The Mythology of Holy War in Daniel and the Qumran War Scroll: A Point of Transition inJewish ApocalypticAuthor(s): John J. CollinsSource: Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 25, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1975), pp. 596-612Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1517023Accessed: 10/10/2009 11:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vetus Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

Vetus Testamentum, Vol. XXV, Fasc. 3

THE MYTHOLOGY OF HOLY WAR IN DANIEL AND THE QUMRAN WAR SCROLL:

A POINT OF TRANSITION IN JEWISH APOCALYPTIC

BY

JOHN J. COLLINS

Chicago

At the end of the last century H. GUNKEL drew attention to the

mythic pattern of conflict between a god and a chaos-monster as a central motif in Jewish apocalyptic.l) Using the Babylonian myth of Marduk and Tiamat, GUNKEL argued for extensive Babylonian influence in Israel, much of which came in the pre-exilic period, but which also supplied the figurative language for apocalyptic. Since the discoveries at Ugarit, GUNKEL'S theory of Babylonian influence has been seen to be exaggerated, but his insight into the importance of the conflict motif has been vindicated. In the Ugaritic texts, Baal does battle with Yamm, the sea monster, for the kingship of the gods. He is victorious in the battle and returns to set up his temple and enjoy a

banquet with the gods.2) In the OT, motifs from this pattern are

frequently adapted and applied to Yahweh.3) Yahweh's victory over the Egyptians at the Red Sea, and again in wars of conquest, esta- blished him as the divine warrior par excellence. In the pre-exilic prophets and the Deuteronomistic history this portrayal of Yahweh fades into the background, but it re-emerges strongly at the time of the return from the exile.4) In the exile Israel had again fallen

1) H. GUNKEL, Schopfung und Chaos in Urseit und End.eit (G6ttingen, 1895). 2) CTCA 2 and 4. (= GORDON, Ugaritic Textbook, Rome, 1965 129 and 51).

In a variant of the myth Baal does battle with Mot. See the discussion with reference to the O.T. by F. M. CRoss, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Harvard, 1973) p. 93. The Babylonian myth is not, however, irrelevant, as T. JACOBSEN has argued that the battle of Marduk and Tiamat derives from a west Semitic myth. T. JACOBSEN, "The Battle between Marduk and Tiamat"JAOS LXXXVIII 1968, pp. 104-108.

3) See especially CRoss "The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth" in God and Christ, Journal for Theology and the Church V 1968, pp. 1-25; "The Divine Warrior in Israel's Early Cult" in Biblical Motifs ed. ALTMANN (Harvard, 1966) pp. 11-30; Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic pp. 91-176; P. D. MILLER, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Harvard Semitic Series 5, Harvard, 1973).

4) See P. D. HANSON, "Zechariah 9 and the Recapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern"JBL XCII 1973, pp. 37-59. Cf. also Is. lxiii.

HOLY WAR IN DANIEL

into chaos and required the activity of the Divine Warrior to libe- rate her.

The high point of Jewish apocalyptic came at another period when the order of Israel's history was plunged into the chaos of war and

persecution, in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is not surprising then that the old mythology of the conflict between god and chaos should again be evoked. In particular, the books of Daniel and the

Qumran War Scroll are replete with the imagery of holy war.5) In this

paper I wish to discuss the particular ways in which the imagery is modified or transformed in those books. Specifically, I wish to study the difference between the two books in their basic conception of

holy war, a difference which, I believe, marks a highly important point of transition in the development of Jewish apocalyptic.

The traditional mythology of holy war

When we speak of holy war in the context of Israelite religion, we think, first of all, of the wars of the period of the conquest and judges.6) The practice of Israel's holy war must be understood against the

background of the mythology of holy war in the ancient Near East and especially Ugarit.7) We may distinguish two aspects of this

mythology. First there was the primordial, paradigmatic, purely mythical war between the gods. In the case of Ugarit this was fought between Baal and Yamm or Baal and Mot; in Babylonian myth between Marduk and Tiamat. This myth was primarily cosmogonic. This is quite explicit in the Babylonian Enuma Elish, but is also

implicit in the Ugaritic Baal cycle.8) Both myths show how the

primordial forces of chaos had been reduced to order by the activity of a divine warrior. This primordial battle served, then, as a paradigm for future battles which the god and his earthly people must fight to

preserve order over chaos.

5) See especially P. VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN, Gott und Belial (Gottingen, 1969). 6) See G. VON RAD, Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel (Zurich, 1951). Also his

Studies in Deuteronomy (London, 1953) pp. 45-49. However, VON RAD'S conten- tion that holy war in Israel was primarily defensive in character has not been sustained by subsequent studies. Cf. most recently F. STOLZ, Jahwes und Israels Kriege (Zurich, 1972).

7) See especially the works of CRoss and MILLER, above n. 3. 8) See CRoss, CANAANITE MYTH AND HEBREW EPIC pp. 40-41, 112-120. El

also appears as a divine warrior, especially in the account of Canaanite religion in Philo Byblios, but in theogonic rather than cosmogonic contexts. See P. D. MILLER, "El the Warrior" HTR LX 1967, pp. 411-431. On the conflict type of cosmogonic myth see in general P. RICOEUR, The Symbolism of Evil (Boston, 1969) pp. 177-191.

38

597

J. J. COLLINS

The second aspect of the mythology of holy war concerns its relation to actual wars fought on earth. The wars on earth were conceived

merely as reflections, or at least the working out of the war between the divinities in heaven.9) In this way nationalism was given a mytho- logical expression. This view of warfare can be seen in the question of the king of Assyria to the people of Jerusalem:

"Has any of the gods of the nations ever delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria?" 10)

The success of the king of Assyria was in turn attributed to his patron god.11)

This mythology required some modification in Israel in the light of monotheism. Accordingly we find Yahweh and his host directly engaging Israel's enemies. Perhaps the clearest formulation of this is found in Jdg. v. At the beginning of the battle Yahweh marches forth from Se'ir, the earth trembles and the mountains quake.l2) His hosts also fight from heaven against Sisera.13) We may note however that there are also vestiges in the Bible of the more complete pre-Israelite mythology which sees the God opposed by heavenly as well as earthly enemies. So in Is. xxiv 21 we read that "On that day the Lord will

punish the host of heaven in heaven and the kings of the earth on the earth." 14)

The nationalistic mythology of holy war, where battles between nations on earth correspond to battles between their patron deities and their hosts, is fused, at least in Israel, with the cosmogonic myth of the

victory of the divine warrior over chaos. The various nations who are Israel's enemies take the place of the enemies of Baal in the

9) See P. D. HANSON, "Jewish Apocalyptic against its Near Eastern Environ- ment", RB LXXVIII 1971, pp. 39-40; B. ALBREKTSON History and the Gods (Lund, 1967) p. 27; P.D. MILLER, The Divine Warrior, pp. 156-159.

10) 2 Kgs. xviii 33; xix 12; Is. xxxvi 18; xxxvii 12. 11) Cf. the Annals of Sennacherib (ed. D. D. LUCKENBILL, Chicago, 1924). 12) Jdg. v 4-5. On the march of the Divine Warrior see especially CRoss,

Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic pp. 147-176. 13) Jdg. v 20: "From heaven fought the stars, from their courses they fought

against Sisera." For the stars as members of the heavenly host see MILLER, The Divine Warrior pp. 21-23.

14) Cf. also the reference to the revolt of Helal ben Shachar in Is. xiv. Both those passages probably refer to a distinct myth of a revolt in the heavens, possibly derived from the Ugaritic myth of the revolt of Athtar. Cf. CTCA 6.1 (GORDON UT 49, ANET p. 140 col A) and MARVIN H. POPE, "'Attar" in Worterbuch der

Mythologie ed. H. W. HAUSSIG, vol. I pp. 249 f (Stuttgart, 1965).

598

HOLY WAR IN DANIEL

Canaanite myth.15) Yahweh's victories may also be expressed directly in terms of the old cosmogonic myth, particularly with reference to the Exodus where the Reed Sea prompted an analogy with the Canaanite Yamm. So we read in Deutero-Isaiah:

Was it not thou that didst cut Rahab in pieces, that didst pierce the dragon? Was it not thou that didst dry up the sea, the waters of the great deep? that didst make the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over? 16)

It appears then that the Israelite concept of holy war must be seen

against a full mythological background. In this paper I am concerned

primarily with the nature of that mythological background which

provided the conceptual framework of holy war. I am not concerned

directly with the details of practice-such as the rites of purification or the liturgical rituals which accompanied holy war, although these too were important and remained important, at least in the Qumran War Scroll. Rather I wish to single out the predominant features of the

mythology which determined the relevance and meaning of holy war. From our brief review of the mythological framework in the OT

two factors emerge as important. One is the chaos myth-the conflict of the divine warrior with the monster of sea or death. Second is the nationalistic mythology of the conflict between the patron deities of various states. We have seen that these two aspects were combined in Israel. The criterion for distinguishing order and chaos was primarily national identity. Yahweh fought for Israel, not because it was

morally better than the Canaanites but because he was Israel's God.17) The theology of holy war is spelled out in Deut. xxxii: 18)

"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples

15) This is evident in several psalms-e.g. Pss. ii, xlvii, xlviii. See R. J. CLIFFORD, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Harvard, 1972), pp. 144-155.

16) Is. li 9-10. Cf. also Exodus xv; Ps. lxxvii 17-20; Ps. cxiv 1-8; Hab. iii. See CRoss, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic pp. 121-144.

17) Cf. Deut. ix 4-7. According to G. E. WRIGHT, The Old Testament and Theology (New York, 1969) p. 126, "it definitely does not involve any connotation of a superior goodness".

18) G. E. MENDENHALL, The Tenth Generation, the Origins of the Biblical Tradition (Baltimore, 1973) p. 13, n. 53 places Deut. xxxii in the context of the fall of Shiloh, about 1050 B.C. For a later dating see G. E. WRIGHT, "The Lawsuit of God" in B. ANDERSON (ed.) Israel's Prophetic Heritage (New York, 1962) pp. 58-67.

599

J. J. COLLINS

according to the number of the sons of God. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (vs. 8-9).

Religious and national identity were inseparable. Deut. xxxii goes on to warn how Israel would be punished for infidelity to its covenant with Yahweh, by being defeated by the other nations. However, Yahweh cannot let Israel perish entirely. He will come to their aid, again, not because of any moral merit on their part but because he

feared provocation by the enemy, lest their adversaries should judge amiss, lest they say "Our hand is triumphant, the Lord has not wrought all this " (vv. 26-27).

Because he is identified with Israel, the divine warrior "will make my arrows drunk with blood and my sword shall devour flesh" (v. 42). It is quite clear from Deut. xxxii that activity of the divine warrior on Israel's behalf does not result from the observance of the covenant but

purely from the fact that Israel is his people just as the other peoples belong to the other gods.19)

Yahweh was not simply at the disposal of his people, and might on occasion turn his sword against it to punish it, but ultimately he could not fail to champion Israel against the other nations.

Holy War in Daniel

Turning now to the book of Daniel, we find again the main elements of the archaic mythology of holy war. The structure of the war is most clearly elaborated in chapters x-xii. While the battles go on on earth, the decisive struggle is being carried on another level between Michael and Gabriel, on the one hand, and the princes of Persia and Greece on the other (x 20-21). Here we almost find the

polytheistic structure of holy war in the ancient Near East. The main difference is that the gods have been reduced to the status of lesser

19) Cf. the insistence of MENDENHALL, ch. 1, that Israel was the "kingdom of God". MENDENHALL rightly insists that early Israel was not an ethnic unity and owed its coherence and identity largely to the covenant. However, it is wrong to infer that Israel was at first a purely religious entity. The wars of the conquest may have been part of Yahweh's plan to punish the Canaanites, but from a human point of view they were not primarily wars of moral outrage but the effort of a people to acquire land. The nationalistic element in early Israel is not diminished by the possibility that the invasion may have incorporated a social uprising in Canaan as MENDENHALL suggests (pp. 25-26). Even if this was the case the move- ment was basically an invasion of one people by another, and the Canaanites who were socially discontented joined the invading people.

600

HOLY WAR IN DANIEL

heavenly beings. So Michael, not Yahweh, is the heavenly warrior who fights for Israel.20) The heavenly combatants are identified by the nations they represent. In this way the mythical structure emphasises the political nature of the struggle rather than the religious questions which were involved.

The old Canaanite type myth of the conflict with the forces of chaos

emerges clearly in Dan. vii and viii.21) The adversaries in Dan. vii are four beasts who rise from the sea. The analogy with the sea monster of Canaanite myth is obvious.22) On the other side the figures of the "one like a son of man" and the "ancient of days" are most satisfactorily explained against a background of Canaanite imagery.23) The im-

portant point however lies not in the particular motifs but in the structure of the vision. The beasts are symbols of chaos and the chaos is reduced to order by the elevation to the kingship of one like a son of man.

In fact Dan. vii and viii draw particular motifs from very many sources. The pattern of four kingdoms derives from a Persian schematisation of history.24) The choice of those particular beasts

probably derives from the signs of the zodiac.25) The judgment setting is definitely biblical. However, those are not the features which determine the form of the presentation.

20) The figure of Michael must be seen as a development of the prince of the host of Yahweh who appears to Joshua in Jos. v 13 and of the angel of the Exodus. We should note that the tendency to substitute this figure for Yahweh met with some opposition in Israel. Is. lxiii 9 denies that any 'prince' or angel led Israel- Yahweh himself did so. In the Septuagint of Deut. xxxii 8-9 (now supported by a Hebrew text from Qumran) Yahweh allotted the other nations to the sons of the gods but kept Israel for himself. In general see F. STIER, Gott und sein Engel im AT (Muenster i.W., 1934).

21) See the commentary of A. BENTZEN, Daniel 2 (Tiibingen, 1952) pp. 56-73. 22) Cf. CTCA 3.3 f (GORDON UT CAnat, ANET 3

p. 137), where a number of monsters are in league with Yammu. See R. J. CLIFFORD, The Cosmic Mountain p. 59; CRoss, Canaanite Myth pp. 118-119.

23) See J. A. EMERTON, "The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery" JThS IX 1958 pp. 225-242; C. COLPE, ho huios tou anthropou, TWNT VIII 1969 pp. 418-422, -TDNT VIII (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1972) pp. 415-419.

24) See D. FLUSSER, "The four empires in the Fourth Sibyl and in the book of Daniel" Israel Oriental Studies II 1972, pp. 148-175. The fact that the schema of four empires and a fifth was current in the Near East in the early second century B.C. was first pointed out by J. W. SWAIN, "The Theory of the Four Monarchies- Opposition History under the Roman Empire" Classical Philology XXV 1940, pp. 1-21. The Persian origin of the schema is guaranteed by the presence of Media among the four empires. Media ruled over Persia but its dominion never spread to the west. Cf. also the Persian Bahman Yasht, col. III.

25) A. CAQUOT, "Les quatre betes et le fils d'homme", Semitica XVII 1967 pp. 35-71.

601

J. J. COLLINS

It is particularly interesting to note how the Persian motif of the four empires is subordinated to the chaos myth. In all other represen- tations of the schema of the four empires 26) they succeed each other in

chronological order-each one disappears when its successor arises. In Dan. vii however, all the four beasts are kept alive until the judg- ment. This indicates that for Daniel the four beasts which come out of the sea collectively take the place of the sea-monster in the Ugaritic myth. Accordingly, all four are judged together.27) The Persian schematisation of history plays very little part in Dan. vii and is omitted

entirely in the largely parallel chapter viii. Daniel is not concerned to show that each period of history is pre-determined 28) but that all enemies of Israel are agents of chaos and as such will be destroyed.

The schema of the four beasts does however serve the nationalistic

ideology of holy war. The beasts, symbols of chaos, represent the various nations who are enemies of Israel just as the princes of Greece and Persia represent them in Dan x-xii. The triumph of order over chaos coincides with the elevation of the one like a son of man over the beasts or the triumph of Michael and his people over the princes of Greece and Persia and their peoples.29) The mythology of Dan. vii-xii serves a purpose which may be described as primarily nationalistic in the sense that order is identified with the triumph of the nation Israel and chaos with Israel's enemies. By contrasting Israel with Greece and

Persia, the mythology suggests that Israel is an entity of the same order as Greece or Persia and may be defined in political or ethnic or geo- graphical terms.30) In the ancient world, religion was also closely bound to national identity but religion was assumed to coincide with

26) E.g. Bahman Yasht col. III; Velleius Paterculus 1: 66; Tacitus, Histories, 5. 8. 2, and the Jewish Sibylline Oracles IV. See FLUSSER, pp. 156-162.

27) Cf. M. NOTH, "The Understanding of History in Jewish Apocalyptic" in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Essays (Philadelphia, 1967) pp. 194-214, esp. p. 213: Daniel is concerned with "the mutual confrontation of world-history as a whole and the kingdom of God."

28) This however might be said to be the purpose of the four-fold schema in Sib. IV and in the Persian Bahman Yasht.

29) On the figure of the son of man see JOHN J. COLLINS, "The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the book of Daniel". JBL 93 (1974), pp. 50-66. I argue that the "one like a son of man" is not merely a collective symbol for Israel but also for the heavenly host which fights for Israel, and most directly refers to Michael, who as leader represents both Israel and the heavenly host.

30) The concept 'nation' is difficult to define precisely. It cannot be strictly limited to either geographical or ethnic boundaries or to the official political boundaries of any given time. Yet it is clear that these factors are involved in every definition of a nation and at least one of them is always relevant.

602

HOLY WAR IN DANIEL

political or ethnic boundaries. We may distinguish between a "natio- nalist" religion, where religious and national bounds are assumed to coincide, and a "sectarian" religion where the group is defined purely in terms of religious practice or belief, and does not coincide with any national identity.

There is reason to believe that the group to which the author of Daniel belonged did not wish to identify with the nation Israel either in a political or ethnic or geographical sense. In Dan xi 32-33, the

apocalypticist makes a distinction within Israel between those who sin

against the covenant and the wise ones of the people. Again in the final outcome of history, in the resurrection, those who are raised to life are not identified with the nation Israel. The possibility is again left open that a distinction must be made between good and bad within Israel. Further, apart from the prayer in Dan. ix, which is

probably secondary,31) little attention is paid to the history of Israel. On the other hand the book is dominated by the visions of the wise Daniel, and we may reasonably suppose that he is the paradigm for the 'wise' of Dan. xi 32-33.32) There is wide agreement that Daniel refers to the Maccabeans in a derogatory manner as "a little help" in xi 34.33) The author may be said to have an incipient sectarian attitude in so far as he identified with "the wise" rather than with the nation Israel. Yet we find no reflection of this in the mythological framework of Daniel. The author still uses the traditional imagery of holy war, in which the party aided by Yahweh is identified as the nation Israel. We can probably infer from this that there was as yet no conscious rift between the group of the "wise" and the nation at large.

Holy War in The War Scroll

When we turn to the War Scroll we again find extensive material which reminds us of the Canaanite and Israelite traditions of holy war.34) The material includes especially the details of armament and liturgy,35) but also the two-storey structure of the war and the inter- mingling of Israel with the heavenly host. When we read in col.

31) Cf. O. EISSFELDT, The Old Testament, An Introduction (Oxford, 1965) p. 529. 32) In Dan. xi 33 the wise are referred to as masktle cam while in i 4, 17 and ix

22 Daniel is a maskil. 33) Cf. N. PORTEOUS, Daniel (London, 1965) p. 168. The reference was already

interpreted in this way by Porphyry. 34) See especially P. VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN, Gott und Belial (G6ttingen, 1969). 35) On these features of the War Scroll see Y. YADIN, The Scroll of the War of the

sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford, 1962) pp. 38-228.

603

J. J. COLLINS

XVII, 7 that God exalts "amongst the angels the authority of Michael, and the dominion of Israel amongst all flesh", we have a conception closely parallel to Dan. xii 1-3 and Dan. vii.36) However, even at this

point the difference becomes obvious. The War Scroll does not derive its basic structure from the Canaanite chaos myth, but from the Persian dualism of light and darkness.

Persian influence and the scrolls.

Before we proceed to discuss the significance of this transition

something must be said of the legitimacy of positing Persian influence. An influential Iranian scholar, R. N. FRYE has sought to preclude the

possibility of discovering such influence with any accuracy by arguing that "the basic Iranian sources for deriving influences are the ninth

century A.D. Pahlavi books, the syncretic nature of which can

easily be imagined." FRYE does not deny that some of the Persian

books, especially the Avesta, can be dated back to Achaemenid times but dismisses their usefulness by asserting that "Philosophical or

theological ideas can be derived from it (either the Gathas or the

Young Avesta) as easily as, say philosophical principles of Philo can be derived from the Psalms (or Genesis)".37)

However, neither the Psalms nor the Avesta are quite so vague as FRYE asserts. Further, we have valuable information of undoubted

antiquity in classical authors. In view of the long close contacts between Jews and Persians we cannot simply dismiss the possibility of Persian influence. When we find in the Qumran scrolls a concept or motif which is paralleled in a Persian source which can be dated to

pre-Christian times, then we must seriously consider the question of Persian influence. Even when the motif in the scrolls can be ex-

plained as the development of a biblical idea we must question whether the development has in any way been shaped by the Persian

parallels.38)

36) See U. MUELLER, Messias und Menschensohn inJiidischen Apokalypsen und in der Offenbarung Johannes (Giitersloh 1972) pp. 25-26.

37) R. N. FRYE, "Reitzenstein and Qumran Re-visited by an Iranian" HTR LV 1962, p. 262. Cf. VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN p. 81 who dismisses the possibility of Persian influence in a footnote.

38) See the excellent study by D. WINSTON, "The Iranian Component in the

Bible, Apocrypha and Qumran," History of Religions V 1966, pp. 183-216. On a more superficial level, Iranian influence in the War Scroll is shown in the use of the term "naxcir". Cf. J. P. DE MENASCE, "Iranien Naxcir", VT VI 1956, pp. 213-214.

604

HOLY WAR IN DANIEL

In particular, FRYE neglects the account of Zoroastrianism found in Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride 45-47. Plutarch's account was probably derived from Theopompus, who wrote in the third century B.C.,39) and shows how Zoroastrianism was perceived in the west. The

passage is of particular relevance for the War Scroll.40) It tells of the conflict between Horomazes (Ahura Mazda) and Areimanios (Ahri- man/Angra Mainyu) of whom the one is born of light, the other of darkness. For three thousand years one will prevail and the other be

vanquished, in turn (ana meros) and for another three thousand years they will fight and destroy each other's possessions. Then Hades will

pass away and the god who brings this about will rest. The essential

authenticity of this account is supported by various references to a final conflict in the Avesta.41)

Turning now to the War Scroll we find a striking similarity between the basic structure of the war in the two documents. The basic struc- ture of the war in the Scroll is found especially in cols. I and XV-

XIX.42) The remaining columns supply details of armament and

liturgy, and are probably later additions to the core work.43) The structure of the war is clearly stated in col. I, 13-15:

"On the day of their battle with the Kittim they shall go forth for a carnage in battle. In three lots shall the Sons of Light prove strong so as to smite the wicked, and in three the army of Belial shall recover so as to bring about the withdrawal of the lot [of Light. The] skirmishing battalions-their hearts shall be melted while the might of God strengthens [the heart of the Sons of Darkness,] but in the seventh lot

39) See the commentary of J. GWYN GRIFFITHS, Plutarch, de Iside et Osiride (Cardiff, 1971). The text can also be found in J. BIDEZ and F. CUMONT, Les Mages Hellenisis II (Paris, 1938) pp. 70-72.

40) Amazingly, it has never to my knowledge been directly applied to the War Scroll. H. MICHAUD, "Un mythe zervanite dans un des manuscripts de Qumran" VT V 1955, pp. 137-147, has compared it with the Manual of Discipline cols III-IV (the treatise of the two spirits).

41) E.g. Yasna 44, 15, "When the two hostile armies meet, to which of the two will you give victory", J. DUCHESNE-GUILLEMIN, The Hymns of Zarathustra (Lon- don, 1972) p. 71.

42) See the analyses of J. VAN DER PLOEG, Le Rouleau de la Guerre (Leiden, 1959) pp. 19-22; J. BECKER, Das Heil Gottes (G6ttingen, 1964) pp. 43-50; P. VAN DER OSTEN-SACKEN, Gott und Belial pp. 42-62.

43) Cols. II-VII, 8 are largely independent of the rest of the book. Cols. VII, 8-XIV are closely related to XV-XIX but various scholars see the relationship in different ways. So A. DUPONT-SOMMER sees XV-XIX as a secondary recension of X-XIV. VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN, Gott und Belial, finds the secondary recension in VII-VIII, XIV. The fact that passages which are closely parallel in X-XIV and XV-XIX regularly show a longer form in X-XIV argues for the priority of XV-XIX.

605

J. J. COLLINS

the great hand of God shall subdue [Belial and all] angels of his dominion, and for all men of [his lot there shall be eternal annihila- tion]" 44).

This pattern is elaborated in cols. XV-XIX. We find in

col. XVI, 3-8, the order for the first attack; XVI, 9 ff - the counterattack of Belial; XVII, 10- 16-the second attack (=third lot, XVII, 16); XVII, 16-counterattack of Belial, fourth lot.

The next two lots are missing because of a missing portion at the bottom of the manuscript,45) but in col. XVIII we find the final inter- vention of God.46) This pattern of six periods in three of which Belial is victorious, I take to be the basic structure of the War Scroll.47)

There are a number of obvious similarities between the War Scroll and the passage in Plutarch. Three of those concern points which are of basic importance to both accounts. First, the schematisation by which the war is divided into six periods, second the imagery of light and darkness, and third the leaders of the two factions.

The division of the war into six periods followed by the intervention of God in the War Scroll might at first glance appear to be merely another instance of "sabbatical eschatology".48) However, sabbatical

eschatology does not allow for a period of victory by Belial. The fact that Belial is granted equal success with the Prince of Light, before

44) Trans. YADIN pp. 260-262. 45) One-third of each column is missing at the bottom. Cf. L. RosT, "Zum

Buch der Kriege der 'Sohne des Lichts' gegen die 'S6hne der Finsternis' " Th. L.Z. LXXX 1955, col. 205; J. CARMIGNAC, La Regle de la guerre (Paris, 1958), p. 23; BECKER, Heil Gottes, p. 43.

46) VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN has argued at length that cols. VII, 9-IX, 9 show a structure of the war identical to that found in I, 11-14 and XV-XIX. In fact cols. VII-IX tell of a three-fold attack which is probably based on the later passage, but significantly omits the counterattacks of Belial (Gott und Belial pp. 50-55).

47) YADIN has attempted to harmonise this structure of the war with what we find in col. II. There we find another pattern. The war will last forty years in- cluding five sabbatical years and twenty-nine years of fighting (The Scroll of the War, pp. 20-27, 37). This harmonisation however is impossible. In col. I the six phases of the war take place on the same day. YADIN presumes that they take six years. In col. I the battle with the Kittim is the absolutely decisive battle. In YADIN'S reconstruction it is followed by 33 further years of warfare. We must conclude that cols. I and II were not originally parts of the same document.

48) Cf. YADIN, p. 37. On "sabbatical eschatology" see G. W. BUCHANAN, The Consequences of the Covenant (Leiden, 1970) pp. 9-17.

606

HOLY WAR IN DANIEL

God's intervention, is quite without parallel in the holy war traditions or in earlier biblical eschatology. Needless to say, "sabbatical escha-

tology" provided a point of contact, an area where the Persian myth coincided with Jewish teaching and so made possible the acceptance of the novel elements by the Jews. The novel element was that the battle was equally apportioned between the angel of light and the

angel of darkness, until the time of God's final intervention. The terminology of light and darkness also had a biblical back-

ground.49) In fact its use in Amos v 18, where the day of Yahweh is said to be a day of darkness and not light, suggests that it had a

background in holy war traditions.50) Here again we have a natural

point of contact for Jewish and Persian religion. However, nowhere in biblical tradition do we find the opposing sides designated in terms of light and darkness. The biblical terminology is here given a new dimension of dualism. The obvious source of this new dimension can be found in the Persian myth recounted in Plutarch.

Finally the figures of Michael and Belial owe something to Persian influence. In each case the name is Hebrew. Belial probably contains a reference to the underworld, ultimately to the Canaanite Mot.51) VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN has shown that the name also had a back-

ground in holy war.52) Michael appears, independently of any Persian influence in the book of Daniel. The novelty here lies in the manner in which they appear as equal adversaries in the battle and are defined with reference to each other-prince of light, prince of darkness.

The War Scroll has in effect substituted for the Canaanite chaos

myth another myth in which the world is divided equally between the

antagonists, at least for a period. In this way the foundation is laid for a thorough-going dualism.

The Persian myth is not merely adopted in the War Scroll. It is modified and adjusted in terms of the traditional mythology of holy war. First the six thousand year war of the Persian myth is condensed in the scroll into one day-the day of Yahweh (I, 9). Second, the battle is not purely mythological. The sons of light are represented on earth

by Israel, and the sons of darkness by the Kittim and the 'nations'

49) See especially S. AALEN, Die Begriffe 'Licht' und 'Finsternis' (Oslo, 1951). 50) Cf. VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN p. 81. 51) See NICHOLAS J. TROMP, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World

(Rome, 1969) p. 125, following CROss and FREEDMAN. On Belial in the scrolls see H. W. HUPPENBAUER, "Belial in den Qumran Texten" Theologische Zeitschrift XV 1959, pp. 81-89.

52) VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN, pp. 73-78.

607

J. J. COLLINS

(XV, 2, 13). Third the battle is finally resolved by the intervention of God who is above the two warring figures of Michael and Belial. The intervention of a higher god in the Persian myth is possible, but is not

explicitly stated and may be considered unlikely.53) What we find in the War Scroll, then, is a combination and modifi-

cation both of Jewish traditions and of Persian myth. The majority of the motifs are, as we might expect, biblical. In no case can the end-

product be described as simply Persian. However the end-product is a novelty in Israelite religion, and its novelty can be directly attributed to Persian influence.

The novelty lies not just in a few motifs but in the structure of the world-view. In Daniel, as in the old chaos myth, the power of Israel's enemies appears as a temporary distortion of the order of the universe.

Despite the listing of the four kingdoms as beasts there is no sugges- tion that the chaos they represent is inherent in the order of creation. The heavenly counterparts of the beasts are the patron deities of

specific nations and so the extent of their power is confined to the dominion of those nations. The chaos is only a rebellion after which the true order of nature will be restored.

In the War Scroll, however, Belial wins the alternative phases of the battle. This indicates that he has an equal power with Michael up to the time when God intervenes. The implications of this remain constant despite the reduction of the time span from six thousand

years in Plutarch to one day in the War Scroll. The significant point is that the period of struggle is shared equally by the two spirits. This means that evil has a place in the constitution of the world, not

merely as a chaos which occasionally erupts, but as an everpresent factor. Up to the time of God's final intervention evil as well as good has a grip on the universe.

In Daniel, the heavenly counterparts of Israel's enemies are iden- tified as the patron deities of specific nations. Chaos is therefore identified in political terms. There is no suggestion of a cosmological or superhuman principle of evil which is unrelated to ethnic or politi- cal identity. In the War Scroll, however, Israel's enemies have their

heavenly counterparts not in the patron deities, but in the figure of

53) H. MICHAUD, "Un mythe zervanite," following BENVENISTE NYBERG and BIDEZ-CUMONT, interprets the myth in Plutarch as Zervanite-therefore implying a higher god. However, other scholars date the rise of Zervanite religion later-

e.g. R. C. ZAEHNER, The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism (New York, 1961) pp. 193-210.

608

HOLY WAR IN DANIEL

Belial. Belial is not confined to any nation and is not identified as the

prince of any country although his earthly host includes the Kittim and the traditional enemies of Israel listed in col. I. Belial himself is described in ethical or cosmic terms. He is the "prince of the dominion of wickedness" (XVII, 6). He was made

"to corrupt, an angel of hatred, his [dominion] being in darkness and his counsel to render wicked and guilty. All the spirits of his lot, angels of destruction walk in the boundaries of darkness, and unto it shall be their desire all together". (XIII, 11-12).

Michael, in turn, is not explicitly called the prince of Israel as he is in

Daniel, but rather the Prince of Light (XIII, 10). The primary distinc- tion made in the War Scroll is not based on nationalistic or ethnic

language but rather on the moral forces of good and evil, or the cosmic principles of light and darkness. The use of this language suggests that ethnic or national identity does not necessarily play a

part in the eschatological battle. The language of the War Scroll thus

opens up a possibility radically different from the traditional natio- nalistic conception of holy war which we still find in the mythological framework of Daniel.

The implications of this new language and of the dualistic Persian

myth from which it derives are not fully realised in the War Scroll. Rather, under the influence of Daniel, the earthly sons of darkness are identified in political terms as the Kittim and the nations.54) Although Michael is not explicitly described as the prince of Israel his dominion in heaven corresponds to the dominion of Israel on earth (XVII, 7). This ambivalence which we find in the War Scroll-by which a nationalistic opposition of Israel and the Kittim' is used side by side with an opposition of light and darkness which transcends national boundaries-shows that the War Scroll was written at a point of transition. The traditional nationalistic language still predominates but the new language of Persian dualism has also been introduced to express a new world view which has not yet clearly emerged.

54) On the Kittim see YADIN, The Scroll of the War pp. 21-25 (who identifies them here as the Romans) and H. H. ROWLEY "The Kittim and the Dead Sea Scrolls" Palestine Exploration Quarterly LXXXVIII 1956, pp. 92-109. All agree that the term Kittim can refer to either Greeks or Romans-cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.6.1 who says the name was applied to all islands and most maritime countries. It is difficult to assess how far the War Scroll had specific enemies in mind. In view of the lack of specificity it is most probable that the scroll simply accepted the traditional idea that Israel's enemies would be destroyed in the eschatological battle. In the Hellenistic and Roman periods Israel's outstanding enemies could be appropriately summed up as Kittim.

609

J. J. COLLINS

The particular combination of traditional language with new Persian imagery which we find in the War Scroll is thus probably indicative of the place of the War Scroll in the history of the Qumran community. The dualistic myth in a Jewish context was essentially sectarian as it introduced a criterion for the self-identity of the group other than that of ethnic distinctiveness. Now there is considerable

probability that at least the earliest stages of the War Scroll were written before the Qumran community crystallised as a sect-i.e., before the people who formed the community realised that their basic group identity was not the political, national Israel.55) We find no indication in the older section of the War Scroll (cols. I, XV-XIX) that the author saw himself as part of a remnant or elite within Israel. When we read in col. XIV, 8-9 "we, the rem(nant of Thy people)" and "the rem/ains of the people of Israel)", we are dealing with a

secondary recension, as has been shown by comparison with a frag- ment of another copy of the Scroll from cave 4.56)

The sectarian implications of the dualistic myth are much more

clearly seen in the Manual of Discipline, cols. III-IV, in the doctrine of the two spirits. This doctrine is obviously another facet of what we find in the War Scroll as can be seen not only from the terminology of light and darkness, but also from the statement that God has appor- tioned periods to each spirit and will eventually destroy the spirit of

darkness.57) However, the main scene of the battle has been trans- ferred to within the hearts of men. The radical dualism of light and

55) See especially RosT, "Zum Buch der Kriege", col. 206. RosT's main ar- guments are that the War Scroll lacks the terminology of the community found in the Manual of Discipline, shows no sign of a break with the temple, and reflects a militant attitude as opposed to the quietism of the Manual. YADIN pp. 244-246 argued for a date in Roman times on the basis of similarities with the weaponry and strategy of the Roman army. YADIN'S data are drawn mainly from cols II-VII, which are largely independent of the rest of the book and could well be a later addition. It is worth noting however that the parallels with Roman practice are not unambiguous. Other scholars have found parallels to Hellenistic practice (K. M. T. ATKINSON, "The Historical Setting of the 'War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness'," BJRL XL 1957/58 pp. 272-297; J.-G. FEVRIER, "La tactique hellenistique dans un texte de cAyin Fashka" Semitica III 1950 pp. 53-59. Further M. H. SEGAL "The Qumran War Scroll and the date of its Compo- sition", Scripta Hierosolymitana IV 1965, pp. 138-143, accepts the Roman parallels but points out that Jews could have been familiar with Roman military practice from the early second century BC.

56) See C. H. HUNZINGER, "Fragmente einer alteren Fassung des Buches Milhama aus Holhe 4 von Qumran" ZAW LXIX 1957, pp. 131-151.

57) On the relation between the Manual and the War Scroll see voN DER OSTEN- SACKEN, pp. 116-122.

610

HOLY WAR IN DANIEL

darkness in this way departs far from the nationalistic framework of

Daniel, and may be considered an important milestone on the road to Gnosticism.

The affinity of the Manual of Discipline, cols. III-IV with Persian dualism has been widely recognised.58) The closest parallels are found in the Gathas.59) Since the Gathas co-existed with the eschatological myth found in Plutarch there is no reason why the Manual could not co-exist with the War Scroll. We cannot automatically assume the

priority of the War Scroll in date. However, several considerations suggest that the War Scroll is the

earlier work. Apart from the lack of sectarian character, noted by ROST, the typology of ideas provides a substantial argument. If we

grant that the dualism of the two spirits shows Persian influence, then we must assume that the borrowing was made at a point where Persian and Jewish traditions were closely similar. Such a point was

provided by the eschatological battle. We have seen how closely the two traditions could be intertwined in the War Scroll. In the Manual, the Persian borrowing is more obvious, and the roots in Israelite tradition less prominent.60) The more clearly sectarian character of the Manual supports the view that the more traditional War Scroll was written earlier.

The influence of the dualistic type mythology in the form of military conflict can also be seen in other works at Qumran. In particular, J. T. MILIK has argued that Melchizedek and Melchi-rasha' were alternate names for Michael and Belial.61) This is of particular im-

portance with reference to the eschatological role of Melchizedek in 11 QMelch.'2)

The shift from a chaos-type mythology to a dualistic type which we

58) See K. G. KUHN, "Die Sektenschrift und die iranische Religion" ZTK XLIX 1952, pp. 296-316; A. DUPONT-SOMMER, The Jevish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes (London, 1954), pp. 118-130; H. WILDBERGER, "Der Dualismus in den Qumran Schriften" Asiatische Studien I-IV 1954 pp. 163-177; R. E. BROWN, New Testament Essays (Milwaukee, 1965) pp. 105-106.

59) Especially Yasna 30. J. DUCHESNE-GUILLEMIN, The Hymns of Zarathustra pp. 105-107.

60) The Manual is not without echoes of biblical and Ugaritic myth too. See H. G. MAY, "Cosmological reference in the the Qumran Doctrine of the two Spirits and in Old Testament Imagery"JBL LXXXII 1963, pp. 1-14.

61) J. T. MILIK, "4Q Visions de 'Amram et une citation d'Origene" RB LXXIX 1972, pp. 77-97; "Milki-sedeq et Milkiresac dans les anciens Jcrits Juifs et Chre- tiens" JJS XXIII 1972, pp. 95-144.

62) M. DE JONGE and A. S. VAN DER WOUDE, "11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament" NTS XII 1965/66, pp. 301-326.

611

COLLINS, HOLY WAR IN DANIEL

have traced here was not absolutely irreversible. Even where the dualism of Michael and Belial remained we can still find a return to the chaos myth. The outstanding example of this is Rev. xii where the

adversary of Michael is described as "the dragon" and "the ancient

serpent" terms clearly reminiscent of Ugaritic myth and of the mythi- cal figures of Rahab and Leviathan in the bible.63) There was no intrinsic reason why the Caananite chaos myth should be bound to nationalism, although it had this connotation in the tradition inherited

by Daniel. The more distinctive contribution of the Persian myth was the cosmic emphasis of the antithesis of light and darkness, and the deterministic allotment of the periods of the final battle. This shift in

mythology was basic for the Qumran community. Its impact on

Jewish apocalyptic was enduring in its portrayal of a dualistic universe and of Belial as a cosmic figure beyond the range of nationalism.64)

Any evaluation of this shift in Jewish apocalyptic must note that it was a mixed blessing. By providing a criterion other than national for the identity of a religious group, it potentially opened the way for a universalistic religion. On the other hand its rigid dichotomy of light and darkness must be seen as a gross oversimplification of the human condition and potentially open to bigotry and intolerance which have

always been as typical of sectarianism as they have been of nationalism.

63) The 'ancient serpent' may of course also refer to the Genesis story but a reference to the Ugaritic Lotan or the biblical Leviathan cannot be excluded.

64) Dualism figures especially prominently in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Cf. the contrast of light and darkness in T. Levi xiv 4 and the prophecy that Beliar will be destroyed, T. L. xviii 12; T. Judah xxv 3 ; T. Dan v 10-11; T. Benjamin iii 8. Cf. also T. Issachar vii 7; T. Dan vi 1; T. Naphtali iii 2; T. Asher i 8; T. Benjamin ii 7; vii 1. In Jubilees x 11 one-tenth of the fallen angels are allowed to remain with Satan on the earth to tempt mankind. In this way the myth of the fallen angels (Gen. vi; I Enoch vi-xiii and lv-lvi) is transformed into an ongoing dualism. In 4 Ezra the dualism is completely internalised in the form of the good heart and the evil heart. On dualism in the N.T. see W. FOERSTER, "diabolos" TWNT II 1935 pp. 78-80 = TDNT II 1964, pp. 79-81; 0. B6CHER, Derjohanneische Dualismus im Zusammenhang des nachbiblischenJudentums. (Giitersloh- 1965).

612