Mark and Qumran - The Teacher of Righteousness?

[rgprice]

I've been studying the writings from Qumran. According to the Qumranic writings, they had predicted that 40 years after the death of the Teacher of Righteousness the End of Days would come. The way that this group saw the end of days was essentially as a final battle between righteous Jews and the Kittim (Gentiles). As described in the War Scroll, this would be a real physical battle on earth, initiated by the Jews (Sons of Light) against the Sons of Darkness (Gentiles), and once the battle started the armies of heaven would come to assist the Jews and ensure their victory.

So what I wonder is, do we know for sure that the hostilities that sparked the First Jewish-Roman War weren't initiated by this Qumranic sect because the 40 years had come to pass since the death of the Teacher of Righteousness?

Furthermore, I've noticed several striking similarities between the Qumranic Commentary on Isaiah and the Gospel of Mark, as well as similarities with the Commentary on the Psalms. It is in the Commentary on the Psalms that the prediction that the battle of Armageddon would begin 40 years after the death of the Teacher of Righteousness.

The First Jewish-Roman War started in 67 CE. 40 years prior to 67 CE is 27 CE, which is during the reign of Pilate.

This could be coincidence, but it is interesting.

It leads me to wonder, did the Qumranic sect play a role in instigating the First Jewish-Roman War because they believed that it was time for the final battle against the Kittim to begin?

Did the author of Mark know of this prediction and use it to make this association in his story?

It seems that certainly the Qumran sect believed that the End of Days was going to happen in the first century CE. The way they talk about the End of Days is very similar to how Paul talks about it - as something that was going to happen very soon.

It's clear that the author of Mark was using the letters of Paul and the Jewish scriptures as the basis upon which to craft his narrative. But he could well have been using other sources too. Given Mark's heavy use of Isaiah and the Psalms, and Mark's use of Daniel (which is not directly used in the letters of Paul but is discussed in the Qumranic writings), it seems possible that the writer of Mark may also have been familiar with some of the works we find in the Qumranic trove, in which Isaiah and the Psalms are heavily discussed scriptures. In addition, the Qumranic writings contains parables almost identical to those in Mark. So it seems possible that "Mark" possessed writings that we also find at Qumran.

If that's the case, "Mark" could have known of this prediction that the battle of Armageddon would happen 40 years after the death of the Teacher of Righteousness and be using that as the basis for his placement of the death of Jesus under Pilate, alluding to the First Jewish-Roman War as Armageddon and Jesus as the Teacher of Righteousness (though this is not who Jesus actually was).

I don't know that any of this makes sense, I'm, just speculating...

[Secret Alias]

Carbon dating.

[Giuseppe]

Did the author of Mark know of this prediction and use it to make this association in his story?

I think that Pilate was chosen because he was there during the 15° year of the principate of Tiberius, since in this period of the year it was believed that phantoms descended on earth (the source of this I will quote next time).


In alternative, the second best explanation in my view is that Pilate was chosen for a pun on PLT in Hebrew.

EDIT TO ADD:

The tenth mont, Tebit, was exceedingly unlucky, since ghosts were supposed to return from under the earth, and demons were especially active.

(Rupert Gleadow, The Origin of the Zodiac)

[Secret Alias]

But the original date for the Passion was 21 CE

[MrMacSon]

... I've noticed several striking similarities between the Qumranic Commentary on Isaiah and the Gospel of Mark, as well as similarities with the Commentary on the Psalms ... it is the Commentary on the Psalms that [contains] the prediction that the battle of Armageddon would begin 40 years after the death of the Teacher of Righteousness.

< . . . snip . . . >

Did the author of Mark know of this prediction and use it to make this association in his story?

... The way they [the sect that produced the Qumran writings, the Dead Seas Scrolls] talk about the End of Days is very similar to how Paul talks about it - as something that was going to happen very soon.

It's clear that the author of Mark was using the letters of Paul and the Jewish scriptures as the basis upon which to craft his narrative. But he could well have been using other sources too. Given Mark's heavy use of Isaiah and the Psalms, and Mark's use of Daniel (which is not directly used in the letters of Paul but is discussed in the Qumranic writings), it seems possible that the writer of Mark may also have been familiar with some of the works we find in the Qumranic trove, in which Isaiah and the Psalms are heavily discussed scriptures. In addition, the Qumranic writings contains parables almost identical to those in Mark. So it seems possible that "Mark" possessed writings that we also find at Qumran.

If that's the case, "Mark" could have known of this prediction that 'the battle of Armageddon' would happen 40 years after the death of the Teacher of Righteousness and be using that as the basis for his placement of the death of Jesus under Pilate, alluding to the First Jewish-Roman War as Armageddon and Jesus as the Teacher of Righteousness (though this is not who Jesus actually was).

I don't know that any of this makes sense, I'm, just speculating...

That is interesting. My first impression and question was, could it be more than Mark knowing ''of this prediction that 'the battle of Armageddon' would happen 40 years after the death of the Teacher of Righteousness" - could such a prediction have been central to the motivation for writing the Gospel According to Mark?

---

For posterity, from wikipedia, -

.
Origin
There has been much debate about the origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The dominant theory remains that the scrolls were the product of a sect of Jews living at nearby Qumran called the Essenes, but this theory has come to be challenged by several modern scholars.[419]

Qumran–Essene theory

Main article: Qumran § Qumran-Essene hypothesis

The view among scholars, almost universally held until the 1990s, is the "Qumran–Essene" hypothesis originally posited by Roland Guérin de Vaux and Józef Tadeusz Milik, though independently both Eliezer Sukenik and Butrus Sowmy of St Mark's Monastery connected scrolls with the Essenes well before any excavations at Qumran. The Qumran–Essene theory holds that the scrolls were written by the Essenes, or by another Jewish sectarian group, residing at Khirbet Qumran. They composed the scrolls and ultimately hid them in the nearby caves during the Jewish Revolt sometime between 66 and 68 CE. The site of Qumran was destroyed and the scrolls never recovered. A number of arguments are used to support this theory.

• There are striking similarities between the description of an initiation ceremony of new members in the Community Rule and descriptions of the Essene initiation ceremony mentioned in the works of Flavius Josephus
• Josephus mentions the Essenes as sharing property among the members of the community, as does the Community Rule.
• During the excavation of Khirbet Qumran, two inkwells and plastered elements thought to be tables were found, offering evidence that some form of writing was done there. More inkwells were discovered nearby. De Vaux called this area the "scriptorium" based upon this discovery.
• Several Jewish ritual baths (Hebrew: miqvah = מקוה) were discovered at Qumran, offering evidence of an observant Jewish presence at the site.
• Pliny the Elder (a geographer writing after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE) describes a group of Essenes living in a desert community on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea near the ruined town of 'Ein Gedi.

Qumran–Sectarian theory
Qumran–Sectarian theories are variations on the Qumran–Essene theory. The main point of departure from the Qumran–Essene theory is hesitation to link the Dead Sea Scrolls specifically with the Essenes. Most proponents of the Qumran–Sectarian theory understand a group of Jews living in or near Qumran to be responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls, but do not necessarily conclude that the sectarians are Essenes.

Qumran–Sadducean theory
A specific variation on the Qumran–Sectarian theory that has gained much recent popularity is the work of Lawrence H. Schiffman, who proposes that the community was led by a group of Zadokite priests (Sadducees).[423] The most important document in support of this view is the "Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah" (4QMMT), which cites purity laws (such as the transfer of impurities) identical to those attributed in rabbinic writings to the Sadducees. 4QMMT also reproduces a festival calendar that follows Sadducee principles for the dating of certain festival days.


Christian origin theory
Spanish Jesuit José O'Callaghan Martínez argued in the 1960s that one fragment (7Q5) preserves a portion of text from the New Testament Gospel of Mark 6:52–53.[424] This theory was falsified in the year 2000 by paleographic analysis of the particular fragment.[425]

Robert Eisenman has advanced the theory that some scrolls describe the early Christian community. Eisenman also argued that the careers of James the Just and Paul the Apostle correspond to events recorded in some of these documents.[426]


Jerusalem origin theory
Some scholars have argued that the scrolls were the product of Jews living in Jerusalem, who hid the scrolls in the caves near Qumran while fleeing from the Romans during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.[427] Karl Heinrich Rengstorf first proposed that the Dead Sea Scrolls originated at the library of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.[428] Later, Norman Golb suggested that the scrolls were the product of multiple libraries in Jerusalem, and not necessarily the Jerusalem Temple library.[429] [430] Proponents of the Jerusalem Origin theory point to the diversity of thought and handwriting among the scrolls as evidence against a Qumran origin of the scrolls. Several archaeologists have also accepted an origin of the scrolls other than Qumran, including Yizhar Hirschfeld[431] and most recently Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg,[432] who all understand the remains of Qumran to be those of a Hasmonean fort that was reused during later periods.

---

424 O'Callaghan–Martínez, Josep, Cartas Cristianas Griegas del Siglo V, Barcelona: E. Balmes, 1963.

425 Enste, Stefan. (2000). Kein Markustext in Qumran: Eine Untersuchung der These; Qumran-Fragment 7Q5 = Mk 6, 52–53 (No Mark text: an enquiry of the thesis; Qumran fragment 7Q5 = Gospel of Mark 6: 52–53). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 978-3-525-53945-3
.

Regarding -

Christian origin theory
Spanish Jesuit José O'Callaghan Martínez argued in the 1960s that one fragment (7Q5) preserves a portion of text from the New Testament Gospel of Mark 6:52–53.[424] This theory was falsified in the year 2000 by paleographic analysis of the particular fragment.[425]

- rather than 7Q5 'preserving' a portion of text from the New Testament Gospel of Mark 6:52–53, Mark 6:52–53 could be preserving or reflecting 7Q5.

.

[MrMacSon]

edited:

Regarding ... 7Q5 'preserving' a portion of text from the NT Gospel of Mark 6:52–53 ...
.

Ben has address whether 7Q5 could be a scrap from the gospel of Mark - http://www.textexcavation.com/qumran7q5.html

Daniel B Wallace published a web-article about this in 2004

There's commentary here, again based on 7Q5 being based on or preserving or reflecting Mark 6:52-53, https://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleS ... _mark.html

I'm not sure anyone has addressed the contrary: that Mark 6:52–53 could be preserving or reflecting 7Q5.

[MrMacSon]

Here's 7Q5 at https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explo ... cale=en_US

eta:

O'Callaghan's proposed identification

This shows the Greek text of Mark 6:52-53. [Red and] Bold characters represent proposed identifications with characters from 7Q5:

ου γαρ
συνηκαν επι τοις αρτοις,
αλλ ην αυτων η καρδια πεπωρω-
μενη. και διαπερασαντες [επι την γην]
ηλθον εις γεννησαρετ και
προσωρμισθησαν. και εξελ-
θοντων αυτων εκ του πλοιου ευθυς
επιγνοντες αυτον.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for they did not
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . understand concerning the loaves
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . but was their heart harden-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ed. And crossing over [unto the land]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . they came unto Gennesaret and
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . drew to the shore. And com-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ing forth out of the boat immediately
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . they recognized him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7Q5#O'Cal ... tification

[MrMacSon]

Robert H. Gundry briefly wondered if 7Q5 might reflect a pre-Markan tradition https://www.jstor.org/stable/3268112?se ... b_contents

[John2]

This article argues for 7Q5 being Jeremiah 16:3-4:

http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/Qu ... 7Q5EN.html

[John2]

Greek is over my head, but it looks like it would make sense contextually if 7Q5 was Jeremiah considering that the Letter of Jeremiah is among the identifiable scrolls that were found in cave 7.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ran_Cave_7

In the big picture though I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that Mark could have been aware of ideas that are in the DSS considering that the majority of them are dated to the Herodian era, as VanderKam and Flint note here:

Archaic (250-150 BCE) 21 manuscripts
Archaic to Hasmonean (200-150) 20 manuscripts
Hasmonean (150-ca. 50) 224 manuscripts
Transition to Herodian (ca 75-1 BCE) 5 manuscripts
Herodian (50 or 30 BCE-68 CE) 418 manuscripts

https://books.google.com/books?id=SBMXn ... ts&f=false