The abbey remembers ancient times,
His chapel pleases the eye,
And the ladies who captivated us
Descended under the vaulted arches
Ancient crypts.

Armfuls of mown hay
Wrapped in a shroud of salt,
And the bell, the voice of pain,
Sad, like a humble monk.
And just as lonely.

But more than a sleepy virgin
And all sorts of miracles
Enchantment shines
One of the Druidesses
And the cat enchants her with the sun.

Preface
Four Dead Sea Scrolls

...

For sale are four biblical-era manuscripts dating back to at least 200 BC. They would make an ideal gift for an educational or religious organization from an individual or group. Box F 206.

This is what an ad published on June 1, 1954, looked like in the Wall Street Journals. If an announcement of this kind appeared today, it would, without a doubt, be perceived as a kind of joke, and, moreover, not in the best tone. In addition, it could raise suspicions that it is a coded message, the purpose of which is to disguise, for example, secret information about a scam or something related to espionage.

Of course, these days scrolls Dead Sea are known quite well, but usually only by name. Most people who have the most incredible fantasies about what they are have at least heard of the existence of scrolls. Among other things, there is an opinion that these scrolls are in some respects unique and priceless artifacts, archaeological evidence of enormous value and significance. It's hard to expect to find things like this when digging around in your garden or backyard. It is equally useless, although others think differently, to try to look for them among rusty weapons, household rubbish, broken dishes, remains of harnesses and other household items that can be found, say, during excavations at the site of Roman legionnaires in Britain.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 caused a stir and avid interest among both scientists and the general public. But by 1954, the first wave of excitement was skillfully dispelled. It was believed that the scrolls contained only what such things can store, and the information they carried turned out to be much less pressing than expected. Therefore, the advertisement for the sale of four scrolls, published in the Wall Street Journal (p. 14), did not arouse widespread public interest. Directly below it were advertisements for the sale of industrial steel tanks, electric welding machines and other equipment. The adjacent column contained lists of premises and objects for rent, and various types of vacancies. In short, this can only be compared with an advertisement for the sale of treasures from the tomb of Tutankhamun, placed among advertisements for water pipes or components and consumables for computers. This book will discuss exactly how such a blatant anomaly could arise.

Having traced the fate and path of the Dead Sea Scrolls from their discovery in the Judean Desert to the safes of various organizations and institutions where they are stored today, we found that we came face to face with the same contradiction that we had to deal with before: the contradiction between Jesus - a historical person and the Christ of faith. Our research began in Israel. Then they were continued in the corridors of the Vatican and, what is very strange, in the offices of the Inquisition. We had to face strong opposition to the "consensus" of interpretation regarding the content and dating of the scrolls and realize how explosive an impartial and independent study of them could be for the entire theological tradition of Christianity. Moreover, we are on own experience We became convinced with what rage the world of orthodox biblical scholasticism is ready to fight in the name of maintaining its monopoly on all sacred information.

Nowadays, Christians consider it quite acceptable to recognize the existence of, for example, Buddha or Muhammad as real historical figures, just like Alexander the Great or Caesar, and to separate them from all sorts of legends, traditions and theological heaps that have long surrounded their names. As for Jesus, such a division turns out to be much more complicated. The very essence of Christian beliefs, historical traditions and theology turns out to be inexplicably confused and contradictory. One overshadows the other. And at the same time, each individually poses a potential threat to everyone else. Thus, it is much easier and safer to remove all demarcation lines between them. Thus, for a believer, two significantly different figures will merge into one image. On the one hand, this is a real historical figure, a man who, according to most scientists, really existed and wandered the sands of Palestine two thousand years ago. On the other hand, he is the God-man of Christian doctrine, a Divine personality, for whose deification, glorification and preaching the Apostle Paul did a lot. Studying this character as a real historical figure, that is, trying to fit him into a historical context and put him on the same level as Muhammad or Buddha, Caesar or Alexander the Great, for many Christians still remains tantamount to blasphemy.

In the mid-1980s. we were accused of precisely this blasphemy. As part of a research project we were working on at the time, we attempted to separate history from theological dogma in order to separate the historical Jesus from the Christ of faith. In the process of research, we plunged headlong into the thick of the contradictions that all researchers of biblical materials face. And, like all researchers before us, we were amazed at how much confusion and confusion there was in them.

In the kind of research we have been doing, written sources can be very helpful. limited assistance. As every schoolchild knows, the Gospels are extremely unreliable as historical documents. They represent evidence of mystical simplicity and power and as if reflecting historical reality. Jesus and his disciples take center stage in a tableau-like tableau with much of the detail and real context stripped away. Romans and Jews crowd awkwardly in the background, like extras on a film set. The social, cultural, religious and political context in which the drama of Jesus played out is practically not mentioned. Thus, it turns out that the hero is confronting a historical vacuum.

Who was the first to establish their antiquity and published excerpts in 1948–50. (full edition - posthumously in 1954). Four other manuscripts fell into the hands of the Metropolitan of the Syrian Church, Samuel Athanasius, and from him to the USA, where three of them (the First Scroll of Isaiah, the Commentary on Havakkuk /Habakkuk/ and the Charter of the Community) were read by a group of researchers led by M. Burrows and published in 1950–51 These manuscripts were subsequently acquired by the Israeli government (with money donated for this purpose by D. S. Gottesman, 1884–1956), and the last of these seven manuscripts (the Apocrypha of Genesis), published in 1956 by N. Avigad, was read in Israel and I. Yadin. Now all seven manuscripts are on display in the Temple of the Book at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

Following these finds, systematic excavations and surveys began in 1951 in Qumran and nearby caves, which were under Jordanian control at that time. The surveys, which uncovered new manuscripts and numerous fragments, were carried out jointly by the Jordanian government's Department of Antiquities, the Palestine Archaeological Museum (Rockefeller Museum) and the French Archaeological Biblical School; scientific activities directed by R. de Vaux. With the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967, almost all of these finds, concentrated in the Rockefeller Museum, became available to Israeli scientists. In the same year, I. Yadin managed to acquire (with funds allocated by the Wolfson Foundation) another of the famous large manuscripts - the so-called Temple Scroll. Outside Israel, in Amman, there is only one of the significant Dead Sea manuscripts - the Copper Scroll.

general description

The Qumran scrolls are written mainly in Hebrew, partly in Aramaic; there are fragments of Greek translations of biblical texts. Hebrew non-biblical texts - literary language Second Temple era; some passages are written in post-biblical Hebrew. The spelling is usually “full” (the so-called ktiw maleh with particularly extensive use of the letters vav and yod to represent the vowels o, u, and). Often such orthography indicates phonetic and grammatical forms different from the extant Tiberian Masorah, but there is no uniformity in this regard among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The main type used is the square Hebrew font, a direct predecessor of the modern printed font. There are two styles of writing - a more archaic one (the so-called Hasmonean letter) and a later one (the so-called Herodian letter). The Tetragrammaton is usually written in Paleo-Hebrew script, as is one fragment of the Book of Exodus. The main writing material is parchment made from goatskin or sheepskin, and occasionally papyrus. Carbon ink (with the sole exception of the Genesis apocrypha). Paleographical data and external evidence allow these manuscripts to be dated to the end of the Second Temple era and considered to be the remains of the library of the Qumran community. Finds of similar texts in Masada date back to 73 AD. e., the year of the fall of the fortress, as terminus ad quet. Fragments of tefillin on parchment were also discovered; Tefillin belong to a type that precedes the modern one.

Qumran manuscripts, written in the period from the 2nd century. BC e. up to 1st century n. BC, represent invaluable historical material that allows us to better understand the spiritual processes that characterized Jewish society at the end of the Second Temple era, and sheds light on many general issues of Jewish history. The Dead Sea Scrolls are also of particular importance for understanding the origins and ideology of early Christianity. The finds at Qumran led to the emergence of a special field of Jewish studies - Qumran studies, which deals with the study of both the manuscripts themselves and the whole range of problems associated with them. In 1953, the international Committee for the Publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls was created (seven volumes of its publications were published under the title “Discoveries in the Judean Desert”, Oxford, 1955–82). The main publication of Qumran scholars is the Revue de Qumran (published in Paris since 1958). Rich literature on Qumran studies exists in Russian (I. Amusin, K. B. Starkova and others).

Biblical texts

Among the Qumran finds, about 180 copies of (mostly fragmentary) biblical books have been identified. Of the 24 books of the canonical Hebrew Bible, only one is not represented - the book of Esther, which is perhaps not accidental. Along with Jewish texts, fragments of the Greek Septuagint (from the books of Leviticus, Numbers, Exodus) were discovered. Of the targums (Aramaic translations of the Bible), the most interesting is the targum of the book of Job, which serves as independent evidence of the existence of a written targum of this book, which, according to the order of Rabban Gamliel I, was seized and walled up in the Temple and under the name “Syrian Book” is mentioned in the addition to the book of Job in the Septuagint. Fragments of the targum of the book of Leviticus have also been found. The Apocrypha of the book of Genesis represents, apparently, the oldest targum of the Pentateuch created in Eretz Israel. Another type of biblical material is the verbatim verses quoted as part of the Qumran commentary (see below).

The Dead Sea Scrolls reflect the diverse textual variants of the Bible. Apparently, in 70–130. the biblical text was standardized by Rabbi Akiva and his companions. Among the textual variants found at Qumran, along with the proto-Masoretic ones (see Masorah), there are types previously hypothetically accepted as the basis of the Septuagint and close to the Samaritan Bible, but without the sectarian tendencies of the latter (see Samaritans), as well as types attested only in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus, lists of the book of Numbers have been discovered, occupying an intermediate position between the Samaritan version and the Septuagint, and lists of the book of Samuel, the textual tradition of which is apparently better than that which formed the basis of the Masoretic text and the text of the Septuagint, etc. In general, however, comparative A study of the textual variants shows that the proto-Masoretic reading established by Rabbi Akiva and his companions is based, as a rule, on a selection of the best textual traditions.

Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha

Along with the Greek text of Jeremiah, the Apocrypha is represented by fragments of the Book of Tobit (three fragments in Aramaic and one in Hebrew) and Ben Sira of Wisdom (in Hebrew). Among the pseudepigraphic works are the Book of Jubilees (about 10 Hebrew copies) and the Book of Enoch (9 Aramaic copies; see also Hanoch). Fragments of the last book represent all the main sections with the exception of the second (chapters 37–71 - the so-called Allegories), the absence of which is especially noteworthy, since here the image of the “son of man” appears (a development of the image from the book of Daniel 7:13). The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (several fragments of the Testament of Levi in ​​Aramaic and the Testament of Naphtali in Hebrew) are also pseudepigrapha - works preserved in the Greek Christianized version. The fragments of the Testaments found at Qumran are more extensive than the corresponding passages in the Greek text. Part of the Epistle of Jeremiah (usually included in the book of Baruch) was also found. Among the previously unknown pseudepigrapha are the Sayings of Moses, the Vision of Amram (father of Moses), the Psalms of Yeh X Hoshua bin Nuna, several passages from the Daniel cycle, including the Prayer of Nabonidus (a variant of Daniel 4), and the Book of Secrets.

Literature of the Qumran community

Section 5:1–9:25, in a style often reminiscent of the Bible, sets out the ethical ideals of the community (truthfulness, modesty, obedience, love, etc.). The community is metaphorically described as a spiritual temple, consisting of Aaron and Israel, that is, priests and laity, whose members, due to the perfection of their lives, are able to atone for human sins (5:6; 8:3; 10; 9:4). Then follow the rules on the organization of the community and its daily life, listing the punishable offenses (blasphemy, lying, insubordination, loud laughter, spitting in the meeting, etc.). The section ends with a listing of the virtues of the ideal, “reasonable” member of the sect (maskil). Three hymns, similar in all respects to those contained in the Hymn Roll (see below), complete the manuscript (10:1–8a; 10:86–11:15a; 11:156–22).

Scroll of Hymns

Scroll of Hymns ( Megillat X A- X odayot; 18 more or less complete columns of text and 66 fragments) contains about 35 psalms; The manuscript dates back to the 1st century. BC e. Most of the psalms begin with the formula “I thank you, Lord,” while a smaller part begins with “Blessed be you, Lord.” The content of the hymns is thanksgiving to God for the salvation of mankind. Man is described as a being sinful by his very nature; he is created from clay mixed with water (1:21; 3:21) and returns to dust (10:4; 12:36); man is a carnal creature (15:21; 18:23), born of a woman (13:14). Sin permeates the entire human being, even affecting the spirit (3:21; 7:27). Man has no justification before God (7:28; 9:14ff), is unable to know His essence and His glory (12:30), since the human heart and ears are unclean and “uncircumcised” (18:4, 20 , 24). Human destiny is entirely in God's hands (10:5ff.). In contrast to man, God is an omnipotent creator (1:13ff; 15:13ff), who gave man a destiny (15:13ff) and determined even his thoughts (9:12, 30). God's wisdom is infinite (9:17) and inaccessible to man (10:2). Only those to whom God has revealed himself are able to comprehend His mysteries (12:20), devote themselves to Him (11:10ff), and glorify His name (11:25). These chosen ones are not identical with the people of Israel (the word "Israel" is never mentioned in the surviving text), but are those who received revelation - not of their own free will, but by God's design (6:8) - and were cleared of their guilt God (3:21).

Humanity is therefore divided into two parts: the elect who belong to God and for whom there is hope (2:13; 6:6), and the wicked who are far from God (14:21) and who are allies of Bliy'al (2 :22) in his struggle with the righteous (5:7; 9, 25). Salvation is possible only for the chosen ones and, which is very characteristic, is considered as having already taken place (2:20, 5:18): acceptance into the community in itself is salvation (7:19ff; 18:24, 28) and therefore not surprising that there is no clear distinction between entry into the community and eschatological salvation.

The idea of ​​the resurrection of the righteous is present (6:34), but does not play a significant role. Eschatologically, salvation does not consist in the deliverance of the righteous, but in the final destruction of wickedness. The Psalms show a literary dependence on the Bible, primarily on the biblical psalms, but also on the prophetic books (see Prophets and Prophecy), especially Isaiah, and are full of numerous allusions to biblical passages. Philological studies reveal significant stylistic, phraseological and lexical differences between the psalms, which suggests that they belong to different authors. Although the manuscript dates back to the 1st century. BC BC, the discovery of fragments of these psalms in another cave suggests that the Roll of Hymns is not the original, but a copy of an earlier manuscript.

Damascus Document

Damascus Document ( Sefer brit Dammesek- The Book of the Damascus Testament), an essay that presents the views of the sect that left Judea and moved to the “land of Damascus” (if we take this name literally). The existence of the work has been known since 1896 from two fragments discovered in the Cairo Geniza. Significant fragments of this work were found at Qumran, allowing one to get an idea of ​​its structure and content. The Qumran version is an epitomized version of a more extensive prototype.

The introductory part contains exhortations and warnings addressed to members of the sect, and polemics with its opponents. It also contains some historical information about the sect itself. After 390 years (cf. Ech. 4:5) from the day of the destruction of the First Temple, “out of Israel and Aaron” the “planted seed” sprouted, that is, a sect arose, and after another 20 years the Teacher of righteousness appeared (1:11; in 20 :14 it's named sea X a-yachid- “the only teacher” or “the teacher of the one”; or, if you read X a-yahad - `teacher of the /Qumran/ community'), who united those who accepted his teaching into a “new covenant”. At the same time, the Preacher of Lies appeared, a “mocker” who led Israel along the wrong path, as a result of which many members of the community apostatized from the “new covenant” and left it. When the influence of apostates and opponents of the sect increased, those remaining faithful to the covenant left the holy city and fled to the “land of Damascus.” Their leader was the “lawgiver who expounds the Torah,” who established the laws of life for those who “entered into the new covenant in the land of Damascus.” These laws are valid until the appearance of the “Teacher of Righteousness at the end of days.” The “people of mockery” who followed the Preacher of Lies apparently refers to the Pharisees who “made a fence for the Torah.” The Torah was initially inaccessible: it was sealed and hidden in the Ark of the Covenant until the time of the High Priest Zadok, whose descendants were "chosen in Israel", that is, have an unquestionable right to the High Priesthood. Now the Temple has been desecrated, and therefore those who entered into the “new covenant” should not even approach it. The "people of mockery" have profaned the Temple, do not observe the laws of ritual purity prescribed by the Torah, and rebel against God's commands.

The second part of the essay is devoted to the laws of the sect and its structure. The laws include regulations on the Sabbath, the altar, a place for prayer, the “temple city”, idolatry, ritual purity, etc. Some of the laws correspond to generally accepted Jewish ones, others are the opposite of them and are similar to those adopted by the Karaites and Samaritans, with a pronounced general tendency to rigorism. The organization of the sect is characterized by the division of members into four classes: priests, Levites, the rest of Israel, and proselytes. The names of sect members must be included in special lists. The sect is divided into “camps”, each of which is headed by a priest, followed in rank by a “supervisor” ( X a-mevaker), whose functions include leadership and instruction of members of the sect. There appears to have been a distinction between those who lived in the "camps" as actual members of the community and those who "lived in the camps by the law of the land," which perhaps meant community members living in villages.

The work is written in biblical Hebrew, free of Aramaicisms. Sermons and teachings are composed in the spirit of ancient midrashim. The images of the Teacher of Righteousness and the Preacher of Lies are found in a number of other works of Qumran literature. It is possible that the sect described here was an offshoot of the Qumran one and that the composition reflects later events than the Charter of the community. On the other hand, "Damascus" can be understood metaphorically to refer to the deserts of Judah (cf. Amos 5:27). If the name Damascus is taken literally, then the event of flight could only relate to a time when Jerusalem and Damascus were not under the rule of one ruler, that is, to the time of the Hasmoneans: in this case, the most likely is the reign of Alexander Janna (103–76 BC) . e.), during which, after defeat in civil war Alexander's opponents and many of the Pharisees and circles close to them fled from Judea.

Temple Scroll

Temple Scroll ( Megillat X HaMikdash), one of the most important Qumran finds, is the longest manuscript discovered (8.6 m, 66 columns of text) and dates from the 2nd–1st centuries. BC e. The work purports to be part of the Torah given by God to Moses: God appears here in the first person, and the Tetragrammaton is always written in full form and the same square font that the Qumran scribes used only when copying biblical texts. The essay treats four topics: halakhic regulations (see Halacha), religious holidays, the structure of the Temple and regulations regarding the king. The halakhic section contains a significant number of regulations, which are not only arranged in a different order than in the Torah, but also include additional laws, often of a sectarian and polemical nature, as well as regulations similar to, but often divergent from, the Mishnaic ones (see Mishnah). Numerous laws on ritual purity reveal a much more strict approach than that adopted in the Mishnah. In the section on holidays, along with detailed instructions relating to the holidays of the traditional Jewish calendar, there are instructions for two additional holidays - New Wine and New Oil (the latter is also known from other Dead Sea manuscripts), which should be celebrated respectively 50 and 100 days after the holiday Shavu'ot.

Chapter, dedicated to the Temple, written in the style of the chapters of the book of Exodus (chapter 35 et seq.), telling about the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, and, in all likelihood, was intended to serve as a filler for the “lost” instructions about the construction of the Temple given by God to David (I Chr. 28:11 et seq.) . The temple is interpreted as a man-made structure that must exist until God erects His temple not made by hands. The plan of the Temple, the ritual of sacrifice, holiday rites and the rules of ritual purity in the Temple and in Jerusalem as a whole are interpreted in detail. The last section establishes the number of the royal guard (twelve thousand people, one thousand from each tribe of Israel); the task of this guard is to protect the king from an external enemy; it must be composed of “people of truth, fearing God and hating self-interest” (cf. Ex. 18:21). Next, mobilization plans are established depending on the degree of threat to the state from the outside.

Comment on Havakkuk

Manuscript materials discovered in the caves of Wadi Murabba'at include texts dating from the 8th to 7th centuries. BC e. and up to the Arab period. The oldest written monument is a papyrus palimpsest (twice used sheet), which was originally, apparently, a letter (`...[name] tells you: I send greetings to your family. Now, don’t believe the words that tell you... .`), on top of the washed-out text is a list of four lines, each of which contains a personal name and numbers (apparently, the amount of tax paid); the document is written in Phoenician (Paleo-Hebrew) script.

The most numerous and interesting materials date back to the Roman period, when the caves served as a refuge for participants in the Bar Kokhba revolt. The caves appear to have been the last refuge of the rebels who died here at the hands of the Romans; some of the manuscripts were damaged during the enemy invasion. Manuscripts from this period include fragments on parchment of the books of Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy and the books of Isaiah. The biblical fragments belong to the proto-Masoretic text. Among the finds are tefillin of the type that became accepted from the beginning of the 2nd century. n. BC, in contrast to fragments of an earlier type, including the Ten Commandments, which were found at Qumran. Fragments of a liturgical nature in Hebrew and a literary nature in Greek were discovered. A significant portion of the manuscript material consists of business documents (contracts and bills of sale) in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, most dating to the years leading up to the Bar Kokhba revolt and the years of the revolt. Of particular interest are the letters from the rebels, including two letters in Hebrew signed by the leader of the uprising, Shim'on ben Koseva (that is, Bar Kochba). One of the letters reads: “From Shimon ben Koseva Ye X Oshua ben Galgole [apparently the leader of the local rebels] and the people of his fortress [?] - peace! I call heaven to witness that if any of the Galileans who are with you are ill-treated, I will put your feet in shackles... Sh. K. himself.” Second letter: “From Shim’on Ye X Oshua ben Galgole - peace! Know that you must prepare five cows of grain to be sent through [the members of] my household. So prepare a place for each of them to spend the night. Let them stay with you all Saturday. Make sure that the heart of each of them is filled with contentment. Be brave and encourage courage among the locals. Shalom! I have ordered that those who give you their grain should bring it the day after the Sabbath.”

One early Aramaic document (55 or 56 CE) contains the name of Emperor Nero written in such a way (נרון קסר) to make the apocalyptic number 666 (see Gematria).

Manuscript materials from the Murabba'ata caves indicate that the population of Judea of ​​this period, as in the Herodian era, was trilingual, using Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek with equal ease.

Other finds

In Khirbet Mirda, as a result of excavations (1952–53), fragments of New Testament and apocryphal literature, business documents, fragments of the tragedy of Euripides and other manuscripts were found, mainly in Greek and Syriac, as well as in Arabic (4th–8th centuries). .

A number of important manuscripts (biblical fragments, letters of Bar Kokhba) were also discovered in Nahal Hever, Nahal Mishmar and Nahal Tze'elim (see Bar Kokhba's revolt; Judean Desert caves).

KEE, volume: 5.
Col.: 267–279.
Published: 1990.

priest Dimitry Yurevich

1 . in 11 caves near the ruins of the Qumran settlement;

2 . in the ruins of the ancient Israeli fortress of Masada;

3 . in 4 (according to other sources - in 5) caves of Wadi Murabaʽat;

4 . in the caves of Nahal Hever (next to Wadi Habra);

5 . in the Nahal Tse'elim cave (near Wadi Seyal);

6 . in the Nahal Mishmar cave (near Wadi Matras);

7 . in the ruins of a Greek monastery in Khirbet Mird (ancient Hyrcania);

8 . in the genizah of the Ezra synagogue in Old Cairo;

9 . according to some researchers - even in the Wadi ed-Daliyeg cave (Samaritan papyri).

For all manuscripts found in the indicated places, the name is used "Dead Sea Scrolls" V in a broad sense. The scrolls found in the Qumran area represent a special important class, which is why they are called Qumran manuscripts or "Dead Sea Scrolls" V in the narrow sense (they are the only ones considered in this work). The Masada scrolls, which relate to them chronologically, and the Cairo synagogue documents, which relate to them thematically, are also sometimes included in the narrow sense of the Dead Sea Scrolls or Qumran Scrolls.

A total of 11 caves were discovered in the Qumran area, containing more than 10 well-preserved scrolls and about 25 thousand fragmentary scraps, many of which were no larger than a postage stamp. Originally, when the scrolls were intact, the library apparently contained at least a thousand manuscripts. Currently, through complex analysis and comparison, it has been possible to identify about 900 fragments of ancient texts from the fragments. Found in the 4th cave maximum amount fragments - about 15 thousand. The manuscripts are written primarily in Hebrew and Aramaic, with only a few in Greek.

In 1951, an expedition led by Lankester Harding, director of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities, and Father Roland de Vaux of the French Biblical-Archaeological Institute in Jerusalem worked in the Khirbet area of ​​Qumran. For several seasons in a row, excavations were carried out in winter (since the summer there is unbearably hot), and from 1952 to 1956 the work was led by Father Roland de Vaux. He published preliminary reports about his research, but the final report, which would have analyzed all the objects found at the excavation site, never saw the light of day. The lack of a final report prevents archaeologists from drawing firm conclusions about what was found at Khirbet Qumran. This is one of the reasons for the ongoing debate about the identification of Qumran.

In the early 1950s, the government of Jordan (which was then home to the discovery area) allowed foreign scientists to form a team of researchers who would deal with the texts coming from the caves. A group of 8 young scientists was created, who were given responsibility - but at the same time, privilege! – publish all texts.

The young researchers made a good start to their work, publishing in 1955 the first volume of the subsequent long-term series “Discoveries in the Judean Desert” ( Discoveries in the Judean Desert, further abbreviated: DJD), dedicated to manuscripts from the 1st cave. “Work of this kind is inevitably slow,” wrote G. L. Harding in the preface. “It could certainly be several years before the series is completed.” However, he could not foresee that the work would not be completed for almost half a century. What caused this?

On the one hand, the work required more time than initially expected, since the researchers were faced with the difficult task of restoring the original text of the manuscripts from poorly preserved, scattered and incomplete fragments of the manuscripts. At first it was planned to publish only photographs of the manuscripts, but this still had to be preceded by the stage of selecting fragments. Even now, after almost all the texts have been published, work on combining passages continues and brings very interesting results.

The first group of researchers did their job well, but “it is now clear that the task was too large and the group of scientists too small.” Volume 2 of the series DJD published in 1961 (with texts from Masada), 3rd in 1962 (with texts of manuscripts from 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 10 - the so-called “small (based on the comparative number of scrolls found) caves." 4th volume DJD, published in 1965, was dedicated to the only manuscript of the Book of Psalms from the 11th cave. And only in 1968 (20 years after the discovery, when the manuscripts were already being discussed with might and main and various kinds of scientific theories and pseudo-scientific guesses!) in the 5th collection DJD The first texts from the main 4th cave, based on the number of scrolls found there, were published.

By this point, the slow process of publishing manuscripts had virtually stopped. As a result of the six-day war in June 1967, the State of Israel became the owner of the Palestine Archaeological Museum, where fragments of the scrolls were kept. The members of the scientific group for the publication of manuscripts for the most part held pro-Arab beliefs and were very reluctant to continue working under Israeli auspices, even despite the guarantee of non-interference in their affairs. As a result, ten years later (in 1977), the 6th volume of the series was published DJD, containing several not very important texts.

“By this time, however, the community of scholars had grown considerably, unfortunately for the official scroll team,” modern manuscript scholars write. – The manuscripts, which have already been published, have revolutionized the study of the Bible, early Judaism and early Christianity. The idea that hundreds of texts - more than half of what was found - had never been seen outside a small circle of privileged editors was maddening and, according to Briton Geza Vermes, " academic scandal of the century" .

Compounding the problem was the fact that an international team of scientists had completed the initial work of reconstructing the manuscripts by 1960. However, they decided that simply publishing the scrolls would not be enough. The study of manuscripts became an entire field of ancient history, and the “proper” (in their opinion) publication of the manuscripts had to involve “immense analysis, extensive synthesis and detailed assessment for each fragment of its place in the history of Judaism, Christianity and humanity. This task would have been onerous even for a large group of scientists; for a small group it was simply impossible. And despite the fact that the group began to slowly expand its ranks,<...>she's still refused to allow access to texts for other researchers" .

1.3. The emergence and spread of the “standard model” (Essene-Qumran hypothesis)

“It is not true that within a month of the discovery of the scrolls everyone thought that the Essenes had written them, although in retrospect it may seem so,” write M. Wise, M. Abegg and E. Cook. –<...>It is true that a preliminary press release in April 1948 mentioned them, and both popular and academic studies of the first scrolls have concluded in favor of Essene authorship." At the dawn of Qumran research, due to the limited number of scrolls that initially fell into the hands of scientists and subjected to analysis, as well as under the influence of the interpretation of the ruins of Qumran proposed by Father Roland de Vaux, who drew a not entirely correct analogy between a medieval Catholic monastery and a hypothetical settlement of the Essenes, this theory has become widespread. She said that Almost all or even All the scrolls found in the caves were written in Qumran itself, where one of the communities of the Essene religious movement lived (in the next chapter, the theory of Father R. de Vaux will be discussed in more detail). Due to its widespread dissemination until all texts became available to researchers, this theory, called “ Qumran-Essene", is now also called " standard model" .

1.4. Publication of previously unpublished manuscripts and controversy with the “standard model”

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, dissatisfaction with the fact that the publication of texts was proceeding unjustifiably slowly grew catastrophically in scientific circles. Members of the official group continued to publish individual texts from time to time, but “the control of this process always remained in their hands. Even when the texts were published, it looked like noblesse oblige[the position is obligatory] and was perceived as arrogance hiding behind the slow pace of publications." Other scientists were looking for ways to freely access the texts of the manuscripts. This was facilitated by new conditions: several members of the official group died, some declared too poor health.

In the early 1990s, the monopoly on the right of access to manuscript texts was finally overcome. In 1990, John Strugnell, who had been head of the international manuscript research team since 1987, resigned under pressure from the Israeli Antiquities Authority for his disrespectful comments about Judaism. The department put Israeli scientists in charge of the project, and they began inviting more researchers to join the team to speed up publications. The fall of the monopoly was also influenced by external circumstances: at one time the official group composed concordance– a comprehensive list of all words in unpublished manuscripts, in which the context (one or two adjacent words) was indicated for each word. Even before his resignation, J. Strugnell allowed several academic libraries to obtain copies of the concordance. Theoretically, using this list it was possible to restore not only individual lines, but entire scroll manuscripts. This was done using a personal computer by Martin Abegg, a student at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, under the guidance of Ben Zion Wacholder. The first volume of previously unpublished manuscripts was published in September 1991. At the end of the same month, the Huntington Library (Southern California) announced that it had photographs of all unpublished scrolls in its possession and unrestricted access to them for researchers. In December 1991, the new head of the international group of scientists, Emanuel Το v, announced that all scientists would be given free and unconditional access to photographs of the Dead Sea manuscripts.

Of the most significant editions of texts and translations of new manuscripts published after this point in addition to the series DJD, we can mention first of all the book “The Dead Sea Scrolls Ajar: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Unavailable for 35 Years” by Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, with texts in Hebrew (Aramaic) and English, accompanied by extensive commentary. Great importance had the publication in 1996 of the book “The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation” by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg and Edward Cook, with a detailed introduction and preface to each manuscript. In the introduction to the book, the authors argue for the emergence of texts from various currents of Palestinian religious thought and reject the Essene theory. The latter was the starting point of the author of another important collection of manuscript translations, Florentino Garsia Martinez. His book, entitled Dead Sea Scrolls in Translation, published simultaneously with the previous collection, is distinguished by a higher level of textual commentary, but its drawback is that the translation was initially made into Spanish, and only then into English. By 2002, the publication of manuscripts in the official series was completed DJD. Volumes 8 to 39 were published, the latter containing an index of published manuscripts. Over the past decade, several educational publications have also appeared in which the Hebrew text of the manuscripts runs parallel to the English translation (for example, a two-volume set of all non-biblical manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Florentino Martinez and Eibert Tigchalaar).

Speaking about the interpretation of the scrolls in general, we can say, firstly, about the continuing line of authors who share the Qumran-Essene theory. One of the best books of this kind is Dead Sea Scrolls Today by James Vanderkam (1994). Among researchers who adhere to the “standard model”, one can highlight a special school of “historical Jesus”, led by James H. Charlesworth. Carrying out work to restore the “personality of the historical Jesus,” that is, the image of Christ, “purified” from later layers and interpretations and understood in an earthly, human way, without taking into account His Divine nature, James Charlesworth is trying to find out what influence the Essenes could have had on Jesus Christ , and in what cases He could argue with them. The scientist’s main work on this topic is a collection written together with a number of other authors, “Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls” (first edition published in 1992). The researcher’s views became known in Russia thanks to the publication of his lecture in the Bible World magazine in 2000. The problem with J. Charlesworth’s approach lies in the original affiliation with the “historical Jesus” school: trying to analyze human motives of behavior and “turning a blind eye” to the divine nature of the Savior, the scientist talks about the influence essentially, that is, in fundamental theological issues, the Essenes opposed Christ in the teaching that He proclaimed. But if you firmly stand on the position of the Chalcedonian oros, it is necessary to remember the divinely revealed nature of the teachings of Christ: the doctrinal truths were revealed to Him by the Heavenly Father and transmitted through Him by the apostles to the whole world. The commonality of some ideas in the Qumran scrolls and in the Gospel is just a fact of intense reflection by the Jews on issues of faith in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah.

In general, among scholars who support the Qumran-Essene theory, one can see a wide range of views regarding the influence of Essene ideas, in their opinion, on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Many of the authors, instead of the moderate position of the two above-mentioned researchers, claim a more radical influence, even to the point of identifying the persons mentioned in the Qumran documents with the personality of Jesus Christ or the Christian apostles. One of the most active modern scientists in this direction is Robert Eisenman, who, together with M. Wise, published the above-mentioned first translation of previously inaccessible manuscripts. R. Eisenman considers the Qumran manuscripts as the creations of Palestinian Judeo-Christians, and the persons referred to in the Qumran manuscripts, the Damascus Document, the Commentary on Habakkuk and the Commentary on the Psalms, namely the Teacher of Righteousness. He identifies the Man of Lies and the Evil High Priest respectively as ap. Jacob, ap. Paul and the high priest Ananias (under whom the apostle James was killed).

In the last decade, alternative (to the “standard model”) approaches to the study of manuscripts have been gaining increasing strength. Lorenz Schiffmann's 1994 book, Recovering the Dead Sea Scrolls, views the documents as strictly Jewish. The author proposes a Nenessean origin for the manuscripts, using the text of the “Halakhic Letter” (4QMMT) as a key text and sees in it evidence of a dispute between the Sadducees (in his opinion, the authors of the scrolls) and the Pharisees. In the same year, Robert Donceel and Pauline Donceel-Voûte, based on an analysis of the records of Fr. R. de Vaux proposed the identification of the ruins of Qumran as a country estate (villa). A year later (in 1995), Norman Golb's famous book “Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?” was published. , in which the author criticizes the traditional Essene theory of the origin of the manuscripts. The book contains more questions than answers, but it is extremely important for understanding the weaknesses of the Qumran-Essene hypothesis and as excellent evidence for the diverse origins of the manuscripts found in the Judean desert. Finally, in 1998–2002, the research results of the Israeli scientist Yizhar Hirschfeld, who carried out aerial photography of Qumran as part of the Orion Center program (created specifically for the study of the Dead Sea manuscripts), as well as archaeological surveys in Qumran and other places in Palestine. He concluded that Qumran was a fortified fief, but not an Essene center.

1.5. Research of Qumran manuscripts in Russia

In the middle of the 20th century, when the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts took place, the situation in post-war Russia continued to be extremely unfavorable for objective research of religious literature. The official state worldview was atheistic Marxism-Leninism, and all humanitarian research in the Soviet Union was conducted from its position. Other points of view were not allowed into the official press.

Because of this, in official Soviet science, already from the first years after the start of Qumran research, a single general approach was formed, and specific researchers could only slightly vary their beliefs within a certain ideological corridor. An alternative view took place only among church researchers, however, due to persecution, church scientists had practically no opportunity to really oppose official secular science.

The first journal publications devoted to manuscripts appeared in Russia in 1956, and the first small monograph was published 3 years later - this is the book by G. M. Livshits, “The Qumran Manuscripts and Their Historical Significance”, published in Minsk. It is very interesting that it outlined the approach that would dominate official Soviet and then Russian Qumranology until the end of the 20th century! The ideas expressed here by G. M. Livshits concisely were presented at length in his other book, published 11 years later. Based on the Marxist-Leninist position that this is a social movement based on the legend of the suffering and resurrection of the Messiah, Livshits hastens to find the very “roots of the myth” from which Christianity originated. He does not dare to directly identify the leader of the hypothetical Qumranites, the Teacher of Righteousness, with Jesus Christ, but he happily seizes on hypotheses that tried to find elements of a divine attitude towards the Teacher of Righteousness from his followers and attribute the borrowing of these elements to Christians. He writes: “it cannot be denied that there is a certain kinship between the Qumran sectarians and the early Christians. They had a lot common features in the field of ideology, rituals and organizational structure their communities. They were brought together by faith in the Divine Savior. Early Christians borrowed the legendary image of the “Righteous Teacher” from the Qumran sectarians, who has much in common with the gospel Jesus Christ." However, realizing the deep difference between Christian teaching and the teaching of that Jewish association, from whose midst some of the scrolls found in Qumran originated, G. M. Livshits stipulates that “Christianity was a syncretic religion that absorbed elements of many religious and idealistic philosophical systems.” . In general, he stands in the position of F. Engels, who thought that it had withstood some kind of “competitive struggle” with other religious movements emerging at that time in Palestine and the East. It overcame the “shortcomings” of the hypothetical Qumranites - it emerged from Jewish national isolation and turned to broad social strata.

Just a year after the first work of G. M. Livshits, I. D. Amusin’s book “Dead Sea Manuscripts” was published, which for the next few decades became the main reference point for Soviet and Russian Qumranology and is still popular. Overall conscientious, this work was unconditionally influenced by both the standard model of the Qumran-Essene hypothesis and the atheistic Soviet ideology. Like almost all scientists of that time, who fell under the influence of the views of Father Roland de Vaux and did not have access to most of the texts found, I. D. Amusin did not question the existence of a religious community at Qumran and saw in it an offshoot of the Essene movement. Based on a Marxist ideological stance that rejects the historicity and independence of Christianity, I. D. Amusin, like G. M. Livshits, considers the Essene community as “one of the important elements from which the early things were created.” Naturally, this approach forced him to make certain stretches. As an example, we can point to his translation of lines 1–3 of column 8 of the “Commentary on Habakkuk”: those who fulfill the law in the house of Judah “God will save from the house of judgment for their suffering and faith (אֲמָנָה “amana”) in the Teacher of righteousness.” However, the word “faith” in the Old Testament period (אֱמָוּנָה, “emuna”) did not mean a system of dogmatic concepts, but, first of all, trust and confidence. Faith in God in this sense is trust in God, entrusting oneself to His good will, confidence in His providence for us. In this regard, the expression from the book of Deuteronomy 32:4 is indicative: “God of faithfulness” (אֶמָוּנָה אֵל, “el emuna”), i.e. A “trustworthy God” who does not deceive the believer. A form more consistent with the spelling of the Qumran original (אֲמָנָה, “amana”) is found in the later biblical text and conveys the concept of “agreement, obligation” (), for example, the king’s obligation to give daily allowance to the singers of the Jerusalem Temple (). The inadequacy of the biblical meaning to I. D. Amusin’s translation was so significant that soon a remark by K. B. Starkova appeared in print, in which she not only explained the biblical meaning of the term, but also gave a completely adequate clarified translation: “for the sake of their work and commitment to attitude towards the Righteous teacher (or: ...loyalty to the Righteous teacher).” This translation conveys the earthly, human relationships of the mysterious sectarians with their leader, but by no means the emergence of the doctrine of the divinity of their teacher in the sectarian environment! This is precisely the meaning conveyed in English translations of manuscripts as supporters of the Qumran-Essene hypothesis (for example, F. G. Martinez and E. J. Tigchelaar), and its opponents (in the edition of M. Wise, M. Abegg and E. Cook): the word אֲמָנָה (“amana”) is translated as loyalty (loyalty, devotion, loyalty). Unfortunately, despite the remark of K. B. Starkova, I. D. Amusin retained his controversial translation in a separate edition of the texts, published 10 years later.

In general, the Soviet period can be characterized as unfavorable for research in Qumranology: in 35 years (until the beginning of the 1990s), only 2 collections of Qumran texts were prepared for publication in Russian, which contained translations of only 23 manuscripts (this is especially upsetting now, when about 900 texts have already been published abroad), published only 10 books (two of them are translated), and a total of about 60 articles in periodicals. For example, by 1965, there were about 6 thousand publications in the world by foreign authors dedicated to the Dead Sea manuscripts. Unlike foreign science, in which there are about a dozen periodical journals dedicated to scrolls, there are still no regular publications in Russia.

Of the church scientists, Archbishop Michael (Chub) was the first to respond to the event of the discovery of manuscripts, publishing two articles in the ZhMP - in 1957 and 1958: “On the decade of discoveries on the shores of the Dead Sea” and “John the Baptist and the Qumran community.” Like other scientists of that time, he was directly influenced by the Qumran-Esses hypothesis. However, his explanation of why common ideas can be found in the manuscripts from Qumran and the teachings of Christ has not only remained relevant to this day, but is even better consistent with new research: “the teachings and terminology of the Qumranites were an integral part<...>evangelical preparation, – i.e. preparation of broad layers of Palestinian Judaism for the preaching of the Messiah, accomplished according to Divine providence.

After the start of democratic reforms in 1996, the 2nd volume of “Texts of Qumran” was published in St. Petersburg, prepared for publication back in 1967, but then not published. It contains mainly documents that regulated the activities of an unknown Jewish religious community, whose manuscripts make up about 30% of all manuscripts in the ancient library.

Unfortunately, the few Russian-language publications of the last decade practically do not take into account new foreign research, but only continue the line that was formed during the Soviet period. Here we can mention the book of the St. Petersburg researcher I.R. Tantlevsky, “The History and Ideology of the Qumran Community,” published in 1994. The author offers his own version of the “standard model”, in which he not only ignores the fact of the non-Essene origin of most manuscripts, now recognized even by conservative scientists, but also carries out a methodologically unjustified manipulation of the texts of the manuscripts in isolation from the context. He is building an entire system designed to reject the originality of Christianity and present the latter as an almost exact copy of the Qumran ideology. However, in many places in his work the author makes assumptions that do not find direct evidence. Then he resorts either to a controversial reading or translation of the Qumran texts, or to evidence by analogy, which is rather an illustration: finding certain general ideas in the Qumran manuscripts, New Testament books, Gnostic writings and the works of the Church Fathers, he draws conclusions in favor of his theory. This approach cannot be considered methodologically correct, since the meaning and authority of the New Testament books, patristic works, Gnostic works and the Dead Sea manuscripts are completely different, just as the historical and religious context in which they appeared and circulated is different.

Over the past few years the situation has not changed fundamentally. In 2002, A. Vladimirov’s book “Qumran and Christ” was published. Having abandoned the conclusions of I.R. Tantlevsky, but generally experiencing a strong dependence on his work and having accepted his methodology, A. Vladimirov attracted to his constructions not only the apocrypha and Gnostic works, but even the occult works of N. Roerich and E. Blavatsky. He builds his own system in which he tries to date the life of the “historical Jesus” almost a century earlier than the generally accepted date, identifying Him with the Teacher of righteousness.

1.6. Major Publications on Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Almost all the authors who touched upon the relationship between the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian teaching also touched upon the messianic views expressed in the Qumran scrolls. Due to the huge number of works, it seems reasonable to indicate only the most significant studies of recent years.

Two books in the new series, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, address issues of messianism in the manuscripts. The first, published in 1997, is a collection of leading scholars and is called Eschatology, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Unfortunately, the articles in the collection do not express any coherent concept, which somewhat reduces its value. The second book is a monograph by the famous Catholic scholar, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, who has been studying the Qumran manuscripts for decades, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of Christianity.” The author analyzes all fragments of manuscripts in which there is a mention of the Messiah. Being a supporter of the Qumran-Essene theory in its moderate version, he recognizes the non-Essene origin of most of the manuscripts. His previous fundamental works on the Qumran manuscripts also contain much material on messianism.

J. Collins's recent study, The Scepter and the Star, has become quite famous, exploring messianic ideas in turn-of-the-era Middle Eastern literature, including the Qumran texts.

I am not aware of any special studies devoted to the messianic concept of the book of Isaiah in connection with the Qumran scrolls. An older work by William Brownlee focuses on the significance of the manuscripts for the study of Isaiah, as the title suggests: The Significance of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible (with Special Reference to the Book of Isaiah). And in a recent (1999) study by Fred Miller on the Great Scroll of Isaiah, the focus is on the features of the Qumran text in comparison with the Masoretic text.

Some other interesting, but less extensive and significant studies will be indicated in the text of this work in the following chapters.

The terms “intertestamental time” and “intertestamental literature” are widely used in the works of Western researchers. With a strict understanding of the concept of “Testament”, these names are not entirely correct (since there is no gap in time between the Old and New Testaments, moreover, the New Testament is just a qualitatively different, transformed one, and not some kind of second testament). However, if we accept that the terms mentioned indicate a period of time between writing the last books of the Old Testament and the first books of the New Testament canon, then they can be used as synonyms for the concepts of “late period of the Second Temple” (III century BC – 1st century AD) and “literature of this period,” respectively.

The history of the Qumran discoveries is described in detail in various sources. In Russian language see, for example: Stol G. Cave near the Dead Sea. M., 1965; Amusin A. D. Dead Sea Scrolls. M., 1961; Sorokin V., priest Dead Sea Scrolls. L., LDA, 1965, etc.

Camper F. Clear as Mud. The Dead Sea Scrolls according to Kenneth Mull, Norman Golb, the Field Museum and a chorus of experts // The Reader’s Guide, vol. 4, No. 27, 04/21/2000, p. 1.

Thousands of documents have been recovered from the Genizah of the Cairo synagogue, but most of them have nothing to do with the Qumran ones. Thematically related to the Qumran manuscripts are the “Damascus Document” ( CD), the Testament of Levi, and perhaps some wisdom literature texts that echo the Qumran instructive texts from the 4th cave. See: ibid., p. 3.

Abegg M., Flint R, Ulrich E. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English. San Francisco, 1999, p. xv.

The posthumous publication of the works of Father R. de Vaux, who died in 1971 (Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. London, 1973) was of a generalizing and interpretative nature. In the late 1980s, the French Biblical-Archaeological Institute invited the Belgian archaeologist Robert Doncel to prepare a report based on de Vaux's notes, photographs and finds. Together with his wife Paulina, they published a work, the remarkable feature of which was the identification of the Qumran buildings as villas ( Donceel R., Donceel-Vounte R.. The Archeology of Khirbet Qumran / Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Ed. Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, John J. Collins and Dennis G. Pardee (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 722). N.Y., 1994, p. 1–38). The work noted that a final report could not be written because the diaries and coins were lost, and the Qumran objects survived two more stages of excavation. The French Biblical-Archaeological Institute soon released photographs, measurement sheets and summary descriptions from de Vaux's diaries (see: Belyaev L.A. Christian Antiquities. St. Petersburg, 2001, p. 60).

Murthy S. The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Part 1. Introduction. http://www-relg-studies.scu.Edu/facstaff/ murphy/ courses/sctr108/archaeology/01-introduction.

Some new readings and translations of manuscripts as a result of further restoration work can be found in the indicated book Wise M., Abegg M., Cook E. The Dead Sea Scrolls...

Benoit P., Milik J.T, do Vaux R, Les grottes de Murabba'at (DJD II). Oxford, 1961. xv + 814 ρρ. + 107 plates.

Baillet M., Milik J.T, de Vaux R. Les ’petites grottes’ de Qumrân (DJDJ III). Oxford, 1982. xiii + 315 pp. + Ixi plates.

Sanders J. A. The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJDJ IV). Oxford, 1965. X! + 97 ρρ. + xvli piates.

Vaux R. de, Milik J. T.. Qumran grotte 4.II (DJD VI), Oxford, 1977. xi + 91 pp. + x.xviii plates.

The first part of the book is an archaeological description of Fr. R. de Vaux of the 4th cave, the second – publication by J. Milik of two targums (on the books of Leviticus and Job), as well as the texts of phylacteries and mezuzot.

Wise M., Abegg M.., Cook E. The Dead Sea Scrolls..., p. 7. Further, the authors note with a sad smile that “in academic science, of course, “knowledge is power,” and the editors of the scrolls greatly enjoyed this” (ibid.).

In the series DJD During this time, only one volume was published in 1982: Baillet M. Qumrân grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520) (DJD VII). Oxford, 1982. xiv + 339 pp. + Ixxx plates.It included the publication of a number of other texts from Cave 4: several microscopic fragments of the apocrypha (4Q482–490), fragments of the text of the War Scroll (4Q491–497), liturgical texts (the main part of the publication: 4Q498–512), halakhic texts (4Q 513–514) and papyrus fragments (4Q515–512).

Jillette P. You may Already be a “Computer Expert” // PC-Computing, 1991, vol. 4, 12/ Dec., p. 430.

Eisenman R. N., Wise M.. The Dead Sea Scrolls uncovered. The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for Over 35 Years. N.Y., , 286 pp.

Bible believers are often attacked with the accusation that the Bible is full of errors. These alleged errors can be divided into two main categories: (1) apparent internal inconsistencies between available information, and (2) scribal errors in the original manuscripts themselves. The first category includes those situations in which apparent discrepancies between biblical texts relate to specific events, persons, places, etc. (For a solution to these difficulties, see Archer, 1982, Geisler and Brooks, 1989, pp. 163-178). The second category concerns the larger problem of the reliability of the source documents from which our modern translations of the Bible were made. Some claim that the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts, written and copied by hand over many years, contain a host of scribal errors that seriously distort the information presented in the originals. If this is the case, then we cannot be confident in our translations that they convey the original information presented by the writers of the Bible. However, documents discovered at Qumran, commonly called the Dead Sea Scrolls, provided compelling evidence of the authenticity of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts. Old Testament, as well as the authenticity of his books themselves.

Dating of documents

When these scrolls were first discovered in 1947, scholars argued about the dates of their writing. Scholars now generally agree that, although some of the documents are from an earlier period, the Qumran scrolls date to roughly the Hasmonean (153 – 63 BC) and Early Roman (63 BC) periods. – 68 AD). Several lines of evidence support these datings. After six major archaeological expeditions, archaeologists have established three distinct periods of occupation in the central part of ancient Qumran. The coins found in the first layer date back to the reign of Antiochus VII Sidetes (138-129 BC). Such finds also indicate that the architecture associated with the second phase of settlement dates no later than the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BC). Also, the material remains at the excavation site reflect the destruction of buildings from the earthquake reported by the first-century historian Josephus ( Jewish antiquities, 15.5.2). Apparently, this natural disaster, which occurred around 31 AD, prompted the inhabitants to abandon the area for an indefinite period. After the repopulation of the area (third phase), the buildings were restored and rebuilt exactly according to the plan of the previous settlement of the ancient community. This community flourished until the Romans, under Vespasian, captured the site (see Cross, 1992, pp. 21-22). This evidence places the scrolls at a date ranging from the second century BC to the first century AD.

Qumran caves

The second line of evidence that is accepted by most for dating these scrolls is supported by paleographic considerations. Paleography is the science that studies ancient inscriptions, and more precisely, the shapes and styles of letters. The characteristics of ancient languages, the ways of writing Hebrew and Aramaic letters, changed over time. An experienced eye can determine, within certain limits, the period in which a document was written by the shape of its letters. This is what this paleographic method is, through which scientists determine the date of writing of a text. According to this methodology, the Qumran writings belong to three periods of paleographic history: (1) a small group of biblical texts whose archaic style indicates the period between 250-150 BC. BC.; (2) most of the manuscripts, both biblical and non-biblical, which correspond to the writing style common to the Hasmonean period (c. 150-30 BC); (3) and an equally large portion of the texts, which clearly relate to the style of writing characteristic of Herod's period (30 BC - 70 AD). This linguistic evidence is also consistent with the generally accepted dating of the Qumran documents.

Clay jars in which the Qumran manuscripts were hidden. Jordan Museum, Amman.

Finally, as an aside, carbon-14 studies of both the material in which the scrolls were wrapped and the scrolls themselves are generally consistent with paleographic dating. However, there are several significant difficulties. Because of the inherent imprecision of carbon-14 dating (see Major, 1993), and the possibility of chemical contamination, scientists place more confidence in historically verified dates using paleography (see Shanks, 1991, 17:72). In any case, archaeological and linguistic evidence helps scientists believe with reasonable confidence that the scrolls date back to 250 BC. – 70 AD

The importance of these scrolls

While the importance of these documents is indeed multifaceted, one of their main contributions to biblical studies is in the field of textual criticism. This is a field of study in which scholars attempt to reconstruct, as accurately as possible, the original content of biblical texts. Such work is natural and necessary, since we only have copies (apographs), not original manuscripts (autographs) of the Scriptures. The Dead Sea Scrolls are particularly significant in this regard for at least two reasons: (1) every book of the traditional Jewish canon except the book of Esther is represented (to some extent) among the Qumran materials (Collins 1992, 2 :89); and (2) for textual criticism, they provided ancient manuscripts that could be compared with accepted texts for accuracy of content.

Scrolls and Masoretic Text

This second point is of particular importance because before the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts, the earliest surviving Old Testament text was the so-called Masoretic Text (MT), which dates back to approximately 980 AD. MT is the result of editorial work carried out by Jewish scribes known as Masoretes. The name of these scribes comes from the Hebrew word masorah, which refers generally to the notes added to the top, bottom, and side margins of MT manuscripts to ensure the transmission of their traditions. Therefore, the Masoretes, as their name suggests, were guardian scribes Masorah, those. traditions (Roberts 1962, 3:295). From the fifth to the ninth centuries AD, the Masoretes worked to add marginal notes to both these notes and vowels to the consonant-only text, primarily to preserve correct pronunciation and spelling (see Hsiau, 1987 ., pp. 8-9).

Critical scholars have questioned the accuracy of the MT, which formed the basis of the English translation of the Old Testament, since there was such a large chronological gap between it and the autographs. Because of this uncertainty, scholars have often “corrected” the text quite freely. Qumran, however, provided a text that dates much earlier than the Masoretic, and predates the Christian era during which traditional MT emerged. Comparison of the MT with this earlier text revealed the astonishing accuracy with which the scribes copied the sacred texts. Accordingly, the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which generally increased its respect among scholars and sharply reduced textual corruption.

Most of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran belong to the MT tradition or family. This is especially true of the Pentateuch and some books of the Prophets. The well-preserved Isaiah scroll from Cave 1 illustrates the care with which these sacred texts were copied. Since some 1,700 years separated the book of Isaiah in the MT from its original source, critics have suggested that centuries of copying and rewriting of the book must have introduced scribal errors into the document, distorting the author's original message.

Fragment of the book of the prophet Isaiah

Scrolls of the Book of Isaiah found at Qumran have reduced the gap with the original manuscript to 500 years. Interestingly, when scholars compared the MT of the book of Isaiah with the scroll of Isaiah from Qumran, the match was amazing. The texts from Qumran were word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of the text. The 5% of differences consisted primarily of obvious typos and spelling changes (Archer, 1974, p. 25). Further, there were no major doctrinal differences between the already accepted texts and the Qumran texts (see table below). This convincingly demonstrated the accuracy with which the scribes transcribed the sacred texts and strengthened our confidence in the reliability of the texts of the Bible (see Yamauchi, 1972, p. 130). The Dead Sea Scrolls have strengthened our confidence that the faithful work of the scribes has essentially preserved the original contents of the book of Isaiah.

• TEXT FROM QUMRAN COMPARED WITH THE MASORIETIC
• Of the 166 Hebrew words in Isaiah 53, only seventeen letters in the Dead Sea Scroll 1QIs b differ from the Masoretic Text (Geisler and Nix, 1986, v. 382).
• 10 letters = difference in spelling
• 4 letters = stylistic changes
• 3 letters = added word “light” (v. 11)
• 17 letters = and no impact on biblical teaching

Critical Scholars, Daniel and the Scrolls

Similarly, the Qumran finds confirmed the reliability and authenticity of the text of the book of Daniel. Critical scholars, as is the case with all books of the Old Testament, have tried to disprove the authenticity of the book of Daniel. The contents of this book claim that it was written during the Babylonian exile, from the first exile of the Jews (606 BC) to the rise of the Persian Empire to world domination (c. 536 BC). ; ). However, these dates have been questioned and generally not accepted by critical scholars, who date the final composition of this book to the second century BC. In particular, it was stated that the narrative of chapters 1-6 in the form in which the book has come down to us could not have appeared earlier than the Greek period (c. 332 BC). Also, the sequence of successions of the four empires, which is clearly stated in Chapter 2, supposedly requires the dating of this book to a time after the rise of the Greek empire. In addition, these scholars stated that due to the fact that there is no clear mention in the book of Antiochus Epiphanes IV (175-164 BC), chapter 11 prophetically speaks of a Seleucid king, the more likely date is the end third, early second century BC. (See Collins 1992, 2:31; Whitehorn 1992, 1:270).

The obvious reason for this conclusion among critical scholars is the predictable nature of the book of Daniel. It talks exactly about those events that were supposed to happen hundreds of years from the period in which it claims to have been written. And since the historical-critical method is based on principles that exclude miraculous intervention in human affairs (see Brantley, 1994), the idea of ​​inspired prediction or prophecy is a priori excluded from the list of possibilities. Accordingly, Daniel allegedly could not speak with such accuracy about events so distant in his time. Therefore, these scholars conclude that the book was written during the Maccabean period, in fact as a historical narrative about a long time ago, but expressed in apocalyptic or prophetic language.

The Dead Sea Scrolls had something to say in this debate. Due to the number of fragments of the Book of Daniel found in various caves in the vicinity of Qumran, it can be concluded that this prophetic book was one of the most popular and valued by the Qumran community. Perhaps the popularity of the book of Daniel was due to the fact that the people at Qumran lived in turbulent times in which many of the things written in it came true. Be that as it may, the book of Daniel was especially taken care of, so that we now have at our disposal all the chapters of this book, except for 9 and 12. However, one manuscript (4QDan c; 4 = Cave 4; Q = Qumran); Dan c = one of the fragments of the book of Daniel, arbitrarily marked "c") published in November 1989, was dated to the end of the second century BC. (See Hasel, 1992, 5:47). Two other important papers (4QDan b, 4QDan a) have been published since 1987 and have contributed to scientific analysis books of Daniel. These recently published passages are directly related to the confirmation of the reliability and authenticity of the book of Daniel.

Text integrity

As with the book of Isaiah, before Qumran there were no surviving manuscripts of Daniel dating earlier than the end of the tenth century CE. Accordingly, scholars have cast a shadow of suspicion on the integrity of the text of the book of Daniel. Just as with the book of Isaiah, this skepticism about the reliability of the contents of the book of Daniel has led scholars to take great liberties in correcting the Hebrew text. One of the reasons for this suspicion was the allegedly arbitrary appearance of the Aramaic section in the book. Some scholars, because of this language shift, have incorrectly assumed that Daniel originally wrote in Aramaic, and later parts of this book were translated into Hebrew. In addition, a comparison of the Septuagint translation ( Greek translation Hebrew Bible) with MT revealed a huge discrepancy in length and content between the two texts. Due to these and other considerations, critical scholars have begun to attach little importance to the text of the book of Daniel in the MT.

However, once again the finds at Qumran confirmed the authenticity of the text of the book of Daniel. Gerhard Hasel has provided a number of lines of evidence from fragments of the Book of Daniel found at Qumran that support the authenticity of MT (see 1992, 5:50). First, in general, the manuscripts of the book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls are very consistent and have very little difference in content from one another. Secondly, the fragments from Qumran generally correspond very closely to the MT, with very minor deviations from the latter in comparison with the Septuagint translation. Thirdly, the transition from Hebrew to Aramaic is preserved in the Qumran fragments. Based on such undeniable facts, it is clear that the MT is a very well-preserved version of the book of Daniel. In short, Qumran convinces us that we can be confident that the text of Daniel from which our translations have been based is reliable. Practically, this means that we have at our disposal, through a faithful translation of the original, the truth that God revealed to Daniel many centuries ago.

Dating the book

Fragments of the Book of Daniel found at Qumran also speak to the topic of the authenticity of this book. As mentioned earlier, most scholars generally place the completion of the book of Daniel in the second century BC. However, the book states that it was written by Daniel, who lived in the sixth century BC. However, the Dead Sea Scroll fragments provide compelling evidence for an earlier, i.e. biblical date for the writing of this book.

The relatively numerous passages in the book of Daniel indicate the book's importance to the Qumran community. In addition, there is a clear indication that this book was considered “canonical” for this community, which means that it was recognized as an authoritative book along with the rest of the biblical books (for example, Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, Psalms). The canonicity of Daniel at Qumran is shown not only by numerous fragments, but also by the way it was referred to in other documents. One of the fragments uses a quotation with the note “as it is written in the book of the prophet Daniel.” This phrase is similar to Jesus' reference to "the prophet Daniel" (), which was the common formulation when quoting the canonical Scriptures at Qumran (see Hansel, 1992, 5:51).

The canonical status of the Book of Daniel at Qumran is important to its dating and authenticity. If, as critics have suggested, the Book of Daniel was finally compiled around 160 BC, how could it achieve its status as a canonical book at Qumran in just five or six decades? Although we do not know exactly how long it took for this book to achieve such authoritative status, it would seem that it would have taken longer for this to happen (see Bruce, 1988, pp. 27-42). It is curious that even before the most recent publications of the fragments of Daniel, R.K. Harrison recognized that the canonical status of Daniel at Qumran refutes the theory that it was composed in the Maccabean period and serves to confirm its authenticity (1969, pp. 1126-1127).

Although Harrison made this observation in 1969, three decades before most of the Cave 4 documents became available to the public and scholars, no new evidence has refuted it. On the contrary, new texts from Qumran only confirmed these conclusions. The acceptance of the book of Daniel as canonical at Qumran indicates the antiquity of its composition—certainly much earlier than the Maccabean period. Therefore, the most recent publications of the Daniel manuscripts confirm the authenticity of this book - it was written when the Bible says it was written.

The final contribution of the Qumran finds to the biblical dating of the books of Daniel comes from linguistic considerations. Although, as noted earlier, critical scholars argue that the Aramaic section of the book of Daniel points to the second century B.C. as the date of its writing, but the Qumran materials indicate the opposite. In fact, a comparison of the documents found at Qumran with the Book of Daniel demonstrates that its Aramaic section points to a writing date earlier than the 2nd century BC. This comparison also shows that the book of Daniel was written in a completely different place than Judea. For example, the apocryphal book of Genesis found in the 1st cave is a document from the second century BC. written in Aramaic and dates from the same period as that claimed by critics for the writing of the book of Daniel. If the critics were correct in the dating of Daniel, then it should reflect the same linguistic characteristics of this apocryphal Genesis. But the Aramaic of the two books is noticeably different.

Apocryphal Genesis, for example, tends to place verbs at the beginning of sentences, while in Daniel this tendency is different and has verbs mostly at the end of sentences. In view of this, linguists have suggested that the book of Daniel reflects an eastern type of Aramaic, which is more flexible in word order and bears almost none of the qualities of the western. In every significant category of linguistic comparison (i.e., morphology, grammar, syntax, vocabulary), the apocryphal Genesis (admittedly written in the second century BC) reflects a later style than the language of the book of Daniel (Archer, 1980). ., 136:143; cf. Yamauchi, 1980). Interestingly, the same is true of the Hebrew of Daniel when compared with the Hebrew texts of the sectarian documents preserved at Qumran (that is, those texts that were compiled by the Qumran community and reflected their social orders and religious practices). From such linguistic facts presented in the Qumran finds, it is impossible to conclude that the book of Daniel was written by a Jewish patriot in Judea in the early second century BC, as critics claim.

Conclusion

There are, of course, critical scholars who, despite the evidence, continue to dispute the authenticity of the book of Daniel, as well as other books of the Bible. That said, the Qumran texts have provided compelling evidence that strengthens our faith in the integrity of the manuscripts on which our translations are based. And now it is up to Bible believers to trust these texts and allow them to direct our attention to issues of concern to God and become the kind of people God wants us to be.

1. Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody).
2. Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1980), “Modern Rationalism and the Book of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 136:129-147, April-June.
3. Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
4. Brantley, Garry K. (1994), “Biblical Miracles: Fact or Fiction?,” Reason and Revelation, 14:33-38, May.
5. Bruce, F.F. (1988), The Canon of Scriptures (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
6. Collins, John J. (1992a), “Daniel, Book of,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 2:29-37.
7. Collins, John J. (1992b), “Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 2:85-101.
8. Cross, Frank Moore (1992), “The Historical Context of the Scrolls,” Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Hershel Shanks (New York: Random House).
9. Geisler, Norman and Ronald Brooks (1989), When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor).
10. Geisler, Norman and William Nix (1986), A General Intorduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody).
11. Harrison, R.K. (1969), Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
12. Hasel, Gerhard (1992), “New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Archaeology and Biblical Research, 5:45-53, Spring.
13. Josephus, “Antiquities of the Jews,” The Life and Works of Flavius ​​Josephus, (Chicago, IL: John C. Winston; translated by William Whiston).
14. Major, Trevor (1993), “Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon and Tree-Ring Dating,” Reason and Revelation, 13:73-77, October.
15. Roberts, B.J. (1962), “Masora,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon), 3:295.
16. Seow, C.L. (1987), A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew (Nashville, TN: Abingdon).
17. Shanks, Hershel (1991), “Carbon-14 Tests Substantiate Scroll Dates,” Biblical Archeology Review, 17:72, November/December.
18. Whitehorne, John (1992), “Antiochus,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 1:269-272.
19. Yamauchi, Edwin (1972), The Stones and the Scriptures: An Evangelical Perspective (New York: Lippincott).
20. Yamauchi, Edwin (1980), “The Archaeological Background of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 137:3-16, January-March.

DEAD SEA SCROLS
In early 1947, two youth shepherds from the Taamire tribe were herding goats in a desert area called Wadi Qumran (West Bank), on the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea, 20 km east of Jerusalem. A hole in the rock caught their attention. Having entered the cave through it, they, to their surprise, found eight large clay vessels there. One of them contained several scrolls, sewn from pieces of parchment and wrapped in pieces of linen cloth. The parchment was covered with parallel columns of text in a language other than Arabic. The find remained with the young men for many weeks until they reached Bethlehem, where they offered the scrolls to a Syrian merchant, who sent them to the Syrian Metropolitan Yeshua Samuel Athanasius at the monastery of St. Mark in Jerusalem. The Metropolitan realized that these were Hebrew manuscripts and bought 4 of them and a number of fragments, leaving the rest with the dealer. But everyone to whom the abbot showed his acquisitions unanimously argued that the manuscripts could not be ancient. This prejudice was explained by the fact that, with the exception of the so-called. Nash papyrus, containing only the Shema prayers and the Ten Commandments in Hebrew and dating from the 2nd century. BC. 1 century each AD, biblical texts in Hebrew were known only from relatively late manuscripts, no earlier than the 9th century. Only at the end of 1947, Professor E. Sukenik, an archaeologist from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, managed to acquire the 3 remaining manuscripts from a merchant from Bethlehem. The first to realize them ancient origin and significance, Sukenik dated the manuscripts to the 2nd-1st centuries. BC. Subsequent radiocarbon dating of the linen cloth in which the scrolls were wrapped generally confirmed this dating, pointing to a period between 167 BC. and 237 AD In 1948, the Metropolitan sent several scrolls to the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, where their significance was also recognized. In early 1949, the Metropolitan left war-torn Jerusalem and sailed to the United States, taking with him the scrolls of the book of Isaiah, the Rules of the Community, commentaries on Habakkuk (Habakkuk), the apocalypse of Lamech and large fragments of the book of Daniel. In 1954, they were acquired through intermediaries by the University of Jerusalem. Documents that originally came into Sukenik's hands include a fragment of the book of Isaiah, the scroll War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness, and Hymns of Thanksgiving. After the end of the Arab-Israeli war, systematic searches began on the western shore of the Dead Sea, which brought remarkable results. In 1949, the cave where the first scrolls were found was explored by D. Harding, director of the Jordanian Antiquities Service, and Father R. de Vaux, director of the School of Biblical History and Archeology in Jerusalem. They found a large number of parchment fragments and remains of pottery, mostly of Greek origin. From 1951 to 1955 they organized four archaeological expeditions to the area a few kilometers south of the first cave, and even further south to Wadi Murabbaat. More than 200 caves were explored, and many showed traces of human presence here. The finds ranged in time from the Bronze Age to the Roman era, with the later period being precisely dated by the discovery of a large number of coins. 500 m east of the Qumran caves, at a place called Khirbet Qumran, researchers discovered the remains of a stone building, apparently a monastery, with a large number of halls, where there were many cisterns and pools, a mill, a pottery storeroom with a pottery oven and granaries. In one of the interior rooms, table-like structures made of plaster with low benches and inkwells made of ceramics and bronze were discovered; Some of them still contain traces of ink. It was probably a scriptorium, i.e. a writing room where many of the found texts were created. To the east of the building was a cemetery containing more than 1,000 graves. It is noteworthy that no objects were found in any of the excavated graves. A huge number of shards were found, and in the caves - many biblical, apocryphal and liturgical manuscripts in Hebrew and Aramaic (tens of thousands of fragments included in more than 600 books). The excavations were nearing completion when two unique copper scrolls with Hebrew text engraved on them were found. The copper oxidized to such an extent that it was extremely difficult to unroll the scrolls (then they had to be sawn apart). The initial assumption that they contained lists of treasures, in particular gold and silver, probably hidden from the Romans, indicating the location of the treasure, began to be confirmed after reading the texts, but there is still no consensus on their contents. By looking at the totality of all available information, especially the coins found, scientists are trying to reconstruct the history of the community that owned the Dead Sea Scrolls. The founding of the Qumran settlement appears to date back to the Maccabean era, possibly to the time of King John Hyrcanus of Judea, as the earliest coins date back to his reign (135-104 BC). The discovered series of coins covers the entire period of Hasmonean rule until 37 BC, after which there is a break until 4 BC, when the building probably remained uninhabited. This is most likely explained by an earthquake that, according to Josephus, occurred in 31 BC; Traces of damage are visible on the structure itself. Another series of coins covers the period from 4 BC. to 68 AD Historical sources speak about the reason for its sudden cessation. In 68 AD Vespasian suppressed the 1st Jewish revolt. Josephus reports that in that year Vespasian marched with his Tenth Legion to Jericho and the Dead Sea. The building may have been stormed, as all the rooms are littered with iron tips arrows, and layers of ash indicate a fire. Indeed, on one coin there is the inscription Legio X Fretensis, which indicates the presence of soldiers of the Tenth Legion. However, the inhabitants most likely received warning of the approach of the Romans and hid the library in the surrounding caves. The ruins remained uninhabited from 68 to 132 AD, after which coins reappeared. This is the period of the 2nd Jewish revolt led by Bar Kochba (132-135 AD). The fact that the ruins were used during this time is indicated by one of the most remarkable manuscripts - a letter written by Bar Kochba himself, “the prince of Israel ". The rebels were defeated and the building was finally abandoned. The significance of the found scrolls and their fragments is enormous. If the complete scroll of the book of Isaiah shows minor discrepancies with the accepted text of the Bible, then its fragments are almost completely consistent with it and, thus, confirm the reliability of the later Jewish texts. However, even more important are the manuscripts of non-biblical content, reflecting a previously little-known aspect of Jewish thinking of that era. They talk about people who lived and were buried at Qumran, who called themselves the Community of the Covenant. Their spiritual leader was the Teacher of Righteousness, or the Chosen One; The daily routine of the community is fixed in its Charter. The ideas expressed in it are similar to those attributed to the Jewish sect of the Essenes (Essenes), who, according to Pliny, lived on the western shore of the Dead Sea, where Qumran is located. The Temple Scroll, discovered in 1967, contains detailed instructions for the construction of a large temple and touches on topics such as ritual impurity and purification. The text is often given as being spoken in the first person by God himself. Pliny, Philo and Joseph described it in the 1st century. characteristic customs of the Essenes sect, who founded a brotherhood of equals and owned property in common. The Essenes rejected wealth and pleasure and preached humility and self-control. Celibacy was accepted in some groups. The Essenes were governed by priests who were in charge of the group's property. In this regard, it is noteworthy that not a single coin was found outside the central building at Qumran, and the graves of the large Qumran cemetery were completely absent of any funeral offerings. Great importance was attached to ritual ablutions; community members wore white clothes. The Essenes took part in collective meals, which were a religious event that began with the blessing of food. Members of the Qumran community called themselves not Essenes, but the sons of Zadok (in the Russian Bible Zadok), i.e. "Sadducees". Perhaps this status of the long-dissident Sadducean movement explains their special reverence for the priesthood and hatred of the official Sadducean party, which, in their opinion, desecrated the temple and the very institution of the priesthood. On the other hand, members of the Qumran community took positions hostile to the populist party of the Pharisees, strictly following the letter of the Law in its interpretation (for example, they would not allow an animal to come to the rescue that fell into a pit on the Sabbath day). Of particular importance to them was their own religious calendar, which they considered the only true one. They argued that the use of an incorrect calendar by both the Pharisees and Sadducees was a serious, even decisive, cause of the misfortunes of the Jewish people. The Sadducees did not believe in the immortality of the soul, while the Essenes believed that the souls of the sons of light would live to enjoy “eternal bliss,” while the souls of the sons of darkness would experience eternal torment. In addition, they predicted the coming of the Messiah, who, however, traced his origin not from David (as the Pharisees expected), but from Aaron (i.e., like Zadok, a Levite from the highest priestly caste). This Messiah will become a military leader - the scroll of the Charter of War describes in great detail the organization of the messianic army, which will ultimately, after a 40-year holy war, defeat the army of the sons of darkness. Some commentators say there is historical continuity between the teachings of the Essenes and the ideas of early Christianity. In addition to ideological similarities, a certain chronological and geographical coincidence of the two groups is emphasized. Thus, becoming christian church associated with the revival of the Qumran monastery between 4 BC. and 68 AD Moreover, these scholars point out that when the Word of God was revealed to John the Baptist, he withdrew into the Judean Desert near the mouth of the Jordan River. There he baptized Jesus - in a place less than 16 km away from Qumran. However, opponents of this interpretation believe that certain key rituals underlie many religions, the parallels between the Essenes and Christians are not very significant, and belief in a messiah from the line of Zadok, rather than David, is incompatible with Christian teaching. However, the study of the entire body of scrolls and fragments from the Dead Sea area is still far from complete, and none of the interpretations can be considered final.
LITERATURE
Amusin I.D. Dead Sea Manuscripts. M., 1961 Amusin I.D. Qumran community. M., 1983

Collier's Encyclopedia. - Open Society. 2000 .

See what the “DEAD SEA SCROLS” are in other dictionaries:

DEAD SEA SCROLS- see Qumran manuscripts... Atheist Dictionary

Fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls on display at the Archaeological Museum in Amman Bible ... Wikipedia

Dead Sea Scrolls- ♦ (ENG Dead Sea Scrolls) documents found in the Judean caves (1947) (250 BC - 70 AD), which made up the library of the Qumran community (see Qumran). They included, along with documents regulating the life of the community, several of the most... ... Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms

Fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls on display at the Archaeological Museum in Amman Bible ... Wikipedia

Fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls on display at the Archaeological Museum in Amman Bible ... Wikipedia

See the Dead Sea Scrolls... Soviet historical encyclopedia

Fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls on display at the Archaeological Museum in Amman Bible ... Wikipedia

Fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls on display at the Archaeological Museum in Amman Bible ... Wikipedia