Astonishing Corroboration Of The Book Of Mormon

[consiglieri]

Just questioning some reasoning in an on-topic post in this thread. If that's off-topic, then brethren, adieu.

You can't say adieu.

It's not Hebrew.

Or Reformed Egyptian.

Or even English.

(I must have been watching too many Groucho Marx clips recently.)

We took some pictures of the native girls but they weren't developed.

But we're going back in a couple of weeks . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

Just questioning some reasoning in an on-topic post in this thread. If that's off-topic, then brethren, adieu.

I'd actually like to see you stay and respond to Hamblin.

[consiglieri]

I'd actually like to see you stay and respond to Hamblin.

If you can't stand the heat, I suppose.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Luigi]

The DSS version of Essene movement lasted from the mid-second century until sometime around AD 70. That's over two hundred years, or around eight generations. Obviously they didn't expect the "world to end" in "their" lifetime, since the movement encompassed at least eight lifetimes. It is true, on they other hand, that they were an eschatological movement.

Thanks for your insights on this Bill, obviously you know much more about the Essenes than I do. I wonder though-even though the movement lasted two hundred years did each generation expect it was the last according the writings we have? Certainly it is not uncommon for a movement which says it contains the last generation to continue to hold that belief even though generation after generation passes away.

At any rate, anti-Mormons can have it both ways. They can't claim the BOM manifests uniquely Christian ideas, but as soon as we find them in pre-Christian literature start claiming that such ideas are "not surprising".

Talk about moving the goal-post after the ball has been kicked!

Since Christianity emerged from the same area, religion and time as the Essenes, finding some overlap is not particularly surprising.

[Alf O'Mega]

I'd actually like to see you stay and respond to Hamblin.

As you wish.

The DSS version of Essene movement lasted from the mid-second century until sometime around AD 70. That's over two hundred years, or around eight generations. Obviously they didn't expect the "world to end" in "their" lifetime, since the movement encompassed at least eight lifetimes. It is true, on they other hand, that they were an eschatological movement.

Given the standard contemporary concepts of torah (Law of Moses) and halacha (Legal interpretations of Law of Moses)--such as the preexistent and eternal nature of the Torah--the DSS ideas in this regard are rather radical.

At any rate, anti-Mormons can have it both ways. They can't claim the BOM manifests uniquely Christian ideas, but as soon as we find them in pre-Christian literature start claiming that such ideas are "not surprising".

Talk about moving the goal-post after the ball has been kicked!

The Essenes and early Christians shared many things, including a common stock of scripture and the belief in an imminent eschaton. Apologists can't have it both ways. Do these quotations from the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate proto-Christianity or more generic eschatology?

Talk about moving the goal-post after the ball has been kicked!

[consiglieri]

Talk about moving the goal-post after the ball has been kicked!

He's baaaack!

And I, for one, am glad of it.

But I think the relevant comparison is between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Mormon, a comparison that becomes more striking on this issue due to its absence from the Old Testament (aka the "common stock of scripture").

*moves goal post back in place*

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[oceanblue]

Perhaps you can educate me on this. The Old Testament has a lot of material in it, but I am unaware of anything in any of those 39-books that would indicate a similar belief that there would come a time when the law of Moses would no longer be observed.

More specifically, I am not aware of any statement in the Old Testament that the law of Moses would be kept until the coming of the Messiah, as in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Wait...why would it need be in the Old Testament? Joseph was writing backwards. Meaning, he had all the traditions in modern Christianity at his disposal. It's almost a bigger assumption to believe Joseph was Biblically versed enough to know that there was no real OT record that the law would be done away. That would take a real Bible scholar to know that. On the other hand, if he had been taught all his life that the LoM was fulfilled in Christ, wouldn't that be the logical assumption for your average Christian - that those in the OT knew that when their Savior came the old laws would change?

I bet, today, if you were to poll 100 Christians you'd get a rough mix. If you start with the premise that Christ fulfilled the old laws - most will say that they do believe that. Then if you ask whether in the OT, when the prophets wrote about the coming Savior, whether or not they also wrote that they law would be fulfilled...what responses do you think you'll get? 50/50 yes/no? Who knows. It bet it's an assorted mix - most people having absolutely no idea, regardless of their answer. Again, this sort of answer takes more scholarly knowledge than most Christians will have. Joseph fell into that category, IMO. Like I said, I'd be more impressed if his answer matched the OT - with no easy references to the law being done away, than to side with what I assume to have been the general, unlearned box most Christians of his day (and today) would have checked.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Wait...why would it need be in the Old Testament? Joseph was writing backwards.

Were the folks in the DSS writing backwards? Because they were writing basically the same thing in a similar cultural milieu. Maybe the DSS authors had a seer stone that allowed them to see and understand 19th century American thought, most notably, Joseph Smith's retrospective outlook.

[consiglieri]

Like I said, I'd be more impressed if his answer matched the OT - with no easy references to the law being done away, than to side with what I assume to have been the general, unlearned box most Christians of his day (and today) would have checked.

I would be willing to bet that if Joseph Smith's answer "matched the OT," you would quickly find a way to not be more impressed.

Color me skeptical on that one.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Do these quotations from the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate proto-Christianity or more generic eschatology?

Surprisingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments from a book that has come to be known as the Messianic Apocalypse, dated to 200 B.C., and which contains the following passage which sounds a lot like "proto-Christianity":

4QMessianic Apocalypse (4Q521)

Frag.2 co. II [for the heav]ens and the earth will listen to his Messiah, [and all] that is in them will not turn away from the holy precepts. Be encouraged, you who are seeking the Lord in his service ! . . . Will you not, perhaps, encounter the Lord in it, all those who hope in their heart? For the Lord will observe the devout, and call the just by name, and upon the poor he will place his spirit, and the faithful he will renew with his strength. For he will honour the devout upon the throne of eternal royalty, freeing prisoners, giving sight to the blind, straightening out the twisted. Ever shall I cling to those who hope. In his mercy he will jud[ge,] and from no-one shall the fruit [of] good [deeds] be delayed, and the Lord will perform marvellous acts such as have not existed, just as he sa[id] for he will heal the badly wounded and will make the dead live, he will proclaim good news to the meek, give lavishly [to the need]y, lead the exiled and enrich the hungry.

--Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 394.

It also sounds a lot like the Book of Mormon.

Go figure.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

<----pretty impressed.

[oceanblue]

I would be willing to bet that if Joseph Smith's answer "matched the OT," you would quickly find a way to not be more impressed.

Color me skeptical on that one.

And I'd be willing to bet that if the BoM did not match the Dead Sea Scrolls no one would care that it did not. Call me skptical as well!

Since it matches, you find reason to assume the best. Since I see ample reason for Joseph doing exactly as he did, I see no reason to assume what you do. We're both colored.

[consiglieri]

We're both colored.

But you're colored this real cool shade of ocean blue.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[oceanblue]

Were the folks in the DSS writing backwards? Because they were writing basically the same thing in a similar cultural milieu. Maybe the DSS authors had a seer stone that allowed them to see and understand 19th century American thought, most notably, Joseph Smith's retrospective outlook.

Or maybe they wrote what some traditions of the time dictated. Just like Joseph. Makes more sense to me than otherwise.

This is one of those places that epitomizes BoM evidences. I'm quite sure that before anything was ever discovered within the DSS that Mormons had tons of responses to anyone who claimed this was a strike against the BoM. We could play a game, if we wanted. We could start a thread that asks "is it a problem for the BoM that before the time of Jesus it was known and believed that the Law of Moses would be done away with...when this is not the case in the Old Testament?". We could also make the rule that no mention of DSS is allowed. You'd have plenty of sharp minds come up with plenty of reasons why the BoM is still on firm ground. Again, apologists were doing exactly thus before the DSS were discovered.

So if there are valid reasons why it not only could differ from the Bible, but maybe even should differ (as is the case when most LDS apology is presented), why should it now matter to any of us if now all those reasons no longer matter? Should we now look at this newly (relatively) discovered connection and be amazed? Or should we simply look at it as yet another stretch to find much where there is little? All depends on what you bring to the table in the first place.

[Cold Steel]

The DSS version of Essene movement lasted from the mid-second century until sometime around AD 70. That's over two hundred years, or around eight generations. Obviously they didn't expect the "world to end" in "their" lifetime, since the movement encompassed at least eight lifetimes. It is true, on they other hand, that they were an eschatological movement.

The fact that they hid up their records shows that they didn't expect things to end in their lifetimes. Like the other Jews, they were crucified and sold into slavery. At some point it occured to them that the Messiah was not going to make His appearance.

How much the ancient Jews knew about the atonement is difficult to say. Certainly if they look at the meaning of animal sacrifices, they should be able to see that there must have been some purpose in it. In other words, why would a great omnipotent God desire in the violent death of harmless animals?

[The Investigator]

How does that follow? Mormonism has spanned at least half a dozen generations, depending on how you count them, and Mormons from each generation (including the current one) have believed that Christ would come during their lifetime.

One could also easily say that Christianity has spanned at least a couple hundred generations, depending on how you count them, and Christians from each generation (including the current one) have believed that Christ would come during their lifetime.

[Alf O'Mega]

Surprisingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments from a book that has come to be known as the Messianic Apocalypse, dated to 200 B.C., and which contains the following passage which sounds a lot like "proto-Christianity":

4QMessianic Apocalypse (4Q521)

Frag.2 co. II [for the heav]ens and the earth will listen to his Messiah, [and all] that is in them will not turn away from the holy precepts. Be encouraged, you who are seeking the Lord in his service ! . . . Will you not, perhaps, encounter the Lord in it, all those who hope in their heart? For the Lord will observe the devout, and call the just by name, and upon the poor he will place his spirit, and the faithful he will renew with his strength. For he will honour the devout upon the throne of eternal royalty, freeing prisoners, giving sight to the blind, straightening out the twisted. Ever shall I cling to those who hope. In his mercy he will jud[ge,] and from no-one shall the fruit [of] good [deeds] be delayed, and the Lord will perform marvellous acts such as have not existed, just as he sa[id] for he will heal the badly wounded and will make the dead live, he will proclaim good news to the meek, give lavishly [to the need]y, lead the exiled and enrich the hungry.

--Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 394.

It also sounds a lot like the Book of Mormon.

It shouldn't surprise you to know that I see the dependency a little differently. Christianity is a messianic religion. But it's not the only messianic religion. It sprung up in the same fertile soil that Essenism did, and, as I observed earlier, they draw on a common stock of ideas and expressions, among them apocalyptic literature, which flourished starting around 200 BCE. The Book of Mormon is, I think we can agree, a Christian book. I think it's a nineteenth-century production that consciously imitates Christian and Biblical models, so the family resemblance is unsurprising. If I thought it were an authentic ancient record, I would be surprised to see ancient American literary developments independently parallel those of a culture from which it had separated hundreds of years earlier.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think it's a nineteenth-century production that consciously imitates Christian and Biblical models, so the family resemblance is unsurprising. If I thought it were an authentic ancient record, I would be surprised to see ancient American literary developments independently parallel those of a culture from which it had separated hundreds of years earlier.

Interestingly, nineteenth century contemporaries (and many today) viewed the Book of Mormon Christology as a gigantic anachronism, a real howler. Now the worm has turned, but still, the critics remain unsatisfied. Some won't even say something as mundane as "huh, that's really interesting."

[Alf O'Mega]

Interestingly, nineteenth century contemporaries (and many today) viewed the Book of Mormon Christology as a gigantic anachronism, a real howler. Now the worm has turned, but still, the critics remain unsatisfied. Some won't even say something as mundane as "huh, that's really interesting."

Oh, don't get me wrong, I find the BoM overflowing with anachronisms and howlers, christological and otherwise. When I read messianic imagery from the Dead Sea Scrolls, I can say "huh, that's really interesting" with the best of them. But since ordinary rules of literary dependence are reversed or suspended in the faithful account of the Book of Mormon, I just don't get what all the shouting's about.

Christianity grew out of the messianic ferment of first-century Judaism. That doesn't make the Essenes early Christians, even though they used some of the same apocalyptic language. If the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record, what is the proposed explanation for the resemblance between Abinadi's apocalypticism and that of the Qumran community, when there had been no cultural contact between them for hundreds of years? And if you're going to argue divine intervention, then why introduce literary criticism in the first place? With God, all is permitted.

[Bill Hamblin]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I find the BoM overflowing with anachronisms and howlers, christological and otherwise. When I read messianic imagery from the Dead Sea Scrolls, I can say "huh, that's really interesting" with the best of them. But since ordinary rules of literary dependence are reversed or suspended in the faithful account of the Book of Mormon, I just don't get what all the shouting's about.

Christianity grew out of the messianic ferment of first-century Judaism. That doesn't make the Essenes early Christians, even though they used some of the same apocalyptic language. If the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record, what is the proposed explanation for the resemblance between Abinadi's apocalypticism and that of the Qumran community, when there had been no cultural contact between them for hundreds of years? And if you're going to argue divine intervention, then why introduce literary criticism in the first place? With God, all is permitted.

The argument is not about literary dependency. First, the data demonstrates that the old anti-Mormon argument is false. (It would be nice to see some anti-Mormon admit this. Anyone? Anyone?) Second, it posits an archaic proto-Messianic source shared by the NT, the Essenes and the BOM authors. Obviously it would be seventh century BC or earlier.

It should be noted that, before the DSS were discovered, the standard interpretation of the NT was that its messianology, concept of law, eschatology, temple and high priest ideologies, etc. were uniquely Christian. The DSS has demonstrated that the Christian interpretation was part of much broader and older Jewish trends, just at the BOM claims.

[consiglieri]

It should be noted that, before the DSS were discovered, the standard interpretation of the NT was that its messianology, concept of law, eschatology, temple and high priest ideologies, etc. were uniquely Christian. The DSS has demonstrated that the Christian interpretation was part of much broader and older Jewish trends, just at the BOM claims.

Thank you for pointing this out, Herr Hamblin.

Although I think I see where oceanblue and Alf are coming from in their comments, my perspective is a bit different.

I have personally been besieged for the last 30-years (off and on) with criticisms of the Book of Mormon as anachronistically containing Christianity when Christianity wasn't cool--or even in existence. (This issue has frankly caused me concern and the occasional doubt.)

The Dead Sea Scrolls seem to have bridged that gap.

It is from this perspective of mine that I think the quotes from the DSS in the OP are important in answering that age-old query about the Book of Mormon, which if memory serves, was part and parcel of the original salvo authored by Alexander Campbell.

Although some on this thread seem to have opined that Joseph Smith was probably stupid enough to think it acceptable to put pre-Christian Christianity in his 500+ page long dictated fable, and so the fact that it now shows up in the DSS is a big yawn, it would seem that no great knowledge of the Bible would be required to tend to make even the most illiterate and uneducated youth pause before include such a whopping anachronism.

Yet Joseph Smith did so--over 100-years before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered to lend credence to the Book of Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[MormonMason]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I find the BoM overflowing with anachronisms and howlers, christological and otherwise. When I read messianic imagery from the Dead Sea Scrolls, I can say "huh, that's really interesting" with the best of them. But since ordinary rules of literary dependence are reversed or suspended in the faithful account of the Book of Mormon, I just don't get what all the shouting's about.

There were many more that were thought to be howlers in the not so distant past, including Alma as a male Hebrew name, Messianic thought and interpretation before the NT, writing on metal plates, etc.

Are you sure that "the rules of literary dependence" are reversed or suspended? What did they have that we do not have? A longer OT with more writings would be one thing they had that we do not. But, of course, that is not provable these days, now is it? All that one could do these days is to claim divine origin or to adopt a more naturalistic stance to account for the work in other, more creative ways.

Christianity grew out of the messianic ferment of first-century Judaism. That doesn't make the Essenes early Christians, even though they used some of the same apocalyptic language.

It is true that the Essenes were not early Christians, per se, but we do not have all the records that were kept there. We have what we have and most of what we have are incomplete. What else were there is unknown. But, it is safe to say that there may have been other examples.

I do know for a fact that a fragment was found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls which is of some degree of interest, along with a similarly dated scrap of white linen. The only problem with the manuscript fragment is that it is very late. Most Dead Sea Scrolls scholars do not talk about it or even mention it.

Plainly as day are the words "O Christ our God" written in the fragment in Greek. A friend told me about it and I have confirmed that it does indeed exist. But, as I said, the manuscript itself is too late to have belonged to the formative period of Judaism and Christianity. How it got there is unknown. What its significance is for the community at Qumran also is uncertain. White linen, however, was the dress of those who dwelt at Qumran and environs. Could they have been there for longer than most postulate? That question remains to be answered.

If the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record, what is the proposed explanation for the resemblance between Abinadi's apocalypticism and that of the Qumran community, when there had been no cultural contact between them for hundreds of years? And if you're going to argue divine intervention, then why introduce literary criticism in the first place? With God, all is permitted.

The apocalyptic form predates Qumran and the exile. Isaiah used it in places. Ezekiel preserves it best. Ezekiel lived from the time just before the exile to the exile itself. Therefore, apocalyptic form existed before the exile even though there is scant evidence of it now. It is expected that if it did exist before the exile the style could well have existed amongst Lehi and his people when they departed just before the exile. Qumran MSS merely preserved examples of its continuance in Palestine.

There is no need to postulate divine intervention and communication of the forms because the founders of the Lehite colony were in Palestine as apocalyptic was coming into its own (else where did Ezekiel get it, for evidence suggests he was not the first to use it), and could well have been influenced by those who used the style before they left. Habukkuk used the style before the exile as well. Lehi used the style in his vision of the tree and in his visions and dreams regarding Jerusalem, e.g., the fire dwelling on the rock and the heavenly book with the thirteen divine messengers. Nephi used the style both in his own writings and in his vision that interpreted his father's vision.

Evidence suggests that apocalyptic style existed for some time. Qumran proved that it was more pervasive than previously thought. The key is that Qumran was all about returning to the old ways and living the covenant that all the rest of Israel broke until all were prepared for the coming of the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. One document I read a couple weeks ago seems to suggest the coming of another Messiah that sounds like Messiah ben Joseph. Unfortunately, the document is too broken up to be entirely convincing on that last point but still is of interest nonetheless.

[cksalmon]

First, the data demonstrates that the old anti-Mormon argument is false. (It would be nice to see some anti-Mormon admit this. Anyone? Anyone?)

Reading through the OP, I take it that the anti-Mormon argument in question is that the Pauline aspects of BoM's Christology are anachronistic. Am I correlating your post and the OP correctly at this point? That argument hasn't been demonstrated as false. If I'm reading you incorrectly here, and you, instead, mean to refer to an argument that holds that BoM's Christology can only and unequivocally be post-Pauline, then I readily concede the point.

Second, it posits an archaic proto-Messianic source shared by the NT, the Essenes and the BOM authors. Obviously it would be seventh century BC or earlier.

I think "it" in this case is a pro-BoM argument to antiquity based on Messianic passages in DSS. That is likely an oversimplication, but I think that might capture the contours.

If so, then I would question the obviousness of the proto-Messianic source being dated to seventh century BC or earlier. I suppose you would date the shared source to that era in order to account for the highly-developed messianism in BoM. But, that would appear to be circular.

For, then, the posited proto-Messianic source is dated to the seventh century BC or earlier merely based on the belief that BoM is an ancient document. If BoM is an ancient document, then the proto-Messianic source must date, at least, to Lehi's lifetime in Judea. But, this assumes that the proto-Messianic source shared by BoM (whose originary, historical terminus is in 7th c. Palestine), the Essene community (~200BC-100AD), and the NT (~50AD-250AD) actually dates to the 7th c. BC. And this assumption appears to be based on the belief that BoM is a legitimately-ancient document.

Thus, it appears, that, in this case, BoM's antiquity is being argued on the basis of the assumption of BoM's antiquity.

Moreover, BoM's (chronologically-earlier) messianism is much more highly developed and specified than the DSS excerpts Consig has provided us.

So, then, we'd need to posit why it is that BoM's messianism/Christology is much more developed than the proto-messianism of ~200 BC ff. Essenism.

I can see how one can get from proto-messianism to highly-developed messianism in NT. But, I'm having trouble seeing how one can get from highly-developed messianism in the 7th c. to Essene proto-messsianism hundreds of years later, then back to highly-developed messianism in NT a bit after that.

Best,

Chris

[soren]

Last night, as part of my preparation for Sunday school class dealing with Abinadi, I came across something that has left me somewhat astonished.

One of the strongest arguments against the Book of Mormon has been the insertion of post-Christian Pauline theology in a pre-Christian context; specifically the Pauline doctrine that it was no longer necessary to keep the law of Moses after the Messiah came. Remarkably, however, the same concept is found in the pre-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls.

An example of the Book of Mormon teaching is found in Abinadi's speech:

Another example is found in the words of Nephi:

Of interest in this regard is the fact that, in no less than three passages from the pre-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls, it appears a similar view was held by that group of pious Jews; i.e., that they should keep the strict law until the Messiah should come:

[All DSS quotes from Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 2nd ed. (Eerdmans; Grand Rapids, MI, 1996), pp. 13, 43-44.]

Perhaps especially remarkable is this last quote from the Damascus Document, in which the idea that the "exact interpretation of the regulations" shall be followed "until there arises the messiah of Aaron and Israel" who "shall atone for their sins."

This bears such a striking resemblance to the passage from Mosiah quoted above that I will reproduce it here for comparison:

What to make of this? At a minimum, it appears that Paul's teaching that the law of Moses need not be followed after the Messiah had come was not original to him, but was shared in some respect by the Qumran Community before Christ. Hence, the criticism that the Book of Mormon contains this same teaching in a pre-Christian context no longer packs the same punch it once did.

And dare I even breathe the word "bull's-eye"?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig,

This is a shrewd observation, but I fear your are misinterpreting the Essene documents. The word "until" here does not mean that at the law would terminate at the time of the Messiah. That is an implication that the word "until" carried in English but not in Hebrew. In point of fact, the Essenes thought the Mosaic was eternal and unchangeable in the same way that nature itself in unchangeable. For them, the New Covenant was realized not by a new law but by perfection in the way the law would be practiced in the eschatological age.

One pseudepigraphal book that the Essenes used heavily was the book of Jubilees, which recounts the stories of Genesis with a lot of theologically motivated changes. Among these are inclusions of Mosaic precepts in the sotries of earlier patriarchs like Noah. The Community Rule at Qumran, which outlines a lot of their practices has an addendum which explains how the law will be carried out in messianic times. In it, the two messiahs of Aaron and of Israel are expected to preside over the same liturgical functions that were already practiced at Qumran. Another text calledthe Temple Scroll describes an idealized Temple Architecture which may indicate how the author expected Mosaic Temple work to be carried on in the eschatological age. There is more evidence than this, but that is what I remember offhand.

One important detail in the DSS does have significant bearing on Paul's understanding of the law. A scroll called 4QMMT, uses the phrase "works of the law" in the context of describing purely ceremonial laws. One of the major arguements that Protestants make for faith alone as opposed to faith and works is that Pual teaches justification by faith "apart from works of the law." Since the phrase works of the law occurs nowhere except in Paul and 4QMMT, this is strong evidence that here Paul is not referring to all moral principles or works, but specifically to the ceremonial rites of the Old Testament, a point on which Catholics and Mormons generally agree.

[MormonMason]

...

I can see how one can get from proto-messianism to highly-developed messianism in NT. But, I'm having trouble seeing how one can get from highly-developed messianism in the 7th c. to Essene proto-messsianism hundreds of years later, then back to highly-developed messianism in NT a bit after that.

...

Bible rewrites. The evidence is there for such now that the biblical writings amongst the scrolls have been examined (the latest and greatest theory is the so-called multiple literary editions theory). A few carefully placed rewrites of texts here, a little addition and reinterpretation there, and such could happen--easily.

Some would continue to preserve and try to return to the old ways. This continuance would be reflected in the Qumran community and others as time would progress.