058
Despite the unanimous and confident conclusion of Geza Vermes’ Oxford Forum that the so-called Pierced Messiah text (4Q285) actually celebrates the triumph of a piercing Messiah who slays his enemies, things are not so clear. Vermes’ bald conclusion, “The fragment does not speak of a slain messiah,” surely goes beyond the evidence. It also ignores other perfectly plausible possibilities and gives the nonspecialist reader the impression that Vermes’ view is the only “scholarly” option. Given the fragmented nature of the text in its present state, all interpretations are necessarily preliminary. I offer here a number of points that might be included in this discussion.
First, Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise should be commended for immediately releasing their preliminary translation of such a fascinating text. After all, J. T. Milik had the text for decades, and none of us even knew it existed until November 8, 1991, when the Associated Press story came out. Here we have a highly legible fragment that mentions within five lines a Davidic messiah figure, someone being judged and killed, and the notion of woundings or piercing. Whatever it means, it is undeniably of intense interest to scholars and the public. Thanks to Eisenman and Wise, who located this fascinating fragment among hundreds of photos, we have all now had a chance to discuss its meaning The original AP wire story expressed the normal caveats: “if the translation is correct,” etc.
From a strictly grammatical standpoint, the Eisenman-Wise translation is without fault. This Vermes admits. The crucial question is how one places the vowels in the verb “to put to death” (hmytw, line 4). The reading “and they put to death (hemitu) the leader of the community, the Bran[ch of David],” is perfectly plausible. Vermes prefers, “and the Prince of the Congregation, the Bran[ch of David] will kill him (hamito).” Again, strictly on the basis of grammar, this too is perfectly plausible. It all turns on a single vowel, and vowels are not supplied in these texts. According to Vermes, the interpretation must depend on the context. I agree.
However, before I go to contextual arguments, there are other internal grammatical points that should be considered. In line 3 we have the broken phrase: “[the] Branch of David and they will enter into judgment with … ” This plural verb form, “they will judge,” could well be parallel to the disputed verb form in the next line, “and they put to death,” thus supporting the Eisenman-Wise option. In other words, some unspecified “they” is acting against a messiah figure. So, although it is true that Isaiah 11:4 has the messiah (singular) judging (and slaying), the text from Qumran clearly has the plural verb, possibly indicating that he (the messiah) himself is judged and killed, by order of a Wicked Priest. Further, it is more likely, given the Hebrew style of the scrolls, that the phrase in line 4, “and the Prince of the Congregation, the Branch of David,” is the object, not the subject, of the verb “to put to death.” If it were the subject, given the length of the phrase, it would more likely come before the verb.
Still, Vermes is right, both the wider and immediate contexts are the key to interpretation. Vermes is correct to emphasize that other Qumran texts, which speak of a Davidic messiah figure, emphasize his triumph over his enemies (4Q161, 1QSb, etc.). There is no doubt that the Qumran community had faith in the ultimate victory of such a messiah over all evil. However, a closer reading of these texts reveals an additional theme, equally dominant—that of an initial, though temporary, triumph of the wicked over the righteous. For example, in 4Q171, an important commentary on Psalms 37, 45 and 60, this theme is extensively developed.1 Indeed, in column 4 of 4Q171 there is a direct reference, using the precise verb form of our text (HMT), to a Wicked one putting to death a Righteous one (based on Psalm 37:32). The Qumran community interpreted the persecution and death of their own Righteous Teacher not as a final defeat but as a temporary triumph of the wicked before the eschaton (end of days). The sufferings of the community as a whole were cast in the same light (1QpHab 8).2 Indeed, 4Q161,3 the commentary on Isaiah 10–11 upon which Vermes heavily relies for his interpretation of our text, also contains this subtheme. Fragments 8–10 of 4Q161 speak of the wicked Kittim crushing the humble, with every heart melting, and temporarily triumphing over the righteous. This is based on Isaiah 10:28–32.
Still, the question is: Given their triumphant view of the Davidic messiah figure, is it likely that the Qumran group conceived of such a one being crushed? Such a connection is implied in the fascinating text 1 1QMelch[izedek],4 which deals with the end of days. There Daniel 9:25 is quoted, which mentions the coming of a messiah who is subsequently (in Daniel 9:26) cut off. This verse is followed immediately in 1 1QMelch[izedek] by a quotation from Isaiah 61:2–3, a messianic text of hope and comfort (see 4Q521) which interprets Isaiah 61 as the messiah’s triumph). We know the Qumran group was intensely interested in this “Seventy Weeks” prophecy of Daniel. They tried to place themselves within this chronological scheme as they calculated the eschaton. They must have made something out of this messiah figure who is cut off.
The history of the Jesus movement and the writings of Josephus offer some instructive parallels. John the Baptist is beheaded, Jesus is crucified, James is clubbed to death, Paul is beheaded, Peter is crucified—all before the First Jewish Revolt against Rome. Both Jesus and his brother James were potential Davidic candidates. Josephus mentions several other messianic types 059(Theudas, the Egyptian, etc.) who are wiped out. As late as the second century C.E. the emperor Hadrian was arresting descendants of David as potential “messianic branches.” In other words, in Roman Palestine it was common rather than uncommon for the leaders, in which sectarian groups had placed their eschatological hopes, to be suddenly killed. When this happens, the group turns to its holy texts to interpret events. At Qumran we know this happened with their Teacher of Righteousness, who may well have been of Davidic descent. It is certainly not farfetched to think it may have also happened to a Davidic descendant in whom they had hope. This is what our text, by one reading, seems to record. And their use of Daniel 9:25 indicates that they have worked this out in some way.
We have to remember that the commentary, or pesher, material from Qumran reflects the ongoing experience of the community over more than 200 years. We should not posit one static meaning—for example, “Davidic figure always means triumphant warrior”—through all the texts.
Finally, how convincing are Vermes’ supplemental arguments that this messiah fragment speaks of the defeat of the Kittim? He accepts Dr. Timothy Lim’s suggestion that the three letters (only two are clear) beginning line 2 come from the last word of Isaiah 10:34.5 This is a fascinating suggestion, but seems unlikely given the placement of the words in lines 1 and 2. In line 1, “Isaiah the Prophet” has been specified. It is unlikely that the text would suddenly follow with a fragmented quote of Isaiah 10:34. The words do not appear to fit well. The letters wl form a fairly common word ending. Also, Vermes’ reconstruction of line 6 regarding “the slain of the Kittim” is extremely tenuous. One can not confidently restore such a text in such an exact way. But, even if this reading is correct, the “slain of the Kittim” could mean those the Kittim have slain. Indeed, our closest parallel to this text, 4Q161, fragments 8–10, speaks of this very idea, the Kittim crushing the humble ones. The Vermes proposal has many unknowns. Precisely who is it that is slain by the messiah? The War Scroll knows of no specific figure being killed. Who are the “they” who enter into judgment, and with whom? Who receives the wounds? Who is the priest who commands? We are not even sure of the genre of this text, nor of the verb tenses.
For these reasons, I think the verdict is still out on this fascinating text. Perhaps other texts or fragments will surface that will definitively cast it one way or the other. We should be extremely cautious about proclaiming the “evaporation” of either view when both are based on plausible translations and wider contextual considerations.
Despite the unanimous and confident conclusion of Geza Vermes’ Oxford Forum that the so-called Pierced Messiah text (4Q285) actually celebrates the triumph of a piercing Messiah who slays his enemies,a things are not so clear. Vermes’ bald conclusion, “The fragment does not speak of a slain messiah,” surely goes beyond the evidence. It also ignores other perfectly plausible possibilities and gives the nonspecialist reader the impression that Vermes’ view is the only “scholarly” option. Given the fragmented nature of the text in its present state, all interpretations are necessarily preliminary. I offer here a number of points that might […]
