The War Scroll (1QM) is an example of what Collins
terms “Violent rhetoric, projected into the eschatological future”. It sees the Sons of Light (the
authentic remnant of the people of G-d) pitted against the Sons of Darkness (the
enemies of the Jewish people “being helped by those who violate the covenant”);
and does so in the supernatural realm represented by the angels Michael and
Belial respectively. The conflict
between these “sons” – one described to be a form of dualism representing two
conflicting powers in nature – is an evenly matched and well-choreographed
affair whereby “the Sons of Light shall strengthen (for) three lots and smite
wickedness but (for =) three (lots) the army of Belial shall gird itself for
the return of the lot”. However, in the
seventh lot: “the great hand of G-d shall subdue the angels of his dominion and
all the men”.
Where the first six lots, could be considered to be the
theological background of the War Scroll, it is the actions of
the seventh lot that is centred as the foreground, detailing in depth
items such as:
- The priority of the leadership (e.g. the Chief Priest and deputy followed by 12 chiefs, 26 chiefs of divisions, 12 chiefs of Levites, Chief of Tribes etc)
- The formations of the inventory and cavalry (e.g. 7 frontal formations of 1000 men, 7000 infantry), and what happens when formations need to be changed
- What is written on the banners and standards (e.g. “Truth of G-d”) when they march out, draw near or withdraw
- Their inventory (e.g. javelins, swords and spears)
- How the priests direct battle with their trumpets, their speeches and their prayers
Listing items such as above, should draw attention to the
fact that to the extent that there is dualism here (Collins would limit
“monotheism” to where there is philosophical reflection, and it is not clear
why “dualism” should not be treated likewise) – this is something assumed
rather than the main point. Dualism joins other things I would argue our necessary
parts of the text, but not what the work is for; such as the
theology of “fixed times”, the psychological import of religious ritual a la
Weitzmann, fantasies of religious
violence “letting off steam” (see below) or dissent from oppressive
cultures. An explanation of the text
would have to account for the importance of preparations for the war.
To further the above, I would agree with Collins that “the belief that the Lord will exact vengeance with ultimate ferocity that enables such groups to refrain from violent action in the present” without seeing the purpose of the work being to imagine the destruction of Babylon and Rome through this dualistic hue, such that “the fantasy afforded some satisfaction” to avoid cognitive dissonance. To do this, I’d like to contrast two virtually identical linguistic formulations of Collins but with different emphases:
Antagonism toward other people is
all the greater when these people too have a representative in the supernatural
realm [in discussing how dualism could lead to violence]
The need for divine intervention,
and even for divine violence, is all the greater when the forces of darkness
are thought to be supported by supernatural forces of their own
Do violent fantasies, supported by dualism, stir up hatred
in actual people (at a particular historical juncture) that may lead to actual
violence? Or do violent fantasies,
supported by dualism, lead to a historical quietism and the need to cry out for
divine intervention? To the wider point
of linking religious ideology and violence, beliefs could lead to
violence or its avoidance, but this depends on how it is used in the discourse
of religious believers who take their inspiration from it, and not from the
beliefs themselves.
In the above case, I’m not sure the discourse supports either horn of the dilemma. Antagonism towards the nations is of course accepted and the usual role-call of enemies are mentioned (e.g. Edomite, Moabites, Amalekites, Ishmaelites). However, it does not seem to show originality in this regard, either exhibiting despair or polemicising against specific misdeeds of the nations. Rather, the violence against them just is what will happen as told “through your anointed ones, seers of fixed times”. If the text wanted to express its despair at the dissonance between the world as it is and how it should be, it could have contained quotes such as Collins cites from Ezra 4 (“If the world has indeed been created for us why do we not possess our world as an inheritance? How long will this be so?”) If the text wanted to specifically fantasise religious violence it could have chosen a poetic medium such as that quoted from Isaiah. Neither it would seem is advanced through detailed preparations.
Rather, the discourse seems to suggest (or on its outer
surface, project) the opposite: the confirmatory nature of the
current situation to its beliefs; and the partnership between G-d and
his agents (the remnant of Israel) through which the final battle
occurs. On the first point, the War
Scroll says:
· In all your glorious fixed times there was a memorial: your [wonderful acts?] in our midst for the help of the remnant and the preservation of your covenant” (emphasis added).
The present times are no less glorious, even (or especially
during the domination of Belial):
· You have displayed through wonderous deeds your mercy for the remnant of your inheritances during the dominion of Belial. With all the mysteries of his hated, he has not drawn us away from your covenant; you have driven his spirits of destruction far from us
These times are precisely a testament to the remnant of
Israel, as his true partners and recipients of his good deeds. The preparations then are not a fantasy, nor
a (completely) quietist or despairing position.
It does not elicit or encourage imminent violence, but it is precisely
during this sixth lot, one needs to make active preparations to be worthy for
the final battle, as G-d’s emissaries for the final redemption.
