THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

AND JESUS CHRIST

Some Reflections Upon the Dead Sea Scrolls

EDWARD ]. YOUNG

T HE fascinating discovery of manuscripts near the Dead

Sea in Palestine which began in 1947 has continued to
interest the scholarly and religious world! Not only has the
interest continued, but it has mounted steadily. A recent
issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature, for example, is
devoted entirely to a discussion of various phases of the study
of the Scrolls! In May 1955 the New Yorker contained a
rather lengthy article on the subject, and article after article,
both scholarly and popular have continued to appear. 3
Dupont-Sommer has already written two books on the sub-
ject,4 and there has just appeared a full scale study from the
pen of Millar Burrows. s
I A popular account of the discovery is given in Edmund WiIson:

The Scrolls From the Dead Sea, New York, 1955, pp. 1-21; A. Dupont-
Sommer: The Dead Sea Scrolls, A Preliminary Survey, Oxford, 1952, pp.
9-17 (This work is a translation by E. Margaret Rowley of the French
Apert;us preliminaires sur les manuscripts de la Mer Morte, 1950. In the
present article, reference wiIl be made to the English edition which is a
most useful introduction to the study of the Scrolls). H. H. Rowley:
The Zadokite Fragments and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford, 1952, pp. 89-125,
gives an amazingly large number of references to articles dealing with the
discovery of the Scrolls. In the present writer's opinion this book of
Rowley's is one of the best that has been written upon the subject. It
serves as an excellent introduction to the vast literature which has already
arisen, and it is furthermore characterized throughout by restraint and
common sense.
2 Vo!. LXXIV, Part Ill, September 1955.

3 May 14, 1955, Edmund Wilson, <lA Reporter at Large: The Scrolls
From the Dead Sea", pp. 45 ff.
4 The second work appeared in English under the title The Jewish Sect
of Qumran and the Essenes, New Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls, London,
1954. This is a translation by R. D. Barnett of the French, Nouveaux
apert;us sur des manuscripts de la Mer Morte, 1953.
5 MilIar Burrows: The Dead Sea Scrolls, New York, 1955. Although this
work is popular in nature, it offers an excellent introduction to the study
of the Scrolls. Of particular value are the translations which it contains.
121
 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS 123
122

Largely as a result of the studies of Dupont-Sommer, the consideration principally of the "Habakkuk Commentary"IO
idea has gained ground that Christianity is indebted to some and the so-called Zadokite Fragments."
of the teachings which are expressed in these newly discovered In the Habakkuk Commentary and the Zadokite Fragments
manuscripts.6 When the Isaiah manuscript (in the present the Teacher of Righteousness appears as an important figure.
writer's opinion, the most remarkable of all the discoveries) Is he in any sense a forerunner of Jesus Christ? Did the Lord
was first brought to light, it seemed as though the textual adopt some of his ideas and practices? Does any particular
criticism of the Old Testament would undergo a revolution. 7 relationship exist between the two? Does the mention of this
Now, however, it is becoming clear that the Scrolls are also figure in any sense detract from the uniqueness of Christianity?
going to prove of great interest and importance to students of I t is to the answering of these questions that we must direct
the New Testament. 8 Are the foundations of Christianity in our attention in the present article. What we may learn from
danger as a result of these discoveries? That is the question a study of these matters will doubtless influence our attitude
to which serious attention must be devoted. 9 toward the Scrolls as such and their relationship to early
In an article such as this, it will be impossible to attempt to Christianity.
do justice to every aspect of the question, nor would the
writer, even if space permitted, be qualified to discuss every THE DATING OF THE SCROLLS
aspect. We shall therefore attempt something on a much more
modest scale. We shall seek to limit ourselves in the present For some time a controversy has been carried on with
article to a study of those documents in which mention is respect to the time of composition of the Scrolls."z By far
made of a Teacher of Righteousness, and this will involve a the great majority of scholars have posited an early date, that
is, a period which may roughly be described as about the time
6 Note the discussion in Wilson: op. cit., pp. 77-112.
of Christ. This early date, however, has been vigorously and
7 In a communication presented to the annual meeting of the Society of competently challenged, and it will be necessary to give some
Biblical Literature and Exegesis, December 29, 1949, H. M. Orlinsky attention to a consideration of this challenge before proceeding
maintained that the copyist responsible for the Isaiah Scroll was not to compare the teaching of the Scrolls with Christianity.
particularly careful, that the Scroll comes from a manuscript which was The leading advocate of a late date for the Dead Sea Scrolls
copied from memory and that its text was well-nigh worthless for textual
criticism (See Journal of Biblical Literature, Vo!. LXIX, Part I, March
is Professor Solomon Zeitlin of the Dropsie College.'3 In the
1950, p. vi). Some excellent remarks on the subject are given by W. J.
10 Published in facsimile in The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark's Monastery,
Martin: The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, London, 1954.
8 Note the remarks of vVilson: op. cit., p. 99, and of Rowley: The Dead Volume I, The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary, edited
Sea Scrolls and their Significance, London, 1954, pp. 22, 23. by Millar Burrows, New Haven, 1950.
I I Published in facsimile by Solomon Zeitlin: The Zadokite Fragments,
9 A popular article in which these questions are discussed is by a New

Testament scholar, Floyd V. Filson: "vVhat About the Dead Sea Scrolls?" Philadelphia, 1952, and in translation by R. H. Charles: Apocrypha and
in Presbyterian Life, October 29, 1955, pp. 8 ff. Filson concludes his article Pseudepigraplza of the Old Testament, Il, 1913, pp. 786 ff.
with the statement, "We welcome the historical evidence of the scrolls, 12 Rowley, op. cit., p. 10, correctly points out that "Three quite separate

but we still have to look to Christ and the New Testament for the gospel of question call for investigation: (1) when the non-Biblical texts were
God's grace". On the other hand a popular article by G. Lankester Harding composed; (2) when all the manuscripts were copied; (3) when the
in The Illustrated London News, September 3, 1955, bears the heading manuscripts were deposited in the cave".
"Where Christ Himself May Have Studied: An Essene Monastery at 13 Dr. Zeitlin's learned articles have principally appeared in the Jewish

Khirbet Qumran". There are two pages of illustrations over which are Quarterly Review, hereafter abbreviated as JQR. We may note Vo!. XLI
found the following headings: "A Building In Which John the Baptist, And (1950-1951) "The Hebrew Scrolls: Once More and Finally", pp. 1-58;
Probably Christ, Studied: Khirbet Qumran" (p. 380), and "Are These the "The Hebrew Scrolls: A Challenge to Scholarship", pp. 251-275; Vo!. XLV,
Rooms Where Christ Once Walked? - Qumran Finds." Such "populariz- No. 1, "The Antiquity of the Hebrew Scrolls and the Piltdown Hoax:
ing" can only be regarded as regrettable. A Parallel", pp. 1-29; Vo!. XLV, No. 2, "The Essenes and Messianic
124 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS 125

first place he appeals to vocabulary.I4 .The very te~m i1:",;l that is, without being restricted to the interpretation of a
... ," he claims was coined by the Karmtes, as a desIgnatlOn dream, is a later reflection of Arabic influence. On the other
I" - " , ' R bb' . I
of their own teachers, in distinction from the a mIca hand, as Rowley indicates, Fraenkel considers the Arabic word
teachers, whom they designated ,pw i1"~, teacher(s) of fals~­ to be a loan from Aramaic. The word is also used in the same
hood. Zeitlin also points out that certain other terms were m sense in the Zadokite Fragments as it is in the Habakkuk
use after the catastrophe of Bar Kokba, and that the word Commentary. From this Rowley suggests that under the
,WEl is found in Karaitic literature. . . influence of manuscripts which came to light about 800 A. D.
The Habakkuk Scroll furthermore, asserts Dr. ZeIthn, the word may have" ... gained new currency in this extended
makes use of an expression of the Middle Ages ~ElW~i1 1'1':1 sense" (op. cit., p. 28). This is certainly a conceivable and
(in the sense of "court"). It employs ~N and. ~ot ~'i1' as a possible explanation. I7
designation of God. This, according to ZeIthn, IS f?und A more convincing argument is brought forth by Rowley
thirty-nine times in the Zadokite work:. On the baSIS of in a footnote in which he points out that in Accadian the words
vocabulary, then, Dr. Zeitlin believes that the Scrolls, and we pasiru and pisru were employed, not merely of the interpreta-
now have particular reference to the HabakkukCommentary, tion of dreams, but also of omens and signs. IS It would seem
are of the Middle Ages. that the idea of interpretation was in itself a very ancient one.
In the second place, Zeitlin supports his position with the The account in Nehemiah 8 makes it clear that Ezra and the
statement that during the Second Commonwealth the Jews others who read endeavored to explain the Law to the people.
did not write commentaries on the Bible, since at this time They engaged in interpretation. Likewise, Peter at Pentecost
Hebrew was yet a living tongue, and there was no need for explained the events to his hearers. The evangelist Philip
commentaries. Furthermore, the type of commentary found explained Isaiah 53 to the Ethiopian eunuch, and the 7rpocjJ*rat
in the Habakkuk Scroll is said to lack" ... form, its construc- of ancient Greece explained or interpreted the oracles of
tion is bad, it could not have been written during the Seco?d Delphi and other oracles to the nation. The art and practice
Commonwealth and cannot be compared to the commentanes of explanation was of course old. I9
written by Saadia Gaon or the great Karaites. It is the work
17 Professor Rowley and others have maintained that the Scrolls may
of a Jew of mediocre attainments" .15 •
have been placed in the cave long before 800 A. D. In 800 A. D., according
What may be said concerning these arguments? It IS to to a letter which Timotheus I, the Nestorian Patriarch, sent to Sergius,
the credit of H. H. Rowley that he has endeavored to present the Metropolitan of Elam (first called to the attention of recent scholarship
an answer. I6 He points out that Weis had asserted that ,WEl by Eissfeldt, in Theologische Literaturzeitung, LXXIV, 1949, cols. 597 ff.,
in its wider usage, as found in the Habakkuk Commentary, and popularly presented by Filson in the Biblical Archaeologist, xiii, 1950,
pp. 96 ff.) a bedouin discovered some manuscripts in a cave near the Dead
Sea and reported his find to the Jews. If a large number of these Scrolls
Expectations", pp. 83-119 (while this article is not a d!rect tr.eatme~t ~f were at that time removed from the cave and circulated among the Kara-
the Scrolls, it is extremely valuable as a study of the subjects wIth WhICh It ites, they might have influenced the latter. The difficulty in this theory, as
deals, subjects which recent discussion of the, Scrolls"h~s. brought to th~ Rowley of course recognizes, is that it does not explain why the recently
fore); "A Note on the Fiction of the 'Bar Kokba Letter ,tbtd., pp. 174-180, discovered manuscripts were not also removed with the others. Yet this
Vol. XLV, No. 3, "Additional Remarks", pp. 218-22:; Vo~. XLVI~ No. ,~, need not be an insuperable difficulty. We have no means of knowing that
"The Propaganda of the Hebrew Scrolls and the Fals!flcatlOn of HIstory , the cave from which the 800 A. D. find was removed is identical with one
pp. 1-39, and No. 2, pp. 116-180. Mention should also be made of Jose~h of the Ain Feschka caves. The cave in which Timotheus' bedouin found
Reider: "The Dead Sea Scrolls", JQR, Vol. XLI, pp. 59-70; P. R. WeIs: his manuscripts may have contained but a few Scrolls. There is no evi-
"The Date of the Habakkuk Scroll", JQR, Vol. XLI, pp. 125-154. dence of any wide-spread search for manuscripts at that time such as that
'4 Cf. JQR, Vol. XLVI, No. 2, pp. 132, 133. which has characterized the past few years.
IS JQR, Vol. XLI, p. 35. 18 Ibid., p. 27, n. 8.
16 The Zadokite Fragments, pp. 26-28. 19 Cf. Nehemiah 8:9; Acts 8:29-35. Certainly the idea of interpretation,
126 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS
127
Weis is correct, with the exceptions to be noted later, in his righteousness (ili~1¥7)". It is obvious that the words iI"'~
insistence that the wider use of 'W)!:) as found in the Habakkuk V1~ find their origin here. Of great interest also is Hosea
Commentary cannot now be attested earlier. In the Old 10:12, " ... ti.l1 h~ come and rain righteousness on you"
Testament the Hebrew 1"l'1!:) and the Aramaic N'll}!:) are \C~7 V1~ 111"'" N'::1; 1~). It is clear that the designation
used in the restricted sense of the i,nterpretations of dreams, 'Teacher of Righteousness" is derived from the Scriptures
although the latter word is found in Daniel 5 where it is themselves. It is also clear that, at least up to the present no
employed of the explanation of the mysterious handwriting examples. of the usage of this phrase have appeared in ~re­
upon the wall. In Ecc1esiastes 8: 1 the word seems also to be Karalte tImes. If .the i~habitants. of the Dead Sea monastery
employed in a wider sense ('::11 'll}!:) , as a synonym for we~e Es~enes ~nd If theIr leader dId bear this designation, the
wisdom generally. A phrase similar to that employed in the deSIgnatIOn dIed with them and did not reappear, as far as
Habakkuk Commentary, is found in Genesis 41 :12, 18 (iI~ we now know, until the times of the Karaites. Christ was not
ili'l:\l;l). These considerations are instructive, but they do cal1ed the "Teacher of Righteousness". Dupont-Sommer de-
not' permit us to draw dogmatic conclusions. Since the idea cla.r~s "The Galilean Master, as he is presented to us in the
of Scripture interpretation is very old, we need not insist that wntmgs ?f ~he New Testament, appears in many respects as
the occurrence of ,ll}!:) in the Habakkuk Commentary proves an astolllshmg reincarnation of the Teacher of Righteous-
either a late or early date. It is certainly conceivable that the ness".22 As far as the designation itself is concerned, there is
word might be used in this sense much earlier?O no connection or similarity whatever. With respect to the
What about the term V1~ iI"~? According to Weis, this other. terms adduced by Zeitlin, the evidence seems to support
term first appears in a Karaite commentary from the end of the VIew that they belong to the Karaitic period.
the ninth century?I This commentary, that of Daniel al Zeitlin argues further that the author of the commentary
Kumisi, is on Joel 2:23, a passage which has been too much made use of the Targum of J onathan. He appeals to the
neglected in the study of the Scrolls. The text may be trans- comments on 1 :16 as being based on the Targumic language.
lated, " ... for he hath given you the former rain (iI~.i~) for Secondly, both the Targum and the Commentary employ the
word.iI"-:Vof Jerusalem, and lastly the word t:m in Habakkuk
in itself, and not merely as restricted to dreams, must have been very 2 :20 IS mterp:eted by iI':::l" which is based on the Targum.
old. These are weIghty considerations. What can be said about
20 C. Rabin, "Notes on the Habakkuk Scroll and the Zadokite Docu- them?23
ments", Vetus Testamentum, Vol. V, No. 2, pp. 148 ff., has some valuable
remarks on the literary genre of the Habakkuk Scroll. He appeals to the
The Habakkuk document interprets 1 :16, "those who sacri-
Demotic writings of about 300 B. c., particularly to a "chronicle" edited fice to their standards" (C1'111'11N' C"T1::1T iI~iI). It does not
by Spiegelberg (D'ie sogenannte Demotische Chronik, Leipzig, 1914), which follow the Targum word for word, for the Targum may be
consists of a series of oracles, the general "technique" of which is similar translated "and bring forth incense to its standards". In
to the Habakkuk Commentary. Rabin believes that there is an actual place of .the 1"~t:l1:::l P"t:I~24 of the Targum and the "\¥j(.71 of the
literary connection. The literary genre, he declares, is neither midrash
nor commentary, but a type which may be designated pesher (interpreta-
MasoretIc. text, the Habakkuk Scroll renders freely by C"T1::1T.
tion). Rabin gives the following (v, 2-4) for comparison with Habakkuk The practice of the Scroll is to interpret the Biblical text of
Scroll xii, 3-4, " 'Rain upon the stone, the sky being clear'. That means: con~emporaneous events, and hence, it applies the action of
the people of Egypt have been made a carnage while the sun (god) sees sacnfice to the Kittim. Is it not possible, however, that this
them, etc."
It is clear that, whatever the relationship between the two may be, the
type of interpretation is similar. Rabin has performed a real service in 22 The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes, p. 160.
calling attention to this text. 23 Zeitlin, JQR, Vol. XLVI, No. 2, p. 132.
21 Weis, op. cif., p. 135. 24 The Targum i'l'lJllfl;l? )'l.:Il(i.n p'lpl,)l.
128 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS 129
interpretation may have served as a basis from which the never before known. 29 According to Dr. Albright the clay was
Targum drew, rather than vice versa? It is difficult to say Roman, either Herodian or post-Herodian. 30 Kelso points out
positively, one way or another. that the history of the monastery building falls into three
With respect to the usage of i1~"i' as referring to Jerusalem, periods. Since coins of both John Hyrcanus and Alexander
this usage may be found in the Syriac of Mark 14:21.25 Is it Jannaeus are available the building was apparently built
possible, with our limited knowledge, to determine how early during the reign of one or the other of them. During the reign
such an employment of the word began? of Herod the Great it seems to have been abandoned to be
Regarding the interpretation of ot! in Habakkuk 2 :20, the re?ccupied during the reign of Archelaus. As shown by the
Targum renders it by the Pe'al, 1~!:l~0~1 which may be trans- coms the second phase came to an end in June 68, after which
lated, "and let be consumed (or, they shall be consumed) it was remodeled and became a garrison for Roman soldiers.
from before him all the idols of the land".2 6 The Syriac has Finally, with the Second Jewish Revolt the building was no
~09~ (there will tremble), and the Arabic t. ti ~ (let fear), longer used. 3'
which is based upon the LXX eVAa{3el(J'()w. One cannot but Within this building the same type of jars was found as
be struck by the similarity in thought between the Targum was found in the cave. The presence of Roman coins made it
and the Habakkuk Scroll. The Targum is a prayer that clear that they belonged to the first century A. D. but previous
earth's idols come to an end, and the Habakkuk Scroll states to Jerusalem's destruction. It was suggested by G. R. Driver
that God ('n·t) will make an end of all who serve idols and that the jars could be much older than the manuscripts.32 But
(i. e., together with) the wicked from the earth.'7 Which, it would seem that the jars were made for the very purpose of
however, was the original? It is difficult to say. The Habak- preserving and storing the manuscripts, a practice which was
kuk Scroll preserves the Masoretic text but interprets it of fairly wide-spread in antiquity.33 The archaeological evidence,
the destruction of idolaters, whereas the Targum simply therefore, favors an early date. This is answered by Zeitlin,
interprets it of the consuming of idols. One refers to idols, however, with the assertion that the scrolls were never in the
the other to idolaters. One employs a transitive verb, the cave. 34
other an intransitive. The evidence does not appear to be In this brief survey of the question we have left aside the
sufficiently strong to warrant the statement that there is matter of palaeography. The study of the Nash Papyrus in
actual borrowing or dependence, nor, if there was such a seminar devoted to the study of the Scrolls has convinced
dependence, which document was the earlier. 28 the present writer that this tiny fragment is earlier than the
The strongest argument for an early dating of the Scrolls is
archaeological. In his article "The Archeology of Qumran", 29 In Journal of Biblical Literature, Vo!. LXXIV, Part Ill, September,
Dr. J ames L. Kelso points out that the jars were of a type 1955, pp. 141-146.
30 In Kelso, op. cit., pp. 141 f.
1
3 Gp. cit., p. 144. ej. also, in the same issue, Charles T. Fritsch: "Herod
2S l~...;,ii ~ lom l~l? the Great and the Qumran Community", pp. 173 ff.
2
26 ~¥!~ n~01 ~f 'iJi1,)1Pr. 11,) 11')10'1. 3 As reported by W. J. Martin: The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, p. 6, this

suggestion was made in The Times (London) of August 23, 1949.

27 ii~::l' ~ElW1,)ii tl1'::!' YlJil n~' p~il n~ ,,::!~ 'W~ tl',m ~'::l ~~ 'WEl
33 The evidence for this is given in Martin, op. cit., p. 6 .
.r'~iI 11,) tl'~W'ii n~' tl'::!,"~ii ',::!,~ ~'::l n~ ~~ 34 JQR, Vo!. XL, 1949-50, pp. 59 ff. and Vo!. XLI, 1950-51, p. 57. In
28 C. Rabin (op. cit., p. 158), with respect to another point in relation to
this latter reference Zeitlin remarks: "The Isaiah Scroll, Habakkuk Com-
the Targum and the Habakkuk Scroll, well remarks: "Interpretations of mentary, Thanksgiving Psalms, vVar of the Sons of Light and the Sons of
this kind, whatever their source, were apparently used by different circles Darkness were not found in the Judean Desert. They were brought from
and adapted by each to their needs, not always with full cognizance of the another country. They may have been placed in the caves for a while.
methods on which they were originally based". They belong to the Geniza of the Middle Ages."
130 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS 131
Middle Ages. 35 What, however, shall we say with respect to ingly, and his work is easy to read. For that very reason it is
the question of date in general? likely to have considerable influence. It is a popular account
For our part we believe that the evidence is insufficient to of the discovery and significance of the Scrolls, and for the
determine the matter in a dogmatic fashion, although we most part follows the researches of Dupont-Sommer. The
look with favor upon an early date. 3b Zeitlin has raised book is, in fact, an apologetic for a "naturalistic" or "human-
some extremely cogent points, whi'ch in our opinion have not istic" type of Christianity, and consequently, it is necessary
yet received an entirely satisfactory answer. Non-Jewish to examine with some care certain of the matters which it
scholars, and least of all, the present writer, do not have a discusses.
thorough knowledge of Rabbinics. Not only is it a field in That for which Wilson is contending may clearly be seen
which we are not experts, but it is one in which for the most from the two following quotations. "The monastery", he
part our knowledge is meager indeed. Dr. Zeitlin, on the writes, and he has reference to the Qumran monastery, "this
other hand, is a master in this field. structure of stone that endures, between the bitter waters and
However, one cannot but be impressed by the argument precipitous cliffs, with its oven and its inkwells, its mill and
from archaeology, and to a lesser extent, by that from palae- its cesspool, its constellation of sacred fonts and the un-
ography.37 Our purpose in this present article is not to attempt adorned graves of its dead, is perhaps more than Bethlehem
a settlement of the question of date, but rather to discuss the or Nazareth, the cradle of Christianity" (op. cit., pp. 97 f.).
relationship which the Scrolls sustain to Christianity. By way The second quotation brings to the fore the anti-supernatu-
of orientation and background, however, it has been necessary ralistic bias of the book, "and it would seem an immense
to offer these general remarks on the present status of discus- advantage for cultural and social intercourse - that is, for
sion concerning the date of the Scrolls. civilization - that the rise of Christianity should, at last, be
generally understood as simply an episode of human history
rather than propagated as dogma and divine revelation. The
THE SCROLLS AND CHRISTIANITY
study of the Dead Sea scrolls - with the direction it is now
One factor, namely the relation of Christianity to the taking - cannot fail, one would think, to conduce to this"
Scrolls, has been thrust into prominence through the appear- (op, cit., p. 108).
ance of Edmund Wilson's book. 38 Mr. Wilson writes engag- There is a certain amount of naIvete in Wilson's discussion
of these matters. He quotes David Flusser as saying, "Les
3S Much has, of course, been written on the subject of palaeography. The chretiens sont deranges. Les juifs sont deranges aussi. Moi,
reader is referred to the excellent bibliography in Rowley: The Zadokite je ne suis pas derange!" (Christians are disturbed. Jews are
Fragments, pp. 89-125. Of partkular importance as an introduction to the also disturbed. I, however, am not disturbed.) Wilson then
whole question of palaeography is the work of Solomon A. Birnbaum:
proceeds to state, "and I had seemed to note, also, on the
The Qu.mran (Dead Sea) Scrolls and Palaeography, Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research, Supplementary Studies, Nos. 13-14, New Christian side, a certain reluctance to recognize that the
Haven, 1952. characteristic doctrines of Christianity must have been devel-
36 It must also be remembered that the Scrolls do not necessarily reflect oped gradually and naturally, in the course of a couple of
the doctrine of the group that once lived in the Qumran monastery. They hundred years, out of a dissident branch of Judaism" (op. cit.,
may, of course, have done so, and probably did. On the other hand, they
p. 80). He then goes on to say, "An independent scholar like
may have at one time merely belonged to the library of the group. The
evidence is not sufficient to permit much dogmatizing. Flusser, not committed to any religion, had no reason for
37 The present writer does, therefore, look with favor upon an early date being upset" (op. cit., p. 81). The same note is sounded again
for the Scrolls U. e., near the beginning of this era). on a later page, "Such an inquirer comes finally to ask himself
3 8 See note 1.
132 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS 133

whether anyone but a secular scholar is really quite free to time before the cessation of party struggles and the nomination
grapple with the problems of the Dead Sea discoveries" of Octavius as imperator, probably 41 B. C. 39
(op. cit., p. 101). In his second book, Dupont-Sommer is careful to indicate
Since Wilson's work will doubtless be widely read, we have that he does not at all equate Jesus Christ and the Teacher of
felt it our duty to adduce these quotations which make clear Righteousness. There are certain differences between the two
the underlying assumptions updn which it is based. All he argues, and these differences are sufficient to refute an;
scholars whatever their religious views have presuppositions. identification of the two such as Teicher has sought to make. 40
Mr. Wilson himself certainly has them, and they are pre- The Teacher of Righteousness was a priest, he points out, a
suppositions which apparently would rule out an intrusion of son of Levi, whereas Christ was not a priest, but a "Son of
the supernatural into human history. We wonder whether David". Jesus is called the Messiah, whereas the Teacher of
Wilson has considered the implications involved in adopting Righ teousness was described as "Messiah of Aaron and Israel" .
the presuppositions with which he has approached the study "The Teacher of Righteousness probably lived generally in
of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Certainly no honest Christian need J udaea; Jesus was a Galilean and His preaching took place
be afraid of truth wherever he may meet it. principally on the shores of the Lake of Tiberias. The Teacher
We are grateful for many fine things in Wilson's book. He of Righteousness was a learned master, whom his followers
has given a delightful account of the discovery of the Scrolls, surrounded with such a superstitious veneration that, like the
we only regret that he has seen fit to proceed upon the basis disciples of Pythagoras, they would not pronounce his name;
of assumptions which we regard as utterly untenable. He has Jesus was a familiar teacher, whom His disciples and even the
called the attention of his readers to the work of Dupont- multitude approached with complete freedom, and whose
Sommer, and for this we may be grateful. Wilson does not, name was neither secret nor mysterious. The Teacher of
however, follow Dupont-Sommer in all details, and hence, we Righteousness, if one may judge by the quite monastic rule
believe that it will be the part of wisdom to submit the fuller which he imposed on his followers, was a strict ascetic, no
arguments of Dupont-Sommer to a careful scrutiny. doubt charitable, but as hard on himself as on others, avoiding
In his first work, which appeared in English under the title, all contact with sinners like a pollution; Jesus mingled more
The Dead Sea Scrolls, A Preliminary Survey, Dupont-Sommer with ordinary life, was more human"Y
declares, "It is from the womb of this religious ferment that The picture of the Teacher of Righteousness which is given
Christianity, the Christian 'New Covenant', emerged. In in the above quotation is found not only in the Habakkllk
history there are scarcely any absolute beginnings, and Commentary but is drawn from other sources as well. Our
Christianity is no exception to the rule" (p. 98). Even more purpose now will be to examine that figure as he appears in
startling, however, is the declaration, "The Galilean Master, the Habakkuk Commentary and then as presented in the
as He is presented to us in the writings of the New Testament, Zadokite Fragments and to compare him with what the New
appears in many respects as an astonishing reincarnation of Testament has to say about Christ.
the Master of Justice" (p. 99). It is perfectly evident that the interpretation which charac-
Dupont-Sommer is an ardent advocate of an early date for
the Scroll which is known as the Habakkuk Commentary. 39 Ibid., p. 31.
On the basis of the comments on Habakkuk 2 :,15, he maintains 40 The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes, p. 161. Dr. J. L. Teicher has
argued that the sect mentioned in the Scrolls was Ebionite Christian, the
that the catastrophe therein mentioned is the capture of
Teacher of Righteousness was Jesus and the Man of Falsehood Paul. ej.
Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 B. C. The commentary must his recent article "The Christian interpretation of the sign X in the Isaiah
therefore be subsequent to this time. It is, however, from a Scroll" in Vetus Testamentum, Vol. V, No. 2, pp. 189-198.
4' Ibid., pp. 161 f.
134 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS 135
terizes the Habakkuk Commentary is of a somewhat unique verse, we are told, also has reference to those who have acted
typeY It can hardly be considered as serious and sober deceptively against the New (Covenant). 47 It is further said of
exegesis of the prophetical book. Very obviously the words them that (apparently X'~ is to be read) they have not
of the prophet have had a forced meaning placed upon them, believed in the covenant of God.4 8 The verse is further said
a meaning which is designed to give prominence to the Teacher to apply to those who "have rejected (?) the covenant49 which
of Righteousness. Whereas, for example, Habakkuk speaks of they have not believed when they heard all the - - (?) of
the righteous in a general sense (1 :4), the commentary imme- the last generation from the mouth of the priest whom God
diately finds here a reference to the Teacher of Righteousness. has appointed Om) ... to interpret all the words of His
Although only half of column one is extant, nevertheless, the servants the prophets ... (through) their hand God has told
words are plainly visible, "he is the Teacher of Righteousness" (i~O) all which will come to pass concerning His people ... ".
(j:"~il ili'~ X1i1). Eo Reicke has suggested that the earlier Of particular interest is the comment on 1 :13b, "its inter-
part of the line contained the words, "The wicked, that is, pretation so has to do with (l;J:\7) the house of Absalom and the
the wicked priest, and the righteous ... ".43 This suggestion men of their group who were silent toward the admonitions
has merit, for it is likely that both the "wicked" and the of the Teacher of Righteousness, and did not help him against
"righteous" of the text should be identified. Although the the Man of Falsehood who rejected the Law in the midst of
word "righteous" occurs in the text in a general sense, never- all (people?)".
theless, the commentary individualizes it. It is not the right- !he next reference appears in the commentary on 2 :2.
eous ones generally that are in view, but rather one particular WIth respect to the words "to the end that he that runs may
righteous individual, the Teacher of Righteousness. 44 read therein" the reference is said to be to the Teacher of
In the commentary on 1:5 mention is made of a "Man of Righteousness whom God "has made to know all the secrets
Falsehood" and of those who have engaged in deception with ('Ti) of His servants the prophets".
him.45 The reason for their action is introduced by ~~, but Important is the comment on 2 :4, "its interpretation con-
the text is broken. However, the next word is probably the cerns all those who obey the Law in the house of J udah whom
negative, and at the end of the line occurs the words "Teacher God delivers from the house of judgment on account of their
of Righteousness (from) the mouth-of (line 3) God" .4 6 The labor and their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness"Y
2 :8b is interpreted of the Wicked Priest who dealt treach-
4' Whether the work be called commentary or midrash depends upon erously against (?) the Teacher of Righteousness and the men
what one means by those terms. The work interprets the Biblical text in of his (i. e., the Priest's) company.
such a way as to apply it to events which were more or less contempora-
neous with the author (cj. note 20).
43 Bo Reicke: "Handskirfterna Fri'm Qumran I-Ill", in Symbolae Bib- of which is visible. The text seems to have been: np1~(i1) n1'",. There
licae Upsalienses (Supplement-haften till Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok), Upp- appears also to have been a slanting line over the Daleth. Cj.] oel 2 :23.
sala, 1952, p. 28, "Har kan miijligen ha statt: Den brottslige, det ar den 47 The noun before the adjective is missing.
brottslige prasten (kol. viii, 9), och den ra ttfardige ... ". 48 The sense is very difficult. The commentary appears to say
44 The Commentary speaks of this Teacher throughout as an individual. "those who have dealt deceitfully against the New (Covenant) because
We cannot therefore maintain that in the eyes of the commentator, he (W::;') they have not believed in the covenant of God". It would seem (if
was merely a symbol of the powers of light and righteousness. we are correct in supplying "covenant" before "new") that two covenants
45 ::lI:m tv'~ oy 0'1l':l'. are mentioned. Apart from this one questionable passage the term "New
46 Part of the Aleph of the negative is visible. Probably we may recon- Covenant" (ntv1nn n'1:ln) does not occur in the Habakkuk Scroll.
struct the text so as to obtain the following: "Because they did not believe 49 Only the final n of this word appears.
the words of the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God". The so The usual formula which introduces the comments is '1tv.!).
word p1~ is blotted over. The i1 of the article is written above the line, SI 1':lY:l 1j.!)tv",n n':l", ,~ O,'~, 1tv~ n11;,' n':l:l n11nn 'tv,y ,,::;, ,y '1tv.!)
and apparently, there is an extra letter, possibly a n, the horizontal stroke . p1~n n1'",:l Onl"'~' o,,,,y
136 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS 137
2 :15 is said to refer to the Wicked Priest who pursued after prophet and a priest and one who had particular knowledge of
the Teacher of Righteousness "to swallow him in the anger of the secrets of the prophets. That the Teacher was an im-
his wrath, thou hast desired (?) his exile, and at the time of portant figure is to be noted in the statement that he is
the festival of the rest of the Day of Atonement he appeared regarded as a savior. Salvation from judgment is made to
gloriously (~"£)m) unto them to swallow them up and to make depend upon those who obey the law and who labor and have
them stumble in the day of the fast of the Sabbath of their faith in the Teacher. It would be a grave mistake to seek for
rest" .5 2 an identity here between the rule of the sect and Christianity.
From the meager information found in the Habakkuk Nqr, for that matter, may the sect at this point be regarded
Commentary one may conclude that the Teacher was a even as a forerunner. I cannot agree with Dupont-Sommer
when he says, "The importance of this formula, furtive though
52 The text is difficult, and it is precarious to base too much upon it.
it be, can hardly escape anyone. The Teacher of Righteous-
The crucial word is V~:l~ which seems to express purpose. If, then, the
ness has become for his followers the essential object of faith;
text is rendered, "who pursued after the Teacher of Righteousness to
swallow him up", it does not actually assert that he was martyred. Rowley it is faith in him which causes one to live."53 It should be
(op. cit., p. 34) cautiously states, "who seems to have suffered martyr- pointed out that the mention of faith is of a most incidental
dom". Dupont-Sommer (The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 27) translates "so as to character. It appears simply because of the presence of the
swallow him up"; cf. also Vetus Testamentum, I, 1951, pp. 200 ff. Reicke word in the text of Habakkuk itself. There is not the slightest
(op. cit., p. 38) translates, "som har fi:irfOljt Rattfa.rdighetens la.rare fOr
indication in the commentary that the writer understood
att fi:irvirra honom". On the basis of this present passage we cannot
positively assert the martyrdom of the Teacher. The words 1m~l m:l~ what Habakkuk meant by the term "faith". And the
are rendered by Segal ("The Habakkuk 'Commentary' and The Damascus commentator himself obscures the meaning of the word by
Fragments" in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vo!. LXX, Part 2, p. 135) his coupling it with "works". He stresses those who keep the
as equivalent to 1m~l n':l ~~ "to the place of his exile", which rendering Law, and states that one of the grounds of their deliverance
is also accepted by Reicke (op. cit., p. 38). Segal correctly remarks: "But
from judgment (if ~£)!1)~;' Ji":J~ has reference to the final judg-
the Wicked Priest is not accused of having murdered the Teacher". Cf.
Dupont-Sommer's full discussion in his article "Le Maitre de justice fut-il ment) was held to be their toil and their faith. How different
mis a mort?" in Vetus Testamentum, I, No. 3, pp. 200-215. There has this is from the New Testament doctrine! There is nothing
been much discussion about the verb V'.!)1il. Dupont-Sommer refers it to here of the sola fide of Luther. Those who will be delivered by
the Teacher, "shining with divine splendour, who himself chastises the God, according to the commentator, are those who have toiled
wicked city. . .. Furthermore the biblical text here commented on con-
and have kept the law. To include faith as a ground for
tains the words: so that God may see their feasts; and this text is applied by
the commentator to the Master: what an extraordinary apotheosis!" deliverance is in reality to deny the true character of faith.
(The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 44). Cf. The Jewish Sect, pp. 35-37. However, For that matter, in the New Testament faith is not made the
this is to read a great deal into the text. Despite whatever difficulties are ground for salvation, but rather the righteousness of Christ
involved (and Dupont-Sommer has certainly stressed them, ibid., p. 36), imputed to the believer and received by (not "because of")
until the force of 1m~l n1:l~ is better understood than seems to me to be
faith alone. The term (":J~:J) is far removed from New
the case, the subject of V'.!)1il would most naturally appear to be the Wicked
Priest. Even, however, if the Teacher of Righteousness be taken as sub-
ject, there is absolutely nothing in the language to suggest an apotheosis, 53 The Jewish Sect, pp. 55 f. In this connection, Cullmann: "The Sig-
a "resurrection" or a "second coming". Rowley (op. cit., p. 34) quotes J. nificance of the Qumran Texts for Research Into the Beginnings of Chris-
Bonsirven (Etudes, cclxviii, 1951, p. 215, which I have not seen), "Ce n'est tianity", in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vo!. LXXIV, Part IV, December,
que par un abus de mots qu'on pretend decouvrir dans les ecrits de la 1955, p. 217, remarks, "Of course, we must point out at the same time the
Nouvelle Alliance un Messie divin, un Messie crucifie, un Messie qui differences: this faith in the Teacher of Righteousness is not, as for Paul,
viendra exterminer ses ennemis dans une 'extraordinaire apotheose' ". faith in an act of atonement accomplished in the death of Christ for the
Lastly, it should be remembered that the word fr is found here in a forgiveness of sins. In fact, the concept of faith itself is different, containing
technical sense, "time". nothing of the sense of opposition to the works of the law."
138 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS 139

Testament thought. One cannot escape the impression that register they shall not be written, from the day that there was
the mention of faith is more or less incidental, and would not gathered in the Unique Teacher until there shall arise the
even have been thought of, had not the word itself occurred Messiah from Aaron and from Israel" .59 Again in IX :39
in the text of Habakkuk. M eager , indeed, is the information there is further reference to the Unique Teacher, "was
which can be gleaned from the Habakkuk Commentary gathered in the Unique Teacher until all men of war were
concerning the Teacher of Righteousness. consumed who walked with the man of lies about forty
years".60
. There are a few further references to the Teacher, e. g.,
THE ZADOKITE FRAGMENTS AND THE TEACHER
IX:50, "But all they who hold fast by these judgments in
OF RIGHTEOUSNESS
going out and coming in according to the Law, and listen to
It would seem that the Habakkuk Commentary and the the voice of the Teacher and confess before God ... " ;6I
so-called Zadokite Fragments54 sustain a close relationship one IX :53, "and give ear to the voice of the Unique Teacher of
to another, and for this reason it will be necessary to learn Righ teousness ... ".62
what the Zadokite Fragments have to say about the Teacher It is clear that in the Zadokite Fragments the Teacher of
of Righteousness. These documents, as is now well known, Righteousness is to be distinguished from the Messiah. 63 This
were discovered toward the close of the last century by appears from VIII :29 particularly, "there was gathered in the
Solomon Schechter and were published by him in 1910. 55 Unique Teacher until there shall arise the Messiah from
The Fragments early introduce the Teacher. They speak of Aaron and from Israel". Of the Messiah it is said that
God having visited the nation three hundred and ninety years "through His Messiah He shall make them know His Holy
after the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Since the nation was Spirit".6 4 In IX:10, the Messiah appears as a military figure.
seeking the Lord, apparently in repentance for its sins, "He In XV:4 we read, "to the period of the wickedness until there
raised them up a Teacher of Righteousness to lead them in
59 Plate XIX, line 1. The first word is not clearly legible. Apparently
the way of His heart" .5 6 Further on, in a section which
the text read: ~~'W'/.:I' l"il~/.:I n'w/.:I .,/.:1)1 ")1 ,,'n'il ni'/.:I ~ O~il.
refers to the Exodus from Egypt, it is said of the Israelites 60 Plate XIX, line 14.
that "they hearkened not to the voice of their Maker (the 6, Plate XX, lines 11, 12.

commandments of their Teacher) but murmured in their 62 Plate XX, line 16.
63 Dupont-Sommer (Jewish Sect, p. 54), however, contends for the
tents ... ".57
identity of the Teacher and the Messiah of Aaron and Israel. He bases
In VIII :10, we read, "And save them, they shall get nothing
this assumption upon the passage 6:10-11 of the Zadokite Fragments.
until there arises a Teacher of Righteousness in the end of the (Plate VI, lines 10-11: O'/.:I'il n"n~:l p.,~n n,,, .,/.:1)1 .,)1. Plate XII:
davs".5 8 Of interest also is a reference in IX:8, "They shall line 23: ~~iW" liil~ n'w/.:I .,1/.:1)1 ")1.) However, it appears that the Teacher
not be reckoned in the assembly of the people, and in its is a forerunner of the Messiah, who prepares the way for the latter, since
it is only after the Teacher's death that the Messiah appears. As Charles
54 Cj. note 11. . (op. cit., p. 801) remarks: "for an undetermined interval elapses between
55 Domments of Jewish Sectaries, Volume I, Fragments of a Zadohte them, which is longer than forty years at all events, ix.40, but in reality
Work Edited from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection now nearer one hundred and forty". The best that can be said for 6:10, 11 is
in the' possession of the University Library, Cambridge, and provided with an that it teaches a reapperance of the Teacher. It is a close parallel with
English Translation, Introduction and Notes, Cambridge, 1910. 12 :23, but it does not actually identify the two figures.
56 ':l~ 1":l O:l""il~ p"~ il"/.:I Oil~ op".
64 Cullmann (op. cit., p. 226) points out that the Qumran sect placed

57 Plate Ill, lines 7, 8. The text seems to read: Oil'W)1 ~,p~ ')1/.:1W ~~, little emphasis upon the Spirit. The mention of the Spirit in this present
Oil'~il~:l 'll'" Oil"" 111~/.:I. The reference is to the plates of Zeitlin's passage of the Damascus Document (Plate Il, line 12) is simply an out-
edition (note 11). growth from the Old Testament. The Trinitarianism of the New Testament
58 Plate VI, lines 10, 11.
has its roots in the Old Testament and not in stray passages such as this.
140 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS 141

arises the Messiah (from) Aaron and Israel ... " and in hand, is that which is stated in VIII :10, "until there arises
XVIII:8 it is said that the Messiah will pardon our sins. the Teacher of Righteousness in the end of the days". In this
One other person appears also to be mentioned, namely, the passage the figure appears to be eschatological. He has not yet
Lawgiver, who also receives the designation Star. Of him it appeared upon the scene of history, nor will he do so until the
is said, "And the Star is he who studied the Law, who came eschatological period begins to run its course.67
to Damascus, as it is written". 65, The above passages, in I t should be noted that this mysterious figure of the Teacher
Charles' translation, will give the reader an idea of what the is indeed elusive. We do not even know his name. How differ-
Fragments have to say concerning the Teacher. ent this is from the case of Jesus! In the Gospels emphasis is
I t will now be possible to make a few observations. In the placed upon His Name. He receives the Name of Jesus, for
first place, as has already been suggested, it seems to be clear the reason that He will save His people from their sins. 68 He
that according to the Zadokite Fragments, the Teacher and is called by this Name throughout His earthly life, and His
the Messiah are not the same person. 66 The Teacher, therefore, followers after His death and resurrection delight to call Him
is not regarded as the Messiah. In this respect, of course, he thereby. To them it is a Name filled with rich associations.
differs radically from Jesus, who was known as the Messiah. On the other hand, the followers of the Teacher, if there really
The designation xpuTT6s in the New Testament is constantly were such, apparently had no delight whatever in perpetuating
appended after the personal name, Jesus. In the Habakkuk his name. In fact, they have not even made it clear whether
Commentary and in the Zadokite Fragments there is nothing there were one or more who bore the designation Teacher.
at all to correspond to this practice. From the Zadokite Fragments it is very difficult to ascertain
Indeed, it is difficult, upon the basis of these fragments, to precisely what the function of the Teacher was. Apparently
determine what the relationship is in which the Teacher is he had the duty of teaching the nation the way in which God
conceived as standing to the Messiah. Charles asserts that would have it walk. This, it would seem, was the function of a
the Teacher prepares the way for the Messiah, but the text prophet. He was not a Teacher in his own authority, but he
itself does not say this. In fact the text does not actually state spake as did one of the prophets. Those who rebelled against
the relationship, if any, which existed between the two. After his teaching were in reality rebelling against the way of God,
the Teacher has died then, later, the Messiah of Aaron and and they are condemned, just as in the Old Testament men
Israel will arise. were condemned for not hearkening to the voice of the
It is, furthermore, difficult to know whether the Fragments prophets. Jesus Christ on the other hand does not appear as
teach the existence of more than one teacher. In 1:7 the verb a mere prophet. He spake as one having authority and in
is very definitely in the past: "he raised them up a Teacher His own Name. There is nothing like the Sermon on the
of Righteousness". The reference is to the period after the Mount in all the literature concerning the Teacher. There is
exile, when there was a time of repentance upon the part of not a hint that he exhibited the boldness of Jesus Christ,
the people. It would seem that the work of this Teacher was and that he spoke in his own name, as did the Lord.
regarded as already completed. Very different, on the other Another point of importance must be stressed; it is that we
have no sample of the instruction of the Teacher. That he
65 Plate VII, lines 18, 19: ;:'111;' ito~;, pto/.), ~;:'il ili111il toi1' ~1i1 ;:,;:, 1;:' il 1. spoke the way of God, or what he thought was the way of God,
It was maintained by Schechter (op. cit., p. xiii) that the Star was to be we may be sure, but we do not know what he said. No
identified with the Teacher. The Star was apparently the organizer of
the sect who led it in its migration to Damascus.
precepts or maxims of his have remained. Whether he was a
66 Cj. note 63. It must also be noted that Jesus is the Christ of David's 67Cf. note 63.
line, whereas in the Zadokite Fragments the Messiah is said to be of 68Matthew 1 :21. In this respect cf. the force of Acts 4:12. No such
Aaron and Israel. language could be used of the Teacher.
142 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS 143

good or a poor teacher, we do not know. His teaching has The death of the Teacher appears to be due to the Wicked
perished completely, and all that we have are a few references Priest. It is the death of a martyr, and nothing more. By his
to him. On the other hand, the teaching of Jesus Christ has death the Teacher brings no salvation to his people. It is not
been preserved with remarkable fullness. We know what an atoning death that he dies. In the Zadokite Fragments it
Jesus taught. "Never man spake like this man."69 is stated that the Unique Teacher was "gathered in" (~t:lN7I).
According to Dupont-Sommer, the Teacher was "judged, It is a question whether this language refers to a natural
condemned, tortured. He suffered in 'his body of flesh': death or rather indicates that the Teacher was put to death.
without doubt he was a divine being who 'became flesh' to Dupont-Sommer argues for the latter, and Rowley thinks that
live and die as man". 70 In our opinion these words are not the language favors it. It is possible that the language does
justified. They are found in connection with the treatment of favor, or at least permit, this view. 72 At the same time, the
Habakkuk 2:7, 8a. The text of Habakkuk may be translated: context itself does not suggest martyrdom. Furthermore, in
"Because thou hast spoiled many nations, all the remnant of none of the Scrolls is there any hint or suggestion that the
the people shall spoil thee ... ". The line on which the Teacher of Righteousness was crucified. There is a danger
explanation is to be found is in part torn out, but there appears that in the enthusiasm engendered by the newly discovered
to be space for the words "The explanation concerns". There Scrolls, we read into them ideas which they actually do not
then follow the words ,,~ 'WN li11:::lil (the priest who re-. contain.
belIed). The next line, probably the last on the page, is According to his latest work, Dupont-Sommer believes that
missing entirely, and Dupont-Sommer suggests that we supply he has found references to the Teacher in the Testament of
something like "and he persecuted the Master of Justice, who Levi. 73 In fact, in chapter XVIII of this latter work, he thinks
was ... ". The text continues, and may then be translated, that we have the first example of the proclamation of the
"struck by him in judgments of unrighteousness, and abomin- Teacher as Messiah. In this chapter the Priest is described as
able profaners (lit., and the abominations of profaners) did "Prophet of the Most High" and as a king who "shall arise
evil things (t:l"l") against him (or, evil ones did against him) in Judah". Dupont-Sommer sets forth his view in the follow-
and vengeance on the body of his flesh" Y ing words: "Itis true that in other passages of the Testaments
If we grant that the reference is to the persecution of the of the Twelve Patriarchs two anointed persons, two distinct
Teacher on the part of the wicked Priest, as we probably Messiahs, are glorified. On the one hand, the Messiah, son of
should, we have done nothing more than establish the fact Levi; on the other hand, the Messiah, son of Judah. These
that the Commentary teaches that he was put to death. passages belong, I think, to more ancient strata of the collec-
There simply is no warrant to draw from this the conclusion tion. When the Teacher of Righteousness was converted into
that the Teacher was a divine being. There is nothing in the a Messiah, the two attributes previously distinct, the Anointed
Commentary which permits of such an interpretation. Nor
7' The expression is a common one to use of those who die a natural
is there anything to suggest that the Teacher, being divine,
death. Unless there is some qualification in the context, there is no warrant
became flesh. for interpreting the word of an unnatural or violent death. In the present
context I can see no reason for discovering a reference to anything other
69 John 7:46b. Cj. Matthew 7:28,29. CuIlmann (op. cit., p. 225), mal~es than a natural death. In this connection the death of Christ may be con-
the pertinent observation: "Is it not significant that Josephus and Phtlo trasted with that of the Teacher, "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it
can both describe the Essenes in detail without once mentioning the down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it
Teacher of Righteousness?" This point had already been stressed by again" (John 10:18a). It is interesting to note that these words occur in
Zeitlin, JQR, Vo!. XLV, No. 3,. p. 205, Note 49a. that Gospel which CuIlmann thinks sustains a relationship to the Qumran
70 The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 34. sect (op. cit., p. 222).
7' Since the word is masculine, I favor the rendering, "evil ones". 73 The Jewish Sect, pp. 38-57.
144 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS 145

of Levi and the Anointed of J udah, were transferred to him in they were "Christs", it is to be expected that their life would
one and the same person. At least for a time, the Anointed follow the pattern laid down in the Old Testament. This,
of J udah disappears, and his royal prerogatives are trans- however, does not mean that Christ Himself was merely
ferred, not without some violence, to the Anointed of Levi, another one among several Messiahs. 76
who thus becomes both King and Priest at the same time."74 Whatever formal similarities there may be between Chris-
In response to this Zeitlin points out that the passage upon tianity and the Scrolls or between Christ and the Teacher of
which Dupont-Sommer bases his view of the martyrdom is in Righteousness, there are differences so profound that they
fact a later interpolation done by the hand of Christians. 75 cannot possibly be explained away. Jesus Christ spake unlike
It is only natural that scholars under the impetus of some any other man, for the simple reason that He was unlike any
of the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, will seek to find similar- other man. There is only one possible method of explaining
ities in other sources also. These suggestions, however, must Him, and that is not by seeking to discover similarities
be examined with care, and should not hastily be accepted. between certain things that He did and said and the teachings
For our part, we can see that there is nothing in the Scrolls and practices of others. Not in this way is the Lord of Glory
which threatens the uniqueness of Christianity, or which would to be accounted for. Rather, we shall never understand Him
make it appear that Jesus Christ is One who was influenced unless we first acknowledge that He is what He claimed to be,
by the doctrine of these Scrolls. the Son of Man, one with the Father, who entered into this
world to minister and to give His life as a ransom in the stead
of many.
CONCLUSION

Christianity is a divine revelation. Jesus Christ is not Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia
merely one in a succession of "Christs"; He is the Christ,
promised by the prophets of the Old Testament. At the same
time, it is to be expected that the Jewish groups which were in
existence in His time would have entertained Messianic hopes.
These Jews were believers in the Old Testament, and they
were naturally deeply influenced by it. Consequently, in their
teaching we may well expect that there will be much which, at
least formally considered, will bear a resemblance to Chris-
tianity.
If, therefore, it could be demonstrated that the Scrolls
represented the teaching of a group which existed in the period
of the Second Commonwealth, it would not in the least be
surprising to discover certain ideas· and practices which,
formally considered, were similar to Christianity. From this,
however, it does not at all follow that Christianity is merely an
outgrowth or development of the teaching of the Scrolls. If
there were those who before the time of Christ proclaimed that

74 Op. cit., p. 53.

75 JQR, Vo!. XLVI, No. 2, p. 173.
76 Cf. Acts 5 :36 f.