Was Jesus an Essene?

[John2]

Stephan,

I understand that all sects have their particular interpretations of the Torah. That's just the nature of things. 1QS col. 5 even says that outright:

"Whoever approaches the Council of the Community shall enter the Covenant of God in the presence of all who have freely pledged themselves. He shall undertake by a binding oath to return with all his heart and soul to every commandment of the Law of Moses in accordance with all that has been revealed of it to the sons of Zadok, the Keepers of the Covenant and Seekers of His will, and to the multitude of the men of their Covenant who together have freely pledged themselves to His truth and to walking in the way of His delight."

But the references in the passages I've cited to a) the Torah; b) the statutes (chukkim) of God; c) the Covenant (brit) of God; d) the commandments (mitzvot) of God that were handed down by the Patriarchs; and e) the "books of the Torah" (sifrei Torah) that I forgot to mention in CD col. 8, are words typically used to describe the written Torah:

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5612.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_Torah

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_kings/22-8.htm

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/4-5.htm

This is why the Liar is said to have brought on the curses of the Covenant, for transgressing (even if only hyperbolically) the Covenant of God, i.e., the written Torah (along with the interpretations of it that were peculiar to the sect).

The theme of rejecting the Torah/a sect's particular interpretations of it may be a common trope (the exact same accusation is leveled against Jewish Christians in a version of the Birkat ha-Minim), but in this case it's the context that is important, such as the ones that I've already outlined:

1. The sect was messianic

2. Believed they were living in the end time

3. Called themselves "the way"

4. Practiced "the New Covenant"

5. Believed in works and faith

6. Was associated with a place called "Damascus"

7. Used the same messianic proof texts and other scriptural verses that are cited in early Christian writings

8. Was led by someone called "the Righteous One" (who was killed)

9. Was opposed by someone who is said to have rejected the Torah and the Covenant of God and founded their own congregation

These general parallels and others (such as the sect also referring to itself as the "poor," i.e., ebionim) make me strongly consider the possibility that these were proto-Jewish Christians or people very similar to them.

[Stephan Huller]

But the references in the passages I've cited to a) the Torah; b) the statutes (chukkim) of God; c) the Covenant (brit) of God; d) the commandments (mitzvot) of God that were handed down by the Patriarchs; and e) the "books of the Torah" (sifrei Torah) that I forgot to mention in CD col. 8, are words typically used to describe the written Torah

But you're just citing words out of context and attempting to turn it into something it originally wasn't. These words are certainly there and the idea that these should be referenced is hardly surprising. But the natural reading of the Pesher Habakkuk suggests that there was a struggle between two communities headed by two men - the Teacher of Righteousness and the Man of Lies where the dispute seems to have been based on matters of religious interpretation and law. The wicked priest started with the community of the Teacher of Righteousness and then abandoned the cause and then persecuted the Teacher. I don't see how you get from here to 'Paul' where all of this nonsense seems to be leading.

It is odd the way the forum was dominated by the presence of John T up until we had this discussion and then when you come to show your superior knowledge of Jewish history, John T disappears and then after a while you disappear and John T comes back with his typical bluster. I would find it refreshing to engage both of you at the same time

[John2]

I have to make a few corrections. The reference to the "books of the Torah" is in CD 7:15 and not in col. 8, and it's sifrei ha-torah, not sifrei torah (but this doesn't effect my argument). It's hard for me to see the column numbers in Vermes' translation and I thought it said col. 8, and I was going by memory and didn't double check the Hebrew when I cited CD 7:15.

Also, I forgot that Abraham is also called a friend of God in the OT (Is. 41:8 and Chr. 20:7). But it's still relevant that the DSS and the Letter of James mention it.

[John2]

Stephan,

Look, I'm not John T and I don't know who he is or anything about him other than what he has posted on this forum. And I'm not sure I understand his take on Eisenman or knowledge of the details of the DSS and Jewish history so far, but it seems harmless enough if we both like to talk about Eisenman. And the fact that he joined the forum around the same time as me is curious but also something that I have no control over (like your perception or suspicions of me). I too have been wondering where John T has gone while you and I have been talking, but that's about the extent of the thought I have given to his identity or what it has to do with me.

[John2]

Stephan,

Well, I can't argue against your general impression of the people and events described in the Habakkuk Pesher and Damascus Document. And I don't disagree with you that the DSS sect (like all sects) had their own interpretations of the Torah. But only the Pharisees were said to have two Torahs, and this concept was rejected by the Sadducees, and we agree that (at least some of) the DSS are broadly Sadducaic in character (or at least anti-Pharisaic). This is the difference. If you were to ask a Pharisee then (or a Rabbinic Jew today) what "the Torah" means, they would say the oral and written Torah, while a Sadducee (and a Karaite today) would say the written Torah only.

So while the DSS sect had their interpretations of the Torah, the emphasis on the written Torah in the passages I cited (along with others I haven't), consistently over and over again, is unmistakable. Even today these terms are used to describe the written Torah. And I gave the context for them, the general theme of the Patriarchs handing down the commandments and Covenant of God and the specific activities of the Liar in the time of the Teacher of Righteousness.

And the sect was messianic and believed they were living in the end time and used the same messianic proof texts that Christians do, and called themselves "the way" and practiced the New Covenant (which was a renewed Old Covenant, which again shows their emphasis on the written Torah) in a place called Damascus.

[John2]

I noticed that the Habakkuk Pesher and Damascus Document don't say anything about whatever interpretations of the Torah the Teacher of Righteousness may have had.

1QpHab says that "those who were unfaithful together with the Liar ... [did] not [listen to the word received by] the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God" (col. 2).

So what was the "the word received by the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God" then? While I think we are safe to presume that this included interpretations of the Torah, in this context the Torah is not mentioned, only the Prophets concerning the end time:

"... the breakers of the Covenant will not believe when they hear all that [is to happen to] the final generation from the Priest [in whose heart] God set [understanding] that he might interpret all the words of His servants the Prophets, through whom He foretold all that would happen to His people and [His land]" (col. 2).

"God told Habakkuk to write down that which would happen to the final generation, but He did not make known to him when time would come to an end. And as for that which He said, 'That he who reads may read it speedily,' interpreted this concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of His servants the Prophets" (col. 7).

This is echoed in the Damascus Document:

"And he [the Teacher of Righteousness] made known to the latter generations that which God had done to the latter generation, the congregation of traitors, to those who departed from the way."

This is similar to how James is portrayed in Hegesippus, who says that James was called the Righteous One "in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him," meaning, like the Righteous Teacher, the events of James life and death were believed to have been foretold in scripture. And James too only speaks about the end time:

"But the sects before mentioned did not believe [James], either in a resurrection or in the coming of One to requite every man according to his works, but those who did believe, believed because of James.

Then James cites the prophet Daniel:

"Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven."

Then Hegesippus again says that this was all foretold in the Prophets:

"Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: "Let us do away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings."

So in addition to the other similarities and context (New Covenant, the way, a place called Damascus, messianism, the concept of works and faith, opposition by a person who was anti-Torah, however one understands that, the use of similar proof texts, etc.), both James and the Teacher of Righteousness were called "the Righteous One" and were believed to have been foretold in the Prophets and cite the Prophets in reference to the end time.

The Teacher of Righteousness doesn't have to be James to me. I really don't care or have a dog in the fight. It's just how it looks to me on the face of it as well as when I look at it more closely.

[John2]

Williamson's translation of Hegesippus' statement that details of James' life were "in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him" (and note the plural: prophets) has a footnote that says, interestingly, "Reference unknown."

Whatever it may refer to, this statement shows that Jewish Christians believed that the prophets had prophesized about James, like the DSS sect did about the Righteous Teacher, and to judge from the Isaiah passage Hegesippus cites, their exegesis had something to do with the appearance of the word "righteousness" (zeddek) or it's cognate "righteous one" (zaddik), like it does in the pesharim concerning the Teacher of Righteousness (a method that is apparent when the base texts are read without the commentary. When the word "zaddik" appears it is invariably seen as a reference to the Teacher of Righteousness):

"Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: "Let us do away with the just man [or Righteous One], because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings."

[Stephan Huller]

Well, I can't argue against your general impression of the people and events described in the Habakkuk Pesher and Damascus Document.

All right that's a start.

And I don't disagree with you that the DSS sect (like all sects) had their own interpretations of the Torah.

Well to argue against that would be tantamount to insanity or ignorance.

But only the Pharisees were said to have two Torahs,

Ignorance. That's where you fall out off the pickle wagon. The context of the statement is much more general than that. Here is Sanhedrin 88b which starts with the basically idiotic claim that everything was perfect in the age before anyone could remember' - there were no legal disputes etc. But in the age we do remember everything went downhill:

But when the disciples of Shammai and Hillel, who [sc. the disciples] had insufficiently studied, increased [in number], disputes multiplied in Israel, and the Torah became as two Toroth.6 From there [the Hall of Hewn Stones] documents were written and sent to all Israel, appointing men of wisdom and humility7 and who were esteemed by their fellowmen as local judges. From there [sc. the local Beth din] they were promoted to [the Beth din of] the Temple Mount,8 thence to the Court, and thence to the Hall of Hewn Stones.

The statement has nothing really to do with the specifically Pharisaic 'oral law' c. 1st century BCE to 1st century CE - but the idea that because their interpretations were so far apart 'it was like there were two Torahs' - 'torah' being used here clearly as interpretation of the Law rather than literally 'the Law.' If we can't agree that 'Torah' can be used to mean 'interpretation of the Law' we're not going to make any headway. For instance when it is says "in R Meir's torah" - it clearly doesn't mean that he wrote his own Torah but his interpretation of the Torah. At least part of this can be explained because torah itself can be used independently of 'the law of Israel.' It can mean also "definition" "designation" "character" "nature" in a more general sense. So in this case - when two Torahs are referenced - it doesn't mean 'oral' versus 'written' Torah as you would have it but two interpretations of the same Torah.

[John2]

This is an inexact analogy, because in this case the school of Shammai were still regarded as Pharisees and their rulings are preserved in Rabbinic writings, unlike the Liar and his followers, who did not believe in the Covenant of God (along with the Torah, however this is understood), which brought on the curses of the Covenant, something that is never said of Shammai.

But for the sake of argument, let's say in the case of the Liar that the matter was only (or mainly) about rejecting the DSS sect's interpretations of the Torah. This is also the case with Paul, in the sense that there remains today some dispute over whether Paul really meant to do away with the Torah or not. I've had conversations with Messianic Jews who insist that "Rab Sha'ul" did not mean to do away with the Torah. This is the position that Acts takes too:

“You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law ... The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them (21:20-26).

Likewise, whether the Liar rejected the written Torah or only interpretations of it depends on who you ask, but either way the issue is applicable to Paul, especially when you consider the context (New Covenant, Damascus, the way, etc.).

[John2]

And regardless of the references to the different opinions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai being like two Torahs, the Pharisees still believed in the concept of two Torahs, oral and written, and the Sadducees didn't. When the former say "the Torah" they mean oral and written, while the latter mean the written only.