Wisdom tradition in the letters of Paul

[Ben C. Smith]

The notion of a priestly Messiah in the middle of the 1st century AD is rather weak and unlikely to be known by the earliest Christians and Philo.

But it was known to the author of Hebrews?

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

But it was known to the author of Hebrews?

I do not think so. Most likely inspired by Philo (from http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html)
>> h) "Who then is the chief butler of God? The priest who offers libations to him, the truly great high priest, who, having received a draught of everlasting graces, offers himself in return, pouring in an entire libation full of unmixed wine" (On dreams II, ch. XXVII)

i) "For there are, as it seems, two temples belonging to God; one being this world [heaven], in which the high priest is the divine word, his own firstborn son."(On Dreams I, ch. XXXVII)

j) "For we say the high priest is not a man, but is the word of God ..." (On flight and finding, ch. XX) <<

Also through Melchizedek (Heb 5:6-10). The author of Hebrews quoted the OT to make his points but also added "First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.”" (7:2).
"king of peace" for Melchizedek is not in the OT but it is in Philo's 'Allegorical Interpretation III': "Moreover, God made Melchizedek, the king of peace, that is of Salem, ..."
I do not think there is any other ancient text prior to the 2nd century AD which says that.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

But it was known to the author of Hebrews?

I do not think so. Most likely inspired by Philo (from http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html)
>> h) "Who then is the chief butler of God? The priest who offers libations to him, the truly great high priest, who, having received a draught of everlasting graces, offers himself in return, pouring in an entire libation full of unmixed wine" (On dreams II, ch. XXVII)

Was Philo, then, influenced by Qumran or any of the other texts speaking of a priestly eschatological figure? (Or vice versa?) Or did they independently come to similar conclusions?

Also through Melchizedek, (Heb 5:6-10). The author of Hebrews quotes the OT to make his points but also added "First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.”" (7:2).
"king of peace" for Melchizedek is not in the OT but it is in Philo's 'Allegorical Interpretation III': "Moreover, God made Melchizedek, the king of peace, that is of Salem, ..."
I do not think there is any other ancient text prior to the 2nd century AD which says that.

While such a connection is plausible (I have nothing in particular against the author of Hebrews drawing from Philo), it is hardly necessary. "Salem" in unvocalized Hebrew is שלם, which is easy to connect to "shalom" (= peace). In fact, that may actually be the correct etymology, though it works just as well as a folk etymology. 11Q13 (11QMelchizedek) may well be playing off this same assumed connection when it links Melchizedek to Isaiah 52.7, the connecting concept being the announcement of peace. Also, the template for "king of peace" already existed in Isaiah 9.6: "prince of peace."

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Was Philo, then, influenced by Qumran or any of the other texts speaking of a priestly eschatological figure? (Or vice versa?) Or did they independently come to similar conclusions?

I do not see why Philo would be interested in sectarian texts. He worked mostly from the Pentateuch, with few references from prophetic writings.
Other texts speaking of a priestly eschatological figure are very few or likely to have been written after 'Hebrews', as I discussed before in this thread.

While such a connection is plausible (I have nothing in particular against the author of Hebrews drawing from Philo), it is hardly necessary. "Salem" in unvocalized Hebrew is שלם, which is easy to connect to "shalom" (= peace). In fact, that may actually be the correct etymology, though it works just as well as a folk etymology. 11Q13 (11QMelchizedek) may well be playing off this same assumed connection when it links Melchizedek to Isaiah 52.7, the connecting concept being the announcement of peace. Also, the template for "king of peace" already existed in Isaiah 9.6: "prince of peace."

It seems to me you are providing a far-fetched convoluted counter-explanation, more so that this author was more likely working from the LXX, rather than from the Hebrew scriptures. It is a lot simpler to deduct that the author of Hebrews drew "king of peace" from Philo's text, as he did for many other notions.
I have to add up that Melchizedek king of peace to my list as my 11th point.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

Was Philo, then, influenced by Qumran or any of the other texts speaking of a priestly eschatological figure? (Or vice versa?) Or did they independently come to similar conclusions?

I do not see why Philo would be interested in sectarian texts. He worked mostly from the Pentateuch, with few references from prophetic writings.
Other texts speaking of a priestly eschatological figure are very few or likely to have been written after 'Hebrews', as I discussed before in this thread.

Few though they may be, since both Qumran and Philo independently (in your view) came up with a priestly messiah, it must not have been a very difficult concept to come up with. I have no further argument from that point; it is just one I want to put out there. Sometimes things can be independently derived very easily given certain texts and conditions, and I think a priestly messiah is one of those.

While such a connection is plausible (I have nothing in particular against the author of Hebrews drawing from Philo), it is hardly necessary. "Salem" in unvocalized Hebrew is שלם, which is easy to connect to "shalom" (= peace). In fact, that may actually be the correct etymology, though it works just as well as a folk etymology. 11Q13 (11QMelchizedek) may well be playing off this same assumed connection when it links Melchizedek to Isaiah 52.7, the connecting concept being the announcement of peace. Also, the template for "king of peace" already existed in Isaiah 9.6: "prince of peace."

It seems to me you are providing a far-fetched convoluted counter-explanation....

What you call farfetched and what is actually farfetched can at times be two very different things. In this case... really?? I mean, really?? It is farfetched to independently get "king of peace" from "king of Salem" when שלם shares the same major consonants as "shalom" and can actually mean "peaceful" in Hebrew? Here, take a look at Psalm 76.2 (75.3 LXX), which reads in the Masoretic: "And His tabernacle is in Salem; His dwelling place also is in Zion." But what do you think the Septuagint has? "And his place has been in peace, and his dwelling-place in Sion."

...more so that this author was more likely working from the LXX....

If this author was the only ancient Jew besides Philo, you may have a point. But do you know what? There were lots and lots of Jews, many of them with knowledge of Hebrew. And interpretations got about. I bet that you, Bernard, already knew that "shalom" means "peace" in Hebrew; you must have studied for years at an accredited language academy to get that kind of detailed knowledge of the language, right? You do not have to know a language to know the meanings of isolated words from that language, especially when the topic is of interest to you.

Again, I have nothing against the author of Hebrews drawing on Philo, and nothing even against Philo being the one from whom our author got this tidbit of information. I am just saying, if it turned out otherwise, nobody ought to be surprised.

I have to add up that Melchizedek king of peace to my list as my 11th point.

Yes, you should. It does belong there. I am not trying to take it away or nullify it as a parallel.

Ben.

[Michael BG]

to Michael BG,

It might be your opinion that Ps 110 is talking about only a warrior Messiah. Christians saw in verse 1 Jesus Christ in heaven sitting beside God. Verse 4 has a priestly Messiah. Therefore it seems likely that Christians including Paul would see their Messiah – Jesus Christ born from the womb of God. It seems to me that Christians often took parts of an Old Testament verse and applied it to Jesus and ignored the bits they didn’t want to apply.

It is not my opinion. This is what "my Lord" was supposed to be (a warrior Messiah). And Paul never saw Jesus as a priest in heaven or earth or a warrior Messiah.
So God has a womb?

We can see how Christians saw Ps 110:1 from Acts 2:34-36

[34] For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, `The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,
[35] till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.'
[36] Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

RSV
Here Peter clearly sees David speaking to the Messiah and this Messiah is Jesus Christ. Therefore Luke and his Christian community did not interpret Ps 110:1 as you do.

Also the author of Hebrews applies this to Jesus Christ – Heb 1:13

[13] But to what angel has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand,
till I make thy enemies
a stool for thy feet"?

which implies he said it to Jesus Christ.

I didn’t say that Paul saw Jesus as a priest. I am saying that there was a tradition for seeing a priestly Messiah and I am sure I will come back to Ps 110:4b again.

I provided two different translations of Septuaginta 109:3 (http://www.christopherklitou.com/old_te ... 01-125.htm)

With thee is dominion in the day of thy power, in the splendours of thy saints: I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning.

Aquila H Lee

With you [will] the dominion [rest] on the day of your power
In the radiance [or brightness] of the saints
from the womb I have begotten you before the morning star.

p 112
If you think these translations are wrong please state how you would translate the Greek. God is clearly talking it is implied that he has given birth from his womb!

You are referring to Lee's possibility of early Christians cutting & pasting Ps 110:1, 2, 89:27 & Prov 8:22-23 (with no "firstborn"), and ignoring the other verses of these psalms, which is rather far-fetched. (for "honest" literate Christians, who also would have to peruse a lot of material in order to extract tidbits out of context and patch them together. BTW, I don't take Paul & the author of Hebrews as "honest")
Paul had only to know about Heb 1:1-6 to get all that (Son of God, firstborn of God before the Creation), and more, such as implementer of the Creation, purging sins, in the image of God.

I am surprised you are not aware that Christians did “pick and mix” verses (or parts of verses) out of context and applied them to Jesus.

We know that Paul would know the Old Testament and so could apply Old Testament verses to Jesus, we don’t know that he knew Hebrews. Also if Hebrews was written by Apollos a case can be made out that Paul would not be influenced by him. Firstly because as you have said when discussing 1 Cor 15:3-11 Paul got his message from God and not humans. Secondly Apollos and Paul were rivals – 1 Cor 1:12, 3:6 Paul planted but Apollos only watered, and 16:12 implies that the Corinthians thought Paul was discouraging Apollos from visiting them.

Priestly; Suffering servant

The suffering Messiah of Isaiah was not considered as a Messiah. I do not know where you got your priestly Messiah.

A priestly Messiah in Ps 110:4b

The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind,
"You are a priest for ever
after the order of Melchiz'edek."

I am sure you are aware that the author of Hebrews applies the priesthood of Melchiz'edek to Jesus Christ.

I wonder if Jews saw a priestly Messiah in chapter 3 of Zechariah

[6]And the angel of the LORD enjoined Joshua,
[7] "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my charge, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, …
[8] Hear now, O Joshua the high priest …

And maybe chapter 4

[12] And a second time I said to him, "What are these two branches of the olive trees, which are beside the two golden pipes from which the oil is poured out?"
[13] He said to me, "Do you not know what these are?" I said, "No, my lord."
[14] Then he said, "These are the two anointed who stand by the Lord of the whole earth."

This could be seen as two Messiahs and some modern Christians see these two Messiahs as one priestly and one kingly!

This means - Christians are known to God who has predestined them to become the image of his Son that the Son became the first-born among the brethren (Christians in heaven).
Jesus as the Son is the firstborn of the brethren (Christians in heaven) not God.

NOT firstborn of the brethren, but firstborn among many brethren. Furthermore Paul avoided to use a word alluding to Jesus' origin as a human birth. Instead he used made/came/became (ginomai) of a woman or David's descendance. So "firstborn" has to allude to his creation before times.

“Brethren” is a term Paul used for believers in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the firstborn “among many brethren” – so Paul sees Jesus as part of the believers and he sees many of them in heaven, I don’t see this as negating the idea that Jesus is the first of the resurrected in heaven. The verse talks of these brethren becoming the same image as Jesus, so the believers will become heavenly beings as is Jesus. You have read your own interpretation of “firstborn” which is not in the text.

The parable refers back to Isaiah 5:1-2, so you could get the idea that the vineyard is Jerusalem (Is 5:3) but it is just as likely to be Israel and Judah

Yes the parable is not clear about what is the vineyard. But we know Jerusalem was destroyed as also its temple, and also many of its inhabitants. But "He will come and destroy the tenants, and give the vineyard to others." most likely refers to the chief priests & scribes & elders to be replaced by Christian presbyters, not Jews from Palestine replaced by Christians. Because, in gMark, the ones you dislike the parable are "the chief priests and the scribes and the elders" (11:27) "for they perceived that he had told the parable against them." (12:12)
And the chief priests are very much involved in having Jesus executed.

“For they perceived that he had told the parable against them.” Is clearly editorial work and might not be part of the original parable. The parable when it reached Mark may have been about the Jews being replaced by Christians as the people of God. The Isaiah context is the punishment of Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem.

If “and give the vineyard to others” (12:9c) was not there then it could be a parable in the Wisdom tradition where Jerusalem kills the prophets - Mt 23:37-38 Lk 13:34-35a

[37]"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not![38] Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate.

[Ben C. Smith]

Furthermore Paul avoided to use a word alluding to Jesus' origin as a human birth. Instead he used made/came/became (ginomai) of a woman or David's descendants.

Doherty made that same mistake. In truth, both γεννάω and γί(γ)νομαι were used of ordinary births from human women. Here are a couple of examples of the latter in Josephus:

Josephus, Antiquities 1.12.2 §214: For Ishmael, the founder of their nation, who was born [γενόμενος] to Abraham from the concubine, was circumcised at that age.

Josephus, Antiquities 16.11.5 §382: "Will you slay these two young men, born [γενομένους] of a queenly woman, who are accomplished with every virtue in the highest degree, and leave yourself destitute in your old age, but exposed to one son who has very ill managed the hopes you have given him, and to relations whose death you have so often resolved on yourself?"

The exact word for "born" was not not all that important in such expressions; sometimes the word was "produced" or some other synonym. What mattered is that it was a human female who was doing the birthing, the producing, or the making or what have you.

One may well imagine ancient scribes and theologians changing "made" into "born" just to be as clear as possible in closely contested doctrinal disputes, but in practice ancient authors do not seem to have necessarily preferred one or the other for the simple purpose of denoting a human birth.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Doherty made that same mistake. In truth, both γεννάω and γί(γ)νομαι were used of ordinary births from human women. Here are a couple of examples of the latter in Josephus:

I am aware of that. This is why I wrote long ago in http://historical-jesus.info/djp2.html

However, the same Greek word is occasionally (& justifiably) translated as "born":
- Plato's Republic, 8.553 "... When a son born ['genomenos' (root 'ginomai')] to the timocratic man at first emulates his father ..." (Paul Shorey's translation)
- Josephus' Ant., I, 19, 8 "... and when she [Lea] had born ['genomenou' (root 'ginomai')] a son, and her husband ... reconciled to her, she named her son Reubel ..." (Wm. Whiston's translation)
- Josephus' Ant., VII, 7, 4 "... the child that was born ['genomenw' (root 'ginomai')] to David of the wife of Uriah ..." (Wm. Whiston's translation)
- Pausanias' Description of Greece, 1.5.2 "... Antiochus, one of the children of Heracles borne ['genomenos' (root 'ginomai')] to him by Meda daughter of Phylas ..." (W.H.S. Jones & H.A. Ormerod's translation)

However, the core meaning of 'ginomai' is "become" and does not point to the process of birthing from a woman (therefore coming into existence for the first time). As in my first example, a son is born to a man, with no woman mentioned.
But I suppose "born" is more elegant than "made", or "generated" or "came" or "became". That's why translators use "born" for 'ginomai' when it is not misleading.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Furthermore Paul avoided to use a word alluding to Jesus' origin as a human birth. Instead he used made/came/became (ginomai) of a woman or David's descendants.

Doherty made that same mistake. In truth, both γεννάω and γί(γ)νομαι were used of ordinary births from human women. Here are a couple of examples of the latter in Josephus:

I am aware of that. This is why I wrote long ago in http://historical-jesus.info/djp2.html

Then I do not understand your point. Paul avoided using a word alluding to Jesus' human birth, but he had no problem using a phrase alluding to Jesus' human birth?

However, the core meaning of 'ginomai' is "become" and does not point to the process of birthing from a woman (therefore coming into existence for the first time)....

The word by itself does not point to birth from a woman, true.

As in my first example, a son is born to a man, with no woman mentioned.

Sure. But, in my quotation of you above, you did mention the woman, and that is what I was responding to: "Paul avoided to use a word alluding to Jesus' origin as a human birth. Instead he used made/came/became (ginomai) of a woman...." This makes it sound as if this particular verb is less fit to signify a human birth in such an expression, which is not true. The verb γίγνομαι is less fit on its own, but in an expression involving origin from a woman it performs the exactly the same function as γεννάω.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Then I do not understand your point. Paul avoided using a word alluding to Jesus' human birth, but he had no problem using a phrase alluding to Jesus' human birth?

In order to make his point after a long argument (http://historical-jesus.info/18.html), Paul had to allude to a woman "fleshing" Jesus for his human phase, but avoided to suggest Jesus started his life then (at human birth), as for any other babies. Christ was really "born" long before that, according to Paul.
Paul used also 'ginomai' for "the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3 RSV)
By 'ginomai', Paul was pointing to human descendance for the fleshy phase of the Son, but not his coming to life by birthing from a woman.

Cordially, Bernard