The Dead Sea Scrolls & the New Testament

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 1857
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: John T

Post by spin » Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:17 pm

John2 wrote:spin wrote:
So" usually requires argumentation and evidence preceding it.
I thought I had ("The Damascus Document has an esoteric understanding of the priesthood, which, as Eisenman points out, involved altering Ezk. 44:15 by adding vavs to it ...").
Sadly, no.

This generic assertion may or may not be true: "The Damascus Document has an esoteric understanding of the priesthood". The significance of that "esoteric understanding" needs to be clarified and its relevance to the discussion needs to be presented. The relevance of Eisenman's point has not been made. The significance to any reality at time of writing of the addition of the waws (beside the claims of grammar) has not been ascertained, though it appears that there were three distinct priestly entities. What is certain from Ezek 33:19 is that the sons of Zadoq are a subset of "Levitical priests". Also in 1 Chr 9 there is a clear distinction between priestly families and Levitical families. The position of the sons of Aaron regarding the sons of Levi is made clear in various places including 1 Chr 6, where there is also a genealogy of the family of Zadoq. Together these facts provide the existence of three distinct entities, which the Dead Sea Scrolls also evince.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

User avatar
spin
Posts: 1857
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: John T

Post by spin » Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:19 pm

John2 wrote:I see the situation as being somewhat similar to the idea of the priesthood in Heb. 7:
If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. For it is declared: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
Not to say that there weren't any actual priests associated with the DSS sect (just as, despite the above, there were still actual priests in early Christianity, at least according to Acts 6:7: "So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith").
There is no "DSS sect". The scrolls represent various moments of various Jewish groups in the centuries before the Jewish war.

And for torah adherent groups to talk about having priests in their hierarchy when the torah is so stringent regarding priests requires you to accept the fact as reflective of the groups, if anything is.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

User avatar
spin
Posts: 1857
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: John T

Post by spin » Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:49 pm

Just to stress the reality of the various priestly groups, one needs to read 1Q28a (1QSa) column 1. The sons of Zadoq are at the head of the community. The sons of Levi are under the authority of the sons of Aaron. They are not additive, but integral to the community. 1Q28b col.3 provides even clearer information as to the significance and role of the sons of Zadoq, as the distributors of the judgments of God.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

John2
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: John T

Post by John2 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:51 pm

There is no "DSS sect". The scrolls represent various moments of various Jewish groups in the centuries before the Jewish war.
This is more or less what I think too, in that I see the DSS "sect" as being a conglomeration of all the sects, like the Fourth Philosophy.

As far as being a Torah observant "sect," this didn't stop them (in CD) from altering the OT to include three types of people (including arguably gentiles) into the "sect," like in the example above, yet there is no question in my mind that they nevertheless revered the OT. CD also alters Amos 9:27 ("Therefore I will send you into exile beyond Damascus") to say "to Damascus," to fit their location in the land of Damascus. So they could be fairly loose with their interpretations of the OT.
I don't know, but I been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold. Other hand, I've heard it said it's just as hard with the weight of lead.

John2
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: John T

Post by John2 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:24 pm

I do think that the various sects that joined the Fourth Philosophy would have brought their writings with them when they joined up (like 1QSa/1QS). But in my view, the writings that refer to the Teacher of Righteousness are the last DSS writings, and they refer to a "new covenant," and here the sons of Zadok are understood esoterically.

And in what Vermes calls "A Midrash on the Last Days" (4Q174), the sons of Zadok are said to "follow [their own inclination] apart from the Council of the Community":
Interpreted, this saying [concerns] those who turn aside from the way [of the people]; as it is written in the book of Isaiah the Prophet concerning the last days, It came to pass that [the Lord turned me aside, as with a mighty hand, from walking in the way of] this people (Isa. 8:2). They are those of whom it is written in the book of Ezekiel the Prophet, The Levites [strayed far from me, following] their idols (Ezek. XLIV, 10). They are the sons of Zadok who [seek their own] counsel and follow [their own inclination] apart from the Council of the Community.
So the meaning of sons of Zadok is not consistent in the DSS.
I don't know, but I been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold. Other hand, I've heard it said it's just as hard with the weight of lead.

John2
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: John T

Post by John2 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:06 pm

Oegema, for example, notes that:
4Q174 3.14-4.5 describes the end of days on the basis of a Pesher on Ps. 1:1; Isa. 8:11; Ezek. 37:3; Ps. 2:2; Dan. 12:10 and 11:32. The battle between the lawless sons of Zadok and the chosen righteous one is emphasized here.

https://books.google.com/books?id=-j4YA ... 74&f=false
He then adds:
Two arguments could be formulated here to ascribe a late date to 4Q174. First, the 'Book of Daniel, the Prophet' (4:3) is quoted; secondly, such a detailed reflection on biblical verses implies a certain historical distance.
And Charlesworth notes that:
Paleographically, the manuscript of 4Q174 is dated early in the first century C.E.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ROama ... ry&f=false
I don't know, but I been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold. Other hand, I've heard it said it's just as hard with the weight of lead.

John2
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: John T

Post by John2 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:31 pm

But even in 1QS, Murphy notes that:
Although priests and Levites are frequently singled out for particular roles in 1QS, the more striking phenomenon is that priestly attributes of purity and separation, as well as sacerdotal activities like ablutions and sacred meals, are extended to the laymen of the community. The contribution of wealth, stylized as a sacrificial contribution when first brought into the community, becomes in the common pool a sacrosanct symbol of the yahad and attracts all of the Levitical language of purity and pollution, mixture and separation which had been the special responsibilities of the priests and Levites. Moreover, the sacrifice of commitment and obedience becomes the liturgical service preferred by God.

https://books.google.com/books?id=fUPIG ... ok&f=false
I don't know, but I been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold. Other hand, I've heard it said it's just as hard with the weight of lead.

John2
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: John T

Post by John2 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:36 pm

And Schofield asks:
But were there literal, lineal Zadokites left by the late Second Temple period, some of which formed part of the Yahad? ... In the Scrolls alone, the terms "Sons of Zadok" and "Sons of Aaron" do not appear to have been used interchangeably, but rather reflect two separate groups ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=7qVTO ... ok&f=false
I don't know, but I been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold. Other hand, I've heard it said it's just as hard with the weight of lead.

John2
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: John T

Post by John2 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:58 pm

And even Paul saw himself as a "priest":

Rom. 15:15-16:

"Yet I have written you quite boldly on some points to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

See Sobrino, "Paul as Priest":

http://www.academia.edu/2197858/Paul_as ... s_15_15-16_

Was Paul therefore literally a priest?

And Hegesippus says about James:

"He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people..."

Was James, then, a literal priest?
I don't know, but I been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold. Other hand, I've heard it said it's just as hard with the weight of lead.

iskander
Posts: 1405
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: John T

Post by iskander » Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:41 pm

John2 wrote:And even Paul saw himself as a "priest":

Rom. 15:15-16:

"Yet I have written you quite boldly on some points to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

See Sobrino, "Paul as Priest":

http://www.academia.edu/2197858/Paul_as ... s_15_15-16_

Was Paul therefore literally a priest?

And Hegesippus says about James:

"He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people..."

Was James, then, a literal priest?

Ps 110:4 YHWH has sworn and will not relent, “You are a priest forever, after the manner of Melchizedek.”[


There is already one eternal priest appointed by God.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Giuseppe, Google [Bot], JoeWallack and 38 guests