The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (16 page)

The Essene sect was born into a world of eschatological ferment, of intense expectation of the end foretold by the Prophets. Using biblical models as vehicles for their own convictions, the Teacher of Righteousness and the Community's sages projected an image of the future which is elaborate and colourful, but which cannot always be fully comprehended by us, partly because some of the associations escape us, and partly because of gaps in the extant texts. They foresaw in their Community's story the fulfilment of the prophetic expectations concerning the salvation of the righteous. It was from their ranks, swollen by the re-conversion of some of the ‘Simple of Ephraim' (4QpNah=4Q169 III, 4-5) who had caused such distress by their previous apostasy, and by other Jewish recruits (IQSa I, 1-5; cf. also 4Q471
^a
), that the sons of Light would go to battle against the sons of Darkness. The Community or the ‘exiles of the desert' would move to Jerusalem after a preliminary attack on the ‘army of Belial', symbolized by the ‘ungodly of the Covenant' and their foreign allies from the environs of Judaea, and an assault on the Kittim occupying the Holy Land. These events were expected to cover a period of six years. The seventh, the first sabbatical year of the War, would see the restoration of Temple worship.

Of the remaining thirty-three years of its duration, four would be sabbatical years, so the War would be waged during twenty-nine: against the ‘sons of Shem' for nine years, against the ‘sons of Ham' for ten years, and against the ‘sons of Japheth' for another ten years (IQM I-II). The final conflict would end with the total defeat of the ‘King of the Kittim' and of Satan's hosts, and with the joyful celebrations of the Hero, i.e. God, by the victorious sons of Light.

Such was to be the course of the War in its earthly dimensions. But it would possess in addition a cosmic quality. The hosts of the sons of Light, commanded by the ‘Prince of the Congregation', were to be supported by the angelic armies led by the ‘Prince of Light', also known in the Scrolls as the archangel Michael or Melchizedek. Similarly, the ‘ungodly of the Covenant' and their Gentile associates were to be aided by the demonic forces of Satan, or Belial, or Melkiresha'. These two opposing camps were to be evenly matched, and God's intervention alone would bring about the destruction of evil (IQM XVIII, 1-3). Elsewhere the grand finale is represented as a judgement scene in which the heavenly prince Melchizedek recompenses ‘the Holy Ones of God' and executes ‘the vengeance of the judgements of God' over Belial and his lot (IIQMelch II, 9, 13). Yet, if my interpretation of another non-messianic composition (4Q246) is correct, the symbolical opponent, usurping in this writing the title ‘son of God' and ‘son of the Most High‘, is said to be overcome by ‘the people of God' ready to establish with the help of the Great God an eternal kingdom.

The role of the priests and Levites in this imaginary ultimate grappling of good with evil, as described in the War Scroll, emerges as that of non-combatants, performing various battle rituals and directing the various war activities (advance, retreat, ambush, etc.). However, it is more difficult to determine the function of the commander-in-chief, the so-called ‘Prince of the Congregation'. We learn that on his shield will be inscribed his name, the names of Israel, Levi and Aaron, and those of the twelve tribes and their chiefs (IQM v, 1-2); but little room appears to be left in the War Rule for him to act as the Royal Messiah. God himself is the supreme agent of salvation and after him in importance is Michael.

In some other Scrolls, by contrast, the theme of Messianism is more prominent. Complex and
sui generis,
it envisages sometimes one messianic figure, royal, Davidic, triumphant
(4Q285, 4Q161,
and the Damascus Document speaking of the Messiah - in the singular, cf.
4Q266
fr. 11 i, 12 - of Aaron and Israel), again and again two, and once possibly even three Messiahs. The lay King-Messiah, otherwise known as the ‘Branch of David', the ‘Messiah of Israel', the ‘Prince of [all] the Congregation' and the ‘Sceptre', was to usher in, according to the sect's book of Blessings, ‘the Kingdom of his people' and ‘bring death to the ungodly' and defeat ‘[the kings of the] nations' (IQSb v, 21, 25, 28). The recently and groundlessly advanced theory that ‘the Prince of the Congregation, Branch of David' of
4Q285
is a suffering and executed Messiah is contradicted both by the immediate context and the broader exegetical framework of Isaiah x, 34-xi, I on which
4Q285
depends (cf.
4Q161,
frs. 8-10; IQSb v, 20-29). As befits a priestly sect, however, the Priest-Messiah comes first in the order of precedence; he is also called the ‘Messiah of Aaron', the ‘Priest', the ‘Interpreter of the Law' (cf. IQSa II, 20). The King-Messiah was to defer to him and to the priestly authority in general in all legal matters: ‘As they teach him, so shall he judge' (4QpIsa=4Q161 frs. 8-11, 1.23). The ‘Messiah of Aaron' was to be the final Teacher, ‘he who shall teach righteousness at the end of days' (CD VI, II). But he was also to preside over the battle liturgy (IQM xv, 4; XVI, 13; XVIII, 5) and the eschatological banquet (IQSa II, 12-21). It seems that there are some allusions suggesting that the eschatological High Priest was expected to undergo suffering and humiliation before being glorified (see
4Q4Ib, 49I
fr.
II, 54I,
fr. 9).

The third figure, ‘the Prophet', is mentioned directly though briefly only once: we are told that his arrival was expected together with that of the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel (IQS ix, II). The whole messianic phrase is absent, however, from all the extant 4Q manuscripts of the Community Rule. Viewed in the context of inter-Testamental Jewish ideas, the Prophet was to be either an Elijah returned as a precursor of the Messiah (Mal. iv, 5; 1 Enoch xc, 31, 37; Matth. xi, 13; xvii, 12), or as a divine guide sent to Israel in the final days (I Mac. iv, 46; xiv, 41; Jn. i, 21), no doubt identical with ‘the Prophet' promised by God to Moses (‘I will raise up for them a prophet like you ... He shall convey all my commands to them‘, Deut. xviii, 15-18; cf. Acts iii, 22-3; vii, 37). An identification of ‘the Prophet' with a ‘new Moses' is supported by the inclusion of the Deuteronomy passage in the Messianic Anthology or Testimonia from Cave 4 (4Q175) as the first of three messianic proof-texts, the second being Balaam's prophecy concerning the Star to rise out of Jacob (Num. xxiv, 15-17), and the third, the blessing of Levi by Moses (Deut. xxxiii, II), prefiguring respectively the royal Messiah and the Priest-Messiah.

If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at some point of the sect's history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness.

The evidence available does not permit categorical statements on the sectaries' views about what was to follow the days of the Messiahs. Some kind of metamorphosis was awaited by them, as is clear from the Community Rule - ‘until the determined end, and until the Renewal' (IQS IV, 25). But one cannot be sure that it was understood as synonymous with the new creation of the Apocalypses of Ezra (vii, 75) and Baruch (xxxii, 6). Similarly, the ‘new Jerusalem' described in various manuscripts (cf. IQ32; 2Q24; 4Q554-555; 5Q15; 11Q18) does not match by definition the Holy City descending from above of I Enoch (xc, 28-9) or Revelation xxi, but could be an earthly city rebuilt according to the plans of angelic architects.

As for the afterlife proper, and the place it occupied in Essene thought, for many centuries in the biblical age Jews paid little attention to this question. They believed with most peoples in antiquity that after death the just and wicked alike would share a miserable, shadowy existence in Sheol, the underworld, where even God is forgotten: ‘Turn, O Lord, save my life,' cries the psalmist, ‘for in death there is no remembrance of thee; in Sheol who can give thee praise?' (Ps. vi, 5; cf. Isa. xxxviii, 18; Ps. lxxxviii, 10-12, etc.) The general hope was for a long and prosperous life, many children, a peaceful death in the midst of one's family, and burial in the tomb of one's fathers. Needless to say, with this simple outlook went a most sensitive appreciation of the present time as being the only moment in which man can be with God.

Eventually, the innate fear of death, and the dissatisfaction of later biblical thinkers with a divine justice that allowed the wicked to flourish on earth and the just to suffer, led to attempts in the post-exilic era to solve this fundamental dilemma. The idea of resurrection, or rather of the reunification of body and soul after death, first appears as a metaphor in Ezekiel's vision of the re-birth of the Jewish nation after the Babylonian captivity as the re-animation of dry bones (Ezek. xxxvii; cf. also 4Q385 frs. 2-3). Later, after the historical experience of martyrdom under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, resurrection was expected to be the true reward of individuals who freely gave their lives for God—i.e. for their religion (Dan. xii, 2; 2 Mac. vii, 9; xii, 44; xiv, 46, etc.). At the same time, the notion of immortality also emerged, the idea that the righteous are to be vindicated and live for ever in God's presence. This view is developed fully in the Greek apocryphal Book of Wisdom (iii, I-V, 16).

Josephus tells us that the Essenes subscribed to this second school of thought. According to him, they adopted a distinctly Hellenistic concept of immortality, holding the flesh to be a prison out of which the indestructible soul of the just escapes into limitless bliss ‘in an abode beyond the ocean' after its final deliverance
(War
II, 154-8). Resurrection, implying a return of the spirit to a material body, can thus play no part in this scheme.

Until recently, the Scrolls themselves have not been particularly helpful. The Hymns include equivocal statements such as, ‘Hoist a banner, O you who lie in the dust! O bodies gnawed by worms, raise up an ensign ...!' (1QH XIV [formerly VI], 34-5; cf. XIX [formerly xi], 10-14), which may connote bodily resurrection. On the other hand, the poet's language may just be allegorical. Immortality, as distinct from resurrection, is better attested. The substance of Josephus' account is confirmed, though not surprisingly without any typically Hellenistic colouring (no doubt introduced by him to please his Greek readers). The Community Rule, discussing the reward of the righteous and the wicked, assures the just of ‘eternal joy in life without end, a crown of glory and a garment of majesty in unending light' (IQS IV, 7-8), and sinners of ‘eternal torment and endless disgrace together with shameful extinction in the fire of the dark regions' (IQS IV, 12-13). It is interesting to observe that immortality was not conceived of as an entirely new state, but rather as a direct continuation of the position attained on entry into the Community. From that moment, the sectary was raised to an ‘everlasting height' and joined to the ‘everlasting Council‘, the ‘congregation of the Sons of Heaven' (1QH xi [formerly III], 20-22).

Shortly after the ‘liberation' of the Scrolls in 1991 a previously unknown poetic text, usually designated as the ‘Resurrection fragment' (4Q521), surfaced which, echoing Isaiah lxi, 1, describes God in the age of the Messiah as healing the wounded and
reviving the dead.
If this poem is an Essene composition and not a psalm dating to the late biblical period, it can be said that one out of many hundreds of Qumran manuscripts definitely testifies to the sect's belief in bodily resurrection.

In sum, the portrait of the sectary as it is reflected in his religious ideas and ideals bears the marks of a fastidious and deeply committed observance of the Mosaic Law, an overwhelming assurance of the correctness of his beliefs, and certainty of his own eventual salvation. But whereas these characteristics may strike readers today as far too self-confident, one would do well not to overlook other traits conspicuous, in particular, in the Essenes' prayers and hymns, which testify to an absolute dependence on the Almighty and a total devotion to what was believed to be God's cause.