15123Re: Message not approved: Message not approved: Qumran Revisited: A Reassessment
- Aug 13, 2013Hi Greg, Stephen, Rachel and ANE-2@...
The "The Teacher of Righteousness of the Esseniens" is a title of Master of Justice of the Esseniens in the Second Temple Period.
According to the Damascus Document the High Priest Onias III exiled to Syria who composed the Damascus Document in 176 BCE at Damascus.
The Seleucids held the High Priestly office of Kohen Gadol after Onias III held the position of Kohen Gadol when he deposed by Antoichus IV.
I believe that the Damascus Document was a Essene document with the Artificial Calendar in which Onias III held the secret knowledge into the King's Calendar.
Is it true that the Damascus Document is 390 years in the Age of Wrath and it was extended to the Fall of Jerusalem by 586 BCE to form the Dead Sea Sect community to add 20 years groping in the Darkness before the coming of Teacher of Righteousness to add 40 years to the time when Teacher's death to God's Judgement.
From Onias III's death is 40 years extending to 135 - 134 when John Hyrcanus reassumed the roles of 'High Priest' and 'King'.
There are allusions in the Damascus Document from the beginning of the Seleucid domination and Persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes were transparent.
From: nplemche <npl@...>
To: John Stuart <stuartjohn@...>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013 12:14 AM
Subject: Message not approved: Message not approved: Qumran Revisited: A Reassessment
we don't have this kind of conversation between moderators and members on the list. Please rewrite your first mail and include what evidence you have, and it will most likely be approved.
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Hi NPLemche
> I have read your email it seems to me that you have knowledge on this issue.
> I have a few questions regarding the Damascus Document I forgot to put on the end of Damascus Document is in the year 176 BCE.
> Did you know that the Esseniens venerated a Master of Justice of the Esseniens?
> Have you read the Heliodorus Stele?
> John Stuart
> From: nplemche <npl@...>
> To: John Stuart <stuartjohn@...>
> Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 5:28 PM
> Subject: Message not approved: Qumran Revisited: A Reassessment
> Dear John,
> no affiliation. Also I am not sure that it is really a well-founded mail. The thing about the Damascus document sounds like an assertion, and that he--if he did--wrote it while alive is hardly a surprise.
> > Hi Greg and ANEemail@example.com
> > The "Teacher of Righteousness" is a title of Master of Justice of the Esseniens in the Second Temple Period.
> > According to the Damascus Document the High Priest Onias III exiled to Syria who composed the Damascus Document while he was living.
> > The Hasmonean High Priestly the co founders were the Seleucids held the High Priestly and also has the office of Kohen Gadol the High Priest Onias III held the office of Kohen Gadol when the Antoichus IV deposed him from his office this is the best theory this was the conflict Judeao/Hellenstic.
> > Regards
> > John Stuart
> > ________________________________
> > From: gregdoudna <gdoudna@...>
> > To: ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013 2:43 PM
> > Subject: [ANE-2] Qumran Revisited: A Reassessment
> > Â
> > New Qumran book: D. Stacey and G. Doudna, Qumran Revisited:A
> > Reassessment of the Archaeology of the Site and its Texts (BAR
> > International Series 2520; Oxford: Archaeopress, 2013).
> > David Stacey writes from his experience as an archaeologist who worked
> > for ten years on the Netzer excavations at Hasmonean/Herodian Jericho,
> > the nearest major site to Qumran. Out of this experience Stacey does not
> > interpret Qumran as if Qumran was sui generis, a unique site to be
> > interpreted in light of the contents of the texts found in its caves,
> > its material remains interpreted as reflections of a separatist sect
> > inhabiting the site in an ideological world of its own.
> > David Stacey analyzes Qumran from the perspective of economic
> > development and industries affecting the site without regard to the
> > contents of the texts. Rather than interpret the remains of Qumran in
> > terms of reconstructed sectarian practices (activities presumed to have
> > included collection and production of the texts themselves), Stacey
> > examines Qumran independently of the texts beyond accounting for the
> > texts' physical presence. Stacey accounts for the presence of the
> > scrolls in Qumran's caves in terms of permanent disposals of texts
> > brought to the site for that purpose.
> > Of particular interest is Stacey's argument that Qumran was an extension
> > of the Hasmonean estate in Jericho. Although there are precursors to
> > this idea--notably Pessah Bar-Adon's influential 1981 argument that
> > Qumran was part of a Hasmonean program of fortification and exploitation
> > of economic resources near the Dead Sea, such that an interpretation of
> > Qumran as beginning as a Hasmonean state initiative is now embraced by
> > most current studies of Qumran's archaeology (Humbert 1994, Hirschfeld
> > 2004, Magen and Peleg 2007, Cargill 2009, Mizzi 2009, Taylor 2012)--yet
> > Stacey differs in his analysis in comparison to most others who advocate
> > a Hasmonean state initiative origin of Qumran. For Stacey sees Hasmonean
> > Qumran being further developed by Herod with no fundamental rupture or
> > break in its industries and functioning. This is in contrast to several
> > of the analyses cited (Humbert, Cargill, Mizzi, Taylor) who suppose
> > there was a radical change in occupation of the site in the time of
> > Herod. In this line of thinking, a new group-- sectarians--came to
> > Qumran late in the 1st century BCE bringing their scrolls with them and
> > producing more scrolls at the site, which they continued to do until the
> > First Revolt of the 1st century CE. The reason these scholars identify a
> > new sect arriving at the site late in the 1st century BCE, and replacing
> > the site's former inhabitants, is because they wish to account for the
> > presence of the scrolls at the site, and believe this is the way to do
> > so: first a Hasmonean period at the site (no connection to the scrolls),
> > then replaced by the sect connected with the scrolls. This was not de
> > Vaux's scheme (de Vaux had the sect at Qumran from the beginning), and
> > abandoned in this scheme is the old idea that a 2nd century BCE Teacher
> > of Righteousness of the texts came to Qumran with his little band of
> > followers to build the site after he was exiled from Jerusalem. But it
> > is a way to keep the traditional model of the sect of the texts and its
> > relationship to the site of Qumran intact, in a modified form.
> > But why not, a reader who has been following the discussion closely to
> > this point might ask, simply identify the people of the scrolls as the
> > people operating the site when Qumran was a Hasmonean outpost? Why the
> > necessity to suppose two distinct sets of people?
> > Such a question seemingly comes from a naive reader unfamiliar with
> > Qumran scholarship. For if there is one point upon which scholars have
> > been in agreement with almost complete unanimity for as long as anyone
> > can remember, it is that the sect of the Qumran texts was opposed to the
> > Hasmonean high priests. In prevailing Qumran scholarship it is
> > considered simply inconceivable that the people of the texts of Qumran
> > could have been favorable to, for example, Hyrcanus II, the high priest
> > of the temple in Jerusalem 76-67 and 63-40 BCE.
> > My essay in the present volume builds on a paper I was invited to
> > deliver at a 2009 conference held in Copenhagen (Doudna 2011). My essay
> > shows that the naive reader's question referred to above is actually
> > quite astute. My essay challenges the reasons claimed for supposing that
> > the Qumran texts were opposed to the Hasmonean high priests. I show that
> > nothing in the Qumran Community Rule (S) texts calls for reading those
> > texts as opposed to the temple or to the priests who controlled the
> > temple. I show that such interpretations of the Qumran S texts are
> > unfounded and chimerical, no matter how deeply ingrained such
> > interpretations have been in scholarly discourse.
> > I argue that, in fact, nothing in the Qumran texts calls for supposing
> > the sectarian texts were other than supportive of most Hasmonean high
> > priests. Texts which have been interpreted as polemical against all
> > Hasmonean rulers and their regimes instead become polemical against one
> > ruler's regime from supporters of the previous high priest.
> > Condemnations in some texts of a Hasmonean regime become not a rejection
> > of all Hasmonean high priests but rather arise out of the authors'
> > loyalty to, as they interpreted it, the legitimate Hasmonean high priest
> > who had been cast into exile.
> > I show that traditional arguments for supposing an adversarial
> > relationship between the sect of the Qumran texts and the Hasmonean high
> > priests evaporate upon examination: there is no sign in the texts of
> > calendar conflict between the sect and the Hasmonean high priests; no
> > criticism for combining king and high priest; no notion of rival
> > priestly ancestries; no opposition to Alexander Jannaeus, or to John
> > Hyrcanus I before him. Contrary to common conceptions, none of these
> > notions are in the Qumran texts in any way. Instead of the Qumran texts
> > being opposed to the Hasmonean high priests, the sect of the texts was
> > the sect of the Hasmonean high priests.
> > In the past, archaeological analyses of Qumran which follow the method
> > of David Stacey--of interpreting the material remains of the site
> > independently of the contents of the texts--have been marginalized on
> > the grounds that they "ignore the evidence of the scrolls" (which are
> > part of the archaeological realia of the site, it is pointed out).
> > Although my essay stands independently, I place it in this volume for
> > the purpose of shielding from this line of criticism the work of
> > archaeologists who seek to evaluate the material remains of Qumran
> > objectively. I intend my essay to open spaces to allow such
> > archaeologists' voices to be heard, liberated from the stifling
> > constraints of a long-dominant interpretive filter promulgated in the
> > name of the ancient Essenes. In fact Stacey's argument that Qumran was
> > an extension of Hasmonean Jericho becomes very sensible, given the
> > congruence of ruling priests at Hasmonean Jericho and the disposals of
> > large numbers of religious texts reflective of those priests at nearby
> > Qumran.
> > David Stacey and I are each solely responsible for our respective pieces
> > in the present volume: Stacey's dealing with archaeological
> > interpretation, and mine engaging the texts. Stacey and I have made no
> > attempt to harmonize every detail, and that is as it should be. Stacey's
> > study and my article, as well as Gideon Avni's analysis of the Qumran
> > cemetery, should be read as distinct perspectives, distinct voices,
> > offering a significant degree of overlap on relevant points, yet
> > retaining autonomy.
> > I hope this volume will assist all of us, text scholars and
> > archaeologists alike, as well as readers from other disciplines and the
> > interested public, in approaching a better understanding of the ancient
> > texts of Qumran and the site where these texts were found.
> > Greg Doudna
> > Bellingham, Washington USA
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]