Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered - The Preterist Archive

This is to be contrasted sharply with the portrait of Jesus' pro-Gentile sentiments or behaviour in the
Gospels, where he is even pictured, as noted above, as keeping 'table fellowship' with similar classes
of barred persons, including most strikingly 'prostitutes' and 'tax-collectors' - important allusions for
this period. Nor should one forget the imagery of Jesus as 'Temple' generally in Paul. In this context,
one image in the Gospels, comparing Gentiles with dogs being allowed to eat the crumbs under the
table (Matt. 15:27, etc.), is not without resonance in this text. In Lines 66-7, even dogs are barred from
the Temple because they eat the bones with the flesh still on them, i.e. they acquire the kind of
pollution associated with 'things sacrificed to idols'.
These things are related, too, to the issue of 'fornication', which in Lines 83-9 is equated to the one of
'hybrids'. In turn, both appear to be related to intermarrying between Israel and foreigners actually
referred to in 87-8. This theme, of course, would be dear to 'Zealots' inspired by the saving act of
Phineas warding off such 'mixing' in ancient times. Here, it would seem also to relate to intermarrying
between priests and Israelites.
Line 86 uses an allusion from the Community Rule, which we have already referred to-the reference
to 'priests' on the Community Council as a spiritualized 'Holy of Holies' leading up to the two
allusions to the 'Way in the wilderness' of Isa. 40:3 (viii. 5-9 and ix. 4). But the reason for the banning
of both 'fornication' and intermarriage would appear to be the same: i.e. Israel is supposed to be 'a
Holy People', 'a Holy Seed'. It is difficult to conceive of a more xenophobic group than this. The
concern for the Temple exhibited in all these passages should be clear throughout.
Where the identifiably 'Sadducean' position on the impurity of poured liquids travelling between
vessels is concerned, the infraction relates to that of not 'separating impure from pure', which is
fundamental to the Qumran approach and stated as such in Line 64. This theme is at the root of the
problems in the Temple signalled in the Damascus Document too, for instance those relating
'fornication' to Temple 'pollution' (v.6-7). It is also at the root of the exegesis of 'preparing a Way in
the wilderness' (1QS, viii.11-13), which is introduced by the injunction 'separate yourselves'.
In the Damascus Document, it is contended that they do not observe proper 'separation' in the Temple
(i.e. between 'pure' and 'impure'), and therefore 'pollute' the Temple, because 1) they sleep with
women during their periods and 2) because every man of them marries his niece. These two charges
are fundamental to the Qumran mindset and are sufficient to develop a sitz im leben.
The first charge no doubt relates to the perception of sexual relations with Gentiles; the second, most
probably to the Herodian family, as no other group before them can be demonstrably so identified.
Niece marriage was a practice the Herodians indulged in habitually as a matter seemingly of family
policy. It may well have something to do with their Idumaean / Arab origins, and even today, the
practice is not uncommon among heirs to these cultures. This conjunction of antagonism to foreigners
and niece marriage becomes most perfectly embodied in the Herodian family and those incurring their
pollution by intercourse - sexual or social - with them (see CD,vi.l4-15, following the allusion to
'vipers' and 'firebrands': 'No man that approaches them shall be free of their guilt.').
Finally, it should be noted that in one unpublished version of the Damascus Document there appears
to be material relating to the problem of 'copper vessels' signalled in Line 6, itself not unrelated to the