Charles Gadda

I believe this is the Le Monde article in question. It concludes with the sentence: "The ties between the Essenes, who were thought to have written the scrolls, and Qumran are now reduced to nothing, just as the major American historian and paleographer Norman Golb had already written." My source at the Jewish Museum in New York informs me that the author of the article is the son of Le Monde's founder Hubert Beuve-Méry and a well-known figure in French intellectual circles.

I would suggest the purpose of this poll is to obfuscate the issues, just the way the DSS monopolists (some of whom are on excellent terms with Shanks) have been doing in the museum exhibits. See my list of questions above, all of them obscured by the idiotic terms of this poll.

On "scientific," I think he was using the term in a broader sense, which legitimately includes history (as in "natural history"). The basic point was made here:

gnosis92

What is the current evidence point to, and why do I still here the simple DS written by the Essenes at Qumran, who were wiped out after 70 CE?

I've seen the History/Discovery channel documentaries, 2 hours in length, complete with actors as essenes monkishly writing those scrolls, and I've wondered if the copper scroll is a treasure map that does indeed lead to riches

Charles Gadda

Current research points to (1) the origin of the scrolls in various libraries in the Jerusalem area (and not just the Temple library -- there are too many contradictory ideas in the texts); (2) the interpretation of Qumran as a secular site, used as a fortress, commercial trading post and pottery factory, but with no signs whatsoever of sectarian inhabitation.

Lately, defenders of the sectarian theory have fallen back on the claims that maybe "it" was some other sect other than the Essenes, and that "some" of the scrolls were written at Qumran, while "many" or even "most" of them came from "elsewhere." Once you start admitting that many of the texts were not written at Qumran, the question necessarily arises whether there is any evidence that any of them were written there.

The use of this term "elsewhere" is an attempt to obscure the basic issues (see my lists of questions above). Basically, they are desperately trying to ignore the evidence pointing towards (1) the origin of these texts in a major urban center, which alone would offer the kind of socio-economic infrastructure that could sustain such an amount of intense intellectual activity, and (2) specifically towards Jerusalem as the point of origin (hundreds of scribal hands; the Copper Scroll; the identical scrolls found at Masada where Jews are known to have fled from Jerusalem; a corpus of around 100 text that are visibly writings of Temple priests, etc.).

As for the popular television "documentaries," museum exhibits, and rags like BAR, it is all propoganda being put out by the surviving members of the Dead Sea Scrolls monopoly group which for many years kept the scrolls under wraps, with the financial support of wealthy donors like the Dorot Foundation and other such organizations. That is exactly why virtually all the people who appear in these events (Nova, museum lecture series, etc.) are defenders of the sectarian theory, while their opponents have been systematically excluded from participating.

I have an entire series of articles on the NowPublic site examining this issue, see, e.g., this one. I have been accused of using "sock puppets" and of being a "bigot," but my accusers are of course simply defenders of the sectarian theory, and while launching purely ad hominem attacks on me, they refuse to discuss the evidence or answer the criticisms of their opponents (see my articles for links).

See the View from Number 80 for one response to the attacks against me (scroll down to "A Sock Puppet's Cunning Strategy").

gnosis92

I think this is fascinating, although I wonder, whether this is genuine scholarship or some kind of fringe theory. In your account,
Did one group of individuals then collect these diverse documents and put them together in jars and scattered them in clustered caves at one time, or a period of time, and for what purpose? To hide them from Roman army 70 ce?

I'm not sure if you're an expert, but is the "Nag hammadi" scrolls also contested -- perhaps a new thread is in order?

spin

To my knowledge no scroll was ever actually found in a jar. Jars were part of the story of the first scrolls discovery -- a stone thrown down into a cave and a thunk! The discoverer mentioned scrolls and jars, but none of those found by archaeologists were in jars and the initial story isn't too coherent, so you should hold the notion of scroll jars as suspect. Modern ceramic analyses aren't supportive of the scroll jar theory.

An important fact to remember is that the number of scrolls found bore no connection with the small number of inhabitants Qumran could support. Thirty copies of Deuteronomy were clearly not related to use of locals, considering that the literacy level was incredibly low and the population of the site was of an artisan class, probably oriented to the manufacture of ceramics.

The scrolls were not produced at the site. If it were the case we would expect a high number of copies from the same scribal hands for a small scribal community, but the contrary is the fact: very many different hands involved says that the scrolls were produced elsewhere.

Qumran was probably not the only destination for the scrolls. Reports from antiquity record scroll finds in caves in and near Jericho. Scroll finds in caves in the vicinity of Qumran seem to indicate a wider operation. These locations point to a Jerusalem source, as does the vast number of scribal hands involved in the copying. Where else would one have been likely to find so many hands? The skill necessary for copying scrolls was different from what was needed for recording marriage contracts and property exchanges. It was therefore a highly specialized skill the training for which needed financial support.

The deposit of the scrolls seems to have been a planned process, but there were time problems: cave #4 -- where the bulk of the Qumran scrolls were found -- was hurriedly filled with scrolls. This suggests that circumstances changed during the process of depositing them.

There was an ancient logic which said texts that bore the name of god couldn't be destroyed: they had to be protected by placing them in a safe place -- this is where the notion of a genizah comes from. There are no indications that the scrolls were damaged or worn out, so they weren't deposited for the reason that they had come to the end of their useful life. Some threat to them therefore seems the most likely scenario for their being hidden. Among the treasures of the copper scroll were books, so their value would explain their storage in the caves and under military threat I doubt if people would be looking at what the flavor of Judaism implied by the texts was, especially when Judaism at the time was heterodox. The first important act was to preserve them all.

I'm not an expert, but the situation was very different. Nag Hammadi is a safe relatively closed case of non-orthodoxy christian literature produced at a time when there was an orthodoxy.


spin

gnosis92

I find this interesting thanks. Is there any particular importance to 70CE in your understanding of DS? I've wondered whether those texts that speak of a "Teacher of Righteousness" is in some way connected with the Nazarenes?

By NG I mean "do you believe the gnostics wrote all of the scrolls or just some of them? Were they written in NG or elsewhere? Were they deliberately hidden, and all at the same time? Was their a gnostic community close to where they were found? Did gnostics really write the NG?

DCHindley

It is certainly true that the doctrines found in "sectarian" DSS scrolls (the ones that are not biblical mss) do not match well with what Jewish authors (Josephus and Philo) say about them. Philo and Josephus are assuming the roles of apologists for Judaism. Many of the non-biblical scrolls are super nationalistic and/or apocalyptic (e.g., War Scroll) or into Enochian and related lore. On the other hand, some organizational features in those accounts, such as how communities govern themselves or conduct common meals, are reflected in the scrolls.

Organization itself may mean little. Every culture usually shares a number of common practices across its many sub-groups. For example, although "Thanksgiving" day has its origins in Congregational (Reformed - protestant) church practices, most US residents observe some form of family gathering over dinner on this date regardless of each individual family member's religion or ethnicity. The local paper has an article about how local mosques helped the local Hindu community welcome refugees from Bhutan through the convention of a Thanksgiving dinner (pumpkin pie was a hit, while stuffing bombed). So, if one learns that someone else observes it then it does NOT follow that he MUST be a Congregationalist!

Keep in mind also that both Josephus and Philo wanted to portray Jewish beliefs about god and some of their more peculiar practices (to Greek sensibilities) as elements of a life-philosophy on a par with Platonism or Stoicism. As a result, their descriptions of Essenes may be dressed up to meet Greco-Roman expectations, and de-emphasize or smooth over elements that would turn them off.

Unfortunately, this means that
1) assuming Essenes did write them, they are not exactly as portrayed to the Greco-Roman public by Philo and Josephus, or
2) whoever wrote them were not Essenes, and the DSS reflect another sect or sects within Judaism, or even represent a "real" cross section of Jewish beliefs unfiltered by apologists like Philo and Josephus (the Temple library argument).

DCH

gnosis92

[/QUOTE]

If a sectarian group within Judaism as large as the sect that produced the DS was "unmentioned" by Josephus and Philo (but do mention Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, Zealots, etc.) if Josepheus and Philo did not write of a sect that resembles the sectarian writings found in DS, how do you explain this silence? Should Josepheus and Philo described such a sect, given it was large and wealthy enough to write some parts of the DS library, when writing was expensive?


If Josepheus and Philo are silent on such a sect, is their relative silence on Jesus and the early Christians any less surprising? (If I don't get any replies here I'll post it as yet another MJ-HJ thread)

wordy

Could Josephus have been "biased" in his description or not knowing them well enough.
Maybe his "informant" about them was a "drop out" that failed to give them a good description.

I find it hard to decide. Too far away in time to really know.

But was not the description of their leader not a pre-"Jesus" like leader.
Similar kind of metaphors and words on how they looked upon him.

But he lived some 100 years before "jesus" so it only shows that there
where a demand for such leaders and that they where able to build communities.

"Jesus" could have been a drop out from them. Or he never existed and "jesus" is
a mock up that is inspired by the rumors about the Essenes.