Dating the Teacher of Righteousness and the Floruit of His Movement

Abstract

JBL 122/1 (2003) 53-87 (ProQuest Information and Learning: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.) Shortly after first fruits of discovery later known as Dead Sea Scrolls left hands of Bedouin, scholars began trying to explain ultimate origin of deposits. Eliezer Sukenik was first to propose their origin with ancient Jewish sect known as Essenes.1 This view immediately attracted other proponents, and by middle of 1950s, theory known as was regnant in new discipline of Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship. Nor was it long before Essene Hypothesis took its most recognizable modern form.2 Supported today by broad consensus, this form of theory holds that Khirbet Qumran is place where, in reign of either Jonathan or Simon Maccabee (i.e., in period 161-135 B.C.E.), dissident group of Jews took up monastic lifestyle. These Essenes had departed from Jerusalem in protest of current high priest. Leading them was man their own texts later styled ..., conventionally translated the Teacher of Righteousness. The group then lived out their lives in this sere setting overlooking Salt Sea. Six or seven generations followed them and did likewise, until Roman army destroyed Khirbet Qumran in 68 C.E.3 The scrolls represent library of Teacher's followers, hidden in caves to forestall destruction at hands of enemy. Thus consensus locates Teacher of Righteousness and beginnings of his movement in early to mid second century B.C.E. Advocates of this chronology have defined its parameters by appeal to three types of evidence: (1) archaeology of Khirbet Qumran site; (2) paleography of writings produced by Teacher and his followers; and (3) certain statements in manuscripts. In 1950s, these approaches seemed to lend themselves to easy combination. Like three intertwining cords of strong rope, they appeared mutually supportive. But it may now be seen that strength was perhaps more apparent than real. Today we know substantially more about each of these elements than was known when consensus chronology first took shape; new information has tended to render that chronology less secure rather than more. In pages that follow I want to suggest that totality of evidence now available offers at best only ambiguous support for chronological framework of traditional form of Essene Hypothesis. Another synthesis is at least equally viable, one that places Teacher late in second century B.C.E. and early in first, fifty or sixty years later than consensus view.4 As centerpiece of this reformulation, I propose to focus on method of dating that is, in certain respects at least, more precise than any other we have. Scholars have employed it but little because until recent years they lacked much of relevant material. Before I take up that method, however, it is important to consider very briefly why none of three conventional dating techniques necessarily supports consensus chronology-why, therefore, none stands in way of first-century dating. I. Earlier Methods of Dating Recent studies of archaeology of Khirbet Qumran argue that original investigator, Roland de Vaux, was mistaken in some of his dating for site's habitation phases. He concluded that after an Israelite-period settlement, site was reinhabited and expanded during reign of Simon Maccabee or John Hyrcanus I.5 In reaching latter conclusion French archaeologist had placed more weight on numismatics than sparse findings for earliest period could bear. As Magen Broshi has observed, a coin of John Hyrcanus cannot be used as proof that site was settled during his reign-coins can only be used as terminus quo but not as terminus ad quem.6 The detailed, recent reassessment by Jodi Magness, in particular, argues that proper for refurbishing of Khirbet Qumran, foundation date for Stratum I of Second Temple period, is somewhere between 100 B. …