The Dead Sea Scrolls are now internationally recognized as essential reading in the attempt to understand Jesus as a human being in his own time. They are illuminating as we attempt to comprehend how and in what ways Jesus was similar and dissimilar to the Essenes. We have much to ponder; for example, I am convinced that Jesus was closer to the non-Qumran Essenes than to the strict and withdrawn Essenes living in the desert of Judea.

Out of the gray shadows of history a unique figure begins to emerge. He moves and begins to call Jews to follow him and restore the covenant loyalty of Israel. He is obsessed with doing God's will. He announces that God's rule, "the kingdom of God, is becoming powerfully present in his healing miracles and parables. Surely the rise of Christianity can be explained only in light of the creative genius of Jesus of Nazareth.

That mysterious historical figure, Jesus, stirs imagination. The chasm between the first century and now vanishes only momentarily. For Christians who struggle to understand their commitment to God through Jesus, he is, of course, much more. To them, he is the one who challenges and forms commitments and dreams.

By examining Jewish documents, like the Dead Sea Scrolls that are contemporaneous with Jesus, we find many terms, phrases, and concepts once considered unique to Jesus. This discovery may disappoint those who wish a Jesus who is unique and in no way similar to his Jewish contemporaries or influenced by their thoughts and writings. Christian theologians for over nineteen hundred years have warned that this line of reasoning is dangerous and denies the truth encapsulated in John 1:14, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. . . "

As we comprehend Jesus within his Jewish culture we are learning to confront a real person in a specific time and place. This endeavor safeguards Christians from the greatest of Christian heresies-- Docetism. This doctrine denies that Jesus became human and suffered. It affirms that he was only a heavenly being. We are now, thanks to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, more realistically confronted with the dynamics of human life empowered by the awesome presence of God....

Five conclusions [regarding the relation of Jesus to the Essenes] are apparent. First, Jesus was certainly not an Essene, as some authors have claimed. He was also not taught by or significantly influenced by the Essenes, despite the attempts of many scholars from Bahrdt in the eighteenth century until today at the close of the twentieth century.

Second, Jesus was probably influenced in minor ways by the Essenes. He could have shared their fondness for the same scriptural books[1], and been influenced by their pneumatic, eschatological, and messianic exegesis[2] . He may have inherited from Essenes the ideas of redemption eschatologically for "the Poor"[3], sharing of possessions, and condemnation of divorce; the technical term "sons of light", and the concept of "the Holy Spirit."

Jesus could have been attracted to the Essenes' dedication to Torah. He referred to Essenes appreciatively-if the saying about the eunuchs in Matthew derives ultimately from him and he had the Essenes in mind. Perhaps with the publication of more of the Dead Sea Scrolls we may be able to shed some light on this still-unresolved problem. Presently, we can only be intrigued by the possibility that Jesus referred to the Essenes with admiration when he praised those who became eunuchs for the kingdom (Mt 19:10-12).

Even so, it is clear that Jesus would have rejected the Essenes' calendar, strict conservatism, concept of purity[4], and rigid binding rules. He would have abhorred-and may well have castigated-their rules for hating, their swearing and their dehumanizing understanding of the Sabbath.

Yadin concluded that Jesus knew the Essenes' teachings and was "anti-Essene." This assessment is only partly true; some of Jesus' sayings indicate that he may have been fond of some Essene life- styles and a few dimensions of their theology.

Third, the Dead Sea Scrolls are an invaluable source for helping us understand the life and teaching of Jesus. They provide some ideological context for his thought, and they illumine the social setting and context of pre-70 Jewish life in the Land. Theadition or culture but Judaism."

Fourth, Jesus was influenced by many groups within Judaism. He was obviously influenced by John the Baptizer and his group, since he was baptized by him, and may well have initially led a similar baptist movement and inherited some of John the Baptist's disciples. The latter possibilities depend on the historical validity of the early chapters of the Gospel of John.

Jesus may well have been directly influenced by Hillel, who died sometime before his public ministry began around 26 C.E. He was certainly influenced by the Jewish apocalyptic groups; but although some excellent scholars entertain the possibility that he was influenced by the authors of the Apocalypses of Enoch (1 Enoch), there is no compelling evidence that he was directly influenced by any extant apocalypse. Unlike the Righteous Teacher, Hillel, and even Paul, Jesus was not a member of any Jewish group. The recent attempts to define him as a Pharisee have not convinced many scholars.

Jesus was influenced by numerous groups and currents of thought within Judaism of his time, which was very diverse and creative. Worth contemplating is L. Schiffman's overview: "Contrary to what was previously assumed, the Houses of Hillel and Shammai did not exert as much influence upon Christianity as the various sects and groups whose literature survives in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha." Schiffman is speaking about "Christianity." I have been focusing on Jesus and the setting before the emergence of "Christianity" after 70 CE. Personally, I tend to agree with Schiffman, without closing the door on strong influences from Hillel on Jesus.

Fifth, the attempts to revive E. Renan's claim that Christianity is Essenism that has survived have failed. Christianity is not a form of Essenism. Yet, as research on the Dead Sea Scrolls continues especially with the publication of additional fragments, and with the elucidation of the social world and thought of the evangelists, it has become more obvious that Essene influence is greater in the second and third generations of Jesus' followers than in Jesus' times and among his earliest followers. Hence, there is more evidence of Essene influence in the post-Pauline epistles (especially Ephesians) than in the undisputed letters of Paul (notably Galatians and Romans). There is more evidence of Essene influence in Matthew and John, than in Mark, which antedates them.

Among the scriptures Jesus maybe and the Essenes probably had special fondness for the same books, namely, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and especially the Davidic Psalms. This preference may, but does not necessarily, indicate some relation between Jesus and the Essenes. They were probably more indebted to Deuteronomy than he. This area for fruitful research will need much work, discerning what can be ascertained reliably about Jesus and whether we have now ample evidence to access Qumran preferences. Nevertheless, it is interesting to ponder why Jesus and the Essenes seemed to share a fondness for the same books of scripture.

[2] Jesus and the Essenes used a similar means to interpret the scriptures. They read them under the guidance of the Spirit (that is pneumatically), and affirmed that God's promises were now being fulfilled. Both Jesus and the Essenes were eschatologically oriented; that is, they believed that the present belonged to the beginning of the new age (viz., Mk 9:1; 1QH 8)....

Both shared a similar hermeneutical principle, which resulted in an interpretation indicating that only they, and their group, really understood the meaning of the scriptures. The key word is "revelation." Jesus believed that the true meaning of scripture had been revealed to him. The Qumran Essenes believed that God "had made known" to the Righteous Teacher "all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets" (lQpHab 7.4-5).

The Essenes were more extreme than Jesus; they affirmed that only the Righteous Teacher understood the scriptures (lQpHab 7). They contended that the original author, specifically Habakkuk, and others never comprehended the meaning of scripture. Jesus never made such a sweeping claim; rather, he held that the scriptural promises pointed to him and his time.

Jesus and the Essenes, in a uniquely shared way, did indicate that the scriptures spoke about them specifically, eschatologically, and sometimes "messianically." Both contended that the prophets spoke about the end of time and that this future time was now and present in their own community....

[3] Both Jesus and the Essenes emphasized that the promised eschatological redemption was now being offered to the poor-which was clearly a technical term for the Essenes and may have been for Jesus. According to Matthew 5:3, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus blessed "the poor in spirit, and according to Luke 6:20, in the Sermon on the Plain, he blessed "the poor" To them is promised "the kingdom"

[4] In contrast to Jesus, the Essenes developed rigid and extensive rules to protect them from impurity, to punish those among them who were defiled, and to restore their momentarily lost purity.... The Qumranic penal code, which included the death penalty, was closely aligned with the rules for purity....

In terms of the concept of purity Jesus was categorically different from the Essenes. G. Jeremias is correct to point to "an irreconcilable contrast." For Jesus impurity was not a danger, as it was for the Essenes. Jesus seems aloof from the debates over purity that were rife in first-century Palestine....

Jesus associated with commoners, and even with lepers, the outcasts, and women; these actions would have been anathema to the Essenes. In contrast to the Essenes, Jesus visited in the house of a leper (Mk 14:3 and parallels). The Essenes were afraid of lepers, developed strict rules for dealing with such dangers (lQS, 1QM, 11QTemple), and placed lepers as outcasts in a section to the east of Jerusalem (llQTemple 46), precisely where Jesus is said to have entered a leper's home. Jesus' attitude to lepers and outcasts was unusual.

Jesus even associated with whores. As Vermes points out, "Jesus the Galilean holy man, who addressed not the learned or the seekers of perfection, but the simple country people, including publicans, sinners and whores" contrasts with "the austere figure of the Teacher of Righteousness. . . "

Jesus and the Essenes were on opposite ends of the spectrum with regard to women. Jesus included women in his group, considered them his friends, taught them scripture (Lk 10:38-42), and even broke Jewish taboos by conversing with a Gentile woman from Syrophoenicia and a woman of Samaria. As R. Hamerton-Kelly has shown, "Jesus broke the forms of the patriarchal family in the name of God the Father, and recognized the natural right of women to equal humanity with men" This perspective is developed by numerous scholars, including B. Witherington and E. Schussler Fiorenza.

The Essenes, in bold contrast to Jesus, considered women unreliable and faithless and strove to separate themselves from a woman's natural wantonness (Josephus, War2.121). The authors (and editors) of the Damascus Document explain that the corruption in the Temple cult resulted from impure association with women (CD 4-5), and they stipulate that those Essenes who marry must obey not only the scriptures (Torah) but also the Essene statutes and binding oaths they have sworn (CD 7). One of the statutes prohibited intercourse with one's wife in Jerusalem (CD 12). A wisdom poem from Qumran Cave 4 (4Q184) depicts the dangers of false interpretations of scripture as a woman whose heart is "a snare," who is the "cause of all wickedness," and whose paths are "ways of death." The Rule of the Community does not mention or include a "woman" (issa)*. These perspectives are not to be equated with the attitudes to women found among most Jews, probably reflected in Mishna Nashim, which inter alia requires that a woman and a man when married are equally responsible in consenting to sexual intercourse (m.Ket 5:7; cf. lCor 7:3-4, which was composed by the Pharisaic-Christian Paul).

© Doubleday, New York, 1992, Reprinted with permission.