It is a distinct honor and pleasure for me to have been invited to speak here at ISEDET […]. I have been asked to speak about the Dead Sea Scrolls and the light they throw on Judaism and nascent Christianity in the first century and will try to do my best to satisfy your expectations. On the one hand, however, I have to warn you that as some of you certainly know, the situation is not as clear and simple as one might have hoped. On the other hand, I am not entirely sure how much prior knowledge to presuppose. Therefore I beg your patience if I mention some scroll facts that are well-known, and leave other questions unanswered that you might have wanted to hear about. After my presentation there should be time for further questions, which I hope I will be able to address even though my Spanish is less than perfect.

The Qumran Scrolls: Basic Categories and Contents

Beginning in 1947, mysterious ancient manuscripts began to surface in Jerusalem. Some included portions of the Hebrew Bible, other texts were completely unknown previously. Within a short time it became clear that they were found by Bedouin in caves near the northwest end of the Dead Sea, only a few kilometers from Jericho.*** By 1956, eleven caves containing varying amount of manuscript material were found, mostly by Bedouin but some by archaeologists, who excavated not only many caves but also and especially a peculiar settlement near them, known as Khirbet Qumran. The richest finds came from Caves 1,  4, and 11. In some ways the most controversial are some manuscripts from Cave 7, all in Greek. In Cave 1 seven almost complete manuscripts plus other more fragmentary texts were found. A large part of the contents of Cave 4 was removed a few days (or nights) before the archaeologists working in the area discovered it.*** This cave yielded about 15.000 fragments of texts, many quite small. Cave 11 yielded several important documents. Some of these are: 1. the Temple Scroll (11Q19),*** the longest of all the Scrolls which not only describes a new and utopian Temple and various festivals to be celebrated, but also provides an intriguing interpretation and adaptation of Biblical law. Sometimes it is called a New Torah. 2. The Psalms Scroll  (11Q5),*** containing portions of about forty canonical and non-canonical Psalms, has raised the question of the development and shape of the Biblical canon in new ways. 3. In addition, Cave 11 yielded a Targum [Aramaic Translation] of the Book of Job (11Q10) and a text on the mysterious figure of Melchizedek (11Q13).

In all, about 820 manuscripts, in close to 20.000 fragments*** have been counted. Of these, about 220 manuscripts contain texts that are now part of the Hebrew Bible, most famous among these the complete Book of Isaiah. [1] *** Another category of texts were previously available only in Greek and other translations. Such is the case of the Book of Tobit, previously known in three Greek versions. One Hebrew and four Aramaic copies (4Q196-200) were found in Cave 4, containing fragments of all fourteen chapters of the book. [2] Similarly, several fragments of the Book of Ben Sira [Ecclesiasticus] have been found. Among the Pseudepigrapha that were hitherto known mostly in Ethiopic translation, numerous fragmentary copies of the Book of Jubilees and of the Books of Enoch [Henoch] have been identified.

The largest number of manuscripts, however, represent texts that were previously unknown. They include biblical commentaries and paraphrases or expansions of biblical texts, prayers and other liturgical texts. A type of texts most pertinent to our subject today are the so-called rule books and other halakhic texts. In addition, there is a variety of calendrical and astronomical or astrological documents. Very recently, several sapiential texts have been published. Some of these texts clearly represent the views of a particular group or sect, but not all documents can be classified as “sectarian.” Thus we cannot assume a priori that any particular text found in the caves near the Dead Sea expresses the particular views of a/the Qumran community. [3]

Until 1991, access to the unpublished portions of these texts was restricted to the designated editors.*** Since then, photographs of all of the manuscripts are available to scholars. [4] The very first translation of almost all decipherable texts appeared in Spanish in 1992. [5] In the meantime, there has been tremendous progress in the publication of critical editions of all texts. Between 1955 and 1990 eight volumes had been published by Oxford University Press in the series Discoveries in the Judean Desert. Since then, we have reached Volume 38, although a few volumes are still missing in between. A “relatively” inexpensive study edition contains most non-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic texts, with facing translation. [6] For up-to-date bibliography and other pertinent information one may now turn to the website of the Orion Center for the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il).

Until recently, there has been quite a bit of controversy concerning the date and provenance of all these manuscripts. Some scholars had initially suggested that they were medieval, others have tried to link them to Christian groups and thus dated them all in the first century CE. A consensus of scholars today dates the scrolls between the late third century BCE and the year 68 CE, when Jericho was conquered by the Romans and the settlement at Qumran was destroyed. One might say that a majority of the scrolls date from the first century BCE and the first half of the first century CE. This dating is largely confirmed by radio-carbon testing of a number of scrolls. [7]

Christianity in the Scrolls?

Such a range of dates obviously precludes a Christian origin for the majority of the scrolls. [8] Nevertheless, one still finds headlines such as “Is Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls?” [9] even though lately the situation has calmed down considerably. [Among the documents from Qumran there is no marriage licence or letter of divorce or death certificate for Jesus].

One question that has been debated a lot, especially in Spanish, Italian and German publications, much less in English, is the identification of one or more tiny fragments from Cave 7. In an article published in 1972 in Biblica, a journal published by my Institute, a former colleague of mine, Prof. José O’Callaghan, suggested that the postage-stamp size fragment 7Q5*** may be part of a copy of the gospel of Mark, to be dated no later than the year 50. [10] The only complete word in this Greek manuscript is kai (and). But the relatively rare combination of letters …nnês… led O’Callaghan to the reference to the Lake of Gennesareth in Mark 6:53. At first tentatively, then more forcefully, he tried to argue that 7Q5 was indeed part of the Gospel of Mark. [11] But there are very substantial difficulties: Firstly, the small size and the difficulty to read this fragment. Of twenty recognizable letters, spread over five lines, only nine are unequivocally identifiable. Secondly, O’Callaghan’s reading requires that a tau of the text be a mistake for a delta (tiaperasantes instead of diaperasantes) and the omission of the phrase “on land” (epi tēn gēn), not attested in other manuscripts. While mistakes are common in ancient manuscripts, these many among twenty letters are a bit much. While O’Callaghan has tried to defend these anomalies, most experts in either Qumran or the New Testament have rejected this identification. Emile Puech, one of the foremost scrolls experts, has even shown that some of the other readings required for O’Callaghan’s identification are either impossible or highly problematic. [12] Several scholars have suggested other identifications for this small fragment. [13]

Thus it is unfortunate, that so much energy and publicity has been given to one of 20.000 fragments. The significance of Qumran for Christian origins does not reside in this or that text, but in the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls in their entirety have radically altered our picture of Judaism in the last two centuries before the destruction of Jerusalem. Consequently, on the basis of these texts we must review our perception of what is new and unique in early Christianity, and what is in continuity with at least some strands of Judaism. This idea was expressed already in 1948 by W. F. Albright who wrote:

It is easy to surmise that the new discovery will revolutionize intertestamental studies, and that it will soon antiquate all present handbooks on the background of the New Testament and on the textual criticism and interpretation of the Old Testament. [14]

Thus our next question is:

What Type(s) of Judaism in Qumran?

In 1896 in Cairo, Egypt, a storeroom in an old synagogue (the famous G(u)eniza) was discovered, containing about 200.000 mostly medieval manuscript fragments, about ten times more than in Qumran. After over a century, they are still in the process of being published. One puzzling text preserved in two fragmentary medieval manuscripts is the so-called Damascus Document, published by Solomon Schechter in 1910. [15] Louis Ginzberg wrote his An Unknown Jewish Sect [16] with reference to this document, several decades before fragments of several manuscripts of this text were discovered at Qumran. [17] In this study that is still remarkably useful, Ginzberg argued for an unknown radical sect that emerged from the Pharisees during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus [Yannai] (103-76 BCE). His intuition, although unacceptable in this form, was not very far off the mark.

The Essene Hypothesis

Soon after the discovery of the first Qumran scrolls, it was suggested, by Eleazar Sukenik and others, that the scrolls from the caves belonged to the Essenes, a group mentioned by Philo and Josephus. The Roman encyclopedic writer Pliny the Elder who died in 79 CE locates this group near the Dead Sea. [18] The idea of the connection between the Essenes and the scrolls was strengthened by a study of the contents of many of the scrolls. Especially in the so-called Community Rule [Regla de la Comunidad], scholars noticed many parallels to the description of the Essenes in Josephus (War 2.119-161). [19] It is, however, not without problems to identify the group responsible for the scrolls in the caves and for the nearby settlement at Qumran as Essenes. First of all, Philo and Josephus state that the Essenes dwelled in many villages and towns. [20] It seems exaggerated to claim on the basis of such statements that Jesus was close to an Essene group in Nazareth. [21] But the presence of an Essene teacher in the Temple (War 1.78-80 || Antiquities 13.311-313), the existence of an Essene Gate in Jerusalem (War 5.145), and the participation of a certain John the Essene as a general in the war against Rome (War 2.567; 3.11) are signs that we cannot assume that the Essenes as a group retired to Qumran and there kept to themselves.

On the other hand, some scholars claim that there is no connection whatsoever between the Essenes and Qumran. Apart from the impossible or discredited views that the scrolls were produced by Christians or by Zealots, some scholars have tried to separate entirely the scrolls found in the caves from the settlement at nearby (Khirbet) Qumran.*** Norman Golb has argued that the caves were used as a hiding place for the Temple library or libraries from Jerusalem, containing a general mix of Jewish documents with no relation to a particular group and that the settlement was rather a military camp. [22] *** Another view interprets the settlement as a luxury villa, with facilities for producing balsam or other local products. [23] All these views founder on the vicinity of the caves, which were used as the same time as the settlement, and many other elements connecting the two, for example the emphasis on purification rites in the texts and the ritual baths (miqva’ot) found at the settlement.***

Thus it is best to acknowledge a close connection between the settlement and the scrolls, and of the two with the group known as Essenes. Qumran, however, does not represent “the Essene Movement”, but was perhaps an outpost of a radical splinter group. If the archaeological evidence shows that the site was occupied by the same sort of people from the end of the second century BCE to 68 CE, this should not let us overlook the fact that over a span of over a century and a half any group will undergo profound changes. Qumran certainly was no exception.

If the Dead Sea Scrolls belonged to a particular group, this of course does not mean that all the scrolls express their viewpoint or were created by them. It seems likely that at least some of the scrolls were actually copied or composed at Qumran. Even though it is not beyond doubt that one room can be rightfully called a “scriptorium,” the several inkwells*** that were found point to scribal activity. Before calling a text “typically Qumranic” we need to ask, however, whether it really expresses the specific point of view of a particular community. The Biblical texts certainly do not represent the views of this community alone. On the other hand, the fact that twelve copies of the Regla de la comunidad and multiple copies of clearly sectarian documents were preserved, does suggest that we have the library of a particular community, with strong affinities to the Essenes, and less pronounced  affinities to other groups, such as the Sadducees of Rabbinic literature – and the early Christians. Nonetheless, a broader range of views is represented than we might have anticipated.

To take just one example. For the author of Daniel the Temple is sacred and central and its defilement by King Antiochus IV Epiphanes represents a major tragedy (Dan 11:31). For the author of the “animal apocalypse” in First Enoch, instead, the Second Temple is defiled from the beginning and is therefore not suitable for worship (1 Enoch 89:73). The issue of the Temple was certainly of importance in Judaism, as even the Temple Scroll from Qumran demonstrates. Nonetheless, multiple copies of both First Enoch and Daniel were found in different Qumran caves. We may add that in several Daniel manuscripts the shift from Hebrew to Aramaic (Dan 2:4) and back to Hebrew (Dan 8:1) is documented. [We cannot detain us here with the question of the language of the scrolls and how much they teach us about the usage of Hebrew, Aramaic – and Greek in Judea. That would require at least another lecture.]

A Window to a Larger Jewish World

Qumran then presents us with a microcosm of one very peculiar community. Its members were in part of priestly origin, in part lay people. They chose to live in this desert outpost for reasons that we cannot exactly reconstruct. But we may perhaps glimpse some of their spirit in the  Community Rule VIII.12-16

Y cuando éstos existan como comunidad en Israel según estas disposiciones se separarán de en medio de la residencia de los hombres de iniquidad para marchar al desierto para abrir allí el camino de Aquél. Como está escrito: “En el desierto, preparad el camino de **** [del Señor], enderezad en la estepa una calzada para nuestro Dios.” Éste es el estudio de la ley, que ordenó por mano de Moisés, para obrar de acuerdo con todo lo revelado de edad en edad, y que revelaron los profetas por su santo espíritu.

Qumran was certainly a peculiar community, distant from the mainstream of the other diverse forms of Judaism. Yet, it can become for us a window on various aspects of Judaism in the period between the Hebrew Bible and the Mishnah. Schiffman has argued most forcefully that we need to recognize the Dead Sea Scrolls as documents that can teach us a lot about the antecedents of rabbinic Judaism. [24] For one, the numerous biblical manuscripts from Qumran give us unexpected insights not only into the then available text forms of the individual books but also into the formation of the canon of the Hebrew Bible. With the exception of the Book of Esther, all books of the Hebrew canon are represented in Qumran. Yet they are not evenly represented. We have fragments of close to forty manuscripts of the Psalms. Among the other books, Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah are the best represented. In addition, other books were probably also considered sacred. Such is the case of the Book called First Enoch, substantial portions of which are preserved in multiple copies in Qumran. We may recall in this regard that also the New Testament in the Letter of Jude includes a brief quotation from First Enoch 1,9, in a form usually reserved for Scriptural quotations:

It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him” (Jude 14-15).

Also the so-called Temple Scroll was most likely considered a sacred text. In it God regularly speaks in the first person (“and I said”), where the parallel text in Deuteronomy mentions him in the third person (“and the Lord said”). For example, in the Temple Scroll we read:

Así yo cambiaré el furor de mi cólera y tendré compasión de ti, mie apiadaré de ti y te multiplicaré como dije a tus padres, si escuchas mi voz para guardar todos los preceptos que you to mando hoy, para hacer lo recto y lo bueno ante mí, YHWH, tu Dios. [25]

whereas Deuteronomy (13:17-18) has:

[Do not let anything devoted to destruction stick to your hand,] so that the LORD may turn from his fierce anger and show you compassion, and in his compassion multiply you, as he swore to your ancestors, 18 if you obey the voice of the LORD your God by keeping all his commandments that I am commanding you today, doing what is right in the sight of the LORD your God.

Hence, the author of the scroll implicitly claimed authority to teach in the name of God, and to consistently alter the biblical text accordingly. Thus even though the Pentateuch undoubtedly was considered a sacred text, the questions of fidelity and authority were viewed very differently than we would see them today, but perhaps more in line with the attitude that Jesus and early Christian writers had toward Scripture.

A considerable number of texts from Qumran include rules for the present or future life. The Regla de la Comunidad seems to envision an all-male celibate community, although this is not stated explicitly. The Damascus Document instead, implies groups of people that practice marriage, have slaves, and maintain commercial contacts with non-members. Sometimes on the basis of these differences it is argued that the Regla de la Comunidad was intended for the celibate (Essene) Qumran community, whereas the Damascus Document served for Essenes, including married ones, living elsewhere. This explanation still appears plausible, but we always have to keep in mind that between rules and their application there may be large gaps, especially if these rules were written and copied down over a long period of time.

Another text that deals with specific rules is known by the name of 4QMMT, short for Miqsat Ma‘ase ha-Torah (“algunos de los preceptos de la Torah” [or perhaps more incisively: “algunas de las obras de la Ley”]). [26] It is also called a “Halakhic Letter” [Carta Haláquica].*** This text has stirred a lot of controversy and the copyright to its reconstruction has even debated before the Supreme Court of Israel. It is very fragmentary, consisting of six copies (4Q394-399). The text raises several issues concerning the various expressions of Judaism in the first century, although – sometimes because of its fragmentary nature – the answers are not very clear. On some specific legal issues, or halakhah in rabbinic terminology, this text proposes views that are attributed to the Sadducees in the Mishnah. [27] From this Schiffman has drawn the controversial conclusion that the community of Qumran consisted not of Essenes but of Sadducees, albeit a dissident branch of Sadducees.  He states “that the Qumran sect had a substratum of Sadducean halakhic views” and that “the earliest members of the sect must have been Sadducees unwilling to accept the status quo established in the aftermath of the Maccabean revolt.” [28] Few scholars have accepted Schiffman’s view. In fact, though the parallels are indeed interesting, they are not sufficient to identify Qumran and Essenes. We can certainly find many more important parallels between Lutheran and Catholic teachings, yet that does not mean that the two are identical. 

It is clear, however, that many previously unknown Qumran documents provide us with insights not only into the views of one particular community but also into the broader context of the debate between various Jewish groups of the time. Even the form of the arguments as presented in 4QMMT is of great significance. We often find the formula: “But we say…” or “but we think…” . This has a close analogy in the antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21-48), where Jesus states “You have heard… but I say to you…” Thus what is sometimes taken as Jesus’ strongest statement of his authority, against the Jewish teachers of his time, may be seen as a form of argument used also by other Jewish interpreters. In a more general way, we can learn from the Dead Sea Scrolls many of the issues that were discussed between different Jewish groups, and how vehemently they were sometimes debated. Thus, when we find polemical statements in the New Testament, for example in the Gospel of Matthew or of John, we have to see them also in the context of these inner-Jewish debates.

One fragmentary phrase in MMT that has caused a lot of controversy is the following [Y vosotros sabéis que] nos hemos separado de la mayoría del pue[blo y nos astenemos] de mezclarnos en estos asuntos. [29] Here the word for “hemos separado” (parashnu) belongs to the same root as the word Pharisee (in Hebrew parush). Obviously we should not conclude that we have here Sadducees in an Essene settlement who act like Pharisees, thus mixing up the three major Jewish groups described by Flavius Josephus (Jewish War 2.119-166 and elsewhere). This sentence may refer to the separation of the Qumran community from mainstream Judaism. But this is not necessarily the correct interpretation. Rather this line may refer to conflict within one group, because instead of  ha‘a[m] (“el pueblo”) the text might have read ha‘e[dah] (“la comunidad”):  “hemos separado de la mayoría de la comunidad.” This example shows how dangerous it may be to draw far-reaching conclusions based on fragmentary evidence.

Qumran and the New Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls are Jewish documents that teach us primarily about one particular group of Jews that chose to live at Qumran. Yet, as we have seen, the scrolls also teach us about broader areas, like the development of the Hebrew and Aramaic language and the use of Greek in Judea. After we have discarded the sensational claims about the connections between Jesus and Qumran, however, we find that there is a lot we can learn about the world in which Jesus lived and taught and in which early Christianity evolved. Unfortunately, these new sources of knowledge have so far been poorly integrated into the study of the New Testament. The only systematic commentary on the New Testament through Qumran texts was written in the early 1960s, when only a small portion of the Dead Sea Scrolls had been published. Therefore it is in many ways outdated, although it does remain useful. [30] For the past twenty years a project “Qumran and the New Testament” has been underway at the Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät in Munich [München] under the direction of Prof. Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn. It tries to document all significant parallels between Qumran texts and New Testament passages regarding philological, religio-historical, and theological matters. So far this project is limited to the Pauline corpus, and only some relatively short articles have appeared. [31]

Here I can obviously discuss only a few examples.

Abba

The study of the designation of God as “father” in early Jewish literature has generally been used only as a prolegomenon and a (usually negative) foil for understanding the novelty and uniqueness of Jesus’ use of the Aramaic term Abba. [32] It has often been claimed that individual prayer to God as “Father” or “my Father” was completely unknown in pre-Christian Judaism. This perspective, which gained wide currency especially through several works by Joachim Jeremias, continues to influence not only the field of New Testament exegesis, but also systematic theology and homiletics. [33] Cautionary notes have not achieved the same popularity. [34] Now, however,  we have at least two prayer texts from Qumran in which God is addressed as “my father”. The first is put in the mouth of the Biblical Joseph, perhaps seen as representative of a collectivity. His prayer begins: “My father and my God, do not abandon me in the hands of the gentiles.” [35] Similarly a more fragmentary text that contains both narrative and prayer includes the following: “You have not forsaken your servant […] my father and my lord.” [36] Thus it becomes clear that at least some Jews addressed God in the prayer language that is known to us primarily through the New Testament. This added knowledge does not put into question the uniqueness of Jesus and of some of his teachings. Certainly the address to God as Abba made a lasting impression on Jesus’ disciples and it may be considered characteristic of some early Christian prayers. Yet this formulation only accentuates an earlier usage. It may be taken as another indication of how deeply rooted Jesus was in the context of the Judaism of his time.

4Q285, 4Q246, 4Q521, and the Synoptic Gospels

An area of Qumran studies that has received tremendous attention in recent years may go under the name of “messianism(s)”. Interest in this topic has been rekindled by several new texts published in the past decade. As has often happened, first came sensationalist claims. For example, Eisenman created a stir in the media when he published a text that supposedly spoke of a “Slain [Dying] Messiah” (4Q285).*** The text in question, however, which may have formed part of the well-known Regla de la Guerra includes just one ambiguous verb form which may be read  as “they will kill” (we-hēmitu) or “he will kill him” (we-hemitô). In this text fragment there is a specific reference to Isaiah 11, which speaks of a messianic king who “shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.”(Isa 11:4). Therefore it is now a scholarly consensus that this text does not refer to a messiah who dies, but to a messianic figure, here called “Principe de la Congregación”, who executes judgment over the wicked. [37]

Another controversial manuscript is the so-called 4QHijo de Dios text (4Q246).*** The most debated line reads, this time in very clearly legible Aramaic: “Sera denominado hijo de Dios, y le llamarán hijo del Altísimo.” Even though the text is clear, the question of who is meant by these titles is hotly debated. Some think of a Hellenistic king who usurped the claim to divine sonship. Flusser even proposed the Antichrist. Others, a majority of scholars, consider him either an angelic or messianic figure. [38] Unfortunately, the context is too fragmentary to allow secure identifications. One of several arguments in favor of a messianic interpretation is the use of the same terminology in Luke 1:32 and 1:35, where it is applied to Jesus:

(32) He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. (35) The angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.

While Luke probably did not know the Qumran text directly, the origin of the concept of the divine sonship of the Messiah does not need to be sought in Hellenistic paganism as had often been done by an earlier generation of exegetes. The idea appears to have developed in Jewish circles. In Qumran we do not only have this text but also the so-called Florilegio (4Q174) which interprets several biblical texts messianically. It reads in part:

  “Yo seré para él un padre y él será para mi un hijo” (2 Sam 7:14). Eso (se refiere al) retoño de David que se alzará con el interprete de la Torah que [surgirá] en Si[ón en] los ultimos dias… (4Q174 1-3 I, 11-12).

Another intriguing manuscript is known by the name “Messianic Apocalypse” or more prosaically 4Q521.*** Only one fragmentary copy has been found and we do not know if it was composed in Qumran. It is paleographically dated to the (early) first century BCE by its editor, Émile Puech. [39] This text refers to anointed ones (at least once in fragment 8 line 9) or an anointed one (2 II, 1 and 9, 3). A plural is possible also in these last two cases. The main fragment begins

[pues los cie]los y la tierra escucharán a su/sus mesías (4Q521 2 II, 1)

Here the Hebrew spelling permits to read either a singular and a plural and, since the plural “anointed ones” is attested at least once, some scholars would prefer to read a plural here as well. This case is emblematic for the problem with defining Qumran “Messianism”. In some scrolls the term mashiaj is used in reference to prophets of the past. Elsewhere we clearly have the expectation “que venga el profeta y los mesías de Aarón e Israel” (1QS 9,11). In the Damascus Document we find “the anointed (mashiaj singular) of Aaron and Israel, probably referring to two persons in spite of the singular. [40] In our text, his messiah(s) [su/sus mesías] to be listened to may be considered a prophetic Elijah figure or a group of prophets, although we cannot rule out that one royal messianic figure is meant. Here too the debate about messianic identity will probably continue for a while.

There are, however, other very significant aspects of this text that we must not loose sight of. The first is the use of combined texts from the Hebrew Bible. Within a few lines of this text we find unequivocal echoes of Psalm 146, Isaiah 61, and Isaiah 35

Pues honrará a los piadosos sobre el trono de la realeza eterna
librando a los prisioneros, dando la vista a los ciegos, enderezando a los torcidos (Ps 146:7-8; cf. Isa 35:5-6; )
Por siempre me adheriré a los que esperan. En su misericordia él juz[gará]
y a nadie le será retrasado el fruto […]
y el Señor obrará acciones gloriosas como no han existido, como él lo ha di[cho]
pues curará a los malheridos, y a los muertos hará vivir, anunciará buenas noticias a los humildes (Isa 61:1),
… y a los hambrientes los enriquecerá.

Without trying to give a complete list of Old Testament parallels we realize that several biblical texts have here been woven together, to depict a time of unexpected and unparalleled blessings. Yet, we have not yet mentioned the closest known parallel to this text: Jesus’ answer to the question of John the Baptist:

“Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?” (Mt 11:3|| Lk 7:20)

 Jesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see:  5 the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. 6 And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me." (Mt 11:4-6|| Lk 7:22-23).

Jesus’ words clearly allude to the same passages in Isaiah 35 and 61, but in addition to this he mentions the dead being raised, just as in the Qumran text. Luke introduces Jesus’ answer by saying that he had just healed many sick (Lk 7:21). This too has a close echo in “he will heal the sick” in 4Q521.

 These parallels become even more striking if we take into consideration the fact that John the Baptist in his preaching and practice shows strong affinities to Qumran. There are many arguments in favor of him having once had close contact to Qumran, although at the time of his preaching and baptizing he certainly was not a member of that community. [41] Perhaps then it is no mere coincidence that according to Matthew and Luke (or, if you prefer, according to Q), Jesus chose this form of response. John, who was probably imprisoned in Machaerus (Josephus, Antiquities 18.119), across the Dead Sea from Qumran, may have long been more familiar with this language.

Justification by Grace

Among the many other – often complicated – parallels between Qumran and the New Testament I would like to address just one more that might be of some interest, especially in this Institution. I have already mentioned 4QMMT, which in its title seems to have the Hebrew equivalent of the Pauline phrase “works of the law” (Gal 2:16 and passim), a phrase that outside Romans and Galatians is found nowhere in the New Testament. It is also absent from the Old Testament and from rabbinic literature. García Martínez, in line with the original editors of the text, translated the entire passage

Ricuerda a los reyes de Israel y considera sus obras, cómo quien de ellos respetó [la To]rah fue librado de sus angustias; a quienes buscaron la Torah [les fueron perdonados] sus pecados. Recuerda a David, uno de los “piadosos”, y también él fue librado de sus muchas angustias y fue perdonado. Y también nosotros te hemos escrito algunos de los preceptos de la Torah que pensamos buenos para ti y para tu pueblo, pues [vimos] en ti inteligencia y conocimiento de la Torah. [42]

 Since then, however, he has changed his mind and in his more recent Study Edition he translates “some of the works of the Torah.” In 4QMMT then we have a strong emphasis on Torah observance – understood by the authors as the observance of very specific precepts – as a way to forgiveness from God. Thus it is likely that when Paul was attacking works righteousness he adopted language used in Jewish circles connected with Qumran. We may cautiously conclude with Dunn that “MMT preserves a vocabulary and manner of theologising which left its mark on a wider spectrum of Jewish thought and practice, and that it was just this sort of theologising and practice which confronted Paul in Antioch and which he wrote Galatians to counter. [43]

Yet, we should not view Qumran merely as a bastion of works righteousness or of self-righteousness. The concluding hymn of the Regla de la comunidad reads as follows:

Pero yo pertenezco a la humanidad impía,

a la asamblea de la carne inicua;

mis faltas, mis transgresiones, mis pecados, […]

con las perversiones de mi corazón,

pertenecen a la asamblea de los gusanos

y de quienes marchan en tinieblas.

Pues al hombre (no le pertenece) su camino,

ni al ser humano el afirmar su paso;

puesto que el juicio (le pertenece) a Dios,

y de su mano viene la perfección del camino,

…

En cuanto a mí, si yo tropiezo,

las misericordias de Dios serán mi salvación por siempre;

si yo caigo en pecado de carne,

en la justicia de Dios, que permanece eternamente, estará mi juicio. [44]

The line jasdé el yeshuati la‘ad may perhaps more significantly be translated “las gracias (instead of las misericordias) de Dios serán mi salvación por siempre.” Thus this text shows a deep conviction, that salvation comes through the grace of God.  The expression “justicia de Dios” (zidqat el) is never found verbatim in the Hebrew Bible. [45] Here too we have a typically Pauline expression (Rom 1:17 and passim), for the first time in its Hebrew equivalent. [46]

Similar affirmations are found in a number of other important documents. One is the collection of non-biblical hymns known as Hodayot, from which I would like to quote a few lines:

Pero yo sé que no pertenece la justicia al hombre,

ni el camino perfecto al hijo de hombre.

Al Dios Altísimo pertenecen todas las obras de justicia (kol ma‘ase zedaqah)

y el camino del hombre no es estable

si no es por el espíritu que para él Dios crea

…

Pues me he apoyado en tus ternuras (bejasdejah)

y en la abundancia de tus misericordias.

Porque tú expías el pecado

y purifi[cas al hombre] de su culpa por tu justicia. [47]

In a very similar way, Paul reminds us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). Perhaps we can speak in Qumran of “justification by grace.” [48] Paul clearly goes a step further by insisting on justification (by grace) through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 2:16). When studying either or both corpora of texts we should not fall into what has been called “Parallelomania”. [49] Parallels by themselves do not demonstrate dependence and need to be carefully studied for their significance. While looking for parallels or differences we have to acknowledge and try to understand the uniqueness of each set of documents. Yet, Qumran can throw much light on Paul and his thorough grounding in Jewish tradition. Viceversa, I believe that, as in the case of the Gospel of Luke and the so-called “Son of God text”, the New Testament as well can enlighten us considerably about the types of Judaism current in the first century.