The Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls
What was found?
Pretty much everyone has heard of the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’, even those who are relatively uninterested in religion. What are these mysterious scrolls? Why did they create a stir in the way that they did? Can we learn anything from them? Do we have anything to fear from them? What is their importance and value? The fact that we are discussing this topic in a class on New Testament background may already hint at some of the answers. But these are important questions, and there are good reasons why the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been considered the most important archaeological find of the twentieth century.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Their name already tells us that they are scrolls, but there is more that anyone who wants to study them should know about the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’. First, they were not found in the Dead Sea, but near it, at a number of sites but in particular at one called Qumran. These scrolls were found between the years 1947 and 1956, although the third century Christian theologian Origen recounts that manuscripts were discovered in the area in his time too. The scrolls found in caves near a settlement at Qumran are the ones that are most frequently in view when people refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is on these that we shall focus. They were found in caves, some of which appear to have been inhabited, but others of which were simply a depository for scrolls and manuscripts. The scrolls of what is today known as ‘Cave 1’ was found accidentally by a Bedouin shepherd boy. In total, 11 caves were found. Some contained largely complete manuscripts, others only fragments. There was, to some extent, a competition between archaeologists and the Bedouin, and the latter sold many of the fragments and manuscripts they found, so that these ended up in collections all over the world, and it is likely that there are still fragments from these scrolls in private collections all around the world. But the details of the story you can read about elsewhere…
It is not how the manuscripts were found that made the find so historic, but what they are and what they contain. Most if not all of the scrolls found at Qumran were written between the third century B.C. and the first century AD, and most of them stem from around the first century BC to the first century AD. Some of them are biblical manuscripts, that is, Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament. The rest include some non-canonical books that enjoyed wide circulation. But perhaps most intriguing are the large number of texts that represent the writings, rules, biblical interpretation, and other writings of the Jewish sect of which the group that inhabited the settlement at Qumran was a part.
Why are these scrolls important?
We shall look in a little while at the question of which Jewish group produced the scrolls, as well as looking at their contents in a bit more detail. For now, however, I’d like to turn to the question of why these scrolls are important. They are of great historical significance in general; to a student of the Bible, however, they are absolutely priceless. Why? Well, I’ll give you a few reasons:
1) They give us first-hand information about a Jewish group in Jesus’ time
Again, I will delay discussion exactly who it was that wrote the scrolls, but one thing that is clear and pretty much undisputable is that they were written by a Jewish group that had withdrawn and formed a tight-knit ‘monastic’ community in the Judean desert. This is highly significant, when one thinks about our sources of knowledge about other Jewish groups. Apart from the writings of Josephus, who claims to be a Pharisee but tells us little about their beliefs, we have almost no first-hand accounts of what any Jewish group in this period believed and how they lived. The Sadducees left us nothing. The Pharisees left a body of oral tradition that found its way into the Mishnah and Talmud, but nothing concrete that can be associated with this period without hesitation or qualification. The early Christians obviously left us with writings, as well as their opinion of other groups, and Philo of Alexandria also wrote a great deal. However, since the discovery of these scrolls we have, for the first time, the very words of a Jewish group from first-century Palestine.
2) This gives us an indication of the diversity within Judaism in this period, and of the character of Judaism in general
Prior to the discovery of the scrolls, we only had the anachronistic perspective of the rabbinic literature to complement the information we have from the New Testament. The rabbinic literature gives the impression that the views of the rabbis were simply the views of pretty much everyone from the very beginning, and that the rabbis were able to enforce their views as orthodoxy. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we suddenly had the perspective of a less well known Jewish group from this period, and we had it in their own words. This group is highly critical of the Jerusalem priests (the group calls itself, among other things, the ‘sons of Zadok’). They are also highly critical of the Pharisees. Actually, the group’s criticisms of their opponents is veiled in coded language and derisive nicknames. The opponents mentioned in their writings who are usually identified as the Pharisees are called the ‘seekers of smooth things’. The reason for identifying them with the Pharisees is primarily the word used for ‘smooth things’. It is chalaqot, which most scholars think is a play on words with the rabbinic term for their legal decisions, ‘halakot’. There is also a reference to the ‘young lion’ executing the ‘seekers of smooth things’ by ‘hanging men alive’, which fits perfectly with a known historical event, namely the crucifixion of 800 Pharisees by Alexander Jannaeus. { See further Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p.36; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls, p.95} Thus we have a group which disagreed with both the Jerusalem priesthood and the Pharisees. We shall think about this group’s identity more a bit later. But the important thing for now is that we realize the importance of this discovery in terms of our appreciation of Jewish diversity in the first century. Previously, if anyone acknowledged some diversity, it was in terms of ‘conservative’ Jews represented by the Pharisees, and others who showed greater influence of Hellenism and non-Jewish modes of thought. It is this viewpoint that has been shattered and overturned. We now know both that all groups were influenced by Hellenism, and that there were genuine, significant differences between even conservative Jews. As we shall see when we look at their beliefs, the group that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls certainly fits the designation ‘conservative Jews’.
3) These writings have parallels with the New Testament writings
Another reason the scrolls are important is that they offer a number of significant parallels to ideas and language found in the New Testament. Previously, many scholars assumed that some of the language found, for example, in John’s Gospel, shows the influence of Greek or pagan ideas and language. Examples include his ‘dualistic’ language – his contrast between light and darkness and between the sons of light and the sons of darkness. This language, however, finds a very close parallel in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact, there is a whole work devoted to the end-times, eschatological war between the sons of light and the sons of darkness, which sounds like something straight out of Revelation. This language was clearly in use within Judaism, and thus there is no reason to appeal to Greek influences to explain it in John. (Indeed, if any of you read my book on John, you’ll see that I’m firmly convinced that John is fundamentally Jewish – anyway, you know where to look for more information on this subject!). Reference is also made in the DSS to the spirit of truth and the spirit of iniquity
Another important parallel is in the phrase ‘sons of Beliar’ as a polemical designation that this group used to refer en masse to other Jews who did not accept their views. ‘Beliar’ is another name for ‘the Devil’, and thus we see that here we have something similar to the language found in John. In John, opponents who are referred to as ‘the Jews’ are in John chapter 8 called ‘children of the Devil’. Now in view of this language’s history in anti-Semitism, I don’t think anyone would be justified in using it today. However, in its original context it was clearly not ‘anti-Semitic’ precisely because it was language used by some Jews about others with whom they disagreed, rather than by non-Jews about Jews. This is very important and, while not justifying language that has inspired a lot of hatred and evil over the centuries, at least we can see that this language was one that would have been intelligible in John’s time and would not have been misunderstood in the ways later Christians would misinterpret and misuse it.
Other parallels include:
(a) the way this group interpreted the Scriptures and the way the New Testament authors sometimes use the OT (a topic we’ll return to later in the semester);
(b) parallels to the beatitudes. In 4Q525 we read:
[Blessed is the one who speaks truth] with a pure heart and slanders not with his tongue.
Blessed are those who cling to her [i.e. either Wisdom’s or the Law’s] statutes and cling not to paths of iniquity.
Blessed are those who rejoice in her and babble not about paths of iniquity.
Blessed are those who search for her with clean hands and seek not after her with a deceitful heart.
Blessed is the man who has attained wisdom and walks by the law of the Most High and fixes his heart on her ways, gives heed to her admonishments, delights al[wa]ys in her chastisements, and forsakes her not in the stress of [his] trou[bles]; (who) in time of distress abandons her not and forgets her not [in days of] fear, and in the affliction of his souls rejects [her] not. For on her he meditates, and in his anguish he ponders [on the law]; and in [al]l his existence [he considers] her [and puts her] before his eyes so as not to walk in the paths of [iniquity]…
Also noteworthy is the parallel to the expression ‘poor in spirit’, which has given interpreters of Matthew some difficulty. An equivalent is found at at least two places in the DSS and its meaning is essentially ‘those who are humble in spirit’.
(c) While Jesus may simply be using hyperbole when he says ‘You have heard it said that you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy’, a parallel of sorts has turned up in the DSS, where members of the community are told to ‘love the sons of light’ and to ‘hate the sons of darkness’.
(d) There are also parallels to Paul’s statements on the universality of human sinfulness. For example, in the hymn that closes the community’s rule book, known as the Manual of Discipline, we read:
As for me, I belong to wicked humanity, to the assembly of perverse flesh; my iniquities, my transgressions, my sins together with the wickedness of my heart belong to the assembly doomed to worms and walking in darkness. No human being sets his own path or directs his own steps, for to God alone belongs the judgment of him, and from his hand comes perfection of way…And I, if I stagger, God’s grace is my salvation forever. If I stumble because of a sin of the flesh, my judgment is according to the righteousness of God, which stands forever…In his mercy he has drawn me close, and with his favors will he render judgment on me. In his righteous fidelity he has judged me; in his bounteous goodness he expiates [i.e. atones] all my iniquities, and in his righteousness he cleanses me of human defilement and of human sinfulness, that I may praise God for his righteousness, and the Most High for his majesty (1QS 11:9-15).
Anyone who thinks that first century Judaism had altogether descended into a form of pure legalism, with no one conscious of their own sin and need for forgiveness, simply hasn’t read the writings of Jews from this period. The Qumran scrolls have thus helped us to redraw our picture of Judaism in many respects and to eliminate a number of elements of caricature that were typical of earlier studies of New Testament background.
4) Old Testament Manuscripts
Although this is not really a matter of New Testament background, it is such an important aspect of the significance of the DSS that it simply must be mentioned. Prior to the discoveries made near Qumran, the earliest complete manuscript of the Old Testament we had dated from around the 10th century AD. There was thus plenty of opportunity for critics to say that with such a gap, we cannot presume that the form in which we have the OT is anything like what it originally contained. With the discovery of the DSS, the situation changed dramatically. Now all of a sudden we had Hebrew manuscripts of the OT that were a full millennium older than the ones we had previously! When they were examined, they were found to be essentially the same as those we had. Of course, copying errors had crept in, as is inevitably the case, but what was undeniably clear was that the scribes had done a very careful, attentive, reverent job. They were obviously convinced that they were copying Scripture and took the implications completely seriously. And so it is that, over the course of more than 12 centuries, scribes managed to preserve not just the essence of what the OT authors had written, but had done a remarkably good job of getting the words right too!
This is not to say that there were no differences between manuscripts. In fact, what this discovery meant was that, for the first time, one could really do textual criticism of the OT. Previously, one could only speculate about copying errors and other problems of this sort. Now, one had actual earlier manuscripts with which to compare the Massoretic Text, the standard Hebrew text that had up until then been used as the sole basis of OT translation. Also extremely interesting is that Hebrew MSS were found that were more similar to the text of the LXX than that of the MT. Thus, rather than representing alterations or errors made when the LXX was translated, the differences in fact represented differences in the underlying Hebrew manuscript tradition. All of this new information served, on the one hand, to increase our confidence that what we have in the OT is what the ancient authors of these books wrote, and on the other hand, to give us the information we need so that, when there are difficulties, we can engage in textual criticism and try to work out what the original is likely to have contained. Both these aspects work together to give us more accurate translations of the OT today.
[Number
of manuscripts found:
Gen
15; Ex 15; Lev 9; Num 6; Deut 25
Josh
2; Judges 3; Sam 4; Kings 3
Isa
18; Jer 4; Ezek 6; ‘12’ 8
Ps
27; Job 4; Prov 2; Ruth 4; Song of Songs 4; Ecclesiastes 2; Lamentations 4;
Esther 0; Daniel 8; Ez-Neh 1; Chron
1
Apocryphal
books were also found - e.g. Ecclesiasticus; Tobit (x5 in Aramaic &
Hebrew), Ep.Jer.; Jubilees, 1 Enoch (x11) & T.Levi]
Who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?
You will regularly find one particular name associated with the DSS – the Essenes. I have not used this term so far because the identification of the Jewish group that wrote the DSS is a hypothesis, even if it is a very strong and plausible one. So now I’d like to take a look at the evidence that has led the majority of scholars (although by no means all of them) to identify this group as Essenes. Among the similarities with the information we have from Josephus are things like the long probationary period for membership, their sharing of belongings, and their belief in predestination. But probably most important is the information provided by the Roman historian, Pliny the Elder, writing some time between 70 and 79 AD. He tells of a settlement of Essenes situated along the western shore of the Dead Sea, somewhere south of Jericho and north of En-Gedi. Qumran is the only site in that area that has been found and that is known to have been inhabited in Roman times {cf. Pliny, Nat.Hist. 5.17.4 #73}. Thus the identification, although uncertain, is extremely plausible and reasonably probable.
At any rate, the sect at Qumran do not use the Greek name ‘Essenes’ for themselves in any of their writings, but refer to themselves as ‘the sons of Zadok’, ‘the sons of light’, and so on. In addition, there appear to have been two ‘types’ of Essenes. While some lived in the ‘monastic’ community near Qumran, others lived in villages and towns. While those living at Qumran were celibate, those who lived elsewhere married and had children. While those at Qumran apparently had all their belongings in common, those that lived elsewhere appear merely to have all contributed to a common fund to help those in need. These differences are attested to in ancient sources, but also are indicated by two of the Essenes’ most important documents. The Manual of Discipline reflects and teaches the mode of life the Essenes practiced at Qumran. The Damascus Covenant, on the other hand, refers to aspects of life that cannot refer to the Qumran settlement.
Membership of the group was not immediate. One became a member by choice, and there was a long probationary period before one was considered a full member. In fact, it took two years to complete the process. In the mean time, one was instructed in the way of life of the Essenes, and was slowly given more and more contact with the community and its practices, but only at the end of the second year could one participate fully at meals and in meetings. The priests were the leaders of the community. The importance of the priesthood is reflected in the community’s belief in two Messiahs: a Messiah of Aaron and a Messiah of Israel. This is not surprising – there were, of course, two ‘anointed ones’ within Israel whose lines had been disrupted and obscured over the centuries: the Davidic king, but also the high priest. Being a movement with priestly origins, it is not surprising to notice that there was somewhat more interest in and importance given to the Messiah of Aaron, i.e. the priestly anointed one who would come in the last days.
In the mean time, until the end came and these Messianic figures appeared, the community was organized in a hierarchy and grouping based on Israel in the wilderness: priests, Levites, ordinary Israelites. There were, according to Josephus, around 4,000 Essenes; of these, it is unlikely that more than around 200 of them lived at Qumran. Under the leadership of the priests, the next highest rank in the community was the ‘Guardian’, whose responsibility resembles that of a pastor today inasmuch as he was responsible for teaching the community the Essene way of life in accordance with the Community Rule, and also for presiding over meetings. The Guardian also had the responsibility of evaluating new adherents who were in the process of joining the community. There seems to have been a similar figure in Essene communities outside Qumran too, since the Damascus Covenant mentions a figure who is also called ‘Guardian’, although using a different Hebrew word. He is told to love those under his care ‘as a father loves his children, and shall carry them in all their distress like a shepherd his sheep. He shall loosen all the fetters that bind them so that in his congregation there may be none that are oppressed and broken’ (CD 13:9-10).
The Essene way of life was strict. If one uttered the divine name, regardless of the reason, one was permanently expelled. One was expelled for breaking the Law of Moses, or for slandering the congregation or rebelling against its way of life. More minor offenses, including wrong thoughts, could be confessed and forgiven. One might be excluded from the pure meal of the community for a time, but one remained a member of the community. Other offenses that are mentioned include lying, bearing malice, taking revenge, spitting in Council, ‘guffawing foolishness’, or ‘being so poorly dressed that when one drew one’s hand from beneath one’s garment, one’s nakedness was seen’. All these infractions led to one being put ‘on probation’.
Our knowledge of the history of the Qumran community is largely sketchy and hypothetical. One key reason for this is that they believed their community’s existence and history to have been predicted in the Jewish Scriptures. The only descriptions of their history are thus found in their commentaries on the OT, where veiled references to historical figures are ‘read into’ various passages from the OT. It may be surmised that they began as part of the movement of the ‘Hasidim’ (which is perhaps even what the name ‘Essene’ means – it may stem from a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word for ‘the pious’). The original group is said to have ‘groped without direction’ for 20 years before the Teacher of Righteousness, presumably a priest of Zadokite descent, appeared to lead them. This led to a complete break with the Pharisees, the ‘seekers of smooth things’. The chief opponent of the community and its leader is called ‘the Wicked Priest’, and while this name may have been applied to more than one figure, it clearly has in view at least one of the Maccabean leaders who took over the high priesthood illegitimately.
In view of the difficulties involved in sorting out these allusions to historical events, we may as well skip to something that has archaeological evidence to confirm it. The Qumran community was destroyed and abandoned in or around AD 68, suggesting that their demise was part of the war against Rome. This war appears to have united Jews of all persuasions. This is important to remember. In war, one will find Evangelical Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, Mormons, Jews and people of various faiths fighting as Americans against a common enemy. The Essenes were convinced that their way of being Jews was the only right way. This did not prevent them from fighting together with other Jews against their common enemy, the Romans.
What links are there with the early Christians?
At times sensationalist claims have been made along the lines of the Essenes either having been Christians, or as having been ‘Christians before Christ’. However, it is my opinion and the opinion of most scholars working in the field that identifying the Essenes with the Christians in either of these ways is not only mistaken, but also obscures the real importance of the Essenes. Because of the many similarities, we are given a forceful reminder that Christianity was born in the womb of first century Judaism, and thus it is to be expected that there should be ‘family resemblances’ with other movements in first century Judaism. Be that as it may, there is no reason to try to obscure Christianity’s distinctives by identifying the early Christians with this other group, and more than there is reason to deny the similarities out of a desire to safeguard Christianity’s uniqueness. Both the similarities and the differences are important. So let’s look at a few of each now so that you will have a clearer picture of the situation.
Many have sought to make John the Baptist out to have been an Essene. In view of his location in the desert, his focus on the passage about preparing a way for God in the desert, his asceticism and his emphasis on baptism, it is not entirely implausible to suggest that John may have spent some time as part of the Essene community there, or at least may have learned something from their example. However, many aspects of both John’s ministry and his message are without parallel within Judaism, and thus it is safe to conclude that, whatever John may have learned from them and whatever contact he may have had with them (if any), this was ended by the time he appeared as a public figure calling the nation to repentance. Augustine learned much from Greek philosophy, and it shaped his thinking for the rest of his life. This does not mean that he continued to consider himself an adherent of Greek philosophy as a Christian! Similarly, we may speculate about John’s pre-history and influences upon him; but by the time he appears in public ministry, he is not calling Israel to membership in any other known group, but is ‘doing his own thing’, although his own ministry obviously bears a lot of features one can find elsewhere in Judaism in this period. Again, since this was a Jewish movement, such parallels are hardly surprising!!!
The sharing of goods in common (which has been described as a form of ‘love communism’) is another interesting similarity between the early Christian movement and the Essenes. Here again some kind of influence is entirely possible. Could it not be that there were followers of Jesus who were or had been Essenes, and who may have suggested this strategy in the post-Easter period as a way of dealing with the poor in the churches? It would be surprising if among Jesus’ followers there were Pharisees and at least one Zealot but absolutely no Essenes. However, Jesus’ teaching may have been enough to get the early Christians headed in this direction, regardless whether they were familiar with the Essene precedent or not.
These similarities are important, if for no other reason than that they help counter affirmations suggesting that the distinctives of Christianity came from non-Jewish sources. At any rate, now, having mentioned a couple of similarities, let me mention a couple of interesting differences. First, when Jesus asked ‘Which of you would not pull his donkey out of a pit on the Sabbath?’ (Matthew 12:11; Luke 14:5), any Essenes present would probably have said ‘Me, that’s me over here!’ (CD 11.13-14). [The later rabbis (m.Besa 3.4) suggested that rather than ‘work’ by pulling it out, one ought to either simply feed it or throw down somethign to help it pull itself out.] The Qumran Essenes were sufficiently strict about the Sabbath to deny the legitimacy of such a ‘humanitarian’ (or better ‘animalitarian’) action. Thus here we have a clear point of divergence in the way Essenes and Jesus handled and interpreted the Law. Another difference is the ‘sectarian’ approach to defining their identity. As I already emphasized last time, whereas the mandate of the early Church was ‘beginning in Jerusalem, to Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth’, the Essenes at Qumran huddled away and withdrew to obey God in relative seclusion. Here is another difference. The Christian is called to live a righteous life in the world, rather than in seclusion from it. Thus all of us who live in some form or other of Christian Ghetto, in contact with as few non-believers as possible, are actually living closer to the Essene model than Jesus’ own teaching and practice. All of us can appreciate the motivation behind the Essenes’ self-isolation – it solves many if not all the difficulties of answering contemporary issues of lifestyle and society. If one sufficiently isolates oneself from society and instead surrounds oneself with believers, one will be able to protect oneself from many negative influences. One will also have effectively have protected oneself from being salt and light in a world that we have been called to influence and transform rather than abandon.
At the end of the day, what separated and eventually divided Christians from other Jews was not their ethics, not their commitment to monotheism, not their attitude to the Temple, not their acceptance of the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative, but their conviction that Jesus is the Messiah. This is not to say that there were no other differences. But at the end of the day what really set the Christians apart was their firm belief that the long-awaited Messiah had come, and had died and risen, and was named Jesus from Nazareth.
Next
topics:
1) apocalypticism and apocalyptic literature
2) the Zealots and nationalism