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

[ANE-2] Sadducees at Qumran (was Qumran inkwells)

Expand Messages
  • RUSSELLGMIRKIN@aol.com
    Stephen wrote: Lehman attempted to locate Sadducees at Qumran. That does not work, among other reasons, as the Qumran texts oppose the Hasmonean temple
    Message 1 of 17 , Aug 18, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Stephen wrote:

      Lehman attempted to locate Sadducees at Qumran. That does not work, among
      other reasons, as the Qumran texts oppose the Hasmonean temple administration.


      This is an exceedingly odd assertion, since (1) I know of no Qumran text
      opposed to the Hasmonean temple administration; (2) There are numerous studies
      demonstrating the Sadducee character of the halachah from Qumran; (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.

      Best regards,
      Russell Gmirkin



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • goranson@duke.edu
      ... 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--
      Message 2 of 17 , Aug 21, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Quoting RUSSELLGMIRKIN@...:

        >
        > Stephen wrote:
        >
        > Lehman attempted to locate Sadducees at Qumran. That does not work, among
        > other reasons, as the Qumran texts oppose the Hasmonean temple
        > administration.
        >
        >
        > This is an exceedingly odd assertion, since (1) I know of no Qumran text
        > opposed to the Hasmonean temple administration; (2) There are
        > numerous studies
        > demonstrating the Sadducee character of the halachah from Qumran; (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.
        >
        > Best regards,
        > Russell Gmirkin

        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. 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 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. Baumgarten was the one first
        to note the shared view on streams of liquid. One shared view does not equate
        to identity of two groups. Essenes shared with Pharisees and not with
        Sadducees
        a belief in resurrection; that does not make Essenes identical with Pharisees.
        Sadducees were aristocrats, a small group, who, Josephus, wrote, persuaded
        "few." Khirbet Qumran and its burials are not aristocratic. Sadducees are not
        known to have produced much literature. And since they disapproved of
        resurrection belief and books with named angels (unlike Essenes) Sadducees
        would not have had several copies, e.g., of Daniel. 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? The mere mention of a name does not necessarily convey
        a value
        judgement. If I write that James K. Polk was a US President, does that
        tell you
        my opinion of his administration? Sadducees did not write the Qumran texts nor
        live at Qumran. Essenes did. Wishing them away won't do.

        best,
        Stephen Goranson
        http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
        "Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene"

        p.s. "Halakha" is not the most helpful word to have written above, because
        Essene Qumran texts--as is widely and correctly recognized--pun against
        Pharisee halakha. Unless historians restrict use of "halakha" to Pharisee and
        Rabbinic contexts, differences between second temple period groups may be
        obscured. Sadducees, after all, claimed Torah was sufficient, hence
        deemphasizing later books and traditions.
      • Lisbeth S. Fried
        Dear Stephen, It is true that according to both Josephus and the NT, the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection, but how do we know that they were right?
        Message 3 of 17 , Aug 21, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Stephen,

          It is true that according to both Josephus and the NT, the Sadducees did not
          believe in resurrection, but how do we know that they were right? The
          Sadducees are the fall-guy in the NT; Jesus was raised from the dead,
          proving the Sadducees wrong. One purpose of the NT, it seems to me, is to
          distance the nascent Christian church from the priesthood which began the
          rebellion against Rome. The Church can’t include Sadducees, because
          Sadducees don’t believe in resurrection. Josephus too wanted to present the
          various Jewish groups as distinct Hellenistic philosophies. He didn’t want
          their belief systems to overlap. Josephus also wanted to present the
          Sadducees as a minority aristocratic group which persuaded few for the same
          reason – to distance the bulk of the Jewish population from those evil
          people who rebelled against Rome. Since Rome was a major audience for both
          the NT and Josephus, the descriptions of the Sadducees within them may not
          be reliable.

          Evidence from the DSS suggests, conversely, that the Sadducees did believe
          in resurrection, angels, etc. The group refers to themselves as Zadokites.
          They view themselves as angelic priests participating in the heavenly
          liturgy as well in as the earthly one. Crispin Fletcher-Louis suggests (but
          I don’t remember where, sorry) that the name Essene is from the Greek
          corruption of Hoshen, and refers to the (magical) breastplate of the high
          priest.

          Liz Fried

          lizfried@...





          _____

          From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
          goranson@...
          Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 1:41 PM
          To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [ANE-2] No Sadducees at Qumran (was Qumran inkwells)



          Quoting RUSSELLGMIRKIN@ <mailto:RUSSELLGMIRKIN%40aol.com> aol.com:

          >
          > Stephen wrote:
          >
          > Lehman attempted to locate Sadducees at Qumran. That does not work, among
          > other reasons, as the Qumran texts oppose the Hasmonean temple
          > administration.
          >
          >
          > This is an exceedingly odd assertion, since (1) I know of no Qumran text
          > opposed to the Hasmonean temple administration; (2) There are
          > numerous studies
          > demonstrating the Sadducee character of the halachah from Qumran; (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.
          >
          > Best regards,
          > Russell Gmirkin

          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. 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 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. Baumgarten was the one
          first
          to note the shared view on streams of liquid. One shared view does not
          equate
          to identity of two groups. Essenes shared with Pharisees and not with
          Sadducees
          a belief in resurrection; that does not make Essenes identical with
          Pharisees.
          Sadducees were aristocrats, a small group, who, Josephus, wrote, persuaded
          "few." Khirbet Qumran and its burials are not aristocratic. Sadducees are
          not
          known to have produced much literature. And since they disapproved of
          resurrection belief and books with named angels (unlike Essenes) Sadducees
          would not have had several copies, e.g., of Daniel. 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? The mere mention of a name does not necessarily convey
          a value
          judgement. If I write that James K. Polk was a US President, does that
          tell you
          my opinion of his administration? Sadducees did not write the Qumran texts
          nor
          live at Qumran. Essenes did. Wishing them away won't do.

          best,
          Stephen Goranson
          http://www.duke <http://www.duke.edu/~goranson> edu/~goranson
          "Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene"

          p.s. "Halakha" is not the most helpful word to have written above, because
          Essene Qumran texts--as is widely and correctly recognized--pun against
          Pharisee halakha. Unless historians restrict use of "halakha" to Pharisee
          and
          Rabbinic contexts, differences between second temple period groups may be
          obscured. Sadducees, after all, claimed Torah was sufficient, hence
          deemphasizing later books and traditions.





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • goranson@duke.edu
          ... But, Liz, your proposal needlessly requires that NT and Josephus, in their shared attesting that Sadducees denied resurection (and rejected later teaching
          Message 4 of 17 , Aug 21, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Quoting "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried@...>:

            > Dear Stephen,
            >
            > It is true that according to both Josephus and the NT, the Sadducees did not
            > believe in resurrection, but how do we know that they were right? The
            > Sadducees are the fall-guy in the NT; Jesus was raised from the dead,
            > proving the Sadducees wrong. One purpose of the NT, it seems to me, is to
            > distance the nascent Christian church from the priesthood which began the
            > rebellion against Rome. The Church can’t include Sadducees, because
            > Sadducees don’t believe in resurrection. Josephus too wanted to present the
            > various Jewish groups as distinct Hellenistic philosophies. He didn’t want
            > their belief systems to overlap. Josephus also wanted to present the
            > Sadducees as a minority aristocratic group which persuaded few for the same
            > reason – to distance the bulk of the Jewish population from those evil
            > people who rebelled against Rome. Since Rome was a major audience for both
            > the NT and Josephus, the descriptions of the Sadducees within them may not
            > be reliable.
            >
            > Evidence from the DSS suggests, conversely, that the Sadducees did believe
            > in resurrection, angels, etc. The group refers to themselves as Zadokites.
            > They view themselves as angelic priests participating in the heavenly
            > liturgy as well in as the earthly one. Crispin Fletcher-Louis suggests (but
            > I don’t remember where, sorry) that the name Essene is from the Greek
            > corruption of Hoshen, and refers to the (magical) breastplate of the high
            > priest.
            >
            > Liz Fried

            But, Liz, your proposal needlessly requires that NT and Josephus, in their
            shared attesting that Sadducees denied resurection (and rejected later
            teaching
            on angels), are both completely wrong, even though Romans, I suggest, were not
            particularly interested in which groups believed in resurrection or not; why
            should they care?--they largely accepted none of the varieties. And the
            scrolls
            are anti-Sadducee; they oppose the Sadducee Hasmonean running of the temple.
            Despite the fixation on calendar issues, Qumran did not observe all holidays:
            no Hanukkah, unlike pro-Hasmoneans. The Qumran mss disapprove of the priestly,
            political, and military actions of one individual who held all those
            functions,
            Alexander Jannaeus. Russell may say the Wicked Priest was pre-Hasmonean, but
            that plays havoc with the Qumran mss chronology (why, e.g., no pre-100 BCE
            texts with Wicked Priest?). The scrolls refer a little to some individuals as
            sons of Zadok. That is not the name of the whole group, but of a subset. And,
            as had been known for a long time, no root with N, like chosen can work
            for the
            name Essene, Esshnoi and Essaioi, because the N in the first spelling
            comes from
            the ending, whereas Essaioi (and Ossaioi, closer to the Hebrew source, osey
            hatorah) has no N. Aristocrats, by definition, are few, and tend not to be
            ascetic, nor buried as those at Qumran. The Qumran Essenes wished they ra
            n the temple.
            Stephen Goranson
          • Rod Nicholas
            Stephen Goranson wrote; Quite a strong condemnation of the Hasmonean High Priest-- ... critical of ... and ... Can you point out precisley which texts cite;
            Message 5 of 17 , Aug 21, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Stephen Goranson wrote;

              "> Quite a strong condemnation of the Hasmonean High Priest--
              > specifically, in this case, Alexander Jannaeus. Qumran texts are
              critical of
              > the purity and calendar practices in the current Hasmonean Temple
              and
              > political
              > administration. This is widely and correctly recognized."


              Can you point out precisley which texts cite; "Alexander Jannaeus,
              Hasmonean High Priest"?
              Can you also point out which texts cite; criticism of the Hasmonean
              Temple practices?
              Particular emphasis please on those texts which actually use the
              term "Hasmonean" !

              Any assertion that the texts are anti Hasmonean sits oddly with
              claims that Pharisees are represented as "seekers after smooth
              things", a group often criticised within the Scrolls; yet
              historically (sic) opposed to the Hasmoneans?


              Rod Nicholas

              > >
              > > Stephen wrote:
              > >
              > > Lehman attempted to locate Sadducees at Qumran. That does not
              work, among
              > > other reasons, as the Qumran texts oppose the Hasmonean temple
              > > administration.
              > >
              > >
              > > This is an exceedingly odd assertion, since (1) I know of no
              Qumran text
              > > opposed to the Hasmonean temple administration; (2) There are
              > > numerous studies
              > > demonstrating the Sadducee character of the halachah from
              Qumran; (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.
              > >
              > > Best regards,
              > > Russell Gmirkin
              >
              > Qumran texts call the high priest, kohen ha-rosh, the wicked
              priest, ha-kohen
              > ha-rasha(. >
              > 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. Baumgarten was
              the one first
              > to note the shared view on streams of liquid. One shared view does
              not equate
              > to identity of two groups. Essenes shared with Pharisees and not
              with
              > Sadducees
              > a belief in resurrection; that does not make Essenes identical
              with Pharisees.
              > Sadducees were aristocrats, a small group, who, Josephus, wrote,
              persuaded
              > "few." Khirbet Qumran and its burials are not aristocratic.
              Sadducees are not
              > known to have produced much literature. And since they disapproved
              of
              > resurrection belief and books with named angels (unlike Essenes)
              Sadducees
              > would not have had several copies, e.g., of Daniel. 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? The mere mention of a name does not necessarily
              convey
              > a value
              > judgement. If I write that James K. Polk was a US President, does
              that
              > tell you
              > my opinion of his administration? Sadducees did not write the
              Qumran texts nor
              > live at Qumran. Essenes did. Wishing them away won't do.
              >
              > best,
              > Stephen Goranson
              > http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
              > "Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene"
              >
              > p.s. "Halakha" is not the most helpful word to have written above,
              because
              > Essene Qumran texts--as is widely and correctly recognized--pun
              against
              > Pharisee halakha. Unless historians restrict use of "halakha" to
              Pharisee and
              > Rabbinic contexts, differences between second temple period groups
              may be
              > obscured. Sadducees, after all, claimed Torah was sufficient, hence
              > deemphasizing later books and traditions.
              >
            • Rod Nicholas
              This is an extension of the questions in #2326: Stephen Goranson wrote; Qumran texts oppose the Hasmoneans Precisely which texts actually use the term
              Message 6 of 17 , Aug 21, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                This is an extension of the questions in #2326:

                Stephen Goranson wrote;

                "Qumran texts oppose the Hasmoneans"

                Precisely which texts actually use the term 'Hasmonean', and which
                indicate opposition to the Hasmoneans?
                The notion of Anti Hasmonean Scrolls sits oddly with those that
                criticise the apparent rivals of the HP Alexander Jannaeus,
                the 'seekers after smooth things' generally identified as Pharisees.
                The Nahum Pesharim describes AJ as the Lion of Wrath, opposed to
                the 'old lion' allegedly Demetrius iii, and the seekers after smooth
                things!
                Add to the mix 4Q448, which most agree praises King Jonathan, and it
                is hard to justify an anti Hasmonean stance in the Scrolls.

                The absence of any reference to the Festival of Hannukah, it could
                be argued, is proof of a pre 164 BCE [Judas Macc's rededication of
                the Temple] date of composition.

                Rod Nicholas



                --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, goranson@... wrote:
                >
                > Quoting RUSSELLGMIRKIN@...:
                >
                > >
                > > Stephen wrote:
                > >
                > > Lehman attempted to locate Sadducees at Qumran. That does not
                work, among
                > > other reasons, as the Qumran texts oppose the Hasmonean temple
                > > administration.
                > >
                > >
                > > This is an exceedingly odd assertion, since (1) I know of no
                Qumran text
                > > opposed to the Hasmonean temple administration; (2) There are
                > > numerous studies
                > > demonstrating the Sadducee character of the halachah from
                Qumran; (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.
                > >
                > > Best regards,
                > > Russell Gmirkin
                >
                > 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. 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 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. Baumgarten was
                the one first
                > to note the shared view on streams of liquid. One shared view does
                not equate
                > to identity of two groups. Essenes shared with Pharisees and not
                with
                > Sadducees
                > a belief in resurrection; that does not make Essenes identical
                with Pharisees.
                > Sadducees were aristocrats, a small group, who, Josephus, wrote,
                persuaded
                > "few." Khirbet Qumran and its burials are not aristocratic.
                Sadducees are not
                > known to have produced much literature. And since they disapproved
                of
                > resurrection belief and books with named angels (unlike Essenes)
                Sadducees
                > would not have had several copies, e.g., of Daniel. 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? The mere mention of a name does not necessarily
                convey
                > a value
                > judgement. If I write that James K. Polk was a US President, does
                that
                > tell you
                > my opinion of his administration? Sadducees did not write the
                Qumran texts nor
                > live at Qumran. Essenes did. Wishing them away won't do.
                >
                > best,
                > Stephen Goranson
                > http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
                > "Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene"
                >
                > p.s. "Halakha" is not the most helpful word to have written above,
                because
                > Essene Qumran texts--as is widely and correctly recognized--pun
                against
                > Pharisee halakha. Unless historians restrict use of "halakha" to
                Pharisee and
                > Rabbinic contexts, differences between second temple period groups
                may be
                > obscured. Sadducees, after all, claimed Torah was sufficient, hence
                > deemphasizing later books and traditions.
                >
              • RUSSELLGMIRKIN@aol.com
                Apologies for not responding earlier. Briefly, Stephen, you fail to establish any real factual basis for your assertion that “Qumran texts oppose the
                Message 7 of 17 , Sep 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  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]
                • RUSSELLGMIRKIN@aol.com
                  One line in Stephen s exchange with Liz Fried was directed to me: Russell may say the Wicked Priest was pre-Hasmonean, but that plays havoc with the Qumran
                  Message 8 of 17 , Sep 1, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    One line in Stephen's exchange with Liz Fried was directed to me: "Russell
                    may say the Wicked Priest was pre-Hasmonean, but that plays havoc with the
                    Qumran mss chronology (why, e.g., no pre-100 BCE texts with Wicked Priest?)."

                    Stephen, I would direct your attention to 4Q266, a 4QD text, as discussed in
                    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. This text
                    refers to the removal from office of a high priest who causes "the name of
                    truth" to fall. In light of the Wicked Priest having been "called by the name of
                    truth" before attaining office (as high priest) according to 1QpHab (=
                    Pesher Habakkuk), one may reasonably take 4Q266 as referring to the Wicked Priest
                    based on the striking similarities which Baumgarten also notes. 4Q266 lists
                    as grounds for disqualification either taking up residence in foreign lands
                    or betraying one's people to a foreign government. Baumgarten lists two
                    exactly examples of high priests who would have been disqualified under 4Q266,
                    namely the Hellenist high priests Menelaus and Alcimus. (I have elsewhere
                    argued that Menelaus corresponds in great detail to the Wicked Priest as described
                    in 1QpHab.) One may interpret 4Q266 as a pre-Hasmonean reference to the
                    Wicked Priest. Note that your proposed Wicked Priest, Alexander Jannaeus, did
                    not collaborate with foreign governments (although the rebel forces opposed to
                    him did).

                    Best regards,
                    Russell Gmirkin


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Lisbeth S. Fried
                    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
                    Message 9 of 17 , Sep 1, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 RUSSELLGMIRKIN@...
                      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]
                    • Stern, Richard H.
                      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
                      Message 10 of 17 , Sep 1, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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
                        RUSSELLGMIRKIN@...
                        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
                      • RUSSELLGMIRKIN@aol.com
                        Dear Liz, See now Alison Schofield and James VanderKam, Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites? in JBL 124 (2005) 73-87. This well-researched article thoroughly
                        Message 11 of 17 , Sep 1, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Liz,

                          See now Alison Schofield and James VanderKam, "Were the Hasmoneans
                          Zadokites?" in JBL 124 (2005) 73-87. This well-researched article thoroughly dispels
                          the idea that the Hasmoneans were not of Zadokite descent.

                          The idea that the Hasmoneans were not descended from Zadok does not appear
                          in any source from antiquity, but was a popular hypothesis among early Dead Sea
                          Scrolls scholars, based on a series of mistaken inferences/guesses. (1)
                          The usual starting point for "scientific" discussions of the scrolls sect was
                          the archaeology of the site of Qumran, which was founded c. 100 BCE (de Vaux
                          tried to push this back to c. 150-130 BCE based on coin discoveries, but this
                          dating isn't credited much any more). (2) It was then very unscientifically
                          assumed that since the scrolls were found at Qumran, then they must have
                          been composed there, with de Vaux imagining that Qumran was founded by the
                          Teacher of Righteousness and other scholars embracing this notion, despite the
                          complete absence of archaeological evidence for such a fanciful notion. (3)
                          This led directly to a dating of the scrolls sect to the Hasmonean period, which
                          in turn led to the inference that the Wicked Priest, a major opponent of the
                          Teacher, could only have been one of the Hasmonean high priests. (4) It was
                          then hypothesized that the opposition to the Hasmoneans was due to an
                          alleged non-Zadokite lineage, despite the absence of supporting textual evidence
                          (from either the scrolls or from classical sources).

                          As Schofield and VanderKam point out (despite their accepting a Hasmonean
                          era dating of the scrolls sect), John Hyrkanus' enemies alleged that he was
                          disqualified from the priesthood due to his mother being a war-captive, not due
                          to his being a non-Zadokite. Conversely, the lineage of the Wicked Priest is
                          not called into question in Pesher Habakkuk. The alleged non-Zadokite
                          descent of the Hasmoneans is, unfortunately, but one of many factual historical
                          mistakes originated by the often amateurish work of the first generation of
                          scrolls scholars and propagated through little more than scholarly inertia into
                          the present.

                          Best regards,
                          Russell Gmirkin

                          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






                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • goranson@duke.edu
                          ane list, I cannot commend Russell Gmirkin s version of Qumran history, or other history (QM as Maccabee War Manual, sources on Essenes, Pentateuch, Tel Dan
                          Message 12 of 17 , Sep 2, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ane list,
                            I cannot commend Russell Gmirkin's version of Qumran history, or other history
                            (QM as "Maccabee War Manual," sources on Essenes, Pentateuch, Tel Dan
                            Aramaic,
                            scrolls study "free" of archaeology, nor his distortion of history of Qumran
                            scholarship [e.g., anti-Hasmonean texts were recognized before the 1951 Qumran
                            dig]). I especially regret and caution on his misrepresentation of the
                            views of
                            Joseph M. Baumgarten. I have answered most of his recent emphatically-packed
                            points before on this and other lists (orion, g-megillot) and in the online
                            paper linked after my signature, so I'll try to be brief.

                            RG asserted that Alexander Jannaeus is "positively excluded" as "Wicked
                            Priest"
                            by "two considerations." RG's first "positive" claim is that the roots MSL and
                            MLK are used in a "demonstrably exact and accurate manner" in 1QpHab. But, in
                            fact, writers choose roots in context for a panoply of reasons, the two roots
                            overlap in their semantics. and RG's claim to know the precise historical
                            implications in pesharim is circular, mere confirmation bias, not
                            demonstration. Puech in DJD XXV p.76 offers some relevant observations, should
                            RG ever be open to reconsidering his positive, exact, accurate understanding.
                            Yesterday I saw a graffito in the library that included the words "King
                            George." I suggest we not judge from one detail condtrued as absolute, but
                            confluence of history evidence. "Jannes" in Damascus Document opposed
                            the good;
                            that's Jannaeus, thinly-veiled, and anti-Hasmonean, recognized as such
                            as early
                            as c. 1910. 4Q448, as in increasingly recognized, condemns King Jinathan
                            (JKannaeus). The pesharim, generally, contest the leader of the country, the
                            temple, and the military, someone of long tenure who offended in all three
                            ways, Jannaeus. Someone who lived in a time when three sects were known, not
                            before them, as RG's candidate.

                            RG's second "positive" point: The Wicked Priests was "called by the name of
                            truth" before taking office "whereas the men of truth are synonymous
                            with those
                            who observe torah." (I add, osey hatorah is the source Hebrew to Greek
                            Spelling*s* to English; that self-identification helps place them in history,
                            and leads to Judah the Essene, contemporary of Jannaeus, not RG's candidate.)
                            Based on RG's text, it has escaped his notice that "called by the name
                            of truth"
                            before he took office and "men of truth," are not identical phrases and appear
                            two contexts. "Called by the name of truth" has famously been read many
                            different ways (Brownlee's pHab book gathers many differing scholarly
                            readings). To be brief, I explain options from Josephus why Jannaeus
                            was indeed
                            highly regarded by the royal widow who freed him from prison, and, in a
                            dream of
                            his father, seen as predestined to rule. Of the many possible
                            interpretations of
                            the phrase , positive RG follows the Barbara Thiering one, of group
                            membership.
                            So much for RG's two "positive" points. Furthermore, 4QMMT, addressed to
                            Jannaeus early in his rule, as many suggest, makes good historical sence, and
                            deals with three sects, unlike RG's candidate. it is very difficult to imagine
                            a writer calling Menelaus as "called by the name of truth," but that is
                            what RG
                            emphatically asks of us.

                            For brevity sake, please do read the Baumgarten article distorted by RG, and
                            more recent and relevant here: "The 'Halakha' [n.b., quotation marks] Miqsat
                            Ma'ase ha-Torah (MMT)" JAOS 116 (1996) 512-16. This great scholar has for
                            decades shown many reasons to associate Qumran and Essenes. Distortion cannot
                            truly alter that. For other examples that differ from RG's version of Sadducee
                            history, see, e.g. Y. Erder JQR 1992 274-5, or Yaakov Elman, "...When is a
                            Parallel not a Parallel? in Reading MMT, or Menahem Kister in Tarbiz 68
                            (1999).
                            That the Rabbinic term translated as "Sadducees" took on wider
                            reference than in
                            second temple usage is a fact RG did not truly address, so failed to recognize
                            the effect of retrojection.

                            RG "informed" me that mishmarot texts involve schedule: contentless
                            rhetoric, as
                            we all know they are about schedule. RG apparently missed my point: one
                            can want
                            a future temple and talk about how it should operate. Again, example: Taslmud.

                            RG ignores data, brackets it off. What books are known to be Sadducee
                            books? Did
                            Sadducee books include resurrection? Did Sadducee books include named
                            angels? Do
                            the Qumran mss match what we know about aristocratic Sadducees? They do match
                            what Josephus tells us about Essene books. Qumran is not aristocratic
                            architecture. No aristocratic burials appear there (e.g. the "ancient zinc
                            coffin" is not that). It is not good methodology to ignore data.

                            I could go on, but perhaps that suffices for now.

                            best,
                            Stephen Goranson
                            http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf
                          • RUSSELLGMIRKIN@aol.com
                            Stephen, Joseph Baumgarten s arguments and conclusions are far more nuanced than you would have us believe. My general impression is that your interest and
                            Message 13 of 17 , Sep 3, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Stephen, Joseph Baumgarten's arguments and conclusions are far more nuanced
                              than you would have us believe. My general impression is that your interest
                              and understanding of his (and other halachic experts) research only goes so
                              far as to catalog who still favors an identification of the scrolls authors as
                              Essenes and who does not.



                              RG's second "positive" point: The Wicked Priests was "called by the name of
                              truth" before taking office "whereas the men of truth are synonymous with
                              those who observe torah." Based on RG's text, it has escaped his notice that
                              "called by the name of truth" before he took office and "men of truth," are not
                              identical phrases and appear two contexts. "Called by the name of truth" has
                              famously been read many different ways (Brownlee's pHab book gathers many
                              differing scholarly readings).





                              Of the many possible interpretations of the phrase , positive RG follows the
                              Barbara Thiering one, of group membership.


                              Furthermore, 4QMMT, addressed to Jannaeus early in his rule, as many
                              suggest, makes good historical sence, and deals with three sects, unlike RG's
                              candidate.

                              it is very difficult to imagine a writer calling Menelaus as "called by the
                              name of truth," but that is what RG emphatically asks of us.

                              RG ignores data, brackets it off. What books are known to be Sadducee books?
                              Did Sadducee books include resurrection? Did Sadducee books include named
                              angels? Do the Qumran mss match what we know about aristocratic Sadducees?
                              They do match what Josephus tells us about Essene books. Qumran is not
                              aristocratic architecture.

                              It is not good methodology to ignore data.


                              _http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf_
                              (http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf)










                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • RUSSELLGMIRKIN@aol.com
                              My apologies, I accidentally pressed Send Now instead of Send Later. I will be posting a more complete reply to Stephen s posting shortly. Russell Gm.
                              Message 14 of 17 , Sep 3, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                My apologies, I accidentally pressed Send Now instead of Send Later. I will
                                be posting a more complete reply to Stephen's posting shortly.

                                Russell Gm.

                                Stephen, Joseph Baumgarten's arguments and conclusions are far more nuanced
                                than you would have us believe. My general impression is that your interest
                                and understanding of his (and other halachic experts) research only goes so
                                far as to catalog who still favors an identification of the scrolls authors as
                                Essenes and who does not.






                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • goranson@duke.edu
                                ... Your calling the work of the first generation of scrolls scholars often amateurish is curious, Mr. Gmirkin. As for my interest in the writings--and
                                Message 15 of 17 , Sep 3, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Quoting RUSSELLGMIRKIN@...:

                                  >
                                  > Stephen, Joseph Baumgarten's arguments and conclusions are far more nuanced
                                  > than you would have us believe. My general impression is that your interest
                                  > and understanding of his (and other halachic experts) research only goes so
                                  > far as to catalog who still favors an identification of the scrolls
                                  > authors as
                                  > Essenes and who does not.


                                  Your calling the work of the first generation of scrolls scholars "often
                                  amateurish" is curious, Mr. Gmirkin. As for my interest in the writings--and
                                  lectures and correspondence and conversation with--Professor and Rabbi
                                  Baumgarten, his work for which I am grateful, your "general impression" is
                                  mistaken. For example, here's a sentence from a source critical paragraph I
                                  published: "Joseph Baumgarten has noted that both 4QDe (4Q270) and Ag. Ap.
                                  [Against Apion] 2 #202 appear to forbid intercourse during pregnancy.(note 21:
                                  "J.M. Baumgarten, "A Fragment on Fetal Life and Pregnancy in 4Q270," in D.P.
                                  Wright et al. (ed.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies...in Honor
                                  of Jacob
                                  Milgrom (Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns) 1995, 445-48, esp. 447 n. 11."). In my
                                  "Others and Intra-Jewish Polemic as Reflected in Qumran Texts," in The
                                  Dead Sea
                                  Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehenisve Assessment, ed. P. Flint and J.
                                  VanderKam, Brill, 1999 vol. 2, 534-551, here 541.
                                  I find I cannot rely on your history writing, Russell, and suggest that others
                                  may do well only to read your assertions with caution.

                                  sincerely,
                                  Stephen Goranson
                                  http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
                                • John
                                  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
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Jun 30 5:00 AM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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
                                    > RUSSELLGMIRKIN@...
                                    > 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
                                    >
                                  • Lisbeth S. Fried
                                    Dear John, I recommend Hanan Eshel s book The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, Eerdmans, 2008. He does a wonderful job, imo, of dating the scrolls.
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Jul 2, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Dear John,
                                      I recommend Hanan Eshel's book The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State,
                                      Eerdmans, 2008.
                                      He does a wonderful job, imo, of dating the scrolls.
                                      All the best,
                                      Liz Fried


                                      Lisbeth S. Fried, Ph.D.
                                      Department of Near Eastern Studies
                                      and the Frankel Center for Judaic Studies
                                      University of Michigan
                                      202 S. Thayer -- Room 4111
                                      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
                                      www.lisbethfried.com <http://www.lisbethfried.com/>

                                      I sent (too much) rain on one city, and sent no rain on another city; and
                                      still you did not return to me, says YHWH. (Amo 4:7-8 )





                                      _____

                                      From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John
                                      Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 8:00 AM
                                      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [ANE-2] Re: History of Dead Sea Scrolls






                                      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 <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.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%40yahoogroups.com>
                                      [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
                                      Of
                                      > Lisbeth S. Fried
                                      > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 3:25 PM
                                      > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.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%40yahoogroups.com>
                                      [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
                                      Of
                                      > RUSSELLGMIRKIN@...
                                      > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:22 AM
                                      > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.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
                                      >






                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.