Introduction: In addition to the three groups identified by Josephus (Pharisees,
Sadducees, and Essenes), Judaism was further divided into numerous religious
sects and political parties. This division and sprouting up of new sects was
primarily the results of dissatisfaction with the status quo, both in politics
and religion, rebel against the regime and yearning for higher spiritual values.
The Qumranians too, remained aloof and isolated in their quest for upgraded
‘theology and praxis’. Consequently, altering the beliefs based on the
mainstream Judaism, they formulated doctrines in accord with their ascetic
lifestyle. At this point, it is vital to note how far did they differ from the
other sects, and were they simplified or complex-ified, and how far did they
influence the faith and belief of other groups/sects? This paper, so also, is a
small attempt to study on the Qumran doctrines in relation to other few
selected Jewish sects.
Source of
Qumran Doctrines:
The
Qumran covenanters obviously held the scriptures in high esteem, as did all
Jewish parties and sects. The law and the prophets are extensively quoted in
the Dead Sea Scrolls and used as authoritative expressions of God’s will.
Portions of almost all the books of the Old Testament have been identified
among the fragments of the Qumran. Many works that did not find place in the
Jewish canon, too, were obviously copied and cherished by the covenanters, as
the large number of books represented by the manuscript fragments abundantly
attests.[1] The
correct interpretation of the law was very important to them. The very purpose
of the group’s existence, in fact, was to prepare the way of the Lord by the
study of the law.[2]
In addition to the devotion of the covenanters to the Hebrew Scriptures, there
are elements in their thinking that have also suggested various kinds of
Gentile influence. In particular, many scholars see in the Dead Sea Scrolls
reflections of the religious movement known as Gnosticism. But when we speak of
Gnosticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the question is not whether the covenanters
were Gnostics in the strictest sense, defined in terms of the Christian heresy,
but whether they belonged to the general movement or tendency known as
Gnosticism in broader sense.[3]
Stature and
principal aims: The members of the Qumran
sect professed to belong to a 'new Covenant' (I QpHab. 2:3; CD 8:21, 35), based
on the message of Moses and the prophets, but understood in the light of the
preaching of the Teacher of Righteousness and of the authoritative exegesis
given by the sons of Zadok, the priestly leaders of the Community. The
principal aim of the Qumran sectaries was to lead a life of continuous worship
in which the Sons of Light on earth joined their voices to those of the
celestial choirs of the angels.[4]
1. DOCTRINES
OF THE QUMRANIANS
1.1
Doctrine of God: The Qumran Covenanters were Jews; therefore they
believed in the God of the Old Testament, the God who had revealed Himself and
His will through the prophets to Israel. On this is based the Qumran
"argument from history" found in the Damascus Document (cf. CD
2:14-3:12).[5]
1.1.1 The
Nature of God: In the Order
of Warfare, there is an extended passage (1QM 10:12-18; 11:1-12:5) in which
the nature and works of God are set forth. He is the God of the Fathers (1QM 13:7),
the Creator of the earth and its laws (1QM 10:12), the Maker of all things (1QS
3:15; 1QH 10:9; cf. CD 2:21). He created the laws of earth's watercourses, the
circle of the seas and the reservoir of the rivers (1QM 10:12-13). To Him are
attributed the fruits, animals, birds, man and his generation, the confusion of
tongues and the division of the peoples, the habitation of the tribes and their
fixed times, the course of the years and the times of eternity (1QM 10:13-18;
cf. CD 2:9-10). He determines the times of war, marches with His chosen people
into combat, gives courage (1QM 10:4-9), delivers Goliath into the hand of David,
and humiliates the Philistines (1QM 12:1-3); in fact, all power is from Him
(1QM 18:13), all knowledge (1QS 3:15), all wisdom (1QS 4:2; 1QH 10:2, 8). There
is none like Him (1QM 10:8). He has a controversy with all flesh (CD 1:2). He
caused a remnant to remain (CD 1:4). His wrath was kindled against the
faithless backsliders (CD 1:21), but in His grace He raised men of
understanding from Aaron and men of wisdom from Israel (CD 6:2-3). "Those
whom He hated He caused to stray" (CD 2:13). He made conciliation for the
trespass of the members of the Covenant, and pardoned their impiety (CD 3:18).
It is through His righteousness that man's transgression shall be blotted out
(1QS 11:3); it is from the fountain of His righteousness that man's justification
flows (1QS 11:5); and even if this elect man should totter, God's dependable
mercy is his salvation forever (1QS 11:12).[6]
The usual
designation for God is the archaic ‘ēl (only
infrequently the normal ‘elôhîm);
the word ‘adônāy, “the
Lord,” occurs mainly in the Thanksgiving Psalms’ introductory phase: “I thank
Thee, Lord” (‘ôdekāh ‘adônāy). The epiphet “God of
the gods (‘ēl ‘ēlîm) is also found
(1QM xiv. 16) “prince of the gods (‘sar
‘ēlîm) and the Most High (‘elyôn
1QS iv. 22, etc). This shows that the Qumran congregation shares contemporary
Judaism’s great reverence for the divine name, which in turn is connected with
the emphasis on the transcendence of God.[7]
1.2 Doctrine
of the spirit: The
doctrine of the spirit of God held by the Qumran sect is of monistic tendency,
enabling men to think of God as the origin not primarily of inexplicable
phenomena but of moral qualities. He will bestow on a chosen one his spirit,
which is the spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel and might (Isa. 11:2).
God can give a man a spirit of true counsel and of uprightness and humility
(1QS 3.6, 8), but it is a holy spirit (or hallowed spirit) by which he gives
these virtues (3.7; cf. 8.16; 9.3; 1QH 16.2, 3, 7).[8]
The
holiness of God's spirit is emphasized again and again: only God’s spirit is
holy and only he can bestow it upon a man (1QH 7.6; 9.32; 12.11, 12; 13.19;
14.15; 16.11, 12; 17.17). The similarity of phraseology may easily mislead us
into imagining that the doctrine here implied is identical with that in the New
Testament, especially as in CD 2.12 God will grant his Messiah the power to
make the spirit of his holiness known to the ‘remnant’. But it is vital to true
understanding of the Qumran way to remember that what its members desire, and
so often make the subject of their writing is not the Holy Spirit, but a spirit
of holiness; and this must be interpreted in the contexts in which it occurs.
Possession of such a spirit certainly implies possession of moral qualities,
but the context of the passage of the Rule is significant and typical. The
subject is purification from moral and ceremonial defilement and it is a
remarkable tenet of the sect that moral failure necessitates both repentance
and bodily purification. It is the spirit of holiness in this combined moral
and Levitical sense that is the acme of a sectarian's desire.[9]
In regards to
the oneness with the spirit, that they believed in some unity with himself as
God's final gift to his chosen is no doubt true, but it seems that this unity
is rather of moral purpose than of actual being. It is rather to the status of
spirits in the sense of angels that the redeemed portion of mankind will be
raised.[10]
1.3 Doctrine
of Dualism: the two spirits: God is at the head of a dualistic
system, in that he alone created the two fundamental powers of the universe,
and that according to the Qumran literature, God has created the two spirits
which determine and govern the course of the world and human life. Helmer
Ringgren has deduced the following from the reading of 1QS 3:15 – 4:1―
1)
In the beginning God has created two spirits, one good and one evil, and all
the doings and dealings in the world are dependent upon them.
2)
The good spirit is connected with light, truth and righteousness, and God loves
him and his work; the evil spirit is connected with darkness, error, sin and
guilt, and God hates him and his works despite the fact that He created him. It
is never said that the spirit of error had been created other than evil, or
that he may have become evil through a fall.
3)
Each of the two spirits has a “lot”, an area of activity or a band of
followers.
4)
Even the sins of the righteous are caused by the evil spirit.
5)
God has measured out an appointed time for the activity of both spirits and
this predestination belongs to the “mysteries” of God.
6)
The dualism is not physical-cosmological aspect, e.g., between spirit and
matter- but has a religious ethical basis.
7)
The dualism is not absolute and consistent: God created both spirits and fixed
times for their dominion.[11]
The two spirits
are identified ethically as the spirit of truth (emet) and deceit (‘avel),
but also from a cosmic standpoint, as the spirit of light (or) and the spirit
of darkness (hoshekh).[12]
1.3.1 Doctrine of Angels and
Demons: The angels seem to be God’s heavenly court rather
than actual intermediary beings, taken from the Bible and the thought world of
contemporary Judaism and been understood as God’s messengers and servants. The
angels- Michael the prince, Gabriel, Sariel, and Raphael are mentioned in the
War Scroll (1QM 9:15-16). Michael appears several times as the helper of the
children of light. It has been suggested that he should also be identified with
the good spirit. In a couple of passages, there is also mention of the angels
of the presence, i.e., angels of a higher special rank who stand before the
presence of God; this term is also known from the rest of Judaism. A particular
characteristic concept is also found in the War Scroll where it is said several
times that the angels fight on the side of the children of light together with
the human armies (12:1-9). The idea of a fellowship with the angels also
apparently played a central role and is most probably connected with the
conviction of living in the last times, when God with his heavenly hosts
intervene in the fight.[13]
Concerning
demons or evil spirits there are two different ideas represented in Judaism.
Firstly, demons are associated with the fallen angels and are understood as
seducers to and instigators of evil deeds. Secondly, they are understood
primarily as beings which cause sickness and, as such are morally neutral. In
Qumran, the aspect first mentioned is dominant.[14] The
word "Satan" is found only in a fragment of hymn where it seems to be
a common noun: "you shall rebuke every destroying adversary (Satan)."
A more common name for the adversary of God is "Belial," which occurs
nearly forty times, mostly in the War Scroll and the Thanksgiving Hymns. The
spirit of error, Belial, is the root of all evil and has subordinate to him a great
multitude of evil angels or spirits. In the Damascus Document, Belial is
opposed to "the Prince of Lights" (CD 5:17-19). The Prince of Lights
is opposed by the Angel of Darkness; it therefore seems reasonable to identify
the Angel of Darkness with Belial. God's adversary is also called
"Mastema," a word which, like "Satan," can be used either
as a common noun or a pronoun (cf. 1QS 3:23; CD 16:5).[15]
1.4
Doctrine of Man: The most extensive passages are found in the
devotional portions of the Qumran writings: the hymn at the end of the Manual
of Discipline and the scroll of Thanksgiving Hymns (1QS 11:9-15; 1QH 10:3-8,
12; 4:29-37; 13:13-21; 18:21-19 etc). In these devotional literatures, man
always tends to be humble in the presence of Deity. He is the creature of God,
with nothing in himself that God has not graciously given him. Man is not the
master of his own way. He is led by two spirits: the blessings and virtues are
from the spirit of light, the evils from the spirit of unrighteousness.
Finally, God purifies the enlightened man who has been led by the spirit of
truth. The utter sinfulness of man is brought out in a passage in the Manual of
Discipline. He cannot be cleansed by any means as long as he scorns the
ordinances of God and refuses to be taught by the community.[16]
1.4.1
Man’s Free Will and Predestination: The doctrine
of free will and predestination were one of the main causes of disagreement
between Qumran and the larger Jewish groups. The Qumranians’ belief in the
individual predestination is confirmed by Solinus in his Collectanea Rerum Memorabilium, stating that the members “have been
destined for this way of life by divine providence.[17]
Menahem Mansoor also contends that there was a clear division between God's
elect through His grace and those He had not elected - A) The author of the
Thanksgiving Hymns felt that he was among the elect and expressed that feeling
in the psalms. B) The sect felt that man's works have no justification; only
the divine grace of God will save man. C) The sect felt that the Teacher of
Righteousness was delivered by God's grace. D) The highest aspiration of all
the members of the sect was to stand before God with the other "elect of
mankind. Mansoor adds that the Fellowship with God and salvation through divine
grace is the result of absolute predestination – A) The members of the sect
felt that all men are sinful and bad. If God granted His grace to man, then the
sins of man were forgiven. B) The man who had received God's grace was able to
walk in the way of God's command, practice the commandments, and adhere to the
Law of Moses-these things cannot be achieved through human endeavour, but come
only as a result of divine grace. C) A man possessing this grace could
withstand any affliction through his reliance on God. D) Contrary to the usual
view in the Bible and in the Talmud, wicked of the Qumran documents (those who
had not received divine grace) were not even allowed to repent. E) A person who
is elected to divine grace joins the company of angels praising God and
accomplishes this through his membership in the sect.[18]
1.5 Doctrine of
Sin:
The preferred
term for “sin” in the Dead Sea Scrolls is hata’,
which means “to be mistaken,” “be found deficient [lacking],” “to be at fault," or “to miss a
specified goal or mark.” In the Dead Sea scrolls, sin is often personified as
an angel or spirit that controls human destiny.[19]
Determinism and free will are two important factors in relation with sin.
According to the Rule of the Community,
God predestines some people for evil and others for good (l QS iii. 17-21,
iv.15-17), but at the same time human beings choose between good and evil (1 QS
iii. 18-19, iv.23). The Damascus Document
states that God “raised up men of renown for himself . . . but those he hates,
he causes to stray”; however, sin also is attributed to human choice: “And now, my sons, listen to me . . . so
that you can choose what he is pleased with and repudiate what he hates, so
that you can walk perfectly on all his paths and not follow after the thoughts
of a guilty inclination and lascivious eyes” (CD ii.14-16). Sin is described as
an inherent human condition, with which each person must struggle from birth.[20]
A distinction is made in the scrolls, as in the
scriptures between sin committed be-yad
ramah (“defiantly”) and the sin committed bi-shgagah (”unintentionally”; cf. Nm. 15.27-31). At Qumran the
unintentional sinner was forbidden to enter the community’s ritual baths, eat
of the community’s pure food for a time and given a separate food ration, and
forbidden to join in other communal activities (1QS v.13-14), while the defiant
sinner was permanently expelled from the community with all his belongings.[21]
1.6 Doctrine
of Salvation/Atonement: Ringgren quotes Bardtke describing
three pairs of concepts or stages of the way for salvation contained in one of
the Thanksgiving Psalms (1QH 11:3-14)-
1)
Knowledge of God’s truth and insight into his mysteries.
2)
Cleansing from sin and consecration to God, being set apart from impurity and
faithlessness.
3)
Unification with the children of the truth- i.e., joining the community- and
participation in the “lot” of the holy ones. Here, he has become a freed person
from perverse spirit, takes his place before God, has fellowship with the
angels and belongs to the community of jubilation.[22]
Hannah K. Harrington describes the following points with
respect to the concept of atonement of sin in the Qumran community:[23]
1) Sin is seen as an overwhelming force that cannot be
eradicated without God’s power. Human begins receive no credit for atonement
2)
The establishment of the Qumran community itself was
an atoning act of God. The Damascus Document refers to the covenant as that “which
God established for the first ones to atone for their sins.” The sectarians are
“chosen by the will (of God) to atone for the earth and to render the wicked
their retribution…and these will be accepted in order to atone for the earth
and to decide the judgment of the wicked” (1QS viii.6-7; cf. 1QS28a 1.3)).
3) Sin causes rituals as well as moral defilement,
requiring the penitent to immerse himself in water. The atonement process was
accompanied by water purifications by the members of the Qumran community (1QS
iii.9).
4) Another aspect of atonement is the presentation to
God of the first fruits of the new wine and oil as “atonement” for the rest of
these crops.
5) Since the sectarian opposed the Temple’s current
priesthood, the sacrificial cult was temporarily suspended. However, the study
of the Law was a powerful weapon against sin.[24]
6) Although God’s goodness and mercy form the basis of atonement, the
disposition of the penitent sinner is of utmost importance. Sinners must humble
themselves before God, confess their sins, plead for mercy, swear never again
to sin, and pray for divine aid in the future.[25]
1.7
Eschatology: The Qumranians believed that they were the last
generation, living on the very edge of the end of the world. Apart from the
various references in the Rule of Community and Damascus Document, the most
sustained and extensive picture is given in the War Scroll, which is
essentially a description of the final war at the end of the age. It is the
destruction of the gentile nations and the triumph of the people of the New
Covenant (i.e. the Qumranians). One of the features of the end-time Community,
as we have already seen, was the knowledge which God had revealed to them
through their teacher.[26]
The ‘end of
days’ might entail two phases, the time of testing and the coming of the
Messiahs, and that the first phase was thought to have already begun.[27]
The Halakhic Letter (4QMMT)
however is the only one text in the Qumran corpus which explicitly states that
the end of days has already begun.[28] L. H. Schiffman is of the opinion that the
concept ‘end of days’ in the Qumran writings is a time of decision. It is time
to return to the covenant. As the ‘end of days’ period extends to the coming of
the Messiahs, it is thus an aspect which clearly remains in the future in all
the Dead Sea Scrolls.[29] One of the tasks of the princely Messiah, however, was to wage war on
the Kittim, the Gentile enemies of Israel. [30]
This war is included in the end of days in the Pesher on Isaiah (4QpIsa3).
There are also indications in the Scrolls, however, that the Dead Sea sect
envisaged a more specific endpoint. This "end" was not in the vague
and distant future but was expected at a particular time in the sect's history.[31]
1.7.1 Messiah: There is the concept of dual Messiahship in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars
are of the opinion that when one takes into account the Messianic feast or
banquet, at which the priest and the Messiah will preside (cf. lQSa 2:11-21),
then it seems best to understand Qumran's Messianic expectation as diarchic
(i.e., rule by two persons): a joint rule shared by a priestly Messiah, the
“anointed of Aaron," and a Davidic or royal Messiah, the “anointed of
Israel.”[32]
The prophet is another
High-Priestly figure but more in the sense of an angelic deliverer, viz., the
heavenly Melchizedek.[33]
Melchizedek will be one who will liberate the righteous, restoring their
inheritance and forgiving their sins (1QM 2.2–10). Since he is
presented together with these angelic beings, Melchizedek is best understood as
an archangelic figure or a cosmic spirit like the Spirit of Truth mentioned in
the Rule of the Community (3.13–4.26). He is one who will “comfort” and
“instruct” the righteous. Thus, for Elledge alongside Davidic Messiahs and
priestly Messiahs, one may also speak of “prophetic Messiahs” in Qumran
literature.[34]
2.
DOCTRINES OF OTHER JEWISH GROUPS (in relation to that of the Qumranians)
2.1 & 2.2 The Pharisees and the Sadducees (A
comparative study of their doctrines in relation with that of the Qumranians): The doctrine of the Pharisees may be summed up
in three words: they were formalists,
tradition-worshippers, and self-righteous. They attached such weight to the
traditions of men that they practically regarded them of more importance than
the inspired writings of the Old Testament. They valued themselves on excessive
strictness in their attention to all the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic
Law. The doctrine of the Sadducees, on the other hand, may be summed up in
three words: free-thinking, skepticism,
and rationalism. Their creed was far less popular than that of the
Pharisees, and, therefore, we find them mentioned less often in the New
Testament Scriptures. So far as we can judge from the New Testament, they
appear to have held the doctrine of degrees of inspiration; at all times they
attached greater value to the Pentateuch above all the other parts of the Old
Testament, if indeed they did not altogether ignore the latter.[35]
A. Doctrine of God: From the prophets the Pharisees learned to think of
God as a spiritual being-omnipotent and just, all-wise and all-knowing,
all-merciful, and like a father loving all His creatures. He was not to be
pictured in any image and could not be likened to any other being. He was not
limited to any place but was omnipresent. They apparently felt that no name
could designate His essence or describe the totality of His being. They spoke
of Him in such terms as "the Creator of the World," "the
Merciful One," "the Divine Presence" (Shekhina), and "the Spirit of Holiness." The latter two
designations were never taken by Pharisees or rabbis as separate entities. They
were merely used like so many other designations, to describe some attributes
of God which no man can fully comprehend. The Sadducees sought to bring God
down to man. Their God was anthropomorphic and the worship offered him was like
the homage paid to a human king or ruler. The Pharisees, on the other hand,
sought to raise man to divine heights and bring him nearer to a spiritual and
transcendent God.[36]
B. Belief in 'after death’: The Pharisees taught that 'every soul is
imperishable but only the souls of the good pass into another body; those of
the wicked suffer eternal punishment' or as it is expressed in another passage,
'They believe that souls possess an immortal power and that under the earth
there are rewards and punishments for those who in life have given themselves
over to virtue or vice, and that eternal imprisonment is destined to some, but
to others an easy passage to a new life'. The kernel of this belief is,
moreover, not merely a philosophical opinion concerning immortality; the
directly religious interest of personal salvation depends on it, a salvation
that appears to be guaranteed only on the assumption of bodily resurrection.[37]
The Sadducees, by contrast, refused to accept resurrection (cf. Matt 22:23, and
parallel passages; Acts 4:1, 2; 23:8). They deny the continued existence of the
soul and the punishments and rewards in the underworld. 'According to their
teaching, souls perish together with bodies.' Josephus, going further, imputes
to them denial of reward or punishment after death and even the doctrine that
the soul perishes with the body. By denying resurrection and immortality in
general, the Sadducees rejected simultaneously the entire messianic hope, in
the form at least in which later Judaism, built on Pharisaic foundations,
expressed it.[38]
C. Belief in Angels and Spirits: Connected with the above mentioned was the
equally rationalistic opposition to belief in Angels and Spirits. The Pharisees
are said to have believed in the existence of angels and spirits, while the
Sadducees denied them. It is only mentioned in the New Testament, [Acts 23:8]
but seems almost to follow as a corollary. Remembering what the Jewish Angelology
was, one can scarcely wonder that in controversy the Sadducees should have been
led to the opposite extreme.[39]
D. Man's free
will and God's predestination: The Pharisees accentuated God's predestination, the Sadducees man's free
will; and that, while the Pharisees admitted only a partial influence of the
human element on what happened, or the co-operation of the human with the
Divine, the Sadducees denied all absolute pre-ordination, and made man's choice
of evil or good, with its consequences of misery or happiness, to depend
entirely on the exercise of free will and self-determination.[40]
The Pharisees 'make everything dependent on destiny and on God, and teach that
the doing and causing of the good is mostly the business of men but that
destiny co-operates in every action'. They maintain that all is brought about
by destiny. Yet they do not thereby deprive the human will of its own activity,
it having pleased God that there should be a mixture, and that the human will,
with its virtue or baseness, should be joined to the will of destiny'. The
Sadducees 'deny destiny wholly and entirely, and place God beyond the
possibility of doing or planning evil. They say that good and evil are at man's
choice and that the doing of the one or the other is according to his
discretion'.'They deny destiny, maintaining that it is nothing, and that human
things do not come about by its means.[41]
2.3 The Essenes:
While the Pharisees and
Sadducees were parties within the Synagogue, the Essenes were, although strict
Jews, yet separatists, and, alike in doctrine, worship, and practice, outside
the Jewish body ecclesiastic. Shortly after the discovery of the Dead Sea
Scroll, scholars began to note their similarities and differences. Bothe the
sects were the groups which had separated from themselves from the ‘normative’
Judaism of their day, including the Temple services.[42]
Both emphasized strongly the complete sovereignty of God as the source of all
being. The Essenes’ belief in immortality seems to correspond quite closely to
that held by the Qumran sect. Both groups emphasized public and private prayer.
Special ablutions and lustrations are stressed in the descriptions of the
Essenes; compare with this, for instance, the Qumran rites or baptism and the
emphasis on purity, etc.[43]
Like the Qumranians, the Essenes were extraordinarily strict in their
observance of the Sabbath and appeared to have retained the priesthood of the
House of Aaron. They also attached great importance to angelology; members on
entering were required to swear to guard the angels' names. Like the Pharisees
and that of the Hasidim during the time of Maccabees and Hasmoneans, they
combined religion and nationalism. They believed strongly that the Jewish
religion should be kept free from all gentile influences.[44]
On the other hand, there are drastic differences between descriptions of
the Essenes as given in Josephus, Philo, and Pliny and descriptions of the
practices of Qumran. Although they repudiated animal sacrifice, the Essenes
sent gifts of incense to the Temple. The attitude at Qumran was one of complete
separation from the Jerusalem priesthood. Descriptions of the Essenes do not
indicate the prominence of priests in their movement as do Qumran writings for
their own community. Moreover, there is no reference to an Essene leader who
compares with the Teacher of Righteousness of the Qumran sect. Finally, our
lack of knowledge of Essene ritual may be due partly to the fact that the
accounts of Jewish practices and ideas given by Josephus and Philo were
intended for the gentile readers and consequently they minimized everything
peculiar to Judaism.[45]
2.4 The
Zealots: For the Zealots, the
connection between religion and politics was particularly strong. For them,
revolution was an expression of the hope for a messiah. The removal of the
chains of Roman imperialism was one of the great things which God would do for
the Jewish nation. They considered it an act of disloyalty to God to
acknowledge Roman domination over Judea. They were prepared, through armed
resistance, to help bring about this change.[46]
It is from this sect that the Sicarii, the ultra-extreme sect, was engendered.
One of the chief leaders of the revolt in A.D. 66, Menahem, son of Judah the
Galilean, appeared to have claimed Messianic status.[47]
2.5 The
Sicarii: The name Sicarii derives
from the Latin word for a curved dagger (sica), because the rebels wore
daggers under their clothes and used them to stab and kill their enemies. They
were known as "Assassins", a term applied to the extreme members of
Jewish Zealots who fanatically opposed Roman rule in the two decades
immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The Sicarii
developed an ideology of freedom based on uncompromising activism, which called
for immediate action in the belief that daring for freedom would be rewarded by
divine aid. Recognition of imperial rule was seen by them as a blasphemous
insult to divine authority.[48]
2.6 The
Therapeutae: The Therapeutae (Greek for
"healers" or "attendants") were members of an ancient sect
of Jewish ascetics, closely resembling the Essenes, believed to have settled on
the shores of Lake Mareotis in the vicinity of Alexandria, Egypt, during the
first century A.D. Their way of life resembled that of the Essenes but was
carried to a further degree of contemplation. They were wholly devoted to
worship and meditation and were highly praised by Philo in On the
Contemplative Life. No other Jewish source speaks of them. The sect was
characterized as being unusually severe in discipline and mode of life. Unlike
the Essenes, the group was composed of both men and women. They read the Holy
Scriptures and sought wisdom from their ancestral philosophy by taking it as an
allegory, since they thought that the words of the literal text were symbols of
something whose hidden nature is revealed by studying the underlying meaning.
Upon joining this sect a man no longer belonged to the world and voluntarily
assigned his property to his heirs. So far as is known, prayer and study were
the sole occupations of the Therapeutae. They shared with the Essenes the
dualistic view of body and soul and the affection for the secret doctrine which
underlies the literal word of the Scriptures.[49]
2.7 The
Samaritans: Similarities in religious
practices and beliefs between the Samaritans and the Qumranians were also
detected. A comparison of the Samaritans and the Qumran covenanters has been
made by John Bowman. He finds no indication of a connection between them, but
points out that there are many similarities between the beliefs held by the
Samaritans to this day and those of the Qumran sect - 1) The Samaritans
consider themselves the Sons of Light; and they call the chief of forces of
evil, Belial. 2) They look for a redeemer called the Taheb, who corresponds to
the Messiah of Israel of the Qumran documents. 3) Their high priest is the
anointed one (Messiah of Aaron).[50]
2.8 The Ebionites: The Ebionites were a Judaeo-Christian sect founded
immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus. It is known that the members
were Jews in all principles, customs, and beliefs except one-they believed
Jesus to have been the Messiah. John Holder puts them as the Pious Poor, the
quiet (people) of the land’ who waited eagerly for the coming of the Messiah to
rescue them from their oppression.[51]
Inspite of having many similarities, with the same ritual practices, the same
prescribed ways of living, and at many points the same theology, O. Cullmann,
after comparing this group with the Qumranians, finds differences between the
two - (1) The priesthood is held in high honor by the Dead Sea sect, and is
radically rejected by the Ebionites. (2) The opposition to the temple that is
evident among the Essenes and the Dead Sea sect has become much sharper in the
pseudo-Clementine writings. (3) The Ebionites have a critical attitude towards
the Old Testament which is lacking among the Essenes.[52]
Evaluation and
Conclusion: The Qumranians were moreover a sect that had
separated from Jerusalem, gone into the desert, and "entered the New
Covenant"; therefore we should find points at which the Qumranians deviate
from the beliefs of normative Judaism. Qumran theology is not well worked out
but it is possible to make several observations. The Qumran doctrine of God is
basically that of the Old Testament. There is a more developed concept of
dualism, but this is basically consistent with the Old Testament. The doctrine
of the Adversary (Belial or Mastema) and the doctrine of angels are more
thoroughly developed than everything we find in the Old Testament and the rest
of the Jewish sects. They are in keeping, however, with the development of the
concepts in the intertestamental period.
The
concept of man is basically that of the mainstream Judaism. Salvation is
centered in the covenant grace of God, and this is specifically referred to the
Sect; this, however, seems to be developed from the Old Testament concept of
the "remnant."
The
Community had a strong sense of living in the end time. Its messianic concepts,
however, were not well developed. In comparison
to Jewish messianism of late antiquity, Qumran's messianism is not distinctive
in any significant way. The Messiah, to the extent that he is
described in the texts, is the Davidic Messiah, developing out of the Old
Testament prophecies. The presence of a Priestly Messiah (or Messiah of Aaron)
in Qumran theology is all but impossible to demonstrate.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boccaccini, Gabriele Beyond the essene Hypothesis. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
Briend,
Jacques. “Dualism” in
Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
(eds.) Lawrence H. Schiffman & James C. VanderKam, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000.
Burrows,
Millar. The Dead Sea Scroll, London: Secker and
Warburg, 1956.
Collins,
J. J. The
Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient
Literature. New York: Doubleday, 1995.
Collins,
John J. “The
Expectation of the End in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds.) Craig A.
Evans and Peter W. Flint. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1997.
Collins,
John J. “Eschatology”
in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
(eds.) Lawrence H. Schiffman & James C. VanderKam, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000.
Edersheim, Alfred. The Pharisees, Sadducees,
and Essenes: Examination of Their
Distinctive Doctrines
Elledge,
Casey Deryl. The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.
Harrington,
Hannah K. “Sin” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
(eds.) Lawrence H. Schiffman & James C. VanderKam, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000.
Holder, John. The Intertestamental Period. Delhi: ISPCK, 1998.
Kampen,
John I. “Ethics” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Lawrence H. Schiffman & James C. VanderKam (eds.), Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000.
Knohl,
Israel. The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea
Scrolls, Trans. David Maisel. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2000.
Lasor, William Sanford. The
Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976.
Lasor, William Sanford. The
Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.
Leaney, A.R.C.
The rule of Qumran and its meaning. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1966.
Mansoor, Menahem. The
Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1964.
Oppenheimer, Aharom. Sicarii in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Lawrence H. Schiffman & James C.
VanderKam (eds.), Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Ringgren, Helmer. The Faith of Qumran, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963.
Schiffman,
L. H. The
Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1989.
Schurer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age
of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) Vol. II. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd, 1979.
WEBSITE
http://www.thenazareneway.com
[4] Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175
B.C.-A.D. 135) Vol. II (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark Ltd, 1979), 579-581.
[5]
William Sanford Lasor, The Dead Sea
Scrolls and Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1976), 75-77.
[6] William
Sanford Lasor, The Dead Sea Scrolls and
the New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), 93-94.
[12] Jacques Briend, “Dualism” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
(eds.) Lawrence H. Schiffman & James C. VanderKam, Volume 1 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000), 216.
[17] Qouted
by Gabriele Boccaccini, Beyond the essene
Hypothesis (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1998), 171.
[19] Hannah K. Harrington, “Sin” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
(eds.) Lawrence H. Schiffman & James C. VanderKam, Volume 1 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000), 877.
[20] Harrington, “Sin”, 878.
[21] Harrington, “Sin”, 878.
[23] Harrington, “Atonement”,.7; cf.
Harrington, “Sin”, 878-879.
[24] John I. Kampen, “Ethics” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Lawrence H. Schiffman & James C. VanderKam (eds.), Volume 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000), 273.
[25] Casey Deryl Elledge, The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 57.
[27] John J. Collins, “The Expectation of
the End in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Eschatology,
Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds.) Craig A. Evans and Peter W.
Flint (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997),
79.
[28] John J .Collins, “Eschatology” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
(eds.) Lawrence H. Schiffman & James C. VanderKam, Volume 1 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000), 255.(256-261).
[29] L. H. Schiffman, The Eschatological
Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 81.
[30] J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the
Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New
York: Doubleday, 1995), 49.
[31] Collins, “The Expectation of the End
in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 82; cf. Collins, “Eschatology”, 258.
[32] Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The
Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Trans. David Maisel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 39.
[34] Elledge, Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 79.
[37] Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175
B.C.-A.D. 135) Vol. II (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark Ltd, 1979), 391-392.
[38]
Alfred Edersheim, The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes: Examination of Their Distinctive Doctrines in http://www.thenazareneway.com/pharisees_sadducees_and_essenes.htm as on 10th August, 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment