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$.->n, Eric J:a n·d . \hu arc a priest fOI't'\~·r : Scoond 'J} mplc:J Hebrew Bible Hf'nnatlreua Handbu/ Awmmumt from Secmul Temple Judaism ta the Fijilt Century (WUNT 163: Tfibing.cn: Mohr S icbcck, 2003), 19 1-92. St61d Ben Ezm undcr..1ands Heb 13: 13 as a ca ll for Jewish Christians to leave Jerusalem. 11 Most inte-tpretcrs have understood the: Q.Tt'eting (Corrci~ovrcu U~ci~; O, O.nO .,.-q$. '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 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.'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 bere- 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 fcs 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. Dcspittiety 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 dcd '; 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 bOk. 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' (Ktlpts) 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 Wc 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. ·reAOntexts (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 ~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 w~\', 158. He also

notes that Ps 22:22 is quott.-d in Hcb 2:12. implying that this 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; Koestgoal/m:t:omplisllmem;" the second is "con..,ecrate-, initiate." Neithe-r o f thot.-;se definitions from BDAG s«ms tutullv satisfa. Jesus is made pe-rfect by God, m1 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.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. 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\'.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 anis 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 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 thrUgh 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 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. Christrolr)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

othE 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 assf 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. 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. KennOrains 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 COUvait se trouver llll ce.rtain nomb1·e d'ex-qumrundations 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 Mdchize-. ;.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
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 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, Vrc: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 cpy 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 CC(:-ially Sarianna MeLo. 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.' 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 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. the tmlion nnd the