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

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

Seems like it should be, but some searches today have produced no more than excerpts, with the exception of some scans of the opening pages of The Creation of Christ by our own Neil Godfrey: http://vridar.org/2011/12/15/earl-doher ... -of-christ. My searching has not been exhaustive, though, so who knows?

Ben.

PS: I appreciate you not minding that I failed to stand up and protest loudly at the suggestion that you and Robert Price are kooks.

[Peter Kirby]

PS: I appreciate you not minding that I failed to stand up and protest loudly at the suggestion that your and Robert Price are kooks.

Honestly, Price is too loosey-goosey for me. I can't abide his willingness to wallow in the contradictions. I need to sort it out, find what seems the best.

[Ben C. Smith]

PS: I appreciate you not minding that I failed to stand up and protest loudly at the suggestion that your and Robert Price are kooks.

Honestly, Price is too loosey-goosey for me. I can't abide his willingness to wallow in the contradictions. I need to sort it out, find what seems the best.

I think I am a contradiction sometimes. I like to, as you phrase it, wallow in the contradictions sometimes, but at other times I would much rather have it sorted out. Price is one of my favorite scholars to read, probably especially during those times when I am, as you phrase it, wallowing.

Ben.

[ficino]

It seems to me that Hebrews conflicts with what is said about the Torah in Matthew 5, but perhaps not - there are different views on what "fulfill the law" means. Anyway, the writer of Hebrews insists that the sacrificial system and priesthood set up in Exodus was 1) temporary, now superseded by a different priesthood (order of Melchizedek), and 2) was only a shadow anyway. As I understand this exposition, it conflicts with the words put in Jesus' mouth in Matt. 5, where he says he has come, not to abolish/undermine the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them, and that, until heaven and earth pass away, not a jot or tittle can be taken away from the law, until all "shall be accomplished" (γενήσεται). As he goes on to stress inward holiness as the kernel of the law's demands, it doesn't seem as though "all shall be accomplished" refers to the crucifixion (as the author of Hebrews might have it) but to the end of the world.

Anyway, a thought: could Hebrews predate the gospels and perhaps the Revolt, while Matthew, perhaps written after the Revolt, offers a corrective to the view of the law of Moses that found expression in Hebrews?

Maybe I'm wrong and all the author of Hebrews wants to downgrade are sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood. But those parts of the law as explicated in Exodus and Deuteronomy seem to be folded into the law as Jesus speaks about it globally in Matt. 5.

[Ben C. Smith]

It turns out that Doherty is aware of the scriptural traditions linked by the verb ανατελλω and the related noun ανατολη. He does not discuss these words, or their attendant scripture references, in any of his pages on the epistle to the Hebrews; rather, he discusses them on his page about Christ as man. Weirdly, even with the whole line of messianically interpreted Davidic and Judahite passages set squarely in his sights, Doherty insists that the main thing is that Christ be of a different line than the Levites; he still does not seem to recognize that our author specifically derived a messianically Judahite lineage from scripture. The boldfacing below is mine (italics are his):

We might cast a comparative glance at Hebrews 7:14, which is another passage that speaks of Christ’s ‘racial’ lineage and which points toward scripture as the source:

For it is very evident (prodēlon) that our Lord is sprung (anatetalken) from Judah, a tribe to which Moses made no reference in speaking of priests.

First of all, this statement is made in the midst of a theological argument, not a recounting of historical facts. The whole tenor of Hebrews is one of presenting Christ as a new High Priest, one who supplants the old cultic system which was run by the priestly class of the tribe of Aaron, the Levites. The writer finds Christ’s “archetype” in Melchizedek, who was also not a member of the Levites (what tribe he may have been is never stated). The point is, Christ must be of a new line in order to create a new order of priesthood.

And where does the writer find confirmation that the new High Priest is indeed of a different line than the Levites? How does he support this very necessary claim that Christ is “sprung from Judah”? Well, there is not a word spent in appealing to historical facts or apostolic traditions concerning Jesus of Nazareth, no reference to Mary or Joseph, no mention of his lineage as recounted in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The word “prodēlon” means “clear, manifest” to the senses or to judgment (compare 1 Timothy 5:24, 25); it does not mean “a matter of historical record.” It fits the sense of “clear to someone who knows the scriptures,” which in itself fits the thought world of the entire epistle.

The verb “anatellein,” to spring (by birth), is also the language of scripture. It is used in several messianic passages, such as Ezekiel 29:21 (“a horn shall spring forth”), and Zechariah 6:12. Hebrews pointedly never says that Jesus is a descendent or “son” of David; the latter is a figure the epistle shows no interest in. The author simply needs scriptural support for the concept of a priest arising from a tribe which has never “had anything to do with” the old cult (7:13), a priest who can establish a new law to supplant the impotent old one, and a new hope (7:18 and 19). And to confirm Jesus’ role as High Priest, the writer turns to nothing in history, he draws on no deed or saying from the story of Jesus’ life, but delves instead (7:17) into the timeless pages of scripture: “Thou art a priest forever, in the succession of Melchizedek.” This line from the all-important Psalm 110 he takes as God’s word to Jesus.

Buchanan, in his Anchor Bible Commentary (Hebrews, p.124) notes that "In none of the Old Testament usages of the verb anatellein (spring from) was it employed to mean a "descendant" of a certain tribe or family." We might also note that “is sprung from” is in the perfect tense in the Greek, not a past-tense aorist, such as we might have expected had the writer meant: “Jesus of Nazareth was sprung from Judah.” Instead, he uses the perfect “has sprung” which fits the mythical outlook: such things have happened, but they are also eternal and timeless, just as scripture, the timeless word of God, continues to inform us of these spiritual events. Buchanan, in his Anchor Bible Commentary (Hebrews, p.253) admits that “the author may not have received the information from local tradition at all . . . (but) from his use of scripture.” Scripture: God’s ‘window’ onto the higher spiritual world and its counterparts to earthly things.

The quote from Buchanan is technically true, inasmuch as no OT passage to my knowledge uses ανατελλω or ανατολη to assert, precisely, that Christ is supposed to spring up from Judah in the same direct way that Hebrews 7.14 does. But that does not in any way temper the naked, incontrovertible fact that there were intense messianic expectations centered on the line of David and the tribe of Judah because of those and other OT passages (refer back to those quotes from Qumran, for example).

Also a bit weird is that parenthetical remark of his that Genesis never states what tribe Melchizedek may have been from. Why the tribe that Melchizedek may have been from should ever even surface as a question or issue is a puzzle to me, as Melchizedek is portrayed as a contemporary of Abraham, a full 3 generations before the tribal namesakes were even born. Maybe Doherty means something else by the remark than what I am getting from it.

At any rate, I thought I ought to share this information so as to make certain his views are not being misrepresented.

Ben.

[ficino]

Also a bit weird is that parenthetical remark of his that Genesis never states what tribe Melchizedek may have been from. Why the tribe that Melchizedek may have been from should ever even surface as a question or issue is a puzzle to me, as Melchizedek is portrayed as a contemporary of Abraham, a full 3 generations before the tribal namesakes were even born. Maybe Doherty means something else by the remark than what I am getting from it.

Yes, by definition, as it were, Melchizedek was not a Hebrew. He was not of the seed of Abraham.

Whether this matters for Jesus as real priest, of which the Levitical priests were shadows, I cannot say.

[Ben C. Smith]

It seems to me that Hebrews conflicts with what is said about the Torah in Matthew 5, but perhaps not - there are different views on what "fulfill the law" means. Anyway, the writer of Hebrews insists that the sacrificial system and priesthood set up in Exodus was 1) temporary, now superseded by a different priesthood (order of Melchizedek), and 2) was only a shadow anyway. As I understand this exposition, it conflicts with the words put in Jesus' mouth in Matt. 5, where he says he has come, not to abolish/undermine the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them, and that, until heaven and earth pass away, not a jot or tittle can be taken away from the law, until all "shall be accomplished" (γενήσεται). As he goes on to stress inward holiness as the kernel of the law's demands, it doesn't seem as though "all shall be accomplished" refers to the crucifixion (as the author of Hebrews might have it) but to the end of the world.

For whatever it may be worth, the Christian traditions that come across as law-affirming always tend to sound and feel to me like traditions from Palestine and Syria, while those that come across as law-abrogating always tend to sound and feel to me like traditions from the Diaspora (Rome, Greece, Egypt, and so on). Not sure how accurate that sense of mine is.

Ben.