THE QUMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS!

by H. H. ROWLEY

OF ALL the questions raised by the study of the Dead Sea

Scrolls the most controversial is that of the influence of
the Qumran community on the Early Church, and the
significance of the Scrolls for the understanding of Christian
origins. That they are not without such significance most
scholars would agree, but the nature of the significance can be
established only by careful study of the evidence. Sometimes
the evidence of the New Testament has been conjecturally read
into the Scrolls to exaggerate the links, or the New Testament
has been "qumranized" to eliminate patent differences. Already in 1 95 1 one writer in a French journal suffered himself
to be so far carried away as to write: "Henceforth . . . we know
that the Messiah of Galilee has contributed nothing, absolutely
nothing, which was not long familiar to those who believed in
the New Covenant' V i-e. to the members of the Qumran sect,
who are referred to in one of the works which they treasured as
those who entered into the New Covenant in the land of
Damascus.^ How true or false this sweeping judgment is we
shall perhaps see better after we have looked at the evidence.
For our present purpose the pre-Christian origin of the
Qumran sect will be accepted without discussion. While there
are still a few writers who maintain that the Scrolls are of postChristian origin,* the overwhelming majority hold them to be
^ First published in B.J.R.L. xliv, 1961-62, pp. iig-56.
^Etiemble, in Les Temps Modernes, vi, no. 63 (January 1951), pp. 1291 f.
Cf. also P. Guth, Le Figaro Litteraire, February 24, 1951: "Entre 67 et 63
avant J^sus-Christ aurait t execute un premier Christ, presque semblable
au second."
* Zadokite Work rx. 28 (p. viii, Hne 2 1, p. xix, Unes 33 f.) ; cf. viii. 15 (p. vi,
hne 19). E. Lohmeyer {Diatheke, 191 3, p. 116) records that the word
"covenant" occurs thirty-five times in the ^adokite Work, and that this is
greater than the number of occurrences in any book of the Old Testament .
* S. Zeitlin continues to maintain that the Scrolls are mediaeval texts
written by illiterate authors. His articles will be found in many issues of the
239

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

pre-Christian. They do not agree as to the precise period in
which the work of the Teacher of Righteousness and the founding of the sect lay, and various dates in the second or first
century B.C. are favoured.^ The disagreements here are of Uttle
significance for the subject of the present lecture. If the Qumran
sectaries already belonged to the Jewish world in which Jesus
and His disciples lived, the precise date of the origin of the

sect is not material to the study of the influence they may have
exercised on the younger faith. Professor Barthelemy observes
that through the Scrolls we can for the first time make ourselves
contemporary with our Lord.^ In the Gospels we see the
Jewish Quarterly Review. J. L. Teicher, in a series of articles in the Journal of
Jewish Studies, has argued that the Scrolls come from Ebionite Christians,
for whom Paul was the Wicked Priest. H. E. del Medico, in The Riddle of
the Scrolls, Eng. trans, by H. Garner, 1958, has assigned the Scrolls to a
succession of post-Christian dates. Cecil Roth, in The Historical Background
of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1958, and in various articles, has maintained that the
Scrolls were composed by Zealots, and that the Teacher of Righteousness
was Menahem ben Judah, who died in A.D. 66, or his kinsman, Eleazar ben
Jair. This view has been characterized by S. Sandmel {J.B.L. lxxxi, 1962,
p. 12) as the one that "wins by a length in my opinion the race for the most
preposterous of the theories about the Scrolls." G. R. Driver, who earlier
favoured a later dating of the Scrolls (cf. The Hebrew Scrolls from the Neighbourhood of Jericho and the Dead Sea, 1951) has pushed back the date to the
first century of our era, and now shares Dr. Roth's view of the Zealot origin
of the sect (cf. E.Th.L. xxxiii, 1957, pp. 798 f.).
^ For a discussion of this question by the present writer, cf. B.J.R.L. xl,
1957-58, pp. 114 f. Dates in the second century B.C., somewhat later than
those proposed by the present writer, have been advanced by J. T. Milik
{Ten Tears of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea, Eng. trans, by J. Strugnell,
1959)5 F. M. Cross {The Ancient Library of Qumran, 1958), and E. F. Sutcliffe
( The Monks of Qumran, 1 960) . R. de Vaux {U Archeologie et les manuscrits de la
Mer Morte, 1961, p. 90) says that the identification of the Wicked Priest who
was contemporary with the Teacher of Righteousness with Alexander
Jannaeus or his successor would seem to be archaeologically excluded, and
he favours the view that the Teacher of Righteousness was contemporary
with Simon or Jonathan, and more probably the former. M. Black ( The
Scrolls and Christian Origins, 1961, p. 20) favours the identification of the
Teacher with Onias III, for which the present writer has argued, and
observes that "to all other theories it may be objected that the Founder of
a movement so famous and influential as that of the Hasidim must have left
some trace in our known historical records, and in no single case except that
of Onias can this be reasonably claimed."
2 Scripture, xii, No. 20 (October i960), p. 119.
240

THE Q^UMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

Pharisees and the Sadducees through the eyes of Jesus and the
EvangeHsts, but in the Scrolls we are able to enter into the life
and thought of a third group of Jews through their own writings. This third group is identified with the Essenes by most of
the scholars who have discussed the Scrolls, ^ though there are a
few who dispute the identification. ^
The Essenes are described to us from the outside by writers of
the first century of our era,^ by Philo,^ Pliny ^ and Josephus;^
but if the Qumran sectaries were really the same as the Essenes,

^ This identification has been advocated by none more vigorously than

by A. Dupont-Sommer. For his latest statement of the case for this view, cf.
Les Ecrits esseniens decouverts pres de la Mer Morte, 1959, pp. 51 ff. Cf. also G.
Vermes, "Essenes-Therapeutai-Qumran", Durham University Journal, June
i960, pp. 97 ff.
^ Cf. M. H. Gottstein, V.T. rv, 1954, pp. 141 ff., where anti-Essene traits
are found in the Scrolls. Cf. also B. Otzen, S.Th. vii, 1953, pp. 156 f.
C. Rabin has argued for the identification of the sect with a Pharisaic group
{Qumran Studies, 1957, pp. 53 ff.); J. L. Teicher for the identification with
the Ebionites (see above, p. 239, n. 4; A. M. Habermann for the identification with the Sadducees {Megilloth Midbar Tehuda, 1959, pp. xv, 25 ff. ;
cf. Ha-aretz, March 5, 1956, and the criticism of J. M. Grintz, ibid. May 1 1,
1956; cf. also R. North, C.B.Q_. xvii, 1955, pp. 164 ff.) ; C. Roth and G. R.
Driver for the identification with Zealots (see above, p. 239, n.4). Before
the discovery of the Scrolls some of these identifications of the sect
had been proposed on the basis of the ^adokite Work. Thus L. Ginzberg
{M.G.W.J. LVii, 19 1 3, pp. 289 fir.), W. Staerk {Die jiidische Gemeinde des
Neuen Bundes in Damaskus, 1922, p. 97), J. Jeremias {Jerusalem zur ^eit Jesu,
2nd edn., 1958, n B, p. 131) and H. W. Beyer (in Th.W.B. 11, 1935, p. 614)
had argued for the identification with the Pharisees; N. A. Dahl {Das Volk
Gottes, 1 94 1, p. 129) for the identification with an offshoot from the
Pharisees; R. Leszynsky {Die Sadduzder, 1912, pp. 142 ff.) for identification
with the Sadducees; M.-J. Lagrange {R.B. xxi, 19 12, p. 335, andLe Judaisme
avant Jesus-Christ, 1931, pp. 332 f.) for identification with the Zealots.
H. E. del Medico maintains that there never was a sect of Essenes {Le Mythe
des Essiniens, 1958). K. H. Rengstorf argues that the Scrolls were a part of
the Temple library, and that Qumran belonged to the Temple authorities
{Hirbet Qumran und die Bibliothek vom Toten Meer, i960).
* For other ancient references to the Essenes, cf. H. Mosbech, Essaismen,
191 6, pp. 29 ff. Gf. also M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins, 1961.
* Quod omnis probus liber sit, xii f. (79-91); cf. Eusebius, Praeparatio
Evangelica, VIII, 11.
' Hist. Nat. V, XV (73). On Pliny's account of the Essenes cf. J.-P. Audet,
R.B. Lxvm, 1 96 1, pp. 346 ff.
^Antiq. XIII, V, 9 (171-3), XVIII, I, 5 (18-22), B.J. 11, VIII, 2-13
(119-64).
241

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

we see them here from the inside. There are, indeed, some
differences between the Essenes as described to us by these first
century writers and the sect of the Scrolls as they are reflected
in the texts we now have. It is on this ground that some deny
that the sect is to be identified with the Essenes. Yet the
similarities are so great that it is more probable that they
should be identified, and the identification is often stated
categorically.^ The Essenes were a secret sect, whose teachings
were not to be divulged outside the circle of its own members. ^
Some knowledge of its way of life and thought must have been

known outside, or it could scarcely have attracted new members.

That knowledge may not have been in all respects accurate,
and this could account for some of the differences between what
we read in the Scrolls and the accounts of the first century
writers. More of the differences can probably be accounted for
by the fact that in the Scrolls we see the sect at an earlier point
in its life than that reflected in the first century writers.
The members of the sect cherished messianic expectations.^
We know from the New Testament that such expectations were
widespread, and in the second and first centuries B.C. a number
of works were written in which such expectations are expressed.
They are not always of a single pattern. In the New Testament
we have no reference to any Messiah but the descendant of
David. It is frequently stated that in the Scrolls we find the
expectation of two Messiahs, ^ a Davidic and an Aaronic, and
^ Cf. J. T. Milik, R.B. lxii, 1955, p. 497, where it is said to be "absolument certaine".
^Josephus, B.J. II, vin, 7 (141); cf. Manual of Discipline, col. IX, line 17.
* Cf. A. S. van der Woude, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von
Qiimrdn, 1957; K. Schubert, Biblische Zeitschrift, N.F. 11, 1957, pp. 177 ff.
Cf. also E. L. Ehrlich, ^.A.W. lxvii, 1956, pp. 234 ff.
* Cf. M. Burrows, A.Th.R. xxxiv, 1952, pp. 202 fF., and The Dead Sea
Scrolls, 1955, pp. 264 f. ; G. Vermes, Discovery in the Judean Desert, 1956,
p. 116; A. S. van der Woude, in La Secte de Qumrdn et les origines de
Christianisme (Recherches Bibliques IV), 1959, pp. 121 ff. ; J. Liver, H.T.R.
Lii, 1959, pp. 149 ff. N. Walker {J.B.L. lxxvi, 1957, p. 58) suggests that
the sectaries at first looked for two Messiahs, and that the fusing of the civil
and priestly offices into one by John Hyrcanus led them to look for only
one Messiah. It is very doubtful if the Qumran sect approved of the
Hasmonaean assumption of the high priesthood, or would be influenced
in this way (cf. M. Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1958, p. 298).
242

THE Q^UMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

in the Manual of Discipline we find the expression "the messiahs
of Aaron and Israel".^ We must, however, beware of reading
^ Manual of Discipline, col. IX, line 1 1. In Deux Manuscrits hibreux de la Mer
Morte, 1 95 1, p. 33, del Medico rendered by the singular without conunent,
but in The Riddle of the Scrolls, p. 227, he has the plural. G. Lambert {Le
Manuel de Discipline du Desert de Juda, 195 1 , p. 83) thought the plural strange,
and so K. Schubert {Z-K.Th. Lxxrv, 1952, p. 53). M. Black (S.J.Th. vi,
1953, p. 6 n.,and S.E.A. xvm-xix, 1955, pp. 87 fF.) renders by the singular,
taking the final letter of the first word as yodh compaginis instead of the plural
ending. As normally understood the passage speaks of the coming of the
Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. W. H. Brownlee ( The Dead
Sea Manual of Discipline, 1951, pp. 35 f.) thought the Prophet was the
Messiah, and his priestly and lay followers were referred to as "the anointed
ones of Aaron and Israel" (this is rejected by P. Wernberg-Moller, The

Manual of Discipline, 1957, p. 135). In the ^adokite Work there are several
references to "the Messiah of Aaron and Israel" (ix. 10 [p. xix, lines 10 f.],
21 [p. XX, line i], xv. 4 [p. xii, lines 23 f.]). It has been supposed that the
Zadokite Work originally had the plural in these cases, and that a late scribe
changed it to the singular (so J. T. Milik, Verbum Domini, xxx, 1952, pp. 39
f.; cf. K. G. Kuhn, S.N.T., p. 59), and J. Liver {H.T.R. lii, 1959, p. 152) so
far outruns the evidence as to say that it is now proved conclusively that the
singular is either a scribal error or an emendation. L. H. Silberman ( V. T.
V, 1955, pp. 77 ff.) questions the view that two Messiahs were expected, and
thinks the sect simply looked forward to the time when the legitimate line
of Aaronic priests and Davidic kings would be restored, and thinks the
function of the prophet was to indicate the right persons to anoint them.
Before the discovery of the Manual of Discipline M.-J. Lagrange {R.B. xxiii,
1 9 14, p. 135) and F. F. Hvidberg {Menigheden af den Nye Pagt i Damascus,
1928, p. 281) had argued that the phrase in the J^adokite Work indicated that
the Messiah would arise from the sect, and after the discovery of the Manual
the present writer adopted this view and pointed out that the sect is
described in its text as a "house of holiness for Israel . . . and a house of
unity for Aaron" (col. IX, line 6), observing that "the sect itself therefore
represents Israel and Aaron, and the title of the Messiah has reference to
the character of the sect, and not his personal descent" {The ^adokite Fragments and The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1952, p. 41). This view is now adopted by
W. S. LaSor {V.T. vi, 1956, pp. 425 ff.), who thinks that the proposed
emendation of the text of the ^adokite Work is unnecessary. Cf. Studies and
Essays in honor of A. A. Neuman, 1962, pp. 364 f., where LaSor maintains that
the theory that the text of the ^adokite Work had been emended now falls to
the ground, since a Qumran fragment of the ^adokite Work has the singular.
W. H. Brownlee {S.N. T, p. 45) regards the emendation as very risky, and
so M. Delcor {Revue Thomiste, lviii, 1958, pp. 762, 773). N. Wieder {J.J.S.
VI, 1955, pp. 14 ff.) has argued that the Karaites believed in two Messiahs,
and Delcor {loc. cit. p. 773) thinks it improbable that Karaite scribes would
have altered the text to a singular.
R 243

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

into the term Messiah all that the term means for us. It simply
means "an anointed one",^ and in the Old Testament it is
never used for the expected Davidic leader. It is used of kings
and priests, and even of Cyrus. ^ But by the beginning of the
Christian era it had become a technical term for the deliverer
whose advent was awaited. It was not unnatural that an
anointed High Priest, alongside the kingly Messiah, should be
thought of, and especially in such a sect as that of Qumran, in
which the priests had the highest place. They could therefore
speak of "the anointed ones of Aaron and Israel". One of the
texts, to which we shall return, makes it plain that the Aaronic
anointed one should have precedence over the Davidic.^ Such
a conception appears to be found also in the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs.'^ The ^adokite Work, which has been known
since the beginning of this century and which is now generally
recognized to have emanated from the Qumran sect, shows that

there was an expectation that the Messiah would come within

forty years of the death of the Teacher of Righteousness. ^ There
^ Silberman {loc. cit.) objected to the use of the term "Messiah" here,
because of its misleading associations, and so LaSor {V.T., loc. cit.). On the
messianism of the Qumran sect, of. LaSor, Studies and Essays in honor of
A. A. Neuman, pp. 343 ff.
2 Isa. 45: I.
^ See below, pp. 266 ff. Cf. J. Gnilka, "Die Erwartung des messianischen
Hohenpriesters in den Schriften von Qumran und im Neuen Testament",
R.Qi.w, i960, pp. 395 ff.
* Cf. G. R. Beasley- Murray, J.T.S. xlviii, 1949, pp. 5 ff. This view is
accepted by B. Otzen {S.Th. vii, 1954, pp. 151 ff.) and A. S. van der Woude
{Die messianischen Vorstellungen, pp. 194 ff.). Cf. also J. Liver, H.T.R. lii,
1959. PP- 163 ff. It is rejected by A.J. B. Higgins {V.T. in, 1953, p. 330),
who maintains that all the passages indicate is the superiority of the priesthood to the kingship. E.J. Bickerman {J.B.L. lxix, 1950, p. 252) declares
"the doctrine of the Messiah from the tribe of Levi allegedly professed by
the author" to be "a figment, created by modern readers of the work".
^ In IX. 21 (p. XX, line i) there is a reference to the period from the day
when the Unique Teacher was gathered in to the coming of the Messiah,
while in ix. 39 (p. xx, lines 13 ff.) we are told that from the day when the
Unique Teacher was gathered in until the consuming of all the men of war
who returned with the Man of Falsehood would be about forty years. The
Unique Teacher, or possibly the Teacher of the Community (cf. S. M.
Stern, J.B.L. lxix, 1950, p. 24; L. Rost, Th.L.Z- lxxviii, 1953, col. 144;
G. Molin, Die Sohne des Lichtes, 1954, p. 57), is generally identified with the
Teacher of Righteousness (so R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,
244

THE qUMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

are some who think that the Teacher of Righteousness was
expected himself to rise from the dead and to be the Messiah, ^
though there is Httle clear evidence for this^ and some evidence,
to which we shall come, against it. Since the Teacher of
II, 19 1 3, p. 800; G. Holscher, -^.jV.W. xxix, 1929, p. 39; A, DupontSommer, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Eng. trans, by E. Margaret Rowley, 1952,
p. 63), and it is probable that the destruction of the men of war was
associated with the coming of the Messiah (cf. the present writer's The
Relevance of Apocalyptic, 2nd edn., 1947, p. 76). It should be noted that L.
Rost {loc. cit. cols. 143 ff.) and T. H. Gaster {The Scriptures of the Dead Sea
Sect, 1957, pp. 35 f.) differentiate the Unique Teacher from the Teacher of
Righteousness, while C. Rabin {The J^adokite Documents, 2nd edn., 1958,
p. 37 n.) does not commit himself.
^ So A. Dupont-Sommer, op. cit. pp. 34 f., 44, Les Ecrits esseniens decouverts
prks de la Mer Morte, 1959, p. 123 n. ; cf. C. T. Fritsch, The Qumran Community, 1956, p. 82. This view is rejected by J. van der Ploeg {Bi. Or. viii,
1951, pp. 12 f.), J. Bonsirven {Etudes, cclxviii, 1951, p. 216), R, de Vaux

{La Vie Intellectuelle, April, 1951, p. 67), M, Delcor {R.B. Lvni, 1951, pp. 521
ff.), R. Tamisier {Scripture, v, 1952, pp. 37 f.), M. Black {S.E.A. xviii, 1955,
pp. 85 f., and The Scrolls and Christian Origins, 1961, p. 160 n.), G. Molin
{Die Sohne des Lichtes, 1954, p. 148), and F. F. Bruce {The Modern Churchman,
N.S. IV, 1960-61, p. 51). Before the discovery of the Scrolls, in discussing
the Z^dokite Work, the view that the Teacher was expected to rise and be the
Messiah had been advanced by S. Schechter {Fragments of a ^adokite Work,
igio, p. XIII ; cf. G. Margoliouth [Expositor, 8th ser., 11, 191 1, p. 517]), and
rejected by G. F. Moore {H.T.R. rv, 191 1, p. 342), J. A, Montgomery
{B.W., N.S. xxxvm, 191 1, p. 376), and J. B. Frey {S.D.B. i, 1928, p. 397).
J, D. Amusin {The Manuscripts of the Dead Sea, i960, p. 251) thinks the
Teacher was expected to return, and that this expectation later gave rise to
the myth of the risen and returning Christ. This is surely rather much to
hang on a single obscure and doubtful passage! (Amusin's book is in
Russian, and therefore inaccessible to me. I am indebted to the author for
a copy, and to Mr. Arie Rubinstein for access to its contents.)
* Cf. J. van der Ploeg, The Excavations at Qumran, Eng. trans, by K.
Smyth, 1958, p. 203: "There is no mention in the Qumran writings of any
resurrection of the Teacher or of his second coming as Judge. That he
'appeared' after his death to Jerusalem when Pompey took it in 63 B.C. is
something that Dupont-Sommer invented." Cf. K. Smyth, The Furrow,
April 1957, p. 222: "Dupont-Sommer reached this result by remoulding a
few lines of the Habacuc Commentary nearer to his heart's desire, with the
help of mis-translations, mis-readings of text, and the insertion of his own
matter into lacunae." Cf. also J. Carmignac, R.Q,. i, 1958-59, pp. 235 ff.
On the rendering of the word "appeared" in Habakkuk Commentary, col.
XI, line 7, cf. Carmignac, Le Docteur de Justice et Jesus-Christ, 1957, pp.
38 ff.
245

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Righteousness was a priest, ^ if such an expectation were held
he would be thought of as an Aaronic Messiah. Already, before
the discovery of the Qumran Scrolls, George Foot Moore, in
discussing the ^adokite Work, had said that if the author had
intended to identify the Teacher of Righteousness with the
coming Messiah, he would have expressed so singular and
significant a belief unmistakably. ^
It is already clear that the messianism of the Qumran sect
was very different from that of the New Testament. For the
Church Jesus was the Messiah, and it had no place for a second.
The thought of His Messiahship was drawn from the Old Testament and not from Qumran. He was believed to be the Davidic
Messiah, and it is hard to suppose that for Jesus or His followers
any priestly Messiah was contemplated as having precedence
over Him. No such idea appears anywhere in the New Testament.
It is true that in the Epistle to the Hebrews the work of
Christ is interpreted in priestly terms. But the priest is not a
second figure who stands beside and above Jesus. He is identified with Jesus. Nor is the priesthood of Jesus, as it is set forth in

this Epistle, an Aaronic priesthood. ^ It is specifically dissociated

from such a priesthood, and described as a priesthood after the
order of Melchizedek. The Qumran sectaries called their
priestly members Sons of Zadok,* and it is probable that by this
^ Cf. P.E.Q^. Lxxxvi, 1954, pp. 69 ff., where in a fragment of a commentary on Ps. XXXVII (col. II, line 15) published by J. M. Allegro, we find a
reference to "the Priest, the Teacher of Ri[ghteousness]". Cf also Habakkuk
Commentary, col. II, line 8.
^ H.T.R.rw, i9ii,p. 342.
Cf F. F. Bruce, N.T.S. 11, 1955-56, pp. 180 ff.
* Z^dokite Work vi. 2 (p. rv, line 3), Manual of Discipline col. V, line 2,
The Rule of the Congregation, col. I, lines 2, 24, col. II, line 3 (Barth^lemy and
Milik, Qumran Cave I, 1955, p. no), Benedictions, col. Ill, line 22 {ibid.
p. 124). In the Manual of Discipline, col. IX, line 14, we find bny hsdwk
(P. Wernberg-Moller, in The Manual of Discipline, 1957, p. 42, proposed to
read here hsdyk, but in R.Q,. 11, i960, p. 233, he withdraws this reading;
cf. M. Martin, The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11, 1958, p. 443)
where the use of the article is strange if the meaning is "sons of Zadok"
(so rendered by W. H. Brownlee, The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline, 1951,
p. 36; K. Schubert, ^.A'.TJ^. lxxiv, 1952; H. Bardtke, Die Handschriftenfunde am Toten Meer, 2nd edn., 1953, p. 102; P. Wernberg-Moller,
op. cit. p. 27; E. F. SutclifFe, TTie Monks of Qumran, i960, p. 154). It has
246

THE qUMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

name they indicated their rejection of any other High Priest
than one of the family of Zadok, who was the Jerusalem priest
of the time of David and Solomon. They did not offer sacrifices
in the Temple,^ and it is probable that this was because they
did not recognize the priesthood there as in the true line of
succession from Zadok, and not because they rejected the
Temple cultus in itself. ^ They looked for a rightful priest, and
in their organization the priests were accorded the place of
honour, ^ Jesus was not a priest, and did not function as such in
the company of His disciples. When the Epistle to the Hebrews
presents His work in priestly terms, His priesthood is exercised
in a single act, and it takes place not in the Temple but on
Calvary, where He offered Himself.
We know very little of the life of the Teacher of Righteousness. The references to him in the Scrolls indicate that he lived
in stormy times and was opposed by one who is called the
Wicked Priest, who persecuted him. The ^adokite Work speaks
frequently been said, by the present writer among others, that the members
of the sect called themselves the "sons of Zadok", but Wernberg-MoUer
shows {V.T. m, 1953, pp. 311 ff.; cf. The Manual of Discipline, p. 90) that
the "sons of Zadok" are conceived as the priestly members of the sect as
opposed to the lay members (so also J. M. Grintz, Ha-aretz, May 1 1 , 1 956) .

^ There are references to sacrifices in J^'^dokite Work xiii, 27, xiv. i (p. xi,
lines 17-21), which probably dates from the time before the breach with
the Temple was complete. But the later texts do not speak of such sacrifices
being offered. On Josephus's statement about the Essenes and sacrifice see
below, p. 252, n. 4. On the significance of the bones of animals found at
Qumran, cf. R. de Vaux, R.B. Lxin, 1956, pp. 549 f., and J. van der Ploeg,
J.S.S. II, i957PP- 172 f.
" Cf. J. M. Baumgarten, H.T.R. xlvi, 1953, pp. 153 f. ; J. Carmignac,
R.B. Lxiii, 1956, pp. 524 ff. ; M. Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls,
p. 258; K. Schubert, The Dead Sea Community, Eng. trans, by J. W. Doberstein, 1959, p. 56; E. F. Sutcliffe, op. cit. pp. 82 f. ; also cf. H. Mosbech,
Essaismen, 1916, pp. 263 ff. O. Cullmann [E.T. lxxi, 1959-60, p. 39)
thinks it likely that the sectaries considered their separation from Jerusalem
was only temporary, but says (pp. 39 f.) : "Although in principle the specific
rites of Qumran were not at all considered to be opposed to the bloody
sacrifices, the long exclusive practice of their particular rites, baptism and
the sacred meal, and the long abstention from sacrifices must sooner or later
have given birth to the idea that sacrifices were not at all pleasing to
God."
' Cf. Manual of Discipline, cols. V, lines 2 f., IX, line 7.
247

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

of his being "gathered in"/ and this expression is used in the
Old Testament for natural death. ^ There is an obscure passage
in the Habakkuk Commentary which is believed by many scholars
to mean that he suffered martyrdom.^ In another text there is
a reference to an enemy of the sect, called the Lion of Wrath,
who hung men alive.* It is probable that this refers to crucifixion, and it has therefore been held that the Teacher of Righteousness was crucified,^ and thus suffered the same death as
Jesus. If this were established beyond any doubt, it would have
no special significance. Many others had been crucified before
Jesus, and not a few had suffered this death as martyrs for their
faith. In fact, the text that mentions the crucifixions does not
mention the Teacher of Righteousness. How he died we have no
means of knowing.
More important than the manner of his death is the significance attached to it by his followers. In the New Testament the
death and resurrection of Jesus do not figure each in a single,
^ Zadokite Work ix. 21 (p. xx, line i), ix. 39 (p. xx, line 14).
* For a careful study of the use of this expression, cf. B. Alfrink, O.T.S.
V, 1948, pp. 118 ff. Cf. also G. R. Driver in Studies and Essays in honor of
A. A. Neuman, 1962, pp. 137 ff. K. Schubert [Z-K.Th. Lxxrv, 1952, p. 25)
holds that the language in the Zadokite Work implies the natural death of the
Teacher, and so J. Carmignac {Le Docteur de Justice et Jisus-Christ, 1957,
P- 55)) J- Bourke {Blackfriars, xl, 1959, p. 165), and M. Delcor {Revue
Thomiste, lix, 1959, p. 145). J. van der Ploeg ( The Excavations at Qumran, p. 202)
says: "That the Teacher was put to death is an assumption that still lacks

confirmation from the texts."

^ Habakkuk Commentary, col. XI, line 5. Several writers have denied
Dupont-Sommer's interpretation of this passage. Cf. E. Cavaignac, R.H.R.
cxxxvin, 1950, pp. 156 f. ; M. Delcor, Essai sur le Midrash d'Habacuc, 1951,
p. 44; M. H. Segal, J.B.L. lxx, 1951, p. 142; R. Tamisier, Scripture, v,
1952-53, p. 38; K. Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer,
1953, pp. 281 ff. For Dupont-Sommer's defence of his view, cf. V.T. i,
1 95 1, pp. 200 f. C. T. Fritsch {op. cit. p. 81) accepts the view that the
Teacher of Righteousness came to a violent end at the hands of the
Wicked Priest.
* Cf. J. M. Allegro, J.B.L. lxxv, 1956, pp. 89 ff.
^ Cf. Allegro, Letter to The Times, March 20, 1956 (cf. also Time Magazine,
Februarys, 1956) and The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1956, pp. 99 f. Allegro believes
the Teacher of Righteousness was crucified by Alexander Jannaeus.
E. Stauffer, on the other hand, identifies the Teacher with Jose ben
Joezer, who was crucified in Maccabaean times (<^.i?.G.G. viii, 1956, pp.
250 flf.).
248

THE qUMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

obscure passage, but throughout the whole, and they are
fundamental for the understanding of the entire theology of the
Church from its earliest days. Whatever the Church derived
from Qumran it did not derive this. Even if the Teacher of
Righteousness was in fact crucified and was expected to rise
from the dead, his death and resurrection did not dominate the
thought and faith of the Qumran sect, ^ and no one could read
the Scrolls and the New Testament without being at once aware
that they move in two different theological worlds. ^ By its
Christology the New Testament stands in the sharpest contrast
with the Scrolls.^
^ There is a reference in the Habakkuk Commentary (col. VIII, Hnes 2 f.)
to those who have faith in the Teacher of Righteousness, and this has been
interpreted to mean that the Teacher was the object of saving faith (cf.
Dupont-Sommer, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 44; C. T. Fritsch, op. cit. p. 82).
Again, it will be observed, much is being based on a single passage, which
does not naturally bear the meaning placed on it. Cf. O. Cullmann, S.N. T.,
p. 23: "this faith in the Teacher of Righteousness is not, as for Paul, faith in
an act of atonement accomplished in the death of Christ for the forgiveness of
sins. In fact, the concept of faith itself is different, containing nothing of the
sense of opposition to the works of the law." The meaning here is nothing
more thaxi fidelity to the Teacher of Righteousness, and it is so rendered by
K. EUiger, Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer, 1953, p. 196:
"ihrer Treue zu dem Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit" (cf. H. Bardtke, op. cit.
p. 128). Cf. also J. van der Ploeg, The Excavations at Qumran, p. 202; E. F.
Sutcliffe, The Monks of Qumran, p. 118. M. Burrows {More Light on the Dead
Sea Scrolls, p. 121) says: "Faith in the teacher means confidence in his
teaching, not in a work of atonement accomplished by his death"; K. G.
Kuhn {S.N.T., p. 78) observes: "In the Qumran texts we find no trace of
such an ultimately redemptive significance of a historical person." Cf. also

H. Kosmala, Hebrder-Essener-Christen, 1959, pp. 390 f.

^ Cf. Burrows, op. cit. pp. 66 f.: "No objective historian, whatever may
be his personal belief about the resurrection of Jesus, can fail to see the
decisive difference here in the beliefs of the two groups. What for the community of Qumran was at most a hope was for the Christian an accomplished fact, the guarantee of their hopes."
' Fritsch {op. cit. p. 82) says the Teacher of Righteousness must have been
regarded as more than human. In this he is following Dupont-Sommer,
who goes so far as to suppose that the Teacher was held to have been preexistent as a divine being, and became incarnate {The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 34).
This assumption is based on nothing more substantial than a reference to
the Teacher's "body of flesh". Had the Teacher really been thought of as
an incarnate divine being, we should have expected some clearer indication
of this belief in the writings of the sect. Yet nowhere does it figure in any of
249

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

It has been conjectured, though without the sHghtest evidence, that Jesus Hved for some years amongst the Qumran
sectaries.^ Professor F. C. Grant characterizes this as fantastic
nonsense, ^ The idea that Jesus derived His teaching from the
sect is one that cannot survive the most superficial examination.^ Professor Stauffer has argued that many of the teachings
of Jesus were directed expressly against the sectaries,* and that
their influence on the later writers of the New Testament was
greater than on Jesus Himself. ^ For instance, in the New Testament we read: "Ye have heard that it was said 'You shall love
your neighbour and hate your enemy'. But I say unto you
'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you'."^
It has often been pointed out by commentators that in the Old
Testament we do not find the command to hate enemies.' In
their texts, or in any of the first century accounts of the Essenes. It is derived
not from the Hterature of the sect, but from the New Testament, and then
attributed to them. Cf. J. Carmignac, Le Docteur de Justice et Jesus-Christ,
pp. 37 fF.
^ See F. C. Grant, Ancient Judaism and the New Testament, i960, p. 18,
where an unnamed source for the suggestion is referred to, Cf, B, HjerlHansen, R.Q_. i, 1958-59, pp. 495 ff. The suggestion had already been
rejected long ago by J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Colossians and
to Philemon, 1900, pp. 395 ff.
* Op. cit. p. 19; cf. p. 133, where he speaks of "the preposterous inferences and hypotheses which many persons have advocated since the Dead
Sea Scrolls were discovered inferences which sometimes openly betray
their propounders' unfamiliarity with ancient Judaism as well as with New
Testament history and exegesis." Cf. also CuUmann, S.N.T., p. 18: "That
Jesus was ... a member of the Essene Community is pure and groundless
speculation."
* Cf. M. Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 88 f. ; G. Gray-

stone, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Originality of Christ, 1956, p. 89. D. Flusser
{Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls [Scripta Hierosolymitana, IV], 1958, pp. 2i5f.)
says: "The synoptic Gospels show few and comparatively unimportant
parallels to the Sectarian writings. This seems to indicate that the Scrolls
will not contribute much to the understanding of the personality of Jesus
and of the religious world of his disciples."
* Cf. Die Botschaft Jesu damals und heute, 1959, pp. 13 ff.
^ Ibid. p. 16.
Mt. 5: 43 f.
' Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, i, 1922, p. 353;
E. Percy, Die Botschaft Jesu, 1953, p. 153; K. Schubert, S.N.T., p. 120.

THE Q^UMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

the Scrolls, however, we do find such a command. ^ Whether
Jesus had the Qumran community in mind or not when He
uttered such sayings, ^ it is certain that His attitude on many
questions was quite other than that of the sectaries.^ The contrast between His attitude to Sabbath observance and theirs is
particularly notable. Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for
what they regarded as His laxity. But the Scrolls teach a
Sabbatarianism that was much more strict than that of the
Pharisees, and the members of the sect would have been
shocked by the saying of Jesus: "The sabbath was made for
man, not man for the sabbath."* When Jesus was watched to
see if He would heal the man with a withered hand on the
Sabbath, He said "What man of you, if he has one sheep and it
falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it
out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep !"^
According to the teaching of the Qumran sect neither animal
nor man should be so helped on the Sabbath. In the ^adokite
Work we read: "No one should help an animal to foal on the
sabbath day. And if it should drop (its foal) ^ into a well or a pit,
let not one raise it on the sabbath day . . . And if a man falls
^ Manual of Discipline, cols. I, line lo, IX, lines 21 f.; cf. col. X, lines 19 f.
Cf. P. Guilbert, Les Textes de Qumran, i, 1961, p. 23: "L'expression non
biblique de Matthieu 5, 43 peut avoir vu le jour dans une atmosphere
semblable a celle de la secte, ou la haine des ennemis, c'est-k-dire des
infideles, est exprimee en propres termes." Cf. also Morton Smith, H.T.R.
XLV, 1952, pp. 71 ff. But cf. E. F. Sutcliffe, /2.Q,. n, i960, pp. 345 ff., where
it is observed that there was to be no private hatred or revenge, and that
the hatred enjoined in the Qumran texts was the hatred of wicked men, as
in the Old Testament. There can be little doubt, however, that the enemies
of the sect were regarded as wicked men.
^ K. Schubert {S.N.T.,-p. 121) says Mt. 5: 43 f is to be understood within
the framework of Jesus's encounter with Essene concepts. J. D. Amusin
{op. cit. pp. 253 f.) thinks this passage from Matthew and also i Jn. 2: 9 ff.
may have been directed against the Qumran sect.
^ Cf CuUmann, S.N.T., pp. 30 f.

* Mk. 2: 27.
' Mt. 12: II f.; cf. Lk. 14: 5. Amusin {op. cit. pp. 255 f.) thinks these
passages were polemically directed against the Qumran sectaries.
This follows the rendering of C. Rabin {The ^adokite Documents, p. 56)
and Caster {op. cit. p. 87), since the verb appears to be Hiph'il. R. H.
Charles {Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 11, p. 827) renders "if it falls", and so
Sutcliffe {op. cit. p. 144; cf. p. 120).
251

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

into a place of water or into some other place, let not one raise
him^ with a ladder or rope or instrument." ^
In the ^adokite Work there are references to offerings on the
altar, 3 but Philo tells us the Essenes did not offer sacrifices in
the Temple, ^ and in the sectarian texts found at Qumran there
* This follows the rendering of Charles {loc. cit. p. 828) and Sutcliffe {op.
cit. p. 144). Rabin [op. cit. p. 56) for "let not one raise him" renders "from
which one cannot come up, let any man bring him up", and thus conjecturally supplies [lin^S?'' after n*?!?"* .Cf. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English,
1962, p. 113: "Should any man fall into water or fire, let him be pulled out
with the aid of a ladder". Gaster {op. cit. p. 87) does not render the negative,
but emends it to yield the noun "darkness", i.e. "a place of darkness".
But the context, which in a series of sayings has the negative with a verb,
stating a prohibition, favours a similar construction here. J. Maier {Die
Texte vom Toten Meer, i, i960, p. 61) renders: "Ein lebendiger Mensch,
der ins Wasser oder sonst wo hineinfallt, den darf man nicht mit einer
Leiter, einem Strick oder einem (anderen) Gerat herausholen."
* Zadokite Work, xiii. 22-6 (p. xi, lines 13-17).
^ Z^dokite Work, xiii. 27, xrv. i (p. xi, lines 17-21).
* Quod omnis probus liber sit, xii (75). In Whiston's translation of Josephus,
Antiq. XVIII, x, 5 (19) we find a similar statement that the Essenes did not
offer sacrifices, but the text is here uncertain. The Greek manuscripts, all
of which are late, do not contain the negative, and say that they sent offerings to the Temple and offered sacrifices with superiority of purificatory
rites, for which reason they were excluded from the common court of the
Temple and offered their sacrifices by themselves. The Greek Epitoma,
which is attested at a date earlier than surviving manuscripts of the
Antiquities, and the Latin rendering of the Antiquities, which was made in the
sixth century, have the negative (cf. J. Thomas, Le Mouvement baptists en
Palestine et Syrie, 1935, pp. 12 f.n. ; also Sutcliffe, op. cit. pp. 230 f). The
rendering of Whiston is accepted by Lightfoot {op. cit. pp. 369 f ), H.
Mosbech {Essaismen, 1916, pp. 263 ff.), J. M. Baumgarten {H.T.R. xlvi,
19535 P- 155)5 Burrows {The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1955, p. 285), and D. H.
Wallace {Th.Z- xii, 1957, pp. 334 ff.), and it is generally believed that the
Essenes did not offer sacrifices. Cf. D. Flusser, Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
1958, p. 235: "As the Qumran covenanters thought that the Temple was
polluted, they could not take part in the Temple service of their time. This

inability to offer real sacrifices engendered an ambivalent attitude to the

sacrificial rites." Fritsch {op. cit. p. 108) says the Qumran community
evidently believed that sacrifices were useless. This goes too far. Cf. J.
Carmignac, R.B. Lxni, 1956, pp. 530 f., where it is argued that the sect did
not repudiate sacrifices on principle. It is hard to see how a sect which set so
high a value on the Law could reject them on principle. Mile. A. Jaubert,
N.T.S. VII, 1960-61, p. 17, thinks the sectaries frequented the Temple, and
notes that one of the gates of the Temple bore their name. (Cf. M.-J.
252

THE Q^UMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

are no references to animal sacrifices. ^ This was probably, as has
been already said, due to the fact that the Jerusalem priesthood
was not recognized by the sectaries as legitimate, ^ and on this
account they had nothing to do with the Temple or its sacrifices.
Jesus and His disciples did not boycott the Temple, but visited
it and He taught there. When He cleansed a leper He told him
to go to the Temple and offer the prescribed sacrifice.^ The
Early Church did not keep away from the Temple, ^ and when
Paul made a vow he fulfilled it by sacrificing in the Temple.^
The members of the sect of the Scrolls had each his place in
the meetings of the sect, ^ and every year there was a review of
the conduct of all the members, leading to advancement to a
Lagrange, Le Judaisme avant Jesus-Christ, 1931, pp. 318 f.) This does not
necessarily mean that they offered sacrifices, and while the uncertain statement of Josephus cannot be pressed, the unambiguous statement of Philo
should not be set aside. J. M. Allegro {The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 100) thinks
the sect had its own altar at Qumran and there offered sacrifice, and that
the Teacher of Righteousness was in the act of sacrificing when the Wicked
Priest came to Qumran. But, as Burrows {More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls,
p. 366) says, this is quite incredible, since it would be a violation of the Law
which the sect was pledged to obey. F. C. Conybeare (in D.B. i, p. 769 b)
suggests that the passage in Josephus does not necessarily mean that they
sent animal sacrifices to the Temple, even if the negative is omitted, but
argues that the sacrifices they offered by themselves were the sacrifices of a
devout and reverent mind, which Philo says they offered {Quod omnis probus
liber sit, xn [75]) . Cf. also Lucetta Mowry, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Early
Church, 1962, pp. 219 ff.
^ Cf. Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 237: "The Manual of Discipline
makes no reference at all to the temple or to sacrifice except in obviously
figurative expressions." S. E. Johnson goes beyond the evidence when he
roundly says that in the Manual the existing Temple cultus was repudiated
{S.N.T., p. 136). Cf M. Delcor, Revue Thomiste, Lviii, 1958, p. 759. In the
War Scroll there is a reference to the future offering of sacrifice (col. H, lines
5 f.). S. Holm-Nielsen points out that in the Hymns Scroll there is a complete
absence of references to the Temple and Temple worship {Hodayot: Psalms
from Qumran, i960, p. 309).
* To this it should be added that the objection of the Qumran sectaries
to the official calendar (see below pp. 270 fF.) meant that in their eyes the
Jerusalem sacrifices at all the festivals were offered on the wrong days, and
were therefore invalid.

^ Mt. 8: 4, Mk. i: 44, Lk. 5: 14.

* Ac. 2: 46, 3: I ff., 5: 20 ff., 42.
^ Ac. 21: 26 ff.
* Manual of Discipline, cols. V, lines 20 ff., VI, lines 4 f , 8 ff.
253

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

higher place or relegation to a lower. ^ The disciples of Jesus
were similarly interested in questions of precedence, and we
read that as they walked in the way they argued with one another
about their claims to the highest place. ^ That Jesus had nothing
of the Qumran attitude to such a question is beyond doubt. He
rebuked His disciples for even discussing it, and said: "If anyone
would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all." ^
On the subject of ritual ablutions, the attitude of Jesus
stands in complete contrast to that of the sect. There are references in the Scrolls to purificatory waters, though it is recognized that no waters can purify the man who does not obey the
laws of God and submit himself to the discipline of the sect.*
From Josephus we learn that the Essenes bathed the whole
body daily before partaking of food. ^ While this is not stated
explicitly in the Scrolls, it is probable that the members of the
sect followed this practice if the sect is to be identified with the
Essenes, and likely that the statement in the Manual of Discipline
that those who sought to enter the sect could not touch "the
purity of the many" before the last year of their probation is
an allusion to it. The "purity of the many" is believed by many
scholars to allude to the waters of purification in which the
members daily bathed.' That Jesus and His disciples did not
follow such a practice is clear from the fact that when the
disciples were criticized for not even washing their hands
before eating, Jesus defended them.^ Moreover, in the
Johannine account of the Last Supper we read only of the
washing of the disciples' feet by Jesus, ^ and not of the bathing
of their body.
^ Manual of Discipline, col. II, lines 19 ff.
2 Mk. 9: 33 ff. ; cf. Lk. 9: 46 fF.
' Mk. 9: 35.
* Manual of Discipline, col. V, lines 13 f.
3 5. J. II, vin, 5 (129).
^ Manual of Discipline, col. VII, lines 18 ff.
' Gaster (op. cit. p. 60) renders: "the formal state of purity enjoyed by the
general membership of the community", and on p. 107, n. 58, brings this
into association with the passage in Josephus. S. Lieberman thinks the mean-

ing is the solid food of the community as opposed to liquids {J.B.L. lxxi,
1952, p. 203). Cf. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 1962, p. 27.
Mt. 15: I ff., Mk. 7: I ff.; cf Lk. 11: 37 ff.
9Jn. i3:3ff.
254

THE Q^UMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

It has been argued that the Church owed much to the
Qumran sectaries for its organization. ^ It would not be surprising for the infant Church to learn from the experience of
others in this matter. The services of the Early Church were
modelled on those of the Synagogue, and since in the first days
the Church was regarded by its Jerusalem members as a Jewish
sect it would not be remarkable if its organization was modelled
on that of another contemporary Jewish sect. It is possible that
the community of goods in the Jerusalem church ^ was influenced by the community of goods at Qumran.^ It does not seem
to have lasted long in Jerusalem, or to have been practised in
the churches established elsewhere, and it cannot be said to
have belonged to the essential pattern of the Church.
While the sect of the Scrolls had its headquarters at Qumran,
all its members were not concentrated there. There were
smaller groups scattered throughout the land.* But wherever
there was a company of sectaries they had at their head an
officer, who presided at their meetings and without whose permission none was allowed to speak. ^ His title ^ may be rendered
^ Cf. J. Schmitt, in La Secte de Qumran (Recherches Bibliques IV), 1959,
pp. 216 ff. (p. 230: "Le judaisme communautaire est, a n'en pas douter, le
milieu d'ou I'Eglise de Jerusalem tient les formes les plus marquantes de
son organisation naissante"). The similarities between the Essenes and the
Church had long been noted. F. C. Conybeare {loc. cit. p. 770 b) gives an
account of them, and concludes that "the most we can say is that the
Christians copied many features of their organization and propagandist
activity from the Essenes". Cf also J. B. Lightfoot {op. aV, pp. 395 fr.),who
recognizes Essene influence in the Church before the close of the Apostolic
age.
Ac. 4: 32 ff.
' Cf. S. Segert, "Die Giitergemeinschaft der Essaer", in Studio Antigua
Antonio Salac septuagenario oblata, 1955, pp. 66 ff.
* Manual of Discipline, col. VI, lines 3, 6; cf. Josephus, B.J. II, viii, 4
(124-26). R. de Vaux {Les "petites grottes" de Qumran, 1962, pp. 35 f.) suggests
that some of these groups may have occupied the various Qumran caves, in
some cases living in tents or huts and only using the caves for storage
pmposes. In ^adokite Work xvii. i (p. xiv, line 3) we find reference to
"camps" of the sect.
^ Manual of Discipline, col. VI, lines 8 ff.

* m^bhakker. Cf. Z<^dokite Work x. 10 f., 13 (p. ix, lines 18 f , 22), xv. 7, xvi.
1 (p. xm, lines 6 f ), xvi. 7 f. (p. xiii, lines 13, 16), xvm. 2 (p. xiv, line 13),
XIX. 8, 10, 12 (p. XV, lines 8, 11, 14), Manual of Discipline, col. VI, lines 12,
20.
255

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

by the word Inspector.^ There is a reference to an "Inspector
who is over all the camps", ^ who would seem to have been the
head of the whole sect. For the admission of new members an
Overseer^ acted in the first instance.^ Whether he is the same
as the Inspector is not clear, ^ or, if they were different persons,
what the relation of the one to the other was. It has been held
that the office of bishop in the Early Church corresponded to
that of Inspector in the Qumran sect.' This has been disputed,'
and the single use of the term episkopoi, or bishops, in the book
* Vermes (The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 1962, p. 19) prefers the rendering
"Guardian", as Overseer "smacks more of a gang of labourers than of a
religious community".
* Zadokite Work, xvii. 6 (p. xiv, line 9.)
' pakidh.
* Manual of Discipline, col. VI, line 14.
' F. M. Gross (Ancient Library of Qumran, p. 176 n.) identifies them, and
so J. van der Ploeg {TTie Excavations of Qumran, p. 135; of. Bi.Or. ix, 1952, p.
131b), W. H. Brownlee (The Dead Sea Aianual of Discipline, 1951, p. 25),
P. Wernberg-MoUer {The Manual of Discipline, 1957, p. 107), and G.
Vermes {op. cit. p. 19), while J. T. Milik holds the identification to be
probable {Ten Years of Discovery, p. 100). On the other hand, G. Lambert
{N.R.Th. Lxxiii, 1 95 1, p. 944) appears to differentiate them. Gf also J. F.
Priest, J.B.L. lxxxi, 1962, pp. 55 ff. P. Guilbert {Les Textes de Qumran, i,
1 96 1, p. 47) also differentiates them.
* Gf. I. L6vi, R.E.J. Lxi, 191 1, p. 195; K. Kohler, A.J.Th. xv, 191 1,
p. 416; A. Biichler, J.Q_.R., N.S. m, 1912-13, p. 464; W. Staerk, Die
jiidische Gemeinde des Neuen Bundes in Damaskus, 1922, p. 68; G. Holscher,
Z-N.W. XXVIII, 1929, p. 39; J. Jeremias, Jerusalem zur ^eit Jesu, 2nd edn.,
1958, 11 B., pp. 132 ff.;J. Dani6lou, R.H.P.R. xxxv, 1955, p. iii, and Les
Manuscrits de la Mer Morte et les origines du Christianisme, 1957, pp. 36 f.
' Gf. K. G. Goetz, Z-J^.W. xxx, 1 931, pp. 89 ff. ; H. W. Beyer, in Th.W.B.
II, 1935, pp. 614 f. ; P. Guilbert, loc. cit. Bo Reicke {S.N.T., p. 154) says:
"There is little reason to assume that the church got its episcopal office
from the Essenes and their mebaqqer" (cf. Symbolae Biblicae Upsalienses, No. 6,
1946, p. 16 n.); cf. F. F. Bruce, The Modern Churchman, N.S. iv, 1960-61,
p. 53: "The mebaqqer or superintendent of one of the branches of the
Qumran community has little in common with the Christian episkopos but
the meaning of the title." M. Delcor {Revue Thomiste, lix, 1959, p. 136)
distinguishes the m'bhakker from the episkopos on the ground that the former
was accompanied by a priest, and was therefore himself a layman. It is very

doubtful if this is correct, since it is unlikely that a sect which gave its
leadership into the hands of priests would have put the examination of
converts in lay hands (but note that G. Vermes [The Dead Sea Scrolls in
English, p. 25] thinks he was a Levite). Moreover, the episkopos was not a
256

THE qUMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

of Acts would suggest that the office was not quite the same as
that of Inspector amongst the Qumran sectaries. For Paul
called the elders of the church at Ephesus to meet him at
Miletus,^ and in addressing them he called them bishops. ^
This would suggest that in the church at Ephesus there were
several bishops, and not a single person with the authority of
the Qumran Inspector. Similarly, Paul's letter to the Philippians is addressed to the members of the church with its
bishops and deacons.^ That the office of bishop later developed
into something more comparable with the inspectorship of the
Qumran sect* is not evidence that the Church took this over
from the sect, but would suggest that it developed in the life
and experience of the Church. The term episkopos closely corresponds in meaning with the Qumran term Overseer, and it
may well be that the Church owed something to Qumran for
the adoption of the term, though the total organization of the
Church was very different from that of the sect.
The affairs of the sect were managed by a council of twelve
members and three priests.^ It has been held that this means
twelve men of whom three should be priests, ^ in accordance
with the sect's conceding of special influence and authority to
the priests. We should more naturally understand the reference
priest in the sense in which the priestly members of the sect were, i.e. a
descendant of Aaron. Cf. R. P. G. Hanson {A Guide to the Scrolls, 1958, p. 67) :
"There is no evidence that the early Christians divided their members into
'laymen' and 'clergy or ministers' at all." Cf also F. Notscher, in Die
Kirche und ihre Amter und Stdnde (Festgabe fiir Cardinal Frings), i960,
pp. 315 ff. (reprinted in Vom Alien zum Neuen Testament, 1962, pp. 188 ff.).
^ Ac. 20: 17,
* Ac. 20: 28. R.S.V. conceals the use of the word episkopoi here by rendering "guardians".
' Phil. 1:1. The references to bishops in i Tim. 3: 2, Tit. i: 7, do not give
any indication how many bishops there were in a single church.
* Cf. Beyer {loc. cit. p. 615): The m^bhakker "hat seine Entsprechung
tatsachlich mehr im Bischof des 3. Jhdts als in dem, was wir von den
kiriaKOTToi des Urchchristentums wissen."
* Manual of Discipline, col. VIII, line i.
* C. T. Fritsch {op. cit. p. 120) states this as if it were not open to question
(cf. p. 63). Bo Reicke (S.N.T. p. 151) says that "perhaps the inclusion of the

three priests is to be preferred."

257

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

to mean that the three priests were in addition to the twelve,^
but we need not press that. On the view that they were within
the twelve, this has been thought to have provided the model
for Jesus, ^ who chose twelve disciples, of whom three seem to
have formed an inner circle. For the choice of twelve disciples
there is no need to look to Qumran for inspiration. The Old
Testament is a sure source for the ideas of Jesus, while the sect
of Qumran is at best less sure. The twelve tribes of Israel
almost certainly supplied the inspiration for both. Indeed, we
find Jesus in the Gospels promising the disciples that they
should sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.^
Moreover, the special position of Peter, James and John*
cannot well be traced to Qumran. For in the organization of
the sect the three, whether within or without the twelve, were
priests, and this was fundamental to the whole spirit of the sect.
Peter, James and John were not priests. The members of the
sect were divided into three categories, according to the
Manual of Discipline.^ These were priests, Levites, and lay
members. According to the ^adokite Work there were four
categories: priests, Levites, children of Israel, and proselytes.^
^ Cf. J. T. Milik {Ten Tears of Discovery, p. lOo), who thinks the twelve
laymen represented the twelve tribes of Israel, and the three priests the
families of Levi's three sons, Gershon, Kohath and Merari. DupontSommer {Les Ecrits esseniens decouverts pres de la Mer Morte, 1959, p. 105 n.)
inclines to follow this view, and holds that the interpretation of fifteen men
is more natural (cf. The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes, Eng. trans, by
R. D. Barnett, 1954, pp. 81 f., where the inclusion of the three within the
twelve was favoured). So R. P. C. Hanson, A Guide to the Scrolls, 1938, p. 66
("not even the arithmetic corresponds in this alleged resemblance") ;
E. F. SutclifFe, J.S.S. rv, 1959, p. 134; and P. Guilbert, op. cit. p. 55.
* Cf. C. T. Fritsch, op. cit. p. 120. Bo Reicke {S.N.T., pp. 151 f.) notes a
parallel, but adds that "we cannot say that Jesus is directly dependent on
the Qumran sect in this matter." Cf. J. van der Ploeg, The Excavations at
Qumran, p. 135.
' Mt. 19: 28, Lk. 22: 30.
* O. CuUmann {S.N.T., p. 21) thinks the three priests may have had
their parallel in the three pillars of Gal. 2 : 9 f. : James, Cephas and John.
Cf. S. E. Johnson, ibid. p. 134; Bo Reicke, ibid. p. 151; J. van der Ploeg,
loc. cit.
^ Manual of Discipline, col. II, lines 19 ff.
* Zadokite Work, xvii. i ff. (p. xiv, lines 3 ff.).
258

THE qUMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

Here there is no necessary contradiction, ^ since the Manual of
Discipline tells us of the long probation of those who joined the
sect, who stood outside the full membership of the sect. ^ It is
probable that these correspond to the proselytes of the other
text. ^ In the Early Church we find nothing of this, and there is no
evidence that priests or Levites had any special status within the
Church. * In estimating the relations between the Church and the
sect, similarities and differences must alike be taken into account.
Again, in the organization of the sect the twelve men and
three priests would seem to have a permanent place as the
supreme council of the community.^ In the Church the twelve
disciples did not form part of the enduring pattern of the
organization. When Judas was replaced by Matthias,^ it was
not with the idea of maintaining a constant council of twelve
living members. As Professor Manson has pointed out, when
James was martyred by Herod Agrippa,' his place was not
filled. This, as Professor Manson says, was because his place
was not vacant.^ Judas had forfeited his place by his misconduct
and not by his death. The twelve disciples had been promised
that they should judge the twelve tribes of Israel^ and the Early
Church took this literally, and believed that James would be
raised from the dead to take his place. But this could not apply
^ M. Burrows (O.T.S. vin, 1950, p. 184) says the ^adokite Work adds a
fourth class to the threefold classification of the Manual.
* Manual of Discipline, col. VI, lines 13 ff.
^ Nowhere does the Qumran community show any interest in the making
of converts from the Gentiles, and the proselytes of the Z^^dokite Work were
almost certainly Jewish converts to the sect, just like the postulants of the
Manual.
* We are told in Ac. 6: 7 that many priests accepted the Christian faith,
but there is no evidence that they had any special status.
* E. F. Sutcliffe {J.S.S. w, 1959, pp. 134 ff.) disputes this, and holds that
they were the first fifteen men of the Qumran community, and F. F. Bruce
{J.S.S. VII, 1962, p. 120) thinks there is much to be said in favour of this
interpretation.
* Ac. 1 : 23 ff.
' Ac. 12: 2.
8 Cf. Ethics and the Gospel, i960, p. 74. Cf. S. E.Johnson {S.N.T., p. 134):
"A more likely supposition is that the Twelve are the community's council
for the coming Messianic Age, when they will sit on thrones judging the
twelve tribes of Israel."
* Mt. 19: 28, Lk. 22: 30.
s 259

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

to Judas, and therefore his place was filled. It was filled by one
who had companied with the disciples throughout the ministry
of Jesus, from the time of John the Baptist's baptism. That this
was regarded as an essential qualification would imply that no
permanent body of twelve living men was in mind.
The admission of new members to the sect is provided for in
the ^adokite Work and in the Manual of Discipline, and is described by Josephus in his account of the Essenes. The ^adokite
Work probably comes from a time early in the history of the
sect, and the Manual of Discipline from a later time.^ The procedure was simpler as described in the ^adokite Work, while that
in the Manual of Discipline is closer to that described by
Josephus. The ^adokite Work tells us that the candidate for
membership was examined by the Inspector as to his works,
his understanding, his might, his strength, and his wealth, and
if the Inspector was satisfied he was enrolled in the membership. ^ According to the Manual of Discipline, a candidate was
examined by the Overseer, and if he was satisfied, the candidate
was admitted to the covenant, but was not yet admitted to the
fellowship.^ He underwent an unspecified period of probation,
after which he was considered by "the many" which may
mean by a general meeting of the members and a decision
was taken as to whether he should be allowed to enter on a
further year of probation. During this year he was still not permitted to touch "the purity of the many".^ It is probably meant
that he was not allowed to perform daily ablutions in the water
used by the members of the sect.^
^ Cf. the present writer's paper "Some Traces of the History of the
Quinran Sect", Th.Z- xiii, 1957, pp. 530 ff. (cf. B.J.R.L. xxxv, 1952-53,
pp. 144 f.); cf. too P. Wernberg-Moller, D.T.T. xvi, 1953, p. 1 15; B. Otzen,
S.Th. vii, 1953, p. 141; J. O. Teglbjerg, D.T.T. xviii, 1955, pp. 246 f.;
J. van der Ploeg, J.E.O.L. xrv, 1955-56, p. 104; K. Smyth, The Dead Sea
Scrolls, 1956, p. 7; R. P. G. Hanson, A Guide to the Scrolls, 1958, pp. 63 f.,
and H. A. Butler, R.Q_. 11, i960, pp. 532 ff.
" Zadokite Work, xvi. 4 f. (p. xiii, Hnes 11 f ).
^ Manual of Discipline, col. VI, lines 14 ff.
* Manual of Discipline, col. VI, line 16.
* W. H. Brownlee {The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline, 1951, p. 25) brings
this into connection with Josephus's phrase "the purer kind of holy water"
{B.J. II, VIII, 7 [138]), but allows that here it might include, in addition to
the lustrations, the sectarian meals. Cf supra p. 254, n. 7.
260

THE qUMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

At the end of this year, he was again considered by "the

many" as to his understanding of the Law and his way of Hfe.^

If he was still regarded as satisfactory, his property was turned
over to the sect, but was kept separate from the treasury of the
sect during a final probationary period of a year. ^ During this
year he was not allowed to touch the food of the members.'
This may mean that he was not allowed to sit at the same table
as the full members, though it has been argued that it means
that he was not allowed to prepare the food for the members.*
At the end of this year, his case was again considered, and if he
won the approval of the members he became a full member of
the sect and his property was incorporated in that of the sect.^
According to Josephus in his account of the Essenes, the
preliminary period, which is undefined in the Manual of
Discipline, lasted for a year, like the others.^ During this year
the candidate was subjected to the same mode of life as the
members, though he was not admitted to the sect. ' If he was
found satisfactory at the end of this time he was allowed to
share the waters of purification used by the sect, but had
two more years of probation before he was admitted to full
membership. ^
It is hard to suppose that Jesus or the first disciples copied
any of this. For it would have taken three years for anyone to
be fully enrolled amongst the disciples or in the Church
assuming that the initial period of probation was a year, as
Josephus says. This means that none of the twelve disciples
would have completed his probation during the ministry of
^ Manual of Discipline, col. VI, line i8.
* Manual of Discipline, col. VI, lines 19 ff.
' Manual of Discipline, col. VI, line 20. S. Lieberman {J.B.L. lxxi, 1952,
p. 203) thinks the word mashkeh, which is here used, referred to drink only.
Cf. also E. F. SutclifFe, Heythrop Journal, i, i960, pp. 53 f. Others think the
word, like mishteh, stood for the whole meal. So M. Burrows, O.T.S.
vni, 1950, pp. 163 f.; T. H. Gaster, op. cit. p. 61; A. Dupont-Sommer,
Les Ecrits esseniens, p. 102. Cf. P. Guilbert, Les Textes de Qumran, i, 1961,
p. 48.
* Cf. E. F. Sutcliffe, loc. cit., pp. 62 f.
^ Manual of Discipline, col. VI, line 22.
^B.J. II, VIII, 7 (137).
' Ibid.
fi.J. II, vin, 7(138).
261

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Jesus, ^ and so none would have been eligible for membership
of the supposed council corresponding to the council of the

Qumran sectaries. Nor is there any evidence that the Early

Church required a period of three years of probation before
admission to its membership.
This very important difference between the Church and
Qumran becomes even clearer when we turn to the question of
baptism. It has been maintained that Christian baptism was
derived from the Qumran sect through the baptism of John,
who is sometimes thought to have been a member of the sect.^
Of none of this is there any evidence, and the whole character
and significance of John's baptism were so different from anything that is known from Qumran that it is in the highest
degree improbable. ^ All that we are concerned with here, how^ The ministry of Jesus is usually thought to have lasted three years, but
a one-year ministry (a common view held in the 2nd and 3rd centuries) or a
two-year ministry (cf. E. F. Sutcliffe, A Two-Tear Public Ministry, 1938)
has been proposed; on this question, cf. G. Ogg, The Chronology of the Public
Ministry of Jesus, 1940.
'^ Cf. G. L. Harding, I.L.N. , September 3, 1955, p. 379 ("John the
Baptist was almost certainly an Essene, and must have studied and worked
in this building"); J. M. Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1956, pp. 163 ff. ;
C. T. Fritsch, op. cit. pp. 1 12 ff. ; A. Powell Davies, The Meaning of the Dead
Sea Scrolls, 1957, pp. 142 f.; W. H. Brownlee, S.N.T., pp. 33 ff. (cf. p. 57:
"It was John the Essene who proclaimed the coming Messianic Age in the
wilderness"). J. Dani61ou {op. cit. p. 15) says: "lesd^couvertesdesmanuscrits
ont confirm^ de fa^on qui semble indubitable les contacts de Jean avec
les moines de Qumran." Cf. K. Schubert, The Dead Sea Community, Eng.
trans, by J. W. Doberstein, 1959, p. 126, and A. S. Geyser, N.T. i, 1956,
pp. 70 ff. (p. 71 : "we can now assume with comparative certainty that John
was brought up by Essenes"). M. Delcor {Revue Thomiste, lviii, 1958, p. 766)
thinks it probable that as a child John came under their influence, and so
J. A. T. Robinson, H.T.R. l, 1957, pp. 175 ff.; D. Howlett, The Essenes and
Christianity, 1957, pp. 141 f. ; and O. Betz, R.Q_. i, 1957-58, p. 222. On the
other hand G. Molin {Die Sohne des Lichtes, 1954, p. 170) thinks this is
questionable, and W. Eiss {Qumran und die Anfdnge der christlichen Gemeinde,
1959, p. 14) thinks it very improbable. G. Graystone {The Dead Sea Scrolls
and the Originality of Christ, 1956, p. 1 13; cf. pp. 93 ff.) thinks it is improbable
that the Baptist ever visited Qumran. The suggestion that John may have
been an Essene is no new one. It was already rejected by J. B. Lightfoot
{op. cit. pp. 398 ff.).
' On this question, cf. the present writer's essay on "The Baptism of
John and the Qumran Sect" in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of
T. W. Manson, 1959, pp. 218 flf. Lucetta Mowry, who thinks the eschatology
262

THE Q^UMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

ever, is to see how far Christian baptism reflects anything of
which we have knowledge in the faith and practice of the
Qumran sect.^
Josephus tells us that the Essenes bathed the whole body

daily before eating. ^ This is not what we mean by baptism, and

there is no evidence that this practice was taken over by Jesus
or the Church. In the Qumran texts it is probable that the
references to "the purity of the many" are to these daily ablutions.^ By baptism we mean a water rite of initiation, and only
a rite of initiation. There is no reference either in the Scrolls or
in Josephus to a special water rite of initiation amongst the
Qumran sectaries or the Essenes.* It is likely that the first of
the daily ablutions after admission to the appropriate stage of
probation would have a special character for the candidate for
membership of the sect, just as the first Communion has a
special character for Christians. But there is a fundamental
difference between baptism and the first Communion. The one
is an unrepeatable act of initiation, while the other is the first of
a repeatable series of experiences. The daily ablutions of the
sect were not administered rites, but washings of the body
which each performed for himself. We have no evidence that
of the sect may have influenced John, observes ( The Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Early Church, 1962, pp. 133 f.) that the similarities between John and the
sect "do not necessarily imply that John had at any time become a member
of the Qumran community, for John worked independently, as had the
great prophets of ancient times, and was concerned to bring his message to
the entire nation."
1 Cf. O. Betz, R.Q,. i, 1958-59, pp. 213 ff.
5.J. II,vin,5(i29).
' See above, page 254.
* Cf. E. F. Sutcliffe, Heythrop Journal, i, i960, pp. 179 ff. (p. 188: "There
is no mention of any rite performed by one for another nor of any ablution
forming part of a ceremony of initiation. Such a meaning cannot legitimately be read into the statement that admission to the two years of
probation after the year of postulantship carried with it the right to share
the purer waters of purification, as this implies continual use and not a
single act"). Similarly J. Gnilka {R.Q_. m, 1961-62, pp. 189 ff.) notes that we
have no record of any initiation ceremony of baptism at Qumran. Cf. also
P. Benoit, N.T.S. vii, 1960-61, p. 280. In view of this silence in our sources
it is surprising to be told that John the Baptist took over his baptism from
the Essene rite of initiation. Cf. W. H. Brownlee, S.N.T., 1958, pp. 36 f.;
O. Betz, R.Q_.i, 1958-59, p. 222.
263

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

the first of these ablutions was different in this respect from the
rest. Christian baptism was an administered rite, as also was
the baptism of John, ^ and we have no evidence that either was
followed by similar daily rites. Both were rites of initiation and
only of initiation. 2
A further notable difference that is relevant to our discussion
of the organization of the sect and of the Church is in the timing

of the experience. If it were established that the form of the first

Essene ablution coincided with the form of Christian baptism,
we should still have to note that the former did not take place
until the end of the second period of probation, according to
the Manual of Discipline , or the end of the first, according to
Josephus i.e. until after at least a year, and perhaps two years.
In the New Testament we read that on the day of Pentecost
three thousand people were converted by the preaching of
Peter, and they were baptized the same day. ^ When Philip fell
in with the Ethiopian eunuch and joined him in his chariot,
they stopped when they came to water, and the eunuch was
immediately baptized.^ Again, when Paul converted the Philippian gaoler, he baptized him the same night. ^
Yet even if the first Essene ablution could rightly be regarded
as identical with Christian baptism in its form and its timing,
* Cf. Jn. 1 : 25 f., where we are told that John baptized, or Mk. i : 9,
Mt. 3: 13, where we are told that Jesus was baptized by John. Whether
John plunged a man under the water, or whether the person baptized
plunged himself, we do not know ; but in either case it was an administered
rite, and in this respect comparable with Jewish proselyte baptism (cf.
T.B. Yebamoth, 47 a b), as distinct from ordinary Jewish lustrations or the
daily ablutions of the sect. Cf. J. Gnilka, /2.Q,. iii, 1961-62, p. 198. Nowhere
in the Scrolls or in the first century accounts of the Essenes is there any
reference to an administered rite of baptism. Cf. J. Dani^lou, R.H.P.R.
XXXV, 1955, p. 106: "En effet, dans I'ess^nisme, il s' agit de participation
aux bains rituels de la communaut^ et non d'un rite special d'initiation."
* O. Betz {R.Q_. I, 1957-58, p. 218) thinks it probable that the first Essene
bath had the character of proselyte baptism and had nothing to do with the
daily lustrations. This is a large inference to make from silence, since we
are nowhere told anything at all about the first Essene bath. It is a necessary
assumption that there must have been a first bath ; it is gratuitous to ascribe
to it a different character from those of which it was the first.
' Ac. 2: 41.
*Ac. 8: 36 ff.
"Ac. 16: 33.
264

THE qUMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

we should still have to ask how far the two accorded in significance. Christian baptism betokens a relation to Christ, whereas
we have no knowledge of anything comparable with this in the
sect of the Scrolls. The Teacher of Righteousness is unmentioned in any reference to Essene ablutions, and there is no
reason to suppose that the first ablution, or any ablution, betokened any relation to him. While there is little reason to
trace the form of Christian baptism to the Qumran sect, there
is even less to look there for the origin of its significance. ^
In his account of the Essenes Josephus has given us a picture
of their daily meals, ^ of which the members partook in solemn

silence, and this has been held to be the source of the Christian
Eucharist.^ The Manual of Discipline tells us that only when one
had been admitted to full membership of the Qumran sect
could he be allowed to touch the "drink" of the members.^
This is probably an allusion to the daily meals of the Qumran
community.^ It may be allowed that during the period when
the members of the Jerusalem church had all things in common
its members shared a daily table. But this is not to be identified
with the Eucharist without more ado ; nor if it were could the
Eucharist then be traced back to Qumran. During the ministry
of Jesus, our Lord and His disciples doubtless ate together. But
the Last Supper is not merely one of such meals. It had a
special character, and the Eucharist of the Church does not
commemorate the daily meals of Jesus and His disciples, or
even the last of a series. It commemorates the character of thaf
meal in itself, without reference to any that had preceded it,
and its character derived from its association with the imminent
death of Jesus. We have no knowledge of any such commemora^ Cf. W. D. Davies, Christian Origins and Judaism, 1962, p. 1 13: "There is
no real parallel in the Scrolls to Christian baptism, because they lack any
real counterpart to the dying and rising with Christ which Paul and other
early Christians took to be the essence of baptism."
^B.J. II,vm, 5f. (129-33).
* Cf. A. Powell Davies, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1957, p. 130:
"The early Christian sacrament was the Essenic sacrament with, perhaps,
some Christian adaptations." Cf. also D. Hewlett, The Essenes and
Christianity, 1957, p. 147.
* Manual of Discipline, col. VI, line 20.
" See above, p. 261, n. 3.
265

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

tive character of the meals of the sect. Nowhere in Josephus or
in the Scrolls is the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in
connection with the meals. So far as we know, they did not
betoken any relationship between the members and him, or
commemorate any incident of his life or the moment of his
death. In this they differ toto coelo from the Christian sacrament.
One writer on the Scrolls has observed that the presiding
priest at the sacred meals of the sect may have said: "This is my
body", and that the wine that was drunk may have been
thought of as the blood of the Messiah. He then concludes that
the sacred meal of the sect was almost identical with the
Christian sacrament.^ Such nonsense is an insult to the intelligence of his readers. If the account of the meals of the sect is
imaginatively reconstructed from the New Testament, it is not
surprising that similarities are found, since they are first unwarrantably imposed without a shred of evidence. It should be
clear to any ordinary intelligence that we can only discuss the

relation of the Scrolls to the New Testament if we let each

literature speak for itself, and refrain from tampering with the
evidence to make it say what we wish to find.^
The daily meals of the sect are more naturally understood in
terms of the communal meals of monastic orders,^ which no
members of such orders would confuse with the sacrament.
They are sacred meals in the sense that the members are conscious that they belong to a religious order, and they are eaten
with a solemnity and a quiet which is appropriate to the
presence of the God whose blessing is invoked.
Reference has already been made to a passage which indicates that in the messianic expectation of the sect the Aaronic
^ Cf. A. Powell Davies, op. cit. p. 130.
* It is curious that Powell Davies should say: "there is no certainty that
the accounts of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament have not been
edited to accord with the practice of a later time" (tAi(f.). There is complete
certainty that he has edited his account of the meal of the Qumran sect to
accord with his own theory.
3 Cf. J. van der Ploeg, J.S.S. 11, 1957, pp. 163 ff., and The Excavations at
Qumran, p. 213; E. F. Sutcliffe, Heythrop Journal, i, i960, pp. 48 ff. Cf. also
F. Notscher, in Lex tua Veritas (Junker Festschrift), 1961, pp. 145-74
(reprinted in Vom Alten zum Neuen Testament, 1962, pp. 83-1 11), where the
Qumran meals are considered in a wider setting.
266

THE qUMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

anointed one should have precedence over the Davidic. This
passage^ describes what is often called the messianic banquet.
It says that in the days of the Messiah, he should come with the
priests and members of the sect, and they should sit down in the
order of their dignity. No one should eat until the priest had
first blessed the food, and then the priest should eat first, and
after him the Messiah of Israel, followed by the rest of the
company, each in the order of his dignity. The text continues
by saying that in accordance with this rule the members of the
sect should act at every meal, when at least ten are assembled. ^
It is clear, therefore, that this is not really a description of any
special messianic banquet.^ It is a description of the regular
meals of the sect, and the Messiah takes no special part in it.
If he should be present, he should occupy the second place, but
beyond that the meal is conceived as an ordinary meal, and no
sacramental significance is given to it.
This passage is important in another connection, to which
reference has also been made. It says: "If God should cause the
Messiah to be born^ in their time", his place should be as
^ The Rule of the Congregation, col. II, lines 1 1 ff.

* The Rule of the Congregation, col. II, lines 21 f.

' Cf. M. Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. loi ; T. H. Gaster,
op. cit. p. 29; also J. van der Ploeg, The Excavations at Qumran, p. 213: "The
text of the Two Column Document as a whole does not give the impression
that it means to describe a sacred or 'Messianic' banquet." J. D. Amusin
{op. cit. pp. 241 f.), while finding a messianic colouring in this text, is
cautious about any possible connection with the significance of the Last
Supper.
* D. Barth^lemy {Qumran Cave I, 1955, p. 117), adopting a suggestion of
J. T. Milik's, emends the text to read "brings" instead of "causes to be
born", and this is adopted by F. M. Cross {The Ancient Library of Qumran,
p. 64); cf. Vermes {The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p. 121): "when [the
Priest-] Messiah shall summon them." R. Cordis {V.T. vii, 1957, pp. 191
ff.) argues against Milik's emendation. T. H. Gaster {op. cit. p. 260)
similarly rejects this "daring but unfortunate conjecture", and proposes a
different emendation to yield the sense "when the Messiah is present".
Cross {loc. cit.) says this is to be rejected categorically. Y. Yadin {J.B.L.
Lxxviii, 1959, pp. 240 f.) proposes yet another emendation, to yield the
sense "on the occasion of their meeting". The reading of the MS. is beyond
question, and it should probably be understood, with Burrows {op. cit. p. 303)
in the same way as Ps. 2: 7, where it refers to the adoption and establishment of the King as God's son. Similarly A. Dupont-Sommer, Les Ecrits
esseniens, p. 123 n. Cf. also E. F. Sutcliffe, R.Q^. 11, i960, pp. 541 ff.
267

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

defined.^ It is clear that he is the lay Messiah, since he is called
the Messiah of Israel and yields precedence to the priest. The
one who presides at the meal is simply called the priest. It has
been said already that this passage is often held to contemplate
two Messiahs, 2 a lay and a priestly, and it well illustrates the
danger of the use of the word Messiah, instead of "anointed
one". For while it is clear that the lay Messiah is here the coming expected one who should restore the kingdom, ^ it is equally
clear that the priest is just the person who happens to be the
head of the community at that time. Though he was an
anointed one, no reference is made to that here, and we have
no business to import the term Messiah, with all that it signifies
to us, into this passage. ^ If the priestly Messiah, who should
take precedence of the Davidic Messiah in the messianic age,
had really been thought of as the risen Teacher of Righteousness, it would be nothing short of astonishing for him to be
introduced without the slightest reference to this remarkable
expectation. What those who suppose the sect cherished this
hope need to do is not merely to press a doubtful interpretation
of a passage in another text, but to explain the complete absence of any allusion to it here.
Philo tells us that the Essenes were a pacific sect.^ But there
is no reason to suppose that they conceived the Davidic Messiah
in any other than the conquering terms that characterized the
popular expectation in the time of Jesus. They cherished the

text described as the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of
Darkness, which kept alive dreams of the day when the nations
of the world should be successively destroyed in battle. Jesus
discouraged any reference to Himself as the Messiah, because
He conceived His messiahship in quite other terms. It was not
^ The Rule of the Congregation, col. II, lines 1 1 f.
^ See above, p. 1 24.
' Cf. the text published by J. M. Allegro in B.J.L. lxxv, 1956, pp. 174 f.,
where there is a reference to the rightful Messiah of the house of David.
* Cf. M. Black, in Studia Patristica, ed. by K. Aland and F. L. Cross, i,
1957, p. 447: "The fact that the High Priest takes precedence of the
Messiah of Israel may mean very little ; presumably he would do so in any
Temple rite or priestly function, but this does not mean that we are to
regard the High Priest as in the strict sense a 'Messianic' figure."
^ Quod omnis probus liber sit, xii (78).
268

THE qUMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

by killing but by dying that He purposed to save His people.^
The Qumran sect seem to have abandoned their pacific way of
life in the war with Rome, and to have joined the rebels ^ in the
belief that the long-dreamed-of time for the establishment of
the kingdom had come. It was during the war with Rome that
the Qumran centre was destroyed, and Josephus tells us that
the Romans persecuted the Essenes with the utmost cruelty,'
while they bore themselves with superhuman fortitude. One of
the Essenes became a commander in the rebel forces.* All this
stands in the strongest contrast to our Lord's conception of the
way the kingdom would be established.
The Copper Scroll, which records the places where vast
quantities of treasure were hidden, is probably an inventory of
Temple treasure, as Dr. Rabin first suggested.^ By some it has
^ S. G. F, Brandon has argued {Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society
11, 1 96 1, pp. II ff.; cf. The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, 1951,
pp. 10 1 fF.) that the Gospels give a distorted picture of Jesus, and that He
was really a political revolutionary, like the Zealots. He argues that it was
after A.D. 70 when the Gospels were written, and that they portrayed
Him in the present character so as to free the Church from any odium
associated with the Jewish War. But the Epistles of Paul were certainly
written before A.D. 70, and they betray no Zealot character. Professor
Brandon holds that it was only after the Fall of Jerusalem that the Pauline
influence triumphed over the older and more original stream of Christianity
{JTie Fall of Jerusalem, pp. 54 ff., 185 ff., 206 ff.). The Epistles of Paul are
the oldest Christian writings we possess, and they show unmistakably that
the portrayal of Jesus as One who came to save men by dying, and not by
killing, was completely independent of the Jewish War. The conjectural
reconstruction of the Gospels cannot displace the Pauline Christ for a

Zealot Christ.
* Mile. A. Jaubert thinks the Zealots were an offshoot from the Essenes
{N.T.S. vn, 1960-61, p. 12). Hippolytus {Ref omn. haer. ix. 26) reckoned
the Zealots among the Essenes.
^B.J. II, VIII, 10 (152 f.).
*5.J. II,xx,4(567).
^ The Jewish Chronicle, June 15, 1956, p. 19. So also K. G. Kuhn, Th.L.ZLxxxi, 1956, pp. 541 ff. Y. Yadin {The Message of the Scrolls, 1957, p. 159)
says it is not excluded that the Copper Scroll is a list of the treasures of the
sect, and this is the view of Dupont-Sommer {Les Ecrits esseniens, pp. 400 ff.).
The text of the Copper Scroll, accompanied by facsimiles and with a full
introduction and commentary by J. T. Milik, has now been published in
Les "petites grottes" de Qumran, 1962, pp. 201 ff.
269

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

been thought to record mere folklore, ^ but it seems improbable
that copper would be used for such a purpose. If it is an inventory of Temple treasure, it is likely that it was prepared by the
rebels who had charge of the Temple. There were two copies of
this inventory, ^ one deposited in one of the Qumran caves and
one deposited elsewhere. Doubtless both were prepared in the
same place, and there is no reason to think that was at Qumran,^ where texts on quite different materials were copied.
Jerusalem would be the most natural place, since it was from
there that the treasure was distributed. But the deposit of one
of the copies in one of the Qumran caves would strengthen the
suggestion that in the time of the war against Rome the
Zealots regarded the Essenes as their trusted allies. Their conception of the messianic age was thus very different from that
of Jesus, and He can scarcely be supposed to have derived His
from them.
The Qumran sect did not use the current official calendar,
but used one which ensured that the festivals should fall on the
same day of the week every year.^ It was a fifty- two week
calendar, and not a luni-solar calendar like the official Jewish
calendar. It had no place for intercalary months every few
years, giving years of variable length. This calendar was the
calendar of the book oi Jubilees, to which there is a reference in
the ^adokite Work,^ and fragments of which have been found
amongst the Scrolls. Mile. Jaubert has very acutely argued that
^ So J. T. Milik, B.A. xix, 1956, p. 63, R.B. lxvi, 1959, p. 322, and Ten
Tears of Discovery, pp. 42 f. ; J. Jeremias, E.T. lxxi, 1959-60, p. 228. This
view is rejected by A. Dupont-Sommer, Les Ecrits esseniens, pp. 397 ff.
^ Cf. J. M. Allegro, The Treasure of the Copper Scroll, i960, p. 55 (col. XII,
line 1 1).

^ So Allegro, op. cit. p. 125.

* Cf. D. Barthdemy, R.B. lix, 1952, pp. 199 fF.; A. Jaubert, V.T. ni,
1953. PP- 250 ff., VII, 1957, pp. 35 ff., R.H.R. cxLvi, 1954, pp. 140 ff..
La Date de la Cene, 1957, and La Secte de Qumran (Recherches Bibliques, IV),
i959 PP- 113 ff- Cf. also J. Morgenstern, V.T. v, 1955, pp. 34 ff.; J. Obermann, J.B.L. lxxv, 1956, pp. 285 ff.; J. B. Segal, V.T. vii, 1957, pp.
250 ff. ; E. R. Leach, V.T. vii, 1957, pp. 392 ff.; J. -P. Audet, Sciences
Ecclesiastiques, x, 1958, pp. 361 ff.; S. Talmon, Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls
(Scripta Hierosolymitana, IV), 1958, pp. 162 ff. ; E. Vogt, Biblica, xl,
1959, pp. 102 ff. ; E. Kutsch, V.T. xi, 1961, pp. 394ff.
* Zadokite Work, xx. i (p. xvi, lines 2 ff.).
270

THE qUMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

Jesus and His disciples followed this calendar, and has attempted by this means to resolve the vexed question of the
relation of the Synoptic dating of the Last Supper and the
Johannine dating. ^ According to the Synoptics the Last Supper
was a Passover meal, while according to the Fourth Gospel
it took place before the Passover. Mile. Jaubert holds that
Jesus celebrated the Passover on the sectarian date, and
that it took place on Tuesday, when the Qumran Passover
would fall, and she adduces some patristic evidence for this
date.^ This would allow more time for all the events that have
to be fitted in between the Supper and the Crucifixion, which
then took place before the official Passover day, to which the
Fourth Gospel refers. It would also explain why there is no
reference to a Passover lamb in any of the accounts of the Last
Supper.
While this is a very attractive view, it is not wholly without
difficulties. ^ Nowhere does Jesus show the slightest interest in
calendar questions,^ and since He is reported to have visited
the Temple at some of the festivals, He would appear to have
observed them on the official dates. ^ Probably the reasons which
have already been suggested for the Qumran sect's avoidance
^ Cf. R.H.R. cxLvi, 1954, pp. 140 fF., La Date de la Cine, 1957, and N. T.S.
VII, 1960-61, pp. I fF.
* E. Vogt has shown that both calendar dates of Passover could fall in
the same week (Biblica, xxxix, 1958, pp. 72 fF.).
^ It has been rejected by Blinzler (^.jV.py. xlix, 1958, pp. 238 fF.),
P. Benoit {R.B. lxv, 1958, pp. 590 fF.), and J. Jeremias {J. T.S. N.S. x,
1959, pp. 131 fF). On the other hand it has been accepted by many writers,
including E. Vogt {Biblica, xxxvi, 1955, pp. 408 fF.), P. W. Skehan {C.B.Q_.
XX, 1958, pp. 192 fF.), H. Haag {S.D.B. vi [Fasc. 34, i960], 1146 f.), and,
with some reservations, by R. F. McDonald (American Ecclesiastical Review,
GXL, 1959, pp. 79 fF.) and J. A. Walther {J.B.L. lxxvii, pp. 116 fF.). M.
Black [New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, 1959,
pp. 19 fF.) also somewhat cautiously accepts it. Cf. also C. U. Wolf, The

Christian Century, March 18, 1959, pp. 325 fF. Mile. Jaubert has replied to
Blinzler's arguments in N.T.S. vn, 1960-61, pp. i fF. M. Delcor {Revue
Thomiste, lviii, 1958, pp. 778 f.) expresses grave objections to Mile. Jaubert's
view, but the objections expressed are fully answered by her in the article
cited. Further criticisms of her view are offered by M. Zerwick {Biblica,
XXXIX, 1958, pp. 508 fF) and E. Kutsch {V.T. xi, 1961, pp. 39 fF).
* Cf. K. Schubert, The Dead Sea Community, 1959, p. 142.
^ Cf. J, T. Milik, Ten Tears of Discovery, 1959, pp. 112 f.
271

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

of the Temple were reinforced by the non-use of the calendar
to which they attached such great importance. Mile. Jaubert
has shown that this calendar was not invented by the author of
Jubilees, but that there is evidence in the Old Testament that it
was accepted by some of the sacred authors.^ It is therefore
possible that others, besides the Qumran sect, clung to this
calendar, though if Jesus and His disciples did in fact follow it,
they could well have been influenced by the Qumran sect in so
doing. It would be curious, however, for them to be so influenced in a matter which plays no part in the teaching of Jesus,
when in so many ways the teaching and practice of Jesus and
the Early Church show such striking differences from those of
the sect.
Similarities of phrase and idea between the Scrolls and the
New Testament have been noted by many writers. ^ Professor
Stauffer finds that they are closer in the case of the Evangelists
and other New Testament writers than they are in the case of
the teaching of Jesus Himself.^ Wherever they are found they
can be examined dispassionately. It has always been recognized
that the uniqueness of the New Testament does not lie in the
^ Cf . A. Jaubert, La Date de la Cine, pp. 3 1 ff.
* Before the discovery of the Scrolls Bo Reicke had collected a large
number of parallels between the ^adokite Work and the New Testament.
Cf. "The Jewish 'Damascus Documents' and the New Testament" {Symbolae
Biblicae Upsalienses, No. 6), 1946.
* Cf. Die Botschqft Jesu damals undheute, 1959, p. 16: "Die Qumranisierung
der Jesustradition wachst mit dem zeitlichen Abstand der Traditionstrager
von Jesus." M. Burrows {More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 103) observes
that "few parallels have been found for sayings of Jesus outside of the
Sermon on the Mount", while K. Schubert {S.N.T., p. 273) notes that
even in the Sermon on the Mount "it is remarkable that the Essene
parallels are found almost exclusively in Mt. 5". J. Coppens {Les Documents
de Juda et les Origines du Christianisme, 1953, p. 26) observes that the contacts
of the Scrolls with Apostolic preaching are greater than with the teaching
of Jesus. Cf. also G. Graystone, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Originality of
Christ, 1956, p. 28. J. B. Lightfoot (op. cit. p. 407) had already recognized
that Essene influences came into Christianity before the close of the
Apostolic age, and detected them in the Roman Christian community to

which Paul wrote. O. CuUmann {Neutestamentliche Studien fiir Rudolf Bultmann [B.Z.N.W. xxi], 1954, pp. 35 ff.) has argued that Essenes joined the
Jewish Christians after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (cf. H. J. Schoeps,
Z.R.G.G. VI, 1954, pp. I ff.).
272

THE qUMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

originality of the individual sayings of Jesus. Innumerable
parallels to the Golden Rule have been found, not only in
Jewish literature but in the literature of the world, without our
being in any way troubled. The uniqueness of Jesus lies rather
in the example which He Himself set, and in the spring of
power He offers His followers to enable them to follow His
example.^ His own eager love for men and readiness to sacrifice
His life for them are set before the eyes of the Christian, who by
the transmuting touch of His personality on them and by the
power of His redeeming death are lifted into His spirit and
given power to follow Him. And however many parallels of
phrase are found in the Scrolls and the New Testament, they
do not touch this profound and fundamental aspect of the
uniqueness of Christ.
We must always remember that Jesus and His disciples lived
in the Jewish world of a particular time, and moved in the
realm of ideas of their age. The Qumran community belonged
to that age, and doubtless influenced that realm of ideas, and if
there are links of word and thought it was because Jesus and
His followers were alive to the world in which they lived. ^ As
one writer has said, they show the contemporary character of
the language of the New Testament;^ or, as another puts it, "in
any given age new ideas and new modes of expression pass into
currency and become common property."^ Nor must we forget
that the Old Testament was precious to both the Qumran
^ Cf. the present writer's "The Chinese Sages and the Golden Rule"
{B.J.R.L. XXIV, 1940, pp. 321 ff.), p. 350.
^ Cf. R. E. Brown {S.N.T., p. 206): "The ideas of Qumran must have
been fairly widespread in certain Jewish circles in the early first century
A.D."; M. Burrows {More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 54): "If the Dead
Sea Scrolls are at all typical of the language and thinking of Palestine at
the time when Christianity came into being, the disciples of Jesus and Jesus
himself would naturally use these forms of expression and ways of thinking
whenever they could, as a means of communication." Cf. also C. G. Howie
{The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Living Church, 1958, p. 99): "The Church and
Essenism developed in the same age and came out of the same general
background. Facing similar problems in like circumstances the two movements could not have been absolutely dissimilar in doctrine." Cf. also
P. Benoit, JV.T.S. vii, 1960-61, pp. 278 fF.
' Cf. R. E. Murphy, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible, 1956, pp. 77 f.
* E. F. SutclifFe, The Monks of Qumran, p. 1 18.

273

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

community and Jesus and His disciples. It formed "a common
reservoir of terminology and ideas", to use the words of Professor Albright, for Jews of every sect and for Christians.^ Light
and darkness are figures for the good and the bad in the War
Scroll, and in the Fourth Gospel we find the same figures.^ But
before we trace the one directly to the other, we should recognize that the Old Testament is the source of these figures.^
There the wicked are spoken of as walking in darkness and the
righteous in light. ^ Moreover, as has been said, there is difference as well as similarity here between the Scrolls and the New
Testament. ^ In the thought of the Qumran sect the battle between light and darkness was to be waged with carnal weapons,
whereas to Jesus and His followers it was to be waged with
spiritual weapons.
In the Scrolls we find teaching about the two ways, the way
of the righteous directed by the spirit of truth, and the way of
the wicked directed by the spirit of perversity.^ In the early
Christian writings, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache, we
find a similar thought of the two ways.^ While these early
Christian writings may owe much, directly or indirectly, to the
Qumran sect, ^ we should remember that the same thought is
already found in Ps. i .
' The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology (C. H. Dodd
Festschrift), ed. by W. D. Davies and D. Daube, 1956, p. 169.
* Cf. F. Notscher, <^r theologischen Terminologie der Qumrantexte, 1956, pp.
92 ff.
^ Cf. H. M. Teeple, N.T. iv, 1960-61, p. 18; Notscher, op. cit. p. 129.
C. G. Howie {op. cit. p. 89) says: "Since therefore the Hght-darkness motif
is found both in the Qumran Hterature and in the New Testament, it is
safe to assume that it began in its present form with the Essenes." This is to
ignore the common source of both in the Old Testament.
* Prov. 4: 19; Ps. 97: II. Cf also Isa. 2: 5, 50: 10, 59: 9; Ps. 56: 13 (Heb.
14).
^ H. Bardtke {Die Handschriftenfunde am Toten Meer: Die Sekte von Qumran,
1958, p. 210) says: "Der Dualismus zwischen Licht und Finsternis begegnet
uns im Johannesevangelium in einer ganz anderen Form."
* Manual of Discipline, col. Ill, lines 13 ff.
' Ep. Barnabas, xvni-xx, Didache, i-v.
* On the Scrolls and the Epistle of Barnabas, cf. L. W. Barnard, S.J. Th.
xiii, i960, pp. 45 ff. ; on the Scrolls and the Didache and the Shepherd of
Hermas, cf. J.-P. Audet, R.B. lix, 1952, pp. 219 ff., lx, 1953, pp. 41 ff.
Cf. also J. D. Amusin, op. cit. p. 248.
274

THE CiUMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

We have already noted the Gospel passage in which the
twelve disciples are promised that they shall sit on twelve
thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. In the Habakkuk
Commentary we read that "in the hands of his elect God will
put the judgment of all the nations."^ Here again, it is probable
that both are based on the thought of Dan. 7, which promised
the everlasting dominion to the saints of the Most High,^
though we should not forget that the Qumran sectaries looked
for physical triumph over their foes, while the New Testament
passage does not.
Reference has already been made to the fact that the Qumran
community referred to themselves as those who had entered
into the new covenant.^ This immediately recalls our Lord's
reference at the Last Supper to the new covenant.* Here again
it is unnecessary to derive the one from the other, since both
derive from Jer. 31: 31. Moreover, there is a great difference
between the Scrolls and the New Testament here. Sutcliffe
says: "The Christian covenant was in reality new and brought
with it the abrogation of the levitical, but not the moral, precepts of the Old Law. The covenant of the brotherhood was not
a new one, but a renewal of the obligation to observe the old
and indeed in its strictest interpretation."^
A more interesting link between the Scrolls and the New
Testament is to be found in the injunction in the ^adokite Work
that none may bring a charge against a fellow-member unless
he has previously reproved him before witnesses.^ In Mt. 18:
15 ff. Jesus gave similar teaching, saying that one who is
wronged should first speak in private to the one who wronged
him, and then before witnesses, and only finally bring the
matter to the church.
It is impossible for us here to examine all the links of this kind
^ Habakkuk Commentary, col. V, line 4.
" Dan. 7: 27.
^-^arfoAzV^ Work, vin. 15 (p. vi, line 19), rx. 28 (pp. vm, line 21, xix,
lines 33 f.), vm. 37 (p. xx, line 12).
* Mt. 26: 28, Mk. 14: 24 (in both the best mantiscripts omit "new");
Lk. 22: 20 (the whole verse is omitted by some manuscripts) ; i Cor. 1 1 : 25.
^ The Monks of Qumran, p. 120. Cf. D. Flusser, Aspects of the Dead Sea
Scrolls (Scripta Hierosolymitana, IV), 1958, pp. 236 ff.
Zadokite Work, x. 2 (p. ix, line 3).
T 275

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

that have been found. Some writers have directed attention to
the special closeness of those links between the Fourth Gospel
and the Scrolls, ^ while others have examined the Pauline Hnks, ^
^ Cf. W. Grossouw, Studia Catholica, xxvi, 1951, pp. 295 ff". ; Lucetta
Mowry, B.A. xvn, 1954, pp. 78 ff.; F. M. Braun, R.B. Lxn, 1955, pp. 5 ff.;
W. F. Albright, loc. ciL pp. 153 ff.; R. E. Brown, S.N.T., pp. 183 ff. (cf.
p. 195: "in no other literature do we have so close a terminological and
ideological parallel to Johannine usage"; p. 205: "there remains a tremendous chasm of thought between Qumran and Christianity") ; A. R. C.
Leaney, A Guide to the Scrolls, 1958, pp. 95 ff. ; G. Baumbach, Qumran und
das Johannes-Evangelium, 1958. W. H. Brownlee {S.N.T., p. 46) goes so far as
to say: "one may almost say that in John's portrayal of Jesus we have the
Essene Christ", while O. Cullmann {ibid. p. 22) says the Fourth Gospel
"belongs to an ideological atmosphere most clearly related to that of the
new texts", and K. G. Kuhn [Z-K.Th. xlvii, 1950, p. 210) says: "wir
bekommen in diesen neuen Texten den Mutterboden des Johannes-evangeliums
zu fassen." See also Kuhn, in Neotestamentica et Patristica (Cullmann Festschrift), 1962, pp. Ill ff. Cf. however, the more cautious assessment of
H. M. Teeple, N.T. iv, 1960-61, pp. 6 ff. (esp. p. 25, where he says almost
all the parallels between the Scrolls and the Fourth Gospel could have been
suggested by the Septuagint) . On the attitude to the Temple in the Fourth
Gospel and the ScroUs, cf. O. Cullmann, N.T.S. v, 1958-59, pp. 157 ff.
On the influence of the Qumran sect in the Gospel of Matthew, cf. K.
Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew, 1954; S. E.Johnson, ^.A.W. lxvi, 1954,
pp. 115 ff. ; B. Gartner, S.Th. vm, 1955, pp. i ff. ; S. Lassalle, Bulletin du
Cercle Ernest Renan, No. 71, April i960, pp. i ff. Cf. also W. D. Davies
{H.T.R. XL VI, 1953, pp. 113 ff.) on Mt. 11: 25-30 and the Scrolls. On the
Scrolls and the Gospel of Luke, cf. W. Grossouw, Studia Catholica, xxvn,
1952, pp. 5 ff. On the Scrolls and Acts cf. S. E.Johnson, ^.A.W. lxvi, 1954,
pp. 106 ff. On the Scrolls and the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle of
James, cf. Leaney, op. cit. pp. 91 ff., and on the links with the Gospel of
Luke and Acts, ibid. pp. 1 09 ff. On the general question of Qumran exegesis
and New Testament exegesis of the Old Testament, cf. G. Vermes, Cahiers
Sioniens, v, 1951, pp. 337 ff. ; cf. also F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the
Qumran Texts, i960, and J. van der Ploeg, Bijbelverklaring te Qumran, i960.
* Cf. W. D. Davies, S.N.T., pp. 157 ff., where the author argues that
"the Scrolls and the Pauline Epistles share these terms (i.e. flesh and spirit),
but it is not their sectarian connotation that is determinative of PauUne
usage" (p. 182). On flesh and spirit, cf. fiirther D. Flusser, Aspects of the
Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta Hierosolymitana, IV), 1958, pp. 252 ff. Cf. also
W. Grossouw, Studia Catholica, xxvii, 1952, pp. i ff. ; S. E.Johnson, H.T.R.
XL VIII, 1955, pp. 157 ff. ; J. Danidou, op. cit. pp. 94 ff. ; K. Schubert, The
Dead Sea Community, pp. 155 ff.; A. R. C. Leaney, op. cit. pp. 104 ff. ; R. E.
Murphy, Sacra Pagina, 11, 1959, pp. 60 ff. ; and W. Grundmann, R.Q^. n,
i960, pp. 237 ff. On Ephesians and Qumran cf K. G. Kuhn, N.T.S. vii,
1960-61, pp. 334 ff.
276

THE qUMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

or the links to be found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. ^ Pro-

fessor F. C. Grant declares that the contacts and parallels between the New Testament and the Scrolls are comparatively
insignificant when set against the innumerable contacts and
parallels between the New Testament and other literature of
the Hellenistic age.^ This does not mean that the parallels with
the Scrolls are to be ignored or depreciated. Quite the reverse.
Christ is not to be exalted by the depreciation of others, and it is
as wrong to use the Scrolls simply as a foil for the teaching of
the New Testament as it is to use them simply as a quarry for
passages to attack the originality of the New Testament. We
may gladly recognize all that is fine and good in the thought of
the Qumran sectaries, with their deep religious interest and the
purity of their lives. Their devotion to the Old Testament and
their austere life of obedience to the will of God as they understood it is worthy of all admiration.^
The Scrolls are therefore to be recognized as of importance
for the understanding of the background of Christianity, and
for the light they shed on currents of Judaism in the period in
which Christianity came into being. ^ It should be clear that
^ Cf. Y. Yadin, Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta Hierosolymitana,
IV), 1958, pp. 36 ff. Cf. also J. Danidou, op. cit. pp. 106 ff.; C. Spicq, R.Q^.
I, 1958-59, pp. 365 fF.; J. Coppens, Les qffinites qumrdniennes de VEpitre aux
Hebreux, 1962.
* Cf. Ancient Judaism and the New Testament, p. 20; cf. also p. 21 : "the few
and superficial resemblances between the New Testament and the Dead
Sea Scrolls do not prove the dependence of Christianity upon the Essenes."
See also F. C. Grant, The Gospels: their Origin and Growth, 1957, p. 75.
^ W. D. Davies {Christian Origins and Judaism, 1962, p. 98) says: "It is not
enough to claim that all the parallels between the Scrolls and the New
Testament can be explained in terms of their common dependence on the
Old Testament and on Judaism ; the parallels cannot be so easily dismissed.
We have, therefore, to guard against an excess of enthusiasm and an excess
of caution; against claiming too much and claiming too little. I shall
suggest that the Scrolls are more important than some scholars have
grudgingly admitted and less revolutionary than has been claimed by
others."
* Cf. L. Cerfaux, La Secte de Qumran (Recherches Bibliques, IV), 1959,
pp. 238 f.: "Les documents de la Mer Morte nous rendront d'immenses
services . . . Nous aidant a pr^ciser le vocabulaire chretien, ils exerceront une
influence bienfaisante sur notre exegese." Cf. also J. D. Barthelemy,
Freihurger Z^itschrift fiir Philosophic und Theologie, vi, 1959, pp. 249 ff".
T* 277

STUDIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

they do not justify the extreme statement of the French writer
which was quoted at the beginning of this lecture, ^ and anyone
who reads the Fourth Gospel, or indeed any part of the New
Testament, and who then reads the Scrolls in any of the translations that have been published, will be quickly aware that

there is a world of difference between them.^ One of the translators, Professor T. H. Gaster, has said with the fullest justification that in the Scrolls "there is no trace of any of the cardinal
theological concepts . . . which make Christianity a distinctive
faith." ^ They do not offer the single and sufficient explanation
of Christian origins. They do bring their contribution to the
understanding of the soil in which Christianity was planted.*
^ The views of some Russian authors, recorded by Amusin {op. cit. pp.
234 fF.) but not otherwise available to the present writer, may be noted.
R. Y. Vipper {Rome and Christianity, 1 954) thinks the Essenes were the precursors of Christianity, and the Essenes and the Christians were but as
grandparents and grandchildren. A. P. Kazhdan {Religion and Atheism in
the Ancient World, 1957) is more cautious, and says we cannot derive
Christianity from Essenism, but thinks the latter exerted a considerable
influence on the formation of Christianity and on the growth of the
Christian myth, while S. I. Kovalev (in the Annual of the Museum of the
History of Religion and Atheism, 1958) is yet more cautious, and says we have
no reason to regard the Essenes as direct precursors of Christianity either in
matters of ideology or organization. Y. A. Lenzman {The Rise of Christianity,
1958) says the Manual of Discipline has nothing in common with early
Christianity, but thinks the figure of the Teacher of Righteousness provided
the most important element of the legend of Jesus. K. B. Starkova (in the
Preface to her translation of the Manual of Discipline, 1959) says that in the
light of the Qumran texts we can understand more clearly the birth of
Christianity and the rise of Christian literature. (I am again indebted to
Mr. Arie Rubinstein for access to these views.)
^ O. Cullmann {S.N.T., pp. 31 f ) says: "Is it not significant that Josephus
and Philo can both describe the Essenes in detail without once mentioning
the Teacher of Righteousness? . . . Would it be possible to describe primitive
Christianity without naming Christ? To ask the question is to have answered
it." Cf. also K. Schubert, The Dead Sea Community, p. 144: "The milieu of
Jesus and the milieu of the Qumran texts do belong in the same broad
framework of the messianic movement, but Jesus himself clearly dissociated
himself in many things from his Qumran Essenc predecessors and contemporaries."
3 The Scriptures of the Dead Sea Sect, p. 22.
*Cf. K. G. Kuhn, S.N.T., p. 87: "The abiding significance of the
Qumran texts for the New Testament is that they show to what extent the
primitive church, however conscious of its integrity and newness, drew
278

THE qUMRAN SECT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

Scholars have long recognized that Judaism was not a decadent
and moribund faith in the time of Jesus, and that Pharisaism is
not truly reflected in the New Testament. There we see
Pharisaism at its worst, and as it is sometimes condemned in
Jewish sources.^ But Pharisaism at its best was deeply religious,
and the Christian debt to it is one which should never be forgotten. Now, through the Scrolls we have knowledge of another
contemporary group, which in its different way preserved

amongst the Jews a deep religious devotion, and helped to

create the climate in which the Christian faith could be born.
In many ways God prepared for the coming of His Son.

upon the Essenes in matters of practice and cult, organisation and constitution." It may be added that the study of the limit of such borrowing is no
less important than the study of its extent. Cf. W. Eiss, Qumran und die
Anfdnge der christlichen Gemeinde, 1959, p. 22, and Lucetta Mowry, TTie Dead
Sea Scrolls and the Early Church, 1962, pp. 246 f. Cf. also W. D. Davies, op. cit.
p. 117: "The Scrolls make much more clear to us the world into which Jesus
came ; and the patterns which the early Christian movement assumed, both
ecclesiastically and theologically, are thereby illumined in a most enriching
manner. But the Scrolls also make more luminously clear the new thing
which emerged with the coming of Christ, so that they emphasize even
while they clarify the mystery of the gospel." J. Gray {Archaeology and the
Old Testament World, 1962, p. 229) says: "Many of the beliefs of early
Christianity which strike us as strange and bizarre, especially in the realm
of angelology and apocalyptic, are seen more clearly than ever in the light
of the Qumran Texts to be signs of the local and temporal limitations of the
Gospel. What most impresses us from a study of the Qjomran Texts is the
extent to which the Spirit of God transcends these limitations. All that was
best in Judaism, all that the saints of Qumran legitimately valued, was
brought to fulfilment in the Christian faith, but in such a manner that all
things were made new."

1. 68 FREE BOOKS http://www.scribd.com/doc/21800308/Free-Christian-Books

2. ALL WRITINGS http://www.scribd.com/glennpease/documents?page=970