Was There Magic at Qumran? Abraham Kahn Amongst the body of Qumran literature there is a small portion of textual material that seems to deal with different aspects of magical practice. These texts have sparked plentiful debate as scholars have attempted to understand the meaning of these texts, their role within the Qumran community, and how the community’s members felt about the texts. One of the key issues at hand for scholars has been trying to understand how the community reconciled its use of these texts that seemingly describe magical properties with verses in Deuteronomy that prohibit several forms of witchcraft and magic. The purpose of this paper will be to offer definitions for the term “magic” in a religious context in order to gain some context for the broader discussion of the paper, to study two Qumran manuscripts that describe practices that have been categorized to some degree as “magic,” to deliberate whether or not the issue raised by scholars is valid, and, if it is, to offer two scholarly theories proposed to explain how the community used these manuscripts in light of the biblical prohibitions based within the context of the Qumran community’s texts, practices and ideology as a whole. Scholars studying religious societies and practices have struggled to define what characterizes “magic” and to highlight what exactly separates religious practice from magical practice. The crude term itself, “magic,” has been assumed, for the most part, to describe practices and compositions that, when performed, are problematic to religion.1 However, classifying which practices and compositions constitute “magic” and why exactly those practices and compositions are problematic to religion has remained somewhat of a more elusive exercise,

1

George J. Brooke, “Deuteronomy 18.9-14 in the Qumran Scrolls,” in Magic in the Biblical World: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (ed. Todd E. Klutz. New York: T&T Clark International, 2003), 66. Brooke quotes Bilha Nitzan as claiming that, “The belief in magical power does not square well with the belief in one omnipotent God, in that it attempts to make Him subject to the will of other forces.”

1

as both at times seem to imply practices that try to accomplish the same tasks or virtually the same tasks. Recently, scholars have turned their attentions to this issue, critiquing some of the old definitions of magic and religion and positing some new ones as well. One of the oldest definitions of magic in a religious context came from social anthropologist James Frazer, who characterized magic as the belief that “the same causes will always produce the same effects; that the performance of the proper ceremony, accompanied by the appropriate spell, will inevitably be attended by the desired result.”2 What separates magic from religion then, is that magic does not require the supplication of any higher powers, whereas religion involves conciliation to a higher power (or higher powers) that is believed to control all courses of events. That does not mean that magic cannot use spirits. It means that when it does, it treats them similar to the way that any other inanimate object would be treated, manipulating them as opposed to supplicating them, as religion would.3 In this sense, magic is perceived to be parallel to the role of science, in that both are governed by immutable laws, and that the outcomes of both can be calculated exactly.4 Scholars have raised objections to this manipulative/supplicative framework, mainly from the perspective that a study of Early Christianity and Judaism shows that what is understood as magic can at certain times choose to supplicate while what is understood as religion can at times choose to manipulate.5 Other scholars attempt to blur the lines between magic and religion. A later scholar explained magic as “that form of religious deviance whereby individual or social goals are

2

James G. Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1923), 49. 3 W.J. Lyons and A.M. Reimer, “The Demonic Virus and Qumran Studies: Some Preventative Measures,” in Dead Sea Discoveries, Volume 5, No. 1 (eds. George J. Brooke, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1998), 18. 4 Ibid., 17. 5 Ibid., 21.

2

sought by means alternate to those normally sanctioned by the dominant religious institution.” This definition also believes that these goals can only be attained through the management of supernatural powers in a way that virtually guarantees success.6 This explanation takes for granted that magic must be by nature deviational and against the grain of the dominant society, but its practice may not indicate intrinsically problematic behavior. Notice that if this definition would be used when studying Qumran documents, it would produce fruitless results, as the manuscripts at Qumran indicate that the society as a whole accepted the “magical” practices. Unfortunately, scholars who have used this label in the past when studying the Dead Sea Scrolls have been forced to categorize the use of the “magical” manuscripts as fringe behavior, leading to confusion regarding whether certain practices were or were not accepted by mainstream society.7 In essence, the phrase “magic” has become a red herring, almost directly implying some sort of deviational and unaccepted behavior, especially in the context of religious practice. There are other approaches when trying to differentiate between magic and religious practice. One approach suggests that there really may not be any difference whatsoever between the two, and that magic is truly just the aspect of religion that intends to elicit God’s help in warding off the forces of evil.8 This approach seems to assume that magic tied directly to the practices that interacted with spirits or forces of evil. To some degree, it would describe practices

6

David E. Aune, “Magic in Early Christianity,” ANRW 2.23.2 (eds. H Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), 1513-15. 7 Lyons and Reimer, “Measures,” 21. For an example of a scholar positing such a theory in the context of a Jewish society, see Edwin M. Yamauchi’s lecture presented to the Institute for Biblical Research in 1981, copied in the Tyndale Bulletin as: Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Magic in the Biblical World,” in Tyndale Bulletin, Volume 34 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 169-200. Yamauchi posits that magic was practiced by the least educated factions of Jewish society to the objections of the Rabbinic leadership, and he even draws a parallel to the prophets’ warnings to the Jews not to commit idolatry during the time of the Later Prophets. Unfortunately, his observations cannot definitively be extended to Qumran studies, as they were presented at a time before both the 4Q510-11 and 11Q11 manuscripts were published, both of which contain strong evidence that suggests that the Qumran society as a whole (including the leadership) had accepted the “magical” practices described in 4Q510-11 and 11Q11. 8 Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (Philadelphia/Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 351.

3

that resembled (or may have been) typical prayers for the Qumran society. The common denominator between all theories offered is the fact that scholars feel a need to categorize and differentiate between two seemingly separate strains of behavior: those that can be defined as magic and those than can be defined as religious practice.9 Due to the lack of cohesion between scholars regarding the definition of magic, as well as a general lack of definitive proofs for each one’s prescribed beliefs, it is hard to label any text in Qumran, religious or not, as “magic,” and it is certainly hard to ascertain that any Qumran text poses a problem with any other religious beliefs and observances of the sect. Therefore, one must study the relevant texts alongside the biblical prohibitions, with the intentions of seeing if the prohibitions include behavior that was practiced at Qumran. The main biblical text of interest is the eighteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, which discusses when the Israelites will enter the land of Israel, and Moses is advising them not to repeat the practices of the inhabitants of the land. Moses warns the Jews regarding the following activities of the gentiles:
When you enter the land that the Lord, your God, gives to you, you shall not learn to do the abominations of those peoples. Among you shall not be found anyone who makes his son or daughter pass through fire, anyone who practices divination, an astrologer, a sorcerer, or wizard; anyone who performs incantations, anyone who consults a spirit or an oracle or anyone who questions the dead; because all those who do these are an abomination to God, and because of these abominations, the Lord, your God, banishes them from before you.10

9

I do believe that there is significance in this observation. Even the theories (such as Schiffman’s) that downplay the disparity between religious practice and magic feel a need to state that they do not correspond to the same behaviors. An important question to be asked is: Why is there a need to create categories at all? To my knowledge, no scholar has claimed that all religious practice truly falls under the title “magic” and that magic and religious practice are truly one and the same, and one would be inclined to try to discover how this presupposition came to be. I believe that the prohibitions in Deuteronomy 18 played a significant role in the common-held belief that two categories exist, being that the verses 9-12 clearly delineate between behaviors that fall within the pale of proper religious observance and ones that go beyond it (although never expressly naming the improper behaviors “magic”). 10 Deut. 18:9-12.

4

The passage as a whole seems to argue that anyone who commits such practices does not seem to understand that the role of communication between God and his people is through His prophets, and not through these outlined practices.11 Indeed, in the following verses Moses states:
…And you—not so, has the Lord, your God, given you. A prophet from within your midst, from your brothers, like me, the Lord, your God, will raise up for you. To him, you should listen.12

If one is to define the practices listed in verses 9-12 as “magic,”13 it would seem that the Bible itself is very clearly delineating between which forms of religious practice are acceptable in the eyes of God, as opposed to which ones are considered magic, and, therefore, unacceptable. Any behaviors or practices meant to connect to God and to receive His messages through sources other than the prophets (or, by extension, in later times the Urim v’Tumim) would be considered magic and outsides the limits of acceptable religious behavior. What is still unclear is what exactly the issue is with communicating with God through conduits other than the prophets. Is it that the message will not be received as clearly by the people? Is it that other forms of communication manipulate God in some way by controlling future events in an unnatural order? Some gray areas still exist that can open up questions when studying Qumran practice. Either way, we know that the Qumran residents were aware of these prohibitions, since a practically identical set of verses is found in the Temple Scroll (11QTa lx.16-21), where the only change made to the text is its tense; this piece, as well as the Temple Scroll as a whole, is written in the first-person narrative from God’s perspective.14 Furthermore, the Qumran community had ten fragmentary copies of I Enoch, which relates the tradition that fallen angels came to earth and defiled human women, fathering the

11 Brooke, “Scrolls,” 69. 12 13

Deut. 18:14-15. This, of course, would only be if one distinguishes between magic and religious practice by assuming that magic describes practices that counter acceptable religious practice (like the scholars that Brooks refers to in “Scrolls,” 66). 14 Brooke, “Scrolls,” 70-71; Florentino García Martínez, “Magic in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumranica Minora II (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 110.

5

Nephilim (mentioned in the sixth chapter of Genesis) and introducing evil and “magic” (according to the Deuteronomy definition) into the world. The Qumran community had five copies of the Book of Watchers (the first section of I Enoch), which contains this account:
They and their chiefs all took for themselves women, from all they chose, and they began to penetrate them, to be defiled by them, and to teach them sorcery, incantations, and the cutting of roots and to explain herbs…15

It would certainly appear that the Qumran sect was well aware of any negative connotations associated with these practices.16 The next step would be to study the corresponding Qumran texts that describe similar practices to those listed in Deuteronomy. Although scholars have listed many texts as referring to different aspects of “magical” practice, such as ones that discuss divination, physiognomy, and brontology, this paper will focus specifically on the texts that deal with incantations in response to the presence of potentially harmful spirits and incantations to exorcise spirits that had entered a person’s body. There are two main texts that describe such activities, and an analysis of each text should shed some light on the discussion. The first of these texts is Songs of the Sagea-b (4Q510-11), a collection of fragments of songs from the late first century BCE. It is a hymn that is recited by the Maskil; throughout the prayer he declares God’s glory and might and supplicates God to frighten all the demons that try to lead the community astray. Scholars have noted its distinctiveness in several areas, such as its being addressed to God rather than directly to the spirits, and its possible use as a liturgy for the community (the hymn concludes with the phrase, “Amen, amen”). Additionally, several scholars

15 16

4Q201 ii.13-15. García Martínez, Qumranica, 111.

6

have suggested that its terminology (phrases such as “Sons of Light” and “yahad”) and ideas (dualism and determinism) point to Qumran authorship.17 The style of the text is very unique, as it combines aspects of both prayer and incantation. Unlike other texts in Qumran, most notably 4Q560, which contains a book of spells that are used to directly counter spirits that pose dangers to the people, 4Q510-11 can be viewed more as a praise of God, with the hope that God will act on the Maskil’s behalf to fight the evil spirits. The Maskil begins by declaring:
And I, the Master, proclaim the majesty of His beauty to frighten and ter[rify] all the spirits of the destroying angels and the spirits of the bastards, the demons, Lilith, the howlers and [the yelpers…] they who strike suddenly to lead astray the spirit of understanding and to appall their heart and their…18

The rest of the text follows a similar pattern of thought; the Maskil praises God for either bestowing knowledge in him and in the other righteous men or cleansing their spirits and for condemning wickedness and those who practice it, seemingly with the end goal of imploring God to punish the evil spirits that influence wickedness.19 The second text is Apocryphal Psalmsc (11Q11), attributed to David and written in the earlier decades of the first century CE. 11Q11 contains a set of four texts, three of which are apocryphal and the fourth of which is a version of Psalm 91 (which itself has been documented in Rabbinic sources [JT Eruvin and BT Shavuot] as a protection against demons). 11Q11 seems to represent a time when the protective layer provided by 4Q510-11 has been breached, and a spirit has successfully attacked a member of the community. These are the texts recited to

17

Esther Chazon. “Psalms, Hymns, and Prayers,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume 2 (eds. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 710-714. 18 4Q510 3-5. 19 Two more clear examples in the text are 4Q511, Fragment 35: “God shall sancti[fy] (some) of the holy as an everlasting sanctuary for himself, and purity shall endure amongst the cleansed… They shall praise him with marvelous prodigies. I, I spread the fear of God in the ages of my generations to exalt the name… [to terrify]by his might al[l] the spirits of the ‘bastards’, subduing them by [his] fear…” and Fragment 63, iii.2-4: “Thou hast placed on my lips a fount of praise and in my heart the secret of the commencement of all human actions and completion of the deeds of the perfect of way and judgments regarding all the service done by them, justifying the just by Thy truth and condemning the wicked for their guilt.”

7

exorcise the demon. Several comparisons can be made to exorcisms in other texts, such as in the Book of Tobit, Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen), and Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242).20 11Q11 is written as a much more direct attack on the demons. For instance, in one psalm David addresses a spirit directly, saying:
The Lord will strike you with a [grea]t b[low] for your destruction…and in His anger He will send against you a mighty angel [to execute] all His decisions, who will be [without] mercy on you…21

And later, in the next psalm, David instructs:
For he [the demon] will come to you in the ni[ght, and] you will say to him: Who are you, [one born of] man and of the seed of the ho[ly on]es? Your face is a face of in[anity] and your horns are horns of dream. You are darkness and not light, injustice and not righteousness. The Prince of the host, the Lord, [will send] you [down to the lowest he]ll…22

The rest of the psalms follow similar patterns: David is seemingly teaching others how to respond to the presence of demons by frightening and intimidating them. He invokes God, but not by directly praying to Him as the Maskil does in 4Q510-11; the role of God is instead used as a scare tactic against the demons. Do these texts conflict with the prohibitions of Deuteronomy? Both Qumran texts concern themselves with incantations, and the interaction with demons may possibly be related to the prohibition of “consulting” spirits (probably not in the sense that the verse in Deuteronomy is referring to when it cautions against one who is ‫ ,שואל אוב וידעוני‬but the acts may have a broader correlation to one another). However, as has already been stated, the overall purpose of the prohibitions in Deuteronomy is somewhat unclear, and one cannot definitively claim that the biblical verses are equally worried with incantations that are used more as praises to God and as instructions for spiritual defense mechanisms as with incantations and charms that are meant to interfere more directly with the natural mode of connection to God.

20

Philip S. Alexander. “Magic and Magical Texts,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume 1 (eds. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 502-504. 21 11Q11 iv.4-6. 22 Ibid., v.6-8.

8

Many scholars do seem to find an inherent contradiction in the sect’s supposed adherence to the prohibitions of Deuteronomy 18 and their simultaneous adherence to the practices outlined in 4Q510-11 and 11Q11.23 However, there is room to brush off any conflicts that the Qumran texts pose to the verses in Deuteronomy. Truthfully, the distinction lies in how liberal one allows his reading of the Deuteronomy prohibitions to be. The only points that can be concretely gleaned from the texts are: the actions that are explicitly prohibited, and the overarching reason behind the prohibitions (not to connect to God through means other than the prophets). If one is to believe that the underlying issue at hand is that other forms of communication with the supernatural realms may have manipulated the natural order (at least in the way that God had predetermined the natural order to be), then the practices of the Qumranites could have compromised the bidding of God, manipulating predetermined events in the peoples’ favor, and could consequently pose an issue for scholars to solve. However, if one undertakes a more narrow, and perhaps literal, understanding of the Deuteronomy texts, then the Qumranite practices would seemingly fall within legal boundaries, being as neither Qumran text explicitly describes communication with God through any illegal intermediaries, and then no conflicts would be posed at all. Be that as it may, many scholars do perceive a conflict (at least outwardly) between Qumran practice and the Deuteronomy prohibitions, as previously observed. If one is to have such assumptions, there are several questions that need to be addressed: Did the Qumranites care that they were disobeying God’s word? If they did care, must we conclude that they must have felt that their actions were justified, or even authorized? The remainder of the paper will present

23

For a somewhat comprehensive list of scholars who struggle with this “contradiction,” see: Brooke, “Scrolls,” 6686, García Martínez, Qumranica, 109-131, Lyons and Reimer, “Measures,” 16-32, and Schiffman, Reclaiming, 35166, and: Armin Lange. “The Essene Position on Magic and Divination,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues (eds. Moshe J. Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. Leiden: Brill, 1997), 377-436.

9

two theories meant to balance Qumran behavior as expressed in 4Q510-11 and 11Q11 with the prohibitions of Deuteronomy. In order to understand the first theory, one must first properly understand the Qumran community’s theological worldview and their perceptions of reality. As can be seen from the Treatise of the Two Spirits and other Qumran texts, the Qumranites felt that they were involved in a dualistic struggle that divided the human race into one of two camps, that of the Sons of Righteousness and the Sons of Darkness.24 Until God’s intervention in the final eschatological battle between good and evil, the Qumran people were tasked with interacting in a constant struggle with the Angel of Darkness and his legions, trying to deflect their constant psychological and spiritual barrages and still remain among the righteous.25 In a time when magical practice was proven in other neighboring societies as an apt system of defense against unwanted attacks from spirits, it seems tenable that the Qumran people would rely on such methods until the time when God would intervene directly on their behalf.26 Semi-parenthetically, this theory also addresses an interesting aspect of the 4Q510-11 and the 11Q11 texts: the texts’ preoccupation with the psychological effects of magic as opposed to the physical side effects.27 Both texts deal exclusively with the idea that the spirits are attacking the community members’ souls and mind, trying to lead the community members astray, but the texts conspicuously leave out any mention of an attack on the body. The sect was likely aware of stories where demons wreaked physical harm to humans, such as in Jubilees 10, which relates the story of Mastema and his demons psychologically terrorizing Noah and his sons as well as physically harming them. God reciprocates by providing Noah with the antidotes to cure the

24 25

García Martínez, Qumranica, 122; 130. Ibid., 119. 26 Ibid., 130. 27 Philip S. Alexander, “The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, Volume 2 (eds. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1999), 345.

10

various diseases that they had contracted.28 Furthermore, one of the Qumran texts (4Q266) mentions a skin disease cause by a ruah, which some scholars believe refers to a spirit.29 And there were two texts in the Qumran library, the Book of Tobit and Genesis Apocryphon, which detail stories of evil spirits causing physical harm, and later on being exorcised, from humans.30 However, as a whole, there appears to be a strong emphasis within the sectarian incantation texts that the demons are causing psychological harm, leading the people of the community to error and sin.31 Within the approach outlined, such an understanding of spirits seems warranted, if not expected. The sect mainly viewed the role of the demons as agents whose intentions were almost exclusively to remove the Qumranites from their spiritually righteous ranks. The physical lives of the people were not at stake as much as their sacred beings; it was spiritual warfare. The Qumranites responded in the same way that they were being attacked: through psychological means, taunting and frightening the spirits until they would leave the people alone. The community’s counter-attack was not a physical campaign because they were not dealing with physical harm. In such a situation, the most appropriate response was indeed supplication to God to fight on their behalves mixed with verbal attacks and mockery against their aggressors.32 One of the hallmarks of this theory is the assumption that, while the sect was aware that their behavior may not have been in line with the biblical prohibitions of Deuteronomy, they were addressing what they perceived to be a much more dire issue: their collective spiritual identity being attacked. It is hard to ascertain whether the community members felt that, in such

28

Philip S. Alexander, “‘Wrestling against Wickedness in High Places’: Magic in the Worldview of the Qumran Community,” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (eds. Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., 1997) 321-22. 29 Alexander, “Demonology,” 331. 30 Ibid., 346-47. 31 Ibid., 345. 32 Ibid., 346; Alexander, “Wrestling,” 324.

11

an extreme situation, their conduct was justified. That being said, certain scholars are undoubtedly uncomfortable with assuming that the sect more or less actively practiced an explicit biblical prohibition, being as the sect was a deeply faithful and dedicated community, and their strict purity laws suggest that they took the word of the Bible to be quite serious.33 Those scholars try to reconcile the conflict by suggesting that there is no real outward conflict in the first place. The second theory is based on the premise that, although it would seem that the Qumranites were disobeying biblical law, if one were to remove any preconceived notions about a perceived conflict between the Qumran-practiced “magic” and religion, the actions of the Qumranites would much more easily fit within the scope of the laws in Deuteronomy. Although many of the practices of the Qumranites may have looked liked the forbidden practices in Deuteronomy from an outsider’s perspective, the sect’s library contained virtually no references to the exact practices mentioned in Deuteronomy.34
35

In fact, the few times that those practices

were mentioned in Qumran texts, it was with such a negative tone that it is likely that in the minds of the Qumranites nothing that they practiced would have been considered prohibited.36

33

Such an idea is especially startling when considering that the being that the texts indicate that they were imploring on their behalf was the same being who had explicitly prohibited such behavior. One only needs to bear in mind the language that the sect’s version of Deuteronomy 18 had in order to fully appreciate the radical nature of such an idea: …Because all those who do these are an abomination before Me, and because of these abominations I am banishing them from before you… In the Qumran version, it is not Moses beseeching the nation to disregard all the magical practices, in which case one could rationalize Moses’ warnings as having been spoken of his own accord. It is God himself forewarning the people; such a God would be expected to reject the magical incantation prayers that he has stated his distaste for. 34 Brooke, “Scrolls,” 68. 35 An interesting assumption that results from this theory is the assumption that even though God would take issue with the performance of magic that He outlined in Deuteronomy, any parallel or identical magic, as long as not explicitly mentioned by name in Deuteronomy, would be allowed to be performed. The logic of this assertion to some degree eludes me; I believe a possible defense of this position would have to incorporate some aspects of the belief in the inability to exegete the reasoning behind texts (colloquially, l’daresh ta’ama d’kra). 36 Brooke, “Scrolls,” 69.

12

Let us examine the terms used by the Bible in Deuteronomy and see if any of those terms are duplicated at Qumran. The verses there mention the Hebrew terms ‫( מעביר בנו ובתו באש‬one who passes his son or daughter through fire), ‫( מעונן‬soothsayer), ‫( חבר חבר‬charmer), ‫שואל אוב‬ ‫( וידעוני‬an inquirer of a demon or a familiar spirit), and ‫( דורש אל מתים‬necromancer), all of which either are not mentioned by name throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls, or whose mention is specifically in a negative regard to those who exhibit such behavior.37 Even the few terms that can be tied to the community’s behavior are themselves of questionable connection. The verse uses the term ‫ קסם קסמים‬to refer to a diviner, and although some scholars try to include in that category of behavior the casting of lots, an activity performed by the Qumranites in several contexts, the Qumran texts only refer to that activity with the term ‫ .גורל‬Similarly, the term ‫מכשף‬ is used in reference to a sorcerer, but the only Qumran text that uses such a term, Pesher Nahum (4QpNah), interprets the word to refer to the Pharisees false teachings, and not of actual sorcery.38 There is one potentially problematic term, coincidentally the one most closely tied to the 4Q510-11 and 11Q11 incantation texts. It is the term ‫ ,מנחש‬which is typically translated as an enchanter, but whose meaning can be somewhat elusive. The term is often associated with some form of divination associated with snakes. However, another understanding could attach it to the word ‫ לחש‬and, therefore, it would refer specifically to incantations. This would appear problematic in light of a phrase in 11Q11 v.4 that describes David’s prayer as, “An incantation (‫ )לחש‬in the name of God.” According to this second theory, since we must assume that the community was both well aware of the exact Deuteronomy restrictions and following them

37 38

Ibid., 74-78. Ibid., 75-76.

13

faithfully, we are left to believe that the author of 11Q11 must have understood the term to be referring to snake divination and not incantations.39 In essence, the Qumran sect was well aware of precisely which types of practice were in line with God’s word and which types were not. Furthermore, they may have felt that their actions were just another layer in their religious practice, which sought to constantly interact with the divine, but never to control it. In their own minds, God had allowed them to consult the prophets and the Urim v’Tumim because they were not trying to predict the future or to change it, but rather to make known what was already predetermined. In a similar vein, the roles of the 4Q510-11 and 11Q11 texts were not to manipulate the future as other forms of prohibited magic would; they were to connect man and God through prayer and to preemptively erect a defensive boundary for the community.40
41

Such an understanding truly magnifies the fine line that

separates prayer and hymn on the one hand and certain forms of prohibited magic on the other.42 There is, unfortunately, a common misconception among scholars that magic should be identified among primitive rituals, characterizing a low level of human development that preceded religion.43 If God had explicitly rejected “magic,” in the eyes of the leaders of Late Antiquity Judaism there could not have been any room for belief in magic or its practice. However, history seems to speak otherwise; overwhelming evidence suggests that magic, or something that looked very much like magic, held a strong place in the beliefs and practices of Jews throughout Late Antiquity. It seems definite that “magical” practice had deeply affected the people of Qumran, possibly even in their understanding of the role of prayer and religious

39 40

Ibid. Ibid., 81-82. 41 Brooke incorporates this idea as a later possibility. Truthfully, it can (and should) be seen as an alternative to the suggestion that I raised in footnote 35. 42 Alexander, “Magical Texts,” 503. 43 Yuval Harari, “A different Spirituality or ‘Other Agents?: On the Study of Magic in Rabbinic Literature,” in With Letters of Light (eds. Daphna V. Arbel and Andrei A. Orlov. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2011), 172.

14

articles, such as tefillin and mezuzot. Whether or not one subscribes to the belief that 4Q510-11 and 11Q11 cross over into the magical arena, the community’s reliance on them shows that the Qumranites’ understanding of God’s commandments in Deuteronomy was complex and nuanced, much like the rest of Qumran theology.

15