IamJoseph

My understanding was, if the scrolls were allocated to ancient Jews [as opposed 1 century], it would not necessarilly mean it should contain a reference to Jesus - thus allowing christianity seeing the scrolls as not relevent to the absence of anything in the Gospels.

Thanks anyway.

andrewcriddle

IIUC the issue is whether the scrolls tell us about "mainstream" widespread Jewish beliefs from the period, or whether they represent the beliefs of a relatively small "marginal" group.

This has implications when comparing and contrasting the scrolls with Christianity on the one hand and Rabbinic Judaism on the other.

Andrew Criddle

XKV8R

christians had nothing to do with the composition of the scrolls. nothing.
as for the essenes, they jury is still out. (btw - whence came the essenes?)
there were sectarians at qumran (even dr. elior says so). we just don't call them essenes (at least i don't). but could the origins of the essenes be rooted in a zadokite group?

on a related note...

i was trying to follow charles gadda's posts back to now public, but now public seems to have deleted every single post ever made by charles gadda including his account. seems like the folks over at now public realized that they had been warned about who charles gadda was and about what he was doing for a couple of years, and are now gearing up for protecting themselves against any who will claim that they knowingly allowed their forum to be used as a platform to harass, libel, and smear, often personally, other scholars. i'm actually glad that now public is taking steps toward remedying this sad situation. i can't imagine a website that would knowingly allow their space to be used for blatant defamation and libel, especially after they had been warned about the situation behind the scenes.

anywho, what's new here on iidb/frdb?

-xkv8r

andrewcriddle

You might be interested in Essenes never existed...

Andrew Criddle

spin

Elior is a text scholar, so she demurs to others who should know, so that "even dr. elior" is a bit silly. What is really at issue is that you believe that there were sectarians at Qumran, but you haven't got any tangible evidence for such a claim, have you?

Umm, do you think a group that turned its back on bloodline and on the temple would be somehow Zadokite?




spin

XKV8R

there is evidence. there is a good case for the reoccupation of a fort by jewish sectarians. my book's out in june. come to sbl/asor and debate it with us.

as for your comment above, umm, would you not think that a group of zadokites who honor the line of the high priesthood might have a problem with hasmonean kings also declaring themselves high priests? were a zadokite to experience this, would you not think that it is the newly corrupt priesthood that has 'turned its back on bloodline'? and would not the dissidents understand themselves as those who are attempting to preserve the true bloodline, despite losing control of the temple? this seems quite straightforward to me. hasmoneans kings were ineligible to be high priests. if you were a real zadokite, you'd rebel too.

spin

That's hard to analyze, isn't it?

What do you think of Bar-Nathan's analysis of the wares found both at Qumran and at Jericho (in Galor/Humbert/Zangenberg)?

What population estimates do you use for the site and why? And do you have a hundred plus sectarians munching meals in L.77 and permanently living in caves that have now been worn away a la Eshel et Broshi?

The most useful time to debate about a book is before it's published, so as to minimize the potential for error: it's too late once it's hit the shops.

Remember that my comment was stimulated by your hypothesized origin of the Essenes. Clearly, by taking the young of the poor of the land to join the group there is no attempt at all to preserve bloodline. Bloodline has no value there. And if you have lost control of the temple, you run off to Egypt and start another one. Wouldn't you?


spin

XKV8R

methinks it's great that qumran ware was at jericho. it is evidence of exchange between the two sites. what does it prove? it proves that pottery from qumran was at jericho. it is consistent with the evidence of pottery manufacture at qumran. someone at qumran made pottery.

no more than 70 tops, and that would be cramped. probably fewer.

no. they lived on the site, not in caves. i don't even think in tents. there was enough room upstairs to house no more than 70. yes, they ate in locus 77 and maybe later in upstairs in loci 111/120/121.

we have debated and vetted the findings of my research/the book for the past two years at sbl/asor. lots of scholars. lots of emails. lots of discussions. lots of flying archaeologists to ucla for private consults. we even got some great feedback from a number of anonymous folks arguing on behalf of the rosenberger professor. ;-)

keep an eye on nea.

yes, an hypothesis. fortress, much evidence. sectarian reoccupation, much evidence. origin of the essenes, much less evidence. so i float an idea.

and i never call the residents of qumran essenes. no straw men please.

who said anything about taking the poor of the land to join the group? i certainly didn't. no straw men please.

i suppose you could, and there is certainly evidence to support that phenomenon. but does one have to flee to egypt to start a new temple-based community? why can't one relocate to some place just outside of jerusalem?

(spoiler alert: keep an eye on how bar-nathan interprets her discovery at shu'afat. is the discovery of multiple inkwells in the same locus evidence of scribal activity? if so, who is responsible for that scribal activity? will said scribal activity be interpreted as that of a religious group perhaps once based in jerusalem? ;-) and will actual documents discovered at the site dictate this interpretation, or will this interpretation be reached without the discovery of any written documents? we must wait and see... (unless you asked her at asor.) ;-)

and what happens if said group still believes in the physical jerusalem temple, and is merely waiting for the corrupted (perhaps some will say 'wicked') priest to vacate the office? and if that return to the jerusalem temple is delayed, would not some be tempted to envision some other great, disproportionately large temple? maybe?

admittedly, this 'origin of qumran sectarians' theory involves some speculation. i'd argue what is not speculation is that qumran was established as a fort, and was later expanded in a communal, non-militaristic fashion. all of the expanded areas were for industry, ritual purification, increased (doubled) water storage, by folks who were not overly concerned with maximizing defense or increasing the fortification of the site.

but that's all in the book...

-bc

spin

There are enough kilns on the site to guarantee that.

Yup. Patrich went for much fewer way back in his Methods of Investigation article and I found him convincing then.

(Thank heavens.)

Don't you find the kitchen in a very strange location??

Have you thought about when L.77 was built?

Shall do.

Which is precisely what I picked up on in your earlier statement, so while you go on here to call some of my comments creating strawmen, they were actually to the point of what you said. It's better not to play the Essene two-step, dropping the name then retracting.

When you talk about Essenes (you remember: "but could the origins of the essenes be rooted in a zadokite group?"), you create your own strawmen. But then calling the inhabitants of Qumran "sectarians" is minimally safer. It implies similar commitments, such as the scrolls being the possession of the Qumran inhabitants and then that most of the contents of the scrolls reflect some ostensibly unknown sect. At least with the Essenes you had culprits to blame. Sectarians give you nothing other than less obvious error.

At least we know some did decamp for Heliopolis. You can conjecture a Qumran destination for your sect, but that seems to have little to do with history.

All intriguing! Inkwells are evidence for writing, but not of what is written.

I guess it's possible. However, what we do have is a report of the foundation of a temple in Egypt by the Zadokite heir to the high priesthood, when it was obvious that the Jerusalem temple was lost, the survival of that temple for a few centuries and an archaeological dig.

Right.

I think "fort" is overstating the case. The place had a tower and minimal defenses, but it couldn't withstand anything serious. The outer walls were always too flimsy, but it probably was some official installation, such as a communications point or an observation center.

You'd expect that with a commercial operation, wouldn't you? At least that's what a lot of archaeologists think about Qumran, that it was some kind of commercial operation, be it a "manor house" or a pottery production center or more diversified with a mixed production.

Let me guess... you think that the big stepped cisterns were used as miqwa'ot, when use of non-moving water for ritual bathing would lead to stagnation. Think of a year's ritual bathing. Yuk.

When L.91 alone contained more than the combined 110, 117 & 118, I think "doubled" is somewhat conservative. Let's not forget the feeding channel which is thought to have collected rain water off roofs and which ran under the higher water system and into L.117. It means that the first water system never got past there until the wall between L.106 and L.109 was breached, so everything beyond is later water storage expansion, L.91, L.56/58 and L.71.

And I wish you luck with it.


spin

XKV8R

so i take it you don't think the scrolls have anything to do with qumran?.... ;-)

i do, just not all of them. i know i know, how convenient. but it works.