The so-called "Son of God" and the "Pierced Messiah" texts have drawn the attention of many people who are eager to prove or disprove their theories. Or was there just more smoke than fire? The media help create further interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but thus far, the result have been less than expected.
Garcia Martinez explains this "conspiracy" :
In fact, all the responsible research institutions in the world have a concordance available in which are noted all the words preserved in all the Qumran manuscripts, including those still unpublished. There is then, no text which has been kept secret.The real explanation for the delay in the publication of the texts are many and varied. The war, a tangled political situation and the premature death of the first two directors of the editorial project (Roland de Vaux and Perre Benoit); also, several of the editors (Patrick Skehan, Yigael Yadin and Jean Starky) died before finishing their work. These are some of the factors which have influenced the present situation. However, the most important factor is the actual condition of the still unpublished texts, hundreds of minute fragments, with pathetic remains of incomplete works.
When the texts in question have been preserved in relatively large fragments, the task of reading, translation and interpretation is not extremely complicated. Even texts previously unknown can be published with relative speed. However, even in such cases, the speed of publication can have disastrous results, as the publication of the first set of texts from Cave 4 proves. Their publication in the official series, under John Allegro, appeared with great speed in 1968. However, this hasty edition (of only 90 pages of text) is so flawed that it cannot be used without the corrections (of over 100 pages) published in 1971 by the later director of the international team for the edition of the texts, John Strugnell, of the University of Harvard. (Florentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera, The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Their Writings, Beliefs and Practices, tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Leiden, 1995, p. 195)
Very early in the editing,
John Allegro, who worked firsthand
with the scrolls, charged :
Britain's top Old Testament scholars wrote a letter to the Times of
London protesting Allegro's statement :
Andre Dupont-Sommer was a Catholic
who left his faith.
He is an expert in Hebrew and Aramaic,
and subsequently held the
Professorial chair at College de France.
He believes that the Qumranians were Essenes, mentioned in the
classical sources of Josephus, Philo and Pliny.
Like Renan before him, he believes that
Christianity is actually "Essenism that succeeded,"
and sought to prove that the Qumranians were actually Essenes who
later became the Christians.
He quotes from the Habakkuk Pesher:
Dupont-Sommer also see in another part of Habakkuk Pesher
dealing with Habakkuk 2:7,
"Will not your debtors suddenly arise? Will they not wake up and
make you tremble? Then you will become their victim."
Beginning at the bottom of Column VIII:
Dupont-Sommer argued that the passage refers to the tortures
the Wicked Priest inflicted on the Teacher :
"he suffered in 'his body of flesh': without doubt he was
a divine being who 'became flesh' to live and die as a man."
Dupont-Sommer achieves this result by restoring some of the missing
lines from the broken bottom of Column VIII: "the priest who rebelled
[and violated] the Laws [of God and persecuted the Teacher of
Righteousness]."
(Dupont-Sommer, The Dead Sea Scrolls, A Preliminary Survey,
Oxford, Blackwell, 1952, p. 34)
Cook explains the difficulties :
The same is true of the passage that is supposed to narrate the
"Passion of the Teacher." According to the "ground rules" of the
commentary, the good figures of the prophecy are interpreted to be the
Teacher and his followers, and the bad ones are the Teacher's enemies.
Since Habakkuk 2:7 denounces the wicked, it is most natural to take
the verse and its interpretation wholly as a reference to the fate of
the Wicked Priest, not the Teacher. There is no reason to restore the
missing lines as Dupont-Sommer did. It is the Priest, not the Teacher,
who suffers the horrible diseases and acts of vengeance in the "body
of flesh." (The latter phrase is an ordinary Hebrew expression
referring to the human body. It has nothing to do with any
"Incarnation.")
(Edward M. Cook, Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
1994, pp. 131-132)
Barrera also points out another passage in the Psalms Pesher
that seem to refute Dupont-Sommer's assertion that the
Wicked Priest killed the Teacher :
Dupont-Sommer ties his interpretation to Jesus:
Cook points out further problems with Dupont-Sommer's theory:
In Part One, we have already seen that the Teacher is different than
the expected eschatological Messiah of Aaron and Israel.
It is possible that the sectarians see the Teacher as an anointed
office, however, they do not assign to him the technical Messianic
title so typical of the eschatological Messiah.
Allegro has worked with the scrolls soon after the international team
was formed.
He uses Nahum Pesher which dealt with the following
passage from Nahum :
Based on some hints earlier in the text, Allegro
identified the "Angry Lion" with
the Jewish king and high-priest Alexander Jannaeus (103 - 76 B.C.),
who was much hated by his subjects
and some went to invite a foreign
king Demetrius into the country to help overthrow him.
After defeating Demetrius,
Jannaeus took revenge by
crucifying 800 of them
(Josephus, The Jewish War, I iv 6).
The Jewish rebels are "seekers of smoothness", Jannaeus "the Angry
Lion", "hangs up alive" means crucifies them.
Allegro goes a step further by saying that
the Angry Lion is also the Wicked Priest,
and among those crucified was the Teacher of
Righteousness.
Allegro explains :
Cook explains the problems with Allegro's explanation :
Allegro's statement led his colleagues to write
a letter quoted earlier.
Allegro backed off, saying he had been misquoted.
In his own popular book on the scrolls he says
that one should "avoid too dogmatic assertions about the life of the
Teacher or the manner of his death."
(John Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reappraisal, 1964, p. 109).
Allegro respects the archaeological and paleographical evidence of the
Qumran manuscripts. However, since he
believed that Jesus Christ was the Teacher of
Righteousness, therefore Jesus must
have lived in the mid-second century B.C.!
Allegro also made strange connections between the Qumran sect and
Christianity. He explains that the name "Jesus" is a cryptic reference
to "Sacred Mushroom", a hallucinogenic drug supposedly used by the
early Christians. He used a text which he thought was a medical
prescription used by the sectarians, which turns out to be a
scribal writing exercise consisting of random words in alphabetical order.
Unlike Allegro,
Eisenman does not respect the C-14 and
paleographic datings of the Qumran artifacts
and believe the writings
are from Christian Jews.
He identifies James the Just, the brother of Jesus, as the Teacher of
Righteousness, the Man of Lie as Paul and the Wicked High Priest as
Ananus, who executed James in A.D. 62.
According to Eisenman,
John the Baptist began a message of Messianic expectation
after the death of Herod, and Jesus continued in that tradition
and was finally executed as a Zealot.
James the Just took over the movement
and expelled Paul
from the group for propagating dangerous nonsense centering
around Jesus.
He believes that the early Christian movement
belonged to the followers of Paul.
Judea was temporarily without a Roman governor when Ananus became
high priest.
When James tried to take over the temple and
celebrate the rituals, Ananus
"assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the
brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and
some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as
breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
(Josephus, Antiquities XX ix 2).
He believes that the Qumran texts and the New Testament, which he
dates to the second century A.D., are two sides
of the same coin. He used the
same proof text as Dupont-Sommer.
The pesher and Josephus' account seemed very different.
Eisenman attempts to reconcile
them by recalling that, according to an ancient legend mentioned
by Hegesippus,
James was a priest.
The most crucial flaw
in this argument is that James was a priest and had access
to the Holy of Holies.
If this is rejected, then the theory falls.
In contradiction to Eisenman,
Hegesippus says that James was killed
by the "scribes and Pharisees" for preaching Jesus as Savior.
Moreover,
there is nothing in the Pesher
nor in any other Qumran writings that the Wicked Priest succeeded
in killing the Teacher.
We have already seen
that the Pesher
also mentions that the Wicked Priest "was called by the
name of truth at the beginning of his service, but when he had ruled
in Israel his mind became arrogant and he betrayed the Commandments
for wealth." (VIII 8-13).
How can these terms apply to Ananus?
Josephus tells us that
Ananus was high priest for only three months
and the execution of James
took place at the beginning of that time period.
Could the execution of their beloved Teacher
constitute a "calling by the
name of truth"?
Cook further explains:
James' execution in A.D. 62 and its destruction in A.D. 68
gives just too little time for the production of the vast amount
of literature at Qumran,
and thus
Eisenman favors extending the date of the documents,
saying that the C-14
dating process "is still in its infancy, subject to multiple
variables, and too uncertain" to be useful, and the tests of the Swiss
lab "were neither extensive enough nor secure enough" to provide
definite dates.
(Eisenman and Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, p. 13).
At the International Congress on the Dead Scrolls in El Escorial in
March 1991, the results of the second set of C-14 datings
applied to a series of manuscripts from different periods
were presented. The result was a resounding confirmation of the dating
of the manuscripts which had been proposed previously by
paleographers and the first Carbon dating. Prof. H. Stegeman said :
The word Messiah is derived from the Hebrew word meaning "to
anoint" (mashiah).
In the Old Testament, prophets, priests and kings were
anointed with oil into that office.
The "anointed priest" is mentioned
in Leviticus 4:3,5,16, etc. Elisha was
anointed to succeed Elijah (1 Kings 19:16; see also Psalms 105:15). Kings
of Israel were anointed : Saul
(1 Samuel 24:6), David (1 Samuel 16:13), Hazael (1 Kings 19:15) Jehoahaz (2
Kings 23:30), etc. Even Cyrus king of Persia
was refered to as "God's anointed" (Isaiah 45:1).
However, there is a tendency
to use the word chiefly of the King of Israel or Judah; the "Lord's
anointed" is almost always the legitimate king (eg. 1 Samuel 2:10,
Psalms 2:2, 18:50, 20:6, 132:10), especially from David's line.
The last mentioned usage, the Davidic king, leads into the technical
usage of Messiah that New Testament readers are already
familiar, with ho Christos, the Christ.
In Daniel 9:25, we see the technical usage of the Messiah for the
coming Prince of God, who is to come from
the line of David, whose
reign would be characterized by peace, prosperity, blessings,
submission of the Gentiles, and an intimate relationship
with God. Isaiah speaks of the Prince of Peace (9:1-7), the
Branch/Root of Jesse (11:1-10), the Leader of the Peoples (55:3-5),
Micah speaks of the shepherd ruler from Bethlehem (5:1-5),
Jeremiah foretells the Righteous Branch (23:5-6, 33:15), Ezekiel the
David prince (34:23-24, 37:24-28), Zechariah the king of Zion
(9:9-10).
Often, when one reads the New Testament and try to understand the
difficulties involved in Jesus' usage of the title Messiah (Christ),
or the "Son of Man" or the "Son of God", we find little parallel in
the classical writings and those of the rabbinic tradition. With the
discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, we can now understand
better the Jewish society that the Christians emerged from. In fact,
Christians can now point to precedents in the Jewish society before
them.
Garcia Martinez, in introducing the chapter of "Messianic hopes in the
Qumran writings", writes :
The most controversial text mentioning the Prince of the Congregation
is the recently published
"Pierced Messiah" text,
4Q285.
Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise released
a statement about the text to the press on Nov 7, 1991, which prompted
startling headlines of "MESSIANIC LINK TO CHRISTIANITY IS FOUND IN SCROLLS"
in the New York Times, "MESSIAH-LIKE LEADER MENTIONED IN SCROLLS"
in the Washington Post.
This came from a tiny fragment with very little context.
Eisenman and Wise's translation
(The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, p. 29)
is given on the left and Vermes'
translation obtained from
sunsite is given on the right (those words within [...] represents the
reconstruction of the various persons. Note that those reconstructions has
to fit within the length of "space" and match up with the strokes visible
in the existing manuscript) :
The phrase that caused the most uproar was "they will put to death
the Prince of the Congregation."
If Eisenman and Wise's translation is correct (which is possible),
the text talks about a
Messiah being killed in battle.
Concerning the word transliterated WHMYTW,
the web display at sunsite explains :
In September 1992, "Time Magazine" published an article on the
War Rule fragment displayed here (object no. 12) exploring the
differing interpretations. A "piercing messiah" reading would
support the traditional Jewish view of a triumphant messiah. If,
on the other hand, the fragment were interpreted as speaking of a
"pierced messiah," it would anticipate the New Testament view of
the preordained death of the messiah. The scholarly basis for
these differing interpretations--but not their theological
ramifications--are reviewed in "A Pierced or Piercing Messiah?"
In the text of Isaiah which the author quotes clearly, the death of
the "shoot of David" is not announced. Rather, that it will be plainly
he who will judge and kill the wicked. The Qumran interpretation of
this biblical text in 4Q161, which we cited above, is even more
important. There, the "Prince of the congregation" is mentioned in
column II 15 and his victorious character is also stressed and
"Lebanon" and "the most massive of the forest" are interpreted as
meaning the Kittim who are placed in his hand (col. III 1-8).
We have seen the same victorious exaltation of the "Prince of the
congregation" in 1QSb, which also uses the text from Isaiah and it
also appears in the other Qumran allusions to that person. In the same
way, the reference to the destruction of Kittim in line 6 places us
clearly in the perspective of the War Scroll and of the final
victory over the powers of evil. This indicates that the
interpretation according to which it is the "Prince of the
congregation" who kills his foe is the one which fits best the
original biblical text and the other interpretations of this text in
the Qumran writings. This best explains all the elements preserved and
is supplied with convincing parallels in other related texts.
On the other hand, the idea of the death of this "Prince of the
congregation" at the hands of his eschatological foe is not documented
in any other Qumran text dealing with the Davidic "Messiah", or in any
other of the Qumran texts mentioning the "Prince of the congregation."
The allusion to the death of the "Anointed" in Dan 9:25-26 or the
allusions to the "Suffering Servant" of Is 40-45 play no role.
Accordingly, we must conclude that the death of the "Messiah" is
contextually alien to the tone of our text.
(Florentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera, The
People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Their Writings, Beliefs and
Practices, tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Leiden, 1995, p. 167)
The vital portion is found in the
first two lines:
Cook explains where the over-interpretation are :
He releases the captives, opens the eyes of the blind, lifts up
[...] ... he will heal the slain, and will resurrect the dead, and
will announce the good news to the humble...
(Cook says that "Wise and Tabor's ''heal the sick'' is incorrect,
the Hebrew word means ''slain''" in Solving the Mysteries of
the Dead Sea Scrolls, Note 27, p. 177)
Garcia Martinez comments on Wise and Tabor's interpretation :
Wise-Tabor fell obliged to accept that the Lord is the agent of the
deeds announced in lines 5-9 (among which are found some of the
elements that also appear in the New Testament texts, such as the cure
of the blind men), but they suppose a change of subject starting from
line 10. For that they insert a mention of the "Messiah" in the lacuna
of line 10. And in line 11 they insert an idea which not only does not
appear in the text if read correctly, it is even contrary to the
thought of the whole Hebrew Bible: the idea that there are wonderful
actions (in the positive sense) which are not the work of the Lord.
Wise-Tabor translate the lines in question as follows: "(10) a[nd in
His] go[odness forever. His] holy [Messiah] will not be slow [in
coming.] (11) And as for the wonders that were not the work of the
Lord, when he (i.e. the Messiah) [come]s (12) then he will heal the
sick, resurrect the dead, and to the poor announce glad tidings."
However, all these speculations are unnecessary if the text is read
correctly. In it, the Messiah does not raise up the dead, nor are there
wonderful deeds which are not the work of God. What the text teaches
us is that in the final epoch, in the time of the "Messiah," God will
perform wonderful deeds as he has promised and the resurrection of
the dead (those who have been faithful, of course) will be one of the
wonderful deeds.
(Florentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera, The
People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Their Writings, Beliefs and
Practices, tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Leiden, 1995, p. 171)
Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians refered to
the prophecies in Isaiah 29:18-21, 35:5-6, 61:1 to explain Jesus'
reply.
The text 4Q521 is a Jewish text from a period just before
the time of Jesus
that showed the traits of the age of redemption were
already well-understood by that time, and Jesus' reply would be easily
understood by John the Baptist, especially when he lived
in the desert for many years
(Luke 1:80), in close proximty to (some suggest among) the Qumranians.
Morever, we have seen that 4Q521
assigns the redeeming actions to God instead of to human beings.
Thus, by Jesus' reply, He
claimed that God was uniquely present in his own
ministry.
On the other hand, we note a big difference in that Jesus do claim
these miracles as His own, in contrast to what
the sectarians believed, going by Garcia Martinez's interpretation.
Thus, in an indirect way, Jesus once again claim divinity through these
miracles.
The third messianic figure is mentioned, among other texts, in :
Here we also have a third figure, the Prophet, who appears
together with the Messiahs.
A fragmentary scroll, 11QMelchizedek
also seems to speak of this prophet. The text
strings together various biblical verses with
commentary to give a comprehensive picture of God's coming redemption
of Israel through the intervention of "Melchizedek", who is also,
apparently, the archangel Michael, the Prince of Light. Before that
intervention (also described in the War Scroll), a figure shall come
who is described in Isaiah 52:7: one who "brings good news, who
proclaims peace, who brings good tidings, who proclaims salvation."
This prophet is described as a Mashiah.
Jesus himself used Isaiah 61:1-2 to start his ministry :
Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat
down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and
he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your
hearing."
(Luke 4:18-21)
If David was the model king, and Aaron
the model priest, Moses was the model prophet.
Moses' intimate relationship
with God face to face is to found in no other prophet
except in the Prophet to come (Deuteronomy 18:18),
and thus sets Moses apart as the model and prototype.
The above passage
is significant because it is clearly a rare symbolic use of the term
mashiah since Moses was never literally anointed with oil.
Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit at His baptism.
Garcia Martinez also considers this prophet to be a Messiah :
In essence, my reasoning is as follows. 4QTestimonia, a collection of
texts which the community interprets messianically, and corresponds to
the three figures in 1QS IX 11, begins
by quoting Dt 18:18-19 as the
base text which is the foundation for hope in the
"Prophet like Moses," "the Prophet" awaited at the end of time. Then
comes Num 24:15-17, which is the foundation for hope in the
"Messiah-king". Then Dt 33:8-11, which is the foundation for hope in
the "Messiah-priest". The three quotations are at the same level and
in complete parallelism, and therefore must refer to similar figures.
This figure of the "Prophet" is identical with the figures which the
other texts denote as the "Interpreter of the Law," who "teaches
justice at the end of times" and the "messenger" - figures which have
a clear prophetic character and are considered as messianic figures.
Like them, then, the "Prophet" must be considered as a "messianic"
figure. About the last of these figures, "the messenger," we are told
expressively in 11QMelch II 18 that he is "anointed by the spirit." In
other words, the technical term which in 1QS IX 11 is applied to the
other two messianic figures is applied to him, in the singular.
Accordingly, it seems justifiable to consider this "Prophet," whose
coming is expected at the same time as the "Messiahs of Aaron and
Israel," as a true "messianic" figure.
(Florentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera, The
People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Their Writings, Beliefs and
Practices, tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Leiden, 1995, p. 186)
We thus have three messianic figures in the Qumran manuscripts :
The King, the Priest and the Prophet,
corresponding to their Old Testament models
David, Aaron and Moses respectively.
The Melchizedek theme is also taken
up in the New Testament in Hebrews 7, where Jesus is described as the
Priest like Melchizedek. The prototype
Melchizedek in Genesis 22:17 is also a priest-king, and thus
describing Jesus like Melchizedek becomes interestingly fitting,
who in Himself is prophet, king and priest.
Obviously, the New Testament portrayal of Jesus is not a direct
fulfillment of Qumran expectations since they expected three different
figures, while the Bible combines all into the central figure of Jesus
the Messiah - king, priest and prophet.
The next controversial text is the so-called "Son of God" text because
of the presence of the title "Son of God".
Many of those who believe that Jesus' use of "Son of God" does not
amount to a claim of divinity were quick to echo one scholar's
conclusion :
What is awkward with this interpretation is that in II 1-2, where
Garcia Martinez translates
"He will be called son of God, and they will call him son of the
Most High. Like the sparks of a vision, so will their kingdom be ..."
Garcia Martinez interprets (rather strangely)
to be the shortness of the tribulation.
The more natural interpretation will be the kingdoms that are
like the sparks of a vision, ie. fleetingly
short.
The question is,
who is the "their" in that line of text?
Perhaps along this interpretation,
one might be able to force the interpretation that the shortness
refers to the kingdoms of Assyria and Egypt.
Another problem with this view is that the "Son of God" does not bring
peace or redemption. Instead, he is preceded by tribulation
and followed by war
and violence. Milik thought that this passage is history disguised as
prophecy, that
the "Son of God" was one of the Greek kings who oppressed the Jews
during the Hasmonean period and who
claimed to be divine,
while the Israeli scholar David Flusser thought him to be the Anti-Christ.
Cook comments :
[His son] shall be called great, and by his name he shall be
designated.
-- that is, the son shall have the same name as his father. But "their
kingdom" shall be as brief as a meteor's flash....
Milik thinks that this could refer to
the infamous Antiochus IV
Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.), whose name means
"God made manifest" and who claimed to be
the manifestation on earth of Zeus.
He prohibited some of the central elements of Judaism, attempted to
destroy all copies of the Torah and required offerings to Zeus. He
also erected a statue of Zeus in the Temple and sacrificed a pig
there, thus
igniting the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. ("the
people of God shall arise").
The nine year old
boy, Antiochus V Eupator ("designated by his name"?), succeeded him
and reigned only from 164 to 162 B.C.
(kingdom "like the sparks of a vision"?).
He and his general Lysias,
undertook a campaign against Judas Maccabaeus
(1 Maccabees 6:28-54, 2 Maccabees 13:1-2,
Antiquities XII 366-383)
and destroyed the walls of the Temple before
withdrawing.
Scholars were quick to point to the similarities of 4Q246 with
Luke 1:32-33 concerning the annunciation of Jesus' birth :
Cook comments on this connection :
Indeed, 4Q246 shows us how blasphemous the title Son of God was
thought to be. It clearly implies that part of the gentile ruler's
wickedness was in claiming that designation as a fixed prerogative.
Although someone could be called "a" son of God, no one could be "the"
son of God. (The Aramaic phrase must be translated "the", not "a"
Son of God.). The Qumran evidently saw this claim as an assertion of
equality with God.
All of this throws light on the use of the term "Son of God" in the
New Testament. According to John 3:16, Jesus is God's "only son." Jesus'
continual reference to himself as "the Son" prompted his opponents to
accuse him of blasphemy (John 10:33,36). The high priest's question in
Mark 14:61, "Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed One?" makes
sense against this background. He did not mean, "Are you claiming to be
the Messiah, by royal status a son of God?" He meant, "Are you that
messianic claimant who is reputed to call himself 'the' Son of God?"
When Jesus responded, "I am," the priest considered this to be
blasphemy worthy of death (Mark 16:64).
Claiming to
be the Messiah was not blasphemy. Claiming to be the Son of God was.
Text 4Q246, in its negative portrayal of "the Son of God" typifies the
mindset behind that attitude.
(Edward M. Cook, Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
1994, pp. 172-173)
On the other hand, if Garcia Martinez is correct, then the title "Son of
God" refers to a divine being, and Jesus' claim to be the Son of God
likewise will be a claim to divinity, and likewise a blasphemy.
The Qumran manuscripts, by the scarcity of this title, testifies
that this title is definitely reserved for some special person (either
supremely good, or bad).
In broad terms, I would say that the Dead Sea Scrolls do not explain
Christianity to us but help us know the Judaism from which
Christianity was born.
(ibid, p. 198)
In line with texts from the Old Testament, especially the prophet Ezekiel,
the writings from Qumran stress divine transcendence and present the figure
of a God who unleashes his wrath against successive generations of men. In
each generation, God does not allow more than a small remnant to remain.
(Damascus Document III 13). These texts comprise a link between the Old
Testament and the Pauline doctrine in Rom 9-11, but on the other hand they
offer a strong contrast with gospel texts which speak of God the Father,
"who makes his sun rise upon evil and good and rains over just and unjust"
(Matt 5:45), or of the Father who orders the fatted calf to be killed on
the return of the prodigal son (Lk 15:23). Ultimately, the overall image of
the message and figure of Jesus presented in the gospel text contrasts with
the extremely rigoristic attitudes expressed in the texts of the Qumran
sect.
(Forentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera, The
People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Their Writings, Beliefs and
Practices, tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Leiden, 1995, p. ??)
Finally, Barrera writes :
Although they do offer no direct evidence about the Christian origins, the
importance of the texts from Qumran for study of the New Testament is
absolutely conclusive. They provide much rich and valuable information
about the Judaism of the period and as a consequence allow us to know what
has been called the Jewish matrix of Christianity (Kasemann).
(Florentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera, The
People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Their Writings, Beliefs and
Practices, tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Leiden, 1995, pp. 203-204)
Part One - The Dead Sea Scrolls Contradict the Qur'an
[T]he very scholars who should be most capable of working on the
documents and interpreting them have displayed a not altogether
surprising, but nonetheless curious, reluctance to go to the heart of
the matter. The scholars appeared to have held back from making
discoveries which, there is evidence to believe, may upset a great
many basic teaching of the Christian church.
(John Allegro, The Untold Story of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Harpur's
Magazine, August 1966, p. 46)
The rest of the early team,
Skehan, de Vaux, Milik, Starcky, Strugnell, wrote to the London Times,
protesting,
"We are unable to see in the texts the 'findings' of Mr. Allegro... It
is our conviction that either he has misread the texts or he has built
up a chain of conjectures which the materials do not support."
Nothing that appears in the Scrolls hitherto discovered throws any
doubt on the originality of Christianity... The undersigned belong to
different denominations or to none. They have no concern but to
establish the truth and to see that these important documents are
studied and evaluated with caution, scholarship, and a sense of
proportion.
(The Dead Sea Scrolls: Significance for Scholars,
Times of London, 21
Dec. 1965. The signers were G.R. Driver, H.H. Rowley (who had
recommended Allegro to the team),
Peter Ackroyd, Matthew Black, J.B. Segal
(Jewish), D.
Winston Thomas and Edward Ullendorff (Jewish).)
Allegro retracted his statements, admitting that he has stated as fact
something he had read into the text.
Millar Burrows, who was later added to the early team, says:
It is quite true that as a liberal Protestant I do not share all the
beliefs of my more conservative brethren. It is my considered
conclusion, however, that if one will go through any of the historic
statements of Christian faith he will find nothing that has been or
can be disproved by the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is as true of things
that I myself do not believe as it is of my most firm and cherished
convictions. If I were so rash as to undertake a theological debate
with a professor from either the Moody Bible Institute or Fordham
University [a Catholic University] -- which God forbid -- I fear I
should find no ammunition in the Dead Sea Scrolls to use against them.
(Millar Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 39)
Concerning the publication of the manuscripts, Barrera writes :
Nor should we forget that the longest manuscripts from Qumran have
already been published years ago. Many times a certain confusion
between manuscripts and fragments from manuscripts have been played
on. When the criticism was made repeatedly that most of the
manuscripts from Qumran have not yet been published, it has been
ignored or it has not been mentioned that the lengthy manuscripts were
already published. And there has been a wish to ignore that what
awaits publication comprises chiefly fragments and, according to
Florentino Garcia Martinez, "A large part of the unpublished
manuscripts - like a good part of the manuscripts already published
already, comprises such fragmentary remains that to translate them
would be of absolutely no value to the reader".
(Florentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera, The
People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Their Writings, Beliefs and
Practices, tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Leiden, 1995, p. 27)
When the IAA made available all photographs of the manuscripts in the
museums in Jerusalem, Barrera wrote:
I could immediately verify that the vast majority of unpublished text
consisted of small fragments from which often it is impossible to
reconstruct even one sentence with any sense at all.
(Julio Trebolle Barrera, The
People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Their Writings, Beliefs and
Practices, tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Leiden, 1995, p. 29)
We now look at some of the more controversial theories tying the Dead Sea
Scrolls with Christianity.
Some Controversialists
Andre Dupont-Sommer
"The Wicked Priest pursued the Teacher of Righteousness to destroy him
in his hot anger in the place of his exile. And in the time appointed
for the repost of the Day of Atonement, he appeared to them to destroy
them and to overthrow them on the fast day of their Sabbath rest.
(XI 4-8)"
Cook explains Dupont-Sommer's theory :
Most people see one episode, Dupont-Summer sees two. He says that the
Wicked Priest pursued the Teacher to destroy him, and succeeded. The
second sentence refers to a later event, wherein the glorified Teacher
was believed to have revealed himself to his enemies after his death
and destroyed them on the Day of Atonement. This second episode, says
Dupont-Sommer, occurred during the capture of Jerusalem by the Roman
Pompey on the Day of Atonement in 63 B.C.
(Edward M. Cook, Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
1994, p. 131).
"The interpretation of the word concerns the priest who rebelled
[...]
Laws of [God ... column breaks off. Then
Column IX ... ]
to wound him with judgments of wickedness, and horrors of evil
diseases they have executed on him and acts of revenge in the body of
his flesh" (IX.1-2).
Most specialists disagreed with Dupont-Sommer's reading. In the first
passage, there is no indication that the Teacher was killed, and it is
most natural to take the phrase "he appeared to them to destroy them"
as referring to the Wicked Priest, not the Teacher of Righteousness.
And it is not clear at all how the "glorious reappearance" of the
tortured Teacher is connected with Pompey's arrival in Jerusalem. How
can such a supernatural exploit be dovetailed with the approach of the
hated Roman?
Indeed, we have seen in Part One the quotes from Lawrence Schiffman
that it was the Wicked Priest who suffered the terrible fate, which
Mr. Al-Kadhi picks up to be Judas Ischariot.
The wicked of Ephraim and Manasseh who will attempt to lay hands on
the Priest and the members of his council in the period of testing
which will come upon them. However, God will save them from their
hands and after they will be delivered into the hands of dreadful
nations for judgments (4QpPs^a 2:18-20).
Analysis of the texts from Qumran does not authorize anyone to state,
(as Dupont-Sommer did), that the Teacher of Righteousness died
crucified like a messiah. The texts which speak about death by
crucifixion make no mention at all of that character.
(Florentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera in The
People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Their Writings, Beliefs and
Practices, tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Leiden, 1995, p. 55)
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 [Teacher]. Like the latter He preached penitence,
poverty, humility, love of one's neighbor, chastity. Like him, He
prescribed the observance of the Law of Moses, the whole Law, but the
Law finished and perfected, thanks to His own revelations. Like him He
was the Elect and the Messiah of God, the Messiah redeemer of the
world. Like him He was the object of the hostility of the priests...
judgment on Jerusalem.... 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.
(Dupont-Sommer, The Dead Sea Scrolls, A Preliminary Survey,
Oxford, Blackwell, 1952, p. 99)
It is unlikely the sect considered the Teacher the Messiah. Other
texts from the scrolls plainly teach that the group still expected a
Messiah who would save Israel (some passages even suggest that they
expected two messiahs, a priestly Messiah and a royal Messiah).
It is unlikely that the Teacher was executed, although he certainly
was persecuted. There is no suggestion anywhere in the Dead Sea
Scrolls that the Teacher, or any other human being, would be the
supreme judge at the end of the end of time. That role was assigned to
God. Although the Teacher found a group based on his teachings, there
is no indication that his followers expected "his glorious return."
Indeed, the comparison with Jesus Christ can only succeed if the
Teacher formed the center of the sect's worship and devotions. He did
not. Some of the scrolls, like the War Scroll, the
Manual of Discipline, the Temple Scroll,
and 4QMMT do not even mention the
Teacher. He is not mentioned in any of the new Cave 4 material (with
one possible exception).
(Edward M. Cook, Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
1994, p. 133)
John Allegro
"The lion killed enough for his cubs, and strangled the prey for his
mate" (Nahum 2:12a)...
the Angry Lion who smites by his great ones and
the men of his party... ["Filling with the kill] his lairs and his
dens with the prey" (Nahum 2:12b)... acts of revenge against the
"seekers of smoothness," who hangs up men alive ... in Israel before,
for concerning one hanged alive on a tree, it says, "Behold I am
against you" (Nahum 2:13)
(I 4-9).
"[Jannaeus] descended on Qumran and arrested its leader, the
mysterious "Teacher of Righteousness," whom he turned over to his
mercenaries to be crucified.... When the Jewish king had left, [the
sectarians] took down the broken body of their Master to stand guard
over it until Judgment Day. For they believed that the terrible events
of their time were surely heralding the visitation of God Himself....
They believed their Master would rise again and lead his faithful
flock (the people of the new testament, as they called themselves) to
a new and purified Jerusalem... What is clear is that there was a
well-defined Essenic pattern into which Jesus of Nazareth fits. What
theologians make of it is really outside my province. I just give my
findings."
(Times Magazine, 6 Feb 1956, quoted by J. Fitzmyer,
Responses to 101 questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls,
1992, p. 164).
Anyone who compares this with the Nahum Pesher can see that Allegro's
theory is very speculative. Not only this, Allegro's reading demands
that Jannaeus' enemies be the "seekers of smoothness", which are also
the enemies of the sect, as other scrolls makes clear. Why would
Jannaeus, who Allegro thinks is the persecutor of the sect, crucify
the enemies of his own opponents? Why would the Teacher be crucified
with the hated "seekers of smoothness"? Actually, the Teacher is
never mentioned, nor is the Wicked Priest.
(Edward M. Cook, Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
1994, p. 136)
Robert Eisenman
Finally, Eisenman asserts, without evidence, that James was tried on
blasphemy.
"For his part, Josephus testifies that James was tried before a
Pharisaic/Sadduccean Sanhedrin on a charge of blasphemy, ie.
pronouncing or causing others to pronounce the forbidden name of God
[as the high priest did on Yom Kippur]."
There is nothing like that in Josephus' narrative.
(Edward M. Cook, Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
1994, p. 140).
Therefore one may dismiss Dr. Eisenman's ideas in this field.
At least they can no longer trouble the common Qumran Essene
hypothesis.
(quoted by Julio T. Barrera in
Florentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera,
The People of the Dead Sea
Scrolls, Their Writings, Beliefs and Practices,
tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Leiden, 1995, p. 25)
The Messiah
In most of the other Jewish writings of the Second Temple period, the
figure of the Messiah either does not feature or plays a very secondary
role. In contrast, the new texts expressed not only the hope of an
eschatological salvation introduced into this hope the figure (or figures)
of a Messiah using the technical terminology.
(Florentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera, The
People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Their Writings, Beliefs and
Practices, tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Leiden, 1995, p. 159)
Pierced Messiah or Killing Messiah ?
The Branch of David is one of the sect's most common names for the
Messiah-King. They also sometimes refer to him
as the Prince of the Congregation. The Hebrew word
translated "prince" (or "ruler") is nasi and was used by the
prophet Ezekiel in his prophecies of the Messiah (34:23-34; 37:24-28).
1. [...]Isaiah the prophet, 1. [...]Isaiah the prophet:
[The thickets of the forest] [The thickets of the forest]
will be fell[ed will be cut [
2. with an axe and Lebanon shall 2. with an axe and Lebanon by a
f]all [by a mighty one]. A majestic one will f]all. And
staff shall rise from the there shall come forth a
root of Jesse, [and a planting shoot from the stump of Jesse
from his roots will bear [...
fruit ...
3. ] the Branch of David. They 3. ] the Branch of David and they
will enter into judgment with will enter into judgment with
[... [...
4. ] and they will put to death 4. ] and the Prince of the
the Prince of the Congregation, Congregation, the
the Bran[ch of David ... Bran[ch of David] will kill
him[
5. ]and with woundings, and the 5. by stroke]s and by wounds. And
(high) priest will a Priest [of renown (?)] will
command [... command [...
6. the s]lai[n] of Kitti[m] 6. the s]lai[n] of the Kitti[m]
Hebrew is comprised primarily of consonants; vowels must be
supplied by the reader. The appropriate vowels depend on the
context. Thus, the text (line 4) may be translated as "and the
Prince of the Congregation, the Branch of David, will kill him," or
alternately read as "and they killed the Prince." Because of the
second reading, the text was dubbed the "Pierced Messiah." The
transcription and translation presented here support the "killing
Messiah" interpretation, alluding to a triumphant Messiah
(Isaiah 11:4).
Cook explains the difficulties with Eisenman and Wise's
connection with Christianity :
Even if Eisenman and Wise's translation is correct, it would refer to
the death of the Messiah in battle, not his crucifixion or atoning
self-sacrifice. The "piercings" would have to refer to mutilations
inflicted on the prince's corpse. So other than in the common
occurrence of a messianic figure's death, we do not have here a true
parallel to any distinctively Christian belief.
The fact is that the text is so fragmentary that we may never know
what it really was about. Both Eisenman and Wise have backed off from
their initial strong statements about the significance of the
scroll.
(Edward M. Cook, Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
1994, p. 161)
Garcia Martinez comments on Eisenman and Wise' interpretation :
The use of the verb in plural in line 3 could favor understanding the
verb as a plural, assuming continuity between the two. However, the
lacuna and the presence in line 5 of a verb in the singular lessen the
force of this argument. On the other hand, the absence of the object
marker ('et in Hebrew) before "Prince of the congregation"
clearly counsels considering "Prince of the congregation" as the
subject of the verb, although this is not a decisive argument either.
Ultimately, only the context can assist us in deciding between the two
grammatically possible interpretations. However, this context does not
leave any doubt at all about the meaning of the clause.
Later, Eisenman himself said :
"I never
said there was a concept of a 'suffering Messiah' at Qumran... To be
precise, this interpretation... was originally Professor Wise's."
Eisenman says his motives were "to gainsay the notion that there was
nothing interesting in the unpublished corpus" and "to show that the
links between early Christianity and Qumran were much closer than
previously thought"
(Biblical Archaeological Review,
Jan/Feb 1993, p. 66).
Unfortunately, of course, if there is no concept of a "suffering
Messiah" at Qumran, one fails to see how
"early Christianity and Qumran were much
closer than previously thought."
The Messiah of Heaven and Earth
When reading about the expected Messiahs of the sectarians,
we often find ourselves in the unpleasant
situation where
it is not
clear if it is refering to a technical usage of the title Messiah,
and if so, which Messiah it is talking about.
This is probably transparent to the initiates of the sect, but not
those outside the community.
An example of this confusion is in the interpretation of the
text 4Q521, dubbed "The Messiah of Heaven and
Earth" by Eisenman and Wise and has been studied in greater depth by
Wise and James Tabor. The latter claimed that
Our Qumran text, 4Q521, is, astonishingly, quite close to this
Christian concept of the messiah ... [T]he Messiah of our text,
4Q521, controls heaven and earth, heals the wounded and raises the
dead. He rules over nature. Even death, that old enemy, cannot
stand before him (he will resurrect the dead).
(Wise and Tabor, The Messiah at Qumran, Biblicical Archaeology
Review, Nov/Dec 1992, 60-61).
[... The hea]vens and the earth will obey His Messiah,
[The sea and all th]at is in them. He will not turn aside from the
commandment of the Holy Ones.
(Wise and Tabor's translation)
"His Messiah" is a possible translation of the Hebrew phrase; so is
"his Messiahs", plural. If taken that way, the messiahs could be the
Messiahs of Aaron and Israel; or they could be the anointed priests,
or the anointed priests, taken as a group. Wise and Tabor have
overlooked the fact that the first two lines are in parallelism. The
second line has to repeat the same thought as the first line. This
strengthens the plural interpretation (as does the unambiguous plural
"your anointed ones" in another fragment from the same scroll). A
better translation therefore might be:
Cook says that there is not enough room in the text for the letters
required for Wise and Tabor's restoration and
translation of "the sea and all..."
He continues :
Heaven and earth will obey his anointed ones,
Nothing in them will turn aside from the commandment
of the holy ones.
(Edward M. Cook, Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Note 26. p. 177).
If this is correct, then the "he" who acts in the rest of the passage
must be God:
In line 10 they read "and [in his good]ness [for ever. His] Holy
[Messiah] will not delay [in coming]", supporting their reconstruction
with the use of this same expression in 1Q30. However, both the
reading "and in his goodness" and "Holy" are paleographically
impossible; the strokes purported to be there do not match the traces
preserved. Just as false is their reading "his works" in line 11,
which besides syntactically old, deprives the following verbs of a
subject. With the editor, read "he will do".
4Q521 partially matched the words of Jesus.
When asked if He was the expected Messiah, Jesus replied with :
Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard : The blind
receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the
deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preach to the
poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.
(See Luke 7:22-23, also Matthew 11:5-6)
How many Messiahs?
We have already mentioned in Part One that the Qumran sect
expected three Messianic figures to come in the final days to
lead the faithful, their community.
Since it is basically acknowledged
that there is more than one Messiah, we shall not belabor the point
here, but just quote :
They shall be judged by the ancient precepts... until the coming of
the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel
(Rule of the Community IX 11)
"I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who will do according
to what is in my heart and mind. I will firmly establish his house, and
he will minister before my anointed one always."
(1 Samuel 2:35)
"[...] the two sons of oil of anointing [...] observed the precepts of
God [...] because the men of the co[mmunity...]".
(4Q254), which is a reference to Zechariah 4:14.
Regarding the relationship between these two Messiahs :
[The interpretation of the word concerns the shoot] of David which
will sprout [in the final days, since with the breath of his lips he
will execute] his enemies and God will support him with [the spirit
of] courage [...] throne of glory, [holy] crown and hemmed vestments
[...] in his hand. He will rule over all the peoples and Magog [...]
his sword will judge all the peoples. And as for what he says: "He
will not [judge by appearances] or give verdicts on hearsay," its
interpretation: [...] according to what they teach him, he will judge,
and upon his mouth [...] with him will go out one of the priests of
renown, holding clothes in his hand.
(4QpIsa^a III 18-25, also known as 4Q161)
We have already seen in Part One that in the assembly, the
Messiah-Priest leads the Messiah-King. 4Q161 tells us that
the Messiah-King will be taught by the priests, more specifically the
Messiah-Priest.
Another name for the Messiah-King is the Prince of the
Congregation, made explicit in fragment 5 of 4Q285, and which Eisenman
and Wise has used to justify their hypothesis of the "Pierced
Messiah".
They should not depart from any counsel of the law in order to walk in
complete stubbornness of their heart, but instead shall be ruled by
the first directives which the men of the Community begun to be taught
until the prophet comes, and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.
Blank
(Rule of the Community, 1QS IX 9-11)
"The one who brings good news" is the one anointed (mashiah) with
the spirit [...] he shall make them wise in all the eras of wrath.
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach
good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the
prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the
oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
Interestingly, 4Q375 refers to Moses as "God's anointed."
Cursed is the man who does not arise and observe and do according
to all the commandments of the Lord in the mouth of Moses his
Anointed One (mashiah), and to walk after the Lord, the God of our
fathers, who commands us from Mount Sinai ... [The people] stood
afar off... but Moses, the man of God, was with God in the cloud
... and like an angel he [God] speaks from his mouth...
(John Strugnell, Moses-Pseudepigrapha at Qumran: 4Q375, 4Q376 and
similar works, in L. Schiffman, ed.
Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1990, 221-56)
It is obvious from his juxtaposition on the two "Messiah" figures that
this person is an eschatological person. It is less evident that he is
a true "messianic" figure, since unlike the other two he is not
termed "anointed" here. And yet I think that even so he must be
considered as a true "messianic" figure.
The "Son of God" text, 4Q246 or 4QAramaic Apocalypse
"there is nothing particularly
unique about calling someone 'son of God' at the time of Jesus"
(James D.G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus, 1985, p. 49).
If it were so, then why did the Jews
react so negatively to Jesus' use of that title?
4Q246 can actually help us here.
This text
consist of two surviving columns.
Half of the first column is torn
away; the second is intact. In the translation of Garcia Martinez,
what remains of the first column reads :
1. [...] settled upon him and he fell before the throne
2. [...] eternal king. You are angry and your years
3. [...] they will see you, and all shall come for ever.
4. [...] great, oppression will come upon the earth
5. [...] and great slaughter in the city
6. [...] king of Assyria and Egypt
7. [...] and he will be great over the earth
8. [...] they will do, and all will serve
9. [...] great will he be called and he will be designated by his name.
The second column reads :
1. He will be called son of God, and they will
call him son of the Most High. Like the sparks
2. of a vision, so will their kingdom be;
they will rule several years over
3. the earth and crush everything; a people
will crush another people, and a city another city.
4. [blank] Until the people of God arises and
makes everyone rest from the sword.
5. His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom,
and all his paths in truth and uprigh[tness].
6. The earth (will be) in truth and all will make peace.
The sword will cease in the earth,
7. and all the cities will pay him homage.
He is a gerat God among the gods (?).
8. He will make war with him; he will place the
peoples in his hand and cast away everyone before him.
9. His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom,
and all the abysses.
The obvious question is, who is this "Son of God"?
Garcia Martinez described the contents of this fragment when
it was published in 1983 :
The text tells us that someone (a seer?) falls down in front of a
king's throne and addresses him. He describes to him the evils to
come, among which references to Assyria and Egypt play an important
role. Even more important will be the apparition of a mysterious
person to whom will be given the titles of "son of God" and "son of
the Most High," a person who "will be great upon the earth" and whom
"all will serve." His appearance will be followed by tribulations, but
these will be as fleeting as a spark and will only last "until the
people of God arises." The outcome will be the end of war, an eternal
kingdom in which all will make peace, cities will be conquered,
because the great God will be with him (with his people?) and he will
make all his enemies subject to him."
(Florentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera, The
People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Their Writings, Beliefs and
Practices, tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Leiden, 1995, p. 175)
Garcia Martinez believes that this "Son of God" is a heavenly
figure based on the close parallel with the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7:
"His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom" of II 5 (Daniel 7:27),
"His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom" of II 9 (Daniel 7:14).
This Son of God "will be an agent to bring eschatological salvation,
judge all the earth, conquer all the kings through God's power
and rule the whole universe."
(Florentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera, The
People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Their Writings, Beliefs and
Practices, tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Leiden, 1995, p. 176)
Probably Milik and especially Flusser were closer to the truth than
Fitzmyer and Garcia-Martinez. The key is to notice that, after the
"Son of God" is introduced, the text goes on to talk about "their
kingdom." Who are "they"? There must be more than one ruler. Probably
the "king of Assyria and Egypt" is the first ruler, and the Son of
God, his son or successor, a king who claims divine honors, the second
ruler. The fragmentary end of the first column must originally have
read like this:
You [Mary] will be with child and give birth to a son,
and you are to give him the
name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.
The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will
reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
(Luke 1:31-33)
But, as we have seen, 4Q246 probably does not refer to a Messiah, or
even to a good person. Though the Qumran text and the Luke passage
have some expressions in common, the latter speaks about Jesus' birth
as a fulfillment of the promise made to David's descendant: "I will be
his father, and he will be my son" (2 Sam 7:14). In 4Q246 there is no
trace of the Davidic connection, and the appearance of the "Son of the
Most High" is the occasion for suffering, not joy. Therefore it is
unlikely that there is any direct connection between the text.
(Edward M. Cook, Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
1994, p. 170)
In explaining the Jews' anger at Jesus' claim to be the "Son of God",
Christians had explained them by citing the Roman emperors' claim
to the title
"son of God" (divi filius or theou huious).
However, we now know of precedents of this claim in a Jewish context.
Cook explains :
Qumran can help us here. It is true that in this period someone by
virtue of his royal office or great piety, might, in a moment of high
exaltation, be recognized as specially favored by God, and accordingly
called God's "son". But that momentary acclamation never become a fixed
title or intrinsic name of the person so complimented. "The son of God"
never become merely a synonym of the Messiah or the man of God. It is
always used sparingly and figuratively. In fact, apart from 4Q246, no
one, including the Teacher of Righteousness, is described by this
title. Although God may be addressed as "Father" in the psalms of the
sect, no member of the sect is called his son.
The title of "Son of Man"
Although we find no text among the Qumran manuscripts
bearing the title of "Son of Man" which Jesus often
used of Himself, the previous discussion of the "Son of God" text sheds
some light too. As seen before, the text gives the same description
as that of Daniel's "Son of Man," thus effectively equating the two titles.
In the light of this usage,
Jesus' use of this title would be a claim to divinity.
The title of "Lord"
Before the Qumran discoveries, the title Kyrios (Lord) applied to
Jesus was thought to have originated from the Greeks
who used it of the pagan gods. However, we now find precedents in Jewish
writings of the Qumran.
Two texts from Qumran have shown that the use of "Lord" on its own was
not only possible in the Judaism of the period, but
that they refer to the Creator, God.
The Targum of Job (11QtgJob XXIV 6-7) uses the term
"Lord" (mare') in parallelism with "God" ('elaha').
Similarly, in 4QEnbar (4Q202) IV 5,
there occurs the expression "[And to
Gabriel] the Lord [said]: Go [to the bastards...]." Thus the title "(the)
Lord" was well known in Judaism, and is used to refer to God. All these
sheds enormous light when Jesus said :
"Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?"
(Luke 6:46)
Conclusion
We find many parallels between the Messianic expectations of the Qumran
sect and those written in the New Testament. However, there are
also distinct differences, and it is easy to fall into the same pit
as Mr. Al-Kadhi did.
Garcia Martinez concludes :
Ultimately, in the 1st century the Jewish group whom we know through
the New Testament was to merge the hope in a "Messiah king", a
"Messiah-priest", a "Prophet like Moses", a "Suffering Servant" and
even a "heavenly Messiah" into one historical person from the past
whose return is expected in the eschatological future.
(Florentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera, The
People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Their Writings, Beliefs and
Practices, tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Leiden, 1995, p. 189)
Barrera cautions :
If only the points of contact between the New Testament texts and those
from Qumran are noticed, a distorted view of them both results. It is
important not to forget the points of disagreement, which we have not
considered here but turn out to be more numerous and, in general, more
significant. So, for example, the concepts of "Law" and "Covenant" are
fundamental in the texts from Qumran. In the message of Jesus, however, the
concept of "the Kingdom of God" is predominant, but is very marginal in
texts from Qumran....
The certain fact is that the New Testament texts show many parallels
and points of contact with the texts from Qumran. As the Essene
writings are more ancient than the Christian writings it is logical to
assume that the former could influence the latter. Undoubtedly, just
as two parallel lines never actually meet, a Qumran text and a gospel
text can run parallel without it meaning that the first has influenced
the second directly. Study of comparative literature and comparative
religion has often fallen into "parallelomania" (Sandmel), which
confuses parallel with tangents and similarities of form or content
with direct contacts or influences. In this respect it is a really
surprising fact that the gospel of Mark, the most ancient and most Semitic
of the gospels, offers very few parallels with the texts from Qumran,
whereas the gospels of Matthew and John and the epistles of Paul provide,
as we will see, many points of contact....
Bibliography
Answering Islam Home Page