the-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls

214 THE SCROLLS’ IMPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON HEBREWS
and all his paths in truth and uprigh[tness]. The earth (will be) in truth and
all will make peace. The sword will cease in the earth, and all the cities will
pay him homage. He is a great god among the gods. He will make war with
him; he will place the peoples in his hand and chase away everyone before
him. His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom…
As in Heb 1:5, this figure has the title royal “son.” The citation of
Psalm 45 (44 LXX) in Heb 1:8 parallels several affirmations of the
Qumran text. Like the scroll, it addresses its messianic figure as “God.” 47
It also lauds the “righteousness” of the eschatological kingdom, and the
eternity of its throne, a theme evoked by the citation of Ps 102 (101
LXX) in Heb 1:10–12. The fragmentary scroll has more imagery appropriate
to a warrior king than does Hebrews, where the only reference to
the subjugation of enemies appears in the citation of Ps 110:1 (109:1
LXX) in Heb 1:13.
One final text, 4Q521 2.7, which portrays the marvels performed in
the eschatological age and seats the devout “upon the throne of eternal
royalty.” Whether there are any messianic overtones here may be
doubted.
While the Christ of Hebrews shares characteristics of many portraits
of anticipated messiahs of Jewish expectation, he is above all the High
Priest of the new covenant. Here, too, data from the scrolls has enriched
our understanding of the traditions underlying Hebrews. Early discussion
focused on the expectation of a priestly Messiah of Aaron alongside
a royal or Davidic Messiah. The locus classicus is the reference in 1QS
9.9–11 to the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. Yadin found here and in
related texts the position against which Hebrews developed its distinctive
affirmations about Jesus as eschatological High Priest. 48 Few scholars followed
such a simple path from Qumran to Hebrews. 49 Whatever the
relationship between the scrolls and Hebrews, scholars have also debated
the foundation for the comparison itself, the expectations of a dual
messianism at Qumran. 50 Grounds for doubt include the presence of
“messianic” texts (4Q246 and 4Q521, noted above) that speak of a single
47. On the exegetical issues of Heb 1:8, see Attridge, Hebrews, 58–59.
48. Yadin, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” 44.
49. Among the few to follow Yadin’s lead were Frank Charles Fensham, “Hebrews
and Qumran,” Neot 5 (1971): 9–21.
50. See Hurst, Epistle to the Hebrews, 46–48, citing Lou H. Silberman, “The Two
‘Messiahs’ of the Manual of Discipline,” VT 5 (1955): 77–82; Angus J. B. Higgins,
“Priest and Messiah,” VT 3 (1953): 321–26; and Charles T. Fritsch, “The So-called
Priestly Messiah of the Essenes,” JEOL 6 (1967): 242–48. More recently, Michael
O. Wise and James D. Tabor, “The Messiah at Qumran,” BAR (Nov. 1992),
60–65.