"Essene Monk" by Hugh
ODonnell Sep, 15, 2011
In
order to understand the Essene monks who lived
in Jerusalem at the time of Christ, one must understand the history of Israel’s three
religious groups, the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, during the 200 years before Jesus
was born. This history, the history of
Maccabee/Hasmonian rule, tells us Essenes protested Maccabean rule by refusing to worship
in the temple with other Hasmonian Jews. The Essenes protested a combined High
Priest and King, into one person, as was done with Jonathan Maccabee in 152 BCE.
As
a result, an Essene “protest” monastery (worship site) was established at Qumran
around 152 BCE. In 30 BCE, the Qumran
personnel were forced to temporarily move to Jerusalem when fire and earthquake evacuated
the settlement. We know from historic evidence,
that once Herod the Great became King of the Jews in 37 BCE, he purged the Maccabbee
favored Sanhedrin serving the temple in Jerusalem. Hasmonian Sadducee priests were
replaced in the Jerusalem temple with Qumran Essene priests and other non Hasmonean
Sadducee priests until Herod died in 4 BC. When Herod's son became King,
Hasmoneans Sadducee priests were returned to power in Jerusalem.
The
following correspondence, between me and Professor Vanderkam, describes how the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Israel's Hasmonian history sheds much light on who these Essene monks
were…. and why I think a Jerusalem Essene priest was closely connected to events in
the Gospel of John’s involving an "unnamed" disciple of Jesus.
I believe an Essene monk, identified as Jesus’ "other" or "beloved" disciple, in John’s Gospel, could well have been son of an Essene temple priest under Herod the Great prior to 4 BCE. I believe this Essene priest’s son lived in Jerusalem during Jesus' ministry and was a significant member of an aesthetic monastic Jerusalem "remnant" community living in Jerusalem during Herod’s son's rule. Once the Hasmonian priests returned to power in 4 BCE, “Essene” priestly ancestory was no longer a desirable connection. In fact, many believe, the Herodians, mentioned in the New Testament, were remnant "Essene" temple authorities. Most Essenes did not call themselves Essene, but were refered to as devout Jews who were not members of the political Jews named Sadducees and Pharisees.
Remember, Essene priests no longer served the temple under
Herod’s son once Maccabean Pharisees and Hasmonian Sadducee priests were returned to
power with Herod the Great's death in 4 BCE. However, Essene remnant priests seem to have
continued living in the priestly community of SW Jerusalem where Caiaphas is known to have
lived.
The
"unknown" disciple of Jesus, mentioned in John several times, what I will call a
Jerusalem Essene monk, is interestingly described in John 18:15 as being friendly with
Sadducees priests now back in power. The beloved disciple likely lived in the
“Upper Room” area, described in Acts, located close to Caiaphas’ home. I believe the disciple is again mentioned in John
13:23 as host for Jesus’ last supper where he would have sat to Jesus’ right, as
host, and to the left of Peter, Jesus’ second in command.
Hugh
ODonnell note to Professor Vanderkam
February 2011
I read page 136 of your book, "The Dead Sea
Scrolls Today," concerning your thesis on the closure of Qumran during
the reign of Herod the Great. DeVaux’s
books said the closure was extended, your book suggests the closure was brief.
The new evidence, I believe, supports De Vaux's claims.
The evidence comes via the Essene Gate - a wall modification or gate built by
Herod the Great to meet the Qumran/Essene purification practices. During the years Herod built his expanded
temple, he would have needed to provide for these Qumran priests which he used after
purging the existing Hasmonian Sanhedrin (~30 BCE.)
I will read your book, ”From
Joshua to Caiaphas”, as
background to Hasmonian history and to
understand the relationship of Macabbean Sadducees priests running the temple at the
time of Christ to former "Essene" temple priests living in SW Jerusalem around
30 AD. I feel sure a boy Jesus hung around this Essene community in Jerusalem, along
with his relatives and relatives of John the Baptist's father. We can imagine that
Jesus’ family visited Jerusalem during pilgrimage feasts three times a year after
Jesus was 10 years of age. We can even imagine that Jesus had many childhood friends
living in SW Jerusalem before Jesus headed for the Jordan river in 28 AD to pursue a
ministry like his cousin, John the Baptist did.
Question - Might the Apostles have
been a traveling group of 10+ celibate men serving the spiritual and corporal needs
of Capernaum? From the historian Josephus and
the DSSs, we know that throughout Israel, groups of about a dozen “Essene
Elders”, lived apart from Qumran, but in community, sharing evening meals, caring for
the corporeal and spiritual needs of small towns in Judea.
Before
the DSS we could never have imagined that groups like the apostles were all over
Judea.
What has been important to me in my study of the DSS, has been the "might” possibilities, explaining areas of biblical studies, that before, were very perplexing to me, even disconcerting.
I never
believed stuff like John of Zebedee, being at the foot of the cross, only in John, and yet
asked to care for Mary, when it seems that all male Galilee disciples of Jesus were scared
to death of the Sanhedrin and Romans after Jesus' arrest...but probably not this beloved
disciple who was from the family of a former temple priest. I could never see John of
Zebedee as the beloved disciple. But I do see
this Essene monk as a “man of means” being asked to care for Mary, from when
Jesus died to when Mary departed this earth. Located next to the upper
room in SW Jerusalem is the Bascilica of the Dormition of Mary.
When you asked me why I wanted to study the DSS, you might like to know, that elaborate
theories, like Gabriele Boccaccini and Brian Capper, "could it be"
theories, theories that are reasonable to this scientific mind, greatly speak to
me... especially when so many, unscientific and disconcerting "facts" were
forced down my throat when I was a less informed Catholic....like the Ever Virgin Mary
dogma. I don't care that these reasonable, “could it be”
theories will ever be proved... nor will I ever try to teach them as fact... just
could it be. I am sad that “Could it be” seems to be unacceptable words to
many scholars and Church authorities ….when these new theories fly in the face of
what the Church traditionally taught... before we knew of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
See you March 2.
Hugh
-----Original Message-----
From: James Vanderkam To: hod77
Sent: Mon, Feb 21, 2011 11:18 am
Subject: Re: Reading Ideas
Dear Hugh,
A lot of questions! One feature of the field—one that impresses itself on the student more and more—is how little we know, despite what some claim and the large reconstructions some offer.
Let's take the Sadducee issue as an example. The Sadducees are the least well known group of those Josephus mentions. He describes them very briefly and mentions them in connection with the change of power at the time of John Hyrcanus. Other than that he barely mentions them. The NT has a few references to them and their beliefs. From this small foundation, some claim they can reconstruct a history of relations between Sadducees and rulers—as in the list at the end of your message.
Of the rulers in that list, the sources say that John Hyrcanus switched from the Pharisees to the Sadducees when a Pharisee offended him. We do not know the views of Aristobulus I on the Sadducees. Alexander Jannaeus was pro-Sadducee and certainly anti-Pharisee. His wife Salome Alexandra switched and became pro-Pharisee. After that we have no information about who supported whom. People often assume that Sadducees held the high priesthood, but the only reference we have to this is in Acts 5:17 and Josephus's report that the high priest who executed James several decades later was a Sadducee. Whether any of the other high priests were Sadducees or even pro-Sadducee the sources do not say.
We also do not know much about Herod's views, although Josephus mentions some Pharisaic opposition to him at the end of his reign. As for what he thought of the Essenes, Josephus mentions the prediction of his ascent to the throne made by Menahem and of the respect he showed to the Essenes. But we know nothing of his helping Essenes from Qumran relocate to Jerusalem. Also, as people now think, there was not much of a gap in occupation at Qumran after the earthquake in 30.
We really are in the dark about much of the pre-Hasmonean period. We have good reason for thinking that the earliest booklets of Enoch were written in the third century (some think even earlier), and we know the people of Qumran later had copies of these and other booklets of Enoch. But what the relations may have been between the earliest writers in the Enoch tradition and the predecessors of the people of Qumran we do not know. They do share a number of views, but it is surprising that Moses plays such a limited role in the Enoch texts, whereas he plays a much larger one in the Qumran literature. Gabriele Boccaccini at the University of Michigan has an elaborate theory about all of this but one that I think goes considerably beyond the evidence.
I think we can say that at an early time there were at least two different approaches to legal questions. One was a more stringent one and the other less so. The people of Qumran followed the first approach, the Pharisees seem to have followed the second one. In a couple of cases Qumran legal positions and legal positions that in the Mishnah are called Sadducean positions coincide. So, Sadducees and Qumranites seem to have taken a similar approach to legal matters. That, however, does not entail that Sadducees and Qumranites were ever united as a group. It seems unlikely they were, given their other strong differences.
I suggest that to find out the information we have about these groups and subjects you begin with articles in standard dictionaries and encyclopedias. For example, you can turn to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, the New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, and the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Another helpful source of information is the new Schürer: E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (3 vols.; revised and edited by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar; Edinburgh: Clark, 1973-87).
Best wishes,
Jim VanderKam
On Feb 17, 2011, at 8:09 PM, hod77, Hugh ODonnell, wrote:
Dear Professor Vanderkam
On page 154 of your book, "Dead Sea Scrolls Today," you mention “Manasseh” might have been a code name for non-Essene Sadducees. Both Essene priests and “Manasseh’ priests appear to have been one group, a group of both Zodakians and Sadducean priest, before the split in 152 BC.
Question - Do you have any literature that expands on these two groups as they subsequently developed …the Saduccee priests (favored by Alexander Jannaeus over Pharisees in 77 BC) and the Qumranite priest (152BC-70AD)?
The reason I ask is that I’m trying to get insight on why Herod the Great might have favored both Sadducees and Qumranites at the birth of Jesus. I understand why Herod the Great was disfavored by Pharisees. But did he favor Essenes because of a prophet named Menahem?
Brian Capper contends the Qumranites lived in Jerusalem under Herod the Great’s care after the Qumran site was destroyed in ~30 BC by fire/earthquake. Do you agree that Herod helped the Essenes relocate to Jerusalem for a period of time?
Capper
theorizes a person, let me call him “John, the Jerusalem Essene priest,”
may have led the Jerusalem Essene group living in SW Jerusalem in 30 AD, and who may have
been the person with Peter referred to in John !8:15. I’m trying to see if that
was even possible. I’m trying to determine how an Essene priest might have been
treated by a Sanhedrin Sadducee priest at the trial of Jesus, particularly if Sadducean
priests and Essene Zakodean priests lived together in Jerusalem for some period of time.
BTW, when did Zadokian theology become pro Enoch and Sadducean theology become non Enochian, non angels?
We can discuss this at our next meeting if you give me now some reading material on this subject, beyond what you have in your book.
Regards Hugh ODonnell
See HerodHistory history link
Antiochus IV (Seleucid Empire) vrs Maccabean Revolt 167-162 BC
1. Mattathias, Judah(167–162BC), no high priest(162-152BC), Jonathan (152-142 BC), Simon Maccabee (142-135BC) neither pro or anti Pharissee
2. John Hyrcanus I (135-104 BC) neither pro or anti Pharissee
3. Aristobus I, (104-103) a Sadducee
4. Alexander Jannaeus AJ (103-76) anti Pharisee, pro Sadducee
5. John Hyrcanus II (76-40 BC) pro Pharisee, anti Sadducee
6. Antigonus II Mattathias (40-37BC)
7. Herod the Great HG (37-4 BC) pro Sadducees, pro Qumranites, anti Pharisee
8. Herod Archelaus (4 BC-AD 6) pro Pharisee, anti Qumranite..
=
