The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (12 page)

In the Habakkuk Commentary, the portrait of the Kittim is neutral, as in Maccabees and Daniel. (In the Damascus Document they play no part; the alien adversary there is the ‘Chief of the Kings of
Greece'.)
Feared and admired by all, they are seen to be on the point of defeating the ‘last Priests of Jerusalem' and confiscating their wealth, as they have done to many others before. Such a representation of a victorious and advancing might would hardly apply to the Greek Seleucids of Syria, who by the second half of the second century BCE were in grave decline. But it does correspond to the Romans, whose thrust to the east in the first century BCE resulted in their triumphs over Pontus, Armenia and Seleucid Syria, and finally, with the arrival of Pompey in Jerusalem in 63 BCE, in the transformation of the Hasmonaean state into Judaea, a province of the Roman republic.

Since the identification of the ‘Kittim' as Romans is nowadays generally accepted, it will suffice to cite a single, but very striking, feature in the Habakkuk Commentary to support it. Interpreting Hab. 1, 14-16 as referring to the ‘Kittim', the commentator writes: ‘This means that they sacrifice to their standards and worship their weapons of war' (IQpHab. VI, 3-5). Now this custom of worshipping the
signa
was a characteristic of the religion of the Roman armies both in republican and in imperial times, as Josephus testifies in his report of the capture of the Temple of Jerusalem by the legionaries of Titus in 70.

It is also worth noting that the ‘Kittim' of the War Scroll, the final opponents of the eschatological Israel, are subject to a king or emperor (
melekh
). Previously, in the Commentaries of Habakkuk and Nahum, they are said to have been governed by rulers
(moshelim).
In sum, therefore, the time-limits of the sect's history appear to be at one extreme the beginning of the second century BCE, and at the other some moment during the Roman imperial epoch, i.e. after 27 BCE. And this latter date is determined by Qumran archaeology as coinciding with the first Jewish war, and even more precisely with the arrival of the armies of Vespasian and Titus in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea in June 68 CE.

The ‘age of wrath' having been identified as that of the Hellenistic crisis of the beginning of the second century BCE, the ‘root' as the Hasidim of the pre-Maccabaean age, and the ‘Kittim' as the Romans, the next major problem is to discover who was, or were, the principal Jewish enemy or enemies of the sect at the time of the ministry of the Teacher of Righteousness variously known as the ‘Scoffer', the ‘Liar' , the ‘Spouter of Lies' and the ‘Wicked Priest' (IQpHab, 4QPs
^a
, CD).

It is not unreasonable to conclude that all these insults are directed at the same individual. It would appear from the Damascus Document that the ‘Scoffer' and the ‘Liar' (cf. also 4QpPs
^a
[XXXVII]) were one and the same (‘when the Scoffer arose who shed over Israel the waters of lies', CD 1, 14). And we read of the ‘Wicked Priest' that he was called ‘by the name of truth' (1QpHab VIII, 8-9) at the outset of his career, the inference being that later he changed into a ‘Liar'.

Another basic premise must be that the person intended by the fragments of information contained in the Scrolls became the head, the national leader, of the Jewish people. For although biblical names are often used symbolically, including that of ‘Israel', the actions attributed to the ‘Wicked Priest' make little sense if the person in question did not exercise both pontifical and secular power. He ‘ruled over Israel'. He ‘robbed... the riches of the men of violence who rebelled against God', probably Jewish apostates, as well as ‘the wealth of the peoples', i.e. the Gentiles. He built ‘his city of vanity with blood', committed ‘abominable deeds in Jerusalem and defiled the Temple of God' (1QpHab VIII). Taken separately, these observations might be understood allegorically, but considered together, they constitute a strong argument for recognizing the ‘Wicked Priest' as a ruling High Priest in Jerusalem.

The ‘Wicked Priest', then, was a Pontiff who enjoyed good repute before he assumed office. He was victorious over his adversaries at home and abroad. He rebuilt Jerusalem (cf. 1QpHab VIII, 8-11; 4Q
448
). And he was eventually captured and put to death by a foreign rival.

The chronological guidelines established in the preceding section locate the period in which this individual flourished between the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 BCE) and the probable date of the foundation at Qumran (150-140 BCE). During that time, five men held the office of High Priest. Three of them were pro-Greek: Jason, Menelaus and Alcimus. The remaining two were the Maccabee brothers, Jonathan and Simon. All the Hellenizers can be eliminated as candidates for the role of ‘Wicked Priest' since none can be said to have enjoyed anything like good repute at the beginning of their ministry. Jason and Alcimus fail also because neither was killed by an enemy, as implied in 1QpHab VIII-IX. Jason died in exile (2 Mac. v, 7-9) and Alcimus in office (1 Mac. ix, 54-6). The Maccabee brothers, by contrast, meet all the conditions. The careers of both men fall easily into two stages, marked, in the case of Jonathan, by his acceptance of the High Priesthood from Alexander Balas, and in the case of Simon by his willingness to become a hereditary High Priest. Both were also ‘instruments of violence' and both died by violence. Jonathan is nevertheless to be chosen rather than Simon because he alone suffered the vengeance of the ‘Chief of the Kings of Greece' and died at the hands of the ‘violent of the nations', whereas Simon was murdered by his son-in-law (i Mac. xvi, 14-16). A gallant defender of Jewish religion and independence, Jonathan succeeded the heroic Judas in 161 BCE when the latter fell in battle. But he qualified for the epithet ‘Wicked Priest' when he accepted in 153-152 BCE from Alexander Balas, a heathen usurper of the Seleucid throne who had no right to grant them, the pontifical vestments which Jonathan was not entitled to wear. Captured later by a former general of Alexander Balas, Tryphon, he was killed by him at Bascama in Transjordan (1 Mac. xiii, 23).

Concerning the identity of the ‘last Priests of Jerusalem', the passion for conquest, wealth and plunder for which they are reproached points to the Hasmonaean priestly rulers, from Simon's son, John Hyrcanus I (134-104 BCE), to Judas Aristobulus II (67-63 BCE). There can in particular be little doubt that the ‘furious young lion', designated also as ‘the last Priest' in a badly damaged Commentary on Hosea (4Q
167
11 2-3), was one of them, namely Alexander Jannaeus. The application to him of the words of Nahum, ‘who chokes prey for its lionesses', and the report that the ‘young lion' executed the ‘seekers of smooth things' by ‘hanging men alive', accord perfectly with the known story that Jannaeus crucified 800 Pharisees whilst feasting with his concubines (cf. above, p. 53).

From this it follows that ‘Ephraim', equated in the Commentary on Nahum with the ‘seekers of smooth things', symbolizes the Pharisees, and that if so, ‘Manasseh' and his dignitaries must refer to the Sadducees. In other words, the political and doctrinal opponents of the Essene community, though itself with proto-Sadducaean links on account of its priestly leadership as insinuated by MMT, were the Sadducees and the Pharisees.

This division of Jewish society into three opposing groups corresponds to the conformation described by Josephus as existing from the time of Jonathan Maccabaeus
(Antiquities
XIII, 171), but the new insight provided by the Scrolls suggests that the united resistance to Hellenism first fell apart when the Maccabees, and more precisely Jonathan, refused to acknowledge the spiritual leadership of the Teacher of Righteousness, the priestly head of the Hasidim. From then on, the sect saw its defectors as ‘Ephraim' and ‘Manasseh', these being the names of the sons of Joseph, associated in biblical history with the apostate Northern kingdom, and referred to itself as the ‘House of Judah', the faithful South.

Unfortunately, on the most vital topic of all, the question of the identity of the Teacher of Righteousness, we can be nothing like as clear. If the ‘Wicked Priest' was Jonathan Maccabaeus, the Teacher would, of course, have been one of his contemporaries. Yet all we know of him is that he was a priest (1QpHab 11, 8; 4QpPs [XXXVII ii, 15=4Q
171
]), no doubt of Zadokite affiliation, though obviously opposed to Onias IV since he did not follow him to Egypt and to his unlawful Temple in Leontopolis.
⁷¹
He founded or re-founded the Community. He transmitted to them his own distinctive interpretation of the Prophets and, if we can rely at least indirectly on the Hymns, of the laws relating to the celebration of festivals. The ‘Liar' and his sympathizers in the congregation of the Hasidim disagreed with him, and after a violent confrontation between the two factions in which the ‘Liar' gained the upper hand, the Teacher and his remaining followers fled to a place of refuge called ‘the land of Damascus': it has been suggested that this is a cryptic designation of Babylonia, the original birthplace of the group, or else that ‘Damascus' is a symbolical name for Qumran. The ‘House of Absalom' gave the Teacher of Righteousness no help against the ‘Liar', writes the Habakkuk commentator (1QpHab v, 9-12), the implication being that this was support on which he might have relied. If ‘Absalom' is also a symbol, it doubtless recalls the rebellion of Absalom against his father David, and thus points to the perfidy of a close relation or intimate friend of the Teacher. On the other hand, since the ‘House of Absalom' is accused not of an actual attack but simply of remaining silent during the Teacher's ‘chastisement', this allegorical solution may not be convincing. The allusion may then be a straightforward one. A certain Absalom was an ambassador of Judas Maccabaeus (2 Mac. xi, 17), and his son Mattathias was one of Jonathan's gallant officers (1 Mac. xi, 70). Another of his sons, Jonathan, commanded Simon's army which captured Joppa (1 Mac. xiii, 11).

Meanwhile, even in his ‘place of exile' the Teacher continued to be harassed and persecuted by the Wicked Priest. In this connection, the most important and painful episode appears to have been the Priest's pursuit of the Teacher to his settlement with the purpose of pouring on him ‘his venomous fury'. Appearing before the sectaries on ‘their Sabbath of repose', at the ‘time appointed for rest, for the Day of Atonement', his intention was to cause them ‘to stumble on the Day of Fasting'. It is impossible to say, from the evidence so far available, precisely what happened on this portentous occasion, or whether it was then or later that the Wicked Priest ‘laid hands' on the Teacher ‘that he might put him to death'. The wording is equivocal. For example, the verb in 1QpHab xi, 5, 7, translated ‘to confuse', can also mean ‘to swallow up', and some scholars have chosen to understand that the Teacher was killed by the Wicked Priest at the time of the visit. On the other hand, we find recounted in the imperfect tense (which can be rendered into English as either the future or the present tense): ‘The wicked of Ephraim and Manasseh ... seek/will seek to lay hands on the Priest and the men of his Council... But God redeems/will redeem them from out of their hand' (4QpPs
^a
[XXXVII, II, I7-I9=4QI7I]). In other words, we neither know who the founder of the Essenes was, nor how, nor where, nor when he died. Only writers upholding the most unlikely Christian identification of the Community claim to be better informed, but disagree among themselves. J. L. Teicher thought the Teacher was Jesus. For Barbara Thiering Jesus was the Wicked Priest, John the Baptist the Teacher; R. H. Eisenman rejects both and prefers James the Just, ‘the brother of the Lord', as the Teacher of Righteousness. Only the sensation-seeking media have been taken in by their theories.

It has been suggested that this inability to identify the Teacher of Righteousness in the context of the Maccabaean period undermines the credibility of the reconstruction as a whole. Is it conceivable, it is asked, that a figure of the stature of the Teacher should have left no trace in the literature relating to that time? The answer to this objection is that such writings are to all intents and purposes restricted to the Books of the Maccabees, sources politically biased in favour of their heroes and virtually oblivious of the very existence of opposition movements. Josephus himself relies largely on 1 Maccabees and cannot therefore be regarded as an independent witness. But even were this not so, and he had additional material at his disposition, his silence
vis-à-vis
the Teacher of Righteousness would still not call for particular comment since he also makes no mention of the founder of the Pharisees. And incidentally, not a few historians hold that he has nothing to say either of Jesus of Nazareth. The so-called Testimonium Flavianum
(Antiquities
XVIII, 63-4), they maintain, is a Christian interpolation into the genuine text of
Antiquities
(though others, myself included, think that part of the text is authentic). Be this as it may, not a word is breathed by him about Hillel, the greatest of the Pharisee masters, or about Yohanan ben Zakkai, who reorganized Judaism after the destruction of the Temple, although both of these men lived in Josephus' own century and Yohanan was definitely his contemporary.

Admittedly, the various fragments of information gleaned from the Dead Sea Scrolls result in an unavoidably patchy story, but it is fundamentally sound, and the continuing anonymity of the Teacher does nothing to impair it. For the present synthesis to be complete it remains now to turn to Josephus for his occasional historical references to individual Essenes and to Essenism.