Was Mattathias of the line of Aaron?

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
John2
Posts: 3328
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Mattathias of the line of Aaron?

Post by John2 » Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:48 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:27 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:24 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:10 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:48 pm
But why is the Melichizedek credential given to David (in Ps. 110) instead of his being of Judah or Ruth or Jesse?
Is it given to David? I am not sure the psalm ascriptions are original.
Well, the psalm as we have it now says it is "of David" and that "The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion" and "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” which sounds messianic/David-like. So if "of David" is not original to the psalm, I still get the sense that it is about David or the Messiah.
What if it was really originally composed about Simon? That was the contingency I was considering here.

Then I think the psalm would be presenting Simon in a messianic light, like it is thought to to be doing about Jesus. And Jesus is presented in other sources as being "of David" too, right (like Simon re: Aaron)? And the author of Hebrews also thinks that Jesus was "of Judah," right? They just wanted to justify the idea that Jesus was a "heavenly" priest too (i.e., super-extra "cool"). So likewise I think Ps. 110 uses Davidic or messianic imagery (right hand of God, scepter, etc.) while also giving the the subject (David, Simon or whoever) a Melchizedek credential.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7633
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was Mattathias of the line of Aaron?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Jul 29, 2020 5:18 pm

John2 wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:48 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:27 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:24 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:10 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:48 pm
But why is the Melichizedek credential given to David (in Ps. 110) instead of his being of Judah or Ruth or Jesse?
Is it given to David? I am not sure the psalm ascriptions are original.
Well, the psalm as we have it now says it is "of David" and that "The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion" and "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” which sounds messianic/David-like. So if "of David" is not original to the psalm, I still get the sense that it is about David or the Messiah.
What if it was really originally composed about Simon? That was the contingency I was considering here.

Then I think the psalm would be presenting Simon in a messianic light, like it is thought to to be doing about Jesus.
Possibliy, but not Davidic by ancestry.
And Jesus is presented in other sources as being "of David" too, right (like Simon re: Aaron)? And the author of Hebrews also thinks that Jesus was "of Judah," right? They just wanted to justify the idea that Jesus was a "heavenly" priest too (i.e., super-extra "cool").
No, not at all. The problem was that no one could paternally be both of a priestly line and of a royal line; a person has only one father. So for Jesus, according to Hebrews, Melchizedek was a way to be priestly despite Jesus being from a royal line, since the overwhelming Christian tendency was to make Jesus everything (Messiah, prophet like Moses, priest, the fulfillment of virtually every scriptural proof text, and so on). It may also be super extra "cool," but that is not the point of Hebrews.

As for Simon, well, that is what is at issue here.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 3328
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Mattathias of the line of Aaron?

Post by John2 » Wed Jul 29, 2020 5:39 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 5:18 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:48 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:27 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:24 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:10 pm


Is it given to David? I am not sure the psalm ascriptions are original.
Well, the psalm as we have it now says it is "of David" and that "The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion" and "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” which sounds messianic/David-like. So if "of David" is not original to the psalm, I still get the sense that it is about David or the Messiah.
What if it was really originally composed about Simon? That was the contingency I was considering here.

Then I think the psalm would be presenting Simon in a messianic light, like it is thought to to be doing about Jesus.
Possibliy, but not Davidic by ancestry.

Aright, but what it says was enough to give someone (whether the psalm's original author or a redactor) the idea that it pertained to David (in addition to Meclhizedek), at least.

And Jesus is presented in other sources as being "of David" too, right (like Simon re: Aaron)? And the author of Hebrews also thinks that Jesus was "of Judah," right? They just wanted to justify the idea that Jesus was a "heavenly" priest too (i.e., super-extra "cool").
No, not at all. The problem was that no one could paternally be both of a priestly line and of a royal line; a person has only one father. So for Jesus, according to Hebrews, Melchizedek was a way to be priestly despite Jesus being from a royal line, since the overwhelming Christian tendency was to make Jesus everything (Messiah, prophet like Moses, priest, the fulfillment of virtually every scriptural proof text, and so on). It may also be super extra "cool," but that is not the point of Hebrews.

As for Simon, well, that is what is at issue here.

Aright, but the author of Hebrews isn't saying that Jesus was a literal descendant of Melchizedek, are they? They are just making Jesus seem extra "cool" by saying that he was a priest like Melchizedek in addition to being "of Judah"), right? And I think the same thing is going on in Ps. 110, that David (or Simon or whoever) is being likened to a messianic-figure and to Melchizedek (if perhaps not as a literal descendant in either case, but thought to be so regarding David by a redactor and by some Christians about Jesus).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7633
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was Mattathias of the line of Aaron?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Jul 29, 2020 5:54 pm

John2 wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 5:39 pm
Alright, but what it says was enough to give someone (whether the psalm's original author or a redactor) the idea that it pertained to David (in addition to Meclhizedek), at least.
I would not object to the themes of kingship and Zion prompting an editor to attribute the psalm to David. But, just for the record, more than 70 psalms are attributed to David, IIRC, and not all of them contain such themes. Attributing psalms to David may well have just been "a thing."
Alright, but the author of Hebrews isn't saying that Jesus was a literal descendant of Melchizedek, are they? They are just making Jesus seem extra "cool" by saying that he was a priest like Melchizedek in addition to being "of Judah"), right?
I guess I am not understanding what you are trying to mean by "cool," then. The author of Hebrews is making Jesus a priest. Is that cool? I have no idea. It is certainly useful to the Christian pattern of making Jesus the fulfillment of everything in the entire body of Hebrew scripture. A "priest like Aaron" was one of the Messiah figures expected in some quarters, so to make Jesus a priest, just like he was made a prophet like Moses and a Davidic Messiah, fits right in. To suggest that the motive is merely to add something "cool" like the order of Melchizedek to something already in place like Judahite ancestry sounds to my ear like missing the point, which is that Melchizedek is the key to allowing Jesus to be a priest.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 3328
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Mattathias of the line of Aaron?

Post by John2 » Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:03 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 5:54 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 5:39 pm
Alright, but what it says was enough to give someone (whether the psalm's original author or a redactor) the idea that it pertained to David (in addition to Meclhizedek), at least.
I would not object to the themes of kingship and Zion prompting an editor to attribute the psalm to David. But, just for the record, more than 70 psalms are attributed to David, IIRC, and not all of them contain such themes. Attributing psalms to David may well have just been "a thing."

Then it was at least "a thing" that seemed appropriate to the author or redactor of Ps. 110 (and to me).

Alright, but the author of Hebrews isn't saying that Jesus was a literal descendant of Melchizedek, are they? They are just making Jesus seem extra "cool" by saying that he was a priest like Melchizedek in addition to being "of Judah"), right?
I guess I am not understanding what you are trying to mean by "cool," then. The author of Hebrews is making Jesus a priest. Is that cool? I have no idea. It is certainly useful to the Christian pattern of making Jesus the fulfillment of everything in the entire body of Hebrew scripture. A "priest like Aaron" was one of the Messiah figures expected in some quarters, so to make Jesus a priest, just like he was made a prophet like Moses and a Davidic Messiah, fits right in. To suggest that the motive is merely to add something "cool" like the order of Melchizedek to something already in place like Judahite ancestry sounds to my ear like missing the point, which is that Melchizedek is the key to allowing Jesus to be a priest.

I think the author of Hebrews thought that making Jesus a priest like Melchizedek was a "cool" idea. And because they also believed that Jesus was of Judah they couldn't say that he was "of Aaron," so they said he was of "the order of Melchizedek" instead.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7633
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was Mattathias of the line of Aaron?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 pm

I am trying to pierce through the lingo (especially "cool") you are using to get at your overall argument or meaning. It sounds like what you may be saying is this: just like the author of Hebrews took Jesus, already (allegedly) a descendant of Judah, and painted him as a priest by making him out to be of the order of the priest-king Melchizedek, so too the author of Psalm 110 (109 OG) took Simon, already a descendant of Aaron, and painted him as a king by making him out to be of the order of the priest-king Melchizedek. Is that what you are saying? That Melchizedek is a bit of good exegetical alchemy to turn priests into kings and kings into priests?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 3328
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Mattathias of the line of Aaron?

Post by John2 » Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:25 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 pm
I am trying to pierce through the lingo (especially "cool") you are using to get at your overall argument or meaning. It sounds like what you may be saying is this: just like the author of Hebrews took Jesus, already (allegedly) a descendant of Judah, and painted him as a priest by making him out to be of the order of the priest-king Melchizedek, so too the author of Psalm 110 (109 OG) took Simon, already a descendant of Aaron, and painted him as a king by making him out to be of the order of the priest-king Melchizedek. Is that what you are saying? That Melchizedek is a bit of good exegetical alchemy to turn priests into kings and kings into priests?

That's exactly what i'm saying (or trying to say).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7633
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was Mattathias of the line of Aaron?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:29 pm

John2 wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:25 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 pm
I am trying to pierce through the lingo (especially "cool") you are using to get at your overall argument or meaning. It sounds like what you may be saying is this: just like the author of Hebrews took Jesus, already (allegedly) a descendant of Judah, and painted him as a priest by making him out to be of the order of the priest-king Melchizedek, so too the author of Psalm 110 (109 OG) took Simon, already a descendant of Aaron, and painted him as a king by making him out to be of the order of the priest-king Melchizedek. Is that what you are saying? That Melchizedek is a bit of good exegetical alchemy to turn priests into kings and kings into priests?
That's exactly what i'm saying (or trying to say).
Good! :) Mutual understanding.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 3328
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Mattathias of the line of Aaron?

Post by John2 » Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:17 pm

I look at it this way. If Ps. 110 is about justifying the idea of Simon (or whoever) being a priest and a king, even if he was a descendant of David and Aaron, referring to David wouldn't work because he was king and not a priest, and referring to Aaron wouldn't work because he was a priest and not a king. The only thing that works is Melchizedek, who was a king and a priest.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2827
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Was Mattathias of the line of Aaron?

Post by DCHindley » Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:27 am

StephenGoranson wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:43 am
Relevant:
Schofield, A. and J. VanderKam (2005), “Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites?”. Journal of Biblical Literature 124: 73-87
I could into log into my JSTOR account to read this, but for others who are frustrated by balky paywalls, here is a summarization of the Schofield/Vanderkam artice:
Anthony Chadwick Thornhill, To the Jew first: a socio-historical and biblical-theological analysis of the Pauline teaching of ‘election’ in light of second temple Jewish patterns of thought
PhD Dissertation, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, 2013

183 As will be discussed below, a large measure of the discontent associated with the Hasmoneans was due to their acceptance or advocacy of the combination of the offices of high priest and king/governor and what was viewed as their corruption of those offices. Of this, Elliott notes, “In other ways Jonathan and his successor Simon departed from tradition and created offense, the former by his acceptance of the office of high priest from the hand of Alexander Balas (152 B.C., 1 Macc 10:21), and the latter by accepting this position (Ant. 13.213; Wars 1.53) and perhaps also by donning the purpose robe as a symbol of royal claims” (Elliott, Survivors of Israel, 224). Harrington similarly asserts, “While traditional Jewish religious observance was the rallying point for the Maccabees and their supporters, they gradually brought Jews into even closer contact with their neighbors. Their usurpation of the high priesthood from the Zadokite line was a bold and controversial move, one that horrified the traditionalists such as the group that eventually produced the Qumran Scrolls” (Harrington, Invitation to the Apocrypha, 135). Schofield and VanderKam have, however, argued that the Hasmoneans may not have actually been non-Zadokites as many have assumed. As they summarize, they suggest that the association with Phinehas, association with the line of J(eh)oiarib, lack of specific connections at Qumran with the Wicked Priest and concerns over illegitimacy of lineage, and Josephus’ story concerning the schism between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees lacking any mention to specific lineage issues (though this may be insinuated). Based on these factors, they suggest there is more evidence to indicate that the Hasmonean’s were of Zadokite descent than there is to the contrary. While this is possible, they also admit that the Hasmoneans could have professed their Zadokite heritage as propaganda which was contrary to reality. Alison Schofield and James C. VanderKam, “Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites?” Journal of Biblical Literature 124:1 (2005): 73-87. It may be, then, that the combination and corruption of these offices is what offended a number of the pious objectors rather than the taking of the priestly line from the Zadokites.
DCH

Post Reply