#13: The Lot of Belial in the Community Rule – Born that Way?

In this episode, we read the Dead Sea Scrolls — specifically, the Community Rule — closely and examine the Qumran community’s view of Belial and sin.

How was Belial used to define the sect and others?
Did the Qumran community really think that people were born into the lot of Belial or the lot of God?
How deterministic was the Qumran community? What about free will?

Learn the answers to these questions and more! And keep your questions and comments coming…

12 Responses to "#13: The Lot of Belial in the Community Rule – Born that Way?"

Jeremiah says:

June 24, 2016 at 4:12 am

What are your thoughts on demon possession in the Gospels?
Love your blog
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  July 4, 2016 at 9:37 pm
  
  Hi Jeremiah,
  
  Thanks! I’m glad you’re enjoying it. I’ve touched a bit on demon possession in the Gospels previously. Essentially, in Second Temple literature we almost never see the idea that demons can actually possess a person to the degree that the person has no free will (which is precisely the way demon possession is portrayed in the Gospels). An important exception or almost-exception can be found in the Damascus Document — I’ll discuss it in my next episode.
  1. Jeremiah says:
    
    July 7, 2016 at 7:18 am
    
    Dr. Brand
    Could you maybe also explain the history of demon possession in
    relation to the Gospels and how it came to be believed a person
    could be controlled by a demon. Is this Catholic influence alone or was it believed before the first century.
    For Christians this topic is somewhat central. A big part of the ministry of Jesus
    was his power over these evil spirits. Looking for more info.
    Thank you so much
    1. Miryam Brand says:
      
      July 7, 2016 at 2:52 pm
      
      Hi Jeremiah,
      
      The prevalence of demonic possession in the Gospels has always puzzled me particularly given the lack of this idea in much of Second Temple Judaism. I am not an authority on early Christian thought, however, and a lot has been written on this. Your question can’t be answered “on one foot,” as they say around here.
      
      All the best,
      Miryam
Marlon says:

June 24, 2016 at 6:27 pm

Thank you Dr. Brand for the clarity. Belial as an individual, or a an aspect of human character. Belial as The Demon or as a demon or as neither of those or just what a certain community found convincing or even convenient perhaps. Looking forward to the Damascus Document and the War Scroll episodes.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  July 4, 2016 at 5:23 pm
  
  Thanks – I’m glad you’re enjoying it and I appreciate your thoughtful listening!
Chris says:

June 25, 2016 at 11:06 pm

I find it very interesting that you brought up the subject of lots. I’ve had some experiences with people picking the concept out of scriptures and other ancient texts and trying to put it to use, which caused big problems. It shows up all over the place but from what I can see there is little information about the particulars of the practice i.e. where, how, and for what it was done, etc. It would be interesting to have a thorough rundown on what exactly “casting lots” was and wasn’t as far as available information goes.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  July 4, 2016 at 10:06 pm
  
  Hi Chris,
  
  The way the Qumran Community cast lots is clearly very different from biblical lots. As you know, biblical lots were usually used to determine guilt, as in the cases of Achan in the Book of Joshua (which seems to be the basis of the lottery in Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery”) and of Jonathan in the Book of Samuel.
  
  In the case of Qumran, the Community seem to have cast lots to make decisions regarding certain members and to determine the nature of their members. The extent to which they did this during the life of the sect is not clear — I would think that this manner of decision-making would be harrowing for most members, and I wonder if it was specific to one stage of the sect.
  
  So, a rundown of biblical lotteries would not be a rundown of Qumran lotteries, and vice versa.
Tamara says:

June 28, 2016 at 2:15 am

I’ve learned of this site recently. When you speak of 2nd temple period, when was this time frame?
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  July 4, 2016 at 10:27 pm
  
  Hi Tamara, and welcome to the podcast! Technically, the Second Temple period would begin with the Return to Zion in 538 BCE and the subsequent rebuilding of the Temple and end with the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. However, the works I discuss are mostly from the middle to the end of the Second Temple period: the earliest I discuss in depth is the Book of the Watchers in 1 Enoch, which has been dated to 350-300 BCE. The latest are works that were actually written soon after the Second Temple’s destruction (like 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch), around 100 CE. (I do sometimes mention works from the beginning of the Second Temple period — that is, from the Return to Zion — such as the books of Zechariah and Chronicles.)
  
  The reason that I generally do not discuss works from the beginning of the Second Temple period is that we don’t actually have any, except for the few biblical books from the Return to Zion (Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi).
  
  Enjoy, and I look forward to your future questions. 🙂
Rocky Jackson says:

June 29, 2016 at 4:37 am

I laughed my head off about those ” Crazy Goat people”…..

Howdy Dr. Perhaps this question may be best left for a while,But since we are looking at a biblical view of sin ( Torah to temple ) so to speak what thought on “Entropy” have you perhaps personally considered even though it isn’t your field as far out as we see or rather read about in the NT – Revelations maybe better after the war scroll ..I’ll ask this question again.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  July 4, 2016 at 5:22 pm
  
  Hi Rocky,
  
  Yes, I’ll definitely need to mention the Book of Revelation at some point…

Comments are closed.

Share this:

Related