The World of Jesus and the Early Church

Document)

INTRODUCTION

Archaeology concerns itself with the study of the remains of material culture. These remains include the durable items uncovered by excavations, items such as pottery, stoneware, building materials, inscriptions, coins and other valuables, glass, ostraca, tools, various other metal utensils, and the like. The remains of material culture also include writings of one sort or another, writings that may or may not have survived into modern times through scribal transmission, such as the biblical writings, or writings of which we knew nothing until modern discovery. The papyri of Egypt and the leather scrolls of the Dead Sea region represent the bulk of such writings.

All of these materials shed light on how people lived in antiquity. How they lived, how they worked, how they associated with one another, how they communicated, and what they believed are the questions that drive modern research and archaeological excavation. Constructing answers to these questions in turn sheds light on the texts that we regard as authoritative or normative, such as biblical texts. And, of course, the biblical texts shed light on what we uncover through archae­ology and discovery. It is through this interpretive reciprocity—the archaeological discovery clarifying the text and the text clarifying the archaeological discovery—that we are able to make significant progress in understanding what went before us and why we are what we are today.

The chapters that make up the present collection are focused on the early Jewish and Christian communities of faith—how these communities lived, how they developed, what they believed, what they regarded as authoritative Scripture, and how they understood it. The papers fall into two parts. The first part is concerned with community identity, how communities understood and defined themselves, and how these identities in some cases changed over time. The second part is concerned with how the early Jewish and Christian communities interpreted Scripture and how Scripture—whether text or the scriptural artifact itself—informed the community as to how it should understand and define itself and, in light of this understanding and definition, to know how it should live as a community.

The first part begins with John Collins’s study of the development of community (or communities as the case seems to be) as seen in the literature of Qum­ran, in early references and descriptions of the Essenes, and in the archaeology of Qumran. Collins believes that the evidence indicates that the yahad, or community, was an association dispersed in multiple settlements. Understood this way, the discrepancies, recensions, and (in places) lack of coherence in the Qumran rule books make sense. Not all rule books (such as various recensions of the Serek Scrolls) were composed at Qumran or in one period of time. Collins also takes a new look at the origin of the yahad. He suspects the community did not begin with a quarrel between the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest, as has been supposed. Collins thinks this quarrel was a later development. With respect to the ruins at Qumran, he wonders if the site was originally a Hasmonean outpost and only later became an Essene compound. In any case, Collins wisely recommends that interpretation of the scrolls not be tied too closely to Qumran, for at most Qumran was but one settlement of the community; it was never the community in its entirety.

Part One continues with Torleif Elgvin’s study of the conception of the heavenly temple, in what ways it was compared with the temple in Jerusalem, and in what ways it was understood in various early Jewish and Christian settings. Elgvin begins with depictions of God as king of heaven, as seen in the OT and in later intertestamental writings, including the DSS. He shows how early Christian writings build upon these older traditions in conceiving of a heavenly temple and a reigning Messiah Jesus. Elgvin concludes his study with an analysis of the book of Revelation and ponders in what ways the crises of the Neronian persecutions and the Jewish revolt might have shaped the Christian community’s understanding of God’s rule in heaven and the image and function of the heavenly temple.

Dorothy Peters looks at the boundaries of canon and the various communities of faith that treasured the contents of canon, even if these contents were not always identical. She probes the factors that determined what kept certain books within the emerging canon of Scripture and other books on the margins or just outside the boundaries of canon. Peters’s study sheds important light on how it is that some books, such as Jubilees and 1 Enoch, were regarded as authoritative in some circles and not in others and, in turn, on what implications there might be for understanding the respective communities that variously included or excluded the writings on the margins.

The next three studies focus on village and family life in Galilee and in the larger Roman world. Mark Chancey reviews several important but disputed areas in the study of villages, cities, and the economy of Galilee in the time of Jesus and his earliest followers. For example, Chancey calls our attention to the sharply divergent assessment of the economy in Galilee, how some scholars envision pressures brought on by commercial farming, geared to the needs of the urbanization of Galilee under the tetrarch Herod Antipas, while others speak of the benefits urbanization brought to the economy. The first model assumes tensions between rural inhabitants and urban inhabitants. The second model assumes close, collaborative economic ties. Chancey warns that at present the data are insufficient to form models as definitive as these. He brings his study to a close with a review of what was known of taxation, Roman or otherwise, and of large estates and commercial farms in Galilee before the Jewish revolt. Chancey concludes by admitting that economics and urban-rural relations still pose the most difficult questions to answer.

Margaret MacDonald explores what is known about Christian families in the Roman world, with special attention to the presence and role of children in early Christian house churches and how the houses became church buildings. Her aim is to bring the level of precision seen in recent studies of the family to the study of children, a much neglected area of study. MacDonald begins her discussion with a review of what has been learned of the design and function of the early Christian house church. Among other things, there is evidence of segregated seating for men and women, even though there is evidence of female leadership and patronage in early churches. MacDonald also explores the complications and dangers faced by children and mothers who were slaves, as well as Christian women who were married to non-Christian men, women who could lose custody of their children should the new faith lead to an end of the marriage. Children’s various activities, living space, and acquaintances are reviewed. MacDonald concludes with a new look at Eph 6:1–4, an often overlooked reference to the education of children in the Ephesians household code.

Part One concludes with two studies concerned with a rather grim topic: execution and burial. These studies touch on the dark side of community life, that of conflict and death. The first study by Craig Evans calls attention to the importance of family burial tombs, with reference to the Jewish custom of ossilegium, or reburial of the bones. Of special interest is the literary and archaeological evidence that indicates that even executed criminals were eventually buried in their family tombs. One case is especially interesting, in that we might have a situation in which the bones of a man who had murdered a member of his family were interred in the family tomb, in a chamber adjacent to the chamber in which the bones of the murder victim had been placed. That the bones of the murderer would be reburied in the family tomb (as Jewish law and custom permitted but did not require) is remarkable and may attest to the strength of family bonds, even in a post­mortem setting.

The chapter by Shimon Gibson, a well-known archaeologist working in Israel, brings to light new evidence relating to Jesus’ appearance before Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea and Samaria. One of the difficult facts of life and community for the Jewish people in their homeland was submission to foreign authority, whether to a puppet Herodian prince in Galilee or Gaulanitis or to the Roman prefect in Judea. More than any other story in the Gospels, there is certainty among scholars and commentators that Jesus was tried in front of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate at the Praetorium in Jerusalem, and that this led to his being sentenced to death and subsequently crucified. Gibson examines the oft-cited testimony of Roman historian Tacitus, who in the early second century wrote, "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberias, by sentence of the procurator (sic) Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious superstition (exitiabilis superstitio) was checked for a moment." Gibson reviews a number of scholarly problems relating to the details of Jesus’ hearing before Pilate, suggesting that on the basis of recent work and a new appreciation of the evidence for the western gateway of the Roman Praetorium (identified with the old palace of Herod the Great) in Jerusalem the diverse accounts of the Gospels may now be better understood. Gibson argues that the gateway was accessible to the inhabitants of the city, was situated outside the private zone of the Praetorium palace buildings, and was in proximity to the military barracks where Jesus would have been temporarily incarcerated prior to the trial.

The chapters in Part Two focus on how authoritative Scripture was interpreted in diverse community settings. George Brooke considers how Scripture is interpreted in the DSS. His interest is not merely how Scripture was interpreted in the past, but how these insights may help people today who regard Scripture as authoritative for faith and practice. Brooke rightly notes that the interpretation of Scripture in the scrolls should not be limited to examples of explicit interpretation, such as we see in the pesharim, or eschatological commentaries on the prophets and Psalms, but should include the many examples of implicit interpretation that we see in the Temple Scroll or the various Reworked Pentateuch scrolls. But Brooke also takes into consideration a variety of other texts, such as hymns, poetry, and prayers, that incorporate words and themes from Scripture. The chapter concludes with a brief consideration of the various settings in which Scripture was studied.

Keith Bodner’s study of the Samuel scrolls at Qumran shows how a community can read, reread, and recite old, familiar stories in rich new ways. He finds that the Qumran material makes a quantifiable literary contribution for biblical exegetes in the often-neglected realms of plot, character, irony, motif, theme, temporal and spatial settings, point of view, intertextuality, structural design, and keywords. In this way the Qumran texts of Samuel provide modern interpreters with an idea of the reception history of these compelling narratives. Bodner finds that while the major details in the MT and the Samuel scrolls of Qumran are often uniform, unique variations in the scrolls frequently come in the form of gap-filling or matters of characterization with a sense of vibrancy and creativity, with what could be called an attuned sensitivity to storytelling flow and intent. Finally, Bodner suggests that the Samuel scrolls provide insight into the history of interpretation, since some of the variants indisputably testify to a dynamic understanding and application of the story; that is, an active engagement with the text, as though it is being read with a sense of imaginative vitality. One may wonder if these modifications originated in settings of story telling and oral performance. If they did, they may give us an important glimpse into the role authoritative narrative played in community life.

Stephen Andrews treats readers to a study that focuses on the oldest attested Hebrew Scriptures. As almost everyone knows, the Bible scrolls found in the vicinity of the Dead Sea reach back in time some one thousand years closer to the biblical period itself. But what many readers may not know is that there are quotations of OT Scripture that reach back into time much further than even the scrolls. Recently, however, the Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription has grabbed a lot of attention, with claims that we may have evidence of scribal literacy in the tenth century BCE, perhaps in the very court of Israel’s famous King David. One scholar finds in the ostracon laws pertaining to social justice and to the protection of widows and orphans, perhaps alluding to Mosaic law. But Andrews believes the parallels and claims are much overdrawn. He concludes his chapter with a review of the famous Nash Papyrus, which contains the Ten Commandments, and the silver amulets from Ketef Hinnom, one of which contains an abridged form of the priestly blessing found in Num 6:24–26. The accumulated evidence, Andrews tells us, suggests that these amulets were worn not for magical purposes but as a confessional statement.

James Sanders, founder and long-serving president of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont, California, reviews the progress of Biblia Hebraica Quinta in the context of other major editions of the Hebrew Bible, especially in the light of the contribution made by the Dead Sea scripture scrolls. Sanders points out that one of the major results of a half century of study of the scrolls has been clearer understanding of the history of transmission of the Hebrew text and hence a gradual growth in appreciation of the MT’s being made up of five integral elements: consonants, vowels, accents, intervals, and masorot. Along with the recent, fuller recovery of the actual Masoretic phenomenon in critical study of the text, largely boosted by close study of the scrolls, has been a gradual shedding of bias against the MT’s being a Jewish propaganda device in the perennial Jewish-Christian, and then later critical, debates about the meanings of biblical texts. The Biblia Hebraica (BH) series stands as an ongoing witness to that recovery. The respective faith-community perspectives of various versions of the text—whether Hebrew, Greek, or other languages—are now recognized and appreciated for what they are and what they contribute. Each has its place in the history of the transmission and interpretation of Scripture.

Our collection of studies concludes with chapters by two NT scholars, both on the theology faculty of the University of Edinburgh. Larry Hurtado asks what the earliest Christian manuscripts tell us about their readers in the first few centuries of the Christian movement. He focuses on the physical and visual features of earliest Christian manuscripts, in order to consider what we can learn from them about those who prepared and read them. The manuscripts that Hurtado con­siders are among the earliest artifacts of Christianity. The oldest of these manu­scripts are probably the earliest Christian artifacts extant, with some of them dating to the late second century CE, a few perhaps a bit earlier. Hurtado finds that these early manuscripts show that Christians of this early period had already developed a sense of particularity, a distinctive corporate identity as Christians, and were developing and deploying expressions of this identity in their production of copies of their texts, particularly their most cherished ones, those that they read in churches as Scripture.

Paul Foster speaks directly to the question of the antiquity of these earliest manuscripts. He agrees with Hurtado that these manuscripts can and do tell us much about the communities that copied, read, and studied them. He also agrees that they are very old. But with regard to other scholars he finds it necessary to caution against the temptation of dating these manuscripts to times earlier than the evidence itself allows. As a test case Foster examines the well-known Papyrus Egerton 2, which some have claimed reaches back to the first century, possibly predating the Gospel of Mark. He shows how some paleographers were quite inaccurate in their dating of this papyrus and suggests that the lessons learned here be applied to some of the Greek NT papyri that some scholars, perhaps out of apologetic interests, are tempted to date too early. Foster rightly concludes that there is no need to engage in special pleading in attempts to make the evidence better than it really is. The NT manuscript evidence is remarkably strong, especially in comparison with other literature from late antiquity. Acccordingly, NT scholars are encouraged by Foster to celebrate the number and diversity of third-century manuscript witnesses to the text that forms the focus of their scholarly attention.

Part One

Identity in Jewish and Christian Communities of Faith

1

THE SITE OF QUMRAN AND THE SECTARIAN COMMUNITIES IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

John J. Collins

The first batch of scrolls discovered in 1947 near Qumran, by the Dead Sea, famously included the Rule of the Community, or Serek Hayakhad, also known as 1QS.[1] The press release issued by Millar Burrows on behalf of the American Schools of Oriental Research on April 11, 1948, said that this text seemed to be a manual of discipline of some comparatively little-known sect or monastic order, possibly the Essenes.[2] The idea that this monastic sect lived at Qumran did not arise immediately. Initially the ruins at Qumran were thought to be the remains of a Roman fort. But when Roland de Vaux and Lankaster Harding began to excavate the site in November–December 1951, they found a jar, identical to the ones in which the first scrolls had been found, embedded in the floor of one of the rooms. They inferred that the scrolls were related to the site after all. In his account of the excavation, Harding wrote:

it would appear, then, that the people who lived at Khirbet Qumran deposited the scrolls in the cave, probably about A.D. 70. The situation fits in well with Pliny the Elder’s account of the Essenes, who had a settlement above Engeddi, and the ruin itself, with its peculiar cemetery which is without parallel in other sites in Jordan, is clearly not an ordinary defensive or agricultural post.[3]

The association of the scrolls with the site was cemented in 1952, when the Bedouin discovered Cave 4, with a trove of more than five hundred manuscripts, at the edge of the marl plateau, literally a stone’s throw from the ruins. Several other caves containing scrolls were discovered in the immediate vicinity.

Once the connection between the scrolls and the site of Qumran had been established, it became customary to refer to the community described in 1QS as the Qumran community, and to suppose that Qumran was the sectarian settlement par excellence. According to J. T. Milik, this rule was the work of the Teacher and gave its special character to Qumrân monastic life in the first strict phase of Essenism.[4] Frank Moore Cross argued that "the term yahad, ‘community,’ seems to apply to the community par excellence, i.e., the principal settlement in the desert. The Qumrân settlement is probably unique, not only in being the original ‘exile in the desert,’ the home of the founder of the sect, but also in following a celibate rule.[5] Cross allowed that it was possible, but not probable . . . that more than one community could be termed the yahad."[6] Thus the tendency developed to regard Qumran as the setting for all the scrolls, or at least for the community described in 1QS.

Another Rule Book

Almost from the beginning, however, it was realized that the situation was more complicated than that. It was immediately apparent that there was some relationship between the newly discovered Community Rule and a text that had been discovered in the Cairo Geniza in 1896, which had come to be known as the Damascus Document (or CD, Cairo Damascus) because of references to a new covenant in the land of Damascus. This document also described a sectarian movement. Not only were there similarities in the organization of the communities described in the two rule books, but also CD contained several code names that now reappeared for the first time in the scrolls. These included Teacher of Righteousness, sons of Zadok, and man of the lie. The relationship was subsequently confirmed when fragments of the Damascus Rule were found in Qumran Cave 4.[7] In 1955, Burrows wrote:

The form of the organization and its rules are found in the Damascus Document and the Manual of Discipline. We have seen that these two documents have a great deal in common, though there are sufficient differences to show that they do not come from exactly the same group. They may represent different branches of the same movement or different stages in its history, if not both.[8]

Milik supposed that the Damascus Rule was a secondary development, drawn up by a fairly important group who left the community at Qumrân and settled in the region of Damascus, without, however, abandoning the priestly character of the movement’s theology, and remaining in communion with the ‘mother house.’ [9] Cross also supposed that 1QS was the older rule and that CD was a secondary development.[10]

More recent scholarship, however, has generally favored the priority of CD.[11] The Damascus Rule preserves the older, simpler form of community structure, while the Community Rule, or Serek, is more developed. In CD, the admission process requires only a simple oath. This simple process is also found in 1QS 5:7c–9a, but it is followed by a much more elaborate, multiyear process in 1QS 6. The Damascus (D) community required the contribution of two days’ salary per month. The Serek requires full community property. The D rule places restrictions on sexual activity. The Serek does not speak of women or children at all. The Damascus Rule is critical of the Jerusalem temple. The Serek imagines the community as an alternative temple. Each of these cases suggests that the line of development was from the more primitive kind of organization found in the D rule to the more elaborate provisions of the Serek. It is not the case that one rule simply superseded the other. Both were copied throughout the first century BCE. Equally, there is no evidence that the differences between the two rules were due to a schism. Rather, it appears that within one broad movement some people opted for a stricter, more demanding form of community life.

Multiple Settlements

The yahad, however, cannot be identified simply with one settlement in the wilderness, the Qumran community. We read in 1QS 6:

In this way shall they behave in all their places of residence. Whenever one fellow meets another, the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money. They shall eat together, together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel. In every place where there are ten men of the council of the community, there should not be missing amongst them a priest . . . And in the place in which the ten assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night, always, one relieving another. (1QS 6:1c–8a)[12]

The council of the community cannot be distinguished from the community or yahad. The plain meaning of this passage is that the yahad consists of multiple communities, with a minimum of ten members.[13] Some scholars have tried to deny this by arguing that the passage refers to members traveling outside of community[14] or that the places of residence are temporary structures. But multiple settlements are just what we should expect if the movement in question is identical with the Essene sect, as most scholars suppose. Josephus writes of the Essenes: They have no one city, but many settle in each city; and when any of the sectarians come from elsewhere, all things they have lie available to them.[15] Josephus clearly assumes that Essenes, apparently of the same order, live in many cities. Similarly, Philo says that the Essenes live in a number of towns in Judaea, and also in many villages and large groups.[16] Scholarship seems to have lost sight of these statements about the Essenes when it focuses exclusively on the site of Qumran.

The view that that the yahad was an association dispersed in multiple settlements may also shed light on one of the more puzzling aspects of the Qumran rule books. The fragments of Cave 4 show that both the D rule and the Serek existed in different recensions and that both were copied repeatedly during the first century BCE. Sarianna Metso has made a convincing argument that some later copies of the Serek preserve earlier redactional stages, while the most developed edition, in 1QS, is found in the earliest manuscript.[17] Philip Davies has questioned whether the rules reflect actual community practice: If the ‘rule’ is a rule, there can be only one version in effect at any one time. The paradox obliges us to reconsider our premises: is 1QS a ‘community rule’ at all?[18] But as Metso has argued, it was not academic interest which motivated the Qumranic scribes in their editorial work but rather the changes which had taken place in the life and practices of the community.[19] If we bear in mind that there were many settlements of the yahad, however, a new explanation becomes possible. Not all the scrolls found at Qumran were copied on site. Some may have been brought there from different settlements, which may have been operating with different editions of the Community Rule.[20] In short, the different forms of the Serek may not have been copied side by side in the same community but may have been in effect in different communities at the same time. (This possibility also undercuts the question raised by Davies as to whether the Serek was a community rule at all.) Scrolls from various communities would have been brought to Qumran for hiding in time of crisis.

Reference to Qumran?

Do the DSS, or the Serek in particular, ever refer to a settlement at Qumran?

Needless to say, the text never indicates a specific location. It does, however, speak of a group that is to go to the wilderness to prepare there the way of the Lord. From the early days of scholarship on the scrolls, scholars have seen here a specific reference to the settlement by the Dead Sea.

The passage is found in 1QS 8. The opening section (8:1–4a) announces that there shall be in the council of the community twelve men and three priests, perfect in everything that has been revealed from all the law (8:1). This section is followed by three paragraphs, each of which begins with the phrase when these are in Israel. The first of these, beginning in 8:4b, claims for the sectarian group the function of atonement, which was traditionally proper to the temple cult. The second paragraph begins in 8:12b: "when these are a community in Israel[21] . . . they shall be separated from the midst of the dwelling of the men of iniquity, to go to the wilderness to prepare there the way of Him, as it is written, ‘in the wilderness prepare the way of **** . . .’ This is the study of the law, which he commanded by the hand of Moses. The third paragraph, beginning in 9:3, reads, when these are in Israel in accordance with these rules in order to establish the spirit of holiness in truth eternal." This passage is not found in 4QSe, which lacks 8:15–9:11. The paragraph beginning in 9:3 seems to duplicate 8:4b–10 and may be a secondary insertion.[22]

In the early days of scrolls scholarship, the twelve men and three priests were understood as an inner council.[23] It is not apparent, however, that they have any administrative role. In an influential article published in 1959, E. F. Sutcliffe dubbed them The First Fifteen Members of the Qumran Community.[24] In this he was followed by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, who labeled the passage an Essene manifesto.[25] This view has been widely, though not universally, accepted. Michael Knibb spoke for many when he wrote:

This material thus appears to be the oldest in the Rule and to go back to the period shortly before the Qumran community came into existence; it may be regarded as reflecting the aims and ideals of conservative Jews who were disturbed by the way in which the Maccabean leaders were conducting affairs, and whose decision to withdraw into the wilderness was motivated by the desire to be able to observe strictly God’s laws in the way that they believed to be right. It probably dates from the middle of the second century BC.[26]

This view does not withstand a close analysis of the text.

The text of 1QS 8:1, In the council of the community (there shall be) twelve men and three priests, can be read in either of two ways. The twelve men and three priests can be taken to constitute the council of the community or to be a special group within it. It is possible to take the verse to mean that the twelve men and three priests are a special subgroup within the council of the yahad. (The council of the yahad is simply the yahad itself). This is in fact how they are understood in 1QS 8:10–11: When these have been established in the fundamental principles of the community for two years in perfection of way, they shall be set apart as holy within the council of the men of the community. They are not, then, a council in the sense of an administrative or executive body. Rather, they are an elite group set aside for special training. The establishment of such a group is necessary for the completion of the yahad: when these exist in Israel the council of the community is established in truth (8:5). The group in question cannot be taken to constitute the whole yahad, at any stage of its existence.[27] Rather, as Leaney already saw, the community or movement out of which it arose must have been represented by groups dispersed throughout the land.[28] The elite group does not break away from the yahad, nor does it found a separate organization. It may be said to found a new community, but it is a community that is an integral part of the broader yahad. The text (1QS 8:10–11) says quite clearly that certain people who have been established in the community for two years will be set apart as holy in its midst. In the extant text, the antecedent is the group of twelve men and three priests.

Unfortunately, we do not know what part this group played in the history of the movement. The numbers have symbolic significance, referring to the twelve tribes and three priestly families,[29] and we cannot be sure that this group ever came to be. Moreover, the command to prepare in the wilderness the way of the Lord is taken from Scripture and is interpreted allegorically in the text:

As it is written: In the desert prepare the way of ****, in the wilderness make level a highway for our God. This is the study of the law which he commanded through the hand of Moses, in order to act in compliance with all that has been revealed from age to age, and according to what the prophets have revealed through his holy spirit.[30]

Symbolism does not preclude literal enactment, and the fact that this text was found beside an inhabited site in the wilderness is hard to dismiss as mere coincidence. Accordingly, the suspicion persists that the retreat of this pioneering group to the wilderness marked the beginning of the Qumran community. If so, it should be noted that it did not arise from a schism in a parent group and did not by itself constitute the yahad but was part of a larger whole. It would also, of course, have to have grown in size. But while the identification of this group with the founding of the Qumran community is attractive, it is by no means certain.

If the passage in 1QS 8 does indeed refer to the beginnings of the settlement at Qumran, then that settlement would appear to be an offshoot of the main association, or perhaps a kind of retreat center where people could devote themselves to the pursuit of holiness to an exceptional degree. There is nothing to suggest that this settlement would become the headquarters or motherhouse of the sect. Neither, it should be noted, is there any mention of a motherhouse in the Greek and Latin accounts of the Essenes. Pliny writes about an Essene settlement near the Dead Sea because he happens to be giving an account of that geographical region. He does not indicate any awareness of other Essene settlements. Philo and Josephus, however, emphasize that the Essenes live in multiple locations, with no indication that any one took precedence.[31] The passage in 1QS 8, in any case, is too enigmatic to allow us to deduce much about a settlement in the wilderness, and its historical and geographical value remains uncertain.

The Date of the Movement

In light of what we have seen, the attempt to correlate the ruins of Qumran with the life of the sect known from the scrolls appears hazardous. The common assumption in older scholarship that the Teacher led his flock to the desert is unsubstantiated. If 1QS 8 is indeed a reference to the move to the desert, then presumably the yahad had been in existence for some time before that happened. The only clue to the date of this passage is provided by the paleographic date of the manuscript of 1QS, which has been estimated at 75 BCE, plus or minus twenty-five years, and falls within the same range as Jodi Magness’s date for the founding of the settlement at Qumran.[32] This coincidence, however, only keeps open the possibility of a reference in 1QS 8. It does not establish its probability.

For more than fifty years there has been a consensus that the sectarian movement described in the scrolls developed in the middle of the second century BCE.[33] This consensus has rested on two main considerations. One is a brief and elliptic narrative of sectarian origins in CD 1, and the other concerns the conflict between the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest, described in the biblical commentaries or pesharim.

The passage in CD 1 reads as follows:

He left a remnant to Israel and did not deliver it up to be destroyed. And 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 caused a plant root to spring from Israel and Aaron to inherit His Land and to prosper on the good things of His earth. And they perceived their iniquity and recognized that they were guilty men, yet for twenty years they were like blind men groping for the way. And God observed their deeds, that they sought Him with a whole heart, and He raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way of his heart.

It is universally acknowledged that the figure of 390 years is symbolic. (It is derived from Ezek 4:5, where the prophet is told to lie on his left side and bear the punishment of the house of Israel for 390 days, representing the years of the punishment of the house of Israel.) Nonetheless, most scholars have accepted the number as