Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

14323Re: History of Dead Sea Scrolls

Expand Messages
  • John
    Jun 30, 2012
      Dear Liz

      Can you date the document called Damascus Document and Damascus Rule?

      Can you please construct the artificial King's Calendar to be sure that the date of Teacher appeared in Damascus Document was 209-208 BCE.

      The Damascus Document is a Essene document it started around 604 BCE and the Age of Wrath which is in the document to 214 BCE.

      Can I draw your attention to this statement if you can by Talmon 1989 p.166.

      Many thanks

      John Stuart

      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Stern, Richard H." <RSTERN@...> wrote:
      > Dear Liz et al.
      > The Hasmoneans faked their geneology. Their priestly course (Jehoirib)
      > was originally minor and obscure, but they got it upgraded later. That
      > they were outside Jerusalem (Modin) is also mild evidence against their
      > being genuine Zadokides.
      > But another possibility at Qumrun (Q) is that the Q Sadducees
      > (Zadokides) were opposed to "renegade" Zadokides in Jerusalem (J) who
      > were following the smooth ways of leaning toward other than the true
      > Zadokide traditions. So you have Sadducee vs. Sadducee - or true
      > Sadducee (Q) vs. false Sadducee (J). There were always controversies
      > over who were the true sons of Zadoq. (Onias II and II) vs. the J guys,
      > for example. It was like that (at least) ever since Josiah tried to
      > bring riff-raff kohanim from outside J to J and then get the J Zadokides
      > to let them share in the benefits of Temple service. (No way!) For a
      > Sadducee-Q vs. Sadducee-J fight to be celebrated at Qumrun would
      > therefore be no anomaly. Rather, in keeping with tradition. (How many
      > Sadducees does it take to start up a schism? 2.)
      > =====================================
      > Best regards.
      > Richard H. Stern
      > rstern@... rstern@...
      > Washington, DC
      > http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm
      > =====================================
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      > Lisbeth S. Fried
      > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 3:25 PM
      > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [ANE-2] No Sadducees at Qumran (was Qumran inkwells)
      > Dear Russell, Stephen, et. al.
      > Is this correct that the Hasmoneans were not viewed by everyone as
      > descended from Zadok (although they are stated to be of the priestly
      > house of Jehoiarib (1 Chron. 24:7; 1 Macc. 2:1)). I don't remember where
      > I read this and I can't find the source in either Josephus or Maccabees.
      > If it's true, then it is possible for the Qumran community to have been
      > both anti-Hasmonean (i.e., anti- the reigning temple priesthood) and at
      > the same time be Sadducees (Zadokites).
      > Best,
      > Liz Fried
      > _____
      > From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:22 AM
      > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [ANE-2] No Sadducees at Qumran (was Qumran inkwells)
      > Apologies for not responding earlier. Briefly, Stephen, you fail to
      > establish any real factual basis for your assertion that "Qumran texts
      > oppose the Hasmonean temple administration" and that Sadducees
      > consequently cannot have been located at Qumran.
      > I wrote: "This is an exceedingly odd assertion, since (1) I know of no
      > Qumran text opposed to the Hasmonean temple administration;"
      > Stephen responded: "Qumran texts are critical of the purity and calendar
      > practices in the current Hasmonean Temple and political administration.
      > This is widely and correctly recognized."
      > While I agree that Qumran opposition to the Hasmoneans is a widely held
      > assumption in secondary literature, there is not a single scrap of
      > evidence for it in any Qumran text, and repeating this unfounded
      > statement does not elevate it to a fact.
      > Stephen also responded: "Qumran texts call the high priest, kohen
      > ha-rosh, the wicked priest, ha-kohen ha-rasha(. Quite a strong
      > condemnation of the Hasmonean High Priest-- specifically, in this case,
      > Alexander Jannaeus."
      > This again presents opinion as though it were fact. There is no evidence
      > in any Qumran text that the Wicked Priest was a Hasmonean, and Stephen's
      > proposal to identify that figure with Alexander Jannaeus is positively
      > excluded by at least two considerations. First, while both Jewish and
      > Graeco-Roman critics of Alexander Jannaeus universally condemned him for
      > seizing the office of king (see Josephus and Strabo), 1QpHab 8.9-10
      > describes the Wicked Priest with the root MSL not MLK. 1QpHab elsewhere
      > contrasts Roman "leaders" with the " kings" they conquered, so its use
      > of these two roots is demonstrably exact and accurate. Second, before
      > attaining office the Wicked Priest was said to have been called by the
      > "name of truth" (1QpHab 8.9), clearly a designation for members of the
      > scrolls sect (as seen at the almost immediately preceding 1QpHab
      > 7.10-11, where the men of truth are synonymous with those who observe
      > the law). Not even Stephen contends that Jannaeus was once a member of
      > the scrolls sect.
      > I wrote: "(2) There are numerous studies demonstrating the Sadducee
      > character of the halachah from Qumran;"
      > Stephen responded (in part): "While there are studies claiming
      > indications that Qumran texts are Sadducee, they are mistaken, as has
      > been shown by many other studies, by, e.g., Joseph Baumgarten (the
      > scholar with the greatest experience and expertise in such comparison);
      > bibliography I have provided before."
      > This does not accurately present the views of Joseph Baumgarten, who
      > fully acknowledges that "in a number of Pharisaic-Sadducean disputes
      > concerning ritual purity recorded in tannaitic sources, the position
      > reflected in Qumran writings coincides with that of the Sadducees." [See
      > J. M. Baumgarten, 'The Disqualifications of Priests in 4Q Fragments of
      > the "Damascus Document", a Specimen of the Recovery of pre-Rabbinic
      > Halakha,' in The Madrid Qumran Congress
      > (Leiden: EJ Brill, 1992), 2. 503-13.] Baumgarten's understanding of the
      > correlation of the halacha (his term) at Qumran with Sadducee positions
      > largely coincides with that of Schiffman and others who are also experts
      > in this field.
      > It would be hard to find someone active in the field today who disagrees
      > with this basic datum. The debate today has shifted to the question of
      > the significance of this fact. It is quite a scandal that the scrolls,
      > which early scholars identified as Essene, contain halachah that
      > regularly corresponds to known positions of the Sadducees. Schiffman and
      > some others take the straightforward position that some of the texts are
      > Sadducee. Baumgarten holds out for an identification of the scrolls
      > sectarians as Essenes on the (IMO
      > doubtful) hypothesis that the rabbinical term Sadducee also described
      > the Essenes (a circular argument based exclusively on the scrolls) or
      > that the Essenes were a sub-group of the Sadducees (perhaps the
      > Boethusians), or that Essene and Sadducee purity rules were related. In
      > the article cited above, Baumgarten also lists 7 instances where he
      > considers Qumran halachah to have Essene parallels (of which he may be
      > wrong on 2). For perspective, experts on halachah (Baumgarten included)
      > have found I would guess about 30-40 passages with Sadducee parallels
      > and 10-15 with Pharisee parallels (a number in CD). Given that even your
      > hero Baumgarten is able to maintain an identification of the scrolls
      > group with the Essenes only by more-or-less equating Essene halachah
      > with Sadducee halachah, this renders your position that the Qumran texts
      > criticize Sadducee temple practices untenable. (As for instance in your
      > response to
      > Liz: "And the scrolls are anti-Sadducee; they oppose the Sadducee
      > Hasmonean running of the temple." How can anyone familiar with the
      > secondary literature on Qumran halachah seriously claim the scrolls are
      > anti-Sadducee.) I wrote: "(3) Some of the very few texts demonstrably
      > composed at Qumran in the Hasmonean period, namely the Mishmarot texts
      > (which mention Hasmonean rulers), listed the rotation of priestly
      > courses at the temple, which could only have been useful to (Sadducean)
      > priests serving in the Hasmonean temple."
      > Stephen responded: "The Bible has priest lists; Rabbinic literature has
      > priest lists. It does not follow that those, nor Qumran's, would
      > interest only Sadducees. They interest you Russell: are you a Sadducee
      > priest?"
      > Stephen here is evidently unfamiliar the Mishmarot texts or their
      > purpose.
      > The Mishmarot texts, of which fragments of as many as 15-20 have been
      > found at Qumran, give the schedule for priestly service at the temple
      > (not a list of priests!), which would be useful only for priests
      > fulfilling their temple duties. Some have embedded historical references
      > to figures that demonstrate they were written while Qumran was occupied.
      > It is apparent from these texts that Qumran was not only occupied
      > primarily by priests, but by priests periodically serving in the temple.
      > This conclusion is corroborated by the mikveh at Qumran with stairs
      > containing three lanes (according to the usual interpretation of these
      > lanes, so that priests exiting the water would not touch either those
      > descending or exiting non-priests) as well as the tithe vessel marked
      > with a Tau (see Pfann's article in Copper Scroll Studies). One should
      > also note the priestly temple treasures including tithes mentioned in
      > the Copper Scroll, which are another important indicator of who lived at
      > Qumran (which appears prominently in the Copper Scroll as Secacah). The
      > Copper Scroll's priests are clearly Sadducees, since the tomb of Zadok
      > is there mentioned twice.
      > The idea that the texts found at Qumran, or indeed the residents of
      > Qumran, were somehow opposed to the Sadducean or Hasmonean temple is, in
      > short, completely lacking in textual or archaeological evidence.
      > Best regards,
      > Russell Gmirkin
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic