When/what is the End of Days?

[John2]

Sorry outhouse.

And yes, I judge the sect by what the texts say, and I will show you some examples when I get more time tomorrow.

[John2]

Ah, one more, I can't resist. Broadly speaking we can say that they were pre-70 CE Torah keeping messianic Jews. And they were anti-Pharisaic but familiar with Pharisaic laws and terminology, for example.

[outhouse]

I suspect the urge to nullify or to mitigate the Torah in any way derived from dealing with gentiles. There are arguments (the "New Perspective") that even Paul did not envision the law coming to an end for Jews: he was writing strictly about the gentiles' relationship to the law in those famous passages, and he himself was divinely commissioned to "live like a gentile" strictly for the purposes of his evangelism.

Agreed Ben

I personally hate using Paul as an example of Judaism. Despite him being a Hellenistic Jew of some sort who had no problem perverting laws, his goal did not seem to be to lessen it.

[outhouse]

And yes, I judge the sect by what the texts say, and I will show you some examples when I get more time tomorrow.

I understand your point, we have some basic clues, but there is so much speculation I shy away from any certainty. I view the DSS as a collection hid, and it may only be in a small part, said communities actual belief or following. Multiple languages can testify to such.

[Secret Alias]

You find the same thing in modern churches regarding, say, the stance on homosexuality. Some churches are conservative, and they have some pretty powerful texts to back them up (it is incorrect to say, as some Christians do, that only the OT mentions the issue; there is always Romans 1.27). Other churches, however, feel a lot of pressure to be more lax on the issue and admit homosexuals, find the same thing in modern churches regarding, say, the stance on homosexuality. Some churches are conservative, and they have some pretty powerful texts to back them up (it is incorrect to say, as some Christians do, that only the OT mentions the issue; there is always Romans 1.27). Other churches, however, feel a lot of pressure to be more lax on the issue and admit homosexuals,

This is a good and bad example of using modern examples to guide research. Americans are basically retarded and the furthest thing from standing near any traditions regarding the Bible other than over simplistic reading of the text.

Did God fuck Jacob when wrestling with him or did he just "entice" or "seduce" before grabbing his privates? The Hebrew text is ambiguous. But why did these Hebrew terms fall out of use? The groups that took over the religion had difficulties with the most important narrative in the Torah so the text was glossed over with ignorance.

But conservatives pretend their starting point was the beginning of the beginning rather than an innovation. Any tradition that hates women is going to engage in phallus worship of some kind. That homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Torah from heaven would have been deemed significant.

Hellenism might have brought things out of the closet (like the relationship between Jonathan and Saul) but there was always a secret tradition.

[John Kesler]

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:

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."

There is a passage very similar to Isaiah 2, with one key difference: allowance is made for non-Israelites to continue to keep their gods.

Micah 4:1-5:
In days to come
the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be raised up above the hills.
Peoples shall stream to it,
2 and many nations shall come and say:
‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob;
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.’
For out of Zion shall go forth instruction,
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
3 He shall judge between many peoples,
and shall arbitrate between strong nations far away;
they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
and their spears into pruning-hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more;
4 but they shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees,
and no one shall make them afraid;
for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken.
5 For all the peoples walk,
each in the name of its god,
but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God
for ever and ever.

[Ben C. Smith]

You find the same thing in modern churches regarding, say, the stance on homosexuality. Some churches are conservative, and they have some pretty powerful texts to back them up (it is incorrect to say, as some Christians do, that only the OT mentions the issue; there is always Romans 1.27). Other churches, however, feel a lot of pressure to be more lax on the issue and admit homosexuals, find the same thing in modern churches regarding, say, the stance on homosexuality. Some churches are conservative, and they have some pretty powerful texts to back them up (it is incorrect to say, as some Christians do, that only the OT mentions the issue; there is always Romans 1.27). Other churches, however, feel a lot of pressure to be more lax on the issue and admit homosexuals,

This is a good and bad example of using modern examples to guide research. Americans are basically retarded and the furthest thing from standing near any traditions regarding the Bible other than over simplistic reading of the text.

The example was not intended to guide research. It was intended to make the point more relatable.

[John2]

outhouse wrote:

I understand your point, we have some basic clues, but there is so much speculation I shy away from any certainty. I view the DSS as a collection hid, and it may only be in a small part, said communities actual belief or following. Multiple languages can testify to such.

I understand your concern. But the vast majority of the DSS were written in Hebrew and Aramaic (approx. 97%), and maybe 3% in Greek and a tiny bit of Nabatean. But in any event, don't you get an idea of who Christians were from reading texts written by people from various cultures in various languages (Greek, Latin, Coptic, Armenian, Arabic, etc.)?

I do think there are more than basic clues in the DSS though. Let's start with the broad view I mentioned earlier, that they were pre-70 Torah-keeping messianic Jews who were opposed to the Pharisees but familiar with Pharisaic law and terminology. Broadly speaking, does that sound like any sect we know about?

Here is an example of this from Matthew (which takes into account the Shem Tov Hebrew version):

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/

And here is an example of this from the DSS:

In a series of texts among the Scrolls a group of opponents is called "those who seek/look for smooth things" ... It is likely that the word for smooth things (halaqot) is a wordplay for the Pharisaic term halakhot (laws).

https://books.google.com/books?id=i2i5h ... ls&f=false

So these are some broad similarities.

[outhouse]

don't you get an idea of who Christians were from reading texts written by people from various cultures in various languages (Greek, Latin, Coptic, Armenian, Arabic, etc.)?

.

The major concern are the textual duplicates, some almost verbatim with current textual traditions.

Hard to pin multiple traditions to said community.

What used to be a standard model of attributing everything to Essenes has opened up a bit since the 90s

[outhouse]

Torah-keeping messianic Jews who were opposed to the Pharisees but familiar with Pharisaic law and terminology. Broadly speaking, does that sound like any sect we know about?
.

This gets complicated because the Pharisees were divided between Hellenism and Israelite Judaism or Aramaic Judaism.

Some have claimed these are Sadducees, and we have Sectarian theories as well as the "Qumran–Essene" hypothesis you follow.