Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
W. Horbury
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge CB2 1RH
I
The view here envisaged as formative for the author of Hebrews can
be described either as a first-century constitutional 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 loosely
defined, a Judaism within which the body of ideas biblically associated
with the sons of Aaron is primary. As political theory it was given the
name theocracy by Josephus (Ap. 2.165); he imagined it being put to
word is declared and Israel is cleansed from sin. The priest is the
messenger of the Lord of hosts (Mal. 2.7, perhaps echoed in
Diodorus Hecataeus, 5 [see Stern, i, p. 31)); and the high priest shall
make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the
congregation (Lev. 16.33). The more than national scope of the
reconciliation ascribed to his ministry well emerges in the cosmic
interpretation of his garments; in the long robe is the whole world
(Wis. 18.24), and, correspondingly, the high priest of the Jews offers
prayers and thanksgivings not only on behalf of the whole race of
men, but also on behalf of the elements of nature, earth, water, air
and fire (Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.97). This fundamental point is made in
various ways in Philo, Josephus and Wisdom (Goodenough, pp. 99,
120); its centrality in ancient Judaism is confirmed by the early
synagogal poetry of the Day of Atonement. Here, in Yose ben Yose
(probably fifth century), the robe of blue is like the brightness of the
firmament (Yose, azkhir geburoth, 165, in Mirsky, p. 155; so also
Josephus, Ant. 3.184); and the thought that the temple-service
stabilizes creation, well-known from rabbinic sources, is reflected in
the customary subject-matter of the poems (Pesikta de-Rav Kahana
1.4f., on Num. 7.1, discussed with parallels in Horbury, pp. 166-8).
The theocracy of the sons of Aaron was thus conceived as mediating
divine rule in no attenuated sense.
The writer to the Hebrews would thus be seen as profoundly
influenced, like Josephus and Philo, by the theologico-political ideas
of the Pentateuchal theocracy. For the sake of clarity this view
should 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 by
Moffatt, that the author of the epistle was an able writer of Greek and
a student of the Septuagint; for the Pentateuchal sacerdotalism was
noted; G.R. Driver, p. 543, judges that the comparable set of parallels
adduced by Y. Yadin reflects the common debt of Hebrews and
Qumran to more widespread Jewish tradition. Similarly, the strength
of a comparison with merkhabah mysticism lies not in kinship
between Hebrews and esotericism, but in the likelihood, clearly
shown with regard to Hebrews by Hofius, that the Hekhaloth texts
and 3 Enoch preserve earlier and more widely-attested features of
Jewish cosmography. Such significant themes for Hebrews as the
47
heavenly ascent and the angelic liturgy are treated in the Hekhaloth,
as is emphasized by Schlifcr (pp. 202, 205f., 215-8, 223-5), in much
the same way as in the midrash and the pseudepigrapha. The
descriptions of heaven in the later mystical texts are probably
indebted, by way of a lengthy transmission, to biblical exegesis
connected with the temple-service (Hofius, p. 12); the heavenly
sanctuary (Exod. 25.40; 26.30) and its service appear in pre-rabbinic
as well as rabbinic texts (Test. Levi 3; Meg. 12b; further texts in
Wenschkewitz, pp. 45-9, and Hofius, pp. 13-15, 18f.); and the associa-
tion of such exegesis with the sons of Aaron is suggested both by the
cosmic interpretation of their vesture, noted above, and by the
mention of levitical ancestry, in accounts of heavenly ascents, as a
qualification for admission to the vision (Moses, in Pesikta Rabbathi
20.11 [Grozinger, pp. 145-7]; R. Ishmael, in 3 Enoch 1.3; 2.3).
On the other hand, although some continuous tradition probably
links pre-rabbinic apocalyptic visionaries with the early tannaitic
mystics and the later yoredhe merkhabah of the Hekhaloth texts, it is
more questionable whether Hebrews should be read as a first-
the sacerdotal polity one of the two great themes of his Antiquities
(1.5), and defended it in contra Apionem as a true theocracy. The
vitality of levitical ideas in the early church appears, probably
independently of Hebrews, in 1 Clement (Jaubert, pp. 198-200,
202f.); the phenomenon may not be unconnected with contemporary
Judaism, for it has often been noticed that Jewish inscriptions, both
from Palestine and the Greek-speaking Diaspora, attest the kudos of
priestly descent (Wenschkewitz, p. 39, n. 3 [the Jewish catacomb of
Monteverde]; J.Z. Smith, pp. 16f. [Rome and Beth Shearim]; Kraabel,
p. 84 [Sardis and DuraJ).
In the Mishnah, however, the triple concern of Leviticus with
sanctuary, sacrifice and priesthood is strikingly modified in Seder
Qodashim, as Jacob Neusner notes, by a silence on the priesthood;
this Order of the Mishnah continues with the two other subjects of
Leviticus, and Hebrews heightens the contrast between Bible and
Mishnah by its own continuance with all three (Neusner [I], pp. 21f.,
37, 43f.). Yet this silence is likely to betoken, not the insignificance of
the priesthood, but reserve towards its claims, which retained, as
noted in the foregoing paragraph, a political as well as an ecclesiastical
aspect. The abiding importance of the priesthood is suggested by the
attention paid to priestly genealogy in another Order of the Mishnah,
Nashim. Strong interest in the subject evidently persisted both in the
Jamnian period and, after Bar Cocheba, at Usha, this despite the
hostility to priestly exclusiveness in contracting marriages evinced in
traditions attributed to Johanan ben Zaccai and his pupil Joshua ben
Hananiah (Eduyoth 8.3; Yebamoth 15b; Biichler, pp. 20, 22). The
reason, Neusner suggests, is concern that the coming restoration of
the cult should not be impeded by inadequate genealogical care of the
priesthood (Neusner [2], v, p. 197). The later Palestinian inscriptions
of the priestly courses, comparably, show the importance of the
priesthood for synagogue worshippers, as is independently indicated
by the Targums, the early homiletic midrashim, and early liturgical
poetry (Horbury, pp. 177, 179, 181f.). The Aaronic mural is by no
means isolated as regards the thought which it suggests. It is this
n
The possibility that the writer to the Hebrews knew priestly tradition
seems especially strong when he diverges from the Pentateuch on
practical points of administration and ritual, yet in his divergence
approaches post-biblical Jewish sources. One such divergence is the
seemingly difficult statement of the law of tithe in 7.5, already
mentioned. They of the sons of Levi that receive the priests office
have commandment to take tithes of the people; but the command-
ment in question, Numbers 18.21, assigns tithe to all the levitical
tribe, not just to its priestly members. The priests are not commanded
to tithe the people directly; they are entitled to a further tithe out of
the levitical tithe (Num. 18.26-28) as well as to first fruits (Rom.
11.16) and sacrificial portions (1 Cor. 9.13; Heb. 13.10); but the tithe
itself goes to all the sons of Levi.
The unexpected wording may arise because the author is thinking
first and foremost of priests (6.20; 7.1, 3), and only now does descent
from Levi become significant. Even so, there remains an awkwardness
which led one commentator conversant with rabbinic texts to
conjecture lewin for laon, so as to obtain a straightforward reference
to the priestly tithe of the tithe (Biesenthal, pp. 184-7). The
difficulty seems best explained from the practice, with which the
passage was associated by Jeremias (p. 106) and Stem (pp. 41f.),
whereby tithe had long been paid directly to the priest. By contrast
with the Pentateuch, Nehemiah 10.38 significantly adds that the
Aaronic priest is to accompany the Levite when he takes tithe.
Josephus once says simply that tithe is due to the Levites (Ant.
4.240), but he also summarizes Numbers 18.21 with the expansion
(not in the Targum) that tithe is due from the people (laos, as Heb.
7.5) to the Levites themselves and to the priests (Ant. 4.68; compare
4.205 to the priests and Levites). Josephus also reports the edicts of
Caesar which assign tithe to Hyrcanus and the priests (Ant. 14.203);
his Hecataeus speaks of priests of the Jews who receive a tithe of the
revenue and administer public affairs (Ap. 1.188); and he himself,
tithe of the tithe (Det. 2), although he once mentions tithe more
ambiguously among the first fruits due tou hieromenois (Virt. 95)-a
word which he uses for priestly and non-priestly Levites together
(Mos. 2.174). According to rabbinic texts the matter was debated in
the Jamnian period; against those, including Akiba, who maintain
the letter of Numbers 18.21, Eleazar b. Azariah upholds its interpreta-
tion as a grant of tithe to the priest; Ezra punished the Levites by
taking it from them (Ket. 26a, discussed by Zahavy, pp. 30-34). The
difficulty is plaintively evoked in a comment on Hyrcanuss abolition
of the confession at the presentation of tithes (Sotah 9.10): The
Merciful One said that they should give them to the Levites, 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 the
Levites fits the authors context, as noted above, and he normally
draws simply on the Old Testament; but the latter point is debatable,
and the contextual solution does not do full justice to the awkwardness
of verse 5 as a simple summary of the specifically mentioned
commandment, or its resemblance to the equally awkward summaries
of Josephus and Eleazar b. Azariah.
A second instance comes from the series of unexpected summaries
of the Pentateuch in Hebrews 9. In verse 13 the blood of goats and
bulls from the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16.5f.) is linked with the
ashes of the Red Heifer (Num. 19.17-22), which in the Bible has no
connexion whatever with atonement-day (Moffatt, p. 122). A post-
biblical connection, however, is rightly envisaged by Michel, p. 313,
on the basis of Maimonides 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 the
Day in Yoma la (Michel, p. 168). The connection can also be
confirmed from the Mishnah, which records that the priest set apart
for the Day of Atonement was sprinkled from the ashes of the Heifer
(Parah 3.1, in the name of the first-century Hanina, Prefect of the
Priests). This rite is celebrated in the poetry of the Day:
They sanctified him and cleansed him from sin with the waters of
separation,
answering to the sin-cleansing with blood and the oil of
anointing
52
(Yose, attah konanta olam be-rob hesed, 76; Mirsky, p. 183, compares
jYoma 1.1,48c). The sprinkling with the waters mingled from the
ashes is here regarded as equivalent to Aarons purification with
blood and oil (Exod. 29.21, the order of which is followed; the parallel
Leviticus 8.30 mentions the oil first); the seven days consecration of
Aaron and his sons is treated as the pattern of the high priests
preparation for the Day. Seven days preparation was also required
before the burning of the Heifer (Parah 3.1 ). The procedure, like that
of the Day of Atonement, was hotly disputed between Pharisees and
Sadducees (Bowker, pp. 57-62, with translations of the rabbinic
texts). The association of the two rites in 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, N.H. Young,
p. 205), but first-century understanding of the Day of Atonement.
Other passages, of which we cannot now speak particularly, might
well reward study on these lines. Here there is only room to note,
more generally, that the Pentateuchal interpretations just compared
with Hebrews discourage a rigid antithesis between biblical and
contemporary knowledge in the author. Josephuss treatments of
Numbers 18.21, one according to the letter, two others adapted to the
practice which he knew from his own experience as a priest, show
especially clearly that a Jewish writer could expound the Septuagint
without any allusion to contemporary Jewish usage which he undoubt-
edly knew. Similarly, an interest in the vanished tabernacle, as
displayed in the halakhic literature of the Day of Atonement, by no
means necessarily implies neglect of the present. Hence it cannot be
assumed so unquestioningly as by Moffatt, pp. 114-16, or Schenke,
p. 426 (on the basis of 9.1-5), that the writer to the Hebrews was
poorly acquainted with the temple. As examination of 7.5 and 9.13
has suggested, his Septuagintal exposition is not incompatible with
knowledge of sacerdotal practice.
III
The priestly ideology bound up with practice emerges, it may be
suggested, in two broad aspects of the argument of Hebrews 7-8. The
first is the significance of Levi (7.5, 9), introduced when the authors
real interest is in the levitical priesthood (7.11 ). The awkwardness of
this potential inclusion of Levites in an argument about priests,
already noted from 7.5 on tithe, can be appreciated further in the
53
patriarch 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 of
Levi (as shown by Becker, pp. 96-9) and the late third-century BC
Jewish chronographer Demetrius, who traces Levis progeny down to
Aaron and Moses (Demetrius, quoted from Alexander Polyhistor by
Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.21; fragment 2 in Freudenthal, p. 222). The
climax of this development is the Day of Atonement poetry already
quoted, in which the narrative of the high priests duties is introduced
by praise of Levi and his descendants, once again patterned after the
genealogy of Exodus 6.16-27. In Hebrews Moses said nothing about
priests to the tribe of Judah (7.14); but he did (it is implied) to the
54
return from the forty days in the cloud, the episode of the Golden
Calf being omitted, Moses says to the people that God has shown
him their polity, and has desired that a tabernacle should be made for
him, indicating its measurements and fashion; Moses then displays
the tables of the commandments (Ant. 3.99-101). After the consecration
of the tabernacle and its ministers, Moses writes out the book
containing the polity and the laws from instruction received during
visits 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 the
priests (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 continued
from above the mercy seat (Exod. 25.22). Hence, whereas Aaron,
Nadab and Abihu only see God on the mount by an exceptional
grace (Exod. 24.1f., 9-11), in the tabernacle Moses receives the
continuation of the Sinaitic oracles by an access which is their
normal priestly privilege. Aarons successors continue to approach
the mercy seat whence the laws were given (Lev. 16.2), and have
custody of the book containing them. Josephus association of law
and tabernacle is therefore also, in this respect, an association of law
and priesthood, with the implication that the priest is the laws
uniquely empowered interpreter.
Levis blessing makes this implication explicit, for he is given Urim
and 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 linked
with the teaching office of verse 10 in the quotation of Levis blessing
in 4Q175 (Testimonia), line 17 (wey fr and they shall enlighten
for MT yr they shall teach). Qumran again reproduces a more
widespread exegesis, for the Septuagint has dilol for Urim (verse 8),
echoed by dlsousin (verse 10). The elaboration of tradition on the
Urim is described by Dr Bammel; the corresponding tradition of the
teaching priest is equally fundamental to the theocracy. Its prominent
Pentateuchal and prophetic basis (e.g. Lev. 10.lOf.; Deut. 17.8-12;
21.5; 33.8-11; Jer. 18.18; Ezek. 44.23f.; Mal. 2.6f.) supports the
descriptions of the high priest as the messenger of the commandments
of God (cf. Mal. 2.7), in the Hecataeus of Diodorus Siculus (section
I, above), and of the priests as charged with the administration of
public affairs, in the Hecataeus of Josephus (Ap. 188, quoted in
section II, above). Josephus himself regards it as the glory of the
58
IV
A similar conclusion as to influence can be drawn from the markedly
ethical passages on the high priest in Hebrews 2.17-3.1, and 4.14-
5.10. These passages are interwoven with traditions concerning
Christ; only 5.1-4 expressly apply to the Aaronic high priest. There
60
25.1 lf., zeal rewarded by the covenant of peace). Aaron, more infirm
of 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 of
Levi Qudt. 9.4; Jub. 30.18; Test. Levi 5.3) or of Phinehas (Ecclus
45.23; 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 and
evident priest of God (Philo, Mut. 108) but also the sons of Levi
(Mal. 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 of this kind is common to Semitic and
Greek sources, as is suggested by the closely similar Qumran and
Septuagintal versions of Levis blessing, and by the conjunction of
Philo and the Mishnah in the foregoing paragraph. Comparably, the
Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrew synagogal poetry alike replace the
patriarchal names, in hagiographical fashion, with ethical nicknames
like the peaceful man. Aaron, the unnamed blameless man of
Wisdom (18.21), is in a piyyut likewise simply thy holy one (Yose,
cited above, following Ps. 106.16; Ecclus 45.6).
61
Numbers, p. 132).
The topic of priestly mercy is much developed. Merciful and
faithful (Heb. 2.17) is close to the description of Aaron, in a targumic
version of Levis blessing, as hasid -pious or merciful-entire and
faithful; 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) interprets
the meeting and kiss of Aaron and Moses (Exod. 4.27); Moses is
righteousness, Aaron is peace (Mal. 2.6), and Aaron is mercy
(%esed)-bccausc of Deuteronomy 33.8, I:zs{d -Moses is truth (Tan-
huma on Exodus, 25, on 4.27; Buber, ii, Exodus, pp. 15f.). The
Aaronic attributes of mercy and peace gathered round the high priest
in the halo of the Day of Atonement; in an alphabetical version of the
poem for the Day, How glorious was the high priest, based on
Ecclesiasticus 50.5-21, he came forth in piety or kindness (I:zasidt),
for it was added to him, with peace upon his lips and forgiveness
in his countenance (Geniza text in Edelmann, pp. 16 [Hebrew] and
40; on this category of poems, Roth, [ 1 J, pp. 172f.).
In Hebrews the compassion of the high priest, who is able to feel
with us in our weaknesses and able to bear reasonably with the
ignorant (Heb. 4.15; 5.2), is expressed in words from the Hellenistic
ethical vocabulary, but should not be dissociated (as by Kasemann,
62
was given the priesthood of the people (Ecclus 45.7), for we need
one to discharge the priestly office and to minister for the sacrifices
and for the prayers on our behalf (Josephus, Ant. 3.189); the high
priest prays, as common kinsman of all, on behalf of the whole body
of Jewry, all mankind, and the entire universe (2 Macc. 15.12; Philo,
Spec. Leg. 1.97; 3.131, quoted above). More restrictively, the high
priest is called an apostle of the elders and priests-sheluhenu, our
emissary-in Yoma 1.5, just quoted, where the emphasis on limita-
tion probably reflects Pharisaic polemic; but the thought broadens
again into the honorific biblical representation when synagogal
poetry depicts his emergence from the holiest as the faithful
messenger, sending to those that sent him righteousness and
healing (Yose, asapper gedoloth, line 59, and azkhir geburoth, lines
268f., 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, are
therefore Pentateuchal themes which received comparable develop-
ment in other post-biblical sources. In these, as in the traditions
concerning Christ taken up in Hebrews, there is a potentially moving
contrast between divine appointment and human frailty. Even when
the writer to the Hebrews probably draws on sources related to the
Gospels, he remains within the bounds of what is appropriate to his
priestly expressions. If the manhood of Gods Son melts the heart
(2.17f.), so in its degree does the manhood of Gods high priest in his
bereavement aosephus, Ant. 3.208-11); the endurance of temptation
(Heb. 2.18; 4.15) and the sorrowful supplication (Heb. 5.7) both well
befit a high priest (Deut. 33.8, Pseudo-Jonathan; 2 Macc. 3.16f., 21).
The presentation of the high priest in Hebrews cannot therefore
readily be contrasted with Old Testament and Jewish 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 the
solidarity of the high priest with men opposed to the viewpoint of the
Old Testament and the traditional ideas of the most religious Jews
(as maintained by Vanhoye [1], pp. 457f., and in an otherwise
scrupulous study of Heb. 5.1-4 by Vanhoye [2], pp. 446f., 455f.). On
the contrary, the leading characteristics of the priesthood, according
to Hebrews 2.17-3.1 and 4.14-5.10-mercy, faithfulness, compassion,
sympathy, forbearance, earnestness in prayer, humanity, infirmity,
representativeness-have all been amply attested in Jewish sources,
both Hebrew and Greek, especially in the line of interpretation
66
V
Kdsemann wrote that the religio-historical derivation of the idea of
the high priest in Hebrews is the single most difficult problem of the
epistle. Any exegesis which sees itself forced at this point to have
recourse to purely Old Testament and Jewish roots, whereas elsewhere
it cannot deny Hellenistic influence on Hebrews, will be divided and
unclear (KAsemann, p. 116).
The difficulty indicated by K5semann arises partly from the
presentation of the idea in the epistle itself, and it cannot be wholly
resolved, even though his antithesis between Hebraic and Hellenic
influence is untenable in practice, simply by a reference to the
change, 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 the
merits of holding together Philo and the rabbis, and of linking the
central priestly passages of Hebrews with the rest of the Epistle. Its
own difficulty lies perhaps especially in the fact that it is in effect, as
noted above, one more appeal to an otherwise unknown, distinctive
type of Judaism.
The question thus singled out by Kasemann has evoked, more
than any other feature of the epistle, the various derivations mentioned
in section I-from Christianity, from some unknown form of Judaism,
or from Judaism of a sectarian or otherwise unusual description. The
more pedestrian approach adopted here is only an approach, for such
1. The present writer is much indebted to Professor C.F.D. Moule for his
comments on an earlier draft. Writings cited by authors name are listed at
the end.