John2 wrote:The sect also included gentile converts
That will never be substantiated.
While Hellenism permeated Judaism as a whole, many Israelite Jews were not accepting, and nothing supports this sect doing such.
If anything just the opposite
John2 wrote:The sect also included gentile converts
What was the End of Days? (E of D)John2 wrote:Charlesworth, for example, notes:
From a sociological perspective, the Damascus Document reflects the existence of people having a different way of life from the rest of the Jewish population, but not completely isolated from the common social and religious institutions of Israel. Echoing the language of the Temple Scroll and 4QMMT [4Q394-399], the Damascus Document speaks of people living in the "city of the Temple" (CD 12.1-2) or in "the camp" (10.23), as well as living in "the cities of Israel" (12.19) or in the "camps" (7.6; 19.2), people who "take women and beget children" (7.6-7; cf. 12.1-2; 15.5-6) and are "owners" of properties (9.10-16), have a job and earn a salary (14.12-17), and attend the Temple in Jerusalem and offer sacrifices (12.17-21; 16.13-14).
https://books.google.com/books?id=TmVYV ... on&f=false
For the most part the DSS are hostile towards gentiles. But in the Damascus Document (which mentions the new covenant) the situation is different. As Himmelfarb notes:That will never be substantiated.
This is similar to the situation in Christianity. As Acts 10:28 puts it, "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean."We have already seen that Jubilees rejects the possibility of conversion ... of the ger [foreigner]; similarly 4QFlorilegium prohibits the ger along with a series of foreigners from entering its eschatological temple (4Q174 I 3-4). The presence of the ger among the members of the sect shows that for the Damascus Document, in contrast, gentiles were not so essentially different from Jews that it was impossible to cross the boundary."
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZgYAx ... nt&f=false
It is important to recognize that the Damascus Document is the only scroll to truly accept the ger at all ... Gentiles are not neutral; their idolatry makes them impure and contaminating. Nevertheless, presumably after an initiation and purification process, they can be included among the ger category of the sect.
https://books.google.com/books?id=o26q1 ... nt&f=false
Really is of no help being text that evolved, if anything it shows a possibility of two different groups within the evolution of the text found with the DSS.John2 wrote:Damascus Document.
John2 wrote:To be honest, I don't like apocalyptic writings or thinking (even in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which I otherwise enjoy). But Rakovsky's got me thinking about the nature of the "End of Days" (acharit ha-yamim). And when I think of the End of Days I think of things like Is. 2:2-4:
I was familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls before the New Testament, so the idea of a suffering Messiah figure or community members atoning for sins seems like a non-issue to me (and I also appreciate the elements of this in Rabbinic Judaism).In the last days [acharit ha-yamim] the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established as the highest of the mountains; it will be exalted above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. Many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the temple of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” The law [Torah] will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."
This concept is expressed in 1QS (the Community Rule) col. 8 and 4Q541, for examples.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ew50B ... nt&f=false
So if there are elements (or "signs") of this kind of thing in the OT, or even if they are only imagined to be there, fine.
The DSS sect viewed the Temple as being polluted so they atoned for sins in a different way while waiting for the Temple to be purified or a new one could be built in its stead (or perhaps by performing their rituals in a different location of the Temple, like Josephus says of the Essenes). Acts 21 also presents Christians as performing sacrifices in the Temple after Jesus' death.
So let's say Jesus' crucifixion atoned for sins. I don't understand how or why that would nullify the observance of the Torah. I don't get this impression at all from End Time prophecies in the OT (like Is. 2:2-4 above, which says that the Torah will go out from Zion).
I'm trying to keep an open mind, but it seems "crazy" to me that the Torah or the OT could be valued for having messages (whether "hidden" or in the plain meaning) about the End Time and a suffering Messiah in a way that nullifies the observance of the Torah. As Dt. 4:30 puts it:
"When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days [acharit ha-yamim] you will return to the Lord your God and obey him," and the overwhelming impression I get from the rest of Deuteronomy is that this means to observe everything in the Torah forever and without adding to or taking anything away from it.
Can someone explain how this works for me by using the OT in a way that doesn't sound "crazy"?
Freedom to chooseJohn2 wrote:I don't understand how or why that would nullify the observance of the Torah.
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~akantor/read ... udaism.pdfChristianity conceives redemption as an event in the spiritual and unseen realm, an event which is reflected in the soul, in the private world of each individual, and which effects an inner transformation which need not correspond to anything outside.
Do you think there could have been no evolution in the Fourth Philosophy over the 70 years that it existed? Doesn't Acts say that such an evolution happened in Christianity during the first century CE?Really is of no help being text that evolved, if anything it shows a possibility of two different groups within the evolution of the text found with the DSS.
The Sadducees did not have a monopoly on the name Zadok or the concepts of righteousness (zedakah) or Righteous Ones (Zadiks). One of the founders of the Fourth Philosophy was named Zadok, after all, and he was a Pharisee. James was called a Zadik; was he therefore a Sadducee? Zadiks are revered in Rabbinic Judaism to this day. And the Damascus Document interprets Ezekiel's sons of Zadok esoterically (and in a way that plausibly includes gentiles).You have text originally called Zadokite in nature giving plausibility to a Sadduccean connection.
People and concepts mentioned in the Cairo Damascus Document (CD) are also mentioned in the DSS (e.g., the Teacher of Righteousness, the Liar, and the New Covenant), and parts of the Damascus Document were found among the DSS.Remember this predates DSS
How much do you think the religion changed and when did it change? but most of all, why did it change?John2 wrote: Do you think there could have been no evolution in the Fourth Philosophy over the 70 years that it existed?
.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/essenes/Doesn't Acts say that such an evolution happened to its sect during the first century CE?
You can ask the same questions about Christianity. How much did the DSS sect change? From not including gentiles at all to including them in some fashion. The transition is summed up neatly enough in Acts 10:28: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean."How much do you think the religion changed and when did it change? but most of all, why did it change?
70 years is way to narrow and just unsubstantiated , these beliefs and practices could have taken place for a few hundreds years. The volume of text we have suggest longer then 70
Why the change? In addition to their belief that the end time was near (and perhaps also the need for more recruits), perhaps it had something to do with the new covenant (which is only mentioned in the Damascus Document and maybe one other writing that mentions the Teacher of Righteousness). Everything in the Damascus Document (broadly speaking) is "new," like Josephus says about the doctrines of the Fourth Philosophy, "which we were before unacquainted withal" (Ant. 18.1.1.); this is why he often calls the latter "innovators" and speaks of their "innovations."It is important to recognize that the Damascus Document is the only scroll to truly accept the ger at all.
https://books.google.com/books?id=o26q1 ... nt&f=false
Maybe you misunderstand first century Judaism.John2 wrote: Jews should not associate with or visit gentiles?