Redefining the Sage

Arjen F. Bakker

Jump to Content

Chapter 2 Redefining the Sage

In: The Secret of Time: Reconfiguring Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Author:

Arjen F. Bakker

Arjen F. Bakker
Search for other papers by Arjen F. Bakker in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

Type:: Chapter

Pages:: 33–57

DOI:: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004537798_003

Access via:

Dar Hadith al Hassania

Download PDF

To get a better sense of the ways in which wisdom is conceived in the Dead Sea Scrolls, I will first turn to the terms that are used to describe the sage. Two terms are of particular relevance: mēbîn and maśkîl. Surprisingly, the term ḥākām that is so prominent in Proverbs, Job, Qohelet and Ben Sira, is used sparsely in the texts discovered at Qumran. This is remarkable since wisdom terminology in general is ubiquitous in the corpus. Why is this classical term for the sage neglected in the scrolls in favour of other terms such as mēbîn and maśkîl? In this chapter, I will argue that the usage, or avoidance, of terms for the sage in the scrolls teaches us that wisdom is conceived of primarily in terms of higher knowledge that surpasses the constraints of human nature. To be able to partake in such heavenly insights, the student of wisdom needs to be initiated into a community of sages that cultivate, guard, and teach this wisdom. Across texts that have been categorized as sectarian and non-sectarian, wisdom is cultivated collectively, and the pursuit of knowledge is institutionalized in a community of sages and students.

1 mēbîn

The term mēbîn can be translated as “understanding one” or “someone who understands.” The form mēbîn is a participle of the root byn in the hiphil stem, which can mean “understand,” “discern,” “observe,” or in the causative use “make someone understand.”¹ When the hiphil of byn is not used causatively, it is close in meaning to the qal.² Moreover, the imperfect forms of hiphil and qal are identical in most cases, which usually makes it difficult to discern which of the two stem formations applies. The participle of the qal is rare in the Hebrew Bible, occurring only in Jer 49:7, in the plural form bānîm.³ This plural participle has exactly the same form as the plural of the noun bēn, “son”, i.e., bānîm. This identity in form occasionally led to interchange or even creative wordplay between the noun bēn and the verb byn.

Menahem Kister demonstrates that the sapiential text 4QBeatitudes (4Q525) adopts a well-known formula from the Book of Proverbs and rephrases it in a significant way.⁴ The formula “And now, sons, listen to me” (ועתה בנים שמעו לי) occurs three times in Proverbs (Prov 5:7; 7:24; 8:32).⁵ 4QBeatitudes reformulates the phrase as follows: “And now, understanding one, listen to me” (ועתה מבין שמעה לי).⁶ In another fragment, 4QBeatitudes uses exactly the same formula, but in the wording of Proverbs, with bānîm.⁷ It seems that the authors of 4QBeatitudes understood the word bānîm in the original exhortation as meaning “understanding ones” and felt free to exchange between bānîm and mēbîn.

The same procedure is apparent in other texts. The manuscript 4Q303, consisting of one fragment, preserves the phrase “… understanding ones, listen …” (מבינים שמעו).⁸ Although the context is broken, it is quite certain that 4Q303 contained a similar reformulation of Proverbs’ exhortation as the one we saw in Beatitudes. A third example might be found in the fragmentary text written in cryptic script Words of the Maskil to All Sons of Dawn (4Q298).⁹ A series of exhortations to pay attention and increase virtues is initiated by the sentence: “And now lend your ears, … and you who know, listen” (ועתה האזינ[ו ] וידעים שמעו).¹⁰ The combination of the words “and now” (ועתה) and “listen” (שמעו) indicates that this sentence was constructed on the model of the exhortation in Proverbs. We cannot be certain concerning the vocative in the lacuna, but the vocative in the second distich suggests that the original formula was likewise recast to address sages rather than sons.

The interchange between bānîm and mĕbînîm as a form of address to students of wisdom may provide the background for the usage of mēbîn in wisdom texts from Qumran. John Strugnell suggested “Musar le-Mevin” as a possible title for Instruction because this composition consistently addresses its audience with the formula: “And you, understanding one” (ואתה מבין).¹¹ While both Proverbs and Ben Sira use the form mēbîn several times to refer to a wise person, they never use it as a form of address.¹² Instruction both calls the addressee “mēbîn” and uses the term to speak about the addressees in the third person. For example, fragment 4Q418 221, which is probably to be located near the beginning of the text, describes the purpose of the composition as: “to increase learning for the understanding ones (מבינים),” invoking the opening of Solomon’s book of Proverbs.¹³ From the outset, Instruction presents mĕbînîm as the recipients of wisdom. Interestingly, the Hodayot use the term in the same way. In one of the hymns, the speaker claims that God has placed insight in his heart “in order to open a well of knowledge for all mĕbînîm.”¹⁴ Thus, both Instruction and the Hodayot use the term mēbîn to describe recipients of sapiential teaching. This specific usage may have its origin in the reformulation of Proverbs’ exhortation discussed above: instead of addressing the education to “sons” (ועתה בנים שמעו לי), the Qumran texts direct their teaching to an “understanding one” (ועתה מבין שמעה לי).

This feature is remarkable and presents an innovation in wisdom discourse. A significant amount of material in Proverbs and Ben Sira is formulated as instruction to a son. These wisdom texts frequently introduce their teachings with the words “my son” (בני).¹⁵ Benjamin Wright points out that, especially in the case of Ben Sira, this pedagogical material should not be understood as having its origin in the household.¹⁶ Ben Sira calls his students “sons,” but he is not really their father, and they are not really his sons. He rather presents himself as a father to give more authority to his teachings.¹⁷ In contrast to Proverbs and Ben Sira, the wisdom texts found at Qumran rarely address their audience as “sons.” The fragments of Mysteries never use the noun bēn as a vocative. The fragments of Beatitudes once use the form bānîm, but as noted above, it is possible that this is a double entendre (“sons” and “understanding ones”).¹⁸ The poem Wiles of the Wicked Woman (4Q184) never addresses a son, even though Proverbs’ admonitions concerning the “strange woman” on which 4Q184 is modelled repeatedly urge a son to beware of the lady’s seduction (Prov 5:1; 7:1, 27). Smaller Qumran fragments that have been classified as wisdom texts, 4Q298, 4Q412, 4Q420–421 and 4Q424, do not address their audience as “sons.”¹⁹ The only exception is 4Q185 which once directs its discourse to sons: “Listen to me, my sons” (שמעוני בני).²⁰ Instruction itself uses the noun bēn three times as a vocative. However, it modifies the noun with the adjectives mēbîn and maśkîl and thus addresses an “understanding son” and a “wise son.”²¹ Although the literary form of admonition to a son is not completely absent from the Qumran texts, it is far less prominent and seems to have made place for a different representation of the relationship between teacher and pupil.

The person who is addressed as mēbîn is someone who has obtained insight into hidden matters. The participle mēbîn has specific connotations regarding the content of what this person has come to understand. It is informative to observe how Instruction uses the hiphil of byn in other aspects.²² Although some passages may use the hiphil of byn in a rather general sense, most occurrences refer to understanding in a particular field of knowledge. In 4Q416 1, the infinitive of byn in the hiphil is used causatively: “to give the righteous discernment between good and evil” (להבין צדק בין טוב לרע).²³ Fragment 4Q418 221, which is probably to be located just below this passage, expresses the intention to “give understanding to all simpletons” (להבין כול פותיים).²⁴ The consecutive lines clarify that this understanding pertains to the knowledge of good and evil.²⁵ The discernment of good and evil is a central theme in Instruction and is closely related to the knowledge of mysteries.²⁶ These passages do not use the causative hiphil of byn in a general sense, but rather in reference to a particular kind of understanding. The same holds true for the non-causative usage of the verb in a fragmentary passage in the second person plural, which reads: “you shall understand the plan(s) of …”²⁷ In 4Q417 1 i 11–12 the word “plan” (מחשבה) denotes God’s hidden plan for creation, as in the Two Spirits Treatise and other Qumran texts.²⁸ It is likely that the term is used in a similar way here and that the hiphil of byn refers to the understanding of God’s secret plan. In another passage, the addressee is told that if he studies the rāz nihyeh, he will understand (תבין) the “judgment of a person and the weight of …”²⁹ Instruction uses the hiphil of byn repeatedly to denote the understanding of heavenly mysteries and it seems that the participle mēbîn has the same connotation.³⁰

The mēbîn has been initiated into secret knowledge through divine revelation and through human teaching. Repeatedly, the instructions that are presented to the mēbîn are motivated with the clause “as He uncovered your ear for the secret of time.”³¹ The subject of the verb is implicit and there has been discussion amongst scholars as to who uncovered the ear of the mēbîn.³² One fragment reveals that the communication of this knowledge has a divine origin: “… as God uncovered the ear of the mĕbînîm for the secret of time.”³³ But although the revelation of mysteries is presented as a divine act, it is evident that human teachers play a role in the transmission of this hidden knowledge as well. The following passage makes this explicit: “from all your teachers (משכילכה) you must increase learning (הוסף לקח).”³⁴ Note that this admonition uses the same words as 4Q418 fragment 221, which describes the ambition of Instruction as “to increase learning (להוסיף לקח) for the understanding ones.”³⁵ God has revealed mysteries to the mēbîn. But at the same time, the mēbîn has been educated by teachers who pass on their secret knowledge.

This does not necessarily mean that the mēbîn should be understood as a student in a school setting. The editors suggest that the speaker of the text is the instructor, and the addressee is the student.³⁶ However, the assumed instructor is not present in the remains of the text and other features of pedagogical literature such as the admonition to give heed to the words of the teacher are absent as well.³⁷ It may be questioned whether the composition should be situated in a school setting. It is more likely that Instruction adopts a number of literary features that are associated with an educational setting of some kind, but in their present context they are used as literary device.³⁸ The term mēbîn need not refer to a student in the traditional sense, i.e., as the pupil of a mentor. Rather, the term refers to someone who has acquired access to knowledge that is hidden for others. In Instruction, this person is continually admonished to increase in learning and acquire more wisdom and insight.

2 maśkîl

A second term that is significant for understanding configurations of wisdom in the scrolls is maśkîl.³⁹ In contrast to mēbîn, this term is never used as a form of address. In two poetical texts the person speaking identifies himself as “maśkîl.”⁴⁰ Like mēbîn, the term maśkîl seems to designate a persona or exemplary figure with which a community identifies. But while the status of mēbîn has already been achieved by the students of wisdom who are being instructed, the figure of the maśkîl is an ideal towards which they aspire.⁴¹ In a variety of texts from Qumran the term maśkîl appears in headings: hymns, rules and instructions are said to be “for the maśkîl” or “for a maśkîl” (למשכיל). The term is particularly prominent in the Rule of the Community, which introduces several sections with the formula: “for the/a maśkîl.” One version of the Rule even opens with the words: “midrash for the/a maśkîl concerning the men of the Torah.”⁴² The widespread presence of the term maśkîl in the corpus indicates its significance, but at the same time complicates a clear description of its connotations.⁴³

The form maśkîl is a participle of śkl+hiphil. This verb has a rather wide semantic range.⁴⁴ It can mean “to prosper,” “to have insight,” and “to consider.” It can also be used causatively: “to give insight” or “to instruct.” While in classical Hebrew the root śkl mostly refers to insight and success in practical affairs, in later texts it is often applied to intellectual understanding and erudition.⁴⁵ The participle can either denote someone who has insight, or someone who imparts insight to others. The term maśkîl in the scrolls resonates with its usage in wisdom texts.⁴⁶ In Job, Proverbs and Ben Sira the participle of śkl+hiphil is mostly used as an adjective to describe a person who is prudent and wise in everyday life (אשה משכלת, עבד משכיל, בן משכיל).⁴⁷ But in those texts the form maśkîl never denotes someone who gives instruction. However, in the book of Daniel we do encounter a group of sages called maśkîlîm who are said to instruct many among the people (cf. Dan 11:35; 12:3, 10).

Scholars have noted that the usage of the term maśkîlîm in Daniel 11 and 12 hints at an interpretation of Isa 52:13 and the surrounding passage, the so-called fourth song of the suffering servant (Isa 52:13–53:12).⁴⁸ The song opens with the sentence: “See, my servant shall prosper (ישכיל); he shall be exalted and lifted up and shall be very high.”⁴⁹ The verb yaśkîl can be translated as “shall prosper” in the current context. But evidently readers in antiquity could have read the verb as “to be wise” or “to make wise,” as demonstrated by the Septuagint which renders συνήσει. It is likely that Daniel applies the whole prophecy of the suffering servant to the wise teachers in the last chapters of the book. Daniel 12:3 reads: “The maśkîlîm shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who make the many righteous, like the stars, forever and ever.”⁵⁰ The designation “those who make the many righteous” (מצדיקי הרבים) refers to the end of the servant’s song: “The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous (יצדיק … לרבים).”⁵¹ Thus, both the verbs yaśkîl and yaṣdîq are adapted by Daniel into plural participles, identifying the sages with the suffering servant. As the servant will suffer and eventually be glorified (Isa 53:10), so some of the maśkîlîm will face martyrdom (Dan 11:33–35) but in the end they will rise from the dead and shine like the luminaries.⁵²

It seems clear that there is a relationship between maśkîlîm in the Book of Daniel and the use of the term maśkîl in the Dead Sea Scrolls. While some have suggested that the term maśkîl was appropriated in the scrolls as the result of interpreting Daniel,⁵³ others have proposed a direct historical link between the maśkîlîm described in Daniel and the teachers that occur in the scrolls.⁵⁴ Charlotte Hempel demonstrates that there are no rigid boundaries between Danielic traditions and the scrolls.⁵⁵ She accepts the view that the author or redactor of the Book of Daniel is to be found in the circles of the maśkîlîm who make sudden appearance in chapters eleven and twelve.⁵⁶ She then suggests that sages from the same circles may have left their marks in the earliest layers of the Rule of the Community.⁵⁷ Hempel identifies a number of striking similarities between the author or redactor of Daniel and the groups behind the scrolls.⁵⁸ Based on these close correspondences, not only can we assume there to be a connection between the teachers in Daniel 11–12 and the figure of the maśkîl, but the connection itself also implies that Daniel’s identification of the maśkîlîm with Isaiah’s suffering servant has continued relevance for the characterization of the wise teacher in the Dead Sea Scrolls. As an ideal figure, the maśkîl bears the marks of Isaiah’s prophecy.⁵⁹

Geza Vermes has argued that the maśkîl is to be identified with the overseer who is at the head of the community (האיש המבקר על הרבים or האיש הפקיד ברואש הרבים), mentioned in 1QS 6:11–12 and 14.⁶⁰ The main argument is that both the maśkîl and the overseer are said to be responsible for the inspection and instruction of candidate members. According to this theory, the maśkîl is an official who plays a central role in the organization of the community. But while it is true that the Laws for the/a maśkîl (1QS 9:12–21) present the teacher as a community leader, the Rules of the way for the/a maśkîl (1QS 9:21–25) are far more general and could apply to any person in the community.⁶¹ The same can be said for the final hymns in 1QS columns 10–11 and the Hodayot that are ascribed to a maśkîl.⁶² It is true that there are correspondences between the two figures with respect to the tasks of inspection and instruction of candidates. There is even an overlap in terminology: in both cases the verb “to approach” (קרב) is used to describe the admission of candidates.⁶³ But this does not imply that the overseer can be identified with the maśkîl.

One of the main problems is that the Serek hardly gives any information on the overseer. The first passage in which this figure occurs describes the meeting of the full members of the community (רבים), but it is not entirely clear which function the overseer (האיש המבקר על הרבים) fulfils in these meetings (1QS 6:11–12).⁶⁴ Moreover, the overseer seems to be absent in the 4QS^b+d manuscripts and it is possible that he was inserted in the text at a later stage.⁶⁵ The second passage is more elaborate on the role of the official (האיש הפקיד ברואש הרבים) and clarifies that he investigates new candidates and instructs them in the laws of the community (1QS 6:14–15). It is not certain that the officials mentioned in these two passages are identical, as they are described with different terms and occur in different contexts.⁶⁶

Since the information provided by the sources is so scanty, the terms themselves provide the most important clues for reconstructing the roles of these figures. The terms pāqîd and mĕbaqqēr belong to the context of administration. In Biblical Hebrew pāqîd regularly describes a person who is appointed as overseer over a household, army, temple or other institution.⁶⁷ The term mĕbaqqēr does not occur in Biblical Hebrew, but it is used in Rabbinic Hebrew to describe those who examine the sacrificial animals (מבקרי מומין).⁶⁸ The form mĕbaqqēr is a participle of bqr+piel, which has the meaning “to investigate,” “to inquire,” “to examine.”⁶⁹ In the Dead Sea Scrolls the term mĕbaqqēr describes an official who inspects and oversees members of the community.⁷⁰ The word clearly has the connotation of an administrative functionary, just as the word pāqîd. The same cannot be said for the term maśkîl, which primarily refers to someone who teaches and transmits knowledge.⁷¹

The Laws for a maśkîl (1QS 9:12–21a) give a description of the tasks of a maśkîl and repeatedly use the hiphil of śkl: “He shall instruct them (להשכילם) in the mysteries of wonder and truth,”⁷² and “he shall instruct them (להשכילם) in everything that has been found to be done at this time.”⁷³ This choice of wording underscores that lĕhaśkîl, “to instruct,” is the maśkîl’s primary task. In similar terms, the Treatise of the Two Spirits (1QS 3:13–4:26) emphasizes that its content is intended “for a maśkîl to give understanding and to teach (להבין וללמד) all the sons of light.”⁷⁴ In addition to instructing his pupils, the maśkîl has to rebuke them: “He shall admonish with true knowledge and righteous judgment those who choose the way, each man according to his spirit.”⁷⁵ This sentence indicates that the maśkîl is not only responsible for teaching his students, but also for overseeing the implementation of his teachings. The instructions belong to a particular timeframe, since the maśkîl teaches his students “everything that has been found to be done at this time” (כול הנמצא לעשות בעת הזואת). This timeframe is decisive for the content of the maśkîl’s teaching: “According to the measure of the time, he shall guide them in knowledge.”⁷⁶

For any teacher it is essential to have a proper judgment not only on what to teach, but also on whom to teach. The Laws for a maśkîl indicate that in addition to instruction, the maśkîl is responsible for examining candidate members:

להבדיל ולשקול בני הצדק לפי רוחום ובבחירי העת להחזיק על פי רצונו כאשר צוה ואיש כרוחו כן לעשות משפטו ואיש כבור כפיו לקרבו ולפי שכלו להגישו

He shall separate and weigh the sons of righteousness⁷⁷ according to their spirit. And he shall keep firm hold of the chosen ones of the time (so that they will behave)⁷⁸ according to his will, as He commanded. And he shall judge each man according to his spirit. And He shall admit him according to the cleanness of his hands and cause him to approach according to his wisdom.
1QS 9:14–16 par 4QS^d 8:1; 4QS^e 3:10–13

The inspection of the spirit, wisdom and deeds of candidates is described in the passages on the admission procedure in 1QS columns 5 and 6.⁷⁹ The result of the examination is on the one hand the rejection or admission of candidates and on the other, the assignment to them of a rank (תכון) within the community’s hierarchy. These tasks might be considered administrative duties and the fact that they are ascribed to the maśkîl in 1QS 9 could be taken as an indication that this is an administrative functionary, like the mĕbaqqēr in column 6. But upon closer look, the task of inspection is a direct result of the maśkîl’s function as a teacher. The maśkîl is not supposed to share the mysteries with anybody outside the community.⁸⁰ This implies that the inspection of candidates is an essential part of his role as educator. The maśkîl examines the spirits of candidates to see whether their intellectual capacities and behaviour meet the required level. He tries to find suitable students to whom the teaching can be entrusted and who eventually can become teachers themselves.

Assessing and ranking students within the hierarchy of the community is also part of a maśkîl’s educational responsibilities. The hierarchy regulates community life. Members of lower rank are required to obey members of higher rank.⁸¹ Communal sessions of study and discussion proceed according to the order of the hierarchy: each person gets to speak in his turn, the members of higher rank followed by those of lower rank.⁸² Each year the hierarchy is reestablished. Annually, members are inspected and promoted or demoted according to their intellectual level (לפי שכלו) and their behaviour (תום דרכו).⁸³ Carol Newsom observes that the hierarchy and its annual reassessment function as an instrument of discipline. In communal sessions the speech of members of higher rank provides a clear norm for lower ranking members.⁸⁴ But the hierarchical system does not only enforce discipline, it also stimulates intellectual achievement by setting the higher-ranking members as an example. They are more advanced in wisdom and the younger members learn from their knowledge. Moreover, the annual evaluation of the wisdom (שכל) of the students allows them to attain a higher position, which provides motivation to increase in learning.

In sum, the figure of the maśkîl is not an official and cannot be identified with the overseer, even though the mĕbaqqēr has traits of the ideal teacher. What seem to be administrative tasks, such as the examination of candidate members and the annual assessment of students, are essential aspects of the responsibility of the teacher, who not only transmits knowledge but also forms a community that can continue the transmission of knowledge and formation of teachers into the future. Another dimension of the profile of the maśkîl, namely the role of liturgical performer, is likewise closely related to education.⁸⁵ In a series of recent publications, Judith Newman has demonstrated how the embodied performance of the maśkîl and his humility in confession establish a tight and dynamic relationship between revealed knowledge and prayer, as the figure of the teacher comes to embody prophecy while reenacting Mosaic leadership.⁸⁶ On this continuum, the apotropaic impact of the maśkîl’s inspired songs of praise that ward off evil forces can be characterized as the pastoral care that is performed by an exemplary teacher.⁸⁷

3 ḥākām

After examining the two most prominent terms that describe the sage in the Dead Sea Scrolls, let us now turn to a third that is conspicuously absent. The words ḥākām and ḥokmâ are the most universal and characteristic terms for the sage and for wisdom in the Hebrew Bible.⁸⁸ Because the root ḥkm occurs so frequently in Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes and Ben Sira, these books were designated by scholars as ‘wisdom books.’ But in the texts found at Qumran the situation is rather different. Although sapiential terminology abounds, the use of ḥākām and ḥokmâ is limited in number and often restricted to particular collocations. This is even true for those texts that make extensive usage of literary forms found in the biblical wisdom books.⁸⁹ The relative absence of ḥākām and ḥokmâ in the scrolls is striking.⁹⁰ In what follows, I will argue that there is an underlying tendency in the scrolls to associate ḥokmâ with practical and earthly wisdom that was considered lower than heavenly wisdom. In some cases, earthly wisdom even seems to have negative connotations.

The root ḥkm occurs only four times in the Rule of the Community, all in the form of ḥokmâ and all in the Treatise of the Two Spirits. In the subsection describing the two ways of the spirits (1QS 4:2–14) the word ḥokmâ occurs in a chain of synonyms: “insight, understanding and powerful wisdom” (שכל ובינה וחכמת גבורה).⁹¹ This phrase derives from Isaiah 11:2 and is used to describe the influence of the spirit of truth on human beings.⁹² The two following occurrences of ḥokmâ refer to God’s wisdom (1QS 4:18) and the wisdom of the angels (1QS 4:22). In both cases the term is accompanied by qualifiers that distinguish heavenly wisdom from human wisdom. We find a similar tendency in the Hodayot: Although ḥokmâ is more frequent in the hymns, it is used mainly for the wisdom of God and not for human wisdom. The hymnodist praises God because: “there is no measure for your wisdom” (לחכמתכה אין מדה);⁹³ “in the mystery of your wisdom you have reproached me” (ברז חכמתכה הוכחתה בי);⁹⁴ and “with your knowledgeable wisdom you have established their assignment” (בחכמת דעתכה הכינותה תעודתם).⁹⁵ An interesting exception is a passage that uses language from Psalm 107 and applies ḥokmâ to earthly wisdom that is rendered meaningless: “… and her wise men, all of them are like sailors of the deep seas, for all their wisdom will be confused” (וחכמיהם למו כמלחים במצולות כי תתבלע כול חכמתם).⁹⁶ It is striking that the Rule of the Community and the Hodayot, which abound with sapiential terminology, mainly use ḥokmâ when it is clear that this is not the kind of wisdom that characterizes human sages.

In Instruction, the only occurrence of ḥākām is in the phrase ḥakmê lēb.⁹⁷ The expression ḥăkam lēb can be used in the general sense of a ‘wise person.’⁹⁸ But it is also used to refer to a person who has artistic skills, for example in relation to Betsalel and the artists who were responsible for fabricating the priestly vestments, the tabernacle and its devices.⁹⁹ Five out of nine occurrences of ḥokmâ in Instruction appear in the collocation ḥokmat yādayim.¹⁰⁰ Ben Sira uses the expression ḥăkam yādayim (Sir 9:17), which is translated in the Septuagint with the word τεχνίτης “craftsman.”¹⁰¹ It is possible that for some of Instruction’s addressees craftsmanship functions as a means to generate income.¹⁰² One fragment reads: “Skill of hands He will increase for you […] righteousness in your wages, because for your labour …”¹⁰³ Another fragmentary passage tells the mēbîn that if God has granted him the “wisdom of hands,” he is to gather his food by means of this gift.¹⁰⁴ The expressions ḥakmê lēb and ḥokmat yādayim in Instruction could be alluding to the artistic skills of some of the addressees.¹⁰⁵ In any case, ḥokmâ occurs mainly in specific collocations and in relation to livelihood.¹⁰⁶ It is conspicuous that similarly to the Rule of the Community and the Hodayot, Instruction does not use the root ḥkm for the knowledge that the mēbîn pursues.

Instruction has reservations concerning human wisdom because human beings are fleshly creatures. The opening passage of Instruction states concerning humankind: “For he is a formation of flesh and he has the wisdom [of humankind.]”¹⁰⁷ This is meant pejoratively, as can be inferred from the following quotation: “Let not the thought of an evil mind seduce you [ ] … let not the understanding of flesh lead you astray.”¹⁰⁸ These passages characterize human wisdom as inferior or even sinful. The context is damaged in both cases, which makes it more difficult to understand why human wisdom is considered to be counter productive. But it is informative that both passages speak of “flesh” (בשר) as the element which renders human understanding problematic. Instruction associates the fleshly aspect of human existence with ignorance and subjection to evil forces.¹⁰⁹ Human wisdom suffers from the defects of fleshly existence and therefore is inferior to heavenly wisdom.

In Mysteries (1Q27, 4Q299–301) we find similar reservations or even a rejection of human wisdom.¹¹⁰ This highly fragmentary text presents two groups that are engaged in a dispute. One group is presented as possessing true wisdom and knowledge, whereas the opposing group possesses false wisdom that is sinful. The opponents are not simply reprimanded for their lack of knowledge, they are accused of cultivating the wrong kind of knowledge.¹¹¹ The root ḥkm occurs several times in Mysteries. However, it is mostly used negatively or pejoratively in relation to the false wisdom of the opponents, while other roots are used in relation to the wisdom of the true sages.¹¹² It seems that Mysteries associates the term ḥokmâ with counter-wisdom.

One fragment of Mysteries calls the opponents ḥarṭummîm, a term that is used in Genesis and Exodus for the Egyptian sages.¹¹³ They are blamed for not having acquired the proper knowledge: “for the seal of the vision is sealed from you, and you have not considered the eternal mysteries, and you have not come to understand wisdom (בינה) … for you have not considered the root of wisdom (שורש חוכמה) and if you open the vision it will be kept secret from you.”¹¹⁴ The opponents do have some form of knowledge and apparently are interested in the same “vision” (חזון) as the speaker and his group. But unlike the latter, they cannot explain it correctly. The wisdom of the opponents is associated with “mysteries of transgression” (רזי פשע).¹¹⁵ These sinful mysteries are directly opposed to the “eternal mysteries” (רזי עד) with which the true sages occupy themselves.¹¹⁶ Repeatedly, Mysteries uses the word ḥokmâ to describe the wisdom of the opponents. The text speaks disparagingly of “all their wisdom” (כל חכמתמה).¹¹⁷ The ḥarṭummîm are called “teachers of transgression” (מלמדי פשע) and are told that there is no use in “all your wisdom” (כל חכמתכם).¹¹⁸ The knowledge of the opponents has no lasting value and is called “fading wisdom” (חכמה נכחדת), since it cannot save them from their eventual destruction.¹¹⁹

In other cases, ḥokmâ is applied to human wisdom in general. In a series of riddles on the nature of humanity, Mysteries asks: “Why should a human being […] be called wise (חכם) and righteous? Because man has no [wisd]om and [humankind] no [righteousness.] And what is fading wisdom (חכמה נכחדת), if not wisdom of evil cunning (חוכמת עורמת רוע)?”¹²⁰ Here “fading wisdom” does not merely denote the wisdom of the ḥarṭummîm, but rather refers to human wisdom in general, which is of inferior status or even wicked in itself. This critique of human wisdom is in line with Instruction’s rejection of “fleshly understanding” (נבונות בשר) in favour of revealed knowledge, which we observed above. It also echoes the words of Agur towards the end of the book of Proverbs:

I am too stupid to be human, and I lack human understanding (בינת אדם);¹²¹ I have not learnt wisdom (חכמה), but I have the knowledge of holy ones (דעת קדושים).¹²²
Prov 30:2–3

In this riddle, Agur opposes the ḥokmâ of humans to heavenly knowledge that is hidden from humanity. The same happens in Mysteries, but this fragmentary work consistently uses the term ḥokmâ to describe inferior human knowledge, while other terms are used for heavenly wisdom, especially śekel and bînâ.¹²³

The Rule of the Community develops the same theme and explicitly rejects human knowledge. In a hymn in the last column of 1QS, the protagonist claims that God has made him share in heavenly mysteries.¹²⁴ He describes the knowledge that was revealed to him as:

תושיה אשר נסתרה מאנוש

דעה ומזמת ערמה מבני אדם

מקור צדקה ומקוה גבורה עם מעין כבוד מסוד בשר

Wisdom that is hidden from humankind,

knowledge and insightful meditation (hidden) from the sons of man,

fount of justice and well of strength and spring of glory (hidden) from the assembly of the flesh.

1QS 11:6–7

This heavenly wisdom has only been given to those whom God has chosen and who, because of this knowledge, share in the lot of the angels.¹²⁵ By consequence, any human wisdom is inferior to this revealed knowledge of divine origin. The hymn closes with the statement that humankind, who was moulded out of dust, has no answer to God’s deep mysteries.¹²⁶ The Rule poses, much like Instruction, that human wisdom is of little significance because they are fleshly creatures. The hymnodist exclaims: “And as for me, I am a wicked human, an essence of unjust flesh.”¹²⁷ The negative connotation of human wisdom throughout these texts may explain the relative absence of the root ḥkm in texts discovered at Qumran. There seems to be a tendency to associate ḥokmâ with an inferior or even dangerous form of wisdom. Although the term is occasionally used in more positive contexts, many compositions give preference to other words to describe wisdom and the wise.

4 Conclusion

The terms that are used or avoided in the Dead Sea Scrolls to describe the sage indicate that wisdom is reconceived in terms of heavenly knowledge that surpasses the boundaries of human capability. The usage of mēbîn as a form of address derives from sapiential discourse in which a father addresses his son (בני). But the consonants of the word bēn have been reinterpreted as a participle of the qal of byn that was rephrased in the hiphil as mēbîn. Rather than admonition from a father to a son, Instruction is presented as teaching to a student who has been initiated into the secrets of heavenly knowledge. The ear of the mēbîn has been uncovered for the mystery. The mēbînîm are recipients of wisdom and are only referred to in the second and third person, but never in the first person. By contrast, the maśkîl is referred to in the third person and is self-referential in the first person (אני משכיל). But we never encounter second person address to a maśkîl. The maśkîl is not spoken to but is rather someone who speaks. The voice of the maśkîl is the voice of a teacher who has access to revealed knowledge and speaks, or sings, with prophetic authority.¹²⁸ While both maśkîl and mēbîn are associated with this higher knowledge, the classical term for the sage, ḥākām, is associated with human wisdom, and for this reason is used sparsely in the scrolls, which aspire to wisdom that transcends the limitations of human nature. The shift towards this aspiration is tangible among the sages in the book of Daniel, the maśkîlîm, and the sectarian/non-sectarian categorization does not offer a helpful tool for describing its emergence.

BDB, sub voce; HALOT, sub voce; DCH, sub voce.

Randall Garr (“The Semantics of בי״ן in the qal and hiphil,” VT 63 (2013): 536–45 [536]) argues that the hiphil “… expresses a higher level of agentivity as well as a higher, more complex, and more demanding mental activity.”

אבדה עצה מבנים נסרחה חכמתם, “Has counsel perished from the prudent? Has their wisdom vanished?” The LXX renders בנים with συνετοὶ (LXX Jer 30:1). Cf. Garr, “Semantics of בי״ן,”ý 539–40.

Menahem Kister, “Some Observations on Vocabulary and Style in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde, STDJ 36 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 137–65 (158).

Cf. Prov 4:1 (שמעו בנים); and 1:8 and 4:10 (שמע בני).

4Q525 14 ii 18.

4Q525 2 ii+3 12: ועתה בנים ש[מעו. Cf. 4Q525 13 6; 31 1. See the reconstructions of Puech, DJD 25:142, 169.

4Q303 1. Tigchelaar points out (“Addressees of 4QInstruction,” 69) that the second line of the fragment reads השביתו instead of וישביתו, as proposed by Timothy Lim (T. Elgvin et al., Qumran Cave 4. XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1, DJD 20 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1997], 151–53). This reading makes it very probable that the first line is to be understood as a vocative (מבינים) and an imperative (שמעו) rather than a subject and a verb in perfect tense, as Lim suggests in his translation.

Kister and Pfann, DJD 20:1–30.

Kister and Pfann, DJD 20:25–27. The editors indicate that their reconstruction of חכמים in the lacuna is not certain. The term חכם is infrequent in the scrolls, despite the phrase שמעו חכמיםý in 1QH^a 9:36–37, which is rather exceptional. Given the usage of the formula from Proverbs and the parallelism with the plural participle ידעים, the forms בנים and מבינים could be considered as possible reconstructions. Perhaps the lacuna would be rather wide for בנים, but מבינים would seem to fit.

4Q416 4 3; 4Q417 1 i 1, 13–14, 18; 4Q418 81 15; 102 3; 122 ii + 126 ii 5, 15; 123 ii 5; 168 4; 176 3. Strugnell and Harrington (DJD 34:281, 291) reconstruct ואתה בן[מבין in 4Q418 69 ii 15. See also Tigchelaar, “Addressees of 4QInstruction,” 65–69; and note the title of Tigchelaar’s monograph, To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones.

Cf. Prov 8:9; 17:10, 24; 28:2, 7, 11; Sir 4:11; 10:1; 36:24; 38:4; 42:21.

4Q418 221 3: ולה]סיף לקח למבינים. Compare Proverbs 1:5 (ישמע חכם ויוסף לקח). Cf. Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning, 188–92; idem, “Wisdom and Counter-Wisdom in 4QInstruction, Mysteries and 1 Enoch,” in The Early Enoch Literature, ed. G. Boccaccini and J. J. Collins, JSJSup 121 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 177–93 (186–91).

1QH^a 10:20: לפתוח מקור דעת לכול מבינים.

Prov 1:8, 10, 15; 2:1; 3:1; 3:11, 21; 4:10, 20; 5:1, 20; 6:1, 3, 20; 7:1; 19:27; 23:15, 19, 26; 24:13; 27:11; Sir 3:8, 12, 17, 18 (Ms. C); 4:1, 20; 6:18, 32; 10:28, 29 (Ms. B); 11:8, 10, 20; 14:11; 31:12, 22; 37:27; 38:9, 16, 17; 40:28. LXX Proverbs translates בני as υἱέ, while the Greek of Ben Sira renders τέκνον (with υἱέ in 7:3 as the only exception).

Benjamin G. Wright, “From Generation to Generation: The Sage as Father in Early Jewish Literature,” in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb, ed. C. Hempel and J. M. Lieu, JSJSup 111. (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 309–32 (309–11). Wright builds his argument on Carol Newsom’s analysis of patriarchal discourse in Proverbs. Cf. Carol A. Newsom, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom: A Study of Proverbs 1–9,” in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, ed. P. L. Day (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1989), 142–60.

Wright (“From Generation to Generation,” 317) refers to Sir 3:1 Εµοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀκούσατε, τέκνα. But compare the emendation of Joseph Ziegler (Sapientia Jesu filii Sirach, SVTG 12,2 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981], 136): Ἐλεγµὸν πατρὸς ἀκούσατε, τέκνα. Cf. Ziegler, “Ursprüngliche Lesarten im griechischen Sirach,” in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations, ed. S. Jellicoe (New York, NY: KTAV Publishing House, 1974), 470–94 (474–75).

Puech (DJD 25:123) does translate בנים in 4Q525 2 ii+3 12 as “sons.” But the formula ועתה מבין שמעה לי in 4Q525 14 ii 18 suggests that בנים can be read both as the plural of bēn and as a plural participle of בי״ן+qal. Puech (DJD 25:140) translates 4Q525 10 3 ה[ק]שיבו לי כול בני ה[as “prêtez-moi attention, tous mes fils.” He argues that in a poetic context בני could hardly be translated as “sons of …” But compare Gen 49:2 הקבצו ושמעו בני יעקב. In fact, in wisdom literature the admonition to sons to give attention is never accompanied by the qualifier “all” (כל). It does remind, however, of CD 1:1 ועתה שמעו כול יודעי צדק and CD 2:2 ועתה שמעו אלי כול באי ברית.

Steudel (DJD 20:164–65) reconstructs ועתה בני שמע] // לי in 4Q412 1 5–6. The reconstruction of an admonition to pay attention is quite possible in the current context. But there is not enough context to discern to whom the admonition might be addressed. Note that in fragment 4 line 4 the teaching seems to be addressed to ידעים “those who know”.

4Q185 1–2 ii 3. Note, however, that the passage is addressed to Israel rather than to students of a wisdom teacher. Cf. 4Q185 1–2 i 13: ועתה שמעו נא עמי.

4Q417 1 i 18 (בן מבין), 25 (בן משכיל); 4Q418 69 ii 15 (בן [מבין). On the reconstruction of 4Q418 69 ii 15, see Strugnell, Harrington and Elgvin, DJD 34:291.

On the usage of the root byn in the Dead Sea Scrolls more generally, see: Samuel Thomas and Francesco Zanella, “בִּין,” ThWQ 1:430–39. Cf. Steven Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1991), 102–3, 248–49.

4Q416 1 i 15 (par 4Q418* 2, 2b 7). The reading follows Qimron (Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:147) who suggests that צדק may either be read as deficient spelling for צַדִּיק or as צָדֵק. Cf. ibid., 2:353. Strugnell and Harrington (DJD 34:81–82) read להכון instead of להבין and indicate that although kaph is not completely certain, it is preferable to bet. In their translation they read להבין “so that the righteous may distinguish,” but in their comments (ibid., 87–88) they suggest that the sense of להכון could be “to establish a right measure between good and evil” (hiphil) or “for a right measure to be established” (niphal). They admit that this sense may have awkward implications. The reading of 4Q418* להבין צדיק בין טוב לרע is much clearer and fits with the theme of discernment between good and evil which recurs several times in the composition (4Q417 1 i 8, 17–18; 4Q418 221 4–5; 4Q423 1–2 i 8; 5 6). Tigchelaar (To Increase Learning, 43) reads להכון but indicates that the reading of kaph is uncertain. Rey (4QInstruction, 229–30) prefers the reading להבין.

4Q418 221 2. Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning, 188–92; idem, “Wisdom and Counter- Wisdom,” 186–91. Cf. Prov 1:4.

4Q418 221 5: ו]תתבוננו לדעת טוב[ורע. Cf. Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:184.

See chapter 5.

4Q418 46: תבינו במחשב[ות. Strugnell and Harrington (DJD 34:259) reconstruct מחשבות as a plural but it could be singular מחשבת (probably in construct state) just as well.

1QS 3:15, 16. Cf. Zanella, “חָשַׁב,” ThWQ 1:1090–92.

4Q418 77 3: ואז תבין במשפט אנוש ומשקל[.

Compare the usage of the qal in 4Q418 148 ii 6: בינה לקמוניות שים לב “understand the things of old, give attention …” Qimron (Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:174) proposes to read בינה as an extended imperative instead of a noun (cf. Strugnell, Harrington and Elgvin, DJD 34:374–76).

1Q26 1 4: כאשר גלה אוזנכה ברז נהיה. Cf. 4Q416 2 iii 18 par 4Q418 10 a+b 1; 4Q418 184 2; 190 2–3; 4Q423 5 1–2; 7 6–7.

One passage that has raised discussion is: וכאשר המשילמה בכה ויצו על הרוח כן עובדם וכאשר גלה אוזנכה ברז נהיה כבדם, “And as he gave them authority over you and commanded (them) over the spirit, you must serve them. And as he uncovered (גלה) your ear through the secret of time, you must honour them” (4Q416 2 iii 17–18 par 4Q418 9+9a–c 18–10a–b 1). According to Strugnell and Harrington (DJD 34:113, 122) the verb in the last sentence should be emended to a plural (גלו), since in their view the context implies that the parents are the ones who uncover the ear of the mevin. Yet, the preceding sentence has God as subject in both verbs (המשיל and ויצו) and it makes more sense to assume that God is the one uncovering the ear concerning the commandment to honour parents. The reading ויצו על הרוח follows Rey (4QInstruction, 92–93, 183–84) and Qimron (Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:156). Strugnell and Harrington (DJD 34:110, 112, 122) read ויצר instead of ויצו but indicate that the latter is materially possible as well. Rey observes (4QInstruction, 189–90) that there is not enough space for a resh and that the verb יצר never occurs with the preposition על. By contrast, the combination צוה + על is frequently used with the sense of ‘to give an order to’ or ‘to encharge something to someone.’

4Q418 123 ii 4: אשר גלה אל אוזן מבינים ברז נהיה. There is a discrepancy between the editors’ translation and their comments to this sentence. The translation incorporates the preceding word קצו and reads: “His time, which He uncovered to the ear of the understanding ones about the mystery which is to come” (Strugnell, Harrington and Elgvin, DJD 34:347). In the comments, Strugnell and Harrington argue (DJD 34:348) that אל is more likely the divine name than a preposition because the words גלה אוזן repeatedly occur in Instruction as predicate and direct object (cf. 1Q26 1 4; 4Q416 2 iii 18 par 4Q418 10 a+b 1; 4Q418 184 2; 4Q423 5 1). Concerning קצו, their comment reads: “The relationship between קצו אשר and גלה is also not clear; one does not expect in אשר a second direct object with גלה; perhaps read אשר as ‘when’, thus eliminating such an additional direct object.” However, the translation does read קצו as an additional direct object. The argumentation provided in the comment is more compelling than the translation.

4Q418 81 17: מיד כול משכילכה הוסף לקח. Compare the similar phraseology in Psalm 119: מכל מלמדי השכלתי (Ps 119:99).

4Q418 221 3: ולהו]סיף לקח למבינים.

Strugnell, Harrington and Elgvin, DJD 34:19–20; Harrington, Wisdom Texts, 40. Contrary to the editors, Armin Lange (Weisheit und Prädestination, 56–57; idem, “Sages and Scribes in the Qumran Literature,” in Scribes, Sages and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World, ed. L. G. Perdue [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008], 271–93 [276]) suggests that the term mēbîn implies the function of a teacher of wisdom. He argues that the hiphil should be understood causatively and that the text distinguishes between a mēbîn (the teacher) and a bēn mēbîn (his student). However, there are no indications in the text that the terms mēbîn and bēn mēbîn address different persons. Although it is probable that the audience of Instruction includes teachers, they are never exhorted to teach. The text focuses on the necessity of acquiring rather than transmitting knowledge. The hiphil form mēbîn does not seem to be used causatively in this context.

Tigchelaar, “Addressees of 4QInstruction,” 68–69. There is only one passage in which first person speech occurs, and here the figure of Wisdom is speaking. Cf. idem, “Wisdom and Counter-Wisdom,” 186–91. This reading is also accepted by Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:184. It has been argued that a fragment with the form maśkîl should be placed at the top of the first column of 4Q418 (fragment 238 1). Cf. Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning, 183, 188–91; Goff, Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 17–18. However, from the remaining evidence it is impossible to reconstruct the context. Therefore, we cannot know whether Instruction was intended “for the/a maskil,” or whether the passage contains a different sentence with the form maśkîl (possibly used as adjective or predicate). Wold suggests (4QInstruction, 35–36, 70–83) that Instruction was intended for the maśkîl. This is not impossible but given the lack of textual evidence it cannot be verified. Other options should be kept open.

Tigchelaar, “Addressees of 4QInstruction,” 69–70. Michael Knibb (“The Book of Enoch in the Light of the Qumran Wisdom Literature,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, ed. F. García Martínez, BETL 168 [Leuven: Peeters, 2003], 193–210 [196]) notes the same phenomenon in 1 Enoch.

CD 10:21; 13:22 (par 4QD^a 9 iii 22); 4QD^a 5 i 17; 1QS 3:13; 9:12 (par 4QS^e 3:7), 21 (par 4QS^d 8:5; 4QS^e 4:2); 4QS^b 9:1 (par 4QS^d 1:1); 1QS^b 1:1; 3:22; 5:20; 1QH^a 5:12; 7:21; 20:7 (par 4QH^a 8 ii 10, 17; 4QH^b 12 ii 3), 14 (par 4QH^a 8 ii 17); 25:34; 1QM 10:10; 4Q400 3 ii+5 8; 4Q401 1–2 1; 4Q403 1 i 30; ii 18; 4Q405 20 ii-22 6 (par 11Q17 8:9); 4Q406 1 4; 4Q418 81+81a 17; 238 1; 4Q418a 19 2; 4Q421 1a ii-b 12; 4Q433a 2 2; 4Q446 2 3; 4Q461 1 6; 4Q510 1 4; 4Q511 2 i 1.

1QH^a 20:14–15 and 4Q510 1 4–5. Recently, Carol Newsom has argued (“A Farewell to the Hodayot of the Community,” DSD 28 [2021]: 1–19) that all of the hymns in 1QH^a that scholars previously classified as “community hymns” (1QH^a 4–10 and 18–28) should be regarded as hymns intended for the maśkîl.

Carol Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran, STDJ 52 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 169–74. On the ideal figure of the sage in ancient Judaism, see Hindy Najman, “How Should We Contextualize Pseudepigrapha? Imitation and Emulation in 4 Ezra,” in Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity, JSJSup 53 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 235–42; and eadem, “Text and Figure in Ancient Jewish Paideia” in Past Renewals, 243–45. On the exemplary role of the maśkîl in the context of liturgy, see Judith H. Newman, “Embodied Techniques: The Communal Formation of the Maskil’s Self,” DSD 22 (2015): 249–66; eadem, Before the Bible: The Liturgical Body and the Formation of Scriptures in Early Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 107–44; and see further below.

4QS^d I 1 (par 4QS^b 9:1): מדרש למשכיל על אנשי התורה. Cf. Philip S. Alexander and Geza Vermes, Qumran Cave 4. XIX: Serekh Ha-Yaḥad and Two Related Texts, DJD 26 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 93, 95–96. Several scholars have suggested that the words למשכיל should be reconstructed in the damaged opening of 1QS. Cf. Charlotte Hempel, “The Qumran Sapiential Texts and the Rule Books,” in Hempel, Lange and Lichtenberger, Wisdom Texts from Qumran, 277–95 (289); Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 102; Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:213.

For an overview, see Newsom “The Sage in the Literature of Qumran: The Functions of the maśkîl,” in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. J. G. Gammie and L. G. Perdue (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 373–82; and Armin Lange, “Sages and Scribes in the Qumran Literature,” in Scribes, Sages and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World, ed. L. G. Perdue (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 271–93 (277–78, 286–91).

BDB, sub voce; HALOT, sub voce; DCH, sub voce.

Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 36–7. Cf. Neh 8:8, 13; 9:20; Ps 119:99; Dan 9:22, 25.

Harrington, Wisdom Texts, 76.

Job 22:2; Prov 10:5, 19; 14:35; 15:24; 17:2; 19:14; Sir 7:19, 21; 10:23, 25; 25:8; 40:23; 47:12. Regarding Instruction, it seems that בן משכיל in 4Q417 1 i 25 and עבד משכיל in 4Q418 8c 15 (=21 2) are used in a similar way and are thus to be distinguished from כול משכילכה in 4Q418 81 17.

Harold L. Ginsberg, “The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant,” VT 3 (1953): 400–4; John J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), 385.

Isa 52:13 הנה ישכיל עבדי ירום ונשא וגבה מאד.

והמשכילים יזהרו כזהר הרקיע ומצדיקי הרבים ככוכבים לעולם ועד.

Isa 53:11b יצדיק צדיק עבדי לרבים. The translation given above is the NRSV. Other translations are possible, but Daniel certainly seems to reflect a reading of יצדיק in the sense of “making righteous.”

Ginsberg, “Oldest Interpretation,” 402–3; George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), 24–26. Cf. Collins, Daniel, 393–98.

Alfred Mertens, Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer, SBM 12 (Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1971), 64. Cf. Collins, Daniel, 385; Matthias Henze, The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4, JSJSup 61 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 232–33.

William H. Brownlee (The Meaning of the Qumrân Scrolls for the Bible [New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1964], 106) argues that the Qumranic use of maśkîl was derived from the Hasidim, who in his view were responsible for the Book of Daniel: “The Qumrân literature stands so close to the Hasidic tradition, it is entirely probable that the Hasidic use of maśkîl as a title for “teacher” was transmitted into its community life directly, quite apart from the influence of Daniel.” Lange takes an analogous position (Weisheit und Prädestination, 146), while postulating the existence of a “pre-Essene” tradition in which the term maśkîl was also applied to teachers.

Hempel, “Maskil(im) and Rabbim: From Daniel to Qumran,” in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb, ed. C. Hempel and J. M. Lieu, JSJSup 111 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 133–56.

Hempel, “Maskil(im) and Rabbim,” 133. Cf. Collins, Daniel, 66, 386, 403.

Hempel, “Maskil(im) and Rabbim,” 150–56.

Hempel, “Maskil(im) and Rabbim,” 134–39.

Note that the Damascus Document applies the language of Daniel 11–12 (drawn from Isa 52–53) to the overseer of the camp: ישכיל את הרבים במעשי אל ויבינם בגבורות פלאו (CD 13:7–8).

Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962), 22–25. This position is also taken by Michael A. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 96, 118, 121, 142; Newsom, “Sage in the Literature of Qumran,” 375; and James VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 112.

Preben Wernberg-Møller (Manual of Discipline, STDJ 1 [Leiden: Brill, 1957], 66) argues that the whole section starting at 1QS 9:12 applies to the community as a whole and not only to the teacher. For this reason, he translates maśkîl as “wise man” (cf. ibid., 25, 35). However, Hempel (“Qumran Sapiential Texts,” 291) rightly objects that 1QS 9:12–21 distinguishes between the maśkîl and the community members whom he instructs, inspects, and admonishes. Nonetheless, Wernberg-Møller’s observation has some validity with respect to 1QS 9:21–25.

Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 167.

1QS 6:16, 19, 22 and 9:15.

The subdivision of the passage is disputed. Knibb (Qumran Community, 119) reads ובמושב הרבים אל ידבר איש כול דבר אשר לוא לחפץ הרבים וכיא האיש המבקר על הרבים as “In a session of the many no man shall say anything which is not approved by the many and, indeed, by the overseer of the many.” Jacob Licht (The Rule Scroll: A Scroll From the Wilderness of Judaea [Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965], 144) on the other hand, connects וכיא האיש המבקר על הרבים to the following sentence: וכיא האיש המבקר על הרבים וכול איש אשר יש אתו דבר לדבר לרבים etc. (“And the man who inspects the many, or any man who has something to say to the many etc.”).

Cf. Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:221. Alexander and Vermes (DJD 26:103) do not find enough space for וכיא האיש המבקר על הרבים in 4QS^d. In their comment to 4QS^b 9:6, they suggest (DJD 26:56) that this manuscript may have read האיש המבקר instead of the longer phrase. But even then, the amount of space seems to be insufficient.

Another official occurs in 1QS 6:19–20: האיש המבקר על מלאכת הרבים. This person is responsible for the community’s finances. Licht (Rule Scroll, 115) suggests that he is also in charge of the manual labour performed by the members of the community (therefore מלאכה). Hempel (“Community Structures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Admission, Organization, Disciplinary Procedures,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 2:67–92 [80–81]) assumes that המבקר על הרבים and המבקר על מלאכת הרבים refer to the same official. Knibb (Qumran Community, 122) comments that it is not clear whether the terms refer to the same official or not. In the Damascus Document the mĕbaqqēr of the camp needs to be informed concerning all financial transactions of the members of his camp (CD 13:15–16). But there is no mention of his responsibility concerning communal possessions or (manual) labour.

BDB, sub voce; HALOT, sub voce; DCH, sub voce.

Ketubot 106 A. Cf. Licht, Rule Scroll, 115.

BDB, sub voce; HALOT, sub voce; DCH, sub voce.

Eyal Regev, “מְבַקֵּר,” ThWQ 2:567. Chaim Rabin (Zadokite Documents [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954], 65) points to a possible connection between כרועה עדרו in the rule for the overseer of the camp (CD 13:9) and Ezek 34:11–12 which compares God to a shepherd and uses the root bqr twice. Scholars have suggested possible connections between the mĕbaqqēr in Qumran texts and the ἐπίσκοπος in Early Christian texts. For an overview of the scholarly debate, see Cesare Marcheselli-Casale, “Tracce del mebaqqêr di Qumran nell’ episkopos del NT? Per uno «status questionis»,” Ricerche Storico Bibliche 9 (1997): 177–210. Licht (Rule Scroll, 116) stresses that both the roots pqd and bqr are repeatedly translated as ἐπίσκοπος or ἐπίσκοπή in LXX. It is interesting to note that NT texts also relate the office of ἐπίσκοπος to pastoral metaphors (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 2:25).

In addition, it may be mentioned that the term mĕbaqqēr is always preceded by either the definite article he or a preposition (in which the definite article may be implied). On the other hand, maśkîl is never preceded by the definite article he. In most cases it is preceded by the preposition lamed, in which the article may be implied but this cannot be verified. However, each occurrence of maśkîl without a preposition comes without the definite article. Cf. 1QH^a 20:4 (par 4Q427 8 ii 17); 4Q298 1–2 1; 4Q421 1a ii-b 12; 4Q510 1 4. This usage and non-usage of articles may indicate that the mĕbaqqēr is a more clearly delineated office in the community (‘the examiner’) than the maśkîl who has a more general character.

להשכילם ברזי פלא ואמת בתוך אנשי היחד (1QS 9:18–19).

להשכילם כול הנמצא לעשות בעת הזואת (1QS 9:20).

למשכיל להבין וללמד את כול בני אור (1QS 3:13). Note also 1QS 11:1, which applies the phrase רוגנים ילמדו לקח from Isaiah 29:24 to the figure of the maśkîl: ולהשכיל רוגנים בלקח.

להוכיח דעת אמת ומשפט צדק לבוחרי דרך איש כרוחו (1QS 9:17–18 par 4QS^d 8:2; 4QS^e 3:15–16). 4QS^d and 4QS^e read בחירי instead of בוחרי. The notion of rebuking a person “according to his spirit” is also found in Instruction (4Q417 2 i 1–2): וכרוחו דבר בו פן ישבעכה וגם […] בלוא הוכח.

כתכון העת להנחותם בדעה (1QS 9:18–19). Cf. Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 174–86. The entire sentence reads: כתכון העת להנחותם בדעה וכן להשכילם ברזי פלא ואמת בתוך אנשי היחד, “According to the measure of the time he shall guide them in knowledge, and likewise instruct them in the mysteries of wonder and truth in the midst of the men of the community.” Licht notes (Rule Scroll, 197) that the verbs להנחות and להשכיל appear in the same sequence in Neh 9:19–20 ואתה ברחמיך הרבים לא עזבתם במדבר את עמוד הענן לא סר מעליהם ביומם להנחתם בהדרך ואת עמוד האש בלילה להאיר להם ואת הדרך אשר ילכו בה ורוחך הטובה נתת להשכילם ומנך לא מנעת מפיהם ומים נתתה להם לצמאם, “You in your great mercies did not forsake them in the wilderness; the pillar of cloud that led them in the way did not leave them by day, nor the pillar of fire by night that gave them light on the way by which they should go. You gave your good spirit to instruct them, and did not withhold your manna from their mouths, and gave them water for their thirst.” In Nehemiah, the verbs refer respectively to the pillar of cloud that guided the people through the desert and the spirit that God gave to the people to instruct them. It is likely that the Rule of the Community alludes to these verses in Nehemiah. Note that the Laws for the maśkîl explicitly relate the task of the teacher to the experience of the wilderness: היאה עת פנות הדרך למדברý (1QS 9:19–20 par 4QS^b 18:3; 4QS^d 8:4; 4QS^e 3:19; cf. 1QS 8:13–16 par 4QS^d 6:6–8; 4QS^e 3:3–6). Whereas in Nehemiah the pillar of cloud guides the people (להנחתם) and the “good spirit” instructs them (להשכילם), in the Rule it is the maśkîl who performs these actions. It seems like the maśkîl represents the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire, since the pillar of cloud shows the people the way in the wilderness and the pillar of fire enlightens (להאיר) them (cf. Ex 13:21–22; Ps 78:14; Neh 9:12, 19). These are exactly the tasks of the maśkîl.

Compare the readings of 1QS 9:14 (בני הצדוק) and 4QS^e 3:10 (בני הצדק).

Cf. Licht, Rule Scroll, 195. Cf. 1QS 3:1; 5:1, 3.

1QS 5:20–25 par 4QS^d 2:1–4; 1QS 6:13–23 par 4QS^b 9:8–13.

אשר לוא להוכיח ולהתרובב עמ אנשי השחת ולסתר את עצת התורה בתוכ אנשי העול.ý “He shall not argue or dispute with the men of the pit but shall hide the counsel of the Torah in the midst of the men of deceit.” 1QS 9:16–17 par 4QS^d 8:1–2 par 4QS^e 3:13–15. Note that Isa 29:15 uses the expression לסתר עצה with the same (defective) spelling. Cf. Licht, Rule Scroll, 196.

1QS 5:23 (par 4QS^d 2:3; 1QS 6:2 par 4QS^d 2:6–7; 4QSⁱ 1 3).

1QS 6:4 (par 4QS^d 2:8; 4QS^g 2 3–4; 4QSⁱ 1 5); 1QS 6:8–13 (par 4QS^b 9:5–8; 4QS^d 3:1–3). Cf. Steven D. Fraade, “Interpretive Authority in the Study Community at Qumran,” JJS 44 (1993): 46–79 (53–58).

1QS 5:23–24 (par 4QS^d 2:3–4; 4QS^g 1 4–6). It is possible that the annual inspection was part of the annual ceremony of the covenant: In the ceremony members entered the covenant in the order of their rank (1QS 2:9–25). Both events are said to take place שנה בשנהý (1QS 2:19; 5:24). A remaining difficulty is how to explain the statement that “No man shall move down from his position, or move up from his allotted place,” לוא ישפל איש מבית מעמדו ולוא ירום ממקום גורלו (1QS 2:23). How does this statement relate to the annual reevaluation described in 1QS 5:23–24? On the one hand the community represents an eternal order, and on the other its hierarchy is reestablished annually. Cf. Loren Stuckenbruck, “Wisdom and Holiness at Qumran: Strategies for Dealing with Sin in the Community Rule,” in Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? Wisdom in the Bible, the Church and the Contemporary World, ed. S. C. Barton (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 47–60.

Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 140, cf. 138–40, 143–48.

William Brownlee makes this point (Meaning of the Qumrân Scrolls, 104–7) and draws attention to 2 Chronicles 30:21–22 in which the priests and Levites praise God continuously for seven days accompanied by musical instruments. King Hezekiah then encourages the Levites “who taught the good knowledge of the Lord” (המשכילים שכל טוב ליי). Brownlee points to the usage of the term maśkîl in psalm headings indicating that the psalm in question has a didactic purpose (“that which teaches”) and comments (ibid. 104–5): “Since both hymn and sermon were chanted originally, the musical context by no means eliminates the possibility that the Levites and priests ‘taught the good knowledge of the Lord’ in song. ‘Knowledge of the Lord,’ moreover, was taught by recounting His saving acts in history, and this was most frequently done in songs. The hymns of Miriam and Deborah, as well as many other psalms, illustrate this point.”

Newman, “Speech and Spirit: Paul and the Maskil as Inspired Interpreters of Scripture,” in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. J. Frey and J. R. Levison (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 241–64 (243–52); eadem, “Embodied Techniques;” eadem, Before the Bible, 107–44.

On knowledge as a form of protection against evil spirits, see: Joseph L. Angel, “Maskil, Community, and Religious Experience in the Songs of the Sage (4Q510–511),” DSD 19 (2012): 1–27.

The form ḥākām can be used as an adjective or noun to describe someone who is wise or skillful (BDB, sub voce; HALOT, sub voce; DCH, sub voce). The noun ḥokmâ is usually translated as “wisdom” (LXX σοφία). Some authors tend to understand ḥokmâ in the sense of intelligence, while others emphasise that it refers primarily to a body of knowledge (For the former, see Roger N. Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974], 6–14; and for the latter, see: James L. Kugel, “Wisdom and the Anthological Temper,” Prooftexts 17 [1997]: 9–32).

The only exception in this regard is 4Q525, which has three occurrences of ḥākām and four of ḥokmâ.

James Worrell has suggested (“Concepts of Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls” [PhD diss., The Claremont Graduate School, 1968]) that the Qumran community intentionally refrained fom using the term because it had been appropriated by the Pharisees. However, there is no evidence that the term ḥăkāmîm was associated with the Pharisees in particular. We also cannot be sure concerning the relationship between the Pharisees and the communities behind the various texts discovered at Qumran.

1QS 4:3.

Licht (Rule Scroll, 95) comments that Isa 11:2 (רוח חכמה ובינה רוח עצה וגבורה) and Job 12:13 (חכמה וגבורה) influenced the phraseology in this passage and provided גבורה with a meaning in the semantic field of wisdom. He also suggests that חכמת גבורה may be understood as חכמה וגבורה. On the style characteristics of constructing chains of synonyms and placing two synonyms in construct state, see Licht, Rule Scroll, 32.

1QH^a 17:17.

1QH^a 17:23.

1QH^a 9:21.

1QH^a 11:15 par 4Q435 5:1–2. Cf. Licht, The Thanksgiving Scroll: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1957), 81. (Hebrew). Note that the phrase תתבלע כול חכמתם from Psalm 107:27 also appears in 4Q418b 1:4.

4Q418 81 20.

Job 9:4; 37:24; Prov 10:8; 11:29; 16:21; 23:15; Sir 45:26. Sir 50:23 (Ms B.) reads יתן לכם חכמת לבב ויהי בשלום ביניכם. But the reading of LXX (δῴη ἡµῖν εὐφροσύνην καρδίας καὶ γενέσθαι εἰρήνην ἐν ἡµέραις ἡµῶν) seems preferable (i.e., שמחת לבב).

Ex 28:3; 31:6; 35:10, 25; 36:1, 2, 8.

100

4Q418 81 15, 19; 102 3; 137 2; 139 2. Cf. Strugnell, Harrington and Elgvin, DJD 34:309, 311, 328, 366, 368. Applying new digital tools, Asaf Gayer demonstrates (“A New Reconstruction of the ‘Wisdom of the Hands’ Unit in 4QInstruction^d [4Q418],” JSP 30 [2020]: 60–73) that on the basis of material considerations these fragments are to be located in each other’s vicinity and belong to the same section of the composition.

101

Sir 9:17 (Ms. A): בחכמי ידים יחשך יושר ומוש[ל]עמו חכם. LXX Sir 9:17: ἐν χειρὶ τεχνιτῶν ἔργον ἐπαινεσθήσεται, καὶ ὁ ἡγούµενος λαοῦ σοφὸς ἐν λόγῳ αὐτοῦ. Rudolf Smend suggests (Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach [Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1906], 88) that LXX inverts חכמי and ידים and translates the latter twice: once as ἐν χειρὶ (ביד) and once as τεχνιτῶν (חכמי ידים).

102

Goff, 4QInstruction, 259–61.

103

4Q418 137 2–3: חכמת ידים יוסף לכה[ ]צדק בשכרתכה כי לעבודתכה.

104

4Q418 81 15–16.

105

The juxtaposition of “wisdom of mind” and “wisdom of hands” is also found in the fragmentary text 4Q424. Strugnell and Harrington note significant correspondences in vocabulary (DJD 34:2) between Instruction and 4Q424, which causes them to consider the possibility that 4Q424 is actually a copy of the same composition. However, the absence of textual overlap and differences in style speak against the identification of 4Q424 as a manuscript of Instruction. Cf. Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 302. The passage in question reads (4Q424 3 6–7): “Do not send a man of unreceptive mind to devise designs, for the wisdom of his mind is hidden away, and he does not have authority over it. The skill of his hands he will not find” (איש שמן לב אל תשלח לכרות מחשבות כי נסתרה חכמת לבו ולוא ימשול ב[ה] חכמת ידיו לא ימצא). For the unique expression לכרות מחשבות, Sarah Tanzer offers the translation “to devise plots” (“4QInstruction-like Composition B,” in Qumran Cave 4. XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1, ed. S. J. Pfann, DJD 36 [Oxford: Clarendon, 2000], 333–46 [343]). Note that the verb krh+qal occurs in an intellectual context in 4Q418 55 3 (דרכיה נכרה בעמל) and 4Q525 5 12 (דרכיה יכרו ערומים), in the sense of ‘digging the paths of wisdom’ (cf. Prov 16:27; Job 40:30). Cf. Gershon Brin, “Studies in 4Q424, Fragment 3,” VT 46 (1996): 271–95. It is not clear how the expression “skill of hands” fits into this reading unless it is interpreted in a non-literal sense. An alternative would be to understand מחשבות in 4Q424 3 6 in the sense of “artistic designs” as in the expression לחשוב מחשבות “to devise artistic designs” (Ex 31:4; 35:32; 2 Chr 2:13; cf. Ex 35:35; 2 Chr 26:15) but it is less clear how such a reading could be combined with the verb לכרות. If the term “wisdom of hands” and the crafting of artistic designs is indeed used metaphorically in 4Q424 to refer to the design of conceptual structures, then this might have an impact for our understanding of “wisdom of hands” in Instruction.

106

This also seems to be the case in the construction חכמת אוטו (4Q416 2 ii 12 par 4Q418 8 13). The word אוט occurs only in Instruction and 4Q424 and remains enigmatic. But the context of 4Q416 2 ii suggests that the phrase חכמת אוטו refers to matters of livelihood, since it relates to the labour that the mēbîn has to do for a master or creditor. DCH renders אוט as “storehouse” (sub voce). Strugnell and Harrington comment (DJD 34:32) that this is “at best a guess” and suggest the meaning “secret” on the basis of 4Q424 1 6 (ביד עצל אל תפקד אט). But in many cases “secret” does not seem to be a good translation. Elgvin (“An Analysis of 4QInstruction” [PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997], 154, 213), Goff (Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 152, n. 104) and Rey (4QInstruction, 33) suggest the translation “resources,” based on terminology in the immediate literary context of אוט (e.g., מסחור; מחסור; טרף). Tzvi Novick proposes a similar meaning (“The Meaning and Etymology of אוט,” JBL 127 [2008]: 339–43): “property, affairs.” Recently, Jonathan Ben-Dov suggested (“Lexical Notes on Musar Le-Mevin,” in Hokhmat Sopher: Mélanges offerts au Professeur Émile Puech en l’honneur de son quatre-vingtième anniversaire, ed. J.-S. Rey and M. Staszak [Leuven: Peeters, 2021], 3–16) that אוט means “measure,” or “measured share,” and proposed an etymology of the Akkadian word ūṭu which denotes a “span, half-cubit.”

107

4Q417 1 15–16 (par 4Q418 217 1; 4Q418* 2, 2b 8): כי]א יצר בשר הואה ומבינות [אדם לו. Reconstruction by Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:147 (cf. Prov 30:2).

108

4Q417 1 ii 12, 14: אל תפתכה מחשבת יצר רע … נבונות בשר אל תשגכ[ה. Cf. Kister, “Wisdom Literature,” 27–28.

109

Tigchelaar, “בָּשָׂר,” ThWQ 1:534–47 (546–47). Cf. page 83–90.

110

On the relationship between Instruction and Mysteries, see Schiffman, DJD 20:31; Strugnell, Harrington and Elgvin, DJD 34:34. Cf. Tigchelaar, “Your Wisdom and Your Folly: The Case of 4QMysteries,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, ed. F. García Martínez, BETL 168 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003). 69–88 (78–81); idem, “Wisdom and Counter-Wisdom,” 179–86.

111

Tigchelaar, “Your Wisdom and Your Folly,” 84–85; Kister, “Wisdom Literature,” 25–28; Tigchelaar, “Wisdom and Counter-Wisdom,” 181–84, 191–93.

112

Tigchelaar, “Your Wisdom and Your Folly,” 84–5; idem, “Wisdom and Counter-Wisdom,” 181, 183–84.

113

4Q300 1a ii–b (par 4Q299 3c). See Gen 41:8, 24; Ex 7:11, 22; 8:3, 14, 15; 9:11. Daniel uses the same term for Babylonian sages (Dan 1:20; 2:2, 10, 27; 4:4, 6; 5:11). Menahem Kister suggests (“Wisdom Literature,” 28–29 n. 74.) that the whole wisdom contest with the ḥarṭummîm in Mysteries was attributed to biblical figures, perhaps Moses and Aaron.

114

4Q300 1a ii–b 2–4 par 4Q299 3c 1–2: כי חתום מכם החזון וברזי עד לא הבטתם ובבינה לא השכלתם … כי לא הבטתם בשורש חוכמה ואם תפתחו החזון תסתם מכם. Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:141.

115

1Q27 1 i 2. Cf. 1QH^a 13:38 (par 4QH^c 3 10); 24:9.

116

Kister, “Wisdom Literature,” 27. Interestingly, the wisdom of both groups seems to be concerned with knowledge of the future. Mysteries seems to suggest that its audience has access to the secrets of astrology: 4Q299 3a ii+b 13: מחשבת בית מולדים פתח לפ[נינו, “He opened the plan of the horoscopes for us.” Cf. Matthew Morgenstern, “The Meaning of בית מולדים in the Qumran Wisdom Texts,” JJS 51 (2000): 141–44; Tigchelaar, “Your Wisdom and Your Folly,” 87–88; Kister, “Wisdom Literature,” 28. Kister notes (ibid.): “Both the ‘counter-wisdom’ of the ḥarṭummîm and the ‘true-wisdom’ seem to share a mantic interest. This is reminiscent of the relationship indicated in Jubilees between Enoch’s wisdom and the wisdom of the Watchers, both of which deal with the ‘signs of the sky’ (Jub. 4:17, 8:3).” The mantic wisdom of the opponents is futile. The ḥarṭummîm do not know what will happen to them and are not able to save themselves from their future destruction. Kister notes (ibid., 26) that the passage in Mysteries is based on Isa 47:10–14. Cf. Tigchelaar, “Wisdom and Counter-Wisdom,” 186, 191.

117

1Q27 1 i 3 (par 4Q300 3 3).

118

4Q300 1a ii–b 1, 4. Schiffman (DJD 20:101–2) reads a pual in מלמדי פשע: “skilled in transgression.”

119

4Q300 1a ii-b 4–5. Schiffman (DJD 20:42, 103, 107) translates חכמה נכחדת as “hidden wisdom.” Kister comments (“Wisdom Literature,” 27 n. 67) that this translation is linguistically possible, but since the context in 4Q299 3a ii + b 3–5 (par 4Q300 5 4–5) makes it clear that חכמה נכחדת relates to wicked wisdom (חכמת עורמת רוע), the translation “perishing wisdom” (as opposed to eternal wisdom) makes more sense.

120

4Q299 3a ii + b 3–5 (par 4Q300 5 4–5): מה]נקרא לאד[ם אשר רוח נעוה מושלת בו] חכם וצדיק כי לוא לאיש [חוכמ]ה ולו[א לאדם צדקה ומה חכמה נכחדת כי] אם חוכמת עורמת רוע. Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:133.

121

In 1QH^a 4:39, Qimron reads (Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:63): א]נוש ואל כול בינת אדם אביט (following a suggestion of Puech). If this reading is correct, it implies that the hodaya uses the text of Prov 30:2 to reflect negatively on human wisdom.

122

Translations usually render ודעת קדושים אדע as negation, e.g., “nor do I have knowledge of the holy ones” (NRSV) or “Nor do I possess knowledge of the Holy One” (JPS). But there is no negation in the Hebrew text, and it is more likely that Agur does claim to have heavenly knowledge, since the riddle in the following line (Prov 30:4) asks precisely those questions that are associated with the revelation of cosmic secrets. See Stone, “Lists of Revealed Things.”

123

The term שכל occurs in 4Q299 8 2, 6, 8. בינה:ý 4Q299 8 7; 4Q300 1a ii+b 2; 5 1; 8 6; 4Q301 1 2; 2b 1; 4 2. Mysteries does use the expression שורש חוכמה “root of wisdom” in a positive way: לא הבטתם בשורש חוכמהý (4Q300 1a ii-b 3). But the point of the accusation may be that although the ḥarṭummîm have occupied themselves with wisdom (חכמה) they have not understood its root.

124

1QS 11:3–6.

125

1QS 11:7–9.

126

1QS 11:21–22 (par 4QS^j 1 8–10).

127

1QS 11:9, ואני לאדם רשעה ולסוד בשר עול.

128

On “the voice of the teacher,” cf. García Martínez, “Beyond the Sectarian Divide,” 230–35 and passim.

Citation Info

Save
Cite
Email this content

Share link with colleague or librarian

You can email a link to this page to a colleague or librarian:
Email this content
or copy the link directly:

https://brill.edhh.ma/display/book/9789004537798/BP000012.xml
The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.

Link copied successfully

Collapse
Expand

The Secret of Time: Reconfiguring Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Series: Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, Volume: 143

E-Book ISBN:: 9789004537798

Publisher:: Brill

Print Publication Date:: 24 Jan 2023

Subjects

Front Matter

Back Matter

Metrics

	All Time	Past 365 days	Past 30 Days
Abstract Views	0	0	0
Full Text Views	1400	405	101
PDF Views & Downloads	461	156	28

African Studies	Education	Media Studies
American Studies	History	Middle East and Islamic Studies
Ancient Near East and Egypt	Human Rights and Humanitarian Law	Musicology
Art History	International Law	Philosophy
Asian Studies	International Relations	Religious Studies
Biblical Studies	Jewish Studies	Slavic and Eurasian Studies
Biology	Languages and Linguistics	Social Sciences
Book History and Cartography	Life Sciences	Theology and World Christianity
Classical Studies	Literature and Cultural Studies

Subjects

Authors

Open Access

Product Information

Company

Contact

Chapter 2 Redefining the Sage

1 mēbîn

2 maśkîl

3 ḥākām

4 Conclusion

Citation Info

Share link with colleague or librarian

The Secret of Time: Reconfiguring Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Table of Contents

Metrics

Metrics