Psalms from Qumran
Looking for the sectarian message in 1QHodayota 
A Brief History of the Scroll.
Layout, Dating, and Provenance.
“I Know When I See It…”.
Scribal and Linguistic Evidence
Orthography, Morphology, and Phonology
Writing the Name of God
The Sectarian Construct
Using (or Avoiding) the Name of God
Elohim, El and Adonai
Use of Scripture.
Expressions of Sectarianism Described
Direct References to the Sect
The Yahad and Other Epithets.
Us vs. Them
The Enemy Within.
Theology of the Hodayot
Dualism and Predetermination
Standing with Angels
Eschatology and Non-Sectarian Doctrines
Relating specifically to Qumran
Shortly after Bedouins uncovered the first of the Qumran caves and their contents in the spring of 1947, the Hodayot scroll found its way directly into the hands of E. L. Sukenik. This scroll’s psalm-like writing, which did not match any previously known biblical or apocryphal poetry, convinced Sukenik that the scrolls were genuine and ancient.
The Hodayot came to Sukenik in two parts. The first part was comprised of three sheets, not tightly rolled into a cylinder, as intended, but folded in on themselves, one sheet crumpled inside another; each sheet contained four columns of text. The second part was a folded and solidified mass containing some seventy fragments of parchment with writing. The largest fragment was a portion of a sheet that contained three partial columns out of the original four, each about half its original height. Other fragments contained the right and left margins (including stitching) of this sheet, as well as many other fragments from, presumably, other sheets of the original scroll.
Other fragments of the Hodayot scroll were later found in Cave One, and while there was some confusion as to whether these fragments belonged to Sukenik’s Hodayot scroll or to a second Hodayot scroll, many fragments were determined to fill in lacunae and contributed to his editio princeps. Puech would later identify more unassigned Cave One fragments that belong to the Hodayot scroll. Other lacunae were filled in with the identification of Hodayot from Cave Four.
The first section’s columns were numbered i-xii. The order of the three sheets was determined based on a telltale deterioration that had eaten its way through the scroll. The damage is quite significant at the leftmost column of sheet three, and reduces gradually in size until the penetrating damage is quite minimal in the rightmost column of sheet one, i.e. the first column of the group. Sukenik identified two scribes, the second replacing the first in the middle of a psalm, on line 22 of column XI of the third sheet. This identification helps with the ordering of the fragments from the second part of the scroll. Fragments written by scribe A are to be placed before column i and the fragments written by scribe B are to be placed after column xii. Sukenik’s editio princeps did not concern itself, however, with reconstructing the original order of the combined two sections. Instead, the second section was numbered after the final column xii of the first section, and grouped as follows:
Ø a reconstruction of the latter part of a sheet from the larger fragments written by scribe A (xiii-xvii);
Ø a reconstruction of half of a column from medium-sized fragments written by scribe B (xviii);
Ø further medium-sized fragments by scribe B that could not be joined;
Ø smaller, dislocated fragments by scribe A; and,
Ø smaller dislocated fragments by scribe B.
Stegemann and Pueche, working independently, corrected some erroneous joins in Sukenik’s edition, and based on 4QHodayot (at that time in the possession of John Strugnell), filled in lacunae, joined a number of fragments, and added a number of new fragments from unattached Cave One material. Based on this work, a new ordering of 1QHodayota was introduced; nonetheless, citations in this paper will use Sukenik’s column numbers, unless the source is from the new material published by Stegemann and Pueche or from the 4QHodayot material. Where no scroll designation precedes a column/line designation in this paper, the citation is from 1QHodayota.
The Hodayot are dated from around the turn of the era, although 4QHodayotb, whose order matches 1QHodayota, dates to 100 B.C.E (middle to late Hasmonean). Some of the psalms (though not the scrolls, which are not autographs) may even date to either the Teacher of Righteousness or to his disciples. This paper will attempt to show that they are a natural expression of the Qumran sectarian community and their Weltanschauung.
Carol Newsom criticizes an anonymous friend who states, regarding the identification of any given work from Qumran as sectarian, “I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.” Her critique is based on her aim to sharpen the definition of what constitutes a sectarian text. She notes:
Ø It is possible that a text written by a member of the Qumran does not express, and is not meant to forward, the ideology of the sect.
Ø It is certain that a text that clearly promotes some of the viewpoints championed by the sect need not necessarily have been written by them.
Newsom defines three categories, any of which satisfies to judge a text sectarian. Either the text:
Ø was written by the community;
Ø was used for and by the community; or,
Ø contains the rhetorical stance of the community.
Prima facie, the Hodayot meet all three of these criteria, so perhaps Newsom would agree that we have before us a “one knows it when one sees it” sectarian work. Nonetheless, intuition does not obviate the need to define what it is about the Hodayot that make them so transparently sectarian. The goal of this paper, then, is twofold. First, to define the elements, individually and in concert, that mark the Hodayot as a sectarian work. Second, to cite and analyze and present enough of its psalmody to provide a reasonable familiarity with this distinctive work.
Ultimately, there must be a set of standards against which to test the Hodayot, perhaps as measured against some document that is demonstrably sectarian; a control group, if you will. In this sense, we are very fortunate. It is not necessary to reconstruct the theology and philosophy of the sect from scattered writings, as there are two documents in which the sect identifies itself and defines its rules and its tenets: 1QS (Serech Hayahad) and CD (the Damascus Covenant), respectively. These are certainly not the only data available, but will serve as the baseline for comparison in most cases.
Scribal activity of the Qumran sect displays enough distinctive (and consistent) elements that differ from biblical Hebrew to allow the positing of a special scribal school.
Ø Orthographically, the scribes made frequent use of full spelling, i.e. matres lections, to represent vowel sounds. This is specifically true of the waw, which represents the unchangeable long vowels holem and sureq, as well as holem haser, qibbus, the qames katon, hatef kames, and occasionally the shewa.
Ø Phonetic spelling was the norm, as found in 1QS i:7 (ולהבי את כול הנדבים...), and the replacement of a final radical heh with yod to indicate an ending vowel segol, a characteristic found in 1QS, 1QMilhama, and the Hodayot. Furthermore, the phonetic spelling, combined with the weakening of the guttural letters, caused gutturals to be substituted for each other, or even omitted.
Ø A common morphological peculiarity in sectarian literature is the “ah” ending third-person pronominal suffixes, feminine and masculine. These, however, are uncommon in the Hodayot; only twice for היאה (iv:18, xii:10), and once for the masculine והואה (frag. 1 line 2). Licht reconstructs i:14 למ[לא פעולותימה] בקציהם based on 1QS iii:16; however, this seems overly aggressive considering the overall absence of this phoneme in the Hodayot. On the other hand, the 4QHodayot show a broader use of this morpheme.
Tov writes that “within the Qumran corpus a group of 167 biblical and non-biblical texts…display distinctive features of the orthography and morphology of the Qumran scribal practice, and that most are sectarian. Conversely, virtually all of the sectarian texts were written in this special practice.”
These orthographical and morphological features, recognized
as Qumran scribal practice, do indeed exist in the Hodayot scroll.
However, we must not leap to the conclusion that the text is definitely
sectarian for the following reasons. First, this practice can be found in
biblical texts found in Qumran. For instance, the two Isaiah scrolls from Cave
One fall at the opposite extreme in the use of Qumran-specific orthography and
morphology. Yet one cannot state that 1QIsa (which is decidedly
“Qumran-like” in scribal practice) is sectarian and 1QIsb is not,
even if sectarianism is defined by the usage of a text within the sect, rather
than by authorship. In fact, within 1QIsa a distinction can be made
between scribes A and B, only one of whom consistently employs the Qumran
scribal practices. The Hodayot also differ between the text of scribes A
(earlier) and B (later). Qumran orthography is infrequent in the material
copied by the former; the latter uses it more often.
In fact, Qimron
notes the high number of defective spellings for כול,
in the Hodayot, compared to the overwhelmingly plene (or digraphic in the case
of כיא) spellings in the sectarian 1QS. In
some cases where כי in the Hodayot was
corrected to כיא, there is a
כי on the same line that has been left
unchanged. This indicates that while the copies made at Qumran were based on an
the original scribal work did not enforce consistency on the issue.
Qimron notes that the Hodayot “is very conservative in its spelling and language.” This contrasts with the general tendency of Qumran orthography. The inconsistency might be evidence of the tension between the standard Qumran scribal preference and the desire to write a new Psalter on par with the canonical one. The use of biblical material in direct quotes, allusions, and shared motifs is employed to create a sense of timelessness (and authority) within its psalms. However, as a sectarian document with provenance from within the community, later scribes may have felt comfortable updating the orthography to be consistent with the changing sectarian practice.
See Using (or Avoiding) the Name of God, below.
A common feature of the Qumran sect’s writing is the use of a pronominal ending on the last word in a construct chain to refer to the entire phrase, rather that just the final word. Thus, in 1QS i:13 בעצת צדקו should be translated “according to His righteous counsel,” rather than “according to the counsel of His righteousness.” This use of the pronominally suffixed construct is very common in the Hodayot, e.g. ix:35 (בני אמתכה), xi:4 (בסוד אמתכה). Surprisingly, translators miss this sectarian usage, e.g. vii:30 וכול בני אמתכה is rendered “But all the sons of your truth.”
The Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed that the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Persian-Hellenistic period was not as unusual as previously thought. The Qumran sect, on the other hand, took great pains to avoid using the Tetragrammaton. This becomes clear from their own writings; the 1QS; CD; and their biblical revelations—the Pesharim. The Tetragrammaton is never used in the Hodayot, although it appears in apocryphal and canonical psalms scrolls found (and perhaps copied) at Qumran. Note that even in the Elohistic psalms of the canonical Psalter, the Tetragrammaton is not completely avoided, e.g. Ps. 42:9 compared with almost every other verse in Ps. 42+43.
The use of “Elohim” as a Divine name is completely avoided in 1QS, as it is in the Hodayot. As such, it can be compared to the usage of the Tetragrammaton, save that it is easily replaced by “El” (אל). In 4QHodayota 7 ii:14-15: הללו במעון קדוש \ רוממו יחד בצבא עולם \ הבו גודל לאלנו \ וכבוד למלכנו , “El” replaces “Eloh,” differing from the original Deut 32:2 הָבוּ גֹדֶל לֵאלֹהֵינוּ. “El” is the most commonly used name for God in 1QS. This is also the case in Hodayot; however, on occasion, the Hebrew script for “El” is replaced with paleo-Hebrew letters, a practice usually restricted to the Tetragrammaton. Skehan argues that the use of paleo-Hebrew to spell out the Tetragrammaton was due to the later reluctance to use God’s name, which fits the relatively late dating of 1QHodayota.
The Hodayot psalms are designed as direct speeches to God, calling on Him in thanks or in praise. Most of the psalms in the Hodayot begin: “I praise you, O my Lord.” The template is probably Isa. 12:1: וְאָמַרְתָּ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אוֹדְךָ יְ-ה-וָ-ה כִּי אָנַפְתָּ בִּי..., as most of the psalms of the Hodayot justify their praise or thanksgiving with a similar construct: כי + an act of salvation or kindness in the perfect. The majority of similar biblical usages of direct praise or thanks also prefer the Tetragrammaton. The authors could have used “El” as a substitution; however, as “El” is generally used descriptively, rather than vocatively, they do so only twice. The Tetragrammaton is replaced instead by the standard “kri” substitute pronunciation for God: Adonai—meaning “O Lord” or “My Lord,” which retains the poetic feel of the original templates since the pronunciation is the same. One can see this method used even in the Elohistic portions of the canonical Psalter, e.g. Ps. 86:12.
Outside of the Hodayot psalms’ vocative call (and reason) for praise, the following substitutions are made. In column vii:28, which cites Exodus 15:11 (מִי כָמֹכָה בָּאֵלִם יְ-ה-וָ-ה), the Tetragrammaton is replaced with אדוני. Interestingly, xvi:9 (= xvii:20) cites Dan. 9:7, which, in the MT, renders the Divinity in the indirect manner of the Hodayot (לְךָ אֲדֹנָי הַצְּדָקָה), and further downgrades the Divine reference (אתה הצדקה לך). It is also interesting that ii:30 (מקהלם אברכה שמכה), with its likely source of Ps. 26:12 (בְּמַקְהֵלִים אֲבָרֵךְ יְ-ה-וָ-ה), replaces the Divine name with “Your (divine) name.”
Had the author of Hodayot used the Tetragrammaton, and had the scribes reproduced it, we might safely assume that the Hodayot were canonical poetry written, at the latest, in the Persian/Hellenistic period. Had the scribe replaced the Tetragrammaton with paleo-Hebrew substitution, we could assume either canonical poetry or the liturgical use thereof. With the complete avoidance of any form of God’s name other than אל, in both direct biblical references as well as original expression, a sectarian authorship of the Hodayot seems certain.
The reliance of the Hodayot on biblical poetry is not surprising. The sectarian texts abound with the use of scripture to support their halachic, polemic, and theological points of view. Scriptures is so alive that its revelation in the Peshers is viewed as prophecy, to be actualized in the present or in the near future. On the other hand, since the Hodayot is psalmody, and draws from a well-established canon of psalmody and poetic-prophetic writings, the reliance on scriptures and scriptural motifs is no guarantee of sectarianism. There are, however, some indicators in the choice of scriptures that are quoted which point to a sectarian provenance. Kittel notes that certain biblical texts are most frequently used in the Hodayot: Psalms, Isaiah, Job, and Deuteronomy. This not only matches the overall predilection for citing these books in Qumran writing, it also corresponds to the biblical texts most commonly found at Qumran.
Holm-Neilson states that the author(s) of the Hodayot employ biblical words and phrases for a number of reasons, including a sense of fealty towards their “classical sacred writings.” More important is the ability of biblical texts, when manipulated and reshaped, to express the sectarian feelings of the sect. Nitzan, however, notes the inability of biblical citations to give full expression to the sectarian soul: “It would nevertheless seem that [the author] did not find therein a full expression of his own religious experiences and feelings…The author to some extent abandoned the conventional anonymity of the Biblical psalms in order to articulate the unique troubles he experiences as a member of the Qumran sect…His songs depict, not only the opposition between the poet and his enemies as such, but also their unique cause and circumstance—a polemic concerning matters of religion and faith.” The need to reach beyond the Biblical psalms in vocabulary and prosody, and to adapt sectarian prose phrases into poetic psalm-like material, indicates sectarian provenance.
The first psalm in Sukenik’s edition describes the wonder of God’s creations (including man) as a testimony to His greatness. It begins with a series of doxologies for His treatment of mankind. The poetry is familiar in both in language and form from the bible.
רב העלילה ו]גדול העצה
[ולרחמיכה] אן מספר
וקנתכה לפני ... [...]
וארוך אפים במשפ[ט
ואתה] צדקתה בכל מעשיכה
ובכחמתכה ה[כינותה ...] עולם
The poet then continues with an assertion regarding predetermination, a foundation of the sect’s theology.
ובטרם בראתם ידעתה מעשיהם לעלמי עד
While this theological conception is not completely absent from biblical poetry, our poet uses nearly the same language as the sectarian Damascus Covenant (ii:7ff) to express the same idea: ובטרם נוסדו ידע את מעשעהם. Note that this line is longer, and the meter is more awkward, than one finds both in biblical poetry as well as in the preceding lines of the same Hodayot psalm. In this psalm, many of the longest and most rhythmically imbalanced lines express sectarian ideas in terms familiar from sectarian prose.
Ø i:18— ופקודת שלומם עם כול נגיעהם [לקציהם ...]ה. See 1QS iii:7.
Ø i:19-20—ובחכמת דעתכה הכ[י]נותה תע[ו]דתם בטרם היותם. See 1QS iii:15-16.
Ø i:23-24—הכול חקוק לפניכה בחרת לכול קצי נצח. See 1QS x, 1QM xii:3. (CHECK!)
Ø i:26-27—לכה אתה אל הדעות כול מעשי הצדקה וסוד אמת. The final, poetically awkward, reference to סוד אמת can refer to the sect.
Once again, for the Hodayot to qualify as sectarian psalms, they must not only differ from the Persian/Hellenistic non-canonical psalms found at Qumran; they must also wear their sectarianism on their sleeves. A simple demonstration of theological uniqueness differentiating them from what came before (the Bible) and what came after (Rabbinic writings and prayers; New Testament hymns) does not prove that the Hodayot were written with the hands and spirit of the Qumran sectarians. It is true that the vocabulary of the Hodayot is similar to other sectarian writings, using words with meanings that differ from biblical Hebrew, as well as introducing new words and phrases. However, a more powerful connection is required: the Hodayot should use sectarian language to make direct references to theologies presented in the sectarian rules (1QS), their manifesto (CD), and other clearly sectarian texts or sections thereof. Moreover, the scrolls should make reference to the sect itself.
While there is no direct naming of the sect offered in the scrolls per se, the sect does refer to itself with a number of epithets, the foremost of these being “(the) Yahad.” “Sereh haYahad” (1QS) is the title of the Qumran sect’s rules; it is one of the few scrolls that had a specific title. Title or no, there is little doubt that יחד is an epithet for the sect, translating to “Community.” “haYahad” (note the definite article) is ubiquitous in 1QS, and terms like “Yahad El,” “Yachad Emet,” and “anshei haYahad” demonstrate how the sect viewed itself. The community even uses the epithet verbally, “להִיָּחד,” to express the idea of joining the Community.
In the Hodayot 3:22 we read:
להתיצב במעמד עם צבא קדושים
ולבוא ביחד עם עדת בני שמים
יחד is parallel to מעמד and, as such, is tilted towards an adverbial use. However, the Qumran sect viewed their community as one in partnership with, and accompanied by, angels. 1QS xi:7-8 describes this communion as follows: לאשר בחר אל נתנם לאוחזת עולם וינחילם בגורל קדושים ועם בני שמים חִבֵּר סודם לעצת יחד וסוד מבנית קודש למטעת עולם. The connection between the Hodayot passage and 1QS becomes closer with the continuation of the psalm: ותפל לאיש גורל עולם עם רוחות דעת \ להלל שמכה ביחד רנה. Aside from the similar גורל and עולם, the second ביחד is awkward as an adverbial due to the following רנה, and in fact seems to be in construct to it, a locative subordinate phrase describing where the praise will be given, i.e. in a Community of Praise.
Perhaps more light can be shed on this psalm and the usage of יחד by comparing it to the psalm beginning on xi:3.
להיחד עם בני אמתכה \ ובגורל עם קדושיכה
להרים מעפר תולעת מתים לסוד [עולם] \ ומרוח נעוה לבינת[כה]
ולהתיצב במעמד לפניכה \ עם צבא עד ורוחו[ת דעת]
להתחדש עם כול נהיה \ ועם ידעים ביחד רנה
The phrase ביחד רנה appears again, and again in association with the angelic host:בגורל עם קדושיכה. However, the allusions to the sect are more pronounced. Note the verbal להיחד in line 11, in a stanza emphasizing God’s grace in selecting the community and the results of that selection. Licht comments on ובגורל עם קדושיכה: “כאן הכוונה לחברי הכת. 'קדושים' משמש גם לחברי הכת וגם למלאכים.”  In addition, two familiar sectarian terms appear parallel to יחד: גורל, andכול נהיה . As the latter is both substantive and parallel to ביחד רנה, a substantive reading of ביחד רנה is likely in both psalms.
The psalm beginning on xiv:8 asserts (line 18) וכן הוגשתי ביחד כול אנשי סודי. While that meaning may be adverbial (“And so I was caused to come together (with) all the men of my council”), the proposition ב seems extraneous. Martinez & Tigchelaar prefer the substantive (“In this way I was brought near in the Community of all the men of my council.”
It is tempting to resolve the ambiguities of the use of יחד in the previous psalms by claiming authorship by the Teacher of Righteousness or a close associate. This would place the Hodayot either prior to, or in the early days of, the establishment of the sectarian community. It could then be argued that it is the Hodayot’s terminology (not yet formalized into meaning “the Community”) that influences 1QS. However, in this psalm, the sect and its theologies seem well established, and in fact Holm-Nielsen believes that this line is referring to the renewal of the covenant as described in 1QS. Note that the psalm ends: ולא אביא בסוד \ א[שר לא הח]שבו [בבר]יתך, “I will not admit into the council those who are not included in Your covenant.”
From the Damascus Covenant we know of the other epithet for the Qumran sect: B’nei Zadok. This may refer specifically to the priestly segment of the overall community (1QS v:2-3) or possibly to the sect as a whole (CD iii:20-iv:4). The term is part of the polemic against the appropriation of the high priesthood by the Hasmoneans. The priests of the sect believed themselves to be the rightful descendents of the Zadokite line of high priests, uninterrupted since the beginning of the First Temple.
The Hodayot contains no direct reference to B’nei Zadok. While there is heavy use of the word “צדק”—righteousness—such use, especially in poetry, which borrows so heavily from psalms, is not extraordinary. However, the use of “צדק” in the psalm beginning on v:20 stands out. The psalm reads:
[...] עם נמהרי צדק
להעלות משאון יחד כול אביוני חסד
While it is possible, once again, to translate יחד either adverbially or as “the community,” the other groups—נמהרי צדק and אביוני חסד—are of note. Both, if understood as standard construct forms, produce unsatisfactory (even contradictory) meanings vis-à-vis the intent of the psalm: the latter results in “poor of kindness,” the former “quick to doubt righteousness.” Rather, the word-pairs should be seen as hendiadys, combining terms for known for the sect’s self-identification.
In addition to נמהרי צדק, צדקis used to modify to a number of nouns that seem to indicate a group, and perhaps the group. These include מוכיחי צדק in vi:4, and בחירי צדק in ii:13. Compare to Pesher Tehillim i:5 המה עדת בחירו עושה רצונו. Note also thatכול יודעי צדק is used in the Damascus Covenant as an epithet for the sect.
The use of נמהרי צדק to refer to the sect is also supported by the other groups identified in the same psalm (v:20): (אביוני חסד) אביונים and ענוים from the previous line. The meaning of these terms in biblical Hebrew is flexible, and generally indicates those without means or hope, perhaps actively persecuted and subject to usury. For the sect, however, these are epithets for their community, e.g. Pesher Habakkuk column xii, and 4QpPsa (“עדת האביונים”). Pesher Tehillim “translates” ענוים ירשו ארץ as האביונים, and also refers to עדת אביונים.
A sect’s rhetorical stance is likely to include aspersions against the rival group from which they were excluded, voluntarily or otherwise, and as such is likely to be vilifying. Epithets for the sect’s enemy are many, and one in particular stands out. Pesher Nahum (4QPNah) frag. 3-4: refers to the דורשי חלקות: “expounders of lies.” This term, חלקות, appears most clearly as a parallel for lies or liars in Ps. 12:3: שוא ידברו איש את רעהו \ שפת חלקות בלב ולב ידברו. With this verse clearly in mind, our Hodayot psalmist laments (against the enemy):
והמה נעלמים זמות בליעל
יחשובו וידרשוכה בלב ולב
ולא נכונו באמיתכה
It is difficult to say whether Serech haYachad borrows from this Hodayot psalm, or vice versa; or if they both borrow from the same oral traditions. However, the similarities between this Hodayot psalm (ii:31) and the sectarian polemics found in 1QS and other sectarian texts is striking, and deserves a fuller review, which speaks for itself.
אודכה אדוני כי עינכה עמ[דה] על נפשי
ותצילנח מקנאת מליצי כזב
ומעדת דורשי חלקות פדית[ה] נפש אביון
אשר חשבו להתם דמו
ובגדפותם לא החתיתני לעזוב עבודתכה מפחד הוות רשעים
ולהמיר בהולל יצר סמוך
אשר [...]מו חוקים
ובתעודות ננתנו לאזנים
Belial is a well-known antagonist to our sect. He is the Satan, the spearhead of the evil forces in the universe, mentioned often in the apocrypha and psuedepigrapha. The sect complains of persecution by the Government of Belial. Their intention is not metaphoric; they believe that their religious/political enemy lies in the domain of the Prince of Darkness, who controls the lot of the wicked.
That being said, it is not always clear if the use of Belial in the Hodayot tends towards the mundane biblical meaning or its supernatural personification, although I believe that there is a tendency to the former. In biblical prose, Belial has come to mean people who place no value on societal norms, who are intent on causing political instability, who are probably immoral, and perhaps capable of committing heinous crimes against other human beings. Biblical poetry retains the meaning of worthless people, and also adopts the sense of destructive forces working against man, but without personification.
In regard to many of the usages in the Hodayot, it is difficult to decide whether the meaning is biblical or post-biblical. Abegg, for instance, has only one listing for בליעל in the Hodayot meaning “worthless”: iv:10 זממו עלי בליעל להמיר תורתכה. All other references are listed under “Belial, proper noun.” However, the situation is not unambiguous. If we assume that iv:10 continues the thought in the previous line, Abegg’s translation seems justified. והמה מליצי כזב וחוזי רמיה (אשר) זממו עלי בליעל להמיר תורתכה. בליעל seems to be the direct object of זמם in the independent clause describing what theמליצי כזב and theחוזי רמיה did. However, זממו may begin a new poetic line, an assumption that gains support in light of the continuation of the line אשר שננתה בלבבי בחלקות לעמכה. While בחלקות, the method being used by the plotters, may be in apposition to בליעל, it seems more likely that בליעל is plotting with חלקות to turn the psalmist from the true interpretation of God’s law. The plural זממו might be explained if בליעל is a shorthand for עדת בליעל. On the other hand, in ii:22 עדת בליעל is parallel to סוד שוא, a human group. This tension between biblical and post-biblical/sectarian usage is due to the dual literary nature of the Hodayot, as per Nitzan, cited in ‘Use of Scripture,’ above. In the particularly apocalyptic psalm beginning on iii:19, the destruction and conflagration in the eschas is described in psalm-like poetry (iii:28-29): וחבלי מות אפפו לאין פלט \ וילכו נחלי בליעל על כול אגפי רום and again (iii:32) ויבקעו לאבדון נחלי בליעל. בליעל is personified in line 28: וגורל אף על נעזבים \ ומתך חמה על נעלמים \ וקץ חרון לכול בליעל ; however, the word “כול” mitigates assigning a meaning to a single supernatural being. On the other hand, in a more historical psalm, which seems to be describing a real event of treason by a former member of the sect, the psalmist accuses: וא[נשי ב]ליעל פתחו לשון שקר. Finally, vi:21-22 reads ויעץ בליעל עם לבבם. While the familiar ambiguities exist, the similarity to 1QS 10:21 should be noted: ובליעל לוא אשמור בלבבי \ ולוא ישמע בפי נבלות.
As noted above, the psalm beginning on v:20 is particularly historical, referencing abandonment by a former member of the sect. The disappointment of trusting the unworthy with the sect’s secrets, only to be abandoned by them, results in bitter and evocative litany and diatribe:
ואני הייתי על ע[ון מ]דני \ לריב ומדנים לרעי
קנאה ואף לבאי בריתי \ ורגן ותלונה לכול נועדי
גם אוכל לחמי עלי הגדילו עקב
ויליזו עלי בשפת עול כול נצמדי סודי
ואנשי [עד]תי סוררים ומלינים סביב
ובְרַז חבתה בי ילכו לבני הוות בעבור הגיד דרכי
ולמען אשמתם סתרתה מעין בינה וסוד אמת
We have no explicit history of the sect, save what can be gleaned from the metaphoric references in various texts. It is not even certain where דמשק was, although a reference to an exile appears in iv:8-9: כי ידיחני מארצי כצפור מקנה \ וכול רעי ומודעי נדחו ממני. This historical reticence of the sect, combined with the same reluctance in psalmody in general, makes specific historic references hard to pin down. However, in this case it is of note that 1QS seems fixated on solving the problem of backsliders, placing a curse against the problem to seal the annual rites: ארור בגלולי לבו לעביר הבא בברית הזות ומכשול עוונו ישים לפניו להסוג בו. (1QS ii:11-iii:18.) Of course, any persecuted sect might have to deal with the constant threat of attrition; nonetheless, one senses from both the Hodayot and 1QS that the leader (or leaders) of the sect experienced such abandonment and betrayal personally, causing him to author both lament and regulations.
The concept of dualism is very apparent in the sectarian writings from Qumran, contributing to a “for us or against us” approach. Just as 1QS begins with an exhortation “לאהוב כול אשר בחר ולשנוא את כול אשר מאס,” the Hodayot xiv:10 thanks God for the wisdom to recognize between good and evil and “ [ לאהוב את כול א]שר אהבתה \ ולתעב את כול אשר [שנאתה].”
The dualistic nature of the camps of good and evil is an issue of predetermination; part of God’s master plan. This theology is clearly stated in 1QS iii:13 through column iv. This theological exposition is found in the Hodayot, sometimes explicitly and near verbatim. The clearest example of predeterminism and dualism, in which similarity to 1QS is obvious, is the psalm found on column xv:
ואדעה כי בידך יצר כול רוח
[וכול פעולת]ו הכינותה בטרם בראתו
ואיכה יוכל כול להשנות את דבריכה
The first psalm in its entirety is a manifesto on predetermination as an inexorable result of God’s creation. The structure seems to be as follows:
I) man’s creation and predestination;
II) the heaven’s and its creature’s creation and predestination;
III) the earth’s and its creature’s creation and predestination;
IV) the Psalmist’s knowledge of creation and predestination based on God’s decision to select him for this revelation;
V) why God chose the Psalmist for this revelation (answer: to praise God); and,
VI) a call to his fellow men to praise God.
Based on the damage to the scroll, it is difficult to be certain that Man is the object in Stanza I’s statement: ובטרם בראתם ידעתה מעשיהם לעולמי עד. It might be referring to the entirety of the creation, delineated in the following two stanzas. Man’s creation and predestination may be in stanza III, which includes עבודה to be done במועדיה and פקודת שלומם עם כול נגיעהם. All this was predetermined בחכמת דעתכה הכינותה תע[ו]דתם בטרם היותם. Free will is apparently suspended with ועל פי רצ[ונכה יה]יה כול ומבלעדיך לא יעשה. This level of predetermination requires evil to be predetermined as well, a problem solved by the personification of Good and Evil as God’s creations, angels after whom good and evil men would follow. These angels are specified, albeit not dualistically, in Stanza I.
Mach writes that the major characteristic of the belief in angels among the Qumran sectarians “has to be seen in connection with certain dualistic tendencies that are more prominent in the Dead Sea scrolls that in most of the contemporary literature.” As mentioned, it is also the natural product of the sect’s predeterministic theology. The community saw itself surrounded by and in the company of angels. This idea is pervasive in the Hodayot, and should not be taken metaphorically. The sect’s ideas of impurity, and rules to maintain the purity of the community, are specifically said to be required because of their accompaniment by angels. The Hodayot notes that not only does the community stand with angels, but that the angels themselves are part of God’s master plan.
There has been much speculation on outside influences on the theology and worldview of the sect, including Gnosticism, and especially Zoroastrianism. These possibilities are outside the scope of this paper. In addition, the sect believed in resurrection and the eternality of the soul (1QH iv 21-22); however, these beliefs were not exclusive to the sect and had already entered the mainstream. Eschatology also predates the sect, though there is no doubt that the sect’s views on the matter were distinctive. However, psalms as such do not detail the sect’s eschatological plans and visions.
The Hodayot describe the Weltanschauung of a Qumran sectarian, in language intended to resonate in their hearts and minds. Like any good psalmody, the psalms fit the aspirations, fears, and beliefs of all sectarians, from the leader on down to a novice just entering the covenant. Some of these psalms may have been used verbatim in various liturgical settings, and some provided liturgical motifs. The reader is accompanied by angels, as required by sectarian ritual, and one cannot help but notice the many similarities between the Hodayot and the liturgical Hymn of 1QS x-xi, where the supplicant confirms that ובהפתח צרה אהללנו \ ובישועתו ארננה יחד andלהודות לאל צדקו \ ולעליון תפארתו . All of the psalms were no doubt used by the sect to foster personal reflection, as biblical psalms are used today; a way of expressing, internally and externally, one’s identification with the sect and its causes.
Abegg M.G., et al, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance: The Non-Biblical Texts, (Leiden, 2003), 2 vols.
Chazon, E. G., “Hymns and prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years I (1998), pp. 244-270
Cross, F. M., The Ancient Library of Qumran, (Fortress Press, 1995)
Flint, P. W., The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, (Brill, 1997)
Holm-Nielsen, S., Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran, (Universitetsforlaget, 1960)
Hopkins, D. Dombkowski, “The Qumran Community and 1 Q Hodayot; a Reassessment,” RQ 10, 3 (1981), pp. 323-364
Kittel, B. P., The Hymns of Qumran, (Society of Biblical Literature, 1981)
Kutscher, Y. ha-Lashon vi-ha-Reka ha-Leshoni shel Megilat Yishayahu ha-Shelema mi-Megilot Yam ha-Melah, (Magnus Press, 1959)
Licht, J., Megilat ha-Hodayot mi-Megilot Midbar Yehudah (Hebrew), (Mosad Byalik, 1957)
Martin, M., The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Publications Universitaires, 1958), 2 vols.
Martinez, F. G., and Tigchelaar, E. J. C., eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, (Grand Rapids, 2000), 2 vols.
Mansoor, M., The Thanksgiving Hymns, (Eerdmans, 1961)
Newsom, C. A., “’Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran,” The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters (Eisenbrauns, 1990) pp. 167-187
Nitzan, B., Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (translated from the Hebrew by Jonathan Chipman), (Brill, 1994)
Qimron, E., Dikduk ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit shel Megilot Midbar Yehudah, (Thesis Submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1976)
Schiffman, L., The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Scholars Press, 1989)
___________, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Jewish Publication Society, 1994)
Schiffman, L. and VanderKam, J.C., eds., Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Oxford, 2000), 2 vols.
Schuller, E. M., Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: a Pseudepigraphic Collection, (Scholars Press, 1986)
____________, Qumran Cave 4:XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999) pp. 69-254
____________, “Some Contributions of the Cave Four Manuscripts (4Q427-432) to the Study of the Hodayot,” Dead Sea Discoveries 8,3 (2001), pp. 278-87
Skehan, P., “The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll, and in the Septuagint,” BIOSCS 13 (1980), pp.14-44
Stegemann, H., “The Material Reconstruction of 1QHodayot,” The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery, (Israel Exploration Society; Israel Museum, 2000), pp. 272-284
Sukenik, E. L., Megilot Genuzot (Hebrew), (Bialik Institute, 1950)
____________, Otsar Ha-megilot Ha-genuzot, arranged posthumous publication by Naḥman Avigad, (Bialik Institute and Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1954)
Tov, E., “The Biblical Texts Found in Qumran,” Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Assen, 1992), pp. 100-117.
______, “The Qumran Scribal Practice; The Evidence from Orthography and Morphology,” Verbum et Calamus, (2004) pp. 353-368
Vermès, G., The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, (Allen Lane/Penguin Press, 1997)
Yadin, Y., ha-Megilot ha-genuzot mi-midbar Yehudah (Hebrew), (Shoeken, 1957)
________, The Temple Scroll, (Random House, 1985)
Zeitlin, S., “The Propaganda of the Hebrew Scrolls and the Falsification of History,” JQR XLV 1954-1956, pp. 1-39
Brown, F., with Driver S. R., & Briggs, C. A., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, (Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1966). Referred to above as the BDB.
Gerstenberger, E., The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, Vol. XIV: Psalms, Part 1 (Grand Rapids, 1988)
Gordon, C. H., Ugaritic Textbook (Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965)
Gunkel, H., The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction, trans., T. Homer (Philadelphia, 1967)
Kelley, P. H., Mynatt, D. S., Crawford, T. G., The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (W.B. Eerdmans, 1998)
Lieberman, S., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, (Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962)
Westermann, C., Praise and Lament in the Psalms, trans. KR. Crim and R.N. Soulen, (Atlanta, 1981).
 Individual poetic units of the Hodayot will be referred to as “psalms.” The issue of the appropriate form-critical category for these units, or whether it is even appropriate to speak of form-critical categories for the Hodayot, is outside the scope of this paper. (See f. 55, below, for a brief review.) Some refer to them as hymns. Alternatively, given that almost every unit justifies its conception with “…because you have (done this or that) for me,” perhaps “thanksgivings” would be the (unwieldy) best. I could have avoided the issue by using the singular “Hodaya.” In the end, I believe that the author or authors intended to write an inspired poetic work based on—and intended for similar usage as—the Book of Psalms: a sectarian Psalter, not to be confused with the original, but to stand beside it.
 1QHodayota is the first and most complete of the eight Hodayot scrolls found at Qumran. The number of copies is indicative of the popularity and importance of the Hodayot, and perhaps of the frequency with which it was used in personal or liturgical settings. (See a review of the subject of Hodayot as liturgy in Nitzan , pp. 321-23, 346-48.) Other Hodayot scrolls will be surveyed diplomatically where they fill in lacunae of 1QHodayota. The 4QHodayot show some flexibility in the order of the psalms as well as in the types of psalms included; however, 1QHodayota seems to contain the standard order, and a superset of all the Hodayot material, which may have evolved from smaller collections. See Schuller (2001), p. 279-281. For this reason, this paper will refer generically to “the Hodayot,” meaning 1QHodayota with additions and emendations based on the secondary scrolls.
 The tale of the scrolls’ discovery has often been told. See, for example, Cross (1995), pp. 19-24.
 Sukenik (1950), pp. 12-15; Yadin (1957), pp. 15-23, 117-118. Yadin quotes his father’s (Sukenik’s) notes on seeing the scrolls in the antique dealer’s shop in Bethlehem (p. 19): "קראתי משפטים מספר ונמצאתי למד כי כתובים הם בעברית תנכ"ית נפלאה, בדומה לסגנון ספר תהילים;" no doubt referring to the Hodayot scroll. At this first meeting Sukenik purchased the Hodayot scroll, along with 1QIsab and 1QMilhama, for 35 lira.
 Sukenik also noticed the similarity between the script and stone carvings dated from the Roman occupation of Judea before the fall of the Second Temple.
 Sukenik (1950), p. 32.
 There was also some early confusion as to whether the entirety of Sukenik’s material belonged to a single Hodayot scroll. Carmignac (see Schiffman and VanderKamp, p. 365, and Holm-Nielsen, pp. 9-13) disputed Sukenik’s “two-scribe theory” (see below) and identified two scrolls in Sukenik’s material. He also rearranged Sukenik’s column sequence. However, Carmignac’s arguments are based on orthography, while orthographic irregularities appear in a single psalm and even within a single line. Thus, they are likely the result of the use of an exemplar during the scribal process, and not indicative of a change of scribe. See Martin (1958), p. 309-10 and Schuller (2001), p. 285 and f. 27. Scholarly opinion now accepts that all of the fragments published by Sukenik in his editio princeps belong to a single Hodayot scroll, although other fragments found in Cave One, namely 1Q35, represent a second scroll of Hodayot, 1QHodayotb, which overlaps part of 1QHodayota columns vii and viii. 1QHodayotb adds little new material, but does speak quantitatively to the importance of the Hodayot to the Qumran community.
 See ‘Layout, Dating, and Provenance,’ below.
 Martin (1958), p. 60. f. 29, argues that the order of these columns cannot be determined because the scroll may have been intentionally mutilated as part of a cultic Geniza process. Regardless of whether the caves were a Geniza (and whether or not cultic mutilation was the norm), the eye can plainly identify the natural penetration of a tightly rolled scroll, as the interval between the damage lessens in concert with the reducing circumference towards the center of the scroll.
 Martin (1958), p. 59-64, identifies a third scribe responsible for lines XI:22b-XI:26a, and for insertion of matres lectiones and corrections of the other two scribes’ work. Sukenik (1954), p. 33, also recognizes the third scribe, although in a more limited capacity. Even Martin’s scribe B performs mainly copy-editing; thus the issue does not affect the question of the Hodayot’s sectarianism. As such, we will combine these second and third scribes, and retain the two-scribe terminology unless otherwise indicated.
 See plates 47-51 from the editio princeps. Plates 48-50 are the three columns found from a single sheet (see picture 23 in Otsar Ha-megilot Ha-genuzot), and plates 47 and 51 are the left and right margins, with stitching, presumably from the same sheet.
 See plate 52 from the editio princeps. As we will see, an erroneous material join is made from two of these three fragments.
 See plates 53-55 from the editio princeps.
 See plates 56-57 from the editio princeps.
 See plate 58 from the editio princeps.
 Stegemann (2000).
 The new numbering is authoritative, and is used in newer references (i.e., DJD volumes, Martinez and Tigchelaar, Abegg); however, Sukenik’s earlier system is well entrenched, and is used by the three primary translations referenced in this paper: Licht, Holm-Nielsen, and, to a lesser extent, Mansoor. See Stegemann (2000), p. 280, for a very helpful substitution chart. Martinez and Tigchelaar provide Sukenik’s identifiers in parentheses.
 Compare Puech in Schiffman and VanderKam (2000), p. 366, with Schuller (DJD XXIX, 1999), pp. 126, 129-31 and Schuller (2001), p. 280.
 While there is some debate on the matter, a group of psalms has been identified as “Hymns of the Teacher,” which are grouped together as a stand-alone version in 4QHodayotc. (Compare Schuller in DJD XXIX, p. 179, with Peuch in Schiffman, L. and VanderKam, p. 366.) Note the striking language describing the “I” who has been chosen as a leader in ii:13-14: ותשימני נס לבחירי צדק \ ומליץ דעת ברזי פלא \\ לבחון [אנשי] אמת \ ולנסות אוהבי מוסר. “But you have set me as a rallying point (see Ps. 60:6) for the Just Select / a translator to knowledge of wondrous secrets \\ To test the Men of Truth \ to try those who have a love of discipline.” (Translation, mine.)
 Newsom (1990), p. 175.
 The “Marriage Ritual,” 4Q502, is recognizable as a work of a member of the sect only by its citation of 1QS. It contains, however, no explicitly sectarian doctrine. See Newsom (1990), p. 175-176, and f. 4.
 E.g. Jubilees and Enoch.
 Newsom (1990) p. 173, and see her citation of Stegemann’s criteria for “specifische Qumrantexte” on p. 172 and f. 2. Stegemann includes the Hodayot in his shortlist of “specifische Qumrantexte.”
 Recreating the history of the sect is a bit more tenuous, especially due to the extremely epithetic language referring to places, persons, and events of significance. (Cf. Schiffman  who reconstructs a great deal of pre-history of the sect from the “Halakhik Letter” (4QMMT), the Damascus Covenant, and external Second Temple sources.) Fortunately, the Hodayot, in common with most psalmody, tend to avoid explicit historic references, and as such, the need for a historic baseline with which to make a comparison is not necessary.
 The Damascus Covenant will provide limited benefits regarding the scribal and morphological characteristics of the sect since it is known mostly from a medieval copy found in the Cairo Geniza. The Qumran caves have yielded mere fragments of this, the sect’s manifesto.
 See, for example, scrolls detailing the sect’s view of the eschaton in Schiffman (1989), esp. pp.6-10.
 Tov (2004).
 Qimron (1976), §100.2.
 See Licht (1957), p. 8-9 §7, for examples. One must be careful, then, in translations. For instance, while 1QS i:5 מעשי טוב is a plural construct, מעשי can also be singular.
 See Licht (1957), p. 9 §7, for examples in the Hodayot. See also Kutscher (1959), p. 42-45, and note his explanation of the detrimental effect of Hellenization and the Greek language on the ability of some areas in Second Temple Israel to pronounce the gutturals.
 Kutscher (1959), pp. 34-39, notes that the masculine endings are a peculiarity of the original endings—u—having dropped off, as is evident from their absence (except in rare cases) in biblical Hebrew. The “void” was then filled with the feminine ah endings and became the new suffixes for the truncated masculine pronouns.
 Based on Judges 13:18. Forms such as המה and למו should not be included since they appear in biblical Hebrew, especially biblical poetry, which is the template for the Hodayot.
 Licht (1957), p. 59, and see his apparatus ad loc.
 Of the 23 variants between 4Q427 (4QHodayota) and 1QHodayota, four append “ah” to the third person pronominal suffix. For instance, 4QHa 1 6 reads כולמה compared with בפי כולם יהולל שמכה לעולמי עד. See Schuller (1999), pp. 89-90, and comment L6. Similarly, 4QHodayotc in two of its sixteen variants (pp. 181-82), and once in 4QpapHodayotf (p. 212-1, and p. 220 comment L2).
 Tov (2004), p. 354.
 Licht, §6. Other orthographical practices are also present, such as deletion using superlinear dots or superlinear and supralinear dots, i.e. כול on i:7. This practice was known outside of Qumran, and in fact appears in the Pentateuch itself, and though the reason for the usage is still a matter of some debate, deletion is a possibility. See Kelley (1998), p. 32-34; Lieberman (1962), p. 43-44, notes that dots indicating deletion were used in the Alexandrian school (ff. 51-52), and cites a Rabbinic source regarding the pointing above 11 letters in Deut. 29:28 (p.44): כך אמר עזרא אם יבא אליהו ויאמר לי מפני מה כתבת כך אומר אני לו כבר נקדתי עליהן ואם אומר לי יפה כתבת אעבור נקודה מעלהן.
 See chart in Tov (2004), p. 364-65. (Tov refers to scribe B as “C,”as per Martin. See f. 10, above.) For example, scribe A primarily uses a defective spelling of כי (91 out of 116) and זאת (2 of 2) while scribe B uses plene spellings (26 of 31 for כיא, 4 of 4 for זאות). Note ii:22 where בבריתך is written with a final khaf, but later appended to end with a heh: בבריתךה.
 Qimron (1976), §100.02.
 Qimron (1976), §100.211. Sereh Hayahad has no defective spellings out of 180. Hodayot have 13 of 208.
 Qimron (1976), §100.62. Sereh Hayahad has no spelling of לא. Hodayot have 96 of approximately 132.
 Qimron (1976), §100.51. Sereh Hayahad has no spelling of כי. Hodayot have 100 of 148.
 The exemplars may be represented in the 4QHodayot manuscripts. See Schuller (2001), p. 285 and f. 27.
 The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Scholars Press, c1986), p. 21; an abridgement and English translation of Qimron (1976).
 Cf. Holm-Nielsen (1960), p. 305, who writes, “The application of Scripture in the Hodayot can be understood thus: the authors did not have as their object the authorization of their work as canonical writing by the use of the Old Testament…” The dry lining (sirtut) used in the Hodayot seems to counter Holm-Nielsen’s argument.
 Kutscher, p. 6-8, notes that the fuller the orthography, the later the scribal activity, as it is farther removed from the proto-Semitic orthography (e.g. Ugarit; see Gordon , vol. 1, p. 17), which barely represents vocalization.
 The Qumran scribes apparently felt no such freedom to change the orthography of canonical and apocryphal psalms, whose authorship pre-dates the Qumran community, e.g. 4Q380 and 4Q380. (In fact, the he Qumran sect may have viewed apocryphal psalms such as 4Q380 and 4Q380 as canonical.) Note that Schuller (1986), p. 22, fixes the date of the psalms; the conjecture regarding the reluctance of the Qumran scribes to “modernize” the orthography is mine.
 So, Vermès (1997), p. 99. Martinez & Tigchelaar render: “in accordance with his just counsel.”
 Kittel (1981), p. 100-101. Even more surprising—in light of the previous note—is Vermès (1997): “Yet thou bringest all the sons of Thy truth;” Holm-Nielsen: “But all the children of Thy Truth;” Martinez & Tigchelaar: “All the sons of your truth.”
 Schuller (1986), p. 38-41.
 Many of these texts are interwoven with biblical expressions, motifs, and allusions; and in some cases cite verses that, in the original, contain the Tetragrammaton, requiring great ingenuity in removing or avoiding the writing of the holy name. A number of methods are employed. The contrast between the original biblical text and the sect’s writings is most obvious in the Pesharim, which first cite the biblical verses (lemma) before revealing their true meaning (the pesher). While the lemma includes the Tetragrammaton, the pesher avoids it. For instance, Pesher Habakuk, (1QpHab) xi:8-11 has the Tetragrammaton (in paleo-Hebrew script, see below), but not in the pesher. In xi:12-15 the pesher substitutes the Tetragrammaton with אל. (The א of אל is missing, but the restoration seems very probable. See Martinez & Tigchelaar, p. 18.) Schuller (1986), p. 40 f. 31, prefers the argument that the Tetragrammaton never appears in a Pesher exposition. As noted, Pesher Habakuk avoids direct use of the Tetragrammaton even in the lemma by substituting paleo-Hebrew script for standard script. (Cf. Pesher Nahum fragments 3-4 ii:10, in which the Tetragrammaton appears in standard lettering. Skehan , p. 20ff, argues that paleo-Hebrew substitution was a development of later scribal practice. Schiffman , p. 146, argues that paleo-Hebrew was used to increase the emphasis, and perhaps the sanctity, of the text. This substitution is found in the great Psalms scroll, 11QPsalmsa). Other substitutions include the exceptional הואהא in 1QS, four (or five) dots replacing the consonants, אדוני, and the most common, אל, on which see below. Sometimes the Divine name is simply removed from the citation, e.g. CD vii:11 (= Isa. 7:17). See Skehan (1980) for a thorough review of the issue. Also, Schuller (1986), p. 38-43, and Schiffman & VanderKam: Names of God, p. 600-601.
 Skehan (1980), p. 14-17.
 Skehan (1980), p. 16.
 See i:27 (אל), ii:34 (אלי), xv:25 (אל), and 1QHodayotb (=1Q35 frg. 1 line 5). The 4QHodayot evidence no instances of אל in paleo-Hebrew; however, there the 4Q material does not overlap any of the four cases of this substitution found in 1QH material. (4QHodayotb 3 1-9 overlaps with 1QHodayota ii:32-9; however, the section containing אלי in the former is missing.) I suspect, however, that the earlier 4Q material had no such substitutions, as it takes a while for a substitution—אל—to acquire the same attributes as the name it replaced.
 Almost all canonical psalms of Lament and Thanksgiving call on God vocatively; this invocation is in fact (though not always in practice) the first form-critical element of a given form-critical structure. Even in Hymns, where God is often spoken of in the third person, an introductory call can be found, e.g. Pss. 8, 65, 139. See Gerstenberger (1988), pp. 9-19, especially sections C (Thanksgivings) and D (Songs of Praise).
 I am influenced here by Westermann (1981), pp. 15-35, who asserts that להודות and להלל are used interchangeably; both meaning “praise,” rather than “to thank” and “to praise,” respectively. This has bearing on the “form-critical” categorization applied to the Hodayot psalms. Many scholars, confronted with the Hodayot’s failure to fit into the neat categories introduced by Gunkel (1967), p. 37-39, categorize the Hodayot as psalms of mixed types: Hymns, Thanksgivings, and Laments intertwined. Hopkins (1981), pp. 324-331, in a review of scholarly opinion on the form-critical category of the Hodayot, writes “Thanksgiving, lament, hymn, and praise combine with meditative reflections to produce varied compositions which do not conform to any of the categories of the biblical psalm literature,” and concludes (p. 336) “1QH is a varied collection of rhythmic prose…” The analysis of the Gattung of the Hodayot is, however, outside the scope of this paper, as is the question of their sitz im laben (cultic or otherwise). One should note, however, that the psalmodic requirements (cultic or otherwise) of apocalyptic, mystical, eschatological-minded sectarians might be different than that of earlier psalmists and their audiences.
 Of 21 probable introductions, twelve read אודכה אדוני, and four have ברוך אתה אדוני. Three are indiscernible, and the remaining two will be discussed shortly.
 ii:20, כי שמתה נפשי בצרור החיים; ii:31, כי עינכה עמ[דה] על נפשי; iii:19, כי פדיתה נפשי משחת; iii:37, כי הייתה לי לחומת עוז; iv:5 כיא האירותה פני לבריתכה; v:5, כי לא עזבתני בגורי בעם נכר[י; vii:6, כי סמכתני בעוזכה; vii:26, כי השכלתני באמיתכה; vii:34, כי לוא הפלתה גורלי בעדת שו; viii:4, כי נתתני במקור נוזלים ביבשה ; xi:3 (with אודכה אל), כי הפלתה עם עפר; xi:15 (with אודכה אלי \ ארוממכה צורי), כי הודעתני סוד אמת. Finally note xvii:26, כי הניפותה רוח קודש[ך ] על עבדך, which seems to draws from the passage in Isaiah.
 Ps. 118 (אוֹדְךָ כִּי עֲנִיתָנִי) as a whole prefers the Tetragrammaton, although the psalm includes אֵלִי אַתָּה וְאוֹדֶךָּ \ אֱלֹהַי אֲרוֹמְמֶךָּ, before concluding הוֹדוּ לַיהוָה כִּי-טוֹב \ כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ. Similar is Ps. 35 (אוֹדְךָ, בְּקָהָל רָב \ בְּעַם עָצוּם אֲהַלְלֶךָּ), Ps. 139 (אוֹדְךָ עַל כִּי נוֹרָאוֹת נִפְלֵיתִי), and see v. 14 and compare vv. 1 and 21 with v. 23. For more direct examples see Ps. 18 (= II Sam 22): עַל-כֵּן אוֹדְךָ בַגּוֹיִם יְהוָה \ וּלְשִׁמְךָ אֲזַמֵּרָה; and Ps. 30 (יְהוָה אֱלֹהַי \ לְעוֹלָם אוֹדֶךָּ). The expression can be found paired to אל and אלהים, e.g. Pss. 43:4, 118:28.
 The descriptive (rather than directly addressable) character is evident in its usage, e.g. suffixed by a pronominal, accompanying a direct address (vi:20 ואתה אל צויתם..., v:2 כי אתה אלי), and part of a doxology (iv:31, לאל עליון כול מעשי צדקה). However, note the openings of the psalms on xi:3 and xi:15 “אודכה אלי.” The latter’s continuation with the doxology “ארוממכה צורי” suggests that, while this term had come to be the primary and directly addressable name of God—holy to the point of deserving paleo-Hebrew replacement (albeit not in these two psalms)—its descriptive character is still maintained. Nonetheless, verses like iv:12-13 indicate that אל may not only be used vocatively, but may be replacing the original Tetragrammaton.
 See xi:3 and xi:15, and the previous footnote. Humorously enough, Zeitlin (1954-1956), esp. pp. 23-24, cites this unprecedented opening formula as proof of the non-antiquity of the scrolls. In response to the appearance of אל in paleo-Hebrew Zeitlin asserts “I am not sure that they are in the Old Hebrew scripts,” and, noting that this occurs only three times, asks “Why did the three differ from the rest? What is the reason the author made these three differ from the others?” It seems clear that a diachronic approach to the scribal activity of the Hodayot, as described in f. 50 above, invalidates these questions, and Zeitlin’s observation of the uniqueness of this expression is כי בנפשו הוא, indicating antiquity, and perhaps even sectarianism.
 The antiquity of this vocalized substitution is evident from the LXX translation of the Tetragrammaton as κύριος (Lord).
 Note the lack of the mater lections “heh, ” as in the MT.
 Licht (1957), p. 15-16, §19.
 The sect is sure that God will infuse His selected ones with a יצר סמוך, a staunch will (i:35, ii:9, 36; see also 1QS iv:5, viii:3). The sect sees this as an actualization of Isa. 26:3 and the surrounding verses; or perhaps is calling for its actualization. Holm-Nielsen (1960), p. 303, recognized the connection between the Hodayot and Isaiah, but doubts that in all three cases the poet was thinking of the biblical source. I would assert more positively that the expression had become “lexicalized,” to a certain extent, as an expression of sectarianism. Note that in i:35 and ii:9 the expression has become a poetic parallel with the verbal form of מהר—meaning quick to doubt and lose hope (Isa. 32:4, 35:4). In ii:36 the term is associated with המר (an intentional metathesis?)—with the same meaning: those who trade knowledge for doubt. This new poetic pair—not found in biblical poetry—occurs in three different Hodayot psalms. (Cf. Holm-Nielsen, p. 315). In this case, biblical texts are joined to create a new expression, one that matches the outlook of the sect, perhaps due to their concern with inductees that would fall to doubt (1QS ii:11-12).
 The issue of the state of the canonization of the Book of Psalms at the time of the Qumran settlement is outside the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that the vast majority of the psalms are attested to at Qumran—as is the majority of their sequencing—and the number of Psalms scrolls attests to their importance. See Flint (1997), p. 151-171, esp. 157-158. Also, see the following entries in Schiffman & VanderKam (2000): Sanders’ “Psalms Scroll,” Flint’s “Book of Psalms,” and Chazon’s “Psalms, Hymns, and Prayers.” See also Chazon (1998).
 It should be noted, however, that the non-canonical psalms found at Qumran have fuller quotations than does the Hodayot. See Schuller (1986), p. 11.
 Kittel (1981), p. 52, based on Holm-Nielsen (1960), pp. 309-315.
 Tov (1992), p. 104-5, and f. 77.
 Holm-Nielsen (1960), p. 305, f. 12. See f. 44, above.
 See f. 64, above. See also, Hopkins (1981), p. 330, f. 24.
 Nitzan (1994), p. 324-326ff.
 The first four lines of the poem are lost, and a gash—not the penetrating damage described in ‘Layout, Dating, and Provenance,’ above—removes one or two words towards the beginning of the first 15 readable lines. Nonetheless, enough of the text remains for the sense to be understood. The poetic structure and meter can also be reasonably reconstructed.
 The Hodayot exhibit a poetic form best described as “lists,” a series of short-metered stichs chained together to form a single long poetic line. The length and meter of these lists is distinctive to the Hodayot.
 Martinez & Tigchelaar tend to be more conservative than Licht/Sukenik in their willingness to reconstruct readings based on parallel biblical or Qumran texts. I have made decisions on a case-by-case basis, electing to follow Licht when the logic of the reconstruction seems likely. Of course, evidence supplied by 4QH material is assumed to be definitive.
 This is not to say that they invented the theology of predetermination, merely that, along with other theological principals, it was heavily promoted in their literature and was a part of their polemic. See Licht (1958), p. 28, f. 8.
 E.g. Job 37:7.
 Certainly biblical poetry has its share of unusually long lines, or lines with awkward meter compared to adjacent lines, e.g. Ps. 40:6, 41:7. However, see Kittle (1981) on the unusual Hodayot meter.
 Licht (1957), p. 62, notes that the quote is from I Sam. 2:3 (כִּי אֵל דֵּעוֹת יְהוָה, ולא (וְלוֹ) נִתְכְּנוּ עֲלִלוֹת) and may be evidence of an interpretation of pre-determinism in that verse.
 It is therefore difficult to pin down such writings as the Shirei Shabbat, which have been found at Masada as well, a location known to be aligned with Rabbinic practice and theology. The songs place great stress on angelology, but the book of Enoch demonstrates that this mystical approach was not exclusive to the Qumran sect. The calendar is based on the solar calendar, but the book of Jubilees also negates a claim to exclusivity. While Yadin suggests that the text was carried to Masada by a fleeing member of the Qumran sect, Newsom (1990), pp. 179ff, concludes that the text was not written by the Qumran community, regardless of how important and appropriated the text would become after its adoption.
 See “The Vocabulary of the Hodayot” in Mansoor (1961), p. 20-21, and “מילון” in Licht (1958), p. 244-255.
 The substantive use of יחד in the Bible can be found in only in I Chron. 12:18 (אִם לְשָׁלוֹם בָּאתֶם אֵלַי לְעָזְרֵנִי יִהְיֶה לִּי עֲלֵיכֶם לֵבָב לְיָחַד) (so, BDB, p. 402-3), although Deut. 33:5 may supply another source (so, Leiman, Fall 2004 Lectures, Bernard Revel Graduate School).
 1QS i:8, v:20.
 Translations, unless otherwise noted, will come from Martinez & Tigchelaar (M&T), with changes to remain faithful to the nature of the pronominal suffix of the sectarian construct. In this case, the translation is mine, as I believe this is a reference to the Community. “To stand together with a Holy Host (Angels) / to join (see Schiffman , pp. 11-12 and f. 10, on the Sect’s use of בוא) a Community with a group of Heavenly Ones.” Cf. M&T.
 Abegg (2003), p. 308-9, lists all occurrences of “yahad” in Hodayot as adverbial, meaning “together.” In 1QS, only three out of more than 50 uses are listed as adverbial rather than as the noun “Community.”
 More on the sect’s view of this in ‘Dualism and Predetermination,’ below.
 “To those whom God has selected He has given them as everlasting possession; and He has given them an inheritance in the lot of the holy ones (referring to angels, rather than just holy men?). He unites their assembly to the sons of the heavens (angels), in order (to form) the council of the Community and a foundation of the building of holiness to be an everlasting plantation…”
 See Licht (1957), p. 84, and his notes on line 22.
 This parallels with the next stich: “and tells of your wonders before all your creatures.” However, cf. Holm-Nielsen (1960), p. 68 f. 15, who prefers “choir,” based on the similar phrase “ביחד שמחה” in 1QM xiv:4. “מכון רנה” in xi:5 may or may not support the argument for a substantive. M&T translate “ב” as locative: in a place of jubilation. Licht comments: טעמו, כנראה: ברינה אשר תכין בהן; and regarding the use of מכון in xviii:29—which is clearly a location—he writes: אבל הוראתו אינה ברורה כל צורכה. See also Holm-Nielsen and his commentary ad loc.
 Skipping the first line, which is part of my analysis: “…to raise the worms of the dead from the dust, to an ever[lasting] community and from a depraved spirit, to [Your] knowledge, so that he can take his place in Your presence with the perpetual host and the spirits […], to renew him with everything that will exist, and with those who will know in a community of jubilation.”
 The shift to the community is made clear by comparing the shift from the singular כיא הודעתני בסוד אמתכה in stanza one to the plural כי הודעתם בסוד אמתכה in stanza two.
 Licht (1957), p. 163. On the other hand, he is ambivalent about the meaning of יחד in line 14.
 Translated as “rank” within a structured group (CD xiii:12, 1QS i:10, see also Dan. 12:13 with its eschatological overtones), and “the lot of…” (1QS ii:2 = ...אל, 1QSii:5 = …בליעל), as well as the usual sense of the lot that befalls man, or his fate.
 The termנהיה is highly evocative of the sect’s views on predetermination (see 1QS iii:15), to be discussed further below.
 So too Holm-Nielsen; cf. Abegg (2003).
 Holm-Nielsen (1960), p. 222, f. 22.
 Other references include 4Q266 (a fragment of the CD), and the two Peshers 4Q163 frg. 22 3 (4QpIsac) and 4Q174 frg. 1 ii:17. This latter text, known as the 4QFlorilegium, is abundant in its sectarian perspectives, and is recognized by Stegemann as “specifische Qumrantexte.” (See f. NOTEREF _Ref100926401 \h 23.)
 Schiffman (1989), p. 12, mentions that the role of the B’nei Zadok became largely ceremonial; however, as the Hodayot dates to the early days of the sect, if not to its very inception, one may assume a more specific meaning.
 The Scribe has edited out [נמה]. Holm Nielson (1960), p. 105 f. suspects that the scribe began to repeat נמהרי from the previous line.
 “[…] with those apprehensive of justice / to raise from desolation the community of all the poor of kindness.” (M&T)
 Holm-Nielsen (1960), p. 99, translates “by bringing all of the merciful poor out of the mire,” but comments, p. 106 f. 12, “It was tempting to take יחד of the community, to which the oppressed are raised up, but this would need to be introduced by a preposition.”
 So M&T (see f. 99 above). Holm-Nielsen offers “merciful poor,” reversing the construct, or understanding חסד as an adjective, although the disagreement in number militates against this possibility.
 It is hard to assume that נמהר can mean a neutral “those with initiative” or even an only slightly negative “impetuous,” which could then be seen positively as “quick to righteousness.” It seems hard to doubt that the sect understood the original meaning of the term, as it appears in 1QS x. (More on the affinity between this psalm in 1QS to the psalms of the Hodayot, below). See also i:35 where the נמהרים are to be transformed with those of יצר סמוך, and an explicit use of the biblical idiom נמהרי לב in ii:9.
 Licht (1957), p. 46-48, § 59.
 If מוכיחי צדק is an epithet for the already-established sect, and the psalmist is taking advice from this group, the author could hardly be the Teacher of Righteousness. On the other hand, it is possible that these idioms, introduced by the T of R, are precursors to the names to be appropriated for the sect.
 Here the author has been made the standard bearer for the group, the teacher—rather than the learner—of secrets. Cf. the previous footnote.
 This Pesher, based on canonical psalm 37, is unabashedly sectarian, referring to the מורה הצדק, andשרי הרשעה אשר הונו את עם קודשו.
 Schiffman (1994) argues that the vilification came later as the sect disengaged from its rivals. He argues that the Halakhik Letter (4QMMT) demonstrates an earlier time when there was hope for resolving the disagreements.
 Cf. M&T: “those looking for easy interpretations.”
 “Men speak lies to one another; their speech is smooth; they talk with duplicity.” (JPS). Also, note the following verse יכרת י-ה-ו-ה כל שפתי חלקות \ לשון מדברת גדלות. See also Ps. 5:10, and for a more prophetic sense, Isa. 30:9.
 See also iii:28 where this word is used in parallel with בליעל, but is referring to the human wicked, not the supernatural archangel of evil. See Ps. 26:4 where the word is parallel to מתי שוא.
 “But they, hypocrites, plot intrigues of Belial / they search you with a double heart / and are not firmly based in your truth.” Thus, M&T; however, it is better to borrow definitions from Psalms, as specified in f. 109. Note also from line 7: כי אמרים החליקו למו. (M&T translates “they lure them;” however, I would suggest למו in the sense of “for their own benefit,” as in Pss. 44:11 and 80:7.) Also, line 10: להמיר תורתכה אשר שננתה בלבבי בחלקות לעמכה. (בחלקות modifies המיר; it is not clear to me what לעמכה is modifying. Neither Holm-Nielsen nor M&T provide adequate translations or explanations. Licht makes no comment.)
 Licht’s (1957) title, p. 90, for this psalm is telling: הפולמוס עם מטיפי הכזב—The Debate with the Preachers of Lies.
 See 1QS iv:13.
 Licht reconstructs אשר [ נתתה לכול בני אמתך ותלמ]דו חוקים . (CHECK THE ORIGINAL!)
 מכול פחד ואימה ומצרף נסוים בממשלת בליעל. 1QS i:17-18.
 E.g. Deut. xiii:14, Judg. xx:13 (denizens of Giv’ah), I Sam. x:27 (anarchists?), I Sam. xxv:25 (Nabal), II Sam. xx:1 (Sheba ben Bikhri), I Kings xx:10 (Jezebel’s false witnesses), II Chron. xxi:7.
 Ps. xviii:5 (נחלי בליעל is parallel to חבלי מות, חבלי שאול, מקשי מות), Ps. xli:9 (דבר בליעל, perhaps some poison poured by those plotting against the psalmist).
 Abegg (2003), p. 146-47.
 This assumes an asyndeton, hence my insertion of אשר.
 Abegg (2003), p. 146, reads: והמה סוד שוא לעדת בליעל, but this must be a printing error since the “waw” is incontrovertible in the original.
 In vi:5 עדת שוא is parallel to סוד חמס, although בליעל shows up later in the psalm.
 See 117, above.
 Beginning v:20, and see Licht’s (1957) commentary, p. 103, on the historical nature of the psalm. See also ‘The Enemy Within,’ below.
 See ff. 123.
 M&T’s translation is flawed, ignoring the principles of biblical parallelism. I will deviate from it considerably as necessary. “But I have been the [target of slander for my rivals] / a cause for quarrel and argument to my neighbors // for jealousy and anger to those who have joined my covenant / to be challenged and complained about by my followers // Even those who break bread with me have turned against me (translate from Ps. 41:10) / those who had joined my council have mocked me with an unjust tongue // My community is rebelling and complaining all around / With the mystery that You entrusted in me they slander to the sons of destruction, in order to tell of my ways // Because of their guilt (for their punishment?) You have hidden the wellspring of knowledge and the True Secrets.” (Mansoor prefers “council” to “secrets” for סוד, but the term is equivocal in the Hodayot).
 The place where the Teacher of Righteousness was exiled and the sect’s formation began (CD xi-xiii). Schiffman (1994), p. 94, is convinced that this is none other than Qumran itself. See also Murphy-O’Conner’s “Damascus” in Schiffman & VanderKam (2000), p. 165-66.
 Also, xvii:24 petitions that God allow the psalmist “להתהלך בכול אשר אהבתה \ ולמאוס בכול אשר שנאתה.”
 Licht (1957), p. 194-95, mentions that this psalm may be describing the initiation process. A mention of the uselessness of money (“ואני ידעתי כיא לא ישוה כול הון באמתכה”) supports his argument. See also i:18 =1QS iii:14: ופקודת שלומם <עם> נגיעיהם [ ]ה, and Licht fills the lacuna aggressively, but probably correctly: [לקציהם תכנת].
 “I know that the impulse of every spirit is in Your hand, [and all] its [task] You have established even before creating him. How can anyone change Your words (orders/plan)?”
 Remember that this is not the first sheet of the original 1QHodayota, merely the first sheet in Sukenik’s editio princeps. The first lines of the poem are lost at the top of the page, as are the last lines at the top of the next page. Based on the structure of the poem, it likely that the poem began at the top of column i, and we retain some of the first stanza.
 In fact, a great deal of the sect’s theology is concentrated in this one psalm. Note that of the 12 sectarian doctrines listed by Mansoon (1961), p. 53-54, as reflected in the Hodayot, numbers 1 through 5, 8, and 12 are well defined in this psalm of creation.
 iv:38: כי אתה בראתה צדיק ורשעץ. See Licht (1957), pp. 27-30.
 “Angels,” p. 24-27, in Schiffman & VanderKam (2000).
 See 1Qsa 2:7-8
 II Maccabees 7:14 reads: When he was near death, he said, "It is my choice to die at the hands of men with the God-given hope of being restored to life by Him; but for you, there will be no resurrection to life," and other similar sentiments in this chapter. See also Dan. 12:2.
 1QSa ii requires the impure to be removed from the eschatological army due to the presence of angels. See also 1QM vii:6: כי מלאכי קודש עם צבאותם יחד. As noted, the psalms of the Hodayot also petition and praise God for the ability to join in communion with the angels, e.g. vi:13: כי הביאותה [אמתכה וכ]בודכה לכול אנשי עצתכה ובגורל יחד עם מלאכה פנים. However, there is no explicit description of the anticipated eschas, as appears in these other scrolls. Holm-Nielsen notes that while the psalms are Thanksgivings, they seem to describe a future not yet realized, as if they are thanking God for something not yet attained.
 In Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice, the humans are almost completely absent from the ritual. The angels are the priests, even though the human priests are singing the liturgy as delineated by the header of each Song. While this liturgy may not have been written by the sect, its calendar and its nature suggest that the sect made good use of it.