22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
The occurrence of the phrase 
in 4QMMT had already been exciting comment for some years prior to the official publication of the scroll fragments. In one of the first reflections on the official publication, Martin Abegg has suggested that Paul's use of the same phrase, ἔργα ν⋯μον, in Galatians and Romans (Gal 2.16; 3.2, 5,10; Rom 3.20, 28) indicates that Paul was ‘rebutting the theology of documents such as MMT … that Paul was reacting to the kind of theology espoused by MMT, perhaps even by some Christian converts who were committed to the kind of thinking reflected in MMT’. As we shall see below, Abegg has given some further reasons for seeing a parallel or even connection between the thought of 4QMMT and Paul's argumentation in Galatians in particular, but even he does not seem to have appreciated all the points of possible connection. At this early stage in assessing the significance of 4QMMT for New Testament study (‘nothing short of revolutionary’, concludes Abegg), it may be of value simply to summarize what these points of possible connection amount to.
2 I may refer to my own Romans (WBC 38; Dallas: Word, 1988) 154.Google Scholar
3 Qimron, E. & Strugnell, J., Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah (DJD 10.5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994)Google Scholar; the text and translation has been reprinted in BAR 20.6 (1994) 56–61.
4 Abegg, M., ‘Paul, “Works of the Law” and MMT’, BAR 20.6 (1994) 52–5 (here 54).Google Scholar
5 See Qimron–Strugnell, 58–63; BAR 20.6, 60–1; Martinez, F. G., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 79, 84–5Google Scholar; Vermes, G., The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin, revised and extended 4th edition 1995) 182Google Scholar, includes only the last eight lines; see also Eisenman, R. & Wise, M., The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Shaftesbury, Dorset: Element, 1992) 196–200.Google Scholar
6 Qimron–Strugnell, 142–75.
7 Cf. Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ 2Google Scholar (rev. and ed. G. Vermes et al.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979) 396–7; cf. e.g. Kellermann, U., φορζω, EWNT 1 (1980) 443.Google Scholar
8 Qimron–Strugnell, 111, 115–17.
9 Y. Sussmann, ‘The History of the Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls’, Appendix 1 to Qimron–Strugnell, 192.
10 See Zahn, T., Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Leipzig: Deichert, 1905) 61–2Google Scholar, with reference to Gal 1.15.
11 Qimron–Strugnell put the composition of MMT in the period 159–2 BCE (p. 121), but also note that the manuscripts date from about 75 BCE to 50 CE (p. 109); that is, the memory of the ‘separation’ was being kept alive at Qumran in the contemporary copying of the text.
12 Abegg, 54 thinks that the broken word 
should read rather 
(the congregation).
13 Qimron translates: ‘And this is at the end of days when they will return to Israel’; cf. Martinez, 107–8 – ‘And this is the end of days, when they go back to Israel for [ever…]’. But ‘to Israel’ is not an obvious translation for [
]
; ‘return to’ is classically expressed with or 
, and often with the addition ‘in peace’ (
). The point was acknowledged by Martinez at the SBL meeting in Chicago in November 1994. The translation in the text is the revised translation he suggested on that occasion, in which he completes the lacuna at the beginning of line 108 (Qimron C22) as 
.
14 See particularly Scott, J. M., ‘For as Many as Are of Works of the Law Are under a Curse' (Galatians 3.10)’, in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. Evans, C. A., Sanders, J. A.; JSNTSup 83; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993) 187–221 (here 194–213)Google Scholar; also ‘Paul's Use of Deuteronomic Tradition’, JBL 112 (1993) 645–65.Google Scholar
15 Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK, 1992) particularly 268–72Google Scholar; Scott in n. 14 above.
16 The mistranslation of Qimron and Martinez (initially) – ‘to Israel’ – may reflect the assumption that the perspective of the writers was as those who wrote from exile. But the better translation – ‘in Israel’ – points away from that interpretation.
17 Note Qumran's own variation on the blessing/curse language in 1QS 2 and 4Q266; see Eisenman–Wise, 197, 215–17.
18 But the problems of interpreting the reference to ‘Israel’ in Gal 6.16 are well known; see e.g. my Galatians (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1993) 344–6.Google Scholar
19 The ambiguity arises because 
can signify ‘deed’ as prescribed deed (hence ‘precept’) as well as a deed carried out. Qimron–Strugnell, 139 n. 41 note that the LXX translates in Exod 18.20 as τ ἒργα.
20 Qimron–Strugnell, 110. This reference back tells against the thesis of Eisenman–Wise that C was a separate document.
21 The fact that the phrase in Paul is always anarthrous (almost always in the form ξ ἔl;ργων νμоν) is comparatively unimportant in view of the similar form in 4Q174/Flor 1.7.
22 Noted also by Abegg, 55 and Eisenman–Wise, 183–5.
23 As Abegg observes (55 n.), Gen 15.6 and Ps 106.31 are the only biblical verses that contain both the verb 
and the noun 
. The implied appeal to Gen 15.6 carries with it the implication that Phinehas' action was interpreted, like that of Abraham in 1 Mace 2.52, as an expression of his covenant faithfulness.
24 Insofar as the contrast between Galatians and 4QMMT implies a contrast between faith and faithfulness (cf. Jas 2.18–24), it strengthens the case against the currently popular rendering of πστις ‘Iησо Xριστо in Galatians and Romans as ‘the faithfulness of Jesus Christ’. Only those who see no contrast between Paul and James on this point could be confident that Paul understood the phrase as indicating Jesus' faithfulness in what he did. See further my ‘Once More, PISTIS CHRISTOU’ printed in Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars, 1991) 730–44Google Scholar, in debate with the preceding paper by Hays, R. B., ‘Pistis and Pauline Christology: What Is at Stake?’, SBLSP 1991, 714–29.Google Scholar
25 4Q321 tries to correlate the two calendars; see Eisenman–Wise, 109–16; Martinez, 454–5.
26 That the Jewish feasts as such were in mind is almost certain; see my Galatians, 227–9.
