Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[Craig B]

Not following you Craig.

In about 110 CE Pliny had to torture them, and still they didn't tell him much.

Read Josephus for how these people behave under Roman interrogation. Al Qaeda has nothing on these guys.

What do you mean? Pliny tortured Essenes in 110 CE?

 

[Brainache]

What do you mean? Pliny tortured Essenes in 110 CE?

He tortured Christians. The whole conversation from my point of view means that the people Pliny tortured were direct descendants of the people at Qumran. (at least in terms of Theological Tradition). No doubt there was already factions and Pauline V Jamesian was morphing into Roman V Ebionite.

So if Eisenman is right, whatever was left of these Palestinian Essene/Zealot/Ebionim after Masada were in small enclaves in North Africa/Egypt (for a while) and in Asia Minor and Syria.

110 is only 40 years after the war with Rome, and ten years before Bar Kochba, who was also part of this tradition, hence: "Son Of The Star".

It all fits.

 

[Brainache]

To my ignorant eye, that hilited bit helps me to understand the Roman animosity to the Jews in general.
I'm also beginning to understand just how unacceptable Paul's preaching to the Gentiles must have been to the more conservative church members.

Strange and disturbing times, indeed.
From Antiochus IV Epiphanes to the Diaspora it sounds as though the only breathing space the Jews had was under the Roman heel.

Look what the Romans did for them, it was no Picnic once Vespasian and Titus showed up:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/book-4/chapter-3.html

2. These harangues of John's corrupted a great part of the young men, and puffed them up for the war; but as to the more prudent part, and those in years, there was not a man of them but foresaw what was coming, and made lamentation on that account, as if the city was already undone; and in this confusion were the people.

But then it must be observed, that the multitude that came out of the country were at discord before the Jerusalem sedition began; for Titus went from Gischala to Cesates, and Vespasian from Cesarea to Jamnia and Azotus, and took them both; and when he had put garrisons into them, he came back with a great number of the people, who were come over to him, upon his giving them his right hand for their preservation.

There were besides disorders and civil wars in every city; and all those that were at quiet from the Romans turned their hands one against another. There was also a bitter contest between those that were fond of war, and those that were desirous for peace. At the first this quarrelsome temper caught hold of private families, who could not agree among themselves; after which those people that were the dearest to one another brake through all restraints with regard to each other, and every one associated with those of his own opinion, and began already to stand in opposition one to another; so that seditions arose every where, while those that were for innovations, and were desirous of war, by their youth and boldness, were too hard for the aged and prudent men.

And, in the first place, all the people of every place betook themselves to rapine; after which they got together in bodies, in order to rob the people of the country, insomuch that for barbarity and iniquity those of the same nation did no way differ from the Romans; nay, it seemed to be a much lighter thing to be ruined by the Romans than by themselves...

"Brought peace? Oh, shut-up!"

 

[Craig B]

He tortured Christians. The whole conversation from my point of view means that the people Pliny tortured were direct descendants of the people at Qumran ... It all fits.

Since it's the point at issue, and since I can respond intelligibly to your last post only on the previous assumption that Eisenman is right, then I can't meaningfully respond at all. Pliny knew what Essenes were. His uncle wrote about them, and Pliny the Younger inherited these works. So it's absurd to suggest that the Manual of Discipline was written by "them" whom Pliny tortured. He tells us he tortured Christians; and so he did, as you agree. Nor is it stated that he did not get much out of the women he tortured. He got plenty, but he wasn't interested in it. He dismissed it contemptuously as "excessive depraved superstition", and no doubt that is exactly what his torturers elicited.

 

[Brainache]

Since it's the point at issue, and since I can respond intelligibly to your last post only on the previous assumption that Eisenman is right, then I can't meaningfully respond at all. Pliny knew what Essenes were. His uncle wrote about them, and Pliny the Younger inherited these works. So it's absurd to suggest that the Manual of Discipline was written by "them" whom Pliny tortured. He tells us he tortured Christians; and so he did, as you agree. Nor is it stated that he did not get much out of the women he tortured. He got plenty, but he wasn't interested in it. He dismissed it contemptuously as "excessive depraved superstition", and no doubt that is exactly what his torturers elicited.

Look at those scrolls. "Depraved Superstition" sounds about right to me.

Just because Pliny's Uncle wrote about Essenes, doesn't mean he was aware of it when he wrote to Trajan.

They also didn't call themselves "Essenes" that was a word used by outsiders, possibly derived from the Hebrew or Aramaic form of "Doers of Torah", meaning they followed the Law and acted according to all the commandments (all 6 million of them, or how ever many it was). They believed in "Works plus Faith", hence the emphasis on "Doing" in the title "Essene".

Thus spake Eisenman.

 

[Craig B]

Look at those scrolls. "Depraved Superstition" sounds about right to me.

Just because Pliny's Uncle wrote about Essenes, doesn't mean he was aware of it when he wrote to Trajan.

Then to suggest he tortured Essenes is all the more ridiculous. But he did study his uncle's work with care, and I would think he was familiar with this material. I can't imagine otherwise.

Thus spake Eisenman.

He spake that which is not.

 

[Brainache]

Then to suggest he tortured Essenes is all the more ridiculous. But he did study his uncle's work with care, and I would think he was familiar with this material. I can't imagine otherwise. He spake that which is not.

You seem hung up on the word "Essene". They never referred to themselves as that. They were "The Poor", "Ebionim" and in the latter half of the 1st century people in Antioch started calling them Christians.

These people were presented to Pliny as "Christians", because that is what the Greco-Romans at that time and place called them.

Kind of like how we say "Mormon", but the Mormons say "LDS".

These were more likely people following a Pauline doctrine, being local converts, rather than Jewish originals, and too late to be first generation.

Things were fluid. Categories like "Essene" aren't very helpful at this point.

 

[pakeha]

Look what the Romans did for them, it was no Picnic once Vespasian and Titus showed up:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/book-4/chapter-3.html


"Brought peace? Oh, shut-up!"

True.
Vespasian turning up on your doorstep was something that rarely augured a great party. Still, Josephus was a great admirer of Vespasian, wasn't he?

 

[Brainache]

True.
Vespasian turning up on your doorstep was something that rarely augured a great party. Still, Josephus was a great admirer of Vespasian, wasn't he?

Oh yes. According to Josephus the Jews got exactly what was coming to them. They were very naughty boys.

 

[JaysonR]

Just popping in on my phine, but we can't claim a people as distinct in behavior as one thing, and then another by note that the former distinct behavior was of no consequence requiring distinction by individuals of the time.

Meaning, we can't claim Essenes as Christian and then link Antolia Christian persecution in 1st c CE to the behavior of a group in the Levant region from the 2nd c BCE to the 1st c CE because to do that we would need Pliny to fail to understand the difference between people of Antolia and people of Judah, as Pliny worries over the spread of the adherence by his own populations, yet Essenes were clearly and distinctly present long before Pliny, in the Levant.

There is no indication verified to link casually between the two behaviorally and in custom.

 

[Craig B]

@JaysonR, I agree most emphatically, that there is no verified indication of such a link; and to treat second century Christians of Bithynia as if they were self evidently the same as pre 70 AD Essenes of Judaea makes little sense.

 

[Brainache]

@JaysonR, I agree most emphatically, that there is no verified indication of such a link; and to treat second century Christians of Bithynia as if they were self evidently the same as pre 70 AD Essenes of Judaea makes little sense.

I never said they were the same.

 

[JaysonR]

No you did not, but you applied traumatized social pschology for groups in Antolia in the 2nd c CE to a group in Judea ranging from 200 BCE to 1st c CE.

Craig made the coy remark of how what supported the Essene DSS arguement was silence, then you coyly remarked at their suffering under Pliny, then Craig asked for clarification in perplexion, then you explained seeing no difference effectively between them through being direct ancestory by 40 years to each other.

The linking is loose and unwarranted; that's what we're saying in this part.

Pliny's Christian's qualities in character cannot be applied to another group distinct in place and time whom already own a distinct set of qualities in character from that of Antolia; nor can we apply the inverse.

I was also saying that we can't highlight their Essene status in one part to support the argument, and then toss it out as meaningless elsewhere.

 

[Brainache]

No you did not, but you applied traumatized social pschology for groups in Antolia in the 2nd c CE to a group in Judea ranging from 200 BCE to 1st c CE.

Craig made the coy remark of how what supported the Essene DSS arguement was silence, then you coyly remarked at their suffering under Pliny, then Craig asked for clarification in perplexion, then you explained seeing no difference effectively between them through being direct ancestory by 40 years to each other.

The linking is loose and unwarranted; that's what we're saying in this part.

Pliny's Christian's qualities in character cannot be applied to another group distinct in place and time whom already own a distinct set of qualities in character from that of Antolia; nor can we apply the inverse.

I was also saying that we can't highlight their Essene status in one part to support the argument, and then toss it out as meaningless elsewhere.

OK.

I wasn't trying to prove anything by it. Just saying that it doesn't rule it out.

I'm not saying that an oath of secrecy means they were the same group, only that secrecy is something that they have in common.

I still think 200 BC is too early for this group, especially if you read those Pesharim where the death of the "Teacher of Righteousness" is told as a contemporary event. That is definitely outside the carbon date range if you want to fit it to our scenario.

 

[Brainache]

What I'm saying is that, whether or not Eisenman is right, the fact that both these groups had a central idea of secrecy from the uninitiated, is not a point against the hypothesis.

Josephus mentions that others had written their own Histories of what happened during that war. He also says that those books were inferior and full of lies and gossip. None of them survive. I wonder if they might have shed some light on all of this?

Don't get me wrong, I love Josephus and without him we wouldn't know anywhere near as much about ancient judea as we do. But I think the fact that he is so encyclopedic and also virtually our only really reliable source, can sometimes mask the fact that he may not be telling the full story.

Those other histories might have been biased and unreliable, but I would still love to see them.

 

[JaysonR]

So the period you are ascribing these scrolls to is actually 2nd century BCE isn't it? If you are associating them with the uprising of Judas Maccabee, you mean 160 BCE, not 60 BCE, don't you?

Isn't that a bit unlikely?

No, that's my point.

The caves may have been used and populated for quite a time, but the material is spread from very early to late.
There isn't a single point in time for this area; there is for its start, but that timing is not exclusive and remove later date uses.
The same is true of the texts; the texts are capable of talking of their content as present tense and be referring to 2nd c BCE issues, as well as other texts may talk in a tense suggesting past tense of the same contexts, and present tense of a new context.

Followers tend to do so.

I do think the contexts of the scrolls makes sense during the 2nd c BCE political issues, and I think it's a possibility that should be examined and considered.
I further think the context supports that the group continually existed for a length of time onward, and that is reflected in the variations between Hasmonean as well as Herodian dynasty Hebrew script.
The scripts are of both types, and that both types exist should be taken into the consideration and not overlooked.

This proposition proposes that the group started in the 2nd c BCE and then around 1st c BCE they changed and started to produce a second generation of texts clarifying their prophecies, and then died out in the early 1st c CE when all small factional sects effectively died.

To run this consideration, however, we have to pause Eisenman and not confuse our minds with thinking of anything in the scrolls or Qumran as identities he offers and look at the material with virgin eyes.

Then after we look at it, we can then compare the two against each other appropriately.

I'm sorry Jayson, I'm not sure if this is the format you wanted for the reply, I'm no good at formalities. If I were, I might interject the word: Poppycock! at this point.

He's just invented several generations of people without any evidence, to suit his preconceived dating.

Either way, the Herodian High Priests were definitely not "Sons of Zadok".

That was wikipedia summarizing a chronology of academia.
My only reason for the citation was to note the absence of Priesthood being noted in the textual chronology at one point; it was not to accept the dating convention of the academics involved who then take the absence of the Priesthood notation to form their ideas.

It should not be overlooked that there is an absence of priesthood notation in Maccabees, as it informs us of the political turmoil of the era, and that is important to understand if we are to propose a DSS timeline suggesting that they began in 2nd c BCE.

Herodian priests are not the sons of Zadok, but we are not isolated to the Herodian dynasty; clearly.
The textual evidence of Hasmonean script itself indicates that we are not exclusive to the Herodian dynasty.

The scroll texts do not mention a Herod.

They do mention Zadok, specifically, "the sons of Zadok the Priests", and a King Jonathan mentioned in 4Q448 - which could be either Alexander Jannaeus or Jonathon Maccabees.

Jonathan (apphus) Maccabee was a King from 161-143 BCE; he was also able to gain High Priest status after political moves; which caused serious upset.

Equally, we have the artifacts around the caves such as:
- 3 silver coins from the Seleucid era - 136-129 BCE
- A dozen bronze coins from the time of John Hyrcanus - 134-104 BCE
- 86 coins minted during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus - 103-76 BCE

Yet, as mentioned before, just as the texts show signs of both 2nd c BCE existence as well as late 1st c BCE existence, so to do the archeological meterials.

- 5 coins from the reign of Herod the Great - 37-4 BCE

Further, the Damascus Document contains a dating guide by informing us that the group began 390 years after the conquest of Nebuchadnezzar.

Destruction of the 1st Temple/Nebuchadnezzar was 587 BCE, less 390, results to 197 BCE.
It is not really appropriate to sit on the exact year as accurate or not, but the general balance of the timeline is of value.

There is clear indication that the group considered its founding to have occurred in and around the 2nd c BCE right in the middle of issues between Jonathan assending to High Priest after the upset of Alcimus gaining High Priest instead of Onias IV, who was still want for the seat after Jonathan pushed his way politically into the seat.

The houses were viscerally divided.

See the bold, for the dates. The scrolls would have to be even earlier than that, because they speak of overthrowing the wicked oppressors in the future tense.

No, they don't need to be earlier because cultures are not isolated to one instant in time.

They could start in the 2nd c BCE and support and expect their champion to win, and then lose out and change their prophecies in the 1st c BCE to new predictions after it became clear that their previous hopes were not going to be realized.

This would explain the two rounds of texts; 2nd c BCE and 1st c BCE, with the 1st c BCE group (Herodian script) weighing more on new prophecy than the former (Hasmonean script) texts did - which used already established prophecies and attempted to align them to their selected champion.

Doesn't fit the description of the Temple from the Scrolls. It's in Egypt, for a start...

I wasn't intending to claim that the Temple in Egypt was the Temple being described.
I was accounting for the actions of Onias IV.

I have to disagree. Your scenario doesn't fit as easily into the DSS material that I am aware of, and it dates it all as pre-166 BCE.

No, it dates it as starting around 160 BCE and running up through 1st c CE with a sectarian shift in the change over between the 2nd c BCE and 1st c CE, increasing and changing stances on prophecies.

Meanwhile the site at Qumran was occupied by a community (off and on) right up until 70 CE. They were making parchment and writing Scrolls, what happened to those Scrolls?

The site was occupied over a length of time.
What happened to pieces of material which we do not have is unknowable in any context.




Note:
I'm not trying to lay down an exact and isolated identification of who the figures are in the DSS texts.
Instead, I'm accounting for contexts with multiple candidates applicable to the textual material.

In keeping in mind the political turmoil of the 2nd and 1st c BCE eras, we can see plenty of contextual material that does line up with maintaining a starting point back to 2nd c BCE and continuing onward to just past the 1st c CE as a distinct group who were vying for their own theocratic faction and allegiance in the political contests taking place over the High Priest and Temple, and eagerly longed for the rightful Priest to take their place.



One of the things that should be kept in mind regarding Hebrew theology is that identities are thought of as characters.
Moses and David were themselves, but they were also place-holders which another could fill again in time.

Like the Sabbath observance, which was repeated, but was considered to be a repeat of the same event over and over. It's almost like reincarnation, but not quite.

It was somewhat similar to how we may say today, "This film is the new Star Wars!"

Except, in their theological holding, it was a bit more literal and metaphorical mixed together.

So at first the group could write about things with a specific person in mind, but as that failed to produce results, they would begin to look for the next "true heir" repeatedly and fill prophecies of what he will do as guidance of identifying this individual.

In a sense, it goes from praising a hero to the death of a hero, to a job posting for a new hero.

 

[Brainache]

No, that's my point.

The caves may have been used and populated for quite a time, but the material is spread from very early to late.
There isn't a single point in time for this area; there is for its start, but that timing is not exclusive and remove later date uses.
The same is true of the texts; the texts are capable of talking of their content as present tense and be referring to 2nd c BCE issues, as well as other texts may talk in a tense suggesting past tense of the same contexts, and present tense of a new context.

Followers tend to do so.

Did they ever do the series of Carbon tests on key texts to establish an order of composition, like Eisenman requested?

If not, all of these points could go either way.

I do think the contexts of the scrolls makes sense during the 2nd c BCE political issues, and I think it's a possibility that should be examined and considered.
I further think the context supports that the group continually existed for a length of time onward, and that is reflected in the variations between Hasmonean as well as Herodian dynasty Hebrew script.
The scripts are of both types, and that both types exist should be taken into the consideration and not overlooked.

That appears to be the only scenario that the mainstream has seriously considered. They appear to be bending over backwards to make the evidence fit the conclusions. You yourself quoted one bloke who invented a whole bunch of Priests and said "we don't know anything about these people I just invented, so we can assume that they are the characters described in the Scrolls". Now who is relying on unevidenced chains of suppositions?

This proposition proposes that the group started in the 2nd c BCE and then around 1st c BCE they changed and started to produce a second generation of texts clarifying their prophecies, and then died out in the early 1st c CE when all small factional sects effectively died.

...And events started happening which match events as described in the Scrolls.

Why is this such a controversial idea? It fits within the dating. It fits better with what we know from Josephus than the traditional Apologetics. I don't get why it's so crazy.

To run this consideration, however, we have to pause Eisenman and not confuse our minds with thinking of anything in the scrolls or Qumran as identities he offers and look at the material with virgin eyes.

Then after we look at it, we can then compare the two against each other appropriately.

Ease up there Turbo. When I got drawn into this subject in my mid-forties, after a lifetime of skeptical reading and online debates, there were no eyes more virgin than mine on this subject.

I was a Myther for about ten minutes.

As I've been reading Eisenman, I've been checking what the other side say and I have to tell you, they aren't nearly as convincing to the Layman like me.

Eisenman calls this Academic attitude a "cloud of unknowing", because he sees people presented with all of these correlations who just shrug and say "We don't know". Then they go on to postulate stuff that doesn't fit any known evidence, like those imaginary Priests.

That was wikipedia summarizing a chronology of academia.
My only reason for the citation was to note the absence of Priesthood being noted in the textual chronology at one point; it was not to accept the dating convention of the academics involved who then take the absence of the Priesthood notation to form their ideas.

I should hope not. That would be a pretty useless way to date things.

It should not be overlooked that there is an absence of priesthood notation in Maccabees, as it informs us of the political turmoil of the era, and that is important to understand if we are to propose a DSS timeline suggesting that they began in 2nd c BCE.

A bit difficult to have a "Wicked Priest" without the wicked Priesthood for him to be a part o though, I think.

Herodian priests are not the sons of Zadok, but we are not isolated to the Herodian dynasty; clearly.
The textual evidence of Hasmonean script itself indicates that we are not exclusive to the Herodian dynasty.

The scroll texts do not mention a Herod.

They don't mention anyone by name.

They do mention Zadok, specifically, "the sons of Zadok the Priests", and a King Jonathan mentioned in 4Q448 - which could be either Alexander Jannaeus or Jonathon Maccabees.

Jonathan (apphus) Maccabee was a King from 161-143 BCE; he was also able to gain High Priest status after political moves; which caused serious upset.

And the mention of him is in what appears to be a hymn to a Jewish hero from the past, not a contemporary.

Equally, we have the artifacts around the caves such as:
- 3 silver coins from the Seleucid era - 136-129 BCE
- A dozen bronze coins from the time of John Hyrcanus - 134-104 BCE
- 86 coins minted during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus - 103-76 BCE

Yet, as mentioned before, just as the texts show signs of both 2nd c BCE existence as well as late 1st c BCE existence, so to do the archeological meterials.

- 5 coins from the reign of Herod the Great - 37-4 BCE

The Community at the time we are talking about shunned money. Especially money with pictures of Herod on it.

Further, the Damascus Document contains a dating guide by informing us that the group began 390 years after the conquest of Nebuchadnezzar.

Destruction of the 1st Temple/Nebuchadnezzar was 587 BCE, less 390, results to 197 BCE.
It is not really appropriate to sit on the exact year as accurate or not, but the general balance of the timeline is of value.

I think the wording is ambiguous.
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

Now listen, all right-minded men, and take note how God acts: He has a case against all flesh and exacts satisfaction from all who spurn Him.

Whenever Israel broke faith and renounced Him, He hid His face both from it and from His sanctuary and consigned them to the sword. But whenever He called to mind the covenant which He had made with their forbears, He spared them a remnant and did not consign them to utter extinction.

So, in the Era of Anger, that era of the three hundred and ninety years,1 when He delivered them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, He took care of them and brought to blossom alike out of the priesthood and out of the laity that root which had been planted of old, allowing it once more to possess the land and to grow fat in the richness of its soil. 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...

It looks to me like they are saying 390 years was how long they were in Babylon, not how long since they left there.

There is clear indication that the group considered its founding to have occurred in and around the 2nd c BCE right in the middle of issues between Jonathan assending to High Priest after the upset of Alcimus gaining High Priest instead of Onias IV, who was still want for the seat after Jonathan pushed his way politically into the seat.

The houses were viscerally divided.

I think it fits better with the Apocalyptic Messianism of the first century CE. They sing to Jonathan a song about how great things were when he was the boss all those years ago. Not last week.

No, they don't need to be earlier because cultures are not isolated to one instant in time.

They could start in the 2nd c BCE and support and expect their champion to win, and then lose out and change their prophecies in the 1st c BCE to new predictions after it became clear that their previous hopes were not going to be realized.

Or they could have been a small gang of "End-Timers" whose message spread throughout the 1st Century until it was attracting "Violent Ones", not just Jewish violent ones, but Syrians, and Idumeans as well. They were all on the "End Times" bandwagon, but they had different ways and means of expressing their beliefs.

This would explain the two rounds of texts; 2nd c BCE and 1st c BCE, with the 1st c BCE group (Herodian script) weighing more on new prophecy than the former (Hasmonean script) texts did - which used already established prophecies and attempted to align them to their selected champion.

It is also more complicated than Eisenman, and doesn't answer as any questions satisfactorily. Eisenman is actually parsimonious, believe it or not.

I wasn't intending to claim that the Temple in Egypt was the Temple being described.
I was accounting for the actions of Onias IV.

OK. Still seems a bit of a stretch to me. Another one of these long chains of supposition that you berate Eisenman for.

No, it dates it as starting around 160 BCE and running up through 1st c CE with a sectarian shift in the change over between the 2nd c BCE and 1st c CE, increasing and changing stances on prophecies.

But for a popular revolt movement to grow and gather momentum, takes time. Your dating would have them settling the place in the 3rd c BCE, not the 2nd.

The site was occupied over a length of time.
What happened to pieces of material which we do not have is unknowable in any context.

Of course you realise I'm saying that the scrolls that were written during the last 70 to 100 years before the revolt, are the ones we have now.

Note:
I'm not trying to lay down an exact and isolated identification of who the figures are in the DSS texts.
Instead, I'm accounting for contexts with multiple candidates applicable to the textual material.

Looks to me like you are trying really really hard to avoid a 1st c. CE dating for these Scrolls.

In keeping in mind the political turmoil of the 2nd and 1st c BCE eras, we can see plenty of contextual material that does line up with maintaining a starting point back to 2nd c BCE and continuing onward to just past the 1st c CE as a distinct group who were vying for their own theocratic faction and allegiance in the political contests taking place over the High Priest and Temple, and eagerly longed for the rightful Priest to take their place.

Only if you squint really hard and ignore what Josephus says about the 1st c. CE.

They fit the more tumultuous 1st c. CE much better than the previous one or two.

One of the things that should be kept in mind regarding Hebrew theology is that identities are thought of as characters.
Moses and David were themselves, but they were also place-holders which another could fill again in time.

Like the Sabbath observance, which was repeated, but was considered to be a repeat of the same event over and over. It's almost like reincarnation, but not quite.

It was somewhat similar to how we may say today, "This film is the new Star Wars!"

So, kind of like how the Qumran Scrolls describe the "Son Of Man" as the "primal Adam"? Like how he is standing at the right hand of God, about to open the "Gate To Salvation"?

Except, in their theological holding, it was a bit more literal and metaphorical mixed together.

So at first the group could write about things with a specific person in mind, but as that failed to produce results, they would begin to look for the next "true heir" repeatedly and fill prophecies of what he will do as guidance of identifying this individual.

In a sense, it goes from praising a hero to the death of a hero, to a job posting for a new hero.

I don't see how that argues against a 1st century CE dating.

I'm still clinging to my cherished delusions at this stage.

 

[JaysonR]

I still think 200 BC is too early for this group, especially if you read those Pesharim where the death of the "Teacher of Righteousness" is told as a contemporary event. That is definitely outside the carbon date range if you want to fit it to our scenario.

How so?

There were major political changes again in the late 2nd and early 1st c BCE in the political atmosphere that soundly ends the possibility of a few candidates from taking back authority; previously in 140 Jonathan was killed, and in 81 BCE Onias IV died.

The only way it would cause a problem is if the DSS dates of the texts didn't support an Hasmonean dynasty starting point, but that's not the case.

They do support a Hasmonean starting point, indicate a major impacting event around the turn of the century, and continue on into the beginnings of the Herodian dynasty.

The death of their revered priestly choice would be current at the time it was noted, but that doesn't negate an earlier time for the the start, nor a later time for their persistence in hopes of a rebirth of their teacher in a not-yet known figure.

 

[Brainache]

How so?

There were major political changes again in the late 2nd and early 1st c BCE in the political atmosphere that soundly ends the possibility of a few candidates from taking back authority; previously in 140 Jonathan was killed, and in 81 BCE Onias IV died.

The only way it would cause a problem is if the DSS dates of the texts didn't support an Hasmonean dynasty starting point, but that's not the case.

They do support a Hasmonean starting point, indicate a major impacting event around the turn of the century, and continue on into the beginnings of the Herodian dynasty.

The death of their revered priestly choice would be current at the time it was noted, but that doesn't negate an earlier time for the the start, nor a later time for their persistence in hopes of a rebirth of their teacher in a not-yet known figure.

But it doesn't negate a first century date, and it doesn't account for what they were doing with a scriptorium all that time, if not writing the scrolls that we have.

It fails to account for the Archaeological evidence of scroll-making right up until the Romans took the place in 70 CE.

 

[Craig B]

But it doesn't negate a first century date, and it doesn't account for what they were doing with a scriptorium all that time, if not writing the scrolls that we have.

It fails to account for the Archaeological evidence of scroll-making right up until the Romans took the place in 70 CE.

They were also copying scriptural texts. Every book in the Tanakh is represented in the DSS, with the exception of Esther, some of them by many copies.