2. See, for example, the entry by Paul, Shalom, Sperling, S. David, Rabinowitz, Louis, Lerner, Ralph, Kreisel, Howard, and Wurzburger, Walter, “Prophets and Prophecy,” in the Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., ed. Berenbaum, Michael and Skolnik, Fred (Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 2007), 16:566–86Google Scholar. The section on ancient prophecy surveys many of the common issues addressed in standard discussions of prophecy in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Israel. The following section treats prophecy in the Talmud. Here, the brief discussion focuses on the rabbinic view of Moses’ prophetic status and the rabbinic rejection of prophetic legal innovation. Absent from either of these treatments is any discussion of ongoing prophetic activity in ancient Judaism or the reception and conceptualization of prophecy in Second Temple and rabbinic literature.

3. Nissinen, Martti, preface to Prophecy in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical and Arabian Perspectives, ed. Nissinen, M. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), viiGoogle Scholar; see also the article by David L. Petersen in the same volume, “Defining Prophecy and Prophetic Literature,” 33–46. By emphasizing the importance of prophecy as the transmission of a divine message, Nissinen's definition is adaptable to different social and religious contexts, while at the same time resists labeling all human–divine communication as prophecy. See also the complementary definition of a “prophet” found in Kugel, James L., How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now (New York: Free Press, 2007), 439Google Scholar: “a messenger sent by God to speak on His behalf.”

4. On prophetic revelation, see von Rad, Gerhard, Old Testament Theology, vol. 2, The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 59–63Google Scholar; and Grabbe, Lester L., Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-Historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel (Valley Forge: Trinity, 1995), 107–12Google Scholar.

5. Thus, Kugel's definition (see n. 3 herein) emphasizes the prophet as a divine messenger. This role is generally understood as divinely mandated, though it is sometimes also self-sanctioned or determined by the people. This understanding of prophecy comports with the commonly understood etymology of the Hebrew title נביא. Scholars trace this word to the Semitic cognate nabû (to name, invoke) and the נביא is therefore “one who is called by God”—a divine spokesperson. See Albright, William F., From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1946), 231–32Google Scholar; and Koch, Klaus, The Prophets, vol. 1, The Assyrian Period (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983), 16Google Scholar. See also the recent challenge to this hypothesis in Fleming, Daniel E., “The Etymological Origins of the Hebrew nābî’: The One Who Invokes God,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 217–24Google Scholar; and further defense of the traditional understanding in Huehnegard, John, “On the Etymology and Meaning of Hebrew nābî’,” Eretz-Israel 26 (1999): 88*–93*Google Scholar.

6. This aspect rules out other modes of religious piety that are only interested in the immediate human–divine exchange (e.g., mysticism) (cf. n. 3 herein). On the content of the divine message and its prophetic articulation, see the foundational work of Westermann, Claus, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (Cambridge: Lutterworth; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991)Google Scholar.

7. On this function, see Muffs, Yochanan, “Who Will Stand in the Breach? A Study of Prophetic Intercession,” in Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 9–48Google Scholar. On further roles of the prophet, see Kugel, How to Read the Bible, 440.

8. The validation of one's prophetic claims by an audience thus creates a subclassification of prophecy as either “true” or “false.” These value judgments are placed on the prophecy not as objective criteria for access to the divine. Rather, the audience may deem a prophetic message to be incommensurate with the divine word and will and thus “false.” Yet in many cases, the experience is still identified with the terminological rubric “prophecy.” See further discussion in Crenshaw, James L., Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect upon Israelite Religion (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971), 1–4Google Scholar; cf. Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 289–90. Indeed, as we shall see later, the Qumran texts identify their opponents as “lying prophets” (1QH^a 12). This designation, following biblical precedent, retains the classification of “prophets,” while simultaneously maligning their prophetic character as “lying” and thus identifying them as illegitimate prophets.

9. On this characteristic of the prophetic experience, see Overholt, Thomas W., Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1989)Google Scholar; and, more recently, Doan, William and Giles, Terry, Prophets, Performances, and Power: Performance Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2005)Google Scholar. For a more comprehensive treatment of the social context of prophecy, see Wilson, Robert R., Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980)Google Scholar.

10. Namely, the biblical authors identify such individuals as prophets using these termini techni. Individuals engaging in this activity do not always claim for themselves such prophetic status or employ these titles as self-designations. See, for example, Amos's rejection of any prophetic pretensions (Amos 7:14).

11. See Wellhausen, Julius, Prolegomenon to the History of Ancient Israel (Cleveland, OH: Meridian, 1965), 402–404Google Scholar; Meyer, Rudolph, “Prophecy and Prophets in the Judaism of the Hellenistic-Roman Period,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Kittel, Gerhard and Friedrich, Gerhard (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–76), 6:812–16Google Scholar; Kaufmann, Yehezkel, Toledot ha-’emunah ha-yisra'elit (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1955), 4:378–403Google Scholar; Giblet, J., “Prophétisme et attente d'un messie prophète dans l'ancien judaïsme,” in L'attente d'un messie, ed. Cerfaux, L. (Bruges: Desclés de Brouwer, 1958), 91Google Scholar; Cross, Frank M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 223Google Scholar; Hanson, Paul D., The Dawn of the Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 16Google Scholar; Petersen, David L., Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), 2–6Google Scholar; Koch, Klaus, The Prophets, vol. 2, The Babylonian and Persian Periods (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983), 187–89Google Scholar; Wilson, Prophecy and Society, 306–307; Mason, Rex, “The Prophets of the Restoration,” in Israel's Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd, ed. Coggins, R., Phillips, A., and Knibb, M. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 140–42Google Scholar; Barton, John, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1986), 266–73Google Scholar; Talmon, Shemaryahu, “The Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism in the Early Second Temple Period,” in King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986), 179–80Google Scholar; Sheppard, Gerald T., “True and False Prophecy within Scripture,” in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, ed. Tucker, G. M., Petersen, D. L., and Wilson, R. R. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1988), 273–75Google Scholar; Sommer, Benjamin D., “Did Prophecy Cease? Reevaluating a Reevaluation,” Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1995): 31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Meyers, Eric M., “The Crisis in the Mid-Fifth Century B.C.E. Second Zechariah and the ‘End’ of Prophecy,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. Wright, D. P., Freedman, D. N., and Hurvitz, A. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 713–23Google Scholar. For a fuller discussion of the various theories offered to explain the end of prophecy, see Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 12–13 n. 26. My earlier discussion should now be supplemented by Kugel, How to Read the Bible, 440. Kugel follows earlier scholars (e.g., Talmon) in viewing the prominence of prophecy as directly related to the existence of the monarchy. Kugel explains this correspondence by identifying the institution of prophecy as a system of checks and balances for the monarchy. With the disappearance of the latter during the Babylonian exile, prophecy lost its primary purpose.

12. See Psalm 74:9; 1 Maccabees 9:27, 4:46, 14:41; Josephus, Against Apion 1.41; Baruch 1:21; Prayer of Azariah 15; 2 Baruch 85:1; as well as several statements in later rabbinic literature: M. Sotah 9:12; T. Sotah 13:2–3; B. Sanhedrin 11a; B. Yoma’ 9b; B. Sotah 48b; Canticles Rabbah 8:9 3; and Seder Olam Rabba 30.

13. See further discussion in Urbach, Ephraim E., “Matai pasekah ha-nevu'ah?” Tarbiẓ 17 (1945–46): 1–11Google Scholar; repr. in Weinfeld, Moshe, ed., Mikra'ah be-ḥeker ha-mikra (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979), 58–68Google Scholar; repr. in Urbach, Ephraim E., Me-‘olamam shel ḥakhamim: koveẓ meḥkarim (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 9–20Google Scholar; Greenspahn, Frederick E., “Why Prophecy Ceased,” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Floyd, Michael H., introduction to Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, ed. Floyd, M. H. and Haak, R. D. (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006), 1–25Google Scholar; and Kugel, How to Read the Bible, 633.

14. On late Second Temple–period evidence, see Urbach, “Matai?” 3–6; Hengel, Martin, The Zealots (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989), 229–45Google Scholar; Aune, David E., Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), 103–106 (cf. older bibliography cited at 375 n. 12)Google Scholar; Horsley, Richard A., “‘Like One of the Prophets of Old’: Two Types of Popular Prophets at the Time of Jesus,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 (1985): 435–63Google Scholar; idem, “Popular Prophetic Movements at the Time of Jesus: Their Principal Features and Social Origins,” in New Testament Backgrounds: A Sheffield Reader, ed. C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 124–48; repr. from Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986): 3–27; Stawsky, Daniel B. R., “Prophecy: Crisis and Change at the End of Second Temple Period,” Journal of the Service Internationale de Documentation Judeo-Chrétienne 20 (1987): 13–20Google Scholar; Greenspahn, “Why Prophecy Ceased,” 40–41; Bockmuehl, Markus N. A., Revelation in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 58–60Google Scholar; Stemberger, Günter, “Propheten und Prophetie in der Tradition des nachbiblischen Judentums,” Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 14 (1999): 145–74Google Scholar; Grabbe, Lester L., “Poets, Scribes, or Preachers? The Reality of Prophecy in the Second Temple Period,” in Knowing the End from the Beginning, ed. Grabbe, L. L. and Haak, R. D. (London: T. & T. Clark, 2003), 192–215Google Scholar; repr. from Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 37 (1998): 524–45.

15. See, for example, the description of Judah the Essene in War 1.78–80 (discussed later). On contemporary prophecy in Josephus, see Meyer, “Prophecy and Prophets,” 6:823–27; Blenkinsopp, Joseph, “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus,” Journal of Jewish Studies 25 (1974): 239–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Louis H. Feldman, “Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus,” in Floyd and Haak, Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts, 210–39; repr. from Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1990): 386–422; Ingelaere, Jean-Claude, “L'inspiration prophétique dans le judaïsme: Le témoignage de Flavius Josèphe,” Etudes Théologiques et Religieuses 62 (1987): 236–45Google Scholar; Gray, Rebecca, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Gnuse, Robert K., Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus: A Traditio-Critical Analysis (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 22–24Google Scholar; Stemberger, “Propheten,” 149–52; and Grabbe, Lester L., “Thus Spake the Prophet Josephus…: The Jewish Historian on Prophets and Prophecy,” in Floyd and Haak, Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts, 240–47Google Scholar.

16. See, for example, the prophetic identity applied to Jesus in Matthew 21:10–11. The most thorough treatment of prophecy in early Christianity is Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World.

17. It is well known that evidence from Josephus is notoriously difficult to use in order to reconstruct Jewish society in the Second Temple period (see, e.g., the treatment of Josephus's presentation of contemporary views on life after death in Elledge, C. D., Life after Death in Early Judaism: The Evidence of Josephus [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006]Google Scholar). My use of Josephan prophetic terminology here is therefore aware of the possible pitfalls of translating Josephus's literary presentation into a statement of social reality. At the same time, there does not seem to be any indication that Josephus is reformatting prophecy and prophetic terminology in Second Temple Jewish society to comport with the language of his Hellenistic audience or to craft a positive portrait of Judaism. Rather, I am suggesting that Josephus, as a participant in Second Temple Judaism, witnesses the various Second Temple period transformations of biblical prophecy. He is acutely aware of the modified character of prophecy in his own time and therefore deliberately employs distinct terminology to mark this change.

18. This feature has been well documented in the scholarly literature. See Reiling, Jannes, “The Use of ΨEYΔOΠPOΦHTHΣ in the Septuagint, Philo and Josephus,” Novem Testamentum 13 (1971): 156Google Scholar; Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood,” 240, 262; and Gray, Prophetic Figures, 23–26. Two exceptions are treated in Aune, David E., “The Use of ΠPOΦHTHΣ in Josephus,” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 419–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar. An additional exception where the verb προφητείαν (War 1.68) is employed in reference to John Hyrcanus is observed by Sommer, “Did Prophecy Cease?” 40 n. 36.

19. On Judah the Essene in Josephus, see in general, Gray, Prophetic Figures, 92–95.

20. On the predictive character of prophecy in Josephus, see Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood,” 242–46; Feldman, “Prophets and Prophecy,” 227–30; and Gray, Prophetic Figures, 30–34.

21. See, for example, Thakeray, H. St. J., Josephus: The Man and the Historian (New York: Ktav, 1968), 79Google Scholar; Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood,” 240; and Beckwith, Roger, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985), 371–72Google Scholar.

22. See Leiman, Sid Z., “Josephus and the Canon of the Bible,” in Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. Feldman, L. H. and Hata, G. (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 56Google Scholar. A similar argument is advanced in Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood,” 241; Gray, Prophetic Figures, 23–26; and Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports, 23.

23. See further similar treatment of these general questions in Petersen, David L., “Rethinking the End of Prophecy,” in Wünschent Jerusalem Frieden: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986, ed. Augustin, M. and Schunck, K. D. (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1988), 65–71Google Scholar; and Kugel, How to Read the Bible, 633.

24. See n. 20 herein.

25. See Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood”; and Feldman, “Prophets and Prophecy.”

26. On Josephus's self-identification as a prophet, see discussion in Gray, Prophetic Figures, 35–39; and Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports, 21–33.

27. A similar method has been applied in varying degrees to several different literary corpora. See, for example, William, M. Schniedewind's study of prophecy in Chronicles, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995)Google Scholar. As Schniedewind asserts, Chronicles is “on the one hand, an interpretation of ancient prophecy and, on the other hand, a reflection of post-exilic prophecy itself” (22). See also the study of Ben Sira's portrait of the ancient prophets in his “Hymn to the Fathers” (44:1–50:24) in Stadelmann, Helge, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter: Eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild des vor-makkabäischen Sofer unter Berücksichtigung seines Verhältnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehrertum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980)Google Scholar. See further analysis of these larger methodological questions in Barton, Oracles of God, esp. 266–70.

28. For a general treatment of prophecy in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Betz, Otto, Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960)Google Scholar; Burrows, Miller, “Prophecy and the Prophets at Qumran,” in Israel's Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. Anderson, B. W. and Harelson, W. (New York: Harper, 1962), 223–32Google Scholar; Mordechai Rotem, “Ha-nevu'ah be-kitve ‘adat Qumran” (master's thesis, Hebrew University, 1977); Brin, Gershon, “Tefisat ha-nevu'ah ha-mikra'it be-kitve Qumran,” in “Sha‘arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. Fishbane, M. and Tov, E. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 101*–12*Google Scholar; Freedman, David Noel, “Prophecy in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Faith: In Celebration of the Jubilee Year of the Discovery of Qumran Cave 1, ed. Charlesworth, J. H. and Weaver, W. P. (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998), 42–57Google Scholar; Barstad, Hans, “Prophecy at Qumran?” in In the Last Days: On Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic and Its Period, ed. Jeppsen, K., Nielsen, K., and Rosendal, B. (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1996), 104–20Google Scholar; Bowley, James E., “Prophets and Prophecy at Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, ed. VanderKam, J. C. and Flint, P. W. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998–99), 344–78Google Scholar; Brooke, George J., “Prophecy,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. VanderKam, J. C. and Schiffman, L. H. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2:694–700Google Scholar; idem., “Prophecy and Prophets in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Looking Backwards and Forwards,” in Floyd and Haak, Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts, 151–65; and Nissinen, Martti, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries: The Prophetic Role of Wisdom Teachers in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Scripture in Transition: Essays on the Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, ed. Voitila, A. and Jokiranta, J. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2008), 513–33Google Scholar. Several additional general studies of prophecy in the Second Temple period briefly treat the Qumran material. See Meyer, “Prophecy and Prophets,” 6:820; Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 101–102; Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, 126, 132–35; Horsley, Richard A. and Hanson, John S., Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus (Minneapolis, MN: Winston, 1985), 155–57Google Scholar; Barton, Oracles of God, passim; Bockmuehl, Revelation, 42–56; Gray, Prophetic Figures, 105–107; Schniedewind, Word of God, 242–43; and Stemberger, “Propheten,” 145–49.

29. Qumran scholarship has recognized that the community that produced and preserved the Dead Sea Scrolls underwent various stages in its historical and ideological development. Numerous documents are identified as representative of early formative stages of the community. Likewise, some sectarian documents such as the Damascus Document may indicate different parts of a parent movement to which the Qumran community belonged. Furthermore, redaction-critical approaches to the numerous manuscripts of the Rule of the Community and the Damascus Document have demonstrated that these texts underwent several compositional stages. In all likelihood, several of these compositional layers reflect historical and ideological developments within the sectarian community. Thus, the term “Qumran community” ultimately refers to a movement in a fairly constant state of historical and religious development. See the discussion in Davies, Philip R., The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document” (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983)Google Scholar; more recently, Boccaccini, Gabriele, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998)Google Scholar; Collins, John J., “Forms of Community in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. Paul, S. M. et al. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003), 97–111Google Scholar; and idem, “The Yahad and the ‘Qumran Community,’” in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb, ed. C. Hempel and J. H. Lieu (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2006), 81–96. Some of the discussion of prophecy in the community is informed by these considerations. For example, my study of law and prophecy at Qumran (Jassen, Alex P., “The Presentation of the Ancient Prophets as Lawgivers at Qumran,” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 [2008]: 307–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar) treats some modifications in sectarian attitudes as evinced by redactional developments in several keys texts.

30. On the contents of the Qumran library and its classificatory divisions, see Dimant, Devorah, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990, ed. Dimant, D. and Schiffman, L. H. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 23–58Google Scholar; and, more recently, idem, “The Library of Qumran: Its Content and Character,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997, ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), 170–76. For a discussion of methodological rubrics for distinguishing between sectarian and nonsectarian manuscripts, see Newsom, Carol A., “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, ed. Propp, W. H., Halpern, B., and Freedman, D. N. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 167–87Google Scholar. On the distinction between sectarian and nonsectarian texts, see later discussion.

31. The sectarian community of the Dead Sea Scrolls is commonly identified by scholars as the Essenes based on numerous parallels between the community as described in the scrolls and the Essenes as known from classical sources (see Beall, Todd S., Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988]CrossRefGoogle Scholar). While this community may very well be Essenes or some closely related group, my interest here is primarily in what we can determine about the community based on the material from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The harmonization of information about the Essenes from Josephus and Philo with the description of the sectarian community in the scrolls is problematic and should be avoided. See the discussion in Baumgarten, Albert I., “The Rule of the Martian as Applied to Qumran,” Israel Oriental Studies 14 (1994): 121–42Google Scholar. This is especially true with regard to the study of prophecy. Josephus often discusses prophecy among the Essenes and identifies specific Essenes as prophets (see Gray, Prophetic Figures, 80–111). Very little in this description comports with the evidence regarding prophecy in the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most often discussed parallel between the Essene prophets in Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls is Josephus's report that the Essenes predicted the future with the aid of scripture (War 2.159). Scholars have long suggested that this is identical to the inspired interpretation of scripture espoused in the Qumran Pesharim (see, e.g., Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood,” 247; and Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, 133–34). More careful analysis of these questions, however, has convincingly demonstrated that, notwithstanding superficial similarities, these two phenomena are in fact quite different. See, in particular, Gray, Prophetic Figures, 105–107; see also Rotem, “Ha-nevu'ah,” 68–73; and Barstad, “Prophecy at Qumran?” 120.

32. Michel, A., Le maître de justice d ’après les documents de la mer Morte, la littérature apocryphe et rabbinique (Avignon: Maison Aubanel père, 1954), 267–69Google Scholar; Dupont-Sommer, André, “Le Livre des Hymnes découvert près de la Mer Morte (1QH),” Semitica (1957): 13–16Google Scholar; Teeple, Howard M., The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1957), 52Google Scholar; Jeremias, Gert, Die Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 141Google Scholar; Schultz, Paul, Der Autoritätsanspruch des Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit (Meisenhaim am Glan: Anton Hain, 1974), 214Google Scholar; Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 101–102; Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, 132–33; and Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries,” 532.

33. Michel, Le maître de justice, 267–69; Dupont-Sommer, “Hymnes,” 13–16; Betz, Offenbarung, 88–92; Jeremias, Lehrer, 141; Rotem, “Ha-nevu'ah,” 27–37; Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, 132–33; and Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries,” 528–30.

34. See Burrows, “Prophecy and the Prophets at Qumran,” 225; Rotem, “Ha-nevu'ah,” 32; Barton, Oracles of God, 197; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 155–57; Bockmuehl, Revelation, 49; Brin, “Tefisat ha-nevu'ah ha-mikra'it be-kitve Qumran,” 112*; Schniedewind, Word of God, 242–43; Bowley, “Prophets and Prophecy at Qumran,” 371; and Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries,” 514–15.

35. Indeed, it is this precise method that compels Barstad, in “Prophecy at Qumran?” to conclude that prophecy was not a live phenomenon at Qumran. Barstad reaches this conclusion through careful analysis of explicit prophetic terminology in the Qumran corpus (i.e., נביא). The exclusive reliance on biblical prophetic terminology ultimately misses a much wider and variegated world of prophecy in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

36. For a similar application of this methodological approach, see Brooke, “Prophecy and Prophets.” Brooke correctly observes that any discussion of prophecy at Qumran must expand beyond biblical notions of prophecy. He therefore examines several phenomena that he argues were regarded as prophetic by the Qumran community. The most important of these phenomena is the inspired interpretation and rewriting of scripture. Indeed, my analysis of scriptural interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls yields a similar understanding of the prophetic context for this activity.

37. See further Nissinen's recent treatment of prophecy in the Dead Sea Scrolls, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries,” esp. 515–17. In addressing the terminological issue, Nissinen argues that we must be flexible in our understanding of both the language of prophecy and the scholarly construct of its social features. My approach here follows Nissinen's emphasis on human transmission of divine messages as the central feature of prophetic activity (see n. 3 herein). Much material in the Dead Sea Scrolls purports to reflect an encounter with the divine. In order to label such phenomena as prophecy, however, we must be able to demonstrate that the community viewed this activity as the human transmission of the word of God and that this activity was regarded as continuing the prophetic activity of ancient Israelite prophecy.

38. Space, unfortunately, does not permit a full exploration of all the textual evidence that supports my arguments. I have selected several illustrative examples that I see as foundational to the community's prophetic character and therefore to my argument. For a fuller discussion of each of these texts, as well as treatment of additional examples, see Jassen, Mediating the Divine. I will indicate the specific references in the appropriate place in the notes. One area not treated here is the prophetic framework for the formation of law in the Qumran community. Elsewhere, I argue that the community viewed its legislative process as a prophetic experience and as commensurate with what it conceptualized as the prophetic lawgiving of the ancient prophets. See Jassen, “Ancient Prophets as Lawgivers.”

39. For a full discussion of the textual evidence, see Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 25–131 (ancient prophets), 157–96 (eschatological prophet). See also Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries,” 517–25.

40. See similar remarks in Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries,” 517.

41. Here, I am referring specifically to sectarian documents. Prophetic language also appears in several nonsectarian texts. Such texts are helpful for ascertaining larger conceptions of prophecy in the Second Temple period. For example, several of these texts treat issues dealing with false and illegitimate prophets (4Q339, List of False Prophets; 4Q375, Moses Apocryphon; 11Q19 54:8–18, Temple Scroll). Foremost, these texts indicate that prophecy was active in wider segments of Second Temple Judaism (see Brooke, “Prophecy and Prophets,” 158–60). They further point to larger concerns with false and illegitimate prophecy in Second Temple Judaism. The extant Qumran texts provide some indication of the various individual and institutional responses. The presence of such texts at Qumran suggests that the Qumran community shared some of these concerns. For a full discussion of the significance of these texts, see Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 299–306.

42. I am following the reordering of the columns advocated by Stegemann and Puech. Following Sukenik's ordering, this hymn is 1QH^a 4:5–17. For a recent edition and translation, see Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, and Edward Cook, with Gordon, Nechamia, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, ed. Parry, D. W. and Tov, E. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005), 26–27Google Scholar (the translations here follow this edition, unless otherwise noted). The Cave 4 Hodayot manuscripts preserve some fragmentary text parallel to the Cave 1 material (4Q430 1 //1QH^a 12:13–19; 4Q432 8 1//1QH^a 12:10). See Schuller, Eileen, in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXIX: Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2, ed. Nitzan, B. et al. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 197 (4Q430), 224 (4Q432)Google Scholar. Only one possible variant exists among the manuscripts (4Q430 1 7//1QH^a 12:18). Extended discussion of this hymn can be found in Licht, Jacob, Megillat ha-hodayot: me-megillot midbar yehudah (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1957), 90–91Google Scholar; Holm-Nielsen, Svend, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (Aargus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960), 79, 89–90Google Scholar; Michael C. Douglas, “Power and Praise in the Hodayot: A Literary Critical Study of 1QH 9:1–18:14” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1998), 1:99–112; Newsom, Carol A., The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004), 311–25Google Scholar; Hughes, Julie A., Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2006), 95–134Google Scholar; and Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 80, 280–90. See also the earlier (and less useful) study in Sonne, Isaac, “A Hymn against Heretics in the Newly Discovered Scrolls and its Gnostic Background,” Hebrew Union College Annual 23 (1950–51): 275–313Google Scholar.

43. Scholarly treatment of the authorship and Sitz im Leben of the Hodayot has generated a number of different models (see Douglas, “Power and Praise in the Hodayot,” 1:1–76, for a recent thorough treatment of these issues). Here I am following the model originally presented by Jeremias and modified in varying degrees by later scholars. Jeremias observed that certain generic and literary features indicate the existence of two distinct literary units in the Hodayot. He designated one group the Teacher hymns (columns 10–17) on account of numerous overlaps between the hymnist's personal statements and the biographical information supplied about the Teacher of Righteousness in other sectarian literature such as the pesharim. The surrounding community hymns were seen as the product of the more general Qumran community (see Douglas, ibid., for a recent defense and augmentation of Jeremias's proposal). Based on this understanding, the hymn in column 12 represents a personal statement of the Teacher of Righteousness that attests both to his personal experience of rejection and his individual claims to divine revelation. Even if the hymn is not composed entirely by the Teacher, the author of this hymn was clearly an influential leader of the community (I therefore refer to the author of this hymn merely as the hymnist). Accordingly, this hymn offers unique insight into the revelatory claims of the community's leadership.

44. The second half (12:29–13:4) represents an independent section that describes the failings of human beings and the resultant shortcomings of the individual. On the division of the two sections, see the discussion in Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis, 103–104. My interest here is only in the first section.

45. On the possible prophetic nuances of מליץ (ll. 7, 9), see Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot, 161 n. 29; Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis, 107; and Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries,” 531. See also 4Q171 (4QpPs^a) 1–10 i 27.

46. The presence of contemporary prophetic activity in this hymn is noted in Barstad, “Prophecy at Qumran?” 116–17. The limited purview of Barstad's study (see n. 35 herein), however, prevents any examination of its larger significance for understanding the wider context of prophecy in the Qumran corpus.

47. The suggestion was first made by Sukenik, Eliezer L., Megillot genuzot: sekira sheniyah (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1950), 43Google Scholar, and has since been repeated by several scholars: Mansoor, Menachem, The Thanksgiving Hymns: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961), 122–23Google Scholar; and Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis, 80; cf. Licht, Megillat ha-hodayot, 91. On the restoration, see discussion in Mansoor and Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 370 n. 30.

48. See also Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot, 80, who understands this expression as a “technical term for the perfect revelation which the members have shared.”

49. To be sure, the root יפע is less common as a designation for revelation compared to the root גלה. See Deuteronomy 33:2; and Psalm 50:2, 80:2, 94:1. The root also appears in 1QH^a 17:31, 23:5–7. See further Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot, 80–81; and Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis, 106.

50. This similarity is noted by Licht, Megillat ha-hodayot, 91; Douglas, “Power and Praise in the Hodayot,” 1:105; and Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis, 104. Note as well that the elements of the inclusio appear in a chiastic structure. Hughes (following Brownlee and De Vries) further observes that the language of illuminating the face of the hymnist may be a “subtle typological allusion” to the description of Moses as he descended from Sinai (Exodus 34:39). See Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis, 105. The alignment with Moses and Sinai may be an additional attempt to assert the hymnist's intimate relationship with God.

51. See the further treatment of the literary features of the oppositional language in Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis, 105–16.

52. The waw should be understood here as an adversative waw, further underscoring the combative relationship.

53. For a full discussion of this reconstruction, see Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 282 n. 12.

54. The final two sentences are translated following the emendation of נמאסו (l. 9) to נמאסתי (Licht, Megillat ha-hodayot, 92; and Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis, 98; translation follows Hughes).

55. Line 21 states that no רמיה is in God. This is intended, however, to mirror the repeated use of the word to describe the opponents. For further discussion of this and other keywords in the hymn, see Douglas, “Power and Praise in the Hodayot,” 1:109; and Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis, 107.

56. For the former term, see CD 5:20; 1QpHab 10:9; 4Q169 3–4 ii 8; 4QpPs^a 1–10 i 26–27 (see further Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 284–85). The latter expression appears two other times in the Hodayot, as the more well-known phrase דורשי חלקות, “seekers of smooth things” (1QH^a 10:15, 32). See further CD 1:18; 4Q163 23 ii 10; 4Q169 3–4 i 2, 7; 3–4 ii 2, 4; 3–4 iii 3, 7; cf. 4Q266 2 i 21. For a full discussion, see Wieder, Naphtali, The Judean Scrolls and Karaism (London: East and West Library, 1962), 135–40Google Scholar; Flusser, David, “Perushim, ẓaddukim, ve-’issi'im be-fesher naḥum,” in Sefer zikaron le-gedaliahu alon: meḥkarim be-toldot yisra'el ube-lashon ha-‘ivrit, ed. Dorman, M., Safrai, S., and Stern, M. (Jerusalem: Hakibbutz Hameuhad, 1970), 136–37Google Scholar; trans. in “Pharisäer, Sadduzäer und Essener im Pescher Nahum,” in Qumran, ed. K. E. Grözinger (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981), 121–66; Baumgarten, Albert I., “The Name of the Pharisees,” Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1983): 421–22Google Scholar, esp. n. 42; idem, “Seekers after Smooth Things,” in VanderKam and Schiffman, Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:857–58; Doudna, Gregory L., 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 491–511Google Scholar; Berrin, Shani L., The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004), 92–99Google Scholar; and VanderKam, James C., “Those Who Look for Smooth Things, Pharisees, and Oral Law,” in Paul, Emanuel, 465–77Google Scholar.

57. See Maier, Johann, “Weitere Stücke zum Nahumkommentar aus der Höhle 4 von Qumran,” Judaica 18 (1962): 234–37Google Scholar; Baumgarten, Joseph M., “The Unwritten Law in the Pre-Rabbinic Period,” in Studies in Qumran Law (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 32 n. 78Google Scholar; Schiffman, Lawrence H., “Pharisees and Sadducees in Pesher Naḥum,” in Minḥah le-Naḥum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday, ed. Brettler, M. and Fishbane, M. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 276–77Google Scholar; and VanderKam, “Those Who Look for Smooth Things,” 466. Some have objected that the term halakhot cannot be positively identified with Pharisaic legal practices and thus one should not immediately assume that the דורשי חלקות are the Pharisees. See, for example, Meier, John P., “Is There Halaka (the Noun) at Qumran,” Journal of Biblical Literature 122 (2003): 150–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 308–309 (see further, Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 491–511). See also the alternative explanations of Cross, Jeremias, and Stegemann as treated in Baumgarten, “Name of the Pharisees,” 421 n. 42.

58. Schiffman, “Pharisees and Sadducees,” 277.

59. This theme of the legal activity of the community and its leaders as a divinely sanctioned prophetic experience is drawn out more fully in several other sectarian texts (see 1QS 5:8–9, 8:15–16, 9:13–14). For a full discussion of these texts and the phenomenon, see Jassen “Ancient Prophets as Lawgivers,” esp. 319–22, 329–34.

60. See further Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 323.

61. The term רבים here may merely designate a larger audience. Alternatively, it may be understood in its narrowly sectarian sense as the “members of the community” (1QS 6:7–21). See the similar expression ולהאיר פני רבים, “to illuminate the face of the Many,” in 1QSb 4:27.

62. Cf. Davila, James R., “Heavenly Ascents in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in VanderKam and Flint, Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, 2:477–78Google Scholar; and Nickelsburg, George W. E., Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity, and Transformation (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 97Google Scholar.

63. For a general discussion of this phenomenon, see Blenkinsopp, Joseph, Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 128–32Google Scholar; Aune, David E., “Charismatic Exegesis in Early Judaism and Early Christianity,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, ed. Charlesworth, J. H. and Evans, C. A. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 126–50Google Scholar. The phenomenon I refer to is described by different scholars with a variety of terminology—for example, “literary prophecy” or “charismatic exegesis.” My avoidance of the term “prophecy” is deliberate and intended to indicate that the Second Temple writers clearly distinguished between biblical prophetic revelatory models and those of their own time. In addition, while many individuals engaged in this activity can be described as having a charismatic or pneumatic experience, this is not necessarily universal. Thus, my use of “exegesis” is intended to emphasize that this process involves the reading and interpretation of scripture, while “revelatory” indicates that this act was considered as a viable means of mediating the divine word and commensurate with the revelatory models in which the ancient prophets received the word of God (see further, Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 203–207).

64. On Ezekiel, see Joachim Schaper, “The Death of the Prophet: The Transition from the Spoken to the Written Word of God in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Floyd and Haak, Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts, 63–79, esp. 64–65. On Daniel, see the following discussion.

65. Schniedewind, Word of God; see also Meyer, “Prophecy and Prophets,” 6:819; Hengel, Zealots, 234–35; Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, 128–32; Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, 133, 339–46; idem, “Charismatic Exegesis,” 126–50; Barton, Oracles of God, 179–213; Collins, John J., “Jewish Apocalypticism against Its Hellenistic Near Eastern Environment,” in Seers, Sibyls and Sages (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), 69–72Google Scholar; repr. from Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 220 (1975): 27–36; Kugel, How to Read the Bible, 633–34; Martti Nissinen, “Pesharim as Divination: Qumran Exegesis, Omen Interpretation and Literary Prophecy,” in On Prophecy in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Hebrew Bible, ed. K. De Troyer and A. Lange (Louvain: Peeters, forthcoming). Thank you to Dr. Nissinen for providing me with a prepublication copy of this article.

66. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, 132; and Aune, “Charismatic Exegesis,” 128–29.

67. For consideration of space, I limit my discussion to Daniel 9. The phenomenon I am describing here can be found in several additional biblical and parabiblical texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In particular, several of the apocryphal Daniel texts in the Qumran corpus (4Q243–245), though often prohibitively fragmentary, seem to evince similar features as those that I am describing in Daniel 9. See full discussion in Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 221–25. See also the discussion of the related phenomenon in 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C in ibid., 225–30.

68. My use of the terms “canonical” and “apocryphal” is intended to reflect our current classification of the works. It is very likely that many of the Daniel texts were considered scripturally sacred in the Qumran community in varying degrees (though only the canonical Daniel is cited authoritatively; see n. 80 herein). For the eight manuscripts of the canonical Daniel, see Barthélemy, Dominique and Milik, Josef T., eds., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert I: Qumran Cave 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), 150–52 (Cave 1)Google Scholar; Ulrich, Eugene et al. , eds., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XVI: Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 239–90 (Cave 4)Google Scholar; Baillet, Maurice, Milik, Josef T., and de Vaux, Roland, eds., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert III: Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumrân (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 114–16 (Cave 6)Google Scholar. On the manuscripts in general, see Ulrich, Eugene, “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. Collins, J. J. and Flint, P. W. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001), 573–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Apocryphal material related to Daniel includes the 4QPrayer of Nabonidus (4Q242), 4QPseudo-Daniel^a-b (4Q243–244), 4QPseudo-Daniel^c (4Q245), 4QApocryphon of Daniel (4Q246), 4QFour Kingdoms^a-b (4Q552–553), and 4QDaniel-Susanna? (4Q551). On this collection of texts, see Beyer, Klaus, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 223–25Google Scholar; Martínez, Florentino García, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992), 116–79Google Scholar; Brooke, George J., “Parabiblical Phophetic Narratives,” in VanderKam and Flint, Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, 1:290–97Google Scholar; and Flint, Peter W., “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” in The Book of Daniel, 329–67Google Scholar. Some of the Pseudo-Daniel texts were first published, along with the Prayer of Nabonidus, in Milik, Josef T., “‘Prière de Nabonide’ et autres écrits d'un cycle de Daniel: Fragments araméens de Qumrân 4,” Revue Biblique 63 (1956): 407–15Google Scholar. See now Collins (4Q242), Collins and Flint (4Q243-245), and Puech (4Q246) in Brooke, George J. et al. , eds., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXII: Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 83–184Google Scholar. The remainder of the texts (4Q551–553) will be published by Puech in volume 37 of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert.

69. On Daniel in general at Qumran, see Collins, John J., Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997), 12–18Google Scholar.

70. See, for example, Meyer, “Prophecy and Prophets,” 6:819–20; Hengel, Zealots, 234–35; and Barton, Oracles of God, 180–81.

71. See Daniel 7:1, 8:1, 10:1, 11:1.

72. 7:1—“Daniel saw a dream and a vision of his mind on his bed”; 8:1–2—“A vision appeared to me, to me, Daniel, after the one that had appeared to me earlier. I saw a vision…”; 10:1—“An oracle was revealed to Daniel, who was called Beltshazzar. The oracle was true, but it was a great task to understand the prophecy; understanding came to him through a vision.”

73. This point is generally recognized within scholarship on this chapter. See Goldingay, John E., Daniel (Waco, TX: Word, 1989), 231Google Scholar; Collins, “Jewish Apocalypticism,” 70.

74. 1:17, 8:5, 9:23, 10:11; cf. 8:27. The use of this verbal root also underscores the sapiential character of Daniel's activity. See section V herein.

75. See Collins, John J., Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 352Google Scholar.

76. See also the Septuagint on 9:23, which further qualifies the “word” as the “command of the Lord.”

77. Cf. Fishbane, Michael, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 484Google Scholar.

78. On the date of Daniel, see discussion in Collins, Daniel, 24–38.

79. To be sure, Daniel 9 is only partially preserved in the Qumran biblical scrolls (4Q116 [4QDan^e] = Daniel 9:12–17). There is little reason to suggest, however, that the entirety of this chapter (and indeed all of Daniel) was not known to the community in its present final form (save for textual variants).

80. This therefore accounts for the identification of Daniel as a prophet in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q174 1–3 ii 3; cf. 11Q13 2:18) as well as in other segments of Second Temple Judaism (Josephus, Ant., 10.245–46, 249, 267–76). For a fuller discussion of Daniel's prophetic status, see Koch, Klaus, “Is Daniel Also among the Prophets?” in Interpreting the Prophets, ed. Mays, J. L. and Achtemeier, P. J. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1987), 237–48Google Scholar; and Barton, Oracles of God, 35–37.

81. See, for example, Wieder, Naphtali, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Type of Biblical Exegesis among the Karaites,” in Between East and West: Essays Dedicated in Memory of Bela Horovitz, ed. Altman, A. (London: East and West Library, 1958), 75Google Scholar, who remarks that the pesher method is sui generis in the history of Jewish biblical interpretation. See also Burrows, “Prophecy and the Prophets at Qumran,” 227; and Schiffman, Lawrence H., Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1995), 223–25Google Scholar. Bibliography on pesher literature is vast, with most focusing on literary features and exegetical technique (see Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 29 n. 12).

82. For a summary of these suggestions with bibliography, see Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 343–44.

83. Translation follows, with minor modifications, Horgan, Maurya, in Charlesworth, James H., ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations: Pesharim, Other Commentaries and Related Documents (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 162–63, 172–73Google Scholar. For a full philological and literary analysis of these passages, see Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 30–35, 348–49.

84. For a discussion of the suggested restoration, see Nitzan, Bilha, Megillat pesher ḥabakkuk (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1986), 152Google Scholar.

85. The similarity in language is likewise noted by Nitzan, Pesher ḥabakkuk, 171.

86. On this proposed equivalency, see Brownlee, William H., The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 112Google Scholar.

87. The precise exegetical basis for this understanding is debated. It is generally agreed that the pesher has ignored the contextual meaning of the biblical root (to run) in favor of an alternate root that could also fit the morphological form of the biblical word. Lou H. Silberman points to the talmudic interpretation of Jeremiah 23:29, in which the verbal root פצץ, “crush, shatter,” is understood as the interpretation of a text (B. Sanhedrin 31a; “Unriddling the Riddle: A Study in the Structure and Language of the Habakkuk Pesher,” Revue de Qumran 3 [1961]: 344–45). He suggests that the root of ירוץ here may be treated as רצץ, meaning “to crush, shatter,” providing a parallel phenomenon to the talmudic interpretation. Silberman's second suggestion is the Aramaic root תרץ, meaning “to make level,” though with the sense of “to interpret” (B. Yevamot 11b–12a). See also Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, 111, who proposes the root רצה in the hiph‘il, which would mean “to arrange subjects for debate, to discourse.” As Brownlee notes, however, this would require the form יריץ.

88. This explains the presence of a definite article in הקורא (not in the Masoretic Text). According to the pesher, the biblical verse has in mind one particular reader—the Teacher of Righteousness.

89. See Betz, Offenbarung, 77–78; Silberman, “Unriddling the Riddle,” 332–35; Finkel, Asher, “The Pesher of Dreams and Scriptures,” Revue de Qumran 4 (1963): 357–70Google Scholar; Rabinowitz, Isaac, “‘Pēsher/Pittārōn’: Its Biblical Meaning and Its Significance in the Qumran Literature,” Revue de Qumran 8 (1973): 219–32Google Scholar; and Nissinen, “Pesharim as Divination.”

90. The prophetic revelatory character of pesher exegesis is observed in varying degrees in scholarly treatments. See Dimant, Devorah, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. Stone, M. E. (Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 508Google Scholar; John J. Collins, “Prophecy and Fulfillment in the Qumran Scrolls,” 303; Berrin, Shani L., “Qumran Pesharim,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. Henze, M. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 123–26Google Scholar; Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries,” 528–29. I have not treated here the prophetic context for the third component of revelatory exegesis—the rewriting of the ancient prophetic word. Like the process of interpretation, rewriting was often conceptualized as a means to appropriate the original prophetic voice and thereby reawaken the ancient divine word and enliven it for the present circumstances. This process, however, is far more prevalent in nonsectarian literature and is therefore not addressed in this article. See further discussion in Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 230–37, 353–61.

91. To be sure, there is overlap in the prophetic phenomena of sapiential revelation and revelatory exegesis (e.g., the Teacher's knowledge of the “mysteries” of the prophetic oracles in 1QpHab 7:5; cf. 7:8). My treatment seeks to identify and classify the broad framework in which these two prophetic phenomena appear in the Qumran corpus. For an attempt to outline the merging of the sapiential and exegetical prophetic elements, see Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries.”

92. Biblical wisdom literature identifies three primary media for the transmission of divine knowledge: (1) teachings from elders, (2) human intellectual activity, and (3) direct divine transmission (though not identified as prophetic). See a full discussion with references and bibliography in Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 242–43. See further my discussion of the fusing of prophetic and sapiential elements in the biblical portrait of Balaam in Numbers 24:4, 16 (ibid., 243–45).

93. This transition is briefly noted in Kugel, How to Read the Bible, 634. See also Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries,” esp. 527–31.

94. The overwhelmingly positive portrait of David in the Psalms Scroll must be contrasted with the negative image of David in CD 5:2–3. In the former, David is enlightened with a prophetic spirit. In the latter, he is not even aware of the law. I do not, however, view these two presentations as incompatible. The Psalms Scroll provides a model for understanding prophecy and wisdom, not David specifically. Moreover, the Damascus Document is interested in neglect of the law, not in maligning the character of David. Indeed, the epilogue to 4QMMT (4Q398 14–17 ii 1) clearly presents a positive portrait of David and the community actively awaited the arrival of the messianic son of David (e.g., 4Q285).

95. Translation follows Sanders, James A., ed., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert IV: The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPs^a) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), 91–93Google Scholar.

96. See Josephus Ant. 6.166; Acts 1:16; 2:25–31, 34; and Hebrews 11:32. See the discussion in Fitzmyer, Joseph A., “David, ‘Being Therefore a Prophet…’ (Acts 2:30),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972): 332–39Google Scholar; Then, Reinhold, “Gibt es denn keinen mehr unter den Propheten?”: Zum Fortgang der alttestamentlichen Prophetie in frühjudischer Zeit (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1990), 189–225Google Scholar; Flint, Peter W., “The Prophet David at Qumran,” in Henze, Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, 158–67Google Scholar; Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries,” 514–15. 2 Chronicles 29:25 could also be understood as highlighting David's prophetic status (see Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 112–13).

97. I am following Sanders's original translation. This word is more generally understood as a “scribe.” The sapiential context is implied by both translations.

98. The sapiential portrait of David is likely part of a larger comparison with Solomon found throughout this passage. Scholars have long noted that the number of David's psalms (4,050) is intended to supersede that of Solomon, who, according to 1 Kings 5:12, composed 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs. See Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 92. According to the Greek tradition, however, Solomon actually composed 5,000 songs in addition to the 3,000 proverbs (see LXX on 1 Kings 4:32).

99. I am rendering נתן here as a niph‘al third person, masculine, singular, perfect or participle form (nittan or nittān), with נבואה as the antecedent subject. Note, however, that that this understanding requires the feminine noun to be the subject of a masculine verb. The most likely explanation for this phenomenon is that it is mistake—either scribal or merely bad grammar. Alternatively, one could vocalize נתן as a pa‘al perfect form (nātan). This, however, creates another problem because the preposition מלפני seems to indicate that עליון is the agent of a passive verb.

100. The blending of sapiential and prophetic elements is often glossed over by commentators or missed entirely (see, e.g., Schniedewind, Word of God, 242). See, however, James C. VanderKam, who notes that the psalms “are introduced by words praising David's sublime wisdom and concluded by a line that claims prophetic inspiration for his works…to enhance the status of David in areas—wisdom and prophecy—that were not sufficiently documented or detailed in the biblical portraits of the king” (“Studies on ‘David's Compositions’ (11QPs^a 27:2–11),” Eretz-Israel 26 [1999]: 218*).

101. See, however, Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries,” 520, who suggests that the use of the preposition ב with נבואה could “be understood both as the state of being possessed by the spirit or as the quality of being a prophet—which again, ultimately, mean the same thing.” The evidence discussed in this study, however, indicates that the harmonization of prophetic activity and the technical designation “prophet” is often avoided in the Dead Sea Scrolls and related Second Temple literature (see n. 102 herein). It is also possible that the word commonly rendered as “through prophecy” (בנבואה) would be radically altered if the proposition ב were deciphered instead as כ (a possible suggestion based on the photographs of this manuscript). Following this reading, David would have composed the psalms “like prophecy” (כנבואה). See a similar twofold way of understanding Ben Sira's prophetic consciousness as attested by the Greek and Syriac text (Sirach 24:31 with discussion in Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 312–13). The literary alignment of 11QPs^a 27:2–11 still indicates that David's “prophecy-like” psalms are the direct result of his sapiential revelation. At the same time, this reading moves David's activities further from the classical prophecy of Israel's biblical heritage.

102. Another good example of this feature is Enoch. Throughout 1 Enoch, Enoch and his sapiential revelatory experiences are aligned with Moses, Balaam, and the classical prophets in general. Yet neither 1 Enoch nor related Second Temple literature identify Enoch as a “prophet.” Even Jude 14–15, which cites 1 Enoch 1:9 as Enoch's “prophecy,” does not introduce Enoch as a prophet. See a full discussion in Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 263–72.

103. See my discussion of Ben Sira and his prophetic self-consciousness in Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 310–14.

104. On this corpus, see Goff, Matthew J., Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2007)Google Scholar.

105. For a discussion of additional evidence, see Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 366–73.

106. See Licht, Megillat ha-hodayot, 42.

107. See Bardtke, Hans, “Considérations sur les Cantiques de Qumrân,” Revue Biblique 63 (1956): 220–33Google Scholar; Licht, Megillat ha-hodayot, 42–43; Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot, 282–89; Mansoor, Thanksgiving Hymns, 65–74; Rotem, “Ha-nevu'ah,” 43–51; Sarah J. Tanzer, “The Sages at Qumran: Wisdom in the Hodayot” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1987); Harrington, Daniel J., Wisdom Texts from Qumran (London: Routledge, 1996), 78–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cook, Edward M., “What Did the Jews of Qumran Know about God and How Did They Know It,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity 5,2: The Judaism of Qumran: A Systematic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Avery-Peck, A. J., Neusner, J., and Chilton, B. D. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001), 2–22Google Scholar; Goff, Matthew J., “Reading Wisdom at Qumran: 4QInstruction and the Hodayot,” Dead Sea Discoveries 11 (2004): 263–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries,” 531. Early scholarship on this question was interested in exploring any possible gnostic elements in the wisdom passages in the Hodayot (see, e.g., Mansoor).

108. For further discussion of other possible sources of revelation in the Hodayot, see Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot, 286–87.

109. See Harrington, Wisdom Texts, 79–80; and Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries,” 531.

110. See, however, Tanzer, “Sages at Qumran,” 115, who classifies this hymn as one in which the presence of wisdom is limited.

111. On this translation, see n. 47 herein.

112. On the use of this verbal root for divine revelation, see n. 49 herein.

113. See Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot, 82. On the literary relationship between the two clauses, see Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis, 113.

114. Delcor, Mathias, Les Hymnes de Qumran (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1962), 143Google Scholar; cf. the similar expression in 1 Enoch 37:1.

115. Cf. Delcor, Hymnes, 147; and Mansoor, Thanksgiving Hymns, 67.

116. See the similar observations regarding the “end” of prophecy in Kugel, How to Read the Bible, 633–34. Kugel notes that late biblical literature (e.g., Chronicles) generally downplays the importance of prophecy, while simultaneously highlighting other modes of human–divine communication. He suggests that this phenomenon should be associated with a growing realization that prophecy was no longer the only way to communicate with God. As Kugel further observes, individuals associated with the alternative modes of divine mediation are aligned with the prophetic tradition. Kugel traces this shift in the primacy of prophecy to the emergence of scriptural traditions. Scripture was regarded as the written record of the word of God and its very existence therefore reduced the need for a human intermediary (see also Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries,” 516–17, 526–27). As Kugel himself indicates, however, this new situation required the presence of an interpreter who is able to decipher the meaning of scripture. The rise of scripture and its interpretation therefore created a new class of divine mediators. Indeed, I have argued above that inspired interpreters of scripture in Second Temple Judaism were often regarded as part of the prophetic tradition and their exegetical activity as commensurate with ancient prophetic practice.

117. The avoidance of explicit prophetic terminology may also be related to the growing distrust and suspicion regarding prophets and their revelatory claims that emerged in the early Second Temple period and was also present in varying degrees in the late Second Temple period. On the early period, see Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 27–38, esp. 37–38). On the later period, see Meyer, “Prophecy and Prophets,” 6:812–13; Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood,” 259–60; Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, 127–28, 137–38.

118. The Wellhausian model of the prophetic spirit as the apex of ancient Israelite culture and religion and its disappearance and replacement in postbiblical Judaism with the law further contributed to this scholarly disinterest. Indeed, this model assumes that the ancient prophetic spirit only reemerges with Christianity. Thus, from Malachi to Matthew, prophecy is dormant.

119. See most recently, Floyd and Haak, Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts.

120. See Scholem, Gershom G., “Revelation and Tradition as Religious Categories in Judaism,” in The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York: Schocken, 1971), 282–303Google Scholar; Idel, Moshe, The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Sommer, “Did Prophecy Cease?” 37–41; Bockmuehl, Revelation, 104–23; Wolfson, Elliot R., Through a Speculum That Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Alexander, Philip S., “‘A Sixtieth Part of Prophecy’: The Problem of Continuing Revelation in Judaism,” in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F. A. Sawyer, ed. Davies, J., Harvey, G. and Watson, W. G. E. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 414–33Google Scholar; Heschel, Abraham J., Prophetic Inspiration after the Prophets: Maimonides and other Medieval Authorities (Hoboken: Ktav, 1996)Google Scholar; and Stemberger, “Propheten.”

121. See n. 12 herein for the rabbinic passages.