Dead Sea Scrolls

[Robert R. Higby]

This thread will be for the purpose of discussing any continuing issues or findings related to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[Robert R. Higby]

David Pardo, a new contributor to this forum, has this to say on the identity of the Teacher of Righteousness:

Note: I would like to point out my philosophy--religion should not be left to "professionals" (hired hands?)

I will use statistical inference in enumerating the reasons why I think the "Teacher of Righteousness" (TR) was most probably Onias III. If not, at this point in time he must have been lost to history.

General Remarks

(1) The dead sea scrolls explicitly state that the TR appeared in 176 BC and the anti-Hellenic Hasidim were formed in 196 BC. (I will assume that the people who wrote the scrolls could count. This raises an interesting question: is the 1446 BC date for the Exodus correct?) The dates make a lot of psychological sense. 196 BC marked the beginning consolidation of Seleucid power in the region after, not before, the decisive victory against the Ptolemies in 200 BC. Rome had also announced the official "protection" of Hellenic speaking people in 196 BC. 176 BC marked the Heliodorus incident which the Seleucids must have thought was an insult from Onias III.

(2) Where was Onias III from 175 BC to his murder? Part of his time in the desert with his small band at Qumran, part in Jerusalem?

(3) The TR could have been a sympathizer of the Hasidim. Onias III was.

(4) According to his solar calendar the TR was murdered by the "wicked priest" on the day of the atonement. Onias III was murdered when the temple tribute to Antioch was due in the autumn (note:Onias III's accusations against Menelaus probably occurred just when the Temple gold was being collected for the tribute. These public accusations must have infuriated Menelaus. This fits with the scrolls--the "wicked priest" wanted to kill the TR)

(5)The TR supposedly could read and write well. The high priest could do this.

(6) The TR must have been intelligent to have gained so much respect at once from his followers. His insistence on assuming religious authority was never challenged. This fits Onias III

(7) The TR must have known something about the Torah and the Old Testament to have worked out the number of messianic/prophetic figures. He also stood up in his theological views against the then sitting high priest. However, naturally he could not foresee if,how,when and by whom his ideas would be played out internationally in the new age(John the Baptist, Christ, Mohammed etc) Onias III could fit the bill.

(8) The TR used a solar calendar. Onias III as a Zadokite did.

(9) The TR was not an Essene or even a close offshoot. The literature on this fact is huge. For example, nowhere in the scrolls is there any mention of the Essenes. But the Zadokites figure prominently in the scrolls.

(10) The TR probably knew that the age of Aries was ending but just when he did not know. There is no known way to determine exactly when the age of Aries ends except with a confidence interval. Furthermore, Hipparchus had calculated the rate of precession in c. 135 BC. Precessional astrology would have required serious study outside of "main stream" Judaism. A high priest like Onias III might have known. And with the eschatology comes the new covenant.

(11) The age was ending; the players would appear very shortly on TR's side; politically therefore code words were used such as Kittim(Chittim--most likely Crete) generally translated as Philistines not the Romans.

Examining the Tone of his suggested Writing

(1) The TR's writing suggests that he is trying to "draw closer in to God" as if he wanted God to see the injustice of his situation and the mammonization of the Temple. This fits with Onias III perfectly. Onias III lost patience when he finally accused Menelaus.

(2) From the TR's preoccupation with sin it appears that he did not believe he was the "star" (of Bethlehem?) He needed the redemptive catharsis implied in Christ's answer to the famous Nicodemus question about being "reborn"

Jason and Menelaus

I will argue that Jason was the "man of lies" and Menelaus was the "wicked priest".

(1) Jason was not totally a Hellenist. Like the Pharisees, he accepted certain popular Hellenistic ideas (Note: later also the Hasidim joined him temporarily to force Menelaus out)

(2) Jason could have been the "man of lies" because he conducted a smear campaign against his own brother, Onias III,in 175 BC and committed bribery for the post of high priest. This would explain the TR's harsh words for him and his followers.

(3) Jason, like Menelaus, craved money. This fits the scrolls.

(4) Historically, Menelaus was indeed the wickedest priest in the Hellenistic world by any account.

(5) Menelaus murdered Onias III. The TR was apparently murdered by the "wicked priest"

(6) Jason must have been met with some approval by Onias III when he was younger otherwise he would not have been entrusted with the tribute and a high position. This fits with the scrolls.

(7) Menelaus must have been a con man. He was entrusted with the tribute and he changed names after he no longer needed to conceal his Hellenic fanaticism. Therefore, he may have met with some approval when he was young. (Stalin was in seminary when he was young) Again, this fits the scrolls.

Given the evidence and circumstances right now, I don't see anyone else other than Onias III that could fit the bill for the TR.

[David A. Pardo]

I would like to add a few fine points to my original argument about Onias III being the Teacher of Righteousness (TR)
(1) So long as Menelaus was alive, Onias III knew his life would be at risk. Onias was going to have to be an exile. Where was his "place of exile" (Dead Sea Scrolls words)? It had to be a place where he would be protected by the Seleucids or where the Seleucids would abhor murder. The choice of the sacred grove of Daphne where the temple of Apollo stood would be ideal. This explains why Menelaus could not commit the murder himself. Antioch was also not in Menelaus' "sphere of influence". (There is an argument that Onias went to Antioch to report Menelaus to the governor but I am not sure about this since the governor needed all the money he could get). If the tribute was in arrears (and I think we can find this out), then the murder must have taken place in 170 BC.
(2) The TR was murdered on the argued Zadokite day of atonement, not the Temple's. This is the reason why Menelaus could leave the Temple. We know that the tribute was in the autumn, in fact, very close to the day of atonement at the Temple since Onias III sent Jason and Jason sent Menelaus. (The high priest had to officiate in Jerusalem on the day of atonement)
(3) Jason's smear campaign against Onias began after he had handed in the tribute in 175 BC---and then? The "man of lies" etc.

I think the next step in this investigation is to look at and argue for the other possible candidates for the TR. Are these candidates convincing?

[Robert R. Higby]

David,

Please give an actual scroll reference that you believe supports this fact:

The TR was murdered on the argued Zadokite day of atonement.

Thanks, --Bob

[David A. Pardo]

I should have been clearer. Sorry! I will rephrase what I mean.
There are two dates to consider: (1)the day of atonement in the Dead Sea scrolls which I call the Zadokite day of atonement for people like Onias III and Jason and (2) the Temple's day of atonement for Menelaus. The two days are not necessarily, in fact most probably not the same.

We know that Onias III sent Jason with the tribute and Jason sent Menelaus with the tribute. Since high priests had to officiate in Jerusalem on the day of atonement, this suggests to me that the tribute was physically given to Antioch very close to or on the day of atonement honored by people like Onias III and Jason or Qumran (which I call the Zadokite date). As far as I know, historically the tribute was given in the autumn. I am not aware of any other autumn days where the high priest had to officiate in Jerusalem.

I will have to look up an Internet reference, if you want, but I think it is pretty standard dss stuff that the TR was supposed to have been killed on the day of atonement celebrated by the solar calendar date honored by people like Onias III and Jason.

This also fits with the idea that Menelaus was able to get away from Jerusalem to deliver the tribute on the Zadokite date since he was celebrating the day of atonement on a different day.

Please correct me if I am wrong .

[Robert R. Higby]

Let me re-phrase my question:

Where in the scrolls is the reference demonstrating that the TR was murdered at all?

The Commentary on Habakkuk states that his enemies pursued him to his place of exile. However, that is the extent of what I've been able to uncover regarding definite statements on his final end.

My personal belief is that he was probably murdered eventually. However, so far I have not been able to find definite references to support that claim.

I will move on to the issue of his identity soon but I feel this one has to be dealt with first.

Thanks, --Bob

[Robert R. Higby]

For those who may be unfamiliar with the story of the murder of Onias, 2 Maccabees 4:32-43 states:

32: Now Menelans, supposing that he had gotten a convenient time, stole certain vessels of gold out of the temple, and gave some of them to Andronicus, and some he sold into Tyrus and the cities round about.
33: Which when Onias knew of a surety, he reproved him, and withdrew himself into a sanctuary at Daphne, that lieth by Antiochia.
34: Wherefore Menelans, taking Andronicus apart, prayed, him to get Onias into his hands; who being persuaded thereunto, and coming to Onias in deceit, gave him his right hand with oaths; and though he were suspected by him, yet persuaded he him to come forth of the sanctuary: whom forthwith he shut up without regard of justice.
35: For the which cause not only the Jews, but many also of other nations, took great indignation, and were much grieved for the unjust murder of the man.
36: And when the king was come again from the places about Cilicia, the Jews that were in the city, and certain of the Greeks that abhorred the fact also, complained because Onias was slain without cause.
37: Therefore Antiochus was heartily sorry, and moved to pity, and wept, because of the sober and modest behaviour of him that was dead.
38: And being kindled with anger, forthwith he took away Andronicus his purple, and rent off his clothes, and leading him through the whole city unto that very place, where he had committed impiety against Onias, there slew he the cursed murderer. Thus the Lord rewarded him his punishment, as he had deserved.
39: Now when many sacrileges had been committed in the city by Lysimachus with the consent of Menelans, and the fruit thereof was spread abroad, the multitude gathered themselves together against Lysimachus, many vessels of gold being already carried away.
40: Whereupon the common people rising, and being filled with rage, Lysimachus armed about three thousand men, and began first to offer violence; one Auranus being the leader, a man far gone in years, and no less in folly.
41: They then seeing the attempt of Lysimachus, some of them caught stones, some clubs, others taking handfuls of dust, that was next at hand, cast them all together upon Lysimachus, and those that set upon them.
42: Thus many of them they wounded, and some they struck to the ground, and all of them they forced to flee: but as for the churchrobber himself, him they killed beside the treasury.
43: Of these matters therefore there was an accusation laid against Menelans.

[David A. Pardo]

Robert:
I was relying on 1QpHab xi 5-8 where abbet galuto means "his place of exile" or "his place of discovery".
I think you are right. We don't know if the TR was murdered and by the looks of things we cannot be sure if it was on the day of atonement. We must infer this: (1) there is no purpose for pursuing someone unless there is a reason like murder and (2) by looking at the text it seems that the writer also meant the day of atonement as honored by Onias III and Jason.

I would like to make an off-the-cuff comment: if the TR sincerely believed he had divine knowledge he must have been a little "off his rocker" or seriously psychologically hurt by the situation. I prefer the latter!

PS Do you have any evidence--psychological, historical etc--which can rule out Onias III or rule in anybody else?

David P.

[Robert R. Higby]

David,

There are several identities that cannot be ruled out--simply because we do not know all the facts but are still trying to piece the puzzle together. Onias III is certainly one of the possible candidates.

As you probably know if you read my previous studies, I HAVE ruled out any first century A.D. identity and also the notion that the TR (or John the Baptist, Jesus, or His followers) was an Essene; most scholars today certainly agree with this assessment. Jewish nonconformity did not EQUAL Essenism.

The main alternative viewpoint is that which I presented in my studies; i.e., that the TR lived at least 40 years after the Maccabbean crisis and very possibly later. Wise, Abegg, and Cook present the thesis that the chief enemy of the TR and his immediate students was the Pharisees. To me, THIS is the thesis that makes the most sense in light of the history of that period. Hence:

The Wicked Priest was Hyrcanus II
The Man of Lies was Ben Shetah
The Lion of Wrath was king Alexander Jannaeus
The Teacher of Righteousness cannot be identified with certainty. He may have lived in the previous generation or in the generation of these other men. One possibility is that he was the Zechariah murdered by the Pharisees referred to by Christ in Matt. 23.

If the real controversy of the main scroll documents was over the law (the Zadokite vs. Hasmonean priesthood and the solar vs. lunar calendar), then the original hypothesis makes the most sense and Onias III is a likely candidate. But if the MAIN (though not only) controversy was a theological opposition from Hellenism and its apostate influence upon the Jewish leaders, the early first century B.C.E. date of the controversies metioned in the commentary on Habakkuk fit the model the best.

[David A. Pardo]

OK!
I would first like to comment on something I wrote about the psychological stance of the TR. I should not have said "off his rocker". A person need not be insane to have a revelation. I should have said that it seems the TR did not have the catharsis that Christ probably had (the Nicodemus question). I speculate that is how Christ discovered the identity of his real biological father, Joseph of Arimathea.

On the TR's identity, the most efficient (although not full proof) approach, I think, is for us to list the possibilities and then take them out one by one. I think by reading the prayer to Jonathan probably rules out the Alexander Jannaeus hypothesis. We know that all the available evidence on Onias, even if primarily circumstantial, is quite impressive and non-contradictory and thus cannot be ruled out.

Whoever is selected as the most probable candidate has to overcome two unassailable facts. Frankly, I think that overcoming these facts is impossible:
(1) The date of the original formation of the group is written as 196 BC and the TR appeared 20 years later coincidentally in the year of the Heliodorus incident. If you were Onias, would not you see the "handwriting on the wall"? (With all those science Nobel prizes you would think that the people who wrote the scrolls could count)
(2) The historical facts in world politics fit the 196 BC dates. (as far as I know there are not any other later facts like these) Why would it take a long time, say a generation or so, for the anti-Hellenists to get organized against a very seductive philosophy?

On a lighter note, I think ultimately the issue was really about money (corruption, temptation, bribery etc.) as it is with all of us today!
DP

[Robert R. Higby]

I will respond further on the weekend; I need to re-study some arguments on both sides of the issue! --Bob

[David A. Pardo]

Robert:
Please note that the original TR would never, ever, have approved of the Prayer for Jonathan since Jonathan ie Jannaeus, was a brute and a mass murderer(whatever the civil war). If you were to take Dupont-Sommer's argument that the original TR was a Christ figure, my argument sticks. I also say this after reading some of the original TR's suggested writing. You could always make the argument that the TR was actually a person holding an office, but you would have the wrong TR.

[Robert R. Higby]

David, we are not going to agree on this one.

People call George Bush a brute and mass murderer for killing terrorists in Iraq. The actions of Alexander against the Pharisee terrorists who sought to kill all who disagreed with them once they gained power (including Alexander himself) can easily be viewed in the same light.

Alexander sought to protect all factions of Judaism against the Pharisaic murderers.

The idea that someone must to have been a political pacifist to be like Christ: this I find as against all the principles of scripture.

--Bob

[David A. Pardo]

The question still remains: how do you overcome the 196 BC date? The Jannaeus stuff supports the fact that the dead sea scrolls were probably written over a period of time, but it does not necessarily tell me anything about the original TR. (By the way, just by reading the TR's suggested writing, the TR must have been a gifted and sensitive writer or even poet who was concerned about God, not "blood and guts". Can you argue differently on this? Does your suggestion make sense when the TR and his followers wanted to live a life totally devoted to God?)

[David A. Pardo]

I would like to add something to my position. Is there a difference between the way that George Bush and Jannaeus put people to death (for example, Jannaeus crucifying Pharisees infront of their own families. Was this kind of death really necessary)?

[David A. Pardo]

Robert:
Let us say that the 196 BC date is incorrect (the Temple was incompetent in tracking calendar dates--which frankly I think is extremely improbable).
Can you spin a yarn about Jannaeus that is internally consistent and that fits the existing facts exactly? Would you need more facts to go to the level of detail as we have on Onias III?

[Robert R. Higby]

Let me just state my initial thoughts on this; I haven't had enough time to dig into it fully yet.

The scholars disagree on whether the TR was earlier second century B.C.E or early first century B.C.E. That we know. So Onias is a possible candidate, however, I have no motive to prefer him over the first century alternative since my interest is mainly theological.

The real issue is the theology of the teacher as expressed in the Hodayot Psalms and in the treatise on the two spirits (Sectarian Charter). Many of us here have found a profound similarity between our own convictions (for which we are condemned by Protestant and Catholic religious tradition) and those of the Teacher. That is far more significant to us than being absolultely certain of his actual personal identity and timeframe.

I am not convinced, however, that the prayer for king Jonathan makes any difference on the issue. Even if it was for Alexander, we don't know at what point in his life it was written. We do not know which DSS sect it comes from either--as there were many that developed as evidenced by the various perspectives represented therein.

In light of the history of that period, however, I cannot condemn Alexander for putting men to death for sedition and for plotting to kill all Jews whom they considered enemies. As far as executions taking place 'in the presence of family'--all executions in history take place in such manner. In contrast, I certainly condemn the murderous reign of the Pharisees in killing 'whomever they wished' once they gained power as described by Josephus.