Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered - The Preterist Archive

Hyrcanus, and appears to have been the darling of the nationalist-minded Jerusalem crowd. It was the
split between these two - and Antipater's adept exploitation of it - that set the stage for the Roman
entrance into and occupation of the country and the destruction of the Maccabean family. So ended
that independence achieved a century before with Judas Maccabee's legendary acts.
Aristobulus was taken by Pompey to Rome in chains, probably to participate in his triumph. The
movement that supported him may be seen as both 'nationalist' and 'Sadducean', while Hyrcanus II
and his mother Shelamzion (Lines 4-6 of Fragment 2) are part of a more compromising, less
nationalistic, Pharisaic one, willing to live with foreign intervention in the country - in particular, the
appointment of high priests.
Seemingly written from the perspective of those who supported Aristobulus II, the present text is
hostile to 'Arabs' (with whom Antipater and Hyrcanus were very involved), hostile to Shelamzion,
under whom the accommodation began, hostile to Hyrcanus II, and without question, hostile to
Scaurus and those 'Gentiles' associated with him in the killings he is overtly accused of being involved
in (Lines 4 and 8 of Manuscript D Fragment 2 and Line 2 of Manuscript A Fragment 3). Its point of
view can most certainly be regarded as 'zealous', if not 'Zealot'.
This is the tantalizing nature of the materials before us. As in the Nahum Commentary, the events
recorded would appear to be past history, so much so that they have had a chance to penetrate the
commemorative tradition of a zealous lower priesthood holding these memories dear probably not an
insubstantial time later. The infractions imputed to Aemilius and the 'leader of Gentiles' have burned
deep into its consciousness. After Mark Antony's suppression of the revolutionary activity by
Aristobulus' two sons Alexander and Antigonus in the next generation, who like John the Baptist after
them were beheaded; the priests officiating at the Temple all owed their positions to Roman and
Herodian power. They would not and could not have been interested in a literature of this kind.
Where, then, could a text accusing Roman governors of murder have been preserved? Only at a
revolutionary outpost such as Qumran. What period could this have been and when did this more
'purist' brand of Sadducees - who apparently ultimately metamorphose into 'Messianic Sadducees' and
depending on particular scholars' points of view have been variously called 'Essenes', 'Zealots', or
'Jewish Christians' - write or preserve such materials? We are certainly not in the formative
Maccabean period, nor any period linked to personalities like Jonathan or Simon Maccabee, or even
Alexander Jannaeus, whom proponents of 'the Essene theory' have previously and tendentiously
identified as the dramatis personae - most notably the Wicked Priest of Qumran allusion.
This is consistent and in line with our reading of other Qumran materials, particularly the Testament
of Kohath to be discussed in Chapter 5, which condemns foreign involvement and collaboration with
foreign invaders in the matter of the priesthood. It is also consistent with our reading of the complex
development of the Sadducee movement and a split in this movement between nationalist and
collaborating wings coincident with some of the events being outlined here. One pro-Aristobulus,
which could easily pass for 'zealot', moves in the first century AD into an 'opposition' and probably
even 'Messianic' phase; another, more compromising, owed its existence and the collaborating nature
of its ethos to the rise of Herod, who with Antony was responsible for the beheading of Aristobulus'
equally nationalistic and Sadducean son Antigonus 25 years later. The second of these, who Josephus