Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[Ishtar]

Unless you didn't want to be associated with them if they were found.

My point to both you and Min is: what evidence do you have that they were buried as the result of any Smackdown?

None, isn't that what makes it fun to fight about?

Yes!

[seeker]

I didn't realize i had a Jerusalem Temple idea.

I tend to think that that site was likely a hasmonean fort used to house a bunch of scribes but I'm not married to the idea.

I only ask because I'm trying to see what significance you put in the Dead Sea Scrolls being an Essene library.

Oh no, I'm so sorry, Seeker. I thought I was replying to Min!

OK, in that case I can be a bit nicer because I'm not replying to someone who is totally stubborn and totally wedded to one idea (unlike the one idea I am stubbornly wedded to! )

So to you I can admit that I have no idea who wrote the scrolls or who buried them, and I don't think anyone else has. So my point only is that we cannot rule out the Essenes, because on the state of the evidence we have, nothing can be ruled out and nothing can be ruled in.

Interestingly, to move us off this (because Min and I are capable of slugging this one out forever and it will get deadly dull) here's another angle.

Why were they buried in the caves of Qumran?

Well, according to Copper Scroll, they were buried all over Israel and not just manuscripts but buried treasure too - although it's not worth much!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls

Cave 3

One of the most curious scrolls is the Copper Scroll. Discovered in Cave 3, this scroll records a list of 67 underground hiding places throughout the land of Israel. According to the scroll, the deposits contain certain amounts of gold, silver, aromatics, and manuscripts. These are believed to be treasures from the Temple at Jerusalem that were hidden away for safekeeping. The Copper Scroll is currently being translated and the first two sections reveal the location of gold ingots and silver in the form of Shekels (a coin used in Israel in ancient times). According to Biblical Currency is equal to .364 oz. (troy). In a value of silver, it is equal to $7.28. As for gold, it is equal to $364.

So most of these hiding places have not yet been found.

Hate to break this to you but the value of the treasure that the copper scroll is supposed to point to is estimated in excess of a couple of billion US dollars.

I'm pretty sure there are people riding around in the desert right now looking for the fabled silver scroll. The good news is that its probably a work of fiction.

Why can be a fun question, so much depends on who buried them.

[Minimalist]

Why would they want to marry their animals?

If we allow for planning and say that they were taking their time transferring them there then again we can say anyone put them there.

Why is it so important that Essenes put them there, Ish?

I said above that they "could have", Ish (you're being dense again) but it seems decidedly silly for them to do so. Why would someone sitting in Ein Gedi suddenly decide that Titus was going to wear out horses coming to attack them? It is not a major military target whereas Jerusalem was the seat of the rebellion. Surely, you can't be equating the two in military terms?

We have reason to believe that there would have been something resembling a library in Herod's temple. Davies does a whole chapter on the uses of literacy in ancient societies. Try to put yourself in the role of the custodian of that library. You could sit on your ass and do nothing...allowing them to be destroyed when the Romans take the city or, you could look to evacuate them and you would be of a sufficient rank to organize such an expedition. Either possibility is plausible. A librarian might feel that his responsibility to the books was such that he had to risk the wrath of the zealots by moving them to safety. He might just as well think that it would be considered defeatist or treasonous to move them to safety and would be in fear of his life if the zealots found out. The only real facts we have are that these are texts, the latest of which date to the early first century AD, which are Jewish and which someone successfully hid in the caves of Qumran. That's all we know. Everything else is conjecture.

If we actually had any evidence that the Qumran collection belonged to the Essenes it would be different. But all we have is de Vaux's scenario which Magen and Peleg have trashed.

[Minimalist]

The tone of the writing reflects an elite group which believes that it alone holds the correct understanding of YHWH's plan for the universe

Excuse me but every religious group thinks that....from the RCC right down to Westboro Baptist Church.

[seeker]

Unlikely it was any kind of official library Min, unless it was Roman. I don't think they would have kept Apophryca.

[Minimalist]

Again, who knows? Let's not automatically assume that the prejudices of modern christians applied to ancient jews.

There is apparently quite a lot of non-religious material included in the scrolls.

http://www.stateofprotest.com/blog/2008 ... a-scrolls/

Scholars assume the scrolls complete part of an ambiguous historical period that coincides with early Jewish history. Only about 25% of the texts are considered biblical as all of the books of the Hebrew bible are contained within the scrolls except the book of Esther (noted by Shanks to be the only book which does not reference God – which by implication was either intentionally deleted from the collection or just coincidentally missing). The remainders are considered non-biblical in the sense that they are not canonical texts of any particular bible. The texts appear to reference various genres but include hymns, psalms, legal theories, non-religious literature and more. The Dead Sea Scrolls constitute a library, just not an entirely religious library.

[Ishtar]

Why would they want to marry their animals?

If we allow for planning and say that they were taking their time transferring them there then again we can say anyone put them there.

Why is it so important that Essenes put them there, Ish?

I said above that they "could have", Ish (you're being dense again) but it seems decidedly silly for them to do so.

Please don't call me 'dense', Min. There is no need to be insulting just because we disagree. I'm not Arch.

You may say that 'they could have" - but you have another scenario in mind that is equally plausible, except you are pushing that idea as if it is more plausible - and it isn't.

Why would someone sitting in Ein Gedi suddenly decide that Titus was going to wear out horses coming to attack them? It is not a major military target whereas Jerusalem was the seat of the rebellion. Surely, you can't be equating the two in military terms?

Who said anything about a military attack? There are many reasons for burying documents. The ones that were buried at Nag Hammadi were done so after Bishop Athanasius condemned the uncritical use of non-canonical books in his Festal Letter of 367 AD, for instance. But that's just one instance ... there are many others.

Is it because you are stuck on the fort? But the fort is not as old as some of the documents that were found in caves, some 1000 meters from the fort. Someone could have thought to themselves:

"I know. I'll bury these scrolls in those caves, those really remote ones that we used to like to go and meditate in because they are so remote. No-one ever goes there, and so the scrolls will never be found there. On top of that, being near the Dead Sea, the enviroment will be very salty, and salt is a great preservative. So that's the ideal place."

But then a few decades after they'd buried them,

"Oh drat. They've just built a fort there!".

The Copper Scroll tells us that there are scrolls buried all over Israel. The Nag Hammadi location also seems to have been chosen for its remoteness and there was no fort there.

The fort could well be a red herring.

We have reason to believe that there would have been something resembling a library in Herod's temple.

Hmmm, "we have reason to believe..". Sounds like it's not definite then. Whereas we know the Essenes definitely had many sacred books because Josephus tells us so.

Davies does a whole chapter on the uses of literacy in ancient societies. Try to put yourself in the role of the custodian of that library. You could sit on your ass and do nothing...allowing them to be destroyed when the Romans take the city or, you could look to evacuate them and you would be of a sufficient rank to organize such an expedition. Either possibility is plausible. A librarian might feel that his responsibility to the books was such that he had to risk the wrath of the zealots by moving them to safety. He might just as well think that it would be considered defeatist or treasonous to move them to safety and would be in fear of his life if the zealots found out. The only real facts we have are that these are texts, the latest of which date to the early first century AD, which are Jewish and which someone successfully hid in the caves of Qumran. That's all we know. Everything else is conjecture.

Of course that is plausible. But so are many other scenarios. We know the Essenes had a library too, and thus probably an equally conscientious librarian - and they lived a lot nearer to the caves at Qumran.

The only real facts we have are that these are texts, the latest of which date to the early first century AD, which are Jewish and which someone successfully hid in the caves of Qumran. That's all we know. Everything else is conjecture.

Exactly, and that's my only point. Anyone could have buried these scrolls and that 'anyone' includes the Essenes.


By the way, you said earlier that if the Essenes had brought the scrolls by ox-cart along the 20 miles of unmade-up roads, it would have taken about five days. Min, you have obviously never travelled in an ox-cart. I have, along unmade up roads in southern India, and I can tell you that 20 miles along unmade-up roads by ox-cart takes considerably less than a day.

If we actually had any evidence that the Qumran collection belonged to the Essenes it would be different. But all we have is de Vaux's scenario which Magen and Peleg have trashed.

We have much more than de Vaux's scenario which you keep racing back to, but which no-one here is referring to. You have also yet to show here how Magen and Peleg have trashed anything. They say nothing spiritual could have gone on there, because whoever lived also made pots? Please...

[Ishtar]

Again, who knows? Let's not automatically assume that the prejudices of modern christians applied to ancient jews.

There is apparently quite a lot of non-religious material included in the scrolls.

It would be interesting to see what the authors of that article mean by 'non-religious material' as a lot of what we consider non-religious was part of the spiritual remit in those times - e.g medicine, astronomy, mathematics ... even architecture.

[Ishtar]

Seeker, can we go back to this?

Ish - I've been re-thinking your 'Sons of Zadok = Sadducees' equation in the Dead Sea Scrolls discussion more and more. One interesting thing about Qumran is that some scholars think it may have been a sort of wealthy retreat or an individual's property. What if Qumran is where the scribes who wrote the OT actually worked on it? The Dead Sea Scrolls could well be rough drafts, including bits that were rejected, of what became the Septuagent.

My thinking here is that the whole Maccabeean paradigm was this notion of restoring the Kingdom of God which worked well with the Teacher of Righteousness theme but in the end taking on the role of Messiah was just a step they weren't willing to take.

Seeker, I'd like to have another go at this, because I've just realised that I got distracted and didn't answer this properly.

We've already discussed that those who buried the scrolls need not have been the writers of them, or even necessarily agree with the writings.

Therefore, we can happily discuss the Damacus Document in isolation, whose authors are thought to be Zadokites.

I think the Teacher of Righteousness idea may be something else entirely, and also explain why the Sadducees have been connected to Sons of Zadok.

There is a school of thought that the Sons of Zadok were followers of the Canaanite Zedek (Jupiter or Zeus) and Melchizedek, which is translated as King of Zedek or King of Righteousness when Zedek is connected to righteousness. Melchizedek shows up in all the Jewish literature as a very early patriach, and he also blesses in the name of El Elyon, giving him another Canaanite connection.

So who we have translated as the Teacher of Righteousness (Moreh Zedek) may actually mean Teacher of Zedek, which eventually became Teacher of Zadok, in other words, the teacher of Zadok's lore, or Zadokism which derives from Melchizedek.

The Sadducees' name in Hebrew was Tzedukim. Zedek was also sometimes written as Tzedek, which is West Semetic for Justice (Justice is commonly associated with Jupiter/Zeus).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zedek

So my point is, whether the Sadducees were fat and rich and settled, and the Sons of Zadok were thin, hungry and outsiders - all were probably followers of Melchizedek. And so they would be linked by their spiritual beliefs rather than their lifestyles - in the same way that you get rich bishops and poor Christians.

That the Christian story was originally put together by followers of Melchizedek, is given away by Zadok being in Jesus's lineage in Matthew. Again, in Hebrews, Jesus is referred to as a priest in the line of Melchizedek. There is also a Gnostic text, found at Nag Hammadi, which I haven't seen, but purportedly has the Jesus story but with Melchizedek in the role of Jesus.

[seeker]

Again, who knows? Let's not automatically assume that the prejudices of modern christians applied to ancient jews.

There is apparently quite a lot of non-religious material included in the scrolls.

http://www.stateofprotest.com/blog/2008 ... a-scrolls/

Scholars assume the scrolls complete part of an ambiguous historical period that coincides with early Jewish history. Only about 25% of the texts are considered biblical as all of the books of the Hebrew bible are contained within the scrolls except the book of Esther (noted by Shanks to be the only book which does not reference God – which by implication was either intentionally deleted from the collection or just coincidentally missing). The remainders are considered non-biblical in the sense that they are not canonical texts of any particular bible. The texts appear to reference various genres but include hymns, psalms, legal theories, non-religious literature and more. The Dead Sea Scrolls constitute a library, just not an entirely religious library.

Non biblical doesn't mean non-religious but i do take your point. We are talking about a society that forcibly converted its citizens to Judaism though so I doubt dissent was tolerated all that much.

[seeker]

Seeker, can we go back to this?

Ish - I've been re-thinking your 'Sons of Zadok = Sadducees' equation in the Dead Sea Scrolls discussion more and more. One interesting thing about Qumran is that some scholars think it may have been a sort of wealthy retreat or an individual's property. What if Qumran is where the scribes who wrote the OT actually worked on it? The Dead Sea Scrolls could well be rough drafts, including bits that were rejected, of what became the Septuagent.

My thinking here is that the whole Maccabeean paradigm was this notion of restoring the Kingdom of God which worked well with the Teacher of Righteousness theme but in the end taking on the role of Messiah was just a step they weren't willing to take.

Seeker, I'd like to have another go at this, because I've just realised that I got distracted and didn't answer this properly.

We've already discussed that those who buried the scrolls need not have been the writers of them, or even necessarily agree with the writings.

Therefore, we can happily discuss the Damacus Document in isolation, whose authors are thought to be Zadokites.

I think the Teacher of Righteousness idea may be something else entirely, and also explain why the Sadducees have been connected to Sons of Zadok.

There is a school of thought that the Sons of Zadok were followers of the Canaanite Zedek (Jupiter or Zeus) and Melchizedek, which is translated as King of Zedek or King of Righteousness when Zedek is connected to righteousness. Melchizedek shows up in all the Jewish literature as a very early patriach, and he also blesses in the name of El Elyon, giving him another Canaanite connection.

So who we have translated as the Teacher of Righteousness (Moreh Zedek) may actually mean Teacher of Zedek, which eventually became Teacher of Zadok, in other words, the teacher of Zadok's lore, or Zadokism which derives from Melchizedek.

The Sadducees' name in Hebrew was Tzedukim. Zedek was also sometimes written as Tzedek, which is West Semetic for Justice (Justice is commonly associated with Jupiter/Zeus).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zedek

So my point is, whether the Sadducees were fat and rich and settled, and the Sons of Zadok were thin, hungry and outsiders - all were probably followers of Melchizedek. And so they would be linked by their spiritual beliefs rather than their lifestyles - in the same way that you get rich bishops and poor Christians.

That the Christian story was originally put together by followers of Melchizedek, is given away by Zadok being in Jesus's lineage in Matthew. Again, in Hebrews, Jesus is referred to as a priest in the line of Melchizedek. There is also a Gnostic text, found at Nag Hammadi, which I haven't seen, but purportedly has the Jesus story but with Melchizedek in the role of Jesus.

That's an interesting idea, especially in light of Zedek's possible connection to Zeus or Jupiter. This could almost be read as a suggestion that Sons of Zeus (ie Greeks) were the teachers of righteousness which is the kind of pun the authors of the bible had fun with.

the Sons of Zadok were never hungry, at least as the bible portrays it, remember its always the victors that write the histories. As to them writing the Christian story I wouldn't agree with that. While they create a Messiah very similar to Christ he is ultimately Jewish.

[Ishtar]

But the Zadokites/Sadducees saw themselves as the original Jews, who were banished from Jerusalem when it split into two kingdoms. They were, in fact, the lost tribes of Israel. So why wouldn't they create a Jewish or Israelite hero, one in the line of Melchizedek, the original patriarch who blessed Abraham? One who would restore them to their rightful place in Jerusalem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek

Jerusalem is possibly referred to as city of Zedek (ir ha-zedek) in the Book of Isaiah[3], as well as home of Zedek (neweh zedek) in the Book of Jeremiah[4] and as gates of Zedek (sha'are zedek) in the Book of Psalms[5], though in each of these cases zedek is usually, and equally plausibly, translated as righteous (as in city of righteousness.)

In the Damascus Document, the Zadokites talk of their own messiah, coming to bring the new covenant:

"Nevertheless, in all of their generations He has ever raised up for Himself duly designated men .... and to these has He ever revealed His holy spirit at the hands of His anointed and has ever disclosed the truth.”

It could almost be John the Baptist speaking.

In their writings, the Zadokites are certain of the coming of the Messianic Age and the advent of a wondrous child who would dazzle his elders.

Theodore Gaster says in The Dead Sea Scriptures:

“It is a prediction of a birth of the Wondrous Child, characterised as “the chosen of God” and of the events which will ensure thereafter. The child will bear (like Krishna and Buddha) special marks on his body, and will be distinguished by precocious wisdom and intelligence. He will be able to prove the secrets of all living creatures, and no schemes against him will succeed.”

[seeker]

I think that was something they had to be pretty careful about. in the politically charged atmosphere of the time I think they couldn't risk pushing their claims so far that they'd alienate followers. Don't forget that the Sadducees were not what the people regarded as pious, they were the ones profiting from Greek rule

[Ishtar]

Well, yes, but remember the scrolls containing these stories and themes that were very Christian-like were actually hidden - and so that's maybe why. They were heretic writings that were anathema to the Pharisees, and thus the hiding of them would have had nothing to do with any Roman smackdowns!

In fact, the Temple Scroll is very critical of the status quo in Jerusalem.

I have made this next point before, but will do so again in this context, just to remind ourselves.

Theodore Gaster again:

“No less interesting ... are the many parallels which these texts afford with the organisation of the primitive Christian church. The community calls itself by the same name (‘edah) as was used by the early Christians of Palestine to designate its legislative assembly as was used by that community to denote the council of the Church. There are twelve ‘men of holiness’ who act as general guides of the community – a remarkable correspondence with the Twelve Apostles. These men have three superiors, answering to the designation of John, Peter and James as the three pillars of the church.”

Gaster continues that the Damascus Document says, of the council:

“When these exist in Israel, these are the provisions whereby they are to be kept apart from any consort with forward men, to the end that they may indeed ‘go into the wilderness to prepare the way”, i.e. do what the Scripture enjoins when it says, “Prepare in the wilderness the way .... make straight in the desert a highway for our God [Isaiah 40:3]

As Gaster says, the same quotation is used by John the Baptist (Matt. 3:3; John 1:23).

Gaster also points out that the Manual of Discipline and Damascus Document are similar to the Christian texts called the Didache, the Didascalia Apostolorum and the Apostolic Constitutions of the early Church organisation.

One telling point – among the Dead Sea Scrolls were found the Christian Epistle of Barnabas and writings from Justin Martyr. Justin Martyr is dated to 100 – 165 CE. So they must have continued to use the Qumran caves as a hiding place for 'heretic' scrolls up to at least the mid-first century, or even later.

[Minimalist]

Who said anything about a military attack?

Titus gathered 4 legions, and equal number of auxiliaries and some allied troops after his father was made emperor, Ish. They were not there for the Annual Legionary Picnic. The Nag Hamadi texts were buried by a group, or perhaps a single member of a group, who did have a reasonable expectation of an attack by the religious powers-that-be (there were plenty of examples of book-burning and persecution of non-literalist christians for them to note) it seems that someone sitting in Ein Gedi and thinking that Titus was coming for them is a bit nutty, to say the least.

So to answer your question, I raised the issue of a military attack and one suspects it was the main topic of conversation on the streets of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This was not going to be Pearl Harbor. The Romans weren't hiding their intentions, in fact, they were advertising them. The general consensus is that someone hid the scrolls in those caves. One hides something to protect it from danger. In 70 AD it wasn't hard to see where that danger was coming from.