The Messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls - Two Suffering Servants in Judea ?

[Sinouhe]

More precisely: There are two versions of the same poem and I have two different editions of: The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English.
In the 1997 edition of: The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (4Q491, fr. 11) is found on page 185 and titled: The Song of Michael and the Just. with M. Baillet as the editor.
In the 2011 edition (4Q491, fr. 11) is found on page 342 and titled: Glorification Hymn A

Well apparently, Geza Vermes has changed his mind since in his last edition he followed the opinion of Esther Eshel and others on this point by rejecting the identification with the angel Michael.

I discount Eshel's change of title out of hand for the simple matter that high priests do not dwell in heaven but on earth.

Second temple judaism did not have the same considerations since they present characters of human origin living in Heaven.

I welcome any excerpts you have from her that justifies the change of title.

You can read his study :

• https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789 ... 000051.xml

[John T]

You can read his study :

• https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789 ... 000051.xml

Thanks for the link. It is a good starting point but the blurb does not make it clear why it can't be the heavenly angel Michael.
I will look into it further over the next few days.

[Sinouhe]

You can read his study :

• https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789 ... 000051.xml

Thanks for the link. It is a good starting point but the blurb does not make it clear why it can't be the heavenly angel Michael.
I will look into it further over the next few days.

A good summary on the situation would be Joseph L Angel :

• https://www.academia.edu/395891/The_Lit ... ation_Hymn

[John T]

A good summary on the situation would be Joseph L Angel :

• https://www.academia.edu/395891/The_Lit ... ation_Hymn

Thanks for the link. Upon a cursory look I noted that Garcia Martinez agrees with Baillet in that Michael is still the most plausible explanation. Of course I need to ready it fully, carefully, and then fact check it before once again dismissing Eshel's justification to claim it is a high priest and not Michael who sits on a throne in heaven.

That will take a few days.

[Sinouhe]

A good summary on the situation would be Joseph L Angel :

• https://www.academia.edu/395891/The_Lit ... ation_Hymn

Thanks for the link. Upon a cursory look I noted that Garcia Martinez agrees with Baillet in that Michael is still the most plausible explanation. Of course I need to ready it fully, carefully, and then fact check it before once again dismissing Eshel's justification to claim it is a high priest and not Michael who sits on a throne in heaven.

That will take a few days.

Ok no problem.

I will just add that it would be very surprising if the angel Michael was identified by the author with the Human (suffering) servant in Isaiah (Isaiah 11 + Isaiah 53) as it was already the case for :

- the eschatological high priest in 4Q541 (suffering servant)
- the Heavenly priest Melchizedek in 11Q13 (Servant)
- the Messiah in the messianic apocalypse (4Q521) (Servant)
- the priest and teacher of righteousness in the Hodayot (Servant + Suffering Servant)

It would raises the question :
- Why is he despised and abandoned ?
- Why does an angel was identified with the servant of Isaiah, a messianic character in Qumran texts ?

• 4Q161 - fragment 8-10 (Isaiah 11)
  [And there shall come forth a rod from the stem of Jesse and a Branch shall grow out of its roots. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding,the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowl­edge and of the fear of the Lord. And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or pass sentence by what his ears hear; he shall judge the poor righteously and shall pass sentence justly on the humble of the earth] (Isaiah xi, 1-3).
  -->[Interpreted, this concerns the Branch] of David who shall arise at the end [of days] ... God will uphold him with [the spirit of might, and will give him] a throne of glory and a crown of [holiness] and many-coloured garments . . . [He will put a sceptre] in his hand and he shall rule over all the [nations].

• Isaiah 41
  “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.

In my opinion, the most logical identification in the self-glorification hymn would be an eschatological priest and successor of the teacher of righteousness.
Or the teacher of Righteousness himself.

[John T]

In my opinion, the most logical identification in the self-glorification hymn would be an eschatological priest and successor of the teacher of righteousness.
Or the teacher of Righteousness himself.

Yes. I also tend to see the author as such.
I have long held a short list of potential candidates for the author but that is another matter for another time.
However, the the interpretation/translation of the poem is controversial and all contrary evidence must be given a just and fair hearing.

My investigation into this thread will be focused on the proper identity of the protagonist in the poem.

I do not consider myself an expert in the matter but rather a seeker of the true identity of the teacher of righteousness.

[John T]

I have finished reading/research/fact checking Joseph Angel, "The Liturgical Eschatological Priest."

Thanks for the link.

I disagree with his conclusion: "This is not to say that he [the protagonist] is in two places at once, above and below, but that, as envisioned in the liturgy, he has accessed the celestial temple and participates there with the angels and the enlightened community."...Joseph Angel

He might be able to get away with that if he only uses (4Q471b) which was edited by Esther Eshel. However, the longer version (4Q491, fr. 11) 'The Song of Michael and the Just', edited by M. Baillet has the line: "None shall come to me for I dwell in...in heaven, and there is no..."

The plain meaning being even the Teacher of Righteousness can not visit the throne of Michael in heaven. Of course I have other examples to show that Joseph Angel is wrong but that is it in a nut shell.

As far as, the justification for Esther Eshel to discount the protagonist as the angel Michael and re-title (4Q471b) as: Glorification Hymn B, well I'm still looking into that. The link you provided on Eshel was helpful but the justification is not found in the few pages available for viewing and I have no intention of paying $35 for a download to find out.

Do you have another link that explains her justification?

[Sinouhe]

He might be able to get away with that if he only uses (4Q471b) which was edited by Esther Eshel. However, the longer version (4Q491, fr. 11) 'The Song of Michael and the Just', edited by M. Baillet has the line: "None shall come to me for I dwell in...in heaven, and there is no..."

The plain meaning being even the Teacher of Righteousness can not visit the throne of Michael in heaven. Of course I have other examples to show that Joseph Angel is wrong but that is it in a nut shell.

Nowhere in the text is mentioned the angel Michael. The text is titled "The Song of Michael and the Just" because Baillet identified the character with Michael.
By the way, why can we read those verses in a manuscript fixed with the Hodayot of the Teacher of Righteousness ?

• 4Q427 Fr 7
  7 [... is not like] my [instruct]ion 8 [... who is like me] among the gods 9 [... who can measure what issues from my lips, who] will summon me with the tongue 10 [... I am friend of the kin]g, companion of the holy ones, and not shall come 11 [to me ... and] can not be compared [to] my [glo]ry, f[o]r I, with the gods is [my] position

Ahd why these hymns were inserted afterwards in the Hodayot that concern the Teacher of Righteousness ?

• Israel Knohl - The Messiah before Jesus
  For all these reasons, researchers have come to the conclusion that these hymns were not part of the original Thanksgivings collection, but were inserted at a later date (J. J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls ,London and New York, 1997).

And why the angel Michael was compared to the (suffering) servant of Isaiah, a messianic figure for the sect ?

As far as, the justification for Esther Eshel to discount the protagonist as the angel Michael and re-title (4Q471b) as: Glorification Hymn B, well I'm still looking into that. The link you provided on Eshel was helpful but the justification is not found in the few pages available for viewing and I have no intention of paying $35 for a download to find out.
Do you have another link that explains her justification?

If you can't find this article, you can consult other articles on the subject. Most people who have studied these hymns agree with Esther Eshel. Even if this is not a sufficient reason, reading these articles might help you (or not).

[John T]

Nowhere in the text is mentioned the angel Michael. The text is titled "The Song of Michael and the Just" because Baillet identified the character with Michael.

Likewise, nowhere in the text is priesthood mentioned.

Such is the problem with having to put a puzzle together without all the pieces. Because of that, I understand why Baillet would naturally considered it part of the War Scroll. e.g. 1QM XVII 5-10.

However, I consider4Q491, fr. 11 to be from the Thanksgiving Hymns. Likely written by the Teacher of Righteousness himself or his poet/song writer, i.e. Maskil.

The protagonist is either the archangel Michael or Melchizedek if you prefer.

My quest is to figure out if the author of the hymn was the Teacher of Righteousness.
I think it is highly probable.

[Sinouhe]

The protagonist is either the archangel Michael or Melchizedek if you prefer.

My quest is to figure out if the author of the hymn was the Teacher of Righteousness.
I think it is highly probable.

And why would the author of these hymns, identify the teacher of righteousness and Michael with the same messianic attributes ?

The identification with the servant of Isaiah is found in other Qumran manuscripts that concern an eschatological messianic and sometimes priest figure. Can the same be said for Michael?