Archaeologica.org

seeker wrote:

Ishtar wrote:Is his the only eye witness account to that, Seeker?

That I know of other than the bible.

But as my previous post shows, people do believe it and take it seriously.

Ishtar wrote:On top of that, there was the mass suicide at Masada, where hundreds of Zealots killed themselves.

This from a Psychoanalytic History of the Jews by Avner Falk.



National suicide is a very strong term, if it's referring to something that's not true or never happened.

Another event we only know of from Josephus. As it is quite a few historians think it was an invention by Josephus. In any case they supposedly kill themselves during a Roman siege.

You're right about the Zealots quarreling among themselves in a power play.

It begins in The Jewish War, Book V 1



http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /war5.html

For Eleazar, the son of Simon, who made the first separation of the zealots from the people, and made them retire into the temple, appeared very angry at John's insolent attempts, which he made everyday upon the people; for this man never left off murdering; but the truth was, that he could not bear to submit to a tyrant who set up after him. So he being desirous of gaining the entire power and dominion to himself, revolted from John, and took to his assistance Judas the son of Chelcias, and Simon the son of Ezron, who were among the men of greatest power. There was also with him Hezekiah, the son of Chobar, a person of eminence. Each of these were followed by a great many of the zealots; these seized upon the inner court of the temple (1) and laid their arms upon the holy gates, and over the holy fronts of that court. And because they had plenty of provisions, they were of good courage, for there was a great abundance of what was consecrated to sacred uses, and they scrupled not the making use of them; yet were they afraid, on account of their small number; and when they had laid up their arms there, they did not stir from the place they were in. Now as to John, what advantage he had above Eleazar in the multitude of his followers, the like disadvantage he had in the situation he was in, since he had his enemies over his head; and as he could not make any assault upon them without some terror, so was his anger too great to let them be at rest; nay, although he suffered more mischief from Eleazar and his party than he could inflict upon them, yet would he not leave off assaulting them, insomuch that there were continual sallies made one against another, as well as darts thrown at one another, and the temple was defiled every where with murders.

BTW, a bit later in paragraph 3, Josephus makes this statement which is his rationale for the destruction of the temple.

and those of profane persons with those of the priests, and the blood of all sorts of dead carcasses stood in lakes in the holy courts themselves. And now, "O must wretched city, what misery so great as this didst thou suffer from the Romans, when they came to purify thee from thy intestine hatred! 'For thou couldst be no longer a place fit for God, nor couldst thou long continue in being, after thou hadst been a sepulcher for the bodies of thy own people, and hadst made the holy house itself a burying-place in this civil war of thine. Yet mayst thou again grow better, if perchance thou wilt hereafter appease the anger of that God who is the author of thy destruction."

Note that unlike Origen's 3d century assertion that Josephus called the death of James "the Just" as the reason for the destruction of the temple he clearly says that god did it because of the defilement of the temple by the zealots.

So I think, if the scrolls were buried at that time (which is uncertain and only an assumption) it would have been more as a result of religious infighting, and one sect appearing at one time to be gainng the upper hand over another, than any Roman Smackdown.

Certainly possible and it doesn't matter if the threat came from the offensive or the defensive side of the war. Look at it from the zealots' point of view. They had the examples of Sepphoris and Tiberias as a warning. Sepphoris opened its gates to Vespasian's lieutenant Placidus and Tiberias surrendered without making a fight. Again, the same desire to avoid a sacking of the city could have led the zealots to crack down hard on the rest of the citizenry to prevent them from opening the gates to the Romans. One does have to wonder if the Zealots cared about religious writings in general but with the catastrophe going on inside the city in the run up to the siege it is completely possible that someone in charge of a library decided it was time to get them the hell out of Dodge.

Roman siege techniques were pretty well established by the late first century AD. The city would have been surrounded by siege works with the cavalry enforcing the siege until the works were finished. No ox cart train was going to evade such a blockade. So, whoever decided to save what they could made that decision before Titus arrived. I don't think it matters if the inspiration for the move was to protect the documents from Roman fire or Zealot fire. "Protection" was the goal.

I agree completely that the Romans couldn't have cared less once they took the city which faction was which. They knew what to do with rebels. Period.

Stalin ordered a scorched-earth campaign in front of the German invasion. Did it really matter to the farmers who lit the torches?

Ishtar wrote:

Minimalist wrote:Or Eusebius did.

But what would be Eusebius's motive?

He might have latched onto that whole putting-women-in-their-place thing which, as Ehrman notes, was one of the main doctrinal changes which was written into the NT by the early church.

Eusebius has a bad reputation because of the whole forgery of the Testimonium Flavianum thing. As the saying goes, 'when one lie is detected a thousand are suspected.' It more or less colors everything he writes.

On top of that, there was the mass suicide at Masada, where hundreds of Zealots killed themselves.

Josephus is also the only witness to Masada and there, witness has to be used carefully. Titus celebrated his triumph in Rome in 71 and Josephus was there to record it. There is no indication that he ever went back to Judaea...where he was considered a traitor.

So his recounting of the events at Masada are second hand at best although since the commander, Flavius Silva was a kinsman of Titus it is not inconceivable that Josephus got to speak to him.

Nonetheless, the account of the Zealots drawing lots sounds a lot like Josephus' own actions where he escaped from Jotapata and went over to the Romans. Call me suspicious.

BTW, the last thing that the defenders of Masada would have had to worry about was being enslaved. They would have been crucified to the last man. It's what the Romans did to rebels.

I am only a lurker, here but hasn’t there been a surprising lack of human remains found at Masada?

Romans practiced cremation as a general rule. Bodies of dead enemies would have surely gone into the fire.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19378819/

A new research paper published Friday takes another look at the remains of three people found at the site and given a state burial by Israel as Jewish heroes. The remains, the study says, could actually be those of the Jews' Roman enemies.

Why bury when you can burn.

The other factor is at least three of the scrolls are not the sort you'd expect to find in the Jewish temple.

The Temple Scroll is about the construction of a temple, but not the first one of Solomon, or the Second. Scholars say it reads like the temple that should have been built, not the one that was. It is also shows very strict purity laws, much stricter than would have been required by those in charge of the temple, and much more like those of the Zadokites.

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

Purity in the Temple Scroll

As mentioned above the Temple Scroll demands an extraordinary level of purity in all who even set foot in the city where the Temple stands, as per example, Column 45 (XLV), verses 11 and 12:
Anyone who lies with his wife and has an ejaculation, for three days shall not enter anywhere in the city of the temple in which I shall install my name.13

Such statements go beyond the requirements of Torah, Mishnah and Talmud in stating that sexual intercourse is not to be permitted at all in the city (obviously Jerusalem) where the new Temple will stand. An almost identical statement is found in the Damascus Document (also found at Qumran) Dead Sea Scrolls Document Ref. No. CD-A]:

Many of the texts appear to be critical of the status quo at the Jerusalem temple.

The Copper Scroll text describes buried treasure spread over 67 sites. But it can't have been the treasure of the Second Temple, because, according to Gaster, Josephus says that the treasure was still in the temple at the time of the Roman invasion.

And then of course we have the Zadokite Damascus Document.

I think the only sect that scholars are sure about, that are represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls, are the Zadokites.

Ishtar wrote:The other factor is at least three of the scrolls are not the sort you'd expect to find in the Jewish temple.

The Temple Scroll is about the construction of a temple, but not the first one of Solomon, or the Second. Scholars say it reads like the temple that should have been built, not the one that was. It is also shows very strict purity laws, much stricter than would have been required by those in charge of the temple, and much more like those of the Zadokites.

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

Purity in the Temple Scroll

As mentioned above the Temple Scroll demands an extraordinary level of purity in all who even set foot in the city where the Temple stands, as per example, Column 45 (XLV), verses 11 and 12:
Anyone who lies with his wife and has an ejaculation, for three days shall not enter anywhere in the city of the temple in which I shall install my name.13

Such statements go beyond the requirements of Torah, Mishnah and Talmud in stating that sexual intercourse is not to be permitted at all in the city (obviously Jerusalem) where the new Temple will stand. An almost identical statement is found in the Damascus Document (also found at Qumran) Dead Sea Scrolls Document Ref. No. CD-A]:

Many of the texts appear to be critical of the status quo at the Jerusalem temple.

The Copper Scroll text describes buried treasure spread over 67 sites. But it can't have been the treasure of the Second Temple, because, according to Gaster, Josephus says that the treasure was still in the temple at the time of the Roman invasion.

And then of course we have the Zadokite Damascus Document.

I think the only sect that scholars are sure about, that are represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls, are the Zadokites.

Actually the purity laws represented there are more like Zoroastrian, the Pharisees were probably more strict when it came to purity and were closer to Zoroastrian purity notions.

Since there probably wasn't a Solomonic Temple and i doubt judah was ever wealthy I think the treasure was fictional. Maybe they were making a stab at sending the Romans on a wild goose chase.

The Romans had been running the place on and off for 140 years. Surely, somewhere along the way they must have gained some insight into what was in the temple "treasury?" It's not the kind of thing that any ruler was likely to overlook.

True, I'm sure they would have grabbed anything really valuable

I forget the exact number, I think it was around 17 times that some invader or king dipped into the temple till to use the money for something.

Hard to build up the account with that many "withdrawals."

Wouldn't it be funny if the found the silver scroll, dug up all the locations where the treasure is supposed to be and found ancient IOU's.

All -

Just an update - albeit 1974 -

On a wellknown tradition

Of recreating the muthos, and logos.

In 'tother words, a morality tale, or play.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... lpit&hl=en

Those more adventurous may choose to read

Ed Dorn's Gunslinger cycle.


hoka hey


john