Dualism and Eschatology in 1 QM: A Reply to P. R.

Davies
Author(s): John J. Collins
Source: Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 29, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1979), pp. 212-216
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1517442 .
Accessed: 17/01/2015 21:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vetus Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:47:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SHORT NOTES

DUALISM AND ESCHATOLOGY IN 1 QM

A reply
toP. R. Davies

In his article "Dualism and Eschatology in the Qumran War

Scroll", VT 28 (1978), pp. 28-36, Philip R. Davies offersa critique
of my earlierarticle "The Mythologyof Holy War in Daniel and
the Qumran War Scroll: A Point of Transitionin JewishApocalyp-
tic", VT 25 (1975), pp. 596-612. Unfortunately,his discussion
involves several major misunderstandingsof my argumentin that
article,and the force of his criticismsdepends on these misunder-
standings.In this note I wish to correctthe erroneousimpressions
of my position which may be createdby Davies's article.
1. Davies questions "the existence of holy war mythology"in
Daniel because Daniel expresseslittleinterestin the practiceof holy
war and the myth of the victoryover chaos does not necessarily
belong to "the holy war complex" (p.29). The relevance of these
considerationsto my article rests on the implicationthat holy war
mythologyentailsthe practiceof holy war and thatthe two together
constitute"the holy war complex". I should like to point out that
this implicationhas no basis in my article.I have argued at length
elsewhere that Daniel stands in sharp contrastto the militaristic
tacticsof the Maccabees (and so to the practiceof holy war) 1). What
I findin Daniel is the mythology of holy war: the representationof
violent conflictbetween supernaturalbeings 2). Since Dan. x 20
refersexplicitlyto fighting(lehilldhem) between the angelic princes,
to
it is difficult see how Davies can deny that such mythologyis
found in Daniel, or how Daniel's reliance on a divine act shows
that he "uses no war imagery". The use of holy war mythology,
or of war imagery,does not indeed entitleus to infera "holy war
complex" which includes the practiceof holy war. On the contrary,
if the fightingis done on the supernaturallevel it may enable the
faithfulhuman beings to take a non-violentstance and leave the
fightingto God or the angels. The idea of a holy war complex,
includingpractice,is however introducedby Davies as a straw-man
in the discussion. It is not a correctrepresentationof what I have
written.

Vol. XXIX, Fasc. 2

VetusTestamentum,

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:47:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SHORT NOTES 213

2. Davies interpretsmy use of the phrase "fundamentalshift"

as an affirmation that" 'Jewishapocalyptic'can be so simplydescribed,
as if progressingin a straightline throughDaniel and 1 QM" (p. 30).
Not only is this not my intention,but I explicitlystate that the
shiftin question was not irreversible(p. 612), and so I expressly
repudiate the theoryof a straight-linedevelopmentof apocalyptic,
which Davies attributesto me. I claim that the shiftin question
is basic to the dualism of Qumran. I do not claim that the thought
of the Qumran sectarianswas so consistentthat this dualism must
be found in every writing subsequentlyproduced at Qumran, and
I certainlydo not claim thatotherJewishapocalypses(manyof which
show no dependence on Daniel, 1 QM or holy war mythology)
were bound by the shift. Such a straight-lineview of apocalyptic
would indeed be an oversimplification,but it is not implied by
what I said in my article.
3. Contraryto Davies's assertion(p. 29) I do not claim that 1 QM
I, XV-XIX show no signs of sectarianism.In fact,one of the main
points in my articleis that "the dualistic mythin a Jewish context
was essentiallysectarian" (p. 610). I claim that the sectarianimpli-
cations of this mythare less clear in the War Scroll thanin 1 QS but
my article shows plainly that I do not hold that any section of
1 QM shows no signs of sectarianism.
Another misunderstanding(perhaps more understandable)is re-
lated to this. I do not date "the War Scroll at a point prior to the
foundationof the Qumran sect" (p. 29). I suggest that the dualistic
sections were written"before the people who formed the commu-
nity realised that their basic group identitywas not the political
nation Israel" (p. 610). This point was not necessarilyprior to the
foundationof the community.What is at issue is the way in which
the self-understanding of the communitywas formulated.
4. The heart of Davies's critique is that my thesis rests on two
assumptions: a) that cols. I, XV-XIX can be regarded as a unified
literarycomposition and b) that this composition is the earliest
stratumof the work. Here again he fails to representmy argument
correctly.
a) The point at issue here is what is meant by "a unifiedliterary
composition"(p. 30; the phrase is Davies's not mine). Since Davies
attemptsto refuteme byarguingthatdifferent stages can be identified,
he implies that I regard the work as an instantaneousproduct of
a single author who cannot have used sources or incorporated

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:47:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
214 SHORT NOTES

oldermaterial.(Davies pulls myphrase"writtenat a point ..." out of

its context.) I have never stated this view, nor have I implied it.
I would indeed agree to call cols. XV-XIX a unifiedliterarycom-
position in the sense in which Davies himselfcalls it a deliberate
composition "with a coherentstructureand purpose" 3). Whatever
the historyof the individual units may have been, theyare now in-
corporated in a coherent framework.Davies apparently accepts
thatthe dualisticstructurewithwhich I am concernedis indeed to be
found in that framework(p. 32). Since the same structureof the
war can be found in col. I, that passage can be consideredtogether
with cols. XV-XIX whether it was composed at the same time,
earlieror later.
Further,the unity of cols. I and XV-XIX becomes an issue for
my thesis only because I claim that thereis an ambivalencebetween
the nationalisticopposition of Israel and the Kittim and the oppo-
sitionof lightand darkness.Davies himselfargues thatthe references
to theKittimbelong withthe dualisticframeworkof the scroll(p. 32)
and even refers,in his book, to "the ratherconfused coexistence
of Belial and theKittimin 1 QM XV-XIX" 4). But thisis preciselythe
ambivalenceto whichI referred, and it is foundwithintheframework.
Furthercontrastsin terminologyin otherparts of the scroll do not
remove or explain this ambivalencein the framework.
Strictly,then, my thesis requires only that the frameworkcan
be treatedas a unit, and Davies has certainlynot shown that this
is improbable.
b) I did indeed suggestin myarticlethatcols. I and XV-XIX repre-
sent the earlieststratumof 1 QM. It is not however true to say that
anythingelse in my argumentdepends on that assumption. What
is essentialto my thesisis thatcols.I and XV-XIX can be considered
independentlyof cols. II ff.which presuppose a different structure
of the war. In this Davies agrees. In fact,in some respectsmy thesis
would be facilitatedby the view that the non-dualistic sections
of the scroll were earlier. Then the shiftto dualism would appear
more definitive5). I do not, however, accept Davies's view of the
historyof the scroll since his argumentson both relativeand abso-
lute dating are arbitrary 6). All I wish to point out for the present
is that even Davies's reconstructionwould at most require a modi-
ficationof whenthe shiftin question took place, and would not at
all underminethefactof the shift.
5. One further,minor, point: Davies writes: "in Collins's view,

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:47:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SHORT NOTES 215

the new dualisticconceptionopened the way to a universalistic

religion..." (p. 29). Thismightbe takentoimplythatI regard1 QM,
or the subsequentdevelopment of Qumran,as universalistic.
What
I actuallywrote was "potentiallyopened the way ..." (p. 612)
-I am farfromsuggesting thatthepotentialwas realized.

Davies's critiqueis based on repeatedmisunderstandings of my

position. This is unfortunate since some of the issues on which
we disagreeare substantial.One such issue concernsthe relation
betweena redactional framework and the materialwhichit frames.
Davies arguesthatthe dualistictermsin the speechof the Chief
Priest(XVI 15b-XVIII 9) are different fromthoseof theframework
(p. 33). He does not demonstrate that the two sets of termsare
incompatible but nevertheless he refers to themas "two sets of
mutuallyexclusiveterms"(p. 33). But how would the redactor
have understoodthe relationsbetweentheseterms?I would argue
thathis inclusionof older material(if indeedit is older) suggests
thathe did notregardthemas mutually butmoreprobably
exclusive,
regarded them as compatible variantformulations. If he nevertheless
allowed real inconsistencies between the frameworkand other
materialto remain,we mightwell suspectthathis thoughtwas
in a transitionalstagewherethe relationsof the two sets of terms
has not been clarified. (I do not in factsee any significanttension
betweenthe two setsof termsnotedby Davies on p. 33, although
I findsometensionwithinthetermsoftheframework). The presence
of elements whichwereoriginally independent does not necessarily
disrupttheliterary unityofa work.

Chicago JohnJ. Collins

1) JohnJ. Collins,TheApocalyptic VisionoftheBookofDaniel,HarvardSemitic

Monographs16 (Missoula,1977),pp. 192-218.
2) This usage is in conformity with a substantialscholarlyliteraturecited
in thenotesto myearlierarticle.
3) PhilipR. Davies, 1QM, The War ScrollfromQumran(Rome, 1977), p. 91.
4) P. 90. Contrast hisarticle,p. 31: "thedualisticand non-dualistic
terminology
is neverconfused". While Kittimis consistently found in the dualisticpassages,
it is not itselfa dualisticterm.
5) Davies indirectly suggeststhis(p. 30).
6) Note theinconclusiveness of his argumenton p. 35 wherehe asks whether
the war rule in cols. XIV and VII-IX is older than XV-XIX. His admission
that"we cannotbe certain"standsin sharpcontrastto the claim on p. 30 that
"it does not requirea lengthyexaminationof 1QM to show the improbability"
of thepriorityof XV-XIX.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:47:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
216 SHORT NOTES

Davies's argumentsforthe Romandate of the dualisticpassagesareextremely

flimsy(1 QM, TheWarScrollfrom Qumran,pp. 89-90).In parttheyreston dubious
argumentsforthe Maccabeandate of II-IX and the assumptionof "the lapse of
a fairlylong period beforethe revisionis undertaken".But is "a fairlylong
period" necessarilya hundredyears,or would ten suffice?Davies's further
argumentis thatthe cosmicscope of thedominionof Belial musthave its earth-
ly counterpartin Rome since Seleucidpower was relativelyslightoutsideSyria.
He overlooksthe factthatcosmic imagerywas commonlyused for kingdoms
of quitelimitedscope in theancientNear East.

JOB XXVIII 4: A NEW TRANSLATION

paras nahalme'im-gar
hanniskdihm dall] me'enoss
minni-rdgel na'd

Job xxviii 4 is a formidablecrux interpretum; as recenttranslation

attemptsclearlyillustrate,sense is not easilygleaned fromthis verse.
The New EnglishBible translates:
cut thegalleries;
Strangers
are
they forgotten as theydriveforwardfarfrommen.

However, this renditionis achieved only afterseveral emendations

including the unjustifiedomission of the Hebrew words minni-rdgel
dallu1). The New AmericanBible avoids the issue by deletingvs. 4
with the explanationgiven in its booklet of TextualNotes (p. 376):
"omit: corrupt".
Unfortunately the ancientversions provide us with few clues for
an understandingof vs. 4. AlthoughtheVulgate suggeststhe solution
to the problematic me'im-gdr in vs. 4a, Jerome's Latin does not
have notable success with the restof the verse:
Dividittorrensa populo peregrinante
eos
quos oblitusestpes egentishominumet invios.
The Septuagintis no betterhelp 2); for apartfromthe Theodotionic
addition of Origen, the Greek offersa pious but here irrelevant
observation:
(*x- 6axo7Trc X£E,appou OCTCO XOVLa o£ 8 iSTCXavovoo sevo o68ov
XOCXaOcv aoF6v]aoqv 'ex (po-rv.

Unhappily,llQtgJob is not preservedfor Job xxviii4.

I believe that Job xxviii 4 can be understoodwithout additions,
deletions, or consonantal manipulations.Furthermore,my analysis
of vs. 4 reveals an early witness to the hardshipsof miningin the

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:47:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions