Message

The Dead Sea Scrolls & the New Testament

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.

Re: John T

Postby John2 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:31 pm

And while he views the Damascus Document as being older than 1QS, Collins notes that:

Whether the expression "sons of Zadok" necessarily implies any genealogical relationship to the pre-Maccabean priestly line must be considered doubtful. That line is not commonly called "Zadokite" in literature of the Second Temple period after Ezekiel (e.g., Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Ben Sira, the books of Maccabees). A hymn inserted in some manuscripts of Ben Sira between 51:12 and 51:13 gives thanks to God who chose the sons of Zadok to be priests, but this hymn is generally recognized as a secondary addition, of uncertain provenance. As Saul Olyan has shown, "Zadok is conspicuously absent" from the rest of the book of Ben Sira, although Aaron is extolled. It is quite possible that the Hasmonean usurpers of the high priesthood could also claim Zadokite lineage. Phinehas, who is invoked as a model in 1 Macc 2:26, 54, was son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, the same line from which Zadok was descended (1 Chron 24:3). There is little evidence that the [DSS] sect, in any of its phases, arose from a dispute over the high priestly succession. It is quite possible that the insertion of "the sons of Zadok" into the Serek does not reflect the rise to power of a particular priestly group, but is an honorific title, similar to the usage in the Damascus Rule.

https://books.google.com/books?id=13ZxD ... ls&f=false
The ABC's we all must face, try to keep a little grace.
John2
 
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Advertisements

by »

 

Re: John T

Postby Secret Alias » Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:40 pm

Nonsense. Like we have so many other 1st century BCE texts to compare it with.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Secret Alias
 
Posts: 5875
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: John T

Postby spin » Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:41 pm

John2 wrote:
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.

Information from sources with out proper citation makes the information useless. You need to give clear references.

John2 wrote: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.

This little piece of free association is as old as speculation about the scrolls.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: John T

Postby spin » Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:43 pm

John2 wrote:And while he views the Damascus Document as being older than 1QS, Collins notes that:

Whether the expression "sons of Zadok...] https://books.google.com/books?id=13ZxD ... ls&f=false

Collins is free to belt the non-real status of the sons of Zadoq just as much as Milik was free to belt the non-real status of the copper scroll's contents.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: John T

Postby Secret Alias » Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:48 pm

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.


The idea that the reading at Qumran could have been a variant of course hasn't entered Eisenman's head.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Secret Alias
 
Posts: 5875
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: John T

Postby spin » Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:58 pm

John2 wrote: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).

Most scrolls were written before the first century, so the "fourth philosophy" is irrelevant.

John2 wrote: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.

There you go still asserting stuff without justification.

John2 wrote:And in what Vermes calls "A Midrash on the Last Days" (4Q174),...

Vermes is not a trustworthy source for translated scrolls. He is too busy reading his preconceptions into the texts. A better popular translation is Wise, Abegg & Cook, with the now out-of-date title The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, HarperSanFrancisco. Three excellent scrolls scholars without an axe to grind. The standard translation is still Brill/Eerdmans The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert JC Tigchelaar, which comes with the Hebrew text.

John2 wrote:...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.

And did you expect works from different sources to be consistent?
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: John T

Postby Secret Alias » Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:26 pm

Wise, Abegg & Cook


He knows them, trust me.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Secret Alias
 
Posts: 5875
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: John T

Postby StephenGoranson » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:22 am

For most Qumran mss there are more than three English (not to mention other languages) translations available, with various pros and cons.
As for dating individuals mentioned, at least some proposals can be reasonably considered too early or too late.
StephenGoranson
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Three more English translations

Postby spin » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:56 am

StephenGoranson wrote:For most Qumran mss there are more than three English (not to mention other languages) translations available, with various pros and cons.
As for dating individuals mentioned, at least some proposals can be reasonably considered too early or too late.

What would be those three English translations? I'm interested. I didn't include Garcia Martinez/Watson, citing the study edition instead. But is there anything more recent?
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: John T

Postby StephenGoranson » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:47 am

I meant that for any given Qumran ms usually many translations are available.
For example:
Dead Sea scrolls. Selections. Polyglot.
Title The Dead Sea scrolls reader / edited by Donald W. Parry & Emanuel Tov, in association with Geraldine I. Clements.
Edition Second edition, revised and expanded.
Published Leiden : Brill, 2014.

Description 2 volumes ; 24 cm
Contents Volume 1. Texts concerned with religious law, exegetical texts and parabiblical texts.
Volume 2. Calendrical texts and sapiential texts, poetic and liturgical texts, additional genres and unclassified texts.
Notes Hebrew or Aramaic, with English translation facing.
Notes Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 9789004264687 (set)
900426468X (set)
9789004264618 (volume 1 : paperback)
9004264612 (volume 1 : paperback)
9789004264625 (volume 2 : paperback)
9004264620 (volume 2 : paperback)
(OCLC) Control Num 861210983
Subject Dead Sea scrolls. Selections.
Authors Parry, Donald W., editor.
Tov, Emanuel, editor.
Clements, Geraldine I., editor.
StephenGoranson
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Advertisement

by »

 

PreviousNext

Return to Christian Texts and History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bernard Muller, Bing [Bot], Charles Wilson, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], JoeWallack, MrMacSon, rakovsky, Ulan, Yahoo [Bot] and 55 guests