The Dead Sea Scrolls-2

24 Jul


On this page we are placing excerpts from different books and lectures on the Dead Sea Scrolls. No we are not going to place the story of their discovery on this page. We have become so tired of reading that story and we theorize that the reason that story is repeated in almost every paper and book on the scrolls is that every author thinks no one has heard the story before.

It has been said that if you just read the introduction and conclusion of each book or paper then you have read the whole point of view of the author. We will try to give you more than just the introduction and conclusion but no promises.

#1. The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah by W.J. Martin, M.A., Ph.D.  The Campbell Morgan Memorial Bible Lectureship, No. 6 Westminster Chapel, Buckingham Gate, London, S.W.1

At the conclusion of the Campbell Morgan Lecture for 1953 – a lecture of supreme

significance for the present time – Professor R. V. G. Tasker referred to our appreciation of the

light archaeological, linguistic and textual studies can throw upon the Old Testament. It is with

the last of these, namely textual studies, that this lecture has to do.

The greatest advance in our knowledge of the text of the Old Testament and its transmission has been brought about, not by the work of scholars, but by a chance find by Arab shepherds in 1947 of a collection of manuscripts in a cave near the Dead Sea in Palestine. The manuscript,1 which forms the

subject of this lecture, is the one that has rightly attracted the most attention.

Throughout I shall refer to it simply as the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, although I am well aware that some

scholars are beginning to refer to it as the Qumran scroll, from the name of an ancient

settlement near the cave, but the unrivalled importance of our manuscript and the fact that it

alone contains the whole book of Isaiah makes it well able to maintain its identity under any

designation. I retain the title for yet another reason: out of my high regard for those American

scholars who first used it and who gave the academic world the means of studying the scroll

with a promptness and in an exemplary and magnanimous manner all too rare in the world of


The nature of the find was so sensational and the claimed date of the manuscripts so incredibly

early that it is now easily understandable why some scholars felt that there must somewhere be

a discrepancy in the evidence and that a minute examination of the documents would bring to

light some facts to lower the date to a period with some already familiar landmarks. True we

had documents from pre-Christian times, but, apart from the fragmentary Greek papyrus of Deuteronomy in the Rylands Library from the second century B.C., none of the

Old Testament.

The earliest manuscript of any note belonged to the tenth century. Moreover

the early documents came almost exclusively from one country, Egypt, which enjoys a climate

conducive to the preservation of perishable material such as papyrus and leather. The

provenance of the Dead Sea Scrolls was not likely in itself to indicate for the documents a high


Among the objections raised to the early date of the Scrolls was the fact that guiding lines

were used above the letters.5 From the little we know of the methods of scribes in antiquity we

have no grounds for assuming that this is incompatible with an early date. It is hardly likely

that the scribe in the interest both of symmetry and the best utilisation of space would fail to

avail himself of the services of the ruler or some other lining device such as was used as early

at least as the third millenium.

Caroline R. Williams describing the tomb of Per-Neb (c. 2700 B.C.)

speaks of “lines mapping out the composition by defining the height of the dado and marking

out the borders, the different registers, and the spaces for the long vertically written

inscription,” and again (p. 7) “That a ruler was generally used for the vertical and horizontal

lines seems from their appearance unquestionable.”6 The Kilamuwa inscription (c. 825 B.C.)

has lines above the letters. A fragment of Leviticus, probably much older than the Dead Sea

Scrolls, has guiding lines.7

Although we could not assign with certainty the meaning linear

“ruler” to any word in the Old Testament, there are references in the Talmud both to the

instrument and to the practice of ruling. Rabbi Minjamin said: “The ruling of the Mezuza (the

parchment scroll containing Deut. 6, 4-9 and 11, 13-21 attached to the upper part of the

right-hand door-post of Jewish homes) is a decree of Moses from Sinai.” This is, of course,


In ancient times the human and material elements in transmission were each on occasion

adverse to accurate transmission. The human element, inherently incapable of perfectibility,

was often prone to fall short of accuracy in the making of copies, and the material was

exposed to the ravages of time and the accidents which are the lot of all perishable things.

While the latter factor has often caused major disasters involving total loss, it is probable that,

taking all in all, the human has wrought the greater havoc. Certainly in the field of Old

Testament transmission the fact of the preservation and existence of such a large corpus of

writings would seem to vouch for the lesser evil of the material factor…

Large numbers of the variants in our Scroll (it would be misleading to call them variant

readings) are by their nature void of significance. The mere counting of variants is the

unmistakable badge of the tiro in the field of textual criticism. Variants go by weight not by

number, they are evaluated not enumerated. To the class of insignificant variants belong in the

first place the orthographical, that is, those that involve differences in spelling only. Such

variants surprise only print-conscious readers, prone to forget the vicissitudes of their own

spelling until the printing-presses imposed on them the present mechanical uniformity. In a

modern text there is not much grist of this kind left for our above mentioned tyro (his identity

has remained unchanged, despite the change, deliberate but still correct, in spelling).

Both “Ihoauerd” and “louerd” would seem to us now outlandish modes of spelling “lord”, but they

evidently did not perplex a man of the thirteenth century. Of all such variants textual criticism

takes little or no cognizance. The lavish use of vowel-letters (consonants used to indicate

vowels; Hebrew script originally possessed no special signs for these) contributes largely to the

multiplication of such variants. On this point some scholars seem to have completely lost sight

of the fact that vowel-letters are in origin not intrusive but residual: they arose in the first

instance through certain of these letters losing their consonantal value, this in turn leading to

changes in the vowel-pattern; for instance, through the crasis of the vowels thus brought into

contact, disyllables emerged as monosyllables. The spelling with the retention of the “extinct”

consonant was hence the product of etymology and not of phonetics. Thus began a system that

later could acquire, often disregarding the dictates of philology, the dimensions we now see in

our present manuscript.

We can eliminate on the score that they too are devoid of significance, those variant forms

that give practically, if not precisely, the same meaning as the forms which they replace.

Under this heading come in the first place synonyms or near synonyms…

The very discussion of such questions indicates how complete is the re-orientation which has

taken place. We no longer ask what is the relation of our Manuscript to a recension of 100

A.D. Our Scroll takes us so far beyond this point, that questions, which a short while ago held

a central place in the problem of transmission, have now little more than antiquarian interest.

This manuscript has added not only one new and earlier point, on the line of transmission, it

has indirectly provided still another two: that of its model, and that of the archetype from

which came the liturgical and the lay families of manuscripts.

There is now nothing to prevent anyone who feels so inclined from believing that if this line were projected backwards it would end in an autograph similar in all essentials to the text that has been transmitted to us. Sir Frederick Kenyon, that great scholar, whose range of vision in the field of manuscripts was unequalled, indicated unerringly the central problem when he said: “The great, indeed

all-important, question which now meets us is this – Does this Hebrew text, which we call

Massoretic, and which we have shown to descend from a text drawn up about A.D. 100

faithfully represent the Hebrew text as originally written by the authors of the Old Testament

books?”35 He believed even then that an affirmative answer was possible. Little did he or

anyone dream that a day would come when a witness of such ancient lineage and high

credentials would appear with evidence to convince many that his question will no longer

brook the answer no.
#2. The Dead Sea Scrolls and St. John’s Gospel by Leon Morris, B.Sc., M.Th., Ph.D.

The Campbell Morgan Memorial Bible Lectureship, No. 12 Westminster Chapel, Buckingham Gate, London, S.W.1

The Pharisees, being sensible men, did not bother themselves with perpetuating ideas they

knew to be wrong. Anticipating the excellent practice of our modern scientists they discarded

ideas that were shown to be false (or that they held had been shown to be false), and

concentrated on those that were true. They held that the distinctive ideas of the Sadducees and

the Essenes were erroneous, so they piously eschewed propagating them. This would be of no

more than passing interest to us were it not for the fact that in time the Pharisees became the

dominant party within Judaism. Jewish writings became to all intents and purposes Pharisaic

writings. The Rabbinic literature by and large sets forth Pharisaic ideas. We see other Jewish

groups not as they saw themselves, but through Pharisaic eyes. None of their writings were

copied by the Pharisees, which is both understandable and unfortunate. New Testament

scholars have had to be content with a monolithic Judaism.

The great value of the Dead Sea scrolls for New Testament studies is that for the first time we

are able to read the views of a Jewish sect other than the Pharisees from within. Whatever be

the dates of composition of these documents they let us see something of a sect which was in

existence at the time the Christian movement began, and to see it in the sect’s own writings.

Not surprisingly some of the terms and ideas in the scrolls are found also in the New

Testament. This has led to the most diverse estimates of the relationship between the two.

Some stress the resemblances. They think of Christianity as nothing more than a natural

development of the type of religion we see reflected in the scrolls.1 Some even think of the

scrolls as Christian documents.2 Others concentrate their attention on the differences. They

think that there is no significant connection between Christianity and the scrolls.3 We cannot complain of lack of variety in the views put forward.

By common consent there is no part of the New Testament with more points of contact with

the scrolls than the Gospel according to St. John,4 and it is with these contacts that we shall

concern ourselves in this lecture. We shall examine some of the common terminology and

ideas, and try to estimate the significance of the scrolls for the understanding of the Fourth


There are some resemblances of style and general approach. The style of John is notoriously

different from that of the Synoptic Gospels. It is more like that of part, at any rate, of the

scrolls than is that of the Synoptic Gospels. Cross finds this resemblance so striking that he

thinks of the origins of John’s style as being found among the sectarians.5 The estimate of style

is a subjective thing, but I think that Cross goes too far here. The sectarians wrote in Hebrew

or Aramaic and John in Greek, albeit a Greek which shows Aramaic influence…

What shall we say then of the relation between the Fourth Gospel and the scrolls? In the first

place, that there is a tremendous gap106 between them. In this lecture we have been concerned

to consider only those points where there is some relation, and this may easily give the

impression that the two are closer than in point of fact they are. But to read the whole of the

Qumran documents, including the detailed regulations in the Manual of Discipline and the

Rule of the Congregation, the curious exegesis of the various commentaries, the martial

regulations of the War Scroll, and all the rest, is to be transported into a different world.

It is true that in some of the Thanksgiving Psalms we come in contact with a spirit not out of

harmony with that of the men of the New Testament, but this fleeting glimpse of better things

serves only to underline the fact that basically the sect is concerned with different purposes

from those that underlie Christian service. This great gap should not be overlooked.

Yet when full allowance has been made for it the coincidences of language and thought are

striking. There are far too many of them for us to assume that they are accidental, the result of

mere chance. It is asking too much to assume that at roughly the same time, and in roughly the

same part of the world two different groups of men independently evolved the same

terminology and thought of the same ideas. It is much more likely that there was some point of


Yet the relationship can hardly be one of direct dependence. We have seen how at point after

point, even where John and the covenanters are using similar language and dealing with similar

concepts, there are vast differences. Again it is too much to assume that John had the Qumran

writings before him, and that as he borrowed their language and concepts he systematically

distorted their sense.

What the relationship was we cannot be sure at this distance in time. But it was surely indirect.

We may conjecture (though I stress that it is no more than conjecture) that the connection

came through John the Baptist. W. H. Brownlee has pointed out that “Almost every detail of

the Baptist’s teaching in both the Synoptic and the Fourth Gospels has points of contact with

Essene belief”107 (he identifies the Qumran sect with the Essenes). Now the Gospels tell us

that John’s parents were old when he was born (Lk. 1. 18), and that “the child… was in the

deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel” (Lk. 1. 80).

What being “in the deserts” means is difficult to establish. If it means that John was brought up there then the conclusion seems inescapable that he was brought up by some such sect as the men of Qumran (Josephus tells us that the Essenes adopted other people’s children and brought them up). While we have no evidence for this there is nothing at all improbable in it. John’s parents were old and may well have died while the child was young, leaving no one to look after him. Alternatively, realizing their age and incapacity, they may have handed him over. The connecting link in either case would be the very high regard the Qumran men had for those of priestly stock. If this is not what happened at least being “in the deserts” means that John was in those parts where the sectarians lived, and he would have some knowledge of them. Either way he would have some knowledge of the teaching of the sect, in the one case a full and complete knowledge, in the other case a partial knowledge.

Whichever be the truth he rebelled against Qumran’s distinctive message, for his recorded

teaching contradicts some of the essential ideas of the scrolls, even though it shows points of

contact. But he did have the terminology of the sect and some of its ideas.

Now John 1. 35ff. makes it clear that some of the first disciples of Jesus came out of the circle

that gathered round John the Baptist. This gives us a natural channel whereby some of the

sect’s terms and ideas may have flowed into Christianity. Especially would this be the case if

the unnamed disciple of John 1. 35, 40 was the beloved disciple (as has been widely held).

Thus the ideas and language of the covenanters would have come to the author of the Gospel,

but only at second hand, and that per medium of one who was no longer a member of the sect

even if he ever had been. He would not produce its teaching with anything like exactness. This

would account for the fact that the Evangelist reproduces Qumran language sometimes with

minute exactness, while at the same time his basic thought is poles apart from theirs.108

It remains for us to consider the importance of the scrolls for an understanding of the Fourth


#3. The Dead Sea Scrolls  by William Priestly

Archaeology, being “concerned with the recovery of the remains of ancient civilisations”1 is

an unusual science in that, although it “deals with concrete objects and employs exact

measurements”,2 the many possible interpretations of data make it a less exact science than

chemistry, for example. However, having recognised it limitations we can see that

archaeological finds have made many important contributions to our study of the OT.

Edwin Yamauchi writes that,

The historical facts of the Bible, rightly understood, find agreement in the facts culled from

archaeology, equally rightly understood, that is, the majority or errors can be ascribed to errors of

interpretation by modern scholars and not to substantiated ‘errors’ of fact presented by the biblical

historians. This view is further strengthened when it is remembered how many theories and

interpretations of Scripture have been checked or corrected by archaeological discoveries.3

One of the most significant archaeological finds is the library of the Qumran Community: the

Dead Sea Scrolls. It is certainly “one of the few great archaeological discoveries to have

excited public imagination and interest”.4 This is perhaps due to the challenges the find made

to Biblical scholarship, or perhaps because of the light these documents threw upon the early

history of Judaism and Christianity…

Although no manuscripts were found at Khurbet Qumran, there was evidence of links between

the caves and the buildings. When the ruins were excavated, identical pottery types to the

ones found in the caves were discovered. Coins were also found which “corresponded with the

period to which the palaeographers were assigning the manuscripts”.5 As more and more

evidence was unearthed “it became clear that Qumran was, after all, the home of the

community which had written the scrolls”…

However, even though some of the information from the scrolls appears to have been written

by members of the fellowship, we know relatively little about its beginnings, “since in its

writings the community displays little awareness of, or interest in its own evolution”.7

In looking at the DSS, scholars have tried to understand as much as possible concerning the

people who owned them. The excavators revealed that there had been several stages of

occupation. There originally was a small settlement at Qumran several hundred years before

the time of Christ, but that established by the Community founded by the ‘Teacher of

Righteousness’, was built some time in the middle of the second century BCE. From that time,

until the Romans captured it in 68 CE, it was almost continually occupied by this group that

had broken away from traditional Judaism.

Around the beginning of the first century BCE, the settlement was considerably enlarged.

Archaeological evidence has shown that the settlement was destroyed by fire around 30 BCE.

This may have been due to an earthquake that occurred in 31 BCE. Several hundred coins

found in the excavations date the limits of the main period of occupation from 135 BCE to 68

CE. The area seems to have been occupied briefly by two other groups, following the actual

break-up of the Community. It would appear that it was used as a Roman fort until 74 CE, and

again in the 2nd century by Jewish fighters…

The scrolls themselves teach us about the Qumran Community, and provide insights to both

the Old and New Testaments.

The extent of the find is quite staggering! Hershel Shanks writes that “caves 1, through 3 and

5, though 10, yielded 212 complete or fragmentary texts. Cave 11 contained 25 texts…

Fitzmyer has concluded that either 520 or 521 texts from cave 4 have been identified”.22

There are documents written in both Phoenician and Aramaic script, and a small amount in

Greek. There are some fragments from the Book of Daniel that show the change from Hebrew

to Aramaic, and Aramaic to Hebrew. Ernst Wurthwein writes, “Qumran experts are agreed

today that the texts in the Old Hebrew script come from the same period as the texts in the

square script. It is possible that this script which was preserved from the pre-exilic period

enjoyed a renaissance in the Maccabean period with its surge of nationalism”.23 The forms of

the letters represented in the texts are from “a period in the history of the alphabet”24 from

which we have few specimens and certainly none written on leather or parchment. There are

certain peculiarities in the spelling and grammar that perhaps reflects the pronunciation of

Hebrew at the time when the manuscripts were copied.

Palaeography, the study of the script employed by the scribes, can date “the earliest Qumran

fragments from about 200 B.C.,”25 but this is only the date of the copy of the manuscript. The

dating of the composition of the book itself is much more difficult to determine. Yet the copies

can and do have some historical and scholarly significance. It would be impossible to look at

all the texts represented by the fragments found in the Qumran caves within the limits we

have, especially as “there was no single form of the text which was regarded and transmitted as exclusively authoritative. These texts presented us for the first time with a large number of


Firstly, there are two Isaiah scrolls, one of which contains all sixty-six chapters of Isaiah dating

from 150 BCE. This scroll is made of leather strips sewn together and is approximately 24 feet

long . It is considerably worn and was obviously much used. There are places where mistakes

in the copying have been erased or crossed out, and even points where another hand has noted

omissions in the margin.

There are some points where this text differs from the Masoretic Text (MT) of Isaiah, but on

the whole, it has helped bring understanding on some minor difficulties of interpretation, but

“by and large the wording of the text is substantially the same as that of the Masoretes”.28 It is

an exciting find because it is approximately one thousand years older than the oldest Isaiah

manuscripts available before 1947, and the fact that it is not split into three parts (as some

have attempted to do with this book) shows that the unity of Isaiah (if it was ever disunited)

was established by scribes around 175 BCE.

The other Isaiah scroll, though more fragmentary, due to the leather having disintegrated, is

important because, unlike the ‘St. Mark’s Monastery Isaiah Scroll’, this one “does not differ

essentially from the Masoretic text any more than do its representatives in the late medieval


Another important book to the Qumran Covenanters was Daniel. F.F. Bruce writes, “there are

grounds for thinking that a century before the beginning of the Christian era at least one group

of Jews – the men of Qumran – gave serious thought to the study and interpretation of the book

of Daniel.”30 It is fortunate that in one of the manuscripts, we have both Daniel 2:4 and 8:1,

the passages that show the change from Hebrew to Aramaic and Aramaic to Hebrew

respectively. This shows that the change “was a characteristic of the text in its earliest extant

form.”31 There is also a fragment containing Daniel 3:23, which in the Septuagint contains “a

long addition; a prayer, a prose description of their deliverance and a hymn, commonly known

as the Benediate.”32 That this is not included in the Qumran fragment shows that the addition

would not have been part of the original…

There have also been comparisons made between such books as Zechariah and Ecclesiastes

and the sectarian literature of the Qumran community that have indicated earlier datings for

these books. Some finds, such as those pieces from the book of Leviticus, which are some of

the oldest fragments of Biblical books that we have, agree almost entirely with the Masoretic

Text of Leviticus, and support the authority of the MT. “Even when the Dead Sea fragments

of Deuteronomy and Samuel which point to a different MS family from that which underlies

our received Hebrew text do not indicate any differences in doctrine or teaching.

Finally a fragment that concerns us as Evangelical Christians is from a MS written in a third

century BCE cursive hand, containing portions of the 12 Minor Prophets. The part in question

contains Micah 5:2, where the prophet names the birthplace of the Messiah as being

Bethlehem. That this copy of the book of Micah can be dated over two hundred years earlier

than the birth of Christ totally refutes scholars claims that it was written after His birth. This

find has been described as “one of the greatest manuscript discoveries of all time”.40 As can

be seen from the above examples, the scrolls of Qumran have indeed aided us in our Biblical


The DSS also tell us some things concerning the Septuagint – the Greek translation of the

Hebrew Bible. Biblical fragments have been found in the Qumran caves, which have a

Hebrew text that is closer to the LXX than to the MT. This tells us that around the turn of the

century there were various Hebrew texts in existence, and the LXX may have come from “a

different Hebrew Text belonging to what we may call the Proto-Septuagint family”.42 This

would explain some of the differences between the MT and the LXX.

Most notable, however, are two scrolls that were part of the original find in cave 1. The first of these is the Habakkuk Commentary that is a verse by verse exposition of chapters one and two of this book.

There are many historical allusions in this scroll, though they assume understanding of events

at the time and they are “exasperatingly vague references”.43 It has been possible to

understand some of what this scroll says and it is “of special religious and historical

significance, because like the Manual of Discipline and other Qumran texts, it is a source of

new information about a religious movement in pre-Christian Judaism”…

There has also been much debate about the archaeological find at the Dead Sea, many scholars

have put pen to paper to express their views and complaints about fragments that remain

unpublished over forty years after the discovery of the first scrolls. Opinions vary from such as

that expressed by M. Burrows, who writes: “for the interpretation and theology of the Old

Testament they have relatively little value”.46.

to those who agree with Edwin Yamauchi that the flood of literature that has emerged following the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is eloquent testimony to the importance which scholars have attached to this remarkable phase of archaeology.

No work dealing with the Bible generally can now be regarded with any seriousness if it fails to

take into account the significance of the Qumran discoveries for its own particular area of study.47

Although some of the finds at the Dead Sea merely confirmed previous theories, there have

been some finds at Qumran that have given new understanding and information to our study of

the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish people. “The covenanters rendered a service to Biblical

scholars by making and preserving manuscripts of the Bible, even though most of these have

survived only in small scraps”.

#4. The Dead Sea Habakkuk Scroll by Professor F. F. Bruce, M.A., D.D.

The Dead Sea Habakkuk Scroll (1Q p Hab.) is one of the four scrolls from Qumran Cave I

which were obtained in June 1947 by the Syrian Monastery of St. Mark in Jerusalem and

subsequently (February 1955) purchased by the state of Israel.

The scroll, which contains 13 columns of Hebrew writing, consists of two pieces of soft

leather sewn together with linen thread between columns 7 and 8. The columns are about 10

centimetres wide; the scroll was originally about 160 centimetres long. The first two columns,

however, are badly mutilated, as is also the bottom of the scroll; this produces an undulating

break. along the bottom when the scroll is unrolled. The present maximum height of the scroll

is 13.7 centimetres; originally it may have been 16 centimetres high or more.

Palaeographical estimates of the age of the scroll vary by some decades, but a date around the

middle of the first century B.C. or shortly afterwards is probable.

The scroll contains the text of the first two chapters of Habakkuk. The book of Habakkuk, as

we know it, consists of two documents: (a) ‘The oracle of God which Habakkuk the prophet

saw’ (chapters 1 and 2), and (b) ‘A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet, according to Shigionoth’

(chapter 3). Our scroll quotes one or several clauses from the former document, and supplies a

running commentary on the words quoted; but it does not contain the text of the second

document, nor, does it make any comment on it. It is plain from the scroll that it never

reproduced or expounded the third chapter of Habakkuk, for the original ending is clear for all

to see. The omission of all reference to the ‘prayer of Habakkuk’ is not due to any idea that

such a psalm was unsuitable material for a commentary of the kind that is supplied for the

‘oracle’ of Habakkuk (commentaries of this kind on the Psalter and other biblical poems have

been found at Qumran); it is due, more probably, to the fact that Habakkuk’s ‘prayer’ was considered to be a separate work, quite distinct from his ‘oracle’.

After quoting a section of the text of Habakkuk, our commentator says: ‘Its interpretation

concerns…’―and then proceeds to give its meaning as he sees it, mainly in terms of persons

and events of his own time, or of the times immediately preceding and following his own. The

Hebrew word rendered ‘interpretation’ here is pesher, and from its frequency and distinctive

usage in this commentary, it has come to be used of the commentary as a whole and of others

belonging to the same class. Quite a number of such pěshārîm have been found in the Qumran

caves, but this commentary on Habakkuk is not only the first to be known, but it is the most

complete of those that have come to light thus far.

It is, besides, of more than ordinary interest because it remains our chief source for some of

the most fascinating problems of Qumran study―the character and identity of the Teacher of

Righteousness (the founder and leader of the Qumran community), and his relations with various opponents, such as the Wicked Priest, the house of Absalom, the Man of Falsehood

and the Seekers after Smooth Things; together with the identity of the Kitti’im, the brutal

Gentile power whose domination of Judaea is regarded as a divine nemesis on the wicked

rulers of the land…

We can best understand the .book of Habakkuk when we read it in the light of its historical

setting in the reign of Jehoiakim (608-598 B.C.). We have it on excellent contemporary

authority that Jehoiakim was guilty of oppression and violence. (Jeremiah xxii 13-17).

Habakkuk complains to God about the oppression and violence which are rife in the nation,

and God tells him that the Chaldeans are being raised up to be the executors of his judgment

against the unrighteous rulers of Judah. But Habakkuk has to renew his complaint before

long, for the Chaldeans are acting with even greater brutality and impiety than those upon whom they executed God’s judgment.

This time God tells him that the Chaldeans, too, will be dealt with when they have served his purpose; righteousness will one day be established throughout the earth, but for the present the prophet and those like-minded must exercise patience and trust in God: ‘the righteous shall live by his faith’ (Habakkuk ii 4).

While exegetes may differ on details, the prophecy of Habakkuk is generally coherent and

intelligible when interpreted along these lines…

It is evident that the Teacher of Righteousness of the Habakkuk commentary and related texts

was the effective founder of the Qumran community; his was the original and creative mind

which stamped its impress on the whole brotherhood. But the movement led by Menahem,

and by Eleazar ben Jair after him, received its distinctive character not from either of them but

rather from Menahem’s father Judas and from Judas’s colleague Sadduk. If Menahem’s party

was indeed the Qumran community, then either Judas or Sadduk would be a better choice for

identification as he great Teacher of Righteousness.

Some of the Qumran documents were composed a considerable time after the Teacher of

Righteousness was ‘gathered in’ (an expression more suitable for a natural death than for the

way in which Menahem and Eleazar ben Jair died). But less than two years elapsed between

Menahem’s death and the destruction of the headquarters at Qumran, according to Père de

VAUX’s reading of the archaeological evidence; less than seven years elapsed between

Menahem’s death and the fall of Masada, the last outpost of his followers.

Dr. ROTH suggests that the Damascus residence of the community is to be literally

understood, and that it is to be dated between 4 B.C. and A.D. 6. But if it was in the literal

Damascus that the community found refuge at that time, it is surely to that time that the

Zadokite work must be ascribed. Yet in the Zadokite work the Teacher of Righteousness is

already dead: twice over he is said to have been ‘gathered in’,21 and in the second of these

passages about forty years elapse between his ‘gathering in until the destruction of all the men

of war who returned with the Man of Falsehood’. Dr. ROTH’s identification of the Man of Falsehood with Simon bar Giora is, fortunately, only tentative; if it were put forward as an

integral part of his reconstruction it would increase the complication still more. The

complication is acute enough already, unless the Teacher of Righteousness introduced at the

beginning of the Zadokite work is a different person from the Teacher of Righteousness in the

Habakkuk commentary.

Above all, it seems impossible to reconcile Dr. ROTH’s view with the palaeographical

evidence. The discovery of a number of dated manuscripts at Murabba’at has made it possible

to establish not only a relative, but an absolute; chronology for the Qumran manuscripts. If

the manuscript of the Habakkuk commentary was copied as late as A.D. 25―the latest date

which palaeographers have suggested for it (and it was probably copied half a century before that)―the composition of the work itself can have been no later; and the clash between the Wicked Priest and the Teacher of Righteousness was an event of the past when the commentator wrote.

Dr. ROTH’s thesis is attractive and stimulating, and one can only admire the skill and vigour

with which it has been presented. But the view which will ultimately triumph will do equal

justice to the internal evidence as interpreted by historians and philologists, to the

archaeological evidence as interpreted by archaeologists, and to the palaeographical evidence

as interpreted by palaeographers. It cannot be said that Dr. ROTH’s view does this.

#5. The Scrolls and the Scribes of the New Testament by Joseph H. Dampier Johnson City, Tennessee

The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls has brought with it an intense interest in the Essenes.

That the existence of this party or confraternity which is designated by Josephus as a

philosophic sect must have continued in Palestine with the Pharisees and Sadducees into the

period described in the Gospels is almost universally taken for granted. Then why are there no

Essenes in the New Testament?

The Qumran Community must have existed near the Dead Sea from at least 100 B.C. to 68

A.D. It is not mentioned in the Gospels. The size of the cemetery would indicate a sizable


The solution most generally accepted is that the Essenes and the Qumran covenanters were

the same people and, if not identical, were so closely identified that the one is a part of the


This does not answer the question of the silence of the New Testament on these contemporary

religious movements or sects. A possible solution to this problem is that Qumran and/or the

Essenes may have been known under more than one name and that they are present in the

New Testament under a different name than in Josephus and Philo.

The Qumran sectaries (perhaps known in Josephus as the Essenes) are known in the New

Testament as the Scribes. The Qumran Community hid a library of Biblical and non-Biblical

manuscripts, and the ruins of the monastery has a scriptorium with desks still in place. It is

rather obvious that they were scribes.

Qumran was a community of scribes, but were the Scribes of the Gospels connected with the

Qumran Community? Or, were they, in some way that we do not yet understand, indirectly


The Manual of Discipline and some other references in the Dead Sea Scrolls form the

connecting link of evidence which shows us the same sect. While the New Testament never

uses the term ‘Essene’, Josephus is almost equally silent about ‘Scribes’, for with the

exception of “holy scribes” in Jewish Wars and a single use of grammateus in Contra Apion

where it is not translated Scribe he makes little use of the term.

The first question that must be answered is whether the Scribes were a party or a profession.

In the Old Testament the Soferim were writers, keepers of the records, and in some cases

evidently official recorders. The LXX translated this as Scribe grammateus. By the time the

New Testament was written, writing must have been a more general skill, and the word

‘scribe’ had taken on other meanings. That some had become teachers and lawyers and

doctors of the law is not to be denied. But, that the word did not have a single meaning is

indicated by such terms as “Scribes of the Pharisees” (Mk. 2:13-17, Lk. 5:27-32) and “Scribes

of the people” (Matt. 2:4). The inter-testament period may have worked a change in the use of

the word.

The term ‘scribe’ in the New Testament does not refer to a trade or profession of copying

manuscripts or acting as amanuensis for illiterate sections of the population. It is rather

obvious that the term ‘scribe’ is never used to describe in any way these activities, but the

term itself grammateus would indicate at least such an origin for the word; but, of course, the use of a term at any given time is not necessarily the same as the origin of the same word.

We use the term ‘Mason’ (Freemason) for group that are not now connected with

the building trades, but we still continue to use it for those who are so employed.

The scribes appear in the Synoptics about fifty-five times,1 The term does not appear in John

except in John 8:3. The term is only used five times in the rest of the New Testamen

In nine of the fifty-five appearances of the Scribes in the Synoptics Scribes and Pharisees are

identified together. The Pharisees are known as a religious party. If the Scribes are not a

religious party, then the uniting of the two words might seem to be incongruous. It would be

similar to our referring to the Presbyterians and the printers. It might also be significant that

Scribes are never so linked with the Sadducees, This then indicates a religious community

that had a greater affinity for Pharisaic doctrine than for Sadducean.

In ten instances this group is linked with the priests, chief priests, elders, etc. But, with the

exception of the one instance of the nativity (Matt. 2:4), this relationship always appears after

the triumphal entry. During the last week Scribes and Pharisees seem to have separated and

the Scribes and Priests to have formed an alliance. Unless the Scribes were a separate

religious group, how did they do this?

Scribes alone without alliances appear ten times in the Synoptic accounts. (It should be noted

here that the discrepancy of the above numbers is due to some variation of terminology in the

Gospel accounts.)…

A comparison of the teachings and condemnations of Jesus that were particularly directed to

the Scribes rather than the Pharisees shows us a community whose doctrinal and community

life is also found in the Manual of Discipline and other documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls…

The idea that the Scribes are a party is presented by M. Jaques Basnage in his “History of the

Jews”. M. Basnage apparently had personal connections with the Koraites who believed

themselves to be the original Scribal Party who divided from the Pharisees because they

would not recognize the Oral Law and later the Mishna.

The Koraites also differed as to the calendar. They believed that only when the new moon

appeared and was observed could the month begin, and so outlawed the use of astronomical


The Koraites settled such disputes by an appeal to “Three able persons” and regarded

authority as “divided between the High Priest and a Prophet, but the prophet was not a man

inspired from heaven as Moses or Isaiah, but a skillful and experienced man”. P. 107…

The considerable number of scholars who have pointed out such connections do not seem to

have considered the claims of the Koraites that they were originally “Scribes, lawyers, and

doctors of the law.” Which, coupled with the idea of an authorative but uninspired prophet

brings up some interesting possibilities as to the teacher of righteousness and gives a possible

Post-Biblical link between the Qumran people and the Scribes of the New Testament.

#6. Jewish Apocalyptic and the Dead Sea Scrolls by H. H. Rowley

D.D., F.B.A. Professor of Hebrew Language and Literature in the University of Manchester

The Ethel M. Wood Lecture delivered before the University of London on 12 March 1957

The first of the texts to be published in full was the Habakkuk Commentary,7 and

this immediately turned the attention of scholars to a work which Solomon

Schechter first published in 1910, under the title Fragments of a Zadokite Work.8

This work had come down in two mediaeval manuscripts found in the Cairo

Genizah,9 which in part overlapped and in part supplemented one another.

Much discussion had followed its publication, and wide differences of opinion had been

expressed as to the date of the composition of the work and the particular Jewish

group from which it had come.10 It was generally believed that the mediaeval copies

were of a much older work, and the view that it came from a pre-Christian date was

taken by a number of scholars.11 It contained references to a Teacher of Righteousness,

who was at once connected with the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned

in the Habakkuk Commentary, when that commentary became available, and the

view that the Zadokite Work and the Habakkuk Commentary were both products of

the Qumran sect was widely shared. Since then fragments of the Zadokite Work

have been found in the Qumran caves,11a and it is now generally accepted that in all

discussions of the Qumran sect the Zadokite Work as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls

must be taken into account…

All this means that the Scrolls and the Zadokite Work should be studied together in

relation to our other surviving non-Biblical texts coming from Palestine in the two

centuries preceding the Christian era. But first it is necessary to establish that the

relevant texts of the Qumran sect are all of pre-Christian origin. I have already said

that we must not assume this, since the sectarian works might have been composed

at any time down to the deposit of the Scrolls in the caves…

The Teacher of Righteousness is not mentioned in all of the texts, but figures

especially in the commentaries and in the Zadokite Work. From the somewhat

cryptic manner in which he is referred to, it would appear that the first readers of

the texts might be expected to understand the situation presupposed more easily

than we can, and therefore that these texts were composed fairly close to the time

of the Teacher. So far as the Zadokite Work is concerned, this is confirmed by the

fact that the coming of the Messiah of Aaron and Israel seems to have been

expected about forty years after the gathering in of the Teacher of Righteousness.14

It would therefore seem to be clear that this work was composed within forty years

of his death. In the pre-Christian period three principal dates for the life and work

of the Teacher of Righteousness have been proposed.

The Manual of Discipline is less easy to place in relation to the Teacher of

Righteousness, who is not referred to in it. The Teacher of Righteousness seems to

have given authoritative interpretation of the Law to his followers,15 but he is not

said to have organized the sect. In the Zadokite Work there is reference to one

called the Star,16 who appears to have led the sect to Damascus,17 and he must have

lived and been the leader of the sect within forty years of the death of the Teacher.

Whether he is the author of the Manual of Discipline, however, we have no means

of knowing.

In the Zadokite Work we find reference to the Book of Hagu,18 which

seems, therefore, to have been in existence within forty years of the death of the

Teacher of Righteousness. In a fragment related to the Manual of Discipline, which

came from Cave I, there is another reference to the Book of Hagi, as it is called

here.19 This fragment is not a part of the work called the Manual of Discipline, and

there is some reason for thinking that it is earlier than the Manual. Its editor notes

that the congregation of the sect is here organized on a more military basis than the

community of the Manual, and he finds the fragment to reflect a situation which

recalls the congregation of the Hasidim described in I Maccabees, while the

Manual suggests an organization nearer to that of the Essenes as described by our

ancient authorities.20

The Manual may therefore be a revised manual, reflecting a later stage of the organization of the sect, perhaps based on earlier manuals, and its date in relation to the work of the Teacher of Righteousness is more problematical…

The First Book of Enoch is commonly divided into several sections, which are variously

dated. Charles dates chapters vi-xxxvi and the Apocalypse of Weeks (xciii. 1-10, xci. 12-17) in the pre-Maccabaean period,28 but I have elsewhere shown that his reasons are not

convincing, or even always self-consistent, and have argued for a Maccabaean date for these

sections.29 For chapters xci-civ, with the exception of the Apocalypse of Weeks, Charles

favours the period of Alexander Jannaeus.30 But here again Frey argues for a Maccabaean

date,31 and I think this is the more probable.32 For chapters xxxvi-lxxi, the Similitudes of

Enoch, Charles argues for a date in the first century B.C., either between 94 and 79 B.C., or

between 70 and 64. B.C.,33 and for lxxxiii-xc he puts a terminus ad quem of 161 B.C.34

Here once more Frey offers strong reasons for supposing that the Similitudes should be placed

in the previous century, and reflect the background of the Maccabaean age.35 He would assign the composition to a date soon after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in 164. B.C.36 He therefore concludes that all the principal sections of I Enoch come from the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, or shortly after his death,37 and this view seems to me to be convincing…

The Similitudes of Enoch raise problems of Christian interpolation and of the interpretation of their figure of the Son of Man. In the book of Daniel the Son of Man is a figure symbolizing the saints as invested with power in the coming kingdom,44 and there are some who think the Son of Man is here also a collective symbol.45 Others hold that he is a transcendental figure, a pre-existent

individual.46 For our purpose this is not material, since nothing of this character can

be found in the Scrolls. The term Anointed One, or Messiah, is found in the

Similitudes,47 but there is nothing to indicate that he is a human deliverer, and again

the view has been expressed that this is a collective figure.48

The book of Jubilees is commonly dated in the second century B.C.49 Albright50 and

Zeitlin51 have argued for earlier dates, but some years ago I offered reasons for

rejecting that view.52 Amongst the practices on which the book of Jubilees lays emphasis is the keeping of the Sabbath,53 which was prohibited by the Seleucid authorities in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.54 The observance of the Jewish food laws is also enjoined,55 and we know that in the time of Antiochus there was a vigorous effort to compel the Jews to eat unclean foods.56 It will be remembered that Dan. i is concerned with the same question. The author of Jubilees complains of

idolatry,57 and this again was an issue in the age of Antiochus,58 when the Temple

was profaned and an idol altar set up in the Temple…

Unlike the book of Daniel, the book of Jubilees gives no hint of any resurrection

from the dead. It contemplates an immortality of bliss for the righteous in the

hereafter, while their bones rest in the earth.72 The descendants of Levi are promised

both ecclesiastical and religious power.73 This does not appear to reflect approval of

the position under the Hasmonaeans, when civil and religious power was in priestly

hands, since immediately afterwards Judah is described as a prince over Jacob, who

should be feared by the Gentiles, and who should sit on the throne.74 It would seem

that the thought is that the king should be subordinate to the priest.

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs again raise questions of integrity and

interpolation, as well as of date. A recent study by a Dutch scholar has argued for a

post-Christian date, later than the date of the deposit of the Scrolls in the caves.75

Charles, on the other hand, argues for a date towards the end of the second century B.C., between 109 and 107 B.C.76 Pfeiffer

more broadly ascribes the work to a date between 140 and 110 B.C.,77 while Frey

assigns it to the second half of the second century B.C.78

Too many vexed questions surround the Testaments to be discussed here. Only one

or two of them can be briefly referred to, Of these the first concerns the thought of

the Messiah. Several passages are held by Charles to indicate a Messiah from the

tribe of Levi.79 Lagrange disputes this interpretation,80 but Beasley-Murray, after a

careful examination, concludes that Charles is right in two instances, but that the

others do not present this idea…

The Psalms of Solomon are to be dated in the middle of the first century B.C.109

One of these psalms is messianic in character, and the following psalm is headed

‘Again of the Anointed of the Lord’. It is the former of these, Psalm xvii, which

most concerns us here. After a historical survey it describes the coming messianic

age, and prefaces this description with the words: ‘Behold, O Lord, and raise up

unto them their king, the son of David.’110 It is therefore clear that here we have no

expectation of a Levitical Messiah, but only of a Davidic Messiah.

The terms in which his rule is described draw freely on Old Testament ideas, as is to be

expected. The Messiah will be righteous and pure and will shatter unrighteous

rulers and deliver Jerusalem from Gentile oppressors.111 He will reign over Israel,

and no alien will henceforth be admitted to the land.112 He will subject the nations

to his yoke, and his rule will be marked by righteousness and holiness, and Gentiles

will come from the ends of the earth to behold his glory, and will bring exiled Jews

to him as their gifts.113 The following psalm makes no mention of the Davidic

descent of the Messiah, but describes his rule in similar terms, though with less


The Battle Scroll describes the war whereby the nations should be successively conquered.

But it is to be noted that the Kittim are present throughout to the thought of the writer. He

says that after the Kittim are conquered the arms of the sect are to be led against nation after

nation in a specified order, and apparently the whole war is to occupy forty years.132 But

thereafter he reverts to the Kittim, and throughout the rest of the work he has nothing to say

about the other nations. This is very significant. I have already said that the Kittim of this

Scroll must be identified with the Greeks, and this view has been held by some who have

found the Kittim of the other texts to be the Romans.

We are therefore definitely in the second century B.C., when it was possible to think of the Kittim in Egypt marching against the Seleucid king of the north. It is true that in the first century B.C. Demetrius III led his army from Syria against Alexander Jannaeus, but there is no reason to think that this event would arouse the nationalist feelings of the sect, and one writer who would put the Teacher of

Righteousness in that age believed that the members of the sect were on the side of

Demetrius.133 This is on every ground improbable, and the conditions of that age would

scarcely seem to provide a suitable background for the composition of the Battle Scroll…

In one passage in the Testament of Levi137 it is said that a King should arise in Judah and

establish a new priesthood, to be called by a new name. Charles interpreted this of the

Hasmonaeans, and thought the new name was the revival of the title of Melchizedek.138 T. W.

Manson effectively answers this, and holds that the new name was ‘Sons of Zadok’, the

reference being to Solomon’s establishment of Zadok in the place of Abiathar in Jerusalem.139

He therefore disposes of this Hasmonaean hypothesis, and finds instead the conception of the

Zadokite priesthood, which was so dear to the Qumran sect…

It may be added that in the Nahum Commentary we have for the first time in the

Scrolls contemporary historical persons mentioned under their own proper names.

Antiochus is mentioned,161 and he appears to be Antiochus Epiphanes,162 though we

are here told nothing about him. There is merely a simple reference to the period

from Antiochus to the rise of the rulers of the Kittim. There is also a reference to a

king of Greece,163 who appears to be Demetrius, though the beginning of his name

is lost. This Demetrius is said to have sought to enter Jerusalem with the aid of the

seekers after smooth things. In the first century B.C. Demetrius III fought against

Alexander Jannaeus, but it is unlikely that the sect of the Scrolls was on either side

in this conflict. In the second century B.C., within a year or two of the death of

Antiochus Epiphanes, Demetrius I sent Nicanor to Jerusalem to secure control of

the whole city,164 including the Temple, and the story of his boast and subsequent

defeat by Judas Maccabaeus, and the hanging up in Jerusalem of the hand that had

been boastfully outstretched against the Temple is very familiar.165 At this time the

seekers after smooth things, who were on the side of Demetrius and Nicanor, would

certainly be the enemies of members of our sect.

It is unnecessary to say more of these converging lines of evidence. In the present

lecture it has been my purpose to add one more line of approach in the links

between the messianic and apocalyptic thought of the Scrolls with the events and

writings of the second century B.C. To have dealt exclusively with that restricted

question, without reference to the other lines of approach, would have been

unsatisfactory, since this evidence must be integrated with the other evidence at our

disposal before its full weight can be realized. It is that integration which I have

here attempted, and it seems to me to contribute materially to a case which on other

grounds I have found to be strong.

#7. The Teacher of Righteousness in the Qumran Texts By F. F. BRUCE, M. A.

Professor of Biblical History and Literature in the University of Sheffield

‘The Teacher of Righteousness’ is the name given in a number of the lately discovered

Qumran documents to a man who was held in high veneration by the religious community on

whose beliefs and practices these documents have thrown so much light. If he was not

actually the founder of the community, it was certainly he who impressed upon it those

features which distinguished it from other pious groups which flourished among the Jews

during the last two or three centuries of the Second Commonwealth. So far as we can gather

from our present sources of information, he is never referred to by his personal name in the

Qumran texts.1

The title bestowed on him by his followers, ‘The Teacher of Righteousness’

(Heb. moreh s£edeq or moreh has£s£edeq), may echo Hosea x. 12, where the prophet calls to his

people: ‘break up your fallow ground: for it is time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain

righteousness (Heb. yoreh s£edeq) upon you.’ The RV margin gives ‘teach you righteousness’

as an alternative translation to ‘rain righteousness upon you’; in any case, moreh s£edeq is the

participial form corresponding to the imperfect yoreh s£edeq which Hosea uses. Numerous

attempts have been made to identify the Teacher of Righteousness with some figure or other

mentioned elsewhere in Jewish literature;2 and as the career of the Teacher, in so far as it can

be pieced together from the Qumran texts, is linked very closely with the careers of one or two contemporaries who are mentioned in equally allusive terms, it might be more accurate to entitle the present study The Teacher of Righteousness—and others…

It is not at all certain if the Teacher of Righteousness can be identified with any historical

figure mentioned outside the Zadokite and Qumran literature. But we can put together the fragments of information about him which that literature supplies, so as to obtain as clear an impression as possible of the kind of man he was…

As we have seen, his followers believed that he had been initiated by God into the mysteries

of His purpose, so as to understand the true interpretation of the prophets of old. What he thus

learned from God he imparted to his disciples. The fragmentary pesher on Micah, found in

Cave 1, commenting on the words of Micah i. 5b (‘and what are the high places of Judah? are

they not Jerusalem?’) says:

[Their interpretation con]cerns the Teacher of Righteousness: he it is who [teaches the law to] his

[council] and to all those who offer themselves willingly to be gathered among the elect people [of

God, practising the law] in the council of the community, who will be saved from the day [of


It is equally plain that those who disregarded the words of the Teacher of Righteousness were

believed to have lost all hope of salvation. The appearance of the Teacher of Righteousness was regarded as a sign that the last days were approaching. He was not the Messiah, but his ministry signified that the messianic age would not be long delayed. Perhaps his followers believed at one time that the messianic age would be inaugurated within his lifetime; but after his death a revision of this opinion was necessary.…

The problem of identifying these ‘men of war’ may wait until something further is said about

the ‘Man of Falsehood’…

Is it possible that they expected one of these Messiahs—the Messiah of Aaron—to be the

Teacher of Righteousness himself, risen from the dead? It has been maintained that they did,3

and the possibility may be freely allowed. Mr. Allegro, for example, has pointed out4 that a

fragmentary biblical anthology found in Cave 4 looks forward to the time when the Davidic Messiah will arise ‘with the Expounder of the Law’; and it is a natural inference that the ‘Expounder of the Law’ in this instance is the Messiah of Aaron.

The same two figures are evidently associated in a comment on Nu. xxiv. 171 made in the Zadokite Admonition, where Balaam’s ‘star out of Jacob’ is ‘the Expounder of the Law who comes to Damascus’, while the ‘sceptre’ which is to ‘rise out of Israel’ is ‘the prince of all the congregation who, when he arises, will break down all the sons of Sheth.’ The ‘Expounder of the Law ‘, I suggest, was the title given to the Teacher’s successor as head of the community and was borne by several leaders one after the other.

The head of the community in office at the time of the end would sponsor and induct the Davidic

Messiah. But would that particular head of the community be the Teacher of Righteousness

himself, risen from the dead, and would he also be the Aaronic Messiah? Further information

must be awaited before a confident answer can be given.

In the present state of our knowledge, it seems more probable that the Teacher of

Righteousness in resurrection was expected to fill the rôle which in general Jewish thinking

was reserved for the prophet Elijah. For Elijah was widely expected to return to earth on the

eve of the ‘great and terrible day of the LORD’ to discharge a ministry of repentance and

restoration so that Israel might be ready for the dawn of that day.2 (It does not appear,

however, that Qumran expectation identified the Teacher redivivus with Elijah, any more than

it identified him with the other eschatological prophet, the second Moses for whom many

looked in fulfilment of Dt. xviii. 15 ff.) The Teacher, even in resurrection perhaps, as

certainly in his previous existence, would be a messianic forerunner rather than a Messiah.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: