OK. Next Pesher up is Nahum.\
I like reading these things, crazy I know, but it is a weird feeling to read this stuff knowing that it was buried for 2000 years and the guy whose words I'm reading now, whose handwriting I can see in those photos, possibly even spots of whose sweat dripped onto that parchment, would never believe that someone like me would ever see those words. I would be an abomination to that guy, we all would.
It's a bizarre combination of connection with these people and total alienation from their beliefs. Weird.
That's the joy of it!
Just looks like more of the same to me. The liar is at it again. A reference to the Romans coming after the Greeks. No Greeks from the time of Antiochus until the Romans show up.
How does that fit your time-line Jayson?
That's historically accurate, and the entire kick-off to the Maccabean revolt.
The Greeks mostly left the Jews alone for quite a while (technically, the Greeks stopped being officially in charge in the Ptolemaic dynasty, but that dynasty from Egyptian politics was established by Alexander the Great, and so was the Seleucid Empire, so the Jews kind of considered these "Greek" 'states' of rule - though the Greek's mostly didn't bother with them and left them to themselves), but in 168, Antiochus IV desecrated the Temple and that motivated the first Jewish revolt (Maccabees).
This is what brought about the Hasmonean dynasty which lasted, mostly in civil war, until the Romans stepped in and sent all the squabbling children to their corners.
That worked for a while until the 2nd Jewish Revolt in the 1st c CE.
Re the bolds: Is that 40 years another one of these "time to completion" things, rather than a literal 40 years? Because you just know I'm thinking 30 CE plus 40 years, equals 70 CE.
I have a funny feeling you are going to tell me that it is never that straightforward...
Very likely considering the context is learning, "from Teacher to Desolation".
The desolation may not even be a reference to destruction in the sense of an apocalypse; it may be referring to the destruction of that which haunts during the test.
You know the Narnia series? The island of evil where their inner most fears come to life and they must defeat them?
This is somewhat the idea of the "40" construct; it refers to a time where something must be endured for purification.
At the end of the time it is considered that one destroys their adversary, or the adversary destroys them.
Now tell us what you really think, buddy. Crikey, they worked themselves up a bit in these things didn't they? It's Life Of Brian all over again. Splitters!
There are obvious things in there about the Temple Priests and Ebionim, but I'm trying to remember who Eisenman identifies as the wicked of "Ephraim and Manasseh".
The "dead" tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) being tried and pruned are an Ezekiel prophecy component.
Ergo, why they are talking about a time of trial (40 again), and why they value this interpretation of Psalms (as this interpretation of theirs is bias by their beliefs as a group).
So, they weren't too keen on foreigners these blokes, were they?
No. They consider Gentilian Hebrews a second-class citizen; which is why the early group back in 2nd c BCE have such a motive for absolutely hating Aclimus for being in the High Priest seat.
You might as well have taken fecal matter from an OX for Baal and wiped it over the walls of the Holly of Hollies.
We let them in once before, and look what happened. Never again. Only Good Jews allowed from now on.
Yep, they did "permit" them once before; permit meaning, they didn't stop them.
The Hellenist party was in very powerful control up until the Maccabean take over of Jonathan (though he leaned toward Hellenistic favor), and the Hellenistic party was back in power (technically) with the Herodian Dynasty.
This is one reason why the paleography of 4Q174 supports an early Herodian dynasty timeline as this text is from the perspective of having an absence of the Hellenist party in the Priesthood, and setting down the resistance to accepting the recovery of that party in Preisthood political power again through Herod.
That looks a bit familiar...
Yes, it is a repeated and old traditional prophetic construct probably at least since their Exile period, and possibly even as far back as to the fall of the Kingdom of Israel.
So Belial is the Devil and he has been in charge apparently, but the TOR is all about fixing it up.
Yes, this is a second temple phrase and focus.
Belial is a figure of worthless men (the word/name literally means worth no value).
Essentially, not surprisingly, the Hebrews (being the extremists that they were) despised idle citizens who sat by and did nothing, nor ever attempted to struggle for their cultural survival, or work to maintain the adherence to the Law.
"Lazy" was quite frowned upon, and they saw wealthy civilizations and leaders who sat around in wealth and pleasure as belial, indeed.
Personally, I think the Qumran group belongs recognized under the Zadokite faction, as the Zadok are extremely crucial and valued by them.
They are, essentially, a last remaining sect of the practically killed off Zadok party, which lost its official footing in "parliament" (priesthood).
This is partly why I think it must be maintained as a unique culture; this is a very unique opportunity.
We very rarely get to see anything out of a given political party after they are kicked out from the official circles; this group managed to keep going with a small following (yes, no matter the number, it's smaller than it was when the Zadok was officially in power and people could side with them politically).
I'll just note here that Josephus tells us that the first thing the Zealots did when they took cities was to burn the debt records, so the poor could get out of debts owing to the rich.
It was a classic "Class Struggle" of Rich V Poor. Everybody except the Romans lost.
This Hasmonean era Pesher isn't discussing money, exactly.
It's discussing moral debt, which (you have to keep in mind) was mixed with being equal in money under Hebrew laws (you could be 'fined' for a moral wrong upon another).
This is essentially talking about the day of judgement and balance of dues among all.
The day of Atonement is Yom Kippur if I'm not mistaken, but I don't know if that applies here.
I know I need to learn more about the 1st c. BCE, but this is the kind of stuff which Eisenman says dates these Pesharim to the 1st c. CE.
No.
Yom Kippur is pretty much as old as the Hebrews.
It's in Leviticus, which obviously predates the 1st c CE.
Leviticus 23:28
26 The Lord said to Moses, 27 “The tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. Hold a sacred assembly and deny yourselves,[a] and present a food offering to the Lord. 28 Do not do any work on that day, because it is the Day of Atonement, when atonement is made for you before the Lord your God.
OK: "all « the gods of [justice " and "all the sons of God"? How many were there?
This bit is confusing me.
That's because you've been reading English translations of the Bible (no fault of yours) and the English translations would have you believe only one individual was ever called a son of god, when in fact that title is very common as a reference to Hebrews in general.
Notice, too, that in this text (an early Hasmonean text) the Hebrew culture still has the remains of polytheism in it; that instead, they are to simply only worship their god (El) and not the lesser gods.
"To his aid shall come all the gods of justice..."
By the 1st c CE, however, this kind of talk disappears.
What?
What is written?
Blessed are the Cheesemakers?
Hold up one shoe and let the other be upon our foot, for this is His sign!
Gondor?
Tasmania?
I'll hazard a guess that the missing word is "Judah". I could be wrong...
Disney Land!
Yes, probably Judah, (since this is a citation of Leviticus' section on blowing trumpets upon entering the land given to them by their god) but they probably used a flavored way of labeling the area like the Land of God's children, or something of that form.
That's it for your first list Jayson.
Were there different ones on the second list?
No, the first list was all Pesharim, the second list was all Pesharim within the 1st c CE time period (very tiny amount).
