John's christology and the Dead Sea Scrolls

[Vouthon]

@Vouthon can correct me if I'm wrong. I disputed it on the grounds of the definition of the four letter name.

The scholars cited, I should note, did not say that the tetragrammaton was stated anywhere in the actual text.

What they did say is that the author alluded to Isaiah 61 and changed a reference to "the year of YHWH's favour" into "the year of the favour of Melchizedek", thus making a scriptural prophecy about God apparently about Melchizedek. Its in this way that they argue he's identifying Melchizedek with God, by apparently co-opting Tanakh passages originally about God and claiming they will be fulfilled by Melchizedek.

I will re-quote my post from earlier in the thread:

[According to scholar cited] rather than "The year of YHWH's favour" (Isaiah 61:2) (the year of the favor of Yhwh (

)), the scribal author renders this: "For this is the time decreed for the "Year of Melchizedek's favor"" and the scholar I cited highlighted that in doing so: "[he] substitutes Melchizedek for the Tetragrammaton regarding the “year of favor” in the allusion to Isa. 61:2 mentioned in the previous line (2.9)."

The scholar describes this as 'striking'. According to the translation below, it seems he is also referred to as 'El':

For this is the moment of the Year of Grace for Melchizedek. [And h]e will, by his strength, judge the holy ones of God, executing judgement as it is written concerning him in the Songs of David, who said, ELOHIM has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement (Psalms lxxxii, 1). And it was concerning him that he said, (Let the assembly of the peoples) return to the height above them; EL (god) will judge the peoples (Psalms vii, 7-8).

​

The translation above is by the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes: The complete Dead Sea scrolls in English, Géza Vermès (2003)

Apparently, the scribal author does this with other scriptural references as well - he tries to cast Melchizedek as 'your Elohim'.

So he is referred to by the Hebrew words El and Elohim - in the author's quotation from a range of Tanakh passages that originally spoke about God. The author applies them to Melchizedek (according to the scholars and translations).

For example, Psalm 82:1 speaks of God taking his stand in the assembly of heavenly beings but when the psalm is quoted in 11q13, Mekchizedek is the subject. The same with Psalm 7:7-8.​

 

[Vouthon]

@dybmh, I dug around a bit on the net: apparently the word is "miyad", with a dalet after the mem and yod. Now the sentence makes sense:

Malkitzedek will save them from the hand of (the) thug(s) and will say etc.

The thug is apparently "Belial", the angel leading the "sons of darkness" in the text, I presume? The Qumranites were strongly dualist in cosmogony and anticipated an eschatological war between the "sons of light" (led by Melchizedek in this case) and those of "darkness".

 

[Harel13]

The thug is apparently "Belial", the angel leading the "sons of darkness" in the text, I presume? The Qumranites were strongly dualist in cosmogony and anticipated an eschatological war between the "sons of light" (led by Melchizedek in this case) and those of "darkness".

I don't know if Bliya'al is meant to be a character. Bliya'al is a term that appears several times in the Tanach. Probably the most famous example are the people who raped the concubine in Givah, who are called bnei bliya'al which means band of brutish thugs.
Bliya'al appears earlier, in line 12, which reads: his meaning upon (Bliya'al) and on my spirit his destiny etc.

 

[Harel13]

What they did say is that the author alluded to Isaiah 61 and changed a reference to "the year of YHWH's favour" into "the year of the favour of Melchizedek", thus making a scriptural prophecy about God apparently about Melchizedek. Its in this way that they argue he's identifying Melchizedek with God, by apparently co-opting Tanakh passages originally about God and claiming they will be fulfilled by Melchizedek.

I find the connection to be something of a stretch. The verse in Isaiah reads: "To proclaim the year of the LORD'S good pleasure (Ratzon), and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn."

While here it reads: "For he is the end of the year of the Ratzon (decide what sort of Ratzon that is, in the context - will, pleasure, favor) to Malkitzedek and his armies etc."

 

[Vouthon]

I find the connection to be something of a stretch. The verse in Isaiah reads: "To proclaim the year of the LORD'S good pleasure (Ratzon), and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn."

While here it reads: "For he is the end of the year of the Ratzon (decide what sort of Ratzon that is, in the context - will, pleasure, favor) to Malkitzedek and his armies etc."

Interesting and many thanks for your translation work!

What about the scriptural citations from the Psalms concerning Elohim and El?

Concerning the earlier verse, in the Martinez translation of the dead sea Scrolls, he renders it:

it is the time for the « year of favour/grace » of Melchizedek, and of [his] arm[ies, the nat]ion of the holy ones of God, of the rule of judgment, as is written​

Later the text in this translation states:

But, Melchizedek will carry out the vengeance of Go[d’s] judgments, [and on that day he will fr]e[e them from the hand of] Belial and from the hand of all the sp[irits of his lot.]​

According to another scholar, Van de Water: "there is a long-observed appropriation for Melchizedek of a number of biblical statements concerning Yhwh...Yahweh’s 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, ‘Milkî-sedeq et Milkî-reša‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs
et chrétiens’, JJS 23 (1972), pp. 124-25; E. Puech, ‘Notes sur le manuscrit de
XIQMelkisédeq’, RevQ 12 (1987), pp. 510-11)."

If I may ask: why do you read "end" and "to", I wonder, whereas they read "of" Melchizedek and "his armies" in that first passage?

 

[Harel13]

Why do you read "end" and "to", I wonder, whereas they read "of" Melchizedek and "his armies" in that first passage?

Perhaps they have another rendering of the text. I'm using the one you linked. It says: קץ Ketz (second word on line 9) which means "end" and למלכיצדק l'Malkitzedek. There are two ways in the context to read the l' part - either "of" or "to". I don't know which one is better. The difference changes the meaning, though. I don't know how those scholars chose of and not to.

 

[Harel13]

What about the scriptural citations from the Psalms concerning Elohim and El?

We have two:
"God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judgeth" (Psa. 82:2), with the fragment spelling the word בקרב - bekerev (in the midst of) as בקורב- bekorav (which I'm pretty sure isn't a word...).

"How welcome on the mountain (I don't know why this was translated as sing. mountain and not plural because the word is plural) Are the footsteps of the herald Announcing happiness, Heralding good fortune, Announcing victory, Telling Zion, “Your God is King!”" (Isa. 52:7), with the fragment spelling ההרים - Heharim - the mountains - as harim - mountains (without "the").

 

[Vouthon]

We have two:
"God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judgeth" (Psa. 82:2), with the fragment spelling the word בקרב - bekerev (in the midst of) as בקורב- bekorav (which I'm pretty sure isn't a word...).

Is the same Psalm 7 reference also in this particular fragment?

Translated by Vermes from his text of the Melchizedek scroll as:

And it was concerning him that he said, (Let the assembly of the peoples) return to the height above them; EL (god) will judge the peoples (Psalms vii, 7-8).

​

Martinez in his edition of the dead sea scrolls renders it:

And about him he sai[d: Ps 7:8-9 « And] above [it,] to the heights, return: God will judge the peoples ». As for what he sa[id: Ps 82:2 « How long will you] judge unjustly and show partia[lity] to the wicked? [Se]lah. »​

 

[Harel13]

Is the same Psalm 7 reference also in this particular fragment?

Translated by Vermes from his text of the Melchizedek scroll as:

And it was concerning him that he said, (Let the assembly of the peoples) return to the height above them; EL (god) will judge the peoples (Psalms vii, 7-8).

​

Martinez in his edition of the dead sea scrolls renders it:

And about him he sai[d: Ps 7:8-9 « And] above [it,] to the heights, return: God will judge the peoples ». As for what he sa[id: Ps 82:2 « How long will you] judge unjustly and show partia[lity] to the wicked? [Se]lah. »​

Oh yeah, missed that one:

"and over them return Thou on high. O LORD, who ministerest judgment to the peoples..." (Psa. 7:8-9), with the fragment exchanging the Tetragram for E-l.

 

[Vouthon]

Oh yeah, missed that one:

"and over them return Thou on high. O LORD, who ministerest judgment to the peoples..." (Psa. 7:8-9), with the fragment exchanging the Tetragram for E-l.

So, what do you think of the arguments of the scholars translating these verses of the scroll fragment from Hebrew, who say that the scribal author is applying these biblical verses to the judgment rendered by Melchizedek as God's agent, whereby Melchizedek assumes the role given to God in the original Tanakh text?

Thus, Psalm 82:1 speaks of God taking his stand in the assembly of heavenly beings but when the psalm is quoted in 11q13, they are saying that Mekchizedek is made the subject ("concerning him" / "about him") the elohim. The same with Psalm 7:7-8, as you note with the tetragrammaton being substituted for El. They argue that the original text is appropriated by the author, again, for Melchizedek.

 

[Harel13]

So, what do you think of the arguments of the scholars translating these verses of the scroll fragment from Hebrew, who say that the scribal author is applying these biblical verses to the judgment rendered by Melchizedek as God's agent, whereby Melchizedek assumes the role given to God in the original Tanakh text?

Thus, Psalm 82:1 speaks of God taking his stand in the assembly of heavenly beings but when the psalm is quoted in 11q13, they are saying that Mekchizedek is made the subject ("concerning him" / "about him") the elohim. The same with Psalm 7:7-8, as you note with the tetragrammaton being substituted for El. They argue that the original text is appropriated by the author, again, for Melchizedek.

I think it all depends on whether or not one considers "Malkitzedek as part of the "people holy (to) E-l" along with his armies or is that a title just for his armies? Personally, I feel the former is more correct. In which case, the text reads that Malkitzedek and his armies, the people holy (to) E-l", of the government of justice (that is, this time marks the end of this government of justice), and of him (E-l), it is said in the songs of David: "God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judgeth" and on him (him=E-l, God) it is said: "and over them return Thou on high. O LORD, who ministerest judgment to the peoples" and also (he) said: "How long will you judge perversely, showing favor to the wicked? Selah.""

Another point is that further down, the text says (line 13):
"And Malkitzedek will rise, exacting revenge (of) the judgement of E-l (as though they are two separate entities) etc"

 

[Vouthon]

I think it all depends on whether or not one considers "Malkitzedek as part of the "people holy (to) E-l" along with his armies or is that a title just for his armies? Personally, I feel the former is more correct. In which case, the text reads that Malkitzedek and his armies, the people holy (to) E-l", of the government of justice (that is, this time marks the end of this government of justice), and of him (E-l), it is said in the songs of David: "God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judgeth" and on him (him=E-l, God) it is said: "and over them return Thou on high. O LORD, who ministerest judgment to the peoples" and also (he) said: "How long will you judge perversely, showing favor to the wicked? Selah.""

Another point is that further down, the text says (line 13):
"And Malkitzedek will rise, exacting revenge (of) the judgement of E-l (as though they are two separate entities) etc"

I concur with you that Melchizedek is distinguished from God in that later verse, because that particular line is describing his role as the divine agent of eschatological judgment. The scholars also cite the distinction here but likewise argue that He, as agent, takes on the roles accorded purely to God (without agent) in the original Tanakh verses.

Thus in Vermes' rendering cited above:

For this is the moment of the Year of Grace for Melchizedek. [And h]e will, by his strength, judge the holy ones of God, executing judgement as it is written concerning him

​

The text does seem to make Melchizedek the subject in that first line, no? And then says "he will" (that is, still Melchizedek) judge the rest of the "holy ones" (the other elohim) and then the author seems to cite two Psalm passages to evidence his argument that Melchizedek will judge in this way, by seemingly contending that Melchizedek is the elohim (divine being) referred to in Psalm 82 as presiding in the assembly of the other elohim and casting judgement. I mean, the text does emphasise that Melchizedek is judging on behalf of God, no? The Tanakh verses describe God as the one judging, do they not? So Melchizedek appears to be assuming this role in an agency capacity.

This, at least, is how the scholars I've read have both rendered and interpreted the passage in the flow of the narrative.

Martinez (a different translator of the dead sea scrolls from Vermes) renders it:

it is the time for the « year of grace » of Melchizedek, and of [his] arm[ies, the nat]ion of the holy ones of God, of the rule of judgment, as is written

10 about him in the songs of David, who said: Ps 82:1 « Elohim will [st]and in the assem[bly of God,] in the midst of the gods he judges ». And about him he sai[d: Ps 7:8-9 « And] above [it,]

11 to the heights, return: God will judge the peoples ».

​

I think it is at least arguable that this reading fits with the author's attempt to emphasis Melchizedek's role as the elohim (divine being) who executes judgement on the day of atonement on behalf of God as his heavenly agent (i.e. leader of the angelic armies in the last Battle).

But I can understand the merits and plausibility of your alternate reading @Harel13 which gives me much food for thought.

Do you also notice the bit further up where it says: "and they are the inherita[nce of Melchize]dek", what do you think this is referring to? I'm curious about what this is saying.

Edit: the text I gave you is the transcribing by Martinez, if I recall. Vermes reads that part about "armies" as "strength / arm" so it seems, unless I'm mistaken (?).

 

[Vouthon]

@Harel13 Having read some scholarly commentaries on that verse about the "inheritance of Melchizedek", they seemingly argue that it is related to Psalm 82:8 "Arise, O Elohim, judge the earth: for you shall inherit all nations..."

 

[Wandering Monk]

The scholars cited, I should note, did not say that the tetragrammaton was stated anywhere in the actual text.

What they did say is that the author alluded to Isaiah 61 and changed a reference to "the year of YHWH's favour" into "the year of the favour of Melchizedek", thus making a scriptural prophecy about God apparently about Melchizedek. Its in this way that they argue he's identifying Melchizedek with God, by apparently co-opting Tanakh passages originally about God and claiming they will be fulfilled by Melchizedek.

I will re-quote my post from earlier in the thread:

[According to scholar cited] rather than "The year of YHWH's favour" (Isaiah 61:2) (the year of the favor of Yhwh (

)), the scribal author renders this: "For this is the time decreed for the "Year of Melchizedek's favor"" and the scholar I cited highlighted that in doing so: "[he] substitutes Melchizedek for the Tetragrammaton regarding the “year of favor” in the allusion to Isa. 61:2 mentioned in the previous line (2.9)."

The scholar describes this as 'striking'. According to the translation below, it seems he is also referred to as 'El':

For this is the moment of the Year of Grace for Melchizedek. [And h]e will, by his strength, judge the holy ones of God, executing judgement as it is written concerning him in the Songs of David, who said, ELOHIM has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement (Psalms lxxxii, 1). And it was concerning him that he said, (Let the assembly of the peoples) return to the height above them; EL (god) will judge the peoples (Psalms vii, 7-8).

​

The translation above is by the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes: The complete Dead Sea scrolls in English, Géza Vermès (2003)

Apparently, the scribal author does this with other scriptural references as well - he tries to cast Melchizedek as 'your Elohim'.

So he is referred to by the Hebrew words El and Elohim - in the author's quotation from a range of Tanakh passages that originally spoke about God. The author applies them to Melchizedek (according to the scholars and translations).

For example, Psalm 82:1 speaks of God taking his stand in the assembly of heavenly beings but when the psalm is quoted in 11q13, Mekchizedek is the subject. The same with Psalm 7:7-8.​

Could Malchitzedek just be a cicrumlocution rather than a proper noun? God as King is found all over the place in the Bible and in Jewish writings.

 

[Vouthon]

Could Malchitzedek just be a cicrumlocution rather than a proper noun? God as King is found all over the place in the Bible and in Jewish writings.

For whatever reason, they all seem to read it as a name (for complicated grammatical reasons that I'll cite once I get my hand on the relevant commentaries again) as opposed to just "righteous King".

Melchizedek is clearly distinguished from God later in the text, so I would say that it's certainly referring to another (lesser) divine being.

 

[dybmh]

@Vouthon ,

1) It is not uncommon at all for angelic hierarchies and divine beings in Jewish legend and myth to have a dual nature.

2) The scene that is being described as "Malkitzedek will save them from the hand of (the) thug(s) and will say etc." and all the brutish imagery, it sounds like the purification process as a result of Din, Strict Justice.

In Judaism people are not damned in Hell ( Gehennom ) forever. They are cleaned there. The process, as it's been described to me, is like being put into the clothes dryer with a bunch of rocks, and you are pummeled. Then the soul is released. The more classic analogy is like a rock which is whipped around in a sling many many times and it eventually wears away the many-many layers of impurity which is occluding its surface. The fact that these souls are cleaned and released is a fundamental difference in our theologies. This scene seems to be playing out in Sheol/Gehenom. And in Judaism, ( if the source is Jewish ) souls don't stay in Gehennom forever, at every minute of everyday, there are souls which are being released. And the Scroll here is describing what is happening at the End of Days when the souls in Gehennom are freed before their impurities have been removed.

It describes a scene in at the End of Days. It's all about harsh judgement, verses compassionate mercy. That's the light and dark dual imagery. At end of days some being will need to rescue those souls that are still in the process of being purified ( the image of the thugs ). At this time an army of Righteous would come to rescue the souls. The Righteous army is executing the Justice of E-l.

"And Malkitzedek will rise, exacting revenge (of) the judgement of E-l (as though they are two separate entities) etc"

The Justice of E-l is not Din... it's compassionate merciful Justice. That's the difference. E-l compared to Elokim is kindness compared to strict justice. ( refer to #1 above ) They are related but also sort of inverted. like Din and Mishpat, in Hebrew ( two different versions of Justice )

 

[Terry Sampson]

In Judaism people are not damned in Hell ( Gehennom ) forever. They are cleaned there.

Roman Catholic version: purgatory?

 

[dybmh]

@Vouthon , cont'd from above #236

E-l compared to Elokim is kindness compared to strict justice.

A shift in status from E-l to Elokim, what does this mean?

It's best looked at from the idea of occlusion. Approaching G-d is like removing layers of material from a ball of light. The famous analogy is, Elokim, is similar to imagining G-d as operating through HaTevah ( The forces of nature ). And this fits very nicely into the Genesis story and reconciles the Elokim is plural anomaly. G-d as acting thought the forces of nature is thought of as requiring strict restraint because it would be easier to be revealed and takes more restraint and forcefulness to hide so completely. And this is divine concealment.

E-l is the other side of the coin, it is the desire to give and be revealed. Being revealed is less material occluding the ball of light, and is thus understood as being closer to G-d. Less material layers in between.

If that makes sense, A shift in status from E-l to Elokim, what does this mean?

It is a shift away from G-d.

E-l >>> Elokim is more layers of separation. Elokim >>>> E-l is less layers. Using the common heaven/earth model as opposed to inner/outer: E-l to Elokim is going down, and Elokim to E-l is going up.

 

[dybmh]

Roman Catholic version: purgatory?

I think so. There is no Hell in Judaism.

 

[dybmh]

The Justice of E-l is not Din

It is not uncommon at all for angelic hierarchies and divine beings in Jewish legend and myth to have a dual nature.

There are two Angels of Death in the Legends.

Azazel. Aza-El "the Helper of E-l"

Abbadon. Abba-Don "The Father of His Justice" Din spelled with a vav indicating "His Strict Justice". ( shifting it from being Din to Don ).

And that's the connection. It would be easy to get the two confused and accidentally make a deal with one instead of the other in pursuit of eternal life and end up going down instead of up. But the good news is it would only be temporary.