Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T23:51:44.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Knowledge’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Matthew 11:25–30

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

W. D. Davies
W. D. Davies
Affiliation:
Duke University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Interpreters of Matthew 11:25–30 have fallen roughly into two classes. On the one hand, there are those who have been content to explain the passage solely in the light of the Old Testament, and, on the other, those who have traced in it a common pattern, ultimately deriving from Eastern theosophy, which emerges in Ecclesiasticus 51, and elsewhere, and reappears in Matthew 11:25–30, through the agency of certain primitive Christian thiasoi of a ‘mystical’ type. Not far removed from this is the view that, both on account of style and content, the passage is to be understood in the light of Hellenistic Gnosticism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 1953 , pp. 113 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I should like to acknowledge the ready helpfulness of my colleague Professor W. H. Brownlee in all matters pertaining to the relevant literature on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in the interpretation of the texts themselves.

2 So among others, A. H. McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, 1918, p. 166; Vincent Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice, 1937, p. 37; W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah, 1943, pp. 71f.; C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, ad. loc; the most recent treatment strongly supports this view, see Julius Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 1950. For a full discussion see also B. S. Easton, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 1926. On its relation to ‘Wisdom’ passages in the N.T., see W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 1948, ad. loc.

3 E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 1913, ad. loc; also Tomas Arvedson, Das Mysterium Christi eine Studie zu Mt. 11: 25–30, Uppsala, 1937.

4 M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, Eng. Trans., 1935, pp. 279ff.; R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition,2 1931, pp. 171–2.

5 In the following pages DSS stands for Dead Sea Scrolls, CDC for the Damascus Fragment, DSH for the Habakkuk Commentary, DST for the Psalms of Thanksgiving. Except where otherwise stated I have used the translations of W. H. Brownlee, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Supplementary Studies, Nos. 10–12, 1951 for DSD and his translation of DSH in BASOR, Nos. 112–114 for December 1948 and April 1949; other translations are used as mentioned in the text. For the Hebrew texts themselves I have used The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary, 1950, The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark's Monastery, 1951, both edited by Millar Burrows with the assistance of Trever, J. C. and Brownlee, W. H., and Sukenik, E. L., Megilloth Genuzoth, Vol. I, II, Jerusalem, 1948, 1950Google Scholar. For the CDC I used Schechter, Solomon, Fragments of a Zadokite Work, edited from Hebrew MSS in the Cairo Genizah Collection, Cambridge, 1910Google Scholar.

6 We cannot here enter into the already vast literature on this question: for this consult H. H. Rowley, The Zadokite Fragments and The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1952, where the exhaustive footnotes supply invaluable guidance.

7 BASOR, Supplementary Studies, Nos. 10–12, 1951, p. 23 n. 3.

8 A. H. McNeile, op. cit., p. 266 although he thinks that some genuine sayings of Jesus lie behind the passage; E. Klostermann, op. cit., ad loc, following Bult-mann, op. cit.

9 On the multiplicity of groups in Judaism in our period (even the Pharisees were divided into 7 groups) with somewhat similar formulae of admittance and probably of regulation see Saul Liebermann, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. LXXI, Dec, 1952, pp. 199–206. Dodd, C. H. points to the similarity in the ecclesiastical tradition in Paul and Matthew as one example of their dependence on a common and primitive tradition, Expository Times, Vol. LVIII, 1947, pp. 294ftGoogle Scholar. H. Strack-P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, I, ad loc. suggest that such regulations as are found in Mt. 18:15–17 do not emerge so fixedly in the later Rabbinic sources although their forms are found: were they more typical of the sects than of the more ‘normative’ Judaism? For the catechesis of sects in Judaism and primitive Christianity, see W. D. Davies, op. cit. pp. 129ff.

10 See I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, Second Series, pp. 2461.: H. J. Schoeps again has shown how the concept of perfection in Matthew 5:48 (Luke 6:36 is secondary) connects with the Hebrew tamim: see Aus Frühchristlicher Zeit, Von der imitatio Dei zur Nachfolge Christi, pp. 286ff. See also A. Marmorstein, Studies in Jewish Theology, 1950, pp. 106ff.

11 The term neaniskos frequently occurs in the LXX; see E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint, Vol. II, where it does not appear at any time to refer to ‘novitiate’ in the technical sense but merely to youth. So too in I John the use of neaniskos is probably not technical, see commentaries by A. E. Brooke, ICC, and C. H. Dodd, Moffatt Series, ad. loc. The significant thing in the Matthean passage is the distinction drawn between “entering the Kingdom,” which in Matthew tends to mean “entering the Church,” and being perfect, which, as in the DSS, involves the surrender of wealth to the poor — the poor meaning in the DSS the community itself; while in Matthew it may mean this, see Mt. 5:3, it probably means the literally poor. The ‘being perfect’ in Matthew would roughly seem to correspond to becoming “a professed” in the DSS and the professed were “perfect.” On the term ‘poor’ in the Early Church see Holl, K., Der Kirchenbegriff des Paulus in seinem Verhältnis zu dem der Urgemeinde in Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vol. 53, 1921, pp. 937ffGoogle Scholar.: see criticism in R. N. Flew, Jesus and His Church, 1938, ad loc.

12 See A. Dupont-Sommer, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Eng. Trans., 1952, pp. 50f. In DSD 1:11–12 we have regulations dealing with the novitiates, these are to bring “all their intelligence and their strength and their power into the Community of God”: on the other hand, the professed are to submit themselves to it “in matters of the Law and goods, and rules,” DSD V:2. Now the word translated power in DSD 1:11 is that which is translated goods in DSD V:2. And although the Hebrew underlying both translations, i.e., hôn, can mean power, see M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Talmud, ad. loc. there is no justification for A. Dupont-Sommer's distinction on the ground of language alone: W. H. Brownlee renders hôn by ‘property’ in both places, so too J. T. Milik: H. E. Del Medico, Deux Manuscrits Hébreux de la mer morte, 1951, p. 34 translates richesses in I:11 and la richesse in V:2. G. Lambert gives les avoirs in both places. Nevertheless the distinction pointed out by A. Dupont-Sommer does hold, as appears from DSD V and VI where, although the novitiate does bring his property with him to the community on his entry therein, it is clear that the property is only abandoned to the community after probation, when the novitiate becomes a professed.

13 See DSH on II:17 Col. XII 2ff. On the basis of this Teicher, J. L., Journal of Jewish Studies, II, No. 2, 1951, pp. 91ffGoogle Scholar, and No. 3, 1951, pp. 115ff. identifies the sect with Ebionite Christians.

14 See especially H. J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristtentums, 1949, pp. 196ff.

15 This cannot, however, be pressed. The distinction which Matthew introduces is that between the merely good and the perfect. This, it may be argued, is not that between the novitiate and the professed. Nevertheless, distinctions such as these made in the DSS do perhaps help to illumine that drawn by Matthew.

16 See A. H. McNeile, op. cit., p. 91.

17 In DSD 1:22f. the meaning of Israel may be doubtful, but in II:22 it refers to the community, as probably also in III:24. In V:6 the community is a “house of truth” in Israel, but in V:5 the community itself is Israel, as in V:22 (so also W. H. Brownlee, op. cit., p. 22 n. 52), V:14 and probably in VIII:4, 5, 10a, 12, IX:3; in IX:6 those who walk in perfection are called Israelites, (see W. H. Brownlee, op. cit., ad. loc.,) IX: 11. In DSH 11:8 the members of the community, if we are to follow W. H. Brownlee, are the children of Israel: but in DSH VIII: 10 Israel stands for the people as a whole. It is noteworthy that in DSD VIII: 12 the phrase beisrâ’el has a superlinear reading leyaḥad. W. H. Brownlee translates: “Now when these things come to pass in Israel to the community” as if leyaḥad followed beisrâ'el. Probably however leyaḥad is an interpretative note to explain that Israel here refers to the community as such and not to the whole of the people of Israel, a suggestion made to me by W. H. Brownlee. It should be noted that I. Rabbinowitz in a series of papers read to the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis takes ‘Israel’ throughout to refer to the people as a whole: he does not regard the DSS as emerging from a sect.

18 See below.

19 K. G. Kuhn, Die in Palästina gefundenen hebräischen Texte und das Neue Testament in Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, 1950, pp. 192–211; W. Grossouw, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament in Studia Catholica, Dec., 1951, pp. 289–299 and 1952 p. 1ff. Some scholars have claimed a Jewish Christian origin for the texts, e.g., Teicher, J. L., Journal of Jewish Studies, II, no. 2, 1951, 91ffGoogle Scholar., No. 3, 1951, pp. 115ff.: the members of the sect were Ebionites, see DSH XII:2ff.: the teacher of righteousness was Jesus and the Prophet of Untruth none other than Paul. But see Baumgartner, W., Theologische Rundschau, N.F. XIX, 1951, p. 142Google Scholar. R. Eisler identified the Teacher with John the Baptist. The literature on this need not, for our purposes, be recapitulated, see H. H. Rowley, op. cit., also an unpublished paper by S. E. Johnson, The Jerusalem Church of the Book of Acts and the community of the Dead Sea Manual of Discipline, and K. G. Kuhn, Πειρασμóςἁμαρτία σἁρξ, im Neuen Testament und die damit zusammenhangenden Vorstellungen in Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, 1952, pp. 200ff.

20 The Dead Sea Scrolls, Eng. Trans., 1952, pp. 42, 65 n. 1; also, M. Burrows, in Oudtestamentische Studïen, VIII, 1950, pp. 168f.

21 W. H. Brownlee also introduces the term ‘mind’ into his translation of DSD III:3

And defilement is in his restitution

He cannot be justified while he conceals his stubbornness of heart

And with darkened mind (weḥôshec) looks upon ways of light.

Following W. F. Stinespring, W. H. Brownlee interprets wehôshec as an adverbial accusative, and thus imports the term ‘mind’ into his translation as above. But this is hardly necessary. J. van der Ploeg Bibliotheca Orientalis, Mei-Juli, 1952, p. 128b prefers “et il regarde vers les ténèbres au lieu de (vers) des chemins de lumière”; J. T. Milik gives “et tenebras intueatur pro viis lucis.” In “Manuale Disciplinae,” Romae, Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1951 ad. loc. H. E. Del Medico, op. cit., p. 38 gives: “c'est l'obscurité qu'il aperçevera à la place des chemins de lumière.”

22 Op. cit., ad loc.

23 Handskrifterna Från Qumran, Uppsala, 1952, ad loc.

24 He follows H. L. Ginsberg here. See W. H. Brownlee, op. cit., p. 25 n. 20.

25 Note that J. van der Ploeg, op. cit., p. 128a doubts whether there is a poetic section here: in sapiental literature it is always difficult to state where poetry turns into prose and vice versa. J. T. Milik does not print the section as poetry. To achieve this translation W. H. Brownlee emends the text from bîsŵrê da'ath to bîsŵrê weda'ath. He renders mishpeṭe by “laws.” J. T. Milik gives: “instructiones scientiae, leges iustitiae.” G. Lambert does not connect mishpeṭe tzedeq with da'ath at all; he gives: “car son âme a pris en dégoût les instructions de la connaissance. II n'a pas accepté pour la conversion de sa vie les jugements de la justice”… op. cit., p. 959. But even if we reject W. H. Brownlee's rendering here the connection of knowledge with mishpâṭ is clear.

26 Cf. A. Dupont-Sommer, Observations sur le Manuel de Discipline découvert près de la mer Morte, a paper read to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, June 8th, 1951, ad loc.

27 Where the idiom sûk ba'ad emerges.

28 As to the previous line which W. H. Brownlee renders “In the Counsel or Council of Wisdom I will relate knowledge” which is the better translation of batzath twshiiâh ‘saptêr here? If we read betzath in the following line the correct interpretation would seem to be. “In the Counsel of wisdom I will hide knowledge.” which was “corrected” by a scribe who misunderstood batzath to mean “in the council.” The non-corrected reading finds a natural parallel in the next line, as W. H. Brownlee suggested to me.

29 This is the implicit correction of The Biblical Archaeologist, Sept., 1951, p. 58. It is important to note that the hidden things refer to the peculiar interpretation of the Torah which the Sect cherished, not to cosmological and other mysteries. The covenantal context makes this explicit.

30 In DSD 11:3 the phrase “eternal knowledge,” literally “knowledge of ‘ages’” has no eschatological significance perhaps. Its parallel is “life-giving wisdom” and the knowledge referred to here may merely be “knowledge” in the sense of discernment, without any eschatological nuance: this last, however, must not be ruled out. On da'ath ‘ôlâmîm see M. Delcor, L'eschatologie des documents de Khirbet Qumran, in Revue des Sciences Religieuses, Octobre 1952, p. 370, who takes it eschatologically: the “eternal knowledge” is a possession in this world and also in the world to come. In the same way, he emphasizes that the members have a gnosis while they sojourn on earth but that the da'ath ‘ôlâmîm is also related to the future, when it will be superior to any knowledge possible on earth. See DSD XI:3 which speaks of a mystery to come, see below.

31 In DSH VIII: 11 W. H. Brownlee translated “for all His summer fruits God will bring into their storehouse, just as He decreed for them through the mysteries of His wisdom.” A Dupont-Sommer renders “for all the times of God arrive in their due season in accordance with what He has decreed about them in the Mysteries of His prudence.” H. E. Del Medico's translation, op. cit., agrees with that of A. Dupont-Sommer, and W. H. Brownlee has subsequently abandoned the translation he first proposed and now gives a rendering BASOR, September, 1951, substantially like that of A. Dupont-Sommer. The parallels between the language of this passage and much in the N.T. will be obvious: Luke 19:44; I Pet. 2:22; Acts 17:26; Gal. 4:2. The term râzê occurs frequently in the DSS. For a lexicographical note on it see M. Delcor, op. cit., ad loc.

32 For his justification of this translation see W. H. Brownlee, BASOR, Supplementary Studies, Nos. 10–12, 1951, 54ff. Appendix H. Difficulty arises in the translation of the last line: Brownlee argues for interpreting niheieh as a Niphal participle with reference to the future, hence his translation. H. E. Del Medico reads: “Car de la source de Sa connaissance, il a ouvert Sa lumière et, pur Ses miracles, mon oeil est devenu capable de percevoire et mon coeur s'est éclairé dans la jubilation.” He reads berôn niheieh. J. van der Ploeg rejects W. H. Brownlee's translation, op. cit., p. 130a: G. Lambert, op. cit., p. 974, renders the last line as: “et mon coeur a été illuminé par le mystère de ce qui est accompli.” This last translation it is claimed by J. van der Ploeg and G. Lambert is supported by a fragment of an unknown work found in the cave, see Revue Biblique, October, 1949, pp. 605ff, where R. de Vaux rendered lô'yad'w râz niheie[h w] by “Ils n'ont pas connu le mystère passé.” Since then, however, I am informed by W. H. Brown-lee that R. de Vaux in a private communication to him has retracted and accepted the future reference, as have also I. Rabbinowitz and J. T. Milik, op. cit., p. 156.

33 A. Dupont-Sommer's translation, op. cit., p. 42.

34 W. H. Brownlee, BASOR, The Jerusalem Habakkuk Scroll, No. 112, Dec, 1948, p. 10.

35 M. Delcor, op. cit., pp. 385, 379 n. 1 would make “eternal life” with which he equates the gôrâl of DSD XI:8 a kind of “gnosis”; and he thinks of this “eternal life” as supra-terrestrial, although he also insists that O. Cullmann is right in refusing to recognize a temporal distinction between time and eternity in Jewish thought as in early Christian.

36 Cf. DSD VIII:4.

37 A. Dupont-Sommer, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 76.

38 On rabbîm see S. Liebermann, op. cit., and the note by J. van der Ploeg, op. cit., p. 131b.

39 Bo Reicke objects to this translation; he prefers “which was hidden from men, providence and that prudent purpose….” So too J. T. Milik.

40 A. Dupont-Sommer, op. cit., p. 77.

41 A. Dupont-Sommer, op. cit., pp. 69 f.

42 See W. D. Davies, Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come, 1952, for the setting of such an expectation in Judaism. The relation of the Teacher of Righteousness to the Messiah has been much disputed. H. H. Rowley, op. cit., p. 143, rejects the identification. The evidence of CDC, however, may be regarded at least as ambiguous, although there seems to be nothing in the DSS that demands the identification of the Teacher and the Messiah. For bibliographical details see H. H. Rowley, op. cit.

43 In this the Prophet resembles the Messiah of Judaism: See references to the Messianic Community which accompanies the Messiah in R. N. Flew, Jesus and His Church, 1938, ad. loc, and references there given and especially A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul and the Apostle, Eng. Trans., 1931, ad loc.

44 The plural meshîḥê is accepted by W. H. Brownlee, op. cit., Appendix D, p. so. He alludes to CDC II: 12 f. If the Teacher is to be identified with the Messiah this fits in with the expectation of a messianic community which should accompany the Messiah. It is, however, rejected by M. Delcor, op. cit., p. 366. J. T. Milik translates without explanation “the prophet and the two Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.” Lambert and J. van der Ploeg find the text strange. M. Delcor thinks we should read meshiaḥ not meshiḥê. H. E. del Medico, op. cit., p. 33, translates “jusqua ce qu’ arrive le prophète et messie d'Aaron et d'Israel.” He supplies a lost h before nabi'. For other treatments, see H. H. Rowley, op. cit. W. H. Brownlee's position seems to us most acceptable. See also M. Black, The Scottish Journal of Theology, 1953.

45 Translations from A. Dupont-Sommer, op. cit.

46 Op. cit., p. 99. On the debate on this problem see H. H. Rowley, Oudtestamentische Studien, VIII, 1950, pp. 100ff.

47 See e.g. A. Marmorstein, Studies in Jewish Theology, ed. J. Rabbinowitz and M. S. Lew, 1950, pp. 1 ff.

48 The Church and Gnosis, 1932, pp. 4 ff.

49 The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. XXXVI, 1935, pp. 45 ffGoogle Scholar.

50 Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. XXIII, pp. 275 ff.

51 I. Sonne deals only with one ‘hymn’ but we can asume that the author of the hymn belongs to the same milieu as the author of the DSS; the Psalm concerned is printed by I. Sonne on pp. 287 f. of his article.

52 He refers to line 7 which he renders… “And they withhold the drink of knowledge from those who are thirsty, and give them vinegar to drink in their thirst, so that they may direct their eye to their false doctrine.”

53 I. Sonne takes ḥômêtz to be a symbol of heresy.

54 I. Sonne, op. cit., pp. 298. On the Doreshe Reshumot see the Jewish Encyclopedia, ad loc.

55 See C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 1952.

56 Thus it is possible that the Sect had “commentaries” on many Old Testament books if not all. Discoveries have already yielded such on Micah and possibly Psalm 107.

57 See W. H. Brownlee, BASOR, Sept. 1951, and his forthcoming article on DSH and the Targum of Jonathan.

58 See K. G. Kuhn, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, 1952, Heft 2, pp. 200 ff.

59 See R. Bultmann in Theologisches Wörterbuch, ed. G. Kittel, Band I, pp. 588 ff. For a convenient statement see E. C. Blackman, Marcion and His Influence, 1949, pp. 82 ff.

60 Pp. 61 n. 11, 64 n. 23, 67 n. 38. Cf. M. Burrows, Oudtestamentische Studien, VIII, 1950, pp. 169 f. Kuhn, K. G., Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, 47, 1950, pp. 192–211Google Scholar finds “gnosticism” in the DSS, see p. 203 ff.

61 See Aux Sources de la Tradition Chrétienne, Mélanges offerts à M. Maurice Goguel, Paris, 1950, pp. 74 ff.

62 Op. cit., p. 78.

63 Ibid.

64 See e.g., Corpus Hermeticum, ed. W. Scott, 1. 26, et alia; A. D. Nock in Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, ed., A. E. J. Rawlinson, p. 105 n. 1.

65 See e.g., DSD X:II, XI:3 f. 9 ff. 12 ff. 21 f.; DST, Psalm C. A. Dupont-Sommer, op. cit., p. 72.

66 Tertullian, de Praescriptione, VII.

67 See DSD X. 1 ff. and W. H. Brownlee's note BASOR, Supplementary Studies, Nos. 10–12, 1951, p. 38 n. 3; 50 f. Is it possible that there is also a reference to this kind of speculation in CDC XVI:I which according to R. H. Charles asserts that the censor of the camp is “to instruct the many in the works of God,” and is to make them “understand His wondrous mighty acts,” and “to narrate before them the things of the world since its creation.” It is unlikely that there is here any cosmological reference. The Hebrew as given by S. Schechter, op. cit., p. 13 reads: wiesapêr liphenêhem niheiôth ‘ôlâm bprtiâh and is rendered by him as “and shall narrate before them the happenings of eternity in the Law of God.” This would give an eschatological meaning to the sentence and it must be conceded that this fits the context which speaks of the works and acts of God. Notice that S. Schechter reads betôrâh yâh for bprtiâh. The latter word he suggests may be a corruption of bprṭiâh, “in details.” This would give a good sense but M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Talmud, gives no form prṭiâh under peraṭ. R. H. Charles emends bprṭiâh to miberîîthô, but such a conjectural reading cannot be solid ground for finding a cosmological interest in CDC. Moreover the term ‘ôlâm which R. H. Charles renders “world” referring it to the physical universe can only be doubtfully so translated; Hebrew does not have a term for the universe as such; see W. H. Bennett, The Post-Exilic Prophets, 1907, p. 171 f. All this makes it impossible to use CDC XVI: 1 to support a cosmological interest in CDC. Note that while in this article we have used chiefly DSD, the evidence of CDC on knowledge is similar to that found in DSD. In CDC also the members of the sect have understanding in the works of God I:1; God has knowledge “of the periods for all the years of eternity” II:8. The emphasis on knowledge also appears in II:2 where God “loveth knowledge wisdom…. Prudence and knowledge minister unto Him.” In II:10 the Messiah is to mediate knowledge of the Holy Spirit; the community is an instructed one VI:5 cp. VII: 18; to them are revealed hidden things V:1 which are however defined as referring to “His holy Sabbaths and His glorious festivals, the testimony of His righteousness and the ways of His truth and the desires of His will,” here “the hidden things” do not refer to esoteric doctrines but as elsewhere to God's commands and ways. The term nistârôth in DSS and CDC would seem to include (1) knowledge of the proper way to observe the holy days etc., but this in turn meant (2) the capacity to interpret the Torah and its mysteries properly and (3) in one passage as we saw the reference is to esoteric cosmological speculation. But such speculation too would be rooted in the Scripture and is not to be confused with the redemptive cosmological gnosis of Hellenism, e.g., as in the Hermetica.

68 See N. Bentwich, Hellenism, 1919, ad loc.

69 See H. H. Rowley's summary of the literature, op. cit., p. 112 n. 3. He writes “actually DSH is neither like an ordinary midrash nor like the usual commentaries on Scripture books. It is rather an application of the Scripture text to contemporary events and an often forced interpretation of the text in terms of those events.”

70 See on this G. Vermes, Le Commentaire d'Habacuc et le Noveau Testament, in Cahiers Sioniens, No. 4, 1951 where also the relevant literature on the Jerusalem Habakkuk Scroll is cited. Cf. I. Sonne, op. cit., p. 277. In the Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. III, No. 2, 1952, pp. 53 ff., Jesus in the Habakkuk Scroll, J. L. Teicher has sought to prove that “nothing confirms better the identity of môreh hatzedeq with Jesus than the arguments used by Vermes himself to the contrary” p. 53. We are not concerned in this article to enter into this controversy but merely to point out the similarity of much in Mt. 11:25–30 with the DSS. It should be noted that the parallelism between the early Christian use of Scripture and the “commentaries” of the Dead Sea Sect cannot be carried too far. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scripture, London, 1952 shows that the early Church did not apparently comment on particular Old Testament documents as a whole or use testimony books as Rendal Harris had urged. They used instead certain well denned blocks of Scripture for their purpose.

71 Contrast A. Dupont-Sommer, op. cit., p. 46, who thinks that the sect recalls the thiasoi of the Hellenistic mysteries. Again A. Dupont-Sommer, Observations sur le Manuel de Discipline, 1951, has referred to the use of gâlâh, râz, as indicating a gnosis; see p. 21. But M. Dekor, op. cit., points to the significance of the fragments of Daniel in the cave which proved that the sect knew and used that book. Moreover he finds a positive literary influence from Daniel. Thus the term rabbîm to designate the community derives he thinks, improbably, from Daniel XI:33 cf. XII: 3 etc. It is worth noting here that F. C. Burkitt regarded the rejection of eschatology as a distinctive mark of second century gnosticism, op. cit., ad. loc.

72 Cf. L. Ginsberg, The Journal of Biblical Literature, XI:i. See 4 Ezra, 14:6, 12:37 f., 14:45 ff.

73 Op. cit., pp. 61 n. 11, 64, n. 23.

74 On this see R. Bultmann, Theologisches Wörterbuch, Ibid. It would be erroneous to deny all ethical concern to the mysteries; See on this A. D. Nock, Early Gentile Christianity and its Hellenistic Background in Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, ed., A. E. J. Rawlinson. But their strength did not lie in that direction, whereas the Dead Sea Sect reveals ethical passion. Along with this goes the strong communal awareness of the DSS. Here is no “flight of the alone to the alone” as so often in Hellenistic gnosticism but the recognition of belonging to the true Israel. See on this aspect of the Mysteries, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, p. 90. The societary emphasis of the DSS is largely absent in Hellenistic gnosis usually.

75 See W. L. Knox, Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity, 1944, pp. 30 f.; Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 1948, 1–16; Saul Liebermann, Greek in Jewish Palestine, 1942. According to S. Liebermann, and D. Daube in Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. XXII, pp. 239 ff. even the Rabbinic methods of exegesis have been influenced by Hellenistic modes. See also G. D. Kilpatrick, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, 1946, pp. 105 ff. who warns us in the study of Matthew against “identifying the linguistic frontier between the Greek and Semitic worlds with the cultural frontier between Hellenism and Judaism,” and Grant, R. M., The Journal of Religion, XXXI, 1951, p. 213Google Scholar. E. R. Goodenough, in his forthcoming volume, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, Bollingen Series, Pantheon Books, 1953, shows that the sharp dichotomy between Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism is untenable. See also W. F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity, 1946, pp. 274, 337 n. 26. A. Altmann, Gnostic Themes in Rabbinic Cosmology, in Essays in Honour of J. H. Hertz, 1942, pp. 19 ff.

76 See Kuhn, K. G., Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, 47, 1950, pp. 192–211Google Scholar; W. Grossouw, op. cit., pp. 285 ff.; does this bear on the question of the date of the Gospel? See W. F. Albright, in BASOR, Supplementary Studies Nos. 10–12, Appendix. On the presence of mystical groups in first century and earlier Judaism which had a “gnosis,” see references in Paul and Rabbinic Juadism, pp. 14 f., and in I. Sonne, op. cit. Whether Judaism knew a Hellenistic “mystery,” see E. R. Goodenough, By Light, Light, 1935, and a gnosis of the same kind cannot here be discussed. If it did, it is not revealed in the DSS. Dom Jaques Dupont, La con-naissance religieuse dans les fipitres de Saint Paul, Louvain, 1949, thinks that it is probable that even in Hellenistic mysticism the conception of gnosis derives ultimately by way of Alexandria from Judaism pp. 357–65, and that the Pauline gnosis is in no way influenced by the Hellenistic. See the review by R. Bultmann, The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. III, April 1952, pp. 10 ff. J. Danielou, Études, 1950, p. 181, Les Découvertes de Manuscrits en Egypte et en Palestine, finds confirmation for J. Dupont's thesis in the DSS.

77 As stated previously we cannot here discuss the relation of the DSS to Christianity or to other movements. The strongest tendency perhaps has been to regard them as Essene, but note S. Liebermann's caution against such identifications in the article already cited. That the problem of gnosis in the DSS, as will have appeared, is largely a matter of terminological inexactitude is paralleled by the fact, for example, that while most scholars have treated the Pseudo-Clementines as containing “gnostic” material, H. J. Schoeps has found in the Preaching of Peter, which are incorporated therein, an antignostic motif; see his Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, ad loc.