Free The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English by Geza Vermes Page A

though obviously opposed to Onias IV since he did not follow him to Egypt and to his unlawful Temple in Leontopolis. 71 He founded or re-founded the Community. He transmitted to them his own distinctive interpretation of the Prophets and, if we can rely at least indirectly on the Hymns, of the laws relating to the celebration of festivals. The ‘Liar’ and his sympathizers in the congregation of the Hasidim disagreed with him, and after a violent confrontation between the two factions in which the ‘Liar’ gained the upper hand, the Teacher and his remaining followers fled to a place of refuge called ‘the land of Damascus’: it has been suggested that this is a cryptic designation of Babylonia, the original birthplace of the group, or else that ‘Damascus’ is a symbolical name for Qumran. The ‘House of Absalom’ gave the Teacher of Righteousness no help against the ‘Liar’, writes the Habakkuk commentator (1QpHab v, 9-12), the implication being that this was support on which he might have relied. If ‘Absalom’ is also a symbol, it doubtless recalls the rebellion of Absalom against his father David, and thus points to the perfidy of a close relation or intimate friend of the Teacher. On the other hand, since the ‘House of Absalom’ is accused not of an actual attack but simply of remaining silent during the Teacher’s ‘chastisement’, this allegorical solution may not be convincing. The allusion may then be a straightforward one. A certain Absalom was an ambassador of Judas Maccabaeus (2 Mac. xi, 17), and his son Mattathias was one of Jonathan’s gallant officers (1 Mac. xi, 70). Another of his sons, Jonathan, commanded Simon’s army which captured Joppa (1 Mac. xiii, 11).
    Meanwhile, even in his ‘place of exile’ the Teacher continued to be harassed and persecuted by the Wicked Priest. In this connection, the most important and painful episode appears to have been the Priest’s pursuit of the Teacher to his settlement with the purpose of pouring on him ‘his venomous fury’. Appearing before the sectaries on ‘their Sabbath of repose’, at the ‘time appointed for rest, for the Day of Atonement’, his intention was to cause them ‘to stumble on the Day of Fasting’. It is impossible to say, from the evidence so far available, precisely what happened on this portentous occasion, or whether it was then or later that the Wicked Priest ‘laid hands’ on the Teacher ‘that he might put him to death’. The wording is equivocal. For example, the verb in 1QpHab xi, 5, 7, translated ‘to confuse’, can also mean ‘to swallow up’, and some scholars have chosen to understand that the Teacher was killed by the Wicked Priest at the time of the visit. On the other hand, we find recounted in the imperfect tense (which can be rendered into English as either the future or the present tense): ‘The wicked of Ephraim and Manasseh ... seek/will seek to lay hands on the Priest and the men of his Council... But God redeems/will redeem them from out of their hand’ (4QpPs a [XXXVII, II, I7-I9=4QI7I]). In other words, we neither know who the founder of the Essenes was, nor how, nor where, nor when he died. Only writers upholding the most unlikely Christian identification of the Community claim to be better informed, but disagree among themselves. J. L. Teicher thought the Teacher was Jesus. For Barbara Thiering Jesus was the Wicked Priest, John the Baptist the Teacher; R. H. Eisenman rejects both and prefers James the Just, ‘the brother of the Lord’, as the Teacher of Righteousness. Only the sensation-seeking media have been taken in by their theories.
    It has been suggested that this inability to identify the Teacher of Righteousness in the context of the Maccabaean period undermines the credibility of the reconstruction as a whole. Is it conceivable, it is asked,