Does Kipp Davis deny the historicity of the Teacher of Righteousness?

[Giuseppe]

On facebook, a commenter has posted this about Kipp Davis, and I wonder if what Davis is saying is that he will write a mythicist book about the Teacher of Righteousness. Can you confirm?

In a post on Twitter/X, Kipp Davis (sort of tongue-in-cheek) said: “I am working on a script about the Qumran pesharim for the next instalment in my video series, and I had an idea... Maybe I will write a book one day titled "On the Historicity of the Teacher of Righteousness". It will be about how there was a Jewish sectarian group who followed this anonymous figure from many decades in the past that they call מורה צדק, whom they seem only to know through their reading of scripture, and who was immortalized through his teachings and persecution.
In response to a question about what scholars think about the Teacher or Rightousness, he answered: “There have been hundreds of articles and books written, speculating on the identity of this figure, and his place within Jewish history. Everything written has posited that this was a real person about whom we know nothing beyond what appears in the Scrolls.”
It may just be tongue-in-cheek, but it raises a valid point – the things the early Christians believed about Jesus, and the way they wrote about him, really aren’t significantly different from the beliefs the Qumran Community believed about the Righteous Teacher; it doesn’t seem to be significantly different from what was believed about Theudas or other various signs prophets.
In positing a historical person at the origin, we’re really just positing that one *more* of these sort of eschatological prophet/teacher figures lived – one additional out of a relative handful – written about in the same sort of way that we know they were written about by followers of the movement.

[StephenGoranson]

I can't speak to all of what Kipp Davis may think about the Qumran "Teacher of Righteousness."
But I can comment on this sentence, from above:
".... Everything written has posited that this was a real person about whom we know nothing beyond what appears in the Scrolls.”
That is false.
I have written and published--and I was not the first to do so--that the "Teacher of Righteousness" was Judah the Essene, known from outside of Qumran texts in Josephus, in both War and Antiquities.

(Also, some scholars separate the questions of historical and literary identity.)

[annotate]

Another point of confluence between the scrolls and Paul’s letters is the identity of the leader of the Qumran community and the Jerusalem apostles. According to Paul, the leader of the group opposing him is named “James,” to whom Paul gives the title of “Brother of the Lord.”[112] According to early church fathers, this James is “James the Just.” The leader of the Qumran community is identified mainly by the appellation “Teacher of Righteousness.” Professor Robert Eisenman identifies the Teacher of Righteousness as James the Just in his books James, the Brother of Jesus, The New Testament Code, and The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians.

One of the clues to the identification of James is that in both Greek and Hebrew “Righteous” and “Just” are the same word, tying “Teacher of Righteousness to “James the Just.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians Eisenman analyzes The Habakkuk Pesher.[113] One item of evidence he uses to identify the Teacher of Righteousness is that the Habakkuk Pesher says that one called “the Wicked Priest” killed the Teacher of Righteousness. In Antiquities of the Jews the Jewish historian Josephus writes that the High Priest Ananias killed a man named James for which Ananias was deposed as High Priest.[114] Professor Eisenman also shows that analysis of the Habakkuk Pesher identifies the “Wicked Priest” as Ananias. In other words, “James the Just/Righteous” and “the Teacher of Righteousness” are the same person.

Smith, David Oliver. The Bible Tells Me So: A Critical Analysis of the Jesus Myth (p. 62). Kindle Edition.

[StephenGoranson]

According to Michael A. Knibb, in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford U P, 2000) 921:
"The Christian identifications [of the Teacher of Righteousness] are ruled out by the fact, among others, that the oldest manuscript of the Damascus Document (4Q266) and the manuscript of Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab), which together form the two most important sources of information about the Teacher of Righteousness, date from before the Christian era [....]"

[annotate]

According to Michael A. Knibb, in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford U P, 2000) 921:
"The Christian identifications [of the Teacher of Righteousness] are ruled out by the fact, among others, that the oldest manuscript of the Damascus Document (4Q266) and the manuscript of Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab), which together form the two most important sources of information about the Teacher of Righteousness, date from before the Christian era [....]"

I asked Microsoft AI if either document you mentioned had been added to in the first century and was told this:

Yes, the Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) was added to in the first century CE. The Pesher Habakkuk is a Jewish commentary on the Book of Habakkuk that was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave 1 at Qumran1. It is labelled 1QpHab and is one of the original seven Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1947 and published in 19511. According to some scholars, the Pesher Habakkuk was written in two stages: the first stage was written in the late Hasmonean period (c. 100-63 BCE), and the second stage was written in the early Roman period (c. 63 BCE - 70 CE)2. The second stage of the Pesher Habakkuk is believed to have been written during the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 CE)3. The Pesher Habakkuk contains interlinear additions that were added to it later, which are believed to be from the Herodian era.

Yes, the Damascus Document (4Q266) has been added to. The Damascus Document is a Jewish sectarian work that was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid-20th century1. It is also known as the Zadokite Fragments and is believed to have been written by a Jewish sect known as the Essenes2. The document contains a collection of laws, rules, and regulations that were followed by the Essenes2. According to some scholars, the Damascus Document was written in two stages: the first stage was written in the late Hasmonean period (c. 100-63 BCE), and the second stage was written in the early Roman period (c. 63 BCE - 70 CE)3. The second stage of the Damascus Document is believed to have been written during the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 CE)3. The document has been found in several fragments, including 4Q266, which contains interlinear additions that were added to it later and are believed to be from the Herodian era.

(AI says:) I am referring to the following scholars:

William Brownlee and Bilhah Nitzan 1
Jozef Milik 2
Liora Goldman 2 I hope that helps!

[annotate]

Another inquiry to AI: Was the teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the second stage writing of the Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab)?

According to some scholars, such as John Allegro3, the Teacher of Righteousness was mentioned in both stages of writing, but in different ways. In the earlier stage, he was portrayed as a living leader who faced persecution and opposition from his enemies, such as the Wicked Priest and the Man of Lies. In the later stage, he was portrayed as a dead or absent leader who was expected to return in glory and judgment at the end of days. Allegro argued that this change reflected the historical development of the Qumran community, which experienced a crisis after the death or disappearance of its founder.

However, other scholars, such as Geza Vermes4, have challenged this view and argued that the Teacher of Righteousness was only mentioned in the earlier stage of writing, and not in the later stage. They claimed that the later stage did not refer to any specific historical figure, but rather to a generic or idealized leader who represented the hopes and aspirations of the Qumran community. Vermes suggested that this change reflected a different literary genre or style, rather than a different historical situation.

[StephenGoranson]

I quoted a reference to Damascus Document ms 4Q266, not to any putative later additions.
What a mechanical regurgitator presents as what someone wrote was "believed" is not real scholarship, imo.
"Referring" to William Brownlee as if he agreed with a Christian dating is absurd--Brownlee proposed that the Teacher of Righteousness was Judah the Essene (circa 100 bce)!

[annotate]

I quoted a reference to Damascus Document ms 4Q266, not to any putative later additions.
What a mechanical regurgitator presents as what someone wrote was "believed" is not real scholarship, imo.
"Referring" to William Brownlee as if he agreed with a Christian dating is absurd--Brownlee proposed that the Teacher of Righteousness was Judah the Essene (circa 100 bce)!

Earlier you quoted Michael A. Knibb as saying these documents date before the Christian era. Documents can be added to and leaders can be replaced (they usually are). Maybe Judah the Essene was the original Teacher of Righteousneess. Later, maybe there's another. Things change.

The mechanical regurgitator is us. What do you do when you're searching for information? The same thing the regurgitator does. It makes mistakes because it was made in our image.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm just posting what someone else (AI) reported. And I've found that it doesn't matter what anybody says someone else will have a different view.

[StephenGoranson]

This AI is not "someone else." It lacks discrimination based on real research, as already proved, for example, by its egregious misrepresentation of the published views of the late scholar William H. Brownlee.

[annotate]

This AI is not "someone else." It lacks discrimination based on real research, as already proved, for example, by its egregious misrepresentation of the published views of the late scholar William H. Brownlee.

Well, another round of the mechanical regurgitator vs SG. AI says Brownlee says: "He identified the Teacher of Righteousness, a prominent figure in the scroll, as Judas Maccabeus, a Jewish leader who led a revolt against the Seleucid Empire in the second century BCE."

AI also says Judas Maccabeus was not Judah the Essene. More on Brownlee below from AI.

Brownlee made several contributions to the research and interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. He published a photographic edition of the Isaiah Scroll, one of the most complete and important scrolls, in 1950. He also wrote a commentary on the Habakkuk Pesher, a scroll that contains a commentary on the biblical book of Habakkuk, in 1959. He argued that the scroll reflected the history and beliefs of the Essenes, a Jewish sect that lived in Qumran and produced many of the scrolls. He identified the Teacher of Righteousness, a prominent figure in the scroll, as Judas Maccabeus, a Jewish leader who led a revolt against the Seleucid Empire in the second century BCE.

Brownlee also explored the connections between the Dead Sea Scrolls and early Christianity. He suggested that some of the scrolls, such as the Thanksgiving Hymns and the Community Rule, contained parallels to the teachings and practices of Jesus and his followers. He also proposed that some of the scrolls, such as the War Scroll and the Melchizedek Scroll, contained messianic prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus. He believed that John the Baptist, who baptized Jesus, was influenced by or belonged to the Essene community.

Brownlee’s work on the Dead Sea Scrolls was influential and pioneering, but also controversial and debated. Some of his interpretations and identifications have been challenged or rejected by other scholars. However, he remains one of the most important figures in the history of Dead Sea Scrolls research.