people, for [...] [... to] cleanse them from all their uncle[aness] to [sanctify them ...] (4Q284 3 1–5)

160

References to “purification of truth” are not found in the rest of the scrolls.

146

WASHING IN WATER
For You made me [...] Your will that we cleanse ourselves befo[re ...] and he established for himself a statue of atonement [...] and to be in rig[hteous] purity and he shall ba[t]he in water and sprinkle up[on ...] [...] And then they return from the w[ater ...] cleansing His people in the waters of bathing [...] second time upon his station. And he shall [say] in re[sponse, “Blessed are You, ...] [...] Your purification in your glory [...] [...] eternally. (4Q414 13 1–10)

Clearly there are links to bathing, but any connections to initiation are unclear due to the fragmentary nature of the text.163 In addition, as discussed previously, there are references to quarantining those with certain forms of impurity:
You shall also make three places to the east of the city, separated from one another, where those with a skin disease, a genital flux, or a [nocturnal emission shall go [...] (11Q19 XLVI 16–18) In each and every city you shall make places for those suffering from a skin disease, whether leprosy or affliction or scab, so that they do not enter your cities and defile them. Also, you must make places for men suffering from a genital emission and for women during menstruation and after giving birth. Thus they will not defile your houses with their menstrual uncleanness. (11Q19 XLVIII 14–17)

As discussed above, while lepers were excluded until they had been healed of their leprosy and the priest who burned the red heifer was excluded until nightfall, the Hebrew Bible does not exclude any of these others from the campthe zav, someone with nocturnal emissions, or women who are menstruating or have given birth.164 The addition of these individuals and the requirement to keep them separate from each other are distinct changes from the Hebrew Bible and other Second Temple period texts. Further, the differences between these
163 Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 390–391. Some have suggested that 4Q275 1 I 4 and 3 I 4 represent a similar initiatory context, but again that is by no means clear (Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 283). 164 Lev 14 calls for lepers to stay out of the city and other passages in Lev 11–15 forbid touching those with other impurities and objects touched by such individuals, but no further details are given. These texts then describe the possible implementation and expansion of the rules in Lev 11–15. Some scholars have assumed that quarantines like this were applied to menstruating women in Second Temple Judaism, but Sanders questions the practicality of such a claim, arguing that the rabbis only protected the Temple Mount itself from the entry of unclean individuals—beyond that there was no exclusion or quarantine (Sanders, Judaism, 217–222, 439–440; Sanders, Jewish Law, 155–162, 174–176; Yadin, TS, 1:304–307, m. Kelim 1.8, m. Nid. 7.4). See also 4QMMT and 11Q19 for discussion of what in Jerusalem corresponded to the different “camps” twnxm in the Torah (Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 155; Yadin, TS, 1:278–280, 2:200).

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

147

lists suggest that women were not allowed into the Temple city at all, thus eliminating the need to deal with women’s impurities in the Temple City.165 Instead, the quarantine list for the Temple City involves impurities directly affecting men, such as leprosy, discharges, and nocturnal emissions, while the list for other cities (11Q19 XLVIII 14–17) includes men’s and women’s contexts. Another text contains hints of an alternate form of purification that is not seen in either the Hebrew Bible or the Second Temple literature. CD A XI 3–4 says:
A man may not put on filthy clothes (My)wc Mydgb) or clothes kept in wool (zgb My)bwm) unless he washes it in water (Mymb wsbyk) or if they scrub it with spice (hnwblb Mypw#).

Except for a suggestion that the spice in question is frankincense, hnwbl, there has been little analysis of this passage.166 Considering ancient traditions of purifying with sulfur or fire, this could represent an alternative form, useful in a dry area like Qumran.167 However, the passage does not make clear whether such an alternative is allowed only if no water is available or if it is always permissible. Finally there is a passage for which the precise purity context is unclear, but it presents some important details regarding practices. Regarding sacrifices, CD A XI 21–23 reads:
No one who enters the house of worship (twxt#h tyb) shall enter in a state of impurity but with laundered garments (swbk )m+). When the trumpets for assembly are blown, let him go earlier or later so that they need not stop the whole service [...]

Even apart from interpreting it, translating this passage is difficult. At first, Cook’s translation seems to suggest that this text is saying either that people should not enter unclean unless they are wearing laundered garments or that laundered garments are a sufficient alternative to entering unclean. F. García Martínez translates swbk )m+ as “Should not enter with impurity requiring washing,” while Vermes translates it as saying no one “shall come unclean and in need of washing.” Since swbk is used, without reference to Cxr, it seems likely that laundering alone is being discussed, not bathing. Charlesworth

Yadin, TS, 1:289. Baumgarten and Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:47, n. 163. There it is suggested that the “wool” in question, zg, is “shorn wool,” as in b. Hul. 84a. Baumgarten also draws a parallel to special clothes for the Sabbath in b. Šabb. 113a. 167 Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 207, n. 56.
166

165

148

WASHING IN WATER

suggests that swbk )m+ represents an intermediate state in purification, perhaps like the rabbinic Mwy lwb+. If that is the case, then the writers of the scrolls are condemning this intermediate phase, just as they rejected the idea of Mwy lwb+ in general.168 Given that there is no reference to Cxr, it is possible that this text refers then to one of the situations where only laundering and not bathing is required in the Hebrew Bible. One such situation is the gathering of the parah ashes in Num 19:10, while another is carrying or eating the carcass of a clean animal in Lev 11:40. Each of these situations requires laundering and waiting until sunset, but not bathing. The reference to a “house of worship” or “house of prostration,” as Baumgarten translates it, adds further confusion to this passage.169 At first glance it does not seem to be the Temple, since the scrolls use other names for that.170 In addition, the Damascus Document presumably preceded the settlement at Qumran, not to mention the fact that there does not seem to have been a designated worship space at Qumran, despite references in the Scrolls and Josephus.171 Baumgarten suggests that the twxt#h tyb, “House of worship,” was a section of the Temple in which pilgrims would bow during sacrifices, pointing to references in m. Mid. 1:1, 2:6 which use tyb to refer to different chambers of the Temple.172 In any event, despite difficulties with the
Baumgarten and Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:51, n. 178. In such a scenario, the individual would have bathed, but not yet laundered. However, according to ethnographic studies that Milgrom cites, it seems likely that some people might have washed their clothes when they bathed (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 841). Baumgarten agrees that the concern is more over the fact that garments were still unwashed, but does not discuss it in terms of Mwy lwb+ or separate stages of purification, calling attention to a related passage in 4Q271 V 15, another fragment of the Damascus Document (Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 105 line 9). 169 Baumgarten and Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:51, n. 179. 170 See Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 43. 171 Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 127–129; Harrington, Impurity Systems, 52. 172 Baumgarten and Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:51, n. 179. Baumgarten cites m. Tamid 5:6 in clarification of the reference to the trumpets. There, the trumpets are a sign for the priests to prepare for prostration and those undergoing purification to stand in the eastern gate. Thus it would seem that this text is suggesting that those still in the process of purification stay away when the trumpets are blown and the priests are prostrating themselves. He further suggests that Num 10:10 and 4Q493 13–14 offer a parallel ban on movement while the trumpets are being blown (Baumgarten and Charlesworth, ed. Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:51, nn 178, 179). However, it is hard to say whether this passage is banning all entry while swbk )m+ or just while the trumpets are blowing. The suggestion that such individuals “go earlier or later” implies that the concern is entering during the time of the trumpets, not whether they should enter at all. Since other texts ban entry of impure people into the sancta, this would suggest that the entry being described is actually part of the purification process (e.g. for sacrifice). However, given Charlesworth’s suggestion that this passage reflects the existence of
168

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

149

interpretation of swbk )m+ in CD A XI 21–23, the rest of this passage fits with the patterns of washing we have already discussed. The concern over protecting this “House of Worship” matches the concern for protecting the sanctuary and temple and thus this passage can be seen as a parallel to passages describing the purity necessary for entering other sites. Some of these issues will be discussed further in Chapter 5, but the Scrolls clearly provide more statements about the actual practice of ritual bathing than the Hebrew Bible and the other Second Temple literature. It remains to be seen how accurate and reliable these statements are, but their presence is important in itself. OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS As with the rest of the Second Temple material, there is a great deal of continuity in terms of purity and washing between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew Bible. Thus even though the Scrolls add washing for initiation, unseen in the Hebrew Bible, their treatment of ritual washing and metaphorical washing are similar. However, as was also seen in the previous chapter, there are also significant changes in the way the Scrolls treat washing and purity. Some of these changes, such as a tendency to harmonize the responses to different sources of impurity and extend washing into new contexts, were also seen in other Second Temple texts. Other changes, however, represent a perspective unique to the Scrolls. Specifically, the apparent extension of priestly purity to all members of the community causes a shift of emphasis from the Hebrew Bible. There, both priestly and general washing were discussed at length, while in the Scrolls, general washing is emphasized over priestly and certain priestly issues seem to be absorbed into the discussion of general washing. One issue that carries over from the Hebrew Bible is the question of whether washing and purification were always linked. In the Hebrew Bible, we saw that some books tied the two together, while other texts like the Historical Books did not. In Chapter 2 this was used as an indication for the late development of ritual washing and the Priestly text in general. The conclusion there was that when purification is mentioned without washing, we cannot assume that it was actually practiced in that context. This separation of purification and washing is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well. Many passages refer to purification and cleansing without ever

several stages of purification, it could simply be a polemic against the practice of Mwy lwb+, arguing that final purity is necessary before reentry into the sancta. Given the scarcity of parallels and discussion of this text in the literature, it is difficult to be sure what is being described here.

150

WASHING IN WATER

mentioning washing.173 Based on the argument in Chapter 2, it could seem logical to conclude that washing and purification were not automatically linked in the Qumran Community either. However, in the five decades since their discovery, most scholars have assumed that ritual washing was a central part of the community’s life, drawing on the archaeological evidence, references in Josephus and Philo, and texts in the Scrolls themselves.174 How, then, are we to resolve this discrepancy? In the Hebrew Bible, there was a clear distinction between a linkage of washing and purification in the Torah and a lack of connection between the two in the Historical Books. The decision to remain skeptical about assuming washing to be in practice when it was not mentioned was supported by the scholarly opinions on the composition dates for these various texts as well. Finally, scholars tend to see the Torah’s descriptions of the Tabernacle as a postexilic construction, further supporting a hesitancy to insert washing into references to purification.175 On the other hand, arguments such as these do not apply to the Dead Sea Scrolls. First, there is no distinct pattern for a linkage of washing and purity in some texts and a disjunction in other texts, nor is there a consensus on the dating of the different Scrolls to support a chronological development such as we posited for washing in the Hebrew Bible.176 Further, the gaps in so many of the manuscripts make it hard to determine that washing was present or absent. We cannot assume that it was always there, but we cannot conclude definitively that it was absent either. While there are no arguments against the assumption of a link between washing and purification in the Scrolls, there are several arguments in favor of such an assumption. First, we have already seen that washing and purification were linked in texts representing other groups within Second Temple Judaism. Scholars such as Harrington and Baumgarten have concluded that the writers of
Several passages from the Temple Scroll speak only of purity, not washing. See for instance 11Q19 XLVI 9–18, XLVII 3–18, XLVIII 17–49.4. See also 4QMMT. Similarly, in the Hebrew Bible, most of the references outside of the Priestly source speak only of purification, not washing. See for instance, Ez 6:20, 44:26, Neh 12:30, 45, 13:9, 22, 30. 2 Chr 29 uses rh+ and #$dqth. Milgrom suggests that the Priestly and Holiness writers reserved the use of #$dq for the Tabernacle and associated items, not humans, in contrast to the use of #$dqth in Exod 19 (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 967). 174 Sanders, Judaism, 352–353; VanderKam, DSS Today, 84–85, 170; Jodi Magness, “Qumran Archaeology: Past Perspectives and Future Prospects,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after 50 Years (ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 137–142. 175 Friedman, “Tabernacle,” 6:294–295. 176 There is no firm consensus on biblical texts either, but where many scholars agree now on the sequence, if not the date, of the biblical texts, we do not even have that for many of the Scrolls texts.
173

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

151

the Scrolls were stricter than the rest of Second Temple Judaism, so it seems likely that they would have maintained and strengthened a connection between washing and purification, not severed it.177 Second, parallels in Josephus’ descriptions of the Essenes and Philo’s descriptions of the Therapeutae suggest that these groups bathed as part of purification, and many scholars now agree that the Qumran community was a subset of the Essenes.178 Finally, the care taken by the Yahad to instruct and preserve the community suggests that some practices like bathing were not always mentioned or were described cryptically to protect the community’s secrets.179 Alone, none of these arguments would suffice to prove the connection between washing and purification in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the combined weight of these arguments supports this assumption, in contrast to the lack of evidence for such an assumption in the Hebrew Bible.180 Given the importance of the Torah to the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the fact that numerous manuscripts of biblical texts are contained among the Scrolls, one would expect there to be a high degree of agreement on details mentioned in both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew Bible. However, this is not always the case. For instance, 4Q274 says that a zav should shout “Unclean, unclean!” to warn others of his impurity, although the Hebrew Bible applies this only to lepers.181 Similarly, the Hebrew Bible specifies different details of purification for lepers, zavim, and those who have touched corpses, but some of the Scrolls seem to conflate these different cases and mix up the details.182
177 178

Harrington, Impurity Systems, 58–62; Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 79–92. Of course there are differences between the Essenes, the Therapeutae, and the writers of the Scrolls, as most acknowledge (VanderKam, DSS Today, 87–98). In addition, the contexts of Josephus’ and Philo’s descriptions suggest that they were trying to portray the Essenes and Therapeutae as legitimate parts of the Jewish Community or even models for morality (B.J. 2.119–121, Prob. 75–91). In such a context, Josephus and Philo could have added details to their description to make these groups sound more like other Jews in their time, but it is impossible to tell how much of their descriptions was real and how much was fictitious. 179 We have no way of knowing the content of the two years of instruction for candidates (1QS 6:13–24), but it is conceivable that these issues could have been discussed at this time, just as certain details of Christian practice were withheld until after candidates had been baptized. See for instance Chrysostom, Baptismal Instructions. 180 We face a similar situation in considering the use of washing for initiation. At some point before the late first century C.E., proselyte baptism became an optional part of conversion, but we do not know exactly when it started. In the case of the Scrolls, although washing for initiation is never explicitly mentioned we can speculate that it was practiced based on Josephus’ descriptions of the Essenes, B.J. 2.137–138. However, no comparable contemporary verification is available for the biblical texts (VanderKam, DSS Today, 170, Collins, “Origin,” 32–35). 181 4Q274 1 I 1–4. 182 See for instance, 4Q274 1 I 1–4, 4Q284 1 I 6–8.

152

WASHING IN WATER

We saw similar changes and conflations in the works of Josephus and Philo. There it was suggested that perhaps they were relying on variants in the Septuagint or did not understand the Hebrew versions of the Torah. Such explanations do not fit for the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were using Hebrew manuscripts and their detailed methods of exegesis demonstrate keen knowledge of the Hebrew language. There are however, several alternate explanations, some of which apply to both the Scrolls and other Second Temple literature, and some just to the Scrolls. First, it is possible that Qumran community’s biblical manuscripts contained variants from the texts used by other Jews which could explain these differences. A detailed study of purification in the biblical texts from Qumran is needed to determine whether this is the case. Second, the tendency to extend priestly regulations to the entire Yahad could have led to some of the changes, particularly those that seem to conflate different sources of impurity.183 Finally, it is possible that the writers of both the Scrolls and other Second Temple texts were clarifying issues of confusion and were trying to make the Torah’s instructions fit into a more coherent system of purity.184 If that is the case, the writers were interpreting Torah in such a way as to answer questions and confusion in their time, not departing from it, something they would have been unlikely to do. In addition to changing details of washing and purity found in the Hebrew Bible, there are also several cases where the Scrolls add washing and/or purity to contexts not known in the Hebrew Bible. Just as we saw an increased interest in purity for prayer and Sabbath in the Second Temple literature, these concerns
183 Even so, 1QS clearly distinguishes priests from non-priests in its membership in I 21 – II 10 and VI 18–19. 184 This same tendency is seen in the rabbis and in the Targumim. See Harrington, Impurity Systems, 59; Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 50–51. Abegg suggests two guiding principles to the Scrolls’ legal interpretations: 1) greater strictness than the rabbis, and 2) a preference for the priesthood over other groups (Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 271–272, 281). Some of these differences in interpretation could also come from the idea that the community was trying to live in the present according to the rules for the eschaton. Harrington discusses several views on this issue: 1) The Temple Scroll is an extension from the Community’s actual practices; 2) The present life was a mirror of the future; and 3) The Qumran community lived under the rules for an ordinary city in the Temple Scroll. She concludes:

The above arguments lead to one conclusion: the sectarians of Qumran regarded themselves as living, not in the sacred status of the Temple of the present or of the future but, in the pure status incumbent by the Torah, according to their interpretation, on ordinary Israelites. They believed that in the eschaton there would be a re-established Temple at Jerusalem with an accompanying cult, however, it was impossible to reconstruct a surrogate Temple at Qumran (Harrington, Impurity Systems, 54–57).

WASHING IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

153

appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well. However, 2 Maccabees mentions only purification for the Sabbath, without specifying washing, while the Scrolls offer several references to bathing on the Sabbath. There are other new contexts as well, such as washing for the communal meal, washing and purification after battle, and gleaning. Furthermore, there are numerous passages describing prayers to be made during washing, something lacking in both the Hebrew Bible and the rest of Second Temple literature. The Scrolls also introduce several new issues into the understanding of washing and purification, specifically repentance, the Holy Spirit, and living water.185 Repentance is an important issue in the Scrolls, as Nitzan outlines, but it is only occasionally mentioned in relation to washing.186 On the other hand, the Holy Spirit is mentioned several times in relation to washing and purification, often in a metaphorical sense suggesting that cleansing came through the agency of the Holy Spirit, not through ritual actions. While this idea does appear in the Hebrew Bible, it is much more common in the Scrolls and has been used to imply a link between John the Baptist and the Scrolls community because of his references to a baptism of water and a baptism of the spirit.187 Finally, “living water,” Myyx Mym, is mentioned several times in the Scrolls, drawing on ritual and metaphorical references in the Hebrew Bible. The Scrolls also offer some hints as to how ritual bathing was practiced. For instance, there are references to lb+, immerse or bathe, in addition to the many references to Cxr, bathe. In addition, some texts describe the quality and amount of water to be used, as well as the garments to be worn for bathing.188 There are also several texts that suggest bathing was part of the initiatory process, although there is still some debate as to whether such bathing was considered initiatory or was intended to purify the individual for participation in the common meal. One final issue concerns the overall development and origin of ritual bathing. This chapter has analyzed the relationship between bathing in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the rest of Second Temple Judaism. Given the many similarities in practice between the two communities, it seems most likely most of the concepts of ritual bathing had already developed before the Qumran community isolated itself from the rest of Second Temple Judaism, an event assumed to be around the beginnings of the Hasmonean dynasty. Given their antipathy to those outside their community, it seems highly unlikely that they would have adopted
Some of these issues appear extensively in the rabbinic tradition, but as the rabbinic texts were compiled after the Scrolls, they have largely been left out of this discussion. 186 Nitzan, “Repentance,” 2:144–170. 187 Mt 3:11–12, Mk 2:8, Lk 3:16–17. 188 See for instance, CD A X 10–11, 4Q512 11 X 2–4, and parallels in Jos. Asen. 14:12–13, B.J. 2.128–129, 131–142, Contempl. 66.
185

154

WASHING IN WATER

their “enemies’” ideas if those ideas had developed after the groups had separated.189 CONCLUSION Thus the uses of ritual bathing in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the rest of Second Temple literature are closely linked. Both draw heavily on the Pentateuch while adapting the biblical traditions to new situations and introducing washing and purity into new contexts. In addition, both tend to merge the details of washing for different sources of impurity. However, the use of ritual washing in the Dead Sea Scrolls is distinctive in several ways. First, the community’s self-perception as a substitute for the Temple shifts many aspects of priestly washing onto the entire community, not just the priests. Second, the distribution of ritual and metaphorical uses of washing in specific texts is much less consistent than in the Hebrew Bible where ritual washing was found primarily in the Priestly source while metaphorical uses were in the Nevi’im and Ketuvim. Third, the fragmentary nature of many of the Scrolls makes interpretation of certain passages nearly impossible.190 Finally, although there is no clear chronological pattern for changes in ritual bathing during the history of the Qumran community, their overall history may help us describe stages in the overall development of ritual bathing relative to the date of the community’s formation.

The next chapter will make a similar chronological argument for the development of miqva’ot. In general, the bathing structures at Qumran closely resemble those found elsewhere in the Second Temple period, suggesting a common predecessor. However, it appears that the style often attributed to the rabbis, a stepped pool linked by a pipe to an unstepped reservoir may have developed after the two groups split since that style is not found at Qumran. 190 This problem is not unique to the Dead Sea Scrolls, of course, but it creates a serious problem when new and unique ideas appear in a fragmentary context. We can speculate as to their meaning, but we cannot be certain.

189

5 DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING: STRUCTURES AND PRACTICES
INTRODUCTION In the previous chapters, we have examined the explicit and implicit reasons for practicing ritual bathing as found in various groups of texts. While these texts were useful in describing the context and understanding of ritual bathing, many do not offer much information as to the actions or structures involved in ritual bathing.1 This chapter will then address these aspects of ritual bathing, looking at some texts which hint at the ways ritual bathing was performed as well as the archaeological evidence for the development of ritual bathing. Up to this point in the project, we have considered the use and understanding of ritual bathing without discussing the halakot, regulations for Jewish practice, during the Second Temple period. In part this was intentional,
It is possible that writers assumed that their audiences would know the customary practices and would thus not need to be instructed. Even so, when details are given, some skepticism is necessary since the writers may have had reasons to depict practices in a certain way. For instance, when Josephus describes the white robes the Essenes wear for bathing and Philo outlines the practices of the Therapeutae, are they describing actual practices or trying to portray similarities to other groups of their time? (See B.J. 2.137– 142, Contempl. 66.) For further discussion of these texts, see Chapters 3 and 4, above. On the other hand, since these descriptions often appear as side comments and hints rather than the main point of their passages, it is also conceivable that they do reflect actual practices. As with all of the texts discussed in this project, skepticism does not mean that no conclusions are possible.
1

155

156

WASHING IN WATER

since the primary repositories for halakah are the Mishnah and Talmud, written after the Second Temple period, as has already been discussed. There are some references to practice during the Second Temple period, as will be outlined below, but the combination of textual and archaeological material in this chapter creates difficulties in that archaeology and halakah can often focus on different aspects of the same ritual.2 Thus, for instance, ongoing rabbinic traditions have emphasized certain considerations for miqva’ot (tw)wqm), specifically the volume of water necessary, the kind of water, i.e. running water or stagnant, its source, and whether the bathing installation is movable.3 Some of these criteria are reflected or can at least be deduced from the archaeological evidence, but the primary archaeological indicator of a miqveh, the presence of steps, is not explicitly reflected in the rabbinic tradition. To a certain extent, this creates dissonance, since we are using potentially non-halakic criteria to determine if a structure is a miqveh. Conversely, some scholars have decided that certain structures are not miqva’ot based on halakic criteria that may not even have existed during the time those structures were built. Lacking a solution to this dilemma, this chapter will attempt to outline the archaeological evidence, all the while acknowledging the difficulties in using the textual and archaeological material together.4 This chapter differs in the way it organizes the material under consideration. While the preceding chapters all considered the categories of ritual bathing present in various texts, those texts were sometimes placed in their chapters for reasons separate from the texts themselves, namely the way scholars have traditionally divided these texts. Thus for instance, the latest texts from the Hebrew Bible were examined along with other texts from the Hebrew Bible even though they were written in the Second Temple period and could have been discussed in Chapter Three with the Second Temple texts. Similarly, Jubilees was discussed in Chapter Three with the Second Temple texts, although it also had to be discussed in Chapter Four due to its presence among the manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. While there were reasons for dividing the texts in this way, as was discussed in the introduction to this project, these groupings do not suggest homogeneity either in date or place of composition. Thus describing the practices present in these texts is difficult under such a
As discussed in Chapter Four, there are some texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls which reflect halakic debates or variations, but this is a larger issue beyond the scope of this project. 3 Kaplan, Waters of Eden, 51. There are also rabbinic texts which consider the question of whether immersing in the waters of hot springs or hot baths is acceptable (m. Miqw. 1.8, m. Parah 8.9). This issue will be discussed further below. 4 As has already been discussed, the use of later halakic material to discuss Second Temple period bathing practices can lead to greater understanding of such practices, but we cannot assume that the rabbinic texts represent the only practices of that time.
2

DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING

157

grouping. For that reason, this chapter will instead discuss texts and practices according to region, specifically Ancient Palestine, the Transjordan, the Diaspora, and Qumran.5 While sites and/or practices in some of these regions have been discussed extensively, washing practices in the Transjordan have not been analyzed in great detail. Thus the findings in the other regions will be summarized here with references to the treatment by other scholars, while discoveries in the Transjordan will be presented in more detail to allow comparison to the other regions.6 Another change from previous chapters, is that this chapter expands the time frame under discussion. As much as possible it will focus on sites and texts from pre-70 C.E., the obvious terminus for the Second Temple period. However, distinguishing material from before and after 70 C.E. is not always easy considering the continuation of material culture and the ongoing occupation of many sites during this time period. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that even though changing pottery styles allow archaeologists to date excavation
Of course it is not always clear where a text was written either, but this seems to be a better way to approach the archaeological material and its associated texts. For instance, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were clearly written before the community settled at Qumran and disagree with some of the later writings regarding practices. See the discussion of the dating of the various Dead Sea Scrolls in Chapter 4 (VanderKam, DSS Today, 15–19). Even so, this is likely the clearest approach. While certain sites will be discussed as illustrations of practices and developments during the Second Temple period, the discussion will be brief out of necessity. See Reich for more detail on miqva’ot at particular sites and OEANE for more discussion of the specific history of each site (Eric M. Meyers, ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East 5 vols., (New York: Oxford, 1997); Reich, “Miqva’ot”. Since miqva’ot are not mentioned specifically in any texts from this period, we cannot of course prove that any of the Second Temple texts refer to the use of miqva’ot any more than we can prove that a specific structure was in fact a miqveh (Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 191–193). Even so, examining archaeological and textual resources together can increase our understanding in both fields. NOTE – Although all of the sites with miqva’ot can be spelled in a variety of ways, I intend to use the version under which the site is listed in Meyers, ed. OEANE. Likewise, I will follow its example and use Palestine to refer to Judea and the Galilee, despite the modern political implications of such a term. 6 While every attempt has been made to include those structures discovered in recent excavations, it is likely that some bathing structures are absent from Appendix C. As Reich’s dissertation is the most comprehensive study of miqva’ot, the chart refers to his numbering system to allow reference to his discussion of specific structures. This is an ongoing project and a search for more such structures will be conducted after the phase is completed. See Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 158–162 for recent publications and when Reich’s dissertation is published in revised and updated form, more evidence should be available. When the results of the Sepphoris excavations are published a great deal of useful material will become available. The chart also include’s Reich’s determination of the degree of confidence whether a structure was a miqveh. In the case of structures he did not analyze, my own judgement will be given.
5

158

WASHING IN WATER

strata, the changes are not always drastic enough to distinguish one decade from another, only one century from another.7 Thus there will be some cases where bathing structures dating after 70 C.E. will be mentioned, along with later texts which can shed light on practices of this time period.8 EVIDENCE FROM DIFFERENT REGIONS ANCIENT PALESTINE Dating of Miqva’ot Most miqva’ot range from the Herodian Period, starting in the mid-first century B.C.E. to the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., although the earliest miqva’ot have been dated to the Hasmonean Period, beginning around the midsecond century B.C.E. While we can determine the dates during which a specific site was occupied, except for landmarks with textual attestation or evidence for several rebuilding phases, it is much more difficult to state precisely the exact date a particular building was constructed, much less a bathing structure within that building. Thus we can identify the sites with some of the earliest miqva’ot, but not which structures were the first to be built.9 Reich has identified 286 potential miqva’ot from the Second Temple period, of which most, 262, are located in Judea, with 151 in Jerusalem and another 31 in Jericho.10 After the destruction of Herod’s Temple in 70 C.E., the demand for
Coins can be useful in narrowing the dating of certain strata and structures, but as can be found in Magness’ discussion of the occupation phases at Qumran, the presence of coins does not guarantee a precise date (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 65). 8 Despite the objections outlined in Chapter One, these later texts are useful, not as evidence of Second Temple period practice, but in their links to earlier practices. 9 In his charts, Reich does not offer specific dates for any of the structures, beyond saying whether they were Second Temple or rabbinic, perhaps for this very reason (See Appendix C and Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 74–81). 10 Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 74–80, English Summary 7. (Revised and updated version may be forthcoming.) Reich argues that the absence of miqva’ot in the First Temple period indicates ritual washing had little importance during that time. However, as Wright says, the absence of built pools does not mean that people did not use streams or other natural bodies of water, as suggested in the stories of Na’aman, 2 Kings 5:1–19, and of the Israelites at Mount Sinai, washing their clothes the day before God was to appear on the mountain in Exod 19:10 (Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 213). He judges the authenticity of 153 of these Second Temple period structures as most probable, 50 probable, 45 possible, and 22 as inconclusive. Only 26 have been found from dates after 70 C.E., primarily in the Galilee, especially at sites such as Sepphoris and Beth Shearim, associated with the rabbinic councils. Reich identifies one of these later structures as most probable, five probable, and twenty possible (Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 74–80). There is an ongoing debate concerning the identification of some of these structures as miqva’ot, with Reich and Eric Meyers assuming a wider definition of miqva’ot, while others like
7

DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING

159

miqva’ot largely disappeared, although miqva’ot are found at some later sites away from Jerusalem. The difficulties in dating the occupation of certain sites and the construction of specific bathing pools complicate this issue, since in many cases it is impossible to determine whether the pools were built before 70 C.E. and remained in use or were built later.11 As indicated above, over half of the possible miqva’ot from the Second Temple period are located in Jerusalem, and most of the others are located elsewhere in Judea. There are a few in other regions such as Samaria, Galilee, and the Golan, but nearly all are in Judea and Jerusalem.12 (See Figure 1 and Figure 2) In contrast, after 70 C.E., hardly any of the 26 miqva’ot are in Judea and those in Judea are on the outskirts of the region. Instead, most of the miqva’ot from this period identified by Reich are found in Samaria and the Galilee. Given that after the destruction of the Temple, many of the leaders of Jewish community relocated to the Galilee, this should cause no surprise.13 While there is no evidence of such bathing structures prior to the Hasmonean period, as Chapter 2 indicates, ritual bathing may nevertheless have

Hanan Eshel take a narrower view. (Hanan Eshel, “The Pools of Sepphoris—Ritual Baths or Bathtubs?: They’re Not Ritual Baths,” 26, no. 4 (July / August 2000 2000): 42–45, 49; Eric M. Meyers, “The Pools of Sepphoris: Ritual Baths or Bathtubs? Yes, They Are,” 26, no. 4 (July/August 2000): 46–49; Ronny Reich, “They Are Ritual Baths: Immerse Yourself in the Ongoing Sepphoris Mikveh Debate,” 28, no. 2 (March/April 2002): 50– 55) Magness summarizes the distribution throughout Judea as being centered around Jerusalem and on the pilgrimage routes leading into Jerusalem. (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 143) 11 The publication of the miqva’ot at Sepphoris may help clarify this issue, as that site was occupied during the Second Temple period and after 70 C.E. With 22 possible miqva’ot identified by Reich in a recent study and careful dating of the architecture, it may be possible to determine which, if any were constructed after 70 C.E. (Eshel, “Pools of Sepphoris,” 42–45, 49; Meyers, “Pools of Sepphoris,” 46–49; Reich, “They Are Ritual Baths,” 50; Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 159) 12 See Figure 1. These maps indicate the presence of miqva’ot at different sites, but not the number of structures at a particular site. 13 See Figure 2. It should be noted that Reich did not assign a high degree of probability to most of these rabbinic period structures and that since his publication more possible miqva’ot have been discovered at sites like Sepphoris and Cana, but the site reports and analysis have not yet been released (Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 81, 325–340). When possible, these structures have been added to the map, but there is insufficient evidence to discuss them further. Y. Magen has discussed the rabbinic period miqva’ot at Qedumim as evidence of Samaritan ritual purity practices (Yitzhak Magen, “The Ritual Baths (Miqvaot) at Qedumim and the Observance of Ritual Purity Among the Samaritans,” in Early Christanity in Context (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1993)). This site will need further consideration.

160

WASHING IN WATER

been in use, just without special structures intended for bathing.14 For instance, the story of David and Bathsheba states that David looked from the roof of his palace and saw Bathsheba bathing (2 Sam 11:2). Unfortunately, this statement does not tell us whether she was also on the roof of her house as some paintings have depicted her, or perhaps in her courtyard, nor does it say whether she was using a special structure for bathing or simply jugs of drawn water.15 Given such silence, it is difficult to be certain. Similarly, prior to the theophany at Sinai in Exod 19, the people washed their clothes, presumably in nearby water sources. It seems highly unlikely that people wandering in the wilderness would have constructed permanent baths at each place they stopped, especially given the scarcity of water. It appears that streams and other sources continued to be a viable alternative for ritual bathing even into the rabbinic period, given that the Didache, m. Miqwa ot, and m. Parah all discuss various sources of water allowable for bathing.16 Thus the absence or infrequency of miqva’ot before and after the Second Temple period does not mean that ritual bathing was not practiced, only that if it was practiced, special structures were not used or have not been found yet. Even so, given the lack of rainfall, ritual bathing would have been much more difficult at most times of the year without special structures. On the other hand, the presence of so many miqva’ot during the Second Temple period suggests that ritual bathing held particular importance during that time. Style and Architecture Most structures that have been identified as miqva’ot share several common features. First, they contain steps, which as several writers emphasize is the primary difference between miqva’ot and other water structures such as cisterns,

Reich concludes that the absence of miqva’ot from the First Temple period indicates that ritual bathing was not widespread at that time, but that is not necessarily the case (Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 82–87). 15 See for instance Willem Van Mieris, Bathsheba, Oil on Panel, 1662–1747, Snite Museum of Art, South Bend, IN. While the text goes on to say that she was purifying herself from her period, this statement is not linked with her bathing, but instead is mentioned after David has intercourse with her. Instead of emphasizing the link between purification and bathing as many scholars have interpreted it, this text may instead be underscoring the magnitude of David’s sin by virtue of the fact that David slept with her while she was still purifying herself. Both Evans and Robinson discuss her purification, but they do not discuss the purity issues related to David sleeping with her at that time (Mary J. Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel: New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2000), 187–188; Gnana Robinson, Let Us Be Like the Nations: A Commentary on the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 207. 16 See the discussion in Chapter 4 about whether these lists were actual or ideal. Even today, some people use springs as well as miqva’ot.

14

DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING

161

bathtubs, bathhouses, and swimming pools.17 Wood echoes this claim in analyzing the structures at Qumran, noting that the effort required to carve steps, at some sites a very precise task given the alternation of shallow and deep steps, and the volume lost for water storage due to the steps make it unlikely that a stepped pool would have been intended only for water storage.18 As Magness notes, some large cisterns do have steps, but they are usually narrow, intended to

17 Sanders, Jewish Law, 214–217; Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 143, Reich, “They Are Ritual Baths,” 47–61, 62–81. Sanders adds one other category of pools, unstepped pools paired with a stepped pool. These reservoirs or otsarot will be discussed further, below. He goes on to suggest that “unheated stepped pools, 2 metres (7 feet) or so deep, without drains at the bottom” were miqva’ot (Sanders, Jewish Law, 217). See Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9 for examples of bathtubs, swimming pools, and cisterns from this period. (See also, Humbert and Chambon, Fouilles I, 1994, 326 and Reich, Avni, and Winter, Jerusalem, 1999, 13 and 41.) Note that, in these examples, at least, bathtubs were insufficient for immersion, swimming pools did not have broad steps all across one side, and some cisterns did not even have steps. Even if we can distinguish bathing pools from other types, there is of course no way to be certain whether such pools were used for ordinary bathing, ritual washing, or both. We can distinguish between shallow bathtubs unsuitable for immersion and those deep enough to hold enough water for the bather to fully immerse, but even then we cannot be certain how these pools were used. Some sites have immersion-pools and shallow bathtubs in close proximity, as at Masada, described below, but this does not appear to be a standard practice – perhaps people would have bathed at home before going to the miqveh. In modern Jewish practice, a woman must wash fully before using a miqveh, and rabbinic concerns over the need to bathe after using a public bath might suggest a similar approach, but as indicated already, such a finding does not definitively explain Second Temple Period practices. (See the discussion of public bath-houses below.) Again there is no way of knowing just from the style of pool whether or not it might have been used for multiple purposes, both sacred and profane, but given the presence of other water structures which could have been used for general bathing, but not immersion, and the seeming care with which immersion structures were constructed, it is conceivable that miqva’ot were reserved for purposes of ritual bathing. 18 Bryant G. Wood, “To Dip or Sprinkle? The Qumran Cisterns in Perspective,” BASOR 256 (1985): 45–60; Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 143–144. Wood estimates that at the Qumran community’s peak in Period II, the volume of 398,300 liters in the unstepped cisterns would have been more than enough to meet the needs of a community of 312 individuals, allowing the remaining pools to be used for other purposes. To be cautious, Wood accounts for the evaporation that would have occurred if the pools were not covered, although he assumes that they were provided with coverings of skin or reeds (Wood, “Dip or Sprinkle,” 53–58). Given the current consensus that they were covered it appears that the unstepped cisterns could have supported even more if evaporation was less of a problem. (See Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 152.) However, since Wood counts pool 91 (net volume 167,400 liters) as an unstepped cistern, while Magness and Reich argue that it was connected to miqveh 85, his total figures may need to be adjusted accordingly (Wood, “Dip or Sprinkle,” 57, Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 149).

162

WASHING IN WATER

allow access to water when the levels are low or for cleaning out silt at the bottom, not as regular access for bathing.19 While there may be reasons why a stepped-structure would not be a miqveh, it seems unlikely that pools without steps were miqva’ot.20 There is however, no pattern either archaeologically or textually to suggest that a certain number of steps was required.21 Most bathing structures which have been identified as miqva’ot are dug into bedrock without any drain and are heavily plastered with water-tight plaster.22 These factors then help eliminate certain other water installations from consideration as miqva’ot. For instance, some pools at bathhouses have no drain

Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 143. Tosefta Miqw. 5:14 says, “He who jumps into an immersion pool, lo such a one is blameworthy” (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 143). Thus it would appear that in later times pools without steps, such as cisterns and swimming pools, which would force the user to jump into the water would not be acceptable as miqva’ot. As with the rabbinic references discussed previously, it is unclear how closely such a text applies to the Second Temple period. 21 There is a popular idea, often repeated by tour guides in Israel, that there need to be six steps for a proper miqveh. That is not reflected in the Mishnah or in the archaeological record. See for instance, LaSor, “Discovering,” caption page 56. This misconception likely arises from the opening of m. Miqwa ot, “There are six grades (twl(m #$#$) among pools of water, one more excellent than the other” (m. Miqw 1.1). Since twl(m can mean both degrees and steps, this reading is understandable, but the rest of the passage says nothing further about the number of steps. There are, however, some sites with alternating deep and shallow steps, which may have allowed for the use of the bottom step as a bench, especially as water levels diminished, but this aspect has not yet been studied in detail (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 144–145) 22 Sanders, Jewish Law, 217; Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 144; Reich, “They Are Ritual Baths,” 51. Reich, “Miqva’ot,” English Summary, 5, and 377–473. As Reich observes, the many layers of plaster on some pools indicate that leakage was a concern, possibly not only to preserve scarce water, but also out of halakic concern as expressed in m. Miqw. 5:5 (Reich, “They Are Ritual Baths,” 51). m. Miqw. 1:7 refers to standing water (Nrb#$)b) and 5.5 discusses flowing and dripping water. (Nylxwzh and Myp+wnh) 6.9– 10 discusses cracks and outlets, which relate to these issues as well. Tiled pools were not acceptable as miqva’ot due to the potential for leakage between the tiles (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 144). There are no texts from the Second Temple period which mention the use of drains in miqva’ot, but most have assumed that it is forbidden based on later texts such as these. This question becomes especially important in sites with limited rain or springwater at which it would have been difficult to keep a miqveh filled and clean throughout the year. See also m Miqw. 4:5 for a discussion of the difference between a trough dug into rock and a movable vessel which has been cemented to the ground.
20

19

DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING

163

but they are tiled instead of plastered, and thus not permissible as miqva’ot because water could theoretically drain out between the tiles. Similarly, winepresses have drains and filters at the end which would disqualify them as miqva’ot.23 Divided Steps Some pools have two sets of stairs or a partition dividing the stairs in half. (See Figure 10 and Figure 11.) m. Šeqal. 8:2 states that,
All utensils found in Jerusalem on the path down to the place of immersion must be deemed unclean; but [if they are found] on the path back they may be deemed clean; for the path by which they are taken down is not the same as that by which they are brought back. Ny)m+ _ hlyb+h tybl hdyry Kdd Myl#wryb Ny)cmnh Mylkh lk ;Ntyl( Ntdyry Krdk )l# ;Nyrwh+ hyl( Krd

This suggests that such a construction allowed an impure person to enter in one way and to exit pure from the other side, thereby avoiding recontamination.24

23 Of course this is not definite, but the later traditions at least help explain observations from the Second Temple period. The expectation that miqva’ot have to be dug into bedrock eliminates any built above the ground floor, but that is a moot point since we have no buildings with intact upper floors to examine. In Jerusalem, many miqva’ot were in the basement level while at Qumran all were on the ground floor. However, Magness argues that these are still parallel since the nature of the bedrock at Qumran did not suit the construction of basements and thus the miqva’ot at Qumran were still built on the lowest possible level, with some evidence remaining of rooms above the miqva’ot (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 152–153). There do appear to be some pools whose sides were built higher with stones before plastering, but there has been no discussion of this point to date. Examples will be discussed below in the section on evidence in the Transjordan. Technically, according to the Mishnah, the concern is not whether miqva’ot are built into the ground, but whether they are built as permanent structures which cannot be removed or as independent tubs which can be taken out. m. Miqw. 4.5 suggests this in its reference to a movable vessel and Aryeh Kaplan describes how that is still one of the criteria for modern miqva’ot. (Kaplan, Waters of Eden, 51) 24 Sanders, Jewish Law, 218. This specific reference to Jerusalem also raises the questions of whether practices were different in Jerusalem than elsewhere, and whether this “place of immersion” in Jerusalem refers to a specific miqveh or to any miqveh in Jerusalem. Unless otherwise noted, this and all quotations from the Mishnah are from The Mishnah (trans. Herbert Danby; Oxford: Oxford, 1933). David Amit has examined a structure near Alon Shevut on the Roman road between Jerusalem and Hebron, which not only has partitioned steps but separate doorways which seems to have performed a similar function (David Amit, “A Miqveh Complex Near Alon Shevut,” ‘Atiqot 38 (1999): 75–84). It is unclear, however, whether this would have been feasible, since the partition could have extended below water level during certain parts of the year.

164

WASHING IN WATER

Other Common Features In addition to broad steps and the presence of partitions or multiple entrances, there are three other common features for Second Temple period miqva’ot, which combine to form what is described as a “Jerusalem style” by some.25 First, is the alternation of treads of deep and normal heights. The deep treads often accompany steps that are longer than usual, forming a sort of platform. Magness explains that while this feature was found in other kinds of structures, in miqva’ot it allowed bathers to immerse at various points along the staircase, depending on the water level.26 In other words, as the water level decreased throughout the dry season, bathers could still immerse even without having to reach the bottom of the pool. Second, in many of these pools the lowest step is higher than usual, apparently creating a reservoir at the bottom which would still allow for full immersion even if all the other water had evaporated. Finally, associated with such deep bottom steps, but found independently as well, in some cases there are partial steps connected to the bottom step but not extending the entire way across the pool. It seems that these “auxiliary steps,” as Magness calls them, assisted the bather in reaching the bottom of the pool and then climbing out again.27 Volume While there are no Second Temple period texts specifying the amount of water needed for ritual bathing, later texts do state a minimum amount, 40 seahs of “living water.”28 Again, we need to be careful not to apply later requirements to Second Temple period structures, although some writers have done that very thing, arguing that certain structures are not miqva’ot because they could not

Some argue that such partitions, especially at Qumran, served only to channel water into the pool. Since some Qumran pools lack partitions and some partitions show no connection to water channels, such an argument is problematic (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 150). (See also Humbert and Chambon, Fouilles I, 1994, 165 and Reich, et al., Jerusalem, 1999, 41.) 25 Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 149, Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 34–39. 26 Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 144–145. 27 Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 145. See Figure 15 and Figure 14 for an example from Tell el- Umeiri 28 There are some references in Dead Sea Scrolls, as will be discussed below. The exact size of 40 seah’s is a matter of some disagreement, ranging from 250–1000 liters. Sanders has suggested it was about 500 liters which would mean a structure approximately 1 m long, 1 m wide and 0.5 m deep (Sanders, Jewish Law, 215). Using Milgrom’s equivalents for the rabbinic seah, we get 264 liters, giving a structure about 64 cm on each side (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 890–901. 1 Talmudic seah = 6.6 liters) (Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 12–33).

DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING

165

hold enough water.29 The most specific description we find during this period is in the Damascus Document, which will be discussed below with the archaeological evidence from Qumran. One important issue in the Mishnaic discussion of miqva’ot is the source of their water.30 Following the references to “living water” in the Hebrew Bible, the Mishnah stipulates that the highest grade of water for immersion is “living water.” The symbolic significance of this term was discussed in the previous chapter, but archaeologically this raises the question of how we can tell from an isolated structure whether it once contained the proper form of water. As Reich observes, many scholars have mistakenly assumed that this meant that living water, i.e. spring water, had to be the direct source for a miqveh, but other forms such as rainwater were acceptable. Essentially, the crucial factor was not living water itself as avoiding the activity of human hands.31 This means that while water can be directed to flow into a miqveh, it cannot be carried by human hands.32 In some cases, there is still evidence of water channels which would have directed water from the roof or elsewhere into the miqveh.33 However, in many cases only the pool remains and we must speculate as to how it was filled. Single and Double Pools There are two main types of pools, with the variations described above: single pools and double pools composed of a stepped pool linked to an unstepped reservoir, or otsar, by a pipe.34 Single pools can be further subdivided
Eshel, “Pools of Sepphoris,” 42–45. See m. Miqw. 1.1–8. 31 m. Parah 6.5, 7.9. See Reich, “They Are Ritual Baths,” 51–52. 32 As will be discussed below, there were alternatives to filling miqva’ot solely with rainwater. One was the use of an or reservoir, usually unstepped, which held at least 40 seahs of suitable water which could then be linked to a stepped pool thereby making the latter suitable as a miqveh. The stepped pool could be filled with any amount rain water or water drawn by hand, since only the volume of the was important. m. Miqw. 6.1, 6.7–8 outline these principles. Over time, this practice became dominant and is now the standard for miqva’ot today (Kaplan, Waters of Eden, 5–6). There is however, another method, attested in the Mishnah and in modern Jewish writings about miqva’ot (Kaplan, Waters of Eden, 56, m. Miqw. 4.4). According to this view, as long as the stepped pool started with 40 seah’s of suitable water, unlimited drawn water could be added and it would remain acceptable. Thus a stepped pool without an otsar could be constantly topped off with drawn water throughout the dry season and still remain acceptable as a miqveh. While this is attested in the Mishnah and may explain stepped pools without an otsar, many scholars continue to insist that only pools with an otsar were miqva’ot. (Eshel, “Pools of Sepphoris,” 42–45). It is unclear when the accompanying otsar became the standard form of miqva’ot. 33 Meyers, “Pools of Sepphoris,” 46–49. 34 Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 40–46. Consider briefly the examples shown in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6. The Double pool at Jericho (Fig. 3) is composed of a
30 29

166

WASHING IN WATER

by their water source—some are built next to or near a spring or aqueduct that flows constantly. Others, particularly those found in the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, are located inside houses and not visibly connected to any water source. Perhaps these miqva’ot were fed with rainwater diverted from outside the building, but as the upper stories of these buildings have been destroyed, we have no way to be certain. During the excavations at Masada, Yigal Yadin discovered two stepped bathing structures that he showed to rabbinic scholars. These experts certified these double pooled structures as genuine miqva’ot because each had an unstepped otsar or reservoir.35 After this pronouncement, many scholars assumed that this style was the only acceptable form and that stepped structures without an otsar could not be miqva’ot.36 As will be seen below, this is not necessarily the case. Some scholars argue that most single pools without reservoirs cannot be miqva’ot, because they have no way of being emptied or repurified. For instance, Netzer argues that the single pools at Jericho could only be used when
stepped pool 3.4 x 2.4 m with a maximum depth of 3.0 m, linked by a pipe to an unstepped pool 3.4 x 2.1 m with a depth of 2.75 m. The single pool (Fig. 4) had eight steps, measured 3.5 x 3.4 m and 12.7 m deep, with evidence that there had once been benches along two sides (Ehud Netzer, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavataions (vol. 1. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2001), 39–43, 105–106). Many double miqva’ot have been found at sites where water was scarce, allowing the bathing tub to be emptied and repurified without wasting too much water. See, for instance the pool from Masada in Fig. 5, which had a shallow pool for washing hands and feet before immersion, an immersion pool with two steps measuring 1.2 x 1.5 m and a reservoir with three steps measuring 2.3 x 1.7 m, connected to a small basin through which water entered this installation. Yigael Yadin, The Excavation of Masada 1963/64: Preliminary Report (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965), 91–92, Pl. 16A; Yigael Yadin, Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealot’s Last Stand (New York: Random House, 1966), 164–165. While the presence of steps in a reservoir is unusual it illustrates the system by which the bathing pool could be emptied and refilled with drawn water without invalidating it. In contrast, the double pool at Jericho (Fig. 3), appears to have been in constant use for a long period without ever being emptied, as indicated by the 50 cm of silt and intact vessels at the bottom. The excavators concluded that it was constantly being refilled from the local springs and thus it had not been emptied out to remove the silt or the vessels that had fallen to the bottom (Netzer, Palaces at Jericho, 39–43). For more on the single pool from Masada (Figure 6), see Ehud Netzer, Masada III: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1991), 251–262). 35 Yadin recounts this visit in Yadin, Masada, 164–167. There are other stepped pools at Masada as well, but they are single pools and Yadin did not show them to the rabbinic experts. 36 Reich, “Miqva’ot,” English Summary, 2; Stephen D. Ricks, “Miqva’ot: Ritual Immersion Baths in Second Temple (Intertestamental) Jewish History,” in Masada and the World of the New Testament (ed. Dan Urman and Paul V. M. Flesher; Provo: Brigham Young University, 1997), 278.

DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING

167

the springs were flowing strongly enough. 37 Why, then are there so many single pools in upper Jerusalem, which has no such springs? Benjamin G. Wright is hesitant to eliminate single pools automatically, but questions our ability to determine their use for ritual purposes, suggesting that similarity of form does not require identity of function.38 Against these claims, Sanders and Reich argue that both single and double pools were miqva’ot. After all, the Mishnah describes two different methods for filling or repurifying a miqveh—using a reservoir and adding drawn water to a known volume of “living water.”39 Sanders argues further that double pools were developed by the Pharisees and adopted by the Hasmoneans, while the single pools were used by the non-Pharisaic aristocrats.40 This claim that each form represents different groups may be supported by the changing frequencies of single and double pools over time. In the Hasmonean period, the few pools that have been found are double, while in the Herodian period, there are both single and double pools, perhaps due to divisions within the Jewish population, such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. Most late Second Temple miqva’ot are double pools, perhaps due to an increase in Pharisaic and “Zealot” influence. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., both single and double pools can be found.41 This issue will need further examination, especially since many single stepped pools at Sepphoris appear to date from around the time of Judah Ha-Nasi. While the lineage of the rabbis is complicated, it is surprising that the rabbinic leaders at Sepphoris, presumed to be the Pharisees’ heirs, would use single pools rather than this double “Pharisaic” style.42 Thus during the Second Temple period there is much archaeological data for the practice of ritual bathing, but few texts. Further, as discussed in previous chapters, the texts that are available describe the context of ritual bathing, but little or nothing about the structures or manner of ritual bathing. Thus we often
Sanders, Jewish Law, 221, and n. 55. Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 195, 204. However, on pages 192 and 213, he acknowledges that questioning the identity of single pools as miqva’ot does not necessarily imply that ritual purity was less of a concern in the Second Temple period. 39 m. Miqw. 6:8 and 4:5; Sanders, Jewish Law, 218–219. 40 Sanders, Jewish Law, 218–220, 226. 41 Sanders, Jewish Law, 214–227; Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 142–145. 42 Discussions with Kati Galor and the staff of the Sepphoris Acropolis Excavations staff suggest that most of the stepped single pools at Sepphoris are miqva’ot. See Meyers, “Pools of Sepphoris,” 46–49. Part of the debate over this issue concerns the significance of the expansion of miqva’ot beyond Jerusalem. Sanders argues that the spread of miqva’ot suggests that ritual purity was becoming an issue in daily life for all people, not only priests (Sanders, Jewish Law, 257). In contrast, Wright argues that ritual purity was expected only of the priestly families, even when they were not serving in Jerusalem (Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 213). See also Regev, “Non-Priestly Purity,” 223–246.
38 37

168

WASHING IN WATER

end up discussing these structures in the context of later halakic writings or in terms of archaeological features which are never discussed halakicly. DIASPORA There is no physical evidence for ritual bathing in the Diaspora during the Second Temple period.43 There are many later miqva’ot to be found all around the Mediterranean, but none that can be clearly dated before 70 C.E. Furthermore, these later miqva’ot have not yet been studied in any detail. However, as was discussed in Chapter 3, there are descriptions of bathing practices that may have been unique to certain Jewish communities in the Diaspora. Due to the wide range of texts, it is difficult to determine how widespread these practices were. For instance, Let. Aris. 304b–306 describes how the translators of the Septuagint washed their hands in the sea during prayer.44 Similarly, Aseneth washes her face and hands in what appears to be a ritual of conversion to Judaism (Jos. Asen. 14:12–13, 15). While these texts are sometimes more imaginative than historical, the writers likely drew upon known activities. Given that these texts have connections to Alexandria, it is possible that these practices were unique to the Alexandrian Jewish community or a subset thereof, but we cannot be certain.45 Similarly, Judith bathes before prayer and dinner (Jdt 12:7b–9) and Tobit washes after burying a corpse46. Again, uncertainty over the origin and composition of these texts raises questions to where the practices described originated and how reliable they are as an indication of actual practice in the Second Temple period. While it is impossible to determine the scope of these practices, these examples demonstrate the diversity of practices in the Diaspora community, some of which are not reflected within Judea. TRANSJORDAN During the Second Temple period, a few sites in the Transjordan appear to have had miqva’ot. Reich lists two of these, Tell es-Sa idiyeh and Herod’s
43 See, however, Reich’s discussion of bathing in the Hellenistic world, (Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 126–141) and Fikret Yegül, Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992). 44 As discussed in Chapter 3, Philo’s depiction of the way the Therapeutae raise their hands to heaven during prayer can be seen as a parallel to this practice, although he does not say anything about their washing for prayer (Contempl. 66, 89). 45 See Sanders, Jewish Law, 263–270; Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 206 n. 53. 46 Tob 2:9.

DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING

169

palace at Machaerus and several others have come to light since his dissertation was completed. Unfortunately, little information is available concerning some of these structures, due to the degradation of archaeological sites, incomplete information kept from early excavations, unclear dates, and a lack of scholarly discussion to date.47 Tell es-Sa idiyeh With so few sites available, a brief discussion of each site with possible miqva’ot follows, starting with the northernmost, Tell es-Sa idiyeh. This site, in the Jordan River Valley halfway between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea, was occupied on and off from the Late Bronze to Roman periods, but it also contains an Early Bronze cemetery. The Roman period consists of a tower or fortress and a pair of reservoirs at the highest point on the tell, one with steps and one without, most likely from the Second Temple period according to the few pottery sherds found.48 Although the steps on the northern pool are narrow rather than broad, following the western and northern walls and leading to the bottom which is 2.8 m below the highest remaining wall, Reich identifies this as a definite miqveh.49 (See Figure 14.) While no connection remains between the two reservoirs, it is possible that there was once a connection that allowed the unstepped pool to serve as an otsar, but such a connection would not have been practical year-round due to evaporation and the depth of the pool.50 Given the small size of the settlement at this time, it is unclear how the site functioned, but it is conceivable that it served as an agricultural processing location for materials headed for regions with larger Jewish populations.

These difficulties are not limited of course to sites in the Transjordan, but with so few sites the lack of information makes conclusions difficult. It is entirely possible that other bathing structures exist, which have been identified in published reports as cisterns or bathtubs. This issue will need further examination, beyond the scope of this project. For a discussion of Jewish presence in the Transjordan, see Adam Lowry Porter, “Transjordanian Jews in the Greco-Roman Period: A Literary-Historical Examination of Jewish Habitation East of the Jordan River from its Biblical Roots through the BarKochba Revolt” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1999). 48 James B. Pritchard, Tell Es-Sa idiyeh: Excavations on the Tell, 1964–1966 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985), 74–76; Jonathan Tubb, “Sa idiyeh, Tell Es-,” NEAEHL 1296. 49 Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 318–319. He points to parallel forms at Jericho, but observes that unlike Jericho with its steady supply of spring water, this structure could only be filled by rainwater since it was so high on the tell. 50 Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 318–319, Pritchard, Es-Sa’idieyeh, 74–75, fig 156–158, 187. Unlike most of the bathing structures in Judea which were carved into bedrock, this structure was constructed from field stone blocks and then lined with plaster. (See Pritchard, Es-Sa’idieyeh, figs 156–158.) According to the Mishnaic traditions described above, this structure might then be disqualified as a miqveh.

47

170

WASHING IN WATER

Tell el- Umeiri Tell el- Umeiri, located between Amman and Hesban, was primarily occupied during the Bronze and Iron periods, but there are a few Roman period remains, including a stepped pool.51 (See Figure 13 and Figure 14.) As with the pool at es-Sa idiyeh, this structure was not built into bedrock, but consisted of stone walls lined with plaster. However, unlike the pool at es-Sa idiyeh, the steps here are broad, extending the length of the northern side and leading to two narrower steps before the bottom which is 1.45 m below the highest remaining portion of the wall.52 There are few remaining buildings from this time period, although that could be due to the fact that this structure was only just below ground level, so the walls may have been looted for later construction. There was, however, a circular stone pit near the pool and associated with it by several stone walls.53 Although there is no evidence of what was kept in this pit, the excavators speculate that during the Roman period the site was not used for occupation as much as for seasonal processing of agricultural products.54 Given the parallels between this structure and those found in Judea, apart from the fact that it is not built into bedrock, it seems highly likely that this structure functioned as a miqveh.

Lawrence T. Geraty, “ Umeiri, Tell El-,” OEANE 5:273–274. As discussed above, these narrow bottom steps are a common feature of many miqva’ot in Palestine, as observed by Magness and others (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 145). For description, photos, and plans, see Lawrence T. Geraty, Madaba Plains Project: The 1984 Season at Tell-el- Umeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1989), 218; Larry G. Herr et al., eds., Madaba Plains Project: The 1987 Season at Tell-el- Umeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1991), 37–40; Larry G. Herr et al., eds., Madaba Plains Project: The 1989 Season at Tell-el- Umeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1997), 95–96. The pool was initially dated to the Persian period due to the fill inside it, but later investigations of the pool’s foundations uncovered Roman period sherds, indicating it was constructed during the Roman period, although when in the Roman period is unclear (Herr et al., eds., MPP 3, 17). 53 It is unlikely that the pit served as an otsar for the pool since the pit is not lined with plaster and would thus have leaked, in addition to the fact that there is no evidence of a pipe or channel to carry water between the two. There is no clear indication of how the pool was filled, whether by hand or through a water channel (Herr et al., eds., MPP 2, 40; Herr et al., eds., MPP 3, 17). Unfortunately, this structure is no longer available for study as it has been removed to allow examination of the strata beneath. There is no indication from the excavation whether this structure was enclosed with walls and a roof, but if it was intended for use during harvest time, it would have been used only for a short time each year and could have been enclosed in something temporary like a tent. 54 Herr et al., eds., MPP 3, 17.
52

51

DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING

171

Al-Maghtas Al-Maghtas, another site not listed in Reich’s catalog, is located in Wadi Kharrar on the eastern bank of the Jordan river near the spot where the river empties into the Dead Sea. The excavators have identified it as “Bethany beyond the Jordan” where John the Baptist was baptizing, according to John 1:28 and it is across the river from a site revered by some Orthodox Christians as the site of Jesus’ baptism.55 This site contains structures identified as monastic cells carved into the nearby cliffs, several buildings with mosaic inscriptions, some buildings identified as Byzantine churches, and several pools, one a large stepped-pool with wide steps.56 (See Figure 17 and Figure 16.) In its style this pool resembles some of the pools at Qumran, with its broad steps along the eastern end of the pool, although it is different in that it is not completely dug into bedrock but its walls are built of stone and lined with plaster.57 While there are Roman period sherds found in connection with this pool, the water system appears to be connected to the Byzantine period complex at the site, raising questions as to whether this pool was in use during the Second Temple period. (See Figure 17 and Figure 18.) If it is from the Second Temple period, the parallels to nearby Qumran are significant, but even if it is a later construction, the continuation of this style of pool is an important indication of possible links between later Christian and Jewish practices. Based on the form, it can be categorized as a definite miqveh, but the date is unclear, pending further excavations. The excavators suggest that this area was a pilgrimage site marking Jesus’ baptism by John. While the historicity of such a claim may be impossible to prove, the extent of later occupation and construction at this site suggests that it was quite important long after the Second Temple period.58
See Elaine Ruth Fletcher, “Jordan’s Pride: A Newfound Baptismal Site on the Other Side,” 69, (March–April 2000): 17–24. 56 This pool is part of a larger water system consisting of cisterns, a structure identified as a settling tank, water channels, a well, and two other pools, one with a small series of steps at one end. Although one deep unstepped pool, identified as a cistern, did have an arched roof, it is impossible to tell whether this structure was covered. 57 Mohammad Waheeb, “Wadi Al-Kharrar Archaeological Project (Al-Maghtas),” ADAJ 42 (1998): 635–638; Mohammad Waheeb, “Wadi Al-Kharrar Archaeological Project: The Monastery,” ADAJ 43 (1999): 553–555; Mohammad Waheeb, “Recent Discoveries East of the Jordan River, Wadi Al-Kharrar Archaeological Project: Preliminary Report,” 2000. One of the other pools contains steps at one end (Waheeb, “Monastery,” 554), but they may not have been used for immersion as much as access to the pool. Likewise, there is a much larger reservoir, measuring 15 m x 24 m, with steps at one end, but again, these steps do not extend the whole length of the side and were very likely intended as access to the pool for cleaning, not for immersion. This structure does not seem to have been enclosed or covered (Waheeb, “Recent Discoveries,” p. 7–8). 58 If it can be dated more clearly, the connection of a bathing pool with Second Temple period parallels to an early Christian pilgrimage complex could help to illuminate the development of Christian baptismal practices and its relationship to Jewish ritual
55

172

WASHING IN WATER

Machaerus Machaerus, the site of one of Herod’s fortresses to the east of the Dead Sea, contains three bathing structures that were analyzed by Reich.59 He categorized two as definite miqva’ot, one of which was near a bathing area and had a narrow entrance leading to several broad steps going down into the pool, while the other had several broad steps, but was fully enclosed. (See Figure 19 and Figure 20.) Reich identifies the former as a publicly used structure, while the latter is private, which seems strange since the private one is the larger of the two. Reich judged the third structure, in the residential area of the lower city, as unlikely to be a miqveh because of its small size and the difficulty it would cause for someone trying to immerse.60 Unlike most of the other miqva’ot in the Transjordan, these structures were clearly residential, connected to the Hasmonean practices seen also in the palaces at Herodium, Jericho, and Masada.61 Since the fortress was not reoccupied after the first Jewish revolt, these structures are clearly from the Second Temple period, a determination that cannot be made as easily for the rest of the Transjordanian miqva’ot.62 Atruz Atruz or Atarot, a site near Machaerus, contains a possible miqveh which was discovered during a regional survey in 2000.63 This structure is cut into a shallow cave in the bedrock at the top of a hill and lined with plaster, with a ceiling of solid bedrock. (See Figure 21 and Figure 22.) This structure was reused as a tomb and is still filled with bones. While its shape and design resemble miqva’ot found in other regions of Palestine,64 it would have been impractical to use as such since the opening is less than a meter high, forcing a

immersion. While such an issue is beyond the scope of this project, I hope eventually to return to this matter and consider it further, since this site could mark a transitional phase between Jewish and Christian practices. 59 Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 305–306. Michele Piccirillo, “Machaerus,” OEANE 3.391–393. 60 Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 305–306. It was about 1.2 m by 1.2 m and 1.4 m deep. 61 Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 305–306, 270–279, 292–301, 282–285. 62 Piccirillo, “Machaerus,” 3.391–393. 63 Chang-Ho Ji of LaSierra University conducted this regional survey in the Summer of 2000. 64 In later periods, some Christian baptismal fonts were built in irregular caves such as this. M. Ben-Pechat, “Baptism and Monasticism in the Holy Land: Archaeological and Literary Evidence,” in Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land New Discoveries (ed. G. C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and E. Alliata; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1990), 511–513.

DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING

173

bather to sit before climbing down the steps.65 There is very little evidence of construction near this structure, and the site is currently barren, so it is unclear what, if any, agricultural activities would have taken place at this site. While it is certainly possible that this was a miqveh, it is by no means definite. There are no texts that specifically refer to ritual bathing practices in the Transjordan, although Josephus does refer to Herod’s medicinal use of the warm baths at Callirrhoe near the Dead Sea (Josephus, A.J. 17.171). It is, however, possible to speculate as to the use of these bathing structures. Three of the sites, Tell es-Saidiyeh, Tell el- Umeiri, and Atruz/Atarot were probably not permanent settlements as much as agricultural encampments, suggesting that the products harvested here were ones that needed ritual purity, i.e. grapes or olives, as discussed above. Machaerus was a palace, comparable to Herod’s other palaces west of the Jordan, so it is no surprise to find miqva’ot there. AlMaghtas, is the most intriguing of these sites, because the location and shape of the pool suggest a similarity to the Qumran community during the Second Temple period, yet other structures from the site are clearly a Christian pilgrimage center from the Byzantine period. Regardless of the date, the site is valuable, but it would be particularly useful if it could be shown to mark a link between practices of Jewish ritual immersion and Christian baptism. QUMRAN While some of the earliest investigations of the ten stepped pools at Qumran questioned their use for ritual bathing, most recent studies have agreed that they were solely, or at least primarily, used for ritual bathing.66 (See Figure 23 and
Some cisterns or miqva’ot at Sepphoris also have small openings. This question would require a detailed examination of records from various sites, since cisterns were not always recorded and mapped with great precision. 66 See Wood, “Dip or Sprinkle,” 46, 58, and LaSor, “Discovering,” 55–56 for a summary. De Vaux first said that two structures “were certainly baths, but archaeology is powerless to determine whether the baths taken in them had a ritual significance,” but later said,
This system was designed to fill the needs of a large community living in an arid region. However, the care taken in constructing these installations may suggest that they were intended for the ceremony of ritual immersion.
65

(de Vaux, Archaeology, 132 and Pl. 39 and Roland de Vaux, O.P., “Qumran, Khirbet-‘Ein Feshka,” EAEHL 983, LaSor, “Discovering,” 55–56). However, Frank Moore Cross rejected the ritual use outright, saying, “Unfortunately, the pools are typical examples of water reservoirs well known from other sites” (Frank Moore Cross, Jr., ed. The Ancient Library at Qumran and Biblical Studies (Garden City: Doubleday, 1961), 50; LaSor, “Discovering,” 56). As the preceding discussion indicated, there are differences between reservoirs and bathing pools. See also, Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 306–318,

174

WASHING IN WATER

Figure 24.) Since several of these studies have discussed the nature of each of these pools in detail, what follows is a summary of those findings and how they relate to pools found in the regions discussed above. Date of Pools at Qumran Before discussing the date of the stepped pools at Qumran, a brief note on the chronology of the site is in order. DeVaux noted the remains of occupation pre-dating the arrival of the sectarian community at Qumran and suggested that the first sectarian evidence dated from about 130 to 100 B.C.E., Period Ia. Period Ib, lasted from about 100 B.C.E. to its destruction by an earthquake in 31 B.C.E., at which time the site was abandoned for almost thirty years. According to deVaux, then, after the sectarians returned between 4 and 1 B.C.E., the next period lasted until 68 C.E. when the site was again destroyed, this time in the first Jewish War. The final period of occupation, from 68 to 73 or 74 C.E. consisted of Roman occupation of the site.67 After a consideration of the strata, pottery, and numismatic evidence, Magness has eliminated deVaux’s Period Ia and shortened the gap between Periods Ib and II. She argues that the sectarians immediately rebuilt the site after the earthquake and only abandoned it when it was violently destroyed around 9 or 8 B.C.E.68 Their dates for the various periods can be summarized as follows: TABLE 2: OCCUPATION PHASES AT QUMRAN69
Period Period Ia Period Ib de Vaux ca. 130–100 B.C.E. ca. 100–31 B.C.E. Magness No occupation Pre-earthquake: 100–50 B.C.E. to 31 B.C.E. Post-earthquake: 31 B.C.E. to 9/8 B.C.E. or later Period II Period III 4–1 B.C.E. to 68 C.E. 68 C.E. to 73 or 74 C.E. 4–1 B.C.E. to 68 C.E. 68 C.E. to 73 or 74 C.E.

457–560, Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 147–150, John R. Bartlett, “The Archaeology of Qumran,” in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation (ed. John R. Bartlett; London: Routledge, 1997), 83–84. Hidiroglou has suggested that the pools were also used as sources of drinking water, etc. (Patricia Hidiroglou, “L’eau et les Bains à Qoumrân,” REJ 159 (2000): 19–47). While there is no way to disprove such a claim and there are no explicit bans on such usage in parallel rabbinic sources, this suggestion seems unlikely given the number of non-stepped pools that were available at the site. 67 See Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 47–69. 68 Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 67–68. 69 Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 68.

DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING

175

Based on these phases then, since the bathing structures date to Period 1, they are from the first century B.C.E.70 Given that several of these structures show evidence of damage from the earthquake in 31 B.C.E., it appears that most of these pools were thus built in the pre-earthquake phase of 100–31 B.C.E. One pool (loci 48 and 49) appears to have been damaged beyond repair in the earthquake and was filled in and not used during Period II. Another pool, loci 56 and 58 which had initially been one large stepped pool was subdivided after 31 B.C.E. into a stepped pool (L56) and an unstepped reservoir (L58), but there is no evidence of a pipe or other connection to suggest that L58 served as an otsar for L56.71 Of the remaining pools, all but one, locus 71, were destroyed at the end of Period II. Since most of the other cisterns at the site also seem to have been out of use in Period III, it is possible pool 71 was reused as a cistern at this time and not for immersion. In any case, If deVaux is right that Period III marked occupation by Roman soldiers, its use as an immersion pool would be unexpected.72 Styles of Miqva’ot at Qumran Of the ten stepped pools at Qumran, all are large enough for an individual to bathe completely in them. Eight of the ten have broad steps extending the length of one side of the pool.73 Further, eight of the ten have at least one of the additional features discussed above: partitions and/or multiple entrances, alternating broad and narrow steps, and small additional steps off of the lowest step. (See Table 3 below.)

Humbert and Chabon show pools loci 117 and 118 on the maps for Period Ia (Humbert and Chambon, Fouilles I, Plan III, p. 15). See also Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 64. 71 Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 149–150. 72 de Vaux, Archaeology, 41–44. 73 As indicated above, there is no evidence that broad steps were a halakic requirement, since many stepped pools at other sites had narrow steps. However, the presence of broad steps generally raises the likelihood that a pool was used as a miqveh since the construction of such steps would be costly and unnecessary for any use other than immersion, particularly the immersion of large numbers of people. See Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 143.

70

176

WASHING IN WATER

In two places there are pairs of pools located near each other. One pair, loci 117 and 118 share a vestibule but do not have a pipe connecting them and appear to have been too far apart to have physical connection as those at other sites have.74 The other pair, loci 85 and 83, is connected by a water channel, which allowed water from the main channel to pass from 83 to 85.75 It is unlikely that these two pairs functioned as miqva’ot with otsarot for two reasons. First, all other such double pools consist of a stepped pool connected to an unstepped otsar, not two stepped pools that happen to be connected.76 Further, the ruling in 4QMMT that a stream of liquid from a pure source to an impure source contaminates the pure source suggests that the otsar method of refilling a stepped pool was not acceptable among the sectarians.77 There are, however, several other explanations for paired pools such as these, as Magness outlines, citing Reich.78 First, they could have allowed for immersion by different groups—men and women, adults and children, family and servants. Second, they could have allowed those with differing degrees of purity as between priests and laypeople or different subsets of the sectarian community to bathe separately.79 Finally, they could have allowed for continued immersion throughout the year—when one miqveh had become unusable, the other could then be used.80 Magness suggests that the presence of partitions and an additional step at the bottom of pool 117 indicates that this pool may have been used by priests or high-ranking sectarians who needed a greater level of

Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 148. See above discussion of otsarot. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 149. Reich suggests that pools 83 and 85 combine to function as a pool with an otsar, but Magness does not comment on this when arguing that no pools at Qumran had an otsar (Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 306–318). 76 According to later rabbinic texts, no otsar is actually necessary for the pairs to function in this way, since a temporary connection would also suffice. (See Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 151. m. Miqw. 6:8, describes the principle, commonly known as hashakah.) Magness suggests that the pools at Qumran are closer to the style of most Jerusalem miqva’ot than to the pools at Jericho which typically had narrow stairs and often were paired with unstepped otsarot to which they were connected by a pipe (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 149). 77 Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 151. 4QMMT (4Q397 6–13) suggests that the sectarians did not approve of this procedure, since they ruled that the pure water would be contaminated by contact with the impure water. See Chapter 4 for further discussion. 78 Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 148–149; Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 40–47. 79 For instance, 1QS 6.20–23 suggests a continued separation between candidates during their probation and other members of the Yahad. See Chapter 4 for further discussion. 80 Reich argues similarly with some of the paired pools in Jerusalem (Reich, “They Are Ritual Baths,” 53). See also Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 161–162, and 4QMMT B 55–58.
75

74

DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING

177

purity.81 Unfortunately, there is no way to be certain whether such a difference was intentional or coincidental. Thus while there are variations among these stepped pools at Qumran, there are some general tendencies. Most of the pools have broad steps, alternating treads and a deep reservoir at the bottom of the pool, no indication that they served as part of a paired miqveh-otsar combination, and appear to have been covered by a roof. The locations of certain of these pools within the compound at Qumran suggest that some of them may have had special uses. For instance, pool 48/49, which was destroyed in the earthquake of 31 B.C.E., was located near a toilet built within the compound (L51). After this pool was destroyed, it appears that the toilet was relocated outside the community, at which point the northernmost pool, 138, gained added importance by virtue of its proximity to the toilet area.82 Several pools, 56/58, 117 and 118 were located near dining areas and others were located near what has been identified as a pantry.83 Finally, several pools, 68, 69, and 71 were located near the potter’s workshop and the gate which led to the cemetery. Magness suggests that these could have served double functions, allowing for initial purification of those who have entered the cemetery and for purification in connection with the preparation of certain clay vessels.84 Thus it appears that certain of these pools were used for specific purposes, perhaps lending credence to the suggestion that some of the pools at Qumran were also designated for specific populations within the community.85 As Magness and others have observed, there are several texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls that illuminate the practice of ritual bathing at Qumran and the structure of the bathing pools, but they are relatively rare. For instance, the Damascus Document says:
About purification by water. A man may not wash himself in water that is filthy and too shallow to make a ripple (#y) ly(rm ydm My+w(mw My)wc Mymb).
81 82

Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 148–149. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 150. 83 Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 148–150. L86 was the dish-pantry, next to pools 83 and 85/91 (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 149). The presence of pools near dining areas and other areas related to food likely reflects the concern the community placed on purity for their communal meals, as described in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus (1QS 6:16–24, B.J. 2.129) 84 Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 154. She cites a passage in m. Parah 5.1 which refers to special purification required for one producing vessels for the parah ritual, along with 11Q19 49 and 4Q414 which describe first-day washing after corpse contamination. 85 Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 148–149. She suggests that perhaps the different structures of pools 117 and 118 indicate use by members with different levels of purity.

178

WASHING IN WATER
A man may not purify (rh+y) any dish in such water or in any stone cistern that does not have enough water in it to make a ripple and that something unclean has touched, for its water will defile the water of the vessel. (CD A X 10–13)

This text does not offer a complete definition of acceptable pools, but shows that there were already traditions discussing the volume and kind of water used for ritual bathing.86 Another passage from 4QMMT has been used to suggest a link between the sectarians and the Sadducees, since the latter are linked to a similar criticism of mixing clean and unclean water:
[Co]ncerning streams of liquid, we have determined that they are not intrinsically [p]ure. Indeed, streams of liquid do not form a barrier between the impure and the pure. For the liquid of the stream and that in its receptacle become as one liquid. (4QMMT B55–58)

Even if the identity of the writers of this text is never resolved, this passage helps us see that the solution of the otsar, found in many other Second Temple period miqva’ot was likely unacceptable to the sectarians of Qumran.87 Thus despite claims to the contrary, it seems most logical that these pools were intended primarily or solely as ritual baths. The closer similarity to pools in Jerusalem than to those in Jericho seems to reflect the sectarians’ former links to Jerusalem before they separated themselves from what they saw as an irreversibly corrupted temple, but this aspect has not yet received much discussion.88 However, the newly-uncovered stepped-pools at Al-Maghtas on the eastern side of the Jordan River raise questions that will require further consideration. Were there other, as yet unknown outposts of similar sectarians? Was Al-Maghtas the site of John the Baptist’s baptism, and if so how was he connected to the community at Qumran? Finally, does Al-Maghtas represent an on-going link between Christianity and various Jewish immersion practices? These questions may never be answered satisfactorily, but the parallels between the two sites raise intriguing possibilities.

See the discussion of practice in Chapter 4. See Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 151, Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 161– 162, Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 362. See also Lev 11.34–38, m. Yad. 4.7. The Copper Scroll (3Q15 I 11–12) refers to immersion pools (hlyb+h trqym) and XI 9 mentions a pool near a cemetery. As Magness and Eshel suggest, this may relate to bathing on the first day after corpse contact in addition to the third and seventh as mandated in Num 19 (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 154, Eshel, “4Q414 Fragment 2,” 3–10). 88 Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 149.
87

86

DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING TABLE 3: QUMRAN MIQVA’OT89
Alternating Deep / Normal Steps

179

Context at Site

# of Entrances

# of Partitions

Broad Steps?

Extra Step at Bottom?

48/ Y 49 56/ Y 58 68 Y 69 71 N Y

N 3 N 2 N 0 N 1 N 2

2 1 1 or 2 2 1

N Y N Y Y

Y Y N N Y

2.9 x 7.65 3.5 x 15.95 2.95 x 2.5 2.35 x 2.5 5.3 x 17.5

Toilet Dining area Cemetery / Pottery Cemetery / Pottery Entry, Cemetery / Pottery Pantry area Pantry area Dining area Dining area Entry, Toilet

Destroyed 31 B.C.E. Divided from L58 after 31 B.C.E. Originally 2 entrances? Narrow steps along wall Only miqveh left in Period III Pair w/ 85/91 Link to L91 unclear Pair w/ 83 Pair w/ 118 Pair w/117 Extra entrances after 31 B.C.E.

83 85/ 91 117 118 138

N Y Y Y Y

Y 0 Y 0 N 2 N 0 N 0

1 1 1 1 3

N N Y N N

N N Y Y N

1.77 x 2.55 4.55 x 14.3 2.35 x 8.05 2.65 x 7.65 3.45 x 4.05

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RITUAL BATHING STRUCTURES AND OTHER PRACTICES Having discussed the acceptability of single and double pools as miqva’ot, it is also important to consider the location of miqva’ot and their relationship to other institutions of their time, both Jewish and Greco-Roman.90 First, an
See Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 306–318, chart 310; Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 147–154. 90 It is possible that the spread of miqva’ot coincided with the increase in what Cohen has referred to as a focus on the individual over the community, found especially in terms of prayer (Cohen, 22–23). If so, miqva’ot could have offered a way for individuals to take their own purity more seriously. However, such arguments are not widely accepted by social scientists and thus its relation to this project must remain speculative for now (Bruce J. Malina, “Understanding New Testament Persons,” in The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation (ed. Richard L. Rohrbaugh; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 44–49). See Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 87–126, for a discussion of miqva’ot in various settings.
89

Comments

Size (m)

Locus

Otsar

180

WASHING IN WATER

understanding of the location of miqva’ot can help to clarify their role in Jewish life. While some Second Temple period miqva’ot were clearly public, especially those nearest to the Temple Mount, most others seem to have been private, since they were found inside residential buildings.91 Only a few miqva’ot dating after the destruction of the Temple have been found in any single community, all located in private homes. The presence of miqva’ot in domestic buildings may suggest that their use was a matter of individual choice, not of community pressure, but that remains to be seen. To begin, Reich has examined further archeological evidence to see how closely miqva’ot were related to synagogues. Considering the fact that several Second Temple texts discuss a practice of ritual bathing before prayer, this is a natural relationship to consider. However, he concludes from the archeological evidence, that miqva’ot may have been related to synagogues in the Second Temple Period, but that afterwards there was no connection.92 Unfortunately, there are very few definitive synagogues dating to Second Temple period, so there is not enough information to clarify this relationship any further.93 A clearer relation can be found between miqva’ot and agricultural installations, such as oil presses which may have functioned to process oil for use in the Temple.94 Lev 11:38 states that moistened food is susceptible to impurity, so olives and grapes, which become moist when processed, are particularly susceptible.95 This concern helps explain the presence of miqva’ot near olive-presses and winepresses. Presumably, the workers would have immersed before they began work to avoid transmitting any impurity to wine and olive oil, which might be used by priests.96
Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 171–230. Reich, “The Synagogue and the Miqweh,” 289–297; Steven Fine and Eric M. Meyers, “Synagogues,” OEANE 118–123. While there is no clear date for the introduction of synagogues, it is generally accepted that synagogues were in existence by the first century C.E. 93 There is a synagogue at Masada in addition to the miqva’ot, but there does not appear to be any structural connection between the synagogue and the miqva’ot. 94 Reich, “Miqva’ot,” English Summary, 9. Although miqva’ot were usually located in domestic settings in the Second Temple period and later, after 70 C.E. they may have been used more publicly, since there were only a few in any community. 95 See 4QMMT B 55–58, m. Mak. 1:1, 6:4–5, Harrington, Impurity Systems, 41. 96 See Sanders, Judaism, 435–436; m. Demai 2:3, 6:6; t. Ma as. 3:13. Some miqva’ot, primarily at Jericho, but perhaps also at Sepphoris, are located in industrial contexts (See Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 74–81, 270–279 (Jericho) and 338–341 (Sepphoris). See also, Meyers, “Pools of Sepphoris,” 46–49; Reich, “They Are Ritual Baths,” 50–55). There has been little discussion of what products would have been produced there. Some products like stone vessels were very important for observant Jews of the time but such items by definition would have been impervious to contamination and thus would not seem to require the craftsmen to immerse before working as was necessary for the agricultural workers. For more on these stone vessels, see Jane M. Cahill, “The Chalk
92 91

DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING

181

Second, it is necessary to consider whether miqva’ot were located in and modeled after Greco-Roman bath-houses. Such bathhouses were introduced in the Levant around the mid-second century B.C.E., about the same time as the first miqva’ot.97 At Masada, bathhouses and miqva’ot are located near each other, but there is little structural relation between the two installations. Wright, however, argues that the structures in the Large Bathhouse and the Lower Terrace of Masada are probably frigidaria and not miqva’ot.98 It is not clear from Masada’s architecture whether someone could have gone directly from one to the other without going outside, thereby avoiding the risk of exposing themselves in public.99 Jerusalem is the only other location that may have hot baths and miqva’ot in close proximity, but is not clear whether these hot baths had been adapted for Jewish practice by removing potentially offensive items like graven images.100 Thus it seems that most of the few communities with bath-houses had separate locations for miqva’ot, both before and after 70 C.E.101 In addition, Reich concludes that the forms of miqva’ot do not resemble those of either
Assemblages of the Persian/Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods,” in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985; Directed by Yigal Shiloh (ed. Alon de Groot and Donald T. Ariel; Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1992), 190–274; Regev, “Non-Priestly Purity,” 229–237. (See also Figure 18.) This question will require further investigation beyond this project. Magness cites the concern in m. Parah 5:1 over the purity required for firing clay vessels used for the purification water made from the ashes of the red heifer as a reason for the location of a miqveh near the potter’s workshop and cemetery at Qumran (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 154). 97 Reich, “Miqva’ot,” English Summary, 8–9 and 109–122, 126–141. 98 Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 196–199. 99 There are also bath-houses at Beth-Zur, Gezer, the Hasmonean palace at Jericho, and Machaerus (Reich, “Hot Bath-House,” 102; see above for discussion of Machaerus). Reich notes that these sites have miqva’ot near the bath-houses but he argues that these miqva’ot were intended for purification after bathing rather than being an outgrowth or development from Greco-Roman bathing practices (Reich, “Hot Bath-House,” 102–107). No other Second Temple period bath-houses have been found in Jewish-occupied cities, most of which do have miqva’ot, further suggesting that miqva’ot were added to the bathhouses and not a development from Greco-Roman bathing practices (Reich, “Hot BathHouse,” 102). 100 Reich, “Hot Bath-House,” 103–105. Magness also examines the Phoenician settlement at Tel Anafa in the Upper Galilee and Nabatean settlements at Mampsis and Petra to see if there were parallels to miqva’ot. While Tel Anafa and Mampsis had bathhouses, there was no evidence of plastered stepped-pools comparable to miqva’ot. There are possible miqva’ot at Marisa, an Idumean city which later converted to Judaism, but there is debate over the dating of such structures, suggesting that they may have been built after John Hyrcanus defeated and converted the city (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 155–157). 101 Eric M. Meyers and Mark Chancey, “How Jewish was Sepphoris in Jesus’ Time?” 26, no. 4 (July/August 2000): 18–33; Eshel, “Pools of Sepphoris,” 42–45, 49; Meyers, “Pools of Sepphoris,” 46–49.

182

WASHING IN WATER

public bath-houses or private Greco-Roman bathing structures, as illustrated by the fact that one of these structures at Jericho, presumed to have been built by Roman architects after Roman models has no miqva’ot. One was built later in a room added to the side of the building, possibly to meet the needs of Jews using the baths.102 Some miqva’ot were located near cemeteries. In addition to one at Qumran (L71), there were also several in Jerusalem, and one each in Jericho, Nasbeh, Ramat Rachel, and the later necropolis at Beth-Shearim.103 As outlined in the previous chapters, contact with a corpse caused impurity which required bathing on the seventh day, as described in Numbers 19. Esther Eshel has argued that this practice of bathing on the seventh day after corpse contact was expanded at sites with miqva’ot near cemeteries to involve bathing on the first, third, and seventh days, as reflected in 11Q19 49 and 4Q414.104 During this period, miqva’ot were found in both Judea and the Galilee. In these areas, miqva’ot were found both in wealthy settlements and more rural settings, both in cities with heavy Greco-Roman influence and those without it. So far researchers have been unable to link miqva’ot definitively to any single cultural influence and source, yet their distribution and diversity, like the
Reich, “Miqva’ot,” English Summary, 8–9 and Ch. 11, 14. Even though there is no clear relation in location or form between miqva’ot and Greco-Roman baths, the rabbis debate the use of Greco-Roman bathhouses as a means of ritual purification. Reich cites several Mishnaic texts as evidence for various rabbinic concerns about the use of Greco-Roman hot baths: heating water on the Sabbath (m. Maks. 2:5), sculptures and painted human figures in baths (m. Avod. Zar. 3:4), nudity in a place where people might discuss religious ideas (m. Meg. 3:2, and m. Ber. 24:4), complications caused by men and women using the same baths—albeit at different times (m. Nid. 9:3, t. Nid. 6:15, and b. Hag. 20a), and differences between immersing in a miqveh and pouring drawn water over someone (b. Šabb. 13b–14a). Despite these objections, the rabbis concluded that it was permissible for Jews to use a hot bath, but that they had to immerse in a miqveh afterwards, as is evident in the presence of “hot bath-rooms” with adjoining miqva’ot in the Upper City of Jerusalem (Reich, “Hot Bath-House,” 103–105). Finally, the account of a discussion between Proklos and Gamaliel in Avodah Zarah 3:4 illustrates both the concerns over the use of hot baths and the permissibility of visiting them. In this passage, Gamaliel argues that it is not forbidden to bathe in a bathhouse because the statues are decorative and are certainly not treated with the respect accorded to deities. 103 See Appendix C, Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 119–122, Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 154. 104 Eshel, “4Q414 Fragment 2,” 3–10, Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 154. Unlike some impurities which required isolation or quarantine, as discussed in Chapter Four, it appears that corpse impurity did not require an individual to be quarantined, only to go through proper purification procedures. Where bathing was required only on the seventh day, a miqveh would not be needed next to a cemetery, because no purification would be necessary at the time. However, if Eshel is correct, when bathing was expected on the first day after corpse contact the presence of miqva’ot near cemeteries would facilitate that process.
102

DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING

183

diversity of the texts discussed in previous chapters, demonstrate the large degree of variation found in practices and belief during this time period. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the archaeological development of miqva’ot closely parallels the textual developments discussed in previous chapters. In that discussion, we saw that an increasing interest in ritual bathing, coupled with new uses of ritual bathing, occurred in the late Second Temple period. This interest is reflected in the large number of Second Temple period miqva’ot found to date. The final chapter of this project will synthesize the textual and archaeological findings, but here let us summarize the archaeological material. First, the earliest known miqva’ot date to the Hasmonean period, midsecond century B.C.E. The majority of known miqva’ot are from that time and the Herodian period immediately following, ending with the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. Nearly all miqva’ot of this period are located in Jerusalem and Judea, with only a few in Samaria, Galilee, the Golan, and the Transjordan. In contrast, after 70 C.E., there are hardly any miqva’ot at all, but those few are located away from Jerusalem, primarily in Samaria and Galilee. While there are certain common factors among miqva’ot, such as being rectangular, stepped, and plastered, there are many variations possible. Some have suggested that these variations reflect specific subgroups within the Second Temple Jewish community, but that is not yet clear. Many scholars still question whether single pools without an otsar truly qualify as miqva’ot, but given their general similarity to other recognized miqva’ot, they should be accepted. Despite halakic objections based on Mishnaic texts, from a structural perspective, there seems to be no satisfactory archaeological explanation for the prevalence of stepped pools with or without an otsar other than that they served as miqva’ot. Finally, a consideration of the contexts of miqva’ot at various sites and a comparison to other practices and institutions of the time help define the role of ritual bathing in the Second Temple period. While all suitable miqva’ot could serve for ritual immersion, some seemed to be designated for special purposes due to their location near cemeteries, industrial settings, agricultural sites, synagogues and bathhouses. There is not yet evidence to suggest that any one of these is inextricably linked to miqva’ot in the sense that every cemetery, synagogue, etc. required a miqveh, but the presence of miqva’ot in these settings suggests that immersion practices were expanding and changing. It is also clear that while ritual immersion bears resemblance to Greco-Roman bathing and daily activities, miqva’ot are archaeologically distinct and linked to Jewish sites and not simply a derivative of Greco-Roman practices.

6 CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION The beginning of this project introduced a new frame of reference for discussing the origins and development of Jewish ritual bathing. Instead of focusing only on texts and structures specifically linked to the practice of ritual bathing and using later texts to explain earlier practices, this project set out to explore the larger spectrum of ideas about washing. Thus it considers initiatory and metaphorical uses of washing in addition to ritual uses, emphasizing texts from the Second Temple period rather than later ones. What follows are some observations on the development of ritual bathing as seen in texts and archaeology and an analysis of these findings. OBSERVATIONS The preceding chapters summarize the development of ritual bathing as seen in the textual or archaeological evidence considered in each section. Here, observations will be presented in three areas: the presence of different washing categories in each group of texts; tendencies in the developing use of these traditions from the Hebrew Bible into the Second Temple period; and the archaeological evidence for the distribution and styles of miqva’ot during the Second Temple period. First, it is necessary to outline the presence of the various categories of washing in each chapter of this project, ritual, metaphorical, and initiatory. As was discussed when these categories were introduced, these different categories 185

186

WASHING IN WATER

overlap to a certain extent, marking tendencies on a spectrum, rather than discrete poles without intersection. Even with the drawbacks discussed at that time, this schema is useful in outlining the understandings of washing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature. While there are a few texts which must be classed as both ritual and metaphorical, most texts easily fall into one or the other. In some cases, there is a clear distinction in terms of the body of literature in which the two categories appear. Thus, for instance, ritual washing is found in the Torah, specifically in the texts from the Priestly source, while metaphorical washing is not found in the Torah but in many other places in the Nevi’im and Kethuvim of the Hebrew Bible. Similar distinctions may be made between largely ritual discussions in Josephus and texts like the Community Rule, Temple Scroll, Damascus Document, and 4QMMT and metaphorical discussions in Philo and the Thanksgiving Hymns, to name only a few examples. In the Hebrew Bible, there is a second clear distinction between ritual and metaphorical uses of washing. Ritual uses almost always employ Cxr for washing people and sbk for washing clothes and other objects, while metaphorical texts utilize sbk for washing people. However, this distinction does not appear in the Greek works of Second Temple literature, where there are alternative terms available and little apparent consistency in their use.1 In terms of the overall categories, both ritual and metaphorical uses are found in the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple literature, and Dead Sea Scrolls. In many cases, the later writings cite or at least parallel the descriptions found in the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, initiatory washing is unknown in the Hebrew Bible, but there are hints of such practice in the Second Temple literature and Dead Sea Scrolls. As for the subcategories of ritual washing, there are significant differences between the different groupings of literature. New uses of washing in the Second Temple period, categorized as “Extra,” will be discussed further below, but by definition they are changes from the practices outlined in the Hebrew Bible and are thus not found before the Second Temple literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Washing for theophanies, found several times in the Hebrew Bible does not specifically appear in the Second Temple texts or Dead Sea Scrolls, but developments such as washing before prayer, purification for the Sabbath, and location of visionaries near bodies of water when they receive visions suggest that this understanding had not disappeared completely.2
1 Wright suggested that there was a pattern in Second Temple usage, but his system was incomplete and does not appear to work for Hebrew equivalents in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 206–207). 2 It will also be argued below that this form of washing may be traced to the Jsource in Exod 19, to which the writer of 11Q19 often alludes. While discussion of New Testament texts is beyond the scope of this project, a colleague of mine, Brant Pitre, is

CONCLUSION

187

Two other subcategories of ritual washing, priestly and general, involve washing references which apply to priests and levites or the rest of the people. Such a division is found in the Hebrew Bible and continues into the Second Temple literature. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, such a division is less clear because it appears that some of the writers were trying to apply priestly purity traditions to the entire sectarian community, not just the members from the priestly caste. This issue has been discussed at length in Chapter Four, but it appears related to statements suggesting that the sectarians saw their community as a replacement for the Temple in Jerusalem, thus all of them needed to maintain proper purity.3 The following chart summarizes the occurrence of these different categories of washing in the different groups of texts considered in this project. Texts containing passages that exemplify each category are given, although this listing is not intended to be complete. See Appendix B for a comprehensive collection of passages for each category. TABLE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF WASHING USES4
Corpus Ritual New Ritual Contexts (Extra) -Judith, Letter of Aristeas, 2 Maccabees 4Q213, 4Q274, 1QS, 1QM Metaphorical Initiatory

Hebrew Bible Second Temple Dead Sea Scrolls

P-Source Josephus, Philo

Nevi’im, Kethuvim Philo

-Joseph and Aseneth, Josephus 1QS, CD

1QS, 11Q19, CD, 4QMMT

1QH

Second, examination of the washing texts selected for this project indicates several tendencies in the treatment of washing traditions from the Hebrew Bible which were followed by the writers of Greek Second Temple texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls. First, there is a tendency to provide interpretations of the significance of the washing act, something generally lacking in the Hebrew Bible. Lev 11–15 outlines many situations in which washing and purification were required, but it rarely discusses the significance or meaning of these acts.5
convinced that the concept of washing before a theophany helps explain the nature of John the Baptist’s baptism. John’s baptism spoke of forgiveness of sins, not purification from uncleanness, but since he also preached the coming of God’s Kingdom, his baptism could be seen as a preparation for a theophany. 3 1QS 8:4–7, Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 140. 4 The texts listed in this chart provide examples of each of these uses, but do not represent an exhaustive list. 5 For instance, Num 19:20 warns, that those who do not purify themselves after contact with a corpse, “shall be cut off from the assembly, for they have defiled the

188

WASHING IN WATER

In contrast, some Second Temple period texts, offer explanations for the significance of ritual washing.6 In a sense, these explanations complicate the scheme used in this project, because they discuss actual rituals yet explain the meaning of these rituals metaphorically. A second tendency can be described as conflation or standardization of the purification rituals for different sources of impurity. In the Hebrew Bible, each source of impurity is handled in a different way, with changes in the timing of the washing (if washing is even included), the number of washings, the inclusion of other actions like shaving and washing clothes, and the kind of sacrifice. While the Hebrew Bible does not even specify washing for certain impurities such as menstruation and childbirth, Jewish tradition has deduced a requirement for washing by comparison to the other impurity situations and many modern scholars have come to the same conclusion. They argue that if a man who had sex with a menstruant needed to bathe, so did the menstruant herself. 7 The underlying assumption here is that the impurity system of Leviticus is just that, systematic, and that gaps such as these can be filled in by logical comparison.8 While it is clear that the impurities of Leviticus formed a system and were not random, this project challenges the reliability of deducing the practice of washing in cases like menstruation. Even so, various texts from the Second Temple period indicate that this issue already raised serious questions for interpreters, both among Greek writers and in the Dead Sea Scrolls community. That is, there are several cases where details from one case of impurity are applied to another case, presumably in an attempt to simplify or standardize practices and fill in gaps left by the biblical regulations.9

sanctuary of the Lord.” In the Holiness Code, Lev 20:26 states, “You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from the other peoples to be mine,” although this statement is not linked to any specific regulations. There are other practices such as Sabbath observance that are given interpretations in the Hebrew Bible, but most statements about ritual use of washing do not have a comparable explanation. (Exod 20:8–11, Deut 5:12–15) 6 See for instance, Philo, Spec. 1.257–266, 1QS 4:20–22. 7 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 935, and Levine, Presence of the Lord, 34 n. 85. 8 Harrington, Impurity Systems, 8–9, 27. 9 See Appendix A. Without knowing exact composition dates for some of these texts and what versions scriptural sources were available to the writers, we cannot always determine whether Second Temple writers were modifying Scripture or working with variant texts. In these situations, the most we can do is note the differences. We could apply some of the same principles used in New Testament text-criticism, where the more difficult and shorter readings are generally preferred over variants that harmonize with other texts or smooth out awkward wording, but such a discussion extends beyond the scope of this project (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: German Bible Societies, 1994), 11*–14*).

CONCLUSION

189

For instance, some texts disagree on the number of times the individual must wash or the length of time they must wait before and after washing.10 Several texts describe genital discharges as comparable to corpse impurity and some texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls even suggest that the parah water, (hdn ym), made from the ashes of the red heifer for purification after corpse-contact, was used in other cases of impurity as well.11 Finally, certain texts, especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls, tackle the question of tebul yom (Mwy lwb+), the later rabbinic principle that individuals who have washed may still eat pure food before sunset. This is an interpretation of passages that say something like “wash . . . and be unclean until evening,” (Lev 11:40) but is not explicit in texts until the compilation of the Mishnah in the late second century C.E.12 However, as many have discussed, this question was clearly circulating in the time of the sectarians at Qumran, since the Dead Sea Scrolls often take a stricter interpretation, forcing such individuals to wait not only until sunset but into the next day before eating pure food.13 These texts indicate that interpreters in the Second Temple period were questioning the details of the purity system and were making comparisons with the treatment of other forms of impurity to resolve some of these questions. As has been observed some of these solutions parallel rabbinic solutions, or at least reflect challenges to those solutions, as in the case of the sectarian response to the idea of tebul yom. In that sense, concluding that menstruants had to bathe, as Milgrom and others do, is certainly in line with the kinds of reasoning evident in these Second Temple period texts.14 However, this does not necessarily indicate that such was the intended practice in the original composition of the Levitical purity codes. Milgrom’s reasoning is comparable to that of Second Temple writers, but we cannot ultimately be certain of such conclusions for earlier periods. A final tendency, expansion of ritual washing to new uses not known in the Hebrew Bible, complements conflation. Some of these cases involve extensions from purity contexts known in the Hebrew Bible, while others are new situations. For instance, washing before meals and prayer can be seen as extensions from priestly washing before eating certain holy foods and washing for theophany, respectively.15 On the other hand, initiation, a particular use of
See for instance, Ant 3.261–265, 269; 4QMMT B 64–72; 4Q274 F1 1.4–9. Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 83–87. 12 Harrington, Impurity Systems, 113–121, 4QMMT B 13–16, Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 166. 13 One case, 4QMMT B 64–72 even hints about opponents who are not strict enough. 14 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 935, Levine, Presence of the Lord, 34, n. 85. 15 Sabbath practices are described in the Hebrew Bible, but nothing is said regarding purity for the Sabbath. 2 Macc 12:38 mentions purification for the Sabbath, but
11 10

190

WASHING IN WATER

special relevance for discussions of Jewish-Christian interactions in the early centuries of the common era, is not even mentioned in the Hebrew Bible but becomes relevant during the Second Temple period. It is still unclear whether the texts mentioned as initiatory in this project actually intend bathing to be part of conversion and initiation, but by late in the first century C.E., such bathing appears to have been known as an option.16 These three tendencies, interpretation, conflation, and expansion suggest that the Second Temple period adaptation of ritual bathing practices was not haphazard but systematic. The changes outlined in this project represent the responses by different communities and writers to questions of the significance of bathing, the differing details for different forms of impurity, and the application of these practices to other contexts and new situations such as conversion. The third issue to consider is the archaeological evidence for the development of miqva’ot, Jewish ritual baths. While much has been written about these structures, most debate has centered on distinguishing between true miqva’ot and other water structures, often obscuring the larger development of these pools. Here Ronny Reich’s attempt to catalogue all possible miqva’ot, even if they were probably not used as such, allows us to understand their context in more detail.17 Miqva’ot first appear in the second century B.C.E., at sites connected to the Hasmonean rule of Judea. For the rest of the Second Temple period, they are concentrated in Jerusalem and surrounding Judea, with only a few in the Galilee and Transjordan.18 After 70 C.E., very few miqva’ot are left and most of those are located in the Galilee.19 During the Second Temple period, several styles and variations from the basic requirement of a stepped and plastered pool are found:
does not say how, although some have assumed that washing was involved (Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 207–208, Sanders, Jewish Law, 259, Goldstein, II Maccabees, 447). This would suggest that not only washing, but purification in general was expanding to new contexts during the Second Temple period. 16 Cohen, Maccabees to the Mishnah, 50–58; Collins, “Origin,” 32, 34. 17 This is comparable to the attempt in this project to discuss all references to bathing and washing, not just those that describe rituals. Viewing the overall context helps us then to understand the subset better, be it ritual washing or miqva’ot. 18 The Transjordanian miqva’ot have not been studied in great detail. Except for Machaerus and al-Maghtas, the remaining three sites were most likely agricultural settings. Machaerus was one of Herod’s palaces and its structures resemble those at Jericho and Herodium. Al-Maghtas is perhaps the most intriguing, with pools comparable to those at Qumran and evidence of Byzantine activity as a pilgrimage site. Even if the stepped pools there are not from the Second Temple period, the presence of such parallels to Second Temple period practices in a Byzantine period site would be useful in determining the early development of Christian practices. 19 The revision of Ronny Reich’s volume and the publication of reports from the excavations at Sepphoris should help to clarify this development.

CONCLUSION

191

divided steps, alternating deep and regular steps, multiple exits, auxiliary steps connected to a deep bottom step, small single-person pools and monumental communal pools, and connections to a nearby unstepped reservoir or otsar. Some scholars have suggested that certain of these conditions such as otsarot were mandatory or that certain combinations of features represent a regional style, be it Jerusalem, Jericho, Galilee, or Qumran.20 Table 5 outlines the presence of certain styles of stepped pools in different regions and periods. While later rabbinic tradition has valued the use of the otsar, from the texts of the period, it appears that the requirements for a miqveh were minimal— enough water to bathe in.21 From a structural standpoint then, a pool that was deep enough for bathing could be a miqveh, regardless of whether it had any of the other features. Further, a stepped pool is unlikely to be used for other purposes since steps were costly to construct and wasted precious storage volume. All of the variations described above may represent alternative practices or new halakic regulations, but they do not automatically mean that pools lacking such features were not miqva’ot. Taking a wider approach then, we see that there were many options for the construction of miqva’ot, some of which may reflect regional practices or differences in the bedrock and materials available. It is interesting to note, though that the double pools with an otsar are found both at Hasmonean sites and in Jerusalem, but not often anywhere else. Further, after the destruction of the Second Temple, there are no known double pools. During the Second Temple period, miqva’ot are found in a variety of contexts: in public spaces and private residences, in or near bathhouses, near synagogues and cemeteries, and near agricultural installations such as wine and olive presses.22 In some cases there are not enough examples of such cultural contexts to justify generalizations, but there are references in Second Temple period and later texts that may help explain the location of miqva’ot in such settings. Thus for instance, miqva’ot were sometimes placed in or near bathhouses because warm water was not considered suitable for purification according to some traditions. References to bathing before prayer could explain a connection between miqva’ot and synagogues. Similarly, concern over the purity of liquids like wine and olive oil helps explain the presence of miqva’ot at agricultural installations, especially those distant from residential complexes.23 Finally, the impurity inherent in cemeteries helps explain the presence of

Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 149. Exact discussions of living water or alternatives and volume appear in the Mishnah and may reflect Second Temple period practices, but it is hard to be certain when these details developed. See for instance, m. Miqw. 1.1–8, 4.4, 6.8. 22 Reich, “Miqva’ot,” 87–126. 23 Baumgarten et al., DJD XXXV, 89–91.
21

20

192

WASHING IN WATER

miqva’ot near cemeteries.24 In each of these cases there are textual explanations from the Second Temple period and later for the location of miqva’ot in these settings. However, there is no indication that miqva’ot were always placed in any of these settings or that any of these contexts engendered a specific form or style of miqveh. TABLE 5: PRESENCE OF MIQVA’OT BY REGION AND PERIOD
Second Temple Period (Pre-70 C.E.) Single Double Pools Pools (Otsar) X X X X X 25 X ? X Rabbinic Period (Post-70 C.E.) Single Double Pools Pools (Otsar) X X X X ? ?

Region

Monumental pools X

Monumental pools

Jerusalem Judea Qumran Galilee Transjordan

ANALYSIS During the Second Temple period interest in ritual bathing flourished, as is evident from the textual and archaeological evidence considered in the preceding chapters. We have outlined the presence of different understandings of washing in various Second Temple texts, several tendencies found in those texts as to their treatment of biblical ideas of washing, and the forms and distribution of miqva’ot in this period. We can now go one step further, integrating the textual and archaeological data to identify stages in the development of ritual bathing. Clearly, the ritual washing texts of the Second Temple period are closely tied to biblical references to ritual washing, particularly those from the Torah. Many of these texts cite biblical passages and adhere closely to the details presented there. Yet, despite this continuity, ritual bathing develops and diversifies in several ways during the Second Temple period. First, some practices appear to be limited to a certain community or geographical region or

24 However, biblical purity laws require washing only on the third and seventh days, implying that miqva’ot did not need to be located directly next to cemeteries. Some have linked the presence of miqva’ot at some cemeteries to texts describing an initial washing on the first day in addition to the third and seventh days. Eshel, “4Q414 Fragment 2,” 3– 10; Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 154. 25 According to Hanan Eshel and Meyers, there may be double pools at Sepphoris, but it is still unclear if they functioned as such and when they were built and used (Eshel, “Pools of Sepphoris,” 42–45, 49; Meyers, “Pools of Sepphoris,” 46–49).

CONCLUSION

193

situation, as with the translators washing their hands in the sea in the Letter of Aristeas. Second, some Second Temple period writers adapt and change the details provided in the Bible, possibly in an attempt to standardize and simplify the practice of ritual bathing.26 Finally, ritual washing is applied to new contexts not known in the Hebrew Bible during the Second Temple period. For instance, ritual washing is mentioned in connection with prayer, communal meals, initiation, and possibly Sabbath observance.27 The mere fact that ritual washing is used in new contexts should not be surprising, since both Jews and Christians have often transformed earlier traditions to face new questions and Jews in this time were undergoing a great many changes and challenges. Even so, this adaptation is important in the way it allows us to see first-hand the process of reinterpretation and application.28 This process of adaptating ritual washing seen in the texts of the Second Temple period is also seen in the variety of forms and features found in miqva’ot during this time. While springs and other bodies of water could be used for bathing and a simple stepped and plastered pool could suffice, many variations existed during this time: divided steps, multiple entries, alternating deep and normal treads, and auxiliary steps attached to a deep bottom tread. While some of these features may have been constructed for another purpose, there are reasonable purity-related explanations for several of these factors. Thus it would appear that in the same time writers were applying ritual bathing to new
If we compare the transmission of general washing to priestly washing, priestly washing changes much less between the different groups of texts than ritual washing does. This might indicate that the Priestly families were careful to maintain the details of their system while others applied purity concerns to other issues. Such a conclusion would lend support to Sanders’ claim that during the Second Temple period groups like the Pharisees applied purity practices to other aspects of daily life apart from the Temple, but an examination of this question lies beyond the scope of this project (Sanders, Judaism, 431–437). 27 2 Macc 12:38 speaks of purifying for the Sabbath and 4Q274 2 I 1–9 relates to the Sabbath in some way, but its significance is unclear. Texts like Jdt 12:7b–9 and 4Q213 fr 1 1:6–10 discuss purification and prayer. Josephus’ B.J. 2.129 and 1QS 6:16–24 deal with prayer, while Jos. Asen. 14:12–13, 15 and B.J. 2.137–142, and 1QS 3:4–9, 5:13–14 deal with initiation. In several of these, there is no explicit reference to washing, but such variations suggest developments in the larger context of purity, not just washing. 28 This project will provide a basis for comparison between ritual bathing and baptism since initiatory uses of washing are picked up by both the rabbis and early Christians. This mix of continuity from the Hebrew Bible and innovation resembles Klawans’ conclusion that Second Temple views of ritual and moral impurity flowed from the Hebrew Bible yet were also adapted and applied to new situations. While this project focuses on a different aspect of purity, his conclusion that examining a larger context, in his case moral impurity as well as ritual, offered a clearer and more comprehensive picture of ritual purity echoes this project’s attempt to ground ritual bathing in a larger context of views of ritual washing (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 158–159, 161–162).
26

194

WASHING IN WATER

contexts, the users of miqva’ot were adapting these structures to fit various halakic criteria. These textual and archaeological developments can now be combined to help clarify the progress of ritual bathing from a biblical principle to its physical manifestation in miqva’ot. While the exact dates for the composition of many of these texts and the construction of some of these sites are unclear or fiercely contested, they still form signposts along the way to help point out phases in the development of ritual bathing. Table 6 outlines these phases, using approximate dates for texts and ritual developments. At best these phases provide us with snapshots of the development of ritual bathing, showing us how it was practiced or understood in a particular place and time by certain groups of people, although the identities of such groups are not always clear. When discussing the biblical origins of ritual bathing, most studies have focused on the priestly texts in Leviticus and Numbers where the practices of ritual bathing and purification are outlined. Few scholars have discussed the origin or inspiration for these ideas, although Milgrom’s discussion of ancient Near Eastern washing and purification provides a useful background even if it does not suggest a source.29 The priestly focus is natural, given the detail in these texts, but the lack of discussion of the origins of ritual bathing is surprising, given the way other biblical practices have been investigated by scholars. In this priestly focus, what may be the earliest biblical reference to ritual washing is often overlooked.

29

Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 958–965.

CONCLUSION

195

TABLE 6: TIMELINE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL BATHING AND MIQVA’OT
Century Tenth B.C.E. Texts and Events J/E-Source? Deuteronomy Deuteronomistic History (early) Destruction of First Temple Babylonian Exile P-Source Fourth B.C.E. Third B.C.E. Chronicler? (Ezra, Nehemiah, 1&2 Chronicles) Septuagint Tobit Testament of Levi Second B.C.E. Maccabean Revolt Jubilees First Miqva’ot in Judea Formation of Scrolls Community? Judith Second Maccabees First B.C.E. Earliest Dead Sea Scrolls? Letter of Aristeas Joseph and Aseneth First Miqva’ot at Qumran Hand-washing, translation, prayer Washing for initiation? Washing for prayer, initiation, Sabbath, Repentance?, Alternate forms of washing Conflation of Levitical rules, handwashing, prayer, initiation List of alternate forms of washing Circumcision and ablution alternatives for initiation as Purity with washing Purity without washing Purity with washing Practices, Archaeological Finds Washing for Theophany Little purity or washing Purity without washing

Seventh B.C.E. Sixth B.C.E. Fifth B.C.E.

Washing for prayer Purity for Sabbath

First C.E.

(31 B.C.E.) Earthquake at Qumran Philo and Josephus

Second C.E.

Didache R. Eliezer and R. Joshua (cited b. Yebamot 46a)

Third C.E.

Mishnah

Alternate forms of washing, minimum of 40 seahs (60–250 Gallons)

196

WASHING IN WATER

The theophany at Sinai in Exod 19 describes how the Israelites were to wash their clothes and abstain from intercourse in preparation for the arrival of YHWH on the third day. This passage, categorized in this project as a washing for theophany, comes from the J-source, commonly dated to the tenth to ninth centuries B.C.E.30 While it is not even clear whether these verses refer to bathing, it predates the priestly source and appears to lie behind certain Second Temple period texts, particularly some from the Dead Sea Scrolls.31 Thus instead of looking outside of Israelite tradition for the priestly writers’ inspiration for ritual bathing, perhaps the J-source’s references to washing in preparation for an encounter with God should be considered. It is still unclear why the priestly writers selected this idea of ritual washing for their purity system and what meanings it held, but it appears that what was once seen as preparation for an occasional encounter with God was transformed into a ritual for preserving the purity needed to encounter God daily in the Tabernacle and later in the Second Temple. In any case, by the time of the priestly source, washing had gained in importance. However, lest it appear that the transition from J/E to P was seamless, we must now consider the dates of some of the other texts considered in this project. While the J/E source introduces the idea of ritual washing, other texts from before and after the Babylonian exile do not. Thus Deuteronomy has little about purity or washing, while the Deuteronomistic History and the books sometimes attributed to the Chronicler, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1st and 2nd Chronicles, frequently mention purity without washing.32 As was outlined in Chapter 2, many scholars have assumed that washing should be assumed in these cases, but, given the amount of other details these writers include, such an assumption is problematic. Clearly purity was already a concern in Deuteronomy as it was for others in the ancient Near East.33 However, it seems more likely to suggest that the Priestly writer drew upon a Yahwist tradition of washing before encounter with God to create a washing ritual for purification than to suggest

The dating of these sources is still hotly debated, but the general sequence is more commonly accepted (See Carr, “Controversy And Convergence,” 22–31, and discussion in Chapter 2). Thus no matter what dates are given to the sources, the sequence of J/E, D, and P seems clear, even if the exact contents of each source are still debated. To a certain extent, precise dates are not crucial to this project since there are other signposts to help us date the developments. 31 11Q19 XLV 11–12, TS 1:288. This is not to say that the writers of these texts based their practices only on Exod 19 at the expense of the priestly source, but it indicates that Exod 19 was important to the community’s self-understanding. 32 For discussions of the dating of the Deuteronomistic History and the Chronicler’s writings, see Ralph W. Klein, “Chronicles, Book of, 1–2,” ABD 1:992–1002; Steven L. McKenzie, “Deuteronomistic History,” ABD 2.160–168. 33 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 957–963; Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths,” 207 n. 56.

30

CONCLUSION

197

that washing is implied every time purity is mentioned in the Deuteronomistic History or the Chronicler. Whether we date the P-source before or after the exile, the absence of washing in the Chronicler’s texts suggest that the priestly system was still not fully in place by the fourth century B.C.E. A postexilic date for P may make more sense, given the emphasis on ritual bathing found in the second temple period, but that does not really change the sequence of development suggested in this project. By the third century B.C.E., the texts and purity system appear to be in place, since the Hebrew Bible was translated into the Greek Septuagint.34 Between the second century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., the priestly system is adjusted and expanded by various writers, as discussed above. In this same period, the Hasmonean dynasty was trying to negotiate a balance between Judaism and Hellensism, the sectarian community behind the Dead Sea Scrolls was forming, and miqva’ot were introduced in Palestine, centered around Jerusalem. While the dates for some of these developments are unclear, there are certain reliable dates around which we can build a chronology. First, since the earliest miqva’ot appear to be linked to Hasmonean sites, they must be dated after the Maccabean revolt in 165 B.C.E. Second, while the precursors of the Qumran community may have formed shortly after this time, the first evidence of miqva’ot at Qumran is not found until sometime between 100–50 B.C.E. and the earthquake in 31 B.C.E. These dates are enough, however to help clarify the development of ritual bathing. First, given the close similarity between bathing structures at Qumran and Jerusalem, these structures must represent a shared tradition which developed prior to the schism that created the sectarian community which founded Qumran. It seems highly unlikely that a group which denounced its enemies so vehemently and repeatedly contrasts its own rituals with those of its opponents would adopt new rituals that had developed after the schism.35 Likewise, the textual similarities between the Dead Sea Scrolls, other Second Temple literature, and later rabbinic writings suggest a common shared tradition prior to the split. There are variations, but the similarities are too great to suggest that they occurred randomly. Clearly ritual washing and purity were linked since the Priestly source. As the above discussion and timeline indicate, the Maccabean Revolt of 165 B.C.E.
It is unclear how widespread these practices were since the priestly system focuses primarily on the tabernacle and those charged with its upkeep and not the general population. Sanders, Judaism, 431–437; Harrington, Impurity Systems, 267–281. 35 Thus while Magness uses the earthquake in 31 B.C.E. as proof that certain forms of bathing structures existed before 31 B.C.E., we can actually suggest that they existed almost a century earlier. The pool in question, L48–49 had broad steps and partitions (Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 150).
34

198

WASHING IN WATER

ushered in a time of ritual and structural innovation, as ritual washing was applied in new settings and special structures were built for ritual bathing.36 While individuals could have bathed in natural bodies of water, as several texts indicate, this period provides our first physical evidence of structures specifically intended for ritual bathing.37 It is possible now to suggest several phases in the development of Jewish ritual bathing. First, is the ritual use of washing as preparation for theophanies in the J-source. It is unclear where this tradition originated, although Milgrom’s ancient Near Eastern parallels could be useful here.38 Ideas and implementations of purity were developing now as evident in the Deuteronomistic History, but washing was not yet attested as a part of ritual purification until the arrival of the next phase with the Priestly Sources. In this second phase, presumably ritual washing was practiced and some of the interpretations attested in later texts were developing, but there were no special structures for ritual bathing. However, the absence of ritual washing in Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles raises questions as to how widespread ritual bathing was. If the Priestly source is postexilic, this conjunction of ritual washing and purity would then form part of the rebuilding of community life and practice after the exile and return. Ritual washing, imitating the washing at Mount Sinai could offer a physical reminder of the developing purity system. While it is important to consider whether Babylonian, Persian, or Hellenistic cultures influenced developments during this phase, the priestly writers were clearly drawing on their own tradition as well. The Maccabean revolt marks the beginning of the third phase, a period of innovation both ritually and archaeologically, as ritual washing is applied to new situations and the first miqva’ot are built. Again, ritual washing was probably practiced before this time, but it is likely that foreign rulers seeking to suppress Judaism would have punished anyone building a ritual bath. The fourth phase, a period of diversification, begins with the formation of the sectarian community that built Qumran. While the third phase marked a common beginning still evident from shared principles of halakah and styles of miqva’ot, this phase is characterized by diversity among the various groups of the period. Except for the obvious division between the sectarians and the rest of Second Temple Judaism, we may not be able to identify specific practices or styles of miqva’ot as belonging to the Pharisees, Sadducees or any other group,
This could also be the moment when ritual purity was extended beyond a concern for priests alone to all the people, as Sanders and others have argued (Sanders, Judaism, 431–437). 37 There are of course biblical references to the use of the basins in the Tabernacle or Temple for washing hands and feet, but lacking artifacts, we can only speculate as to their form and size (Exod 30:18–19, 40:30; 2 Chr 4:6–10). 38 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 957–963
36

CONCLUSION

199

but the diversity is evident both textually and archaeologically, even as all of the groups drew on a common tradition. While there is no textual attestation of proselyte immersion at this time, it is possible that immersion began to be an option for the initiation of converts at this time.39 Although not discussed at length in this project, John the Baptist and the earliest Christians fall into this phase with their interpretations of baptism. The final phase as far as this project is concerned, although certainly not the end of the development of ritual bathing, comes in 70 C.E. with the destruction of the Second Temple. Even though purification for participation in Temple rituals had been the main reason for ritual purity and ritual washing, ritual washing continued to be discussed and practiced, although not to the same extent. During this time Christian and Jewish immersion practices developed out of a common origin into distinct practices with distinct understandings.40 Thus the literary and textual evidence assembled here helps us to discuss the development of ritual bathing in more detail than has been possible in most studies. There are still gaps, both in the dating of texts and in the archaeological record, but we can point confidently to stages in the development of ritual bathing without resorting to statements that “sometime in the Second Temple period” miqva’ot were introduced. For instance, we can postulate a common form of miqva’ot predating the structures at Qumran that can be dated to before 31 B.C.E. Likewise, we can point to two major steps in the development of ritual bathing—the composition of the Priestly source, perhaps in response to the exile, and the Maccabean Revolt which allowed new uses of ritual bathing to develop. TABLE 7: DEVELOPMENTAL PHASES OF JEWISH RITUAL BATHING
Phase 1 2 3 4 5 Date 10th–? B.C.E. 5th B.C.E. ?–165 B.C.E. 165–? B.C.E. 70 C.E.– Major Event Composition of J/E Composition of P Maccabean Revolt Qumran Founded? Fall of Temple Development in Ritual Washing Washing for Theophany (Sinai) Washing as part of purification 1st Miqva’ot, Shared Practice Diversification among groups Continuation of ritual bathing

Collins, “Origin,” 32–35, b. Yebam. 46a. My preliminary study of the forms of early Christian baptismal fonts indicates that in places with Jewish populations some Christians used baptismal fonts which resembled miqva’ot until the fourth or fifth centuries C.E. After the sixth century this resemblance disappears. Upon completion of this project, I hope to return to this question.
40

39

200

WASHING IN WATER

There are some drawbacks to this approach, however. First, we encounter several areas of silence in this project, both textually and archaeologically. For instance, the relative absence of ritual washing for purification in the Deuteronomistic History was observed and used as an argument for the late development of the Priestly source and ritual washing as part of purification. Since the Deuteronomistic Historian gives other details about rituals connected to the Temple, one might expect that, had ritual washing been in practice at the time, the writers would have mentioned it, but we cannot be certain. There is still the possibility that the writers assumed that readers would know about bathing practices and neglected to say anything. Many scholars have followed this assumption and read washing into texts where it is not explicitly mentioned. They may be correct, but this project has taken a more cautious approach to this question, focusing on texts explicitly mentioning washing for purification for data on in the development of ritual bathing. This approach has been fruitful, but some will still challenge the method. This difficulty is heightened in dealing with the archaeological material. Archaeological data are affected by the fact that later use or non-use of a site determines what structures have survived to be uncovered in excavations. It is possible that miqva’ot existed before the second century B.C.E. but were destroyed or are still undiscovered. A second problem arises from the fact that formal criteria for distinguishing archaeological structures are not always identical to halakic criteria. Where Mishnaic texts discuss the need for 40 seahs of water and whether that water is of the proper form, we do not even know how much a seah was and cannot usually tell archaeologically if a potential miqveh was used as such. Even so, this project has assumed a broader approach to the identification of miqva’ot, starting out with the assumption that a structure could be a miqveh even if it does not meet later halakic criteria. I believe this has allowed for a larger sample of structures to be analyzed than would be possible with a stricter interpretation, thus allowing a better understanding of the development of stepped, plastered pools in the Second Temple period. Finally, in the analysis of various texts related to washing, much was made of the distinction between ritual and metaphorical uses of washing. As was discussed in the introduction, there are differences between texts which discuss a literal, performable ritual and those that do not. Beyond that there are no clear rules for distinguishing these texts, especially when we consider writers like Philo who combine the two uses, finding ritual and metaphorical significance in the same passage. This problem would have persisted had this project extended into the New Testament. As long as the two categories are viewed as distinct and exclusive, this is certainly a problem. However, if they are viewed as overlapping tendencies, perhaps it is not such a problem. Another issue related to the division between ritual and metaphorical uses of washing is the question of which came first. Many scholars assume that ritual

CONCLUSION

201

preceded metaphor. If we could date some of the biblical texts used in this project with more certainty, we might be able to address this issue, since metaphorical uses are found mainly in the prophetic and poetic literature. Unfortunately there is no consensus on this issue yet. Such a determination might help to better clarify the development of ritual bathing, but for now that must wait for further studies in dating the biblical texts. Despite these difficulties and the challenge of trying to extrapolate general practices from texts located in specific communities, this project has succeeded in several of its goals. By looking for references to other uses of washing in addition to ritual purity, it has illustrated both the unity and diversity of ritual washing in the Second Temple period. In addition, some of these texts have helped explain confusing aspects of the archaeological data. Furthermore, combining the results of textual and archaeological study has filled in some of the gaps left by the two approaches, allowing a suggestion of the major phases in the development of ritual washing. Finally, by demonstrating the diversity of uses of washing in the Second Temple period we have challenged the Christian polemic which suggests that Christian baptism had spiritual meaning while Jewish bathing was “merely ritual.” Ritual, initiatory, and metaphorical uses of washing were clearly circulating before the advent of Christianity. Christians and all groups within Second Temple Judaism could draw on this shared tradition. While each emphasized different aspects of the spectrum of views of washing, no one followed one view to the exclusion of the others. FUTURE DIRECTIONS Building on these accomplishments, there are several tasks which remain to be done. First, the role and significance of ritual washing in each of these phases will need further discussion. We have considered how ritual washing changed in each phase, but we have not fully examined the significance. For instance, we saw that the Priestly writer combined the idea of washing before an encounter with God with the concept of ritual purity, making ritual washing one of the stages of purification. Further discussion of what this development meant for the readers of the Priestly source would be useful, especially if this was a component of the postexilic reconstruction. This project began as an attempt to compare Jewish ritual bathing and Christian baptism in the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. With the background this study has provided, it will now be possible to return to the question of whether these practices continued to influence each other, and if so, how much. This study will require further consideration of the meaning and development of

202

WASHING IN WATER

proselyte baptism, as well as an examination of numerous sites and texts related to this period.41 Since the metaphorical uses of ritual washing played such an important role in this project, it could be useful to examine some of these texts in more detail. This aspect of ritual washing has been overlooked, but it continues in later Jewish and Christian traditions, even appearing in baptismal prayers, texts that again combine ritual and metaphor.42 Such a study could be fruitful both in its own right and as a supplement to the consideration of Jewish and Christian practices.

See Figure 25 for two baptismal fonts from Mount Nebo which illustrate the differences between Byzantine baptismal fonts and Jewish miqva’ot. One is a cylindrical structure with four semicircular lobes, while the other has a modified cross shape. While pools such as these display little link to Jewish bathing practices, data for the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. indicates that such links persisted longer in regions where Jews and Christians interacted than in those areas with negligible Jewish presence. 42 See Johnson, Rites, Ch. 2–3.

41

FIGURES
FIGURE 1: MIQVA’OT IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD...................................... 204 FIGURE 2: MIQVA’OT AFTER 70 C.E.................................................................. 205 FIGURE 3: DOUBLE POOL FROM JERICHO .......................................................... 206 FIGURE 4: SINGLE POOL FROM JERICHO............................................................ 206 FIGURE 5: DOUBLE POOL FROM MASADA ......................................................... 207 FIGURE 6: SINGLE POOL FROM MASADA .......................................................... 207 FIGURE 7: BATHTUBS FROM MASADA .............................................................. 208 FIGURE 8: SWIMMING POOL FROM JERICHO ...................................................... 208 FIGURE 9: CISTERN FROM QUMRAN ................................................................. 209 FIGURE 10: PARTITIONED POOL FROM QUMRAN............................................... 209 FIGURE 11: POOL WITH TWO EXITS FROM QUMRAN ......................................... 210 FIGURE 12: DRAWING OF POOL FROM TELL ES-SA IDIYEH ............................... 210 FIGURE 13: DRAWING OF POOL FROM TELL EL- UMEIRI .................................. 211 FIGURE 14: POOL FROM TELL EL- UMEIRI ........................................................ 211 FIGURE 15: POOL FROM AL-MAGHTAS ............................................................. 212 FIGURE 16: WATER CHANNEL FROM AL-MAGHTAS ......................................... 212 FIGURE 17: FLOOR OF BYZANTINE PERIOD CHURCH, AL-MAGHTAS ................ 213 FIGURE 18: STONE VESSELS FROM AL-MAGHTAS ............................................ 213 FIGURE 19: POOL FROM MACHAERUS ............................................................... 214 FIGURE 20: POOL FROM MACHAERUS ............................................................... 214 FIGURE 21: ENTRANCE TO POOL FROM ATRUZ ................................................. 215 FIGURE 22: INTERIOR OF POOL FROM ATRUZ.................................................... 215 FIGURE 23: SITE MAP FOR QUMRAN ................................................................. 216 FIGURE 24: POOL FROM QUMRAN ..................................................................... 217 FIGURE 25: BAPTISMAL FONTS FROM MT. NEBO .............................................. 217 203

204

WASHING IN WATER

FIGURE 1: MIQVA’OT IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD (Adapted from Ronny Reich, "Miqva’ot," 1990, 376, with permission.)

FIGURES

205

FIGURE 2: MIQVA’OT AFTER 70 C.E. (Adapted from Ronny Reich, "Miqva’ot," 1990, 377, with permission.)

206

WASHING IN WATER

FIGURE 3: DOUBLE POOL FROM JERICHO (Ehud Netzer, "Winter Palaces," BASOR 228 (1977), Fig. 3. Reprinted with the permission of the American Schools of Oriental Research.)

FIGURE 4: SINGLE POOL FROM JERICHO (Ehud Netzer, Netzer, "Winter Palaces," BASOR 228 (1977), Fig. 6. Reprinted with the permission of the American Schools of Oriental Research.)

FIGURES

207

FIGURE 5: DOUBLE POOL FROM MASADA (Yigael Yadin, Masada 1963/1964, 1965, Pl. 16A. With permission of the Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.)

FIGURE 6: SINGLE POOL FROM MASADA (Gideon Foerster, Masada V, 1995, f 303. With permission of the Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.)

208

WASHING IN WATER

FIGURE 7: BATHTUBS FROM MASADA (Gideon Foerster, Masada V, 1995, f 306. With permission of the Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.)

FIGURE 8: SWIMMING POOL FROM JERICHO (Ehud Netzer, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, 2001, vol. I, Ill. 84. With permission of the Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.)

FIGURES

209

FIGURE 9: CISTERN FROM QUMRAN (With permission of Catherine M. Murphy.)

FIGURE 10: PARTITIONED POOL FROM QUMRAN (With permission of Catherine M. Murphy.)

210

WASHING IN WATER

FIGURE 11: POOL WITH TWO EXITS FROM QUMRAN (With permission of Eugene C. Ulrich.)

FIGURE 12: DRAWING OF POOL FROM TELL ES-SA IDIYEH (James B. Pritchard, Tell EsSa idieyeh, 1985, Fig. 187, with permission of the University of Pennsylania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.)

FIGURES

211

FIGURE 13: DRAWING OF POOL FROM TELL EL- UMEIRI (Larry G. Herr, et al, Madaba Plains Project: The 1987 Season at Tell-elUmeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies (MPP 2). Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1991, p. 37: Fig. 3.16, with permission.)

FIGURE 14: POOL FROM TELL EL- UMEIRI (Larry G. Herr, et al, Madaba Plains Project: The 1987 Season at Tell-elUmeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies (MPP 2). Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1991, p. 38 Fig. 3.17, with permission.)

212

WASHING IN WATER

FIGURE 15: POOL FROM AL-MAGHTAS (Jonathan D. Lawrence, 2000)

FIGURE 16: WATER CHANNEL FROM AL-MAGHTAS (Jonathan D. Lawrence, 2000)

FIGURES

213

FIGURE 17: FLOOR OF BYZANTINE PERIOD CHURCH, AL-MAGHTAS (Jonathan D. Lawrence, 2000)

FIGURE 18: STONE VESSELS FROM AL-MAGHTAS (Jonathan D. Lawrence, 2000)

214

WASHING IN WATER

FIGURE 19: POOL FROM MACHAERUS (Jonathan D. Lawrence, 2000)

FIGURE 20: POOL FROM MACHAERUS (Jonathan D. Lawrence, 2000)

FIGURES

215

FIGURE 21: ENTRANCE TO POOL FROM ATRUZ (Jonathan D. Lawrence, 2000)

FIGURE 22: INTERIOR OF POOL FROM ATRUZ (Jonathan D. Lawrence, 2000)

216

WASHING IN WATER

FIGURE 23: SITE MAP FOR QUMRAN (Roland de Vaux, O.P., Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1973, Pl. 39. Adapted to highlight pools. With permission of the British Academy.)

FIGURES

217

FIGURE 24: POOL FROM QUMRAN (With permission of Catherine M. Murphy.)

FIGURE 25: BAPTISMAL FONTS FROM MT. NEBO (Jonathan D. Lawrence, 2000)

APPENDIX A: COMPARISON OF PURITY IN THE HEBREW BIBLE, SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE, AND DEAD SEA SCROLLS1
Situation/ Source of Impurity Corpse Corpus Days of Activity 3, 7 1, 3, 7 1, 7, 8 1, 7, 8 7, 8/eve Bathe? Launder? Sprinkle? Quarantine?

Leper

Flows

HB 2T DSS HB 2T DSS HB 2T DSS

X X X X X Women? X X X X ? X X

X X X ? X Women? X X

X X X

? X X X X ? ? X

Semen

HB 2T DSS HB 2T DSS HB 2T DSS

Carcasses

7, 8 no eve Eve / 3 Same day 1, 3 Eve Eve?

X

X X X

X

Excrement

(outside camp)

Not on Sabbath

1 Adapted from Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 986–987; Harrington, Impurity Systems, 283–291.

219

220
Situation/ Source of Impurity Outsiders Corpus Days of Activity

WASHING IN WATER
Bathe? Launder? Sprinkle? Quarantine?

Warfare

Meals

Initiation

HB 2T DSS HB 2T DSS HB 2T DSS HB 2T

?

X

After Before Before X X White clothing ?

X

Prayer

Sabbath

Childbirth

DSS HB 2T DSS HB 2T DSS HB 2T DSS HB 2T DSS HB 2T DSS HB 2T DSS

Before Before Before On 7/14 + 33/66 7/14 + 33/66 Priests (altar) Translators 3?

X/hands X? ? X

Forbidden

Hands and Feet

Theophany

X

Gleaning

in purity

APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES
Key: Frag.: Ch.: Verse: Wash: Pure: Usage: Type: Context: Manuscript fragment (in Dead Sea Scrolls) Chapter, Section, or Column number, depending on corpus Verse or line number, depending on corpus A reference to washing is present in this reference A reference to purity or purification is present in this reference Category of washing usage (Ritual, Initiatory, Metaphorical) Sub-category of washing usage (General, Priestly, etc.) Topic of reference

Note – This listing is intended to be as comprehensive as possible, but is not exhaustive, especially in terms of the Second Temple Literature. There may be texts listed in the index which do not appear here – most of them do not specifically refer to washing or purity and were thus omitted. I apologize for any omissions or discrepancies between the numeration of texts from Dead Sea Scrolls from different publications – in case of questions, refer to the DJD volumes or García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tighchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

221

222 Tanakh Genesis
Frag. Ch. Verse 18 4 19 2 24 32 35 2 43 24 43 31 49 11

WASHING IN WATER

Torah
Wash Purity Usage Other Other Other Ritual Other Other Other General Type Context feet feet feet idols feet face clothing, wine

Exodus
Frag. Ch. Verse 2 5 19 10,14 19 22 24 10 29 4 29 17 30 18 30 19 30 20 30 21 40 12 40 30 Wash Purity

Torah
Usage Other Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Theophany Priestly Theophany Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly Type Context bathing theophany priests theophany Aaron sacrifice basin basin service hands/feet Aaron basin

APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES
Frag. Ch. Verse 40 31 40 32 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Type Priestly Priestly Context hands/feet Aaron

223

Leviticus
Frag. Ch. Verse 1 9,13 6 27 8 6 8 21 9 14 11 25,28,40 11 32 11 44 12 4-5,6,7,8 13 6 13 7 13 13,17,25,28 13 34 13 54,55,56 13 58 13 59 14 2 14 4,7-9 14 11,14,17-19 14 20,23,25 Wash Purity

Torah
Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Type Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly General General General General General General General General General General General General General General General Context sacrifice clothes Aaron sacrifice sacrifice carcass carcass dietary childbirth leper leper leper leper mildew mildew mildew leper leper leper leper

224
Frag. Ch. Verse 14 28,29,31,32 14 48,53 15 5-8,10,11 15 13 15 16 15 17 15 18 15 21,22,27 15 28 16 4 16 19 16 24 16 26,28 17 15 17 16 20 7 22 4,7 22 6

WASHING IN WATER
Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Type General General General General General General General General General Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly General General General Priestly Priestly Context leper mildew zab zab zab zab zab menstruation zabah garments atonement atonement Yom Kippur carrion carrion holiness tebul yom sacred food

Numbers
Frag. Ch. Verse 6 9 8 6 8 7 8 15 Wash Purity

Torah
Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Type General Priestly Priestly Priestly Context Nazirite Levites Levites Levites

APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES
Frag. Ch. Verse 8 21 11 18 19 7-8 19 10 19 12 19 19 19 21 31 23 31 24 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Type Priestly Theophany Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly General General Context Levites quails parah parah parah parah - priest parah theophany? theophany?

225

Deuteronomy
Frag. Ch. Verse 21 6 23 11 Wash Purity

Torah
Usage Ritual Ritual Type General General Context corpse zab

Joshua
Frag. Ch. Verse 3 5 7 13 22 17 Wash Purity

Nevi'im
Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Type Theophany Theophany Theophany Context theophany? holy objects theophany?

Judges
Frag. Ch. Verse 19 21 Wash Purity

Nevi'im
Usage Other Type Context feet

226 1 Samuel
Frag. Ch. Verse 16 5 25 41

WASHING IN WATER Nevi'im
Wash Purity Usage Ritual Other Type General Context sacrifice feet

2 Samuel
Frag. Ch. Verse 11 2 11 8 12 20 19 24 Wash Purity

Nevi'im
Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Other Type General General General Context Bathsheba Uriah repentance clothes

1 Kings
Frag. Ch. Verse 22 38 Wash Purity

Nevi'im
Usage Other Type Context Prostitutes

2 Kings
Frag. Ch. Verse 5 10,12,13 5 14 18 17 Wash Purity

Nevi'im
Usage Ritual Ritual Other Type General General Context Na'aman Na'aman Fuller's field

Isaiah
Frag. Ch. Verse 1 16 4 4 7 3 Wash Purity

Nevi'im
Usage Metaphorical Metaphorical Other Type Context Wash yourselves Spirit Fuller's field

APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES
Frag. Ch. Verse 30 29 36 2 66 17 Wash Purity Usage Other Other Ritual General Type Context festival Fuller's field idols

227

Jeremiah
Frag. Ch. Verse 2 22 4 14 13 27 33 8 Wash Purity

Nevi'im
Usage Metaphorical Metaphorical Metaphorical Metaphorical Type Context lye heart abomination guilt

Ezekiel
Frag. Ch. Verse 16 4,9 22 24 23 40 24 13 36 25 37 23 38 23 39 12,14,16 39 26 44 26 Wash Purity

Nevi'im
Usage Metaphorical Other Metaphorical Metaphorical Metaphorical Metaphorical Other Metaphorical Metaphorical Ritual Priestly Type Context blood land bathed yourself lewdness clean water idols my holiness Land altar new Temple

228 Malachi
Frag. Ch. Verse 3 2 3 3

WASHING IN WATER Nevi'im
Wash Purity Usage Other Metaphorical Type Context Fullers' soap gold, silver

Psalms
Frag. Ch. Verse 26 6 51 2 51 7,10 58 10 60 8 73 13 89 44 108 9 Wash Purity

Ketuvim
Usage Metaphorical Metaphorical Metaphorical Metaphorical Other Metaphorical Other Other Type Context innocence Sin Sin blood washbasin innocence Heart, hands washbasin

Job
Frag. Ch. Verse 4 17 9 30 29 6 37 21 Wash Purity

Ketuvim
Usage Metaphorical Metaphorical Metaphorical Metaphorical Type Context pure before God Soap, Lye Washed with milk Wind

Proverbs
Frag. Ch. Verse 20 9 30 12 Wash Purity

Ketuvim
Usage Metaphorical Metaphorical Type Context Heart cleansing

APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES Ruth
Frag. Ch. Verse 3 3 Wash Purity

229

Ketuvim
Usage Other Type Context wash self

Song of Solomon
Frag. Ch. Verse 4 2 5 3 5 12 6 6 Wash Purity

Ketuvim
Usage Metaphorical Metaphorical Metaphorical Metaphorical Type Context ewes feet eyes ewes

Ezra
Frag. Ch. Verse 6 20 Wash Purity

Ketuvim
Usage Ritual Type Priestly Context passover

Nehemiah
Frag. Ch. Verse 12 30 12 45 13 9 13 22 13 30 Wash Purity

Ketuvim
Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Type Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly Context city wall city wall Temple Levites Levites

1 Chronicles
Frag. Ch. Verse 15 12,14 23 28 Wash Purity

Ketuvim
Usage Ritual Ritual Type Priestly Priestly Context Levites Levites

230 2 Chronicles
Frag. Ch. Verse 4 6,10 5 11 29 5,15,16,18 29 34 30 3,15,24 30 17 30 18 30 19 31 18 34 3,5,8 35 6

WASHING IN WATER Ketuvim
Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Type Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly General General Priestly Priestly General Priestly Context basins priests Temple Temple priests Passover Passover sanctuary priests idols Passover

Second Temple Judith
Frag. Ch. Verse 4 3 9 1 12 7b-9 14 10 16 18 Wash Purity

Apocrypha
Usage Ritual Other Ritual Initiatory Ritual Priestly Extra Type Priestly Context Temple prayer prayer Achior Temple

2 Maccabees
Frag. Ch. Verse 12 38 Wash Purity

Apocrypha
Usage Ritual Type Extra Context Sabbath

APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES Antiquitates judaicae
Frag. Ch. Verse 3 114 3 197-198 3 199 3 224 3 227 3 258 3 261-262 3 263 3 264 3 269 3 277 3 278 3 279 6 235 8 61,ff 8 85-87 12 106 14 258 18 19 18 117 Wash Purity

231

Josephus
Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Type Priestly Priestly Priestly General Priestly Priestly General General General General Priestly Priestly Priestly Extra Priestly Priestly Extra Extra Essenes Essenes Context Tabernacle purification oil purification sacrifice Levites leper / zab noct emission leper childbirth priest priest priests New Moon Temple Temple LXX - translating proseuchae Essenes John the Baptist

232 Bellum judaicum
Frag. Ch. Verse 2 119-121 2 123 2 126 2 129 2 132 2 137-138 2 143 2 147 2 148-149 2 159 2 161

WASHING IN WATER Josephus
Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Initiatory Ritual Ritual Ritual Other Ritual Type Essenes Essenes General Essenes Essenes Essenes Essenes Essenes Essenes Essenes Essenes Context Essenes oil clothes assembly clothes initiation food spit toilet fortunetelling baths

Hypothetica
Frag. Ch. Verse 11 14 Wash Purity

Philo
Usage Ritual Type Context chastity

Quod omnis probus liber sit
Frag. Ch. Verse 75 84 Wash Purity

Philo
Usage Metaphorical Other Type Context minds hagneia

De specialibus legibus
Frag. Ch. Verse 1 80-81 1 112-116 Wash Purity

Philo
Usage Metaphorical Metaphorical Type Context perfection corpse

APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES
Frag. Ch. Verse 1 117-119 1 191 1 193 1 257-258 1 259-260 1 261 1 262 1 263-266 1 267-268 1 269 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Metaphorical Metaphorical Metaphorical Metaphorical Ritual Ritual Metaphorical Metaphorical Ritual General Priestly Type P or G? Context leprosy sin offering sacrifice sacrifice sacrifice body parah ash/water parah sacrifice - soul

233

De vita contemplativa
Frag. Ch. Verse 25 34 64 65 66 73 81 82 89 Wash Purity

Philo
Usage Initiatory Metaphorical Ritual Ritual Ritual Other Ritual Ritual Ritual Type Therapeutae Therapeutae Therapeutae Therapeutae Extra Therapeutae Priestly Priestly Extra Context monasterion self-control gathering 50th day hands/pray feast bread bread sunrise

234 Joseph and Aseneth
Frag. Ch. Verse 8 5 10 1-3 10 8-17 11 1-14 11 15-18 11 19 - 13:15 13 15 14 12-13 14 15 18 8-10 20 3-5

WASHING IN WATER Pseudepigrapha
Wash Purity Usage Ritual Other Other Other Other Other Other Initiatory Initiatory Other Other Repentance Repentance Repentance Repentance Type Extra Context anoint ashes repentance prayer prayer prayer prayer face / hands face / hands face feet

Letter of Aristeas
Frag. Ch. Verse 106 305-306 Wash Purity

Pseudepigrapha
Usage Ritual Ritual Type Priestly Extra Context Temple hands / prayer

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH
Frag. Ch. Verse IV 11-12 V I 3-4 V I 24 V III 19,ff Wash Purity Usage Other Metaphorical Other Metaphorical Repentance Type Context atonement affliction repentance hands, spirit

APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES
Frag. Ch. Verse IX 31-33 X 28 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Other Other Other Metaphorical Other Other Metaphorical Water Water Water Water Water Water Type Context spirit heart living water living water living water heart knees eternal life

235

XVI 4-11 XVI 11-15 XVI 16 XVI 32 XVI 34 XIX 10-14

1QM
Frag. Ch. Verse V 11-12 V I I 3-8 XIV 2-4 XIX 1-2 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Ritual Ritual Other General General Water Type Context swords army army hymn

1QS
Frag. Ch. Verse I 11-13 I 16-20 I 21-II 1 II 1-10 II 14-15 III 4-6 III 6-9 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Initiatory Initiatory Initiatory Other Initiatory Initiatory Repentance Repentance Repentance Type Context knowledge initiation initiation initiation repentance unrepentant initiation

236
Frag. Ch. Verse IV 20-22 V 7-8 V 13-14 V 20-21 V 23-24 V I 13-14 V I 15-16 V I 20-23 V I I 12-15 V I I 13 V III 4-7 V III 16-19

WASHING IN WATER
Wash Purity Usage Other Initiatory Initiatory Initiatory Initiatory Initiatory Initiatory Initiatory Ritual Ritual Metaphorical Ritual General General General Water Type Water Context spirit oath enemies works annual exam 2-year exam pure food pure meals nudity spitting Temple sinners

1QSa, 1Q28a
Frag. Ch. Verse I 8-11 II 3-5 II 8-10 Wash Purity Usage Initiatory Ritual Ritual General General Type Context Men / Women unclean deformities

1QSb, 1Q28b
Frag. Ch. Verse I 6 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context blessing

1Q34, 1Q34bis
Frag. 1-2 Ch. Verse Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context water

APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES 2Q26
Frag. 1 Ch. Verse 1-3 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context Noah

237

3Q15
Frag. Ch. Verse I 11-12 II 13 XI 9 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Type General General General Context miqveh? miqveh? graves

4Q160
Frag. 3-5 Ch. Verse 4 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Context anointed

4Q174
Frag. Ch. Verse IV 4a Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Context Temple

4Q175
Frag. Ch. Verse 29 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context blood

4Q176
Frag. 3 Ch. Verse 1-3 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Water Context water

4Q177
Frag. 5-6 Ch. Verse 2-3 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Context last days

238
Frag. 5-6 7,9-11, 20,26 Ch. Verse 9-10 9-10

WASHING IN WATER
Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Metaphorical Type Context Micah 2:10 last days

4Q185
Frag. 1-2 Ch. Verse I 4-6 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Context purity of God

4Q213
Frag. 1 1 Ch. Verse I 6-10 I 13 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Metaphorical Type Extra Extra Context prayer T Levi prayer T Levi

4Q252
Frag. Ch. Verse IV 3-5 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context Reuben

4Q265
Frag. 4 7 7 Ch. Verse II 3-7 I 3,8-10-II 9 Wash Purity Usage Initiatory Ritual Ritual Extra General Type Context pure food Sabbath childbirth

II 13-17

4Q266
Frag. 6 9 Ch. Verse II 1-14 II 1-5 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Type Priestly General Context Temple zabah

APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES 4Q271
Frag. 1 2 Ch. Verse I 13-14 II 10-11 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Type General General Context marriage clothing

239

4Q272
Frag. 1 1 Ch. Verse I 1-13 I 14-II 7 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Type General General Context leprosy zab

4Q274
Frag. 1 1 1 2 3 Ch. Verse I 1-4 I 4-7 I 8-9 I 1-9 I 1-II 12 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Type General General General General General Context zab? menstruant menstruant corpse? agriculture

4Q275
Frag. Ch. Verse Wash Purity Usage Initiatory Type Context liturgy?

4Q276
Frag. 1 Ch. Verse 1-9 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Type General Context parah

240 4Q277
Frag. 1 Ch. Verse 1-13

WASHING IN WATER

Wash Purity

Usage Ritual

Type General

Context parah/zab

4Q278
Frag. 1 Ch. Verse 1-8 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Type General Context menstruant

4Q280,287-289
Frag. Ch. Verse Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context water

4Q284
Frag. 1 2 2 3 4 Ch. Verse I 7-8 I 1-4 II 1-6 3-5 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Metaphorical Ritual General Type General General General Context intercourse source? menstruant menstruant corpses

4Q284a
Frag. 2 Ch. Verse 2 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Type Extra Context gleaning

4Q285
Frag. 1 2 Ch. Verse 3-6 8 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Metaphorical Type Context water water

APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES
Frag. 5 Ch. Verse 5-6 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Type General Context corpse

241

4Q286
Frag. 5 7 Ch. Verse 9-13 I 6-7 Wash Purity Usage Other Metaphorical Type Water Context blessings purity

4Q298
Frag. Ch. Verse III 4-8 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Context clean hands

4Q302a
Frag. 1 Ch. Verse II 2-6 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context rain

4Q369
Frag. 1 Ch. Verse I 3-4 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Repentance Context repentance

4Q370
Frag. Ch. Verse I 4-5 II 1-4 Wash Purity Usage Other Metaphorical Type Water Context flood cleanse

4Q374
Frag. 2 Ch. Verse II 7 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context liquid

242 4Q375
Frag. Ch. Verse

WASHING IN WATER

Wash Purity

Usage Ritual

Type Priestly

Context anointing

4Q376
Frag. 1 Ch. Verse I 1-3 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Type Priestly Context anointing

4Q377
Frag. 2 Ch. Verse II 10-11 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Context sanctify

4Q378
Frag. 11 Ch. Verse I 3-5 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context the land

4Q379
Frag. 12 Ch. Verse 6-7 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context Jordan

4Q381
Frag. 1 Ch. Verse 4 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context wisdom

4Q384-390
Frag. Ch. Verse Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Water Context drought

APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES 4Q393
Frag. 3 Ch. Verse 8-9 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Water Context water

243

4Q393
Frag. 3 Ch. Verse 5-6 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Repentance Context unrepentant

4Q393
Frag. 1 Ch. Verse II 4-6 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Repentance Context repentance

4Q400
Frag. 1 1 Ch. Verse I 7-8 I 14-16 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Type Priestly General Context Temple sanctified

4Q414
Frag. 10 13 2 2-4 2-9 I 3-7 1-8 Ch. Verse Wash Purity Usage Ritual Metaphorical Ritual Ritual Type General General General General Context baptism baptism baptism baptism

4Q416
Frag. 1 Ch. Verse 12 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context water

244 4Q417
Frag. 1 Ch. Verse I 24

WASHING IN WATER

Wash Purity

Usage Metaphorical

Type

Context hands

4Q418
Frag. 103 81 Ch. Verse II 6-7 1 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Metaphorical Type Water Water Context water water

4Q422
Frag. Ch. Verse II 4 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context flood

4Q436
Frag. 1 Ch. Verse I 10 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Context heart

4Q437
Frag. 2 Ch. Verse I 15-16 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Water Context water

4Q462
Frag. 1 Ch. Verse 15 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Context wicked

4Q493
Frag. Ch. Verse 5-6 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Type Priestly Context battle

APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES 4Q502
Frag. 6-10 Ch. Verse 9 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context water

245

4Q504
Frag. Ch. Verse V I 4-6 V I I 7-8 Wash Purity Usage Other Other Type Repentance Water Context repentence water

4Q510-511
Frag. 18 35 52,54-55, 57-59 Ch. Verse 7 2-5 III 1-7 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Metaphorical Metaphorical Type Context impurity sanctuary God

4Q512
Frag. 1-6 11 29-32 29-32 33,35 33,35 36-38 40-41 42-44 Ch. Verse XII 1-17 X 2-4 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Type General General Priestly Priestly General General General General General Context parah? kneeling priest sacrifice festivals purity flesh blessing objects

VII 7 VII 10 IV 1-3 IV 5-9 III 17 XIV 3-5 I 4-5

246
Frag. 7-9 Ch. Verse XI 1-3

WASHING IN WATER
Wash Purity Usage Ritual Type General Context food

4Q514
Frag. 1 Ch. Verse I 6-11 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Type General Context zab

4Q520
Frag. Ch. Verse II 6-10 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context Eden

4Q521
Frag. 5,7 Ch. Verse II 3 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Water Context water

4Q525
Frag. 12 2 Ch. Verse 3, 8-9 II 2-3 Wash Purity Usage Other Metaphorical Type Water Context water hands

4Q537
Frag. 2 Ch. Verse Wash Purity Usage Ritual Type General Context Jacob

4Q542
Frag. Ch. Verse I 9-10 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Context heart

APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES 4Q542
Frag. Ch. Verse I 12-13 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Context inheritance

247

4Q560
Frag. Ch. Verse I 4 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Context divine name

4QMMT
Frag. Ch. Verse B1-3 B13-16 B39-49 B49-51 B52-54 B55-58 B64-72 B72-74 C7-9 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Metaphorical Type Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly General General General Context purity parah exclusions blind deaf mixed water lepers corpse evil

11Q5
Frag. Ch. Verse XXIV 7 XXIV 12 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Metaphorical Type Context sin evil

248 11Q6
Frag. A Ch. Verse 13

WASHING IN WATER

Wash Purity

Usage Metaphorical

Type

Context sins

11Q14
Frag. 1 Ch. Verse II 8-9 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Type Context raining blessings

11Q17
Frag. 7-8 Ch. Verse 5 Wash Purity Usage Other Type Context garments

11Q19-20
Frag. Ch. Verse XV 3,ff XVI 2,ff XVIII 2,ff Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Type Priestly Priestly Priestly Priestly General General Priestly General General General General Priestly Context ordination ordination omer laver Temple sacrifice changing Priests noct emission intercourse city zab Temple

XXIX 9 XXXIX 7-8 XLIII 10-12 XLV 5-6 XLV 7-10 XLV 11-12 XLV 13,17-18, XLVI 1-3 XLV 15-17 XLVI 9-12

APPENDIX B: TEXTUAL REFERENCES
Frag. Ch. Verse XLVI 13-18 XLVII 3-18 XLVIII 7-XLIX 4 XLIX 11-15 XLIX 16-21 L 4-8 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Type General Priestly General General General General Context latrines Temple quarantine corpse corpse corpse

249

CD A
Frag. Ch. Verse I 14-15 I 20-21 II 12-13 III 15-17 IV 15, ff V I 14-15 V I 17-18 V III 12 X 10-13 XI 1-2 XI 3-4 XI 21-23 XII 14-15 XIII 5-7 XV 7,ff Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Metaphorical Metaphorical Other Ritual Other Ritual Metaphorical Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual Other Ritual Initiatory General Extra Extra Gen/Pr? Water General General Water General Type Context lying waters pure lives holy spirit dug a well purity corrupt ones pure, holy white-wash form of water Sabbath Sabbath Temple unclean food Priest's role proselytes

250 CD B
Frag. Ch. Verse XIX 33-XX 1

WASHING IN WATER

Wash Purity

Usage Other

Type Water

Context living water

Testament of Levi Cambridge Geniza
Frag. Ch. Verse A19-22 Wash Purity Usage Initiatory Type Context Shechem

Testament of Levi Mount Athos
Frag. Ch. Verse W.A.C., p. 252 W.A.C., p. 255 Wash Purity Usage Metaphorical Ritual Priestly Type Context heart T Levi priestly role

Testament of Levi Oxford Geniza
Frag. Ch. Verse B:3-23 C:22-D:3 Wash Purity Usage Ritual Ritual Type Priestly Priestly Context T Levi House of God

APPENDIX C: MIQVA’OT
Key: Name: Period: Site name (based on Reich’s listings) Time period of construction 2T: Second Temple Period (Pre – 70 C.E.) Rabbinic: Post – 70 C.E. Identification number for this structure (from Reich’s listings) Narrower geographical region (Judea, Galilee, etc.) (Note: some are listed as “Unclear” because their abbreviation could not be identified in Reich’s listings). Reich’s classification of likelihood structure was actually a miqveh (Definite, possible, unlikely, etc.) Determination whether structure had public or private use Location of structure (living quarters, cellar, agricultural, etc.) Presence of partition running along the length of the steps dividing them into two or more sections Presence of another bathing structure nearby Presence of an otsar (pipe) connecting the two structures Indicates whether steps were wide, i.e. extending along an entire side of the structure or narrow

Number: Region:

Definite: Public?: Context: Div?: Pair: Otsar: Wide:

Note—Much of the information for this chart is translated from Reich’s charts (Reich, Miqva’ot, 1990, 74–80). His contribution to this field and his encouragement for this project are gratefully acknowledged. When possible, information published since 1990 has been added but there may be recent discoveries which are not included here.

251

252 Israel Amudah
Number (a)M-1 Period 2T

WASHING IN WATER

Region: Judea
Miqveh? Definite Public Public Context Public Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Arad
Number (a)R-1 Period 2T Miqveh? Unlikely Public Public

Region: Judea
Context Public Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Arbel
Number AR-1 AR-2 AR-3 Period 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Possible Possible Possible Public Private Private Private

Region: Galilee
Context Living Quarters Living Quarters Living Quarters Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Azekah
Number ZC-1 ZC-2 Period 2T 2T Miqveh? Unlikely Possible Public Private Private

Region: Judea
Context Cellar Cellar Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Beth Shearim
Number B(a)-1 B(a)-2 B(a)-3 B(a)-4 Period Rabbinic Rabbinic Rabbinic Rabbinic Miqveh? Unlikely Possible Unclear Unclear Public Unclear Public Unclear Unclear

Region: Galilee
Context Unclear Cemetery Unclear Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Bethany
Number BN-1 BN-2 Period 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Unclear Public Unclear Unclear

Region: Jerusalem
Context Unclear Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

APPENDIX C: MIQVA'OT Bethel
Number BT-1 Period 2T Miqveh? Possible Public Unclear

253

Region: Jerusalem
Context Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Caesarea
Number QS-1 Period Rabbinic Miqveh? Possible Public Public

Region: coast
Context Public Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Cana
Number Period Rabbinic Miqveh? Unclear Public Unclear

Region: Galilee
Context Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Chorazin
Number KR-1 Period Rabbinic Miqveh? Definite Public Public

Region: Galilee
Context Public Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Gamla
Number GM-1 GM-2 GM-3 Period 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Definite Unclear Public Public Private Unclear

Region: Golan
Context Synagogue Main Floor Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Gezer
Number GZ-1 GZ-2 GZ-3 GZ-4 GZ-5 GZ-6 GZ-7 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Unclear Definite Unclear Definite Definite Definite Unclear Public Unclear Unclear Unclear Private Private Private Unclear

Region: Judea
Context Unclear Unclear Unclear Main Floor Main Floor Main Floor Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

254 Gibeon
Number GB-1 Period 2T

WASHING IN WATER Region: Judea
Miqveh? Possible Public Unclear Context Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Hazan
Number HZ-1 HZ-2 Period 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Definite Public Private Public

Region: Judea
Context Cellar Olive Press Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Herodium
Number HR-1 HR-2 HR-3 HR-4 HR-5 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Public Public Private Public Public Public

Region: Judea
Context Synagogue Main Floor Bathhouse Bathhouse Public Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Hulda
Number HD-1 Period Rabbinic Miqveh? Not Public Unclear

Region: Judea
Context Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Isawiyeh
Number (a)S-1 Period 2T Miqveh? Definite Public Private

Region: Jerusalem
Context Cellar Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Jericho
Number JH-1 JH-10 JH-11 JH-12 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Unlikely Definite Unlikely Public Private Unclear Private Private

Region: Judea
Context Living Quarters Unclear Living Quarters Living Quarters Div? Pair Otsar Wide

APPENDIX C: MIQVA'OT
Number JH-13 JH-14 JH-15 JH-16 JH-17 JH-18 JH-19 JH-2 JH-20 JH-21 JH-22 JH-23 JH-24 JH-25 JH-26 JH-27 JH-28 JH-29 JH-3 JH-30 JH-31 JH-4 JH-5 JH-6 JH-7 JH-8 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Possible Definite Unlikely Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Unlikely Definite Unlikely Definite Definite Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Context Bathhouse Living Quarters Bathhouse Bathhouse Bathhouse Bathhouse Bathhouse Living Quarters Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Living Quarters Wine Press Cemetery Living Quarters Living Quarters Living Quarters Living Quarters Living Quarters Div? Pair Otsar

255
Wide

256
Number JH-9 Period 2T

WASHING IN WATER
Miqveh? Definite Public Private Context Living Quarters Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Jerusalem B - Temple Mount
Number JB-1 JB-2 Period 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Definite Public Public Private

Region: Judea
Context Temple Mount Temple Mount Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Jerusalem D - South
Number JD-1 JD-10 JD-11 JD-12 JD-13 JD-14 JD-15 JD-16 JD-17 JD-18 JD-19 JD-2 JD-20 JD-21 JD-22 JD-23 JD-24 JD-25 JD-26 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Possible Unlikely Definite Definite Definite Unlikely Unlikely Definite Unlikely Definite Definite Unlikely Definite Definite Unclear Public Unclear Private Unclear Unclear Private Unclear Public Public Private Private Private Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Private Private Private

Region: Judea
Context Unclear Cellar Unclear Unclear Cellar Unclear Synagogue Synagogue Cellar Cellar Cellar Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Cellar Cellar Cellar Div? Pair Otsar Wide

APPENDIX C: MIQVA'OT
Number JD-27 JD-28 JD-29 JD-3 JD-30 JD-31 JD-32 JD-33 JD-34 JD-35 JD-36 JD-37 JD-3A JD-4 JD-5 JD-6 JD-7 JD-8 JD-9 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Unclear Unlikely Unlikely Definite Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Possible Definite Definite Definite Definite Possible Public Unclear Private Private Private Private Private Unclear Private Private Private Private Private Private Unclear Private Unclear Unclear Private Unclear Context Unclear Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Unclear Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Unclear Cellar Unclear Unclear Cellar Unclear Div? Pair Otsar

257
Wide

Jerusalem E - East
Number JZ-1 JZ-2 Period 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Definite Public Public Private

Region: Judea
Context Cemetery Cellar Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Jerusalem K - Kotel
Number JK-1 Period 2T Miqveh? Definite Public Public

Region: Judea
Context Public Div? Pair Otsar Wide

258
Number JK-10 JK-11 JK-12 JK-13 JK-14 JK-15 JK-16 JK-17 JK-18 JK-19 JK-2 JK-20 JK-21 JK-22 JK-23 JK-24 JK-25 JK-26 JK-27 JK-28 JK-29 JK-3 JK-30 JK-31 JK-32 JK-33 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T

WASHING IN WATER
Miqveh? Definite Unlikely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Definite Unlikely Definite Definite Definite Unlikely Definite Definite Definite Possible Definite Definite Unlikely Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Possible Unlikely Public Public Public Private Unclear Unclear Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Private Context Public Public Living Quarters Unclear Unclear Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Living Quarters Public Living Quarters Public Living Quarters Unclear Living Quarters Living Quarters Div? Pair Otsar Wide

APPENDIX C: MIQVA'OT
Number JK-34 JK-35 JK-36 JK-37 JK-4 JK-5 JK-6 JK-7 JK-8 JK-9 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Definite Unclear Unclear Unlikely Unlikely Definite Unlikely Unlikely Definite Public Public Private Unclear Unclear Public Private Public Private Private Public Context Public Cellar Unclear Unclear Public Living Quarters Public Living Quarters Living Quarters Public Div? Pair Otsar

259
Wide

Jerusalem N - Northwest
Number JP-1 JP-2 JP-3 Period 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Definite Possible Public Public Public Public

Region: Judea
Context Cemetery Cemetery Cemetery Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Jerusalem O - Old City
Number JT-1 JT-2 JT-3 JT-4 JT-5 JT-6 JT-7 JT-8 JT-9 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Possible Possible Possible Definite Unlikely Definite Definite Unclear Unclear Public Private Private Private Public Unclear Private Unclear Unclear Unclear

Region: Judea
Context Cellar Cellar Cellar Public Unclear Cellar Unclear Unclear Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

260

WASHING IN WATER Region: Judea
Context Cellar Living Quarters Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Living Quarters Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Living Quarters Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Jerusalem Q - Jewish Quarter
Number JR-1 JR-10 JR-11 JR-12 JR-13 JR-14 JR-15 JR-16 JR-17 JR-18 JR-19 JR-2 JR-20 JR-21 JR-22 JR-23 JR-24 JR-25 JR-26 JR-27 JR-28 JR-29 JR-3 JR-30 JR-31 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Not Definite Definite Definite Definite Unlikely Possible Unlikely Possible Unlikely Definite Definite Definite Possible Definite Possible Unlikely Unlikely Possible Unlikely Definite Definite Definite Possible Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private

APPENDIX C: MIQVA'OT
Number JR-32 JR-33 JR-34 JR-35 JR-36 JR-37 JR-38 JR-39 JR-4 JR-40 JR-41 JR-42 JR-43 JR-44 JR-45 JR-46 JR-47 JR-48 JR-49 JR-5 JR-50 JR-51 JR-52 JR-53 JR-54 JR-55 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Unlikely Definite Unlikely Possible Possible Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Possible Unlikely Possible Possible Possible Definite Definite Unlikely Definite Definite Definite Possible Definite Possible Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Context Private Cellar Cellar Living Quarters Living Quarters Living Quarters Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Living Quarters Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Div? Pair Otsar

261
Wide

262
Number JR-56 JR-57 JR-58 JR-59 JR-6 JR-60 JR-61 JR-7 JR-8 JR-9 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T

WASHING IN WATER
Miqveh? Unlikely Not Possible Definite Unlikely Possible Definite Definite Definite Not Public Unclear Private Private Private Private Unclear Private Private Private Private Context Unclear Cellar Cellar Cellar Living Quarters Unclear Cellar Living Quarters Cellar Cellar Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Kypros
Number QP-1 QP-2 QP-3 QP-4 QP-5 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Public Public Public Public Public Public

Region: Judea
Context Bathhouse Bathhouse Bathhouse Bathhouse Bathhouse Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Ma'on
Number M(a)-1 Period Rabbinic Miqveh? Not Public Unclear

Region: Coast
Context Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Marissa
Number MR-1 MR-2 Period 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Definite Public Private Private

Region: Judea
Context Cellar Cellar Div? Pair Otsar Wide

APPENDIX C: MIQVA'OT Masada
Number MZ-1 MZ-10 MZ-11 MZ-12 MZ-13 MZ-14 MZ-15 MZ-16 MZ-17 MZ-18 MZ-2 MZ-3 MZ-4 MZ-5 MZ-6 MZ-7 MZ-8 MZ-9 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Possible Possible Possible Possible Definite Definite Possible Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Unclear Unclear Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private

263

Region: Judea
Context Living Quarters Public Bathhouse Bathhouse Bathhouse Living Quarters Public Unclear Unclear Living Quarters Living Quarters Living Quarters Living Quarters Living Quarters Cellar Living Quarters Living Quarters Living Quarters Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Meiron
Number MY-1 Period Rabbinic Miqveh? Not Public Unclear

Region: Galilee
Context Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Midras
Number MD-1 MD-2 Period 2T 2T Miqveh? Possible Possible Public Private Private

Region: Judea
Context Cellar Cellar Div? Pair Otsar Wide

264
Number MD-3 MD-4 Period 2T 2T

WASHING IN WATER
Miqveh? Unclear Unclear Public Unclear Unclear Context Unclear Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Nahal Mikhmas
Number NM-1 Period 2T Miqveh? Possible Public Public

Region: Judea
Context Public Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Naqiq, Kh.
Number NQ-1 Period 2T Miqveh? Unclear Public Unclear

Region: Judea
Context Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Nasbeh (Mizpeh)
Number MP-1 Period 2T Miqveh? Possible Public Public

Region: Judea
Context Cemetery Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Neot Kedumim
Number HR-1 Period 2T Miqveh? Possible Public Public

Region: Judea
Context Wine Press Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Qalandiya
Number QL-1 QL-2 Period 2T 2T Miqveh? Possible Definite Public Public Public

Region: Judea
Context Olive Press Olive Press Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Qedumim
Number QD-1 QD-2 QD-3 QD-4 QD-5 Period Rabbinic Rabbinic Rabbinic Rabbinic Rabbinic Miqveh? Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Public Private Private Private Private Private

Region: Samaria
Context Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Cellar Div? Pair Otsar Wide

APPENDIX C: MIQVA'OT
Number QD-6 Period Rabbinic Miqveh? Unlikely Public Private Context Cellar Div? Pair Otsar

265
Wide

Qumran
Number QM-1 QM-10 QM-2 QM-3 QM-4 QM-5 QM-6 QM-7 QM-8 QM-9 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Definite Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public

Region: Judea
Context Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Ramat Ha-Nadiv
Number RH-1 Period 2T Miqveh? Unlikely Public Public

Region: Judea
Context Farm Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Ramat Rachel
Number RR-1 RR-2 RR-3 RR-4 RR-5 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Definite Possible Possible Definite Public Private Private Unclear Public Private

Region: Judea
Context Cellar Cellar Unclear Cemetery Cellar Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Salit
Number ZL-1 Period 2T Miqveh? Definite Public Private

Region: Judea
Context Cellar Div? Pair Otsar Wide

266
Number ZL-2 Period 2T

WASHING IN WATER
Miqveh? Definite Public Private Context Cellar Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Samaria
Number SM-1 SM-2 SM-3 SM-4 SM-5 SM-6 SM-7 SM-8 SM-9 Period 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Definite Definite Definite Unlikely Unlikely Possible Possible Possible Public Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear

Region: Samaria
Context Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Sasa
Number SA-1 Period Rabbinic Miqveh? Unlikely Public Public

Region: Galilee
Context Public Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Sepphoris
Number ZP-1 ZP-2 Period Rabbinic Rabbinic Miqveh? Unlikely Unlikely Public Unclear Unclear

Region: Galilee
Context Unclear Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Shema, Kh.
Number S(a)-1 S(a)-2 Period Rabbinic Rabbinic Miqveh? Not Definite Public Unclear Public

Region: Galilee
Context Unclear Public Div? Pair Otsar Wide

APPENDIX C: MIQVA'OT Sussiya
Number SU-1 SU-2 SU-3 Period Rabbinic Rabbinic Rabbinic Miqveh? Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Public Public Public Public

267

Region: Judea
Context Public Public Public Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Yin'am
Number JN-1 Period Rabbinic Miqveh? Possible Public Public

Region: Galilee
Context Public Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Jordan Al-Maghtas
Number Period Unclear Miqveh? Definite Public Public

Region: Valley
Context Public Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Atruz / Atarot
Number Period Unclear Miqveh? Possible Public Public

Region: Moab
Context Agricultural Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Machaereus
Number MC-1 MC-2 MC-3 Period 2T 2T 2T Miqveh? Definite Definite Unlikely Public Public Private Unclear

Region: Moab
Context Bathhouse Living Quarters Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

Saidiyeh
Number S(a)-1 Period 2T Miqveh? Definite Public Public

Region: Valley
Context Public Div? Pair Otsar Wide

'Umeiri
Number Period 2T Miqveh? Definite Public Public

Region: Ammon
Context Agricultural Div? Pair Otsar Wide

268 Unclear MT?
Number MT-1 MT-2 Period Rabbinic Rabbinic

WASHING IN WATER

Region: Unclear
Miqveh? Unlikely Unlikely Public Unclear Unclear Context Unclear Unclear Div? Pair Otsar Wide

NR?
Number NR-1 Period 2T Miqveh? Possible Public Public

Region: Unclear
Context Farm Div? Pair Otsar Wide

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, P., and Geza Vermes. Qumran Cave 4. XIX: 4QSerekh Ha-Yahad. DJD XXVI. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Alexander, T. Desmond. Pentateuchal Criticism Today: A Guidebook for Beginners. Leicester: Religious and Theological Studies Fellowship, 1998. Amit, David. “A Miqveh Complex Near Alon Shevut.” ‘Atiqot 38 (1999): 75– 84. Arnold, Bill T. “Religion in Ancient Israel.” Pages 391–420 in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches. Edited by David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Ashby, Godfrey. Go Out and Meet God: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Attridge, Harold W., et al. Qumran Cave 4. VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. DJD XIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Baillet, Maurice. Qumrân Grotte 4. III (4Q482–4Q520). DJD VII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Bamberger, Bernard J. Leviticus. New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1979. Barthélemy, D., and J. T. Milik. Qumran Cave 1. DJD I. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955. Bartlett, John R. “The Archaeology of Qumran.” Pages 67–94 in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by John R. Bartlett. London: Routledge, 1997. Barton, George A. The Religion of Ancient Israel. New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1961.

269

270

WASHING IN WATER

Baumgarten, J. M., et al. Qumran Cave 4. XXV: Halakhic Texts. DJD XXXV. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Baumgarten, Joseph M. Qumran Cave 4. XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273). DJD XVIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. ———. “Purification Liturgies.” Pages 200–212 in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Bell, Catherine. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford, 1992. ———. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New York: Oxford, 1997. Ben-Pechat, M. “Baptism and Monasticism in the Holy Land: Archaeological and Literary Evidence.” Pages 501–522 in Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land New Discoveries. Edited by G. C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1990. Bilde, Per. “The Common Meal in the Qumran-Essene Communities.” Pages 145–166 in Meals in a Social Context. Edited by Hanne Sigismund Nielsen and Inge Nielsen. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998. Black, Matthew. The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ———. “P and J in Genesis 1:1–11:26: An Alternate Hypothesis.” Pages 1–15 in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Astrid Beck, Andrew H. Bartelt, Paul R. Raabe and Chris A. Franke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. ———. “An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch.” Zeitschrift für Die Altetestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1996): 495–518. Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Brooke, G. J., et al. Qumran Cave 4. XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. DJD XXII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Brooks, Oscar Stephenson. The Drama of Decision: Baptism in the New Testament. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987. Broshi, Magen, et al. Qumran Cave 4. XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. DJD XIX. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Brueggemann, Walter. The Book of Exodus. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994. Budd, Philip J. Leviticus. Edited by Ronald E. Clements. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Burchard, C. “Joseph and Aseneth.” Pages 177–247 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

271

Burton, John. “Source Criticism (OT).” Pages 162–165 in Vol. 6 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Cahill, Jane M. “The Chalk Assemblages of the Persian/Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods.” Pages 190–274 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985; Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Edited by Alon de Groot and Donald T. Ariel. Vol. 3. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1992. Cairns, Ian. Word and Presence: A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Carr, David M. “Controversy and Convergence in Recent Studies of the Formation of the Pentateuch.” Religious Studies Review 23 (1997): 22–31. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985. ———, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr / Paul Siebeck, 1994–. Chazon, Esther, and Daniel Falk. Qumran Cave 4. XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. DJD XXIX. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Chrysostom, John. Baptismal Instructions. Translated by Paul W. Harkins. Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1963. Clines, David J. A. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 4 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1993–1998. Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. Collins, Adela Yarbro. “The Origin of Christian Baptism.” Studia Liturgica 19 (1989): 28–46. Collins, John J. “Sibylline Oracles.” Pages 317–472 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 1. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. “The Development of the Ancient Jewish Scripts.” Pages 133–202 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Edited by G. E. Wright. Garden City: Doubleday, 1961. ———, ed. The Ancient Library at Qumran and Biblical Studies. Garden City: Doubleday, 1961. Dahood, Mitchell, S. J. Psalms I: 1–50. Garden City: Doubleday, 1965. de Vaux, Roland, O.P. Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Oxford, 1973. ———. “Qumran, Khirbet-‘Ein Feshka.” Pages 978–986 in of Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by Michael AviYonah and Ephraim Stern. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall, 1978.

272

WASHING IN WATER

Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966. Eliav, Yaron Z. “The Roman Bath as a Jewish Institution: Another Look at the Encounter Between Judaism and the Greco-Roman Culture.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 31 (2000): 416–454. Eshel, Esther. “4Q414 Fragment 2: Purification of a Corpse-Contaminated Person.” Pages 3–10 in Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995. Edited by Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez and John Kampen. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Eshel, Esther, et al. Qumran Cave 4. VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts. DJD XI. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Eshel, Hanan. “The Pools of Sepphoris—Ritual Baths or Bathtubs?: They’re Not Ritual Baths.” Biblical Archaeology Review 26, no. 4 (July / August 2000): 42–45, 49. Evans, Mary J. 1 and 2 Samuel: New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2000. Fine, Steven, and Eric M. Meyers. “Synagogues.” Pages 118–123 in Vol. 5 of The Oxford Enclyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. 5 vols. New York: Oxford, 1997. Foerster, Gideon. Masada V: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Reports: Art and Architecture. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1995. Fletcher, Elaine Ruth. “Jordan’s Pride: A Newfound Baptismal Site on the Other Side.” Eretz 69, (March–April 2000): 17–24. Friedman, Richard Elliott. “Tabernacle.” Pages 292–300 in Vol. 6 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel.” Pages 399–414 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983. García Martínez, Florentino, et al. Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 11 (11Q2– 18, 11Q20–30). DJD XXIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tighchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Geraty, Lawrence T. “ Umeiri, Tell El-.” Pages 273–274 in Vol. 5 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. 5 vols. New York: Oxford. ———. Madaba Plains Project: The 1984 Season at Tell-el- Umeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1989.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

273

Goldstein, Jonathan A. II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Grabbe, Lester L. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. ———. Leviticus. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1993. ———. Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh. London: Routledge, 2000. Grimes, Ronald L. Beginnings in Ritual Studies. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1982. Hachlili, R. “The Origin of the Synagogue: A Re-assessment.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 28 (1997): 34–47. Harrington, Hannah K. The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. ———. “Purity at Qumran.” Pages 724–727 in of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James C. VanderKam and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Harris, R. Laird, ed. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody, 1980. Hay, David M. “Philo’s View of Himself as an Exegete: Inspired, But Not Authoritative.” Pages 40–52 in Heirs of the Septuagint: Philo, Hellenistic Judaism, and Early Christianity—Festschrift for Earle Hilgert (Studia Philonica Annual III). Edited by David T. Runia, David M. Hay and David Winston. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. ———. “References to Other Exegetes.” Pages 81–97 in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus. Edited by David M. Hay. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Herr, Larry G., Lawrence T. Geraty, Øystein LaBianca, and Randall W. Younker, eds. Madaba Plains Project: The 1987 Season at Tell-elUmeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1991. ———, eds. Madaba Plains Project: The 1989 Season at Tell-el- Umeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1997. Hidiroglou, Patricia. “L’eau et les Bains à Qoumrân.” Revue des Études Juives 159 (2000): 19–47. Holm-Nielsen, Svend. Hodayot: Psalms From Qumran. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget I Aarhus, 1960. Humbert, J.-B., and A. Chambon. Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn Feshka I. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1994. Humphrey, Edith M. Joseph and Aseneth. Sheffield: Sheffield, 2000.

274

WASHING IN WATER

An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon Founded Upon The Seventh Edition of Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889. Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997. Johnson, Maxwell E. The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999. Kaplan, Aryeh. Waters of Eden: The Mystery of the Mikvah. New York: National Conference of Synagogue Youth / Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, 1982. Kee, H. C. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 775–829 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 1. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Kiley, M., ed. Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology. London: Routledge, 1997. Kittel, Gerhard, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–. Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford, 2000. ———. “Ritual Purity, Moral Purity, and Sacrifice in Jacob Milgrom’s Leviticus.” Religious Studies Review 29 (2003): 19–28. Klein, Ralph W. “Chronicles, Book of, 1–2.” Pages 992–1002 in Vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Kraemer, Ross Shepard. When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered. New York: Oxford, 1998. Kselman, John S. “Bathing.” Pages 107 in of HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. Edited by Paul J. Achtemeier. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. Kubo, Sakae. “The Sabbath in the Intertestamental Period.” Pages 57–69 in The Sabbath in Scripture and History. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1982. Kugler, Robert A. From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Larere, Philippe, O.P. Baptism in Water and Baptism in the Spirit: A Biblical, Liturgical, and Theological Exposition. Translated by Patrick Madigan, O.S.B. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1993. Larsson, Göran. Bound for Freedom: The Book of Exodus in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999. LaSor, W. S. “Discovering What Jewish Miqva’ot Can Tell About Christian Baptism.” Biblical Archaeology Review 13, no. 11987): 52–59. Levine, Baruch A. In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Vol. 5. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 1974.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

275

———. Numbers 1–20. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Levine, Lee I. Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “Baths and Baptism.” Pages 85–89 in of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James C. VanderKam and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Oxford: Oxford, 2000. Lim, Timothy H. “Kittim.” Pages 469–471 in of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford, 2000. Magen, Yitzhak. “The Ritual Baths (Miqvaot) at Qedumim and the Observance of Ritual Purity Among the Samaritans.” Pages 181–192 in Early Christanity in Context. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1993. Magness, Jodi. “Qumran Archaeology: Past Perspectives and Future Prospects.” Pages 171–199 in The Dead Sea Scrolls after 50 Years. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Malina, Bruce J. “Understanding New Testament Persons.” The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation. Edited by Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996. Mansoor, Menahem. The Thanksgiving Hymns: Translated and Annotated With an Introduction. Leiden: Brill, 1961. McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. The Book of Psalms. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. “The Origins of Israelite Religion.” Pages 118–141 in The Rise of Ancient Israel. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992. McKay, Heather A. Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 1994. McKenzie, Steven L. “Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 160–168 in Vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Societies, 1994. Meyer, Lester. “Remnant.” Pages 669–671 in Vol. 5 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. Meyers, Eric M. “The Pools of Sepphoris: Ritual Baths or Bathtubs? Yes, They Are.” Biblical Archaeology Review 26, no. 4 (July/August 2000): 46–49. ———, ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. New York: Oxford, 1997.

276

WASHING IN WATER

Meyers, Eric M., and Mark Chancey. “How Jewish was Sepphoris in Jesus’ Time?” Biblical Archaeology Review 26, no. 4 (July/August 2000): 18–33. Milgrom, Jacob. “Priestly (“P”) Source.” Pages 454–461 in Vol. 5 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. ———. “Deviations from Scripture in the Purity Laws of the Temple Scroll.” Pages 159–167 in Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. Edited by Shemaryahu Talmon. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991. ———. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1991. ———. “Sacrifice.” Pages 807–812 in of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford, 2000. The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. Oxford: Oxford, 1933. The Mishnah—A New Translation. Translated by Jacob Neusner. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Moore, Carey A. Judith. Garden City: Doubleday, 1985. Mosca, Paul. “Psalm 26: Poetic Structure and the Form Critical Task.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 (1985): 213–237. Netzer, Ehud. Masada III: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1991. ———. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavataions. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2001. ———. “The Winter Palaces of the Judaean Kings at Jericho at the End of the Second Temple Period.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 228 (1977): 1–14. Neusner, Jacob. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities. Leiden: Brill, 1974. ———. A Religion of Pots and Pans? Modes of Philosophical and Theological Discourses in Ancient Judaism—Essays and a Program. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. ———. Judaic Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: A Systematic Reply to Professor E. P. Sanders. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. ———. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities Part 14 – Literal and Historical Problems, The Judaic Law of Baptism: Tractate Miqvaot in the Mishnah and the Tosefta: A Form-Analytical Translation and Commentary and a Legal and Religious History. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Newsome, James D. Greeks, Romans, Jews: Currents of Culture and Belief in the New Testament World. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

277

Neyrey, Jerome H. “The Footwashing in John 13:6–11: Transformation Ritual or Ceremony?” Pages 198–213 in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks. Edited by L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995. Nielsen, Inge, and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen, eds. Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998. Nitzan, Bilhah. “Repentance in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 144–170 in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Piccirillo, Michele. “Machaerus.” Pages 391–393 in Vol. 3 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. 5 vols. New York: Oxford, 1997. Porter, Adam Lowry. “Transjordanian Jews in the Greco-Roman Period: A Literary-Historical Examination of Jewish Habitation East of the Jordan River from its Biblical Roots through the Bar-Kochba Revolt.” Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1999. Pritchard, James B. Tell Es-Sa idiyeh: Excavations on the Tell, 1964–1966. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985. Propp, William H. C. Exodus 1–18. Garden City: Doubleday, 1999. Qimron, Elisha, and John Strugnell. Qumran Cave 4. V: Miqsat Ma’ase HaTorah. DJD X. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Regev, Eyal. “Non-Priestly Purity and its Religious Aspects According to Historical Sources and Archaeological Findings.” Pages 223–246 in The Heritage of Leviticus. Edited by M. J. H. M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Reich, Ronny. “The Hot Bath-House (balneum), the Miqweh and the Jewish Community in the Second Temple Period.” Journal of Jewish Studies 39 (1988): 102–107. ———. “Miqva’ot (Jewish Ritual Immersion Baths) in Eretz-Israel in the Second Temple and the Mishnah and Talmudic Periods.” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1990. ———. “The Synagogue and the Miqweh in Eretz-Israel in the Second-Temple, Mishnaic, and Talmudic Periods.” Pages 289–297 in Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Edited by Dan Urman and Paul V. M. Flesher. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ———. “They Are Ritual Baths: Immerse Yourself in the Ongoing Sepphoris Mikveh Debate.” Biblical Archaeology Review 28, no. 2 (March/April 2002): 50–55. Reich, Ronny, Gideon Avni, and Tamar Winter. The Jerusalem Archaeological Park. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1999.

278

WASHING IN WATER

Ricks, Stephen D. “Miqva’ot: Ritual Immersion Baths in Second Temple (Intertestamental) Jewish History.” Pages 277–286 in Masada and the World of the New Testament. Edited by Dan Urman and Paul V. M. Flesher. Provo: Brigham Young University, 1997. Robinson, Gnana. The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A Comprehensive Exegetical Approach. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1988. ———. Let Us Be Like the Nations: A Commentary on the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Rohrbaugh, Richard L. The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996. Sanders, E. P. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. London: SCM, 1990. ———. Judaism: Practice and Belief: 63 B.C.E. – 66 C.E. London: SCM, 1994. Shutt, R. J. H. “Letter of Aristeas.” Pages 7–34 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Smith, Jonathan Z., ed. The Harper Collins Dictionary of Religion. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995. Stauffer, S. Anita. On Baptismal Fonts: Ancient and Modern. Bramcote, Nottingham: Grove Books, 1994. Thompson, Thomas L. The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past. London: Jonathan Cape, 1999. ———. The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. New York: Basic Books, 1999. Tigay, Jeffery H. Deuteronomy: The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Tobin, T. H. The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1983. Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Modern Research. Jerusalem: Simor Ltd., 1981. Tubb, Jonathan. “Sa idiyeh, Tell Es-.” Pages 1295–1300 in Vol. 4 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by Ephraim Stern. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993. Unterman, Jeremiah. “Remnant.” Pages 923–924 in of HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. Van Mieris, Willem. “Bathsheba.” Oil on Panel. 1662–1747. Snite Museum of Art, South Bend, IN VanderKam, James C. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. ———. An Introduction to Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

279

VanderWoude, Adam S. “Fifty Years of Qumran Research.” Pages 1–46 in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Waheeb, Mohammad. “Wadi Al-Kharrar Archaeological Project (Al-Maghtas).” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42 (1998): 635–638. ———. “Wadi Al-Kharrar Archaeological Project: The Monastery.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 43 (1999): 549–557. ———. “Recent Discoveries East of the Jordan River, Wadi Al-Kharrar Archaeological Project: Preliminary Report,” 2000. Wellhausen, Julius. Prologomena to the History of Israel: Reprint of the Edition of 1885. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Wills, Lawrence M. The Book of Judith. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999. Wintermute, O. S. “Jubilees.” Pages 35–142 in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. Wood, Bryant G. “To Dip or Sprinkle? The Qumran Cisterns in Perspective.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 256 (1985): 45–60. Wright, Benjamin G., III. “Jewish Ritual Baths—Interpreting the Digs and the Texts: Some Issues in the Social History of Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 190–214 in The Archaeology of Israel. Edited by Neil Asher Silberman and David Small. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1997. Wright, David P. “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity.” Pages 150–182 in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel. Edited by Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1991. ———. “Unclean and Clean (OT).” Pages 729–741 in Vol. 6 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Yadin, Yigael. The Excavation of Masada 1963/64: Preliminary Report. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965. ———. Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealot’s Last Stand. New York: Random House, 1966. ———. The Temple Scroll. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983. Yegül, Fikret. Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992.

AUTHOR INDEX
Abegg, Martin, Jr., 87, 88, 93, 97, 105, 129, 131, 138, 146, 152, 178 Alexander, T. Desmond, 14, 41 Amit, David, 163 André, G., 25 Arnold, Bill T., 12 Ashby, Godfrey., 71, 96 Baillet, Maurice, 88, 121, 144 Bamberger, Bernard J., 29 Barthélemy, D., 136 Bartlett, John R., 174 Barton, George A., 40 Baumgarten, Joseph M., 60, 84, 89– 91, 97, 99, 100, 102, 104–112, 114, 118, 122, 137, 139, 141, 142, 145, 147, 148, 189, 191 Bell, Catherine, 19 Ben—Pechat, M., 172 Bilde, Per, 113 Black, Matthew., 113 Blenkinsopp, Joseph, 14, 41 Brooke, G. J., 106 Brooks, Oscar Stephenson, 12, 40 Broshi, Magen, 107 Brueggemann, Walter, 71 Budd, Philip J., 29 Burchard, C., 44 Burton, John., 34 Cahill, Jane M., 180 Cairns, Ian, 34 281 Carr, David M., 14, 41, 196 Chambon, A., 82, 175 Charlesworth, James H., 112, 115, 116, 126 Chancey, Mark, 181 Childs, Brevard S., 96 Clines, David J. A., 25, 26, 84, 123, 142 Cohen, Shaye, 23, 44, 72, 75, 76, 82, 109, 114, 117, 136, 179, 190 Collins, Adela Yarbro, 1, 3, 9, 10, 18, 37, 72, 74, 75, 109, 117, 122, 135, 139, 140, 151, 199 Collins, John J., 58 Colson, F. H., 65, 68 Cook, Edward, 87, 104, 117, 125, 143, 147 Cross, Frank Moore, Jr., 82, 173 Dahood, Mitchell, S. J., 37, 56 Danby, Herbert de Vaux, Roland, O.P., 3, 173, 174, 175 Douglas, Mary, 12 Eliav, Yaron Z., 4 Eshel, Esther, 99, 121 Eshel, Hanan, 159, 164, 181, 182, 192 Evans, Mary J., 160 Fabry, H. J., 25 Falk, Daniel, 129

282

WASHING IN WATER Larere, Philippe, O.P., 13 Larsson, Göran, 96 LaSor, W. S., 4, 13, 162, 173 Levine, Baruch A., 8, 24, 33, 96, 188, 189 Levine, Lee I., 60 Lichtenberger, Hermann, 1, 9 Liddell, H. G., 45 Lim, Timothy H., 82 Maass, F., 25 Magen, Yitzhak, 159 Magness, Jodi, 3, 82, 83, 85–89, 99, 148, 150, 157–159, 161–164, 170, 174–179, 181, 182, 187, 191, 192, 197 Malina, Bruce J., 179 Mansoor, Menahem, 122, 134 Marcus, R., 57, 58 McCann, J. Clinton, Jr., 56 McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr., 12 McComiskey, T. E., 26 McKay, Heather A., 61 McKenzie, Steven L., 196 Metzger, Bruce M., 188 Meyer, R., 45 Meyer, Lester, 120 Meyers, Eric M., 157, 158, 165, 167, 180, 181, 192 Milgrom, Jacob, 2, 7, 8, 24, 26–31, 33, 34, 37, 41, 49, 50, 54, 63, 87, 89, 94, 100, 101, 112, 145, 148, 150, 164, 188, 189, 194, 196, 198 Moore, George F., 13 Moore, Carey A., 60 Mosca, Paul, 56 Müller, H.—P., 26 Netzer, Ehud, 165, 166 Neusner, Jacob, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, 24, 30, 40, 50, 127 Newsome, James D., 54 Neyrey, Jerome H., 16 Sigismund Nielsen, Hanne, 113 Nielsen, Inge, 113 Nitzan, Bilhah, 10, 128, 153 Oepke, A., 45

Fine, Steven, 180 Foerster, Gideon Fletcher, Elaine Ruth, 171 Friedman, Richard Elliott, 3, 40, 52, 78, 85, 150 Frymer—Kensky, Tikva, 12 Galor, Kati, 167 García Martínez, Florentino, 87, 89, 103, 122, 125, 147 Geraty, Lawrence T., 170 Goldstein, Jonathan A., 63, 190 Grabbe, Lester L., 26, 39, 40, 44, 46, 48, 51, 57–59, 61, 63 Grimes, Ronald L., 19 Hachlili, R., 59 Hamp, V., 26 Harrington, Hannah K., 2, 5, 28, 44, 50, 56, 83, 85–89, 93, 96, 100– 104, 108, 113, 115, 116, 151, 152, 180, 188, 189, 197 Harris, R. Laird, 25, 26 Hauck, F., 45 Hay, David M., 69 Herr, Larry G., 170 Hidiroglou, Patricia, 174 Holm—Nielsen, Svend, 122, 123, 127, 134 Humbert, J.—B., 82, 175 Humphrey, Edith M., 44, 72 Hunziger, 45 Ji, Chang—Ho, 172 Johnson, Maxwell E., 202 Kaplan, Aryeh, 4, 11, 30, 85, 156, 163, 165 Kee, H. C., 58 Kiley, M., 59 Klawans, Jonathan, 2, 7, 12, 17, 18, 26, 29, 33, 35, 37, 39, 42, 50, 65, 67, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 152, 193 Klein, Ralph W., 196 Kraemer, Ross Shepard, 44, 72 Kselman, John S., 1 Kubo, Sakae., 63 Kugler, Robert A., 58, 106, 107

AUTHOR INDEX Oswalt, J. N. , 25 Pitre, Brant J., 186 Piccirillo, Michele, 172 Porter, Adam Lowry, 169 Pritchard, James B. , 169 Propp, William H. C., 71 Qimron, Elisha, 88, 93, 94, 101, 102, 124, 128, 146, 148, 176, 178, 189 Regev, Eyal, 86, 167, 181 Reich, Ronny, 3–6, 24, 157–162, 164–169, 172, 173, 176, 179– 182, 190, 191 Ricks, Stephen D., 166 Ringgren, Helmer, 25 Robinson, Gnana, 63, 160 Rohrbaugh, Richard L., 116 Sanders, E. P., 3–6, 24, 29, 39, 48, 49, 51, 55, 56, 59, 83, 86, 89, 118, 146, 150, 161–164, 166– 168, 180, 190, 193, 197, 198 Scott, R., 45 Shutt, R. J. H., 46, 57 Smith, Jonathan Z., 19 Stauffer, S. Anita, 142, 143 Stigers, H. G., 25 Strugnell, John, 88 Thackeray, H. St. J., 48, 53, 62, 63 Thompson, Thomas L., 41

283

Tighchelaar, Eibert J. C., 87, 89, 103 Tigay, Jeffery H., 34 Tobin, T. H., 69 Tov, Emanuel, 46 Tubb, Jonathan, 169 Unterman, Jeremiah, 120 Van Groningen, G. G., 25 Van Mieris, Willem, 160 VanderKam, James C., 49, 51, 54, 59, 82, 114, 135, 150, 151, 157 VanderWoude, Adam S., 81 Vermes, Geza, 138, 147 Waheeb, Mohammad, 171 Wellhausen, Julius, 34 White, W., 25 Wills, Lawrence M., 60 Wintermute, O. S., 56, 107 Wise, Michael , 87, 103 Wood, Bryant G., 161, 173 Wright, Benjamin G., III, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 24, 45, 147, 166–168, 181, 186, 190 Wright, David P., 1, 12, 19, 196 Yadin, Yigael, 3, 50, 62, 87, 88, 92, 94–96, 102, 103, 108, 112, 130, 132, 146, 165, 166 Yamauchi, E., 25 Yegül, Fikret, 168

SCRIPTURE INDEX
Hebrew Bible Genesis 1:1–11 1:26 2–3 18:4 19:2 34 20:10–11 20:26 22:18 24:10 25:8 28 28:43 29 29:4 29:7 29:21 29:45–46 30 30:17 30:17–21 30:18–19 30:18–21 30:19–21 30:20 30:21 40 40:9 40:12–13 40:12–15 40:14–15 40:30 40:31 40:32 44:26 285 39 116 62 32, 33 130 70 31 8, 17, 30, 53, 70, 107 30, 31 64 25, 64 130 16, 30 8 52 198 31 37 52 25, 107 8, 16, 17 64 34 107 53 198 107 31 150

14 14 134 4 16 71

Exodus 40 2:3 88 6:20 150 12:22 142 12:43–44 135 12:43–49 71 12:44 71 12:48 71 19 16, 95, 96, 102, 103, 150, 186, 196 19:9–10 95 19:9–15 6 19:10 100, 158 19:14 32, 33, 97 19:10–15 31, 32 19:14 32, 33, 97 19:14b 32 19:15 32, 95, 102 20:8–11 65, 188

286

WASHING IN WATER 14:2–9 111 14:4–9 93 14:5 84, 132 14:8 27, 93, 101 14:8–10 88 14:9 7, 101 14:20 7, 93 14:50–52 84, 132 15 27, 91, 94, 100, 110, 145 15:2–11 88 15:13 8, 29, 33, 48, 84, 132, 101 15:13–15 27, 87, 101 15:16 34, 95, 100 15:16–18 27, 48, 88, 94 15:18 34, 97, 102, 103 15:19 100 15:19–24 2, 48, 49, 99 15:19-30 91, 98 15:28 29 15:28–30 101 15:31 6, 29, 98 15:32–33 48 16:4 25 16:19 25, 37 16:24 55 17:16 25, 28, 46 19:20 102 20:26 188 21 115, 130, 131 21:10 64, 107 21:12 64 21:17 130 21:17–21 68 21:17–23 131 21:23 31 22 54, 115 22:4 68 22:4–7 54 Numbers 5:1–31 5:2 5:3 5:12–13 3:5, 53 7, 28 88, 103 130 102

Leviticus 40, 46, 54, 91, 93, 96, 100, 101 2:3 88 2:10 88 6–7 94 6:15 89 6:18 89 6:24 89 7:6 89 7:15 89, 94 7:20 89 7:21 89 8 30, 107 8:1–3 30 8:6 30 8:10 30, 53 8:12 64 8:22–2 4 10:9 31 11 114 11–15 54, 146, 187 11:24–25 100 11:25 88 11:28 88 11:32 104 11:34–38 178 11:36 48 129 11:38 180 11:40 54, 148, 189 11:44–45 29 12:2 100 12:2–8 29, 48, 49, 97 12:4 99 12:8 7 13 16, 29.33, 48, 49 13–14 48, 50, 54, 93 13:1–8 49 13:4 27 13:45 89, 90 13:45–46 90 13:55–58 141 14 37, 48, 49, 87, 93, 110, 127, 145 14:1 48, 93 14:1–32 124

SCRIPTURE INDEX Numbers (continued) 10:10 148 11:18 32, 33 15:27–31 93, 124 19 5, 48–50, 54, 96, 105, 110, 111, 127, 178, 182 19:2 105 19:4 105 19:10 148 19:12 37, 96 19:12–13 51 19:13 6, 29 19:14–20 99 19:17 84 19:19 88, 96, 100, 111 19:20 51, 187 19:30 29 29:6 64 31:19 103 31:19–24 63 Deuteronomy 1:39 5:12–15 5:14–15 6:5 6:10–11 11:14 13:5 18:10 21:6–11 23:10 23:10–11 23:11 23:12–14 27–30 Joshua 7:13 22:17 24:13 1 Samuel 21:6 38, 40, 41, 43 136 65, 188 39 128 129 34 34 62 34, 57 95 34 27 62 138 3:5, 6, 31, 32, 33 33 32, 33 129 20:26, 63 34, 95 2 Samuel 5:8 7:18–19 7:22–26 11:2 11:4 11:8 11:11 12:20 1 Kings 7:23–26 7:38–39 7:40–47 8 2 Kings 5 5:1–19 5:10–14 5:14 23 Isaiah 1:16 4:3–4 4:4 7:15 11:6 28:25 44:2–3 52:11 63:3 66:17 Jeremiah 2:13 2:22 4:11 4:14 17:13 23:3–4

287 130 59 59 33, 160 8, 100 32 34 34

8 53 8 8, 34 53 5, 7, 33, 110 158 28 25, 110, 142, 145 35

36 35, 64 9 136 120 25 132 123 25 35

132, 133 37 123 9, 17, 36, 38 132 120

288 Ezekiel 1:3 11:13 11:19 16:4 18:7 18:31 20:38 24:13 31:6 31:13 36:25 36:26 44:26 46:9 Joel 3:5 Jonah 3:6 Micah 6:8 Zephaniah 3:11–20 Zechariah 14:8 Malachi 2:10 3:1–3 Psalms 1:3 12:6 15 24 26 26:6 26:6–7 51 51:2

WASHING IN WATER 44, 87 77 120 129 9 144 129 123 35 134 134 37 129 35 108 51:7 51:10 51:16–17 73 73:13 104:12 104:17 Job 14:19 Daniel 4:10–12 9:3–19 11:35 12:10 Ezra 6:20 Nehemiah 1:4–11 9:6–37 9:25 12:30 12:38 12:45 13:09 13:22 13:30 1 Chronicles 115 121 2 Chronicles 4:6 4:6–10 4:10 4:2–8 5:11 6:13 6:14–15 6:17–21 29 30:8 35:6 36, 37, 64 36, 64 36 9 56 137 137

25

134 59 123 123 35, 40, 41, 44 5, 35 35, 40, 41, 44 59 59 129 35, 150 108 35, 40, 150 35, 150 35, 150 35, 150 40, 41 40, 41, 53 8, 35, 53 198 35 53 8 144 59 59 150 121 35

120

144

9

120

132

134 121 56 56 9, 56, 57 9, 36.37, 119 56, 57, 60 9, 36, 125, 129 17, 36, 37, 64

SCRIPTURE INDEX New Testament Matthew 21:24 3:11–12 Mark 2:8 7:8 Luke 3:16–17 John 1:28 4:10–14 7:37–39 12:1–8 13:6–11 Acts 2:38 Romans 6:3–4 1 Corinthians 11:10 13:16–17 Ephesians 2:21–22 1 Peter 2:5 Revelation Apocrypha Judith 4:3 9:1 12:7–8 15, 44, 64, 77 53 60 5 12:7b–9 14:10 16:18 11 153 2 Maccabees 12:38 Tobit 2:9

289 17, 60, 61, 109, 168, 193 75 55 15, 44, 63, 153 5, 62, 110, 189, 193

153 11

48, 107, 168

Second Temple Period Literature 153 Joseph and Aseneth 44, 70, 77, 78 8:5 64 14:12–13 5, 59, 73, 135, 143, 153, 168, 193 14:15 5, 59, 73, 135, 168, 193 29–37 59 Josephus 15, 44, 47, 48, 64, 77, 78, 102, 150 128 Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 11 3.114 3.197 3.258 3.258–261 3.261 3.261–265 3.258–264 3.263 3.269 3.277–279 3.278–279 3.279 6.235 6.236 8.85–87 12.106 15.380 17.171 18.117 69

171 132 132 16 16

115 83

83

9, 83 85

52 64 53 9 48 269, 48, 96, 189 5 48, 51 48, 96, 98, 189 56 69–70 112 63, 117 5, 9 53 57, 58, 110 53 173 74

290

WASHING IN WATER Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit 75 65 75–91 151 84 65 Philo, Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 1.32 81, 69 3.3 69 2.43 69 3.52 69 3.53 69 4.64 69 4.121 69 4.123 69 4.145 69 4.168 69 4.196 69 Philo, De Specialibus Legibus 1.8 69 1.80–81 68 1.117–119 53 1.119 5, 9 1.126 9 1.191 66 1.193 66 1.257–266 10, 188 1.257–258 67 1.257–261 127 1.259–260 67 1.261 59 1.261–262 50 1.262 50 1.263–266 18, 19, 68 1.269 65 3.205–206 59 Philo, De vita contemplativa 137 25 76 66 58, 70, 110, 143, 153, 155, 168 89 59, 110, 168

Josephus, Bellum judaicum 15 1.122 64 2.119–121 102, 151 2.120–121 136 2.122 75 2.123 112 2.124–127 137 2.126 112 2.128–129 61, 143, 153 2.129 51, 74, 114, 135, 177, 193 2.131–142 153 2.132 112 2.137 70 2.137–138 139–141, 151 2.137–142 74, 77, 135, 143, 155, 193 2.139–142 138 2.147 116 2.147–149 115 2.149 62 2.159 62 2.160–161 136 2.161 51, 143 Jubilees 1.22–25 2.29 2.43 2.45 2.96 3.8–14 21.15–16 21.15–17a 30 Letter of Aristeas 61, 64, 78 105–106 304b–306 Philo 56, 71, 107 66 112 56 56 107 97 107 55 71 44, 54, 57–59, 55 57, 110, 168

15, 44, 64, 65, 77, 78, 150

Philo, Hypothetica 11.14

136

SCRIPTURE INDEX Sibylline Oracles 3.591–593 Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH VI 3–4 VI 8 VII 19 VIII 16 VIII 18–21 IX 8 IX 31–33 XVI 10–14 XVI 11–15 1QM I 12 V 11–12 VII 3–7 VII 3–4 VII 3–8 VII 6–8 IX 7–8 XVI 2–4 123, 137 122 120 115 122 122 122 123 127 133 109, 114, 118, 121, 122 82 122 131 95, 102 115 116 107, 115 114 82 121 110 V8 V 11–12 V 13–14 V 20–21 V 23–24 V 7–8 VI 4–7 VI 13–14 VI 13–23 VI 16 VI 16–24 VI 18 VI 18–19 VI 20 VI 20–23 VI 22 VII 12–15 VIII 16–18 VIII 16–19 VIII 4–7 VIII 19

291 138 93, 124 10, 114, 139, 193 137 137 140 113 140 136 140 113, 151, 177, 193 113 85, 94, 152 140 176 137 116, 138 123 124 83, 94, 187 123 95 121 136 129 178 103 107

1QSa (1Q28a) I 25–26 II 3 II 8–11 II 8–10 3Q15 II 11–12 XI 9 4Q196–200 (Tobit) 4Q213 1 I 6–10 4Q214 4Q219 II 4Q254 I 6 4Q265 4 II 3–7 7 3, 8–10 7 II 11–14 7 II 13–17

1QpHab II 12–15 XII 8–9

1QS 118, 141, 152 I 11–13 127 I 16–II 1 94 I 16–II 10 138, 141 I 21–II 1 85, 142 II 1–10 85 III 4–5 143 III 4–6 114, 124, 129, 139, 141, 143 III 4–9 193 III 6–9 129, 139, 141 III 8–9 143 IV 19–22 129 IV 20 122 IV 20–22 120, 188 IV 25 129

106, 109, 132, 193 106 107 111 111, 138 138 111 98 97

292

WASHING IN WATER 4Q370 II 1–4 4Q375 I 8–9 3 3 4Q376 1 I 1–3 4Q393 1 II 4–6 1 II 3 5–6 3 8–9 4Q397 6–13 4Q400 1 I 14–16 4Q414, 10 1I4 2–3 II 3–5 43 I 4 12 1–10 13 1–10 4Q418, 81 1–3 125 107, 115 115 107, 115 128 129 129 129 129 107, 176 121 120 99, 118, 177, 182 138 145 138 138 146 133 107, 108, 115 148 121 10 114 143, 153 117 118 84, 88 88 112 115

4Q266 (See Damascus Document) 99 6 I 14–16 90 6 II 1–6 98 4Q271 1 I 13–14 2 II 10–11 3 13–14 V 15 4Q272 1 II 3 93 103, 115 117 148 93, 119 104

4Q274 110, 118, 142, 150, 151 1 I 1–4 84, 89, 92, 140, 151 1 I 4–9 91 1 I 8–9 84, 99 2 I 1–9 110, 140, 142, 193 2I7 117 2I9 117 2 I 9–2 II 1 141 2 II 1–9 110 3 II 2 112 4Q275 1 I 4 3I4 4Q276 1 1–9 4Q277 1 II 9 I2 4Q278 1 1–8 4Q284 1 I 6–8 1 I 7–8 2 I 1–4 2 II 1–6 3 1–5 4Q284a 1 2–5 2 2–7 4Q286 7 I 6 146 146 105 96 111 100 118, 145 96, 151 91 94 145 128, 145 117 118 128

4Q493 5–6 13–14 4Q511 35 1–5 4Q512 7–9 XI 1–3 11 X–XI 2–4 33 & 35 1–3, 5–10 4Q514 1 I 1–6 1 I 1–11 1V8 4Q525 2 II 2–3

SCRIPTURE INDEX 4QMMT B 13–16 104, 105, 189 B 39–49 131 B 49–51 131 B 52–54 131 B 55–58 176, 178, 180 B 59–62 102 B 64–72 92, 94, 124, 126, 189 11Q5 XIX 1–16 XIX 12–14 XXIV 12 125 125 125

293

11Q19 (Temple Scroll) 50, 88, 118, 186 XV 3, ff 107 XVI 2, ff 107 XLV 1 130 XLV 4–7 108 XLV 7–8 102 XLV 11 102, 103 XLV 11–12 196 XLV 16 143 XLVI 9–18 150 XLV 7–10 94, 102 XLV 15–16 87 XLV 15–17 84, 132 XLV 17–18 124 XLVI 16–18 94, 102, 116, 145 XLVI 17–18 91, 92 XLVII 3–18 150 XLVII 7–18 115 XLVII 13–16 116 XLVIII 14–16 99 XLVIII 14–17 92, 94, 116, 145, 147 XLVIII 17–XLI 4 150 XLIV 99, 177, 182 XLIV 13–17 111 LI 2–3 100 LII 13–21 115

Damascus Document (CD A) 119, 134 I 4–5 120 I 14–15 126, 133 III 15–17 133 IV 17–18 121 IV 19–20 126 V6 121 VI 3–4 147 VI 21–23 147 X 10–11 153 X 10–13 143, 178 X–XI 143 XI 01–02 112, 142 XI 03–04 112 XI 21–23 149 XII 1–2 101 XII 15–17 107 XIII 5–7 86, 108 XV 13–15 136 CD B XX 23 121

Testament of Levi 118, 125, 137 Cambridge Geniza A19–22 137 Mount Athos 104, 110, 125 Oxford Geniza C:22-D:3 106 Oxford Geniza C:1–8 106 Aramaic Levi (4Q213), 107, 109, 118–119, 125, 137 Early Christian Literature Chrysostom, John – Baptismal Instructions 11, 151 Didache Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 13, 166 Sixtus III, Lateran Inscription 144

11 11

294 Rabbinic Literature b. Hagigah 20a b. Hullin 84a b. Kerithot 9a b. Mo ed Qatan 15b b. Sanhedrin 99b b. Šabbat 13b–14a 113a b. Yebamot 465 46a

WASHING IN WATER 14:8–9 m. Niddah 7:4 9:3 9:9 m. Parah 3:2 3:2–4 3:6 3:7 4:1 4:4 4:5 5:1 6:5 7:9 8:8 8:9 8:10 m. Pesahim 6:2 m. Šeqalim 8:2 m. Sotah 9:15 m. Tamid 5:6 m. Tebul Yom 2:2–3 m. Yadayim 4:7 m. Yoma 2:9–10 m. Zabim 1:1–6 m. Zebahim 6:3 Sipra Numbers Sipra Shem Sher 8:9 Sipra Tazria 12:9 Sipra Zutta 88, 93, 124 146 182 49 144 103 105 105 105 105 5 112 177, 181 165 165 85 156 144 111 55, 108, 163 11, 127 148 28 178 108 28 108 93, 105, 124 28 90 106 180 162 108 108 105 116

182 147 111 103 93, 124 182 112, 147 111 117, 199

m. Avodah Zarah 3:4 182 m. Berakot 24:4 182 m. Demai 2:3 180 6:6 180 m. Hagigah 2:7 49 m. Hullin 1:1 131 m. Kelim 1:7 103 1:8 146 11:2 103 m. Makkot 1:1 180 6:4–5 180 m. Maksirin 2:5 182 m. Megillah 3:2 182 m. Middot 1:1 148 2:2 108 2:6 148 m. Miqwa ot 144 1:1–8 144, 164, 191 1:7 162 1:8 85, 156 4:4 165, 191 4:5 162, 163, 167 5:5 162 6:7–8 165 6:7–11 4 6:8 167, 176, 191 m. Nega im 3:1 108 14:2–3 88, 93, 124

t. Ma aserot 3:13 t. Miqwa ot 5:14 t. Nega im 3:1 t. Sukkah 4:24–25 Targum Pseudo–Jonathan y. Berakot 3:5

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful