Realized or Future Salvation in the Hodayot

Realized or Future Salvation in the Hodayot

The Question

Before the Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries, we had evidence that first-century Palestinian apocalyptic eschatology was totally future-oriented.[1] In such a context, the eschatology of the teachings of Jesus, in which present-realized and future-expected salvation were juxtaposed, seemed to be an anomaly. With the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts, a revised picture of Jewish eschatology in the Second-Temple period emerged. Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn has argued on the basis of the Hymns of the Community in 1QH^a that the Qumran sect believed in a present-realized eschatological salvation alongside of and overshadowing the usual future expectation.[2] Decades later, Émile Puech rejected Kuhn’s conclusions, not by denying the tension between present and future, but by placing the emphasis on the future rather than on the present.[3]

Kuhn used his exegesis of the “soteriological confessions” of the “Hymns of the Community” as an entrance point into the Hodayot. Kuhn’s exegesis is heavily dependent on Diethelm Michel’s 1960 study on Hebrew verb tenses and syntax.[4] Michel concluded that perfect verbs express facticity, that inversions (non-verb-initial sentences) are explanatory, that imperfect consecutive verbs denote an immediate result from what was previously described, and that infinitives draw their time-reference from the finite verb of the main clause. Following this understanding of Hebrew verbs, Kuhn identified the Heilsperfekta, the “salvation-perfects” in these soteriological confessions as the frame from which the infinitive verbs hang, taking their time-reference from the finite verbs. Working on the basis of this grammatical foundation, Kuhn finds in the Hodayot expression of an eschatological salvation that is mostly realized.

Puech, on the other hand, began with the poem’s structure, and determined the possible meanings of the smaller units from the general meaning of the larger units. With a firm background in the wider context of this literature, Puech tried to identify patterns and trajectories in the theological expressions of the Qumran community. With context as a guide, Puech saw an eschatology in the Hodayot that is compatible with the future-expected eschatological salvation evidenced by other literature from Judaism of the time.

In the limits of this paper I will not solve the question of whether the salvation described in the Hodayot is mainly realized in the present or in the future. Instead I will compare and critique Kuhn and Puech’s exegesis of two of the Hodayot poems with the most prominent eschatological content and offer a new reading of the poems as their intended audience likely heard them. These two Hodayot are found in column XI 20–37 and column XIX 6–17.[5] I will evaluate Kuhn and Puech’s interpretations on their assumptions, methodology, coherence, and explanatory value in accounting for the imagery developed in the two poems. Finally, I will propose a different approach to the poems which may explain the movement of the poems more satisfactorally and which could lay the foundation for a more comprehensive and adequate theory of second-temple eschatology expressed in poetry.

For reference, before the exegesis of each poem I present transcriptions and translations. In order not to prejudice the reader towards a particular time reference (past or future), I have levelled all the tenses of the verbs in the translation (based on that of F. García Martínez[6]) to the present tense.

Let us turn now to the two example poems from the Hodayot to illustrate the different approaches to and conclusions from these texts describing eschatological salvation.

Texts and Translation

1QH^a XI, 20–37 (= 3:17–36)

vacat 20אודכה אדוני כי פדיתה נפשי משחת ומשאול אבדון

21העליתני לרום עולם ואתהלכה במישור לאין חקר ואדעה כיא יש מקוה לאשר

22יצרתה מעפר לסוד עולם ורוח נעוה טהרתה מפשע רב להתיצב במעמד עם

23צבא קדושים ולבוא ביחד עם עדת בני שמים ותפל לאיש גורל עולם עם רוחות

24דעת להלל שמכה ביחד רנה ולספר נפלאותיכה לנגד כול מעשיכה ואני יצר

25החמר מה אני מגבל במים ולמי נחשבתי ומה כוח לי כיא התיצבתי בגבול רשעה

26ועם חלכאים בגורל ותגור נפש אביון עם מהומות רבה והוות מדהבה עם מצעדי

27בהפתח כל פחי שחת ויפרשו כול מצודות רשעה ומכמרת חלכאים על פני מים

28בהתעופף כול חצי שחת לאין השב ויורו לאין תקוה בנפול קו על משפט וגורל אף

29על נעזבים ומתך חמה על נעלמים וקץ חרון לכול בליעל וחבלי מות אפפו לאין פלט

30וילכו נחלי בליעל ^על כול אגפי רום כאש אוכלת בכול שנאביהם להתם כול עץ לח

31ויבש מפלגיהם ותשוט בשביבי להוב עד אפס כול שותיהם באושי חמר תאוכל

32וברקוע יבשה יסודי הרים לשרפה ושורשי חלמיש לנחלי זפת ותאוכל עד תהום

33 רבה ויבקעו לאבדון נחלי בליעל ויהמו מחשבי תהום בהמון גורשי רפש וארץ

34תצרח על ההווה הנהיה בתבל וכול מחשביה ירועו ויתהוללו כול אשר עליה

35ויתמוגגו בהווה גד[ו]לה כיא ירעם אל בהמון כוחו ויהם זבול קודשו באמת

36כבודו וצבא השמים יתנו ^בקולם [ו]יתמוגגו וירעדו אושי עולם ומלחמת גבורי

37שמים תשוט בתבל ולא תש[וב ע]ד כלה ונחרצה לעד ואפס כמוה vacat

I thank you, Lord,

because you save my life from the pit,

and from Sheol and Abaddon you lift me up

to an everlasting height,

so that I walk on a boundless plain.

And I know that there is hope

for someone you fashion out of clay

to be an everlasting community.

The corrupt spirit you purify

from the great sin

so that he takes his place

with the host of the holy ones,

and enters in communion

with the congregation of the sons of heaven.

You cast eternal destiny for man

with the spirits of knowledge,

so that he praises your name together in celebration,

and tells of your wonders before all your works.

And I, a creature of clay,

what am I?

Mixed with water, with whom am I counted?

What is my strength?

For I find myself at the boundary of wickedness

and with those doomed by lot.

The soul of the poor person lives amongst great turmoil,

and the calamities of hardship with my footsteps.

When the traps of the pit open

all the snares of wickedness spread

and the nets of the doomed upon the surface of the sea.

When all the arrows of the pit fly without return

they hit without hope.

When the measuring line for judgment falls,

and the lot of anger against the forsaken

and the outburst of wrath against the hypocrites,

and the period of anger against Belial,

and the ropes of death approach with no escape,

then the torrents of Belial overflow their high banks

like a fire which devours all those drawing water (?)

destroying every tree, green or dry, from its canals.

He revolves like flames of fire

until none of those who drink are left.

He consumes the foundations of clay

and the tract of dry land;

the bases of the mountains does he burn

and converts the roots of flint rock

into streams of lava.

It consumes right to the great deep.

The torrents of Belial burst into Abaddon.

The schemers of the deep howl with the din

of those extracting mud.

The earth cries out at the calamity which overtakes the world,

and all its schemers scream,

and all who are upon it go crazy,

and melt away in the great calamity.

For God thunders with the thunder of his great strength,

and his holy residence echoes with the truth of his glory,

and the host of the heavens adds its noise,

and the eternal foundations melt and shake,

and the battle of heavenly heroes spans the globe,

and does not return until it has terminated

the destruction decided forever.

There is nothing like it.

I give you thanks, my God,

because you do wonders with dust;

with the creature of mud you act

in an immeasurably /very/ powerful way.

And I, what am I?

For you teach me the basis of your truth,

you instruct me in your wonderful works.

You put thanksgiving into my mouth,

praises on my tongue,

my uncircumcised lips in a place of jubilation.

I chant your kindness,

I ponder your might the whole day,

I bless your name continually,

I declare your glory among the sons of man,

and in your abundant goodness my soul delights.

I know that truth is in your mouth,

and justice in your hand,

and in your thoughts, all learning,

and all glory is with you,

and in your wrath all punishing judgment,

and in your goodness, abundance of forgiveness,

and your compassion for all the sons of your approval.

For you teach them the basis of your truth,

and instruct them in your wonderful mysteries. Blank

For your glory, you purify man from sin,

so that he makes himself holy for you

from every impure abomination and blameworthy iniquity,

to become united with the sons of your truth

and in the lot of your holy ones,

to raise the worms of the dead

from the dust, to an [everlasting] community

and from a depraved spirit, to your knowledge,

so that he takes his place in your presence

with the perpetual host

and the [everlasting] spirits,

to renew him with everything that exists,

and with those who know

in a community of jubilation. Blank

Regarding the latter two, the Meditation on Misery and the Apocalypse, Kuhn agrees with Puech that these refer to the present (63) and future (60) respectively. However, they disagree on the time-reference of the first two sections. It is to these sections that we shall focus our attention.

Deferring comment on the Expanded Introduction, Kuhn begins with the Soteriological Confession, particularly with what he calls the three salvation-perfects, which I have underlined here (44-45):[7]

ואתהלכה במישור לאין חקר
ואדעה כיא יש מקוה לאשר
יצרתה מעפר לסוד עולם
ורוח נעוה טהרתה מפשע רב
להתיצב במעמד עם צבא קדושים
ולבוא ביחד עם עדת בני שמים
ותפל לאיש גורל עולם עם רוחות דעת
להלל שמכה ביחד רנה
ולספר נפלאותיכה לנגד כול מעשיכה

Following Michel, Kuhn claims that because יצרתה and טהרתה are perfect, they express facticity. Although Kuhn claims that any of the Hebrew tenses can refer to past, present, or future acts, he argues that the verb יצרתה cannot refer to a future act because it expresses a something that is already a fact at a point when the מקוה is yet to come. The hope is present, and the foundation of this hope is the act of יצרתה. Likewise, because טהרתה is not the first word of the sentence, it too must be explanatory to the preceding perfect verb, יצרתה (48). Kuhn refuses to interpret the lot with the angels as predestination because the verb of the relevant phase, ותפל, is imperfect consecutive and according to Michel must denote an immediate result from what was previously described (46).[8] Furthermore, Michel showed that infinitives carry the same time reference as the main verb, so Kuhn concludes that they are not future, noting that purpose and result are identical with God (45). In short, Kuhn’s position is that the time-reference of this section all depends on יצרתה, which cannot be future, but rather has to with an accomplished new creation (48).[9] Thus eschatological salvation has been realized in the present.

Turning from the Soteriological Confession back to the Expanded Introduction, Kuhn argues that the first two perfects (פדיתה and העליתני) denote a past action because in content and form this poem corresponds to a biblical Individual Thanksgiving Psalm[10] (53). Further, because רום is parallel with סוד and גורל in the soteriological confession (both are modified by עולם), Kuhn claims that the time reference for רום must be the same as for the soteriological confession; it indicates a salvation time visualized as present (52). The form of the introduction is identical to that of 1QH^a XIX, 16ff.; each has the following elements: address to God, introduction expanded by כי with two second person singular perfects, and results described by two first person singular imperfects. Therefore these two cohortative imperfects, like those of column XIX, must be modal (not future) and are best translated “I can …” (53).[11]

Kuhn recognizes that his interpretation indicates a blurring of the distinction between salvation in the present and at the end of time. In defense, he refers to the work of Ch. Barth,[12] J. Pedersen[13] and G. v. Rad,[14] which indicates that in the post-exilic time the distinction between life beyond and the present life had weakened (55). In this way, Kuhn can claim that the deliverance from Sheol is not a hyperbole, but is totally realistic (56). Although the statement that people could be raised to heaven would be surprising in the pre-exilic period, he finds it not surprising here because apocalyptic literature had already begun expressing the speculation and wish of the righteous for heaven (56).[15]

Kuhn infers from the Introduction’s reference to the Apocalypse at the end of the poem that the righteous person has already been taken from the powerful rise of Sheol (60). The poet thereby understands his time apparently as some kind of beginning of the apocalyptic tribulation. This is not to say the destruction by fire is present; it is obviously future, but that only the righteous will be taken from this future (but presently signalled) powerful rise of Sheol (60). At the same time the Apocalypse depicts, through its depiction of ruin, an effective contrast to the expression in the Introduction and in the Soteriological Confession that the eschatological salvation for the righteous is no longer purely future (64).

Again with this second poem, Kuhn begins his exegesis with the Soteriological Confession (prefaced withואני ידעתי כי), which makes up the last two thirds of the poem. After some statements about God’s truth, righteousness, knowledge, might, sovereignty, and righteous and compassionate acts, we find expressions of praise and thanksgiving for salvation, with three Salvation-Perfects, underlined here:

... ורחמיכה לכול בני רצונכה
כי הודעתם בסוד אמתכה
וברזי פלאכה השכלתם vacat
ולמען כבודכה טהרתה אנוש מפשע
להתקדש לכה מכול תועבות נדה
ואשמת מעל
להיחד ע[ם] בני אמתך
ובגורל עם קדושיכה
להרים מעפר תולעת מתים לסוד ע[ולם]
ומרוח נעוה לבינת[כה
ולהתיצב במעמד לפניכה עם צבא עד
ורוחי [עולם]
להתחדש עם כול נהיה
ועם ידעים ביחד רנה vacat

Kuhn says that these three finite verbs unequivocally have to do with something which lies in the present or past, and moves to the question whether the five infinitives (subordinated to the third salvation-perfect with ל) describe a salvation already totally present or whether it in some ways is meant as future (79–80).

Kuhn rejects the possibility that this section is a sequence of the steps of salvation, in which purification, sanctification, and union with the community have already happened, but resurrection from the dead, standing before God with the angels and renewal with creation are still to come (80). Kuhn argues, following Michel, that all the infinitives reflect the same time reference.

Although the author of this poem has extensively borrowed from 1QH^a XI, he has reworked the text considerably, therefore Kuhn acknowledges that one cannot simply assume that the same (i.e., present-realized) eschatology is expressed in the last three infinitives; this must be demonstrated. Kuhn argues that a comparison does show that this poet understood the יצרתה of 1QH^a XI 22 not only cosmologically but also soteriologically, and that he likewise interpreted the expression of the community with the angels as an eschatological event. But whether he meant that resurrection, standing with the angels before God, and renewal were present already with the entrance into the community Kuhn admits must be decided on the basis of the poem itself.

Kuhn brings together the following reasons for thinking of these infinitives as happening with the entrance into the community.

2. The structure of the section immediately preceding deals with entrance into the community, with no intervening material to indicate a change of topic.

3. The second member of the third infinitive phrase, which has its parallel only in 1QH^a XI 22, is an elucidation of the first member, which speaks of the revival of the dead. The first phrase is constructed totally parallel (with מן and ל); להרים governs both the מן and ל of the second part.

4. The confession of the received gift of insight and wisdom is very common. The first two salvation-perfects of this poem proclaim the received insight (86). Two of the three salvation perfects of the main body of the poem indicate the gift of insight and wisdom is an already available salvation-fact. This poem says emphatically that the Qumran-righteous are already in possession of insight into God’s mysteries, so the expressions in the second part of the third infinitive phrase, because they are explanatory, cannot be primarily future (87).

5. The expanded introduction of the poem speaks of an already present salvation; this should provide information about the contents of the poem.

6. The unique (in the Hodayot) expression הפלתה עם עפר of the first series plainly plays on the להרים מעפר of the Confession (87). Although עפר means the terrestrial way of being of humanity in the introduction, and in the line on resurrection it refers to the location of the worm, i.e., the grave, these meanings cannot be strictly separated in the word עפר.

Therefore Kuhn concludes that the three infinitive phrases, which describe the acts of the eschatological drama, can only be interpreted to mean that with the entrance into the community on the basis of death already overcome, the communion with the angels is already here and the new creation has already begun. In Kuhn’s own emphatic statement,

Das Verständnis des Eintritts in die Gemeinde als Totenerweckung bzw. Neuschöpfung und als ein Sichaufstellen mit den Engeln hat dieses Bekenntnis also gemeinsam mit dem in Kolumne 3, von dem es sich ja auch also abhängig erwies.
The understanding of the entrance into the community as resurrection or new creation and as situating oneself with the angels thus has this confession together with that in column XI, from which it is thus proven also to be dependent (88).

Puech argues that because the structure of the poem is concentric, the ideas from the beginning of the poem (the rescue from the pit, the limitless plain, and the hope for man) must be related to the final victory of God over Belial described at the end of the poem; in fact, they must be the results of the victory. In this case, these “parfaits/accomplis” de salut cannot be past, although they express accomplishments once for all, whether in the past, present, or future. They must be parfaits prophétiques (369), expressing a certain fate.[16] Puech supports this view with the following notes on vocabulary.

Puech claims that the word גורל clearly indicates the eschatological and future destiny foreseen by the righteous in contrast to that of the sinners. Because the sinners’ fate is death, a future event, the fate of the righteous must be future as well (371).[17]

Puech argues that the phrase רום עולם should be understood with the same meaning as in 4Q511 41, 1 and 10, 12, where it designates the abode of God and the angels, as does the repeated word רום in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Similarly, because in 1QS II, 25 the phrase סוד עולם designates the assembly of angels, and the heavenly and eschatological aspect is underlined by לאין חקר from Proverbs 25:3, what is in view in this part of the poem is not some kind of salvation realized here on earth, but a future eschatological destiny. Therefore, Puech insists that the beginning of this poem is not speaking of a de facto present reality, despite Kuhn’s assertions on pages 44–46 and 59. The faithful is assured of escape not from death or the tomb, but from Sheol-Abaddon, as the place or state of perdition and destruction reserved for the wicked, a state more explicitly described in 4Q491 8–10 I, 15 and 1QM XIII, 11 (372).[18]

In the second of our poems, Puech again begins his analysis with the structure of the poem. He identifies an introduction plus three strophes of eleven stiches each (376). He, too, recognizes the dependence of XIX, 13b–17 on XI, 21–24 and its Soteriological Confession containing a perfect verb followed by five infinitives (lines 13–17) (377).

Puech notes that whereas in column XI the eschatological accent is constantly underlined as early as the first lines, in column XIX it is less evident, especially if one holds that בגורל עם קדושיכה refers to the terrestrial community present at Qumran. Kuhn made such an argument but according to Puech did not prove it irrefutably. Puech instead points out that the “saints” can designate the eschatological people of God, as in Daniel 7:7–27. This interpretation of the saints as a future group cannot be refuted by appealing to order of the infinitives (i.e., that communion with the angels should follow resurrection) because the perfect verb is not on the same level as the infinitives, and the infinitives themselves are not in chronological order (universal restoration would probably precede service with celestial beings) (378).

Puech does not agree with Kuhn (87f.) and Aune[19] that the “resurrection”, the communion with the angels and the re-creation are realised with the entrance into the community (379). Although Puech and Kuhn both see resurrection in line 15, Kuhn sees the eschatology as realised (88). Puech argues instead that the real parallelism of להרים מעפר תולעת מתים לסוד עולם in line 15 is not only in the phrase לאשר יצרתה מעפר לסוד עולם of the “source” (XI, 22), but is also and above all to be found in ומשאל אבדון העליתני לרום עולם (XI, 20–21), which he calls a prophetic perfect of salvation. Although compared to קום, עמד, יקץ, or חיה, the verb רום is not a common word for resurrection, Puech argues that its use to refer to resurrection is appropriate here because “the eternal height” (רום עולם) must designate heaven, to which the “eternal council” is destined, a conception underlined by ומשאול אבדון העליתני. Puech asserts that in this poem, the expression הרים מעפר תולעת מתים refers certainly to the dead and to the dust of the dead, and it receives a more precise sense than that normally given to the general term עפר in לאשר יצרתה מעפר (380).

Puech goes on to argue that ומרוח נעוה לבינתכה also underlines the elevation of the sinful man to the sphere of God, to the divine intelligence which is the property of the saints “of the eternal council”. He affirms that the knowledge of the secrets and of the counsel of truth (lines 7 and 11–13), consists above all in knowing oneself to be counted in the lot of the saved and able one day to sing praises eternally with the angels of the presence (lines 16f.) In this sense the present community is a prefiguration of the knowledge, renewal, divine service, exaltation and future communion, thanks to the purification, forgiveness, and tenderness of God. In his view, it is entirely eschatological (using perfects of salvation): the one who enters into the community is already and will be the object of the things of which he sings.

Puech thinks it would indeed have been surprising if in these poems the salvation of the faithful was to be understood as a present eschatological reality and effectively realised in the community, and if the punishment of the wicked alone picked up the future eschatology of contemporary Judaism.

Given the difficulty of shedding one’s preconceptions in the present-future debate, reconciliation might seem at first glance elusive. An emphasis on the present-realized nature of salvation can be found in the Hodayot by those so disposed, as can repeated reference to destiny and fate for those who look for future salvation. Of course, both Kuhn and Puech recognize that salvation is not seen as exclusively one or the other; they see a tension between the two.

Kuhn and Puech’s disagreement has to do with the main emphasis of the eschatology: is it mainly present-realised with some future elements, or is it mainly future-expected, with some prefiguration in the present? Deciding between these two is not easy, because both present good cases for one or the other, each exhibiting their particular skills: Kuhn with a microscopic eye for grammar, and Puech with a telescopic eye for context. However, I suggest that trying to choose one or the other view is in itself misguided.

I will next identify some of the weaknesses in Kuhn and Puech’s interpretations, particularly those based on faulty presuppositions and logical fallacies. I will then outline a potentially more satisfying explanation of these texts using insights from the study of poetics.

As indicated earlier, Kuhn’s case for a realized eschatology depends on four grammatical points, derived from Michel:

4. infinitive phrases have the same time reference as verb to which they are subordinated.

This dependence is a weakness. Although Michel can be credited with a significant contribution to the study of Hebrew verbs, some of his conclusions are open to question. Waltke and O’Connor criticize Michel for fallaciously posing a complementary binary opposition between the two tenses in which one tense (the perfect) being independent necessarily implies that the other (imperfect) is dependent.[20]

Michel’s study was based on observing the patterns of verbal use in the biblical Psalter. Kuhn failed to notice that the patterns are not the same in the Hodayot, which uses subordination much more extensively.[21] A specific counter-example to the rule that the imperfect consecutive denotes an immediate result can be found in 1QH^a VII, 35–36, where ואני ידעתי and ואדעה are used with no apparent difference in meaning. Not only is the second verb not the result of the first, but ואני ידעתי also begins a new section, even though the verb is not initial and therefore according to Michel should be seen as explanatory to a preceding verb.

Second, Kuhn largely ignores poetic structure as a whole. Instead, he focusses on the genre-elements as the key to the structure of the Hodayot. Third, Kuhn adduces as parallels to the Expanded Introductions verses from the middle of biblical psalms rather than from the introductions. Finally, Kuhn’s assumption that the time-references of structures which have similarities must be identical is unwarranted. There are many possible structural constraints placed on a poetic composition which may determine its parallelism and form; time-reference would seem to be a very minor factor.

Puech bases his interpretation largely on the meanings of individual words, but also on the structure of the poem (in which the beginning is related to the end), and even on the supposition that the soul could not be immortal without a body.[22] Puech tries to see a consistent eschatology in the Qumran writings and wider Judaism. This makes him susceptible to overlooking the peculiarities of the eschatology of the Hodayot.

These questionable presuppositions on the part of Kuhn and Puech lay the groundwork for misinterpretation when combined with errors of reasoning.

Kuhn’s oversight of the poetic structure leads him to construct the backbone of the soteriological confession from subordinate elements, underlined in the following layout, which I have indented to show syntactic subordination:

The טהרתה and ותפל lines are probably not to be subordinated to the ואדעה כיא line because in the Hodayot,[24] ואדעה כיא is usually followed by only one statement of what is known, or if more than one, they are short (verbless) and in parallel word order. Instances of ידעתי כי also show this pattern.[25] The phrase יש מקוה is also used as the content of knowledge in XIV, 9; XVII, 14; and XXII, 11. There, too, it consists of a single element, not a list of things known.

Puech bases his interpretation on the structure of the poem (in which the beginning is related to the end) to mean that the beginning is referring to the results of the end. No such supposition is warranted; the nature of the relationship is not specified.

Kuhn does not question that the three perfect verbs (teaching, instructing, purifying) and the first two infinitives (sanctifying, uniting) are already realized. His case for a present-realised eschatology depends on the following points, focussing on the last three infinitive phrases:

2. The immediately preceding section speaks of the entrance into the community, a realized event.

3. The parallel counterpart to the “council” to which people are raised is “knowledge”.

However, the evidence brought forward by Kuhn could be seen as future expectation rather than present-realization. Points 1 and 5 depend on the exegesis of other passages; points 2, 3, and 4 could have a double reference: to the present entrance into the community and also to the future entrance into the celestial community.

2. The “raising” is dependent on column XI’s raising “to an eternal height”

Puech’s argument is as questionable as Kuhn’s. Kuhn agrees that the “saints” are an eschatological people; he differs in thinking that the Qumran community is already that eschatological people. The other points would be similarly accepted by Kuhn, changing only the assumption that the “raising”, “height”, “dust”, “intelligence”, “eternal council” and “knowledge” are shifted from the future to the present.

At this point it would be helpful to take a step back and get some perspective by recalling some relevant observations from other Qumran sectarian documents before we try to sort out what seem to be differences of opinion between Kuhn and Puech:

1. The Qumran community thought of themselves as living in the end times, although the Messiahs and final judgement were yet to come.[26]

3. One’s destiny is determined by God, based on one’s choice of good over evil.[28]

4. Resurrection is known to the Qumran sectarians,[29] but not explicitly mentioned in clearly sectarian texts.

The repeated reference to the lot or destiny of people, not only in the Hodayot, but pervasive in all Qumran sectarian literature (גורל occurs over 100 times) may provide some indication of the link between present allegiances and future fate. I propose that the determinism of the Qumran sect led them to believe that if they had been placed in a certain lot, a certain destiny would necessarily follow. If they are in the lot of the יחד, they would of necessity experience the eschatological salvation of these poems. God’s saving action of the righteous person began with placement in the community, and for this the poet could express thanks. But he was also thankful for all the implications of this placement, including some kind of raising, renewal, and communion with angels. It is perhaps not so much a blurring of the line between present and future as a future-perfect: a future eschatological state resulting from a preceding salvific action.

Before we examine the poems in light of this proposal, we should focus and clarify our investigation by addressing the following questions:

When Kuhn says salvation is “present-realized”, he appears to mean there are certain aspects of eschatological salvation that are already experienced. If the Qumran sectarians had knowledge of their fate, considered themselves in some way raised from Sheol, into an open plain, in the presence of the angels, they were experiencing things associated with the end, when God would act to destroy evil and reward the righteous. In other words, the righteous were already experiencing some of their eschatological rewards. The question remains, were they experiencing all or even most of their eschatological rewards? Which are the eschatological rewards they were expecting, and how many of them were they already experiencing?

2. In what way can a this-worldly person be “with the angels”, “in a boundless plain”, “raised from Sheol”?

Because Sheol denotes a place from which there is no return,[30] a person can be raised from there only in a metaphorical sense: either Sheol is meant metaphorically, or the raising is. Likewise, a this-worldly person can walk in a “boundless plain” only hyperbolically or metaphorically. The angels, on the other hand, could be thought of as inhabiting the air of this world.[31] Despite Kuhn’s claim, in no “realistic” sense can a person be in a “boundless plain” and raised from Sheol. This is either hyperbole or anticipation. Kuhn rejects the possibility of hyperbole, claiming that the distinction between present and future was blurred. I can only understand him to mean that the anticipation of freedom is so strong that the poet feels he is already experiencing it.

Despite the ongoing debate over whether the Hebrew tenses mark Tense, Aspect, or Mood, or some combination of the three, the practical fact remains that people naturally learn grammar by association and context. Because the majority of Hebrew perfect verbs refer to past time, even in poetry,[32] the audience of the poem would most naturally think of past time when he heard the perfect tense. For a perfect verb to refer to future time (a “prophetic perfect”) is an anomaly, a breaking of expectation for dramatic effect.

The waw-prefixed imperfect, at least in the Hodayot, is evidently equivalent to a perfect verb. In the introduction of a poem of the Hodayot, the initial perfect verb following כי is paralleled by zero to five lines, each constructed with one of the following: a perfect verb in non-initial position, an initial waw-prefixed imperfect, or a verbless clause. No instances of an imperfect without waw, or of an initial waw-prefixed perfect are attested in these lines. Because the overwhelming majority (if not all) of parallel lines in the Hodayot have to the same time reference, aspect, and mood, it seems that the waw-prefixed imperfect is thought to be equivalent to a perfect verb.

Poetry is ambiguous. That is part of its beauty. It relies on connotation more than denotation, on associations more than definitions. The poet hopes to form associations in the audience’s mind, to imply certain connections. By setting up certain expectations, then confirming them in some ways and defeating them in others, the poet creates desired effects. This is especially true for poetry created for oral recitation. In a study on the poetics of the Hodayot, I concluded,

all poetry is about creating connections and distinctions in ways that ordinary speech does not. Sometimes these connections and distinctions create pattern and defeated expectation. … The result in Hebrew poetry is that the listener anticipates the gist of the next line even before the speaker utters it. In other words, after hearing one line, the listener has some idea of what the speaker will say next. A skilful poet will create patterns to shape the hearer=s expectations and will break those patterns at points where the hearer needs to be shaken. He will use devices such as metre, parallelism, structures, refrains, and rhyme to create patterns, and others such as imagery, irony, wordplay, and enjambment to defeat expectation and thereby evoke interest.[33]

Of course, the first-time hearer of a poem would react differently than the hearer who is already familiar with the course of the poem. Let us apply this approach to poetry to the most disputed lines of our two poems to see if a more satisfying resolution can be found to Puech and Kuhn’s problem.

Puech appears to have modified Bonnie Kittel’s structural analysis slightly, resulting in a concentric symmetry of line count in the stanzas (which he calls strophes): 6-6-9-10-9-6-6.[34] OF all the divisions I have seen of this poem, Puech’s brings out the artistry of the structure most consistently; it is preferable to Kuhn’s division based on genre elements. Of course, the first-time hearer would not know the structure at the outset, but a repeat hearer would be aware of its movement and connections.

אודכה אדוני: The initial words signal the genre to the hearer, who recalls other Thanksgiving psalms, both biblical[35] and Qumran sectarian.[36] The hearer next expects a reason for the praise: why is the Lord worthy of praise? In those biblical instances of the Hiphil of ידה that have כי complement, the כי phrase is almost always a verbless clause, most often כי טוב [37] or כי לעולם חסדו [38] (the one exception is a verbless clause in Ps 139:14). Those few with a verb are imperfect once (Isa 12:1) and perfect four times (Ps 54:9, הִצִּילָנִי; Ps 118:21, עֲנִיתָנִי, along with a waw-consecutive imperfect; Ps 138:2, הִגְדַּלְתָּ). However, in the Hodayot the כי as a rule is followed by a second person perfect verb[39] with the poet as the object.

כי פדיתה נפשי משחת: The expectation for a second person perfect verb with the poet as object is met. Kuhn claims that because the usual time-reference for the perfects in the introduction of an Individual Thanksgiving Psalm is past, the same should apply here. As noted above, the natural inclination would be for the hearer to understand this action as a past event as well. Still, for dramatic effect, the poet could use the tense in an unusual way, or could be exaggerating for effect. But other similar phrases of salvation in the Hodayot more certainly refer to a past event, even when speaking of rescuing one from the pit.[40] Either way, the hearer is surprised by the power of the word שחת and wonders in what way this could be true. He hopes the next line will be parallel and will offer another perspective on what the poet is intending. In the Hodayot, this second person perfect clause can be followed by up to five parallel second person clauses with verbs either waw-consecutive imperfects or non-initial perfects. These parallel second person verbs are never imperfects without waw,[41] nor are they verb-initial waw-prefixed perfects. That these statements are parallel and not explanatory is shown by 1QH^a XIII, 20 and XII, 6–7, in which the second phrase cannot be considered an explanation of the first. The expectation of the audience is now for such parallel statements.

ומשאל אבדון העליתני לרום עולם: The expectation for a parallel is met by a line with a non-initial perfect verb. Puech says רום refers to God’s abode and שאול אבדון is the (future) place or state reserved for the wicked, not death or the tomb. However, no matter what the two places represent, there is movement from Sheol Abaddon to the eternal height. No matter if the movement is past or future, the poet is in Sheol before he moves to the height. This discredits Puech’s view that שאול אבדון must be reserved for the wicked, and in consequence also discredits his view that the רום עולם must be God’s abode. Other instances of past or realized descents to the pit include 1QH^a XVI, 30, where it appears to be a metaphor for tribulation. The audience therefore understands that the poet is speaking metaphorically, not about a specific future event. Following the Hodayot pattern, the hearer’s expectation is now for more parallel statements, or possible a change of subject related by topic to this last statement.

ואתהלכה במישור לאין חקר: The expectation for a change of subject is met. The topic is related to the preceding line by רום עולם and מישור לעין חקר. Kuhn’s argues that these two verbs should be translated "so kann ich" because they are cohortative (with suffixed ה), but the cohortative form designates nothing special in Qumran Hebrew. Elisha Qimron shows that this is the normal form of a first person imperfect verb with waw, whether conjunctive or consecutive.[42] These verbs are not so much explanatory as moving the poem forward. The hearer may be familiar with the use of open space as a metaphor for a present reality from other poems such as XIII, 35, where it is present and “in my heart”.[43] Puech says לאין חקר can only describe heaven, and is therefore eschatological. He overstates his point, but this phrase does occur in the Hodayot some 8 times,[44] often in a chronological sense (for example, 1QH^a XIV, 20 where it is parallel with עולם as it is here). The audience therefore shifts their understanding of the poet’s meaning from something present to something more eschatological. The expectation is now for a statement parallel to this one.

ואדעה כיא יש מקוה: The parallel form is met with an initial waw-prefixed first person imperfect and the connection between the present and the future is strengthened by the verbs (which refer to the present) and the inherent future-reference of the noun. The audience is pleased that they have already discerned this connection in the previous lines, and look forward to the elaboration of this hope.

לאשר יצרתה מעפר לסוד עולם: This clause, subordinate to the preceding line, contains a perfect verb. This is not one of the core actions for which God is praised in the introduction; we are out of the introduction and into the soteriological confession. In any case, what is being confessed is the existence of hope, not the act of forming. Kuhn appeals to the phrases ואדעה כיא יש מקוה לאשר יצרתה מעפר לסוד עולם to show that the “forming” cannot refer to the future, if the “hope” is already present, and that he “forming” is therefore not referring to bodily resurrection. Yet Puech says סוד עולם refers to the assembly of angels. Quite possibly, the audience would pick up on the ambiguity of the verb יצר, with its connotations of purifying new creation and figurative meaning of preordination.[45] The hearer again hopes for a parallel expression to clarify this one.

The audience’s expectation is partially disappointed; they do not get a direct parallel, but instead get something more helpful: the beginning of a new strophe which expands on the last line.[46] This first set of three lines develops the purification of יצרתה and the divine company; the next develops the pre-ordination and the earthly company. Purification in the Hodayot is both a present choice made by the righteous (in 1QH^a VIII, 18–20 the poet has chosen to purify, detests, has appeased), and a future event performed by God (in 1QH^a XV, 33–34 the purification is future). Puech argues that גורל is destiny, but particularly one’s destiny after the judgement; that of sinners is death and therefore future, so that of the righteous must also be future. The audience probably thinks of the lot falling as a past event (as in 1QH^a XV, 37), but it would not be clear whether the results of this lot are present or future. The hearer hears the poem in sequence, and when they hear צבא קדושים, they do not have the next line to specify it yet. At first they think of the angels in heaven, but in the next parallel line, the technical phrase ולבוא ביחד makes them draw the connection between being with the angels and entering the earthly community. The effect on the audience is that they realize that one does not happen without the other. Entering the community entails being with the angels, and sharing knowledge with the angels entails rejoicing in one’s earthly creaturely context. Yes, the rejoicing may be over one’s destiny of salvation, but the trajectory for that salvation has already been set, and this is cause for praise.

Through this poem so far, it has not occurred to the audience to think that salvation is mainly present-realized or mainly future; they would think both Kuhn and Puech are missing the point entirely. Of course eschatological salvation is ultimately future; the poet can assume this much. But the poet intentionally links the future salvation with God’s and man’s action in the past and present. Let us move our attention to the second of our poems to see if this view holds there as well.

Kuhn takes it for granted that the three perfect verbs (teaching, instructing, purifying[47]) and the first two infinitives (sanctifying, uniting) of 1QH^a XIX, 12–14 are already realized. Puech and Kuhn’s disagreement about the time-reference of salvation is centered mainly on the following lines, especially the last three infinitive phrases.

ולמען כבודכה טהרתה אנוש מפשע
להתקדש לכה מכול תועבות נדה
ואשמת מעל
להיחד ע[ם] בני אמתך
ובגורל עם קדושיכה
להרים מעפר תולעת מתים לסוד ע[ולם][48]
ומרוח נעוה לבינת[כה
ולהתיצב במעמד לפניכה עם צבא עד
ורוחי [עולם]
להתחדש עם כול נהיה
ועם ידעים ביחד רנה vacat

As we have seen, Kuhn claims that the section in column XI which is parallel to these last three infinitive clauses refers to the present. This parallel section in column XI extends from לאשר to יחד רנה.[49] However, there we saw that the poet evokes associations with creative purification and preordination, and links present affiliation with future destiny. The reference is not to one time period alone.

ולמען כבודכה טהרתה אנוש מפשע
להתקדש לכה מכול תועבות נדה
ואשמת מעל
להיחד ע[ם] בני אמתך
ובגורל עם קדושיכה

Here in this poem, immediately before the three infinitives in question, the audience has heard of purification by God and a parallel line with sanctification in the Hithpael. Qimron shows the Hithpael in DSS Hebrew is sometimes employed as a passive and not only as a reflexive, just as in Biblical Hebrew,[50] so the hearer would be unsure which of two meanings was intended. The individual may be thought to “sanctify himself for you” (as Kuhn takes it), or “be sanctified by you” (as Puech takes it). Above in the discussion of column XI we also saw purification performed both by God and by man. The difference there was that the purification seemed to be by man at the entrance into the community, and by God at the judgement. Here, because of the perfect verb, the audience would first think of the entrance into the community as the most likely time God would have purified man from sin, but secondarily would also wonder if the tense was being used for effect, as a “prophetic perfect” referring to the final judgement. Kuhn claims that the juxtaposition of this realized event to the three infinitives with no transition indicates the infinitives are also realized, but more likely the poet was trying to link the two events, past and future.

Puech thinks the “holy ones” are God’s eschatological people from Daniel 7. Kuhn also believes they are an eschatological people, but argues that the “holy ones” are already the present earthly Qumran community. The ambiguity would not be lost on the audience. Once again, we have a juxtaposition of entrance with future destiny, as in column XI. Here, too, destiny appears in the word גורל.

להרים מעפר תולעת מתים לסוד ע[ולם] ומרוח נעוה לבינת[כה Here we come to the crux of this poem: is the “raising” present or future? When the audience hears the first two words, they first think of the phrase “raise from the dust” in terms of giving strength to the lowly or hope to the downtrodden. Although Puech argues that the “dust” of the dead seems to have a precise meaning in this context (the realm of the dead), the audience would heard the poem sequentially and would not have the interpretive benefit of context. The image of hopelessness is confirmed by the next two words, תולעת מתים, the worm of the dead, reminiscent of Isa 41:14 (אַל-תִּירְאִי תּוֹלַעַת יַעֲקֹב מְתֵי יִשְרָאֵל), where of course the people are not dead but merely hopeless.[51] Kuhn says that because the parallel counterpart to the “council” to which people are raised is “understanding,” and the gift of knowledge in the hymns is something already realized, the “raising” is also already realized. But the audience would not have heard the second line before the first; by the time the hearer heard the second line, the first would have already evoked certain associations. This is not to say that the hearer could not select which of the associations were appropriate once he heard the second line; rather, the point is that Puech’s method of using the first part of the “raising” phrase to interpret the second is more correct than Kuhn’s, which uses the second part to interpret the first. Puech says the “raising” is dependent on column XI’s raising “to an eternal height” and the eternal height is heaven because its opposite is Sheol Abaddon. Puech’s interpretation is too narrow; the link to column XI is both in the eternal height and in the eternal council, because both have roots in the primary link: hope for the hopeless (יש מקוה).

Similarly, knowledge has both present and future associations. Puech says divine intelligence (בינתכה) is future because it is the property of the eternal council. He is right, but so is Kuhn: knowledge in the Hodayot is one of the divine traits God imparts to humans, which permits their future raising to the eternal council. Earlier in this poem, the audience heard הודעתני and ותשכילני (line 10); these acts are realized, as Kuhn notes, but their results at first consist simply of praise. So far the audience has been thinking primarily of praise in the earthly community, but now the hints of something more eternal are beginning.

ולהתיצב במעמד לפניכה עם צבא עד ורוחי [עולם] להתחדש עם כול נהיה ועם ידעים ביחד רנה Now the hints of something more lasting are reinforced, with the heavenly צבא and the ורוחי [עולם]. Finally the התחדש may have recalled the eschatological restoration to Adam’s glory we know of from CD (3:19–20) and Florilegium (4Q174 1–3 I, 6).

In this section of the poem, again the audience is led to think eschatological salvation as a future set of events stemming from a present-realized entrance into the Qumran community. When Puech says the “knowledge” in this context is particularly knowledge of one’s fate, he may be more right than he realized.

It is my hope that a recognition of the sequential nature of oral poetry has illuminated the movement of these two eschatological poems from the Hodayot and clarified the reasons for the disagreement between Kuhn and Puech as to whether the eschatology expressed in them is mainly realized or mainly future. Both have made invaluable contributions to the study of the eschatology of the Hodayot, but were hampered by overlooking the associative nature of poetry and the ambiguity it produces.

The eschatological salvation of these two poems has both present and future elements; this much was recognized by both Kuhn and Puech. Though salvation was expected to be realized in the future, its course had already been set by entering the earthly community of God’s people. The poetry links God’s past actions and the poet’s present experiences with the future destiny of God’s people. Thus Kuhn, looking at the details of the text, can see the poet deliberately evoking images of present-realization, and Puech, looking at the larger milieu of eschatological presupposition, can recognize the future-orientation assumed throughout the poem. But the task facing the scholar today shold not be to distinguish and separate the present from the future; instead it should be to understand how the Qumran community linked the two. Only then will we understand the context of first-century Palestinian Jewish apocalyptic eschatology in which present-realized and future-expected salvation might be juxtaposed.

Aune, David E. The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Barth, Ch. Die Errettung vom Tode in den individuellen Klage- und Dankliedern des Alten Testamentes. Zollikon, 1947.

Collins, J. J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2^nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Buth, Randall. “The Hebrew Verb in Current Discussions”. Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics. Vol 5 No. 2 (1992): 91–105.

García Martínez, Florentino. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. Trans. W. G. E. Watson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998.

Goedhart, H. Review of Kuhn, Enderwartung. Revue de Qumran 6 (1968): 437–441.

Gunkel, Hermann. The Psalms. Trans. Thomas M. Horner. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967.

Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1966.

Michel, Diethelm. Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen. Abhandlungen zur evangelischen Theologie, Band 1. Bonn: H. Bouvier, 1960.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Review of Kuhn’s Enderwartung. Revue Biblique 75 (1968): 439–445.

Penner, Ken. “In the Presence of Poetry: Second Temple Hebrew Poetics -- A Case Study.” Unpublished M.A. project, McMaster University, 2001.

Puech. Émile. “Quelques aspects de la restauration de rouleau des hymnes (1QH).” JJS 39 (1988): 38–55.

Puech, Émile. La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité, resurrection, vie éternelle? 2 vols. Paris: Librarie Llecoffre, 1993.

Puech, Émile. “Messianism, Resurrection, and Eschatology at Qumran and in the New Testament.” Pages 235–256 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant. The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994.

Rad, G. von. “Verheißenes Land und Jahwes Land im Hexateuch.” Pages 87–100 inGesammelte Studien zum AT. 3rd ed. München: 1973.

Stegemann, Hartmut. “Rekonstruktion der Hodajot: Ursprüngliche Gestalt und kritisch bearbeiteter Text der Hymnerolle aus Höhle 1 von Qumran.” Diss., Heidelberg, 1963.

Sukenik, E. L. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University. Jerusalem, 1955.

Wächter, Ludwig. Review of Kuhn’s Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil. Theologische Literaturzeitung 93 (1968): 658–659.

Waltke, B. K. and Michael O’Connor. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

[1] The texts that contain apocalyptic sections understood to be from the Second-Temple period were Daniel, 1 Enoch 1–36, 72–108, Jubilees, Sibylline Oracles 3, Psalms of Solomon, and parts of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch are from a later time.

[2] Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1966).

[3] Émile Puech, primarily in La croyance des Esséniens end la vie future: Immortalité, resurrection, vie éternelle? (2 vols.; Paris: Librarie Llecoffre, 1993), but also to a lesser extent in “Messianism, Resurrection, and Eschatology at Qumran and in the New Testament,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant, ed. Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 235–256. Page numbers citing Puech in this paper refer to La croyance.

[4] Diethelm Michel, Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen. Abhandlungen zur evangelischen Theologie, Band 1 (Bonn: H. Bouvier, 1960).

[5] I follow the reconstruction of 1QH^a suggested independently by H. Stegemann (“Rekonstruktion der Hodajot: Ursprüngliche Gestalt in kritisch bearbeiter Text der Hymnerolle aus Höhle 1 von Qumran” [diss., Heidleberg, 1963]) and Puech (“Quelques aspects de la restauration de rouleau des hymnes (1QH),” JJS 39 (1988): 38–55), rather than that of Sukenik (used by Kuhn). This means that Kuhn and Puech refer to the same text with different numbering systems. Puech placed eight columns of text before Sukenik’s column I, with the result that columns XI and XIX (in Puech’s reconstruction) were referred to as columns 3 and 11, respectively, by Kuhn. Puech also determined that column XI contained an additional line at the top, and this has shifted the line numbering up by one.

[6] Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 332–333, 352–353.

[7] I am not sure why he calls the converted imperfect ותפל a perfect, if he is following Michel. Michel says the imperfect and imperfect consecutive do not differ with respect to tense and character of the action, but only in that the demonstrative prefix ון binds the consecutive verb closer to what was previously described (Michel, 47).

[8] Kuhn’s Excursus I (pages 72f.) attempts to confirm this non-predestinarian sense (contrast 1QS 4,26).

[9] Here Kuhn notes that the word עפר has three meanings in the Hodayot: 1) the material from which humans are made, 2) humans’ earthly way of being, 3) the realm of the dead (49).

[10] Kuhn cites Ps 30:4, Jon 2:3, Sirach 51:2 (52), Ps 116:8f., 56:14, 92:5; Job 33:28 as examples of similar phrases in biblical Individual Thanksgiving Psalms. I am puzzled by this appeal to the biblical genre because on pages 63–64 Kuhn argues that this poem fits the genre of Hymn of Confession better than that of Individual Thanksgiving Psalm because it has both of the genre-elements identified by Morawe for a Hymn of Confession: Soteriological Confession and Meditation on Misery.

[11] Here Kuhn adduces biblical parallels for the expanded introduction פדיתה נפשי משחת ומשאול אבדון העליתני לרום עולם ואתהלכה במישור לאין חקר in Ps 116:8f., 56:14, Job 33:30, for the raising motif in Ps 16:10f, 30:4, 40:3, 71:20, 9:14, and for the boundless plain in Ps 119:45, 18:20, 31:9, 118:5, 4:2, 18:37, 26:12, 27:11, 143:10 (54).

[12] Ch. Barth, Die Errettung vom Tode in den individuellen Klage- und Dankliedern des Alten Testamentes (Zollikon, 1947).

[13] J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture I-IV (London: 1946–7).

[14] G. v. Rad, “Verheißenes Land und Jahwes Land im Hexateuch,” Gesammelte Studien zum AT (3rd ed.; München: 1973): 87–100.

[15] Kuhn here agrees that the phrase רום עולם means “heaven”, but not only in the sense of the abode of God, because its opposites (שחת, שאול and אבדון) are eschatological in the little apocalypse of lines 27–37. The one praying here interprets his salvation as an eschatological happening (59).

[16] Puech comments that the author of this poem knows well that salvation is not totally realised; he recognizes that he is living in the “territory of wickedness.” He knows that salvation is yet to come, but also that the victory is certain because it will be the work of God. Meanwhile, he realizes that the end-times are not begun, and the entrance to the community, a necessary condition for salvation, is insufficient (370).

[17] Puech claims that this phrase is explained by the preceding divine design and fate reserved for the righteous indicated by the two infinitive phrases subordinated to what must be a “prophetic perfect”, טהרתה (370–371).

[18] Puech comments: the rescue-purification proceeds to the change of lot. This certainty of the “prophetic perfects of salvation” and the “and I know” permit the present sufferer to live in confidence and to expect the final victory. In this sense, the wicked will not be able to escape the death/destruction which is reserved for them. But the salvation of the righteous is affirmed in the first part of the poem which, without directly evoking the resurrection, assumes it (an immortality of the soul without corporality is hardly thinkable in this context). One thing is certain: by divine favour, the righteous is and will be with the celestial beings and with God, a future happy life is promised to him in an “eternal height”, away from Sheol Abaddon (372).

[19] David E. Aune, The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 29–44.

[20] Waltke, B. K. and M. O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 470–475.

[21] See my M.A. project, in which I find 51% of lines exhibit supra-linear troping in the test case from the Hodayot, compared to 39% in Biblical poetry.

[22] Collins, in his review of Puech’s book*, notes that the Enoch describes such bodiless souls.

[23] Here, as in all biblical instances when following אודה, כי is a conjunction, not a subordinating particle.

[24] The 1QH^a references are VII, 26; VII, 36; VIII, 12; VIII, 19; VIII, 24; XIV, 6; XVII, 14; XIX, 20; XXI, 8; and XXII, 13.

[25] The 1QH^a references are VII, 35; VII, 38; XII, 31; XIX, 10; and XXIV, 29.

[26] 4Q398 1, 4: וזה הוא אחרית הימים; 1QSa; 1QM. Collins called it the “last period before the time of salvation” (The Apocalyptic Imagination, 157).

[27] CD 3:19–20: ויבן להם בית נאמן בישראל אשר לא עמד כמהו למלפנים ועד הנה המחזיקים בו לחיי נצח וכל כבוד אדם להם הוא; 4Q174 1–3 I, 6: ויואמר לבנות לוא מקדש אדם.

[28] 1QS columns 3 and 4.

[29] Daniel 7; Enoch; 4Q521 2 II, 12: ומתים יחיה; 4Q521 7+5 II, 6: המחיה את מתי עמו.

[30] Job 17:13–16; 10:21; 16:22.

[31] In fact, Philo speaks of angels in the air ouj alloi filo/sofoi daimonaj, a)gge/louj Mwush=j eiwqen o)noma/zein: yuxai d' eisi

kata\ to\n a)e/ra peto/menai. “‘Angels’ is Moses’ name for demons or spirits, souls that fly and hover in the air,” Gig. 6. See also Conf. 174). In another text, Philo explains that the inhabitants of the air are incorporeal souls with a striking combination of references to angels, escaping a grave, being lifted up, and ranging the heights forever (Somn. 1.138-140).

[32] Michel lists only a few future references to suffix conjugation verbs: “Es finden sich einige Stellen, an denen ein perf. Eine futurische Handlung wiedergibt”, 92. In a recent study, Rolf Furuli found that “7.446 (53.5%) QATALs in the Tanach have past reference”.(http://franklin.oit.unc.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?visit=b-hebrew&id=151720585).

[33] Ken Penner, “In the Presence of Poetry: Second Temple Hebrew Poetics -- A Case Study,” (M.A. project, McMaster University, 2001).

[34] Such a concentric ring structure is also used by Josephus in structuring his lengthy narratives, Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities.

[35] For example, Psalm 86:12; 2Sam 22:50, Isa 12:1. In fact, most other biblical instances of the root ידה in the Hiphil are imperfect, and mostly first person singular.

[36] The 1QH^a instances are: אודכה IV, 29; IV,38; אודכה אדוני VI, 34; אודכה אדוני כי X, 22; X, 33; XI, 38; XII, 6; XIII, 7; XV, 6; XV, 26; XV, 34; XVI, 5; XVII, 38; אודכה אלי כי XIX, 6; XIX, 18.

[37] As in Jer 33:11; Ps 52:11, 54:8, 106:1, 107:1, 118:1, 118:29, 136:1, 2, 3; Ezra 3:11; 1Chr 16:34; 2 Chr 7:3.

[38] As in Jer 33:11; Ps 106:1, 107:1, 118:1, 29, 136:1, 2, 3, 26, 138:2; Ezra 3:11; 1 Chr 16:34, 41; 2Chr 7:3, 6, 20:21.

[39] Τhe single exception is because the subject is plural, God’s eyes.

[40] 1QH^a XIII 7–8 has the poet dwelling among a foreign people in parallel with saving his life from the pit: אודכה אדוני כי לא עזבתני בגורי בעם נכר[י ... ולא ]כאשמתי שפטתני לא עזבתני בזמות יצרי ותעזור משחת חיי.

1QH^a XIII 9–13 likewise describes a salvation more clearly past- or present- realized.

[41] This is possibly because as a rule the parallel phrases begin with waw.

[42] The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986), §310.122.

[43] מרחב פתחתה בלבבי

[44] 1QH^a V, 16; XIII, 22; XIV, 3; XIV, 17; XVI, 18; XVII, 17; XXI, 17.

[45] According to BDB, the verb יצר is used to mean “preordain” in Is 22:11; Is 37:26=2Kgs 19:25; Jer 18:11; Jer 33:2. In these instances it is events or times which are preordained, not to persons, but the connotation would still have been available for our poet to use.

[46] Each strophe in this poem is an expansion on the last line of the previous strophe, according to Puech’s divisions; this consistent pattern confirms the validity of this strophic division.

[47] He lumps the three perfects together, ignoring the blank as an indicator of a strophe division.

[48] Puech sees a possible עו here; the reading used by Kuhn, אמתכה, is by analogy to lines 7 and 12. The dependence on column XI also makes עולם more likely.

[49] According the Puech’s division, this crosses a strophe boundary.

[50] Qimron, Hebrew, §310.16; Waltke & O’Connor, Syntax, §26.3a.

[51] Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 174