SOME REFLECTIONS ON ANGELOMORPHIC HUMANITY TEXTS AMONG THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

CRISPIN H.T. FLETCHER-LOUIS

University of Durham, UK

Scholarly discussion of ancient Jewish angelology has, hitherto, largely assumed that angels are entirely suprahuman: angels are angels and men are men and each belong to a distinct order of being. In this respect discussion of angels among the Dead Sea Scrolls has re ected the wider discussion of the angelology of the period. It is generally recognised that humanity can share a community with angels (an Engelgemeinschaft) and it is widely supposed that human life and religious practice was thought at this time to mirror on earth the activity of the angels in heaven. Indeed, the communion between the righteous and the angels in the literature of the Qumran community is wellknown and has been thoroughly investigated. 1 One feature of late second temple angelology that has only recently come to the fore in modern discussion is the way in which the righteous are themselves regarded as angelic. Texts where humans are angelomorphicangelic in status or nature, though without necessarily having their identity reduced to that of an angelhave been the subject of a urry of studies in recent years, partly because of their potential signi cance for the understanding of early Christology. 2 The principal purpose of this present article is to focus in particular on the
1 See, e.g., H.-W. Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwrtiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran mit einem Anhang ber Eschatologie und Gegenwart in der Verkndigung Jesu (SUNT 4; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 66-73; B. Frennesson, In a Common Rejoicing: Liturgical Communion with Angels in Qumran (Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 14; Uppsala: University of Uppsala Press, 1999). 2 See, e.g., J.-A. Bhner, Der Gesandte und sein Weg im vierten Evangelium (WUNT 2.2; Tbingen: Mohr, 1977); C.R.A. Morray-Jones, Transformational Mysticism in the Apocalyptic-M erkabah Tradition, JJS 43 (1992) 1-31; C.H.T. Fletche r-Louis , Luke-Acts: Angels, Christolo gy and Soteriol ogy (WUNT 2.94; Tbingen: Mohr, 1997); C. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (AGAJU 42; Leiden: Brill, 1998).

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2000

Dead Sea Discoveries 7, 3

SOME REFLECTIONS ON ANGELOMORPHIC HUMANITY TEXTS

293

angelomorphic portrayal of two gures, Moses and the high priest. In doing so I return to a well-known Cave 1 text in which the high priest is compared to an angel (1QSb 4:24-28) and I also offer some fresh analysis of a recently released Cave 4 Moses text (4Q377). In several other places I have surveyed the evidence among the Scrolls for an angelomorphic portrayal of the righteous. 3 For the purposes of this essay it is worth orienting our discussion with a cursory examination of those angelomorphic texts known to the Qumran community which will be relevant for our analysis of 4Q377 and 1QSb. Pre-Qumran Angelomorphic Humanity Texts in the DSS Library Aside from those texts in the Hebrew Bible which already evince an interest in an angelomorphic understanding of kingship (e.g., 1 Sam. 29:9; 2 Sam. 14:17, 20; 19:17; Zech. 12:8 and cf. Ezek. 28:14, 16) the Qumran library contained a number of near non-sectarian compositions, known to be in use by non-Essene Jews, in which the righteous are described as angelic. In the zoomorphic allegory of 1 Enoch 89:1 Moses transformation from a bull to a man represents his exaltation from the human to the angelic level of being. 4 Such a transformation is spelt out in clearer terms by the priestly Sirach. The Greek translator of Sir. 45:2 says that God made [Moses] like unto the holy ones in glory (dj gvn), and made him great, to the terror of his enemies. We can be sure that the translator thought Moses had a speci cally angelomorphic glory here because the Hebrew text (Geniza MS B) has the word where the Greek has holy ones. Sirach is an important text for the understanding of Qumran literature since his priestly language and theology in many ways anticipates that of the community. Far more than Moses, Sirach is interested in the high priest. As C.T.R. Hayward has recently shown, the Hebrew author of the text describes Aaron in terms of the divine warrior.5 In Sir. 45:7 it is said of Aaron that God girded him with
Luke-Acts, 185-98 and 4Q374: A Discourse on the Sinai Tradition: The Dei cation of Moses and Early Christology, DSD 3 (1996) 236-52, esp. 240-42. 4 The parallel transformation of Noah from a bull to a man in 1 Enoch 89:1 is missing from the Qumran version of the Enoch collections (cf. 4QEn e 4 i 13-14) presumably because it con icted with the tradition that Noah was born angelic further on in the Enochic corpus (1 Enoch 106). Noahs angelomorphic birth was evidently of some signi cance for the Qumran community, occupying cols 2-5 of the Genesis Apocryphon and evidently recorded in another Cave 1 text (1Q19). 5 C.T.R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A non-biblic al sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1996) 66-67.
3

294

CRISPIN H.T. FLETCHER-LOUIS

the horns of a wild ox ( ) and in v. 8 that he clothed him with the perfect beauty ( ) and beauti ed him ( ) with Glory and strength ( ). The dif cult phrase ( ) is drawn from Num. 23:22 and 24:8 where it describes Israels God as the divine warrior rescuing his people from Egypt, devouring the nations before them. Again, the language of v. 8 echoes that used in the Psalms (esp. Ps. 29:1 and 97:6: ascribe to the Lord glory and strength) for Israels God.6 In this portrayal of the priest it is really unclear whether the epithet angelomorphic would do justice to the degree of exaltation in view: by virtue of his clothing (Exodus 28) Aaron is identi ed with Israels one God. A similarly remarkable anthropol ogy is developed in chap. 50 where Sirach pens a hymn in praise of the high priest Simon son of Onias. In Sir. 50:6-7 we are told Simon is:
Like the morning star among the clouds, like the full moon at the festal season; Like the sun shining on the temple of the Most High, like the rainbow gleaming in splendid clouds.

Whilst the astral language of v. 6 is broadly coterminous with an angelic identityfor the morning star compare Job 38:7the second half of v. 7 portrays Simon in terms of the anthropomorphic form of Gods Glory seated on the chariot throne in Ezek. 1:26-7. In Ezek. 1:28 this Glory is also like the bow in a cloud on a rainy day. 7 A, by comparison, more sombre account of the priestly vocation is given in Jub. 31:13-15 where Isaac blesses his grandson Levi:
And he [Isaac] turned to Levi rst and began to bless him rst, and he said to him: May the Lord of all, i.e., the Lord of all ages bless you and your sons in all ages. May the Lord give you and your seed very great g/Glory. May he make you and your seed draw near to him from all esh to serve in his sanctuary as the angels of the presence and the holy ones. May your sons seed be like them

The Greek text is different and some have doubted the authenticity of the Hebrew. For arguments in favour of the originality of the Hebrew see B.G. Wright, No Small Difference: Sirachs Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text (SBLSCS 26; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 171-73 and Hayward, Jewish Temple, 65-66. 7 For a fuller discussion of the theological anthropology of Sirach 50, see M. Barker, The High Priest and the Worship of Jesus, The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (eds C.C. Newman, J.R. Davila and G.S. Lewis; JSJSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 102-3 and C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, Wisdom Christology and the Partings of the Ways between Judaism and Christianity, Christian-Jewish Relations through the Centuries (eds S.E. Porter and B.W.R. Pearson; JSNTSup 192; Roehampton Institute London Papers 6; Shef eld: Shef eld Academic Press, 2000) 52-68.
6

SOME REFLECTIONS ON ANGELOMORPHIC HUMANITY TEXTS

295

with respect to g/Glory and greatness and sancti cation. May he make them great in every age. And they will become judges and rulers and leaders of all of the seed of the sons of Jacob.

Biblically, the closest parallel to this elevation of Levi to a service offered in Gods sanctuary as the angels of the presence and the holy ones is Mal. 2:5-7 where the prophet proclaims that the lips of the priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the angel (messenger) of the Lord of hosts ( ).8 Whatever Malachi meant by these words, the author of Jubilees has taken them as an unequivocal statement of the angelomorphism of the Levites in their worship. 9 Again the theme of glory that we encountered in Sir. 45:2, 8 and 50:7 is present in this text. Although it is not explicitly stated whose glory Levi is to possess, comparison with the Sirach passages would suggest both an angelic glory and that of God himself. The Divine and Angelic Humanity at Qumran Sirach and Jubilees are close literary relations of the Dead Sea Scroll texts, all being the product of a distinctively priestly scribal creativity. We should not be surprised, then, to nd that the divine (or angelomorphic) high priest and lawgiver is a picture that is developed in the Dead Sea Scroll corpus. And, indeed, we do discover close literary and conceptual parallels between Sirach 45, 50, Jubilees 31 and several Qumran texts. However, these views of Moses and the (high priest are representative of a wider phenom enon in the late second temple period. 10 Such a view of the high priest and Moses is also re ective of a more fundamental theological anthropology. Josephus says that Moses was a divine man ( yeow nr, Ant. 3:180) who was ranked higher than his own (human) nature ( tn ndra pepohke tw ato fsevw krettona nomesyai) (Ant. 3:320).
8 For the inspiration from Malachi 2 for Jub. 31:13-17 see the various treatments of the latter text by J.C. VanderKam, Jubilees and the Priestly Messiah of Qumran, RevQ 13 (1988) 353-65; The Book of Jubilees: Text and Translation (CSCO 510-11; Scriptores Aethiopici 87-88; Leuven: Peeters, 1989) 2.205; Jubilees Exegetical Creation of Levi the Priest, RevQ 17 (1996) 359-73 and Isaacs Blessing of Levi and his Descendants in Jubilees 31, The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds D.W. Parry and E. Ulrich; STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 497-519. 9 There is no warrant for a distinction between a functional (serving as priests) and ontological (being priests) interpretation of this text. 10 See, e.g., Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts, 118-29, 173-84; 4Q374: A Discourse on the Sinai Tradition, 242-47.

296

CRISPIN H.T. FLETCHER-LOUIS

Josephus has not simply idealised the Jewish lawgiver as a distant hero of old. He says much the same thing of the Essenes as a whole in a somewhat neglected passage where he says that Herod the Great upheld a widespread popular view when he had a higher opinion of them than was consistent with their merely human nature (mezn ti fronn p atow kat ynhtn fsin) (Ant. 15:372). 11 That this is, in fact, how the Qumran community saw themselves is con rmed by the Scrolls. It has long been recognised that in the Hodayot the righteous have been raised from the depths of human existence to the heavenly heights where they share the lot of the angels and experience the life of eternity, new creation, subsequent upon forgiveness of sins. 12 That the Qumran community members experience a speci cally angelic life also appears now to be in view in 4QInstruction, otherwise known as 4QSapiential Work A, a text extant in at least six copies and evidently of some value to the movement as a whole because it is written for the laity as much as the priesthood. 13 In his recent discussion of this text D.J. Harrington has noted how a number of passages re ect the communitys aspiration for the angelic life as their ideal mode of existence on earth.14 In a closer analysis of a particularly dif cult passage (4Q417 2 i 16-18 = 4Q418 43 13-14) J.J. Collins has argued that the statement that God gave it [i.e., the Vision of Hagi and the Book of Remembrance] as an inheritance to Enosh [or, man] together with a people of spirit, for according to the pattern of his holy ones is his fashioning should be taken to mean that the true humanity which follows the wisdom of the text is created in the image of the angels. 15 Collins further suggests that this view of humanity is derived from a reading of Genesis 1

11 See also Ant. 19:345 where the people who acclaim Herod Agrippa I a god say that yet henceforth we agree that you are more than mortal in your being ( ll tonteyen kretton se ynhtw fsevw mologomen). 12 See, esp. 1QHa 11:20-25 [3:19-24] and compare 14:11 [6:8]; 15:23-25 [7:19-22]; 19:15-16 [11:12-13]. See Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwrtiges Heil, 47-52; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS 26; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 152-56). 13 1Q26, 4Q415-18?, 4Q423. All these manuscripts are written in the Herodian formal hand of the late rst century BCE or early rst century CE. 14 Wisdom at Qumran, The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds E.C. Ulrich and J.C. VanderKam; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994) 57-58 on 4Q418 55 8-9; 69 12-13; 81 4-5. 15 In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran, The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1.43-58.

SOME REFLECTIONS ON ANGELOMORPHIC HUMANITY TEXTS

297

according to which the creation of Adam in the image and according to the likeness of elohim is taken to mean his creation in the image of the angels, i.e., the gods.16 Certainly, the view that Adam was created angelomorphic was not uncommon in the late second temple period (e.g., 1 Enoch 69:11; 2 Enoch 30:11, Adam and Eve 4:1-2, cf. Ezek. 28:12-16). For the Dead Sea Scroll community, however, we can be sure that an angelomorphic view of (the pre-lapsarian) Urmensch was related to a more exalted view of Adam as one created to bear Gods Glory. In the rst days prayer for the weekly liturgy of the Words of the Heavenly Lights (4Q504, 506) there is a remarkable retelling of the creation story according to which Gen. 1:26, the creation of Adam according to the likeness ( ) of God, is fused with Ezek. 1:28, where the anthropo morphic form of God occupying the throne in Ezekiels vision is described as ( ). The result is a prayer of thanksgiving to God that he has created Adam our fa]ther, in the likeness of [your] Glory ( ] [ ) (4Q504 8 recto 4). In another part of this liturgy it is Israel who recapitulates the true Adam as the bearer of Gods Glory (frags 1-2 iii 2-4: you have created us for your Glory [ ]), over against the nations who are nothing but a manifestation of the tohu (wabohu) of the pre-creation chaos. If the Qumran community thinks of itself as the true Israel and true Adam, which is created to bear Gods Glory it is not surprising that they should believe that, at times, their own identity is angelic. Whilst some have assumed that at Qumran there was a clear distinction between angels and humans, 17 there is enough here to suggest that a more exible theological anthropology was acceptable. Indeed, a longer study would demonstrate the ubiquity of this view among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the rest of this essay I con ne myself to an examination of the Qumran view of the angelomorphic Moses and high priest.

16 For other interpretations of this dif cult passage see, e.g., T. Elgvin, The Mystery to Come: Early Essene Theology of Revelation, Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (eds F.H. Cryer and T.L. Thompson; JSOTSup 290; Shef eld: Shef eld Academic Press, 1998) 139-47. 17 E.g., H. Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde (SUNT 15; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980) 224-27; M.J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1-36; 72-108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran (JSPSup 11; Shef eld: Shef eld Academic Press, 1992) 156 n. 1, 200 n. 1.

298

CRISPIN H.T. FLETCHER-LOUIS

An Angelomorphic Moses in Qumran Texts There are now extant a couple of texts in which Moses is angelic or divine: 4Q374 2 ii and 4Q377 1 recto ii. The rst of these I have discussed in detail in an earlier article in this journal. 18 In 4Q374 2 ii, Exod. 7:1 (See, I have made you [Moses] God to Pharaoh [ ]) is expanded (and he made him as God [ ] to the mighty ones and a and a cause of reeli[ng] to Pharaoh (line 6) and then related to the glorious transformation of Moses at Sinai (Exod. 34:30). 19 The statement in Exod. 34:30 that when Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, the skin of his face was shining, and they were afraid to come near him is developed in the lines that follow (lines 7-8). Moses is so trans gured that, like Aaron in Sir. 45:7-8, his effect on the people (they melted and their hearts trembled and th[ei]r inward parts dissolved, line 7) is that of the biblical divine warrior (cf. Ps. 107:6-7). Such is his visual transformation that the people do not recognise him (line 9)a tradition attested also in Pseudo-Philos Bib. Ant. 12:1. 20 Moses shining face then restores them, in much the same way that an angel might restore any mortal overcome with the numinous power of its presence. Line 8 says, and when he caused his face to shine upon them for healing, they strengthened [their] hearts. This is perhaps a deliberate evocation of Num. 6:25, that part of the Aaronic blessing where it is God himself who makes his own face shine upon the people for their well-being. If so, then Gods face is now mirrored in Moses face. The second Moses text is a poorly preserved manuscript written in Herodian script (4Q377 1 recto ii). Suf cient text of the second column of the recto can be made out for an angelomorphic Moses to be clearly read:
2. they understand the precepts of Moses 3. And he answered you [and] said: He[ar,] congregation of YHWH, and pay attention, all the assembly [ ] 4. to a[ll his] wor[ds] and [his] rulin[g]s. vacat Cursed is the man who does not stand ( ) and keep and carry [out]

See Fletcher-Louis, 4Q374: A Discourse on the Sinai Tradition. For the editio princeps see M. Broshi et al. (eds) in consultation with J. VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) 99-110. According to its editor (C.A. Newsom) the script is early Herodian semiformal (DJD 19.99). 20 Cf. Bib. Ant. 61:8-9 where the people fail to recognise the angelomorphically transformed David.
18 19

SOME REFLECTIONS ON ANGELOMORPHIC HUMANITY TEXTS

299

5. all the la[ws of Y]HWH by the mouth of Moses his anointed one ( ), to follow YHWH, the God of our fathers, who command[ed] 6. us from the mountains of Sina[i]. vacat And he has spoken ( ) with the assembly of Israel face to face, as a man speaks 7. to his neighbour, and li[k]e ( [ ] ) a man sees li[gh]t, he has caused us to see in a burning re, from above from heaven, 8. and on earth he stood ( ), on the mountain to teach us that there is no God apart from him and no rock ( ) like him. [And all] 9. the assembly [ ] answered, and trembling seized them before the Glory of God ( ) and the wonderful thunders ( ) 10. and they stood at a distance ( ). vacat But Moses, the man of God, was with God in the cloud ( ), and there covered ( ) 11. him the cloud for [ ] when he sancti ed him, and he spoke as an angel from his mouth, for who was a messen[ger] like him (or who from e[sh] was like him) ( [ ] [ ] ), 12. a man of the pious ones ( )? And he sho[wed ] which were never created before or afterwards

At rst sight, despite the lacunae, the text appears straightforward. Like the dei cation of Moses in 4Q374 the scene is again Mt Sinai. In a patchwork of biblical language and allusions drawing on material in both Exodus and Deuteronomy the text describes the giving of the Torah through Moses mediation. 21 Moses angelomorphism should not be limited to a functional similarity in speaking Gods words. It is related speci cally to his being covered by the theophanic cloud (Exod. 24:18; 33:7-11), which is therefore indicative of Moses peculiar identity. The cloud reminds us of the angelomorphic one like a son of man in Dan. 7:13, the Glorious and theophanic high priest Simon in the clouds in Sir. 50:6 and, in particular, the trans gured Jesus who is in so many ways a new Moses (Mark 9:2-13 and parallels).22 Again Moses being sancti ed ( , line 11) speaks of his peculiar identity and although this is not explicitly stated it probably has in view his becoming a holy one ( ) (cf. Sir. 45:2). Pressing beyond these cursory observations, however, the text raises questions and problems. (1) First, we are bound to ask whether the text has any literary coherence. Is the angelic description of Moses in any way integrated into its literary context? Is the text as a whole no more than a pastiche of biblical language, or does the choice and structure of biblical language serve any clear conceptual purpose? (2) Secondly, and as a speci c instance of this literary question, it

21 For a thorough discussion see J. Zimmermann, Messianische Texte aus Qumran (WUNT 2.104; Tbingen: Mohr, 1998) 332-42. 22 See also 4Q369 1 ii 8 and (the priestly) Enoch in 1 Enoch 14:8.

300

CRISPIN H.T. FLETCHER-LOUIS

is not clear who the subject of the standing in line 8 is meant to be.23 The immediately preceding subject of lines 5-7 is the God of our fathers, who commanded us from the mountains of Sinai, who has spoken with the assembly of Israel face to face and who has appeared to Israel in a burning re (lines 5b-6a). There is no grammatical indication of a change of subject at the beginning of line 8 (And upon the earth he stood [ ], on the mountain . . .), but rather the last of a string of paratactic clauses sharing the same divine subject. The image of God standing on the mountain is unusual, though not entirely without precedent since in Exod. 17:6 God says to Moses:
I will be standing ( ) there in front of you on the rock ( ) at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it, so that the people may drink.

The reference to Horeb could be read as an account not simply of Moses striking the rock at Massah and Meribah (Exod. 17:7), but a forward glance to the theophany at Sinai, and it is noteworthy that rock language appears for God a couple of lines later in the Qumran text (line 8). However, there are good grounds for thinking that it is Moses, not God, who is described standing in line 8. From line 5 it is Moses who could be the subject not only of the phrase who commanded us from the mountains of the Sinai (5b-6a), but also the statement that he stood on the mountain to teach. . . . Because this teacher teaches that there is no God apart from him and no rock like him this might imply that he is, in fact, someone other than God. That it is in fact Moses who is the one described as standing is further suggested by the fact that in lines 6-8 the text probably has in mind Deut. 5:4-6:
The Lord spoke with you face to face ( ) at the mountain, out of ] the re ( ). (At that time I [i.e., Moses] was standing between the Lord and you to declare to you the words of the Lord; for you were afraid because of the re and did not go up the mountain). And he said: I am the Lord your God, . . . you shall have no other gods before me

We can be fairly sure that lines 6-9 of 4Q377 1 recto ii are based directly upon Deut. 5:4-7 as the following examples show:
A B C ) with the assembly of Israel face to face ( He has spoken ( ) (Deut. 5:4a), as a man speaks to his neighbour, (Exod. 33:11). And as a man sees light he has caused us to see in a burning re ( ) (Deut. 5:4b, cf. Deut. 4:11; 5:23), from above, from heaven, and on the earth he stood on the mountain (Deut. 5:5c)

23

As Zimmerman (Messianische Texte, 338) has noted.

SOME REFLECTIONS ON ANGELOMORPHIC HUMANITY TEXTS

301

D to teach us that there is no God apart from him. (cf. Deut. 5:7: you shall have no other gods before me etc.) and no rock like him. E And all the assembly . . . answered, and trembling seized them (Deut. 5:5d: for you were afraid) before the Glory of God (i.e., the re of Deut. 5:5d?) and the wonderful thunders F and you stayed at a distance (Deut. 5:5d and did not go up the mountain, cf. Exod. 20:18)

Although the text does not cite Deuteronomy as though it were a pesher or some kind of midrash, that biblical text has provided the structure upon which all its parts are hung. The language of the Exodus version of the Sinai theophany has been introduced at a number of points. There are several biblical passages where God speaks face to face with Moses (Exod. 33:11; Num. 12:8; Deut. 34:10), and the expression speaking face to face as to a neighbour (lines 6-7) comes speci cally from Exod. 33:11. Lines 9b-10a have come from Exod. 20:18: When all the people witnessed the thunder ( ) and lightning, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking, they were afraid and trembled and stood at a distance ( ).24 But otherwise the Exodus account of the Sinai theophany does not have the precise structure of these lines of the Qumran text. So if Deut. 5:4-6 has provided the literary and conceptual structure of the text then that would suggest that it is Moses standing, not Gods, that is in view since in Deut. 5:5 it speci cally Moses who is said to stand. Furthermore, were our text interested in the standing of a human being rather than God this would cohere with two other instances of the use of the verb (to stand) in the immediate context. As we have just seen, line 10a refers to the assembly of the people standing at Sinai and line 4 would already appear to look forward to this scene when it says cursed is the man who does not stand ( ) and keep and do. . . . Although the people trembled, they did not fall but remained standing. Whilst these two instances of the verb do not necessitate a reference to Moses standing in line 8, they at least suggest that the standing theme is important for the text as a whole, which further accentuates the need for the interpreter to make sense of the ambiguity between God and Moses in the main body of the text. (3) Thirdly, another oddity arises from this latter problem. There is no doubt that line 6b cites the statement in Deut. 5:4 to the effect that God spoke intimately with the whole people of Israel at Sinai. Further, the introduction of the expression as a man speaks to his neighbour from Exod. 33:11 suggests that our author is reading Deuteronomy
24

The burning

re will have been introduced from Deut. 4:11 and 5:23.

302

CRISPIN H.T. FLETCHER-LOUIS

with one eye to Exodus. But it is precisely at this point that there is generally reckoned to be a tension between the two biblical Sinai accounts. Whilst Deuteronomy has direct contact between God and the people (cf. Deut. 4:12, 15, 32-33, 36; 5:19; 10:4), Exodus is quite clear that intimate communication between God and the people is reserved for Moses, whilst the people are kept at bay, unable to ascend the mountain let alone have communion with God face to face, as do friends. Does the citation of Exod. 20:18 (cf. Exod. 19:16) in lines 9b-10a mean that our author is oblivious to the differences between the two accounts? If not, how can he have the people both standing at a distance and interacting with God face to face, as a friend to a neighbour?25 In wrestling with these problems I suggest that each supplies the answer to the other and the author is deliberately, though somewhat allusively, combining different parts of the biblical text in order to resolve possible tensions inherent within it and in order to make a speci c theological point. The distinction between Gods standing and that of Moses is deliberately blurred because 4Q377 wants to say that in Moses standing there is Gods standing. This then facilitates a resolution of any perceived tension between Deut. 5:4 and Exodus 19 because it also means that in Moses speaking to the people, there is a mediation of Gods speaking to the people face to face. As is perhaps the case in 4Q374, where Moses ful ls Num. 6:25, Gods face is seen in Moses face. What God has been to Moses, Moses is now to the people. 26 On this reading, the statement in line 11 that Moses spoke as an angel through his mouth sums up the argument of the preceding section: because Moses is Gods angel, his words are those of his master. Because Moses is shrouded by the cloud, his presence is really Gods presence. The people did not ascend the mountain, but, although they remained at a distance, they had a face-to-face encounter with God because in Moses face they encountered Gods face. As in 4Q374 frag. 2, the author perhaps here has in mind the shining of Moses face in Exod. 34:30.
25 There are many ways in which the natural meaning of face to face in Deut. 5:4 can be avoided so as to pass over any tension with Exodus 19, as rabbinic tradition testi es (see, e.g., Pesiq. R. 21:6). But with the addition of as a friend speaks to his neighbour, 4Q377 leaves no doubt that the communication between God and Israel is to be regarded as analogous to that between Moses and God. 26 Indeed, this way of resolving the perspectives of Deuteronomy and Exodus is perhaps anticipated by Deut. 5:5 itself which quali es the direct contact between God and the people in the previous verse with reference to the mediation of Moses (cf. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11 [AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991]) 240.

SOME REFLECTIONS ON ANGELOMORPHIC HUMANITY TEXTS

303

The description of Moses as an angel in the cloud may also be intended to align the lawgiver with the Angel of the LORD tradition according to which Yahweh has an angelic persona which is a manifestation of his own being. As J. Fossum has shown, there is ample evidence within Samaritan tradition that Moses (or the Mosaic) prophet could be so identi ed with the Angel of the LORD.27 Already in the biblical text (Zech. 12:8) the Davidic king is aligned with the tradition of the Name-bearing angel attested in Exod. 23:20-21. In this case the people in 4Q377 will be like Gideon who saw the angel of the LORD face to face (Judg. 6:22). The suggestion that the ambivalence between Gods standing and that of Moses is deliberate might receive speci c support from the use of Deut. 5:5 in Philo, Samaritanism and proto-gnostic thought surrounding Simon Magus. Philo regards Moses Deuteronomic standing as an indication of his immortality.28 Fossum has pointed to the parallel phenomenon in Samaritan texts where Moses is known as the (immutable) Standing One (Memar Marqah 4:12), as was Simon Magus in Simonian gnosis (Pseudo-Clementine Homilies II 22:3-4; 24:6-27). 29 In the Samaritan and the rabbinic traditions this standing posture is generally indicative of the angelic life.30 Such an interest in standing as a posture symbolising immutability is already attested in the second century BCE author Aristobulus (frag. 2 [Eusebius Praep. Evang. 8.9.38-8.10.17] 9-12) and so we can be sure it was an idea to which the author of 4Q377 was potentially exposed. One of Philos treatments of this theme, in fact, deserves to be cited in full since it offers a number of intriguing parallels to the Qumran text. In the second volume of his work On Dreams 2:221-30, Philo writes:
Here I stand there before you, on the rock in Horeb (Exod. 17:6), which means, this I, the manifest, Who am here, am there also, am everywhere, for I have lled all things. I stand ever the same immutable, before you or anything that exists came into being, established on the topmost and most ancient source of

27 J. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism (WUNT 36; Tbingen: Mohr, 1985). 28 Sac. 8-10; Somn. 1:157-58; 2:222-23, 227-34; Post. 27-29, cf. the immutability of God as one who stands in Conf. 96; Somn. 1:241, 245; 2:222-23); Mut. 54, 87. See the discussion in, for example, A.F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (SJLA 25; Leiden: Brill, 1977) 170-71. 29 Fossum, Name of God, 56-58, 120-21. 30 See Fossum, Name of God, 121 and, e.g., Avot R. Nat. A 12:2; 37:2; Gen. Rab. 8:11; 14:3; b. ag. 16a; Pirqe R. El. 46.

304

CRISPIN H.T. FLETCHER-LOUIS

power, whence showers forth the birth of all that is. . . . And Moses too gives his testimony to the unchangeableness of the deity when he says they saw the place where the God of Israel stood (estkei) (Exod. 24:10), 31 for by the standing or establishment he indicates his immutability. But indeed so vast in its excess is the stability of the Deity that He imparts to chosen natures a share of His steadfastness to be their richest possession. For instance, He says of His covenant (diaykh) lled with His bounties, the highest law (nmow) and principle, that is, which rules existent things, that this god-like image shall be rmly planted with the righteous soul as its pedestal 32 . . . And it is the earnest desire of all the God-beloved to y from the stormy waters of engrossing business with its perpetual turmoil of surge and billow, and anchor in the calm safe shelter of virtues roadsteads. See what is said of wise Abraham, how he was standing in front of God (Gen. 18:22), for when should we expect a mind to stand and no longer sway as on the balance save when it is opposite God, seeing and being seen? . . . To Moses, too, this divine command was given: Stand here with me (Deut. 5:31), and this brings out both the points suggested above, namely the unswerving quality of the man of worth, and the absolute stability of Him that IS. For that which draws near to God enters into af nity with what is, and through that immutability becomes self standing. . . . Thus he [i.e., Moses] says: And I stood between the Lord and you (Deut. 5:5), where he does not mean that he stood rm upon his feet, but wishes to indicate that the mind of the Sage, released from storms and wars, with calm still weather and profound peace around it, is superior to men, but less than God. . . . The good man indeed is on the border-line, so that we may say, quite properly, that he is neither God nor man, but bounded at either end by the two, by mortality because of his manhood, by incorruption because of his virtue. 33

There are enough parallels between Philos discussion here and our Qumran text for us to wonder whether he is reliant on something like the latter. Like Philo, 4Q377 is working with Deut. 5:5, the giving of the Torah, and perhaps Exod. 17:6. Both texts think standing is a posture indicative of a transcendent identity in which the righteous can participate and of which Moses is the pre-eminent example. With the stability of standing is contrasted the corruptibility of motion, turmoil and storms, which is perhaps re ected in the tension between Israels standing (lines 4 and 10) and her trembling (line 9) before the Glory of God in the Qumran text. Whether this and other similar passages in Philo (cf. esp. Sacr. 8-10; Post. 27-29) are genetically related to 4Q377 is not certain, but remains a possibility. There is nothing speci cally Essene or sectarian in this text. Indeed the freedom with which the divine Name is used points away from

31 Here Philo is reliant on his Septuagint, since the Hebrew lacks any reference to Gods standing. 32 This dif cult image is then supported and developed through a citation of Gen. 9:11. 33 Modi ed from Philo V (trans F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker; LCL 275; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934) 542-47.

SOME REFLECTIONS ON ANGELOMORPHIC HUMANITY TEXTS

305

such a provenance. However, it is perfectly consistent with the Essene veneration of Moses and belief in his suprahuman identity. It is quite possibly both pre-Qumranic and the original possession of a wider movement, perhaps the asidim of 1 Macc. 2:42; 7:14 and 2 Macc. 14:6, from which Essenism may have emerged.34 If the reading of 4Q377 suggested here is on the mark then this Qumran text would con rm Fossums contention that here, as elsewhere, Philo, Samaritan theology and early gnostic thought derives from an older orthodox Jewish milieu in which Moses is regarded as an angelic or divine being. 35 According to Josephus the Essenes held Moses in high regard, judging any slander of the lawgiver as tantamount to blasphemy (War 2:145; cf. 2:152). Such a high regard for Moses in the Qumran community is now re ected in these two texts (4Q374 and 4Q377): it is easy to appreciate how, if Moses is regarded as and a , slandering him might be tantamount to blasphemy (cf. esp. Exod. 22:28). Indeed, it is possible that lines 4b-6a of the 4Q377 fragment, cursed is the man who does not . . . keep and carry out . . . all the laws of YHWH by the mouth of Moses his anointed one re ects the embracing of Gods principal mediator under the prohibition of blasphemy. The Angelomorphic and Glorious Priesthood at Qumran As we have seen in the pre-Qumran material Sirach and Jubilees the priesthood gures prominently as the angelomorphic bearer of Gods Glory. In as much as the priesthood represents the people and at Qumran it is the people themselves who are bearers of Gods Glory (4Q504), it is hardly surprising that this Glory should be intensi ed in those who mediate between God and his people. Given the characterisation of the priesthood in the Hebrew of Sir. 45:7-8; 50:7 and Jub. 31:14-15 on the one hand, and the priestly orientation of the Qumran community on the other, it is hardly surprising that this theme is developed in Qumran literature. Indeed, some important connections between these texts and those from the caves examined thus far present themselves. The way in
Cf. Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, 341-42. It is worth noting the way in which the ability to stand before God is related to worthiness and immortality in the Hodayot (see 1QHa 12:21-22 [4:20-21]; 18:11 [10:9]; 20:30 [12:27]).
34 35

306

CRISPIN H.T. FLETCHER-LOUIS

which the priest acts as divine warrior in Sir. 45:7-8 is taken up by Moses in 4Q374. The theme of g/Glory in both Sirach and Jubilees recurs in the anthropology of the Words of the Heavenly Lights. In particular the way in which the creation of Adam is fused with the vision of Gods anthropomorphic form in Ezek. 1:26-28 has an important precursor in Sir. 50:7 where the high priest is described in terms of Ezek. 1:28. That there is some liturgical and conceptual connection between the two passages is highly likely given that, as C.T.R. Hayward has shown, in Sir. 49:16-50:1 Simon the high priest himself is set up as the true, or second, Adam, uniquely bearing the rst Adams beauty. 36 There are now a number of instances where texts peculiar to the Qumran library evince the belief that the priests in general, and the high priesthood in particular, are angelomorphic or divine. 4Q511 (Songs of the Sage) frag. 35 describes the communitys priesthood as the holiest of the holy ones (cf. 1QS 8:5-6, 8-9; 4QMMT B 76-79) who have been separated by God in order to be an everlasting sanctuary (line 3). As such they shall be priests, his righteous people, his host and servants, angels of his glory (line 4: ).37 In general terms this re ects the angelomorphic priesthood tradition established in earlier texts. Once more the language is doxological. To call the human priesthood Gods host, that body of heavenly beings that accompanies the divine warrior, is to generalise from the characterisation of Aaron as the divine warrior (Sir. 45:7-8) to the priesthood as a whole. To describe the angelomorphic priesthood as servants is in accord with Jub. 31:14 where the Levites are to serve in Gods sanctuary as the angels of the presence. Whereas in Jubilees, Levi is to serve in his sanctuary, now in 4Q511 35 the priests are themselves to be that sanctuary. Again the designation of the priesthood as super-sancti ed holy ones re ects an intensi cation of the older tradition according to which the angelomorphic priests serve as holy ones (Jub. 31:14). Elsewhere, I have attempted to show that this understanding of the human priesthood at Qumran is present in a thoroughgoing liturgical form in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacri ce, where, contrary to the consensus among modern interpreters, it is the human worshippers, not suprahuman angels, who are the elohim, (angelomorphic) ministers,
Hayward, Jewish Temple, 44-46. For a justi cation of this translation and a rejection of others see Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts, 190-92.
36 37

SOME REFLECTIONS ON ANGELOMORPHIC HUMANITY TEXTS

307

priests, chiefs, and the like.38 This priestly self-perception is also re ected in a number of more fragmentary Qumran texts. For example, since a passing comment by J.T. Milik rst introduced the text, a fragment of 4Q543 (4QVisions of Amram), which says, you will be God (or, a god) and an angel of God you will be ca[lled ( ] ) has been read as an address to Aaron.39 This is possible, since the text may be part of a visionary Testament of Amram (4Q543 1 1-4 = 4Q545 1 i 1-4 = 4Q546 1 1-3) when a prediction of Aarons ordination to a new of ce would be a tting moment for him to receive a heavenly title. Also worth noting is 4QTLevid 9 i, a passage which has been much discussed for its possible use of the Suffering Servant song of Isaiah 53 to describe a heavenly high priest. Whether or not Isaiah 53 has contributed to the depiction of this high priests suffering he is indisputably heavenly since his word is like the word of the heavens and his eternal sun will shine; and its re will burn in all the comers of the earth . . . (lines 3-4). The one Qumran text that is without a doubt a description of an angelomorphic priesthood is 1QSb 4:23-28 which reads as follows:
( 24) (26) [ [...] [ ] ...] [ ] ... (25) [ ... ] [ [...] ... ] [ [...] (28) ] (27 ) ( 23)

(23) and to raise up at the head of the holy ones, and your people to ble[ss . . .]
your[. . .]brt in your hand (24) the men of Gods council and not by the hand of a prince yd[. . .] by each man for his fellow. And (may) you (be) (25) as an Angel of the Presence in the abode of holiness for the Glory of the God of Hos[ts . . . you] will be round about serving in the palace of the (26) kingdom and may you cast the lot with the Angels of the Presence and a common council [. . . for] eternal time and for all the glorious endtimes. Because (27) [true (are) all] his [ju]dgements. May he make you ho[ly] among his people, and to give light [. . .] for the world in knowledge, and to illuminate the face of the Many (28) [. . .] a diadem for the holy of holies, because [you are made] holy for him, and shall make Glorious his Name and his holiness.

38 C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, Ascent to Heaven and the Embodiment of Heaven: a Revisionist Reading of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacri ce, SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) 367-99. 39 See J.T. Milik 4QVisions de Amram et une citation dOrig ne, RB 79 (1972) 92. See PAM 43.577 and 43.578. For a reconstruction of the text, using a small fragment from PAM 43.578 to form the and the connection of the larger fragment of PAM 43.577 with another copy of the same text (4Q545) see K. Beyer, Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Ergnzungsband (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &

308

CRISPIN H.T. FLETCHER-LOUIS

Opinions as to whether this blessing was already in use for the Qumran Community are divided. In the light of the texts already discussed, however, there is no reason to think that its distinctively angelomorphic understanding of the priesthood is the product of a future transcendent eschatology: even if this blessing was reserved for the future, that future is a thoroughly this-worldly, historical one, and, in any case, this priests vocation is for the most part a re ection of texts where there is no doubt that the angelomorphism of the priesthood already serving is in view. In particular, we may discern here the in uence of the ordination of the Levites to their angelomorphic priesthood in Jubilees 31. Like the angelomorphic Levites in Jubilees the priest in 1QSb is to serve in Gods sanctuary (esp. lines 25, 28) as an angel of the face (or, presence). Both passages emphasise the themes of glory and holiness. In Jub. 31:15 Levi is to bless all the seed of the beloved, presumably with the Aaronic blessing of Num. 6:22-27. 1QSb 4:23 may also refer to the high priests role as blesser of his people, though the context is broken.40 Num. 6:22-26 plays a pivotal role in the rest of the Blessings Scroll as it does in other DSS texts.41 Several commentators have also seen the in uence of Num. 6:25 May the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you on line 27 where the priest himself is to give light [ ] for the world in knowledge and to illuminate the face of the Many.42 Both statements of the priesthoods angelomorphism are also made in blessings upon the priesthood: in Jubilees 31 Isaac blesses Levi, whilst in 1QSb the maskil blesses the high priest (see in 1:1; 3:22; 5:20). In Jubilees 31 the blessing of Levi precedes that of Judah (18-20), just as in 1QSb the blessing of the high priest (4:24-28) precedes the blessing of the (royal) prince of the congregation (5:20-29). In 4:28 the priest is to glorify Gods Name. There are only a few bibRuprecht, 1994) 85-87. Beyers reconstruction is used in F. Garca Martnez and E.J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997-98) 2.1084-85, 1088-91. 40 For Num. 6:22-27 here see H. Stegemann, Some Remarks to 1QSa, to 1QSb, and to Qumran Messianism, RevQ 17 (1996) 497 who considers 4:23 as 4:21 because he has estimated the number of lines per column differently (cf. ibid., p. 484). 41 See D. Barth lemy, O.P. and J.T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955) 121-29 notes ad loc; B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (trans. J. Chipman; STDJ 12; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 155-67; Stegemann, Some Remarks, 497. For Num. 6:22-27 in DSS see also 1QS 2:2-4; 4Q542 1 i 1; 11Q14 1 ii 7 = 4Q285 1 3-4. 42 Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, 282; Stegemann, Some Remarks, 497.

SOME REFLECTIONS ON ANGELOMORPHIC HUMANITY TEXTS

309

lical texts where humans are to do so and, perhaps signi cantly, Mal. 2:2 is the only instance where this is the priests vocation ( ).43 As we saw, Malachi 2 provided the biblical basis for the angelomorphic priesthood in Jub. 31:14 and its presence may still linger beneath the surface of 1QSb col. 4. The high priest here is both functionally and ontologically angelic. In line 26 he is to cast lot with the angels of the presence. In the context of the Rule Scroll (1QS-1QSa-1QSb) this casting of lots should probably be understood in relation to the covenant renewal ceremony (1QS 1:18-2:26) and the Two Spirits discourse (1QS 3:134:26), where the Priests and Levites blessing and cursing ensures the wicked are assigned to their lot (2:17) and the righteous within the community are placed in theirs (2:23), in a way that re ects the divinely ordained cosmic dualism between the sons of light and the sons of darkness in their respective lots (see esp. 4:26). As the cultic representative of the sons of light, the priest, perhaps echoing the role of the prince of lights (1QS 3:20, cf. 3:24), is to give light to the righteous. If Num. 6:25 is in the background in line 27 then it is as though Gods shining of his face has been delegated to the priest. This would then pick up the two Moses texts already discussed, where, in each case, there is the impression that Moses face is Gods own face. Indeed, in 4Q374 2 ii 8 we have already seen how Num. 6:25 has contributed to a statement of human divinity in this way. In this light to say that the priest is as an angel of the face is to say that he himself is to bear something of Gods own face and, therefore, his presence. Divine embodiment comes more prominently to the fore in line 28 where the high priest is to glorify Gods Name and his holiness. What does this mean exactly? This language is easily given an entirely transitive sense: the high priest glori es God by praising him verbally or otherwise directing the peoples attention to him. However, numerous considerations must mean that in this text the verb to glorify carries a certain re exive sense: the high priest is to glorify Gods Name by virtue of the fact that he embodies it and gives it substantial presencereal presencewithin the community. The context makes no mention of the high priest verbally praising God and so it is unlikely
43 Cf. the psalmist in Ps. 86:12, the nations in Ps. 86:9 and God giving glory to his own name in Ps. 115:1. The glorious nature of Gods name is widespread (e.g., Ps. 66:2; 72:19; 96:18; Neh. 9:5).

310

CRISPIN H.T. FLETCHER-LOUIS

that his giving Glory to Gods Name is meant in that sense. We have already seen how in Sirach 50 the high priest embodies the Glory of God and how Jubilees 31 and the Words of the Heavenly Lights again take up this rhetoric of Glory. When in Sir. 50:11 it says that Simon glori ed ( , djasen) the court of the sanctuary it means that by his presence (and his action) he lled the sanctuary with Gods own Glory. The force is probably similar in our text. In 1QSb 4:28 there is a reference to a diadem ( ) for the holy of holies. 44 This must be a reference to the holy diadem ( ) worn by the high priest according to Exod. 29:6; 39:30 and Lev. 8:9. A reference to this diadem is highly tting in the context given that the high priest is to glorify Gods Name and it is upon this diadem that the Name is inscribed. When the text refers to a diadem for the holy of holies it must be talking about the high priest who alone enters the innermost sanctuary (cf. m. Yoma 5:1-4; 7:4).45 Whilst some translators have recognised the reference in line 28 to this diadem, there seems to be a temptation to take the meaning metaphorically and restore may he make you] a diadem of holy of holies. 46 I see no reason for this non-literal reading. Rather, I would suggest that lines 26-28 as a whole are concerned rst and foremost with the high priests garments and their theological and cosmological functions. Whilst line 28 is devoted to the diadem bearing the divine Name, lines 26-27 are interested in the breastpiece of judgement and the Urim and Thummim. This is most clearly seen in the priests role as the giver of light in line 27, since the Urim and Thummim carried or worn by the high priest are almost universally interpreted in the late and post-biblical period as a light-giving oracle, by virtue of the (perceived) etymology of the word Urim ( ) from the root , light. It is not clear exactly how this light-giving oracle was believed to work, but certainly at Qumran, for Josephus and for other Jews, the Urim and Thummim were somehow identi ed with the stones of the high priests breastpiece (Exod. 28:9-30). 47 That breast44 Milik rightly perceived that is a distinct and separate word. Pace L.T. Stuckenbruck in J.H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 1 Rule of the Community and Related Documents (Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993) 128-29 it is not possible to restore [ because there is no evidence for a letter before the nun where the leather remains intact (see DJD 1.126 and pl. XXVIII). 45 So rightly Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, 282. 46 Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar, Study Edition, 1.107. 47 See 4Q376 and 1Q29; Ant. 3:214-18 and for a thorough discussion of the ancient

SOME REFLECTIONS ON ANGELOMORPHIC HUMANITY TEXTS

311

piece is speci cally referred to as a breastpiece of judgement ( ) (Exod. 28:15, 28-29) and so the reference in line 27 to his [ ju]dgements ( [ ) also ts this context since it is through this oracular device that the high priest declares Gods judgements. The reference to the high priest casting ( ) lot in line 26 may also anticipate the Urim and Thummim language in line 27. In 1 Sam. 14:40-42 Saul casts ( ) lots to discover the source of sin within 48 the Israelite camp. The Septuagint, which perhaps preserves the original and fuller form of the text, understands this lot-taking as inquiring of the Urim and Thummim. Indeed, modern scholarship has regularly ventured a psephomantic interpretation of the Urim and Thummim. So, in this blessing the statement that the high priest is to be as an angel of the presence is followed by a focus on two of the most important aspects of the high priests garb; his gem-studded breastpiece and his headgear bearing Gods Name. All this is important because it strengthens our conviction that in line 28 the glori cation of Gods Name is by virtue of the high priest acting as the real presence for the Glory of the Name: this real presence is expressed in terms of sacred clothing and its various theophanic functions. The high priest brings Glory to Gods Name by virtue of his capacity as bearer of that Name and its visible manifestation. It is worth contrasting this with what is said about the prince in col. 5. In 5:28 it is said God will strengthen you [i.e., the prince] with his Holy Name ( ). Whereas the high priest acts for the Name of God as the one who gives it Glory, the prince is passive in as much as he is a recipient of the Names power. Presumably, also, this difference re ects the liturgical and theocratic relationship between the two, with the high priest acting as the divine mediator and guide for the king: to say that God will strengthen the royal leader with his Holy Name, is to make him a subordinate recipient of the high priest as one who manifests that Name both liturgically and, in particular, through the juridicial or salvi c power of the Urim and Thummim. Although the blessing of the high priest in 1QSb belongs in a particular literary trajectory of priestly ideology which is anticipated in
witnesse s C. van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: An Old Testament Means of Revelation (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993). 48 See the discussion of this passage in van Dam, The Urim and Thummim, 194214.

312

CRISPIN H.T. FLETCHER-LOUIS

one proto-Essene text (Jubilees 31), its view of the angelomorphic priesthood in 1QSb is re ective of a wider late second temple practice and belief. It seems, in fact, to have been a widely held belief that by virtue of his glorious garments and the light-giving stones Israels chief priest was an otherworldly being. The Letter of Aristeas 97-99 describes the high priest as follows:
On his breast he wears what is called the oracle, to which are attached twelve stones of different kinds, set in gold, giving the names of the patriarchs in what was the original order, each stone ashing its own natural distinctive colour quite indescribable. Upon his head he has what is called the tiara, and upon this the inimitable mitre, the hallowed diadem having in relief, in the middle of the forehead, in holy letters on a golden leaf the Name of God, the ful lment of Glory [dojw (some MSS: dj) peplhrvmnon] . . . . Their appearance makes one awestruck and dumfounded: a man would think he [either the high priest or the viewer] had come out of this world into another one ( d sumfneia totvn
mpoie fpon ka tarax n, ste nomzein ew teron lhluynai ktw to ksmou).

The language is not identical, which is not surprising given the difference in genre and audience (Aristeas is written for a Hellenized readership), but the basic ideology is the same. As in 1QSb 4 it is the oracular, refulgent breastpiece, and the Name-bearing tiara which is distinctive of the high priest. With the statement in dif cult Greek that the high priests garments, in particular the diadem bearing the Name, are the ful lment of Glory we should compare the equally pregnant language of 1QSb 4:28 where the high priest is to make Glorious (Gods) Name. Where Aristeas speaks of the wearer of these garments in terms of the other-worldly, there can be little doubt that he has translated the angelomorphism of the Qumran text into terms suitable for his Hellenistic readership.