================================================================== @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ Liu on @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ Spring Graystone @ @ @ @ 1995 @ @ @ @ @@@@@@ @@@@@@ @@@@@@ ================================================================== R E V I E W S ================================================================== Dead Sea Scroll Book Reviews, for Religious Studies 225 University of Pennsylvania, Robert Kraft, Spring Term 1995 Copyright by the respective authors; reproduction with appropriate credits is permitted. [[NOTE: The assignment was to summarize the reviewed book and to compare it especially with the textbooks used in the course, by James VanderKam The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Eerdmans/SPCK 1994) and Joseph Fitzmyer Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Paulist Press 1992). As with this note, any comments by the course instructor are enclosed in double brackets below.]] ----- Geoffrey Graystone, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Originality of Christ. New York: Sheed & Ward: 1956. Reviewed by Vincent Liu vliu@sas.upenn.edu [[Do you have any information about the author? That is usually useful in a review.]] <0.1> The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) have sparked debate and controversy about the origins of Christianity since their discovery in 1947. Many have questioned whether the writers of these scrolls were in contact with, were influences on, or even were themselves the early Christians. In The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Originality of Christ, written in 1956, G is "specifically concerned with...the connexion of...the newly-found documents [DSS] and the New Testament" [[page #?]]. Although at the time this book was written only six of the eleven caves had been found, G makes a detailed and comprehensive argument that the DSS and the New Testament (NT) are separated by a "tremendous gulf." <1.1> The first chapter gives a brief history of the discovery of the DSS in the caves around Khirbet Qumran. G assumes that the community living in Qumran were either the authors or copiers of the scrolls, and that they used the caves as their libraries. In addition, he comments on the similarities between the Community Rule (found in cave 1), the Cairo Damascus Document (found in the Cairo Genizah), and the practices of the Essenes (as described in the writings of Josephus, Philo, Pliny the Elder, and others). G doesn't go as far as saying that these three groups are one and the same, but he implies that if they aren't the same group they are at least closely related. <1.2> The second and third chapters contain G's arguments surrounding the connections between the DSS and the NT. In the second chapter he studies the religious points of contact between the Qumran community and the Christians, which include: organization and practices, names and titles, piety, and moral teachings. In the third chapter, he studies the religious philosophies of the Qumran sect and Christians including: angelology, eschatology, the two spirits and two ways, the sons of light and darkness, the holy spirit, and Jesus and the Teacher of Righteousness. <1.3> In his arguments, G largely uses three points to explain why although the areas listed above might be similar in both sets of writings, they are unrelated. The first point is that both groups had firm roots in Judaism and held the Old Testament (OT) in high esteem. Both communities saw the OT as scripture and as a result, G argues that it wouldn't be uncommon for both groups to use similar ideas, phrases, or practices drawn from the same source, like the common meal. The second point that he uses is that the Qumran sect was an extremely exclusive group who saw outsiders as wicked, and considered themselves the faithful remnant of Israel. This manifested itself in the community's isolation, as well as the obligation for members to merge their possessions with the pure possessions of the community. On the other hand, Christians were open, and even opened their community to the gentiles, a radical difference from the Qumran sect. Finally, the fact that Christianity was based on Jesus Christ the Messiah was in direct opposition to the Qumran sect's belief that the Messiah was yet to return [[come?]]. In addition to this fundamental difference, Christians believed that the Messiah had come and given them a New Covenant by which they no longer were bound to the Mosaic Law, which the Qumran sect strictly adhered to. <1.4> Graystone's conclusion to these two chapters is that although the DSS shed light on first century Jewish life, "direct, causal influence of the Qumran writings on the origins of Christianity has been ruled out." <1.5> The fourth chapter is a critique of a book written by Edmund Wilson [[see the separate review]], who asserted that there are several parallels between the DSS and the NT. G writes that Wilson's work contains few direct references to the DSS, leading readers to believe that parallels abound, when in fact they are relatively few. Secondly, G points to the disparities between the Gospels' "spirit of forgiveness and charity" and the "hate thy enemy" attitude of the DSS. He also opposes the assertion that both Jesus and John the Baptist were Essenes, by arguing that the Jewish people of that time would have created a greater stir if Jesus and John had really studied with the Essenes. <2.1> The strength of G's work lies in his extensive use of texts from both the DSS and the NT. He raises all of the topics and phrases that have caused confusion and conjecture and studies each one in detail. In addition to this, he knows and understands the fundamentals of Christianity and shows through his arguments that although on the surface some practices and phrases may appear similar, they are in fact practiced for radically different reasons. <3.1> Graystone's weakness is one which cannot be helped. Since he wrote his book less than ten years after the initial discovery of the DSS, and after they had only discovered six caves, it is a matter of fact that he doesn't have all the information that has been uncovered since then. Yet, although he wrote this book more than thirty-five years before the work by VanderKam on the DSS, both authors reach the same conclusion that Christianity is unique from the Qumran community in its claims. [[VanderKam's concluding statement in the relevant chapter is much more nuanced and open to influences than G seems to allow. Are they really as close as you suggest?]] <00.1> Graystone's conclusion that the DSS and the NT, and their respective communties, are unrelated is still met by criticism and debate. As more study of the scrolls continues, perhaps new evidence will support or contradict what he believes. Vincent Liu Box 537 3333 Walnut St. Philadelphia, PA 19104-6193 vliu@mail.sas.upenn.edu