Who are the scholars who have denied the historicity of the Teacher of Righteousness?

[Giuseppe]

Are there some deniers of the historical Teacher of Righteousness?

[Sinouhe]

I believe I once read an article that briefly mentioned one (or more) historians who rejected the historicity of the Teacher. But I would be unable to find the references unfortunately.

This idea has already crossed my mind. It could explain some things but i think he most likely existed.

[ABuddhist]

This idea has already crossed my mind. It could explain some things but i think he most likely existed.

Would you be kind enough to set out your reasoning?

[StephenGoranson]

It may be fair to say that--though much about Qumran mss and the earlier-published Damascus Document elicited rather diverse views--the overwhelming majority of scholars regard(ed) the Teacher of Righteousness as historical. (A minority suggested it was an office, with more than one individual, in sequence.) The bibliography is huge. If I may repeat my take on the Teacher as one individual named Judah:
https://people.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf

[maryhelena]

You might find this paper of interest - it identifies the Teacher of Righteousness as Hyrcanus II.

"Allusions to the End of the Hasmonean Dynasty in Pesher Nahum (4Q169)" (2011)
Greg Doudna

https://www.academia.edu/12144236/_Allu ... Q169_2011_

[Giuseppe]

the overwhelming majority of scholars regard(ed) the Teacher of Righteousness as historical. (A minority suggested it was an office, with more than one individual, in sequence.) The bibliography is huge.

When it comes to figures as the Teacher of Righteousness or Jesus, is it really necessary to remember the presence of a presumed 'majority' pro-historicity?

It seems to me that the case for an invented (not mythical, but invented) Teacher of Righteousness is even more strong than the case for a purely midrashical Jesus.

The reason is obvious:

• with the Teacher of Righteousness you have, in the more favorable and/or more rational case for his not-existence, only pure 100% Jewish midrash, as proof.

• Jesus, at contrary, can't be dismissed as pure 100% Jewish midrash, given the influence of myth, sectarian rivalry, not least the marcionite threat, in the making of the Jesus figure.

[mlinssen]

the overwhelming majority of scholars regard(ed) the Teacher of Righteousness as historical. (A minority suggested it was an office, with more than one individual, in sequence.) The bibliography is huge.

When it comes to figures as the Teacher of Righteousness or Jesus, is it really necessary to remember the presence of a presumed 'majority' pro-historicity?

It seems to me that the case for an invented (not mythical, but invented) Teacher of Righteousness is even more strong than the case for a purely midrashical Jesus.

The reason is obvious:

• with the Teacher of Righteousness you have, in the more favorable and/or more rational case for his not-existence, only pure 100% Jewish midrash, as proof.

• Jesus, at contrary, can't be dismissed as pure 100% Jewish midrash, given the influence of myth, sectarian rivalry, not least the marcionite threat, in the making of the Jesus figure.

And all that fancy Jewishness is visible in the NT - exactly where?

[Giuseppe]

And all that fancy Jewishness is visible in the NT - exactly where?

It is there especially in the Passion story of the Gospel x, for each x.

But the Gospel midrash is not innocent. It is tendentious, i.e. used to make a point. An anti-marcionite point.

[John T]

If Jonathan (high priest) 143 BCE is correctly identified as 'the Wicked Priest' by the Essenes at Qumran, then his nemesis i.e. "The Teacher of Righteousness" must have lived around the same time. Hyrcanus II (high priest) 30 BCE, arrived over a hundred years later.

Doudna is wrong for so many reasons other than just picking the wrong century.

[maryhelena]

If Jonathan (high priest) 143 BCE is correctly identified as 'the Wicked Priest' by the Essenes at Qumran, then his nemesis i.e. "The Teacher of Righteousness" must have lived around the same time. Hyrcanus II (high priest) 30 BCE, arrived over a hundred years later.

Doudna is wrong for so many reasons other than just picking the wrong century.

Greg Doudna's research is available.... as is all DSS research.....for investigation and critique by DSS scholars. I doubt your opinion of his research, voiced on this forum, carries any weight at all.