Rick Sumner

I agree wholeheartedly with Josephus--he's hugely overused, though at the same time I have a hard time believing he divided the Jewish schools as he did entirely arbitrarily--it seems likely that he overlapped where they fit best. But the three Jewish sects Josephus describes fit rather nicely into three categories of Greek philosophy. Too nicely. Too nicely to be Jewish sects, in fact.

The thing that gets me with the Sadducee connection are the minor details that overlap between classical sources and the Scrolls. For perhaps the best example, spitting. Josephus found it noteworthy that the Essenes outlawed spitting. He makes no such observation about any other group, which indicates that it was a distinction (if it wasn't worth mention, why mention it?). Lo and behold, what do we find in 1QS but a prohibition against spitting.

How do you account for this in your proposal? Would texts from all sects have been present at the temple, thus perhaps defining Essenes by 1QS, but not by the scrolls at large?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

It's available online ($20 download fee Vol.9, Issue 3 (2002)) at http://caliban.ingentaselect.com/vl=...3/contp1-1.htm

I might indulge myself, when I have time to read it. I'll post a synopsis here if I do.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Jayhawker Soule

Do you have examples?

spin

Josephus's source might have found it noteworthy, but what did he know about temple purity?

What were the views of the other groups about spitting? You simply don't know.

I know that Josephus's source has the Essenes against the use of oil on the body, yet the scrolls don't mind oil at all, except on Shabbat. I could in fact show a number of disagreements between Josephus's Essenes and the scrolls. Sacrificing is ok in the scrolls, but the Essenes were into it. Besides they were excluded from the temple where all sacrifices were to be made, and the scrolls writers were strict torah adherents. The Essene pacifists didn't write the war scroll, etc. etc.

The logic of assuming that only the bunch we know about held certain beliefs is a shot in the dark.


spin

spin

If you have the book and you are not commited to the Essene hypothesis, the many examples are obvious, but to list a few would require a fair bit of citation. But one quick example of the bomb:

When asked by Shanks if she "would interpret Qumran as a sectarian settlement had the Dead Sea Scrolls not been found", she gave two answers,

1. No, though the site would have been considered anomalous. . . , and

2. "More importantly, why would we want to disregard the evidence of the scrolls . . ?"

This rhetorical question has some merit (though not much, for she would have to show strong connections between scrolls content and archaeology, which she never does), but Magness simply proceeds to assume the connection between scrolls and site, making here work terminally flawed.

There are numerous examples of assumptions becoming axioms. It is clear that she is not doing her job. She starts with the Essenes and sectarianism and imposes them on the site. Much of the book is thus a defence of such a reading against various other analyses, so she never gives the archaeology straight.


spin

Toto

FYI - this was posted to the JM list.

Qumran in the second temple period: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence by Y.Hirschfeld

Warning: pdf file, very large download, with photographs.

Vorkosigan

When were they deposited? In response to what emergency? And why were they not reclaimed?

Vorkosigan

spin

Before the end of Period 1b. No other period would explain the basic c14 data.

A few emergencies come to mind including the Parthian invasion and the struggle between Antigonus and Herod, but I favour the lead-up to the siege of the temple by Pompey in 63 BCE. See Hutchesson, Qumran Chronicle 1999. Young cites this and also Doudna (who advocates a date about 20 years later).

If Hutchesson is correct, then most of the conservative priesthood were killed in the temple siege, so there was no-one to reclaim them. The argument goes that that the enemies of the Pharisees were given permission to leave Jerusalem for "forts" (except the big ones) around the country and Qumran, built at the time the Hasmoneans were expanding their defences to include the Dead Sea, would have been such an establishment and therefore held by the Sadducees when the temple sought a destination for scrolls, given that the end was near, ie a foreign power had come to take God's kingdom from the Jews.


spin

Rick Sumner

Why would we presume Josephus used a source, rather than personal experience?

Even if Josephus used a source, wouldn't he have been aware that it wasn't a distinction, if it wasn't in fact a distinction? Why wouldn't he have corrected the error?

Were they really pacifists? John the Essene had no problem engaging in the Jewish War.

True enough.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

The c-14 dating does point to a much earlier date than is usually held for their deposit.

This actually makes a great deal of sense. I'll check out the references.

Thanks (even though they were for Vork :P ),
Rick Sumner