As a result, a close connection between Jesus and Qumran is very improbable.
31 Brownlee, “Jesus and Qumran,” p. 52.
32 Charlesworth, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 22–35; Daniélou, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 28–29; Allegro, Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 161–162; Brownlee, “Jesus and Qumran,” pp. 62–76; Charles Pfeiffer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969), pp. 97–99, 130–134; F.F. Bruce, Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls(Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1956), pp. 79–84.
Must we then conclude that he was an Essene, at least at some period of his life? Here historians are unanimous in affirming the contrary. There is nothing either in his origins or in the setting in which he habitually lived, to justify such a conclusion.
3.Major differences with the “Teacher of Righteousness”
Our third critique opposes the minority opinion that Jesus was the Essenes’ “Teacher of Righteousness.” Although very few hold this view, we will still list several problems noted by scholars.^35
(1) The Essenes’ Teacher was a priest, as opposed to Jesus’ plural office. (2) The Teacher considered himself a sinner in need of purification, while Jesus was sinless. (3) The Teacher perceived that he was separated by an infinite gulf from God, while Christians hold that Jesus is the very Son of God. (4) There is no evidence of any atoning value being placed on the Teacher’s death, while such is the special significance of Jesus’ shed blood and death. (5) There is no claim or evidence that the Teacher was raised from the dead, while this is the central event for Christianity. (6) Jesus is worshiped by Christians as God, while such was not the practice of the Essenes and even opposed their belief. (7) Additionally, the Essenes’ Teacher lived long before Jesus did.
4.View not necessarily critical of Christ
Our fourth critique of this position is the strongest. While the point is often missed, this view is not necessarily critical of Christ or his teachings even if it was shown that he had affinities to Essene thought or even that he was a member of the group. As Pfeiffer explains: It should be observed that there is nothing derogatory to the person of Christ in the assumption that He or His followers were of Essene background. The Scriptures make it clear that the mother of our Lord was a Jewess, and that He became incarnate in the midst of a Jewish environment. If it were proved that this environment was also Essene, Christian theology would lose nothing and the uniqueness of Jesus would be no more disproved than it is disproved by the assertion of the Jewish origin after the flesh.^36
In other words, Jesus had to be born somewhere and he went to school somewhere. To assert that this background was influenced by the Essenes is not in itself critical of Christianity, as long as his teachings are not adjusted or his uniqueness modified. His person and teachings are still validated by a trustworthy
33 Allegro, Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 160.
34 Daniélou, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 28.
35 Ibid., pp. 30–32; Brownlee, “Jesus and Qumran,” pp. 69–70; Allegro, Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 161–162; Bruce, Second Thoughts, p. 98.
36 Pfeiffer, Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 97.
New Testament and, if his resurrection is verified, this could also serve to confirm his message.^37
Yet, we must still reject this approach to the life of Jesus. The illogical argumentation, the differences between Christianity and Qumran and the differences between Jesus and the Teacher of Righteousness all invalidate it. However, even if this hypothesis was demonstrated, it would affect nothing of major importance in Christianity since Jesus did have some type of background and his message can be shown to be trustworthy and unique anyway. Jesus’ Message Is Changed by Others
