You Are a Priest Forever': Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, Vol.74)

'You Are a Priest Forever'

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Edit'd""

Florentino Garda Martinez A tf(J(inle tditors

Peter 'vV Flint EibertJ C. Tigchdaar

VOLUME 74

'You Are a Priest Forever' Second Temple j ewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the H ebrews

lty

Eric F. l'vla.~on

BRILL LElDEJ~

• BOS1DN

200R

Uhrary of Gongrf'lls Cat:.loging-in-P••hlir..a1ion O;u::. t>.'l:t$.->n, Eric J:a n·d . \hu arc a priest fOI't'\~·r : Scoond 'J} mplc:J<:Wi$h mcssb.nism and dl<: prlc>:Miy chri.~1 ology of 1hc EpiMII'> 10 1lw HchrC\\'$ I hy F.1i<: F. ?o.bson. j). f'll\. (Swd ic:s (10th<; t~XL~ of' !h e o~.!iol'fl ().fj urlah, ISSN 0169-9962 ; \~ H ) lnch.dcs hihliographiral rc:fc:n:ncr~.~ a ncl indt-~x. JSllN 978-90-0·l-- 149Ai-R fharrlhac:k : :llk. papNj I. Pric:sdu)od- Uihliral t<·sC cilicism, imrqwc•l:uion, r tc:. :l. ~ f cossiah-Judaism-Hiswry of dor1rinc:;. 6. .J•crl::lism- J.IislOry- PosHxilic pr·ciod, !>86 U.C.-2 10 A.D. 7. J(·st~ C hri ~t -Hisi(Jry of doru inc.,..- Early <'hnrch, r:~. ~)-MO. I. T i1lc·. rl. S<· ri~!i. HS2i75.6. PG~li\f:li

2000

227'.8706- do22

IS.S!': 0 1 6~J-~J962 ISBN 978 9U 0 ~ I ~9818 Copyright :!OO::t h)' Kr..uinklijke llriU.:\'\~ U·irlc·n , Th~ Nc:th<:rlands Ktm inl.:l~j kr Drill !'\V inMl'p(Jrnlr.s th<· imprims Dcill, Hcm·i Publishing, I DC Publi ~hc:rs, M aninu.~ 1\ij holf l\1hlish.-.rs anrl VSP. All righL
lll<'<;hanical, phOh)OOp)'ing. r<:001'fiing Or OI)Wrwis.·, Wilh(llll p1i0r WTiUI'Il p<•rmit-.~ion from Lhc pu hti..~h rJ: AuchorizaLion 10 Jlh otorop~· iu:m$ lOr imc:m:c.J (,r l')('r!•<mal u..'OC' is gnuuOO h~· Konink1ijke Urill !'\V prO\.)dNI Ih:u t1w appmpriacc• fc~-s aN· pai
FOR MY WIFE JACQUELINE AND OUR DAUGHTER ANASTASIA

A• D FOR MY PARENTS D ILLARD AND STELLA

CONTENTS Acl:no'"ledge.nlents ..................................................................................................... ix

Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. x.i I ntrod uct ion ..................................................................................................................

Chapter One Hc.brews· Presentalion of Jesus as High Priest ..................................... S I. Jesus us 'Pionc
Chapter Two Pn:vious Theorie-s or t~- Buekground of the Motif ........................... I. l.argdy O riginal to the Author o f Hebrews........................................................ 2. [)r(.pendent on l!arly C hris tian Thc:.ology and Excgcs is ...................................... 3. [)c.pc-nde-nt on Gnostic .\·lythology ..................................................................... 4. lXpc:-nde-nt on the 11lought of Philo of Akxnndria .............................................

40 40 43 49 57

Chapter Three !\'less ianic:. Priest T raditions in Se-eond Temple-Judaism .................. 64 I. Messianic Expcctntions nt Qumran .................................................................... 70 1.1 . Jdc-ntifkntion o r ' Mess ionic' figures nt Qumran ......................................... 71 1.2. Evolutionary Developme-nt of Messianic Conc:c:-ptions at Qumran .............. 76 2. The !\'lc-s sianic Prics t in the Qumnm Tcxts ......................................................... 83 2 . J. Rule oftlte Catmmmity nnd D<m•asnu· /Xx:umem....................................... 83 2 .2 . Rule ofthe Co11gregatio11 ............................................................................ 93 2 .3. Rtdi'aftlte BlessiiJgs ................................................................................... 95 2 .4. \Var Scroll ................................................................................................... 99 2.5. f"lm'ilegitmt (4Q 174) and Catend' (4QJ77)............................................... I 03 2 .6. Test;,tlollill (4QI75) .................................................................................. 105 2 .7. Other Po.ssible Rc.fcreoces to a Me.ssiank Prk s t ....................................... I 09 3. Antccedcnt.s to the. Q umran l'!.'\peclations o f a Messianic Prie.s-1....................... I I I 3.J . Arlltturic l.el'i Dm·•uru•ut ............................................................................ I J6 3.2. Jubilee.~ . .. .. . .. .... .. . .. .. . .. .... ...... . ........ .. .. . ........ ...... .. ..... .... ... .... . .. .. .. . ....... .. .... .. 124 3.3. 1"estaurcul of i.f'l'i ...................................................................................... 127 3.4. S ignifkanc:c.ofthc Levi Prie;stly Tmdition ................................................ 131 4. A.ngelomorphic Christology ............................................................................. 133

viii

CONTENTS

C hapter Four ~
13S 138 139 143 146 147 149 151 154 158

Chapter f ive 111e Pricslly C hristo logy of Hebrews und Qumran Trnditions ........ . I. A Narrnl.ive ·r heology o f Hebrews .................................................................. . 2. Comparison w ith Qumran Tradition.!> .............................................................. . 2 .1 . Hcbrc:.ws and lhe Prie-stly il.k-ssianism o f Qumran ................................... .. 2 .2. Hebrews and the Mc:khi ~edd: T mdilions of Qumran .............................. . 3. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... ..

191 193

164 164 167 168

196 196 199 203

Bibliography ................................... ....... .................................................................. 205 Index o f Authors ...................................................................................................... 225

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This monogmph is a revised version of my doctoral dissertation,

submiucd to the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame in 2005. I wish to express my enduring gratitude to the univen;ity, the department, and the Pew Younger Scholars Progrttm for their generous financial support that made this possible. Though I certainly am responsible for any dclicicncics in this present volume, the influence..:; of numerous mentors from Notre Dame arc evident on the following pages. It would be impossible to mention

everyone to whom I am indebted, but I wish to d1ank the following friends in particular. My scholarly interest in Hebrews has its roots in a seminar pape r written for Eugene Ulrkh on Hebrews' usc of biblical citations. My studies with Harold Anridgc during the period we both were at Notre Dame unfortunately did not include a seminar on

Hebrews. yet no work has been more influential on my own approach to the book than his masterful commentary. I am deeply grnteful to the members of my dissertation commiucc- Grcgory Sterling, Jerome Ncyrcy, and John Mcicr~oth fo r their insightful critiques as I wrote the dissertation and their respective publications on Hebrews from which I have learned so much. Finally, I am especially indebted to my dissc.rtation dirccLor, James VanderKam. Jim is equally acclaimed for his rigorous, careful scholarship and his gracious, gentle manner. Both have lefl their indelible marks on me in a multitude of ways. This project began at Notre Dame but was completed- both as a dissertation and now as a monogr.iph- from Judson University in Elgin, Ill. One could scarcely imagine colleagues in biblical and theological studies as supportive and engaging as those with whom I am fortunate to serve. In particular, I wish to thank Laurie Braaten~ he has been a constant source of wisdom and encouragement to me since my arrival at Juds<m. Also, I am indebted t<) provost Dale Simmons for his suppt)rt in multiple ways, including funds from the Homer and Margaret Surbcck Summer Research Program ft)r the present work.

X

ACKNOWLEOGE!V1ENTS

Academic research is impossible without the support of libraries and librarians, and this book could not have been completed without the Hesburgh Libnu·y at Notre Dame, both during my graduate school years and beyond. Likewise, I am much indebted to the staff of Judson's Benjamin Browne Library. 11teir dedication to service was perhaps best exemplified in the summer of 2007 as they continued to acquire the many articles and volumes to support my work in the midst of their own relocation to facilities across the campus. I am very honored that this volume is appearing in the Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah series. I am deeply grateful to Florentino Garcia Martinez for accepting my manuscript, offering numerous suggestions for its improvement, and consistently encouraging my work. I am also much indebted to Mattie Kuiper at Brill for her guidance in this process. and to John J. Collins for recommending my manuscript to Florentino. Numerous persons have emiched my work through their critiques and comments at academic conferences, especially colleagues in the Chicago Society of Biblical Research and the Central States Region Society of Biblical Literature. I was honored to be selected by the latter as its SBL Regional Scholar in April 2006 (and subsequently as a 2007 Regional Scholar b)' the national SBL Council of Regional Coordinators) for a paper titled "Melchizedek in Hebrews and the Dead Sea Scrolls." A version of this paper was published in Biblical Research, the joumal of CSBR, as "Hebrews 7:3 and the Relationship between Melchizedek and Jesus," BR 50 (2005): 4 I-62. Much of that article appears in revised form in chapters one, four. and five of the present work; these materials are reprinted with the permission of the editor, David Aune. I have been much encouraged at various stages in tltis project by friends including Greg Lucas. Robert Mowery. Fisher Humphreys, Chip Davis, Beulah Co)•ne, and Shaun Longstreet. My father-in-Jaw and mother-i n-Jaw, Jack and Betty Cameron. have consistently supported my work in a multitude of ways. Ultimately, however, this project could never have been completed without the Jove, support, and sacrifices of my parents Dillard and Stella Mason, my wife Jacqueline, and my daughter Anastasia. To you I am always grateful, and it is to you that I dedicate this volume.

AB BREV JA TJONS Abbreviations for anc.ient texts c.itcd in this volume arc those-o f Tire SBL Handbook
Style (ed. Patrick H. Alexander, ct al.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999) and the: Disc.o•ocries in the Judaean Desert series. r-.•lost of the abhrc-\'intions bc1ow are taken

from the SBL llandbook, supplemented b)' the:. present author's ahbR:.•liations as necessary (as fhr recent publicat tons}.

AB ADD ABRL AhrN AbrNSup AGJU A.IT ALBO

Anchor Bible

11re Auclwr Bible Dictiamuy (c:d. D. N. Freedman) Anchor Bible Rcfc::rcncc Librnry Ahr·Nahmiu Abr-Nahruin: S upplement Series Arbcitc:n zur Gcschichte de$ antiken Jude:ntums und des Urchris tc:ntums

America11 Jounwl t?{Tireology Analc:cta lo\'aniensia biblica et orie-ntaliu

ALD

Aramaic Le~·i Docunumt

A LGHJ

Arbc:itt-n zur Literatur und Gesc.hichte des hdknistischen Judentums Anuhx:.ta biblica

AnBib ANRW ANTC

AOT APOT

Auft·tieg mrd Niedergmrg der r·Omischeu Welt: Geschichte wrd Krdwr k<mLo; im Spiegel der mmenm Forsc/umg (eds. H. Tcmporini a nd W. Haase) Abingdon New Testament Commentaries The ApocrnJJwl Old Te.~tamem (c:d. H. F. D. Sparks)

17re ApOCIJ7'1ut arrd Pseudepigmplla ofthe Old TesltWJ(!IIt (ed. R. H. Charles)

ATR

BBR BDAG

Aru·tra/a.\·imr Tluwlogical Re\·iew !Julletinfor Biblical Researdr A Greek· English Lexicon oftire New Te.\·tament aJUI Ollwr Early Cltri\'tian Literature. 3rd. ed. (ed. Frederick William Danker)

BETL

Bibliothoc:a c:-pht•me.ridum thc.-"'iogicarum lovanien.<>ium

Bib Bijdr BIS

Biblica Bijdrogt!ll: Tijdsclrrijl wwr.filo.w~{ie en ilreologie Biblica l Interpretation Se-ric:s

B.IRL

Bulletin oftire Jolrn Ryland-. U~ri i Y!rsit)• Lihmr.Ft?(Monc/w.~ter

BNTC

Black's New Testament Comme ntaries

CBQ

BR

Biblical R(!search Catholic Biblical Q11<1rterly

CBQ~1S

Catholic Biblica l Quarterly M(mog.mph Se-ries Continental Commentaries Church Quanerly Rt:~dew Corpus scriptonrm c hristianorum oric:nta1ium Discoveric:;s in the Judaean Desen Discoveries in the Judacan Dcsc:rt o f Jordan

cc CQR csco DJD

DJDJ

xii DNTB

/)kfiollary ofNt>w 1hlcmumt Btlckgrowul (cd. C . A. Evans a nd S .

Porter)

DPL DSIJ DSSS£

EBib ECDSS EdF EDNT EIJSS

EKKNT

EV

E,·Q FRLAN'T

HB Herm HNT HTR

HUC.4. JBC ICC IEJ JBL JB/1 JGI/Chl JJS

JPS JQ/1 JSJ JSJSup

JSNT JSNTSup JSOTSup JSPSup JTS

KEK LCL LSJ

LXX

MM MT MThS t NAB

NCB NIB N JBC

Dkfio11my of Paul mrd His Lcm:rs (e
and D. G . Reid) Dead Seer Disccweric.f The Dec1d Setr Scrolls SJudy Edilio11 (cd. F. Garda Martinez and E. J. C. T ig<:hdaar} i:wdes Bibliques Ee.rdmans Commentaries on the De-ad Sea S<:rolls Ertriige der forschung Exegelialf Dit:liotJcwy of lire New Te:tlamrml {ed. H. Bab: and G. S<:hn.:ider) Encyclopedia oflire Oetrd Sea St:rolls (c:d. L. H. Schirfman and J. C . VanderKam) E.vangclisch-katholische.r Kommcntar z.um Neuc-n Tcstruncnt English \'C:-rsion E~·at~geliccrl Qutrrterly Forschungcn zur Rl.'ligion und Litennur des Alle-n und Neucn Tcstamcm L'> Hebrew Bible Hf'nnatlreua Handbu<:h zum Neuen Testament

Han·ard 11wological Re\·iew lie-brew Uuiou (;(}/lege A11mrcd lnterpn.-(ation: A Bible Commc:.ntnry for Tea<:hing and Prc;•<:hing l ntc:mational C ritical Conunent:.tl')' /srmd Exploration Jounral Jmmwl Jiam em (eeL J. H. Moulton and G . Milligan) Maso~tk Tc:.x t Marburger 111eologische Studien New Amc:.rkan B ible New Century Bible 11Je New l nterpreler's Bible (ed. L Ked:) New l ntc:mational Biblkal Com mentary

xiii N JCNT

New International Comment
NIDH

111e- New /trteqn-eler 's DkliOJifiiJ' of llrt• Bible (ed. K. D. Sake.nfd d}

N IGTC N JV N IVAC NJPS

New International Greek Te...tament Comme ntmy New International Version NIV Application CommenLary New Jewish Publication Society

NovT

Now~m

N RSV NT NTD NTL

New Re.vised St:uldard Version Nev.· Testament Das Neue Testame-nt Deutsch Nev.· T est••ment Library

NH

r-nT OTL OTP

Te.'tUtme11imtt

New Testtmtt'tll Slltdies New Te stmnent '11leology Old Te-s tame nt Library

OISt

Old Teslantelll Pseut!epigroplw (ed. J. H. Charlesworth) Oudlestamenli.w:ht> Stutlit'u

PTSDSSP PVTG

Princeton 11lcoiO".;ical Seminary Dead Sea St:rolls Project Pseudcpigrapha VeLcris Te-stamcnli Gmcce

RB

Re~.-·11e

1/HR

bib/ique Review of Biblical Lilcroture Re~·ue dt< Qumnm Re~.-·,te de f'ftiswirc des relisitms

SBLDS SBLEJL SBLMS SBLSCS SBLn· ScrHier SDSSRL SHR SJLA SNTSMS Sl'

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Se-ries Society of Biblit:.al Literature. £arly Judaism and Its Litc:ratureSoc:ic:-ty of Biblical Literature ~·tonograph Se-ries Society of Biblit:.al Literature Septuagint and Cognate. Studies Society of Biblical Literature Text.; and Translations Scripta hicrosolymitana Studies on Lhe IXad Sea Scrolls and Re-lated Literntui'C' StudiC'.s in the History o f RdiJ;ions Studies in Judaism in Late. Antiquity Society for New Teslament Studie-s Monogrnph Se.ries Sacra pagina

1/BL

Re\'Q

SPhilo

SJudio philonica

SRh•Bib

S uppleme-ntj alia Ri vista Bibli<:a S tudies on the Te-xts of the Desert of Judah Studia post·biblica S tudiu in V!!t.:ris Testamenli psc::udepigraphit:.a Th eofogictd Dicliomrry oftlte New Te!tlmneut (ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich} Th eofogictd JJidiomrry oftlte Old 1btametrt (ed. G. J. Botterwcck. H. Ringgren. tmd f ..J. Fabry) 111-:ologischer Handkommc::ntar zum Nc.uen Testament

s·roJ

StPB SVTP

T/)NT TDOT THKNT

TS TL VT WBC WJJNT

Tlreofogicllf Sttrdies ThetJiosisdre Zt!itsdtri}i Vetil.\' Teslllmentum " 1

ord Biblical Commentary

WTJ

111e- Weslminl'ler Dictiofl(tl',\' of New Teslllmeut and Early Chrislilln Lilcmlure tmd Rht>IOrit: (ed. D. E. Aune) \Vestmi11ster 11teologiml Joumal

WUNT

Wissenschaflliche Unte-rsuchunge-n zum Neuen Testame nt

ZAW

Zeitscltrij; ji'ir die alllcstwttettlficlte Wissensdwji Zeilsdt rift flir Tlreolosie und Kircfte

ZTK

INTRODUCTION The epistle. to the Hcbrc\vs has much in common with its own description of Mclchizcdck, whose origins and destiny arc said t<) he unknown (Hcb 7:3). The identity of the a uthor o f Hebrews is elusive, and attempts to determine the date of composition arc complic.atcd by a scarCit)' of relevant <:lues in the book. Though it contains a tantalizing greeting relayed on behal f of certain Italians, e ven its destination and the identity o r its intended recipients arc shrouded in mystery. Other questions about this epistle abound . Not only is the identity of the author of Hebrews unknown, but much disagree ment also exists about the bac.kground of this author and the in fl uences that affected the distinctive ways he communk~atcd his understanding of Jesus. A lso, no scholarly consensus exists fo r understanding the nature of the problems faced by the recipients. Questions remain even about the genre o f the book and its literary unity. While this is not the p lace for a thorough discussion of each of these matters, a brief ske tch o f the issues is a ppropriate. It is common in many circles today to categorize He brews alongside the Catholic Epistles and Revelation-or even as a Catholic Epistle-but historically this has not been the case. This a pproach belies the fac t that in the ancient manuscript tradition, the book nonnally circulated in the Pau ~ line corpus.' Indeed, Hebrews ultimately owes its inclusion in the New Testament canon to the insiste nce in the ancient Eastern church(:sand ultimately a compromise conse.nsus: with the Wc..\~t. championed by Augustine a nd Jerome- that Paul was its a uthor. Difficulties with this

1

Pamela M. l!isenbaum is even more- emphatic: "'While diffcn:nl forms of 1he

t:mpu.<: Paulimun circulated. and sumc versions did nol include Hebrews, tht>rc: is no evidcnc;e that Hebrew~ circulaled with olhcr collection.'> o f Christian \\'filings (fbr inslan<:.e-, wilh documents thai c-a me to be known as the Calholic Epis1k•s).·· Sec her ..Lo<:nting Hebre-ws Within the Literary Landscape of Chrislian Oris ins," in f/ebrows: ContempormJI ,t.{et/uxls. New lt~siglus (cd. G. C.elardini; BIS 75: Leiden: Brill. 2005). 2 13-37, csp. 2t8.

2

INTRODUCTION

identification \VC rC long rct~ognizcd. however.: Origin earlier had con~ eluded that only God knew the identity of the author (Hisl. eccl. 6.25.14), but his eauti(m did not inhibit subsequent speculation, and throughout the ecnturics numerous alternate proposals for authorship have been offered. Often- but not exclusively-those prop<)Sed have been figures in the Pauline orbit, including Barnabas, Apollos, Silas (or Silvanus), and Aquila and Priscilla.' Pauli ne authorship is rarely defended in modern scholarship for a number of reasons, including literary sty le, theological c.mphasc.~. and especially the author's claim in 2:3 to have been evangelized by an earlier gcncmtion of bclicvcrs. 4 Rather than speculate on the personal idcntit)' of the author, most modern scholars instead prcfc.r to consider what char~ctcristics about this person may be inferred from the text. The author, with a sophisticated litcrar)' style and broad v<:.t.a bulary, is widely rccogni,ed to have produced the finest Greek in the New Testament. In light of this, the author seems almost certainly w have had Some level of training in Greek rhewric.' Alongside this, he displays much facility with Jewish exegetical methods and traditions. Virtually all scholars assert that Scripture fo r the author was the Scptuagint. 6 The author is steeped in the texts and exegetical tmditions z See C ru.ig R. Koester, Hebrews (AB; New York: Doubleday. 2001), 21·27, for u perceptive discussion of the th~.--ol ogica l issues relevant to pos it io~ on authorship of Hcbn:ws in the early <:hurd 1. See also William H. P. Hatch. ·'The Position of Hebrews in the Canon of the New Tt.ostamcnt," 1-/TR 29 (1936): 133-S I; and Otto Michel, Der Brir.' f mr die Nebrfier (KEK 14; G6ningc.'n: Vandc:nhoc:ck & Ruprecht, 1984), 37-39. For broader s utvcys of backsmund issues. sec Wcrn<.'r Goors KUmmd .. lmroducti<m to tJre New Te.-;ltlmem (re•;. «1.; trans. H. C. Kec; Nash\rille: Abingdon, 1975). 475-502; and Raymond E. Brown, An brtmductioll to rite New Te.\'lm11em (ABRL; N~w York:

Doubleday, t997), 683-704. J. For a c ritique of such proposals. see Han·>fd W. Attridsc-. The Epis tle Hebrews (Hcnneneia; Philadelphia: Fortress. 1989). 3-5.

10

lire

Scholars typically note the. incompatibility of this state-ment wi th Paul's insist~nee in Galatians 1- 2 that no human taught him the gospel. See. for e xample. Attridge. 1/ebrews. 2 . s Sopi1isticat~d Greek rhetorical methods utilized by the author are cata logued in Attridge.l-lehrew:o, 20-21 ; Da\'id E. Aunc-. " Hebrews. Letter to the,"' WONT 211-13: and Andrew H. Trotter. Jr.. /me1preti11g the Epi:ule w tlu~ Hebre ws {Guides to New Testament Exegesis 6: Gmnd Rapids: Baker. 1997), 163-84. For a na lysis of such rhetorical skill in a partic ularly signi ficant passage. sec Jerome H. Ne.yre)•, ~'W ithout Beginning of Days or l!nd of litC' ( Hebre-ws 7:3): Topos fhr a T rue Deity." CBQ S3 1

(t99t): 4 39-SS. r. For a rec<.•nt ussessml~lll of Hebrew~· use o f the Scptuagim , sec Mu11ln Kum-r. ·"The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Septuagint," in SeptuaJ;.tilll Re.~ean:h: l.uues und C!tallellges ill the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (cd. W. Kmus a nd R. G.

INTRODUCTION

3

of Judaism, yel he also dr.lws posilivcly from Grcco- Roman mylh· ological and philosophical traditions; his intellectual capacities arc profound.' Taken together, these c::.har.!Ctcristics point to a Jewish* Christian author- mosl likely ethnically Jewish, though a pn)sciytc is possible-whose background was in the Greek-speaking Diaspo ra. Hebrews normally is considered an epistle, though it lacks marks of such in il~ opening section. Increasingly scholarS note its homiletic naturC.11 As fo r the recipients o f the book, one. can confidently as..oscrt lillie beyond the observation that they had earl ier been taught by the author but now faced some crisis of faith! In the early church the book nonnally was understood as wriucn to Jewish C hristians in Jcru* salcm .10 Modem scho lars, however, almost always assume a Roman destination, in large part due to the statement in Hcb 13:24 that ' those from Italy send greetings. ' 11 The a uthor's emphasis on cxcgc.~is of texts Wooden; SBLSCS $3 ~ Adanta: Society o f Biblical Literature, 2006}, 335-53. Sec a lso Haro ld W. Allridge. ..1be Epistle to the Hebrews and the Scrolls."' in Wlren Judaism and Chri:uimril)' Begtm: E.'>SO)'S itt MtNilOI)' ofAIIIliOIIY J. Saldari11i (2 vols.; e d. A. J. Avc.ty-Peck, D. Harrington, and J. Neusner. JSJSup 85 ~ leiden: Brill, 2004), 2:31 S-42, esp. 2:3 16 n. S, where- he- notes that the nuthor·s corrchttion of· rel>1' in Ps 9S and Gen 2:2 only work..; in Greek. not Hebrcw. Nevertheless some. deny that the author o f Hebrews normally cited the LXX; S«, fhr example, George Howard. ''Hebrews a nd the-O ld Teslnmcnt Q uotations," NovT 10 (1968): 208- 16. 7 Hans-Friedrich Weiss (among others) cites three common options fbr understanding the back.& •--round o f He-brews· thousht: HeUenistic.-Je\•.:ish, Gnostic. and a pocalyptic . Sec his Der Briefa11 die Uehraer ( I 5th ctl.; KEK 13; GOu ingen: Vandenhocck & Ruprcc-ht, 199 1), 96- 114. Sec a lso F. F. Bruce. "'To the Hebrews': A Dowment of Roma n ChriS-tianity'?" .4NRW 25.4:3496-352 1. 11 S ince the late e ighteenth century scholars have occttsionally argued thnl Hebrews is a homily rather than an epistle-. Similarly, some have argued that the e pistolutory cndin~? of Heb 13 is scx:ondary. Allridgc (1/ebrew.,·, 13- 14, esp. n. 117} notes. however, that v1rtu.nUy .ull modern scholars accept the authe-ntlcity of Heb 13. Sec .uL.;o the discussion o f g.e nrc and the a uthenticity o f Heb J:l in Udo Schne lle. T11e llislm)' mul 111e(J/ogy of tile New Testamem Writings (trans. rvt E. Boring; Minnearolis: Fortress. 1998), 3i2-74. 9 Sevcml statemenL<> imply that the author had prcvioosly been among his re<.:illie-nts (Heb 13: 19) or at the- least knew a t;reat de-al about their history (Heb 2:3-4; 5: 11-1 4: 6:9-11: and 10:32-34). See William L Lane, lfehreu'5 (2 vol s .~ WBC; Onllas: Word. 199t), t :lv. 10 This destination is rardy defended today. but see Daniel StOkl Ben Ezra, Tire Impact t?{ }'om Kippur mr Early Cllris tianit)': Tire Day t>/ Awmmumt from Secmul Temple Judaism ta the Fijilt Century (WUNT 163: Tfibing.cn: Mohr S icbcck, 2003), 19 1-92. St61d Ben Ezm undcr..1ands Heb 13: 13 as a ca ll for Jewish Christians to leave Jerusalem. 11 Most inte-tpretcrs have understood the: Q.Tt'eting (Corrci~ovrcu U~ci~; O, O.nO .,.-q$. 'lro:).\c :;) a..; one: sent by I talinns bm.· k to their homeland, but some have read it tu be a greeting sen! from huly or by displaced Italians to persons in a third location. Sec

4

INTRODUCTION

from the Jewish Scriptures (especially the Pentateuch, Psalms, and prophets), his frequen t usc of exemplars (both positive and negative) drawn from these narrati ves, and hi~ extended comparison of Jc~~us' activities with aspects of the Jewish sacrificial system typically have been cited by interpreters as evidence that the Jewish identity of the recipients is a key to interpretation of the book. As such, Englishlanguage scholarship on Hebrews long was dominated by theories that the author was warning the Jewish Christian recipients not to renounce Christianity and return to their ancc.~tral faith or else was exhorting them finall y to make a full break from the synagogue." Alternately, a Attridge. Hebrews, 409 10. For discussion of othe-r factors pointing to a Roman destination. sec Koester. Hebrews, 48·50. Unl ~s othe1w isc noted. all translations fmm Hebrews arc those o f the- author, w hile those of other biblical pas..,ages are fn·>m the New RcviS<.x-1 Standard Version. •~ Eise-nbaum notes this tendency in scholarship on Hebrews but proposes esse-ntially the opposite appmal'h. that H'ebre-Yn> demonstmtc:;s that ..the shared expcrienl-:e of persecution during this time n ate tirst-c--ar1y second ce-nturies C.t:.l may lmve led lOa greater sense of com mon ulit~· among Jews und Christians, or, at the Vet)' least. liule awareness of any significant d iOCrences" (•·Locating Hebrews," 236). She assumes a second-century da te. lilr the-book, in part because of her u.<>senions that theauthor knew a writlen gospel and u.<>sumes a significant gap of time-between the ems of Jesus and his own. On this. see Eisenbaum. ~Ltx.'cinating but problematic theses. Ellen Bm(b;huw Aitken interpreL<> Hebrews as a lir.>H~entury Christian responseto the imperial propaganda of the Roman triumph cdebrating victory in the first Jewis.h war. l ike Eis.enbaum. she presumes that the author addresses both JeYn> and Jewish Christians, here understood as in solidarity be<:.ause of threats from this demonstration of impc.•rial power. For Aitken. however. the a uthor's purpose is to counter the images of Roman imperial power and l>iatus on a number of points. espc.-cially by presenting Jesus ..u.., the triumphator in ~mwessi on to the temple" where he..-not the Flavi.an emper-or- makes the climactic sacrifice. The parallels Aitken suggests urc: intri:;uing. but ultimately her proposal suffers from a lack of conc.n:te e\~denc:e in Hebrews itself. See Aitken, .. Portraying the Temple in Stone a nd Text: The Arch of T itu s and the Epistle- to the Hebrews," in Hebrews: Contemporar.v l't'/ethods, Nnv Insights {cd. G. Oelardini; B1S 75; Le iden: Brill. 2005}, 131 ·48. esp. 142. Gabriella Gdard ini, 1ike Eisenbha be-Av} addresSt.-d to Jewish slaves exiled to Rome after the second Jewish war. This fast day was associated in Jewish tradition with lsntel's viulation of the. <:.ovcnant and prohibition from t -nterins Canaan but a lso (among othc-r thing:i) with the destruc:tion of both Jerusalem temples and Hadrian's tmnsl<mnation of Jerusalem into Attlia Capitt>lina. The Exodus passage. howeve-r. is ncvc-rc.ited directly in Hebrews, an odd feature is this indeed is the major text tOr the homily, nor does Gelardini addrt'S..'> here the importance o f Ps 110 lOr the a uthur. Set' Gdard ini, -Hebre~. An Ancient Synagogue Homily for T6·/w he-Av: Its Function. IL-. Basi..<>. Its T heological Jnterprc:.tution. in Hebrews: Cmuempt~ral) ' Mer/rods, New l!t(ighrs (cd. C.. Gdardini: BIS 75; Leiden: Brill. 2005). 107· 27. For a mort' de-tailed treatment, see her book 4

INTRODUCTION

5

few scholan; have argued (unpc rsuasivcly) lhat clements in the text demand a Gentile rcadcn;hip. Proposals that the recipients arc a congregation of mixed cthnicity also fi nd support. OJ Ultimately. however, the cthnicity of the recipient~ is not a determina tive fhc tor fbr interpre ta tion of the book. Views that assume that the author is urging his readers againM Judaism arc particular ly problematic. (nstcad, the autho r's comments conccm the rec ipie nt~· fidelity to Christ; the pr<)blcms addressed arc not attraction to alternate teachings but rathe r the dangers of cessation of faith and d isobed ience. The author repea ted ly warns against or chides the readers fo r !a xil)' in their commitment to their confession (2: 1-4; 3:7- 4: 13; 5: 11- 6:8; 10:26-39; 12: 18-29), and he notes the failure of some to assemble together ( I 0:25). No rcstor.ltion is possible fo r those who a bandon their faith (6:4-8), though the author is confident that his addre-ssees have not yet met this d ire fa te (6:9- 12). While persecution seems to be a facto r in their wavering ( 10 :32-34), the author notes that no one in the community he addresses has shed b lood because of this ( 12:4). Though some schola rs attempt to date Hebrews quite speci fically in the 60s C.E., c hicf1y in the context o f Nero's pe rsecutions:, one scarcely can be more pre-cise than to date the book to the last few decades of the first century C.E. As such, most propose a date be tween 60- 100 C.E., with the upper ra nge dete rmined by usc of the. book in I C/eme111." 'Verllanet eure l/er:.en Nich1 ': Der /1ebraer. ei11e Synagogenlwmilie : u Tischa be-Aw (BIS 93: Leiden: Brill, 2007). IJ. Scholar.> w ho understand the recipients a..;; prima rily Jewish Christians tc:nd to sec a possible rc:\'ersion to Judaism a.'> the: problem addressed by the author; those who think the:. recipients '''<.'-n: Gentile Christians or a churc-h of mixed bac-kground tend to see apathy or pe--rsec-ution as the: problem. For a brief survey or options and ide ntilication o f maj or propon<.•nts o f each view. sec Koc:~tcr, Hebrews. 46-48. 1 ~ Attridge. Hebrew.-.. 9. Similarly, Koester (Hebrews, 54) dates the book to 60-90 C.E. Lane is bolder. dating the book to 64 .08 C.t:., the interval bctw«-n the &rrcat fire of Rome and Nero's suicide-; sc:c Lane:-. Hebrews. l:lxvi. P. P. Bruce (Tile Epi.r!le 10 the 1/ebrews rrcv. 00.: NICNT; Grund Rapid:;: Ec:rdmans, 1990]. 21) similarly ar<~ues fi>r u date j ust before: the outbrc:ak o f pe-rsecution in 65 C.E. while Bamabu.'> Lindurs (Tile 11re<Jiogy <Jflhe Leiter 10 tire llebrews (NT'f; Can~bri~ge : Cam~dgc University Prc~s, 1991], -2 1) support-. 65-70 C.E. Ces1ns Sp ~t·q (L Epnre tllix flehreux r2 vols.: Pans: Oalw.lda. 1952-531. I :261) argues fbr 67 C.E.. and Paul Ellingworth ( Tlu~ Epistle 10 1he Hebrews: A Cmnmemmy on1he Greek Text rNl GTC~ Gra nd Rapids : Ecrdmans, 1993). 33) sees rc:astms to date it ju:;t bcfi>re- e ithe-r 64 or 70 C.E. David A. IX-Silvu

(Perse1-ermrce in Gratitude: A &Jcio-Rhetorical Comme11tmy Olf 1he £pi.~tle " I<J tl•e Hebrews'' rGmnd Ra~lids: Ecn !nums, 2000). 20-21) is k-ss specific: but a lso prefers a date before 70 C.E. Weiss (flebriier. 17) argues f Rissi (Die Theologie des 1/ehriierhriefs fWUNT 4 1; Tiibingen: Mohr. 1987}.

6

INTRODUCTION

One c.~:'mnot even be <~onlldcnt a bout whether it was written before or alkr Rome's conquest of Jerusalem in 70 C. E. Attempts 1<> date the bMk in light of the auth<>r's silence about the destruction of the Jewish temple fal te r because Hebrews• sacrificial discussions consistently address the tabernacle-admittedly sometimes with confusion about its physit.al arrangement (9:4)- rathcr than the temple. Similarly, while the authl)r uses language implying a C-Ontinuing sacri fic ia l system, this too de>cs not assist in dating; like this author, bo th r•bbinie and patristic writers used similar language fo r centuries. Finally, such attempts arc further complicated by the observation that the author see ms to know the Jewish sacrificial system chicl1y through cxcgc.~is, not first-han d experience. \Vhilc acknowledging that numerous questions remain, however, one can safely conclude than that the author- an articulate Christian t1uent in Greek and the Septuagint, equally comfortable with Jewish exegetical and Greek rhetorical methods-is distressed by the spiritual condition of his friends. He writes to exhort them toward faithfulness to their Christian confession. Dcspit<..·- o r perhaps because of.- thcsc many unanswered qucs~ tions, Hebrews has not lacked its share of scholarly treatments and commentaries. In English alone three extensive commentaries on this epistle were published in major series bctw~-cn 1989 and 1993. Since they were in prcpamtion at essentially the same time, these offer three largely independent analyses of the book. Two major commentaries incorpor.Jting social~scicntilk and rhetorical criticisms appeared about a decade later, followed shortly by another pair of highly-anticipated volumes. u Numerous important monogr.Jphs on various issues related 13). For further discus..<>ion. sec Hdmw Fdd, Der Jlehriierbrief(EdF 228: Dannstitdt Wisscnschafilichc Budgese11schail. 1985 ), 14- 18; and Schnelle, Hislory. 367-68. l l T he. t(~rmcr three ure. the af<m:mentioned commcntnrics by AHridge (Hcrmeneia). Lane (Word). and EUingworth {NIGTC). Though wrillcn more fbr the pastor than acndemician. the earlier Comme-ntary by Bruce (NICNT) was also rev-ised during this period. T he works by OcSih·a {non-serial) and Koester (AB} fo llowed. as d id LukeT imothy Johnson, 1/ebrews: A Commelllary (NTl; LouiS\'ille: Westminster John Knox, 2006); and Alnn C. Mitc:.hd l. 1-/ehrew.-. (SJ>; Collegeville, M inn.: Li tu rgi c:~•! , 2007). Shorter works appearing in rec-ent years include R. MeL Wilson, Nebrews (NCB: Gmnd Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1987); Dona ld A. Hagner, Hebrews (NIBC: Peabody. Mas..<>.: Hendrickson. 1990), a rc.vised version of a J983 commentary in the defUnc t Good News Commental)' scri(."S; Victor C. Pfitznl."r, J-lebrows (ANTC: Nashville: Abingdon, 1997); T homas G. Long. flebreW.\' (IBC; Louisville-: Westminster John Knox, 1997); Fred B. Craddock, "The letter to the Hebrews," in 11re New ltuerpreler ·s Bible ( 12 vo ls.; ed. L. Keck; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 12:1-

INTRODUCTION

7

to Hebrews have also appeared in recent years, testifying to the in~ creased recent interest in this e pistle. NC\'l program units on Hebrews were added at the annual North American and international meetings of the S(>tiety of Biblkal Lite rature, and in 2006 the University of St Andrews hosted an international conference on the book's significance for Christian theology. Despite this renewed interest in the epistle, relatively little has been written in recent years about its kc.y motif, Jesus as high priest, but this was not the case in previous decades. The c.cntrality of this moti f in Hebrews is obvious, but scholars lack a consensus about the currents of thought that infl uenced the author's conception o f Jesus as the priestly messiah. The purpose of th is study is to revisit this question, examining past arguments whi1c dmwing upon the fruits of dc<.";,.'ldes of scholarship on Second Temple Judaism since the d iscovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. lltc conte ntion advanced here is that cuJTCnts in Second Temple. Judaism-particularly ideas evidenced in the Qumran texts-provide the best background fo r understanding the presentation of Jesus as priest in Hebrews. The study unfolds as lb llows. The firs t ch apter addrcsse.~ Hebrews' presentation of Jesus, (\t;;pceially as high priest. Each passage in which this is the major subject is examined, and the chapter concludes w ith a synthesis of Hebrews, thought on the motiC The second chapte r is a survey of previous proposals for understanding the conceptual back· ground o f Hebrews' priestly th<mght. The third and fourth chapters include analyses o f eschatologic.a l o r mes.o;;ianic priestly traditions and Melehizcdek traditions, rc.~pcc.tivcly, in Second Temple Judaism, with emphasis on texts fo und among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Finally, the fifth chapter concludes the study with the argument that mes.~ianic priestly and Mclchizcdek traditions at Qumran provide the best sources of shared thought with Hebrews' prese ntation of Jesus as priest. 173; George).!. Guthrie. Hebrews (NrVAC; Grand Rttpids: Zondervan, 1998): Rube11 P. Gordon. 1/ebreh·.v (Reading.-;: A New Biblical Cummen tury~ Sheffield: Shenidd Academic. 2000; and Edgar tvlt:KniQ:ht in Edgnr McKnight and Christopher Church, f.lebrew.\·.Jame.\· (Smyth & Hdwys B1ble Com mentary~ Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Hclwys, 2004). 1· 320. Though not oommcntaries, one should also note lindars. Tlle<J!ogy ( 199 1); Ke nneth Schenck, Umfer.muuliug llw BtxJk of 1/ebrews: The Smry 8e!ti11d tl1e Sernum (luuisYillc:: Westminster John Knox. 2003): and Andrew T. lincoln. f.lebri!ws: A Guide {London: T&T Clark, 2006}. A new volume on Hcbn:ws in the International Critical Cummcntary series has been announced as in preparation; it will r<.·placc: James r-.•loll att, The Epi\·tle to tire NehnMs {ICC; Ed inburg.h: T & T Clark, 1924).

CHAPTER ONE

HEB REWS' PRESENTATION O F JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST The author of Hc brC\VS describes Jesus using numerous titlc.
•Christ,; 'Lord•; 'great shepherd'; ·apostle"; ' pioneer' or ·forcnmncr' ; 'Son' and 'Son ofCi(>d '; and 'priest' or ' high priest.' Four of these can be disc.usscd bricily and set aside because the author sees no need to develop their implications. Jesus is called 'Christ' (XPIOTOs) twelve times in the bO<>k. Context might lead o ne to determine that XP IOTo;· in Hcb I I :26 carries its literal weight as 'messiah' or ·anointed one.' Here Moses is dc.<eribed as having preferred the TOV o~ IOIO~ov TOU XPIOTOU over the rkhcs of Eg)•pt because of his faith. The author correlates the shame of the crucifixion (12:3) w ith the scorn heaped on Clod 's people; rv1oscs chooses to experience th is with his fellow Hebrews, and the recipients of Hebrews arc. urged in 13: 13 to identify clearly w ith Jesus.' In eleven other cases, however, 'Christ' (three times the fuller designation 'Jesus Chris:f) sc...-ems to be used simply as a proper name. Nothing d istinctive is to be found in Hebrews' usage of this. In a similar manner, Jesus is called ' Lord' (Ktlpt<>s) four times in the epistle.' Usc of the tcrrn 'apostle' (arrooTOAOS) for Jesus in Heb 3: I (' the apostle and high pric,~t of our confes.~ion') is perhaps at first surprising, but the tcnn here obviously is used in its more basic sense of ·messenger' or 'envoy,' not to denote the ccclesial office of

1

Cf. the-similar apr.ro.ad 1 by lc:opold Sabourin. Prie:ulttH1d: A Ctm1panuh-e Study (SHR 2S; Lciden: Bnl . 1973), 206- 12. "! S.u Johnson. Hebrews, 300-01. Johnson fi nds suppon fbr this c:orrelutinn in Ps 88. J. Jesus as ' Lord ': Hcb I : I 0; 2:3; 7: 14; ·Lord Jesus": 13:20. In Heb I: 10, a quotation from Ps 101:26 LXX, naturally about God in the Psalter. is cast by the uulhor of Hebrews as referring to Jesus. In scveml other cases in the cpi$de (eig.ht c:ertuin: Hcb 7:2 1; 8:2, 8, 9. 10. II ; 12:5. 6; lhrce likely: 10:30; 12:14 : 13:6), God is called ' Lord: and numy uf these als() oc:c:ur in quotalions of Sc:riplun:. T he: Holy Spiril i$ c-alled "lord' in Heb I 0: 16, a lso a re-cast quotation u f Scripture.

HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

9

~ap ostle'

as is normally the case elsewhere in the New Testament... In this context. Jesus is presented as the p lenipotentiary envoy. rep~ resenting God with lu ll divine authority.' The appearance in Hcb 13:20 of the term 'great shepherd' in the phrase 'the gwu shepherd of the sheep' (Tc>V ITOIIJivcx Twv npoj3cXTWV TOV IJEycxv), so rich with allusions from the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., Ezck 34, where God is the shepherd and also promises to send a good shepherd), is not stunning, though it appears somewhat unexpectedly since no o ther 'flock ' language (except in sacrificial contexts) has yet been used in the e pistle. It seems, however, to be drawn from a liturgical fonnula; its usc in a ble-ssing also invoking covenantal language suggests that the author is adorning his conclusion w ith traditional language." However, n)v notJJEva TWv rrpoj3cXTWV may be drawn intentionally from I sa 63: I I LXX. There God ' brought up' (avcx~t~ciocx;·) the shepherd (Moses) fro m the land to be the leader of lsr.!cl during the exodus; in Heb 13:20 Gt>d 'brought up ' (avcxycxywv; preferable to the NRSV's 'brought back') the shepherd (Jesus) from the dead, who elsewhere in the book is said to lead his people to salvation (sec below). Furthe.rmore, lsa 63:10 evokes Israel 's d isobedience in the wilderness. a theme also prominent in Hcbrcws.7

The two other rolcs- Jc..:;us as

~son;

and Jesus as

~ pioneer'

or

•forcrunncr'- nccd fUrther c1abomtion before attention is turned to Hebrews' presentation of Jesus as priest. This is especially Lhc c.asc " As the first definition. LSJ g.i,:es 'mC*>senger. ambassador. cm'O)' • (·•O.rt(X:no>..os·,'" 220). Similarly, BDAG renderS the most basic definition in the NT as 'delegate, en\'O)'. mc:~cnger' (··O.nOo·roAo:;·;· 122}. The phrase 'the apostle and high priest of our confession' has typically been undcr.ilood in one o f two Wion below) on the basis uf' Num 13:2~ Judg 5:IS; and Nch

2:9 LXX. s (am indebted to John f\'leier filr this obscF\•a tion. ~See the discussiun in Attridge. Hebrews. 406; and Ellingwonh,/lehrew.". 729. ' Sec Wei"S.S, llebriier, 154-51; and Lane. Hebrews. 2:S6 1 62. 4

10

CHAPTER ONE

because these appe lla tion..:; for Jesus rarely a ppea r in contexts d ivorced

from discussion of Jesus as priest I . JESUS AS 'PIONEER' OR 'FORERUNNER'

The words OPXIlYOs. typica lly lranslatc.d as 'pioneer' or 'author,' and rrpOOpoJJos, usually rendered as ~ forerunner; arc relatively rare tcnns in the New Testament. The fonn cr occurs only fo ur time-s in the NT (Acts 3: 15; 5:31; Heb 2: I 0; 12:2), the Iauer only in Hebrews (6:20). Both denote the idea o f Jesus going befo re his people '1nd bringing salvation. In Heb 2 :10, Jesus is referred to as ' Tov apXI)yov of our salvation,' and in Hcb 12:2 he is ca lled ' the apxl)yov and perfec te r of faith.' Interpreters arc divided as 10 the precise understanding of OPXIlYOs in Hebrews, th<mgh they commonly assert that ancient Greek myths of desce nt, such as those o f Heracles and Orphe us, lie behind this imagery.' BDAG lists three possible meanings fo r OPXIlYOs: ( I) " one who has a preeminent position, leader. ruler.. prince;'' (2) ..one who begins someth[ingj that is first in a serie.,·" (' instigator' if w ith a negative connotation); and (3) "one who begins or originates," an 'origina tor ' or ·founder.' The third meaning is preferred for both instances in Hebrews, and LSJ o ffers a similar o pinion.• TI1c NRSV and Koeste r tr~nsl atc the term as ' pioneer' in both occ urren ce~.:; in Hebrews. while Lane prefers ' c hampion ' in both <:.ascs}0 In addition, some commentators, such as Spicq, 'Neiss, and Attridge, prefer to stress different nuancC.'i of the term in its two uS-C$ in Hebrews. The French scholar Spicq tr.lnslatcs it as 'cher in Hcb 2 :10 (making it explicit in h is commentary that this is "Ia mo ins mauvaisc traduct ion" 8

SC!'e. fhr example. Wilfn:d L. Knox. ··The ' Divine He-ro' Christology in the New Testament,'" HTR 41 ( 194R): 229-49, esp. 245-47; and more rec-e-ntly Oa\' id E. A une, ··Hcmde:; and Christ: Hcrades lnmgcry in Lhc Christology of Earl)' Christianity," in Greeks, Rommrs, and Cllri.slimrs: E.<:.m y.\· inl/01wr t?fAbraham J..!J·Iallterhe (ed. D. L Balch, E. f erguson. and \V. A. fo,,.leeks; Minneapolis. Fortress. 1990). 3 19, csp. 13-19. Sec also Attridge (1-/ebrews, 79 82) lOr a discussion o f the G r<."c:k origins uf this idea and il'> adaptation by Jewish writers as well as a refUtation o fsugscstions of a Gnoslic: background tolhis language. ., BDAG 138-39. Sec also the reference:- to MM S l, whic:.h suppm1s Ihe:- conclusion in BDAG. Like\\~se. LSJ 2$2 o flCrs three- definitions: ( 1) fbundcr; (2) prince. chief. chief captain, 1cadcr; a nd {3) first cause, urig.inator; preferring: the last fo r Hcb 2: I 0. 4

4

°Koeslc:r,/-/ebrelf.'i. 228. 523; and Lane-.llebJvw.\·. I :56: 2:411.

1

HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

II

and comb ine.~ Utes trois idCcs d,initiatcur, prince ct guide") but as 'guide' in Hcb 12:2." Similarly, Weiss renders it as 'Anflihrcr' in Hcb 2:10, stressing Jesus' role as leader, and ' Anlangcr' in Heb 12:2, strc.ss:ing his role as initiator, though here he also offers the fonn cr as an alternate translation.' 1 Attridge, too, varies his translation of the tcnn, using the clause ' the one who leads the way' in 2 : I () but the simple r translation 'initiator' in 12:2.u Detailed discussion of the appearance of this tcnn in Hcb 2: I() follows below, as it a ppears in conjunction \'lith a discussion of Jesus as priest. A priestly theme docs not appear when ap)(TlyOs is used in Hcb 12:2, after the lengthy discussion of prior exemplars of faith in Hcb II . However, it docs appear with a discussion of Jesus• suffering and exaltation, themes also p rominent when the tcnn is used in Hcb 2. np6opo~o; is used o nly once in the NT and is rare in the LXX." In its substantival usc, BDAG defines it as 'forerunner,' a translation reflected in the NRSV and generally accepted by commentators." In Heb 6:20 Jesus is called 'a rrpoopOIJO$ for us' who has entered the heavenly Holy of Holies as ·a high priest forever according w the order of Mclchizcdek.' This appears in the context of a discussion in Heb 6: 13-20 about the certainty of Cod's promise,,; the inviolability of God's oath inspires hope in believers. These two terms arc used by the author of Hebrews to make a significant christological statement in the epistle. Though the precise nuance.' intended by the author of Hebrews in his usc of the Conner tcnn remain debatable, it is clear that a key characteristic. <>f Jesus in Hebrews is that he leads out or goes before his people. This concept is also seen elsewhere in the epistle, even in the absence of usc of these p.'lrticular terms. especially in passages in which Jesus is described as Spicq, llibrelLY, 2:.39. He rejec-ts idea.<; that J~sus is the initiator o f faith in H~b 12:2 because H~b ll has shown that many in lsrad had fa ith before Jesus ' 11

manifeS-tation (2:3S6). 11 Weiss. Hebrlier. 202. 63J. u Anridi;e, Hebrew.~. S?-88. 356. 1 ~ OpOcSpos..os refers l'o agricuhur<~l lirst fruits in Num 13:20, lsa 28:4, and Hos 9:10 (Aq .. Sm .. T h.), a u.<•agc not unknown in c1as..,ica1 text~, but in Wis 12:8 it has the military connotations most prevalent in its classical usugc (see LSJ 1475), referring to God's 'wasps' which se-n·ed a.:; ·forerunners' oflsracl's army during the-conquest a nd lxltd e imager)' is a lso prominent in Ezck 26:9 Aq. u BDAG 867; Attridge, Hebrews. 178; Lane-, Hebrew.-.. I: 147; Spicq. Hebreux. 2:165 ( ·precurseur'); Kot.'"-'iter, Hebrews, 330: and Weiss, Hebrlier, 358 ("Vorliiufcr'). Sec also Otto BauemtCind. " np05po1JO) ,"' TDNT8:23S.

12

CHAPTER ONE

high priest. •• Auridgc asserts that the author of Hebrews has received from his tradition the presentation o f Jesus• incarnation and rc· dcmption in this mythical fom1 but modifies it in light of h is presentation of Jesus as high pricst. 17 Similarly, Aunc argut"S that "'many of the imp<>rtant a nd vital functions attributed to Hcracles as a Hellenistic savior figu re were understood by some early Christians as applicable to Jesus." '" It is clear that these presentations arc inter~ twined, as will be seen more full y below.

2. JESUS AS ' SON' AND ' SON OF GOD'

Jesus is discussed as 'Son' (v'~<)s) in seven passages in Hebrews, which should not be surprising g iven the traditional nature of this confession." O f these, three times (Heb 6:6; 7:3; and I 0:29) he is further identified as 'the Son of God ' in contc.x ts where this desig nation is not the primary subject of d iscussion. Usc of the phrase 'Son of God' is far !Tom random in these ptassagc.~. however, as in each case usc of this tcnn heightens the rhetoric of the author o r subtly expresses 16

Examples of this motif irK-Iude Heb 9:12 ("he e ntered once- for all into the Holy Place .. . attainins et·erna l redemption") and Heb 10 :1 9·20 ("having botdm:·ss fbr entranc;e into the sam.: tuary because of the blood of Jesus, a new and living way which he opened fbr us through the veil"). L ··Hebrews is hardly being innovative in using. u traditional ffi)' th o f incarnation and redemption. .. . h is rather a part of his tradition, which he goes on to re-interpre-t and actualize in his pri(.ostly ch ri~iul o:;ty"' (Attrid:;e,l/ehrews. 82). 1 ~ Aunc, .. Herades," 19. 19 Ce-rtainly this dcsig.nation is early as it is promim:·nt in the earliest datable Christian Ylfillen sources. the-episdes of Paul. Por examp le, in the undisputed Paulineepistles JC*>US is referred to as v,~. ( in context. c-learly God's Son) in 1 Thess 1: I 0; ,q-ctl 1:16; 4:4.6: 1Cor 1:9; 15:28; Rom 1:3. 9; 5:10: 8:3. 29. 32; a nd spcx:ific:ally as ulOS (ToV} &toU in Gal 2:20; 2 Cor 1: 19: and Rom I:4. Some. of these, inc-luding Rom I:3: 8:3; 1 Thess 1:10: und may suggest that th is slaiUs (as wdl a.<> his pri<.osthood) is granted only a t the condusion of his earthly life (Heb I :4·5: 2:9; 5:S; 6:20; 7:28). $«. Aune, "Herades and C hrist." 14; Martin Hensel, The Cms.<:ofllwSoll of God (trans.. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976}. 86.88; John Knox, The Numanit)' mrd Divillity of Christ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres..-;. 1967), 34· 49: a nd Jum(.-s D. (i. Dunn, Cltrb·wfogy in the Mnki11g: A New Testamem Inquiry imo the Origi1r.~ of 1/te Dm·trine of lite fllctmwlion (2nd cd: Grnnd Rapids: Eerdmans, t989). t -56.

s

HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

13

Jesus, supe riority ()Vcr an infe rior cntil}'· In Hcb 6:6 the tcnn cJimaxcs a discussion of the horrors o f apostasy. The usc in Hcb 7:3 is powerful yet p layful, occurring just after one reads tha t Mclchizedck, lacking a father, mother, or genealogy, ncvcrthclcs.s resembles: a son. the Son of God no less. Likewise, in Hcb 7 :28 a contrast is offered- the law appoints high priests ·subject to weakness,' but God's oath app<)ints a Son who has been made perfect (through suffering; cf. Hcb 5:8-9). In Hcb I0 :29, the punishment for spum ing the Son of God is compared (or perhaps more accurately. contrasted) to that of breaking lh<: law of Moses in an argument utilizing the qal wa·~wmer technique. In 3 : 1-6, his status as son over God's house makes him supe.rior to Moses, who was faithful in God's house."' Most important in regard to Hebrews' presenta tion of Jesus as priest, however, arc Hcb I : 1- 14 and 4: 14-5: I 0, both of which closely associate Jesus, status as priest with his status as Son. These passages rccdvc significant a ttention below because of their importance for understanding Hebrews, prc.~cntation of Jesus as priest

3. JESUS AS 'PRIEST' AND 'HIGH PRIEST'

Having surveyed other christological ro les o f Jesus in Hebrews, attention now turns for the remainder of the c hapter to HebrCw!f ecntml theme, the presentation of Jc.,us as priest. Though many have seen priestly ovc.rtoncs in the portrayal of Jesus in other New TC.'i· lament books, especially the gospel of John, only in Hebrews is Jesus explicitly called 'priest' or ' high pric.st.'" The remainder of this chapter is devoted to examining the key passages in which Jesus is discussed as priest or as having priestly functions.

One mighc object to examination of H~b 3: l-6 under the-mol if of Jesus as ·Son' since the argume nt there is dearly condoc.tcd in the realm o f Jiguratiw language. In light o f the g.n-at slre<>s chc author places a ll he bcginnin;; o f the book un Jesus as ·Son of God," however, it would S<."t:m extremely unlikely thai he would Iuter discuss Jesus as son without inte-nding ( 0 relate-it to his previous discussion. 21 Throrics linking Hebrews and John arc-d iscussed in the next chapter. 10

14

CHAPTER ONE

3. 1. Hebrews 1: 1· 14

The first hint of Jesus' role as priest, a mention of hi~ cultic activity, appears in the opening sentence of the book, the elegant period that comprises Hcb l:le4. Here Lhc author's primary foClL'~ is on the Son, who is shown in the broader context of I: 1· 14 to be. superior tO the angels. In Heb I: 1·2, God's revelation of the 'Son' in recent days is con· trastcd to previous revelations. This is the first of numerous passages in which the author compares Jesus with some figure from the Hebrew Scriptures. This pattc.m, which effectively advances the author's over· all agenda of presenting Jesus as high priest, ncvcrthclcs..<; is striking because of the theological backdrop on which it functions--clscwhcrc (as especially seen in Heb 11-12) the approach of the author is w find continuity in God's actions and the fai th of God's people, whether persons <Jf the Hebrew Scriptures or followers of Jesus. Also~ it must

be noted that while the author contrasts God's various acts of revelation in this passage, these acts ultimately arc in continuity because they share a common source. Nevertheless, the author docs intend to highlight God's rc.velati
HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

15

One might also notice here the a uthor' s preference fo r '
As ·s on,• Jc.o;us is described in subsequent verses as: a. ' heir of all things' (Heb I :2), an ident ification not surpn smg given his Sonship, but also very s ignific.ant because of what fo llows in Hcb 2:5- 14, where it recurs in a n interpre ta tion o f Ps 8:5· 7 LXX;" b. ' throug h whom a lso he [God) made the world' (Heb I :2), a motif strongly reminiscent o f de scriptions of \Visdom's ro le in creation in Jewish w isdom lite rature ( fo r example, Wis 9 :9, ' With you is w isdom, she who knows your works and was present when yo u made the world ,);26 c. ' being the rc.llcc tion [or r•dianccj of [God 's] glory and the representation o f [God 's] esscnt'c' ( Heb I :3), again drawing on la nguage from the Jewish wisdom tradition (Wis 7 :26, ' For she is a reflec tion of eterna l light, a spot less mirror <>f the working of God, and an image of his gO<)d ncss,_) and perhaps as well from Philo' s dis· cuss ion of the Logos;17 Elsewhe re the author cmphasizt-s lhe ·once for all' nature- of Jesus' sacrifice. whic.h may be connected wilh lhe once per )' Car occasion of the Day of Atonement sacnfice. O n the latter. sec SWkl Be n Ezra, Impact qfl'om KljJJmr , 18 1. Johnson, 1/ebrews, 65. :u In the more immediate context. many interprc tc.•rs have noticed u re-lationship between the statements about the Son in Hcb 1:1-4 and che litany of Scripture ctuotations in I :S- 14. Thus this stateme nt about the Son as heir would lx: related to Heh I: 13, u quota tion o f Ps 110: I (LXX 109: 1) . For a d iscussion of lhe-compositional struc.ture of Heb 1:1-1 4. see John P. Meier, ··Struc.turc und Theology in Hcb 1.1-1 4." Bib 66 (198$): 168-89; and " Symmetry and T heology in the Old Testame nt Citations of Hcb 1.5- 14." Bib 66 ( 1985): 5()4-33. For u syntactica l defense or the view that exactly seven uOinnations are nw.de about Jesus in Heb 1: 1-4. sec r-.•lcicr, ..Structure," 17 1-76. Sec funher discussion of Me ier's a~lproac.h below. 26 Sec A ttridge, flebrows, 40-41 ; 1md lane, 1/eh,.ews. I: 12. C f. Ellingworth, Ne· brews. 96, who li.sts nume rous intermediaries connected wilh creation in Jewish and Gnostic literature. T he verb has b«n lranslatc:>tl here as · made ' rather chan ·c.reated' in order to maintain consiste-nc\' with usc of 1T01iw below in I :3. n Interpreters are divid~ as to whe ther O.rro:Uy O:OIJO dcnote;o; ·radiam.""-e' or 'refle>c tinn' in both Hcb 1:3 and \Vi.s 7:26, the only u:;es o f the word in the NT and LXX, rQ;JlC>Ctivcly. See A ttridge. Hebrews, 4 2-44; Lane-, Hebrews, I : 12-1 3; a nd Ellingwonh. Hebrews, 98-99. Koeste.r (Nehrew:;. 179-80) prefers the-ac1ive se-nse of · mdiunoc.' a nd astutely notes that "lhe texc dues not deal primarily with God·s relationship to lhe Son, but with the way God L-.ommunicates tflmuglt the Son." Howe ve-r. ·reA<.octinn' a lso !.!

16

CHAPTER ONE

d . ·sustaining all things by his powerful word' (Hcb 1:3), a natural corre lative to the Son,s role in c rea tion and a task o Hcn ascribed to Wisdom and the Logos in Second Temple Jewish literature;" c. ' having in himself made purification fo r sins' (Hcb I :3), an activity unpar.lllc lcd in d iscussions of Wisdom or of the Logos in Philo, yet the fi rst of the many intimations of Jesus as prie-s t in the cpistlc~:-9 f. ' he sat down altho right hand of the Majesty on high' (Hcb 1:3), an allusion w Ps I I 0 ( I 09 LXX) : I, a vita lly important psa lm fo r this author, 30 and g. 'having become as much superior to the angels as the name he had inherited is more cxc.cllcnt than theirs,, a n affirmation of the exalted nature of Jesus as Son. This statement a lso form,;; the transition, both lhcmalically and grammatically, from !he period 10 the following series of proof texts which strc.'iS the Son,s superiority over the angels while also reflecting the themes of the previous six statements.

seems appropriate because Lhe. Son' s status is described vis-il-vis his relationship to God. $0mc-thin:; especially stressed in the serond part of this phrase-. One is left to decide if this phrase should b~: understood as making synonymous (so 'reOec.tion') or complementary (thus ·mdiam:-e.' expre.ssins a diffe rent, more aclive nuance than ·re~~cn tation ')assertions about the Son. Anridgc, lfebrews, 45: and Lane, Jlebrews. 1:14. Sec Ellint.rwonh. Nehrews. 100-0 1; and Ku""'ier, 11ehrews, 181 ~ fbr surve.y s o f options fhr interprctin:; ~pw. The translation u fthc participial lhnn ~tpwv above is prefemble to N RSV's 'he sustains,' whic-h obscures the rdntionsh ip of the-clause w ith the sentence's finite ve-rb. 19 The translntion ·havins in himself made' is an altempt to <:unvey the middle vo ice u f the aorist partic iple u f ttou~w. A similar a ttempt seems to explain the variant readings of this r:hrase in very early manuscripts (including p46). suc h as insertions o f 6:1' £o:uTo\i (or o:lrfoG) to explic-ate the middle •.:oic.e or the posses...,ive pronoun h~Wv t·o clarify who$c sins Jesus atones. See Bru~:e M. tvlctzge-r, A Textual Conune~rtan• <m tile Gu·ek New Te.'iltllltellt (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsch~: Bibdgesellsc-ha l\. 1994}, ~592. As for the priestly motif. one mig.ht aq,ruc that this is taken up again in Heb 1:9. where the- quotation from Ps 4S:8 (LXX 44:8; EV 4 5:7) mentions a nointing, an action associated w ith the. investiture o f pri~ts. Howe-ver, kings ( I Sum 10:1 ; 16:3: I Kgs 1:39; 2 K ~ 9:6; l l:12) a lso were anointed (as a prophet could be-. I K~ 19: 16), and the orisinal context of the psalm seems to be royal. Whil~: it is certain!)• true that the author of Hebrews feels free to usc quotations of Scripture in ways that do not uc-eurd with their uri~ina l t.">Ontexts (as evidenced in his habit o f recasting statements about God or a Dav1dic king so that they instead speak of Ihe Son in Heb 1:S- 14). here-clear evidenc-e-for a priestly connotation is lacking. nor would its presence-add muc-h o f significance to the discussion. Indeed. the lu."t phrase-of the q uotation. indicutin:; that the ano inted has so been honor<:d 'beyond your companions· (ncpO ToU.:,· J,JtTOXOUS' oou). is perhaps the part o f the quotation most significant for the author o f Hebrews (l.nne, 11ehrews, I:30; d Attridge, Hebrews, 60). JO Attridge, Hebrews. 46. For simplicity. in must subsequcnl references this c hapter wiU be idcntilicd only asPs 110.

HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

17

Of chief signilicancc for this study arc the statements in the second half of Heb I :3, where one reads that ' having in himself made purification fo r sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high' (Ko9cxpto~ov T&lv a~cxpnwv TTOil]Oa~evos EKa9taev 'e v OE~I i;X nl> ~eycxAc.:>OUVl]S ev uljff(Ao'is-). The Greek term used fo r ' purilieation,' Kcx9cxpto~O,, is used only twice in the NT in reference to Jesus' atoning work, here ami in 2 Pet I :9, though it is used in <>thcr NT contexts for various types of clcansings: in the Synoptic:..~ in dis· cussions about purifications involving leprosy (Mark 1:44; Luke 5: 14) and childbirth (Luke 2:22); in John in a description of the water jars at Cana (2:6) and as a subject of debate between a Jew and disciples of John the Baptist (3:25). The term, which has strong cultic overtones, is used 19 times in the LXX and may translate words from five different Hebrew roots, including ,!)J ..l 1 N otable among the LXX uses of the

term is its appearance in Exod 30: I 0 in the discussion of the Day of Atonement ceremony. Usc here is particularly relevant for the author

of Hebrews, who frequently alludes to this context; he understands Jesus as both the Day
II is used in the LXX to translate 0\t"):::, :i1QW~':'I\), tP~~. :'ij2"~ ( D). and ~ ( H). Nine times it is used in the LA'X in tex-ts fhr which there is no Semitic: pandlel. 1 J. Attridge, llebrelf!i. 46, csp. n. 132; fricdrid1 Hauck. ·'Ko:&ap•o~s;" TfJNT 3:429-30; and ·-xo.9o.ptOJJ¢s-." lSJ 850. The- term is a later fbrm of l(o:90.PIJOS, which is muc.·h more common in both the LXX and the NT. 31

18

CHAPTER ONE

the author o f Hebrews explicitly quotes this verse three times later in the book and bases his identification of Jesus as priest on it.:.l Aller the seven statements made about the Son in Hcb I : 1-4, seven quota tions of Hebrew Scripture lb llow in the catena of Hcb 1:5- 14. John Meier argue-~ that both the seven Christological designations of Hcb I: 1-4 and the seven Scripture c itations of Heb I :5- 14 express a general movement in th eme~ which he calls a ' ring· structurc: \Vhilc denying a strict ()nC- to..onc relationship between the designations: and citations, he ncvcrthclcs.~ sees a common movement, graphic.ally il· Justratcd as counter-clockwise, from exaltation to creation, e ternal pre· existence, creation/conservation of the world, purification of sins (in the designations only), c reation, cxahation/c nthroncmcnt, and the result of exaltation (supc riorit)' over angels, \'lhic.h is not exprc.~scd by a citati<m but rather by tl1C author's comment in Hcb I : 14 that lb llows the final cita tionVJ Meier's observation is significant in that he rcc~ ognizcs that the author of Hebrews uses the firs t and seventh quo~ tations to prove Jesus' exaltation. These two crucia l quota tions arc of Ps 2 :7 and Ps 110: I (Ps I 09: I LXX). Note the words of Meier: lhe seventh and final citation brings us full circle-. Having started with the naming of Christ as Son at his emhronement. as describe.d in Ps 2, 7 (Heb 1,5bc). we c.onclude with the Son's c nthronementiexahation as described in Ps 109,1 . The two royal Oavidic psalms of enthronement frame lhe whole catena. This inclusion is underlined by the fact that the seventh citarion, like the firs t, begins with the rhetoric-al question: "For to which of the a nge.ls did he [God the fathe.r] ever say... ?" As we haveseen, Ps 109,1 supplies the staning point of our author·s theological reflection. By connecting Ps 109,1 with Ps 109,4 and by drawing out the implic.ations. he grounds his basic the~~; i s : the e.x alted Son (Ps 109,1) is the etemal priest like Melchizedek (l's 109.4)."

The signilicancc for this study is that in the mind of the author of Hebrews, Ps 2:7 and Ps I I 0 : I both speak of the Son and thus arc to be interpreted together. This exegetical move sets the stage for Hcb 4: 14~ 5: I 0, where the author explains how Jesus, the royal Son, can a lso be a .n Sec the similar a.<>sertion of David (1.•1. Hay. G/or)" ot llw R~glu J.lm1d: Psalm I 10 Eor(v Christicmit)•(S BUviS IS; Nashville: Abingdon. 1973). 143. The decree of Ps I I 0:4 is quoted in Hcb S:6 and 7: t7. 2 1 (the last quotation cuL..; nffbdbre Mdchizcdck is mentioned). (\•lclchizcdek is discussed bdow in mud1 more dL'>IIlil. N r-.'leicr, ··Symmetry.'" 529, in the condusions section which dmw.s together obi11

servations from both articles in this series, ··Structure·· and ..Symmetry. •• JJ Meier, ··Symmetry, ·• $ 19. Note that Meier uses chapter numbe-rs from the LXX

HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

19

priest. The themes o f Hcb 4: 14-5: 10 also a rc a nticipated by the pre· scntation of Jesus' solidarity with humanity in Hc b 2:5- 18, to which discussion now turns.

3.2. Hebrews 2:5· 18 Jesus' incarna tion a nd solidarity with huma nity arc the major themes in Hcb 2:5- 18. However, it isalso a ppropriate to recognize that the theme o f the Son 's superiority over the angels may also be rc.~umcd here with significant priestly discussion. Psalm 8:4·6 (5· 7 LXX) recciv<."S christological interpretation whereby the Son ,s inca rnation, tCnlpOrary humiliation below the angels, solidarity with humanity through suffering, and subsequent exaltation a rc affim1cd. Jesus is not explicitly called 'Son' here., though the Hebrew idiom 'son of man ' is retained in Ps 8:5 LXX; perhaps that 'son' language inOucnecd the author of Hebrews to understand the psalm as spea king of Jcsus.J"' Familial language is very strong in Hcb 2:11 · 18. Jesus is not ashamed I<) call humans 'brothers' in Hc b 2: I I, a nd the quotation of parts oflsa 8 :17-18 in Hcb 2:13 shows that the author of Hebrews is thinking o f Jesus as 'Son• in this d iscussion. In the original c.o ntcxt of Jsa 8: I 8, the prophet Isaiah is the speake r and he makes reference to his physical children. However, while. precisely quoting the LXX, the author of He brews re<.~asts the q uotation in suc.h a way that the words appear to be on Jesus' lips and ' the children' now a rc God's (Spiritual) children. This kinship motif is fm1hcr clarified in the discussion that resumc.'i in Hcb 2: 14·UL Jesus shares human cha racteristics w ith the ' children' (2: 14), and he has to become like his ' brothers' in every "'"l' (2:17- JS).n More importantly, the theme of Jesus' (i.e., the Son's) superiority over the angels gets signi tl.cant attention: u As di$cw;scd below, ~omc interprc:-ters do not see Jesus discus.,..ed in the passage until Heb 2:9. Regardless, no 'Son u f (\•tan' Christology like that present in the-Synoptic C~l-'?'"ls .~l10uld be expected he n:. Instead, the ·Son' language- from the previous: cha,gtcr IS Jll \' leW. Against the. interpretation presented above-, Lane insists thut the children of Hcb 2:13 are to be understood as Jesus' children but admits the difficully of his reading:: ..Although the concept of the- people of God a."' TO: 'lrClt5io:. ·me children.· o f the exaht.xl Son is not fbund elsewhere in the NT, the image o f the fumily suggests an intinutcy of relationship and a tenderm:·ss that broadens the- concept of solidarity'" (Hebrews. I :60). For a n interpretation similar to that espoused abo\'e and references to other commen tato~. see Attridge, Hebrews . 91, especially n. 139.

20

CHAPTER ONE

a. Hcb 2:5- 'For [Ood] d id not subject the coming world, about which we arc speaking, L<.) angels'; b. Hc b 2:7, 9- 'You made him for a little while lower than the angels . . . we do $(."(! Jesus, who n.)T a little had been made IO\VCf than the angels:,; and c. Heb 2: 16-'0bviously he is n<>t helping angels, but he is helping desce ndants of Abraham.' How the author of Hebrews read the quotation li·om Ps 8 has been undcrs10od in two primary ways. Ultimately assessments of his ap~ proach hinge on exegetical decisions about three issues in the passage: whom the author fi nds implic-d in the missing contrasting phrase (as a n alternative to angels, i.e., the pcrson(sj to whom God subjected the coming world) of Hc b 2:5; the identification of the civ9pw nos and u'tO, av9pc.5nou of Hcb 2:6 ( in a qu(>tation of Ps 8:4 [5 LXX]); and the antecedent of o.tJT0) in Hcb 2:7~8 who was temporarily made low~ er than the angels and to whom all thing.<; were o riginally subjected. Some interprete rs sec the quotalion ~'I.S speaking of humanity in gcn~ cral, which would seem to be the intent of the psalmist, with a sub· sequent shifi to discussion o f Jesus in Hcb 2:9, whereas others argue rhat lhc author of Hebrews read the quotation prophetically as referring to Jc-~~us.311 The quota tion is best interpreted as intentionally ambiguous: it is applied to Jesus but intended to e voke ils original application 10 humanity in general in orde-r to stress Jc.o;us• solidarity with humanity.5~ Certainly the passage ovcmll has thai purpose, a nd the author's major point becomes clear in Hcb 2:9- Jesus. now cxalled, suffered on behalf of the faithfuL" This theme is continued in Hcb 2 : 10~ 1 S, \vhere one encounte rs the lcnn CxPXTJYOS'. JcSr humanity. 5«- Dunn, Chriswlogy, 109. C f. the-similar interpretations of Lane:. Nehrews. I:41·SO; a nd Koc:;<;tcr, f.Jehrews,

214-17. 40

Sec Ke\•in !'vlt.<:rudc:n. ..Christ's Pc:rfedion in Hc:brews: Di"ine Benefice nce as an Exegetical Key to Hebrews 2:10." BR 41 (2002): 40 ~62, csp. 42-49. t(lr a treatment lhut differs from the: prel>Cnt study on the: approac-h to the quotation of Ps 8 yet ultimately linds a very simila r thrust in the broader passage.

HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

21

people so that he could be 'a mc rci lu l and faithlu l high priest' and make atonement fo r them. In this context, Jesus is described as 'having been crowned with g lory and honor because of the suffering of dea th' afte r having been 'for a little .. . made lower than the a ngels' (Hcb 2:9, a striking comment in light of the emphasis in Hcb I :5- I 4 on the Son's superiority over angels) and having endured suffering in order to bring salvation to the faithful. These sufferings make Jesus 'perfect, (TEA£twoat; 2: 10) and enable him to relate w humans (2: 1 Jb- 13), defeat the devil in his death (thereby freeing d10se enslaved by the fear of death; 2 : 14- 15), and become 'a mcrcilul and fai thful high priest' who could make a sacrifice of a tonement (2: 17-18). Here it is stressed that suffering inl1ucnccs the nature of his priesthood.""' Hebrews' presentation of Jesus as 0:p)(l1y0$- seems appropriate, as suffering is also an important part of Hcmclcs mythology." Thus Jesus, as ap)(Tly6> of his people, suffers, and it is th is suffering which is crucial to his role as priest, in which he delivers his people to sa1vation (2: 1 3 ~ I 5). The priestly motif is overt in Hcb 2:5-1 8, and for the fi rst time Jesus explicitly is called 'high priest' in Hcb 2: 17. However, other priestly language is evident in Hcb 2: 11 with a sta teme nt which further stresses the appropriateness of Jesus' empathy with God's people. Here the NRSV renders (with significant par•phrasc) on yap ayu:i~wv Kat 01 Cxyta~O~evot E~ £v0s- ncXvns- as: 'For the one who sanctifies and those who arc sanctified all have one Father. •u The precise meaning of the final phrase£~ EVOS ITclVT£S, lite rally ' all from [or 't)Ut of') One,' is elusive. The 'one' is not defined explicitly, and suggestions include God, humanit)', Adam, and Abraham." Nevertheless the a rgument of Hcb 2: I 0· 13, where Scripture quotations arc cast as sta teme nt< of J l f'erhups this sum·ring includes trials U..<>sociatcd with Jesus' incarnation. especially his passion. T his is the interpretation of l!llingworlh. 1/ebn!>w~\', 158. He also

notes that Ps 22:22 is quott.-d in Hcb 2:12. implying that this <.-:onnectioo with Jesus ' passion is strengthened bcx'.ausc Mark J 5:34 and Matt 27:46 record Jc~"lls' quota tion of Ps 22:1 from lhe cross. Similar qu~tions urisc with Heb S:?. Sec Attridsc.llebrews, t 48-5(). 1

Aune, ··Hcrac1cs and Christ," l6; similarly lanc,11ebrews, 2:56-51. T he- wm ~y1ci(w is the term normally used in the- LXX to trnn.<>late ve-tbs from the ~·ip root and refers to a <.'o llie state. The term is used several times in Hebrews (2: 11; 9:13; 10: 10. 14, 29; 13: 12) to rc:iCr to k$us' sdf-s.acrilicinl ac-tivity in passages that d early relate the concepts of atonement and sanctilication. See Otto Procksch. ··by•ci(w." TDNT 1:111-1 2. :w Koester, llebrtM!i. 229-30. "

"

3

22

CHAPTER ONE

Jesus, makes it clea r that it is an affirmation of the solidarity between Jesus and God 's children based on a <•ommon orig in, God." Perha ps one might also sec in Hcb 2: II an attempt to give a logica l (in the mind of the auth<>r) explanat ion for why ' it was filling' (EilpEITEv; Hcb 2: I 0) that God qualify Jesus for his mission by means o f suffering. In Hcb 2: 10, (i(>d is ca lled the one ' for whom a nd through whom all things exist,' a nd God perfects Jesus through su fferings . .Jesus, ' the one who sancti fies; and the people 'who arc. being sancti fied/ have tcsting and su ffcri ng in common (sec 2: 14- 18, esp. 2 : 18) as well as a common origin (£~ EvOs rrcivns ). Thus, because Jc.o;us has this unity with the people, it was filling that he suffer like them; by his sufferings he would be made pe rfect so that he might make them pcrfCct.~6

.u O ne can sense the diflicuhy of translating £S hO)' nc:i:vns by comparing the interpn-tativc rendering..., in the. NRSV ('all h.u\'C one Fathe-r') and NI V ('of the same family'). Commenlahl rs display a similar variety o f translations, variously sc."Cing the c-ommon origin in God or some human anc.c:stor, yet unifonn1y ugree thut stress is placed on the: solidarity or Jesus and the-people. See- Allridge. HebreW.\'• 8&.89: Lane, llehrews, I :58; Koest<.·r, 1/ebrews, 229-30: and Spicq.11t!hreur. 2:40-4 1. -'6 T he a uthor of Hebrews seems to be playing on different meanings of the- verb nAtuiw in Heb 2:10. Hen: he uses it in refere-nce h> the-purpose-of Jes-us' sufferinS$. thus it mus-t huvc a meaning like that proposed by Attridge of'·u vocationa l proc-<."SS by which he is made- complete or tit for his office" (Hebrews. 86). Gerhard Delling r~uAttOw," TDNT S:Sl) undc:n>1unds the term in Hcb 2:1 0 in the sense: of ·quali fy.' BDAG (-nAttdw," 996) gives two options fill' the term in Hcb 2:10. The first is "to uven:umc or supplant a n imperfect state of things by one that is free rrroml objection, hri11g 10 tm end. bring 10 iJ:>goal/m:t:omplisllmem;" the second is "con..,ecrate-, initiate." Neithe-r o f thot.-;se definitions from BDAG s«ms tutullv satisfa<.:tory, though pe-rhaps the first is to be favored with the understanding that Hebrews scc:s Jesus' sufferin-S$ as prepara tion for his ser,•itx:'- o r priesthood. not as a correction o f or atonement lO r his mural f.1ilures. Though the a uthor of Hebrews docs not spcc:ifkally usc the tcnu 'TtA£•6w in this context in reference- to the people of God. it docs se<-m that he is playing on its multiple meaning.'>. Jesus is made pe-rfect by God, m1
HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

23

3.3. Hebrews 4:14-5:10 As ment ioned a bove in discussion o f Heb I : J. 14, the auth<>r of Hebrews cxp laiJLo; how Jesus the Son can also be Je-sus the priest in Heb 4:14·5:10. In fac t, high priestly de signations fonn an inc/usia to the passage. Because Jesus is 'a great high priest who has passed through the heavens,' the recipients arc to be emboldened in their 'confc.~sion• (4: 14), which they had at some earlic.r time professed." Jesus is a sympatht:tic high p riest who has remained sin less despite testing (4: 15), allowing h is f<>llowers 'to a pproach the throne of grace w ith boldness' (4: 16), presumably in their prayers." Yet again this d iscussion began on the assumption that Jesus is a high priest, though this is not lorma lly demonstr,ltcd (and even then not completely explained) until the appcar•nce of the quotations o f Ps 2:7 and Ps 110 :4 in Hc b 5 :5· 6, which emphasize that Jesus holds his priestly o ffice by God 's appointment. First, however, in Heb 5: 1-4 the author expla ins that a high priest mediates between the people and God with sacrifkcs~ he expounds on this with three criteria for the h igh priest: a. he is able to be gentle with the ' ignorant and wayward' (NRSV) lx:c.ause he h imself is s ubject to weakness (Hcb 5:2); b. he must offer sacrifice. fo r his own sins and fo r those of the people (Hcb 5:3); and c. he take.'< office by the call of God, not on h is own initia tive (Heb 5:4). The author then proceeds in a c hiastic manner in Heb 5:5-1 0 to sh()W how Jesus meets these three criteria. In Hc b 5:5-6, the a uthor shows tha t God installed Jesus as high priest- thus ful filling the third criterion-b)' a ppealing to statements of d ivine oath in Scripture. The author previous ly had read Ps 2:7 and Ps II 0: I together in Hcb I :5· 14 . -"The phmse- ·passed thmu$h the heavens' (01t:A~lAv90To: roils oUpcxvoUs ) likely is a refc:--renc:-e to J ~us· exaltallon, lhoush the idea of Jesus' movement especially in the inner sancluar)'. is quite important in Hebrews. See Attridge, /Jel)rews, 139; Lane. Nebri!ws, 1 : 103~ Aune, -Hcraclcs and Christ." 18; Michel. Der 8riej; 204- 7; and Herbert Bmun, A11 die Hebriier (Hl\t'f 14; Tilbing.cn: Mohr, 1984), 124. -" lane (1/ehr~w.-., 1:1 15· 16), sees a refe rence to proycr in Hc:-b 4:16 as doe::; AI· tridgc, though the Iutter (Attridge. 1/ebrews, 141 ) is more caut ious about restrict-ing this reference to only one particular uc:tivil)': ...Approaching' God is used as a more c:-ncomp3ssins image:- fhr e ntering into a cove-nantal relationship with God.··

24

CHAPTER ONE

He now returns to Ps 2:7, inte rpreted in Hebrews as a statement ad· dressed to the Son, and reads with it Ps II 0:4, here undcr.>tood as be· stowing a priesthood on the figure addressed in Ps 110: 1 and Ps 2:7."' Though only the words of God in Ps II 0:4 arc quoted, omitting the narrative remarks n.)und in the psalm, the author of Hcbrc,vs can con· struc this statement as a divine appointment because it clearly is God ,s eternal oath in its original context. The concluding line o f the pass..'lgc in Heb 5: I 0, which serves in part w bui ld anticipation o f the fuller discussion of Jesus' relationship with Mclchizcdck, repeats the theme introduced here. The second criterion is presented as fulfilled in Hcb 5:9, where one reads that Jesus himself becomes 'the source of eternal salvation for all who obey h im,' i.e., he offers the sacri fice of himself. As is stressed later in the book, no sacrifice need be made on his own behalf, clearly distinguishing Jesus from Levitical pricsts.5" Finally, the fir.>t criterion is afllrmcd fo r Jesus in Hcb 5:8-9. Jesus is said to have learned obedie nce through his sufferings, echoing the assertion in Hcb 4:15 (and foreshadowed in Hcb 2:5-18) about the significance of his experience of the human plight. This cxpcricn{~C has pre pa red h im to be sympathetic toward the pL'Oplc, and in th is way he has 'been made pe rfect,' or prepared, for his role
"9 Another conn« lion between these verses possibly utilized by a ncient exegetes is suggested by James C. VandcrKam, - Sabbatical C hronolosies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature," in Tire Dead Sea Scm/l5 /11 Their lli:ilorical Cmue.w (ed. T. H. Lim; Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 2000). 159· 78. esp. 174. VandcrKam {fhllowing David Flusser and James Kusel) notes that the LXX renders th<.• Hebrew 1'0i'r. ('your youth') or Ps I I 0:3 as ts~yivvl)oci ot ("I have begotten you'). This provides a possible t.'Oflll(.'<:lion to Ps 2:7 since- there one finds similar language in the LXX (yty iVVI)Kd Ot). ~ Some scholars understand the statement in Heb 5:1 that Jesus had ·offered up pr.:1ycrs and s upplications, with loud c.ri ~ and te-ars· tt.'i the funct iona l equivalent o f the sacrilic-e s Le•litical pricsL;; made for the ir own sins (5:3), but the ideas arc not pamllel. Nor. fhr that mattc.r. is it dear what the author of He-brews alludes to in t his statement. Sec Attridge. Hebrews. 148-52. ~1 BDAG 996, meaning 2a.

HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

25

adaptation of Christ for his intercessory offices through his educative suffering.··~

A very important aspect o f this passage is that the author finally provides exegetical support for his identification of Jesus as pric.~t­ Jcsus is pric.st because God appointed him to the office. God also prepared him through his suffering 10 be the sympathetic mediator who would o ffer himself fo r the. atonement of the people. Because the author describes Jesus in light of the Day of Atonement sacrifice (and docs so more explicitly later in the book), Jesus must be the !Jig!J priest, even though Melehizcdck is onl)' called a priest in Ps 11 0:4. (Admittedly, however, presence of the d ivine oath in Ps I I 0:4 would also imply a pp
imagery also is evident in 6: 19-20, where JccSus is said to have entered the Holy of Holic.s as a •forerunner' (rrpoopo..o;;) on behalf of his f<>llowcrs.

3.4. Hebrews 7 The author r even high priest, thanks to the prominence of Day of Atonement imagery in Hcbrcws--.md, as

discussed above, he Jays the c.xcgctkal groundwork lbr this correlation by reading Ps 2:7; Ps 110: 1; and Ps 110:4 together in Hcb 1: 5- 14 and 5:5·6. ll is not until Hcb 7: 1· 10 , however, that the author final!)' explains this relationship, then he promptly drops Melehizcdck from further d iscussion afte r 7:15. Though th is occurs only about midway through the 13-chapte r book, the author apparently is convinced that

Mckhizcdck has served his purpose, and he docs not mention him again in the final six c-hapters of the book. The author of Hebrews makes scvcml surprising comments about Mclchizcdek in Heb 7:1· 10, particular ly in Hc b 7:3." The passage Allridgc:. Hebrew.". I53. See ulso Peterson, ll(!hrews a11d Pelfecaon, 96-103. These issues are addres..<>ed in Eric: F. Mason, -Hebrews 7:3 and the-Relationship lx:1woen l\.'ldc:hizedc:k and Jesus,·' Bk SO ( 2005): 4 1-62. from whi c:.~h much of the current SL"Ction is taken. Sl SJ

26

CHAPTER ONE

common ly is identified as a midrash; the Mclchizcdck of Ps I 10:4 is already in view, and now the additional passage o f Gcn 14:18-20 is evoked U> allow furthe r discussion.s.~ \Vhilc retelling the Genesis ac~ count of the encounte r between Mclchizcdck and Abr~ham, the author of Hebrews confuse.~ certain parts of the swry o r else adds details absent from Gcnc.
Sec-, for example. Lane. Nebrews. 1: I58: and Ellin&,•vlonh. Hebrews, 350.

Parti<.'ular parallds with aspects of othe-r Scc:ond Temple inte-rpretations nrc-noted here. but the \'arious Second Temple Jewish t<.•xts that mention Mdchizedd: are discussed much more systemuticully below in c.haptc-r 3. u T his is common in accounts of this meetins by writers in the SL-cond Temple pc.riod, as e-videnced by the similar h.ubits of Pseudo-Eupo lcmus ("A~p0:0:1J) and Josephus ( A~pO.IJ{)S). Philo does not cull the pnlriarch h>• name in his accounts o f the encounter with rvlelchizedc-k, but his normal practice is to usc · A~po:diJ. On the other hnnd, the author.> of Jubilee.'t and the Ge11esis Apocryplum pr<.'Sl'n.'e verSions of the earlier name Abram fbr the ir rete11ings of this nK"C'Iing. It should be noted that most extant Ethiopic manuscripts of Jubilee.-. lack mention of Me-lchizcdek and ha'lc u lucuna a t 13:2$ where his encounter with Ahrum is expected. Context, though, makes it clear that such once stood in the text, and a few minor munuscripts of .Jubilees do have some remaining mention of the ligurc. even if onl>• in marginal notes. It has sometime;<; boc:-n urgued that that mention of Mekhizcdek wu."' suppressed in the scribal tradition: for di:>cussion of this view, see Richard Longenecker...The Mckhizcdck Argument of Hebrews: A Study in the Development and Circumstuntial Expression of New Testa ment Thought," in Unity aud Di..,lU"Sil)• in New Te.'tlttmellt Theology: Es.vaps ill 1/mwr o.fGeorg,e E. Ladd (cd. R. A. Guelich: Grand Rapid~: Eerdman:'• 1.9 78~ . 16 1· SS, csp. 164-65: tollowed by Lnnc, Hebrews. 1:160; a smular theory 1s 1mphcd hy James L K ugel. Tradilions of lite Bible: A Guide to tl1e Bible (u·lt Was attlu• Start t~( tile Commo11 Era (Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard Uniwrsity ~ss. 1998}, 293. On the other hand, James VanderKam. <.-ditor of the most recent c.ritic.a.l edition of the Ethiopic Jubilees. argues instead that haplogruphy occutTCd in the Hebrew tc~t ual tradition of Jubil ~ that predated its Lranslutinn into Ethiopic. See James C. Vandc-rKam. Tlw Book f?( Jubilees (2 \'Ois.; CSCO 5 10 -1 1; Scriptures Aethiopici 87-8&; Lounin: Peeters. 1989). 1:82; 2:81-82. SJ

HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

27

out to mee t Abram but Mclchizcdck instead encounters him first, prompted multiple explanations in the Second Temple period. The author of lhc Genest's Apoc1yplwn, for example, sought w smooth over the disjuncture, perhaps even implying that the two kings rendezvoused fi rst and then traveled together to meet A b.-• ham (I QapGcn ar XX II 13- 14)." As for the tithe, the Hebrew of Gcn 14:20 actually is ambiguous about who pays whom. though most readers no doubt assume that priests arc on the receiving end of tithes. ·n1c author of Hebrews:, like Josephus (Am. 1.1 8 1), Philo (Co11gr. 99), the author of the Ge11esis Apocrypho11 (JQapGcn ar XX II 17), and numerous modem Bible translation committees (including those of tl1c NRSV, N JV, and NAB), conlldcntly asserts that Abraham pays the tithe, though PseudoEupolcmus (Euscbius, Praep. ev. 9. 17.6) may preserve an alternate tradition.'' Pc.r haps surprising!)', cspedally in light o f Hebrews' emphasis on the discontinuity between the priesthMd o f Mclchizcdek and the later Levitical line, Philo and the autht1r of.!ubilees ( I 3:25) usc this passage to support the practice of tithing in the Levitical syswm, though Philo as expected allegorizes the tithe. Melchizcdck is idcntilicd in Gcn 14:18 as priest of )i ' ?¥ 71), and his

own name literally means ·my king is Scdck.• Though assimilated into the Penta teuch as a

prk,~t of Abram's God

Most High, modem scholars

unifonn1y understand him originally as a character in the service of a Canaanite deity, either Scdck or El 'Eiyon.'' Most Second Temple period interpreters of Mclchizcdck foll<>wed this b iblical example of assimilating Melchizc.d ck into the priesthood of Abrah am's God. Josephus (J.W. 6.428) and likely also Phil<1 (Cn11gr. 99) understood him to be God 's first priest, and Josephus, wh<1 explicitly remarks that Mclchizcdck was Canaanite, ne vertheless credited him-and not Solomon-as having constmctcd the fi rst Temple de voted to the n Admittedly the. author docs not explicitly stale that the- two kings trn\tdcd together, but the king o f Sodmn is said to travel to Salem, home-of Melchizedek. and both kings subsequently eooounter Abram. who wu_.. camped in the Valley of Shavch. f\•lichud C. A$lour. ··Shaveh, Valley of,"' ABD 5:1168, notes that several ancient writers located this .,·alley ncar Jerusalem. u Pscudo-Eupolemus st:atc:s that ttap.& 5t ToV MtAxtotcXK . .. Aaj3£1v 5Wpa, but the identification o f these ·gifts' and their possible- correlation with clements o f Gcn 14 : I8-20 arc uncertain. Among major modem Bible translations, the editors of the NJPS are mtl'$l cautiou!). printing the name of Abram as payee in bnK~kets. ~ Se-e, t"br example, Claus Westermann. GenC!:;i\· 12-36 (CC; Minneapolis: Fortr-ess,

1995). 203-04.

28

CHAPTER ONE

Hebrew God in Jerusalem. In b()()k 6 of the Jewish War, Josephus date.< the destruction of the Temple b)' the Babylonians as occurring 1468 years and six months after its foundat·ion, which obviously connects it to Mclchizedek rather than Solion of this issue in ch!!Jller 4 below. 61 Attridge:, Hebrew.~. I 89.

HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

29

theories c.a n Slill be found, they have fewer adherents loday." The sophistit,llcd Greek style displayed by this aulhor elsewhere in Hebrews-such as the 72-word, n -allilcratcd period in Hcb I: 1-4implies that he certainly was capable of composing the language in Hcb 7.ru. Another troublesome po int fo r such reconstructions is that rela ti ve pronouns, typically a marker of hymnic quotations, arc absent from Heb 7 :3, though a few participles arc prominent. The more. important question for most contempo rary intc.rprctcrs concerns exactly what is being affinncd about Mclchizcdek in Hcb 7:3. In other words, what docs it mean that he Jacks parentage, a genealogy, and both temporal origin and tem1inus? Clearly lhe ultimate purpose of this language for the author of Hebrews is 10 describe the Son of God by extension, yet the words here arc presented as pertaining to Mclthizcdek. Many interpreters assert that the author see ms to have based these as."crtions on the silence about Mclehizc.d ck 's origins and death in Gcn 14 along with Ihe statement that the honorL'C <>f Ps II 0:4 is a ' priest forever according to the order of Mclchizcdck,' with the assumption that the latter must also be c tcr~ nal.r.t However, one should also note that Second Temple Jewish writ· crs could come to conclusions that elevated Mclchizedek,s importanec without citing Ps II 0:4; Josephus reckoned Mclchizcdck as the lirst priest mentioned in Scripture, and Philo consider ed him 'self-taught.'" Two major approaches arc common today, each also finding a different biblical precedent for th is stunning language. Fred Horton, author o f the very int1uential volume 111e .Melchizetlek Tradition , is a major spokesman for the view that the author o f Hebrews understood Mclehizcdck as a mere mortal priest.(>(, Horton notes that numerous interprete rs have argued that the affirmations about Melchizcdck in Hcb 7 :3 were derived from the an cient Jewish interpretative principle quod 11011 in tlwra 11011 in mundo, that what is not specified in the 4i! For a recent surve~· of proposals lOr an underlying hymn. see Ellinswonh, Hebrews. 352-53. 6.l On ·the period. sec Aune. -Hebrews, lcuer to tht•," 2 12. (..1 For c:.ampk, Attridge, Hebre ws. t90; lane, Hebrews. I: 166: and KOC$tcr, Hebrews, 34ft f>.S Josephus . .I.W. 6.438; Philo, Co~rg. 99. f>6 Fred l. Honon. Jr., Tile Melclti:edi!k Troditi(}lr: A Critical £mmi11a1i01r t?f lire Sources m llw FijiIt Cemury A .D. tmd i11 1/te Epi:ule to tire Hebrew.,· (SNTSMS 30; Cambridge: Cambridge- Uni\'ersity Press, 1976). Horton's Yiews are generally fbitowed i n Lane, Hebrews.

30

CHAPTER ONE

biblical text doc_<; not exist. Most interprete rs have then argued that the author of Hebrews declares Mclchizedek to be without parentage, genealogy, beginning (>r end, etc., because no data for any o f these things can be fo und in Genesis, hence the silence there actually speaks loudly. Horton rejects this p..'lrticular exegetical move, noting that

numerous figures appear in Scripture wilhout such infom1ation being discussed yet arc not regarded as othcrworldly.6" Instead, Horton uses this ancient Jewish interpretative assumption from silence in a slightly different way. Horton notes, a<; seen above, that both .Josephus and Philo seem to derive the idea that Mclthizcdck was the firs t priest o f God from the silence about any prior priests in Genesis. Horton then asserts lhat the author of Hebrews has done a similar thing, so the issue in Heb 7:3 is the lack (>fa priest(y genealogy, not a lack of ordinary human anccstry.611 The exalted language of this verse is in rcfcrcnc.c to Melchizcdek's priC-<;t ly o fllec only a nd says nothing a b(mt his onto logy. So, then, fo r Horton, Mclchizcdck's priesthood is a model for understa nding Jesus' priesthood because both lack the expected priestly, Levitical genealogy. Nothing imp lies a nything other than a mortal existence fo r Mclchizcdek. The phrase 'without genealogy' can on(y mean the lack of a priestly genealogy. This for Horton is clear because Jesus is said to share that quality with Melehizedek, yet just a few versc~~

later Jc.~us is identified by the autho r of Hebrews as a dcsccn~ dent of the tribe of Judah (7: 14)." Jesus is not a .wcces.mr to Melchizcdek; instead " every feature o f signilleanee in Melchizcdek's priesthood is recapitulated on a g rander scale in C hrist's priC-«thood."" A very d ifferent approach t<> these verses results in the idea that the author o f Hebrews was indeed talking about Mclehizedck's onto log)' in Hc b 7:3 and thus considered him to be a heaven!)' figure, perhaps even angc1k. Such arguments have appeared in various form~, includ· ing versions presented in a classic mid· I960s article by Marinus de

67

Horton, Melclti=edek Horton. Melclti.zedek th Horton, Melclti=edek 10 Horton. Melclti.zedek

65

Tradition. Tmdititm. Tradition. Tmdititm.

I 53· 54. J56~0.

162.03. 16 1.

HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

31

Jongc and Adam S. van dcr Woudc and more recently in Attridge's commentary.n

Paul Kobel ski also takes up this positi<m and oppose.~ Horton's interpretation hcad-(m." Unlike Horton, he accepts the theory-albeit in a restrained fom1- that lr.iditional hymnic language about Mel~ chizcdck has been appropriated by the author
with allegorical notions of Mclchizcdck 's pcrfct.tion than his supposed status as the original priest.'~ Instead of basing his interpretation o f Hcb 7:3 on any variant of an ar&'llmCnt from the s ilence of Gcn 14, Kobclski links Hebrews' talk of Mclchizedck's mysterious qualities with Ps I 10:4." Thus the divine oath directed to the Son, ·you arc a priest forever, according to the order of Mclchizcdck, · must also mean that Mclchizedck himself is eternal." In doing so, Kobclski takes a position similar to that earlier articulated by Joseph Fitzmycr, who proposed that since the author of Hcbrc\vs knows that Jesus is of the tribe of Judah (Heb 7: 14) and thus has a human genealogy, the real comparison in Hcb 7 must be that both have "a li fe whkh cannot end."" Kobclski adds that speculation on an othc.nvorldly Mclchizcdck in the Second Temple period confirms and even contributes to Hebrews' th(mght, which alrc.ady is satur•tcd by Ps I 10:4; this understanding of an eternal Mclchizcdck is supported internally by the statement in Hcb 7:8 that Mclchizcdck is ·one of whom it is testified that he lives. ' 111 ':'I M. de:. Jonge and A. S. van dc:r Woude, .. I IQ Mckhizedek and the: New Testament,'" NT'S 12 ( 196S.{)6}: 30 1·26; Auridge-, Hebrews. 192·95. The work o f de Jon~c and vun der Woode is discussed furthe-r in chapter 4. '· Paul J. Kobc.lski, Melchi=i-.·dek curd Melchire.ioa • (CBQMS 10: Washington: Catholic Biblical As..<:ociation of America, 198 1). iJ Kobclslo:i, Melclrizedek, 120. 1 ~ Kobdslo:i, M'elcllizedek. 11 6·1 7. 15 Kobclslo:i, Melclrizedek, 12.3. 74 Kobdslo:i, Melcllizedek, 126. n Joseph A. Fit:zmyc:r. - ·Now This f\•ldchizede-k .. .' (Hcb 7: 1}," in The Semilic Background ofdw Ne,,· Teslametrl (Grand Rapids: Ec:rdmans.. 1997). 22 1-43, ~"P · 238. n Kobclski, Melclrizedek, 12.3.

32

CHAPTER ONE

Kobclski finds himself walking the tightrope of appealing to extrabiblical traditions of a heavenly Mclchizcdck while rejecting the idea that the author of Hebrews drew upon particular texts like I IQMclchizedek, a Dead Sea Scroll that presents Mclchizcdek as an angelic, cschato1ogical warrior figure.''' Attridge takes a similar position,

stating, It seems likely, then, that [the author of Hebrews") exposition of Gen 14

is not simply an application to the figure of the Old Testament of attributes proper ro Christ, but is based upon contemporary spe-Culation about the figure-of Melchizedek a.'i a divine or heavenly be.ing. While

lac.k of parentage, genealogy, and tem,,oml limit~ are predicated of 1vtelchiz00ek to evoke lhe characte-r of lhe tme High Priest, they arequalitie~~ probably applicable to the- ancient prie$1 a.li the author knew him.311

Attridge is content to survey a variety of speculative tre.atmcnts of Mclchizcdck-from Philo's allegorical and psychological interpretations to Qumran to 1 Enoch to manifold rdbbinic, patristic, and Gnostic treatments of the figure-without identifying the tradition most likely shared with Hebrews. Koester g<)CS even further and Jlatly rejcc.ts all notions that Hebrews rcl1ccts cxtrabiblical traditions about Mclchizcdek, allowing only that Hebrews usc_<; for Mclchizedc.k language that would affinn true divinity in Greco~ Roman contextS.~ 1 This issue strikes at the heart of this study, and naturally it is addressed more fully below. F<>r now a few observations will suffice. In light of the language used to describe Mclchizcdck, it seems difficull to e
19

Kobelski. Mefcllizedi!k. 127. ~ Attridge:, Hebrew:>. 19 i-92. 101 Koester. lfebn/ws . 34 1. On Ihe issue of the languug.c implyins divinily, Koeslcr follows Ncyrcy, "Wilhout Beginning.''

HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

33

standard Greco-Roman topoi fo r dcity- ungcnc.ratcd, uncrcatcd in the past and impe rishable in the future~ and eternal or immortal. !C. Note that while the previous description of Jesus in Hebrews would seem to make it obvious, Jesus never explicit~)' is said to be greater than Mekhizcdck, though this may be implied in Hcb 7:3. JnsiCad, the author states that Mclchizcdck ·was made 10 resemble Ihe Son of God' (Hcb 7:3), and late r he says 1hat Jesus ' rese mbles Mclchizedck' (Hcb 7: I 5). Exalting Jesus by associating him w ith this cxahcd llgurc is the point. Oddly, however, th is is achieved here in a way d iffe rent from thai normally utilized by the au1hor. Usuall)' he uses the method of synkrisis, or comparison." Forms of the Gree k term translated ' better,' Kpetoaov, a ppea r 13 times in th is book (including three ()ccuncnccs later in Hcb 7), compared to only six occurrences in the rest of the New Tcstamcnt.11.. Here, however, the author of Hebrews cxploiL<; the myslcrious nature of Mclchizedck in order to exalt Jesus. In Hc b 7:4- 10 the author develo ps his assertion that Melchizcdek 's priesthood is grc-•tc r than that of the Levitical priests. He dOc$ this wilh a novel inlerprclalion of Melchizcdck's e ncounter with Abraham, K! Neyrey. - wtthoot Beginning," 439-SS. For ti.ut her discussion o f Hebrews' source for this language. st.oc- Kobclski, Melchi:edek and liJe/duh!.ill ', 120; and Anridge. 1/ebrews. 191 -92. ta T he me-thod is at least as old as Aristotle. who when discussing usc: of the encomium as a fonn of ellidcictic rhcwric commends the use- of compmisons o f the subjc:>cl of the- praise with other estee-med and worthy persons. If the subjec-t can be shown to surpass others o f re nown, then his own reputation is therefore amplified (sec Rhel. 1.9.3S/ 1368a). Perhaps c\·cn more rde\', 1986). 3-60; and Christo~lhcr F'orbc:s, ..Comparison, Sc lf-pmise a nd Irony: Paul 's Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric," NT'S 32 ( 1986}: 1-30. See- furthe-r T imothy W. Seid. ~synkrisi s in Hebre-ws 7: The Rhetorical Structure a nd Strategy," in Tire Rhetorical lmerprelaliOII t?f Scrip!Ure: & .\.O)'S .fmm tire 1996 Malibu Co,!fenmce (cd. S. E. Porter a nd D. L. Stamps; JSNTSup 180; Shcftidd: Sheffield, l999). 322-47. " Hob 1:4; 6:9; 7:7, 19, 22; 8:6 [twice]: 9:23; t0:34; l t:J6. 35, 4ll; and t2:24: dsc wbcrc-us.ed in I Cor7:9,38; 11: 11; Phil1 :23; I Pct3:17;and2 Pet 2:21.

34

CHAPTER ONE

reading it in a way that is unprecedented in other extant treatments of

their meeting. As noted above. some Second Temple period inter· prctcr~ Sa\V continuity between the tithes received by Mclchizcdck and the Levitical priests, but here those tithes arc contrasted.

\Vhcrc.a~

the

latter receive tithe~ from descendent~ of Abraham, Melthizcdek recc.ived tithe~ ii·om Abmham himself and bles.~ed the patriarch. Citing proverbial wisdom that only the greater can bless the Jesser and contrasting the living Mclchizcdck with the mortal Levitical priests, the author of Hebrews infer.; that Mclchizedck is superior to Abraham- and thus he also is superior to Abraham's priestly descendents, who arc reckoned as sti ll being in Abraham's loins numerous gen-

erations before their appearance. The exegetical move is clever and bold. As Attridge notes concerning Heb 7:9, 'The author seems to admit the artificiality of his playful exegesis with his qualifying remark, 'so to speak' (6>> ~rro:; e't rrftv), a common literary phrase outside the New Tcstamcnt.'ms This evaluation of the author,s crcativit}' seems more likely that Lindars' assertion that the author of Hebrews is claiming only "to put things in a nutshell.");(, Obviously the major concern here is to demonstrate the superiori ty of Melehizedek's priesthood ovc.r that of the Lcvites, the traditional Jewish priestly tribe. Spicq summarized Mclchizedck's "quadruple supcrioritc" over the Levitical priesthood in this manner: ( I) he received the tithe; (2) he blessed Abraham; (3) he was the type for a priest who docs not die; and (4) he received homage from the Levitc,•' ancestor.~~:•

The author's primary critique of the Levitical priesthood is: asserted in Hcb 7: 11- it and the Jaw under which it served could not bring perfection. Thus a new priesthood and a corresponding new law arc necessary (7:12). Jesus, as a descendant or Judah, docs not fit the proper priestly paradigm of Levitical descent (7: 14). Instead, he resemble-~ Mclehizedck, who has a priesthMd whkh is not based on genealogy or a legal requirement but rathc.r ' through the power of an indestructible life' (7: 16). Unlike the Levitical priests, Jc.'
Lindars, Theology. 76. Spicq, J./ebreu.x. 2:179-80.

HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

35

shown to be superior to the Levitical system because the latter arc

mortal; Levitical priests keep dying, but Jesus has a permanent priest· hood because he continues forever and eternally makes intercession for believers. Jesus also has no need to make sacrilices day after day lo r himself and lor the people because he did it once for all when he offered himself (7:22-27). The passage concludes in 7:28 with a contrast between Levitical high priests, who arc appointed by law and subject 10 weakness, and the Son, who is appo inted as high priest by God's oath and who 'has been made perfect forever.' Again stress is laid on the fact that the Son was appo inted priest because of these char~ctcristics of the Levitical system.

3.5. Hebrews 8- 10

Discussion of Jesus' role as both high priest and sacrificial on'cring in the Day <>f Atonement sacrilicc takes center stage in Heb 8- 10. The

author, having justi fied Jesus' position in an alternative line of priests, no longer has need to discuss Mclchizcdck. Nevertheless, these chap· tcrs build on the major assertions made about Jesus in Hcb 7. Though not of the Levitical family, Jesus is priest and mediator of a better covenant which was: instituted because of the inadequacies of the old one (Heb 8 :4- 13 ; 9 : 15). He offered himsel f as the sacrifice to remove the sins of the people (Hcb 9: 12, 14; cf. 10 : 10, 22}, and his sclfsacrilicc need occur only once yet has eternal effectiveness (Heb 9:11 14, 25 -28; I0 : I 0 -14). As stressed in earlier c.haptcrs. Jesus is the heavenly priest now seated beside God ( Heb S: 1-2; 9:24; 10: 12- 13). As seen earlier, Jes us' sufferings occur on earth, and by them he is prepared lo r his priestly service (Heb 2: 17; 5:7 - I 0). He enters the heavenly sanctuary bearing his mvn blood for the atonement of the sins of his people (Heb 9:1 2, 25-26). Later Jesus' death is referred to as suffering 'outside the gate' (Hcb 13: 12). 11 seems t<) be no great stretch to understand Jesus' cmdlixion as a component of his sclf·sacrificc, an event in the earthly realm \'lhich allowed his: entrance into the heavenly sanctuary bearing his blood (sec below). Indeed, the major new theme in Heb 8- 10 is the discussion o f where Jesus perfo m1S his priestly duties. The author of Hebrews is working out of a conceptual framework in which the earthly sanctuary is modeled after the heavenly one. Support

36

CHAPTER ONE

tor this understanding of the relationship between the heavenly and earthly sanctuaries is drawn from various statements by the author of Hebrews. In Hc b 8:5, Lcvilical priests serve in a sanctuary that is a 'sketchy shadow' (urroliftylla Ka't owx) of the heavenly sanctuary since Mosc.~ was commanded to make it according to the 'pattcm, (nlTTO>) Yahweh showed him (ct: Exod 25:40)." ln Hcb 9:23-24, the earthly sanctuary is a 'copy' (ixvTtTvrro,) of the heavenly sanc.t uary, and its: implements arc 'sketches of the heavenly things: On three oc.casions the a uthor compares the heavenly and earthly sanctuaries, reminding the reader that the former, unlike the latter, is neither made by human hands (X£tporroti)TO>; Heb9: ll, 24) nor set up by a human (Hc b 8:2). The background of the author's thought about the two sanctuaries has been much debated. Many scholars have noted the presence o f Platonic vocabula ry in this passage and its similarity to Platonic ontology; others have argued that the vocabulary familia r fro m Platonism is used d iffe rently by the author of Hebrews, that the correspondence between earthly and heavenly sanctuaries is already present in the Hebrew Sc.ripturcs. and that Hebrews is ultimately concerned more with eschatology than onto logy.f,9 G regory Sterling oOCrs a 1>.1 T he phrase UnOOdyiJO. kO:I m:ro: is best read as a he.ndiadys. preferable to the translations 'sketch and shadow' (NRSV) a nd •t.'!Opy and shadow' (NAB; NIV). The translation above follows G regory E. Sterling, ..OntolosY Ve-rsus Esdatology: Tensions Between A uthor and Community in Hebrews," SP/ti/r) 13 (2001): 190-2 11. esp. 194. Cf. 'shadowy c.opy' in Attridge. HebreH'.'i, 2 19; ·shadowy suggestion' in Lane, Nehrews, 1:199.201. ~» Aelrcd Cody (Neawmly Smwtutll)' mrd Liwrgy i11 tire Epi.,·tle w 1/Je Hebrews rst. tvleinrad, Ind.: Grail, 1960), 9-46) ha." dc:-monstratt.-d that a com::opondent.-e between heavenly m1d eanh ly sanctuarie-s is rather common among an<:ient Semitic pt."Oples and is developed in various forms in several Se<.-ond Temple Jewish texts. Sec. also an excursus on the topic. in Allridge, Hebrews. 222-24. Spicq argued thut Hebrews' use o f terminology common in the wrilings of Philo indicated the latter's influence on the author of Hebrews (sec: next chlll>ter fis on Jesus· eschatological act in this heavenly sanctual)' at a particular, cpoch-c.hanging time:-. Sec his - The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews;· in Tire Background tif the New Testame111 mul 11.~ E.w:lratologr (cd. W. D. Davies and D. Daube; Cambridge: Cambridge Unive-rsity Press, 1956), 363-93. George \V. •" facRae took a YCI)' different approach and argued thut the author nnd recipients have divergent understandings of the hea\•c:n1y sanctuary, both of whic.h arc reflected in the:- book. The author. ste-eped in Platonism and emphasizing faith as the means of gaining insight into heavenly thing,.... views the world us the- oute-r court(s) o r the temple and hea''e-n as the- Most Holy Plac-e-. The

HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

37

helpful via me
38

CHAPTER ONE

Jcvcls) in numerous Second Temple Jewish texts, whc.rc Ood dwells and receive~~ worship from an angelic. pric.~thood.'J~ Consider, for example, T. Levi 3:4-6 and 5: I : For in the highest of all dwells the Great Glory in the holy of holies fur

beyond all holiness. In the-(heave.n) next to it there are the angels of thepresence of the Lord. those-who minister and make prof)itiation to the Lord for all the sins of ignorance of the-rig.lm!.ous, and the.y offer to the Lord a pleasing odour. a reasonable and bloodie-S..~ offering. .. . And theangel opened to me the gates of heaven, and I saw the holy temple and

the. Most High upon a throne ofgJory.'JJ In light of the in lbrmation Hebrews docs provide about the par~ ll clism between the heavenly and earthly sanctuaric..:;, no strong reason exists U> reject the idea that the author usc.~ Greek tenus 'vith Pla tonic philosophical connotations to describe a very Jewish conception of Ood,s dwel1ing, thus demonstrating the author's familiari ty with ap<X,alyptic Jewish traditions and usc of Greek philosoph ical motifs 10 interpret Jewish tcxts.''s

4 . SU.\ 1MARY

In the course of the previous d iscussion the centrality of the motif o f Jesus as h igh priest in Hebrc,vs has been noted. The author has an understanding of Jesus as priest which has resulted from conscious, susta ined theological reflection on Ps 2 :7 a nd Ps 11 0 : I, 4. Less clear is how t he author arrived a t this po int a nd what may have in(lucnccd h im in this matter. In summa ry, what is affirmed about ksus as priest? Though not of priestly lineage, he becomes priest by God's affinnation and oath because he also is the divine Son. He is prepared for this priestly servit~c by his earthly su fferi ngs thr<>Ugh which- along with his common origins in Ood-hc develops solidarity with the people. He serves as 9

J &:c the discussion in Carol A. Newsom, - Throne-, " EDSS 2:946-47. Some scholars see the bac-kground of He-brews· prt'Sentation ur Jesus as high priest in such discussions of a n angelic pri(."Slhood se-rving in the heavenly sanctuary. See, for e-xample, Attridge, lle hrews, I00. 9J The tmnslulion is lhat of H. \V. Hollander and M. de Jonge. The Te.\·tamems of t)te Tu-e!l·e Plltriarclu: A Commemary (SVT P 8: leidc.·n: Brill, 198S) , 136. 143. 9 .s On conceptions of" a heavenly sanctuary in Second Temple Judaism and their relevance lo Hebrews, sec further A llridge. ··He-brews and the Scrolls." 2:320--23.

HEBREWS' PRESENTATION OF JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST

39

priest offering the ultimate, fi nal sacrifice fo r the sins of his people and is thai sacrifice himself. Modeled on the Day of Atonement ritua l, Jesus' sacrificia l act includes his prc.~cntation of the blood of his sacrifice fl)r his entrance into the hc-.wcnly sanctuary. There he makes eternal intercession for h is people, and he is seated in giMy at the right hand of the Father. The nature o f Jesus• priesthood is very significant. His priesthood is grea ter than the Levitical pric."hood because h is is like Mc.lchizcdck's, which in turn was shown superior to the Levitical o rder when Abra· ham pa id tithe-s to him. Furthermore, Jesus• priesthood is ctcmal, his atoning sacrifice is fi nal and a lt..sufficicnt, a nd his sanctuary is true and abiding. IL seems likely that several of these affirmations arc directly based

on widespread early Christian tenets. Jesus• death is consistently understood as a willing sacri fice in numerous NT b<JOks, including the epistles of Paul, which most certainly predate Hebrcws.'Jf, A Iso a lready mentioned is that conceptions o f a multi~lcvcl heaven and a heavenly temple were common in Second Te mp le Judaism; similar models Jikc ly were assumed in early C hristianity (as implied by texts such as 2 Cor 12:2 and the various throne scenes in Revelation). The conllation of prit'Sthood and exaltation (enthronement) is present a lready in Ps I I 0. Howe ver, what has influenced the author o f Hebrews 10 dcscrihc Jesus as the heavenly high priest'? This question remains at the heart of this inquiry and is discussed in the fo llowing c.haptcrs.

~ Pc.'rhaps lhe bes1 example is Phil 2:6-11, c:sp. v. 8: cf. Rom 3:24-26: 8:3; I Cor S:7; 2 Cor 5:21. & :c a lso James D. G. Dunn, The Theology ofPauf 1lle Apostle (Gmnd Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). 2 12-18.

CHAPTER T WO

PR EVIOUS THEORIES OF THE BACKGROUND OF THE MOTIF Numerous opinions have been offered as to the background of the

motif of Jesus as priest in Hebrews. Though stric-t lines of demarcation arc difficult to draw, the options essentially fall into !he following categories: the motif was largely original to the author, has a

background in early Christian though! and exegesis, is derived Ji·om Gnostic thought, or comes from some aspect of Judaism. Rcprc·

scntativc arguments for these major positions arc surveyed in this chapter, followed in chapters 3 and 4 by closer examinations of po.~sibilitics that Hebrews was inOucnccd by priestly tmditions and

Mclchi
I. L ARGELY ORIGINAL TO THE A UTHOR OF H EBREWS

Numerous scholars have argued that the creativity of the author of Hebrews is primarily responsible for !he book's priestly motif, and a rigorous defense of Hebrews' originality was offered by Barnabas Lindars in his recent book The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. Following a theory proposed by Martin Hengel, Lindars posited a relationship between the recipients of Hebrews and the Hellenistic Jews in Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 6-7. He proposed !hal the recipients of Hebrews were members of a wcll·cducatcd Jewish· Christian community in the Mediterranean dispersion that resulted from the dispersion of followers of Jesus al1er the martyrdom of Stephen and the ensuing evangelistic fcrvor.t Lindars argued that an anonymous author, writing bcl\vccn 65-70 C.E., addressed a dis.sidcnl gr<)up that by that lime had positioned itself against the leaders of the Lindars, Tlre<Jiogy, 22. Sec: also Martin Hengel, Judai.,·m and 1/ellelli:;m: Studie.~ ill Iheir Encoumer ilr Palestine duri11g the £ar6• /lelleniJtic Period (ttan."i. J. Bowde-n: 1

2 vols.; Philadd ~mia : Forlrt:'$S, 19 74). 1:58· 106.

PREVIOUS THEORIES OF THE BACKGROUND

41

community. Member.; of this group had diflleulty dealing with their post-baptismal sins. They felt that Jewish liturgy-with its sacrificial cult-dealt with this issue much beucr than did the Christian liturgy, thus they were tempted to participate in synagogal meals in order to show solidarity with the tcmplc.2

The challenge. facing the author of Hebrews was to convinc.c the recipients that Jesus' sacrifice, though unrc.pcatablc, is nevertheless continually e ffec ti ve. LindarS asserted that such a task required creativity ("a striking and original presentation of the kerygma that

•Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures'"), because certainly the leader.; of the congregation alread)' had tried unsuccessfully to convey this same point to the dis..~idcnts.3 Describing

Jesus as a priest was particularly appropriaK--whilc priests were associated with atonement and empathy in biblical and Second Temple Jc,vish traditions, the ketygma presented Jesus' death as a sacrifice, and his suffering was emphasized in the Gcthsemanc tmdition (Mark 14:32-42 and pamllcls, which Lindars understood Hcb 2 : 18 to evoke).' But above all, Jesus was to be undcrs1ood as priest b<'Causc Ps I I 0:4fir~t read, according to Lindars~ by the author of Hebrews as a mc~sianie statement-say~ the messiah is also a priest. This, according to Lindars, proved that Jesus really is a priest: .. besides these pastoral qua1ilications, which need not mean anything more than the metaphor of priesthood, Jesus was actually appointed high priest by God, so that his priesthood is real."' Lindars asserted, " It is my view that Hebrews arrived at this position entirely as a response to the need to find a convincing argument lor the benefit of his readers."• Thus he understood Hebrews' description of Jesus as priest as C<)mplctcly original and without precedent: ~'It has no echo elsewhere in the New Testament.,.' Lindars also dismissed notions that the author drew on the priest-king model of the Hasmoncans or the discussions of a priestly messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In particular, Lindars rcjc(:tcd possible influences from the Damascus Docwnenf. Rcgardlc.'iS: of whether this : l indars, Tlre<J!ogy, 1-2$,.$9: d. 120-21, 124. " l indars, Tlreo!ogy, $9-60. "Lindars, Tlre<J!ogy, 61 -63. s l indars, Tlreo!ogy, 62. ~ l indars, Tlre<J!ogy, 64. l indars, 11reology, 126.

42

CHAPTER TWO

document discusses one or two mc.~s:iahs, he noted that <me certainly is pril'stly yet still differs from what one fin
Lindars certain ly has not been a lone in his c.ontcntion that the author of Hebrews display<'<~ great originality. Like Lindars, F. F. Bruce rejected the idea that Hebrews' conce ption of Jesus as priest is dependent on the Qumran document•, where (possible readings of the Damascus Documellf aside) priesthood and kingship remain d istinct offices. Instead Bruce asserted., "For a ught we know to the contrary, the write r to the Hebrews was the firs t to identify these two eschato logic-al personages in such a way as to provide the full11mcnt of the divine oracle in Ps. 110:4."'' Graham Hughes was more cautious, a llowing that there may have been a prior <:.o nccption of Jc.~us as the pric.~tly messiah; nevertheless his conclusion was similar to that of Lindars:

Until there is a more clear demonstration of the writer's depe-ndence on other sources than has so far been produced we may continue in theassumption, there.fore., that the conception of Jesus as e~schatological priest, as he presems it in his lener, arises pretty we.! I spontane.ously out of his own theological preoccupations with the re-lationship between the covenants. 10 Hughes' caution actually is more akin to that of James Moffau, who put similar stress on the theo logical creativity <Jfthc author of Hebrews in h is commentary on the book in 1924. Moffall, though, was more

11

Lindars. nreology, 65 66. ~ Bruce-, Hebrew.-.. 125 26, cf. 29, n. 126. 0 Graham Huj!Ju:s, Nebrel\·s ami Herm eneutics: Tltt! £pi.,·tie 10 tlte Hebrews as a New Teslanumt lframple of Bih/ical l111e1pretatiou (SNTSMS 36: Cambridge: Cam bridge- Univc:r.>ity PresS-. 1979}, .30. Sec A lbert Vanhoyc, Si111tllio11 du Chri.'il: £pitre £ULY 1/ebreux 1 et 2 ( Paris: Cc:rf, 1969). 36 1 72, ilu a compamhle pen;pectivc. Olhc:r.i include Eduard Risgcnbach, Der Brief till die 1/ebriier (3rd ed.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1922). 59; Hans Windisch, Der llehriierhrief(2 nd 00.; HNT 14; Tiibingcn: Mohr. 193J). 13; Friedric.h Schr6gcr. Der Veifasser de.\· 1-/ehrai!rbrie.fe.\· als Sclrriflmuleger (Regcnsburs: Pu.~tcl. 1968}, 126-27; and Eduard Lohse. Miirtyrer mtd Gotte.d:_lwc/u: 4

4

4

4

UllterSJlclumgell :.ur urchriJtliclwll Verldimligwrg mm Sii/metod .Je.m Christi (FRlANT NJ:' 46~ G
PREVIOUS THEORIES OF THE BACKGROUND

43

flexib le than Lindars and a llowed for possible 'anticipa tions' o f Hebrews, prk-stly messianism while still retaining primary strcs.s on

the author's <:.rcati vit)'. 11 The view o f Lindars. c t aL. is certainly commendable because

ample respect is given to the provenance of the book-the author is understood to write w ith great sensitivity to address the needs of the recipients. Howe ver. it seems inconceivable that no echoes of Second Te mple Jewish thought on messianism and the priesthood wSition and nuanced his Sla temenls; few have fOund Lindan;' more austere position tenable.

2 . DEPENDENT ON EARLY C HRISTIAN THEOLOGY AND EXEGESIS

Sever.! I scholars have proposed that the priestly motif in Hebrews is indcbt<..-d to broader ea rly C hristian traditions, such as motifs present in other NT books or traditional C hristian interpreta tion of the Hebrew Scriplurcs (beyond Ps II 0). Ocncmlly such theories have bee n sta led with little supporting e vidence and wilh dependence on a highly specula tive reconstruction of history. Bcc.ausc these suggestions have !ended to be rarely c mbrac.cd. only brief mcnlion of a few proposals is necessary here. James Schae fer. a rguing against scholars who held that the recipients of Hebrews were E!~Scncs (sec further in chapte r 3 below), inslead asserted lhat the aulhor of He brews drew on lhe Scrvanl Songs o f Second Isaiah 10 incorporale the idea o f sclf-sacrilice inlo his concepl of Jesus as priest " He nolcd that Hcb 9:28 presents Jesus' death as having .. the vicarious ly redemptive aspect of the servant 's death," and he added thai Hebrews' portrayal of Jesus as pries! rcllec1s other themes associated with the Servant, including "reestablishment of the covenant~ compe lling innoccnc.c , merited exalta tion, and the 11

Moffatt's possible 'anticipations· included Jewish le-:tts whic-h discuss a heavenly sanctuary, Philo's speculalion on the Logos as high priest. intcrprdation ofPs l lO in Testomems q{Ifle Tlwdve Patriarchs. and the Enochic c.onc:-cption of the Son of to.•! an. Sec Moffatt Jlebrews. xlvii-Jiii. •! James R. Schader, ..T he Rc:lnlionship between Pricstl)' and Servant M(."Ssinnism in the Epistle to the Hebrews.'' CBQ 30 ( 1968): 359-SS.

44

CHAPTER TWO

office o f prophecy," each o f which he illustrated with quotations from Hebre ws .u Schaefe r's argument, however, was complicatt-d by his insistence that the a uthor of Hebrews d id not make th is connection w Isaiah independently but rather received it only through the early church's ~cn•ant Christology.1.. Schaefer's contention that this theme could only have been used by the author of Hebrews as mediated through early church tradition is based on Hebrews' method o f argumentation. Whereas the author is quite comfo rta ble quoting a nd interpreting various passages of the Septuagint to support his poinl~. Schaefer nott-d that his incorpor~tion of Servant messianism was based on broad themes and cliches r~thcr than direct quotations from ls.aiah.u Schaefe r added that the a uthor of He brews utilized o nly those aspects of Se rvant messianism that pro ved beneficial to his description o f Jesus as priest.'(' Leopo ld Sab<mrin rejected Schaeler's argument that Hebrews' priestly motif is indebted to Se rvant messianism. lnstc.ad, he asserted that Hebrews• talk of sacrifice requires someone to p la}r the role of prie-st, a nd he concluded that the author <>f Hebrews shared the idea of Jesus as bo th sacri fice and priest w ith nume rous other New Testament a uthors, especially Paul. Pa ul,s psc udep igraphical heirs. and the evangelists: What has been said till now is like the major premise in our reasoning : early and numerow; tb rmulations of Christ's death describe it, implicitly at least, as a sacrifice, and this certainly retlecl~ a generalized convic.lil)n of the. fi1'st ChristiaJl generation. Our sec-ond premise. will be.: if Christ freely gave- his life. in sacrifice for the redemption of mank ind it is as priest fhat He did it. h should be legitimately concluded that even if Christ is not explicitly called priest out~tide Heb it is implied that He is in the texts that present His death as a sacrifice. "

Unlike the a uthor of Hebrews, Sabourin contended that these other biblical a uthors stopped short of maki ng the connection explicit o ut o f fear of overly associating Jc.• us w ith the Levitical (and also pagan) u Schaefer, ''Relationship." 377, 380. Schaei'Cr, ··Rdationship.·· 371. IS Schaefer. ''Relationship.·· 378. 1 ' Schaefer," Rdalionship," 385. For a d iffering c.valualion o f Ihe. impact of Servanl mc:-ssianism on Hebrews' thoog.hl. see f\•toma Hooker, .le.m.-. multhe Servam: TJ1e lnj]uem.'e of the Serwmt Com:ept t?,{ Deutero-/saiah iu the New Te..:ramem ( London: SPC K. t959). 17 Sabourin, Priest /m()d. 2 14- 15. 1 "

PREVIOUS THEORIES OF THE BACKGROUND

45

pricsthoods. 15 Sabourin was fdmiliar with numerous Qumr(!n texts that have often been discussed in conjunc.tion with priestly traditions in that corpus (including JQS, JQSa, CD, IQapGen a r, and I JQMck hizcc k), but he d ismissed them as irrelevant U> hi~ interpre ta tion of Hcbrcws} 9 Several other sch olar~ also have argued that He brews' presentat ion of Jesus as priest \vas derived from presenta tio ns of Jesus in various gospcls.10 Oscar Cullman n went a ste p further. however, arguing that the author of He brews expounded this idea because Jesus consciously saw himself as the messianic priest cxpe!~tcd in Second Temple Judaism. 21 As is discussed below in chapter 3, the expectation of a priestly figure deemed messianic indeed is attested in several of the Qumran scrolls, including JQS, JQSa, and CD. However, one should not overestimate Cullmann's appraisal of the value <>f the Dc.ad Sea Strolls for understanding Hebrews since he also cited Ernst Kascmann•s theory o f the Jewish a ppropriation of the Gnostic myth as supporting this priestly expecta tion.:! According to C ullmann, Jesus ta pped inU> th is priestly expectation by associating himself with Ps I I 0 and by stand ing in oppt)sition to his prit-stly contemporaries in Jc.rusalcm. He argued that various streams of thought in Second Temple Judaism con tributed to the expectation of an ideal pric.stly Jigurc. Chief among these Streams wasPs I 10 itself. According to Cu llman, this psalm clc-•rl)' was intended lo r the enthronement ceremony of a king yet also invested him with an eternal priestly status. As such, it set the Melchizcdckian priest in opposition to the present Levitical priestly ligurc." '111is psalm engendered cxtr.ibib lieal speculation associating Mclchizcdek with the messiah or 18 19

Sabourin. Pries t/mod. 20&.9. 212-1 6. As is c: ..·ident in Sabourin. Priesthood. 16&.71. w For the Synoptic:s.. sec Gerhard Friedrich, .. BC>Obachtungcn zur mcssianisc:hen Hohc:npriestercrwartuns in den Synoptikcrn,.. ZTK 53 ( 1956}: 265-3 11; a nd Olaf tvloe. ..Der Gcdankc cb allgcmcine-n Pricsh:-rtums im He-br.icrbricl:'" 12 5 ( 1949): 161 -69. Against Friedrich's thesis, see Ferdinand Hahn. Christ<,/ogi:;c/w /.J(Ihi!iiStirel: lhre Geschiclrre im ji'iihen Chri.\'ti!tllum (5th ed.; (;6ttingc-n: Vandcnhocck & Ruprecht. J99S). 231-41. For John. see Cc:slas Spicq, .. L'origirt<dohanniquc de Ia conception du Chris.t-Piitn: dun.<> l'~pilre aux HCbrc ux," in ArL\. sources de /a tradition chri!riemre: 1\fe/mrges offiru tl Maurice Gogue/ (Ncud1atd: Dcluchaux ct NicstiC. 1950), 258-69; und A. J. B. Higgins, ··The Pric.'$t1y MC$siah." NTS 13 (1966-67): 21 1-39. !I Oscar Cullmann. The Chri:>rolr)GJI tif 1/1e New Te.(tamem (rev. ed.: New TcslUment Library: Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 83. n Culhmmn, Chri.\·mlogy. 85-86. Sec-. the discussilm below or Ernst Kiisc:mann's the!?fY. !.> Cullmunn. Clrristology, 84.

46

CHAPTER TWO

oth<'r c.~chatological figure\~ and, Cullman proposed, may also have been merged \Vith Gnostic~hristian speculation of this shadowy figurc.21 According to Cullmann, JcstL~ was certainly aware of this speculation and associated himself with it. He did so by interpreting Ps I I 0 as speaking of himself and by expressing opposition to the Jerusalem temple and its priesthood. In Mark 12:35-37 (and parallels) Jc..iah is the .son of David'? David himself. by the. Holy Spirit, declm·ed, ·The Lord said to my LOI'd, "Sit at my right hand, until l put your enemies unde1· your feet."' David himself calls him Lord; so Sil)'

how c.an he be his son'?"' And the large. crowd was

liste~l ing

to him with

delight.

Cullmann argued that Jesus clearly associated himself with the ugurc of Ps I I 0: I by q uoting the verse in this conflict story. He assumed that Jesus thereby understood himself to full111 the entire psalm, thus he implicitly claimed also to be the 'priC!>t in the order of Mclchi<edck' of Ps I I 0:4. Culhnann argued that a similar situation occurs in Mark 14:62. When asked during his trial bcftlre the high priest if he is the messiah, Jesus responds with a cont1ation of Ps 110: I and Dan 7: 13-"'1 am; and ·you will sec the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,' and 'coming with the clouds of hc'avcn. " ' Cullmann asserted that the notion of the session clearly comes from Ps I I 0: I , and this exchange was particular!)• significa nt because Jesus speaks the.~e words to the earthly high priest. This fit Jesus' pattem of questioning the authority of the temple and iL'\ cult (Matt 12:6; Mark 14:57 and parallels; John 2: 19) and offering himself as its repla<,cmcnt (John 2:2 1). Since Jesus spoke in such a manner about the temple, it seemed to Cullmann no stretch to imagine that he saw himself as the true priest as well.?J

u The pos..'>ibility that Gnostic. thought Iits behind Hebrews is addressed huer in this ctw.ntc:r, and rvlekhizc.·tkk Spc."Culation receives sig.niiicant attention in chapter 4 below. _$ Cullmann. Clrristology, 84,87-89.

PREVIOUS THEORIES OF THE BACKGROUND

47

In the words o f Culhnann:

We conclude, lhen, that Jesus c.onside.l'ed it his task to fulfill the priestly office. This opens perspectives which are of faN·eaching imponanc.e for the. se.l f:-c.o nsciousness of Jesus. It is in any case imponant that a later Christologic.al interpretation such as that of the Epistle m the Hebre.ws could find a point of contact in these two c itations of Ps. 110 by Jesus

himself.16 Numerous other suggestions have been offered that posit the background of Hebrew-S, thought elsewhere in early Christian thought or exegesis~ but only one more needs attention hcrc.zr F. C. Synge argued that the background of Hebrews' priestly discussion was to be fOund in the a uthor's correlation of Jesus with Joshua son of Nun and

lhe high pric,rd."" Synge saw other connections between the two figures: "\Vhat do \VC know a bout h im u Cullmann, Chri:<:tology, 89. z; S training credulity are the proposals o f C\•lary E. Clarkson, ·11Jc Anh."Ccdcnts of the High Pricl>t Theme in Hebrews," ATR 29 ( 1941): 89·9S; Came ron MacKay, ··Why Study Eze.kid 40-48'?.. EvO :37 ( 1965): ISS-67; and MacKay, ·-The Argument of Hebrews," CQR 168 {1967): 325-38. Clarkson explained Jesus' prie$thood like 4

rvldchizedc.•k's in Hebrews as an a ttempt to comfi)rt heartbroken i(lrmer Levitical priests who had converted to Christianity and joined a community of fonner disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus. T hese fbrmer priesL-. were d istraught that their friend Cuiuphas had played a leadins role in Jesus' crucitixion and could not have handled discussion of Jesus ' heavenly priesthood in Levitical terms. rvlacKay, on the othe-r hund, finds the heavenly tem ple of Ezek 40-48 lurkins under the surface of Hebrews along with a complex historical setting in which Hebrews was writte-n to assuage hard fcding_.-. resulting from previous <.-.onOicts between the- author a nd recipients. T here\:ipicnts supposc.xlly had earlier been offen
48

CHAPTER TWO

(Joshua son of Jchozadak) that is relevant? He was high priest; he bui lt the temple; he was put to shame, Zeeh. 3, and then g iven honour by (;od. In these mattcn; he forc.~had' Though unusual~ Synge's argument docs have the advantage of drawing on patristic readings of Hebrews, as he frequently cited Justin Martyr in support of his reading. Also. others have found the Jesus/Joshua pun intriguing. Vel Syngcs' a pproach remains problematic. Synge argued that the author of Hebrews related Jesus w Joshua in order LO establish Jesus' status as h igh priest, then he connected Jesus to Melchizedck in orde r to legitimize Jesus' priccs:tly lineage. It was observed in chapte r I above, hmvcvcr, that in Hcb 5:5-6 Jesus' priesthood is grounded in (;(>d's declarations (Ps 2:7; Ps I 10: I, 4), and in Hcb 7 the a uthor begins d ifferen tiating Jesus' priesthood from that of the Levitical line by means of k~us' corrc,~pon dc nccs to Mclchizcdek. As also seen in the discussion above, u ltimately the author of Hebrews assumes Jesus must be high priest because his saeri lleial death eorrc,~pon ds to the Day of Atonement sacrifice. T hus the argument o f He brews d~s not demand the tic between Jesus and .>E Synge, 1/ehrew.~. 2 J. He- saw a nothe-r tie in that Hcb 8: I, which says J~us •is seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the hC'itvens.' may be an allusion to 2-ec-h 6:13 LXX (Hebrews, 25). ;.~Synge (Hebrews, 21) fi>Und a parallel for this identification in Justin, citing Dialt)gue 11 5: "The- revelation o f the Jesus who was a priest of your nation was a foreshadowing of the things which were to be done hereafter by our Priest a nd God and Christ. the Son." .>.> Synge:, /lehrew:o, 22. For mure on the He~wcnly Companion, see- his earlie-r discul)sion ut 1-9. >f Synge, 1/ehrew:~, 22.

PREVIOUS THEORIES OF THE BACKGROUND

49

Joshua the priest that Synge proposes. Even if the a uthor of Hebrews had intended il, il seems too obscure to have been understood by the readers; there a rc no explicit references to J()Shua the priest that mighl induce them to recognize the proposed a llusion.

3. DEPENDENT ON GNOSTIC MYTHOLOGY

In The Wandering People of God, Ernst Kiisemann located the background of Heb rews' high prkstly motif in Gnostic. d iscussion o f the Unt~ensc:IJ.J.$ His proposal has been much more influential in the history of schl>larship on Hebrews than those prcviouSI)' surveyed. T he history be hind Kiiscmann's book is very interesting in it.s O\vn right. Kiiscmann, wh(> wrote the first draft o f the work in 1937, observed that he had penned it ''in the leisure of a prison cell" due to h is opposition to the Nazis. S t~hola rl y response to his thesis a t that time was limited because of the prevailing situation, yet he decided not U> rework his manuscript fbr the 1957 second edition; he felt it would require more work to revise it than to rewrite it totally, and he noted that the political situation had impeded discussion of his orig inal manuscript regardlcss.u. As a result., neither edition of his book took into account the d iscoveries at Qumr.in o r Nag Hammadi even though his second edition appeared a decade after these texts began coming to light. Though mostly rejec ted by American and British scholars-and, as noted below, u ltimate ly by Kascmann himself- his thesis has been incorporated in a variety of ways by scvcml prominent German scholars, includ ing Rudolf Bultmann, Erich Griisscr, Helmut Koester, Franz La ub, Walte r Schmithals, and Gcrd Thci6c n." On the other .l" Ernst Kascmann, The Wmrderi11g Pmple tifGod (I runs. R. A . Harris•;ille and I. l. Sandberg: Minneapolis: Aug.->burg.. 1 984)~ lrans. of Das wmrdemde Gtme.n;ofk: Eine Umersr~clmng :um 1/ebriierbrh:f (2nd ed.: GOuingcn: Vandcnhocd: & Ruprecht 1951). • ~ Kii..,cmann, Jflandering, IS 16. ..; Rudolf Buhmunn, Theoft)g)' of the New Testamelll (lrans. K. Grobe!: 2 vols.: New York. Scribner's. 19Si-SS). 1.1 76-78; Erich Griissc--r. Der Gfaube im Hebriierbrief(MThSt 2; Marburg: Elwcrl, 196S) and more rec-ently All die l!ebriier (3 vuls.; EKKNT VJI. I-3; ZUric-h: Benzinger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchcncr Vcrlas, 1900-97); Hdmul Koesler, His1my and Literature qf Ear(v Christitmity (2nd cd.; vol. 2 of /mroductionto the N~·w Teswmem; New York: de Gruyler, 2000). 2 75-80: Franz. Laub, !Jekemrmis rmd Au:;/e"b~mg: Die pariinetisc!Je Funfaio11 der C!Jri.tto/t)git> im Hebriierbrief(BU I5; Regensburg: Puslc.'l. 1980); \Valier Schmithals. Neue.f Te.\·tamem 4

50

CHAPTER TWO

hand, relatively few English-speaking scholars have fo llowed this line o f thought.'' Kiiscma nn find'; the background o f the priestly motif.-as well as that o f two other themes in Hebrews, the ' wandering' of the people of God and the relationship betwee n the 'Son ' a nd the 'sons' of God-in the Gnostic Urmensch salvation myth. Kiisemann ass<~rtcd that the a uthor of Hebrews drew
could it do so"? We must note- ti1·st that with its penetration of the He.llenistic world it left the-influence.o f Pale~sti n ian soil and i nner~Jewish hLstory. lt was thus c.ompelled w think through and form its content in a new way. so as to make-the gospel acc-essible to ne.w he.arers originating in mher contexts. And it c.ould do so only by becoming c.ontemporary with these hearers and speaking to their concrete. situation. Today it is cle-are.r than ever that the concre-te situation of the Hellenistic wol'ld into which Christianity made. its way was in esse.nce c.harac.terized by the Gnostic myth of the redeemed Redeeme.r and faith in this myth. . . . Jf

und GmJ.,·i.<: (EdF 208: Darmstadt: Wissc:nscha tllid tc Buchgesc11scha tl, 1984), 138-44, and The- Th {'(J/ogy t?( rile First Christiam· (lrmts. 0 . C. Dt.· an. Jr.: Louisville:

Westminster John Knox, 1997), 65; and Gerd Theilk-n. Untersuclumgen : um 1/ebriiel'brief(StN T 2; Giitersloh: Mohn. 1969). f or fUrther discussion o f the i-cc.:ption of Kasem:mn 's lhrory in German scholarship, sec Otfried Hoiius. Kmapattst:<:: DieVor:uelllmg wm1enduillid1en Rulleort im Hebriierhrie.f(WUNT I I: TUbingen: Mohr. t97<1). S- t 2. .>1> An American scholar holding to a form of the Gnostic thesis is Ke nneth L. rvlaxwell, "Doctrine a nd Pare nesis in lh.: EpistJ.: to the Hebrews. with S pecial Referenc-e to Pre-Christian Gnosticism.. (Ph.D. diss., Ya le University, 1953). James T hompson nolc:s SC\'erul para llels between Gnostic thought rutd H.:brc\VS but instead emphasizes the-Ia uer as a n early l>i ep toward ·Christian Plalonism, ' undtt the inOucnceof Alexandrian Jewish thought. Se-e James W. T hompson, Tire /Jegbm ing.~ tifChri.,·riaJI Phi/o.mphy : The Epistle to tl1e llehrew.~ (CBQMS 13: Washington: Catholic Biblica l Association o f Am.:rica, 1982). T he rclalive lack of inter<."SI in the Gnostic h)'POthesis amo ns Americ.an sc-holars is typified by the silence on the issue by Philip EdscumbcHughes in h is urtid e surveying prn,;t-\Vurfd Wnr 11 sc-holarship on Hebre\\>'S ("'The l!pistlc to the Hebrew~... in The New Tes tamem m rd lis Modem brteqm~ter:o red. E. J. EPI? and G. \V. ('..•htcRae; A tlanta: Sc-holars Press, 19891, 351-70). :w Kasemann, Wandering, IS0-52, 176-78.

PREVIOUS THEORIES OF THE BACKGROUND

51

there ever were specific ,~eu turie-s tlel£m uin(?d by the myth. then Fhf! flr.u past-Chri.wiau cenwries cerurinly wke priority.¥.~ A resull of Ih is adaptation was that importa nce shifkd away from the historica l Jesus toward the signi fica nce of Christ as Re deemer.·" The ope ning section o f the book c oncerned the " wandcringa motif. Kiiscma nn noted that the A6yos Til> CxKO~$ in He brews took in love, and growth in knowledge, then it.~ funher progress suffered a setback mani fe~~t in the u-eariness and wea/..?tess (iffitirh. One wishes an end to the time-nf distress, neglects the admonition to fa ithfulness in worship, and in practice- more and more neglects the- OJ.Io).oylo: T~S f ). rriOos ( 10:23). I fi n the. beginning the certainty of a better and abiding good in heaven fnllnw ing the loss of eanhly possessions (10:.34) was a comfort and spur to pe1·severance, now this very certainty gradually retreats in t:1ce of present tribulation. 1'his creates a sin1ation that renders intelligible a comparison with the O ld Tesrament wilderne-s s generation and calls faith a no:pciAA11ots (13 :22). But in what should s uch "admonition" consist than in the renewed untb lding ofj us t that wavering homology of hope-, and in a s ummons to complete the wande.ring of t:1ith'?"f·

K3scma nn asserted th at th is ·•wande ring" motif was bOIT()wCd from the C hristian Gnosticism o f Alexan dria, Eg)rpt, and tha t its gnostic orig in was e videnced by a pa mllcl trajectory development in

or

., Kii.<;cmann, Jflandering, 115 (emphasis his). tl Kii..,cmann, Wandering. 178-79. Al Kii.<;cmann, Jflanderillg; u::-t9, 36. u Kii..,cmann, Wandering, 22. u Kii..,cmann, Wandering, 24. ~ Kii.<;cmann, Wandering, 46-48. .$(, Kascmann, Wandering, 25.

52

CHAPTER TWO

Mandacan Gnosticism:n (That Kiiscmann would propose such a relationship with Egyptian Gnostic" thought is all the more striking when one remembers that he fonnu1atcd his thc.~is a decade before the discovery o f the Nag Hammadi texts.) This Gnostic wandering motif, according to Kas:cmann. also explained the relationship bc.twecn the ·son' and the ·sons.' The ·Son,' the preexistent Christ, served as archet)'Pe fo r his followers and leads them on their heavenly journey.'"' Interpret ing Hcbrc\VS alongside assertions about Christ in Col I and Phil 2, Kiiscmann argued that Christ, as a d ivine-man like the Gnostit Anthrol'o.<, descended to earth in order to lead his followers to their heavenly homeland." This: was dr.iwn !Tom the Gnostic myth in which uthc Urmensc!J and his parts arc reminded of their divine origin and arc indut~cd to detach lfom the materia l world as well as to retu rn to their hc:.avcnly homeland."so The concept of TEA£ touv, usually understood as ' perfection' or ~C-Ompletion ' and very important in Hebrews, referred to attain ment of the goal- in this case. entrance into the heavenly sphcn..- -rathcr than moral o r e thica l dcvclopmcnt..$1 Thus, Completion of the righteous, a-' well as: of the Old Testamem witne.o;s of t:1ith, oc.curs through entry into heaven or through membershif) in the divine fe~•nal gathering. Perfection and completion are titus a/louetl only m the herwenly creature. For this re-ason, in 7:1 1 and 18 Lhc possibility of creating nA.EI(I)a iS must then be de.nied the Le-vitical ~)riesthood of the Old Testament uomos. Yet the latter passages still deserve special auention because they give notice of a new element tOr the inves.tigation l)f our concept, which is then more cleal'ly marked in 9:9; 10:1; and 14. 1'he cultic act of Christ's selfsaaijlce eift?cts the completion of his people which lhe cultus of the. fi rst testament was unable-to do. Culms and perfection are thus c.onnected here-..s: K:iscmann saw the background o f Hebrews' presentation of Jesus as priest in this Gnostic. realm as well, as mediated through early Christian liturgy. He asserted that the early church was drawn to Gnost ic documcnL'i as fertile sources of liturgical texts a nd themes: .n Kii.<;cmann, Jflandering, 74, 88-96. c!l Kiiscmann. Wondering, 105. He notc.-s, however, that the a uthor o f Hebrews rejects the Gnostic notion o f1he preexistence of human souls ( 15 1). f i Kii..,cmann, Wandering, I01- 11. 130. so Kii..,cmann, Wandering, 81. 51 Kii.<;cmann, Wandering . 133-44. $Z Kasemann, Wandering: 141 (italics his).

PREVIOUS THEORIES OF THE BACKGROUND

53

A II liturgy relies on an already fixed store- of ideas, and in doing so prefers especially pe-culiar ideas. though arisen on strange. soil. Gnosticism, with it~ wealth of hymnic pieces, had m attract the formation of primitive Christian WOI'ship. That it actually did so, is proved not onl}' by the odes o fl~e.ve.l ation, but above. all by Phil. 2:5ft"'., and I Tim. 3:16, and perhaps also by the. ~)rologue of John's gl)SpeJ.»

F()r Kascmann, the book of Hebrews-with its stress on the importance of holding fast to the community's o~olloyia-actually is a c.ommcntary on that very confCssion: l 'hus a high degree o f probability anaches to our a.~o:;u mption that tlle 0~-to:Xoyla of He.bl'ews nor only denotes the. primitive Christian liturgy of the community, but that in addition 1he Cltri.Hology of Hebrews represents a detailed exposition and inte1premrian of the et)mnmni{y ·s liturgical OpoAoy/cr. Jn 1:-tct. we-c.ould simply regard Phil. 2:5ff.; J Tim. 3:16; and I Clement 36 as fragments o f the liturgical tnldition on which the Christo logy o f He-brews is: based:~"

According to Ki~semann, the motif of a high priestly messiah was then imported b)• early Christianity from its Gnostic sourc.c texts. That it came via the liturgy, he argued, is certified by usc of the high priestly motif in liturgk-al contexts in 1 C/emenl, Hebrews. Ig natius, and Polyearp." Kiiscmann dodged the difficulty of the literary relationship of Hebrews and I Clement by asserting that the author of the latter, "naturally ... already aware of Hcbrc.ws,n also uses the high priestly lanbruagc in formulations not fo und in the formcr.$6 Thus he assumed that this made 1 Clement an independent witness for his liturgical theory. Kascmann saw a Gnostic background as the only logical cxpla· nation for the motif of the Jesus as priest in Hebrews. Actually, the religiow;.historical derivation of the idea o f high l)riest in He-brews is the mos1 ditlicult problem o f the le-tter as such. Here all exegesis which sees itself fo rced at this J)Oim lO fllll back on exclusive.ly Old Testament roots becomes c.ontlicting and unclear, while elsewhere il c.annot deny He.llenistic influe.nces on Hebrews.~1

n Kiiscmann, Jflandering, 171. $t

Kii.<>cmann, Wandering, 171 (emphasis his).

~~ Kiiscmann, Wandering, 170.

~ Kii<>cmann, Wandering, 170. ~- Kascmann, Wandering, 1 8~.

54

CHAPTER TWO

Kascmann rejected notions that the author of Hebrews borro,vcd this motif from the Gnostic Melchizcdck sect or Philo. That Gnostic sect, he countered, is more informative a bout Mclchizcdck speculation than high priestly speculation, and Philo's d iscussion of the Aoyos as

CxpxtspeVs- differs much from the discus-sion in Hebrews because Philo's portrayal "bears only very pallid sotcriological, a nd in essence cosmological, features:•$~> Ncvcrthclcs.~. Kascmann d id find Philo's disc ussion e nlightening , as he proposed that Philo gives evidence of a Jewish appropriation of the Gnostic Urmensch myth that fostered Christian usage (>f the motif. In his terms, ''Philo and Hebrews may be pursuing a common underlying tmdition, though on divc.rgcnt paths.··~ Kiiscmann asserted that discussions of the archangel M ichael in Jewish a pocalyptic literature (including I Enoch and Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) a nd speculations about Elijah and Adam in rabbinic litcr.ilurc also reflect appr(>priation of the Urmensclr myth. These documents, while postdating the New Testament texts in their extant forms, neverthclcs.s must reflect prc~Christian Jewish thought because '"these sources reveal a myth ical scheme in which the motifs of Messiah and high priest arc fused in an o riginal and logically inseparable unity." In addition, they lack the po lcmkal tonc one would expect if they were written in reaction to Christian claims, counter only one o f the numerous Christian messianic claims, and reveal a more primitive usc of the Urmeusch myth.611 This last assertion is based on K3st.~mann's observation that various Jewish high priestly figures arc discussed in manners tr~nsparcntly dependent on the Urmensch myth: ••this cohere.~ with the idea current in Gnosticism tha t in various generations various e nvoys a ppear as inc.amatlons o f the one Urmensch· Rcdccmcr.''6 1 K3scmann explained,

Funher. from Fhe perspective of comenf. this late Jewislt view represenfs a more original stage Fhau does Hebrews. Wherea'i the. only outcome in He.bre.ws is that Christ is high ~)riest, £he late Jewish £e:Xt'i also explain why Mose$, Elijah, f\•tetatron, Melchizedek, and Michae.l can be high priests: They are inc.amations of Adam, who on the. ba'iis of a divine decree-as firstborn o f the wol'ld was likewise high priest.61 sg Kii.<;cmann, Jflandering, 196. S9 Kii..,cmann, Wandering, 196. 00 Kii..,cmann, Wandering, 195-21 7. M Kii.<;cmann, Wandering. 201. r.l' Kascmann, Wandering: 206 (empha..,is his).

PREVIOUS THEORIES OF THE BACKGROUND

55

Thus according to K3scmann, Hebrews d rew on the motif of Jesus as priest that wa.~ common in the C hristian liturgy. These liturgical materia ls were in tum drawn from Gnostic Urmensch mythology. from which contemporary Judaism was a lso borrowing themes. He brews prcscnl~ Christ as the self-sacrificing Urmensch; the body which he assumes and sac.rificcs is actually that of Adam, the first-born or Anthropos.63 In summa ry, T hough expectation of lhe messianic high priest may have emerged in the. days of the Ha~moneans, only when Jewish expectation of the

Mes..coiah was linked to the Gnostic Anthropos myth did the idea appe.ar of the Urme nsc.h~ hig.h priest who in sacrificing himself atone:S for the people's sins. Philo and Hebrews are the first witnesses to this synthesis

developed clearly and in entirely fixed wrine.n form only in late Judaism.M Though int riguing, Kiiscmann's thes is is fraught with difficullic.~. Perha ps the most lfcquc.nt criticism of his theory is that it is g rounded on the assumption that there. was sut~h a thing as pre~Christian Gnosticism.lis. S imilarly g laring is K3scmann' s confidence that he can base his argument on texts which in their extant fo rms arc muc h later than the Jlrst century C.E. and He brews. In the present generation, scholars arc particularly cautious a bout attempts to usc rabbinic sourc.es in New Testament interpretation because of the unt{·.rta inty of dat ing even those sayings atlributcd to Tannaitic rabb is of the firs t century. \Vhilc one might excuse Kasemann in this area since he clearly as.sumcs tha t the rabbinic sources contain de velopments a long a continuum, he docs face an opposite problem- some of his texts may ac tually be more ancient than he supposed. For examp le, discoveries o f prc~Christian portions of I Enoch and Aramaic: Levi (the n ..~lation of which to the Greek Testament of Levi is much debated~ as dis<:.u ssed below in cha pter 3) at Qumran could demil his developmental thesis. Kiiscmann clea rly asserted that Hellc.nistic Christianity adapted and sanitized the Urmensch myth for its theolog ical usc. However, one must ask how necessary this might have been. He drew a stark fo} Kii.<;emann, Jflandering, 216. "' Ka..,cmann. Wandering, 211 (e-mphasis his). liS. For example. see the d iscussions in L. 0 . Hurst, The Epistle w tl1e Hebrews: /t.~ & ckground <( Tlwug/u (SNTSMS 6S; Cambridge: Cambridge Unjvcrsil)' Press, 1990). 74: Ellingworth, f.lehrews. 42-44: and Fcld, Nebriierhrie}; 49-51; and Hc:lmut Fcld, ..Dc:r Hc:-briic:rbrief: l ilerarischc:- F'omt, rdigionsgesc.hic:.htlicher Hintc-rgrund, thc:ologischc Fragcn." ANRW 25.4: 3$58·60.

56

CHAPTER TWO

d istinction between Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity, a distinct ion hard to maintain since Martin Hengel's Judtti.-..·m am/ Hellenism demonstrated that such cannot be supported fo r Christianity's mother faith. The maj<>r motifs tha t Christianity borrowed from the myth were those of the journey of the divine Redeemer, the relationship be tween this figure and his followers, and the sacrifice of this figure's body. Scholars of the historical Jesus will continue to debate whether Jesus considered himself d ivine., but few would doubt that the ideas that Jesus was sent by the Father and died on behalf of his followe rs come from c.arlicst C hristianity. Likewise, the journey motif in Hebrews seems most strongly drawn fro m the author's interpretation of Ps 95

and the

ExodtL~

event in Hcb 3:7-4: 13, where he emphasizes

lsr~cl's

disobedience under Moses and lack of rest despite conquest under Joshua.66 So while the author of Hebrews may well have been a Diaspora Jew who converted as part of the second Christian generation, there is no need to think these major motifs could not have been received from earliest Christianity in its Semitic lotale. Similarly, Kiiscmann asserts that Jewish usc of the myth is shown by the recurrence of priestly figures, but these figures arc already prominent prie-sts in the Hebrew Bible. In short, one might question what Kiiscmann's theory actually contributes. Finall)', while the canonicity of Hebrews was holly debated in the early c-hurch. the concerns: were a uthorship a nd its teaching on repentance, not its Gnostic background. ·me latter a lmost certainly would have been a major issue had the early church detected such thought in the book.67 Likewise, one might legitimately question whether an author willing to adapt a Gnostic myth would a pproach the Hebrew Scriptures (albeit in Greek translation) so positively. Kiiscmann wrote in an e ra when Paul was viewed as the inventor of Christianity, sharp d ivides were assumed be tween Palestine and the Hellenistic world, and the Kyrios C!Jrisfos theology was viewed as foreign to C hristianity's Jewish roots. IL is easy in our era o f appreciation for the Jewish roots ofChristianily to reject Kiiscmann's theory in hindsight, and his own unwillingness to revise his work after the discovery o f the Qumran documents tt.-stifics to his conviction th:n

(.!,

67

Brnwn,lwroductitm, 692. Sec. fbr example. the: d iscussion in Lane:. Hebrews, I :d-clv.

PREVIOUS THEORI ES OF THE BACKGROUND

57

those texts exposed his thesis as lacking.611 ln K£\scmann 's later work he left aside his Gnostic thesis and instead developed the theme of the people of God as a pilgrim people called to faithfulness. Though his Gnostic thc..;is certa inly has been much d iscus...:;cd, most scholars of Hebrews likely would agree that his later emphasis provided his "abiding contribution" to study o fHcbrcws.f<9

4. D EPENDEi'tT ON THE THOUGHT OF PH ILO OF ALEXANDRIA

As noted at the beginning of the chapter, many scholars have seen the background of Hebrews' presentation of Jesus as priest in contemporary Jewish thought. 10 Suggestions that Hebrews• prit-stly messianism is rooted in discussions of messianic priests and Mclchizcdck in Second Temple Jewish texts arc discussed in the next two chaptcn;. Here, however, attention is g iven to the theory that Hebrews' prit-ach of Phil<>of Alexandria. Virtually all scholars agree that the author of Hebrews was a Greek· speaking (or, less precisely, a ' Hellenistic') Jew. Others, however, go further and assert that his familiarity with Greek thought strongly inlluenccd his Christology. Perhaps the most venerable tradition concerning the background of thought in Hebrews locates it in Jewish appropriation of Middle Platonism as med iated though the philo· sophieal tradition of Philo of Alexandria. Obviously Philo's influence on later Christian thoug ht is beyond dispute and need not be addrc" cd He admits as much in the-preface: (Kiisemann. Wmrderi11g, 15). So notes Koester. Hebrew.-.. 6 1, commenting on Kiisemann's .lesu.,· Meow: p,.eedtmr ( Philaddphia : Fonress: 1970), I Oi -19. 10 A d ifferent ath.•mpt to fi nd the background in Jewish thought i.s that of George: Wesley Buchanan. He-argued that the author of Hebrews wa.'> steeped in the theology of 1-4 Maccabees and modeled his presentation of Jesus on S imon the Hasmonean ruler. called "the gre.at high priest. gc:nernl. and ruler of the Jews· in 1 [\'lace 13:42. Buchanan pmtially bases his theory on the idea that both Hebrews and those seeking to legitimate the Ha....,monean dynasty drew on Ps 110:4. Buchanan surmises that Hebrews is a homily which lhc ttulhur composed and delivered sometime befo re lhe destruction of the: Jerusalem temple to a group of Jewish Christian migrants who had huddled in a monastC:-1)' in Jerusalem to live oot the- days until the coming of the kinsdom. T heauthor wrote bccau.<;c the>' had become discoorascd and inclined to return to their homes or p:u1ic-ipate- in the. Day o f Atom~ment obse-tvanc-es. Buc hanan's theory has bee-n widely rejected. Sec Gwrge Wesley Buchanan, To tl•e 1/ehrews (AB .36; Garden City. N.Y.: Doubleduy, t972). f•S

fl9

58

CHAPTER TWO

here. As early as 1646, though, Orotius suggested Philonic influence on He brews, and the lirst full~scalc defense of this view was presented by E. Mcncgoz in h is L" Tlu!ologie de I "Epltre aux Hehreux in 1894." Discussion of this view dominate-d sch<>larship of Hebrews through the mid-20th ce nlul)', and it reached its a pex with the publication of Ceslas Spicq's masterful two-volume L "Epitre lll/X Hebreux in 1952· 53.n Considered the classic defense of PhiIonic influence on Hebrews, it is widely known fo r Spieq's bold assertion that the author of Hebrews was a student of Philo who later convened to Christianity but retained much of lhc influence of his prof'esseur." Spicq later adapted his approach 10 Hebrews in light of the publication o f JQS and CD, as discussed below in chapter 3.

71

Hun>t. flehre w.i,1. 134, n. I. n Fur ~iunceys de.monstrating the dominance of this view. especially in Eng.lishspcaking scholarship, see Ronald Williamson, Phil<, mrd the Epistle to the Hebrews (AL(il-U 4; Lcldt•n: Brill. 1970). 1-6 (a work itsdfrcc.entl)• c ritique-d as overstating the case again.<>! Phi Ionic. ties with Hebrev.-s by Kenn<.•th L Schenck, ..Philo and the fpistk to the Hebrews: Ronald Williamson's Study after T hirty Years; ' SPhilo 14 £20021: 112-35}; Schne lle, Hi.tiOIJ'· 378 : and Hursl, 1/ebrell"s, 7- 11. Scholars who have. wrillen in ~u ppurt of a Philonic. background lOr Hebrews in the last century inc:lude E. C. Blac-kman, 8ihlicallnterpremtion ( London: Independent Press, 1957); H. Chadwick, ..SL Paul and Philo o f Alcxandri:..'' B.IRL 48 (1965-66): 286-307; Cod)'". 1/em·enl)t:. Lala K. K. De)'. The Intermediary World and Polfems t?( Perfection in Philo mrd Hebrews (SBLDS 25~ Missoula. Mont: Sc:ho l:.r.> Press, 1975); C. H. Dodd. Tile Alitflority ofllu! Bible (london: Collins. 1978); A . Eager. ..The Hellenistic Eleme nts in the Epistle to the- Hebrews," /lerm I J ( 1901): 263-87; floyd Filson. "'The E-pistle l u the Hebrews," JBR 22 (1954): 20-26: G. H. G ilbert, "The Greek l!lemenl in the Epistle to the Hebre-v..-s." A.IT 14 (19 10): 521 -32: R. i\•1. Grant. The Leuer and the Spiril (l-ondon: SPCK, 1957); Harald Hcgennann, Der Brief on die 1/ebriier (THKNT 16: Be-rlin: Evangelise-he Verlagsanstall, 1988}; Jean Htring, Tire £pL\·tfe to tlr~ Hebrews (london: Epworth, 1970); \V. F. Howard, The Fo11rtlr Go.tpel in Recem Criticism mrd Interpretation (4th ed: London: Epworth, 1955}; H. A . A. Kenn<.-dy, The T/te(11<JJ!.)' of tire Episrles (london: Duckworth. 19 19); Otto Kuss, lkr Brief 011 die /lehriier (Rcgensburg:: Friedric h Pustet. 1966); A. H. McNcile-, New Testm11em Teochi11g in the Liglrt ofSt. Pmr/'s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923); Moffiltt., Hehren\t~ Hugh f\•lontefiore , The £pi.~tie m tl1~ H~hrew:~ (BNTC; London: A. &. C. Black, 1964); F. D. Moule, ..Comme ntaries on Lhe Epistle to the Hebrews;· nreo!tJg)' 6 1 ( 1958): 228-32; Alexande-r Nairne. T!te £pL\·tfe I<J tire /lehrew.t (Cambridge: CambridgeUni ve~il )' Press, 1917); A . E. J. Rawlinson, Tire New Testomellt Donrine ofCirri:rt (london: Longmans. Green. & Co., 1926); August Strobd, Der Bri({( 011 die Hebriie1· (4th ed; NTD 9; GOttinge-n: Vande-nhlx"<:k & Ruprecht, 1991): T . H. Robinson, The Epislle to tire Hebrews (London: Harper, 1933-): Sidney G. Stowers, Tire Hermeneutic.<: q( Plri/11 and 1/ebrews: A Compari.wm of t!te brti!I]JI't!lllliOII of tile Old r e.\·tamenl ill Plri/11 .ludaeu.<: mrd the Epistle to tire J./ehrews (ZUrich: EVZ- Verlag:. 196S): T hompson. Begimring: and Wind isch. Nebriierbrief. u Spic-q, H€hreux, 1:87-91.

c.

PREVIOUS THEORIES OF THE BACKGROUND

59

Spicq's view of the backg round o f Hebrews• priestly motif is inseparable from his thc$iS on the Philonic infl uences on the book's thought as a whole. The Iauer is systematically expressed in a n introductory chapter titled " Le Philonismc de I'Epitre aux Hc brcux," in which Spicq laid out numerous categories of contact between Philo and Hebrews which, in his opinion, demand a Philonic background for the bib lical author and his thought. The-~c correspondences include shared vocabulary; phrases and metaphors; arguments and exegesis; themes and schemes of thought; numerous aspects
On con~oit aisCment !'influence qu' il a pu exerce1· ~>ar ses ouvrage..~-au nombre d'unF quar.tntaine--sur se.s comemJ>Orains et par suite sur

l'auteur de I'Epirre aux Hi!.breux; mais elle s'expliquernit au mieu.x si ce demie.r e.tait Pun de ses compatriote..~ e.t s~ il avait suivi son enseignemem personnel. a Spicq rt>cognizcd that He brews doc's on occasion depart from Philonic tenets, though even here the inOuencc o f Philo is perceptib le. This is to be expected because its author, while high!)' inOuc.n ccd by his mentor, was nevertheless writing as a C hristian."' Spicq proposed that Apollos wrote the book in 6 7 C. E. to a large community of Jewish pri·c sts living em the coast of Palestine or Syria, perhaps in Caesarca or Antioch. These priests, he argued, had been converted to C hristianity by Stephen in Je rusalem and fled the city after his martyrdom." Spicq noted that the author of He brews found fertile material fo r his disc ussion of Jesus as p riest in various sources, including the presence and function of the Jewish pric."hood, the C
Spic.-q. Hi!broux. I:39-91. s. Spic.-q, f.h!bri!IL\'. 1:87. ~ Spic.-q. Hi!broux. I:89. 7 ' Spicq, 1/ebreux, I :252. 261 . As noted above a nd d iscussed tU.rthc:r in chapter 3, Spic:q adapted his .,·iew o f lhe recipients afie-r the discovery of the Oc:--ad Sc:a Semlls, prc:fCrring: to unde-rstand these converted priesL<> as ..Esscno-Chril>lians" a nd forme-r members o f the Qumran community. Sec Spicq. ..L.~itre aux Hebn:ux: Apollo~, Jean-Baptislc-, lc:s HciiCnistes el Qunmin," Re~·Q l ( 1958-59): 365 90. ?!1 Sp1c-q, H€hri!ux. 2:12 1-23. "

7

4

60

CHAPTER TWO

However, Spicq found the primary background of Hebrews' motif in two aspects of Philo•s thought- discussion of the Logos as mediator between God and the world, and his view that the priesthood and kingship (especially as represented by Most:.<; sec below) opcr.ltcd as mediato rs of the old covenant. He noted,

Dans sa reflexion sur Ia mediation du Christ c.onune souverain p1·Ctre, Ht?br. a C.te influence Jleut-etre par Ia conception alexandrine du Logos intermCdiaire entre Dieu et le monde.• et son rOle d'interces.,.eur~ mais cenainement par !'attribution du s:ac.erdoce e.t de Ia royaute. faite. par Philon au mediate.ur de l'anc.ienne Alliance. 1-Mbr. a emprume ce theme. a son devancier et l'a e.xploite au profit du mCdiate.ur de. Ia nouvelle A lliance. 7"~

Spicq added that Christ fills the r<))c of mediator for the new covenant, and all of this priestly talk would be extremely appropriate given the pric."Jy heritage of the recipients. Clearly Spicq 's assumption that Philo's discussion of the Logos Jay behind Hebrews' priestly motif has been the more conLrovcrsial of his two proposals. This has been addressed so thoroughly by Ronald \Villiamson that here a cursory discussion of Spicq'-s view should

sufficc.ro Spicq found the theme of intercession as the primary contact point between Philo's doctrine of the Log<)S and Hebrews' portrayal of Jc.<us as priest. Spicq argued that intcn::cssion is the chief priestly functio n fo r Philo, and the Jewish people were to serve along with their high priest as intcrccsf\ors for all humanity. In addition, kings under the old covenant had a priestly role as intercessor for their people which continued even after their deaths. Spicq saw a connection between Philo's discussion of both Moses and the Logos with Hebrews' d iscussion of Jesus. Moses, essentially the 'king' of lsmcl who also scn'cd in the priestly role during the Exodus, was viewed by Philo "commc lc pasteur idCal." Philo also sees the Logos as holding both offices, and Hebrews ascribes both to Jcsus.111 Spicq argued that the author of Hebrews incorporated into his dcscripti<m of Jesus several themes Philo used to describe both Moses and the Logos. All three arc seen as leaders of their p~~)pJc a nd Spicq, f.li!bri'IL\._ 2: 123. Williamson"s critique has since 1>«-n supplemented b)• Hurst Nebrews, 1-42. ~~ Spicq, lfc!breiL't. I :69. Cit:alions o f the relevant passages from Philo are given. Jesus i~ called 'the great shepherd of the sheep' in Heb 13:20. ;'9

110

61

PREVIOUS THEORIES OF THE BACKGROUND

mcdiattlrS between God and their followers (thcrcf'<)rc as priests). Philo actually uses the phrase CxPXt£p£us Aoyos in De gig. 52 and De./itga et inv. 108. Philo 's Logos intercedes for the world before God, and the

o

universe i~ his temple. \Vhilc lacking a sotcriological function, the Logos nevertheless interccdl'S between God and creation and serves as mcdiawr of a personal covenant. Thus Philo can con-elate the high priest and the Logos in De vii. Mos. 2. 117-35 and De.fitga et inv. 109· 18. Voilil pourquoi Je grand fJre.m~. mosarque pouvait e.tre considere. comme une image du logos. II est ditlicile de douter que c.cs speculations aient attire. r attention de Hebr. sur rinte.ret d·une medicllion sacerdotale et qu 'elle~'i l'aient aide a en precise.J' tel ou tel aspect dans son e.Jaboration du sac.erdoce du Christ.11z

As mentio ned above, Williamson offered the major critique o f Spicq's position. Will iamson asked what fundamental q uestion Philo

and the author of Hebrews were attempting to answer \vith their formulations. Williamson asserted that Philo, as a philosopher, was concerned with " the problem o f the relationship of God to the world," spcci(kally how to reconcile the immanence and transcendence of God in light of such questions as how a transcendent God could create the world and be known by creatures. Philo's rc.sponsc is that the Logos, stamped with the image of the unknowable God, mediates and (like \Visdom in other Jewish tntditions) was God's instrument in creation. Personal language. such as the term ·son~, is occ.asiona11y us<.."<.. in reference to the Logos, yet the Logos is not a person-it is the world of ideas which one seeks to grasp in order to understand God and the universe. Philo t·an associate the Logos with the high priest, but he docs so in an effo rt to interpret aspects of the Hebrew pric."hood and cult allegorically in support of his philosophic.al tenets." Philo's interest in the Logos is purely phi losophical; there arc no hinl<, according to Williamson, d1at he held an 'orthodox Jewish' hope for a personal mcssiah.-.s 111

Spic.-q. Hi!broux. I:68, 70.

!(~Williamson, Hebrews, 413-19.

M Williamson. Hebrews. 42.3. & .hcnck, ..Philo." 12.3, not~ that Philo did have a messianic c.o nccption as e\'idenccd by his interprt"lation ofNum 24:7 LXX in Praem. 95. Sec also Pcder Borge-n, "'There Shall Come- Forth a Man': Reflections on rvtessianic: Ideas in Philo."' in The .fliessitdt: Dewdopme~rt:t ilr £arlie:u Judaism mrd Christitmily (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; lvlinneapolis: Fortress. 1992), 34 1 6 1. 4

62

CHAPTER TWO

Jlut philosophically, what J)hilo is saying is that by contemplation of thenoumenal world.

tll e .

world of ldea.~. the- mind o f man

C311

know God.

But, if he. was to remain a tme Jew. loyal to his national scripnLres, and at the same-time inte.g rate with his Jewish scriptural theology his Greek metaphysical ideas, it seemed to him necessary to derive those idea.~ somehow from the Jewish scriptures. What I have jw~t wrinen may sound as if I am s uggesting that Philo e-ngaged in a de-liberate act of scriptural falsific-ation. That I am s ure was not Lhe case; it was s imply that, being what he was--a devout Jew and an a.l'dem conven to Greek

metaphysics--and living when and where he. did, his construction of a philosophy on the basis o f his people·s scriptures was the-most natural thing in the world tbr him to attempt. The. me.thod of allegorical exegesis l)ffered, of oourse, a perte ct tool for such an assignment. Without it Philo would have perhaps been unable to retain as objec.ts of his intense loyalty both the Jewish scripture.~ and the prc.cept~ of Plato and the other Greek philosophers who infl uenced him. So, w hatever may have been his feeli ng and c.onvictions about the. literal meaning of the O.T . passages refe.fl'ing to the Levitic-al high prie-s ts, e.g., in Exodus, he see$ in the tigure of the high priest entering the. Holy of Holies a symbol of the Loe.os as a means of ac-.ceS$ tOr the. human mind into the world of Jdea.~.11t'

\Villiamson countered that the author of Hebrews had very diffcrcnl concerns. Unlike Philo, the author of Hebrews is concerned with messianism. and he presents Jesus: as: the incarnate Son of God rather than as a world of ideas. Hebrews, ac.c ord ing to Wi11iamson, evidences no philosophical intcrc.~ts~ rather, its interests arc soteriological. !14 \Vhilc they may share similar language. the meaning is quite diflCrcnt. This, however, docs not mlc out the possibility that the author of Hebrews may have been familiar w ith the works of Philo. Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls dealt a blow to Spicq's theory of the Philonic inOuenccs on Hebrews; even Spicq himself offered modifications of his theory in light of the Qumran texts. Few scholars today would read Hebrc.ws as such a thoroughly PhiIonic text as Spicq fo rmerly did, though this most certainly sh<mld not be taken as a denial that the author o f Hebrews drew upon Middle Platonic thought or ideas paralleled in the thought <>f Philo for certain aspects of his prc~~cntalion." Jt is unlikely, however, that Hebrews:, prc~cntation of Williamson, 1/ebreu'$, 4 19. ~ Williamson, Hebrews, 430-3 1. 11 ' As only one ~xnmple. the philosophical roots u f the language used by the author of Hebrews to describe the rdutionship be-tween the- heave-nly und earthly SIUH:-tuarics was noted above in chaptt.·r I. 1($

PREVIOUS THEORIES OF THE BACKGROUND

63

Jesus as priest had its roots in Middle Plawnism and Philo of Alexandria. By this point it is clear that no strong consensus exists concerning the background of Hebrews' priestly mc.ssiah motif Two o ther major suggestions for the background of Hebrews' motif of the priestly messiah remain- priestly traditions in Second Temple Judaism and Mclchizcdck speculation. Dc1ailcd examinations of texts relevant to each of these prop<)Sals follow in the next two chapters.

CHAPTER THREI!

MESSIAN IC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM Various prop<>sals fo r the background of Hebrews' presentation of Jesus as the heavenly high priest were surveyed in the previous chapter and fo und lacking. Attention turns now in this and the followi ng chapter l<> two other potential antecedents fo r this C hristological thought, eschato logical priestly a nd Mclchizcdck traditions. Thoug h these d iscussions a rc divided over two c hapte rs for pmctical purposes,

in truth it is appropriate to cons ider them together because of the obvious overla p in their ancient mi1icu and modern scholarly investigations. Indeed, as will be evident below, it was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid~20111 century tha t fo r a time brought even the esc hato logical priestly and Melchizcdck traditions li·om sour<~cs other than Qumr~n to the forefront vis-a ..vis Hebrews. Already in the mid· I 950s, several scholars- including Otto Michel, Yigacl Yadin, David Flusscr. Jean Daniclou, Ccslas Spicq, and Hans Kosmala- wcrc proposing numerous similarit ies of thought between the Dead Sea Scrolls and He brews, some even identifying the recipients of the epistle as Esscnes.' Yadin, for example, in I 957 1

Amazingly, Jean Camtignac notes that a similar position actually had b!X'n

articuiC:ne-s, The-rnpeutae, and Hebrews. S.tt- David Schulz, Der Brief 011 die Hebriii!r

(Breslau: Holiiulbr, 18 I 8). 67-68~ a nd Jean Cannignac. ··t.e docume nt de Q unuiin sur MclkisCdc:q," Re~·Q 1 (1970): 343-78. esp. 373. See a lso ~·1 ichel, Der Brie}: 551-58 (this excursus lirst appeared in the IO!b ed. of 1957 on pp. 376-78): Yigad Yadin. ·1'hc Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the. Hebrews:· Scrllier 4 ( 1958). 36-SS (based on a 19S7 lt:c turc in Jerusalem); David FJussc--r. ~The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline-Christianity," Scrllier 4 (1958), 215-66; Jean OaniCiou. Le.\· manu.~crit.-. de Ia Mer Mone et les origitL\' du Cltri.\'tianiwne (Paris: Editions de- I'Omnte, 1957); Spi-cq -L·Epitrc," 365-90: a nd Hans Kosma la. 1/ehraer·Essel/er-Chri.\'ti!ll {StPB I ; leidc-n; Brill, 1959}. who proposed that the rc-eipic-nls held views midway on a continuum between Esscnism and Christianity and hailed from the- community responsible for the Te.(tamems of the Tu-e/11e Pmriarch:o. Joseph Coppens, Le.\· aj]luiu!s qwnriinien11es de tEpi'tre aJLt 1/ehreux (ALBO 6/1; louva.in: Publication..<: Universitaires, 1962). 6- 14, provides a sun:ey o f early research on the topic (and ultimately rejects the- position), as

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

65

boldly called the Dead Sea Scrolls sect "the missing link" for under· standing the issues addressed in Hebrews, proposing that the recipients were Christian c.onvcrts who had left the Qumran community bul retained some of their sectarian tcncts.2 He surveyed Hebrews• comparisons of Jc.~us with the prophets, angels, Moses, and Lc,•itical pric.~thood before conclud ing the foll<>wing about the. significance. of Hebrews• presentation of Jesus as high priest: In summing up the discuS;.~io n of this theme in the. Ep istle, it see.ms quite obvious that this subject is forced upon the author only bec-ause his readers 1 c.onceptions regarding the Aaronic priestly Messiah make it impos.<.;ible for them to accept Jesus· unique authority. rvforeover, the very necessity for the writer lO ascribe to Jesus priestJy qualities im~)Jies that, according to the belief of the-addressees. the- ~,ries:tly Messiah wa.~ to be superior to the royal (i.e. lay) Messiah . ... II is quite c lear that by re~)e-ating and stre-~~ ing the onetime- sacritic.c of Jesus in oflering up himse.lf. the writer is aiming- inter alia-at the addressees' fim1 belief that eve.n at the era of the End of the Days the full and conti n uotL~ ritual of the. sacritice-$-a.~ prescribed by Mosaic law- would have. to be resumed and continued for e.ver under the direc.rion of the Aaronid high priest.l

Yad in then Lurncd to examine discus..o;ions in the scrolls of angds, the priestly messiah, Moses, and the eschatological prophet of Qumran. On the basis of these and the mutually heavy dependence of Hebrews and the Scrolls on the Pentateuch, he concluded, "There could be no s tronger appeal to the hearts and minds of people descending lrom the DSS Sect than in those metaphors which arc abundant and characteristic in the Epistle to the Hebrew [sic]."' Spicq, better known for his theory of Philonic influence on the author of Hebrews, reached a similar conclusion: L · f:pitre. aux Hebreux, qui est- pour le. style, s inon pour le vocabulaire-recrit le plus grec du Nouveau Testame-nt- . est aussi r un de ceux qui ont le plus de contacts avoc Ie. judaisme pale-~~ti n ie.n . D'une part. Ia culture alexandrine de !'auteur et sa dependance par rn~,port a Philon .som cenaines. d·amre pa11, ses centres d'inte.ret'>, son orientation do F. F. Bruce, ···To the Hebrews· or 'To the: Esscnes"t" NTS 9 ( 1962·63): 2 17.:12, esp~ 2 17· 18; and Higgins. ··Priestly Messiah," 23 1-32. ~ Yadin, ··Sc rolls." 38. A similar theory ·was expressed as lute-us 1972 in Charles A. T re ntham, ··Hebrews," in Tire Broadm(lll Bible Commemary ( 12 vols.: cd. C. J. A lle-n: Nash ville: Broadman. 1972). 12:1 ·99, csp. 1. .; Vadin, ··Scrolls; · 44-4$. " Vadi.n, '·Scrolls." S$.

66

CHAPTER THREE

3J)OJoge.tique-. ses exegeses suJ1out, tel ou tel point de. morale presentent des affi nites notables ave.c ce.ux des ( < exiles>> de Damas ou de. Qumran. On ne J)C-Ut relever que. des indices, et il s~ag it d'un arriere·plan doctrinal l) ll de ,,sychotogie. religie.tL're J)hL~ que de paraHeles textuels. 1'out s'expliquerait au mieux si AJ)OJIOS s'adressait a des esseno-chretiens, a des prf.tres juitS- parmi lesque.ls J>OUvait se trouver llll ce.rtain nomb1·e d'ex-qumr
' Spi«t. ··L'Epitre.'· 389-90. r. Bruce, ·'·To the Hebrews' or '"To the Essenes' ..; Hcrberl Bmun, Qummnmul dn.'i Neue Testammrt {2 \'OJs.; TUbingc-n: Mohr S ie-bcck, 1966). 7

Vadin, ..Scrolls:· 4 1-4$; Bruce, '"To the Hebrews' or ·To the Esscnes,''' 222-23. A. S . \'IUl der Woude, ''Mckhisedck a ls himm1isc-hc EriOsergcstult in den m·ugcfunde-ncn eschalologischcn f\•lidmschim a us Qummn H6hlc XI," OtSt 14 ( 196S): K

354:73.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

67

Diirfen wir somit die in I IQ Mekh erwahnte Gestalt des Prieste1·flirsten Mekhisedek als himmlischen E-r!Oser deuten, so fallt einerseil~ ein neues Licht auf d ie Christologie de-s: Hebriierbriefe~li. andere.rseits auf die spate-ren jUdischen und christliche.n Melchisedek.Spekularjonen. Bei Zugnmdelegung von l'salm ex 4 hat de.r Verfasser des Hebraerbriefe.~ die Anschauung von Jesu Hl)hepriesteramt offenbar mit Hilfe der auch in I I Q Melch bezeugten jU.di.schen f\•tclchisedek·tradition dargestelh. So konme er die unvergle.ichliche Obe.rlegenheit des Hohenprie~liters nach der Beschafl'enheit "'·telchisedeks gege.ni'ibe.r de.n Jevitischen Priestem nac.hweisen.~

Van dcr \Voudc and de Jongc resumed this d iscussion, arguing thal I I QMelchizcdck was essent ial fM intcrprCtali
van dcr Woude argued that this variation ll·om the LXX was intentional- the author of Hebrews d eliberately avoided any lanf,ruagc that might imply that angels were God's sons, thus preserving the clear superiority of the Jesus the Son over them and developed at various poinls in Hcb 1·2. 11 De Jonge and van dcr Woudc saw a sharp

distint tion between Hebrews' presentation of Jesus as high priest, prepared lo r his servkc by suffering and dea th, and llQMc::lchizc'
"angelic warrior..·soteriology.'' 11 They were careful to note, however, thai lhC)' did nol read Hebrews as writlen 10 members of lhe Qumr.ln

co mmunity or to recipients who were worshipping angcls.u De Jonge and van der Woude the n turned 10 Hcb 7, paying s pecial atlcnlion 10 the assertions in Hcb 7 :3 !hal Mclchizcdck is without parentage, beginning, o r an end. They rejected the idea tha t lhc aulhor

o f Heb rews was merely exploiting the silence of Scripture about Melchizedck's origins and dt'Siiny in a playful, creative way in o rder

advance his argument about Jesus' priestly status. Instead, they

t ()

van dc:r \Vuudt.", ··~1ckhlscdck," 372. 10 T he extant Qumran version u f the verse: in 4QDc::utq (4Q44) has the unusua l spelling C'i1'7K " · Sec Patrick W. Skehan and Eugc.nc Ulrich, DJD JX. 14 1-42. Compare Ps 96:7 L XX and Odes 2:43. 11 de Jongc: and van der Woude, ··1 1Q Melc-hizcdck," 3J S. I ! de Jongc: and van dcr Woudc::, ··1 IQ Mclchizcdck,·• 317-18. u de Jongc: and van dc::r Woude. ·• II Q Mdchizcdck,.. 318. 9

68

CHAPTER THREE

insisted that the author of Hebrews actually d id conceive of and present Melchizedek as an eternal, heavenly figure, and that he understood Mclchizcdck's encounter with Abraham as a meeting between

the patriarch and the archangel." Nevertheless Melchizc::dck is subordinate and inferior to .k-sus; the description of him as a¢w~otw~£vos OS T~ Ul~ TOU &oii means that Mclchizcdck is a copy of Jesus and thus inferior, especially since Heb I -2 places such stress on Jesus • superiority over angels. u Though asserting his infcri· ority to Jesus, the author of Hebrews understands Mclchizcdck in a manner much inllucnecd by I I QMclthizcdck. De Jongc and van der Woude further questioned if Mclchizedek might also be the messianic priestly figure of JQM and JQSb and Levi's angelic guide (and anns supplier) in Teslamelll of' Levi (all texts discussed below), but they did not pursue these possibilitics. 16 Other scholars wrote in support of the signillcancc of I I Q· Mclchizcdck fo r interpretation
f() f

the

thesis that Hebrews was written to Es..'icncs, chic l1y that of why Mclchizcdck \'l3S S<J signilicant in the argument of Hebrcws. 17 Horton offcrc.d a major rebuttal of de Jongc and van dcr Woudc's thesis, questioning the very fi>undations on which all enthusiasm about I JQMclchizcdck's relationship to Hebrews was based. Whereas most scholars had understood Mclchizcdck in Hebrews as a heavenly figure and thus were stirred by the discovery o f another celestial presentation in I I QMclchizcdck, Horton demanded that Mclchizedck in Hebrews be understood as the mortal antitypc to Jesus' heavenly type." He did note several similarities between Hebrews' presentation of Jesus and the portrait of Mclchizedck in the scrolls; he further discounted the value of such parallels, however, by asserting that the argument of Hcb 1

~ de longe and van der Woude, '" IIQ Melchizedck," 320-21.

•s1 de Jonge and van der Woude, ''IIQ Mdchiz<.'tlek," 321.

~ de Jonge and van der Woude, "I JQ Melc-hizedck," 322 n. 4. ' Yigad Yadin, ··A Note on Mckhi:t.cdek and Qummn," /£./ 15 ( 1965): 152-54. See also, for example. the cautious apprai:;als by Jtn't:l>h A. F'itzm)'Cr. '-·Further Light on Melchizedck from Qumran Cave I I," in The Semitic Backgrmmd t?f the New Testamem (Grund Rapids: Eerdmans. 1997}, 245-67, esp. 253-54; and Higg:ins, "Pries.!ly tvlessiah," 239: pace Hay, Glory, 152-53; and lr\'in W. Batdorf. ·'He-brews and Qumran: Old Methods and New Directions," in Festschrijt 10 1-/omn· F. Wilbur Gingriclr (cd. E. H. Barth and R. E. Coc.roft; lcidc.'-11: Brill, 1972). 16-35. esp. 28-30. See also the-surve\' of Kobdski. Melchizedek, I I5-1 6. 1 " Horton, Me!Chi:~'(/ek Tradi1io11, 1 60~4. 1

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

69

l would make it extremely unlike!)' that the author of the epistle then drew on IIQMclchizcdek's angelic prc>scntaticm of its protagonist. lndc'Cd, Horton opined that Hebrews' usc of Mclchizcdck in such a crucial capacity could only indicate that the author did not know the scroll's angelic- description of the pricst~king. '') Kobclsk i in tum rcsp<)ndcd to Horto n, viewing Mclthizcdck in Hebrews as a "historicaVhcavcnly" figure--one who met Abraham (perhaps in an angclophany) yet also an elo!Jim (but not ncee-~sarily an angel)."' Nevertheless, like Horto n he saw parallels between l lQMclchizcdck and Hebrews, chiefly on the formcr•s presentation of its namc$akc and Hebrews' portrayal of Jesus. Rejecting the idea that the author of Hcbrc.ws may have relied on l I QMclchizcdck, Kobel ski argued that the Mclchizcdck of the Qumran $Croll would be a complicati ng rival to Jesus in Hcbn:.ws if the author of the later cmbmccd the Qwnran portrait of Mclchizcdck. Kobclski did allow, though, that familiarity with some other heavenly redeemer fit,'llre may have influenced Hebrews' description of Jcsus. 11 Like Horton, FrdnCO Manzi sees a contrast between the understanding of Mclchizcdck's nature in I IQMclchizc'
19

Honon, Melclli:~·dek Tmdi1io11 , 167-70. w Kubds.ki, Melclrizedek, 126. The complexity of the topic is indicated by Ko\?cl.s ki' s seemingly contradictory statement<>. 1 " Kubdski. ,l.{e/cltizedek, 127-29. lZ Franco Munz.i, Melclri:;edek e l 'tmgelologia nei/'Epi:aola agli £ brei e il Qumran (AnBib 136; Rome: Editric-e- Puntifico lstituto Biblicu. 1997). Manzi's thesis about Me1chizcdek in l lQMc:khizedek is disc u~cd more fully in the following chapter. Sec the analysis of f\•lanzi's arsument in Casimir Bernas, rcvie.w ofF. Manzi, ,#,;fe/chL\wlek e l'ungi!lolt'1:,>ia m!II'Epi.smla agli £ brei e a Qumran. RBL 2/J$/ 1999: n.p. [cited 2 Feb 20051. Online: http://www.bookreviews.org/pd01724_ 1918.pdf. Sec also disc.us.<>ion of Manzi"s view in Anders Aschint. ''Mekhizcdek and Jesus: J IQ.\·Iekhizcde-k and theEpistle to the Hebrews;· in The Jewi.-.lr R<Jots of Chriswlogical Mmrmhei.\ m: Pape~ ji'om the St. Andrews Cm!foreuce 011 the /Jis wrica/ Origi11:> of the lflor.>hip of .Jesu.-. (ed. C. C. Newman. J. R. Davila. und G. S. Lewis: JSJSup 63: leidcn: Brill, 1999), t29-47, csp. 134-35.

70

CHAPTER THREE

ficd with the a rchangel M ic.hacl) ami in Hcbre.ws (here he is an eternal figure).u As for the relationship betwee n the two texts:

The abundance of only panty successful attempts to determine thereligio-historical background of the- Epistle at lea.~>t te-aches us that the author drew upon an astonishingly wide field of leaming and tradition.. . 'vlelchizedek as One of his building blocks was a tradition about L heavenly warrior and high priest, very similar to that represented in l lQMelch and some other documems from the Qumran library.2.. Aschim is not so bold as to argue fo r direct dependence o f He brews on I I QMclchizcdck, but he doc,s fi nd possible parallels in their usc of Day of Atonement and ho1y warrior imagcry.:s Having surveyed previo us proposals o f the signi ficance of Qumran's priestly messian ism a nd portrayal of Mclchizcdek for inte r· prctation of Jesus as priest in Hebre ws, attention turns now to examination o f the primary texts themselves. T(~xts discus..;;ing the expectation of a mc~o;sianic priest at Qumran arc addrcs..'ied in this chapter. C ha pte r 4 is devoted to disc ussion <Jf Melchizcdek in various Second Temp le Je wish traditions, with emphasis o n appearances of the figure in Q umr.in texts.

I. MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS ATQliMRAN

For scholars o f the New Tc.stamcnt, the abundant evide nce in the Dead Sea Scrolls o f messia nic beliefs in a Jewish c.ommunity ro ughly contemporary with and in close geographical proximity to earliest Christianity has been an issue of significant inte rest fo r decade...:;. This interest is heightened for interprete rs of Hebrews because various scrolls seem to describe a messianic priest. which naturally has beckoned questions of a possible relationship between the priestly messianism o f the Qumran community a nd the pric.s tly Chrisw logy o f the au thor o f Hcbre \vS.u Lc..\t:;s emphasized in this context. b ut also potentially significant because of Hc brcw·s' stres-s on Jesus as both

ll

Aschim. ··Mekhizcde k and )C'$us," 132-33, 138-39.

u Aschim, - Mclchizcde-k and Jesus;· 146. 1-S

Aschim. ··Mekhizcdek and Jesus,'' 139-43.

u For a s urvey of the titles a nd rok'S of pricsL-. me ntioned in the Q umran texis. sceRuber~ ~· ~uglcr; •· P ~cslhoud a t Qummnt in. Tlu; De.ad .~ea ScnJIL\· ~{ler FijiJ' Yeof:i (2 vols.. eds. P. \\ . Fhnl a nd J. C. VandcrKam, le1den. Bnll, 1999), 2. 93- 116.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

71

priest and the Son with Davidic overtones, is that the Dead Sea Scrolls also disc uss a royal ml'SSiah. Qumran texts describing priestly messianic ll.gun:~~ arc disc ussed below, but first a ucntion mw\t be given to two impcu1ant prefatory issues for understanding messianism al Qumran-dcfining what figures may be considered ·messianic' al Qumran, and dete rmining whet her the Dead Sea Scrolls give evidence of static or evolutionary messianic conceptions.

1.1. ldenfijic:ation of 'J\-Jessianic · Flgures at Qumran

In contrast to the Christian tenet of one messianic figure encompassing numcrotL'; roles, as expressed in Hebrews and discussed in the first chapter of this study, most Qumran scho lars have long affirmed that at least two messianic figures \VCrc an ticipated in the Qumran texts, a prieslly llgurc and a royal (often Davidic) figu re." So, fo r example, Va ndcrKam concluded after surveying the Q umran messianic texts that uat Q umr.:tn there was a dual messianism, with one messiah being priestly and t he other davidic."" O f these two, the royal figure receives significantly more atte ntion in the Qumran texts, thoug h o fte n he is understood as deferential to the pricslly 11gurc if they appear in a text together. In addition, other <'Sehatologieal figu res arc mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, including a prophet and heavenly figures such as the archangel Michael, the enigmatic Mclchizcdek, the 'Son o f Man,' and pe rhaps an 'Elect of God.'" More is said a bout these various conceptions below. 1

Early studies affinning the presence- of two messiahs at Q umra n ind ude Karl Georg Kuhn. "The Two Messiahs of Aamn and f~Tacl ," NTS l (1954155): 168-80; l Liver. ·"The Doctrine-u f the Two Messiahs in Sectarian Litera ture in Lhe Time o f th<." Second Commonwealth." IITR 52 ( 1959): t49-85; and Jtmchim Gnilka. -Die Erwarlung des messianischcn Hohenpriestcn; in den S<:hriOen von Qummn und im Neuc-n Testament." Re~'Q 2 (1960): 395-426. u. James C. VanderKa m ...Messianism in the Scrolls." in Tht" C01mmmity of rlu~ Rcmeul!d CoveJ/allt: The Nmre Dome Symposium 011 tile Dead Sea Scrolls (cd. B. Ulrich and J. VandcrKam: Notre Dame, Ind.: Uni\'t'-ntity of Notre Dame Pn:ss, 1994), 2 t t -34, ""P· 234. :'9 John J. Collins cautiously affinns that fig.urc-s like f\•lidwd , Mdc:hizcdek, and lhc: Prince of Light in the- Dead Sea Scrolls are heavenly figures modeled on the ·son of ma n' u f Dan 7, though he- hesitales lo deem them messianic because they arc: otherworldly and not ·anointed ' human ligures. Soc Collins, The &·etHer and tire Swr: Tire M(!.t:,\·iahs of lire Dead Sea Scrolls aud Otller Anciem Li1era111re (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995}, 173-94. esp. 176. For the ar,g.umc--nt that a lig:un.': called Lhc ?

72

CHAPTER THREE

This standard interpretation of Qumran as a community expecting two mcs.o:;iahs is not without its critics. Perhaps the most prominent rcprcsc.nta th rc o f this minority position in recent years has been Martin G. Abcgg, Jr., who as..')crts that, messianism actually is not a paramount theme in the Qumran texts:

h is worthy of note, le~~t we conclude that messianism was pervasive in a large percentage of man uscript~. tha£ the word "mes ..~;i ah ·· itself is found in only 17 (four beings (sic) MSS of CD) o f the nearly 700 sectarian manuscript,. . . . Messianism is aJl eminent. but not a preeminent topic in tl1e scrolls.30 Abcgg's thesis is that the common presupposition of multiple

messianic figures at Qumran predctcnnincs how most sc.holars approach d ifllcull passages that most naturally speak o f one messianic figure. Much attention is devoted to contested passages in I QS and CD (which arc discussed further below), but he also surveys several other texts nonnal1y touted as evidence for multiple messianic expectations. While he docs not conclude that all o f the Qumran texts posit a uni form expectation of a single mc...-;sianic ligurc, he docs issue a call fo r restraint: "the d ual messiah that we have come to accept as dogma in d iscus-sions of the DSS must be tempered" because "the overriding theme is one of royal mC$Sianic cxpcctation:·H Consistent with this call, his ovm conclusions evidence a similar restrain!: The.re are., however, clear signs that the messianic J)ictllre was not so focused as to conC-lude that messianic hopes we.re only or always singular. The title in CD, "me..';..~i ah of Aaron and Israel," reveals at the very lea..~>t a dual nature. Tilere are also indic.ations beyond the clearly dual "messiahs of Aaron and Israel" ( I QS 9: I I), of a priestly consort to the. royal messiah. 3~

Abcgg also allows fo r priestly ligures in texts including JQSa, I QSb, and I QM, and for other eschatological figures includ ing a messianic prophet in II QMclchizcdck." 'Eia:t ()(God' in 4Q534 is to be ronsidered messianic, s.c:c Johanll<.~ Zimmermann, Me.\·,\·ifmisclre Texte IJIIS Qumrtm: K011igliche. prieslt!r!iclle 1md prophetisclle Messitt.~vor.\·tellungen ill den Sclu.,.ftfimden wm Qumrmr (WUNT 2/104; Tlihingc-n:

rvlohr Siebeck. 1998). 170-204. 310 Martin G. Abc:gg, Jr....'The •" tcssiah at Qumran: Are We Still Seeing Doub1c'?"' DSD 2 ( t99S): t2S-44. esp. t4l. ~ 1 Abegg, ··Messiah a t Qumran." 143 . ..~ Abcgg. ~Messiah ut Qumrun," 143 . .u Abcgg, -Messiah ut Qumran." 143.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

73

Abcgg's note of caution is an important one to heed. While most scholars admittedly have not abandoned theories of multiple messianic expectations at Qummn in the wake of his arguments, still his point is vaJid that the texts must be read as honestly as possible, without the conclusions being determined by ironclad presuppositions about Qumran's messianic thought. As such, the textual evidence for messianic conceptions at Qumran must be carefull y c.o nsidcrcd, and the resulting theories must always be recognized a.<; provisional. This tentative approat'h is all the more necc.~sary in light of the fragmentary nature of the textual evidence itself. Beyond this, an even more basic question concerns the dclinition of a ·messiah" in the Qumran texts. In other words, must a figure be explicitly called 'messiah,' or is activity in a heavenly or eschato logical context on behalf of God's people sufficient to merit such a title'! The term 'messiah ' is derived !Tom the Hebrew rr'lVJl, ·anointed one.' In the Hebrew Bible, priests, prophets, and especially kings literally were anointed with o il as a sign of initiation into their offices. Scholars: commonly speak of 'messianism' in the exilic and post-exilic periods despite the faCI that- unlike in the Dead Sea Scrolls- the term n , \V(.) is never used in the Hebrew Bible to describe sut~h a 11gure ..M Instead, c.x tension of the tcnn 'messiah· to discuss a fu ture-presumably l'SChatologicai- Davidic ligurc expected to be sent by God to vindicate a nd r<:,~torc the fortunes of the Jewish people is a later dcvelopment.)s C raig Evans c.alls for further caution, arguing that the yearnings for Davidic (and priestly) fif.,rurcs evident in various texts of the Hebrew prophets (including Hosea, Mi"~h. Isaiah, Ezekiel. Haggai, Jeremiah, and Zechariah) arc more prope r!)• understood as expectations for a restoration of the Davidie kingship, not evidence of 'mc..\~sianism, that inv<)lvcs "expectation of the coming of a divinely anointed and empowered ligurc who inaugurate.~ someth ing dramatically new, something that even exceeds the idealized reigns of David and son

j..l The phrase ·'1wu sons of o il'" {1;:t'i·;_::;-~~:a '~~i-f) is used in Zcc.h 4: 14 to d<:"$C'ribeZerubbabcl und Jc::shua, bul i n conlcxl this addresses present und nul future- li gures. Sec: below for tUrthcr discussion of thiS; vcn>e-. ;.s For fulkr discussion of these is.-:ucs, sl.'e Marinus de Jongc, "'Messiah," ABD

4:777-88; and Craig A. Evans. .. Messiahs," EDSS I:517-42.

74

CHAPTER THREE

Solomon."j.(, For Evan s, a ~messiah' is a figure after whom .. no successor is expec ted" because ·•everything w ill forever be ehangt.xl:'!' \Vhilc the rcstordtionist hopes evident in the Hebrew Scriptures ce rtainly provided fertile soil for the rise of messianism, Evan s finds the lirst hints of messianism in the LXX an d the first dear evidence of such in Psalms of Solomon 17.311 Though most scholars agree that no uniform mc.~sianic e xpec tation existed in Second Temple Judaism. authon; of the NT go~pels presuppose that Jc.~us' identity as the messiah, or XP IOTO>, must be explained in light of expectations that inc1udc both militaristic and miraculous clcmcnts ..w While multip le eschat(>iogical figures appear in the Dead Sea Scro lls, usually only the royal and priestly figurc.s arc explicitly deemed ·messiahs., Some scholar$ consider the prophet to be a messiah~ most, though, recognize h is eschatological role but understa nd him as a complementary figure of a different sort than the king o r priest. Like wise, many scho1ars exclude the hc-.Jvcnly figu res from consideration as ~messiahs,' preferring to reserve this spec ific title for a future human king or prics.t- not a d ivine or celestial figur~~an ointed by (iod to bring salvation in the last days. Note, for example, the words of Andre Caquot: £1 un me.ssie-n'est pas un sauve.ur quelconque. Le me~~.;; i e e-$L bien le

signe visible d~u n salut collectif acc.orde par Dieu dans un avenir dom l'homme ne ))CUt prevoir ni prevoil· seul le. moment, mais le messie est en meme temps le. restaurateur ou con1inuateur d'une institurion his torique, le- detente.ur d 'un oftice qui avait pom marque- r onction d'huile, l'offic.e du roi ou celui du plirre.«~

While th is seems a ppropriate in principle, one must also note that few scholars restrict the concept of ·messianism· in the Dead Sea Scro lls to only those figures explicitly called n'il/1;) in the Qumran texts or explicitly depicted as anointed. Rathe r, primary attention is placed by most scholars on the particular roles exercised by a figure, the M> Craig A. Eva.ns, "f\•lc:ssitmic Hupes and Messianic Figurc:s in La1e Amiquily."' .JGR_C/1.! 3 (2006): 9-40, esp. I8. .l• E:•;an..<>, "Me;ssianic Hopes," I&. 19. 11 " E..-aru;, ..Mc:·ssianic Hopes." 1&.22 . .l'l Examplc:s are numerous. bul sec reccnlly Joseph A. FiiZm)·cr, Tile One Who is w Come (Grund Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 1-2. ., Andre C~tquol, --Le mcs..;ianisme Qumr.inicn," in Qumni11: Sa pit!u!. sa tlu!r)logie el .wm milieu (ed. M. Ddcur.: BETL 46~ Paris-Gcmbloux: DuculotiLC'uvcn UnivcrSily

Press, 1978), 23t-47, esp. 231 -32.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

75

Scripture quotation on which the llgurc's significance is expla ined and

established, and the name given the figure in comparison 'vith names given to figures in other texts. As is discussed further in the following chapter, for example, Florentino Garcia Martinez argue~'\ thal Melchizcdck should be understood as a mc.~sianic figure in I I QMclchizcdck because his duties a rc those normally associated with a messiah:" Likewise. harmonization o r texts tha t seem to describe equivalent figures is essential because of the nature o f the textual e vidence; it o ften is the only way to make sense of such references in manuscripts which often have not survived well enough to provide the context necessary fo r comprehensive internal study of these figu rcs.J: Still, this approach has critics. Fitzrnycr scolds scholars taking such a view as guilty of·'rubbcr·band,. messianism...~ GCza Xcravits: prcfCrs 10 jettison the ICm1inology of 'messiah, and 'messianism' altogether, arguing that b oth tcnns imply a standardization of roles o r a "coherent

system of ~expectations'" that belie the evidence at Qumran:'" ln.~tcnd, Xcravits propl)S(•s that the term 'positive eschatological protagonist' he used to describe various leaders who act on be half of God's people in the eschatological agc.Js Certainly Xcravits is correc-t to note that usc of the tcnns ~mcs.siah' and cmcssianism, fo r widCI)•-varying ligures is not ideal, and his assertion tha t their usc may imply false impressions

.tl Flore-ntino Garcia Martinez, - Las tradic ionc:s sobrc r-.•tehluisedec c:n los manuscritos de Qunmln," Bib 8 1 (2000): 71)..80. For a similar approach, S<.'<: Zimmennann, ,\{essiani.w:he Texte, 15· 18. 4 ~ S hemaryahu Talmon and Lawre nce H. Sc-hiftinan urge c-a ution when se~king tu equate messianic iigu~ from various &:x:umc:nL<> and argue that two different \•l ews of the eschaton arc present in the Qumran d-ocum~n L<> . Some documents seem to teach u restoruti"e vision fbr the eschatun in \•.:hich the golden days of Israel's pma arc r~turc:d. ufien by a Davidic.· messiah, a concept similar to what Evans linds: in the Hcbrcw prophcL<>. O ther documents ha\•e a utopian aJlOca1yptic v ision a nd expc.'<:t a radic.'rie.~I. Prophet. 2·3.

76

CHAPTER THREE

o f consistency in the Qumran texts ccrlainly is valid. \Vhat is not clea r, though, i~ how his alternate terminology avoids the same pitfalls. In summary, while one might argue that the term 'messiah' should be reserved fo r figure~~ explicitly idc ntilicd as such in the texts, other figures discussed in the Qumran texts certainly facto r into the community's ·messianic' expec tations, as evidenced by the ro les assigned to d1em and the bib lical interpretation that unde rgirds their identification. It is imperative, however. that the d iversity of messianic expectations in the Qumran texts be rccognizc.d , a point that also is at sta ke in the scc.ond prefatory is..~uc.

1.2. EvolutiOJIOIJ' Development qf'J\-Jessianic Conceptions a/ Qumran

A second prefatory issue to consider is that of the chromllogy of messianic expcclntions at Qumran. Jn o ther words, did various membe rs of the Qumran community hold a variety of messianic and eschato logical views simultaneously (perhaps reflecting a variety of opinion wider than what any ·official' Qumran stance might embrace), or did these viC\VS fl uctuate or even evolve in various periods of the community's history, with d ifferent ideas alternately embraced or dispatched based on a variety of factors'' Jean Sta rcky argued for the latter idea rather early in the history o f Qumran scholarship. In 1963 he wrote a very influentia l- and subsequently controversial- article proposing a logical de velopment o f messianic belief.~ of the sect.... Starcky sought to correlate the various messianic views expressed in the Qumran texts, his thcorit\~ on the dating of various Dead Sea Scro lls manuscripts, and archaeologist Roland de Yaux 's theories about the various stages<>!' settlement of the Qumran community ."' Sta rcky proposed the following schema., which is recounted he re because of its influen<.~c on subsequent scholarship: Stage 1: lWaccabeau era (de Vaux~~ phase /a)- According w Starcky, the Qumran community had no messianic expectation.~ in th is ""' Jean Stan:ky, ··t..es quatrc Ctapes du mcssianismc a Qumran," RB 10 {1963): 48 1·

505.41

T hough de Vaux neve-r published linal reports on his Qummn excavations. his theory of the phases ofQumran·s <x:cupation was present<:d in de Vaux, Archaeo/t)gy and the Dead Sea Scm/1:~: The Schweit:h Lectures of lire Briti.<:h Academy. 1959 (rev. ed.: London: Oxford lfnivcrsily Press, 1973}.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

77

era. The Rule of the Comnumil}~ was written during this time (as represente-d by the fragmentary 4QS• [4Q259)) by the Teacher of Righteousness, who was more concerned with ethic's: than eschatology. This original version of the Rule of the Community Jacked the reference to 'messiahs of Aaron and lsr.Jcl' that subsequently was

added by a redactor to IQS IX in stage 2 (sec further below). Also, I QpHab, 4QpPs, and JQH were written during this period." Stage 2: Hasmonean era (the }irs/ pari of de Vmtx:, phase /b)Starcky proposed that numerous Pharisees, having fallen into poor relations with the Hasmoncan~. Ocd to Qumran and swelled the ranks of the community. The Qumran community was opposed to the Hasmonc.an usurpation of the po litical and priestly offices, especially because the Hasmoneans Jacked both Davidic and Zadokitc pedigrees, and community members with Hasidic. sentiments began

cxprcs...~ing

their hope fo r a Davidic messiah in contrast to the purely ethical interests previously espoused by the Tcachcr of Righteousness. As evidenced in JQS IX, I I, the Rule o.ft!te Commtmiry was redacted to include a messianic expectation of an eschatological prophet and two

other ligures, 'miU1'1 ]1i;'!K •n•UIIl ('the messiahs of Aaron and Israel'); this messianic outlook was formulated polemically against the impious combination of polit-ica l and cultic power by the Hasmoncans in Jcmsalcm.4'J Stage 3: Pompeian em (the second part of de Vaux:, p!tase /b)Starcky proposed that the Damascus Documem~ extant in sever.!! Cave 4 copies, was writlcn during this: time of Roman hegemony sometime after Pompey's arrival in Jerusalem and between the death of the Teacher of Righteousness and the expected messianic age. Messianic

expectations in this period were consolidated from the bifurcated royal and priestly expectations of stage 2 into the hope fo r one priestly messiah. According tt) Starcky, this is demonsu·ated by r(+crences in the Damascu.'li Document to the singular n'1V1;) in the phrases • the

messiah of Aaron and Israel' ('7NiUI'1 J1i;'IK n•UIIl) and ' the messiah from Aaron and from Israel' (?KiUI'Il1 111;'11{1) n•iVIl)." An c.sehato· logical prophet, now understood as the Teacher of Righteousness redi\1h rus, was expected as a forerunner of the messianic priest. :H Stardy, ··Lc:s quulrc: Ctapcs: ' 482-87. Sturdy. "l<.'S qwttrc:-Ctapcs,"' 487-92. ~ See below fo r further discussion of these: phrnsc:s. 51 Star<:.ky, " Lc:s quatrc-C1:1pcs,·· 493-99. 4:!1 49

78

CHAPTER THREE

Stage 4: Herodian era (de Vaux:v phase J/)-Starck)' notes that Josephus reports positive relation~ be tween Herod the Great and the Esscncs (Aut. 15:348) and surmises that this positive relationship contributed to the Es-scncs' lack of urgency about rctuming to Qumran to rebuild after the earthquake. Later (as proposed by J6zef Milik) the Es.
Sl"

Sturdy. ..l<.'S quatrc-Ctapc:s,·• 499-504.

~ While recognizing lhc strons likd lhood that m<.""Ssiunic idc:a.s at Qumran did

evoh'c. Florentino Garcia Martine-.! notes that lhc nature of the tcxtuaJ evide--nce does not allow one to confidently reconstruct the nature of this de\'clopmenl. See Florentino Garda Martinez, ·'Messianic Hopes in the- Qumran Writing...;." in The People
MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND T EMPLE JUDAISM

79

documents were composed much earlier than the extant copies were made. This is most glaring with h is a pproac.h to one fragmentary copy of the Dama.<cus Documelll, 4QD' [4Q267j, whose Pompcian era dating (second quarter of the first century B.C. E.) fonns the cornerstone of h is third period a nd is the sole evidence for his idea that the royal messiah faded lb r a time and was consumed by the priestly messiah. His thesis also faced o ther severe challenges. Raymond Brown demonstrated that Starcky misread the Damascus Document when, for example, he. equaled the foreign invaders of Yawa11 (CD VII I, II ) with lhc Romans (thus allowing him to date the Damascus Documelll to the era of Pompey) rather than the Greeks. Brown noted instead that Yawan nonnally is the cipher fOr Greeks in the Qumran literature, whereas the Romans a rc the Kiflim. As a result of such challenges, Stareky's entire third phase of messianism is to be discarded, leaving the new stress put on the Davidic nature of the royal messiah as the only significant d istinction between the messianism of the Hasmonean and Herodian c.ras.~ Also, Jod i Magnc~'\s has recently called into question parts of de Vaux's historic.al lfamework on which Starcky ba~ed his four stages, including the existence of his phase Ia (Starcky's Maccabean era)." Despite these problems and c riticisms, the aforementioned admirable q ualities of Starcky's theory continue 10 find wide acceptance and inOuence d iscussions of messianism at Qumran and even fOr the entire Second Temple period. Though arriving at different conclusions, Hartmut Stegemann used similar me-ans as Starcky to propose his theory of the three-stage development of Qumran messianism, though his preference is to speak of sequential ·stages • of development of messianic tied to more loosely-demarcated h istorical periods.,. Stegemann finds in the firs t stage, up to c. 150 B.C.E. , ~ Raymond E. Brown, "J. Starcky's Tht:ory ofQummn Messiani<.· Devdopmenl," CBf?28 ( 1966): 51 -57. · Jodi Magness, Archaeology q( Qumron multhe Dead Sea Scm/Is (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 20ij~). 63-<56.

Hartmul Slcgemann, - Some Remarks to JQSa. to JQSb, and lo Qumran 11 ( 1996): 479-SOS. F'ur criticism of this proposal, sec 1\•lichad A. Knibb, ··Eschatology and Messianism in the: Dead Sea Scrolls." in The Dead Sea Scmll.s ajier FiftJ· Yean: A C()mprellen.~i~·e Asses.smeut (vul. 2: eds. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; Lcidcn: Brill, 1999), 379-402. Sec also Gcrbem S. Ocsc:ma, The A11ointed and hi:> People: /t.{e.\·sialli<: Expecwlioll.\·fmm lire A

rvl c~i ani sm," Re~Q

80

CHAPTER THREE

messianic thought centered on a figure represe nting the coJJcctivc people of Israel. Evidence is found in collective images such as the •one like a son of man, in Dan 7 :13, and observes that the quotation of Num 24: I in IQM XI, 6f is interpreted U> point to the eolk-clive people, not dislinct ligurccs indicated by the 'star' and ·scepter' (or 'slafr) as found lalcr in CD VII , 191'. Indeed, S1cgemann asserts that in this period the Qumran community saw Hasmoncan po litical rule as legitimate so long as it conformed to the models of David and Solomon. He finds this implicit in 4QMMT and proposes that the Teacher <,f Righteousness could not have expected a royal messiah because he ac<1uiesccd to Jonathan's polilic.al (but not priestly) authority.s; Stegemann's second stage emphasizes the royal messiah, as evidenced in IQSa and IQSb, and he proposes the possibility that the Teacher of Righteousness was responsib le for the c rea tion of th is concept in response 10 his hostililies wilh Jonalhan c. 150 B.C.E., subscqucnl I<> 4QMMT.'' Finally, lhrcc fi&'llrcs-royal messiah, prie-stly messiah, and prophet-appear in Stegemann's third stage by aboul I 00 B.C. E., evidenced by 4QTcstimonia (4Q 171 ); an additi<>n 1<> IQS (VIII, 15b-IX, I I); and the Damascus Document. Of these, only

the expectation of the prophct- cvidcntcd elsewhere in I Mace 4:46was introduced into the thought of the Qumr~n community !Tom

outside sourccs:.!h

Judaism. not j ust in the Qumran te-xts and community. He addresses the Qumran te-xts on pp. 86-97, 108--27. T his volume- is a trnnshttiun and expansion of his mn-nog.mph titlt.-d De,. Ge:utlhte u11d ,'ieil t Vol/.:.: Unter:wdumgr!ll : um K(}lr:eptuali.,·ienmg.\pm:ejJ d er mess itmi:sclu!ll 1!../wartungetr wm den Makkabiiem bi:o fJm· K<1ziba (G6ttingen: Vand<.'fhoed: & Rupr<.-chl, 1994). ~ ..... ·' Stegemann, -some-Remarks," 501-03. sg Stegemann, ..Some Rcmurk1;." 503-04. Stegemann notes thai the: royal nt<.""Ssiah is also pr<."Sent in P.\·s. Sol. 17. but he dates that text a c.entury later than IQSa and IQSb. Also. he proposes that no priestly nt<."SSiah is proposed at t his point because the priestly Teacher expected tu see the arrival of the royal me-ssiah in his lifetime-. S9 Stegemann. -some Remarks,·• 504-05. 4

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

8I

Rather similar- but mMc complex- is the recent proposal of Heinz-Josef Fabry.w Fabry finds six stages of devclopmcnt again understanding them primarily as reactions to cxtcmal factors. The fina stage is the prceEsscnc era of opposition to Hellenization; a priestly messiah is expected as indicated by 4Q375 and 4Q376, b<>th of which concern Moses, and 4Q54 I, an apocryphal text concerning Levi." Nexl, in the prc-Qumran Esscnc period, opposition to Antiochus IV is 1

expressed with the expectation of a mc.':;sianic figure representing the

coJie(•livc people of God, a development similar to (but dated diffcrcnlly than) Stegemann's first stage. Like Stegemann, Fabty finds lhc roots of this imagery in Dan 7 and evidence of its acceptance among the Esscncs in JQM." The third stage, in the era of the Maccabcan revolt and the early years of the Qumran sclllcment, saw the rise of a dual royal and pric.~tly expectation ( JQS V, I -IX, 26; I QSa II, I I -22), though subsequently the two roles were fused into one figure in CD (perhaps in response to the combination of powers under Jonathan, Simon, or John Hyrcanus 1}.63 This: expec tation also corrc ·Spond~ with a stage proposed by Stegemann, but Fabry dates it several decades later. Next (as for Stegemann), in the Qumran era three figures- the aforementioned royal and priestly figures, now joined by a prophet; i.e., the 'mwws triplex' <>f I QS IX, I )- appear in response to .John Hyreanus' appropriation of all three offices.'" Also, the portr.lit of Mclchi<edck as a messianic figure in I I QMclchizcdck rna)' be a response to perceived Hasmoncan misuse of Melchizcdck imagery beginning with Simon.'~ Fabry finds three more stages: an expansion in the early firs t century B.C.E. of the royal messianic expectation to incorporate the biblical imagery of a Davidic royal figure, countering the trucl reigns of Alexander Janncus and Aristobulus but also useful in subsequent historical situations; development later in the century for an apoc.alyptic expectation of an eschatological prophet to be accompanied by a teacher of the Law; and Hcinz.-Jozcf Fabry, ''Die McS!>ias.c:-.twe~rtung. in den Handschriftc.n von Qumran:· in Jf/;.w/om and Apaca1J·7>tidsm in tlte Dead Sea Scm//.,· and in tire 8iblical Tradition (ed. F. (iar<.~ia f\•lartfnc-L: BETL 168; lcuvcn: Pccters, 2003), 357-84. M Fabry, .. Die- Mcssiasc-rwnrtung." 368.-69. M Fabry. ..Die 1 \lessiascrwartung,'· 369·71. Fabry also tinds this understanding in 4Q49 t, 4Q47 lb. and 4Q427. ,_, F'abry. .. Die. Mc:s!)iasctwartung." 37 1-72. "' Fabry, .. Die-Mc.s siasc-rwartunu." 372-75. '~ Fabry. ·'Die Mc:ssiascrwartuni." 375-77. 00

82

CHAPTER THREE

expectation of David redivivus in the firs t century C.E. as -s een in I IQPs•." In addition to Stegemann and Fabry, numerous other scholars similar!)' have analyzed the development of messianic thought at Qumran.67 It is sufficient to note at this point, however. that Star<.~ky's examination established the precedent fo r subsequent Qumran S(~holars to address the messianic expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls as developing and morphing over the years. c-$pCcia l1y as the community adapted its expectation.~ in light o f changing historical c ircumstance-s. Though no one scholarly reconstruction of the details of development

pre-sently has emerged as the scholarly

con~cnsus.

nevertheless the

varying proposals serve as a reminder that messianic expecta tions were tluid and fa r from standardized in Second Temple Judaism-bo th a t Qumran a nd more broadly. Likewise, one <:-annot dismis-S the possibility that difl-Cring messianic expectations existed simultaneously in the community, as: John Collins notes:: 1'his is not to s ugge~~t that the.re was a requiremem of onhodoxy in the maner of messianism at Qumran. Individual authors or members of the community may have focused the.ir anemion on one messiah, or on noneat all. The authoritative rule books. however, which m·e surely our best guide to the ge.neral beliefs of the sect, reflect the expectation of both a royal messiah of Israel aJld a priestly messiah of Aaron.(·~

Similarly, Xeravits notes the divcrsit}' of 'positive eschato logical protagonists:• prc.~cnt in the Qumran litcmturc. whether in sectarian texts o r those !Tom wider Judaism, a nd concludes that even in the sectarian texts: one llnds " no indication that they considered any asp ects as an 'authoritative doctrine." '(.9 \Vith the recognition that much still remains to be understood about messianic thought a t Qumran, attention now turns to discussion o f those passages noted above as: evidence fo r the expectation a t Qumran of a mcs.s ianic priest.

(.!, The respecli\'e dcvelnpmenls an: addressed in Fabry, ··Die: Mc:·s siuscrwartung," 377-79; 379-8 t;and 381-82. ~;; Sec the survey of' previous proposals in Fabry. ··Die Mcssiasc:-rwnrtung." 360-65: Collins, Scepter, 71· 83. Ml Collins, Scepter. S-3. "' ,Xermons, . K mg. · p· ntua. Ph rop et. "-·-4.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

83

2. T HE M ESSI,\NIC PRIEST IN THE Q UMRAN TEXTS

2. l. Rule ofthe Communi~y and Damascus Document As implied above in th e survey ofSrarc ky's lheory, t he Rule of the Community and Damascus Document arc the twin epicenters of inlcrprctali()n of Qumran mcssia nism .70 Much of the d iscussion has focused on a few short phr.3SCS w ith a mb iguous grammar that arc altcma tc ly present or missing lfom extant manuscripts o f these two texts. Interpretat ions of the-se phr.lscs lie a t th e heart of scho larly arguments concerning both the number of messiahs expected by the Qumran community and the evolution of the ir messianic thought. Because the consequences o f the inte rpreta tion of ce rtain passages

from these two rule books arc so intertwined, it seems appropriate to address them toge ther.

The histories and contents of these two texts arc very well known among sc ho lars o f Second Te mp le Judaism, so brief introductory

comments will suffice. The fonncr, found in a

substa ntially~complctc

manuscript a mong the original Cave I scrolls (I QS, on a scr<>ll a lso i'O Discus.<>ions of both of these lc:xts a re complicatc:d by the presence of conflicting editions of each among the Qumran manuscripts and, in the case of the Damascu.~ Dtx.·umelll, from other earlier manuscript discm·crics. For overviews of the c ritica l is:;ues. see Michael A. Knibb, ''Rule of the Commun ity," EDSS 2:793-97, and Joseph M. Buumgarten, ''Damascus Document,·· EDSS I: 166-70. The- maj or manuscripts of these twu tcxL<> were publish(.-d in I heir t•diti<J princeps outside the DJD series. For IQS, SC.'e rvlillar Burrows, cd.. Tile Dead Se(J Scm/Is a.fSr. M a11d Trmrscrip1io11 o/ lhe Manual ol Discipline (New Hawn: American SchooL<> of O rie-ntal Research, 195 I) rplates a nd transcription onlyl: Jacob Licht, Tile Rule Scroll: A ScrtJJif mm lfut 1-Jfildi!rne<:s q(.!udaect- JQS, IQSo. JQSb: Te:rt. llllnJductiou tmd Ctmmtellltll)' (Jerusalem: Bia lik Institute-, 1957) ( Hebrcwl; and more recently Elisha Qimron and James H. Charlesworth, PTSDSSf> I. 1-5 I. T he lat1cr i nc1ud ~ the copies from Caves 4 and S. For the DJD cditjons o f these texts. sec the Cave 4 fragme-nts in P hilipS. Alexander and Gcza Verru ~. Qumran Cave 4. XIX. Serf!klr lut - Ytt~wd m1d TuY) Related Ti!xls (OJD XXVI; O:d i.1rd: Clarendon, 1998); and 5QJ I in Maurice Baillet, J6zcf T. Milik. and Roland de Vaux, Le.o: 'petites graues' de Qumni11 (OJDJ 111; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon. 1962). For CD . sec Solomon Schi!'C-hter, Docume11ts qf .Jewish Secw ries, V<,l. 1: Fragmems tJ/ a ZadtJkite Work (Cambridge: Cambridsc University f>rc:ss, 1910); more recently Magen Broshi. Tile DamlLw:us Dm:llllli!lll Rec01rsidered (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1992); and Joseph M. Baumgarten and Danie l R. Schwartz.. PTSDSSP 2, 11-51. T he DJDOOitions of the Cave 4 texts arc l(mnd in Joseph M . Baumgarten. Qummu Cave 4, A7/, The Damtu·cus Dot•mtu>JJI (4Q166-173) ( DJD XVHI; Oxford: Clarendon. 1996), an edition based on the transcriptions of Milik. Milik earlie.r had published 5Q12 in DJDJ Ill. and 6QI $ was published by Bail le-t in the same:: vo lume .

84

CHAPTER THREE

contammg lQSa and l QSb; sec further on thc.<e texts below), is popularly called the Manual of' Discipline but is more accurately titled the Rule of the Commrmily ('lr1':'1 )10) . This manuscript nonnally is dated to 100 -75 B.C.!!. Portions of this text were also preserved in ten fragmentary Cave 4 manuscripts (4Q255-264, ranging in date from the second half of the second century B.C. E. to the first half of the first century C.E.) and 5Qll. The language o f composition was Hebrew, and varia tions from the text of JQS among the Cave 4 witnesses indicate that the text has a history of redactions. It also is a composite text, as its eleven co lumns include sections on admission into the community, the c.o mmunity's dualistic belief's, rules fo r c.ommunity life, and a hymn of praisc.11 The latter, the Damascus Docume111, was known for several d(.."Cadcs prior to the disc<Wery of the Dead Sea Scro lls. Two medieval manusc.ripts o f this text were d iscovered among the Cairo gcniza scrolls, one (mss. A) a tenth-century c<>py with sixteen columns a nd the other (mss. B) a twelllh-ec.ntury manuscript with only two extant columns. These were published in 1910 by Solomon Schechte r as Fragmellls ofa Zndokite Work. Eight Qumran manuscripts of the work have been rt--tovercd fr inc.ludcs community mlcs, but it also addrc.~scs briefly the history of the community and includes numerous regulations that do not seem to address the all-male communal life typically proposed for the inhabitants of the Qumran sitc.n The most C<)mmon explanation fo r the existence of these two similar sectarian rules is that they addrc.o;scd two different types of Es,scnc commitments- the Damascus Document \vas intended to guide Esscncs living conventional family li ves in various villages of Israel, whereas the Rule of the Communlty was spccific.aJiy fo r those undertaking the rigorous demands of life at Qumran."

71

Knibb, ··Rule o f the Community," 2 :793-94. On the redactional history of the CSJ>C(:-ially Sarianna MeL<>o. Tire Texwal Derelopment of t}u• Qumran Cmmmmit)' Rule (STDJ 21; Ldde-n: Brill, 1997}: and PhilipS. Alexande-r, "'The R«Jaction-History ofScn-kh ha-Yal.1ad: A Proposal:· Re•Q t7 (1996}: 437-57. ·l Baumgarten. .. Damascus Document," I: 166-67. u Soe, for exumple, James VunderKam and Pete.r Flint. fl!e Meoui11g t?f the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significmwe fin· Uttder.otmrding the Bible. .Judai:ml, Jesus. mrd Christitmity (New York: Harper San Pmncisco, 2002). 2 15-18. h.'XI, sec:

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

85

2.1. 1. Rule ofthe Cmnmtmi~)' In I QS IX, II , three figures seem evident when the author mentions 7X11!1', Jn m! 'rT'IVO, X'~l . ' the prophet and the messiahs of Aaron and Israel.' Noth ing is said here ab~:>ut what these ligures will do, but the context c1carly seems eschatological~ the community members arc said to be obligatcd 10 the law and community rule until the arrival of these figures. However, this key phrase is omit1cd-along with scvcr.tl lines of its context- in 4Q259 (4QS"), a copy of this document dated on paleographical grounds to 50-25 B.C. E." The 19 lines of 4Q259 co l. Ill contain the equivalent of lQS VII I, 10-15 and IX, 12·20 but clearly lack the inte rvening materials of 1QS." (On the other hand, 4Q258 VI I much more closely parallels this section in 1QS.) As mentioned above, Starcky in large part based his theory that the Teacher of Righteousness lacked eschatological (and messianic) interests on the absence of this key phr.lse in 4Q259, which he deemed an older manuscript than I QS. He sum1iscd that a later scribe responsible for I QS incorpor.ltcd mention of the prophet and messiahs in response to the rise of the Hasmoncans to political and pric.~tly power.'• Schola rs today tend to rejec t Starcky's assertion that4Q259 is an o lder copy than I QS, but naturally the more important issue is which manuscript preserves the older version of the work. 'While rej ecting Starc.ky's relative dating of the manuscripts, Sarianna Mctso ncvcrthclcs.s mounts a complimentary cha11cngc to the priority of JQS. She argues that the original version of Rule of tlw Communlt}' is not preserved in an)' extant manuscript, but that 4Q259 a nd 4Q256, 258 represent two different revisions of the original edition. Though a 7

" O n the-dating, see- F'mnk Moore Cm!is, -Appe-ndix: Paleograrhical Dates o f the P.•lanuscripts," PTSDSSP 1. 51: ac-e-eptcd with nuance: by Alc:x.andcr and Vermes. DJD

XXVI. t33-34.

;$- This was not due, as earlie-r sugg~tt'd by some. to an incorrect j oin of two fmgmenl<>. lnstc.ad. the part of the manuscript in question is preserved in toto. James H. Charlesworth attributes the suggestion of an incorrect join to lawn.·nce St:hiOinan in James H. Charlesworth, · ·f rom ~'tcssianol ogy to Christolngy: Proble-ms and Pmspec.ts," in Tire Messiah: De.-e/opmems h1 Earlie:u Judai\·m and Chrislitmily (cd. J. H. Charlesworth: Minneapolis: Fortress. 1992), 3-35, t."$p. 26-27. but he n'lludiatcs the susgc:stion in James H. Charlesworth. ..Challenging the- c(}ll.'i{!IISU.'i Commmri.'> Regarding Qummn M~s i anism ( IQS, 4QS r-.·ISS).'. in Qumrau-Messiani.mt: Studie.<: 0 11 1l1e Me.\·simric Expectatimu in Jhe Dead Sea Scn,l/s (cd. J. H. Charlesworth. H. Lichtenberger, and Ci. S. Oegc:ma:Tlihinscn: Mohr Sicbeck. 1998), 120-34. c:sp. 123. 16 Starcky._ "Lc:s quartre elapes.." 482-92.

86

CHAPTER THREE

~ignificanlly older manu~cript than 4Q256 or 4Q258 (and perhaps

older than 4Q259), IQS reprc'Scnts a c<mfla tion of the d ivergent tr.Jjccto ric.•;: of those two revisions, both when it was composed and later again when corrections were added to IQS VII-VIII.'' Mctso mounts a significant argument that offers much to explain the redactional hi~tory o f the text. Prior to the publication of her thesis, mo~t rejected Starcky's p<1sition and remained convinced of the priority of I QS. Several ~cholars, including VandcrKam, Schiflinan, and Collins, argued that the. reading of I QS is to be pre ferred and attributed the omission of this key passage in 4Q259 to scribal enor." Though Philip Alexander remains unconvinccd, arguing that 4Q259 j
Xcr.Jvits.'''

What can be. stated with certainty in light of the fi nal fo m1 of I QS IX, II i~ that at some (perhaps relatively late) point in the community's history, its constitutional document expressed an expectation for three figures-an eschatological prophet, a priestly 'messiah of Aaron,' and a royal (presumably Davidic) ·messiah o f lsracl '-without defi ning their tasks.

n For a convenient summary of this pruposa1 in diagram fonn, see Mctso, Textutll Derelopmem. 147. 18 VandcrKam, ..Messianism." 213: Schiffman. ··rvlessianic Fisures." 120: and Collins, Scepter. 82· 83. ?9 A lexander, ..Redaction-History"; Charlesworth, ..Challengins the. CmtseustL~ Commtmis"; XcraviL-., King. Prie.tt, .41es:oittlt, 21).21 . Charlcswonh dcvdoped his th ~is independently of Me-L'>o: this chapter was derived from an earlier conference presentation and docs not refere-nce. Mel<>o's work. As noted by Charksworth elsewhere, howe-ver. Milik also had proposed that4Q2S9 was the-earliest copy o f the work and lacked the messianic mntcnal of JQS IX, I I . Milik 's comments were-spar.«:"-, howc.•.:cr, a nd appeared in a book review mther than an cditiun o f 4Q259. See JbzefT . f\•lilik, re\'icw of P. \Vernberg-f\•lullcr, The /1/mma/ <( Disctj>liiie Trtmslated tmd Amumm:d. with au lmmductitm. Rb 67 ( 1960): 41 I. Charlesworth disc.us. ;es this comment in .htntC";S H. Charl~worth . .. From Jewish Mc:s.<>ianolog)' to Christian Christology: Some Caveats and Pcrspt."i:lives,.. in Judai.\·nu <md Their Me.\·sialu·at the Tum <( 1fle Christian Era (ed. J. Ncusner, \V. S . Gn:cn, and E. Fre richs: C.ambridgc : Cambridge Univc:rsity Press. 1987). 225-64. csp. 2.32; and in his similarly-tilled articlefrom The Messiah, James H. Charlesworth, ..From Messianology to Christolugy," 26, n. 79.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

87

2.1.2. Damascus Document A phrase quite s imilar to 'the messiahs of Aaron and Israel' also appears in the text of the Dtmwscus Document. and once it appears in the context of a discussion of atoncmcnt.so The phrase is preserved four ti me,< in CD (slight varia tions in the phrase a rc underscored):

CD A XII, 23-XIII, I CO A XTV, 19 COB XIX, 10-11 CD B XX. I

7<11ZI'l P1"N MllZII:l 7N11ZI'l p -,.,N n('lZII:l 7N11ZI'l p-,.,N n•wo 7N11ZI'D1 Jl1eND ll'lZID

lntc mal variations aside (with n1U10 presumably a scribal error for M' tvi:)), these phrase~ fro m Damascus Document c hiefly d iffer !Tom that of I QS IX, I I in their usc o f the singular rl'UIO. In contrast, the plural •n•Uio appears in I QS. This has Jed to much d iscussion about whcth<•r the phmsc in CD should be read as denoting one messiah, as the grammar would seem to indicate. or two mcs,siahs as de manded by the plural •n•Uio in I QS." To complicate the issue further, proponents of both views can cite passages in CO-albeit from different manuscripts from the gcniza- that lend support to their di ffering inte r· prctations.s~

( it should be reiterated here that the. textual evidence for this discussion of the Damascus Document is that c.hic ny of the medieval Cairo gcniza scrolls. Jl()t the Qumran manuscripts. Of the four examples o f the phrase ?MiUI'l )li;'l!\ rl'UIO cited a bove, only that of C D XIV, 19 is also extant-albeit in reconstructed fom1s- in the Qumran fragments, a t 4Q266 I() i I 2 and 4Q269 I I i 2.") Those who argue that the tcnn refers to two messiahs usually cite the correspondence wilh the similar phrase in IQS. VandcrKam a rgues 110

The word n 1:Vi? appears twice in CD outside. of this phrase-If, 12 and V, 2 I .vJ.

1- but c.lcarly in reference to figures of the past. Sec Xernvits. King. Priest. Prophet,

36.

~~ Such discussion. of'cour.;c, presumes that messianic figur<.'(s)are in \•·icw in these passages a nd their contexts. Xcravits demurs: - Their only role is to mark the temporal delimitation of ce-rtain agt.-;s. Howe\'cr, none is 11 ·messianic passage' in the strict se-nse. T heir uim is not to s~lCak o f' posith•c eschatulogica1 protagonists; rather, they serve as

an auxiliary topk for the: be-tter understanding o f anothe-r. more: fundamental mcssusc: of the author... Sec-. Xc:ravits, King. Prie.{/, Pmplter, 31. R~ Vandc-rKam, "Messianism," 228-3 1; compare Abc:gs, ..r.,,.lc-ssiah at Qumran," 125-44. R~ Baumgarten, DJD XVIII. 72, 134. Se-c: DID XVHL 3· 5. for charL<> comparing_ the contents of the: Qumran Cave 4 frug_mcnts with the cont ent~ o f the Cuiru gcnizutcxls.

88

CHAPTER THREE

that even though n•wo in 7x11V'1 J1101X n•wo is in a singular construct form, the phra.<;c clearly refers to two different individuals. Othenvise ·Aaron, and • tsract• a rc redundant, because the former is certainly part of the latter. Also, a nalogous expressions that clearly refer to multiple

figures- despite having singular nouns in construct-can be cited elsewhere (Gcn 14: I 0; Judg 7 :25; I QM Ill , 13; V, I)."' Those who hold to the view that only one figure is intended propose significant countcr.irgumcnts. The fact that the term n~wo is singular each time the phr.:tsc 7R1Ut'1 }l1iiN n,tvl.) appears in Damascus Document would seem on the surface to be a strong point in their favo r, and admittedly 1!:>::>' in CD A XIV, 19 (sec further hclow) is a lso singular." (Alternately, 1!l::>' could be pual, rendering this passage useless fo r proponents of both intcrprc ta tions.11r' This would require the verb to be in a scpamtc phrase from 7x11V'1 ]11;";X n•wo and that the subject be OlU1, •their iniquity,' as read by Baumgarten an d Schwartz." ) Likewise, Abegg ar&'llcS that phrases with a singula r noun in construct followed by multiple absolutes take a plural meaning only when the word in <:.o nstruc t refe rs to body parts. As lbr ( icn 14:8·9, both internal evidence (plural verbs elsewhere in Lhc c.ontcxt) a nd

cxtcmal evidence (the MT appears defective because the Samaritan Pentateuch and anci(·.nt tr.inslations support the reading ' king of Sodom and king ofGomorrah') negate tha t possible parallel." Certainly one might question the appropria teness of a ppealing to IQS-itsclf a manuscript that may reflec t expansions of an earlier version of Rule of the Community--in orde r to settle disputes over a reading in the Damascus Document. It ultimate ly is more significant, therefore, that proponents of the bi furca ted interpretation can cite CD A VII, 9 -V IIl. I as furt her- and internal-evidence for the expectation

IU

VandcrKam . ..i\
1\,. See. for c:xample, Abegg, "Messiah at Qumran,"' 130. Unfonunately this word is not extant in the Q umran frasmcnts o f lhc Damtu·cus f)ocmm!llt. ~ L Ginzberg. An l.J~dwow11 .!ewi.,·IJ Sect (Moreshel Series 1; New York: Jewish Thcotog:it:-al Seminuty of American, 1976), 252-53. According lo VunderKum ("'Mpssianism, ·• 230, nJ3), Ginzberg earlier published lhis idea in 1914 and 1922. K• Baumgarten and &:.hwnrt:t.. PTSDSSP 2, 51. K!l Abegg. "Messiah at Qumrnn," 129-30. Zimmermann attempl'> to span the: c:ontrasting positions, c:onduding that two messiahs arc intended in the: phrase but that thesingular n•JVD may point to lhc: combination of both roles in one figure. Sec Zimmermann, Mes:oiani.w:he Ter:te, 45.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

89

of two messiahs c)Sc\vhcrc in the Damascus Document itsclf.ll'J The

passage, a complex midrashic discussion of (iod's eschatological judg ment o n the wicked, mentions both royal and p riestly tlgurc.s:"' o •w1 'nJJl ~'lVil~ f 1t\:1 n~ '7K 1pt1~ O' t!Rm>l ~.;~,, 1'\~:Jl:"l f1Dl'\

p

Vll, 9

ti' YiU' '1:J1:J :Jln:> 1~:\ 1:::11:'1 1'\l:J:J Oil' '111

< K'7> 11Z'X D"D' l':JN ll' :J '7;;1 1 .0V

'7ln 1''7¥

I0

l'\l:J' 1/'JK 1t:ll'\

II

'?X11U" ' ll:J ' ll:1 TID:l:J :111:1' '?:VI'J 0 ' 101\ 110 Ol 'D 'IX:J

I2

O'j7'7tn D:11 :J1n '7 l1J.D1!1 O'l10l;"l '?J'I ii"11:-J.. ~>'D 0'1.DK 11D

I3

o:J.J'?D n lJO nx •n •7l;,l 1DK 1t:l:.:J •'Oc:ut }Ul~ f'1K'7 1o'?1ll

14

mcm p 1VD1 ' '7:1KD OJ'1l~ ll'' mn

I5

l'?l)il

16

O'X' :Jl :"l '1DO 0 :'1 Q'>1J'7~01 Tl"J l < D'IJ'?li;J ' ~l"Jl> '?Oij)il < X'Wl> 10;'1

17

llJl O

1'1.0>1

tm ;or n.n;,

W l ('(ll

' 1 0'0

n'7DU:-J 111 IDlO nK ' lll 1J'j)il1 11JR 1U'K)

il1'1llil ::?111 l'\1>1 :JJ'aOll

O:'l"'l:J1 llK '7K11V'> 011:J 1t11\

I8

o:JJD c p, :zplr'1J 'JJ1:J 1i 1 :zmJ 1WIO pw~, K'JOI

19

1p1j7, , 10:n1 il13101 ~J ~~:Vl ~, il U::l:V;"J ~I\1:V'.O

20

1t:'?~ ;,~~ nt1 ' U ~:~ nx

21

Wti:Ctl

TlWK1>1 ;,,,poOl

YV:J

:J1n'? , , 'lO>l D' llOJ;Jl

VIII. 1

VII. 9.

Bullhose who reject «he commandment!> nnd the rule!> (shtlll perish). When God judged the land bcingins the just deserts of the wicked

10.

to

I I.

which say!>,· DtJ_ w: m·e coming llJNm you and upon }Y>IIr people cmd uplm J'OW' flu!Jer ':r lumse Jlutt

12.

ha~-e

them that is w hen the omclc otlhe prophet Isaiah son of Amozcamc true.

neWt' come before, .~iJwe tile depot•run qt'Ephraint jiYJm Judah' (Isa 7: 17), that is. when the two houses of Israel scp.
11'9 Portions of this Jl-ltssage arc-pn:scrvod in 4Q266 3 iii 18-22 and 4Q269 S 1-4. SceBaumgartc:n, DJD XVIII, 44, 128. Unlike the n'iV.O pas..;agc:s in CD noted a bove, XcraviL.; do<."S coa..,idcr this passasc to be- ·messianic. ' Sec Xc:-ra ..·its, King. Priesl. Pro,f,hel. 37. The CD manusc-ripls {rightly) have not been published in a DJD <.-clition. T hctranscrip.tion (hy Martin Abegg. Jr.) and translation (by Edward Cook) cited hen=: are those from Emanuel To"', l."d.. Tire Dead !;e(, Scmll.-t Elecmmit.· Ubrory, Revisnl Edition 2006 (CD-ROM ) ( Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Re fe rence Library; Lcidcn: Drill, 2006).

90

CHAPTER THREE

13.

Ephraim dcp.'lning from J udah. All who backslid were handed m·cr to the sword. bu t all who held (ast

14.

csct~pcd to the land of the north, wJc a.<>

15.

and 1/iefmmdcttitm of)'Om' images beyond 1he tt!Jlts of /)anuuc-us' (cf. Amos 5:26-17). wtc The books of Low nrc the 'wus of

16.

the king· (cf. Amos 5:26), as it says,'/ will I'N!t'e£'1 !lte.folleJJ umt q{Da·•rid' (cf. Amos 9: I I). wtc.~ 'Tire king· (cf. Amos 5:26) is

it says, · 1 u'illexile the fetUs ofyour kiiiJ;

< leader ~11'> the tmlion nnd the 1iml!d(ltitm t?(Wml' iiJI(Iges·

17.

(cf. .A.mos 5:26) is the books of the prophets

18..

whose words lsrocl dcsviscd. wl'c 'The sull'' (Amos 5:26) is the interpreter of the Ulw

19.

who comes to Damascus, as it is wriltcn. '.4 sutr ltas lttft Jacob. a swp'1u1.f l'i.~en

20.

from Loomer (N'um 24: 17). The Iauer is the leader of the whole nation; when he appears.. he will shal1er

2 1.

all chc sons of Sheth (Num 24:1 7). l 'hcy escaped in the first penod ofUod·s j ud~o.cmcnt.

VIII. I.

bl!1 those who held back were tumdc:d O\'C'r to the sword.

In the immediate context the autho r o f CD has been discussing th e commitment to the To rah required of those (presumab ly Es.'\cnes) who live in the land o f Israel among othe rs not so tommittcd. To d istinguish the fa te s o f these parties, he c ites Jsa 7 : 17 (CD A VII , J J. 12), which reca lls the hardships o f the period in which Israe l and Judah d ivided . Those devoted to the T<>rah arc said to have escape d ] 1!>~ f1 K7, ' to the land of the north,' prc.'\umably to Syria. Perhaps the author introduces this clement under the inOucncc ()f Jer 3 1:8, which pro phesies a future ac t o f gathe ring God 's remnant p:>:l f1 KI.l, ' !rom the land o f the north .' This poss ibility is especially a ppea ling beca use of the ' new covenant' overtones in both Jc r 31 a nd C D. Thus, for example, C D A VII I, 20-21 : 'This is the word that Je remiah spoke w Ba ruch son of Ncriah , and Elisha to Ochazi his serva nt. So it is with all the men who e nte red the new covenant in the land of Damascus.' The author then draws <m the reference to Syria and adapts a c itation from Amos 5:26-27 (in lines 14 - 15) that differs significantly fro m the MT.'" In Amos th is t()() (like the earlier c itat ion from Isa iah) ?I

Unfortunately this passage is not otherwise extant amons the Qumran Sc.rolls

(MT ~'J'f :"'~~ij~ ~~1$ ~D''i1::n. :l::{b D;1'??7¥ W'~ nt{l D?~~ nuQ n~ OJJX~il).

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

91

is a passage about hardships in a time of political upheaval, explicitly

linked here to idolatry. As noted by Baumgarten and Schwartz, however, the author of this sccli<m of CD ha~ recast the pas..')agc to speak of an exile to, not beyond., 'Damascus.' ~ As such., it is transfl)rmcd into a p()Sitivc reference from the perspective of the community. The m:>o and 11'' originally were references to the 9

Mesopotamian deities Sakkuth and Kaiwan; JOrg Jeremias notes that in

a later era "the Masoretes distorted the Assyrian-Babylonian divine names: with the. vowels: of .~iqqt'i.y, ~abomination. ,..,_, In CD, however. both m:>o and 11'' arc positi ve images. The reference to m:>o is read in light of God's promise to restore 'the fallen tent [!1:>10) of David' (Amos 9: II). This p<>ints to the reestablishment of the ' books of the Law.' The ' king' appears to be identi llcd with the ·assembly' ('mp) in line,, 16·1 7, though the Davidic parallel instituted by the !11:>0/T\:>10 correlation and the later identi fication in lines 19· 20 of the 'staff' (of Num 24:17) with ' the leader (or prince, K'llll ) of the whole nation [;'11Yii ?:>]' tempts: one to seck a more messianic interpretation in lines 16- 17 beyond its prima./l1cie reading.~ This introduction of Num 24: 17 into the midrash is facilitated by appeal to ::!:>1:> in Amos 5:26, despite the lact that this part of the verse had not earlier been included in the quotation of lines 14· 15." Before this, however, P':J is recast as a reference to 'the books of the prophets' (line 17). TI1is further appe-al to Amos 5:26 then allows for an explication of two figures from Num 24: 17. The aforementioned ' staff' will emerge from and lead the nation. This leader explicitly comes 'from' or 'out or Israel ('7!>1lli'O) and so arises is a royal figure, perhaps even Davidic.';r. As such, perhaps one need not then be so concerned about finding a leader-as opposed ttl the people themsclvc,,-already in line 17. More important for this investigation. however, is Lhc •.star/ who is identified as is Lhc interpreter of the La\v- rcllccting a traditional priestly function-relocated fi·om •Jacob' to Damascus (lines 18·20) .

.,.· Baumgarten and &:.hwnrt:t.. PTSDSSP 2, 27. ..,,. JOrs Jeremias. Tl1e Book of Amos (lruns. D. W. Stott: OTL; Louisville: \Vesl minster John Knox, 1998), 98. OJJ Cook. f<>r example, inserts 'leader of' into his translation in line 17. '» Xeravits u.<>sumes the phrase including :J:J1J did appear in the- original \'Crsion (){ this midmsh. See Xeravits, Kiug. Prie.,·t. Pmplret, 45. '.It> Cf. VanderKam, ..rvlessianism;· 229. 4

92

CHAPTER THREE

Though gr.lmmati<,ally it is possible t<> interpret the Hebrew participle R:li1 in line 19 to mean this figure had come in the past, a future interpretation is equally pos. gcniza. Manuscript B has instead a very differen t midrash in C D B XIX, 5·14 that need not be addressed in d eta il here beyond the following observations. The argument there uses entirely d i ffcrcnt verses than those utilized in CD A VII , 9-VII I, I , instead discus.sing Zcch 13:7 and Ezek 9:4. The midrash is significantly shorter than that in CD A, a nd the point is that the '7Ki ill'1 )11;'1N n 'VlO will save the righteous but bring judgment on the wicked. Here a martia l task for the 1 gure(s) is implied, something that has minimal relationship to a priestly ro le; yet, even if only one ligurc is anticipated, as ·messiah of Aaron and Israel' the terminology requires that he be a priest. As would be expected, schola rly debate about how to understand the origins of these alternate midrdshic sections has been vigor<)us; proposals inc.ludc redactions due to changing mcs,sianic views in the community and various sorts ofhaplography.1110 Rcgardlc..~s of whether the midrash of C D A was an original clement o f the Damascus Docwnenl, it is documented in the Cave 4 fragments

91 Xc:mvits, Ki11g. Priest, Prophet. 45-46. ,,~ T he recon.<>truction is that of Abegg and is ver~· similar lo thos~: offe-red by Broshi. Damascu.s Documem. 37: and Garcia Martinez and Tigchclaar. DSSSE I:574. Baumsarten and Schwartz ( PTSDSSP 2. 57) do not se-ck to reconstruct the mis.
MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

93

(unlike the alternati ve midrash of CD B).'"' But because one may not know at what point the midrash of CD A appeared in the redactional history of the Damascus Documeni, one cannot state with complete .. was also confidence th:n irs expectation of two mc$Sianic ligun"S reflected in the phrase '?x1lV'1 j11:'1M n•lVO when it appcan; in other sections of the text. On the other hand, if the CD A midmsh was a later addition to the text, it may be significant that its redactor felt no compulsion to modify the phr.!sc '?x1lV'1 j11:'11' n'lVO to bring the rest of the document into harmony with its bifurcated mt~'isianism. Furthermore, VanderKam noted the redundancy of the disputed phrase if only one figure is expected, and one should yet again be reminded that a S<)Jitary messiah in CD would by nc<•cssity be a prie-st since he would be •of Aaron.' Since ah~o the contexts in which the phrase

appears normally concern teat.hing or keeping the Jaw, this further implies at a minimum the expectation of a messiah priest.

2.2. Rule oft!Je Congregation This text is preserved in only the two lacunacefillcd columns of

I QSa (I Q28), in the same scribal hand as I QS and following that important text on the same scroll. 10~ As such, the copy is dated on paleographical grounds, like JQS, to 100-75 B.C .E. Also, Stephen Pfann has identified several lragmcnts from Cave 4 (4Q249' ·') as 4Qpap crypt.'\ Screkh ha-' Edah'''. As indic.atcd by the sigla, these arc pap)'llls mam.scripts written in a cryptic alphabet. They arc very poorly preserved, but Prann has identified all but two of the 23 fragments with a parallel in the two columns of JQSa and dates them to the second century B.C.E. 10) Others arc less convinced of these idcntif)'· cations. 11~-t Dating the composition of Rule qf the Congregation is 101

Xcravits. King. Prie:u, Pmphet. 4 I. Major editions o f IQS.a inc-lude D. BarthCic-m)'• DJD J, 107-18 and pis. XXlliXXTV: Licht, Rule Scroll; and James H. Chark"Swol1h and loren T. Stu<:kcnbruck, PTSDSSP I. 108-J7. Sec also the short monograph on the book, l.uwrc.·ncc H. Sc hiffman. The Escllawlogical ConummitJ' of 1/te Dead Sea Scm/l~ : A Stud,v qf tile Rl,feofrlre Congregation (SBLMS 38: Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1989). 100 Stc:phen J. Pfann, DJD XXXVI. SIS-72. l(l.l So Xem,.its, who states that the-poor slate ofprescrv.atinn n.-quires demands that Pfann's identificat ions "must remain hypothetical.'' See Xcr.avils. Ki11g. Priest, Prophet. 22-23. 101

94

CHAPTER THREE

difficult; it clearly is sectarian, and the text app<'ilrs to be a composite work. Xcravits asserts a date in the scc.ond century B.C.E., while

Charlc.o;worth and Stuckcnbruck more cautiously state ..sometime before 75 B.C.E."'"' Despite the fact that the major extant witness to the text was appended by the scribe to IQS, Rule of the Congregation is a text distinct from Rule of the Community. Nevertheless, Rule o( the Congregatio n docs have conceptual afllnitics both with it and the War Scroll. The latter, as will be discussed more fully below, dc.'>Cribcs the great cschatologicnl battle expt.-.:tcd by the Qumran community, and pre-sumably the Rule of the Congregation describes community life lhcr<.."aficr. Lav.rrcncc Schiffman SC<..'S such a C<mncction and writes further on the relationship between the rules of I QSa and I QS:

When read in com,)arison with the Rule of the Community ( JQS). il becomes clear that Lhc Rule of the Congregation present~; a messianic mirror image of the. life of the sectarians in the present, premessianic age. Once can conclude that life. in the present sectarian community is seen as an enactment o f what will be the order of the- day at the End of Days. At the same time, the life of the eschatological community reflects a transtOnnalion of the present orde.r into the life of the-End ofDays. 111(,

Othc.rs find even closer connections in some passagc:S with the Dama.w:us Document, which includes directives for Esscncs engaged in nonnal family relations outside of Qumran, because Rule of the Congregation assumes women and children will be included in the cschatologit"ll assembly.'" The text opens with notice of an assembly 'in the end of days' at which numerous rcbrulat-ions arc enumerated, classilicd by Charlesworth and Stuckcnbruek as "stages of life" ( IQSa I, 6-18) and "disqualifications" (I QSa I, 19-22). Comments o n duties of the Levites ( IQSa I, 22·25), consecration lbr the assembly ( IQSa I, 25-27), and who may (I QSa I, 27· 11, 3) or may not participate ( I QSa II, 3· 10) then follow. Most s ignificant for the present study, however. is I QSa Ll , I I· 22, which concludes the tc.xt. The scene is of a banquet at the time when God has provided the ?:li UI' n•Uio ('messiah of Israel'), clearly I N Xeravils, King. Prie:;t, Pmphcu, 23; Charlcswu11h and Sluck<.•nbruck, PTSDSSP l ' t 08. 1 ~ Lawrence S<:himuun, ··Rule of the Congregation," £DSS2:191-99. esp. 797. 100 Charlesworth and Stuckenbruck, PTSDSSP I, 109, p;u1it-ularly in light of IQSa

l, 4.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

95

a lay figure and presumably militaristic.""' The ' chief priest of lhc congregation ' is never called a ·messiah, • but he takes prcc<..'dcncc over the 'messiah o f Israel ' in two ways.'"' The high priest, o ther priest~, and fi nally the 'men of renown' all take their p laces in the banquet hall before the mc$Sia h of Israel and other military chief..;; enter. Aficr pronouncing the. blessing on the bread and wine, the priest is the fi rst to take the bread, followed by the mc.«ia h; both then b less the membe rs of the co ngregation. The. eschato logical setting and the pric.~t 's prefe rential status over the mc..:;siah o f lsr.tcl have prompted many interpreters to infer that this priest is also a ·messianic' figure. Admittedly the text suffers from unfortunate lacunae in p laces that might have included more infonnation about this priest, but as the text sta nds he is never cxp1icitly idcntilicd as a mt.\SSianic figure, nor docs an}•thing in the context indisputab ly po int to this. 1111 The priest's activities in the text arc limited to prc.e mincnt standing and leadership in the messianic banquet.

2.3. Rule of the Blessings

The nomenclature for this text, IQSb ( IQ28b), ind ic.atcs that it wo is preserved on the same scroll as IQS and IQSa."' The extant text includes much of five co lumns of 28 lines each, though much of the middle portion of each column has not survived. While IQ S is preserved almost co mpletely, it was on the interior of the scroll; IQSb was on the outside an d suffered much more deterioration.*'!-

I(J.t Much debate concerns the \ 'C-rb dc notins God's action vis-il-vis this ·messiah' at the end o f I QSa 11, 11. Barthelemy read 1•'11-• in the. tnm...;cription o f the-text (DJD I. 110}, a reading supported by Xeravits because of the biblical precedent of God 'begetting' the king of Isra el in Ps 2:2 (King. Priest. Prophet. 26-2:7}. In his notes on the line. howevt"r, BarthCiem)' accepted an emendation (which he c redited to Jc'>zef Milik) to 1•'11 ~ and thus the idea !hat God ·will bring' tht' m<.""Ssiah {OJD I. 117). This cmt:"ndation we~s a lso accepted by Charle.-;worth and Stuckc:nbrud: in the ir r<:ccnt

cditinn (PTSDSSP I, 109, 116-17). 109 Absence of the tenn ·messiah' f<>r the priest is emphasized in Schifl'man, ··('.·lessianic Pisore-s and ld<:as,'' 12: L 110 Vande rKam, ··t-.·lessianism," 223-2:4. 111 Maj or edilions of iQSb include Milik. DJD I. 118-30 and pl. XXV-XXIX; Brookt', DJD XXVI. 22:7-33 a nd pl. XXlV: Licht_ Rule Scroll. 273-89: and Charlesworth and S luc:.kcnbru<:k. PTSDSSP I, 119-13 1. II! Milik. DJD I, 119.

96

CHAPTER THREE

The text is marked by a series of blessings pronounc.c d on various gr<)ups o r figure.~. though multiple proposals fo r the identity of those addrc,s:scd have been offered. \Vhilc the text seems to discus..~ a messia nic priest, its fragmentary condition allows for even less certainty than is possible for JQSa. Infused with the la nguage of the pric.~tly blc.~sing of Num 6:24-25, JQSb C
blessing on members of the. Qumran community blessing on the high priest blessing on the Zadokite priesthood blessing on the Prince of lhe Congregation• •~

In spite of the absence of any surviving text fo r I, 11-25, Milik asserted that a blessing on the high priest began in I, 21 primarily because of a marginal notati<)n that survived to the lett o f JQSa JJ , the column that would have preceded I QSb I on a scroll that began with I QS. Mi lik intc.rpretcd this as a paragraph marker indicating the beginning of a new blessing."' Citi ng language in co l. Ill which he felt could not describe mo rtal priests, he reasoned that this text was consistent with other texts (including JQS, JQSa, JQM, 4QJ75, and C D) in presenting a n eschato logical high priest who would function a longside a 'messiah of Israel' figure~ here idcnti licd a.'i the Princc. 116 Licht proposed a d ifferent reading of the text, charging that Milik's reconstruction of the b lessing on the cschato logic.al high priest was too llJ Martin G. Abegg. Jr., notes that (\•lilik's outline. has been fo llowed by Jt."all Cunnignac. Gcza Vcrnt<."-S. and Michal.'! \Vise. See Abegg. '"' IQSb und the Elusive High Pricsl," in Emmwel: Smdies in f.Jebre,,· Bible. SeptJUigim. and Dead Sen Scroll.-. ;,, f./onor of Emanuel Tm• (eds. S. r-.•1. Paul. R. A. Krafi. L H. Schiffman. and \V. \V. Fields; leidcn: Brill. 2003), 3-1 6. c:q>. 3. IIJ Milik DJD I, 120-29. Pre;umnbly the blc:ssing on the- Prince continued in col. VI. Several other small fragments of the- doc.umenl were rccovt.•red bul were nut in"'m'orated into the exlant t."
MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

97

long and out of place. Licht proposed that the blessing on an cschato logit.al high priest instead appeared at the beginning o f col. IV, not in co l. I, and he argued that this placement immediately be lore the blessing on the Prince was more consistent with other Qumran texts that present the two messianic figures as a pair:111 I, 1-9 n, 22-2s Ill l-6 Ill,' 22-28

IV, 22-28 V, 18-19 V, 20-29

blessing of the f..1ithfUI blessing of a n unidentified group blessing of an o fficiaJ or group of importance blessing of an unide.ntified group blessing of the high priest unidentitied blessing of the Prince of the Congregation 11J

Ovcr.!ll Licht's reconstructions were more cautious than those of Milik. Phrases in IV, 24-25 , such as 11.11 1i' p liO:! O'l!l;'l 1XW::> ;'1nK1 ('but you arc like the angel of the pre-sence in an abode of holiness'), lend strong support 10 his prOp
111,22-IV, 19 IV,20-V, 19 V. 20-VI, 20?

blessing on the t1tithful blessing on an unide.nrHied group Ol' individual blessing on an unidentified group or individual blessing on the Zadokite ~,riests blessing on the high priest blessing on the Prince of lhe Congregadon 110

Abcgg finds three major phrases in IV, 20-V, 19 that validate his theory that a blessing on the eschato logk"ll high priest st()()d here. The phrase from IV, 24-25 cited above is significant because the llgurc blessed here is described as an •angel of the presence; not s imply as being with the angels as the <:.ommunity as a who le is described in IQH' XIV, 13. Also, in IQSb IV, 23, one finds the phrase 0 '1!111i' 11.111:1 nNI!I'n, which Abcgg translates as ' to place [you] at the head of the Holy One.~ .' The ' ho i)' ones' arc the angels; their leader 111

Licht, R11le Scroll. 213-89.

m Lic.ht Rule St•m/1, 277·89. fo llowing he-re the tmnslation of Wayne Baxter, .. !QSB: O ld D i vi~i ons Made New," RevQ21 (2004): 6 15·29, c:sp. 617. Note that Licht (unlike Milik) did not attempt to d a..'>sify the missing lines of the text l ichl's outlinc:gtnc:mlly is IOIIowc:d by Schiffman. Esclwlolr)gictt! Comnumily, 12· 16: and Charlesworth and Stuckcnbrud, PTSDSSP 1, 119. 11 ~ Van
98

CHAPTER THREE

here must be the high priest because ear lier the Zadokitc priests as a gr<)up a rc b lessed by being C'i!/11 v lln:J (' in the midst of the holy ones'; Ill , 25). Finally, in IV, 25-26 the llgurc is said w serve in the n1J?I.l 7J ' :-1 ('temple of the kingdom') w ith the a ngels.'" Abcgg, following Licht, concludes that these blessings would have been pronounced annually at Qumran's covenant renewal ceremony .11! As for the identity of the messianic priest, Abcgg sum1iscs that he would be whichever human priest happened to be serving as high priest at the time of the Prince's appearance. m All (>f these readings have been recently criticized by Wayne Baxter, who allows only fo r blessing.'> of the three types listed above: I, l·lll, 21 Ill. 22.V, 19 V, 20ft~

blessing on the t3ithful blessing on the Zadokile. priesthOl)d blessing on the royal messiah1u

Baxter takt'S his c.uc.~ for the divisions chiefly from the introductory fo rmula that appears at the beginning of each of his three sections (n N 1i:J'7 7'J i!ll.l7 0 Ji:J ' i:J1) .'" More importa ntly, however, he finds a particular fonn of blessing in each section, each derived from a particular biblical text: Num 6:24-26 in the firs t; Deut 33:8- 11 in the scc<md (with Num 25:7- 13); and lsa 11 :2-5 in rhe third.'* This is key for Baxter; he is most C<mcc.mcd with the second section, and usc there of bib lical blessings fo r the priesthood indicate-'> that the pric.~thMd also is in view in this portion of IQSb. This in tum is important because it disallows the idea that a mes.~ianit high priest is being blessed."' Wher eas, for example, Abcgg found a blessing on th is figure in IV, 20-V, 19 (but considered him to be a mortal high priest o f the (·.ommunity), Baxter considers scpamtc blessings on the prie~~ts collectively and on the higb priest individually to be redundant. "" A greater conccm, though, is his rcjt"Ction of the idea that the two 1

~ Ahegg... JQSb," I J.

•- A beg" ·· 1QSb... 12- 14. In c<)ntrast. Bilha Nitt.an proposes an eschatological setting for the btcssing._-. because no com:sponding c.urscs are mentioned; the prt.-sence. of the 'Prince of the Congn.·gation• would also imply such a seuing.. Sec Nitzan, ..Blessings and Curse.);.:· EDSS 1.95-100, esp. 99. I ll Abcgg... 1QSb," IS. 124 Baxter, ··tQSB: Old Divisions Made New.·· 618. I !S The initial two words of the fbrmula are omitted in V, 20. 126 Baxter. ··tQSB: 01d Divisions f\•lade New." 618-20. m Baxter. ··tQSB: Old Oi\'isions Made New," 620, 625-28. 123 Baxk r, ··tQSB: Old Divisions Mude.New." 625.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

99

messiahs o f I QS and I QSa must also be found in this text, especially since tenninology for the supposed figures varic~ s ignificantly among these three tcxts. 1 1~ In the end, though, Abcgg's n:ading (following Licht) of IQSb IV 20-V ~ 19 is persuasive, and Baxter's suffers due to his overconfidence in the idea that all of the division markers in the text have survived. The terms ' high priest' and 'messiah' arc not extant and much of the context is missing, yet the language seems best directed to an individua1 ligurc, not the entire priesthood~ and seems to indicate a high priest who leads the angelic temp le worship. As such, it implies cultic worship in the very presence of God, i.e. in a heavenly context, at the time when God has sent the Prince and the distinction be tween earthly and heavenly worship has been obliterated. Cc.rtainly caution must be exercised, but the pairing of the pricstl}' and royal messianic figures: matc.hcs the d iarchy evidenced in scvcr.il other Qumran texts. Though such language is not extant, one might with only a little imagination propose (especially in light of C D A XIV, 19) that the author of lQSb conceived of a high priest who would make an esc hato logical sac.ri flee of a tonement in the heavenly temple. That, though, is only an assumption o f what might have a ppeared in the lost line.<, and ultimately little can be c<meluded for this study on the ba~is of IQSb.

2.4. War Scroll

This text, published by the first editor of its major manuscript as The War ofthe Sons ofLight with the Sons of Dtwkness, is r<'prcscntcd in IQM (=IQ33), 4Q49 1-96, and perhaps in 4Q285 and I IQJ4.'"' Text 1

~ Baxter. ··tQSB: Old Divisions Made New," 625.:~6. first publication o f JQM (brief introduction. transcription, and photogmphs) was the posthumous edit ion of E. L S uke-nik, ed., Tlu' Dead Setl &mils ofllli! llebrew U~riversity (Jeru.-<>alcm: Magnes. 1955 rHcbrew 19541), 35-36, pl. 16-34. S ubsequent maj or editions of' I Q.\4 indude Yigad Yudin, Tlte Scroll
V-Vll. X, XII, XIV, XVI, XVIII, and XXIV;and J. Duhaime, PTSDSSP 2. 142-97. In addition. see 4Q497, ealled a ·' War Scroll-Like Fragment," i n J. Duhaime:, PTSDSSP 2, 198-203. For 4Q2SS. sec P. Alexander and G. Vermes, DJD XXXVI, 228-46 and pis. Xli-XIV. For 110 14. see F. Garc.fa 1\,fart inez. E. Tisehclaar, and A. S. van der \Voudc. DJD XXIII. 243-SI and pl. XXVIII.

100

CHAPTER THREE

from 20 columns is relatively well preserved in IQM, a manuscript dated w the Iauer decade-~ o f the fi rst century B.C.E.'" The Cave 4 materials arc much more fragmentary and range in date from the fina half of the fir~t century B.C. E. (4Q493) to the early first century C. E. (4Q494). The fragments of 4Q496 arc of papyrus rather than skin. Some divergences in the Cave 4 fragmcnl• from the extant text of I QM imply a history o f literary development for the work, and 4Q497 may include fr.lgmcnts of a related but di ffcrcnt work lr om I QM."' Scholars remain divided between proposals for dating the text tO the second or firs t century B.C. E., but fi nal redaction before 150- )()() B.C. E. is unlikely because of the tcxfs dependence on Daniel and Jubi/ees.m As the title implies, the text concerns the eschatolog ical war between the 'sons of light' and ' sons o f darkness,' rcspcclivcly Jed by the 'Prince
These shall take their station at the holocausts and at the sacritices to p1-epare a soothing incense tOr the good pleasure of God. to atone. ['10::>'?] on behalf of all his congregation and to grow fat before him steadily at the. table of gl01y. t hey shall arrange all these during the appointed time of the year of remission [:tl:lDlV:t 11llll 1YlDJ). (I QM II , 5-6, f>TSDSSI') The high priest, then, appears to lead a temple ~crvice in a n esc hato logical sabba tical year.'" This is reminiscent of Mclchizedck's role in I JQMclchizcdc k (a text discus.~cd in much detail in the following c hapter of this study), thoug h there Mclchizedek is a

Duhaime, PTSDSSP 2. 80. u.1 These. issues arc su.....·eyed in Duhaime, PTSDSSP 2, 80-83. Soe-espe<:i-alty lhcchal1 of correspondcm:es un 82-83. For a summary of discussion uf re<.·c.'flsions of the text, sec-Philip R. Davi ~, ··War o f the Sons of Light Against the-Son.<> uf Darkness," EDSS 2:965-968, csp. 2:965-66. Davies cunsidcrs the redaction.<: so signifk-ant that he restricts usc of the term · War Rule' to IQM (2:966). UJ Xcr.tvits, King. Prie.~l. PJY)p/tet, 15-17. ,_,~.~ The sabbatical year is a iiUl)ltr.1 rmv in Deut I5: I; 31: I0: etc:. ut

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 10 1

heaven])• figure ('Ombining the priestly and militaristic roles (which clearly arc distinguished in JQM) in an eschatological Jubilee year. The high priest participates in the cschatol<)gical war in numerous other ways, someti mes in the company of other pric...:;ts and Lcvilcs. As in Dcut 20:2-5, the high priest (F11"'1) exhorts and encourages the warriors with promises of God's presence with them ( IQM X, 2-5). Explicit mention of the high priest almost certainly has been lost in the lacunae at the end of IQM XII , because one finds in IQM Xlll, 1-6 that 'his brothers . .. with him' (17.lll .. . l 'nln), the priests, Lcvitc.s, and elders, pronounce bk.-ssings on God and the righteous, and curses on Belial and his Jot; this is followed by a pr~ycr of thanksgiving and deliverance (XLII, 7-18 extant, perhaps through XIV, 1).'" Included here is an explicit thanksgiving for God,s provision of'thc c.ommander of light' (111l7.l 1tll; XIII , I 0), the leader of God's forces, i.e., the Prince. ln XV, 4-XVI, I the high priest again speaks, this time reading a prayer as he walks among the warriors and reiterating the themes of cncour.Jgcmcnt and the certainty of the dc.struction of the wicked. Even more striking is XVI, 13-XVII, 9; al1er the trumpeting priests have signaled a retreat, the high priest goes to the front of the line again to cncour.Jgc the warriors, this time drawing heavily on biblical imagery of God's wrath on the wicked, his miraculous provisions for Israel in battle, and the rcassumnec of angelic help in the battle. Finally, in IQM XVII I, 5-XIX, 8(?) the high priest, priests, and Levites bless God and utter a pr.lycr of thanksgiving as the conclusion of the battle- and thus the realization of 'everlasting re-demption' (O'Il'nll n11!l: XVIU, I I}-draws ncar. This text is also striking for two things it docs not say about the high priest in IQM XL Numbers 24:17- 19, whose ' star' was understood in CD A VII as the mc.~sianic priest, is cited in IQM XI , 6-7 but with no clab~:>ration on the identity of any ligures. Instead, the emphasis is on God's deliverance. This usc of Num 24:17- 19 is nevertheless significant; its usc here, in CD VII, and 4Q175 all testify to its eschatologit.al interpretation.'" Similarly, in IQM XI, 7 mention

IJ$ An ulmos1 idcn1icat phrase is preserved in I Q~I XV, 4; 1he leading figure is lhe1DN"lo1 Jiil-j. Com_r.are also lQf\•1 XVJII. S 8. I J6 Xeravils, J\ing. Prie."'· Prophet, 18. 4

4

I 02

CHAPTER THREE

is made of ;"l::l'n"lVO, 'your anointed one.~; but this clearly refers w pr<)phcts in the Hebrew Bible. Finally, another pas..o;agc in the War Scroll may contain words of the

high pri(."St, but the poor state of

pre~~crvation

of the text makes

confident identification of the speaker impossible. In 4Q49 1 II I, 8- 19, the speaker boastlully dc.'>Cribcs his exalted state; he declares, among other things, ' I reckon myself among the divine beings (c>?x], and my place ( is) in the ho ly congregation' (line 14; PTSDSSP) and that he a lone has ·a powerful throne in the congregation of the d ivine beings' (line 12; PTSDSSP). Baillet, the DJD editor of the text, considered the speake r to be the arc hangel M ichael, but Morton Smith argued tha t the speake r is a human who claims to have been exalted into heaven. Collins proposes that the speaker is the cschawlogical high priest but that this saying, pa ralleled in 4Q471b and 4Q427, was interpolated into the JVar Scroll.m t\·tartin Abegg denies that th is pas,sagc is even part o f the War Scroll fo r paleographical, orthographical, and literary reasons, and he instead associates it w ith the Hodayot.u~< Finally, lsmcl Knohl proposed that the speaker is the failed messianic figure Mcnahcm, an Esscnc acquaintance of Herod the Great according to Josephus (A111. 15.372-79); he further propose.' that this Me nahcm was the role model for Jesus• la ter messianic scJf.. consciousncss.u9 Needless to say. few have ro llowcd this: intcrpretation. 140 As noted above, evaluation of this passage is d ifficult because o f the poor preservation o f 4Q491. If one could confidently conclude Lhat the declaration was a secondary insertion in the War Scroll, one would be inclined to follow Collins ' suggestion that the redactor intended to prc..~ent these as the words of the high priest bccatLt;;e of the context into which the passage was inserted. The high priest certainly is presented 1J1 Sec M. Baillct, DJD Vlf, 26-30: !\•Ionon Smith, ..Ascent to the- Heave-ns and Dcilication in 4QM11,'' in Archaeology tmd 1/i.\wu-y in llll! Dead Sea Scmlls (ed. L. Schiffman: Shcnic1d: JSO'f. 1990}, 18 1-88: und Collins, Scepter. 136-53, csp. 138. t 48-49. I.>& Previous scholars had noliced similarili<:-s bclween this saying and the: hymns but nC-\'<:rthdcss understood it a<> part o f I he Wttr Scroll. S<."C i\·fartin G. Abegg, Jr.. .. Who Asccndcd to Heaven? 4Q49 1. 4()427. and the Teacher o f Rightcousnc:-.ss:· in E.tcltawlogy. Me:tsitmism. mrd the Dead Sea Scrolls (<Xis. C. A. Bvans and P. W. FJint: SDSSRL 1~Grund Rapids: Eerdmans. 1997), 6 1-73. U 't See lssael Knohl, 11w Me.\·.tiah Beft>re Jesus: Tlte St(/foring Se1wmt q( tire Dead Sell &:mil-. (Bc:rkdey: Uni•oersity uf Culifornia Pres.<;, 2000). csp. S 1-71. l.tO For <:riliqucs of this a nd a similar aucmpt by {\1lichad Wise to lind a failed messianic figure in the Qumnm lexL<>, sec VandcrKam and Flinl, Meaui~rg. 268-12.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 103

as speaking in the first person on several occasi<ms in the JYar Scroll, though in such cases. as noted above, his purpose is exhorting the troops, not boasting of his own status. Indeed, the a rrogant tone of the exaltation saying clashc.~ with that of the high priest's words elsewhere in the tcxt1 and one wonders why a high priest would boast of receiving a throne. In the end, too liulc can be confidently asserted about th is pas.sagc to allow one to draw on it for infonnat ion about the esc hato logical pric.st. In summary: though never c.alled n•wo in IQM, the. high priest has liturgic.al rcsponsibilitk--s, including making atonement, and plays a signi licant role in the Princc•s eschatological war. His purity require· mcnts preve nt him from taking a combat role, yet the high priest nevertheless has the crucial responsibi lity (>f rallying the troops with prayers, blessings, and c.xhortations, often d rawing on war materials fro m Seripturc.141 Even the courses of the battle arc dictated by the trumpet blasts ()(the priests o f whom he has (>vc rsight. Amazing ly, more is said explicitly a bout the role of the high priest in this baulc than is said about the role of the Prince. Sinec the outcome of this war has already been dctcnnined by God, one might perceive tha t the high prit-st is its rc.al leader. The Prince has an important role to play because it cannot begin until he arrives. but it is the priest who has ultimate oversight o f the trO<>ps.

2 .5. Florilegium (4Q174) and Catena" (4Q 177) Most commonly called 4QF1orilcg ium, 4Q 174 is sometimes also classi ticd as an 'eschatological midrash,' an a ppellation introduced by its original editor, John Allcgro.w The poorly· prcscrvcd text is a 11 "'

In JQM IX 7·9. priest.; blowing trumpets to signal various phases o f the battle are suid to avoid the corpses of the-slain so a..; not to ·profane the. oil o f lhcir priestly anointins rcnl\,, nn'W.tl F~lVl through the blood of nations of vanity' (lines 8·9; PTSDSSP translation). 1 1 "' T he editit' prim:eps is that o f John M. Alleb•ro in DJDJ V. 53. 57 and pis. XIX· XX. He: used the term ·esc-hatological midras.h' in an earlier publicati(m. John M. Allegro. .. Pmgme-nts of a Qumran Scmll of EschntologiL'al ,t.{idra.iim." J8L 17 ( 1958): 350· 54. Alleb'T()s edition has been much crilicized. especi-ally in John Strugnell . ..Notes c:.n mu.rye du volume V des ·Discoveries in the Judacan Oc:set1 of Jordan."' Re\'Q 1 ( 1969·70): 163· 276 and pis. I-VI, <:-lo-p. 220-25. A new DJD edition uflhc text is in preparntion. The tc.xt was edited in the Princeton edition by Jacob Milgrom. PTSDSSP 6b. 248-263. Major monographs on the text include George J. Brooke--,

I 04

CHAPTER THREE

thematic midrash inco rpo rating numero us passages o f Scripture, including materials from Dcut 33; 2 Sam 7; and Pss 1, 2, and 5. lt is reprcsentc'
century B.C.B. !.o Because of the poor state of preservation, most editors have been content to transcribe and translate the materials on the several fragments; Stcudcl, however. has proposed the rcconstn iCt ion o f six columns, inc orporat-i ng a ll b ut eight small lfagmcnts.•~.s Similarly, 4Ql 77 (4Q Catena' ) is prcservc.d in 34 fragments dating from the second half of the first century B.C.B.'" Of these, 20 were incorporated by Stcudcl intO an arrangement of five co lumns.'"' The poor condition of the manuscript makes comprehension di ffic.u lt~ bul numerous passages from Psalms and the Hebrew prophets arc cited and interpreted; clearly the context is eschatolog ical. As indicated by the traditional s igla, this text has long been associated with 4Q 182 (4QCatcna"). More rcc.c ntly Annette Stcudel has argued that 4Q l74 and 4Q 177 (4QCatcna') preserve d ifferent parls of the same text from two different manuscripts with d iffering physical quaJitics. As such, she proposes that these two texts sho uld be reclassified as 4QMidrEschat' ·•, with 4Q 178, 4Ql 82, and 4Q l 83 perhaps also being add itional copies of the bM k, and that the text was composed between 72-6 3 B.C.E.'" Steudcl proposes that portions o f the firs t six (of an unknown number ot) co lumns of the work arc preserved in 4Ql 74; she Exege.\·is at Qumra11: 4QF/orilegium in Its Jcrwish Comext (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985); and Annette: S teudd. Der Midra:;ch zur Escllmologie aus der Oumra11gemeinde (4QMidrE.\·clrai '·"J: Materielle Rekoustmluiou, Te:rtbes umd, Gawmg und lraditimto;gescflidu/iche Eilwrdmmg de." durclr 4Q174 ('F/m#egium') tmd 4QI75 ('Cttte1w A') repriisentieneu Werkes aus den Qumnmfimde~t (ST DJ 13~ Leide-n: Brill, 1994). Pur a brief overview. see Brooke: . .. Fiorik•gium." EDSS 1:297-98. l.tJ Brooke:. "'Fiorilegium." 1:297. I.U S teudd. Der Midrasclt. 23--29. l .tl George: J. Brooke . ..Cutc:na." EDSS 1:121 -22. esp. 12 1. l 4.> S tc:udd, Der Midrasclt. 7 1· 76. '"' Sec: Stc:udd, Der Midrasch; and Anne-tte S tcudel, ..4Q.\•iidr£ '>ch.at: «A rvlidrn.sh on Esdmtology» (4Q 174+4Q 117)... in Tire .4·/ttdrid Qumnm Co11gres.chat,'" 2:532) . F'or earlier considerations of this connection, S« Strugnell, ·'Notes en marge;' 237. Sec S teudd, Der ltfidro:oclr. I 52-57: and Steudd, ..4QMidrEschat," 2:536 on the: possibility that the-other three manusc.ripts pn:l>er.•c the Same texl thoogh adm ittedly there is no extant textual overlap among these manuscripts. On the date. see Stcudcl. ··4QMidrEsc hat,'• 2:540. 4

4

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 105 further suggests that 4Q 177 origina lly included 18 columns, of which remains of <.~olumns vu.. xu arc extant. 1.u Reasons for assuming both manuscripts c<mta incd the same text include their sequentia l citations of texts from Psa lms (with minor variations) and the consiste ncy of their citation fo rmulae an d other terminology . 1 ~'J Reception to her proposal has b{.."Cn mixed, and it was not reflected in the most rccc.~nt major edition o f these manuscripts by Jacob Milgrom.'" 'The interpreter of the law' (;111n;1 iZ/i11) is mentioned in 4Q 177 II 5, but the context is so pMrly prc,~erved that one C>tnnot detcm1ine his function. The same phr<~se appears in 4Q 174 1-2 I, II, where the author stares that the ' shoot [nm<) of David' will arise with ' the interpreter of the law' in the last days. The only extant word on 4Q 174 23 is iZii11. While much is said a bout a Davidi(• llgurc, no further description of the • interpreter of the law• is g iven. Nevertheless, what has survived leads many scholars U> propose that this text presents a messianic diarchy of priest and king. As such, VandcrKam points to a fragmentary citation of Dcut 33:8- 11 , the b lessing on Levi tha t says he will teach the law, in 4Q 174 6-7 and note$ the potentia l messianic significance of such a passage in an e schatological comcxt. ''' Unfortunately, however, little else can be said because of the poor condiLion of the manuscript.

2.6. Tcsrimonia (4Q 175) This text is of a very d ifferent sort than a nything addressed above.•~ Consisting almost entirely of four quotations-with marginal notations 1

~ S teudd, ..4QMidrE.<>chat," 2:532-33.

2:533-35. •so Fur example:. Xcnt\•iL<> accepts Stcudcl's proposal, but Brooke, who accepts St('Udd's arrangement of the 4QI 74 fmgmc-nts as l>"llperseding his own edition. ne\'crthdess rejects h<.·r proposal invoh:ing 4QI77. As noted, 4Q 117 was published l.tch.at,"

separately from 4Q174 in the PTSDSSP edition; see Jacob (\'lilgrom and Lidija No"akovic. ··Cate-na A (4Q177=4-QCatA).'' PTSDSSP 6b, 286-303. The Milg.rum editions o f both 4Q 174 and 4Q1 17 are those included in The Dead Sea Scroll.<:

Elecrro11it: L;brary. Re~·b·tuf Ed;lioll 2006.

•s• Vanck-rKam. "('..•lcssianism,·• 227-28.

11

s Again the edWrt pd11ceps is that of Allegro. OJDJ V. 51-60 and pl. XXI. Seealso Strugncll, "'Notes... 225-29; Brooke. Exeges;s, 309-19; Steudel, Der M;drasch, 179-R I; Fitzmyer...4QTcstimonia," 59 -8 9~ and S tcudd, "Testimonia.'" EDSS 2:93638. See a lso the rec-ent edition of Frank Moore Cross. '1"cstimonia

(4Qt75=4QTcslim),'" PTSDSSP 6b. 308-28.

106

CHAPTER THREE

demarcating each of these-this short text is one column of 30 lines on a single sheet of leather. The scribe is the same person responsible for I QS, bul !he handwri ling here is far less careful. The manuscripl is dalcd I<> abou1 100 B.C.E.; Strugncll surmises thai il may be 1hc aulograph be-cause of ils d islinclivc fo rmal, slipshod handwriling, and numerous corrections. l $3 No cscha10logit.al Jigurc is specifically named in 1hc IC.x l, which a lso lacks a namuivc con1ex1. lnslcad, 4Q 175 normally has b een approached as a lis1 of proof ICxls, wilh ils fi rs! lhrcc quolations evoking a fulure prophcl (Exod 20:21 SamPcnl, = MT Dcu1 5:28-29 plus Dcul 18: 18- 19); king (Num 24: 15- 17; cf. CD and I QM above); and pries! (Delli 33 :8- 11; cf. 4Q 174 a bove).'" The tcxl concludes wilh a quolalion (Josh 6 :26) pronouncing a curse on anyone who rebuilds Je richo and a vague application of the curse, presumably d irected a t a Hasmoncan figure. John Hyrcanus rna)' have been the target; he was described (admitledly muc h la!Cr) by Josephus as having held a combinalion o f lhe ofliccs of prophel, ki ng, and pries! (Alii. 13.299300).'" This Joshua malcrial is paralleled in 4Q379 22 11, 7 - 14 (Apoc•yplron o(.loslma•) and likely is cilcd lrom lhal lext '" Testimonia is distinguished by its lack of commentary and e laboration on the quota tions o f Scripture other than sparse introduclory fonnulae. Because of !his, one cannol be cn1irc ly sure !hal 1hc text has messianic implications. \Vhilc most scholars do understand it as a collcclion of messianic proof lcxl,, admillcd ly inlcrprclalion of the concluding Joshua malcrial is more problemalic.'" In lighl of lhc Jailer, Jd 20:2l in the SamPtmt. but the lack uran introductory fonnula befun: Deut J8: 18-1 9-a" appears before the qumutioo orDcut S : 28.:~9 and bd bre-quotations concerning the king and pri<.'St- implies that the materials origina1ly from Deuteronomy are b~ing cited us a unit. See ii.uthcr below the significance of this for John Uibbc'surgument. I$J Virtually ncry Hasmnncan leader has been suggested. a..:; surveyed by Steudd. Collins, fbtlowins Hanan E$h e~ asst-rts that John Hyn:-anus most lil.:d y is intended. Sec-- Collins. Scepter, 94-S; and Eshcl, '11le Historical Background of the Peshe-r ln t~reting.Joshu u·s Curse on the- Rc--builder o f J~ri cho," Re~·Q 15 ( 1992): 409-20. 1 • Stcudel. ..Testimonia." 2. 936-37. Eshd argues t(>r dep~:ndcnce in the oppositedirection; see. Eshcl, ..Historic-al Background." 4 12. 11 $ Sec, for example, VandcrKam~ ··Messianism," 226; Oegcma, Anoiiitt·d, 93-94. l $3 l $.1

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 107

community's cxistcncc. 1u Llibbc observes that the citations arc all presented as -s tatements in the past and that each concludes with a curse or other negative~ as such, he proposes: they were intended w offer warnings of judgment on those who would ignore God's

commands. 'Whereas most scholars have f<.lund messianic figure-s in the fi rst and third quotations, Liibbc understands the prophet as the Teacher of Righteousness and the priest as symbolic of "thc s~'Ct itsel f in il~ contemporary priestly role.••u•J As for the sccc.md quotation, he docs admit that messianism may be present, but not in the way nonn ally explained: ''although something of the sect's messianic expectations underlie this text, neither the sect's messianism in general~ nor particular details thereof arc of primary conc::.cm here.' ' 160 Instead, he wishes to stress the pattern he finds in each of the first three quotations-a llgurc, representing the sect, is evoked~ then judgment is pronounced on the scct,s opponents. The dualistic presenta tion of the faithful c::.o mmunily over again.~t those outside their covenant is reminiscent of the blessings and curses: of the Rule of the Commtml~~~. 161

Ultimately, however, Liibbc's argument !'alters. He opens the article by challenging the scholarly assumption that Testimonla must point to a prophet and two messianic figure.~ (presumably under the in fl uence of IQS IX, II), a nd certain!)' that is a valid caution. LikcwiS<,, he criticizes the sta ndard view that the quota tion of Num 24: 15· 17 in 4Q 175 9 - 13 po ints only to a royal figure, whereas in C D V II, 18-2 I the 'scepte r' (or ·stafl') and 'star' clearly arc two figure$, a king and priest, the latter of whom is also ' the interprete r of the law." Liibbc demands that both a king and priest arc intended by th is quotation in Testlmonia, but he explains awa)• the priest: because the 'star' in CO VII is the ' interpreter of the law,' he assumes he must also be that in Testlmonia, e ven though such is never sta tcd.u'! Instead, the quotation cuts off in 4QJ75 13 with talk t)f violence; no priestly tasks arc demanded or even implied by this particular quo ta tion o f Num 24: 15l 7 unless one has: an a prlod expecta tion that the ~scepter' and ·star, IM John Uibbe, ..A Rc:intcrprc:tnlion of 4Q Tcstinumia," Re\·Q 12 ( 1986): 187-97. This arg.umc:-nl is c:ited with approval in Aix'gg, "Messiah <~I Qumran." 133.

LUbbc, "A Reinterpretation," LUbbe, ..A Reinterpretation," 161 LUbbc. "A Reinterpretation," It>! Uibbe. "A Reinterpretation," I.W

I toO

190-91. 189. 19 1. 188-89.

108

CHAPTER THREE

must be distinct figures here. Having fOund a priest in the quotation, Liibbc then effectively eliminate~ him by assimilating th is 'interpreter of the law' with the prophet of the first quotation, i.e., the Teacher of Rightcousnc.~s. because of the priest's presumed function borrowed from the interpretation of the 'star' in the Damascus Docwnent.u.;. His argument is further weakened by his as,scrtion that the compiler of the Testimonia intentionally jo ined Deut 5:28-29 and Dcut 18: I 8- 19 to create the. image IIS. Though this particular verse is not extant, 4QpalcoExodm ( 4Q22) preserves a version o f the text otherwise consistent with the Sam Pent in this particular eontext. 166 U ibbe correctly emphasizes the clement of judgment in c.a ch o f the fi rst three citations; he also was correct to seck tit..-s w ith I QS, but not fo r the proper reasons. His rejection of the idea that the first three citations evoke three eschatological figures seems contrived. lnstcad, the observation that the same scribe is responsible for the references: to the prophet and the messiahs of Aaron a nd Israel in I QS IX, I I a nd this collection of quotations that seem dearly lo evoke a prophet, king, and priest strongly implies that Testimonia is: a messianic proof~text. As Xcmvits nOt<."S, ..This fac t hypo thetiC-ally allmvs us to suppose that the Testimonia could even have been compiled by th is scribe, seeking t<) collect biblical passages supporting this theological cont,cpt." 14' As noted above, the po lemic-al nature of the text seems clear, and hosti1ities between the Hasmoncan house and Qumran leadership certainly arc evident in other Dead Sea Scroll texts. Likewise, the I6J 1

LUbbc, ..A Reinterpretation,'" 189. 19 1.

~ U ihbc-, ··A Reinterpretation." 191. f(,llowing John M. Allegro. ··Furthcr Mc:s-

siunic RefercnL-es in Qumran Literature-," JBL 1S (1956): 174-87. c::sp. I86. I(.$ LUbbc, ..A Rcintcrpn:tation, "191. 166 The DJO edition is t hat o f Patrick \V. Skchan, Eugene Ulrich. and Judith E..

Snnderson. DJD LX. 53-130 and pis. Vli-XXXII. Exodus 20:18-19 is extnnl i.n col. XX J,:,and c.o!. X~!l resuf!!CS wi th Exod 21:5-6. 1 Xcravlls, /\.mg. Pne:", Pmphet, 58.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 109

corrcspom.lcnccs of these particular off-ices and citations of Scripture with other Qumran texts that clearly arc messianic appears dcdsivc-cvcn if in Testimonia the actions of Yahweh, not the prophet or pric:;a themselves:, a rc dcs.cribcd. Perhaps a via medla may be proposedTestimonia i~ a polemical text against an arrogant Hasmoncan faci ng divine 'vrath and whose legitimacy pales in comparison to that of the cschato logica1 figures whose combined ofllccs he currently claims. Collins comes to a similar conclusion: "The plurality of the messianic figures in question. however, was in itself a political sta tement, since it implicitly rejected the combination of royal and priestly ofllccs by the

Hasmoncans.,. 1611 Thus the text seems to indicate the expectation of a messianic priest (along with a political figure and a prophet) without clearly addressing the ligurc•s own future activities. Admittedly. though. no commentary is present to indicate exactly \vhat the compiler wishes to emphasize.

2. 7. Oflter Possible References to a 'A1essianic · Priesr A tC'v other very fragmentary texts may be relevant for d iscussion o f a priestly messiah. but their poor states of preservation make interpretation impossible. 1M> Also. some texts discuss a priest but not a figure relevant fo r this survey. The latlcr category includes 4Q375 and 4Q376, bo th of which mention an ·anointed priest' but do not appear to be eschatological, and the similar 4Q374 and 4Q377, refk-<:tions o n the exodus and conquest events. nu Two other texts, though, can be addressed briclly. In 4Q l 61 (4Qplsa"; Pesher Isaiah), a Davidic messiah is clearly discussed, and he is described in 4Q 161 8- 10 11-24 with a quotation from Isa 11 : I· 5. 171 In line 24 this royal ligurc said to be accompanied by •~ Collins, Scepter. 95.

VandcrKam lists 4Q 167, 4Q 173, 1Q30, 4Q252, 4Q375·6, a nd 4QS2 1. Anolht•r c.undidatc is 4Q28S. Sec VanderKnm. ··Messianism," 232·33. 110 T hc DJD editions of 4Q374-4Q376 were published by Carol Newsom (4Q374) and John Strugnc ll (4Q375·4Q376) in OJD XIX; and 4Q.371 was published by lames VanderKam and Moni c:~ Brady in DJD XXVIII. Fur further discussion u f' 4Q375· 4Q3i6. sec Zimmermann, Mes.\·ialli\·clu~ Ter:te, 23.3-46. On 4Q.374 and 4Q317. sceXcrl!vits, Kiug. Prie.\·t. Pmpltet, 121·27. 1 " The editio pdm:eps is that u f' A llegro, DJDJ V, 11-1$. pis. JV.v. Sec a lso Strusncll. ·'Notes," 183·86 and pl. I; (\•laura P. Horgan, Pesluu'im: Qumron lnterprotatitms of /Jihlical BtHJks (CBQMS 8; Washington, D.C.: Catholic D iblieal l tH

11 0

CHAPTER THREE

Cil/;'1 'l;'11'1:l 1nK ('M e of the priests of re-pute') carrying some sort of

garments, but the manuscript breaks off just a Her that point. Similarly, in the preceding lines 21 ·23 the interpreter apparently reveals the identity of those who would teach the royal figure how to judge pr<)perly: 'and according to what they teach him [1;'1111' iil/K,1] so shall he j udge, and according to their command' (line 23). Priests likely arc described, but the lacunae prevent certainty. Regardless. clearly the reference is to multiple persons who teach, not a single priest.

Potentially more significant is 4Q541 (4QapocrLevi-b? ar), thoug h again the poor state of preservation d(>C$ not allow any lirm conclusions. m T he manuscript date-s to the late second or early first ce ntury B.C.E., but because it is an Aramaic text and doc..:; nOl reflect sectarian d istin ctivcs, it likely was not composed at the Qumran community. 173 Also, though it nonnally is assumed to be an a pocryphal

Levi text, it docs not appear to be directly related to the Aramaic Levi Document, a text discussed in detail below. m Much attention has been given to latter portions of the text, which discuss hostility tO\Vard the central figure, but what is of interest for this examination is the language of 4Q541 9 i 2. Here the figu re is presented as a teacher but also as having another priestly function: i'1i1 ' l :l '71' ?ll i!l''l ('he will atone lor all the sons of his generation').'" The llgurc's significance certainly is exalted in the text, but he also faces much opposition in his er.l, a time in which many will go astray (4Q541 9 i 7). Presumably the text is eschatologic-al, but one geL~ the impression that the priestly llgurc described in 4Q541 !Ills a diffe rent role than the messianic priestly figures discussed in the texts surveyed above. In the other texts the priestly figure is active in the c.ra during or after the

As..<>oc:.iation, 1919), 70-89; and more recently Horgan. ··Isaiah Pcsher 4 (4Q161 =4Qplsa•)." PTSDSSP 6b. 8.3-98. Citations above are to the DID ed ition~ thepa.<>~c cited c.orrcsponcl<> to 111, 15-29 in Horgan·s n:con.<>truction. 1 ·The OJD edition was published (with that o f 4Q540) by ~mile Putoch in OJO

XXXI. m Xc-ravits. King. Prie.tt, Prophet, 11 I. m Jonas C. Greenfidd, Michael E. S tone, and Esther Eshd , c-ds., Tile Aramaic J.evi

Documem: Edition. Trans/(ltitm. Comme11/wy (SVTP 19; leiden: Brill, 2004), 31 -32. m T he translation is adapted frnm that of Garda Martinez a nd 'figchclaur. DSSS£ 2:t08L

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM Ill

triumph over Belial and his lot, whcrt-.as here the priest himself faces active opposition.l 7'

3. ANTECEDENTS TO THE Q UMRAN EXPECTATIONS OF A MESSIANIC PRIEST

The texts surveyed above clea rly dcmonsu-atc a n expectation of a priestly, eschatological messianic figure who would appear alongside a lay 11gurc, often explicilly identified as Davidic. An eschato logical pr<)phcl also appears occasionally, but more typical is the pairing o f king and priest. When one looks at these several texts a nd the quotations from Scripture from which they arc d rawn, one is struck by how lillie cxegctkal support can be found for the priestly messiah. lndccd~ the only passages of Scripture invoked in this manner arc Dcul 33:8- 11; Num 24:17- 19; and Amos 5:26-27. Those not sharing the excgcti(:al methods and csc.hatologil:al doctrine.s of the Qumran community might be ha rd· prcs:scd to decipher a priestly messiah figure from these texts. It is perha ps surprising that no passages about Zadok or even Phinchas arc cited in these texts to support the expectation fo r a priestly messiah. 171 Perhaps even more g laring is the absence. o f references to the several passages of Scripture which seem to stress a bifurcated or even priestly leadership. Passages in Zechariah immediately come to mind, especially Zech 4: 14, where Zcrubbabel and the high priest Joshua arc called the ' two sons of oil,' and Zech 6 :9- 14, where according to most scholars Joshua's name has been inserted as the messiah in the p lace of Zerubbabcl's.' " Similarly in Haggai, Zcrubbabcl and Joshua a rc repeatedly mentioned in tandem, though at the end of the book Zcrubbabel alone is to ld that he will be God's signet ring. Allention should also be g iven to Jer 33: 14 -26, where the eternal nature of both the Davidie throne and Levitical priesthood arc 116

Possible a11usions in this text to the •suffering servant' of Isa 52:13-53: 12 art: beyond the scope of this stud>• but art: discussed by Zimmcrnuum, Mes.\·ianL<:clle Te:rte,

247-77. m Among te-xts not unique

to the- Q umran community hlll nevertheless found amung the Dead Sea & .rolls, Num 25:11-13 is sig.n ificant fh r the portntyal uf Levi in

.Jubilees a nd Aronwic Le~·i (sec below) . In

For a dissenting view of lec-h 6:9- 14. sec. Stephen L. Cook, Propluu:y & The P<J.<:t-Exilic .4)(x:ia/ Setting (Minneapolis: Fortr~s.. 1995). 123-34.

Apoco/;1Jtici.~m :

11 2

CHAPTER THREE

d iscussed. One could also point to the dual leadership o f Moses (as political leader) and the priest Aaron, the strong connection between the Da,•idic. and Zadokite houses, and the long Persian-era theocracy headed by the high priests.'"' It seems especially telling that the Qumran d iscus.sions do not build on the models of Zerubbabcl and Joshua.''" If the. manifold theories about the Persian removal of Zcmbba bcl to nip mc.~sianic pretensions arc correct, perhaps disappointment led to the. de-emphasis of this paradigm in subsequent ge nerations. One might also approach the issue by noticing that in some 'vays the Qumran community seem~ to ignore the Re-storation community. The oft-cited CD I, 3- 11 dates the community in relationship to the dc."ruction of Jerusalem in 587/86 B.C.E.: a 'root' sprang up 390 years afte r this event, and the members 'groped ' until G<>
119

For more compn.'hc-nsive- sun •eys. sec JosC R. VillalOn, ··Sources vctcrotcstamcntaircs de Ia doctrine qumninicnnc de$ dcu.'t f\•lessies," Rt!I·Q 8 ( 1972): 53-63: and Juac-him Boc.kcr, Me.\·:;ifmic Expec1a1i01r ill the 0/tf Tesltlmeltl (Philadelphia: Forl:ress, 1980). u.o Admittedly the phrase ·two sons o f oil ' uppears in 4Q2S4 4 I. but the context is too ifag.mcntary to drnw cond usilms about its signitic-nncc there. See-Collins, Sc-epwr,

98-99, 11. 55.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 11 3

Scholars have long noticed the esteem with which Levi is presented in Jubilees, the Aramaic Levi Document, and Testament l?( Le11i (from the larger work Tesfame111s qf the Twelve Patriarchs). As discussed further below, however~ study of this common theme is complicated by numerous perplexing issues. Chief among these issues a rc questions concerning the textual reconstruction of the Aramaic Levi Document and the nature of the relationships betwe('n thc.w three texts. Critical opinion on these issues is survc.ycd as relevant below, though for the examination at hand discussion of the. themes of the tc.x ts, not their textual histories, takes prccc.dcncc. Details of the presentations of Levi vary in these three texts, and lhcsc discrepancies arc very important dara for discussions of literary relationships between the three. Yet, more importantly for the study at hand, all three explain the d ivine establishment of the Levitical priesthood as the fulllllmcnt <>fa beque.~! to the tribal ancestor. One encounters the phenomenon of rewritte n Scripture in these accounts, as the central narrative setting for these stories clearly is derived Jl·om Gcn 34 and its contcxt. 1fi1 Jacob and his family have migrated to the city of Shcchcm among the Canaanites, and the patriarch has purchased property (Gen 33: 18-20). At some point Dinah, Jacob's daughte r by Leah, goes out to visit the women of the area and is mpcd by Shcchcm, son of Hamor the Hivite. Smitten with Dinah, Shcchem desires her as his wife, so he solicits his father to make this request o f Jacob (Gcn 34: 1-4).'" Jacob, aware of the violence against his daughter, ncvcrthclcs.s receives Hamor and Shcchcm to consider their request. This occurs to the chagrin of Jacob ·s sons, who arc outr.Jgcd that their sister has been rrcatcd in such a way by an outsider. Hamor and Shcchcm plead with Jacob and his sons, pledging peaceful relations between the peoples and a bountiful marriage price for Dinah (Gcn 34:5 - 12). The sons o f Jacob respond that their daughter could only be given to one who was circumcised, and they propose thaL Shc<,hcm a nd his people be circumcised in order to foster the nil The passage and its C()ntext have attrach:d much scholar!~· discussion. As Robert Kugle-r notes about Gen 34 ...The act.">Ount is sel within the cydc of narrati\'·cs about Jacob, a nd appear:; intrusi,re since it shift.<> the focus from Jacob's gene-rntion to that of his sons." For funhcr d iscussion, see Rubct1 A. Kugler. From Patriarclr tt> Priest: The Levi-Prie.\·tly Tradition .from Aramaic levi to Tt:;<;tamcnl of levi (SBLEJL 9~ At.hmta:

Schulan; Pr<Ss. 1996). 9- 12. csp. 9. IS! As noted by Kug~er. this suggestion is in harmony with the prescription of Deut 22:28.29. S« Kugler, From Patrial"cil to Priest, 12.

114

CHAPTER THREE

intermarriage they desire (Gcn 34: 13-17). In the biblical account, this clearly is pr<>poscd as a ruse, so Gcn 34: 13-'Thc sons of Jacob answered Shcchcm and his father Hamor deceitfully [MT ;'ll;l")l;l~]' (NRSV). Nevertheless, Hamor and Shcchcm prevail on all the men of the city to submit to circumcision, citing the necessity of this action for future social integration with Jacob's clan (Gcn 34: 18 -24). Simeon and Levi, full brothers of Dinah by Jacob and Leah, auack the city
livestock, and wealth in the city (Gen 34:25-29). Jacob is enraged by these actions, fearing retribution fnlm the inhabitants of the region, but lhc sons arc indignant that their sistc r•s honor must be defended (Gcn

34:30-3 1).'" Clearly nothing in this passagL'-aS it stands in Genesis- po ints to

an eternal priesthood for Levi, and even here he shares the spotlight of vengeance for his sister's shame with his brother Simeon. This passage is transformed into the setting for a priestly endowment, however, through midrashic intcrprelations that incorporate several other pas· sages from the Hebrew Scriptures. Robert Kugler notes othc.r texts from the Hebrew Bible that seem to have been read with Gcn 34 w produce this explanation for Levi's reception of the priesthood: a. Exod 32 :25·29-in the wake of the golden calf episode at Mount Sinai and the rc.sulling frenzy, Moses calls for those who will stand for the LORD to rally to him; the Lcvitcs respond and arc given a divine command through Moses to slaughter their fellow Hebrews. Thus they are granted an ordination for the LORD's service and a divine blessing. For Kugler, this passage, read in conjunction with Gcn 34, begins to justify a Levitical priesthood base-d on the tribe's zeal for purity.'" b. Num 25 : 6 ~ 1 5-as in the previous passage, again J sr~cl struggles with idolatry. In Num 25: 1·5, the specific entieemcnt is the Baal of Pcor at Shittim; this dmws the wrath of the Lord, who commands that all participating in such relationships be killed. Another account about idolatry follows in 25:6-15; here the punishment is a plague. While the masse.~ gathered in the assembly were weeping ncar the tent of 1

~ Thi$ action is condemned both here and in Gc:-.n 49:5· 7. a..; noted by Kugler, From Pmriarclr w Prie.\·t, 13. !FA Kugler, From Patriarclr t<J Prie.\·t, 12·14.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 11 5

meeting, an Israelite man (interestingly, of the tribe of Simeon) openly brought a Midianitc woman into his tent. Phinch as, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, sees this and springs to action, spearing the couple in one strike and thus hailing a p lague that had claimed 24,000 lsrae lit<'.~. Because of his zt".il, Phinchas and his descendants arc promised 'a covenant of perpetual priesthood ' (NRSV; MT O'?ill n~\1~ n'):;l), a nd Phinchas is credited as having 'made atonement (1~;>',1) fo r the lsraclitcs.' Kugler finds here the important theme that God has specifically chosen the Levitcs to hold the priesthood in light of the actions of Phinchas, the desc-e ndant of Aaron.•RS c. Dcut 33:8- 11-this passage, of a very different nature than those surveyed above> is Mosc.~· bk.-ssing on the tribe of Levi, though as Kugler notes, it o pens as if addressed only to Levi himself.'" Moses calls on God to gmnt the priesthood to members <Jf this tribe because their ancc.~tors ' faithfulness e ven to the detriment of their kin. Presuma bly the example cited evokes the Sinai incident of Exod 25 surveyed above, where Lcvitcs slaughtered their kin oul of zc.al, yet here the grammar implies a singular aclor, nol a group. ( \Vhilc it is common in the entire list of blessings for tribes to be referenced by their eponymous ancesto r in the singular, such an o bservation need not impede the creative a pproaches of ancient interpreters.) Kugler linds in this passage the 11nal building b locks needed to establish the divine origins of Levi's priesthood: With these- verse-~li the. c.onnection is tinally made. among the Levl!Levite of the Hebrew 'Bible. between Levi's violent past and his a~)poinunent to the priesthood. The references to Levi a lone in Deut 33:8·9a, I I are sufficiem evidence for his own divine election to thepriesthood. ·r he bonus is that Deut 33:8. IOa a lso link Levi with the priestly m les of making j udgment and te.aching the-law: thlLii the passage leXL~i

Kugll"r. From Patriarr:lr I<J Prie.\·t, l4·l6. Kugll"r, From Patritm:h t() Prh!:ll. 16. Kuglt."r a lso nott."s that Qumrnn versions of this te-xt tend to ha\'C ~ingular vclhs. not the plurals o f the MT. which further complicates interpretation o f lhe passage, but conclude-s that it is not possible to determine which ts the more primitl•le reading. Sc:e Kugler, From Patri<m:h to Priest, 17. Henryk Drawne-1 agrees that Gtn .34(.:'l7). a long with Dc-ut 33:8·1 1 and Ma12:4-7 (sec furthl"r below) provide the materials from which ..the- beginning o f the leYitical tradition accordins to which Levi as un individual has a priestly status may be dcduc:ed."' He dt."nics, howe-\·er, that the !alter two texts directly influence the Aramaic Lel'i Documem. and he asscrL<> that •·the image of Levi as a priest a nd scribe is ncwr attc~icd in the- biblical texts, and is unique to the presentation rontained in this Arunmic work." See Hl"myk Drownd. An Ammail: Wisdom Text jhm1 Qumran: A New /merprotaOtm qf the Ln'i Docunumt (JSJSup 86~ Lcidcn: Brill. 2004). 3. I!U

156

11 6

CHAPTER THREE

a new e.lement to the- biblical materials available- for a portrait of levi, the priest. 187

contribute~'i

For Kugle r, the first extant example of such creative interpretation at work is found in Mal 2:4-7. This late passage signals a new phase in perception of Levi, one in which all four of the passages previously survey have been utilized U> present the idea that Levi himself personally was chosen by God as priest. So Kug ler: Declaring that God had a priestly cove.nant with Levi, the passage depicts Levi as an ideal prie~li L In 2:4bcx and 5aa we e.ncotuuer the phrases.,,; nl'\ ,n,,J, " M y covenruu with Levi, .. and lr!N i1n':'l ,l'\,,:J, "My covenam was with him" . . . it is only by admitting the influence on Mal2:4-7 of all tOur l'entateuchal passages addres.;' ;ed above. that we-c--an

compre-hend the origin of such a covenant. 1511 As such, Kugler rejects proposals that the passage is 10 be understood only in light of other texts that discuss covenants with Lcvitcs, not the e ponymous an cestor himsc:lf 1119 In summary, subseq uent d isc ussions of Levi's elevat ion to the priesthood arc indebted to a midrashic interpretative tradition con ~ cerning Gen 34. The Shcchcm incident ()f this chapter provides the narrative frdmcwork for these account.:;,, read through the lens of Dcut 33 and its motifs o f blessing and an eternal prk ,stly covenant. God's granting o f these honors is j ustified by rctroverling statements o r praise for the zeal o f Levi's dcsecnd
3.1. Aramaic Levi Document It is unfortunate that this document (hcrcailcr ALD) must be treated fi rst, because it exists only in lfagmcn tary fo m1 reconstructed lfom

Kugler, From PtltriarclrttJ Prie.\·t. 16- IS. es:p. 18. Kugler, From Pt~triarclr t<J Priest. IS.-21. c:sp. 18-19. l li-'1 Kug1c:r, From Pmriarch I<J Pries!, 18-19. He articulates wh.ul each passage con· lribules: lo •he porlrail uf lc:-\'i in Mal 2:4-7 in pp. 19-21. l t.i I f.$

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 11 7

d isparate textual sources. Nothing approximating a complete cop)' has surviv<..xl. Instead, the document is preserved in two fragme nts of a Cairo Gcniza manuscript (discovered and published in the early 1900s); fragments found at Qumran cave I (IQ2 1) and cave 4 (4Q2 13; 4Q2 13a: 4Q213b; 4Q2 14; 4Q2 14a; and 4Q2 14b); passages incMporatcd into Testametll of Levi in a Greek manuscript of Testaments of the r.velve Patriarchs from the Koutloumous monaste ry at Mount Athos. Greece; and a small Syriac fragment housed in the British Muscum. 1'Ju Several scholars have. sought to rcconstruc.t the entire ALD on the basis of these disparate manuscripts~ recent major cdilions include those of Kugler, He nryk Drawncl, and the team of Jt)naS Greenfield and Michael Stone (editors of the Cave 4 Levi texts for DJD) in conjunction with Esther Eshcl. 1~1 Such attempts have been complicated by the nature of the textual evidence a nd the need for 190

The sc-niza fragments, unfbrtunately separated and fu rther identified a." Cnm

4

bridge: Gcni.za and Bodleian Geniza, were first published respectively by H. L. Puss and J. Arendzen, "'Fragment of un Ammaic Text u f the Testament of Levi," .IQR 12 (1900): 65 1 ~ 1 ; and R. H. Charles and A. C-owley...An F..urly Source o f the Testaments uf the Patriurchs," JQR 19 ( 1907): 566 83. Additions to the Mt Athos ma nuscript of Te.~/lmumts of 1he Tweh't' Patriarch~ that Charles idenlified as having originated with Ammaic Le•·i were also d isc.us:sed in the latter an ide. Fragments from Qumran cave 4 were first published by JOzcf T. Milik...le testament de Levi in aramC:en: F'rag.rnent de Ia grnlle 4 de Q umrlin," R8 62 ( 1955): 39~406. and continued to appear in various publications, culminating with the DJD edition uf f\•lichael E. Stone-and Jonas C. Greenfield in OJD XXII. 1 12 and plates 1-V. Only a few words re ma in of 1Q2l. published in 1955 by rvlilik, OJD f. 87 91 and p1atc XII. ~mile Puech has argued that 4Q540-4 1 should a lso be- identified with Ara maic Le\•i, but he has found few fbllowers. Sec Puech. ··Fmgm<.'tltS d'un upOCI)'phe de Uvi c:t le pc:--rst>nnage eschatologique, 4QTcstlC.-vi~11 (?) et 4QAJa." in The Madrid Qumnm Cmrgre:;s: 4

4

4

Proceeding.~

tif the Jntenwlimwl Ctmgre:>."' tm tire Dead Sea Scmlb:. Madrid. /8-11 March /99/ (eds. J. Trebolle. Barre-ra a nd L Vega.o; M(mtancr; 2 vols.; STDJ I I;

Leidt--n: Brill, 1992). 449 501. T he Syriac fmgment, B Add. 17. 193, wu..<> lirst identified in \V. Wright., Cmalogue of S_vriac MtiiiiL"'Cripts ill the Briti.~lr Museum Acquired Since lite Year /838: Pari// (London: Gilbert and Rivin;;ton. 1871), 997: subsequently it was published with the Cambridge gcniza fragments in 1he a l'on-mentinned article by Pass and Arcndzc:n. Editions of all of these ma nusc ripts arc included in the recon.o;truc:tions of ALD in Omwncl. Ammaic Wisdom Text; and Greenfield, Stolli:', and Eshel, Aramaic Lt:'l'i DOI'umem. For ll'lC'IViews of sc-holarly publication and discussilm of Aranwic Le•·i. sec Drawncl. Aramaic Wisdom Text. 1421; Greenfield. Stone. a nd Eshd. Aramaic Lea4 Document. 1-6; Mic:.hac:l E. Stone-, ..levi. Aramaic." £DSS I :486 8-8: and Kugler, From Pa1riarcll to Prie.\·t, 227 29. 191 &'>C'- Kugler, Fmm Patriarch w Pries/; Dmwncl, Aranwic Wisdmn Text: and Greenfield, Stone, a nd Eshcl, Aramaic Ln4 Documelll. Gn.">enficld was dt.'(;C
4

4

118

CHAPTER THREE

scho lars to impose artificial sigla on the source texts in order to reflect their d istinctive rcconstTuctions of ALD. '~ Likc,visc. confusion arises from the d iffering decisions made as to how to correlate the frdgmcntary evidence (espec ia lly the Qumran manuscripts) within the relatively more contiguous evidence from the med ieval gc niza texts. Very deta iled diseus~ions of the physical characteristics of the severa l manuscripts relevant fo r this: examination arc available elsewhere, so only the most important issues will be addrcs..o:;cd hcrc. 19J T he Cairo Gcniza manuscripts arc the starting point for a ny rccon~ structi<m of ALD. Though accidenta lly separated into holdings at Cambridge and Oxford when the manuscripts were removed to Brita in, they arc parchment, double-leaf folia from the same medieval manuscript. They arc in the same scribal hand, present a scmi-eursivc sty le from the c a.c;tcm Medite rrane an, and a rc dated to the late ninth or early tenth century C.E. Each page originally had two columns on both the recto and verso. Of the two extant Cambridge folia, the first is very poorly preserved, w ith only about a third
Supplementing-and in s.cvcml c.ascs, overlapping- the textual contents of the gcniza manuscripts a rc severa l sources from the Dead Sea Scrolls. All of these manu~cripts arc in poor states of preservation. Dr•wn cl counts 88 individual fragmen ts among IQ2 1 (itself w ith 60 fragments); 4Q213; 4Q2 13a; 4Q213b; 4Q2 14; 4Q2 14a; and 4Q2 14b. T he largest of these fragments easily is 4Q213 tr ag. I, at I 0 x 13 em.'" Editors of the respective DJD editions have dated most
l 9: T his diffkuhy is recosn izcd by the-sc;.holars themselves. Note-. fbr example-. the comment-. of' Greenfield, Stone. and Eshel: "We are conscious o f the problems that renumberin;:; ancient texts creates. but this action was IUreed uplm us by the multiple and eonnicting numbering syste-ms that bud bt.-,ome custonuuy" (Aramaic Lew· Documem, 10). 193 f\
21-29.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 11 9

Herod ian hands. The chief cxccptif ALD derived from these various manuscripts is riddled with lacunae. Enough remains, however, to rcvc.al a retelling of the Shc<:hcm incident and its aftcn nath in which Levi rcccivc..-s a priest· hood w ith heave nly commission. l110ugh the earliest manuscript evidence fo r AW is found in the various Qumran texts, most interpreters date the composilion of ALD to a bout a century earlier in the third century or early second century B.C.E. "' Sc.veral early scholars argued that ALD was originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Aramaic, but the modem consensus is that language of composition was Aramaic. 19$ Also, the dialect is largely consistent in the Qumr.ln and ge niza witnesses, though, as note-d by Greenfield, Stone, and Eshcl, "the Geniza manuscript exhibits featu res which arc to be expected in a medieval 'modernization· of a text from antiquity. " 1'19 Naturally any reconstruction of ALD is fraught with speculation because of the lfagmcn ta r)' nature of the textual evidence. Kugler's work is particularly ambitious because it was undertaken by necessity before the a ppearance <>f the DJD ed itions of the Cave 4 Qumran manuscripts. He argues fo r the existence of a Levi apocryphon predating ALD and utilized by the author of ALD. His assertion that ALD contains one lengthy vision of Levi, rather than two shorter Ones, is a significa nt point of his work but one that has not gcneraiJy been 195

This datu is cmweniently gathered in table form frnm the various DJD souri:<S in Greenfie ld, Stone. and Eshd, Aronwic Ln:i Document, 4. l 96. Drawnd, Aramaic I·Visdom Text, 31 -32. l
120

CHAPTER THREE

followed in subsequent scholarship.'"' Kugle r understands the text as emphasizing Levi as the model priest, one with a "passion for purity and a uachmcnt to the role$ of scribe and sage"; the text's provenance i~ understood as intra ..pricstly po lcmks.:o• Drawncl also discerns a prieslly polemic, but one of a d iffe rcnt sort, and he emphasizes the in fl uences of Mesopotamian wisdom trad itions on ALD. The proposed historical context is the early Hellenistic period, when Sheehcm was rebuill and the rival temple at Mount Gcrizim proved tempting fbr ce rtain Jewish Lcvitcs. Thus reflection on Levi's exploits :u Shcchcm would serve as a fitting call to Jewish zeal and endogamy. In his view, the text is "didactic in nature an d intends to transmit an idca1izcd image of a wise pricsc•:oo~ Both Kugler and Drawncl arc relatively bold in their reconstructions of ALD, whereas Grccnlicld, Stone, and Eshcl decline to speculate on the placement of sc.v c.ral fragments with signilicant extant tcxt.ZOJ Likewise, they cautiously approach the issue of provenance, preferring instead to list "a number of characteristics of the document that may hint at the character of the group that produced it." These include usc of a sola r calendar (but non-po lemically; here and elsewhere the sectarianism of the Qumran community is not evident); great stress on the centrality <>f the prie-sthood, the purity <>f the Levitical line, and transmis.s ion of teachings to subsequent generations; and d istinctive positions on dualism, exorcism, and dcmonology.~tu Because of the incomplete nature of the man uscript evidence, it is not possible to speak dclinitivcly about the Oow of the text. A comparison of the reconstructions of Drawncl an d G reenfield, Stone, and Eshcl- both undertaken with full access to the DJD editions of the Levi texts-is instructive. The fo rmer reconstructs eleven sections of :oo S.u states Drawnc:-1, who offers an extensive- (;.ritique of Kug14:'r's position in Aramaic Wi.tdam Text, 45-49. He notes in a review ofGrC'en11e-1d. S tone, and fs hcl's edition. however, 1hat their treatment o f the vision ma terials is a ··tacit acknowl4:'dgtncnt of Kugler's onc-\lision theory:' S4:'c He-nr}
Tnm.tllllion. C(Jinmemary·, RB 113 (2006): 1 2 7-3 1 .~p. 129. Kugler, From Patriarclr w Priest. 136. ~ Drawnd, Aramaic Wisd(JIII Text, 14. zro S.c:c: their treatme-nt o f ' unplaced ITagme-ms· at AraJJUiic Lt:·ri D
:o!

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 12 1

material, whereas the latter find thirtccn.20!. The mate rials prc..:;cnt in Drawncl's §§6- 11 do acc.ord <1uitc well with those of Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel's §§5-13-tcstifying in large part to the value of the gcniza evidence for thi~ continuity-but this high level of 3f,'TCcmcnt is not the norm in the remaining columns. In both rcconstmctions (§3 for Drawncl, but § I for Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel), an early section of ALD narrates the Dinah e pisode of Gcn 34. TI1e text is extremely fragmentary here, and only a rcllcetion on delilcmcnt and the proposal that the Shcchcmitcs be circumcised remain. Blame for the defilement of the sons: of Jacob is shifted in ALD from Shechem to Dinah.'" Whether placed before or after the Dinah passage, both reconstructions also fi nd tamong the early sections materials concerning a report to Jacob a bout actions of Simeon and Levi. Grcen lield, Stone, and Eshcl place this text subsequent to the Dinah passage above, assuming the flow of the Gcn 34 account. Drawncl, however, positions this passage a t the very beginning of his reconstruction. In both alignments, however, this passage is following by an account of Levi washing his clothes and self so that he could pr<>claim that 'I made all my paths upright' (GSE 2:5; cf. D 1:2; the phrase in full is prc.th reconstructions with a very fragmentary account of Levi's heavenly vision. Grccnlicld, Stone, and Eshcl d iverge from Drawncl and also place here materials concerning the priority of ' the k ingdom of the priesthood' (CiSE 4:7, utilizing text from IQ2 1 I} over another sort of kingdom. This is followed (immediately in (iSE; after other materials in D) by further visionary W$ Note that the sig.ta c.reated i()r both rcc<)nstrw:tions rden; to topical section.<>, not columns. W6- Due to the c-o mplex it~· of the d itrering sigla and reconstructions. refcrc.nccs will be made to the section and paragraph numbers assig.ncd in the rde\•ant reconstructions, which w ill allow accc.-ss to furthe-r exlunimnion of the source materials. Orawnel will be refe-renced as 0: Greenfield, S tone, and Eshcl u..:; GSE. Note that Drawnel uses his section number.; only in his translati on of the entire re>oonstru(;ted lcxt (Aramaic Wisdom Tex1. 3$3-73). not in his commentary on the-text; hi.s paragraph numben; arcin a running S)I$1Cm (ie .• not restarting with each section). and these arc use-d in both the c-Omntc-nlary und fulltmn.<>1at ion sections.

122

CHAPTER THREE

materials concerning conl1iciS of ' the kingdom t)f the sword,' but Levi's special status is affirmed, as is his reception of No'n• c?tv m:li ('anointing [GSE 4: 12)/grcatnc.ss [D 5:6) of eternal peace'; 4Q213b). The rcconstntclions hugely converge for the remaining materials due to the more sustained nature of textual evidence from the gcniza text. Levi travels tO visit Isaac and receives a blessing. Presumably

there is a shil1 of scene (to Bethel}, then Levi is recognized as priest by his !'ather and brothers when Jacob pays him a tithe, invc.~l~ him in pric.~tly attire, and eons.e.cr.ucs him. Levi responds by offering sacri fice.~ for his father and by blessing him and his brothers; then the blessings arc reciprocated. Subseq uent ly the scene shil1s yet again, as Jacob and his s<ms arc bac.k in the company of Isaac at the residence of Abr.Jham. \Vhcn Isaac learns of Levi's experience, he instructs him in the ' law of the priesthood.' Such instruction include.< the following: warnings about purity and sin~ exhortation to practic::.c endogamy; procedures for ritual purity in prcpar~tion for offering sacrifices; information on proper woods for usc in burnt oflCrings; logistical procedures fbr burnt oflCrings; propc.r measures of wood, salt, flour, oil> wine, and frankincense to usc with sacrifices~ and concluding miscellaneous exhortations and reminders concerning his sac.rificial office and dynasty."" The remaining mate rials in both reconstructions arc dcvmcd to discussions of Lcvi ,s children and subsequent progeny and a wisdom poem, delivered in his old age to his descendents, in which Joseph is extolled as an example. The text concludes with what appear to be instructions on significance of wisdom and learning for Levi's descendants. Two issues in the gcncalogic.al discussion deserve further attention. A list o f ages at which Levi experienced particular things is preserved (in whole or in part) in the Cambridge gcniza, Greek, and Syriac sources (GSE 12:6-9/D 9:78-8 1). Of particular intcrc.~t arc the following: Levi was 18 during the Shcehem incident, when he 'destroyed the workers ofviole.nce'; he received the priesthood at 19. Even more signilicant arc Levi's comments about the birth of his S<m Kohath, preserved in both the Cambridge geniza and Greek texts (GSE II :5-6/D 9:66-67). The text is presented by Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel a<; foll(>ws: w These materials L'>Unstitute-GSE 5-10. D 6-8.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 123

And she conceived again and she bl)fe- by me ac.c.ording (0 the prope.r time of wome.n (Gree.kYanother son (ge.niza] and l saw that to him would be an assembly of all the people and that he. would have the highpriesthood: he and his se.ed will be the beginning of kings, a priesthood

for all lsrael.103 This passage is important because it underscores the dynastic nature

of Levi's priestly <>fficc. Furthermore, G reenfield, Sto ne, and Eshcl find special s ignific.anc.c in the appropriation here of royal dynastic language from Abr.iham's blessing fo r Judah in Gcn 49: I 0 lhr<>Ugh the usc of etymology. The son • Kohath' (nOli') rcccivc.s ·an assembly <>f all the people.' (Aramaic Nl:lY .,, niVl)), whereas in Gen 49: 10 M T one rcaOd rna)' be described using dynastic language drawn from royal contexts is prdcmblc to that espoused by Drawncl, who demands that the author introduces here a combination of royal and priestly roles.210 One finds then a major move beyond the prima facie information about Levi in the HB. LitLIC text remains concerning his role in the Dinah affair, but shortly thcrcal1cr he is divinely invested with a dynastic priesthood. If Grccnlleld, Stone, and Eshcl's rcc<mstruction is dccmc.d appropriate, the presence of Levi's prayer immediately after the Shcchcm account is signilicant. The prayer docs not have the tone of conlcssion, nor would such be expected in light of the commentary on his acticl n ('dcsu-oycd the wo rkers of violence') later in the text when his age at this episode is given. Instead, it appears w be a prayer of commitment and rc,solvc> something fitting for a figure of righteous zeal, and is sets the SLage for his investiture with a heavcnJy-ordaincd (something implied al a minimum by his visionary reception of ' anointing/greatness of ctcmal peace'), dynastic pricsthMd. 1«1 This quotation has b«•n adapted to n::pn:scnt the altc:-male versions presented by the editor.>. and hradc:ts indicating partial words have bc:cn omitted. See Gn::c:nfidd, Stone, and l!shcl. AraJJUiic Levi Docume11t. 95. M Gr-ccnfidd. Stort(', and l!shd. Aramaic Le~·i Docmmmt, 184-88. esp. 184-85. 21 Compare lhe discussion in Drawnd, Ammaic Wisdom Text, 307.09.

°

124

CHAPTER THREE

3.2. Jubilees More fa miliar to mo~t inte rpre ters ofScccmd Te mple Judaism is the book of .Jubt'lees, a nd as such fewe r introductory eommcnts will suffice. Jubilees purports to record Moses' receptio n of much o f the narrative of Gcn 1-Exod 12- now recast w ith a chronology based on 49-year Jub ilee units- chiefly !rom ' the a nge l o f the presence.'" ' As such it is a major example o f the ' rewr itten Sc.ript urc' genre in Second Te mple Jc.wish literature. The text, which espouses a priestly perspect ive, most like ly was written c. 170-150 B.C.E."' Fragments o f 14 (or perhaps 15) manuscripts of Jubilees were fo und among the Qumr.ln scro lls (I Q 17- 18; 2 Q19-20 ; 3Q5 rrgs. 3, I ; 4Q 176a lr gs. 19 -2 1; 4Q2 16; 4 Q21 8-24; I I Q 12; pe rhaps also 4 Q2 17); their orthogr<~phies arc Hasmonc~m or Hcrod ian, and they provide verific-at ion for earlier spec ulation tha t the te xt originally \VaS writte n in Hebre w. The text was transla ted in to Greek, which served as the basis for Latin and Eth iopic versions, and perhaps also into Syriac. The co mplete te xt is extant only in Ethiopic (in 2 7 manuscripts), no doubt preserved beca use of its canonica l status in the Abyssinian Chur<:h.m Jubilee.< 30-32 has much to say about Levi and the institution of the Levitica l pric..:;thood. As cxpc<:tcd in .Jubilees, the angelic narrator reports that the dc...-cds and destiny of Levi and his descendents arc recorded on heavenly table ts. In .!ub. 30: 1-20, the ve ngeance o f Jacob's sons on the Shcchcmites for the rape o f Dinah (Gcn 33 -34} is recounted . As in Genesis, the sons attack and kill a ll the males o f the city, b ut discussion o f th e circumcision scheme is suppressed in Jubilees ; in the !alter only Simeon and Levi (ra ther tha n a// the sons o f Jacob) arc e xplicitly said to execute the slaughter a nd plundering (Jub. w The slandard c riljcallext is lhat of Vand<.'fKam, Book tif.lubilee.\·. a tw <Jr tile Uu/e Gem!sis (london: A&C Black. 1902) and in a slight!>• revised fu·nn as ·'The Book o f Jubilees," Apoct) plra (flU/ Pseudepigrapha of the Old Tes tamem (ed . R. H. Charles: 2 vols.; Oxf. &rok
MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 125 30: 1-6). Jubilees then departs from Ihe b iblical narmtive, as two theological points arc derived from th is sto ry of vengean ce. In .Jub. 30:7- 17, the r.lpc of Dinah is prcscnlcd as a n illustration of the dire necessity of preventing sexual intcm1ingling of Jsmclitcs and Gentile.~. Execution of the guilty persons is the only means to rc.~torc purity to lsr.tcl, because no eultic sacrifice is sufficient for such an offense. In Jub. 30: 18-20, Levi's zeal on behalf of lsracl is then praised; rewards include a hereditary pric.
Since the angel revealing this: in forma tion to Moses us:cs the first· person p lural in refe rence to the eternal priestly service., this c learly connects: Levi's pric~o;th ood with the heavenly angelic cult. An exhortation fo r subsequent generations o f lsraclitcs to imitate 214 the righteousness of Levi follows in Jub. 30:21 -23 In 30:24-25 the discussion returns to the Gcnc.o;is narrative, recounting the restoration of Dinah to the house of Jacob and the patriarch's concern a bout future relations with their Gentile neighbo rs. Jacob's protest of Ocn 34:30 is much tamed in .luh. 30:25, and there the author of Jubilees adds (or displaces from Gcn 35:5) notice that God prevented any possible retribution against the lsraclit<..'S. The Gcn 35 account of Jacob's call to travel to Bethel is reto ld in .lub. 3 1 but with numerous details added. As in Ocne-~is, Jacob calls for any ido ls in his househo ld to be left at Shcehem before the journey begins; this is intensified in Jubllees. as Rachel turns over those she had stolen from her fa ther Laban (Jub. 31 :2; ef. Gcn 3 1:19, 33 -35) and Jacob utterly destroys any such items before hiding them under the oak. Genesis: 35:6~8 records Jacob 's arrival at Bethel a nd constmction of an altar, then it abruptly reports the death and burial at Bethel of m Reflecting more: broadly. John Endres notes: ..The: second-century struggle for an uncontaminated priesthood bore powerfUl resemblance to the: stories from earlier days of Israel's histol)'. Thus, a hhough the historical circumstances had certainly shifted, the indispe-nsable- ingn.-dient (zeal for lsntcl"s God} remained the same:." SeeJohn C. Endres. Biblical lnterprt!latitm in 1/Je Book of .Jubilees (CBQMS 18; Wa.,hingwn. D. C.: Catholic Bibl1cal Association, 1987). 149·50.

126

CHAPTER THREE

Dcbor.lh, the nurse o f Jacob's mother Re bekah. Missing in the b iblical text, however, is a n explanation of why this Debomh was now in the household of Jacob, and the author o f Jubilees seizes this opportunity to postulate an explanation in Jub. 3 I :5-32- aftcr arriving at Bethel, Jacob visitS h is parents Isaac and Rebekah."' Rebekah greets Jacob and two of his sons who accompany him, Levi and Judah, but clearly the emphasis is on their encounter with lsaac. What follows is a thinly -veiled adaptation of Joseph's visit with the elde rly Jacob in Gcn 48 and the deathbed blc.~sings on Joseph 's two sons. In Jubilees, Isaac places a hand on each of his grandsons and fi rst bk"Sscs the one at his right, Levi. lsaac's comments inc1udc another statement conn (~ting Lcvi,s o fllcc to the angc1ic prie-sthood:

May the. Lord give you and your descendents extreme-ly great honor~ may he make you and your de~o,;c.endams (alone) out of all humanity approach him lO serve. in his tem ~)le like the-ange.ls of the presence. and like the holy ones. The descendants of your sons will be-like them in honor, greatness, and holiness, May he make them great throughout all ages. (3 1:15) Isaac then echoes Moses' blessing on the tribe of Levi from Dcul 33:9-1 1 with an exhortation fo r Levi to provide instruction fo r ' Jacob' and ' Israel,' a b lessing, and a call fo r God's ve ngeance on any who might oppose Levi (Jub. 3 1: I 5- 17).'"' In lhc subsequent blessing on Judah, Isaac strikes a Davidic note: ~Be a prince-you a nd one of your sons- for Jacob's so ns ... l11cn the nations will be frightened befo re you; all the nations will be disturbed; all peoples w ill be disturbed ' (Jub. 3 1: 18). Jacob and Isaac converse that night and the following morning, when Isaac sends Jacob on his wa y along with Rebekah and Dcbor•h. Then Jacob reflects on Ihe significan ce of his meeting w ith his father:

m See James Kugel, '·Le.vi's Elevation to the Pric:sthood in Seoond Temple Writings." f.ITR 86 (1993): t-64. Modern commentators attribute this mention of Deborah to traditions that ooni'\C>Ct a person of that name with the urea around Bethel and/or trees. as the judge Debomh in Judg 4 is a lso assoc:iutctl with a tn:c. Sec, for example, Gcrhanl von Rad, Genesis (rev. cd.; OTL; Philadelphia: \Vestminste-r. 1972). 337-38: and Robc11 G. Boling, .. Deborah," ABD 2: 113-14. 116 James C. VundcrKam, ..Jubilc:c:s and the Pri~tly Messiah o f Qumran," Re\'Q 13 (t988): 353-0S. <sp. 363.04.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 127 He said, ·Now I know that l and my sons. too, have an e.ternal hopebefore the God of all'. ThL'i is the way it is ordained regarding the-two of them, and it is emered for them as an e.temal testiml)O)' on the heavenly tablets just as Isaac ble-s.~d them. (Jub. 31 :32)

C learly two eternal line.~ arc intended: one pricSii)' and one political. Further elaboration follows on the honors granted to Levi. Aficr the party rctums to Bethel, Levi d reams that he receives a priesthood of the Most High God for himself and his descendents. Without further explanati<m, on the fourteenth day of the month he receives a tithe from his father Jacob (.!ub. 32: 1-2). Then, aficr the birth of Benjamin, Jacob counts h is sons in reverse order so that Levi is reckoned his tenth, invc.
3.3. Testament q{Levi Analysis of themt.'S in the TestameiJI of Levi is difficult because of the nagging questions about the extent of Christian redactions to th is and the TestameiJI.\' of the Ji,•e lve Patriarchs as a whole. but most scholars assume that the testaments have Jewish o rigins a t some level."' Because their compositional h istory is so debated, proposals m See Lhc survey of proposals in Robcn A. Kugler. The Te.\'tamems t?{the Twe/J.·e Patriarc,:> (Guides tu Apoc.rypha and Pscudc:pigraph.a: SheOic:ld: Shc:J'fic:ld. 2001); 3 1· 38. For a broader (but c:onsidc:rabl)' o lder) survey nf scholarship, see H. Dixon S lingerland, Tlte Teswnumts of the Twe/w? Patriarch~ : A Critical IIi.,·tory of Res-earch (SBl MS 21~ Mis., 1917). Kugler notes three m-ajor d uster.;

128

CHAPTER THREE

for dates of various supposed editions of the text vary widely. The oldc.Jn the I Oth ccntur)' C. E., and the text survives in la ter Slavonic, Serbian, New Greek, and Latin translations. At best one can say with de Jongc that the extant version dates to c. 200 C.E. and likely was composed in Greek.'" Nin e. of the 12 testaments within Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (all b ut those a ttributed tO Zcbulun, Asher, and Benjamin) pair Levi and Judah as preeminent among their brothcrs.li'J Exaltation of Levi most certainly is an important Jewish motif in the work rather than a Christian creation. Scholars have prop<JScd numerous cxpJa.. nations for the apparent relationship between Tesramefll of Levi and Aramaic Levi; these arc diSClL';;St-d briefly below. As expec ted in the testament genre, Testamefll l?l Levi opc.ns with an explanation that what fOllows are the words the patria rch delivered to his family members in a nticipation of his death (T. Le vi I: 1-2)."" Judgment is introduced in this opening note as a major theme for the text. In T. Levi 2: 1-4: I, the pa triarch narrates an apocalyptic vision of heaven he received aftc.r praying for dclivcrt-mc,c from sinful humanity in the context of the Dinah episode of Gcn 34."' The angelic guide of theories: since 1698 most scholars have assumed that the-te;tt has Jewish ori~im> but was redacted at some r,oint by Christians, but A. Dupont-Sommer and M . Ph1loneno argued in the mid-20'' ce ntury that the supposed Christian redac.tions actually a~ Essene n:tCrt.•nccs to the Teac-her of Rightoousness. More recently i\'tarinus de Jonge has argued that the Te.-.umtt!lll.'> are a Christian composition based on Jewish sources. Though these-Jewish sour<.-es may have t.-oo.g.uhued for a time in Jewish circ.lcs befi>~ be-ing shaped into the extant vcr.>ion of the Testamems, it now is impos..,ible to distinguish an original Jewish version from the fina l Christian form, nor is the a ttempt to do so worthwhile. Kugler notes that de Jong:e's approach is gaining adherents (slowly). Though de Jonge cc:rtainly is correc:.t that the Teslanti!IIIS a~. imbued with a Christian perspective. state-ments in the.- surve)' below that clearly present Christian views in contexts that otherv.:ise an: compatible with ll Je wish perspective nevertheless are identified with the admiuedly-proble-matic te rm · interpola tion.' m Marinus de Jongc. "'Patriarchs. Testaments of the Twelve." ABD S:I 8.1 -86. csp. 182. 19 Hollander and de Jonge, Comnwmmy, 56. _w The sLandard edition o f the critic-a l text of Testamcmts of the Twelve Patrittrc/t.o; is i\ larinus de Jonge-, in cooperation with H. W. Hollander, J. J. de Jonge. and Th. Kortewcg. cds., The Testam ems t?f the Tweh·e Pltlrian:lls: A Critical Edition lJf the Greek Tex1 ( PVTG 1/2; Ldde-n: Brill. 1978). The translation used here is that of Hollander and de Junge. Commcmtary. O ther translations and introdm:.tions include those by Howard Clarl< Kcc (OTP I:775-828) and deJ<mge (AOT SOS-600). m T he number of levels of heave-n is oonfused in the manuscript traditiun. Kcc asserts that an original schcnm of three levels was later edited to reflect a sewn-levc:-1 conception. See Kt.~, OTP• 788.. n. d. Seven levels of he-aven are. mentioned in T. Levi 3:1 in the- Cambridge manusc.ript. See- rvlarinus de Jonge. Testamema XII

!

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 129

announces !hal when Levi has reached lhc level or God's abode, he will enter Goct•s priestly service a nd take up a significant role alongside Judah:

for you will stand near the Lord and will be his minister and will dec.lare his myste.ries to men and will proclaim conc-erning him who will redeem IsraeL And by you and Judah the. Lord will :lJ)pe.ar among men, saving through them the whole race of men. And from the Lord's ponion will be your life.• and he will be your field, vineyard, fmil~, gold, s ilver. (f.

Levi 2:10-12}

This section exhibits obvious Christian interpo lation with its discussion of 'him who wil1 redeem Israel. •ln lts description of Levi, howcvc.r. includ ing his selection as priest before God and his two-fold n:.~ponsibilitics to conduct liturgic'S ('stand ncar the Lord') and provide instruction to humanity, is C-Onsistent with other presentations in the Levi priestly trad ition. (Though the details differ significantly, one might compare this vision with the narrating angers statement in Jub. 30 that Levi has been gmnted a priesthood like the angelic pric.~thood.) The priestly language also is evident in the disc us..'\ion of Levi's provisions. The angelic guide proceeds to lead Levi through various lc.v cls of heaven, c ulminating in a description of God's dwelling in the celestial Temple: For in the highe~~t of all dwells the Great Glory in the hoi)' of holies far

beyond all holiness. In the (heaven) next to it there are the angels of the presence of the Lord, those who minister and make propitiation to the

Lord fOI' all the sins of ignorance o f lhe righteous. and they offer to theLord a pleasant odour, a reasonable and 6)

bi Ol)d l e~~'\

o flering. (1: Lel'i 3:4-

The angelic guide then announces that God has heard Levi's prayer and will appo int him ·so n and a servant and a ministe r of his presence' (T. Levi 4:2), presumably meaning Levi will have a ministry in heaven itself. The angel elaborates: on this appoint ment through line 6 1 though again Christian interpolations: arc evident as Lcvi ,s: descendents arc said to impale the son or the Lord (line 4). Then Levi is taken to the presence of the Lord, where he indeed receives his priestly Potriarclwmm: £diu.·d At'L'ording to Cambridge Uni'l--er.~ity LibratJ' MS Ff /.U .fiJI. with Short Notes (PVTG I; Leiden: Brill, 1964). I I. --Sec HoUander and de Jonge. CommetiUU}', 135.

101,~;261b

130

CHAPTER THREE

commission: ~Levi, I have given to you the blcs.sings of the priesthood, until I come and sojourn in the midst of Israel' (5 :2; the latter phrase may relkct Christian redaction). Afier this the tour of heaven immediately comes to an end; Levi is returned to the earth, given a shield and Sw()fd by the angel, and instructed lo take vengeance on the Sh~'Chcmites with angelic help (5:3-6). The implication is that because he is priest, he. is to undertake this action. Levi then awakes from the vision, tlnds a brass shield, and travels to visil Jacob. He urges unsuccessfully that the Shcchc.mites not be asked 10 be circumcised, then he slaughters the inhabitants of that city while Reuben atlacks those of Hamor. This action miscs the ire of Jacob, and Levi admits he sinned against his father. Levi nevertheless justi fics his actions as the will of God and the just recompense for those who had oppressed nomadic Hebrews since the time of Abr.iham. Lc.vi defends his actions to Jacob ami prophesies the fu ture conquest <>f Canaanite lands, then lhcytravclto Bethel (5:7-7:4). At Bethel, Levi receives another vision, this time of his investiture as high priest (T. Levi 8: 1-19). Scvc.n men, presumably angels, anoint and attire Levi with pricslly gam1cnts, a crown, and a staff, and they pr<>claim him ' a priest <>f the Lo rd, you and your seed, lbr ever' (8:3). Prophecies arc then spoken about the desti ny of his descendants; three groups (like!)' corresponding to his three sons mentioned elsewhere) will have d iffe rent oflkcs. The second group inherits the priesthood; role.'< of the first and third arc less clear. The first group is vaguely described (yet praised) as 'believing,' while the third will receive a new name because a king from Judah will establish a new priesthood fo r the Gentiles (8: 11 - 17). Again Christian interpolations complicate the interpretation of the passage. Clearly, though, a dynastic priesthood is proclaimed: ·your sct-d will divide among themselves the table of the Lord. And !rom them there will be highpricsts and j udge.'< and scribes, because the holy place will be guarded on their command' (8: 16 -17). Levi awakes but, as with his earlier vision, keep.'< secret the contents of his revelation. Jacob, Levi, and Judah then visit Isaac, and the !alter blesses Levi (T. Levi 9: 1-2); this scene parallels accoun ts in Jubilees and Aramaic Levl. bttl here no further details arc given. Jacob and his sons then return U> Bethel, where Jacob has a vision revealing Levi's priesthood and offers his tithes, afterwards the family returns to Hebron and Isaac. L~aac then instructs Levi on purity, sexual mores: and marriage, and

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 13 1

proper wc>Ods and gilts for sacrifices (9:3- 14). This discourse bears strong similarities to that in Aramaic Lelli. Levi pauses temporarily from narrating his past in T. Levi 10:1·5 to warn his offspring of their future apostasy and consequence.~, citing the book of Enoch as a source for his prophecy that the temple would be in Jerusalem."' The extant prophecy displays extensive Christian editing. Levi then recounts his perSonal and fami ly chronology in T. Levi I I: I· 12:7 before exhorting his offspring on the Law, righteousness. and wisdom in 7: Levi 13: I ~9. The salient po i nl~ here arc consistent with those in the parallel passages in Aramaic Levi- Levi received the priesthood at age 19, and the priesthood is passed through the line of his second son Kohath (Kaath). ln T. Levi I 4: I· IK: I 4, Levi prophesies (again claiming reliance on Enoch) about the future sinfulness of his descendants, the ensuing judgment, and their opposition to the figure sent by the Most High (clearly a Christian addition about Jesus). Thc.~c prophecies climax in T. Levi I 8 with an aptlCalypric oraelc~als<> clearly Christiandescribing the supc.rscssion of the Levitical priesthood by the one sent by God (wh<> will also execute the ultimate defeat of Bcliar). The text concludes in T. Levi 19 with Lcvi•s call for his offSpring to choose to live either fo r the Lord or Bcliar; Levi's death at age 137 is reported. Themes that have been observed in ALD and Jubilees' discussion of Levi, such as the heavenly nature of his priesthood and the dual appointments: of Levi and Judah, appear again in Testament of Levi. Perhaps most striking, however, arc the discus.~ion of Levi's service in heaven itself and the W:i)' this visionary experience fits with the Shcchc.m incident. His selection as priest now St"Cms to be the reason he acts against Shcchcm (with angelic aid at that), whereas in other ta.!ditions his priesthood results from this action against Shcchcm.

3.4. Significanc e oftlw Levi Priestly Tradition

The similarities of these accounts arc evident in this survey, and scholars

have

made

numerous

proposals

about

the

literary

relationships among thc.~c tcxls, c..;pccial1y ALD and Testament ofLevi. m Kee-, OTP. 792. n. d, commt.ont~ that no such 1mssagc: is e-xtant in literature attributed to Enoch.

132

CHAPTER THREE

Despite the \'lidcly varying views on the orig ins of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, most scholars agree that ALD very likely was a source f<.)r the later Greek testament, but Testament of Levi is not merely a transla tion and expansion of this earlier Semitic text. As for Jubilees, Stone asserts that ALD was a source fo r Jubilees, while James Kugel takes the unusual posicion that Jubilees was a source for ALD.m More C<mvincing that either of these, however, is Kugler's argument that the au~10rs of .Jubilees and ALD indepe ndently drew upon a common Levi tradition, thus expla in ing the ~imilaritics (and difference.~) between these two texts and Testament of Levi (derived from ALD)."' Regardless, it is c lear that the presentations o f Levi in lhcsc th ree texts arc intertw ined a t some level. Much more significant for our purposes is whethe r this elevation o f Levi has any relation to the priestly messianism of Qummn or Hebrews, prese ntation of Jesus as priestly messiah. VanderKam has argued lor the forme r, claiming that the Le vi priestly tradition of Jubilees, clearly a highly esteemed book in the Qumran community, provided a significant intem1cdiary ste p toward this cxpecta tion.126 VanderKam is c har.tcte ristica.Jiy prudent not to overplay his hand: admittedly Jubilee.~· nevc.r proclaims Levi or a descendent to be a messianic figure as several Qumran texts do for the 'mc-~~siah of Aaron,, but Levi nevertheless enjoys a divine a ppointment to the priestly oflicc and is promised an eternal line. As demonstrate d above, support from Scripture for the priestly mc.~siah is meager a t Qumran. and it seem~ quite unlikely that the Qumran community-so grounded in Scripture and exegesis-would unilaterally create such a llgure without exegetical mooring.<;. It seems feasible then to regard the understanding of Le vi in .Jubilees, itse lf derived from midrashic readings of sevcr.JI passages of Scripture as noted earlier, as a conceptual underg irding for Qumran 's priestly messianism, all the more since ALD was also being read in the community. Unfortu nate ly, however, it is d ifficu h to esti mate how wide ly Jubilees was read in Second Temple Judaism outside of Esscnc circ.lcs. VanderKam notes, fo r example, that its lite rary influence~ on Jewish texts primarily arc fo und in the Qumran corpus, where it has gr<..-al m S tone, '·levi. Arama ic. " I:486; James Kugel. '-·Levi's Ele-vation,·· I.Q4. n.s Kugler, From Patriarch I<J Prie.,·r, 222. zu VanderKam, ..Jubilees and the Priestly rvlessiah." 3$3.65.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

133

importance. Elements: of./ubi/ee.">'-SUC.h as the presence of an alternate Jiturgic.al calendar that may expla in the d iscrepancies be tween the dating of events during the Passion week in the Synopties and John, or agreements between .Jubilees and NT books on minor details against the MT or LXX readings- may be rcllcetcd in the New Testament, but

one cannot positively assert whether literary dcpcndcnc,c or the presence of mere parallel themes provide.<; the best explanations fo r the s:imilaritic..:;. Influence on rabbinic .Jc,vish texts is very latc.m Similarly. the numerous questions surrounding the o rigins: of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs make il impossible to speculate on its influence on prc·Christian Judaism. What can be asserted confidently, however, is that traditi<ms o f Levi's d ivine appointment to an eternal priesthood definitely predate Christianity and almost certainly influenced Qumran's pric<;tly messianism. Likewise, c-.Jrly C hristians found texts asserting this Levi tr.Jdition attractive for conveying Christian messages. More will be said in this regard in the fi nal chapter, but at this point one other stream o f thought, angclomorphic Christo logy, demands notice.

4. ANC.ElOMORPHtCCHRISTOLOG\' A transition in focus from Levi priestly tr~ditions to consideration o f texts whic.h describe heavenly angelic figures: is: only natural since Levi is told he will join such company during his tour of heaven in Jubilees. Furthcm1orc, several Qumran texts describe a ngelic priestly activities, and even the heavenly Mclehizedek o f II QMclchizcdek (dist.usst-d in the next chapter) makes atonement an d seems to be correlated with the archangel Michael. Scholars occasionally have suggested that the understanding o f lc«us in early Christianity was inOucnccd by post-biblical Jewish a ngel speculation. This idea found its most prominent early spokesman in \Vi lhclm Boussc.t in the late l91h·carly 2o•h c.e nturic.s, was rejuvenated later in the 20"' century, and has been espoused by a significant numbe r of recent scholars:.22' m Vanck rKam. Book ofJubilee.<S (2001), 143-48.

z::s To borrow the terminology of Darrell Hannah, the: ··Pre-History" of suc-h research is rc:prt."Sented by Wilhelm Bous....;et, Die Re!igi01r des Judemum.s im Spiithelle11i:oische11 Zeita!ter (4th ed.; Tiibingen: Mohr Sicbed. 1966). the lirst edition

134

CHAPTER THREE

Recent proponents of a ngclomorphic Christo logy who discuss Hebrews te nd to focus on Hc b 1·2 a nd whether either the author or the recipients can be understood as espousing the vic'v that the Son was an angel, not \vhcthcr the motif of Jesus as priest is dependant on texts with angelic. liturg ica l themes. For e xamp le, Darrell Ha nnah and Loren Stuc kcnbruck argue that ncithc.r the author nor recipients of Hc brc\vs ufwhicb appeared in 1903: Boussct. Kyrit).~ Christo.t: A Jib·wry• rifllu~ Beliefin Cllri:u the Begi1ming.~ of~ Christiallit)' _to lnuwet~.s (trillll>. J. E. Stee-l ~·: ~as.hville : Abmgdlm. 1970), v.lut::h lust a ppeared an German tn J9 13: and the work of h1s stude-nt

jn1~11

Wilhelm LuC"ken, Mlclrae/: Ei11e Dar:uelhmg und J'ergleidumg der jiidisclten und der nwrgellliilldi.w:IHirrt:\·tliclren Tradi1io11 ~'Om Erzeugel Michael (GOuingen: Vandcnhotock & Ruprecht, 1898). Hunnah dubs the next stage ·'The First Period: Angel Christotog>•," characterized by adoptionistic Christotogy a nd best re--presented by tvlartin We-me--r. Die Ems!ehtmg de.o; clrristliclum Dogmas ( Bern/Le ipzig: Haupt, 1941 ). An e--xamination of patristic. usc: of the:. tc:nn O:yytAO<) also appeared in 194 1, late-r revised as Joseph Barbd. Christtc:in, 1964}. Afic:r seve-ral years the apprn.1ch reYi•oed in what Hannah calls ··The Second Period: A ngdomorphic Christolog)',.. with the shiO in titles reflecting the ge-neral (but not unanimous) trend away from adoptionism toward the idea that earl)• Christians appropriated the: fmmeworl;_ of various Second Temple Jewish mediator tig:ures for understanding Jesu:>. p.,.lajnr voices indudc: Richard Longenecker, The ChristoltJg)' of £arb• Jeuish Clrri.\·tianitJI (london: SCrvl. 1970}; Henge-l, CmJ:•, 1-90; A lan f. Segal, r..._'O PtJwers i11 Hear·tm: Em·(v Rabhilric Reports About Clrl'istianity mul Gno.\·ticism (SJLA 25; Leiden: Brill. 1917); J.A. BOhner. Der Ge.wmfte mrd .wd11 Weg

4.Emngelium: Die kulml'- mul religitmsgesclticlrtlichell Gnmdlagen der joluumeiw:lreu Sendrmgs-chris10/ogie sowie ihre tradilimrsgesclrklulic/Je E111wicklwrg (\VUNT 212: TUbingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1977): multiple articles by Chri-.iopher im

Rowland, including "A Man Clothed in l inen: Daniel I 0.6ff and Jewish A ngdolog)•." .JSNT 24 ( 1985): 99-1 10: Jnrl Fos..;um, Tile Name qf Gad and tire Angel<( lite Lord: Samaritan mrd .lewisii Cmtceptimts q( brtermediation and the OJ'igi11 of Gnostici.mt (\VUNT 2/36; TUbingen: Mohr Siebcck. 198S}: and larry W. Hurtado. Oue God. One Lord: Eady Chri:Uimr Dewuimr mrd A11cient Jewish ,\fmrmhei.mr (london: SCM, 1988). (Now see a lso Hurlado, L<mi Je.-:us Chris1: Demtimt w Je.\·m· in Earlie.~/ Chrisli(llrity rc.rand Rapids: Ecrdmans, 20031.) Recent works inc.lude l-tm'n T . S!ucke-nbruek. Angel Venemtiou mu/ ClrrisliJ!<Jgy: A Stu<~l ' ilr Emtv .111dt1ism mrd ilr tire ChrismltJgJ' ofthe Apoca(l·p.,·e qf.JoJm (WUNT 2110; TUbingc:n: Mohr S iebcd, 1995); Charles A . G ieschen, ·'The Diffcn•nt Func.tions of a S imilar Melchizt:deJ. Tradition in 1 £noclr and Lhe Epistle:. to the Hebrews." in Eltrlp Christian /werpretatimt t?( tire Scripwre.~ q( /.\·rae/ (ed. C. A. Evans a nd J. A. Sanders; JSNTSup 148; Studies in Sc npturt: in l!arly Judaism and Christianity S; Shcfticld: S heffield. 1997), 364-79: Charles A. Giesc.hc:n, AugelamoqJiric Clrl'i.\'Wiogy: Amecedems mrd Earlp E1•ide11ce (AGJU 42; lcidt-n: Brill, 1998); Darrell D. Hannah. ,l.{icltae/ <md ClrrL\'1: Miclrael Tradi1io11s mrd Angel ClrrL<:tology in Eal'l)/ Chri\'tianity (WUNT 2/109~ TUbingc-n: Mohr- Sicbeck. 1999); and Timo Eskola, Alessiall and Timme: .lewisii Alerkabtth MJI.\'ticL<:m 011d Early Clrri.'ilimr E.wtllation DL-:cmtrse (WUNT 21142; TUbingcn: Mohr S ic:bcck, 200 I). See a lso Carey C. Newman, James R. Qa.,·ila. and Gladys S . Lewis, cds .. The .Jewish Roots f?.( C!Jri:>loiiJgical M()llOtheism: Poper:ofmm lire St. AIU!rews C
MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 135

understood Jesus as an angel, lhoug_h they contend that the stress on Jesus• superiority to angels in those chapters implies that some contcmpMarics did.'" Similarly, Timo E-~kola assumes that opponents of the author of Hebrews-but not the a uthor himself or the recipientsheld to an angclomorphic Christo logy."' A very different position is c.o;;pouscd by Charles Git.\~chcn, who finds strong evidence o f this motif in Hebrews, cspcciaiJy with the figure of Mclchizcdck. G ieschen's thesis is that early Christians understood Jesus through the lens o f a composite group o f divine hypostases and named angels lamiliar fr om Second Temple Jewish texts. He assume'S a uthors of NT books understood Jesus in this light because pa tristic an d Gnostic authors could list numerous titles o f Jesus that he thinks rcllcct pre-Christian Jewish thoug ht."' For Hebrews in particular, he proposes (among o the r things) that the author was strongly in fl uenced by assertions about Moses in Sama ritan religious texts (following the thesis o f his d issertation d irector Jar! Fossum) and that Hebrews' discussion of Mclchizedck parallels that of the same figure in 2 Enm:h.~n Giesc he n's approach, however, is problematic. An initial imprc..~· sion whe n reading his d isc ussion of Hebrews is that he is drawing on an almost 1imit1css mCiangc of soun.~es and motifs- whether ffom Qumran, Samaria, Ph ilo, or beyond, and whe ther discussing personified \Visdom, a ngelic liturgical service, o r the Logos. all roads lead to angclomorphic Christology. While it is unwise to assume the a uthor o f Hebrews was inl1uenccd by only one or two streams or thought, G ieschen implies that these numerous trad itions express some semblance of unified thought under his preferred category. Also, rarely is distinctive language in Hebrews to be explained in conventional ways. Gieschen, for example, downplays the influence of Jewish d iscussions o f Wisdom on the presenta tion o f the Son in Hcb I : 1-4, asserting instead that the antecedents fo r the Divine Name lie in the Apocalypse o.f Abraham a nd 3 Enoch; designation of the Son as 'firstborn' is most closely paralleled by the appellation o f the Angel Jsmcl in the Praye1· ofJoseph.m ~1~ Hannah, Michael, 138-39: S!uckenbruck, Angel flener01io11, 139.

Eskola, Me:osiah and Jhe 'f!trmre, 210. m Git."SC-he-n. AngelonwrpMc Cltri.,·mlagy. 122-23. m_ Gieschen. AngefmnorpMc Cltri.,·tolagy, 294--314. Fur Fossum, sec above. m Giesche-n. Angeltmunphic C!tri.,·mlagy, 295-98.

!JO

136

CHAPTER THREE

La te r Gieschen asserts, as noted above, that language used in Hcb 3: I ~6 in the comparison o f Jesus and Mosc..; must be seen as drawn fro m Samaritan praise of the latter. Left unexplained, however, is why

one should assume that the author of Hebrews -presumably a Jewish Christian or at least a Christian highly trained in Jewish exegesis, writing to a Roman Christian readership with its tr.!ditional Jewish flavo r- would need here to draw on Samarita n motifS.:u" This see ms

all the more unlikely s ince an explanation fo r this language can he found in the targumim.m Finally, Gieschen's freque nt usc of 1 Enoch as a comparative source is questionable because of the numerous unanswered questions a bout the origins and dat ing of this text, problems to which he is not oblivious."• Note, for example, Francis I. Anderson's summary of scholarly appraisals of 2 E11ociJ: l 'he. origins o f 2 Enoch are unknown. Research has not reached any

conse.nsus about the time, place., or contents of il~ first published tbrm. 1'he options range. from [R. H.) Charles· theory thar the longer rec.e.Jt..liion was written by an Alexandria [sic) Jew in the- 1st century B.C. through belief that it was a Christian rewrite of J Enoc.h, pmbably in Gk, made anywhere from the 2d century A.D. (in Syria?) to the IOth (in

Byzantium), up to the denial that it is anything more than a home-grown p1·oduct of Slavic religjous culture.231 \Vhilc Anderson certainly cites some extreme's of scholarly o pinion

on 2 Enoch, still his point stands: that great caution is necessary when On the-Jewish nalure of Roman Christianity, sec Joseph A. Pitzmycr, R(}lntm.,·: A Ne.v Tron..<:/ari<m with lmroductimr and Cm11me111ar)' (AB; New York Doublcda)' , 1993), 33 :34: and Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Allli()ch mrd Rm11e: New Testamem Cradles ofCatlwlic Chri\·tianit)· (New York: Paulist, 1983), 110. m Sec-Sverre Aalen .... Reign· and 'House ' in the-Kingdom uf God in the (io)>-pc:ls," NTS 8 (1962): 2 15 40, csp. 233-37: a nd Mary Rose D'Angelo. Mt1se:s in1he Letter m lire Hebrews (SBLDS 42; M i~ou la, ,\ uncertain pro venance yet inl)ists on its vuluc . See- Gieschen, ..Different Functions." 36S, n. 6. In his book Tile Melclti:t·dek Tradition, PrOO Honon (whom G iesche n c riticizes frequently) corre.:tly exd udt."S 2 EJI(Jc/r 69-73 from the l:J.I

4

4

examination oftvfckhizc:dc:k in the Second Temple Period lx'Cau:;c:.ofthc:sc numerous questions. S uch an a pproach is further criticized by C h.ristfricd BOttric h, "' The Mc1chizcdek S tory nf 2 (Siw01rit:) Enoclr: A Reaction to A. Orlov." .IS./ 32 (2001 ): 445-70. c:s p. 445. Nc-\'crthcless 2 £mx:Jr atso is excluded from the prc:$Cnl study b«;ause of significant questions concerning its date and origins. Gic:sc.hcn, howc: ...er, cites 2 Emu:lr even when iL" presentation of Mekhizc:dek contradicts thai of Hebrews. Sec. fn r example-. discussion of Mckhizc:dek 's genealogy in the two tex.l:> in Gieschen, Allflc>lmlwrpllic Christo/()gv. 310. • n F'rnncis I. Anderson, ··Enoch, &c.ond Book o f." ABD 2:S 16.22. e~-p. S2 1.

MESSIANIC PRIEST TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM 137

arguing on the basis o f such a text. Admittedly Anderson •s position

reflects scholarship of the 1980s, yet little has changed in the last two decades; Grant Mac.askill could be no more definitive about the provenance of the bM k in a very recent survey of the scholarly landscape."' Perhaps the most fruitful approach to 2 Enoch is that of Andrei Orlov. While he dates the book to the late firs t century C.E., Orlov docs not attempt to position 2 Enoch as a source for Hebrews. Instead, he approaches the Melehizedck materials there and in Hebrews as parallel appropriatitms of traditions about the figurc.·m The signilicancc o f these priestly discussions re lative to Hcbrc\vS

will be considered more. lltl ly in the final chapter. Before reaching that point. however, there remains an examination of discussions of

Mclehizedek in Second Temple Judaism.

m Grant Muc.askill, ··Enoch. Second Book of," NIDB 2:265. zw His pub1icalions on 2 E110clt are numerous. but sec espt."i:'ially Andrei Orlov, ..The. Heir of Righteousness and Ihe King of Righlcuusness: The Pri(."".SIIy Nouc>hic Polemics in 2 Enoch and Ihe- Episll<: lo lhe Hebrews," .ITS 58 (2007): 45-65, csp. 57; and his earlier article -i\·ldchizedek legend of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch," .IS./ 31 (2000): 23-38.

CHAPTER FOliR

MELCHLZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM PLE JUDA ISM

As discussed in the exegetical survey in chapter one, the figure of Mclchizcdck plays a very important role in Hebrews, discussion of Jesus as priest. Jesus, status as priest is lcg·i tima t<..~ by his relationship to the mysterious fib•1ue. Jesus is said to be 'in the order of Melthizcdck,' and on scvcr•l occasions Jesus is said to be like Melehizcdek. Conversely, onc.c the opposite is asserted, as Melehizcdck is compared 10 !he 'Son of God .' Melchizcdek's rMeption of tithes from and pronouncement of blessing on Abraham arc key parts o f Hebrews' argume nt that Jesus holds a prieStly status greate r than that of the Levitical priests. As noted above. scholars continue to investigate the pos..'iibility that further understanding of Mclchizcdck in biblical and subsequent traditions might shed light on understanding the motif of Jesus as priest in Hebrews. Some attention has already been given in chapter I 10 Hebrews' interpre ta tion o f Gen 14: 18-20 and Ps 110:4, with brief

comments also made there about Mckhizcdck traditions in other liternlurc from the Second Temple period . Much more can be said in this chapte r about these challeng ing biblical passages, their usc in Sc:..~on d Temple Jewish literature, and potential connections between these Jewish portraits of Mclchizedck and Hebrews' discussion of Jesus as priest.

I. MELCHIZEDEK IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES AND THE SEPTlJAGINT

Mclchizcdek is d iscussed in only two passages in the Hebrew Bib le, Gc n 14: 18-20 and Ps II 0:4. These passages arc of vCJ) ' d ifferent natures. The f<.)rmcr claims: to recount a historical encounter between Mclchizcdck, a local prie-st-k ing, and Abram after the patriarch 's

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

139

military victory over C hcdorlaomc.r and his a llies.• The latter a ppea rs to be part of a divine oath to a Davidic king in a royal psalm. The precise relationship between the Mclc hizcdck traditions in these two passage~~ is difficult to e valuate.

1.1. Genesis 14:18-20 ln order tO understand the c.ritical problems surrounding this passage, it is important first to examine it in its context of'Gcn 14: 17· 24, with vv. 18-20 in ita lit,~. The following translation (NJPS) rcnccts the MT; differences present in the LXX arc discussed below: 11

When he returned tfom detemi ng Chedorlaomer and 1he kings w ilh

him, the king of Sodom came out to m~t him in the Valley of Shaveh, which is the- Valley of the King. IN And KiJtg !\{e/chizedek af Salem brougltt our hrettd and ll'ine: lte was a priesr of God A-1ost High. 111 He blessed him. saJling• ..Blessed be Abram ofGod Most High. Cretttor ofheaven and eaNh. ::y At~d ble.tred be God Most Higlt. Who has deli\'t?l'l'tl yourfoes it~to }'OUr hand!" And {Abram] gave him a teutlt ofe•··erylhing. 21 'N1en the. king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give me the- persons. and take the possessions for yourself: · !! But Abram said to the king of Sodonh_ "I swe.ar to the- loRD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and e.arth: 1 ( will not take. so much as a thre.ad or a sandal strap of what is yours; you shall not say. 'lt is l who made. Abram ric-h.' !J For me. nothing but what my sen•ants have used up; as tbr the share of the men who wem with me-Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre-let them take their share.'' (Gen 14: I 7-24 NJPS) As noted a bove , several aspects of the passage. d iffe r in the MT a nd LXX. J<>Scph Fitzmyer notes five such differe nce,<:' a . Whereas the MT o f(icn 14: 18 mentions Mclchizedek's o ffering of ' bread and wine' W'.1 Cij'z) in the singular, in the LXX the ' bread' is p lural (apTOU$ KO:t O'tvov). T his may have g iven rise to inter·

1

Though the. patriarch is still named Abram in Gen t4 and does not becomeAbraham until Gen 17:S. the a uthor of Hebrews a lways refers to him as Abraham, as do lllOlit Second Temple Jewish writer.t w ho retell this c.ncounter. 1 Joseph A. Fitzmyer. ··r-.·ldchizt.xlck in the MT, LXX. and the NT," Bib 8 1 (2000): 63-69. esp. 61. I ha\-'C r<.·arranged Fitzm~·cr·s points a nd added additional comments.

140

CHAPTER FOliR

prctations in some Second Temple Jewish texts that Mclchizcdck fed all of Abr.lm's party (sec further below). b. Whereas the ki ng ofSodom tells Abr.lm to keep 'the possession' (1!i;;>1;:t: sinh'lllar, contra NJPS tr.lnslation) as spoils in the Gcn 14:2 1 MT, in LXX he tells him to keep 'the horse' (n\v 'I rrrrov). e. In the same verse, MT refers tO captives with the collective singular noun 1!i!;?~OJ . but LXX tr.lnsfonns it into the plur•l a\/Opa;;. d. The LXX docs not translate the Tctragrammaton in Gcn 14:22 (f1''?¥ 71! ;'1'\<1',). Instead, it renders only the second of the tw(> designations, 'God Most High' (TOV 9£0V TOV ulj/tOTOV). c. The Hebrew in Gcn 14:24, usually tr.lnslatcd as a jussivc, become,, the future ArJ~Ij/ovTCXt in the LXX. These variations aside, several issues pertaining to both versions deserve attention. First, Mclchizcdck is introduced only as the king of Salem and priest of God Most High. Salem (cit;i; !aAtW) has typically been understood as Jerusalem, as evidenced in Ps 76:3 (EV 2), most Second Temple Jewish rccounti ngs of Gcn 14 (sec bc.low), and all the extant targums on Ocn 14.3 Occasional1y, however, Salem has been identified with Shechcm.' This leads to the next pt)int of attention .

mv:

See Robert Hayward. "Shcm, Mckhizcdek. a nd Concern with Chri$tianity in the Pcntatcucha l Targumim," in Targumic mrd Cognate Stm#es: £.\'Says in JloiUmr ng.cst point concerns Gc:n 33:18 (MT 1~!~ C1~~ 1ip~ ~~ .,.~ o?"~ :V~: :{::n. Whereas most tmn..;lators understand aT~ here as an adjccti\•e or adverb ('s.afcty, · ·safely,· etc.; the Samaritan Pentatcuch-not mentioned by Gammie-similnriy rt:ads 01~}, Ganunic prc:fers to tmnslate the relevant part o f the phrase as "And Jacob came to Salem. a city of Shee.hem" (-Loc-i.'' 390). Surprisingly. Cammie fails to mention that the LXX sur.ports his reading with the re-ndering Ked ~Mtv lo:Kw~ ~\s Ioi.~UJ nOAev !ua~wv, i1 £otw tv y!J XetV(tO:V. UnlOrturw.td)• this phrase. is not extant in the Qumran text<> UL~on:ling to Martin Abesg. Jr.. Peter Flint. and Eugene Ulrich. Tile Dead Sett Scrolls IJible (New York: HafVcr San Fmncisc(), 1999), S06. n. d. James Kugel notes thut some a ncient writers also a<>sociatcd Salem with the: Samaritans and identifk-d it a.<> S hechem, a city nc-ar Shcc.hem, or Mt. Geriz im. Sec Kuge l, Traditions q( the Bible. 283-84. 29 1-93. Stt a lso Martin McNamara...rvlelchizedek: Gen 14, 1720 in the Targunt..<>, in Rabbinic a nd Ea rly Christian Litera ture;· Bib 81 (2000): J-31. csp. 9-10: and the discussion below of Pseudo-Eupolmnus. .l

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPl E JUDAISM

141

Second, Mckhizcdck appears without introduction and just as quickly d isappears again, playing no fu rther role in the Pentateuch. This has fostered much discussion about the litcmry integrity of this passage, as it appears that the Mclchizedek perieope interrupts a description of Abram's encounter with the king of Sodom. Indeed, the historical-critical problems in Ocn 14 arc. manifo ld. The contents o f the entire chapter do not correspond to any of the fo ur major documentary sources:~ Though some scholarS argue that Gcn 14 is a literary unit, most think that Ocn 14:18-20 has been inserted into the chapter' s preexisting narrative about Abram•s military exploits, which may itself be a composite unit incorporating te xts which originally had no reference to the patriarch.4 Many scholars have u nderstood this passage as dating from the period of the united monarchy and inserted into Ocn 14 in order to legitimate the Jerusalem priesthood and/or Davidic dominion over the city.' O ther scho lars, howe ver, argue. that Ocn 14: 18-20 predates the Davidic era and note two features, a po.o:;siblc thC()phoriC cleme nt in the name i'J:r'~?/) and the designatiOn of his deity as Ji''?¥ '71:(. These scholars understand Mclchizcdck as prie-st of a Canaanite deity, either Scdcq or El 'Eiyon, rather than a prit-st o f lsracJ •s deity, as most certainly is imp lied in the final ed ition of Genesis.' Still o thers date the passage to the divided monarchy or after the exile." s Sec: S. R. Driver, All lmroductitm 10 llw Li1erowre tif tile Old Testamem (New York: Sc-ribner's. 1913; repr., Cleveland: Meridian, 1956), 15, and Manin Noth, A HL<:tmy of tile Pemateudwl Tmdi1io11s (Englewood CliffS. N.J.: Pn.,ntice· Hall. 1912: rcpr., Atlanta: Scholars Press., 198 1). 28 n. 84. Sec also von Rad, Gent!:ris, 115, (br a concise summary of the pa.<>sage's diOic ulties. fo For thorough surveys ofvarioos historicalr similar theories. ~t f\'lartin Btxlinger a lso identifies Mclchizede-k with a Canaanite sod, proposins that \Jlelchizedek wa..<> himself a solar deity. Sec: his ·' L ·~nigmc de MelkisCdeq," RHR 211

(1994): 297-333. '' See the ufbrt -mcntioncd •hesc variol.l$ positions.

SUf\'C:YS

by Emcrton and Westermann for di..<>cussions of

142

CHAPTER FOliR

Beyo nd the d isjunctive nature of the passage, one other issue should be noted. In the fi nal phrase of v. 20, both the Hebrew '?ll~ iWl?~ i'nl)~l a nd Greek Kat £5wK£V auTc;l OEKCXTT)V ncivTwv arc ambiguous about both who pays and who receives the t ithe. This typically is obscured in Eng lish transla tions, as mosL (including the N RSV, NJPS, NAB, and N IV) name Abram as the one who pays the tithe in Gcn 14:20." One can o nly wonder how muc h translators have been inOucnccd by Hcb 7 a nd/or the dominant Second T cmp1c Jewish interpretat ive tradition . For a ncient a uthorS, experience testified that priests receive ra ther than pay tithes. In fact, some Second Te mple Jewish authors usc this pas..~agc as an opportunity to discuss

ana

lhis practic::.c . 11 Though ce rtainly important, these issm.-s which arc so prominent in historical~ critical discussions o f Gc n 14 were not troubling in Second Temp le discussions o f the passage. As w iJI be evident be low, anc ient interpreters sense pro blems with t he passage. but these simp ly arc rough spots to rec tify in their rcte llings. not matte rs that raise concern about the historicity or le-g it imacy of Mclc.hizcdck and his enco unter with the patriarch. Issues such as Mclchizcdek 's abrupt a rriva l and departure in Gcn 14 c.a n be glossed over or e lse read as thcologk-aJiy significant.' 1 Interprete rs do d iffer on the identificat ion of the city Salem, but thc.y rc llcet one location or another and do not e nter into a debate betwee n vario us sites. Eve n the Canaanite orig ins of Mclchizedck arc acknowledged but arc not seen as problemat ic-all Second Temp le interpreters assume Mclchizcdck's 'God Most High' is synonymous with the God of Abram , a nd Mclchizedck can even be credited as builder ()f lsrJcl's temple." 10

To their crc:tlit, the NJPS trnns1ators do indic:a le the: ambiguity of the Hebrew by placing ' Abra m' in brnckds in Gcn 14:20. FiiZmyc:r thinks that in the-orig.inal vc:rsion of the story. Mck hizc:dck wa:; an allied king and tb\.1$ paid the. tithe to Abram (•·Melc-hizedck," 67). Robc:rt Hooston Smith a lso argues that Mekhizedek paid the tithe in the-origina l fbrm of the-story. but he considers it a ransom paid to avert a sic:i e by Abram's a nny. St'C." Smith, ..Abram a nd Mck hizedek (Gen 14 18-20)," ZAW -,1

(1965): 129-SJ,csp. t3 t-39. 11

Sec: KugeL Tradititms, 216, and the discussion ofrdevanllc:x:ts bdow. Kuge-l relates the: killer pmctic:e to ..the doctrine o f ·omnisis.nificance...' or seeking meanins in every de-tail of Scripture bt:cause- of a belief that nothing there is supoe:rlluoos. Sec Kuge-l, Traditimr:>, 17. u While Jcwi~h sources that d early c-an be dated to the Second Te mple period c:xhibit no impulse to a ..·oid idcntil)•ing f\•ld-chize-dd: as a Canaanite, a d iO'crc nt understanding of the fivure is dominant in the. turgumim and rabbinic trnditions (and is OC-C.itsionaHy re fl ected tn patristic:. litera ture). He-re ('.•Jdchizcdek normally is identified 12

MELCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

143

1.2. Psalm 11 0:4 Melchizcdck is evoked in this royal psalm addressed w a ruler of the Davidic dynasty, perhaps as part of an enthronement or other similar ritual. The relevant verse, Ps 11 0 :4 ( Ps 109:4 L XX), reads: MT:

Onl' x·71 illil' Y:!llVl ···· : • : - ·· o'(i~? EJ)-nt;~~

Y.J¥-;~?~ 'J:'l1i :r-7¥

LXX:

c:lJ,~ooev KVptos Kal

oU ~ETO:l,u:).T}6~onat

IV e1 h p£Us e'ts T0v a'tc:lva

KaTa T~v Ta~•v N RSV:

M•>wo•5••

1'he. LORD has swom and will not change his mind.

"You are.a pl'ie-st forever according to the order of Melchizedek.'.

An eternal priesthood somehow related to that of Melchizcdek is bc~towcd on the king. The exact nature of this relationship, stated in th,c lin~ I phmse of Ps II 0:4 (Hebrew VJr ':;>'fl;l 'J;l1~r7~; L X X K<XT<X TllV T<X~I V M £AXI0 £0EK) IS somewhat ambtguous. It has been under· stood by interpreters in se veral ways.'"' as Seth. the firstborn son of Noah (who. by virtue of birth order, hdd a pri ~sthood) . T hough all the extant soorces for su-ch traditions postdate the Second Temple: period, ~·l artin McNamara proposes that the traditions dute as early as the second century n.c.E. A talmudic tradition attributed to Rabbi Ishmael (early second century c.r.) in b. Nedarim 32b presents Mck hizedek/Seth as surre ndering his priesthood to Abram tx:n use he blessed the patriarc h bdbre bk~sing God. Psalm I 10 :4 is then quoted in the tradition as addresS(.xl to Abram and uc-eomplishing the tmnsiCral. iMcNamara. IOIIowing J. J. Petuchowski, argues that such a position is polemical, but not a resptmsc to carl)• Christian uS-e of Melchizedck us in Hebrews. Rather. the tradition is understood as arising in response to Hasmonc:an appropriation of Mc:lchizcdek imagc:ty to le-g itimate their combination of priestly and political power, as with Simon ( J Mace 14:35-41). O n this. see especially McNamara, ··(>.·ldchizc:dek," I0· 13, 16- 17; and J. J. Peluchowski, "'The: Controversial Figure o f Mckhizc:dek," /IUCA 28 ( 1957}, 127-.36, c:sp. 130..36. For iUnher discussion of .\ltekhizcdek in the targumim and rabbinic sourecs, sce Horton. Meldtizedek Tradition. 114-30: a nd Claudio Gianotto,

.#,felcltisedek e Ia sua lifNJiogia: Tradi::imri giudaiclte. cri:>titme e JJIW! concerning the setting. dating, and interpretation of Ps 110, soc Leslie C. Allen. Psalms 101-.50. /l.e~·ised (\VBC 21; Nashville: Nelson, 2002), 108-20. (Unfortunately r\Uen·s t.".t>mmentury is pl-agued byprinting errors with its Hebrew f(mL) See a lso Horton, Melclrizedek Traditiou, 23<}4, and Hay. Glory. 19· 22. Sec Hans-Joac-him Kraus. ThetJ!ogy t{ 1/te Psalms (Minneapolis: Fortress. 1992). 107-23, fbr a disc-us..<>ion of the:. genre of royal psalms.

144

CHAPTER FOliR

One interpretation o f the MT's reading is that the passage (and hence the entire psalm) was addressed to Mckhizcdck. Thus the e nd of Ps I 10:4 would be tra nslated, 'You a rc a pric.s t forever by my order ((>r ' on my aecounl'], 0 Mclchizcdck.'" A second option unde rstands i'j¥-,~?1l

as a

l~ommcnt

on the nature of the addrcs.scc>s position

rather than a proper name. The Iauer half of Ps I 10:4 then could be rendered as prc.<;c nted in the NJPS (and essentially suggested as early as 1937 by T. H. Gaster), ' You arc a priest forever, a rightful king by My d ecree.' Similarly, some have rendered the phmsc as ' may j ustice reign' or the imperati ve ~reign in justicc.''6 Such translations a rc pro blematic::, beca use clearly most a ncient interprete rs understood i"J¥-'~'?7) as a personal namc. 17 Seve ral interpreters in the Second Temple period- who initially read the pe rso nal name Mclchizcdck hcrL'-dO then proceed to intcrprcl the meaning of his name as an indicato r o f someth ing a bout h is characte r or status.111 In such cases, !houg h, !he interpreter always fi rst presumes that Mclchizedck is a personal name before c labor.Jti ng in a n etymo logical manner. The domina nt intc.rprctation of Ps I I 0:4 is that refkctc-d in the LXX- an ctcmal priestly ootcc in some manner related to that of Mclchizedek is bestowed on the king addressed in the r<>yal psalm. T ypically it has bee n asserted that t he king is granted a pricsth<)Od like, or ' in the o rder o C thai of Mclc.hizcdek, oflcn with the implic.ation that as.';ociation o f the Davidic ruler with the ancient Canaanite

T he- fo llowing sur.oey includt'S only interpretations w hich sec some applic.'ation u f the psalm in ancient Jsrad a nd not those which sec- its original context us messianic or prophetic:. Pur an example of the- la tter. seeM. J. Paul. ·"The Order o f Md chizedck (Ps I 10:4 and Heb 7:3)."' WTJ 49 ( t987): t95-2 11. 1 ~ Soc. David Plusser, .. Mek hizcdek and the Son o f Man (A prdiminaty note on a ne-w fmgmc-nl from Qumran)." Cllri\·aan News ,fi·om !.'>rae/ (April 1966): 23-29, ~p. 26-27: and Kugel. Tm ditim1s. 279. Kugel cites scwra l Second Temple Jewish texts that he. thinks rctlcct such a reading of Ps t 10 :4. See furthe-r discussion of this a~1p roac.:-h below. 16 A third possibility is to understand Mckhizcdek as the spe-a ker. Sec- J6zc:f T . Milik, ''Milkt-..wdek e-t ,t.filkt--r e.ia' dans 1cs anciens C:c rits juifs ct chrc!tiens ... .IJS 23 (1972): 95- 144, cs:p. 125. Soc A lle-n, P.m lm.'> 10/-50, 116, fbr a survey of interpretations that omil a persona l reference- lo r>.·ldchizedek. whic.: h he dcc:ms ..un<;_o1w incing attempL'> to e-vade this referenc-e-. '' 1' Actually. no extant Second Temple period translations or inteq>rc:tations of Ps 110:4 tha t do not lind a refere-nce 10 the person ~·lc lchizcdek have- been e ncountered in the c_o ursc of preparing this study. It> Philo. Josephus, a nd the author of Hebrews all do this. as di:;cusscd bridl ~· in chapte r 1 abo\'C and in more detail below.

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

145

monarchy was politically exped ient." Formal lies between Gcn 14 : 18· 20 a nd Ps II 0:4 arc limited to the name Mckhizcdck and the asset1ion that he is a priest; also, Mekhizcdck clearly is a king in Genesis, a nd most understand Ps 110 as a royal psalm. In the words of Thco de Kruij f, "An aucmplto establish a link between the Psalm and Gcn 14 whereby one text is seen as depe ndent upon the other can at best be only conjectural."'" Ncvcrthclc.~s, most- but admiucdly not all~cholars agree that the same king· pricst is being evoked in both pas·

sagcs.z1 Much historical-critical scholarship has bee n devoted w Ps 110. Form critics have long debated the Sitz im Leben of the psalm, with most s<..-cing it as either a liturgy from or reflection of a ce remony (e,~pecially of installation) lo r a D-.widic king. This natumlly has led to queries a bout the sacerdotal prerogatives held by monarchs in ancient IsraeL A few scattered passages in the Hebrew Bible p<Jrtr.3y Israelite and Judcan kings pcrfonning priestly functions like their royal peers in other ancient Ncar Easte rn socictics.22 These passages, however, appear almost as an omalies in the biblic-al tradition, as most texts emphasizL'---<)r at least assum(."--a d ivision of political and religious leadership between the Hebrew kingship a nd priesthood during the monarchiaJ period. Similarly, the date of composition l()r the psalm is much d isputed, though the majority o r scholars propose prcexilic rather than postexilic orig ins.n The difficulties of this issue have been minimized by those interpreters who date the original context of Ps 19 A variation of th is view is presented by Th. Booij , .. Psalm CX: 'Rule: in the i\,tidst of Your foes!'" fiT 41 ( 1991): 396-407. esp. 402. Booij ug;rec:s that 1he psalm functioned to legitimate Israelite rule in Jerusalem. but thC. appeal is to Gcn 14' s presentation of rvtdchizedek as a priest uf Yahweh who was a lready resident in the city, not Canaanite tmditioru;. Though this view is fraught with h istorical~critical problems (~p<."C i ally concerning the idc.•ntity of Mck hized'l·k' s deity, w hic h in turn assumes that Gen 14 preserves tu:tua l history). it fi nds affirnmtion in Second Tem ple: Jc:wi.<;h texts in which Mc:khizedek is r<:cognizcd as the first pries! of lsmc:l's God. 10 Theo de Kruijf, - The Pric:$'t·King Mdchiz<.xtck: The Reception ufGen 14. 18·20 in Hebrews Mediated by Psalm 110," 8ijdr 54 { 1993): 393·406, esp. 396. 11 Fitzmyc:r, ··rvtclchizcdd:," 64, sa~·s the-re- is ''litt le doubt" about this a nd dtc-s numerous $Cholar.; ho lding this view. As noted above, howe-ver, some scholars deny a personal reference to Mekhizedc-k in Ps 110:4. 21 For a convenient list and brief disc.ussion of SU<.'h <:a.<>cs.. see Roland de Vaux, A11de111 !:rrael: Its Life and hmitutitm.1 (London: Darton, Longman & Todd. 1961; rcpr. Gmnd Rapids: Ecrdmans, 1997). 11 3·14 . A parti<:ularly interest ins example is 2 Sam 8:18, where David's s.ons an: said to be c ~~Q'): they in.stead arc-i~ 1~'7 a·~!lftqi] in I Chnm 18: 17. Hay, Glm)•. 19.

146

CHAPTER FOliR

11 0 as early as David's conquest of Jcbusitc Jerusalem and sec the

psalm as provid ing legitimation fo r David's reign in the tmdi tion of ancient Canaanite k ing-priests. Others have considered Ps J 10 as addn..-s scd to a historic Israelite k ing who is a ' priest' in the sense of overseer of the sta te religion, not as a cuJtic figurc.~ At the other e nd of the spectrum, some scholars have proposed a postcxilic selling for Ps 11 0, finding its combination of political and priestly authority most feasible. in d1c period whc.n high priests were rce<>gnizcd by Israel's imperial rulers as political re presentatives for the Jewish people. In the 20th century several scholars were inclined to date the psalm as late as the Hasmoncan pe riod, but such a proposal is fraught with problems.'' Again, as important as such investigations a rc for historical rccon· structions of an cient Israel, they arc less than crucial for understand ing Sc'Cond Temple interpreta tions ami adaptations of Ps 11 0 :4 because ancient interpreters d id not read Sl~ripturc like modem historical critics. C learly those responsible. lor the L XX translation o f Ps 110:4 read he re a reference to Mclehizcde k. The author of He brews noted that his priesthood was ctcmal and that in Ps II 0 kingship a nd prit-sthO<>d were united. As will be e vident, ICw other Second Temple writers on Mclchizedek seem to have been influenced by Ps 110, though the authors of l iQMclchizcdc k and Hebrews s"-cm to share a n interest in this psalm. 4

2. MELCHlZEDEK lN NONBIBLJCAL S ECOND T tlMPLll JEWISH LlTERATURll

Mclchizedck is mentioned in numerous .lc\vish texl~ of the Second Temple pe riod. Usually he is mentioned in texts that rewrite his encounter with Abraham from Gcn 14 with rela tive exegetical restraint, and occasionally cleme nts of these rcwrit ings arc comparable to sta tements about Mclchizedek in He brews. As will be evide nt, however, Melchizedck is never prc.scntcd as a heavenly figure in Jewish texts outside of the Dead Sea Scrolls. That stands in contrast

De. Vaux, Andcmtlsrael, 114. As noted above-, Allt'n prt·w idcs a usefUl survey of Lhesc positions. For funhe-r critique l>f the- idea lhat Ps I 10 has Hasmoncan ori:;ins. sec Pc:tuchowski, ..Conlro\'ersial Figure.. ·• 135-36. l -'

:$

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

147

wiLh his treatment in the Qumran texts, which arc d iscussed in the latter part of thi~ chapter.

2.1 . Genesis AjJOCiyph()ll The Genesis Apocryplwn was discovered in cave I ncar Qumran and as such was among the earliest Dead Sea Scrolls to come to light. The text was written in Aramaic., a nd it is extant in only one very fntgmcntary manuscript. Portions of 23 columns have survived; only three co lumns ( IQapOcn XX-XXIf) arc essentially intact, a nd 13 others conlain varying numbers of lines or words.26 Like several other texts from that ('ave, it has not been pub lished in the official Discoveries in the Judc.an Desert series: and instead has a ppea red in other vc.nucs.27 The tcx1 consists c hiefly of expansions of ~'l.ccounts from Genesis

concerning two char~ctc~. Noah and Abram. As Fitzmycr notes, "The conventional title, Genesi~ Apocryphon .. . is a misnomer.··~11 lnstcad, the book is more accurately appraised as 'par.ibiblical Jitcraturc-: incorporating paraphrase and the sort~ of expansions common in later rabbinic midrashim (~o Fitzmycr). or as ' rewritten Scripture. ,2., The manuscript is dated to roughly 25 B.C.&SO C.E. on paleographical grounds, but its composition could be dated as early as the mid~seco nd century B.C. E." Though preserved only at Qumran. the text docs not ~ Joseph A. Fit:anyer, ··Genesis Apocryphon," EDS.S I:302-04. esp. I:302.

z, T he exc-eption to this statement concerns portions o f two oolumns published in DJD J as 1Q20. ·Apocalypse of Lamech.' Sec D. Barthelemy and J. T. Milik, c."<..s., DJD I, 86· 87. Pl. XVII. Major publications of other sections o f the work include Nahman Avigad and Yigad \'adin, A Gemw·s Apot'l)·plum: A Scm// fmm the Wildem eJ.\" of Judaett: Description all(/ Om1ems of the Scroll. Facsimile.,·, Tmn:~cription mul Tm11slation Fitzmyer. "'Genesis Apocryphon," 1:.302. 19 Fitzmyc:~. "'Genesis Apocl)·phon.·· 1:.302. 30 Fitzmycr. Ge11e.sis Apm't)plloll, 23, fbllowing Jamc.s C. Vandc:rKam. Texwa/ mrd Hi.\'Writ:af St11dies i111!te Bm1k of.Juhilee:o (HSM 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977). 287. Earlier Fitzmyer proposed lhe date of 100 n.c.E. in ··Genesis Apocryphon," 1:.303. Ultimately this detcnnination hinges largely on whether the

148

CHAPTER FOliR

hint of community d istinctivcs like its characte ristic sectarianism. This

factor and the text's composition in Aramaic likely serve as evidence that it originated outside Qumran.31 At first g lance it a ppears that JQapGcn ar XXII, 12 - 17 narrates the encounter from Gcn 14 quilc faithfUlly. Subtle interpretative comments arc introduced, however, that trdnsform the tenor of the ac,count. One might say Genesis Apocryplum 'dcmythologi,es' it. 12

111e king of Sodom heard that Abram had brought back all the

captives l l and all the bl)Oty, and he went up to mec.t him. He came. to Salem. that is JenLs.alem, while Abram was camped in tl1e- Valley of IJ Shaveh. This is the Vale of the King, the Valier of Beth-haccherem. Mekhizcdek. the. king of Salem. brought out ' food and drink J'h r Abram and for all the-men who were with him. He wa$ a prie.st of God Most High, and he blessed 16 Abram and said. ··Blessed be Abram by (iod Most High, the lord of heaven and ea1th! Blessed be God Mos1

High, 11 who has delivered your enemies into your hand:· And he gavehim a tithe-from all the goods of the king of £lam and his confederates. ( IQapGen ar XXll, 12-17)"

Scver.3l issues in this account dc.o;crvc c.onsidcr~ti on. For one, it is clear that the author of the Genesis Apoc1ypho11 understands Salem as Jerusalem, as explicated in line 13. Also, in this retelling the author seeks to smooth the disjunction of the Genesis account between Abr.lm's meetings with Mclthizedek and the king of Sodom. Here the king of S<>dom journeyed to Salem with the intcnl of meeting the patria rch, who was in the (presumably nearby) Valley of Shaveh:" This di ffcrs lrom Cicn I 4 : I 7, where the king goes to the valley itself.

This adaptation implies that in (ienesis ApoCI)'}Jhou the kings of Sodom and Salem met in Sa lem a nd then together traveled to meet Abr.lm in the valley. This inference is supported by the smooth tr.lnsition in JQapGcn ar XXII, 18 introduc ing the meeting of the king

extant <:opv ur Genesis Apocryplum is the autograph. as proposed by Roland de Vaux, review o l J. A. Filzmyc:r, The Genes is Apot:I)]JhOII of Qumran Can:' 1: A Comnumtmy, RB 14 ( t967): t00-02, csp. tOt. .>r Fitzmyer, ··Genesis Apoc:l)'phon," 1:303. See a lso his discussion in Genesi.-t

Apocryplwu, 16-25. n The translation is thai of F'itzmye-r. Genes is Apocryplum. 109. His italics, indic:'"ting where the Aramaic vc:ry closely fo llows the Hebre-w of the Ge-n 14 ac.count, (sc~ Fi tanyer, Ge.ue:;is A_poCI'")'fJhan. 38), have not bcx•n retained . . .> Several unc rent wntc:rs located the Valle-y of Sha\'c:h ncar Jems.ukm. See Astour, ..Shavc:h, Valley o f," 5:1168..

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

149

of Sodom and lhc patriarch: ' Then [l' 1NJ] the king of Sodom approached Abmm .. .' Another is..<>uc worth noting is Mclchidck's initial act toward Abram. Mclchizcdck presents 'food and drink' (;"1Tl1U01 ?'NO), something less specific than the 'bre"d and wine' 01)~) of Ocn 14: 18. He gives it not just to Abram but also to his tmops.

0::1

Finally, while not explicitly named, it is strongly implied that Abram is the figure who pays the tithe of Gcn 14:20. This is evident because the bounty from which the tithe was drawn is explicitly identified as ' all the flocks of the king of Elam and his confederates.' The king of Elam is identified as the leader of the enemy coalition in both Gcn 14: 17 and IQapGcn ar XXI. In the hands of the author of Genesis Apoct)'phon, tl1C event loses its mysterious aura through these additions to the story. Why Abram first met Mclchizcdek rather than the king of Sodom is partially explained- the kings presumably visited him together. This adaptation serves to make Mclchizcdck's introduction much less dramatic than his sudden appearance in Gen 14: 18. What appears in Genesis to be a sacral encounter becomes something like a dinner on the grounds for the victorious troops~ presence of wine is still explicit, but the bread becomes generic tare. Though still priest of God Most High, Melchizcdek is a hospitable king-priest but not quite the mysterious figure he is in {)en 14 or Hcb 7. The ac<:.ount in Genesis Apoc1yphon betrays no dependence on Ps 110:4.

2.2. Jubilees

As one would expect in a text of rC\\Tittcn Scripture like .Jubilees, Abmm's encounter with Mekhizcdck is addressed." Unlbrtunately, however, the extant text is defective in this section, leaving on1y the following: Whe.n he had am1ed his hotL~ehold setv runs .. . for Abt·am and his desce.ndanl~ the lithe of the tirslfruits for the lord. The-Lord made it an

.;.: Sec the prc-Yious chapter fbr introduc-tory infbrmution on .Jubilees.

150

CHAPTER FOliR

etemal ordinance that they should give it (0 the prie-sts who serve be.t(m~­ him for them to possess it forever. (.Jub. J3:25f$ Regrettably, Mclchizcdck•s name is now missing from most extant manusc.ripts <Jf Jubilees. It seems certain, however, that the book orig· inally narrated his e ncounter with Abram. This is evidenced b)• the fac t that just aflcr the lacuna in Jub. 13:25--whcrc one would e xpect to find mention o f Abrnm's encounte r w ith the mysterious priest in a book so de pendent on the narr.itivc of Genesis- the issue of tithing is disc us.'\cd (Jub. 13:25-2 7). Here one fi nds a digression on the divine orig ins of the tithe to support the priests o f Israel, followed by a n unimaginative par.!phrasc of Abr.!m's meeting with the king of Sodom. Thus it seems a safe assumption tha t .Jubilees orig inally contained an account <>f Abram's lithe to Mclchizcdck, and this deed prompted Jubilees' subsequent discussion of the tithe as the LORD's provision for priests. Some stholars have suggc-..o~tcd that the acc.ount of their meeting has been excised from .Jubilees. perhaps with the intent () f dampening specula tion on the mysterious pricst· king.3(' Others, however, argue that the omission is due to scribal error. J amt\~ VandcrKam agrees with scholars who suppose that haplograph)', or the accidental omission of a phrase b ecause il began with similar letters as a subsequent phrase in the passage, has occurred. He argues that th is most likely occ urred in the transmission of Hebrew texts of .Jubilees before the book was translated into Ethiopic, not in the Ethiopic. ma nusc ript tradition itself. VandcrKam notes, however, that severa l minor Et:hiopic manuscripts do c.o nta in some mention of Mclchizcdck (even if only in marginal notations), and on their basis he reconstructs Jub. 13:25 as follows (with the rcconstn tctcd words in brackets):

sen•ants, (Abram went and killed Chedorlaome.r. UJ>On re.tuming, he took a tithe of everything and gave it to ·rvtelchizedek. 'n tis tithe was) for Abram and his desce.ndants the tithe of Lhe firs tfruits for the Lord. The. Lord made it an etemal ordinance that When he had armed his

holL~hold

.>s The 1rnnslation gi\'en here is adapted from the rQ
MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

15 1

they should give it to the priests who se.rve. before him for them to

pos..o;e.s..~ it foreve,·.-17 Assuming VandcrKam •s reconstruction is a ppropriate, .Jubilees appears to afHm1 tha t Abram encountered Mclc hizcdek, a pri"'~tly ugurc, and paid tithes to the latte r. A striking fea ture is that the a uthor of Jubilees associates tithes paid to Mclc hizcdck with those later paid to s uppo rt Levitica l pries ts, basing the latte r practice on the fo rme r. Nothing implies that the author of .Jubilees saw d iscontinuity between the two priestly traditions. All much from the interpretation of this encounte r in He brews, where Abraham's tithe to Mclchizedek serves as a symbo l of the superiority of Mc::Jchizcdck's priesthood to that of the Lcvites (Hcb 7:4 - 10).

2.3. Pseudo..£upolemus Seven Greek fr.3gmcnts a ttributed to Eupolcmus a rc preserved in Euscbius. Praep. ev., Book 9, and Euscbius indicate~ his dependency fo r these passages on Alexander Polyhistor~ Conceming the .Jews. Two o f the fmgmcnl~, a lbeit in different fon ns, also were preserved in C lement of A lexandria, Stromata; C lement too cites his dependence on Alexander Po lyhistor. This Eupo lcmus was a second-century B.C.E. Jc\vish historian of a priestly family who was sent as an amba~sad or w Ro me by Judas Maccabcus(l Mace 8: 17; 2 Macc. 4 : 1 I ; Joscphus, ./.W. 12 .4 15- 16)." Of the seven fragments preserved by Euscbius, only five arc attributed to Eupo lcmus b)• m(>St modern scholars. The other two, including one narrat ing the Mckhizcdek event o f Gen 14, have b een widely deemed as pseudonymous because of the ir Samaritan tendencies s ince identified as s uch by Jacob Freudenthal in the late 19'" century.' '' Freudenthal's identification o f one of these fragments -the

.;; Vand~:rKam. B()ok ofJubilees (1989), 1:82, 2:81 -82. See a lso VanderKam, Book t?(.J.uhilees (2001), 49. ·''Carl R. Holladay, ..E.upole-mus.·• ABD 2:671 -12. esp. 2:671 . .><~For a n introduetion, critical text, and translation of these two fragments, see Carl R. Holladay. ~p~eudo- Eupolemus (Anonymous)," in Fragm ems .from lle//r.mistic Jewislr Authors (Vol. 1: Historians; Chico. Calif.: Sc holars Press, 1983), i.$7-87. Seealso Carl R. Holladay. "'l!u(l01cmus. Pseudo-,·· ABD 2:672-73; and Jacob Freudt"ntha l, '-Ein ungcnanntcr sant.aritanische r Gcschic htschrdbcr," in Alexander Polyhi\·tnr rurd

152

CHAPTER FOliR

one in question hcn.--as pseudonymous has been opposed by Robcrl Doran, and Nik(>iaus Walter has argued that the second is a composite text whose authorship is: impossible to dctcnninc ..~o Neither rcccnl argument has found a consensus. Pscud()-.Eupo lcmwf reference to Mclchizcdck is preserved in Euscbius, Praep. ev. 9. 17.5-6: 5

Whe.n the ambassadors approached him (Abraham], requesting that he might re.le.ase the prisoners in exchange tbr money, he did not choose to

take ad\•antage of those who had been unfortunate enough to lose.

Instead. after he had obtained food fi')r his young men, he returned the booty. He

wa.~

also received as a guest by the city at the te.mple-

Argarizin. which is interpre.ted ' mountain of the r-.·tost H i gh . '~· He also received gifts tf om Melchizedek who was a f>riest of God and a king as we.ll.~ 1

This brief account clearly is derived from Gen 14, yet its eonfOm1ity to the source on two matters is questionable . Mclchizedck, identified as a ruler and priest~ is associated with Argarizin, reflecting the Aramaic fo r Mt. Gerizim. It is unclear if this is an a lternate

tmdition about the identity of Mek hizedck's city or, as is more likely, if the author understands Salem to be located in Samaria." Centuries later Jerome and Actheria (both late fourth century C. E.) would make the latter identification~ but such is not claimed in the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Sanwritan Targum :.u Also unclear is the nature (>f the gi fts which Abraham (not Abram as in Gcn 14) receives from Mclchizedck. The G reek word used here, .Swpov, could be. used in the LXX to translate various Hebrew tcnns denoting gi lls, including both food (seven times for Cl)i) and money." It most ollcn was used in the LXX in sacrificial contexts, especially to die l'Ofl ilun erhaftemm Re.,·te Judiii.w:lwr mrd sanwriumist:ller Geschiclusu;e rke (Hellcnistische S tudicn 1-2; Breslau: Sku1sd1, 1875). 82-1 03. 207-08. 223-2$. •• Sec Robert Doran. ·•r'seudo-E.upok-mus." OTP 2:813-79; a nd N ikolaus \Vahc:r, ..PseudG-Eupolcmus ( Samaritanis.c.her Anonymus);· in .liidisclle Sdrrijien au.'> Judlenislisch-rOmischer Zeit ( vol. 1. pt. 2: ed. W. G . KUmmcl: GU!e-rsloh: G. Mohn,

1976). 137-43. The tronslalion of Pseudo-Eupolemus is that of Holladay, Fr(tgmem.\·. 173. James L Kuge-l. The Bible (IS It Wo:; (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap, 1997). 160, argues that lh is uulhor undenaood Salem as a Samaritan site on the ba"iis o f Gcn 33: 18 LXX r ·Sa1em, the <:it)' o f Shechcm") and Jub. 30: J (-Sa le-m. to the ca<>l of She<:hem''). Sec also the note above conc.crning Freudenlhal and the perceived Samarilan tcnde.ncics of th is lc;tt .u McNamara, ··r-.·felchizedck." 9-10. u Sec further Gerhard Sdmc:idcr, 5Wpov. ED.f'o/1' 1:365. tl

Al'

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPl E JUDAISM

153

translate the broad sacri ficial tc.rm gqj?, thoug h numerous non·cultic

uses of the tcnn aJso arc fbund .4 s Domn is corr<..-ct to note that the gifts may be the brt-ad a nd wine of Gcn 14:18, presumably understood as for Abraham only." It i~ unlikely that Pseudo-Eupolcmus means here a gr<)up meal ( like lhat of Genesis ApoCI)'f'IWn) because Abraham is already credited a few lines earlier by P~cudo-Eupolcmus with holding back some of the spoils to nourish his servants. One cannot be certain, however, about the identification Doran proposes, and the possibility remains that Pscudo-Eupolcmus means Abraham received a llnancial g ift rather than nourishment. In Gen 14: I K-20 two exchanges arc recorded, those of the bread and wine a nd of the tithe; as noted above., the Hebrew is vague as to who pays whom, though the overwhelming lrddit ion is that Abraham pays Mclchizcdck. The Greek is clear in Pscudo-Eupolcmus, though, that Mclchizcdck gives somellting to Abraham. As mentioned a bove, owpov frequently was used in the LXX for ilnancial gifts. Though Abr•ham's generosity in the bartering of the prisoners already implied his lack of interest in financial gain, the most natu ral reading of the text nevertheless is that Abraham, 'tn."aK-d as a guest; received material gifts, not something of purely religious signilicancc. Since ancient tcmplc.'i were storehouse.~ of material wealth, one need not assume that the location o f this exchange in the temple at Argarizin (MI. Gerizim) ruk,~ out identification of the g ifts as tangible wealth. Similarly, one should remember that Mclchizcdek, both priest and k ing, certainly would be understood as possessing fiscal authority over the temple. Even if Pscudo- Eupo lcmus means that Abraham received a lucr.)tivc reward~ this docs not mean he intentionally p layed on the ambiguity ofGcn 14:20 concerning who pays whom. The remainder of his d iscussion o f Abraham is constituted of legends and expansions rather than precise biblical exegesis, and one may g ive th is a uthor too much credit for biblical fideli ty if such a nuanced reading of Gcn ~ ll is never used to translate-the Hebrew 1~~1:1 ("tithe"), nor is a tithe necessarily implie.d in Pseudo· Eupolc:mus, even though tithes in the HB could he give-n to those- in need (widows. orphans. sojourners; Ckut 14:28-29; 26: 12). Soc J. Christian Wilson. "Tithe," ABD 6:579-80. Comparisons involvins LXX usage: are- valid evc:-n i f Samaritan authorship ~,f lhe fragment is accepted; !H."C-Ording to Holladay, ..lhe f ragmenb> reOt."C·I c.le-ar depe-ndence: on the LXX." See Holladay. ..Eupole-mus. Pseudo,"

2:672-73. 46

Doran, ··Pseudo· Eupolemus,•· 2:880 n. o.

154

CHAPTER FOliR

14:20 is perceived hcrc.J7 Pscudo~Eup·olcmus•s account bc..'lrs no evidence of usc of Ps 110 :4 and bean; only la int resemblance.~ to Hcb

7. 2.4. Josephus Josephus mentions Mckhizcdck on l wO occasions in h is works. In both cases he presents the king~pricst as a h istorical figure relevant t() his retelling of Jewish history. He include s etymologies of the names Salem and Mclchizcdck that arc similar to those fo und in Heb 7. 2.4. I. Jewish War 6.438 Josephus alludes to Mclchizedck in his Jewish War when he bricOy recounts previous occasions on which Jcrus..'llcm had been subdued by

fOreign armies. Mclchizcdck is not cxplic::.itly named, but it is clear that he is the subject of Josephus' d iscussion: It~

original founder was a Canaanite chief, called in the native tongue ' Righteous King': for such indeed he wa.;,;. ht virn1e lhereof(Oul ToliTo) he was the fi rst to officiate as prie-st of God and, be.ing the. firsl to build lhe. telllJ>Ie-, gave the city, previously c.alled Solyma, the name of Jerusalem.n S ever~l i nterc.~ti ng

is..')ue$ arise in this passage. First, Josep hus understan ds the name •Mckhizedck ' to mean 'righteous king,' a n Ct)•mology for the name which he shares with Philo (sec be low)_'• T hough this tran.~ lation differs from the rendering 'king o f righteousness, in Hcb 7:2, both efforts dcmonstmtc an cagc.mcss w

.n Note the oommenL-; of Holladay in ··Eupok-mus. Pseudo-." 2:612-73: ..The fragment-c; retlect dear dependence on the LXX a nd possible- use of the MT. T hey urc especially characterized. howc\'er. by the ind usion of nonbib1i-.-al tmdition.s. both h..ttggadic . . . and pagan mythological l:raditions druwn fmm Babylonian and Grt'ek sources." f:~ Josephus•./. H( 6.438 {Thackeray. LCL). 49 Mdchizcdck' s name is interpreted as 'the righteous king' (Ammaic Nj7>1~ N~';IZJ) in Targum Pseudo-Jmuulum (seventh-nimh c
MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

155

extrapo late the signi licancc of Ctrlain names in the Second Temple period. Second, Josephus implies that Mckhizcdck's posilion as 'righlcous king' quali fie-d him to be lhc lirSJ pri~-st before God. IJ is, however, unclear if it is Mclc.hizcdck's righteousnes.t~ or his status as king-in this particular cily-that makes him pries!. To rc-
Josephus view Jerusalem as a sac.rcd city which must by nature have a priesthood, thus Mclchizcdck fills the role based on h is status as king, not because of his personal qualities? Perhaps the most natural reading, howcvc.r, is that he attained his priesthood due to his righteousness. Third, and closely related to the previous po int, Mclchizcdck is identified as the Jim priest <>f God. Is this deduced from Josephus' idea that Mclchizcdck was founder of lhis sacred city ( imply ing that Jemsalcm as the holy city naturally has a pric.
observation on the fact that Mclchizedck is the lirst pric.~t mentioned in Scripture'! (Sec also the d iscussion below on Josephus, Ant. 1.179-81.) The latter of these th ree options seems most likely. Similarly, the

author of Hebrews never declares Mclchizcdek to the be first priest, btu this is implied bct~ause he puts great strc.~s in Hcb 7 on-and clearly argues on the basis of.- Melchizedek's encounter with the

ancient progenitor of the Levitical priests. Fourth, Josephus says that Mclchizedck bui lt the lirst temple in the

city. This is striking bec-ause Josephus implies that it was Mclchizedck's temple that was destroyed b)' the Babylonians. In ./. IV. 6.437, Josephus dates this destruction 1468 years, six months after the foundation of the temple. This clearly associate,~ the foundation o f the

temple with Mclchizt-dck rather than Solomon~ who is not mentioned in this context. Indeed, Josephus later \vrites that the temple was razed 477 years, six months after the time of David (.J.W. 6.439). Josephus clearly sees continuity in the temples of Jerusalem. Rather than de· scribing a series of temples in the dty. he writc.s of the span of time between its initial foundation and destn1ction by the Romans, dating il as 2 168 years(./. IV. 6.44 1). Presumably Josephus was not bothered that a Canaanite is credited with the G-stablishment of lsr.lcl's temple. Instead, he seems more interested in appealing to the antiquarian tastes of his Roman readership.

156

CHAPTER FOliR

Fi fth, Mclehiz cdck is c redited as both fo under of Solyma a nd the person who later c hanged the city 's name to Jerusale m (lepooo>.u~a). It is unclear if Melchizcdck ac tively changed the c ity's name o r if the name was transfOrmed in eommon parlance because of the presence of the temple (iepov, c C'lepoooAu~a). Sixth, Josephus rct,ognizcs that Mclt.hizcdck is a Canaan ite and later notes that Da vid c.x pcllcd the C anaanites !rom Je rusalem. As noted a bove, however, he does not explain how a Canaan ite c ould be the fi rst priest of Israel ' s deity. Like his Second Temple pe riod contem porarie s, he is very restrained on this particular iss ue, which may strike mode rn inte rprete rs as odd since a ncient interpreters nonn a lly were quite c onccmcd to explicate (and domes ticate) pas.~ages o f Sc.ripturc with similar ly surprising implications. As no ted a bo ve, Josephus here dmws upon the Gcn 14 acco unt but docs not seem to utilize Ps 11 0 :4. Jose phus s hares with the author o f Hebrews an intcrc.
So Abraham, having 1·escued the Sodomite prisoners. previously captured by the Assyrians. including his kinsman Lot, returned in peace. The kinRo f the Sodomites met him at a ,,lace which they call the "royal 0 plain:' There. he was received by the king o f Solyma. ?vlelchisedek; this name means "righteous king,·· and such was he. by c.ommon Cl)Osent, insomuch that Jbr this reason he wa.~; moreover made priest of God~ Sl)lyma was in fact the place a fterwards c-alled Hierosolyma. "" Now this Melchisedek hos,, itably ente11ained Abraham's arm)', providing abundantly for a ll their needs, and in the course of the feast he began to extol Abraham and to bless God for having delivered his enemie~~ into his hand. Abmham then o ffered him the tithe of the. spoil, and he accepted the gift..so

so Josephul), Ant. 1.179-8 1 (Thadcray.LCL}.

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

157

Again -several matters dese rve attention. Josephus dcmonsu·atcs an atlempl to sm()()lh the disjunctions in Gcn I 4 : I 8, 2 1 be tween Abraham's e ncounters with the king of Sodom and Melchizcdck, bul he docs not do so lo the cxtc nl' that lhc author of Genesis ApociJ'P""" docs. Here Josephus has both kings meet the patriarch a t the 'royal plain,• a nd the transition from Abraham's interaction with Mclchiz· cdck to his conversation with the king of Sodom (Ant. 1. 182) is more graceful lhan the disjointed narralit As in Genesis Apocl)'phon, Josephus trans lb rms Melchizcdck's bread and wine of Gcn 14 into provisions for Abraham's entire anny. Finally, Josephus makes it explicit that Abraham paid the tithe to Melchizcdck. 2.4.3. Synthesis T wo things a bout Josephus' accounts arc most striking. First, in both .Jewish War and Antiquities, Josephus puts great stress on the cl'ymology of the name Mclchizcdck as ' rightc<ms king.' Philo w ill undcnaand the name similarly, but he will usc th is meaning as a n opportunity to allegorize (sec below). For Josephus, the meaning of the name is an insight into Mclchizcdck's c haracte r. Hcbrcv..·s a lso prc..o:;cnts a simi lar etymology of the name "Mclchizcdck.' Second, one finds se veral additional deta ils \vhcn Josep hus discusses the story in Antiquities as: opposed to .Jewish War. This in itself is: not surprising since Mclchizcdck is evoked in very d iffe rent contexts in the two works, which thcmsclvc.o; \VCrc wriucn over a

st The LCL translations of Je wish JVar and A11tiquitie.s are both by Thackan:y. but he- translated ' lt poo0},uJ.1Ct ots 'krusalc:m' in the: fbrme-r and as 'Hic:rosolyma' in the: latter.

158

CHAPTER FOliR

decade apart$! It is interesting, though, that Josephus in Antiquities shares two details wilh Genesis Apocryplum. One would expect ancient bib lical interpreters to smooth off the rough edges ofGc n 14 in regard to the relationship between Abraham's meeting with Mclchizedek and the king of Sodom, and both Josephus and the author of Genesis Apoci )'}Jhou do this. Less obvious, though, is the motivation fo r transfonning the bread and wine. into provisions for Abraham's entire army, especially since the patriarch provides for them in Gcn 14:24. Among extant Second Temple treatments of this story, only Josephus, the author of Genesis Apoc1yphon, and Philo propose a mass meal, and only the lirst two seck to explain more smoothly the meetings of the patriarch with the two kings. In light o f both of these correspondences, perhaps one might argue that Josephus was familiar with the version o f the story recorded in the Genesis Apocl)'phon. Again, though, Josephus shows no reliance on Ps I 10:4.

2.5. Phi/a ofAlexandria

Philo d iscusses Mclchizedck in three of his works and Jbr three d ifferent purposes. As one would expect from this author, he finds fertile opportunities to allegorize with the Gcn 14 passage and Mclchizedck's name. 2.5. I. On the Life ofAbraham 235

Mclchizedck•s name is not mentioned in this rewritten account of Abraham's dcl(:at of the allied kings and rescue of Lot, but clearly it is his encounte-r with the patriarch that is d iscussed. Great editorial liberties arc taken as Philo include~~ numerous details about the d ivine nature of Abraham's victory, and this expansive quality is also evident in his account ofMclchizcdck ,s encounter with the patriarch:

Sl" Datins Josephus· texts is diflicuh, especially Jewislr War. Book.<> 1.0 likely we-relin ish«-! by 79 c .t:.. and the)' prc•.;umab1y had .some relationship to a n earlier version. likely in Aramaic. Book 7 likd)' wa..:; a much hiler addition and perhaps dates to the90s. Antiquities dates to the early 90s. Sec Louis H. Feldman. ..Josephus." ABD 3:98 1· 98; and S te-ve Mason, ..Joscphu.'i: Value-fhr New Testament Study." DNTB 596-600.

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPl E JUDAISM

159

Whe.n the- high priest of the- most high God saw him [Abraham] approaching with his trophies. leader and anny alike unhun, for he had lost none. of his own C.Oillf)ilny, he was astonished by the te at. and,

thinking. as indeed was natural, that such succ.ess was not won without God's directing care and help to their arms, he stretched his hands to

heaven and honoured him with prayers on his behalf and offered sacrifices of thanksgiving for the victory and fe.asted handsomely those who had taken part in the contest, rejoicing ilJld sharing their gladness a..'i though the success were his own, and so indeed it was, for "the belongings of friends are held in oonunon," as the pi'Overb says, and this is f.1.r more true of the be-longings of the. goOO whose one end is to be wett.,,Jeasing to God.$3

Scvcml things may be noted here. Melchizcdek, though unnamed, nevertheless is identified as the 'high pricst'- not j ust 'priest'- in the sc.rvicc o f the ' most high God' (o IJEYO:S 'tepeus TOU IJEYlOTOU Also, whereas in Gcn 14 Melchizcdck goes out to meet Abraham, here Mclchizcdck sees Abraham approaching with his troops, all unhanncd, and determines that God must be rc.o:;ponsiblc tOr this military success. l11is func tions as the rationale for Mclchizcd(·.k 's subsequent actio ns toward Abraham. It perhaps is based on Mclchizedck's words in Ocn 14:20, where God is blc.sscd for g iv ing Abram the victory over his

eeou).

foe.~.

Mclchizcdck, seemingly funcJioning as a prieS! of Abraham's God , spontaneously offers prayers and sacrifice."; in thankfulness for Abmham's victory. This is a significant adaptaJion of Gcn 14, where Mclchizcdck simp ly pronounces a b lessing on Abraham. A lso, Melchizcdek provides a feast for Abraham's entourage. This dearly is an expansion of the Genesis account, but such an motif was also noted above as present' in Genesis Apoc1yphon and Josephus:. Philo uses this opportunity to allegorize the situation into a comment on friendship. Philo's trc-Jtmcnt of the encounte r between Melchizcdck a nd Abraham clearly is selective; he says nothing abouJ Abraham's response t<> Mclchizcdck and/or Jhe lithe. In conclusion, Philo Ja kes liberties with Jhc Gcn 14 SJory and uses it fo r his allegorical purposes 10 expound on friendship. Both Philo 's discussion ofMck hizcdek's response to Abraham and Jhe rationale for this arc unprecedented in extant sourc<.'S, but he shares with other Second Temple period auJhors the interpretation that Mclchizcdck fed SJ.

Philo.Abr . 235 (Colson, LCl).

160

CHAPTER FOliR

Abr.Jham•s: e ntire e ntourage. No tics between PhiJo•s account and Hcb 7 arc ma nifest, nor is dependence em Ps I I 0:4 evident 2.5.2. On the Prelimhuny Studies 99 Philo mentions Mclchizedck briclly while d iscussing tithes, an clement in a broader d iscus.sion on the signific ance o f the number ten. It was this feeling which prompted the rvtan of Jlractice (Jacob) when he-

vowed thu.s, ·•Of all that thou givest me-, I will give. a tenth to thee"; which J)fOlllpted the oracle that follows the ble-s.'iing given to the v ich)f by Mekhisec.ie.k the ho lder of that priesthood. whose tradition he had learned from none other but himself. for "he gave him,•· it runs, "a tenth

from all"; from the. thing..<> of sense, right use of sense; from the things of spe.ech, good s peaking; fi'Om the things of thought, good thinking.~ \Vhcrcas Philo ignored the tithe in the previous passage, here it is the raison d 'Cire for mentioning Mckhizcdck. As in Jubilees, the author uses this c nC<Juntcr as an opportunity to discuss the Jewish prdc.ticc of t ithing. Though Hcb 7 also focuses on tithe in this encounter, the author of Hebrews stresses the d iscontinuity between the priesthood of Mclchizc'taBi) ~al a\mxiloanov Aaxt.lv ispwouvDv). This, <>f ('oursc, is a high compliment fo r Philo, who elsewhere discusses Isaac as self-taught (t f. los . 1)." Underlying lhis assertion, ho wever, seems to be the assumption that Mclc hizedek was the first priest, an idea known elsewhere in Second Temple interpretations of the passage; as d iscussed a bove , Josephus explicitly makes this claim. In a sense, so docs the authOr e- here-a p<>..-.;Siblc: parallel to Hebrews· dcse-ription of Mc lchizedek as lac kins parentage, i.e-. Philo presents Melchizc:dck as ·sdf-tuught' b«ause he too knows a tradition about Mek hizedck' s luc.k of unCC'Stry. Arguing again:>! this, however. is Philo's presentation of Isaac as ·scM-ta ught' while clearly knowing his relationship co Abraham.

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPl E JUDAISM

16 1

docs sec Mclchizedck's prieslhood as predating the Levitical pril'sthOriesthood. fOI' he is entitJed "the righteous king;· and a " king:· is a thing .at e.nmity with a despot. the one being the author of Jaws, the other of Jawlessmess. ~ So mind, the despot, decrees for both soul and body harsh and hunful decrees working g:rie.vous woes, conduc.t, I mea n. such as wickedness pi'Ompts, and free indulge.nce of the passions. But the king in the fi rst place re-sorts to persuasion rather than decrees, and in the-next place issues directions such as to enable..a vessel, the living being l mean, to make lifes voyage successfully. piloted by the. good pilot, who is right principle. 81 Let the despot's tille therefore be- ruler of war, the king·s prince of peace. of Salem, and le.t him o flCr to the soul tbod full of joy and gladnes.o;; for he brings bread and wine, things which Ammonites and Moabites refused to supply h) the seeing one, on which account they are excluded from the divine congregation and assembly. T hese c.hamcters, Ammonites deriving their nature- from sense-perception the.ir mother, and Moabite~o; deriving theirs from mind their fa the1·. who hold that all things owe their cohere-nce. to the~o;e two things, mind and sense-perception, and take no thought of God, "shall not enter," saith Moses. "into the c-ongregation of the Lord. because they did not meet us with bread and water'' when we came out from the passions of Egypt. ~~~ Bur let Mekhizedek instead of water offe.r wine., and give to souls strong drink, that lhey may be seized by a divine- intoxication. more. sober than sobrie.ty itself. For he is a priest, even Reason, having as his ponion Him that L~. and all his thoughts of God are high and vas t and s ublime : for he is the prie$1 of the-

162

CHAPTER FOliR

Most High, not that the-re is any other not 1vtost Hig.h- tbr God be.ing One "is in heaven above and on eanh beneath, and the.re is none. beside Him..- but to conceive of God not in low eruthbound ways but in lofty tenns.. such as transcend all othe1· greatness and all else thal is free from maner, calls up in us a picture o f the Most High.~(,

Tho ugh clearly Philo has other agendas here than just r<.:counting the narrative of Gcn 14, several ck~mcnts o f this sto ry can ncvcrthclc..:;s be d iscerned. Salem is interpreted as ' peace,' and Mclchizcdck is said to be both ' king of peace' and God's priest. The autho r o f Hebrews also idcnti ilcs Melchizcdek as 'king of peace' (Hcb 7:2) based on an etymology o f

Salem. Philo appears to address Mclchizcdck' s lack of background in Leg. 3.79: " He [God) has not fashione-d beforehand any de-ed o f his, but produces him to begin with as such a king, peaceable and worthy of His o wn priesthood:· Pn:$umably this is derived by means of an arg ument from Scripture's silence on Melehizcdck,s origins. If so, this is pamllclcd in Hcb 7:3, which assumes that Mclchizcdck is eternal and \Vithout genealogy. Commentators on Hebrews recognize two possible sources for this thinking fo r the NT author, the silence of Genesis about Melchizcdck's past and future, and the statement in Ps I I 0:4 that the one like Mclchizcdck wo uld be a priest fMc ver. While knowledge of Ps 11 0 is foundational and explicit in Hebrews, it is not evident in Philo, nor is it requisite for his co mments here. Without specifying it as an etymo logy, Philo notes that Mclchizcdck is c.allcd ' the righteous king.' Philo uses this as an opportunity w contmst despots and kings, which allegorically arc understood to reprc,sent the mind, the fo rmc.r prone toward evil and commands detrimental to onc,s body and soul, the latter us ing persuasion and producing a success ful li fe.~1 The author of Hebrews

S6

Philo, Leg. 3.19-82 (Whitake-r. LCL).

~1 Note the. words of James R. Davila. Limrgit•tJ/ Wtmb (ECDSS; Grand Rupids:

Eerd mans, 2000), 165: ..Philo o f Alexandria trca ls Mdchized<.•k as a high priest rct>rcscnting Logos or Reason, a peaceable and righteous king who is contrustcd wilh the tyrant r-.'lind. the Ruler of \Var. which leacl<> the organism into wic.kedness and excessive indulgenc.c of the passions . . .. Philo seems tu be at pains to distinh'llish Melchizedck from the warrior angel w e fi nd in l lQ13, but his as...;()(.iation of him wilh the dcmiurgic and divine Log,os ma}' mean thai Philo accepted Melchizedck's divine status:· For discussion o f f IQU (J I QMelchizcde-k). see be: low.

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

163

also plays on lhe supposed etymology of lhe name Mclchizcdek and calls him ' king of rightCOliSncss · (Hcb 7:20). Phil(>initially relates Mclchizcdck's presentation of bread and wine to Abr•ham as a function of his kingship, not his priesthood. This action is contrasted with the later refusal of the Ammonites and Moabites to ofl'c.r food and water to the lsraclilcs during lhc exodus wanderings. Philo then contrasts the wine offered by Mclchizcdck with the water withheld by Jsrdcl•s enemies and allegorizes the effects of the wine as 'a divine intoxication, more sober than sohrict}' itsel f. • Mclchizcdck•s function as priest is now strcssc.d, and he is identified with Reason or the Logos. Mclchizedek's deity, God Most High, clc.arly is understood as Abr.!ham's deity. Philo dismisses any hint of a multiplicity of gods, and he understands the title as Stressing Oo< rs transcendence. Overall, this pas,sagc is striking bc::.causc it has several parallc1s wirh the discussion of Mclchizcdck in Heb 7. As noted above, clymologies fo r Mclchizcdck's name and city arc offered by bolh Philo and the author of Hebrews, thoug h they differ on the meaning of Melchizcdck's name. It was also noted that Philo may extrapolalc significance IC:>r Mclchizcdck based on the silence of Genesis on the figure. Hebrews docs a similar thing, though there both the silence of Genesis and the voice of Ps I I 0 arc fac1ors. Perhaps most stri king, though, is Philo's correlation of Mclchizcdck with the Logos, whom Philo sees as a mediating 11gurc between God and humanit)'. Philo's Logos is Judaism's personi fication of Wisdom in Greek phi losophical clothes, and (as seen in chaplcr I of this stud)•) the author of Hebrews frequently dr~ws on Wisdom motifs to explain the idcntit)' of the Son in Heb I. It has been as.~crtcd that the author of Hebrews posits .Jesus as the divine Son in order to present him as the heavenly high priest, s:o in this -Sense one. might conclude that the author of Hebrews establishes Jesus' pticSJhood by d rawing on Wisdom motifs. This, though, is convoluted and docs nol allow one w claim, lor example. lhat Ihe author of Hebrews ada pled this motif !rom Philo's correlation of the priest Mclchizedck with lhc Logos. A better conclusion from this observation is that the author of Hebrews: was a writer immersed in the various intellectual currents: of his era.

164

CHAPTER FOliR 3. M ELCHIZEDEK IN THE T EXTS OF TH EQUMRAN COMMUNITY

Mclchizcdck appears in scvcr.ll texts f<>Und among the Dead Sea Scro lls, both in texts composed in the community or shared with 'vidcr Juda ism. One example of the latte r, the Genesis Apocryplwn. was discussed above, as its portrait of Mclchizedc k d iflcrs significantly from tha t otherw ise found in the Qumran texts. In the o ther texts discovered there, Mclchizcdck is a heavenly figure rather tha n a n earthly king· prics:t. Unfortunate ly the texts discussed bc1ow tend to be in poor states o f preservation. Nevertheless. important conclusions can be drawn a bout his: signi licancc in that community.

3. 1. Songs of the Snbhatlr Sacrifice T he name • Mclchizedek • is a proposed reading in three small fmgmenl' from the cave 4 a nd I I manusc ripts of Snngs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.jl\ T his text is represented at Qumrdn by severa l scrolls from Cave 4 (4Q400-407) along with II Q 17. The Cave 4 copies date 10 the fi rst ce ntury B.C. E. an d a rc in widcly· varying states of preservation.$') The other manuscript, 11Q I 7, preserves portions of ten columns, and its signi ficant overlapping contents with 4Q405 ind icate tha t those two manuscripts represent the same version of the text; it is written in an " inconsiste nt ha nd" and dates to "the firs t half o r the fi rst third o r the I st century CE."'" As for the date of composition of the Songs ff( the Sabbarlt Sacri(tce, Caro l Newsom pro poses a date no late r than 100 B.C.E.; understanding the text as a pre· Qumran composition that w·as appropriated by the sect and influcnctxl its own c.o mpositions, she nOte.' that the originS or the text COuld lie "sometime in the SIC'COnd century BCE .. . although there is no e vidence to preclude an ear lier date.'..;' Ne \vSOm bases her theory of prc·Q umran orig ins on the text 's 511

For lhc texts, sec Caro l A. Newsom. DJD XI. 173-401 a nd phues XIV-XXXI; and Florentino Garcia Martinez, Eibert J. C. T igchdaar, and AdamS. van der Wuudc, DJD XXIIT. 259-304 and plates XXX-XXXIV. LUI. Sec also James H. Charlesworth and Carol A. Newsom, eds., P'T'SDSSP 4b; this edition also includes discussion of tvlas I k. S9 Charlesworth and Newsom. PTSDSSP 4b. 1-2. 00 Garcia Martinez, Ttgcheluur. and van dcr Woudc, DJD XXIJJ, 266-67. esp. 263-

64.61

Carol Newsom. ..Songs o f the Sabbath Sac rillce." £DSS 2.887-89, esp. 2.887.

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

165

geographical distribution (a c1 Y clement is clearly preserved in two lines of 4Q40 I, leading some scholars to pr::l JO'llj ;n~(

''71.>, •Mclchi]zcdek, priest in

the asscmb(ly of God,' in 4Q40 I I I 3, and this reading is also supported by James Davila.rn the basis of a possible parallel with II QMclch II, 10, where the phrase ?x n1ll:! appc,\rs and Melchizcdek is presented as the subject (and first occurrence of 0' ;"11'7M) of Ps 82: 1." Davila further note.s lhat this section of 4Q40 I appears to be part of the fifth song, "which describes an eschatological •war in heaven." '{"' If Davila's interpretation here is correct, Mclchizcdck is mentioned here in a context similar t<.) that of '''Newsom, ··song,s, "2887 .• . (i} Newsom, OJD XI. 20$; Davila. Liturgical Wm·k:t, 162; sc:c: also Gard a r-.~lartine-L, Tigc:-hclaar, nnd van dcr Woudc. DJD XXIII, 270. e>-t Newsom, -sonp:, ·· 2.887. ""Newsom, DJD XI. 20$. Sc:-c: furl her discussion of 11Q.Melc:h II. 10 below. fo!t Davila. Liturgical Works, 162: cf. 223.

166

CHAPTER FOliR

II QMckhizedck, a text discussed in detail below, though admiucdly no militaristic language in reference to Mclchizcdck has survived in 4Q40 I itself. Davila finds another reference to Melchizedek in 4Q40 I 22 3, though Newsom is k ss convinced. Three partial Jines and only 2 I Jeue..,; remain; the. extant text of line three is J:'1~ ' J [." The phrase 0;'1'1' 171:>, ' they fill their hands,' is likely in line 2, and Davila finds parallels in biblical passages discussing priestly installation ceremonies (Exod 28:41 ; Lev 8:33; .ludg 17:5, 12; cf. T. Moses 10:2). In light of this, he proposes that this lr agmcnt prc.~ervcs discussion of the priestly installation of Mclchizedck and other angelic priests." Newsom is more c.autious, prcfcning to read the extant j71~ as ' righteousness' rather than an clement in Mclthizcdck's name (which in the reconstructions above, as in I1QMclchizcdck, is writwn as two words). Nevertheless she comments that "in vie w of the reference to

consecration of priest.:; in the preceding line, it is tempting to restore the name of Melchizcdck here."'• The lcucrs J'm? (the ' is less certain) appear on I JQJ7 3 II, 7. Davila and the editors of the text in DJD XXII I (Garcia Martinez, T igchclaar, and van dcr Woude) find here a pas.sage from song 8, otherwise composed of 4Q403 I II, 2 I and 4Q405 8-9 5-6." According to this reconstruction, the phrase ;n~ ' j::l?l:l? x?[!> mn;,:. 'X'Uil 'UIX1, ' the chiefs of the princes <>I' the wonderful priesthoods of Mclchizcdck' (DJD), appears in a song that invokes the praises of heavenly priests serving in the heavenly sanctuary. The striking feature is: that Mclchizcdck would stand at the head of the heavenly pricsthMd, which is reminiscent ()( ' the order of Mclchizcdck' in Ps 11 0:4. Both the DJD editors and Davila admit thm other readings arc possible, however, and Newsom rejects mention off\•1clchizcdck hcre.71

67

Newsom. OJD XI. 213. Da\'ila. Liturgical Works, 162-63. (19 Newsom, DJD XI, 213. See also Charlesworth and NeYlSOill. PTSDSSP 4 b, 38 n. 46. 70 Davila. Liturgical Works. 132-:B; Garda Martinez, Tigc:.~hc:laar, and van der WuU to the afbremc:ntioned 4Q40 I 11 3. Sec also Da\·ilo. Liturgical Works, 133; and Garda Munfncz, Tigc.hdaar, tmd van der Woude. DID XXIJJ, 270 : ~ l:>'11l'7 is v ery attraclivc.·." ..in view of lhc context, "

11

.,il

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

167

In summary, though lacunae abound~ a t least one pass.ag(.'--an d possibly more--in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice appears t<> identify Mclchizcdck as an angelic pries! serving in God's heavenly temple court; the context may be a discus..o;ion of cs:chato1ogical warfare. Another passage may idcnlify Melchizcdek as head of a n angelic priesthood (with possible overtones of Ps 11 0). This d ificn; significantly from oJhcr Second Temple period understand ings of Mclchizcdck surveyed thus far, but its pcrs:pcc tivc is similar to that of other Qumran texts that men lion the figure.

3.2. Visions ofAmram This Aramaic text from the second G'Cntury B.C.E. is preserved in fmgmenl~ of six (perhtipS seven) Cave 4 manuscripts, 4Q543-549. the most signifi(•ant of which for this sJudy is 4Q544 (4Q Vision.< of Amramb ar).n It takes the fo rm of a testament and recounts a vision of its namesak e, the gmn dson o f Lcvi.13 Amram dreams that two watc hers arc lighting over him, one evil and the other good; he inquires about their identities and powers. Though no lette rs of Melehizcdck's name arc preserved, J6zef M ilik a nd mof\t subsequent scholars have proposed Jhat he indeed was mentioned in the tcxl in 4Q544 3 IV, 2· 3 based on a pa rallel with 4Q544 2 ILl, 13:" 4Q544 2 HI , 13 ~lV, ,~~m[ eJ1llln 1w1 ~~,~~ eneolV en~n p JNl (And th ese are his Lhree-names: Belial, Princ.e of Dal'kness]. and Melc.hi r~a·

4Q544 3 IV, 2-3 [~1~ ' J'7i:ll x 11m 1'lll ~J'D )1ll\1 '~ ,, T}:lDlV 01n'm ' '

(My] three names [are. Michael, Prince. of Light, an d Me.Jchizedek]1 $. n The DJD edition is that of Emile Pucch, DJD XXXI, 283-405 and plates XVJ XXII. ?J. Kobelski. Melc!Ji:edek, 24-25. On the dating, see also Michad E. Stone, ··Amrum." EDSS I :23-24. 7 "' rvlilik, ..4Q Visions de ·Amram et unc citation d'OrigCnc." RB 19 ( 1912): 71-97. c:sp. 85 86, and now also Puc:ch. DJD XXXI, 328 29; Kobclski, i\felchizede/.:., 36: and Emile Puech, La Cromnce de.<> Es,tt!u;e,.,. e11 Ia Vie Fut11re: hm11orutlile, Resurnctimr, Vie Eumrelle? (EBih ·n.s. 21; Puris: Gubalda. 1993). S36. 7 s. The: text a nd line numbe-rs arc those of DJD; Milik cited the texts as 4Q544 3 2 and 4Q544 2 3. The-translation is that ofKobd$ki, Melchi: e(/ek. 28. 4

4

4

168

CHAPTER FOliR

As is e vident, both lisl< t)f names arc heavily based on reconstructions, and schola rs have proposed the particular names based on conceptual parallels with IQM and I IQMclch."' The one name present in the text is li1V1 •::>'m, MclchircSa' ('my king is wicked'), and the extant text indicate~ that three names arc to be listed. The passages: do seem 10 be parallc.J opposites, and admittedly ;n> •::>'m seems to be a likely restoration. If the rcconstruetion of this very fragmentary text is correct, Mclehizcdck is idcntillcd as (or with) the angel Michael and the •prince of Light • Michael o fte n a ppears in Qumran texts as the opponent of Belial a nd is invoked in the war between the sons of light and the sons of darkness in IQM, a te xt that may a lso describe M ichael as 'Prince of Light' in IQM XIII, 10- 11." Mclchizcdck then would be an angelic opponent of Belial in the eschato logical war on behalf of God 's people. This a lso appear,; 10 be his role in I I QMclchizcdck, to which attention now turns.

3.3. 1/QMe/chizedek This manuscript, II QMclchizedck ( II Q13), was discovered in 1956 and was llrst published by Adam S. van der Woudc in 1965." 76 For explanations of lhc rec()nslnKtions. sec Milik, ··4Q Visions," 85-86, and

Kobelski, .~le/clli:edek. 33. 36.

or

7i For a SUr\•ey Michael traditions in !he Dead Sea Scrolls, see Erik w. Larson, "Michael," EDSS 1:546-48. La~ os.<:crts that some G~tic texts identifY Mic.hae-1 with Mckhizcdek. T his is not explicit in the texL<;, though they do correlate Mdchizcdc.•k and Christ Sec Birgcr A. Pearson, ''Mekhizcdek in Early Judaism, Christianity, and G nosticism;• in Biblical Figures o.,b·ide tlw Bible (cd. tvlichael £. Stone and Theodore A. Bergre-n; Harrisburg. Penn.: Trinity, 1998), 176-202. and H011on, Melclli:~·dek Tradition, 131-51. Two medieval rabbinic lexL<; identify Mic.hnd with Mckhizedc--k. a point sometimes raisc.-d in ~"llpport of reconstructing a similar correlation in 4QS44; sec \'an der Woude. " Mckhisc."tl ck," 370-71; and de Jonuc and van dcr Woudc. ~ I JQ Melchizcdck," .305. Horton w isely c-autions against th is, Stating that "the medieval e\•idencc . .. cannot be tak<.•n seriously in the fhnn in whic h DeJonge a nd Van dcr Woude fsicl present it" and that "there-is no more justification for quotins short rrnbbinic] texts out o f context ... than there- is fbr similar quota tions from Christian writers" (Melclrizedek Tradition, 81-82). ?s Van der Woode, "t\Jiclchisedck,"' 3$4-.73. T he. text was published (n:llt."i:'ting minor c hanges from the ~·ditio prilrceps) with an En:;!ish lmnslatilm by de Jongc and \'an dcr Woudc, "I IQ Mc:lchizedck,"' 30 1-26. (S<.oe the previous note l(>r fuller infbrnmtion.} Van dcr \Voude's editil) princep.( also scr\'cd as the: base text in Joseph Filzmycr's article ''Further Light.··

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

169

Subsequent major editions have been published by J. T. Milik; Paul J. Kobclski; Emile Puec h; and finally in DJD by Florentino Garcia Martinez, Eibcrt J. C. Tigchclaar, and van dcr Woudc." Pot1ions of a t least three columns arc cxlant, though only t'ol. II is preserve d substantially. Garda Martinez, T igchclaar, and van dcr \Voudc. find among the textual remains 10 fragments in 15 p icccs.ro This presentation differs s lighily !rom that of van der Woudc.'s editio princeps (and his subsequent article on the text with de Jongc), where he examined 13 fragmen ts, though Kobclski notes that van dcr Woudc's photo of the lragmcnls included an unidentifie-d fout1ecnth fragmcnt.~ 1 Pucc h, following van dcr \Voudc's c~arlicr study, aJs:o cites 13 lragmcnts." The discrepa ncy is expla ined in part by the dccisi<m of the DJD editors to rcclas.~ify adjoining fragments as such, thus ncccs.s itating a new numbering system for the fragmcnts.lt3 As noted above, scholars recognize extant portions of three columns. Of these, coL I is re presented by <mly a few fortuitouslyplaced letters. Portion.~ of three letters remain fro m a supralincar notation that continued vertically into the margin between co ls. [ and lJ ; tr.!ccs o f at least II lcucrs a rc e vidcnl in the vertical portion. Though signi lkantly more remains of co L Ill , rather little can be deduced from its fragme ntary contents. Only the 11rst few words in each line arc pre$crvcd intact, and it is unclear whe-ther severa l of the remaining fragments of the manuscript preserve portions of co L Ill or subsequent columns.~'-~ As tOr coL ll, no complete lines remain, but enough materia l has survived to allow significant reconstruction of this Milik, ..Milki-.~edeq"; Kobd ski, Melt:hi: edek, 3-23; ~mile Puech...Notes sur le nmnuscrit de XIQMclkis6dc:q," ReaQ 12 ( 1987): 483-5 13; and Garcia rvlartine-", Tigchdaar. and van dcr \Voude. OJO XXIH. 221-4 1, Pl. XXVIL A later edition with a ve'l, brie f' introduction is J. J. M. Rolx:ns. P'TSDSSP 4b. 264-13. Garcia Martinez. Tige.hdaar, and van dcr \Voudc. DJD XXIII. 22 1-22. In addition. an eleventh fragment (with minim
222.

ror

IU differing views on the place-ment of fragments S- 11 (a-ccording to the DJD numbering, which diOCrs from lhitt lirst proposed by van dcr Woudc), compare lhearrangeme-llfs presented in Garcia Mnrtfncz.. Tigchdaar. a nd van dcr Woude, OJD XXIH: Milik. "'Milki-.'fCdeq"; and Puech, .. Noles...

170

CHAPTER FOliR

section of the document. The column includes 25 line.~ of text in various states of preservation.!($ Dra wing on Frank Moore Cros~'s widely-accepted palc
argued instead for a

lirst~ccntury

B.C.E. date for the manuscript, more

specifically 75 -50 B.C.E., and van der Wo udc and his fellow DJD editorS express support for this opt ion.3 ' As fo r the. original compo sitio n of the Mclchizcdck text, M il ik a rgued tha t it was part o f a longer 'Pcshcr on the Periods' thm was written by the i\lfaltre de Jus tice h imself and thus must be dated c.. 120 B.C.E." Pucch opts for a similar date (second half o f the scC fro m Gcn 14 : 18." Despite its fragmentary condition, this text a ttracted muc h a ttention shortly a fle r its initia l public.ation-and prompted bold c la ims a bo ut its applica bility to the interpreta tion of Hebrews -because it presents Mclchizcdck in an eschatological context that has priestly, prophe tic, and judgment thc mes.w As indicated be low, however. the (•.x tant ~$ Van dcr Woudc had indicated 26 lines in his editio princeps C Melchisedek; ' 358; a lso in de. Jonge a nd van d'l•r Wuude-. .. , I Q MclchiZ<.-dck.," 302; a nd accepted by F il:zmycr, .. Further Light," 247). Subsequently most sdHllars have preferred to read the traces of three lette rs that van der Wuudc:. considered as evidence: for his line 22 us part of the fhllowing line:. as in the DJD edition van ck r \Vuude recently c<)ituthored. Jean Cannignac also proposed 26 l in ~ but with no trnccs extant f<w the 22nd line; st.-e his ··Le document." 35 J. ~ Van der Wuud<.· , ··f!.·ldchisedek." 357. Sec Frnnk r-.•1. Cross, Jr., "'The Development o f the: Jewish ScripiS.'' in The Bible (Uid th(! Anciem Nellr Ea:u (ed. G. Ernest Wright; Garden City, N.Y.: Doub leda~·, 1961; rcpr., Garden City, N.Y.: Anc!10r, 196S), 133-202 {rcpr.. 170-264) for his classic pa leographical study. K, Milik, ··Milki .redeq," 97. IOIIow<.-d by Gard a Ma n fncz. T igchdaar, and vnn dc:r Wuudc:. DJD X.'XJII. 223. Fur a brief defense o f dating 1hc manusc.r ipt to 50 25 B.C.E., sec: Kobelski. Melc/Ji:(!dek, 3. ~~ Milik, -.41ilkf'...yi!deq," 126. ~ Puc:ch, ..Not~... 509 10. 00 See the discuss-ion above in c hapter 3. 4

4

4

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

17 1

portions of IIQMelchizedek- likc the other Dead Sea Scrolls texis that (possibly) mention Mclchizedck surveyed abovL'-<10 not overtly draw upon the explicit references to the figure in Gcn 14:18-20 o r Ps 11 0:4, passages central to the argument in Hebrews. Equally clear, though, is that the authors of Qumran that mention (or may mention) Melehizedek have a well-developed understanding of the figure. with biblical roots; this understanding seems to have been derived in some manner from Ps I I0:4, whereas other Second Temple Jewish authon; who mentioned Melehizcdck (Josephus, Philo, etc.) did so in the context of his cnc
?I Flusser, ··('.·ldchizedck,'' 26-27. Flusser is followed by Vandt'rKam. "Sabbatical Chronologie:.);.... 173-76: and Kugc:-1, Th(! Bih/e t~s II O·Os. 149.02. ?~ F'lusscr, "Mdchiz<.-dck," 27: and VandcrKam, ·'Sabbatical Chronologies,•· 174. ?} VanderKam. -sabbulical Chronologies." 175.

172

CHAPTER FOliR

passages and themes that allowed him to connect Mclchizcdck, the day of atonement, and sabbatical and jubilee periods.·~ Similarly, Garcia Martin(,oz also finds bib lical j ustifklli(m for the prcsentatiM of Melchizedek in this text. First, Garcia Martinez is careful U> note that while the author of IIQMclchizedek certainly

seems to envision a heavenly status for Mckhizcdc:k, he never rciCrs to the protagonist as an angel. This for Garcia Martinez is proof that the a uthor is developing his p<)rtrait of Mclchizedck from b iblical roots, as the texts there presenting the. figure as a king and priest actually inhibit the a uthor fr(>m using angelic language for Melchizcdek.'" Instead, these twin ro les fo r Mclchizc'dck in the biblical text determine the presentation of the figure. in I IQMelchizedek. A ki ng in both Gcn 14 and Ps 110, Melehizedck likewise is presented in the Qumran text as one exercising authority over other heavenly beings and over his Jot of humanity, and he also has j uridical functions ... Similarly, the b iblical prc~~cntation <Jf Mckhizcdck as priest seems rcOectcd in his connection with the eschatologkal Day of Atonemcnt.91 Garcia Martinez goes further, however, and identifies Mekhizcdck in the text as a messianic figure. The term rT'iV]) is not extant in I I QMelchizcdek, yet Mclthizedck is presented as fulfilling functions

consistent with mes-sianic figures, including his role in final judgment, effecting esc.hatological atonement, destruction of the armies of Belial in the eschatological battle, restoration of peace, and bringing salvation for those of his: '1oL''J8 ln addition, while never said to be 'anointed' in the c.x tant sections of II QMclchizcdck, the figu re nevertheless held two offices-kingship and priesthood- that arc associated with

anointing in the Hebrew Scriplurcs.'i'J Melchizcdek thus is a heavenly messianic figure~ similar figures in pre· Christian Jewish texts arc also found in the Parables ofEnoch (I Enoch 37-71) and 4 Ezra.'"' Below arc the Hebrew text and EngJish translation of col. JI from the DJD edition. For reasons to be addressed below, the DJD VanderKam. ~sabbatical Chronologies:· 176. Garda Martinez. ..las lradiciones.··14. Garcia Martinez, ..las lradiciones... 74. Garda Martinez. ..las trndiciones." 14-15. 'J~> Garcia Martinez, ..las lradiciones.''?$. \19 C.arda Martinez. ..las lradicione;s.·• 77. 100 Garda Martinez, ··Las trndicion<.'S," 76-71. though he- i:-> careful to n01e that lx.x"Uuse of the uncertain datinS fbr these texts, the Christian ronceptinn uf a heavenly ntt."Ssiunic figure may have inOuenccd them. <J.I

?s. ?6 91

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM PlE JUDAISM

tmnslation has been adapted, wi th by renderings print a nd rendering.~ of'm in bold italics:

or c•;n'm

173

in bold

rop margin'.'

I I

]7i; oo6 oooo oo ''?:\ IZ''X ·:.-~n

m\lm] '7:J1'il

ruw~ 1D~ ,~~; ~I

:tin

Ttl\ :.9'1l~ l\..,~ '\ii:i'1::l

- .,~~:

1•'?so1 1:-n:·u.; l;iiU• 11VX 1'" OI'IVD 7VJ '71:J UUllD J;-:~:');:.t;"l '"'i:J"'' J noD~[ N""lj? N~:o vnx nx• 1;u•1 }1tvK D''l:Jt.'il '111 D' O'i'l n71fil\~( 11V!J '7jK7 1il>X1[ xf o ~" ,,.,, n'>mm [lt;no1 110M , ,:;loj\c ,.,, r"11• ,,.,, n]<;fn

:lD>l'nuns ~1~ KVIJ }:io:i'7 ~ni!'7

'lli 1

n~J;,'7 x1p1
"'" , ,,:; :i[w p~ 11lc o[K>]n o•;~ooo 01]'1 o•'7,1'1" nll]lbn i ii< pl!>•n'i ""'" >i:llfl:l

' J

ol

' 6

'

,,"""" '>>[l•li'il i1(1>n)<'7ll

Co]

Jr; >
n'71!11>1>'7 '7K '1!111~

C(Y

1'K):lil'71

r'i•

'm '7ll

100'7

S

K'O i10n1]1Dll '7110[ •lb'>[ In" '0'70'7 J1" i1 ruw'j Yi'" i1K1"

9

o1K) ' D

10

:J-m:> 1101\:J UDlD.C D">ll '7K :J'llp::ZJ 7~ n 1)Y::t

:n.1lJ

o•;n'7K 1DK 1tvl\ 1' '11 11 '1;;)::1 1' '7i!

]n]•'>ll!1 ; ]cit 1">1>1 'lnl

,,c,

'7n:v

7~''751 1'0

ltnowfn ·nD 1Y 10JK 1Wl\1 0'>~11

r1, 7K

10

~1ow•

:l::Jl:;;; 0111'l'7

II

n'>[o 1x]um oi•]Yl:11 1]~1\ l 'nU '>fn'i t,;:l '7lr''7:J '111 11\VD ,,.,,]'7 ;,o]';l•:i' ;,s•;,;, D1'J1 7}x •'DDw?J .Otn 01?' p1S' •Jt,l'l,

"

[1'm> ·ml'i 'm nxi[m P""] •'>< '?1:> m•~1 }orn 1:vlx D171DI:l Ol' <1K1<1 nxn:-~

"

"'*

'>x ,, '71ol l'<'~l:'l ;1'(~~· ,~:J

b"~

u

IS

11~J( r~ )11.)1'\ 1Wl'\

,,l[x] :;fl711D' ''""~ 010

I 1~>•1

,.,P,

c1'?w Y'DlD[I> ;tal>c 1•1'7>1 o'1n '>• 1'"1'7x[ 1~ol J1'•'> I< nD;,i cl'"'"'" b'" [o1;oo m1b

" 11

174

CHAPTER FOliR "r)l n~~i'J 1:; 4 ~~y

7K'h1 1 1lK

1 1Uid

n'Wef ill\~>1 1U!''JlJ111

(nh'lil

ht:. :tU" 1

;1~J1:.' O'l>i:J~

) 11UK 1'7~ 'JlnS;, :n o ;,[ 7ill'"'i:t' Y)'olJIV1;) ~liJ

c~1l•n

''P 'mo no~·>wfnl'?f 1"1l1D a•~x[n [c[n>~ lx n,;f (,;'; MXJ

011Wm

~~~

,.,a p['I~ 11>'"

.,,,.,,~

b•'>• o>n> 1\?X>

~R

18

;no1n 1[

[•[uolUI>O[

19 10

11

Joo

22

I

u

[;,x•[n p{'I[ P'~" tnm

l i(1:J]

ro~lJ 0"10il n"1~:'1

('ID"P1Ji

;,~:i p1~i'l "~ ~lJ r,u)

2<1

ox\:i 1•n[1f;>.,

1ohw ;,on1:JP:11

10x 11VK1 '7P'~:J 1['~ ilol"f•;~,

-,:..•\'\

p1i '.J~r.:

I

!S

rtl•l '7\;,fo I.

,

1and us t"or what he said: •Jn I this) >'car o(jubilcc Lcnch or you J>fulU return to his property', conceming i1 he said: ' .And th)i!> is

3. Ithe manner of the remission:] every crcdih'IC' shall n:mit what he has lent Ihis neighbour. He .shall oot press his ncig.hbour or his brother for il bu..-. been proclnimcd I t~ remission 4. ot' Gofd'. Its int«prctotiool for the final days concerns the captives, who l I tmd whose 5.

teachers hll\'C been hidden and kepc se-cret. and from the inhericancc- ot Mdc-hizedck,

folr

J and the>' :tte che inhcritanlce ofMelchizcldelr: who

6.

will nt..'lke them rctum. And libe-ny sh:tll be- pmclaimcd co them. to free them from Ithe debe ofl all their iniquities. And this Jwi!JI (happen!

7.

in the fn-s. wc-c.i: of the jubilee t_that occ-urs) at)er Ithe I niJncl jubilees.. And the Djny of Atonejmenc i(sl the clnd of) the tenth Uulbilee,

8.

in which atonement shall be made lin nil the sons of lllghl and fori the men lofl the lot of Mcljc-hijscdekl 1ovcr fth}c:m I 1aceorlding to) nlll l their ldoing-1:>. . for

9.

It is the time for the yearofgrac-cofMelchizedck and of{hisJ armJiC$, the nmi}on loll the holy ones of (iod, of the administrncion ofjus1ice, as is wriucn

10.

about hint in the songs of Davtd. who s.oid: ' Eiobim shall (stjand in lhc assCembly of (;'odj: in !he- midst ol' the gods he shall j ud1,>-e·. And nbom him he sa{id: ' Andl above [it, I

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM I I.

to the heights. rclUm: Cir1d shall judge the nations·. And as

175

tor what he sl.uid: "How

long will you I judge unj ustly, nnd be p:~rJ tialf to the wicklc Jd. JScflah · • the intc.rprettltion o f it concerns Bdiol and the spirits of Ius lot w hfo

12.

J. in Jthc]ir

turfning.Ja\o,.·uy (rom G'od's ClHnmandmcnts to {commit C\'ilf.

13.

14.

.And Mclchizcdck will ctury out the vengeance of G'o(dl's j udgements Jand on that day he \ltill t1rfcc them t'mm the Mnd otl Belial and f'rom the hand of all the s{pirits of his lot. I And all the ~:ods J ofju~kcf arc to h1s help: Jand h fc is (the one) whlo of G'tHf, and he willf

15. l11is.(

I is the day of the Lpenccnbfoot which he said I

fllll the sons

throug h lsajinh the prophet

who J>aid: J'HowJ bcnutifi1l 16.

upon

(the) moun1ains arc the feet fofl the ntc.sscn(gcr who anloounccs. peace, the mes[sens.er of good who announces salvati jon. lsab'ing to Zion: your (;ad (is king').

17.

I t~

18.

And the messenger i(sj the nnointc.d ot"the spir( it}. as Dan(ict( staid labCM.lt him: ·umil

interprccation: the mountains (arc) the prophetls); they I

an anointed. a

19.

Jevct)' 1

ptinoe. it is seven weeks'. And the messenger of)

good who nnnoon[ces salvation( is the one abou t whom it is written (

20. 'To comColt1( the lafllicted'. its imetp retation:(to Iin(:«ruct them m all the ages of the wlorld 2 1.

m truth I

II

Jhns turned away from Belial nnd shall rctulrn to

22.

I in lhe judgementls

23.

1(H••

on(/&d, as is wrincn about him: 'Jsaying, to Z.i}on: }'OUr

Cod is king'. IZijoo i(s(

(the congregation ot' all the sons of juS! icc, who( esaablish the eovCMnt, who a,·otd wnlkins (on the p]ath of the IX'(lpk . And 'your G fo }d" is

24.

101

Either two or throe letters arc present in the umranslatcd portion at the end M this line. Kobdski reconstructs ]vn: ["~'70 and thus a refe-rence to (\•ld chizedck. which seems finins in light of lines 2.3-25 (Mefchi: edek, 6. 22). Others instead read Ji'l ; seeGarcia Martinez, T i:;chdaar. and van der Woude, DJO XXIII. 225: a nd Puech, ··Notes," 489.

176

CHAPTER FOliR Md chi7.cdck who will fr)cc {lhcm irom the han)d of BeliaL And ns ti.u what he

25.

said: 'And you shall blow 1hc hoJrn in! all the liJand (of)un

As is evident ll·om the translation~ the text cssc.nt:ially is a midrash-or perhaps a thematic:: pcshcr- providing an eschatological interpretatio n of scvcr.il passages o f Scripturc. 10 ~ Clear ly the a uthor engages in a peshcr sty le of interpretation, but the a pproach also has a midrashic nature, as represented in the followin g schematic out1inc: line 2 Lev 25: 13, interpreted by Deut 15:2 lines 2-4 Deut I 5:2 lines 4-9 peshe.r on Oeut 15:2 (with lsa 61 : 1) I(J! ICC Garcia

Martinez, Tigchelaar. and van de-r Wuude, DJD XXIII, 229<30. Clas..,ilication of I IQrvldchizedd: as a midrash dates ba<:k to i t.; original publication by van dcr Woudc, ' 'Mdchi~ed e-k," 357. Jean Canni~'llac ar;;:ucd that ltQMekhizcdek is a thematic pesher (··,~slier <(discontinue>> ou •'") bee.uuse it fOcuses on a single subject. the deliverance of God's people from Belial. Such pesherim may draw on related passage-s from a number of d iffere-nt texts, whc:r<.'. other Qummn pesharim deal with a variety of subjects arising w hile interpreting long passages from a particular book o f Scripture. S<.'C' Carmignac. ··t e document." 360.{)2. T imothy Lim ag:rc:cs and notes, .. If the sub -:;enrc: of ' thematic pc-sher· describes any te;tt at all, it would be I IQMelc:.h, sim:e there is a promine-nt theme in the. tC'X L" Sec Timothy Lim. Pesharim (Companion to the Qumran Sc rolls 3; London: Sheffield, 2002}, $3. O n I IQMeh:hizc:dek a.<> thematic peshcr, sec a lso Garda Martine-L, ·' Las tradiciones," 12: and Xc-rchim, ..T he Genre- of llQ Mekhizcdck;· in Qumran Belll'i!t!ll tire Old mrd New Te.\·tanumts (ed. Fredt.•rick H. Cryc.•r and Thomas L. Thompson; JSOTSup 290: Copenhagen Internationa l &.'minar 6: Sheffield: Sheffield, 1998), 17-3 1, for criticism of this d assifkation: he instead favors (l(,llowing Fitzmyer) the sug.gestion that the text is a pcsher on Lev 25. IOJ The: significance of Isa 6 1 fbr interpretation of I JQMdchizc.-dek was hi:;hlighted by Merrill r-'". Miller. While recognjzing t~at I I Qrvldch.i7.cdck is not a pes her on . 1~'>~ 6l : 1-2 per :;e. he nevertheless Sees 11 '"behmd the unli:lldmg pcsher matenal ... a.'> 11 11 were telescoped in those verses." S« his an ide ''The Function or lsa 61 :1-2 in 11Q Melchizodek," .IBL 88 (t969): 467-69, <>-p. 469. The DJD edi!Ors note that ..the pn:.-scn •cd tex~ u f the L">Oiumn uses an expression from J::a 61: 1-3 six times, but nowhere-does ii quote even a complete hemistic.h . .. Apparent!)', lsa 6 1: 1-3 is a key passage that was considered to be commonly known" (Garda !'vlartfne-L, Tigchdaar, and van dcr Woude-, DJD XXIII. 230). T he six expressions arc in l in ~ 4, 6, 9, 13, I8. and 20. The editors note that a quotation of se.vcral words may be r'-oconstruc.ted in the- lacuna o f line 4 but consider it .. very un\.·c.'ftain." When disc.'ussins line 19, they note that the introductory ti:lnnula u,<;cd to introduc.-c other quotations is ne. .·er u..-..ed for l)i,U 61 :1-3 in the e xtant text (Garcia rvlartine-L, Ti:;chclaar, and van der Woude, DJD XXIII, 232). O thc.Ts, including Milik, Puech, and Knbc1ski. prefer to view these: as quotation.'> of !sa 6 1. 1n line 19 the phrase,~K , ~~ :n n~1 iiK1ii appears to be a citation ti:mnula but is fOllowed by a large lacuna. rvlilik proposes to till the- lacuna with language from !sa 61 :3 (''Milki-.yedeq." 98. I 08-09), but note the caution of Kobelski: "( hesitate to follow fo,,.Jjlik, however, ~use- il seems that 11QMc.•kh never introduces c itations of Isaiah 6 1 by elaborate 100

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPl E JUDAISM

177

l.,s: 82: 1, in conjunction with l'' s 7:8-9 and line II J>s 82:2 lines 12- 14 pesher on Pss 82: I; 7:8-9; and 82:2 (with lsa 61:3) '"'

line 10 lines I 0· 11

lines 15- 16 Jsa 52:7 1(1c' lines 17· 25 peshet· on lsa 52:7, incorporating Dan 9:25 and Lev 25:9 (with lsa 61:2-3) '" Attention now turns to two major issues concerning the prc.~;cntati o n of Melchizedck in this text-author 's usc of the terms ?x a nd o •;n'7M, and the functions o f Mcleh izcdek described in the tcxL 3.3. 1. Use oft!Je Terms ?x and o>;n?x The first step is to examine how the author of I IQ Mclchizcdck uses the words ?N and 0 ' :117X. Translations o f these tcm1s were indicated above, but furthe r an alysis is appropriate: 3.3. I. I. Uses of '7M line 4--ln a quotation o f Dc ut 15:2 concc.ming the rcm JSStOn o f debts, 7M clearly is God. This reading differ.; from that of the MT of Deut I 5:2, where ;t10"J' appears rather than 7M. Unfortunately Qumr.ln introduc:-tory fhnnulas, but rather ulludcs to this portion of Isaiah in interpreting other scriptural quotations" (Melchizede/.:.. 22). Brooke stresst.".S the importance- of lsa 61 fur the tc:.xt a nd argues that its use here in c-unnec:tion w ith the- Day of Atonement theme- and Lev 25 is inlluc-ncc:d by Jewish lectionary prnctices. Sec- his E:rege:si\· a1 Qumran, 319-2.3. Pucch finds an a llusion to Eze.k 2:7 in the first two word:; of line 5, which he transcribes as ,K:JI"l?) il.O:T'1m (-Notes." 488, 493). This section u f the manuscript is poorly preserv<.-d, however, and transc-riptions \'ar)' wide ly: Puech himself late-r presented a differe nt reading (La Cmymu:e, 523). Kobelski posits quotations ofphmses from Lev 2S: I 0 in line 6 and Lev 25:9 in line 7 (,t.felcltizedek. 8, 14-1 5). as do Pu<."C-h ("Notes." 490) and f\•lilik (line 7 only: - ,t.filki-

.je
1 Cf. Garcfa Munfncz, Tigchclanr. and v--.tn der Woude, DJD XXIII, 230; Milik, ··Mil/.:i·.~·edeq. •· 106~ and Puec-h, "Notes." 497-98. IO& In line 15 Kobdski restores i1~1iV')'i en~ and unde-n.iands the term as drawn from Isa 49:8 (A-felclrizedek 6, 20). Most sc-holan; instead read t ll71V}-,., Dl'. Sec. f<>r example, Garda tvla11fnc-z.. iigchdaar. and van der \Vuudc. DJD XXIII. 232~ Puech, -Notes." 488; and tvlilik, "Mil/.:.i'-.~edeq:· 98. 100 Again See-Garcia ,X·tartinc:z. T ig.chclaar, and van dcr \Voude, DJD XXIJJ, 232: C\•l ilik. "Milk/-.yedeq, .. I 08-09; and Put>ch, .. Notes," 500.

178

CHAPTER FOliR

manuscripts whic h include Dcut 15:2 arc missing th is last word o f the vcrsc. 1111 line 9-God would seem to be the '7N in the phrase ' the holy o nes of God.' As presented in the DJD edition, this phrase appears to be part of an a ppositive further identifying the army of Mclchizcdek. 101 line 10-A quota tion of Ps 82: I refers to God as ?K in the phrase 'assembly of G<1d .' line I 1-A quotation of Ps 7 :9 d iscusses God (?K) and his act of judgment. As was the cases a bove in line 4, the reading in I I QMclchizedek (C'D:.> )'1' ?K) has a different name for God than the MT, whic h has i1li1'. Unfortunately this verse has not survived in a Qumran psalte r. line I 2- God (7K) is the source of the commandments that a rc rejected b)• ' Belia l and the spirits of his lot,' who arc the 'wicked ' of Ps 82:2 as quoted in line I I. line 13- Here 7K relers to God as the authority beh ind j udgment, in accord with Ps 7:9 (quoted in line II). Note that in line 13 it is Mclehizedek who admin isters the j udgments of ?K (eC line 10, where c•;n?K is said to judge in the assembly of 7K). line 14-The plural of 7M appears in the phrase ;n:mj •7M. 110 Editors of II QMekhizcdek unifo rmly read ' 7K without hesita tion. In PAM 43.979, the top stroke o f the proposed ? is miss ing, though the sha pe of the lower stroke indeed appears consistent with a ?.111 This p lural fo m1 o f ?x rather than C' ;'117K is surprising because the latter normally is used in passages where the plural of the fom1er would be possible."' The DJD editors propose that the author may here l (\'11 Overall the diOCrcnccs betwee-n the biblica l text cited in I I Q~·tclchizcdek and the r>.•IT an:. minor. though the quotation o i'Lev 25:9 in 11Qi311. 25 may diverge from this trend. Sec Garda f\•lartlnC'I_ Tigc.hclaar. a nd van dcr \Voude-. DJD XXIII. 22.3. •~ Sec Kobelski, Melclli.zedek. 5. lOr a mthcr different reading of the. poorlypn:sen•cd middle section ufthc line. The ke-y phrnse ' the holy ones o f God.' however, is not in question. 110 Others, includins Kobclski (Melclrizedek, 19) a nd de Jonge and •i an of the heights.' bw the term supplied in the lac.una is not Lhc-significtmt i$suc for this discussion. Van dcr Woudc' s rendering in t he edWo princep:o was c•1J'71~ "'m (.. Mekhisc:dek." 35S). 111 This photo was accessed dectronicatly on Timothy H. l im and Philip S . Alexander. ctls.. The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Referr!llce Library (vol. I ). CDROM. Oxfbrd University Press and Brill, 1997; and Emanud Tov, ed .• The Dead Sea Scmll'> Elecmmic Libmq. Re~·i.'>ed Edi1io11 2006. CD-ROM. Brill. 2006. 111 See Frank 1\Jfoore Cross. "'to~ ·et:· TDOT I :242-61. csp. 254-SS, for a brief s urvey ofth~ few plura l uses ol''to~ in the MT.

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

179

be inOucnced by the reading ;n~Oi '7>M in lsa 61:3; there the phrase clearly is 'tree,< of righteousness' (NRSV 'oaks of righteousness')."' Assuming the standard transcripLion of this phrase is correct, usc here

of the plural of 'm appears to prc.serve the distinction between the singular ?N as God, and O'in?N (which one would expect where the plural of ?M occurs) as Melchizcdck in II QMclchizcdck. Thus the appearance here of '?N seems deliberate and unusual. This distinction, however, was not maintained in line 10~ as discussed be low, there O';n?N. is used in its plural sense for the divine counc.il in its scc.ond appearance in a quotation of Ps 82: I. line I 4-T his second usc of 'm in the line appears in the phrase 'm 'l~ ('sons of God'). Here ?x dearly is God; presumably the ' sons of God' arc the humans who benclit from deliverance r.lther than heavenly figures \vho provide it, as one might expect to find 0':11'?X if the Iauer were intended (sec below). Elsewhere in the column such humans arc called 'captives' (line 4; cf. line 13, ' he [Mclchizcdck) will free them from the. hand of Belial and from the hand of all the spirits of his lot,' and line 25, 'Mclchizcdck who willlrcc them from the hand of Belial'); 'sons of light' (line 8); ' the lot of Melchizedck' (also line 8); 'afflicted' (line 20); and 'the C<)ngrcgation of all the sons of justice' (line 24). line. 23- Thc ?~ 'iJ!llVI.l ('judgments of God') arc c.xereiscd by the agent Mclchizcdck on God's behal f (as in line 13). Here?~ clearly is God. 3.3. I.2. Uses ofO'Ol17M line I 0- Thc author quotes Ps 82: I, where o•m?M(MT O';:J"'n.!) appears in both clauses: v"Slp'. o•;:~·;t$ ~111~ ?~-n1l?~ ~¥~ o•;:i~. In Ps 82: 1 the first uscof o';n?~ clearly is for God. The sceond 0' ;'11'm is in rcfC.rcncc to a council o f heavenly beings, and it is par.!llclcd in the first clause which prc.~cnts God as o•;:J?t$ standing ?!$- n1)!;l ('in the assembly of God'). The meaning of o•m'm in I I QMclchizedck, however, is not necessarily the same as that of the author of Ps 82: I. Interpretation of the firs t usc of 0'0i17K in this line is C()mplicated by the uncertain antecedent of 1' 7ll, which begins the line and prompts the midrashic quotati<m of Ps 82: I. Fitzmycr (later followed by Carmignac) proposed 113

Garcia Martinez, Tigchdaar. and van der Woode, DJD XXIII, 232.

180

CHAPTER FOliR

that ,,?ll may be read as 'about il' with reference to the action of judgment mentioned in the ensuing quotation.114 Most scholars. though, read 'about him,' and th is interpretation is preferab le."' The antecedent of 'him' is Melehi,edck in line 9; Melchizcdek should a lso be understood as the o •;-n?x of line 10 ( for the fin; t appearance of the term) and thus the agent of God's judgment. line I 0-The second occurrence of o>;n?x is to be understood as referring to a heavenly council, as in the original context of Ps 82: I. This departs, though, from the usc noted above in line 14 o f the plural of?x lor th is meaning. Perhaps this can be atlributed to a hesitancy of the author of I I QMclchizcdck to change the wording of biblical quota tions (though note the absence of i11i'1' in the quotations above); C';'117x. is used for the council in line 10 because it is the word used in the psalm, but the author is free in line 14 to exerc ise his lexical prciCrcncc in his interpreta ti ve comments and the re uses: the plurc:tl of ?x instead in the phrase v1~;'1 •?x (sec also a bove). The members of this heavenly (.'Ourt, whic h receive~.:; elaboration in Jines 10- 14, may include 'Belial and the spiriL'< of his Jot' (line 12) who have opprc~sed humanit)', or Mclthizcdek may be c hiding other o•m?x who have a llowed Belial to undertake h is program.'" lines 16, 23, 24-Jn line 16 , the extant text is a quotation of Isaiah 52:7 d isplaying only minor variants in comparison with the MT, and releva nt portions of this quotation arc rc p<..""atcd in the course of the peshcr in lines 23-24. The most significant part of the quota tion is the proclamation by a mcs., cnger that T m?x 1?0 ('your God is king') and the s ubsequent idcnti(kation of this 0 ' :"117X in line 25. Dctcnnining the identity ofo';n?N. here is one of the more vexing issues in II QMekhizcdck. For this reason, the translation of lines 23· 25 is repeated here, with occurrence's of O'iil?R indicated in bold print: 23. [ ] in the judgement(s ot1 God. as is written about him: ' [saying to Zi]on: your God is king·. (Zi]on i(s] 11

~ Fitzm~·cr. · ·Further Light "' 261, credits the idea to Patrick Skehan. Ca rmignac"s position is much more extr<.'mc: than Fitzmyc:r's. as the former denies that llQMekhizcdek ever presents Mclchizcdek as a heavenly figure. lru;tead, he identifies rvlelchizc:dek w ith the Tcm:.~ht>r of Righteousness. Sec Carmigna-c. ..lc doc.umcnt>" 353,

365-07. w See, fbr c:xample, Garda rvlartfnez. Tigchehwr. and van dcr Wuude, DJD XXIJJ, 229; und Horcon. Melt:lli: edek Tradition. 74. 116 Kobdski. jt.felcltizedek, 62. Kobdski prc:fcrs the former, a<> does van dcr Wuuck, "f\•ldchisc:dek,"' 36S.

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

18 1

24. [the congregation of a ll the sons of j ustice, who) establish the-

covenant, who avoid walking [on the- p)ath of the people. And ·your G(o )d' is

25. ( Melchizcdek who will fr]ee (them from the han)d o f Be.lial. And as for what he.said: 'And you shall blow the ho(m in) all the (!)and (of) Obviously the m aj<>r complicating fac tor is tha t only a bout hal f o f

each line is extant. Parlicularly uniOrtun:uc is the absence o f the firs t few words of line 25, where the identity of 1•m?x is revealed. The

pre-sent reading is reconstructed based on a similar (but also reconstructed) reading in line 13, itself proposed in light of pas.•ages like 4QpPs' (4Q17 1) 3- 10 IV, 21. 117 Below arc the relevant phr.ises in IIQ1 311, 13 and 25, with extant leucrs in bo ld print:'"

line 13:

('t'Tm •m)"l ;,,

,,!>, 'IY''r.l( 1 '1:>

OJI)j?(~''"

line 25: Notice that in both lines only the., o f the kc.y w<>rd ;'11).,~' ('he will free them') is preserved, a nd even this is questionable for line 13. "" (Despite d ifferences o f <)pinion on the reading of line 13, the reading proposed a bove for line 25 has wide acceptance.)'" The word,

however, is proposed based on usc of the tcnn in other Qumran texts as noted above. Furthcnnorc, in both lines the full wording of the phr.lsc transla ted 'from the hand of Belia l' is lacking in the extant te xt, 117

Garcia Martinez, Tigchdaar. and van d<.·r Woude. DJD XXHf. 2.32. The transcription is from Garcia ;\ lartinc::z. T igc hdaar, a nd van de-r Woude, DfD XXJII. 225-26. A similar, but slio,htly different, reading tOr the key phrase of line 13 is preferred by Pucch. La Cmycmce. 523: 7»''7~r 1'0 1l7r'~l~l. As indicated in a subsequent note:, sc:•ltral scholars offer quite: ditTe-rc:nt rc.ading.s in place o f this phrase:. 119 Melchizcdek as subject is extant earlier in the line. 120 M ilik and Kobelski rejt'\:t the: ., that figures so l>«lminently in the reconstructions ofDJD a nd Pu<:<:h. rvtilik pn:ICrs instead to rc:ad ~.,'?:lr 1".C :W)11l, in line: 13 ("Milki·~edeq," 98). Similar!)', Kl"lbdski sees 7T'7j ["l'i? '"'lK ,l~ 71::>'7 1li~"'l (.,.·lelclli: edek, 6). Admittedly the: physical evide-nce of the disputed '7 is miniscule; the DJD transcription marks the letter w ith an open circle, and in van der \Voudc's two earlier publication.<> of the text no alltmpt was made to fi ll the sizable lacuna in the middle of line 13 before .,Y'I.,r:& 1~1? (note the-different location M the bnK~ket in the two earlie-r transcript.ions). Sec van der \Voude, ..Mdchisedc:.k ," 358: a nd de Jongc: and van der Woude, .. 11Q Mckhizcdc::k." 302. m Van der Woudc:: did not atte-mpt to reconstruct this key phrase of tine 25 (=line 26 in some-older tmnscriptions} in his first two publications of the text. See van dc.•-r \Vouck. -i\·telchiscdek," 358; and de Jonge and van dcr Woude, .. I JQ Mckhizcdck," 302. T he DJD transcription o f the phrase: is identical to th.at of M ilik, Pue!'C-h, and Kobclski; sec Milik, "'Milki-.yedeq." 98; Puech, /.(t Cro).YIIIce, 524; and Kobc lski, Melchi:edek, 6. 113

182

CHAPTER FOliR

though the presence of 7li•7:J followed by the parallel phrase [1'rm •m]i '?1' 1'1)1 in line 13 makes the readings in both lines quite likely. Though one certainly must argue with caution when studying reconstructed texts, it seems clear that again the author of I I QMclchizedek is identifying Mclchizedck with o•;·n?K. Tw(> clements of lsa 52:7 arc treated in the extant portions of the pcshcr interpretation of this verse, the identity of 'Zion' and the referent of the phrase 1':'11?1\ 171). As noted above, ' Zion' is interpreted as the members of the faithful community. Presumably th(~S:c are the same persons who earlier in the column were called ' the men of the lot of Mclchizedck' ( II Q 13 II , 8), and here they arc to be freed fr<)m the ' hand of Belial' ( II QI3 II, 25). This is precisely Mclchizedck's task in I IQ1 3 II , 13, so co ntext demands that he also is the o ne called 1':11'711 1W from lsa 52:7. If that were not enough, the similarity of the name v1lr ''W with the phrase rm?x 1'm would also be enough to imply this identification in a pcshcr interpretation, especially if those whom he is to free arc indeed called P1 lt 'lJ as reconstructed by the D.ID cditors in IIQ 13 II, 24."' Scvcml observations can be noted from this lexical survey. First, the author of I I QMclchizcdck reserves usc of the singular ?x to refer to God, which is not surprising, and on two occasions 7x may have been substituted for :11:1' in biblical quotations. The plural fonn of 7l\ is once used in reference to other heavenly beings, but usc of the singular is always consistent. Second, the author may quote Scripture in which O,i11?N means God. though he may not always interpret the tcm1 as such. That his own preference is to call God ?M is evident in his interpretative comments, yet the author certainly docs not avoid using quotations of Scripture that used o,:11?N instead, nor doc.~ he edit the quotations chcmsclvcs. Also, the author is content not to edit biblical quotations that usc 0'it17X in rcfcrcnc.c t<.) other heavenly beings. Third, the author prefers to usc o•m?x in reference to Mclchizcdck. This occurs even when his interpretation of the term differs from the

111

Garda Manfncz.. Tigc:hdaar. and 'lan dcr \Voude, DJD XXIII, 233. as..;uming an allusion to ;:n~:"'l ,~;; in Isa I:26.

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

183

literal meaning of the biblical text he interprets."' This is demonstrated in line 10 and in lines 24-25. This term ("n be applied in the Hebrew Bible to heavenly figures other than the God of Israel, and usc of this term fo r Mclchizcdck certainly implies some sort of heavenly status ~ .. P4 10r the lagurc. The third o f the."' observations leads to the maj<>r questions that demand consideration if one seeks to relate I IQMclehi<edck to the prcsentati. and what is his relationship to God? 3.3.2. Tile Role o.fMelchizedek Melchizcdck appears in II QMelchizedck as the figure carrying out both God's deliverance and judgment. Deliverance is the theme at the beginning and end of col. II. The author understands history as consisti ng of ten Jubi lee units concluding with an cschato logic.a l Day of Atonement (line 7).'" In lines 2-9, Mclchizedck acts to deliver the 'captives ' (line 4), presumably the same pcrs<ms as ' the inheritance of I!J Admittedly such a statement is fraught with peril and bias, as the uuthor o f JIQMekhizedek no doubt c.luime:d to undc.n;tand the: ' re.al' meaning uf the: text he:

inlt'I_J?O:IS.

Kevin Sulli\'an notes that Mc:khizcdek has an ··exalted status.. in I JQ· tvlelchizcdck. but he rejects altcmpts to corre-late the presentation of Mckhizcdek in this text w ith information about the figure: in other Qumran texts. Sullivan rejects identificat ions o f Mckhi:a:dek w ith Michael argued on the basis of attribution to the figures of similar fUnctions, but he does not mention the evid~-nce surveyed above from Song.~ rif tile ,l)(,bbat!t Sacqlke and Vi.\·ion t~( Amram. See Kevin P. Sulli ...·tm, !. :t

f#'re.~lling lfitlr A11gels: A Study qf tile Relation-.llifl between A~rgtds m1d Hunum.-. ill A11ciem Jell'i.slt Li1erature tmd the New Te:onnumt (A(iJU 55: Lc iden: Brill. 2004), 9698. llS Sec Kobclski. Melclri=eclek. 49-50, for a brief sutvey of other Second Temple

Jewi.<;h literature in which time is dividt.'tl into Jubi l ~ or wee-ks of)•c:ars. The division of time into Jubilee periods in l l QMclchizedck d iOi:-rs from that in the book of .Jubilees as the Iutter envisions many more Jubilee periods; Jubilees narrates eve.nts into a JiOieth Jubilee period, w hic h spans onl>• the time from creation to the. early exodus period, and an unspecified number of future Jubilee-S are envisioned (Juh. 50:4-6). VanderK:am implies that a connection between the Day of Atonement and Jubilee years may a lready be present in lev 25:9, where a trumpet t.-all on the tenth day o f theseventh month (i.e., the Day of Atonement) announces the bcg.inning of a Jubilee-year. See his article ..Yom Kippur," in EDSS 2:1001 -03, esp. 2:1002. Sec a lso the brief survey of the sih'lliticanc:c o f Le-v 25 nnd Jsa 6 1 for J l Q~·I clc hizcdek in Va nderKam . ..Sabbatical Chronologies." 169-72.

184

CHAPTER FOliR

Mclchizcdck' (line 5); he proclaims Iibert)' to them and free_<; them ' ll·om the debt of all their iniquities' (line 6}. This last phrase has cultic overtones, and the next line mentions the Day of Atonement. Mclchizcdck appears to be the age nt executing God's pro nounccmcnl (lines 3 ·4). Melchizcdck announce_<; liberty in the ilrst week of the tenth Jubilee (line 6), but it is unclear i f libc.r.Hion actually occurs at that time or if this is a proleptic announcement o f liberation that oa~urs in conj unction with the eschatological Day of Atonement at the end o f the tenth Jubilee, when ·atonement shall be made fo r all the sons o f light and for the men o f the lot o f Melchizcdck ' (line 8; presumably these arc two tcnns for the same group o f pc~ons). 1 u This Day o f Atonement appears to be the ' year of grace o f Mclchizedck' (l ine 9). Mclchizcdck is the active llgurc thus far in the passage. Since he is pre.<;cntcd as a pric.st in Gen 14; Ps II 0:4; a nd !he Songs ofth~ Sabbath Sacrifice, it seem s dea r that the a uthor o f I I QMclchizcdek envisions him as the high priest conducting this eschatological Day of Atonement sac.rifk c. m Line 9 also spe.aks '<Jf the administration of justice,' thus introd ucing the theme of judgment. The extant text of line 8 imp lies that the righteo us benefit from this j udgment ('according to all their doing s'). This mention of j udgment smoothes the transition to the quotations o f Ps 82: I: Ps 7:8-9; and Ps 82:2 in lines 10- 11. Here the emphasis clearly is on God' s judgment o f the wicked (w ith overtones o f theodicy in !he Ps 82:2 q uotation). As is evident in the discuss ion above of uses o f 'm and o •;n'm , bo th words a ppear freq uently in these line$ and their subsequent interpretation in lines J2.. J4. The overall 114

Xc:ra viL of line 5 using the photographs of the text in DJD XXIII or those-available in the two cloctronic editions noted abo\'c. Van dcr Woude proposed -m,', in a lacuna in I IQf\•ldeh II, 6, which would make the priestly ac tion of tvldchizcdek explic.it ("' Mdchiscdck." 358; a b;o de Junge a nd van der Woudc, >< l tQ Mclchizedek," 302) and was fbllowed by Fitzmyer, •·Furthe-r l ight." 259. The reading in DJD ao.rees with that of Kobc1ski. Me/chi: edek, 5. For a rejection of theidentificat ion of Mek hizedek as llriest in t iQMc!ehizedek. see Laub. 8ekemwris, 39. Sec also an ovc-tview of the issue m Aschim, ··Mek hizedck and J ~u.
MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

185

impression is that Mckhizcdck is an angelic O'fil?x in the heavenly court of ?~ who administers j ustice (with the aid of other members of the heavenly court, line 14 'all the gods of j ustice arc to his help') on behalf of?:~ against Belial and those of his Jot. '" Dclivcmncc is again stressed in lines 15-25. The major text under consideration is lsa 52:7, where. a messenger announces peace and salvation and speaks of the kingship of the o•m?M of Zion. The messenger is identified with the prince anointed by the Spirit from Dan 9:25; perhaps the identity o f this messenger was further clari fied in lines 21 -22, but few words remain there. Perha ps also the messenger was correlated with the figure who blows the hom (presumably to announce the Day o f Atonement, as in Lev 25:9) in line 25 , but the subsequent text has not survived. Admittedly rv1clc::hizcdck seems to have a role. in proclamation in the early lines of the co lumn, leading some scholars to identi fy him as the messenger.'" Presumably, though, the messenger is not Melchizcdek. Mclchizedck instead is the O'iil?~ in lines 24·25 whom the messenger a nnounces. In summary, I JQMclchizedek presents Mclchizcdek as a heavenly, eschato logical figure in the serv ice of God. He will delivers the righteous on God's behalf and will execute j udgment on Belial and his lot. Also, Melehizedek will make atonement fo r those of his own lot. This presentation of Mekhizcdek as a figure at war with Belial is consistent with that o f Visiont: of Amram, and the portrait o l' Melchizedek as a heavenly priest corresponds with that found in Songs ofthe Sabbath Sacrifice. The interpretation espoused here is much indebted to the positions originally articulated by van der Woude and de Jongc in their early publication of the text. The first signillcant objections to this reading were voiced by Milik, who agre-ed that Mclch izedek is to be identi fied with c•;n?K but proposed a different relationship between this figure I ll! For similar interpre-tations, see Kl"lbds.ki. Melclli::edek, n: and Aschim, ··ft.·lclchizedck und Jesus," 132.:'!5. Othe-rs reject this identification. For the ''icw that rvldchizcdek is the messiah, p<.'rhaps t.'-\'Cn Davidic. sec Paul Ra inbow, .. Mclchizcdck as a Messiah al Qumran:· BBR 1 ( 1997): 179-94; fl:lr f\•ldchizt.xlck as Yahweh, see r-.•lanz i, Melclli:edek . 1 ~ For Mdchizede-k as herald. sec M ille-r, .. Fum:tiun," 46&-69. Milik (··,t.fi!ki·~edeq,"' 126) and Put."Ch (''Notes;· 509-10) argue that the m~senge-r is the Tcach<.'r of Righteousnes.<> himsclt~ De Jonse and ..·an dcr \Voudc, followed by Kobclski, understand lhc messe--nger as the eschatological proph<.'-1 of I QS IX. 11 and 4Q175 S-8. See. de Jongc and van der Woude. .. 11Q Mclchized<.'k." 306-08: and Kobe lski, Melchi:edek. 6! -62.

186

CHAPTER FOliR

and God. For Milik, Mclchizcdck was not in the service of God but instead was a hypostasis of God: " II est en realit6 unc hypostasc de Dicu, autrcmcnt dit lc Dicu tr.Jnsccndant lorsqu'il agit dans lc mondc, Dicu lui· mCmc sous Ia fonnc visible oU il apparait aux hommcs, ct non pas un angc tree distinct de Dicu (Ex 23:20)."'"' Milik asserts that the Qumran sect read the phrase •m:li ?ll of Ps I I 0:4 as 'according to my order' and thus found God associating himself with Melchizcdek. Likewise, he identified the scver-.1 'angel of Yahweh' passages in the 'Octatcuquc' (particularly citing examples in Genesis, Exodus, and Judges) as an expression of the same phenomenon. m Few have followed Milik's proposal, and it falters because of the careful distinctions in I IQMclthizc-dck between usage of ';ox and o•;n?l( and the presentation (as in I I Q 13 II, 9- I 4) of Melchizcdck in the service of God but as the rightc
rejects the notion that Mclchizcdck is a heavenly figure in any sense. Instead, he asserts that Mclchizcdck is the Davidic messiah."' Rainbow calls into question textual reconstructions that correlate

Mclchizcdck with the tcm1 o•;n';ox in I IQJ3; connect Mek hizedck with an angelic liturgy in Songs of the Sabbath S"crifice (spccific.ally in 4Q40 1); and understand Mclchircsa· as a name for the non-human evil ligurc in Visions ofAmram.'JJ Questions about reconstructions arc certainly legitimate, though Rainbow rcjccrs the scholarly consensus on all three accounts. More u·oublcsomc is Rainbow's discus,sion of the meaning ofo•m?x in I IQMclchizcdck. His first tactic is to deny that its auribution to Mclchizcdck makes him a heavenly figure, arguing instead that kings can bear the tcnn in the Hebrew Biblc.'J.l Yet his fu rther argumentation is built on the idea that Mo::Jchizcdck cannot be o•;n';ox in I I QMclchizcdek because Mclchizcdck cannot be

uo Milik. ··,tfilkl-.redeq," 125. Milik. ··,l.filki·.~·f·deq," 125. u. Rainbow pn:sents his artlck-U-"' a devdopcd defense of a suggt.-stion made earlie-r by Cannignac, Ande-rs Huhg.ritd, and Flu.ssc:r, none uf whom ..hu..<> arg.uc-d lhC' case at length... See Rainbow. ··Mclchizcdc-k as a Messiah," 181, n. 6. "UJ Rainbow, "Melc:hizcdck as a Mes.<>iah," 182-S.S. I..W Rainbow~ "Mckhizc:dek as u Messiah;' 182. Ill 1

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPl E JUDAISM

187

God; no flexi bil ity is allowed fo r o>;n?x to be a heavenly 1 gurc other than God.'" Having dismissed all of the Qumran textual evidence for a heavenly Mclchizedek, Rainbow conveniently is left with litt le more than a Mclchizcdck who carries out God's judgment~ this role is appropriate for a Davidic messiah, a figure frequently antic ipated in Qumran

texts.' "' (Similarly, Rainbow argues that Mclthizedck's closest analogy in IQ M is the mortal 'Prince. of the. battle,' not Michael; his direct antagonist is Gog, not Belial."') Everything said about Melchizcdck in I I QMclchizcdck can be dr.lwn from Gcn 14 or e-specially Ps I I 0; the latter is about a Davidic figure, and other texts utilized in I I QMclchizedck arc interpreted as Davidic in the NT and rabbinic literature. •~ Even discussion of the ~inheritance' or 'lot' of Mclehizedek in I I QMclchizedck indicates his Davidic identity. Since in the Hebrew Bible humans typieali)' have the fom1cr and the latter involves prope rty, Rainbow makes an acontcxtual leap to conclude

that I I QMelt.hizedek says Mclehizcdck is to inherit the land of Canaan. Rainbow asserts that "this makes sense if rvtclchizcdck is the king and benefactor of the whole pe<>plc of Israel," i.e., the Da,•idic mcs:siah.13? The numerous problems with Rainbow's thesis should be evident in the description above, and it (like Milik's hypostasis reading) has found few supporters. More formida ble is the proposal of Manzi, who argues that 'Mclchizcdck' is a descriptive title for Yahwch. 1"11 In one sense Manzi's argument was anticipated by Gareth Cockerill, who also developed the ide-.1 that the meaning of the name 'Mclchizcdek' was the kC)' to understanding I I QMclthizcdck. Cockerill assumed that since the author of Hebrews, Philo, and Josephus all knew similar etymological interpretations of the name 'Melehizedek' as 'king of righteousness: that must also explain how the author of II QMelchizcdek understood the term.'" Cockerill fo und further evidence for this in the scribal practice of writing the name as: two Rainbow, "Mdc:hizcdck as a Mc:s.<>iah," IS.2-S.3. Rainbow, ..Mdchi:a:dck as a Mes..<>iah,'' 18.3. m Rainbow, ''Mdc:hizcdck as a Mc:s.<>iah," IS6. •u Rainbow, ..Mdchi:a:dck as a Mes..<>iah,'' 184. 189-90. U'l Rainbow, ··Mc:khizcdck as a Mc:s.<>iah." 191 -92. 140 -Manzi. Melclri.sedek e l 'tmgelolagia. See further bdow. 1 1 " Gareth Lee Cock< .'rill, ..Me-k hizedek or ·Kins of Righteousness.,"' EvQ 63:4 ( t99t ): 30S-I2, <sp. 307.j)8. IJJ

136

188

CHAPTER FOliR

distinct words in II QMckhizcdck, whereas it was \\rrittcn as one word in text<; (like the Genesis Apocryphon) that clearly presented Melchizedek as an individual figure.'" Ullimately Cockerill understood 'king of rightcousnc.<;s • in 11QMelehizcdck to be a descriptive title for the archangel Michael. He denied any e
'''0

The fatal flaw in Cockerill's argument is his assumption that a Hebmist like the author of ll QMclchizedek would find the meaning ' king of righteousness' in fl1:> '''nl. Rather, as noted above, the Hebrew more accur~tcly is translated as •my king is Scdcq' (or even ' my king is righteous'). The rendering ' king of righteousness' is a popular etymology cited by Greek-speaking Jc.ws who otherwise evidence little knowledge
reading audience with traditional materials (Josephus, his claim for textual lidelity in Ant. 1.5 notwithstanding)."' Cockerill's thesis demands that one presume that the author of 11QMelchizedck, competent to compose in Hcbrc\V, would ncvcrthclcs.s ignore the plain·

sense meaning of a key tenn in his own text and language, instead introducing a specious ctymologic.al interpretation of the Hebrewpopular among Greek speakers- into his: Hebrew text. Manzi likewise argues for a symbolic meaning for v1:> ''70 (as ' king of j ustice'), but his case is more nuanced, with the thc.
··tvldchizetkk or ·King of Rig.hlcousnc:ss, ··· 308. Cockerill, ··r-.·ldchizt.xlek or 'King of Rig.htc:ousnc.oss.'"" 3 14. ,...,. On Josephus' utilization of Hebrew. Ammaic. and Greek texts of Scripture for Antiquities, sec: Feldman, ..Josephus ," 3:985-88. On Philo, sec: Grt:gory E. Stc:rlins, ''Philo," DNTB 789-93,.,.p. 789. I.U

MElCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEM Pl E JUDAISM

I 89

human Mclchizcdek is trttns lbnned at Qumran through a process o f ..angelilicazionc," or reinterpretation toward an angelic understanding of the figure under the influence of Ps 110:4.'" From the re, three symbolic approaches to the fi,brurc de velop. Visions r~f Amram emphasized his princely role by correlating him with the angel M ichael as the protagonist against Belial. Th
pe.rO. che il Malki ~edeq angelioo cosi delineato assurge a figura simbolica d i mediatore. salvific.o. in grado di i!Sf)rimere rinte.rvento seJt..~ibi le di JHWH ad extra• .salvaguardandone 1· as.soluta trasc.endenza. Un intemo simile soggiace pi'Obabilmeme anc.he. a I IQMelch. in cui si parla di JHWH se.nza no1ninare il tetragmmma sacro, ma ricorrendo al tiwlo di .. Re di Giustizia... Dio vie.ne cosi descritto attmverso l'apparato simbolioo dell 'apoc-alittica, oltre c.he mediante una serie di cita2joni ''eteroh!$lamentarie. Le caratteristiche fondamentali sia di JHWH in II QMelch sia del mediato1·e salvific-.o di 4Q' Amramb sono Ia regalita e. Ia giustizia. Gi
£ chiaro.

e.4Q40 J I I J-3)maancheper JHWH( I IQMelch).'"

Manzi's examination. unlike those of .M ilik and Rainbow, is a monograph treatment, described by one reviewer as "a rigorous piece of work."1J<) Yet its argument is ope n to similar criticisms as those directed 10 the theoric.<; of Milik and Cockerill above. Granting that I.U 146

Manzi, Me/c/;;zedek e l'tmgelologia, 102·03. Manzi, Melclli:edek e l'allgelologia, 103, c iling 4Q$43 3 I (=DJO SQ$43 2ab

11.4Jand 4Q545t t7-18(=DJD 4QS4S Jal. 17-1 8). 11 Manzi, Melclrizedek e l'tmgelolagia. 103. 1 ~ Manzi, Me/c/;;zedek e /'(IJ!gelologia, 102. 1 "'~ Georg_c J. Brooke, review of Fmnco Manzi, Melchi:etlek e l'tmgeltJ!ogia 11ell'£pi..<:to/a agli Ebrei e a Qumrtm, CBQ 60 (1998): 710-71, csp. 770. See a lso Bc.~mas. review of Manzi. Melchizedek e /'mlgelologia. 368·70.

190

CHAPTER FOliR

Manzi essentially is eorrcet that the understanding of Mclchizcdck evolved at Qumran, still one faces the difllculty of understanding Mclchizedek and God as the same figure in II QMclthizcdck. Instead, the p(>int of the text seems to be that Mclchizedek actually is the person carrying out-on God's behalf- those things ascribed to God in the passages of Scripture cited; if God indeed is acting directly, one would question the need for a pe-~her explanation of the obvious. Similarly, the idea that the author of II QMelchizedck would understand j/iY ':::171.) as 'king of justice remain.~ problematic. Manzi docs advance the discussion beyond that of Cockerill-whercas the latter relied solely on the uscagc of the phrase in Josephus, Philo, and Hebrews as evidence lor it~ application to I I QMelchizcdck, Manzi see-ks to jwaify his p<)Sition on grammatical grounds, appealing to Paul Jofion,s discussion of the IJireq compaginlo; and substantativcs in construct state.•~~~ Joilon indeed cites i'j"¥-'~7~ as an example <Jf the latter, but he docs so inc-onsistently and without explanation; the term is glossed as ' king of justice,' but the suggested translation fM the key phrase of Ps 110:4 is ·aftc.r the manner of M[elchizcdek).' Further· more, Manzi recognize-~~ that ~Mckhizedck' is a thcophorie Canaanite nnme in Gcn 14, but he asserts that the name was so rich with etymological meaning that the author of II QMclchizcdek was lree w appropriate that and felt no compulsion to rework the spelling of the tcrm. 151 Not clear~ h<)\vcver, is an explanation for why someone writing in a community with such speculation on Mclchizcdck already evidenced would risk confusing the angelic priest-king of other texts with Yahweh in II QMelchizc.dck. In the end, Manzi's thes is r.lises more questions than it explains, and the more traditional view articulated above remains preferable. Having dist.usst-d Second Temple Jewish texts relating to a priestly messiah and Mekhizcdck in these last two chapters, a consideration of the influence of these texts on Hcbrc.ws• presentation of Jesus is now appropriate.

150

Manzi. jt.felchizedek e J'a11ge/i,fogia. SI, n. I00: Paul Joiion, A Grammar of Biblical llehrew (trans. and rev. T. rvlumoka; 2 vols.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical

Jnstituto. t993), 282 (§93 t-m).

•s• Manzi, Melcllizedek e l'tmgelolagia . 52.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE PRI ESTLY CHRISTOLOGY OF HEBREWS AN D QU MRAN TRADITIONS The ilrst chapter of this study concluded with a summary of Hebrews' presentation of Jesus as the priestly messiah. Though not of priestly lineage, he becomes priest by God's affinnation and oath because he also is the divine Son. He is prepared for this priestly service by his earthly sufferings through which- along with his common origins in God- he develops solidarity with the people. He serves as priest oflering the ullimatc, final sacrifice for the sins of his pc
and abiding. Clearly several clements impact this presentation of Jc.o;us. Most obvious arc the pastoral needs of the people, whose faith the author sees as endangered through persecution, apathy, or a combination thereof. The author's theological creativity and pastoral sensitivity arc beyond question. He writes to them about a priest who suffered ycL endured~ who prepared their way to heaven and intercedes there for them, but he also raises the specter of a dire fate f(,r those who would renounce their faith in the midst of their difficulties. No doubt the Christian ke~:ygma of Jesus as the Son of God who died on behalf of the people also lies behind this presentation. Likewise~ the conception of a heavenly sanctuary \vith an angelic liturgy was: commonplace in Second Temple Judaism and early

192

CHAPTER FIVE

Christianil)', and this also is rcllcctcd in Hebrews. As noted in the firs t chapter, the author fr<..-cly uses Platonic vocabulary to express a

tr.iditional Jc,vish understanding of the relationship between the heavenly and c-.JrthJy sanctuaries. The auth<>r's exegetical skills certainly play a major role in the presentation of Jesus as priest. He justifies Jesus' status as prie-st on the basis of his exegesis of Ps 2: 7; Ps I I 0: I; and Ps I I0:4. TilC begotten Davidie Son of Ps 2:7 is the enthroned ' lord' addressed by God in Ps I I 0: I. This enthroned Son is also granted an eternal priesthood like that of Mclchizcdck by divine decree in Ps 110:4. Jesus, the Son, is also Jesus, the priest. Why, though, docs the author of Hebrews prc..;cnt Jesus as a priest, and wh)' is Mclehizc'
of \vhich we have no certain record---circulate in car1ic~o:;t Christianity of JC.';uS as priest'! Docs this motif result sole~y from the author's cxcgctkal prowess? Why would one propose the need for a messianic prie-st'! Might the author have appropriated and adapted Jewish traditions about heavenly, messianic priestly ligures and found impetus in them to present Jesus as the priestly messiah? As noted in chapter 3 above. the discovery of the Qumran textsboth those discussing a priestly messiah and an angelic Mclchizedckprompted llurries of interest in the possible relationship of those traditions with Hebrews' prc.';:entation of Jesus. As also noted, such enthusiasm was relatively short ~ li ved, as rebuttals quickly questioned theories that the recipients of Hebrews were formerly Esscne..~ or that Mclehizcdck the eschatological warrior was also Mclchizedck the priest who blc,~scd Abraham. Viewed from hindsight, one easily can admit that several early proponents of Qumran- Hcbrcws tics zealously claimed 100 much. Recently, however, Anders Aschim has argued that the examination (specifically concerning Melchizcdek) should be reopened, and the conclusions reached here also affirm that need.' Likewise, Charlotte Hempel and John Poirier have sounded recent calls that the Qumran materials should no longer be treated as representative of (in the wMds of Hempel) "a small group on the

1

Asdlim, ..Mdchizedck and Jesus." 145·4 7.

THE PRIESTLY CHRISTOLOGY OF HEBREWS

193

fringes of late Second Temple society."' II~ fo r example, such diverse ancient writers a~ Pliny the Elder eould discuss the Qumran SG"Ct and Josephus and Philo could pnlisc the virtues of the d istinctive practices of Esscncs with reasonable accuracy, might that not also imply that theological tenets of the Qumran community and their fellow Es-scncs could be known and even shared to an extent in \Vidcr Judaism and early Christianity? Admillcdly no textual dependence of Hebrews
I. A NARRATIVE THEOLOGY OF HEBREWS

The author of Hebrews expresses a theologic-al understanding of Jesus as divine yet Davidie Son and messianic priest. T he Son is truly divine with all the prerogatives that such status e ntails (Heb 1:1-14). \Vhilc previous generations spoke of the \Visdom of God, the author utilizes such language to describe the Son, who is the figure active in Creation, bearing the image of God, and sustaining the world even from the beginning (Hcb 1: 1-3). He has bee n appointed priest (5:5-6), but h is divine mission o f sctf..sacrificc on behalf o f humanity was his u ltimate, eschatological act of making atonement on behalf of his people ( 1:3; 10: 14). ln the process he brought the ultimate revelation of God and God's purposes (1 :2). God ordained an earthly ta bernacle for Israel, modeled on the heavenly sanctuary (8:5), a nd presumably the earthly Levitical pric.«thood for Israel was ml>dclcd on the heavenly a ngelic liturgical sc.rvic.c. Like his Jewish contemporaries and prophetic forerunners, the author of Hebrews as..~umcs the presence of a heavenly sanctuary an d cultus staffed by eourscs of angels ( 1:6, 14). God ha.<; bee n intimately •-Charlotte Hempel. "Qumran Communilies: Beyond the Frin;;cs of Second Temple. Soc-iety;· in The Scroll..; (lltd the Scripwres: Qumran FiftJ' Yem~\· Afier (cd. S. Portc.r and C. Evans; JSPSup 26; Sheffield: Shdlield, 1997). 43-53, esp. 43; and John C. Poirier, ..The Endtimc Return of Elijah and Moses at Q umran: ' DSD I 0 (2003): 22 1·

42.

194

CHAPTER FIVE

inv<>lved on behalf of his people and guiding their dc.~tiny. God's deliverance of the people ii·om captivity in Egypt and call for them to journey to Canaan is an earthly type of God's plan to free the faithful people lfom sin so that they c~m journey in ltlith toward God's cschatologit.al rc.~t (3:7-4: 13). Moses led Israel and interceded for it, but only under the leadership of Joshua did the people complete their journey. Likewise, the Levitical priests interceded for God's people during their appointed time, but ultimately it would be Jesus (the play on names in Greek perhaps not coincidental) who made the ultimate

sacri fice and led God's children to glory. God always intended to show that the heavenly and spiritual things were the true things with the earthly things only c.opics. Indeed, God foreshadowed the eventual coming of the Son, the ultimate high priest, even before the establishment of the Levitical priesthood. Mclchizcdck, the priest-king of Salem, was made to be like Jesus, the divine priest-king (7:3). Melehizedek appeared in Gcn 14 in an angclophany and demonstrated his priestly precedence over the future

Levitical line in his sacral cnC<)untcr with the patriarch Abraham (7:410). Like his Jewish contcmporarit·s at Qumran, the author conceives of a supernatural Melchizedek, a heavenly fif,'llre in God's service (7:3). But this Mclchizcdek is no rival to the divine Son. When Jesus later came as the great high priest, he appeared to humans as one like and ·according to the order of' Mclehizedck (7: 15· 17 and elsewhere). From the heaven ly perspective, though, actuaJJy the opposite was true: even as exalted an agent of God as Mclchizcdck was inferior to the divine Son. Though divine, the Son showed solidarity with God's people (2:5-18) and was prepared ('made perfect' ) to be their compassionate high priest b)' suffering and experiencing all aspects of the human condition short of commission of sin (4: 14-5: 10). Thus Jesus' toils in li fe arc given great meaning for his salvific missi<m. Like Mekhizcdck, Jc.~us is a priest outside of and superior to the Levitical line (7: I 1-19). Jesus as priest offers the sacriftce that was anticipate-d by the Levitical offerings but which is ultimate, final, and

need not be repeated. Doing so, he made final, oncc- fbr~all atoncmcnl in the real, heavenly sanctuary (9: I 1- 14). The recipients of the letter have confessed the basics of the Christian gospel- Jesus came from God, died on their behalf, and returned to the Father- and have experienced the H<)iy Spirit (2: 1-4).

THE PRIESTLY CHRISTOLOGY OF HEBREWS

195

They have not matured in their fai th, however, and arc in danger of abandoning their confession of faith in the mid•t of hardships and persecution (5: I 1-6:8 and elsewhere). The author writes with pastor.! concerns. intending both to encourage and warn his readers. Though feeling abandoned in their d.iflicullie-,, the author assures them that the divine Son himself is their sympathetic, merciful high pric.'l who has made that linal, oncc-for· all atonement for them and who is in the direct presence of God Almighty interceding fo r them. This comJbrting image is dc.,cribcd allematcly by stating that Jesus is sc~,uc-d at God's right hand in power ( I:3; 8: 1-2) or that he entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary (6: 13-20). Intertwined with lhcsc words ofcom iOrt, however, arc dire warnings of their precarious situation. The rc..'tdcrs stand in danger of abandoning their c.onfcssion and, like Israelites of the exodus generation, of forfeiting their opportunity 10 reach their destination appointed by God (3:7-4: 13). Only th<>SC who remain faithful despite their obstacles and inability to comprehend \vhat lies: in store for them will enter (iod's presence, yet Jesus and the f3ithful Hebrews of generations past have provided examples of the faithfulness necessary l<>reach this goal ( I I: 1- I 2: 17). The author appeals to his readers by means of a sophisticated rhetorical argument utilizing synkrisis, comparing Jesus systematic.aJiy to major figures and clcmcnLSc fai thful to this JestL' receive their just reward and ' rest. ' But those who tum away at!cr having experienced God and the Holy Spiril because of Jc..\~us' atoning work arc lcfi \'lithout hope. as no other means of atonement is possible (6:4-8). Confident that his readers have not rc....ac::.hcd this dire point, he urges them on toward faithfulm.·$S (6:9· 12).

196

CHAPTER FIVE 2 . COMPARISON WITH QUMRAN TRADITIONS

Several points in Hebrews' thought intersect with ideas also known from the Qumr-..n texts. The <:osmOi(>gy is similar, but that could be said of numerous Second Temple Jewish texts. More substantial arc the prc.~cntation of a heavenly priest who makes eschatological atonement and the understanding of Mckhizcdck as a heavenly figu re. Though the correspondences arc not exact- nor should they be expected to be since Hebrews fOcuses on a particular person in Jesus as the messiah- they arc. similar enough to indicate shared v iC\VS. In fact, the Qumran texts (including Jubilees and Aramaic Levi) arc the only extant texts from Second Temple Judaism that d iscuss an eschato logical priest and a heavenly Mclchizcdck.

2.1 . Hebrews and the Priestly A•lessianism ofQumran The priestly messianic traditions a t Qum ran a nd possib le antecedent traditions that laid the exegetical groundwork for Qumran 's sacerdotal expectations were addressed above in chapter 3. In several texts lfom the Dead Sea Scrolls, a priestly figure appears and occasionally bears the title n'i!ll.l. Admittedly the activities of the priestly fi&•tuc arc not always clear in the extant tcxrs, but tasks described include making atonement, instn iCting in the law, blessing and exhorting in eschato logical warfare (along w ith cursing Belial and his lot), and prc,~iding a t an eschatological banquet. One also notes that the messianic priest may be treated with deference by the David ic or royal messiah. When and why the Qumran community developed an expectation fo r a messianic p riest remain topics of scholarly investigation, as do considerations of whether the community had or demanded uniform thought on me~~;sianic expecta tions. Surplising, though, is the relative lack of exegetical justific-ation for the expecta tion of the messianic pri·c st in the extant texts, especially in light of the several proof.. texts used to arLieulate royal messianic expectations. This d isparity has prompted scholars to seck exegetical j ustification for the priestly expectation in other materials known to the Qumran SG"Ct, an d traditions of Le vrs reception o f an etemal pric.~;thood arc a fruitful source. Jubilees, Aramaic Levi, and the (admittedly later) Testament of

THE PRIESTLY CHRISTOLOGY OF HEBREWS

197

Levi present Levi as receiving an eternal priesthood from God because of his religious zeal, a moti f derived ffom midrashic readings of several passages from the Hebrew Bib le tha t rela te priesthood a nd rightcou~ vengeance on sinners..A...~ addressed in chapter 3, a c.ogcnl argument t·an he made tha t the Qumran co mmunity saw this Levi tradit ion as providing the. scriptural founda tion for their position. These texts: have been examined with the purpose of reevaluating whether there is a relationship between the priestly mc.~sianism o f Qumran and the pries lly Christology of He brews. A common objection to this proposal is that the priestly messiah of Qumran was one of several expected figures, not the single messiah as Jesus clearly is identified in Hebrews. This obviously is true, and most scholars do indeed assert tha t the Qumran texts evidence a numbe r of messianic expectations. So too, though, do texts in the broader realm of Second Temp le Judaism. Most schola rs today arc co nvinced tha t no one messianic expectation defined Second Tcmplc Judaism, though hopes of ~'1. Davidic figure were most widely held. The author o f Hebrews describes a Davidic messiah and a priestly messiah , though naturally because of his commitment that .Jesus is the messiah~ these o fllccs arc combined in the same figure. One should only cxpl.'Ct that someone convinced that Jesus was the messiah would not identify multiple messianic figures. Ye t while no scho lar seriously questions whether the Christian identi fica tion o f Jesus as a Davidic messiah has roots in broader Sc...' t.o nd Temple Jewish messianic expecta tions (even though such expectations ove rall arc varied), most scho lars deny that Second Temple .Jewish presentations of a priestly messiah might also inlluence the thought of Hebrews. One must consider whether presenta tions o f Jesus in Hebrc,vs an d the pric.~tly messiah of Qumran arc actually similar. In both a pricslly figure is discussed in the context of a Davidic figure, though the priestly and Davidic figures arc synonymous in Hebrews. Both present priests appo inted to their eschatological duty by God's divine decree; compare Jesus in Heb 5:5-6 and Levi's commission from God in the various Levi priestly texts. Both present prk"StS o ffering an eschato logic-al sacrifice of atonement: Jc~~us offers his ultimate sacrifice in Hebrews aflcr his incarnatio n, and Qumran ,s messianic pri·e st ma kes atonement in the <."S<:.haton. Furthennorc~ even the angelic priest-warrior Mclehizedek is associated with the c.'~chatological Day of Ato nement in II QMclchizcdck. Admiucdly Jesus' sacrificial

198

CHAPTER FIVE

activity in Hebrews is not understood as occurring in the cschaton in the same way as in the Qumran texts, i.e., at the climactic end when God breaks int<> hiswry and dramatically changes the world order, yet even in Hebrews Jcswf appe.arancc in the world is dated to the ' la:;a days' (Hcb I :2; in contrast, the Levitical system is said to be ·passing away'). Thus the theme of a priestly service-even described as heavenly-at the decisive po int in history binds these traditions. The suggestion natuntlly a rises that Hebrews' emphasis on the superiority of Jesus• priesthood over the Levit ical line may imply knowledge of eschatological Levitical or Aaronic priestly traditions like those at Qumran. In recent years most major commentators on Hebrews have rcjcct<..-d the o lder notion that the author was writing to cncountgc Jewish Christians not to revert to Judaism or refuse to sep arate from it because of an emotional and psychological longing for the comfort of a physical sacrilicial cult. As noted above an d in chapter I, a better way to read the comparisons of Jesus and various clements of Judaism in Hebrews is to rcc.o gnize the rhetorical method o f ·"""J'IIkrisis. Might the author also have intended a ge ntle polemic of clarification against ideas that a Levitical priest would have an enduring role in the heavenly sanctuary'? Drdwncl,s study of the Aramaic Levi Documelll was motivated by a similar suggestion; he questions whether the combination o f royal and priestly moti fs for Levi prompted a d iffe rent explanation in Hebrews: 1'he author of lhe Letter to the He.bre.ws demotes Levi from his pries11y and royal position by affirming that, in the person of Abraham. Levi has already paid the tithe h) r...telchizedek, the royal pries.tly without genealogy and a typological forerunner of Christ's priesthood (Nebrews 7). By iniToducing Melchizedek and the-tithe motif into the discus...;ion concerning the installation of a non. Levitical ~)riesthood, Hebreu t~ 7 a ~)pe.ars to react against the. vision of Levitic.al royal ~)riesthood depicted in the Arllmaic Le11i Dt)c unu?nt.J

The line of thought proposed in the present study initially was draficd without knowledge of Drawnel's similar suggestion. While it is tempting to assent to his argum(·.nt that a combination of royal an d priestly roles fo r Levi lay be hind Hebrews' alternate presentation of 3 Drawnc:l, Aramak Wi.o;dom Text. J4 . Compare Drnwnd. Aramait.· Wisdom Text, 307-09; and Greenfie-ld, Stone, and Eshe1. Aramaic Lel'i Doc11mem. 184-88 on theroyal langua!?e of (;en 49: 10 applied to Kohath. O n Drawnel's motivation fur undc:rtnking hts study, see Aronwic JJ'isdm11 Text, xiii.

THE PRIESTLY CHRISTOLOGY OF HEBREWS

199

Mclchizcdck, Drawncl,s thesis was rejected above in chapter 3 in favor of the idea that the author of the Aramaic Levt' Document was C<') · opting royal dynastic language in order to describe the prbthood entrusted to Levi and his descendents. Also, (me would be obliged to consider carefully whether the auth(>r wrote chiefly to revise the theological tenets of the readers and if his own presentation of Jesus was driven by polemic against the Levitical priesthood. The firs t of these would be very difficult to support lrom the text of Hebrews. One would be required to demonstrate that the au~10r of Hebrews feared his readers espoused what he considered to be a defective understanding of the heavenly pricsth()()d. In other words, one would have to prove that the author was writing to challenge his readers' intellectual commitmcnt'i more so than to r.illy them to faithful obedience. Since the repeated call in the book is to llrm commitment and faithfulness, not for the rc.tipicnts to alter their doctrinal commitments, arguing for such a position is unwise. It i~ a very different matter, tiHmgb, to ''onsider the likelihood that the author of Hebrews was himsel f somehow influenced by such conceptions. Natura11y one cannot claim to know the thoughts of an ancient author, but the survey above has highlighted scver.JI similarities between the discussion of a priestly mc.~siah and Hebrews' priestly Christology. Certain!)• ditlhcnees arc also evident, but it is reasonable in light of the positive correspondence's to assert that the author"s conception of Jesus as a heavenly priest was prompted at least in part by an intcllc..."Ctual context in which a priest called M'lDO was expected and the priestly cnd(mmcnt of Levi in the Hebrew Scriptures was understood in heavenly term.~. Jesus is not the 'messiah of Aaron• of Qumran or the Levi of Jubilees and ALD, but those conceptionsalong with the broader heavenly temple cult supposed in Jewish apocalyptic texts- provided a pree.c dent for the author of Hebrews w conceive of Jesus similarly as a priest making atonement and eternal intercession in the heavenly sanctuary.

2.2. Hebrews and the Melc hizetlek Traditions ofQumran

Much more can be said with confidence about the relationship between Hebrews and the Mclchizedck traditions at Qumran. As indicated in chapter I, interpretation of Hcb 7:3 lies at the heart of this

200

CHAPTER FIVE

consideration, and one must also reconcile the portrayals o f Mclchizcdck as an angelic, cschato logic.al warrio r figure at Qumran with that of the priest who encountered Abmham in He brews. ll has long been traditional to l~omparc prcscntmions of Mclchizcdck in I I QMclchizcdck and in Hebrews with the po int that the figures vary grea tly. Mclchizedck in He brews is a priest who encountered Abraham and received tithes, whereas Mclchizedek at Qumran is a heavenly figure bringing eschat<1logical j udgment. The most d1at is allowed typically is that the portmit of Mclchizcdck in I IQMclchizedek bears more similarities to Hebrews' presentation of Jesus than to the Iauer's: discus..~ion o f Mclchizcdck:' h is: only a pprop1iatc to concede that <~crtain d ifferences do exist. Qumran's presentation o f UlC angelic Mclchizcdck had two emphases-he is a heavenly priest, as likely is the case in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and is strongly implied by the atonement themes of I JQMclch izedck, and he is an eschato logical warrior akin to the arc.hangcl Michael in t he Iaue r text and in 4Q Visions o f Ammm• ar. Clearly the judgment activity is absent fr<>m Hebrews' portrayal of Mclchizcdck. but neither is that an emphasis l()r Hebrews• presentation of Jesus:~ Inte resting, though~ is that other early C hristian texts (including Revelation and Jude) could maintain a role (even militaristic) for the archangel Michael- with whom Mclt.hizcdck was assimilated at Qumran and later in Jewish tradition-alongside their obvious understanding of Jesus as the ultimate e nvoy of God.~ Similarly, the author of Hebrews may share cerJain aspe<:ts o f Mclch izcdck's presentation at Qumran without accepting their portrait in toto. Arguments to the contrary overlook the complex presentations o f Melchizedck in bo th Hebrews and the Qumran texts. On the one hand , while Mclch izedck could be understood at Qumran as an angelic " See. fbr example-, the comparison.<> offered by Horton. Melclrizedek Tmdi1io11, 167· tmd Kobelski. Meldli:edek. 128. '/ See, however~ A!ichim, "'Mc:lchizcdek and Jc:sus:;· 140-43. who argues that Jesus is presented as a holy warrior in Heb 2: I 0- 18. O n Mc:khizcdek as liberator in othe-r texts. sex- AndC.'f'S Aschim. ··rvlelchi:r.edek the Liberator: An Early lntcqm:tatlon of Gcll<.-sis l4'?" in Societ.v qfBiblical Lilerature /996 Semi11ar Papers (Atlanta: Scho lars

Pre;;-<, 1996), 243-58.

See Duane F. Watson, •'Michael," ABD 4:811. See a lsn James R. Davila, ··r-.·ldchizedck. Michael. and War in Heaven," in Society o.f Biblical Litemture /996 Semi110r Paper... (Atlanta: Scho1a~ Pres..;, 1996}. 259-72.

THE PRIESTLY CHRISTOLOGY OF HEBREWS

20 1

figure, one must not ignore the presence of more mundane portraits o f Mclchizcdck in other textS the Qumran community prized, including the Gene."'is Apoct}]Jhou and Jubilees (presuming their copies predated the haplogmphy that plagued later manuscripts).' One is t'orrcct to note a d istinction be tween texts composed at Qumran and simply read

there, but .Jubilees was esteemed at Qumran on a level comparable with Scripture.• As de monstrated a bove in c hapter 4, both of these texts have relatively tame retcllings of Gcn 14. Thus at Qumran one could fi nd very d iffe rent d iscussions of Mc lchizedek, not a monolithic conception. Likewise, the a uthor o f Hebrews can discuss the Mclchizcdck who encountered Abraham, yet in Hcb 7:3 he can describe him as a n ctcrnal-prc.~umably angelic-figure. a position espoused in chapter I above. As Kobclski argues, this must be recognized as the clear intent

of the autho r's sta teme nts a bout Melchizcdek's lack of pa re ntage, genealogy, beginning or end o f life, and eternal pricstht)od. Shortly thcrcaflcr in Hcb 7 : 15- 17 the similarity be tween Jesus and Mclchi, edck is resta ted : Jesus, KaTix TI,v OIJOIOTT)Ta M£AXtoio£K, is prie-st because of 'the power of an indestructible li fe.' This correspondence goc.s beyond the mere lack of a L;;vitical genealogy, as Horton contends. Melchizcdck is a heavenly figure in Hebrews; presumably the author understands Me leh izcdck's a ppearance to Abmham as an angclophany, a phenomenon thai certainly w<mld not be foreign to the Abraham narrati vcs in Genesis. One might question whether the author o f Hebrews would dare evoke a conception of Mclchizcdck like that in I I QMclchizcdck for comparison with Jesus in light of his emphasis in Hcb I on the Son's

superiority over the angels. For many scholars this is the major impediment f () recognizing the common c lements of Hebrews' and Qumran•s ideas about Mclchizcdck, and some even assert that any knowledge of Qumran's understanding of Mclchizcdck would have caused the author of Hebrews to avoid usc of the characte r altogether.~ Such scholars frequently point to the insistence in Hcb I of Jesus' superiority over the angels as the chief facto r demanding this: schism of 7

Unfimunatdy the relevant pass.ug.c i.s nut extant in the Qumran manusc.ripts of

.Jubilees. 11

Note-the evaluation of Vande-rKam and Plint, Mea11i11g, 199: ··J11bilees was most likely vi('wc:d as Scripture by the Q umran community.·· ., So, fbr example-. Horton, Melclri:zedek Tnrdition, J69.

202

CHAPTER FIVE

thought. The argument of Hcb I, howevc.r, may be t'onstrucd as a po int

in favor of- not as an impediment against-the idea that Hebrews drew on prior traditions of Melchizedek as an a ngel. Most scholars of Hebrews today have abandoned older arguments that the author

criticizes the recipients' propensity to worship angels, so that removes the assumption that the theory of an angelic Mclchizcdck would cause theological confusion for the readers. Instead, Hcb I can be re.ad as a clear assertion of the priority of the eternal Son, the one bearing the glory ami essence of the Father and who is supe.rior 10 the a ngels in

every way, thus making it safe to compare Jesus to an angel (without again stressing the Iauer's subjugation) late.r in the epistle. As noted above and earlier in chapter 1, the author of Hebrews has

a tra.ditional Jewish understanding of the relationship between the heavenly and earthy sanctuaries- the Iauer is modeled on the fo rmer-yet discusses this using the language o f Middle Platonism.

Such thought also seems evident in

hi~

discussion of the relationship

between Jesus and Mc::.khizcdck. The a uthor can explain Jesus' priestly

status as being like that of Mt.~lchizedck and docs so on numerous occasions~ this functions well to document an authorized priestly line outside the Levitical tribe. About Jesus, the author can write that he 'resembles [kaTix Tl)V o~OIOTI)Ta] Mclchizedek' (Hcb 7: 15), but j ust verses earlier he can state that Mclchizcdck 'was made to resemble la<j>w~OIW~Evos- J the Son of God, (Hcb 7:3). A maximal reading of these ct)mmcnts might support the idea that

the author of Hebrews was thinking of the rclation~hip of Jesus and Mclchizedck in tcnn~ akin to his conception of the sanctuaries, but with one further component l11c c.tcmal, divine Son was the model, and the angelic Mclehizedck was the copy who encounte red Abr.lham

and established a non .. Lcvitk'c31 priestly precedent in ancient Israel. This in tum pre pa red the way for the incarnate Son-both the model fo r Mclchizcdck yet now also resembling him- to be comprehended

as priest. Thus conc.c ptions of an otherworldly Mclehizedek actually aid-

rather than hinder- Hebrc\vS' presentation of Je~~us as the heavenly high priest. Transferal of c.crtain heavenly prerogatives from Mclchizcdck to Jesus is natural given the Christian conviction thaL Jesus is the ultimate agent of (iod, but (as demonstrated in chapter 4 above) Qumran's presenta tion of a heavenly Melehizedek cc.rtainly has more points of contac.t with Hebrews' C
THE PRIESTLY CHRISTOLOGY OF HEBREWS

203

do o ther Second Temple Jewish discussions of the figure. O f the latter, the closest similarities <.~ould be seen in the thought of Philo, but only when he allegorized Mclchizedek toward an image of the Logos, whose similarities with the Wisdom motif.~ that lie behind description of the Son in Heb I were discussed in chapter 4. In the end, it is fitting that the author of Hebrews evoked the angelic Mclchizedek to further his explanation of Jesus' pric.
3. CONCLUSION

Hebrews, presentation of Jesus as priest finds its closest parallels at Qumran. One n(..'Cd not assent to the cxlrcmc positions of earlier proponents of the view in order 10 recognize that Hebrews and the

Qumran texts share a co nception of a heavenly Mclchizedck and that the co nception of Levi 's eternal pricsthoc>
BIBLIOGRAPHY l. DISCOVERIES IN THE JUDAEAN DESERT BarthCicm)'. D.. and J. T. Milik, eds. Qumnm Caw' I. D iscoveries in the Judaean

Dt."Sert l. O:.ford: C larendon. 19$5. Baillet. M., J. T . i\,tilik, and R. de Vaux. eds. Les 'petites g raues · de Qumni11. 2 vols.

Discoveries in the Judacan t:>escrl of Jordan Ill. Oxfbrd: Clarendon. 1962. A11cgru. John M .• with A. A . Anderson. cds. Qrmwan Caw -1.1 (4Q/58-4Q/86). Discoveries in the. Judacan Desert of Jordan V. Oxford: Clarendon. 1968. Baillet. rvl., cd. Qumrtin gmtte 4.1/1 (4Q481-4QJ20). Discoveries in the Judaean Ot."Scrl VII. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Skeha n, Patrid W., Eugene. Ulrich. and Judith E. Sanderson. cds. Qumran Cm-e 4.11': Palaeo-Jiehre w tmd Greek Biblical Mamm:-r ipts. Discovc:-ric.s in the Judaean

Desert IX. Oxford: Clarendon. 1992. Eshd. Ester, c t aL, in consullalion with J. VandcrKam and f\•1. Brady. Qumrmr Cm ·e 4. fit: Poetical and Limrgical Te:rts, Part I . Discuwries in the Judaean Desert X I. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Baumgarten, Joseph M., ed. Qumran Caw:!' 4.>.711: The Dama.w:u.\· Document (4Q266273). DiscO\' Cri ~ in the Judacan Dcsc.rt XVII I. Oxford: C laft'ndon, 1996. Bm!ihi. Mugcn, e1 al.. in c:onsultalion with J. VanderKam. Qumrmr Ca\'e 4.X!fl: Pambiblical Te:rts. Part 2. Discovc-ri c::~ in the Judacan Desert XIX. Oxf<>rd: Clarendon. 1995. Brooke. (ieorge L et at , in consultation with J. Vandcrkam. Qumran Ca\'i' 4.XVII: Parabiblic(ll Texl!l, Part 3. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert A'XII. OxfOrd : Clarendon. 1996. Garcia (\•Iartinez.. Florentino. Eiben J. C. Tigchclaar. and Adum S. van dcr Woudc, eds. Mmwscripls .fi·om Qumrmr Cave II 0 IQ2-18. JIQ20-30) . Discoveries in the Judaean C>c-.sert XXIfl. Oxf<>rd: Clare-ndon, J99?. A lexander. Philip S .• and Ge-.at Vermes, cds. Qumran Cave 4.XIX: 4QSerekh 1/aYa~tad a11d r..._'O Related Text.'t. Disco\'erics in the Judacan Desert XXVf. Ox fhrd: Clarendon, 1998. (iropp. Douglas M .. ed. Wadi Daliy elr II: Tlte Samaria Papyri f or Wadi Daliyeh: &:huller. Eileen, el a L in co nsultation with James VanderKam and Monica Brady. Qummn Cave 4.>.'XVIII: ll1i.tcellmre(l, Pm·t 2. Discoveric:s in 1he Judaean Desert XXVJII. Oxfbrd: Clarendon, 2001. Puech, ~mile. cd. Qrmmin Gratte 4.XXII: Te wes Aramt!e11s Premiere Partie 4Q529549. Disc:ovc:ri ~ in !he Judaean Oeser! XXXI. Oxf<>rd: Clarendon. 200J. Pfann. S te-phen L ed. Qumrmr Cm'e 4.XXVI: Cryp1ic Text.'t; Alexande-r. Philip S .. e.t a l.. in consuhalion with J. VandcrKam and M. Brndy. Miscel/(/lle(l. Part I . Disco\•eries in the-Judaean Orcsert XXXVI. Oxford : Clare-ndon, 2000.

206

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2. PRINCETON T HEOLOGICAL SEMINARY D EAD SE;\ SCROLLS PROJECT Charlesworth, James H., c:t a l.. cds. The Dead Sea Scm/Is: l!ehrew, Ammait:. mrd

Greek Text.~ with E11glislr Translmimrs. Vol. I, Rule- of the Cunununity and Related DocumenLo;. Louisville: \VC'$tminstcr John Knox. I994. Charlesworth. James H., c:t a l.. cds. The Dead Sea Scro/1.,·: J./ebrew. Aramait:. aiUI Greek Te:rts with Englb:h Trmz..,.Jatimu. Vo1. 2, Danmscu.<> Document. War ScrolL and Related Doc.uml~n t.s. louis'lillc: Westminster John Knox. 1994. Charlesworth, James 1-L <md Carol A. Ne\..'SOm, cds. 11•e Dead Sea &rolls: Hebrew. Aramaic. and Greek Te\'ls willt Englb:h TranslmioJrs. Vol. 4B. An~;di c Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrific<.·. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Charlesworth, James H .. and Henry \V. Re.itz, eds. The Dead Sett Scmlk· Hebrew. Ammaic. 011d Greek Texts willt Engli.\·11 Translaticm.'t. Vol. 6B. Pesharim. O ther Com m~ntari es.

and Related Documents. Louisville: Westminster John Knox,

2002.

3. ELECTRONIC EDITIONS OF THE D EAD SEA SCROLLS lim. T imothy H.. and Philip S. Alexander, c:ds. The Dead Sea Scroll.'t Elecmmic Reference Library (vol. I}. CD· RO.\tl. Oxfhrd Unive-rsity Press and Brill, 1997. Tov, Emanuel. 00. The Dead Sea Scrolls Elecmmic Library. Revised £di1i01r 2006. CD-ROM. Brill. 2006.

4. G ENERAL B IBLIOGRAPHY Aafcn. Svcrrc-. " 'Reign ' and 'House' in the Kingdom o f God in the Gns~lels." Ne"· Te.sumrcmt Smdie:o 8 ( 1962): 215-40. Abegg, Martin G ., Jr. ..The Messiah at Qumran: Arc We Still Seeing Double-'?" Di!ad Sea Di.tcr)W!ries 2 ( 1995): J 25-44. - -. •' IQSb and the Elusive High Priest"' Pages 3·1 3 in Emmwel: Studies iii Nebrew Bible. Septuagi11t, liJI(/ Dead Sea Sc:mlls ill Honor of £mcmuel Tav. Ed it~d by S. M. Paul, R. A. KraO, L. H. Schi01na n.and W. W. Fields. Lc:idcn: Brill, 2003. - -. -Who Asce-nded to Heaven? 4Q491, 4Q427, and the T eucher of Righteousness." Pages 61-73 in &cllawle~g;•. Me:<;sianism. tmd lire Dead Sea Scm//.<;. Edited by C. A . Evans and P. W . Flint. Studies in Lhe De.ad Sea Scrolls and Related Literature!. Grand Rapids: Ecrdm11ns, 1997. Abegg, Martin. Jr.. Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. T11e Dettd Sea Scrolls Bible. New York Harper Sun Frnncisc.u, 1999. Aitken, Ellen Bradshaw. "'Portraying the-Temple in Stone: und Te:tt: T he Arch of Titus und the- Epistle to the Hebrews." Pages 131 48 in Nebrews: Contempormy Mellrodt. New ln.\·iglus. Edited by G. Gdardini. Biblica11ntcrprctation & ries 75. lc:idcn: Brill, 2005. Alexander. PhilipS. ..The: Redaction-History o i'Se.rd:h ha · Ya~ ad: A Proposal." Reme de Qumm11 17 ( 1996): 437-57. 4

BIBLIOGRAPHY

207

Allegro, John M. ··Fntgmmts of a Qumran Sc.roll o f Eschatological r-.~l idraSi m:· Joumal ofBiblical Litenuure 17 ( 1958): 3$(}.$4. - -. "Further r>.•. lessianic Rc:I"Crences in Qumran Litcmturc." .founral of Biblical

Literature 15 (1956): I 74-87. A11c:n, Leslie. C. P:wlm.s /0/-JO. Revi.W!d. Word Bibli<.-al Comme ntary 2L Nashville:

Ncl.,on. 2002. Andcr,;on, Francis I. .. Enoch., Second Book of." Pages 516-22 in voL 2 o f 1'/te Am:llar Bible Dictitmary. Edited by D. N. Froetlman. 6 \'Ois. New York: Doublcda:-o,

1992. Asc.him, Anders . ..The Genre-of 11QMd chizcxick." r'ages 17-3 1 in Qunrnm Between 1lle Old all(/ New Te.\·tanumts. Edited h~· F. H. Cryer and T . L. Thompson. Journa l f<>r lhc Study o f the Old Testame-nt: Supple-ment Series 290. Copenhagen International Seminar 6. S heffield: Shc:flicld, 1998. - -. .. Mch:hizcdek a nd J~us: 11QMekhizc:dek and the Epistle: to the Ht.•brews.." Pages 128·4 7 in The Je1d.\·IJ Root.f <{CIIJ.i\'tologkal .\'f(}IW/h;!lsm: Papersfi·om

the S1. Andrews C01!{erence 011 tlte f.list(}l·icol O,.igilts <{the Worship of Jes us. Edited by C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, and G . S. Lewis.. Supplements to theJourna l i(lr the Study of Judaism 63. leiden: Brill, 1999. - -...Mc:lchizedek the Libera tor: An Early Interpretation of Genesis 14'?" Pages 24358 in Sudety
1996. AS-lour, Michael C. "Shavch., Valley of." Page 1168 in vol. 5 of The Anchor Bible DicrimUII)I. Ed ited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doublcda)•, 1992. Attridge-, Harold W. Tire Epi.ftle m tire lleb!Y!W.,.. Hennc:nc ia. Philadelphia: Fortress,

1989. - - . -The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Sc rolls." Page-s 315·42 in vol. 2 of Wlren Judaimt and Cllristimtily Begmt: Es:~ays in Memmy <{ AmltmtJ1 J. S
Wilderness q_f .Judaea: De...criplimt and Cmuems of tlte Scroll. Fac.\·imiles. TramocnjJtimt mrd Trous/atimr of Colrmm.<: ll. XIX-XXJ/. Jerusalem: i\
208

BIBLIOGRAPHY

B-aumganen, Joseph M. .. Damascus Doc.umcnt.'" Pages 166-70 in vul. I of Encyclopedia q( 1/te Dead Se" Scm/Is. Ed ited by L. H. Schiflin11n nnd J. C. VanderK.am. 2 vuls. Oxfbrd : Oxford University Press, 2000. Bu:ttc.r, Wayne-. " IQSB: Old Divisions Made New." Rente de Qumnm 21 (2004): 61529. Bec.kcr. Joachim. Me.\·sia11ic Expectmi01r iuthe Old Testm11e111. Philadelphia: Fortress,

1980. Bernas. Casimir. Review of F. Manz i. MelciJi.,·ellek e l'allgtdologia mdi'Epi.ttola agli Ehrei e a Qumron. Re~·iew q{ 8iblical Literature, F'c--bruary 1$. 1999. Cited February 2, 2005. Online: hllp://www.bookreviews.org/pdf:'2724_ 1918.pdf. Bib/ia f.Jehmica Stuttganeusia. Edited by K. Elligerand W. Rudoph. 4th cd. Stuttgart:

Deutsc-he BibclgcscUschaft 1990. Blackman, E. C. Biblical br!i!lprellltion. London: l ndep<.•ndenl P~<>, 1957. Bodinger, to.•lar1in. '·L'Enig.me de Mdkisedcq." Rcmre de 1'hi.\'toire des religion s 2 11

( 1994): 297-333. Boling, Robert G . ''Deborah." Pages 113 14 in vol. 2 of Tire Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York Doubleday, 1992. Booij. T h. "Psalm CX: 'Rule in the Midst of Your Foes! "' Vetus Te.~tamemum 41 4

( 199 1): 396-.W7. Botterwec k. G . Johannes. et al., cds. Tlre<Jlogica/ Dictionary oj'1he Old TeslameJrt. G mnd Rapids: Eerdma ns, 1974-. BOttrich. Christ fri ed. - The Mckhizedek S tory u r2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Rcnction to A . O rlov." Jounral j()r 1he Smdy of.Judai:mr 32 (200 1): 44.5 70. Boll$SCI, Kyrio.s Chri.,·tos: A 1/i.\'lmy <{lire Belief in Chris/ from t)re Begim1ings
4

4

BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

- -. ...To the. Hebrews': A Documcnl o f Ruman Christianit~..r· ANRW 25.4:3496352 1. Part 2. Prim:ipat. 25.4. Edited by W. Haase. New York: de-Oruyter. 1987. - -. -'Tu the Hebrews' or ·To the ll'>sc:ncs''?" ."r'ew Testamem Studies 9 (1962-63):

217-32. Buchanan, Gt..-orge Wcstc:y. To llw llebrews. Anchor Bible 36. Garden City, N.Y.: Duubkday, 1972. Biihncr, J. A. Der Ge:rmrdte mrd sein Weg im 4.£~·mrgelium: Die /.:ultw·· wrd refigitm.<:geschiclrrlicltell Gnmdlagen der johawrei:~che1r Seudung.N:hrislologie sowie ilwe traditimrsge:;c/ticltt/iche E11twickllmg. Wisscn.<>chafllichc Untersudmngen z.um Ncucn Testament 2/2. TUbingcn: Mohr Siebeck, 1917. Bultmann. Rudolf. Theology tif the New Te.~ttunem. T ra nslated by K. G robel. 2 vols. New York, Scribner's, 1951-55. Burrows. Millar, cd. The Dead Sea Scmll~ of St. M(trk ~~ Mmrasrery. Volume II. Fa.w:ic/e 1: Plmes (ntd Tnmscripti(}lr t?{ tire Ma11Ual of Discipli11e. New Haven: American Schools of O riental R~ean:.h . 1951 . CuquOI, Andre. "Lc l ivre des JubiiC.s, Mc:lkisc:dcq ct les dimc.-s." JmmUII

(J{ JewiJh

Suulies 33 (1982): 257-64.

- -. ··Lc-m~ssi 1mi sme Qun1r.inicn.'" Png~s 23 1-47 in QumrOu: Sa pieu!, S(l theo/r)gie et S(ut milieu. Editc.-d by M. Oelvor. Bibliothet.
( 1970): 343-78. Chadwick. H. "'St. Paul and Philo of A lexandria."' Bultetilr ofthe Joh1t Rylaud.'> Lihmrr

48 ( 1965-06): 280-307. Charles. R. H. -The Book of Jubil<:>es.'"

Png~s 1-82 in vol. 2 of 71u! Apocrypha mrd Pseudepigraplw t?f' the Old Testamem. Edited by R. H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxfbrd :

Clarendon. 19 13.

- -. The Book tifJubilee.~ or tire Liule Geue:;is. London: A. & C. Black. 1902. - -. The Greek Versimu q(1he Tesltlmems <Jfthe TuY!h-e Patriarchs. Oxford: Oxfbrd University Press, 1908. Charles. R. H.. and A. C-owle-y. -An Enrly Source of the Te::.inmc nts u r the Patriarc.hs."' .Jewish Quartei'IJ;' Review 19 ( 1907): 566-83. Charles. R. H., and C. Rabin. "'Jubilees." Pages 1-1 39 in The Apocr)'ph(tl Old Te.flantellt. Edited by H. F. D. Sparks. Oxford: Clart'ndon, 1984. Charlesworth, James H...Cha lle-nging the Consensus Communis Regarding Qumran Messianism ( 1QS, 4QS rviSS)." PagC"S 120-34 in Qwllra~t-Messialli.,·m: Studie:; m1 the Mes.si(mic Expeclations in rile Dead Sea Scrolls. £dited by J. H. Charlesworth. H. l ichtenbc-rgcr, and G. S. Ocgema . TUbingen: Mohr Siebeek, t998. - -... From Jewish Mcssianolugy to Christian Christology: Some Ca ...·eats and Persp«.tives." Pnges 225-64 in Judaism.,· and Their ,l.fe.,·sialls at the Tum of the Clrrl.ftitm Em. Edited by .1. Neusner. W. S. Grt'cn, and E. Fre richs. Cambridge: Cambridse University Pr~s. 1987. - -. "From Messianolngy co Chril>inlog>•: Problems and Pruspt'<:ls." Pages 3-35 in T!Je Me.ssia!t: Developmems iii Earlie.,·I .Judaism and CllristianiiJI. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth . rvlinneapolis : Fortress, 1992. - -. ed. 11•e Old Tesumtellt Pseudepigraplw. 2 vo1s. New Yurk: Doubleday. 1983-

85.

2 10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Clarkson, rvlary E. ..The Anu:ccdcms of the High-Priest T heme in Hebrews:·

Australasian Tlwologiml Revic~w 29 ( 1947): 89-95. Cockerill, Gareth Lee . ..i\·tckhizcdek or · King of Righteousness.... £~·mrgc/lit:al Quanerly 63:4 ( 199 1): 305-1 2. Cody. Adred. 1/eawm/y Smwtumy mrd Litmgy ilr the Epi\·tle to tlte Hebrews. St

Meinrad, Ind.: Grail, 1960. Collins, John J. Tlle St·epter and lite Swr: nre Me.,·:oialr.f of the Df.·ad Sea Scrolls mul Other Andem Literature. Anchor Bible Reference Libmry. New York: Doubk"()ay, 1995. Cook. Stephen L. Propheq mu/ Apocalyptid.wu: The Post-£tilic S<Jciaf Si!uiug. Minncarolis: Fortress, 1995. Coppens. Josc.•ph. Les tY}Iniiies qumrOniemres de I 'Eprire aux Hfibreux. AnaJccta lovaniens:ia biblica ct oricntalia 6J l. Louvain: Publications Univcrsitaires. 1962. Cmddock. Fred B. "T he lellc.•r to the Hebrews." Pages l-173 in vo1 12 uf The New hrti!I]Jreter's Bible. Edited by l. Keck. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Cross:, Frank r-.•1., Jr. ..The De-\·dopmcnt of the Jewish Scripts." Pages 133-202 in The Bible and the Ant:lem Near Ea.<:t. Edited by G. E. Wright Garden City. N.Y.: Doubleday. 1961. Cullmann. Oscar. The Chrislillogy of tlu: New Testamem. Rev. ed. Ne-w Testame nt l ibrary. Philadelphia: \Votminster. 1964. D' An.t;do~ Mary Ruse. Mose.<: in the Letter m the llebrews. Socie-ty o f Biblical l ite-mture Dissertution Series 42. L \Jfissoula, Mont: Scholars Prt.-ss. 1979. DaniCiou. Jean. Les mamr.w·rits de Ill Mer ltlmte et les ilrigins du Chri\'tianisme. Paris: Editions de I'Orante, 1957. Dank«. Frederic-k William. cd. A Greek-Eugli.~lr Lexico11 of t}w Neh' Testamem mrd Otlrer Earl>' Chri:rtimr Litemlttlrt. 3rd ttL Chicago: Unive--rsity of Chicago Press.

2000. Davies. Philip R. "War of the Sons uf Light Against the Sons of Darkness." Pages 965-68 in vul. 2 of E1rqclopedia t1j'11te D~·ad Sea Scroll'S. Edited by l. H. S.chifllnan and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxfbrd: Oxford University Press, 2000. Davila, James R. Liturgical Work.~. Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea & rolls. Grand Rapids: E-c-rdmans:, 2000. - -. ''Mekhizcdek, Michael, and War in Heaven." Pages 259-12 in S(1det;: (if Biblical Literawre 1996 Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. DeSilva. Da••id A. Perse•·erance in Gratitude: A Socio·khewrical Commemary 011 rlre Epistle "II? the Hebrews. " Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. 2000. Dey, lala K. K. The Jntermedial)' World and Pu1tems of PeifecliOJJ in PhiltJ mrd Hebrews. Society uf Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 25. Mis..,oula. Mont.: Scholars Press. 197$. Dodd. C. H. Tire Amlwrit~v oflire Bible. London: Collins. 1978. Doran, Robert. "Pseudo·E.upolcmus." Pages 873-79 in vo1. 2 uf Tlre Old Te.\·tament Pseudepigraplw. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday.

1983-SS. Drawnc:l, Henryk. Au Aramttic Wisdom Text fmm Qumran: A New Jmerpretation iif the Le\·i Documem. Supplemenl'i to the Journal fbr the-- Study of Judaism 86. leidcn: Brill. 2004. - -. Re.,.·iew uf J. Greenfield, M. Stone. a nd E. Eshd , 11re Aramaic Le\'i Document: £diliotr, Tnmslatimr. 01mmemmy. Revue bihlique I J3 (2006): 127-31.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2 11

Driver. S. R. A11 Jmroducrion w the LiU!rtllltiY! of the Old Te~·tanumt. New York: Scribner 's, l913. Rcpr.. Clc:vcland: Meridian, 1956. Dunn, James D. G. Chri.,·wltJg)' ill the .'-.fakiug: A New Testamem JnquirJ" ium tlte Origi11s f>/the Doctrine t?{ tl1e Jm:amarion. 2nd ed. Omnd Rapids: Ec.'rdmans,

1989. - -. The Tlumlag>•
( I90 11: 263-87. Eisenbaum, Pamela M ... Locating Hebrews Within the Literal)' Landscape of C hristian Origins." Pages 213-37 in Hebrews: ComemprJrary Methods, New Insights. Edited by G. Gdnrdini. Biblic.al Interpretation Series 7S.lcidcn: Brill, 2005.

Ellingworth. PauL The Ep6·tfe 10 the Hebrews: A Conwumtury tm lire Greek Te:rt. New International Gr<.x•k Testnmcnl Commentary. Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1993. Eme-rton, J. A . "'The Rick-tie of Genesis XIV." Vem.-t Te.\·tamemum 21 (l971): 403-39. Endres, John C. Biblical lmerprewtitm ill tire Book of .Jubilees. Cutho lic Biblical Q uarterly r>.•lonogmph Seri ~ 18. Washington. D. C.: Catholic Biblical Association. 1987. Eshet. Hanan. --T he. Historical Background of the- r'c:sher Interpreting Joshua's Curse on the Rc-builder of Jericho." Revue de Qumnm IS ( 1992): 409-20. Esl.:olu, Timo. Me.fSi(l/t mrd Tlrrone: JeJVislt Merkalxdr M)'Stici.mr a11d Early Cltri.\'tiaJJ E.wtflation Discmtrse. \VisscnschafU ichc Unter.;uchungen zum Neuen Testament 21142. TUbingen: P.•lohr Siebec.k, 2001. Evans.. Craig A. ··Me.ssiahs." Pag~ 53742 in vo1. I of Em:ydopedi11 f?( the Deml Seo ScnJI/s. Edited by l. H. SchiO'tnan und J. C. VandcrK11111. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxfbrd Uni•• crsity Pn:ss.. 2000. - -."Messianic Hopes a nd M~iani c Figures in Late Antiquity." Journal of Greet,_ Roman Cltrislimritv and Jud(li.\'nt 3 (2006): 9-40. Fabry, Heinz-Jozef. ·'Die Messiaserwartung in den Handschrillcn von Q umran." Pages 357-84 in Wisdom ond Apocol)pticism ilr tJre Dead Sea Scmlls tmd in1he Biblictd Tradition. Ed ited by F. Garda Martfne:t.. B i bli oth~ca cphemeridum lhcolugicarum lovuniensium 168. Lcuvc-n: (>c:ete-rs, 2003. Fe ld, Helmut Der 1/ebriierbrief Ertriigc der Forschung 228. Darmsl!tdl: Wis..<>enschaftliche Buchgesdlschafl, !98S. - -. ..Der HcbrU:c:rbrief: Litcrarische Form, rc:lig ionsgeschichtliche.r Hinlergrund, lheologische Fragcn." ANRW 25.4 :3558-60. Parl 2. Pri11cipa1. 2S.4. Ed itcxl by W. Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1987. Feldma n. Louis H. ..Josephus." Pages 98 1-98 in vo1. 3 of Tire A11chor Bible Dictit'· umy. Edited by D. N . Frc:c:dnUUl. 6 •;ols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Filson, Floyd. --The Epistle to Lhe Hc.~brews:' Jounwlt(Bihle a11d Religion 22 ( 1954):

20-26. Filzmycr, Joseph A . ...4QTes.1imonill' and the New Tc:slame nl." Pages 59-89 in The Semiric.· BackgmmultJftlte New Testumelll. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Rcpr. from Tlteological Smdie.f 18 (1957): S 13-37. - -. "Further li~;ht on ~·l dchizedcl: from Qumran C~tve I I." P~tges 245-67 in The Semitic Bacltgmuudtifthe New Te.\'lamelll. Gmnd Rapids: Ecrdmans, 1997. Repr. frnm Joumal q( Biblical Uterature 86 { 1967): 25-41 .

2 12

BIBLIOGRAPHY

- -...Genesis Apocryphon.·· Pages 302-04 in vol. I o f EnqcltlfX!dit~ oflire Dead Se11 Scrolls. Edited by L H. Schitllnan and J. C. VandcrKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxfhrd Uni•oersity Pn:ss, 2000. - -. The Genesis Apoc1)7>ho11 ofQumrrm Cm-e I. 3rd ttL Biblical ct oricntalia 18B. Rome: Pontilical Biblical Institute, 2004. - -. -,\ttclchizcdek in the .\·lT, LXX, and the NT." Biblictt81 (2000): 63-69. - -. · ··Now This Mclchizcdck . . .' (Heb 7: 1)." Pages 22 1-43 in The Semilic Backgrmmd of the New Tes1anumt. Grund Rapids: Ecrdnmns. 1997. Repr. from Catfloli<: Biblical Quttnerly 25 ( 1963): 305-21 . - -. The One Who is to Comt'. Grund Rttpids: Eerdmam·. 2007. - -. Review of Johannes Zimmermann, Me.u·iauLw:he Te:rte tillS Qumrmr. Tlle<Jiogica/ Studies 60 ( 1999): 150-S I. - -. Rama11.~: A New Translation with bun,ductitm mrd Commemary. Anchor Bible 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Flusscr, David. '"The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity." Scripta ltiero.mi)1mitana 4 ( 1958): 215-66. - -. ··Mekhizcdck tmd the Son of Man (A preliminary note on a nc:w fragme-nt from Qumran).'" C/ui.\'litm Neu>s fmm Israel (April 1966): 23-29. Forbes, Christopher. "'Comparison, Self-praise- and Iron)': Paul's Boostins and the Convenlions of Hellenistic Rhetoric." New Te.\·tamem Studies 32 ( 1986): 1-30. Fossum, Juri. The Name <( Gtxl and the Angel of tire Lord: St~marilall mrd ./ewi.\·11 Conceptions o.flmermedimimr and tire Origilr q{G~rostici.wu . Wi~enschafUichc Untersuchunge-n zum Ncucn Testame-nt 2136. Tiibing.en: f\•lohr Siebc:d, 1985. - -. ..Son of God." Pages 128-37 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible DictiOJUI/)1. Edit<:d by D. N. Freedman. 6 vobt New York: Doubk-day, 1992. Frt""ednum. David NoeL c:d. The A11c/1or Bible Dictimuuv. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. 1992. · Freudenthal, Jacob... Ein ung(.-nanntcr samuritanisc:he-r Geschiehtsehrc:-iber." Pat;(.'S 82103, 207· 08, 223-2$ in Alexander Pt)(l'lri.fiOI' mrd die vofl ilm1 erlralte!lell Re.He judiiiscller 1md stmUtritanischer Ge.\·clridllswerke. He11c:nistische Studien 1-2. Bre<>lau: Skutsch. 1875. Friedrich. Gerhard...Beobachtungen :rur messiani:;chen Hohenpricsterc:rwartung in den Synoplikc:rn.'' Zeit.w:hriji flir Tlwol<,~rie wtd Kirche (1956): 26S-31J. Gammie, John... Loci of the Mdchizedek Tradition of Genesis 14: 18-20." Journal of Biblical Literature 90 { 1971}: 385-96. Garcia i\•lartincz, Florentino. ..las tradiciones sumbre- Melquisedec (.':fl los manuscriptos de Qumr.in." Bihlica 81{2000): 70-80. Garcia Martinez.. Florentino. -!\ianic Hopes in the Qumran Writings.'' Pages I S989 in The People of tlte Dead Sea Scrolls. l!ditcd by F. Garcia Martinez and J. Trebolle Barrera. Lcidcn: Brill, 1995. Garda ;\ 93. L<.•.iden: Brill. 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

Gianotti>. Claudio. Melchisedek e Ia srut ll{mlogia: Tmdizimri giudaiclre, t:ri.~tiaue e IJIW.\'ticlle {.wtc. II a.C.-.tec. Ill d. C.). Supph-mcnti alia Ri\·ista Biblica 12. Brescia: Paideia Editricc. 1984. Gic:sc.hc:n, Charles A. Augelomorplric Chri.wology: Amecedent.,· mrd Ear{v E-..'ide11ce. Arbeitc:n zur Gc:;sc.hichtc des antikcn Judc:ntums und des Un:hristcntum..<> 42. leidcn: Brill. 1998. - -. ''The Different Functions of a S imilar Meh:hizc:dck Tmdition in 1 Emx:h and the:. Epistle to the He-brews.." Pasc:-s 364-79 in Early Chrislimr Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders. Journal for the

Study of the New T~tamcn t: Supplement Series 148. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity S. ShcOidd: SheOic:ld, 1997. ~The-

Greek l!tcmcnt in the Epistle to the Hebrews." American Jmrmal of1Y~eology 14 (1910): S2 1-32. Gimdx:-rg. L. An U~r/mown Jewish Sect. Moreshet Seri ~ I. New \'uri:: Jew ish Theological Seminary of America. 1976. Gnilku, Joachim. ··Die Erwnrtung des mcssianischen Hoh e-npri ~tcrs in de n Schriften \ 'On Qumran und im Neuen Te~iament." Ren1e de Qumran2 ( 1960): 395-426. Gordon. Robert P. Hebrews. Re~rding.s: A New Biblical Comme-ntary. Sheffield: Sheflicld Academic. 2000. Grabbe, Lester L. Etymology in Early Je ll'ish brteq>reullioll: The J./ehrew Namf!.-. i1r Philo. Brown Judaic-Studies l iS. Atl:rnta: Scholars Press, 1988. Grant, R. M. The Leuer mul llw Spirit. London: SPCK. 1957. Griisse-r, Erich. An die Hebriier. 3 vols. Evangelisc:.h-katholisder Kommentar zum Neu<.'fl Tcstumcnt VJI.J .). ZUric.h: Benzinger; Neukirc.hcn· VIuyn: Neukirchcner Verlag. 1990·97. - -. Der Glaube im llebriierbrief. Matburger Thoologischc Studien 2. rvlarburg: P.lwert, 1965. Grt'cnticld. Jonas C.. and Elisha Q imron. ''The Genesis Apocr)'Phon Col. xii."' Pages 70· 71 in Swdies ilr Qumran Ammaic. Editetl by T. Muraoka. Abr-Nahmin: Suppleme-nt Series 3. lcuven: Peeters. 1992. Greenfie.ld. Jonas C.~ .\·tichael E. Stone. and Esther Eshd . Tire Ammaic Levi D
4

Hagner. Donald A. f.lebrews . New International Biblical Cummcntal)'. Peabody, Muss: Hendric.kson, 1990. Hahn, Ferdinand. Clrriswlogi.,·che Holleit:uitel: /lire Gesclticlue im jdilre11 Cl•ristentum. Sth ed. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Hannah, Darrdl D. Miclwel and Christ: Micltael Tmdititms and Angel Chri:uolt>gy ill Early C/ui.\·tianiJy. Wisscn.<>chafUiehe Untersuchungen z um Neuen T~tament 2/ 109. TUbingen: (\•lohr Sicbed. 1999. Hatch. William H. P. ''The Position of Hebrews in the Canon of the- New Testament." Han·ard Tlumlagical Ren·eur 29 (1936): 133· 5 1. Hawthorne, Gerald F.. Ralph P. Manin, and Danie-l G. Reid. cds. Diclimrary of Paul till(/ His Leuers. Downers Grove-. Ill.: lntcrvarsity, J993. Hay, Da•.-id M. Gltll)' (1/ tht> Riglu flmrd: Psalm J /0 in £m·ly Christianit)'. Stl<:.iety of Biblical Literature Mono&'rnph Seri ~ 18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.

2 14

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hayward.

Ro~J1 .

·'Shcm. Mekhizcdek, and Concern with Christianity in the-

Pt.mtuteuchal Taq;umim." Pages 67· 80 in Targumic aiUI Cr>gnate Studie.(: Essays in Hmwur <{MartiII MciVanltlm. Edited by K. J. Cath<:an und (\•I. f\•lahe-r. Journal fbr the Study o f the 01d Testament S upplemt>nl Series 230. Sheffield: Sheffield A<.lic Period. Translated by J. Bowde-n. 2 vuls. Philadelphia: F'ortres..<>, 1974. HCring. Jean. Tire Epi:u/e to the Hebrew..<:. london: Epworth, 1970. Higgins, A. J. B. ""The Priestly 1\Jics..,.iah."' iVew Testamelll Swdies J3 (1966-67): 211 4

l9.

Hock. Ronald F. Hock. '"General lnl:roduction to Volume 1:· Pages: 3 60 in The Chreitl in Ancie11t Rluuoric: Volume I. The Progynwasmata. Edited by R. F. Hock a nd E. N. O'Neil. Society of Biblical Litera tu re Texts and T mnslations 27. Gracco Roman Religion Scri ~ 9. Atlanta: SchohU's Press. 1986. Hofius, Otfricd. KaUtfHIU.~is: Die Vm·stellrmg I•'Ont endzeitlichen Rulletm im 1/ehriierbrief Wisscnsch.af\lic-he Untcr.ruc-hungc.•n zum Neucn Testame-nt 11. Ti.ibingc-n: 4

4

Mohr, 1970. Hollad-ay. Carl R. ··eupolcmus." Pages 67 1 12 in vol. 2 of Tire Anchor Bible Dictionaq. F..dited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleda)', 1992. - -. "Eupolcmus, Pseudo-." Pages 672 73 in vul. 2 of The All(:/ror Bible Dicliomuy. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vuls. Nc.-w York Doubleday. 1992. - -. Frogmemsfrom flellenistic Jew;sh Amlwrs .. Vo l. 1: Historians. Chico. Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. Hollander. H. \V., and ~'t. de Junge. The Teslamellf:c of the Twell>e PatrittrciL.o:: A C.omnu.>mmy. S tudia in Vcteris Tcstamenti pscudepigrupha 8. Lciden: Brill, 1985. Hooker, Morna. Jesus and the Serwuu: Tire lnjluence ity 4

4

Pr<.'SS, 1976. Howard . Georse. '"Hebrews and the O ld Tcstameru Quotations." Ntwum Te.~tamentum

10( 1968): 208-16. Howard, \V. P. The Fourtlr Gospel in kecelll Crilici.,·m and /me1pretatiou. 4th ed. London: Epwol1h, 1955. Hughes. Graha m. Hebrews and flermenelltit·.~: 17re Epistle Ill 1/te 1-Jebrews lL\' a New Te.~umre11t Example t?[ Biblical /merpretation. Societ)' f
BIBLIOGRAPHY

2 15

Hughes. Philip l!d:;cumbe. ·1'he Episdc to the Hebre.y..-s.'' Pages 351 -70 i.n The Ne"· Tesumtell! and Its Mmlem bueqmtters. Edited by Eldon Jay Epp and Goorgc \V. MacRae. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1989.

Hurst, L. D. The Epis tle 10 1/te Jlebtvw.,·: /t.v /Jackgmuud q[Thought. Society fhr New Testament Studies Mooograph S<.'ri(.";<; 65. Cambridge: Cambridsc University Press, 1990. Hurtado, lter John Knox., t998. Johnson. Luke- Timothy. 11ehrews: A Comnumuuy . New Testamc:nt Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Jonge-, i\4arinus de. ..Messiah." Pages 777-88 in vol. 4 of The A11chor /Jible Dictionary . Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York Doubleday. 1992. - -. -Patriarchs. T<."StamenL<> of the-Twelve." Pages 18 1-86 in vol. 5 o f TJw A11chor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York Doubleday, 1992. - -. Te.\·tamema J\71 Patriarchantm: Ediuul According w Cambridge Um'ver."iiJ· Lihrory MS Ff/.24 foJ. 10.~a-262b ,,·itll Shtm Note.t . Pseudepig:mpha Vcteris Tes-tamcnti Graece I. Lciden: Brill. 1964. - -. -The-Testaments of lhc:. Twelve Patriard s.·· Pages 505-600 in The Apoc1ndud Old Te.(tamem. Edited by H. F. D. Sparks. Oxford: Clarendon. 1984. Jongc:-. Marinus de. and AdamS. •.:an der Woude. '' I JQ Mekhizcdek and the New Testam<.•nt" New Testamem Swdies 12 ( 1965-66): 301-26. Jonge.. Marinus de-, in cooperation with H. W. Hollander, J . .1. de .Ionge, and Th. Korteweg. The Testaments oftlte Twelw! Pmriarch..v: A Critical Edition of dre Greek Te;fl. Pscudep igra~lha Vcteris Tcstumc:nti Graec;e 112. L<.·-iden: Brill. 1978. .Josephus. Tmnslatcd by H. St J. Thackeray ct al. 10 vok Loeb Classical Llbmry. Cambridge. i.\•tass.: Harvard Univm;ity Pr<.';$S. 1926-65. Jolion, Paul. A Grommar of Bihlical Hebrew. Translated and re-\'ised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993. Karrer. Martin. '"The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Sc-ptuagim." Pages 335-53 in Septuagi11t Research: Issues and Challtmge.\· in tire Suuly of the Greek .Jewish Scriptures. Ed ited by W. Kmus and R. G. \Vooden. Socie-ty o f Biblical Literature: Se-ptuagint and Cognate Studies 53. At1anLU: SO<.~i ety o f Bibli-cal l iterature. 2006. Kiiscmann, Ernst JestL\' Means Fre~-:dom. Philadelphia: Fortress: 1970. - -. The Wmrderi11g People of God. Translated by R. A. Harrisville and I. L Sandberg. r\'tinneapolis: Augsburg. 1984. Translation o f Da.t wamfenule G<mesmlk: Ei11e Umer.mc:h1mg rum flehriierhrief 2nd cd. G6ttingen: Vandenhocck & Ruprecht. t957. Kcc. Howurd Clark ..Testaments o f the-Twelve Patriarchs." Page$ 715-828 in vol. I of The Old Te.(tamem P.veudepigmpha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 \'01s. New York: Doubleday, 1983-SS.

2 16

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kennc:dy. H. A . A. The Tluwlogytifthe Epislles. London: Duckworth, 1919. Kittd . G., and G. Friedrich, eds. 71u>tJ!ogico/ Dit:timuuy 1{ the New Te.\·tamem. Trnnslated by G . W. Bromiley. 10 vuk Gmnd Rapids: Ec:rdnwns, 1964- 1976. Knibb, ~·l ich uel A. ··£sc:hato1ogy and Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls." Pages 3i9402 in vol. 2 of Tlte Detuf Sea ScnJ!Is ajier Pf{ty YeaN: A CtJmprehentb:e Asse.t.(fl/!'111. Ed ited by P. W. fli nt and J. C. Vund.:rKam. 2 vols. Lc:iden: Brill,

1999.

- -. ..Rule o f t he Community:' Pages 793-97 in ,.·uL 2 of Enqclopedill of tJu~ Dead

Sea Scmlls. Ed ited by L H. Sc.hiffman and J. C. VanderKmn. 2 vok Oxford; Oxford Uni\·c:rsity Prcs.s. 2000. Knohl, lsmd Tile Mes.tia/1 Bi!}im! Jesus: Tlw Su,[feriug SenYJnt q( 1/te Dead Sea ScnJ!k Berkeley: UniverSity ofC.ulifomia Press, 2000. Knox, John. The Mmumi(v a~~tl Di,·ilritJ•< J/ ChrisI . Cambridge: Cambridge. Univc:r.>ity Press, 1967. Knox, Wilfred L. "'The- ·Div-ine Hem ' Christology in the New Tcstamc::nt.''/larvard Theological Re,·iew 41 ( 1948): 229-49. Kobclski, Paul J. Melclrizedi!k mrd Melclrire.ia '. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 10. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association o f America,

198 1. Koestc:r, Craig R. The f>ll'elling of God: The Tabernacle in tire Old Tes1amem. /mene.,·tamemal .leurislr Li1erawre. and 1/te New Testament. Catholic Biblical Q uarterly Monograph Series 2. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association,

1989. - -. 11ehrews: A New Tnm:~latimr with llltmduction <md CommeiiiW)'. Anchor Bible36. Nc:w York: Doublc:day. 200 I. Koester. Helmut. HisiOI'J' aud Literature of Early Chrisli<mity. 2nd c:d. Vol. 2 of buroductimr to llw New Ti!.\'lament. New York: de Gruyter. 2000. Kosmala, Hans. Nehriier-E..~se11er-Christeu. Studia post-biblic-a I. Leiden: Brill 1959. Kraus. Hans-Joachim. Tlreologv tiftlre Psalms. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Kruij f, T heo de . ..The Priest-King. f\•ld-chiz'-'<:k'-k: The Reception uf Gen 14.18-20 in Hebrews Mediated by Psalm I I 0." BijdJ'(Igen: Tijd
tileologie 54 ( 1993): 393-'W6. Kugel. James L. T1u, Bible a.'i It Was. Cambridge, Mass: Be-lknap, 1997. - -. .. Levi's Elevation to the. Priesthood in SC'cond Temple Writing.<>." I.Jmwml Theological Rwiew 86(1993): 1-64. - -. Traditimu of the Bible: A Guide 10 lire Bible as It Was at lire Stan of tire Common Em. Cambridsc--, Mass.: Harvard University Pr'-"'SS-. 1998. Kugler, Robe-rt A. From Potrian:h U1 Prie.\·t: Tire Lt!~·i·PritWI)' Tradilimr.from Aranwic Le~·i to Te.mmumt of Le~·i. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and its l iterature 9. Atlanta: Scholars Prc.ss, J996. - -. -Priesthood at Qummn." Pages 93-1 16 in vol. 2 of Tire Dead Sea St•ml/.<: afier F~'(ty l'rors. Edited by P. \V. Flint and J. C. VandcrKam. 2 vols.. Le idcn: Brill.

1999. - -. The Testtllllellt.'i

t~( the Twelw Patriarchs. Guides to Apocrypha and P"Seudepigrnph.a. S he ffield: Shcflicld. 200 I. Kuhn. Karl Cieo-rg. "The Two Mes..<>iahs of A-aron and Israel." New Testamem Studies I

( 1954/55): 168-80. KUmmel. Werner Georg. l11troduction w 1he New Tesumrelll. Rev. ed. Translated by H. C. K<:
BIBLIOGRAPHY

2 17

Lane, William L llei)rew.,·. 2 vuls. Word Biblical Commentary 47A -B. Dallas: Word, 199 1.

Larson. Erik W. -Michael." Pages 546-4~ in vol. I of E11cyclapedia q(tlle Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited b)' L. H. Schifiinan and J. C. VandcrKam. 2 •.:ols. Oxford: Oxfbrd University Press. 2000. lnub, Franz.. BekeJmmi.-. tmd Au.degmrg: Die JXIriilreti.<:che Funkritm der Chri:uoltJgie im J./ebriierbrief Biblische Untersuchungen I5. Regcnshurg: Pustct.. 1980. lichl. Jacob. The Rule Scm//: A Scm// .from lire ff!i/demes.\· o.f.Judaea- JQS. JQSa. IQSb: Te.\'1, lmrodllcli(}lr aJI(/ Commcmtary. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. 1957. rHcbrewl Liddell, Henry George, Ruberl Scott. and Henry Stuart Jnncs, cds. A Greek-Engfi.\·IJ l..e.tictm. 9th C'd. with rev. suppL Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Lim. T imothy H. Pesharim. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 3. london: S hc:flield, 2002. Lioc.oln. Andrew T . Hebrew:>: A G11idi!. London: T&T Clark. 2006. Lindar.;. Barnabas. The ThetJiogy of the Leuer to tire Hebrews. New Testame-nt ThC'ology. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. l99 1. Liver. J. "1ne Doctrine uf the Two Messiahs in Sectarian Litemture in the T ime of th<.> See.ond Commonwealth." NanYJrd Theological Rel;iew 52 ( 1959): 149-85. L-ohse-, Eduard. A1iirt>·re1· tmd Gmte:olmedu: U~rtersuclmngen :ur urchristliclren Yerki'indigtmg w)m Siilmetod ./esfJ Christi. For.><:hungcn zur Religion und Litemtur des A lle-n und N<.>uen Tcstam<mts 46. G6ttingcn: Vandc--nhocck & Ruprecht, 195$. Longc::ncc.k cr, Ric hard. 71re Chri:>to/r)g)" o/ Early Jewish Chrislittllity . london: SCM, 1970. - -. ..The Melchiz<.'ticlo: Arsument of Hebrews: A Study in the-. Devdupment and Circumstantial Expression of New Testame nt Thought." Pages 161-85 in Unity mrd Dh·ersil)l ill New Testame11t 71reo/ogy: Essays i11 1/onor q{George E. Urdd. Edited by R. A. Gudic--h. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1978. l Ubbe, John . ..A Re interpre-tation uf 4Q Testimonia." Rn··ue de Qumran 12 (1986): 1&7-97. Lue-ken, Wilhelm. Michael: Eine Darstelhmg mrd Vergleiclumg der jiidisclre11 mrd der morgeuliindisch-cllrist/ic/Jell Tradi1i011 wmr £runge/ Aliclrael. G6ttinge-n: Va ndC'nhoeck & RuJlrecht, 1898. rv1acaskill, Grant. '·Enoch, Second Book o f. " Page 265 in volume 2 of Tire New /meqJreter's Dictimrory of the Bible. Edit(.'() by K. D. Sakenfeld. 5 vo ls. (prujec~ctl). Na..;hvilk : Abingdon, 2001. fl.•lacKay. CamC'run. ··The A q,'lJmcnt of Hebrews." C!turclr Quanerlp Review 168

( 19671: 325-38. Study l!zc:kiel40-48?.. £ 1'(111gelical Quarterly 31 ( 1965): I 55-67. 1\ilacRue, Geof!,te W . ..Heavenly Temple and E.<>chatology in the- leHC'r to the Hebrews." Semeitr 12 ( 1978): 179-99. Magncs.<;, Jodi. Arclraeology of Qumran OJI(/tlte Dead Sea Scm/Is. Stud i ~ in the Dead .Sea Scrolls and Related literature. Grand Rapids: &rdmans. 2003. Manz i. franco. Me/clrisedek e /'angelologia lle/I'Epi\'toill agli Ebrei e a Qumnm. Ana lecta biblica 136. Rome: Editri(.-e. Pontifico lnstituto Biblico, 1997. ~·l ason, Eric F. "Hebrews 7:3 a nd the Relations hip bc:tw(.>en MclchizC'dek and Jesus." Biblical Re:oearclr SO (200$): 41-02.

--. ~why

2 18

BIBLIOGRAPHY

f\•lason, Ste.\'C. ..Josephus: Value for New Testament Study." Pages 596-600 m Dictionaq of New Testtlmem IJ(1cltgrmmd. Edited by C. A. E\'ans a nd S. E. Puncr. Downers Grove. Ill.: lntc.·n·arsity. 2000. rvlaxwdl, Kenneth L ··Om:trine and Pnrcnesis in the Epistle to the He-brews, with Special Reference to Pre-Christia n Gnosti c i~m. " Ph.D. diss., Yale Univ<.•rsity, 1953. f\•lcCrudc-n. Kc•lin...Christ's Perfeetion in Hebrews: Divine Bcndicence as an

Exegetical Key to Hebrews 2: 10." biblical Re.w!arclt 41 {2002}: 40-62. rvlcKnig.ht. Edgar, and C hr is topher Church. Nebrews.James. S myth & Helwys Bible Commentary. t\•lacon, Ga.: Smyth & Hdwys. 2004. rvlcNamara, Martin. ··('.·ldchizedd:: Gen l4,17-20 in the Targum..<>, in Rabbinic and Early Christian l iterature." Bihlica 81 (2000): 1-3 1. (\•lcNc ilc:, A. H. New Testamem Teaching in the Light
( 1972): 77-97. - -. "Mflkt-st·dek c-1 ,\filki-re.i a' d:.ns ks anciens Ccrits juifs c:t c hrttiens." Jounwl of Jewish S.tudie.~ 23 ( 1972): 95-1 44. - -. Review o f P. \Vembcrg-Mollc.·r. 1Yte Mmwal t~( Di.fctjJ!ine Trmr.flllted mrd Atmouued. u-itlr a11 lntroductiou. Rt!twe biblique 61 ( 1960): 4 I I. - -. ..Le testament de LCvi in nramC:.en: Fragme-nt de:. Ia g_rotte 4 de Q umrlin." Revue hih/ique 62 ( 1955): 398-406. !\•Iiiier, Me-rrill P. ..T he Func.tiun of lsa 6 1: 1-2 in I JQ Mc:khizcdek." Journal<{ Biblical Literawre 88 ( 1969}: 467-69. M itc hell, Alan C. l!ebrews. Sacra pag_inu. Collesc\•ille-, Minn.: Liturg ical, 2007. f\•loe, Olaf. "Oe.r Gedanke des a Ugc-me incn Priestertum.... im Hebrikrbricf." Theologiscl1e Zeit.fclrrifl S ( 1949): J6 1-69. t\•loOittt, James. A Criticala11d Exegetical Cm11memmy o11the Epi.,·tle to tlte Hebrews . International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. C lark, 1924. Montdiore . Hugh. 1Yte Epi.ftle w the Hehre~v.-.. Black' s New Testament Commentary. London: A&C Black. 1964. Morgeru;tern, M .. £. Q imron. and D. $ivan. ..The Hitherto Unpubl is hed Columns of the: Genesis ApOCI) 'phon.'" Abr-Nalrraill33 ( 1995): 30-$4. Mouk. C. F. D. "Commentaries on the-Epistle. to the: Hebrews."' Tlreoi<Jgy 6 1 ( 1958):

228-32. Moulton, J. H., and G. Millisan. Voc(tbulary tif the Greek New Testamem. London: Hodde-r & Stoughton. 1930. Nairne:, A lexande-r. The Epistle Press. 19 17.

w the Hebrews. Cambridge: Cambridge Univc-r.>ity

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2 19

Newman, Carey C .• .l ame~ R. Davila. and Gladys S. Lewis, cds. Tile Jewislr RtNHS to the: Journal for lhc

Study uf Judaism 63. Lcidcn: Brill, 1999. Newsom. Carol A ...Songs of lhc Sabbath Sacrilicc." Pagc.-s 887-89 in vo1. 2 of Euqclopedia t~( the Dead Sea Scm/Is. Edited by L. H. Schifiinan and J. C. VanderKam. 2 \'Ois. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. - -. ''Throne." Pa~;cs 946-47 in vul. 2 of E~rcycltJpedia of tire Dead .~·a Scrolls. Edited by l. H. St:hiOinan and J. C. VandcrKum. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxfbrd Uni•oersity Pn:ss, 2000. Neyrcy, .Ie-mme H.... Without Beginning o f Days or End of Life' (Hebrews 7:3): Topos fh r a True Oc.ity." Callrolic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991 ): 439-55.

Nitam, Bilh.a. -BI~sings and Curses." Pag~ 95-100 in •.-'ol. I uf Ent')'t:ft)pcdia of the Dead Sea Scmlk Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VandcrKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxfbrd University Press. 2000. Nmh. Martin. A Hiswry of the Pe11tateuclral Traditions. Englewood Cliff..,_, N.J.: Pre-ntice-Hall, 1972. Repr.• Atlani:U: Scholars Press. 198 1. Nor1tm Testamenltlm Graece. Edited by B. A lund. K. Aland. J. Karnvidopoulos. C. M. Martini. and B. tvl. Metzge-r. 27th ed. Stuttgart: ()rc.utsche Bibelgc:seltschafi. 1993. Ocgema, Gc.•rbern S. Tlut Aum·med a11d lri.-. Pt!()p/e: Messitmic Expecttuimu fmm the .Haccabee.r to Bar Kachba. Journal fbr the Study uf the Pseudepigmpha: Supplement Series 27. Sheffield: Shenic:ld. 199&. Re-vised and expanded translation of Der Gesalbte und sein Volk: Umersuclumgen :um Kmr:eptuali\·ienmlf,fprozefl tier mes:;itmi.w:hen Erw-arumge11 wm dell Makkabiiem his !Jar Ka:iba. GOttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht 1994. - -. ..Messianic Expectations in the: Qumran Writing.": Theses un the Development." Pages 53-82 in Qumrmr-Me.-.siaubmr: Studie.~ tm tire Me.\·siOJric E.tpe£'ttlli01rs i11 the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth, H. l ic:htc:-nbcrger, and G. S. Oc-g.ema. TUbingen: Mohr Siebcck. 1998. Orlov. Andrei . ..The Hei.r o f Righh.'OUSI'\C'SS and the: King uf Righteousness: The Priestly Nooc:.hic Polemics in 2 Enoch and the Epistle-to the HebreW'S ... Jmrnwl tif Tlreo/t)gictll Studies 58 {2007): 45-65. - -. "Mekhizedek legend uf 2 (Slavonic) Enoc.h." Jmmut! for tire Sludy t~(.!udai:ml 31 (2000): 23-38. Pas...... H. l.. and J. An:ndz<.•n. ..Fras:ment of an Aramaic Text of the Testament of l evi.'' .limi.\·h Quarterly Review 12 { 1900}: 651-61. Paul. M. J. "The Order uf Mekhizedek (Ps 110:4 and Hcb 7:3}." WestmiJuter Theologictlf .Jmmut/49 ( 1987): 195- 211. Pearson, Birgc.•r A. ··r-.·lekhizedek in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Gnosticism." Pages 176-202 in !Jih/ica/ Figures Oub·ide the Bible. Edited b)' M. E.. Stone and T. A. Bergren. Harrisburg. Penn.: Trinit)' Pre~ lntemalional, 1998. P<.'terson. David. f/ebre~,,;s and Pelfectimr: Au E:ramiuatiau of the Concept tif Pelfectimr in the £pi.-.tle It, tile Hebrews. Society for New Tcsi:Ument Studies Monograph Series 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, I 982. Pctuchowski. Jakob J . ..The Controversial Figure of Mclehizc:dek... Hebrew Union College Amwa/ 28 { 1957}: 127-36. Pfitzner, Victor C. Hebreh'.t. Abins:don New Testameru Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon. 1997.

220

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Phi/a. Trum;hued b)• F. H. Colson el al. 12 vols. loeb Cht..'>sical Librtuy. CombridgC". Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929·53. PoiriC"r, John C. -The Endtimc- Return of Elijah and Ivloses at Q umran." Dead Sea Disct)~·eries 10 (2003): 221 -42. Puech, Emile. La Crorance de.t E:osenieus eula Vie Future: lmmortalite, Ri surrectio11. Vie E1emelle? Etudes Bibliqucs n.s. 21. Paris: Gabalda, 1993. - -. .. F'rnh'lllents d ' un apoc1yphe de L6vi c t It: pcrsonnugc: cschatologiquc. 4QTcstl6\•i~11 ('?) c:t 4QAJa:' Pages 449-$01 in Tlw Madrid Qumran Cotrgre.
Proceedi11gs qfdut /memational Omgress 011 llw Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid. 1821 March 199/. Editc:>d by J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegns tvlontancr. 2 vols.. Studies on the TexL'> of the Orcscrt nf Judah I I. Leidc-n: Brill, 1992. - -. .. Notes sur le manuscrit de XIQMe-U:iSC:-deq." Rel'lie de Qumnm 12 ( 1987): 483513. R.ud, Ge-rhard von. (ieue.fi\·. RcY. cd. Okl Testament l ibrary. Philadelphia: Westminste-r. 1972. Rainbow, Paul. ··r-.·lekhizedek as a Mes....,iah at Qumran.·· fJulletin o/IJiblical Re.\'l!tm:h 7 (1997): 179-94. Rawlinson, A. E. J. The New Te.\·wment Doctrine t?{Chri\·t. London: lonsmans. Green & Co.. 1926. Riss,enbach. Eduard. Der Briefan die Nehriier. 3rd ed. lc,ipzig: Deichert. 1922. Ri.ssi. Mulhias. Die ThetJ!ogie des llehrlierhrief-«. Wis.o;en.schafU iche Unte-rsuchungen zum Neuen Testament 4 1. TUbingen: Mohr. 1987. Robinson, T. H. The Epi\·tle to the 1/ebrews. london: Harper, 1933. Rowland, Christopher. ..A f\•lan Clothed in Linen: Danid 10.6ff and Jewish Angdology:· Joun~t~ljtn· llw Swd)· oj'the New Testamem 24 ( 1985): 99- 110. Sabourin. Leopold. Prie:ulmad: A C'"''IJOroth'e Stlu(l'. Studies in the History of Religions 25. Leiden: Brill, 1913. Sarna, Nahum. Gem"sb:. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commenuuy. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. 1989. Schaefer. James R. "'The Relationship bcw.:een Prk""Sdy and Servant r-.•lessianism in the Epistle to the Hebrew,;:." Catholic Biblical Quarterly .30 ( 1968): 359-SS. Schechler, Solomon. Docunumt.,· ofJewish Secwries. Vol. I: Frogmems . Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VandcrKam. Oxford: Oxfhrd University Press, 2000. Schiffman. Lawrence H., und James C. VanderKam. cds. Encyclopedia qf tire Dead Sea Scralls. 2 vo1s. Oxford: Oxf
BIBLIOGRAPHY

22 1

Schmithuls, Walter. Neue.~ Te.\'UIIIUWI wrd Gno.<:is. l!miige- dc:r Forsdmng 208. Dannswdt: Wis...<>enschufllid1c Buchgcsd lschafi, 1984. - -. The Theology rif tlre Fir.\·t Christians. T ranslated by 0 . C. Dean. Jr. louisville: Westminste-r John Knox. 1997. Schnelle, Udo. The 1/istmy mrd 1Yumlogy tif the New Te:uamell! Wri1i11gs. Translated by M. 1!. Boring. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1998. SchrOger, Friedrich. Der Veifasser des flehriierbriefe:~ ab Sdwiftau.<:/eger. Rcgc-nsburg: Pustel, 1968. Schulz, David. Der Briefan die I.Jehriier. Brcslau: Holiiufer, ISIS. Segal, A!an F. 1\w, Po....,-er.-. in /-leaven: Earl)' Rahhi11ic Reports ahow Christianity mrd Gmwidsm. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 25. Lcidc:n: Brill. 1971. Scid. Timothy \V. ·'Synkrisis in Hebrews 7: The Rhetorical Structure and Strategy." Pages 322·47 in The Rlretoricnl!mtTrpretaricm ofScripture: E.••says.from llu! /996 Malibu Cot!ferotlce. Edited by $. E.. Porter and 0 . L. Stamps. Journal fbr lhc. Study u fthc New TestanH.'-nt: Supplement Series ISO. Shct1idd: ShcOicld, 1999. Sepmngimn. Edited by Alfred R:ahlfs. Stuttgart: Deut-.;che Bilxlg.cscllsdwO, 1979. Slingerland, H. Dixon. Tire Te.\·tamems tif tlte Tweh·e Patriurc/1s: A Critit:al f.liswry of Reseun:JJ. Society of Biblical Literature- Monograph Series 21. Missoula, rvlunt: Scho lars Press, l971. Smith, Morton...Ascent to the Heavell.'> and Dcilication in 4QM~... Pages 181 -88 in ArcJuumlt1gY and 1/istotJI in tire Dmd Sea Scmlk Edited by L. Sc-hiffman. Sheffidd: JSOT Press, 1990. Smith. Robe-11 Houston...Abram and Melchizedc-k (Gen 14 18· 20}." Zeilschrffi fiir die a/ue.\·tamem/icll~ Wisseuschnfi 17 (196S): 129· S3. Sparks, H. F. D., cd. The Apocryphal Old Te:uament. Oxfo-rd: Clarendon, 1984. Spicq, Ceslas. L 'Eptire au:r Hebreu.\·. 2 vols. Paris: Gabalda. 19S2·53. - -. ..L'Iipitre aux H& reux, Apollos, Jean· Baptist<.•, les Hei!Cnistes et Qumnin." Reawe de Qumrmr I (1958·59): 365·90. - -. .. L'origine Johannique de Ia conception du Christ·Pr&Tt' dans nipit«' aux HCbreux." Pages 258-69 in Aux source.~ de Ia tradition cllretietme: Mr!langes t!f}'en~ aMaurice Goguel. Neuch5td : Ddachaux ct Nie:;tiC. 1950. Starck)'. Jean. -Les quatre Ctapes du mc:ssianisme ii Qumnin." Rwue hiblique 10 ( 1963): 481-505. Stegemann. Hartmut. "Some Remarks to JQS.a, to IQSb, and IO Qumr::an rvlessianism.'' Rt!l·uedeQunmm 11 ( 1996): 479·50S. Sterling, Gresory E...Ontology Ve~us Eschatology: Tensions Between Aulhor and Communily in Hebrews." Swdia plti/01rit:a 13 (2001): 190·211. - -. "'Philo." Pages 789·93 in DictimUilJI q(New Te.\·tnmem Backgrmurd. Edited by C. A. Evans and $. Porter. Downers Grove, Ill: Jntervarsity. 2000. Steu ofJhe lmematitmal Congress 011 the Dead Sea St.·mll.'>. Madrid /8-11 /lfarch, /991 . Edit<.-d by J. Trcbolle Barrera and L. Vega..'> rvhmtaner. 2 vo ls. Studies on the Texts o f the Dcsc-11 o f Judah 11. Leiden: Brill, 1992. - -. Der Midm.\·ch :mr E.w:Jw1ologie till.~ der Qunrnwgemeinde (4QMidrE.\·clwf '): Materielle Rekmtstmluimt. Textbe.\·tand. Gmnmg wul tradiliOirsgesclridulidre Eilwnlmmg de.,. durch 4Q/14 t 'Fiorilegium') wul 4QI75 ('Catena A') reprii.wmtienen Werke.\· au.s de11 Qumrm!fwulen. Studies on the Texts of 1he Desert o f Judah J 3. Lcidcn: Brill, 1994.

222

BIBLIOGRAPHY

- -. ·-Testimonia." Pages 936-38 in vol. 2 o f E11C)'£'iopedia t~(the Dead Sea ScrolL~. Edit<:d by l. H. Schiffman and J. C. Vancle-rKam. 2 vols. Oxfbrd: Oxfhrd Uni•oersity Pn:ss. 2000. St6kl Ben Ezrn. Daniel. The lmfXICI of Yom Kippur 011 Early Christicmity: The Da)· ch.aftlichc Untersuchunge-n zum Ncucn Testament I63. TUbingC'n: Mohr Siebeck. 2003. Stone, 1\Jiichad B. "Amram." Pages 23-24 in vol. I of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sen Scrolls. Edited b)' L H. Schiffman and J. C. VandcrKam. 2 •;ols. Oxford: Oxfbrd University Press. 2000. - -. ·Lc•.:i, Aramaic.•• Pugcs 486-88 in vot I of EnCJ:clopedia of tile Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L H. SchiOinan and J. C. VandcrKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxfhrd University Press. 2000. Stowers, Sidney G. The f.lermeueunt·.~
2004. Synge, f. C. /Jebrew.\· mrd 1he Scriptw·es. london: SPCK. 1959. Talmon. Shemaryahu. "'T)'J)es o r .\·les.sianic Expectation al the Turn of lhc Em." Pages 202-24 in Ki11g_. Cult a11d Co/e1rdm· ill Am:iellt Judaism. Jc:--rusakm: (v!agnes, 1986. The-iBcn, Gen t Umer:mc/umgeu : um f/ebriierhrief. S1udicn zum Nc:ucn Teslamcnt 2. GUtcrsloh: tvlohn, 1969. Thompson, James W. The Beginning.,· qf Chri:rlimr Plu'/(J.sophy: The Epistle w the Hebrews. Catholic Bibli<.'al Quarlerly Monograph Series 13. \Vushinglon: Catholic. Biblical Association or Amcricu, 1982. Tissc--mnt. E. ..Frug:mcnls ~>'ri aqu es du Li'.-·re des Jubil6s." Revue biblique 30 ( 1921): 55-86, 206-32. Tre-ntham. Charles A . .. Hebrews." Pages 1-99 in vo1. 12 of Tlte 8modman Bible CommeiiUU): Ediled by C. J. Allen. 12 vol~. Nashville: Bmadman, 1912. Trotter, Andrew H., Jr. hmupreti11g tire Epistle ta 1he 1/ebreh'.,.. Guides lo New Tcslamenl Exegc:si~ 6. Gmnd Rapids: Buker, 1997. Vander-Kam, James C. Tire Bm1k (f J1Jbi/e-es. 2 vo1s. Corpus ~criplorum christiaoorum orienlalium S10-11. Script ores Acthiopici 87-88.. Louvain: Peeters, 1989. - -. "Book of Jubilees." Pug<.-s 434-38 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of 1he Dead Sm Scrolls. Edited b)' L H. Schiffman and J. C. VandcrKam. 2 '.-·ols. Oxford: Oxfbrd University Press. 2000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

)' 2_,

- -. The Boo/.:. of Jubilees. G uides to Apocrypha and Pscude-pigrapha. S heffield: Shcnicld, 200 I. - -. ·Jubilees: and the Priestly P.•lessiah of Qumran.·· Re\'llt' de Qumrmr 13 ( 1988): 353-65. - -. ..Jubilees, Book of," Pages 1030-32 in vol. 3 of The Am:lwr Bible Dictiomuy. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York Doublt:day, 1992. - -. .. M~ianism in the Scrolls." Pag<.'S 2 1 1-34 in The Ommumity ~f tire Renewed Owena111: Tire Noire Dame S)'RifM.'iium 011 the Dead Se(J Scmll.'>. Edited by E.. Ulric.h and J. VandcrKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 10. Notre Dame-. Ind.: University of Notre Dame-Press, 1994. - -. ··Sabbatical Chronologies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature." Pages

I 59-78 in Tire Dtmd Sea Scmll
Wuher, Nikolaus. -Pseudn-Eupolcmus (Samuritanisc:hcr AnonymU$)." Pug.es 137-4.3 in vol. I, pa11 2 of .liidische Sclu-iflen au.~ helleuisti.tch-riimi.tcher 2eil. l!ditcd by W. G. Kiimmd. (iUter.oloh: G. Mohn. 1976. \VaL<:on. Duane F. ··rvlichacl." Page 81 1 in vol. 4 of' Tlte Anchor Bible Diclionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York Doubleday, J992. Weiss, Hans-Pri(.'tlrich. Der Brief an die /lebriier. I 5th cd. Kritisch-c-xegctischt•r Kommentar Ubcr das Neue Testament 13. GOuingcn: Vandenhue<:k & Ruprecht 199 1. Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis f.f .S. Word Biblical Commentnry I. Dallas.: Word, 1987. Werner. Martin. Die £mstelumg des chri.Hiic!Jeu D11gma.~. Bcmllcipzig: Haupt, 194 1. Westermann, Claus. Genesis JJ.J6. ContinenLal Cmumentary. ;\ finne.apolis: Fortress. 1995. Williamson. Ronuld. Plrilo and the Epistle 10 lite Hebrews. Arbeitcn zur l iterutur und Geschicht(.' das hdlcnistischcn Judcntums 4.leidcn: Brill, 1970. Wilson, J. Christian. ·"Tithe-." Page-s 579-80 in •lol. 6 of 11w A11chor Bible DictiaiUU)'. Edited by D. N . Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doobleday. 1992. Wilson, R. ('..kl. Hebrews. New Ce-ntury Bible Commentary. Grund Rapids: Eerdm:ms.. 1981. Windisc.h. Huns. Der 1/ebrlierbrief. 2nd ed. Handbuch zum 'Neuen Testament 14. Tiibingen: Mohr, 19) I. Wintermute. 0. S ...Jubilcx'"S." Pages .:!S-142 in vol. 2 of 'flte Old Teswmem Pseud· epigraplm. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vo1s. New York: Ooubk'tlay, l983-8S.

224

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Woudc. A. S. van dcr. ··t\Jickhisedd; als himmlischc- Erl6sc rg~stah in de-n ncugefundenc:n csehatologischen 1\ lidraschim aus Q ummn HOhle XI." Oudte:onnumti:~clw Suulii!i1

14 ( 1965 ): 354-73. Wrigh1. W. Cata!OJ>'lU? of Syriuc Mamr.~cripts in the British .'.1tl.seum Acquired Si11ce the Year /83S: Pan /1. London: Gilbert and Ri.,·inston, 187 1. XcraviL<>, GC:za G. King. Prie:•l. p,.ophet: Po.,·ili~o-e Escltat()/ogica/ Pmttlgtmist.,· t~( the Qumran Library'. SIUdic:s on lhc Texts of !he- [)cscrl nf Judah 67. lcidcn: Brill, 2003. Yadin, Yigad ...The ~td Sea Scrolls and the l!pistle tu the Hebrews." Scripta !tiero.mlp11itana 4 (1958): 36-SS. - -. ..A Note on r-.•lelchizcdek and Qumran." Israel £v-ploration.loumal IS (1965):

152-54. - -. The Scroll q(tile War
Joh unn~s.

wrd prophe1isclut

Messianische Texte

Messia.n·trl'.\'telhmge~r

Qumran: K()nigliche. prieslerlic/re ill den Sdrriji}imdeu wm Qumm11.

OIL\'

Wis.-.cnsch.afllichc Unte-rsuchungen zum Neucn Testament 2/104. TUbingen: Mohr S idx:d:. 1998.

INDEX OF AUTHORS Alden. Svc:rn:. 136 Abesg, M~u1 in A .. Jr., 72 73,87-89. 92.96-99. 102, 107, 140 Aitken, £lien Bradshaw. 4 Alexander, PhilipS., 83-86.99, 178 Allegro, John 1\Jt., I03. 105, I08. 109 Allen. Clifton J., 65 Allen. l<.oslic C., 143-44. 146 Anderson, Francis 1., l36 Arcndzcn, J., 117 Aschim. Ander)), 69-70. 176, 184-8$, 192,200 Astour, Mic.: had C.. 27, 148. Auridge-, Hamid W., 2-0,9- 12, 14-1 7. 19-25. 28-29. 31-34. 36, 38 Aunc. David 1!., 2. 10. 12, 21, 23, 29, 33 Avel)'- Peck. A. J .• 3 Avigad. Nahman. 147 4

Baillet, Maurice, S3, 99, 102 Bakh, David L.. I0 Barbel. Joseph. 134 Barrett C. K., .36 Banh. E. H.. 68 BarthCh:m)', D., 93, 9$, 147 Batdorf, Irvin W., 68 Bauernfe ind, Ouo, J I B-aumgarten, J<~cph M.. 83-84. 87, 89, 91 -92 Ba:ttcr, Vt.1ayne, 97-99 Beckcr,Jaac.him, I 12 Be-rgre n. T heodore A.. 168 Bc.~mas. Casimir, 69. 189 Blackman, E. C., 58 Budinger, Martin. 141 Boling. Robert G., 126 Booij. Th., 145 Borsen, Peeler. 61 Boring. f\•1. Eugene, 3

BOitrich. Chrislfric::d, 136 Boussel, Wilhdm, 133-34 Bowden, John. 12, 40 Bmdy, Monica, I 09 Bmun, Herbert, 23, 66 Brooke, George J.. 95, 103-05. 171. 189 Broshi. tvlascn. 83. 92 Brown. Raymond E.. 2. 56, 79, 136 Bruce. F. F., 3, S-6, 42. 65-66 Buchanan, George Wesk~)', 51 BUhner. J. A., 134 Burrow-s. Millar, 83 Bollmann, Rudolf, 49 Caquot, Andre. 74. I SO Cannign.ac., Jc.an, 64, 96. 170, 176. 179-80. 186 C.alhcart. K. J., 140 Chadwick. H.. 58 Charles, R. H.. 117. 124. ll6 Charlesworth, James H .. 61, 15. 80. 83. 85-86. 93-95,97. 164. 166 Church. Christopher, 1 Clarkson. Mary E.• 47 Cockerill, Gareth Lee. 181-89 Cocmn, R. E., 68 Cody, Aclrcd. 36, 58 Collins, John J., 71, 82. 86. 92, 102, 106. 109. 11 2 Colson. F. H., I59-60 Cook, Edward. 89,91 Cook, S1ephcn L.. I I I Coppens, Joseph, 64 Cowley, A., I 17 Craddock, Fred B.. 6 Cross, Frunk Moore-, 85. IOS, 170, 178 Cryer, Frederick H.. 176 Cull mann, Oscar. 45-47 D'Anse-lo. Mary Rose-, 136

226

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Danielou. Jean, 64 Daube. David, 36 Davies. Philip R.. 100 Davies. W. D., 36 Davila, James R., 69, 134, 162, 16566.200 Dean, 0. C.. Jr., SO Ddling, Ge-rhard, 22 DeSilva, Da\•id A.. S, 6 Dey. Lala K. K .. 58 Dodd. C. H., S& Doran. Rolx:rt. I52-53 Drawnc:l. Hendl)'k, 11 5, 117-23, 19899 Driver, S. R.• 141 Duhaime, Jean. 99-100 Dunn. James D. G., 12, 20. 39 Dupont-Sommer, A.. 128

Garcia Maninez, Florentino, 75, 78. 8 1, 92, 99. 110, 164-66. 169-70. 172. 175-82 GaJ>ier. T. H., 144 Gelardini, Gabriella. 1, 4 Gianotto, Claudio, 143 Gieschen, Charles A.. 134-36 Gilbert, G. H.. 58 Ginzbc.'-rg, L.. 8-8 Gnilka, Jouc:.him, 71 Gordon, Robert P.. 7 Gmnl. R. M.. 58 Griissc.•r. Erich, 49 Green, WilliamS., 86 Greenfie-ld. Jona"' C., I I0, 117-23, 147, 198 Gudich. Roberl A. 26 Gulhric. George H.. 7

Eager, A .• 58 Eiscnlxtum. Pamela M.. I, 4 Ellingworth, Paul. 5-U, 9. 15-16.20-21, 26. 29. 55

Hagne-r, Donald A., 6 Hahn, Ferdinand. 45 Hannah. Darrell, 133-35 Harrington, Daniel. 3 Hatch, William H. P.• 2 Hauck, Friedrich. 17 Hay, David M .. 18, 68, 143, 145 Hayward, Rubc:l1, 140 Hcgc:nnann, Hamid, 58 Hempel. Charlotte-. 192-93 Hengel, Martin. 12. 40. 56. 134 HC:ring. Jean, 58 Higgins, A. J. B., 45, 65. 68 Hock, Ronald F., 33 Hofius, Otfricd, SO Holladay, Carl R., lSI, 153-$4 Hollander. H. W., 38. t2S-29 Hooker. Morna, 44 Horgan, Muum P., 109-10 Hortun. Fred L., Jr.. 29-31.68-69. 136, 141. 14 3. 168. 180,200·01 Howard, George. 3 Howard. \V. F., 58 Hushes, Graham, 42 Hushes, Philip Edgcumbc, SO Hultglird, Andc.n;. 186 Hurst,l.D.. SS. S8. 60 Hurtado, Larry W., 12, 134

Emcrton, J. A .. I4 1

Endres. John, 125 Epp, E.ldon J., 50 Eshd. E-Sther. 110, t 17-23. 198 Eshcl. Hanan, 106 Eskoln, Timo, 134-35 Evans. Cmig A.,73-74, 102. 134. 193

Fabry. Heinz-Jo,;:cf, 8J -82 Fcld, Hdmut. 6, 55 Feldman, Louis H.. 158, ISS Ferguson. En·n~tt. 10 Fields, Weston W., 96 Filson. Floyd, 58 Fitzmycr, Josc.'ph A., 31, 68.74-75, lOS, 136. 139, 141, 145,147·48, 16&, 176, 179·80. 184 Flint. Peter W.. 70, 79, 84. 102. 140. 201 Flusser, David, 24. 64. 144, t71, 186 Forbes. Christopher, 33 Fossum. Jarl, 12, 134-35 F rcrichs, Ernest, 86 Friedrid1. Gerhard, 45 FreudenthaL.hu:ob. 151 Gammic, John, 140

Je-remias, Jfirg, 91 Johnson. Luke T imoth)'· 6, 8, IS

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Jongc, J. J. de, 128 Jongc, P.•larinus de, 31. 38, 66-68. 73. 128-29. 168, 178, 18 1' 184-86 Jolion, Paul, 190 Karre r. i\ lartin, 2

Kiise-mann. Ernst. 45, 49-51 Kcck, Leander. 6 Kcc. HownrdCiark, 2.12S, 131 Kennedy, H. A. A., 58 Knibb. C\•lich.ad A.. 79. 83-84 Knohl, Jsrad, I02 Knox, John, 12 Koox, Wilf«'d L , 10

Kolx:lski, Puul l, 31 -33,68-69. 16770, 175-78, 180-81. 183-85. 200-01 KcK:"Stcr, Craig R., 2, 4-6, 9-1 1, 15-16, 20-22, 29.32.37,51 Koester, Hdmul. 49

Kortc.weo, Th.• 12& Kosmala. Hans, 64 Kraft, Robert A.. 96 Kraus. Hans.Joachim, 143 Kraus, Wolfgang, 2 Kruijf, Thf."' de, 145 Kugel, James L., 24. 26, 126. 132. 140. 142, 144, ISO. 152, 171 Kugle-r. Robcm A., 70, 113- 17, I J9-20, 128, 132 Kuhn, Karl W."--r;. 71 KUmmd. We-mer Georg, 2, 152 Kuss., Otto, S8 Ladd, George Eldon, 26 Lane. Williaml..3,5-6.9- 11. IS-16. 19-23, 26. 29, 36, 56 Larson. Erik W.. 16S lnub, Franz.. 49, 184 Lewis. Gladys S., 69, 134 Liebl. Juoob. 83, 93, 95. 96-99 Lichtenberger, Hermann, SO. 8S Lim, Timothy H., 24, 176. 178 Lin<:.oln, Andrew T .. 7 lindan;. Bamaba$, S, 7, 34,40-43 Liver. J., 71 Lohse, Eduard. 42 Lung, Thomas (i .. 6 Longenecker, Richard. 26. 134 U ibbe, John, I06-08 Lue-ken, Wilhelm, 134

227

Macaskill, Grant, 137 1\
Orlov, An
228

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Pc.tuchowski, J. J .• 14 3, 146 Pfann, Stephen. 93 Pfitzner, Vic: tor C., 6 Philonc:.no, M., 128 Poirier, John C., 192-93 Porter. Stanley E.. 33. 193 Proc.ksch. Otto, 21 Puech, Emile, l iO, I I?, l67, 169-70. 176-77, 18 1, ISS

Qimroo. Elisha, 83, 147 Rabin, C., 124 Rad, Gerhard von. 126.. 14l Rainbow, PuuJ. J 85-87, 189 Rawlinson. A. B. J .• 58

Rc:ngstrof. Karl, 9 Rig-genbach. l!dunrd.. 42 Rissi. o\.fathius. S Robinson, T. H., 58 Rowland, C hristopher, 134

Ste-rling, Gregory E., 36-37, 188 Steudd, Annette. 104-06 StOkl Ben Ezra. Daniel. 3. I 5 Stone. Michael E., 110. 117-23, 132.

167-68, 198 Stott. Douglas W., 9 1 Stowers. S idney G., S8 Strobel, August. 58 Strugncll. John. 103-06, 109 Stuckenbruck. loren T.. 93-9$,97. 134-35 Sukenik, Ek•a.za.r L.. 99 Sullivan, Ke-vin P., 183 Synge, F. C.. 47-49 Tatmon. Shenuuyahu, 7$ Thackeray, H. St. J .• IS4, 156-57 Theilkn. Gerd, 49-SO Thomp.-;on. James W., SO, 58 Thompson. Thomas L., 176 Tigchclaar, Eilx'Tt J. C., 92, 99, 110.

164-66. 169-70, 17S-82 Sabourin, Leopold. 8, 44 -4S Sanders, James A., 134 Sanderson, Judith E., I 08 Sarna, Nahum. 14 1 Schaefe-r, James, 43-44 Schechter. Solomon, 83-84 Schenck, Kenneth L, 7. 58,61

Schiffm:1n, l awrence H.. 15. 85-86. 93-97, I02 Schmith<~ls, Walte-r, 49 Schneider. Gerhard, 152 Schnelle, Udo. 3, 6. 58 SchrUger, Friedrich. 42 Schultz. David, 64 Schwartz, Danie-l R., 83, 88, 91 -92 Segal, Alan F.. 134 Scid. T imoth)' W.. 33 S ivan, D.. 147 Skehnn, Patrick W., 61, I08. ISO S lingerland. H. Dixon. 127 Smith, Morton. J02 Smith, R(>ben Houston. 142 Spicq, Cc-s las, $. 10·1 1. 20, 22, 34, 45. 58-66 Stamps. Dennis L 33 Soml
Tis.<;erant, E.. I50 Tov. Emanuel, 89, 178 Trebolle Barrera. Julio. 78, 104 Trentham. Charlc.s A., 65 Tro-tter. Andrew H .• Jr., 2 U lrich, Eugene-. 67. 71, J08, 140 Vandc-rKam, James C., 24. 26. 70-71,

79, 84, 86-88. 92-93. 9S, 97, 102, 105-06. 109. 124. 126, 132-33, 147, 150-51, 171-72. 183,201 Vanhoye, Albert, 42 Vaux, Ruland de, 76-79,83, 145-46. 148 Vegas Montaner, L . 104

Vermes. Geza, 83. 85. 96. 99 VillalOn. JosC R., 112 Walter, Niko1au.-.;, 152 Wat:;on, Duane P.• 200 Weiss, Hans-Friedrich, 3, S, 9 -1 1, 20 Wenham,Gordon J.• I41 Wernberg-r\'luller, P.• 86 Werner, Martin, 134 Westermann, Claus. 27. 141 Whitaker. G. H.. 162 Williamson, Ronald. 58., 66-62

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Wilson, J. Christian. 153 Wilson, R. MeL, 6, 20 Windisch, Hans. 42, 58. Win termute, 0 . S., 124 Wise. f\•li-ch.ael, 96, I02

Woode--n. R. Gl<:nn, 2 Woude-. Adam S. van dcr. 31. 66-68. 99. 164-66. 168-70. 175-82. 184-86 \Vri.t,>ht. W., 117

229

Xcmvils. GCza, 15, 82. 87, 89,91 -95, 100-01. 105, I08-10. 176, 184 Yadin, Yigod. 64-66.68.99, 147 Zimmc nnann. Johannes, 72. 7S. 88~

109.11 1