'Maskil(im)' and 'Rabbim': From Daniel to Qumran

The aim of this study is to take another look at the much discussed question of the Maskilim in Daniel 11-12 in light of the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It is argued here that the relationship of the Maskilim in Daniel 11 and 12 to the Rule of the Community is more complex than often portrayed. The position outlined in this study differs sharply from a recent assessment by Stefan Beyerle who argues that given that the Danielic texts found at Qumran do not display sectarian features, they say "more about the social setting of the Book of Daniel than about the Qumran community itself." This assessment implies a rigid, and in my view outdated, tendency to compartmentalize our sources. If we decompartmentalize both our notions of the Qumran community and its heritage and the Book of Daniel and its setting and heritage we may find that both groups are not so different and maybe even overlapped at one point in their history. What I tried to do in this paper was to offer a fresh assessment of the Maskil traditions in the Community Rule that takes into account the complex literary history of this text. This individual appeared in a number of different contexts, some universalistic, others with rudimentary communal requirements, and yet a third group of texts that are quite developed and employ Yahad terminology. In addition to these texts, the Maskil is also found in headings throughout the Community Rule manuscripts and must have been an authority figure both in a number of early traditions as well as at the point of the Endredaktion of the manuscripts. It seems likely that the closest points of contact between these traditions and the Danielic Maskilim are found somewhere along this line of development, probably near but not at the beginning. Whereas Matthias Henze has stated rather eloquently that “The covenanters have made Daniel’s language their own”, I have tried to suggest that, to some extent, it was their own. In other words the overlap can just as well be accounted for by the shared roots of these movements than by the influence of Daniel upon Qumran.