The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

260 THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN
based on several false claims or assumptions: first, that Christianity and
Judaism were true alternatives, separate religions at the end of the first
century C.E. 16 ; second, that apocalyptic thought was essentially Jewish
and that Christian thought was basically nonapocalyptic. Furthermore,
there has been a subtle anti-Semitism latent in the question, as if the
determination that the Apocalypse were Jewish would suggest that its theology
were somehow sub-Christian. For instance, Böcher’s 1985 article
in ANRW betrays theological discomfort with his own enterprise. At the
end of his article he finds it necessary to appeal to Martin Luther and to
conclude that “all Jewish hopes are fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.”
That historical-critical investigations betray such discomfort witnesses
to the fact that the Jewish and Christian communities of interpreters still
have a way to go in applying their historical insights to theological categories
in impartial ways. Fortunately, the Jewish and Christian communities
of Dead Sea Scrolls scholars have shown more respect and
appreciation for the other in recent years—both for the other’s confessional
commitments and for the other’s historical-critical work.
Fortunately also, scholarship on the Apocalypse has, for the most part,
moved on to issues more fruitful than how Jewish or Christian it is, based
on anachronistic assumptions.
Second, historical work on the period of early Judaism has suffered
from a canonical myopia. Although the Hebrew Bible is shared today by
Jews and Christians, students of the New Testament tend to think of the
noncanonical material only as “background” for the study of the canonical
documents. Whether this is valid for doing theological work is one
question. However, for historical work, it is essential to recognize that
canons emerge from communities and reflect the life situations of those
communities—life situations much broader and more complex than the
canons at hand.
Historical work knows no canonical boundaries. No students of the
New Testament can hope to understand Jesus or the life situation of
the Gospels if they do not understand from 1 and 2 Maccabees and other
sources the powerful events of the second century B.C.E. that threatened
and forever changed the character and questions of early Judaism.
And no students of the New Testament can hope to understand Jesus or
Christian Is the Book of Revelation?” in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on
Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on His 60th Birthday (ed. R. J. Banks;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 275–84.
16. On this point, see also the posthumous publication by Donald H. Juel in this
volume (ch. 3). He helpfully proposes that we jettison the word “Christian” for firstcentury
texts and social groups, since it is anachronistic and thus misleading.