On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by MrMacSon »

Excerpts from David Runia's 1993 book, Philo in Early Christian Literature.

.
Chapter Four

Philo and the New Testament

... 3. The Epistle to the Hebrews

The New Testament book that shows the most affinity to Philonic thought is unquestionably the Epistle to the Hebrews ...

Hurst (1990) concludes that there seems to be a special affinity between Hebrews and the kind of OT exegesis found in Acts 7 (this again seems to have some affinities with what we find in Philo...).

We shall briefly list and comment on the main linguistic, hermeneutical and thematic connections that exist between the two thinkers.
  1. Language. A large number of terms and phrases in Hebrews, not all of which are derived from the LXX, belong to the characteristic vocabulary of Philo. Some of the more striking examples are: άθλησις, αίσθητήριον, αϊτοις, σωτηρίας, άμήτωρ, άπαύγασμα, γνόφος, δημιουργίς, δυσερμήνευτος, ίκετηρία, Αευιτικός, μετριοπαθέω, πανήγυρις, σκιά, τύπος, ύπόδειγμα, χαρακτήρ. Surely an impressive list, but more important than words are the uses to which they are put.
    .
  2. Biblical interpretation. A striking feature of Hebrews is the manner in which the author relates theological argument to scriptural interpretation of the LXX. The concentration on the Pentateuch is noteworthy --nearly half the direct quotations of the OT and more than half the allusions refer to it-- though Philo’s virtual exclusiveness is not taken over. More specifically the use of four texts -- Gen. 2:2, Ex. 25:40, Jos 15, Prov. 3:11-12 -- is so close to Philo that coincidence must be ruled out.69 The author distinguishes between elementary and deeper knowledge (symbolized by the Pauline ‘milk’ and ‘solid food’, cf. 5: 1 l-6:1), claiming that he will initiate his readers into the deeper meaning of Scripture. But, it is vital to note, this deeper knowledge is not allegory of the Philonic sort, but rather what is generally called ‘typology’. Melchizedek, Moses, the tabernacle, the wanderings of Israel are ‘types’ or foreshadowings or prefigurations of what was to happen and what will happen to Christ and his people.
    • 69 note especially the text at 13:5b, a composite text derived from Jos. 15, Deut. 31:8 and possibly Gen. 28:15, which is cited in exactly the same form as by Philo in Conf. 166; cf. Williamson (1970) 570ff.
  3. Important Themes. Only the most significant of the themes common to Philo and Hebrews can be listed
    1. The Logos. The description of the Son at Hebr. 1:2-3 as κληρονόμον, πάντων, δι οΰ και έποίησεν [ό θεός] τούς αίώνας ός ών άπαύγασμα τής δόςης και χαρακτήρ τής ύποστάσεως/αύτοΰ presupposes a Logos theology which is somewhat less developed than Philo’s, closer to what we find in the Wisdom of Solomon. Best known is the text that the Logos is ζών και ένεργής καί τομώτερος ύπέρ πάσαν μάχαιραν δίστομν καί διϊκνούμενος άχρι μερισμού ψυχής καί πνεύματος (4:12), ‘For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit.’ This cannot fail to remind us of Philo’s Logos-cutter (λόγος τομεύς) though the context differs, being neither cosmological nor anthropological in the theoretical sense, but rather the laying open of the human heart.
      .
    2. Priesthood and cult. Central to the entire argument of Hebrews is the notion of Christ as faithful and merciful high-priest (3:1-5:10), a high-priest after the order of Melchizedek, who is holy and exalted, and unlike human priests is made perfect forever (6:20-7:28).74 Human priests serve in a tabernacle that is a shadow (σκιά) and copy (ύπόδειγμα) of the heavenly tabernacle (σκηνή) as indicated by the divine instruction to Moses recorded in Ex. 25:40 (8:1-6). One compares the frequent texts in which the high-priest is identified with the divine Logos (e.g. Migr. 102, Fug. 108ff.).
      .
    3. Dualism. The comparison of the earthly and the heavenly tabernacle is couched in terms that, on the surface at least, are undeniably drawn from the coalescence of biblical and Platonist language such as we find in Philo. In addition to 8:5 just cited, we note also 9:24, where Christ the high-priest enters ‘not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one (άντίτυπα τών αληθινών) but into heaven itself.’ A particularly interesting example of dualism is Hebrew’s description of Abraham’s sojourning in search of a heavenly fatherland, the city with foundations that have God as ‘craftsman and maker’ (τεχνίτης καί δημιουργός) (11:10). But for the author there are not only two worlds, but also two ages and two covenants. History, which is to be equated with the history of salvation, is important to him in a way that is not the case for Philo. His dualism, as numerous scholars have emphasized, is eschatological rather than ontological. For this reason too, there is rather surprisingly perhaps, no allegorization in Hebrews, but rather a consistent adherence to typological interpretation.
      • Eccles (1968) 224f.: ‘Heilsgeschichte dominates the argument of Hebrews. Christ is not the Mystagogue who, like the Moses of Philo, leads the individual illumined soul to the mystic vision of the Absolute. In Hebrews Christ is the incarnation of God within history, the one in whom eschatological fulfilment of the Heilsgeschichte occurs. Salvation comes to those who accept the kerygma in faith, and are thereby granted the gift of eternal life and membership in the eschatological community.’ See also Williamson (1970) 150ff.; Braun ( 1970); useful overview in Sharp (1984).
        Two dissenting views are: MacRae (1978), who distinguishes between the ‘realized’ Alexandrian eschatology to which the author subscribes and the apocalyptic eschatology of his readers, to which in the interests of paraenesis he accommodates his language; and Thompson (1982; 152-160) who sees the Platonic elements in Hebrews as the beginning of Christian philosophy, even if the author himself was not a philosopher (p.158).
    4. Moses. Undoubtedly Moses occupies a special position in Hebrews, especially in 3:1-6 (where Num. 12:7 is cited) and 8:5ff. (where Ex. 25:40 is cited). Compare Leg. 3.102-103, where both two texts are found. But in Hebrews Moses remains associated with the ‘shadow’ that in Philo is the province of Bezalel; Jesus’ glory is of a higher order. Is the author reacting against (i.e. over-trumping) the special place of Moses in Hellenistic Judaism (as also in Stephen’s speech)?
      • Thurston (1986) speculatively goes a step further and argues that Hebrews author is reacting against a Christology identifying Jesus with Moses, Adam etc
    5. Perfection. The distinction between milk and solid food already mentioned is directly related to the process of spiritual perfection (6:1), in which the believers follow the lead of Christ himself (5:9, 7:28). As in the case of Philo and Paul, patterns of thought are similar, but the way they are concretely worked out differ. The best example is perhaps that of faith (ίπστις). The celebrated encomium in chapter 11 certainly has points of contact with Philo, but the central focus, the things not seen (11:1, πράγματα ού βλεπόμενα) belongs to a different world of thought.
Examination of the evidence has shown that the author of the Hebrews and Philo come from the same milieu; in a closer sense than in the case of Paul. I would not be at all surprised if that the author of Hebrews had had some form of direct contact with Judaism as it had developed in Philo’s Alexandria. Linguistic, hermeneutical and thematic correspondences are impressive. But the thought-worlds are markedly different. The antitheses ontological versus eschatological dualism and allegory versus typology sum up much of the difference. But the crucial point of divergence, as Weiss points out, lies in the area of Christology. It is the Hebrews author’s recognition of the Christ and his self-sacrifice which furnishes the dynamics that inform his eschatology, typology and soteriology, impelling them in a direction away from the Philonic heritage (in the broad sense) with which he must have been familiar.
.

In an introductory section in that same chapter, Runia wrote about the views about the different forms of Judaism

.
Chadwick, in [a 1966] article on Philo and Paul, to make the following bold claim:
... I believe the theology of the hellenistic synagogue, as recorded in long printed and familiar texts of Greek speaking Judaism, still throws more light on the world of St. Paul, St. John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, than any other single non-Christian source. There is nothing surprising in this conclusion. We cannot take too seriously the basic fact that the New Testament is entirely in Greek. It is orientated toward the non-Palestinian world. It would be very strange if its principal theologians did not disclose substantial parallels with the writings of Philo, Josephus, and the author of the Wisdom of Solomon . . . To me, at least, it seems clear that of all the non-Christian writers of the first century AD Philo is the one from whom the historian of emergent Christianity had most to learn ...
This statement makes us want to know more about the face of Judaism in the time of Philo. Is it legitimate to make such a clear-cut distinction between the Hellenistic synagogue which conducted its affairs in Greek and the Hebrew-Aramaic world of Palestinian Judaism?

In his epoch-making book Hengel sought to undermine it, claiming that ‘even Palestinian Judaism must be regarded as Hellenistic Judaism’ As research on the subject advances, it is becoming ever more clear how profoundly hellenized many aspects of life in Palestine were. Hengel went a step further, speaking not of ‘hellenized’ but of ‘Hellenistic’, and this seems to me less than helpful. The diaspora Judaism in a great cultural centre such as Alexandria differed from Judaism in Palestine. The question is how we interpret this difference. It is, I would argue, largely a matter of emphasis.

Some scholars, notable among them Jacob Neusner, have emphasized the variety in the Judaism of the Second Temple period between 63 BC and 66 AD, and have even gone so far as to speak of ‘Judaisms’. It is not correct, according to this view, to speak of a single ‘normative’ form of Judaism … The main forms of Judaism, as developed by Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees and diaspora Jews, differed in significant ways that began to fall away in the period from 66 to 135, as rabbinic Judaism took shape. James Dunn has recently exploited this emphasis on variety in order to show how Christianity began as a movement of renewal within Judaism, but, as the rabbis tightened the boundaries, emerged from it and became a separate religion.”

Sanders argued that, although Judaism of this period was unquestionably diverse, there are sufficient unifying factors to allow us to speak of a ‘normal’ or a ‘common’ Judaism. This Judaism is focussed on the Temple, the Law and its observance, and the land of Israel, but also has a common theology. Diaspora Judaism shares in these features to a large degree, motivated by solidarity and the sense of being ‘in exile’ from their native land (but not obeying any kind of central command). Diaspora Jews could not focus their worship on the Temple cult to the same degree, and their more intimate contacts with Hellenistic culture brought about some modifications in their observance of the Law. But their intention to live a law-abiding Jews is thereby not diminished. Sanders makes extensive use of Philo to support these conclusions on the relation between diaspora and native Judaism. The use of the Philonic evidence is clearly selective, but he argues that this is legitimate because, although Philo is a special and no doubt atypical case, he does inform us about the common practices and views current in the community in which he lived.
.

Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Jan 22, 2024 12:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by MrMacSon »

Eric F Mason You Are a Priest Forever': Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews
  • The present study reevaluates the priestly Christology of Hebrews and the presentations of the messianic priest and Melchizedek in the Qumran texts, arguing that the latter [ie. Qumran texts]...provide the closest parallels to Hebrews' thought.


Eric Mason argues that the conceptual background of the priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews closely parallels presentations of the messianic priest and Melchizedek in the Qumran scrolls. In both Hebrews and Qumran a priestly figure is discussed in the context of a Davidic figure; in both cases a divine decree appoints the priests to their eschatological duty; both priestly figures offer an eschatological sacrifice of atonement. Although the author of Hebrews was not directly influenced by Qumran's "Messiah of Aaron", these and other conceptions did provide "a precedent...to conceive Jesus similarly as a priest making atonement and eternal intercession in the heavenly sanctuary" [p.199].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to ... omposition



Mason, You Are a Priest Forever, pp. 33–34:


In Heb 7:4-10 the author develops his assertion that Melchizedek's priesthood is greater than that of the Levitical priests Obviously the major concern here is to demonstrate the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood over that of the Levites, the traditional Jewish priestly tribe. The author's primary critique of the Levitical priesthood is asserted in Heb 7:11 — it and the Law under which it served could not bring perfection. Thus a new priesthood and a corresponding new law are necessary (7:12). Jesus, as a descendant of Judah, does not fit the proper priestly paradigm of Levitical descent (7:14). Instead, he resembles Melchizedek, who has a priesthood which is not based on genealogy or a legal requirement but rather "through the power of an indestructible life" (7:16).


Post Reply