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

RICHARD A. HORSLEY 57
forced to admit that the supposedly standard Jewish expectation of “the
Messiah” had little basis in Second Temple Jewish literature, along came the
scrolls, attesting not just one but two messiahs and an eschatological prophet
as well. The scrolls confirmed the need to recognize the diversity of Jewish
expectations of future redeemer figures. But the scrolls’ diverse representation
of such figures also provided textual evidence for a considerable variety
of christological constructions that scholars were eager to document.
The DSS also provided other important confirmations for Christology.
Christian interpreters observed the difference between the Qumranites/
Essenes and the Palestinian Jesus movement. On the one hand, the DSS
did not apply the expectations of a priestly messiah and/or an
eschatological prophet (Teacher at the End of Days) to the Righteous
Teacher, 37 whereas the followers of Jesus did apply any and all expectations
to Jesus. On the other hand, if our interest is in the historical Jesus
and we proceed analogously on the scrolls’ side of our comparison to
inquire about the historical Righteous Teacher, we must look for the tradition-grounded
role(s) they played, respectively, in relation to their initial
followers. 38 While the scrolls apparently do not identify the Righteous
Teacher with the Teacher at the End of Days or the Messiah of Aaron or
“a prophet like Moses,” they do represent him as a new Moses with some
additional prophetic characteristics, at least in relation to his followers. 39 A
more thorough exploration of his role as the new Moses and associated
prophetic features may prove to be highly suggestive for our understanding
of one of the popular scripts that the historical Jesus may have adapted
and performed, although in a more indirect way than the popular
prophetic movements on the same social level as Jesus-and-movement.
37. Following Collins, Scepter and the Star, 102–15.
38. Hartmut Stegemann, “The ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ and Jesus: Two Types of
Religious Leadership in Judaism at the Turn of the Era,” in Jewish Civilization in the
Hellenistic-Roman Period (ed. S. Talmon; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International,
1991), 196–213, does break with the habit of focusing on christological titles; he proceeds
relationally, analyzing both Jesus and the Teacher in relation to their disciples
and communities. I am suggesting that those relations were already structured according
to certain scripts alive in the popular and scribal Israelite tradition.
39. I base this observation on the work of Collins, Scepter and the Star, 112–15;
Frederick M. Schweitzer, “The Teacher of Righteousness,” and Michael O. Wise, “The
Temple Scroll and the Teacher of Righteousness,” in Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead
Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac. Part II: The Teacher of Righteousness. Literary
Studies (ed. Z. J. Kapera; Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium on the
Dead Sea Scrolls [Mogilany, Poland, 1989]; Qumranica Mogilanensia 3; Kraków:
Enigma, 1991), 53–97 and 121–47, respectively; Michael O. Wise, “The Teacher of
Righteousness and the High Priest of the Intersacerdotium: Two Approaches,” RevQ 14
(1990): 587–613; and the provocative study of Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant:
An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document” ( JSOTSup 25; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983).