Michael or Yhwh.pdf

http://jsp.sagepub.comPseudepigrapha

Journal for the Study of the

DOI: 10.1177/0951820706069186 2006; 16; 75 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

Rick Van de Water Michael or Yhwh? Toward Identifying Melchizedek in 11Q13

http://jsp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/1/75 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Additional services and information for

http://jsp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jsp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. by Ilie Chiscari on November 13, 2007 http://jsp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Journal for the study of the Pseudepigrapha

Vol 16.1 (2006): 75-86

2006 Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi)

DOI: 10.1177/0951820706069186

http://JSP.sagepub.com

Michael or Yhwh?

Toward Identifying Melchizedek in 11Q13

RICK VAN DE WATER

1300 Junipero Serra Blvd., San Francisco, CA 94132, USA

Abstract

Scholars are still divided over the identity of the gure Melchizedek in 11Q13. Is he an

angel, or is Melchizedek simply another title for Yhwh? This article argues that these

two opposing views can be reconciled by seeing the gure Melchizedek as an expression

of what the early rabbis called belief in two Powers in heaven. The way he is portrayed

in 11QMelch is comparable to Philos concept of the divine MPHPK and the belief of the Magharians. While there are clear indications in 11Q13 that Melchizedek is an inter-

mediary, there are equally compelling arguments that he is Yhwh. The author of 11Q13

uses a collage of biblical texts to present him as a divine intermediary. The fact that a

number of biblical messianic titles are conated in the person of Melchizedek encourages

seeing other Qumran descriptions of exalted gures as referring to him as well.

Keywords: Tisha bAv; Jeremiah; LXX; MT; Edomites; Temple; Gedaliah; assassination

Since the initial publication of 11QMelch, the gure Melchizedek has

usually been described as an angel (Michael or otherwise).1 F. Manzi,

1. E.g. A.S. Van der Woude, Melchisedek als himmlische Erlsergestalt in den

neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Hhle XI, OTS 14 (1965),

pp. 354-73 (369); F. Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic (Leiden: E.J. Brill,

1992), p. 176; J. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;

London: SPCK, 1994), p. 171. D. Flusser criticized that identication as anachronistic

dependence on Talmudic and medieval rabbinic tradition (Judaism and the Origins of


76 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 16.1 (2006)

however, has recently argued against such an identication.2 His argu-

ment is based on the long-observed appropriation for Melchizedek of a

number of biblical statements concerning Yhwh.3 This leads him to con-

clude that, rather than referring to an intermediary of Yhwh, Melchi-

zedek is simply a divine title for Yhwh himself.4 While his point is a

valid one, Manzi admits that there remains much to be said for the idea

that Melchizedek is an intermediary.5 The purpose of this article is to

argue that the identication of Melchizedek as an intermediary can be

reconciled with Manzis thesis that Melchizedek is a divine title.

The expression two Powers (EHJHCJE) recurs in early rabbinic polemic against belief that God has a divine mediator who shares his

throne.6 According to A.F. Segal, the biblical theophanies constitute a

most important part of the tradition.7 Since Philo and some apocalyptic

writings show awareness of it, Segal has concluded that the interpretation

of the biblical theophanies in terms of a divine intermediary must predate

Christianity [Jerusalem: Magnes/Hebrew University, 1988], p. 188). J. Fitzmyer has

voiced reservations about it as complicated by the fact that the author of the text seems

to refer to Melchizedek as Elohim (Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave

11, JBL 86 [1967], pp. 25-41 [32]).

2. F. Manzi, Melchisedek e langelologia nellepistola agli Ebrei e a Qumran

(AnBib, 136; Rome: Pontical Biblical Institute, 1997), pp. 67-96.

3. Yahwehs inheritance (Deut. 32.9), the year of favor for Yahweh (Isa. 61.2a) and

the day of vengeance of our God (Isa. 61.2b) have all been appropriated for Melchi-

zedek (2.5, 9, 13); cf. J.T. Milik, Milk-sedeq et Milk-rea dans les anciens crits juifs

et chrtiens, JJS 23 (1972), pp. 124-25; E. Puech, Notes sur le manuscrit de

XIQMelkisdeq, RevQ 12 (1987), pp. 510-11.

4. Manzi, Melchisedek, p. 64.

5. Manzi, Melchisedek, pp. 91-92.

6. E.g. Sifre Deut. 379; Sifre Zuta Shalah 15.30; Tanhuma Kadoshim 4; Gen. R. 1.7;

Deut. R. 2.33; Eccles. R. 2.12; Pesikta Rabbati 20.4. In this regard, divine is usually

dened in terms of certain traits and roles characteristic of God (e.g. eternal, innite,

creator, universal ruler, eschatological judge, etc.) that are not applied to other beings

(cf. A.F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and

Gnosticism [SJLA, 25; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977], p. 23, who also notes [p. 261] that the

rabbis used the expressions two gods and second god in connection with such belief.

Philo used second god in reference to the MPHPK [Quest. in Gen. 2.62]. Cf. also R. Bauckham, The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus, in C.C. Newman et al.

(eds.), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews

Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999],

pp. 43-69 [45 and 53 n. 24]).

7. Segal, Two Powers, p. 184.


VAN DE WATER Michael or Yhwh? 77

the second century CE.8 Supporting his view is the mention by medieval

Karaite commentators of the Magharians, a rst-century Jewish sect

believing in a celestial being who created the world, was placed over all

creation, and was Gods intermediary who appeared to the patriarchs and

spoke to the prophets.9 Qirqisani explained the name Magharians as

derived from the discovery of their writings in caves.10 Since the Essenes

are not mentioned in Qirqisanis presentation of early Jewish sects,

Magharians may simply be an ad hoc name for them.11 Though their

belief has been related to Philos concept of the divine MPHPK, their alleged existence prior to the Christian era makes his inuence on them

unlikely.12 What is more probable is that Philos interpretation of the

intermediary of the biblical theophanies reects a more widespread belief

in certain early Jewish sectors.13 What will be argued below is that

11QMelch reects belief comparable to that of Philo and the Magharians.

That this is not unthinkable is argued by the fact that a similar idea

8. Segal, Two Powers, pp. 260-61.

9. L. Nemoy (ed.), Yaqub Al-Qirqisani, Kitab Al-Anwar Wal-Maraqib: Code of

Karaite Law (New York: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1939), p. 55 I. 2.8;

idem, Karaite Anthology: Excerpts from the Early Literature (New Haven: Yale Uni-

versity Press, 1952) 50; H.A. Wolfson, The Pre-Existent Angel of the Magharians and

Al-Nahawandi, JQR 51 (1960), pp. 91-93; W. Bacher, Qirqisani, the Karaite, and his

Work on Jewish Sects, in P. Birnbaum (ed.), Karaite Studies (New York: Harmon,

1971), p. 275.

10. Qirqisani, Kitab Al-Anwar, I.2.8. Some of their writings were found in the ninth

century in a cave near Jericho and signicantly inuenced the beliefs of the Karaites of

Jerusalem (cf. R. de Vaux, A propos des manuscrits de la Mer Morte, RB 57 [1950], pp.

417-29 [421-42]).

11. J. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish

Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism (WUNT, 36; Tbingen: Mohr,

1985), p. 330.

12. Wolfson, Pre-Existent Angel, pp. 95-96. Qirqisani recorded that the book of the

Alexandrian was among the scrolls found in the ninth century (cf. Bacher, Qirqisani,

p. 275); see also D.T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Assen: Van

Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), pp. 15-16.

13. For Philo as a compiler of traditions, rather than an innovator, cf. W.L. Knox,

Pharisaism and Hellenism, in H. Loewe (ed.), Judaism and Christianity. II. The Contact

of Pharisaism with Other Cultures (repr.; New York: Ktav, 1969 [1937]), pp. 61-111

(62); G. Bertram, Philo und die jdische Propaganda in der antiken Welt, in W. Grund-

mann (ed.), Christentum und Judentum: Studien zur Erforschung ihres gegenseitigen

Verhltnisses (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1940), pp. 79-105. For the striking parallels

between Philos traditions and those of the Karaites, cf. B. Revel, The Karaite Halakah

and its Relation to Sadducean, Samaritan and Philonian Halakah, in Birnbaum (ed.),

Karaite Studies, pp. 1-88.



appears in other writings found at Qumran. The reference to the God of

Israel and the Angel / Messenger of his truth in 1QS 3.24, for example,

has been noted in this regard.14 The latter title, moreover, is widely

considered to refer to the gure Melchizedek of 11QMelch 2.13.15

That Melchizedek is indeed presented there as an intermediary is

underlined by a couple of problems with Manzis thesis. The rst con-

cerns the interpretation of Ps. 82.1 in 11QMelch 2.9-10. Manzi claims

that the rst occurrence of )J9= in Ps. 82.1 simply refers to = in 82.1b.16 Three lines down, however, in 11QMelch 2.13, the text asserts

that Melchizedek is to carry out the vengeance of Gods judgments.

That statement appears to make a distinction between Melchizedek and

=.17 The second observation is that, though Manzi has simply assumed that the name Melchizedek means King of Righteousness, his ren-

dering is not the only possibility.18 As has long been suggested, an

alternative to understanding the yod in B54J as a hireq compaginis is to take the more straightforward function of the yod as a rst singular

pronominal sufx. This would give the title, My king is righteousness.19

Who, though, would refer to him as my king? It is worth considering

that the title is Gods designation of him and thus offers another argu-

ment that Melchizedek is not merely a title for God.

These indications of a distinction between Melchizedek and =, how-ever, need not overrule Manzis case for the identication of Melchi-

zedek as Yhwh. It is not unlikely that the citation of Isa. 52.7 (your God

is king) in 11QMelch 2.24-25 was interpreted in the lacuna as referring

14. Segal, Two Powers, pp. 20-21.

15. Cf. van der Woude, Melchisedek, p. 369; Y. Yadin, The Scroll of The War of

the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1957),

pp. 234-36; P. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchirea (CBQMS, 10; Washington: Catho-

lic Biblical Association of America, 1981), p. 139; J.T. Milik, 4QVisions de Amram et

une citation dOrigne, RB 79 (1972), pp. 77-79 (86); C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath

Sacrice: A Critical Edition (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), p. 37. Also 4Q177 12-13.7:

his Angel of Truth will help all the children of light from the power of Belial.

16. Manzi, Melchisedek, pp. 64-65.

17. A. Aschim, Melchizedek and Jesus: 11QMelchizedek and the Epistle to the

Hebrews, in Newman et al. (eds.), Jewish Roots, pp. 129-47 (135).

18. Of the grammatical examples Manzi gives for comparison (Melchisedek, p. 71 n.

220), not one uses the rst singular pronominal sufx.

19. J. Fitzmyer: my king is upright (Now this Melchizedek [Heb 7,1], CBQ

25 [1963], pp. 305-21 [311]); idem: my king is Sedeq (Essays on the Semitic Back-

ground of the New Testament [Sources for Biblical Study, 5; Missoula, MT: Scholars

Press, 2nd edn, 1974], pp. 229-30).



to Melchizedek.20 His inauguration of a Sabbath era of pardon can also be

seen as a role of Yhwh. The jubilee year of liberation (Lev. 25.9-13) is

combined with the sabbatical year of remission of debts (Deut. 15.2) and

is interpreted eschatologically as the year of grace for Melchizedek

(11QMelch 2.9) in allusion to Isa. 61.1-2.21 Performing the role of the

Anointed of the Spirit in Isaiah 61, he proclaims liberty for captives to

free them from their iniquities (11QMelch 2.5-6).22 This spiritual dimen-

sion given to his proclamation interprets the text of Isaiah: the liberation

he proclaims is from sin. That this takes place in the rst week of the

tenth jubilee (2.7) equates it with Daniels seventy weeks (Dan. 9.24)

leading up to the atonement for sin (*HCA3JJ (11QMelch 2.6) appears to refer to H3E from the citation of Lev. 25.13 in the lacuna (11QMelch 2.2). Thus the jubilee return to the ancestral home is interpreted in terms of the

return and purication of the remnant from their sins (2.6).24 That in

biblical prophecy it was Yhwh who would bring back the captives once

more places Melchizedek in his role.25

Liberation from sin is achieved at the end of the tenth jubilee by atone-

ment made for those associated with Melchizedek (11QMelch 2.7-8).

20. C.M. de Jonge and A.S. van der Woude, 11QMelchizedek and the New Testa-

ment, NTS 12 (196566), pp. 301-26 (305); Fitzmyer, Further Light, p. 41; Milik,

Milk-sedeq, p. 125; Puech, Notes, p. 511; Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic,

p. 176.

21. For the same combination of Isa. 61.1-2 with Lev. 25.9-13 in the Gospel of Luke,

cf. G.J. Brooke, Shared Intertextual Interpretations in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New

Testament, in M. Stone and E. Chazon (eds.), Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and

Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998),

pp. 35-57.

22. 9>9JH?H=H[9]=3HK=CHC59>9=CBH. 23. For Dan. 9.24 in 11QMelch 2.6 and the restoration of the end of 2.18 with a

citation from Dan. 9.25, see Fitzmyer, Further Light, p. 29; cf. also J.M. Baumgarten,

The Heavenly Tribunal and the Personication of Sedeq in Jewish Apocalyptic, ANRW

19.1 (1979), pp. 222-23; D. Dimant, Qumran Sectarian Literature, in M. Stone (ed.),

Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT, 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum; Phila-

delphia: Fortress, 1984) 532; Garca Martnez, Two Messianic Figures, p. 23.

24. For the followers of B5499CH> as that remnant, cf. CD 16.1-5; 1QH 6.8-14; 1QM 13.8; 14.5-9.

25. E.g. Deut. 30.3; Pss. 53.7; 126.1; 146.7; Jer. 23.3; Ezek. 34.13; 37.21; Tob. 13.10.



Though the fragmentary text leaves uncertain whether Melchizedek is

the subject of that atonement, it is indeed probable.26 That particular

lacuna, moreover, is overshadowed by a general context strongly sug-

gestive of priesthood.27 Perhaps the most obvious of the priestly elements

there is Melchizedeks performance of the roles of the priestly Messiah

of Isaiah 61.28 Another is his very name. There is much to suggest that,

rather than referring to the priest of Gen. 14.18, Melchizedek alludes to

the priest like Melchizedek in Ps. 110.4, who is called my Lord and is

invited to sit at the right hand of the Lord (110.1).29

That he is portrayed as a heavenly priest bolsters the argument for his

being the agent of the expiation achieved on the Day of Atonement

(11QMelch 2.7-8) in inauguration of the tenth jubilee (Lev. 25.9).30

Though it was traditionally the high priest who performed the atonement

rite on that day (Lev. 16), the expiation presented in 11QMelch is more

eschatological than liturgical.31 In biblical tradition, as well as in other

Qumran documents, it is Yhwh who not only avenges, but also atones.32

Likewise 11QMelch presents the eschatological atonement as a work of

God.33 Since Melchizedek performs Yhwhs roles in liberating, judging,

avenging and ruling, is it unreasonable to conclude that it is also his act

of atonement that delivers those of his lot from the vengeance? This is

the apparent meaning of the fragmentary phrase in 11QMelch 2.6: and

he proclaimed liberty for them to set them free from [ ] all their iniqui-

ties.34 In light of biblical prophecy, his eschatological act of atonement

would thus constitute yet another afrmation that he is Yhwh.

26. Aschim, Melchizedek and Jesus, p. 132.

27. Kobelski, Melchizedek, p. 64; Aschim, Melchizedek and Jesus, p. 139. Due to

the lacuna, de Jonge and van der Woude (11QMelchizedek, p. 306) questioned Melchi-

zedeks priesthood, though the latter had previously suggested that CA< in 11QMelch 2.6-8 was in reference to Melchizedek (Melchisedek, p. 363).

28. For Isa. 61.1-10 as the discourse of a high priest, cf. P. Grelot, Sur Isae LXI: La

premire conscration dun grand prtre, RB 97 (1990), pp. 414-31 (422).

29. Kobelski, Melchizedek, p. 54; Milik, Milk-sedeq, p. 138; Flusser, Judaism,

p. 188; Puech, Notes, p. 512; Aschim, Melchizedek and Jesus, p. 136; cf. also Heb.

7.15, 24.

30. Though the nature of this act of expiation is not clear, the biblical notion of CA) suggests that the MT has been altered to remove the identication of the Anointed One as Yhwh Sabaoth.

40. 11QMelch 2.9-10 (twice); 2.23. Cf. Horton, Melchizedek Tradition, pp. 74-75;

Manzi, Melchisedek, p. 66 esp. n. 182.

41. As Flusser (Judaism, p. 190) has noted, the role of eschatological judge itself

implies immortality.

42. Miliks restoration of 11QMelch 2.14 with the citation of Mal. 3.1-2 concerning

the Angel of the Covenant follows the same line of thought. Milik held that 11QMelch is

part of a larger document on the Ages (cf. CD 16.3-4) which included 4Q180 2-4 and

5-6, dealing with the theophanies to Abraham (Milk-sedeq, pp. 106, 119, 122-25). See

J. Starcky, Le Matre de Justice et Jsus, MDB 1.4 (1978), p. 57; F. Garca Martnez,

Two Messianic Figures in the Qumran Texts, in D. Parry and S. Ricks (eds.), Current

Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 20; Leiden:

E.J. Brill, 1996), pp. 14-40 (22-24); A.F. Segal (Rebeccas Children: Judaism and Chris-

tianity in the Roman World [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986], p. 89)

exemplies current dependence on apocalyptic literature, explaining this attribution of

divinity as participation granted to some principal angels.

43. Starcky, Le Matre, p. 57; Flusser, Judaism, pp. 188, 191; M.A. Knibb, Messi-

anism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls, DSD 2.1 (1995), pp. 165-84

(173). For a list of parallels between Melchizedek of 11Q13 and the one like a son of

man in Dan. 7.9-14, cf. Kobelski, Melchizedek, p. 133. See also the Angel of the Lord in

Zech. 3.



on high (Ps. 7.8) in 11QMelch 2.11 also parallels the ascent of the one

like a son of man to the heavenly throne (Dan. 7.13-14). Even the dual

image of Melchizedek as God judging (11QMelch 2.11), yet distinct

from God as the executor of his judgments (2.13), resembles the OG ver-

sion of Daniels gure who is distinct from, yet like (XK) the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7.13).

Return on high (11QMelch 2.11) implies, moreover, that Melchi-

zedek is a celestial being who has been to earth. The nature of that visit

to earth is suggested by the assertion that he is the Anointed One foretold

by both Isaiah and Daniel (2.6, 18). That identication implies that he is

human.44 That he is said to be the Anointed One cut off (Dan. 9.26),

moreover, implies his death. Since the cutting off of Daniels Messiah

is associated with atonement for sin (*HCA) with

44. Cf. P. Rainbow, Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran, BullBibRes 7 (1997),

pp. 179-94.

45. See 1QMelch 2.7 (his act of expiation in the tenth jubilee); 2.18 (he is the

[A]nointed of the Spiri[t] of whom D[aniel spoke..]. For the restoration, cf. Fitzmyer,

Further Light, p. 29.

46. A parallel concept can be seen in 1QIsaa 52.14, where the anointing of the

suffering Servant casts him as a Messiah who suffers in expiation to establish a universal

covenant (52.15) and who will be exalted (52.13b).

47. J.H. Charlesworth, From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects,

in idem (ed.), The Messiah (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 3-35 (7).

48. Cf. Garca Martnez, Two Messianic Figures, pp. 18-24.

49. Cf. E. Puech, Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521), RevQ 15 (1992), pp. 475-

519 (486). Garca Martnez (Two Messianic Figures, p. 39 n. 40) notes that frag. 2 of

4Q521 speaks of a Davidic messiah, frags. 8-9 of a priestly messiah, and frags. 5-6 of an

eschatological messiah.



the oil of the kingdom.50 Still another example is the Davidic rst-born

son in 4Q369 (Prayer of Enosh) 1.2.6, for whom God sets apart his

inheritance (2.1). In 4Q174 1-2.1.7-8, the explanation of 2 Sam. 7.11 as:

he will give them rest from a[ll] the sons of Belial, is strikingly similar

to 11QMelch 2.13. Expectation of Melchizedeks coming also recalls the

coming of B549CHJ (CD 6.11) and the Messiah of Aaron and Israel (CD 20.1). Yet another parallel is the expiation made for those of Melchi-

zedeks lot on the day of atonement and the suffering servant I>D J53in Zech. 3.8-9, through whom the iniquity of the land would be removed

in one day. The latter gure is a possible source for numerous references

to 5JH5I>4 in Qumran sectarian documents.51 Another gure referred to as =J59C3 and *HJ=C3 in 4Q246 2.1 has actually been proposed to be Melchizedek.52 Those two titles and other

details of the gures description allude to the prophetic heir to Davids

throne.53 Other details suggest his identication as the one like a son of

man in Daniel 7.54 This combination of a heavenly gure with a human

one parallels the dual image of Melchizedek. That 2 Sam. 7.14 is com-

bined there with Dan. 7.13 shows, moreover, that the one like a son of

man in Daniel 7 could be interpreted messianically and referred to as

son of God.55 Thus it is not surprising that the gure in 4Q246 has been

50. C. Evans, A Note on the First-Born Son of 4Q369, DSD 2 (1995), pp. 185-201

(198 n. 38).

51. 4Q174 1-2.1.11; 4Q252.1.3; 4Q161.10.17; 4Q285 5 2-3.

52. Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, p. 173; idem, Two Messianic

Figures, pp. 27-28, who argues that 4Q246 is compatible with other Qumran sectarian

writings, and that the concept of a heavenly messiah does occur elsewhere; cf. Knibb,

Messianism, 177. For summaries of various hypotheses for the gure in 4Q246, cf. J.

Fitzmyer, 4Q246: The Son of God Document from Qumran, Bib 74 (1993), pp. 168-

70; E. Puech, 4QApocryphe de Daniel ar, DJD 22 (1996), pp. 178-80.

53. In addition to the titles, the reference to him as great and the verb 9?


referred to as an almost divinized Messiah.56 He is both judge (2.5) and

bringer of eschatological peace (2.4).57 His eternal rule is likewise

associated with the reign of the people of God in a kingdom with cosmic

dimensions (2.9).58 Given these striking parallels, the proposal that he is

Melchizedek is by no means unreasonable.

These similarities between the gure called Melchizedek and descrip-

tions of exalted gures in other scroll fragments raise the legitimate

question as to whether those various exalted gures are not actually one

gure under different titles. As A. Dupont-Sommer pointed out in the

early days of Qumran research, different designations can be used for

one and the same person, depending on the context and specic roles

being highlighted.59 The constant weaving of biblical themes and images

in the sectarian writings makes this point particularly pertinent. In the

comparable eld of christology, caution has been advised against

attempting to unravel the web of christological titles into independent

or even conicting concepts.60 Could not the same be said with respect to

titles and descriptions in the fragmentary texts from Qumran?

Conclusion

It has been argued above that the way in which Melchizedek is presented

in 11Q13 is best explained, not in terms of a created angel (Michael or

otherwise), but rather in terms of belief in two Powers in heaven, com-

parable to that of Philo and the Magharians.61 The author of 11QMelch

uses Pss. 7.8; 82.1; 110.1; Isa. 52.7; 61.1; Dan. 7.13; 9.26 to portray

Melchizedek as Yhwh and at the same time as Gods intermediary.

Melchizedek embodies the high-priestly Messiah, the suffering Ser-

vant, the herald of peace, Yhwh reigning in Zion and the eschatological

judge, or Son of Man. This collage of biblical images resembles Philos

56. Garca Martnez, Two Messianic Figures, p. 30.

57. The blank in l. 4 argues that =J59C3 is the bringer of peace, rather than the peo-ple of God, the object of the preceding phrase (Garca Martnez, Two Messianic Figures,

p. 29).

58. Garca Martnez (Two Messianic Figures, p. 29).

59. A. Dupont-Sommer, Nouveaux aperus sur les manuscrits de la Mer Morte

(Paris: Maisonneuve, 1953).

60. Hengel, Son of God, pp. 21-46.

61. This is essentially the view held by M. Barker (The Great Angel: A Study of

Israels Second God [Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press; London: SPCK,

1992], pp. 88-89, 224).



presentation of the divine Logos, including his assertion that as inter-

mediary and intercessor, the Logos is the true High Priest, Melchizedek.62

The application of several messianic titles to one person can be seen as a

natural development of their seminal overlapping in biblical tradition.

That overlapping encourages seeing some of the Qumran son of God

texts as further descriptions of the same gure, despite the absence there

of the title Melchizedek. He exhibits most clearly the belief of the

Qumran covenanters in two Powers. This conclusion is made all the

more conceivable by the dating of 11QMelch to the Herodian period,

according to current paleographic theory.63

That Melchizedek represents belief in what the early rabbis called a

second Power in heaven, on the other hand, does not contradict Miliks

convincing equation of him with = in 1QM 17.6. What has been seen above is that in 11QMelch, a literary play on the name of a biblical

gure has transformed the title Melchizedek into Gods designation for

the sharer of his throne. It is worth considering that literary play is like-

wise present in the case of = in 1QM. Rather than a mere reference to the archangel Michael, it can be seen as another title for Melchizedek

who is like God. It thus constitutes another conceptual parallel to the

OG interpretation of Dan. 7.13, where the one like a son of man is said

to be like (XK) the Ancient of Days. Though space does not allow pur-suing in more detail this proposed interpretation of the gure = in 1QM, it is worth further consideration in regard to the issue at hand.

A nal question also remains to be answered: If Melchizedek is

indeed presented as a heavenly being who visited earth as Daniels

Messiah cut off and is invited to return on high to judge, then who

would the Qumran covenanters have seen as his earthly embodiment?

That too must be relegated to a further study.

62. Philo, Migr. 102; Som. 2.231-3; Her. 205-206; Leg. All. 3.25-6, 79-82.

63. Van der Woude, Melchisedek, p. 357.


/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown

/Description >>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice

Documents

Michael or Yhwh.pdf