THEDEADSEASCROLLSANDTHESONOF MAN IN DANIEL, 1ENOCH, AND THE NEW TESTAMENT GOSPELS: AN ASSESSMENT OF 11QMELCH (11Q13)
J. Harold Ellens University of Michigan
The Dead Sea Scrolls do not use the term “Son of Man.” Nevertheless, two factors indicate that the concept is worth exploring in the scrolls. First, there is some reason to believe that a Son-of-Man-like-figure is present in QMelch (Q). Presumably, such a figure would have roots in the prophecy of Ezekiel, in the book of Daniel (–), in the Similitudes (Parables)ofEnoch(–), and in Gen :; Pss ; ; and .1 These texts form the mainstream of the Jewish Son of Man tradition. Second, the figure in QMelch may be associated with the royal and priestly messiahs in the War Scroll and in the Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns). This paper explores the possibility that QMelch contains or implies a figure like those in the Son of Man tradition of the Hebrew Bible and Enoch. It also examines whether the figure in QMelch is associated with the messiahs of the Hodayot and the War Scroll.Sincethoseare suffering messiahs, this paper examines the possible presence of aSon- of-Man-like-figure (a virtual Son of Man?) in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If such a figure is present, this would seem to be the first instance in Second Temple Judaism in which a suffering servant (Isa ) is associated with the promised Messiah (Isa :–). It would also be the first time in
1 K. Koch asserts unequivocally that QMelch “clearly refers to Daniel. The subject of its preserved fragments is the tenth jubilee as the age of redemption, during which Isa :’s promise of Jerusalem’s final salvation and the realization of the God’s kingdom will be fulfilled. On this theme the commentary identifies the messenger of the good news (me ba´s´ser) of the prophecy with ‘the Messiah of the spirit ([ç]åøä)aboutwhomDaniel spoke.’ . . . however the determination ‘of the spirit’ is lacking here. Is the ‘annointed ruler’ (Dan :), who arises seven ‘weeks’ after the ‘going forth of the word’ being referred to in Q, or is this the Messiah who will be cut off after ‘weeks’? Or, alternatively, does this scroll know a variant version of Daniel?” Koch thinks that this indicates that QMelch is not dependent upon the Damasus Document.K.Koch,“Stages in the Canonization of the Book of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (ed. J.J. Collins and P.W. Flint; vols.; Leiden: Brill, ), :–, . j. harold ellens
Jewish tradition and literature that a suffering Messiah is associated with a Son of Man figure, as in the NT gospels.2
QMelch: A Digest
Thirteen (or fifteen) fragments3 of a first century b.c.e. document4 featur- ing the mysterious figure Melchizedek were found in cave at Qumran and first translated by Adam van der Woude in .5 The text proclaims liberty to the captives, after the theme of Isa :. This suggests that itis a midrash (or a thematic pesher) on that passage, with an eschatological tone.6 It promises a general restoration of freedom: from prison, debt, andlossofproperty.Thisredemptionistoberealizedattheeschaton, in this case the tenth Jubilee of the years of the Week of Weeks (Dan :–). It is to be accomplished by Melchizedek, a deliverer who is sent from heaven. Vermes suggests that this Melchizedek has characteristics of the archangel, Michael, and is referred to as the leader or director of the “sons of heaven” and the “gods of justice.”The Melchizedek of QMelch is, on occasion, referred to as El and Elohim,alongthelinesofsuchusage
2 I. Knohl declares that when the Royal Messiah was killed in Jerusalem in b.c.e. and his body, with that of his colleague, the Priestly Messiah, was left in the street for three days, his disciples searched the Hebrew Bible to discover messianic passages that would account for this crisis. They concluded that after humiliation and death the messianic figures had ascended into heaven, as prophesied by biblical passages that they now understood in a new way. “Thus, for the first time in the history of Judaism, a conception emerged of ‘catastrophic’ messianism in which the humiliation, rejection, and death of the Messiah were regarded as an inseparable part of the redemptive process.” I. Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkeley: University of California Press, ), ; cf. ibid., –. 3 P.Bertalottosaystherearefifteeninhisunpublishedresearchpaper,“TheSuper- human Melchizedek: A Qumranic Response to the Enochic Son of Man” (University of Michigan, ). A. Steudel says there are fourteen fragments. Cf. A. Steudel, “Melchize- dek,” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L.H. Schiffman and J.C. VanderKam; vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), :–. 4 Koch, “Stages in the Canonization,” thinks it is possible that QMelch is a second century b.c.e. document. J.F. Hobbins suggests the same possibility in his chapter inthesamevolume(“ResurrectioninDanielandOtherWritingsatQumran,”inThe Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, :–, n. ). G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Allen Lane/Penguin, ), , declares without apology that it is from the first century b.c.e. 5 A.S. van der Woude, “Melchisedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neugefun- denen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI,” OtSt (): –. 6 Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, , refers to it as a midrash and Bertalotto, “The Superhuman Melchizedek,” calls it a pesher.