Essene Hypothesis Roundup

Doug Magnum has a summary discussion and the most complete set of links: go here. For my previous post on the topic, go here. Jim West’s blog continues to serve as a conduit for Rachel Elior’s point of view; go here for the latest.

What I don’t like about defending the consensus view against Rachel Elior’s attempt to associate the sectarian literature found in the Qumran caves with the Sadducees rather than with the Essenes is that it makes me feel like a crotchety old coot. Then again, Jodi Magness is the most eloquent defender of the consensus view from an archaeological point of view. See pic below for proof that she is not a dour spoilsport.

Here are Magness's conclusions, in the hot-off-the-press article on “Qumran” in the New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 2009) 4:705-709:

Recently proposed theories that interpret Qumran not as a sectarian settlement but as something else (e.g., villa, manor hours, commercial entrepot, fort, potter manufacturing center) divorce the scrolls from the site of Qumran; in other words, advocates of these theories argue that the inhabitants of Qumran did not use and deposit the scrolls in the nearby caves. This argument is disproved by archaeology, as the same types of pottery, some of which are distinctive to Qumran, are found in both the scroll caves and in the settlement. Furthermore, all of the alternative theories create more problems than they solve in terms of understanding the archaeological evidence. (709)

Magness’s published discussions of the archaeological evidence are exemplary (see bibliography below). With respect to the largest room in the Period 1b settlement (L77), that it functioned as a communal dining room and assembly hall seems certain, given the adjacent pantry (L86) which contained over 1,000 dishes. Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, it is not the case that De Vaux’s hypothesis that the large room in the center of the main building in Period II is a “scriptorium” has been disproven. The hypothesis has been called into question, which is well and good, but not disproven. As Magness notes, “The debris of the second-story level yielded long, narrow, mud brick tables and a bench covered with plaster, as well as a plastered platform and inkwells (article cited, 707-708).

For further online background and discussion, I recommend Fraser Walker’s summary here, Yin Yang Kim’s summary here, and Menachem Butler’s comments here.

Select Jodi Magness Qumran Bibliography

The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); Debating Qumran: Collected Essays on Its Archaeology (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 4; Leuven: Peeters, 2004); “Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Review Article,” RevQ 88 (2007) 641-64; “Qumran” in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Katherine Doob Sakenfeld et al., eds.; Nashville: Abingdon, 2006- ) 4 (2009): 705-709

Comments

[David]

I continue to be amazed by the sloppy thinking and unexamined assumptions that are embedded in even the most professional of analyses.

Prof. Magness complains about divorcing the scrolls from the Qumran site, citing as irrefutable evidence the use of Qumran-created jars for storing the scrolls (or at least some of them). This is sloppy thinking. Yes, some of the scrolls were stored in jars which were probably made at the Qumran site, but this does not mean that the scrolls were written there! People hiding the scrolls could easily have used whatever was locally-manufactured without having a personal association to source of the jars.

Second, all of the sources I have read about Qumran and the DSS say that the original excavations found 2 ink wells (although I have heard a rumor recently there might be more, but have no supporting evidence for this). Sorry, but 2 inkwells does not a scriptorium make! Over a 200 year period, one would expect an active scriptorium to throw away numerous broken inkwells, not to mention thousands of worn out or broken quill pens (or whatever writing implement they used).

Third, if the scrolls were written at Qumran, how do you account for the Copper Scrolls, which do not appear to have any relevance for the Qumran site.

The consensus scholars have made a living dismissing Golb's theories, and now Elior's, but their explanations just are not convincing. They assume too much and leave too much out.

[JohnFH]

Hi David,

Very nice blog you have. Here are some points to consider.

(1) Archaeological remains are almost always extremely incomplete. Two inkwells are already an amazing find, especially when they are "read," as they should be, in conjunction with associated finds.

(2) The "Qumran sectarians were Essenes hypothesis" is compatible with the probability that many and indeed most of the non-sectarian scrolls found at Qumran were scribed off-site. That's what I've always thought. I'm sure many other scholars do as well.

(3) No one is suggesting that alternative explanations for various details, indeed, for every single detail taken singly, are not possible. The strength of a hypothesis, however, has to be judged by its ability to make sense of all the evidence, or at least most of the evidence, taken together in an inter-related fashion. In this light, the consensus view, with all due caution, is still the best game in town.

[David]

I am open-minded on the issue of consensus versus alternative theory. I don't think we have enough background information to really decide at this point. For example, I have been impressed by Prof. Boccaccini's Beyond the Essene Hypothesis, in which he claimed that Qumran was the site of a breakaway Essene group (breaking away from the main Essene group, which he says was spread out through the country). But I also remember that most of the deposed Zadokites took off for Egypt with Onias IV and reportedly did not come back. Neither the consensus view nor the alternatives take everything into account.

[Tommy]

We all need crotchety old coots in our lives.

[David]

Tommy, if you are referring to me, how do you know I am old?

[JohnFH]

David,

Thanks for bringing up Boccaccini's proposals. They are often neglected in the debate, but without cause.

You are also right that a satisfactory global synthesis of the ins and outs of Second Temple Judaism eludes us, though I don't think that is surprising.

We must be careful to distinguish between the Zadokites and the Sadducees. We also have to make allowance for significant changes in the ideological and sociological profile of a movement from one time-period to the next.

[John Stuart]

Dear Jodi Magness

Can you traced all of Rachel Elior propsals
are not accurate?

Can I help you with look up Biblesearchers.com
and
http://www.biblesarchers.com/yahshua/beithillel/righteousgentiles.html

thanks

John Stuart

[JohnFH]

John,

The link you offer doesn't work. Furthermore, you might want to express agreements and disagreemnents more clearly. It is not obvious what you are upset about.

[John Stuart]

Dear John FH

The link is

http://www.biblesearchers.com/yahshua/beithillel/righteousgentiles.html

consensus that living in this community site we see today at Khirbat Qumran (Qumran Ruins) were members of the highly secretive sect of the Jews called the Essenes.

The Essenes are best known today as the inhabitants from Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were located by Bedouins first in 1947. It is now known that they were closely affiliated with the Hasidim, a sectarian group that included the disciples of Hillel and Menahem the Essene who left for Damascus in 20 BCE.

The righteousness of Shimon the Levite had now given him the distinctive title of; Shimon the Righteous One or Shimon haZaddik.

It would be another two years (1952) when in another cave now called Cave 3 (Qv15) the archeologists discovered a seven foot “Copper ["Click to close"] Scroll.” The supervisor of the dig, Professor Gerald Harding kept the discovery secret from the public for four years.

The Restored Copper Scroll

Here on this Copper Scroll the ancient name for Qumran was engraved, “Ir-Tzadok B’Succaca.” It was named after the ravine or canyon where water flows in the rare deluges in this desert area that flowed by the Qumran village. Within ancient maps of Palestine, the wadi next to Qumran was called the Wadi Succaca instead of the Wadi Qumran (Canyon of Qumran.) It was early in the 20th century that The Adam Smith Bible Dictionary identified Wadi Qumran as Wadi Succacah. It was noted the Yishiyim (Essenes) called their community by its ancient Aramaic name of “Ir-Tzadok B’Succaca.” Today it is known by its modern Arabic name, Qumran that means, “Two Moons”.

From
John Stuart

[JohnFH]

John,

The site you link to contains a veritable hodgepodge of eccentric viewpoints. That doesn't mean the unusual theories are wrong but they are unlikely to be taken seriously unless arguments in their favor in critical dialogue with opposing arguments are put forward, not only on a website, but in academic venues.

Just saying.

[John Stuart]

Dear John F C

Can i mind you that in the Dead Sea Scrolls there were the Zadokites were the last priests in the 2nd Century BC.

I will argue that Jason was the "man of lies" and Menelaus was the "wicked priest".

(1) Jason was not totally a Hellenist. Like the Pharisees, he accepted certain popular Hellenistic ideas (Note: later also the Hasidim joined him temporarily to force Menelaus out)

(2) Jason could have been the "man of lies" because he conducted a smear campaign against his own brother, Onias III,in 175 BC and committed bribery for the post of high priest. This would explain the TR's harsh words for him and his followers.

(3) Jason, like Menelaus, craved money. This fits the scrolls.

(4) Historically, Menelaus was indeed the wickedest priest in the Hellenistic world by any account.

(5) Menelaus murdered Onias III. The TR was apparently murdered by the "wicked priest"

(6) Jason must have been met with some approval by Onias III when he was younger otherwise he would not have been entrusted with the tribute and a high position. This fits with the scrolls.

(7) Menelaus must have been a con man. He was entrusted with the tribute and he changed names after he no longer needed to conceal his Hellenic fanaticism. Therefore, he may have met with some approval when he was young. (Stalin was in seminary when he was young) Again, this fits the scrolls.

Given the evidence and circumstances right now, I don't see anyone else other than Onias III that could fit the bill for the TR.

irst, let me clarify my intended point. When I questioned whether the
Sadducees would have been praised in c. 180-175 in Sirach, I was not
suggesting that it was more likely they would have been vilified. Rather,
what I had in my mind is that it seems doubtful that the Sadducees even
existed as a sect in 180-175 BCE.
I do not believe that Jewish sects had emerged by the time of Simon the
Just (c. 200-180 BCE) or the tenure of Onias III as high priest (c. 180-175
BCE). This is mainly based on two pieces of evidence. First, Sirach
contains not the slightest hint of sectarian polemics (warlike arguments) in
his book of c. 180-175 BCE. Rather, he sees all of Judaism (if one can even
use this term so early) united under the glorious leadership of the high
priest. Second, this picture is confirmed by the fact that in rabbinical
literature, the Pharisees claimed Simon the Just as their (legendary)
founder. This has no historical basis -- for instance, the Pharisees do not
attach any halakhah to the name of Simon the Just. See Neusner's two-volume
book on rabbinic traditions of the second temple period for this, if it's
important (sorry, I don't have the exact title handy). Now let us suppose
that Simon the Just was a Sadducee. Would the Pharisees have claimed a
famous Sadducee high priest as their founder? I think not. The first
Pharisee halakhah attached to historical rabbis date to the Maccabean
uprising, and I don't believe Sadducees or Pharisees predate that period,
based on available evidence.
With respect to your suggestion that it is unlikely that high priests
prior to the Hellenistic Crisis would have been vilified, I agree. Shimeon
"ha-Zedek" is praised in all available sources (Sirach and Talmudic). Onias
III is given high praise in 2 Macc. 3.1: "The holy city was inhabited in
unbroken peace and the laws were strictly observed because of the piety of
the high priest Onias and his hatred of wickedness." (The underlying Greek
does not connect with the phrase "doers of the law" -- the Greek here for
"observed" is suntereo, which never translates the Hebrew 'oseh="do" [see
LXX]. Nevertheless, the spirit of this passage is close to the loyalty to
the Torah and hatred of wickedness seen in Qumran texts.) However, the
emergence of partisanship in Judaism is seen in the conflict of Onias III and
his temple captain Simon (2 Macc. 3:4, etc.) and in the ouster of Onias III
and replacement as high priest by Jason (175-173 BCE) and then by Menelaus
(173-163 BCE), both of whom are roundly condemned in 2 Maccabees. Simon the
Just and Onias III were the last legitimate Zadokite high priests (the
so-called high priest of the intersacerdotium is a chimera), and I think
sectarian partisanship first arose out of the struggle for the high
priesthood during the Hellenistic Crisis and ensuing Maccabean War.
My own view is that the major sectarian scrolls were written by the
supporters of the Oniad (Zadokite) high priestly dynasty c. 175-160 BCE, but
that doesn't really figure into the above discussion on the origins of
Sadducees and Pharisees, which is based solely on Sirach and rabbinical
writings. However, I will note here that I consider 11QT, the older
"halachic" portions of CD, and 4QMMT to represent Oniad legal materials of
the period c. 200-163 BCE (as I plan to discuss in upcoming articles). My
conclusion is that the Sadducees did later emerge out of the Zadokite
priestly heritage of the Oniads, but had not yet appeared as a sect per se in
the lifetime of Simon and Onias III.

With respect to your suggestion that it is unlikely that
> high priests prior to the Hellenistic Crisis would have
been
> vilified, I agree. Shimeon "ha-Zedek" is praised in all
> available sources (Sirach and Talmudic). Onias III is
given
> high praise in 2 Macc. 3.1: "The holy city was inhabited
in
> unbroken peace and the laws were strictly observed because
of
> the piety of the high priest Onias and his hatred of
wickedness."
> (The underlying Greek does not connect with the phrase
"doers of
> the law" -- the Greek here for "observed" is suntereo,
which
> never translates the Hebrew 'oseh="do" [see LXX].
Nevertheless,
> the spirit of this passage is close to the loyalty to the
Torah
> and hatred of wickedness seen in Qumran texts.) However,
the
> emergence of partisanship in Judaism is seen in the
conflict
> of Onias III and his temple captain Simon (2 Macc. 3:4,
etc.)
> and in the ouster of Onias III and replacement as high
priest
> by Jason (175-173 BCE) and then by Menelaus (173-163 BCE),
both
> of whom are roundly condemned in 2 Maccabees. Simon the
Just
> and Onias III were the last legitimate Zadokite high
priests (the
> so-called high priest of the intersacerdotium is a
chimera),
> and I think sectarian partisanship first arose out of the
> struggle for the high priesthood during the Hellenistic
Crisis
> and ensuing Maccabean War.

Yet Josephus, to the extent that he is actually relating
true events,
speaks of a conflict between hellenists and Oniads as far
back as the mid
third century when Tobias and his son Joseph engaged in a
power struggle
with Onias II. And even these conflicts have echoes in the
earlier conflicts between Nehemiah and the Tobiah and
Samaritans of that day. For every Ben Sirah praising Simon
the Just or other writing Onias III there were surely
Tobiads or others like them condemning these individuals.
But their voices were not saved by later generations of
writers and copyists.

And the Penteteuch contains all sorts of embedded hints of
power struggles between rival groups within the Jerusalem
community: one thinks of the power struggles between
Aaronides and Levites, for example. Ezekiel adds to this by
favoring a particular line of priests above all others, the
Zadokites. And Malachi and other early post-exilic prophetic
writers speak loudly against the priests while favoring
other kinds of religious authorities (e.g. prophets).

It seems to me that power conflicts, schisms and
partisanship among the Jewish religious community are as
sold as Judaism itself and that the events of the second
century that gave rise to the Hasmonean government and the
parties of that period are just the end result of conflicts
and rivalries that had been brewing for centuries

In my opinion, the standard reasons are overwhelmingly convincing - and
I'm not one to blindly accept the current consensus view.
First, on the dates. The grandson wrote in the 38th year of Ptolemy
Euergetes, who ruled from 170 (joint rule) or 145 (sole rule) to 116 BCE, if
I have my facts straight. If the date was from sole rule, the 38th year
would be 107 BCE, after the end of Ptolemy's rule. So the 38th year will
have been calculated from 170 BCE, arriving at a date of translation of 132
BCE.
From all the fatherly advice in b. Sirach, including marriage and career
(i.e., it's better to get an education and become a scribe), I would assume
he wrote it when he had a son aged 10-15. This is just my guess. So however
old Jesus Sirach was, his son was about 10-15 in c.180 BCE by the traditional
dates. Meanwhile, if we assume the grandson was about 25-30 when he did his
translation, the grandson was born in 157-162 BCE, when the son was 33-43
years old. So I don't really see a chronological problem here.
Perhaps one might have been justified in saying that the translation of
his grandfather's book was just a literary device when we only possessed a
Greek version -- and indeed Thomas Thompson still claims this in The Mythic
Past, as Sirach's early date is inconvenient for Thompson's dates for the HB
-- but now that we have most of the Hebrew version among the Dead Sea Scrolls
and at Masada, there is verification that this is indeed a translation.
The book of Sirach has Simon the son of Onias (i.e. Simon the Just) the
pinnacle of the high priests. The description of his glory serving on the
day of Atonement appears to be eyewitness. Commentaries such as AB point out
that while Sirach's other historical material is all drawn from Biblical
sources, but the description of Simon isn't, and this (as well as its
vividness) is the main argument for first-hand description, (not e.g. verb
tenses). Moreover, the description of his architectural achievements,
building Jerusalem's walls, digging a water cistern, fortifying Jerusalem
against seige (Sir. 50.1-4) -- such contemporary details would hardly be
remembered, much less considered important enough to record, decades later.
Again, as you mention, there is zero awareness of the Hellenistic Crisis, the
Maccabean War, the Hasmonean high priests. Why would someone record the
glories of the Oniad priestly line in the Hasmonean period? There is zero
polemics against the Hasmonean high priests, and indeed no thought that the
Oniad priestly line would ever be supplanted. What I consider the clincher
is Sir. 50.24, only present in the Hebrew:

"May his [God's] kindness toward Simon be lasting;
"may he fulfill for him the covenant with Phineas
"So that it may not be abrogated for him
"or for his descendants, while the heavens last."

This wishes on Simon and his descendants the office of high priest (as
promised to Phineas) forever. Such a sentiment would not have been voiced
after his son Onias III was deprived of the office of high priest in 175 BCE.
Sirach was written after Simon's death (Sir. 50:1, "in his lifetime") in c.
180. Hence a date of composition of 180-175 appears secure.
I agree with you that Sirach's praise of the sons of Zadok "belongs in
the literary context of the Qumran texts's Zadokites," especially since
Sirach was found at Qumran. But given Sirach's secure dating to c. 180-175
BCE, this rather undermines your theory linking the Zadokites with the
Sadducees of the late 2nd/early 1st BCE.

> There is no
> text, no inscription, that has the Oniads as Zadokites, for
> example, although it can be reasoned they were by descent,
> but there is no text or testimony which has the Oniads called
> Zadokites or has them claiming they were.

Of course one can trace the high priests from Zadok (in the time of
David) to the fall of Jerusalem, and then down to c. 400 BCE, from the
Chronicler -- for what that's worth; and from Josephus, down to Onias -- for
what that's worth. So the Oniads probably claimed a descent from Zadok, as
you note. But as for a text that calls the Oniads Zadokites, I would say
Sirach, with its high praise of Simon the son of Onias, and similar praise
for the "sons of Zadok", comes pretty close to what you ask.
Finally, (1) there is no evidence that the yachad as a whole was called
Zadokite (i.e., Sadducee per your interpretation). In 1QS [but not in some
4QS parallels] the priests _only_ are called sons of Zadok, not the group as
a whole. (2) One must also note that 1QS, which has Zadok terminology, has
Essene affinities, while there is no Zadok terminology in the "halachic"
texts with demonstrable Sadducee affinities (i.e., 11QT, 4QMMT, and older
portions of CD).

[John Stuart]

Dear John F C

Have you heard of John Hyrcanus 1 was a son of Simon Maccabeus he was started to reign during the rise of Qumran and Dead Sea Scrolls.

In my previous article about the bible searchers article in Jose Ben Joezer the two words comes up in some way ( President ) of Sanhedrin and Vice-President of Sanhedrin the two men were Jose Ben Joezer and Jose Ben Yohanan.

Can I draw your attention is that Teacher of Righteousness was Onias 3rd but his rival " Teacher" really was Jose Ben Joezer.

The First Halakic controversary aroused in the Talmud was between Yose Ben Joezer and Jose Ben Johanan.

Jose Ben Joezer was a member of a ascetic group of Hasidim and a disciple of Antigonus of Soko, Simon the Just.

[John Stuart]

Dear John FC

I have the information on Origin of Qumran and Essenes

In the following statements:

AND FROM THIS TIME ON THE ESSENES EXISTED AS AN ESOTERIC MINORITY SECT. (Note: When modern scholars assert that the Essenes of Qumran were founded about 200 years before the time of Jesus, they are correct in regard to that one Essene group at Qumran; but the overall Essene movement is far more ancient.)

The fact that Enoch was considered the "founder" or "initiator" of the Essenes can even be seen in his name; the word "Enoch" means in Hebrew: "founder", "initiator", "centralizer". A modern scholar, Edmond Bordeaux Szekely, in

Both men had personal knowledge of the ancient Essenes; thus, what they tell us has a high degree of credibility. In regard to the origin of the Essenes, neither Josephus nor Philo can give a specific date, but both make clear that the Essenian roots are incredibly ancient. Josephus declares that the Essenes have existed "from time immemorial" and "countless generations". Philo agrees, calling the Essenes "the most ancient of all the initiates" with a "teaching perpetuated through an immense space of ages". Josephus and Philo -- as well as several other ancient writers including Pliny the Elder -- are in consensus on two points in regard to the origin of the Essenes:
1.   Their origin is lost in pre-history with certain ancient legends linking them with Enoch;
2.   There was a major remanifestation of the Essenes by Moses at Mount Sinai.

headquarters of the entire Essene movement was Mount Carmel in Northern Israel, not Qumran in Southern Israel, and that Jesus was primarily associated with Carmel.

Qumran, the Essene Monastery where John the Baptist lived (and where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered), was in Southern Israel. THERE IS SOLID CONSENSUS AMONGST SCHOLARS THAT JOHN THE BAPTIST WAS FROM QUMRAN: the location on the Jordan river where tradition tells us John performed his baptisms is exactly where the Jordan river connects with the Dead Sea near Qumran, and everything we know about John matches up perfectly with what is known about the Qumran Essenes.

[JohnFH]

John,

There is no consensus of the kind you assert. There is no evidence that either John the Baptist or Jesus had an intimate connection with the Essenes.

You are building sandcastles on the slimmest of foundations.
If the reasons you give for your theories are the only ones you have, then your theories must be rejected out of hand.