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

188 THE TWO SPIRITS IN QUMRAN THEOLOGY
I give you thanks, Lord,
because you have sustained me with your strength,
you have spread your holy spirit over me so that I will not stumble,
you have fortified me against the wars of wickedness,
and in all their calamities
you have n[ot] discouraged (me) from your covenant. (1QH 15.6–8)
The difference between these assessments of human nature is striking,
compelling Betz to suggest: “The difference between both pictures corresponds
to the contrast between the natural and the newly created individual—between
the person who lives according to the flesh, who possesses
nothing other than an impure body and erring spirit, and the person who
lives according to the spirit, who has received the power of God and the
holy spirit.” 45 In other words, “The spirit and power of God overcome
human fleshly nature and straighten out his inclination, that is, spirit.” 46
This conception of new creation holds nothing in common with the
conception of the two spirits in 1QS 3–4, in which one’s predetermined
lot amongst either the children of light or children of darkness is evident
in whether one follows the way of the spirit of deceit (1QS 4.9–11) or the
spirit of humility and patience (1QS 4.2–6). There is no individual new
creation in the present age; there are rather two ways which coexist until
the eschatological eradication of the spirit of deceit (1QS 4.20).
Betz’s interpretation is not without its weaknesses. Because he wrote
before the publication of Wernberg-Møller’s study, he perhaps did not
sufficiently consider the anthropological dimension of 1QS 3–4 which
may have created a bridge between the Spirit-teaching and the Spiritsteaching.
The notion of “a variety of spirits” and the conviction that the
two spirits “struggle in the heart of humans” may have provided Betz with
some measure of concurrence between the Spirits-teaching and the conviction
of the Spirit-teaching that the human spirit can err and be
deceived. Such criticisms notwithstanding, Betz’s clear definition of the
dilemma, which previously had tended to go unrecognized, demonstrated
that the spirit of truth in 1QS 3–4 cannot easily be identified with the
holy spirit in the remainder of the Qumran documents, as had been done
customarily in studies prior to Betz’s. 47
45. Offenbarung, 124. This realization can be traced to the important study of Erik
Sjöberg, “Neuschöpfung in den Toten-Meer-Rollen,” ST 11 (1955): 131–37. Sjöberg
drew attention to the function of the spirit, not only in creation, as in 1QS 3.18–19,
nor exclusively in eschatology, as in 1QS 4.20–23, but in the new creation of the
believer. Sekki (Meaning, 28–30) regarded Sjöberg’s study as paradigmatic.
46. Offenbarung, 125.
47. For a list of scholars who made this identification, see Sekki, Meaning, 56n218.
Werner Foerster attempted (“Der Heilige Geist im Spätjudentum,” NTS 8 [1961]: