האפוקריפון של משה': חיבור על הכוהן הגדול כסמכות שיפוטית עליונה'

Full title
האפוקריפון של משה': חיבור על הכוהן הגדול כסמכות שיפוטית עליונה'
Research notes

Reader Checked|OA 13/01/2014

Reference type
Author(s)
Goldman, Liora
Editor(s)
Bar-Asher, Moshe
Dimant, Devorah
Year
2013
Journal / Book Title || Series Title
מגילות: מחקרים במגילות מדבר יהודה [Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls]
Translated title
The Apocryphon of Moses: A Composition Representing the High Priest as the Supreme Judicial Authority
Issue / Series Volume
[10] י
Publisher
Haifa University Press and Bialik Institute
Place of Publication
Jerusalem
Pages
181-200
Work type
Language
Label
16/12/2013
Abstract

The Apocryphon of Moses, four copies of which were discovered at Qumran (1Q29, 4Q375, 4Q376, and 4Q408), reworks various laws given in the Book of Deuteronomy, with the apparent aim of establishing that the High Priest—named “Anointed Priest”—bears supreme authority for determining legal issues lying beyond human powers of resolution. Inquiring the Urim (either by seeking God’s will or by requesting His answer behind the veil), the verdict was given by means of the illumination of the stones on the breastplate and the shoulders of the ephod, and then relayed by the High Priest to the people waiting outside the Temple. The Apocryphon asserts that this method is to be employed when a man is suspected of being a false prophet, when the king is unsure whether to engage in a permitted war, and seemingly also in other cases—whose nature cannot be ascertained due to the scroll’s fragmentary condition. It also preserves two prayers of praise to God—apparently thanksgiving hymns recited by the High Priest in gratitude for God’s revelation to him or prior to his inquiry of the Urim. One, which praises God for His creation of the luminaries, appears to compare the priests with the celestial cycles. This article addresses Strugnell’s theory that the composition deals exclusively with the identification of the true/false prophet, demonstrating the difficulties attendant upon this theory and suggesting that it rather reworks various legal matters brought to the priest for his verdict, thereby establishing him as the supreme authority over all other juridical offices—the judge, the prophet, and the king