Khirbet Qumran:
A New
Interpretation of Purpose
John C. Haynes, Jr.
JST-3144: Dead Sea
Scrolls
Dr. Kenneth Hanson
December 4, 2021
1
Khirbet Qumran
Since the initial discoveries of
the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, scholars have offered and debated numerous
theories as to the purpose of the location of the main concentration of scrolls
and the center of what appears to be a sect of Judaism, Khirbet Qumran. Qumran
is located on the west bank of the Jordan River near the Dead Sea, giving the
popular name to the scrolls found in the caves nearby the Qumran site. The
structures located at Qumran are varied in size and formation and have led to
varying ideas about their purpose. Recent archaeological evidence along with
historical and textual analysis have led to the theory that the Qumran
structures themselves were not used to house a large sectarian community but
was employed primarily as a meeting place for annual covenant renewals and
festivals for all the scattered members of the sect to converge upon. While
there may have been a small number of members who remained at the site
year-round, and larger numbers who lived in nearby caves, the majority of
sectarians were scattered across the Judaean countryside in what were referred
to as “camps.”
Initial archaeological excavation
of the Qumran site was completed between November 24 and December 12, 1951, by
Father Roland de Vaux of the Ecole Biblique.[1] Initial findings included
pottery fragments and jars that linked the structures at the site to the nearby
caves where the scrolls were found. The site itself would prove to be much more
complex as well as controversial and would result in numerous theories as to
its purpose. Controversy and complexity would arise because Fr. De Vaux died
before publishing his complete findings. This left scholars with incomplete
data and analysis to use when looking at De Vaux’s theories. A
2
summary of what was found at Qumran included a few structures
that could be identified as living areas,[2] several large public
buildings that could have been used as dining areas (these contained large
amounts of serving vessels) and one that de Vaux identified as a scriptorium, several
large Mikva’ot, or ritual purity baths (sing. Mikveh), a large
open plaza, and several cemeteries.[3] The dining areas, Mikva’ot,
and plaza could well serve thousands of individuals. One of the largest cemeteries
contains the graves of over 1,100 individuals. Noticeably absent in the
complex, however, are large numbers of living quarters.
Some of the
popular theories that have been suggested include the ruins of a fortress,
proposed by Norman Golb of the University of Chicago. Fr. De Vaux initially
agreed with this analysis, however upon further research decided against this.[4] Husband and wife
archaeologists Robert Donceel and Pauline Donceel-Voute concluded that the
Qumran site was a wealthy villa with a large dining room,[5] although this theory seems
unlikely and does not have many supporters. Other theories include that of an
agricultural community and a perfume factory. None of these ideas fully match
the complete archaeological and historical data of the time.
Archaeological
Evidence and Analysis
None of the
proposed theories for the purpose of the Qumran site have gained significant
consensus over the other since the beginning of the archaeological excavation.[6] Although lacking
3
a final report, the theory that stands on firmest ground is
that of the original excavator, Father Roland de Vaux. Recently, new expansions
on De Vaux’s archaeological findings, based on textual analysis of the Dead Sea
Scrolls themselves, have led to a slight revision of original theories. When
analyzing the archaeological data, De Vaux identified the following periods of
construction:[7]
-Phase
Ia: a few remains from early occupation from the period c. 140 BCE.
-Phase Ib: beginning around
the reign of the Hasmonean ruler and high priest John Hyrcanus, 134-104 BCE,
and included a small number of accommodations that were destroyed by either
fire or an earthquake and subsequent fire.
-Phase II: after the
earthquake, the site was abandoned until the time of the death of King Herod, 4
BCE, and remained occupied until 68 CE.
-Phase III: Brief Roman
occupation.
De Vaux viewed the site beginning with Phase II as a
communal site but not for permanent residence. The structures included communal
dining and meeting areas, but he thought that residents would live in makeshift
shelters on the surrounding grounds.[8]
Jodi
Magness, in her book The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, largely
agrees with Father de Vaux’s findings, although she does disagree with and
modifies his phases of construction:
4
1. She
finds that there was no period corresponding to Phase Ia.
2. Magness
believes that the site was sectarian from the beginning and began between 100
and 50 BCE.
3. She
does not believe there was such a significant gap in settlement between Phase
Ib and Phase II. Also, she finds evidence for a separate earthquake and a fire.
An earthquake in 31 BCE led to a partial abandonment of the site, and a
subsequent fire led to a second abandonment with a reoccupation the same as De
Vaux’s, after the death of Herod in 4 BCE.[9]
Magness notes that the Qumran site is particularly devoid of
residential quarters. Of those that could have been residences, they have instead
been purposed for some specific use: workshops or communal purposes.[10] As with all other
scholars who accept the basic premise of De Vaux, Magness is at a loss as to
where the sectarians would have slept, noting like others that, except for
those who lived in the nearby caves, the rest likely slept in tents and other
makeshift shelters.[11]
Daniel
Vainstub, archaeologist with Ben Gurion University, has recently proposed a new
theory as to the purpose of the Qumran site. Agreeing with the De Vaux/Magness
archaeological analysis, Vainstub incorporates textual analysis of the Dead Sea
Scrolls to theorize that Khirbet Qumran, while maintain no more than a couple
dozen permanent residents, was used primarily as an annual gathering site for
all the community members when they held their required Covenant
5
Ceremony. Prior to Vainstub’s work, some scholars had made
tentative steps in that direction by suggesting that the site was used as “a
study center for all members” or a “ritual purification center.”[12] However, Vainstub goes a
step further to make specific claims about the purpose of the site. It also
reveals more about the structure of the sect and how it operated.
Key to
Vainstub’s analysis is taking a look at what the scrolls themselves have to say
about the sect. He argues that both the Community Rule scroll and the Damascus
Document[13]
scroll both reveal an annual requirement for members of the sect to gather
together for a renewal of their covenant vows.[14] Along with the annual
gathering, chief among the clues found in the scrolls are the pronouncements to
the people in the “camps.”
The Dead Sea
Scrolls
The primary
source for understanding the annual Covenant Renewal requirement is found in
the Community Rule, both in the fragment found in Cave 1, but mostly the
fragments found in Cave 4. The text reveals this solemn covenant as sealing the
relationship between God and His chosen “Sons of Light” and is viewed by the
sectarians as a continuation of the covenants made by the people of Israel with
God.[15] According to Vainstub,
the annual renewal was a halakhic obligation and failure to do so would
constitute expulsion from the community.[16] According to
6
the Community Rule, each member would renew this covenant on
a yearly basis for “this is the time for the preparation of the way into the
wilderness.”[17]
The Damascus
Document reveals that not all members of the community lived at Qumran. Indeed,
full members of the sect lived in “camps” throughout Judea, and all were
connected by the same covenant and the yearly covenant renewal. In fact, it
seems likely that there were some modifications of the rules for those that
lived in the “camps.” Vainstub believes this to be the case and states that not
only do these members come from various places, but that they also follow
different types of rules and different social codes.[18] The Damascus Document
provides a section entitled “This is the Rule for the Assembly of the Camps.”[19] These rules call for
groups of at least ten men, led by a “Guardian.”[20] This is the extent to
which the Cairo Document goes into detail about the camps.[21] The scroll fragments from
Cave 4 give further instructions and information.
The
Damascus Document gives instruction for all “[the] holy in their camps…” to
gather for the annual meeting in the month of Sivan.[22] Implicit in these
instructions is the idea that most members of the sect lived outside of Khirbet
Qumran, in camps of 10 or more men, and were required annually to travel to
Qumran to partake in the annual covenant renewal ceremony. The
7
Dead Sea Scrolls refer to these as “the assembly of the
camps,” that is מושב הרבים. The word Moshav, מושב (my
transliteration) is used in terms of an “assembly” here, while having an
original connotation as an “agricultural community.” The term Ravim, הרבים (again,
my transliteration, here it is Ha-Ravim)[23] remains untranslated even
with several sources, but is given as “the camps.”[24] The numbers of sectarians
making the trip to Qumran may have numbered in the several hundreds to even the
thousands and would need provisions for anywhere from a few days to even a
week.[25] Vainstub argues that
these sectarians would have to arrive in time for Shabbat, followed by
the Shavuot festival. The covenant renewal ceremony would then follow.[26]
Conclusion
Before
continuing on to concluding remarks, I need to make a statement regarding
sources used. More specifically, sources not used. I have not alluded to or
referenced Flavius Josephus in this paper. This is not to say that I find his
work to have no historical significance. However, I have attempted to work
within the confines of verifiable data from archaeology and the Dead Sea
Scrolls themselves. The only item of significance that Josephus would provide
for this work is his identifying of the Qumran group as the Essenes. Whether
the sectarians at Qumran were themselves Essenes or related to a branch of
Essenes is still an unverifiable piece of information. Daniel Vainstub
identifies the Qumran group as the yachad sect. Whether the
8
Essenes or some other group, I have focused only on the
purpose of Khirbet Qumran as can be determined from archaeological data and
analysis provided by De Vaux and Magness and textual analysis by Daniel
Vainstub as well as my own (limited) ability.
From
archaeology, we can see that the site at Qumran comprised several buildings
which included large areas intended to feed significant numbers of people. In
addition, assembly rooms and Mikva’ot present would not be necessary for
small groups. A large plaza (or esplanade as some call it) would serve as
grounds for thousands of individuals to make temporary encampments and the
numbers of serving vessels found would indicate the need to feed these people.
The Dead Sea Scrolls themselves, particularly the Community Rule and the
Damascus Document provide insight into the requirement of the Qumran sect to
gather annually for a renewal of their covenant vows. The Damascus Document
also makes clear that many, if not most, members of the sect lived scattered
across the Judaean countryside in small groups called “camps.” While there is
no direct evidence to date, it is likely that a small core group of sectarians
lived at Qumran, seeing to the grounds, and preparing for the meeting. Many
likely may have been involved in copying of scrolls. A significant number
likely lived in the nearby caves around the Dead Sea and were also involved in
copying and studying Torah. The structural and textual data point to the use of
the site as a gathering place for large numbers of the community on an annual
basis to celebrate the festival of Shavuot followed by the necessary renewal
of their “new” covenant with God.
Bibliography
Boccaccini, Gabriele. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
“Community Rule Transcripts from Cave 4.” The Complete
Dead Sea Scrolls. Trans. By Geza
Vermes. London: Penguin Books,
Ltd., 1962Publishing Co., 1998
“The Damascus Document.” The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls.
Trans. By Geza Vermes. London:
Penguin Books, Ltd., 1962
Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2002
Vainstub, Daniel. “The Covenant Renewal Ceremony as the Main
Function of Qumran.”
Religions, 2021:12(8), 578
Vanderkam, James. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co, 1994
[1]
Vanderkam, James. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1994. 15.
[2]
These living quarters would support no more than perhaps a dozen sectarian
members living there full-time, as agreed upon by most scholars (see also Nathan
Steinmeyer, “Qumran’s True Purpose Discovered?” in Bible History Daily. September
20, 2021. Biblical Archaeological Society.
[3]
Vanderkam, James. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1994. 25-26.
[4]
Ibid. 27.
[5]
Ibid. 28-29.
[6]
Boccaccini, Gabriele. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998. 3.
[7]
Vanderkam, James. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1994. 21-22. (This includes all of the phases of
construction data that follows).
[8]
Ibid. 24.
[9]
Vanderkam, James. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1994. 26-27.
[10]
Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2002. 55.
[11]
Ibid.
[12]
Boccaccini, Gabriele. Beyond the
Essene Hypothesis. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998. 3.
[13]
The portions related to the covenant renewal are missing in the Cairo document,
but the relevant texts are contained in the fragments found at Qumran, 4Q266,
4Q269, and 4Q270.
[14]
Vainstub, Daniel. “The Covenant Renewal Ceremony as the Main Function of
Qumran.” Religions,
2021:12(8), 578. 2.
[15]
Ibid.
[16]
Ibid, 3.
[17]
“Community Rule Transcripts from Cave 4.” The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls. Trans.
By Geza Vermes. London: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1962. 121.
[18]
Vainstub, Daniel. “The Covenant Renewal Ceremony as the Main Function of
Qumran.” Religions,
2021:12(8), 578. 2.
[19]
“The Damascus Document.” The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls. Trans. By Geza
Vermes. London: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1962. 143.
[20]
Ibid. 144.
[21]
See Footnote 13.
[22]
Vainstub, Daniel. “The Covenant Renewal Ceremony as the Main Function of
Qumran.” Religions,
2021:12(8), 578. 4.
[23]
הרבים is Ha-Ravim, that is “The” Ravim. The root is Resh-Bet-Yodh-Mem.
[24]
Vainstub, Daniel. “The Covenant Renewal Ceremony as the Main Function of
Qumran.” Religions
2021:12(8), 578. 5.
[25]
Ibid.
[26]
Vainstub, Daniel. “The Covenant Renewal Ceremony as the Main Function of
Qumran.” Religions
2021:12(8), 578. 4.
