Jackson can you give me a brief overview or referral to a site that shows the Essene's positive view of plural-patriarchal marriage? shalom

From the RAMYK

 

Yes I can help you.  If the following are Essene documents:

1. I personally believe that, though Essenes frowned on it, plural marriage was practiced among them.  Most of the reason I believe this is because, in the later cultic documents, there is such a strong push against it - to the point that the Manual of Disciple implies that one can't be an Essene (or whatever they were) and be a bigamist.  If Essenes weren't doing it, there would be no mentioning it (since it was a common practice).  (Below I tell you the target of their vitriol.) 

2. We have to sort out the Enochic/Essene documents from the Qumran Cult documents.  The scrolls were written over the course of 400 years; times and customs change.  Those above I consider purely Essenic, written from 300 BC to 70 AD.  I include Mark because it is Essene, having been found in Secacah Cave 7; there is within a complete prohibition of divorce, which may be taken with the others as evidence in favor of proving that plural marriage was commonly practiced by the last Essene age.

3. I’ll tell you up front that the evidence of these witnesses, including the eye-witnesses, make it quite clear that the Essenes saw plural marriage as 1) fact of life and 2) target of polemic. Of the texts that deal with marriage, the first four above try to dismiss it, and the fifth may tend toward dismissing Jewish-style marriage entirely in favor of privacy among those in the yahad.  There was certainly no Torah scroll, chupa or distractions; there may have been little more celebration than a liturgy among the bacharim; there may have been no formal marriage ceremony at all.

4. Essenes were near opposites of the Pharisees, and they seldom failed (especially in the “teacher” texts) to dissimulate from them and the entire rabbinical movement, from calling them names to calls for violent overthrow of the entire Jerusalem/Judaic system.  The “shoddy wall-builders,” presumably Pharisees & Sadducees, were castigated for marrying more than once in CD col 4, ll. 19-21. (What this tells us is that some perhaps many significant others were in fact living in plural marriages.)

5. The Essenes, as described in both the Scrolls and the eye-witness testimonies, comprised men and women of lifestyles or levels of purity, yet within the one way.  (Note that qadosh men and women were equal, designated by writers as “zeqenim” and “zeqenot,” “ashishim” and “nashim,” not unlike today when we are surprised to encounter a generic “she” or “her” when we are used to “he” or “him.”)

6. In the realm of marriage and procreation, the upper level included those looking to live in “perfect holiness.” In their thinking, the qadosh are to be set apart in yahad ("together") from the rest of humankind, abstaining from any kind of romantic relationships, perhaps even living monastically.

The next are the marrying Essenes, who married for one or more of these primary reasons:

7. 4Q502 has not only the inclusive language noted above, but a liturgical blessing of a husband and wife (or the men and women of a yahad blessing each other). However, the monasticist was probably not permitted to live in marriages on account of the burden cast upon the communist society when the husband died, which we see was clearly happening in Acts 6:1.  It may be that the prohibition is for the monastic only. 

8. There is also the explicit prohibition of niece marriage, which may go against the claim that the Herodians of NT were Essenes.

9. If the Essenes had a Torah, it would be the Temple Scroll (11QT).  QT col 53:16ff refers to Numbers 30:10, which has to do with the vows of young wives and daughters. QT 64:1 (an unpublished fragment) refers to Deut 21:15, which is about a man with two wives and children from both.  The Temple Scroll is a (supposed) foundational / early document of the Essenes comprised of a commentary on the Torah.  Wouldn’t these be the most likely places to find a prohibition of plural marriage? 

10. QT 57:54 reminds us of 1 Tim 3: the former the requirements for a malak, the latter for a mevaqre.  Among the requirements is that king and bishop have one wife.  We assume that this is monogamy, but whatever theology we apply to the Timothy text (which has been uncovered in Secacah Cave 7), let us also apply to QT 57:54.  Here it is only the king who is prohibited from plural marriage.  Nobody else is.