Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[seeker]

[Edit added afterwards] Seems like we were posting at the same time, Min, and I beat you to it on the Maccabees.

OK, well most people agree that these scrolls (known as the Zadokite Document or Damascus Rule) are the work of the Sons of Zadok, and that they discuss a "Righteous Teacher" who will lead the Sons of Zadok back to their rightful place.

According to the Damascus Document, God raised up the Righteous Teacher 390 years after the exile in order to restore Israel from its period of disobedience. This would be achieved through a faithful remnant to whom God had revealed his purposes. The majority of Israel will continue to disobey the law, but the Teacher will - through the priests and Levites who left their roles in the Jerusalem Temple and its establishment - restore the true sons of Zadok, the elect of Israel. The Damascus Document builds on the imagery of Yahweh's instruction to Moses at Beer (Num 21:18): the well from which they are to draw is the law; the stave is the interpreter of the law, and the nobles of the people are the faithful remnant (CD 7).

Howard C. Kee, "Membership in the Covenant People at Qumran and in the Teaching of Jesus" in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (James H. Charlesworth, Ed. - 1992), p. 109

Soooo....the date for the so-called Teacher of Righteousness is 187 BCE. The Jesus who led the charge on the temple on behalf of Antiochus was referred to as "a sage of Jerusalem" - could this not be the same guy 20 years later? Or could we be using the wrong dates for the exile - because there was more than one, it was staged, I believe, over a period?

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflec ... l#Teacher2

Scholars date the beginnings of the Babylonian exile to 597 BCE. If we calculate 390 years after the exile for the "period of wrath" and add the 20 years the sect was "groping on the road", we arrive at 187 B.C.E. for the advent of the Teacher of Righteousness. There were no significant historical events in Palestine during this time, although twenty years later the Jews revolted against their despotic Seleucid Greek ruler. Historians usually date the Teacher of Righteousness to around the beginning of the first century B.C.E., after the Maccabean victory against the Seuclid Greeks.

Ish - Actually if you read the text as 390 years after the exile then the dating would be from the end of the exile, around 538BCE rather than 587BCE so we'd be looking as late as 148BCE.

Anyway - Teacher of Righteousness aside - there is an even more interesting nugget to come from the Zadokite Document. Remember, whoever wrote it, it is definitely dated to well before the 1st century CE, when Jesus's life was supposed to have inspired a group of apostles, who had previously been fishermen, to establish churches in his honour.

This is from Theodore Gaster's The Dead Sea Scriptures:

[There] 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 an assembly to denote the council of the Church. There are 12 '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.

.

So again, we can see the embryo of an idea forming there that they or others could use as a basis for a story purporting to be historical fact later on.

I think its highly likely that early Christians co-opted any movement that fit into the 'history' they were creating. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that they heard rumors or saw documents (maybe even copies of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves) and incorporated that fiction into their own.

[Ishtar]

Yes, agreed Seeker.

Another interesting snippet - which shows that whoever these guys where, sons of Zadok or not, they were practising a mystery religion with a secret initiation:

my bolding

"There is a well-defined hierarchy: the Teacher is the venerated founder and prime interpreter of the law and of God's purpose for his people. Replacing him is the Master, or Guardian [Overseer], who is to be thirty to fifty years of age and whose responsibilities and powers are detailed in [Community Rule] 1QS. He must see to it that the will of God is obeyed, that revealed knowledge is meted out and that all are instructed in the mysteries, that the members of the community are evaluated, and that the truth is kept from outsiders."

- Howard C. Kee, "Membership in the Covenant People at Qumran and in the Teaching of Jesus" in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (James H. Charlesworth, Ed. - 1992), p. 109

[Ishtar]

Ish - Actually if you read the text as 390 years after the exile then the dating would be from the end of the exile, around 538BCE rather than 587BCE so we'd be looking as late as 148BCE.

This is what it actually says in the scroll:

And in the period of wrath, three hundred ninety years after He had handed it (the Temple) over to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylonia, He remembered them (Israel) and caused to grow from Israel and Aaron the root of a plant (i.e., the sect). Then they understood their transgression and knew that they were guilty. They were like blind (men) groping on the road for twenty years. Then God paid attention to their deeds for they sought Him whole-heartedly, and He set up for them a Teacher of Righteousness to direct them in the way of his (the teacher's) heart."

- Zadokite Fragments 1:5-11 (Damascus Document - Geniza manuscript A 1.4-10)

So we need the date of when Nebuchadnezzar took over the temple and add 20 years on to that.

[Ishtar]

This is interesting.

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflec ... ntity.html

"Brownlee (130) asserts that the Teacher of Righteousness arose shortly after the Maccabaeans gained victory according to the following scenario: John Hyrcannus 135-105 BC turned from the devout hasidim (holy ones) to the Sadducees. When he was rebuked by the Teacher, he persecuted the Teacher and inveigled the Pharisees into supporting him. His son Alexander Jannaeus 103-76 BC persecuted the Teacher who fled to the region of Damascus 'They drove me from my land like a bird from its nest; and all my neighbors and friends are driven far from me'."
- Chris King, "The Apocalyptic Tradition"

"In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness."
- Jeremiah 23:6

"The Essene [Yahad] founder called himself the Righteous Rabbi, a title close enough to Jeremiah's Yahweh's Righteousness to indicate that he saw himself as the messiah of Jeremiah's prophecy [c. 250?]. His followers accepted him as such and did not abandon that belief even after his execution in 103 B.C.E. [forty years after the death of Jonathan Maccabaeus] Rather than acknowledge that their messiah was totally and permanently dead, the Essenes [Yahad] maintained for the 170 more years that they remained in existence that their Righteous Rabbi would fulfill his messianic function of deposing the Hasmoneans (or, after 63 B.C.E., driving out the Romans) and making himself king of Judah, at the time of his 'Second Coming'."
- William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus

Were they both the same teacher? I'm wondering if Harwood is saying 'an Essene leader' because he's got this from the DD Scrolls which he assumes belonged to the Essenes. It could be the same Teacher of Righteousness from the Zadokite Document, and it looks like he was executed ....perhaps crucified?

[Minimalist]

The problem with Essenes in 187BC is that it would make them older than the doctrines which they were allegedly created to oppose. As noted earlier, both pharisees and sadduccees arise in the late 2d century...after the aforementioned Maccabaean revolt.

Prior to the revolt the typical attitude of the Seleucid Greeks towards Jerusalem would most likely have been "pay your taxes, follow orders and STFU." It is doubtful that the Greeks would have tolerated civil disturbance and would have preferred to just allow the temple hierarchy to do what they wanted within certain broad limits....noted above.

The bible tale (only*) tells us that Antiochus IV decided to upset that happy relationship. The asterisk refers to Josephus' commentary but it is fair to assume that the OT tales form the basis of Josephus' story, too. Supposedly while this trouble was starting in Jerusalem, Antiochus himself was busy being humiliated by Gaius Popillius Laenas. a Roman Ambassador who told him to withdraw his army from Egypt and Cyprus or be at war with Rome. Laenas drew a circle around Antiochus and demanded an answer before Antiochus left the circle. Antiochus withdrew.

So we can't really know if a weak and chastened ruler then decided to provoke his own people by taking over their temple or, if a local leader decided that this was the time to break free and set himself up as ruler.

It is only after the revolt that this power grab between the sadduccees and pharisees begins. Now, could the Essenes have tried to hearken back to some imagined "teacher of righteousness" from a century before as a means of legitimizing their beliefs? Of course they could and it seems that the late first century AD xtians did the same thing taking the then-current stories of a crucified saviour god and filling in the details according to current political reality.

But it doesn't make either story "real." All that can be said for certain is that in 187BC there wasn't much going on in Jerusalem.

[seeker]

Ish - Actually if you read the text as 390 years after the exile then the dating would be from the end of the exile, around 538BCE rather than 587BCE so we'd be looking as late as 148BCE.

This is what it actually says in the scroll:

And in the period of wrath, three hundred ninety years after He had handed it (the Temple) over to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylonia, He remembered them (Israel) and caused to grow from Israel and Aaron the root of a plant (i.e., the sect). Then they understood their transgression and knew that they were guilty. They were like blind (men) groping on the road for twenty years. Then God paid attention to their deeds for they sought Him whole-heartedly, and He set up for them a Teacher of Righteousness to direct them in the way of his (the teacher's) heart."

- Zadokite Fragments 1:5-11 (Damascus Document - Geniza manuscript A 1.4-10)

So we need the date of when Nebuchadnezzar took over the temple and add 20 years on to that.

Min's point is well made.

The wording is tricky here though because it refers to 'in the period of wrath' and then the beginning of that period which suggests that the author really was thinking of the entire period as an era rather than the actual number of years in exile.

[seeker]

Min - Never really thought about the Antiochus story being exaggerated by Josephus but it makes sense in a way. The story of Antiochus and the temple may even be a later Maccabean fabrication to distance themselves from a perception of them as Ptolomaic puppets.

[Minimalist]

So we can't really know if a weak and chastened ruler then decided to provoke his own people by taking over their temple or, if a local leader decided that this was the time to break free and set himself up as ruler.

In reconsidering my comment from above, I suppose there is a middle course. That weakened and chastened ruler might have decided to rob the temple treasury (it had happened before and since) and the priests set about looking for a champion to protect their interests.

I've never quite gotten over Napoleon's dictum that: "History is a lie agreed upon," seeker.

[Ishtar]

But for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter whether a certain Teacher of Righteousness called Jesus led the challenge on the temple at such and such a date. In fact, it suits my purposes better if it never actually happened.

I'm always much more interested in stories, in myths, anyway, because they point to deeper truths than whether or not there was rebellion, or who invaded who. The actions of men are very predictable and very boring - while myths are always completely exciting and enthralling, not least because they can be read on so many levels.

Unlike the blurb that introduces this Mythology section, I don't believe that "One constant rule of mythology is that whatever happens amongst the gods or other mythical beings was in one sense or another a reflection of events on earth." ... but I'm very glad that Michelle set up this section anyway!

I think the study of mythology tells us how men thought ... and this to me, for some strange reason, is much more interesting than what they did.

Anyway, what I'm looking for is the basis for the Jesus story which I expect to find in myth, not in history. And this is what the Zadokite Document provides:

A Righteous Teacher called Jesus, named "the sage of Jerusalem", who was defeated by the traditionalist Judas [Maccabeus], and eventually executed, if not crucified.

A church founded on Twelve Elders with the three most senior ones named Paul, James and Peter, who are all awaiting the Second Coming of the Teacher of Righteousness called Jesus who was crucified.

From that Hasmonean temple story, we can even guess where the story of Jesus scourging and chucking the money lenders out of the temple came from. Possibly, the Zadokites have laws against usury - I'll look out for it. But it makes the story more believable (even though it's fiction) because a Jesus accompanied by an army of men is more likely to be able to eject all those money lenders out of a temple than a Jesus on his own.

I'm becoming more and more convnced that this Zadokite story was the basis for the Christian Jesus story.

[Ishtar]

I've never quite gotten over Napoleon's dictum that: "History is a lie agreed upon," seeker.

Mythology is a greater Truth agreed upon!

[seeker]

So we can't really know if a weak and chastened ruler then decided to provoke his own people by taking over their temple or, if a local leader decided that this was the time to break free and set himself up as ruler.

In reconsidering my comment from above, I suppose there is a middle course. That weakened and chastened ruler might have decided to rob the temple treasury (it had happened before and since) and the priests set about looking for a champion to protect their interests.

I've never quite gotten over Napoleon's dictum that: "History is a lie agreed upon," seeker.

...and thus the Republican party was born.

People just don't realize how different the modern concept of objective history is and how recent.

[seeker]

But for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter whether a certain Teacher of Righteousness called Jesus led the challenge on the temple at such and such a date. In fact, it suits my purposes better if it never actually happened.

I think that is probably the wisest course and maybe the truest. Clearly the wording of that Zadokite Document is to create a mythology with the legendary 'Teacher of Righteousness' taking the role of redeemer.

I'm always much more interested in stories, in myths, anyway, because they point to deeper truths than whether or not there was rebellion, or who invaded who. The actions of men are very predictable and very boring - while myths are always completely exciting and enthralling, not least because they can be read on so many levels.

Unlike the blurb that introduces this Mythology section, I don't believe that "One constant rule of mythology is that whatever happens amongst the gods or other mythical beings was in one sense or another a reflection of events on earth." ... but I'm very glad that Michelle set up this section anyway!

I think the study of mythology tells us how men thought ... and this to me, for some strange reason, is much more interesting than what they did.

More relevantly I think this mythology along with the other myths in the Dead Sea Scrolls, like that of Menahem, illustrate that there was a sort of search for the prototype of a messianic character.

Anyway, what I'm looking for is the basis for the Jesus story which I expect to find in myth, not in history. And this is what the Zadokite Document provides:

A Righteous Teacher called Jesus, named "the sage of Jerusalem", who was defeated by the traditionalist Judas [Maccabeus], and eventually executed, if not crucified.

A church founded on Twelve Elders with the three most senior ones named Paul, James and Peter, who are all awaiting the Second Coming of the Teacher of Righteousness called Jesus who was crucified.

From that Hasmonean temple story, we can even guess where the story of Jesus scourging and chucking the money lenders out of the temple came from. Possibly, the Zadokites have laws against usury - I'll look out for it. But it makes the story more believable (even though it's fiction) because a Jesus accompanied by an army of men is more likely to be able to eject all those money lenders out of a temple than a Jesus on his own.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that this Zadokite story was the basis for the Christian Jesus story.

Actually the money lenders story comes from the harvest. Jewish farmers would take their wares to the temple to sell them and pay their tithes.

[Minimalist]

In far too many cases in "history" the only accounts we have of people were those written by their enemies....Herod, Nero and Caligula come instantly to mind.

Of course, the opposite is also true. In some cases, such as G. Julius Caesar the only histories we have were written by his admirers or by himself.

BTW, the same is true for "jesus."

[Ishtar]

In far too many cases in "history" the only accounts we have of people were those written by their enemies....Herod, Nero and Caligula come instantly to mind.

Of course, the opposite is also true. In some cases, such as G. Julius Caesar the only histories we have were written by his admirers or by himself.

BTW, the same is true for "jesus."

Except that, unlike "Jesus", Herod, Nero and Julius Caesar almost certainly did exist.

[Minimalist]

Hence the "btw."

And while on the subject, I always found this an interesting essay. One of these days I have to really sit down and examine it closely.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/ ... ation.html

The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history. The traditional year of Jesus's birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before April 12, 4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4 B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptized by John soon after John had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, i.e. 28-29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea i.e. 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never two joint high priests, in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became high priest in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas. (He held this office for about eighteen years, so his dates are consistent with Tiberias and Pontius Pilate, but not with Annas or Lysanias.) Although the book of Acts presents Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Jesus as three different people, it incorrectly places Theudas (crucified 44 C.E.) before Yehuda who it correctly mentions as being crucified during the census (6 C.E.). Many of these chronological absurdities seem to be based on misreadings and misunderstandings of Josephus's book Jewish Antiquities, which was used as reference by the author of Luke and Acts.