An Update on 'Works of the Law' and the Dead Sea Scroll 4QMMT

Before any serious consideration of the topic I would recommend a reading of my article on the 'works of the law' , which is the appendix to my book 'Defending the Apostle Paul: Weighing the Evidence'.

Some argue the Hebrew phrase ‘Miqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah’ found in the DSS’s (Cave 4), and most commonly translated by leading scholars as ‘some precepts of Torah’ or ‘some of the observances of the Law’ (see 'The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English’ by Geza Vermes, p229), is instead the same phrase that the Apostle Paul (Sha’ul) was using when he used the phrase ‘works of the law’. 

They argue that this phrase (actually just “ma’ase ha-Torah”) can be translated into Greek as ‘ergon nomou’ meaning ‘works of the law’, the phrase used in a very significant way by Sha’ul (especially in Galatians).

As this phrase, ‘works of the law’ is fairly unique to the Apostle Paul, and not found in other extant Jewish writings from the first century CE, the finding of this DSS scroll (dated sometime between early 1st century BCE and the early 1st century CE) with this phrase could be very significant.

However DSS scholars also concede that: “This scroll, apparently in the form of a letter, is unique in language, style, and content.” - http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/scr2.html

Thus, it would seem we should not put to much stock in this relationship. This is also the view of NT Wright:

“Even if MMT is in some ways parallel to Paul, it will not necessarily be the case that it states exactly the sort of thing Paul had believed before his conversion, or the sort of beliefs or practices his converts were being pressed to accept (or which Paul thought they were being pressed to accept). It might be the case that MMT’s doctrine of ‘justification by works’ (if that is what is being offered …) corresponded to that held by a wider band within second-Temple Judaism, including the Pharisees but excluding Pauline Christians. …

Since there is no evidence that either MMT or its recipients represented a branch of second- Temple Judaism which Paul knew at first hand, we cannot assume without more ado, as some scholars seem to, that, just because this text speaks of justification by works of the law, it must mean the same thing as Paul means when he speaks of the same thing.” - http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_4QMMT_Paul.pdf

Having now given a cautionary proviso on reading too much into this 4QMMT, what does it appear to tell us?

This scroll contains a list of more than twenty rulings in religious law (called Halakhot, plural of halacha or halakha meaning a rule of behaviour), most of which are peculiar to the sect (the Yachad of Qumran – most likely the Essenes).

Some of these rulings involve separation from Gentiles.
For example:

·       Gentile grain should not be brought into the Temple.

·       A fragmentary halakha about sacrifices by gentiles.

And most are halakhot regarding ‘purity’ such as:

·       The purity of those preparing the red heifer.

·       Several halakhot concerning the purity of skins.

·       Banning the blind and deaf from the “purity of the Temple.”

·       The purity of the streams of liquids poured from a pure vessel into an impure one

It then deals with the separation of the sect from the multitude of the people, and attempts to persuade the addressee to adopt the sect's legal views. The ‘halakhot’ form the core of the letter. The author states that disagreement on these matters caused the sect to secede from Israel.

Therefore, I see this ‘letter’ as arguing for a set of ‘rules’ or actions through which this group separates themselves from Gentiles, as well as other Jewish sects such as the Pharisees, whom they appear to view as to some degree ‘apostate’.

Thus, while the letter does not give an exhaustive list (only some 20 halakhot are listed and the scroll is fragmentary), the phrase ‘Ma’ase ha-Torah’ could well be seen as indeed ‘works of the law’, in the sense that these ‘works’, these rulings are what separates this group especially from the Gentile world around them.

In this sense, this is very much in agreement with how Prof. Mark Nanos and I view the Apostle Paul’s use of the phrase ‘works of the law’. This is how Nanos summarises our definition of ‘works of the law’:

“I understand "works of law" to function as a synonym for "circumcision," and both of these terms as metonyms in Paul's arguments to signify the role of proselyte conversion, by which non-Jews undertake the rite (hence, act or work) by which, according to the traditional interpretation of the Torah, they can become children of Abraham's covenant on the same standing with (male) Jews from birth, who are circumcised as children.

In my view, then, works of law = circumcision = proselyte conversion. Contra the traditional view, works of law does not refer to observing Torah, which non-Jews are not obliged to observe as if Jews, and contra Dunn's view, it does not include observance of special boundary marking behavior such as Sabbath and food laws, which are also for those already defined as Torah-people, that is Israelites, Jews, which Paul's addressees are not.

It is however, boundary marking in the sense of referring to the process of identity transformation, the behavior associated with completion of the rite of conversion (circumcision, in agreement with this point by Dunn), referring to the behavior that renders a non-Jew a Jew (a non-Israelite an Israelite), in keeping with the topic in view throughout Galatians, after all. But that is different from the behavioral requirements that follow conversion, when they are re-identified as Jews, and thus, as obliged to observe Torah fully, just like all other Jews (cf. Gal 5:3).
- http://www.marknanos.com/Paul'sJudaism-5-14-08.pdf

Thus this Dead Sea Scroll can been seen as potentially supporting our argument that ‘works of the law’ does mean ‘the rites of proselyte conversion’.

Nowhere is this analysis is there any need to assume that the phrase “ma’ase ha-Torah” refers specifically to the Oral Torah’ or what some argue are ‘Rabbinic extensions of Mosaic Prescriptions’.

It seems that most who argue for an equivalence between Sha’ul’s use of ‘works of the law’ and ‘Oral Torah’ are unaware that neither Yeshua nor Sha’ul condemned the Oral Torah or ‘traditions of the fathers’ outright. They certainly were strongly opposed to some of these rulings or traditions that, at times, both built a ‘fence’ around Torah and also made Torah observance almost impossible, but they both clearly also supported some of these traditions.

For example, there was a problematic conflict between the halakhot for Sabbath observance and the circumcision of a male child on the 8^th day. Yeshua clearly supported the traditional approach in how they dealt with this conflict (see ‘Circumcision: A Step of Obedience? p7 - http://goo.gl/LHCQ45).

Sha’ul also clearly respected, honoured and obeyed these ‘traditions of the fathers’ as Luke records him stating in Acts 28:17:

“After three days Sha’ul called a meeting of the local Jewish leaders. When they had gathered, he said to them: “Brothers, although I have done nothing against either our people or the traditions of our fathers, I was made a prisoner in Yerushalayim and handed over to the Romans.” – CJB

Further, some of the list or ‘rules’ or halakhot in 4QMMT are not actually ‘Oral Torah’ or ‘the traditions of the fathers’, but specific ordinances of the Written Torah.

So in conclusion, the phrase ‘Ma’ase ha-Torah’ in the DSS 4QMMT could possibly be seen as the same phrase ‘works of the law’ that Sha’ul uses, in the sense that these ‘works’, these rulings, are what separates this group, especially from the Gentile world around them, and in fact makes them truly, in their eyes, Jewish.

To force any greater connection, such as the argument that ‘Ma’ase ha-Torah’ and Sha’ul’s ‘works of the law’ refers to the Oral Torah or the ‘traditions of the fathers’, appears unwarranted.