AMONG THE MANY WRITINGS of the community that had withdrawn from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea to dedicate itself to its apocalyptic fantasies of the end of days is the so-called Self-Glorification Hymn from Qumran. The author of this enigmatic and, among scholars, disputed hymn is unknown, and only fragments of it are extant. It was written in the late Hasmonaean or early Herodian period—that is, the second half of the first century BCE. In it, an unidentified hero boasts that he was elevated among and even above the angels in heaven:1
(3) He established his truth of old, and the secrets of his devising (razei ‘ormato) throughout all [generations
(4) [ ] and the council of the humble (‘asat evyonim) for an everlasting congregation.
(5) [for]ever a mighty throne (kisse ‘oz) in the congregation of the gods (elim). None of the ancient2 kings shall sit in it, and their nobles shall not [
(6) [ ] shall not be like my glory (kevodi), and none shall be exalted save me, nor shall come against me. For I have taken my seat in a/the [throne] in the heavens (ki ani yashavti be … be-shamayyim) and none [
(7) [ ] I shall be reckoned with the gods (ani ‘im elim ethashev), and my dwelling place is in the holy congregation (u-mekhoni be-‘adat qodesh). [I] do not de[sire] as would a man of flesh [ ] everything precious to me is in the glory of
(8) [the gods in the] holy dwelling place (bi-me‘on ha-qodesh). Who has been despised on my account (mi la-vuz nehshav bi)? And who can be compared with me in my glory (u-mi bi-khvodi yiddameh li)? Who [
(9) [ ] who be[ars all] griefs as I do? And who [suff]ers evil like me? No one! I was instructed and (any) teaching (horayah) will not be equal to my
(10) [teaching]. And who will stop me from speaking when [I] op[en my mouth]? And who shall measure the flow of my speech, and who shall be my equal, and be like (me) in my judgment?
(11) [Friend of the King (yedid ha-melekh), companion of holy ones (I am named)], for I shall be reckoned with the gods (elim), and my glory (kevodi) with [that of] the King’s sons (bene ha-melekh).
This text raises many questions, not only because it is fragmentary. I will highlight only a few particularly important points here.3 The speaker, definitely a human being, is sitting on a throne in heaven among the divine beings (the angels; in these texts, elim is a term denoting the angels). His glory and exaltation are unique. The elevated status of the speaker is emphasized by the fact that neither “ancient kings” nor “nobles” can sit on this throne. The kings are likely the Israelite kings of the Hebrew Bible, or more precisely the kings of the Davidic dynasty. As the speaker also feels superior in particular to them, he is evidently asserting a claim to messianic qualities.
Two parallel fragments of the hymn take the superior, angel-like status of the author yet further. There the speaker asks explicitly, “Who is like me among the divine beings?” (mi kamoni ba-’elim);4 this is a rhetorical question, with which he evidently means, Who else is like me among the angels? Is there anyone else who is as elevated as I am among the angels or above them? And the answer is of course, No! The question, though, is by no means as innocent as it sounds, as it clearly alludes to Exodus 15:11, where the question refers to God: “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods/angels?” (mi kamokha ba-’elim YHWH).5 This definitely means, Is there anyone among the gods/angels, who is like you, God, who could be compared with you? And again the answer is, No! There is reason to suspect that the speaker not only boldly compares himself with the angels but also with God, even almost taking the place of God: he is not merely a particularly high angel among the angels but rather like God unique among the angels. Yet this special status bordering on hubris is only implied. When he later refers to himself as a “friend of the King” and one of many “King’s sons,” then he modestly steps back behind the king (God) and once again takes his place among the angels.
Another characteristic that distinguishes the speaker in his superior position is his instruction or teaching. He is the undisputed teacher, and no one can question his instruction. This suggests the reference to the Teacher of Righteousness, the outstanding leadership figure of the Qumran sect.6 What does not at all conform with the image up to now of the uniqueness and superiority of the speaker are the statements in lines 8 and 9. Juxtaposed with the statement on glory in line 8 is the odd expression mi la-vuz nehshav bi, which was translated above as “Who has been despised on my account?” and literally might mean, “Who has been attributed to me, to be despised?”—that is, Who is despised and thus associated with me? The answer here too is probably, No one! The speaker is despised, and with respect to this particular contempt, no one is like him.7 This refers directly to the suffering servant of God in Isaiah, about whom it is also said that he is “despised” (nivzeh), a “man of suffering,” who “has borne our infirmities” (Isa. 53:3–4). It is fitting that the speaker “bears all griefs” and “suffers evil” like no one else (line 9). The author thus models himself at the same time as the suffering servant of God in Isaiah 53, thereby presumably placing himself in the messianic interpretative tradition of the Suffering Servant Songs. As a suffering Messiah, he is raised up in an unparalleled manner onto a throne in heaven, which even the Israelite kings cannot claim for themselves. We can only speculate what caused the speaker to relate the aspect of suffering on himself in a virtually paradoxical manner: in addition to the tradition of the suffering Messiah, it is possibly the hostility of his opponents who question his mission and even attempt to take his life. This could be interpreted as a further reference to the historical Teacher of Righteousness.
The question as to who this speaker could be is highly controversial. Inspired by “the dominance of Michael above all the gods” (elim),8 Maurice Baillet, who first published the text as a manuscript of the War Scroll (4QM), wanted to identify the speaker with the archangel Michael.9 From the point of view of tradition history, this interpretation is conceivable, not least if the Son of Man in Daniel is interpreted as the angel Michael—but the context actually speaks against this. Why should an angel boast of being exalted among the angels, and why should an angel say about himself that he does “not desire as would a man of flesh” (line 7)? Also, the emphasis on the teaching function of the speaker gives greater support to his having earthly rather than heavenly origins. Not least for this reason, Morton Smith considered the Teacher of Righteousness to be a more suitable candidate, but he left the question open, concluding, “Nevertheless, it is probably better to suppose that the Dead Sea group or groups produced more than one preposterous poet with an exaggerated notion of his own sanctity.”10 John Collins is more cautious, suggesting an eschatological (high) priest or teacher,11 and I have argued in favor of “some kind of Teacher of Righteousness redivivus: the founder of the sect who was imagined by his later followers as elevated into heaven and expected to return at the end of time as the priestly Messiah in order to lead the members of the community in the final battle.”12
This still seems plausible to me, but I would like to correct one point: in my book The Origins of Jewish Mysticism, I strongly downplayed the aspect of apotheosis or deification, and contented myself with the well-evidenced transformation into an angel.13 I now feel that this was too limited. Whoever the hero of the Self-Glorification Hymn is, and whatever his function at the end of days, he is a human being who in a unique manner is exalted into heaven and enthroned there. We do not hear of anything comparable regarding any other human—with the exception of Enoch, who becomes the Son of Man in the Similitudes of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch. Our hero is not just one angel among many angels, and it is not said that he will be transformed into an angel. Rather, he is and remains a human being who is elevated to the status of a god, and as such will return to earth. Certainly, “in no case does this ‘divinization’ impinge on the supremacy of the Most High, the God of Israel”14 and the distance between our hero and God remains intact. And yet the divinization of a human being can hardly be driven any further. Israel Knohl therefore sees our hero not simply as another Qumran Messiah but instead as a real, direct precursor to Jesus, who then influenced Jesus and the Christian notion of the Messiah.15