Some literary expressions in the Dead Sea Scrolls led scholars to allege that their authors professed a dualistic and deterministic worldview of Zoroastrian origin and that the omission of Moses and Sinai from the Enoch writings evinces that a segment in Jewish society marginalized the Torah, adopting Enoch’s prophecies as its ethical guideline. This study challenges these allegations as utterly conflicting with essential biblical doctrines and the unequivocal beliefs and expectations of Qumran’s Torah-centered society, arguing that scholars’ allegations are erroneously based on interpreting ancient texts with a modern mindset and influenced by the interpreter’s personal cultural background. The study interprets the relevant texts in a manner compatible with the presumed doctrines of ancient Jewish authors and readers.
Paul Heger, PhD (Toronto, 1996), is the author of
Development of the Incense Cult in Israel (1997),
Three Biblical Altar Laws (1999), and
Pluralistic Halakhah (2003) (de Gruyter),
Cult as the Catalyst for Division (2007, Brill), and numerous journal articles.
Table of contents
2.Rabbinic And Qumran Interpretation Systems
3.The Attribution Of Modern Concepts To Authors And Readers Of Ancient Texts
4.Enoch: Complementary or Alternative to Mosaic Torah?
5.Jubilees and the Mosaic Torah
6.Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings
7.Against a Theory of Dual Determinism in 1QS and 1QHa
Scholars and students of the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly of Qumran’s interpretive system vs. rabbinic methods; interpretation of apocryphal literature in accordance with assumed conceptions of ancient readers and audiences.