Method

The only explicit reference in the Serekh texts to a woman is in the formulaic phrases “one born of woman” in 1QS 11:21 (= 4Q264/4QS^j 8) and “son of your handmaid” a few lines earlier (1QS 11:16). However, gender-focused strategies of reading allow that women may be present without being directly mentioned.Footnote ⁸

Androcentric language does not necessarily imply an entirely masculine reality: textual androcentrism need not accurately represent social androcentrism or masculine exclusivism. In English, for example, the word “man” traditionally can mean “human” as well as someone of male gender, as with Hebrew (e.g., Gen 1:27; 5:1–2), whereas German Mensch, for example, means only “human.”Footnote ⁹ It is therefore not clear from the term whether males alone are being referred to unless there are other indicators. Maxine Grossman, in her exploration of facets of androcentrism and gendered language in the scrolls literature, notes that “[r]eferences to women in an androcentric text are clearly identifiable—they appear on those occasions when women are explicitly not men … clustered around particular concerns, including control of sexuality, reproduction, ritual purity, and social structure.”Footnote ¹⁰ This does not necessarily indicate that they are not included in generic masculine references. With the Serekh texts, we do not then necessarily need to assume that masculine references only indicate males, and, according to Grossman, “[w]here once we might have imagined a celibate community of males, this perspective pushes us instead to think in terms of a sexually-controlled community of ‘men,’ understood … to include any such persons as could conform to the proper social norms of the androcentric discourse,” referring also to Sidnie White Crawford's observation that post-menopausal women may have satisfied the requirements for membership of the group, so that “the gendering of ‘men’ … might easily have included among them some men who were women.”Footnote ¹¹

Also, we can work against the grain of masculinist rhetoric in order to be alert to words and phrases that imply an awareness of women in the world the text points to, even when the presentation of the texts is indeed androcentric, not only in language but also in emphasis, in that males alone are the objects of interest, the addressees and the protagonists. The following discussion will employ this latter strategy.Footnote ¹² I will not here suggest that there is gender inclusivism in terms of authorship or readership and will begin with the assumption that the most likely authors and readers are adult males. However, I will not assume that everyone within the totality of the group evidenced in the texts is necessarily an adult male. In order to define parameters, I will explore the world of the texts in order to determine whether women and children appear to be alluded to in hidden ways and, if so, where they appear in relation to group identity.

I have already provided a fuller exploration of such a methodological approach, encompass-ing also underlying theory, in my discussion of Philo of Alexandria's De Vita Contemplativa, which I do not repeat here. The fundamental difference between the approach adopted in my gender analysis of Philo's treatise and what follows in regard to the Serekh texts is that in the former case there is a recognition that Philo's perspective is etic (even allowing for Philo's participation in the group under discussion), while in the Serekh texts the authorial perspective is emic. That is to say, the group described in Philo's treatise is presented and processed as an ideal—by an outsider—in order to function within Philo's wider rhetorical strategies designed for an outside audience; the language and the purposes are Philo's. However, in the case of the Serekh texts, the actual group is defined by implication within its own legal prescriptions, designed by insiders for the guidance of a group leader, the “sage” () who is to oversee group order and organize practice. There is no explanation of insider terms that form key language components of the Serekh material—such as , , or —since these are assumed to be self-explanatory within the insider dimensions of the group(s).

In terms of the Serekh texts, I adopt the normative epistemological position within scrolls scholarship that these legal and proscriptive texts are reflective of the historical actuality of group(s), often termed the “Qumran community,” although I prefer to employ the terminology “Serekh group(s)” since the connection between the group(s) evidenced in these particular texts and the residents of the site of Qumran is unclear.Footnote ¹³

The aim then in this discussion is to identify elements of the Serekh texts that indicate the presence of women and children within the world of the text—that is, a consciousness of women and families in the world of the text—even when they are not specifically mentioned or addressed. Given that the text's perspective is emic, there will also be consideration of whether women and children function as part of the world outside the group (as “them”) or inside it (as “us”).

Lecherous Eyes

The most obvious place to find hidden women in the world of the text is in 1QS 1:6b: “those within the must not look with lecherous eyes ().” This parallels a proscription in CD 2:16 (= 4Q266/4QD^a 2:2:16; 4Q270/4QD^e 1:1) in which the phrase “lecherous eyes” is used in regard to male actions and illustrated by the story of the Watchers (1 Enoch 6–16; see also Gen 6), who lusted after women and procreated with them. At the very least, this would suggest that the members of the Serekh group cannot have lived an isolated existence far away from people of the opposite sex, since the community described in the Damascus texts clearly did not. One might suggest that the lechery concerned is same-sex in orientation; however, given the use of the phrase in specific relation to men lusting after women in the Damascus texts, this seems unlikely.

The word , “prostitution,” “unchastity,” “voluptuousness,” “fornication,” connected semantically to the verb , “to run away/after,”Footnote ¹⁴ is broad in meaning. In 4QMMT 81–91, “fornications” are defined as a mingling of the sons of Aaron, the priests (who have “holy seed”), with the people (i.e., with women who are not from priestly families). The Damascus Document defines as one of the “nets of Belial,” here exemplified by the action of a man taking two wives in his lifetime (CD 4:15–21). In 4Q269/4QD^b 12:4–5 = 4Q270/4QD^e 11:11–12, a man who approaches his wife with shall leave the congregation and never return. This is not to be understood as a rejection of sex but a ban on certain sexual conduct. Inappropriate sexual connection—whether during a woman's menstrual period or pregnancy or for any other reason—was one specific case in which a woman could testify against her husband in 1QSa 1:8–11.Footnote ¹⁵ Importantly, it is the man who is responsible here.

While the Bible has images of Israel as the metaphorical “wife” of YHWH who “whores” after other gods (e.g., Num 14:33), women's “lechery” in these texts generally consists in attracting rather than lustfully “eyeing” the object of her affections, as we see also in 4Q184 Wiles of the Wicked Woman, where all the alluring parts of a woman's body (mouth, eyes, feet) as well as her clothes and lodging, are defined as defiled. Her eyes are not defined as actively lustful but rather as manipulating: the eyes of a prostitute look around for a man she can run after and trip up (4Q184:13–14).Footnote ¹⁶ As Michael Satlow has explored, women are often configured in contemporaneous Jewish literature as lacking the essentially masculine quality of self-mastery.Footnote ¹⁷ The identification of women being those who manipulate male lust is much attested (e.g., Sir 25:21; 26:9; Pss. Sol. 16:7–8; T. Reu. 3:11–12; 5:1–5; 6:1; Josephus, J.W. 2.121; Ant. 7.130; b. Ta‘an 24a).Footnote ¹⁸ Self-control is the required male response. The active agent in sex was understood to be the adult male,Footnote ¹⁹ and therefore he is usually responsible for sexual misconduct. The masculine focus—a proscription against men's practices—is also made clear in the Damascus texts, as noted above, where examples of those with are masculine: brave heroes and Watchers, whose actions bring terrible consequences on the earth and on humanity (CD 2:17–21 = 4QD^a 2:2:16–22; 4QD^e 1:1–3).

This is then androcentric language. The rejection of certain conduct here does not imply a man's separation from women or the rest of society; the emphasis is simply on self-control. A man has turned away from the practice of looking at women in a certain way. There is no suggestion that, in order to avoid this, a man must leave the company of women and live a celibate lifestyle together with other men. There is much in the Serekh rules that focuses on Greek concepts of self-mastery (ἐγκράτεια), in line with concepts of “manliness”—ἀνδρεία (often translated as “courage”)—well-known in the wider Mediterranean worldFootnote ²⁰ and found evidenced in post-exilic Jewish literature (e.g., Sir 18:30; Prov 16:32; 4 Maccabees; Jubilees).Footnote ²¹ The proscription fits well with this.

In many ways the prohibition parallels a teaching tradition of Jesus, which holds that any man who looks after a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matt 5:28). The emphasis here is very much on the eye of the “one seeing” (ὁ βλέπων), and in Matthew's Gospel this is directly linked with the challenging instruction that if an eye causes you to sin, you should pluck it out (Matt 5:29, from Mark 9:47–48, repeated in Matt 18:9). But such (likewise androcentric) statements do not lead at all to the conclusion that Jesus’ male followers had to separate themselves from women; women appear frequently in the New Testament and early Christian literature as key role models and disciples working with men, for example Priscilla (Acts 18:1–3, 18, 26; Rom 16:3–4; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19) and Thecla (The Acts of Paul and Thecla). The ideal masculine state might be defined as being a “eunuch” for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 19:10–12), an asexual condition supposedly like the angels (Matt 22:30; Luke 20:34–36; Rev 14:1–15),Footnote ²² but here the issue is a man's self-control alongside women outside the normative household, within the wider community of Jesus' disciples.Footnote ²³

The plain meaning of the text of 1QS 1:6b then is an exhortation for men not to look at women with desire. Women clearly exist in the world of the text as the recipients of lecherous looks or inappropriate sexual connection. Whether they are in the category of “us” or “them” in terms of group identity (as distinguished from author[s] or addressee[s]) is unspecified, but since affects wives of male insiders in the Damascus texts, as well as in 1QSa, and within Israel in 4QMMT, it is unnecessary to assume that the women must be outsiders in the Serekh texts.

Fruitful Seed

Within the Two Spirits treatise (1QS 3:13–4:26), there is the specific blessing of “fruitful seed” (; 1QS 4:7). This kind of androcentric language is attested frequently in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Gen 48:4) as indicating numerous physical children and descendants since is both the word for “semen” and also its realization in physical progeny in terms of the male line.Footnote ²⁴ Fruitfulness is given as a commandment from God to the creatures of the world (Gen 1:22) including humanity (1:28), and blessings of fruitfulness are granted to those doing the will of God. Most particularly, the blessing of fruitfulness is included in the blessings to Israel in Lev 26:9: “I shall turn towards you. I shall make you fruitful and make your numbers grow, and I shall uphold my covenant with you.”

If a multitude of descendants is a blessing to the Serekh group(s) specifically, as in the Two Spirits treatise, then it would be inconsistent for the people who used these texts to put themselves in a position in which it is impossible for them to enjoy this blessing, by being a separated, celibate community of men who had joined without ever reproducing. There is no indication at all that there was a metaphorical interpretation of this reward.

It is important to note here the universalist language:Footnote ²⁵ God created “humanity” () for the dominion of the world, “making for it/him two spirits to walk with it/him until the time of its/his visitation” (1QS 3:18). This universalism is found already in 1QS 3:14 where the (sage) is to “teach all the children of light about the nature of all the children of man” ().Footnote ²⁶ This is a wide view of the order of creation, as in 1 Enoch 41:8. The rewards for the “children of truth” in 1QS are healing, peace and a long life, fruitful seed, joy in eternal life, and a crown of glory with bright attire in eternal light (i.e., the life of angels) (1QS 4:6–8). The language very much picks up on the themes of Leviticus 26 overall, while avoiding specific illustrative examples.

As in Leviticus 26, so here: this blessing is contrasted with the curse on the wicked. Those who walk in the spirit of deceit will find all kinds of “chastisements at the hands of all the angels of destruction” and ultimately their own destruction (1QS 4:12–14); they will have no “remnant or survivor” (4:14). The curses of Lev 26:14–43 against those who reject God's laws and break the covenant are graphic about the horrors of destruction, including illness, plague, failed crops, destroyed cattle, and utter annihilation and desolation through war. The curses include wild animals who kill children (Lev 26:22), starvation that leads people to eat their children (Lev 26:29), and general perishing in the lands of the enemies (Lev 26:38), although here God does not totally forget the covenant he made with the first generations brought out of Egypt (Lev 26:44–45). There is no metaphorical dimension to this passage either.

The Two Spirits treatise appears to reflect on the importance of Israel as a whole keeping the covenant. It links also with other manuscripts on blessings (e.g., 4QBerakot: 4Q280, 286, 287), particularly to 1QSb Rule of Blessings, addressed to the maskil, in which those who keep the will of God and walk with perfection constitute a congregation of holy ones in which “all their seed” (3:1) will be blessed, since God will “make your seed holy with eternal glory” (3:4).

While the language is androcentric, the theme concerns all humanity, with not only earthly but also eschatological consequences for everyone following the path of truth or falsehood. Those who follow truth are implicitly the true Israel, who have “fruitful seed” (a generic reference) that is also part of Israel, the production of which assumes mothers and fathers. Therefore, women are included with the category of “us,” as being part of Israel.

Israel and the Covenant Renewal Ceremony

This point requires further exploration. It has long been noted that 1QS refers to a covenant renewal ceremony (1:16–3:12). This would suggest the presence of women and children, as we find explicitly stated in 1QSa 1:4.Footnote ²⁷ Here “little children and women” are within the congregation who hear the law, assembled “in thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens” under the authority of various chiefs (1QSa 1:14–15). In the Serekh, the language is very similar to that of 1QSa: The manner of entering the covenant is to be enacted “year after year” (1QS 2:19). God's “acts of love” towards Israel are recalled (1QS 1:22) and Israel confesses sins collectively every year (1QS 1:23–26).Footnote ²⁸ The priests are to “enter the rule” first, followed by Levites, and then all the people ()—a strongly inclusive term—“in thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens” (as in 1QSa), so that “all the children of Israel may know their place in the of God” (1QS 2:19–22). This covenant renewal ceremony has its precedents in Deut 5–6 and 31—in which the law is proclaimed every seven years “in the hearing of all Israel. Call the people together, men, women and children and the foreigner dwelling with you” (Deut 31:12)—as well as in the renewal ceremony of Nehemiah (Neh 8:2–12).Footnote ²⁹

The formulaic numbers themselves indicate organization in terms of admin-istering covenantal law. In Exodus 18, Moses is urged by his father-in-law to “choose capable and God-fearing men” who will be put in charge of administering the law as heads of “thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens” (Exod 18:19–22; see also 18:25).Footnote ³⁰ This is referred to in Deut 1, where Moses addresses “all Israel” (1:1): tribal leaders are in charge of “thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens” (Deut 1:15).

In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah only “the community of the exiles” (Neh 10:8) are permitted to eat consecrated food, although they must prove themselves worthy (Neh 7:61–65; Ezra 2:63). There is also an emphasis on separation from the “filthy practices of the people of the land” (Ezra 6:21, 9:11) under the guidance of Ezra, who—as a scribe—was devoted to “studying the law of YHWH in order to put it into practice and teach its statutes and rulings” (Ezra 7:10). All the people are gathered together within households, in assembly (Neh 8:2–3), as in the annual covenant renewal ceremony of 1QS 2:19, after which they eat and drink (Neh 8:12).Footnote ³¹ In fact, the lowest gathering number of ten in 1QSa and 1QS may well indicate the smallest household unit, as in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

This covenant renewal ceremony appears also in 4QD^a 11:16–18 where there is a reference to a gathering of all the inhabitants of the camps in the “third month,” which relates directly to the Jubilees calendar, in which both Pentecost (Shavuot) and the Renewal of the Covenant take place on the fifteenth day of the third month (Jub. 6:17–19).Footnote ³²

The pan-Israel inclusivity of the covenant renewal ceremony then extends to the Two Spirits treatise (3:13–4:26), in which all humanity is considered. It is stated that the rewards for those who follow light rather than darkness, truth rather than falsehood, are for those who keep the covenant (4:22). The Two Spirits treatise is not only a kind of extrapolation designed for the maskil (3:13); it frames the entire covenant renewal ceremony. The treatise is introduced at the very beginning, in 1QS 1:8–10, where one must submit to the , “counsel/authority of God”Footnote ³³; is “joined to the counsel/authority of God, to walk perfectly before him in all that is revealed at their appointed times, and in order to love all the children of light each according to his lot by the counsel/authority of God, and to hate all the children of darkness, each according to his guilt at the vengeance of God.” God sets both the laws of the covenant and also the laws that govern all humanity. This blending of language concerning the two spirits, blessings, curses, and covenant is precisely what we find in the 4QBerakot texts. The word is probably best translated as “united totality” as in Deut 33:5, where is refers to all the tribes of Israel, not just one small group. Given its usage throughout 1QS columns 1 to 4, it would actually indicate (true) Israel, inclusive of women and children (i.e., whole families).Footnote ³⁴

This conclusion seems necessary also in order to avoid a logical absurdity. If the Two Spirits treatise relates only to an exclusive group of adult males living in separated, sectarian communities, who are only interested in legislation for themselves, who alone consider themselves to be defined by the “sons/children of light” designation (1QS 1:9 etc), and who consign to destruction all those outside their group, then they also consign to destruction all women and children, as “them,” over against the group “us.” This would include their mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, and any children (male or female) they may have had. However, in the Serekh texts, the — the united totality—greatly esteems Moses and Torah (1QS 1:3), in which women and children are part of Israel and are included in regulations governing Israel, as we see elsewhere in the scrolls. An adult, all-male, celibate Israel is inconsistent with the Law and the Prophets and does not allow for fruitful seed or for the universalizing scope of the Two Spirits treatise, which ultimately harks back to Leviticus 26.Footnote ³⁵ The beginning of 1QS thus presumes a normative Israel in its covenant renewal ceremony in which men, women, and children are governed by covenantal law. This is the ceremony that binds “us.”

The

The word is ambiguous, in referring either to the “counsel/authority” of God, as above, or the “unity of his counsel” in some sections of 1QS (1:8, 10, 3:2, 6, etc.), or to a “council/authority” that appears to be a legal and deliberative body within the , although in 1QS 5–9 it can also apparently be defined by the term itself, since here a select group join together for a particular purpose. In other words, the meanings of both and shift in different segments of the Serekh texts, depending on the subject matter, which may point to historically older or newer sections.Footnote ³⁶ In 1QS 5–9 the is focused on law, and the members of this body are required to eat, bless, and give counsel/deliberate together (1QS 6:2–3), with a third of every night spent reading, studying judgment, and saying benedictions (1QS 6:7–8), with someone always studying the law (1QS 6:6–7). This grouping could have developed from the kind of body defined in Ezra and Nehemiah as being constituted by priests, Levites, and “[male] heads of families” (Neh 8:13; see also Ezra 1:5; 2:68; 3:12; 4:3; 8:1) who “gathered around the scribe Ezra to study the words of the law,” as found also in CD 14:3–6.Footnote ³⁷ There is no celibacy requirement here, but there seems to be a requirement of maleness. The text of 1QSa clearly shows that heads of households, sometimes translated as “chiefs of clans,” are key members of this ‘united totality’ ().

John J. Collins has pointed out that in 1QS 8–9 there is a repetition of the phrase “when these are in Israel” (8:4, 12; 9:3) in relation to the the of the , and therefore this appears to comprise an elite group integral to the existence of the .Footnote ³⁸ “Israel” is not co-terminal with this body, since in 1QS 6:13 the heading concerns “one who willingly offers himself from Israel to join the of the .” The is constituted by Israelites (2:19–22), but not all Israel is in the .

It would seem that the is then the holy center, a virtual temple, “a house of truth in Israel,” designed to “lay a foundation of truth for Israel” (1QS 5:5–6, 4QS^b 5:5, 4QS^d 1:4; see also 1QS 8:5), “the tested wall, the costly cornerstone … a most holy dwelling for Aaron … a house of perfection and truth in Israel” (1QS 8:7–9, 4QS^b 5:5–6, 4QS^e 2:12–16; see also 1QS 9:6), but it is not Israel in its entirety any more than the temple (with its all male priesthood) constitutes Israel in its entirety. Like the priesthood, this particular within the wider atones for Israel (1QS 5:6–7), making “expiation for the land” (1QS 8:10, 4QS^d 2:1:1; 4QS^e 2:13; see also Jub. 6:2). But a constituted seems to be small: ten men including at least one priest (1QS 6:3–4, 6) or else twelve men and three priests (1QS 8:1), men who—to be allowed into this body—had to be “perfect in everything” (1QS 8:1).

While the evolution of the Serekh texts is not a concern in this discussion,Footnote ³⁹ it is interesting that 4QS^d clearly begins at a point corresponding to 1QS 5:1 with a focus on the “people of the law” (4QS ^{b, d}; compare “people of the ” in 1QS 5:1), who hold fast to all that God commanded and separate themselves from the congregation of people of deceit. This fits well conceptually with notions of the found in 1QS columns 1 through 4, whereby this term is synonymous with (true) Israel. The people form a in terms of law and property. If this was indeed the first version of the Serekh texts, then a covenant renewal ceremony, added to that, would be a method of recognizing and expanding on this awareness of the whole, wider community of men, women, and children for which the acted as a holy center.

We may also recognize the gender ramifications of 4QS^e, which has the Otot instead of the final hymn of 1QS 9:26b–11:22, indicating at face value a practical orientation on the temple. Otot, “signs,” is a calendar governing the twenty-four priestly courses in the temple. It correlates jubilee periods of forty-nine years, conjunctions of the beginning of the lunar month and solar year (which happened every three years), and the priestly courses that would be on duty on this date (i.e., Gamul and Shecaniah), in accordance with a lunisolar calendar which combined a 364-day solar calendar with the 354-day lunar calendar. This puts us clearly in the masculine conceptual world of temple organization.

There is an overlap between the language of the and the : a word that is usually translated as “many.” However, clearly refers only to the council in 1QS 6:7–23 (4QS^b 11:5–13 = 4QS^d 3:1–3 = 4QS^g 3:1) and elsewhere.Footnote ⁴⁰ In 1QS 6:1a it is a judicial body before which a man may accuse his fellow. The text of 1QS 6:1b–8a concerns meetings of the (6:3), and is followed in 1QS 6:8b–13a by an explanation of the rule for a session of these . In 4QS^b 9:2–4 and 4QS^d 1:9–12 the authority of the priestly hierarchy of the “sons of Zadok” (1QS 5:2) is not found but rather that of the .

In terms of biblical precedents, in Job 32:9 the word is paralleled with , “elders”: “ will not give wisdom; and will not be intelligent in judgment.”Footnote ⁴¹ Within contemporary Judaism, the term was honorific when applied to a teacher or elder with religious or judicial authority (e.g., Matt 23:7–8).Footnote ⁴² In Mishnaic Hebrew this word, used in this honorific sense, has a feminine plural ending (), but in fact it has a masculine plural ending in biblical Hebrew (Job 32:9). The term is found quite often in the Bible as referring to individual chiefs/judges (2 Kings 18:17, etc.) with a construct plural of attested in Jer 39:13 and 41:1, which indicates a masculine plural form .Footnote ⁴³ Given this, the term here in Serekh is not necessarily to be translated as “many” but rather would most obviously mean “honored authorities.”Footnote ⁴⁴ It could then at times refer to the “sons of Zadok,” to “elders,” or to the collective members of the without necessarily indicating total equations between these terms. The key point here is that leadership by the implies a wider community led by those so designated, just as the term “elders” presuppose others who are junior and a wider community of people who are led by them.

As for the as a council, historical clues for some form of communal living of a male group without women may be provided by the fact that these men set their minds on studying and walking in perfection for the “atonement” of Israel, atoning being a priestly function.

As E. P. Sanders has pointed out, priests on duty at the temple had periods of separation from their families and communal living in the temple precincts.Footnote ⁴⁵ Priests ate some meals in purity—food from sacrifices—when on duty at the temple two weeks out of every year and during their extra service for the festivals (Num 18:8–10), meals that would have been consumed when they resided together in the priests' court of the temple. At this time they did not have sexual relations, and in fact having sexual relations would make it difficult to eat meals in purity, since most purifications required not only washing but also the setting of the sun (Leviticus 15). So if a man and woman had sexual relations after sunset they would be impure all the next day until sunset. The Serekh texts related to the do not refer to a circumstance of communal living but rather the “purity,” the occasion of a pure meal. Members of the council eat together in a state of purity, having immersed themselves. Nevertheless, if the foundational concept of this pure meal was in fact the pure meals eaten by priests in the temple, then the Serekh texts may imply a communal living arrangement also, since this was the situation of the priests during their temple service. Added to this are proscriptions in other texts that indicate there was a ban on sex in the city of Jerusalem, which seems to expand a ban on sex among serving priests (11QTemple 45:11–12; CD 12:1–2). The is then conceptually a body of priests, Levites, and non-priests (in distinction to a priest-only hierarchy) engaged in a task of administering, deliberating, and interpreting the law, a task that is itself a counterpoint to—but not necessarily a substitution for—the temple operations of the priests and Levites.

This body was not entirely self-focused. The notion that the was only concerned with its own internal business seems overturned by yaḥad texts with a family-inclusive scenario, especially 4Q502, which includes mention of “female elders.”Footnote ⁴⁶

Another text, 4Q265 SerekhDamascus Rule, blends aspects of Serekh and Damascus language.Footnote ⁴⁷ The links are particularly strong in relation to the middle section of 1QS concerning the council () penal code. 4Q265 Serekh Damascus Rule begins with rules appropriate to the Serekh about a man being punished for misdemeanors like falling asleep in a session, but its punishments are more severe. He is punished by losing half his bread (cf. 1QS 6:25, where it is a quarter). Then in Fragment 1:11 the focus moves from the entrance procedure to rules about the Sabbath day, atonement for the land, and—extraordinarily—to Jubilees 3, where the Garden of Eden is mentioned along with rules for the period after childbirth, on the basis of Leviticus 12. The period of purifcation that Adam and Eve undergo in Jubilees 3 prior to entering the Garden of Eden ultimately defines laws of purity in terms of childbirth.Footnote ⁴⁸ This would suggest that, despite strict entrance procedures and a penal code governing the adult men of the , they were also concerned with legislation governing women, who are then part of the “us” in terms of the wider legal embrace of their rulings.

The “Hand”

In terms of precise laws regarding what should happen with women at the times they are particularly impure, during menstruation and following childbirth, there is nothing specifically stated in 1QS or other Serekh texts. But there is also nothing about male bodily functions that may cause impurity, presumably because these were not a key issue for the circumstances of the council () sessions or the covenant renewal ceremony, and rules of purification are otherwise defined in separate interpretative texts (e.g., 4Q265, 4Q274, 4Q512–514, etc.). The Serekh texts are by no means a holistic code of conduct covering all aspects of life.

The only reference that may specifically refer to a male bodily part is found in 1QS 7:13 (= 4QS^e 1:8–9 = 4QS^g 3:7–8) where the word , “hand,” is sometimes translated as “penis.”Footnote ⁴⁹ The sentence is slightly curious in terms of its spelling; for example, the word is usually corrected to , as Brownlee originally suggested.Footnote ⁵⁰ Jastrow gives the meaning of as “he whose knees are exposed, whose garments are torn, or whose head is uncovered,” (i.e., “an exposed person”).Footnote ⁵¹ It does not refer to the garment but to the person who is clad in such a way that he or she is not properly covered up. The unclear word before this one was read by Brownlee (followed by others) as , an unusual spelling of , which relates to the person—“he”—who is exposed. At any rate, in the present reading, the sentence should be translated: “Whoever brings out his hand () from under his garment, and he is exposed, and he allows his nakedness to be seen, will be punished thirty days.”

This reading is based partly on considering the context. As noted, the penal code of the Serekh texts concerns only very limited circumstances, all of which appear related to specific group activities of the /: interpersonal behavior in a council session (1QS 6:25–27; 7:2–6; 10-13, etc.); reading aloud or blessing (6:27–7:2); handling group possessions (1QS 6:25; 7:6–10) with consequences for purity [pure food] (1QS 6:25; 7:3, etc.). This can be related back to the sessions being defined in 1QS 6:2–3: “And joined together they shall eat, together they shall pray, and joined together they shall deliberate.” Prior to the “hand” references, there is a specific rule against someone who “goes naked in front of his fellow and it is accidental” (1QS 7:14),Footnote ⁵² which follows a series of proscriptions against conduct in a session and is followed by another proscription regarding spitting in a meeting of the (1QS 7:15). Following the rule concerning the “hand,” there is the proscription against laughing stupidly and bringing out the left hand in order to sink down () on it, both of which also most obviously relate to group meetings (7:16–17) in which sitting upright with proper comportment and grave concentration are extremely important, even if sessions go on late at night. The normal mode in sessions is for people to sit: one only stands when one has something to say (6:11–13). From the reference to accidental nakedness there appears to be an implied initial purificationFootnote ⁵³ prior to the eating of a pure meal (6:4–6).

In addition, given the parallel with “left hand” (with the same verb usedFootnote ⁵⁴) in 7:16, it seems quite possible that the “hand” being brought out in 7:13 only relates to the right hand. It has been suggested that the reading of “hand” cannot be correct given that in antiquity the right hand was usually left free, with the ἱμάτιον draped over the left shoulder.Footnote ⁵⁵ This is true for people engaged in movement, but it was not always the case. To understand the modest comportment required, we need to consider the ancient interest in the practice of sitting with decorum. By way of comparison, it can be noted that the Therapeutae of Philo's De Vita Contemplativa are described as “having the hands inside, the right hand between chest and chin, and the left lowered along the thighs” (Contempl. 30) while listening intently in group meetings. This deportment is remarked upon elsewhere by Philo as being characteristic of the way Jews sit in a synagogue, in that an imaginary bad ruler remarks to the Jews, “will you go out and assemble according to the customary figure, with the right hand inside and the other one from under the outerwear fixed along the thighs?” (Philo, Somn. 2.126). Porphyry mentions that Egyptian priests keep their hands inside the figure also (Abst. 4.6). As I have explored in regard to the Therapeutae, in antiquity there was a concept of philosophically-minded, attentive deportment, represented also in statuary.Footnote ⁵⁶ The himation was wrapped around the body with the right hand underneath the fabric in a kind of sling. Given that a large ἱμάτιον—the outer garment referred to in 1QS as the —could be all that was worn on certain occasions (as a kind of wrap, περιβόλαιον),Footnote ⁵⁷ to bring the right hand out from inside the clothing would unloose the arrangement, making immodest exposure a risk.

There is a clear sequence stated here. Firstly, someone takes out his (right) hand, and then there is an emphatic parallel repetition of the result: he is exposed = his nakedness is seen. The result is a consequence of a certain action.

The word , “nakedness,” is ambiguous. It can be used as a euphemism for genitals in biblical Hebrew, so that to uncover someone's “nakedness” is to have sexual relations with them (e.g., Lev 20:29). But “nakedness” can also mean being in some unspecified state of bodily exposure, because one is wearing threadbare clothing on account of one's destitution (Isa 58:7; Ezek 18:7; see also Jas 2:15). In 1QS 7:13 it is not the condition of the clothing itself that is the issue; it is the movement of the hand outside the clothing that results in exposure that is deemed unacceptable by the group in question. Whereas the text indicates that accidental exposure is not liable to punishment (7:12), if one does something intentional that could result in perceived bareness, however defined, then one is liable to punishment.

It seems likely to me that “nakedness” here was broadly rather than specifically defined, given the sensitivity of Jews to the public nakedness of the Greek gymnasia (1 Macc 1:14–15; 2 Macc 4:12–15; see also Josephus, Ant. 12.241) and given the qualifications noted by Jastrow in the definition of a .Footnote ⁵⁸ In other words, the noun is not here a euphemism for “penis” at all, and even “nakedness” may not be. The proscription should be read in the context of the session of the of the . In terms of this context, we may well expect men only, but they were not exposing their genitalia in the meeting.

Essenes

As a final note, it seems important to mention that in exploring the presence of women and children within the world of the Serekh texts—insofar as women and children are part of Israel (the wider “us”) that is the “united totality” in its broad terms—it is not in any way my purpose to object to the Essene hypothesis as the most likely paradigm for interpretation. The Serekh in its variant forms can indeed provide a better perspective for reading our classical sources on the Essenes. The Serekh texts were probably first composed in the mid-second century B.C.E.,Footnote ⁵⁹ while the classical sources, however, date from about 40 C.E. onwards, some 200 years later.Footnote ⁶⁰ We may explore correspondences between the Serekh manuscripts and the classical sources on the Essenes without a requirement for absolute exactitude, since there would have been developments within the school in question, and all our classical sources are shaped by the rhetoric of the authors.

Most importantly, Josephus tells us that there were married Essenes (J.W. 2.160). It is important to remember that Josephus does not indicate that there were any differences whatsoever in lifestyle in terms of married and unmarried Essenes (“they are likeminded in lifestyle, customs and laws”), so that everything he has stated concerning his celibate Essenes applies to them. During women's pregnancy, the “married Essenes” of Josephus too—if obedient—would have been celibate, since sexual relations were thought appropriate only for procreation. Importantly, the fact that Josephus describes women as wearing a linen wrap in the bath, given that Josephus only describes the bath in terms of preparation for meals (J.W. 2.129), could imply that the women among “married Essenes” also participated in pure meals, although separately, since gender-separated dining was common in the Hellenistic world.Footnote ⁶¹ Josephus does not indicate that married Essenes would not eat with celibate Essenes and vice versa; whether married or celibate we may in fact picture all Essene men gathering together for common meals, in accordance with what Josephus states (J.W. 2.129–133). Josephus's description indicates that—as everyone did—the Essenes had two meals a day, but he does not describe the procedures for the evening meal; for the Serekh texts it is this evening meal (after the working day is ended) and the associated deliberations and judgments, reading, and study, through the evening, that are absolutely critical.

Josephus sets up the Essenes as paradigms of perfect Judaean men in terms of their exceptional lifestyle, which manifests the kind of exemplary manly virtue (ἀνδϱεία) one might associate with the Spartans of old (Ag. Ap. 2.225–235).Footnote ⁶² Women are married not because this includes them in Essene group identity but because this enables Essenes (whom, like Pharisees and Sadducees, Josephus only configures as men) to reproduce. But Josephus is quite clear about the place of women and children within Israel, however androcentric his language may be. He writes: “Indeed, concerning the occupations of life, that everything done must have as its purpose piety, is something to be heard also by women and anyone of the household” (Ag. Ap. 2.181).

Often, Josephus's “married Essenes” are equated with the Damascus group.Footnote ⁶³ However, CD has no pure meal. Taken separately, there is nothing distinctive to connect the community of the Damascus texts with the classical descriptions of Essenes, and it is not surprising that no one thought to link this group to the Essenes prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.Footnote ⁶⁴ Here there are clearly families, living as was usual, constituting the remnant of Israel (CD 3:19), founded after the exile when the covenant was renewed (CD 6:2; see also 3:13), in accordance with the historic authority of the Teacher of Righteousness. This does indeed appear to indicate a stage in growth towards what appears in the Serekh texts.Footnote ⁶⁵ However, the Serekh texts may themselves be indicators of stages somewhat prior to that which Josephus and Philo represent in terms of the Essenes.

As I have explored in detail elsewhere, Philo's description of the Eσσαȋοι, while portraying these men as entirely celibate and removed from women, indicates mature, rather elderly men who would have already raised children within a normal household and who join the Essene community later in life (e.g., Hypoth. 11.3, 7).Footnote ⁶⁶ This too presumes a wider Israel for which the Essene male community would have functioned as a kind of elite or center. Philo does not imagine that these men rejected their wives and families as not being part of true Israel. The issue here is simply a lifestyle for older men who wished to live a particularly devout life of exceptional self-control and community.Footnote ⁶⁷

In other words, a simple dichotomy between “married” and “celibate” may be a false one. A man may be married and periodically celibate (for priestly duty, during his wife's pregnancy, or for a number of other reasons) or married and renunciative of sex once his wife passed the age of childbearing, at which point he might join a community of other men focusing on the study of law. The model of men who chose to adopt a wholly celibate life was clearly known, and much wondered at in antiquity, but it was not necessarily an absolute standard. In terms of the Serekh texts, it is possible to read the as being comprised by either married or single men, as long as they managed to satisfy the requirements of purity and property. However, in finding the conceptual precedent of men serving as priests, living together for that service period in the temple, celibacy may well have been assumed. These men may have been both married and celibate while serving within the . They would have remained heads of households, connected with the wider community of Israel, even if they were living separately, just as serving priests were. Israel remains, normatively, Israel—even if defined narrowly—in terms of gender inclusivity.