The Mystery of the Copper Scroll of Qumran

by Robert Feather

  Apart from the potential ‘literary’ gains that come from the golden era of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egyptian pharaohs, there are potential religious and social gains.

  The enactment, or contemplation, of any form of animal sacrifice is to be rejected.

  All forms of superstition and magic, verbalizations or emblems attached to religious beliefs are to be rejected.

  Monogamy and familial affection are ideals to be striven for.

  Complete female emancipation and equality in religious, domestic and social matters is an ideal to be striven for.

  Another conclusion, perhaps the most important of all, to be drawn from the accounts I have portrayed in this book, is that they tie in early Biblical personalities to real, historical people and events.

  There is almost no textual, archaeological or comparative evidence that has been found to date that verifies the existence of the main Biblical characters and their stories, prior to the tenth century BCE. Dame Kathleen Kenyon, a pre-eminent archaeologist who made a special study of the subject, concluded:

  there are virtually no extra-Biblical texts of sufficient direct relevance to test the Old Testament’s value as a reliable historical source in the period before about 900 BCE, the opening of the Divided Monarchy.41

  A view, not untypical of many historians, was recently expressed by Thomas Thompson, Professor of Old Testament Studies at Copenhagen University, who cannot find any Biblical fact before 300 BCE.42

  My ‘linkages’ give historical credence to Biblical characters as far back as Joseph and Jacob, and give the story of Moses a real historical setting.

  Whenever and wherever Jews, Christians or Muslims gather to pray, in groups or alone, from time immemorial, a word is intoned whose Hebrew root also gives rise to the words ‘faith’ and ‘faithfulness’. Could it be that the word also recalls the name of the prime mover of these three great world religions: Akhenaten – known as Amenhotep IV – and only to his intimate close circle as Amen-hetep-neter-heqa-Uast?43

  Amen.

  The Chapter that follows is a new addition to the text originally published in June 1999. That original text itself has been updated and supplemented, but the new chapter contains completely new material. It includes feedback from academic and scholarly sources, extracts from recent publications and conferences, as well as evidence and opinion obtained during the production of a BBC Television documentary entitled ‘The Pharaoh’s Holy Treasure’, based largely on the author’s work.

  CHAPTER TWENTY

  ACADEMIC AND SCHOLARLY REACTION

  The final conclusions of the previous chapter, namely that a link existed between the Essenes of Qumran and an Egyptian pharaoh named Akhenaten, are, I believe, fully supported by the overwhelming weight of evidence that has been presented.

  Since publication of The Copper Scroll Decoded in 1999, the main theory has been tested against a broad spectrum of academic and scholarly opinion, and in many instances response to the main thrust of the theory has been favourable and enthusiastic. This is especially true where the commentator has taken the time to study the work in some depth. Where there has been a negative response, it has been in the form of guarded scepticism, particularly as the theory presents a radically new view of religious evolution that strongly conflicts with enshrined orthodoxy. Two main factors have, I believe, inhibited any widespread acceptance of the central theory. Firstly, time constraints on individuals have not allowed them to undertake a detailed analysis. Secondly, few academics are in a position to evaluate the broad historical and archaeological scope of Israelite, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian religious culture from a multi-disciplinary standpoint. There tends to be quite sharp divisions in their areas of expertise. They are masters in their own field but rarely have much scientific or engineering training.

  Most academics and scholars in the field of biblical research are knowledgeable linguists, historians, theologians, epigraphers, philologists, or archaeologists who increasingly specialise in a particular area of interest. Whilst they may draw on the expertise of computer and medical specialists, engineers, scientists, anthropologists and sociologists, there is virtually no one from these disciplines working in the field of biblical research.

  For fifty years, and more, Dead Sea Scrolls scholars have busied themselves with the philology, palaeography, and linguistics of comparing text with text, scribal hand with scribal hand, biblical language with Qumran scroll. Nearly all the leading figures in the field have been trained as biblical scholars, earning their living by teaching in universities or seminaries, their outlook data driven, dominated by historical criticism.

  Our frame of reference is closely bounded by the biblical tradition and rabbinic Judaism. There has been very little scholarship to relate the scrolls to the broader Mediterranean world, or to the history and sociology of religion.’1

  EXEGETISTS AND HISTORIOGRAPHERS

  Students of the Dead Sea Scrolls and their related texts tend to fall into two broad groupings – exegetists and historiographers; those who study the internal nature of the texts and those who look more to their historical setting.

  By virtue of the exegetists being far greater in number, their views tend to dominate current discussions, but perhaps partly as a result of my work, there is an increasing call for scholars to take greater account of outside factors and the historical situations that existed at the time the texts were composed or written down.

  It is only now, more than a half a century after the discovery of the first of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the Academy of Qumran scholars are beginning to lift their eyes above the deserts of Judaea, clear their vision of the dusty sand and see, in the distance, the clarity of the vast Mediterranean area.

  As Professor Lawrence Schiffman, of New York University, put it in an amusing parody of the massive achievements and shameful lapses of the first ‘Jubilee’ years of Dead Sea Scrolls research:

  And they shall be studied together with the papyri of Egypt in light of later Jewish legal texts from the Judaean. Desert and Rabbinic literature.2

  For future tasks, he instinctively pointed his colleagues in the direction of Egypt – towards the signposts I have already suggested in this book.

  Response from academics, on specific areas of their own expertise, has generally been supportive. On alternative interpretations of the meaning of the Copper Scroll, for example, particularly in the context of the weight and number terms given in the Scroll, there has been a considerable consensus of acknowledgement that previous interpretations have not been correct. Amongst those scholars conceding that previous translations are deficient, one of the world’s experts on the Copper Scroll, Judah Lefkovits, of New York, has reiterated that the Scroll is much more problematic than some scholars would allow. He has written a number of books on the subject, including a recent classic work The Copper Scroll 3Q15: A Reevaluation; A New Reading,Translation, and Commentary3, and now does not think that the conventional translation of the weight term as a Biblical talent is necessarily correct. He has suggested that it might be a much smaller weight, such as the Persian karsch. In supporting my claim, in relation to the weight term, against the views of previous researchers, he now believes the total precious metal weights have been greatly exaggerated.

  A number of other scholars have shown support, albeit with reservations, for the more extensive theories connecting the Qumran-Essenes to Egypt. These include Professor George Brooke, of Manchester University, who wrote a foreword to this book, Jozef Milik (leader of the original Dead Sea Scrolls translation team), Henri de Contenson (discoverer of the Copper Scroll), Professor Hanan Eshel and Esti Eshel (Bar Ilan University, Jerusalem), Rabbi Mark Winer (Senior Rabbi West London Synagogue), Helen Jacobus (The Jewish Chronicle), and Professor Rosalie David (Keeper of Egyptology, Manchester Museum).

  One eminent scholar, Professor Harold Ellens, University of Michigan, has come out strongly in favour of the generalised theory, which he says is almost certainly basically correct. In his
view, the particularised findings relating to the Dead Sea are worthy of serious consideration and, he says, may be one of the most important contributions to Dead Sea Scrolls’ research of recent times.

  ...upon the basis of independent personal research, since reading Robert Feather’s book, I have been able to confirm almost all of his findings and conclusions. I am now wholly persuaded that his work is right on target.4

  If there is a partial acceptance of the possibility of a connection between the Qumran-Essenes and the Jacob-Joseph-Pharaoh Akhenaten period, it is in demonstrating the detailed historical links that most hesitancy arises. It is a connection Jozef Milik refers to as: ‘equivalent to the jump the Masonic movement makes in relating its origins to the time of Solomon’s Temple’. Whereas Professor George Brooke prefers to see any possible correspondences to Egypt for the Essenes as occurring at the time of the High Priest Onias IV, rather than much earlier.

  SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE

  To try and respond to this criticism, and reinforce the evidence included in the first edition, additional detail is presented in the remainder of this chapter. Some of the supplementary detail has emerged from analysis of new and existing Dead Sea Scrolls texts, suggestions from other scholars, subsequently published material and recent archaeological discoveries.

  Both ends of the chain that join Pharaoh Akhenaten and the Qumran-Essenes are, I believe, firmly established. Placing each link in the chain for a length of time spanning over 1,000 years, as proven historical events, is a tall expectation, especially as we are talking of events ranging from some 2,000 to 3,300 years ago. The jump inevitably gives rise to some speculative evidence, but even if not one single link can be demonstrated, the validity of the case is not undermined. Eduard Meyer, supported by a number of other scholars, showed, as early as 1940, that reminiscences of Akhenaten had survived in Egyptian oral tradition and had surfaced again after almost 1,000 years of latency.5

  The anomalies and puzzles that litter Dead Sea Scrolls (and Old Testament) interpretation require answering, but time and time again the classic phrases ‘more research needs to be done’, or ‘we just do not have an answer’, ends a research paper. Many of these surprises and problems can be convincingly resolved by looking towards Egypt.

  As it is, there are dozens of very conclusive sequential pericopes lying along the route. Some of the more potent are, I maintain, visible through the behaviour and evidence of:

  Joseph and Jacob – contemporaries of Akhenaten

  Levitic priests – appointed at the time of Jacob and referred to as palace guards (c.1350 BCE)

  Moses – a Prince of Egypt who takes up the Hebrew cause (c.1200 BCE)

  Presence of Egyptian priests amongst the Exodus of the multitudes

  Ongoing conflict between priestly factions as to monotheistic tabernacle/temple practice (from c.1200 BCE–70 CE)

  Continual appearance of the sun disc – Akhenaten’s symbol for God through the history of the Promised Land (1,000–100 BCE)6

  Allusions of Isaiah (c.740 BCE) and Ezekiel (c.590 BCE) to Egyptian monotheism

  Examples of royal insignia employed by King Hezekiah (c.720–690 BCE) and by King Josiah (c.640–610 BCE) which bear Egyptian motifs characteristic of hieroglyphs designating ‘Aten’

  Disclosure of the Book of Deuteronomy (620 BCE) – hidden for some 400 years

  Onias IV – High priest who built a Hebrew Temple in Egypt (c.190 BCE) including an Atenist symbol

  Thinly veiled references to Akhenaten, his Queen and High Priest, in the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Qumran-Essenes – some of which date back to First Temple and Mosaic antiquity

  Continual allusions to Akhenaten’s Holy City and Great Temple in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Old Testament.

  Pivotal in the chain of links is the role of Moses. Ever since Sigmund Freud7 made a direct connection between the Hebrew religion and the monotheism of Akhenaten, other authors have flirted with the idea. Most recently Jan Assmann, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Heidelberg,8 has re-evaluated the work of Sigmund Freud in the light of modern knowledge and come to the conclusion that the monotheism of Moses can be traced to the monotheism of Pharaoh Akhenaten.

  FROM MOSES TO THE QUMRAN-ESSENES

  Evidence for the link from Akhenaten to Moses is summarised above and discussed earlier in the book.

  The defined task is therefore to try and demonstrate more clearly that a separate priestly sect existed right the way down from the time of Moses to the Qumran-Essenes, within the history of the Hebrews, and that that sect held distinct religious views consistent with those of Akhenaten. Also that the sect had the opportunity of possessing and preserving unique information and material objects not available to the generality of the Hebrew people.

  That there were two warring factions within the Levitic-priestly groups is apparent from the earliest stories of the Exodus, right way through the Old Testament. The problem then resolves into one of differentiating the groups and showing which one was more closely aligned to the religious views and practices espoused by the Qumran-Essene sect and demonstrating that they could indeed have transformed into that sect. For this evidence I rely heavily on the work of a retired Professor from Hebrew University, Cincinnati, Ben Zion Wacholder, and Professor Richard Elliott Friedman of the University of California, San Diego.

  The central theme of the priestly rivalries revolved around who got the privileges, and material benefits, that attached to the portable Tabernacle and subsequently the Temple in Jerusalem.

  To try and understand which group was in the ascendancy and what they promoted, we need to gently enter the world of biblical analysis. People like Karl Heinrich Graf, Wilhelm Vatke and Julius Wellhausen,9 in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, analysed differing strands of authorship in the Old Testament and their findings, together with the latest ideas, are admirably summarised in Professor Friedman’s book Who Wrote the Bible?10

  In essence parts of the Bible are attributed to group allegiance authorship through the different titles they used for the name for God and the common thrust of the texts. These apparently conforming parts are known as:

  E - where God is referred to as Elohim*59

  J - where God is referred to as Jahwe First four Books of Moses

  P - where Priestly views on law, rituals predominate

  D - Deuteronomy Independent author(s) Book

  The authorship group of E is associated with the earliest priests who guarded the Tabernacle and its contents in their place of keeping at Shiloh, in the North. This group claimed descent from Moses.

  The authorship group of J is associated with the earliest priests who were originally based at Hebron, and then, as guardians of the Temple and its contents, at Jerusalem, in the South. This group claimed descent from Aaron.

  The rivalry between these groups stretched back to Sinai, to the episode of the golden calf, and the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, Abiram and On (Numbers16).11 In each episode the authors’ bias seems to centre around whether the author was a supporter of Moses or of Aaron.

  Professor Freidman puts it this way:

  The overall picture of the E stories is that they are a consistent group, with a definite perspective and set of interests, and that they are profoundly tied to their author’s world....The priests of Shiloh were apparently a group with a continuing literary tradition. They wrote and preserved texts over centuries: laws, stories, historical reports, and poetry. They were associated with scribes. They apparently had access to archives of preserved texts. Perhaps they maintained such archives themselves, in the way that another out-of-power group of priests did at Qumran centuries later.’12

  It is the Shilonite strain of priests that became alienated from the Temple at a very early period in Israel’s history and, who I maintain, were the spiritual ancestors of the Qumran-Essenes. Through careful analysis it is possible to show how the Shilonite connection could have run all the way down to the Qumran-Essenes. Their original
stewardship of the Tabernacle meant that they would have had access to all the associated precious accompaniments brought out of Egypt with Moses – precious metals, secret texts, and copper.

  Some of the hiding places mentioned in the Copper Scroll include locations in the North, not far from Shiloh, at Gerizim, and the territory of the Samaritans. The undoubted close relationship between the Qumran-Essene beliefs and those of the Samaritans has been an ongoing subject of debate and the scenario of events described here explains to some extent why there should be such a relationship.

  When the Shilonites were banished from the office of High Priest by King Solomon, around 970–80 BCE, the Aaronite priests took control of the Temple and it is only some 300 years later that the Shilonite influence bursts through with their revelation of the Book of Deuteronomy, in the time of King Josiah, c.620 BCE.

  Could the Shilonite priests really have maintained their identity through 300 years of being out of power and without a major religious centre? The question is posed by Professor Friedman,13 and his answer is an emphatic ‘yes’. The power of Shilonite thought emerges with the Prophets Jeremiah, who is considered with Baruch to be the author of Deuteronomy, and the prophet Ezekiel.14 The latter is considered by Professor Ben Zion Wacholder to be the founder of the Qumran-Essene sect.

  The view of Professor Ben Zion Wacholder is highly pertinent to the role of Ezekiel in the continuity of the Shilonite priesthood.

  IN THE KINGDOM OF THE BLIND. . .

  Ben Zion Wacholder is a partially blind Professor of the Hebrew University, Cincinnati, but he has the ability to see through the tangled undergrowth of intertwined scrolls and is a king and much respected father-figure in the land of his peers. In the celebratory fiftieth anniversary conference of the finding of the first of the Dead Sea Scrolls, held in Jerusalem, he created a minor sensation by going against his colleagues in claiming Ezekiel as the first Essene.15