A lengthy note on Hebrews 7.14 (sprung from Judah).

[andrewcriddle]

On Hebrews 13:23 it maybe unlikely that the otherwise unknown account of Timothy's imprisonment and release is fictional.
The number of people active as Christian missionaries before 70 CE is probably rather small. I don't regard it as prima-facie unlikely that Paul and the author of Hebrews were both associates of Timothy.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

If 13:23 is meant as a hint that the author of Hebrews was Paul it wasn't a very obvious one. Ephraem Syrus in the 4th century appears to be the first commentator to use 13:23 as evidence of Pauline authorship.

[Bernard Muller]

As mentioned, someone went through a lot of effort to think out the theology of the epistle to the Hebrews, and it is highly sophisticated thinking.

But that does not mean Hebrews had to be written later than the main Pauline epistles.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

On Hebrews 13:23 it maybe unlikely that the otherwise unknown account of Timothy's imprisonment and release is fictional.
The number of people active as Christian missionaries before 70 CE is probably rather small. I don't regard it as prima-facie unlikely that Paul and the author of Hebrews were both associates of Timothy.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

If 13:23 is meant as a hint that the author of Hebrews was Paul it wasn't a very obvious one. Ephraem Syrus in the 4th century appears to be the first commentator to use 13:23 as evidence of Pauline authorship.

Right, the mention of Timothy does not have to be interpreted as an effort to make the epistle as written by Paul.
Apollos of Alexandria was operating in the circle of Paul & Timothy, and verse 13:23 can be authentic as written by Apollos himself.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

Possibly some relevant notes.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/ ... ity/Joshua
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/ ... 0%28RAK%29

Also significant for the present discussion is a lesser-
known <g>IHSOUS</g> figure who is frequently mentioned in the
later books of the Jewish Scriptures, Joshua the son of
Jehozadak, and the high priestly associate of Zerubbabel and
Nehemiah during the return of the Jews from Babylon and the
rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra-Neh; Zach; Hagg). It may well be
that this <g>IHSOUS</g> was a member of the rather extensive
division of the priesthood which was also know as "the house of
<g>IHSOUS</g>" (cp. 1 Chr 24.11, Ezra 2.36, 40; Neh 7.39, 1 Esd
5.24). In any case, <g>IHSOUS</g> the high priest is thrust into
the apocalyptic floodlights in Zech 3-6, where he is pictured in
a court scene standing before the Angel of the Lord, with the
adversary Satan opposing him. Satan is rebuked by the Lord, and
<g>IHSOUS</g> is called "a brand plucked from the fire" -- and is
commanded to remove his filthy clothing and to put on apparel
prepared for him by the Lord.

After the Angel challenges <g>IHSOUS</g> to walk in the way
of YHWH, as a condition for fulfilling the role of judge and
leader in the reconstructed Jerusalem, the following promise is
given: "Hear now, O <g>IHSOUS</g> the high priest,...for behold,
I will bring forth my servant the "Branch" [Old Greek
<g>A)NATOLH/</g> = rising/sprouting]...." In the following
context, the "Branch" seems to refer to Zerubbabel, and in 4.14,
the seer receives a vision of "two olive branches" which
symbolize "the two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the
whole earth" -- apparently <g>IHSOUS</g> and Zerubbabel. A
little later, the seer is told to make a crown and set it on the
head of <g>IHSOUS</g> the high priest, and to say to him "Behold
a man whose name is Branch [<g>A)NATOLH/</g> = rising] -- he
shall rise out of his place and he shall build the temple of
YHWH... and shall sit and rule on his throne, and the council of
peace shall be between them both...."

As the critics point out, the present form of this last
passage is somewhat corrupted. Apparently it originally spoke of
crowns for <e>both</e> <g>IHSOUS</g> and Zerubbabel, the two
anointed leaders [Messiahs], whereas now it only speaks of
<g>IHSOUS</g>. How this corruption came about is impossible to
say with any assurance. In any event, it exists in all known
Jewish Scriptures versions, including MT and Old Greek, and thus
is clearly of pre-Christian origin. The texts known to the
Church Fathers and Rabbis alike probably all identified
<g>IHSOUS</g> most closely with the "Branch" of Zech. 6.

--evidence that Joshua/Jesus somehow fits into the developing
pattern or patterns of "two messiahs," one a military (later
royal) savior and the other priestly, like Moses and Aaron. A
Samaritan tradition designates Joshua/Jesus as the "scepter"
that "arises" and the priest Phineas as the "star" in the "star
and scepter" dyad of Balaam's oracle in Num 24.17. This material
is complicated all the more by the appearance later in Jewish
biblical tradition (Zech 1-6) of a high priestly Joshua/Jesus,
side by side with a royal "messianic" counterpart (Zech 4.14),
opposed by Satan (3.1) and somehow connected or identified with
the figure of one called "branch" or (in Greek) "rising" =
<g>A)NATOLH</g> (3.8, 6.12);

Because of the expectation of a priestly as well as a
military/royal Messiah, later Greek interpretation could also
integrate the high priestly Joshua figure into this Joshua
messianology by means of the <g>A)NATOLH/-A)NATE/LLEIN</g>
similarities between Zech 3-6 and Num 24.17 ("a scepter shall
arise..."). Probably the royal and priestly figure of Melchizedek
also influenced this development, especially through the use of
Ps 110(109) in messianic speculation.

An even more exciting clue to a late Jewish second
<g>IHSOUS</g> messianology comes from Samaritan literature. In
1927, Moses Gaster published a translation and commentary on the
Samaritan book of the "Secrets of Moses" or "The ASATIR."
According to Gaster, the <s>ASATIR</s> was compiled around the
end of the third century BCE, and has close affinities with the
Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, and with some of Josephus'
extra-canonical traditions. In its comments on the Oracles of
Balaam, we find the following passage (10.45 to Nu 24.17).

<block>
"A star shall arise from Jacob"
this refers to Phineas,
"and a scepter shall come from Israel"
this refers to Joshua.
</block>

Now Phineas was the young priest hero, the grandson of Aaron, who
had applied preventative measures against the plague sent upon
Israel for immoral conduct by impaling on his spear a young
Israelite and his Midianite sexual partner. In Rabbinic thought,
one sometimes meets with the idea that Phineas will return in the
form of Elijah in the last days for the battle with the false
messiah (has Phineas been substituted for an original
<g>IHSOUS</g> here?) and once in commentary on the Jewish
scriptural statement that Phineas "made atonement for the
children of Israel," the Rabbinic sources apply Isa 53.12a to him
-- "I will divide him a portion with the great" (Sifre Num @@).
(Note that God calls <g>IHSOUS</g> "servant" in Josh 24.29 = ???
as Yalk. Josh 1 also recalls.) In ASATIR, it seems that Phineas
(not his father, Eleazar) and Joshua are pictured respectively as
the priestly and royal successors to Aaron and Moses -- the
priestly and kingly Messiahs, if you will (cf Qumran!).

The usual application of the "star and scepter" passage in
later Samaritan literature, however, is not to Phineas and Joshua
but to the expected "Restorer," the <f>Ta'eb</f>, who fulfills
the role of the "Prophet like Moses" promised in Dt 18.15ff. The
Ta'eb is, indeed, a second Moses. He will rebuild the Gerizim
Temple and give his Law to the world; he will be of the house of
LEVI (or, according to Volz, will be accompanied by a high priest
from the order of Phineas) and will restore the favor of God to
his people.

The so-called Epistle to the Hebrews, however, is perhaps the
most fertile NT field for investigation along these lines. Not
only does it draw an explicit negative parallel between Joshua
the successor of Moses and <g>IHSOUS XRISTOS</g> ("for if
<g>IHSOUS</g> had given them rest, [God] would not speak later of
another day. So then, there remains a sabbath rest for God's
people" 4.8f), but it sandwiches this Joshua reference and its
context into an extensive high priestly christology. Furthermore,
although this high priestly interpretation of <g>IHSOUS
XRISTOS</g> (see Heb 4.14, 10.21, cp 13.20) never refers to the
Jewish scriptural high priestly <g>IHSOUS</g> figure, it has some
interesting parallels to the Zechariah visions and to the other
materials noted above -- e.g., in Heb 2.14, <g>IHSOUS</g> defeats
Death = the devil; in 2.9, <g>IHSOUS</g> is crowned (but, in
fairness, the primary reference is to a Psalm quote); in 7.14,
<g>IHSOUS</g> is said to have risen (<g>A)NATETA/LKEN</g>) from
Judah, and is thus not of Levitic descent but is still high
priestly after the order of Melchizedek; in 9.12, <g>IHSOUS</g>
removes sin/unrighteousness in one stroke. Coincidences, perhaps.
But possibly further evidence of a very early, if not pre-
Christian, developed Joshua messianology in which <e>both</e>
Moses' successor <g>IHSOUS</g> <e>and</e> <g>IHSOUS</g> the high
priest from Babylonian Jewry played a role.

Later, in a midrash on Ps 22(21), Justin returns to a
discussion of the name itself (Dial 106.2):

<block>
The Psalm says `I will declare your name to my brethren...' [So
when <g>IHSOUS XRISTOS</g> changed the name of Simon to Peter and
sons of Zebedee to Boanerges]

3 This symbolized that he was that one through whom also the one
called Jacob was renamed Israel and <g>AUSH</g> was renamed
<g>IHSOUS</g>, through which name the remnant of those who came
out of Egypt were brought/ushered/conducted into the land
promised to the patriarchs.

4 And that he should rise like a star as/from/by the race of
Abraham Moses indicated when he spoke thus, `a star will rise
(<g>A)NATELEI=</g>) from Jacob and a ruler from Israel.' And also
another scripture says `Behold a man, RISING (<g>A)NATOLH/</g>)
is his name' (Zech 6. ) [so a star rose at the birth of
<g>IHSOUS XRISTOS</g>]
</block>

This conjunction of the reference to <g>IHSOUS</g> who led into
the promised land and the man whose name is <g>A)NATOLH/</g> is
surely not coincidental. As we have seen, the latter passage is
from the Jewish scriptural Apocalypse of Zechariah, where it is
closely connected to, if not identified with, the name of
<g>IHSOUS</g> the high priest. That Justin was conscious of the
role of this Preistly <g>IHSOUS</g> will become clear from the
following passages in the Dialogue, in which Justin first refers
to Moses' successor (Dial 113.3, 115-120):

<block>
1) [Just as] that (<g>IHSOUS</g>), not Moses, conducted the
people into the holy land, and that (<g>IHSOUS</g>) apportioned
it to those who came in with him; so also <g>IHSOUS XRISTOS</g>
will reassemble the diaspora and will allot the good land to
each, but not in the same way! ...

2) [Just as] that (<g>IHSOUS</g>) stayed the sun ..., so
(<g>IHSOUS XRISTOS</g>) is he from whom [<g>A)F' OU(</g>] and
through whom the father is about to make both heaven and earth
new, he is the one who will shine in Jerusalem an everlasting
light, he is the King of Salem after the order of Melchizedek and
the eternal priest of the most high.

3) [Just as] that (<g>IHSOUS</g>) is said to have circumcised the
people a second circumcision with stony knives [so <g>IHSOUS
XRISTOS</g> by his words circumcised us from idols of stone,
etc.]. ...

And now I say that, just as by the name of <g>IHSOUS</g> (given)
to the son of Naue, certain miracles and mighty deeds were done
which heralded/proclaimed beforehand the things about to be done
by our Lord, so also I come now to show that the revelation
concerning the priest <g>IHSOUS</g> who was in Babylon among your
people was a proclaiming/heralding beforehand of the things about
to be done by our priest and God and <g>XRISTOS</g>, son of the
father of All.
</block>

In his subsequent interpretation of the vision in Zach 3,
Justin manages to confine himself to discussing the meaning of
such details as the filthy garments (the sins of believers which
<g>IHSOUS</g> removes) and the rebuke of Satan (signifying
<g>IHSOUS</g> victory on the cross). Unfortunately, Justin never
does get around to making specific comments on the
<g>A)NATOLH/</g> references, although elsewhere he lists this
among the titles of <g>IHSOUS XRISTOS</g> (Dial {??}), and there
is no doubt that he was well acquainted with those passages.

[Ben C. Smith]

Possibly some relevant notes.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/ ... ity/Joshua
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/ ... 0%28RAK%29

Thanks, Peter. I love that stuff.

The notion that the name Jesus itself is pregnant with exegetical and apocalyptic meaning, and not just the actual name of a Jewish craftsman-cum-messiah, always reminds me of the Christ hymn in Philippians, in which what seems to me to be the most natural reading makes Jesus the name above all names, bestowed upon him at his exaltation.

Still reading the links....

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

reminds me of the Christ hymn in Philippians, in which what seems to me to be the most natural reading makes Jesus the name above all names, bestowed upon him at his exaltation.

Glad that it's not just kooks like me and Robert Price that think so.

[Ben C. Smith]

reminds me of the Christ hymn in Philippians, in which what seems to me to be the most natural reading makes Jesus the name above all names, bestowed upon him at his exaltation.

Glad that it's not just kooks like me and Robert Price that think so.

I think I found it in Couchoud originally.

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

reminds me of the Christ hymn in Philippians, in which what seems to me to be the most natural reading makes Jesus the name above all names, bestowed upon him at his exaltation.

Glad that it's not just kooks like me and Robert Price that think so.

I think I found it in Couchoud originally.

Ben.

I'm sure it's been around a while. I need to revisit Couchoud sometime. Seems like the sort of thing that should be online.

[John2]

Ben,

You wrote:

"The notion that the name Jesus itself is pregnant with exegetical and apocalyptic meaning, and not just the actual name of a Jewish craftsman-cum-messiah, always reminds me of the Christ hymn in Philippians, in which what seems to me to be the most natural reading makes Jesus the name above all names, bestowed upon him at his exaltation."

Not to turn this into an Eisenman thread, but I consider the DSS as generally being relevant to Christian origins according to his theory, and as he notes in The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, "The use of the noun ‘Yesha’ or the verbal noun ‘Yeshu’ ato’ (‘His Salvation’) is fairly widespread at Qumran."

For me, factoring in the DSS (even if they aren't directly tied to Christianity) is like looking at Christianity through the front end of the telescope instead of the back.

One of the uses of "yesha" or "yeshua" that comes to mind regarding the issue of the meaning of "Jesus" is at the end of the opening exhortation of the Damascus Document that says, "God will forgive them and they shall see His salvation [yeshua] because they took refuge in His holy Name."

That this is said by a pro-Law messianic sect that called itself "the way" and "the poor" ("ebionim") and that practiced
"the New Covenant" in a place called "Damascus" makes me consider the possibility that this concept and expectation of salvation (yesha/yeshua) could have something to do with "Jesus," especially given that this "yeshua" is something that they expected to "see."

Another thing that comes to mind in this light is a reference to the Messiah in 2:12:

R.H. Charles:

"And through His Messiah He shall make them know His holy spirit. And he is true, and in the true interpretation of his name are their names."

Schechter:

"And through His Anointed He made them know His Holy Spirit, and he is true, and the explanation of their names."

[Ben C. Smith]

For me, factoring in the DSS (even if they aren't directly tied to Christianity) is like looking at Christianity through the front end of the telescope instead of the back.

I have often had the same feeling. In this particular case, there may still be some smudges on the lens, since things are still not entirely clear, but yes, overall, I agree that the Dead Sea scrolls ought to be factored in as heavily as they themselves allow. (You may have noticed that my OP drew on a handful of them.) The Dead Sea scrolls make my short mental list of things that scholarship has to account for and get right if any theories on Christian origins are going to persuade me in the long run.

Your quotes are very interesting in this light. Much food for thought. Thank you.

Ben.