This article argues that, in 1QHa 11:20–27; 20:27–39 and Sir 33:7–15, the use of allusions to humanity’s creation from dust in Genesis 2–3 and to its formation from clay in Isa 29:16; 45:9; Jer 18:4, 6 represents a conscious exegetical process in which the Genesis and prophetic traditions were read and used in light of one another. Although originating within different social environments—one sectarian and the other as part of a more mainstream scribal context—both make use of the same two scriptural allusions and evince a similar pattern of interpretive reflection. The goal of the study is to demonstrate that the allusions function together, in a compounded manner, to present (1) a composite portrait of God as creator and determiner of all human outcomes, and (2) a corresponding composite portrait of humanity in its universal mortality and complete subjection to the deterministic will of God.
On angelic worship at Qumran see Chazon“Lowly to Lofty”11–15; Chazon “Liturgical Function of the Cave 1 Hodayot Collection” in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Proceedings of the Sixth IOQS Ljubljana 2007stdj 91 ed. D.K. Falk S. Metso and E. Tigchelaar (Leiden: Brill 2010) 137–48 (esp. 137–39 which deals with 1QHa 11:20–37). Fletcher-Louis’s All the Glory of Adam is almost entirely devoted to the subject of humanity’s engagement with and even metamorphosis into the angelic divine in Second Temple Judaism and the dss. See pp. 104–12 199–216 for his treatment of the Hodayot (pp. 199–216 are his treatment of the so-called “Self-Glorification Hymn”). See also J. Angel Otherworldly and Eschatological Priesthood in the Dead Sea Scrollsstdj 86 (Leiden: Brill 2010) 132–45; P. Alexander The Mystical Texts: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Related Manuscripts (London: T&T Clark 2006) 85–90 101–10.
E.g. MaierMensch und freier Wille158–59; J.J. Collins Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville ky: Westminster John Knox 1997) 80–83; Brand Evil Within and Without 108–13 although she also sees election as an important element in Sir 33:7–13. Sir 33:14–15 reads: “Good is the opposite of evil and life the opposite of death; so the sinner is the opposite of the godly. Look at all the works of the Most High; they come in pairs one the opposite of the other.” One of the major problems for the study of predestinarian thought in Ben Sira has been how to relate Sir 15:11–20—which is an extended poem on humanity’s ability to choose according to its free will—with Sir 33:7–15. See J. Klawans “Josephus on Fate Free Will and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism” Numen 56 (2009): 44–90 (57–59). Collins Jewish Wisdom 83 and Brand Evil Within and Without 110 are more inclined to say that there is an apparent and unresolved tension in Ben Sira between human free will and divine predestination. Also of note here is the common assertion that Ben Sira’s alleged use of dualism is on par with the Stoics (see e.g. Beentjes “Theodicy in Wisdom of Ben Sira” 272–73; Collins Jewish Wisdom 85). However this idea has been argued against in e.g. Sanders Ben Sira 55 n. 127; S.L. Matilla “Ben Sira and the Stoics: A Reexamination of the Evidence” jbl 119 (2000): 473–501; and Brand Evil Within and Without 111–12.
See GoeringWisdom’s Root50–55 59–60; Klawans “Josephus” 60–61 although he does not deny there is a “deterministic element to the idea of divine election” (p. 60). See also Di Lella and Skehan Ben Sira 400; and Hogan “Mortal Body” 34–35 who agrees with Goering’s analysis. U. Wicke-Reuter Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der Frühen Stoabzaw 298 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 2000) 224 argues that in Ben Sira’s thought God’s providence and human responsibility are not mutually exclusive: “Gott hat es in seinem ‘Plan’ für die Schöpfung von vornherein so vorgesehen daß der Mensch in der Lage ist sich für das Gute und gegen das Böse zu entscheiden [. . .].”
See BrandEvil Within and Without107. This point would also seem to strengthen Goering’s argument regarding the poem’s focus on the election of Israel since he does not include reference to the potter/clay allusion in Sir 33:13. Further what makes Brand’s refusal to see the election of Israel in Sir 33:7–13 stranger is that she draws upon Isa 45:7 as the source of Ben Sira’s dualism in 33:14–15 in which God says “I form light and create darkness I make weal and create woe; I the LORD do all these things.” Just two verses later is the potter/clay metaphor which I have argued has Israel’s election in view as well.
S. Ruzer“Exegetical Patterns Common to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, and Their Implications,” in Text Thought and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianitystdj 84 ed. R.A. Clements and D.R. Schwartz (Leiden: Brill2009) 231–51has made a similar argument in his comparison of exegetical practices in the double love command in Matt 22:34–40 (par. Mark 12:28–31; Luke 10:25–28) and 1QS 1:1–12; and the exegesis of Amos 9:11–12 in Acts 15:13–21 and 4QFlorilegium 1:10–13.
NewsomThe Self as Symbolic Space196–204. There is of course debate over whether poems such as 1QHa 11:20–37 is a composition pertaining only to the leader of the community and thus does not have a bearing on the formation of the self of community members at large. Newsom asserts that such an approach is unhelpful (p. 197).
BrandEvil Within and Without72 126. Important here is the manner in which both the Hodayot and Ben Sira locate the concept of human sinfulness within their approach to human free will vs. divine determinism. I wonder if the two texts actually share a common approach to this issue since both seem to show evidence of two co-operating systems that are held in tension (e.g. Sir 15:11–20/33:7–15; 1QHa 7:23–27 in which the speaker says “And I love you [God] freely” but then “And I know that in your hand is the inclination of every spirit [and all] its [activi]ty you determined before you created it”).