The Exhortation that begins the Damascus Document of the Dead Sea Scrolls  prefaces the theology of the Qumran community. Namely, it explains how God leaves the Temple and sends the Babylonians to punish those who have polluted the Sanctuary and abandoned the Temple. However, God leaves a remnant who will one day return to the land of Israel once the people learn to correctly follow Mosaic Law. But the true mark of God’s benevolence is in the guide he sends: "And God observed their deeds, that they sought Him with a whole heart, and He raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way of his heart."1  Here, God raises this Teacher from the remnant of Israel and makes him a guide for the people. For the Teacher must not only guide the remnant through the desert, but he must show it the path of Righteousness to bring about the end of days: the end of days comes with proper ordering of society and return of Israel to her rightful descendants. But who is this Teacher of Righteousness? He is a prophet with God-given ability to interpret the Law. In this paper, I will try to provide a basic description of the Teacher by looking at references to him in the Scrolls and by paying close attention to the Pesherim and Hodayot. I will then explore the nature of his apocalypticism. I hope that by progressing in this manner I will shed light on the nature of this elusive character, the Teacher of Righteousness.

As E.P. Sanders begins his quest for the historical Jesus,2 he explains that the best place to begin is with the facts. Likewise, as we try to understand the Teacher of Righteousness (T of R), it is preferable to begin with what we know about the Teacher from the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves. Authors of the scrolls know the Teacher as Teacher, Teacher of the Community, Teacher of Righteousness,3 Interpreter, Interpreter of the Law,4 Priest,5 The Priest.6 He is never explicitly referred to as prophet, but descriptions, context, and tradition lead one to believe that the Teacher is in fact a prophet. The Damascus Document (CD), the Commentary on Micah, the Commentary on Habakkuk, and the Commentary on Psalms use the titles Teacher, Teacher of the Community, and Teacher of Righteousness. From such passages, we learn that the Teacher is the founder of the community7 and that the present generation of the community looks to him as an historical authority. In all of these references, the Teacher, Teacher of the Community, and Teacher of Righteousness is a figure divinely chosen to expound the Law and set Community members on the righteous path for the end of days.8  His words help prepare for the end:

Here, the Teacher of Righteousness is one who dispels the ‘precepts of righteousness’ which one must follow in order to reach salvation. God speaks through the Teacher so that those listening to the Teacher follow God’s words and receive His salvation. Moreover, the Teacher speaks God’s words when he interprets divine scripture; the DSS knows the Teacher as ‘Interpreter of the Law’ in documents such as The Community Rule, the Damascus Document, the Commentary on Habakkuk, and Midrash on the Last Days. The fact that the Teacher is the authority on the Law reflects his role in the community because the Law is pivotal to the Community. In the Thanksgiving Hymns, for instance, the Teacher refers to himself as having the waters of the Covenant confirmed in his heart for those who seek it, for God has ‘hidden Thy Law [within (him)].’9  In this passage, the Teacher of Righteousness not only knows the Law, but his knowledge of the Law is given to him by God. As in Numbers 12:6-8 when Moses receives the Law mouth to mouth from God, the Teacher also receives the law from the mouth of God in 1 Qp Hab II 2-3. The community respects the T of R’s legal understanding and uses his interpretations for redemption:

The pesherim10  are interpretations of written prophetic texts that can be understood as ‘unraveling of mysteries.’11  J. Carmignac broke the pesherim into two categories: continuous, which interpret a single book section by section, and thematic, which consist of certain citations grouped around a thematic idea.12 Both of these forms of pesherim are characterized by raz, a term taken from the notion of the ancient prophets being introduced in their visions into the heavenly assembly of special knowledge.13 However, the pesherim take the idea of divine prophetic revelation a step further, because they claim to contain the mystery of things hidden even to the prophets themselves who wrote the words now interpreted. Horgan points to 1 QpHab 7:4-5 as an example of this:

In the passage, the Teacher is a priest who has the divine power to interpret Scripture, namely the Prophetic Books. Moreover, the Teacher prefers the Prophets because God imparted them with the knowledge of what is to come in the generation of the Teacher. The Teacher is given knowledge by God to understand these prophets so he can likewise teach the people righteousness and prevent their destruction at the end of days. This passage reveals much about the Community’s theology of prophecy. The Teacher was chosen long ago by God to prepare the remnant for the end of days; the prophets were likewise sent generations ago to prepare for this event.14  When the Teacher interprets the Law, he is more similar to the biblical Prophets in his mode of revelation than a scribe or a midrashic rabbi. Unlike the rabbis, the Teacher does not rely on the peshat or derash. His interpretations are more than mere allegories of text, but at the same time, they are not visions as the ancient prophets experienced them. Additionally, the Teacher is different from other exegetes because he does not merely apply scripture to his situation, but rather claims that scripture is written with him in mind. Based on the manner in which he interprets scripture, we can generalize that the Teacher is similar to the prophets, but also unique in his own right.

Among German scholars, there are three basic theories regarding authorship of the Hodayot: 1. the text is a literary unity and was written by the Teacher of Righteousness, 2. the text is not a unity and was written by anonymous authors. 3. the text is not a unity but within the Hodayot there is a core of hymns that were written by the Teacher of Righteousness.15  The first claim, although popular in the early days of Hodayot scholarship, has become less popular in recent years. It explains that the author of the entire scroll was the Teacher of Righteousness.16  Such an account, however, does not explain stylistic, linguistic, and content differences between hymns. The second theory, that the text is not a unity and is written by anonymous authors, has support from those believing that the works could have been written by the Teacher of Righteousness’ disciples.17  Moreover, the linguistic character of these hymns dictates that they could only have been written by one disciple modeling himself after the Teacher of Righteousness, rather than many disciples. The third theory is more widely recognized. It says that the text is not a unity, and that within the Hodayot there is a core of hymns written by the Teacher of Righteousness.

This third theory of German scholarship seems the most plausible because it best appreciates the stylistic features of the hymns. By examining stylistic features such as use of the first person pronoun, content, and linguistic uniformity, three German scholars derived a criteria that distinguishes hymns written by the Teacher from those written by the community at a later date. Gert Jeremias, Jurgen Becker, and Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn18  individually note the following: that in many of the hymns, the use of ‘I’ speaks passionately about personal experiences; that these hymns often deal with individual accounts of dire need or use the motif of the mediator of revelation;19  and that these hymns are historical and specific, rather than theological and general, with regard to language. These scholars then designated such hymns as written by the Teacher of Righteousness himself; they are ‘Teacher hymns’ as opposed to Community hymns or didactic hymns. But such an explanation cries out for an example. Take the following passage:

In the above passage, the author prominently uses certain vocabulary, syntax, and content to show how he is set apart from the others both literally, by his unjust banishment, and metaphorically, by his God-given knowledge. Here, the Teacher’s use of the first person pronoun stands opposite the third person pronoun: ‘They have banished me from my land.’ By speaking in the first person, the Teacher’s account of the injustices he suffers become personal and moving. Regardless of whether we are able to accurately name that third party, there is nothing general about this verse: the Teacher clearly blames a group of people for his woes. Moreover, a few lines down, he refers to ‘they’ in more specific language: they are ‘teachers of lies and seers of falsehood.’ From this line, the reader learns more about who ‘they’ are and the reader also learns more about the identity of the Teacher. In contrast to ‘teachers of lies and seers of falsehood’, the Teacher is a teacher of truth and a seer of righteousness. The Teacher’s truth, which is ‘engraved on his heart’ by God, is emphasized by the fact that those who are able to receive knowledge do so by drinking it. The reader also learns about the concerns of the Teacher from his final charge against the teachers of lies: the author of the hymn worries about the timing of the feasts.20 For the following reasons, this passage fulfills the description of the typical Teacher hymn as set out by Jeremias, Becker, and Kuhn: 1. the Teacher uses the first person to relay his personal situation; 2. the Teacher, who is set apart because God engraved truth in his heart, is full of woe; 3. the Teacher uses specifics, such as his calendar concerns, that do not speak to the general problems of mankind. Because this hymn is so personal, so moving, and so specific, it does not seem likely that it could have been written by anyone other than the Teacher.21  Moreover, once we recognize the components of this hymn as characteristic of the Teacher, we get a better sense of his agenda and how he views himself. Based on the facts of the hymn, God grants the Teacher divine understanding of the Law for the imparting of this Law to those ‘thirsty’ for righteousness.

Although scholars are the most confident concerning the authorship of the Hodayot, some wrongly attribute the Temple Scroll to the Teacher. They claim that the TS, like Deuteronomy, gives a description of God’s covenant with Israel. 22  There are two main claims that attempt to show that the Teacher wrote the TS: 1. Other documents in the Scrolls regard the Temple Scroll as Law and the Teacher of Righteousness as the Lawgiver. The Teacher of Righteousness can be compared to Moses as the author of the Law for a sectarian community. Hence, some suggest that the Teacher of Righteousness must be the author of the TS. 2. The Teacher is the most eminent figure in the DSS; only he is important enough to have written the Law. Both these reasons are defeated once one realizes that the Teacher is not the Lawgiver, but rather the Interpreter of the Law. Instead of creating his own law, the Teacher uses his divine power to understand biblical scripture. Furthermore, the Temple Scroll cannot be the law for the end of days because its edicts are not written for a righteous audience. The fact that the Teacher is not the author of the Temple Scroll makes it easier to understand how the Teacher does not write the Law for the end of days, but that another figure is to come.

Some wrongly claim that the Teacher is the author of TS because they misunderstand the relationship between the Teacher and the Law.23  Namely, throughout the Scrolls, the T of R is referred to as ‘the Interpreter of the Law’ and the TS is commonly referred to as the Law. However, the previous section explains that the Teacher interprets the Law, rather than writes a new Law, because of the pre-eminence of the Mosaic Law in the scrolls. Only by properly understanding the Mosaic Law can the Community help bring about the end of days. Moreover, some scholars argue that the TS is a an eschatological law. They primarily use the description of measurements for a Temple in (TS XXX-XVII) and claim that based on its size, the Temple in TS is eschatological. However, the Temple is possibly utopian rather than eschatological. Based on a comparison to the Temple in the Florilegium, it seems that the eschatological temple is one that God will create on ‘the day of creation.’24  Also, it is apparent from the nature of many laws, including laws on adultery and rape, that the TS is not meant for the end of days .25 Based on the textual evidence, the Teacher cannot be the author of the TS, the New Torah; instead, the Teacher creates guidelines for a way of living from the interpretation of the Torah. He explains the Law to help order society and prepare for the end of days. He himself is not the fulfillment of eschatological expectations.

Difficulties arise when one tries to describe the Teacher of Righteousness; however, the complexity that most affects the description deals with whether to place the figure in the past or in the future. Many point to this ambiguity in a midrash of Num 21:18 that is in the Damascus Document.26 Unlike other passages in the same document, the figure mentioned here is in the future.

Here, confusion arises because the titles ‘Interpreter of the Law’ and ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ are interchangeable.27  The Teacher must have a role in both the past and the future: he is a figure of the community’s past as its founder and writer of its law. But, the law he writes is pertinent to the eschaton, for by following this law as divinely interpreted by the Teacher, community members can bring about the endtime. This ‘dual’ nature of the Teacher, however, should not be overexaggerated. The Teacher himself is in no way a messianic figure. He will not return at the endtime, but he does anticipate the arrival of his eschatological counterpart.28 It should also be made clear in the initial stages of this inquiry what the Teacher of Righteousness is not: he is not John the Baptist, he is not Jesus Christ, and we cannot attribute a specific, personal name to him.29  But, the reader can paint a general portrait of the Teacher. Based on the way the Teacher interprets the Law in the Pesherim and the way he describes his experiences in the Hodayot, it seems that he is priest who writes divinely inspired interpretations of the Law. He is a figure in the past who prepares his community for the imminent end.

Here, the Teacher is a priest who establishes the Community based on the will of God: the priest is chosen by God. As a priest, the Teacher is concerned with purity and the proper ordering of the Temple. Moreover, he behaves as a priest when the reader sees him on a more personal level. This is evident throughout the Thanksgiving Hymns, many of which can be typed as introspective confessions in the style of the priest-prophet Jeremiah. It is also clear that the Teacher is a priest based on the way priests are regarded throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls. Members of the Council of the Community (the elect of Israel) are known as sons of Zadok, the Priests; the Law of Moses has been revealed to these men.30  God raises these priests and they will be called by name at the end of days.31  The priests act as God’s counsel, so that ‘the man who does not listen but acts arrogantly without obeying the priest who is posted there to minister before [God]...that man shall die.’32  Clearly, the priests are the authority in the community. It is then logical to assume that the Teacher, as the eminent authority figure who most probably wrote this passage, would also be a priest. Although this piece of information helps the reader better understand the Teacher, it begs the question: how is the Teacher different from the other priests in the community? The next section addresses just that point.

By reconstructing a seven year gap in history, some attempt to show how the Teacher could have been the designated high priest until his exile. After the High Priest Alkimos dies in 159 B.C, no High Priest has been attested in literature of the period as having taken his place.33 Josephus,34 however, explains that an intersacerdotium lasted seven years until Jonathan usurped power in 152 B.C. Because a High Priest is necessary to lead Yom Kippur Services, someone must have filled the role of High Priest, at least temporarily.35  J. Murphy-O’Connor speculates that his man may have introduced unpopular reforms so that when his position is usurped by Jonathan in 152, he is driven into the desert where he goes only by the title ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ so as not to draw attention to his identity.36 Murphy-O’Connor argues that the pesherim promise a High Priest from the Davidic line because the Teacher criticizes Jonathan with being an ‘illegitimate’ priest. Scholars believing that the Teacher is the High Priest, then, wrongly argue that the major debate between the sect and Jerusalem is over the High Priesthood.

The argument explaining why the Teacher was at one point High Priest of the Temple is based on speculation after speculation; it is historically implausible and it misunderstands the Teacher’s message. A better understanding of the Teacher can be achieved through the Scrolls. For instance, 1 QpHab 11:4-8 describes how the Wicked Priest pursues the Teacher to his place of exile and then attempts to disrupt his Day of Atonement. Of note, this passage shows that the Wicked Priest and the Teacher observe different calendars. It is unlikely that the Teacher was the High Priest if he was observing his own cultic calendar, because he would not have switched calendars in Qumran and Jonathan would not have introduced a new calendar in 152 BC.37 Moreover, there is no evidence in the text even to support that the Wicked Priest is not legitimate. The Teacher, however, repeatedly shows concerns over other issues of impurity. Notably, the Teacher names three types of impurity that profane the land: fornication, riches, and profanation of the Temple. Included among those things that profane the Temple are menstrual blood, incestuous relationships, and a breach of the Mosaic Covenant.38  It seems that the legitimacy of the priesthood is not one of the contentious issues between the sect and Jerusalem. Rather, the issues in the sectarian community are purity as understood by Mosaic Law. More likely, the relationship between the T of R and the Wicked Priest is that of Temple prophet, with a large following, exiled by the High Priest because of his unpopular views. This charismatic figure blames the Wicked Priest for polluting the Temple through the priest’s inappropriate behavior. In 1 QpHab 12:1-10, the Wicked Priest plots the destruction of the poor, commits abominable deeds, and defiles the Temple. Rather than planning an insurrection or attempt to overthrow the High Priest, the T of R condemns the Wicked Priest to an eschatological punishment. In this manner, the T of R fits the model of a prophet acting outside of the court.

Although the Teacher does not share many of the traits that the ancient prophets hold in common, he is clearly a prophet; his visions can be understood as a correct understanding or ordering of words through divine revelation of scripture. In this sense, the Teacher sees more. On the most basic level, the Teacher is unlike the other prophets because he does not have visions that come in the form of dream-like scenes—he is not a seer with a ‘third eye.’ However, a deeper understanding of the meaning of prophecy shows that the Teacher is similar to the biblical prophets. Otto Betz compares the Teacher’s divine revelation of scripture to Daniel’s interpretation of dreams and concludes that pesher and apocalypse are quite similar.39  Moreover, Betz notes that both the Teacher and Daniel use the term raz to help describe the mystery of their interpretations. A clear parallel can be seen when Daniel interprets the writings on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast.40  Here, only Daniel is able to interpret the writings of a supernatural author. Moreover, he dissects the inscription so as to give an interpretation based on each word, similar to the Teacher’s manner of interpreting the prophets.

Like the Staff, the Teacher is needed by those thirsty for knowledge. In this passage, we also see that the Teacher’s righteousness is not fully human; because the Law is engraved on his heart by God, his interpretation of the Law is a divine interpretation.41  God has given the Teacher the power to ‘interpret all the words of his servants the prophets’42  and then God feeds the Teacher His words by which to prophesy.43  Here, the relationship between God and the Teacher is inextricably close; like the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the Teacher cannot escape his righteousness, despite the distress it causes him.44  Moreover, the Teacher is similar to the other prophets in his impetus for making the interpretations. Like Amos, Ezekiel, and Daniel, the Teacher writes at a time of serious social turmoil. He attempts to solve this turmoil by urging a new world order.

The eschaton cannot take place until there is a proper ordering of Society in the World:45  namely, Jerusalem must be the religious capital of the world (Isaiah 7, 9, 11); Temple Worship must be correct; Israel must not be dominated by foreign oppressors; and society must have just ownership of land.46  Evidence throughout this paper seems to show that the Teacher of Righteousness extracts principles to regulate the Community as God aids him in interpreting scripture. Through these regulations, a proper order is established and the eschaton is realized.

Here, two messiahs emerge at the end of days: the Interpreter of the law, or Priest-Messiah, and the Prince of the whole congregation, the Davidic Messiah.47  These figures are also referred to throughout the DSS as the messiahs of Aaron and Israel. They are not equal counter-parts: the Priest-Messiah has precedence over the Davidic Messiah in all legal matters: ‘As they teach him so shall he judge’.48  This precedence can be seen in passages from the community rule; ‘When the table has been prepared for eating, and the new wine for drinking, the Priest shall be the first to stretch out his hand to bless the first-fruits of the bread and new wine.’49 

Here, the Messiah of Aaron takes precedence because he is the eschatological high priest who teaches righteousness at the end of days.50  Although the Prince of the Congregation presides over the battle liturgy (1 QM XV, 4; XVI, 13; XVIII) and the eschatological banquet (1 QSa II, 12-21),51 the Messiah of Aaron is more important for understanding the Teacher of Righteousness because he is the one who continues the Teacher’s message. The arrival of the Messiahs Aaron and Israel marks the eschatological turning point; once they arrive, the Messiah of Aaron interprets the Law.52  His legacy in the community is the basic interpretation of the Law that functions at the end of days.

An analysis of all the literature that has ever been regarded as ‘apocalyptic’ was printed in Semeia 14 to show the extent and limits of the category ‘apocalyptic literature.’53  The following features were identified as common to apocalypses: a narrative framework that describes the revelation; the main means of revelation as visions and otherworldly visions; presence of an angel who interprets the vision; disclosure of a transcendent reality which is temporal (eschatological salvation); transcendent reality which is spatial (involves another, supernatural world).54  Based on these criteria, it would appear that the Teacher does not write apocalypses. That is, the T of R is not a visionary.55  Unlike many figures in apocalypses, he does not resort to using a pseudonym. Such a phenomenon can be explained based on the charismatic nature of the Teacher: the Teacher is able to rest on his own authority. Also, the Teacher bases his interpretations on older scripture which gives him greater authority. Rather than an apocalypse, it may be more accurate to say that the Qumran community is apocalyptic. According to John Collins in ‘The Apocalyptic Genre,’ Qumran fits the criteria for apocalypticism as the ideology of a movement: it shares the conceptual framework of the genre and endorses a world view in which supernatural revelation, the heavenly world, and eschatological judgement play essential parts.