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

JOHN J. COLLINS 85
Aaron and Israel” in the Damascus Document should be interpreted as referring
to one figure or two. But it should be noted that Balaam’s Oracle is
interpreted with reference to two figures in CD 7.18–20. 1QS a (Rule of the
Congregation), 1QS b (Blessings), 4Q174 (Florilegium) and 4Q175 (Testimonia)
are all plausibly interpreted as reflecting dual leadership in the eschatological
community. Some of the texts that mention only one messianic
figure (4Q246, 4Q521) may not be products of the Dead Sea sect, but
part of a wider corpus of literature.
The relation of the Scrolls to early Christianity on the subject of the
Davidic messiah is more complex. The New Testament claims unambiguously
that Jesus was the Davidic messiah, the fulfillment of the
prophecies of old. Yet there is little correspondence between the career of
Jesus, as described in the Gospels, and the kind of role that the Davidic
messiah was expected to play. Jesus did not drive out the Gentiles or slay
the wicked. How Jesus came to be identified as the Davidic messiah
remains one of the great puzzles of early Christianity. While filling out
our understanding of what a Davidic messiah was supposed to be, the
Scrolls only exacerbate the problem of the discrepancy between that role
and the actual career of Jesus. Contrary to Johann Maier, nobody could
have come up with the description of the Davidic messiah given above
on the basis of a retrojection from the New Testament. The understanding
of the Davidic messiah at Qumran is an embarrassment for New
Testament scholarship, since it is clear that Jesus did not fit the role of the
Davidic messiah as it was generally understood.
The ambiguity of the relationship between the messianic texts from
Qumran and the New Testament may be illustrated with reference to
4Q246, the so-called An Aramaic Apocalypse ar or “Son of God text.” There
we read of a figure who will be called “Son of God” and “Son of the Most
High” in language that corresponds exactly to that applied to Jesus in the
Gospel of Luke. The Lukan parallel argues powerfully that the figure in
question is the Davidic messiah: “He will be great, and will be called the
Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of
his ancestor David” (Luke 1:32). Moreover there is a clear basis for referring
to the messiah as “Son of God” in 2 Sam 7:13 (“I will be a father to
him and he will be a son to me,” which is interpreted in the Florilegium:
“he is the Branch of David…”) and in Psalm 2 (“you are my son, this day
I have begotten you”). 42 But if this figure is interpreted as the Davidic
42. Some scholars argue that the “Son of God” figure is a negative figure, possibly
a Syrian king. The argument rests on a lacuna in the text before the rise of the people
of God in column 2, and contends that everything prior to this lacuna must be
negative. This reasoning is not compelling. So, e.g., Émile Puech, “Some Remarks on