About the only historicist interpolation in Paul

[Giuseppe]

Three is an apparent contradiction, here. If Jesus descended from Judah "according to flesh", how could he be a priest in the manner of Melkizedek, i.e.:

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever

(Hebrews 7:3)

Hence Jesus "descended from Judah" (or from David, for that matter) not in an expected manner (by having a human father or mother and being complete of a - possibly davidic - human genealogy).

[Giuseppe]

In addition to my point above (already sufficient per se to fix the point), the great scholar Earl Doherty does another optimal point:

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 imployed 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.
(my bold)

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/supp08.htm

[GakuseiDon]

Three is an apparent contradiction, here. If Jesus descended from Judah "according to flesh", how could he be a priest in the manner of Melkizedek, i.e.:

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever

(Hebrews 7:3)

Isn't that one of the purposes of Hebrews 7 in general? I.e. to explain about how someone who sprang from the tribe of Judah can be a high-priest?

Hebrew 7:

[5] And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood...
...
[12] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
[13] For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
[14] For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
[15] And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
[16] Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
[17] For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

The author notes the problem of Jesus belonging to another tribe "of which Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood", and explains that Jesus has become a priest after the order of Melchisedek. The problem can only exist if the author believed that Jesus really was a descendent of the line of Judah. (Whether the author got that information from tradition or scriptures is irrelevant.)

[Giuseppe]

GDon writes:

The author notes the problem of Jesus belonging to another tribe "of which Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood"

why is it (or has to be) considered as a "problem"? My strong feeling is that the author wants that Moses didn't talk about priests coming from Judah (but only from Levi), since the goal of the author is to show the revolution of the Law introduced by Jesus. In opposition to Moses and the old system. Obviously, not because he hated the god of Moses: afterall, he is not Marcion.

He is searching for a surprising new priest. He desires that this high priest is to be different in toto from all the others. Hence the comparison with Melchizedek. If Moses had said A, then he would have said B only to distance Jesus from the old portrait of a priest.

[toejam]

^It's not a problem for the author (whom we agree is not Paul) but he is an apologist, and as such is likely trying to imaginatively rationalize his belief against criticism - in this instance perhaps against criticm that priests should have been Levites. The author understands Jesus to have been from the tribe of Judah, and thus goes about his apologetics to quiet such criticism. Yes, he is proud of this (believed) fact that Jesus was a Judahite and not a Levite. Not at all embarrassed. But in expressing it he still tips his hat to us that he understood Jesus to have been here on Earth.

[Giuseppe]

^It's not a problem for the author (whom we agree is not Paul) but he is an apologist,

The apologist is by definition one who faces problems, by harmonizing difficulties etc.
Hence I don't realize that for the author of Hebrews it is a problem the contradiction between a Jesus-Melkizedek and a Jesus coming from the tribe of Judah. It is possible that he is adoptionist, since he writes:

but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe

(1 Hebrews 1:2)

Why is Jesus "appointed heir" if he is already the legitimate Son of God existing already at the creation?

A possibility is that Jesus was "appointed heir" in virtue of the death of Jesus, happened just when, by the his death itself, "he made the universe". In this case the death of Jesus happened before the creation of the world. It was a generative act, just as the action of Mithras against the Bull.

Another possibility is that only the body of Jesus is a Jew ("coming from the tribe of Judah"). Jesus is only the temporary possessor of this body only for the short interval of the his passion on the cross. The body was adopted. Since Jesus (without that body) was already the Son of God.

[Giuseppe]

Unfortunately, I don't find where Bernard quotes Doherty from:

"Melchizedek was traditionally seen as part of pre-Abrahamic (thus Canaanite) dynasty of priest kings, a line that continued through David when he conquered Jerusalem, and thus Melchizedek's line became associated with the tribe of Judah."
...
"The scriptural Melchizedek has provided this new High Priest [Jesus] with a tribe, that of Judah
...
Beside, if a Melchizedek in Heaven could be identified with the tribe of Judah, there seems little reason to deny that convenience to the High Priest Jesus

http://historical-jesus.info/40.html


In addition:

Hebrews 2:9 :

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man

The Jewishness of Jesus is read in the scripture.

Psalm 8:5:

Yet You have made him a little lower than God

Another version reads:

You have made them a little lower than the angels

The Jewish humanity is meant, here. Not all the humanity.

Hence, Jesus had to come from the tribe of Judah.

[GakuseiDon]

Unfortunately, I don't find where Bernard quotes Doherty from:

"Melchizedek was traditionally seen as part of pre-Abrahamic (thus Canaanite) dynasty of priest kings, a line that continued through David when he conquered Jerusalem, and thus Melchizedek's line became associated with the tribe of Judah."
...
"The scriptural Melchizedek has provided this new High Priest [Jesus] with a tribe, that of Judah
...
Beside, if a Melchizedek in Heaven could be identified with the tribe of Judah, there seems little reason to deny that convenience to the High Priest Jesus

http://historical-jesus.info/40.html

The quotes come from Earl Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", pages 229-230. I've reproduced the context of the quotes in full below:

Melchizedek was traditionally seen as part of a pre-Abrahamic (thus Canaanite) dynasty of priest-kings, a line that continued through David when he conquered Jerusalem, and thus Melchizedek's line became associated with the tribe of Judah. Prior to chapter 7, the writer of Hebrews three times (5:6, 10 and 20) identifies Jesus as High Priest "in the succession of Melchizedek," and he was such a priest "forever" (5:6 and 20). The latter concept has been derived from Psalm 110, originally addressed to a Hebrew king of the Davidic line, in which verse 4 says:

The Lord has sworn and will not change his purpose:
"You are a priest forever in the succession of Melchizedek."

Jewish thought took this as a reference to the coming Messiah who would reign forever, but the writer of Hebrews has refined this to refer to Jesus as Son and High Priest in Heaven who would serve as a priest forever. The scriptural Melchizedek has provided this new High Priest with a tribe—that of Judah—and a figure who has established a priestly line distinct from that of Aaron, one from whom Jesus can be derived.

And so Hebrews 7:14 says:

For it is evident that our Lord has arisen out of Judah...

While Melchizedek in the Hebrew bible is essentially an historical earthly figure, he was not so by the turn of the era. In the llQMelch scroll from Qumran, he had come to be regarded as a messianic and possibly angelic figure. Attridge notes (op.cit., p.52) that "Other Jewish speculation on angels and particularly on the figures of Michael and Melchizedek attributes to them a priestly function in the heavenly sanctuary." He further notes (p. 193) the status of Melchizedek as a heavenly being in 2 Enoch, probably to be dated a little before Christianity. Thus, Melchizedek could serve as an ideal forerunner of a priestly line locatable in Heaven, with which the new heavenly High Priest Jesus could be associated. Psalm 110:4 could now be read in a heavenly setting, God speaking to the Son and designating him as High Priest in the heavenly Melchizedek's order.

As for being of the "tribe of Judah" in some heavenly fashion, it is not necessary to repeat past observations about relationships between heavenly and earthly figures/groups that are interpreted in mystical fashion; such linkages are regularly made. Nor need we postulate heavenly tribes of Judah walking about the streets of heaven—although even that thought might be encompassed by 12:23 in which "firstborn citizens of heaven" are assembled alongside the angels in the vision of the heavenly Jerusalem. And within the Jewish concept of heavenly prototypes and prefiguring elements there may well have been room for some kind of heavenly prefiguring of the twelve tribes of Israel. Besides, if a Melchizedek in Heaven could be identified with the tribe of Judah, there seems little reason to deny that convenience to the High Priest Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

Thanks, GDon.

Three is more explicit evidence for the connection Melkizedek/Judah?

...and thus Melchizedek's line became associated with the tribe of Judah

If found, it would fix definitely the Doherty's point on Hebrews.