Robert Cargill wrote:
"question for review: who first proposed a theory stating that the dead sea scrolls had nothing to do with qumran, but were part of a library that came from jerusalem?"
Here Cargill is pointing out the inconsistency in that Norman Golb accuses Lawrence Schiffman of plagiarising his ideas while Golb himself has plagiarised Rengstorf who (it appears) first suggested that the Scrolls were of Jerusalem origin. Why should'nt one scholar borrow another's ideas? Its not as though the idea was patented. And you Robert Cargill do it all the time. Does Golb give credit to Rengstorf? Surely he did. What exactly has Lawrence Schiffman done? And does he give credit to Golb?
But what Cargill really wanted to do was to draw attention to the case which he is pursuing against Raphael Golb. He subsequently wrote in a seeming aside:
"in related news, the son of norman golb has accused a nyu scholar of plagiarizing the thoughts and ideas of norman golb and passing them off as his own. golb’s son, raphael, has since been arrested. have a nice day".
The sooner you Robert Cargill, get back to scholarship, the better.
I, Joseph Ratzinger, the Pope, solemnly do confess... Shackle me if you must, did I just commit identity theft and engage in a fraudulent scheme to influence a debate?
ReplyDeleteAs has been reported elsewhere, Mr. Cargill contacted the University of Chicago at the beginning of 2009, requesting that an article by Norman Golb critical of his work be removed from the University website. This hardly appears to be the conduct of someone who supports the basic academic principle of free and open debate, on which the integrity of our educational system rests. The University regarded Mr. Cargill's emails as "threats of nuisance litigation," and suggested that he respond to Golb on the merits - an invitation he apparently declined. Golb's article was taken down from the Oriental Institute site out of fears of nuisance litigation, but was then posted again on the main University site (a fact Cargill omits when answering questions put to him by the media).
Those who seek to silence opposition while appealing to the alibi of the official DSS "peer review" process offer a strangely elitist version of "digital humanities." Those who project imaginary Qumran "findings" onto a computer while talking Christian charity and smearing a scholar's family, reveal apparent ignorance about the current state of research worldwide. In France, only one scholar still openly defends the sectarian theory. The younger generation there studied Golb's book and simply abandoned the old theory because their rationalist training led them to realize it was untenable. But in America, evangelicals and religious scholars in general are playing an increasingly "respectable" role in education and politics; the situation with DSS dogmatism and the criminalization of irony as "identity theft" is an expression of that trend - as is the Texas textbook scandal, which will have nation-wide impact.
Charles Gadda delightfully confronted the dogmatists on their own ground, investigating and exposing each one of their embarrassing secret practices one by one, and no matter what the outcome of the Raphael Golb case, rational humanists will ultimately realize that Gadda and his many friends (special mention should be made of Robert Dworkin) did the right thing, with humor, irony, and a fascinating appeal to fairness which has yet to be answered. And, as they read and discuss the legal briefs available at
www.scrollmotions.wordpress.com
and the law review articles condemning the case that are presumably being prepared by First Amendment specialists, they will begin to wonder why Raphael Golb was really prosecuted.
Much is made of the terrible, thundering "who is Charles Gadda?" question (I'm told that "Carlo Emilio Gadda" was the name of a famous Italian novelist who was concerned with irrationality and digressions of logic); little is said about the unethical policies evident in efforts to impose a fake "consensus" on the public, in secret arrangements like the hiding of the names of the three individuals (Magen Broshi and two other dogmatic defenders of the sectarian theory) constituting the "scientific committee" behind the museum exhibits, or in the unavailability to the public of a secret "response" to charges of plagiarism and misrepresentation at NYU. A "culture of cover-up and confidentiality" has now also been exposed at the Vatican, and there too we hear talk of a "campaign of vile smears." Coincidence, or logical similarity?
Thank you. This trial clearly involves Christian opposition. And Cargill has considerable Christian support, especially from one "Rod of Alexandria" (one of his many aliases) and Jim West. "Rod of Alexandria" lives in Chicago.
ReplyDeleteAnother site (if you haven't seen it already):
ReplyDeletehttp://earliestchristianhistory.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the link.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, someone sent me a tape of a talk Schiffman gave at an SBL conference where he was all chummy with Cargill, publicly thanking him for his assistance in getting Raphael Golb arrested. In the talk, he accused opponents of the sectarian theory of engaging in "forensic" logic, and said that even if the DSS had been discovered under the Temple Mount, they would STILL be sectarian. How's that for rational scholarship.
P.s. I have just read through the excellent comments on that site. I will try to post, to make it clear that Golb's article was, contrary to Cargill's half-lie, immediately reposted on the University of Chicago website. It was simply moved: see
ReplyDeletehttp://home.uchicago.edu/~ngolb/san_diego_virtual_reality_revised.pdf
Cargill then requested that it be taken down from the main University site, and the University counsel advised him that his messages were viewed as threats of nuisance litigation.
One point that may be worth making: Pliny does refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, when he describes Ein Gedi as being "now, like the other place [in context = Jerusalem] a heap of ashes." See Golb's book, pp. 18-19. That was the basis for his argument that Pliny seems to have been describing a group of refugees. But I think his main point was that, regardless of whether they were refugees, if the description was written in 70 A.D., then the Essenes being described could not have been at Qumran, which at the time, everyone agrees, was in the hands of the Roman soldiers. So the sectarian dogmatists introduced a special explanation: "now, like the other place, a heap of ashes," was, they suggested, an interpolation by some later author.
Anyway, it's good that some of us can still actually have enjoyable discussions (even vigorous debates) about this kind of thing, without viciously prosecuting Raphael Golb.
P.p.s. One other little detail I noticed: the translation of Pliny that you quote from speaks of a "throng of newcomers," whereas the one used by Golb speaks of a "throng of refugees." The difference in this term could also help explain how he came up with his rationale on that point. See his book on p. 15.
ReplyDeletePliny was describing the Essenes as though they were increasing in large numbers and had existed for thousands of years. This was probably around the year 70. The Essenes were more than likely prophets, whose legislator was Moses (according to Philo).
ReplyDeletePliny was brought out of retirement to serve as counsellor to Vespasian who was then emperor. The previous four to five years had been peaceful. What was Pliny doing in Judea? He was probably spying on the Essenes and reporting back to Vespasian.
Was this all the information that Vespasian needed? The Essenes were weak. Was this about the time when the temple was destroyed for its gold? I think it was. And the actual event may have been later at the time Masada was supposedly destroyed, which would have been a substitute for the destruction of the temple. I am convinced that Masada was actually destroyed by Neronian forces.
"who first proposed a theory stating that the dead sea scrolls had nothing to do with qumran, but were part of a library that came from jerusalem?"
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware that anyone had proposed such a theory. Rengstorf argued that Qumran was a retreat used by Jerusalem Temple priests; thus, he did not argue that the scrolls "had nothing to do with Qumran." Golb argues that the scrolls are the remains of various libraries (not "part of a library"), removed from the city and hidden in various places in the desert either shortly before or during the siege. Perhaps there is some other author, but I never heard of it.
You may well be correct. What exactly did Rengstorf say about the source of the Scrolls in his book: Hirbet Qumran und die Bibliothek vom Toten Meer (Translated by J. R. Wilkie), or in his book: Hirbet Qumran and the Problem of the Library of the Dead Sea Caves (also translated by J. R. Wilkie)?
ReplyDeleteMy own thoughts on the matter are that all of the Scrolls were written by the same sort of folk, the priests. The reason for some of them looking like 'Essene' documents was because for at least some time in their history, the priests were barred from the temple by the prophets and the ruler. Thus, the Community Rule (taken by many to be an 'Essene' document) wasn't written for priests who lived at Qumran. It was written for priests everywhere who lived in every city, town or village. There was constant enmity between priests and prophets.
The priests documents, the Scrolls, were kept guarded in Agrippa I's library. Incidentally, in Jewish history, there is only one king Agrippa, and he was the great. And he obviously didn't die the ridiculous death, either as stated or at the time, as in Ant. 19.8.2.
I can't get Rengstorf's books for love or money.
ReplyDeleteNot only was the library in Jerusalem, the teaching was centralised there also. The priests would come into Jerusalem twice a year and be taught by literate teachers. The Community Rule was an example of the teaching applicable to a particular time when the priests were barred from the temple.
ReplyDeleteI have just sent this post to April DeConick's blog:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6536854065433425156&postID=7891876360949232314
The priests would come into Jerusalem twice a year. They were taught by more literate priests using the documents known as the Dead Sea Scrolls held in a central library in Jerusalem. Some of those documents (the Community Rule for example) was applicable to a time when the priests were barred from the temple by the prophets (the seekers of smooth things) and the ruler. This is an example of the literate few teaching the illiterate many (of the order of 25,000).
The prophets (essenes) on the other hand were all literate. There were 4000 or so prophets. The NT documents in their original form were written and read by such. "They also take great pains in studying the writings of the ancients". (War 2.8.6) Some of them "by reading the holy books" were "perpetually conversant in the discourses of the prophets". (War 2.8.12) Thus we have a means by which the original NT documents were written (before the Flavians got hold of them).
Alas, I also don't have Rengstorf, but Golb, on p. 158, quotes him as describing Qumran as an "outlying station of the Temple administration," and states that he regarded En Feshka as an "agricultural station attributable to the priesthood." Furthermore, according to Rengstorf, all of the scrolls were a "part of the Temple library." Whether or not one agrees with this theory, it is not Golb's, and Golb, while lavishing praise on Rengstorf, carefully describes the differences between them in his book, pp. 161-62.
ReplyDeleteTo wit: Golb regards Qumran as a fortress, and believes that the Copper Scroll and the texts described in it may have come from the Temple, but that "most of the scrolls" were hidden by "other Jews, both individuals and those associated with houses of study in the city." The attribution of all the scrolls to the Temple library, according to Golb, tends "to diminish the breadth, as well as the tumult, of Jerusalem's intellectual and religious life during the century before the First Revolt." This was written in 1995; it seems likely that today Golb would acknowledge that a larger number (but still not "most") of the scrolls may represent a corpus of priestly texts.
One can either agree or disagree with this view (it may in fact be embarrassing to religiously oriented scholars who like to geographically separate the "pure" and the "impure"), but it is different from Rengstorf's view. Moreover, if it is true, then it constitutes a major historical discovery concerning "intellectual and religious life" in Jerusalem during that period. Those who have falsely described Golb's theory for purposes of the "consensus" smear campaign should, of course, retract and correct the portions of their writings in which they have done so, as is normal procedure when such conduct is discovered and exposed. Instead, the arrogant misrepresentations have been allowed to stand for many years in violation of basic norms of scholarship.
And, naturally, we are now seeing the ultimate consequences of such arrogance in the prosecution of Golb's son.
I have just received Golb's book Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls (with a new afterword). After only a brief read, I too am 'more than a little stunned' by 'Rengstorf's treatment of the problem', as reported. (page 161) I will have more to say later.
ReplyDeletePage 154. 'There were no legal documents found at Qumran.'
ReplyDeleteNow I never thought of that. How does Cargill's/Pfann's theory stand up? They believe that some of the documents were produced at Qumran and some produced in other places. Quite clearly, none of them were written at Qumran.
And Robert Cargill, Golb does give credit to Rengstorf, one whole Chapter (6).
ReplyDeleteThere was one legal document found at Qumran. The Copper Scroll from Cave 3. Robert Cargill thinks the Copper Scroll is an anomaly or insignificant. It wouldn't by any chance have been placed there by the very same priests who deposited the Scrolls, would it? It was "found in a recess behind other manuscripts". (Page 117 of Golb's book: Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls).
ReplyDeleteIts a brilliant book. I wish I had read it years ago. I don't totally agree with it, but there is so much in it that makes sense to me. And I have only just started to read it.
ReplyDeleteWho Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls by Norman Golb.
This is one reason why some of us are appalled at what is being done to Raphael Golb by certain individuals who wish not to debate, but to damage his father.
ReplyDeleteIn case anyone has not seen Professor Zahavy's pertinent remarks, they are posted here:
http://tzvee.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-raphael-golb-guilty.html
It is not as though Schiffman and Cargill were incapable of debate. They are both quite capable of looking after themselves. Under any other circumstances, either they would choose to ignore any comments, or they would rise to the occasion and respond. These are seasoned campaigners. But we are dealing with the Scrolls, and the enemies of Golb's views. And that rivlary/enmity, is well illustrated in Golb's book: Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.
ReplyDeleteHow long would you say that Robert Cargill was gathering information, like computer addresses, before he realised who might have been behind them, or rather which family name was linked to them? He has been deliberate and vindictive. He was undoubtedly helped or sponsored by others. Was it because of his Christian background? Does he wish to promote his and Stephen Pfann's views, at the expense of everyone else's. The old jealousies in Golb's book reveal their ugly faces again.
I can understand why Golb believes that the scrolls found at Qumran and elsewhere were taken from Jerusalem libraries. It was because Golb says that they were all copies (there were no autographs which one would have expected in such a large collection). Why do you think the Jews didn't hide the temple scrolls which surely would have had accompanying autographs?
ReplyDeleteInteresting. One idea is, maybe they did hide them and we haven't found them. There were, for example, the scrolls ("texts of the Bible and other books") found in caves near Jericho in the middle ages, which we know that Jews of Jerusalem went down to fetch. We can only speculate about how big a cache it was and what exactly was in it. Or if conditions were already dangerous, maybe they only succeeded in hiding a portion of the thousands of scrolls in the capital.
ReplyDeleteI think what Golb did succeed in doing, was to show the arbitrary nature of the "traditional" theory, which opened up a huge hole that they're still trying to close with a mixture of dogmatism and speculations like "well, maybe it was a fortress and then they gave it to 'the sect,' and 'the sect' brought in all kinds of stuff from 'elsewhere.'" Golb has some interesting critical analysis of these proposals in one of his recent articles on the O.I. website:
http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/is/bipolar_theory.html
It seems unlikely that the scrolls from the temple were hidden. Surely some of this massive quantity would have been found. And Golb uses the reported finds near Jericho (Origen and Timotheus, pages 105-110 of his book) to support his case for the widespread deposit of scrolls from Jerusalem libraries. These reported deposits near Jericho occurred, according to Golb, at the same time as those at Qumran (and possibly Masada for that matter).
ReplyDeleteThis leaves the question, why did the scrolls in Golbs book have to come from a number of libraries in Jerusalem and not one library?
Thanks for the reference.
Golb calls 4QMMT the Acts of Torah. It was produced in a distinct idiom that Golb says was late. Six copies of the manuscript were found in cave 4. If the Acts of Torah was addressed to a royal person (like a king), where would you expect it to be stored before being transported to Qumran cave 4?
ReplyDeleteIn the kings library?
Interesting. It's been several years since I read Golb's book, but I think he attempts to respond to some of these questions in the later chapters (perhaps where he discusses Laperousaz, not sure). On the royal library idea (which I find intriguing), I would think if one found one copy of the epistle, that could be a clue, but if there are four copies, it might lead me rather to think it's a somewhat popular text that several different people had in their libraries. Actually I think the same goes for some of the radical "sectarian" texts as well. I don't see why people think that only members of a particular "Yahad" would have possessed a book written by someone close to that sect. Even secrets ultimately get out. I have Marx on my shelves, that doesn't mean I'm a Marxist - maybe not a good analogy, but my basic point is that some of this stuff might have been quite popular even in Jerusalem at that time - maybe not in the Temple, but around some of the other areas, why not? Ideas of orthodoxy had not yet congealed. But modern orthodox people (or "fundamentalists") like to project their beliefs backwards in history, which seems to be a good way for letting myth and dogmatism creep into scholarship.
ReplyDeleteP.s. perhaps instead of Marx I should say that I could have "The Dead Sea Scrolls Reclaimed" on my shelf, but I wouldn't waste my money on a dogmatic opus of the sort, featuring sentences like "I will say what the Dead Sea Scrolls are not. They are not the remnants of the Jerusalem Temple library. Endnote: for this theory see N. Golb." (I'm paraphrasing a bit from memory.) Work of this quality doesn't deserved to be purchased, let alone used as a textbook in college classes.
Interesting. It's been several years since I read Golb's book, but I think he attempts to respond to some of these questions in the later chapters (perhaps where he discusses Laperousaz, not sure). On the royal library idea (which I find intriguing), I would think if one found one copy of the epistle, that could be a clue, but if there are four copies, it might lead me rather to think it's a somewhat popular text that several different people had in their libraries. Actually I think the same goes for some of the radical "sectarian" texts as well. I don't see why people think that only members of a particular "Yahad" would have possessed a book written by someone close to that sect. Even secrets ultimately get out. I have Marx on my shelves, that doesn't mean I'm a Marxist - maybe not a good analogy, but my basic point is that some of this stuff might have been quite popular even in Jerusalem at that time - maybe not in the Temple, but around some of the other areas, why not? Ideas of orthodoxy had not yet congealed. But modern orthodox people (or "fundamentalists") like to project their beliefs backwards in history, which seems to be a good way for letting myth and dogmatism creep into scholarship.
ReplyDeleteP.s. perhaps instead of Marx I should say that I could have "The Dead Sea Scrolls Reclaimed" on my shelf, but I wouldn't waste my money on a dogmatic opus of the sort, featuring sentences like "I will say what the Dead Sea Scrolls are not. They are not the remnants of the Jerusalem Temple library. Endnote: for this theory see N. Golb." (I'm paraphrasing a bit from memory.) Work of this quality doesn't deserved to be purchased, let alone used as a textbook in college classes.
Six copies in one cave (4) would indicate that they came from one source. These manuscripts would have been gathered together at the same time for transport to Qumran.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a king's business to know everything going-on in his nation. The king's library would contain only copies of religious texts. The originals (autographs) were held in the temple library. These are possible explanations of the variations of manuscripts, and the fact that no original documents have been found in deposits. Golb had to explain to Broshi what he meant by an "autograph letter" (page 188 of his book).
4QMMT was critical in a servile (Golb calls it polite) way of the king about the law and the activities he permitted in the temple. So one might well expect his servants to be very interested in 4QMMT.
4QMMT shows that the king (you) was in charge of the temple. The priests operating the temple were 'they'. And those making implicit complaints about the king were only just below the king in status. They were a group of high priests, the 'we'.
ReplyDeleteQuite clearly, Judaism was breaking down as a workable faith. The 'we' group thought the blind, the deaf and maimed should be barred from the temple. And the king was against that.
I have used the wrong word (servile) to describe the language used by the ‘we’ group of 4QMMT. These high priests thought of themselves as superior to the king and the ‘they’ group who had become almost nominal in the way that they obeyed the law, setting a trend.
ReplyDeleteThe ‘we’ group chose an indirect method to communicate their displeasure to the king. They couldn’t bring themselves to tell him to his face, and cowardly accused the king of crimes against the law in this way. The ‘they’ group who were actually ‘breaking’ the law were used as an excuse. Trouble was clearly brewing-up.
Eisenman and Wise are unsure if 4QMMT was first century BC or first century AD (page 183 of their book their book, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered). Golb says the text was written in a first century AD idiom (as was the text of the Copper Scroll).
4QMMT tells us a lot about the 'they' group of priests. They were the popular 'in crowd’ supported by the king. ‘They’ were not concerned about:
ReplyDelete1.Where the grain came from for the temple sacrifices or who might have touched it.
2. What kind of vessel they cooked the meat of a sacrificed animal in, or where, or how they cooked it. They made a soup of it in the temple, which presumably the people enjoyed.
3.Eating the grain offering with meat offered on a different day.
4.The purity from sunset of those priests involved with the Red Heifer ceremony.
5.Using the skins and bones of ‘unclean’ animals for handles of vessels which ‘they’ would bring into the temple.
6.Sacrificing outside the temple and Jerusalem.
7.Not burning the offal of sacrificed animals outside Jerusalem.
8.People eating the fetus of a sacrificed animal without offering the fetus.
9.Women marrying gentiles or bastards or those with damaged male organs.
10.Letting the blind or deaf take part in temple worship.
11.Pouring liquids from an ‘impure’ vessel into a ‘pure’ vessel.
12.People bringing dogs into the temple.
13.Collecting the first fruit and the fruit of every fourth year of trees planted for food, or one tenth of the cattle and sheep as tithes for themselves.
14.People suffering from a skin disease living at home and eating food considered pure.
15.People sinning inadvertently not bringing a sin offering.
16.Contact with a dead person.
17.Fornication and the intermarrying of priests with non-priestly families.
18.People wearing clothes that are a mixture of fabrics and planting a field with mixed crops.
The lack of concern of the 'they' group of priests above (1-18) are practical if not almost modern. They reflect a reality of life, a workable religion. The 'they' group of priests were more concerned, for example, about eating food than sacrificing it. Sacrifice had become incidental for them, a means to a good meal, provided by God.
ReplyDeleteIn sharp contrast is the strict rules adopted by the priests of the 'we' group who had "broken themselves from the majority of the people, and refused to go along with them on these matters." The 'we' were a powerful group of priests who felt they could address a king in a subtle, but offensive way. The ‘we’ group wrote to the king:
“And ‘we’ recognize that some of the blessings and curses have come, those written in the Book of Moses; therefore this is the end of Days, when those in Israel are to return to the Law of God with all their heart, never to turn back again. Meanwhile the wicked will increase in wickedness… Remember the kings of Israel and understand their works. Whoever of them feared the Law was saved from sufferings; when they sought the Law, then their sins were forgiven them. Remember David. He was a man of pious works, and he, also, was saved from many sufferings and forgiven. And finally, we wrote you about some of the works of the Law, which ‘we’ reckoned for your own good and for that of your people, for we see that you possess discernment and knowledge of the Torah.” (The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, by Eisenman and Wise, page 200).
This was an explosive situation.
I have for a long time suspected that there was extensive mis-information in the writings attributed to Josephus. Yet these writings are quoted extensively as though they are all genuine.
ReplyDeleteSome years ago I spoke to Robert Eisenman by telephone. He said his wife came from a place very near to where I lived and that he used to teach in a local school when he was in the UK. When I told him of my doubts about the writings attributed to Josephus, he said something to the effect: that Vespasian had his 'secret police' everywhere. And the Flavian editors were having fun. He certainly used the word "fun". He also said he was a Jew, which may speak volumes.
Eisenman gave me the impression that I was justified in my beliefs that the writings attributed to Josephus had been heavily tampered with.
All things bright and beautiful.
ReplyDeleteThe Roman historian Tacitus is frequently quoted in support of the writings attributed to Josephus. (For example, by Martin Goodman in his book Rome and Jerusalem). But this is what Tacitus says about himself:
"I would not deny that my elevation was begun by Vespasian, augmented by Titus, and still further advanced by Domitian; but those who profess inviolable truthfulness must speak of all without partiality and without hatred." (Tac. Hist.1.1)
This is almost a confession that he had been dishonest in writing the history of the Flavians. He had no doubt written what he had been told to write. He had been truthful in reporting what he heard from the Flavians.
Tacitus continues:
"I have reserved as an employment for my old age, should my life be long enough, a subject at once more fruitful and less anxious in the reign of the Divine Nerva and the empire of Trajan, enjoying the rare happiness of times, when we may think what we please, and express what we think."
It seems he was glad to be more honest in his reporting of later history during more relaxed times.
Interesting. I've definitely had that feeling about Josephus myself. The royal library theory sounds plausible to me.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be nothing that connects the so-called procuratorial coins to the procurators, unless there is something I don't know. Where does the idea of procuratorial coins come from?
ReplyDeleteAccording to James VanderKam in his book The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 91 procuratorial coins have been found at Qumran, and 33 of those are from Nero's reign.
Why can't they have been just Roman coins issued to be respectful to Jews? There were no Emperor's images on the coins, just the Emperor's name and the date at which he ruled. They would then be related simply to the reign of the Roman Emperor by date.
On page 22 of his book The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, James VanderKam refers to coins found at Qumran as reported by de Vaux.
ReplyDeleteAmong the phase II coins (that were found) were:
Coins of the so called first revolt (AD 66-70): zero from year 1, 83 from year 2, five from year 3, and zero from year 4.
From the decrease in coins from 83to 5, De Vaux thought that Qumran was destroyed by the Romans in 68. But was there another reason for the decrease? On page 14 of his book, VanderKam says that "a decisive event must have occurred to account for this difference." Then immediately following-on he says, "Some Roman arrowheads were also uncovered". So he leaves one to assume that the decisive event was the destruction of Qumran. But I would like to suggest another reason. The decisive event was the death of the Emperor Nero in 68.
There was no war in Galilee. This 'history' was fabricated by Flavian historians. The fortresses were captured first followed by Jerusalem. The story of the capture of Jotapata in Galilee, was the exaggerated story of the capture of Qumran.
ReplyDeleteThe Roman forces were led by Nero, in 66. The "Idumeans" were Nero's forces who were let into Jerusalem by those opposed to the writers of 4QMMT.
The coins of revolt were not coins of revolt at all. They were coins of a people granted their freedom by Nero. This was the reason for the 83 year 2 coins of 'revolt' being found at Qumran. A group who opposed the writers of 4QMMT had moved into Qumran along with their friends the Romans. 33 coins from Nero's reign were found. Nero was killed in 68. This would explain the sudden reduction in the number of coins of the 'revolt' to five for year 3 (68) and zero for year 4. The Jews had lost their support, and the liar Vespasian was hovering.
The reason there was no attempt to hide the scrolls from the temple was because the group in charge of it (those who held it) was in opposition to the group who had raided Agrippa I's palace.
ReplyDeleteThe group who occupied the temple were the ones who let the "Idumeans" into Jerusalem. These "Idumeans" made their approach to the walls of Jerusalem tortoise fashion (with their shields over their heads), the story goes to keep the rain off. This was a battle tactic of Romans. And they were under the command of Nero.
The "Idumeans" entered Jerusalem and did what they had come to do, kill the high priests, such as Ananus. It was probably his father Ananias who had written 4QMMT. Their group was messianic, for the law, trying to impose their views on the rest.
Nero did not destroy the temple. The temple scrolls were saved along with the autographs. He granted freedom to the Jews. Coins were minted in celebration. Land sales were resumed (as revealed in land sale documents). The war was all over in 66 and Nero went back to Rome via Greece in early 67 - the "Idumeans" left Jerusalem for no apparent reason.
Probably, animal sacrifices had stopped by then.
On page 148 of Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, Golb wrote:
ReplyDelete"It is important to note that the official archives of Jerusalem were destroyed by fire set by the Jewish insurgents in AD 66 during the interfactional strife raging at at the time, described by Josephus in vivid detail. because of the loss of these archival records, virtually no documentary texts of the years before A.D. 70 survived." (War 2:427 Thackery; War 2.17.6 Whiston)
This was a lie perpetrated by Flavian historians. There was interfactional strife between those who supported the keeping of the law according to 4QMMT and those who had a more relaxed attitude. The event was the raiding of Agrippa I's library from which the scrolls were taken in 66. There would have been only copies of scrolls in this library, i.e. there were 'no documentary texts' (defined as legal documents by Golb). Other scrolls (including autographs and 'documents') were kept safe in the temple by opponents of those who raided Agrippa I's library. The temple records were destroyed when Titus under his father Vespasian destroyed the temple after first stealing all its gold.
Norman Golb wrote (Page 259 of Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls) that "in 1980 I had already concluded my first presentation of the theory by stating that the manuscripts:"
ReplyDelete"are remnants of a literature showing a wide variety of practices, beliefs and opinions.... removed from Jerusalem before or during the seige.... Determination of the nature of their concepts and practices.... may best be achieved not by pressing them into the single sectarian bed of Essenism, but by separating them out from one another, through analysis, into various SPIRITUAL CURRENTS which appear to have characterized Palestinian Judaism of the intertestamental period."
Now why did Golb refer to "various spiritual currents"? Was this because all Jews thought of themselves as Jews, but that they differed in their views. Did those manuscripts have labels that served to differentiate one type of Jew from another, one with a certain “spiritual characteristic from another with a different “spiritual characteristic”? Given the information contained in the scrolls, Golb could have written no other. In those manuscripts, there are no Pharisees, no Sadducees, no Essenes, no sicarri , no zealots, and no Judas the Galilean, the supposed author of a fourth sect. They are written retrospectively, as “sects” into the writings attributed to Josephus. They are the inventions of later writers with an agenda. Josephus’s original discussion was about priests and prophets, two “orders”, who had existed among the Jews peacefully “for a long time together”. At the time he originally wrote, there was strife going way back (original Antiquities ) and civil war (original War) between them
Here is the first interpolation of the "sects" in Ant.13.5.9,[171]:
ReplyDelete"At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concerning human actions; the one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essens. Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essens affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the causes of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly. However, I have given a more exact account of these opinions in the second book of the Jewish War."
This is so obviously a later interpolation, being completely unrelated to the surrounding text. The interpolator even "gets one in" to convince the reader that War was written before Antiquities. This was true of the Flavian versions. It was not true of Josephus's original accounts. Of course this won't do for Wikipeadia which is devoid of intelligence.
The DSS show that at this time such "sects" did not exist.
Here is the first interpolation of the "sects" in Ant.13.5.9,[171]:
ReplyDelete"At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concerning human actions; the one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essens. Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essens affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the causes of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly. However, I have given a more exact account of these opinions in the second book of the Jewish War."
This is so obviously a later interpolation, being completely unrelated to the surrounding text. The interpolator even "gets one in" to convince the reader that War was written before Antiquities. This was true of the Flavian versions. It was not true of Josephus's original accounts. Of course this won't do for Wikipeadia which is devoid of intelligence.
The DSS show that at this time such "sects" did not exist.
Did the prophets die out 400 years before the time Christ was supposed to have existed? I went to a play last night that took you quickly through the bible. It was a joint effort put on by the Saltmine theatre Company and and Wycliffe Bible Translators. It was a very good performance by professional young actors. A young person from Wycliffe who worked in Nigeria was the compere. At the end of the show she made an appeal, saying that £10 would buy a translation of one verse of a foreign language in which there was no bible. She compared the experience of people who had no access to the bible with a time of 400 years between testaments when God did not speak through the prophets who were supposedly silent. But were they silent?
ReplyDeleteI was with my wife who is a Christian, so I obligingly payed-up.
The following is from Ant.13.11.2:
ReplyDelete"But here one may take occasion to wonder at one Judas, who was of the sect of the Essens, and who never missed the truth in his predictions; for this man, when he saw Antigonus passing by the temple, cried out to his companions and friends, who abode with him as his scholars, in order to learn the art of foretelling things to come? "That it was good for him to die now, since he had spoken falsely about Antigonus, who is still alive, and I see him passing by, although he had foretold he should die at the place called Strato's Tower that very day, while yet the place is six hundred furlongs off, where he had foretold he should be slain;
and still this day is a great part of it already past, so that he was in danger of proving a false PROPHET." As he was saying this, and that in a melancholy mood, the news came that Antigonus was slain in a place under ground, which itself was called also Strato's Tower, or of the same name with that Caesarea which is seated at the sea. This event put the PROPHET into a great disorder."
We have a prophet mentioned twice. And he had friends who were "scholars". It was of course a school of prophets. The prophets were in existence. History was being re-written (garbled) and the prophets were written out of it. Here they are only mentioned incidentally - "But here one may take occasion to wonder at one Judas". But they were the central characters in Josephus's original account, which probably had nothing to do with Antigonus.
Alexander Jannaeus was 49 when he died, "after he had reigned twenty seven years, and lived fifty years, within one." (See the last sentence of Ant.13.15.5).
ReplyDeleteAnt. 13.16.1 begins: "So Alexandra when she had taken the 'fortress'." This should surely be something else. One possibility might be: "So Alexandra when she had taken the "kingdom". We know that Alexandra began her reign on the death of Alexander (War 1.5.1).
Alexandra died when she was seventy three, after reigning for nine years. (Ant. 13.16.6) This means she was 64 years of age at the start of her reign, when she was 15 years older than Alexander. With such a large difference in age, I cannot see that Alexandra (Shelamzion in the DSS) ever was the wife of Alexander.
Thus the 'advice' that Alexander gave on his deathbed to Alexandra was a lie of the editor. (Ant.13.15.5). The nation bore 'ill-will' to Alexander alright. In an act of revenge, he had ordered about eight hundred of the prophets (the 'seekers of smooth things' in the DSS) to be crucified, and 'while they were living, ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes'. (Ant.13.14.2). This was in Jerusalem. It was ever likely therefore that the leading people of Jerusalem would want to see Alexander's dead body, to know he was truly dead. And the idea of Alexandra coming to Alexander weeping and lamenting is ridiculous, a fiction of the editor. (Ant. 13.15.5). She had been kept under house arrest for a very long time, ever since the death of her real husband, John Hyrcanus 1. It was Hyrcanus who had told Alexandra to follow the 'Pharisees' (prophets). We know from the DSS that the Pharisees did not exist.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra and her family were imprisoned when Alexander took over the throne. Hyrcanus had five sons. (War 1.2.7). But his wife is never named.
Ant.13.10.7. [299] “But when Hyrcanus had …..administered the government in the best manner for thirty-one years, and then died, leaving behind him five sons, he was esteemed by God worthy of three of the greatest privileges, - the government of his nation, the dignity of the high priesthood, and prophecy; for God was with him,”
ReplyDeleteThis is an original text of Josephus. There is no mention in it of Pharisees, Sadducees or Essenes, who are incorporated into a fanciful story in the text immediately preceding. The editor reassures the reader: “but about these two sects, and that of the Essens, I have treated accurately in the second book of Jewish affairs” (he neglects to mention that he also covered them in Antiquities). The story reflects what was known about the time – there was tension between priests and prophets. Hyrcanus was a high priest and prophet. He never left the Pharisees and joined the Sadducees, because they did not exist then.
There was no question of Hyrcanus leaving one ‘sect’ and joining another. There may have been a question of him favouring prophets over priests. “He was greatly beloved by them” (the “Pharisees” were the editor’s substitute for prophets, Ant.13.10.5) . This is why I believe he told his unnamed wife (really Alexandra, the mother of his five sons) to “do nothing without them (the prophets) in the affairs of the kingdom”. (Ant.13.15.5)
In Ant.13.11.1, we are asked to believe that after the death of Hyrcanus, the eldest of his sons, Aristobulus, sought to "put a diadem" on his head. Hyrcanus had previously been able to foretell that he (and his brother, Antigonus) "would not long continue in the government of public affairs". We are also asked to believe that apart from Antigonus, Aristobulus put the rest of his family including his mother (who supposedly disputed the government with Aristobulus) in prison. Then we have a weird story about the death of Antigonus, followed immediately by the death of Aristobulus. From this sequence of unreal events, one may conclude that the editor was covering-up.
ReplyDeleteThe death of Antigonus at the hand of his brother, Aristobulus, is weird. It is made more weird by the appearance of one Judas the Essene who predicted Antigonus's death. I now think that Eisenman was right. Judas, another word for Jew, in his many appearances as a prophet, was the editor's hate figure, who was used to explain events that had other causes.
ReplyDeleteNot content with one weird story, the editor then follows it with with another. Aristobulus is supposed to have been so disturbed by the murder of his brother (and his mother) that it caused him to utter the words "why do I deliver up my blood, drop by drop, to those whom I have murdered?" Thus Aristobulus is supposed to have bled to death, seeing it as Gods' punishment.
These stories are clearly fabrications.
The story of the death of Hyrcanus, the death of Hyrcanus's unnamed wife at the instruction of her son Aristobulus, the weird stories about the deaths of Antigonus and Aristobulus the eldest sons of Hyrcanus, is immediately followed by this equally contrived story of Alexander Jannaeus's rise to power:
ReplyDeleteAnt. 13.12.1. [320]
"When Aristobulus was dead, his wife Salome, who, by the Greeks, was called Alexandra, let his brethren out of prison, for Aristobulus had kept them in bonds, as we have said already, and made Alexander Jannaeus king who was the superior in age and in moderation. This child happened to be hated by his father as soon as he was born, and could never be permitted to come into his father's sight till he died. The occasion of which hatred is thus reported: when Hyrcanus chiefly loved the two eldest of his sons, Antigonus and Aristobulus, God appeared to him in his sleep, of whom he inquired which of his sons should be his successor. Upon God's representing to him the countenance of Alexander, he was grieved that he was to be the heir of all his goods, and suffered him to be brought up in Galilee. However, God did not deceive Hyrcanus; for after the death of Aristobulus, he certainly took the kingdom; and one of his brethren, who affected the kingdom, he slew; and the other, who chose to live a private and quiet life, he had in esteem.
Ant. 13.12.2.[324]
ReplyDelete"When Alexander Jannaeus had settled the government in the manner that he judged best,..."
Alexander was supposed to have been hated by his father as soon as he was born, and was never seen by his father. This seems most unlikely.
Apparently, God appeared to Hyrcanus while he was asleep (as God does) and told him neither of his two eldest sons, Antigonus and Aristobulus, would be his successor, but Alexander would inherit all his goods. Hyrcanus was supposed to have been so displeased, that he ordered Alexander to be brought-up in Galilee. This again seems unlikely.
But when Alexander became king, he killed one of Hyrcanus's sons. This seems more realistic.
In fact, it seems that Alexander was not one of Hyrcanus's sons at all. If we look at Ant.13.13.1, we see that Alexander was the son of Cleopatra. He was a foreigner who had converted to Judaism. He had gained the succession by intrigue and conquest. He may have circumcised himself, but, according to a later writer, "he did not circumcise the foreskin his heart". (1QpHab Col.11:13).
So lets be clear about one thing. Alexander Jannaeus was not the son of Hyrcanus.
ReplyDeleteHe was the son of a Cleopatra, an Egyptian, who employed Jews Chelsias and Ananias, the sons of Onias, as generals of her army. It was Onias that built the temple of Heliopolis, like that at Jerusalem. (Ant.13.10.4). But there was one difference. It did not have an altar for sacrifice of animals. It was a form of Judaism that although it had a sanctuary, it did not have animal sacrifice. Onias was a prophet, not given to sacrifice for sins.
There was a strong Jewish influence of prophets among the Egyptians, and Alexander had been raised in it.
13.10.5 [372] As to Alexander, [his own people] {the multitude} were [seditious against him {pleased}; for at [a festival] {the Feast of Tabernacles} which was then celebrated, when he stood upon the altar, [and was going to sacrifice], the nation [rose upon] {praised} him, and
ReplyDelete[pelted him with citrons which they then had in their hands, because the law of the Jews required that at the feast of tabernacles]
everyone [should have] {waived their palm} branches
[of the palm tree and citron tree; which thing we have elsewhere related.]
They [also] reviled
[him as derived from a captive, and so unworthy of his dignity and of]
sacrificing.
[At this he was in a rage, and slew of them about six thousand.]
He also built a partition-wall of wood round the altar
[and the temple, as far as that partition]
within which it was [only] {un} lawful for the priests to enter; and by this means he [obstructed] {pleased} the multitude
[from coming at him].
The truth is compressed into a simple deliberately vague statement in War 1.2.8.
ReplyDelete"8. But then these successes of John (Hyrcanus) and of his sons made THEM be envied, and occasioned a sedition in the country; and many there were who got together, and would not be at rest till THEY brake out into open war, in which war THEY were beaten."
John Hyrcanus and his sons Antigonus and Aristobulus were beaten in a war. This war was an invasion by Alexander.
May be the history of Hyrcanus wasn't all compressed into War 1.2.8. May be we have some jiggery-pokery in the text immediately before.
ReplyDelete"3.[This Simon] {John} also had a plot laid against him, [and was slain at a feast] by his son-in-law Ptolemy {Alexander}, who put his wife and two sons into prison, and sent some persons to kill John, who was also called Hyrcanus. But when [the young man] {Hyrcanus} was informed of their coming beforehand, he made haste to get to the [city] {temple}, as having a very great confidence in the [people] {priests} there, [both] on account of
[the memory of the glorious actions of his father, and of]
the hatred they could not but bear to the injustice of Ptolemy. Ptolemy also made an attempt to get into [the city by another gate] {temple}; but was repelled by the [people] {priests}, who had just then admitted of Hyrcanus; so he retired presently to [one of] the [fortress] {citadel.}
[es that were about Jericho, which was called Dagon] .
Now when Hyrcanus had
[received the high priesthood, which his father had held before, and]
had offered sacrifice to God, he made great haste to attack Ptolemy, that he might afford relief to his [mother] {wife} and [brethren] {sons}."
So was this nearer to the truth? Was Ptolemy Alexander Hyrcanus's son-in law?
"4.So he laid siege to the [fortress] {citadel}, and was superior to Ptolemy {Alexander} in other respects, but was overcome by him as to the just affection he had for his relations; for when Ptolemy {Alexander} was distressed, he brought forth his [mother] {wife}, and his [brethren] {sons}, and set them upon the wall, and beat them with rods in everybody's sight, and threatened, that unless he would go away immediately, he would throw them down headlong; at which sight Hyrcanus's commiseration and concern were too hard for his anger.
ReplyDeleteBut his [mother] {wife} was not dismayed, neither at the stripes she received, nor at the death with which she was threatened; but stretched out her hands, and prayed her [son] {husband} not to be moved with the injuries that she suffered to spare the wretch; since it was to her better to die by the means of Ptolemy {Alexander}, than to live ever so long, provided he might be punished for the injuries he done to their family.
Now John's case was this: When he considered the courage of his [mother] {wife}, and heard her entreaty, he set about his attacks; [but] {and} when he saw her beaten, and torn to pieces with the stripes, he grew [feeble, and was entirely overcome by his affections] {stronger}.
[And as the siege was delayed by this means, the year of rest came on, upon which the Jews rest every seventh year as they do on every seventh day. On this year,]
Therefore, Ptolemy {Alexander}
[was freed from being besieged, and]
slew the [brethren] {sons} of John with their mother
[, and fled to Zeno, who was also called Cotylas, who was tyrant of Philadelphia.]"
Here we see what really happened to Hyrcanus's wife and his sons Antigonus and Aristobulus. As we will also see in the next episode, Ptolemy Alexander (Jannaeus) did not 'flee to Zeno'.
5.”And now [Antiochus] {Hyrcanus} was so angry at what he had suffered from [Simon] {Alexander}, that he
ReplyDelete[made an expedition into Judea, and]
sat down before [Jerusalem] {the citadel} and besieged [Hyrcanus] {Alexander}; but [Hyrcanus] {Alexander} opened the [sepulchre of David] {armoury of Hyrcanus},
[who was the richest of all kings,]
and took thence
[about three thousand talents in money]
{the weapons}, and induced [Antiochus] {Hyrcanus}
[, by the promise of three thousand talents,]
to raise the siege. Moreover, he
[was the first of the Jews that had money enough, and]
began to hire foreign auxiliaries also.
[6.However, at another time, when Antiochus was gone upon an expedition against the Medes, and so]
{This} gave [Hyrcanus] {Alexander} an opportunity of being revenged upon him, he immediately made an attack upon the [cities of Syria] {city of Jerusalem}.
[, as thinking, what proved to be the case with them, that he should find them empty of good troops. So he took Medaba and Samea, with the towns in their neighborhood, as also Shechem, and Gerizzim; and besides these, he subdued the nation of the Cutheans, who dwelt round about that temple which was built in imitation of the temple at Jerusalem; he also took a great many other cities of Idumea, with Adoreon and Marissa. 7.He also proceeded as far as Samaria, where is now the city Sebaste, which was built by Herod the king,]
and encompassed it all round with a wall, and set his [sons] {generals}, [Aristobulus] {Chelcias} and [Antigonus] {Ananias}, over the siege; who pushed it on so hard, that a famine so far prevailed within the city, that they were forced to eat what [never was esteemed food] {is not lawful}.
[They] {He} also invited [Antiochus] {Ptolemy}, who was called [Cyzicenus] {Lathyrus}, to come to [their] {his} assistance; whereupon he got ready, and complied with [their] {his} invitation.
{Hyrcanus} [but] was beaten by [Aristobulus] {Alexander} and [Antigonus] {Lathyrus}; and indeed he was pursued as far as Scythopolis by these brethren, and fled away from them. So they returned back to [Samaria] {Jerusalem}, and shut the multitude again within the wall; and when they had taken the city, they demolished it, and made slaves of its inhabitants. And as they had still great success in their undertakings, they did not suffer their zeal to cool, but marched with an army as far as Scythopolis, and made an incursion upon it, and laid waste all the country that lay within Mount Carmel.
8.But then these successes of [John] {Alexander} and [of his sons] {Lathyrus} made them be envied, and occasioned a sedition in the country; and many there were who got together, and would not be at rest till they brake out into open war, in which war they were beaten."
The successes were those of Alexander and Lathyrus, not Hyrcanus and his sons. 'They' who 'were beaten', were Hyrcanus and his followers. Alexander was the wicked priest. Lathyrus was his brother. Both were sons of a Cleopatra. Both were violent rulers.
“Behold, an accursed man, a man of Satan, has risen to become a fowler’s net to his people, and a cause of destruction to all his neighbours. And his brother arose and ruled, both being instruments of violence. They have rebuilt Jerusalem and have set up a wall and towers to make it a stronghold of ungodliness ….in Israel and a horror in Ephraim and in Judah … They have committed an abomination in the land, and a great blasphemy among the children of Israel. They have shed blood like water upon the ramparts of the daughter of Zion and within the precincts of Jerusalem.” (4Q175)
“Behold, an accursed man, a man of Satan, has risen to become a fowler’s net to his people, and a cause of destruction to all his neighbours. And his brother arose and ruled, both being instruments of violence. They have rebuilt Jerusalem and have set up a wall and towers to make it a stronghold of ungodliness ….in Israel and a horror in Ephraim and in Judah … They have committed an abomination in the land, and a great blasphemy among the children of Israel. They have shed blood like water upon the ramparts of the daughter of Zion and within the precincts of Jerusalem.” (4Q175)
ReplyDeleteThis was the one-sided view of the writers of the Scrolls, probably written after the death of Alexander Jannaeus (who reigned for 27 years). It was the view of the priests who wanted to apply the law rigidly. Ptolemy Alexander Jannaeus was a supporter of prophets, the leaders of the 'seekers of smooth things' who 'flouted the law', according to the scrolls. They were the 'part of the Jews that favoured him', War 1.4.5.
The party of the priests 'had a perpetual war with Alexander'. He 'ordered eight hundred priests to be hung upon upon crossses in the midst of the city'. And a surprised 'eight thousand of his opposers fled away the very next night' (a flight strangely 'terminated by Alexander's death'). (War 1.4.6). In this passage from War there is no mention of the party of opposition to Alexander being 'Pharisees'. They are described in non-descript terms as 'opposers'. Similarly, those for Alexander are described as 'that part of the Jews which favoured him'. (War 1.4.5). These two passages have been altered by a later editor to conceal the true identity of what were priests and prophets in opposition.
Cool blog, I hadn't noticed aliasesofjeffreygibson.blogspot.com before during my searches!
ReplyDeleteCarry on the good work!