The two (or three) main possibilities for gospel origins IMO

[Sinouhe]

On the contrary, i think the beliefs of punishments of the Sinners that we find in the DSS fit well the day of the judgment of the sinners in the parables and in the writings of Paul.

Paul never mentions hell though, you have to admit
1 Thess is as close as you get and this is doubted at actually by him
He never mentions hell

The vision of Hell in Qumran is not clear.
The Sinner’s judgment in the DSS is close to the sinner’s judgment in the Parables.
And the sinner’s judgment in Paul is close to the sinner’s judgment in the parables.
So close that a connection is quite likely.
Paul ideas about the judgment day were in the air during the second temple judaism.

[davidmartin]

The vision of Hell in Qumran is not clear.
The Sinner’s judgment in the DSS is close to the sinner’s judgment in the Parables.
And the sinner’s judgment in Paul is close to the sinner’s judgment in the parables.
So close that a connection is quite likely.
Paul ideas about the judgment day were in the air during the second temple judaism.

I agree with you especially your last sentence
But when I read Paul my impression is only the saved will be caught up (resurrected) leaving the others in the ground
Maybe this is one of the streams of thought current in Judaism at the time
Also I suspect that some of Paul's opponents were in fact teaching the more Qumran style eternal damnation based on a couple of pointers
Either way it's been a matter of absolute fascination to see the divergence of witness within the NT in the area of this doctrine - I'm not convinced my interpretation is correct, willing as I am to share it! But I am convinced there is a clue here that this wasn't settled for quite a while.

[Sinouhe]

The vision of Hell in Qumran is not clear.
The Sinner’s judgment in the DSS is close to the sinner’s judgment in the Parables.
And the sinner’s judgment in Paul is close to the sinner’s judgment in the parables.
So close that a connection is quite likely.
Paul ideas about the judgment day were in the air during the second temple judaism.

I agree with you especially your last sentence
But when I read Paul my impression is only the saved will be caught up (resurrected) leaving the others in the ground
Maybe this is one of the streams of thought current in Judaism at the time

We had the same idea in the parables :

Capture d’écran 2022-05-02 à 13.27.34.png (210.68 KiB) Viewed 986 times

Also I suspect that some of Paul's opponents were in fact teaching the more Qumran style eternal damnation based on a couple of pointers

It could be. But we have to keep in mind that most of the DSS are first century BC. Paul is first century AD.
That could explain some differences. But im not convinced that Qumran were focused on hell and eternal damnation.
In fact we had the exact same idea of judgment and salvation from a Messiah :

11Q13
Its interpretation is that He] will assign them to the Sons of Heaven and to the inheritance of Melchizedek; f[or He will 5 cast] their [lot] amid the po[rtions of Melchize]dek, who will return them there and will proclaim to them liberty, forgiving them [the wrong-doings] of all their iniquities.
And the Day of Atonement is the e[nd of the] tenth |Ju]bilee, when all the Sons of [Light] and the men of the lot of Mel[chi]zedek will be atoned for.
[And h]e will, by his strength, judge the holy ones of God, executing judgement as it is written concerning him in the 10 Songs of David,
As for that which he s[aid, How long w ill you] judge unjustly and show partiality to
the wicked? Selah (Psalms lxxxii, 2), its interpretation concerns Belial and
the spirits of his lot [who] rebelled by turning away from the precepts of God to ... And Melchizedek will avenge the vengeance of the judge­ ments of God ... and he will drag [them from the hand of] Belial and from the hand of all the sp[irits of] his [lot]. And all the ‘gods [ofJustice’] will come to his aid [to] attend to the destruction] of Belial.
This is the day of [Peace/Salvation] 15 concerning which [God] spoke [through Isa]iah the prophet (...)
Its interpretation; the mountains are the prophets ... and the messenger is the Anointed one of the spirit, concern­ ing whom Dan[iel] said, [Until an anointed one, a prince (Dan. ix, 25)] ... [And he who brings] good [news], who proclaims [salvation]: it is concerning him that it is written ...
In truth ... will turn away from Belial ... by the judgements] of God, as it is written concerning him, [who says to Zion]\your e l o h i m reigns. Zion is . . . , thosewho uphold the Covenant, who turn from walking [in] the way of the people. Pm&your e l o h i m is [Melchizedek, who will save them from] the hand of Belial.

[rgprice]

There are certainly aspects of Pauline teaching that are incompatible with what we find at Qumran. Most notably almost all of the material from Qumran views Gentiles as the enemy who are minions of Belial who must be defeated. This is clearly in stark contrast to Paul, who wants to save the Gentiles and bring them into the fold of the Lord. Also, of course, the works at Qumran espouse the virtues of the Law, whereas Paul sees the Law as a curse. Those at Qumran were adamant about circumcision, whereas Paul opposes circumcision.

These differences alone are enough to show, IMO, that Pauline thought was not merely some extension of Qumranic thought. But, the works from Qumran do provide an important window into ideas that were present in Judaism between the formation of the works we find in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Its not a complete picture, but there is enough there to show how some of the ideas about Belial/Satan that we find in New Testament evolved.

What we do see at Qumran is the process of separating the truly single God of Second Isaiah, the creator of both good and evil, into separate beings, the purely good God and the evil Belial/Satan. And we see how the Enoch literature relates to this separation of the good from the evil and how all of this relates back to interpretations of Genesis.

While I don't think the Gnostics are directly related to the Qumran group, they were both playing a similar game. Both the Qumranic literature and Gnostic literature were involved in re-interpreting Genesis in ways that provided a different explanation for the origins of evil. According to the Enoch literature and the Qumran group, evil came from the angels. According to the Gnostics, it also came from the heavenly beings. But in Enoch literature, the Creator is not evil, rather the Creator's creation is corrupted by the angels. In the Gnostic literature, it is the Creator himself who introduces evil. In either case, the blame for evil is not put on humans as it is in Genesis.

In both cases, however, the heavenly origins of evil open the door to the need for a heavenly redeemer to defeat evil. It is true that in most Qumranic literature the defeat of Belial and his minions is a job to be performed by the human Sons of Light. However, of course, the Melchezedeck scroll describes a heavenly redeemer who will defeat Belial/Satan. Likewise, of course, the Parables of Enoch (though not yet found at Qumran), also reveal a heavenly redeemer. I would say also that the Testament of Levi also points to the possibility of a heavenly redeemer, or at least provides a setting in which a heavenly redeemer would make sense.

So I think that the idea we find in both Qumranic and Gnostic literature, that evil has a heavenly origin, is an important part of the development of the idea that a heavenly power was needed to defeat evil.

What we find in Genesis is the idea that evil comes from within humanity. The struggle against evil is a struggle with our own human nature, it is not a struggle against a heavenly power. Thus, Deuteronomist Judaism had no place for a special redeemer to defeat evil. There was need for special individuals to deliver God's word or defeat earthly enemies, etc., but not to "defeat evil". And of course, if God himself was a creator of evil. as Isaiah would have it, then there is no such thing as defeating evil at all. No, a being to defeat evil is only needed when evil is the work of a divine power who is not God - as both the Gnostics and Qumran community would have it.

[Sinouhe]

There are certainly aspects of Pauline teaching that are incompatible with what we find at Qumran. Most notably almost all of the material from Qumran views Gentiles as the enemy who are minions of Belial who must be defeated. This is clearly in stark contrast to Paul, who wants to save the Gentiles and bring them into the fold of the Lord. Also, of course, the works at Qumran espouse the virtues of the Law, whereas Paul sees the Law as a curse. Those at Qumran were adamant about circumcision, whereas Paul opposes circumcision.

Of course, i agree with that. But Paul was an innovator and as a result of these innovations, he was in conflict with the church of Jerusalem concerning the law and his doctrines.

These differences alone are enough to show, IMO, that Pauline thought was not merely some extension of Qumranic thought.
who uphold the Covenant, who turn from walking [in] the way of the people. Pm&your e l o h i m is [Melchizedek, who will save them from] the hand of Belial.

Im not agree. Christianity in the first century (or before) could be some extension of Qumranic thought.
It is like saying that Christians has not its origins in judaism because the jews respect the law and not the christians.

Paul was a free electron and an innovator concerning the gentiles and the law so what we had in the NT is the result of these innovations. And even with that, we had TONS and TONS of parallels between Qumran and Christianity.

[davidmartin]

What we find in Genesis is the idea that evil comes from within humanity. The struggle against evil is a struggle with our own human nature, it is not a struggle against a heavenly power. Thus, Deuteronomist Judaism had no place for a special redeemer to defeat evil. There was need for special individuals to deliver God's word or defeat earthly enemies, etc., but not to "defeat evil". And of course, if God himself was a creator of evil. as Isaiah would have it, then there is no such thing as defeating evil at all. No, a being to defeat evil is only needed when evil is the work of a divine power who is not God - as both the Gnostics and Qumran community would have it

I think there's always a tension with what God created being good, and also in his own image in the case of humans
I've heard some Jewish rabbi's today dismiss original sin as an incorrect idea, although I forget their reasoning. Maybe as well the adversary of Job as working for God. Agreed that reading it the other way isn't hard either, what with certain other bible quotes about the heart of man, etc
I think a long legacy at work much of which is obscured, tempting to talk about 'Judaisms' although it seems like a bit of a cop out to put every difficult question down to varieties of opinion, i'm adding nothing here so back to you guys