The Dead Sea Scrolls and Early Christianity: Part One

014

Almost from the moment the first Dead Sea Scrolls came under scholarly scrutiny, the question of their relation to early Christianity became a key issue.

The early days of Qumran^a research produced some spectacular theories regarding the relationship among Jesus, the first Christians and the Qumran community. In 1950 the French scholar André Dupont-Sommer argued that the Teacher of Righteousness—the founder and first leader of the Qumran group according to the scrolls—had a career that prefigured and paralleled that of Jesus:

“The Galilean Master, as He is presented to us in the writings of the New Testament, appears in many respects as an astonishing reincarnation of the Master of Justice [that is, the Teacher of Righteousness, as the title came to be translated]. Like the latter He preached penitence, poverty, humility, love of one’s neighbor, chastity. Like him, He prescribed the observance of the Law of 016Moses, the whole Law, but the Law finished and perfected, thanks to His own revelations. Like him He was the Elect and Messiah of God, the Messiah redeemer of the world. Like him He was the object of the hostility of the priests, the party of the Sadducees. Like him He was condemned and put to death. Like him he pronounced judgment on Jerusalem, which was taken and destroyed by the Romans for having put Him to death. Like him, at the end of time, He will be the supreme judge. Like him he founded a church whose adherents fervently awaited His glorious return.”¹

Dupont-Sommer’s speculations strongly influenced Edmund Wilson, the literary critic who wrote the famous New Yorker (later published as a bestselling book) “The Scrolls from the Dead Sea,” which stimulated great popular interest in and controversy about the scrolls.² Wilson argued that the relation of the covenanters of Qumran to Jesus and the first Christians could be seen as “the successive phases of a movement”³:

The monastery, this structure of stone that endures, between the bitter waters and precipitous cliffs, with its oven and its inkwells, its mill and its cesspool, its constellation of sacred fonts and the unadorned graves of its dead, is perhaps, more than Bethlehem or Nazareth, the cradle of Christianity.”⁴

According to Wilson, Jewish and Christian scholars were reluctant to admit the implications of the scrolls because of their religious biases. Jewish scholars were supposedly anxious lest the authority of the Masoretic text (the traditional Jewish text of the Hebrew Bible) be shaken, especially by the variant readings in the biblical texts found at Qumran. Jews would also be uncomfortable, he suggested, if Christianity were seen, as the scrolls indicated, as a natural development from a particular brand of Judaism. Christianity too was supposedly threatened by the content of the scrolls: the uniqueness of Christ was imperiled. In an oft-quoted passage, the iconoclastic Wilson concluded:

“[I]t would seem an immense advantage for cultural an social intercourse—that is, for civilization—that the rise of Christianity should, at last, be generally understood as simply an episode of human history rather than propagated as dogma and divine revelation. The study of the Dead Sea Scrolls—with the direction it is now taking—cannot fail, one would think, to conduce this.”⁵

At the same time, other scholars were going about the patient labor of establishing just where the points of contact and difference were. Millar Burrows of Yale, for example, embraced a minimalist thesis in his widely used The Dead Sea Scrolls.⁶ Against those who claimed the scrolls would revolutionize New Testament study, he wrote:

“There is no danger, however, that our understanding of the New Testament will be so revolutionized by the Dead Sea Scrolls as to require a revision of any basic article of Christian faith. All scholars who have worked on the texts will agree that this has not happened and will not happen.”⁷

In a less pastoral vein, Burrows stated his view of the relationship between the Qumran sect and early Christians in these words:

“Direct influence of the Qumran sect on the early church may turn out to be less probable than parallel developments in the same general situation. The question here is the same one encountered when we attempt to explain similarities between Judaism and Zoroastrianism, or between Christianity and the pagan mystery cults.”⁸

As matters developed, this viewpoint has largely set the general framework within which the relationship between Qumran and Christianity is still understood today. Many Qumran scholars would agree with Burrows’ conclusion:

“[A]fter studying the Dead Sea Scrolls for seven years, I do not find my understanding of the New Testament substantially affected. Its Jewish background is clearer and better understood but its meaning has neither been changed nor significantly clarified.”⁹

Under the title The Scrolls and the New Testament, Krister Stendahl of Harvard collected 13 detailed studies of the sect by 11 different scholars (one man wrote three) examining the major similarities between the Qumran sect and early Christianity.¹⁰ None of Dupont-Sommer’s writings was selected for inclusion. In his perceptive introductory essay, 017Stendahl concluded, “It is true to say that the Scrolls add to the background of Christianity, but they add so much that we arrive at a point where the significance of similarities definitely rescues Christianity from false claims of originality in the popular sense and leads us back to a new grasp of its true foundation in the person and the events of its Messiah,”¹¹ a conclusion with which I agree.

Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition at Qumran and in Christianity

One of the most influential books about Qumran was written by Frank M. Cross, also of Harvard. In The Ancient Library of Qumran & Modern Biblical Studies, Cross lays special stress on the Essenes (a Jewish movement of which the Qumran group was a part) as bearers and producers of the Jewish apocalyptic tradition and on the importance of this tradition for early Christianity:

“The background of the institutions and patterns typical of the communal life of the earliest Church in an earlier apocalyptic milieu can now be investigated seriously for the first time, The Essene literature [from Qumran] enables us to discover the concrete Jewish setting in which an apocalyptic understanding of history was living and integral to communal existence. Like the primitive Church, the Essene community was distinguished from Pharisaic associations and other movements within Judaism precisely in its consciousness ‘of being already the called and chosen Congregation of the end of days.’¹² Contrary to the tendency of New Testament theologians to assume that the ‘eschatological existence’ of the early Church, that is, its community life lived in anticipation of the Kingdom of God, together with the forms shaped by this life, was a uniquely Christian phenomenon, we must now affirm that in the Essene communities we discover antecedents of Christian forms and concepts.”¹³

Within this general framework Cross then considers parallels in three areas: in theological language (especially in John), in eschatological motifs (especially in the way Scripture was interpreted to refer to their own time, but also in their understanding of themselves as people of the new covenant and in their messianic outlook) and in their order and liturgical institutions (baptism, liturgical meals, community of goods, leadership). In each case the Qumran covenanters and early Christians shared essential viewpoints.

In 1966 a German scholar, Herbert Braun, published a two-volume work entitled Qumran und das Neue Testament containing a chainlike treatment of all New Testament passages, from Matthew through Revelation, for which a Qumran parallel arguably exists.¹⁴ The book totals 326 pages of rather small print. Naturally these parallels vary in quality and importance, but, whatever the limits of the collection, the sheer quantity is certainly impressive.

In sum, as Qumran research has matured, it has been widely recognized that, although there were major differences between the Qumran literature 018and early Christian literature and between the Qumran community and the early Christian community, nevertheless, they were also remarkably similar in theological vocabulary, in some major doctrinal tenets and in several organizational and ritual practices. Yet, most scholars were reluctant to explain early Christian teachings as direct borrowings from Qumran Essenism. The better view is that the two are offspring of a common tradition in Judaism, with perhaps some points of direct borrowing (especially organizational ones).¹⁵ As more of the scrolls have been published, this general conclusion has been substantially sustained.

True, even today a scholar here and there departs from this mainline view. For example, Robert Eisenman of California State University at Long Beach has posited a Zadokite movement, of which the Qumran community was a part, that supposedly existed for centuries and included Ezra, Judas Maccabee, John the Baptist, Jesus and his brother James;¹⁶ only in the first century C.E.^b did this movement become a separate group and compose the sectarian documents of Qumran. Barbara Thiering of the University of Sydney in Australia has identified John the Baptist as the Teacher of Righteousness and Jesus as the Wicked Priest of the Qumran texts.¹⁷ J. L. Teicher of Cambridge University argues, on the other hand, that the apostle Paul is the Wicked Priest.¹⁸ Few, if any, scholars have been convinced by the arguments adduced by Eisenman, Thiering or Teicher, but the popular press has sometimes given their sensational views widespread coverage.¹⁹

What Qumran Texts Teach Us About The New Testament

Let’s look more closely at some of the significant similarities between the New Testament and the Qumran literature and assess them. But before doing so, two thoughts should be expressed:

First, we must appreciate the insights provided by the Qumran literature in light of the paucity of any other Hebrew or Aramaic literature contemporary with the beginnings of Christianity. The books of the Hebrew Bible are, in almost all cases, considerably earlier. The vast corpus of rabbinic texts was written centuries later. Before the Qumran 019discoveries, most of the first-century comparative material for studying early Christianity came from Greek and Latin sources. The sudden availability of an entire library of Hebrew and Aramaic texts dating from approximately the time of the New Testament events has naturally, and rightfully, captured the attention of New Testament scholars.

Second, proving direct dependence of something in the New Testament on an item in the scrolls is no simple task. Even now we know very little about the various groups of Jews in the last centuries of the Second Temple period. (The Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E.) Even if we show that the only places where a particular item or concept is found are the New Testament and the Qumran texts, this would not prove either a direct borrowing or that the feature was unique to these two groups. The feature may have been shared more widely, with most of its attestation now lost. Given these limitations, we can, at most, do little more than isolate areas where Christians and Essenes agreed and all other known groups seem to have disagreed.

One of the clearest examples of the insights the Qumran literature can provide for New Testament literature relates to language and verbal formulas. The New Testament is written in Greek. Jesus, however, spoke Aramaic, and all of the first disciples were Semitic-speaking Jews of Galilee or Judea. The Qumran texts now supply us, for the first time, with the original Hebrew (and sometimes Aramaic) of a number of New Testament words and phrases.

Take the Greek expression toµn pleioµn, which is usually translated “many” or “majority.” This is a very general term that became, in several New Testament passages, a designation for entire groups of Jesus’ followers (Matthew 26:28; see also Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Acts 6:2, 5, 15:12, 30; 2 Corinthians 2:5–6). For example, Paul writes to the Corinthians: “But if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to you all. For such a one as this punishment by the majority [toµn pleioµn] is enough” (2 Corinthians 2:5–6). The Qumran scroll known as the Manual of Discipline (1QS) contains rules regarding who may speak and when during general meetings of the group: “And in an Assembly of the Congregation no man shall speak without the consent of the Congregation, nor indeed of the Guardian of the Congregation” (Manual of Discipline 6:11–12).²⁰ The Hebrew word translated “congregation” in this passage is hrbym (vocalized, with vowels, as harabbiÆm), which literally means “the many.” In short, hrbym is the Hebrew word that lies behind the New Testament Greek toµn pleioµn.

There may be another example in this same passage. The Hebrew word rendered “guardian” (hmbqr) in this passage (and others where it refers to a man who has a supervisory role in the Qumran community²¹) may be the equivalent of episkopos (bishop / overseer), which is used several times in the New Testament (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1–7; Titus 1:7), where it also refers to a man with a similar role.

With the help of the scrolls, we can uncover the Hebrew or Aramaic originals of several other expressions in the New Testament, not only in the Gospels, but in the Pauline corpus as well. Joseph Fitzmyer, of Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., has identified the Semitic original of a number of Pauline expressions of this kind: The righteousness of God (dikaiosyne theou = sidqat Õeµl), works of the Law (erga nomou = ma>aáseÆ toÆraµh), the church of God (heµ ekkeµsia tou theou = qeáhal Õeµl), and Sons of Light (huloi phoµtos = beáneÆ ’oÆr).²²

Gospel Fragments At Qumran?

Can we go further? Is it possible that a fragment of a gospel has been found at Qumran? The Qumran settlement was destroyed by the Romans in 68 C.E. Many believe that by this date Mark, the earliest of the canonical Gospels, had been composed. So it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a gospel text would turn up at Qumran. Indeed, one scholar has claimed to have identified several scraps from Qumran Cave 7, where Greek fragments were found, as containing not only parts of the text of Mark, but also Acts, Romans, 1 Timothy, James and 2 Peter.²³ José O’Callaghan, a Spanish Jesuit scholar, created a worldwide sensation in the 1970s when he made this proposal, but today his thesis has generally been abandoned. The scraps on which O’Callaghan relied are tiny, nearly illegible texts that seem not to agree entirely with the relevant texts even for the few letters that can be read. Naturally, if O’Callaghan’s identification were correct, it would require major changes in the generally accepted theories about who the residents of Qumran were, at least in the later phases of the settlement.

Although no actual copies of New Testament books have been found at Qumran, parts of some New Testament books may have been drawn from Qumran or Essene sources and then revised 020and edited into their present contexts. Consider 2 Corinthians 6:14–15

“Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?”

The entire passage sounds very much like what we find at Qumran—the light/darkness contrast and the strong consciousness of an exclusive group. The name Belial (or Beliar) occurs only here in the whole New Testament, but it occurs several times at Qumran—in The Hymns Scroll and in the unpublished halakhic letter known as 4QMMT, as well as elsewhere. We cannot prove that this passage from 2 Corinthians is a revised Essene text, but Paul uses language here that is known only from Qumran texts.²⁴

A similar claim can be made about the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5–7. It, too, includes a number of expressions that are attested at Qumran but nowhere else. For example, the “poor in sprit” (Matthew 5:3) is found in the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness (14:7) but in no other ancient text. Likewise, the sermon’s teaching that oaths should be avoided as unnecessary since one’s word should suffice (Matthew 5:33–37) echoes the great emphasis on truth in the scrolls (for example, Manual of Discipline 2:24, 26 calls the group “the community of truth”) and perhaps explains Josephus’ statement that the Essenes were excused from taking the oath of loyalty to Herod.²⁵ The duty to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:38–39) is found at Qumran in the Manual of Discipline (10:17–18),²⁶ but not elsewhere. Finally, the antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount (“You have heard that it was said…, but I say unto you…”) are reminiscent of the way in which the still-unpublished halakhic letter (4QMMT)²⁷ introduces disagreements between the sect and its opponents: “You know… We think/say….”

Early Christians At Qumran?

Not surprisingly, the question has arisen as to whether some New Testament characters can be placed at Qumran. As we have seen, Dupont-Sommer long ago argued that the Teacher of Righteousness, who figures so prominently in the Qumran documents, prefigured Jesus. But even he does not equate the two. I have also mentioned the widely rejected view that Jesus’ brother James the Just (proposed by Robert Eisenman) and the apostle Paul (proposed by Teicher) appear in the scrolls.

The most likely candidate to have had contact with the Qumran community, however, is John the Baptist. From the beginning, scholars have been intrigued by the similarities between John and his teachings, on the one hand, and Qumran and its doctrines, on the other. The Baptist is therefore the prime candidate for contact with Qumran. The contention is not without some force:

John the Baptist came from a priestly family (Luke 1:5). At his birth his father said of him:

“And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of sins, through the tender mercy of our God, when the day shall dawn upon us from on high” (Luke 1:76–78).

021

Luke then adds:

“And the child grew and became strong, in spirit, and he was in the wilderness till the day of his manifestation to, Israel” (Luke 1.80).

This particular wilderness is the Wilderness of Judea near the Jordan River, which flows into the Dead Sea very near Qumran (Luke 3:3; see also Matthew 3:1, 5–6; Mark 1:4–5).

Accordingly, John lived in the Wilderness of Judea before his ministry began, and it was there that the word of God came to him in the 15th year of the emperor Tiberias (Luke 3:1–2). All three Synoptic Gospels introduce John’s public ministry in similar fashion by noting that his was a preaching of repentance (Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). In the passage in Luke, he is described as “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke: 3:3). We are told that his preaching had a larger purpose in the divine plan for the latter days, since it fulfilled the words of Isaiah: John is “[t]he voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places shall be made smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’” Luke (3:3–6) is here quoting Isaiah 40:3–4. Matthew 3:3 and Mark 1:2–3 also quote this passage, although not at such length. John’s preaching is characterized by an eschatological urgency, by the need for repentance before the great day dawns and the Lord comes.

Both Matthew and Mark append a description of John’s unusual clothing and diet: He wears a camel’s hair vestment with a leather belt and eats locusts and wild honey (Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6). All three Synoptic Gospels specify that John’s baptizing took place in the Jordan River (Matthew 3:5–6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:3). His imperative message stirred the people, as John forthrightly brought people’s sins to their attention (Matthew 3:7–10; Luke 3:7–14). Luke reports that John himself became the object of his audience’s interest: “As the people were in expectation and all men questioned in their hearts concerning John, whether perhaps he were the Christ [that is, the messiah]” (Luke 3:15). At this point he proclaims the coming of a greater one who would baptize, not with water as John did, but with the Holy Spirit and with fire, one who would come for judgment (Luke 3:16–18; see also Matthew 3:11–12; Mark 1:7–8; John 1:19–28). John later baptized Jesus (Matthew 3:13–15; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:21) and was eventually imprisoned and executed (for example, Matthew 14:1–12).

A great deal of this picture is reminiscent of the Qumran community. John’s geographical location seems to have been very close to Qumran. The Gospel of John locates his baptizing ministry “in Bethany beyond the Jordan” (John 1:28) and “at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water” (John 3:23). Neither of these sites is known with certainty, but they seem to have lain somewhat north of Qumran. Yet the fact that he worked in the wilderness near the Jordan could well have brought him to the vicinity of, or even to, Qumran. The baptism of repentance that John administered parallels the Qumran teaching about washing in water for 046cleansing and sanctification (Manual of Discipline 3:4–59) According to another passage in the same Qumran text (5:13–14): “They shall not enter the water to partake of the pure Meal of the saints, for they shall not be cleansed, unless they turn from their wickedness: for all who transgress His word are unclean.”

The Qumran settlement includes a number of cisterns, some of which were used for the frequent ritual baths of those who belonged to the community. There were probably differences between the baptism of John and the Qumran rituals (John’s baptism may have occurred just once for each penitent; the Qumran ablutions seem to have been more frequent), but both were connected with repentance and, unlike proselyte baptism, were meant for Jews. It should also be recalled that both the Qumran community and John the Baptist have their missions explained in our records by the same scriptural citation—Isaiah 40:3. The Manual of Discipline (8: 12–15) quotes this same verse to indicate that the group believed it was fulfilling the prophet’s words by going literally into the wilderness, there to prepare the way of the Lord through study of Moses’ Torah. The various similarities between the Qumran sect and John add up to something less than an identification of John as an Essene, but they are certainly suggestive and have led some to make such claims about this New Testament forerunner.²⁸ On the other hand, if John was a member of the Qumran community, he must have later separated from it to pursue his independent, solitary ministry.^c

New light on Melchizedek as Jesus’ forebear

Another New Testament personality on whom several Qumran texts in fact cast a new light is Melchizedek. He appears a number of times in the New Testament book referred to as the Letter to the Hebrews as a priest to whose order to whose order Jesus belonged. The Gospel genealogies, however, show that Jesus was not a member of the tribe of Levi, from which the priests came. In these genealogies, Jesus is descended from David (Matthew 1:1–17; Luke 3:23–38; ). In his attempt to portray the Davidic Jesus as a priest, the author of Hebrews elaborates traditions about the mysterious priest-king Melchizedek of Salem who appears in Genesis. There Melchizedek meets Abram and blesses the patriarch (Genesis 14:18–20). In the following quotation from Hebrews, the first sentence accurately describes what happened in Genesis; the remainder elaborates this text and joins it with a sentence in Psalm 110:4

“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him; and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything [of the booty]. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever” (Hebrews 7:1–3)

The author of Hebrews fashions an extraordinary portrait of Melchizedek, based on inferences (for example, his eternity, his superiority to Levi) from a combination of Genesis 14:18–20 and Psalm 110:4 (which he quotes at Hebrews 7:17).

A text from Qumran, appropriately labeled 11 QMelchizedek, now provides at least something of a parallel to the exalted status and characteristics of Melchizedek in Hebrews, In the Qumran text Melchizedek is presented as an angelic being who raises up God’s holy ones for deeds of judgment and who takes divine vengeance on evil. Here Melchizedek has superhuman status, which clearly involves living eternally²⁹ just as he has in Hebrews.

More recently, another Qumran text was published that appears to mention Melchizedek—the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.³⁰ Although the relevant fragments are poorly preserved, here Melchizedek seems to officiate as the heavenly high priest, just as Jesus does in Hebrews.

047

we have surveyed the theories of scholars—some bold and some cautious—about the relationship between Jesus, the New Testament and the Qumran texts. We have looked at the Qumran texts for what they can teach us about New Testament language, for their striking parallels with New Testament passages, and to ask whether some of the same characters may walk both stages. Part II of this survey will appear in the next issue. There we will consider the ritual and community practices common to Qumran covenanters and New Testament Christians and compare the messianic views that both groups held along with their confident expectations that the end of days would soon come.

Our exploration will conclude with similarities between the Qumran community and the early Christian community on the one hand, and what is unique in early Christian beliefs, on the other.

I wish to thank my colleague Stephen Goranson for reading a draft of this paper and offering helpful comments on it.

Almost from the moment the first Dead Sea Scrolls came under scholarly scrutiny, the question of their relation to early Christianity became a key issue. The early days of Qumrana research produced some spectacular theories regarding the relationship among Jesus, the first Christians and the Qumran community. In 1950 the French scholar André Dupont-Sommer argued that the Teacher of Righteousness—the founder and first leader of the Qumran group according to the scrolls—had a career that prefigured and paralleled that of Jesus: “The Galilean Master, as He is presented to us in the writings of the New Testament, appears in […]