Back to Mormonism Researched Page

The Shirtale Review: Klaus Berger - Qumran und Jesus: Wahrheit unter Verschluss?

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

Klaus Berger's book translated "Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Truth Under Lock and Key" , trans., by James S. Currie, Westminster, John Knox Press, 1993, 113 pp.

This little gem of a book is essentially a review of Baigent and Leigh's rather controversial and little-liked book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception" as well as some of Robert Eisenmann's ideas on James the Just in the Habakkuk Commentary. Essentially, Berger likes none of it from these gents. What I want to do is touch some points that Berger has made that I thought interesting.

I note that he as a non-LDS scholar also claims that proof is not the issue when dealing with historical documents, but the most we can do is get arguments which are plausible and probable. This has exactly been John Sorenson's argument in his book "An Ancient American Setting For the Book of Mormon", yet Sorenson is slammed for not being up to the real scholarly types and ways of dealing with texts. Yet here we see a non-LDS scholar who also claims that plausibility is the essential thing, rather than the impossible idea of proof of anything. (Berger - p. 12).

Berger goes through the check list of interesting ideas that he rejects,

1. Jesus is not a zealot

2. Paul did not dismiss the Law

3. The apocalyptics were not militaristic nor zealots

4. James the brother of Jesus was not the Teacher of Righteousness

5. Paul was not the false prophet spoken of in the Dead Sea Scrolls

These are essentially the points Berger argues against in this nifty little text. Among other things he notes that caught my eye was:

Everything in the Dead Sea Scroll texts aims at a comprehensive "reestablishment" of Israel. (p. 37). This is precisely the idea behind the Restoration of the Gospel as Mormonism understands it with texts from ancient times. It is a comprehensive restoration, with texts of scripture outside the Bible as at Qumran, restoration of Priesthood authority, divine callings, revelation, a new temple, etc. It is the same plan with the same underlying philosophies with this idea in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Mormonism.

For me personally, Chapter 4 is the heart of Berger's book. Here we have something that ought to shock the socks off us all. I was electrified to read a non-LDS scholar demonstrate the scholarly method, and which is the same scholarly method that we Mormon scholars use, though the critics apparently are unaware that the two methods are the same.

He begins by noting the overriding anxiety that the scrolls caused for Christians who are terrified that these texts undo the originality of Christianity and of Christ. Berger will have none of this. This overanxiety is due to modern misunderstandings of how the ancients thought.

Berger notes that based on research in the Dead Sea Scrolls "Revelation need not always have to do with the completely new. Whoever said that God's word always had to be something brand-new? Can it not also confirm and exalt what is old, trusted, and tested? Must God be appraised like a doctoral candidate who is expected to demonstrate new ideas? Would that not be too superficial an opinion? Would not one then, in fact, have to tremble with every new textual discovery? And, indeed, would that not make what we mean by "God" absolutely distorted?" (p. 45).

Now place this same series of ideas on the BofM. What is one of the main criticisms against the BofM? That it merely plagiarizes the Bible. But, there is another view to take, as Berger notes. Does this falsify the BofM? Not anymore than the scrolls falsify the Bible, or that the New Testament is false because it merely copies what was already had from the Old Testament, and other apocryphal and Intertestamental writings. After noting many parallels with ancient peoples from the New Testament, Berger notes that:

"The point is that the greater and more significant someone is, the more he or she resembles other great persons of the past." (p. 46). In other words, as with the BofM (Kerry's idea here), to quote Berger, "...precisely because one is a copy and of the same kind confirms his or her significance." So if this principle is accurate and true, as Berger says it is, then applying it to the BofM would indicate that since the BofM copies the Bible more or less in some areas, is not tantamount to forgery or fake, rather this "confirms" the significance of both texts, the Bible and BofM. To show that I am not out of line with applying this scholarly idea to the BofM, Berger notes that "Unlike the critical interpretation of the Bible since D.F. Strauss ("Life of Jesus" 1835) similarities with Old Testament accounts are no cause to declare a story worthless." (p. 46).

Did you get that? "Similarities with Old Testament accounts are no cause to declare a story worthless.

Hence the critics are incorrect in claiming the BofM is worthless or is merely copying the Bible. That, according to ancient usage, is exactly what the BofM had better be doing, and it is. Berger even declares that "To a certain extent, Jesus would have borrowed characteristics from every prophetic figure, every seer, wise man, and martyr that was known, because everything good and helpful that had legitimated those sent by God must and could now be incorporated by him. Wherver God is at work, clearly repetition is legitimate." (p. 47).

Did you get that? Wherever God is at work clearly repetition is legitimate.

So does the BofM repeat some of what is in the Bible? But of course! It has to in order to be legitimate! This is not a liablility with the BofM, but a necessity according to the ancients usage of scripture.

Berger continues....

"Statements such as 'There is nothing new' or 'That can also be found elsewhere' or even 'That was taken from somewhere else', therefore, do not in general concern early Christianity and its statements about Jesus in a harmful way. They are all to be roundly affirmed." (p. 47)

Now applying this to the BofM, which Mormon scholars do, the same methodology, shows us that these every statements have been used by critics against the BofM! but... Berger says even though things are to be found elsewhere, etc., they affirm what is said, not refute it. So the BofM uses the Bible, this does not refute the BofM though, as critics are wont to say, rather it affirms it as well as the Bible. Is that not the scholarly method Berger is advocating? It is indeed! It is not harmful to have the BofM using the Bible, it is affirmative. This we Mormon scholars have always claimed, yet we are lambasted as being hopelessly naive in this approach and that we have it all backwards, and this is not the methodology of the world. Yet now, how about it? This is precisely the method the world is using. We Mormon scholars are simply not out of order. We use the methods that scholars around the world use, as Berger is seen to do here with the scrolls and the Bible.

But Berger has more and more and more... Consider:

"If a comparison may be permitted, it is as if a lovely woman is graced with the lovliest flowers and jewelry that can be found, only because all of this simply accentuates her beauty. For the 'mysterious', the unexpected, and the fascination in a person can always be described only with old words that already exist. The shockingly surprising can only be defined with images that already exist. And it says nothing against historicity, the actual occurrence of such events, if a similar occurrence involving other earlier prophets was told. Apart from that, the actuality, that is, the occurrence of events, was perceived differently by people at that time from the way we perceive it today, with the result that these questions cannot be decided at all on the same level of experience." (p. 47f). He concludes by saying that the parallels with the scrolls and the Bible is "crucial in the biblical message itself, namely, comprehending and fashioning religious reality in typologies, in ancient traditional images." (p. 48).

So what do we have? The fact that the BofM does use Biblical imagery is not a liability at all. This is standard correct usage, and need not imply faking or falseness whatsoever. Moreover, the BofM, in order to be authentic and using ancient usage must use the typology of already established ancient traditional images, which is exactly what we do find it doing. See the three very excellent articles in Neal Lambert, ed., "Literature of Belief", Vol. 5 in the Religious Studies Monograph Series, Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1981, 1. Bruce W. Jorgensen - "The Dark Way to the Tree: Typological Unity in the Book of Mormon", pp. 217-231. 2. Richard Dilworth Rust - "All Things Which Have Been Given of God...Are the Typifying of Him" Typology in the Book of Mormon", pp. 233-243. 3. George S. Tate - "The Typology of the Exodus Pattern in the Book of Mormon" pp. 245-262.

This is tantamount to saying that the BofM is realistically and authentically correctly using the Bible for all its worth! Those who pontificate that this proves the BofM made up do not understand that ancient scripture was formulaic and used with the established typology as Berger notes. In fact, this was Hugh Nibley's argument in his "Since Cumorah". He noted that even Mark Twain just had to take a dig at Smith by saying that Smith in composing the BofM, "smouched from the New Testament, and no credit given." What is so interesting is that the BofM was written to be read by people who believed and read the Bible. Indeed, one cannot possibly believe the BofM without believing the Bible.

And more to the point, exactly correlating with Berger, though Berger was many years later, in other words, many years earlier Nibley was on the right track, Nibley correctly noted that "it is hard to see why a deceiver would strew the broadest clues to his pilfering all through a record he claimed was his own.

But of course, what Mark Twain did not know was that ancient writing was formulaic, and that no writer was expected to cite chapter and verse for the word-for-word quotations and set expressions which made up his composition. For one thing, there would be no point to citing one's immediate source for an idea or expression, since that writer in turn was merely borrowing it from another. That was no more pilfering to the ancient mind than taking words out of a dictionary or thesaurus would be for a modern author... And yet though it is obvious, it is only recently that biblical

scholars have begun to realize the extent to which it applies to the Bible. Take Paul, for example. Paul has been hailed as the most original of all the biblical writers. But just how original was he? Expressions regarded as characteristically Pauline turn out on investigation to be actual quotations from the classical writers, from the orators, the drama, the law courts, the stadium, the boxing ring, the ancient religious rites even. (E. Howells "Expository Times" 71(196 ), pp. 330ff). His [Paul's] Classical education was surpassed however by his Jewish training, and we can never be sure that his ideas and expressions do not belong to that tradition. (I. Levi in "Revue des Etudes Juives" 82 (1926), pp. 161-3, shows that 1 Corinthians 2:9, is being quoted from an old Jewish apocryphal writing).

Thus a number of scholars have independently shown the really ancient background traced by some even to Babylonian times - of the well known "Pauline" formula, "faith, hope, and love", by the appearance of which in the Book of Mormon (where it is quoted by a diligent student of the ancient records) has often been taken as absolute proof of fraud. Not long ago an eminent Protestant journal noted that the Book of Mormon was "generously sprinkled with passages lifted bodily from the King James Version." (W. P. Walters, "Christianity Today" Dec. 19, 1960, p. 8 (. p. 228)). But this is simply the equivilant of accusing the New Testament of being "generously sprinkled with passages lifted bodily from the Septuagint." (Nibley - "Since Cumorah", pp. 127f).

Klaus Berger has now done us all the service of showing that this methodology in ancient documents is simply not suspect nor damning as the critics against the BofM has claimed, rather it is indispensible and strictly correct, whether in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Intertestamental writings, the apocrypha, the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

Berger notes some interesting things in the scrolls which alarmed the Christians no ends when they first came out. The first thing is the community as a holy house. Theirs was a community mentality all the way, as we also find in the BofM, where it was once thought such a damning thing to have a pre-Christian church! Now the scrolls have shown us that this is entirely viable and historically correct.

Berger notes the importance of the council of the 12 in the scrolls. They are even characterized as "a precious sorner-stone and as a foundation." (p. 52). He further notes that "...in the first century B.C.E. and C.E. a renewal of Israel has been so conceived that it begins with twelves new representatives of Israel. They are something like counterparts to the ancient twelve patriarchs." (p. 53). As then, so with the "renewal of Israel" in our own day, the council of 12 was legitimately restored again for Israel, and is still in Mormonism. Berger goes on to note "The symbolism of twelve, stressed in the "Community Rule" and in the "Temple Scroll", casts new light on the cultic character of the heavenly Jerusalem in Rev. 21-22 (God and Christ as temple) and on the role of the twelve names of the apostles for this city whose inhabitants will have a priestly character." (p. 53f). The BofM correctly and legitimately accounts that Christ on appearing to the Nephites, organizes them with 12 apostles, exactly as he does again in our own day, with 12 apostles. This repetition is the necessity of declaring the tradition authentic and correct in every way, rather than denigrating it to the limbo of the loony and fakery unexcelled, as critics are wont to believe.

Berger notes the Camp of Israel which "In reality we have here a typological way of thinking that was oriented to the salvation statements in the Old Testament." (p. 54). This typological organization is throughout in the BofM as well, which is demonstrated by George S. Tate's article, cited above.

Berger shows that the way of the Lord is in the wilderness, "For John as well as for the community mentioned in IQS, the wilderness signifies separation from the lost masses of people; for both it is visible proof of the conversion that has been fulfilled...Again, agreement is not merely external; it also touches on substance: the urgently necessary conversion for a radical new beginning." (p. 56). This, again, is precisely and exactly how the BofM understands the typological aspects of the wilderness as separation and unity, as witnessed by Alma's church in the wilderness.

Berger next notes the critical importance of Baptism and the Immersion Baths at Qumran. He notes first that for John the Baptist, baptism is "by means of submersion in water." (p. 57). He also notes the typological pattern of the Baptist with Elijah-Elisha. (p. 57). And further we learn that "repentance was the prerequisite to the immersion bath." (p. 57). The obvious analogy and typological understanding in Mormonism needs no comment.

Berger discusses the importance of the ceremonial feasts as well as the neccessity of excommunication for offenders. Not as punishment incidentally, "not to have the brother and neighbor but to set him right; not to exercise revenge but to love." (p. 62). This is precisely as Mormon authorities have discussed the ideas of excommunication.

Among other things, Berger notes the seriousness of the practice of prayer, and the necesity of praising as well as using God's guidance in our lives, as they did at Qumran (p. 72f). He notes, that like at Qumran, mystical visions with the true experience of miracles and healing, Jesus as well as the apostles were also called through visions. (p. 75). And in fact, a Qumran text explicitly states (4Q 536, col 1, line 6) "And a vision will come to him [i.e. Noah] while he is on his knees in prayer." (p 76). The commentary of the life of Joseph Smith, his First Vision, the angel Moroni, his vision of Jesus Christ in the Kirtland Temple, etc., on this point needs no comment.

Berger's comments on Adam are worth noting. Berger notes that both Christ and Adam correspond to each other. (p. 87). "...Jesus is the perfected Adam." (p. 87). The role of Adam and Christ as office are interesting here in light of the controversy over Brigham Young's ideas on Adam-God. As Berger notes, and what certainly Brigham Young had in mind when dealing with this subject, "...the issue is that God will transfer 'all of Adam's glory' to those who are redeemed at the end and are purified by the Holy Spirit, or that God takes away the sins of human beings and lets them inherit 'all the glory of Adam.'" (p. 87). Here we can see the expanded ideas concerning glory and purifying, etc., all tied in with Adam, as Brigham Young was wont to note in the "Journal of Discourses". Or as Berger notes "Beginning and end correspond to each other. At the end we come around to Adam again. Everyone will then receive what was lacking or lost in the first Adam." (p. 87). This is done, according to Paul, by the second Adam, namely Jesus Christ.

Berger expands on the "New Covenant" theme of the scrolls and the Bible. They are of course, imitating or rather typologically understood from the Old Testament, yet are necessary since their own "New Covenant" brings forward the Old for their own use. "Thus, both groups see themselves as bearers of the end-time renewal., and in each case this also includes a perfect preservation of God's will." (p. 94). This is precisely and exactly the same typological understanding within early Mormonism as a restoration of the "New Covenant" from the Old, in order to prepare for the coming of Jesus Christ - the Mormons saw themselves as "bearers of the end-time renewal" in exactly the same way as Qumran and the early Christians did.

Berger when dealing with the idea of "Faith" at Qumran gives us room for pause. The idea of faith as understood by God's ancient peoples such as in the Habakkuk Commentary, "But the righteous shall live by his faith [ faithfulness]." This is interpreted as pertaining to the Law of God "Faithfulness ("faith") is expressed here as doing the law as well as personal faithfulness...the predicate "righteous" comes first. That means that the righteous person lives thus; this is his characteristic." (p. 101). That Mormons have always understood the Gospel law as a law of faith, grace, and works, is typologically in line with the ancient Jews at Qumran and early Christians in the Bible. There is no simple "We are saved by grace", and that is all. Berger's conclusion is exact. "The texts show us a piety that expects that by rigorous fulfillment of the will of God and by precise observance of the calender and of all temple rules the world can still be rightly ordered; that reality will still accomodate itself to God's name if only perfect righteousness would be practiced somewhere." (p. 108) If Mormons are lambasted for worrying about works, it is still the correct typological unifying principle of righteousness that we understand along with all of God's ancient saints the world over.