By Nathan Lawrence at HoshabaRabbah.org

The winds are blowing once again in the pro-Torah, Hebraic movement, and the weather vane has changed directions. It has moved away from the truth of the Bible and is pointing in some other direction. This new wind of doctrine is causing confusion and strife within the Body of Messiah. This esoteric doctrine is the latest in the endless cavalcade of curious teachings that have paraded past us in the past thirty years. I refer to these as “the flavor of the month, ” and it is a club with many members, who often jump from one novel religious teaching to the next seemingly on a monthly basis. The current doctrine that we will now examine under the lens of Scripture is the so-called Enoch or Zadok calendar.

Oy vey! There’s another new calendar on the Messianic scene, you might be asking yourself? Yep! I hear some of you asking, “Why can’t we just let everyone choose his or her own calendar, decide which days to celebrate the biblical feast on, all go our merry and let the matter drop? Live and let live, as the saying goes.” On the surface, this seems like the charitable approach “to maintain shalom in our ranks.” But is this really the right answer? While some differences of opinion may seem minor like how to pronounce YHVH, the Hebrew name for Elohim, other differences have more serious consequences that will cause major division and strife. The biblical calendar is one example. How is this? In ancient times and according to the Torah, celebrating the biblical feasts including the weekly Sabbath was a unifying factor in the spiritual and cultural landscape of the nation of Israel. YHVH’s sabbaths—weekly and annual—brought people together in a common place for a common purpose, namely, to praise, worship and celebrate YHVH, the God of Israel, and to learn his ways and to be encouraged and spiritually revived in serving and obeying him. If everyone was on a different calendar, how could this occur? Instead of being unified, YHVH’s people would be divided and scattered. Division and strife is not work of the Holy Spirit!

The Zadok calendar, like its predecessors—the lunar Sabbath, plural marriage or polygamy, the boker Sabbath, the flat earth, the vernal equinox calendar, aspects of rabbinic Judaism and mystical Judaism to name a few not to mention the many unbiblical teachings that are rife in the mainstream Christian church—is leading many people away from the simple truth of the Bible and into all sorts of esoteric and extra-biblical teachings. In this case, people are largely using such extra-biblical writings as the pseudepigraphal book of Enoch and Jubilees along with the Dead Sea Scrolls (or DSS for short) and not the Bible as the primary source of information to prove the Zadok calendar. This is troubling in itself for  those of us who take the sola Scriptura ­approach and believe that the Bible and the Bible alone must be the determiner of Truth. Looking to extra-biblical sources is not verboten if these confirms Scripture, but should they be used as the primary source of Truth. No. Never! However, this is this has become the modes operandi of the promoters of the Zadok calendar theory, as I have discussed and proven in exhaustive and well-documented detail in my previous videos and articles on this issue.

But those who are still not sure, I want to confirm, with the receipts, so to speak, the claims that I am making about this interesting new calendar. Perhaps this article will clear away some confusion and help to separate the wheat and chaff. Please read on.

The Enoch-Zadok Calendar Explained

The Enoch calendar is based on a 364-day year (not 3651/4 days) and is first mentioned in the ancient pseudapigraphal book of First Enoch. This calendar purportedly originated with Enoch, the great grandfather of Noah. This is in spite of the fact First Enoch was written in the third or second century BC, some 2,000 years after the time of the biblical Enoch, who died prior to Noah’s flood. This calendar is appealing to a growing number of pro-Torah Christians who are digging into the Hebraic roots of their faith and endeavoring to keep YHVH’s sabbaths, including the weekly Sabbath and biblical feasts, in accordance with the Creator’s Torah-instructions. Since the Enoch calendar purports to be of ancient derivation, some people assume that it may well be the Bible’s original calendar, hence, the one we should use today to determine when to celebrate the feasts.

 But how did we get from Enoch until today? And is there a biblical basis for the Enoch calendar? These are excellent questions that will be discussed and hopefully answered below. In the mean time, let’s give an overview of a few of the claims that the advocates of this calendar make.

The claim is made that, since the Enoch calendar supposedly dates to the time of Enoch, it must be the calendar that Moses and the Israelites used back in the Book of Exodus. Whereas the Levitical priests were the keepers and teachers of YHVH’s Torah-law, it is correctly assumed that they would have known when to observe the biblical feasts and thus should have the final say in this matter. At the end of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness, YHVH made an everlasting covenant with Phinehas (or Pinchas), the grandson of Aaron the high priest (the brother of Moses), that to his descendants would be given the priesthood forever (Num 25:12–13), and with that charge came, presumably, the knowledge of the correct biblical calendar. 

Moving forward several hundred years to the time of King David, Zadok, a descendent of Phinehas, was the high priest whose progeny carried the mantle of the covenantal promise YHVH made to Phinehas along with again, presumably, the knowledge of the true biblical calendar. 

We hear nothing more about Zadok or his descendents until Ezekiel mentions the descendents of Zadok in regards to his famous but enigmatic temple prophecy (Ezekiel chapters 40–48). In this prophecy, YHVH makes the sons of Zadok the officiants in the temple because of their faithfulness to him and his commandments (Ezek 40:46; 43:19ff; 44:15f; 48:11), and it is their role to interpret the Torah-law in matters of controversy including calendric issues (q.v., Deut 17:8–11). Because Ezekiel states that the Zadokites had been faithful to YHVH’s law, they were given this glorious charge. However, there is much debate among Bible scholars concerning whether Ezekiel’s temple is literal or allegorical. Moreover, was it fulfilled in the building of the Second Temple, or is it an allegory referring to Yeshua and the church, or is it a literal temple yet to be built? The prevailing view is that this is a millennial temple—called the Fourth Temple—that is yet to be built. One thing is certain. The Second Temple that was built in the fifth century BC and was destroyed in AD 70 never fit the description of Ezekiel’s temple, and thus Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the sons of Zadok is for a future time. 

Additionally, not letting facts and historical realities stand in their way, the proponents of the Enoch calendar, now referred to as “the Enoch-Zadok calendar” (or simply “the Zadok calendar”), have somehow parlayed the faithful priests mentioned in Ezekiel’s future temple prophecy into the priests living at the time of the Maccabees in the second century BC. This is where the DSS and the Qumran community enter the picture. The DSS were discovered in 1947. The original group of DSS scholars from that era who, based on the evidence available to them at that time, firmly believed that a group of righteous priests had been excommunicated, if you will, from the Jerusalem temple when a group of supposedly illegitimate Maccabean priests took charge thereof in the second century BC. The legitimate (Zadokite) priests fled Jerusalem and established a monastery at Qumran near where the DSS were discovered. It is believed that they were largely the writers of the DSS of which the Book of 1 Enoch is a part of this larger corpus. Since the The Book of Enoch promotes the Enoch calendar, and since, it is believed, that these scrolls dictated the lifestyle practices and theology of the Qumran sectaries, and since, it is assumed, these priests were the literal, biological descendents of Zadok and Phinehas the high priests, and since YHVH said through Ezekiel that the sons of Zadok had been faithful to guard and obey his laws, it is assumed that the Zadok calendar is the true biblical calendar for us to follow today in order accurately keep YHVH’s feasts. Hopefully you followed that line of reasoning, since it is essential to understanding the pro-Zadok calendar argument.  

Despite the fact that Ezekiel’s temple is yet to be built, and the Zadokite priesthood as officiants in that temple is for a future era, the proponents of the Zadok calendar still cite Ezekiel 44:15 and 23–24 as proof for their calendar. Ezekiel states that the sons of Zadok will teach YHVH’s people the difference between the holy and unholy, between the unclean and the clean. They will also act as judges in controversies regarding YHVH’s appointed times and Sabbaths (q.v., Deut 17:8–11). This, the claim is made, was fulfilled by the Zadokite priests of the monastery at Khirbet Qumran on the shores of the Dead Sea in Israel beginning in the late second century BC and lasting for about 175 years afterwards. After that, the inhabitants of Qumran disappear from the pages of history until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947.

There is more, but this is the essence of the pro-Zadok calendar argument. The proponents rely solely on extra-biblical books including those of the DSS to prove the validity of the Zadok calendar. Then, almost as an after thought, they reach back into the Bible, which contains not even the slightest allusion to the Zadok calendar, and attempt to “prove” their point by twisting Scriptures, a technique that the anti-Torah and “the law is nailed to the cross” and “done away with” mainstream Christian church has mastered over the centuries to the detriment of Bible truth resulting in the deception of myriads of people who now longer believe in the validity of YHVH’s Torah-law. Old habits die hard!

In what follows, we will critically analyze several of the key elements undergirding the Zadok calendar theory to see if these square with the empirical evidence, and then we will leave it up to you to decide where the truth lies.

The Prophet Malachi Excoriates a Corrupt Priesthood

The writings of the prophet Malachi are perhaps the greatest refutation of the Zadok calender theory that is currently catching the attention of many people. To embrace the Zadok calendar, one literally has to jettison the Book of Malachi from the canon of Scripture. What do I mean? Let’s explore this issue and discover an important historical fact that rips the foundation out from under the Zadok calendar theory. 

First we need to explore the historical and contextual background of this last book of the Hebrew Scriptures. or Old Testament (ot). The Book of Malachi was written between ca. 432 to 460 BC. According to Jewish tradition and some biblical scholars, Malachi meaning “my messenger,” may actually be a pseudonym for its author who may have been Ezra the scribe, a descendent of Zadok the high priest (Ezra 7:1–5), and he author of the biblical book named  for him. Ezra was also in charge of constructing the Second Temple. Whenever Malachi was written and whoever the author was, the book’s timing is shortly after the rebuilding of the temple. 

By way of a quick historical overview, the Jewish exiles had just returned from Babylon circa 516 BC. Among them were members of the tribes of Judah and Levi according to documentation in the both the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Nehemiah mentions a priest by the name of Zadok who helped with the rebuilding to the temple, but whether he was a descendent of Zadok the high priest from the time of David or not, we cannot tell.

The Second Temple was built in the time of Ezra the priest and Haggai the prophet only a few years after the return of the Jewish exiles. Its construction began in about 516 BC when its foundation was laid. A few years later, the temple was completed with the priest serving therein under the oversight of Ezra the scribe and priest and Nehemiah the governor.

Based on the writings of Nehemiah in his book, it can be assumed that the Jews including the priests started out to obey YHVH’s Torah-law to one degree or another. We read that when the Torah was read to them during fall feasts of the seventh month that they confessed their sins and repented (Nehemiah chapters 8 and 9). They then renewed their covenant with YHVH Elohim and promised to obey his commandments (chapter 9) including observing the Sabbath and biblical feasts and putting away their foreign (pagan) wives. However, this spiritual revival was short-lived. Only a short while later some wealthy Jews, including the priests, were charging usury to their fellow Israelites (Neh 5:1–12) in violation of the Torah. Moreover, some priests were still married to non-Levite wives thus defiling the priesthood and were subsequently barred from serving in temple (Neh 7:63–65). According to Nehemiah, up to that time none of the priests had been keeping the law.

Continue reading →

More free resources about the biblical calendar and the unbiblical Zadok calendar please go to:

• The Biblical Calendar Demystified at https://www.hoshanarabbah.org/pdfs/cal_demyst.pdf.
• The Biblical Calendar and the New Moon at https://www.hoshanarabbah.org/pdfs/new_moons.pdf.
• The New Moon—Visible or Conjunction? at https://www.hoshanarabbah.org/pdfs/vis_moon.pdf.
• Find more informative articles by Nathan Lawrence on the biblical calendar at https://hoshanarabbah.org/blog/?s=Biblical+Calendar&submit=Search.
• For more informative articles and video teachings about the Enoch-Zadok Calendar, go to https://hoshanarabbah.org/blog/?s=Zadok+Calendar&submit=Search.

This and other videos by Nathan are available as podcasts on Spotify and Apple podcast under “Hoshana Rabbah.”

If this message has been a blessing to you, please consider showing your appreciation by making a donation to Hoshana Rabbah at https://www.paypal.com/donate?token=Y…. Thank you!

By Nathan Lawrence, HoshanaRabbah.org 

Like a Giant Puzzle

A puzzle is a pretty picture that someone took or painted and then cut up into a hundred or a thousand pieces and challenges someone else to reassemble. When all the pieces are assembled, a beautiful scene emerges. Sometimes, however, a piece just doesn’t fit. No matter how hard you try, you cannot cram it into that spot. Yes, you can force jam it in there, and even add some touch-up to help it to match, but it’s still not quite right, and when the puzzle is “completed” the whole picture will be off. This is exactly the case with Bible teachers who are promoting the so-called Enoch-Zadok 364-day year calendar. No matter they cram pieces of the argument together and paint them to match, the picture is still off.

Are you an earnest Bible-Truth seeker who is tired of being lied to in the mainstream Christian church? You know that the gospel message is true. You know and love Yeshua, your Lord and Savior. Now you want to love him in a fuller and more blessed way by making YHVH’s Torah a part of your life. This includes celebrating the Sabbath and biblical feasts. But how? More importantly, when? Enter calendar confusion! 

More than six decades ago when I started in this Hebraic, Torah-walk, there was one calendar, then 40 years later a second one came on the scene that was closer to the truth than the first one. Now there are numerous ones all claiming to be biblically accurate including the one that is the subject of this study. Perhaps what follows will help you to unravel the Gordian knot of confusion that surrounds the subject of the biblical calendar, so that we can back to just loving Yeshua by keeping his commandments including the biblical feasts. If this is your desire, then please read on.

The Enoch-Zadok Calendar Explained

The Enoch calendar is based on a 364-day year (not 3651/4 days) and is first mentioned in the ancient pseudepigraphal book of First Enoch. This calendar purportedly originated with Enoch, the great grandfather of Noah. This is in spite of the fact First Enoch was written in the third or second century bc, some 2,000 years after the time of the biblical Enoch, who died prior to Noah’s flood. This calendar is appealing to a growing number of pro-Torah Christians who are digging into the Hebraic roots of their faith and endeavoring to keep YHVH’s sabbaths, including the weekly Sabbath and biblical feasts, in accordance with the Creator’s Torah-instructions. Since the Enoch calendar purports to be of ancient derivation, some people assume that it may well be the Bible’s original calendar, hence, the one we should use today to determine when to celebrate the feasts.

 But how did we get from Enoch until today? And is there a biblical basis for the Enoch calendar? These are excellent questions that will be discussed and hopefully answered below. In the mean time, let’s give an overview of a few of the claims that the advocates of this calendar make.

The claim is made that, since the Enoch calendar supposedly dates to the time of Enoch, it must be the calendar that Moses and the Israelites used back in the Book of Exodus. Whereas the Levitical priests were the keepers and teachers of YHVH’s Torah-law, it is correctly assumed that they would have known when to observe the biblical feasts and thus should have the final say in this matter. At the end of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness, YHVH made an everlasting covenant with Phinehas (or Pinchas), the grandson of Aaron the high priest (the brother of Moses), that to his descendants would be given the priesthood forever (Num 25:12–13), and with that charge came, presumably, the knowledge of the correct biblical calendar. 

Moving forward several hundred years to the time of King David, Zadok, a descendent of Phinehas, was the high priest whose progeny carried the mantle of the covenantal promise YHVH made to Phinehas along with again, presumably, the knowledge of the true biblical calendar. 

We hear nothing more about Zadok or his descendents until Ezekiel mentions the descendents of Zadok in regards to his famous but enigmatic temple prophecy (Ezekiel chapters 40–48). In this prophecy, YHVH makes the sons of Zadok the officiants in the temple because of their faithfulness to him and his commandments (Ezek 40:46; 43:19ff; 44:15f; 48:11), and it is their role to interpret the Torah-law in matters of controversy including calendrical issues (q.v., Deut 17:8–11). Because Ezekiel states that the Zadokites had been faithful to YHVH’s law, they were given this glorious charge. However, there is much debate among Bible scholars concerning whether Ezekiel’s temple is literal or allegorical. Moreover, was it fulfilled in the building of the Second Temple, or is it an allegory referring to Yeshua and the church, or is it a literal temple yet to be built? The prevailing view is that this is a millennial temple—called the Fourth Temple—that is yet to be built. One thing is certain. The Second Temple that was built in the fifth century bc and was destroyed in ad 70 never fit the description of Ezekiel’s temple, and thus Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the sons of Zadok is for a future time. 

Despite the fact that Ezekiel’s temple is yet to be built, and the Zadokite priesthood as officiants in that temple is for a future era, the proponents of the Zadok calendar still cite Ezekiel 44:15 and 23–24 as proof for their calendar. Ezekiel states that the sons of Zadok will teach YHVH’s people the difference between the holy and unholy, between the unclean and the clean. They will also act as judges in controversies regarding YHVH’s appointed times and Sabbaths (q.v., Deut 17:8–11). This, the claim is made, was fulfilled by the Zadokite priests of the monastery at Khirbet Qumran on the shores of the Dead Sea in Israel beginning in the late second century bc and lasting for about 175 years afterwards. After that, the inhabitants of Qumran disappear from the pages of history until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947.

Additionally, not letting facts and historical realities stand in their way, the proponents of the Enoch calendar, now referred to as “the Enoch-Zadok calendar” (or simply “the Zadok calendar”), have somehow parlayed the faithful priests mentioned in Ezekiel’s future temple prophecy into the priests living at the time of the Maccabees in the second century bc. This is where the Dead Sea Scrolls (or dss) and the Qumran community enter the picture. The dss were discovered in 1947. The original group of dss scholars from that era who, based on the evidence available to them at that time, firmly believed that a group of righteous priests had been excommunicated, if you will, from the Jerusalem temple when a group of supposedly illegitimate Maccabean priests took charge thereof in the second century bc. The legitimate (Zadokite) priests fled Jerusalem and established a monastery at Qumran near where the dss were discovered. It is believed that they were largely the writers of the dss of which the Book of 1 Enoch is a part of this larger corpus. Since the The Book of Enoch promotes the Enoch calendar, and since, it is believed, that these scrolls dictated the lifestyle practices and theology of the Qumran sectaries, and since, it is assumed, these priests were the literal, biological descendents of Zadok and Phinehas the high priests, and since YHVH said through Ezekiel that the sons of Zadok had been faithful to guard and obey his laws, it is assumed that the Zadok calendar is the true biblical calendar for us to follow today in order accurately keep YHVH’s feasts. Hopefully you followed that line of reasoning, since it is essential to understanding the pro-Zadok calendar argument. 

There is more, but this is the essence of the pro-Zadok calendar argument. The proponents rely solely on extra-biblical books including those of the dss to prove the validity of the Zadok calendar. Then, almost as an after thought, they reach back into the Bible, which contains not even the slightest allusion to the Zadok calendar, and attempt to “prove” their point by twisting Scriptures, a technique that the anti-Torah and “the law is nailed to the cross” and “done away with” mainstream Christian church has mastered over the centuries to the detriment of Bible truth resulting in the deception of myriads of people who now longer believe in the validity of YHVH’s Torah-law. Old habits die hard!

In what follows, we will critically analyze several of the key elements undergirding the Zadok calendar theory to see if these square with the empirical evidence, and then we will leave it up to you to decide where the truth lies.

The Traditional Model of the 1940s Regarding the Qumran Community and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Since the Zadok calendar is revealed in the intertestamental Book of Enoch, a book that is found among the dss, let us first discuss the earliest and traditional view put forth by the first discoverers and translator of the dss from 1947. This view promotes the idea that there is a strong correlation between the Jewish settlement at Khirbet Qumran (or Qumran for short) and the scrolls located in eleven nearby caves. This model is summarized by Geza Vermes (one of the early translators of the scrolls into English from 1962 to 1996) as follows:

[F]rom that place [i.e., Qumran], members of an ancient Jewish religious community, whose centre it was, hurried out one day and in every secrecy climbed the nearby cliffs in order to hide away in eleven caves their precious scrolls. No one came back to retrieve them, and they remained undisturbed for almost 2,000 years. (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p. 1)

This early model which connected the Qumran community with the dss also proposed a link between the sect of the Essenes and Qumran sects (ibid., p. 3). Vermes then goes on to make the further connection between the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the dss and the Qumran sect.

The principal novelty provided by the manuscripts consists of cryptic allusions to the historical origins of the Community, launched by a priest called the Teacher of Righteousness, who was persecuted by a Jewish ruler, designated as the Wicked Priest. The Teacher and his followers were compelled to withdraw into the desert, where they awaited the impending manifestation of God’s triumph over evil and darkness in the end days, which had already begun. (ibid.)

Vermes then explains what he called the “Maccabaean theory.” He states that the consensus among the earliest dss scholars quickly formed around this theory in 1952 and 1953.

The so-called Maccabean theory, placing the conflict between the Teacher of Righteousness and the politico-religious Jewish leadership of the day in the time of the Maccabaean high priest or high priest Jonathan and/or Simon, was first formulated in my 1953 doctoral dissertation, published in 1953, and was soon to be adopted by such leading specialists as J. T. Milik, F. M. Cross and R. de Vaux. (ibid., p. 4)

Please note that the theories upon which the present Zadok calendar proponents base many of their arguments were put forth by the earliest dss translators who did not, at that time, have all of the dss documents before them,which were only available to later scholars (e.g., Wise, Abeg and Cook who published their translation of the dss in 1996 and 2005) more than 50 years later! The release and translation of the dss has been a painstakingly slow process involving numerous scholars, academic institutions, several countries along with economic and political interests over the past 70 some years. The translation of subsequent dss documents since the 1950s has refined, and in some cases, radically changed some of the theories of the earlier age—a point that Wise et al make in their introductory remarks in their dss translation (A New Translation—The Dead Sea Scrolls). Thus, many scholars who have analyzed and translated more recent scrolls are now questioning the original 1950s theoretic model that purported to link the Qumran sects with the dss and the Teacher of Righteousness. What follows are quotes from various scholars who are now questioning the older views including the Maccabean theory. Why is this important to know? Because the older (out of date) view forms the premise for those teachers who are currently promoting the Zadok calendar. With this in mind, let’s now go on as we put the pieces of the puzzle together. Let’s discover if the original view that links the dss and the Teacher of Righteousness to the Qumran sect still hold true in light of the new discoveries. The validity of the Zadok calendar stands or falls on this understanding. 

Did the Qumran Sectarians Write the Dead Sea Scrolls?

The original model assumed that because the dss were found in proximity to the monastery at Qumran, the sectarians must have been their authors and librarians. That is to say, the dss were the sectarians’ writings that revealed how they lived and what they believed. Thus, since the Book of Enoch along with several other intertestamental writings lend credence to the Zadok calendar theory, it is assumed that this must have been the calendar of Qumran. But as we go on, the evidence reveals that this older view is overly broad and cannot be taken carte-blanche and at face value in light of new evidence to the contrary.

Not only were hundreds of different scribes responsible for the [Dead Sea Scrolls] texts, but very few seemed to have written more than one scroll. Only about a dozen “repeats” have at been identified. Needless to say, this situation does not square very well with the theory-now-fact that Qumran scribes produced the scrolls at the site…The logical inference is that most of the scrolls come from elsewhere. Indeed once that much has been conceded, the burden shifts and it becomes necessary to prove that any scrolls were written in Qumran. (A New Translation—The Dead Sea Scrolls, by Wise et al, p. 23)

At most, then, about fifty people inhabited the [Qumran] site, only those who could fit within its walls. (ibid., p. 24)

In the interest of honesty, it would be disingenuous of me to fail to mention the close proximity to Qumran of several of the caves, thus leading the early dss archeologists and translators to assume an intimate connection between the two. As Vermes writes,

With negligible exceptions, scholarly opinion recognized already in the 1950s that the Scrolls found in the caves and the nearby settlement were related. To take an obvious example, Cave 4 with its 575 (or perhaps 555) documents lies literally with a stone’s throw from the buildings. (Vermes, p. 14).

Vermes’ statement is slightly hyperbolic. Unless one has the throwing arm of baseball pitcher, Caves 4 and 5, according to Google maps, are some 600 feet from the nearest Qumran building plus several hundred feet above the valley floor on the face of a cliff. So yes, although the community was located near at least two of the 11 caves (others of which are located miles away), it is not a leisurely stroll from Qumran’s nearest building to the nearest cave unless you have some rock climbing experience. Despite the close proximity of two caves to Qumran, archeological evidence suggests that they may not have been frequently visited by the members of the sect. 

Aerial photography has likewise revealed no paths linking the caves where the scrolls were discovered to the site of Qumran. The movement back and forth that would have produced a path evidently did not occur. Thus the caves could not have functioned as separate libraries or repositories to which sectarians would repair for reading and reflection (p. 24).…On can no longer reasonably argue for a strong connection between the site and the scrolls, though the two may have a weak connection; that is, though the site may have been used by the sect, it cannot have been their main location. (Wise et al, p. 25)

Another theory is on the table as to the origins of the dss. Perhaps they were placed in their caves just prior to the Romans’ attacks on Jerusalem in ad 66-67 and again in ad 70, which is more than 100 years after the founding of the Qumran community. As Vermes notes, but refuses to agree with,

More recently Norman Golb of Chicago [professor of Jewish history in the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago] has launched a forceful attack on the common opinion [the Qumran sect is was the source of the dss]. His objections, reiterated in a series of papers, culminated in 1995 in a hefty tome. The target of his criticism is the provenance of the scrolls found at Qumran. According to him, the manuscripts originated in a Jerusalem library (or libraries), the contents of which were concealed in desert caves when the capital was besieged in 67 and 70 ce. (Vermes, p. 19; see also The Dead Seas Scrolls and the First Christians by Robert Eisenman, p. xxiv).

So here is yet another opinion from another scholar. What is the take-away here? The traditional, original view or model proposed by the dss scholars of the early 1950s has since been questioned by several scholars who have access to additional dss manuscripts. Therefore, the Zadokite calendar proponents’ nicely packaged view that the dss, the Qumran Community, the Book of Enoch, the Teacher of Righteousness and the sons of Zadok are all inextricably linked is now being called into question. Stay tuned. We have only just begun to unwrap this package.

Were the Qumran Sect and the Jerusalem Priests Really at Odds With Each Other?

Continue reading →