aaronic priesthood in hebrews

7/31/2019 Aaronic Priesthood in Hebrews

1/30

tfSNT 19 (1983) 43-71]

THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD IN fHEEPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

W. HorburyCorpus Christi College, Cambridge CB2 1RH

Hebrews 7.5 treats tithe with an actuality which is noted byhistorians, but is on the whole undeveloped in study of the backgroundofthe epistle. Tithing, the commandments upon which formed thevery essence of the law according to one rabbinic dictum (Shabb. 32a,

in the name of Simeon b. Gamaliel), receives more discussion inHebrews 7 than anywhere else in the New Testament'and that isnot much' (Morton Smith, p. 353, n. 8); but even this little sets aquery against estimates of the author, offered in different ways byMoffatt and by Ksemann and his followers, as one who knew thelevitical priesthood through his Bible rather than contemporaryJudaism. It is with reference to studies ofother aspects of the post-biblical Jewish priesthood by E. Bammel and E. Stauffer that O.

Michel (p. 6) affirms the close connection of the priestly argumentsin Hebrews with existing Jewish tradition and politics.

As this comment suggests, the post-biblical traditions concerningthe priesthood illuminated by Dr Bammel may reflect further lighton the background of Hebrews. The view is here advanced forconsideration that Jewish development ofthe biblical teachings onthe priesthood had a formative influence on the epistle, both in itstreatment of Jewish practice and in its fundamental and distinctive

arguments concerning the priesthood ofChrist. SomeJewish texts onthe priesthood are accordingly compared with Hebrews on two


2/30

44 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 19 (1983)

must depend for support to a considerable degree on the particularinstances which follow.1

I

The view here envisaged as formative for the author of Hebrews canbe described either as afirst-centuryconstitutional theory (Roth, [2],pp. 297-301), or as one type of Jewish 'doctrine of the church'(Baumbach, pp. 33-6); it comprises both, for it is, more looselydefined, aJudaism within which the body ofideas biblically associatedwith the sons ofAaron is primary. As political theory it was given thename 'theocracy' by Josephus (Ap. 2.165); he imagined it being put toPompey in the words *the ancestral custom is to obey the priests ofthe God whom we worship' {Ant. 14.41), although with Deuteronomy17 he himself allowed a place, if the nation should not be contentwith God alone as their ruler, for a king who should do nothingwithout the high priest and the advice ofthe elders (Ant. 4.223f.).Still in the theoretical sphere, the influence of the view is evidentwhen Philo treats the high priest as the 'principal part' in the bodypolitic (Spec. Leg. 3.131; cf. Somn. 2.187); its aspea as an ecclesiasticalpolity begins to appear when the high priest prays for the whole

systetna ofthe Jews (2 Mace. 15.12). In practice it initially mouldedthe independent Jewish government of the First Revolt (Roth, [2]),and it left its impress in the legend *Eleazar the priest' on the coins ofthe Second; it was formative both for Josephus and his militantadversaries (Lebram, p. 253). Passages supporting priestly hegemony,

especially in Jubilees and the Testament of Levi, have often beenlinked (as by Charles on Jub. 31.15) with the special claims of JohnHyrcanus; but they are equally applicable to the whole Hasmonaeansuccession (Bammel, col. 353). In fact, as the pre-eminence of Aaronand Phinehas in Ecclus 45 showsand perhaps also the account ofJewish hierocracy given by Diodorus Siculus from 'Hecataeus ofMiletus', although it is dated to the reign of John Hyrcanus byLebram (pp. 246-8)these ideas have pre-Maccabaean roots. Josephus'

term 'theocracy' has long been rightly applied to the polity of P,wherein Joshua shall stand before Eleazar the priest, at whose wordI l h ll t d i d th hi h i t' d th k


3/30

HORBURY Aaronic Priesthoodin Hebrews 45

word is declared and Israel is cleansed from sin. The priest is *themessenger of the Lord of hosts' (Mai. 2.7, perhaps echoed in

Diodorus' Hecataeus, 5 [see Stern, i, p. 31]); and the high priest 'shallmake an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of thecongregation' (Lev. 16.33). The more than national scope of thereconciliation ascribed to his ministry well emerges in the cosmicinterpretation of his garments; 'in the long robe is the whole world'(Wis. 18.24), and, correspondingly, *the high priest ofthe Jews offersprayers and thanksgivings not only on behalf of the whole race ofmen, but also on behalf ofthe elements of nature, earth, water, air

andfire'(Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.97). This fundamental point is made invarious ways in Philo, Josephus and Wisdom (Goodenough, pp. 99,120); its centrality in ancient Judaism is confirmed by the earlysynagogal poetry of the Day of Atonement. Here, in Yose ben Yose(probablyfifthcentury), the robe of blue is 'like the brightness of thefirmament' (Yose, 'azkhir geburoth, 165, in Mirsky, p. 155; so alsoJosephus, Ant. 3.184); and the thought that the temple-servicestabilizes creation, well-knownfromrabbinic sources, is reflected in

the customary subject-matter of the poems (Pesikta de-Rav Kahana1.4f., on Num. 7.1, discussed with parallels in Horbury, pp. 166-8).The theocracy of the sons of Aaron was thus conceived as mediatingdivine rule in no attenuated sense.

The writer to the Hebrews would thus be seen as profoundlyinfluenced, like Josephus and Philo, by the theologico-political ideasof the Pentateuchal *theocracy\ For the sake of clarity this viewshould be related to other assessments of his outlook, although they

cannot be considered adequately within the limits of this essay. First,such a view is compatible with the data taken especially seriously byMoffatt, that the author ofthe epistle was an able writer of Greek anda student of the Septuagint;forthe Pentateuchal sacerdotalism wasdeveloped in the Septuagint and in Jewish writings current in Greekfrom Aristeas to Josephus. By contrast with Moffatt, however, andwith Ksemann's attribution of the high-priestly theme to Christianliturgy indebted, like Philo,to a gnostically-recoined Jewish messianism

(Ksemann, pp. 107f., 124-40), the writer to the Hebrews is envisagedhere not as a scholarly Hellenist tout court, who had nothing to do


4/30


suggested by C.J A. Hickling, in a consideration ofstriking resemblances between Hebrews 2 and Johannine thought and style; for onthis suggestion, by contrast with those of Moffatt and Ksemann, it isenvisaged that the theology of both John and Hebrews could derivefrom an element in thefirst-centuryChristian population which was'closely in touch with educated Greek-speaking Judaism' (Hickling,p. 115). The present writer would simply underline the closeness anddirectness of the contact with Jewry to be presumed in the case of theauthor of Hebrews.

In the light of G J7. Moore's work A.C. Purdy long ago argued,against Moffatt on the one side and the appeal to some unusual,distinctive type ofJudaism on the other, that Hebrews on priesthoodand sacrifice was 'dealing with a problem which was yet alive in

normative Judaism' (Purdy, p. 264; italicization added). The label'normative' is perhaps better avoided, for in the context ofa referenceto Moore it may seem to imply thatfirst-centuryJudaism is to be

judged anachronistically from the standpoint oftannaitic literaturealone. The present writer, holding like Purdy that the common

traditions of Jewry are the most relevant in this case, would ratherassociate the Pentateuchal faith reflected in the Greek of Hebrewswith a phrase of Solomon Schechter, as adapted by JA. Hart toevoke the substantial community of thought between Philo andPalestinian Jewry: *the catholic Judaism of the first century'.

Secondly, therefore, such a viewas is here advanced differs fromtwo more recent placings of the author against aJewish background,those which set him either among the Qumran sectaries or among

the earlymerkhabah mystics. In each case, as it seems to the presentwriter, ideas which Hebrews derives from the common stock ofJewryare mistakenly thought to indicate a linkwith restricted Jewishgroups. Thus the sacerdotalism of Qumran, well brought out inconnection with Hebrews by Kosmala (pp. 11-13, 76-96), is simplyone striking instance of the Pentateuchally-rooted thought alreadynoted; G.R. Driver, p. 543, judges that the comparable set ofparallelsadduced by Y. Yadin reflects the common debt of Hebrews and

Qumran tomore widespreadJewish tradition. Similarly, the strengthof a comparison with merkhabah mysticism lies not in kinship


5/30

HORBURY Aaronic Priesthood in Hebrews 47

heavenly ascent and the angehe liturgy are treated in the Hekhaloth,as is emphasized by Schfer (pp. 202, 205f., 215-8, 223-5), in muchthe same way as in the midrash and the pseudepigrapha. The

descriptions of heaven in the later mystical texts are probablyindebted, by way of a lengthy transmission, to biblical exegesisconnected with the temple-service (Hofius, p. 12); the heavenlysanctuary (Exod. 25.40; 26.30) and its service appear in pre-rabbinicas well as rabbinic texts (Test. Levi 3; Meg. 12b; further texts inWenschkewitz, pp. 45-9, and Hofius, pp. 13-15,18f.); and the association of such exegesis with the sons of Aaron is suggested both by thecosmic interpretation of their vesture, noted above, and by the

mention of levitical ancestry, in accounts of heavenly ascents, as aqualification for admission to the vision (Moses, in Pesikta Rabbathi20.11 [Grozinger, pp. 145-7]; R. Ishmael, in 3 Enoch 1.3; 2.3).

On the other hand, although some continuous tradition probablylinks pre-rabbinic apocalyptic visionaries with the early tannaiticmystics and the lateryoredhe merkhabah of the Hekhaloth texts, it ismore questionable whether Hebrews should be read as a first-century Greek document of this visionary tradition. The distinctionbetween elementary and advanced teaching, in Hebrews 5.12-6.2,can hardly be associated with 'ancient Jewish merkhabah-esotericism',as by Hofius, p. 74, without a note of die marked differences betweenHebrews and the literature of heavenly visions. The relativelyreticent allusions in Hebrews to the heavenly sanctuary and itsservice, and the general admission of the brotherhood to the city ofGod (12.22), contrast with the more explicit visionary descriptions ofthe several heavens, and their inaccessibility to all but the privilegedmystic; there are no accounts of visions in Hebrews, whetherapocalyptic or Philonic (Michel, p. 557; Moffatt, p. lv); and thewriter mentions the cherubim of the mercy-seat (9.5), but resists anytemptation to speak, here or elsewhere, of their chariot (Williamson,p. 236). The hints of an approved method of study and prayer in thelater texts, which correspond to their association with esotericteaching in select groups (Alexander, pp. 167-72), contrast with the

intensely moral and more broadly corporate character ofthe brotherlyexhortation to draw near in Hebrews. As a homiletic composition formembers of a worshipping body Hebrews probably has less in


6/30

48 Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 19 (1983)

Akin to these suggestions ofa sectarian or mystical setting is theidentification of the addressees as 'Christians from a "dissentingHebrew" background'perhaps from 'a dissenting synagogue in

Rome'Tor whom the Jerusalem temple is not an experiencedreality' (Murray, p. 205). On this proposal, part of a stimulatingattempt to clarify discussion of ancient Judaism, 'Jews' would bedifferentiated from 'dissenting Hebrews' by the touchstone of loyaltyto the Jerusalem temple. 'Hebrews' would define themselves by their'dissent'fromthis loyalty. Their antecedents, it is suggested, are inthe circles represented by Enoch; in the first century AD theyincluded Samaritans and Qumran sectarians; and some New Testa

ment books, the Epistle to the Hebrews among them, accordinglyreflect a 'dissenting Hebrew' background.

Welcome as is the proposal to discriminate on the basis of soclearly fundamental an institution as the temple, it must be askedwhether these suggestions do not conjure up far more 'dissent' thanthe evidence warrants. If the critical 'Hebrews' were widespread, onemight have expected some reference to them in Philo or Josephus.Further, the two groups definitely assigned to the dissenting class,the Samaritans and the Qumran sectaries, are united by this suggestionin a manner which they themselves might not have welcomed.Samaritans held that Gerizim rather than Zion was the holy hill, butthe Qumran texts seem to attest full conviction of the election ofZion, and to accept temple and priesthood as divinely appointed,simply criticizing the priests who in fact officiate; the authors ofthese texts have more in common with the 'Jews' of the hypothesisthan with the 'Hebrews'. The Judaism ofthe period therefore offers aconsiderably less commodious foothold for ascription of the Epistleto sectarians than these proposals would suggest.

The catholicity in Judaism ofthe theocratic view here suggested asformative for the thought of the epistle is confirmed not only by itsPentateuchal basis, but also by its abiding influence after AD 70 bothin Palestine and the Diaspora. In the Jamnian period the priesthoodof Palestine was still judicially and politically important, with a place

in messianic hopes which seemed close to realization (Alon, pp. 318-323; Gereboff, pp. 248f., 449f.; for the priesthood as a body ini i h 2 B 68 5 H lli 92 t d t th l f ti


7/30


the sacerdotal polity one ofthe two great themes ofhis Antiquities(1.5), and defended it in contra Apionem as a true theocracy. Thevitality of levitical ideas in the early church appears, probablyindependently of Hebrews, in 1 Clement (Jaubert, pp. 198-200,202f.); the phenomenon may not be unconnected with contemporaryJudaism, for it has often been noticed that Jewish inscriptions, bothfrom Palestine and the Greek-speaking Diaspora, attest the kudos ofpriestly descent (Wenschkewitz, p. 39, n. 3 [the Jewish catacomb ofMonteverde];J.Z. Smith, pp. 16f. [Rome and Beth She'arim];Kraabel,p. 84 [Sardis and Dura]).

In the Mishnah, however, the triple concern of Leviticus withsanctuary, sacrifice and priesthood is strikingly modified in SederQpdashim, as Jacob Neusner notes, by a silence on the priesthood;this Order of the Mishnah continues with the two other subjects ofLeviticus, and Hebrews heightens the contrast between Bible andMishnah by its own continuance with all three (Neusner [l],pp. 21f.,37,43f.). Yet this silence is likely to betoken, not the insignificance ofthe priesthood, but reserve towards its claims, which retained, as

noted in the foregoing paragraph, a political as well as an ecclesiasticalaspect. The abiding importance of the priesthood is suggested by theattention paid to priestly genealogy in another Order ofthe Mishnah,Nashim. Strong interest in the subject evidently persisted both in theJamnian period and, after Bar Cocheba, at Usha, this despite thehostility to priestly exclusiveness in contracting marriages evinced intraditions attributed to Johanan ben Zaccai and his pupil Joshua benHananiah (Eduyoth 8.3; Yebamoth 15b; Bchler, pp. 20, 22). The

reason, Neusner suggests, is concern that the coming restoration ofthe cult should not be impeded by inadequate genealogical care of thepriesthood (Neusner [2], v, p. 197). The later Palestinian inscriptionsof the priestly courses, comparably, show the importance of thepriesthood for synagogue worshippers, as is independently indicatedby the Targums, the early homiletic midrashim, and early liturgicalpoetry (Horbury, pp. 177, 179, 181f.). The Aaronic mural is by nomeans isolated as regards the thought which it suggests. It is this

body of theocratic thought and practice, biblical in its roots, catholicin its attestation throughout ancient Jewry, which is here suggestedh b k d f h f H b


8/30

50 Journalfor the Study ofthe New Testament19 (1983)

The possibilitythat the writer to the Hebrews knewpriestlytraditionseems especially strong when he diverges from the Pentateuch onpractical points ofadministration and ritual, yet in his divergenceapproaches post-biblical Jewish sources. One such divergence is theseemingly difficult statement of the law of tithe in 7.5, alreadymentioned. Theyof the sons ofLevi that receive the priest's officehave commandment to take tithes of the people'; but the commandment in question, Numbers 18.21, assigns tithe to all the levitical

tribe,not just to its

priesdy members.The priests are not

commandedto tithe *the people' directly; they are entitled to a further tithe out ofthe levitical tithe (Num. 18.26-28) as well as to first fruits (Rom.11.16) and sacrificial portions (1Cor. 9.13; Heb. 13.10); but the titheitself goes to all *the sons ofLevi'.

The unexpected wordingmay arise because the author is thinkingfirst and foremost of priests (6.20;7.1,3), and onlynow does descentfrom Levi become significant. Even so, there remains an awkwardness

which led one commentator conversant with rabbinic texts toconjecture lewin for loon, so as to obtain a straightforward referenceto the priestly *tithe of the tithe' (Biesenthal, pp. 184-7). Thedifficulty seems best explained from the practice, with which thepassage was associated by Jeremas (p. 106) and Stern (pp. 41f.),whereby tithe had long been paid directly to the priest. By contrastwith the Pentateuch, Nehemiah 10.38 significantly adds that theAaronic priest is to accompany the Lvite when he takes tithe.

Josephus once says simply that tithe is due to the Lvites (Ant.4.240), but he also summarizes Numbers 18.21 with the expansion(not in the Targum) that tithe is duefrom'the people' (laos, as Heb.7.5) *to the Lvites themselves and to the priests' (Ant. 4.68; compare4.205 *to the priests and Lvites'). Josephus also reports the 'edicts ofCaesar' which assign tithe to Hyrcanus and the priests (Ant. 14.203);his Hecataeus speaks of*priests of the Jews who receive a tithe of therevenue and administer public affairs' (Ap. 1.188); and he himself,

Nehemiah-like, contrasts the profit made from tithes in Galilee byhis priestly colleagues with his own refusal to accept tithes he could


9/30


'tithe of the tithe' (Det. 2), although he once mentions tithe moreambiguously among thefirstfruitsdue tots hieromenois (Virt. 95)aword which he uses for priestly and non-priestly Lvites together(Mos. 2.174). According to rabbinic texts the matter was debated inthe Jamnian period; against those, including Akiba, who maintainthe letter of Numbers 18.21, Eleazar b. Azariah upholds its interpretation as a grant of tithe to the priest; Ezra punished the Lvites bytaking itfromthem (Ket. 26a, discussed by Zahavy, pp. 30-34). Thedifficulty is plaintively evoked in a comment on Hyrcanus's abolitionof the confession at the presentation of tithes (Sotah 9.10): TheMerciful One said that they should give them to the Lvites, whereas

in fact we give them to the priests' (Sotah 47b-48a).In his comment on Hebrews 7.5 P.E. Hughes rejects the explanation

from contemporary practice, for the allusion to the priests among theLvites fits the author's context, as noted above, and he normallydraws simply on the Old Testament; but the latter point is debatable,and the contextual solution does not do full justice to the awkwardnessof verse 5 as a simple summary of the specifically mentioned'commandment', or its resemblance to the equally awkward summariesof Josephus and Eleazar b. Azariah.

A second instance comesfromthe series of unexpected summariesof the Pentateuch in Hebrews 9. In verse 13 he blood of goats andbulls' from the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16.5f.) is linked with *theashes' of the Red Heifer (Num. 19.17-22), which in the Bible has 'noconnexion whatever with atonement-day' (Moffatt, p. 122). A post-biblical connection, however, isrightlyenvisaged by Michel, p. 313,

on the basis ofMaimonides' account of the Day, quoted by Delitzsch,and first-century reports that the high priest slays the Heifer(Josephus, Ant. 4.79) and sprinkles its blood (Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.268);he had already referred to the link made between the Heifer and theDay in Yoma la (Michel, p. 168). The connection can also beconfirmedfromthe Mishnah, which records that the priest set apartfor the Day of Atonement was sprinkledfromthe ashes of the Heifer(Parah 3.1, in the name ofthefirst-centuryHanina, Prefect ofthe

Priests). This rite is celebrated in the poetry of the Day:They sanctified him and cleansed himfromsin with the waters of


10/30

52 Journal for the Studyofthe New Testament 19 (1983)

(Yose, 'attah konanta blam be-rob hesed, 76;Mirsky,p. 183, comparesjYoma 1.1,48c). The sprinkling with the waters mingled from theashes is here regarded as equivalent to Aaron's purification with

blood and oil (Exod. 29.21, the order of which is followed; the parallelLeviticus 8.30 mentions the oilfirst);the seven days' consecration ofAaron and his sons is treated as the pattern of the high priest'spreparation for the Day. Seven days' preparation was also requiredbefore the burning of the Heifer (Parah 3.1). The procedure, like thatof the Day of Atonement, was hotly disputed between Pharisees andSadducees (Bowker, pp. 57-62, with translations of the rabbinictexts). The association of the tworitesin Hebrews 9.13 thus probably

reflects not unconcern over details of the cult (so Daly, pp. 272f.),and not (only) the exigencies of argument (so, recently, JH. Young,p. 205), butfirst


11/30


light of the Lvites' request in AD 62 for greater recognition overagainst the priests; the concession oftheir demands was characteristically viewed by Josephus as a national transgression which couldnot be expected to go unpunished (Ant. 20.216-18, discussed byMeyer, col. 727). The writer to the Hebrews is carried over thisawkwardness by his biblical view of *the covenant of Levi' as thecovenant ofthe priests (Mai. 2.1-10).

It is a familiar fact that in the Pentateuch as now preserved theLvites, 'given to Aaron and his sons' (Num. 8.19; cf. 3.9; 18.6), takesecond place to the priests, whose appointment and dues are mentioned

first (Exod. 28-30; 40.12-16, and Lev. 8; Num. 3.1-4 [priests] beforeNum. 3.5-13 and Num. 8 [Lvites]; Num. 18.1 and 6 [priests]enclosing Num. 18.2-5 [Lvites]; Deut. 10.6 [Eleazar succeedsAaron] before Deut. 10.8f. [separation ofLvites]; Num. 18.8-20 andDeut. 18.3-5 [priestly dues] before Num. 18.21-24 and Deut. 18.6-8[Lvites' portion]). The notable descendants of Levi (Exod. 6.16-27)are Aaron and Moses (in that order, verses 20 and 26), Eleazar, andPhinehaswho received *the covenant of an everlasting priesthood'

(Num. 25.12f., quoted in Ecclus 45.24; 1 Mace. 2.54). This Aaronicview of Levi is encouraged by his blessing (Deut. 33.8-11), for itmentions the distinctively priestly prerogatives of Urim and Thumm-im, legal interpretation, incense-offering and whole-offering. ThePentateuchal presentation could be epitomized by Numbers 17.3(18)TTiou shalt write Aaron's name upon the rod of Lew'.

That Aaron's adoption of Levi's tithe simply continues thisPentateuchal tendency was recognized by Wellhausen (pp. 165-7).

Two further consequences ofits continuation are manifest in latersources and relevant to Hebrews. First, Levi becomes above all thepatriarch of the priests (Ecclus 45.6,17; Jub. 31.16f.; 32.1-15; Test.Levi 2-5; 8-12; 14-18;Joseph and Asenath 28.15 [blessing by Levi]);the Exodus 6 genealogy influences both the Aramaic Testament ofLevi (as shown by Becker, pp. 96-9) and the late third-century BCJewish chronographer Demetrius, who traces Levi's progeny down to'Aaron and Moses' (Demetrius, quotedfromAlexander Polyhistor by

Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.21; fragment 2 in Freudenthal, p. 222). Theclimax of this development is the Day of Atonement poetry already


12/30


tribe ofLevi, repeatedly mentioned since 7.5. This is probably animplied allusion to Moses' blessing ofLevi (Deut. 33.8-11), viewedwith Ecclesiasticus 45.17 (echo), 4Q Testimonia, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (see this Section, below) as part ofthe credentials oftheAaronic priesthood.

A second consequence is the mention of priests in addition to or inplace ofLvites. Where the Bible speaks ofLvites only, a latersource may add the priests (Num. 1.53 with Josephus, Ant. 3.190;Ezr. 8.15, 17 with 1 Esdr. 8.42, 46). On the other hand, the nationmay be divided into priests and people only, with no separate

mention ofLvites, although the high priest may be singled outadditionally (Lev. 16.33, quoted above; Ecclus 50.13 Cthe sons ofAaron' and 'all the congregation ofIsrael'); Bar. 1.17 (high priest,priests and people); 1 Mace. 14.41, 47 Cthe Jews and priests'); 1Mace. 14.44 Cthe people' and ^priests'); 'Aaron' and Israel' (1QS viii,and often in Qumran texts); Yoma 7.1 and Sotah 7.7f. (separatebenedictions for *the priests' and Israel'). Lasdy, the high priestalone may be distinguished (Num. 27.19,22,fromthe congregation,

when Moses lays hands on Joshua; Ecclus 50.20,fromthe congregation,in blessing; 2 Mace. 15.12,fromthe systema [see section I, above];Philo, Spec. Leg. 3.131, from the ethnos). In these same ways, inHebrews, priests are added to Lvites, or rather substituted for them(7.5); the priesthood alone is differentiated from the people (7.11);and the high priest alone is distinguished (7.27; cf. 2.17; 5.3; 9.7).

Hebrews therefore shares in biblical exegesis and constitutionallanguage which shows the influence of developments of the Aaronic

view of Levi found in the Pentateuch. The references to Levi ratherthan Aaron in chapter 7 are not a sign of polemical alignment withTest. Levi 18 (as suggested by Spicq, , pp. 124f.). Equally, Philo'sassociation ofthe patriarch with the Lvites (e.g. Det. 63-67) is notreflected in the epistle. Levi was probably simply introduced into theargument of priests without hesitation, because the writer hadinherited the priestly view.

The larger argument within which Levi appears (6.20-8.13) hasother presuppositions comparable with those of the theocracy. Christ


13/30


priesthood are viewed as interdependent, and a high priest whoseministry supersedes that ofAaron is also considered able to mediate a

covenant superseding that obtained by Moses.The law, however, according to G. Hughes (pp. 15-19), has logicalprecedence over the priesthood in this argument;fortithe is 'accordingto the law' (7.5), 'Moses spoke' concerning those who are priests'according to the law of a carnal commandment' (7.14,16; cf. 7.28),and this primacy of law corresponds to the author's fundamentalconcern with God's 'address' to men (l.lf.).

This interpretation seizes a vital strand of the author's thought, his

conviction that God 'has spoken', but seems not fully to reckon withhis treatment ofChrist's priesthood (6.20) as axiomatic, the supersession of both law and covenant being made to follow from it;Moffatt could take 7.12 as indicating that, in the author's wholeoutlook, 'the covenant or law is subordinated to the priesthood' (p. xl;cf. pp. 96,103). Further, God's address in time past is probably not tobe identified solely with the law; it was also heard in the call of God toAaron (5.4-6; 9.4), comparable for the author with the divine

appointment of Christ (5.5f.; cf. 1.2), and giving rise to a singlelevitical institution' (Nairne,p. lxvii) wherein law and priesthood areco-ordinate. Thus it may be said either that 'the law makes men highpriests' (7.28) or,fromthe other side, that the levitical priests 'have acommandment', one of their privileges (7.5); again, the law shouldmake perfect (7.19), yet this should come about through the priestlyministration (7.11; 10.1). Indeed, the law is subordinate in the sensethat it does depend upon the levitical ministry (7.1 If.); that 'Moses

said nothing about priests' with regard to Judah (7.14) is mentionednot because of the primacy of the law, but in order to clarify thestatement that a change of law follows from a change of priesthood(7.12), the point which becomes *yet more abundantly evident' fromChrist's eternal priesthood (7.15f.).

It is therefore legitimate to recognize, in the thought of Hebrews,the interdependence of priesthood and law, and the decisive importance of the high priest in the whole levitical institution. Theseconvictions have obvious Pentateuchal roots. Only after callingAaron (Exod 28 1) does God reveal the priestly laws directing


14/30

56 Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament19 (1983)

consecration of tabernacle and priests, and an account of the

sacrifices, offerings and laws of purity. By a partly comparableconception, Levi is designated priest in Jacob's vision (Test. Levi9.3); Isaac then teaches him 'the law of the priesthood' on sacrificesand offerings (Test. Levi 9.7) or 'the judgment of the priesthood'concerning purity laws (Aramaic and Greek fragments in Charles[2], p. 247 [the Greek is translated from a Semitic language, theAramaic itself possibly descends from a Hebrew original, according

to Becker, pp. 72f.]; context favours the interpretation of'judgment'[din, krisis] as 'law' rather than [as suggested by Charles (2), p. lv,with reference to Deut. 18.3 mispt] 'priestly due'). In this passage,judged by Becker to derive ultimately from a pre-Christian oralsource later than Jubilees (Becker, pp. 91-3, 103f.), the laws alreadyexist (Test. Levi 9.6), and are probably thought to be those communicated to Isaac in Jubilees 21; but they find their application whenGod calls his priest, and Jacob's dream, confirming the two visions

granted to Levi himself, underlines the independent importance ofGod's call*. Its significance in the case of Aaron, already clear in thePentateuch, is further brought out by Josephus; in Amram's dream itis revealed that Aaron and his descendants will hold God's priesthoodfor ever, and the stories of Korah, Dathan and Abiram and theblossoming rod show that Aaron was hrice elected by God' (Ant.2.216; 4.66). God's choice of Aaron is similarly emphasized in 1

Clement 43. In the Pentateuch and Josephus the priestly laws,envisaged as given for the first time, appear as a consequence ofAaron's call.

These accounts of the institution ofthe priestly line confirm thatAaron's call is likely to carry significant weight in Hebrews. Theyalso illuminate the interdependence oflaw and priesthood, and theviewpoint from which the law could seem subordinate. Such a view

of the law is further encouraged by its association with the tabernacle(Exod. 25.22; Num. 7.89). Josephus emphasizes this, abridgingE d 19 32 t d th ift f th l i t l ti


15/30


return from the forty days in the cloud, the episode ofthe GoldenCalf being omitted, Moses says to the people that God has shown

him their polity, and has desired that a tabernacle should be made forhim, indicating its measurements and fashion; Moses then displaysthe tables ofthe commandments (Ant. 3.99-101). After the consecrationof the tabernacle and its ministers, Moses writes out the bookcontaining the polity and the lawsfrominstruction received duringvisits to the tabernacle, as Exodus 25.22 suggests (Ant. 3.212, 232);finally, as noted in Deuteronomy 31.9, he hands over the book to thepriests (Ant. 4.304). Thus Josephus associates the *polity', one of his

two great themes (Ant. 1.5), with the divine presence in the tabernacle;for the revelation of the political kosmos begun on Sinai is continuedfrom above the mercy seat' (Exod. 25.22). Hence, whereas Aaron,Nadab and Abihu only 'see God' on the mount by an exceptionalgrace (Exod. 24.1f., 9-11), in the tabernacle Moses receives thecontinuation of the Sinaitic oracles by an access which is theirnormal priestly privilege. Aaron's successors continue to approachthe mercy seat whence the laws were given (Lev. 16.2), and have

custody of the book containing them. Josephus' association of lawand tabernacle is therefore also, in this respect, an association of lawand priesthood, with the implication that the priest is the law'suniquely empowered interpreter.

Levi's blessing makes this implication explicit,forhe is given Urimand Thummim and the commission to teach the law (Deut. 33.8,10).The priest with Urim and Thummim is 'enlightening' (Neh. 7.65,LXX; Bammel, col. 356); and this interpretation of Urim is linkedwith the teaching office of verse 10 in the quotation of Levi's blessingin 4Q175 (Testimonia), line 17 (weyfru 'and they shall enlighten'for MT yoru 'they shall teach'). Qumran again reproduces a morewidespread exegesis, for the Septuagint has dloi for Urim (verse 8),echoed by dlsousin (verse 10). The elaboration of tradition on theUrim is described by Dr Bammel; the corresponding tradition of theteaching priest is equally fundamental to the theocracy. Its prominentPentateuchal and prophetic basis (e.g. Lev. lO.lOf.; Deut. 17.8-12;21.5; 33.8-11; Jer. 18.18; Ezek. 44.23f.; Mai. 2.6f.) supports thedescriptions of the high priest as the 'messenger of the commandments


16/30


Jewish polity that the priests exercise an 'exact supervision of thelaw' as judges and exactors of penalties; the high priest in particular,with his fellow-priests, Svili sacrifice to God, guard the laws,adjudicate in matters of dispute, punish those convicted of crime'(Ap. 2.187,194).

The people received the law', according to Hebrews 7.1 If. Hinder'the levitical priesthood; a change of priesthood means a change oflaw. The theocracy of the Pentateuch, and its interpretation byJosephus and others, have provided three examples of ways in whichthe law could seem to rest upon the priesthood: in the priority ofAaron's call over ihc law of the priests', the association of therevealed polity with the mercy seat approached only by Aaron'ssuccessors, and the descriptions of the priests as guardians of the law.A later example, in the style of folk-lore rather than politicalphilosophy, sets the giving of the law within the annals of thepriesthood. The following extract from Yose's alphabetical 9attahkonanta Olam be-rob hesed, lines 66-73 (Mirsky, pp. 181f.) is typicalof a number of Day of Atonement poems (Horbury, pp. 171-3). Its

two four-line stanzas represent the letters Pe and Tsade respectively.Each begins with a word from the priestly vocabulary \ perah, 'sprig'(cf. 'sprigs of the priesthood', Yoma 1.6 and often), and sis, the opiate'(petalon) of the mitre (Exod. 28.36; etc.; on its significance, Bammel,cols 354-6); the two words are used in the Bible for the 'buds' andIjlossoms' of Aaron's rod (Num. 17.23^ [8]). The poet, having spokenof Jacob, continues:

A sprigfromhis tribes to serve thee thou didst tithefor his tithing to thee his wealth at the pillar (Gen. 28.22):

Thou didst make thefruitofthe righteousflourishfromthe stem ofLevi,

Amram and his descendants as a vine and its tendrils.Thou didst visit thy flock by the hand of a faithful man (Num.

12.7)to deliver her from Zoan and to .bring her over the waters of

the 'handful* (Isa. 40.12).

Thou didst crown him with sanctification of day and covering ofcloud,until he should lead captivity captive and take her of the


17/30


Treasured, preserved for everlasting generations;and contemners of their glory shall be swallowed up and

stricken.O Rock, thou didst adorn them with a multitude ofgifts,

andfromthe king's table didst ordain their food.Thou didst command them to abide at the gate of thy tabernacle

to consecrate them during seven days.

Here Levi is himself Jacob's tithe, as in Jubilees 32.3 (parallels inCharles, ad loc. ); his stem flourishes like the vine of the chief butler'sdream (Gen. 40.9f.). Its tendrils represent Amram's children, as in

Ber. R. 88.5 (cited by Mirsky, ad loc.)', in an alternative tradition,attributed to Bar Cocheba's uncle Eleazar of Modin, they are thetemple, the king and the high priest, the buds and blossoms are the'sprigs of the priesthood', and the grapes are the libations (Hullin92a). The giving of the law appears as its acquisition by Moses, son ofAmram, of the tribe of Levi; it follows from the fruitfulness of Levi'sstem, the story of which goes on, as in Ecclesiasticus 45.18-22, to thepunishment of Korah (the later poem has Uzziah also) and the gifts

of heave-offering and sacrificial portions. Aaron's consecration ismentioned in conclusion as the pattern of the high priest's preparationfor the Day of Atonement. The narrative here and in comparablepoems deepens the emphasis of the genealogy of Exodus 6.16-27,which provides their outline; the law is embraced within the leviticalhistory issuing in the service of tabernacle and temple.

This later synagogal development of Exodus 6 and Ecclesiasticus45 confirms that the passages wherein Josephus and others make the

law seem to rest upon the priesthood, in continuation of thePentateuchal tendency, represent a widespread manner of thinking.The interdependence of law and priesthood in Hebrews 7-8, thetreatment of law as subordinate to priesthood, and the decisiveimportance there attributed to the high priest can justifiably be setwithin this mode of ancient Jewish thought, and viewed as furthersigns of the influence of the Pentateuchal theocracy.

IV


18/30


is, nevertheless, a continuous emphasis on priestly compassion, andthe entire sequence deserves comparison with the ethical presentations

of the high priest inspired by Jewish theocratic views.RA. Stewart's inquiry into the idea of a sinless high priest inancient Judaism also showed affinity between Hebrews and Jewishsources on the virtues to be expected from the priesthood. Thisaffinity seems still not to be recognized in subsequent studies of thepriesthood in Hebrews ; in his comments on these passages Buchanandoes not discuss the question, and Vanhoye elaborates the contrastbetween Hebrews and Jewish literature on this subject drawn, with a

reference to Dean Farrar's similar opinion, by Spicq on Hebrews2.17. In what follows some attempt is made to continue Stewart'sinquiry, with a view less to the special question of sinlessness than tothe more general ethical presentation of the high priest in Hebrews.

In the Pentateuch, a formidable combination of fierce zeal andloving-kindness characterizes both Levi and Phinehas (compare Gen.49.5-7 'their anger9 [note also the approval of zealous slaughter by thesons of Levi, Exod. 32.26-29] with Deut. 33.8 'they pious one'; Num.

25.11f., zeal rewarded by the covenant of peace). Aaron, more infirmof purpose, is distinguished, rather, by his staying of the plague,which can be understood as a deed of mercy (Num. 17.11-15 [16.46-50]), and he and his sons give the blessing of peace (Num. 6.26).

Ancient Jewish interpretation by no means neglects the zeal ofLevi (Judt. 9.4; Jub. 30.18; Test. Levi 5.3) or of Phinehas (Ecclus45.23; etc.; further texts and discussion in Hengel, pp. 154-81[Phinehas], 182-4, 192f. [Levi]). Nevertheless, the 'peace' of the

Aaronic blessing involves not only Phinehas 'the peaceful man andevident priest ofGod' (Philo, Mut. 108) but also the sons of Levi(Mai. 2.5) and the disciples of Aaron, who love and pursue peace(Hillel, according to Aboth 1.12). This second and perhaps less-studied line of interpretation is especially relevant to Hebrews.

Ethicizing interpretation ofthis kind is common to Semitic andGreek sources, as is suggested by the closely similar Qumran andSeptuagintal versions ofLevi's blessing, and by the conjunction of

Philo and the Mishnah in the foregoing paragraph. Comparably, theWisdom of Solomon and Hebrew synagogal poetry alike replace the


19/30


The epithet 'mercifiil' (Heb. 2.17), whence the theme of compassionis later developed (Heb. 4.14-5.10), recalls the biblical association ofkindness and peace with the priesthood, noted above with regard tothe patriarchs of the tribe. The priests inherit the covenant of life andpeacefromLevi, God's *pious' or land' one (hsid, LXX hosios, Deut.33.8), who was 'governing in peace' (Mai. 2.6, LXX). Hence, althoughit was indeed held, in Judith and other sources noted above, thatSimeon and Levi took a wholly justified vengeance on Shechem withthe weapons of violence (Gen. 49.5) which guard the heroine inJoseph and Asenath, in the latter work it is Levi who twice enforcesthe duty of mercy to the enemy (23.8-10; 29.3-5; cf. 28.15), and whose

hand Asenath grasps in affection and veneration (23.8). In thisacknowledgement of the feminine appreciation of priestly compassionJoseph and Asenath resembles the midrashic portrait of Aaron;whereas only men mourned for Moses, Aaron was lamented by thewomen as well (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 20.29; Tanhumaon Numbers, addition to Parashath Huqqath, paragraph 2, in Buber,

Numbers, p. 132).

The topic of priestly mercy is much developed. 'Merciful andfaithful' (Heb. 2.17) is close to the description ofAaron, in a targumicversion of Levi's blessing, as hsd'pious' or 'merciful''entire' andYaithfuP; these qualities emerged when he was tempted (cf. Heb.4.15) at Massah and Meribah (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut.33.8). In the midrash, the verse 'mercy and truth are met together:righteousness and peace have kissed each other' (Ps. 85.11) interpretsthe meeting and kiss of Aaron and Moses (Exod. 4.27); Moses is

righteousness, Aaron is peace (Mai. 2.6), and Aaron is mercy(hesed)because of Deuteronomy 33.8, hsdMoses is truth (Tanhuma on Exodus, 25, on 4.27; Buber, ii, Exodus, pp. 15f.). TheAaronic attributes of mercy and peace gathered round the high priestin the halo of the Day of Atonement; in an alphabetical version of thepoem for the Day, 'How glorious was the high priest', based onEcclesiasticus 50.5-21, he came forth in 'piety' or 'kindness' (hasidut),Tor it was added to him', with 'peace' upon his Ups and 'forgiveness'

in his countenance (Geniza text in Edelmann, pp. 16 [Hebrew] and40; on this category of poems, Roth, [1], pp. 172f.).


20/30


pp. 15 If.) from the Hebraic style of such biblically-moulded descriptions as those just mentioned. Within Hebrews the passage is anexpansion of the earlier epithet 'merciful', and in Jewish sourcesunaffected by the Hellenistic idiom the thought of priestly compassionis developed in a comparable way. Thus, in a striking anticipation ofHebrews noted by Stewart, p. 128, Levi grieves over the race of men(Test. Levi 2.4); and in the saying ascribed to Hillel already quoted,the disciple of Aaron is 'loving the (fellow-)creatures, and drawingthem near to the law' (Aboth 1.12). Moreover, Levi, Aaron and thehigh priests were described with Greek ethical terms in other Jewish

sources wherein, as in Hebrews, the biblical influence is also evident.Four such Hellenized descriptions of high priests may be mentioned,because, much though they differ from one another, they all comeclose to the passage on compassion in Hebrews 4-5. First, Eleazarthe high priest is said to have sent the Septuagint translators toAlexandria with an Aristotelian 'magnanimity' which Josephusdelights to imitate in putting forth his own biblical paraphrase (Ant.1.12); and, according to an earlier writer, the high priest's emissaries

were worthy of his own virtue, cultivating the mean in theirunostentatious readiness to listen (Aristeas 122). This passage iscloser in thought to Hebrews 5.2 than is the verbally closer commendation by Philo of Aaron's metriopatheia, in a philosophical version ofthe midrashic contrast between Aaron and Moses, as nothing morethan a second best to the apatheia of the stricter Moses (Leg. All.3.132-5).

Secondly, two accounts of sacerdotal supplication may be compared

with Hebrews 2.18, 4.15, and 5.7f. In a well-known narrativeJosephus relates how Jaddua the high priest faithfully kept his oath toDarius. When Alexander consequently marched in anger 'against thehigh priest of the Jews', Jaddua, 'in agonia and fear', commanded thepeople to pray, and himself made petition with a sacrifice (Ant.11.318f., 326). Similarly, in 2 Maccabees, the godly high priest Oniasappears in Judas Maccabaeus' dream as kalos kai agathos, reverendyet meek in manner (2 Mace. 15.12). During his life, when he led the

supplications against Heliodorus's presumption, there was agoniathroughout the city; and the corresponding agonia of his own soul


21/30


the 'sympathy' of 4.14, and its setting of earnest supplication, likeJaddua's sacrifice, the 'strong crying' of 5.7.

Lastly, a near-burlesque companion-piece on priestly meekness isthe scene in Joseph and Asenath (33.7-16), worthy of a silentfilm,inwhich Simeon draws his sword against Pharaoh's wicked son. Levi,at once perceiving his brother's hostile intent by prophetic intuition,promptly stamps on his right foot and signs to him to restrain hisanger. Levi then addresses the blackguardly prince Svith a meekheart and a cheerful countenance'; pointing out that he and hisbrother are God-fearing men, but that, ifthe prince persists in his

villainy, they will indeedfight.Both brothers then draw their swords,and remind Pharaoh's son of what happened at Shechem. The princefalls down, shaking with fear, but Levi raises him up with a gracious'Fear not, but beware', and the two gp out leaving the villaintrembling. The characteristic combination of meekness and strengthappears also in the story of Jaddua, before whom Alexander in theend prostrates himself (Josephus, Ant. 11.331-3); in the presentcontext the story of Levi is of special interest as a laboured example

ofmetriopathein (Heb. 5.2).These ethical descriptions of Eleazar, Jaddua, Onias and Levicorrespond to the view that Aaron was himself chosen priest for hisvirtue (by God, Josephus, Ant. 3.188; by Moses, Ap. 2.186f., andPhilo, Mos. 2.142); the priests themselves can be called 'blameless'(Ant. 3.279), the nickname for Aaron in Wisdom 18.21 (see above).

Nevertheless, an aspect of the high priest's sympathy in Hebrewsis his 'infirmity', which necessitates the sacrifice for his own sins

(Lev. 16.6; Heb. 5.2f.; 7.27f.; 9.7; 13.11); it is linked with hismanhood (2.17f.; 5.1). Similarly, in contemporary Jewish authors,'the priest is primarily a man'and so Moses legislates for hismarriage (Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.101); and the death of Nadab andAbihu *was a disaster for Aaron considered as a man and a father',although he bore it valiantly and, being already invested with theholy robe, refrained from mourning (Josephus, Ant. 3.208-11).

The repeated mention in Hebrews of Aaron's sacrifice for himselfrecalls its prominence in the narrative of thefirstsacrifices (Lev. 9;see w. 7-14); his infirmity is further evident when accidental impurity


22/30


(Stewart, pp. 128, 130f.). In provisions for the Day of Atonementthere is a corresponding emphasis on the high priest's sacrifice for

himself (Lev. 16.6), the words ofhis confessions ofsin for himself andhis house and for the sons of Aaron (Mishnah, Yoma 3.8; 4.2), andthe precautions lest he fall asleep and contract impurity during thenight before the Day (Mishnah, Yoma 1.4-6); in the last years ofHerod the Great the high priest Matthias son of Theophilus haddone so (Josephus, Ant. 17.166).

Another aspect of'infirmity' is the high priest's need of instructionin his duties; Aaron follows orders from Moses when he offers the

first sacrifices, and they enter the tabernacle of the congregationtogether (Lev. 9.2, 5-8, 10, 21, 23). Aaron learned like an apt pupil(Philo, Mos. 2.133); and, as Stewart notes, it was held, in fourth-century rabbinic homily, that the Shekhinah did not dwell withMoses when he performed this ministry, but only with Aaron afterhis consecration (Lev. R. 11.6, discussed by Stewart, p. 130). Nevertheless, the charge of ignorance was often deployed against Aaron'ssuccessors, sometimes not without justification (as by Josephus in

the case of Phanni, the stone-mason made high priest by the Zealots[B.J. 4.156, endorsed by Roth, (2), p. 316]), sometimes as an elementin ritual controversy. According to the Mishnah, the elders of thepriesthood used to adjure the high priest not to change the order ofservice for the Day of Atonement that had been committed to him;and then 'he turned aside and wept, and they turned aside and wept'(Yoma 1.5)'he, because he was thought a simpleton, and they . . .because they were put to this necessity' (Yose, 'attah konanta 'olam

be-rob hesed, line 82 [with Palestinian Talmud, Yoma 1.5, 39a,quoted by Mirsky, p. 184]). Here, where the high priest is thought toshare the corporate shame of the sons of Aaron, his 'often infirmities'verge, as in Hebrews but in a distinctive fashion, upon the theme ofpriestly sympathy.

The theme of sympathy is linked in Hebrews not only with thehigh priest's infirmity, but also with his representative character. 'Wehave a high priest' who is 'the apostle and high priest ofourconfession' and who, it can even be said, 'became us* (Heb. 8.1; 3.1;7.25); the Aaronic priest, correspondingly, is 'appointed for men'


23/30


was given 'the priesthood ofthe people' (Ecclus 45.7), for *we needone to discharge the priestly office and to minister for the sacrificesand for the prayers on our behalf (Josephus, Ant. 3.189); the highpriest prays, as common kinsman of all, on behalf of the whole bodyof Jewry, all mankind, and the entire universe (2 Mace. 15.12; Philo,Spec. Leg. 1.97; 3.131, quoted above). More restrictively, the highpriest is called an 'apostle' of the elders and prestssheluhenu, Ouremissary'in Yoma 1.5, just quoted, where the emphasis on limitation probably reflects Pharisaic polemic; but the thought broadensagain into the honorific biblical representation when synagogal

poetry depicts his emergence from the hhest as 'the faithfulmessenger', 'sending to those that sent him righteousness andhealing' (Yose, 'asapper gedoloth, line 59, and 'azkhir geburoth, Unes268f., in Mirsky, pp. 206,171).

The compassion of the high priest, and his solidarity with mankind,which come to expression with particular force in Hebrews, aretherefore Pentateuchal themes which received comparable development in other post-biblical sources. In these, as in the traditions

concerning Christ taken up in Hebrews, there is a potentially movingcontrast between divine appointment and humanfrailty.Even whenthe writer to the Hebrews probably draws on sources related to theGospels, he remains within the bounds of what is appropriate to hispriestly expressions. If the manhood of God's Son melts the heart(2.17C), so in its degree does the manhood of God's high priest in hisbereavement (Josephus, Ant. 3.208-11); the endurance of temptation(Heb. 2.18; 4.15) and the sorrowfiil supplication (Heb. 5.7) both well

befit a high priest (Deut. 33.8, Pseudo-Jonathan; 2 Mace. 3.16f., 21).The presentation ofthe high priest in Hebrews cannot therefore

readily be contrasted with Old Testament andJewish views. Sacerdotal'mercy' cannot be regarded as new and distinctive (with Michel,p. 165, on Heb. 2.17, and Vanhoye [1], pp. 461-3); still less is thesolidarity of the high priest with men opposed to the viewpoint of theOld Testament and 'the traditional ideas of the most religious Jews'(as maintained by Vanhoye [1], pp. 457f., and in an otherwise

scrupulous study ofHeb. 5.1-4 by Vanhoye [2], pp. 446f., 455f.). Onthe contrary, the leading characteristics of the priesthood, according


24/30


which developed the Aaronic blessing of peace. As was especiallyobvious from Malachi 2.6 LXX, Aristeas, 2 Maccabees, Piulo and

Josephus, the principal virtues in this list could be woven into ahagiographical commendation of the high priest as a fitting governorof the theocracy, and Yose's poems confirm that both the self-sacrificing virtue of Aaron and the royalty of the priesthood continuedto be remembered in synagogue prayer (Horbury, pp. 153, 173f.).The special contribution of Hebrews should probably be sought notin new ideas about the priesthood, but in the interconnectionsestablished by a profound and sensitive homilist between well-known

existing ideas and Christian traditions concerning Christ.

V

Ksemann wrote that 'the religio-historical derivation of the idea ofthe high priest in Hebrews is the single most difficult problem of theepistle. Any exegesis which sees itself forced at this point to haverecourse to purely Old Testament and Jewish roots, whereas elsewhere

it cannot deny Hellenistic influence on Hebrews, will be divided andunclear' (Ksemann, p. 116).

The difficulty indicated by Ksemann arises partly from thepresentation of the idea in the epistle itself, and it cannot be whollyresolved, even though his antithesis between Hebraic and Hellenicinfluence is untenable in practice, simply by a reference to thechange, since he wrote, in the general understanding of the Helleniza-tion of Judaism. His solution by a derivation, through Christian

liturgy, from gnostically-remoulded Jewish messianism, has themerits of holding together Philo and the rabbis, and of linking thecentral priestly passages of Hebrews with the rest of the Epistle. Itsown difficulty lies perhaps especially in the fact that it is in effect, asnoted above, one more appeal to an otherwise unknown, distinctivetype of Judaism.

The question thus singled out by Ksemann has evoked, morethan any other feature of the epistle, the various derivations mentionedin section Ifrom Christianity, from some unknown form of Judaism,orfromJudaism of a sectarian or otherwise unusual description The


25/30


whether walking in well-worn old paths of Jewish literature, and inthe common traditions of ancient Jewry through which they pass,

may not be a reliable means of progress towards the distinctive ideasof Hebrews. The unity of basis which Ksemann desiderated canperhaps be claimed, thus far, but it is an Old Testament and Jewishbasis which, like the epistle itself, has assimilated the idiom of Greek.

It has appeared,fromthree limited inquiries, that some peculiaritiesof Hebrews in its treatment of Jewish practice (section II), and thepresuppositions of some central and distinctive arguments of theepistleon the priesthood and the law in Hebrews 7-8 (section )

and the ethical attributes of the high priest in Hebrews 2-5 (sectionIV)are all found together in the thought and practice shaped by thePentateuchal theocracy. Within this context ofthought HebrewandGreekJewish sources have been seen to converge, both in particularities such as a common debt to Exodus 6 or a common interpretationof Deuteronomy 33.10, and in such larger topics touched by Hebrewsas the practice concerning tithe, the co-ordination of law andpriesthood, and the ethical presentation of the priest as a man of

peace. If Hebrews can justifiablybe read within this context, as theinquiries suggest, is any light shed on the historical setting of theepistle?

Michel's comment on the close links, evidentfromtheworkof E.Bammel and E. Stauffer, between Hebrews on priesthood andcontemporaryJewish tradition and politics, may now perhaps beallowed tomodifyhis own earlier historical conclusions. Hebrews onpriesthood is not whollydetached (as maintained by Michel, pp. 55f.)

from the real historical debates of the period of the First Revolt. It istrue that the writer does not enter into these debates, but he sharessome of the disputed views. Tithe belongs to the priest (7.5), a much-discussed interpretation supporting practice which was notoriouslyabused, according to Josephus, by the high-priestly families underFelix and Albinus (Ant. 20.181,206f.); the Red Heifer and the Day of

Atonement are considered together with reference to purification(9.5), and they are both said to have been disputed in this respect

between Sadducees and Pharisees; Levi is the priests' patriarch, andthe Lvites' claims go unnoticed (an attitude which helps to explain


26/30

68 Journalfor the Study ofthe NewTestament 19 (1983)

Clear pointers towards authorship and geographical location canperhaps hardlybe expected, when the ideas concerned were sowidely

influential. It is worth noting, however, on the basis of the foregoingparagraph, that the thought of the epistle concerning priests wouldwell accord with the Palestinian origin shortly before the First Revoltproposed by Nairne and by Moule (pp. 59f., 97f., 160f.). Sections and III above also suggest one objection to the ancient attribution toBarnabas (the merits ofwhich are shown byRobinson, pp. 217-19),for a Lvite would perhaps hardly have treated Levi and the tithe inso priestly a fashion as the writer to the Hebrews has appeared to do.

His closeness to Josephus rather than to Philo on these same pointsmight constitute a marginal consideration in favour of Palestinianrather than Alexandrian authorship, if Philo could be taken asrepresentative; but on this matter it is much to be hoped that DrBammel will publish his own arguments for the Egyptian origin ofthe epistle.

Meanwhile these observations may serve at least to float thesuggestion that the antecedents of the priestly thought characteristic

of Hebrews should be sought neither in Christianity, nor in sectarianor visionary Judaism, but in the pervasive influence upon Jewry ofthe Pentateuchal theocracy. That influence was memorably expoundedin lectures on St John which the present writer attended in 1964-5.Hitherto it has been impossible for this essay to reflect the rays of thehigh-priestly petalon then discussed, but now these last words canglow with the warmth of a birthday greeting to the lecturer.

NOTES

1. The present writer is much indebted to Professor C.F.D. Moule for hiscomments on an earlier draft. Writings cited by author's name are listed atthe end.

LIST OF WRITINGS CITED

P.S. Alexander, The Historical Setting ofthe Hebrew Book ofEnoch', JJS 28 (1977), pp. 156-80.


27/30


G. Baumbach, '"Volk Gottes" im Frhjudentum', Kairos N.F. 21

(1979), pp. 3047.

J. Becker, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente

der zwlf Patriarchen (Leiden, 1970).

J.H.R. Biesenthal, Das Trostschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die

Hebrer, kritisch wiederhergestellt (Leipzig, 1878).

J. Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees (Cambridge, 1973).

S. Buber (ed.), Midrasch Tanchuma (3 vols in 1; Wilna, 1885).

G.W. Buchanan, To the Hebrews (Garden City, New York, 1972).Ad. Bchler, Die Priester und der Quitus im letzten Jahrzehnt des

Jerusalemischen Tempels (Vienna, 1895).

R.H. Charles (1), The Book of Jubilees (London, 1902).

-(2), The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs(Oxford, 1908).

R.J. Daly, Christian Sacrifice (Washington, 1978).

G.R. Driver, The Judaean ScrolL (Oxford, 1965).

R. Edelmann, Zur Frhgeschichte des Mahzor (Stuttgart, 1934).

J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien (Breslau, 1875).

J. Gereboff, Rabbi (Missoula, 1975).

E.R. Goodenough, By Light, Light (NewHaven, 1935).

K.-E. Grzinger, Ich bin der Herr, dein Gott! Eine rabbinische

Homilie zum Ersten Gebot (PesR 20) (Bern and Frankfurt

a.M 1976).

J.H.A. Hart, 'Philo and the Catholic Judaism of the First Century',

JTS 11 (1909), pp. 25-42.

M. Hengel, Die Zeloten (Leiden, 1961).CJ.A. Hickling, John and Hebrews: The Background of Hebrews

2.10-18', NTS 29 (1983), pp. 112-16.

L.A. Hoffmann, The Canonization of the Synagogue Service (Notre

Dame, 1979).

O. Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes (Tbingen, 1972).

W. Horbury, 'Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose', in

W. Horbury and B. McNeil (edd.), Suffering and Martyr

dom in the New Testament (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 143-82.

G. Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics (Cambridge, 1979).

P.E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand


28/30

70 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 19 (1983)

A.T. Kraabel, 'Social Systems of Six Diaspora Synagogues', in

J. Gutmann (ed.), Ancient Synagogues (Chico, 1981),

pp. 79-91.

J.C.H. Lebram, 'Der Idealstaat der Juden', in O. Betz, . Haacker

and M. Hengel (e.),Josephus-Studien (Gttingen, 1974),

pp. 233-53.R. Meyer, 'Levitische Emanzipationsbestrebungen in nachexilischer

Zeit', OLZ 41 (1938), cols 721-8.

O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebrer (6th edn, Gttingen, 1966).A. Mirsky, Yosse ben Yosse: Poems ([Hebrew]; Jerusalem, 1977).

J. Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to

the Hebrews (Edinburgh, 1924).

C.F.D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (3rd edn, London,

1981).

R. Murray, 'Jews, Hebrews and Christians: Some Needed Distinc

tions', Novum Testamentum 24 (1982), pp. 194-208.

A. Nairne, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Cambridge, 1921).

J. Neusner (I), A History of the Mishnaic Law of Holy Things, Part

Six (Leiden, 1980).

(2), A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women (5 vols; Leiden,1980).

M. Philonenko, Joseph et Asneth (Leiden, 1968).

A.C. Purdy, 'The Purpose of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the

light of Recent Studies in Judaism', in H.G. Wood (ed.),

Amicitiae Corolla, A Volume of Essays presented to James

Rendei Harris (London, 1933), pp. 253-64.J.A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London, 1976).

C. Roth (1), 'Ecclesiasticus in the Synagogue Service', JBL 71

(1952), pp. 171-8.

(2), The Constitution of the Jewish Republic of 66-70', JSS 9(1964), pp. 295-319.

P. Schfer, 'Engel und Menschen in der Hekhalot-Iiteratur',

Kairos N.F. 22 (1980), pp. 201-25.

H.-M. Schenke, 'Erwgungen zum Rtsel des Hebrerbriefes', in

H.D. Betz and L. Schottroff (edd.), Neues Testament undchristliche Existenz (Tbingen, 1973), pp. 421-37.


29/30


30/30

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

aaronic priesthood in hebrews

Documents