[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dss related questions (copper scroll)
David Kaufman wrote
> Russell Gmyrken wrote:
> The reference to the "queen's residence" near Jericho at 6.11 surely
carries
> chronological significance. This may refer to a royal residence of a
> Herodian or Hasmonean queen [see Bargil Pixner's article, Unravelling the
> Copper Scroll,
> RevQ 11 p. 349] or (a less likely long shot) one of the Ptolemaic
Cleopatra's
> who occasionally controlled portions of Palestine.
> ********
> [Kaufman responds:]
> Your right, it may refer to the residence of a Queen. The Cleopatra who
was a
> buddy of Onias IV would be a possibility. The Ptolemies probably remained
in
> control of, or at least in influence over, portions of the East until well
> after the Hasmoneans took power. The possibility that they might have had
> property there is not unreasonable.
I don't understand on what historical basis you believe the Ptolemies
remained in control of and maintained property in portions of Palestine into
the Hasmonean period. The was a war between Antiochus the Great and the
Ptolemies' Greek-mercenary general Scopas that decided this whole issue in
200 BCE. The Ptolemies lost and were evicted from Palestine. It really
wasn't until Herodian times (Anthony and Cleopatra) that a Ptolemaic queen
actually controlled portions of Palestine (hence my including this Cleopatra
as a marginally possible candidate for the "queen's residence" near Jericho).
> Russell continued:
> All three possibilities are later than your proposed 159 BCE dating.
> *********
> [Kaufman responds:]
> No. The Cleopatra who was a buddy of Onias IV is in the right time
period...
Actually, no. Not if you are talking 159 BCE, which is when you suggest the
copper scroll treasures were hidden. The letter of Onias IV to "Ptolemy and
Cleopatra" at Josephus, Ant. 13.65=13.3.1 refers to Ptolemy VI Philometer and
his queen, and was written possibly as late as the 140s, but definitely after
Onias IV assisted Ptolemy VI in the dynastic war against his brother Ptolemy
VII Euergetes during the 150s and 140s (see Polybius). So the letter you
allude to is anachronistic if used as evidence of a close friendship of Onias
IV and Cleopatra in 159. But the main problem is -- how does this alleged
friendship gain Cleopatra a residence by Jericho when this was Seleucid real
estate in the 160s? (And note that the infant king Ptolemy Philometer
probably only married around 165-163.)
> Russell wrote:
> Pixner also points out a series of locations in Transjordan in the Copper
> Scroll that only came under Judean control under Hyrkanus and Jannaeus.
> **********
> [Kaufman responds:]
> Actually, Judean control would be completely irrelevant to my theory. The
> Ptolemies were in control of those territories for a long time. Remember
> that Hyrcanus Tobiad lived there. Hyrcanus and his branch of the Tobiads,
> assuming the Tobiad split theory is true, would have supported the
pro-Ptolemaic
> Oniads, Onias IV. Even as late as 159 BCE, after the death of Hyrcanus,
> there was likely support for the pro-Ptolemaic Oniads in the region
formerly tied
> to Hyrcanus. I don't think that hiding money in the Transjordan would have
> been much of a problem.
Fair enough on the Tobiad region being pro-Ptolemaic. Of course this also
put them firmly in the anti-Seleucid Maccabean camp, as evidenced by the
Tobiad cavalry unit fighting in the Maccabean army, for instance. But as
for your thought that "hiding money in the Transjordan wouldn't have been
much of a problem," I must politely disagree. In spring, 163 BCE, the
pro-Seleucid Gentile residents of Transjordan -- including those in the
vicinity of the sites in the Copper Scroll -- started capturing and killing
the perceived pro-Ptolemaic/anti-Seleucid Jewish residents in this region.
They appealed to Judas Maccabaeus for help, and with great difficulty he
managed to defeat the armies of Timotheus and evacuate the Jews to Jerusalem.
Hence in 159 your pro-Ptolemaic Jews were either dead or gone.
> Russell wrote:
> Likewise the reference to Beth-Hakoz (the estate of Hakos) near Jericho at
> 7.9 seems inconsistent with your 159 date. As Kyle McCarter ("The Mystery
> of the Copper Scroll" in Herschel Shank's book, Understanding the Dead Sea
> Scrolls) notes on p. 239, the priestly House of Hakkoz owned property near
> Jericho (cf. Neh. 3:2, 4, 22-23) and were in charge of the temple treasury
> (Neh. 3:4 cf. Ezra 8:33). Eupolemus the historian and diplomat was also of
> the Akkos family
> (1 Macc. 8:17). The problem with your scenario is that Eupolemus was
> clearly
> a Maccabean partisan in 159 (between his diplomatic mission to Rome for
> Judas
> Maccabaeus in 162 and his writing his pro-Maccabaeus history in 158/57),
> whereas you evidently propose the temple treasures were hidden on the
Hakkoz
> estate on behalf of the rival (in your scenario) Onias clan, further based
> on
> your hypothesis that Alcimus was an Oniad.
> ***********
> [Kaufman responds:]
> Not so quick. Eupolemus was the son of John, son of someone named Akkos.
> Now, it is a jump to assume that this man was a priest, much less related
to the
> family that lived near Jericho.
That Eupolemus was a priest is clearly brought out in the keen interest in
temple history and architecture in the preserved fragments of his history. I
refer you to Wacholder's book, _Eupolemus_, for the currently definitive
discussion. (He also discusses Eupolemus as a recent and credible source in
I/II Maccabees, which you might profit reading, given your downplaying II
Maccabees as a historical source in
your thesis -- by the way, sincere thanks for the copy.)
> Moreover, you assume that the entire Akkos
> clan sided with the Hasmoneans simply because Eupolemus did, if he
> represented that faction of priests to begin with. It may well have been,
if
> Eupolemus was a priest of the family Akkos, that he represented the
minority
> position in the family and could be the reason why he spoke so vehemently
in
> favor of the Hasmoneans.
He appears to have been a very prominent member of the family -- that he
represented the "minority position" seems a rather ad hoc suggestion.
> However, the text of the Copper Scroll may again
> provide an out. The treasure was not buried in the House of the Akkos
family,
> but in a cave near it. "Near" might refer to the closest cave, or even a
> close cave, and may have been at some distance from the site. Why do we
> connect all of the caves 1-11 to Qumran? Some were located at some
distance
> from the site, were they not?
The natural explanation for the mention of specific estates in the Copper
Scroll is that certain individuals were assigned the duties for hiding
different portions of the temple treasure, and that the Copper Scroll
represents the "accounting." [The Greek letters have been plausibly
suggested as initials -- or name beginnings -- of the responsible parties.]
So I would say this is a cave either on the Akkos estate or known to them --
and given the Akkos clan connection with the temple treasury, this approaches
a near certainty in my opinion.
> I don't think that this theory on the Copper Scroll is impossible. I
wouldn't
> bet my life on it, but I don't think that such a possibility may be ruled
> out. I haven't decided between this and a couple of later dates. One of
the
> later dates is not post destruction of Jerusalem, but post destruction of
> Leontopolis, only a few years later. This is why the question of how
> accurately we may date the deposition of the scrolls in the caves. Can we
> date the deposition to 68 CE, prior to 68 CE, or possibly to circa 73-74
CE
> when the Romans went after the Oniads in Egypt.
Wouldn't hiding temple treasures in Roman-controlled Palestine in 73-74 CE
-- by Egyptian sectarians -- involve some logistic difficulties?
Interesting strategy though! I'll let someone else debate that one. ;-)
Hope you find this helpful in your ongoing researches.
-- Russell Gmirkin