God As Father in The Dead Sea Scrolls PDF

The Divine Father
Religious and Philosophical Concepts

of Divine Parenthood in Antiquity
Edited by
Felix Albrecht and Reinhard Feldmeier
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2014
© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
Reinhard Feldmeier
PART ONE
PAGAN RELIGIONS
Father of the Fathers, Mother of the Mothers. God as Father

(and Mother) in Ancient Egypt ............................................................. 19
Alexandra von Lieven
„Vater Zeus“ im griechischen Epos ............................................................ 37
Heinz-Günther Nesselrath
Gott als Vater und Schöpfer. Zur Rezeption von Timaios
28c3–5 bei einigen Platonikern ............................................................. 57
Franco Ferrari
PART TWO
HEBREW BIBLE AND ANCIENT JUDAISM
The “Father” of the Old Testament and Its History ............................. 73

Hermann Spieckermann
Divine Sonship in the Book of Jubilees .................................................... 85
Jacques van Ruiten
God as Father in Texts from Qumran ...................................................... 107
Lutz Doering
God as Father in the Pentateuchal Targumim ...................................... 137
Robert Hayward
„Vater Gott und seine Kinder und Frauen“ ............................................ 165
Beatrice Wyss
God the Father in Flavius Josephus .......................................................... 181
Mladen Popović

vi contents
PART THREE
NEW TESTAMENT
„Vater . . .“. Zur Bedeutung der Anrede Gottes als Vater in den

Gebeten der Jesusüberlieferung ............................................................ 201
Florian Wilk
Is God the Father of Jews only, or also of Gentiles? The Peculiar
Shape of Paul’s “Universalism” ............................................................... 233
Ross Wagner
Kyrios Christos und Gottvater. Christi Herrschaft und Gottes
Vaterschaft im Philipperhymnus .......................................................... 255
Reinhard Feldmeier
Dominus Deus, Pater Omnipotens. Die göttlichen Verheißungen
von 2Kor 6,16–18 ......................................................................................... 277
Felix Albrecht
The Divine Father of the Universe from the Presocratics to Celsus:
The Graeco-Roman Background to the “Father of All” in Paul’s
Letter to the Ephesians ............................................................................ 293
George H. van Kooten
God the Father and Other Parents in the New Testament ............... 325
Jane Heath
PART FOUR
LATE ANTIQUITY
The Divine Father in the Gospel of Truth (NHC I,3): God as

causa efffĳiciens and causa fĳinalis ............................................................ 345
Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta
Gott als Vater bei Plotin und Porphyrios ................................................ 369
Ilinca Tanaseanu-Döbler
Index of Ancient Sources ...................................................................... 397

Index of Subjects .................................................................................... 425
Index of Ancient Names ....................................................................... 428
Index of Modern Names ....................................................................... 432
Index of Places ........................................................................................ 434

GOD AS FATHER IN TEXTS FROM QUMRAN
Lutz Doering
1. Introduction
Until the late 1980s, scholarly views on God’s fatherhood in ancient Jewish
texts were widely informed by Joachim Jeremias’s negative verdict that,
“there is as yet no evidence in the literature of ancient Palestinian Judaism
that ‘my Father’ is used as a personal address to God.”1 Since then, schol-
ars have increasingly taken issue with Jeremias on this matter, with the
most comprehensive monographs coming from his native Germany. The
books on God as father in the deuterocanonical and other early Jewish
texts by Angelika Strotmann, in the Hebrew Bible by Annette Böckler, and
in rabbinic literature by Elke Tönges, as well as Christiane Zimmermann’s
wider study of divine epitheta, Die Namen des Vaters, have signalled sev-
eral methodological problems in Jeremias’s approach.2 Amongst these,
one point also relevant for the evidence at Qumran is the problem3 that
Jeremias dismisses any enunciation of the type “you are my / our father”
as manifesting a “personal address to God” because it represents “a state-
ment, and not a vocative.”4 Such enunciations are attested up to seven
times in the Hebrew Bible and at least twice in Deuterocanonical texts5
as well as in some form at least once at Qumran.6 It appears reductionistic
1 Jeremias (1967, 29 [in italics there]; German: 33).

2 Strotmann (1991); Böckler (2002); Tönges (2003); C. Zimmermann (2007, 41–166).
A largely linguistic-historical study on the use of ’b’ is Schelbert (2011). Cf. also Fitzmyer
(1993, 47–63.132–142), the slightly edited form of an article published in 1985; D’Angelo
(1992). See further the studies mentioned in n. 7.
3 Cf. C. Zimmermann (2007, 50f. with n. 64); Strotmann (1991, 13–14.17–19); Tönges
(2003, 17). Cf. also D’Angelo (1992, 620f.).
4 Jeremias (1967, 24; German: 27 [“. . . handelt es sich um Aussagen, nicht um
Vokative”]).
5 “My Father” (‫)אבי‬: Jer 2:27; 3:4 (where Jeremias raises the possibility that this might
be a vocative but decides against it: [1967, 24 n. 52]); Ps 89:26; Sir 51:10 (Hebrew). Cf. also Jer
3:19: “And I thought you (ketib: pl.; qere: fem. sg.) would call me, My Father” (‫)אבי תקראו־לי‬.
“Our Father” (‫)אבינו‬: Isa 63:16 (bis); 64:8; Tob 13:4 (“Because he is our Lord and God, he is
our Father forever”). Sir 23:1, 4 is considered doubtful because the Hebrew behind κύριε
πάτερ might be thought to be ‫“ אל אבי‬God of my father”; see below, n. 103.
6 1QHa 17 (Suk. 9):35: “for you are a father to all your children of your truth.” Cf. also
4Q511 127 1 “]our father[” and 4Q502 39 3 “h]e is [our ?] father.” All of these passages are
discussed below, section 4.

108 lutz doering
to exclude evidence in which God, in direct speech, is identifĳied as “my”

or a certain group’s “father.”7
However, since the material from Qumran Cave 4 was only beginning
to become more widely known about two decades ago, Strotmann’s perti-
nent monograph does not yet pick up some of the relevant material from
this cave.8 The most intriguing evidence of these “new texts” in relation to
our topic is that they fĳinally do provide two instances of direct address of
God as “my father” (4Q372 1 16 and 4Q460 9 i 5f.).9 Other fragments attest
to pragmatic situations for the comparison of God to, or his designation
as, a “father” that have been known from other early Jewish sources and
thus contribute to a further contextualisation of such speech.
What is somewhat surprising is that there is so far no comprehensive
study of all the available evidence from Qumran on God as father. The
contributions devoted to the references in 4Q372 or/and 4Q460 tend to
be very brief on the remaining evidence from the caves of Qumran,10
while most of the studies mentioning the newly accessible fragments
along previously known references from Qumran limit themselves to a
brief account of their contents.11 The fullest list of texts is that of Heinz-
Josef Fabry in his recent inaugural article for Theologisches Wörterbuch
7 Another point of criticism is that Jeremias, without giving further reasons, disregards
the testimony of Diaspora Judaism, for which he curtly admits, “God was addressed as
πάτερ . . ., which followed the example of the Greek world” (Jeremias [1967, 27; German:
31]). Cf. Strotmann (1991, 13): “Das hellenistische Judentum scheidet er [Jeremias] per se,
das heißt: ohne Begründung aus, so dass auch Weish 14,3 keine Rolle spielt.” Cf. Tönges
(2003, 17), who points to Hellenistic influence on Palestine between Alexander the Great
and the composition of the Talmud.—In addition, Jeremias’s ideas about the vocative are
problematic, as has been shown in the heated discussion about the Aramaic form ’abba,
famously—but probably erroneously—deemed a vocative by Jeremias. For a critical evalu-
ation of Jeremias’s theses on ’abba, cf. Zeller (1981); Fitzmyer (1993); Feneberg (1988);
Barr (1988); Schlosser (1987); D’Angelo (1992); Vermes (1993, 152–183); Schelbert (2011,
17–34).
8 However, Strotmann (1991, 331–359), provides a detailed analysis of 1QHa 17 (Suk.
9) and 4Q504 1–2 iii 1–7.
9 These are discussed below, section 5.—Cf. Schuller (1992, 75–79); Fitzmyer (1993,
53); Vázquez Allegue (2000, 62–69); Puech (2001, 303–305.309); C. Zimmermann (2007,
58); Fabry (2011, 9).
10 So Schuller (1992), who provides a discussion of 4Q372 1 16 but references other
texts only very briefly. Vázquez Allegue (2000), apart from discussing 4Q372 and 4Q460,
provides some context on the notion of God in Qumran as well as on the “fatherhood”
of God in ancient Judaism in general and in the New Testament, but does not discuss
the Qumran evidence of God as “father” comprehensively (some texts are briefly listed
ibid. 62 n. 35). Vázquez Allegue reflects older scholarly views by speaking of the “monks”
(“monjes”) of Qumran who had “retired to the desert” to “build a monastery in the desert”
(ibid. 53f.).
11 This is true for Fitzmyer (1993); Puech, (2001); and C. Zimmermann (2007).

god as father in texts from qumran 109
zu den Qumrantexten;12 but the format of the Wörterbuch poses a limit to

comprehensiveness. The present contribution aims at fĳilling this gap.
A couple of remarks on methodological and procedural principles are
in order here. First, although scholars like Strotmann, Tönges or Zimmer-
mann have justly lamented that earlier scholarship tended to focus on the
mode of expressing the relationship with the divine father, at the expense
of the semantics of such a relationship, I do think that it makes sense
to distinguish diffferent grammatical constructions and pragmatic uses.
Thus, I shall fĳirst look at comparisons of God to “a father,” then at adop-
tion formulae, further at statements of identifĳication, and fĳinally at direct
invocation in prayer. These diffferent constructions and uses are surely
relevant for understanding nuances in the concept(s) of God as father.
Second, I shall distinguish but not separate between so-called “sectarian”
and “non-sectarian”—or, perhaps better: yaḥadic and non-yaḥadic—texts
and thereby try to pick up relevant diffferences, commonalities, and devel-
opments across these texts. I shall revisit this problem later in my paper.
2. Comparison of God to “a Father”
In about six passages in the Scrolls God is compared to a father. Accord-

ing to 4Q378 (4QApocrJosha) 6 i 8, he “would speak like a father to his son”
(‫ׂבר‬
֯ ׁ‫)וכׁאׁב לׂבנׁ֯ו יד‬. Although we fĳind the expression “my brothers” in the
preceding line, the referent of the comparison is likely God, as suggested
by the following context in column ii of the same fragment.13 According
to its editor, Carol Newsom, the fragment “might be understood as an
admonitory recollection by Joshua of the wilderness rebellion, especially
the reluctance of the people to enter the land (Numbers 13–14), intended to
motivate the people before they cross the Jordan.”14 Another, slightly later
copy of the same composition attests to the phrase “to ]be for me, O o[ur]
Lord, like a father” (4Q379 [4QApocrJoshb] 18 4: ‫)ל[היות לי אדנ֯ ]ינ[ו֯ כאב‬
after expressing the speaker’s “trust” in God in the preceding line
(3: ‫)עליך ואשענה‬.15 The kaleidoscope of divine epithets within which the
comparison occurs is remarkable: we fĳind ‫( אדנינו‬line 4), ‫( אלוה‬line 5), ‫עליון‬
12 Fabry (2011).
13 Newsom (1996, 247): “It does appear . . . that the two columns of frg. 6 are part of the
same discourse.” Cf. the references to ‫ אלוה‬in 6 ii 2, ‫ אלהים‬in 6 ii 3, and ‫ אדני‬in 6 ii 7.
14 Newsom (1996, 247).
15 For the reading cf. Newsom (1996, 276).

110 lutz doering
(line 6), and ‫( אלהי‬line 7). The Apocryphon of Joshua is a piece of “rewrit-
ten scripture” that, similar to the Book of Jubilees, belongs to a group of
writings that probably predate the yaḥad but show some afffĳinities with its
literature. However, as 4Q175 (4QTest) 21–30 arguably suggests, it was read
and considered authoritative within the yaḥad.16
In 4Q448 (4QApocryphal Psalm and Prayer), another text unlikely to
have been composed within the yaḥad,17 we might fĳind the phrase “you
loved as a fat[her” (col. i, line 2; ‫)אהבת ֯כ ֯א]ב‬
֯ shortly after the beginning
of the psalm that is marked with “Praise the Lord, a Psal[m, song of . . .].”
The editor of this part of the manuscript, Esther Eshel, writes that “[i]
f the reconstruction is correct, the text probably refers to God’s love for
Israel.”18 God’s love for Israel as his ‘son’ is Scripturally anchored: Hos 11:1
is a good example. However, Eshel’s reading is contested by others. Thus,
Émile Puech reads the fĳirst two letters of the second word as bet and ḥet
and states that the word is “à completer sans doute” ‫בח]סדך‬, yielding
‫“ אהבת בח]סדך‬tu aimes dans ta fa[veur . . .]”.19 The forms of some letters
are somewhat diffferent in col. i than in cols ii–iii, which may point to dif-
ferent scribes, although the editors state that “this cannot be determined
with certainty, even after careful examination of the diffferent letter forms.”20
At any rate, it is advisable to focus on col. i for comparative purposes. On
the best available photographs of the fragment, the fĳirst of the two char-
acters in question appears to be more similar to other specimens of bet
16 Cf. Newsom (1996, 238f.): 4Q379 is not written in ‘Qumran scribal practice’ and may
not have been copied at Qumran, whereas 4Q378 shows the orthography typical of ‘Qum-
ran scribal practice’. I agree with the majority of scholars that 4Q175 21–30 quotes from
4Q379 22 ii 7–15, not vice versa; pace H. Eshel (1992); cf. my remarks in Doering (2005,
31f.).—This is not the place to engage in detailed discussion of whether it is preferable
to consider this group of texts “between sectarian and non-sectarian” or rather in a con-
tinuum with sectarian texts which held them to be authoritative. The former is argued by
Dimant (2005), the latter by García Martínez (2010, including responses and discussion).
I tend to side with Dimant that we need some diachronic Tiefenschärfe and therefore can-
not abandon grouping (and thereby distinguishing) clusters of texts but agree with García
Martínez that the Apocryphon of Joshua is excerpted along other authoritative (scriptural)
texts, thus is probably deemed authoritative by the author-scribe of 4Q175.
17 Cf. E. Eshel (1997, 415). But see Stegemann (1994, 187f.). According to Puech (1996a),
4Q448 ought to be dated to the second century BCE, during the time of the Hasmonaean
Jonathan.
18 E. Eshel (1997, 417) (on the respective share of each of the editors in the edition,
see ibid. 403 n. 1).
19 Puech (1996a, 250.256f.). Similarly García Martínez and Tigchelaar (2000,
928f.).
20 E. Eshel (1997, 405). In contrast, Stegemann (1994, 187), is convinced that cols ii–iii
were written by another hand.

than to kap in col. i.21 It also seems that Ada Yardeni, who prepared the
script charts, identifĳied this letter as bet.22 There are no further specimens
of ḥet preserved in col. i. The bar of the second character indeed shows
some resemblance with the angled middle stroke of ’alep, but it does not
reach down quite as far and as angled as in other specimens of ’alep in this
column.23 The letter could well be a ḥet, although, in my view, certainty
is impossible here. What matters, however, is that this manuscript, in all
likelihood, does not speak of God as “father.”
In contrast, 4Q392 (4QWorks of God) is a somewhat more likely candi-
date for a statement comparing God to a father. This is a text for which
its editor, Daniel Falk, has cautiously argued sectarian provenance.24
The reading “[like a fa]ther” (‫ )]כא[ב‬is not entirely certain and is largely
dependent on the correctness of the reading of the following word as
֯‫לבׁנ֯ ו‬.25 According to Falk’s reconstruction, some phrases relating to
God’s destructive and devouring activity (6–9 2–3a) are bracketed by
statements about his compassion (6–9 1, 3b–7). Within the latter, the
relevant restored passage26 runs as follows (6–9 4f.):
‫לאפ]רוחה אש[ר‬
֯ ‫( ]כא[ב לבׁנ֯ ו֯ ו֯ כצפור‬5) [‫]ו[ב ֯א]רץ מדבר[ וצמאון] כלכלנו‬
֯
]‫אשר לא‬
֯ ‫לקנה נפ]וצותינו קב[ץ‬
And in a l[and of desert] and parched ground[ he sustained us] (5) [like a
fat]her to his son, and like a bird to the you[ng o]f its nest, [he gath]ered
[our] dis[persed ones], which [ ]
In what may be taken as a chiastic statement, two comparisons of pater-
nal care are developed: God sustained his people in the wilderness like a
father his son; and he gathered the dispersed like a parent bird its young.
This second pairing of a parent and young corroborates the suggested
reading “like a father to his son.” The bird imagery seems to be continued
21 Cf. ‫ רבים‬in line 6 or ‫ בציון‬in line 10, and cf. the long kap in ‫ משכנו‬in line 10. See PAM
43.545 (= B-284573) and now B-298276 (taken in January 2012) at http://www.deadseascrolls
.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-298276 (accessed 2 January 2013).
22 See Yardeni’s chart in E. Eshel (1997, 408). The middle bet under “Upper Columns”
appears to be a drawing of the character in i 2.
23 Ibid. Note especially the second and third ’alep from the right.
24 Cf. Falk (1999, 27), adduces the following: “stylistic, verbal, and thematic resem-
blance to the Hodayot, the requirement to examine human ways, a probable substitution
of ‫ אדוני‬for the tetragrammaton . . ., and the term ‫ אורתם‬/ ‫( אורתום‬frg. 1 5) which appears
elsewhere only in sectarian texts (Hodayot, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifĳice).”
25 Falk (1999, 38), states: “The ink traces at the end of the second word could fĳit either
‫ נו‬or ’alep.”
26 Falk (1999, 43), calls it a “conjectural reconstruction.”—I follow Falk’s translation
except for the rendition of ke- as “like” instead of “as.”

112 lutz doering
further down the reconstructed assembly of fragments, although the pre-

cise positioning of fragment 9 (following line 5) is uncertain.27 Neverthe-
less, the connection in content is probably sufffĳicient to conclude that in
the reconstructed portion it is God’s sustaining and restoring care that is
the object of the parental images.
Moreover, two fragments of 4QInstruction likely make comparisons
between God and a father. 4Q418 86 1 probably ought to be read ‫לﬠבדתׂו‬
‫“ וכאב ﬠל ]ב[נ֯ ]ו[ׂת‬for his service, and like a father over his [dau]ght[er]s,”
where the immediate context remains unclear.28 4Q423 7 3 provides within
several lines on “God’s wrath and mercy”29 the phrase ‫]“ [וכׁרׁחמי אב‬and
like a father’s mercy.”30 Mercy is used comparatively also in CD 13:9,
although the referent here is the mebaqqer and not God. In Ps 103:13, God’s
mercy over those who fear him is compared to the mercy of a father over
his children (‫ל־בּנִ ים‬
ָ ‫)כּ ַר ֵחם ָאב ַﬠ‬.
ְ In addition, in several early Jewish texts
the mercy of God the father appears in the context of his pedagogical
guidance, often including castigation and sometimes prevention.31 It is
possible that the fragment’s continuation featuring the verb ‫“ צוכה‬he has
commanded you . . . not to . . .” (line 5) relates to such a preventive peda-
gogical perspective.32
Finally, there is a relevant comparison in the probably non-yaḥadic text
4Q369, ill-termed 4QPrayer of Enosh (1 ii 10), but since this text contains a
statement of adoption also it will be discussed in the next section.
27 Cf. Falk (1999, 42): “Only the content suggests the plausibility that frg. 9 closely fol-
lows line 5, and the positioning is merely a guess.”
28 For the reading cf. Rey (2009, 186 n. 17). The editors (John Strugnell and Daniel
Harrington) consider this fragment not to be part of 4QInstruction: Strugnell et al.
(1999, 314).
29 T. Elgvin, in Strugnell et al. (1999, 524).
30 T. Elgvin allows that the second letter of the fĳirst word could be bet, yielding “and
through / in a father’s mercy” (ibid.).
31 Cf. Strotmann (1991, 367–369), referring in particular to Tob 13:4 as highlighting
both pedagogy and mercy (cf. v. 5 [similarly in both G I and G II] μαστιγώσει . . . ἐλεήσει),
while in texts like Jub 1:24; 19:29; GLAE 32:2; 35:2; 37:4; Apocryphon of Ezechiel Frg. 2 (see
1 Clem 8:3; Clem. Alex., Paed. 1.10.91.2), punishment remains in the background and God’s
mercy is highlighted. As texts in which pedagogical guidance has preventive efffect, she
discusses 1QHa 17 (Suk. 9):29–36; 4Q504 1–2 iii 1–7 (see below); Wisd 11:10; 16:10, 21, 26; Sir
22:27–23:6.
32 4Q416 2 iii 16 reads: ‫“ כי כאב לאיש כן אבׂיהׂו וכאדנים לגבר כן אמו‬And like <a father>
to a human, so is his father, and like the Lord to a man, so is his mother.” The parallel
text 4Q418 9a–c 17 reads ‫“ כאל‬like God,” so that the reading “like <a father>” is most likely
to be seen as a scribal error. There is no evidence for absolute ‫(“ אב‬the) Father” as divine
name—which would be required here—in the period under discussion. Cf. the detailed
argumentation in Rey (2009, 185f.), in response to Wold (2005, 149–160).

3. Statements of Adoption
Some of the non-yaḥadic texts apply the father-son constellation to God’s

relationship with Israel. This is the case, partly in eschatological form, in
the Book of Jubilees, a composition to which a contribution of its own is
devoted in this volume.33 Due to the importance of this work for the group
responsible for the scrolls deposits in the caves of Qumran34 we need to
refer briefly to it here as well. In Jub. 1 the adoption formula known from
2 Sam 7:1435 is transferred to the people of Israel:
(Jub 1:24) Their souls will adhere to me and to all my commandments. They
will perform my commandments. I will become their father and they will
become my children. (1:25) All of them will be called children of the living
God. Every angel and every spirit will know them. They will know that they
are my children and that I am their father in a just and proper way and that
I love them.
The adoption of the people of Israel is particularly related to their adher-
ence to, and performance of, God’s commandments. This is predicted for
a time in which God, following the dispersion of the people (cf. Jub 1:13)
and their ‘return’ to him (1:22), “will cut away the foreskins of their minds
and the foreskins of their descendants’ minds” and “create a holy spirit
for them and will purify them in order that they may not turn away from
me that time forever” (1:23). In Jub 1:27f., the acknowledgment of God as
“the father of all Jacob’s children” is staged at the time the eschatological
temple (“my temple,” 1:27) is built:
(Jub 1:28) The Lord will appear in the sight of all, and will know that I am
the God of Israel, the father of all Jacob’s children, and the king Mt. Zion for
the ages of eternity. Then Zion and Jerusalem will become holy.
Some scholars believe that these eschatological previews in Jubilees
belong to (diffferent) strata of redaction, pointing to a reworking of the
33 See the chapter by J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten.—English translations from Jubilees, as well
as the underlying Ge‘ez text, follow VanderKam (1989).
34 For the authoritative status of Jubilees “at Qumran” cf. the likely reference in CD
16:3–4 to the Book of Jubilees; pace Dimant (2006, 230–249). Cf. also the suggestion by
Shemesh (2009). For authority-conferring strategies in “biblical” and “non-biblical” texts
cf. Brooke (2005); for those in Jubilees in particular, cf. Najman (1999).
35 “I shall be a father to him, and he will be a son to me; when he commits iniquity I
shall reprove him with a rod of human beings and with blows of human beings.”

114 lutz doering
book within the yaḥad.36 This has been contested from diffferent method-
ological avenues.37 Another reference to Israel’s sonship—and, implicitly,
God’s fatherhood with respect to Israel—occurs in the context of Jubilees’
account of the election of Israel. According to Jub. 2:19, God’s resolution
to separate Israel amongst the nations dates to creation Sabbath and is
connected with Israel’s obligation to keep Sabbath with God and the two
highest classes of angels.38 By way of this exclusive election at the end of
creation week, Israel technically becomes God’s “fĳirst-born son” amongst
the nations, a notion apparently developed from Exod 4:22f.39 As com-
pared with this rather circumstantial reference in Moses’ speech to Pha-
raoh demanding the release of the people, the position of the statement
appears more prominent and programmatic in Jubilees:
(Jub 2:20) I have chosen the descendants (ba-zar’a, lit.: “the seed”) of Jacob
among all of those whom I have seen. I have recorded them (Ge‘ez: sg.) as
my fĳirst-born son and have sanctifĳied them (Ge‘ez: sg.) for myself through-
out the ages of eternity. I will tell them about the sabbath days so that they
may keep sabbath from all work on them.
This idea of God’s “fĳirst-born son” is taken up again in Jacob’s blessing
by Abraham. Again it is clear that “Jacob” is transparent for the people
of Israel. Despite the anchoring of Israel’s election in creation, the actual
election has to unfold successively in the narrative of Jubilees. Thus, Abra-
ham tells Rebecca that God “will choose him (sc. Jacob) as his own people”
(Jub 19:18). Similarly, Abraham issues the following wish, pointing at the
instantiation in Jacob and his descendants of Israel’s primordial election:
(Jub 19:29) May the Lord God become your father and you his fĳirst-born son
and people for all time. Go in peace, my son.
36 Cf. Berner (2006, 239–254), revising the earlier thesis of G. Davenport. Berner attri-
butes the references concerning the eschatological temple (1:27f., parts of 1:29) to a later
layer and also considers 1:5–26 an insertion, albeit an earlier one. According to Berner,
both were added by the early yaḥad. The reference to “all the elect ones of Israel” (1:29) is
taken to reflect terminology similar to that of the yaḥad (e.g. 4Q174 1–2 i 19; ibid. 251f.) and
to shift the perspective from all Israel to a group within Israel (ibid. 253).
37 For the view that Jubilees is a largely uniform composition, cf. VanderKam (2008,
410–416). In contrast, Kugel (2012) holds an interpolator responsible for some 29 pas-
sages (ibid. 11.284–289), about whom he thinks he “may . . . be a Qumran predecessor” (ibid.
294). None of the passages, which according to Kugel reflect “the special language of the
Heavenly Tablets” (ibid. 227, a claim adopted from his pupil Liora Ravid), concerns the
sonship of Israel.
38 Cf. Doering (1997, 186f.).
39 Cf. Kugel (1998, 125f.). And see the discussion by van Ruiten in this volume.

The setting up of Israel as children in view of the nations and God’s call-
ing of Israel “my fĳirst-born son” are also reflected in a further composition,
Dibre Ha-Me’orot. In 4Q504 (4QDibHama) 1–2 iii 2–7 we read:
]‫( רק בשמכה‬4) ‫נחשב]ו[ לפני֯ כה‬
֯ ‫( כו֯ ל ֯הגוים] כא[י֯ ׂן נגדכ ׂ֯ה] כ[תהו֯ וֹ ו֯ אׂפס‬3) ‫הן‬
(6) ‫לﬠיני כול הגוים כיא קרתה‬֯ ‫( ̇שמתנו לכה‬5) ‫ולכבודכה ברתנו ו֯ בנים‬ ֯ ‫הז[כרנׂו‬
֯
‫( ֯בנו‬7) ‫]לי[שראל בני בכורי ותיסרנו כיסר איש את‬
Behold (3) all the nations are[ like noth]ing in front of you,[ like] chaos and
nil are [they] reckoned before you. (4) Only your name have we[ invo]ked,
and to your glory you have created us. And as sons / children (5) you have
set us up for you in the sight all the nations. For you called (6) [I]srael “my
fĳirst-born son,” and you have chastised us as a man chastises (7) his son.
Dibre Ha-Me’orot is a text providing prayers for the seven days of the
week. The present passage is a prayer that according to the studies of
Esther Chazon and Daniel Falk is assigned to Thursday. The text derives
from circles preceding the yaḥad, but the fact that copies of it were made
ca. 150 BCE (4Q504) and then again ca. 50 CE (4Q506) suggests that the
yaḥad had some continuing interest in this text.40 Line 1 of the fragment,
taken to show ]◦ ֯‫ ֯אבי‬by Maurice Baillet, is probably to be read ‫֯אבו֯ ת]ינו‬
“[our] fathers” (so Émile Puech)41 and should therefore play no role in the
discussion about God as father. As in Jubilees, Israel’s “sonship” represents
her unique position as compared with the nations. The text carefully dis-
tinguishes between the “creation” (√‫ )ברא‬of Israel to God’s “glory” and
her being “set up” (√‫ )שים‬as his children in front of the nations. The lat-
ter is constituted by God’s “calling” (√‫ )קרא‬of Israel “my fĳirst-born son,”
which is clearly a speech act of adoption. The term “my fĳirstborn son” (‫בני‬
‫ )בכורי‬harks again back to Exod 4:22. Unlike Jubilees, however, the notion
of Israel as God’s “fĳirst-born son” is coupled with the motif of divine cas-
tigation similar to that applied by a father to his son according to Deut
8:5.42 God’s chastising pedagogy aims at preventing Israel’s more severe
40 Cf. Chazon (1992, 17); and the judicious remarks about potential use of the text in
the yaḥad by Falk (1997, 62.88f.).
41 Puech (2001, 304). Contrast Strotmann (1991, 331f.), who however points to uncer-
tainties in Baillet’s reading and interpretation. On the image PAM 43.612 (= B-285391),
now available at http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-285391
(accessed 11 January 2013), it looks as if a letter with a vertical stroke would indeed follow.
However, there are also traces of a horizontal stroke underneath the letter following bet,
for which Baillet had commented: “La base du beth est prolongée sous la lettre suivante,
qui est yod ou waw” (Baillet [1982, 142]).
42 Note the similar phraseology in Deut 8:5: ‫ת־בּנׂו‬ְ ‫“ ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר יְ יַ ֵסּר ִאישׁ ֶא‬as a man chastises
his son.” Cf. also in the address to an individual 2 Sam 7:14b and (in Greek) Wisd 11:10.

116 lutz doering
transgressions and at conveying his love of her.43 Neither Jubilees nor

Dibre Ha-Me’orot, however, apply the designation “father” directly to God:
it is only through the “fĳirst-born son” that God as father arises.
This is diffferent in a further text, which otherwise also expresses a con-
cept of divine adoption. 4Q382 (4papParaKings et al.) 104 1–4 reads:
]‫ו[לקדשוֹ‬ ֯ ]◦ ‫ׂבם‬
֯ ‫( [ מדבריך וׂלתמוך בבׁריתׂכׂה ו̇ ׂלהיות לׂב‬1)
]‫להם ותצדק ◦] [◦◦י֯ ֯כ ֯ה‬֗ ‫ואתה‬
֯ ‫למען יהיו לכה‬ ̇ ‫( [ׂל] [ כפים‬2)
]‫לא‬̇ ̇‫[לאב ו‬ ̇ ]‫]ו[בﬠלתם והייתה להם‬ ̇ ◦◦ ‫ורי̇ ̇ש‬̇ ‫למ‬
̇ ‫( [ ̇כי אתה‬3)
]◦◦◦[]◦‫ו[ה ̇כ ̇שלתה בעמ◦] [◦◦◦ ̇ל‬ ֯ ‫יה]ם‬ ֯ ‫מלכ‬
̇ ‫( [ עזבתם ביד‬4)
(1) ] from your words, and to hold fĳirmly to your covenant, and that their
heart be[ and] to sanctify it[ (2) ] [ ] hands in order that they be yours and
you be theirs and you be righteous(?) [ ] [ (3) ] for you will become one who
gives an inheritance [and] you will rule over them and become a father to
them, and not [ (4) ] you have(?) abandoned them into the hand of th[eir]
kings [and] will cause (them) to stumble among people[s ?
The addressee of this text is God; the text seems to project his future
relationship with Israel, although the fĳictional time of this utterance is
unclear.44 Line 1 seems to outline some obligation on the part of Israel in
this relationship: some orientation towards God’s words, holding fast to
his covenant, etc. Then something involving “hands” will happen, “in order
that they be yours (i.e. God’s) and you be theirs” (line 2). This future mutu-
ality is then made more precise with the fĳirst half of an adoption formula
‫[לאב‬ ̇ ]‫( והייתה להם‬line 3). In line 4 the tone changes, and abandonment
and stumbling are mentioned, followed by references to the giving of the
Torah (line 7), the “iniquity of your people” (line 8), and “your slowness
to anger” (line 9)—although how these topics connect is not quite clear.
What is clear though is that God’s fatherhood over Israel is a future event
from the perspective of this text and has to do with God’s rule over the
people and probably also with the latter’s covenant obligations.
The adoption formula 2 Sam 7:14a is related to an individual messianic
fĳigure in 4Q174 1–2 i (4QMidrEschata iii) 11: “I will be a father to him, and he
will be a son to me.” This is part of a free citation of the 2 Sam 7:11b–14 in
lines 10f.45 However, this yaḥadic text46 does not explore God’s fatherhood
43 Cf. Strotmann (1991, 333–346).

44 Olyan’s characterisation of the text as being “cast in the form of narrative describing
YHWH’s relationship to his people” therefore needs some qualifĳication: Olyan (1994, 401
[italics LD]).
45 The citation is shortened and slightly modifĳied. Cf. Steudel (1994, 45.137).
46 Cf. Steudel (1994, 202–210), who places the composition within the development
of yaḥadic (“Essene”) calculations about the end times and dates it to the fĳirst half of the
1st century BCE.

beyond this intertextual reference. Conversely, the so-called “Son of God

text,” 4Q246 (4QApocrDan ar), as Émile Puech has recently argued, pre-
supposes the divine father when speaking about the “son of God” (1 ii 1):
‫ברה די אל יתאמר ובר עליון יקרונה‬
“Son of God” he shall be called, and they will name him “son of the Most
High” (or: “most high son”).
The designation of this fĳigure probably extends further back into column
i 9 (“[son of the gr]eat [king?] he will be called, and with his name he
will be named”). Such an interpretation assumes that the “son of God”
in question here is a positive, messianic fĳigure,47 rather than a negative,
pagan royal character, a view earlier held by Puech himself48 and shared
by other scholars, for example, by Annette Steudel.49 While the reference
to trampling people (ii 2f.) might be taken to separate the “son of God”
from the “people of God” mentioned as “rising” or being “raised” later
(ii 4, separated additionally by a vacat), this is probably not enough to
consider the “son” a negative fĳigure. Johannes Zimmermann has suggested
a concentric structure for much of column ii of the fragment, centring on
a “peace” section (ii 4–7) that is framed by two “war” sections (ii 2f., 7f.).
This would not support a linear development from war to peace through-
out the fragment and thus allow for the emergence of a positive fĳigure
before the reference to war in ii 2f.50 In addition, there is little evidence
that Hellenistic kings would have styled themselves sons of (a) god. Luke
1:32, 35 seems to reflect a similar (Jewish) tradition of a messianic fĳig-
ure as “son of the most High / son of God.”51 In this reading, both 4Q246
and 4Q174 feature an individual messianic fĳigure (styled as “son” of God)
alongside a group of people, which is, however, determined diffferently:
as “the people of God” in 4Q246, and as “his anointed,” that is, the elect
ones, in 4Q174.52
47 Puech (2001, 305), who now fĳinds a positive, messianic interpretation “de préfér-
ence.” See the following note.
48 Puech (1996b).
49 Steudel (1996).
50 Cf. J. Zimmermann (1998, 134–138.161f.).
51 Cf. John J. Collins in A.Y. Collins and J.J. Collins (2008, 65–73). Collins here sug-
gests that “son of God” is an interpretation of “son of Man” in Dan 7, a term otherwise
conspicuously absent from 4Q246 despite its clear connections with Dan 7. For another
explanation of this absence (familiarity with a version of Dan 7 lacking verses 9f., 13f.) cf.
Stökl Ben Ezra (2010, 537).
52 So A.Y. Collins and J.J. Collins (2008, 72 n. 110).

118 lutz doering
Finally, regarding 4Q369 (4QPrayer of Enosh) 1 ii 5–10, a text that has

already briefly been mentioned, scholars are divided over whether an
individual eschatological fĳigure or (the people of) Israel is referenced as
“fĳirst-born son” of God here:
‫( באור ﬠולמים ותשימהו לכה בן בכוֹ]ר‬6) ]◦‫( ומשפטיכה הטובים בררתה לו ל‬5)
]‫[שמים וכבוד שחקים סמכת‬̊ ‫( ﬠׁ]טרת‬8) ] ‫כמוהוֹ לשר ומושל בכול תבל ארצׂכה‬
̇ (7)
‫( [לו חוקים צדיקים כאב לב]ן‬10) ]◦‫( [ ומלאך שלומכה בﬠדתו וה‬9)
(5) and your good judgements you explained to him to [ (6) in eternal light,
and you made him for you a fĳirst-bo[rn] son[ (7) like him, for a prince and
ruler in all your inhabited world[ (8) c[rown ? of ]heaven(s) and glory of
clouds(,) you have sustained[ (9) ] and the angel of your peace in his con-
gregation, and h[e (10) ]him righteous rules, as a father to [his] so[n
While a majority of scholars think that the “son” is a messianic ruler,53
James Kugel has made a case in favour of relating the passage to Israel.54
For those opting for the “individual” interpretation, the major intertextual
links are with Ps 89, particularly verses 27f.: “He shall cry to me, ‘You are
my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation!’ | I will make him the
fĳirst-born, the highest of the kings of the earth.” Three points of conver-
gence are noted:55 the installation of a fĳirst-born son (4Q369 1 ii 6), the
ruling position of the son (line 7), and the reference to “father” (line 10).
However, it should be noted that the reference to “father” appears as a
comparison in 4Q369, “as a father to [his] so[n,” not as a statement of
identifĳication as in Ps 89. On the other hand, the “explanation” of God’s
judgements (line 5),56 the giving of “righteous rules” (line 10), the “eter-
nal light,” by Kugel taken to signify the Torah (line 6), and the “angel of
your peace,” perhaps referring to Israel’s guarding angel (line 9) would
more easily fĳit an interpretation referring to the people of Israel, similar
to 4Q504. Such an adoptionist view of Israel could again build on Exod
4:22. In the end, however, phrases like “prince and ruler in your inhabited
world” (line 7) or “in his congregation” (line 9) apply more readily to an
individual fĳigure. It might be suggested that as a representative of Israel,
53 Cf. Evans (1998); Philonenko (2001, 63–67); Xeravits (2003, 89–94); J. Zimmer-
mann (1998, 211–220 [nuanced]); Attridge and Strugnell (1994, 358), thinks that the
reference is probably “to more than one fĳigure, perhaps a patriarch and an eschatological
counterpart.”
54 Kugel (1998, passim).
55 As summarised by Xeravits (2003, 93f.).
56 The translation and interpretation of ‫ בררתה לו‬as “you purifĳied him” by Attridge
and Strugnell (1994, 357), is almost certainly wrong.

some of the aspects justly highlighted by Kugel could be assigned to it as

well, so for example the strengthening of the “son” for the rule over the
nations and his protection by the presence of the “angel of your peace.”
The giving of rules and the explanation of God’s judgements might be
part of the divine pedagogy entailed in the concept of fatherhood. Kugel
wonders where a father passes down “rules” to his son,57 but it would be
possible to read Prov 3:1 this way: “My son, do not forget my law (‫)תּוֹר ִתי‬,
ָ
and keep my commandments (‫וֹתי‬ ַ ‫)וּמ ְצ‬.”
ִ One might also point to 4Q542
(4QTestQahat) 1 i 4f., according to which priestly traditions were transmit-
ted from father to son.58
4. Statements of Identification
In a few passages in the Scrolls we fĳind statements in which God is identi-

fĳied as “father.”59 Such identifĳications can appear either in third person,
“he is . . .,” or in second person, “you are . . . . ” The former type is found in
4Q502 (4QpapRituel de Mariage [?]), a manuscript from the beginning of
the fĳirst century BCE of a liturgy that was apparently composed within the
yaḥad and has been variously interpreted as a ritual concerning marriage,
‘golden age’ or New Year.60 Frg. 39 2f. reads:
(2) ].y all living beings q[ (3) h]e is [our] ‫( ה[ו̊ אה אבי̊ ]נו‬3) ]‫( [◦ו כול חי ק‬2)
father
The fĳirst-person plural sufffĳix is not certain61—an issue to which we will
briefly return below. The context is extremely fragmentary, but it seems
that scholars have not fully appreciated the similarity with Tob 13:4:62
57 So Kugel (1998, 128), concluding from this that the “son” should be taken as “Israel.”
58 4Q542 1 i 4f.: “And now, my sons, be careful with the inheritance which has been
transmitted to you | and which your fathers have given you” (trans. García Martínez
and Tigchelaar [2000]).
59 It is often difffĳicult to distinguish between these two concepts. I shall speak of “iden-
tifĳication” when “father” is a predicative noun, thus, the weight of a statement is on iden-
tifying “God” with a “father” (perhaps also along other divine epitheta). In contrast, I shall
speak of “recognition” when “father” is the logical subject, thus, God is recognised as the
(true) “father.”
60 Cf. Baillet (1982, 81–105), suggesting a marriage ritual (for the palaeographical dat-
ing of the manuscript and the “caractère essénien de l’ouvrage,” cf. ibid. 81); Baumgarten
(1983); Satlow (1998).
61 Justly noted by Puech (2001, 304). The reconstruction follows Baillet (1982, 91).
62 Puech (2001, 304), notes: “Ce serait l’une des premières attestations esséniennes,
mais le contexte manque pour en dire plus, en dehors du fait qu’il peut s’agir d’une prière,

120 lutz doering
G I (A B) G II (S) 4Q200 6 8–10 4Q196 17 i 14

ἐκεῖ καὶ ἐκεῖ ὑπέδειξεν ‫ספר]ו את גודלו‬
̊ ‫ושמה‬
ὑποδείξατε τὴν ὑμῖν τὴν ‫( ]אותו לפני כו[ל‬9) [‫ורוממו‬
μεγαλωσύνην μεγαλωσύνην αὐτοῦ ‫די הוא מראכ[ו֯ ן֗ חי כיא הוא אדוניׂכ]מה[ וֹהוא‬
αὐτοῦ ὑψοῦτε καὶ ὑψοῦτε αὐτὸν ‫( ]והוא‬10) [‫אלה]יכמה‬ ‫והוא‬
αὐτὸν ἐνώπιον ἐνώπιον παντὸς ‫אביכמה והוא אלהים לכו[ל‬
παντὸς ζῶντος ζῶντος καθότι ‫]ﬠולמים‬
καθότι αὐτὸς αὐτὸς ἡμῶν κύριός
κύριος ἡμῶν ἐστιν καὶ αὐτὸς
καὶ θεός αὐτὸς θεὸς ἡμῶν καὶ
πατὴρ ἡμῶν εἰς αὐτὸς πατὴρ ἡμῶν
πάντας τοὺς καὶ αὐτὸς θεὸς εἰς
αἰῶνας πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας
Since in 4Q502 39 2 ‫ כול חי‬is clearly followed by qop,63 this text hardly
provides a verbatim quotation of Tob 13:4. However, it might be an allu-
sion to Tobit’s song of praise in Tob 13, a text that has been described
as “an apocalyptic psalm with a vision of the new Jerusalem,”64 or a ref-
erence to a similar cluster of ideas. Both the Hebrew and the Aramaic
fragments of Tobit from Qumran show that this text, including the fĳinal
chapters 13f., was in evidence and copied in the late Hasmonaean and
early Herodian periods.65 The resemblance with Tobit here is interesting
because it would add another similarity between the two texts, in addi-
tion to the links between 4Q502 frg. 1 and the wedding prayer in Tobit
8:6f., identifĳied by Baillet and used in support of his classifĳication of 4Q502
as marriage ritual.66 Whatever the genre of this text, it seems as if it draws
either on Tobit or on similar language in a liturgical setting.
comparer précisément Tb 13:4 . . .” But the correspondence with this passage is even more
substantial.
63 The letter is very well visible on the photograph PAM 43.634 (= B-285413), now avail-
able at http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-285413 (accessed
7 January 2013).
64 Cf. Fitzmyer (2003, 43) (“may well be an apocalyptic psalm . . .”). Some scholars have
used the eschatological signature of the text to argue that it was added later to the Book
of Tobit, but Fitzmyer (ibid. 43f.) refutes these claims and argues for the unity of the book.
Strotmann (1991, 29f.), discusses and accepts theories of literary growth within Tob 13:
vv. 1–6b (Rahlfs: vv. 2–7) were augmented by vv. 6c–8 (8–10a) and then vv. 9–18 (10b–18).
65 According to Fitzmyer (1995), 4Q196 dates from ca. 50 BCE (ibid. 7), while 4Q200 is
dated to between ca. 30 BCE and 20 CE (ibid. 63).
66 Cf. Baillet (1982, 81): “Les rapprochements avec le livre de Tobie sautent donc aux
yeux. (. . .) Il pourra être fructueux de serer ces rapprochements, don’t le plus frappant
jusqu’ici est l’allusion au première couple humain (Tob 86–7, cf. f. 1 3).” But contrast Satlow
(1998, 59): “The parallels to the book of Tobit are too vague to be useful (. . .).”

The signifĳicance of Tob 13:4 and its co-text for the notion of God as
“father” has recently been brought into appropriate relief by Angelika
Strotmann, who has argued at length that this text reinterprets the father-
hood of God in terms of an exclusive, personal relationship between God
and Israel, shaping it by the dual aspects of “pedagogy” and God’s “unfail-
ing faithfulness” and opening God’s fatherhood beyond the focus on the
Davidic dynasty (2 Sam 7:14) to all Israelites (cf. Deut 30:1–10 and 32:1–
43).67 However, Strotmann was still unaware of the precise readings of
the Hebrew and Aramaic fragments from Qumran on this passage.68 In
contrast to both G I and G II, these Hebrew and Aramaic fragments deploy
sufffĳixes of the second person plural (partially reconstructed): “your Lord,”
“your God” and thus very likely also “your father.” It is thus probably spe-
cifĳically the Israelites in exile who are assured of God as their “father.” The
Greek recensions would have later broadened the view to encompass all
of the people.69
It is unclear whether we ought to assume, similarly, a second-person
plural sufffĳix in 4Q502 or rather a fĳirst-person plural one, as reconstructed
by Baillet; the text may elsewhere take a fĳirst-person plural perspective of
the speaker.70 In sum, read in light of the Tobit passage, our fragment iden-
tifĳies God as “our (or perhaps: your) father” in the context of his praises
“before71 all living beings,” that is, among the nations. Whether the other
notions typically associated with the Tobit passage, that is, God’s castigat-
ing and merciful pedagogy and his faithfulness,72 play any role cannot be
decided due to the fragmentary state of the text. If the sufffĳix were indeed
in the fĳirst person plural, further intertexts might have been Isa 63:16 and
64:7, where God’s mercy and faithfulness dominate over his pedagogy.73
Despite many open questions, this brief reference in 4Q502 suggests
important connections between (probably) yaḥadic “Qumran” texts and
other Second Temple literature on the issue of God’s fatherhood.
67 Cf. Strotmann (1991, 35–56, summary 56–58).

68 Cf. Strotmann (1991, 26).
69 Cf. Puech (2001, 291); also Fitzmyer (2003, 308f.), although he gives rather little
attention to the change between the Aramaic / Hebrew and Greek versions at this point.
70 E.g., 4Q502 7–10 9f.: “we all | [give thank]s to the name of the God of Israel”.
71 This may suggest that in 4Q502 39 2 ‫ לפ[ני כול חי‬should be read and restored.
72 See Strotmann’s analysis, above, n. 67. However, Strotmann does not comment on
the immediately preceding context on God’s exaltation “before all living beings.”
73 Cf. Strotmann (1991, 42).

122 lutz doering
Moreover, we need to discuss here the substantial and signifĳicant pas-

sage 1QHa 17 (Suk. 9):29–36, where we fĳind an instance of second-person
identifĳication:74
‫כי אתה מאבי‬
‫( ידﬠתני ומרחם ]הקדשתני ומבטן[ אמי גמלתה ﬠלי ומשדי הוריתי רחמיך‬30)
‫משפטכה‬
̊ ‫( }{לי ובחיק אומנתי̊ ̊רו̊ ב] חסד[י̊ ̊כ ̊ה ומנﬠורי הופﬠתה לי בשכל‬31)
̊‫]א[ת ̊ה ̊תנ̊ הלנ̊ י‬
̊ ‫היום‬
̊ ‫( ובאמת נכון סמכתי ו̊ ̊ב ̊רוח ̊קו̊ דשכה תשﬠשﬠנ̊ י וﬠד‬32)
‫( ותוכחת צדקכה ﬠם נ̊ ]ﬠ[ו̊ יתי ומשמר שלומכה לפלט נ̊ ̊פשי וﬠם מצﬠדי‬33)
‫( רוב סליחות והמון ̊ר ̊ח ̊מים בהשפטכה בי וﬠד שיבה אתה תכלכלני כיא‬34)
‫אמתכה ותגל‬ ̊ ‫לכו̊ ̊ל ̊בנ̊ י‬
̊ ‫( אבי לא ידﬠני ואמי ﬠליכה ﬠזבתני כי אתה אב‬35)
vacat ‫לה וכאומן בחיק תכלכל לכול מﬠשי̊ כה‬ ̊ ̊‫( ﬠליהם כמרחמת ̊ﬠל ﬠו‬36)
For it is you who from (the time of) my father (30) have known me, and
from the womb [you have sanctifĳied me, and from the belly of] my mother
you have done me good, and from the breasts of the one who conceived
me your compassion (31) has been present for me, and in the bosom of my
nurse was your great [kindness], and from my youth you have appeared
to me in your wise judgement. (32) With sure truth you have supported
me, and in your holy spirit you have made me rejoice, and until this day
[y]ou (continue to) guide me. (33) Your just rebuke has been present when
I was w[ay]ward, and your peaceful protection for the deliverance of my
soul. (34) Abundant forgiveness and overflowing compassion accompany
my steps when you judge me. Until old age you yourself sustain me. For
(35) my father did not acknowledge me, and my mother abandoned me to
you, for you are a father to all the children of your truth, and you rejoice (36)
over them like75 a parturient who loves her nursing child, and like a foster-
father you sustain all your creatures in (your) bosom. vacat
The section is the conclusion of a psalm that begins with 1QHa 16:5 (Suk.
8:4) and thus belongs to what may be classifĳied as Hymns of the Teacher.76
The conclusion begins with ‫ כי אתה‬in line 29 and is bipartite. The fĳirst
part, lines 29–35a, expresses the psalmist’s gratefulness to God for his
lifelong support and sustenance, including rebuke and forgiveness. Here,
74 Text and translation (the latter with slight adjustments) according to Stegemann
and Schuller (2009, 227.233).
75 The translation in Stegemann and Schuller (2009, 233), has “as.”
76 Cf. Stegemann and Schuller (2009, 228). Cf. Puech (2001, 305 with n. 14), who
connects this classifĳication to an autobiographical interpretation of the psalm: accord-
ing to Puech, the Teacher may have been the son of Onias III (i.e. Simon III), who was a
child when his father was murdered in 171/70 BCE and consequently grew up fatherless.
This seems to me hardly a promising avenue for the interpretation of the text, which also
speaks of the speaker’s mother having abandoned him. In my view, these are rather generic
statements about the limits of human parents.

“father”77 and “mother” (or her relevant body parts) are mentioned with
reference to the very fĳirst stages of the psalmist’s life thus sustained. In
addition, line 31 mentions the “nurse” or “foster-mother” (‫)אומנתי‬, very
likely a fĳigure distinct from the natural mother, through which, according
to the reconstruction of Stegemann and Schuller, the speaker experienced
God’s “kindness.”78 Yet, as becomes clear in lines 34b–35a, the speaker’s
natural father and mother have failed: “For | my father did not acknowl-
edge me, and my mother abandoned me to you.” This forms a contrast
with God’s knowledge and care from birth, a contrast similar to Ps 27:10
(cf. also Isa 63:16).
Lines 35b–36 then present something like a coda to this section and to
the entire psalm.79 It is a tristichos featuring three parental fĳigures: “father”
(‫)אב‬, “parturient / mother with young child” (‫)מרחמת‬, and “foster-father”
(‫)אומן‬: “for you are a father to all the children of your truth and you rejoice
| over them like a parturient who loves her nursing child, and like a foster-
father you sustain all your creatures in (your) bosom.” The wording of
the tristichos appears carefully balanced and contains two asymmetries:
(1) While “parturient” and “foster-father” are used in the comparative
mode, “father” appears in an identifying statement. (2) The fĳirst two stichoi
both concern “all the children of truth,” whereas the third relates to “all
your creatures.” Thus, the fĳirst two stichoi belong closer together than the
third. The section clearly implies a restriction of God’s fatherhood in the
full sense to this particular group, as which the members of the yaḥad
will have seen themselves.80 Only over them, God also rejoices “like” a
young mother over her nursing child. Thus, God here takes on maternal
traces, perhaps with echoes of passages like Isa 49:14f.,81 though the poet
shies away from an outright identifĳication of God as “mother.” Regarding
all his (other) “creatures,”82 God appears as the sustainer and nourisher,
77 I prefer the temporal rendering in Stegemann and Schuller (2009) over Puech’s
“plus qu’un père” (Puech [2001, 306]) because of the parallel with the implicitly temporal
statements that follow.
78 Discussion in Stegemann and Schuller (2009, 231). Puech restores and translates
“de [ma] sécuri[té] Tu as [pris soin]” (Puech [2001, 306]).
79 Thus Strotmann (1991, 344f.).
80 Cf. Strotmann (1991, 346–357); Puech (2001, 306): “Dieu est avant tout un Père pour
tous ses fĳils fĳidèles.”
81 Cf. Strotmann (1991, 348f.).
82 For a diffferent view, cf. Feldmeier and Spieckermann (2011, 64), who limit the
remit of “all your creatures” to the members of the community as well: “ ‘Alle deine
Geschöpfe’, die hier Gottes Vaterschaft erfahren, sind allein ‘alle Söhne deiner Wahrheit’.”
But this does not take account of the syntactical independence of the third stichos and

124 lutz doering
but he is merely compared to a “foster-father” (‫)אומן‬. This term recalls the

female form ‫ אומנת‬in line 31; the masculine form occurs in Num 11:12b and
is attested to elsewhere in the Scrolls, denoting a fĳigure fulfĳilling paren-
tal responsibilities to a baby without necessarily being the child’s natural
parent.83 This relativises somewhat the material sustenance expressed in
lines 29–35a,84 as this aspect is no diffferent for the psalmist than it is for
the rest of the creatures. From this we can conclude that the essential
surplus of God’s being a “father” (only) to the pious consists in the aspects
of guidance (entailing support in truth and rejoicing in the holy spirit),
of pedagogy (e.g. implying rebuke), and of forgiveness. Fabry recently
wondered whether, due to the solely pre-yaḥadic attestation of second-
person address of God as “father” (see the following section), the present
text might merely present an “individual view” rather than “Qumranic
theology.”85 But such a distinction is difffĳicult to make theoretically: after
all, what one may call “Qumranic theology” can only be constructed from
the individual texts. It also underestimates the reception of pre- (or non-)
yaḥadic theologies in the yaḥad. As argued in this contribution, our pas-
sage fĳits the group of identifying statements pragmatically, some of which
(e.g. 4Q502) are indeed yaḥadic. The narrowing of God’s fatherhood to the
“children of truth” would match other tendencies in the yaḥad, such as
the separation from non-members (1QS 5:13–20), which is urged in terms
similar to those that Jub. 22:16–22 applies to Gentiles.86
Finally, a fragment from 4Q511 (4QCantiques du Sage), most likely a
yaḥadic composition as well,87 deploys the isolated phrase “]our father[”
(]‫ ;[אביׂנוֹ‬4Q511 127 1). This could be part of a statement of identifĳication,
either in third person, “(he is) our father,” or in second person, “(you are)
of the specifĳic term used (“foster-father”). It seems also difffĳicult to narrow God’s work of
creation to the members of the community only. In contrast, the distinction between “all
the children of your truth” and “all your creatures” is afffĳirmed by Strotmann (1991, 355);
Puech (2001, 306).
83 Cf. 1QHa 15:24f. (Suk. 7:21f.) (in parallel with “father” and [perhaps] “mother” [see for
the possible reconstruction Stegemann and Schuller (2009, 207)]); CD 11:11 (taking up
the phraseology of Num 11:12b); cf. Doering (1999, 188f.). Cf. also Ruth 4:16 (here fem.),
which Strotmann (1991, 353), thinks may also have influenced the wording here.
84 Cf. esp. line 34 ‫ תכלכלני‬with line 36 ‫תכלכל‬.
85 Fabry (2011, 9).
86 Cf. Shemesh (1997).
87 Cf. Alexander (1997, 321): the text represented by 4Q510–511 is “probably a sectar-
ian composition.” Alexander points generally to the “siege mentality of sectarianism” pal-
pable in the text, and more specifĳically to “some of the distinctive language of the Qumran
group,” such as “sons of light” (4Q510 1 7), “men of the covenant” (4Q511 63–64 ii 5), and
“the designation of the spiritual leader of the sect as ‘Maskil.’ ”

our father,” similar to Isa 63:16. This composition deploys both third-person
and second-person references to God, so either would be possible here. A
further option would be a direct invocation “O our father,” which would
be the oldest of its kind with a fĳirst-person plural sufffĳix88 and would con-
nect this fragment—despite the number of the sufffĳix—with the following
group of references, which are direct invocations in prayer. It is perhaps
signifĳicant that the following line shows the phrase ‫( ל[ו̊ א תכיר‬4Q511 127 2;
3rd pers. fem. or 2nd pers. sg.?), for which one might compare ‫וְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל לׂא‬
‫“ יַ ִכּ ָירנוּ‬and Israel does not acknowledge us,” which in Isaiah 63:16 imme-
diately precedes the statement “you are our father.”
5. Direct Invocation in Prayer (“My Father”)
While we have seen that one type of identifĳicatory statements involves

second-person address, it is useful, for text-pragmatic reasons, to look
at direct invocations in prayer in their own right. As mentioned before,
there are now two attestations of a direct invocation of God as “my father”
in cave 4 fragments from Qumran. 4Q372 (4QNarrative and Poetic Com-
positionb) frg. 1 begins with a narrative about Joseph, which here refers
to the Northern tribes. We learn that Joseph “was cast into lands he did
not k[now . . .] | among a foreign nation and dispersed in all the world”
(4Q372 1 10f.). Joseph’s destiny is being looked at favourably. According
to the editors, Eileen Schuller and Moshe Bernstein, this implies an “anti-
Samaritan polemic”: “If the ‘real’ Joseph is in exile, the Samaritan claim to
be descendants of Joseph is spurious.”89 The treatment that Joseph sufffers
is harsh: “And in all this Joseph [was given] | into the hands of foreign-
ers, who were devouring his strength and breaking all his bones until the
end of time for him” (lines 14f.). “A salient feature of the composition is
its combination of narrative with psalm-like texts.”90 Thus, in the context
of the aforementioned narrative, we fĳind a psalm with a brief narrative
introduction (4Q372 1 15–19):91
88 But cf., in Greek, 1 Chr 29:10 LXX: εὐλογητὸς εἶ κύριε ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν ἀπὸ
τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος “Blessed are you, Lord God of Israel, our father from age unto
even age” (so NETS; whereas MT is usually taken to say, “God of our ancestor Israel” [so
NRSV]).
89 Schuller and Bernstein (2001, 171 [fĳirst quotation], 172 [second quotation]).
90 Popović (2010, 90). Cf. Bernstein (2003).
91 The psalm continues at least until line 31. Text and translation follow Schuller and
Bernstein (2001, 167–169).

126 lutz doering
[‫ויזﬠ ׁ̊ק] וקלו‬ (15)

‫יקרא אל אל גבור להושיﬠו מידם ויאמר אבי ואלהי אל תﬠזבני ביד הגוים‬ (16)
‫עשה אתה בי משפט למﬠן לא יבדו ﬠנוים ורשים ואין אתה צריך לכל גוי‬ (17)
‫וﬠם‬
‫[גדולה וחזקה מכל אשר בתבל כי אתה בורר את‬ ̊ ‫לכל עזרה אצבׁ]ﬠ ידך‬ (18)
‫האמת ואין בידך‬
‫דרשי̊ ̊ך ]לקחו [ארצי ממני‬
̊ ‫כל חמס גם רחמיך רבים וחסדיך ̊ג ̊דלים לכל‬ (19)
‫אשר‬
̊ ‫ומכל אחי‬
And he cried out[ and aloud] (16) he called to mighty God to save him from
their hand and he said, “My father and my God, do not abandon me into the
hand of the nations; (17) do justice for me, lest the affflicted and poor perish.
You have no need for any nation or people (18) for any help. The fĳin[ger of
your hand ]is greater and stronger than anything in the world. For you select
the truth, and there is not in your hand (19) any violence. Also you mercies
are abundant, your kindnesses great for all who seek you. [They took ]my
land from me and from all my brothers who . . .”
Joseph invokes God as “my father and my God” (‫ ;אבי ואלהי‬4Q372 1 16).
This is intimately connected to the speaker’s request not to “abandon”
him “into the hand of the nations” (‫ )אל תﬠזבני ביד הגוים‬or, as the intro-
duction puts it, “to save him from their hand” (‫ ;להושיﬠו מידם‬ibid.), and to
“do justice for him” (‫ ;ﬠשה אתה בי משפט‬line 17). The prayer further high-
lights God’s strength (line 18) and his mercy and kindness (‫גם רחמיך רבים‬
‫ ;וחסדיך ̊ג ̊דלים‬line 19); the expression “for all who seek you” (‫דרשי̊ ך‬
̊ ‫)לכל‬
here appears to single out those who—like the psalmist—are entitled to
call God “my father and my God.” In this way, the father-son relationship
serves also as a demarcation vis-à-vis the nations among which the North-
ern tribes have been dispersed, and probably also vis-à-vis the Samaritans
who claim the place of these tribes.92 It should, however, be noticed that
“my father and my God” occurs in the wider co-text of other divine epi-
thets. Thus, Joseph later in the same psalm says, “you are my God” (or:
“my God” with nota accusativi: ‫ ;את אלהי‬line 25), and he addresses God
as “YHWH, my God” when he expresses his intention to “praise” him and
“bless” (?) him (‫]ר[כ ̊ך‬
̊ ‫ואב‬ ̊ ‫ ̊;אהללך יהוה אלהי‬line 26—the last word here
could, less likely, also be reconstructed as [‫ואב]י‬
̊ “and my father,” followed
by a further brief word).93 Still within the psalm, the speaker says about
92 Cf. Puech (2001, 303).

93 On ‫]ר[כך‬
̊ ‫ואב‬,
̊ Schuller and Bernstein (2001, 169 [cf. 176]), comment: “In the best
photographs (see PAM 42.471), a slight trace of a baseline remains from the letter pre-
ceding the downstroke of a fĳinal kap or nun. It would also be possible to restore [‫אב]י‬,
followed by a separate short word, perhaps ‫לך‬.” This might therefore represent another

the deity that he is “a God great, holy, mighty, and majestic, awesome and
marvellous” (]‫ ;אל גדול קדוש גבור ואדיר נורא ונפלא‬line 29). In the nar-
rative passage, God is referred to as “Most High” (‫ ;עליון‬line 4), “my God”
(‫ ;אלהי‬line 8), “God” (‫ ;אל‬line 9) and “mighty God” (‫ ;אל גבור‬line 16). The
form ‫ אלהי‬in line 8 occurs in the phrase ‫“ ואת הר אלהי‬and the mountain
of my God” within a statement that looks like a combination of Ps 79:1
and Mic 3:12; it is possible that the sufffĳix here does not have strictly per-
sonal force and that the expression replaces the tetragrammaton here.94
In short, the address “my father and my God,” the immediate connection
with non-abandonment and salvation notwithstanding, is set in a wider
context of divine epithets that emphasise God’s might and greatness. The
two aspects are not mutually exclusive but complement one another.
The manuscript is palaeographically dated to ca. 50 BCE. It has been
written with a “conservative” orthography, that is, retaining defective
spelling and short forms of pronouns.95 In turn, the composition does not
show any “sectarian” features and may thus be taken as belonging to “the
category of non-Qumranic, noncanonical psalms from the Persian-Helle-
nistic period which have come to light in various manuscripts from the
Qumran caves.”96 This places it in some temporal proximity to Ben Sira,
where two passages are relevant. The fĳirst one is Sir 51:1 (Hebrew Ms. B):
‫ אלהי אבי אספרה שמך מﬠוז חיי‬97‫ א]ו[דיך‬:‫אהללך אלהי ישﬠי‬
I shall praise you, my God, my salvation (or: God of my salvation). I shall
give thanks to you, my God, my father (or: God of my father). I shall spread
your name, stronghold of my life.
instance of the invocation of God as “my father,” here: “YHWH, my God and my father.”
This would be relevant for comparison with Sir 51:1 (see below). However, the syntax,
particularly concerning the small word ending in fĳinal kap or nun might be problem-
atic, and whether the baseline could come from lamed (which tends to hang higher in
the line and not to protrude into fĳinal kap, see ‫ ̊אהללך‬on the same line) is doubtful. The
photograph (= B-283960) is now available at http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-
archive/image/B-283960 (accessed 11 January 2013).
94 So Stegemann (1978, 208); Schuller and Bernstein (2001, 173f.). Cf. 1Q22 (=1QDM)
2:1, 6.
95 Cf. Schuller and Bernstein (2001, 165–167).
96 Schuller (1992, 70).
97 The edition of the Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language reads ‫א]ו[דיך‬, plac-
ing a stroke over dalet to indicate a damaged letter (The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concor-
dance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary, Jerusalem, 1973).

128 lutz doering
It is debated whether the two occurrences of ‫ אלהי‬should be taken

as constructs (“God of . . .”)98 or as nouns with fĳirst person sufffĳixes
(“my God . . .”).99 The Greek, in both cases, renders diffferently: for ‫אלהי‬
‫ישﬠי‬, it has κύριε βασιλεῦ “Lord (and) king” (cf. Syriac mry’ mlk’), for ‫אלהי‬
‫אבי‬, in contrast, θεὸν τὸν σωτῆρά μου (“God my saviour”).100 While there
is no rendition with “father” and only one instance of a fĳirst person pro-
noun here, the Greek clearly does not support the presence of constructs
in Hebrew. In this context, 4Q372 provides evidence that “my father”
and “my God” were used as seriatim addresses of God in prayer and thus
strengthen the possibility that this might also be the case (or at one point
might have been read as such) in Sir 51:1, albeit without the conjunction
we- between the terms.101
The second relevant passage is Sir 51:10, where the Hebrew Ms. B reads
as follows:
‫ אל תרפני ביום צרה ביום שואה משואה‬:‫וארומם ייי אבי אתה כי אתה גבור ישﬠי‬
And I shall exalt the Lord. You are my Father; indeed, you are the hero, my
salvation (or: the hero of my salvation). Do not forsake me on the day of
trouble, on the day of catastrophe and destruction.
This is most likely a free quotation of Ps 89:27 (‫)אבי אתה‬.102 To be sure,
the Greek translation of Sir 51:10 renders with ἐπεκαλεσάμην κύριον πατέρα
κυρίου μου “I called the Lord the father of my lord,” but this is probably
under the influence of Ps 110:1.103 Like Sir 51:10, 4Q372 frg. 1 speaks of God
as “my father” in the context of a request that God abandon him not
(‫[ אל תרפני‬Sir], ‫[ אל תעזבני‬4Q372]).
The second text to attest to such an address is 4Q460 (4QNarrative Work
and Prayer). Its editor, Erik Larson, has noted the generic resemblance
98 So e.g. Jeremias (1967, 28 n. 69; German: 32 n. 69), assuming intertextual references
to Ps 18:46 (“God of my salvation”) and Ex 15:2 (“God of my father”); also Strotmann (1991,
85) (because of the parallelism with the construct ‫)מעוז חיי‬.
99 So e.g. Puech (2001, 293f.), for whom the occurrence of freestanding ‫“ אבי‬my father”
in Sir 51:10 is decisive; see below.
100 The superiority of the Greek (and Syriac) reading over the Hebrew one, claimed by
some scholars, is contested by Strotmann (1991, 84).
101 And cf. also the possible reading of 4Q372 1 26 mentioned above, n. 93.
102 Cf. Strotmann (1991, 87f.); Philonenko (2001, 61f.).
103 Cf. Strotmann (1991, 83). Cf. also Sir 23:1, 4 κύριε πάτερ καὶ δέσποτα ζωῆς μου and
κύριε πάτερ καὶ θεὲ ζωῆς μου, respectively. However, some scholars have proposed a Hebrew
original of ‫“ אל אבי‬God of my father” here, as preserved in a late prosodic paraphrase of
the passage (Ms. Adler 3053); cf. Jeremias (1967, 28f.; German: 32). Contrast the proposals
for retroversion into Hebrew for these verses in Puech (2001, 292f.).

between this text and the Apocryphon of Joshua (4Q378–379) and also
4Q372, evident in the alternation of narrative and “substantial amounts
of psalmodic material.”104 Due to the absence of “sectarian” terminology,
the use of waw-consecutive imperfect and at least one instance of the
employment of the tetragrammaton, Larson considers “a non-sectarian or
pre-sectarian origin” of the composition likely.105 4Q460 9 i 2–6, followed
by a vacat and apparently a change in address in the subsequent section
of the text, represents the conclusion of what appears to be a prayer:106
‫[כהׁ ׁולפניכה אפחד כיא כפח ׁ̊ד ̊א ̊לו̊ ̊הים זממ]ת[ ̊י‬
̊ (2)
‫[ׂל] [ׂלמהומה בישראל ולשﬠרוריה באפרים‬ (3)
‫ה[ארׁצ אשמות למרום ﬠליון כיא לדור‬ ̊ ‫מלאה‬ (4)
‫כ[י̊ א לוא אתה ﬠזבתה לﬠבדכה‬ (5)
vacat ‫[ אבי ואדוני‬ (6)
(2) ]you and before you I will tremble for according to the terror of God
[I] have planned (3) ]for confusion in Israel and for something horrible in
Ephraim (4) . . . the] land [was full] of guilt to the highest height because
for a generation (5) . . . f]or you have not abandoned your servant (6) ] my
father and my Lord. vacat
The identity of the speaker is unclear. In light of other fragments of this
manuscript it might be one of the patriarchs, for example, Judah (cf. 7 5).
This name, however, could also be taken to refer to the kingdom of Judah,
“in which case the prayers and addresses would be uttered by some king(s)
or perhaps even a prophet.”107 The charge against Israel and Ephraim in
lines 3f. might support the second alternative. The present prayer ends on
a note of thanksgiving for experienced preservation. The psalmist styles
himself “your servant” and ends his prayer (with unclear syntax due to a
lacuna) on the invocation “my father and my Lord.” The semantic fĳield
evoked in the context deals yet once more with non-abandonment (‫לוא אתה‬
‫ ;עזבתה‬line 5) in the midst of confusion and horror, here amongst Israel
and Ephraim (‫ ;לׁמהומה בישראל ולשﬠרוריה באפרים‬line 3).
A brief remark should be reserved for the phrase ‫אבי ואדוני‬. As the edi-
tor states, it is not clear whether the second term should be understood
as ’adônî or as ’adônây.108 At any rate, the coordinating conjunction we-
ought to be noted which suggests to me that the sufffĳix with the second
104 Larson (2000, 373).

105 Larson (2000, 374).
106 Text and translation follow Larson (2000, 382).
107 Larson (2000, 373).
108 Cf. Larson (2000, 384).

130 lutz doering
term, as with the fĳirst one, should be taken as a “real” personal sufffĳix: “my
Lord.” The phrase “my father and my lord” is also used in the address of
natural fathers, as attested in Aramaic by 1QapGen 2:24, where Methuse-
lah addresses his father Enoch: ‫יא אבי ויא מרי‬. This would point to the
application of a conventional address to God and thus not suggest that
‫ אדוני‬is a reverential replacement of YHWH here (’adônây). This is con-
sonant with the overall evidence in Qumran texts: while ‫ אדוני‬is attested
as a replacement for the tetragrammaton, “free” use of ‫ אדוני‬is found
particularly in prayer addressed to God, so that it can be concluded that
“zumindest einzelne Autoren das ‫ י‬in ‫ אדני‬noch zu dieser Zeit als Sufffĳix
aufffassen konnten.”109
6. Summary
Overall, the use of “father” for God is sparsely attested in the texts from
Qumran. As in other texts from the Second Temple period, “father” in
the texts reviewed here is often used in the context of other, much more
prominent divine epithets such as ‫עליון‬, (‫אלהי)ם‬, ‫אלוה‬, ‫אל‬, ‫אדני‬, or ‫יהוה‬,
sometimes forming series.110 Text-pragmatically, the Qumran evidence
variously echoes the use of “father” for God in the Hebrew Bible and other
Second Temple texts in statements of comparison, adoption, and identi-
fĳication. The two examples of the direct invocation “my father” provide
valuable insights into what might have been a more widespread form of
addressing God. They continue enunciations like those in Ps 89:27 and
Sir 51:10 and provide a Palestinian, Hebrew counterpart to the invocation
“father” in Greek Jewish texts.111
Many of the specimens reviewed here come from texts that were not
composed within the yaḥad. While some of these texts may have little
demonstrable connection with the yaḥad, apart from the fact that they
were deposited in Qumran Cave 4, others, like the Joshua Apocryphon or
109 Rösel (2000, 206–221, quotation: 220). However, the line between “real” and “for-
mulaic” ‫ י‬can be very fĳine: see the possible use of ‫ אלוהי‬in lieu of the tetragrammaton,
above, n. 94.
110 For the texts discussed here, see 4Q372 1 4: ‫ ;עליון‬8, 25: ‫( אלהי‬for line 8 see above, at
n. 94); 9: ‫ ;אל‬16: ‫ ;אל גבור‬26: ‫ ;יהוה אלהי‬29: ‫ ;אל גדול קדוש גבור ואדיר נורא ונפלא‬4Q378 6 ii
2: ‫ ;אלוה‬3: ‫ ;אלהים‬7: ‫ ;אדני‬4Q379 18 4: ‫ ;אדנ]ינ[ו‬5: ‫ ;אלוה‬6: ‫ ;עליון‬7: ‫ ;אלהי‬4Q460 9 i 2: ‫;אלהים‬
8 (cf. 10): ‫ ;אלהיכה‬10: ‫יהוה‬.
111 3 Macc 6:3; Wisd 14:3; Apocryphon of Ezekiel Frg. 2 (1 Clem 8:3; Clem. Alex., Paed.
1.10.91.2). Note that here absolute πάτερ is used (and see above, n. 7). Cf. C. Zimmermann
(2007, 58).

Dibre Ha-me’orot, were well received by the yaḥad and share some aspects
of its outlook. This would caution against too sharp a distinction between
“sectarian” and “non-sectarian” use of “father.” It is true that in the yaḥadic
texts there is a tendency to limit God’s fatherhood to the pious ones, prob-
ably the yaḥad proper (see 1QHa 17:35f.; cf. perhaps 4Q392 6–9). But also
a non- (or pre-) yaḥadic text such as that represented by 4Q460 uses the
father-son relation probably with respect to a negative event in Israel and
Ephraim, thus limiting it to a group smaller than Israel. Even Hebrew and
Aramaic Tobit as attested for Tob 13:4 among the Qumran fragments has
the exiles rather than all of Israel in view when it speaks of God’s father-
hood. Diffferences in emphasis can be perceived, but they represent ends
of a spectrum rather than hard and fast alternatives.
With these observations, we have begun to address the identity of the
“children” for whom God is a “father.” Since the paternal relationship is
reciprocal, it is crucial to establish with respect to whom God is predi-
cated as “father.”112 In addition to groups smaller than Israel that have
already been mentioned (e.g. the exiles, the yaḥad), three further types of
“children” of God emerge in the Dead Sea Scrolls. First, as the statements
of adoption show, there is an application of the scripturally grounded
idea of divine adoption (cf. 2 Sam 7:14) to an individual eschatological,
messianic fĳigure (4Q174 1–2 i 11 and probably further texts: 4Q246 1 ii 1;
4Q369 1 ii 5–10). Second, there is the extension of the notion of adoption
to the entire people of Israel (Jub. 1:24f., 28; 4Q382 104 1–4, looking to
the future) as well as the recording of Israel as God’s “fĳirst-born son” (cf.
already Exod 4:22f.; then Jub. 2:20, tied with creation Sabbath; 19:29, reali-
sation in Jacob and his descendants), partly used in contrasting Israel and
the nations (4Q504 1–2 iii 2–7). This contrast is also present in texts that
do not feature adoption (e.g. 4Q372 1 15–19; 4Q502 39 2f. [?]). The act of
adoption is carefully distinguished from the “creation” of Israel and is typi-
cally expressed by verbs such as ‫“ שים‬set up” (4Q369 1 ii 6; 4Q504 1–2 iii 5).
In 4Q246 the protagonist “will be called” (‫“ )יתאמר‬son of God” (which
might be taken as divine passive), but human beings, too, will “name” him
(‫“ )יקרונה‬son of the Most High (or: most high son).” Third, in contrast to
the father-son relationship with either Israel or a messianic fĳigure, the two
direct invocations in prayer are formulated from the perspective of an
112 This has been emphasised for the interpretation of the father metaphor in the
Hebrew Bible and the New Testament: Böckler (2002, 394); C. Zimmermann (2007, 51
[with further literature]).

132 lutz doering
individual speaker: “My father and my God” and “My father and my Lord,”
respectively. They attest to the use of such invocations both in petitionary
prayer (4Q372 1 16) and—apparently—in thanksgiving (4Q460 9 i 6).
The semantic fĳields in which associations of God with a “father” occur
are equally important. First, a number of texts emphasise sustenance and
support provided by God (1QHa 17 [Suk. 9]:29–36; 4Q369 1 ii 8; 4Q392 6–9
4f. [restored]). Second, several texts highlight mercy, kindness or forgive-
ness (cf. 4Q423 7 3 “like a father’s mercy”; 1QHa 17 [Suk. 9]:29–36; 4Q372
1 19). A third important semantic fĳield is rescue from enemies and non-
abandonment (cf. 4Q382 104 4; 4Q372 1 16; 4Q460 9 i 5f.). Fourthly, the
themes of pedagogy, rebuke and castigation play a role in a few texts
(4Q504 1–2 iii 5–7; 1QHa 17 [Suk. 9]:33; cf. the explanation of “your good
judgments” and the passing on of “righteous rules” in 4Q369 1 ii 5, 10). Fur-
ther, there are individual semantic fĳields peculiar to some texts by which
an aspect of the notion of “father” is expressed: trust (4Q379 18 3f.), God’s
rule over Israel (4Q382 104 3) and the keeping of the commandments (esp.
Jub 1:24f.; 2:20) as well as the covenant (cf. 4Q382 104 1). The emphasis
varies across the texts, and 1QHa 17 seems to diffferentiate between God’s
parenthood over his faithful, in which forgiveness and pedagogy domi-
nate, and his foster-father relationship with all creatures, where general
sustenance is at stake.
In sum, God’s “fatherhood” is not a major theme in the texts from Qum-
ran. It needs to be related to other, quantitatively more prevalent modes
of speaking about God. At the same time, it does have its distinct place
in this context. In addition, the evidence for God as “father” at Qumran is
qualitatively important in a number of respects. In its semantic and prag-
matic features, therefore, it enriches and nuances the profĳile provided by
other relevant texts within Second Temple Judaism.113
Bibliography
Alexander, P.S., “ ‘Wrestling against Wickedness in High Places’: Magic in the Worldview
of the Qumran Community”, in: S.E. Porter & C.A. Evans (eds.), The Scrolls and the
Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years after (JSPSup 26), Shefffĳield 1997, 318–337.
Attridge, H. et J. Strugnell, “369. 4QPrayer of Enosh”, in: H. Attridge et al., Qumran
Cave 4 Vol. 8, Parabiblical Texts Part 1 (DJD 13), Oxford 1994, 353–362.
Baillet, M., Qumrân Grotte 4 Vol. 3, (4Q482–520) (DJD 7), Oxford 1982.
Barr, J., “’Abbā Isn’t ‘Daddy’ ”, JTS n.s. 39 (1988), 28–47.
113 Cf. the studies by Strotmann (1991); C. Zimmermann (2007, 48–64); Puech (2001);
Feldmeier and Spieckermann (2011, 54–66).

Baumgarten, J.M., “4Q502, Marriage or Golden Age Ritual?”, JJS 35 (1983), 125–136.
Berner, C., Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen: Heptadische Geschichtskonzeptionen im Anti-
ken Judentum (BZAW 363), Berlin 2006.
Bernstein, M.J., “Poetry and Prose in 4Q371–373 Narrative and Poetic Compositiona, b, c”,
in: E.G. Chazon et al. (eds.), Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the
Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 48), Leiden 2003, 19–33.
Böckler, A., Gott als Vater im Alten Testament: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen
zur Entstehung und Entwicklung eines Gottesbildes, Gütersloh 22002.
Brooke, G.J., “Between Authority and Canon: The Signifĳicance of Reworking the Bible for
Understanding the Canonical Process”, in: E.G. Chazon et al. (eds.), Reworking the Bible:
Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran (STDJ 58), Leiden 2005, 85–106.
Chazon, E.G., “Is Divrei Ha-me’orot a Sectarian Prayer?”, in D. Dimant et U. Rappaport
(eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (STDJ 10), Leiden et al. 1992, 3–17.
Collins, A.Y. et J.J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic
Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, Grand Rapids 2008.
D’Angelo, M.R., “Abba and ‘Father’: Imperial Theology and the Jesus Traditions”, JBL 111
(1992), 611–630.
Dimant, D., “Between Sectarian and Non-Sectarian: The Case of the Apocryphon of Joshua”,
in: E.G. Chazon et al. (eds.), Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qum-
ran (STDJ 58), Leiden 2005, 105–134.
——, “Two ‘Scientifĳic’ Fictions: The So-Called Book of Noah and the Alleged Quotation of
Jubilees in CD 16:3–4”, in: P.W. Flint et al. (eds.), Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran,
and the Septuagint: Presented to Eugene Ulrich (VTSup 101), Leiden 2006, 230–249.
Doering, L., “The Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees”, in: M. Albani et al.
(eds.), Studies in the Book of Jubilees (TSAJ 65), Tübingen 1997, 179–205.
——, Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum (TSAJ
78), Tübingen 1999.
——, “Excerpted Texts in Second Temple Judaism: A Survey of the Evidence”, in:
R.M. Piccione et M. Perkams (eds.), Selecta colligere II (Hellenica 18), Alessandria
2005, 1–38.
Eshel, E. et al., “448. 4QApocryphal Psalm and Prayer”, in: E. Eshel et al., Qumran Cave 4
vol. 6, Poetical and Liturgical Texts Part 1 (DJD 11), Oxford 1997, 403–425.
Eshel, H., “The Historical Background of the Pesher Interpreting Joshua’s Curse on the
Rebuilder of Jericho”, RevQ 15/59 (1992), 409–420.
Evans, C.A., “Are the ‘Son’ Texts at Qumran Messianic? Reflections on 4Q369 and Related
Scrolls”, in: J.H. Charlesworth et al. (eds.), Qumran Messianism: Studies on the Mes-
sianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tübingen 1998, 135–153.
Fabry, H.-J., “‫’ ָאב‬āb”, TWQT 1 (2011), 1–9.
Falk, D.K., Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 27), Leiden
1997.
——, “392. 4QWorks of God”, in: E. Chazon et al., Qumran Cave 4 Vol. 20, Poetical and
Liturgical Texts Part 2 (DJD 29), Oxford 1999, 25–44.
Feldmeier, R. et H. Spieckermann, Der Gott der Lebendigen: Eine biblische Gotteslehre,
Tübingen 2011.
Feneberg, R., “Abba—Vater: Eine notwendige Besinnung”, KuI 3 (1988), 41–52.
Fitzmyer, J.A., “Abba and Jesus’ Relation to God”, in: id., According to Paul: Studies in the
Theology of the Apostle, Mahwah 1993.
——, “Tobit”, in: M. Broshi et al., Qumran Cave 4 vol. 14, Parabiblical Texts Part 2 (DJD 19),
Oxford 1995, 1–76.
——, Tobit (CEJL), Berlin 2003.
García Martínez, F. et E.J.C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition vol. 2,
Leiden et al. 2000.
——, “Aramaica Qumranica Apocalyptica”, in: K. Berthelot et D. Stökl Ben Ezra (eds.),
Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran
in Aix-en-Provence 30 June–2 July 2008 (STDJ 94), Leiden 2010, 435–450.

134 lutz doering
Jeremias, J., “Abba”, in: id., The Prayers of Jesus (SBT 2nd ser. 6), London 1967, 11–65, [Ger-
man original: “Abba”, in: id., Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitge-
schichte, Göttingen 1966, 15–67].
Kugel, J., “4Q369 ‘Prayer of Enosh’ and Ancient Biblical Interpretation”, DSD 5 (1998),
119–148.
——, A Walk Through Jubilees: Studies in the Book of Jubilees and the World of its Creation
(JSJSup 156), Leiden 2012.
Larson, E., “460. 4QNarrative Work and Prayer”, in: S.J. Pfann et al., Qumran Cave 4: Cryp-
tic Texts and Miscellanea vol. 1 (DJD 36), Oxford 2000, 369–386.
Najman, H., “Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and its Authority Conferring
Strategies”, JSJ 30 (1999), 379–410.
Newsom, C., “378–379. 4QApocryphon of Joshuaa–b”, in: G. Brooke et al., Qumran Cave 4
vol. 17, Parabiblical Texts Part 3: Partly Based on Earlier Transcriptions by J. T. Milik and
J. Strugnell (DJD 22), Oxford 1996, 237–288.
Olyan, S., “382. 4Qpap paraKings et al.”, in: H. Attridge et al., Qumran Cave 4 vol. 8, Para-
biblical Texts Part 1 (DJD 13), Oxford 1994, 363–416.
Philonenko, M., Le Notre Père: De la Prière des Jésus à la prière des disciples, Paris 2001.
Popović, M., “Abraham and the Nations in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Exclusivism and Inclusiv-
ism in the Texts from Qumran and the Absence of a Reception History for Genesis 12:3”,
in: M. Goodman et al. (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian,
and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (TBN 13), Leiden 2010, 77–103.
Puech, É., “Jonathan le prêtre impie et les débuts des la communauté de Qumrân: 4QJona-
than (4Q523) et 4QPsAp (4Q448)”, RevQ 17/65–68 (1996) [Festschrift J. T. Milik], 241–270
(cited as Puech 1996a).
——, “Apocryphe de Daniel”, in: G. Brooke et al., Qumran Cave 4 vol 17, Parabiblical Texts
Part 3: Partly Based on Earlier Transcriptions by J. T. Milik and J. Strugnell (DJD 22),
Oxford 1996, 165–184 (cited as Puech 1996b).
——, “Dieu le Père dans les écrits péritestamentaires et les manuscrits de la mer Morte”,
RevQ 20/78 (2001), 287–310.
Rey, J.-S., 4QInstruction: Sagesse et eschatologie (STDJ 81), Leiden 2009.
Rösel, M., Adonaj: Warum Gott der Herr genannt wird (FAT 29), Tübingen 2000.
Satlow, M., “4Q502: A New Year’s Ritual?”, DSD 5 (1998), 57–68.
Schelbert, G., ABBA Vater: Der literarische Befund vom Altaramäischen bis zu den späten
Haggada-Werken (NTOA/SUNT 81), Göttingen 2011.
Schlosser, J., Le Dieu de Jésus: Étude exégétique (LeDiv 129), Paris 1987.
Schuller, E., “The Psalm of 4Q372 1 within the Context of Second Temple Prayer”, CBQ
54 (1992), 67–79.
Schuller, E. et M. Bernstein, “372. 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositionb”, in: D.M.
Gropp et al., Qumran Cave 4: Miscellanea vol. 2 (DJD 28), Oxford 2001, 165–197.
Shemesh, A., “The Origins of the Laws of Separatism: Qumran Literature and Rabbinic
Halacha”, RevQ 18/70 (1997), 223–241.
——, “4Q265 and the Authoritative Status of Jubilees at Qumran”, in: G. Boccaccini et
G. Ibba (eds.), Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, Grand Rapids 2009,
247–260.
Stegemann, H., “Religionsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zu den Gottesbezeichnungen in den
Qumrantexten”, in: M. Delcor (ed.), Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (BEThL
46), Paris et al. 1978, 195–217.
——, Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus: Ein Sachbuch, Freiburg 41994.
Stegemann, H. et E. Schuller, Qumran Cave 1 vol. 3, 1QHodayota, with Incorporation of
4QHodayota–f and 1QHodayotb [trans. of texts by C. Newsom] (DJD 40), Oxford 2009.
Steudel, A., Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata, b)
[. . .] (STDJ 13), Leiden 1994.
——, “The Eternal Reign of the People of God: Collective Expectations in Qumran Texts
(4Q246 and 1QM)”, RevQ 17/65–68 (1996), 507–525.

Stökl Ben Ezra, D., “Messianic Figures in the Qumran Aramaic Texts”, in: K. Berthelot
et id. (eds.), Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts
from Qumran at Aix-en-Provence 30 June–2 July 2008 (STDJ 94), Leiden 2010, 514–544.
Strotmann, A.,“Mein Vater bist du!” (Sir 51,10): Zur Bedeutung der Vaterschaft Gottes in
kanonischen und nichtkanonischen frühjüdischen Schriften (FThSt 39), Frankfurt am
Main 1991.
Strugnell, J. et al., Qumran Cave 4 vol. 14, Sapiential Texts Part 2 (DJD 34), Oxford 1999.
Tönges, E., “Unser Vater im Himmel”: Die Bezeichnung Gottes als Vater in der tannaitischen
Literatur (BWANT 147), Stuttgart 2003.
VanderKam, J.C., The Book of Jubilees (CSCO 510–511, Scriptores Aethiopici 87–88), 2 vols.,
Leuven 1989.
——, “Recent Scholarship on the Book of Jubilees”, CBR 6 (2008), 405–431.
Vázquez Allegue, J., “¡Abba Padre! (4Q372 1, 16): Dios como Padre en Qumrán”, in:
N. Silanes (ed.), Dios Padre envió al mundo a su hijo (Semana de Estudios Trinitarios
35), Salamanca 2000, 53–72.
Vermes, G., The Religion of Jesus the Jew, London 1993.
Wold, B.G., Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran Wisdom Document Musar leMevin and
Its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions (WUNT 2/201), Tübingen 2005.
Xeravits, G.G., King, Priest, Prophet. Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran
Library (STDJ 47), Leiden et al. 2003.
Zeller, D., “God as Father in the Proclamation and Prayer of Jesus”, in: Finkel, A. et
L. Frizzell (eds.), Standing before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures and in Tradition,
with Essays [FS J. M. Oesterreicher], New York 1981, 117–128.
Zimmermann, C., Die Namen des Vaters: Studien zu ausgewählten Gottesbezeichnungen vor
ihrem frühjüdischen und paganen Hintergrund (AJEC 69), Leiden 2007.
Zimmermann, J., Messianische Texte aus Qumran: Königliche, priesterliche und prophetische
Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran (WUNT 2/104), Tübingen 1998.

God As Father in The Dead Sea Scrolls PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

God As Father in The Dead Sea Scrolls PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

God As Father in The Dead Sea Scrolls PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Divine Father

Religious and Philosophical Concepts

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

Father of the Fathers, Mother of the Mothers. God as Father

The “Father” of the Old Testament and Its History ............................. 73

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

„Vater . . .“. Zur Bedeutung der Anrede Gottes als Vater in den

The Divine Father in the Gospel of Truth (NHC I,3): God as

Index of Ancient Sources ...................................................................... 397

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

1 Jeremias (1967, 29 [in italics there]; German: 33).

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

to exclude evidence in which God, in direct speech, is identifĳied as “my”

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

zu den Qumrantexten;12 but the format of the Wörterbuch poses a limit to

2. Comparison of God to “a Father”

In about six passages in the Scrolls God is compared to a father. Accord-

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

further down the reconstructed assembly of fragments, although the pre-

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

Some of the non-yaḥadic texts apply the father-son constellation to God’s

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

transgressions and at conveying his love of her.43 Neither Jubilees nor

43 Cf. Strotmann (1991, 333–346).

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

beyond this intertextual reference. Conversely, the so-called “Son of God

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

Finally, regarding 4Q369 (4QPrayer of Enosh) 1 ii 5–10, a text that has

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

some of the aspects justly highlighted by Kugel could be assigned to it as

In a few passages in the Scrolls we fĳind statements in which God is identi-

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

G I (A B) G II (S) 4Q200 6 8–10 4Q196 17 i 14

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

67 Cf. Strotmann (1991, 35–56, summary 56–58).

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

Moreover, we need to discuss here the substantial and signifĳicant pas-

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

but he is merely compared to a “foster-father” (‫)אומן‬. This term recalls the

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

5. Direct Invocation in Prayer (“My Father”)

While we have seen that one type of identifĳicatory statements involves

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

[‫ויזﬠ ׁ̊ק] וקלו‬ (15)

92 Cf. Puech (2001, 303).

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

It is debated whether the two occurrences of ‫ אלהי‬should be taken

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

104 Larson (2000, 373).

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25625-5