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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 of 17 , Jun 30, 2012
                  • 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 9 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.