John's christology and the Dead Sea Scrolls

[Vouthon]

plus there's no direct evidence of the use of any specifically Qumran texts that one would expect to find if there was a direct link.

True, I certainly don't dispute that but this too cannot be used as evidence of a lack of direct influence from the Qumran texts upon John, as there are many reasons why someone might not want to directly quote a non-scriptural text as an authority (i.e. its not considered 'divinely inspired' for a start, so will it convince the reader if cited in an argument?).

I think Charlesworth and co. have a strong point, inasmuch as John and the Qumranite author both use the light/dark dualism to mean the same things ("life, truth, knowledge, eternal life"), in a manner that is not reflected in usage of this duality in other Second Temple texts that exhibit it (and also how both 'qualify' their dualism in the same way). When pared with the same or substantially similar terminology, I personally think its evident that appeal to a 'general' Second Temple Jewish background (whilst accurate in the broadstrokes) doesn't really account for these shared 'details' (which are more specific and seem to hint at influence).

But, who knows? There was certainly something in the "ether" during the Second Temple period anyway that many different Jewish sects imbibed as part of a shared overarching intellectual culture.

So, I agree with you on previous sources/ideas in the Second Temple era influencing both groups even in the absence of direct influence from one to the other.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Relevant for Christianity is also information in Dead Sea scrolls about diverse messianic expectations. There were several messianologies. It was not just one messiah and not just the usual kingly (Davidic) messiah.

 

[Vouthon]

Relevant for Christianity is also information in Dead Sea scrolls about diverse messianic expectations. There were several messianologies. It was not just one messiah and not just the usual kingly (Davidic) messiah.

Yeah, the scrolls evidence a surprising degree of "Messianic pluralism", so to speak. We can't say if this is just specific to the 'Qumran community' or if it had wider prevalence in Second Temple Judaism (and one's interpretation of the Qumran library itself and which texts are/aren't sectarian obviously shapes that) but it sure is interesting to reflect upon.

Scholars - and Florentino Martinez provides the best summary of this imho - have discerned a dual 'Messiah Aaron and Messiah Israel' (1.1 1QS IX 9–11), a 'kingly (Davidic) Messiah' (1.1 4Q252(4QpGena), 1.2 4Q161 (4QpIsaa)), a 'priestly Messiah' (2.1 4Q541 frag. 9 col. I), a 'heavenly Messiah' (4Q246 col. l, 11QMelch) and even a 'suffering messiah' (2.1 4Q541 frag. 9 col. I) including one text with an apparently suffering messiah who is exalted above the elohim on a throne in heaven (the 'Self-Glorification Hymn'). There isn't, of course, a dying and rising from the dead Messiah (so I would argue that this was a unique 'riff' / 'novelty' of early Jewish Christianity) but about every other part of the picture has an antecedent of some sort in the thought of these earlier writings.

That sheer volume of 'messianologies' - as you helpfully term it - is surprising.

The 'death' and rising from the dead of Jesus in the New Testament, however, appears to have been a unique response to what actually happened to Jesus (his crucifixion) which spawned a novel messianic exegesis without a preceding analogue in the Judaism of the time. But a 'vicariously suffering' Messiah (who bears the infirmities of the people), based on an individualist rather than collectivised reading of the servant in Isaiah 53, is even attested.