Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered - The Preterist Archive

Way], and also to mix the . . . (7) they repr[oved] [be]cause he . . . and also because he was not . . . (8)
Furthermore, he loved his bodily emissions . . . (9) Hananiah ben Shim[. . . they reproved because . . .]
(10) Furthermore, he loved . . .
50. Paean Forking Jonathan (Alexander Jannaeus - 4Q448) (Plate 25)
This text completely disproves the Essene theory of Qumran origins at least as classically conceived.
It was known for some 30 years, but once again mistranslated and misinterpreted. What is more
incomprehensible, the dedication 'to King Jonathan' was missed completely. Once again, it
demonstrates the need for open access to all texts and the deleterious effects of opening archives only
to a small circle of people.
There were really only two King Jonathan's in the history we have before us. These were Jonathan the
brother of Judas Maccabee (c. 15 5 BC), and Alexander Jannaeus (d. 76 BC), whom we have referred
to in various contexts above. Since the first probably never even was 'king' in the true sense and was
never addressed in this manner, we are probably in the realm of the second. We have had occasion to
speak of him throughout these texts, but particularly with regard to the Priestly Courses III/Aemilius
Kills text in Chapter 4.
To have a text like this Paean, introduced by a dedicatory invocation or panegyric to him - in the
words of the Paean itself, a Shir Kodesh or 'Holy Song'/'Poem' - is an historical treasure of high
magnitude for the study of the Scrolls. Therefore we close our work with it and its interpretation. The
fact that it was buried for so long, with the consequence that much of the debate concerning the state
of affairs it addresses was misguided and misinformed, cannot be considered anything but
reprehensible.
Ten years ago, one of the editors of this volume observed that Qumran had to be considered pro-
Maccabean, i.e. pro Alexander Jannaeus or Jonathan and not anti. He concluded from 2 Macc 5:27's
picture of Judas and his nine companions out 'in the hills' eating nothing but plants 'to avoid
contracting defilement', that the settlement might have been founded by the Maccabees to honour this
'wilderness' experience, not (as in normative Qumran scholarship, which in his view exhibited a
definite anti-Maccabean bias) in opposition to them.
It should be noted that both Maccabee Books present the celebration they seem written to
commemorate, Hanukkah, as a new Feast of Booths or Tabernacles in the wilderness when the Law
was either first revealed or rededicated. This editor also noted Alexander Jannaeus' second wilderness
sojourn thereafter, when the latter and about 6,000 of his partisans fled to 'the hills' surrounding
Jerusalem to resist Demetrius. This Graeco-Seleucid King had been invited into the country by the
presumable party opposing Alexander, the Pharisees (War 1.92-5).
This invitation by the Pharisaic opponents of Alexander Jannaeus has to be considered a prototypical
one for this party and the establishment Sadducees they eventually control. Later it is the Pharisee
supporters of Hyrcanus II, presumably referred to disapprovingly in the text on Priestly Courses
above, who sided with Pompey and the Scaurus mentioned in that text. They are also presumably
involved with Herod's father Antipas, who aided the Roman troops in overwhelming Aristobulus'