I wrote:
"So the DSS refer to people who were simple and liken them to animals -like the am ha-aretz in Pesachim 49- yet they are said to "observe the Torah""
To which Stephen replied:
"I don't see any relevance to this. You just like seguing to the DSS whenever you get the chance and warp it out of its original context."
How have I taken anything I've cited from the DSS on this forum out of context? In the broadest context, given the assumption that Christianity started in pre-70 E Judea, I think it's relevant to look for its roots in writings that come from pre-70 CE Judea, including the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Regarding the reference in the Habakkuk Pesher to "the simple ones of Judah who observe the Torah," I said the same thing that Eschel says about it in the link I provided. As he puts it, "In other words, God will punish the Wicked Priest for what he did to 'the Council of the Community' (that is, the sectarians) and the 'simple ones,' namely people associated with the sect."
And Swarup says, "1QpHab identifies the 'animals' as the 'simple ones of Judah' and as the 'poor' who keep the law."
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ex55C ... up&f=false
And what kind of people are the "simple" (or petayim)? Naive people.
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6612.htm
E.g.,
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/proverbs/8-5.htm
And they are associated with the poor and likened to animals in the DSS using the same word for "animals" that the rabbis use to describe the am ha-aretz in Pes. 49. The only difference here is in attitude; in the DSS the "simple" are nevertheless capable of observing the Torah and being saved along with the rest of the sect, and in the Talmud they are lawless losers.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.