When/what is the End of Days?

[MrMacSon]

(1) the number of "weird coincidences" noted by Roth* far exceeds, IMHO, those noted by Einhorn. Same names and everything, not vague similarities.

* Roth, Cecil, The Dead Sea scrolls: a new historical approach, 1965 (1958)

wow (to be clear, you're talking about the weird number of coincidences between some of the DSS and Josephus?)

Why the two dates -viz. 1965 (1958)?

(2) I meant "moved" from where most scholars were placing the historical events. Previously, scholars had mostly wanted to place them before the times of Alexander Jannaeus, the 2nd century BCE. But there have long been difficulties with that date range. Doudna & Hutchesson reinterpreted the evidence to propose about 65 BCE in the midst of the Hasmonean civil war. They had their reasons.

Sure. When I said 'place', I meant they were placing them then, and realised this was a move or departure from what others had proposed (or argued).


And to clarify further/fully; you're proposing that Roth was the first to propose or frame many of people or events in some of the DSS in the mid 1st century, and Ian Hutchesson and Greg Doudna reaffirmed that, or built on that?

.

[DCHindley]

(1) the number of "weird coincidences" noted by Roth* far exceeds, IMHO, those noted by Einhorn. Same names and everything, not vague similarities.

* Roth, Cecil, The Dead Sea scrolls: a new historical approach, 1965 (1958)

wow (to be clear, you're talking about the weird number of coincidences between some of the DSS and Josephus?)

Why the two dates -viz. 1965 (1958)?

Seems he came out with the theory in 1958 (I was 2 y/o) and apparently felt he still had enough street cred to publish a 2nd edition in 1965. I have, somewhere, a copy of the 1965 edition. The brackets indicate that there were no major changes to the main text, but perhaps had a new introduction. I'll really have to dig it out from wherever it is and outline his observations.

And to clarify further/fully; you're proposing that Roth was the first to propose or frame many of people or events in some of the DSS in the mid 1st century, and Ian Hutchesson and Greg Doudna reaffirmed that, or built on that?

Oh no. Roth's proposals only work if the characters were active in the War of 66+ CE.

G.Doudna/I.Hutchesson (actually it was Ian's idea) proposed deposit dates of ca. 65 BCE, when the Romans established control of the region, politically, meaning all the characters must have preceded that date.

So the two proposals are a century apart.

The consensus is that the sectarian DSS, when they mentioned anybody, referred to persons active in the 2nd century BCE. However, they propose that the scrolls were deposited around 68 CE.

I would suggest a deposit date just before summer 69 CE when the Romans overtook the area. This doesn't explain how they got there from Jerusalem, though. It also does not explain the C-14 dates for the scrolls. My suggestion here, dumb as it may be, is that the faction which controlled the cave area near Qumran had a connection to the Sicarii who controlled Masada, which Herod had stocked with supplies and (probably older) weapons. Herod and his family took refuge there several times in times of high crisis (for them, at least). Supplies, I assume, that would include parchment and papyrus for communiques, etc.

This could explain dates in the mid 1st century BCE for some DSS, but not into the 1st century CE, when Roth thinks the events being described in them took place. In other words, they simply used the old stored materials present at Masada. The two factions that occupied Masada in the war years of the 1st century CE were the Sicarii, and for a period as a guest of the Sicarii, Simon bar Giora and his followers, although he seems to have left "under a cloud" (i.e., they were kicked out).

DCH

[John2]

I can't find anything online about Simon bar Giora and Simcha Jacobovici except for the comments I made on this forum (which are the only things I've found with those two names together in my search results). Maybe I just misunderstood which Simon he was talking about at the time. Oh, well. I only brought it up because DC mentioned Simon.

Anyway, as far as other possibilities about the identity of the people in the DSS go, we have to bear in mind that Josephus says there was nothing like the Fourth Philosophy in Judaism before the first century CE, so if the DSS are like the Fourth Philosophy then they must be from the first century CE. I gave some broad examples of this earlier, that both sects were pre-70 CE Torah-keeping messianic Jews who were opposed to the Pharisees but familiar with Pharisaic law and terminology. And they can't be the Sadducees because they did not believe in resurrection (or angels, according to Acts) and the DSS do.

And the DSS speak of a "new covenant," and Josephus calls the Fourth Philosophers "innovators" and says that one of their "innovations" (and the one that sparked the 66-70 CE war) was to reject gentile sacrifices (War 2.17.2), and this issue is discussed in 4QMMT.

"And concerning the sacrifices of Gentiles ... [we consider that] they {sacrifice} to [an idol and] that is [like] a woman fornicating with him."

https://books.google.com/books?id=hDuyz ... ls&f=false

"Concerning sacrifices by Gentiles, [we say that (in reality) they] sacrifice to the i[dol] that seduces them; (therefore it is illicit)."

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrol ... d06.htm#35

And the issue of food sacrificed to idols was a big deal in early Christianity (1 Cor. 8, Acts 15, Did. 6).

And we have to bear in mind that the DSS refer to "the way" and the "new covenant" in a place called Damascus led by someone called a zadik or Righteous One who was opposed by someone who rejected the Torah and founded his own congregation during what was believed to be the End of Days, which at least on the face of it sounds similar to Christianity to me.

[John2]

And regarding the use of "the way" in the DSS, as Bauckham notes "Although the Qumran community and the early Christians were certainly not the only Jews to focus their hopes on the Isaianic picture of the way ... they are the only two groups we know to have applied the image of this way to their own way of life."

https://books.google.com/books?id=U7-Qe ... re&f=false

And both the DSS and Christianity were interested in many of the same verses from the OT, such as "the righteous shall live by his faith," “the fallen tent of David,” “strike the shepherd,” “the fountain of living waters," "I will be his father, and he will be my son," the Star Prophecy and Is. 61, for some examples.

[Secret Alias]

Why do you persist with this stupid theory? I've already said you being Robert Eisenman is only the most logic candidate to explain this bizarre pushing aside of hard evidence that makes this theory unworkable. Can you stop shilling for an utterly unworkable theory? The C-14 evidence denies the possibilities put forward by Eisenman. He's a nice guy but wasting his time coming on to this forum resurrecting his disgraced theories, banking on the ignorance and laziness of casual participants and lurkers at this forum.

[andrewcriddle]

DC,

Here's another one for you: "Serenity now!" (It's busy at work tonight.)

On another note, regarding the son of man = Michael idea, I was reading Schafer's review of Boyarin's The Jewish Gospels and noticed this statement:

Boyarin dismisses the possibility that the Son of Man is a collective earthly figure, that is, the people of Israel—quite rightly, in my view—but he does not discuss seriously the much more likely alternative that the Son of Man is the archangel Michael, who represents Israel in heaven. (To be more precise, Boyarin does refer to this possibility in a note, but declares dryly that he nevertheless prefers his own reading.) According to this view, favored by many scholars, the vision of the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man anticipates what is going to happen soon on Earth: Michael, as Israel’s guardian angel, is given dominion and kingship in heaven as a prelude to the dominion and kingship given to the people of Israel on Earth—mentioned explicitly in the explanation of the vision—when the Maccabees ultimately will defeat the Seleucid king and destroy his wicked kingdom.

https://newrepublic.com/article/103373/ ... st-boyarin

I lost some other things I wrote about Michael the other day, but suffice to say that both the DSS and Christianity have a strong interest in Michael (e.g., 1QM; Jude 1:9; Rev. 12:7) and Melchizedek (e.g., 11Q13; Heb. 5-7) and possibly (in the case of the DSS) a suffering Messiah figure (e.g., 4Q541).

Regarding the latter, and bearing in mind that Epiphanius says Jewish Christians believed Jesus was an angel, there is also the Self-Glorification Hymn, and as noted here:

The 'I' speaker in the Self Glorification Hymn boldly asks, "Who is like me among the heavenly beings?" ... He then declares that he is a beloved of the king ... and a companion to the angels ... with whom he claims to be stationed ... This text leaves little doubt about the speaker's elevation to angelic status.

https://books.google.com/books?id=-HQyE ... mn&f=false

Knohl has a translation of this hymn here (with some excerpts I've copied without any brackets to save time):

I shall be reckoned with the angels, my dwelling is in the holy council ... Who has been despised like me? And who has been rejected of men like me? And who compares to me in enduring evil? No teaching compares to my teaching ... Who has been accounted despicable like me, yet who is like me in my glory? ... Who has borne all afflictions like me?

https://books.google.com/books?id=ojBGY ... ls&f=false

The fragmentary nature of the Self glorification Hymn material causes problems for interpretation see old texts and modern mirages by Martinez.

Andrew Criddle

[John2]

Andrew wrote:

The fragmentary nature of the Self glorification Hymn material causes problems for interpretation see old texts and modern mirages by Martinez.

Thanks for the link, Andrew, and I agree that that the fragmentary nature the Self Glorification Hymn (as well as a considerable amount of the DSS in general) causes problems for interpretation. Just another day in DSS land.

But on page 122 Martinez notes regarding the Hymn that:

The only element asserted strongly and clearly is the exalted status of the protagonist, among and above all the angels, and his being endowed with a "glory" to which no one compares. The heavenly residence, and even his being enthroned in heaven, can be deduced from his having been exalted and endowed with an incomparable glory, from his being among and above the angels.

And this is all I'm saying about it as well.

But as far as the identity of the protagonist goes, whether it's the Teacher of Righteousness as Martinez suggests, or the Messiah or whoever, again, just another day in DSS land, but the lack of certainty doesn't mean that the Hymn, including in Martinez's minimal interpretation, has no relevance to Christianity, even if only as a precursor, considering that Jewish Christians (according to Epiphanius) believed that Jesus was an angel and Hegesippus's statement about the grandsons of Jude:

And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

[Secret Alias]

The idea that the C-14 dating doesn't disqualify this silly thread requires some explanation on the part of John2. This is what is so utterly annoying about living in America or perhaps the modern age. The sheer audacity of someone like 'John' just ignoring evidence that makes his whole thesis implausible while continuing to pound out silly threads like this is symptomatic of the dangers of technology. Say it enough times people will forget seems to be the motto.

[John2]

Regarding the issue of gentile sacrifice and eating food sacrificed to idols in MMT, not only was this an issue in the first century CE, it should be noted that MMT appears to be a letter (like the letter concerning gentiles -including the issue of food sacrificed to idols- that was sent out by Jewish Christians in Acts 15).

https://books.google.com/books?id=_oCFY ... er&f=false

It also uses the Pharisaic term ma'asim (and which is one of the "m's" in MMT), "These are some of our words concerning [the Law of Go]d, that is, so[me of the] works [ma'asim] that [w]e [reckon (as justifying you," which is in keeping with the idea that the DSS sect was like the Fourth Philosophy, which, as Josephus says (aside from their militancy and "innovations") "agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions" (Ant. 18.1.6).

As I noted earlier, Jesus also uses this word to describe the Oral Law of Pharisees in the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew.

Our Bibles (which are translated from the Greek Manuscripts) read in Mat 23:3 regarding the Pharisees as follows:

All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

The Hebrew Manuscripts of Matthew read the same verse as follows:

Therefore all that he says to you, diligently do, but according to their reforms (Takanot) and their precedents (Ma’asim) do not do, because they talk, but do not do.

If you are familiar with what the Pharisees taught and believed you would know what “Takanot” and “Ma’asim” refer to. These are traditions and customs that they added into God’s Word (The Holy Scriptures). “Takanot” and “Ma’asim” were sometimes even regarded more important or higher than God’s Word. Examples for Takanot and Ma’asim are, the “Washing of Hands” mentioned in Mat 15:2 and “The Breaking of the Sabbath by plucking corn” mentioned in Mat 12:2. The Hebrew Matthew gives us a better understanding of what went on in such instances, while our own Bible translations are silent on these issues.

https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpres ... ag/maasim/

Additionally, the letter segues from discussing gentile sacrifice, eating food sacrificed to idols to fornication (like the letter in Acts 15), or, as the letter puts it, "All of them have to do with [holy gifts]and purity issues." After discussing the issue of gentile sacrifice and sacrifice in general it then says:

As for the fornication taking place among the people, they are (supposed to be) a Holy People, as it is written, ‘Israel is Holy’ (therefore, it is forbidden). Concerning a man’s cloth[es, it is written, ‘They are not] to be of mixed fabric;’ and no one should plant his field or [his vineyard with mixed crop]s. (Mixing is forbidden) because (the people) is Holy, and the sons of Aaron are H[oly of Holy] [nevertheless, as y]ou know, some of the priests and the [people are mixing (intermarrying).] [They] are intermarrying and (thereby) polluting the [holly seed, [as well as] (89) their own [seed, with fornication ... because they come... will be... and concerning wome[n...] And the rebellion [...For by reason of these... because of] violence and fornication [some] places have been destroyed.

...they sent the following letter ... It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Additionally, the end of MMT has a similar expression from Genesis that James and Paul use in their letters.

Then you will rejoice at the End Time, when you find some of our words were true. Thus, "It will be reckoned to you as righteousness," your having done what is upright and good before Him, for your own Good and for that of Israel.

"And the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God" (James 2:23).

"So also, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Gal. 3:6).

(And incidentally, James' expression of Abraham being called the "friend of God" is also used in the Damascus Document: "Abraham did not walk in it, and he was accounted friend of God because he kept the commandments of God and did not choose his own will. And he handed them down to Isaac and Jacob, who kept them, and were recorded as friends of God and party to the Covenant for ever.")

MMT was also arguably sent out to gentiles, since it says, "And finally, we wrote you about some of the works [ma'ase] of the Law, which we reckoned for your own good and for that of your people, for we see that you possess discernment and knowledge of the Torah."

And note the strong emphasis on "works" of the Torah in MMT (and which is why it is called "MMT"), similar to James and Jewish Christianity.

[John2]

Stephan wrote:

The idea that the C-14 dating doesn't disqualify this silly thread requires some explanation on the part of John2.

I have explained this before, years ago, even. There are too many variables to be certain of carbon dating anything. It more or less gives you a rough idea, give or take. I have given links that support this view. I don't think carbon dating is certain enough to overlook what the DSS say, similar to how you find some value in what the Secret Gospel of Mark says regardless of its uncertain dating (and the absence of the text).

But even if we say the Habakkuk Pesher, for example, is certainly dated to no later than 1 BCE, many of the figures in the NT were born in or lived in the first century BCE (including Jesus in Matthew), so if nothing else the DSS give us some insight into this time period and are closer to the time of Jesus than the NT gospels.