Prophecy

[BDJ]

Grindheim's translation seems rather stretched; why would a comparison be made between atonement by a Messiah and atonement through sacrifice?

It is not clear what the relation is between 'the messiah of Aaron and Israel" (in CD 14) and the 'he' in 4Q541. There is no mention of a messiah in 4Q451, nor does it appear to desctibe an end-time scenario.

Without any established relation between these texts, I don'y think we can use 4Q451 to interpret CD 14.

Rather than seeing (non-existing) links between the Dead Sea scrolls and the NT, I would say that both these texts refer implicitly and explicitly (sometimes) to the Hebrew Bible (OT). When they refer to books like Isaiah or Jeremiah, you will find apocalyptic tendencies, and some people see mentions of a messiah.

[John2]

BDJ,

Even if we set aside the meaning of the atonement in (and the reconstruction of) CD 14, the sect as a whole saw itself as a spiritual temple offering spiritual sacrifices. As 1QS col. 9 puts it, "When these become members of the Community in Israel according to all these rules, they shall establish the spirit of holiness according to everlasting truth. They shall atone for guilty rebellion and for sins of unfaithfulness that they may obtain loving kindness for the Land without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of sacrifice. And prayer rightly offered shall be as an acceptable fragrance of righteousness, and perfection of way as a delectable free-will offering."

Would this kind of atonement (without sacrifice) be any less efficacious for the Messiah of Aaron and Israel (in the eyes of the DSS sect), regardless of the reconstruction and meaning of CD 14? And in 4Q521, for example, the Messiah would have control of the heavens and the earth (in the context of the Lord giving sight to the blind, making the dead live and proclaiming good news to the poor).

[...for the heav]ens and the earth will listen to his anointed one, [and all] that is in them will not turn away from the precepts of the holy ones. Strengthen yourselves, you who are seeking the Lord, in his service! Will you not in this encounter the Lord, all those who hope in their heart? For the Lord will consider the pious and call the righteous by name, and his spirit will hover upon the poor, and he will renew the faithful with his strength. For he will honor the pious upon the throne of an eternal kingdom, freeing prisoners, giving sight to the blind, straightening out the twis[ted.] And for[e]ver shall I cling to [those who] hope, and in his mercy [...] and the fru[it of ...] not be delayed. And the Lord will perform marvellous acts such as have not existed, just as he sa[id, for] he will heal the badly wounded and will make the dead live; he will proclaim good news to the poor and [...] he will lead the [...] and enrich the hungry. [...] and all [....]

http://www.textexcavation.com/qumran4q521.html

To me this is just like the Letter of James, with the Messiah (Jesus) operating in tandem with (and sometimes even referred to as) the Lord coming to help the sick, suffering and poor in the last days. I don't think I'm appreciating the distinction between apocalyptism and messianism. The Messiah more or less goes hand in hand with the end of the world by the time the OT was written so I don't see how one happens without the other in anyone's scheme of things during the second temple period.

And yes, I think the relative prevalence of the word messiah (and others that are similar, like Branch of David or Prince of the Congregation) in various DSS writings (or Christ in the Letter of James) means that these writings are messianic. Compare the Damascus Document to the Mishnah, for example. There are the four references in the former to the coming of the Messiah of Aaron and Israel, plus the coming of the prince of the congregation in col. 7-8, and another reference in col. 2 that says that God had "made known His Holy Spirit to them ... and He proclaimed the truth (to them)" by the hand of the Messiah in past times (which is singular but often translated as plural). So there are at least six references to the Messiah (whether of the past or the future) in the Damascus Document alone, versus two references to the Messiah (or the days of the Messiah) in the entire Mishnah (Ber. 1:5; Sot. 9:15). So the Mishnah refers to the Messiah as many times as the references to Christ in the comparatively brief Letter of James (or fewer if you include the reference to the coming of the Lord in James 5:7 and 8 as I do). So if the DSS sect and the Letter of James are not messianic then I don't know what messianism is.

[BDJ]

To me, this passage from 4Q521 illustrates what I said earlier: these texts rely heavily on the Hebrew Bible. In this case, the passage appears to be a rewriting of Isaiah 61. In Isaiah, the 'anointed one' (which some translators have has His Messiah...) probably refers to the prophet himself, and 'the Lord' to God.

The DSS form a diverse collection; it appears like a library, and certainly not all the DSS were written by the Qumran sect. We don't even know to which texts they turned most. We do know that apocalypticism was at its peak around that time: the belief that God would intervene, end this Age (which was dominated by Evil forces), and start a new age of God's kingdom. This end time would be announced by an 'anointed one'/messiah.

What I understand by messianism is a much wider role, that is the belief in a messiah who acts as a savior, redeemer or liberator.

[John2]

BDJ,

Even if we suppose that the Messiah in 4Q521 refers to an OT prophet or prophets, the fact that they chose to use the word messiah here means that it is a part of the overall pattern for what a messiah is like in the DSS. In this case it is that people should listen to what they say, in the context of citing similar OT passages that are mentioned by Jesus in Mt. 11:5 and Lk. 7:22.

So ultimately it doesn't matter to me if the Messiah in 4Q521 is royal, priestly or prophetic, or of the past or the future, or singular or plural, the fact that 4Q521 uses this word, and in the context of citing OT texts that are applied to Jesus, means that 4Q521 is a messianic text, however you define messianism. In other words, past messiahs are a model for what the future messiah will be like, i.e., people should listen to them. So even if messiah refers to a prophet or prophets here, that is an element of Jesus too, that he was a prophet like Moses and should be listened to (e.g., Acts 3:22: "For Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you"). And another element of this past-messiah model is mentioned in CD 2, "And He made known His Holy Spirit to them," which is also ascribed to Jesus (e.g., Acts 1:1: "... after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen").

As for the idea that the DSS as a collection of various texts, I've never bought that, but I've run out of computer time for today so I'll have to discuss that later.

[John2]

In the meantime, regarding the Messiah in the DSS, there is also 4Q174, which cites Amos 9:11 (in an interpretation of 2 Sam. 7:14) and applies it to the Messiah (as do CD 7-8 and Acts 15:16-18).

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls/4Q174

This passage refers to the Shoot of David, who is to arise with the Interpreter of the Law, and who will [arise] in Zi[on in the Las]t Days, as it is written, "And I shall raise up the booth of David that is fallen" (Amos 9:11). This passage describes the fallen booth of David, [w]hom He shall raise up to deliver Israel.

https://books.google.com/books?id=SBMXn ... 74&f=false

And the citation of Amos 9:11 that is in CD 7-8 is followed by an interpretation of Num. 24:17 and also mentions the Interpreter of the Law along with the Prince of the Congregation:

"The star is the Interpreter of the Law who shall come to Damascus; as it is written, A star shall come forth out of Jacob and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel (Num. 24:17). The sceptre is the Prince of the whole congregation, and when he comes he shall smite all the children of Seth."

So Amos 9:11 and Num. 24:17 are applied to the coming Branch of David/Prince of the Congregation in CD and 4Q174 (along with the Interpreter of the Law) and to Jesus in Christianity.

And 4Q175, a collection of messianic proof texts, cites Num. 24:17 too, along with Dt. 18:18, which is also applied to Jesus (e.g., Acts 3:22).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4Q175

..it is probable that the five texts quoted in 4Q175 have been combined on account of their describing or predicting the coming of certain eschatological persons. Thus the first three quotations would describe the expectation of a prophet, a royal and a priestly Messiah...

https://books.google.com/books?id=EEHY6 ... 75&f=false

So the DSS and the NT cite or allude to many similar OT passages in a messianic/Last Days context, such as the fallen booth of David (Amos 9:11), the Star Prophecy (Num. 24:17), the prophet like Moses (Dt. 18:18), "strike the shepherd" (Zec. 13:7), "the fountain of living waters" (Zec. 14:8; Jer. 2:13), "I will be his father, and he will be my son" (2 Sam. 7:14) and Is. 61.

[John2]

Regarding the DSS forming a diverse collection, I suppose this might be true to a certain extent. For example, Wassen notes that the Community Rule "does not mention women (with the exception of "one born of a woman" in 1QS XI 21) and has therefore commonly been seen as reflecting a community of celibate men. Amongst other sectarian documents that were published early, the Rule of the Congregation (1QSa) and CD -contrary to 1QS- take the presence of women and children for granted."

https://books.google.com/books?id=9JVX3 ... ek&f=false

But this difference can be explained by the fact that there was more than one kind of Essene, including those who married, according to Josephus (War. 2.8.13):

"Moreover, there is another order of Essenes, who agree with the rest as to their way of living, and customs, and laws, but differ from them in the point of marriage, as thinking that by not marrying they cut off the principal part of human life, which is the prospect of succession; nay, rather, that if all men should be of the same opinion, the whole race of mankind would fail."

And there were four kinds of Essenes according to Hippolytus (Ref. 9.21):

"The Essenes have, however, in the lapse of time, undergone divisions, and they do not preserve their system of training after a similar manner, inasmuch as they have been split up into four parties."

Though I see the DSS sect as consisting mainly of Essenes of various sorts, to me it looks similar to the Fourth Philosophy, a militant, messianic movement with converts from other groups, and this could explain the variant OT texts (or whatever other differences that may exist in the DSS) if they brought their writings to the group. Paul for example, had been a Pharisee (and talks like one), and there were Pharisee Christians according to Acts 15:5. But all in all I think the situation looks more or less like Eisenman puts it in JBJ:

The Qumran documents, for example, are not simply a random collection of disparate sectarian writings, but extremely homogenous ones, betokening a movement. The same ideology, nomenclature, and dramatis personae move from document to document regardless of style or authorship. For instance, one never encounters a document approving of the contemporary Establishment ... never a document that is accommodating and not militant, zealous, or apocalyptic.

https://books.google.com/books?id=XhJcW ... ae&f=false

An exception to this (regarding the establishment), off the top of my head, might be 4Q448, which appears to praise Alexander Jannaeus (who, like the DSS sect, was anti-Pharisaic).

[John2]

BDJ,

What are some examples of the diversity you see in the DSS that couldn't be explained by there being different orders (and time periods) of Essenes and the inclusion of converts?

[DCHindley]

BDJ,

What are some examples of the diversity you see in the DSS that couldn't be explained by there being different orders (and time periods) of Essenes and the inclusion of converts?

Before I could make comparisons, I'd have to note that one can always continually add to the special conditions one imposes on the evidence to bring it closer to a critics' theological or ideological perspective. In Astrology it is called "rectification". It is also not scientific, but based on hope.

What a critic does with her/his explanation is a form of fine tuning, as all historical explanations are formulated on subsets of available evidence, that which seems to be the most probable evidence available. But having a workable hypotheses needs to be tested against the remaining "less-probable" evidence to either find a way to incorporate it into the explanation or filter some anomalies out as "noise".

Right now we have several competing theories, all of which appear to me to be based more on the ideological POV of the critic than the truth value which the hypothesis brings to the table. All of this has very serious implications for how both Jews and Christians imagine they became as they did as religious-ethnic groups, the degree to which becomes evident in the extreme defensiveness some of them take to even the tiniest deviation from their preferred explanations.

The Essene hypothesis is the most notable, and flawed, IMHO. The defenders of Masada being Judean Freedom Fighters is another, although this has been deemphasized as the radical nature of the group has come under scrutiny in the press, especially as some modern Jewish freedom fighters committed acts of terrorism themselves. Still, Sicarii terrorists, with a sectarian calendar and other points, based on the documents found buried there which may have originated with the types who followed Simon Bar Giora who was sheltered there for a period, would not today win the Rabbis' stamps of approval.

DCH (sorry, writing with one arm in a sling, and medicated to boot, after shoulder surgery kind of slows me down)

[John T]

BDJ,

What are some examples of the diversity you see in the DSS that couldn't be explained by there being different orders (and time periods) of Essenes and the inclusion of converts?

Before I could make comparisons, I'd have to note that one can always continually add to the special conditions one imposes on the evidence to bring it closer to a critics' theological or ideological perspective. In Astrology it is called "rectification". It is also not scientific, but based on hope.

What a critic does with her/his explanation is a form of fine tuning, as all historical explanations are formulated on subsets of available evidence, that which seems to be the most probable evidence available. But having a workable hypotheses needs to be tested against the remaining "less-probable" evidence to either find a way to incorporate it into the explanation or filter some anomalies out as "noise".

Right now we have several competing theories, all of which appear to me to be based more on the ideological POV of the critic than the truth value which the hypothesis brings to the table. All of this has very serious implications for how both Jews and Christians imagine they became as they did as religious-ethnic groups, the degree to which becomes evident in the extreme defensiveness some of them take to even the tiniest deviation from their preferred explanations.

The Essene hypothesis is the most notable, and flawed, IMHO. The defenders of Masada being Judean Freedom Fighters is another, although this has been deemphasized as the radical nature of the group has come under scrutiny in the press, especially as some modern Jewish freedom fighters committed acts of terrorism themselves. Still, Sicarii terrorists, with a sectarian calendar and other points, based on the documents found buried there which may have originated with the types who followed Simon Bar Giora who was sheltered there for a period, would not today win the Rabbis' stamps of approval.

DCH (sorry, writing with one arm in a sling, and medicated to boot, after shoulder surgery kind of slows me down)

@DCH,

I hope you recover from shoulder surgery quickly. Be sure to medicate a good hour before physical therapy. Those guys love to inflict pain and you are no Essene. Josephus wrote of one sect of Essenes that "although they were tortured and dismembered, burned and torn to bits, going through every kind of instrument of torture to make them blaspheme the Name of the Law-giver or to eat was forbidden them,..yet instead of shedding a single tear, Rather they smiled in their very pains and laughed scornfully at those inflicting these tortures on them, resigning their soul with great alacrity as expecting to receive them back again."

I now refer to Eisenman, Jame the Brother of Jesus, Part V, chapter 23: The 'Zealot' Essenes in Hippolytus' Josephus.

Esinmen sees Hippolytus of Rome 'four groups of Essenes' as differing from Josephus.

One group was the love your enemies group. e.g. James, John the Baptist, Jesus. Which was contrary to the 'hate the Sons of the Pit' group.
Another group carried no coin.
Another group would not even looked upon any graven image.
Another group would slay those who spoke of God but were not circumcised, this is the group known as Zealots or Sicarii.

However, I (John T) read the Community Rule having only two groups; the sons of light (Essene) vs. the sons of the darkness (all others).

So, I agree with DCH it depends on your point of view.

[John2]

Another OT passage that is interpreted messianically is Gen. 49:10 in 4Q252:

Col. 5 A ruler shall [no]t depart from the tribe ofJudah when Israel has dominion. 2[And] the one who sits on the throne of David [shall never] be cut off, because the "rulers staff" is the covenant of the kingdom, 3[and the thous]ands of Israel are "the feet," until the Righteous Messiah, the Branch of David, has come. 4For to him and to his seed the covenant of the kingdom of His people has been given for the eternal generations, because She has kept [ . . . ] the Law with the men of the Yahad. For 6[ . . . the "obedience of the people]s" is the assembly of the men of [ . . . ] he gave..."

http://www.moellerhaus.com/Dead%20Sea%2 ... omsGen.htm

So after reviewing the situation again I remain convinced that the DSS sect (or writers, if you prefer) were messianic, meaning they had the Messiah on their mind. And not only that, they used the same messianic proof texts that Christians apply to Jesus (including the above), and many of them are in the Damascus Document, a writing that also mentions the way and the new covenant in a place called Damascus.