Who do you think was the "Wicked Priest"?

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Who do you think was the "Wicked Priest"?

Post by John T »

John2 wrote: Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:16 am John T wrote:
It is clear to me that the Qumran community started three hundred and ninety years after captivity of Judah by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon in 586 BCE not 390 years after Judah's release from captivity. I know you disagree with Vermes' translation but the math makes perfect sense to me.

Then after 20 years (176 BCE) the Teacher of Righteousness took over the Qumran community. After that, roughly 20 years later, Jonathan Apphus became high priest in 153 BCE and became known as the Wicked Priest. Using this straight forward math, the lifespan of both the Teacher of Righteousness and Jonathan could have easily overlapped.
There are various ideas about the meaning of the 390 years mentioned in the Damascus Document, as VanderKam discusses here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=FSnLk ... el&f=false

So there is some flexibility regarding whether these years are meant literally or symbolically, and like Collins, I'm in the symbolic camp:
This passage has been widely interpreted to mean that this movement arose from Israel and Aaron in the early second century B.C.E. It is doubtful, however, that the number of 390 years can be pressed in this way. It is a symbolic number, derived from Ezek 4:5, and in any case we do not know how the author of this text understood the chronology of the post-exilic period.

https://books.google.com/books?id=13ZxD ... ic&f=false
John2,
Thanks for providing the links and I mean that most sincerely. I hope you didn't spend too much time locating them. It was most helpful in understanding how scholars can make simple math very complicated in order to fit their own theory.

As for me: 2 + 2 = 4.

Two questions that I could not find the answer to in Vanderkam's excellent critique of the Groningen hypotheses was:

1. Did the Qumran community base their 390 years on a 354 day lunar calendar or their own 364 day solar calendar?
2. Did any of the Damascus Document fragments found at Qumran actually contain the number 390 in the Exhortation or do I understand Vermes correctly that the number is actually from the Genizah Cairo Manuscript A from around 1000 CE and not from any Dead Sea Scrolls themselves?

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who do you think was the "Wicked Priest"?

Post by John2 »

John T,

Regarding your second question, VanderKam (in footnote 6) writes:
The number 390 is preserved in full in 4Q268 ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=FSnLk ... 90&f=false
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Who do you think was the "Wicked Priest"?

Post by John T »

John2 wrote: Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:34 am John T,

Regarding your second question, VanderKam (in footnote 6) writes:
The number 390 is preserved in full in 4Q268 ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=FSnLk ... 90&f=false
Thanks,

My (bad) habit is to read footnotes one at a time as they appear in the paragraph but not as closely, especially if they are lengthy and don't seem to add much clarity other than to provide a list of sources. Unfortunate for me, this very important tidbit was buried near the end of a lengthy footnote and hence why I missed it. Thanks for finding it.

On a side note, I spent over an hour yesterday (before giving up) trying to get an image (with translation) of 4Q268 that included the number of 390. Perhaps you can provide a better link?

https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explo ... e/B-361429

Confirming 390 in 4Q268 only helps my cause.

Vanderkam asserts: "All [DSS scholars] recognize that the number 390 recalls Ezek 4: 5,9,..."
However, 4Q268 does not even hint that the number 390 is a reference to the prophecy of Ezekiel 4:5. Rather it comes across as simple common knowledge of the historical straightforward number years that have past since the destruction of the 1st temple.

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who do you think was the "Wicked Priest"?

Post by John2 »

John T,

The footnote is from another book, so you didn't "miss" it in my first link.

I might be able to find a translation of 4Q268 when I'm at home, but online it seems a little trickier. Some days I can find one that is viewable on Google books and other days I can't (try Martinez and see what you can see) and I'm not having any luck yet today.

As for Vermes and the 390 years, he writes in The Story of the Scrolls:
The solution of early Qumran history, plain at first sight, nevertheless runs into a double snag. The first arises from general historical considerations, the second from the Habakkuk Commentary. To take the figure 390 literally in a calculation of biblical chronology is unsound. No ancient Jewish writer had a correct notion of the length of the post-exilic era. In the third century BCE, the Jewish Hellenist chronographer Demetrius counted 573 years -73 too many- between the Assyrian conquest of Samaria (722/1 BCE) and the start of the rule of Ptolemy IV in Egypt in 221 BCE. The reasonably careful Josephus was also guilty of several miscalculations. Figures relating to the same event can vary even between his Jewish Antiquities and the Jewish War. Thus he counted 481 (Antiquities) and 471 (War) years from the return from the Babylonian exile in 538 BCE to the death of the Hasmonean ruler Aristobulus I (103 BCE). The correct figure is 435 years. Again, Josephus made the Jewish temple built in Leontopolis in Egypt by Onias IV last 343 years, whereas the period between 160 BCE (the date of the construction of the temple) and 73 CE (the date of its overthrow) amounts to only 233 years. As for the rabbinic pseudo-historical work known as Seder 'Olam Rabbah ... it allows 490 years to elapse between the first destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE and the second by Titus in 70 CE. The true figure is 656 years. To accept therefore the 390 years of the Damascus Document for genuine chronology is risky, to say the least.

https://books.google.com/books?id=gV94S ... nt&f=false
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who do you think was the "Wicked Priest"?

Post by John2 »

I would add to the "general historical considerations" that Vermes refers to the reference to the "kings of the peoples" who are said to have engaged in niece marriage, polygamy and divorce in the Damascus Document, practices that were common to the Herodians.
According to Josephus, Antipas ... "brazenly broached to [Herodias] the subject of marriage," and she accepted on the condition that he divorce his first wife.

Footnote 17: Hoehner, Herod Antipas pg. 138 n. 4, observes that there were several uncle-niece marriages in the Herodian family.

https://books.google.com/books?id=GvWG0 ... ge&f=false
Josephus mentions nine divorces among the Herodians ... These cases illustrate some of the basic values operating in the family, as well as the reasons that might arise to break the marriage bond.

https://books.google.com/books?id=d3jtC ... ns&f=false
... [the Damascus Document] appears to criticize any man who takes two wives within his own lifetime. This would include those who practice polygamy, remarriage after divorce ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=Z-MDL ... nt&f=false
CD col. 4 and 5:
...[they] shall be caught in fornication twice by taking a second wife while the first is alive, whereas the principle of creation is, Male and female created He them. Also, those who entered the Ark went in two by two. And concerning the prince it is written, He shall not multiply wives to himself ... Moreover, they profane the Temple because ... each man marries the daughter of his brother or sister, whereas Moses said, You shall not approach your mother's sister; she is your mother's near kin. But although the laws against incest are written for men, they also apply to women. When, therefore, a brother's daughter uncovers the nakedness of her father's brother, she is (also his) near kin.
Regarding Maccabean rulers and these prohibitions in the Damascus Document, Sanders notes only that:
Josephus tells one story of a pre-Hasmonean Zaddokite priest who married his niece (he had intercourse with her, not knowing that she was his niece, and married her when he learned her identity; Antiq. 12.185-9). Among the Hasmoneans, a son of Aristobulus II married his cousin, a daughter of Hyrcanus II. Possibly there were other cases.

https://books.google.com/books?id=v1DOD ... ge&f=false
Last edited by John2 on Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who do you think was the "Wicked Priest"?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:07 amI might be able to find a translation of 4Q268 when I'm at home, but online it seems a little trickier.

4Q268, fragment 1, lines 12b-15a (Martínez & Tigchelaar): 12b And at the moment of] 13 [wrath,] three hundred and nin[ety ye]ars [after having delivered them up into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar,] 14 [king of Babylon,] he visited them and cau[sed to sprout from Israe]l and from A[aro]n a sho[ot of the planting, in order to possess] 15a [his land and to become fat with the goo]d things of his soil.

The phrase in question is: [ש]נים שלוש מאות ותשע[ים]:

שנים = years.
שלוש = three.
מאות = hundreds.
ותשעים = and ninety.

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who do you think was the "Wicked Priest"?

Post by John2 »

Thanks, Ben.

John T, if we do the 2 + 2 = 4 dating method, we would have to suppose a) that the author of the Damascus Document calculated the number of years since the Exile correctly (unlike others with respect to similar spans of time) and b) that it (and thus the founding of the sect) just so happens to correlate with the number of years mentioned in Ezk. 4:5. But seeing it as non-literal would be in keeping with the "loose" way the Damascus Document tends to use the OT. For example, Ezekiel is directly cited later in CD col. 3 and 4 and the verse isn't interpreted literally (and in fact it alters the biblical text by adding "ands" to it to support the interpretation, turning Ezekiel's one thing into three things):
As God ordained for them by the hand of the Prophet Ezekiel, saying, 'The Priests [and] the Levites [and] the sons of Zadok who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel strayed from me, they shall offer me fat and blood.' The Priests are the converts of Israel who departed from the land of Judah, and (the Levites are) those who joined them. The sons of Zadok are the elect of Israel, the men called by name who shall stand at the end of days."
:

They do the same thing with Amos by altering what he says about being exiled "beyond Damascus" to "to Damascus" to make it fit the location of the "new covenant in the land of Damascus."

So the Damascus Document itself tends to not take the OT so literally (despite whatever pretensions it may have to being true to it). And in the 390 years case (assuming that it is based on Ezk. 4:5 and which is the consensus), while Ezekiel applies it to the exile of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians, the Damascus Document applies it to the exile of the Southern Kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians over a hundred years later. So in the midst of these kinds of loose interpretations (and alterations of the OT to support them), why should we suppose that the sect took Ezekiel's 390 years literally? Or that they knew exactly how many years there were between the exile of Judah and the founding of the sect hundreds of years later (unlike others with respect to similar spans of time) and that the number just so happens to correlate with Ezk. 4:5 (if it isn't based on Ezekiel)?
Last edited by John2 on Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who do you think was the "Wicked Priest"?

Post by John2 »

There are other cases I can think of where the Damascus Document cites or alludes to something in the OT without explicitly mentioning the source of it. One example would be the reference to being "like blind men groping for the way" during the twenty years between the founding of the sect and the rise of the Teacher. As Flint notes:
The notion of a blind man losing his way is common in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Deut 27:18; 28:29; Isa 59:10; Zeph 1:17; Lam 4:14). Other relevant material is found in the Damascus Document. For instance, CD 1:9 reads: "And they were like the blind and like those who grope for their way," referring to the remnant of Israel. For twenty years they were like blind men groping for the way, and subsequently they sought God with a perfect heart; God then raised up for them a teacher of righteousness (CD 1:10-11).

https://books.google.com/books?id=DDUw9 ... my&f=false
It then goes on to say that those who strayed from the way "sought smooth things and preferred illusions and they watched for breaks," which alludes to Is. 30:10 and 13 without mentioning Isaiah.

Is. 30:10:
... they say to the seers, “Do not see,” and to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us what is right; speak to us smooth things, prophesy illusions ...
Is. 30:13:
... therefore this iniquity shall be to you like a breach in a high wall, bulging out and about to collapse, whose breaking comes suddenly ...
And that "they banded together against the life of the righteous," which alludes to Ps. 94:21 without mentioning it.

Ps. 94:21:
The wicked band together against the righteous and condemn the innocent to death.

And this is just in the first column (the same column that arguably alludes to Ezk. 4:5).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who do you think was the "Wicked Priest"?

Post by John2 »

I think it's worth pointing out that all of the Qumran texts that mention the Teacher of Righteousness (including the Damascus Document) are datable by paleography and carbon dating to the Herodian era (which fits the context of the niece marriage and such engaged in by "the kings of the peoples" in the Damascus Document). And since the Wicked Priest is also only mentioned in texts that refer to the Teacher, it is arguable that the Wicked Priest and the Teacher lived during the Herodian era.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who do you think was the "Wicked Priest"?

Post by John2 »

In fact, the only dating issue I can think of with respect to the idea that the Teacher was James (which I'm not stuck on but do think is the best option I'm aware of as far as what the DSS say) is the Habakkuk Pesher, which is carbon dated only up to 2 CE (plus or minus however many years, but still well into the Herodian era).

Given my impression that carbon dating gives us a good estimate of age, I don't rule out the possibility that the Teacher could be someone who lived a bit after 2 CE (such as Judas the Galilean). But what I take into consideration when it comes to the Habakkuk Pesher and James is that the pesher appears to have been written during a time of war, when a new scroll (or the resources to make one) may not have been available.

And it is commonly argued that the Kittim in the Habakkuk Pesher are the Romans, particularly the reference to the Kittim sacrificing to their standards. And while this could perhaps be applicable to another people, the only reference we have to anyone doing this is to the Romans in 70 CE.

As Lim, for example, writes in Pesharim:
The name 'Kittim' occurs numerous times in the Qumran scrolls ... Its identification with the Romans is based upon the above passage from 4QpNah and also the Habakkuk Pesher. In the exegesis of Hab. 1.16a ... the pesherist interpreted the biblical verse ... as a coded reference to the Kittim who 'sacrifice to their standards' (ototam), because 'their military arms are the objects of their reverence'. The veneration of their standards (signa) and weapons of war was a Roman practice. For instance, during the First Jewish Revolt and after Jerusalem had fallen, the Romans brought their standards into the Temple court, made sacrifices to them at the eastern gate, and there proclaimed Titus as emperor (Josephus, War 6.316). It has also been suggested by several scholars that the Roman Senate may have been behind the reference to '[their guilty house' in 1QpHab 4.10-13. In the pesher, it was according to the decision of this guilty house that '[their] rulers come [on]e after another to ruin the l[and]'.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ar7UA ... ds&f=false
Here are the references to the Kittim in the Habakkuk Pesher:
Interpreted, this concerns the Kittim [who are] quick and valiant in war, causing many to perish. [All the world shall fall] under the dominion of the Kittim, and the [wicked ...] they shall not believe in the laws of [God ...]
Interpreted, this concerns the Kittim who inspire all the nations with fear [and dread]. All their evil plotting is done with intention and they deal with all the nations in cunning and trickery.
Interpreted, this] concerns the Kittim who trample the earth with their horses and beasts. They come from afar, from the islands of the sea, to devour all the peoples like an eagle which cannot be satisfied, and they address [all the peoples] with anger and [wrath and fury] and indignation. For it is as He said, The look on their faces is like the east wind.
Interpreted, this concerns the commanders of the Kittim who despise the fortresses of the peoples and laugh at them in derision. To capture them, they encircle them with a mighty host, and out of fear and terror they deliver themselves into their hands. They destroy them because of the sins of their inhabitants.
Interpreted, [this concerns] the commanders of the Kittim who, on the counsel of [the] House of Guilt, pass one in front of the other; one after another [their] rulers come to lay waste the earth.
And they shall gather in their riches, together with all their booty, like the fish of the sea. And as for that which He said, Therefore they sacrifice to their net and burn incense to their seine: interpreted, this means that they sacrifice to their standards and worship their weapons of war. For through them their portion is fat and their sustenance rich: interpreted, this means that they divide their yoke and their tribute - their sustenance - over all the peoples year by year, ravaging many lands.
Interpreted, this concerns the Kittim who cause many to perish by the sword - youths, grown men, the aged, women and children - and who even take no pity on the fruit of the womb.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply