Louvain Studies 26 (2001) 334-345 Does the Figure of the “Son of Man” Have a Place in the Eschatological Thinking of the Qumran Community? Géza Xeravits* I When approaching a particular theological issue (or one in any other discipline) the first important thing is to define the problem and its main elements as clearly as possible. The ancient Latin saying held: qui bene distinguit, bene docet. This saying becomes even more important if one faces a question, which has an extremely complicated background and history. In general terms, the question of the messianic expectations of intertestamental Judaism is one of the most intricate problems that can be found in the theologies of both Testaments. Before a more extensive treatment of our issue, however, it is necessary to comment first on the etymological inconsistencies of the term ‘messianism’. Strictly speaking, ‘messianism’ goes back to the Hebrew word msyÌ which means ‘anointed one’. In the eschatological sense, expectations that are generally called ‘messianism’ are often considered as concerning the waiting for the arrival of a positive future figure, who is anointed to his mission. In the Old Testament, however, the human agent of the eschatological events is not labelled as the anointed one. He is not even called ‘messiah’. That word was reserved to indicate the leaders of con- temporary Israel: her kings, (high) priests, and prophets.1 The eschato- * Based on a lecture given at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 12 Jan. 2000. The lecture and the present written form were prepared during my research in Leuven funded by the Soros Foundation. I would like to thank Prof. Johan Lust, who kindly invited me to prepare this paper, and to present it on one of his seminars at K.U. Leuven. I would like to thank Ms. Beáta Tóth for revising the English of this paper. 1. K. Seybold, “cwm – masaÌ I; ciwm – masîaÌ,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 9: 43-54. A general treatment of the topic can be found: M. Saebø, “Zum Verhältnis von ‘Messianismus’ und ‘Eschatologie’ im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch ter- minologischer und sachlicher Klärung,” Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 8 (1993) 25-55. THE “SON OF MAN” AND QUMRAN 335 logical protagonist of biblical theology was often endowed with the char- acteristics of those historical figures but without the use of the very word msyÌ. Most of the intertestamental texts show the same picture, yet, in the intertestamental age we can already notice the eschatological use of the word msyÌ in a limited number of texts and passages.2 Most escha- tological texts used different wordings, even when they presented the eschatological protagonist as king, priest, or prophet. For this reason, I would prefer to use some other terms instead of ‘messiah’, but this would involve the use of some complicated circumlocutions, e.g., ‘mediator-of- salvation’ or ‘positive eschatological protagonist’ or the like. These cir- cumlocutions would complicate the discussion. Thuc I chose thus to use the customary term ‘messiah’ and ‘messianism’ – with the above mentioned restrictions. Among the texts that were found in the caves on the shore of the Dead Sea, some reveal an interest in eschatology. These texts – written either in Hebrew or in Aramaic – are rooted in the thoughts of the Old Testament and share in some points its concepts, yet they contain impor- tant developments.3 The Qumran Community sprang forth from a movement in which the eschatological voice had a prominent place.4 It seems however, that at the very beginnings of the Community this escha- tological voice had not been emphasised at all: the first writings of the Qumranites show a primary interest in halakhic questions. If we analyse the primitive état of the ‘classic’ texts of the Community (such as the Rules and the Damascus Document), we find that at their early stage the eschatological horizon was not present in them.5 If we view the literary 2. See the contributions in J. Neusner, W. S. Green, E. S. Frerichs (eds.), Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: University Press, 1987). 3. To this question see the standard introductory works, e.g., F. García Martínez & J. Trebolle Barrera, The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Writings, Beliefs and Practices (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 159-189. 4. See inter alia J. J. Collins, “Was the Dead Sea Sect an Apocalyptic Movement?,” Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin, ed. L. H. Schiffman; Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series, 8 – JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series, 2 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 25-51. 5. My own views on this question can be found: G. Xeravits, “Some Remarks on the Early History of Qumran’s Messianic Expectations,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 76 (2000) 113-121. See further: C. Hempel, “The Earthly Essene Nucleus of 1QSa,” Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996) 253-269; J. H. Charlesworth & B. A. Strawn, “Reflections on the Text of Serek ha-Yahad Found in Cave IV,” Revue de Qumran 65-68 (1996) 403-435; J. H. Charlesworth, “Challenging the Consensus Communis Regarding Qumran Messianism (1QS, 4QS MSS),” Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, et al. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998) 120-134. 336 GÉZA XERAVITS heritage of the Qumran Community in a ‘canonical’ scope, however, the relevance of the eschatological texts becomes more striking. II In the study of the eschatological writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a most important precaution must emerge from the fact that we appear to find a great diversity of eschatological views and concepts in them. This diversity stems from the fact that some of the texts found in the caves originated outside Qumran, so they did not reflect the theological system of merely one group in intertestamental Judaism.6 Rather, they mirror the thoughts of a broader Jewish movement, which was no uni- fied entity at all when those texts emerged. Furthermore, in the teaching of the scrolls, there is a certain line of inner development, one however that can hardly be satisfactorily described.7 Speaking about the final period of history, the authors of the texts often mention a privileged eschatological person. Sometimes, he is called the ‘anointed one’, yet this is not his only title. (The convergence of the various eschatological titles in the word msyÌ, i.e. christos, is the work of the first theologians of nascent Christianity.) One of the most particular phenomena of Qumranic messianism is its alleged duality. Since the beginning of Qumran-research most schol- ars have thought that the Community expected the arrival of two anointed ones. This assumption was based on two facts. First, in the scrolls many types of eschatological persons appear with practically two roles, that of the king and the high priest. Second, in some texts one can find the designation msyÌy ‘hrwn wyr’l (messiahs of Aaron and Israel). The 6. B. Z. Wacholder, “The Ancient Judaeo-Aramaic Literature (500-165 BCE): A Classification of Pre-Qumranic Texts,” Archaeology and History, 257-281. D. Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M. E. Stone; Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, II.2 (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984) 483-550; id., “Apocalyptic Texts at Qumran,” The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. E. Ulrich & J. C. VanderKam; Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity, 10 (Notre Dame, IN: Uni- versity of Notre Dame Press, 1994) 175-192; id., “Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness, ed. D. Dimant & L. H. Schiff- man; Studies on the Text of the Desert of Judah, 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 23-58. 7. See, e.g., J. Starcky’s tentative on the field of Qumranic messianism: “Les qua- tre étapes du messianisme à Qumrân,” Revue Biblique 70 (1963) 481-505. More recently, and with another reasoning: H. Stegemann, “Some Remarks to 1QSa, to 1QSb, and to Qumran Messianism,” Revue de Qumran 65-68 (1996) 479-505. THE “SON OF MAN” AND QUMRAN 337 latter concept is not unfamiliar from the theology of post-exilic Judaism, one can find its traces even in the Bible (see, e.g., the prophecies of the book of Proto-Zechariah on Zerubbabel and Joshua) and in some intertes- tamental writings (e.g. TestXIIPatr).8 A careful examination of the relevant texts shows however, that this quasi-general consensus cannot be main- tained.9 In fact, there is only one locus where the clearly plural form occurs (1QS 9:11); elsewhere the word msyÌ is in the singular. A better under- standing of these other passages (all of them in the Damascus Document) reveals that they envisage only one anointed person, very likely a priest.10 In my opinion, in the teaching of the Community there was certainly room for the simultaneous activity of two (1QSa, 1QSb, CD 7:13–8:1, 4Q161, 4Q174) or even three eschatological persons (see 1QS 9:11, 4Q175) – even though this idea cannot be presented as the general characteristic of the Qumran writings, and seemed to be of secondary importance. The other eschatological texts of Qumran describe the future activ- ity of one single person. He could be either a king (as in the case of 4Q252, 4Q246, 4Q285, 4Q369), a priest (CD B, 4Q541), a prophet (4Q374-377, 4Q521), or a heavenly person (4QAmram, 11QMelch).11 It is clear from this survey of the related texts that the majority testifies to the idea of a single eschatological protagonist. When they speak of a king, they present him with attributes that the Old Testament connected to the future Davidic ruler and warrior.