‘Jewish Stoicism’: Analyzing the Evidence of Stoic Influence in Judaic-Christian Thought

‘Jewish Stoicism’: Analyzing the Evidence of Stoic Influence in Judaic-Christian Thought, from Josephus to Paul of Tarsus.

As with any religion, there are always vigorous discussions and debates on whom influenced whom. In Judaism and Christianity it is no different, with a host of claims coming from the camps of Greek Philosophy, Zoroastrianism, Mesopotamian Polytheism, Paganism, Egyptian religion, Roman cults and more. This paper in particular will explore the potential influence of Stoicism within Judaic-Christian thought, emphasizing evidence within Jewish and Christian thinkers and writings, and conclude with a judgment as to the size of the role Stoicism played in the progression of this Judaic-Christian religious tradition.

Before we attempt to analyze the evidence of Stoicism in Judaic writing, we must first briefly define what is considered Stoic Philosophy. Stoicism originated in Athens with a man named Zeno of Citium (336-263 B.C.). This school of Hellenistic thought, which found popularity amongst the rich upper Roman classes, emphasized a moral and ordered purpose of the universe (Harris 43). Within this order, ultimate purpose and meaning was found within Reason. This ultimate Reason, in which the Stoics attempt to plug into, was identified as the Logos (Λόγός).[1] Although this paper will touch further in depth regarding the word Logos, it is an important term to underscore, because late Jewish thinkers and New Testaments writings borrow both the terminology and its Stoic usage freely. This Universal Wisdom/Reason “unifies the world and makes it intelligible to the human intellect,” (Harris 43). Man finds within himself a spark of this divine Logos, which takes a fiery-like substance, and the purpose of the Stoic is to connect to his individual reason with the source of cosmic Reason, which is done by elevating himself from worldly experiences (lust, anxiety, pain), and refining oneself bodily and intellectually to a degree of disciplined harmony with Nature (Logos).

Man, a part of this divine order, was capable of understanding it and its laws through the reason possessed by all men. Virtue depended on knowledge, and knowledge was obtained through reason. The golden rule was ‘follow nature,’ live consistently with nature, obey the universal law of nature [Logos]. (Curtis 104).

The focus of the Stoic was thus self-control, discipline, self-sufficiency, distance from emotional experiences (pain, pleasure), rational thinking, and an understanding of this cosmic-governing Nature (Logos).

Before Hellenistic influence is discussed regarding Josephus and others, it is worth mentioning when the two cultures came into contact. Although it is suggested that they may have been in trade as early as the 7^th century B.C., it isn’t until 332 B.C. that Alexander the Great conquers the Orient, thus bringing the two cultures close enough to spur cultural exchanges and conversations (Brunschwig & Lloyd 873). From this conquering, the Jews were mostly required to learn the Greek language, as well as adjust to the pressure of Hellenistic culture. From here, we are given an idea of the interchange and communication in which Josephus and others later took part. Josephus himself was a 1^st century Jewish thinker, apologist, and historian who gave important historical accounts of the destruction of the temple and other 1^st century events. Some of his most famous works include The Jewish War (75 A.D.) and Antiquities of the Jews (94 A.D.).

Our first sign of Stoic influence found within the writings of Josephus is in his comparisons of Jewish sects to schools of Greek Philosophy, where he compares the Pharisees to the Stoic School (Life 12) and the Essenes to the Pythadorean model (Ant 15.371) (Felman 190). In comparing the Pharisees to the Stoic school, and having arrived within the Pharisaic camp after trying the others, it wouldn’t be an error to suggest that this connection offers evidence of Josephus’ favorability towards Stoicism (Felman 190). With this Pharisee-Stoic connection drawn, we can now pursue evidence of Stoic ideas in his writings, by focusing next with his redressing of the story of Isaac’s attempted sacrifice, his perspective of Moses as a Stoic sage, and his view of law and authority.

The first proposed evidence of Josephus’ Stoic leanings is in his redressing of Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac. Knowing that his Stoic-inclined audience would find action out of ‘blind-faith’ unfavorable, Josephus redresses his telling of the story as depicting Abraham “in the guise of a kind of Stoic philosopher, who reasons that ‘all that befell His [G-d’s] favored ones’ was ordained by his providence (προνοιασ) (Ant 1.225),” (Felman 194). The Greek word προνοι[2] is itself a Stoic term, in which Josephus uses 74+ times in the first half of Antiquities (Felman 194).

A second source of Stoic influence is in Josephus’ presentation of Moses as a Stoic sage in Antiquities 2.229. Here we find Josephus complimenting Moses as being “remarkable for his ‘contempt for toils’ (πονων καταφρονησει) (Ant. 2.229), a typically Stoic phrase,” (Felman 194). In addition to the Stoic attitude of despising toils, Josephus explains that Moses’ “emphasis on law (νομοσ[3]) is in accord with the Stoic view that regarded νομοσ as the expression of the cosmos and that viewed man as a κοσμοπολιτησ[4] who must order his life in accordance with universal law,” (Felman 194). From Josephus’ comparison of his Pharisee sect as similar to that of the Stoic school, to his redressing of Abraham’s sacrifice, to his usage of key Stoic terms and ideas with Moses, it is clear that in his attempts to target a Greek-cultured audience, Josephus’ understanding and explanation of scripture carried a Stoic influence and tone.

In addition to Josephus, a second Hellenized Jewish thinker who displayed Stoic influence was Philo. Philo Judaeus was a Hellenistic Jewish scholar writing in the 1^st century from Alexandria. Although Philo included in his work similar Stoic views of matter, death and God, what is most important in our comparison is the inclusion of Greek Wisdom and Hebrew religion in his Philosophy, “which he sought to fuse and harmonize by means of the art of allegory that he had learned from the Stoics,” (Toy, Siegfried & Lauterbach 1). In traditional Stoic fashion, Philo examined the Hebrew bible with a philosophical lens, dividing it between a literal understanding that focused on human need, and the allegorical sense that needed a special understanding (Toy, Siegfried & Lauterbach 1).  As the Sage brought about union with his individual logos (reason) to the supreme Logos (Nature), Philo advocated an understanding of this allegorical level of the Hebrew Bible in which to achieve Wisdom. One of these most important philosophical ideas is that of the afore-mentioned Logos, and how Philo attempts to reconcile Hellenistic logic and reason with the wisdom and revelation of Hebrew scripture.

Probably influenced by the author of Wisdom of Solomon, “Philo used the Hebrew concept of Wisdom as the creative intermediary between the transcendent Creator and the material creation,” (Harris 219-220). Philo as well focused on borrowing the very Stoic Greek term of Logos to explain this understanding. Although there exists a separate word for wisdom in Greek (σοφια, so-phi-a), Philo’s usage of Logos instead emphasizes his Stoic influence.  “Philo’s interpretation can be illustrated by an allegorical reading of Genesis 1, in which God’s first act is to speak—to create the Word (Logos)—by which power the Cosmos is born.” (Harris 219-220). Although Philo also emphasized Stoic ideas of virtue, cosmology and other ideas, the usage of the Greek Logos as personified by the allegorical reading of the Hebrew tradition of Wisdom (as found in Proverbs), is our most distinctive and valuable Stoic idea. With it, Philo attempts to package Logos as initiating with Yahweh and His word. By coming to an understanding of the allegorical level of the Hebrew Bible, one can use this gained knowledge to connect with God (true Cosmic Reason & Wisdom), fulfilling one’s purpose of the Stoic concept of becoming a complete rational being. In this scenario and understanding, Logos (God’s word) acts as the intermediary that brings one to ultimate Reason (and Wisdom). As this paper will further develop, this concept of Logos is also central in identifying Stoic influences in the Apocryphal work of the Wisdom of Solomon and the writings of John.

Although it is easy to find Stoic and Hellenistic influences with late Jewish thinkers (post 300 B.C.), it is increasingly more difficult to find, if any, Stoic influence within the writings of the Hebrew Bible. This is understandable, given a lack of intellectual and cultural communication between the two camps pre-Alexander’s conquests. The Hebrews themselves are interesting in their distinctive and internal culture, and although signs of trading between the Greek and Hebrews were evident as early as 700 B.C., the two don’t engage in an intellectual and cultural exchange until after Alexander the Great’s conquests. After this point, we find such Jewish Hellenized writers as Philo, Ben Sira, Josephus and others trying to communicate the message of Hebrew revelation in Hellenized terminology. In addition, we find apocryphal writings around this time that either attempt to communicate Hebrew ideas in Stoic terminology, or simply show Stoic influence. With Scholars dating a majority of the Hebrew texts before the 3^rd century, and without any in-depth exchange besides mundane trade between the two, the Hebrew identity pre-Alexander remained intact and special. This is extremely important in understanding the influence Stoicism brought to Judaism. Books from the Hebrew Bible may contain some ideas that can be stretched to appear Stoic, as is the case with the constant personification of Wisdom as found in Proverbs 8:22-30, but this is more so a case of internal progression of Hebrew ideas than a borrowing of the Stoic concept of Logos. For that reason we must admit that Stoic ideas, with their relative absence in early and middle Judaism, account for no real influence on the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament, a.k.a. Tanakh). The value then, is in taking this introverted Hebrew tradition, and comparing it with ideas promoted by Christianity and late Jewish thinkers. With that in mind, we will now analyze Stoic influence in the later Apocryphal writings, and after analyzing Stoic influence in Christianity, we will conclude with a summary of Stoicisms role in Judaic and Early Christian thought.

Although timing and the relative independence of Jewish literature from Hellenized influence was a real factor that kept the Hebrew Bible distinct and original, the same cannot be said of the works of the Apocrypha. These documents were written, usually by an anonymous author claiming authorship of great Hebrew thinkers (Saul, David, Solomon, etc.), after Israel was conquered by Alexander the Great around 332 B.C. For this reason of timing, Hellenized ideas were present, possible and popular. The first of two apocryphal works worth mentioning because of their possible Stoic influence is the Wisdom of Solomon. Wisdom of Solomon is an apocryphal work written probably by an Alexandrian Jew in Egypt. The writing’s purpose appears to be the attempted synthesis of Greek ideas with Hebrew history and religious thought, as made evident by a familiarity and usage of Greek philosophical concepts (Harris & Platzner 357).[5]

In Wisdom of Solomon, the author attempts “to demonstrate Judaism’s ethical and religious superiority” by arguing that “his tradition offers a view of the world history and divine justice that will appeal to the moral and rational Gentile.” (Harris Platzner 357).  In the second to last chapter of the book, he continued this attempt by drawing contrasts to the popular idea of Wisdom in Greek thought and the Hebrew tradition. “He describes Wisdom as God’s ‘all-powerful word’ leaping down ‘from heaven, from the royal throne,’ to take up residence in a ‘land that was doomed.’… This cosmic figure ‘touched the heaven while standing on the earth,’ linking the realms of matter and spirit,”[6] (Harris & Platzner 358). This concept of divine word is reflective of the Logos comparisons drawn by Philo about a century or so after the Wisdom of Solomon. It is interesting to note that this idea of personified wisdom, linking the spiritual and physical world, is similar to the notion of divine cosmic reason, Logos, found in Stoic philosophy and the writings of Philo Judaeus. It is also interesting to follow these similarities to the later writings of John in his self-named Gospel in the New Testament.

Like the Wisdom of Solomon, 4 Maccabees also remains as an apocryphal work. Unlike the previous three historical Maccabean books, this one takes a philosophical tone that attempts to argue how reason rules over the passion of the body. The author uses distinctly Greek vocabulary, style, and Stoic ideas in his explanation of reason and it’s role, yet also borrows distinctly Hebrew ideas of Wisdom and the root of true knowledge as being found in the “Torah and absolute fidelity to its principles,” (Harris & Platzner 375).[7]

The author of the book uses the example of the Jewish people’s faithfulness under the oppressive rule of Antiochus IV to argue how the Jewish people’s reason (their understanding of the Torah), allowed them to control the physical desire to disobey their Hebrew traditions and submit to their oppressive ruler. The evidence of the Stoic idea of suppressing one’s emotional desires and anxieties, in this case the desire to toss aside truth and survive physically, is clearly reflective of the Stoic idea of controlling one’s passions and desires. In addition, the author “demonstrates the values of Stoic qualities (duty, endurance, self-control, and service to family and state) through their application to the lives of such biblical models of faith as Joseph (2:2-3), Moses (2:17), Jacob (2:19), David (3:6-18), and the martyrs of the Maccabean period (Chs. 5-17),” (Harris & Platzner 374). In the end, the author makes the case that the Greek virtues are mere devices used to explain the true reality of wisdom known to the Jews’ through God and the Torah (17:19-18-24).  To the author, Yahweh is this true source of wisdom and virtue.

Having explored different Jewish authors, the Old Testament, and Jewish Apocrypha, our discussion of Stoic influence in late Judaism would only find completion by exploring its influence with Jewish Christian thinkers, and evidence of Stoicism in New Testament writings. First amongst these Jewish converts to Christianity, and one of the most important thinkers of Early Christianity, is that of Paul of Tarsus. Paul’s interaction with Stoics is even directly referenced in Acts 17:18-34, where Paul engages in debate with Stoics and Epicureans. Although this experience is nothing to explain Stoic influence on Paul’s thinking, he does provide Stoic tones in several of his writings and ideas. One idea in particular is his concept of “self-discipline or the ability to endure want or plenty,” that he echoes in Phil. 4:11-14 (Harris 44). This idea was extremely popular and commonplace amongst Stoic thinkers and Roman upper-classmen, and it is no stretch to assume that Paul expressed such influence in this letter.[8]

In the letter to Galatians, Paul defensively explains the concept of Christ-given freedom against the Church of Galatia’s abuse.[9] In Galatians, Paul conjures forth a definition of Freedom similar to that of Stoic teaching. “Quoting lists of vices and virtues typical of Stoic ethical teaching, the apostle notes that the Spirit will enable believers to transcend their natural selfishness and to act generously (Galatians 5:13-26).” (Harris 336).[10] [11]

A third Stoic influence that Paul potentially elicits is the “Stoic view that the state exists to maintain public order and punish wrongdoing,” (Harris 343-344).  In Romans 13, “Paul argues that the Roman Empire is a ‘divine institution,’ ” (Harris 343-344).  The Stoics, especially those of the Upper-Roman classes, carried the view that adhering to the Nature of government was part of the goal of the Stoic, and this idea provides additional evidence that Paul used a similar justification of government that the Romans used “as a rationalization of the need to live under oppressive rule,” (Curtis 104).[12]

Our second source of potential Stoic influence in found in the Apostle John. As mentioned previously, Logos plays a significant point in relating the ideas of Stoic thought with the early Christian writing and late Judaic ideas. The clearest example of Logos’ important usage is found in the opening of the Gospel of John, where John relates a pre-human Christ to creative word (divine wisdom, cosmic reason), and thus explains how God uses this Logos, that is personified as Christ, to bring the world into existence (Harris 219).[13] [14] “In the Greek philosophical tradition, Logos is also a divine concept, the principle of cosmic Reason that gives order and coherence to the otherwise chaotic world, making it accessible to human intellect,” (Harris 219). However John may not have only borrowed from the Hellenistic philosophical usage, as there exists a strong Hebrew tradition of wisdom as an accompanying force that aided Yahweh in the world’s creation (Harris & Platzner 300).[15] To add to this, it is also undeniable that the beginning of the Gospel of John echoes the beginning of Genesis, “which records that God created simply by speaking (e.g. ‘Let there be light’ in v. 3). That is, God created by means of his word,” (NIV 1721). Even as this Hebrew wisdom tradition continued to grow throughout late Judaism, it is undeniable that the Stoic idea of Logos, or a divine reason that sustained and ordered the universe, played a substantial role in influencing later Jewish and Christian philosophies.[16]

After having analyzed the potential influence of Stoicism with late Jewish thinkers, Jewish works of the Apocrypha, and early Christian authors, one is left judging the weight of influence Stoicism had. Although it is undeniable these different Jewish authors and thinkers clearly borrowed Stoic terminology and language, it is debatable whether this reflects clear Stoic influence, or simply a method used to communicate the revelation of the Bible and Yahweh to a Greek audience. Regardless of whether they were inwardly influenced or whether they merely spoke the Stoic language of their times, one is forced to compare the fundamentals of Stoicism with those of Judaism and Christianity, and arrive to a conclusion. Having mentioned the relative isolation and authenticity of Hebrew ideas, given the time and lack of intellectual exchanges between Greeks and Jews, one is left analyzing Judaic-Christian fundamental ideas such as Man, God, and Human nature to determine the relative size of Stoic influence. Firstly, in Judaic-Christian thought, Man is made in the image of God, but he is not identical with God. However in Stoicism the primal substance is this fiery Logos (Stub 219).  This exists in both ‘God’ and man, and both are identical. Man is God and God is man, or as Seneca says, “Reason is nothing else than a part of the divine spirit immersed in the human body,”[17] (Stub 219).  However, in the New Testament and the Hebrew bible nowhere is man explained in such divine terms. His humbled status to a personal God is merely reinforced, while Stoics attempt to explain man’s equal synthesis with this impersonal Logos. In addition to the contrasting nature of God, and the identity of man, we also find a vast difference in the idea of human nature. To Paul, man is desperately wicked (Rom. 5:12-21 & 1 Cor. 15:22), yet as explained above, to the Stoic it is divine (Stub 220). “The essence of the whole Stoic ethic is to live according to nature; the essence of the Christian ethic of the New Testament [and the Judaic Laws found in the Hebrew Bible] is to live according to the supernatural. Therefore, whatever apparent agreement there may be in terminology, the fundamental aims and ideal are different,” (Stub 221).

In conclusion, it is clear, given the Hebrew’s early cultural isolation from the Greeks, that the Jews were given ample time to develop distinctly Judaic ideas (personal God, human nature, personified wisdom, sinfulness, the fall of man, revelation, etc.). Given this authentically Jewish source, the later Jewish writers (Philo & Josephus), as well as early Christianity (John, Paul, etc.), are centrally grounded within these original Jewish ideas. Although we find clear evidence of Stoic language and influence, it is arguably more a product of the Hellenized language of their days, than a force that influenced Judaic-Christian fundamentals. Rather, it would appear that these Judaic-Christian forces brought their authentically Jewish roots and presented them in such a way as would appeal to their Stoic-leaning audiences (Philo and his personified wisdom, John and his Logos personified as Christ). We may then conclude, that although late Judaism and early Christianity clearly borrowed Stoic ideas and language, it is more so a product of their environments and efforts at communication, then a glimpse into the foundations of their core beliefs.

Works Cited

Harris, Stephen L. The New Testament A Students Introduction. Sacramento, McGraw-Hill, 2002. 

 

Harris, Stephen L, and Platzner, Robert L. The Old Testament An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Sacramento, McGraw-Hill, 2003.

 

Feldman, Louis H. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. University of California Press, 1998

 

Nussbaum, Martha C. (1997). Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism. The Journal of Political Philosophy, Volume 5, Nr 1, pp. 1-25

 

Holy Bible. New International Version Archaeology Study Bible. Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2005.

Toy, Crawford Howell. Siegfried, Carl. Lauterbach, Jacob Zallel. “Philo Judaeus.” Jewish

Encyclopedia. September 29 2008. <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=281&letter=P>

Curtis, Michael. The Great Political Theories Volume 1. New York, Avon Books, 1981.

Greek New Testament. Greek NT: WH / NA27 / UBS4. <http://biblos.com/john/1-1.htm>

Stob, Ralph. “Stoicism and Christianity.” JSTOR. The Classical Journal, Vol. 30, No. 4. The

 

Classical Association of Middle West and South Inc, 1935. September 29 2008. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3290087?seq=2>

---

[1] The Greek word Logos has two meanings: first is its normal Greek translation as ‘words’, and second its Philosophical and Stoic translation as “cosmic wisdom” (Harris 43).

[2] Pronounced ‘pro-noi-as’, and means God’s providence and the source of utopia, similar to that of Nature or Logos. Heavily used by the Stoics.

[3] Pronounced ‘no-mos’

[4] Κοσμοπολιτησ derives from the Greek words for Cosmos (κοσμοσ) and City (πολισ), emphasizing a person as being a citizen of the world. This concept was heavily emphasized and grown within Stoic thought, stating that individuals “dwells[ed] in two communities – the local community of our birth, and the community of human argument and aspiration” (Nussbaum 1-25).

[5] Wisd. Of Sol. 8:7, 19-20; 12:1)

[6] Wisd. Of Sol. 18:15),”

[7] 4 Maccabees 1:15-17

[8] “11I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13I can do everything through him who gives me strength. 14Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles.” (NIV Phi. 4:11-14).

[9] They were accused of practicing antinomianism, which was using the new spiritual freedom to indulge any desire and appetite.

[10]“16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.” (Galatians 5:16)

 

 

[11] “22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22-23)

[12] “1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” (Romans 13:1-2)

[13] ¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV John 1:1)

[14] “εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος” (John 1:1)

[15] Wisdom is personified as a female in Proverbs 8:22-31

[16] The idea of Logos was initiated in Greek thought by the Philosopher Heraclitus (born 540 B.C.) He used it to mean ‘an ordering principle for the universe’.

[17] Seneca, Ep. xlvi, 12

Jesus of Crossan, Evaluation of Islam and Violence, Judaism and Christian ‘Fulfillment’

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Alvarez

REL2011 Religion Analysis

April 23, 2007

Religion Analysis Final 

1.  Dominic Crossan has radically challenged the traditional or “dogmatic” view of Jesus of Nazareth (the historical Jesus) in the light of historical criticism.  Dominic Crossan has further argued that this Jesus is both a critic of the tradition he inherited and implies that he would be a critic of the way the Christian tradition has interpreted him for most of the last 2000 years.  How would you evaluate Crossan’s interpretation of Jesus in the light of your reading and the lectures, and what impact this interpretation would have on the traditional picture of Jesus?  That is, does the interpretation of Jesus according to the standards of critical history Crossan presents reduce Jesus to a level that would make him insignifcant or unworthy of the Christian’s devotion and commitment, or is this more “historical” (or “minimalist”) Jesus more interesting and compelling after he is divested of the dogmatic trappings that have shaped and dominated our interpretation of Jesus for over eighteen hundred years?  In other words, can or should we still be Christians if Crossan were right?

2.  There are people today, particularly since 9/11, who are inclined to believe Islam to be a religion of violence, war, and hatred, and hence not a religion worthy of being believed in or followed. After studying Islam in this course, and perhaps visiting a mosque, do you believe this common perception of Islam is accurate?  Is Islam a religion worth believing in?  What does Islam have to offer?  Give your reasons.

3.  Many Christians believe that Judaism finds its fulfillment in Christianity.  Obviously, Jews do not agree and believe that Judaism stands independently and quite apart from Christianity on its own.  From what you have learned about Judaism, do Jews have good reasons for holding on to their faith and not considering it merely as a preparation for Christianity.  Furthermore, what reasons might Christians have, given the study of Christianity and religion in general in the last two hundred years, for questioning and revising the standard view of Judaism as an “old” and obsolete covenant that should have evolved or been absorbed into Christianity after the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth.  In other words, does Judaism stand on its own or does it need Christianity to “complete” or “fulfill it”?

Essay 1) Jesus of Crossan

            The question of Jesus’ divinity has been an issue hotly debated. Whether in scholastic, philosophical, to theological circles, the issue on whether Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God and whether he was, is extremely important to the Christian faith. If Jesus never claimed divinity, and never atoned humanities sins, then where does it leave both Jesus and Christianity? Dominic Crossan is addressing this very question as he attempts to challenge the traditional and ‘dogmatic’ view of Jesus in his book Jesus A Revolutionary Biography. Now to coin the title revolutionary is interesting, since scholars have attempted to define Jesus in light of historical criticism for a while now. Does this historical criticism of Dominic Crossan leave us with an individual worthy of praise, and what effect does his historical critique have on the Christian faith in modern days?

            Now it’s easy to agree with him on one thing: if Jesus walked into a modern day mega church, or a gold plated cathedral, he would be puzzled and maybe even shocked at it’s wealth. Besides that, the rest of his arguments are a bit stretched. To call them historical is, in a sense, deceiving. Just as he claims the disciples have  “prophecy historized, and not history memorized”, so is he guilty of this (Pg 152)[1]. He skillfully weaves modern day social attitudes to explain all actions of history, and crafts the character of Jesus within his understanding of history and his opinions. The key to understanding and critiquing Crossan is in finding his world-view and opinion. By finding these views, we can begin to piece together how it is he interprets Jesus. After evaluating his view of Jesus of Nazareth, and his personal opinion where does his views leave the Christian faith?

Dominic Crossan uses a three-vectored approach towards the study of such historical claims as Jesus’ life-story. “The first vector is cross-cultural anthropology”, which is based on “what is common across history to all types of the same ecological and technological type.” (Pg XII). “The second vector is Greco-Roman and especially Jewish history,” (Pg XII). The third vector is “the literary or textual,” and is the vector I find myself most at odds with Crossan. Here he truly imbues his own opinion with his own interpretation, even though I credit him for exposing some remarkable similarities between Jesus, James, and Moses. (Pg XII, Pg 5, 10). Dominic’s view on Jesus can be shortly summed up as a “peasant Jewish cynic,” (Pg 198). In his book, he completely tosses aside any miracles or divinity, and leaves us with no reasoning on whether divine acts are possible. Rather he makes the presupposition that all acts of miracles and divine healings are not possible in a physical sense, but are really things to be interpreted. In regards to his virgin birth, Dominic says “I understand the virginal conception…to be a confessional state about Jesus’ status and not a biological statement about Mary’s Body,” (Pg 23). He explains “the divine origins of Jesus…just as fictional or mythological as those of Octavius,” (Pg 26-27). He uses this perspective to address such issues as Jesus’ healings and exorcisms. His personal opinion is shown in healings where he “presume[s] that Jesus, who did not and could not cure that disease or any other one, healed the poor man’s illness by refusing to accept the disease’s ritual uncleanness and social ostracization,” (Pg 82). Again, this personal opinion imbued in historical interpretation is seen where he says that he “do[es] not believe there are personal supernatural spirits who invade our bodies from outside, and replace or jostle with our own personality,” (Pg 85).  One last pinnacle act of Jesus’ divinity was his resurrection and raising of the dead, which Crossan casts aside as prophetic interpretations by Paul and other disciples.

            Besides some ridiculous claims, such as comparing the twelve disciples and Jesus to bandits and thus proving the twelve never existed, his personal views and interpretations are staggering in light to Christian faith (Pg 108-109). We must honestly ask ourselves whether Jesus merit’s the praise and worship found in Christianity. Using Crossan’s model, we’re left with a Jesus who couldn’t heal, exorcise, or resurrect besides in a watered down ‘political’ sense. Crossan exposes Jesus as a mere lovey-touchy peasant, who would deserve as much worship we credit to political leaders. He interprets the kingdom of God as a community of shared healings and eating; which is a Marxist like society without any form of discrimination and hierarchies (Pg 113). Although Jesus did make such interesting political claims, where is the rest of the bible? Can we merely have ‘faith’ in explaining his acts, miracles, and message as the disciple’s exaggerations?

Can Crossan completely toss aside everything divine or miraculous as a political related message? If Jesus never physically healed people, why were mere peasants chasing after him in crowds? We’re they craving the hippy lifestyle? What of the blind and the deaf? Did he merely walk up to touch them, and thus in a political sense restored their ‘dignity’ instead of restoring true sight? Why didn’t any early Jews or Christians (who knew Jesus) correct the disciple’s divine interpretation of Jesus? Are we to interpret all his events as merely political? If so we’re left with a Jesus along the ranks of other religious leaders, who can not heal us of our sins or redeem our souls, but rather teach us how to behave. Crossan’s Jesus is his own invention, and one that is no more worthy of a religious movement than Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Mother Teresa.

Essay 2) Islam

            After the awful events of 9/11, the radical sector of Islam has been in the spotlight of world events. This awful event, fueled by political and religious zeal, was one that completely turned the world’s attention on the religion of Islam. Post 9/11, people are more inclined to believe that Islam is a religion of violence, even though it claims to truly be a religion of peace. People perceive Islam as religiously justifying violence, war, and hatred. Is this true? Is it fair to assume that in its nature Islam is violent? What does Islam have to offer, and is it worthy of being believed and followed?

            Arabic Muslim countries have done their part in sharing knowledge with the world. Whether its famous Arabic astronomy (stars), Arabic mathematics (algebra), or chemical expressions (alchemy, alcohol), Muslim nations have a strong scientific history. Besides fantastic scientific contributions, what does Islam offer? To first understand the threat Islam may or may not pose, we must understand the religion. Islam arrived as a divinely inspired message through the prophet Muhammad. This message revolved around a belief in one God, and as Sura 112 declares: “Say: God is one; God is eternal; He did not beget and is not begotten, and no one is equal to Him,” (Koran).[2] With God’s oneness in place, Islam teaches that “the duty of human beings is to surrender to this unique, omnipotent God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” and “to surrender from the bottom of one’s heart, with one’s whole soul and one’s entire mind,” (Schimmel Pg 14).[3] The word Islam itself means, “complete surrender to the Divine will; and the one who practices such surrender is a Muslim,” (Pg 14).  Islam takes into account the prophetic message of God as found in the Torah, the Psalms, the Gospels, and the Koran, and credits Muhammad as God’s final prophet. The religion is also structured into five pillars that make up the bulk of Islam (faith, ritual prayer, the alms tax, fasting in Ramadan, and pilgrimage to Mecca) (Pg 34-35).

            At first we cannot see an exact threat in Islam’s teaching. It seems a rather devoted worship to the oneness of God. However, that changes when we address certain claims made by Islam. One of these claims directly threatens Judaism and Christianity. This is where Muhammad claims, “the version revealed to him contained the true and real text of these stories and that the faith preached by him was much older than that professed” by Jews and Christians (Pg 16). Here we began to receive Islam’s critique on the Jewish and Christian’s ‘corruption’ of the message of God. From this point, we can begin to see the foundation for a conflict between the great religions, and foreshadow events to come. In addition to this, we can foreshadow conflict by studying the nature of Muhammad’s early military conquest, and the battles fought against Jewish and other tribes. Towards the end of Muhammad’s life, his teachings have parted from their original “eschatological threats” to “injunctions and rules for the political and social structure of the nascent community,” (Pg 17). Here, Islam takes a political nature, and turns it’s devotion of God towards an Islamic legal and governmental system. Here is where our problem arises.

            Some even argue that Islam, in its nature, is not democratically friendly. This is probably seen most visually in current Islamic governments; such as Shari’ah law and the Iran. In these nations and their interpretations of Islam, it is completely just to stone a homosexual or adulterer, yet it’s punishable to speak against the prophet Muhammad and Allah. If you’ve ever watched a video of the savagery of stoning a woman for claims of adultery, you’ll understand where we can perceive there to be an issue with Islamic law and human rights. To be fair, are these crimes committed in the name of Allah truly Islamic mandates, or are they the twisting of clerical teaching? Where do the lessons of various Imams and clerics conflict with teachings of the Koran, and if Islam is (as it says) a religion of peace, why is there such success in the radical Islamic movement? Are Islamic terrorist completely wrong in their interpretation of the Koran, or does the Koran contain enough scripture for them to justify their horrendous actions?

            Are Islamic terrorist merely emulating the early military conquests of Muhammad and his successors in the form of ‘jihad’, or are they completely mistaken? Sadly, this isn’t a question we non-Muslim’s can address. The issue of whether the Koran is misinterpreted in the form of Shari’ah law and clerics isn’t something outsiders of Islam can comment on. The issue does not remain in the hands of religious scholars or politicians, but in the hands of Muslims themselves. They are the ones who must decide whether such Islamic punishments are really Islamic, and whether they’re characteristic of Allah. It is up to those within the Islamic camps to address the issue of ‘runaway Islam’, and to address the issue of those radicals who have hijacked Islam’s ‘peaceful’ nature. Upon this success, we may more comfortably conclude that Islam really is a religion of peace, but until then we are left asking ourselves whether Islamic radicals are making the mistake of interpreting Islam, or whether their interpretation really holds ground.

Essay 3) Judaism

            As a new covert to Christianity (since Feb. 2, 2005), I’ve often been taught that Christianity was the fulfillment of Judaism. These lessons usually credit Judaism’s main goal as preparing the way for the Messiah. As chapter 40 of Isaiah puts it, “prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God”[4] (Is. 40:3), and I perceived Judaism as preparing ‘a highway’ for Jesus’ arrival. I had perceived the Jewish religion to be rather ‘obsolete’, since it’s role in preparing the path for the Messiah was complete through Jesus, but that changed this semester. Some new Christian friends began to teach be that the Jewish people had a special relationship and role with God. This special relationship that God had with the Israelites, as revealed in the Old Testament scripture, was something special and unique.

The word ‘old’ in Old Testament itself is deceiving, and evident that even in its Christian title are the Jewish texts perceived as outdated. As I’ve learned in my Religion Analysis course and through friends, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Leviticus 11:45 hints to the unique relationship the Israelites and Jews have to God, for as it says, “therefore be holy because I am holy,” (Lev. 11:45)[5]. However, this unique relationship stretches beyond Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s original covenant. After the coming of Jesus and Christianity, Judaism has done an incredible job of organizing itself. Under the pressure of mass exodus, Christian persecution, and Arab governance, Judaism has neatly redefined its temple-centered nature. Without the ability to make the temple its religious center, pharisaic Judaism evolved into the rabbinic form, allowing it a flexibility that greatly helped its survival. Rabban Johanan, and his group of scholars (Tannaim), paved the way for individuals like Rabban Gamaliel II to re-establish the important Jewish court known as the Sanhedrin (Cohn-Sherbok, Pg 41)[6]. In addition to the re-established Sanhedrin, and the transfer of temple duties to the synagogue, the oral tradition of Jewish law and teaching was written down, which formed the Mishnah (Cohn-Sherbok, Pg 43). This text divided the extensive oral tradition into six orders (Zeraim, Mo’ed, Nashim, Nezikin, Kodashim, and Tohorot), which helped preserve the Jewish faith. In addition to the re-established Sanhedrin, the synagogue, and the Mishah, the Jewish people collected several laws, religious texts, sciences, teachings, and four of the Mishnah’s into the authoritative text of the Talmud. With the creation of the Talmud came it’s use as the center for Judaic studies, which resulted with the yeshivot (academies), kollelim (higher academies), and batei ha-midrash (houses of study) (Cohn-Sherbok, Pg 49). All these factors show the resilience of Judaism, as well as its success as a religion to organize under several hostile environments (exp: post Christianity).

In addition to the adaptive organization of post temple Judaism was the extensive and successful tradition of Jewish philosophy. This can be seen in early Jewish philosophy, as well as medieval and post-enlightenment schools of Jewish thought. One prominent piece of Jewish philosophy was Saadiah Gaon’s Emunot ve-Deot. It “is generally regarded as the first great Jewish philosophical classic,” and addressed issues ranging from reason, knowledge, and the soul, as well as responses to Karaite, Zoroastrian, and Muslim critiques (Pg 64-65).  Other prominent Jewish philosophical works included Judah Halevi’s Kuzari, Moses Maimonides’ Dalilat al-Hariain, and the works of Philo (Pg 64, 66-67). In addition to the success of early Jewish philosophy was the success of the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment). During the Haskalah, Jewish philosophers like Moses Mendelssohn explained the Jewish religion as ‘to call wholesome and unadulterated idea’s of God and His attributes continuously to the attention of the rest of mankind,” (Pg 95).  These and several other Haskalah philosophers and thinkers helped further define the Jewish religion and it’s followers role in the world, as well as modernizing the Religion with it’s day and age.

By looking at the Jewish religion’s ability to address philosophical and organizational issues apart from Christianity, we can begin to understand how it’s far from being an old and obsolete covenant. As later Jewish philosophers and scholars explain, the Jewish religion still has the role of reflecting “unadulterated and wholesome ideas of God to the attention of humanity,” (Moses Mendelssohn, Ph 95). As the later thinker Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) explains in The Nineteen Letters on Judaism, the “mission of the Jewish people…is to illustrate to the rest of humanity the joy to be found in obedience,” (Cohn-Sherbok Pg 100). Even in our modern day, Judaism has continued to express remarkable flexibility in its ability to adapt to the modern age in the form of Reformed, Conservative, and Orthodox Judaism.

Without the arrival of the Davidic Messiah as explained in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), and with Christianities failure to bring about the messianic physical kingdom as explain in scripture, modern day Judaism has a compelling case against the ‘suffering servant’ messiah found in Christianity. To add this case with Judaism’s ability to organize under intense conditions, as well as its successful philosophical movements, we can see Judaism as being apart from its Christian neighbor. Although Christians may refer to the Old Testament as ‘old’, “Judaism has always adapted itself to changing times and circumstances,” and will surely continue to do so (Pg 133).

Works Cited and Footnotes Below 

What Can the Dead Sea Scrolls Tell Us About Christianity?

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Larson

REL3209 Dead Sea Scrolls

April 16, 2007

Dead Sea Scrolls Research Paper

“What Can The Dead Sea Scrolls Tell Us About Christianity?

When people are asked what are the Dead Sea Scrolls, many unfortunately respond with something along the lines of scrolls having to do with Christianity and the New Testament. It’s a common mistake made by individuals, and one that has lead to many controversies and debates. We could blame the media for exposing the scrolls in a Christian manner and for fooling the public, but do parallels with the scrolls contents and early Christianity stop there? Although individuals wrongly assume that the scrolls have to do with Christian writings, it does lead us to ask what the scrolls can tell us about the Christian faith and it’s early history. Although we know they’re obviously writings by an early Jewish sect in the desert, some scholars have made claims that the Qumran sects were actually early Christians. Other scholars have even taken a route to hypothesize that Jesus and John the Baptist were once members of this Qumran community. What has led scholars to make these assumptions? Is it merely a large Christian audience and prospects of financial gains, or is there more to it? For this reason, we will examine the world of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the Qumran community, and how they have paralleled and contributed to the study of early Christianity, John the Baptist, and Jesus of Nazareth.

Not only have scholars made extensive arguments that early Christians wrote some of the scrolls, but they have also made arguments that Jesus and John the Baptist may have been a part of the Qumran settlement.[1] The drama and controversies don’t stop there. In The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, the authors Baigent and Leigh emulate the attempts of The Da Vinci Code to weave a world of mystery and controversy by explaining that the scrolls were even harmful to Christianity. They even go so far as to say that scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls were “handling the spiritual and religious equivalent of dynamite—something that might just conceivably demolish the entire edifice of Christian teaching and belief.”[2] (Baigent 136-137).  Such a bizarre claim has led to this exploration of the similarities and differences that the Qumran community shares with the early Christian movement.

The research started with Lawrence Shiffman’s Reclaiming The Dead Sea Scrolls: The True Meaning For Judaism and Christianity, but his book lack’s in providing the scrolls ‘true meaning’ for Christianity. The title itself was a little deceiving, since Shiffman merely sprinkles references to Christianity throughout the book, and mainly discusses the scrolls relationship with pre-rabbinic Judaism. He shows this bias early on in the text, when in the introduction he states “scholars have finally turned to the Jewish character of the scrolls…to that purpose this book is dedicated.”[3] (Shiffman xxiii). With this bias openly exposed, what other resources might provide some real evaluations between the Dead Sea Scrolls and their impact on early Christianity?

As mentioned previously, some scholars have made the statement that John the Baptist was an Essene in his youth. Although most scholars would consider this to be an extreme stretch, Joseph A Fitzmyer believes that it’s a “plausible hypothesis” that John could “have spent some of his youth as a candidate for membership in or as a member of the Essene community,”[4] (Fitzmyer 19). One of his reasons is how the Gospel of Luke depicts John as someone who “lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel.”[5] (Luke, 1:80). The gospel also mentions how a “word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.”⁵ (Luke, 3:2). This leads to a sudden change in John’s life and teaching. Fitzmyer argues that “John then broke off from the Essenes of Qumran, with whom he had been living for some time, to go forth and preach a ‘baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ ⁴ “ (Fitzmyer 19). The reason Fitzmyer interprets the text this way is because John, having been born of a priestly family, was “never portrayed in any of the Gospels as serving in the Jerusalem Temple.” (Fitzmyer 19), and argued that when his elderly parents died, he might have been adopted by the Essenes. Fitzmyer says this because according to Josephus[6], the Essenes (who scholars usually agree fit the Qumran identity), had the practice of adopting other men’s children. Fitzmyer believes that just as Josephus spent some time with the Essenes, so did John. John, not serving Jerusalem’s Temple, would also match the feelings the Qumran community had towards the physical temple in Jerusalem. For these reasons, Fitzmyer doesn’t believe it to be too much of stretch to assume John was educated and adopted by the Essene community.

Fitzmyer continues his argument for John’s role in the Essene community by drawing comparisons between John’s and the Community’s teachings. All four Gospels use Isaiah 40:3 “ A voice of one calling: In the desert, prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.”[7], to describe John’s role in the desert. Fitzmyer makes the argument that “that very text of Isaiah is used in an Essene rule book, the Manual of Discipline, to explain why the community is in the desert,” (Fitzmyer 19). The Manuel of Discipline states to “Make ready in the desert the way of [Yahweh]; make straight in the wilderness a path for our God”[8]. Even though John and the Essene’s interpret Isaiah differently, Fitzmyer see this reason for the two being in the desert as more than sheer coincidence. Fitzmyer believes it to be “significant…when considered with the other factors” (Fitzmyer, 20). 

One of these other factors is John’s baptism. With the “little evidence for the existence of proselyte baptism in first century Christianity”, Fitzmyer argues that John’s baptisms are better explained as “ritual washings of the Essene community” (Fitzmyer, 20). Fitzmyer points towards the Qumran settlement’s use of miqva’ot ‘baths’.  The Essene’s Manual of Disciple’s views on ritual washing is similar to John’s baptisms in the sense that both speak of “repenting of their wickedness”[9] as a means of bathing, as well as not needing to be repeated. John came “preaching a baptism of the repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mark 1:4), and although the Qumran settlement did not perform Christian baptisms, it’s not a stretch to see where the Essene’s teaching could influence John in his baptisms.

Another point along the lines of John’s baptism is that of baptizing with water, but mentioning the “coming baptism of “spirit and fire,”[10] (Fitzmyer 20). Fitzmyer also argues that in the Essene’s Manuel of Discipline, it talks about the themes of “ ‘water,’ ‘holy Spirit,’ ‘Spirit of truth,’ and ‘refining’ as elements of God’s activity as he purges this community.”[11] (Fitzmyer 20).  These elements sound vaguely familiar to those mentioned in Luke 3:16, where the Gospel mentions the “Holy Spirit and with fire.”⁸ After taking John’s time spent in the desert, Isaiah 40:3, Mark 1:3, Josephus’s temporary stay with the Essenes, John’s baptisms, the Essenes ritual washing, and the mention of fire, water, and spirit as found in the Manuel of Discipline and Luke 3:1, Fitzmyer’s suggestion that John may have spent time with the Essenes really gains some weight. Although this is not proof that John was an Essene, it does shed light on the hypothesis that he may have spent some time with them; which would have influenced his career preaching and baptizing. 

With these connections made between John the Baptist, the Essenes, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we’re forced to ask ourselves whether Jesus may have been influenced by these three. After all, John the Baptist was the precursor to Jesus’ ministry, and if the Essenes influenced John then it wouldn’t be a stretch of the imagination to assume John’s Essene teachings influenced Jesus. After all, the ending of the Qumran settlement shares the same timeline as the ministry of Jesus. Although we can’t claim that Jesus was an Essene, we can observe that there are certain parallels between the Qumran community, the Essenes, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the ministry of Jesus. One of these similarities that cannot be ignored is the Teacher of Righteousness. “French scholar Andre Dupont-Sommer…argued that Jesus appeared to be an ‘astonishing reincarnation’ of the Teacher of Righteousness.” (Flint 322).  Both the Teacher of Righteousness and Jesus taught “penitence, poverty, humility, love of one’s neighbor, chastity,” (Flint 322). As Flint and VanderKam point up, the two draw other similarities. Another similarity between the Teacher of Righteousness and Jesus is that both are “given authority in matters of teaching and the law, and in the proper understanding of prophetic texts; these functions are also, among others, assigned to Jesus in the Gospels.”[12] (Davies 202).

The overall feeling of the Teacher of Righteousness is one of mystery.

The Damascus Rule states “God…raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them [Qumran sect] in the way of His heart”.[13] This brings sudden images of Jesus of Nazareth, and as Kenneth Hanson points out in The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Untold Story, “his description, his title, and many events in his life, remind us, in a prophetic sense, of the life and mission of Jesus of Nazareth.”[14]  

 

Another extremely interesting connection that Kenneth O. Hanson points out is between the Beatitudes of Jesus and a fragment from Qumran Cave 4 (Hanson 140).  In the Beatitudes, we find the following:

3“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 
 

4Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 
 

5Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 
 

6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 
 

7Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 
 

8Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.”[15]

When we take the text from the Cave 4 fragment[16], we find an interesting comparison:

“Blessed is he who speaks truth with a pure heart…

Blessed are those who cling to his statutes…

Blessed are those who rejoice because of her…

Blessed is he who seeks her with pure hands…

Blessed is the man who has attained Wisdom”[17]

Of course, we cannot take these two texts and claim that one inspired Jesus, but both share a remarkable resemblance in their usage of needing ‘a pure heart’ and in their blessings. Kenneth O. Hanson points out another fragment from Cave 4, “called ‘On Resurrection’ or the ‘Messianic Apocalypse’.” (Hanson, 142). As he points out: “The greater context of the passage is missing, but these words are clearly visible on the ancient page: ‘Then he will heal the sick, resurrect the dead, and to the poor announce glad tidings.’ ” (Hanson, 142). Does this sound familiar? When we look back into the Gospel of Luke, we find a strangely similar response that Jesus gives: “…Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.”[18] As Hanson adds, “He ministers in ways consistent with common expectations about the Messiah and his work.” (Hanson, 142).

One last comparison between Dead Sea Scrolls and Jesus is “the notion of a messianic banquet in 1Qs 6[19] and 1QSa 2 is similar to the Eucharist mentioned in Matthew 26:26-29[20] and 1 Corinthians 11:27-30.” (Davis, 202). Although it was common practice for Jews of the time to bless their meal, it’s an interesting resemblance. Between the Dead Sea Scroll’s Teacher of Righteousness, the expectation of a Messiah, the parallels in authorities and teachings with Jesus, the Beatitudes, the possibility of John having been an Essene, and the messianic banquet, we’re left with an even more appealing case for some type of relationship or parallel between the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity.

However the parallels don’t stop there. The early Christian community and the Qumran community also share some of their own similarities. One of the first parallels between the early Christian community and the Qumran sect is the body of twelve.  In Klaus Berger’s book The Truth Under Lock and Key?: Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Berger brings up the resemblance between the “twelve men…perfectly versed in all that is revealed of the Law”[21] (Berger 52). He says “they were thought of as the circle of founders…[and] are characterized as a “precious corner-stone” and a foundation.” (Berger 52). This brings us to the twelve disciples of Jesus, who like the twelve men, were portrayed as perfect.[22] The relationship here is between the two bodies of twelve, where Berger concludes, “the ‘concentric’ renewal of Israel by means of a body of twelve men is found only in Jesus and a few texts from Qumran. Quite certainly there are close points of contact here.” (Berger 52).

Another interesting parallel is how both early Christians and the Qumran sect display a communal lifestyle. In the Community Rule scroll, we discover that the sect has a communal lifestyle where some objects are shared. This is similar to Acts 2:4-5 where Christians gave their properties to the communities. Both sects also displayed signs of celibacy[23] and divorce[24]. In addition to the similarity of their lifestyle, was their language. As Phillip Davies points out, “Certain texts from both groups speak of the ‘children of light’, the righteousness of God, works of the Law, lawlessness, light and darkness, Belial[25], … the human temple of God … ‘the many’[26]” (Davies 202).

Not only are there some interesting theories for Paul being an Essene, but also now we have a hefty load of parallels between Jesus of Nazareth, the early Christian Community, and the Qumran sect. We first observed John’s time spent in the desert, then Isaiah 40:3, Mark 1:3, Josephus’s temporary stay with the Essenes, John’s baptisms, the Essene’s ritual washing, and the mention of fire, water, and spirit as found in the Manuel of Discipline and Luke 3:1. We then observed the Dead Sea Scroll’s Teacher of Righteousness, the expectation of a Messiah, the parallels in authorities and teachings with Jesus, the Beatitudes and scroll fragment, and the messianic banquet. We finally pointed out the parallels between the Christian community’s twelve disciples, the Qumran’s body of twelve, the two sect’s communal lifestyle, their shared language, and their shared views on such issues as celibacy and divorce. When we take into account the bizarre similarities between John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, the early Christian community, the Qumran Settlement, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we’re given good reason to conclude that they had some type of relationship. Although we cannot conclude that the Qumran sect directly influenced Jesus, John, and the Christian community, we can assume that after the provided evidence, there’s strong reason to suggest an indirect relationship.

Whether we’re left putting together current scripture and scrolls, or theorizing over new parallels and relationships, we may never know what relationship (or lack of) the Qumran Sect may have had with Christianity. We can conclude that the Scrolls still need further study, and that they illuminate a lot about the Jewish roots of Christianity. However, who knows what un-translated Dead Sea Scrolls may offer, and what possibilities new archeological discoveries may hold for the mysterious relationship between Christianity and the Qumran Sect.

Works Cited and Footnotes Below