Periodic Reporting for period 1 - Methodology (A New Methodology for Comparative Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Cognate Literature)
Reporting period: 2018-10-01 to 2020-09-30
In the field of tradition history, scholars of New Testament and Ancient Judaism are driven by the conviction that the comparison of texts that share analogies in motifs, concepts, and ideas can enrich our understanding of the cultural, legal, ritual, and theological background that was shared by the authors of these texts. However, researchers in both fields still struggle with whether parallels between comparanda are appropriately analysed when genealogical dependence between these texts cannot be proven. It comes therefore as no surprise when some of these scholars express their reluctance to compare traditions from the New Testament with texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls (henceforth Scrolls). After all, the Scrolls were collected and in part written by members of the late Second Temple Jewish group called the Yahad (probably identical to the group otherwise known as Essenes) who very rigorously tried to separate themselves from other Jewish groups and communities. In my project “A New Methodology for Comparative Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Cognate Literature” I took an integrative approach to the Scrolls, the New Testament and other ancient Jewish literature on the basis of the literary-theoretical definition of texts as discourses. With the help of my discourse-analytical criteria, researchers are enabled to compare texts from a tradition-historical perspective. These criteria are also applicable in other disciplines than New Testament and Ancient Jewish Studies, namely in Religious Studies more broadly, Classics, Philosophy, and History.
The question whether the community behind the Scrolls has to be identified as a strand or a descendant of a so-called “Enochic Judaism” has been raised repeatedly over recent years. For this reason, I started my project by addressing the question of identity of the authors of Enochic literature in order to ascertain accurately the tradition-historical nexuses that led to the evolvement of Yahad communities that belong to the earliest recipients and collectors of books attributed to the antediluvian sage Enoch.
I conducted my main research in Enochic traditions from the First and Second Books of Enoch, for which I learned Ge’ez (Classical Ethiopic) and the basics of Old Church Slavonic. Since the main sections of the First Book of Enoch are only fully extent in their Ethiopic version, which is a translation of a Greek Vorlage from the Middle Ages, I had to carefully compare the sections I analysed with Greek fragments of the book found at Akhmim (Egypt) and with Aramaic fragments from Qumran in order to ensure that the Ethiopic version actually preserved ancient Jewish traditions from the Second Temple period. The Aramaic fragments of the Book of Enoch predate the Yahad group’s settlement at Qumran and belong thus to a collection of writings which were transmitted and studied by the Yahad. The identification of Enochic traditions received in works that were authored by members of the Yahad is central to the discovery of the Yahad’s tradition-historical roots and a basic requirement to adequately apply the method of ideological criticism.
In my work on the description of methodological criteria that will allow the comparison of parallel traditions in texts with no genealogical dependence, I focused on different approaches of literary-theoretical criticism. I came to the conclusion that Foucault’s theory of discourse is most suitable for proving the correlation and comparability of ancient Jewish texts. In my research into Ancient Jewish literature I noticed that, firstly, Jewish discourses from the Second Temple period are limited by a common denominator: the Torah of Moses. Secondly, the language inventory of Jewish discourses is highly dependent on the language of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). And thirdly, although the language inventory of these discourse seems to be very stable, researchers have to pay attention to “evolutionary factors” that might have changed its semantics. After having intensively engaged with Foucault’s work, I understand texts from the Second Temple period as witnesses of all kinds of different discourses. They are snapshots of an ongoing discourse at a specific time and a specific place in history. Thus, I do not presuppose any genealogical dependence between these texts. Rather, they show their authors involvement in a specific discourse but also how their authors understood the content and scope of it.
I conducted my main research in Enochic traditions from the First and Second Books of Enoch, for which I learned Ge’ez (Classical Ethiopic) and the basics of Old Church Slavonic. Since the main sections of the First Book of Enoch are only fully extent in their Ethiopic version, which is a translation of a Greek Vorlage from the Middle Ages, I had to carefully compare the sections I analysed with Greek fragments of the book found at Akhmim (Egypt) and with Aramaic fragments from Qumran in order to ensure that the Ethiopic version actually preserved ancient Jewish traditions from the Second Temple period. The Aramaic fragments of the Book of Enoch predate the Yahad group’s settlement at Qumran and belong thus to a collection of writings which were transmitted and studied by the Yahad. The identification of Enochic traditions received in works that were authored by members of the Yahad is central to the discovery of the Yahad’s tradition-historical roots and a basic requirement to adequately apply the method of ideological criticism.
In my work on the description of methodological criteria that will allow the comparison of parallel traditions in texts with no genealogical dependence, I focused on different approaches of literary-theoretical criticism. I came to the conclusion that Foucault’s theory of discourse is most suitable for proving the correlation and comparability of ancient Jewish texts. In my research into Ancient Jewish literature I noticed that, firstly, Jewish discourses from the Second Temple period are limited by a common denominator: the Torah of Moses. Secondly, the language inventory of Jewish discourses is highly dependent on the language of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). And thirdly, although the language inventory of these discourse seems to be very stable, researchers have to pay attention to “evolutionary factors” that might have changed its semantics. After having intensively engaged with Foucault’s work, I understand texts from the Second Temple period as witnesses of all kinds of different discourses. They are snapshots of an ongoing discourse at a specific time and a specific place in history. Thus, I do not presuppose any genealogical dependence between these texts. Rather, they show their authors involvement in a specific discourse but also how their authors understood the content and scope of it.
My project’s progress beyond the state of the art includes the exposure of misconceptions about the authors of Enochic literature. They were by no means anti-Mosaic and anti-cultic as is often held by scholars of Ancient Judaism. Inspired by the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible, the authors of Enochic literature eschatologized God’s former acts of salvation from the pentateuchal narrative texts (see First Book of Enoch 1-5). They thus express their hope that God is unchangeable and will commit himself to them, as he did previously to Moses and the people of Israel in the desert. Their adherence to the Mosaic law and covenant becomes obvious in 1 En. 1-5 where the whole scenery of eschatological events is a recasting of the Exodus narrative starting at Mount Sinai and culminating in Jerusalem. Moses’ central role for the circles behind the Book of Enoch is clear from the Book of Dream Visions (1 En. 83-90). Of all the biblical figures incorporated into Enoch’s dream visions, it is only Noah (1 En. 89:1) and Moses (1 En. 89:36, 38) who are transformed from animals back into human beings a form that is in the Animal Apocalypse only reserved for the archangels (1 En. 87:2). The elevation of Noah and Moses to angelic figures implies not only their central importance but also to the ark’s and the tabernacle’s importance for the salvation of Israel since it is only in connection with the construction of both that Moses and Noah are transformed. Likewise, the criticism against the Jerusalem temple and its priestly personnel that can be found in Enochic literature is misinterpreted when it is understood as anti-cultic. The authors’ concerns with questions of purity in connection with marriage (1 En. 83:2; 85:3) and with calendrical issues that are of central importance for the proper performance of the sacrificial cult (4Q208 and 4Q209 frag. 1-2.5-7; 1 En. 73:1–74:9) point into the direction of the authors’ priestly origin.
With respect to the work of tradition-historical comparison, I made progress by addressing some of the major concerns in the field. Based on Foucault’s theory of discourse, I have crafted a discourse analytical method with which it is possible to compare texts with parallel traditions without first having to prove their genealogical dependence. My discourse analytical method requires firstly that all available texts on a main discourse topic are gathered. Secondly, these texts have to be organized according to subtopics that are related to different aspects of ancient Jewish life and religious practice such as the temple cult, festivals, rites of passage, social settings etc. These groups of subtopics can now be complemented by other texts that are not related to the main discourse but can provide a better understanding of the subtopics.
With respect to the work of tradition-historical comparison, I made progress by addressing some of the major concerns in the field. Based on Foucault’s theory of discourse, I have crafted a discourse analytical method with which it is possible to compare texts with parallel traditions without first having to prove their genealogical dependence. My discourse analytical method requires firstly that all available texts on a main discourse topic are gathered. Secondly, these texts have to be organized according to subtopics that are related to different aspects of ancient Jewish life and religious practice such as the temple cult, festivals, rites of passage, social settings etc. These groups of subtopics can now be complemented by other texts that are not related to the main discourse but can provide a better understanding of the subtopics.