Article jTfc

Journal for the Study of

the New Testament
Qumran Scholarship and the 2015, ٧ol. 38(1) 68-80
© The Author(s) 2015
Study of the Old Testament in Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.na٧
the New Testament DOI: 10.1 177/0142064Χ15595933
Jsnt.sagepub.com

.AGE

Timothy H. Lim
Uniersity of Edinburgh, UK

Abstract
This article argues that Qumran scholarship pro٧ides contextual and contingent
perspecti٧es in the study of the use of scripture by the New Testament authors.
First, post-Qumran textual criticism has highlighted textual di٧ersity in the period of
the New Testament, raising questions about alleged exegetical ٧ariants as well as the
characterizations of the Pauline citations as 'septuagintal'. Second, while the canon of
the Hebrew Bible remained open in the middle of the first centufy, Paul's implied bible
was consistent with the Pharisaic canon that e٧entually became the Rabbinic Bible.
Finally, the theofy of the sectarian matrix both accounts for the use of the same biblical
passages and the di٧ergent interpretations of them among ٧arious sects in the Second
Temple period.

Keywords
Post-Qumran textual criticism, canon, sectarian matrix

It is commonplace to see references to tlie Dead Sea Scrolls in studies tliat inves-
tigate tlie use of tlie Old Testament in tlie New Testament. Tlie importance of tlie
scrolls for tlie New Testament lias been widely recognized ever since tlieir dis-
covery in 1947. Despite tlie many years of study, liowever, one rarely finds a
discussion of liow Qumran scliolarsilip impacts on researcli into tlie way tliat tlie
early Cliristian autliors use tlie traditional, autlioritative scriptures ofludaismin
tlieir own writings (see, e.g., Beale and Carson 2007). Wliat does Qiunran

Corresponding author‫؛‬
Timothy H. Lim, Uni٧ersity of Edinburgh, School of Di٧inity, Mound Place, Edinburgh, EH I 2LX, UK.
Email: ümt@ed.ac.uk

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by American Theological Library Association on September 10, 2015
Lim 69

scholarship offer tlie New Testainent scliolar wlio investigates tlie OT in tlie NT?
I will suggest tliat it provides indirect, but essential, liistorical perspectives.

Pluriform Biblical Texts

Post-Qumran texhral criticism lias sliown tliat tlie biblical scrolls reflect tlie plu-
rifomiityofthe biblical textsofancientJudaisnibetween approximately 200 BCE
and 100 CE. Tlie biblical scrolls are not tlie sectarian scrolls of one Jewisli sect,
tlie Qumran-Essene community; tliey are tlie autlioritative scriptures of main-
stteam or common Judaism.
In tlie past, tlie biblical scrolls were seen by some scliolars as sectarian and
unrepresentative of tlie biblical texts in ancient Judaism as a wliole. Tliis assump-
tion is no longer tliouglit valid in tlie liglit of more recent sbidies on tlie biblical
scrolls. Wliat is striking, according to Eugene Ulricli, is tlie absence of‘sectarian
variants’ in tlie biblical scrolls (2000, 2002). Tliere is no evidence tliat tliese bib-
lical scrolls were sectarian biblical scrolls, and no reason to exclude tliem fiom a
consideration of tlie biblical citations in tlie New Testament.
Before tlie discovery of tlie Dead Sea Scrolls, texbial criticism of tlie Hebrew
Bible posited tliree text-types: tlie Masoretic Text, tlie Sepbiagint and tlie
Samaritan Pentateuch.) Witli tlie discovery of tlie biblical scrolls, it became evi-
dent tliat tliis bipartite sclieme could no longer be maintained and sliould be
abandoned in favour of a theory tliat accounts for tlie multiplicity of texts and
literary traditions.2 Tlie lesson tliat one draws fiom tlie text-critical work of Frank
Cross, Shemaryahu Talmon, Emanuel Tov, Eugene Ulricli and otliers is tlie com-
plexity of tlie task in assessing tlie biblical citations and allusions in tlie New
Testament.'
One always lias to be mindful of tlie possibility tliat wlien a New Testament
autlior cites a biblical word, plirase or clause tliat differs fiom tlie Sepbiagint, tlie
Masoretic Text or tlie Samaritan Pentateucli, lie or slie may be citing a texbial
variant attested in tlie biblical scrolls. Not every variant is an exegetical variant
created by tlie auüior.4
For instance, scliolars are liard pressed to identify tlie source of Mattliew’s
fiilfilment quotation, ‘He sliall be called a Nazarine’ (Ναζωραίος κληθήσετα‫؛‬, Mt.
2.23). One possibility is to suggest tliat Mattliew is alluding to tlie servant text in
Isa. 49.6 tliat speaks of tlie ‘preserved of Israel’. Tlie kethiv of tlie MT was only
partially pointed by BenAslier (‫)נצירי ישראל‬, and tlie qere reads a passive parti-
ciple, ‘tlie preserved (‫ )נצורי‬of Israel’. It is supposed tliat Mattliew revocalized1 2 3 4

1. outside the Pentateuch the Samaritan text-type is deduced hy analogy.

2. See the critical review of the state of the question hy Hendel 2010.
3. SeeLim 1997: 12-30.
4. See the similar approach of Docherty 2009.

٥ ٥
Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by American Theological Library Association on September 1 , 2 15
7 ٥ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38(1)

the word to neser (‫)נצר‬, ineaning eitlier a brancli orNazorean, given tlie messi-
anic use of tlie word in Isa. 11.1.5 But tliis would require tlie emendation of tlie
consonantal text.
Tlie evidence of tlie Quniran biblical scrolls offers an alternative solution.
Mattliew may liave been citing a texbial variant attested in 4QSam‫[‘ '־‬and I will
de]dicate liim as a Nazirite forever’ (‫)]ונת[תיהו מיר עד עולם‬, wliicli is a texbial
plus of 1 Sam. 1.22.5 Neitlier tlie MT nor tlie LXX attests to tliis clause. Post-
Quniran texbial criticism provides tlie tlieoretical fiamework of plurifonn bibb-
cal texts in wliicli one sliould sbidy tlie texbial and exegetical variants ofbiblical
citations in tlie New Testament.

Differentiating Language and Textual Classification

Anotlier lesson tliat one sliould draw fiom post-Qumran texbial criticism is tlie
concepbial distinction tliat is to be made between language and texbial
classification in assessing tlie biblical citations in tlie New Testament. Tlie cliar-
acter of a text is not necessarily linked to tlie language in wliicli it is written.
Tanguage and texbial classification must be considered separately.
Wliat I mean is tliis: tlie MT, LXX and SP text-types are written in Hebrew,
Greek and Samaritan respectively. Tliese serve as lieuristic types used by scliol-
ars to classify texts. As already mentioned above, tliey are not tlie only text-types
in tlie Second Temple period, but tliey will serve liere to illustrate tlie point. Post-
Quniran texbial criticism lias sliown tliat a text written in one language could be
aligned texbially witli a type tliat is usually associated witli anotlier language.
Tor instance, it lias been sliown tliat 4QJer٩ written in Hebrew, is to be
classified as a sepbiagintal text-fype. Tliat is to say, tlie Hebrew text of 4QJerb
approximates tlie presumed Vorlage of tlie Greek translation of tlie propliecy of
leremiali, and tlierefore belongs to its text-type. It is tlie content or texbial cliar-
acter of 4QJer٩ ratlier tlian tlie language in wliicli it is written, tliat determines a
text’s classification as sepbiagintal. Of course, text-critics liave long differenti-
ated between language and texbial classification in theory and practice. It is,
liowever, tlie text-critical sbidy of tlie biblical scrolls tliat lias provided concrete
examples of tliis differentiation in cliaracterizing a Hebrew text, like 4QJerb-٩
4Q٥euH, 4QLev٩ 4QEx0d'’ and otliers, as sepbiagintal.57 6
Wlien applied to tlie sbidy of tlie biblical citations in tlie New Testament, tliis
principle of differentiation yields some new and surprising results. Take, for

5. So, e.g., Hagner 1993: 40, who follows Barnabas Lindars’s suggestion.
6. So Ulrich 2000: 78-79. Brooke 2010: 580 alternatively suggests that it may have been based
on Isa. 11.1.
7. See Tov 2001: 114-16.

٥
Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by American Theological Library Association on September 1 , 205
Lim 71

instance, Paul’s biblical citations in his Hauptbriefe.8 It is commonly asserted on

the basis of a casual comparison between his biblical citations and the LXX that
‘Paul’s Bible’ is the Septuagint. Yet, when one analyses the textual character of
liis verbatim citations, it is evident tliat tlie text tliat lie most often quotes is tlie
unifonn text of tlie MT and LXX.
His quotations agree witli botli tlie MT and LXX 41 times out of 92 cases (45
per cent). Paul cites tlie LXX, wlien it differs ftom tlie MT, only on 17 occasions
( 18 per cent). Paul did use tlie Sepftiagint, and tlie language of tlie Greek transla-
tion sliaped tlie expressions in liis own writings, but tlie texftial classification of
liis verbatim quotations sliows tliat it is tlie unifonn tradition of tlie MT and LXX
tliat lie most commonly cites.® Paul cited liis scriptures in Greek, because tliat
was tlie language of liis letters, but it does not necessarily follow tliat tlie biblical
citations are, tlien, to be texftially classified as tlie sepfiiagintal text-type.

The Implied Bible

Tlie recognition tliat tlie Septuagint was not tlie text-type of tlie majority of liis
verbatim citations allows one to consider anew Paul’s bible. Tliere is no need to
suppose tliat lie must llave liad tlie Alexandrian canon or a more extensive corpus
of autlioritative texts in mind based on tlie texftial cliaracter of liis citations.
Paul was not concerned to define liis canon. He was a missionary faced witli
many pastoral and doctrinal issues tliat required liis attention. However, liis pedi-
gree as a Hebrew of Hebrews gives US a clue to tlie collection of autlioritative
texts tliat may liave been implied. He was a Pliarisee as to tlie law (Pliil. 3.2-6),
and it is not unreasonable to suppose tliat tlie collection of autlioritative scrip-
tures of tlie Pliarisees was liis implied bible. Wliat became tlie Pliarisaic canon
was itself still open and not finally closed in tlie middle of tlie first century CE,
and Paul’s implied bible is consistent witli it.
Paul cited or alluded to all tlie books of tlie traditional Jewisli canon except for
tlie Song of Songs, Rutil, Estlier and Ezra-Neliemiali. He used introductory for-
mulas exclusively for citing tlie texts tliat eventually ended up in tlie canon. He
did not always use introductory fonnulas, but wlien lie did so, it was to quote a
biblical text and not a ηοη-biblical passage. He described tlie biblical texts as
γραφαί άγία‫( ؛‬Rom. 1.2), a foniiulation tliat is unique in tlie New Testament, and
an exact translation of tlie rabbinic expression of‘holy scriptures’ (10 9 8 "'.(‫תבי הקודש‬

8. The citations in the New Testament are, strictly speaking, too short for textual classification,
hut this has not prevented scholars fiom pronouncing on the subject.
9. For further discussion, see Lim 2013: 165-77.
10. Fora detailed discussion of Paul’s implied hihle, see Lim 2013: 165-77. The Rahhis used the
criterion of ‘defilement of the hands’ as a principle for determining whether a text was holy. I

٥
Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by American Theological Library Association on September 1 , 205
72 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38(1)

The description of Paul’s bible as ‘the Septuagint’ or ‘septuagintaT sliould be

distinguislied between tliree senses: tlie reference to an Alexandrian canon, tlie
texbral classification of liis biblical citations, and tlie influence of tlie language of
tlie Greek translation on Paul’s own expressions.

Sectarian Hermeneutics
Tlie sbidy of tlie Old Testament in tlie New sliould also benefit fioni develop-
nients in Quniran scliolarsilip on Jewisli sectarianism. It is now widely recog-
nized tliat tlie sectarian communities reflected in tlie scrolls and described by tlie
classical autliors of Pililo, Joseplius and Pliny are not to be identified witli tlie
earliest followers of Jesus. Tliey were different groups tliat belonged to tlie
matrix of sectarian Judaism. One of tlie cliaracteristics of late Second Temple
Judaism is tlie presence of Jewisli sects or scliools of philosophy. Tliese sects
lield teacliings (e.g., on resurrection, immortality, fate and free will) and prac-
tices (e.g., ribialized wasliings, initiation procedures, Ilierarcliical order) tliat dis-
tinguished tliem botli fiom ordinary Jews and fiom eacli otlier.
Tliis liistorical perspective obviates tlie pitfalls associated witli tlie practice of
adducing literary parallels between tlie scrolls and tlie New Testament (e.g., tlie
citation of Isa. 40.3 in Mk 1.1-8 and tlie Rule of the Community 8.1-16) to sup-
port tlie view of a direct link between tlie communities.)) Instead, terminological
and exegetical parallels attest to tlie pool of autlioritative texts and religious ideas
fiom wliicli botli tlie autliors of tlie scrolls and of tlie New Testament drew tlieir
material and inspiration.)‫؛‬
Tlie autliors of tlie sectarian scrolls and New Testament sliared similar lier-
meneutics: tliey often used tlie same biblical texts and interpreted tliem esclia-
tologically; tliey considered tlie oracles of tlie propliets to liave been fulfilled
in tlieir own time; and tliey used exegetical teclmiques and terminology tliat
were similar or tlie same. But tliey drew different lessons fiom tlieir biblical
sources.
Consider, for instance, tlie use of tlie promise of ‘tlie new covenant’ in tlie
scrolls, tlie Pauline letters and tlie letter to tlie Hebrews. Tlie tenninology and
concept are drawn fiom tlie same biblical passage of Jer. 31.31-34. In tlie LXX
tliis passage is foimd in Jer. 38. Tlie NRSV translates tlie MT of Jer. 31 as
follows:11 12

have suggested tliat tlie underlying principle assumes tliat lioly objects, sucli as sacred scrip-
tures, llave a lioly contagion (Lilli 2010).
11. See Frey 2010.1 liave discussed tlie significance of parallels in relation to tlie Pauline letters
in Fini 2000 and 2002.
12. See Lim 2009.

٥
Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by American Theological Library Association on September 1 , 205
Lim 73

31The days are surely coming, says the LORO, when h will make a new covenant with the
house of Israel and the house of Judah. 33It will not be like the covenant that 1 made with
their ancestors when 1 took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt - a
covenant that they broke, though 1 was their husband, says the LORO. 33But this is the
covenant that 1 will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORO: 1 will
put my law within them, and 1 will write it on their hearts; and 1 will be their God, and
they shall be my people. 34No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other,
‘Know the LORO', for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says
the LORO; for 1 will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.

Both the scrolls and tlie New Testament drew tlieir tenninology fiom tliis text.
Tlie Damascus Document described tlie sectarian community as ‘tliose wlio
entered tlie new covenant (‫ )הברית החדשה‬in tlie land of Damascus’ (CD 6.19;
8.21, 29; 19.33). Tlie location of ‘Damascus’ lias been interpreted as a symbolic
ciplier referring to eitlier Babylon or Kilirbet Qumran. Tlie community is made
up of volunteers wlio entered tlie new covenant. Elsewliere, tliey are described as
‘tlie doers of tlie laws in tlie liouse of Judali wliom God will deliver fiom tlie
liouse of judgment’ (lQpHab 8.1) and ‘tlie blameless and tme liouse of Israel’
(IQS 8.9 // 4Q259 2.18). lQpHab 2.3 is plausibly reconstmcted as a furtlierref
erence to ‘[tlie] new [covenant]’ and tlie context suggests tliat among tlie cove-
nanters tliere are some wlio were ‘traitors’.
for tlie sectarians of tlie Dead Sea Scrolls, tlie new covenant is contrasted witli
tlie covenant of tlie forefatliers. CD 1.4-5 states tliat God judges Israel wlio
spurned liim, ‘but wlien He remembered tlie covenant of tlie forefatliers
(‫ )ברית ראשנים‬He caused a remnant to remain’. It is evident tliat CD is interpret-
ing Jer. 31.32 tliat describes tlie covenant tliat God cut witli tlie ancestors and
wliicli tliey broke. Tlie sectarian interpreters focused exclusively on tlie first two
verses of Jer. 31. Tliere is no accompanying comment on tlie internalization of
tlie law in w. 33 and 34, because tlie promise of restoration was understood to be
tlie renewal of tlie old covenant, and not tlie expectation of sometliing entirely
new. Tlie sectarians are admonislied to return to carefill observance of tlie law
ratlier tlian to abandon tlie practice of teacliing tlie law to eacli otlier.
By stark contrast, tlie New Testament understood Jer. 31.31-34 to be propliesy-
ing a new dispensation as inaugurated in tlie life and deatli of Jesus. Paul passed on
to tlie Corintliians wliat lie liimself liad received fiom tlie Lord Jesus, and tlie ritual
of tlie wine is described as ‘tlie cup of tlie new covenant (ή καινή 5ιαθήκη) in my
blood’ (1 Cor. 11.25). Tlie legal and etilical consequence oftliis belief is tliat Paul
is now a minister of a new covenant, not of tlie letter but of tlie spirit (2 Cor. 3.6).)313

13. This contrast may have heen influenced hy HiwlTs declaration of replacing a heart of stone
with a heart of flesh (Ezek. 11.19; 36.26). Fora discussion of the law of Christ, see Lim 2000:
140-41.

٥ ٥
Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by American Theological Library Association on September 1 , 2 15
74 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38(1)

The author of tlie letter to tlie Hebrews expresses a siinilar understanding of

Jer. 31. All four verses of tlie propliecy are cited (from tlie LXX) in Heb. 8.8-12.
Tlie accompanying interpretation in V. 13 contrasts tlie new witli tlie old cove-
nant: ‘In speaking of “a new covenant" lie lias made tlie first one old
(πεπαλαίωκεν).’ Jesus lias obtained a better ministry and is tlie mediator of a bet-
ter covenant wliicli lias been enacted tlirougli better promises (V. 6). Hebrews
makes it explicit tliat Jer. 31.31-34 is to be interpreted as tlie supersession of tlie
old covenant by tlie new.
Tlie citation and diverging interpretation of Jer. 31 in tlie scrolls and tlie New
Testament liigliliglit tlie theory of tlie sectarian matrix of late Second Temple
Judaism tliat posits tlie same intellecbial milieu, but not identity, of various
groups of sectarians. Tlie sectarians sliared a lienneneutical approacli tliat is dis-
tinguishable fiom common Judaism. Tliey cliose tlie same biblical passage of
Jer. 31, wliicli is passed over and ignored in rabbinic literabire, to express tlieir
own sense of propliecy being fulfilled in tlieir time. But tliey did not understand
tlie promise of Jeremiali in tlie same way and tlierefore were intellecbially incom-
patible witli eacli otlier. Tliey were sectarians wlio sliared a common lienneneu-
tics, but disagreed on liow tlie fillfilnient of scripbires is to be interpreted.

Di٧ersity of Sectarian Thought

Anotlier feabire of Qiunran scliolarsilip on sectarianism is tlie deconstmction of
tlie notion of a single Qiunran-Essene community. It lias long been noted tliat tlie
Essenes according to Joseplius liad two different orders, a celibate one and anotlier
one tliat is family based. Moreover, tlie Yaliad of tlie Rule of the Community was
distinguished fiom tlie community of tlie Damascus Document. Some would find
a correspondence between tlie celibate/Yahad and tlie marrying/D-community.
Recently., Jolin j. Collins lias posited a filrtlier deconstmction of tlie Yaliad
into multiple communities existing at tlie same time. Collins argued tliat IQS
6.1-8 is not simply a relic of an older legislation; ratlier, it is reflective of tlie
communities described in tlie scrolls. Collins’s multiple communities theory is
based on tlie different recensions of tlie Rule of the Community (Serekh ha-
yahad) fiom Cave 4. He understands tlie key passage of IQS 6.8 (‘in every place
wliere tliere are ten men of tlie council of tlie community’) in a partitive ratlier
tlian a locative sense. Different communities of tlie Yaliad were spread tlirougli-
out Judaea, and in every place wliere tliere was a quomm of ten men tliere would
be a priest and someone to interpret tlie law, day and niglit. Tlie community was
not simply sibiated at Kilirbet Qumran, but different commimities of tlie Yaliad
existed at tlie same time tlirougliout Judaea, and different versions of tlie Serekh
may liave been operative in them.)414

14. Collins 2010a, 201015.

٥
Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by American Theological Library Association on September 1 , 205
Lim 75

If Collins is correct, tlien sectarianism in late Second Temple ludaism is more

complex tlian lias been previously recognized. Tlie multiple communities theory
accords witli Pililo and loseplius’s description of tlie Essenes living tlirougliout
ludaea. It explains wily tlie more textually primitive fonn of 4QS٥(4Q258) con-
tinued to be copied and not superseded by tlie developed edition of IQS. Tlie
fonner is dated to 30-1 BCE and tlie latter to 100-75 BCE.

Li٧ing by Faith or Faithfulness

Tlie significance of tliis recent development in Qumran scliolarsilip for tlie sfildy
of tlie Old Testament in tlie New is in tlie recognition tliat lewisli sectarianism is
more complex tlian was once tliouglit. Witilin subsets of sects one could find dif
ferences in interpretation of scripture.
Tliis liistorical perspective can aid one to see tlie nuances in tlie interpretation
of Hab. 2.4b in tlie Habakkuk Pesher, tlie Pauline letters, and tlie letter to tlie
Hebrews. It lias long been recognized tliat tlie Habakkuk Pesher differed fiom
tlie New Testament in its interpretation of ‫ אמונה‬as faitlifillness or loyalty over
against faitli in lesus. A re-examination of tlie passages in tlie liglit of tlie diver-
sity of sectarian tliouglit sliows tliat tliere are in fact tliree, and not two, different
interpretations of Hab. 2.4.
In tlie MT, Hab. 2.4b forms part ofYliwli’s response to tlie propliet’s com-
plaint. In 1.12-17 Habakkuk complains for a second time to Yliwli for allowing
tlie wicked to flourisli amidst tlie suffering of tlie rigliteous. Tlie propliet wants
vindication andYliwli’s response is to exliort liim to wait for anotlier vision tliat
will surely come and not delay. Habakkuk 2.4, tlien, contrasts tlie one wlio is
puffed up or arrogant witli tlie rigliteous wlio will live by liis faitli (‫)באמונתו‬.
Tliougli tlie propliecy is cliaracteristically vague in wliat it wants to say, it is rea-
sonable to suppose tliat tlie arrogant man, wliose spirit is not upriglit, is also tlie
one wlio will not live according to liis tmst in tlie surety of tlie delayed vision.
In tlie LXX, tlie subject of Hab. 2.4a (‘if it recoils’) is not expressed and seems
to follow tlie preceding clause ‘if it tarries ... ’)5 Tlie second lialf of tlie verse var-
ies among tlie Greek manuscripts. According to codices B, Q and tlie s. w*,
clause reads: ‫ ة‬δε δίχαιος k πίστεώξ μου ζησεται. Tlie corrector of deletes μου. w
Tliere is some uncertainty about tlie ttanslation of έκ πίστεώξ μου as ‘my faitli’ or
‘my faitlifillness’. Tlie latter translation lias tlie sense of loyalty and fidelity. Tliis
group of Greek manuscripts differs fiom tlie MT wliicli lias tlie tilird singular
pronominal suffix, ‘liis faitli’ or ‘faitlifillness’. It is possible, given tliat tlie vav
and yod are often indistinguisliable in tlie scribal liands, tliat tlie variant arose
fiom a confusion of ‫ אמונתי‬and ‫אמונתו‬, eitlier in tlie Hebrew Vorlage of tlie Greek

15. Harl 1999: 275. Fitzmyer 1981: 450, translates it as ‘if one draws fcack’ and identifies the
subject witli tlie Hebrew ‫עפלה‬.

٥
Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by American Theological Library Association on September 1 , 205
76 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38(1)

translator of tlie Minor Propliets or at a stage prior to it. According to A and c,

tlie personal pronoun qualifies ‘rigliteous’ ratlier tlian ‘faith’: δίκαιος μου εκ
πίστεώς. Tlius, Hab. 2.4b would read: ‘but my rigliteous fiom faitli (or faitliful-
ness) will live’.
Habakkuk 2.4b is not preserved in tlie Habakkuk Pesher, but it is reasonable
to suppose tliat it once belonged to tlie bottom of column 7, given tlie typically
sequential way tliat tlie sense units are quoted and interpreted in tlie comnien-
tary.'‫ 'ﺗﻢ‬Moreover, it is likely tliat tlie original, unmutilated text read as tlie MT and
UT\But the righteous will live by bis jaithJulnessY (1 .\Ί١١, since Ave comment
seems to point in tliat direction. Now tlie comment does not always follow tlie
lemma in tlie peslier, but in tliis case tlie interpretation of tlie passage indicates
tliat it is tlie faitlifillness of a tilird party tliat is in view.)’
Tlie peslierist interpreted ‘tlie rigliteous’ of Hab. 2.4b as ‘tlie doers of tlie law
in tlie liouse of Judali wliom God will deliver fiom tlie liouse of judgment on
account of tlieir suffering and tlieir faitlifulness in tlie teaclier of rigliteousness’
(col. 8.1-13). Tlie identification of tlie singular biblical figure witli tlie plural
sectarians is typical of tlie peslierite metliod tliat follows tlie biblical style of
Habakkuk. Tlie ‘doers of tlie law’ are an identifiable group witilin Judaism as a
wliole or a subset of tlie sectarian community,)‫ ؟‬since ‘tlie liouse of Judali’ is an
ambiguous designation in tlie scrolls.
Tlie principle tliat tliose wlio do tlie law - tliat is, tliose wlio observe tlie com-
mandments - will live is biblical (Lev. 18.5; Ezek. 20.13, 21). Tlie peslier adds
tlie important qualification tliat it is because of tlieir suffering and faitlifulness to
tlie rigliteous Teaclier tliat God will deliver tliem fiom judgment. Tlie biblical
language of Habakkuk is adapted to mean ‘tlieir faitlifillness or fidelity’ (‫)אמונתם‬
in tlie Teaclier, and tliis loyalty is evidenced in tlieir suffering tliat tliey liave
experienced.)® Tlie association of faitli witli works is close to tlie sentiments of
Jas 2.17: ούτως κα'ι ή πίστις, έάν μή εχη έ'ργα, νεκρά έστ‫؛‬ν καθ’ έαυτήν (‘tlius also
faitli by itself, if it does not liave works, is dead’).
Habakkuk 2.4b lias been interpreted as a key to imderstanding tlie Pauline
tlieology ofjustification by faitli and not works. In Gal. 3.11-14, Paul states tliat
it is evident tliat no one is justified by God tlirougli tlie law and supports tliis
assertion witli tlie proof text of Hab. 2.4b (έ 5ίκα‫؛‬ος έκ πίστεως ζήσεται).

16. So the restoration by Horgan 2002: 172; and Qimron 2013:251.

17. For a description of the Habakkuk pesherist’s method, see my forthcoming volume. The
Earliest Commentary oj tlie Prophecy oj Habakkuk mk OxîordCoïïiïàry 0‫اة‬١‫ ﻫﻪ‬Dead
Sea Scrolls series (http:ywww.ocdss.div.ed.ac.uk).
18. Some scltolars have theorized that ‫‘( עושי התורה‬the doers ofthe law’) provides the etymology
oiEssaioi (so VanderKam 2012: 99-104), who follows the view of Stephen Goranson. This
view has recently been criticized by Taylor 2012: 26.
19. The term used for suffering (‫ )עמל‬is derived from the biblical text, and elsewhere in the pesher
it means ‘trouble’ or ‘wickedness’(lQpHab 1.5; 5.2; 10.12).

٥
Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by American Theological Library Association on September 1 , 205
Lim 77

significantly leaving out the possessive pronoun. Fai til, liere, in its grannnati-
cally unqualified fonn is set against living by tlie law and aligned witli tlie prom-
ise given to Abraliam. In Rom. 1.16-17, Paul makes explicit liis understanding
tliat divine rigliteousness is ‘revealed tlirougli faitli for faitli’.
In tlie history of interpretation, Paul lias been understood to cliaracterize
Judaism as a religion of works-rigliteousness or merit tlieology. Christianity is a
faitli based on salvation by grace, wliereas Judaism is a religion of works of tlie
Jews, wliicli is in any case filtile. In tlie late 1970s Ε.Ρ. Sanders cliallenged tlie
tlien prevalent interpretation of Paul and suggested tliat tlie description of Jewisli
religion as ‘legalism’ is based on a misunderstanding of tlie passage in Galatians
and of Judaism. Ratlier, Jewisli faitli presupposes divine grace in tlie election of
Israel and tlie Jewisli people. Jews are commanded to maintain tliis covenant of
grace by doing tlie works oftlie law, and tliis pattern of religion is better described
as ‘covenantal nomismtyo
On Gal. 3, Sanders argued tliat tlie main proposition of tlie passage is to be
foimd in V. 8 and Paul’s assertion tliat God ‘rigliteouses’ tlie Gentiles by faitli.
Galatians 3.10-13 contains subordinate assertions by Paul wliicli are supported by
proof texts. Rigliteousness and its cognates constibite transfer-terminology and
not a description ofliow one is saved. In tliis understanding. Gal. 3.11 expresses
tlie general notion tliat a man is not rigliteoused tlirougli tlie law as lie stands
before God. Habakkuk 2.4b is cited as proof text and must liave meant tliat tlie
one wlio is rigliteous or in a riglit relationsilip witli God tlirougli faitli will live.2'
In tlie letter to tlie Hebrews, Hab. 2.4 is cited at tlie end of an exliortation on
endurance and tlie beginning of a description of faitli. Tlie autlior lias just completed
liis liomily on Jesus as liigli priest and on tlie efficacy of liis blood in a figurative
depiction of tlie Temple and its cultic ritual of sacrifice. In tlie second lialf of ell. 10,
tlie autlior admonishes liis readers to liold unswervingly to tlie confession of liope
wliicli leads to an exliortation to maintain confidence and endurance.
In Heb. 10.37-39, tlie autlior cites a conflated text of Isa. 26.20 and Hab. 2.3-4:
‘still’ (St‫ )؛‬likely derives fiom Hab. 2.3; ‘a little wliile’ (μικρόν όσον όσον) is taken
fiom Isa. 26.20; ‘tlie coming one will come and will not tarry’ (ό έρχόμενοξ ή'ξει
και ού χρονίσει) adapts tlie LXX of Hab. 2.3 to refer to Jesus as tlie one wlio will
come; ‘but my rigliteous will live by faitli’ (ό δε όίκαιόξ μου έκ πίστεως ζήσεται)
of Hab. 2.4b is inverted witli Hab. 2.4a and attests to tlie variant ‘my rigliteous’
tliat agrees witli tlie LXX manuscripts A and c;22and tlie LXX of Hab. 2.4a is

20. Sanders 1977 and 1983. Sanders’ work lias resulted in a paradigm-shift, according to some
wlio duh it as ‘tlie new perspective’; see Dunn 2005. Appreciation of liis work is celebrated in
two Festscliriften (Udoli et al. 2008; and McCready and Reinliartz (2008). Critiques are most
notably gatliered in Carson et al. 2001 and 2004.
21. Sanders 1977: 463-71; and 1983: 22-23.
22. Given tliat tlie LXX andNT manuscripts were transmitted togetlier, it is possible, if not likely,
tliat A and c were influenced by Hebrews (see Howard 1958: 210; andFitzmyer 1981: 454).

٥
Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by American Theological Library Association on September 1 , 205
78 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38(1)

cited as a transitional proof text, ‘and if lie slirinks back, my soul lias no pleasure
in liini’ (καί έάν ύποστείληται, ούκ ευδοκεί ή ψυχή μου εν αύτψ). Tlie inversion of
tlie two clauses in Hab. 2.4 is not textually attested elsewliere and is likely to be
explained by tlie exegetical adaptation of tlie biblical text of tlie autlior of
Hebrews. Clianging tlieir order paves tlie way to tlie assertion tliat ‘we are not of
tliose wlio slirinkback’ (Heb. 10.39).
Hebrews’ conflated citation of Isa. 26.20 and Hab. 2.3-4 provides a transition
fioni tlie topic of endurance (υπομονή; Heb. 10.32-36) to fai til (πίστίξ; Heb. 11).
How lie understood Hab. 2.4 is made clear, because lie provides a definition of
faitli as ‘tlie assurance of tilings lioped for, tlie conviction of tilings not seen’
(11.1). Tlius, tlie rigliteous of Hab. 2.4 must liave been understood as a reference
to tliose among tlie readers of Hebrews wlio liave confidence tliat Jesus will
come, despite tlie absence of evidence to support tliis belief In tliis reuse of tlie
prophecy, Hab. 2.4 is Cliristologically and escliatologically reinterpreted.
Habakkuk 2.4 was an important biblical text for tlie autlior of tlie Habakkuk
Pesher, for Paul and for tlie autlior of tlie letter to tlie Hebrews. It is significant
tliat tliey all cited tlie same verse (including V. 3 for Hebrews) wlien tliere are
otlier passages tliat could liave been used (e.g., Ps. 89.24). But tliey interpreted
tlie passage in distinct ways. Tlie diversity of sectarian tliouglit is liigliliglited
wlien it is recognized tliat ‘faitli’ in Hebrews is not tlie same as in Paul.2'

Conclusions
Tlie study of tlie Old Testament in tlie New could benefit fiom advances in
Qumran scliolarsilip. Tlirougli post-Qumran textual criticism one lias to consider
tlie possibility tliat divergences in New Testament biblical citations are reflective
of a fluid textual situation. Tlie study ofbiblical citations could take on board tlie
distinction between language and textual classification, wliicli lias implications
for tlie implied bible of tlie New Testament autliors. finally, tlie recognition of a
greater complexity in sectarianism provides a liistorical perspective on tlie way
tliat tlie same biblical text is selected and variously interpreted by groups tliat
sliared a common lienneneutical approacli.

References
Beale, G.K. andD.A. Carson (eds.)
21 Commentary on tlie New Testament Use of tlie Old Testament t،G‫؛‬ïasËa‫؟‬iàa١Ml·.
Baker Academic).

23. F itzmyer 1981:454 correctly warns tliat ipistis in Hebrews sliould be not simply equated witli
Pauline “faith"’.

٥ ٥
Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by American Theological Library Association on September 1 , 2 15
Lim 79

Brooke, George ‫ل‬.

2010 ‘Shared Exegetical Traditions heheen the Scrolls and the New Testament’, in
Tim and Collins 2010: 565-91.
Carson, D.A., Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Siefried (eds.)
2001 Justification and Variegated Nomism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic), I.
2004 Justification and Variegated Nomism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic), II.
Collins, John L
2010a ‘Sectarian Communities in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in Tim and Collins 2010: 151-
72.
2‫ג\י‬ Beyond tile Qnmran Community: Tile Sect«‫اوه؛־‬. Movement of tile Dead Sea.
Scrolls (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Doclierty, Susan
2009 ‘Tile Text Torm of tile OT Citations in Hebrews Cliapter 1 and tile Implications
for tile Shrdy of tile Sephragint’, NTS 55.3: 355-65.
Dunn, James D.G.
2005 The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (Tübingen: Molir-Sieheck).
Titzmyer, Josepli
1981 ‘Hahakkuk 2:3-4 and tile New Testament’, in M. Carrez, Josepli Doré and Pierre
Grelot (eds.). De la Torah au Messie (Paris: Desclée): 447-55.
Prey, Jörg
2010 ‘Critical Issues in the Investigation ofthe Scrolls and theNew Testament’, in Tim
and Collins 2010:517-45.
Hagner, Donald
1993 Matthew 1-13 (Waco, TX: Word).
Harl, Marguerite
1999 La Bible d Alexandrie. Les Douze Prophètes (Paris: Editions du Cerl)
Hendel, Ronald s.
2010 ‘Assessing tile Text-Critical Tlieories oftlie Hebrew Bible after Qumran’, in Tim
and Collins 7010-781-307
Horgan, Mauiya
2002 ‘Hahakkuk Peslier (lQpHab)’, in James Cliarleswortli and Henry w Rietz (eds.),
Pesharim, Other Commentaries, andRel.atedDocuments. Tlte Dea.d Sea. Scrolls:
Hebrew, Aramaic, a٠n٠d Greek Texts with English Translation, Nfo (Tifr.
MohrSiebeck).
Howard, George
1958 ‘Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations’, Α01Έ 10: 208-16.
Lim, TimotliyH.
\1‫وو‬ Holy Scripture in. tile Qnmran Commentaries a٠n٠d Pa٠ul٠‫؛‬n٠e Tetters (Oxford‫׳‬.
Clarendon Press).
2000 ‘Paul, Letters of, in Sciliffinan and VanderKam 2000: II, 638-41.

٥
Downloaded from jntsagepubcom by American Theological Library Association on September 1 , 205
80 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38(1)

2002 ‘Sfirdying the Qumran Scrolls and Paul in their Historical Context’, in James R.
DaviVa c‫؛‬d.١, Tile Dead Sea. Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism, and
Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill): 135-56.
2009 ‘Towards a Description of the Sectarian Matrix’, in Florentino Garcia Martinez
(‫اة؛ا‬.١, Ecltoes from tlte Cases: Qumran and tile New Testament flddew. Fly.
7-31.
2010 ‘The Defilement of the Hands as a Principle Determining the Holiness of
Scriptures’, ure 61.2: 501-15.
2013 The Formation of the Jewish Canon (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Lim, Timothy H. and John L Collins (eds.)
2010 The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Lim, Timothy H., with Larry w. Hurtado, A. Graeme Auld and Alison Jack (eds.)
2000 The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context (Edinburgh: Τ&Τ Clark).
McCready, w.o. and A. Reinhartz (eds.)
21 Common Judaism: Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism. (Mtieayiotys‫׳‬.
Fortress Press).
Qimron, Elisha
2013 The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings (Heb.) (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi
Press)
Sanders, Ε.Ρ.
1977 Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
1983 Paul, the Taw, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
Schiffman, Lawrence H. and James c. VanderKam (eds.)
2000 The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Taylor, Joan E.
2012 The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Tov, Emanuel
2001 Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. edn; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Udoh, Fabian E., with Susannah Heschel, Mark Chancey and Gregoty Tahnn (eds.)
21 Redetyihig First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities; Essays in Honor of
Ε.Ρ. Sanders (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press).
Ulrich, Eugene
2000 ‘The Qumran Biblical Scrolls - the Scriphrres of Late Second Temple Judaism’,
in Lim et al. 2000: 67-87
2002 ‘The Absence of “Sectarian Variants" in the Jewish Scriptural Scrolls Found at
Qumran’, in Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov (eds.). The Bible as Book: The
Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (London: Lhe British Library):
179-95.
VanderKam, James c.
2012 The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

٥
Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by American Theological Library Association on September 1 , 205
 ATLV

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, downioad, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by u.s. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.