^{page 389 note 2} It appears that the proper method to be employed is to separate at the outset the Johannine Epistles from the Gospel of John. This separation is necessary both because the old view that all were written by the same person is much criticized and because in I John, the epistle closest in thought and expression to the gospel, one finds different ideas and expressions. For example, in I John we find the term ‘άντιχριστος’ in ii. 18, a strong strain of brotherhood (iv. 21) within a community that has, quite like Qumran, withdrawn from the evil world (v. 19), a developed ethic (‘όειλει περιπατειν’, ii. 6, see also i. 6) and an equation of sin not so much with unbelief as with lawlessness (‘τήν άνομíαν’, iii. 4). Not unimportant is the observation that these differences move perpendicularly toward the Qumranic literature. Also a very striking parallel is found between I John iv. 1–6 and IQS iii, 13–iv, 26.

^{page 390 note 1} 1QS iii, 13–iv, 26 teaches a dualism representative of the dualism found elsewhere in the scrolls. While H. W. Huppenbauer has argued that we must speak not of one type of dualism but of many types of dualism in the Qumran scrolls, he can still conclude that ‘Der Dualismus der Qumrangemeinde ist also ein relativer, ethisch-kosmischer Dualismus’. Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten, pp. 103, 113.Google Scholar It is precisely these three characteristics which our research has found to be emphasized in this treatise. Moreover, five independent examinations have found significant similarities between the dualism in this text and the dualism in other Qumran scrolls. Professor Foerster, W. has exposed parallels between this passage and the Hodayot. ‘Der Heilige Geist im Spätjudentum’, N.T.S. VIII (1961-1962), 129–31.Google Scholar More recently H.-W. Kuhn has argued that the conception of two warring spirits and resultant predestination which is presented in IQS iii, 13 f. is also found in IQH. Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1966), pp. 121–5.Google Scholar Y. Yadin has shown that parallels exist between this passage and the War Scroll and suggested that the War Scroll was built upon the dualistic theory of IQS iii, 13–25. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, trans. Rabin, B. and C. (Oxford: University Press, 1962), pp. 229–42.Google Scholar Although A. R. C. Leaney finds occasional contrasts between the dualistic doctrine of this passage and sections of other scrolls (e. g. IQM xiii, 2–6), he suggests that IQS iii, 13–iv, 26 probably ‘exerted a great influence upon’ the other passages and ‘may have once existed independently of its present context’. The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning (London: SCM Press, 1966), pp. 53–5.Google Scholar The contrast which Leaney finds between IQS iii, 16–18 and IQM xiii, 2–6 is not in the texts since in IQS iii, 24 it is clearly stated that God and His ‘Angel of Truth’ work together (see also the implications of iv, 19); and moreover, in 1QM xiii, 2–6 we do not read of God warring against Belial but of God being the object of the sect's praises and Belial the recipient of the sect's curses. Finally, A. A. Anderson has argued that the difference between the dualism in IQM, IQH and IQS is only apparent and probably results from the differences of authorship, date and nature of the writings. There is basically the same dualism, and ‘IQS may reflect the thought and practice of the whole community’. See his ‘The use of “Ruah” in IQS, IQH and IQM’, Journal of Semitic Studies, VII (1962), 298.Google Scholar

If the author of the Fourth Gospel was influenced by 1QS iii, 13–iv, 26, and we shall soon present evidence which convinces us that he was, dien he probably knew it in its present context since ‘one doing the truth‘ in John iii. 21 (and ‘we do not do the truth’ in I John i. 6) is paralleled only in I QSi, 5; v . 3; and viii, 2.

^{page 391 note 1} So also Foerster, W., N.T.S. VIII (1961–1962), 128–9;Google Scholar and Driver, G. R., The Judaean Scrolls, p. 545.Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 2} So also Leaney, A. R. C., The Rule of Qumran, p. 148.Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 3} So also Davies, W. D., Christian Origins and Judaism, pp. 163–6;Google ScholarSchubert, K.The Dead Sea Community, p. 63;Google ScholarBetz, O., Der Paraklet (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963), pp. 66–7;Google ScholarSimon, U., Heaven in the Christian Tradition (London: Rockliff, 1958), p. 173;Google ScholarBöcher, O., Der johanneische Dualismus, pp. 77, 101;Google ScholarKuhn, K. G., ‘Johannesevangelium und Qumrantexte’, Neotestamentica et Patristica, ed. van Unnik, W. C. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962), p. 119;Google ScholarAnderson, A. A., Journal of Semitic Studies, VII (1962), 298–9;Google ScholarBurrows, M., More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 283–4;Google Scholar and Nötscher, F., ‘Geist und Geister in den Texten von Qumran’, Mélanges Bibliques: Rédigés en ľ Honneeur de André Robert (Trauvaux de l'Institut Catholique de Paris, no. 4; Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1956), pp. 305–16.Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 4} Schubert's, Cf. K.contention that this treatise is strongly influenced by Greek thought. Theologische Literaturzeitung, LXXVIII (1953), 495–506.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 1} W. F. Albright has marshalled convincing archaeological evidence that this verse should be translated: ‘And God saw that the light was very good.’ ‘The Refrain “And God Saw KI TOB’ in Genesis’, Mélanges Bibliques: Rédigés en ľHonneur de André Robert, pp. 22–6.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 2} Aalen, S., Die Begriffe ‘Licht’ und ‘Finsternis’ im Alten Testament, im Spätjudentum und im Rabbinismus (Oslo: I Kommisjon Hos Jacob Dybwad, 1951), esp. pp. 173–5.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 3} See Genesis xli. 32.

^{page 392 note 4} ‘The Qumran Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles’, The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. Stendahl, K. (London: SCM Press, 1958), p. 190.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 5} Cross, F. M., Ancient Library of Qumran, p. 93;Google ScholarLicht, J., ‘An Analysis of the Treatise of Two Spirits in DSD’, Scripta Hierosolymitana, IV (1958), 89;Google ScholarMilk, J. T., Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea, trans. Strugnell, J. (London: SCM Press, 1959), p. 119;Google ScholarRinggren, H., The Faith of Qumran, trans. Sander, E. T. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961), pp. 53–4.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 6} F. Nötscher argued that there is no determinism in this document but that freedom of the individual is upheld because the two spirits are struggling ‘um das Herz (wohl nicht: im Herzen) des Mannes (IQS iv. 23)’. While his translation is accurate, his exegesis fails to account for the deterministic statement found in IQS iii. 15–17, the importance of in this text (3 times), the strong predestinarian tone of in iv. 20 (‘some men’, see Psalm iv. 3, also ⌍ℑ denotes ‘some’, esp. in late Hebrew, e.g. Ezr. ii. 68, 70; Neh. xi. 4, 25; Dan. xi. 35), and would tend to ascribe to the evil spirit the knowledge of who were his targets, i.e. the ‘sons of light’, an ascription without support in the text. See Nötscher, F., Zur theologischen Terminologie der Qumran-Texle (Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlag, 1956), pp. 79–80.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 7} So also Allegro's, ‘astrological document’ (e.g. ii, 1–9).Google Scholar‘An Astrological Cryptic Document from Qumran’, Journal of Semitic Studies, IX (1964), 291–4.Google Scholar

^{page 393 note 1} E.g. Leaney, A. R. C., The Rule of Qumuan, p. 149;Google ScholarYadin, Y., The Scroll of the War, p. 236;Google ScholarBetz, O., Der Paraklet, pp. 66–7;Google Scholar and Burrows, M., More Light, p. 287.Google Scholar

^{page 393 note 2} See Kuhn, K. G., Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1960).Google Scholar It is significant that in IQM xiii, 10–11 and in CD v, 18 the ‘Prince of Light’ is opposed not by the ‘Angel of Darkness’ but by Belial. However, it is surprising to find that in one of the most respected translations of the scrolls ⌝υ∼ℶ is habitually translated ‘Satan’ (í;). See Vermes, G., The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 393 note 3} The ‘Spirit of Truth’ may be identified with Michael, (IQM ix, 15–16; xvii. 6–7).Google Scholar So also Leaney, , The Rule, p. 148;Google ScholarYadin, , The Scroll of the War, p. 236;Google ScholarBetz, , Der Paraklet, pp. 66–7;Google Scholar and Burrows, , More Light, p. 284.Google Scholar

^{page 393 note 4} Jubilees was known by the covenanters since fragments were found in cave IV. I am indebted in this discussion to Russell's, D. S. comments in The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, pp. 249–54.Google Scholar

^{page 393 note 5} SeeDanby, H., The Mishnah (Oxford: University Press, 1933), p. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 1} IQS iii, 25: ℸШ⌉Π⌉ ⌝⌉ℵ л⌉Π⌉⌝ ℵ⌝ℶ ⌝ℵ⌉⌉. Significantly, we find the same peculiar belief in IQM xiii, 10–11: ‘And you made Belial to corrupt, the Angel of Hatred, his dominion is in darkness and his counsel is to cause wickedness and guilt.’ In the preceding sentence лΠШ⌝ may be translated either as ‘for the pit’ —taking ИШ as a noun in the dative case—so Dupont-Sommer, (Essene Writings, p. 189)Google Scholar and Vermes, G. (Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 141),Google Scholar or as ‘to corrupt’ —taking the Pi. Inf. Cst. of the root лΠ, so Yadin, Y. (The Scroll of the War, p. 322).Google Scholar The latter translation is preferable because the passage is not referring to Belial's destiny but to his tasks, and the infinitive construct with clearly expresses a purpose. Moreover, this interpretation seems demanded by the causative purposiveness of the two Hiph. Infin. Csts. which also have a prefixed $ in the next line. As R. Meyer remarked, there is no teaching in the scrolls that the evil angel fell from the heavenly realm because of some fault. Die Qumranfunde und die Bibel, p. 57.

^{page 394 note 2} For two excellent discussions of the eschatological expectations of the covenanters, see Schubert, K., The Dead Sea Community, pp. 61–3, 88–112;Google Scholar and Reuss, J., Die Qumranfunde und die Bibel, pp. 110–12.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 3} There is a minor inconsistency between this idea and the teaching that the ‘Spirit of Perversity’ will be eventually destroyed found in iv, 18–19. This inconsistency is minor precisely because there is no mention of the cessation of hatred and it is the counsel not the angel which God abhors.

^{page 394 note 4} Davies, W. D. remarks that ‘it is only here that the Spirit [of Truth] is ascribed a strictly eschatological significance at all in the scrolls’. Christian Origins and Judaism, p. 165.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 1} This phrase means literally ‘until the time of judgement which is decreed’. Compare Isa. x. 23:Google Scholar ⌝ℵℸ;;⌉.

^{page 395 note 2} Scripta Hierosolymitana, IV (1958), 96.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 3} Kuhn, K. G., ‘Die Sektenschrift und die iranische Religion’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, XLIX (1952), 312.Google ScholarFritsch, C. T., The Qumran Community (New York: Anchor Books, 1956), p. 71.Google ScholarAlbright, W. F., ‘The Bible After Twenty Years of Archeology’, Religion in Life, XXI (1952), 549.Google ScholarCross, F. M., The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (New York: Anchor Books, 1961), p. 210.Google ScholarDupont-Sommer, A., The Essene Writings From Qumran (New York: Meridan Books, 1962), p. 78;Google Scholar and The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes (London: Vallentine, Mitchell and Co., 1954), pp. 118–19.Google ScholarAllegro, J. M., The Dead Sea Scrolls (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1956), p.128.Google ScholarNötscher, F., Zur theologischen Terminologie der Qumran-Texte (Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlag, 1956), p. 80.Google ScholarSchonfield, H. J., Secrets of The Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Vallentine, Mitchell and Co., 1956), p. 113.Google ScholarDavies, W. D., Christian Origins and Judaism (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1962), p. 164.Google ScholarLeaney, A. R. C., The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning (London: SCM Press, 1966), p. 43.Google ScholarSchubert, K., ‘Der gegenwärtige Stand der Erforschung der in Palästina neu gefundenen hebräischen Handschriften’, Theologische Literaturzeitung, LXXVIII (1953), 495–506;Google ScholarThe Dead Sea Community (London: A. and C. Black, 1959), pp. 62–6.Google ScholarPubMedDriver, G. R., The Judaean Scrolls (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), p. 559.Google ScholarLicht, J., ‘An Analysis of the Treatise on the Two Spirits in DSD’, Scsripta Hierosolymitana IV (1958), 92.Google ScholarMayer, R. and Reuss, J., Die Qumran-Funde und die Bibel (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1959), p. 57.Google ScholarMay, H. G., ‘Cosmological Reference in the Qumran Doctrine of the Two Spirits and in Old Testament Imagery’, Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXII (1963), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBurrows, M., More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Secker and Warburg, 1958), pp. 280–1.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 4} Wernberg-Møller, P., ‘A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community’ (IQSerek iii, 13–iv, 26)’,Google ScholarRevue de Qumran, XI (1961), 423.Google Scholar It appears that E. Schweizer would agree with Wernberg-Møller's interpretation since he emphasizes the ethical concern of this passage and denies the cosmic dimension. See his ‘Gegenwart des Geistes und eschatologische Hoffnung’, The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, eds. Davies, W. D. and Daube, D. (Cambridge University Press, 1956), pp. 482–508, especially pp. 490Google Scholar f. M. Treves clearly agrees with Wernberg-Moller's interpretation, for he wrote ‘In my opinion these spirits are simply the tendencies or propensities which are implanted in every man's heart'. It is quite shocking, however, to discover that Treves has examined this Qumranic treatise only by means of the interpretation of π⌉⌝ found in the OT, where it ‘never meant… an incorporeal being, such as an angel, a demon, or a fairy’. But one dare not overlook the additional meaning obtained by this noun during the intertestamental period. See his ‘The Two Spirits of the Rule of the Community’, Revue de Qumran, III (1961-1962), 449–52.Google Scholar After examining the use of π⌉⌝ in three of the most important scrolls, A. A. Anderson correctly remarked that ‘we meet with a further development and a change in emphasis. Thus in the scrolls Ruah is used quite often to denote supernatural beings or angels and this is a considerable development in comparison with what we find in the Old Testament.’ See his ‘The use of “Ruah” in IQS, IQH and IQM’, Journal of Semitic Studies, VII (1962), 293.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 1} The problem originates with the attempt to uncover the original meaning of the Hebrew word DOR. This noun can be translated ‘generation’, ‘age’, ‘race’, or ‘class’.

^{page 396 note 2} So also Allegro's ‘astrological document’ II, 7–8: ‘He has six (parts) spirit in the House of Light, and three in the Pit of Darkness.’ See also column III, 5–6: ‘He has [ei]ght (parts) spirit in the House of [Darkness] and one (part) from the House of Light.’ Allegro, J. M., ‘An Astrological Cryptic Document from Qumran’, Journal of Semilic Studies, IX (1964), 291–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 396 note 3} ‘That RWḤET is used here as a psychological term seems clear; and the implication is that the failure of man to “rule the world” is due to man himself because he allows his “spirit of perversion”, that is to say his perverse and sinful propensities, to determine his behaviour. We have thus arrived at the rabbinic distinction between the evil and good YESER.’ Revue de Qumran, XI, 422.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 4} This Qumranic teaching is clearly distinguished from the Rabbinic doctrine of the two inclinations in man (Berakoth 9.5) precisely because of the cosmic dimension of man's struggle, and because of the categorical difference between an imposed force and an inward inclination.

^{page 397 note 1} As F. Nötscher argued the ‘Angel of Darkness’ is no abstract concept, ‘sondern persönlicher Dämon’, the head of the evil spirits and the ‘kosmologisches Übel’. See his article in Mélanges Bibliques: Rédigés en l'Honneur de André Robert, pp. 313–15.

^{page 397 note 2} Wernberg-Møller, P., Revue de Qumran, XI, 435–6.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 3} Dupont-Sommer, A., The Essene Wrilings From Qumran, p. 79.Google ScholarBöcher, O., Der johanneische Dualismus im Zusammenhang des nachbiblischen Judentums (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965), p. 74:Google Scholar ‘Nicht nur das Menschenherz, sondern die ganze Welt ist durchzogen vom Gegensatz zwischen Licht und Finsternis, Wahrheit und Verführung, Gut und Böse.’

^{page 397 note 4} Wernberg-Møller, P., Revue de Qumran, XI, 425.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 5} Brown, F., Driver, S. R. and Briggs, C. A. (eds.), A Hebrew and English Lexicon of The Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), p. 410.Google Scholar So also Koehler, L. and Baumgartner, W. (eds.), Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958), p. 1021.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 6} Boccaccio, P., ⌝Π∼;⌝ ┐ℸō Regula Unionis Seu Manuale Disciplinae (IQS) (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1958), p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 1} ‘’MT/' WR and ‘WL/HWšK are ethical terms without the dualistic overtones which are generally placed upon them.’ Wernberg-Møller, P., Revue de Qumran, XL, 425.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 2} See the following discussion regarding the antecedents of the dualism of 1 QS and the observations concerning the similarities of the dualisms in these two documents. While different Semitic nouns are employed in the Testament of Levi, which is clearly pre-Christian because of the fragments discovered at Qumran, the dualistic overtones have already been given to ‘light’ and ‘gloomy’ since the highest and lowest heaven are respectively characterized by light and gloom.

^{page 398 note 3} As H. G.May remarked, Wernberg-Møller's contention that this treatise teaches a psychological dualism neither accounts for the apocalyptic framework of the teaching, nor does justice to the role of the ‘Angel of Darkness’ and the ‘Prince of Light’ in IQS iii, 20Google Scholar ff., nor recognizes the cosmic contexts of the use of Π⌝Шℑℑ (‘rule’, or ‘dominion’). Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXII (1963), 3–4.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 4} So also Yadin, Y., The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light, p. 231;Google Scholar and Schweizer, E. in The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, p. 491.Google Scholar

In contrast, however, M. Treves observed, ‘The mention of all the spirits allotted to the single Angel of Darkness (iii, 24) shows that here the terms “spirit” and “angel” are not synonyms.’ But the suggestion that there are many spirits under the command of the ‘Angel of Darkness’ does not dismiss the possibility that the self-same angel is also called the ‘Spirit of Perversity’. Moreover, it appears that Treves's suggestion that these two terms are not synonymous weakens the hypothesis of a psychological dualism which he had endeavoured to prove, since we would be left with an ‘angel’ which was not a ‘spirit’. See Treves's article in Revue de Qumran, III (1961-1962), 450.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 5} So W. D. Davies correctly remarks that the fact that these spirits ‘are not merely inherent properties of man, as such, emerges clearly from the use of the term “angel” to describe the two spirits: this preserves the “otherness” of the two spirits even when they appear to be merely immanent’. Christian Origins and Judaism, p. 164.Google Scholar Similarly, A. R. C. Leaney concludes: ‘The tendency to personify as angels the powers which control the stars and to identify God himself with the Urlicht may be paralleled by the identification of the two spirits with personal supernatural beings.’ The Rule of Qumran, p. 43. Hence, as Simon, U. so aptly put it, ‘The struggle in the heart of man is inseparable from the cosmic array of powers’ (IQS iv, 18). Heaven, p. 173.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 6} A. R. C. Leaney seems to find in 1 QS iii, 13–iv, 26 both an idea in harmony with the rabbinic thought of two inclinations in man and die belief that the two spirits are cosmic beings. This ‘inconsistency‘ seems less to be characteristic of the passage than it is attributable to Leaney's translation of in 1QS iii, 18 as ‘in him’ when it should be translated ‘for him’.

^{page 399 note 1} Strugnell, J., ‘The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran—4Q Serek Šîrôt ἸÔlat Haššabbāt’, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, VII (1959), 318–45.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 2} See Allegro, J. M., ‘An Astrological Cryptic Document from Qumran’, Journal of Semitic Studies, IX (1964), 291–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 399 note 3} The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light, pp. 237, 241 f.

^{page 399 note 4} ibid. pp. 232–42.

^{page 399 note 5} The translation is by Holm-Nielsen, S.. Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960), p. 64; see also p. 68.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 6} Delcor, M., Les Hymnes de Qumran (Hodayot) (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1962), pp. 40–52, esp. p. 41.Google Scholar K. Schubert seems to share Delcor's suggestion, for he remarks that the sect's services and prayers were for them an extension of the celestial liturgy. The Dead Sea Community, p. 64. Hence, Böcher, O. correctly noted, ‘Die Grenzen zwischen Erde und Himmel sind für die Qumraniten fließend geworden.’ Der johanneische Dualismus, p. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 7} ‘Die Sektenschrift und die iranische Religion’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, XLIX (1952), 312.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 8} The Qumran Community, p. 73.

^{page 400 note 1} ‘The Bible After Twenty Years of Archeology’, Religion in Life, XXI (1952), 549.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 2} Ancient Library of Qumran, p. 98; see also his comments in ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls’, Int. Bible, XXII, 659.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 3} The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes, pp. 118–19.

^{page 400 note 4} ‘The Iranian Component in the Bible, Apocrypha, and Qumran: A Review of the Evidence’, History of Religions, v (1966), 200 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 5} The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 128.

^{page 400 note 6} The Faith of Qumran, pp. 78 f.

^{page 400 note 7} Zur theologischen Terminologie der Qumran-Texte, pp. 86–92.

^{page 400 note 8} The Excavations at Qumran, trans. Smyth, K. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1958), p. 100.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 9} Secrets, p. 113.

^{page 400 note 10} Das johanneische Dualismus, p. 72.

^{page 400 note 11} R. C. Zaehner contends the earliest account of the Zurvanite myth is presented by Aristotle's pupil, Eudemus of Rhodes, and that there is no serious reason to doubt its authenticity. The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1961), p. 182.Google Scholar J. Duchesne-Guillemin believes both that Zurvanism predates Zoroaster (c. 628–c. 551 B.C.) and that the Zurvanite point of view was the religion of the common Iranian folk. Western Response to Zoroaster (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), pp. 60 ff., 18.Google Scholar Also see Zaehner's, Zurvan, Zoroastrian Dilemma (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955).Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 12} Long after the above research had been completed, I was delighted to discover that at the colloquium on Gnosticism, which met at Messina in April 1966, H. Ringgren remarked, ‘I think the best parallels to the doctrine of the two spirits are found in Zurvanite texts … My main objection is that it is impossible to explain the doctrine of the two spirits exclusively on the basis of the Old Testament doctrine.’ See Le Origini dello Gnosticismo: Colloquio di Messina 13–18 April 1966, ed. Bianchi, U. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967), p. 385.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 13} It appears that the first scholar to perceive this connexion was Michaud, H., ‘Un mythe zervanite dans un des manuscrits de Qumran’, Vetus Testamentum, v (1955), 137–47.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 14} From the Greater Bundahsin, chapter 1, Zaehner's, R. C. translation, see his zurvan, A Zoroastrian Dilemma (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), p. 312.Google Scholar Although this work is late and reflects late Sassanian religion (seventh century C.E.), the passages quoted represent a much earlier tradition as evidenced by Eudemus’ account.

^{page 400 note 16} Failure to consider Zurvanism led O. Böcher to contend that the religion of the OT is distinct from the many other contemporary religions because the opposition between good and bad or God and Satan never became an absolute dualism since God remained the sole creator of all things. Böcher, O., Der johanneische Dualismus, p. 119.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 1} M. Black contends that the sources and background of the dualistic thought of IQS should be traced in the apocalyptic writings. The example he gives is from the Testament of Judah xx: ‘Know, therefore, my children, that two spirits wait upon man—the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.’ The Scrolls and Christian Origins (London: Nelson, 1961), p. 134.Google Scholar Such passages from Jewish apocalyptic literature did influence the dualistic thought of Qumran, but because of the light-versus darkness motif, and the warring, cosmic quality of the two spirits the more powerful influence was probably from zurvanism.

^{page 401 note 2} It is generally accepted by almost all scholars, ‘that the Qumran sect was identical with the people known to the ancient historians as “Essenes” ’. Black, M., The Essene Problem (London: Dr Williams's Trust, 1961), p. 27.Google Scholar Also see A. Dupont-Sommer, , The Essene Writings from Qumran, pp. 39–67.Google Scholar Cf. G. R. Driver who contends that the Qumran covenanters may be identified in some sense with the Zealots. The Judaean Scrolls, pp. 75, 118–19, 237–51. It might appear to some that Driver's hypothesis has been proved by the discovery of a Qumranic scroll at Masada, the fortress of the Zealots’ last stand. (This fragment is ‘identical’ to the Qumranic sectarian scroll 4Q Serek Šîrôt ‘Ôlat Haššabbāt publishe by J. Strugnell.) However, I believe that Y. Yadin is correct to argue that the scroll probably belonged to one of the Essenes who joined the rebellion. See Yadin, Y., Masada: Herod's Fortress and the Zealots' Last Stand (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966), pp. 172–4.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 3} One of the most recent scholarly examinations of this position is by Winston, D., ‘The Iranian Component in the Bible, Apocrypha, and Qumran: A Review of the Evidence’, History of Religions, v (1966), 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Also sec von Rad's, G.Old Testament Theology, trans. Stalker, D. M. G. (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), 1, 150.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 4} Driver, Cf. G. R., The Judaean Scrolls (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), p. 551.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 5} While Jeremias, J. recognizes the cosmic dimension of this dualism, he prefers to isolate three main characteristics: the dualism is monotheistic, ethical and eschatological. Die theologische Bedeutung der Funde am Toten Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962), pp. 13–15.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 6} In line with the logic of existentialism Huppenbauer argues that the point of departure for the dualism of this treatise is, ‘in der lebendigen Situation der Gemeinde zu suchen und zu finden’ (Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten, pp. 42–4). This contention appears unlikely for three main reasons. It would ascribe to the origin of the Qumran community a sociological rather than an ideological or theological cause. Secondly, references to contemporary historical events, found couched in vague phrases in other scrolls, are conspicuously absent. Finally, Huppenbauer's contention overlooks the fact that this treatise dates from the earliest days of the community and most likely originally existed independently of its present position. Is it not more likely that the cause of the origin of the Qumran community was an acting out of a philosophy, which although certainly embryonic, nevertheless adumbrated the sophisticated dualism now found in IQS iii, 13 ff. ? This suggestion, however, would not weaken the probability, which appears quite certain as Professor H. Anderson contended recently, that the Essenes believed that ‘only within the group was there the light of total obedience to the will of God, without there was nothing but the darkness of faithlessness and unrighteousness’. ‘The Intertestamental Period’, The Bible and History (London: Lutterworth Press, 1968), p. 199.Google Scholar Indeed, implicit in the Rule of the Community is the contention that only the Essenes were the ‘sons of light’.

^{page 402 note 1} One wonders what relation there is between John and II Esdras: ‘The Most High has made not one world but two’ (II Esdras vii. 50). It appears that John received his two worlds from such thoughts in late biblical Judaism.

^{page 402 note 2} So Böcher, O., Der johanneiche Dualismus, p. 26:Google Scholar ‘Dadurch wird es möglich, das νωθεν in Joh. iii. 3 und iii. 7 nicht nur temporal (“wiederum”), sondern auch lokal, im Sinne des “von oben”, zu verstehen.’

^{page 403 note 1} Nils A. Dahl sees the conflict between God and the world in forensic terms, with Jesus as the representative of God and the Jews as representatives of the world. See his article in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, eds. Klassen, W. and Snyder, G. F. (London: SCM Press, 1962), pp. 124–42, esp. p. 139.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 1} The disciples are contrasted with Jesus. They display need for food ‘from below’ (iv. 8 τροϕ⋯σ) but he needs food ‘from above’ (iv. 34 βρ⋯μα). In xvi. 32 it is made clear that Jesus must face his suffering alone, yet in a higher sense he is not alone for his Father is with him.

^{page 403 note 3} Howard, W. F., Christianity According to John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1946), p. 83;Google Scholar sec also Meinertz, M., Theologie des Neuen Testaments, zweiter Band (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1950), p. 286.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 4} The Gospel According to St John (London: S.P.C.K., 1965), p. 135.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 1} Becker, J., Das Heil Gottes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1964), p. 135.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 2} Das Heil Gottes, p. 218.

^{page 404 note 3} Bultmann, R. in his Theology of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955; II, 18 f.)Google Scholar correctly shows that the concept of darkness is provided by the possibility of light and that it originates on man's side ‘by shutting one's self up against the light’, but his exegesis which follows reflects the imposition of existential logic upon this passage and becomes distorted through his Vorverständnis.

^{page 404 note 4} Υινώσκειν appears 56 times in John but only 60 times in the Synoptics (Matt. 21; Mark 18; Luke 20). It seems to be equated at times with power and strength (iv. 32; vii. 28, 29).

^{page 404 note 5} Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St John, p. 279.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 6} The question of predestination is taken up in the following pages.

^{page 405 note 1} K. G. Kuhn, however, contends that the Fourth Gospel ‘die Menschen teilt in die beiden antithetischen Gruppen der Leute’. He also finds ‘einen praedestinatianischen Zug’ in this gospel. See his ‘Johannesevangelium und Qumrantexte’, in Neotestamentica et Patristica, p. 113.

^{page 405 note 2} Unfortunately there is as yet no detailed, critical publication regarding the demonology of the Fourth Gospel. Dodd and Barrett do not delve into this question and E. Langdon's otherwise excellent book allots only two pages to the demonology of John while he assigns 71 to the NT generally and 14 to the Book of Revelation. Essentials of Demonology (London: Epworth Press, 1949).Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 3} There appears to be no distinction made between these expressions (e.g. compare the equation of το⋯ διαβòλομ in xiii. 2 with ⋯ σαταν⋯ς . 27. While xiii. 2 and xiii. 27 may,have originally signified a cosmic figure who opposed God, it appears that vi. 70 can only have a symbolic meaning since Jesus remarked, ‘Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?’

^{page 405 note 4} V. Taylor remarked, ‘In the Fourth Gospel we approach nearest to the use of θεóς as a Christological title … “Only-begotten” is as far as John is prepared to go.’ ‘Does the New Testamkent Call Jesus God?’, The Expository Times, LXXIII (1962), 117–18.Google Scholar Space permits only a brief observation on this exegesis: it fails to do justice to John i. 1 where the pre-existent Logos is called ‘God’ and John xx. 28 where Thomas exclaims: ó κύριóς μου καí ó θεóς μον. Moreover, in i. 18 we find the following authoritative variant for ‘only begotten Son’: μονοΥενής θεóς.

^{page 405 note 5} Hence how different John's demonology is from the Synoptics' in which Jesus is portrayed in combat with Satan! See the excellent discussion on this topic by van der Loos, H., The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, E. J., 1965), pp. 204–11, 339 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 1} Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter (Tübingen: Mohr, J. C., 1926, p. 515.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 2} Christianity According to John, p. 82.

^{page 406 note 3} See Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John (I-XII), pp. 219–21.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 4} Barrett, C. K. (The Gospel According to St. John, p. 57)Google Scholar and Howard, W. F. (Int. Bible, VIII, 444)Google Scholar have presented a similar interpretation. Of course our discussion regarding the realizing eschatology of Johannine ‘dualism’ in no way attempts to deal with the multifarious aspects of the contemporary debate concerning the eschatology of the Fourth Gospel. The most recent examination of the eschatology of the Fourth Gospel has been presented by P. Ricca, who approaches the problem from the Christological paradox that Christ is pre-existent, was incarnated, and continues to live in heaven as on earth through his alter ego, the Holy Spirit. Both Jesus’ coming in the flesh and his return in the Spirit is final (endgültig). John both retains the distinction between the various καιροí of the Heilsgeschichte and exposes their essential interconnexion since all time is grounded in Christ. Hence Ricca contends that the johannine eschatology is a ‘personalisierte’ eschatology precisely because the three acts of the eschatological drama—the end has come, is now and will come—are governed by Christ, ‘der gekommen‘ist, der da ist, der kommen wird’. Die Eschatologie des Vierten Evangeliums (Zurich: Gotthelf-Verlag, 1966).Google Scholar

For an excellent discussion of R. Bultmann's contention that v. 28–9, vi. 39, 40, 44, 51 c–58 and xii. 48 are the additions of an ecclesiastical redactor, see Smith, D. M. Jr, The Composition and Orderof the Fourth Gospel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), esp. pp. 134Google Scholar if. and 217 if. An excellent general discussion of the composition of the Fourth Gospel is found in Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John (I-XII), pp. xxiv–xxxix.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 1} An interesting, and I think accurate, contribution has been made by C. F. D. Moule. He suggests that ‘The Fourth Evangelist’s eschatology is much more “normal” than is often assumed; and that, where it is of an emphatically realized type, there the individualistic tendency of this Gospel is also at its most prominent…’. ‘The Individualism of The Fourth Gospel’, Novum Testamentum, V (1962), 182.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 2} Bultmann argues that ‘to be born of’ does not attribute man's conduct to his nature (φύσις) but attributes all specific conduct to a man's being, in which his conduct is founded. Theology of The New Testament, II, 23.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 3} AsBrown, R. E. accurately remarks, ‘There is no hint, however, of anyone's being determined to evil without choice.’ The Scrolls and the New Testament, p. 191.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 1} AsMacGregor, G. H. C. correctly states, to say a certain number are not drawn to Christ is to say that unbelief in Christ is in many cases unintelligible for a believer like John. The Gospel of St John (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1928), p. 149.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 2} SoBultmann, R., Theology, p. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 3} ibid. pp. 21–2.

^{page 408 note 4} Bernard, Cf J. H., The Gospel According to St John (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1928)Google Scholar who believes the Fourth Gospel is ‘Written from beginning to end sub specie aeternitatis; the predestined end is foreseen from the beginning’. I, 76. ‘The doctrine of predestination is apparent at every point in the Fourth Gospel, every incident being viewed sub specie aeternitatis, as predestined in the mind of God.’ II, 325.

^{page 408 note 5} As the Gnostic codices discovered at Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt in 1945 clearly illustrate, e.g. Gospel of Thomas, Log. 29: ‘But I marvel at how (π⋯ς) this greatwealth ( which means here πνε⋯μα) has made its home in this poverty ( which means here σ⋯μα ). See also sayings 87 and 110. However, John's ‘dualism’ is not essentially physical as the gnostics’. It is important, nevertheless, to observe that in iii. 6 and vi. 63 there is not a dualism of two spirits, but a ‘dualism’ of flesh and spirit. The soteriological ‘dualism’ in John only adumbrated gnosticism and is typical of John. Howard, W. F. correctly contends that i. 14 once and for all repudiates the gnostic antithesis of spirit and matter. Christianity According to St John, p. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 1} De Jonge, Milik and Burrows argue that the latter was written by a Christian writer, using older Jewish material. Bickermann and Dupont-Sommer argue that the whole book originated in the Qumran community before the Christian era. This argument cannot be entered into in this paper; however, it appears that the weight of evidence is against a Christian author, and that a Christian redactor is more plausible.

^{page 409 note 2} See Milik, J. T., Ten rears of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea, p. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 3} So Böcher, O., Der johanneische Dualismus, p. 164.Google Scholar For one of the best examinations of the apocalyptic literature see Russell's, D. S.The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964).Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 4} While the OT, generally speaking, viewed death as being completely Cut off from Jahweh (see Psalm lxxxvii), there is a belief in a resurrection from the dead promulgated in Isa. xxvi. 19 and Dan. xii. 2 (see von Rad's, G.Old Testament Theology, II, 350 ff.).Google Scholar Of course one would not want to overlook the resurrection passages in the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (e.g. II Maccabees ii. 9, 11, 14, 23, 29, 36; xii. 43–5).

^{page 410 note 1} The evolution of this idea was not completed until after the composition of IQS. Charles, R. H. believes that the Martyrdom of Isaiah was probably composed in the first century C.E. The Apoctypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), II, 158–9.Google ScholarEissfeldt, O. suggests that it is much older and probably was composed in the first century B.C. The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. Ackroyd, P. R. (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), p. 609.Google Scholar While it is difficult to date IQS, it certainly is older than the first century B.C.

^{page 410 note 2} Above we mentioned that F. Nötscher, J. van der Ploeg, H. J. Schonfield, and O. Böcher argue that Qumranic dualism is a further development of biblical thought. We have argued above that Qumranic dualism has cosmic dimensions which reflect the influence of Zurvanism and hence obtained a dualistic belief which is unique in post-exilic Judaism.

^{page 410 note 3} See Mowinckel, S., He That Cometh, trans. Anderson, G. W. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956), pp. 263 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 411 note 1} R. E. Brown correctly argues both that John does not characterize Satan in the exact terminology of the scrolls, and that Christ as ‘the light of the world’ is a significant development beyond Qurnran's ‘created’ angel of light. The Scrolls and the New Testament, p. 188. F. M. Cross rightly argues that the ‘Spirit of Truth’ in 1 QS is an angelic creature who is a greater distance from God than the ‘Spirit of Truth’ who in John is God's own Spirit. The Ancient Library, p. 213.

^{page 411 note 2} Professor J. Reuss correctly remarked that in terms of their respective angelologies, ‘müssen wir nicht an eine direkte Abhängigkeit dieser Vorstellungen des Neuen Testamentes den Schriften von Qumran denken’. Die Qumran-Funde und die Bibel, p. 110.

^{page 413 note 1} Another possible means by which one could examine the relation of John to iQ,S is the search for reactions against Qumranic beliefs. This method, however, is too subjective and has not produced any convincing conclusions.

^{page 414 note 1} P. Benoit argues that the technical terms ‘sons of light’ and ‘sons of darkness’ perhaps were coined by the Teacher of Righteousness, that Paul's expressions are closely parallel to the light versus-darkness paradigm found in IQS, and that John's connexion is even closer. ‘Qumrân et lc Nouveau Testament’, N.T.S. vii (1960-1961), pp. 289–90.Google Scholar

^{page 414 note 2} In the following discussion I have been influenced by Albright, W. F. and Braun's, F. M. observations found respectively in The Background of the New Testament, pp. 168–9,Google Scholar and in ‘L'Arrièrefond Judäique du quatrième Evangile et la Communauté de 'Alliance’, Revue Biblique, LXII (1955), 12.Google Scholar

^{page 414 note 3} There are two minor exceptions: ‘π⋯μτε7sigma; γ⋯ρὑμεīσ μιοι ϕωτóσ ⋯στε καì μιοì ⋯μ⋯ρασ’(I Thess. v. 5), and ‘τοὺσ μιοὺσ το⋯ ϕωτòσ’ (Luke xvi. 8). The first exception is not found in a context which is similar to the mythology of 1 Q.S but can be explained as resulting from Paul's imagery of the dawning eschatological day. The second exception is peculiarly non-Lucan and appears to belong to his sources.

^{page 414 note 4} The minor difference between these two similar expressions seems to be due to the difference between the terrestrial eschatology of Judaism and the transcendental expectation of primitive Christianity.

^{page 415 note 1} D. Flusser argues that there must be some connexion between early Christianity and Qumran because in Pauline and Johannine theology the question of predestination is presented within a dualistic framework. ‘The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity’, Scripta Hierosolymitana, IV (1958), 220.Google Scholar

^{page 415 note 2} Although the symbolism of light for the divine is found frequently in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, the light-versus-darkness paradigm is conspicuously absent. As a loyal Jew he probably borrowed this symbolism from the OT (e.g. Psalm xxvii. 1: ‘The Lord is my light…’). See Klein, F.-N., Die Lichtterminologie bei Philon von Alexandrien und in den Hermetischen Schrften (Leiden: Brill, E. J., 1962).Google Scholar J. Daniélou argued that although Philo thought the Essenes represented the Jewish ideal the dualism found in IQS iii, 13 ff. is foreign to him since his angelology is not dualistic. However, one should observe Daniélou's remarks on the ideas, which are odd for Philo, found in Quaestiones in Questiones in Exodum. Philon 'Alexandrie (Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1958), pp. 53–7.Google Scholar While M. Simon finds striking analogies between this text and the Qumranic teaching of the two spirits found in IQS iii, 13 ff., he also notes important differences (e.g. the two powers have created the world in Philo's text). See Simon's comments in Le Origini della Gnosticismo, pp. 371–2. Bréhier, É. has argued that Philo borrowed his angelology from the Greeks. Les Idées Philosophiques et Religieuses de Philon' Alexandrie, 2nd ed. (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1950), pp. 126–75.Google Scholar

^{page 416 note 1} So H. Braun: ‘Dazu kommt der für den johanneischen Dualisrnus typische christologische und eschatologische Rahmen, und dieser Rahmen entfällt in Qumran ganz…Daher wird man den johanneischen Dualismus aus Qumran nicht ableiten dürfen.’ ‘Qumran und das Neue Testament’, Theologische Rundschau, XXVIII (1962), 194.Google Scholar He holds the same position in his recent publication: Qumran und dos Neue Testament (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1966), 1, 98.Google Scholar

^{page 416 note 2} Schubert, K. remarked, ‘One frequently has the impression that a Christology for Essenes is being presented here. Thus one of the most important results of Qumran research has been to prove the Jewish origin of the Gospel of John conclusively.’ The Dead Sea Community, p. 152.Google Scholar J. Reuss, who has critically compared the Johannine writings with the Qumran scrolls, clearly agrees with K. Schubert's judgement. See his discussion in Die Qumran-Funde und die Bibel, pp. 114–19. According to our research, although the above observations tend to lead toward this judgement, there is not sufficient evidence to verify such categorical conclusions.

^{page 416 note 3} Failure to appreciate this important perspective led H. M. Teeple to ask, ‘Why should anyone think that John is very Jewish when its use of Jewish terms is, unlike Qumran, so far from Jewish usage?’ Furthermore, his conclusion that ‘The Gospel ofJohn is full of evidence that the author was a Gentile Christian’ misrepresents the evidence. See his article in Novum Testamentum, IV (1960), 24.Google Scholar

^{page 416 note 4} Teeple, Cf. H. M., Novum Testamentum, IV (1960), 6–25;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Grant, F. C., Ancient Judaism and the New Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1960), p. 20:Google Scholar ‘To return to the Qumrân scrolls for a moment, it is perfectly obvious to scholars familiar with the whole broad world of first century religion that the contacts between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament are few in number and not really fundamental to either literature.’ Our research shows that the contacts between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the NT are not insignificant but fundamental.

^{page 417 note 1} Apart from the scrolls found in the eleven caves near Khirbet Qumran, Qumranic scrolls have been found only at Masada, which is less than 35 miles south of Qumran, and in Cairo, if one would allow that CD is Qumranic, as it certainly appears to be. However, if anyone is tempted to argue that the Essenes migrated to Egypt because copies of CD were found over seventy years ago in the genizah of a Cairo synagogue, he must overcome three formidable objections: the synagogue only dates from the ninth century, the fragments probably are later than the tenth century A.D., and Kahie, P. E. has presented a strong argument for the probability that these fragments are to be linked with the MSS brought from the Qumranic caves to Jerusalem about the year 800, and only subsequently found their way to Cairo. See his The Cairo Geniza, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959), pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

In attempting to say something about the geographical limits of the Essenes, one must consider the meaning of ‘Damascus’ in CD. R. North contends that the ‘Damascus’ of CD does not refer to the city by that name, but probably is an appellation for the Nabataean kingdom from 87 B.C. to A.D. 103. ‘The Damascus of Qumran Geography’, Palestine Erploration Quarterly, Lxxxvii (1955), 34–48.Google ScholarCross, F. M. Jr. holds that ‘the “land of Damascus” is “the prophetic name” applied to the desert of Qumran’. Ancient Library, p. 59.Google Scholar A. Jaubert argued that “Damascus” meant the place of refuge where the spiritually exiled will renew the covenant, and in this sense the thesis that the ‘land of Damascus’ represents the region of Qumran is acceptable. ‘Le Pays de Damas’, Revue Biblique, LXV (1958), 214–48.Google Scholar N. Wieder contended that it refers to the region of Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon where the prelude to the messianic drama would be enacted and the messianic kingdom inaugurated. The Judean Scrolls and Karaism (London: East and West Library, 1962), pp. 7–10.Google Scholar These investigations show, it seenls to me, that ‘Damascus’ is an essentially religious term for the region in which the Essenes lived. It is important to note, therefore, that Père R. de Vaux, the leading archaeological authority on the Qumran community, remarked that it is conceivable that the Qumran community lived in huts and tents scattered along the cliffs adjacent to Khirbet Qumran. See his comments both in ‘Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumrân’ (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan, III; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), p. 35;Google Scholar and in Bible et Orient (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1967), p. 323.Google Scholar S. E. Johnson suggested that it is easy to imagine that members of the Qumran sect lived in Jerusalem. See his article in The Scrolls and the New Testament, p. 142. It seems obvious from CD vii, 6–8 and xii, 19–xiii, 1 that there were Essene camps outside the community. It seems, therefore, that IQS was read elsewhere besides the monastery at Qumran, but so far there is no evidence that it was read outside Palestine. Cf. L. Cerfaux's speculation that the disciples of John (Acts xviii. 25–.xix. 4) in Ephesus may have possessed Qumranic literature. ‘Influence de Qumrân sur Ic Nouveau Testainent’, La Secte de Qumrân et les Origines du Christianisme (Recherches Bibliques, no. 4; Louvain: Desclée de Brouwer, 1959), p. 243.Google Scholar

^{page 417 note 2} To name but two scholars involved in the attempt to understand the relation of the Qumran scrolls to the New Testament, we have chosen one of the earliest and one of the most recent commentaries. Burrows, M., The Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking Press, 1956), p. 340.Google ScholarBraun, H., Qumran und das Neue Testament, I, 98:Google Scholar ‘Das freilich wird man… sagen müssen: in Palästina kann der johanneische Dualismus entstanden sein…’

^{page 417 note 3} F. M. Braun argued that the author of the Fourth Gospel, who may have been a disciple of Jesus, possibly borrowed directly from Qumran (emprunts directs) but probably received most of his Qumranic influence through the medium ofJohn the Baptist, of whom he may have been a disciple before following Jesus. Revue Biblique, LXII (1955), 5–44.Google ScholarJean le Théologien et son Évangile dane ľ Église Ancienne (Paris: Librairie Lecoifre, 1959), pp. 310–19.Google Scholar It is interesting to note that in the same year (1955) O. Cullmann and R. E. Brown independently entertained the same possibility. See their articles in The Scrolls and the New Testament, pp. 24–5, 207.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 1} Among the numerous discoveries which have prompted this conclusion are the following: The discovery of Rylands Greek Papyrus 457 and Egerton Papyrus 2 has shown that the composition of the Fourth Gospel can no longer be dated after A.D. 125. Other studies have increased the probability that the Johannine traditions betray Qumranic influences: of these studies the most noteworthy are A. Jaubert's contention that the Johannine tradition, which records that Jesus was crucified while official Judaism was sacrificing the paschal lambs, is vindicated by the observation that the Last Supper was held according to the Qumranic calendar (The Date of the Last Supper [Staten Island, N.Y.: Abba House, 1965]),Google Scholar and J. de Waard's argument that the quotations found in John xii. 40 and xiii. 18 are closer to the OT text found at Qumran than they are to the Masoretic Text or to the Septuagint (A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament [Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, IV; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965].Google Scholar Also compare Freed, E. D., Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John [Supplements to Novum Testamentum, xi; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965], 122–3.)Google Scholar

Professor Dodd, has argued that ‘behind the Fourth Gospel lies an ancient tradition independent of the other gospels, and meriting serious consideration as a contribution to our knowledge of the historical facts concemingJesus Christ’. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge University Press, 1963), p.423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar A.J. B. Higgins has recently contended that ‘there is a certain amount of evidence that Jesus did not only speak as the synoptics report him to have done, but also used “Johannine” phraseology and ideas’. ‘The Words of Jesus According to St John', Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XLIX (1967), 384.Google Scholar

Evidence has been disclosed that the Fourth Gospel is impressively familiar with the topography of Jerusalem and southern Palestine. See Albright's article in The Background of the New Testament, pp. 158–60; Dodd's comments in Historical Tradition, pp. 244–55; and Brown's, R. E. judgements in The Gospel According to John (I-XII), pp. xlii–xliii.Google Scholar

Of the attempts to show that an Aramaic source lies behind some of the Johannine traditions, certainly the most important is the perspicacious research of Black, M. (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd ed. [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967], esp. pp. 272–4).Google Scholar Principal Black's judgements, which date from before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been supported by three separate discoveries: In Qumran cave I an important Aramaic document was found which dates from the time of Jesus (see Kutscher's, E. Y. critical remarks in ‘The Language of the “Genesis Apocryphon”: A Preliminary Study’, Scripta Hierosolymitana, IV [1958], 1–35).Google Scholar On Mt Olivet Aramaic ossuaries were unearthed which predate the Jewish War (see Bagatti, P. B. and Milik, J. T., Gli Scavi del ‘Dominus Flevit’ [Jerusalem: Tipografia dci PP. Francescani, 1958], part 1, pp. 70–109).Google Scholar Nine of the fifteen letters written in the time of the Bar Kochba revolt (A.D. 125–30), which Y. Yadin discovered in 1960, were written in Aramaic. (Yadin, Y., ‘More on the Letters of Bar Kochba’, Biblical Archaeologist, xxiv [1961], 86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also see Bardtke, H., Die Handschriftenfunde in der Wuste Judo [Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1962].)Google Scholar Hence, it is no longer a pure conjecture but an established fact that Aramaic was both spoken and written by the Palestinian Jew during the first two Christian centuries.

Finally, the Fourth Gospel is strikingly close in terms of Christology, terminology, and ideology to the Odes of Solomon, which is probably a first-century Jewish-Christian hymn book (see the author's unpublished Ph.D. dissertation at Duke University, Durham, N.C.).