Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
146 Review of Books / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 94-151 Determinism and Petitionary Prayer in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Ideological Reading of John and the Rule of the Community (1QS) . By Emmanuel O. Tukasi. (Library of Second Temple Studies 66). London and New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Pp. xiii, 166. Hardback. £60.00 / US$ 120.00. ISBN 978-0-567-03346-8. The book is the revised version of a PhD thesis at King’s College, London. Tukasi examines petitionary prayer and its role in the deterministic outlooks of John and the Community Rule from Qumran. The introduction provides brief information about the genres of the two texts, previous scholarship and an overview of bibli- cal determinism and petitionary prayers. In ch. 2 the determinism of the Com- munity Rule is examined based on 1QS 3-4, the introduction (1QS 1) and the rules (1QS 5-9). T. argues that determinism here is limited to the world structure and that being part of light or darkness depends on choice alone. Ch. 3 studies the petitionary prayers in the Covenant Liturgy (1QS 1.24-2.4) and concludes that these prayers of confession do not contradict any deterministic outlook but acknowledge the evil of the life before joining the community. Ch. 4 and 5 focus on the determinism and petitionary prayer of John. Accord- ing to T. determinism in the gospel serves to emphasise that the Johannine believ- ers derive from God, and the petitionary prayers of the Son extend to the elect only. Ch. 6 compares the two texts. T. stresses the difference in the object of God’s determinism: in 1QS the cosmic order, in John the human being. Petition- ary prayer in both conforms to the parameters set by God’s order, and both texts use determinism to separate their communities as “objects of the eternal love of God” (140) from their social environment. Based on these results for T. the mere existence of determism does not support any tradition historical dependence between the texts. A final conclusion briefly summarises the results of the study. The study attempts to cover a broad topic, but its execution falls short on account of its focus on the key-terms of the title. Thus T. identifies predestina- tion and determinism (14), but ignores the large number of studies on predesti- nation in Qumran and in John. The discussion of 1QS does not take into account that it consists of different layers of tradition, although T.’s distinction between soteriological and cosmological determinism in different parts of 1QS could lead in a similar direction. An awareness of different traditions might enable him to identify similar deterministic approaches in certain parts of 1QS and John. There are also other imprecisions in the book, thus sources mentioned in headings are not discussed in the text (1QS11.15-17 in Chapter 3 A.2, 71-78). Altogether T. tackles a large and interesting task, but the book is visibly hin- dered by the limitations of the word count of a PhD thesis. J. Leonhardt-Balzer University of Aberdeen © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/004722110X12580098291116
Journal for the Study of Judaism – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 2010
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.