Dakotas Christian Believers Arena
Come on in and browse 
   Home      The Dead Sea Scrolls 2


The Dead Sea Scrolls-2

Introduction:

On this page we are placing excerpts from different books and lectures on the Dead Sea Scrolls. No we are not going to place the story of their discovery on this page. We have become so tired of reading that story and we theorize that the reason that story is repeated in almost every paper and book on the scrolls is that every author thinks no one has heard the story before.

It has been said that if you just read the introduction and conclusion of each book or paper then you have read the whole point of view of the author. We will try to give you more than just the introduction and conclusion but no promises.
 
 

#1. The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah by W.J. Martin, M.A., Ph.D.  The Campbell Morgan Memorial Bible Lectureship, No. 6 Westminster Chapel, Buckingham Gate, London, S.W.1

At the conclusion of the Campbell Morgan Lecture for 1953 - a lecture of supreme

significance for the present time - Professor R. V. G. Tasker referred to our appreciation of the

light archaeological, linguistic and textual studies can throw upon the Old Testament. It is with

the last of these, namely textual studies, that this lecture has to do.

The greatest advance in our knowledge of the text of the Old Testament and its transmission has been brought about, not by the work of scholars, but by a chance find by Arab shepherds in 1947 of a collection of manuscripts in a cave near the Dead Sea in Palestine. The manuscript,1 which forms the

subject of this lecture, is the one that has rightly attracted the most attention.

Throughout I shall refer to it simply as the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, although I am well aware that some

scholars are beginning to refer to it as the Qumran scroll, from the name of an ancient

settlement near the cave, but the unrivalled importance of our manuscript and the fact that it

alone contains the whole book of Isaiah makes it well able to maintain its identity under any

designation. I retain the title for yet another reason: out of my high regard for those American

scholars who first used it and who gave the academic world the means of studying the scroll

with a promptness and in an exemplary and magnanimous manner all too rare in the world of

scholarship.

The nature of the find was so sensational and the claimed date of the manuscripts so incredibly

early that it is now easily understandable why some scholars felt that there must somewhere be

a discrepancy in the evidence and that a minute examination of the documents would bring to

light some facts to lower the date to a period with some already familiar landmarks. True we

had documents from pre-Christian times, but, apart from the fragmentary Greek papyrus of Deuteronomy in the Rylands Library from the second century B.C., none of the

Old Testament.

The earliest manuscript of any note belonged to the tenth century. Moreover

the early documents came almost exclusively from one country, Egypt, which enjoys a climate

conducive to the preservation of perishable material such as papyrus and leather. The

provenance of the Dead Sea Scrolls was not likely in itself to indicate for the documents a high

antiquity…

Among the objections raised to the early date of the Scrolls was the fact that guiding lines

were used above the letters.5 From the little we know of the methods of scribes in antiquity we

have no grounds for assuming that this is incompatible with an early date. It is hardly likely

that the scribe in the interest both of symmetry and the best utilisation of space would fail to

avail himself of the services of the ruler or some other lining device such as was used as early

at least as the third millenium.

Caroline R. Williams describing the tomb of Per-Neb (c. 2700 B.C.)

speaks of "lines mapping out the composition by defining the height of the dado and marking

out the borders, the different registers, and the spaces for the long vertically written

inscription," and again (p. 7) "That a ruler was generally used for the vertical and horizontal

lines seems from their appearance unquestionable."6 The Kilamuwa inscription (c. 825 B.C.)

has lines above the letters. A fragment of Leviticus, probably much older than the Dead Sea

Scrolls, has guiding lines.7

Although we could not assign with certainty the meaning linear

"ruler" to any word in the Old Testament, there are references in the Talmud both to the

instrument and to the practice of ruling. Rabbi Minjamin said: "The ruling of the Mezuza (the

parchment scroll containing Deut. 6, 4-9 and 11, 13-21 attached to the upper part of the

right-hand door-post of Jewish homes) is a decree of Moses from Sinai." This is, of course,

hyperbole,…

In ancient times the human and material elements in transmission were each on occasion

adverse to accurate transmission. The human element, inherently incapable of perfectibility,

was often prone to fall short of accuracy in the making of copies, and the material was

exposed to the ravages of time and the accidents which are the lot of all perishable things.

While the latter factor has often caused major disasters involving total loss, it is probable that,

taking all in all, the human has wrought the greater havoc. Certainly in the field of Old

Testament transmission the fact of the preservation and existence of such a large corpus of

writings would seem to vouch for the lesser evil of the material factor…

Large numbers of the variants in our Scroll (it would be misleading to call them variant

readings) are by their nature void of significance. The mere counting of variants is the

unmistakable badge of the tiro in the field of textual criticism. Variants go by weight not by

number, they are evaluated not enumerated. To the class of insignificant variants belong in the

first place the orthographical, that is, those that involve differences in spelling only. Such

variants surprise only print-conscious readers, prone to forget the vicissitudes of their own

spelling until the printing-presses imposed on them the present mechanical uniformity. In a

modern text there is not much grist of this kind left for our above mentioned tyro (his identity

has remained unchanged, despite the change, deliberate but still correct, in spelling).

Both "Ihoauerd" and "louerd" would seem to us now outlandish modes of spelling "lord", but they

evidently did not perplex a man of the thirteenth century. Of all such variants textual criticism

takes little or no cognizance. The lavish use of vowel-letters (consonants used to indicate

vowels; Hebrew script originally possessed no special signs for these) contributes largely to the

multiplication of such variants. On this point some scholars seem to have completely lost sight

of the fact that vowel-letters are in origin not intrusive but residual: they arose in the first

instance through certain of these letters losing their consonantal value, this in turn leading to

changes in the vowel-pattern; for instance, through the crasis of the vowels thus brought into

contact, disyllables emerged as monosyllables. The spelling with the retention of the "extinct"

consonant was hence the product of etymology and not of phonetics. Thus began a system that

later could acquire, often disregarding the dictates of philology, the dimensions we now see in

our present manuscript.

We can eliminate on the score that they too are devoid of significance, those variant forms

that give practically, if not precisely, the same meaning as the forms which they replace.

Under this heading come in the first place synonyms or near synonyms…

The very discussion of such questions indicates how complete is the re-orientation which has

taken place. We no longer ask what is the relation of our Manuscript to a recension of 100

A.D. Our Scroll takes us so far beyond this point, that questions, which a short while ago held

a central place in the problem of transmission, have now little more than antiquarian interest.

This manuscript has added not only one new and earlier point, on the line of transmission, it

has indirectly provided still another two: that of its model, and that of the archetype from

which came the liturgical and the lay families of manuscripts.

There is now nothing to prevent anyone who feels so inclined from believing that if this line were projected backwards it would end in an autograph similar in all essentials to the text that has been transmitted to us. Sir Frederick Kenyon, that great scholar, whose range of vision in the field of manuscripts was unequalled, indicated unerringly the central problem when he said: "The great, indeed

all-important, question which now meets us is this - Does this Hebrew text, which we call

Massoretic, and which we have shown to descend from a text drawn up about A.D. 100

faithfully represent the Hebrew text as originally written by the authors of the Old Testament

books?"35 He believed even then that an affirmative answer was possible. Little did he or

anyone dream that a day would come when a witness of such ancient lineage and high

credentials would appear with evidence to convince many that his question will no longer

brook the answer no.
 
 
#2. The Dead Sea Scrolls and St. John’s Gospel by Leon Morris, B.Sc., M.Th., Ph.D.

The Campbell Morgan Memorial Bible Lectureship, No. 12 Westminster Chapel, Buckingham Gate, London, S.W.1

The Pharisees, being sensible men, did not bother themselves with perpetuating ideas they

knew to be wrong. Anticipating the excellent practice of our modern scientists they discarded

ideas that were shown to be false (or that they held had been shown to be false), and

concentrated on those that were true. They held that the distinctive ideas of the Sadducees and

the Essenes were erroneous, so they piously eschewed propagating them. This would be of no

more than passing interest to us were it not for the fact that in time the Pharisees became the

dominant party within Judaism. Jewish writings became to all intents and purposes Pharisaic

writings. The Rabbinic literature by and large sets forth Pharisaic ideas. We see other Jewish

groups not as they saw themselves, but through Pharisaic eyes. None of their writings were

copied by the Pharisees, which is both understandable and unfortunate. New Testament

scholars have had to be content with a monolithic Judaism.

The great value of the Dead Sea scrolls for New Testament studies is that for the first time we

are able to read the views of a Jewish sect other than the Pharisees from within. Whatever be

the dates of composition of these documents they let us see something of a sect which was in

existence at the time the Christian movement began, and to see it in the sect's own writings.

Not surprisingly some of the terms and ideas in the scrolls are found also in the New

Testament. This has led to the most diverse estimates of the relationship between the two.

Some stress the resemblances. They think of Christianity as nothing more than a natural

development of the type of religion we see reflected in the scrolls.1 Some even think of the

scrolls as Christian documents.2 Others concentrate their attention on the differences. They

think that there is no significant connection between Christianity and the scrolls.3 We cannot complain of lack of variety in the views put forward.

By common consent there is no part of the New Testament with more points of contact with

the scrolls than the Gospel according to St. John,4 and it is with these contacts that we shall

concern ourselves in this lecture. We shall examine some of the common terminology and

ideas, and try to estimate the significance of the scrolls for the understanding of the Fourth

Gospel.

There are some resemblances of style and general approach. The style of John is notoriously

different from that of the Synoptic Gospels. It is more like that of part, at any rate, of the

scrolls than is that of the Synoptic Gospels. Cross finds this resemblance so striking that he

thinks of the origins of John's style as being found among the sectarians.5 The estimate of style

is a subjective thing, but I think that Cross goes too far here. The sectarians wrote in Hebrew

or Aramaic and John in Greek, albeit a Greek which shows Aramaic influence…

What shall we say then of the relation between the Fourth Gospel and the scrolls? In the first

place, that there is a tremendous gap106 between them. In this lecture we have been concerned

to consider only those points where there is some relation, and this may easily give the

impression that the two are closer than in point of fact they are. But to read the whole of the

Qumran documents, including the detailed regulations in the Manual of Discipline and the

Rule of the Congregation, the curious exegesis of the various commentaries, the martial

regulations of the War Scroll, and all the rest, is to be transported into a different world.

It is true that in some of the Thanksgiving Psalms we come in contact with a spirit not out of

harmony with that of the men of the New Testament, but this fleeting glimpse of better things

serves only to underline the fact that basically the sect is concerned with different purposes

from those that underlie Christian service. This great gap should not be overlooked.

Yet when full allowance has been made for it the coincidences of language and thought are

striking. There are far too many of them for us to assume that they are accidental, the result of

mere chance. It is asking too much to assume that at roughly the same time, and in roughly the

same part of the world two different groups of men independently evolved the same

terminology and thought of the same ideas. It is much more likely that there was some point of

contact.

Yet the relationship can hardly be one of direct dependence. We have seen how at point after

point, even where John and the covenanters are using similar language and dealing with similar

concepts, there are vast differences. Again it is too much to assume that John had the Qumran

writings before him, and that as he borrowed their language and concepts he systematically

distorted their sense.

What the relationship was we cannot be sure at this distance in time. But it was surely indirect.

We may conjecture (though I stress that it is no more than conjecture) that the connection

came through John the Baptist. W. H. Brownlee has pointed out that "Almost every detail of

the Baptist's teaching in both the Synoptic and the Fourth Gospels has points of contact with

Essene belief"107 (he identifies the Qumran sect with the Essenes). Now the Gospels tell us

that John's parents were old when he was born (Lk. 1. 18), and that "the child… was in the

deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel" (Lk. 1. 80).

What being "in the deserts" means is difficult to establish. If it means that John was brought up there then the conclusion seems inescapable that he was brought up by some such sect as the men of Qumran (Josephus tells us that the Essenes adopted other people's children and brought them up). While we have no evidence for this there is nothing at all improbable in it. John's parents were old and may well have died while the child was young, leaving no one to look after him. Alternatively, realizing their age and incapacity, they may have handed him over. The connecting link in either case would be the very high regard the Qumran men had for those of priestly stock. If this is not what happened at least being "in the deserts" means that John was in those parts where the sectarians lived, and he would have some knowledge of them. Either way he would have some knowledge of the teaching of the sect, in the one case a full and complete knowledge, in the other case a partial knowledge.

Whichever be the truth he rebelled against Qumran's distinctive message, for his recorded

teaching contradicts some of the essential ideas of the scrolls, even though it shows points of

contact. But he did have the terminology of the sect and some of its ideas.

Now John 1. 35ff. makes it clear that some of the first disciples of Jesus came out of the circle

that gathered round John the Baptist. This gives us a natural channel whereby some of the

sect's terms and ideas may have flowed into Christianity. Especially would this be the case if

the unnamed disciple of John 1. 35, 40 was the beloved disciple (as has been widely held).

Thus the ideas and language of the covenanters would have come to the author of the Gospel,

but only at second hand, and that per medium of one who was no longer a member of the sect

even if he ever had been. He would not produce its teaching with anything like exactness. This

would account for the fact that the Evangelist reproduces Qumran language sometimes with

minute exactness, while at the same time his basic thought is poles apart from theirs.108

It remains for us to consider the importance of the scrolls for an understanding of the Fourth

Gospel.
 
 

#3. The Dead Sea Scrolls  by William Priestly

Archaeology, being "concerned with the recovery of the remains of ancient civilisations"1 is

an unusual science in that, although it "deals with concrete objects and employs exact

measurements",2 the many possible interpretations of data make it a less exact science than

chemistry, for example. However, having recognised it limitations we can see that

archaeological finds have made many important contributions to our study of the OT.

Edwin Yamauchi writes that,

The historical facts of the Bible, rightly understood, find agreement in the facts culled from

archaeology, equally rightly understood, that is, the majority or errors can be ascribed to errors of

interpretation by modern scholars and not to substantiated 'errors' of fact presented by the biblical

historians. This view is further strengthened when it is remembered how many theories and

interpretations of Scripture have been checked or corrected by archaeological discoveries.3

One of the most significant archaeological finds is the library of the Qumran Community: the

Dead Sea Scrolls. It is certainly "one of the few great archaeological discoveries to have

excited public imagination and interest".4 This is perhaps due to the challenges the find made

to Biblical scholarship, or perhaps because of the light these documents threw upon the early

history of Judaism and Christianity…

Although no manuscripts were found at Khurbet Qumran, there was evidence of links between

the caves and the buildings. When the ruins were excavated, identical pottery types to the

ones found in the caves were discovered. Coins were also found which "corresponded with the

period to which the palaeographers were assigning the manuscripts".5 As more and more

evidence was unearthed "it became clear that Qumran was, after all, the home of the

community which had written the scrolls"…

However, even though some of the information from the scrolls appears to have been written

by members of the fellowship, we know relatively little about its beginnings, "since in its

writings the community displays little awareness of, or interest in its own evolution".7

In looking at the DSS, scholars have tried to understand as much as possible concerning the

people who owned them. The excavators revealed that there had been several stages of

occupation. There originally was a small settlement at Qumran several hundred years before

the time of Christ, but that established by the Community founded by the 'Teacher of

Righteousness', was built some time in the middle of the second century BCE. From that time,

until the Romans captured it in 68 CE, it was almost continually occupied by this group that

had broken away from traditional Judaism.

Around the beginning of the first century BCE, the settlement was considerably enlarged.

Archaeological evidence has shown that the settlement was destroyed by fire around 30 BCE.

This may have been due to an earthquake that occurred in 31 BCE. Several hundred coins

found in the excavations date the limits of the main period of occupation from 135 BCE to 68

CE. The area seems to have been occupied briefly by two other groups, following the actual

break-up of the Community. It would appear that it was used as a Roman fort until 74 CE, and

again in the 2nd century by Jewish fighters…

The scrolls themselves teach us about the Qumran Community, and provide insights to both

the Old and New Testaments.

The extent of the find is quite staggering! Hershel Shanks writes that "caves 1, through 3 and

5, though 10, yielded 212 complete or fragmentary texts. Cave 11 contained 25 texts...

Fitzmyer has concluded that either 520 or 521 texts from cave 4 have been identified".22

There are documents written in both Phoenician and Aramaic script, and a small amount in

Greek. There are some fragments from the Book of Daniel that show the change from Hebrew

to Aramaic, and Aramaic to Hebrew. Ernst Wurthwein writes, "Qumran experts are agreed

today that the texts in the Old Hebrew script come from the same period as the texts in the

square script. It is possible that this script which was preserved from the pre-exilic period

enjoyed a renaissance in the Maccabean period with its surge of nationalism".23 The forms of

the letters represented in the texts are from "a period in the history of the alphabet"24 from

which we have few specimens and certainly none written on leather or parchment. There are

certain peculiarities in the spelling and grammar that perhaps reflects the pronunciation of

Hebrew at the time when the manuscripts were copied.

Palaeography, the study of the script employed by the scribes, can date "the earliest Qumran

fragments from about 200 B.C.,"25 but this is only the date of the copy of the manuscript. The

dating of the composition of the book itself is much more difficult to determine. Yet the copies

can and do have some historical and scholarly significance. It would be impossible to look at

all the texts represented by the fragments found in the Qumran caves within the limits we

have, especially as "there was no single form of the text which was regarded and transmitted as exclusively authoritative. These texts presented us for the first time with a large number of

variants…

Firstly, there are two Isaiah scrolls, one of which contains all sixty-six chapters of Isaiah dating

from 150 BCE. This scroll is made of leather strips sewn together and is approximately 24 feet

long . It is considerably worn and was obviously much used. There are places where mistakes

in the copying have been erased or crossed out, and even points where another hand has noted

omissions in the margin.

There are some points where this text differs from the Masoretic Text (MT) of Isaiah, but on

the whole, it has helped bring understanding on some minor difficulties of interpretation, but

"by and large the wording of the text is substantially the same as that of the Masoretes".28 It is

an exciting find because it is approximately one thousand years older than the oldest Isaiah

manuscripts available before 1947, and the fact that it is not split into three parts (as some

have attempted to do with this book) shows that the unity of Isaiah (if it was ever disunited)

was established by scribes around 175 BCE.

The other Isaiah scroll, though more fragmentary, due to the leather having disintegrated, is

important because, unlike the 'St. Mark's Monastery Isaiah Scroll', this one "does not differ

essentially from the Masoretic text any more than do its representatives in the late medieval

tradition."

Another important book to the Qumran Covenanters was Daniel. F.F. Bruce writes, "there are

grounds for thinking that a century before the beginning of the Christian era at least one group

of Jews - the men of Qumran - gave serious thought to the study and interpretation of the book

of Daniel."30 It is fortunate that in one of the manuscripts, we have both Daniel 2:4 and 8:1,

the passages that show the change from Hebrew to Aramaic and Aramaic to Hebrew

respectively. This shows that the change "was a characteristic of the text in its earliest extant

form."31 There is also a fragment containing Daniel 3:23, which in the Septuagint contains "a

long addition; a prayer, a prose description of their deliverance and a hymn, commonly known

as the Benediate."32 That this is not included in the Qumran fragment shows that the addition

would not have been part of the original…

There have also been comparisons made between such books as Zechariah and Ecclesiastes

and the sectarian literature of the Qumran community that have indicated earlier datings for

these books. Some finds, such as those pieces from the book of Leviticus, which are some of

the oldest fragments of Biblical books that we have, agree almost entirely with the Masoretic

Text of Leviticus, and support the authority of the MT. "Even when the Dead Sea fragments

of Deuteronomy and Samuel which point to a different MS family from that which underlies

our received Hebrew text do not indicate any differences in doctrine or teaching.

Finally a fragment that concerns us as Evangelical Christians is from a MS written in a third

century BCE cursive hand, containing portions of the 12 Minor Prophets. The part in question

contains Micah 5:2, where the prophet names the birthplace of the Messiah as being

Bethlehem. That this copy of the book of Micah can be dated over two hundred years earlier

than the birth of Christ totally refutes scholars claims that it was written after His birth. This

find has been described as "one of the greatest manuscript discoveries of all time".40 As can

be seen from the above examples, the scrolls of Qumran have indeed aided us in our Biblical

scholarship…

The DSS also tell us some things concerning the Septuagint - the Greek translation of the

Hebrew Bible. Biblical fragments have been found in the Qumran caves, which have a

Hebrew text that is closer to the LXX than to the MT. This tells us that around the turn of the

century there were various Hebrew texts in existence, and the LXX may have come from "a

different Hebrew Text belonging to what we may call the Proto-Septuagint family".42 This

would explain some of the differences between the MT and the LXX.

 Most notable, however, are two scrolls that were part of the original find in cave 1. The first of these is the Habakkuk Commentary that is a verse by verse exposition of chapters one and two of this book.

There are many historical allusions in this scroll, though they assume understanding of events

at the time and they are "exasperatingly vague references".43 It has been possible to

understand some of what this scroll says and it is "of special religious and historical

significance, because like the Manual of Discipline and other Qumran texts, it is a source of

new information about a religious movement in pre-Christian Judaism"…

There has also been much debate about the archaeological find at the Dead Sea, many scholars

have put pen to paper to express their views and complaints about fragments that remain

unpublished over forty years after the discovery of the first scrolls. Opinions vary from such as

that expressed by M. Burrows, who writes: "for the interpretation and theology of the Old

Testament they have relatively little value".46.

to those who agree with Edwin Yamauchi that the flood of literature that has emerged following the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is eloquent testimony to the importance which scholars have attached to this remarkable phase of archaeology.

No work dealing with the Bible generally can now be regarded with any seriousness if it fails to

take into account the significance of the Qumran discoveries for its own particular area of study.47

Although some of the finds at the Dead Sea merely confirmed previous theories, there have

been some finds at Qumran that have given new understanding and information to our study of

the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish people. "The covenanters rendered a service to Biblical

scholars by making and preserving manuscripts of the Bible, even though most of these have

survived only in small scraps".
 
 

#4. The Dead Sea Habakkuk Scroll by Professor F. F. Bruce, M.A., D.D.

The Dead Sea Habakkuk Scroll (1Q p Hab.) is one of the four scrolls from Qumran Cave I

which were obtained in June 1947 by the Syrian Monastery of St. Mark in Jerusalem and

subsequently (February 1955) purchased by the state of Israel.

The scroll, which contains 13 columns of Hebrew writing, consists of two pieces of soft

leather sewn together with linen thread between columns 7 and 8. The columns are about 10

centimetres wide; the scroll was originally about 160 centimetres long. The first two columns,

however, are badly mutilated, as is also the bottom of the scroll; this produces an undulating

break. along the bottom when the scroll is unrolled. The present maximum height of the scroll

is 13.7 centimetres; originally it may have been 16 centimetres high or more.

Palaeographical estimates of the age of the scroll vary by some decades, but a date around the

middle of the first century B.C. or shortly afterwards is probable.

The scroll contains the text of the first two chapters of Habakkuk. The book of Habakkuk, as

we know it, consists of two documents: (a) ‘The oracle of God which Habakkuk the prophet

saw’ (chapters 1 and 2), and (b) ‘A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet, according to Shigionoth’

(chapter 3). Our scroll quotes one or several clauses from the former document, and supplies a

running commentary on the words quoted; but it does not contain the text of the second

document, nor, does it make any comment on it. It is plain from the scroll that it never

reproduced or expounded the third chapter of Habakkuk, for the original ending is clear for all

to see. The omission of all reference to the ‘prayer of Habakkuk’ is not due to any idea that

such a psalm was unsuitable material for a commentary of the kind that is supplied for the

‘oracle’ of Habakkuk (commentaries of this kind on the Psalter and other biblical poems have

been found at Qumran); it is due, more probably, to the fact that Habakkuk’s ‘prayer’ was considered to be a separate work, quite distinct from his ‘oracle’.

After quoting a section of the text of Habakkuk, our commentator says: ‘Its interpretation

concerns...’―and then proceeds to give its meaning as he sees it, mainly in terms of persons

and events of his own time, or of the times immediately preceding and following his own. The

Hebrew word rendered ‘interpretation’ here is pesher, and from its frequency and distinctive

usage in this commentary, it has come to be used of the commentary as a whole and of others

belonging to the same class. Quite a number of such pěshārîm have been found in the Qumran

caves, but this commentary on Habakkuk is not only the first to be known, but it is the most

complete of those that have come to light thus far.

It is, besides, of more than ordinary interest because it remains our chief source for some of

the most fascinating problems of Qumran study―the character and identity of the Teacher of

Righteousness (the founder and leader of the Qumran community), and his relations with various opponents, such as the Wicked Priest, the house of Absalom, the Man of Falsehood

and the Seekers after Smooth Things; together with the identity of the Kitti’im, the brutal

Gentile power whose domination of Judaea is regarded as a divine nemesis on the wicked

rulers of the land…

We can best understand the .book of Habakkuk when we read it in the light of its historical

setting in the reign of Jehoiakim (608-598 B.C.). We have it on excellent contemporary

authority that Jehoiakim was guilty of oppression and violence. (Jeremiah xxii 13-17).

Habakkuk complains to God about the oppression and violence which are rife in the nation,

and God tells him that the Chaldeans are being raised up to be the executors of his judgment

against the unrighteous rulers of Judah. But Habakkuk has to renew his complaint before

long, for the Chaldeans are acting with even greater brutality and impiety than those upon whom they executed God’s judgment.

This time God tells him that the Chaldeans, too, will be dealt with when they have served his purpose; righteousness will one day be established throughout the earth, but for the present the prophet and those like-minded must exercise patience and trust in God: ‘the righteous shall live by his faith’ (Habakkuk ii 4).

While exegetes may differ on details, the prophecy of Habakkuk is generally coherent and

intelligible when interpreted along these lines…

It is evident that the Teacher of Righteousness of the Habakkuk commentary and related texts

was the effective founder of the Qumran community; his was the original and creative mind

which stamped its impress on the whole brotherhood. But the movement led by Menahem,

and by Eleazar ben Jair after him, received its distinctive character not from either of them but

rather from Menahem’s father Judas and from Judas’s colleague Sadduk. If Menahem’s party

was indeed the Qumran community, then either Judas or Sadduk would be a better choice for

identification as he great Teacher of Righteousness.

Some of the Qumran documents were composed a considerable time after the Teacher of

Righteousness was ‘gathered in’ (an expression more suitable for a natural death than for the

way in which Menahem and Eleazar ben Jair died). But less than two years elapsed between

Menahem’s death and the destruction of the headquarters at Qumran, according to Père de

VAUX’s reading of the archaeological evidence; less than seven years elapsed between

Menahem’s death and the fall of Masada, the last outpost of his followers.

Dr. ROTH suggests that the Damascus residence of the community is to be literally

understood, and that it is to be dated between 4 B.C. and A.D. 6. But if it was in the literal

Damascus that the community found refuge at that time, it is surely to that time that the

Zadokite work must be ascribed. Yet in the Zadokite work the Teacher of Righteousness is

already dead: twice over he is said to have been ‘gathered in’,21 and in the second of these

passages about forty years elapse between his ‘gathering in until the destruction of all the men

of war who returned with the Man of Falsehood’. Dr. ROTH’s identification of the Man of Falsehood with Simon bar Giora is, fortunately, only tentative; if it were put forward as an

integral part of his reconstruction it would increase the complication still more. The

complication is acute enough already, unless the Teacher of Righteousness introduced at the

beginning of the Zadokite work is a different person from the Teacher of Righteousness in the

Habakkuk commentary.

Above all, it seems impossible to reconcile Dr. ROTH’s view with the palaeographical

evidence. The discovery of a number of dated manuscripts at Murabba’at has made it possible

to establish not only a relative, but an absolute; chronology for the Qumran manuscripts. If

the manuscript of the Habakkuk commentary was copied as late as A.D. 25―the latest date

which palaeographers have suggested for it (and it was probably copied half a century before that)―the composition of the work itself can have been no later; and the clash between the Wicked Priest and the Teacher of Righteousness was an event of the past when the commentator wrote.

Dr. ROTH’s thesis is attractive and stimulating, and one can only admire the skill and vigour

with which it has been presented. But the view which will ultimately triumph will do equal

justice to the internal evidence as interpreted by historians and philologists, to the

archaeological evidence as interpreted by archaeologists, and to the palaeographical evidence

as interpreted by palaeographers. It cannot be said that Dr. ROTH’s view does this.
 
 

#5. The Scrolls and the Scribes of the New Testament by Joseph H. Dampier Johnson City, Tennessee

The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls has brought with it an intense interest in the Essenes.

That the existence of this party or confraternity which is designated by Josephus as a

philosophic sect must have continued in Palestine with the Pharisees and Sadducees into the

period described in the Gospels is almost universally taken for granted. Then why are there no

Essenes in the New Testament?

The Qumran Community must have existed near the Dead Sea from at least 100 B.C. to 68

A.D. It is not mentioned in the Gospels. The size of the cemetery would indicate a sizable

membership.

The solution most generally accepted is that the Essenes and the Qumran covenanters were

the same people and, if not identical, were so closely identified that the one is a part of the

other.

This does not answer the question of the silence of the New Testament on these contemporary

religious movements or sects. A possible solution to this problem is that Qumran and/or the

Essenes may have been known under more than one name and that they are present in the

New Testament under a different name than in Josephus and Philo.

The Qumran sectaries (perhaps known in Josephus as the Essenes) are known in the New

Testament as the Scribes. The Qumran Community hid a library of Biblical and non-Biblical

manuscripts, and the ruins of the monastery has a scriptorium with desks still in place. It is

rather obvious that they were scribes.

Qumran was a community of scribes, but were the Scribes of the Gospels connected with the

Qumran Community? Or, were they, in some way that we do not yet understand, indirectly

related?

The Manual of Discipline and some other references in the Dead Sea Scrolls form the

connecting link of evidence which shows us the same sect. While the New Testament never

uses the term ‘Essene’, Josephus is almost equally silent about ‘Scribes’, for with the

exception of “holy scribes” in Jewish Wars and a single use of grammateus in Contra Apion

where it is not translated Scribe he makes little use of the term.

The first question that must be answered is whether the Scribes were a party or a profession.

In the Old Testament the Soferim were writers, keepers of the records, and in some cases

evidently official recorders. The LXX translated this as Scribe grammateus. By the time the

New Testament was written, writing must have been a more general skill, and the word

‘scribe’ had taken on other meanings. That some had become teachers and lawyers and

doctors of the law is not to be denied. But, that the word did not have a single meaning is

indicated by such terms as “Scribes of the Pharisees” (Mk. 2:13-17, Lk. 5:27-32) and “Scribes

of the people” (Matt. 2:4). The inter-testament period may have worked a change in the use of

the word.

The term ‘scribe’ in the New Testament does not refer to a trade or profession of copying

manuscripts or acting as amanuensis for illiterate sections of the population. It is rather

obvious that the term ‘scribe’ is never used to describe in any way these activities, but the

term itself grammateus would indicate at least such an origin for the word; but, of course, the use of a term at any given time is not necessarily the same as the origin of the same word.

We use the term ‘Mason’ (Freemason) for group that are not now connected with

the building trades, but we still continue to use it for those who are so employed.

The scribes appear in the Synoptics about fifty-five times,1 The term does not appear in John

except in John 8:3. The term is only used five times in the rest of the New Testamen

In nine of the fifty-five appearances of the Scribes in the Synoptics Scribes and Pharisees are

identified together. The Pharisees are known as a religious party. If the Scribes are not a

religious party, then the uniting of the two words might seem to be incongruous. It would be

similar to our referring to the Presbyterians and the printers. It might also be significant that

Scribes are never so linked with the Sadducees, This then indicates a religious community

that had a greater affinity for Pharisaic doctrine than for Sadducean.

In ten instances this group is linked with the priests, chief priests, elders, etc. But, with the

exception of the one instance of the nativity (Matt. 2:4), this relationship always appears after

the triumphal entry. During the last week Scribes and Pharisees seem to have separated and

the Scribes and Priests to have formed an alliance. Unless the Scribes were a separate

religious group, how did they do this?

Scribes alone without alliances appear ten times in the Synoptic accounts. (It should be noted

here that the discrepancy of the above numbers is due to some variation of terminology in the

Gospel accounts.)…

A comparison of the teachings and condemnations of Jesus that were particularly directed to

the Scribes rather than the Pharisees shows us a community whose doctrinal and community

life is also found in the Manual of Discipline and other documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls…

The idea that the Scribes are a party is presented by M. Jaques Basnage in his “History of the

Jews”. M. Basnage apparently had personal connections with the Koraites who believed

themselves to be the original Scribal Party who divided from the Pharisees because they

would not recognize the Oral Law and later the Mishna.

The Koraites also differed as to the calendar. They believed that only when the new moon

appeared and was observed could the month begin, and so outlawed the use of astronomical

tables.

The Koraites settled such disputes by an appeal to “Three able persons” and regarded

authority as “divided between the High Priest and a Prophet, but the prophet was not a man

inspired from heaven as Moses or Isaiah, but a skillful and experienced man”. P. 107…

The considerable number of scholars who have pointed out such connections do not seem to

have considered the claims of the Koraites that they were originally “Scribes, lawyers, and

doctors of the law.” Which, coupled with the idea of an authorative but uninspired prophet

brings up some interesting possibilities as to the teacher of righteousness and gives a possible

Post-Biblical link between the Qumran people and the Scribes of the New Testament.
 
 

#6. Jewish Apocalyptic and the Dead Sea Scrolls by H. H. Rowley

D.D., F.B.A. Professor of Hebrew Language and Literature in the University of Manchester

The Ethel M. Wood Lecture delivered before the University of London on 12 March 1957

The first of the texts to be published in full was the Habakkuk Commentary,7 and

this immediately turned the attention of scholars to a work which Solomon

Schechter first published in 1910, under the title Fragments of a Zadokite Work.8

This work had come down in two mediaeval manuscripts found in the Cairo

Genizah,9 which in part overlapped and in part supplemented one another.

Much discussion had followed its publication, and wide differences of opinion had been

expressed as to the date of the composition of the work and the particular Jewish

group from which it had come.10 It was generally believed that the mediaeval copies

were of a much older work, and the view that it came from a pre-Christian date was

taken by a number of scholars.11 It contained references to a Teacher of Righteousness,

who was at once connected with the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned

in the Habakkuk Commentary, when that commentary became available, and the

view that the Zadokite Work and the Habakkuk Commentary were both products of

the Qumran sect was widely shared. Since then fragments of the Zadokite Work

have been found in the Qumran caves,11a and it is now generally accepted that in all

discussions of the Qumran sect the Zadokite Work as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls

must be taken into account…

All this means that the Scrolls and the Zadokite Work should be studied together in

relation to our other surviving non-Biblical texts coming from Palestine in the two

centuries preceding the Christian era. But first it is necessary to establish that the

relevant texts of the Qumran sect are all of pre-Christian origin. I have already said

that we must not assume this, since the sectarian works might have been composed

at any time down to the deposit of the Scrolls in the caves…

The Teacher of Righteousness is not mentioned in all of the texts, but figures

especially in the commentaries and in the Zadokite Work. From the somewhat

cryptic manner in which he is referred to, it would appear that the first readers of

the texts might be expected to understand the situation presupposed more easily

than we can, and therefore that these texts were composed fairly close to the time

of the Teacher. So far as the Zadokite Work is concerned, this is confirmed by the

fact that the coming of the Messiah of Aaron and Israel seems to have been

expected about forty years after the gathering in of the Teacher of Righteousness.14

It would therefore seem to be clear that this work was composed within forty years

of his death. In the pre-Christian period three principal dates for the life and work

of the Teacher of Righteousness have been proposed.

The Manual of Discipline is less easy to place in relation to the Teacher of

Righteousness, who is not referred to in it. The Teacher of Righteousness seems to

have given authoritative interpretation of the Law to his followers,15 but he is not

said to have organized the sect. In the Zadokite Work there is reference to one

called the Star,16 who appears to have led the sect to Damascus,17 and he must have

lived and been the leader of the sect within forty years of the death of the Teacher.

Whether he is the author of the Manual of Discipline, however, we have no means

of knowing.

In the Zadokite Work we find reference to the Book of Hagu,18 which

seems, therefore, to have been in existence within forty years of the death of the

Teacher of Righteousness. In a fragment related to the Manual of Discipline, which

came from Cave I, there is another reference to the Book of Hagi, as it is called

here.19 This fragment is not a part of the work called the Manual of Discipline, and

there is some reason for thinking that it is earlier than the Manual. Its editor notes

that the congregation of the sect is here organized on a more military basis than the

community of the Manual, and he finds the fragment to reflect a situation which

recalls the congregation of the Hasidim described in I Maccabees, while the

Manual suggests an organization nearer to that of the Essenes as described by our

ancient authorities.20

The Manual may therefore be a revised manual, reflecting a later stage of the organization of the sect, perhaps based on earlier manuals, and its date in relation to the work of the Teacher of Righteousness is more problematical…

The First Book of Enoch is commonly divided into several sections, which are variously

dated. Charles dates chapters vi-xxxvi and the Apocalypse of Weeks (xciii. 1-10, xci. 12-17) in the pre-Maccabaean period,28 but I have elsewhere shown that his reasons are not

convincing, or even always self-consistent, and have argued for a Maccabaean date for these

sections.29 For chapters xci-civ, with the exception of the Apocalypse of Weeks, Charles

favours the period of Alexander Jannaeus.30 But here again Frey argues for a Maccabaean

date,31 and I think this is the more probable.32 For chapters xxxvi-lxxi, the Similitudes of

Enoch, Charles argues for a date in the first century B.C., either between 94 and 79 B.C., or

between 70 and 64. B.C.,33 and for lxxxiii-xc he puts a terminus ad quem of 161 B.C.34

Here once more Frey offers strong reasons for supposing that the Similitudes should be placed

in the previous century, and reflect the background of the Maccabaean age.35 He would assign the composition to a date soon after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in 164. B.C.36 He therefore concludes that all the principal sections of I Enoch come from the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, or shortly after his death,37 and this view seems to me to be convincing…

The Similitudes of Enoch raise problems of Christian interpolation and of the interpretation of their figure of the Son of Man. In the book of Daniel the Son of Man is a figure symbolizing the saints as invested with power in the coming kingdom,44 and there are some who think the Son of Man is here also a collective symbol.45 Others hold that he is a transcendental figure, a pre-existent

individual.46 For our purpose this is not material, since nothing of this character can

be found in the Scrolls. The term Anointed One, or Messiah, is found in the

Similitudes,47 but there is nothing to indicate that he is a human deliverer, and again

the view has been expressed that this is a collective figure.48

The book of Jubilees is commonly dated in the second century B.C.49 Albright50 and

Zeitlin51 have argued for earlier dates, but some years ago I offered reasons for

rejecting that view.52 Amongst the practices on which the book of Jubilees lays emphasis is the keeping of the Sabbath,53 which was prohibited by the Seleucid authorities in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.54 The observance of the Jewish food laws is also enjoined,55 and we know that in the time of Antiochus there was a vigorous effort to compel the Jews to eat unclean foods.56 It will be remembered that Dan. i is concerned with the same question. The author of Jubilees complains of

idolatry,57 and this again was an issue in the age of Antiochus,58 when the Temple

was profaned and an idol altar set up in the Temple…

Unlike the book of Daniel, the book of Jubilees gives no hint of any resurrection

from the dead. It contemplates an immortality of bliss for the righteous in the

hereafter, while their bones rest in the earth.72 The descendants of Levi are promised

both ecclesiastical and religious power.73 This does not appear to reflect approval of

the position under the Hasmonaeans, when civil and religious power was in priestly

hands, since immediately afterwards Judah is described as a prince over Jacob, who

should be feared by the Gentiles, and who should sit on the throne.74 It would seem

that the thought is that the king should be subordinate to the priest.

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs again raise questions of integrity and

interpolation, as well as of date. A recent study by a Dutch scholar has argued for a

post-Christian date, later than the date of the deposit of the Scrolls in the caves.75

Charles, on the other hand, argues for a date towards the end of the second century B.C., between 109 and 107 B.C.76 Pfeiffer

more broadly ascribes the work to a date between 140 and 110 B.C.,77 while Frey

assigns it to the second half of the second century B.C.78

Too many vexed questions surround the Testaments to be discussed here. Only one

or two of them can be briefly referred to, Of these the first concerns the thought of

the Messiah. Several passages are held by Charles to indicate a Messiah from the

tribe of Levi.79 Lagrange disputes this interpretation,80 but Beasley-Murray, after a

careful examination, concludes that Charles is right in two instances, but that the

others do not present this idea…

The Psalms of Solomon are to be dated in the middle of the first century B.C.109

One of these psalms is messianic in character, and the following psalm is headed

‘Again of the Anointed of the Lord’. It is the former of these, Psalm xvii, which

most concerns us here. After a historical survey it describes the coming messianic

age, and prefaces this description with the words: ‘Behold, O Lord, and raise up

unto them their king, the son of David.’110 It is therefore clear that here we have no

expectation of a Levitical Messiah, but only of a Davidic Messiah.

The terms in which his rule is described draw freely on Old Testament ideas, as is to be

expected. The Messiah will be righteous and pure and will shatter unrighteous

rulers and deliver Jerusalem from Gentile oppressors.111 He will reign over Israel,

and no alien will henceforth be admitted to the land.112 He will subject the nations

to his yoke, and his rule will be marked by righteousness and holiness, and Gentiles

will come from the ends of the earth to behold his glory, and will bring exiled Jews

to him as their gifts.113 The following psalm makes no mention of the Davidic

descent of the Messiah, but describes his rule in similar terms, though with less

fullness…

The Battle Scroll describes the war whereby the nations should be successively conquered.

But it is to be noted that the Kittim are present throughout to the thought of the writer. He

says that after the Kittim are conquered the arms of the sect are to be led against nation after

nation in a specified order, and apparently the whole war is to occupy forty years.132 But

thereafter he reverts to the Kittim, and throughout the rest of the work he has nothing to say

about the other nations. This is very significant. I have already said that the Kittim of this

Scroll must be identified with the Greeks, and this view has been held by some who have

found the Kittim of the other texts to be the Romans.

We are therefore definitely in the second century B.C., when it was possible to think of the Kittim in Egypt marching against the Seleucid king of the north. It is true that in the first century B.C. Demetrius III led his army from Syria against Alexander Jannaeus, but there is no reason to think that this event would arouse the nationalist feelings of the sect, and one writer who would put the Teacher of

Righteousness in that age believed that the members of the sect were on the side of

Demetrius.133 This is on every ground improbable, and the conditions of that age would

scarcely seem to provide a suitable background for the composition of the Battle Scroll…

In one passage in the Testament of Levi137 it is said that a King should arise in Judah and

establish a new priesthood, to be called by a new name. Charles interpreted this of the

Hasmonaeans, and thought the new name was the revival of the title of Melchizedek.138 T. W.

Manson effectively answers this, and holds that the new name was ‘Sons of Zadok’, the

reference being to Solomon’s establishment of Zadok in the place of Abiathar in Jerusalem.139

He therefore disposes of this Hasmonaean hypothesis, and finds instead the conception of the

Zadokite priesthood, which was so dear to the Qumran sect…

It may be added that in the Nahum Commentary we have for the first time in the

Scrolls contemporary historical persons mentioned under their own proper names.

Antiochus is mentioned,161 and he appears to be Antiochus Epiphanes,162 though we

are here told nothing about him. There is merely a simple reference to the period

from Antiochus to the rise of the rulers of the Kittim. There is also a reference to a

king of Greece,163 who appears to be Demetrius, though the beginning of his name

is lost. This Demetrius is said to have sought to enter Jerusalem with the aid of the

seekers after smooth things. In the first century B.C. Demetrius III fought against

Alexander Jannaeus, but it is unlikely that the sect of the Scrolls was on either side

in this conflict. In the second century B.C., within a year or two of the death of

Antiochus Epiphanes, Demetrius I sent Nicanor to Jerusalem to secure control of

the whole city,164 including the Temple, and the story of his boast and subsequent

defeat by Judas Maccabaeus, and the hanging up in Jerusalem of the hand that had

been boastfully outstretched against the Temple is very familiar.165 At this time the

seekers after smooth things, who were on the side of Demetrius and Nicanor, would

certainly be the enemies of members of our sect.

It is unnecessary to say more of these converging lines of evidence. In the present

lecture it has been my purpose to add one more line of approach in the links

between the messianic and apocalyptic thought of the Scrolls with the events and

writings of the second century B.C. To have dealt exclusively with that restricted

question, without reference to the other lines of approach, would have been

unsatisfactory, since this evidence must be integrated with the other evidence at our

disposal before its full weight can be realized. It is that integration which I have

here attempted, and it seems to me to contribute materially to a case which on other

grounds I have found to be strong.
 
 

#7. The Teacher of Righteousness in the Qumran Texts By F. F. BRUCE, M. A.

Professor of Biblical History and Literature in the University of Sheffield

‘The Teacher of Righteousness’ is the name given in a number of the lately discovered

Qumran documents to a man who was held in high veneration by the religious community on

whose beliefs and practices these documents have thrown so much light. If he was not

actually the founder of the community, it was certainly he who impressed upon it those

features which distinguished it from other pious groups which flourished among the Jews

during the last two or three centuries of the Second Commonwealth. So far as we can gather

from our present sources of information, he is never referred to by his personal name in the

Qumran texts.1

The title bestowed on him by his followers, 'The Teacher of Righteousness'

(Heb. moreh s£edeq or moreh has£s£edeq), may echo Hosea x. 12, where the prophet calls to his

people: 'break up your fallow ground: for it is time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain

righteousness (Heb. yoreh s£edeq) upon you.' The RV margin gives 'teach you righteousness'

as an alternative translation to 'rain righteousness upon you'; in any case, moreh s£edeq is the

participial form corresponding to the imperfect yoreh s£edeq which Hosea uses. Numerous

attempts have been made to identify the Teacher of Righteousness with some figure or other

mentioned elsewhere in Jewish literature;2 and as the career of the Teacher, in so far as it can

be pieced together from the Qumran texts, is linked very closely with the careers of one or two contemporaries who are mentioned in equally allusive terms, it might be more accurate to entitle the present study The Teacher of Righteousness—and others…

It is not at all certain if the Teacher of Righteousness can be identified with any historical

figure mentioned outside the Zadokite and Qumran literature. But we can put together the fragments of information about him which that literature supplies, so as to obtain as clear an impression as possible of the kind of man he was…

As we have seen, his followers believed that he had been initiated by God into the mysteries

of His purpose, so as to understand the true interpretation of the prophets of old. What he thus

learned from God he imparted to his disciples. The fragmentary pesher on Micah, found in

Cave 1, commenting on the words of Micah i. 5b ('and what are the high places of Judah? are

they not Jerusalem?') says:

[Their interpretation con]cerns the Teacher of Righteousness: he it is who [teaches the law to] his

[council] and to all those who offer themselves willingly to be gathered among the elect people [of

God, practising the law] in the council of the community, who will be saved from the day [of

judgment].1…

It is equally plain that those who disregarded the words of the Teacher of Righteousness were

believed to have lost all hope of salvation. The appearance of the Teacher of Righteousness was regarded as a sign that the last days were approaching. He was not the Messiah, but his ministry signified that the messianic age would not be long delayed. Perhaps his followers believed at one time that the messianic age would be inaugurated within his lifetime; but after his death a revision of this opinion was necessary.…

The problem of identifying these 'men of war' may wait until something further is said about

the 'Man of Falsehood'…

Is it possible that they expected one of these Messiahs—the Messiah of Aaron—to be the

Teacher of Righteousness himself, risen from the dead? It has been maintained that they did,3

and the possibility may be freely allowed. Mr. Allegro, for example, has pointed out4 that a

fragmentary biblical anthology found in Cave 4 looks forward to the time when the Davidic Messiah will arise 'with the Expounder of the Law'; and it is a natural inference that the 'Expounder of the Law' in this instance is the Messiah of Aaron.

The same two figures are evidently associated in a comment on Nu. xxiv. 171 made in the Zadokite Admonition, where Balaam's 'star out of Jacob' is 'the Expounder of the Law who comes to Damascus', while the 'sceptre' which is to 'rise out of Israel' is 'the prince of all the congregation who, when he arises, will break down all the sons of Sheth.' The 'Expounder of the Law ', I suggest, was the title given to the Teacher's successor as head of the community and was borne by several leaders one after the other.

The head of the community in office at the time of the end would sponsor and induct the Davidic

Messiah. But would that particular head of the community be the Teacher of Righteousness

himself, risen from the dead, and would he also be the Aaronic Messiah? Further information

must be awaited before a confident answer can be given.

In the present state of our knowledge, it seems more probable that the Teacher of

Righteousness in resurrection was expected to fill the rôle which in general Jewish thinking

was reserved for the prophet Elijah. For Elijah was widely expected to return to earth on the

eve of the 'great and terrible day of the LORD' to discharge a ministry of repentance and

restoration so that Israel might be ready for the dawn of that day.2 (It does not appear,

however, that Qumran expectation identified the Teacher redivivus with Elijah, any more than

it identified him with the other eschatological prophet, the second Moses for whom many

looked in fulfilment of Dt. xviii. 15 ff.) The Teacher, even in resurrection perhaps, as

certainly in his previous existence, would be a messianic forerunner rather than a Messiah.
 
 

#8. Jesus and the Gospels in the Light of the Scrolls by F.F. Bruce

In any comparison of the Qumran literature with the Gospels there is an initial difficulty to be

taken into account: the historical subject-matter of the Gospels is far more securely

established than that of the Qumran literature. For example, whatever doubt may be

entertained of other elements in the story of Jesus, the fact that he was crucified by sentence

of Pontius Pilate fixes his position in history within narrow limits, for Pilate was prefect of

Judaea from A.D. 26 to 36/37.

If it were possible to fix the death of the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness within ten or twelve years, we should count ourselves fortunate indeed. As it is, two of the most distinguished British scholars who have dealt with this subject assign to the death of the Teacher dates separated from each other by over 230 years: H. H. Rowley identifies him with the high priest Onias III, who was assassinated in 171 B.C., while G. R. Driver identifies him with the Zealot leader Menahem, who was killed in September, A.D. 66.

It must make a difference to a comparative study of Qumran and the Gospels whether we date

the Teacher of Righteousness before Christ or after Christ. But even G. R. Driver, while

maintaining the post-Christian dating of the Scrolls, insists that “they are documents of prime

importance for the understanding of the New Testament and present a challenge which

Christian scholars will neglect at their peril” (The Judaean Scrolls, 1965, p. 6). His words are

still more to be heeded if, as is assumed for purposes of this essay, both the Teacher of

Righteousness and the bulk of the Qumran texts thus far published are pre-Christian…

Let it be said here that the Jesus with whom this essay is concerned is the Jesus of the

Gospels. No attempt will be made to draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the

kerygmatic Jesus of post-Easter faith, any more than one will (or could) be made to

distinguish the historical Teacher of Righteousness from the Teacher as he appears in the

Qumran texts.

In the Qumran texts and in the Gospels the Hebrew prophets are valued and interpreted in

their own right; they are not relegated (as so often in rabbinical Judaism) to the role of

providing comments or haphtaroth to the Torah. In the Qumran literature those covenantbreakers

are denounced “who will not believe when they hear all that is coming upon the last

generation, from the mouth of the priest [presumably the Teacher of Righteousness] into

whose heart God has put wisdom, to interpret all the words of his servants the prophets,

through whom God told all that was to come upon his people and upon his land” (1 QpHab. ii.

6-10); similarly Jesus chides his disciples, calling them “foolish men” because they were so

“slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken” (Luke 24. 25). The time at which

the prophetic oracles would be fulfilled was not made known to the prophets themselves; it

was revealed to the Teacher of Righteousness, and communicated by him to his disciples,

who thus had reason to thank God for divulging to them his “wonderful mysteries” which

were concealed from others. So Jesus thanks God for revealing to babes things that had been hidden from the wise and understanding (Matt. 11. 25; Luke 10. 21) and congratulates his hearers because they see and hear things that prophets and righteous men longed in vain to see and hear (Matt. 13. 16f.; Luke 10. 23f.).

The distinctive theology of each of the two bodies of literature is based in great measure on the interpretation of prophecy characteristic of each.

In the Qumran literature, however, there is a note of hope deferred which is absent from the

Gospels. It may be that at one time the winding up of the old age was expected within the lifetime

of the Teacher of Righteousness, but its postponement beyond his death called for some

reinterpretation of prophecy: “the last time is prolonged, extending beyond all that the

prophets have spoken, for the mysteries of God are wonderful” (1 QpHab. vii. 7f.). This

reminds us of the New Testament problem of the postponement of the parousia, but while this

problem has left its mark here and there in the Gospels (cf. Luke 19. 1; John 21. 22f.) their

dominant theme is that the age of fulfilment is here. “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in

your hearing”, says Jesus in the Nazareth synagogue after reading Isa. 61. If. (Luke 4. 2 I); his

contemporaries should understand that his casting out demons is a sign that the kingdom of

God has arrived (Matt. 12. 28; Luke 11. 20), and if it has not yet arrived “with power”, it will

do so very soon (Mark 9. r); the limitations under which he labours at present will disappear

once he has undergone his coming baptism (Luke 12. 50)—a baptism which, in the light of

Mark 10. 38f., can readily be identified with his death. There is a difference here which is

bound up with the differing roles ascribed to Jesus and the Teacher of Righteousness by their

respective disciples….

As the Qumran community owes its character and outlook preeminently to the personality and

teaching of the Teacher of Righteousness, so primitive Christianity owes its being to Jesus.

A comparison of Jesus and the Teacher of Righteousness is difficult because of the

allusiveness of the Qumran references to the Teacher and the uncertainty of any

reconstruction of his career; even the most sceptical assessment of the historical element in

the Gospels among contemporary New Testament students leaves us with much more definite

information about the historical Jesus than the Qumran documents provide about the Teacher.

One thing must be said: in any such comparison apologetic motives have no place. It is

foolish to imagine that the significance of Jesus can be enhanced by depreciation of one of the

righteous men who went before him. Yet the words “who went before him” are appropriate in

more than a chronological sense. The formulation of Jesus’ indictment which was fastened to

his cross, “The King of the Jews”, indicates that he was held to have made some sort of

messianic claim for himself, and he was certainly proclaimed by his followers very soon

afterwards as the Messiah of Israel. There is no indication that any messianic claim was made

for the Teacher of Righteousness either by himself or by his followers: his role was rather that

of a forerunner of the messianic age, “to make ready for the Lord a people prepared” (cf. Luke

1. 17). Of the manner of his death we have no information, nor yet about any significance that

was attached to it, save that with it a final probationary period of forty years was believed to

begin (CD xx. 14 f.; cf. the implied interpretation of the forty years of Ps. 95. 10 in Heb. 3.

7ff.).

It is quite uncertain whether his resurrection is implied in the reference to the “standing

up of one who will teach righteousness in the end of days” (CD vi. to f.); it is, indeed, quite

uncertain whether the Qumran community held the doctrine of resurrection or not. But it is

nowhere suggested that, if such an expectation was entertained with regard to the Teacher, he

ever did rise again or that anyone thought he did so. Apart from his qualities as an organizer and leader of men, his main service to his followers appears to have been his creative biblical

exegesis. Jesus too taught his followers the principles of a creative biblical exegesis, and

while they might not have regarded this as his main service to them, it provided them with the

framework for understanding and declaring the meaning of his person and work.

Another essay in this collection deals with the messianic doctrine of the Qumran community.

Here it may suffice to say that the messianic doctrine of Qumran, especially as it related to the

Messiah of Israel and his career of conquest, was repudiated by Jesus as decisively as other

current forms of messianic expectation. If analogies are sought in Old Testament prophecy for

Jesus’ understanding and fulfilment of his mission, they may be found more readily in a combination of the Servant of Yahweh of Isa. 42-53 and the “one like a son of man” of

Dan. 7. 13 than in the explicit messianic passages.

While the Servant of Yahweh and the Son of Man do not figure expressly in the Qumran

literature, the influence of the biblical passages where they are portrayed can be discerned in

the thought and language of the community. The speaker in some of the Hymns of

Thanksgiving—whether he is the Teacher of Righteousness in person or an anonymous

spokesman of the community—describes his experiences in terms of the obedient and

suffering Servant. More important still: the community as a whole seems to have regarded

itself as called upon corporately to fulfil the Servant’s role. As the Teacher and his followers

devoted themselves to the study and practice of the law of God, as they endured persecution

and privation for righteousness’ sake, they believed that they were accumulating a store of

merit which would be accepted as an atonement for the polluted land of Israel. But they also

believed that, when the “epoch of wickedness” came to an end, it would be their privilege to

be God’s instruments in the execution of judgement against the ungodly (cf. 1 QpHab. v. 3-6).

These two phases of corporate fulfilment of prophecy may be compared with Jesus’ words

about the Son of Man, on the one hand suffering rejection and giving his life a ransom for

many, on the other hand coming in glory to acknowledge faithful confessors and to disown

the faithless in the presence of God and the holy angels. The corporate aspect is not absent

from the Gospels: Jesus speaks of his followers as both sharing his cup of passion and sharing

his throne of glory with him.
 
 

#9. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Doctrine by Matthew Black D.D., F.B.A.

Principal of St. Mary’s College and Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of St Andrews

The Ethel M. Wood Lecture delivered before the University of London on 8 February 1966

The Dead Sea scrolls ‘are documents of prime importance for the understanding of

the New Testament and present a challenge which Christian scholars will neglect at

their peril’.1 The relevance and importance of the scrolls for the study of Christian

beginnings, doctrinal as well as historical, is now widely recognized. The ‘battle’ of

the scrolls, moreover, seems largely to have moved away from questions of date and

history―though these are still fundamental and few of them yet resolved―to

doctrinal or theological issues where there is every indication that these will be as

hotly contested as the fundamental problems of history and dates.

At the moment, however, the most urgent need is not for controversy, but for clarification; and my

main purpose in this lecture is to seek to clarify some of the debated theological

issues as well as to report several of my own conclusions. The scrolls are important

for Christian doctrine: but there is a very real danger that this importance may be

exaggerated, and a distorted, even false, picture given of their doctrines as well as

their dates. I may add that I am also acutely aware of the difficulties and

complexities of the subject; and these I do not think can be exaggerated.

I have two preliminary remarks to make. Firstly, I assume that the scrolls are to be

dated not later than the end of the first Christian century, or, at the latest, the early

decades of the second. Some of the scrolls, at any rate, must therefore be contemporary with New Testament writings, others are undoubtedly earlier. Secondly, the

favourite identification of the sect is with the Essenes, a large body of whom is located by

ancient historians near the Dead Sea. The theory has been challenged, most recently by

Professor Driver,2 and can no longer, it seems to me, be maintained without qualification. The

modification I would accept is that the Essene group who held the fort at Qumran at the

outbreak of the First Revolt (and thus the last custodians of the scrolls) had ceased, at least in their leadership and dominant elements, to be the pacific ascetics idealized by Josephus and

Philo; they had by then thrown in their lot with Zealot and Pharisaic groups…

It is now common knowledge that the Qumran sect believed in two Messiahs, a priestly

Messiah and a secular leader or royal Messiah, more in line with the orthodox conception of

traditional Judaism. In addition, a third individual has figured prominently in the discussion of

the scrolls, the so-called Teacher of Righteousness.

Apart from the fact that he was the founder of the sect and some kind of teacher of the Law (the term, which is ambiguous, really means ‘the Rightful Teacher [of the Law]’) his identity has baffled scholars, and there is still no general agreement as to who he was or when he flourished: the most recent solution of the problem is still sub judice.4

One school of interpreters claims that he too was a Messiah, or rather, it is claimed that the sect believed that he would arise or ‘return’ ‘at the end of the days’ as the priestly Messiah of the sect. Where so much is still. obscure it is not surprising to find even more extravagant claims being made:

indeed, a whole mythology has now grown up around the Teacher of Righteousness, based on

the slenderest of evidence, such as that he was crucified, appeared in a theophany to his

followers, rose again from the dead, and so on; and the portrait of Christ in the Gospels is then

made out to be a second-hand copy of a Qumran original…

The idea that the Qumran sect believed in some form of messianic atonement is one of the

most fiercely contested in scroll interpretation. That the scrolls do attest some kind of

atonement ‘for the nation’, that is, for Israel, through human suffering, in this case the

persecutions of the sect, is not in dispute and I take the homologoumena first before turning

to the antilegomena.

One must begin by recognizing that the concept of atonement is a large one, capable of

embracing a variety of not necessarily related ideas. In the Manual of Discipline, for

instance, the individual makes atonement for his own sins by renewed obedience to the Law;

elsewhere it is God who makes atonement (CD v.5). One disputed passage speaks of the Messiah as making atonement (CD xviii.8-9), and I shall return to this passage shortly.

The idea is also closely connected with the doctrine of grace; and in the Hymns of Thanksgiving

we encounter again and again a deep spiritual insight in this connection found elsewhere only

in the great prophets, or the Psalms, and the New Testament; it is a spirit of almost

evangelical piety―man has no righteousness of his own except what God confers on him.19

Evidence for the atoning efficacy of the sufferings of the spiritual leaders of the sect is

incontrovertible and specially noteworthy use is made of Second Isaiah. At fol: viii in the

Manual of Discipline special mention is made of fifteen men, twelve laymen and three

priests, who are said to be ‘perfect in all that is revealed from the whole Torah’…

It is a fairly general assumption among scroll interpreters that the Qumran doctrine

of the Last Things―its eschatology―is substantially that of the New Testament

writings. The Qumran Essenes shared, we are told, with the early Church the same

kind of beliefs in the imminence of the Last Judgement, the coming of the Kingdom

of God, the End of the world, in heaven and hell, in rewards and punishments in an

after-life, etc.

In general it may certainly be said that there is a larger area of common ground here

between Qumran Judaism and the New Testament than between the New Testament

and any other branch of Judaism: but the situation is more complicated than can be

conveyed in such general terms, for, as in the New Testament itself, there are diverse tendencies as well as development within Qumran eschatological doctrine. What

began as a political programme or goal, for instance, albeit a goal to be reached in

God’s own time and by His will ‘at the end of the days’, namely the national

recognition of the claims of the sect as the body representing the true Israel, tended

to find increasing expression in apocalyptic language and imagery so that the End

Time became, as in the New Testament, a cosmic drama of Judgement.

No sharp line of distinction, however, can be drawn between an other-worldly eschatology and the

political aspirations of the sect even in their wildest dreams of world dominion. The

birth-pangs of the new age, the Kingdom of God, were to be the death-throes of the

old age, the overthrow of the dominion of Satan represented by the kingdoms of this

world…

The Qumran doctrine of salvation, along with its closely related doctrine of man―again and

again we are reminded of the frailty and inherent sinfulness of man apart from Godis central

in Qumran belief. As in the Psalter and the great Prophets, man is always seen in his

difference and distance from God but by God’s mercy and by his sustaining and enabling

power man can transcend his own weakness to become like one of the angelic beings

themselves. The foundations are here for the Pauline doctrine of ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ and

‘adoption’ as ‘children’ or ‘sons of God’. (Romans viii. 14 f.)
 
 

#10 Qumran and the Old Testament by F.F. Bruce Presidential Address, 2 June 1959

The Qumran documents include an abundance of material bearing on the Old

Testament―Hebrew texts, Greek texts, Targums and commentaries.

(1) Over 200 copies of Old Testament books in the Hebrew (or Aramaic) original have been

identified among the more than 500 books represented by the Qumran finds. Most of these

have survived only as fragments, but there are a few reasonably complete copies, such as

Isaiah A from Cave I and the copies of Leviticus and the Psalms from Cave XI. All twentyfour

books of the Hebrew Bible are represented with the exception of Esther; there are also

fragments of some books of the Apocrypha.

(2) Some Septuagint fragments of two manuscripts of Leviticus and one of Numbers have

been identified from Cave IV; Cave VII has yielded fragments of the Septuagint text of

Exodus and also of the Epistle of Jeremiah, which appears in most editions of the Apocrypha

as the last chapter of Baruch, although it is an independent composition.1

(3) Of all the Targumic material found, greatest interest attaches to the Targum of Job found

in Cave XI, because we have independent evidence for the existence of a written Targum of

this book in the period of the Second Temple, which Gamalel I ordered to be built into the

temple walls2 (presumably not later than A.D. 63, when Herod’s temple was finally completed). We remember, too, the note appended to the Septuagint text of Job which is said to have been ‘translated from the Syriac book’ (probably from an Aramaic Targum).

 Fragments of a Leviticus Targum (xvi. 12-15, 18-21) have been found in Cave IV.

The Genesis Apocryphon from Cave I certainly contains Targumic sections, although J. T.

Milik says that it is ‘no true Targum’.3 Other scholars, however, disagree with him; M. Black,

working out a hint dropped by P. Kahle, says that it ‘is almost certainly our oldest written

Palestinian Pentateuch Targum’.4

(4) One of the most important groups of writings found at Qumran consists of commentaries

(pesharim) on various Old Testament books or parts of books. These not only tell us much about the biblical interpretation and religious outlook of the Qumran sectaries, but also have a

contribution of their own to snake to the history of the biblical text.

In the light of these different species of Qumran literature we now propose to consider what

can be learned about (a) the literary criticism of Old Testament books; (b) the text of the Old

Testament; (c) the canon of the Old Testament; (d) the interpretation of the Old Testament

current at Qumran…

To be sure, the Qumran evidence does appear to refute conclusively arguments to the effect

that the book of Isaiah did not receive its present form until after the Maccabaean revolt. We

may think, for instance, of R. H. Kennett’s suggestion5 that the portrayal of the Suffering

Servant in Isaiah Iii. 13-liii. 12 was inspired by the martyrdom of faithful Jews under

Antiochus Epiphanes (between 168 and 164 B.C.), or of B. Dulun’s dating6 of the ‘Isaiah

Apocalypse’ (Isa. xxiv-xxvii) in the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-104 B.C.). If we now have a

copy of the book of Isaiah, complete with Servant Songs and ‘Isaiah Apocalypse’, assignable

on palaeographical grounds to the general period of the Maccabaean rising, there is no further

need of argument. So, at least, one might have thought; but in a book actually dealing with the

Qumran discoveries one French scholar hazarded the suggestion that the portrayal of the

Suffering Servant could have been based on the historical experience of the Teacher of

Righteousness, the revered leader of the Qumran community, whose death he placed between

66 and 63 B.C.!7…

The text of the Old Testament has come down to us along three principal lines of

transmission.

There is, first of all, the Massoretic Hebrew text.9 This is the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible which is commonly supposed to have been fixed by

Jewish scholars in the days of Rabbi Aqiba (c. A.D. 100), the text to which the Massoretes of

the sixth to ninth centuries A.D. affixed an elaborate apparatus of signs which standardised

the pronunciation, punctuation and (up to a point) interpretation of the text. Although the

earliest surviving manuscripts of this text belong, with fragmentary exceptions,10 to the ninth

century A.D., we have witnesses to its earlier stages in quotations in the Mishnah and

Talmud, in the Midrashim and Targumim, and in the Syriac (Peshitta) and Latin (Vulgate)

versions of the Old Testament.

There is, secondly, the Greek version of the Old Testament commonly called the Septuagint,

produced in Alexandria in Egypt in the last two or three centuries B.C., and reflecting a

Hebrew text which sometimes deviates from that of the Massoretes, and which may

reasonably be labelled as an Egyptian text-type.

Thirdly, so far as the Pentateuch is concerned, there is the Samaritan Bible, an edition of the

Hebrew text which has for at least 2,000 years been preserved along a lime of transmission

quite independent of the Massoretic text of the Jews. Before the discovery of the Qumran

texts, P. Kahle expressed the view that the Samaritan Bible, apart from certain adaptations in

the interest of Samaritan claims, is in the main a popular revision of an older text, in which

antiquated forms and constructions, not familiar to people of later times, were replaced by

forms and constructions easier to be understood, difficulties were removed, parallel passages

were inserted’.11

The discovery at Qumran of biblical texts a thousand years older than the earliest Hebrew

biblical manuscripts previously known naturally gave rise to considerable excitement and

speculation, especially as the possibility of our ever finding Hebrew biblical manuscripts

substantially earlier than the Massoretic period had been dismissed for all practical purposes

by the highest authorities.12 The general reader of the Bible asked if the new discoveries

involved much alteration in the traditional text of the Old Testament; the specialist asked to

which, if to any, of the known text-types the newly discovered texts could be assigned…

The best-preserved biblical manuscript from Cave IV is a copy of. Samuel in Hebrew (4Q

Sam. A). This scroll originally contained fifty-seven colunms, of which parts of forty-seven

survive. It is of particular interest, because not only does it exhibit very much the type of text

which the Septuagint translator of Samuel must have used, but a type of text closer to that

which the author of Chronicles appears to have used in the compilation of his work than to the

M.T. of Samuel. P. W. Skehan16 suggests that the M.T. of Samuel is a ‘scissored’ text, in

which certain material has been removed from an earlier ‘vulgar’ text of which 4Q Samuel A

and the Septuagint together give us information.

Among the prophetical books, Jeremiah shows the greatest divergence between the Septuagint

and M.T., the Septuagint attesting a shorter text. Thus shorter text is exhibited in a Hebrew

copy from Cave IV (4Q Jer. B), but the longer recension is also represented at Qumran

A fragmentary scroll of Exodus from Cave IV, written in palaeo-Hebrew script, shows a type

of text hitherto regarded as distinctively Samaritan. The Samaritan text is characterised by

expansions, only a few of which reflect a sectarian tendency. This scroll exhibits all the

Samaritan expansions for the area which it covers, except the supplement to the Tenth

Commandment at the end of Exodus xx. 17, which is one of the expansions where a sectarian

tendency is evident. There is thus nothing sectarian about this scroll, and its evidence

confirms Dr Kahle’s suggestion, quoted above, that the Samaritan Pentateuch in essence is a

popular recension of the traditional text.

The well-known document 4Q Testimonia, which brings together a number of ‘messianic’

proof-texts from the Old Testament, quotes as its first proof-text part of the expanded

Samaritan text of Exodus xx. 21, where the words ‘Moses drew near unto the thick darkness

where God was’ are followed by a conflation of Deuteronomy v. 28 £ and Deuteronomy xviii.

18 f…

The biblical manuscripts proper are not the only Qumran documents which provide us with

the information about the biblical text; indeed, reference has already been made in this respect

to 4Q Testimonia, which is not a biblical manuscript in the strict sense. The biblical

commentaries are also useful in this respect, the more so because the commentators make

skilful use of textual variants. Where one variant suits a commentator’s purpose better than

another, he will use it, although his exposition may show plainly that he is well aware of an

alternative reading. Out of several instances that might be given, let one suffice…

As between the three main text-types, that which developed in due course into the Massoretic

is superior to the other two. In a considerable number of places the new discoveries have

helped us to emend it, or have confirmed emendations previously conjectured; but in general

neither the Septuagint Vorlage nor the Samaritan text can approach the proto-Massoretec for accuracy.

It is evident that down to the end of the Second Commonwealth no one text-type was fixed as authoritative among Palestinian Jews, even in so strict a community as that of Qumran. But when, about the end of the first century A.D., a uniform consonantal text was fixed by Aqiba and his fellow-rabbis, it is clear that they proceeded with sound judgment. It is significant, by the way, that the biblical Hebrew manuscripts found in the Murabba‘at caves, whose presence there evidently dates from the years of the second Jewish revolt against Rome (A.D. 132-135), uniformly exhibit one texttype― the text―type recently standardised by Aqiba and others, the text-type which some

centuries later formed the basis on which the Massoretes worked…

It is difficult to make a definite pronouncement on the limits of the biblical canon recognised

by the Qumran community. It is clear that they recognised the Law and the Prophets as

divinely inspired. The commentaries which are written on those books, or on excerpts from

them, presuppose that they are to be treated as divine oracles, whose interpretation was a

closely-guarded mystery until it was made known in the latter days to the Teacher of

Righteousness. The Psalter was evidently accorded the same recognition as the Law and the

Prophets. But what about the other books in the third division of the Hebrew Bible―the

‘Writings’? We cannot simply infer that they were regarded as canonical from the fact that all

of them (except Esther) are represented in the Qumran literature, for many other books are

represented in the Qumran literature. The Qumran library evidently included many

apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic works which enjoyed considerable prestige in certain

sections of the population of Judaea in those days, such as Jubilees and I Enoch,18 which

appear to be closely related to the distinctive theology of Qumran. It also included fragments

of Tobit (in Aramaic and Hebrew), of Ecclesiasticus (in Hebrew) and, as we have already

mentioned, of the Epistle of Jeremiah (in Greek)…

What can be said about the fact that thus far no fragment of Esther has turned up at Qumran?

Obviously no sound inference can be built upon the argument from silence. Its nonappearance

among the Qumran texts may be accidental. On the other hand, we know that its

right to a place in the sacred canon was questioned in some Jewish quarters,20 as also later in

some Christian quarters,21 and it would not be surprising if it were not accepted at Qumran…

And these

criteria may, with due caution, be used to throw light on ambiguous references in other

Qumran texts. The Qumran commentaries plainly do not give us much help in understanding

the Old Testament. But the serious student of Scripture can never fail to be interested in what

was thought of its meaning by serious students of earlier days; and in this regard the Qumran

commentaries on the Old Testament have opened a new world for our exploration.
 
 

#11 Qumran and the New Testament by F.F. Bruce Presidential Address, 2 June 1958

The most varied answers are given when we ask students of the Qumran texts what affinities

exist between these texts and the New Testament. We are told that there are no affinities

whatsoever; we are told that the career and passion of Jesus represent an ‘astonishing

remcarnatiou’1―or, on the other hand, a pale reflection―of the activity and death of the

Teacher of Righteousness; we are told that Jesus Himself was the Teacher of Righteousness

of the Qumran texts, that the men of Qumran were Jewish Christians and that the Wicked

Priest was the Apostle Paul;2 we are told that the Qumran discoveries conclusively prove that

Jesus never existed at all.3

All these answers cannot be true. But the intelligent layman need not stand in bewilderment

before them, wondering which (if any) he is to believe. Much of the material on which these

divergent accounts are based is accessible to him in one or more translations,4 and while some

of these translations are defective in one way or another, he can see that some of the answers

which. are offered to him have little or no substantial foundation, while others deserve more

serious attention.

One difficulty, with which we cannot deal here in detail, concerns the dating not only of the

scrolls but of the original works which they reproduce, and not only of these works but of the

persons and events referred to in them. In particular, to which generation should we assign the

Teacher of Righteousness, the effective founder of the Qumran community? Did he meet his

death under Antiochus Epiphanes (175-163 B.C.)? Did he flourish under one of the

Hasnnonean rulers; and if so, should we date his ministry in the second half of the second

century B.C. or in the first half of the first century? Or should we bring him down to the

Roman period, even to the point of identifying him with Menahem, son of Judas the

Galilaean, whose attempt to seize supreme power in Jerusalem in the autumn of A.D. 66 came to an end when he was captured and killed by Eleazar, captain of the temple, and his followers?5 It is clear that, to some extent at least, these chronological problems must affect the relevance of the Qumran literature for New Testament studies…

The men of Qumran went out to their wilderness retreat in order to organise themselves as a

new Israel, rather after the fashion of the tribes under the leadership of Moses. The nation as a

whole had proved unfaithful to the covenant with the God of their fathers, but these men

regarded themselves as the righteous remnant of the nation, the hope of the future, a miniature

Israel, whose faithfulness would be accepted by God as a propitiation for the unfaithfulness of

the nation at large. They attached special importance to the maintenance of the priestly and

levitical classes, in order that, when the new age dawned, a pure sacrificial worship might be

restored without delay and administered by those who had not gone astray as the majority of

the priests had done.

The believing community of New Testament times similarly regarded itself as a new Israel, ‘a

remnant, chosen by grace’ (Rom. xi. 5), ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,

God’s own people’ (1 Pet. ii. 9). The kingdom of God had been taken away from those who

had shown themselves unworthy of their trust, and given to ‘a nation producing the fruits of

it’ (Matt. xxi. 44). But instead of maintaining distinct priestly and levitical classes, as the

Qumran community did, the Christian community was taught to consider itself corporately as

‘a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ’ (1 Pet.

ii. 5). Both communities regarded themselves as the people of the new covenant, but the

Qumran community thought of the new covenant as a restoration of the old one.

The Qumran community, moreover, lived in the conviction that the end of the age then

present, the ‘epoch of wickedness’, was at hand. Its thought and life were dominated by this

eschatological conviction…

Here we find a striking parallel with something that is emphasised time and again in the New

Testament. The age of fulfilment has dawned. The prophets who foretold the blessing into

which Christians were to enter ‘searched and inquired about this salvation; they inquired what

person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the

sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory’ (1 Pet. i. 10 f.). Much had been revealed to

those prophets, but not everything. But those Christians to whom Peter wrote these words had

no need to search and inquire in order to ascertain what person or time was indicated by the

prophecies; they knew. The person was Jesus; the time was the time in which they were

living. Words spoken by Peter on another occasion sum up the early Christian attitude to the

Old Testament: ‘This is what was spoken by the prophet’ (Acts ii. 16). And again: ‘Moses...

and all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came afterwards, also proclaimed these days’ (Acts iii. 22, 24)…

Here, then, we have an important point of resemblance between the founder of the Qumran

community and the founder of the Christian community, in that each imparted to the

community which he founded its distinctive principles of Old Testament exegesis. But every

time that we observe a resemblance between the two founders or the two communities, we

observe a contrast within the resemblance; and such a contrast is apparent here. To the early

Christians Jesus was the central theme of Old Testament revelation, which indeed found its

fulfilment in Him. But to the Qumran sectaries the Teacher of Righteousness, while he was

certainly a subject of Old Testament prophecy, was not its central subject; Old Testament

prophecy reached out beyond him for its fulfilment. For Jesus appeared to His followers as

the Messiah, to whole all the prophets bore witness (John v. 39; Acts x. 43); the Teacher of

Righteousness, in spite of the great veneration with which his followers regarded him, was not

the Messiah―not even a Messiah. He was to them pre-eminently just what they called

him―the Teacher of Righteousness…

A number of Qumran documents show us the form which messianic expectation took at

Qumran; and it is reasonable to suppose that the community learned its messianic expectation,

as it learned so much besides, from the Teacher of Righteousness. This expectation was directed towards two distinct individuals who would arise in the end-time―a great priest and

a great king. The great priest, the ‘Messiah of Aaron’, would be the head of the state in the

new age.8 The great king, the ‘Messiah of Israel’, was the promised prince of the house of

David who would lead the people of God to victory over all their enemies in the

eschatological warfare which the prophets had predicted. In the new age he would be

subordinate to the ‘Messiah of Aaron’. With these two Messiahs was associated a third figure,

who did not, however, receive the messianic title; this was a great prophet, the second Moses

of Deuteronomy xviii. 15 ff.

While the Qumran community, to judge by the literature thus far published, never seems to

have reached the point at which they believed the Messiah (or Messiahs) to have come, the

New Testament is dominated by the announcement that the Messiah has come. And while the

Qumran community distinguished the prophet, the priest and the king who were to arise at the

end of the age as three individual personages, the New Testament presents Jesus as the

prophet of whom Moses spoke, the heir to David’s throne, and die perpetual priest of

Melchizedek’s order acclaimed in Psalm cx. 4. The traditional Christian doctrine of the

‘threefold office’ of Christ goes back to the earliest days. Jesus, of course, could not be

regarded as a ‘Messiah of Aaron’ because He did not belong to the tribe of Levi; the one New

Testament document which enlarges on the priestly aspect of His messianic work funds Old

Testament authority for ascribing to Him a greater priesthood than Aaron’s.10…

The Qumran community, too, attached great importance to the Old Testament figures of the

Servant of the Lord and the Son of man, but they do not appear to have interpreted them

messianically…

Considerable interest has been aroused by the discovery of certain affinities of thought and

language between the Qumran texts and St. John’s Gospel.14 However do these affinities may be evaluated, they provide additional

evidence in support of the basically Hebraic character of this Gospel. They must not be

exaggerated; and it might be good to bear in mind that practically every new discovery in

Near Eastern religious literature of the late B.C. and early A.D. epoch has been hailed by

someone as supplying the key to the problem of this Gospel. The Old Testament rather than

the Qumran literature is the sourcebook of the Fourth Evangelist, but it is the Old Testament

as fulfilled by Jesus. The Old Testament is also the source-book of the Qumran literature, but

it is the Old Testament as it had passed through the mind of the Teacher of Righteousness and

perhaps other interpreters of similar outlook. The opposition between light and darkness (to

take one instance of the dualistic phraseology which the Qumran literature and this Gospel

have in common) goes back ultimately to the first chapter of Genesis. Yet the way in which

light and darkness, truth and falsehood, and so forth are opposed in the Rule of the Community, for example, reminds us particularly of the language of the Johamnine Gospel

and Epistles…

Another New Testament document in which affinities have been traced with the Qumran sect

is the Epistle to the Hebrews. Dr. Yigael Yadin, in particular, has argued that the ‘Hebrews’

named in the traditional title of this epistle were Jews originally belonging to the Qumran

sect, who were converted to Christianity but carried with them into Christianity some of their

former beliefs and practices, with which the writer takes issue. Among these beliefs Dr. Yadin

makes special reference to the idea of the angels’ eschatological rôle (Heb. ii. 5), and to the

conceptions of a priestly Messiah and of the prophet to appear in the last days. ‘It is my

sincere hope,’ he says, ‘that more competent students in the field of NT studies will either

refute this suggestion or, if they agree to it―wholly or partially―will submit more data in its

support.’18

In the form in which Dr. Yadin defends his thesis, it probably cannot be sustained. But the

material which he has adduced must be added to the evidence already at our disposal for the

presence in the early Roman church of elements derived from sectarian Judaism. Such

elements are attested, for example, by the Apostolic Tradition ascribed to Hippolytus, early in

the third century A.D. And there is little doubt in my mind that the Epistle to the Hebrews was

written to a Jewish-Christian group in Rome in the sixties of the first century…

These are not the only parts of the New Testament which present parallels with the Qumran

literature. Resemblances between the Qumran community and the milieu in which the First

Gospel took shape have been traced by Krister Stendahl in The School of St. Matthew (1954).

It may well be that some of Luke’s special material was derived from Christian circles sharing

in certain respects the outlook of Qumran. And Paul’s use of the Old Testament occasionally

reminds one of the methods of the Qumran commentators. But these and related fields of

study cannot be surveyed here.

There is some reason to believe that, when the Qumran community was broken up towards

A.D. 70 (as archaeological evidence indicates), some of its members (together perhaps with

members of other Essene groups) made common cause with another body of refugees―the

fugitive Church of Jerusalem which left its doomed metropolis and settled east of the Jordan.

Some of the distinctive features o£ those Ebionites, as they are described by Christian writers

of later generations, could be accounted for in terms of influences exercised by such a body as

the Qumran community.20…

Finally, we should be restrained from premature dogmatism when we consider how

fragmentary is our knowledge of the Qumran community as yet. Indeed, when everything that

has been discovered is published―and this will be the work of years―the realisation that

even that is but a fragment of what the library originally contained will continue to impose

counsels of caution. But one thing is sure: the real differentia of Christianity is the person and

achievement of Jesus (not, as is popularly supposed, His teaching by itself); and the

appreciation of His essential uniqueness which the new knowledge has underscored is likely to be enhanced, not diminished, as further additions are made to this knowledge.
 
 

#12 NEW TESTAMENT FRAGMENTS AT QUMRAN? By C. J. HEMER

The recent publication by J. O'Callaghan of suggested identifications

of New Testament texts among the Greek fragments

from Cave 7 at Qumran1. and the early dates assigned to them

on palaeographical grounds will doubtless be rigorously sifted

in every facet.

The purpose of the present note is limited to raising one

question of method. Some of the fragments are very tiny. Would

it be possible to offer alternative identifications of any of them?

I acknowledge the meticulous skill as well as the ingenuity of

the restorations, and allow that when one larger fragment has

been plausibly attributed to Mark the possibility is raised in

other cases. The whole argument will indeed be strengthened

if several associated items, each securely and exclusively identified,

corroborate each other.

It may however be that when one unexpected and attractive

identification has been made it becomes easier in more doubtful

cases to find what one is now looking for. But what sort of

mathematical chances are there against finding suitable letter

sequences in other, even chronologically impossible, texts, and

of producing hypothetical 'restorations' to fit them?...

So the essence of the experiment is to evaluate the chances

of finding in any text, irrespective of date, provenance or

content, the sequence EIT followed at a distance of about 20

letters by ΛH, subject only to a plausible manipulation of the

lineation to fit the incidence of word and syllable divisions and

punctuation spaces.

We may note the natural frequency of these groupings,

particularly the first, which is liable to occur freely both within

and between words. (a) The sequence EIT has several contexts,

e.g. (i) in the second person plural contracted –εῖτε; (ii) in the

third person ending -ει-τ- (often an accusative article preceding

the object); (iii) in various conjunctions and adverbs

like εἴτε, εἶτε, ἔπειτα, or in εἰ, ἐπεί + τόν etc.; (iv) in such

formations as πολ(ε)ίτης, ὁπλ(ε)ίτης, and numerous ethnics like

Ἰεροσολυμ(ε)ίτης. The interchange of ι and ει is habitual in

first-century orthography and no special justification of this

case is necessary…

It could

doubtless be shown that the doubtful traces of other letters in

the fragment would exclude the viability of either of these

readings. But the experiment will still serve to make a broader

point. The possibility of two such identically arranged reconstructions

within so short a passage poses a question. The chances

of coincidence are too great. May not any identifications of

such brief fragments be open to the objection that alternatives

are too easy to come by? It may be too easy to find the answer

in Mark if one is seeking it there.

The point may be pressed a little further. If the fragment had

indeed been of 2 Thessalonians, the preservation of the whole

word ἐπιστολῆς would have added nothing to the prospects of

choosing between the two possibilities…

This doubt may however throw into stronger relief the more

impressive case for the assignment of fragments where clearly

legible letters extend over three or four lines. The latitude we

have allowed in line length at once becomes restricted: all must

fit the same norm. And the mathematical chances against

coincidence are multiplied for each additional line. It would be

far harder to locate in a text five lines of two clear letters each,

but if a place is found it is more likely to be correct.
 
 

#13 The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Formation of the Canon by Francis I. Andersen

It is now twelve months since Dr. J. Philip Hyatt, in his Presidential address to the Society of

Biblical Literature and Exegesis reviewed the progress of the study of the Dead Sea

materials.1 He expressed one of his challenges in these words: “The whole question of

canonicity, and the date of fixing the canon, will have to be restudied.” The aim of this paper

is to indicate, in a tentative way, some of the matters that might be involved in such a line of

study. The time has scarcely come for aiming at final conclusions, and they will be avoided

here. For one thing, the dust of misleading controversy has scarcely subsided, and further, all

the relevant materials are not yet fully published. Textual criticism is an exacting discipline,

and it will be some time before its results are certain. And even now the literature has become

so extensive that only a specialist could hope to do it justice.2

The situation may be clarified and the difficulty of the task indicated by stating simply that

the Qumran discoveries and related finds have not thrown any direct light on the history of the

formation of the canon of the Old Testament. That is, there is no explicit discussion of the

formal concept of canonicity, and certainly no lists of canonical books. The light that they

throw is indirect, but none the less valuable and significant for that―the danger is that being

less tangible, more elusive, it is more open to misconstruction and misinterpretation, as we

shall see.

It has been fully recognized that these sources help to fill in the background of New

Testament times, supplying needed information about pre-Christian and pre-rabbinic Judaism.

As such their importance cannot be exaggerated. In relation to the canon they show us what

scriptures existed, and in what tests, and, more appositely, how they were regarded and used

by a community of Jewish sectaries of those days. Not much attention seems to have been

paid to the problem of what (tacit) doctrine of scripture was held by the covenanters of

Qumran. The importance of this for the study of New Testament backgrounds is obvious, yet

most writers who have treated this subject have been content to list numerous parallels

between the N. T. and the DSS, and to evaluate the evidence for a closer or remoter

connection between them. While it is important that these small details be clarified early in

our research, the broader and deeper theological issue of revelation and authority within the

two movements needs to be examined. Gaster, for instance, does not include such a point in

his list of similarities between the N. T. and the DSS.3 The same must be said of Murphy’s

recent and admirable review of “The New Testament in the light of the Scrolls and the

Fragments”.4…

All this is a little too theological for our immediate aim of investigation, but it needs to be

said to avoid the danger of seeing too much in outward similarities, and to avoid surprise that

two movements contiguous in space and time, and with so much in common, could yet be two

totally distinct worlds. It was Christ who made the difference, and he transformed everything.

There is nothing like him to be found at Qumran, not even as an extravagant hope. And for us

he has transformed the doctrine of Scripture, even as his gift of his Spirit to the Church has

transformed the role of Scripture in the world.

1. The Qumran covenanters were clearly a Bible-centered, Bible-revering, Bible-studying

sect. There is nothing remarkable about this for Judaism. It is not surprising that there is no

explicit discussion of the extent or nature of their sacred scriptures, since it was probably

taken for granted. Sectaries tend to emphasize their peculiar beliefs to justify their separation,

and the men of Qumran did that too; but scripture was common ground with other Jewish

groups. But is there any indirect way of telling what their Bible was? They owned and used

not only books of the (later) Palestinian Canon, but also many that later found their way into

the so-called Alexandrian Canon, I.e., books recognized by the Roman Church as

deuterocanonical, designated Apocrypha by the Reformed churches. In addition, they had

works of the kind usually called pseudepigraphical, some known from elsewhere, some not

otherwise attested. Besides these they had a literature of their own which was probably the

product of the movement. This last group covers a remarkably wide range of literary

genres―commentary, psalm, handbooks of discipline and of war (?). The movement clearly

attached the greatest importance to the written word, and the archaeological recovery of their

scriptorium in what was evidently the headquarters of this group, discloses the prominence of

copying as an activity of the members.

We do not 2 know how individual members studied the scriptures.6 There is no evidence that they

enjoyed liberty of interpretation or that the sect prized mystical insight or used it as a key to

the meaning of Scripture.7 This shows that they had no notion of the sufficiency of Scripture.

To them study was the inculcation of the esoteric wisdom peculiar to the sect; they were

instructed in the orthodox sectarian interpretations which, while they were imparted to lay

initiants, could not be discussed in public.8…

There is no point in enumerating the evidence here, except in so far as it provides a valuable

introduction to the same issue in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is the way Jesus and his followers

used and quoted scripture that shows what was their Bible. The Law certainly. The Law and

the Prophets are mentioned together very often as if they composed the whole of Scripture. In

one place only in the N.T. are the so-called three divisions referred to (Lk. 24:44), and even

here it is not certain that “the psalms” meant the full set of Writings. Indeed, in the New

Testament, there is no precise name for Holy Scripture. The terms “Law” (given even to a

Psalm), “Prophets” (so that Moses and David are called “prophets”) or both together, seem to

refer at times to the whole body of Scripture, as well as being used more exactly, and the

same formulae of quotation are used indiscriminately for passages from all parts of the Old

Testament.

What makes this New Testament practice so interesting to us is its remarkable similarity to

the references to Scripture in the writings of the Qumran Covenanters.17 The Manual of

Discipline begins with the aims of the movement: “To live in the order of the Community; to

seek God... to do what is good and upright in His sight, in accordance with what He has

commanded through Moses and through His servants the prophets...” There are other places

where the Torah and the Nebi’im are referred to thus in conjunction…

But here, no more than in the New Testament, can we assume that “Prophets” means

precisely the eight books of the later Jewish Canon. It is true that the interest of the group was

focussed particularly on the great prophets, Isaiah being their favourite;23 and in relation to

these two major interests of the Covenanters, the non-prophetic writings of the Old Testament

had less to offer directly, so that their smaller use is understandable. But we cannot conclude

from this that for them the so-called writings were uncanonical, even in whatever sense they would have given to that term.

We shall look at some more tangible evidence for this point in a moment, but before doing so we

must observe in general that the non-biblical writings among the Dead Sea Scrolls abound

with quotations from the length and breadth of Scripture.24 In view of their abundant use of

works later called “Writings”, it is remarkable that they have no term to apply to this group,

unless it be the term “prophets”. This may be considered probable, and if it is true, it means

that the later three-fold distinction did not exist for the Qumranites, and that the term

“Prophets” meant all the Scripture except the Law.25 This is very similar to the New

Testament. We may note, too, that although Josephus mentions three groups, he places

everything outside the Law in the era of prophecy.26…

No trace of Esther has been found among the scrolls.

Another line of investigation will aim at discovering what the Covenanters thought of the text

as such. A clearer notion of a canonical work, and its use as a court of appeal in argument, a

guide to life, a source of proof-texts for dogma, brings naturally an increased concern for its

literal form. There can be no final appeal to a text if there is no agreement as to what the text

is. This enquiry in relation to the people of Qumran must wait until present studies have

permitted us to rewrite the entire history of the transmission of the Hebrew Text. There are

indications that the variations shown by the Dead Sea Scrolls point not to liberty or

carelessness on their part, but to the existence of important text-types which they, for their

part, copied with the utmost fidelity, striving to preserve the purity of the text even in minute

particulars of pronunciation.

The indications of a text of Isaiah with a Babylonian background, the enhancement of the value of many readings hitherto attested only in the versions, and especially the evidence that the Septuagint is a faithful translation of a Hebrew text with Egyptian elements, may enable us not only to push the history of textual transmission back by several centuries, but to infer also that scrupulous copying (and the notion of scripture which demand it) is much older than has been commonly believed Meanwhile, in summary, we may tentatively conclude that while the men of Qumran

recognized the authority of all the main books of the Old Testament, we do not know what

they thought of some of the smaller ones, nor how they compared in their estimation with the

more popular extra-canonical books, some of which they valued highly. All must be placed in

the light of the fact that what mattered to the Covenanters was not the Law and the Prophets

as such, but their own esoteric interpretations of them; these were largely due to the Teacher of Righteousness, and the (Zadokite) priests, and were closely guarded secrets of the order.

They may not have had a rigidly defined canon, but they certainly did not enjoy any liberty in

the matter of belief.
 

#14 The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewishness of the Gospels by Craig A. Evans Acadia Divinity College

The Jewishness of the Gospels is seen at many points. Jesus is addressed as “Rabbi” (e.g.,

Mk 9:5; 11:21; 14:45 and parallels) or “Rabbouni” (Mk 10:51; Jn 20:16); he has

followers called “disciples” (e.g., Mk 2:15; 3:7; 4:34 and parallels), some of whom he

appoints as “apostles” (e.g., Mk 3:14; 6:30 and parallels), which is a designation in

rabbinic literature of Moses and various prophets “sent” by God (e.g., Exod. Rab. 3.4 [on

Ex 3:12]; 3.14 [on Ex 4:10]);1 and he engages in debates with scribes, Pharisees,

Sadducees, and priests regarding Jewish law and the meaning of Jewish scripture (e.g.,

Mk 2:23–3:6; 7:1–13; 11:27–12:34 and parallels).

Moreover, Jesus proclaims the rule of God and speaks of Israel’s redemption (e.g., Mk 1:14–15 and parallels). Israel’s priority over the nations is assumed (Mk 7:24–30), and is sometimes explicitly asserted (e.g., Mt 10:5–6; 15:24). The geography, topography, and demography of the Jesus story are thoroughly Jewish. Jesus is from Nazareth, is headquartered in Capernaum, teaches by

and frequently crosses the Sea of Galilee, and travels south to Jericho, Judea, and

Jerusalem. Jesus frequents the synagogue, prays, teaches his disciples to pray,2 and

upholds the Jewish law3 (even if his understanding differs from that of his contemporaries4). In short, the Jesus of the Gospels is as Jewish as any figure we know of

from this period.5 The parallels between his teachings and activities and contemporary

Judaism are so numerous that they fill more than 1500 pages in Paul Billerbeck’s

commentary on the Gospels, a commentary based on comparisons with Talmudic and

midrashic literature.6

Not only is Jesus, the central figure of the Gospels, thoroughly Jewish, the Gospels

themselves are Jewish to the core. We see this in the way the Gospel of Matthew begins:

“The book of the genealogy of Jesus Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Mt

1:1; cf. Gen 5:1, “This is the book of the generations of Adam . . .”), followed by a

genealogy patterned after those found in scripture (Mt 1:2, “Abraham was the father of

Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob . . .” etc.; cf. Gen 5:3, “Adam . . . became the father of

. . . Seth” etc.). Matthew’s infancy narrative goes on to tell of Joseph and dreams,

reminiscent of another well-known Joseph, to whom God communicated through dreams

(cf. Gen 37:5–11; 40:1–19; 41:1–36). Punctuating his narrative with a series of fulfilled

prophecies, the Matthean evangelist tells the story of Jesus Messiah’s infancy in terms of

Moses typology, just as the Lukan evangelist punctuates his version of the infancy with

several canticles, whose contents consist mostly of words and phrases drawn from scripture…

The Dead Sea Scrolls have greatly added to our understanding and appreciation of the

Gospels as Jewish literature. The Scrolls are Palestinian, early, written in Hebrew and

Aramaic, and are unquestionably Jewish. Significant parallels between them and the

Christian Gospels should go a long way in confirming the contention here that the

Gospels are thoroughly Jewish, even if at points they are at variance with aspects of

temple and scribal Judaism as it existed prior to 70 C.E. Relevant examples will be cited

for all four Gospels.

Given its overtly Jewish character we should expect the largest number of important

parallels to be found in Matthew, and this appears to be the case. We may consider four:

the first concerns an interpretive approach to scripture, the second a Semitic genre, the

third an ethical theme, and the fourth a common understanding of a specific collocation

of words and phrases from the prophet Isaiah.

(1) Pesher interpretation in the Scrolls and in Matthew. One of the first intriguing

features of the newly discovered Dead Sea Scrolls to gain the attention of scholars was

pesher interpretation. Happily, one well-preserved pesher (“interpretation” or

“commentary”) scroll was found in the first cave, discovered in 1947. Line after line of

the first two chapters of Habakkuk are quoted and then explained: “Its interpretation

concerns” some recent event or some event believed to occur soon. The author of the

Habakkuk Pesher systematically equates various events and personages in Habakkuk

with various events and personages in the era of the Qumran community…

(2) Beatitudes in the Scrolls and in Matthew. One of the best-known features in Jesus’

teaching was his stringing together of several beatitudes (Mt 5:3–12 = Lk 6:20–26).

Couplets of beatitudes are attested in Israel’s scriptures and in other Jewish writings from

late antiquity (e.g., Pss 32:1–2; 84:4–5; 119:1–2; Sir 14:1–2; 25:8–9; Tob 13:13–14), but

it was not until the discovery of 4Q525 that we actually had a Jewish text, apart from the

Gospels themselves, that preserves a string of beatitudes…

Scholars debate how many beatitudes originally made up this list. Obviously, there

were at least five (one more than we find in the Lukan collection). It is speculated that

there may have been seven. The structural similarity is interesting, to be sure, but what is

more interesting are the differences between Jesus’ beatitudes and those of 4Q525. The

beatitudes of this Scroll fit the typical wisdom pattern, whereas Jesus’ beatitudes promise

eschatological justice…

(3) Righteousness in the Scrolls and in Matthew. The various forms of “righteous” and

“righteousness” (including “just” and “justice”) occur hundreds of times in the Scrolls.

These words also appear frequently in the Gospel of Matthew. Especially interesting are

the references to the “teacher of righteousness” who comes in the “last days” (e.g., CD

6:10–11, “the one who teaches righteousness in the last days”; cf. 1QpHab 1:13; 7:4).

This authoritative teacher will instruct the faith faithful? in the true understanding of the

law of God. The parallel with the Matthean presentation of Jesus, especially as we see it

in the Sermon on the Mount, is striking….

(4) Works of the Messiah in the Scrolls and in the Gospels. One of the most startling

parallels between the Scrolls and the Gospels is found in 4Q521. This particular Scroll

fragment lends important support to the contention that Jesus did indeed understand

himself in messianic terms.11 In a passage whose authenticity can scarcely be doubted, an

imprisoned and discouraged John the Baptizer sends to Jesus, asking, “Are you he who is

to come, or do we look for another?” To this question Jesus replies: “Go and tell John

what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed

and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to

them. And blessed is he who takes no offense at me” (Mt 11:2–6 = Lk 7:18–23). Jesus’

message for John contains allusions to several words and phrases from the book of Isaiah

(e.g., Isa 35:5–6 [blind and lame]; 26:19 [dead]; 61:1–2 [good news]). This material

appears in 4Q521…

There are important points of contact between the Jesus story of Mark and the Dead Sea

Scrolls. Both involve similar understandings of passages of scripture.

(5) Isaiah 40 in the Scrolls and in Mark. Isaiah 40 advances a bold typology whereby

the original exodus serves as a model for a new era of salvation. Just as a way was

prepared in the wilderness long ago, that God’s people could travel from Egypt to the

promised land, so it will happen again – only even better, for there will be no wilderness

wanderings, but a highway leading directly from oppression to redemption. The men of

Qumran understood Isaiah 40:3 in a similar manner. They too cited this passage and

organized a community of covenant renewal in the wilderness of the Dead Sea region…

(6) The Vineyard Parable of Isaiah in the Scrolls and in Jesus. Jesus’ Parable of the

Vineyard (Mk 12:1–9 and parallels) is based on Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard Speaking for the Lord, the prophet Isaiah complained that despite loving care, the

vineyard planted and nurtured on the hill produced worthless grapes. The parable is an

allegory and it is a juridical parable, that is, a parable that induces the hearers to pass

judgment on themselves. The vineyard is Israel, its owner is God, the fruit is the behavior

of Israel. Israel has no excuse: “What more could God do for his people?” Therefore, the

nation may expect judgment. Jesus’ parable presupposes these allegorical features, but

adds tenant farmers to the story and reassigns the guilt: Israel is not at fault, her religious

leaders are; and redirects the judgment: the religious leaders will lose their stewardship…

One might not expect distinctly Lukan contacts with Judaism, given the high probability

that the Lukan evangelist was a gentile. However, perusal of Luke–Acts indicates that

this person was familiar with the synagogue (and he gives us an early description of a

synagogue service in 4:16–30), and evidently knew well significant portions of the Greek

version of scripture. There are two important points of contact with the Dead Sea Scrolls

that can be mentioned briefly.

(7) The announcement of the coming Son of God. The angel announces to Mary: “He

will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give

Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever;

and His kingdom will have no end . . . the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God”

(Lk 1:32–35). These words echo the promise given David: “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever . . . I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me . . . your

house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established

forever” (2 Sam 7:13-16). They also find a remarkable parallel in an Aramaic text from

Qumran: “He shall be called son of the great God, and by his name shall he be named. He

shall be called the Son of God, and they shall call him Son of the Most High . . . their

kingdom will be an eternal kingdom” (4Q246 1:9–2:5). This parallel, which is probably

speaking of the expected Jewish Messiah, demonstrates that in Judaism, in the land of

Israel, and in the Aramaic language, before the time of Jesus and Christian proclamation,

the Messiah was sometimes called the “Son of God…

(8) Fulfilling the Law and inheriting Eternal Life. On one occasion a legal expert

approaches Jesus and asks what he must do to inherit eternal life (Lk 10:25–28). When

the man affirms the commandments to love God and to love one’s neighbor, Jesus

assures him, “Do this and you will live” (v. 28). Most interpreters recognize the allusion

to Leviticus 18:5, where the Law of Moses assures Israelites that if a man does the law,

he will live. The problem is that Moses was speaking of life in the land of Israel, not

eternal life. So how does Jesus’ allusion to Leviticus 18:5 provide assurance to the legal

expert that he will inherit eternal life? The answer is found in observing that Leviticus

18:5 was understood in late antiquity as referring both to prosperous life in the promised

land and to life in the world to come…

(9) Dualism in the Scrolls and in John. The dualism found in the Rule of the

Community has especially drawn scholarly attention. Contrasts between light/darkness,

good deeds/evil deeds, and truth/falsehood are found in 1QS 3:13–4:26. A sample of the

passage reads as follows: “[God] allotted unto humanity two spirits that he should walk in

them until the time of His visitation; they are the spirits of truth and perversity. The

origin of truth is in a fountain of light, and the origin of perversity is from a fountain of

darkness. Dominion over all the sons of righteousness is in the hand of the Prince of

light; they walk in the ways of light. All dominion over the sons of perversity is in the

hand of the Angel of darkness; they walk in the ways of darkness” (1QS 3:18–21).

Although Johannine and Qumranian dualism is not identical, there is significant

similarity….

The Judaic character of the New Testament Gospels is illustrated by the nine important

parallels that have been briefly considered. There are many more parallels and points of

contact, some linguistic and technical, that could be added to our discussion. But the

examples that have been considered should be sufficient for the purposes at hand.