The War Rule
(Summary of a lecture by J. R. Davila on 22 February 2005)
Please note: this lecture assumes that you have already read the War Rule in translation as well as the assigned articles either from the EDSS or the ABD. Complete information on short references to other scholarly works in this lecture can be found in the annotated bibliography.
INTRODUCTION
The title "War Rule" comes from a plausible but unproven reconstruction of the opening line of 1QM: "For the M[askil. The Serekh of] War. The work is also frequently called the "War Scroll." The most complete manuscript is 1QM, which is almost entirely preserved, apart from the end. Nineteen columns survive and we know that at least one more came after this because another manuscript (1Q33) preserves part of it. There are six fragmentary copies from Cave 4, some with variant texts (4Q491-496 = 4QMa-4QMf). Several other manuscripts have also been argued to be fragments of the War Rule or of documents related to it. Maurice Baillet, the editor of the Cave 4 copies, suggested that 4Q497 was related to the War Rule, but it is so poorly preserved that this possibility cannot be proved. Two overlapping manuscripts, 4Q285 and 11Q14, may well contain the lost ending of the War Rule. Esther and Hanan Eshel have argued that fragment 1 of 4Q471 is related to the War Rule but this has been challenged by Martin Abegg.
A SECTARIAN TEXT?
It is generally accepted that the War Rule, or at least 1QM, should be counted among the "sectarian" texts. As we already saw with the Damascus Document and the Community Rule, the idea of a Qumran sect or a sectarian work is not entirely straightforward in that the sectarianism of a given work may not be the same as the sectarianism of another. So it is worthwhile to ask what technical vocabulary the War Rule shares with these other two works. We find several technical terms that appear in both the Damascus Document and the Community Rule. These include "sons of light" in 1QM col. 1, which also is found in the prologue to the Damascus Document in 4Q266 and often in the Community Rule; "Belial" as the chief fallen angel, who is mentioned repeatedly in all three works; "sons of truth" in 1QM 17.8 (cf. 1QS 4.5, 6; 4Q266 11.1//4Q270 7 i 20); the word "lot" in the sense of destiny, which appears in 1QM 1, CD A 13.12, and often in the Community Rule; and the "prince of light" in 1QM 13.10, nearly the same as the "prince of lights" in CD A 5.18, and 1QS 3.20. It should be noted that the first two of these terms appear outside the Qumran library (compare, for example, Luke 16:8 and 2 Cor 6:15). One can also remark in general on the overall priestly orientation of all three works.
The War Rule also shares some terminology with the Community Rule alone. These terms include "sons of darkness," which is found scattered throughout 1QM and in 1QS 1.10; the term "rule" (serekh) which appears repeatedly in 1QM and 1QS; the phrase "men of the lot of Belial" in 1QM and 1QS 2.4-5; the phrase "the dominion of Belial" in 1QM 14.9 and 1QS 1.18 and 2.19; and the phrase "spirits of truth" in 1QM 13.10 and 1QS 4.21, 23 (but note "the spirit of truth" in John 14:17; 15:26; and 1 John 4:6). We can also add the theological idea that God created the evil spirits, which appears in 1QM 13.11 and 1QS 3.25.
I can find no unambiguous unique parallels with the Damascus Document, although the latter does seem to refer to a "spirit of poverty" among the group (4Q266 9 iii 7), which brings to mind the references to the "poor in spirit" in 1QM 14.7. But one of the sayings ascribed to Jesus has a similar usage (Matt 5:3). The casually positive attitude toward Jerusalem and the sanctuary (1QM 7.4; 12.13, 17; 19.5) also coheres with the Damascus Document more than with the Community Rule.
I cannot claim to have noted all examples of all parallels of terminology between the War Rule and the other two works. But the connections with the Community Rule are not insignificant, although they in themselves are not enough to prove a sectarian affiliation for the War Rule, especially since some of the technical terms they share can often be found in the New Testament (and elsewhere) and there is much that the War Rule does not share with either of the other works. For example, neither the term Yah9ad nor the Teacher of Righteousness appear in the War Rule. Based only on this evidence, the case for considering the War Rule to be a sectarian text is not overwhelming. But we should wait until we compare the War Rule with the Pesharim in detail (next lecture) before drawing any firm conclusions.
REDACTIONAL ANALYSIS OF 1QM
There have been various attempts to work out the redactional history of the War Rule, the most detailed of which is, as far as I am aware, that of Philip R. Davies, who argued for the composite nature of 1QM on the basis of a literary and redaction-critical analysis. He divides the work into the following redactional layers.
- A. 1QM 1 (an introduction composed for and prefixed to the final form of the War Rule as the last stage of its composition)
- B. 1QM 2-9 (a war rule for the twelve tribes redacted in the the Hasmonean period on the basis of material composed in the Maccabean period)
- C. 1QM 10-12 (a complex of liturgical pieces, many of whose component compositions come from the Maccabean period)
- D. 1QM 13 (a fragment mostly concerned with a covenant ceremony)
- E. 1QM 14 (a fragment of a non-dualistic war rule)
- F. 1QM 15-19 (a dualistic war rule that developed from an earlier non-dualistic war rule, which is partly preserved in 14)
1QM AND THE CAVE 4 MANUSCRIPTS
In his 1992 ABD article Davies noted that, although the Cave 4 manuscripts have been published and collated against 1QM, no one had used the material for a full-scale reanalysis of the literary history and redactional development of the work. As far as I know, this still remains to be done (unless Martin Abegg does it in his forthcoming and much anticipated commentary on the War Rule). Here I want to make a few very tentative observations on the larger fragments of the best preserved manuscript from Cave 4 (4Q491) in relation to 1QM, and some even more general and preliminary comments on the relationship of the latter to the other Cave 4 copies.
Briefly, if we follow Baillet's reconstruction in DJD 7, 4Q491 frags. 1-4 contain material related to 1QM cols. 2-9. It has parallels to 1QM 7 but with different wording and a different order of material. There is text parallel to 1QM cols. 5, 6, 8, and 9, but presented more concisely or in summary form. 4Q491 frags. 5-10 i are poorly preserved but have text also found in 1QM col. 12-14 in a form not notably different from 1QM. 4Q491 frag. 10 ii preserves text related to but not identical with 1QM col. 15-16. 4Q491 frag. 11 ii has text parallel to 1QM col. 16 and col. 17.10-14, but lacks the poem in the first part of the latter column. Likewise, 4Q491 frag. 13 preserves text related to but not identical with 1QM 16, 17, and 18 (on the final battle with the Kittim). 4Q491 frag. 15 gives an address to the troops by the high priest, but one different from the addresses in 1QM cols. 10 and 15. 4Q491 frag. 16 mentions the return to Jerusalem, perhaps including material that would have come in 1QM after col. 19.
4Q491 frag. 11 i is generally agreed to belong to a different manuscript and not to be part of the War Rule at all. It is now known to be an exemplar of the so-called Self-Glorification Hymn, which also appears in the Hymns Scroll and elsewhere. In this hymn the speaker describes his own ascent to heaven and his enthronement there.
If the above is correct, 4Q491 is closely related to 1QM but seems to be a rather different edition. Still, the new information does not seem very helpful for redactional analysis. None of part A survives, but the first column of the manuscript is missing. The text corresponding to part B is quite different - either a summary of 1QM or an earlier and more concise version or an independent development of a common source. The manuscript included at least some of parts C and D; part E; and at least much of part F.
But to make matters more complicated, in his unpublished dissertation Abegg has proposed on the basis of paleographic, orthographic, and literary grounds that the fragments of 4Q491 should be divided into not two, but three manuscripts, with a very different arrangement of the the various bits that Baillet consolidated into fragments. If Abegg is right, the analysis of 4Q491 given above would have to be rethought completely, so it is best not to base any redactional theories on it.
A brief look at the other Cave 4 manuscripts does not offer much obvious illumination of redactional questions either. 4Q492 consists of a fragment parallel to 1QM col. 19 (= part F) and two unidentified fragments; 4Q494 is a single fragment corresponding to the beginning of 1QM col. 2 and earlier text that may give the lost final lines of 1QM col. 1 (part B and perhaps part A). 4Q495 consists of two fragments, one perhaps corresponding to 1QM col. 10 and the other clearly to 1QM col. 13.
4Q493 preserves material echoing phrases in 1QM cols. 7, 9, 16/17, and 2-3 (i.e., parts B and F) but this particular formulation of material is not found in other War Scroll manuscripts. Finally, 4Q496 preserves small fragments that correspond to 1QM cols. 1-4 but also scores of other small fragments that do not correspond at all to 1QM. Abegg also suggests that 4Q493 is from the same manuscript as 4Q276 (4QPurification Rules Bb).
In sum, three poorly preserved manuscripts (4Q492, 4Q494, and 4Q495) have about the same text as 1QM where text survives on them, while three other manuscripts (4Q491, 4Q493, and 4Q496) have much in common with 1QM but still differ widely from it and, apparently from one another as well. To some degree the apparent differences may due to incorrect sorting of fragments into manuscripts. The Qumran library evidently contained muliple copies of the War Rule and also copies of similar and related works. It is not clear (at least to me) whether there were multiple recensions of the War Rule analogous to the multiple recensions of the Community Rule.
THE GENRE OF 1QM
Although 1QM is permeated with apocalyptic eschatology, it is not formally an "apocalypse" (according to the detailed analysis and breakdown of the genre in Semeia 14). In a word, it is not a revelation of heavenly secrets by an angel to a human being. There has been some debate about the genre of the work but the most promising suggestion came from Yigael Yadin and was taken up by Jean Duhaime in his 1988 article, where he compares 1QM to a type of Greco-Roman miltary manual, the "tactical treatise." He compares 1QM to three roughly contemporary examples written by Asclepiodotus, Aelian, and Arrian, and finds many similarities in the organization of the army, including its subdivisions and hierarchies; in the weaponry described; and in the rules for the heavy and light infantry, the targeteers, and the cavalry. The parallels are mostly with 1QM 2-9 (perhaps something of a confirmation of Davies's redactional analysis), although some manuscripts of Arrian's treatise include an idealized account of a battle which is in some ways similar to the account of the eschatological battle in 1QM 14-19.
Two major elements of 1QM are lacking in the tactical treatises: its priestly orientation and it apocalyptic eschatological worldview. But it is interesting to note that only one of the three tactical treatises was written by a soldier (Arrian), while the others were written by a philosopher (Asclepiodotus) and a mathematician (Aelian), which indicates that this was a utopian genre as well as a practical one. We seem to have a similar work from priestly circles in 1QM, one that Duhaime describes as a "utopian tactical treatise."
The problem of the genre and life-situation of 1QM is certainly not yet fully solved. I note the article by Richard Bauckham which compares and contrasts it with the book of Revelation in the New Testament, arguing that Revelation draws on parallel eschatological holy war imagery but transforms it into an ideology of martyrdom, and the recent intriguing suggestion by Albert I. Baumgarten that the War Rule be compared to military plans of modern "cargo cults" (posting to the Orion list on 4 December 2000). Some may also be interested in my "alternate history" experiment in which I imagine that the War Rule had been transmitted to us by Syriac-speaking Christians. Much work remains to be done on the War Rule.
Addendum: the link to the Orion post has suddenly vanished. It was there just a few days ago. This may be a temporary glitch, so I'm leaving it there for now.
(c) 2005Reproduction beyond fair use only on permission of the author.