Spin and the DSS

[Blood]

However, the important issue is that the texts can be explained without recourse to Essene nonsense or christian usurpation.

Why do you think the Essene hypothesis was, and still is, so dominant?

It was taken on rather early by the international team that had sole possession of the bulk of the scrolls. It was also championed by Sukenik. While other theories came and went, if you wanted to talk scrolls with the big boys it was going to be Essenes. This was the only show in town until the scrolls were liberated in the 1990s. That's almost 40 years of the dominance. Many of the Israeli scholars who took up the baton were given their first access to the scrolls under long serving member of the international team John Strugnell before the liberation, so they also were primed as bearers of the torch. Then of course, the scrolls, though Jewish, had to be seen as sectarian, leaving the only known group of any substance, the Essenes. They were ready-made as the only possible authors. Opposition was either looney or idiosyncratic (argued by a lone pundit, as in the case of Golb for a long time: his position is still rather alienated from the mainstream). People prefer dysfunctional explanations to no explanations at all (as lonely theories tend to be perceived). So it is quite understandable that we have been lumbered with the Essene hypothesis and will be for decades to come. Some scholars do correct themselves, "the Essenes,... I mean, the Sect", but generally few bother. We are stuck with the Essenes now because of habit, politics and ideology.

Thanks. What I don't understand is why the scrolls had to be seen as sectarian.

[Blood]

I cannot speak for spin (and no one should dare to do that) but I will say that I think that the "sectarian" DSS were a complete surprise when they came to light.

Until then, we had conveniently shoe-horned the Judean inter and post-testamental literature (Apocrypha, 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, 4th -Latin apocalypse of- Ezra, even the Cairo Document aka "Fragment of a Zadokite Work," etc) into cliché categories oriented around NT verses about Pharisees and Sadducees. Thus the "good guys" (Christian approved Judaism) was what was called Pharisee Quietists (Pharisees who had accepted their fate as subjects of Rome, and awaited their Messiah quietly).

The DSS scrolls were "fanatical," nationalistic and apocalyptic, hardly "quietist" at all. There were also ideas expressed that had only before been known in a Christian context, and it was natural to think that some of these ideas may have influenced Christianity, or the other way around.

Thus, in order to protect the "scholarly consensus" at the time (we "know" what the Pharisees and Sadducees wrote like), they had to assign authorship of the scrolls to the only other known group, the Essenes? Is that it?

[spin]

However, the important issue is that the texts can be explained without recourse to Essene nonsense or christian usurpation.

Why do you think the Essene hypothesis was, and still is, so dominant?

It was taken on rather early by the international team that had sole possession of the bulk of the scrolls. It was also championed by Sukenik. While other theories came and went, if you wanted to talk scrolls with the big boys it was going to be Essenes. This was the only show in town until the scrolls were liberated in the 1990s. That's almost 40 years of the dominance. Many of the Israeli scholars who took up the baton were given their first access to the scrolls under long serving member of the international team John Strugnell before the liberation, so they also were primed as bearers of the torch. Then of course, the scrolls, though Jewish, had to be seen as sectarian, leaving the only known group of any substance, the Essenes. They were ready-made as the only possible authors. Opposition was either looney or idiosyncratic (argued by a lone pundit, as in the case of Golb for a long time: his position is still rather alienated from the mainstream). People prefer dysfunctional explanations to no explanations at all (as lonely theories tend to be perceived). So it is quite understandable that we have been lumbered with the Essene hypothesis and will be for decades to come. Some scholars do correct themselves, "the Essenes,... I mean, the Sect", but generally few bother. We are stuck with the Essenes now because of habit, politics and ideology.

Thanks. What I don't understand is why the scrolls had to be seen as sectarian.

The unique scrolls were certainly not biblical nor were they overtly Pharisaic in nature, ie the line that leads to the mishnah culture, so not mainstream ante or mainstream post, therefore not mainstream at all. Well, that's basically how I see it how it went. And that's seems to be what you got from Dave in the response posted as I was trying to post this. There is of course a willingness to selectively read Josephus's description of the Essenes into the scrolls. Jodi Magness is a big one for this approach.

[ficino]

What do people think of this conclusion of Golb's, as summarized by Rbt. Price in his review of Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls: "Golb concludes that the scrolls represent the writings of the Jewish people as a whole, and that the utter absence of any trace of Rabbinic Judaism or of Palestinian Christianity in the Scrolls indicates that these movements did not exist in Jerusalem before 70 AD or were just then coming into being."

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... te_dss.htm

[spin]

What do people think of this conclusion of Golb's, as summarized by Rbt. Price in his review of Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls: "Golb concludes that the scrolls represent the writings of the Jewish people as a whole, and that the utter absence of any trace of Rabbinic Judaism or of Palestinian Christianity in the Scrolls indicates that these movements did not exist in Jerusalem before 70 AD or were just then coming into being."

Umm, it just might you know be one of them aah arguments that people make from you know *cough* silence.

[John2]

Spin,

I've been researching Menelaus and Onias III, and so far I've seen some correspondences between them and the Wicked Priest and the Teacher of Righteousness (and I think you may have already mentioned some of them in my Eisenman thread).

Regarding Menelaus, he was killed by Gentiles and his body was left without burial (2 Mac. 13:4-7), which is similar to the Wicked Priest being killed by "the violent of the nations" (4Q171) who "inflicted [him with] horrors of evil diseases and took vengeance upon his body of flesh" and "humbled [him] by means of a destroying scourge, in bitterness of soul, because he had done wickedly to His elect" (1QpHab col. 9).

He also outbid his brother to get the high priesthood and kept money that was due to the king (2 Mac. 4:24, 4:27), stole and sold vessels of the Temple (2 Mac. 4:32) and was considered a lawbreaker (2 Mac. 13:7), which sounds like the Wicked Priest, who "betrayed the precepts for the sake of riches" (1QpHab col. 8).

And he had Onias III killed (2 Mac. 4:34), like the Wicked Priest is said to have killed the Teacher of Righteousness in 1QpHab and 4Q171.

But there are some other aspects of the Wicked Priest that I haven't found counterparts for yet in the biography of Menalaus, and I thought I would ask you what you make of them.

The Wicked Priest was "called by the name of truth when he first arose" (1QpHab col. 8) and his "ignominy was greater than his glory" (col. 11), but it looks like Menelaus is always presented in a bad light (in addition to what I cited above, there is 2 Mac. 4:39, 4:43, 4:47, 4:50, 5:5, 5:15, 5:23, 13:3, 13:7). I suppose the fact that the Wicked Priest simply held the office of high priest could explain the references to his being "called by the name of truth when he first arose" and his "glory," but I'm wondering what you make of this.

4Q171 also mentions a "trial" of the Teacher of Righteousness:

"Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked [Priest] who [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]" and:

"Interpreted, this concerns the wicked of Ephraim and Manasseh, who shall seek to lay hands on the Priest and the men of his Council at the time of trial which shall come upon them. But God will redeem them from out of their hand. And afterwards, they shall be delivered into the hand of the Violent among the nations for judgment."

And I don't see any indication that Onias III was put on trial (but maybe the Hebrew for "trial" does not necessarily mean a court trial?):

"Therefore Menelaus, taking Andronicus aside, urged him to kill Onias. Andronicus came to Onias, and resorting to treachery offered him sworn pledges and gave him his right hand, and in spite of his suspicion persuaded Onias to come out from the place of sanctuary; then, with no regard for justice, he immediately put him out of the way" (2 Mac 4:34).

Also, the Teacher of Righteousness is said to have been killed along with "the men of his council":

"Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked Priest whom God delivered into the hands of his enemies because of the iniquity committed against the Teacher of Righteousness and the men of his Council" (1QpHab col. 9).

But it looks to me like only Onias III was killed in 2 Mac. 4:34.

Also, I'm wondering how you understand the "house of exile" where the Wicked Priest "pursued" and "swallowed" the Teacher of Righteousness (and "them"):

Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked Priest who pursued the Teacher of Righteousness to the house of his exile that he might confuse him with his venomous fury. And at the time appointed for rest, for the Day of Atonement, he appeared before them to confuse them, and to cause them to stumble on the Day of Fasting, their Sabbath of repose" (1QpHab col. 11).

Could this "house" refer to the sanctuary in Daphne where Onias III had taken refuge and was killed in 2 Mac. 4:33-34 ("When Onias became fully aware of these acts he publicly exposed them, having first withdrawn to a place of sanctuary at Daphne near Antioch"), or does this "house" incident refer to another event?

These are some of the loose ends I'm trying to tie up, and I'm assuming, given what I've learned from you so far, that you probably have some good answers for them.

[Blood]

However, the important issue is that the texts can be explained without recourse to Essene nonsense or christian usurpation.

Why do you think the Essene hypothesis was, and still is, so dominant?

It was taken on rather early by the international team that had sole possession of the bulk of the scrolls. It was also championed by Sukenik. While other theories came and went, if you wanted to talk scrolls with the big boys it was going to be Essenes. This was the only show in town until the scrolls were liberated in the 1990s. That's almost 40 years of the dominance. Many of the Israeli scholars who took up the baton were given their first access to the scrolls under long serving member of the international team John Strugnell before the liberation, so they also were primed as bearers of the torch. Then of course, the scrolls, though Jewish, had to be seen as sectarian, leaving the only known group of any substance, the Essenes. They were ready-made as the only possible authors. Opposition was either looney or idiosyncratic (argued by a lone pundit, as in the case of Golb for a long time: his position is still rather alienated from the mainstream). People prefer dysfunctional explanations to no explanations at all (as lonely theories tend to be perceived). So it is quite understandable that we have been lumbered with the Essene hypothesis and will be for decades to come. Some scholars do correct themselves, "the Essenes,... I mean, the Sect", but generally few bother. We are stuck with the Essenes now because of habit, politics and ideology.

Thanks. What I don't understand is why the scrolls had to be seen as sectarian.

The unique scrolls were certainly not biblical nor were they overtly Pharisaic in nature, ie the line that leads to the mishnah culture, so not mainstream ante or mainstream post, therefore not mainstream at all. Well, that's basically how I see it how it went. And that's seems to be what you got from Dave in the response posted as I was trying to post this. There is of course a willingness to selectively read Josephus's description of the Essenes into the scrolls. Jodi Magness is a big one for this approach.

This is the kind of thing that makes the whole field of Biblical studies so maddening. People today just accept the Essene hypothesis -- believing that it was arrived at through objective scholarship with no agenda -- without knowing anything about the semenarian/sectarian politics that forced such a hypothesis. Because those politics are rarely if ever mentioned in the mainstream scholarship. People criticized de Vaux's team's secrecy with the scrolls, but for the most part they didn't seem to question their perspective about the scrolls. These were experts, and experts can't be questioned, after all.

[neilgodfrey]

This is the kind of thing that makes the whole field of Biblical studies so maddening. People today just accept the Essene hypothesis -- believing that it was arrived at through objective scholarship with no agenda -- without knowing anything about the semenarian/sectarian politics that forced such a hypothesis. Because those politics are rarely if ever mentioned in the mainstream scholarship. People criticized de Vaux's team's secrecy with the scrolls, but for the most part they didn't seem to question their perspective about the scrolls. These were experts, and experts can't be questioned, after all.

Noam Chomsky (1992) in Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, July 22, 1992

There is a noticeable general difference between the sciences and mathematics on the one hand, and the humanities and social sciences on the other. It's a first approximation, but one that is real. In the former, the factors of integrity tend to dominate more over the factors of ideology. It's not that scientists are more honest people. It's just that nature is a harsh taskmaster. You can lie or distort the story of the French Revolution as long as you like, and nothing will happen. Propose a false theory in chemistry, and it'll be refuted tomorrow.

[steve43]

Work in the Jesus angle to ancient history and it sells, and the grant money flows in, as well as speaking invitations and book deals.

Essenes=Jesus=$$$$

Capernaum and Bethsaida have been excavated down to bedrock, while dozens of other sites- without a Christian angle- remain untouched.

[spin]

People today just accept the Essene hypothesis -- believing that it was arrived at through objective scholarship with no agenda -- without knowing anything about the semenarian/sectarian politics that forced such a hypothesis. Because those politics are rarely if ever mentioned in the mainstream scholarship. People criticized de Vaux's team's secrecy with the scrolls, but for the most part they didn't seem to question their perspective about the scrolls. These were experts, and experts can't be questioned, after all.

The scrolls were in the hands of the international team for better or for worse and they held onto them for grim death. Allegro got his lot published relatively quickly, but none of the others did. The scrolls were the only thing the members had to show for their efforts, which included the painstaking task of sifting through the fragments—many the size of your thumb nail—, cataloging them, relating them, fitting them together, making sense of them, analyzing the language, and so on. It was a nasty task and at the beginning they were the only ones available to do it and in the position to. Beyond the awareness of some achievement, the scrolls were the only sign of results, as money was scarce. This all just meant that whatever they made out of the scrolls was basically what the scrolls should indicate. So they hoarded them. Allegro was right to get them out asap, so that other scholars could analyze them, even though he provided what the rest of the team thought was a lightweight apparatus. It doesn't matter, when everyone can use the texts and pool their analyses through articles. The other scrolls lay inaccessible for decades. Team members died of old age without publishing.

The fact that Allegro's scrolls were items such as the pesharim gave a poor reflection of the corpus and helped stimulate the sectarian belief about the scrolls. The slowness in publishing generated the catholic cabal notion in the onlookers' minds and all sorts of weird notions brewed through lack of transparency. Pesher method. Christian connection. John the Baptist at Qumran. Jesus as the wicked priest. Jose O'Callaghan's tiny fragments of Mark. When Golb's Jerusalem origin theory emerged through such undergrowth, it was only natural that the team and its successors treated it like the harebrained stuff.

The whole process was a sad and sorry travesty of scholarship, not helped by the fact that nearly all the team members were christian and catholic, so that the Jewish nature of the scrolls was not a strong point in dealing with them. Jewish scholars were extremely angry over their manipulation and lack of access. But other scholars made their careers on secondary analyses of the scrolls, mainly accepting the status quo Essenes.

Phil Davies, a long time scholar of the scrolls who has shed the Essenes, has talked about the Judaisms reflected in the scrolls, different versions of Judaism within the corpus such that they don't reflect a single ideological point of view. Some other scholars have distanced themselves from the interpretative framework of the Essene hypothesis, so there is hope of eventually getting clean slate analyses rather than ones informed by institutional guesses, though we'll look forward to Essenes as the mainstay for a long time.