DSS is Qumran "library"?

[View from Here]

Well, you may be right, although I don't think my scenario of people going aroudn with sacks is any more silly than your insistence that it must have been a single group.  In response, I'll just make two basic points:

First, those minute fragments were originally complete texts.  Many of the scrolls are in minute fragmentary form, which, in fact, leads to the likelihood that there were originally many more than 900 texts (because many of them probably disappeared altogether due to dampness).  I had not understood that your aim in citing Vermes was to disparage the significance of the Greek fragments, otherwise I would have pointed this out sooner.

Second, the broader point is that there is a wide diversity of doctrines and ideas running through the scrolls as a whole; the Greek texts hidden in a separate cave are only a rather striking physical example that I cited to make a point about the conjectural nature of the argument that a single group "treasured" all these scrolls.

But as I said, your view sounds perfectly respectable to me, one can argue with it but you may be right.

[GeoffHudson]

Well, you may be right, although I don't think my scenario of people going aroudn with sacks is any more silly than your insistence that it must have been a single group.  In response, I'll just make two basic points:

First, those minute fragments were originally complete texts.  Many of the scrolls are in minute fragmentary form, which, in fact, leads to the likelihood that there were originally many more than 900 texts (because many of them probably disappeared altogether due to dampness).  I had not understood that your aim in citing Vermes was to disparage the significance of the Greek fragments, otherwise I would have pointed this out sooner.

Second, the broader point is that there is a wide diversity of doctrines and ideas running through the scrolls as a whole; the Greek texts hidden in a separate cave are only a rather striking physical example that I cited to make a point about the conjectural nature of the argument that a single group "treasured" all these scrolls.

But as I said, your view sounds perfectly respectable to me, one can argue with it but you may be right.

Chris,

Most of Vermes' arguments (and he is not alone) about the Scrolls being the product of essentially one group, are valid, regardless of the writers being Essenes at Qumran or a Jerusalem based group.  Vermes (and others) account for text variations within the group.  The Greek texts are just one of the small variations. 

My thoughts are that the High Priests around at 66 CE came from the group that wrote the Scrolls, that the group was militaristic and messianic (as described in the Scrolls), and that it was resposible for the war with the Romans.  By implication, the 'Christian' group was not messianic, but in fact came out of the peaceful 'Essenes'.

[View from Here]

This, in my view, is quite unconvincing. 

The arguments of Vermes and others to the effect that the scrolls were written by a single group, have always been aimed at defending the Qumran-sectarian theory.  In order to make this case, they have been obliged to explain away all kinds of contradictions in the texts (both linguistic and doctrinal), as well as the fact, e.g., that they were copied by over 500 scribes. 

How can one fit the "single group" view with the difference between the style and content (i.e., the specific religious rules) of, say, MMT and virtually all of the other scrolls; with the presence of Hellenistic ideas in only some of the texts and not in others; with the fact that some talk of a particular group leaving for Damascus, others of some other group doing something else, etc. -- how can one reconcile all of that and much more without getting bogged down in contorted reasoning? Moreover, why is it logically helpful to do this?

Incidentally, you're welcome to call me Chris, I will continue to avoid use of first names unless I'm responding to more than one interlocutor and need to make myself clear.

[GeoffHudson]

This, in my view, is quite unconvincing. 

The arguments of Vermes and others to the effect that the scrolls were written by a single group, have always been aimed at defending the Qumran-sectarian theory.  In order to make this case, they have been obliged to explain away all kinds of contradictions in the texts (both linguistic and doctrinal), as well as the fact, e.g., that they were copied by over 500 scribes. 

500 different scribes are obviously a problem for documents produced at Qumran even over a reasonable period, but they are not a problem in Jerusalem among a group led by the high priests.  Vermes and others consider much of the variation as scribal rather than fundamental. 

How can one fit the "single group" view with the difference between the style and content (i.e., the specific religious rules) of, say, MMT and virtually all of the other scrolls; with the presence of Hellenistic ideas in only some of the texts and not in others; with the fact that some talk of a particular group leaving for Damascus, others of some other group doing something else, etc. -- how can one reconcile all of that and much more without getting bogged down in contorted reasoning? Moreover, why is it logically helpful to do this?

No contorted reasoning is required- just common sense.  MMT and the Greek texts are minor in relation to the vast quantity of important texts with consistent content.  As for Damascus, this is surely figurative of a time in the history of the priests when they were barred from the temple, that is unless you are a weirdo like Dierk v/d Berg who believes in a literal trip to Damascus.  For a time most of the priests were figuratively in Damascus and animal sacrifices for sins ceased.  All the towns where the priests lived thus became 'camps' of exile.  That is what the Scrolls are telling us.  The rival 'priests' in the temple 'flouted the law' because they stopped the animal sacrifices.  They were not the Pharisees, but the prophets.

[View from Here]

Well, Rachel Elior, for example, has identified a corpus of around 100 texts that were clearly written by priests.  But if memory serves me right, that's out of a total of at least 450 texts (taking account of multiple copies of various texts).  Once you start admitting that one text or another was not written by the priests and explain it away as "minor," then you are on a slippery slope that leads away from unity towards diversity.  Several important scrolls (including the Damascus covenant) attack the Temple hierarchy, we'll have the same kind of problem with those.  I would be happy to admit, for example, that the bulk of the scrolls reflect the main body of Jewish thought of the time (i.e., the thought of priestly circles); but to deny that many of them reflect a variety of other views seems extreme to me.

[GeoffHudson]

Well, Rachel Elior, for example, has identified a corpus of around 100 texts that were clearly written by priests.  But if memory serves me right, that's out of a total of at least 450 texts (taking account of multiple copies of various texts).  Once you start admitting that one text or another was not written by the priests and explain it away as "minor," then you are on a slippery slope that leads away from unity towards diversity.  Several important scrolls (including the Damascus covenant) attack the Temple hierarchy, we'll have the same kind of problem with those.  I would be happy to admit, for example, that the bulk of the scrolls reflect the main body of Jewish thought of the time (i.e., the thought of priestly circles); but to deny that many of them reflect a variety of other views seems extreme to me.

Which texts has she has identified as written by the priests?  How does she know that the other texts were not written by the priests or under the instructions of the priests? Such large quantities of documents produced over 100 or so years, written by hand, are bound to show variation.  Vermes and others say that variations can be  accounted for as scribal.   So never mind about ‘slippery slopes’.

The Damascus Document is anti the contemporary occupants of the temple, not anti-temple.  It was a time when the ‘seekers of smooth things’ were in control of the temple along with the ruler of the day.  These were the ‘peaceful’ prophets who sought accommodation with their ruler who was probably the ‘wicked priest’.  They were not the mythical Pharisees who according to the editor of the writings attributed to Josephus, came into favour with two Jewish rulers – there are no Pharisees in the  Scrolls or Philo, so Pharisees in Josephus are fictitious.   Thus the time of exile was when the then ruler sought the counsel of the prophets.  The prophets rejected animal sacrifices for sins – a problem that went right back to the time of Jeremiah.  From the point of view of the exiled priests, it was the prophets who: “breached the bound of the law”, “walked in the stubbornness of their hearts”,  “shall have no share in the house of the Law”, “deserted to the scoffer”, “reject the commandments of God”, were “the wicked of Israel”, etc.

But if we had the writings of those prophets in control of the temple at the time, they would no doubt have had the same view of the priests that the writers of the Scrolls had of them.  Thus it would have been the priests exiled from the temple (and probably from Jerusalem) who would have been seen as ‘wicked’ by the prophets.   From the texts themselves, one has to suspect that it was the priests of the Scrolls who were the more ‘wicked’ in the way they tried to exercise control over others, and they were certainly messianic in opposition to rulers who were not fully Jewish.


 

[View from Here]

You should simply read her book "The Two Temples," since her view (or at least her focus) is the one that comes closest to what you are putting forward.

Scribal variants cannot account for the variety of different genres, doctrines and laws in the Scrolls.  The idea of a multiplicity of libraries clearly accounts for this just as well as the "single group" idea -- which, as I said before, grew out of the necessity to wriggle out of objections to the Qumran-Essene theory, so that things like Greek texts and MMT became only "minor" problems.  Scribal variants could logically point either way.

You're welcome to call me "Weimer" or whatever you want, and I couldn't care less if your name is "Jeffrey Hudson" or "Melvin Shanks" or anything else.

[GeoffHudson]

You should simply read her book "The Two Temples," since her view (or at least her focus) is the one that comes closest to what you are putting forward.

Scribal variants cannot account for the variety of different genres, doctrines and laws in the Scrolls.  The idea of a multiplicity of libraries clearly accounts for this just as well as the "single group" idea -- which, as I said before, grew out of the necessity to wriggle out of objections to the Qumran-Essene theory, so that things like Greek texts and MMT became only "minor" problems.  Scribal variants could logically point either way.

You're welcome to call me "Weimer" or whatever you want, and I couldn't care less if your name is "Jeffrey Hudson" or "Melvin Shanks" or anything else.

And you should simply tell us what your real name is.

[View from Here]

No, like thousands of other bloggers I prefer to just use an avowed pen name for my postings.  Since most of the names on the internet are fake anyway, I don't know why people go to the lengths of claiming they're John, Dick or Jerry (or Chris or Weimer, for that matter).  For Pete's sake, who believes any of them are who they say they are? Especially in an area like the Dead Sea Scrolls, where dozens of people would revile me, you, or anyone else for simply speaking the truth.  Let them revile View from Here.  I don't mind if you consider me a coward, I'm still making a reasonable contribution in terms of providing information and arguments in support of various points of view.  This isn't a forum for experts anyway, so who cares?

[GeoffHudson]

No, like thousands of other bloggers I prefer to just use an avowed pen name for my postings.  Since most of the names on the internet are fake anyway, I don't know why people go to the lengths of claiming they're John, Dick or Jerry (or Chris or Weimer, for that matter).  For Pete's sake, who believes any of them are who they say they are? Especially in an area like the Dead Sea Scrolls, where dozens of people would revile me, you, or anyone else for simply speaking the truth.  Let them revile View from Here.  I don't mind if you consider me a coward, I'm still making a reasonable contribution in terms of providing information and arguments in support of various points of view.  This isn't a forum for experts anyway, so who cares?

It as in With

I care as a matter of common courtesy that the people am speaking to are not hiding behind an alias.  This is a forum of the Biblical Archaeological Society, not Internet Infidels, or ANE 2 which are both populated with posters having multiple avatars or aliases and are controlled by the grand master of them.

So if you have read the book that you recommended to me perhaps you would like to summarise the main relevant points.  The title Two Temples seems to be a misnomer.  Perhaps it should have been two altars. I have never heard of Rachel Elior.

Geoff Hudson 

[GeoffHudson]

It

"The Three Temples
On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism
Rachel Elior
In this ground-breaking study, Rachel Elior offers a comprehensive theory of the crystallization of the early stages of the mystical tradition in Judaism based on the numerous ancient scrolls and manuscripts published in the last few decades. Her wide-ranging research, scrupulously documented, enables her to demonstrate an uninterrupted line linking the priestly traditions of the Temple, the mystical liturgical literature found in the Qumran Caves and associated directly and indirectly with the Merkavah tradition of around the second and first centuries BCE, and the mystical works of the second to fifth centuries CE known as Heikhalot literature.

The key factor linking all these texts, according to Professor Elior's theory, is that many of those who wrote them were members of the priestly classes. Prevented from being able to perform the rituals of sacred service in the Temple as ordained in the biblical tradition, they channelled their religious impetus in other directions to create a new spiritual focus. The mystical tradition they developed centred first on a heavenly Chariot Throne known as the Merkavah, and later on heavenly sanctuaries known as Heikhalot. In this way the priestly class developed an alternative focus for spirituality, based on a supertemporal liturgical and ritual relationship with ministering angels in the supernal sanctuaries. This came to embrace an entire mystical world devoted to sustaining religious liturgical tradition and ritual memory in the absence of the Temple.

This lyrical investigation of the origins and workings of this supernal world is sure to become a standard work in the study of early Jewish mysticism.

'Rachel Elior's broad historical perspective on mysticism and the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls demands that the reader grapple anew with the essence of Jewish tradition.'
Joseph Dan, Ha'aretz"

What one can say is that Post 70 the priests were certainly "prevented from being able to perform the rituals of sacred service in the temple" because there was no temple, and for sure the Flavian masters were not going to allow the revival of the temple cult led by messianic priests ever again.  And thus for the period post 70 one could see some sense in Elior's theory, especially mysticism developing among those Jews living well away from the influence of Jamnia. 

But the trap Elior here is that the priests who lovingly deposited the Srolls were surely the ruling messianic priests of the day who DID have access to the temple and did sacrifice animals for sins.  Clearly even at a time before, when priests of a similar ilk were exiled from the temple, as inferred in a number of the Scrolls, they still saw themselves as the authorities on temple practise. 

The situation before the destruction of the temple was a much simpler one of traditional rivalry between the priests of the two altars, the priests and the priestly prophets, who were, I suggest, the two original 'orders' discussed by Josephus that had existed from the time of Moses.

[View from Here]

I care as a matter of common courtesy that the people am speaking to are not hiding behind an alias.  This is a forum of the Biblical Archaeological Society, not Internet Infidels, or ANE 2 which are both populated with posters having multiple avatars or aliases and are controlled by the grand master of them.

So if you have read the book that you recommended to me perhaps you would like to summarise the main relevant points.  The title Two Temples seems to be a misnomer.  Perhaps it should have been two altars. I have never heard of Rachel Elior.

How courteous of you to dwell on this matter.  You have certainly scored a point! At any rate I'm sure you can deal with my peculiar identity, as we've managed to have a fairly interesting conversation.  Incidentally, who is the grand master who controls this forum of the great Biblical Archaeological Society? And is "Society" an appropriate term for this organization? No doubt -- I'll leave you to mull these matters over.

Sorry about "Two" instead of "Three."  I think the basic point here is that reasonable people have obviously been asking the same questions you have, and not necessarily coming up with the same answer.

[GeoffHudson]

I care as a matter of common courtesy that the people am speaking to are not hiding behind an alias.  This is a forum of the Biblical Archaeological Society, not Internet Infidels, or ANE 2 which are both populated with posters having multiple avatars or aliases and are controlled by the grand master of them.

So if you have read the book that you recommended to me perhaps you would like to summarise the main relevant points.  The title Two Temples seems to be a misnomer.  Perhaps it should have been two altars. I have never heard of Rachel Elior.

How courteous of you to dwell on this matter.  You have certainly scored a point! At any rate I'm sure you can deal with my peculiar identity, as we've managed to have a fairly interesting conversation.  Incidentally, who is the grand master who controls this forum of the great Biblical Archaeological Society? And is "Society" an appropriate term for this organization? No doubt -- I'll leave you to mull these matters over.

Sorry about "Two" instead of "Three."  I think the basic point here is that reasonable people have obviously been asking the same questions you have, and not necessarily coming up with the same answer.

I had already worked that one out.  The format is simply a development of Internet Infidels and Ebla. 

[View from Here]

I have seen Infidels, but when I look for Ebla all I find is some kind of a Christian dating site.  If you have a link to the forum you're speaking of, I would be interested in taking a look at it.  If, like the dating site I saw, it is a Christian forum, perhaps I will post a few items on it.  I am sure the participants will be interested in learning about some articles that I've seen mentioned lately here and there (including in the ANE forum), dealing with various topics such as "Christian fundamentalism and the Dead Sea Scrolls in San Diego," "Peddling religious sensationalism in American," or (my personal favorites) "Charity fund involved in Dead Sea Scrolls conflict" and the one simply entitled "The Dead Sea Scrolls at the San Diego Natural History Museum -- an Update," which is probably one of the more sarcastic pieces of writing I've seen in recent years.  In case any readers of this "BAS" forum happen to be interested in such matters, here are the links:

Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit misleads public? | The News is NowPublic.com

Dead Sea Scrolls at San Diego Natural History Museum — an update | The News is NowPublic.com

Christian Fundamentalism and the Dead Sea Scrolls in San Diego | The News is NowPublic.com

Did Christian agenda lead to biased Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in San Diego? | The News is NowPublic.com

Jesus, Judas, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: peddling religious sensationalism in America | The News is NowPublic.com

http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/charity-fund-involved-dead-sea-scrolls-conflict