In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:
“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.
5 Every valley shall be filled in,
every mountain and hill made low.
The crooked roads shall become straight,
the rough ways smooth.
6 And all people will see God’s salvation.’”[a]
7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
10 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked.
11 John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
...
JTB is out there in the wilderness telling people to repent, be righteous and share all their possessions and food...
To be Righteous was to follow the Torah of Moses.
I'm not seeing much difference between JTB and the DSS there.
Then Luke goes into things about Soldiers and Tax Collectors etc, which I'll grant you is a bit different to the DSS, but I would expect it to be, it's Luke.
Hmmm.
I see quite a difference between lecturing students on the importance of study in the context of an isolated community and the revivalist preaching of JtB
“Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
Still, whatever distracts a person who's not well from their misery.
Hmmm.
I see quite a difference between lecturing students on the importance of study in the context of an isolated community and the revivalist preaching of JtB
“Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
Still, whatever distracts a person who's not well from their misery.
Is that how Vermes presents the DSS version? It certainly isn't how it reads to me in the context of the Community Rule that I posted earlier.
The Presbyters were the leaders of the Community who formed a living Temple by observing all the commandments of the Law. How is that about a study group?
In the deliberative council of the community there shall be twelve laymen and three priests schooled to perfection in all that has been revealed of the entire Law. their duty shall be to set the standard for the practice of truth, righteousness and justice, and for the exercise of charity and humility in human relations; and to show how, by control of impulse and contrition of spirit, faithfulness may be maintained on earth; how, by active performance of justice and passive submission to the trials of chastisement, iniquity may be cleared, and how one can walk with all men with the quality of truth and in conduct appropriate to every occasion.
...
So long as these men exist in Israel, the deliberative council of the community will rest securely on a basis of truth. It will become a plant evergreen. Insofar as the laymen are concerned, it will be indeed a sanctuary; and insofar as the priesthood is concerned, it will indeed constitute the basis for a true 'holy of holies'.
...
When these men exist in Israel, these are the provision whereby they are to be kept apart from any consort with froward men, to the end that they may indeed 'go into the wilderness to prepare the way' i.e., do what Scripture enjoins when it says, 'Prepare in the wilderness...make it straight in the desert a highway for our God' [Isaiah 40:3]. (The reference is to the study of the Law which God commanded through Moses to the end that, an occasion arises, all things may be done in accordance with what is revealed therein and with what the prophets also have revealed through God's holy spirit.)
No member of the community - that is, no duly covenanted member - who blatantly deviates in any particular from the body of commandments is to be permitted to come into contact with the purity enjoyed by these specially holy men or to benefit by (know) their counsel until his actions be free of all perversity and he has been readmitted to the common council by decision of the general membership and thereupon reinstated in his rank.
It isn't a little group off studying the Law by themselves. These were the guys who were laying down the rules for correct observance for everyone else in the Community.
Is that how Vermes presents the DSS version? It certainly isn't how it reads to me in the context of the Community Rule that I posted earlier.
The Presbyters were the leaders of the Community who formed a living Temple by observing all the commandments of the Law. How is that about a study group?
It isn't a little group off studying the Law by themselves. These were the guys who were laying down the rules for correct observance for everyone else in the Community.
One uses that Isaiah verse to refer to study and the other, to repentance.
Both take the verse out of its context and give it a meaning Isaiah never intended, IIRC.
Pesher, anyone?
One uses that Isaiah verse to refer to study and the other, to repentance.
Both take the verse out of its context and give it a meaning Isaiah never intended, IIRC.
Pesher, anyone?
No they both use it as a means of bringing "Righteousness" to the "Land Of Judah" by making a path for the lord in the wilderness. Digging the well of living waters (ie: The Law Of Moses) http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm
The Damascus Covenant said:
...Then they realized their iniquity and knew that they had been at fault. For twenty years, however, they remained like blind men groping their way,2 until at last God took note of their deeds, how that they were seeking Him sincerely, and He raised up for them one who would teach the Law correctly,8 to guide them in the way of His heart and to demonstrate to future ages what He does to a generation that incurs His anger, that is, to the congregation of those that betray Him and turn aside from His way.
The period in question was that whereof it is written, like a stubborn heifer, Israel was stubborn' [Hos. 4.16J. It was the time when a certain scoffer arose to distil upon Israel the waters deceptive 4 and to lead them astray in a trackless waste, bringing low whatsoever had once been high, diverting them from the proper paths and removing the landmarks which their forbears had set up, to the end that through his efforts those curses cleaved to them which had been prescribed when the Covenant was concluded, and they were delivered to the sword. Thus was avenged that breach of the Covenant which they had committed in seeking smooth things and in preferring delusion and in being constantly on the watch to breach the faith and in choosing to walk proudly and in justifying the wicked and condemning the righteous, and in abrogating the Covenant and annulling the pact, and in assailing the life of the righteous and abhorring all whose conduct was blameless, and in pursuing them with the sword, and in raising a general clamor against them. God then grew angry with their horde and utterly destroyed all their throng and treated all their works as an abominable thing unclean.
No, the community rule dates from the time that Luke (and everyone else) says that John The Baptist was conducting his mission in the wilderness, "Making a straight Path for the lord" by preaching righteousness and baptism.
I was pointing out that different Community Rule texts exist for the point regarding the date and timing which you were highlighting.
There's not just one Community Rule with one dating; there are multiple.
No, the community rule dates from the time that Luke (and everyone else) says that John The Baptist was conducting his mission in the wilderness, "Making a straight Path for the lord" by preaching righteousness and baptism.
Which isn't really the case.
We have multiple copies (from Cave's, 1, 4 and 5) dating, each, differently.
It is not possible to pick any single point in time and make a claim as to when the Community Rule dates and correlate that to one moment in time.
This text, as noted by Sarianna Metso in The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (and other individuals as well) shows distinct changes over time, where variations to the penal code evolved.
Do they differ in regard to adherence to the Laws of Moses?
As far as I'm aware, they all denote adherence to those Laws for admittance into the community.
My only point was in regards to the multiplicity of dates, and yes, one of those copies is dated from mostly around the 2nd c BCE.
The Q4 and 5 copies, however, are much later datings of around very late 1st c BCE to early 1st c CE range.
I was pointing out that different Community Rule texts exist for the point regarding the date and timing which you were highlighting.
There's not just one Community Rule with one dating; there are multiple.
Which isn't really the case.
We have multiple copies (from Cave's, 1, 4 and 5) dating, each, differently.
It is not possible to pick any single point in time and make a claim as to when the Community Rule dates and correlate that to one moment in time.
This text, as noted by Sarianna Metso in The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (and other individuals as well) shows distinct changes over time, where variations to the penal code evolved.
Do they differ in regard to adherence to the Laws of Moses?
As far as I'm aware, they all denote adherence to those Laws for admittance into the community.
My only point was in regards to the multiplicity of dates, and yes, one of those copies is dated from mostly around the 2nd c BCE.
The Q4 and 5 copies, however, are much later datings of around very late 1st c BCE to early 1st c CE range.
But that doesn't really change the point I was trying to make to Pakeha about its similarity to the mission of John The Baptist as described in gLuke.
I don't assume that JTB just showed up and preached for a couple of weeks and then got his head chopped off. I assume there were Baptists before him and that this style of Judaism was a movement which grew over time.
I assume that Luke (the world's greatest HistorianTM) might have glossed over a few details in setting up his Jesus story...
But that doesn't really change the point I was trying to make to Pakeha about its similarity to the mission of John The Baptist as described in gLuke.
I don't assume that JTB just showed up and preached for a couple of weeks and then got his head chopped off. I assume there were Baptists before him and that this style of Judaism was a movement which grew over time.
I assume that Luke (the world's greatest HistorianTM) might have glossed over a few details in setting up his Jesus story...
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think that such connections are tenuous.
That doesn't rule it out, but it doesn't rule it in either.
Just because there are correlations in some manner or another regarding theological constructs cannot in itself lend us much value in determining a link to characters of the gospel texts.
These texts, DSS, vary in many ways.
Simply because we find some correlation in either date or some part of their theological or penal construct does not necessitate, nor make evident, a connection between this body of texts and characters or events described in the canonized gospels of the eventual Christian following.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think that such connections are tenuous.
That doesn't rule it out, but it doesn't rule it in either.
Just because there are correlations in some manner or another regarding theological constructs cannot in itself lend us much value in determining a link to characters of the gospel texts.
These texts, DSS, vary in many ways.
Simply because we find some correlation in either date or some part of their theological or penal construct does not necessitate, nor make evident, a connection between this body of texts and characters or events described in the canonized gospels of the eventual Christian following.
But finding so many seems to be more than coincidental to me.
We have so many references to "Ebionim" (The community of the Poor) as they call themselves.
These references to "The Way Of The Lord" in the wilderness.
The Messianic references to "the branch of David the stem of Jesse" a star to rule Israel.
The End Of Days.
etc etc.
Just the sheer number of scrolls attests to the fact that this was a big organisation. And the fact that the scrolls were left behind indicates that they were pretty thoroughly destroyed in the war, or someone would have come back to collect them. Scrolls were expensive and difficult to produce, if they were general knowledge someone would have plundered them.
So, either they are concerned with the events in Jerusalem that we know of from Josephus and other ancient Chroniclers (to a lesser extent the NT), or they are concerned with a group of thousands of Apocalyptic Messianic Jewish religious Zealots in Jerusalem at the time who no one mentioned... I'm still sticking with the first option.
I can be shown those correlations, and have been, and fail to sympathize with those correlations as any form of meaningful component of unique distinction that rules out other possibilities.
We are, after all, speaking of a body of texts concerning the same theocratic and ethnic cultural setting.
However, further of point is that I have mentioned before that these texts are varied over time and content; they lack a finite point in time.
We cannot so easily toss them all on the shoulders of our favorite pick and then therefore derive from that backing reinforcement for some other inferred conjecture for the psychology of the constructs of that conjectural group being tied to the varied texts of the DSS.
From what physical and paleographic evidence we have, it appears that there was a group that arrived early on, grew in size after this, became silent for some reason or another for quite some time following the initial growth, then re-birthed some invigorated amount - though defused by comparison to the original growth, and then finally died out thereafter.
This timeline appears to stretch from the 2nd c BCE through to the 1st c CE.
I think drawing links to the gospel characters and then therefore deriving that the gospel characters were from this community, or that this community was at some point governed or motivated by some of those characters, is not only hastily reliant on a wide range of speculative placeholders, but also quite possibly negligent to unique cultural identities.
I am further no more invited to sympathize with such ideas when such ideas continually redact standard archaeological and anthropological methods of cultural studies as justification for the permission to align constructs of the texts with constructs from other groups for the purposes of filling out the boundaries of an hypothetical political narrative comprised of a variety of extent components stitched together, each, by thought exercises and axioms.
I can be shown those correlations, and have been, and fail to sympathize with those correlations as any form of meaningful component of unique distinction that rules out other possibilities.
We are, after all, speaking of a body of texts concerning the same theocratic and ethnic cultural setting.
However, further of point is that I have mentioned before that these texts are varied over time and content; they lack a finite point in time.
We cannot so easily toss them all on the shoulders of our favorite pick and then therefore derive from that backing reinforcement for some other inferred conjecture for the psychology of the constructs of that conjectural group being tied to the varied texts of the DSS.
From what physical and paleographic evidence we have, it appears that there was a group that arrived early on, grew in size after this, became silent for some reason or another for quite some time following the initial growth, then re-birthed some invigorated amount - though defused by comparison to the original growth, and then finally died out thereafter.
This timeline appears to stretch from the 2nd c BCE through to the 1st c CE.
I think drawing links to the gospel characters and then therefore deriving that the gospel characters were from this community, or that this community was at some point governed or motivated by some of those characters, is not only hastily reliant on a wide range of speculative placeholders, but also quite possibly negligent to unique cultural identities.
I am further no more invited to sympathize with such ideas when such ideas continually redact standard archaeological and anthropological methods of cultural studies as justification for the permission to align constructs of the texts with constructs from other groups for the purposes of filling out the boundaries of an hypothetical political narrative comprised of a variety of extent components stitched together, each, by thought exercises and axioms.
OK. I get what you are saying. Eisenman is too quick to label these texts as homogenous. He does state that they represent a uniformity of belief over a period of time in their Messianic, Zealot, Apocalyptic outlook.
Can you give me examples of scrolls that don't represent that type of judaism? Are there any scrolls that are not Messianic, Zealot, and/or Apocalyptic in the Qumran corpus?
That question is somewhat problematic in the manner of the question itself.
I'll try to answer that as best as I can.
Are the varied texts Messianic?
Yes and no.
Yes, if by that we simply mean that the texts regularly discuss awaiting the change of rule to their valued choice of leader.
No, if by that we mean the categorical and historical term, "Messianic"; but also yes to this.
Again, there are different ages to these texts.
The early texts await the return of the high priest seat to the rightful line after a fallout to an offensive Hellenization and unexpected perceived backstabbing.
After the "silence" age that I mentioned previously, the concept alters and follows more of the Messianic movement proper (which did not yet exist in the Hebrew culture until around the late 1st c BCE to 1st c CE ranges).
Are the varied texts Apocalyptic?
Again, yes and no.
Yes, really, but in different ways.
The earlier Apocalyptic tones seem to carry expressions of concern over a radical departure from a standard construct to constructs which were seen as deleting the Hebrew culture which was previously being repaired and sustained; so these are like those sitting at the beginning of the end.
Later texts, again, around the same late 1 c BCE to 1 c CE ranges, seem to be more from the perception of being at the end of the end; much more dramatic in the construct - there lacks a patience in hoping for a righting by the returning of the rightful high priest.
At this point, there seems to be more discussion about outright destruction.
Are the varied texts Zealot literature?
No.
Unless we mean this word as an adjective and not a proper noun (label).
If we mean it as a label, then no.
These are not Zealot writings; they are not nearly extreme enough to apply to the Zealot party line of solutions.
However, if we mean, were they very zealous?
I don't know; I think that's a bit difficult to gauge regarding their psychology, as what is our comparison?
Zealous compared to what; other struggling and afraid theocratic restoration political parties of the 2nd c BCE to 1st c CE range?
No, not really. About on par by that comparison.
Zealous to our mind, by our standards?
Quite. By our standards, they were fanatics.
By their culture's standards; they were the Judean Peoples Front, or the Peoples Front of Judea, or the Peoples Popular Front of Judea, or...take your pick; there were several such enthusiastic movements.
The unique fashion for this group is in regards to how educated this group was (the scribe capacity was that of priesthood proficiency) and how remarkably lucky we are that their texts (both collected and authored) survived.
Normally, the expectation would be that such a group's body of texts would have been entirely wiped out in the Roman raids along with all other such groups that would have existed in parallel.
That question is somewhat problematic in the manner of the question itself.
I'll try to answer that as best as I can.
Are the varied texts Messianic?
Yes and no.
Yes, if by that we simply mean that the texts regularly discuss awaiting the change of rule to their valued choice of leader.
No, if by that we mean the categorical and historical term, "Messianic"; but also yes to this.
Again, there are different ages to these texts.
The early texts await the return of the high priest seat to the rightful line after a fallout to an offensive Hellenization and unexpected perceived backstabbing.
After the "silence" age that I mentioned previously, the concept alters and follows more of the Messianic movement proper (which did not yet exist in the Hebrew culture until around the late 1st c BCE to 1st c CE ranges).
Are the varied texts Apocalyptic?
Again, yes and no.
Yes, really, but in different ways.
The earlier Apocalyptic tones seem to carry expressions of concern over a radical departure from a standard construct to constructs which were seen as deleting the Hebrew culture which was previously being repaired and sustained; so these are like those sitting at the beginning of the end.
Later texts, again, around the same late 1 c BCE to 1 c CE ranges, seem to be more from the perception of being at the end of the end; much more dramatic in the construct - there lacks a patience in hoping for a righting by the returning of the rightful high priest.
At this point, there seems to be more discussion about outright destruction.
Are the varied texts Zealot literature?
No.
Unless we mean this word as an adjective and not a proper noun (label).
If we mean it as a label, then no.
These are not Zealot writings; they are not nearly extreme enough to apply to the Zealot party line of solutions.
However, if we mean, were they very zealous?
I don't know; I think that's a bit difficult to gauge regarding their psychology, as what is our comparison?
Zealous compared to what; other struggling and afraid theocratic restoration political parties of the 2nd c BCE to 1st c CE range?
No, not really. About on par by that comparison.
Zealous to our mind, by our standards?
Quite. By our standards, they were fanatics.
By their culture's standards; they were the Judean Peoples Front, or the Peoples Front of Judea, or the Peoples Popular Front of Judea, or...take your pick; there were several such enthusiastic movements.
The unique fashion for this group is in regards to how educated this group was (the scribe capacity was that of priesthood proficiency) and how remarkably lucky we are that their texts (both collected and authored) survived.
Normally, the expectation would be that such a group's body of texts would have been entirely wiped out in the Roman raids along with all other such groups that would have existed in parallel.
Thanks for that. I will think about this some more.
I'm still wading through "The New Testament Code".
What differences would you expect to see between these texts and something that you would consider "Zealot"?
I was under the impression that the term "Zealot" was a kind of catch-all phrase for the followers of rigid adherence to the Torah and that anyone who was "Zealous for the Law" was a "Zealot".
What differences would you expect to see between these texts and something that you would consider "Zealot"?
I was under the impression that the term "Zealot" was a kind of catch-all phrase for the followers of rigid adherence to the Torah and that anyone who was "Zealous for the Law" was a "Zealot".
No, Zealots were a 4th sect of the political turmoil of the 1st c CE and were amazingly violent and uncompromising - extreme is key here.
This group wasn't looking for just adherence, but also pure intolerance.
For this group, think Nazi Germany.
This was a purely fascist style of Judaism here; with iron rule and no permission for any differences or discussions in any manner regarding toleration of any agency outside of strictly the Hebrew hand for all things, and any deviation meant immediate death.
This isn't what we see in the DSS.
We see banishment and excommunication for failing the Laws of Moses by one of its members being outlined; we don't see killing them.
The Zealot group was beyond extreme; the Judaic culture refused to even recognize them as a religious sect - considering them to be thugs and other such demeaning names.
In fact, the only time a punishment of death is outlined in the Community Rule, it is for the rule of if some member speaks the name of their god; which was a standard rule of all of the Hebrew culture.
Here's kind of my point, regarding the origin of this group.
It is evident that this group was of priesthood caliber.
It is evident that they despised the current high priest(s) of their time and idolized one of the line of Zadok.
It is reasonable that at times of severe schism, factions of priests would depart, especially if under threat of life.
It is reasonable to expect such a group to take with them texts of value.
It is reasonable that any outline of conduct or code would be generated upon their hidden inception.
The oldest texts of the DSS collection are texts which exist in the traditional Jewish tome.
The first Community Rule shows up around the (ballpark) 2nd c BCE (as a mean).
This group describes value in the Zadok line, speaks of a profanity in the Temple by the High Priest who conducts unspeakable rape upon the sacredness of the High Priest and Temple, speaks of the illigitamacy of the current High Priest(s), and express longing for the return of the Zadok High Priest line.
Now, without requiring large nests of conjectural posits, nor without neglecting the archaeological and anthropological dating of several texts of the collection, consider the following:
Onias III (of the Zadok blood-line) was removed from office for the following reason: a Hellenizing official of the Temple, Simon, a member of the Tribe of Benjamin, induced Seleucus through his official Heliodorus to plunder the Temple. The attempt was unsuccessful and the court never forgave the High Priest. When Antiochus IV Epiphanes became emperor in 175 BCE, Onias was obliged to yield to his own brother, Jason, a Hellenizer. (Wiki summary)
To be more explicit in detail about that event, Jason gained the seat: In an ongoing dispute between the current High Priest, Onias III, and Simon the Benjamite, Jason offered to pay Antiochus in order to be confirmed as the new High Priest in Jerusalem. (Wiki)
Jason's holding of the seat: was brought to an abrupt end in 172 BCE when he sent Menelaus, the brother of Simon the Benjamite, to deliver money to Antiochus. Menelaus took this opportunity to "outbid" Jason for the priesthood, resulting in Antiochus confirming Menelaus as the High Priest. Jason fled Jerusalem and found refuge in the land of the Ammonites.
This, then, enters a figure whom I can only accurately convey in description as the "Hebrew Caligula".
Wikipedia, or other such sources are somewhat glossy on just how remarkable this individual was, but Maccabees surely is not.
Menelaus Becomes High Priest
23 Three years later, Jason sent Menelaus (brother of the Simon[d] mentioned earlier) to take some money to the king and to get his decision on several important matters. 24 But when he stood before the king, Menelaus impressed him with his show of authority and offered 22,500 pounds of silver more than Jason had offered for his appointment to the office of High Priest. 25 As a result Menelaus returned to Jerusalem with papers from the king, confirming him as High Priest. But he possessed no other qualifications; he had the temper of a cruel tyrant and could be as fierce as a wild animal. 26 So Jason, who had cheated his own brother out of the office of High Priest, was now forced to flee to the land of Ammon. 27 Menelaus continued to be High Priest, but he never paid any of the money he had promised the king. 28 However, Sostratus, the captain of the fort in Jerusalem, kept demanding the money, since it was his responsibility to collect it. So finally, the two men were summoned to appear before the king concerning the matter. 29 Menelaus left his brother Lysimachus as acting High Priest, while Sostratus left the fort under the command of Crates, the commander of the mercenary troops from Cyprus.
The Murder of Onias
30 Meanwhile, there was a revolt in the Cilician cities of Tarsus and Mallus, because the king had given those cities to Antiochis, his mistress. 31 So the king left Andronicus, one of his high officials, in command, while he hurried off to Cilicia to restore order. 32 Menelaus took advantage of this opportunity and presented Andronicus with some of the gold objects he had removed from the Temple in Jerusalem. He had already sold some of them to the city of Tyre and to other nearby cities. 33 When Onias heard about this, he fled for safety to a temple at Daphne near the city of Antioch and openly accused Menelaus. 34 Then Menelaus secretly persuaded Andronicus to kill Onias. So Andronicus went to Onias and deceived him with a friendly greeting and with promises of safety. Although Onias was suspicious, Andronicus finally lured him away from the safety of the temple and immediately murdered him in cold blood.
Andronicus Is Punished
35 The Jews and Gentiles were very angry because Onias had been murdered. 36 So when the king returned from the territory of Cilicia, the Jews of Antioch went to him and protested against this senseless killing. Many Gentiles felt the same way about the crime. 37 King Antiochus was deeply grieved and was so filled with sorrow that he was moved to tears when he recalled the wisdom and self-control that Onias had shown throughout his life. 38 Antiochus became so angry that he tore off Andronicus' royal robe, stripped him naked, and marched him around the city to the very spot where Onias had been murdered. Then Antiochus had this bloodthirsty murderer put to death. This was how the Lord gave him the punishment he deserved.
Lysimachus Is Killed
39 Meanwhile, with the support of his brother Menelaus, Lysimachus had on numerous occasions robbed the Jerusalem Temple and had taken many of its gold objects. When word of this spread around, crowds began to gather in protest against Lysimachus. 40 Finally, the crowds were becoming dangerous and were beginning to get out of control, so Lysimachus sent 3,000 armed men to attack them. They were led by Auranus, a man as stupid as he was old. 41 When the Jews in the Temple courtyard realized what was happening, they picked up rocks, pieces of wood, or simply handfuls of ashes from the altar and threw them at Lysimachus and his men in the confusion. 42 They killed a few of Lysimachus' men, wounded many of them, and all the rest ran for their lives. Lysimachus himself, that temple robber, was killed near the Temple treasury.
Menelaus Is Brought to Trial
43 Because of this incident Menelaus was brought to trial. 44 When the king came to the city of Tyre, the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem sent three men to bring charges against Menelaus. 45 When Menelaus saw that he was losing the case, he offered Ptolemy son of Dorymenes a large bribe to persuade the king to decide in his favor. 46 Ptolemy then asked the king to go outside the courtroom with him, as though to get some fresh air, and there he persuaded him to change his mind 47 and declare Menelaus innocent of the charges against him. So Menelaus was set free, although he had caused the trouble; but the three men, whom even the cruel Scythians would have declared innocent, were sentenced to death. 48 The three men had spoken in defense of Jerusalem, its people,[e] and the sacred objects stolen from the Temple, but they were quickly and unjustly executed. 49 Some of the people of Tyre, however, showed their disgust with this crime and their respect for these men by giving them a splendid funeral. 50 Menelaus stayed on in his position because of the greed of those in power. He grew more evil every day and became the worst enemy of his own people.
Antiochus Attacks Jerusalem
11 When the news of what had happened in Jerusalem reached Antiochus, he thought the whole country of Judea was in revolt, and he became as furious as a wild animal. So he left Egypt and took Jerusalem by storm, 12 giving his men orders to cut down without mercy everyone they met and to slaughter anyone they found hiding in the houses. 13 They murdered everyone—men and women, boys and girls; even babies were butchered. 14 Three days later Jerusalem had lost 80,000 people: 40,000 killed in the attack and at least that many taken away to be sold as slaves.
15 But Antiochus was still not satisfied. He even dared to enter the holiest Temple in all the world, guided by Menelaus, who had become a traitor both to his religion and to his people. 16 With his filthy and unholy hands, Antiochus swept away the sacred objects of worship and the gifts which other kings had given to increase the glory and honor of the Temple. 17 He was so thrilled with his conquest that he did not realize that the Lord had let his holy Temple be defiled because the sin of the people of Jerusalem had made him angry for a while. 18 If the people of Jerusalem had not been involved in so many sins, Antiochus would have been punished immediately and prevented from taking such a foolish action. He would have suffered the same fate as Heliodorus, who was sent by King Seleucus to inspect the treasury. 19 But the Lord did not choose his people for the sake of his Temple; he established his Temple for the sake of his people. 20 So the Temple shared in the people's suffering but also later shared in their prosperity. The Lord abandoned it when he became angry, but restored it when his anger had cooled down.
Another Attack against Jerusalem
21 Antiochus took 135,000 pounds of silver from the Temple and hurried off to Antioch. Such was his arrogance that he felt he could make ships sail across dry land or troops march across the sea. 22 He appointed governors to cause trouble for the people. In Jerusalem he placed Philip, a man from Phrygia who was more evil than Antiochus himself. 23 At Mount Gerizim he placed Andronicus. In addition to these, there was Menelaus, who mistreated his fellow Jews far worse than the governors did. Antiochus hated the Jews so much 24 that he sent an army of 22,000 mercenary troops from Mysia to Jerusalem under the command of a man named Apollonius, with orders to kill every man in the city and to sell the women and boys as slaves. 25 Apollonius arrived in Jerusalem, pretending to be on a peace mission. Then on a Sabbath, when all the Jews were observing the day of rest, he led his troops, who were fully armed, in a parade outside the city. 26 Suddenly he commanded his men to kill everyone who had come out to see them. They rushed into the city and murdered a great many people.
27 But Judas Maccabeus and about nine others escaped into the barren mountains, where they lived like wild animals. In order not to defile themselves, they ate only plants which they found growing there.
That is Menelaus.
Then once he was finally killed by prosecution, there seemed hope that Onias IV would take back the lost balance and restore the Zadok line of the High Priest, but that didn't happen.
Onias IV lost out to Alcimus, another Hellenizer.
If Menelaus is Caligula, then Alcimus was something like a Menelaus on TNT had he lived longer.
5 Then all the godless traitorous Jews led by Alcimus, who wanted to be High Priest, went to Demetrius. 6 They brought accusations against the other Jews and said,
Judas and his brothers have killed everybody who supported you, and they have driven us out of our country. 7 We advise you to send someone whom you can trust to go and inspect all the damage done to our property and the king's territory and to punish Judas, his brothers, and all who support them.
8 King Demetrius chose one of his advisers, a man by the name of Bacchides, who was the governor of Greater Syria. He was an important man in the empire and loyal to the king. 9 He was sent along with the godless Alcimus, whom the king had appointed High Priest; Alcimus had orders to take revenge on the Jews. 10 They left Antioch and arrived in Judea with a large army. Bacchides tried to trick Judas and his brothers by sending to them messengers with offers of peace. 11 But when Judas and his brothers saw what a large army they had brought, they did not believe what the messengers said.
12 A group of teachers of the Law came to Alcimus and Bacchides, asking for justice. 13 These devout and patriotic men were the first of the Jews to try to make peace with Alcimus and Bacchides. 14 They trusted Alcimus, who was a priest descended from Aaron, and they thought he would not cause them any harm. 15 Alcimus assured them of his peaceful intentions and solemnly promised that no harm would come to them or their friends. 16 But as soon as they began to trust him, he arrested 60 of them and put them all to death on the same day. As the scripture says,
17
The blood of your faithful people was poured out,
their bodies were scattered around Jerusalem,
and there was no one left to bury the dead.
18 When this happened, all the people were afraid of Alcimus and Bacchides, and they said,
They don't know what truth or justice means. They gave their solemn word and then broke it! 19 Bacchides left Jerusalem and set up his headquarters at Beth Zaith. He ordered the arrest of some of the faithful Jews and even many of the renegades who had willingly joined him; he had them killed and thrown into a deep pit. 20 Bacchides put the country under the control of Alcimus, left troops there to help him, and returned to the king.
21 Alcimus then began his struggle to establish himself as High Priest. 22 Every troublemaker in the country joined him. They gained control of the land of Judea and caused great difficulties for the Jews. 23 Judas saw that the trouble Alcimus and his men had caused was even worse than the damage done by the Gentiles. 24 So he went around the whole country of Judea taking revenge on all the men who had willingly joined Alcimus and preventing them from leaving the towns and going into the country. 25 When Alcimus saw that Judas and his men were growing more powerful and when he realized that he would not be able to stand against them, he returned to the king and accused them of great crimes.
54 In the second month of the year 153,[d] the High Priest Alcimus ordered that the wall of the inner court of the Temple be torn down. This would have destroyed what the prophets had accomplished; but just as the work began, 55 he had a stroke, and work was stopped. Paralyzed and unable to open his mouth, he could not speak or even make a will for his family. 56 He died in great torment.
There is a void between this end of Alcimus and the start of Jonathan; we simply don't know who sat or if anyone sat as High Priest, but when the accounting returned, nothing had much improved, and instead treachery continued, for the Hellenistic variation of the Hazmonean rule took over in full force; as next was Jonathan Apphus who was appointed to his seat for no other reason than a political bribe of the Seleucid King; this is extremely profane.
Meanwhile, through all of this, Onias IV - the rightful Zadok heir to the High Priest seat - was trying to build a new Jerusalem in Egypt (while succeeding in building a taller temple than the one in Jerusalem, he failed to convince any large count of Hebrews to choose living in Egypt over their homeland).
Now, why would this seem less reasonable as the origin of this group than:
1) Ignoring archaeological and anthropological dating, reassigning the dates to almost entirely 1st c CE range (maybe a few late 1st c BCE dates)
2) Scores of conjectural holdings to put two components together to use as the foundation of another conjectural holding to put two components together to use as the foundation of another conjectural holding....etc...
3) Labels of cultural identity ignored and openly claimed as being one in the same grouping or affiliation.
4) Reinterpreting names and intended meanings of phrases by gospel texts to refer to names and meanings in the DSS, as well as reinterpreting names and intended meaning of phrases from DSS texts to refer to names and meanings in the gospel texts
5) Over-inflation of otherwise completely limited constructs, so that what was a small textual entry citation of an individual or event becomes read as "clearly", "obviously", "without question" or "undeniably" referring to some extreme event that provokes some motive involved in a conjectural holding support.
I mean...look at how much writing has been needed to attempt the proposition (not from you; from Eisenman)?
Now look at how simple the other, above, proposition is, and how it doesn't require ignoring standard dating methods of archeology and anthropology, nor the ignoring of social community differences, nor nearly the volume of conjecture.
And this isn't just my idea alone here.
After this, Josephus and the Book of Maccabees make it possible to trace the line from Onias *I in the middle of the third century B.C.E. to Simeon the *Just and to Onias *III, who held the office of high priest when Antiochus Epiphanes succeeded to the throne c. 175 B.C.E. His son, Onias *IV, was too young to succeed to his father's office, to which *Jason II Macc. 4:7,20) and *Menelaus (II Macc. 4:23–26; though not a priest) were successively appointed by bribing the Seleucid ruler to appoint them. After the death of *Alcimus in 159 B.C.E., the office remained vacant for seven years (Jos., Ant., 12:413, I Macc. 9:54–57), until the Maccabean *Jonathan was nominated high priest by Alexander Balas. But only in the early years of *Simeon, Jonathan's successor, was the high priesthood irrevocably transferred from the Zadokites to the Hasmoneans. This seems to have given the appropriate occasion for the crystallization of the *Dead Sea Sect (see, e.g., Cross). The sect probably originated with a group of priests deeply disturbed by prevalent trends, especially in the high priesthood. The Hasmoneans were considered usurpers and the sect maintained the exclusive right of the Zadokites to fill the high priestly office.
Meanwhile, Onias IV had been conveyed by, or had gone with, a number of those who remained loyal to his father's memory to Egypt, where he obtained permission (c. 154 B.C.E.) from the Egyptian king to rebuild a disused temple at *Leontopolis (On) and to appoint "priests of his own race" to serve it (e.g., Jos., Ant., 12:388; 13:62, 79, 185). This last statement can refer only to priests of his own Zadokite family as distinct from the contemporary Hasmonean line in Jerusalem. This Zadokite priesthood presided over the temple at Leontopolis until it was closed by Vespasian in 73 C.E. (Jos., War, 7:433–646).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
