Monday, November 05, 2007

Monday Thoughts: A Brief History of Qumran

In this post I want to collect some of my thoughts concerning the history of the Dead Sea community at Qumran.

1. Let me first address the relationship between the Dead Sea scrolls and the archaeological site at Qumran. Norman Golb of course suggests that there is no connection. The Qumran site was perhaps a fortress, and the scrolls of the caves come from another source. Perhaps the scrolls were stashed from a library or libraries in Jerusalem as various individuals fled the city as the Romans approached.

What a coincidence this would be--so many scrolls stashed by coincidence in caves by a compound only a couple hundred feet away. Two data argue against this suggestion. The first is that the documents of the caves are not a cross-section of Jewish literature. We do not find, for example, Esther, let alone fragments of books like 1st or 2nd Maccabees or the Wisdom of Solomon. These books existed by the time of the Roman assault and were no doubt present in Jerusalem.

Even in the apocalyptic tradition of Enoch we do not find portions from the Similitudes or the bulk of the Epistle of Enoch, which perhaps date from after the time when the site of Qumran was founded. What we do find is a significant number of sectarian texts that are unattested elsewhere. The distribution of such books would indicate that the scrolls came from some sort of sectarian provenance rather than from more generic libraries in Jerusalem.

Finally, the site of Qumran is not a fortress. The nearby cemetery points to a community, and the baptismal pools at the entrances to the site point to a community that valued purity. We therefore go with the strong majority who connect the caves to the site and see the site as the location of some sort of sectarian community.

2. The prevalence of works in the Enoch tradition (portions of 1 Enoch, Jubilees) suggests a connection between whatever group created these and the group that landed along the Dead Sea. It seems significant that one of the "charters" of the Dead Sea "movement" dates its origins to about the time the Apocalypse of Weeks and the Dream Visions portions of 1 Enoch were written.

The so called "Covenant of Damascus" says, "in the age of wrath, three hundred and ninety years after He had given them into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, He visited them, and He caused a plant root to spring from Israel and Aaron... they perceived their iniquity and recognized that they were guilty men, yet for twenty years they were like blind men groping for the way" (CD 1.5-10, Vermes' translation).

While the numbers here are most likely symbolic, they do come out about right--the first part of the second century BC for the origins of the movement and mid-second century for the rise of the so called "Teacher of Righteousness." The Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93, 91) dates to just before the Maccabean crisis (around 170BC) and the Dream Visions to just after (around 160BC).

We don't know who the members of this movement were, although the Hasidim of 1 Maccabees are sometimes suggested.

3. The Covenant of Damascus then mentions the arrival of a Teacher of Righteousness at this point: God "raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way of His heart" (CD 1.11).

Who was this Teacher of Righteousness? At this point a number of other Qumran sectarian texts come to our aid. Key is a text sometimes called the Halakhic letter, 4QMMT: "Some of the Works of the Law." This seems to be a letter concerning priestly matters from a disempowered priest to an empowered one. In the light of other texts such as the Habakkuk and Nahum commentaries, it is easy to see this as a letter from the individual who would become known as the Teacher of Righteousness to the one who would become known as the Wicked Priest.

James VanderKam suggests that we may be witnessing in 4QMMT the transition between the unknown priest who presided over the temple from 160-152BC and the assumption of that office by Jonathan Maccabeus. Strangely, we have no record of who was priest during that time.

The Maccabean crisis in part was sparked by the removal of priests who were descendants of Zadok from the high priesthood and the imposition of Syrian puppets like Menelaus and Alcimus, who died of a stroke in 160. Yet it was not until 152 when Jonathan--who was not from the line of Zadok either--assumed the role. VanderKam suggests plausibly that the Teacher of Righteousness was an unknown priest from this transition.

Here we find ourselves perhaps at the juncture in history where the three best known Jewish sects were born. The Sadducees are perhaps the continuation of the line of Zadok who are no longer in charge. The Essenes are perhaps those "doers" of the law who follow the Teacher of Righteousness but who have been part of a purity movement since the early part of the second century. Perhaps the Pharisees are another part of that purity movement who nevertheless do not follow the Teacher of Righteousness or his sectarian ways.

At this point we should mention the hypothesis of Lawrence Schiffman who also resists associating the Dead Sea community with the Essenes. He notes certain similarities between positions the Mishnah says the Sadducees held and views on purity found in documents like the Halakhic letter 4QMMT. However, even Schiffman would distinguish such Sadducees from the aristocratic Sadducees we know otherwise. VanderKam asks what is the point then of calling them Sadducees, especially when so many of their views differed from the known Sadducees.

In the end, the introduction of the possibly "Sadducean" Teacher of Righteousness into the Enochian group might easily account for Sadducean elements in an otherwise apocalyptic tradition.

4. So the Teacher of Righteousness may have been a priest who flourished in the mid-second century, who left the temple establishment when Jonathan became high priest. Jonathan of course did it his way. So the Teacher of Righteousness gathered his own following, a following that apparently numbered about 4000 at its peak (this is the number of Essenes around 100BC according to Josephus).

Where he went we do not know, although it does not appear to be Qumran. It is now more and more agreed that the site of Qumran was not inhabited until around 100BC. That leaves about 50 years for Essenism before the site was settled. Frankly, Damascus is very tempting.

The writing known as the Covenant of Damascus may represent this early period. It is the only sectarian text from Qumran known to us before Qumran was discovered (found in Cairo--we think of Philo's Therapeutae). So one wonders if it represents this early Essenism. The Temple Scroll may also come from this time, as well as some of the Thanksgiving Hymns, some of which may actually come from the Teacher of Righteousness.

At one point Jonathan tracks down the Teacher of Righteousness on the day he celebrated the Day of Atonement. Apparently he was following a different calendar than the temple--another point of disagreement. It does not seem as if Jonathan was successful, although he "tempts" the community to sin.

We have a picture from other sources of Essenes that live throughout the cities and villages of Israel. Some marry and some do not.

5. Around 100BC, a structure is built at Qumran. This particular group of Essenes seems to produce a more sectarian literature even yet. Another "community rule" is established there (1QS) with the clear sense that this is a group living together in isolation from the outside world.

It is presumably here that the best known pesher commentaries are produced like the Habakkuk and Nahum commentaries. Absent from the Dead Sea corpus are Enoch writings apparently produced by other groups.

6. Whatever is left of the community is destroyed around 68 by the Romans. Presumably the scrolls are stashed in the caves about that time.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

These arguments have been dealt with not only by Golb, but by the Donceels, by Hirschfeld and by Magen and Peleg (see their lengthy report at http://www.antiquities.org.il/images/shop/jsp/JSP6_Qumran_color.pdf.
That's the current state of research in the field. You also say nothing, for example, of the corpus of around 100 texts identified by Rachel Elior as being the writings of Temple priests. As the Copper Scroll clearly indicates, "books" and valuable artifacts were hidden not only in the caves near Qumran but throughout the region. The proximity to the Qumran fortress is simply a result of the fact that the hiding was an organized effort that took place with the assistance of people living in the region--in this case, people connected with Jerusalem on account of their military role.

Similarly, no one is saying these scrolls contain all the writings of the Jews of that time; rather, they are a haphazard collection. According to the way they chanced to be distributed for hiding throughout the region, some of the "missing" texts may have been hidden in the other sites mentioned in the Copper Scroll. Maybe various sectarian groups in or around Jerusalem were particularly keen on hiding their texts. But there's no evidence such groups lived in desert fortresses. The scrolls contain over 500 scribal hands and not a single document that can be connected with Qumran.

So I for one prefer to dwell on the current state of research and to be challenged by its implications. Incidentally, Golb has now exposed an entire array of demonstrably false assertions being made in the San Diego exhibit and in the "Virtual Qumran" film in a pair of articles:
http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/san_diego_virtual_reality_2007.pdf
and
http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/dss_review_sandiego_catalogue_2007.pdf

The challenge for defenders of the Qumran-sectarian theory is to actually respond to Golb's points, rather than to embarrass themselves by continuing to ignore them. For example, the virtual reality film asserts that the four inkwells found at Qumran were greater in number than those found anywhere else in Israel, but it doesn't mention the five inkwells found together in a room at Shu'afat, a Second-Temple-period site just a few kilometers from Jerusalem. Yet no one has argued that there was a "scriptorium" at Shu-afat. The assertion being dished out to unwitting audiences in the film is simply false. What is the explanation for this, what is the response? So far I just see silence. And what about the reference in the film-script to a secret "reason" that the film's author "never writes down"? Clearly this needs to be explained, otherwise it will be yet another embarrassment for those who defend the Essene theory.