The First Christians / pt. 8
Early Enochian literature of the second century BCE (the Book of Watchers, Dream Visions, etc.) was very popular at Qumran, as attested by the many copies that survive in the DSS. However, Naṣarene literature of the first century BCE is spectacularly absent from the DSS, including the Parables of Enoch which we have looked at in recent posts. Other works that were inspired by the sect of the Naṣarenes are also absent from the DSS.
We should recognize that the early followers of Yeshu—those who lived in the mid- to late-first century BCE—were not yet called Naṣarenes. The name “Naṣarene” came after their founding prophet was dubbed “haNotsri,” which means “the guardian, preserver.” Thus: Yeshu haNotsri, The Guardian Savior. The epithet probably accrued to the founder within a couple of generations after his ignominious death, ca. 64 BCE. Thus, if it took a generation or two for the founding prophet to be called “Yeshu haNotsri,” then the word “Naṣarene” as a self-designation for his followers became current shortly thereafter, perhaps around the turn of the era.
Before that time the followers were disciples of John (Jonathan) the son of Absalom, who had been by blood a member of the (now conquered) Hasmonean royal family. John was by theology a gnostic and repudiator of much of his Jewish heritage. His radical teachings brought a new way of looking at life, a new way of understanding, and a new way of liberation through gnosis (cf. Buddhism). This was the religion of the first Christians, whom I am now describing.
John also understood the connection between gnosis and ethics—that these two go hand in hand: the good man is close to gnosis, the evil man is far from the proverbial “kingdom.” He also understood the old Buddhist doctrine of change: life is change; one cannot plant one’s staff anywhere, for nowhere will it “stick.”
It is interesting that John and/or his followers used flowing water as a symbol of understanding. Even as flowing water is always changing, so life changes. One must find a way to “stand” in the middle of the river, like an unchanging “stone” (Josh 3:8; 4:3). Such words became code to John’s early followers, words that referred to “The Standing One” (cf. Simon Magus) who endures by means of gnosis through life’s turbulence, like a stone in a moving river. Rather than being immersed in the affairs of the world, raising a family, and accruing riches, the first Christians were symbolically standing in gnosis as in flowing water. This immersion/standing was their “baptism”—both a symbol and a sacrament.
Only the ethically pure person could be baptized. This was the message of “John the Baptist”—the first title assigned to John the son of Absalom. He preached “a baptism of repentance” (Mk 1:4) where the soul is “purified beforehand by righteousness” (Josephus Ant. 8.5.2). According to the Parables of Enoch, that soul is the conscience in us all, and on its purity depends the saving wisdom/gnosis: “and from the conscience of his mouth shall come out all the secrets of wisdom” (1 En 51:3). The “ebionite” John also chastised the rich, the mighty, the privileged, and (in general) the Jews: “Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’” (Mt 3:9). This prophet of royal blood, once himself groomed for the sanhedrin and the recipient of the finest religious education, reserved his especial venom for religious hypocrites (Mt 23:13 ff), for the self-complacent masters of Temple, synagogue, and sanhedrin who eventually tried him and put him to death:
Woe to you priests, all… Woe to you rabbis, all… Woe to you, scholars and teachers… Woe to you Torah, for John is to be born in Jerusalem. John is to receive the Jordan and be counted a Prophet in Jerusalem. (Mandean Book of John, 18.70)
In the garbled traditions that have come down to us, full of interpolations, falsities, excisions and additions, the bright light of the prophet can still shine through—but only from around the edges of history, as it were.
We are fortunate to possess the Dead Sea Scrolls, for they were penned at the very time that early Christianity was forming. John/Yeshu died ca. 64 BCE, and the DSS sectarian works were written in the generations following. It appears that the Teacher of Righteousness—the founder of the Dead Sea sect—was an older contemporary of John/Yeshu. He may or may not have been a sometime follower of Yeshu. On the other hand, Yeshu may or may not have been a sometime follower/member of the sect at Qumran. In any case, the two young movements grew up at the same time and in many respects were close. The main difference is that the Qumran sectarians did not repudiate their Jewish heritage but were, in fact, the contrary—“super Jews” in severity and respecters of Temple and Torah. On the other hand, the followers of John/Yeshu did not “tithe mint, and dill, and cumin,” and were open to all—even gentiles.
The Qumran writings do not include contemporary seminal writings that may well have been penned by followers of Yeshu. These include the Parables of Enoch that we have examined, as well as the (abridged) Epistle of Enoch, the Odes and Psalms of Solomon, and the (much interpolated) Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Why were these works not found and preserved at Qumran? The reasons may be found in important differences between the two groups:
(1) Determinism. The Qumran texts endorse a radical determinism: humans are predestined for either salvation or damnation, regardless of their actions or thoughts. This contrasts with the Naṣarene emphasis on individual freedom of choice.
(2) Agency. Following on the previous point, in the DSS agency is with God/Yahweh—humans are powerless in the face of God’s predetermined choice for them (fate). In the Naṣarene view, however, agency is with man: one’s salvation or damnation depends on one’s own choices and actions.
(3) Universality. The Yachad (community) was elitist and strictly set apart from other branches of Judaism. At the same time it was firmly within the Jewish sphere. The Qumranites considered themselves priests (even “angels”). The Naṣarenes, on the other hand, viewed the Jewish hierarchy with suspicion.
(4) Theology. Per Judaism, the sectarian writings from Qumran endorse the material creation and its creator, Yahweh. Naṣarene writings, on the other hand, show little interest in the creation and spiritualize God (the “Lord of Spirits” in the Parables of Enoch).
(5) Jewish law. The Naṣarenes deemed the laws and tenets of their ancestors non-binding and were open to gentiles (unimaginable in the context of the DSS). Those at Qumran, however, not only followed Jewish halacha (religious law) but made it even more exacting (cf. MMT, the Temple Scroll). To become a member of the Yachad one had to be a Jew and additionally to endure a three-year probation. It is also likely that only males were admitted.
(6) Coded language. The Naṣarenes used inverted (opposite) meanings for common terms, thus conveying “hidden things” (Heb. netsuroth). Above, we touched on the words “stone”, “water”, and “stand”. “Living” (life, alive) also does not have the obvious meaning of a material body that dies, but signifies the contrary, the spiritual essence “that does not die” (GTh 11; cf. “the living Jesus”, “living water” = gnosis, etc). Other code words with “inverted” meanings: bride, bridegroom, and wedding (which have nothing to do with physical mating and everything to do with chastity).
Despite these differences, both the Yachad and the Naṣarenes shared much in common: (a) ebionism (favoring the poor); (b) encratism (asceticism, disparagement of pleasure); and (c) dedication to the search for “wisdom.” In all three of these cases, however, the DSS seem pale in comparison with more radical Naṣarene teachings—despite the fact that the Qumranites were more strict as regards the minutiae of rite, ritual, and purity.
It is possible that the sect at Qumran as well as the Naṣarenes were both influenced by the ministry of Yeshu haNotsri, which took place in the 70s and 60s BCE. If this is correct, then the Naṣarenes were more faithful to Yeshu’s gnostic and world-denying message, while the Qumranites attempted the impossible: namely, to wed that message to their Jewish heritage.
The surviving texts betray a parting of the ways between these two sects that modern scholars label “Essene.” Gabriele Boccaccini has concluded that the Qumran community opposed another branch of Enochic Judaism, one “reflected in the Epistle of Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Of course, he has no inkling that this “other sect” was the Naṣarenes, the followers of John the Baptist/Yeshu haNotsri. But his statement supports such a linkage, for the two texts that Boccaccini highlights—the Epistle of Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs—are Naṣarene works. By connecting the clues, then, we see that the rift to which Boccaccini refers was between the sect at Qumran and the first Christians—the sect of the Naṣarenes.
The most intense disputes are often between siblings or between spouses. So, too, the dispute between the Yachad at Qumran and the Naṣarenes was internecine, personal, and intense. Both sects had their own leader—the Teacher of Righteousness, and Yeshu (as I will call him here, following the Talmud). The TR was committed to Judaism, to the Sadducean (Zadokite) priesthood, to the Temple, and to Jewish tradition. Yeshu, on the other hand, had fundamentally broken his commitments to all these. While Yeshu was still alive (pre-64 BCE), his followers learned and absorbed his radically gnostic ideas, aware that they were following not only a prophet but also an influential member of the Hasmonean royal family.
However, after John the Baptist/Yeshu was executed by the Sanhedrin, some followers fell away. Evidently, a struggle for leadership took place. This strongly recalls the struggle between Simon Magus and Dositheus, which took place after the death of John the Baptist as recorded in the Pseudo-Clementines. It is possible that the Teacher of Righteousness was the leader of those who broke away from Yeshu’s followers. These defectors were unwilling to jettison their Jewish heritage and to whole-heartedly embrace the gnostic way. While they absorbed some of Yeshu’s tenets, they rejected his acceptance of gentiles and also his world denying views.
By the time the TR died (in the 50s BCE?) the rift between the Qumranites and the followers of Yeshu was complete. Those at Qumran formulated their tenets in a series of sectarian writings, which followed the ultra-Jewish line of the TR. The DSS pesherim (composed later in I BCE) refer to the Qumranites as “the chosen ones” while also mentioning “traitors” who belong to a rival sect. Yeshu is now the “Man of the Lie” and the “Spreader of Lies”:
“This refers to the Spreader of Lies who deceived many… forming a community by lies for his own glory… They blasphemed and reviled God’s chosen ones [i.e. the Yachad]” (1QHab col. 10:9–13.)
“Interpreted, this concerns the house of Absalom and the members of its council who were silent at the time of the reproach of the Teacher of Righteousness and did not help him [i.e. the TR] against the Man of Lies, who flouted the law in the midst of their whole [congregation]” (1QHab col. 5:9–12.)
My prediction is that the second passage above will become the locus classicus defining the relationship between the earliest Christians and Qumran. Interpreted, it presents a personal confrontation between Yeshu and the Teacher of Righteousness. Therefore, the passage refers to an incident before 64 BCE. Furthermore, Yeshu (the “Man of the Lie”) is in the stronger position. This could only have been the case during the reign of Queen Salome Alexandra (76–67 BCE), for clues indicate that she was favorable to Yeshu—who was, after all, her husband’s nephew—and that she was perhaps even his disciple. It is no coincidence that shortly after her death Yeshu was apprehended and executed.
“Absalom” surely refers to the father of John/Yeshu haNotsri. And the “house of Absalom” is the once-powerful Hasmonean royal family, conquered by the Romans in 63 BCE.