Who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?

[Sheshbazzar]

@Sheshabazzar,

You keep trying to avoid the obvious step by step approach of deductive reasoning.
First we establish that the theory by Glob, Schiffman and Spin are wrong.

Does not appear as an obvious or requisite first step to me, as I do not by any means employ these sources opinions as my frame of reference.

That being, if the scrolls were deposited "willy-nilly' from the Temple library then you should expect to find Esther and/or Maccabees.

I do not hold that these scrolls were deposited "willy-nilly' from the Temple library. And do not presume to be able to declaratively state why no copies of Esther and/or Maccabees were found. Although I could provide several possible theoretical scenarios and explanations. You have your theory, I simply do not find your theory satisfactory.
I asked you specific questions which your reply avoids addressing. If the caves were depositories for "unclean" 'unauthorized Temple Priest writings' why were 'The Community Rules' and others of the sects sacred writing also found stored among them?

Yes or No?

In view of the lack of information and positive evidence, it is not a matter that can be given a yes or no answer.
How about you provide some reasonably concise answers to the logical questions being posed, rather than setting up inane true/ false questions. Did you learn this type of true/false horseshit in your stint as a Jehovah's Witness? Makes your posts read like the leading questions as posed in a damned JW Awake! tract.

Spin and Schiffman have no answer other than, it was a "funny accident".

Agreed?

No.
really I do not pay any particular attention to the opinions of Schiffman. And spin and I have a documented decades long history of being at odds over many matters.

When you were going to school do you remember having textbooks that after several years they had to be replaced due to excessive handling of previous students?

Now what would you do with scrolls that are worn or contain too many scribal errors, would you keep them with the best of the best that is within the camp of the Essene community or would you provide them to wanna-be members to study/practice with while they are still living outside of the camp? Do you think the leader of the camp would have the best of the best or the worst of the worst?

So you are claiming that 'The Community Rules' and the other sectarian writings that were found among the DSS are simply the defective and worst of the worst crap that the leader of the camp left behind in the caves as trash?
If so what the fuck good is this material for establishing what this sect actually believed and practiced?

Likewise, if the camp makes money from making and then selling Biblical scrolls to outsiders, where would those copies for sell be kept?

How the hell should I know? How do you know? Perhaps they sent out booksellers who set up stalls on the streets of Jerusalem to peddle the communities propaganda texts.
You are suggesting here that everything that was 'best of the best' was kept and carted off, leaving only the defective crap that was eventually found.
Obviously the documents found were not removed by outsiders, sold or not.

Did that help?

Not really. Seems to be a lot of surmising and theorizing with very little in the way of evidence _or common sense
Maybe these Qumran sectarians _whomever they may have been_, were so enamored of the scrolls of Esther and Maccabees that they were careful to cart them all off with them. Maybe ignorant Bedouins made off with them as fuel for their campfires...
There are lots of possibilities.

Sincerely,
Sheshbazzar

[John T]

Sheshbazzar posted: "I [Sheshbazzar] asked you [John T] specific questions which your reply avoids addressing. If the caves were depositories for "unclean" 'unauthorized Temple Priest writings' why were 'The Community Rules' and others of the sects sacred writing also found stored among them?"

Answer: Already asked and answered.

How can I proceed if your standard defense is denial of any and all facts?

We have strong evidence the scrolls/pottery were written/made by the Essenes.
We have strong evidence that the "willy-nilly" or Jerusalem theory is wrong due to Esther and Maccabees not being found among the scrolls.
We have strong evidence based on the Community Rules that the caves were used to house converts and store property/scrolls, instead of being used as secret vaults to hide scrolls from the Romans.

Obviously, there are no plausible scenarios good enough for Sheshbazzr, except maybe the excuse; 'The Bedouins stole all my homework on (and only on) Esther and Maccabees' theory.

But what is most telling, is your offensive, arrogant and foul language. No doubt a defense tactic you have learned to use as a default to avoid having to seriously consider the connection between the Essene, the early Christian church and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Just a hunch.
Did I get that right?


John T

[Sheshbazzar]

Sheshbazzar posted: "I [Sheshbazzar] asked you [John T] specific questions which your reply avoids addressing. If the caves were depositories for "unclean" 'unauthorized Temple Priest writings' why were 'The Community Rules' and others of the sects sacred writing also found stored among them?"

Answer: Already asked and answered.

No. You have not.

How can I proceed if your standard defense is denial of any and all facts?

I am not denying any established facts. I am however questioning you assumptions and your jumping to conclusions in the absence of evidence.
If it were as easy to determine, and as persuasive as you pretend it to be every mainstream scholar in the field would be trumpeting the same song and dance. They are not, and you have a long way to go to prove your amateurish thesis.

We have strong evidence the scrolls/pottery were written/made by the Essenes.

You claim.

We have strong evidence that the "willy-nilly" or Jerusalem theory is wrong due to Esther and Maccabees not being found among the scrolls.

Your claim.

We have strong evidence based on the Community Rules that the caves were used to house converts and store property/scrolls, instead of being used as secret vaults to hide scrolls from the Romans.

Screws up you previous claims that these scrolls were rejects. And again it was the Qumran Community sects own sacred texts that were also found in the caves.
Where did you find evidence of long term habitation of these caves by your imaginary converts?
What notable accredited Archaeologist and scholar claims that these caves ever served as long term housing for converts?

Obviously, there are no plausible scenarios good enough for Sheshbazzr,

WRONG John. You simply have not provided one. Your theory, and that is all it is, a theory, is full of holes.

except maybe the excuse; 'The Bedouins stole all my homework on (and only on) Esther and Maccabees' theory.

We will never know how many scrolls were removed, lost, and/or destroyed before the find came scholars attention.
Anyone can read the tale of how these scrolls were discovered and how carelessly they were treated in the initial stages.

But what is most telling, is your offensive, arrogant and foul language. No doubt a defense tactic you have learned to use as a default to avoid having to seriously consider the connection between the Essene, the early Christian church and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I was likely considering these things before you were even born. That connection has always been tenuous, and it is still only an unproven theory that the authors of the DSS were Essenes. You are simply assuming and asserting that because it fits your imaginary scenario.
Perhaps you may persuade someone else. As it stands your theory is full of holes which you evidently are either unable or unwilling to address. As for me I'll wait for further EVIDENCE, and a more cogent explanation from credible and academically accredited scholars.

Sincerely,
Sheshbazzar

[John T]

Sheshbazzar posted: "As for me I'll wait for further EVIDENCE, and a more cogent explanation from credible and academically accredited scholars."

No. You are not waiting for that because you already have that. Instead, you are actively trying to discredit the hard evidence and the accredited scholars who spent their whole lives figuring out who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. Your old theory, the "willy-nilly" theory was debunked long ago and you can't stand the thought of being wrong so you drop pigeon poop on anyone that tries to bring the truth to light. Just like Golb.

Since you have nothing constructive to offer other than smearing the windshield, surely you will understand why I will just drive ahead and leave you behind in the rear-view mirror.

Sincerely,

John T

[MrMacSon]

This is interesting - Qumran Revisited: a Reassessment of the Archaeology of the Site and its Texts by Gregory Doudna

[John T]

@MrMacSon,

Thanks for the link, very interesting stuff.
Once again, my opinion can change when new facts are presented. However, I tend to want to evaluate so-called new facts for truth and substance before changing my opinion.

Doudna made an audacious claim when he wrote this: "I show that, in fact, nothing in the Qumran texts calls for supposing the sectarian texts were other than supportive of most Hasmonean high priests. Texts, which have been read as polemical against all Hasmonean rulers and their regimes, instead become polemical against one Hasmonean ruler’s regime, written from the perspective of supporters of a deposed previous high priest in exile."...Doudna

He seems to think that all other opinions including long standing ones from renowned experts are naive.

He also writes in the article: "I hope my essay will open spaces to allow such archaeologists’ voices to be heard, liberated from the stifling constraints of a long-dominant interpretive filter promulgated in the name of the ancient Essenes."...Doudna

Now that essay would be worth my time looking at.
Do you have a link to his essay where he actually backs up his claims?

Thanks in advance,
John T

[MrMacSon]

@MrMacSon, Thanks for the link, very interesting stuff.

Once again, my opinion can change when new facts are presented. However, I tend to want to evaluate so-called new facts for truth and substance before changing my opinion.

Doudna made an audacious claim when he wrote this: "I show that, in fact, nothing in the Qumran texts calls for supposing the sectarian texts were other than supportive of most Hasmonean high priests. Texts, which have been read as polemical against all Hasmonean rulers and their regimes, instead become polemical against one Hasmonean ruler’s regime, written from the perspective of supporters of a deposed previous high priest in exile."...Doudna

He seems to think that all other opinions including long standing ones from renowned experts are naive.

He also writes in the article: "I hope my essay will open spaces to allow such archaeologists’ voices to be heard, liberated from the stifling constraints of a long-dominant interpretive filter promulgated in the name of the ancient Essenes."...Doudna

Now that essay would be worth my time looking at. Do you have a link to his essay where he actually backs up his claims?

In that article, in the paragraph preceding the one you first cite (starting "I show that, in fact, nothing in the Qumran texts calls for supposing the sectarian texts were"), he says

In my essay in the same volume (“The Sect of the Qumran Texts and its Leading Role in the Temple in Jerusalem During Much of the First Century BCE: Toward a New Framework for Understanding”), I show that the naive reader’s question referred to above is actually quite astute.

When I searched that title I got this -

• The Sect of the Qumran Texts and its Leading Role in the Temple in Jerusalem During Much of the First Century BCE: Toward a New Framework for Understanding (Part I).

He also referred to

• David Stacey, “A Reassessment of the Stratigraphy of Qumran”
  in D. Stacey and G. Doudna, Qumran Revisited: A Reassessment of the Archaeology of the Site and its Texts (Archaeopress, 2013).

Additionally, there is also this - ALLUSIONS TO THE END OF THE HASMONEAN DYNASTY IN PESHER NAHUM (4Q169)
.

[MrMacSon]

This thread on this site addressed the latter, somewhat - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=513

as I do here

[maryhelena]

This thread on this site addressed the latter, somewhat - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=513

as I do here

Greg Doudna' latest article is on the Bible and Interpretation site. Links to the previous two articles are on the site.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8018.shtml

The Sect of the Qumran Texts and its Leading Role in the Temple in Jerusalem During Much of the First Century BCE: Toward a New Framework for Understanding (Part III).

(The above is excerpted from G. Doudna, “The Sect of the Qumran Texts and its Leading Role in the Temple in Jerusalem During Much of the First Century BCE: Toward a New Framework for Understanding”, in D. Stacey & G. Doudna, Qumran Revisited: A Reassessment of the Archaeology of the Site and its Texts (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2013), pp. 75-124, at 80-84.)

[MrMacSon]

^ Yes (there is also a link from part 1, too)

This from Part III is interesting -

There may indeed be a progression in which Qumran texts during the earlier part of the Hasmonean era have a Davidic warrior commander figure who is limited to being a military commander who wins battles and is subordinate to the high priest as brought out by Casey Elledge (2007), and then development of that figure into a full-blown militant Davidic messianism in the Roman period. But in the Qumran texts the Davidic figure in the present age is under the authority of the high priest and is not king. When the Davidic figure does become king in the eschatological restoration, the Qumran texts still have him subject to the high priest. There is no evidence this ideology of the Qumran texts is distinguishable from the ideology of Hasmonean high priests. The perception that the Davidic figures in the Qumran texts represent criticism of the Hasmoneans is something scholars have read into the Qumran texts.

The images in the texts of the Teacher in exile, and the images of a high-priestly usurper and adversary —the notorious figure whom the texts call the Wicked Priest and other names— indicate that even though the Teacher may have started out prominent in the temple, started out as the leading priest of the priests who exercised authority in the yachad groups, something went terribly awry. For he may have started out in a prominent position in the temple, as the leader of the priestly sect controlling the temple, as high priest … but he ended up in exile, out of power, with attempts on his life ...

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8018.shtml