The Club in Action

[Minimalist]

An interesting little article about Prof. Norman Golb.

http://www.chicagomaroon.com/2009/6/1/d ... ls-scandal

But others see Golb as defiantly holding the torch for a view long deemed implausible by the scholarly community. University of Notre Dame professor Eugene Ulrich, the chief editor of the Dead Sea Scrolls project, sums it up like this: “Golb started off asking a good question: Is it what seems to be happening or is it something else? He asked the right question, a question we should have asked, but it turns out to be a non-starter. When you follow that path, it turns out to be a ‘no.’ At this point, Ulrich says, Golb’s views are akin to those of “a Creationist at a biology conference.”

[dannan14]

Gene Ulrich is a friend of my parents and his daughters are friends of mine. While i haven't had a chance to read the whole article yet, i was please to see his name in a quote. This guy has spent a very long time looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls so i can't wait to get home from the horrible Monday and read the rest of it.

[Rokcet Scientist]

The article doesn't add anything to the debate, as far as I can see. It's more a tribute to one man's civilized but steadfast position over decades. Not reinforcing it, nor detracting from it, afaik.

[Minimalist]

It is the actions of the "Essenes as Authors" Club which bears scrutiny. The primary "evidence" for the idea of a monkish sect busily copying books comes from the imagination of a French cleric (a former monk, himself) who decided that because the scrolls were found near Qumran they must have been written there.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

[dannan14]

Well the Monday stayed horrible and as RS said, this article didn't add anything to the debate. What i'd like to know is what is Golb's evidence, and why has it been dismissed?

[Minimalist]

I'll see what I can find. My complaint is the automatic dismissal of anything which contradicts the orthodox view. We've been through it all with the "Clovis-Firsters" and look where they are now.

[Minimalist]

Take a look at this, dannan. Very low-key discussion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238636935776931.html

There are two competing theories about the scrolls. The first is that they belonged to a single religious sect living nearby the caves, most likely the Essenes. The second theory is that the scrolls are a random collection of texts reflecting the beliefs of many Jewish groups of the period; the caves, under this theory, are a repository for sacred texts from various Jewish communities fleeing the Romans during the Jewish revolt of A.D. 68.

[dannan14]

Ok, so Golb contends that the Dead Sea Scrolls are perhaps part of a library saved from the fall of Jerusalem and the 'leading' view is that a single, cohesive group wrote and collected them over a period of time eventually becoming distinguishable from Judaism and becoming Christianity.

Wow. i guess i never realized the empirical debate was that simple. Maybe the Scrolls themselves simply do not have enough info to tell us who wrote them. i can see now what Ulrich meant by Golb asked the right question..... i guess i'm not convinced yet that the facts do not support Golb's view. i know Gene is a good scholar, but he is a Catholic who has spent most of his professional career at the most prestigious Catholic University in the country (world?) so i don't think it called be ruled out that his group simply wants the Scrolls to have been written by the 'founders' of their religion.

*shrug* It's all still a game to me though and these 'recent' finds will mean more and more as we learn more about truly ancient times.

Thanks for the link Min.

[Minimalist]

Israeli archaeologists, Magen and Peleg, hold that Qumran was a pottery factory not a monastery. At various times it was also a fort and there is nothing to say that it was not also occupied by monks who had a desire to copy out scrolls.

Trouble is, there is nothing in Josephus' or Pliny the Elder's discussions of the Essenes that indicates they were particularly bookish. They were "communal" and they were apparently celibate but Josephus indicates that they were mainly into husbandry. If they were known as scholars in antiquity, why not say so? Scholars were highly regarded especially by an orthodox Jew such as Josephus. In his Life, Josephus indicates that he was an Essene for a time. He does not discuss the details.

It wouldn't have taken a great deal of insight for the chief "librarian" of the temple to gaze at Vespasian's gathering army to the north and make an educated guess about what was going to happen. In 66 AD, a single Roman legion had besieged the city and made great progress before breaking off the attack and withdrawing, and being mauled on the retreat ....for reasons which no one quite understands. Cestius Gallus, the commander died soon after the retreat. Had he been wounded during the siege? Did he commit suicide to atone for his defeat? We don't know. Vespasian had 4 legions and the various groups of zealots which controlled Jerusalem seemed to be more interested in fighting each other than the Romans. No one with any sort of realistic point of view could have any doubt about the ultimate success of the coming Roman siege.

But, there is another political aspect. Those same zealots would have regarded (most likely) any suggestion that the city could not hold to be "defeatist." Would a member of the priesthood dedicated to preserving these texts have hesitated to try to smuggle them out in small groups? Perhaps one cart load at a time and sending them to various destinations in an effort to make sure that some escape destruction at the hands of the Romans?

It seems more reasonable to me than the, essentially, Christian attempt to try to cite the Essenes as some sort of precursor to European monks who copied books...when it suited them.

What pisses me off is when the Club announces that they will not tolerate any discussion of their ideas. That's religion. Not science.

[dannan14]

What pisses me off is when the Club announces that they will not tolerate any discussion of their ideas. That's religion. Not science.

And for those scientists studying their own religion the line between the two blurs easily. That's my problem with faith and belief. They cause one to purposely deny something if it isn't the expected answer.

[Ishtar]

Israeli archaeologists, Magen and Peleg, hold that Qumran was a pottery factory not a monastery. At various times it was also a fort and there is nothing to say that it was not also occupied by monks who had a desire to copy out scrolls.

Pliny locates the Essenes at least 20 miles down the road from that fort, in the town of Ein Gedi.

On top of that, the scrolls were not found at the fort, but in an area near it, some miles away. In other words, the fort is a red herring.

Trouble is, there is nothing in Josephus' or Pliny the Elder's discussions of the Essenes that indicates they were particularly bookish....

There is:

From the Jewish Wars, Josephus

They also take great pains in studying the writings of the ancients, and choose out of them what is most for the advantage of their soul and body; and they inquire after such roots and medicinal stones as may cure their distempers....

Moreover, he swears to communicate their doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them himself; that he will abstain from robbery, and will equally preserve the books belonging to their sect, and the names of the angels (5) [or messengers]....

2. There are also those among them who undertake to foretell things to come, (7) by reading the holy books, and using several sorts of purifications, and being perpetually conversant in the discourses of the prophets; and it is but seldom that they miss in their predictions....

Philo of Alexandria also mentions their scholarly ways:

The earliest mention of the Essenes is by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (c. 20-54 CE). Philo told his readers ...[that] they observed the Sabbath according to all the strictest instructions and spent much of their time studying the Law according to philosophical and allegorical interpretations.

The "Law according to philosophical and allegorical interpretations" means the scriptures.

It wouldn't have taken a great deal of insight for the chief "librarian" of the temple to gaze at Vespasian's gathering army to the north and make an educated guess about what was going to happen.

As could the chief librarian of the Essenes have also done.

Would a member of the priesthood dedicated to preserving these texts have hesitated to try to smuggle them out in small groups? Perhaps one cart load at a time and sending them to various destinations in an effort to make sure that some escape destruction at the hands of the Romans?

Which could be why these scrolls were found at various caves in an area that just happened to have a fort in the middle of it. But the fort may not have been there when the scrolls were buried, or even if it was, it needn't bear any relation to the hiding of the scrolls in the caves. Like I say, the fort is a red herring.

[kbs2244]

IMHO
The "who" is not as important as the "what."
Some of them are a few of the oldest copies of the Scriptures we have.
And they show how accurate the current translations are.

[Minimalist]

Pliny's work seems to be based on the writings of M. Vipsanius Agrippa, who was governor of Syria in 15 BC, some short time after a Parthian invasion smashed Ein Gedi. Josephus, of course, claimed to have lived with the Essenes for a short time. I left Philo out because of the involvement of Eusebius in reporting his comments in Apology for the Jews. Eusebius is not always the most reliable source, Ish.

"They also take great pains in studying the writings of the ancients" There is nothing in that which remotely suggests that they made a point of "copying" books in the fashion of medieval xtian monks. I've got a lot of books, too. I rarely copy them out by hand!

As could the chief librarian of the Essenes have also done.

However, why would he assume that 4 legions were coming to attack Qumran? Talk about using a shotgun to kill a gnat. Jerusalem was the center of the rebellion. No one could have doubted the target.

Which could be why these scrolls were found at various caves in an area that just happened to have a fort in the middle of it. But the fort may not have been there when the scrolls were buried, or even if it was, it needn't bear any relation to the hiding of the scrolls in the caves. Like I say, the fort is a red herring.

Au contraire, the fort is simply one of many uses for the site and, given its strategic position along the eastern approaches to Jerusalem, might have constituted its 'best' use. Nonetheless, there are a great many suggestions for what it was used for and none of these are mutually exclusive. The site was in use for a long time and could have had many incarnations. Magen and Peleg's "pottery factory" is merely one of the latest.

That's my problem with faith and belief.

We've had this discussion before, Ish. "Extraordinary evidence to sustain extraordinary claims" is fine, but that standard never seems to apply to the original "claim." Roland De Vaux's vision for Qumran as some sort of Essene monastery is not supported by any of the ancient descriptions. Yes, the Essenes lived "communally." But our sources say they lived in the towns (and Pliny specifically mentions Ein Geddi) not in private compounds like 1960's hippies. By all means, let's consider all the evidence. It is unrealistic to think that a useful spot would only serve one purpose throughout its entire history.

[Ishtar]

That's my problem with faith and belief.

We've had this discussion before, Ish. "

Yes, we have and it's as if I never replied to you then, for how much difference it's made to your thinking. So I don't why I'm bothering now.

But here goes ... you seem to be stuck on de Vaux and his medieval copyists. We need to leave de Vaux behind. Just walk away from the de Vaux, Min. He is nothing to do with this.

You also, if we're going to get anywhere at all, need to forget the fort, and who debunked the fort.

The fort has no relevance to his argument. De Vaux has no relevance and neither do his medieval copyists. This is not about copying. This is about who buried the scrolls. It's not even about who wrote them, because it's obvious who wrote them.. the Zadokites. You only have to read the Damascus Rule (Incidentally, a Law book if ever I saw one which would fit in quite nicely with Philo's description) to know that it was the Zadokites, the sons of Zadok, who wrote several of these scrolls at least. So that's no mystery.

But who had them in their Library (which wasn't a fort) and who buried them in caves (which were not a fort)?

Those are the questions.

And I think we can't really pick and mix who we're going to believe so readily as you seem to be doing. I would hazard that every word that came out of Eusebius' mouth was not a lie, any more than Josephus is lying or Pliny is lying about the fact the pacifist Essenes had nothing to do with a fort which was built possibly hundreds of years after their community started in Ein Gedi - and yes, I take your point, it wasn't the only one, but it was the Essene community that was nearest to Qumran and that's the point.

Like you, I don't believe that the Essenes were Proto-Christians. From what we do know about them, they were Jews and they were awaiting the second coming of another Jesus, Jesus ben Nun, or Joshua as we know him better from the Old Testament stories.

So if the agenda is to debunk the Essenes as part of debunking the existence of Jesus of Nazereth, I don't think you need to bother.

(Gosh! Quite like old times, eh?)

[Minimalist]

IMHO
The "who" is not as important as the "what."
Some of them are a few of the oldest copies of the Scriptures we have.
And they show how accurate the current translations are.

It's important to remember that a major Jewish community continued to exist in Babylon (and really existed until 1948) which was outside of the grip of Rome and the church. The Romans took Mesopotamia in 117 AD and only held it for two years. That was long before the church had any influence. So, while there was a shattering of Jewish tradition in the West, it continued in the East. Contrary to popular belief the Jews were treated fairly well by the Muslims...certainly better than they were by the Xtians.

At least until 1948.