the-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls

302 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL HERITAGE
Johannine research, however, lies in a different aspect: It is a fundamental
insight of the more recent research on Qumran that the texts are not
to be regarded as a uniform theological concept, but that texts or groups
of texts of varying theological origins should be differentiated. These represent
not only genuinely Qumran but also, among others, pre-Essene or
Essene concepts. 45 The special importance of the writings from Qumran
is therefore that they offer an insight into a world of early Jewish texts
and thought previously unknown to us. In this sense the texts from
Qumran are also immensely relevant for the religious-historical setting of
the Johannine theology.
I briefly illustrate this fact in three examples that are frequently
addressed in the discussion about the relationship between these traditions:
the statements about predestination, the concept of the commandment
to love, and the motifs of light metaphors.
The Johannine writings offer a wide range of statements about
predestination (cf. esp. John 3:3, 5–6, 8; 6:44–45, 65; 8:46–47; 9:39;
12:37–41; 1 John 3:7–10; etc.). Sequences such as John 8:44–47; 1 John
3:7–10 present an almost deterministic understanding of sonship to God
Knox, 1996), 65–97; Jörg Frey, “Licht aus den Höhlen? Der ‘johanneische Dualismus’
und die Texte von Qumran,” in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Religions- und
traditionsgeschichtliche Studien (ed. J. Frey and U. Schnelle; WUNT 175; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 117–203; idem, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the
Qumran Library,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the
International Organization for Qumran Studies Cambridge 1995; Published in Honour of Joseph
M. Baumgarten (ed. M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23;
Leiden: Brill, 1997), 275–335, esp. 277–78; Bauckham, “Qumran and the Fourth
Gospel,” 267–79, 269, 271–72, etc.; David E. Aune, “Dualism in the Fourth Gospel
and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reassessment of the Problem,” in Neotestamentica et
Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen (ed. D. E. Aune, T. Seland, and J. H. Torrey;
NovTSup 106; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 281–303. On attempts at reconstructing a
Johannine theology or history of the community and on the assumption of an Essene
influence on individual members of the community or the author of the Johannine
writings, see also J. Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 176–77; John Ashton,
Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 236–37; Eugen Ruckstuhl,
“Der Jünger, den Jesus liebte,” in Jesus im Horizont der Evangelien (SBAB 3; Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 355–95, 393–94; Raymond E. Brown, “The Qumran
Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles,” CBQ 17 (1955): 403–19, 559–74;
Charlesworth, “The Priority of John?” 73–114.
45. Cf. VanderKam, Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 29–31, 71–73; on criteria for the distinction
between pre-Essene, Essene, and genuinely Qumran texts, see Armin Lange,
“In Diskussion mit dem Tempel: Zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kohelet und
weisheitlichen Kreisen am Jerusalemer Tempel,” in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (ed.
A. Schoors; BETL 136; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998), 113–59, 131–33;
idem, Weisheit und Prädestination (STDJ 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 6–20; Armin Lange
and Hermann Lichtenberger, “Qumran,” TRE 28:55–79, esp. 55–56.