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

Re: essenes challenge

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... It can t be done Ian. There is no evidence at all linking the Essenes with either the site at Qumran or the scrolls deposited there. It is merely a leap
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 4, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      At 06:11 PM 1/4/99 +0100, you wrote:

      > A C H A L L E N G E
      >
      >I CHALLENGE ANY SUPPORTER OF THE ESSENE HYPOTHESIS TO PUT TOGETHER A
      >CONVINCING DISPLAY OF THE EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT MAKE SPECIAL PLEAS FOR THE
      >SIGNIFICANCE OF PLINY AND THAT DON'T REST SOLELY ON INTERPRETATION OF THE
      >SCROLLS MAKING THEM FIT THE ANCIENT SOURCES WHERE SUITABLE AND MAKING THE
      >ESSENES FIT THE SCROLLS WHERE NECESSARY.


      It can't be done Ian. There is no evidence at all linking the Essenes with
      either the site at Qumran or the scrolls deposited there. It is merely a
      leap of faith to jump across the chasm.

      Jim

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++

      Jim West, ThD
      Quartz Hill School of Theology

      jwest@...
    • Jim West
      ... Nah- you have spent your money well BECAUSE B. goes BEYOND the essene hypothesis!!!! ... Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 4, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        At 11:38 AM 1/4/99 -0700, you wrote:

        >Do you guys mean that it was a waste of good money to buy Boccaccini's
        >_Beyond the Essene Hypothesis_? And I found it so fascinating!
        >
        >>
        >-phil@...

        Nah- you have spent your money well BECAUSE B. goes BEYOND the essene
        hypothesis!!!!

        :-)


        Best,

        Jim

        +++++++++++++++++++++++++

        Jim West, ThD
        Quartz Hill School of Theology

        jwest@...
      • Ian Hutchesson
        ... One thing Jack is clearly right about: the vast majority of scholars accept the Essene Hypothesis in one form or another. Are they all giving up scholarly
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 4, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Ian:
          >>I CHALLENGE ANY SUPPORTER OF THE ESSENE HYPOTHESIS TO PUT TOGETHER A
          >>CONVINCING DISPLAY OF THE EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT MAKE SPECIAL PLEAS FOR THE
          >>SIGNIFICANCE OF PLINY AND THAT DON'T REST SOLELY ON INTERPRETATION OF THE
          >>SCROLLS MAKING THEM FIT THE ANCIENT SOURCES WHERE SUITABLE AND MAKING THE
          >>ESSENES FIT THE SCROLLS WHERE NECESSARY.

          Jim:
          >It can't be done Ian. There is no evidence at all linking the Essenes with
          >either the site at Qumran or the scrolls deposited there. It is merely a
          >leap of faith to jump across the chasm.

          One thing Jack is clearly right about: the vast majority of scholars accept
          the Essene Hypothesis in one form or another. Are they all giving up
          scholarly procedures to support the hypothesis?

          On Orion I made this challenge shortly before being removed from that list.
          I had gone through a long series of attempts to pry some sort of serious
          analysis out of Stephen Goranson, a sometime visitor to CrossTalk, but it
          was like drawing blood from a stone. I have tried at other times to get
          something out of Jack, and various others.

          Once you get past the attempts at manipulating Pliny and fitting the scrolls
          to the descriptions, you get, "well, who else could have written them?" or
          you get the evasive "99% of the scholarly community supports the hypothesis"
          (you know the logic: "Hitler was a good guy, 'cause the vast majority of
          Germans supported him"). F.M. Cross goes for the first approach ("who
          else?"). Charlesworth goes for the scholarly consensus. Neither of them have
          arguments.

          Why do we have this parasitic hypothesis draining all thought from the
          historical analysis of the DSS? It is a logical consequence of the way the
          scrolls were manipulated from 1947 to 1992 when the scrolls were released.
          Roland de Vaux set the standard of 1) overprotecting the scrolls (hence the
          anti-scholarly lack of publication) and 2) requiring consensus among
          scholars working on the scrolls (and the exclusion of those who would not
          concord). The consequence of the first is that a totally warped view of the
          scrolls pervaded the scholarly community based on a few dozen scrolls
          (mostly from cave 1), a view that was not overhauled when the stream of
          several hundred poured out after 1992. The consequence of the second was
          that all discordant views were anathematized and a straight-jacket was
          imposed on thought once a basic working hypothesis was enunciated.

          The scrolls were liberated in 1992, but the neurones had already been linked
          by that time. The only thing that will change this sort of thinking now is
          brain surgery or brain damage allowing a rerouting commensurate with the
          flood of new documentation.


          Ian
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... This post will be easier for response since your last one is a bitapoplectic. I am well aware of the lack of firm evidence that the DSS were the
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 4, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Ian Hutchesson wrote:

            > Ian:
            > >>I CHALLENGE ANY SUPPORTER OF THE ESSENE HYPOTHESIS TO PUT TOGETHER A
            > >>CONVINCING DISPLAY OF THE EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT MAKE SPECIAL PLEAS FOR THE
            > >>SIGNIFICANCE OF PLINY AND THAT DON'T REST SOLELY ON INTERPRETATION OF THE
            > >>SCROLLS MAKING THEM FIT THE ANCIENT SOURCES WHERE SUITABLE AND MAKING THE
            > >>ESSENES FIT THE SCROLLS WHERE NECESSARY.
            >
            > Jim:
            > >It can't be done Ian. There is no evidence at all linking the Essenes with
            > >either the site at Qumran or the scrolls deposited there. It is merely a
            > >leap of faith to jump across the chasm.
            >
            > One thing Jack is clearly right about: the vast majority of scholars accept
            > the Essene Hypothesis in one form or another. Are they all giving up
            > scholarly procedures to support the hypothesis?

            This post will be easier for response since your last one is a bitapoplectic. I
            am well aware of the lack of firm evidence that the
            DSS were the production &/or products of Essenes. The texts
            vary considerably with the historical descriptions, yet they also
            do not fit the Pharisees. The inventory of texts do seem to fit
            an Enochian subset of Judaism. I once posed to Dr. Albright
            that they may have belonged to the "fourth Philosophy" but this
            was a LONG time ago. There is also no firm evidence that they
            came from Qumran and I have always been more inclined to
            place this library in Jerusalem.

            My point was two possibilities for the disparity of the texts
            with what we know about Essenes. 1. They didn't belong to Essenes,
            or 2. Changes in Essene thought reflected over 200 years of
            writing the texts.

            > On Orion I made this challenge shortly before being removed from that list.
            > I had gone through a long series of attempts to pry some sort of serious
            > analysis out of Stephen Goranson, a sometime visitor to CrossTalk, but it
            > was like drawing blood from a stone. I have tried at other times to get
            > something out of Jack, and various others.

            I didn't know you were booted from Orion. If you were removed fornothing more
            than challenging the Essene hypothesis, that is wrong
            but if you were booted for your famous ""style" of discourse, it
            is another matter. When you and I first exchanged posts, I thought you
            were the biggest butt in the world, however, I liked ya anyway but
            everyone isn't as amiable, understanding and nice as me (g).

            > Once you get past the attempts at manipulating Pliny and fitting the scrolls
            > to the descriptions, you get, "well, who else could have written them?" or
            > you get the evasive "99% of the scholarly community supports the hypothesis"
            > (you know the logic: "Hitler was a good guy, 'cause the vast majority of
            > Germans supported him"). F.M. Cross goes for the first approach ("who
            > else?"). Charlesworth goes for the scholarly consensus. Neither of them have
            > arguments.

            Scholarly consensus is not a sound argument. Consensus has been wrong before."Who
            else?" however, is an appropriate question since the texts SEEM to
            fit what we know about the Essenes moreso than the other groups.
            My suggestion that the "DSS People" may have been a subgroup of
            the "classical" Essenes is an attempt to reconcile the problem and it is
            not unlikely.

            > Why do we have this parasitic hypothesis draining all thought from the
            > historical analysis of the DSS? It is a logical consequence of the way the
            > scrolls were manipulated from 1947 to 1992 when the scrolls were released.
            > Roland de Vaux set the standard of 1) overprotecting the scrolls (hence the
            > anti-scholarly lack of publication) and 2) requiring consensus among
            > scholars working on the scrolls (and the exclusion of those who would not
            > concord). The consequence of the first is that a totally warped view of the
            > scrolls pervaded the scholarly community based on a few dozen scrolls
            > (mostly from cave 1), a view that was not overhauled when the stream of
            > several hundred poured out after 1992. The consequence of the second was
            > that all discordant views were anathematized and a straight-jacket was
            > imposed on thought once a basic working hypothesis was enunciated.

            I can't argue with the frustration over how the scrolls werehandled. I saw my
            first one in 1948 and waited almost
            50 years to see them all.

            > The scrolls were liberated in 1992, but the neurones had already been linked
            > by that time. The only thing that will change this sort of thinking now is
            > brain surgery or brain damage allowing a rerouting commensurate with the
            > flood of new documentation.
            >

            I am always interested in looking at different viewpoints as long as Ihave a
            little evidentiary handholds and so far you haven't given me
            one. I have even been seriously considering the Copenhagen
            position as of late (but don't tell Jim West).

            If you don't have an alternative hypothesis, however, what good
            is it?

            Jack
          • Ian Hutchesson
            ... This is working from analyses of Judaism from the first century CE, so given the earlier nature of the majority (if not all) of the texts, it is
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 4, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              >> One thing Jack is clearly right about: the vast majority of scholars accept
              >> the Essene Hypothesis in one form or another. Are they all giving up
              >> scholarly procedures to support the hypothesis?
              >
              >This post will be easier for response since your last one is a bit
              >apoplectic. I am well aware of the lack of firm evidence that the
              >DSS were the production &/or products of Essenes. The texts
              >vary considerably with the historical descriptions, yet they also
              >do not fit the Pharisees. The inventory of texts do seem to fit
              >an Enochian subset of Judaism. I once posed to Dr. Albright
              >that they may have belonged to the "fourth Philosophy" but this
              >was a LONG time ago. There is also no firm evidence that they
              >came from Qumran and I have always been more inclined to
              >place this library in Jerusalem.

              This is working from analyses of Judaism from the first century CE, so given
              the earlier nature of the majority (if not all) of the texts, it is
              anachronistic to apply these constraints to the scrolls.

              >My point was two possibilities for the disparity of the texts
              >with what we know about Essenes. 1. They didn't belong to Essenes,
              >or 2. Changes in Essene thought reflected over 200 years of
              >writing the texts.

              OK.

              >> On Orion I made this challenge shortly before being removed from that list.
              >> I had gone through a long series of attempts to pry some sort of serious
              >> analysis out of Stephen Goranson, a sometime visitor to CrossTalk, but it
              >> was like drawing blood from a stone. I have tried at other times to get
              >> something out of Jack, and various others.
              >
              >I didn't know you were booted from Orion. If you were removed for nothing
              >more than challenging the Essene hypothesis, that is wrong
              >but if you were booted for your famous ""style" of discourse, it
              >is another matter.

              The reason I was given was, after a particularly nasty "anonymously
              directed" post from Judith Wegner, I commented on it as "providential
              prattle", and so I was removed for being rude or whatever. Then I was told
              that no that was not the reason. But I had made posts that were too long,
              posts that were polemical, in short posts that they didn't like. Then I was
              told it was... well, the story went on a bit long.

              >When you and I first exchanged posts, I thought you
              >were the biggest butt in the world, however, I liked ya anyway but
              >everyone isn't as amiable, understanding and nice as me (g).

              Yes, and I thought that there was no logic to your whims, but then I got to
              see that there was a bit more in your posts.

              >> Once you get past the attempts at manipulating Pliny and fitting the scrolls
              >> to the descriptions, you get, "well, who else could have written them?" or
              >> you get the evasive "99% of the scholarly community supports the hypothesis"
              >> (you know the logic: "Hitler was a good guy, 'cause the vast majority of
              >> Germans supported him"). F.M. Cross goes for the first approach ("who
              >> else?"). Charlesworth goes for the scholarly consensus. Neither of them have
              >> arguments.
              >
              >Scholarly consensus is not a sound argument. Consensus has been wrong
              before."Who
              >else?" however, is an appropriate question since the texts SEEM to
              >fit what we know about the Essenes moreso than the other groups.
              >My suggestion that the "DSS People" may have been a subgroup of
              >the "classical" Essenes is an attempt to reconcile the problem and it is
              >not unlikely.

              But then again they may have been any number of other groups mentioned vaguely.

              >> Why do we have this parasitic hypothesis draining all thought from the
              >> historical analysis of the DSS? It is a logical consequence of the way the
              >> scrolls were manipulated from 1947 to 1992 when the scrolls were released.
              >> Roland de Vaux set the standard of 1) overprotecting the scrolls (hence the
              >> anti-scholarly lack of publication) and 2) requiring consensus among
              >> scholars working on the scrolls (and the exclusion of those who would not
              >> concord). The consequence of the first is that a totally warped view of the
              >> scrolls pervaded the scholarly community based on a few dozen scrolls
              >> (mostly from cave 1), a view that was not overhauled when the stream of
              >> several hundred poured out after 1992. The consequence of the second was
              >> that all discordant views were anathematized and a straight-jacket was
              >> imposed on thought once a basic working hypothesis was enunciated.
              >
              >I can't argue with the frustration over how the scrolls werehandled. I saw my
              >first one in 1948 and waited almost 50 years to see them all.
              >
              >> The scrolls were liberated in 1992, but the neurones had already been linked
              >> by that time. The only thing that will change this sort of thinking now is
              >> brain surgery or brain damage allowing a rerouting commensurate with the
              >> flood of new documentation.
              >>
              >
              >I am always interested in looking at different viewpoints as long as I have a
              >little evidentiary handholds and so far you haven't given me
              >one. I have even been seriously considering the Copenhagen
              >position as of late (but don't tell Jim West).
              >
              >If you don't have an alternative hypothesis, however, what good
              >is it?

              Jack, I have put forward a fairly consistent position on the scrolls. This
              is a slightly edited version of what I said in the post entitled "essene
              rubbish (Be warned: much frustration)"...

              ----------------------------------------------------------------------

              I have often expressed a view that the DSS are simply mainstream documents
              (circa 170BCE and following), perhaps produced in the temple, in a community
              under siege from the Hellenistic powers (first Ptolemaic then Seleucid)
              around which have co-opted a part of the population, including some of the
              priesthood (those who "hellenised"). It was in this climate that MMT (and
              perhaps CR in an effort to organise the faithful under the cultural attack)
              was produced by the temple. (MMT is a strong defence of the temple and
              purity in the temple.) Around 410 years after Nebuchadnezzar - CD1:5-6, ie
              ~175 BCE) with the removal of Onias III (good candidate for Teacher of
              Righteousness) from the high priesthood, we get the writing of the hymns.
              These circumstances that lead to the exile from the temple when it is
              polluted and anyone confessing Yahweh worship were crucified. We have the
              production of the Habakkuk pesher that attacks the high priest (the wicked
              priest, Menelaus) and tells of the coming of the Seleucid forces in the form
              of Cypriot mercenaries (the Kittim) who brought with them beasts for
              warefare (Seleucid elephants) and Nahum pesher that talks of similar things
              mentioning the naughty priests in Jerusalem (it also talks of the peace from
              the time of Antiochus III till the coming of the Kittim sent by Antiochus IV
              and then the wrath of the young lion Bacchides). CD was produced in this
              period of enduring war when there was no stability of life and many people
              were living in camps.

              Later documents from the period after the rise to power of the Hasmonean
              dynasty include a praise of Alexander Jannaeus, 4Q448. With this Hasmonean
              rise there is the development of the Melchizedek tradition that unifies the
              role of priest and king, and that allows for a non-Zadokite priesthood
              through Melchizedek's priority to the Aaronid lines. The accompanying return
              to stability allows the production of such works as the Songs of the Sabbath
              Sacrifices relating so strongly to the temple. This material was probably
              produced by those people that posterity called Sadducees, as they had
              control of the temple for most of the period from John Hyrcanus to
              Aristobulus II. (The DSS are clearly not Pharisaic works.)

              Is it so strange that when the DSS talk of the sons of Zadok or the sons of
              Aaron they actually mean the sons of Zadok and the sons of Aaron? When the
              DSS talk so favourably of the temple they are actually in favour of the
              temple? When the talk of Kittim they actually mean Kittim (ie Cypriots)?
              When the DSS talk about the temple treasure they are actually talking about
              the temple treasure (not withstanding our problems of understanding the
              CopperS)? When the DSS give the priestly temple rosters they are actually
              priestly temple rosters?

              ----------------------------------------------------------------------

              In short, I take the scrolls as produced in Jerusalem under the auspices of
              the ruling temple elite who went into exile during the pollution of the temple.


              Ian
            • Jack Kilmon
              ... I think that Enochian Judaism had its origins in the late Seleucid period, certainly by the time of the Maccabaean revolt. The earliest Essenes (in Judea)
              Message 6 of 8 , Jan 4, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Ian Hutchesson wrote:
                >
                > >> One thing Jack is clearly right about: the vast majority of scholars accept
                > >> the Essene Hypothesis in one form or another. Are they all giving up
                > >> scholarly procedures to support the hypothesis?
                > >
                > >This post will be easier for response since your last one is a bit
                > >apoplectic. I am well aware of the lack of firm evidence that the
                > >DSS were the production &/or products of Essenes. The texts
                > >vary considerably with the historical descriptions, yet they also
                > >do not fit the Pharisees. The inventory of texts do seem to fit
                > >an Enochian subset of Judaism. I once posed to Dr. Albright
                > >that they may have belonged to the "fourth Philosophy" but this
                > >was a LONG time ago. There is also no firm evidence that they
                > >came from Qumran and I have always been more inclined to
                > >place this library in Jerusalem.
                >
                > This is working from analyses of Judaism from the first century CE, so given
                > the earlier nature of the majority (if not all) of the texts, it is
                > anachronistic to apply these constraints to the scrolls.

                I think that Enochian Judaism had its origins in the late Seleucid
                period, certainly by the time of the Maccabaean revolt. The
                earliest Essenes (in Judea) were, therefore, around 160 BCE at the
                latest.
                160-150 BCE appears to be a mean for both Palaeographical and
                AMS dating. Hodayot, on the other hand, dates to the first century
                although its composition by the TR goes back to the Maccabaean
                or Hasmonean period.


                > >> Once you get past the attempts at manipulating Pliny and fitting the scrolls
                > >> to the descriptions, you get, "well, who else could have written them?" or
                > >> you get the evasive "99% of the scholarly community supports the hypothesis"
                > >> (you know the logic: "Hitler was a good guy, 'cause the vast majority of
                > >> Germans supported him"). F.M. Cross goes for the first approach ("who
                > >> else?"). Charlesworth goes for the scholarly consensus. Neither of them have
                > >> arguments.

                I must admit that I am intrigued by Murphy-O'connor's hypothesis. This
                would
                suggest that a significant part of the library came with the Hassaya
                (and I think this Aramaic form of <Heb> Qedoshim "Holy Ones" is the most
                likely etymology for Essenes) from Babylon. My late mentor, Bill
                Albright,
                saw definite Babylonian style to the Great Isaiah Scroll.



                > Jack, I have put forward a fairly consistent position on the scrolls. This
                > is a slightly edited version of what I said in the post entitled "essene
                > rubbish (Be warned: much frustration)"...
                >
                > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                >
                > I have often expressed a view that the DSS are simply mainstream documents
                > (circa 170BCE and following)

                Why could many of them not predate the Maccabean revolt, brought to
                Judea by returning Hassaya who now thought the "coast was clear"
                to return from exile?

                , perhaps produced in the temple, in a community
                > under siege from the Hellenistic powers (first Ptolemaic then Seleucid)
                > around which have co-opted a part of the population, including some of the
                > priesthood (those who "hellenised").

                Possible, but if, after a while, the Hassaya thought Judah Maccabee
                double crossed them by also going Hellenistic and when Jonathan
                appointed himself High Priest, that was the straw that broke the
                camel's back. Hence, at first you would have temple-positive texts,
                later temple-polemical texts.


                It was in this climate that MMT (and
                > perhaps CR in an effort to organise the faithful under the cultural attack)
                > was produced by the temple. (MMT is a strong defence of the temple and
                > purity in the temple.)

                Yes, written during the "honeymoon" period between the returned
                Hassaya and the Maccabaeans.

                Around 410 years after Nebuchadnezzar - CD1:5-6, ie
                > ~175 BCE) with the removal of Onias III (good candidate for Teacher of
                > Righteousness) from the high priesthood, we get the writing of the hymns.
                > These circumstances that lead to the exile from the temple when it is
                > polluted and anyone confessing Yahweh worship were crucified. We have the
                > production of the Habakkuk pesher that attacks the high priest (the wicked
                > priest, Menelaus) and tells of the coming of the Seleucid forces in the form
                > of Cypriot mercenaries (the Kittim) who brought with them beasts for
                > warefare (Seleucid elephants) and Nahum pesher that talks of similar things
                > mentioning the naughty priests in Jerusalem (it also talks of the peace from
                > the time of Antiochus III till the coming of the Kittim sent by Antiochus IV
                > and then the wrath of the young lion Bacchides). CD was produced in this
                > period of enduring war when there was no stability of life and many people
                > were living in camps.

                CD has a lot of internal support for the "out of Babylon" hypothesis.
                If the Hassaya returned to Judea in 164ish, that's too late for
                Onias III as the TR but instead more of a stimulus for the revolt
                which, when victorious, brought them from Babylon. This would place
                the TR and WP during the Hasmonean period.


                > Later documents from the period after the rise to power of the Hasmonean
                > dynasty include a praise of Alexander Jannaeus, 4Q448. With this Hasmonean
                > rise there is the development of the Melchizedek tradition that unifies the
                > role of priest and king, and that allows for a non-Zadokite priesthood
                > through Melchizedek's priority to the Aaronid lines. The accompanying return
                > to stability allows the production of such works as the Songs of the Sabbath
                > Sacrifices relating so strongly to the temple. This material was probably
                > produced by those people that posterity called Sadducees, as they had
                > control of the temple for most of the period from John Hyrcanus to
                > Aristobulus II. (The DSS are clearly not Pharisaic works.)

                I just cannot see the DSS as reflecting Sadducean concepts with their
                loud ring of Messianic expectation. I guess this is where the
                "who else" thingy comes in. These DSS people were Messianic, yet they
                were not Pharisees. These people were entrenched in Enochian
                symbolism. Unless it was some unknown Messianic/Enochian group
                other than Messianic/Enochian Essenes, they had to have been
                first cousins.

                >
                > Is it so strange that when the DSS talk of the sons of Zadok or the sons of
                > Aaron they actually mean the sons of Zadok and the sons of Aaron? When the
                > DSS talk so favourably of the temple they are actually in favour of the
                > temple? When the talk of Kittim they actually mean Kittim (ie Cypriots)?
                > When the DSS talk about the temple treasure they are actually talking about
                > the temple treasure (not withstanding our problems of understanding the
                > CopperS)? When the DSS give the priestly temple rosters they are actually
                > priestly temple rosters?

                I agree it's a puzzlement....If the Babylonian exiled Hassaya
                came to Judea prior to the excessive oppression by Antiochus IV
                under the gentler reign of Antiochus' predecessors to bring
                their Temple brethren "back to the fold" things may fit in
                as you say...Onias could have been the TR.

                I need another cup of coffee.

                Jack
                >
                > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                >
                > In short, I take the scrolls as produced in Jerusalem under the auspices of
                > the ruling temple elite who went into exile during the pollution of the temple.

                But consider that they may have been brought to the temple from Babylon
                by returning Essenes but after the temple went to kaka, a certain
                number moved out, but some may have remained temple-types (the Essene
                Quarter Essenes).

                Jack
                --
                ______________________________________________

                taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

                Jack Kilmon
                jkilmon@...

                http://www.historian.net
              • Ian Hutchesson
                ... Enochian Judaism smells of Boccaccini, ie secondary literature that assumes some form of the Essene Hypothesis. Does Enochian Judaism mean anything more
                Message 7 of 8 , Jan 5, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  >> [You are] working from analyses of Judaism from the 1st century CE, so given
                  >> the earlier nature of the majority (if not all) of the texts, it is
                  >> anachronistic to apply these constraints to the scrolls.
                  >
                  >I think that Enochian Judaism had its origins in the late Seleucid
                  >period, certainly by the time of the Maccabaean revolt.

                  "Enochian Judaism" smells of Boccaccini, ie secondary literature that
                  assumes some form of the Essene Hypothesis. Does Enochian Judaism mean
                  anything more than the very mixed contents of one or more of the books of
                  1Enoch? If so, what, and how do you know?

                  >The earliest Essenes (in Judea) were, therefore, around 160 BCE at the
                  >latest.

                  You are still assuming the Essene Hypothesis, Jack. What's the point of
                  saying the above when you know that I don't accept the assumption and have
                  been asking for more than assumptions for years?

                  >160-150 BCE appears to be a mean for both Palaeographical and
                  >AMS dating. Hodayot, on the other hand, dates to the first century
                  >although its composition by the TR goes back to the Maccabaean
                  >or Hasmonean period.
                  >
                  >>>> Once you get past the attempts at manipulating Pliny and fitting the
                  scrolls
                  >>>> to the descriptions, you get, "well, who else could have written them?" or
                  >>>> you get the evasive "99% of the scholarly community supports the
                  hypothesis"
                  >>>> (you know the logic: "Hitler was a good guy, 'cause the vast majority of
                  >>>> Germans supported him"). F.M. Cross goes for the first approach ("who
                  >>>> else?"). Charlesworth goes for the scholarly consensus. Neither of them
                  have
                  >>>> arguments.
                  >
                  >I must admit that I am intrigued by Murphy-O'connor's hypothesis. This would
                  >suggest that a significant part of the library came with the Hassaya
                  >(and I think this Aramaic form of <Heb> Qedoshim "Holy Ones" is the most
                  >likely etymology for Essenes) from Babylon.

                  Jack, this is yet another of the myriad of etymologies that people so
                  fervantly throw up for "Essene". Murphy-O'Connor's hypothesis doesn't seem
                  to have much evidence for it either.

                  >My late mentor, Bill Albright,
                  >saw definite Babylonian style to the Great Isaiah Scroll.
                  >
                  >> Jack, I have put forward a fairly consistent position on the scrolls. This
                  >> is a slightly edited version of what I said in the post entitled "essene
                  >> rubbish (Be warned: much frustration)"...
                  >>
                  >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >>
                  >> I have often expressed a view that the DSS are simply mainstream documents
                  >> (circa 170BCE and following)
                  >
                  >Why could many of them not predate the Maccabean revolt, brought to
                  >Judea by returning Hassaya who now thought the "coast was clear"
                  >to return from exile?

                  Note that I indicate that some of those texts I specified were composed not
                  long before the revolt, eg CR & MMT. I think there is good evidence that
                  some of the texts were produced before this period as well. Beside texts
                  like Enoch's Astronomy Book, some of the testament material may be from the
                  earlier period as well: thinking about it, would seem that they would mostly
                  be Aramaic texts.

                  Nevertheless, Jack, I don't think you are actually responding to my post at
                  all, but proposing the Murphy-O'Connor hypothesis as you'd like to use it to
                  integrate with some form of Essene Hypothesis. So it might have been easier
                  for you to have simply written a new post on the subject.

                  >, perhaps produced in the temple, in a community
                  >> under siege from the Hellenistic powers (first Ptolemaic then Seleucid)
                  >> around which have co-opted a part of the population, including some of the
                  >> priesthood (those who "hellenised").
                  >
                  >Possible,

                  Thanks, Jack.

                  >but if, after a while, the Hassaya thought Judah Maccabee
                  >double crossed them by also going Hellenistic and when Jonathan
                  >appointed himself High Priest, that was the straw that broke the
                  >camel's back. Hence, at first you would have temple-positive texts,
                  >later temple-polemical texts.

                  When Alcimus (good candidate for the man of lies) induced a number of the
                  hasidim to come to an accord, these hasidim left Judas Maccabaeus hoping to
                  get out of the war. (You can see how they were viewed in the scrolls: those
                  who were seduced by the man of lies to leave the community.) One could
                  naturally try to interpret this group who left Judas as being unhappy with
                  him. Beside these I can see nothing that could suggest any discontent with
                  Judas. However, I'd say that the writers of Daniel didn't seem to think
                  Judas was the man, if he is the "little help" in Dan11:34. However, the
                  Animal Apocalypse seems to make Judas the one who was responsible for any
                  hope of victory. What evidence do you have in mind, Jack?

                  >> It was in this climate that MMT (and
                  >> perhaps CR in an effort to organise the faithful under the cultural attack)
                  >> was produced by the temple. (MMT is a strong defence of the temple and
                  >> purity in the temple.)
                  >
                  >Yes, written during the "honeymoon" period between the returned
                  >Hassaya and the Maccabaeans.

                  As we are talking in parallel and not to each other, let me just ask again,
                  where is the evidence of Murphy-O'Connor's returnees' connection with the
                  DSS? You have this habit, Jack: it seems to me that you have no comments on
                  theories other than the ones that you champion.

                  > Around 410 years after Nebuchadnezzar - CD1:5-6, ie
                  >> ~175 BCE) with the removal of Onias III (good candidate for Teacher of
                  >> Righteousness) from the high priesthood, we get the writing of the hymns.
                  >> These circumstances that lead to the exile from the temple when it is
                  >> polluted and anyone confessing Yahweh worship were crucified. We have the
                  >> production of the Habakkuk pesher that attacks the high priest (the wicked
                  >> priest, Menelaus) and tells of the coming of the Seleucid forces in the form
                  >> of Cypriot mercenaries (the Kittim) who brought with them beasts for
                  >> warefare (Seleucid elephants) and Nahum pesher that talks of similar things
                  >> mentioning the naughty priests in Jerusalem (it also talks of the peace from
                  >> the time of Antiochus III till the coming of the Kittim sent by Antiochus IV
                  >> and then the wrath of the young lion Bacchides). CD was produced in this
                  >> period of enduring war when there was no stability of life and many people
                  >> were living in camps.
                  >
                  >CD has a lot of internal support for the "out of Babylon" hypothesis.

                  I don't see very much at all.

                  >If

                  How many of these "ifs" are you going to drop, Jack?

                  >the Hassaya returned to Judea in 164ish,

                  And we know, don't we, Jack, that you'll never have any evidence for this.

                  >that's too late for
                  >Onias III as the TR but instead more of a stimulus for the revolt
                  >which, when victorious, brought them from Babylon. This would place
                  >the TR and WP during the Hasmonean period.

                  If we want to be literal, Jack, 390 years plus twenty from Nebuchadnezzar's
                  appearance in 597 -- as per CD 1 --, puts the loss of the TR in 177 BCE,
                  which is awful close to the time Onias was removed.

                  >> Later documents from the period after the rise to power of the Hasmonean
                  >> dynasty include a praise of Alexander Jannaeus, 4Q448. With this Hasmonean
                  >> rise there is the development of the Melchizedek tradition that unifies the
                  >> role of priest and king, and that allows for a non-Zadokite priesthood
                  >> through Melchizedek's priority to the Aaronid lines. The accompanying return
                  >> to stability allows the production of such works as the Songs of the Sabbath
                  >> Sacrifices relating so strongly to the temple. This material was probably
                  >> produced by those people that posterity called Sadducees, as they had
                  >> control of the temple for most of the period from John Hyrcanus to
                  >> Aristobulus II. (The DSS are clearly not Pharisaic works.)
                  >
                  >I just cannot see the DSS as reflecting Sadducean concepts with their
                  >loud ring of Messianic expectation.

                  Why is Schiffman bending over backwards to say that the writers of the DSS
                  were a splinter of the Sadducees? He rightly points to at least two rulings
                  in MMT that were later specifically championed by the Sadducees. But, the
                  earlier texts were written before there were Sadducees, Pharisees or
                  Essenes, to my understanding. Why are the scrolls so temple oriented if they
                  represent a splinter anything?

                  >I guess this is where the "who else" thingy comes in.

                  No, Jack. We have all those temple oriented documents dealing with temple
                  sacrifices, temple procedures, temple purity, temple treasure, remple
                  rosters. This is more how could you think of any other group than one
                  centred around the temple.

                  >These DSS people were Messianic,

                  Sometimes: specifically during the hellenistic crisis.

                  >yet they were not Pharisees.

                  OK.

                  >These people were entrenched in Enochian symbolism.

                  There is far to much other symbolism to be pinned down to the limits of
                  Enoch. Of course, Enoch was popular, but nowhere near as popular as
                  Deuteronomy, which has far more copies and more citations.

                  >Unless it was some unknown Messianic/Enochian group
                  >other than Messianic/Enochian Essenes, they had to have been
                  >first cousins.

                  This is Cross logic: couldn't have been anyone else, so it must have been my
                  bunch (when I don't know bugger-all about the others).

                  >> Is it so strange that when the DSS talk of the sons of Zadok or the sons of
                  >> Aaron they actually mean the sons of Zadok and the sons of Aaron? When the
                  >> DSS talk so favourably of the temple they are actually in favour of the
                  >> temple? When the talk of Kittim they actually mean Kittim (ie Cypriots)?
                  >> When the DSS talk about the temple treasure they are actually talking about
                  >> the temple treasure (not withstanding our problems of understanding the
                  >> CopperS)? When the DSS give the priestly temple rosters they are actually
                  >> priestly temple rosters?
                  >
                  >I agree it's a puzzlement....

                  I'm not puzzled at all, Jack. I read these things literally. These are
                  temple oriented documents. We are dealing with mainstream Judaism that
                  existed before Pharisaism and Rabbinism which have both clouded our
                  understanding of early Judaism through their maintenance of the sacred
                  books. The documents praise the sons of Zadok and give the sons of Aaron a
                  place of importance, yet they are extremely literalist in their approach,
                  suggesting when they say Zadok and Aaron, they mean Zadok and Aaron, so they
                  put the priestly hierarchy at the top, just as you would expect priests to do.

                  >If the Babylonian exiled Hassaya

                  Still not talking about my post, still working with a group that has no
                  history and still dropping "ifs", Jack.

                  >came to Judea prior to the excessive oppression by Antiochus IV
                  >under the gentler reign of Antiochus' predecessors to bring
                  >their Temple brethren "back to the fold" things may fit in
                  >as you say...Onias could have been the TR.
                  >
                  >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >>
                  >> In short, I take the scrolls as produced in Jerusalem under the auspices of
                  >> the ruling temple elite who went into exile during the pollution of the
                  temple.
                  >
                  >But consider

                  Why should I, Jack, when you have spent the whole post not considering what
                  I sent you?

                  >that they may have been brought to the temple from Babylon
                  >by returning Essenes but after the temple went to kaka, a certain
                  >number moved out, but some may have remained temple-types (the Essene
                  >Quarter Essenes).

                  What ****ing bunch that returned from Babylon? There is no evidence for such
                  a group, repeat, there is no evidence for such a group. You may as well talk
                  about pink fairies from Mars, Jack. It was a nice scenario of
                  Murphy-O'Connor's. Even Philip Davies liked it for a while. But it is not
                  based on any facts.

                  You asked me in the previous post:

                  >If you don't have an alternative hypothesis, however, what good
                  >is it?

                  Let me ask you:

                  If you don't read the alternative hypothesis, what good is it asking about one?

                  You might note that I am attempting to deal with a lot of the content of
                  various scrolls, relating them to know historical events and situations. I
                  give you a group that we know existed in history as good candidates for the
                  people of the scrolls, those who were the sons of Zadok and the sons of
                  Aaron who left Jerusalem during the crisis.


                  Ian
                • Jack Kilmon
                  ... Really? He wear Old Spice too? ... I am saying that the Dead Sea Scroll people were a subset of Judaism that was grounded in the emergence of the
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jan 6, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ian Hutchesson wrote:
                    >
                    > >> [You are] working from analyses of Judaism from the 1st century CE, so given
                    > >> the earlier nature of the majority (if not all) of the texts, it is
                    > >> anachronistic to apply these constraints to the scrolls.
                    > >
                    > >I think that Enochian Judaism had its origins in the late Seleucid
                    > >period, certainly by the time of the Maccabaean revolt.
                    >
                    > "Enochian Judaism" smells of Boccaccini,

                    Really? He wear Old Spice too?

                    > ie secondary literature that
                    > assumes some form of the Essene Hypothesis. Does Enochian Judaism mean
                    > anything more than the very mixed contents of one or more of the books of
                    > 1Enoch? If so, what, and how do you know?

                    I am saying that the Dead Sea Scroll people were a subset of Judaism
                    that was
                    grounded in the emergence of the Daniel/Enochian literature that
                    arose in the late 2nd temple period. The sectarian texts are full of
                    Enochian imagery of the end of days, final judgement, resurrection,
                    the "son of man," blessedness of the righteous and the punishment
                    of sinners, the Messiah. The DSS People used the Enochian calendar.

                    >
                    > >The earliest Essenes (in Judea) were, therefore, around 160 BCE at the
                    > >latest.
                    >
                    > You are still assuming the Essene Hypothesis, Jack. What's the point of
                    > saying the above when you know that I don't accept the assumption and have
                    > been asking for more than assumptions for years?

                    The point is, from a methodological standpoint, if you are going to
                    challenge the Essene hypothesis, the origins of the Essenes is a
                    frame of reference.

                    > >
                    > >I must admit that I am intrigued by Murphy-O'connor's hypothesis. This would
                    > >suggest that a significant part of the library came with the Hassaya
                    > >(and I think this Aramaic form of <Heb> Qedoshim "Holy Ones" is the most
                    > >likely etymology for Essenes) from Babylon.
                    >
                    > Jack, this is yet another of the myriad of etymologies that people so
                    > fervantly throw up for "Essene".

                    I think Cross has presented convincing evidence for this. Hasayya
                    "Holy Ones" Sing. Hasen, is connected to the Essenes indirectly by Philo
                    on
                    two occasions as (OSIOTHS "holiness." hsn is East Aramaic and it is
                    found
                    in the Aramaic Testament of Levi (4Q214) hsn=esshnoi. I did say "most
                    likely" and this from your "myriad of etymologies makes the most sense.

                    Ian. just because you "so fervently" challenge the Essene hypothesis
                    does not mean that all research, historical or etymological, should
                    suddenly cease, declared invalid.


                    > Murphy-O'Connor's hypothesis doesn't seem
                    > to have much evidence for it either.

                    I believe he does...from the text of CD...but again, you cannot
                    consider an "out of Babylon" hypothesis for Essenes when you don't
                    want to use Essenes as a frame of reference.

                    >
                    > >My late mentor, Bill Albright,
                    > >saw definite Babylonian style to the Great Isaiah Scroll.
                    > >
                    > >> Jack, I have put forward a fairly consistent position on the scrolls. This
                    > >> is a slightly edited version of what I said in the post entitled "essene
                    > >> rubbish (Be warned: much frustration)"...
                    > >>
                    > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > >>
                    > >> I have often expressed a view that the DSS are simply mainstream documents
                    > >> (circa 170BCE and following)
                    > >
                    > >Why could many of them not predate the Maccabean revolt, brought to
                    > >Judea by returning Hassaya who now thought the "coast was clear"
                    > >to return from exile?
                    >
                    > Note that I indicate that some of those texts I specified were composed not
                    > long before the revolt, eg CR & MMT. I think there is good evidence that
                    > some of the texts were produced before this period as well. Beside texts
                    > like Enoch's Astronomy Book, some of the testament material may be from the
                    > earlier period as well: thinking about it, would seem that they would mostly
                    > be Aramaic texts.
                    >
                    > Nevertheless, Jack, I don't think you are actually responding to my post at
                    > all, but proposing the Murphy-O'Connor hypothesis as you'd like to use it to
                    > integrate with some form of Essene Hypothesis. So it might have been easier
                    > for you to have simply written a new post on the subject.

                    No, Ian...I am suggesting that the Murphy-O'Connor hypothesis is
                    a viable one and an alternative to your challenge of the Essene
                    hypothesis where it is based on chronology.

                    >
                    > >, perhaps produced in the temple, in a community
                    > >> under siege from the Hellenistic powers (first Ptolemaic then Seleucid)
                    > >> around which have co-opted a part of the population, including some of the
                    > >> priesthood (those who "hellenised").
                    > >
                    > >Possible,
                    >
                    > Thanks, Jack.
                    >
                    > >but if, after a while, the Hassaya thought Judah Maccabee
                    > >double crossed them by also going Hellenistic and when Jonathan
                    > >appointed himself High Priest, that was the straw that broke the
                    > >camel's back. Hence, at first you would have temple-positive texts,
                    > >later temple-polemical texts.
                    >
                    > When Alcimus (good candidate for the man of lies) induced a number of the
                    > hasidim to come to an accord, these hasidim left Judas Maccabaeus hoping to
                    > get out of the war. (You can see how they were viewed in the scrolls: those
                    > who were seduced by the man of lies to leave the community.) One could
                    > naturally try to interpret this group who left Judas as being unhappy with
                    > him. Beside these I can see nothing that could suggest any discontent with
                    > Judas. However, I'd say that the writers of Daniel didn't seem to think
                    > Judas was the man, if he is the "little help" in Dan11:34. However, the
                    > Animal Apocalypse seems to make Judas the one who was responsible for any
                    > hope of victory. What evidence do you have in mind, Jack?

                    Judas signing a treaty with Rome, using Hellenized ambassadors and
                    Jonathan
                    appointing himself HP.

                    >
                    > >> It was in this climate that MMT (and
                    > >> perhaps CR in an effort to organise the faithful under the cultural attack)
                    > >> was produced by the temple. (MMT is a strong defence of the temple and
                    > >> purity in the temple.)
                    > >
                    > >Yes, written during the "honeymoon" period between the returned
                    > >Hassaya and the Maccabaeans.
                    >
                    > As we are talking in parallel and not to each other, let me just ask again,
                    > where is the evidence of Murphy-O'Connor's returnees' connection with the
                    > DSS? You have this habit, Jack: it seems to me that you have no comments on
                    > theories other than the ones that you champion.

                    No, we are not talking past each other. We are talking with two
                    different motives. I am using an exploratory style in order to
                    look at alternatives to the Essene hypothesis...even yours. You
                    are using a dogmatic style that countenances no exploration
                    beyond your own theory.

                    The Damascus Document speaks of leaving the land of Judah (CD 4:2, 6:5)
                    and going to the land of the North or Damascus (7:13, 20:12) and the
                    "new covenant in the land of Damascus," Damascus being a code word
                    for Babylon as is found in Amos 5:26-27 which is quoted in CD...good
                    internal evidence...also cited by Luke in Acts 7:43 and translated
                    as Babylon...good external evidence. The Damascus Document is
                    designed in its regulations to a Jewish community living in a
                    Gentile environment. When the Damascus Document speaks about the
                    "Diggers of the well of the law" it discusses one group of diggers
                    as "the returnees of Israel who went out of the land of Judah
                    and were exiled in the land of Damascus." Since this is assigned
                    to the TR, these returnees from the land of Damascus (Babylon)
                    must ante-date the TR.

                    Hence, I said:

                    >
                    > >the Hassaya returned to Judea in 164ish,
                    >
                    > And we know, don't we, Jack, that you'll never have any evidence for this.

                    Except the texts suggest it.

                    >
                    > >These people were entrenched in Enochian symbolism.
                    >
                    > There is far to much other symbolism to be pinned down to the limits of
                    > Enoch. Of course, Enoch was popular, but nowhere near as popular as
                    > Deuteronomy, which has far more copies and more citations.

                    Yes, but a lot of Enochian material and a lot of Deuteronomy do
                    not add up to Sadducees.


                    > >Unless it was some unknown Messianic/Enochian group
                    > >other than Messianic/Enochian Essenes, they had to have been
                    > >first cousins.
                    >
                    > This is Cross logic: couldn't have been anyone else, so it must have been my
                    > bunch (when I don't know bugger-all about the others).

                    It's true we don't know a great deal about the Sadducees..but we do know
                    that they believed the soul died with the body, there was no
                    resurrection,
                    no last judgement, no messiah, etc. The DSS are pregnant with all the
                    thingies Sadducees eschewed. How can we suggest they are Sadducee?

                    This leaves Pharisees, Essenes, or unknown groups that somehow,
                    escaped the notice of history. The texts are not Pharisaic.
                    Nothing wrong with the logic so far.

                    >
                    > >> Is it so strange that when the DSS talk of the sons of Zadok or the sons of
                    > >> Aaron they actually mean the sons of Zadok and the sons of Aaron? When the
                    > >> DSS talk so favourably of the temple they are actually in favour of the
                    > >> temple? When the talk of Kittim they actually mean Kittim (ie Cypriots)?
                    > >> When the DSS talk about the temple treasure they are actually talking about
                    > >> the temple treasure (not withstanding our problems of understanding the
                    > >> CopperS)? When the DSS give the priestly temple rosters they are actually
                    > >> priestly temple rosters?

                    No, there's nothing wrong with any of that but there is aslo precednt
                    that
                    kittim also referred to any oppressive invaders fron the seas to the
                    West
                    having come into usage from the Seleucids from Cyprus. There ARE
                    alternatives
                    and each has to be considered.

                    > >
                    > >I agree it's a puzzlement....
                    >
                    > I'm not puzzled at all, Jack. I read these things literally. These are
                    > temple oriented documents.

                    Not all.

                    > We are dealing with mainstream Judaism that
                    > existed before Pharisaism and Rabbinism which have both clouded our
                    > understanding of early Judaism through their maintenance of the sacred
                    > books.

                    What is "mainstream Judaism" prior to the chaos of the Seleucids?


                    > The documents praise the sons of Zadok and give the sons of Aaron a
                    > place of importance, yet they are extremely literalist in their approach,
                    > suggesting when they say Zadok and Aaron, they mean Zadok and Aaron, so they
                    > put the priestly hierarchy at the top, just as you would expect priests to do.
                    >
                    > >If the Babylonian exiled Hassaya
                    >
                    > Still not talking about my post, still working with a group that has no
                    > history and still dropping "ifs", Jack.

                    Unlike you I do not have the luxury of dogmatic constructions.

                    >
                    > >came to Judea prior to the excessive oppression by Antiochus IV
                    > >under the gentler reign of Antiochus' predecessors to bring
                    > >their Temple brethren "back to the fold" things may fit in
                    > >as you say...Onias could have been the TR.
                    > >
                    > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > >>
                    > >> In short, I take the scrolls as produced in Jerusalem under the auspices of
                    > >> the ruling temple elite who went into exile during the pollution of the
                    > temple.

                    And the "ruling elite" prior to the Hasmoneans could not have been
                    Essenes?

                    > >
                    > >But consider
                    >
                    > Why should I, Jack, when you have spent the whole post not considering what
                    > I sent you?

                    I consider everything you say, but again look at the alternatives.

                    >
                    > >that they may have been brought to the temple from Babylon
                    > >by returning Essenes but after the temple went to kaka, a certain
                    > >number moved out, but some may have remained temple-types (the Essene
                    > >Quarter Essenes).
                    >
                    > What ****ing bunch that returned from Babylon?

                    Ian, Ian..get a hold of yourself.


                    > There is no evidence for such
                    > a group, repeat, there is no evidence for such a group. You may as well talk
                    > about pink fairies from Mars, Jack. It was a nice scenario of
                    > Murphy-O'Connor's. Even Philip Davies liked it for a while. But it is not
                    > based on any facts.

                    It is based on a reasonable interpretation of CD

                    >
                    > You asked me in the previous post:
                    >
                    > >If you don't have an alternative hypothesis, however, what good
                    > >is it?
                    >
                    > Let me ask you:
                    >
                    > If you don't read the alternative hypothesis, what good is it asking about one?

                    I am reading it...and consider it..but it ignores a great deal of
                    vorlage in the sectarian texts.

                    >
                    > You might note that I am attempting to deal with a lot of the content of
                    > various scrolls, relating them to know historical events and situations. I
                    > give you a group that we know existed in history as good candidates for the
                    > people of the scrolls, those who were the sons of Zadok and the sons of
                    > Aaron who left Jerusalem during the crisis.

                    And that group is the Sadducees? A group antithetical to the themes and
                    symbolisms of the non-biblical texts? You mentioned a couple Sadducee
                    themes. What are they?

                    Jack

                    --
                    ______________________________________________

                    taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

                    Jack Kilmon
                    jkilmon@...

                    http://www.historian.net
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.