Melchizedek, the Son of Man, and Eschatological Jubilee: The Sin-Forgiving Messiahs in 11QMelchizedek and Mark

This article asks why Jesus in Mk 2.10 interprets the authority (ἐξουσία/שלטן) of the Son of Man in Dan. 7.14 as the authority to forgive sins. I approach this question by looking at 11QMelchizedek (11Q13). Drawing on a constellation of texts pertaining to jubilee (Lev. 25, Isa. 61.1, Dan. 9.24–27), 11QMelchizedek portrays Melchizedek as forgiving Israel’s sins by his jubilean declaration of ‘liberty (דרור‎)’ (II 6). In light of similar intertextual moves being made in Mark, I suggest that Mk 2.10—‘the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on the land (ἀϕιέναι ἁμαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς)’—invokes the language of the jubilee legislation in Lev. 25.10: ‘you will declare forgiveness on the land (διαβοήσετε ἄϕεσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς).’ I conclude that this interpretation of ‘authority’ in Dan. 7.14 stems from an assumed conflation between the Son of Man of Dan. 7.13–14 with the herald messiah of Isa. 61.1, as well as an interpretation of Isa. 61.1 in which the messiah enacts the eschatological forgiveness of Israel’s sins by his jubilean declaration of liberty.

this man speak in this way?He is blaspheming!Who is able to forgive sins except the One God? (τί οὗτος οὕτως λαλεῖ; βλασϕημεῖ· τίς δύναται ἀϕιέναι ἁμαρτίας εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός;)' (2.7). 1 Jesus defends himself against the charge of blasphemy by saying 'the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on the land (ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀϕιέναι ἁμαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς)' (Mk 2.10). 2  As many have noted, the collocation of the epithet 'the Son of Man (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου)' and the noun 'authority (ἐξουσία)' draws on Dan.7.13-14, where 'one like a son of man' receives authority: 'I saw in the night visions one like a son of man (MT: ‫אנש‬ ‫;כבר‬ OG: ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου) coming with the clouds of heaven ... and authority was given to him (MT: ‫שלטן‬ ‫יהיב‬ ‫;ולה‬ OG: ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία) ... His authority is an everlasting authority (MT: ‫עלם‬ ‫שלטן‬ ‫;שלטנה‬ OG: ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος) that shall not pass away.' 3 Thus, when the scribes accuse Jesus of performing an action which (they think) is the prerogative solely of the One God, 4 Jesus dispels the accusation with an appeal to Dan. 7.13-14, interpreting this 'authority' as entailing the authority to forgive sins.To explain Jesus's action of forgiving sins in this scene, scholars have attempted to identify various parallels in which a messiah, 5 priest/high priest, 6 exorcist/prophet, 7 or 1.The translation 'Who can forgive sins but God alone?' (NRSV) obscures the invocation of the Shema here (on which, see Marcus 1994).2. The reasons for this translation will become clear in what follows.3.For the view that Mk 2.10 appeals to Dan. 7.13-14, see the discussion and bibliography in Williams (2021: 31). 4. Ernst Lohmeyer (1967: 53) and Ernst Haenchen (1968: 102) contended that the objection of the scribes is factually incorrect: all Jews, they argued, knew that priests regularly pronounced forgiveness during sacrificial rites in the temple (cf.Koch: 1966: 226).Attempting to resolve this problem, James Dunn contended that the issue in Mk 2.5 'was not so much that Jesus usurped the exclusive prerogative of God to forgive sins which caused offence' but rather that 'Jesus pronounced sins forgiven both outside the cult and without reference (even by implication) to the cult' (Dunn 2003: 787-88, emphasis original;cf. Dunn 2006: 60-61;Sanders 1985: 272-74).There are two problems here.First, numerous scholars, such as Klauck (1981: 237), Hofius (1983), Hägerland (2011: 133-35), and Johansson (2011: 354-55) have pointed out that there is no evidence that forgiveness was ever enacted by a priestly pronouncement in the temple.Second, Dunn's view requires too much reading between the lines: the accusation in Mk 2.7 is not that Jesus does something outside the temple but rather that he does something that ostensibly only God can do (see further, Barber 2023: 59-60).
angel 8 ostensibly forgives (or has the ability to forgive) sins.But Daniel Johansson has, I think, convincingly shown that the parallels proposed thus far do not actually depict a figure forgiving sins by declaration. 9He concludes that 'No conclusive evidence has been put forward in support of the view that other figures than the God of Israel forgave sin in early Judaism.Passages which have been invoked to demonstrate exceptions appear to depict various agents who expiate sin, intercede on behalf of others, or mediate forgiveness from God.But they do not pardon sin.' 10  Johansson helpfully points out how scholars have misread the texts normally adduced to show that certain figures were thought to be able to forgive sins.But the difficulty with Johansson's conclusion is that it leaves open the question of how Jesus's appeal to the Danielic Son of Man actually works.One may be tempted to conclude from Johansson's arguments that, by forgiving sins by declaration, Jesus is in effect indicating that he himself is the One God.But the issue is more complicated than this.The authority of the Son of Man in Dan.7.14, to which Jesus appeals, is an authority bestowed from an external source: it is given to him (‫/יהיב‬ἐδόθη). 11The disagreement between Jesus and the scribes therefore revolves around one key question: Has the One God delegated the prerogative to forgive sins to a divine mediator?The scribes say no, and they have good reason to think so, since no Jewish scriptures indicate that divine mediators can forgive sins.Jesus claims that Dan.7.13-14 proves that the One God has distributed the authority to forgive to a mediator.But Jesus's appeal to this text in defence of his actions should leave us perplexed: nothing in the book of Daniel implies that this 'authority' entails the right to forgive sins.This therefore raises the primary question of this article: Why does Mark's Jesus interpret the 'authority' of the Son of Man as the authority to forgive sins? 12  Before proceeding, a methodological point is in order.Though some scholars have doubted the historical accuracy of the scribes' objection in Mk 2.7, we must at least account for the fact that Mark thought this objection would have seemed plausible to his readers. 13I find it doubtful that Mark would have included this kind of objection if (as some have suggested) virtually all Jews agreed that certain divine mediators could forgive sins.In light of Johansson's arguments, there are good reasons to think that the scribes' objection has some verisimilitude.That being the case, the following methodological criterion arises: any explanation of the issue of forgiveness in Mk 2.1-12 must account both for the verisimilitude of the scribes' objection and for the logic of Jesus's defence by appeal to .This places immense pressure on the interpreter: any convincing explanation must account for Jesus's reading of Dan.7.13-14 as expressing a viewpoint not shared by all Jewish groups, and it must further account for the potential reasons for this disagreement.A reading of this passage that claims that all Jews held that a divine mediator could forgive sin cannot account for the basis for the scribes' objection, but any explanation that states that the scribal objection represents all ancient Jewish views on the matter cannot account for the logic of Jesus's defence.
I will suggest in this article that the Markan Jesus's view is indeed a viewpoint not shared by all Jews, yet-Johansson's criticisms notwithstanding-it is nonetheless not without parallel in Jewish literature.Though it has gone mostly overlooked in scholarly discussions about Mk 2.1-12, 11QMelchizedek, I will argue, provides us with an example of a second temple Jewish text apart from the canonical gospels in which a divine mediator forgives sins by way of declaration. 14My argument here is not that Mark knew 11QMelchizedek; rather, I propose that detecting certain thematic patterns in 11QMelchizedek will help us be more attentive to potentially similar patterns in Mark's gospel.By reading Mark in light of 11QMelchizedek, I will offer an explanation of Mk 2.10 which both accounts for the verisimilitude of the scribes' objection and provides a plausible explanation for why Mark's Jesus appeals to Dan. 7.13-14 to establish his ability to forgive sins.More specifically, I argue that Jesus's interpretation of Dan.7.13-14 is based on potentially contentious intertextual connections between Daniel and Isaiah which facilitated the notion that the authority of the Son of Man would include his right to enact eschatological jubilee and thus forgive sins.This argument will proceed in two steps.First, I turn to 11QMelchizedek to elucidate how a particular synthesis of certain scriptural texts related to jubilee results in the idea that Melchizedek performs a speech-act that forgives Israel of their sins.Second, I return to Mark to explore how similar (though not identical) intertextual connections are at work, and how they may have generated the notion that Jesus can forgive sins at his own discretion.

11QMelchizedek
Of the fragments we have from 11QMelchizedek (dated on paleographic grounds to c. 75-50 bce), 15 the best preserved fragments contain the text of column II. 16 Here I present the text of lines 2-9 of column II with my own translation.Lines 2-6 follow the newer readings of Alexey (Eliyahu) Yuditsky and Esther Haber, 17 line 7 follows the reading recently proposed by Ariel Feldman, 18 and lines 8-9 follow DJD. 19The reconstructions throughout are also based on DJD.

Accounts (Un)Payable: Israel's Debt-Slavery in Exile
With the phrase ‫אמר‬ ‫ואשר‬ ('as for what he said') in line 2, the text introduces the primary object of interpretation in the entire scroll: the jubilee legislation. 26 According to Lev. 25, in the first year of every forty-nine-year cycle, 27 an announcement of 'liberty ‫')דרור(‬ is made and certain people estranged from their ancestral property are to return to it: 8 You shall count off seven weeks of years, seven times seven years, so that the period of seven weeks of years gives forty-nine years. 9Then you shall have the trumpet sounded loud; on the tenth day of the seventh month-on the day of atonement-you shall have the trumpet sounded throughout all your land. 10And you shall hallow the fiftieth year, and you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants ‫ישביה(‬ ‫לכל‬ ‫בארץ‬ ‫דרור‬ ‫.)וקראתם‬ 11 It shall be a jubilee for you ‫לכם(‬ ‫תהיה‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫:)יובל‬ you shall return, every one of you, to your property and every one of you to your family ‫תשבו(‬ ‫משפחתו‬ ‫אל‬ ‫ואיש‬ ‫אחזתו‬ ‫אל‬ ‫איש‬ ‫)ושבתם‬ .... 13 In this year of jubilee you shall return, every one of you, to your property ‫אחזתו(‬ ‫אל‬ ‫איש‬ ‫תשבו‬ ‫הזאת‬ ‫היובל‬ ‫.)בשנת‬ 28   Although nothing in this legislation says anything about the forgiveness of debts, 11QMelchizedek II 2-3 cites Deut.15.2 as a subsidiary elaboration 29 of this legislation on the assumption that the jubilee includes aspects of or coincides with the shemittah year of Deut.15.1-3, at which time all outstanding debts are to be cancelled. 30By synthesizing these two sections of the Pentateuch, the author portrays the jubilee as including two related but distinct features: return to ances-tral property and the release of all debts. 31This conflation between jubilee ‫)יובל(‬ and the shemittah year ‫)שמטה(‬ is attested in other contemporary Jewish authors, including possibly the Septuagint, which translates the terms ‫יובל‬ (jubilee) in Lev.25.10/13, ‫דרור‬ (liberty) in Lev. 25.10,and ‫שמטה‬ (release) in Deut.15.1-2, with the noun ἀϕεσις-'release' (or 'forgiveness'). 32 The text claims that the jubilee legislation has an eschatological sense which concerns the 'captives ‫')שבויים(‬ of Isa.61.1-Israelites who still remain in the captivity of exile (11QMelchizedek II 4).We should pause here to note that, while the jubilee legislation itself does not directly refer to anything eschatological, in 11QMelchizedek (as in other Jewish texts) Israel's restoration is understood as a kind of eschatological jubilee.It is not difficult to understand why: the jubilee legislation is concerned with the return of enslaved Israelites to their native property, and, according to the legislation in Lev.25.47-55, the jubilee even restores Israelites who have become slaves to non-Israelites ‫ותושב(‬ ‫גר‬ in 25.47).The jubilee legislation would have provided fertile ground for Jews to think about Israel's restoration, since restoration would entail being released from foreign domination and the scattered Israelites returning to their ancestral land.The author of 11QMelchizedek, then, presumes that the practice of the jubilee and shemittah year offers an embodied, practical anticipation of Israel's eschatological restoration. 33 If Israel's return from exile occurs as an eschatological jubilee-which, according to 11QMelchizedek II 2-3, includes the cancellation of all debtsthen it is no surprise that the problem of Israel's exile is understood as a kind of debt-slavery.11QMelchizedek II 5 outlines the process by which these Israelites have become 'captives'.As Chanan Ariel points out, if Belial is the implied subject of ‫הדיחמה‬ ('he has caused them to stray') in II 5 (cf.II 12-13) 34 and if the object suffix in ‫הדיחמה‬ refers to the 'sons of light' mentioned later in II 8, then 'The first of Belial's actions is to drive sinners away from the ways of the Torah'. 35 He goes on: 31.See the helpful treatment in Bartos and Levinson (2013), who argue that this conflation is motivated by the confusing omission of debt-release commands in Lev.25; pace van der Woude (1965: 361) and Brooke (1985: 320-23), who think that these texts were connected because ‫יובל‬ (jubilee) ‫שמטה‬ (release) were synonymous.32.Bergsma (2007: 281).See also note 30.33.The phrase 'the interpretation of the word for the end of days ‫הימים(‬ ‫רית‬ ‫אח‬ ‫ל̇‬ ‫ר̊‬ ‫ב̊‬ ‫ד̇‬ ‫ה̇‬ ‫')פשר‬ in II 4 evinces the careful hermeneutical distinctions of the text: whereas the psalms and prophets have only eschatological referents (hence simply 'its interpretation ‫')פשרו (‬ in II 12,17,20), the identification of a specifically eschatological sense implies that the author believes the jubilee/shemittah year to have both eschatological and non-eschatological dimensions (see Bergsma 2007: 282).34.Similar language is used in 1QM XIV 9-10, which states that Belial (and presumably his spirits) 'have not led us astray ‫[ו[(‬ ‫)הדיחונ̇‬ from your covenant.'35.Ariel (2017: 20).
In the second stage of his action, removal from the ways of the Torah gives Belial the legal right to remove the sinner from the spiritual inheritance of Melchizedek.In order to be repaid by the indebted sinner, Belial charges him from his share in the lot of the sons of light ….Belial continues to entice the debtor to persist in sin until he dispossesses him of all his inheritance in the lot of Melchizedek.And once the iniquities accumulate, the debt becomes large, and the debtor becomes unable to repay his debt, then he is forced into exile from the lot of light and forced to become the slave and captive of Belial.... 36 11QMelchizedek therefore articulates two intersecting problems: Israel has not only been exiled from their ancestral property by being sold off as debt-slaves, but this has befallen them because they have accrued an unpayable debt to Belial due to their sins. 37

Melchizedek's Debt-Cancelling Declaration
Enter Melchizedek. 38Melchizedek resolves the twofold problem of Israel's exile with a corresponding twofold action in which he restores those Israelites still 36.Ariel (2017: 21).37.The metaphor that sin is (or accrues) a debt was made possible by the influence of the Aramaic term ‫חוב‬ on the semantics of the Hebrew words ‫עון‬ and ‫.חטא‬As Yuditsky and Ariel argue, 'The catalyst for this semantic development was, apparently, the ambiguity of the noun ‫.חוב‬Its original meaning seems to be 'debt', attested in such early sources as Egyptian Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew.However, in Aramaic it acquired the sense of 'sin.'Because of the bivalence of ‫,חוב‬ the meaning of the verbs ‫שבק‬ and ‫עזב‬ signifying remission of debts was extended to express remission of sins.As a result, other Hebrew synonyms of ‫,עזב‬ such as ‫הניח‬ and ‫,השמיט‬ were also used to denote the remission of sins' (Yuditsky and Ariel 2016: 229;cf. Sutcliffe 1961).In other words, the semantic influence of ‫חוב‬ in Aramaic facilitated the hermeneutical possibility of reading texts about debts and their remission (e.g., the shemittah legislation) as eschatologically referring to sins and their forgiveness.On sin as a metaphorical debt and the use of debt-cancellation metaphors for forgiveness, see Anderson (2005: 14-18;2009); Lam (2016: 87-155); cf.Eubank (2013: 25-52).38.Overviews of Melchizedek traditions include Stuckenbruck (2018); Mason (2008a: 138-90;2012); Kobelski (1981); Horton (1976).Many have argued that Melchizedek is an angel in 11QMelchizedek, specifically the angel Michael (Angel 2010: 155-56;Davila 1996;Flowers 2016: 208-14;Kobelski 1981: 49-74;Milik 1972: 125;van der Woude 1965: 369;Yarbro Collins and Collins 2008: 79-86; cf.van de Water 2006 for a slightly different view).Manzi (1997: 51-96) and Batsch (2007) argue that Melchizedek is a name for God in this text, but, as Aschim (1999: 135) points out, 'The statement that Melchizedek is to "exact the vengeance of God's ‫)אל(‬ judgement" [II 13] seems to presuppose that Melchizedek and God are two different beings' (emphasis original).See also the criticisms of Manzi in Cavicchia (2010: 520-23) and Yarbro Collins and Collins (2008: 82).Carmignac (1970: 367-69), Flusser (1988;1983: 294), Rainbow (1997), andFletcher-Louis (2002: 216-21) contend that Melchizedek is a human, which seems to me more likely.All the evidence adduced for the angelic identity of Melchizedek in other scrolls comes from reconstructions of lacunae, as in 4Q544 3 2 (Puech 2001: 329), 4Q401 11 3 (Newsom 1985: 133), 4Q401 23 3 (Newsom 1985: 143-44, in exile to the sons of light and forgives their sins-that is, he cancels their debts.So Melchizedek will 'cause them [i.e., the captives] to return to them [i.e., the sons of light] ‫אליהמה(‬ ‫)ישיבמה‬ and will declare to them liberty ‫להמה(‬ ‫וקרא‬ ‫,)דרור‬ to forgive them all their iniquities ‫עוונותיהמה(‬ ‫כל‬ ‫[את[‬ ‫להמה‬ ‫')לעזוב‬ (II 6). 39In this context, one may also take the infinitive ‫לעזוב‬ as epexegetical: 'he will declare to them liberty, thus forgiving them all their iniquities'. 40Either way, this attributes to Melchizedek not only the ability to enact Israel's eschatological return from exile but also the ability to enact the eschatological forgiveness of sins by his jubilean declaration of liberty ‫.)דרור(‬ 41 By cancelling their debts, he thus delivers them from authority of Belial, who had claim over them due to their debts: 'Melchizedek will execute the vengeance of Go  (Fletcher-Louis 2002: 190).In any case, for the sake of my argument, one only needs to agree Melchizedek is not just another name for God, which seems to be the scholarly consensus, despite a few detractors.39.I take those whom Melchizedek causes to return to include Jews who were currently in the land and (according to the author of the scroll) still disobedient, as well as the 10 tribes of northern Israel who were still in foreign lands (both are the 'captives' of II 4).I take those to whom they are returned as the 'sons of light'.I assume the parsing between Jews and Israel argued in Staples (2021).This reading of 'he will return them to them' aligns with the widespread view that Israel's restoration would at least include the removal of disobedience from all Israel as well as the reunification of the lost Israelites with the southern tribes in the promised land, a hope which we find (inter alia) in the scrolls (see Staples 2021: 259-89;Bergsma 2008;Thiessen 2008).40.It would be difficult to interpret ‫לעזוב‬ as having a different subject from ‫וקרא‬ in this sentence.
There are some occasions in which an infinitive that modifies a finite verb has a subject different from that finite verb, though often (not always) the new subject of the infinitive is either explicitly stated (1QH a XIII 37-38; 1QpHab X 11-12) or the subject of the infinitive can be identical to the expressed object of the main verb (1QH a VI 36-37; X 37-38); on these examples see Muraoka (2020: 112-13;2015: 84-85).To anticipate a potential objection, I see no compelling reasons to think that God is the implied subject of ‫לעזוב‬ instead of Melchizedek.
Given that Israel's plight includes both estrangement from land and debt from sin, the fact that Melchizedek solves the first issue by causing them to return should lead us to think that ‫לעזוב‬ depicts him solving the second problem.41.On this use of the infinitive, see Muraoka (2020: 113-14).42.Assuming the text and reconstructions of García-Martínez et al. (1998: 225).The notion of return from exile and deliverance from evil spiritual forces should not be played off each other, as they are connected in many texts (see Dimant 2006).
us with a second temple Jewish text apart from the canonical gospels that portrays a divine mediator directly forgiving sins by declaration.Why does the text portray Melchizedek as setting in motion the eschatological jubilee?A key intertext here is Isa.61.1-2, a passage invoked throughout 11QMelchizedek. 43  ‫דרור‬ ‫לשבוים‬ ‫לקרא‬ ‫לב‬ ‫לנשברי‬ ‫לחבש‬ ‫שלחני‬ ‫ענוים‬ ‫לבשר‬ ‫אתי‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫משח‬ ‫יען‬ ‫עלי‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫אדני‬ ‫רוח‬ ‫אבלים‬ ‫כל‬ ‫לנחם‬ ‫לאלהינו‬ ‫נקם‬ ‫ויום‬ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫רצון‬ ‫שנת‬ ‫לקרא‬ ‫קוח‬ ‫פקח‬ ‫ולאסורים‬ The spirit of the Lord yhwh is upon me, because yhwh has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and release to the prisoners, to proclaim the year of yhwh's favour and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn.
The phrase 'to proclaim liberty ‫דרור(‬ ‫)לקרא‬ to the captives' draws on the language of the jubilee legislation in Lev. 25, of which a central command is Lev.25.10: 'you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants ‫ישביה(‬ ‫לכל‬ ‫בארץ‬ ‫דרור‬ ‫.')וקראתם‬ 44  Isa 61.1, then, already construes Lev. 25 eschatologically, portraying Israel's return from their ongoing exile as initiated in the eschatological jubilee reported by this messianic herald. 45A few key interpretative moves are made by 11QMelchizedek in relation to this text.First, 11QMelchizedek identifies the messianic herald of Isa.61.1 with the figure of Melchizedek from Psalm 110.4 and Genesis 14.18-20, 46 the only two texts where the epithet ‫צדק‬ ‫מלכי‬ appears in the Hebrew Bible. 47Second, though Isaiah 61.1 does not explicitly relate the jubilee to forgiveness of sins, 11QMelchizedek articulates that this eschatological jubilee entails the forgiveness of Israel's sin. 48The use of the word ‫לעזוב‬ ('to forgive', or perhaps more accurately here 'to remit' or 'to cancel') shows that sin is being metaphorically construed as a debt, since the use of words associated with the notion of 'remission' in Hebrew ‫,)עזב(‬ Aramaic ‫,)שבק(‬ and Greek (ἀϕιέναι/ἄϕεσις) only occur in connection with sin being understood as a debt. 49 In 11QMelchizedek's reading of Isaiah 61.1, then, the messiah's jubilean declaration of liberty does not just concern the return of the captives but also the debt-cancellation of their sins.This interpretation is not surprising in light of the conflation between the jubilee and shemittah year in 11QMelchizedek.Third, though it would be perfectly reasonable to interpret the phrase 'to proclaim liberty to the captives' in Isaiah 61.1 as expressing that the herald messiah simply reports something about God's eschatological action, 11QMelchizedek construes Melchizedek as effectively enacting eschatological forgiveness of sins by his declaration of liberty.Crucially, it is the phrase 'to forgive them all their iniquities' in 11QMelchizedek II 6 that clarifies the latter two interpretative moves with respect to Isaiah 61.1's eschatological adaptation of the jubilee.In other words, 11QMelchizedek portrays Melchizedek as enacting the forgiveness of sins by declaration on the basis of a conflation between Melchizedek of Genesis 14.18-20/Psalm 110.4 with the herald messiah of Isaiah 61.1, as well an interpretation of Isaiah 61.1 in which the herald messiah enacts the eschatological forgiveness of Israel's sins by his jubilean declaration of liberty.But if that is the case, why has this text not featured in the debates in Markan scholarship over whether there are Jewish texts that depict divine mediators forgiving sins?Johansson, for example, brings up but then immediately dismisses the relevance of 11QMelchizedek: 'Melchizedek is an "agent of the expiation", but he does not forgive sins' (citing II 7-8, but not II 6!). 50This striking oversight but it may also be translated, 'You are a high priest forever by my order, O Melchizedek' (Cargill 2019: 81-94;cf. Bates 2009: 391;Flusser 1988: 189;Kugel 1998: 279;Milik 1972: 138).Read this way, the entire psalm could be taken as an address to Melchizedek, which would further facilitate readers connecting the figures of Gen. 14.18-20 and Ps.110.Some have doubted the relevance of Ps. 110.4 and/or Gen. 14.18-20 for 11QMelchizedek, such as Fitzmyer (1967: 31-32); Horton (1976: 80 n. 1).But on the relevance of Genesis 14. 18-20, see VanderKam (2000: 173) (in the previous note) and Aschim (1996).The parallels between 11QMelchizedek and Ps.110 are too extensive to ignore, as Granerød (2010: 208-10) and Kobelski (1981: 52-55) show.48.Of course, this event would surely be correlated with the eschatological forgiveness of sins for the author of Isa.61.1.But it is not clear that the motif of eschatological jubilee per se entails forgiveness of sins in Isa.61, in contrast to the explicit connection between jubilee and forgiveness of sins in 11QMelchizedek.49.See esp.Anderson (2009: 27-39) and note 37. 50.Johansson (2011: 360 n. 45), quoting Fitzmyer (1980: 16 n. 56).
is, I think, due to the way 11QMelchizedek II 6 has been problematically translated in the editions likely used by New Testament scholars.In his editio princeps published in 1965, A.S. van der Woude states, 'Das Subjekt von ‫קרא‬ kann bei diesem Zitat kaum Gott selbst sein, vielmehr sein Gesalbter'. 51Since van der Woude is convinced that the figure later identified in II 18 as 'the messenger ‫')המבשר(‬ (referring to Isa. 52.7) and 'the anointed of the spirit ‫[ח[(‬ ‫הרו̇‬ ‫שיח‬ ‫')מ̇‬ (referring to the anointed messiah of Isa.61.1) is not Melchizedek, and since he thinks the figure who announces liberty in II 6 must be the same figure as the one in II 18, he concludes that the subject of ‫וקרא‬ in II 6 cannot be Melchizedek. 52He nevertheless articulates an agent as the subject of ‫וקרא‬ in his translation of II 6: 'und er wird den Erlass für sie ausrufen.' 53 For the same reasons, the editors of DJD take the subject of ‫וקרא‬ as the anointed messenger and not Melchizedek, but their resulting translation is crucially different.The editors assert that 'In Isa.61.1 the "anointed" is the subject of ‫,קרא‬ but the distinction between the "anointed" and Melchizedek has not been made in the text.The subject of the verbal form ‫]וקרא[‬ should rather be regarded as indefinite'. 54Thus, the resulting translation in DJD eschews any subject of the verb: 'And liberty shall be proclaimed to them, to set them free from [the debt] 55 of all their iniquities'. 56With ‫וקרא‬ taken as indefinite, this translation inhibits anyone from seeing that an agent is involved in making this declaration that enacts forgiveness of sins.Given that DJD contains the English translation of 11QMelchizedek that is most likely to be used by many New Testament scholars, I suspect DJD's translation decision is the reason why 11QMelchizedek II 6 has been overlooked in debates over Mk 2.10.
But such an interpretation does not by any means represent a consensus, and a strong constituency of scholars hold that ‫וקרא‬ should be understood as an active verb with Melchizedek as the subject. 57The proposal that the subject of ‫וקרא‬ is the anointed messenger and not Melchizedek, as well as its resulting indefinite translation in DJD, can be called into question on numerous grounds.First of all, the immediate context of II 6 strongly pushes against the view that the subject is not Melchizedek.If ‫צדק‬ ‫מלכי‬ is to be reconstructed from the fragmentary ‫ק-‬ ‫ד̇‬ in II 5, 58 then Melchizedek must be the subject of the verb in the relative clause that crosses from line 5 to line 6: '[Melchize]dek, who will return them to them ‫אליהמה(‬ ‫ישיבמה‬ ‫אשר‬ ‫ק‬ ‫צ[ד̇‬ ‫'.) [מלכי‬ 59 Given that (1) ‫וקרא‬ comes immediately after ‫ישיבמה‬ (whose subject is Melchizedek), (2) there are no breaks in the text, and (3) there is no new subject introduced, it simply strains credulity to argue that ‫וקרא‬ suddenly has an unexpressed subject that is an entirely different character who has ostensibly not even been introduced yet.To show how unlikely van der Woude's translation is, it is worth pointing out that his reading would require the following understanding: 'Melchizedek, who will return them to them, and he [not Melchizedek, but the anointed of the spirit] will proclaim liberty to them'. 60As for the translation in DJD, in the absence of any sort of introduction of this new figure, it stretches the text to its breaking point to argue that an ancient reader would somehow reflexively read ‫וקרא‬ as indefinite when it is so closely preceded by an active verb of which Melchizedek is the subject. 61 If Melchizedek is the subject of ‫,וקרא‬ then we should conclude that the figure identified as 'the messenger' and 'the anointed of the spirit' in II 18 is also Melchizedek.One may be inclined to argue that, because Melchizedek is identified as a god throughout the scroll, Melchizedek cannot also be the messenger. 62 Since the messenger announces that 'your God reigns!' and 'your God' is identified as Melchizedek in II 23-25, it would mean that the messenger announces his own kingship. 63But we should not be averse to the possibility that Melchizedek 58.Others who reconstruct this include Yuditsky and Haber (in Ariel 2017: 18); García-Martínez et al. (1998: 224); van der Woude (1965: 358).59.Fitzmyer (1967: 34) observes that it is possible that the subject of ‫ישיבמה‬ could be a nomen regens to which ‫צדק‬ ‫מלכי‬ is the nomen rectum in a construct phrase.However, since Melchizedek is the primary actor in this text (he judges Belial in II 13 and is surely the priest who makes atonement in II 8), it is best to take ‫צדק‬ ‫מלכי‬ as the antecedent of ‫.אשר‬ 60.Fitzmyer (1967: 34) perhaps understates the problems here when he says that van der Woude's interpretation is 'a little farfetched'.61.Bergsma (2007: 283 n. 80) opines that 'The decision of García Martinez et al. not to translate ‫וקרא‬ with Melchizedek as the subject (line 6), because in their opinion Melchizedek is not the "anointed," simply ensconces their bias in the translation'; cf.Bergsma (2007: 282 n. 78).62.The author edits the phrase 'the year of yhwh's favour ‫ליהוה(‬ ‫רצון‬ ‫')שנת‬ from Isa. 61.2 and changes it to read 'the year of Melchizedek's favour ‫ק(‬ ‫צד̊‬ ‫למלכי‬ ‫הרצון‬ ‫')שנת‬ (II 9).In II 9-10, the scroll interprets Ps. 82.1 as being written about him ‫עליו(‬ ‫כתוב‬ ‫:)כאשר‬ Melchizedek is the God ‫)אלוהים(‬ who acts as judge in the divine council and executes judgment against the unjust gods (II 10, 13), whom the scroll interprets as referring to 'Belial and the spirits of his lot' (II 12).In II 10-11, the text quotes Ps. 7.7-8-'over it take your seat on high, yhwh judges the people'-but amends ‫יהוה‬ to ‫אל‬ and claims that David spoke about Melchizedek ‫[ר(‬ ‫מ̇‬ ‫א̇‬ ‫יו‬ ‫.)ועל̇‬ Rainbow (1997: 182-83) thinks the two uses of ‫עליו‬ in II 10 mean 'about it' (not 'about him') and argues that the Psalm citations do not refer to Melchizedek (see Carmignac 1970: 365-67 for a similar view).The view seems hard to square with the preceding context, which is entirely about Melchizedek.63.Assuming the reconstruction of García-Martínez et al. (1998: 226).
does in fact announce his own reign.As Bergsma observes, 'Although this may seem odd to modern readers, the author of 11QMelch has little or no difficulty melding the identities of different scriptural personae.The equation of "God" with "Melchizedek" (lines 24-25) is a prime example!' 64 To reiterate my point here, then: all this suggests that it is better both to interpret ‫וקרא‬ in 11QMelchizedek II 6 as an active verb and to understand the subject of that verb to be Melchizedek.We therefore can say on good evidence that Melchizedek not only performs the declaration of liberty but also thereby forgives Israel's sins by this declaration.

Daniel's Jubilean Chronology in 11QMelchizedek II 7
11QMelchizedek articulates a chronology for the occurrence of this eschatological jubilee that is based on a scheme of 10 jubilees (II 7).The division of the time before the eschaton into 10 jubilees constitutes an interpretation of Daniel's 'seventy weeks' of years (Dan.9.24), which amounts to 490 years-10 jubilee cycles.In this passage, Daniel inquires of God regarding why Jeremiah's prophecy that the restoration of Judah would occur after 70 years in Babylon had not been fulfilled (Dan.9.2-3).Daniel then intercedes for the whole people, confessing their sin and pleading for forgiveness on their behalf so as to enact Israel's restoration (Dan.9.4-20).The angel Gabriel responds (Dan.9.24-27): Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to do away with rebellion, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time.After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war.Desolations are decreed.He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.
The prediction of seventy weeks of years is not a claim that this is what Jeremiah secretly meant all along. 65Jeremiah's oracle was originally a conditional promise that God would restore Judah after 70 years 'if you seek me with all your heart' (Jer.29.13). 66But since, despite the punishment of exile, Israel as a whole has not repented (Dan.9.13), God-according to the principle in Lev. 26 that refusal to repent results in sevenfold expansion of punishment-has multiplied their punishment by seven times, extending the years of chastisement and delaying Judah's (and, by extension, Israel's) full restoration. 67 It has long been noticed that, like the many other second temple Jewish texts that organise history according to jubilee cycles, 68 the period of 'seventy sevens' seems to draw on the chronological scheme of the jubilee. 69Bergsma points to three primary reasons for this: (1) the passage is universally recognized as speaking of 'weeks' of years, and the most explicit biblical precedent for the concept of a 'week of years' is found in Lev 25:8, which concerns the calculation of the jubilee year, (2) the author also seems to assume the interpretation of Jeremiah's 'seventy years' as missed sabbatical years as per 2 Chron 26:21, which establishes a link with Lev 25:1-7 and 26:34-35, and (3) the Day-of-Atonement imagery in the text, such as the reference to 'atonement for iniquity' ‫עון(‬ ‫,כפר‬ Dan 9:24), is also relevant, since the jubilee was proclaimed on the Day of Atonement. 70  Since the jubilee occurs after each 49th year, Daniel's invocation of a period of 490 years signals that Israel's restoration would be like a grand jubilee. 71 At this point, it is worth noting a puzzling issue regarding the chronology of 11QMelchizedek.The editors of DJD, following the earlier proposal of Milik,  72 Whereas Daniel appears to place the eschatological jubilee in the 491st year (i.e., after the 10th jubilee cycle), 11QMelchizedek, on this reading, would place the announcement of jubilee well before that, during the 10th jubilee.Furthermore, that the jubilee announcement would occur before the Day of Atonement would not align with the scheme of Lev. 25, which sets the Day of Atonement at the beginning of the jubilee year. 73However, in light of the

Mark
Mark scholars have not often considered the possibility that Mark's gospel invokes motifs associated with the jubilee, eschatological or otherwise. 75Most of the scholarly energy has been exerted in exploring this motif in the gospel of Luke, in which Jesus reads out Isaiah 61.1-2 LXX  and declares that 'Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing' (Lk 4.21).76 But the fact that Mark does not have this scene should not deter us from being open to the possibility that jubilee motifs are present in Mark as well.Indeed, if Mark's Jesus is announcing and enacting the restoration of Israel in his eschatological activity, we should be attentive to the possibility that Mark invokes the same jubilee texts and concepts that some of his contemporaneous Jews utilised to depict Israel's restoration.In this section, then, I proffer that Mk 1-2 draws on the same constellation of jubilee texts invoked by 11QMelchizedek-Dan.Isa. 61.1,and Lev. 25.10. Trcing allusions to these texts in Mk 1-2 will help us be attentive to the theme of jubilee in Mark and help us ascertain the implicit reasoning undergirding the claim that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins.

Dan. 9.24-27: The Time Is Fulfilled
In Mk 1.15, Jesus initiates his proclamation of the coming kingdom by saying, 'The time is fulfilled (πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός), and the kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe the good news!'While a previous generation 74.Feldman (2018: 181-84).75.The exceptions to this at least include Barker (2000); Davila (2003: 269-71).76.For discussions on jubilee in Luke, see Blosser (1979); Galbraith (2020: 163-68); Kim (2011);Luthy (2019;2021); Sanders (1992b;2020); Sloan (1977); Smith (2018); Sri (2011).In support of this proposal, we should note that Josephus singles out Daniel as the prophet who articulates the chronology of when certain prophecies should come to pass: 'For the books which he wrote and left behind are still read by us even now, and we are convinced by them that Daniel spoke with God, for he was not only wont to prophesy future things (οὐ γὰρ τὰ μέλλοντα μόνον προϕητεύων διετέλει), as did the other prophets, but he also fixed the time at which these would come to pass (ἀλλὰ καὶ καιρὸν ὥριζεν, εἰς ὃν ταῦτα ἀποβήσεται)' (Ant.10.267). 81Furthermore, as is well known, Josephus claims about the Great Revolt initiated in 66 ce that 'What more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle (χρησμὸς ἀμϕίβολος), likewise found in their sacred scriptures (ὁμοίως ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς εὑρημένος γράμμασιν), to the effect that at that time (κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν ἐκεῖνον) one from their country would become ruler of the world' (War 6.312). 82Anthony J. Tomasino has persuasively shown that both of these passages in Josephus almost certainly refer to the chronology of Dan.9.24-27. 83This suggests not only that Josephus associated the identification of the timing of eschatological events specifically with Dan.9.24-27 but also that a key impetus for at least one Jewish revolutionary movement was the conviction that Daniel's 70 weeks of years were on the verge of completion at the time of 66 ce.
to head to the debt archives and to burn all the records so as to obstruct the collection of debts (War 2.427).This should make us wonder if this action was a way of economically actualising the eschatological jubilee that was to occur at the end of Daniel's 70 weeks of years. 84 Reflecting a similar chronology to the rebels of the Great Revolt, the reference to the 'abomination of desolation' in Mk 13.14 (alluding to Dan. 9.27) places the end of Daniel's 70 weeks around the destruction of the temple in 70 ce.Crucially, this identifies Jesus's proclamation in Mk 1.15 as occurring (in 11QMelchizedek's terms) in the final, tenth 49-year jubilee cycle of Daniel's 490 years. 85James Davila therefore concludes that 'we can say that first-century Jewish circles, including the first-generation Jesus movement, were aware of an exegetical tradition in which the consummation of the tenth jubilee and eschatological redemption were expected around the year 70 C.E.' 86 In tandem with the vast influence of Daniel's 490-year chronology on second temple Jewish eschatology more generally, 87 this evidence pressures us to interpret 'the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has drawn near' as an announcement that Daniel's 70 weeks of years-the time of divine wrath-are nearly complete and that the new age, and therefore the eschatological jubilee, is just on the horizon. 88
(χριστός) (1.1), and in Mk 1.10 the spirit descends on (into?) him (τὸ πνεῦμα … καταβαίνον εἰς αὐτόν). 90Furthermore, in Isa.61.1 LXX, the messenger is sent to 'announce good news to the poor (εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς)' and to 'proclaim (κηρύξαι) liberty to the captives'; the opening line of Mark identifies the book as the good news (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) (1.1), and Jesus goes into Galilee proclaiming the good news of God (κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ) (1.14).The specific cluster of motifs in Isa.61.1-a figure who is anointed by God, on whom the spirit rests, and who proclaims the good news-comes to expression in the opening of Mark. 91Of course, taken independently, each of these features do not in themselves necessarily allude to Isa. 61.1, and, to be sure, I am not claiming that only Isa. 61.1 is operative in these texts. 92But the combination of these three motifs in such close proximity would signal to anyone familiar with Jewish scripture that Jesus is at least being depicted as the spirit-filled anointed herald of Isa.61.1 who announces the eschatological jubilee. 93

Lev. 25.10: Forgiveness on the Land
While Mark alludes to at least two texts containing jubilee motifs-Dan.9.24-27 and Isa.61.1-does Mark, like 11QMelchizedek, ever quote or allude to the jubilee legislation itself?I would like to suggest that Jesus's defence in Mk 2.10 draws not only on the language of Dan.7.13-14 but also on the language of the key jubilee command of Lev.25.10.Consider the similarities between these two texts: Lev. 25.10 LXX: καὶ διαβοήσετε ἀϕεσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς πᾶσιν τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν αὐτήν.
And you will announce forgiveness on the land to all those who inhabit it.
90.Also Bock (2015: 116); Marcus (2002: 160);Taylor (1966: 160).91.Moreover, in Isa.61.1 LXX the messenger announces the returning of sight to the blind (τυϕλοῖς ἀνάβλεψις); in Mark, Jesus makes the blind (τυϕλός) see again (ἀναβλέπω) .92.The word χρίστος, of course, would not by itself bring to mind Isa.61.1; elsewhere in Isaiah the spirit rests on the servant, as in Isa.42.1 (ἔδωκα τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπ̓ αὐτόν; cf.Isa.59.21) and a connection between Mk 1.10 and Isa.63.14 has been suggested by, e.g., Feuillet (1959), Schneck (1994: 43-47), and Marcus (1993: 49-50); elsewhere in Isaiah the servant proclaims good news, as in 52.7 (εὐαγγελιζόμενος ἀγαθά).93.So also Marcus (2002: 160): 'Messiah/Christ, after all, means "anointed one," and Isa 61:1, which is cited elsewhere in the NT (Luke 4:16-22; Acts 10:38), speaks of a figure who is anointed with the spirit and who proclaims good news, which is what Jesus does shortly after his baptism, in Mark 1:14-15.' Pace Watts (1997: 116) While the final words of Jesus's assertion in Mk 2.10 are nearly identical to Lev. 25.10, there are two key differences.Mk 2.10 uses the verb ἀϕιέναι instead of the phrase διαβοῆσαι ἀϕεσιν and adds the object ἁμαρτίας.These two modifications are quite similar to how 11QMelchizedek combines the phrase 'to forgive them all their iniquities' with Melchizedek's announcement of jubilee in II 6. Recall that, whereas one may understand the activity of the herald messiah of Isa.61.1 as simply announcing God's eschatological action of returning the 'captives', the infinitive phrase 'to forgive them all their iniquities' in 11QMelchizedek II 6 specifies that Melchizedek's announcement of jubilee both includes the forgiveness of sins (as a form of debt-cancellation) and enacts that forgiveness.Similarly, by writing ἀϕιέναι (to forgive) instead of διαβοῆσαι ἀϕεσιν (to announce forgiveness), Mark makes clear that the Son of Man is not just reporting God's forgiveness but enacting it himself, and Mark's addition of the word ἁμαρτίας signals that this jubilee announcement pertains the forgiveness of sins, also understood as a kind of debt cancellation.94 Mark's twofold modification of the language of Lev.25.10 very closely aligns with how 11QMelchizedek specifies the nature and effect of Melchizedek's jubilee-announcement. Thus, the differences between Lev. 25.10 and Mk 2.10 notwithstanding, I suggest that the phrase 'the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on the land' constitutes a composite allusion that invokes not one but two texts-both Dan.7.13-14 and Lev.25.10.95  This implies that Jesus defends himself against the scribes' accusation of blas-94.Again, the use of the word ἀϕιέναι to denote forgiveness depends on understanding sin as a kind of debt.95.On examples of composite allusions/citations in Mark, see Moyise (2018).It is noteworthy that the phrase 'Son of Man' occurs in some of these composite texts (Mk 9.10; 14.62).
phemy by claiming that he, qua the Son of Man, has the authority to enact eschatological jubilee and inaugurate the restoration of Israel.

Making Sense of Jesus's Defence
Once again, we arrive at the key question of this article: Why does Mark interpret the 'authority' of Dan.7.14 in this way?In light of everything previously discussed, I suggest that it is a particular interpretation of Isa.61.1 that is the crux for both 11QMelchizedek and Mark's understanding of their respective messianic figures which facilitates the idea that the messiah forgives sins by declaration.I propose that, in light of Mark's allusions to Isa. 61.1 and the portrayal of Jesus as forgiving sins with the language of the jubilee legislation, Mark likely assumes an interpretation of Isa 61.1 along the lines of 11QMelchizedek Melchizedek in 11QMelchizedek and other texts that feature a Son of Man figure (Flusser 1988;Kvanvig 2007: 190-91;Bertalotto 2011;Ellens 2011).97.For both of these texts, the conflation between various figures is assumed rather than demonstrated.11QMelchizedek's assumed conflation of Melchizedek with Isaiah's herald messiah leads the author to directly connect the language of the jubilee legislation with Melchizedek; similarly, Mark's conflation of the Son of Man with Isaiah's jubilean herald messiah leads the author to connect the language of the jubilee legislation directly with the Son of Man.98.This would align quite well with other places in Mark where the Son of Man is connected to the Isaianic servant songs; on which, see Marcus (1995: 458-62;1993: 94-110, 164-98).
functions 'to forgive them all their iniquities.'But in Mk 2.10 the eschatological jubilee declaration is only applied to a single individual-the paralytic.This may be explained if we consider the effect of conflating Dan.7.13-14 with Isa.61.1.Once this conflation is made, it is not a huge step to conclude that the 'authority' which is given to the Son of Man entails that he is authorised to do the activities of Isa.61.1 at his own discretion and not all at once.In this connection, the chronological difference between 11QMelchizedek and Mark perhaps becomes significant: whereas 11QMelchizedek strictly locates Melchizedek's singular redemptive action in the year after the end of the 10th jubilee (i.e., in the 491st year of Daniel's 70 weeks of years), Mark portrays Jesus as inaugurating the eschatological jubilee before the end of the Daniel's 70 weeks of years. 99Mark may therefore be portraying Jesus's ministry as a kind of transition era in which Jesus begins to enact glimpses of the eschatological jubilee that will be fully realised later.Such an understanding would align with Jesus's claim that the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, which begins extremely small, grows slowly, and eventually blooms so as to become the largest of all plants (Mk 4. [30][31][32].In that case, Jesus's enactment of eschatological jubilee at his own discretion for the paralytic would be part and parcel with the slow and steady growth of the kingdom of God.The paralytic experiences the realisation of the coming grand jubilee in his own person, receiving the forgiveness of sins that will soon embrace all Israel.Finally, we should note that Jesus's act of healing is a key aspect of his theological defence against the scribes.It is crucial to take seriously that the appeal to Dan. 7.13-14 is embedded within an apparently hanging purpose-clause in Mk 2.10 that precedes the act of healing: '"So that you would know (ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε) that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on the land"-he said to the paralytic, "I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home"' (Mark 2. [10][11].Here, Jesus's physical act of healing is, as it were, the main clause to which the purpose clause is subordinated.In other words, Jesus's healing of the paralytic not only makes the scribes 'know' that he is the Son of Man but also constitutes evidence for his theological conviction that God has delegated the prerogative to forgive sins to another agent.100 This healing functions as an exe-99.Of course, this problem goes away if one holds to the reading offered in DJD as opposed to Feldman's reading.But, as noted, I find the reading of the former unlikely.100.The fact that forgiveness is related to Jesus healing this man of paralysis coheres with how, according to the Greek version of Deuteronomy, God will have compassion on Israel and grant them forgiveness when he sees them paralysed: 'For the Lord will judge his people, and he will relent on his slaves (καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ παρακληθήσεται), for he saw them paralysed (εἶδεν γὰρ παραλελυμένους αὐτούς), deserted in distress, and weakened [or paralysed] (καὶ παρειμένους)' (Deut.32.36 LXX).Jesus's ability to reverse the Deuteronomic curse of paralysis would therefore also prove his ability to forgive sins.I owe this observation to Paul Sloan.

Conclusions, Implications, Speculations
In this article, I have proposed that Mark's Jesus interprets the authority of Daniel's Son of Man as the authority to forgive sins on the basis of an assumed conflation with the herald messiah of Isa.61.1, interpreted as depicting a messiah who forgives sins by announcing the arrival of the eschatological jubilee.I have argued that these exegetical moves share many affinities with 11QMelchizedek, which makes this reading of Mark more plausible.
At the outset of this article, I established the criterion that any plausible interpretation of Mk 2.10 must account for the verisimilitude of the scribal objection as well as the coherence of Jesus's defence.I suggest that my proposals here satisfy this criterion.The interpretation of Isa.61.1 in 11QMelchizedek-according to which the herald messiah forgives sins by declaration-is not the most obvious or natural reading of that text.As noted, one could read Isa.61.1 as simply saying that the messiah will announce that God is doing something monumental for Israel.If I am right to say that Mark's both reads Isa.61.1 similarly to 11QMelchizedek and that he identifies the anointed herald with the Danielic Son of Man, then Mark's interpretation of the Son of Man's 'authority' depends on two potentially contentious interpretative judgments.It would not be surprising at all if not everyone agreed with these interpretative moves.My conclusion regarding the intertextual and exegetical logic of the claim in Mk 2.10 can account for the objection of the scribes: it is entirely reasonable for them to believe that no one can forgive sins but the One God.At the same time, by reading Mk 2.10 in light of 11QMelchizedek, we see that Jesus's defence in Mk 2.10-that Dan.7.13-14 signals that God has indeed delegated to others the ability to forgive-is not entirely without analogy in ancient Judaism. 102Mk 2.10 certainly would not represent what all Jews believed about forgiveness, but 11QMelchizedek shows us that some Jews did think that God is not the only one who can forgive sins.This renders the debate between Jesus and the scribes perfectly reasonable.
101. Hooker (1967: 88).102.It is relevant to consider whether Mark knows the Old Greek of Dan.7.13.Whereas the MT and Theodotion versions state that the 'one like a son of man' comes unto the ancient of days ‫מטה(‬ ‫יומיא‬ ‫עתיק‬ ‫ועד‬ / ἐρχόμενος ἦν καὶ ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν), the Old Greek says, 'on the clouds of heaven he came as a son of man (ἐπὶ τῶν νεϕελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο), and he was present as the Ancient of Days (καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν παρῆν).'If the Old Greek version of Dan.7.13 is assumed in Mk 2.10, then Jesus's claim to be the Danielic Son of Man would entail that he can be 'present as the Ancient of Days', which may also be relevant for his defence against the charge of blasphemy.
discretion, and let us also imagine that John thought that the initial claim that 'The spirit of the Lord is upon me' meant that specifically the spirit authorises and empowers the figure of Isa.61.1 to forgive sins in this way. 109It would not be difficult to conclude that any human who is similarly bestowed with the spirit is both sent and authorised to do the kinds of things that the herald messiah does in Isa.61. 110On such an interpretation of Isa.61.1, the bestowal of the spirit to the disciples would enable them to forgive sins at their own discretion.Again, this would also comport rather well with the motif of the Isaianic servant producing more servants.
Finally, the evidence in this article should lead us to consider whether the ideas in 11QMelchizedek could have been more widespread than has been typically thought, even if they still constituted a minority viewpoint and were not popular among all groups.The similarities adduced between Mark 1-2 and 11QMelchizedek are surprisingly numerous: both texts invoke similar clusters of texts in close proximity (Dan.Isa. 61,and Lev. 25); both texts portray a divine mediator forgiving sin; and both texts invoke the language of jubilee to portray this figure forgiving sin.While my argument does not depend on arguing that Mark came into contact with 11QMelchizedek (or some recension thereof), I do not think it would be wrong to suspect that 11QMelchizedek was copied, distributed, read, and heard throughout some Jewish groups in ancient Palestine and that the circulation of these ideas might have had an impact upon members of the early Jesus movement (the sectarian identification of this text notwithstanding).111 We may rightly speculate about whether these ideas may have been formative for Jesus's own messianic self-understanding.112 To close with a more tentative proposal: since 11QMelchizedek very closely associates the messiah Melchizedek with yhwh and even identifies him as a god, 113 to entertain the possibility that 11QMelchizedek's ideas were in the air in first-century 109.Williams (2018) elucidates the vast influence of LXX Isaiah on the gospel of John elsewhere, which strengthens this argument.110.If the synoptics also understand Isa.61.1 in this way, it may also help explain why blaspheming the holy spirit is the unforgivable sin Lk 12.10): to blaspheme against the spirit is to blaspheme the one who authorises Jesus to forgive sins.111. Thoe who have classified 11QMelchizedek as sectarian include (for example) van der Woude (1965: 357); Campbell (2004: 59); Jassen (2007: 178).112. Simlarly, Davila (2003: 271) (drawing on Barker 2000) opines, 'the evidence that Barker has collected does support the possibility that either Jesus's early followers or even Jesus himself drew on eschatological jubilee traditions about Melchizedek to construct a theology of the mission and person of Jesus.' 113.See note 62.
Palestine would require us to affirm that Jesus's divine self-consciousness constitutes a real historical possibility. 114 l [happen] in the first week of the jubilee ‫ון(‬ ֯ ‫ראיש‬ ‫ה֯‬ ‫היובל‬ ‫ע֯‬ ‫ו֯‬ ‫ב֯‬ ֯ ‫ש‬ ‫)ב֯‬ (that occurs) after [the] ni[ne] jubilees ‫ה[יובלים(‬ ‫]עה‬ ֯ ‫ש‬ ֯ ‫'.)ת‬And [the] D[ay of Atone]ment i[s] the e[nd of] the tenth [ju]bilee ‫העשירי(‬ ‫[יו[בל‬ ‫[ה̊‬ ‫[וף‬ ‫.)ס̊‬ [d]'s judgements, and [in that day he will de]liv[er them from the power] of Belial, and from the power of all the sp[irits of his lot]' (II 13).42Read this way, 11QMelchizedek II 6 provides albeit reconstructed cautiously); and 11Q17 II 7(Davila 2000: 133; see the criticism inStuckenbruck 2018: 131).The reconstruction of ‫צדק‬ ‫מלכי‬ in 4Q401 11 3 seems probable, but, paceNewsom (1985: 37), it is not clear that this figure must be an angel.Melchizedek is a human in many other extant second temple Jewish texts (1Q20 XXII 14-17; Pseudo-Eupolomus apudEusebius, Praep.ev.9.17.5-6;Jos.War.6.438;Ant.1.179-81;Philo Abr.235; Congr.99;Leg.3.79-82;Heb.7; Jub.13.25 as reconstructed by VanderKam 1989: 82), and the parallel between 11QMelchizedek II 6 and 4Q541 9 I 2 suggests a human identity of interpreters often took καιρός in Mk 1.15 to mean 'appointed time',77Joel Marcus (drawing on a study by Franz Mussner) observes that 'Since peplērōtai would have initially evoked for Greek speakers this image of a container, and since kairos can indicate, indeed in the LXX and NT usually does indicate, a span of time, it seems more logical to begin with the hypothesis that Mk 1.15a speaks of a span of time that has now become full, i.e. is over, and only to deviate from this interpretation if impressive reasons for doing so can be adduced.'78Inotherwords, whereas the phrase 'the kingdom of God has come near' refers to the (near) inauguration of a new time, the phrase 'the time is fulfilled' refers to the end of a previous set of time. 79hat Marcus does not consider, however, is the possibility that this 'span of time that has now become full' is in fact the (jubilean) chronology ofDan.9.24-27. 80 : 'the immediate context of Exodus imagery and the content of the voice together suggest that Isaiah 61:1 is not Mark's primary emphasis in the baptism account.'Ifthere is Exodus imagery in Mk 1.10,I see no reason to construct this kind of dichotomy, as if Mark must only be highlighting a single text or motif at a time.Mk 2.10: ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀϕιέναι ἁμαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on the land.I know of no modern scholar who has suggested that Mk 2.10 alludes to Lev. 25.10, but the similarities between them are quite striking.Lev.25.10 constitutes the only instance in the Septuagint in which the noun ἀϕεσις or the verb ἀϕιέναι is used in conjunction with ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (or any similar phrase such as ἐπὶ τῇ γῇ or ἐν τῇ γῇ).Potentially strengthening this connection, in both Lev.25.10 and Mk 2.10-11 the result of the declaration of forgiveness is the return to one's property.In Lev.25.10 LXX, the announcement of forgiveness (ἄϕεσις) initiates the time at which 'each one shall depart to his property, and each shall depart to his homeland (ἀπελεύσεται εἷς ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν κτῆσιν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτοῦ ἀπελεύσεσθε).'After Jesus forgives the sin of the paralytic, he says, 'I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home (ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου)' (Mk 2.11).
-namely, that the herald messiah enacts forgiveness of sins by his jubilean announcement of liberty.11QMelchizedek and Mk 1-2, then, synthesize different texts with Isa.61.1: 11QMelchizedek identifies the jubilee-declaring messiah of Isa.61.1 with Melchizedek (the figure of) and accordingly depicts Melchizedek as enacting forgiveness of sins by declaration with the language of the jubilee ‫;)דרור(‬ Mk 1-2 identifies the jubilee-declaring messiah of Isa.61.1 with Daniel's 'one like a Son of Man' (7.13-14) and accordingly depicts the Son of Man as enacting forgiveness of sins by declaration with the language of the jubilee legislation (ἄϕεσις/ἀϕιέναι + ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς).96Therefore,Iconclude that Mk 2.10 portrays the Son of Man as having the authority to forgive sins by declaration on the basis of an assumed conflation 97 between the Son of Man of Dan.7.13-14 with the herald messiah of Isa.61.1, as well as an interpretation of Isa.61.1 in which the herald messiah enacts the eschatological forgiveness of Israel's sins by his declaration of liberty.In other words, the Son of Man can forgive sins because he identifies Daniel's Son of Man with Isaiah's jubileeenacting and sin-forgiving messiah.98Thus,forMark's Jesus, God has indeed bestowed the authority to forgive sins to a divine mediator.This, however, brings us to a key difference between 11QMelchizedek and Mark.11QMelchizedek seems to communicate that Melchizedek's singular action initiates Israel's restoration in one fell swoop: his declaration of liberty 96.It is worth noting here that numerous scholars have pointed out strong resonances between