John's christology and the Dead Sea Scrolls

[Vouthon]

The light/dark dualism are also common within Greek writings, and Paul especially uses them a lot, probably reflecting his Greek education. Therefore, that approach can be viewed as being both quite Jewish or/and quite a reflection of Hellenization.

Yeah, the light/dark imagery is shared between John's gospel and some of the Pauline epistles (mainly those to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Philippians and also in the deutero-Pauline Ephesians (which was probably written by a disciple of Paul) and Colossians (which Paul didn't write but again someone belonging to his school did)) which not coincidentally are the most mystically-inclined of the New Testament literature.

Paul refers to this pneumatic (spiritual) 'wisdom' tradition in his letters: "Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory" (1 Corinthians 2:6-7);

"Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart" (1 Corinthians 4:5);

"for you are all sons of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness" (1 Thessalonians 5:5);

"For it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (2 Corinthians 4:6).


So, we know that it was extant and known among the early Christian communities in Corinth even in the 50s CE (which is when the first 'proto-gospel of John' or 'signs source' is thought to have been potencially written, many decades before the actual composite, edited text we have now). These were mixed Jewish-Gentile communities that had grown out of synagogues and met in house churches. The majority of these 'Christians', at that point, appear to have been diaspora Jews with a large and rapidly growing cohort of goyim "God-Fearers" θεοσεβεῖς, Theosebeis (or 'Noahides' as they are known today) whom Paul saw himself as appointed by God to evangelize, in addition to the pagan Gentiles.

Mark and Matthew, evidently, weren't very interested at all in this 'dimension' of the early Jesus oral tradition. The light/dark is pretty much absent from their gospels as a major theme.

In John, it becomes the major theme (or, at least, one of the primary thematic elements) underpinning his entire argument in the text.

When Rudolf Bultmann first discussed the light/dark dualism inherent to John, in the 1900s, the Qumran texts had not yet been discovered and translated from the Hebrew - so it was natural and understandable for exegetes to assume that this kind of language was of hellenistic vintage.

Now, however, we have a large body of pre-Christian Jewish texts which are similarly obsessed with this theme. Moreover, this sect used the mystical 'light/dark' in an eschatological and messianic context, just like Paul and John did.

Compare with the Qumran texts:

War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness - Wikipedia

The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, also known as War Rule, Rule of War and the War Scroll, is a manual for military organization and strategy that was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The manuscript was among the scrolls found in Qumran Cave 1, acquired by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and first published posthumously by Eleazar Sukenik in 1955.[1]

In the Community Rule (1QS), for example, the theme of a binary opposition between Light and Dark can be seen. Both include dualistic blessing and cursing liturgies​

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice - Wikipedia

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, also referred to as the Angelic Liturgy, are a series of thirteen songs, one for each of the first thirteen Sabbaths of the year, contained in fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Songs were found in 10 fragmentary copies: nine at Qumran (4Q400–407; 11Q17) and one at Masada.

The Songs describe worship around the throne of God in the heavenly realms. Reference is made to angelic tongues. Throughout the thirteen songs there is everything ranging from accounts of how the angels lead their prayer service in the temple on high to detailed descriptions of the inner throne room where the presence of God and the other god-like beings reside. The scrolls can be categorized into three larger sections: 1–5, 6–8, 9–13. (Wise, Abegg, Cook 1994:350–76) The first section is badly fragmented, but seems to be centered on descriptions of the heavenly priests and their practices. The second section is concerned with the praises and blessings offered by the seven orders of angels, with the seventh song functioning as a peak of the series of thirteen. The final section offers descriptions of the heavenly temple, throne room, and throne (merkavah) of God.

The text seems to have been written with imagery from sources like Ezekiel, Isaiah, Exodus, and 1 Enoch (Schiffman 1994:351–60). The text invokes lofty imagery of angels, god-like beings, and intense descriptions of the heavenly throne...If these songs were used by an entire congregation, then the entire group would be chanting and singing these in unison, thus creating a mystical experience


Visions of Amram - Wikipedia

Visions of Amram, also referred to as 4Q543-549, is a collection of five extremely fragmented copies found in Qumran cave 4. In 1972, Jozef T. Milik published a significant fragment of the Visions of Amram.[1]

It is relatively certain that Visions of Amram originated well before the scribes of Qumran, and likely existed beyond this community.[3] Nevertheless, based on the evidence of multiple copies found fragmented in cave 4, this text appears to have been significant to the people of Qumran.[9] Although never explicitly referenced in Qumran sectarian literature,[1] Amram's vision reflects prominent themes, such as dualism, which were cornerstone to the Qumran beliefs.

Dualism in the Qumran community is defined by the belief in a divine predetermined plan, which offers two ways of existence. On one end of the spectrum lies goodness and light and on the other, darkness and evil. These sides are in continuous combat, but in the end God will determine ultimate victory to the Sons of Light.[10] Terms used in Visions of Amram, such as Sons of Light and Sons of Darkness, are also reflected throughout Qumran Sectarian literature. The Vision of Amram depicts a scene of two divine figures who claim to rule all humanity. These figures are extensively reflected in significant Qumran literature, such as the Community Rule, where the theme of dualism is prominent.[10] This extremely fragmentary piece of literature, given its early origins, could have had huge implications on the way dualism developed in Qumran.

​

It is evident to me that the reliance upon this theme in the New Testament is heavily tinged with some of the same theological suppositions of the pre-Christian Qumran Jews.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were published in the 1960s, it completey overturned Johannine and Pauline scholarship.

 

[metis]

What scholars agree on, however, is that the sources John utilised - such as this signs source likely from the 50s CE - certainly predate the synoptics and don't appear to be connected with the traditions that spawned them. So, they are independent testimony pretty much.

IMO, it's highly unlikely that they're "independent testimony", especially because of the late writing of John's Gospel. To me, the only serious question is which source(s) did the author(s) of John use? It's possible that it could have just or mainly come from the oral tradition being passed on, but I doubt that's the only source because many of the narratives parallel the Synoptics to a greater or lesser extent.

Thus, imo, John's Gospel is taking on a somewhat different tact that goes well beyond just merely reciting what took place. But then, what do I know?

So, Luke seemed to have some awareness of John's sources (he didn't use them much but he did cite them occasionally).

Probably, imo, but how much really is an unknown. As time has gone on, we know that this early history is very complicated because we simply don't know all the interactions that are taking place, and the more we know the more complicated things tend to get.

Nice discussion with yas though.

 

[metis]

Sorry brother. Too many "Probably" statements and "Possibilities"

Ah, but that's the nature of the Theological Beast-- statements of certainty really don't fit his character too well.

Cheers.

And ditto back at ya, my friend.

 

[Vouthon]

IMO, it's highly unlikely that they're "independent testimony", especially because of the late writing of John's Gospel.

My reference above was to the earlier 'source/base-text' editions of the gospel of John circling in the community likely from the 50s CE on, not to the final literary edition of the gospel in 85-90 CE (composed by the 'editor' we refer to as the Evangelist).

Scholars call this proto-Johannine text the "signs gospel":

D. Moody Smith comments (Johannine Christianity, p. 63): "It is now rather widely agreed that the Fourth Evangelist drew upon a miracle tradition or written source(s) substantially independent of the synoptics, whether or not he had any knowledge of one or more of those gospels".

If one reads the text clearly, you will see the editorial hand and sometimes its a little uneven. The text we have appears to be a composite literary version of much earlier source material.

Some of the individual sayings that form the basis of the discourses, the light/dark theology and certain scenes are regarded by scholars today as equally if not more primitive than their synoptic counterparts.

In particular, John's 'passion narrative' appears to be based upon a source that possibly pre-dates Mark:


The Passion Narrative

The idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context, on which I am dependent for the following observations.

Theissen begins his discussion by observing that there lies behind Mark a narrative that presupposes a chronology that corresponds to the one found in John, in which Jesus dies on the preparation day before the Passover. Theissen states (pp. 166-167):

In my opinion, in Mark we can discern behind the text as we now have it a connected narrative that presupposes a certain chronology. According to Mark, Jesus died on the day of Passover, but the tradition supposes it was the preparation day before Passover: in 14:1-2 the Sanhedrin decided to kill Jesus before the feast in order to prevent unrest among the people on the day of the feast. This fits with the circumstance that in 15:21 Simon of Cyrene is coming in from the fields, which can be understood to mean he was coming from his work. It would be hard to imagine any author's using a formulation so subject to misunderstanding in an account that describes events on the day of Passover, since no work was done on that day. Moreover, in 15:42 Jesus' burial is said to be on the "preparation day," but a relative clause is added to make it the preparation day for the Sabbath. Originally, it was probably the preparation day for the Passover (cf. Jn 19:42). The motive for removing Jesus from the cross and burying him before sundown would probably have been to have this work done before the beginning of the feast day, which would not make sense if it were already the day of Passover. Finally, the "trial" before the Sanhedrin presupposes that this was not a feast day, since no judicial proceedings could be held on that day. It would have been a breach of the legal code that the narrator could scarcely have ignored, because the point of the narrative is to represent the proceeding against Jesus as an unfair trial with contradictory witnesses and a verdict decided in advance by the high priests.​

This is a distinct issue from the final 'literary' gospel we have today.

 

[Wandering Monk]

My reference above was to the earlier 'source/base-text' editions of the gospel of John circling in the community likely from the 50s CE on, not to the final literary edition of the gospel in 85-90 CE (composed by the 'editor' we refer to as the Evangelist).

Scholars call this proto-Johannine text the "signs gospel":

D. Moody Smith comments (Johannine Christianity, p. 63): "It is now rather widely agreed that the Fourth Evangelist drew upon a miracle tradition or written source(s) substantially independent of the synoptics, whether or not he had any knowledge of one or more of those gospels".

If one reads the text clearly, you will see the editorial hand and sometimes its a little uneven. The text we have appears to be a composite literary version of much earlier source material.

Some of the individual sayings that form the basis of the discourses, the light/dark theology and certain scenes are regarded by scholars today as equally if not more primitive than their synoptic counterparts.

In particular, John's 'passion narrative' appears to be based upon a source that possibly pre-dates Mark:


The Passion Narrative

The idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context, on which I am dependent for the following observations.

Theissen begins his discussion by observing that there lies behind Mark a narrative that presupposes a chronology that corresponds to the one found in John, in which Jesus dies on the preparation day before the Passover. Theissen states (pp. 166-167):

In my opinion, in Mark we can discern behind the text as we now have it a connected narrative that presupposes a certain chronology. According to Mark, Jesus died on the day of Passover, but the tradition supposes it was the preparation day before Passover: in 14:1-2 the Sanhedrin decided to kill Jesus before the feast in order to prevent unrest among the people on the day of the feast. This fits with the circumstance that in 15:21 Simon of Cyrene is coming in from the fields, which can be understood to mean he was coming from his work. It would be hard to imagine any author's using a formulation so subject to misunderstanding in an account that describes events on the day of Passover, since no work was done on that day. Moreover, in 15:42 Jesus' burial is said to be on the "preparation day," but a relative clause is added to make it the preparation day for the Sabbath. Originally, it was probably the preparation day for the Passover (cf. Jn 19:42). The motive for removing Jesus from the cross and burying him before sundown would probably have been to have this work done before the beginning of the feast day, which would not make sense if it were already the day of Passover. Finally, the "trial" before the Sanhedrin presupposes that this was not a feast day, since no judicial proceedings could be held on that day. It would have been a breach of the legal code that the narrator could scarcely have ignored, because the point of the narrative is to represent the proceeding against Jesus as an unfair trial with contradictory witnesses and a verdict decided in advance by the high priests.​

This is a distinct issue from the final 'literary' gospel we have today.

A Jewish friend of mine suggested that the 'signs' gospel of John has many parallels with Jeremiah, specifically, the 'woes' Jesus pronounces.

 

[metis]

It is evident to me that the reliance upon this theme in the New Testament is heavily tinged with the same theological suppositions of the pre-Christian Qumran Jews.

I have studied these as well, but I don't buy the above.

Yes, there's going to be some similarities at times, but the Qumran community really didn't have much to do with the other forms of Judaism by their choice. None of the Essene books are being reflected to the point whereas we can make such a connection, plus their intentional isolation, which was the opposite approach of the Jesus-camp, is quite telling, and this by no means is the only difference.

OTOH, did they draw from some previous sources at least somewhat common to both? Probably yes, imo.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were published in the 1960s, it completey overturned Johannine and Pauline scholarship.

Not really, imo, as there simply is no evidence for that. Just because there can be some parallels doesn't mean that one copied the other.

Have you had enough of my skepticism yet?

 

[Vouthon]

Have you had enough of my skepticism yet?

I'm loving it! Keep it coming

 

[metis]

A Jewish friend of mine suggested that the 'signs' gospel of John has many parallels with Jeremiah, specifically, the 'woes' Jesus pronounces.

If I can be a buttinski and say that this common with the NT in general as there's the frequent citing of connections to narratives in the OT-- whether those connections were real history or were reflecting poetic-license. It's sortofthe "circular-connection" approach frequently used in both Testaments.

 

[Vouthon]

Yes, there's going to be some similarities at times, but the Qumran community really didn't have much to do with the other forms of Judaism by their choice. None of the Essene books are being reflected to the point whereas we can make such a connection, plus their intentional isolation, which was the opposite approach of the Jesus-camp, is quite telling, and this by no means is the only difference.

OTOH, did they draw from some previous sources at least somewhat common to both? Probably yes, imo.

I think this is based on older notions that the Qumranites actually are Essenes. We don't actually know who they were. Some scholars argue that there is a Sadducean flavour (all the obsession with Zadok priestliness, rigorous ritual purity and the Temple as well) to some of the manuscripts, others that some of it might even have been salvaged from the library in Jerusalem. Some still contend for the Essene identification. Who knows though? The texts actually seem quite 'hetereogenous' (i.e. a Second Temple era 'library' in the true sense).

Many of the texts in their library are not 'sectarian' but either pre-date the community or are attested as having a fairly wide distribution outside of it. The Visions of Amram cited above, for example, pre-date the Qumran community (and are written in Aramaic, not the Hebrew of the sect) according to the scholarship. And that has the characteristic light/dark dualism that would become so important to both the Qumranites in their sectarian books and the later early Christians.

So, we have to be careful I think in equating them with 'Essenes' and assuming that they represent a minority report.

Regardless of that particular question, the parallels - which have been demonstrated pretty well linguistically and conceptually - do seem to reflect a shared "environment" / "intellectual milieu". I'm not arguing here necessarily for direct dependence of one upon the other (although I do agree with the scholar Charlesworth that John is probably directly dependent upon the Qumranite Self-Glorification Hymn, so I do think John had some direct familiarity with the texts in question) but I do think the parallels suggest a common theological root in a set of shared theological assumptions and exegeses of the Hebrew Bible which help to elucidate the New Testament corpus.

 

[Riders]

"Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?" (John 10:34-35)
It sounds very much like the belief in the Inner Godself to me.

 

[metis]

I think this is based on older notions that the Qumranites actually are Essenes. We don't actually know who they were. Some scholars argue that there is a Sadducean flavour (all the obsession with Zadok priestliness, rigorous ritual purity and the Temple as well) to some of the manuscripts, others that some of it might even have been salvaged from the library in Jerusalem. Some still contend for the Essene identification. Who knows though? The texts actually seem quite 'hetereogenous' (i.e. a Second Temple era 'library' in the true sense).

Many of the texts in their library are not 'sectarian' but either pre-date the community or are attested as having a fairly wide distribution outside of it. The Visions of Amram cited above, for example, pre-date the Qumran community (and are written in Aramaic, not the Hebrew of the sect) according to the scholarship. And that has the characteristic light/dark dualism that would become so important to both the Qumranites and the later early Christians.

So, we have to be careful I think in equating them with 'Essenes' and assuming that they represent a minority report.

Regardless of that particular question, the parallels - which have been demonstrated pretty well linguistically and conceptually - do seem to reflect a shared "environment" / "intellectual milieu". I'm not arguing here necessarily for direct dependence of one upon the other (although I do agree with the scholar Charlesworth that John is probably directly dependent upon the Qumranite Self-Glorification Hymn, so I do think John had some direct familiarity with the texts in question) but I do think the parallels suggest a common theological root in a set of shared theological assumptions and exegeses of the Hebrew Bible which help to elucidate the New Testament corpus.

BTW, not to make a point, but I did visit the site where the DSS were first found on a 118 degree F. day back in 1999 (I'm still sweating because of that), and then went to the Dome of the Book in Jerusalem that houses some of the Essene texts, which I had also visited 8 years earlier.

By chance, do you subscribe to BAR? Mine expired quite a while back though, so I need to renew.

 

[Vouthon]

By chance, do you subscribe to BAR? Mine expired quite a while back though, so I need to renew.

I do (very useful website), although I tend to read the latest peer-reviewed journal publications on the DSS directly tbh.

BTW, not to make a point, but I did visit the site where the DSS were first found on a 118 degree F. day back in 1999 (I'm still sweating because of that), and then went to the Dome of the Book in Jerusalem that houses some of the Essene texts, which I had also visited 8 years earlier.

Fascinating experience! No wonder you were sweating I've never seen the scrolls in person (only images of the Hebrew manuscripts online).

 

[Vouthon]

In terms of the identity of the Qumranites, even the wiki article (sourced) testifies to the range of scholarly opinion:


Qumran - Wikipedia

More recently, Lawrence H. Schiffman has defended the thesis that the Qumran documents indicate a Sadducean sectarian orientation, but while scholars commonly grant that the term "Essenes" probably included a diversity of groups, the sectarian Sadducean hypothesis remains a minority opinion.[90] Simon J. Joseph agrees that the Qumran community was a part of the Essene movement, under the influence of the Enoch traditions, adding that they possessed a stronger focus towards eschatology and messianism.[91]

In 1960 Karl Heinrich Rengstorf proposed that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not the product of the residents of Qumran, but came from the library of the Jerusalem Temple, despite their being discovered near Qumran.[92] Rengstorf's basic Jerusalem proposal has become increasingly more popular since the materials from de Vaux's excavations of Qumran were brought into the public arena in 1992.[93]

James H. Charlesworth in 1980 proposed that Qumran was damaged in the Parthian war c. 40 BCE.[94]

Jean-Baptiste Humbert, who published de Vaux's field notes,[95] proposes a hybrid solution to the debate surrounding Qumran. He accepts that the site might have been originally established as a villa rustica, but that the site was abandoned and that it was reoccupied by Essenes in the late 1st century BCE. Humbert argues that the site may also have been used a place where sectarian pilgrims—barred from entering Jerusalem—may have celebrated the pilgrimage.[96]

Minna Lönnqvist and Kenneth Lönnqvist brought an approach to the Qumran studies based on contextual archaeology with its spatial studies and interpretation of symbolic language of the archaeological data, positing that text scholars, who had only focused their studies on the scrolls, had removed the Dead Sea Scrolls from their archaeological context.

The Lönnqvists proposed that the orientations of the settlement and graves show they both belonged to an intentional scheme based on a solar calendar. From this, they argued that the settlement and cemetery are connected to the Dead Sea Scrolls and associated with an Essene-type group, which finds the closest parallels in the contemporary Jewish Therapeutic group known to have lived in Egypt.[97]

Robert Cargill argues that the theory suggesting Qumran was established as a Hasmonean fortress is not incompatible with the theory proposing that a group of Jewish sectarians reoccupied the site. Cargill suggests that Qumran was established as a Hasmonean fort (see below, "Qumran as fortress"), abandoned, and later reoccupied by Jewish settlers, who expanded the site in a communal, non-military fashion, and who were responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls. [98][99]​

There's just no consensus on their sectarian identity in Second Temple Judaism. 'Essene' is the oldest and most venerable theory but it is not without significant opposition.

Essenes, Sadducees, a diversity of Jewish sects influenced by Enochic traditions, the actual (salvaged remants of the) library of the Temple in Jerusalem prior to its destruction, sectarian pilgrims barred from Jerusalem, the Therapeutae Jews ....how long is a piece of string?

So, maybe they were Essenes and maybe they weren't.

FYI, the latest research from earlier this month, cited already elsewhere on the forum (published in Science Daily):


Dead Sea Scrolls 'puzzle' pieced together with DNA

The Dead Sea Scrolls refers to some 25,000 fragments of leather and papyrus discovered beginning in 1947, mostly in the Qumran caves but also in other sites located in the Judean Desert.

Among other things, the scrolls contain the oldest copies of biblical texts. Since their discovery, scholars have faced the breathtaking challenge of classifying the fragments and piecing them together into the remains of some 1,000 manuscripts, which were hidden in the caves before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.

Researchers have long been puzzled as to the degree this collection of manuscripts, a veritable library from the Qumran caves, reflects the broad cultural milieu of Second Temple Judaism, or whether it should be regarded as the work of a radical sect (identified by most as the Essenes) discovered by chance.

"Imagine that Israel is destroyed to the ground, and only one library survives -- the library of an isolated, 'extremist' sect: What could we deduce, if anything, from this library about greater Israel?" Prof. Rechavi says. "To distinguish between scrolls particular to this sect and other scrolls reflecting a more widespread distribution, we sequenced ancient DNA extracted from the animal skins on which some of the manuscripts were inscribed. But sequencing, decoding and comparing 2,000-year old genomes is very challenging, especially since the manuscripts are extremely fragmented and only minimal samples could be obtained."

Pnina Shor, founder of the Dead Sea Scrolls Unit at the Israel Antiquities Authority, adds, "The Israel Antiquities Authority is in charge of both preserving the scrolls for posterity and making them accessible to the public and to scholars. Recent scientific and technological advances enable us to minimize physical intervention on the scrolls, thus facilitating multidisciplinary collaborations."

...

Another surprising finding relates to a non-biblical text, unknown to the world before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a liturgical composition known as the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, found in multiple copies in the Qumran caves and in Masada. Apparently, there is surprising similarity between this work and the literature of ancient Jewish mystics of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Both Songs and the mystical literature greatly expand on the visionary experience of the divine chariot-throne, developing the vision of the biblical prophet Ezekiel. But the Songs predates the later Jewish mystical literature by several centuries, and scholars have long debated whether the authors of the mystical literature were familiar with Songs.

"The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice were probably a 'best-seller' in terms of the ancient world," Prof. Mizrahi says. "The Dead Sea Scrolls contain 10 copies, which is more than the number of copies of some of the biblical books that were discovered. But again, one has to ask: Was the composition known only to the sectarian group whose writings were found in the Qumran caves, or was it well known outside those caves? Even after the Masada fragment was discovered, some scholars argued that it originated with refugees who fled to Masada from Qumran, carrying with them one of their scrolls. But the genetic analysis proves that the Masada fragment was written on the skin of different sheep 'haplogroup' than those used for scroll-making in Qumran. The most reasonable interpretation of this fact is that the Masada Scroll did not originate in the Qumran caves but was rather brought from another place. As such, it corroborates the possibility that the mystical tradition underlying the Songs continued to be transmitted in hidden channels even after the destruction of the Second Temple and through the Middle Ages."​

 

[Clear]

Hi @dybmh and @Vouthon

I have made a pact with myself not to disparage this Book any further, even if that means I look foolish for making a big deal about it previously. Further, since you asked specifically about the Messiah, and we don't agree on who that is, our discussion is destined to crash and burn.

Put simply, it's not my Scripture, I have resolved to refrain from further comments about it.

Sincerely,

I understand. It was BECAUSE you had made a big deal about why you thought the messiah was impure that I engaged in that theme.

Certainly the Judaism that accepted the messiah and became known as Christianity accepted him BECAUSE he fit their expectations and their interpretation of Torah while the Judaism that became Pharisaic / Rabbinic Judaism did not reject him because of Torah per se, but because he did not fit their differing INTERPRETATION of Torah and, as your posts demonstrated, because of the extra man made traditions that they had layered on top of Torah.

In any case, I honestly hope your spiritual journey in this life is good and wonderful dybmh.

Clear
δρεισιφιω

 

[Clear]

Hi @Vouthon

While it is recognized that the 300 men, women and children at Qumran were not the Essenes Josephus described (this incorrect assumption is what caused the group to be attributed as "Essenes" in the first place.... and the name stuck....). However, there are more than 1,200 texts found and as the number of authors of the text increased based on differing writing styles, it then became clear that this group did not write the scrolls. Second point is that IF the copper scroll found among the scrolls is genuine (i.e. the record of the location of Israels Gold, silver, Temple utensils and other treasures, etc), then it places the group that hid the documents squarely in the center of Orthodox temple Judaism.

Clear
δρεισιφιω

 

[Vouthon]

@metis As the above article in Science Daily explains, the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice mentioned by me before are considered in this latest theory (based upon these genomic studies just published in June 2020) not to have originated in Qumran but to have likely been a kind of Second Temple 'best-seller', testifying to mystical merkabah traditions that persisted in Judaism after the destruction of the Temple, finding their most famous early literary form in the Sefer Hekhalot (3 Enoch).

That's the caution I want to bring in relation to any easy identification between 'Essenism' and the texts preserved in this Second Temple library. Essenes may have done the preservation (or may very well not have!) but that doesn't mean that all the texts exhibit the scribal 'librarian's' own theology. Many of the texts aren't notably sectarian in that way (although some certainly are).

In terms of the sectarian texts (Essene or other) and their probable interrelatonship with John, the dead sea scholar Charlesworth wrote some excellent material on this in a large and very recent 2018 study entitled, Jesus as Mirrored in John. Here are a few relevant excerpts laying out why he proposes some direct textual influence:

 

[Vouthon]

(continued...)

He cites many other details and the work of colleagues in the field to advance what I regard as a persuasive case for the dependence of John on certain Qumran texts.

 

[metis]

In terms of the identity of the Qumranites, even the wiki article (sourced) testifies to the range of scholarly opinion:


Qumran - Wikipedia

More recently, Lawrence H. Schiffman has defended the thesis that the Qumran documents indicate a Sadducean sectarian orientation, but while scholars commonly grant that the term "Essenes" probably included a diversity of groups, the sectarian Sadducean hypothesis remains a minority opinion.[90] Simon J. Joseph agrees that the Qumran community was a part of the Essene movement, under the influence of the Enoch traditions, adding that they possessed a stronger focus towards eschatology and messianism.[91]

In 1960 Karl Heinrich Rengstorf proposed that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not the product of the residents of Qumran, but came from the library of the Jerusalem Temple, despite their being discovered near Qumran.[92] Rengstorf's basic Jerusalem proposal has become increasingly more popular since the materials from de Vaux's excavations of Qumran were brought into the public arena in 1992.[93]

James H. Charlesworth in 1980 proposed that Qumran was damaged in the Parthian war c. 40 BCE.[94]

Jean-Baptiste Humbert, who published de Vaux's field notes,[95] proposes a hybrid solution to the debate surrounding Qumran. He accepts that the site might have been originally established as a villa rustica, but that the site was abandoned and that it was reoccupied by Essenes in the late 1st century BCE. Humbert argues that the site may also have been used a place where sectarian pilgrims—barred from entering Jerusalem—may have celebrated the pilgrimage.[96]

Minna Lönnqvist and Kenneth Lönnqvist brought an approach to the Qumran studies based on contextual archaeology with its spatial studies and interpretation of symbolic language of the archaeological data, positing that text scholars, who had only focused their studies on the scrolls, had removed the Dead Sea Scrolls from their archaeological context.

The Lönnqvists proposed that the orientations of the settlement and graves show they both belonged to an intentional scheme based on a solar calendar. From this, they argued that the settlement and cemetery are connected to the Dead Sea Scrolls and associated with an Essene-type group, which finds the closest parallels in the contemporary Jewish Therapeutic group known to have lived in Egypt.[97]

Robert Cargill argues that the theory suggesting Qumran was established as a Hasmonean fortress is not incompatible with the theory proposing that a group of Jewish sectarians reoccupied the site. Cargill suggests that Qumran was established as a Hasmonean fort (see below, "Qumran as fortress"), abandoned, and later reoccupied by Jewish settlers, who expanded the site in a communal, non-military fashion, and who were responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls. [98][99]​

There's just no consensus on their sectarian identity in Second Temple Judaism. 'Essene' is the oldest and most venerable theory but it is not without significant opposition.

Essenes, Sadducees, a diversity of Jewish sects influenced by Enochic traditions, the actual (salvaged remants of the) library of the Temple in Jerusalem prior to its destruction, sectarian pilgrims barred from Jerusalem, the Therapeutae Jews ....how long is a piece of string?

So, maybe they were Essenes and maybe they weren't.

FYI, the latest research from earlier this month, cited already elsewhere on the forum (published in Science Daily):


Dead Sea Scrolls 'puzzle' pieced together with DNA

The Dead Sea Scrolls refers to some 25,000 fragments of leather and papyrus discovered beginning in 1947, mostly in the Qumran caves but also in other sites located in the Judean Desert.

Among other things, the scrolls contain the oldest copies of biblical texts. Since their discovery, scholars have faced the breathtaking challenge of classifying the fragments and piecing them together into the remains of some 1,000 manuscripts, which were hidden in the caves before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.

Researchers have long been puzzled as to the degree this collection of manuscripts, a veritable library from the Qumran caves, reflects the broad cultural milieu of Second Temple Judaism, or whether it should be regarded as the work of a radical sect (identified by most as the Essenes) discovered by chance.

"Imagine that Israel is destroyed to the ground, and only one library survives -- the library of an isolated, 'extremist' sect: What could we deduce, if anything, from this library about greater Israel?" Prof. Rechavi says. "To distinguish between scrolls particular to this sect and other scrolls reflecting a more widespread distribution, we sequenced ancient DNA extracted from the animal skins on which some of the manuscripts were inscribed. But sequencing, decoding and comparing 2,000-year old genomes is very challenging, especially since the manuscripts are extremely fragmented and only minimal samples could be obtained."

Pnina Shor, founder of the Dead Sea Scrolls Unit at the Israel Antiquities Authority, adds, "The Israel Antiquities Authority is in charge of both preserving the scrolls for posterity and making them accessible to the public and to scholars. Recent scientific and technological advances enable us to minimize physical intervention on the scrolls, thus facilitating multidisciplinary collaborations."

...

Another surprising finding relates to a non-biblical text, unknown to the world before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a liturgical composition known as the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, found in multiple copies in the Qumran caves and in Masada. Apparently, there is surprising similarity between this work and the literature of ancient Jewish mystics of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Both Songs and the mystical literature greatly expand on the visionary experience of the divine chariot-throne, developing the vision of the biblical prophet Ezekiel. But the Songs predates the later Jewish mystical literature by several centuries, and scholars have long debated whether the authors of the mystical literature were familiar with Songs.

"The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice were probably a 'best-seller' in terms of the ancient world," Prof. Mizrahi says. "The Dead Sea Scrolls contain 10 copies, which is more than the number of copies of some of the biblical books that were discovered. But again, one has to ask: Was the composition known only to the sectarian group whose writings were found in the Qumran caves, or was it well known outside those caves? Even after the Masada fragment was discovered, some scholars argued that it originated with refugees who fled to Masada from Qumran, carrying with them one of their scrolls. But the genetic analysis proves that the Masada fragment was written on the skin of different sheep 'haplogroup' than those used for scroll-making in Qumran. The most reasonable interpretation of this fact is that the Masada Scroll did not originate in the Qumran caves but was rather brought from another place. As such, it corroborates the possibility that the mystical tradition underlying the Songs continued to be transmitted in hidden channels even after the destruction of the Second Temple and through the Middle Ages."​

Thanks for the above, and let me just add that whom ever lived there certainly did not want much contact with the outside world because it is so utterly desolate there.

 

[Vouthon]

Thanks for the above, and let me just add that whom ever lived there certainly did not want much contact with the outside world because it is so utterly desolate there.

Ah, but that's where the hasty deposit from the 'Jerusalem library' counter-theory could have a point: whoever deposited the texts in that desolate area may not have lived in an isolated commune but rather wanted them to be safe away from rampaging Roman military divisions.

Even scholars who don't necessarily subscribe to this interpretation think it may not be far off-the mark in terms of the heterogeneity of the texts:

There's a genuine question as to whether the texts are 'native' to that region around the Dead Sea or come from elsewhere. Some of the texts certainly hail from outside that region, but what of the library as a whole? Its debated, with some contending that it does stem from an isolated sectarian community like the Essenes.

I'm not really swayed one way or the other but open to both sides of the academic discussion.

 

[metis]

He cites many other details and the work of colleagues in the field to advance what I regard as a persuasive case for the dependence of John on certain Qumran texts.

I still don't buy it, but what I can and have bought is that there's previous sources they undoubtedly shared.

My wife and I share many similar opinions and ideas, but that doesn't mean nor imply that all of what we came to accept was just between us doing this on our own together minus previous influences. Both the occupants of Qumran and those who eventually formed the early Church were believing Jews, so naturally they're going to share many similar beliefs, customs, and ways of thinking. But I see no convincing evidence that the Church took its cue directly from the Qumran occupants for reasons I've previously expressed, as even their main approach was quite different, plus there's no direct evidence of the use of any specifically Qumran texts that one would expect to find if there was a direct link.

Either way, it is what it is, eh?