The Dead Sea Scrolls and Early Christianity: Part Two

016

Many of the ritual and community practices of the Qumran covenanters, who lived near the Dead Sea and who produced what we call the Dead Sea Scrolls, have impressive parallels among New Testament Christians. Here are just a few:

Acts describes the events of the first Pentecost after Jesus’ crucifixion. It then describes the property the community holds in common: “And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need” (Acts 2:44–45; see also Acts 4:32).

Later, in Acts 5:1–11, Luke narrates the celebrated case of Ananias and Sapphira, who sold some land but presented to the community only a part of the proceeds. Peter accuses them of withholding, and they both fall down dead. Here Acts is reflecting the situation in the early Christian community in Jerusalem. Paul, on the other hand, writes as if members of the churches that he founded had private means with which to 018contribute to the needs of others (for example, 1 Corinthians 16:2). Moreover, even in Jerusalem, contribution to the community may have been voluntary. (Acts 5:4 states: “After [the property] was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal?” If so, the sin of Ananias and Sapphira was not withholding, but making a partial donation of the proceeds while giving the impression that it was the whole.)

The Manual of Discipline from Qumran makes several allusions to the merging of members’ private property with the possessions of the group. This theme is especially prominent in the section that describes initiatory procedures for potential members. At first, the novice is not allowed to share the pure meal of the congregation, “nor shall he have any share of the property of the Congregation” (6:17). Once he has completed a full year within the group and it is determined that he may remain, “his property and earnings shall be handed over to the Bursar of the Congregation who shall register it to his account [but] shall not spend it for the Congregation” (6:19–20). Only after an additional, successful year of probation is it stipulated that “his property shall be merged” with the community’s possessions (6:22). The practice is compulsory at Qumran and follows full admission to the congregation.¹

A sacred meal with eschatological significance also seems to be something the Qumran covenanters and the early Christians shared.

The Last Supper, which Jesus shared with his immediate followers, is presented in two ways in the Gospels: For Matthew, Mark and Luke, it is a Passover meal complete with bread and wine; for John, it was eaten the night before Passover and neither bread nor wine is mentioned. In the Passover version of the Last Supper, bread and wine play prominent roles; indeed, they attain a sacramental significance:

“Now as they were eating, Jesus took the bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom’” (Matthew 26:26–29; see also Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:17–20).

These words give special meaning to the physical elements of the meal and place the ceremony within a context of expectation for “that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

The Qumran texts, too, describe a special meal that involved the basic elements of bread and wine. The Manual of Discipline refers to the meals of the group: “And when the table has been prepared for eating, and the new wine for drinking, the Priest shall be the first to stretch out his hand to bless the first-fruits of the bread and new wine” (6:4–6).² This text also mentions a “pure meal” that only those who have passed through a year-long probationary period were permitted to eat (6:16–17); they were not allowed to partake of the “drink of the congregation” until a second such year had passed (6:20–21). Those who were guilty of slandering another member of the community were excluded from this meal for one year (7:16).

The clearest statement about a special meal at Qumran comes from the Rule of the Congregation (1QSa), which, was originally part of the Manual of Discipline:

“[The ses]sion of the men of renown, [invited to] the feast for the council of the community when [at the end] (of days) the messiah [shall assemble] with them. [The priest] shall enter [at] the head of all the congregation of Israel, and [all his brethren the sons of] Aaron, the priests, [who are invited] to the feast, the men of renown, and they shall sit be[fore him, each] according to his importance. Afterwards [the messiah] of Israel [shall enter] and the heads of the [thousands of Israel] shall sit before him [ea]ch according to his importance, according to [his station] in their encampments and their journeys. And all of the heads of the [households of the congrega]tion, [their] sag[es and wise men,] shall sit before them, each according to his importance. [When they] mee[t at the] communal [tab]le, [to set out bread and wi]ne, and the communal table is arranged [to eat and] to dri[nk] wine [no] one [shall extend] his hand to the first (portion) of the bread and [the wine] before the priest. Fo[r he shall] bless the first (portion) of the bread and the wi[ne 019and shall extend] his hand to the bread first. Afterwa[rds,] the messiah of Israel [shall exten]d his hands to the bread. [Afterwards,] all of the congregation of the community [shall ble]ss, ea[ch according to] his importance. [They] shall act according to this statute whenever (the meal) is ar[ranged] when as many as ten [meet] together” (Rule of the Congregation 2:11–22).³

This special meal, eaten in the presence of the two messiahs postulated at Qumran, was only for those who were ritually pure (compare 1 Corinthians 11:27–29).

Lawrence Schiffman, of New York University, argues that the Qumran meals were nonsacral or cultic in nature; rather, “[t]hese meals, conducted regularly as part of the present-age way of life of the sect, were preenactments of the final messianic banquet which the sectarians expected in the soon-to-come end of days. Again, the life of the sect in this world mirrored its dreams for the age to come.”⁴ But however the meal of the Qumran covenanters is interpreted, its messianic character, the prominence of bread and wine, the fact that it was repeated regularly and the explicit eschatological associations do in fact remind one of elements found in the New Testament words about the Lord’s Last Supper.⁵

Jesus’ Crucifixion in Relation to Passover

According to at least one scholar, the Qumran texts may provide a solution to an old calendrical problem in Gospel studies.⁶ The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), on the one hand, and John, on the other, place the Last Supper on different dates. The synoptics place the Last Supper on a Friday and treat it as a Passover meal; John, however, puts it on a Thursday, the day before Passover, and dates Jesus’ death to the next day—at a time when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered. The official Hebrew calendar used in the Jerusalem Temple was a lunar calendar with some solar adjustments. At Qumran, the covenanters used a 364-day solar calendar. A French scholar, Annie Jaubert, has proposed that, since two calendars were used in Judaism at this time, it is possible that the synoptic writers followed one calendar (the solar calendar) and that John followed the official lunar calendar.⁷

Some have found this solution attractive, but there is no evidence that the writers of the Gospels followed different calendrical systems. Moreover, it is evident that John had a larger purpose in mind in arranging events in the passion week as he did. John does not emphasize the bread and wine at Jesus’ meal; they are not even mentioned. Instead, foot-washing and mutual love are highlighted. By dying when he did in John’s chronology, Jesus is presented as the Passover lamb of his people, slaughtered the following day.

A Shared Eschatological Outlook

There is no doubt that the Qumran covenanters and the early Christians shared a similar eschatological outlook. Both must be regarded as eschatological communities in the sense that both had a lively expectation that the end of days would come soon and ordered their communal beliefs and practices according to this article of faith. Under this broad heading several points may be distinguished.

Although both groups had messianic expectations, they are different in some respects. The faith of Qumran was that the last days would bring two messiahs: “They shall depart from none of the counsels of the Law to walk in the stubbornness of their hearts, but shall be ruled by the primitive precepts in which the men of the Community were first instructed until there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel” (Manual of Discipline 9:9–11, see also the Rule of the Congregation). The more prominent messiah is the priestly one—the messiah of Aaron. The second and apparently lower-ranking messiah is the lay one—the messiah of Israel. Precisely what the messiahs would do, other than officiate at the messianic banquet, is not clear; no text says that they would save others or that they would atone for others’ sins, as in the case of the Christian Messiah.

The New Testament picture of Jesus is familiar: the Gospel genealogies trace his ancestry through David’s line. Jesus, however, is not only the messiah as descendant of David, but also as the son of God and savior.

Perhaps the Qumran messiah of Israel is also Davidic. But there is no second messiah in the New Testament, as there was at Qumran. While the New Testament has only one messiah, however, it assigns to him the offices filled by the two Qumran messiahs. The New Testament also speaks of Jesus as a priestly messiah: In the Letter to the Hebrews, as we have seen, Jesus is regarded as a priest after the order of Melchizedek; Jesus as high priest presides over a heavenly sanctuary.

021

Shared Messianic Titles

One of the messianic titles given to Jesus in the New Testament is now attested at Qumran—for the first time in its Semitic form. In Luke 1:32–33 the angel who appears to Mary to announce that she would conceive a wondrous child, describes him this way: “‘He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.’” The child will also be called “‘holy, the Son of God’” (Luke 1:35).

An intriguing and still only partially published parallel to some of these titles comes from a Qumran document. The relevant portion reads: “[He] shall be great upon the earth, [O King! All shall] make [peace], and all shall serve [him. He shall be called the son of] the [G]reat [God], and by his name shall he be named. He shall be hailed the Son of God, and they shall call him Son of the Most High …, and his kingdom will be a kingdom forever.”⁸

This is not simply a matter of one title found in two texts; it is an entire context that has striking similarities: the individual in question will be great, son of God (a title found in the Hebrew Bible), son of the Most High (a new title), and his kingdom will be eternal. It is a pity that the referent of these titles in the Qumran text remains unknown; that part of the text has not been preserved.

Joseph Fitzmyer has also drawn attention to some interesting parallels between the infancy stories of Jesus in Matthew and Luke and of Noah as preserved in the Qumran text known as the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) (and 1 Enoch 106–107). For example, in the latter texts, it is suspected that Noah does not have a natural father. In Matthew and Luke, Mary’s conception is through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:35). In Noah’s case, his father Lamech suspects that his mother Batenosh has had an extramarital affair with an angel.⁹

Shared Methods of Biblical Interpretation

Another perspective shared by both Qumran covenanters and early Christians was the way that they interpreted biblical texts—with a strong eschatological consciousness that the end of days was near.

Among the earliest of the scrolls to be discovered and published was the commentary (or pesher) on the Book of Habakkuk. Karl Elliger published a book about this commentary as early as 1953. He summarized the assumptions underlying this and similar Qumran commentaries (pesharim) on biblical books: The biblical writers are speaking about the last days, and the last days are now.¹⁰ Based on these presuppositions, the Qumran sectarians interpreted the biblical texts as referring to themselves and their leaders; the events of their community’s history were being foretold in the biblical texts. For example, Habakkuk 2:1–2 states:

“I will take my stand to watch, and station 022myself on the tower, and look forth to see what he will say to me, and what I will answer concerning my complaint. And the Lord answered me: “Write the vision; make it plain upon tablets, so he may run who reads it.’”

The Habakkuk Commentary (1QpHab) from Qumran explains the passage this way: “God told Habakkuk to write down that which would happen to the final generation, but He did not make known to him when time would come to an end. And as for that which He said, ‘That he who reads may read it speedily’ [= “so he may run who reads it” in Habakkuk 2:2], interpreted, this concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to, whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of His servants the Prophets” (Habakkuk Commentary 7:1–5).

Many New Testament passages evidence the same eschatological reading of biblical texts, interpreting them as if they foretold and applied directly to contemporary events. Take the story of Pentecost in Acts 2 (see photo of Qumran caves). The apostolic band had been speaking in tongues by virtue of the Holy Spirit that had been poured over them. The local population is perplexed and mocks them. Peter defends those who were speaking in tongues, citing Scripture in support of the linguistic miracle that has just occurred:

“For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

“And in the last days [Joel does not actually

say “in the last days”; he says only “afterward”¹¹] it shall be, God declares,

that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,

and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,

and your young men shall see visions,

and your old men shall dream dreams…’”

Acts 2:15–17

Thus, according to Acts, the prophet Joel proclaimed that the divine Spirit would be poured out in the last days, and that eschatological event actually occurred at the first Christian celebration of Pentecost. This way of interpreting Scripture (Joel in Acts and Habakkuk in the Habakkuk Commentary from Qumran) is identical.

At times the authors of the New Testament and of the Qumran texts rely on the same biblical text, interpreting it in the same way. We have already seen this in the case of Isaiah 40:3 (“A voice cries out: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God’”). John the Baptist, for the Gospel writers, and the Qumran community, for the Qumran covenanters, are said to be preparing the Lord’s way in the wilderness.

Another instance of this is Habakkuh 2:4b: “The righteous live by their faith,” one of Paul’s favorite prooftexts. He uses it in Galatians 3:11 to support his argument that faith, not works, is the way to become right with God: “Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live’” (see also Romans 1:17).

The Habakkuk Commentary from Qumran offers another angle on Habakkuk 2:4b: “Interpreted, this concerns those who observe the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of Judgment because of their suffering and because of their faith in [or: fidelity to] the Teacher of Righteousness” (Habakkuk Commentary 8:1–3). Interestingly, the same passage that for Paul dealt 023with a way of righteousness other than the path of the Law was at Qumran a verse that encouraged faithfulness to that Law and fidelity to the Teacher who expounded it correctly. Yet both use the same text and the same method of interpretation.

Shared Doctrines

The eschatological nature of these two communities can also be seen in some of the major doctrines they embraced. For example, both employ dualistic language to describe the options in the universe: There are just two positions, with no mediating ground between. Since both communities are still Jewish at this time, the dualism is ethical; the two opposing camps (or principles) are light and darkness. One of the best-known passages in the scrolls says:

“He [God] has created man to govern the world, and has appointed for him two spirits in which to walk until the time of His visitation: the spirits of truth and falsehood. Those born of truth spring from a fountain of light, but those born of falsehood spring from a source of darkness. All the children of righteousness are ruled by the ways of light, but all the children of falsehood are ruled by the Angel of Darkness and walk in the ways of darkness” (Manual of Discipline 3:18–21).

Perpetual conflict marks the relation between the two camps:

“For God has established the spirits in equal measure until the final age, and has set everlasting hatred between their divisions. Truth abhors the works of falsehood, and falsehood hates all the ways of truth. And their struggle is fierce in all their arguments for they do not walk together” (Manual of Discipline 4:16–18).

However, God has “ordained an end for falsehood and at the time of the visitation He will destroy it for ever” (Manual of Discipline 4: 18–19). Another Qumran text, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, contains an elaborate description of the final battles between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. Though powerful angels will fight on both sides, God will, in his good time, decide the issue in favor of the light.

This language is hardly strange to readers of the New Testament. Similar rhetoric appears in the writings of both Paul (in 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1) and John.

In John 8:12, the author quotes Jesus as saying:

040

“I am the light of the world; he who follows me will in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

As at Qumran, John uses the light/darkness contrast, not in its literal, but in an ethical, sense. As at Qumran, so in John the realms of light and darkness are in conflict: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:5), In John 12:35–36, the evangelist tells us: “The light is with you a little longer. Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he goes. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may be sons of the light” (see also John 3:19–20; 1 John 1:6, 2:9–10). Thus, the followers of Jesus, like the Qumran covenanters, styled themselves “the sons of the light.”

The Christian belief about the end is clear: A number of passages speak of Christ’s return, the resurrection of the good and the evil and the ultimate victory of the former under Christ’s banner (for example, 1 Corinthians 15:20–28, 51–57). The resurrection of Jesus is a guarantee that those who belong to him will also rise in physical form.

Whether the Qumran covenanters believed in a bodily resurrection is not entirely clear, but they certainly believed in the immortality of the soul. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus tells of Essenes who under torture “cheerfully resigned their souls, confident that they would receive them back again. For it is a fixed belief of theirs that the body is corruptible and its constituent matter impermanent, but that the soul is immortal and imperishable.”¹² The implication from this passage seems to be that, while the Essenes believe in the immortality of the soul, they do not believe in the resurrection of the body, as did the early Christians. The Qumran texts too mention “life without end” (Manual of Discipline 4:7; The Damascus Rule [CD] 3:20, etc.). But they may also mention a resurrection of bodies, although this is not absolutely clear. The difficulty arises because the best available evidence from the published Qumran texts is a poetic passage, and thus its reference to the author’s being raised from sheol (the realm of the dead) to an eternal height may be figurative language for God’s delivering him from dire straits to a renewed life rather than a literal bodily resurrection (see The Hymns Scroll 3.19–22). However, Hippolytus, an early Christian writer (c. 170–236) who, like Josephus, describes Essene beliefs, claims that the Essenes did accept the doctrine of the resurrection of bodies.¹³ An as-yet-unpublished Qumran text may now confirm Hippolytus’ statement.¹⁴ Emile Puech of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem is editing a Hebrew text, inherited from the late Jean Starcky, that Puech dates to the first half of the first century B.C.E.^a It reads in part: “And they [those who curse] will be for death [while] the One who gives life will [rai]se to life the dead of his people,”¹⁵ So the Qumran covenanters may well have believed, as did the early Christians, in a bodily resurrection.

What can we conclude from all this? Clearly, the Qumran literature and the New Testament are similar to one another in numerous and diverse ways. From the similarities, two conclusions can be drawn: (1) The early Church grew upon Jewish soil to a far greater extent than previously supposed; and (2) a larger number of the early Church’s beliefs and practices than previously suspected were not unique to it.

On the other hand, the Qumran scrolls also help to highlight Christianity’s uniqueness: This lies not so much in its communal practices and eschatological expectations but in its confession that the son of a carpenter from Nazareth in Galilee was indeed the Messiah and son of God who taught, healed, suffered, died, rose, ascended and promised to return some say in glory to judge the living and the dead.

By confessing that their Messiah had come, the Christians also placed themselves further along on the eschatological timetable than the Qumran covenanters, who were still awaiting the arrival of their two messiahs.

As more of the Qumran library is published, I strongly suspect we will also find that the centrality of Torah, its proper interpretation, and obedience to it figured more prominently in Essene doctrine.^b This is, too, stands in stark contrast with at least the Pauline form of Christianity, in which the Mosaic Torah was not to be imposed upon gentile Christians and justification was obtained through faith, quite apart from observance of the Law.

One final note: In light of the significant parallels—and major differences—between the Qumran texts and the New Testament, it is puzzling that the Essenes are never mentioned by name in the New Testament. Some have suggested that they are mentioned but by a different designation (for example, the Herodians¹⁶). Others have tried to explain their absence on the ground that the groups who are mentioned—the Pharisees and Sadducees—tend to figure in polemical contexts, while the Essenes, with whom Jesus and the first Christians had more in common, do not appear precisely because there were fewer controversies with them or because the Essenes did not debate with outsiders.¹⁷ A fully satisfying answer escapes us—perhaps because we do not actually know the Semitic term that lies behind the Greek name “Essenes.” As this statement implies, the Essenes are not mentioned by that name in rabbinic literature either.¹⁸ Nor, for that matter, does the name Essene appear in the Qumran literature. So we are still left with a few puzzles to figure out.

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

Many of the ritual and community practices of the Qumran covenanters, who lived near the Dead Sea and who produced what we call the Dead Sea Scrolls, have impressive parallels among New Testament Christians. Here are just a few: Acts describes the events of the first Pentecost after Jesus’ crucifixion. It then describes the property the community holds in common: “And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need” (Acts 2:44–45; see also Acts 4:32). Later, in Acts 5:1–11, Luke […]