Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered - The Preterist Archive

as Judgement' throughout, so that the reader would be able to recognize the underlying Hebrew word
in the Translation, even though this occasionally leads to imprecision when applied to everyday,
mundane affairs. For instance, the individual we shall discuss in Chapter 6 below, called 'the
Mebakker or 'Bishop', when judging individual cases and making individual rulings is, also, referred
to as making 'Judgements'.
A key ideology is Hesed. In most cases it means 'Piety', but sometimes, especially when applied to
God, it can actually mean that 'Grace' which Paul embraces so heartily in his letters. For the sake of
consistency, we have translated it 'Piety' throughout. There are also innumerable instances of the use
of the key terminologies: Ebion, 'Ani, and Dal, all referring to 'the Poor' or 'poverty'. For the purposes
of consistency and precision, we have preferred 'Poor' for the first, 'Meek' for the second, and
'Downtrodden' for the third. Such are the editorial decisions that must be made in a work of this kind.
Finally there is the reconstruction of various fragments into a single rationalized whole. Often the
order of these is arbitrary, representing what seemed in the circumstances the most rational. It is
sometimes not sure whether all of these really even belong to the same text. For instance, in a splendid
mystic and visionary recital, the Chariots of Glory below, there is an excommunication text
comparable to the last column of the Damascus Document, imbedded in somewhat more prosaic
material. What are we to do with such a fragment? Yet, the columns in question were preserved
continuously, such is the nature of the material before us.
Often we decided simply to leave such passages as part of the same manuscript, even though it is
possible they were not. This is true, in some instances too - but certainly not all - as concerns the order
of fragments in a given document. But we did not feel this was sufficient cause to hold up work as
some 'official' editors seem to have felt for so long, and decided that matters such as these were
relatively minor (of greater interest to the specialist than the general reader), as compared with the
right of the public to know. It was more important to translate a given manuscript, provide
commentary, get it out, and leave the public to judge such fine points for itself as we ourselves would
go on to do in other forums.
In closing, the editors wish to thank the members of both teams which worked on these texts, one at
California State University and Long Beach and one at the University of Chicago. The first included
Rabbi Leo Abrami, Eton Viner, Ilan Cohen, Eyran Eylon, and Dr James Battenfield. The second
included David Clemens, Deborah Friedrich, Michael Douglas, and Anthony Tomasino. Where the
second team is concerned, Professor Wise wishes especially to thank Mr Douglas and Mr Tomasino.
They shared his labours on many manuscripts. Mr Tomasino in particular contributed to all aspects of
his work on many manuscripts along every step of the way. They also acknowledge the help and
suggestions offered by Professor Norman Golb, Professor Dennis Pardee, Dr Douglas Penny, and Dr
Yiftah Zur. These colleagues and students have helped make this a better book.
Translations of this kind are difficult. Work - albeit preliminary was accomplished here under very
difficult circumstances and in very short order that has been 'on the back burner', as it were, for the
better part of thirty-five years. Those who helped deserve only credit and none of the blame for any
errors in reading or interpretation in this work. Final responsibility for all readings, Translations and
commentary, however, must and does, of course, lie with the authors. Professor Wise also wishes to