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

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH 113
of the major sources, is clearly Qumranic in perspective (as signaled by
the terminological links, even technical terms, italicized in the Johannine
excerpt above). As Stephen S. Smalley states, it is certainly impossible to
think that the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament) can be the source of
the Fourth Evangelist’s dualism, because as “in Qumranic thought, John’s
dualism is not physical but monotheistic, ethical and eschatological.” 52
The Evangelist refers to Jesus as “the Son.” We can no longer report
that the Dead Sea Scrolls do not refer to God’s Son, or the Son 53
(although there is no evidence of the apocalyptic title “the Son of Man”
in the Qumran sectarian compositions). The Elect of God Text (4Q534 =
4QMess) does refer to a powerful person named the “Elect of God”
()hl) ryxb). Who this person is remains unclear; moreover, it probably
is from a pre-Qumran composition. 54
A caveat seems pertinent at this point, especially in light of popular,
misinformed publications. Of the eight hundred Qumran scrolls, none
mention or allude to Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, the attempts by
some authors to identify some of Qumran’s anonymous leaders with
well-known persons in the Jesus Palestinian Movement are simply misinformed.
The Righteous Teacher or Wicked Priest must not be equated
with Jesus, Paul, James, or other persons prominent in the origins of
Christianity.
Established scholars, however, have concluded that significant, and
unexpected, data have revolutionized our perception of early Jewish
thought. It is clear that the Qumranites knew the concept of being “God’s
son,” as it is well-known from Scripture (esp. Psalm 2). Now, there is evidence
that the Qumranites knew about the apocalyptic title “the Son of
God,” which certainly obtained an eschatological and apocalyptic meaning
in Second Temple Judaism. One Dead Sea Scroll does contain the title
“Son of God” (l) yd hrb). It is an Aramaic pseudepigraphon of Daniel
(4Q246 = 4QPs Dana). The two-column fragment has nine lines and is
dated by Józef T. Milik to the end of the first century B.C.E. The document
refers to the “Son of God” (l) yd hrb) and also to the “Son of
the Most High” (Nwyl( rbw). Joseph A. Fitzmyer defines this document
as “properly apocalyptic.” He concludes that these Aramaic titles were
52. Stephen S. Smalley, John—Evangelist and Interpreter (London: Paternoster, 1978,
1992), 30–33.
53. 4Q381 85 contains the form Nbh, but this word means “understand.”
54. See Florentino García-Martínez, “4QMes. Aram. y el Libro de Noe,” in Escritos
de Biblia y Oriente (ed. R. Aguirre and F. García López; Bibliotheca Salmanticensis 38;
Salamanca: Casa de Santiago, 1981), 195–232; also, Benedict T. Viviano, “Aramaic
‘Messianic’ Text,” ABD 1:342.