Hagar’s Story as a Story of Class Conflict

One of my favorite stories in the Old Testament is the Hagar’s story found in Genesis 16. This story has been read as an etiological tribal story of the Ishmaelites after H. Gunkel suggested, but it is a story on “the struggle between the two women” (Van Seters, 192-96). What struggle is this story? Is this a class struggle or a family struggle? The story demonstrates a family struggle of Abram’s two wives as presented in the story. It reflects an ancient family conflict, consisted of a beginning, a body, and a resoultion. The three main characters in this story, Hagar, Sarai, and Abram, are husband and wives. John Goldingay sees that the story falls into three scenes: (1) Sarai’s scheme of surrogate motherhood (vv 2-6), (2) Hagar’s encounter with the angel (vv 7-14), and (3) the birth of Ishmael (v 15). He diagrams the structure of the story as follows:  

The Story Structure of Hagar’s Story (Goldingay, Genesis 16-50, 4)

Abrams’ family conflict begins with the problem of his wife Sarai’s barrenness because of her “old age” and ends with the solution stating Abram’s “old age.” In the midst of the story, however, Hagar is portrayed as a pivotal character in all three scenes: Scene 1- Hagar and Sarai; Scene 2- Hagar and an Angel; and Scene 3- Hagar and Ishmael.

What does this story of family conflict disclose about the life of ancient Israel? In ancient civilization, a woman’s self-worth and social status revolved around her family. While Sarai is considered superior in many aspects, her barrenness brings shame to her family. Sarai’s dialogue with Abram in Gen 16:2 demonstrates well this ancient custom: ”You see that the LORD has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my slave-girl; it may be that I shall obtain children by her” (NRSV, my emphasis). Sarai sees this as the social custom of having a child through a surrogate (see C. F. Fensham, “The Son of a Handmaid in Northwest Semitic,” VT 19 [(1969]: 312-21).

But the story reveals more a class conflict than a family struggle; it seems that a family struggle comprises many social aspects of conflict. In her article, “A Mistress, A Maid, and No Mercy” in Just A Sister Away (San Diego, California: 1988), Renita J. Weems describes the different social status of the two women: 

Comparision between Sarai and Hagar

Hagar is more higher status in that of the ancient society as reflected in the story by contrasting Hagar’s fertility and Sarai’s barrenness. However, Hagar is Sarai’s property. The story could be understood as a story of ethnic prejudice that was made worse by economic and social exploitation as Weems states as follows:

Like our own situation, the stroy of the Egpytian Hagar and the Hebrew Sarai encompasses more than ethnic prejudice. There is a story of ethnic prejudice by economic and sexual exploitation. There is a story of conflict, women betraying women, mother conspiring against mothers. Theirs is a story of social rivalry (p. 2).

Weems stresses that the social equality has always been problem not just for black against white women, but all races, colors, and ethnic background, as Sharon P. Jeansonne proposes to read Hagar’s story as a story of “powerless foreigner.” In American history, this would be comparable to the rich white landowner and the poor black slave.

I assigned my students to write a reflection paper on Weems’ article in the inaugural week of the first black president, Barack Obama. Most students appreciated that they were assigned to read the article since they currently face to the transitional period from the Bush administration to the Obama administration. One of the parts of the paper should be included the concepts/ideas of the article for analyzing our contemporary society. Many students mentioned the major successes by electing their first black president, Barack Obama. I quote one of the students’ refleciton on the article:

I have pondered since the inauguration on how significant of an event this is, and in the Middle East, and terrorism in our nations to elect this man as president, and hope for a new way of life.

The students believe that America is in store for a new begining after the inauguration of their new president.

Reference List

Jeansonne, Sharon Pace. The Women of Genesis: From Sarah to Potiphar’s Wife. Minneaspolis: Fortress Press, 1990: 43-52.

Van Seters, John. Abraham in History. Yale Univ. Press, 1975.

Weems, Renita J. “A Mistress, A Maid, and No Mercy,” Pages 1-21 in Just A Sister Away. San Diego, California: Lura Media, 1988. 

Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 16-50. WBC. Dallas : Word, Incorporated.

Joseph’s Bones as the Fulfillment of Promise

Both the book of Genesis and the book of Joshua end with the reference of Joseph’s bones. What does this fact signify? In his book, Joseph’s Bones, Jerome M. Segal insists that the first six books of the Hebrew Bible opens with a promise about Joseph’s bones and ends with the fulfillment of that promise.  

Joseph’s bones are mentioned three times in the Hebrew Bible.

So Joseph made the Israelites swear, saying, “When God comes to you, you shall carry up my bones from here.” And Joseph died, being one hundred ten years old; he was embalmed and placed in a coffin in Egypt (Gen 50:25-26).

And Moses took with him the bones of Joseph who had required a solemn oath of the Israelites, saying, “God will surely take notice of you, and then you must carry my bones with you from here” (Exo 13:19)

The bones of Joseph, which the Israelites had brought up from Egypt, were buried at Shechem, in the portion of ground that Jacob had bought from the children of Hamor, the father of Shechem, for one hundred pieces of money; it became an inheritance of the descendants of Joseph (Joshua 24:32).

 According to those passages, Joseph died four hundred years before the Exodus, and was embalmed and placed in a coffin (Gen 50:26). In the Exodus, the Israelites took Joseph’s bones with them through the forty years in the wilderness. Eventually, the passage of Joshua tells us that Joseph’s bones were buried in the Promised Land.

It is interesting to note that the references of Joseph’s bones are related to the theme of “fulfillment of the promise,” demonstrating the compilation of Hexateuch. According to G. von Rad, the historical credos found in Josh 24:2-13 and Deut 6:20-24 and 26:5-9 are the confessions of faith, comprising Genesis through Joshua. The structure of the Hexateuch shows a problem not only in the position of the Sinai traditions within the framework of the whole, but also in the relationship between the patriarchal theme and the Exodus theme. So George Coats asked the prominent quesiton: “What kind of relationship did the patriarchal traditions, with their focus on strife/promise have with the exodus tradition, with its focus on redemption from oppression?” (Coats, 981). He states that the references of Joseph’s bones answer the question. The three references of Joseph’s bones link the patriarchal traditions with the exodus tradition.  

Reference List

Coats, George W. “Joseph, Son of Jacob.” ABD III (1992): 977-82.  

Segal, Jerome M. Joseph’s Bones: Understanding the Struggle between God and Mankind in the Bible. New York: Riverhead Books, 2007.

Why Did Alexander the Great Like the Book of Daniel?

Josephus records that when Alexander the Great arrived to attack Jerusalem, Jaddua the High Priest went out to meet him and showed him a copy of the book of Daniel, wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians (Ant. 11.337):

And when the book of Daniel was showed him, wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended; and as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present, but the next day he called them to him, and bade them ask what favors they pleased of him.

The biblical references where Alexander saw might be Daniel 7:6; 8:3-8, 20-22; 11:3. Alexander supposed that himself was the person intended in the book of Daniel. He was so impressed by this that instead of destroying Jerusalem, so that he entered the city peaceably and worshipped at the Temple.

What does this account tell us? It tells us a very interesting point. The book of Daniel was understood as a prophecy by Josephus. For example, Josephus identifies the reference of the great horn in Daniel 8 as Alexander the Great. He regards Daniel as “one of the greatest prophets,” distinguished by the fact that he not only prophesied future things but fixed the time at which they would come to pass and also prophesied good tidings (Collins, 84). But the book of Daniel does not belong to the Prophets but to the Writings in the Hebrew Bible.

Reference List

Collins, John J. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Josephus, Flavius ; Whiston, William: The Works of Josephus : Complete and Unabridged. Peabody : Hendrickson, 1996, c1987.

Why is Nebuchadnezzar Portrayed as an Animal?

In his recent article, Christopher B. Hays asks the following question: “Why is Nebuchadnezzar portrayed as an animal?” (“Chirps from the Dust: The Affliction of Nebuchadneaar in Daniel 4:30 in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” JBL 126/2 [2007]: 3-25). His answer is that the animals of Dan 4:30 (MT) can symbolize demons and the dead in ancient Near Eastern texts. Nebuchadnezzar’s portrait as an animal (MT Dan 4:30) and his recovery (MT Dan 4:36) reveals the movement from affliction to salvation (thanksgiving). But Hays did not discuss the reason of why the author of Daniel 4 shows the movement by using the type of animal imagery.

The tale of Nebuchadnezzar’s affliction and his recovery reveals the main theme of the Aramaic tales in Daniel: the acknowledgement of the God of Israel. Nebuchadnezzar is afflicted by divine powers becuase he does not give glory to God. Dan 4:30 (NRSV) reads:

Is this not magnificent Babylon, which I have built as a royal capital by my mighty power and for my glorious majesty? 

The conclusion of Daniel 4 is the restoration to the king of his royal splendour “for the glory of my kingdom” (Dan 4:33). His former glory made him supreme ruler of the world, but his new position will be different. Nebuchadnezzar is recovered by dvine powers becuase he acknolweges that he has to give glory to the God of Israel. Dan 4:34 (NRSV) reads:

When that period was over, I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me. I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored the one who lives forever. For his sovereignty is an everlasting sovereignty, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation.

Thus, the author of Daniel 4 reveals the main theme of the narrative in Daniel 4 through the transition from Nebuchadnezzar’s affliction to his restoration.

Reference List

Hays, Christopher B. ”Chirps from the Dust: The Affliction of Nebuchadneaar in Daniel 4:30 in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context.” JBL 126/2 (2007): 3-25.

Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream in Daniel and Alexander’s Dream in Josephus

The Letter to the Hebrews begins with the multiple forms of the divine revelation: “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways (πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως) by the prophets (Heb 1:1, NRSV).” What does the phrase “the various ways of the divine revelation” mean? One of the ways that God reveals himself to humans is “dream” or “vision.” Indeed, the dream is the best way to convey a divine message to humans. In the Old Testament, the divine message is revealed in dreams to Jacob (Gen 28:12-15; 31:10-13), to Laban (Gen 31:24), to the Midianite soldier (Judg 7:13-15), to Solomon (1 Kgs 3:5-14), to Samuel (1 Sam 3:3-14), and to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:1-45; 4:4-27). The dream narratives in the Old Testament are conceived principally as a means of conveying divine messages both “good” and “bad,” such as the divine deliverance and judgment.

Josephus also accounts Alexander’s dream in Antiquities of the Jews 11.334-35. Among the biblical dream narratives, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel can be compared to Alexander’s dream in Josephus in terms of common themes and features.

Tae Hun Kim discusses the similarities of the two dreams as follows (Kim 2003, 430):

1. The dreamer is a great pagan king who previously had not been particularly well-disposed toward the Jews.
2. A positive change in his attitude toward the Jews is effected by his dream and its fulfillment, and great honor is given to the Jews as a result.
3. A human-like figure (an angelic watcher in Dan 4:13; Jaddua himself in Ant. 11.334) appears and delivers an oral message, though in a different way.

Kim also shows how the two dreams are different in themes and features (Kim 2003, 430):

1. In Antiquities Alexander is not presented as particularly hostile to the Jews. Nebuchadnezzar, however, destroyed Jerusalem and exiled the Jews. Nebuchadnezzar’s change of attitude toward the Jews thus is much more dramatic.
2. Alexander’s dream is a divine encouragement and promise of blessing; there is no punitive element in his dream. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream foretells a divine castigation and punishment.
3. Alexander had a specific dream that answered specific concerns he already had in mind, and thus the dream functioned like an oracle, i.e., a divine response to Alexander’s question regarding the outcome of his imperial plan. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is an unsolicited vision of pending disaster, which does not address him personally or cater to his concerns.
4. The message of Alexander’s dream was sufficiently clear that he could readily understand it without the aid of a dream interpreter. The identity of the dream figure still eluded him, yet Alexander did not call for a dream interpreter. But the dream message addressed to Nebuchadnezzar was so cryptic that Daniel had to be brought in to explain to the king the meaning and the repercussions of his vision.

After the comparison of similarities and differences of the two dreams, Kim concludes as follows:

Both dream narratives share a common theme, i.e., a great pagan king becomes the protector of the Jews by means of a divinely-inspired dream, and the honor of the Jews is greatly increased as a result. In this sense, both dreams essentially function as a propaganda piece for the Jews (Kim 2003, 431).

Does the dream of Daniel function as a propaganda piece for the Jews? Does the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 reveal an optimist tendency toward the foreign king? I think the theme of Daniel is not to express a propaganda for the Jews, but to insist that the Most High God is only one real God. The dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 is probably a polemical exaggeration. This theme also occurs in the tradition of Nabonidus in Prayer of Nabonidus (4QProNab; 4Q242). As a result, the dream of Daniel 4 reveals not only a possibility of conversion of a pagan king, but it also expresses the acknowledgment of the Most High God.

Reference List

Kim, Tae Hun. “The Dream of Alexander in Josephus Ant. 11.325-39.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period. 34 no 4 (2003): 425-442.

Bamot in Kings and Chronicles

The Hebrew בָּמוֹת (bāmôt) means “high places” appeared, as a cultic context, 97 times in the Hebrew Bible. But what’s basic meaning of bāmôt? They were local sanctuaries. In the Hebrew Bible, the local sanctuaries were once legitimate cultic sites. They are often perceived as the site of Canaanite rituals, but they are local sanctuaries for the worship of YHWH before the centralization of Jerusalem Temple (1 Sam 9:12). The Moabite Stone (Mesha Inscription) contains the reference to the term bāmôt. The following map shows bāmôt sites. These sites contain religious sanctuaries that reflect a variety meanings of bāmôt, including platform for rituals, an altar, and a temple (Nakhai 1994, 21).

These sites were “torn down” (2 Kgs 23:8; 2 Chr 33:3), “burned” (2 Kgs 23:15), and “removed” (1 Kgs 15:14; 2 Kgs 17:29; 2 Kgs 23:19) mostly by the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. Beside the issue of centralization of the DrtH, it is interesting to compare bāmôt of the books of Kings with those of the books of Chronicles during the time of the United Monarchy:

• 1 Kgs 3:2-4: people sacrificed at high places since temple was not yet built. Solomon walked in the statues of David though he sacrificed at high places. Solomon sacrificed 1,000 animals at high places at Gibeon.
• 1 Kgs 11:7: Solomon built a high place for Chemosh.
• 1 Chr 16:39: David stationed Zadok before the tabernacle of YHWH in high place of Gibeon.
• 1 Chr 21:29: The Tabernacle Moses had made and the altar of burn offering were at the high place of Gibeon.
• 2 Chr 1:3: Solomon went to the high place at Gibeon for there was the tent of meeting that Moses had made.

There is no doubt that both Kings and Chronicles see bāmôt as legitimate cultic sites during the time of the United Monarchy, but the ways how both books describe are different.

In the books of Kings, the ancient people of Israel continued to offer sacrifices at bāmôt before Solomon built the Jerusalem Temple (1 Kgs 3:2). For example, Solomon also offered sacrifices at the bāmôt of Gibeon (1 Kgs 3:3).

In the books of Chronicles, the Chronicler mentions that the tabernacle was located at Gibeon (1 Chr 16:39). Solomon visited the cult site at Gibeon in 2 Chr 1:3-13 and sacrificed a thousand burnt offerings on its bronze altar. After Solomon had completed the building of the temple, the priests and Levites brought up the ark, the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in “the tent” to the new building. The ark was already in the city of David; the tabernacle was brought from Gibeon. Why does the Chronicles mention the tabernacle at Gibeon? Ralph W. Klein states that “locating the tabernacle at Gibeon may be an attempt to justify Solomon’s pilgrimage to the high place at Gibeon” (Klein 2006, 368). The Chronicler depicts Solomon as the ideal king so that the tabernacle should be there at the bāmôt in Gibeon.

Reference List

Fried, Lisbeth. S. “The High Places (bāmôt) and and the Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah: An Archaeological Investigation.” JAOS 122/3 (2002): 437-65.

Klein, Ralph W. 1 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006.

Nakhai, Beth A. “What’s a Bamah? How Sacred Space Functioned in Ancient Israel.” BAR 20/3 (1994): 18-29.

The Monday Night Group

Did you know that there were missionaries who aided Korea’s democratic revolution? I went to the library today and found an interesting book entitled More Than Witnesses: How a Small Group of Missionaries Aided Korea’s Democratic Revolution (Seoul: Korea Democracy Foundation, 2006).

This book is a collection of the witnesses of missionaries who got involved in Korea’s democratic revolution. They came from the United States, Canada, Australia, and Germany. They voluntarily walked the path of suffering in the darkest days of Korea’s political history in the 1970s and 1980s. The current president of Korea Democracy Foundation, Father Ham Sei Ung, designates them as “Good Samaritans.”

They are a small minority of missionaries those who were struggling for justice, while the majority of missionaries remained silent. They agreed to get together to share news about what was happening to their Korean colleagues, students, and neighbors on Monday nights. This is how the “Monday Night Group” was born.

As a missionary-journalist and a member of the Monday Night Group, Jim Stentzel edited this book, and all contributors of the book were also the members of the group.

Stentzel identifies the small group of missionaries with the small minority within the Korean Christian community:

One of the interesting things about the democratic revolution that occurred slowly in south Korea over the last three decades of the 20th century is that the Korean Christians who played such central roles in the revolution were a small minority within the Korean Christian community, which at that time comprised a minority of the south Korean people. Why is this worth noting? Because self-proclaimed ‘Christian majorities’- in south Korea today as well as in the United States- lay moral claim to levers o conservative state power. As a small minority within a minority Christian in the 1970s, the Korean Christian patriots could never have been accused of such arrogance. Any secret ambition to impose a religious or moral agenda would have been laughable. The Korean Christian patriots were more the conscience of the nation than a power base. They sought not power themselves but the empowerment of others, especially the exploited and oppressed (pp. 29-30).

This book provides a new aspect on missionaries to Korea. They were sent to Korea to transform Korean, but they were transformed. They were also introduced to some of the dark side of capitalism. They saw God’s handiwork to the Korean Christians who moved to the forefront of the country’s struggle for democracy and human rights.

What does the Vision of Daniel 7 Mean?

I attended the class of Graduate Biblical Seminar at LSTC today because one of the students presented his term paper on Daniel 7. At the begining of the class, Dr. Ralph Klein invited us to think about two intersting questions: What do we know about the divine council? What does this vision really tell us?

Chapter 7 recounts Daniel’s vision (7:1-14) and its interpretation (7:15-28). The contents of Daniel 7 can be summarized as follows:

Daniel sees four beasts arise from the sea. The beasts are then described. Thrones are set and an Ancient of Days takes his place, the books are opened and the judgment begins. The fourth beast is killed and his body burnt with fire, while the rest are allowed to live for a time although their dominion is taken away. Then “one like a Son of Man” comes with the clouds of heaven and is given everlasting dominion and all peoples are to serve him (Gardner 2001, 244).

The most intriguing element of Daniel 7 is the use of imagery: Four Beasts; the Ancient of Days; Holy Ones; the Son of Man; and the People of Holy Ones of the Most High. The imagery of Daniel 7 takes place in the idea of a heavenly court which was widespread in the ancient Near East. Thus, many scholars have attempted to explain the imagery of Daniel 7 in relation to its ancient Near Eastern background. John J. Collins, for example, discusses two major backgrounds of the imagery: a Babylonian background and a Canaanite background.

During the class period, we heavily discussed the parallels of the imagery of Daniel 7 and the Baal cycle, which accounts the story of the conflict between Baal and Yamm (CTA 2). The following chart shows how both texts are compared:   

The first imagery is common in both texts. El is called ‘ab šnm, which is most frequently taken as “Father of Days” in plural form. This is similar in sense to “Ancient of Days” (עַתִּיק יוֹמִין) of Daniel 7 (Collins 1993, 290). Baal is subordinatd to El while Son of Man (בַר אֱנָשׁ) is subordinated to the Ancient of Days. El is losing power and passing his power to Baal in the Baal cycle. The Son of Man was given power and dominion by the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7. But the second imagery clearly shows the differences of both texts. The Ancient of Days takes power and dominion away from the four beasts and gives them to the Son of Man and the people of Holy Ones of the Most High in Daniel 7 (מַלְכוּתָ‍ה וְשָׁלְטָנָ‍א וּרְבוּתָ‍א דִּי מַלְכְוָת תְּחוֹת כָּל־שְׁמַיָּ‍א יְהִיבַת לְעַם קַדִּישֵׁי עֶלְיוֹנִין, v. 27). The description of the individual beasts cannot be explained from the Baal cycle. 

The Baal cycle is a possible source. But the imagery of the Baal cycle is not what Daniel 7 exactly describes. The main theme of Daniel 7 is the divine response or the divine judgment to the earthly imperial kingdoms. As an apocalpytic, Daniel 7 reveals the divine decision that God judged the kingdoms and decided to give the kingdom and dominion to the Son of Man. Regarding the divine decision, there are similar passages in the Old Testament. 1 Sam 15:26-28 is not a divine council, but it is a divine decision. In Psalm 82:1-2, as a heavenly council, God assigns the punishment against all nations. As a result, Daniel 7 declares not to rely upon the human power because the power of the earthly kingdoms has taken from them to the Son of Man. Daniel says, “Now, be faithful! Why are you worring about beasts?” This is an exciting theological discourse.

Reference List

Collins, John J. 1993. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Gardner, Anne E. 2001. “Another Look at Its Mythic Pattern.” Biblica 82: 244-52.

Melchizedek in 11Q13 (11QMelch)

The fragment manuscript 11QMelch is interesting enough. It preserves the midrash interpretation of Old Testament themes and the figure of Melchizedek, and the author of the Letter to the Hebrews applied the figure of Melchizedek to Jesus. 

Melchizedek is described as king of Salem as well as a priest of El Elyon in Gen 14:18-20. He is also mentioned as the eternal priest of YHWH in conjunction with the Israelite king in Ps 110:4. The Letter to the Hebrews portrayed Melchizedek as “a primeval, immortal being, coeternal with the Son of God” (Astour 1992, 687). The Qumran community portrayed Melchizedek as a heavenly high priest in 11QMelch (11Q13). The way Melchizedek is portrayed in 11QMelch is very ineresting to me. The author describes the figure of Melchizedek (a heavenly high priest) with the midrash interpretation of Old Testament themes, such as jubilee year (Leviticus 25) and the seventy weeks of years (Dan 9:24-27). I will discuss his figure in 11Q13 with the discussion of the midrash interpetation of the OT passages.

Manuscript of 11Q13 (11QMelch) Col. II

 

 Transcription of 11Q13 (11QMelch) Col. II 

The transcription is taken from Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (eds.García Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, 1208). Highlights in the transcription indicate the parts of the Old Testament verses which are quoted in the Hebrew text of the manuscript.

Translation of of 11Q 13 (11QMelch) Col. II

1 [...] … [...]

2 [...] And as for what he said: Lev 25:13 « In [this] year of jubilee, [you shall return, each one, to his respective property », concerning it he said: Deut 15:2 « Th]is is

3 [the manner of the release:] every creditor shall release what he lent [to his neighbour. He shall not coerce his neighbour or his brother, for it has been proclaimed] a release

4 for G[od ». Its interpretation] for the last days refers to the captives, who [...] and whose

5 teachers have been hidden and kept secret, and from the inheritance of Melchizedek, fo[r ...] … and they are the inherita[nce of Melchize]dek, who

6 will make them return. And liberty will be proclaimed for them, to free them from [the debt of] all their iniquities. And this [wil]l [happen]

7 in the first week of the jubilee which follows the ni[ne] jubilees. And the d[ay of aton]ement is the e[nd of] the tenth [ju]bilee

8 in which atonement shall be made for all the sons of [light and] for the men [of] the lot of Mel[chi]zedek. [...] … over [the]m … [...] accor[ding to] a[ll] their [wor]ks, for

9 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 ». As for what he sa[id: Ps 82:2 « How long will you] judge unjustly and show partia[lity] to the wicked? [Se]lah. »

12 Its interpretation concerns Belial and the spirits of his lot, wh[o ...] turn[ing aside] from the commandments of God to [commit evil.]

13 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.]

14 To his aid (shall come) all « the gods of [justice »; and h]e is the one w[ho ...] all the sons of God, and … [...]

15 This [...] is the day of [peace about whi]ch he said [... through Isa]iah the prophet, who said: [Isa 52:7 « How] beautiful

16 upon the mountains are the feet [of] the messen[ger who] announces peace, the mess[enger of good who announces salvati]on, [sa]ying to Zion: your God [reigns. »]

17 Its interpretation: The mountains [are] the prophet[s ...] … [...] for all … [...]

18 And the messenger i[s] the anointed of the spir[it] as Dan[iel] said [about him: Dan 9:25 « Until an anointed, a prince, it is seven weeks. » And the messenger of]

19 good who announ[ces salvation] is the one about whom it is written that [...]

20 « To comfo[rt] the [afflicted », its interpretation:] to instruct them in all the ages of the wo[rld ...]

21 in truth … [...] … [...]

22 [...] has turned away from Belial and will re[turn ...] … [...]

23 [...] in the judgment[s of] God, as is written about him: [Isa 52:7 « Saying to Zi]on: your God rules. » [« Zi]on » i[s]

24 [the congregation of all the sons of justice, those] who establish the covenant, those who avoid walking [on the pa]th of the people. And « your God » is

25 [... Melchizedek, who will fr]e[e them from the ha]nd of Belial. And as for what he said: Lev 25:9 « You shall blow the hor[n in] all the [l]and of

The translation is taken from Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (eds.García Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, 1209). Highlights in the translation indicate the parts of the Old Testament verses.

Melchizedek in 11Q13

The figure Melchizedek in 11Q13 (11QMelch) has usually been described as an angel (Martínze 1992, 176). However, some scholars argue that Melchizedek is a divine title (Van de Water 2006, 75-86). In order to understand the figure of Melchizedek, it is necessary to discuss how the manuscript interprets the Old Testament passages in relation with Melchizedek. 11Q13 interprets a number of verses from Isaiah, Leviticus, and other books in the Old Testament dealing with remission of debts and liberation of slaves at the end of a jubilee cycle as referring to the last judgment.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer discussed widely the midrash interpretation of 11Q13 Col. II (Fitzmyer 1967). Most discussions below came from Fitzmyer’s article. I will not discuss the problem of reconstruction of the manuscript. If you are interested in the discussion of reconstruction of the manuscript, see Fitzmyer’s article for details.

Melchizedek as God’s Agent for the Execution of Divine Judgment

The name Melchizedek does not appear until v. 5. But the figure of Melchizedek is described in relation to the year of jubilee in vv. 1-4 and is developed as one who proclaims the year of jubilee in vv 6-14. He is the one who proclaims the year of jubilee (וקרא להמה דרור; v. 6) and release to the captives to those who are to return to their own possessions. The phrase [בשנת היובל‏ [הזואת (In [this] year of jubilee) in v. 2 is quoted from Lev 25:13: “In this year of jubilee (בשנת היובל‏ הזואת) you shall return, every one of you, to your property.” The year of jubilee is further identified in v. 9 as a year of good favor (לשנת הרצון) decreed by God for Melchizedek and the tenth jubilee ([ה]יו[בל העשירי) in v. 7. The figure of Melchizedek is introduced into this context of a jubilee year. What then is meant by "the year of jubilee" in this manuscript? Fitzmyer interprets the year of jubilee mentioned in this manuscript as follows:

In the course of the midrashic development the year of jubilee mentioned first in line 2 becomes "the last jubilee" (line 7), or "the tenth jubilee" (line 7, at the end). In other words, it seems to refer to the end of the 490 years, or "the seventy weeks of years" of Dan 9:24-27. It is called the year of "release" (šmth) proclaimed for the Lord (lines 3-4) and of "liberation" (drr), such as was announced to the captives of Isa 61:1.

As the year of liberation, the year of jubilee is identified with the day of judgment which is executed by Melchizedek. Accordingly, Fitzmyer argues that "Melchizedek is given a special role in the execution of divine judgment which is related a jubilee year (Fitzmyer 1969, 29)." Fitzmyer's opinion on the figure of Melchizedek is plausible because Melchizedek carries out the vengence of God's judgments in v. 13 (ומלכי צ̇דק יקום נקם משפטי א[ל וביום ההואה).

Melchizedek in Association with God's Deliverance

The day of jubilee or the day of judgment executed by Melchizedek is further identified with the salvation proclaimed by the herald of Isa 52:7: "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messager who announces peace, who bring good news, who announces salvation, who says to Zion, 'Your God reigns.'" There is no doubt that vv. 15-16 are quoted from Isa 52:7: "This [...] is the day of [peace about whi]ch he said [... through Isa]iah the prophet, who said: [Isa 52:7 « How] beautiful upon the mountains are the feet [of] the messen[ger who] announces peace, the mess[enger of good who announces salvati]on, [sa]ying to Zion: your God [reigns. »].” Fitzmyer emphasizes that the “herald” (מבשר) in the book of Isaiah is explicitly identified with “the Messiah” (Firzmyer 1969, 30). Thus, Melchizedek himself is to be identified with the “herald” who is also “the Messiah” or “anointed one.” Fitzmyer proposed to restore the end of the line 18 as follows:

I propose to restore the end of the line, reading Daniel and referring it to the [anointed prince]  (משיח נגיד) of Dan 9:25. this identification of the herald with the Anointed One of Dan 9, though not wholly certain, is in reality not so striking as the idntification of the mebasser, or “herald of good tidings,” with a Messiah.

The two figures of Melcizedek in 11Q13, God’s agent for the execution of divine judgment and association with God’s deliverance, probably reflect Jewish tradition to the figures of Melchizedek. For example, 1 Enoch also preserves the judgment which is declared to Michael by God (1En 10:12). Jewish tradition regarded Melchizedek as “high priest” and Michael is called the heavenly high priest in the Babylonian Talmud (Hagigah 12b).

Reference List

Astour, Michael C. 1992. “Melchizedek.” ABD IV: 685-88.

Brooke, G. 1992. “Melchizedek (11QMelch).” ABD IV: 687-88.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1967. “Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11.” JBL 86/1: 25-41. 

Garcı́a Martı́nez, Florentino ; Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C.:The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Translations). Leiden; New York : Brill, 1997-1998.

Martinze, García. 1992. Qumran and Apocalyptic. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Van de Water, Rick. 2006. “Michael and Yhwh: Toward Identifying Melchizedek in 11Q13.” JSP 16/1: 75-86.

Two Versions of the Story of Susanna: Old Greek and Theodotion

Susanna is a typical example of Jewish novelistc literature during the Second Temple period; it is a story in the Bible. Where then do we find the story in the Bible? Whereas Susanna appears as Daniel 13 in the Old Greek version (OG), the Theodotion version (Ɵ′) places it before Daniel 1. Susanna is not there in the Theodotion version by accident, but it is there because of its significance. Some scholars argue that the story takes place before Daniel 1 in the Theodotion version becuase the story functions as introduction to Daniel in the Theodotion version, the hero of the book (Doran 1988, 864).

In general, the OG version (LXX) is much less polished than the Theodotion version; and Theodotion’s version is somewhat longer than the OG. For these reasons, the translations in the NRSV and NAB basically follow the translation of Theodotion rather than the OG version. Some scholars believe that the Theodotion version made a separate Greek translation of a different Semitic text (Vorlage) rather than making an editorial revision of the Old Greek because of the use of Semitisms and the simple paratactic syntax (in OG Susanna, over fifty clauses begin with καί; for details, see John J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], 427). The differences of the two versions are as follows:

• Focus of Character: OG-Two Elders; Ɵ′- Susanna.
• Aspect of the Story: OG- Details of her bathing are much less elaborated; Ɵ′- Enhancing the drama and the psychological/erotic aspects of the story.
• Epilogue: OG- An exhortation to search for more youths like Daniel; Ɵ′- Susanna’s relatvies give praise and Daniel becomes great.
• Minor Elaborations in Ɵ′: v. 11 adds that the elders were ashamed of their lust; vv. 20 and 21 fill in the words of the elders to Susanna; vv. 24-27 have the servants rush into the garden and learn of the accusation; v. 39 explains why the young man escaped; and v. 41 makes the death sentence explicit.
• Point of View: OG- Focus of oriented toward social issues and categories; Ɵ′- Emphasis on individual character and ethics.

As Collins insists, even though the diferences should not be exaggerated, the differences of the focus of character and epilogue in both versions cannot be negelected becuase the different emphsis reflects their different social settings. John C. Endres analyzes the diffrent settings of the two versions as follows:

The OG version, which is more oriented toward social issues and categories, is often connected with Alexandria, whereas Theodotion, with its emphasis on individual character and ethics, seems more reminiscent of the Hellenistic novella, which also emerged in Diaspora settings (parallel to the Babylonian setting of the story).

The story of Susanna, especially in Ɵ′, is an interesting tale for the study of Diaspora community: God is mentioned or alluded to 15 times in the book’s 64 verses. At two points (vv. 5 and 53), the Jewish scriptures are quoted or paraphrased. From begining to the end, religious interest and elements pervade the story.

The story of Susanna has influenced literature, music, and art. The scene of naked Susanna at her bath, who is being taken advantage of by two wicked judges, is a perfect example for the criticism of the relationship between sex and power. The fesco in Siena by Francesco di Giorgio Martini (1439-1502) is one of my favorite images because the artist Martini depicts that Susanna seems protected not only by her sanctity but also by the thick hedge separating her from the two elders on the left.

Reference List

Collins, John J. 1993. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Doran, Robert. 1988. “The Additions to Daniel.” Pages 863-71. Harper’s Bible Commentary. 

Endres, John C. 2000. “Daniel, Additions to.” Pages 321-13. Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible.

Moore, C. A. 1992. “Susanna: A Case of Sexual Harassment in Ancient Babylon.” BR 8/3.