The Dead Sea Scrolls frequently refer to a mysterious figure called the “Teacher of Righteousness” (Moreh ha-Tsedek in Hebrew). According to the most widely held view, the Teacher of Righteousness founded the Dead Sea Scroll sect (the sect is usually identified with the Essenes). In this common view, the Teacher of Righteousness organized the Community (the Yahad) and composed many of its most important works.

The nemesis of the Teacher of Righteousness is another shadowy figure called the Wicked Priest (ha-Kohen ha-Rasha). He is also known by a number of other epithets, including the Lion of Wrath, the Liar, the Spreader of Lies and the Man of Scoffing.

Still following the standard interpretation, the Wicked Priest and the Teacher of Righteousness are thought to be historical figures. But that is where the consensus ends. There is no agreement over who they were.

The conjectures over their identities began long before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered near Qumran in 1947. What some call the first Dead Sea Scroll was found half a century earlier, in 1896, not near the Dead Sea, but in a storeroom for worn-out texts (called a genizah) of the Ezra Synagogue in Old Cairo.^a The Cairo Genizah, as it is known, contained 200,000 pages of Hebrew manuscripts, two of which were medieval copies of what appeared to be a much older document. They were published in 1910 by the man primarily responsible for recovering the Cairo Genizah, Solomon Schechter.^b In 1896 Schechter was affiliated with Cambridge University in England, where most of the documents still reside. He speculated that the two medieval documents were late copies of a work that originated with a Jewish sect whose members lived before the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. He called this work a Zadokite Work; it subsequently became known as the Damascus Document, or CD (the Cairo Document).

Schechter proved to be prescient. Among the more than 600 nonbiblical Dead Sea Scrolls recovered between 1947 and 1956 were at least ten copies of CD.

In the Cairo Genizah copies of the Damascus Document, we read:

The Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest (under his various names, such as the Man of Scoffing) reappear many times in other sections of the Damascus Document.

Before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, scholars speculated that the Teacher of Righteousness might have been the purported discoverer of the Book of Deuteronomy (see 2 Kings 22). Others suggested he was Ezra. Still others, such as Eduard Meyer, sought a figure during the Seleucid era (c. 200 B.C.E.).²

Since 1947, however, armed with a vast new array of texts, scholars have focused on the Hasmonean period (152–38 B.C.E.), the time of the Maccabees, as the time of the Teacher. In 167 B.C.E. the Assyrian monarch Antiochus IV, whose empire included Palestine, desecrated the Jerusalem Temple. The Jews, led by Judah Maccabeus and his brothers, rebelled, and in 164 B.C.E. they recaptured the Temple and cleansed it, a moment in history still celebrated in the Jewish festival of Hannukah. The victory was only temporary, but in 152 B.C.E. an independent Jewish state was established, and Hasmonean kings continued to rule until 38 B.C.E., when the Romans set up Herod as the ruler of Judea.

A number of scholars identify the Teacher of Righteousness as the high priest in Jerusalem who officiated from 163 to 152 B.C.E. (his name is not recorded in surviving documents). He was displaced in 152 B.C.E. by Jonathan, the brother of Judah, who served from 152 to 142 B.C.E. This was regarded as a usurpation by many, since the high priests were biblically ordained to be descended from the first high priest, Zadok, who had been appointed by King Solomon, which leads some to believe that the high priest Jonathan is the Wicked Priest.

Variations on this kind of reasoning have led to other identifications. For example, some identify the Teacher of Righteousness as the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus (134–104 B.C.E.), while another Hasmonean ruler, Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 B.C.E.), is said to have been the Wicked Priest.³

These various views come from what might be called the (Dead Sea) Scroll establishment. More radical ideas are espoused by Robert Eisenman and Barbara Thiering, each of whom, in different ways, connects these figures with the founders of nascent Christianity. Eisenman believes the Teacher of Righteousness was James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul was the Liar (a figure that Eisenman distinguishes from the Wicked Priest); Thiering puts forth John the Baptist as the Teacher and Jesus as the Wicked Priest!⁴

Despite the absence of any consensus over these identifications, all scholars seem to agree that the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest were historical figures.⁵ I believe they are wrong. I believe the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest are eschatological figures who were expected to appear at the End of Days, not historical figures who lived in the past.

At the outset, there is something that should make us suspicious about the supposed historical nature of the two figures, especially if we accept the view, as most scholars, including myself, do, that the Dead Sea Scroll sect is to be identified with the Essenes. The Essenes are extensively described (even more extensively than the Pharisees and the Sadducees) by the first-century C.E. Jewish historian Josephus. But he makes no allusion to the Teacher of Righteousness or the Wicked Priest. The same is true of the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who also describes the Essenes at length. Ditto for the Roman scholar Pliny the Elder. As for the New Testament, it describes the Pharisees and the Sadducees but does not even mention the Essenes, let alone the Teacher of Righteousness or the Wicked Priest. Thus, despite an abundance of classical sources, there is no mention of historical figures known as the Teacher of Righteousness or the Wicked Priest.

The Talmud, that vast complex of rabbinical law, literature and lore, contains polemical passages aimed at various sectarian movements like the Essenes but, again, no reference to the Teacher of Righteousness or the Wicked Priest.

Another suspicious detail: Although the Teacher and the Priest were apparently well-known figures within the Dead Sea Scroll sect, the scrolls never identify either by their proper names. Instead, the Wicked Priest goes by the sobriquet of the Liar or the Scoffer, while the Teacher of Righteousness is known as the Unique Teacher, the Expounder of the Law, the Priest or the Chosen One.

The obvious question is why these numerous sources avoided naming these two figures, the one so revered and the other so hated. Could one imagine the New Testament never naming Jesus but only alluding to him by aliases? It can hardly be argued that code names were used to hide them from harm. After all, these would have been public figures known to everyone. And why protect the identity of the Wicked Priest? Moreover, as we will see in a moment, the Teacher of Righteousness, as commonly identified, was dead and buried.

I wonder what would have been the path of scholarship if Solomon Schechter had not made the suggestion in 1910 that the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest were historical figures. Since Schechter formulated that hypothesis, it has never been questioned. Had Schechter not taken the position he did, the course of Dead Sea Scroll research might have been very different.

Schechter, followed by numerous translators and commentators, interpreted certain verbal forms in the Damascus Document as depicting the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest in the past. And it is true that some of these verbs do use the past tense. A more careful reading, however, shows that these verbal forms—in context—make more sense as referring to the future. Even actions described in the past tense are typically set in a future context. In some cases, moreover, these pivotal personalities are clearly associated with the End of Days.

The best known passage that supposedly indicates that the Teacher of Righteousness lived in the past dates the coming of the Teacher of Righteousness to 390 years after the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (597 B.C.E.), or after its destruction (586 B.C.E.). This would date the advent of the Teacher to sometime between 207 and 196 B.C.E.:

Note that in this translation, as in virtually every translation of this passage since Schechter, the verbs are in the past tense. But it makes more sense, in context, to translate them as being in the future tense. This would be a more accurate translation:

The Damascus Document is clearly a messianic document. No one doubts that. Yet if the verbs in the above passage are understood to be in the past tense, the passage would have had no relevance to the author’s purpose: It would have been merely a lesson in history, not part of a messianic document.

In my view, when the Damascus Document states that “remembering the Covenant” God “visited them,” it echoes the passage in Genesis that announces that the previously barren Sarah had conceived: “And the Lord visited (paqad) Sarah” (Genesis 21:1).⁷ The Damascus Document uses the same verb: God “visited (paqad) them.” The Damascus Document is telling us that just as the biblical passage announced a new beginning in the history of Israel, so too will there be a new beginning to Israel’s destiny in the author’s own time. The messianic age was expected momentarily.

It is well known, and universally agreed, that the Dead Sea Scroll sectarians (like the early Christians) interpreted Scripture as applying to their own time. That is how the 390-year passage in the Damascus Document should be interpreted. This is consistent with the interpretations in the so-called pesharim (pesher, singular), or biblical commentaries on the books of the prophets and the psalms, found at Qumran. The pesharim quote a passage from Scripture and then give an interpretation. The Qumran pesharim frequently refer to the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest in a messianic context. For example, here is the interpretation of Habakkuk 2:5ff.:

Another passage from Pesher Habakkuk describes the activities of the Wicked Priest:

Here, too, the verbs are in the past tense, but it seems clear they should be understood as referring to the future.

Pesher Nahum describes some of the atrocities, which some people view as a reference to crucifixion, committed by the Wicked Priest (here called the Lion of Wrath). Interpreting Nahum 2:12, 13a the pesher comments:

Here again we feel the futuristic context.

In several passages in the Damascus Document, the Teacher of Righteousness is called not Moreh ha-Zedek but Yoreh ha-Zedek, the future form, which might be translated as “he who will teach righteousness.” In one instance the text speaks of “one who will teach righteousness (Yoreh ha-Zedek) at the end of days” (CD 6:8–11),¹¹ as if to emphasize the eschatological, futuristic context. The modern-day editors of this text account for their use of the future form by positing the expected return of the Righteous Teacher. In fact, all references to the Teacher of Righteousness point to the End of Days.¹²

Both the Damascus Document as a whole and the biblical commentaries from Qumran are eschatological documents, not historical treatises. There are many other passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls that could, and probably will, be cited and argued about. The question will be, Are they historical or eschatological?

The arguments get complicated and technical, as well as philosophical. In each instance, however, I believe a strong case can be made that the context is eschatological and futuristic. The authors of these works understood them as presaging what they believed to be imminent—the coming struggle between the Teacher of Righteousness and his nemesis, the Wicked Priest, a struggle that would initiate the messianic age.

jesus is teh Teacher of Righteousness

wardell lindsay — (9/9/2009 8:18:10 PM)

Christianity started 100 years earlier than we have been told, The DSS documents this. The "Teacher of Righteousness" is Jesus; the "wicked Priest" is Hyrcanus II and "Man of the Lie" is Shimon Shetach. Judaism and Christianity can't be understood without understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Maccabean Dynasty.

• • • • • • •

Eisenman

robert wahler — USA (8/18/2009 12:37:15 AM)

You left out the one man who really matters in DSS research: Eisenman. He pegged the Wicked Priest (Ananus), Lying Spouter (Paul) and Righteous Teacher (James)!

• • • • • • •

4q521

locrian — (4/10/2009 11:48:37 PM)

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/4q521.html

• • • • • • •

The Scrolls are not about the J-man

David — U.S.A. (2/24/2009 2:19:45 AM)

If you are expecting to find support for Christianity in The Dead Sea Scrolls you are going to be disappointed. QUOTE:"The Dead Sea Scrolls generated so much excitement when they were first found in part because it was thought they might contain some of the earliest Christian writings. Graham Stanton asks, “A Gospel Among the Scrolls?” but replies, Alas not." It turns out that the scrolls contain a copy of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and some of the Jewish "apocryphal" writings. There are NO mentions of the Jesus his friend in the scrolls. I think it is becoming clear that even his own followers knew he was not "the messiah" and CERTAINLY NOT "g-d in the flesh" G-D FORBID! That isn't how the G-d of Abraham, G-d of Isaac and G-d of Jacob rolls.

• • • • • • •

Jesus vs. John the Baptist

Jim — USA (2/23/2009 7:14:18 PM)

The Salome with Jesus was the wife of Zebedee and the mother of his son's; compare Mr 15:40; Mt 27:56. Also, if you read the book of John (the Apostle, not the Baptist) you will see that John and Jesus were never adversaries; no "vs." need go between their names.

• • • • • • •

Jesus vs John the Baptist

Kate — USA (1/12/2009 5:29:54 PM)

Perhaps Jesus was behind the death of John. They both had followings of disciples and most likely also had disputes along with competition. If Jesus was the 'son of God' why did John ask whether he was the 'one to come or should we look for another'? Surely he of all people would know! At the death of John the bible says the disciples of Jesus came to him and told him all that happened, as if he was waiting somewhere for the news. Also, there was a female follower of Jesus' whose name was Salome. Could this have been the same Salome who danced for Herod and requested the head of John? Jozef Milik was one of the original DSS translators and also a RC priest. He left the church and married. One of the reasons he left the church was due to what he found in those scrolls. That information belongs to the world and I highly resent that all we get are crumbs and what the powers that be decide we can have. What does it take to wake people up? I for one, would love to know just what the truth is and EVERYTHING contained in the scrolls. How many more have to die over religion before we all come to our senses? How many children dying in such conflicts over who has the right god and who doesn't will it take. I fear many are still in the savage and barbaric state of ignorance and superstition and it is not only distressing, it is scary.

• • • • • • •

Importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Chris Albert Wells — France (10/9/2008 9:24:33 AM)

As they stand today, their importance is terribly underestimated because the public has given up following the scholarly debates that brought more confusion than clarification. This was however a necessary phase where all ideas, be they contradictory, had to be debated. Everybody agrees on the importance of the DSC for nascent Christianity, but nobody agrees on their exact significance. Something new has to happen to shake off drowsiness. Time has come when we have to think differently. And realise that the Qumran Messiahs of the 'Apocalyptic fragment' represented two different clans supporting two different projects within the Teacher's Community. They were not waiting for two Messiahs, but each clan for its own Messiah. The avant-garde won, advocating a more political approach than the Essene traditionalists who did not search much further than eschatology. This is an enormous change in perception, and opens up to a different view of the Gospels. Considering all the affinities between the two communities, do the Gospels also oppose two Messiahs? Here also, we have to think differently. The first Gospels were written by a Jewish community for their own purposes and were not originally intended to becomoe a religion for Rome. We can therefore expect the Gospels to convey a local message very different from the one currently understood after they had been exported and set out of context. Thinking differently means realising that the Gospels are not telling us about a wandering Messiah whose words and deeds have been collected by different witnesses, but the story of a community at different stages of its history, explaining the baffling differences. They tell the story of the Essene community becoming a 'Christian' community. This community context in Antiochus where the Gospels were written becomes terribly apparent for the authors are also dealing here with two Messiahs, one winning, the other losing, quarelling until they accept to recognise the traditionalists in as much as they had preceeded the avant-garde and that they belonged to their antecedents. This is the meaning of the baptism of Jesus by John: a peace treaty. The avant-garde no longer rejects the traditionalists portrayed by John the Baptist and his baptism by water. The 'Jesus' clan is saying 'we accept that you were there before us and belong to our history'. This scene did not initially belong to Mark, the quarreller, but is typical of Mathew's healing the divided community. Thinking differently also means that we are terribly endebted to all those who previously studied the scrolls and were circling around their real meaning, without landing where they wanted on the planet Eurêka.

• • • • • • •

Why the Dead Sea Scrollls are Important

Monica Lewallen — USA (10/6/2008 8:49:18 PM)

To Matt who doesn't understand why the Dead Sea Scrolls are important. Excerpting from the article: The scrolls were written between the dates of 250 B.C.E. and 68 C.E. when the Roman legions were on their way to destroy Solomon's Temple in 70 C.E. Matt, these scrolls were written during these times in history, just think back over all of those years and realize the these documents which are real and in the hands of autoratative people being deciphered so that we can now know their contents and see the actual original documents when they are on public display. Matt, what would it mean to you to have in your hands important archaeological religious historical documents written well over 2,000 years ago. Matt, the most important information was given to us at the beginning of the article. I am quoting directly from the manuscript: Read carefully . . . "This priceless collection of ancient manuscripts is invaluable to our understanding of (1)the history of Judaism, (2)the development of the Hebrew Bible, and (3)and the beginnings of Christianity."

• • • • • • •

Connie's question

Richard — USA (8/21/2008 1:34:41 PM)

Connie, if you research under "calendar" or "roman calendar" you will see that the current calendar was presented to the then-current Pope in 531 by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus. But Dionysius was wrong about the date of the birth of Jesus - scholars now put that three years earlier in 4 BC not 1 BC. So if Jesus was born in Aril 4BC, he could not have been born in the year 0, Dec 25, or in the year -1 (1 BC), on Dec 25. In effect, if you do some research, you will see that all dates are wrong, from that starting point in 531. Everyone knows but no one wants to change the calendar.

• • • • • • •

NEED MORE INFO ON WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT

MATT — (8/20/2008 9:16:50 AM)

Its pretty good but i think it needs to have more information on why they are important to us!!!

• • • • • • •

time line

connie — United States (8/4/2008 11:30:24 AM)

I am a little confused on the time line you have posted, I was always under the assumption that the cuurent era began with the birth of Jesus. And that hew was app. 33 years when he was crucafied. That would make His crusafixtion somewhere betwee 32-34 AD. The time line shows His birth at 4A.D. and his crucafixtion at 30 A.D.. Which would make him 26. We have always been told that men could not begin to teach before the were 30 years old. Could you explain this to me, I am sure I am missing somethg significant. Thank you.

• • • • • • •

SCROLLS

JOHN — (6/10/2008 12:30:06 PM)

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

• • • • • • •

teacher of righteousness

silvertongue — England (6/1/2008 11:08:26 AM)

does Barbara Thiering's theory of the teacher of righteousness being John the Baptist, fit with the idea that the text is telling of future events when the end of days is imminent?

• • • • • • •

The Dead Sea Scrolls

dmanh — USA (5/31/2008 6:29:12 PM)

I agree with Mr. Johson in the fact that the scrolls should be shared publically. No one should have absolute authority as to peace-meal the information out as they see fit.

• • • • • • •

DSS

Oscar Johnson — USA (5/15/2008 7:37:10 AM)

I certainly agree with Don. those findings should be shared with the public. remember the scrolls were not found by archaeologist but rather poor shepherds. even then it was shared.

• • • • • • •

Photos

William Chamberlin, Bible Collector — United States (5/14/2008 8:05:30 PM)

The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah is available on the Internet along with an English translation. I also have two different book with photos of the entire scroll of Isaiah. But, that is all a layperson can find. I would like to have photos of all of the balance of the scrolls and fragments.

• • • • • • •

Robert Eisenmann

Meyer Gross — USA (5/14/2008 4:36:19 PM)

Why is not Bob Eisenmann mentioned amoung the people surrounding the Dead Sea Scrolls. Surely, his efforts deserve mention

• • • • • • •

Where are the photo copies?

Don Srail — USA (5/14/2008 3:15:14 PM)

Why are photocopies of the Dead Sea Scrolls on the internet not available free to the public? Why are the intellectuals who control them allowed to have such exclusive rights, and cut the public out of such finds of Biblical importance? I’m only glad these fellows went into the field of archaeology. Had they gone into the field of atmospherics we would all be denied the very air we breath.

• • • • • • •