Bertil Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 1 (Cambridge: University Press, 2005) Paperback.  164 p.  £21.99

ISBN-13: 9780521020480 | ISBN-10: 0521020484

Review by Chris Wojtulewicz, University of Birmingham

 

Introduction: Some Thoughts

It is unsurprising that such an important work (originally published in 1965) was reprinted recently.  Gärtner’s research and insight lays an exceptional foundation for the following volumes in the Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series (now numbering some 145).  What is most surprising, however, is how this work has not really dated in the forty years since its first publication – despite the many advances in Dead Sea Scroll and Essene-community research, as well as New Testament studies.  Perhaps one could propose that such an outcome is the result of quite excruciating precision, which Gärtner clearly put into his work.  Success is also undoubtedly due to the great clarity in his written style, which has eliminated many an argument that would otherwise have remained a moot point.

With the book centring on a comparison between the temple of Jerusalem and Qumran, a number of important considerations based on modern research into semantics, philology and text criticism must be highlighted.  These demonstrate the broadening complexity, discovered in the last twenty years or so, of the independent subjects we may refer to as the ‘Jerusalem temple community’ and the ‘Qumran community’.

What more recent criticisms regarding textual work has served to highlight, is that a more radically vigilant and self-critical consideration of textual issues is needed.  In regards to the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is a dynamic interplay between a series of independent subjects that creates such a complex situation.  In this sense and in order to appreciate the Dead Sea Scrolls, one must be attentive to recent discussions on sociolinguistics, historical understandings and most importantly the philosophical implications of the hermeneutical cycle.  These points, however, should not be taken as an exhaustive list, but only as a consideration of some of the issues, which are pertinent to the reviewing of this book’s more narrow line of argument.

The Albright-Cross ‘local text’ theory states that ‘local families’ of texts developed in semi-isolation in the major Jewish areas in the Persian and Hellenistic periods (Palestinian, Babylonian and Egyptian). From this, a Hebrew ‘prototype’ or ‘archetype’ developed, from which the textual families developed.[1]  Talmon, however, later concluded that there was more of a ‘primal tradition’, which solidified in the three communities of Jews, Christians and Samaritans in what he terms the Gruppentexte.[2]

Perhaps of most importance however, is the work of Schneidwind, who illustrates that the Hebrew used at Qumran is something of an ‘antilanguage’,[3] and that it can only be appreciated by reference to the social context of the community.  In fact, since not everything found was written by the inhabitants of Khirbet Qumran, not every scroll is capable of reflecting the community’s particular use of the language.[4]  If one were to consider this point regarding vernacular texts that are written today, one need not look far in order to appreciate the extent of dialectal or expressive differentiation.  It is also pertinent to deliberate on the fact that no cultural community remains the same throughout its history.  At Qumran, one is possibly looking at approximately four hundred years of community living.  When one considers this in light of the extent of the difference between texts of today and those of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, one comes to appreciate the added scope this gives to the process of appreciating such a text.

Temple Priests and Qumran

Gärtner draws some interesting parallels between the priesthood found the temple of Jerusalem, and the Essene community.  Largely, these are on a practical level – be it the age one is permitted to enter the community/become a Levite priest (p.7), or the administration of justice (p.10).

On the matter of authority and administration of justice, Gärtner’s conclusions are now somewhat dated, comparing 1QS v,3; 9,7f and the ‘ideal priest’ of Ezekiel 44:24 (p. 10).  Inevitably, many advances have been made regarding The Rule of the Community since the original publication of this book.  Many points could be considered in detail regarding Cave 4 and what it tells us about the Rule of the Community.  One important consideration is the issue of how the respective manuscripts deal with this issue of authority.  The prominence of the Zadokites in 1QS, 1QSa and so forth is missing from the parallel fragments of Cave 4.  This raises the question of whether or not at Qumran, Zadokites had the same position they have in 1QS.[5]  Due to the reference to ‘the many’ in 4QSb/d instead of any reference to the Zadokites, Vermes argues that 4QS offers the more original text, later to be reworked in 1QS.[6]

The consideration of the importance of the Cave 4 manuscripts for understanding the Rule of the Community is not a new one, especially in light of the fact that the discoveries at Qumran themselves are relatively new.  Milik in 1960 expounded the important variants in the 4QS manuscripts.[7]  Despite this, a veritable umber of scholars continue to bring forth insights into the Rule of the Community (Hempel, Vermes, Bockmuehl, Alexander and so forth).

Perhaps of most importance, is Gärtner’s comparison between the sacrificial liturgies in the temple and the sacral meal of the Essenes (in which the sons Zadok were to take part) – supposedly a reflection of the meal in the heavenly temple (p.11),[8] drawing upon Josephus’ account of the Essenes and Philo’s description of Therapeutae.  Typically of the author, however, caution is exercised in drawing conclusions about the matter, and a limit is placed on the extent to which this parallel can be considered true.

The ‘New Temple’ in Qumran

For the people of Qumran, the temple in Jerusalem was a defiled place to escape from.  A much more rigorous purity of life was necessary for those who were the children of God.  But what of the ‘old’ temple?  What was to happen to the cult of sacrifice for those who left the Jews in Jerusalem for Qumran?  Was a new, purer temple to be built?  These questions form the basis of Gärtner’s chapter three.

Drawing on the work of Wenschkewitz (Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe, Angelos-Beiheft IV (1932), 22f), Gärtner raises the important (and perhaps still insufficiently answered) question of interpreting the relationship between the cultus of the temple, and the fulfilment of the Law.  Wenschkewitz ‘suggested that the religious life of the Jews between the Maccabaean period and the time of the Rabbis after A.D. 70 had two foci: the worship of the temple and the Law’ (p.18).  Later, it was the Law that came to occupy the more prominent position, which consequently led to the increased authority of the scribes over that of the priests; and, as Gärtner notes, this accounts for the certain lack of catastrophe that ensued from the destruction of the Jerusalem temple.

The destruction and building of the temple inevitably evokes questions of an eschatological nature.  Chapter three addresses this issue by highlighting that the eschatological texts of Qumran do not speak of a future restoration of the Jerusalem temple.  Rather, the texts speak of a ‘new’ temple – an entirely spiritual entity (p.22).  Gärtner does not especially consider whether this was seen as a legitimate development in Qumran exegesis (a view I would suggest is most likely), or a gradual coming around to a ‘compensatory’ understanding of the loss of the physical temple to the impure.  Either way, it is clear from 1QpHab viii, 1f. as well as 1QS v, 5ff.; viii, 4ff; ix, 3ff. that the Essenes came to understand the ‘community’ as the replacement of ‘the official temple’ (p.22).

The community was ‘the bearer of truth’ (p.23), as 1QS v, 5-6 demonstrates (translation my own):

[…] Rather they shall circumcise in the community (the) foreskin (of the) inclination and the stiff neck, to establish a foundation (of) truth (for) Israel, as a community (of the) everlasting (6) covenant.  They shall atone for all who eagerly volunteer for holiness in Aaron and in the house of truth in Israel, and (for) those (who) join as a community.

Chapter three’s consideration of this point, and that it was the community that knew the will of God and his revelation, is an important one for the later issue of the relationship between Qumran and the New Testament.  It is also of great importance - and Gärtner rightly highlights the issue – that the ‘new’ temple is to be a permanent, immovable and protective building.

Perhaps where Gärtner makes a certain error, is when he equates the ‘corner-stone’ or the ‘tested wall’ with the foundation stone (‘eben Shetiyah) upon which the Ark of the Covenant rested in the ‘Holy of holies’ (p.27).  This is an understandable error, given the very dense, complex and fluctuating nature of Jewish myth surrounding the ‘eben Shetiyah.  This does not detract from the importance of Gärtner’s observation for New Testament studies.  His perhaps erroneous equation of the ‘foundation stone’ and the ‘corner-stone’/’tested wall’ does in fact lead him to an important interpretation of the community: the ‘foundation’ laid by God represents the truths of revelation revealed by God, on which the new covenant is based (p.77).  See 1QH vi, 25ff. (Isaiah xxviii, 16f.) and 1QS viii, 4ff.

Again, another important element Gärtner raises in relation to the foundation stone, is the relation to water – specifically the ‘primeval waters’ (tehom).  Gärtner chooses to emphasise the issue of plantation and Paradise as directly linked to the out-flowing water from the foundation of the ‘holy building, the house of God (1QH vi and 1QS xi)’ (p. 28).  See also 1QH vi, 15ff.; viii 4ff.; 1QS xi, 3ff.

Temple Symbolism in the New Testament

Gärtner begins his considerations by looking at texts from Paul (2 Cor. 6:14 – 7:1; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; Eph. 2:18-22; 1 Tim. 3:15), and later from 1 Pet. 2:3-6 and Heb. 12:18-24.  He explores in detail the issue of the Shekinah (pp. 50, 53, 58), or the ‘presence’ of God as a necessary feature of the temple, and how in the Christian understanding, this ‘presence’ is no longer in the temple (that is, the physical building), but, like in Qumran, resting on the community – the ‘new’ eschatological temple.

The treatment of 1 Cor. 3:16-17 adds an important advance in the understanding of the conclusions drawn in the previous chapters.  Christians are, he argues, ‘God’s building’ (v. 9), and it is here that God dwells (p.57-8). Importantly, and rightly I think, this in dwelling is noted on two levels:

(1) as an individual - since the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19)

(2) as a community - the new temple of the new covenant and the ‘pneumatic’ building replacing the Jerusalem temple (1 Pet. 2:3ff.)

Gärtner concludes that the community (as understood in Qumran) is founded on truth (which ‘can never be disturbed’), and the exposition of the Law, of which it is steward (p. 69).  He extends this to the New Testament community in chapter four by saying ‘the essential background is to be found in temple symbolism and the interpretation of the person of Christ: through Christ, a living person, Christians can be built up to form that ‘living’, ‘spiritual’ temple in which Christ is Lord.’ (p. 75).  The ‘foundation stone’ is no longer an analogy simply for ‘truth’ – it takes on a personified form.  Although Gärtner does not make this connection explicitly, it is clear from the above quotation that he would consider that person to be Christ.

Although it is not treated in the book, the text of Matt. 16:18-19 is extremely important for validating or denying Gärtner’s conclusions regarding the person of Jesus as the meaning of the ‘foundation stone’ or even the ‘new temple’ itself.

The ‘foundation stone’ (‘eben shetiyah) is the place of communication between the upper world and the nether world.[9] Wensinck further testifies to this tradition of the stone sealing the passage down to the abyss.[10]

Jeremias takes this matter to the New Testament at this juncture, and poses a question regarding Jesus’ intention when he defined Peter as the insurmountable ‘Schlussstein’ of the underworld (the stone which seals off the passage to the underworld).  Adolf von Harnack interpreted Matthew 16:28 as meaning that rather than Peter not tasting death, he would experience the parousia.  Jeremias points out that far more likely is the reading of ‘Hades/Sheol’ in the restricted sense, which would mean Peter cannot end up in the abode of the dead for the godless.  As a result one sees a parallel between the sentences from verse 18 – that Peter will be the ‘Schlussstein’ of the attacking powers of Sheol.[11]

Fishbane illustrates that in the Targum Yerushalmi on Exodus 28:30 (as well as Eccles. 3:11, Songs 4:12), it was the ‘eben sheityah that God used to seal up (hatam) the mouth of the tehom in creation. [12] In the Babylonian temple, the ‘Arulu’ the abode of the dead, the netherworld, lies directly beneath the foundation stone, and therefore forms the roof over Hades.[13]

These considerations place the text of Matthew 16:18-19 firmly in the category of Jewish mythology regarding the temple.  Taking the person of Peter as the rock upon which the Church was to be built, along with the gates of Hades not prevailing against it, one can see the implications of the ancient Jewish legends in the relationship between the Christian understanding of the ‘new temple’ and the Qumran idea.

Thus also we have a clear indication of what separates the ‘spiritualised’ form of the temple in Qumran and in the New Testament.  Gärtner himself makes this observation, stating that it is ‘the New Testament’s attitude to the person and work of Jesus’ (p. 104) that differs from Qumran.  The ‘person’ in the sense that the Teacher of Righteousness in Qumran (though important) was not the Messiah – he did not have the same function, role or impact that Jesus did for the Christian community.  ‘Work’ in the sense that the Qumran community was to fulfil the functions of the Jerusalem temple in a spiritualised form; the Christian community was to build on the work of Christ, which replaced the sacrificial cult of the temple.

In his exposition of Heb. 12:18-24 (pp. 88-99), Gärtner presumes a connexion between the Jewish tradition of the earthly mountain (Zion) and temple, with the heavenly mountain and temple (p. 90).  It is possible to extend Gärtner’s understanding here, and explore the relationship between Jewish topographical myth and the Christian understanding of the new temple.

The ‘foundation stone’ is the place of communication with tehom and in general the realm of the dead, but Hell in particular.[14]  In Enoch 26 one sees a vision of the centre of the earth, consisting of Mount Sion, the Mount of Olives and the present Djebel Abu Tor, with the valley of Gehinnom between the latter two.  The headings of the Targums illustrates the existence of a passage beneath the ‘eben shetiyah, by referring to the fifteen Ma’alot psalms and their analogy with the fifteen steps in the temple which exist between it and tehom.[15]

In addition, Montgomery places Hell (Gehenna) near to the navel of Jerusalem.  Gehenna refers specifically to the Valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem, where human sacrifice to the demon-god Molech took place.[16]  He demonstrates that placing Gehenna and the navel together is an ancient Jewish tradition, even if not a topologically literal one.  He also notes that the Valley of Hinnom contains one of the ‘gates of Hell’, [17] so it is not impossible to understand the ‘gates of Hades’ and the ‘gates of Hell’ as analogous.  Based on this mythological context, Jesus’ reference to the ‘gates of Hades’ in Matt. 16:18-19 adopts a more Satanic and demonic tone than one may deduce simply from a cursory explanation of the word ‘Hades’.

All this serves to highlight the usefulness of Matt. 16:18-19 for understanding the nature of the Christian concept of temple, against that of the Qumran community, which is decidedly similar.  More than this though, it demonstrates that Gärtner was perhaps (and understandably so) mistaken in thinking that person equated with the foundation of the new, spiritualised temple was solely Jesus.  Here we see that it is no longer as simple as this – and it does also have a definitive link to the Apostles, namely Peter.

It seems that Gärtner only made use of Gospel passages that explicitly refer to the temple.  This, I believe, is a significant loss for the book’s overall argument which would be intensely heightened by a consideration of the text of Matthew 16:18-19 in this regard.  This would perhaps have prevented the book concluding that – unlike the Qumran community – the Christian community is not the new temple, but the new temple is Jesus himself (p.137).  Perhaps also a deeper exposition of Pauline ecclesiology would address this point of contention.

It is clear that Gärtner’s exploration into the relationship between Qumran and the New Testament with regards to the temple and community is an excellently researched and well-argued work.  The dating of the work is displayed in one or two aspects, but is testimony to its thorough nature that it has not dated more so.  The only real drawback, as mentioned, does not refer to the age of the work, but rather to the dis-consideration of other important New Testament texts where the reference to the community and the temple is subtly present but nevertheless essential for understanding the relationship between community and temple in both the New Testament and Qumran.


[1] Sindie White Crawford, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls: Retrospective and Prospective’, Near Eastern Archaeology 65, no. 1 (2002): 85.

[2]   Ibid.

[3]   William W. Schneidwind, ‘Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage’, Journal of Biblical Literature 118, no. 2 (1999): 235

[4]    Ibid., 236.

[5]   E. P. Sanders, ‘The Dead Sea Sect and Other Jews’ in Timothy H. Lim, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 16n. 15.

[6]   Charlotte Hempel, ‘The Literary Development of the S Tradition – A New Paradigm’, Revue de Qumran 87, no. 22 (2006): 391.

[7]  Charlotte Hempel, ‘The Literary Development of the S Tradition – A New Paradigm’, Revue de Qumran 87, no. 22 (2006): 389.

[8]   M. Baillet, ‘Fragments araméens de Qumrân 2’, Revue Biblique 62 (1955), 228, 243f.

[9]    A point noted by D. Feuchtwang, Das Wasseropfer und die damit verbundenen Zeremonien (Monatsschrift f. Gesch. Und Wiss. Des Judentums, Neue Folge, Jahrg. XVII, p. 535-553, 713-729 and Jahrg. XIX, pp. 43-63) is that it was the place where food was distributed all over the earth and thus holds meaning with the shepherding of the flock – feeding the sheep.  Cited in Wensinck, The Ideas of Western Semites, xi-xii.

[10]    Babli, Makkoth 49a; Sukkah 49a; 53a in A. J. Wensinck, The Ideas of Western Semites Concerning the Navel of the Earth (Amsterdam: Johannes Müller, 1916), 78.

[11]    ‘In vain do the powers of Hades storm against the Rock; they are unable to defeat it’ see Jeremias, Golgotha (Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1926), 71, 73.


[12]    Michael Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (London: OUP, 2003) , 126.

 
[13]    Grey Hubert Skipwith, ‘The Origins of the Religion of Israel’, The Jewish Quarterly Review 20, no. 4 (1908): 741. Arulu is an Akkadian term, which is described as the ‘cosmic locality opposite of Heaven’. The Assyrian Dictionary (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1968), I, pt. 2:226-227 in Jon D. Levenson, ‘The Temple and the World’, The Journal of Religion 64, no. 3 (1984): 275-298.

[14]    Where Tehom, Sheol and Gehenna form a threefold stage of the ungodly demoniac part of the world.  Wensinck, Ideas of Western Semites, 23-25.

[15]    Wensinck, The Ideas of Western Semites, 27.

 
[16]   Lloyd R. Bailey, ‘Enigmatic Bible Passage: Gehenna: The Topography of hell’, The Biblical Archaeologist 49, no. 3 (1986): 190.

[17]   James A. Montgomery, ‘The Holy City and Gehenna’, Journal of Biblical Literature 27, no. 1 (1908): 33.