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

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH 125
by different authors, and each layer reflects the same vocabulary, use of
symbolism, and sociology of knowledge, 86 it is evident that they cumulatively
point to a Johannine School.
A scribal school at Qumran was contemplated, but not defended, in
1958 by Malachi Martin. 87 It is now evident that most of the manuscripts
found in the eleven Qumran caves were copied or composed somewhere
besides Qumran and that there is a discernible scribal school at Qumran.
The manuscripts that were composed or copied at Qumran share a
common orthography, morphology, and unique scribal features such as
the paragraphos sign and the writing of the tetragrammaton as tetrapuncta
(four dots) and sometimes with paleo-Hebrew characters. 88 In numerous
publications Emanuel Tov has detected and amassed the evidence for the
Qumran scribal school. 89
Both the Qumran school and the Johannine School faced not only
ostracism but also persecution. The high priest and some of the Temple
police persecuted the Qumran school. The Johannine community faced
opposition and death from synagogal Jews (16:2) and then rejection from
followers of Jesus who denied he had been a “fleshly” human being (thus,
the cause of the Johannine schism was Docetism). 90
Experts on the Gospel of John have begun to agree on a probable solution
to a major problem. John 14 ends with Jesus’ exhortation to his
disciples, “Rise, let us go hence” (v. 31). According to the Gospel’s present
shape, Jesus subsequently launches into long speeches (chs. 15–17).
Then we come to John 18, which begins, “When Jesus had spoken these
words, he went forth with his disciples across the Kidron valley, where
there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered” (v. 1). These
words follow chapter 14 much more sensibly than chapters 15 through
86. The fact of a unified vocabulary and use of language throughout the strata in
the Fourth Gospel was clarified by E. Schweizer and E. Ruckstuhl with P. Dschulnigg.
See Eduard Schweizer, Ego Eimi (2d ed.; FRLANT 56; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1965); and Eugen Ruckstuhl and Peter Dschulnigg, Stilkritik und Verfasserfrage
im Johannesevangelium (NTOA 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991).
87. Malachi Martin, The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Bibliothèque du
Muséon 44–45; Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1958), 1:393–402; 2:710–11.
88. Seven of the eight manuscripts in which more than one hand is discernible reveal
the Qumran scribal school’s characteristics; hence, these seven texts may indicate cooperation
within the Qumran scribal school. I am grateful to Emanuel Tov for this information.
89. See esp. Emanuel Tov, “Further Evidence for the Existence of a Qumran Scribal
School,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem
Congress, July 20—25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam;
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000), 199—216.
90. See Peter Stuhlmacher’s insights in “Zum Thema: Das Evangelium und die
Evangelien,” in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (ed. P. Stuhlmacher; WUNT 28; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1983; ET The Gospel and the Gospels; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 12–15.