David C. Mitchell, «The Fourth Deliverer: A Josephite Messiah in 4QTestimonia», Vol. 86 (2005) 545-553
Commentators recognize a tri-polar messianism in 4Q175, based on the first three
sections of the text. But the last section suggests that the text is in fact tetramessianic,
featuring an eschatological Joshua. This is confirmed by similarities
between 4Q175, the tetra-messianic "Four Craftsmen" baraitha, and Targ. Ps.-J.
to Exod. 40,9-11; as well as by evidence that Joshua was a messianic type in postbiblical
Judaism.
546 David C. Mitchell
they will rebuild […er]ect for it a rampart and towers, to make it into
a fortress of wickedness […] in Israel, and a horror in Ephraim and
Judah. […wi]ll commit a profanation in the land and a great
blasphemy among the sons of…[…blo]od like water upon the
ramparts of the daughter of Zion and in the precincts of Jerusalem (5).
Let us identify the dramatis personae. First there is Joshua. Martial man
of God, Moses’ successor, king-killer, sun-stopper, razer of walls, he speaks
his words at the conquest of Jericho and praises and thanks God. He is
undoubtedly the hero of the fourth testimony, just as Moses, the Star from
Jacob, and the Levitical Priest are the heroes of the first three. Juxtaposed to
Joshua is the “accursed man†who is surely the villain of the piece. Then there
are “the two instruments of violence†who may be either the “accursed manâ€
plus an associate or — in line with Joshua’s words — the accursed man’s two
sons. They are to rebuild a city, presumably the one Joshua destroyed. Clearly
all these details were relevant within the historical settings of the writer of the
Joshua Apocryphon and of the writer of 4Q175 who cited them later.
However, as my concern is not history but messianic typology, I shall focus
on the text’s four heros.
Commentators are virtually unanimous that the figures of the first three
testimonies — Moses, the Star, and the Priest — represent eschatological
prophet, king, and priest figures (6). It is easy to see why. The same three
latterday heros appear in 1QS IX.10-11 by the same Qumran scribe. But little
has been said about the fourth testimony. Dupont-Sommer and Cross say the
villains represent enemies of the Qumran sect — a likely explanation — but
say nothing about the Joshua figure himself (7). In fact, in the entire corpus of
scholarship on this passage, I know of no comment at all upon who or what
Joshua might represent. Most commentators simply ignore the figure. Some
even dismiss it as irrelevant (8).
It is unclear why the Joshua figure has been so overlooked. All four testi-
monies are identical in structure: hero figure, Bible verse and curse. If the first
three represent eschatological deliverers, there would seem to be an a priori
case for the fourth to be taken the same way. This would not only explain the
Joshua figure itself , but would make sense of the entire document rather than
(5) The English is from F. GARCÃA MARTÃNEZ, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The
Qumran Texts in English (Leiden – New York – Cologne 1994) 137-138; some of the
textual reconstructions are omitted.
(6) See e.g., D. FLUSSER, “Messiah: Second Temple Periodâ€, EJ XI, 1409; G. VERMES,
Jesus the Jew (London 1973) 96; Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 248; G.J. BROOKE, Exegesis
at Qumran (JSOTSS 29; Sheffield, 1985) 309-310; F. GARCÃA MARTÃNEZ, Qumran and
Apocalyptic (Leiden 1992) 174; “Messianische Erwartungen in den Qumranschriftenâ€,
JBTh 8 (1993) 203-207; F. GARCÃA MARTÃNEZ – J. TREBOLLE BARRERA, The People of the
Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden 1995) 186; J.J. COLLINS, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls
(London 1997) 71, 79; G.G. XERAVITS, King, Priest, Prophet (STDJ 47; Leiden 2003) 57-
59, 226-228. J. Lübbe’s view, that the text should be interpreted historically rather than
eschatologically, has not commanded widespread consent (“A Reinterpretation of 4 Q
Testimoniaâ€, RevQ 12 [1986] 177-186).
(7) DUPONT-SOMMER, The Essene Writings, 317; CROSS, “Testimoniaâ€, 309.
(8) COLLINS, Apocalypticism, 79.