Contemporaries and Competitors of Jesus

We’re going to spend several weeks looking at the Jewish religious context of the New Testament. The reason for focusing on the Jewish context is that it is the one in which and from which Christianity was born. Christianity began as a movement within Judaism. Part of the difficulty in understanding the New Testament today is the presupposition that when the New Testament speaks about ‘the Jews’ it speaks as one major world religion talking about another. In fact, the real situation was quite different. Thus, in relation to the Jewish religious background of the New Testament there will be some unlearning to do as well as some learning.

There is perhaps nowhere that this statement applies more than in relation to the Pharisees. This is probably the group within first-century Judaism that we are most familiar with, since they make regular appearances in the Gospels. Yet it is precisely this familiarity that is what can cause problems. Today, if one looks in the dictionary, one will find ‘Pharisee’ there, and its definition will be ‘hypocrite’. This stems from Jesus’ criticism of them in the New Testament, but it should also be clear that Jesus is giving a negative evaluation of a group that has its origins in a movement of people willing to die rather than disobey God. That a group with such noble origins could within less than two centuries come to be criticized so severely should cause us to stop and think. It also warns us against any simplistic understanding of the Pharisees as being like ‘the other guys’, not like us. It is essential that we understand both who they were and what Jesus considered them to be doing wrong if we are to understand Jesus’ words about correctly.

Thanks to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, we know that during this period in history there were roughly 6,000 Pharisees, making them the largest ‘party’ within Judaism in this period. This information challenges a common misconception, namely that most Jews in Jesus’ time were Pharisees. In fact, most Jews in New Testament times had ‘no denominational affiliation’. The Pharisees were influential, and within a few centuries their program for Judaism would come to dominate what eventually became ‘orthodox’, Rabbinic Judaism. But during this time period they are simply one movement in an extremely diverse Judaism. They could not be regarded as the defenders of Jewish orthodoxy, because there was no such thing during this period. Of course, there were common denominators such as belief in one God, in God’s covenant with Israel, in the importance of the Law. But there were also crucial differences of opinion regarding where and how the one God should be worshipped, and on how the Law should be interpreted and implied. There was probably as much diversity in early Judaism as there is in Christianity today. The Pharisees, although widely respected, were not universally recognized leaders of Judaism. The situation in early Judaism has been compared to the multi-party system in America today. There will have been a few groups that were particularly popular, but also many small groups. Even the biggest will not have represented everyone. Just as today neither Democrats nor Republicans can say ‘we are the only truly American party’, neither could the Pharisees have said this. OK, they could have said it, but it wouldn’t have been true. It is important to distinguish between propaganda and reality. The later followers of Hillel try to give the impression that pretty much everyone agreed with them from the outset. The reality is much more complicated.

So what does the name ‘Pharisee’ mean? [Does anyone here know?] It doesn’t mean ‘hypocrite’. It almost certainly comes from the Hebrew prushim meaning ‘separated ones’. In other words, this name means something like ‘separatists’. A good question to ask is whether this was a name they chose for themselves, or a nickname given by others. ‘The separatists’ is not a name that most religious groups would choose for themselves, although I suppose there are many today who quite proudly wear the label ‘fundamentalist’. At any rate, it is interesting to note that the later Rabbis call their founding fathers ‘the sages’, and they use the term ‘pharisees’ to label groups they consider to be kind of extremists. So here again we see that Jesus was probably not the only one to criticize certain extremes within the Pharisees. There were probably other critics, both within and outside the movement. Yet we should not neglect the fact that these were for the most part serious people, presumably many of them were well-meaning and good-intentioned. They had a reputation as being careful about obeying God’s Law. And thus, while we hear the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector and know who the hero is supposed to be; the expectations of Jesus’ contemporaries would have been reversed. [If you want to hear the parable and feel its original effect, simply replace the Pharisee and the tax collector with an Evangelical pastor and a Muslim fundamentalist. I think you’ll get the point].

There was certainly a lot of diversity within the movement itself. In the early first century two of Pharisaisms most influential teachers lived and taught, namely Hillel and Shammai. They founded the two main schools of Pharisaism that lasted for at least most of the next century. Shammai’s school was stricter and seems to have predominated in the first century, whereas Hillel’s less strict teaching came to predominate in what later became Rabbinic Judaism. There is a famous story that a Gentile came to Shamai and said ‘I would like to learn Torah [i.e. the Jewish Law], but only as much as you can teach me while I am standing on one leg’. The story (told by followers of Hillel) says that Shammai picked up a stick and chased him away. When the same Gentile came to Hillel and said ‘Teach me Torah, but only as much as I can learn while standing on one leg’, Hillel is said to have replied ‘What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor’. That is the whole of Torah. The rest is commentary. Now, go and learn’. This story is helpful inasmuch as it shows that not all in first century Pharisaism were unaware of what was of fundamental importance in the Law. Not all were gross caricatures of legalism. It is also interesting to compare this summary of the Law with that offered by Jesus slightly later. He said something similar, but put it in positive terms: rather than saying ‘don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you’, he said ‘do to others what you want them to do you’. The difference is important; yet the similarities between Jesus and some of his contemporaries in the movement of the Pharisees are also interesting.

In the New Testament, scribes and Pharisees are closely associated. The two are not synonymous, however. The scribes were those who made a living out of knowing how to do something that very few in the ancient world could: read and write. Obviously, groups like the Pharisees and Sadducees whose beliefs focused on the interpretation of the Law needed to have scribes among their members, experts in the Law precisely because they could read and thus instruct and inform others. It is possible that many who followed the Pharisaic way of life were or became scribes; but it is also clear that not all Pharisees were scribes, nor were all scribes Pharisees.

‘Doctrines’ of the Pharisees

The differences between the ‘parties’ in Judaism in this period are not exactly like the differences between Christian denominations and sects today. The focus was less on what we would tend to call ‘doctrine’ and more on interpretation of the Law. However, there were certainly a few doctrines that set the Pharisees apart from other parties like the Sadducees (it is unclear to what extent the majority of Jews did or didn’t agree with the Pharisees on these points). One important doctrinal difference was the Pharisees’ belief in the resurrection. Resurrection as a Jewish doctrine appears relatively late in the Jewish Scriptures, and some (such as the Sadducees) regarded it as an illegitimate and unbiblical innovation. There is some evidence that this belief was very popular and not limited to the Pharisees. It is also a clear point of agreement between the Pharisees and Jesus.

A clear point of difference and disagreement between the Pharisees on the one hand and others like Jesus or the Sadducees on the other was the emphasis the Pharisees put on the oral Law, the traditions of the fathers. All of those who have a system of beliefs that focuses on a book also have some kind of oral tradition – answers to difficulties, harmonizations, interpretations, explanations, etc. The Pharisees, however, had such beliefs as an explicit set of traditions that they carefully passed down, discussed and interpreted. Eventually, these traditions came to be written down in the Mishnah (around 200 CE) and then later others were written down, along with explanations and commentary on the Mishnah, in the Talmudim (around 500-600 CE). It is clear that these writings preserve traditions going back to Jesus’ time, but not all of it does, which is why the Rabbinic literature can only very cautiously be used to shed light on topics relating to the background of the New Testament.

Note also m.Nedarim 9:1, where the majority opinion seems to be that honoring one’s parents does take precedence over the law of oaths. It is thus important to remember that in the Gospels Jesus is often disagreeing with some rabbis over against others.

1) Make Law more explicit through definition. The question ‘Who is my neighbor?’ expected a rabbinic-type answer: ‘A Jew and not a foreigner; if it is the Sabbath day then only someone who is not further than X distance from your home, etc.’ Jesus’ answer challenges this approach by rejecting narrowing definitions and posing the issue as broadly as possible: ‘Who would you like to be your neighbor? To whom are you a neighbor?’

2) To find loopholes, which they presumed God had left with a purpose. Example: Jubilee year, people didn’t lend to the poor even though God specifically addressed this in the Law. They thus found a way to avoid the canceling of debts by allowing people to deposit their ‘debt notes’ with the Temple and pick them up again after the Jubilee year. The rabbis found this loophole in order to help the poor: some would not live through the Jubilee year unless someone lent them money! Yet we can also see how one might conclude that in doing this, a law was essentially made null and void by their tradition, and that the spirit of that law was being lost or obscured.

The Pharisees were also known for their leniency in applying capital punishment – they sought to avoid it wherever possible. Josephus mentions this [See Ant. 13,294; see also E. P. Sanders, Judaism, pp.419-420], and it can also be seen in the NT. In Acts 5, we read that the apostles were persecuted by the high priest and Sadducees (5:17,21), whereas the Pharisee Gamaliel recommended that they be left alone (5:33-40). The Pharisees’ strictness in interpreting the Law did not necessarily imply mercilessness. One wonders in light of this whether, in John 7:53-8:11, the Pharisees wanted to show that Jesus is merciless rather than vice-versa. Perhaps many of those older men who left immediately were Pharisees who were genuinely impressed with Jesus’ response.

Importance of meals: in a period when they didn’t control what went on in the Temple, they moved the realm of the sacred into the home. They seem to have formed associations (haburot) who agreed together only to eat food that was properly tithed and eaten in a state of priestly purity. For Jesus meals were also important: Jesus’ table fellowship brought together sinners, the unclean, and people of very different social status as well. While the Pharisees were seeking to bring about reform by more clearly defining who the obedient people of God are, Jesus was in a sense opening the door wide and saying ‘whosoever will may come’, welcoming people even before they were pillars of righteousness and examples of upright perfection.

Pharisees, Galilee, and the common people

Johannan ben Zakkai, the leader of restored (Pharisaic) Judaism in the period after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, worked in Galilee for 18 years without managing to have much impact in advocating Pharisaic teaching, and so he is said to have exclaimed: “Galilee, Galilee, you hate Torah!”. It is interesting that Galilee had a reputation for representing a non-Pharisaic view of Judaism and the Law. These are presumably the traditions that Jesus grew up being familiar with!

1) Jesus had much in common with the Pharisees: Belief in resurrection; Summary of the Law. The conflict is so intense in the NT not because Jesus and the Pharisees represented the most different extremes of Judaism, but because they were so similar, and were trying to occupy the same space and to win the hearts and minds of the Jewish people.

2) Jesus condemned the Pharisees for hypocrisy. Yet a little over a century before, they had led the Jewish people in being willing to give their lives for the sake of obedience to God. What defines a group is not its origins, but what it is doing today. It may be good to look at our roots and say ‘This is where we came from’. Yet many of the features of Pharisaic emphasis forged in the crucible of persecution in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes actually led to an unbalanced understanding of Jewish identity later on. Certainly there is something that can be learned from this today.

3) All of us like safety, clarity, definitions, black and white situations. We like to ask ‘What if…?’ and have a clear answer. Jesus’ teaching recognizes that life is often not like that, and challenges us to an openness to others, a willingness to broaden rather than narrow our definition of who our neighbor is. The challenge of Jesus to the Pharisees is not just a message for ‘those hypocrites over there’. If we miss its relevance for ourselves, it seems safe to assume that we will end up repeating the same mistakes.

Other relevant links about the Pharisees:

Scribes

This term refers to all whose profession involved writing. Village school teachers would be included. The term is as vague as the term ‘secretary’ in English (as Anthony Saldarini points out). The latter term can refer to anything from someone who scribbles down notes and brings coffee, to someone with an influential position in government who is fourth in the line of succession to the presidency should anything happen to him.

John P. Meier (A Marginal Jew vol.3, pp.559-560) sums up as follows: “That Jesus at times dealt, dialogued, and debated with various types of Jewish scribes is indeed likely. But that the Jewish scribes were a homogeneous religious group with a united theological agenda as well as with a distinct power base, a homogeneous group that formed a united front against Jesus, is hopelessly wrong. Hence, given the tendency of the Synoptics to supply scribes as stock characters in disputes with Jesus or in plots against him, one must be very wary of appealing to any particular Gospel pericope for information about specific historical incidents involving Jesus’ interaction with Jewish scribes”.

Sadducees

No sources that represent their viewpoint, so we only have the critiques of those who disagreed with them. No one tells us about their good points!

Who were the Sadducees?

The origin of their name is usually traced to Zadok, even though there are some difficulties with this explanation. It fits, however, with the fact that the key leaders of the Sadducees were the aristocratic priests. They combined conservativism with power politics and strongly supported the status quo. (So they were rather Republican in this respect!) They were willing to cooperate with the Roman authorities in order to maintain peace and stability for themselves and for the Jewish people. They were pragmatists to a large extent, as aristocrats tend to be.

What did the Sadducees believe?

A. They rejected the oral traditions of the Pharisees. This doesn’t mean they didn’t have their own traditions of interpretation, but they did not consider them binding. The only thing that was binding was what was found in Scripture. In this respect they were much more ‘Protestant’ than the Pharisees!

B. They did not appeal on doctrinal matters to the prophetic books and other writings. This is why Jesus answers their question about the resurrection from the Pentateuch when he could have appealed much more easily to the book of Daniel or some other such book.

II. They did not believe in the resurrection. The literal resurrection of the body is only taught explicitly as a doctrine in one of the latest books in the Old Testament, the Book of Daniel, although there had been some preparation for it in language used by Isaiah and Ezekiel. So this is one more example of the Sadducees’ conservativism. They left no room for rewards and punishment in the afterlife, presumably basing their doctrine on the vague references found in the Pentateuch to the ‘place of the dead’ or Sheol, which may simply refer to the grave. Acts 23:8 asserts that they did not believe in angels or spirits either. However, this is not a view attributed to the Sadducees elsewhere, and there would seem to be enough evidence for angels in the Pentateuch. So perhaps they dimply rejected the very elaborate angelologies that some had developed, with names and ranks and hierarchies and other such details. It is difficult to be certain as to the details of what they believed in this respect. Perhaps some indication of what their belief about life after death was like is to be found in the book from the Apocrypha known as the Wisdom of Jesus grandson of Sirach. In this book, death is spoken of at several points, but one’s hope is primarily thought of in terms of the children one leaves behind, and rewards and punishments are regarded as occurring during this life, so perhaps this represents something of the type of viewpoint the Sadducees had. However, this book was almost certainly written before the crisis that occurred in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and thus is much earlier than the appearance of the Sadducean party, and so can not be taken as a representative of any one of the parties that appeared later.

III. According to Josephus, they emphasized human free-will (i.e. they didn’t believe that everything that happens is predestined or foreordained).

IV. Their key differences from the Pharisees that were of day-to-day importance and interest were still primarily differences of opinion on how to interpret and apply certain laws regarding the Temple, sacrifices, purity, punishment and execution, etc.

In conclusion, there is no reason to think of the Sadducees as basically uninterested in religion, which is the way they are sometimes portrayed. Their close link with the priesthood should raise immediate questions about that. Their belief in free will meant, however, that they presumed that it is up to them to make a difference in their world, and thus if Jewish society is going to survive under Roman occupation, it is up to them to try to find a way to keep the Romans happy while preserving the Jewish way of life and their right to live according to it.

Other related links:

The Priests and the Temple

In other words, we are talking about a building several times larger than a football stadium. It will have dominated the city of Jerusalem.

How important was the Temple?

For us, the idea of taking a cute little lamb, slitting its throat and scattering its blood around is unsettling. To imagine that God would somehow take pleasure in watching us do so seems hard to imagine! Yet we must try to imagine a very different world if we are to appreciate the importance of the Temple in this time period. For most ancient people, to worship God without sacrifice would be as hard to imagine as it would be for us to imagine worshipping God without singing or praying. This was simply the way one approached God. It was only later, in light of Jesus’ sacrifice and presumably of the destruction of the Temple as well, that Christians realized that the sacrifice of animals was unnecessary. And some preparation for this step had been provided through the situation of Diaspora Jews, who did not have any sort of regular, direct access to the Temple.

The Temple expresses the Jewish concept of purity and election: like concentric circles. There was a warning on the wall separating the court of the Gentiles from the court of (Jewish) women, in Greek and Latin, saying that no foreigner may pass beyond this point, and that anyone attempting to do so would be the only person guilty for his own death which would quickly follow. Paul got into trouble on this account (see Acts 21:28). He may also have had this wall in mind when he wrote in Ephesians that Christ is our peace, who has broken down the dividing wall of hostility between Jews and Gentiles.

The High Priest

The high priest was far more than a religious figure. In the periods when the Jewish people did not have a king, the high priest was essentially the leader of the Jewish people. He represented them on the stage of world affairs and mediated between them and their Greek, Egyptian, Syrian, and finally Roman overlords. The Romans, in order to limit the power of the high priest, frequently removed one from office and put another in his place. This is why Annas and Caiaphas both figure in the passion narrative – Caiaphas was ‘officially’ high priest, but Annas had been and thus retained respect and influence in the Jewish community in Jerusalem and beyond. The Romans also took away the high priestly garments, allowing the high priest to wear them only on Yom Kippur when he had to enter the Holy of Holies.

Next we’ll look at that famous group who withdrew from the Temple: the Essenes.

The Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls

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:

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.[2] 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’.

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.

(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);

[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 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]…[3]

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).[4]

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.

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 10^th 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.

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.[5] 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).[6] 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.

[1] See further Vermes, Jesus the Jew, p.52-57.

[2] 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.

[3] Fitzmyer, Responses, p.118.

[4] Quoted Fitzmyer, Responses, p.125.

[5] Pliny, Nat.Hist. 5.17.4 #73.

[6] The rabbis (m.Besa 3.4) suggested that rather than ‘work’ by pulling it out, one ought to either simply feed it or throw down something to help it pull itself out.