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

ENNO E. POPKES 303
or to the devil. Both texts emphasize that the fundamental ontological situation
of a human being influences their capability to gain understanding
and manage their behavior. In John 8:42a the Johannine Jesus denies
to his opponents the divine sonship they claim for themselves. Only
someone who loves Jesus is seen as proving themselves children of God.
By contrast, Jesus regards his opponents as children of the devil because
they do the works of their father. They are denied the capability to
understand the message of Jesus ( John 8:43b, 46–47). A similar argument
is the basis of the differentiation between children of God and of
the devil in 1 John 3:7–10. Whoever sins is from the devil because the
devil sins “from the beginning” (3:8a). By contrast, the epistle sees the
children of God as incapable of sinning since the “sperma of God” has its
lasting effect in them (3:9a). The fundamental ontological situation of a
human being thus determines their individual behavior. 46
Because these radical statements do not have any analogues in the
New Testament, various scholars have claimed that they could be influenced
by Qumran theology, which also shows marked predestinarian
traits. 47 Thus, for example, according to 1QS 3.15–18 all individual and
cosmic processes are determined before the beginning of creation, and
human history strictly follows the plan of God: “From the God of
knowledge stems all there is and all there shall be. Before they existed he
established their entire design. And when they have come into being, at
their appointed time, they will execute all their works according to his
glorious design, without altering anything” (cf. 1QS 3.15–16). 48 These
46. In spite of this thematic correspondence, there is a significant difference between
these passages in that the anthesis between the children of God and the children of the devil
in 1 John 3:7–10 reflects the schism in the community, while in John 8:42–47 the controversy
is between Jesus and the Jews. On the correspondence and the tradition-historical
background of these birth metaphors, cf. Hans-Josef Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief
(EKKNT 23.1; Zurich: Benzinger, 1991), 193, esp. 329; similarly J. de Waal Dryden, “The
Sense of spe/rma in 1 John 3:9 in Light of Lexical Evidence,” Filología Neotestamentica 11, nos.
21–22 (1998): 85–100, esp. 98–99; Jeffrey A. Trumbower, Born from Above: The Anthropology
of the Gospel of John (HUT 29; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 70–71, esp. 80–83
47. On the relationship between 1 John 3:7–10 und 1QS 1.3–10; 3.17–88; 1QH 14
(= 6 Sukenik).29–30; etc.; see, e.g., James L. Price, “Light from Qumran upon Some
Aspects of Johannine Theology,” in John and Qumran (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; London:
Chapman, 1972; repr., John and the Dead Sea Scrolls; ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Crossroad
Christian Origins Library; New York: Crossroad, 1990) 9–37, esp. 22, etc.; Otto
Böcher, Der johanneische Dualismus im Zusammenhang des nachbiblischen Judentums
(Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965), 147; Charlesworth, “A Critical Comparison of the
Dualism,” 76–106, 103–4, etc.; J. Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 176; Frank M.
Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (rev. ed.; Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1961), 212–13; Marie-Émile Boismard, “The First Epistle of John and
the Writings of Qumran,” in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.;
Crossroad Christian Origins Library; New York: Crossroad, 1991), 156–65, 164–65.