It is into this general course of events that the history of Qumran has to be inserted. Document by document the Scrolls will be scrutinized and the literary information combined, both with the findings of Qumran archaeology and with the incidental reports provided by Josephus. In the end it is hoped that the history of the Essene sect will begin to fall reliably into place.
2 THE HISTORY OF THE ESSENES
(a) Concealed References in the Scrolls
The search for clues to the origins and story of the movement begins with the Damascus Document because it is a writing particularly rich in such hints. Here, the birth of the Community is said to have occurred in the âage of wrath', 390 years after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. At that time, a âroot' sprung âfrom Israel and Aaron', i.e. a group of pious Jews, laymen and priests, came into being in a situation of general ungodliness. These people âgroped for the way' for twenty years, and then God sent them a âTeacher of Righteousness' to guide them âin the way of His heart' (1, 5-11). The Teacher did not meet with unanimous approval within the congregation, and a faction described as âseekers of smooth things', âremovers of the bounds' and âbuilders of the wall', all metaphors seeming to point to religious laxity and infidelity, turned against him and his followers. The leader of the breakaway party, though accorded a number of unflattering sobriquets, such as âScoffer', âLiar' or âSpouter of Lies', seems to be one and the same person. His associates erred in matters of ritual cleanness, justice, chastity, the dates of festivals and Temple worship; they were lovers of money and enemies of peace. In the ensuing fratricidal struggle, the Teacher and those who remained faithful to him went into exile in the âland of Damascus' where they entered into a ânew Covenant'. There, the Teacher of Righteousness was âgathered in', meaning that he died. In the meantime, the wicked dominated over Jerusalem and the Temple, though not without experiencing God's vengeance at the hands of the âChief of the Kings of Greece'.
A similar picture emerges from the Habakkuk Commentary with its explicit mention of desertion by disciples of the Teacher of Righteousness to the Liar, and also by members unfaithful to the ânew Covenant'. The allusions to the protagonists of the conflict are sharper in this work than in the Damascus Document. We learn that the villain, known in this Scroll as the âWicked Priest' as well as the âLiar' and âSpouter of Lies', was âcalled by the name of truth' before he became Israel's ruler and was corrupted by wealth and power (VIII, 8-11) - the implication being that for a time he had met with the sect's approval. Subsequently, however, he defiled Jerusalem and the Temple. He also sinned against the Teacher of Righteousness and his disciples, chastising him while the âHouse of Absalom' looked silently on (v, 9-12), and confronting him in his place of exile on the sect's Day of Atonement (xi, 6-8). He âvilified and outraged the elect of God', âplotted to destroy the Poor', i.e. the Community, and stole their riches. As a punishment, God delivered him âinto the hand of his enemies', who âtook vengeance on his body of flesh' (IX, 2). At the last judgement, predicts the Commentary, the Wicked Priest will empty âthe cup of wrath of God'. His successors, the âlast Priests of Jerusalem', are also charged with amassing âmoney and wealth by plundering the peoples', i.e. foreigners. But, so the commentator asserts, all their riches and booty will be snatched from them by the Kittim, the conquerors of the world commissioned by God to pay them their just deserts.
Because of lacunae, one cannot be quite sure from the Habakkuk Commentary that the Teacher was a priest. The Commentary on Psalms (Ps. xxxvii, 4Q
171
,
173
), by contrast, makes this plain. Interpreting verses 23-4, it reads: âthis concerns the Priest, the Teacher of [Righteousness]'. It further supplies a significant detail by assigning to âthe violent of the nations', that is to say to the Gentiles as opposed to the Jews, the execution of judgement on the Wicked Priest. Another point of interest is that the enemies of the sect are alluded to as âthe wicked of Ephraim and Manasseh', i.e. as of two distinct factions. They appear also in the Commentary on Nahum.
In the Messianic Anthology or Testimonia (4Q
175
), references appear in the final section, borrowed from a Joshua Apocryphon or Psalms of Joshua (4Q
379
fr. 22 ii), to two âinstruments of violence' who ruled Jerusalem. They are cursed for making the city a âstronghold of ungodliness' and for committing âan abomination' in the land. They are also said to have shed blood âlike water on the ramparts of the daughter of Zion'. The relationship of the two tyrants to one another cannot be established with certainty because of the fragmentary nature of the manuscript. They could be father and son. On the other hand, the expression âinstruments of violence' depends on Genesis xlix, 5 where it describes the brother murderers, Simeon and Levi, the destroyers of Shechem.
The Nahum Commentary moves on to an age following that of the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest, as neither of them is mentioned. The principal character here is the âfurious young lion', a Jewish ruler of Jerusalem. He is said to have taken revenge on the âseekers of smooth things', whom he reproached for having invited âDemetrius' the king of Greece to Jerusalem. The attempt failed; no foreigner entered the city âfrom the time of Antiochus until the coming of the rulers of the Kittim'. The enemies of the âfurious young lion' were âhanged alive on the tree', a familiar Hebrew circumlocution for crucifixion. As in the Commentary on Psalm xxxvii, the sobriquets âEphraim' and âManasseh' are attached to the Community's opponents. âEphraim' is said to âwalk in lies and falsehood', but because of gaps in the manuscript, the description of âManasseh' is less clear. It seems nevertheless that this party included âgreat men', âmighty men' and âmen of dignity'.
The Nahum Commentary was the first of the Qumran Scrolls to disclose historical names: those of two Seleucid kings, Antiochus and Demetrius. But their identity has still to be determined because nine monarchs in all bore the first name, and three the second. Additional names figure in various Cave 4 manuscripts of a liturgical calendar (4Q
331-3
): âShelamzion', the Hebrew name of Queen Salome-Alexandra, widow of Alexander Jannaeus, who reigned from 76 to 67 BCE; âHyrcanus' and âJohn', probably John Hyrcanus II, son of Alexandra and High Priest from 76 to 67 and again from 63 to 40; and âEmilius', no doubt M. Aemilius Scaurus, the first Roman governor of Syria from 65 to 62 BCE, who is charged with killing people. Note also that the Balakros of 4Q
243
may be the Seleucid usurper Alexander Balas.
A remarkable piece of prayer-poetry (4Q
448
) refers to âKing Jonathan' in connection with Jerusalem and diaspora Jewry. A good case has been made out by E. and H. Eshel
(IEJ
42, 1992, 199-229) for identifying him with Alexander Jannaeus, but in my opinion an even stronger argument points towards Jonathan Maccabaeus as âKing Jonathan' (cf.
JJS
44, 1993, 294-300). Also, one of the proposed readings of line 9 of the List of False Prophets (4Q
339
), â[John son of Sim]on', would provide an allusion to John Hyrcanus I. Finally, the person called Potlaos - Ptollas - Peitholaos (4Q
468e
) may refer to one of two historical figures who lived either in the middle or the end of the first century BCE.
In the Commentaries on Habakkuk and Nahum, the Kittim are represented as instruments appointed by God to punish the ungodly priests of Jerusalem. The War Rule, however, testifies to a changed attitude towards them on the part of the sect by making the Kittim appear as the chief allies of Belial or Satan and the final foe to be subjugated by the hosts of the sons of Light. The Rule of War (4Q
285
), although very fragmentary, appears to point in the same direction.
Several Qumran Hymns reflect the career and sentiments of a teacher, possibly of the Teacher of Righteousness himself. According to them, he was opposed by âinterpreters of error', âtraitors', âdeceivers', and âthose who seek smooth things', all of whom were formerly his âfriends' and âmembers of [his] Covenant', bearers of the âyoke of [his] testimony'. In one of them, the reference to a âdevilish scheme' is reminiscent of the allusion in the Habakkuk Commentary to the visit of the Wicked Priest to the Community's place of exile in order to cause them âto stumble':
Teachers of lies [have smoothed] Thy people [with words],
and [false prophets] have led them astray...
They have banished me from my land like a bird from its nest...
And they, teachers of lies and seers of falsehood,
have schemed against me a devilish scheme,
to exchange the Law engraved on my heart by Thee
for the smooth things (which they speak) to Thy people.
And they withhold from the thirsty the drink of Knowledge,
and assuage their thirst with vinegar,
that they may gaze on their straying,
on their folly concerning their feast-days,
on their fall into the snares.
(IQH XII [formerly IV], 7-12)
Another Hymn appears to hint at the Teacher's withdrawal from society and to announce with confidence his eventual glorious justification:
For Thou, O God, hast sheltered me
from the children of men,
and hast hidden Thy Law [within me]
against the time when Thou shouldst reveal
Thy salvation to me.
(IQH XIII [formerly V], 11-12)
Some scholars consider these poems autobiographical, i.e. written by the Teacher, but this is mere speculation.
It would be unrealistic, taking into account the vagueness of all these statements, the cryptic nature of the symbolism and the entire lack of any systematic exposition of the sect's history, to expect every detail to be identified. We can, however, attempt to define the chronological framework of the historical references and thus be in a position to place at least some of the key events and principal personalities within the context of Jewish history as we know it.
(b) The Chronological Framework
The chronological setting of Qumran history may be reconstructed from archaeological and literary evidence. The excavations of 1951-6 date the beginning, the
terminus a quo,
of the sectarian establishment to 150-140 BCE and its end, the
terminus ad quem,
to the middle of the first war against Rome, 68 CE.
70
The literary allusions, particularly the identifiable historical names, confirm this general finding. It goes without saying, however, that the initial phases of the Community's existence must have preceded by some years or decades the actual establishment of the sect at Qumran. The first task therefore is to examine the Scrolls for indications of its origins. The Nahum Commentary implies that a king by the name of Antiochus was alive at the beginning of the period with which the documents are concerned. This Antiochus, although one among several so called, can only have been Antiochus IV Epiphanes, notorious for his looting of Jerusalem and the profanation of the Temple in 169-168 BCE.
More significant as a chronological pointer is the dating, in the Damascus Document, of the sect's beginnings to the âage of wrath', 390 years after the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE. This should bring us to 196 BCE but, as is well known, Jewish historians are not very reliable in their time-reckoning for the post-exilic era. They do not seem to have had a clear idea of the length of the Persian domination, and they were in addition not free of the theological influence of the Book of Daniel, where a period of seventy weeks of years, i.e. 490 years, is given as separating the epoch of Nebuchadnezzar from that of the Messiah. As it happens, if to this figure of 390 years is added, firstly twenty (during which the ancestors of the Community âgroped' for their way until the entry on the scene of the Teacher of Righteousness), then another forty (the time span between the death of the Teacher and the dawn of the messianic epoch), the total stretch of years arrived at is 450. And if to this total is added the duration of the Teacher's ministry of, say, forty years - a customary round figureâthe final result is the classic seventy times seven years.
Yet even if the literal figure of 390 is rejected, there are still compelling reasons for placing the âage of wrath' in the opening decades of the second pre-Christian century. Only the Hellenistic crisis which occurred at that time, and which is recalled in various Jewish literary sources from the last two centuries BCE, provides a fitting context for the historical allusions made in the sectarian writings (cf. Daniel ix-xi; Enoch xc, 6-7; Jubilees XXIII, 14-19; Testament of Levi XVII; Assumption of Moses IV-V). Also, it is the Hasidim of the pre-Maccabaean and early Maccabaean era who best correspond to the earlier but unorganized group as it is described there (cf. pp. 51-2).
As for the
terminus ad quem
of Qumran history, as this is linked to the appearance of the Kittim, we have to determine who these people were. In its primitive sense, the word âKittim' described the inhabitants of Kition, a Phoenician colony in Cyprus. Later the name tended to be applied indiscriminately to those living in âall islands and most maritime countries' (Josephus,
Antiquities
1, 128). But from the second century BCE, Jewish writers also used âKittim' more precisely to denote the greatest world power of the day. In Maccabees (i, 1; viii, 5) they are Greeks; Alexander the Great and Perseus are called kings of the âKittim'. In Daniel xi, 30 on the other hand, the âKittim' are Romans; it was the ambassador of the Roman senate, Poppilius Laenas, brought to Alexandria by âships of Kittim', i.e. the Roman fleet, who instructed the âking of the North', the Seleucid monarch Antiochus Epiphanes, to withdraw at once from Egypt. The term âRomans' is substituted for âKittim' already in the old Greek or Septuagint version of Daniel xi, 30. None of these texts is critical of the âKittim'. They are seen as the ruling force of the time, but not as hostile to Israel. In fact, in Daniel they humiliate the enemy of the Jews. It is not till a later stage, especially after 70 CE, that they come to symbolize oppression and tyranny.