The כְּפִיר הֶחָרוֹן in the Dead Sea Scrolls
The sectarian literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls includes references to many interesting characters, such as the Kittim, the Wicked Priest, and Teacher of Righteousness. Scholars have spent significant time attempting to discern the identity of the historical figures behind many of these terms, often without much success. Many of the references to these characters are too vague to allow for precise identification. Brownlee, for example, notes the difficulties inherent in piecing together the history of the community at Qumran in relation to its enemies and their identification.[1] One of the least frequent terms that appear throughout the sectarian literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the כְּפִיר הֶחָרוֹן, commonly translated as the ‘Angry Lion’ or ‘Lion of Wrath.’ This paper will seek to analyze the references to the כְּפִיר הֶחָרוֹן throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls in order to determine the identity and function of this character throughout the literature.
The term כְּפִיר הֶחָרוֹן appears three times in the Dead Sea Scrolls, once in 4QpHosb (4Q167), the Hosea Pesher, and twice in 4QpNah (4Q169), the Nahum Pesher. This term has been translated in several ways. Martinez and Tigchelaar, for example, translate the term כְּפִיר הֶחָרוֹן as ‘Angry Lion.’[2] Wise, Abegg, and Cook translate כְּפִיר הֶחָרוֹן as ‘the Lion of Wrath,’ as does Charlesworth.[3] Weigold, however, translates כְּפִיר הֶחָרוֹן as ‘the Young Lion of Wrath,’ while Vermes prefers the translation ‘furious young lion.’[4]
Perhaps the best translation for the term כְּפִיר הֶחָרוֹן is the one used by Vermes. As Berrin notes, “the word הֶחָרוֹן derives from the root הֶחָר, to burn, which is most commonly used in the Bible as a metaphor to denote burning anger.”[5] The word ‘angry’ does adequately convey the meaning behind הֶחָרוֹן, but the word ‘furious’ seems to be a more accurate representation of the nuances of burning anger implicit in the term הֶחָרוֹן. In addition, the term כְּפִיר is most accurately translated as ‘young lion.’ The general term that refers to adult lions throughout the Hebrew Bible is אַרְיֵה.[6] In addition, the term כְּפִיר is distinct from גֻּר, which is the term used for a lion cub or whelp.[7] The term כְּפִיר refers to a lion that is considered “old enough to hunt its prey” without being considered a fully grown adult.[8] ‘Furious young lion’ or ‘raging young lion’ are thus better translations of the term כְּפִיר הֶחָרוֹן.
The Hosea Pesher does not say much about the ‘furious young lion.’ The text interprets the function of this character in light of the ending of Hosea 5:13, which says “[but he cannot heal] your sores.”[9] It is unclear how much more text of Hosea 5:13 the author of the Hosea Pesher uses, but in its original context the person who is unable to heal the wounds of the Israelites is “the great king” of Assyria. Hosea thus “lays bare the vanity of seeking help and health by adjusting national politics to the might of Assyria” because “Yahweh, not the Assyrian, is the ultimate source of their wound…and he alone can heal them.”[10]
At first glance, it is unclear here if the author of the text believes the ‘furious young lion’ corresponds to ‘the great king’ of Hosea 5:13 or if he corresponds to the characterization of Yahweh in the wider context of Hosea 5:13 as a lion that comes to bring destruction to the people.[11] If the former interpretation is correct, then the ‘furious young lion’ is best seen as a negative character, someone that the community at Qumran cannot rely on to help advance their cause or “heal their sores.” However, if the latter interpretation is correct, then the ‘furious young lion’ mentioned in the first line of the column corresponds to “the last priest who will stretch out his hand to strike Ephraim,” who is mentioned in the next line of the column, and is likely considered the means by which God will bring judgment to the Jewish religious authorities opposed to the community at Qumran.[12] This interpretation is likely correct, as it makes better sense of both the immediate context in the text here and the context of its base text in the book of Hosea, where God is said to be “like a lion to Ephraim, and like a young lion to the hosue of Judah.”[13]
The Nahum Pesher includes two references to the ‘furious young lion,’ both in the first column of fragments 3 and 4. The text interprets the role of the ‘young furious lion’ in light of Nahum 2:13, in which the lion “catches” and “tears prey apart,” filling “his cave [with prey] and his den with spoils.”[14] In the original context of Nahum, the prophet uses “the image of the lion” to function “as a metaphor for Assyria.”[15] As the next verse implies, “the lion of Assyria” faces the impending “day of reckoning” at the hands of Yahweh, who will “burn [their] chariots in smoke,” “devour [their] young lions,” and cause “the voice of [their] messengers” to “be heard no more.”[16] The author of the text describes the ‘young furious lion’ as a person “who struck [the simple folk of Ephraim] with his nobles and the men of his counsel.”[17] In addition, the ‘young furious lion’ fills “[his den with a mass of corpses, carrying out rev]enge against those looking for easy interpretations” and “who hanged living men [from the tree.]”[18] Furthermore, the ‘young furious lion’ has “gangs of soldiers,” “nobles [and the members of his council,]” and his actions enable him to obtain “the wealth which [the priests of Jerusalem accu]mulated.”[19]
Here the ‘furious young lion’ clearly fills a role as the instrument by which Yahweh brings judgment to “[the simple folk of Ephraim,]” which are likely Israelites who are opposed to the teachings of the community at Qumran.[20] These are people that the author describes as “looking for easy interpretations,” which most likely means that they did not follow the strict interpretations of the Torah common to the sectarian community at Qumran.[21] While the ‘furious young lion’ brings judgment to this group of people, the text seems to imply that the ‘furious young lion’ will not escape the judgment of God either, which follows the narrative of Nahum 2:13 in its original context. Here the author claims that the “throng,” “cubs,” and “spoils,” of the ‘young furious lion,’ interpreted as “his gangs of soldiers,” “his nobles [and the members of his council,]” and “the wealth which [the priests of Jerusalem accu]mulated,” will be burnt, consumed, and eradicated “[from the earth.]”[22] The text, however, breaks off before it can describe the nature of this destruction in more detail, and the next column of the text focuses on “those looking for easy interpretations,” instead of the ‘young furious lion.’ This makes it difficult to determine exactly the author believes God will strike down the ‘young furious lion.’
Based on an analysis of both 4QpHosb and 4QpNah, the role of the ‘young furious lion’ seems to be similar throughout each text. The different passages using this term should all be thought of as referring to the same person. The translation of כְּפִיר הֶחָרוֹן as “raging lion” in the Hosea Pesher and “Angry Lion” in the Nahum Pesher is therefore misleading.[23] Due to the fragmentary nature of the Hosea Pesher, however, the only direct correspondence between the ‘young furious lion’ in each text is that he strikes Ephraim.[24] It is not entirely unreasonable to see the ‘young furious lion’ of the Hosea Pesher as functioning in much the same role as the character does in the Nahum Pesher, which describes the ‘young furious lion’ in greater detail.
Scholars have debated the exact identity of the ‘young furious lion’ since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Unlike the identities behind more vague terms such as the Teacher of Righteousness, scholars have developed a consensus about the identity of the ‘young furious lion,’ based in large part on the specific historical references found earlier in the first column of fragments 3 and 4 of the Nahum Pesher. As Yadin notes, the Nahum Pesher “is the only document…which refers to an historical event the interpretation of which most scholars are in agreement.”[25] This is because the majority of other sectarian documents rely on names like the Wicked Priest and the Teacher of Righteousness instead of using actual names, which the author does here.
For example, the author of the Nahum Pesher interprets Nahum 2:12 as referring to “[Deme]trius, king of Yavan, who wanted to enter Jerusalem on the advice of those looking for easy interpretations.”[26] The text also refers to another “king of Yavan” called Antiochus, as well as to a group known as the Kittim, identified by many scholars as the Romans.[27] Scholars identify the Demetrius mentioned here as “Demetrius III Eukairos, the king of Seleucid Syria, who invaded the Holy Land in 88 B.C.E.”[28] As Cross notes, the adversary of Demetrius III Eukairos “was Alexander Jannaeus, the priest-king of Judaea from 103-76 B.C.”[29] This makes identifying the ‘furious young lion’ as Jannaeus the most plausible interpretation of the text. Scholars, furthermore, identify Ephraim in this text as the Pharisees, who were opposed to Jannaeus (as well as the sectarian community at Qumran).[30]
The identification of the ‘young furious lion’ as Jannaeus makes sense in light of the historical record. Jannaeus, for example, was a cruel ruler, and, as Cook notes, “some of [his subjects, the Pharisees] even went so far as to invite a foreign king Demetrius into the country to help them overthrow him.”[31] The author of the Hosea Pesher is therefore interpreting “Hos 5:13, ‘then Ephraim went to Assyria,’ as referring to the invitation the Pharisees extended to Demetrius III,” even though, according to the author, “ultimately he could not cure them, nor heal their wounds.”[32] Jannaeus defeated Demetrius III in battle—ironically enough with the help of some Pharisees that perhaps thought Jannaeus was the lesser of two evils. According to historians, he “took revenge on the Jewish rebels and crucified eight hundred of them—an even that Josephus records with horror.”[33] This corresponds to the ‘young furious lion,’ who the author of the Nahum Pesher tells us “hanged living men [from the tree]” and “[who filled his den with a mass of corpses].”[34] For the Pharisees, Demetrius III Eukairos was not a comforting source who healed wounds, as he was unable to prevent Alexander Jannaeus, the ‘furious young lion,’ from further subjecting them to further persecution.
While Jannaeus is the instrument by which God brings punishment to the Pharisees, described as “those looking for easy interpretations,” he does not escape the criticism of the community at Qumran. As Dabrowa points out, the “few cases” in which the authors of the sectarian literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls discuss the Hasmoneans function “only to condemn them as those Judean rulers whose actions contributed to a decline of religious life.”[35] This is true in both the Hosea Pesher and the Nahum Pesher, where the main criticism is leveled against the people of Ephraim and the people who are “looking for easy interpretations.” Alexander Jannaeus, as the ‘furious young lion,’ serves to bring judgment to those who do not keep the strict interpretations of the Torah taught by the community at Qumran. Nevertheless, as the Nahum Pesher implies, the “throng,” “cubs,” and “spoils” of Jannaeus were burned up, consumed by the sword, and eradicated.[36] As historians note, later “the Pharasaic faction came into its own, exercising almost unopposed authority,” eventually instituting “their own reign of terror against the opposition.”[37] God may have used the ‘furious young lion’ to punish the enemies of the community at Qumran, but the lion would eventually receive punishment as well.
Several scholars have raised some concerns about the consensus view concerning the identity of the ‘furious young lion’ as Alexander Jannaeus. Weigold, for example, notes that “while the historical identifications of both ‘Demetrius, king of Greece’ (3-4 i 2) with the Seleucid ruler Demetrius III Eukairos (94-88 B.C.E.) and of the ‘Young Lion of Wrath’ (3-4 i 5) with Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.E.) are widely accepted, the literary equations are less clear.”[38] Berrin, for example, notes that the ‘lion’ mentioned in the quote from Nahum 2:12 can refer to either Demetrius or “those looking for easy interpretations.”[39] Berrin also claims that the second reference to lion, based out of Nahum 2:13, could refer to either Demetrius or the ‘furious young lion’ mentioned throughout the passage.[40] Weigold notes that this is a complicating factor, as the lion of “Nah 2:12-13 is identified with two different figures” in the Nahum Pesher.[41] Weigold does not see this as a problem, as he notes that both interpretations of the lion “were certainly considered valid by the ancient commentator” despite not being “consistent from a modern point of view.”[42] Weigold and Berrin complicate the reading of the Nahum Pesher, forcing scholars to consider the possibility of multiple valid interpretations of the ‘furious young lion,’ some of which are not about Alexander Jannaeus. Their findings, however, do not seriously challenge the identification of the ‘furious young lion’ as Alexander Jannaeus, at least on some level.
Palumbo, however, believes the ‘furious young lion’ of the Nahum Pesher and Hosea Pesher refers to “Gessius Florus, the last governor of Judea before the revolt,” who was governor between 64-66 C.E.[43] Palumbo identifies Florus as the ‘furious young lion’ because he interprets the ‘furious young lion’ of the Nahum Pesher and Hosea Pesher as “the third and last lion.”[44] Palumbo interprets the reference to Nahum 2:13, which states that “the lion catches enough for his cubs,” as well as the references to the ‘furious young lion’ in its interpretation as a reference to three separate lions.[45] According to Palumbo, the first lion must be Antiochus VII Sidetes, the lion cub must be Demetrius III Eukairos, and the ‘furious young lion’ must be Florus.[46] Palumbo claims it makes more sense to see Florus as the third and final lion instead of Jannaeus because, like the first two lions, he is a Gentile, and this makes the interpretation of the passage more consistent.[47]