Eisenman and the DSS

[John2]

Maryhelena and I were having a discussion on another thread, and so far we at least agree that (at least some of) the Dead Sea Scrolls pertain to the time of the Romans (i.e., the "Kittim"). While she is persuaded by Doudna that they refer to events of the first century BCE, I'm inclined to agree with Eisenman that they refer to events of the first century CE.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=632&start=70

First I'd like to reiterate the points I've already made.

1. The Scrolls are anti-sacrifice-to-standards (something that only Titus' soldiers are said to have done), anti-tax (which could refer to the taxes imposed in the time of Pompey or in the first century CE), and anti-niece marriage (something that is said of first century CE Herodians and not, as far as I am aware, the Hasmoneans).

2. The Scrolls are opposed to Gentile sacrifices, and this was an issue in the first century CE and set off the 66-70 CE war.

3. The Scrolls describe the Kittim as destroying "young men, grown ups, and old people, women and children," something that is said of the Romans in the first century CE.

But in addition to the Kittim, the Scrolls mention people called the Teacher of Righteousness, the Wicked Priest, and the Liar who were all comtemporary with each other. The Wicked Priest is said to have "rose up against the Teacher of Righteousness that he might put him to death because he served the truth and the Law, for which reason he laid hands upon him" (4Q171), while the Liar "did not listen to the word received by the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God," "flouted the Law" and "raised [his own] congregation on deceit" (1QpHab).

There are correspondences between the Wicked Priest and the Ananus who sentenced James to death in Ant. 20.9.1 (whether or not James really was "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ"). I've already mentioned two things that Eisenman's theory has going for it that seem relevant to this discussion on another thread.

Regarding the issue of why Josephus presents Ananus in a positive light in the Jewish War and a negative one in the Antiquities, the DSS say that the Wicked Priest "was called by the name of truth when he first arose. But when he ruled over Israel his heart became proud, and he forsook God and betrayed the precepts for the sake of riches" (1QpHab col. 8), and that his "ignominy was greater than his glory" (col. 11).

This could explain Josephus' good and bad presentations of Ananus, and fits his statement that Ananus was deposed "after he had ruled for only three months," since the Wicked Priest had become proud "when he ruled over Israel."

This statement also indicates that Doudna may be incorrect when he says that "an historical Wicked Priest of Pesher Habakkuk, if there was one, would be active before Herod, because this figure is portrayed as ruling over Israel, but not much before Herod, because the Wicked Priest’s regime is portrayed as falling in the context of a Kittim or Roman invasion, and the Romans are not in Judea until the middle of the first century bce."

Another point of similarity is that Ananus and the Wicked Priest were both murdered by violent extremists and had their corpses desecrated. Ananus was murdered by Idumeans who desecrated his corpse (War 4.5.2), and the Wicked Priest was murdered by "men of violence" who "inflicted upon him the outrages of evil pollutions in taking vengeance on the flesh of his corpse" (1QpHab col. 9).

Josephus also considered what happened to Ananus so appalling that he singles it out as an extraordinary event, so it would be strange if something like this had happened to another priest in an earlier time and no one noticed it.

I've only had time to recap the points I've made on a previous thread for now, but when I get time I will give other examples that indicate that the Wicked Priest was Ananus, and discuss the similarities between the Teacher of Righteousness and James and the Liar and Paul.

[John2]

So the Wicked Priest was not only murdered and had his corpse desecrated by violent extremists like Ananus, he also put the Teacher of Righteous on trial and sentenced him to death along with "the men of his council" (1QpHab col. 9), like Ananus had tried and sentenced James "and some others [or some of his companions]" to death in Ant. 20.9.1.

That the Wicked Priest tried the Teacher of Righteousness is mentioned in the Psalm 37 Pesher (4Q171):

"The Wicked Priest ... rose up against the Teacher of Righteousness that he might put him to death because he served the truth and the Law, for which reason he laid hands upon him. But God will not abandon him into his hand and will not let him be condemned when he is tried. And God will pay him his reward by delivering him into the hand of the Violent of the nations, that they may execute upon him the judgements of wickedness."

So not only did the Wicked Priest try the Teacher of Righteousness, the "men of violence" who are said to have murdered him in the Habakkuk Pesher are here called "the violent of the nations," which is another indication that this could refer to the Idumeans who murdered Ananus in War 4.5.2.

(It also should be noted that the carbon date range for this pesher is later than that for the Habakkuk Pesher, yet in the former the Teacher of Righteousness is still alive and in the latter he is dead, which goes to show that you can't rely solely on the carbon dating and need to balance it with what the Scrolls actually say.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dat ... ea_Scrolls

Another indication that there was a trial is the reference in the Habakkuk Pesher to "his exiled house" or "house of his exile" (beit galuto), where the Wicked Priest is said to have pursued the Teacher of Righteousness "to swallow him in his hot anger" (col. 11). Vermes translates this as, "pursued the Teacher of Righteousness to the house of his exile that he might confuse him with his venomous fury." However, the word he translates as "confuse" is the same that is generally translated as "swallow" (or "devour") in Hab. 1:13, and has the sense of destroying. This "hot anger" of the Wicked Priest also fits Josephus' characterization of Ananus as being "a bold man in his temper, and very insolent" when he tried James.

It is not clear whose "house" this is referring to, because it only says "his" exiled house (or house of "his" exile), and this could refer to a house of the Wicked Priest or the Teacher of Rightousness. However, two things should be borne in mind. The Psalm 37 Pesher says that the Wicked Priest intended to put the Teacher of Righteousness on trial (and the Habakkuk Pesher says that he did ultimately him to death). Additionally, the Talmud actually says that during the first century CE the Sanhedrin (or "house") went into "exile":

"Forty years before the Temple was destroyed did the Sanhedrin abandon [the Temple] and held its sittings in Hanuth" (AZ 8b). This "Hanuth" is elsewhere called "the Trade Halls":

"Forty years before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin went into exile and took its seat in the Trade Halls" (Shab. 15a).

These passages (and others) not only indicate that the Sanhedrin (i.e., beit or "house") was in "exile" during the time that Ananus killed James, they use the Aramaic words "beit galtah," which is similar to the "exiled house" (beit galut) of the Wicked Priest or Teacher of Righteousness.

These passages (and others) at least show that the Sanhedrin was thought to have been "exiled" from the Temple during the first century CE, which, along with the reference to a trial in the Psalm 37 Pesher, may help clarify what the Habakkuk Pesher means by "his house of exile" (where the Teacher of Righteousness was "swallowed" or "devoured").

But however that may be, the Wicked Priest did try and sentence to death the Teacher of Righteousness along with "the men of his council," and this is another similarity that exists between him and Ananus, who tried and sentenced to death James "and some others."

There are other examples that indicate that Ananus was the Wicked Priest, James was the Teacher of Righteousness and Paul was the Liar, and I will add them when I have more time.

[John2]

Another point of similarity between the Wicked Priest and Ananus is that the former "forsook God and betrayed the precepts for the sake of riches" (1QpHab col. 8) and is associated with "the last priests of Jerusalem" who "gathered riches and profiteered from the spoils of the peoples" (1QpHab col. 9).

The expression "last priests of Jerusalem" not only fits the context of the first century CE (when this was literally the case), what they did resembles what Josephus says the high priests did before and after Ananus killed James in Ant. 20.9.1:

"And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, insomuch that it so fell out that the poorest sort of the priests died for want" (Ant. 20.8.8).

"But as for the high priest Ananias [Ananus' father] ... he was a great hoarder up of money ... he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food" (Ant. 20.9.2).

[John2]

I forgot to mention a third thing that indicates that the "exiled house" where the Teacher of Righteousness was "swallowed" belonged to the Wicked Priest (and refers to the exiled Sanhedrin), that the Habakkuk Pesher says Jerusalem was "where the Wicked Priest committed his works of abominations" (col. 12). This would not make sense if the house belonged to a Teacher of Righteousness who was in exile from Jerusalem.

[John2]

I recently noticed that the Talmud appears to tie Ananus' family and other "last priests of Jerusalem" to the riches and profiteering that Josephus appears to tie them to (where they are called the House of Hanan, i.e., Ananus, of whom Josephus says, "Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests" in Ant. 20.9.1):

"Woe is me because of the House of Hanan ... for they are high priests and their sons are treasurers and their sons-in-law are trustees and their servants beat the people with staves" (Pesachim 57a).

This appears to refer to the event I cited above, that "as for the high priest Ananias ... he was a great hoarder up of money ... he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food" (Ant. 20.9.2).

Given the other correspondences between the people, issues and events described in the Scrolls and those of the first century CE, I'm inclined to agree with Eisenman that the Scrolls are referring to this event when they say that the Wicked Priest and the last priests of Jerusalem "gathered riches and profiteered from the spoils of the peoples."

To sum up the other correspondences:

The Kittim sacrificed to their standards (something said only of Titus' soldiers in all of ancient literature), parcelled out taxes (as the Romans did in the first century CE), and killed "young men, grown ups, old people, women and children" (which the Romans are said to have done in the first century CE).

The Scrolls are also anti-Gentile sacrifice (which was an issue in the first century CE and set off the 66-70 CE war), anti-niece marriage (a practice common among first century CE Herodians and not, as far as I am aware, Hasmoneans), and refer to the "last priests of Jerusalem" (which makes sense in a first century CE context).

The similarities between the Wicked Priest and Ananus are that both are described as having good and bad characteristics, both tried and executed someone along with other people and are said to have had an angry temper when they did it, both were afterwards murdered and had their corpses desecrated by violent Gentile extremists, and both are associated with gathering riches and the last priests of Jerusalem.

So I think Eisenman's theory that (some of) the Scrolls pertain to the first century CE and the Kittim were Imperial-era Romans and Ananus was the Wicked Priest is fairly solid.

Next I will outline some similarities that exist between another enemy of the Teacher of Righteousness, called the "Liar," and Paul.

[Kris]

Interesting stuff

[spin]

Maryhelena and I were having a discussion on another thread, and so far we at least agree that (at least some of) the Dead Sea Scrolls pertain to the time of the Romans (i.e., the "Kittim"). While she is persuaded by Doudna that they refer to events of the first century BCE, I am persuaded by Eisenman that they refer to events of the first century CE.

Strangely enough Eisenman is utterly wrong. The carbondating evidence from Qumran shows that there is only one text dated that requires a date after the change of the era, the Psalms Pesher (4Q171), which was a text among a group cleaned by John Allegro using castor oil, contaminating the document and forcing carbondating to seem younger than it really is. This indicates that none of the texts require a first century dating.

Poor Eisenman tried to combat the impact of the carbondating in a paper with Joe Atwill, but it wasn't successful, leaving him with a theory that has been falsified.

---

The Kittim, a name that comes from a city on the east coast of Cyprus, were people some of whom were settled in Antioch and soldiers from the ethnos were used in the Seleucid army. From memory it was Antiochus II who brought the Cypriot religious statue for them to Antioch for safe keeping. These are mentioned in 2 Macc 4:29 as "Cypriot soldiers". They were the first Seleucid forces permanently stationed in Jerusalem, as the Hellenistic crisis was developing, a civil war, turned into a foreign intervention. The sanctuary was polluted (1 Macc 1:54ff) and the priests were forced to flee, taking their sacred garments with them, the sons of Zadok and the sons of Aaron in exile.(1 Macc 3:49,54) H.H. Rowley considered that Onias III was the teacher of righteousness and I think the Kittim were really the Kittim, at least the descendants who were the first Seleucid soldiers stationed in Jerusalem.

The scrolls were deposited willy-nilly, so that earlier works were mixed with later works. 4Q448 deals favorably with Alexander Jannaeus, "King Jonathan" (avoid Vermes's attempt to rewrite the text as negative). The temple rosters known as Mishmarot C record events at the time of the Roman arrival, mentioning "Emilios", ie Aemilius Scaurus, who was first on the scene and took bribes from Aristobolus II. The latest reference one can clearly identify in the DSS is this Aemilius Scaurus who came to Judea in 65/64 BCE.

[John2]

Spin,

Thanks for the response.

Regarding the identity of the Kittim in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nahum Pesher appears to distinguish them from the kings of Greece:

"Interpreted, this concerns Demetrius king of Greece who sought, on the counsel of those who seek smooth things, to enter Jerusalem. But God did not permit the city to be delivered into the hands of the kings of Greece, from the time of Antiochus until the coming of the rulers of the Kittim."

Hanan Eshel discusses this in "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State" (pg. 175) and identifies the Kittim with the Romans:

http://books.google.com/books?id=t05okj ... er&f=false

The Priestly Courses also possibly refer to Hyrcanus II (d. 30 BCE) and Aristobulus II (d. 37 BCE). In any event, the reference to Aemilus Scaurus that you mentioned indicates that the Priestly Courses were written in the Roman era:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrol ... d04.htm#24. Priestly Courses III - Aemilius Kills

[spin]

Spin,

Thanks for the response.

Regarding the identity of the Kittim in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nahum Pesher appears to distinguish them from the kings of Greece:

"Interpreted, this concerns Demetrius king of Greece who sought, on the counsel of those who seek smooth things, to enter Jerusalem. But God did not permit the city to be delivered into the hands of the kings of Greece, from the time of Antiochus until the coming of the rulers of the Kittim."

The text actually looks like this:

"[Interpreted, this concerns Deme]trius king of Javan who sought, on the counsel of those who seek smooth things, to enter Jerusalem. [But God did not permit the city to be delivered] into the hands of the kings of Greece, from the time of Antiochus until the coming of the rulers of the Kittim [...]"

The material in the brackets represents lacunae in the text and is reconstructed according to the way one understands the context of the pesher. The first lacuna is not problematical, but the second is. My understanding is that it refers to the time from Antiochus III, who had a peaceful relationship with the Jews, till the arrival of the Seleucid forces at the time Antiochus IV installed Menelaus as high priest. These were the Cypriot forces, ie the Kittim, I mentioned in my previous comment. They had chiefs such as Sostrates and Crates, but I think as they were the first Seleucid forces, the term "Kittim" became generalized for all Seleucid garrisons.

After Judas restored the temple there was a brief period of respite from the Seleucids through a peace agreement with Antiochus V, but then Demetrius I became interested in Judea. It was then when Alcimus was installed as high priest though not of the high priestly line. He was not of the old school and removed the barrier within the temple that separated the priests from the people, something you would expect from a Pharisee, best candidates for seekers of smooth things.

Hanan Eshel discusses this in "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State" (pg. 175) and identifies the Kittim with the Romans:

http://books.google.com/books?id=t05okj ... er&f=false

This is inherited from the old international school under De Vaux. Eshel was a younger protege through his wife of John Strugnell, who first provided access to Israeli scholars of the scrolls. No progress has been made on the basic tenet of Essene-centrism since it was first proposed and a pre-1st century dating of the scrolls tosses all conjectures in the air.

The Priestly Courses also possibly refer to Hyrcanus II (d. 30 BCE) and Aristobulus II (d. 37 BCE). In any event, the reference to Aemilus Scaurus that you mentioned indicates that the Priestly Courses were written in the Roman era:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrol ... d04.htm#24. Priestly Courses III - Aemilius Kills

There were no sons of Zadok in Judea by that stage. The existence of the mishmarot (priestly courses) should have told the pundits that we were dealing with a group that was in the temple at the time. Temple rosters! MishC has nothing later than 64 BCE. Mention of Alexandra Shelamzion and Aemilius in a six year calendar of priestly rosters doesn't allow for anything much later. I'd say Aemilius Scaurus was the latest historical marker.

[MrMacSon]

Maryhelena and I were having a discussion on another thread, and so far we at least agree that (at least some of) the Dead Sea Scrolls pertain to the time of the Romans (i.e., the "Kittim"). While she is persuaded by Doudna that they refer to events of the first century BCE, I am persuaded by Eisenman that they refer to events of the first century CE.

Strangely enough Eisenman is utterly wrong. The carbon-dating evidence from Qumran shows that there is only one text dated that requires a date after the change of the era, the Psalms Pesher (4Q171), which was a text among a group cleaned by John Allegro using castor oil, contaminating the document and forcing carbon-dating to seem younger than it really is. This indicates that none of the texts require a first century dating.

Poor Eisenman tried to combat the impact of the carbon-dating in a paper with Joe Atwill, but it wasn't successful, leaving him with a theory that has been falsified.

Pls clarify what you mean by

• "there is only one text dated that requires a date after the change of the era" &
  "none of the texts require a first century dating."

and pls elaborate on "Eisenman tried to combat the impact of the carbon-dating in a paper with Joe Atwill, but it wasn't successful, leaving him with a theory that has been falsified"

The scrolls were deposited willy-nilly, so that earlier works were mixed with later works. 4Q448 deals favorably with Alexander Jannaeus, "King Jonathan" (avoid Vermes's attempt to rewrite the text as negative). The temple rosters known as Mishmarot C record events at the time of the Roman arrival, mentioning "Emilios", ie Aemilius Scaurus, who was first on the scene and took bribes from Aristobolus II. The latest reference one can clearly identify in the DSS is this Aemilius Scaurus who came to Judea in 65/64 BCE.