Who do you think was the "Wicked Priest"?

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

Reply to John T:

As I wrote on page 17 of "Jannaeus..."

http://people.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf

"I have long been in favor of additional C14 testing." I expressed this, for example, in my note, "Radiocarbon Dating the Dead Sea Scrolls," Biblical Archaeologist 54 (1991) 172.

Radiocarbon dating is not perfect, and should be used along with other methods, but it *can* exclude some proposals--despite some published claims attempting to deny this. Two examples: C14 tests falsified the proposal of S. Zeitlin that Qumran mss were medieval; and C14 tests showed that the so-called "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" papyrus writing surface was medieval, four or so centuries after the proposed dating by K. King.

As I wrote on page 16, now with brackets added:
"But, as more and more [Qumran] texts become available, it seems somewhat embarrassing to that hypothesis [namely, the claim that 4QMMT mss were all a half century or more after its composition, putatively addressed to the first Jonathan] that none of the texts with [i.e., mentioning] the Wicked Priest or the Teacher of Righteousness securely predate 100 BCE." After all, some of the other Qumran mss do predate 100 BCE, according to most scholars, using more than one method. Again this is just one factor, among others, in concluding that the "Wicked Priest" was Jannaeus.

Second reply to Andrew Criddle:
Stated another way, if the 390 years is only symbolic, then it does not exclude Jannaeus as Wicked Priest. And, if the 390 years were symbolic plus a roughly valid, ballpark estimate (though this is disputed), then, counting from the end of Babylonian Captivity, not the start, which I think makes more sense, it could be seen as (even if not sufficient by itself) support for the Jannaeus proposal.
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 »

StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:44 am Second reply to Andrew Criddle:
Stated another way, if the 390 years is only symbolic, then it does not exclude Jannaeus as Wicked Priest. And, if the 390 years were symbolic plus a roughly valid, ballpark estimate (though this is disputed), then, counting from the end of Babylonian Captivity, not the start, which I think makes more sense, it could be seen as (even if not sufficient by itself) support for the Jannaeus proposal.
Josephus seems to think the High Priesthood were capable of keeping a very, very, accurate clock and was not merely symbolic. "...Aristobulus, intending to change the government into a kingdom, for so he resolved to do, first of all put a diadem on his head, four hundred and eighty-one years and three months after the people had been delivered from the Babylonish slavery, and were returned to their own country again."..Antiq. 13.11.1 (301).

Why doesn't the chronological clock work better for Jonathan instead of Janneus?
Dittos for the C14 dating of Habakkuk Commentary (1QpHab)?


Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

If we subtract 481 years and three months from 538 BCE, the end of Babylonian captivity, does that result match the date of Aristobulus the First?... (No.)

(Btw, fwiw, Strabo wrote that Alexander [Jannaeus] was the first to proclaim himself king. That may accord with the Talmud dinner discussed by Vered Noam in HTR.)


The Damascus Document 390 years plus 20 more years till the Teacher arose subtracted from 538 results in a time when Jonathan the First was dead. Unless an undead zombie wicked priest is posited, it does not compute.


The descriptions of 4QMMT by E. Qimron and J. Strugnell varied in different publications--and they personally differed somewhat between themselves.

But, to clarify, in Israel Museum Journal 4 (Spring 1985) page 9 they wrote "Since we agree with those scholars who identify the Wicked Priest with Jonathan the Hasmonean king [sic!, mistakenly], we assume that the text was written in his day (mid-second Century B. C. E.)"


1Qpesher Habakkuk, imo, is from the first century BCE.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

In getting the Israel Museum J. I found also this from my yellowed copy of Jerusalem Post, June 14, 1985, p. 6, in case it interests anyone here:
"Qimron and Strugnell side with those who believe it [the Wicked Priest] was Jonathan, one of the brothers of Judah the Maccabee....The late professor Yigael Yadin, one of the foremost scroll scholars, was more inclined towards...Alexander Jannaeus, who was known for his cruelty and his punishment of dissenting Jewish sects."
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 »

StephenGoranson wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:51 am
The Damascus Document 390 years plus 20 more years till the Teacher arose subtracted from 538 results in a time when Jonathan the First was dead. Unless an undead zombie wicked priest is posited, it does not compute....1Qpesher Habakkuk, imo, is from the first century BCE.
The resurrected elect, i.e. sons of light are not zombies.

Most likely, I'm misunderstanding something here.

My understanding is the Messiah appears after the death of the Teacher of Righteousness, they do not live during the same time. Which means the Wicked Priest also would not be alive during the End of Days.


"None of the men who enter the New Covenant in the land of Damascus, (BI) and who again betray it and depart from the fountain of living waters, shall be reckoned with the Council of the people or inscribed in its Book from the day of gathering in (BII) of the Teacher of the Community until the coming of the Messiah out of Aaron and Israel."...Damascus Document MS BII

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

a) The Babylonian Captivity ended in 538 BCE. If one subtracts the years mentioned in the Damascus Document, (390+20=) 410 from 538 the result is 128 BCE. The early Jonathan (High Priest from 152-142 BCE) died in 142 BCE. Therefore (if one regards these numbers as reliable) that Jonathan was dead in 128 BCE. If the Teacher arose in 128 BCE, then the Teacher had no interactions with that Jonathan, and that Jonathan would not be the Qumran-view Wicked Priest.

b) Arguments for the (if there was only one, unnamed) serving High Priest for the seven years before 152, the so-called Intersacerdotum, are given by Hartmut Stegemann in Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde (Bonn dissertation 1965, published 1971). Arguments against that proposal are given by James C. VanderKam in From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004) 244-250.
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 »

Mr. Goranson,

Thanks for your comments.
Very few people know of the subject matter we are discussing and I hope that you will continue to share your thoughts.

1. Are you claiming the Damascus Document (or any DSS for that matter) predicted the Teacher of Righteousness to arise in 128 BCE? If so, please cite your source.

2. I do not believe the 'wicked priest' and the 'last priest' are one in the same. Based on the Groningen hypothesis (series of six Wicked Priests) I have always agreed with Geza Vermes that Alexander Jannaeus was the last priest known as the 'furious young lion' in Hosea (4Q167 II ). I have not read VanderKam on this point and would like to learn more. Do you have any links to share on VanderKam?

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

Again: The Damascus Document, Cairo Genizah, Manuscript A, Page One, and Cave 4 Qumran parallels. Perhaps re-read that.

Again: these numbers given (not "predicted") may not really be accurate, but if they were, they would place the rising of the Teacher after the date that we know Jonathan I died. So *if* the Teacher arose in 128 BCE, Jonathan I was not alive then and had no interaction with the Teacher. Judah the Essene *could* have arisen in 128 BCE and become leader of the remnant and later be noted as a teacher in Jerusalem circa 104 BCE in Josephus, both in War and Antiquities. One cannot logically accept these numbers and also claim Jonathan I as the wicked priest. But, because these numbers are not reliable, let's not dwell on them disproportionately.

I hoped that I had made clear in my "Jannaeus" paper that I do not subscribe to the Groningen hypothesis. I consider Jannaeus the (sole, specified, in this case) wicked priest as well as the lion of wrath. I specifically mentioned Vermes' attempt to declare them separate (in time) as gratuitous.
http://people.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf
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 »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:11 am Again: The Damascus Document, Cairo Genizah, Manuscript A, Page One, and Cave 4 Qumran parallels. Perhaps re-read that.

Again: these numbers given (not "predicted") may not really be accurate, but if they were, they would place the rising of the Teacher after the date that we know Jonathan I died. So *if* the Teacher arose in 128 BCE, Jonathan I was not alive then and had no interaction with the Teacher. Judah the Essene *could* have arisen in 128 BCE and become leader of the remnant and later be noted as a teacher in Jerusalem circa 104 BCE in Josephus, both in War and Antiquities. One cannot logically accept these numbers and also claim Jonathan I as the wicked priest. But, because these numbers are not reliable, let's not dwell on them disproportionately.
I re-read Vermes translation of the The Damascus Document, Cairo Genizah, Manuscript A, Page One.

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.

The Teacher of Righteousness came first and then the Wicked Priest.

I tried to verify some of your key footnotes but unfortunately too much of it is not available on-line for free. Although your paper was very detailed and convincing, I just don't have the expertise/means to fact check it all.

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 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
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply