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

Re: [ANE-2] No Sadducees at Qumran (was Qumran inkwells)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Sep 1 7:21 AM
      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 2 of 17 , Sep 1 7:42 AM
        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 3 of 17 , Sep 1 12:25 PM
          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 4 of 17 , Sep 1 1:02 PM
            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 5 of 17 , Sep 1 7:17 PM
              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 6 of 17 , Sep 2 3:05 AM
                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 7 of 17 , Sep 3 7:47 AM
                  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 8 of 17 , Sep 3 7:53 AM
                    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 9 of 17 , Sep 3 8:53 AM
                      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 10 of 17 , Jun 30, 2012
                        Dear Liz

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

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

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

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

                        Many thanks

                        John Stuart


                        --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Stern, Richard H." <RSTERN@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Dear Liz et al.
                        >
                        > The Hasmoneans faked their geneology. Their priestly course (Jehoirib)
                        > was originally minor and obscure, but they got it upgraded later. That
                        > they were outside Jerusalem (Modin) is also mild evidence against their
                        > being genuine Zadokides.
                        >
                        > But another possibility at Qumrun (Q) is that the Q Sadducees
                        > (Zadokides) were opposed to "renegade" Zadokides in Jerusalem (J) who
                        > were following the smooth ways of leaning toward other than the true
                        > Zadokide traditions. So you have Sadducee vs. Sadducee - or true
                        > Sadducee (Q) vs. false Sadducee (J). There were always controversies
                        > over who were the true sons of Zadoq. (Onias II and II) vs. the J guys,
                        > for example. It was like that (at least) ever since Josiah tried to
                        > bring riff-raff kohanim from outside J to J and then get the J Zadokides
                        > to let them share in the benefits of Temple service. (No way!) For a
                        > Sadducee-Q vs. Sadducee-J fight to be celebrated at Qumrun would
                        > therefore be no anomaly. Rather, in keeping with tradition. (How many
                        > Sadducees does it take to start up a schism? 2.)
                        >
                        > =====================================
                        > Best regards.
                        >
                        > Richard H. Stern
                        > rstern@... rstern@...
                        > Washington, DC
                        >
                        > http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm
                        > =====================================
                        >
                        >
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                        > Lisbeth S. Fried
                        > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 3:25 PM
                        > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: RE: [ANE-2] No Sadducees at Qumran (was Qumran inkwells)
                        >
                        > Dear Russell, Stephen, et. al.
                        >
                        > Is this correct that the Hasmoneans were not viewed by everyone as
                        > descended from Zadok (although they are stated to be of the priestly
                        > house of Jehoiarib (1 Chron. 24:7; 1 Macc. 2:1)). I don't remember where
                        > I read this and I can't find the source in either Josephus or Maccabees.
                        > If it's true, then it is possible for the Qumran community to have been
                        > both anti-Hasmonean (i.e., anti- the reigning temple priesthood) and at
                        > the same time be Sadducees (Zadokites).
                        >
                        > Best,
                        >
                        > Liz Fried
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > _____
                        >
                        > From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                        > 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 11 of 17 , Jul 2, 2012
                          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.