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

342 SOCIOLOGICAL AND LITURGICAL DIMENSIONS
Weber adds that the members of a social group attached to a charismatic
are “not chosen on the basis of social privilege,” they are not appointed
nor dismissed, and there is “no hierarchy.” The Qumranites are the elite
in Israel, especially the Sons of Aaron; according to Qumran legislation,
members were appointed and even dismissed, and a rigid hierarchy certainly
defined Qumran life. Thus, it is unwise to seek for patterns in
sociological studies of what may be unique characteristics of the
Qumran social order.
We have seen that the Righteous Teacher is a quintessential example of
the charismatic, but the Qumran community is not a good example of a
group defined by a charismatic. How can we comprehend this sociological
anomaly? Four observations alone must suffice for the present study.
First, the Righteous Teacher did not initiate a group; he inherited one
(CD 1.8–11; cf. 4Q171 [= 4QpPs a ] frags. 1–10, 3.15–16). The contrast at
this point between the Righteous Teacher and Jesus of Nazareth helps
ground and illustrate this fact. The Righteous Teacher was not the
founder of the Jewish group that is known to us from Qumran. Hence his
own charisma did not create, even if it did later define, the community.
Second, the Righteous Teacher was not celebrated as the Messiah or
the One-who-was-to-Come; he pointed, as did John the Baptizer, to
another. As important as he was for the members of the community, he
was the means to, not the source of, Truth. Again, the contrast with what
another Jewish group said of their charismatic is appropriate (cf. Mark
8:29 and John 14:6).
Third, the Righteous Teacher’s group did not elevate him as one of
the angels, archangels, or virtually equal with God. Unlike Jesus, he did
not evoke messianic reflections. Jesus initiated christological reflections,
during and especially after his death. The Righteous Teacher was a mediator
and the Irrigator of the Garden; while he was charismatic he was not
the primary source of charisma. So, it is understandable why the community
who looked to him also looked beyond him.
Fourth, and most importantly, the germinative force within the community
is not the Righteous Teacher. It is Scripture which is made the
source of life and meaning via the hermeneutic of fulfillment. Scripture contained
secrets. No one—not even the prophet who recorded them—knew
the secrets within God’s word. God chose to reveal them only to one person:
the Righteous Teacher. The recognition that he was “the Interpreter
of Knowledge” (t(d Cylm; frags. 1–10, 1.27) elevates him, but such an
accolade also places him below what is being interpreted. Far more important
than the Interpreter is what is to be interpreted: God’s own message
for “his chosen ones,” those “who do his will” (frags. 1–10, 2.5).