Dead Sea Scrolls: Who Lived at Qumran?

058

The various theories about who lived at Qumran can be divided into two camps, according to whether or not one believes that an intimate connection exists between the scrolls and the archaeological ruins. This point is particularly important because some of the scrolls are clearly sectarian; that is, they describe both the beliefs and the lifestyle of a separatist Jewish religious community. Was this separatist community living at Qumran?

The methodological question this raises is whether or not one may use the scrolls to illuminate and explain the archaeological findings of Khirbet Qumran or, vice versa, use the Qumran archaeological data to help interpret the scrolls.

Initially, the majority of scholars followed the excavator of the site, Roland de Vaux, who believed that the scrolls and the ruins did in fact reflect a single community. In recent years, however, his position has been increasingly challenged. According to some scholars, de Vaux fell into the trap of allowing his own presuppositions about the scrolls to color and even distort his interpretation of the archaeological data.

On the other hand, it can also be argued that the textual remains found in and around a site constitute an integral part of the archaeological evidence, and one would be just as badly skewing the evidence if such an important part of the data was ignored.

The dilemma can be expressed this way: How far does Khirbet Qumran extend? Should it be limited to only what is inside the walls of the compound, or should it also include the archaeological findings in the immediate vicinity, such as the caves (and the cemetery outside the site)?

Since de Vaux’s excavations, a number of scholars have tried to understand the archaeological nature of the site without taking into account the evidence of the scrolls. These scholars all agree on one thing: The site was not a community center for the Jewish sect described in the scrolls. Several of them also believe that, at least during a portion of the site’s existence, Qumran served some kind of military defensive role. Otherwise there is little consensus. Among the other suggestions: Qumran was a villa rustica of a wealthy landowner, it was an agricultural estate, a balsam production center, a pottery factory,^a or perhaps a commercial entrepot for Dead Sea traffic.^b The residents of Qumran could have been soldiers (or zealots) or some wealthy aristocrat or farm employees or industrial workers, none of whom would have had any connection with the collection, copying or composition of the Dead Sea Scrolls. While it is commendable that these scholars have tried to examine the archaeological data of 059the ruins apart from the perspective provided by the scrolls, the lack of consensus and the mutually exclusive conclusions are disconcerting. How is it that the remains of a pottery factory could be confused with a villa rustica? Rather, the multiplicity of theories only seems to highlight the unique nature of the site, one for which there is no real known parallel.

Interestingly, one would expect that the ruins of a community center belonging to a separatist Jewish religious group—such as the one described in the sectarian texts—would be just that: unique. It could be argued, therefore, that the lack of consensus among archaeologists who do not take the scrolls into consideration in their Qumran research only strengthens the unified view of those who do: The site was the home of the community that collected, copied or even composed the scrolls.

In fact, those who study the scrolls find great harmony between what is described in them about the sect and the archaeological findings at Qumran. Moreover, this interpretation remains the best explanation for some of the site’s unique features, such as the cemetery, the many ritual baths and the unique pottery assemblage, as well as the concentration of caves in which scrolls were found, a majority of which are within a stone’s throw of the ruins. With the discovery at the site of ink wells, plaster benches suitable for the preparation of parchment, storage jars identical to those in which the Bedouin found the scrolls. The better view would seem to be to associate the scrolls with the site.

But who were these sectarians who lived at Qumran? The majority of Dead Sea Scroll scholars today continue to uphold the conclusion reached early on by E.L. Sukenik, the first scholar to have recognized the antiquity and significance of the discovery: He believed that they were the Essenes. Indeed, there are many parallels between what the community asserts about itself in the scrolls and the historical sources that describe the Essenes, principally those of Josephus, Philo and Pliny. But there are also differences (and the scrolls themselves contain no references to Essenes as such).

So today scholars are continuing to try to understand how this rather small Qumranite settlement was in fact related to the broader Essene movement. There is little consensus. What can be said about this group is that they called themselves the Yah.ad (“community”), a term emphasizing their close relationship with one another and with the larger group of which they were a part. They came together sometime in the second century B.C.E. around the teaching of a charismatic leader called the “Teacher of Righteousness” and continued to promulgate his teachings even after his death, until their own demise at the hands of the Romans in 68C.E.—Brian Schultz, Fresno Pacific University

The various theories about who lived at Qumran can be divided into two camps, according to whether or not one believes that an intimate connection exists between the scrolls and the archaeological ruins. This point is particularly important because some of the scrolls are clearly sectarian; that is, they describe both the beliefs and the lifestyle of a separatist Jewish religious community. Was this separatist community living at Qumran? The methodological question this raises is whether or not one may use the scrolls to illuminate and explain the archaeological findings of Khirbet Qumran or, vice versa, use the Qumran […]