Stable and Fluid War Traditions: Re-Thinking the War Text Material from Qumran

This study focuses on the Qumran War Text manuscripts, especially those found in Cave 4 (4Q471, 4Q491a, 4Q491b, 4Q492–4Q497). There has been a clear need to study these Cave 4 manuscripts in detail and in their own right, not just as additional evidence of the large and well-preserved War Scroll (1QM) from Cave 1. The study produces a thorough close-reading analysis of these fragments and manuscripts, with a critical evaluation of existing editions, paying attention not only to their contents but also to manuscripts as material artefacts. Consequently, three different types of relationships between the manuscripts are distinguished. First, it can be said that some manuscripts are literary dependent from each other. When comparing 1QM 14–17 and 4Q491a, it is demonstrated that the author/compiler of 1QM has used the text known in 4Q491a, modified it (in the case of battle instructions) and sometimes largely reworked it (in the case of encouragement speeches). It is not clear whether the author/compiler of 1QM actually had the exact manuscript 4Q491a in front of him but he clearly knew its text and used it, aiming at preserving its style and its main content. Second, it is found out in the analysis that there are manuscripts that were produced in the process of producing another manuscript. When comparing 4Q492, 1QM 12 and 1QM 19, it is demonstrated that 4Q492 probably is a draft version used in order to modify the text of 1QM 19 to fit in 1QM 12. Third, there are manuscripts that are not copied from each other but that yet have much in common and have probably been somehow related, at least in the level of common themes. For example, 4Q493 and 1QM may have been developed without any direct literary dependence but similar themes interested the authors of both texts and the author/compiler of 1QM probably knew a text or texts that at least reminded that of 4Q493. The titles given to the texts indicate that both authors clearly thought to represent one Milhamah-tradition, but they also felt free to modify it in their own purposes, to their own audiences – which probably were different from each other.

After that, the manuscripts are discussed together, focusing particularly on similarities between them and asking which subgenres of the War Texts were actively transmitted and to what extent it was possible to change them. Battle instructions and encouragement speeches are demonstrated to be the two main subgenres. The battle instructions were carefully transmitted whereas speeches offered a place for literary creativity and gave an opportunity to add new elements to the text.

The study demonstrates that in addition to a traditional chronological literary critical model, other models to explain the relationships and meanings of the manuscripts are needed. In the case of the War Texts, at least liturgical use and study purposes may have created needs for producing different manuscripts which were simultaneously important. Also, through a constant writing of structured war visions, their main message – everything follows God’s plan – was made real and more convincing to new audiences.