Who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?

[maryhelena]

Now can we get back to facts as to who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?

With there being some 981 Qumran texts discovered, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Nabataean, and with individual texts being dated to from -400 BCE to 300+ CE constituting the content of the 'Dead Sea Scrolls', Why would one assume that all of these texts originated at Qumran or were exclusively composed by the writers of any single sect?

Hi, Sheshbazzar - welcome.

Enjoy this topic - lots of argument going on here....

[spin]

I thought of getting The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Very Short Introduction by Timothy Lin, it's only $6 or so on kindle. The problem is, even if I read it, I still probably won't be ready for any nasty arguments.

Lim will only give one perspective and there are lots that follow similar lines, but do read him. I'd recommend that you get hold of:

• Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia, 1994) for a Jewish scholar's evaluation;
• Norman Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? (Scribner, 1995) for a somewhat iconoclastic approach from another Jewish scholar; and
• Philip R. Davies, George J. Brooke and Phillip R. Callaway, The Complete World of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Thames & Hudson, 2002) for a relatively neutral overview by top scholars in the field.

[John T]

Sheshbazzar posted: "Why would one assume that all of these texts originated at Qumran or were exclusively composed by the writers of any single sect?"

Josephus claimed that he joined the Essenes for a brief stint as a teenager...The Life of Flavius Josephus, 2. 10. Although as an initiate he was not privy to the secret scrolls, he knew first hand where and how the community lived as well as they had their own unique scripture, available only to senior members of the sect. Josephus writes: "Moreover, he [Essenes] swears to communicate their doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them himself; ...and will equally preserve the books belonging to their sect, and the means of the angels. These are the oaths by which they secure their proselytes to themselves...War of the Jews, Book 2, 142.

Although the DSS contain almost all of the Old Testament, excluding Esther and 1 Maccabees, they had their own secrete scripture not released to the public. Therefore, since the DSS contained copies of scripture unknown to scholars (to the best of my knowledge), it is only logical to conclude that those found at Qumran were proof that a community of Essenes lived there and wrote them. The pottery jars used to store the scrolls were made at Qumran and ink wells found at the cite were consistent with the ink used to write the scrolls.

Probably the biggest mistake people make is thinking the Essenes at Qumran were the only Essene community that existed and that they did not communicate to anyone and/or members outside of the compound.

[John T]

Dr. Schiffman admits that most scholars do agree the Essenes wrote the DSS.

http://youtu.be/WmFLOXrKwTg

[ficino]

Josephus claimed that he joined the Essenes for a brief stint as a teenager...The Life of Flavius Josephus, 2. 10. Although as an initiate he was not privy to the secret scrolls, he knew first hand where and how the community lived as well as they had their own unique scripture, available only to senior members of the sect.

[snip]

Although the DSS contain almost all of the Old Testament, excluding Esther and 1 Maccabees, they had their own secrete scripture not released to the public. Therefore, since the DSS contained copies of scripture unknown to scholars (to the best of my knowledge), it is only logical to conclude that those found at Qumran were proof that a community of Essenes lived there and wrote them.

Not seeing the logic. Your argument seems to be this, John:

If a community was Essene, it had secret scriptures.
some DSS are secret scriptures.
Therefore the DSS belonged to Essenes.

As a matter of logic, this argument (if I have it right) is fallacious, for it, first, affirms the consequent, and second, substitutes a universal for an existential quantifier.

Interesting about the clay and ink, though.

Probably the biggest mistake people make is thinking the Essenes at Qumran were the only Essene community that existed and that they did not communicate to anyone and/or members outside of the compound.

OK, but if you're postulating other Essene communities, AND you're (or most scholars are) postulating that all the DSS are Essene, then the whole hypothesis contains quite a big wild card, and I wonder whether it's in principle falsifiable anymore. For example, if lots of other scrolls turn out to be in ink not showing the gum traces distinctive of the area of Qumran, one can say that Essenes somewhere else had copied those scrolls. Then we seem to be back to what I think is the flawed argument above.

[Sheshbazzar]

John T, I find nothing in your reply to be persuasive, or to consist of any logical 'proof', that 'ALL of these texts originated at Qumran or were exclusively composed by the writers of any single sect'.

The mere possible presence of Essenes at Qumran, does not logically entail that they must needs been the actual authors of every single text located.

It might be observed that most religious sects do collect and maintain libraries of religious literature.
The content of such sectarian libraries often contain literature produced by other sects and groups, under the working principal of 'know thy enemy'. Texts are collected to point out where the adversary sect(s) have erred or corrupted a text.

In your initial post in this thread you stated;

"I agree with this statement in the article: "Many modern archaeologists such as Cargill believe the Essenes authored SOME, BUT NOT ALL, of the Dead Sea Scrolls."

Seems you would do well to maintain that view.

[John T]

@Sheshbazzar,

At one point you imply that I'm making the argument that the Essenes at Qumran were the actual authors of every single text located there.
That is not true. I have a theory but I have not detailed it yet.

Then you say I would do well to maintain the view of Cargill that "some" but not all were authored by the Essenes.
Does that mean you agree with Cargill that the Essenes indeed wrote at least some of the DSS?

If so, can you give examples by Cargill of those scrolls he knows for sure weren't written at Qumran and which ones were and his evidence for it?

Until you do, I find nothing in your reply to be persuasive, especially the parts that you imply I believe things which I never said nor believe.

Thanks in advance.

John T

[John T]

finico posted: "Not seeing the logic. Your argument seems to be this, John:

If a community was Essene, it had secret scriptures.
some DSS are secret scriptures.
Therefore the DSS belonged to Essenes.

As a matter of logic, this argument (if I have it right) is fallacious, for it, first, affirms the consequent, and second, substitutes a universal for an existential quantifier."...finico

***************************

The reason you don't see the logic is because you are using the wrong type of logic.
You are trying to make a formal "Deductive Argument" when I am in fact making an informal, "Inductive Argument"

With an inductive argument if all the premises are true then the conclusion is likely to be true but not "necessarily" true.
Please see the link below so that you can understand the difference and how you erred, then come back and try again.

http://youtu.be/ZBxE0y7b464

Respectfully,
John T

[ficino]

My screen name is not "finico." And I understand the difference between deductive and inductive arguments, and not from a video, but thanks for the link. A key diff is that in an inductive argument, at least one premise is only a probable premise, so we don't know the truth of the conclusion with certainty.

Sheshbazzar pointed to the same problem I pointed to. You seem to be saying, "Some of these writings are extra-canonical, apparently 'secret'. Therefore the collection is most probably Essene." For that conclusion to be plausible, you have to establish that no other group is likely to have produced extra-canonical writings intended for insiders. And it's not clear to me whether you mean to include ALL the DSS in your construction or only some of the scrolls. The peer-reviewed studies cited by Hawthorne, as I recall, only argue that some scrolls were produced near Qumran.

[spin]

My screen name is not "finico."

This one needs help. Give him a Wiki Ficino. Interesting fact Ficino's father's name was Diotifeci = "god made you", indicating he was an orphan.

Sheshbazzar pointed to the same problem I pointed to. You seem to be saying, "Some of these writings are extra-canonical, apparently 'secret'. Therefore the collection is most probably Essene." For that conclusion to be plausible, you have to establish that no other group is likely to have produced extra-canonical writings intended for insiders.

Then again, we can exclude Essenes.

1. Despite the fact that idiots insist that terms such as "sons of Zadok" were metaphorical, such a claim misreads the text source and is ridiculous for a group that professed strong torah adherence. Either they held the torah high or they were overly metaphorical. Not both.

2. We know that the Essenes disavowed birthlines, practising celibacy and adopting children to fill their ranks, but this will not have a dent in the skulls of those who have the Essenes as an albatross.

3. I've already pointed out that people have their own finances despite there being comunal resources.

4. At the same time sectarian texts make laws regarding women and menstruating, which was plainly not written by or for any Essenes, eg 4QTohA col.1 ll.4-8.

We can discount the scrolls as representing the Essenes by their content. You just wait for the pussyfooting yes-buts. Essene theorists squeal like pigs when you stick pins in their... dogma.

We don't have very much information about anyone other than the Essenes (and that's thanks mainly to Josephus), so we can only make conjectures in the dark about the detailed activities of other groups.

And it's not clear to me whether you mean to include ALL the DSS in your construction or only some of the scrolls. The peer-reviewed studies cited by Hawthorne, as I recall, only argue that some scrolls were produced near Qumran.

Well, at best they argue that materials were produced in the general area.