The Mysticism of Hebrews: Exploring the Role of Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hewbrews (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161518812, 9783161521423, 3161518810

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg) Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

331

Jody A. Barnard

The Mysticism of Hebrews Exploring the Role of Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews

Mohr Siebeck

Jody A. Barnard, born 1978; 2006 BA (Hons) in Theology (Middlesex); 2011 PhD in New Testament (Wales); 2006–12 New Testament Greek Lecturer (Bangor University, Wales).

e-ISBN 978-3-16-152142-3 ISBN 978-3-16-151881-2 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2012 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen. Printed in Germany.

Preface This book is a reworked version of a PhD thesis, submitted to Bangor University (North Wales) in April 2011. Without the encouragement and support of the following institutions and individuals, this book, and the research it represents, would not have come to pass. The College of Arts and Humanities at Bangor University, who awarded me a three-year scholarship for the purpose of pursuing doctoral research. The School of Theology and Religious Studies, who selected me for this award, gave me the responsibility of teaching the Greek modules over this three-year period, and subsequently employed me as a part-time Greek lecturer during the writing-up phase. My doctoral supervisor, Dr Catrin Williams, whose scholarly guidance and example have been a paramount influence. I am deeply grateful for all the wisdom and care that she so consistently shared. Professor Christopher Rowland and Dr Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, who examined my thesis so thoroughly, and refined my thinking and writing through their insightful questions and comments. I am particularly grateful to Christopher Rowland for being so generous with his written feedback and suggestions for improvement, which have been immensely helpful in shaping this revised version. Professor Jörg Frey and Dr Henning Ziebritzki, who recommended and accepted my work for the second series of Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, and Tanja Idler who has overseen the entire production of this book so carefully and efficiently. Finally, I would like to thank New Life Community Church in Brighton, and all the scholars, colleagues, friends, and relatives (too numerous to name) who have assisted and encouraged my work in various ways. The greatest debt of gratitude, however, goes to my dear wife Heidi, O\[W;D, for supporting the entire project in every conceivable way, from the very beginning to the very end. I thank you all, and I hope that this book is of some service to those with an interest in the magnificent epistle to the Hebrews. /!-3!%)2$.7!-0%.4$).-3!/!-3!*!)$).43!/!-3!É É Jody A. Barnard North Wales, July 2012

Table of Contents Preface .................................................................................................... V Table of Contents .................................................................................. VII Abbreviations ....................................................................................... XI

Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................ 1 1.1 The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews?.................................................... 2 1.2 Hebrews and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature ....................................... 7 1.3 Hebrews and Jewish Mystical Literature .......................................... 17 1.4 Method and Overview of the Present Study ...................................... 21

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism Introduction to Part I............................................................................... 25

Chapter 2 Major Sources .................................................................. 29 2.1 The ‘Jewish’ Apocalypses ................................................................ 30 2.1.1 2 Enoch ................................................................................... 33 2.1.2 The Apocalypse of Abraham .................................................... 41 2.1.3 The Testament of Abraham ...................................................... 42 2.1.4 The Apocalypse of Zephaniah .................................................. 44 2.1.5 The Testament of Levi .............................................................. 46 2.1.6 3 Baruch .................................................................................. 48 2.2 The Mystical Texts from Qumran ..................................................... 50 2.3 Levels of Priority ............................................................................. 54

Chapter 3 Major Themes .................................................................. 55 3.1 The Heavenly Realm ......................................................................... 55 3.1.1 The Celestial Temple................................................................ 56 3.1.2 Multi-tiered ............................................................................. 60 3.2 The Ascender .................................................................................... 63

VIII

Table of Contents

3.2.1 Righteous and Raptured .......................................................... 63 3.2.2 Terrified and Transformed ....................................................... 68 3.3 Angels............................................................................................... 72 3.3.1 Cosmic Supervisors ................................................................. 73 3.3.2 Guardians ................................................................................ 73 3.3.3 Priests ...................................................................................... 74 3.3.4 Guides ...................................................................................... 75 3.4 The Most High God .......................................................................... 76 3.4.1 The Enthroned God.................................................................. 77 3.4.2 The Anthropomorphic Appearance of God ............................... 78 3.4.3 The Glory of God .................................................................... 79 3.4.4 The Voice of God .................................................................... 80 3.5 Apocalyptic Literature and Mystical Experience .............................. 82 Conclusion to Part I ............................................................................... 84

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities Introduction to Part II ............................................................................ 85

Chapter 4 The Heavenly Temple .................................................... 88 4.1 Temple versus Tabernacle? .............................................................. 88 4.2 God’s True Temple .......................................................................... 91 4.3 Platonic or Apocalyptic? .................................................................. 95 4.4 The Nature of the Apocalyptic Heavenly Temple in Hebrews ........ 104 4.4.1 Literal or Metaphorical? ....................................................... 104 4.4.2 One or Two Chambers? ........................................................ 110 4.4.3 Christ’s Otherworldly Journey .............................................. 114

Chapter 5 The Heavenly High Priesthood of the Son ............... 119 5.1 Possible Antecedents ..................................................................... 120 5.1.1 Philo’s Logos ........................................................................ 121 5.1.2 Angelic Priests ...................................................................... 123 5.1.3 The Apocalyptic Imaginaire of an Eschatological Yom Kippur .......................................................................... 124 5.1.4 Priestly Messianism .............................................................. 126 5.1.5 Melchizedek Speculation ...................................................... 128 5.2 Christ’s Priestly Investiture as a Heavenly Transformation ............. 130 5.2.1 The Heavenly Orientation of Christ’s High Priesthood ......... 130 5.2.2 Allusions to the Priestly Investiture of the Son in Heb 1:3–4 132



Table of Contents

IX

5.2.3 Allusions to the Priestly Investiture of the Son in Heb 1:5–13 ....................................................................... 136 5.2.3.1 Heb 1:5 ....................................................................... 137 5.2.3.2 Heb 1:8–9 .................................................................... 138

Chapter 6 The Heavenly Enthronement of the Son ................... 144 6.1 The Location of the Throne ............................................................ 144 6.2 The Number of Thrones ................................................................. 146 6.3 The Nature of Christ’s Enthronement ............................................. 147 6.3.1 The Embodiment of God’s Glory (Heb 1:3) .......................... 149 6.3.2 The Bearer of God’s Name (Heb 1:4) ................................... 157

Chapter 7 A Present Reality of Privileged Access ..................... 171 7.1 Apocalyptic Gifts of the Spirit (Heb 2:1–4) .................................... 175 7.2 A Heavenly Calling (Heb 3:1) ........................................................ 178 7.3 Experiencing the Divine Rest (Heb 4:3) ......................................... 180 7.4 An Exhortation to Approach the Merkavah (Heb 4:14–16) ............. 184 7.5 Experiencing the World to Come (Heb 6:4–6) ................................ 187 7.6 Entering the Celestial Veil (Heb 6:19–20) ...................................... 192 7.7 An Exhortation to Communal Mysticism (Heb 10:19–25) .............. 194 7.7.1 Heb 10:22 as a Reference to Ritual Immersions .................... 196 7.7.2 Ritual Immersion in Preparation for a Sacred Assembly? ...... 202 7.7.3 Ritual Immersion in Preparation for Mystical Experience? ... 204 7.8 Mystical Entry into the Heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22–24) ......... 208 7.9 The Situation of the Audience and the Author’s Expectations ........ 211 Conclusion to Part II ............................................................................ 213

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric in Hebrews 1:5–13 Introduction to Part III ......................................................................... 217

Chapter 8 The Use of Scripture in Hebrews 1:5–13 ................. 221 8.1 A Text Orientated and Contextually Sensitive Exegesis? ................ 223 8.1.1 The Case of Psalm 102 ......................................................... 229 8.2 The Distinctive Use of Scripture in Hebrews 1:5–13 ...................... 233 8.3 Detextualized Speech Acts in a New Context ................................. 235 8.3.1 The Setting of Hebrews 1:5–13.............................................. 237



X

Table of Contents

Chapter 9 The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son .......................... 243 9.1 The Sonship of Jesus (Heb 1:5) ...................................................... 243 9.2 The Worship of the Son (Heb 1:6) .................................................. 247 9.3 The Celestial Servants of the Son (Heb 1:7) ................................... 252 9.4 The Deity and Righteousness of the Anointed Son (Heb 1:8–9) ..... 256 9.5 The Eternal Creator (Heb 1:10–12) ................................................ 263 9.6 A Divinely Ordained Heavenly Reality (Heb 1:13) ........................ 269 9.7 Mystical Experience and the Use of Scripture in Hebrews 1 ........... 270 Conclusion to Part III ........................................................................... 276

Chapter 10 Conclusions ................................................................. 279 10.1 A Summary of Conclusions .......................................................... 279 10.2 Concluding Reflections ................................................................ 282

Bibliography ........................................................................................ 285 Index of Ancient Sources ..................................................................... 307 Index of Modern Authors ..................................................................... 336 Index of Subjects ................................................................................. 339



Abbreviations All abbreviations for primary and secondary sources follow The Society of Biblical Literature Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, Edited by P. H. Alexander, J. H. Kutsko, J. D. Ernest, S. Decker-Lucke, and D. L. Peterson, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999, with the following additions and clarifications. ALD CBR DBI DDD

DNTB Louw and Nida

SBLGNT TH

Aramaic Levi Document Currents in Biblical Research A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden, London; Philadelphia, 1990. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Second Edition. Edited by K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P. W. van der Horst. Leiden; Grand Rapids, 1999. Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter, Downers Grove, 2000. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. Edited by J. P. Louw and E. A Nida. Second Edition, New York, 1989. Society of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament. Edited by M. W. Holmes, 2010. Theodotion

Unless indicated otherwise all references to the Hebrew Bible refer to the MT. When these are followed by an additional reference (in brackets), this denotes the LXX numeration. All references to the Greek New Testament follow the working text found in the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece and the 4th edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. Unless indicated otherwise, translations of the Bible follow the NRSV (with some adaptations), with the exception of Hebrews, which are my own. All translations of the ‘Old Testament Pseudepigrapha’ are from J. H Charlesworth’s edition OTP, with the exception of 1 Enoch, which follows the new translation by G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam. All quotations of the Dead Sea Scrolls are taken from the Study Edition of Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, with the exception of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, which are taken from volumes XI and XXIII of the DJD series.

Chapter 1

Introduction The significant role of Jewish apocalyptic traditions in early Christianity has long been acknowledged, and it has even been suggested (in that now famous dictum) that ‘apocalyptic was the mother of all Christian theology’. 1 Although such statements are somewhat exaggerated, the substantial measure of truth therein can hardly be denied. As John Collins has remarked, ‘[a]pocalyptic ideas undeniably played an important role in the early stages of Christianity and, more broadly, in the Judaism of the time’.2 Despite this awareness, however, this has only been sporadically appreciated in the field of biblical studies.3 Moreover, although much has been achieved, the study of apocalyptic traditions, and their role in early Christianity, has tended to focus upon eschatology, often at the expense of the more mystical elements.4 As we shall see, these trends are also reflected, perhaps more acutely so, in the scholarship on Hebrews, which has tended to emphasize, and often exaggerate, the author’s place within a Middle Platonic matrix as a kind of Christian Philo of Alexandria.5 As a result, the role of Jewish apocalypticism in Hebrews has been vastly underappreciated,6 and the role of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, even more so. In the  1

E. Käsemann, ‘The Beginnings of Christian Theology’, JTC 6 (1969), 40. J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, Second Edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1998, 1. See, for example, J. C. VanderKam and W. Adler (eds.), The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, CRINT 3.4, Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996; C. Rowland, Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity, New York: Crossroad, 1982, 349–441. 3 Ibid. 4 L. DiTommaso, ‘Apocalypses and Apocalypticism in Antiquity (Part I)’, CBR 5.2 (2007), 239; Rowland, Open Heaven, 1–48, 351–57. 5 Two of the most thoroughgoing recent attempts to advance this position are W. Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich: Die mittelplatonische Umformung des Parusiegedankens im Hebräerbrief, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003, and S. N. Svendsen, Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews, WUNT II 269, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. For a thorough survey of Middle Platonism, and Philo’s place within it, see J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists: A Study of Platonism 80 B.C. to A.D. 220, London: Duckworth, 1977. 6 This is illustrated well by DiTomasso’s survey of scholarship on apocalypticism and the NT, which focuses on the Gospels, Paul’s Letters, and Revelation (‘Apocalypses and 2

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

field of New Testament studies generally, the aforementioned sporadic engagement with Jewish apocalyptic traditions appears to have passed, at least for the moment, and it is now more common for NT scholars to draw upon these rich and fascinating traditions in an attempt to elucidate the NT documents. Moreover, certain major recent publications suggest that research in this area will no longer be able to so easily marginalize the mystical dimension of apocalyptic traditions.7 Numerous desiderata remain, however, and among them is the role of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism in the epistle to the Hebrews, the subject of the present study.

1.1 The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews? Hebrews is riddled with riddles. At the present time, the scholarship on Hebrews has been unable to reach a consensus concerning the basic critical issues of authorship, date, destination and recipients, matters which are established in the opening sentences of Paul’s epistles. Thus, the traditional designation – ‘the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews’ – is misleading, not simply because it implies a non-existent scholarly consensus, but also because it affirms just as much error as it does truth, and even that which is acceptable must be carefully qualified. Although Hebrews shares some features with the epistolary genre (see Heb 13:17–25),8 and, like a letter, was written down and sent (13:22), the match is far from exact. Hebrews lacks certain characteristic epistolary conventions. These include (1) a ‘prescript’, which identifies the author(s) and recipient(s), and offers greetings; (2) a ‘health wish’, expressing the author’s affection for the recipients and documenting his/her own wellbeing; and (3) a ‘thanksgiving formula’, whereby the author expresses gratitude and/or offers prayers to the gods/God. Despite the diversity among ancient letters, the manner in which they begin typically follows

 Apocalypticism in Antiquity (Part II)’, CBR 5.3 (2007), 394–97), see also S. M. Lewis, What Are They Saying about New Testament Apocalyptic?, New York; Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 2004. 7 Namely, C. Rowland and C. R. A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, CRINT 12, Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009; P. Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. 8 On the integrity and coherence of chapter 13, see W. L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, Word Biblical Commentary 47b, Dallas: Word Books, 1991, 495–507; C. L. Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning, LNTS 297, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2005, 283–96; D. L. Allen, Hebrews, New American Commentary 35, Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010, 603–6.



Chapter 1: Introduction

3

this pattern,9 a pattern that is not shared by Hebrews, which distances it somewhat from the epistle genre. It is now widely recognized that Hebrews should be understood in homiletic terms as an example of an ancient Christian sermon (cf. Acts 13:15–41).10 This is implied by the language of speaking, rather than writing (e.g. Heb 2:5; 5:11; 8:1; 11:32), and the fact that the author describes the work as a KN FNIÉ SGIÉ O@Q@JKG RDVI (Heb 13:22), a phrase for denoting sermons in early Jewish and Christian circles (see 1 Macc 10:24; 12:9; 2 Macc 7:24; 15:11; Acts 2:40; 13:15; Apos. Con. VIII:V). Moreover, as Wills has cogently demonstrated, Hebrews coheres well with the common form of the Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian sermon.11 Thus, with regard to genre, something of a consensus is beginning to emerge that regards Hebrews in terms of a sermon in written form, sent as a letter. By the medieval era the earlier doubts concerning the Pauline authorship of Hebrews had generally passed, but they re-emerged again in the sixteenth century among the Reformers. Since then, Pauline attribution has been increasingly challenged, and is only rarely accepted in contemporary scholarship.12 The main reasons against Pauline authorship are as follows. (1) In contrast to Paul’s letters, Hebrews does not identify its author, and so, at the very least, it is formally anonymous. (2) In the Patristic period, particularly in the West, Pauline authorship was frequently doubted. (3) It has long been acknowledged that the language and style of Hebrews is sufficiently different from Paul’s letters to suggest a different author (see Eu 9

See J. A. D. Weima, ‘Letters, Greco-Roman’, DNTB, 640–44. E.g. L. T. Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, New Testament Library, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006, 9–11; C. R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York: Doubleday, 2001, 80–82; W. L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary 47a, Dallas: Word Books, 1991 lxix–lxxv; H. W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989, 13–14; H.-F. Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer, KEK 13, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991, 40; A. C. Mitchell, Hebrews, Sacra Pagina 13, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2007, 14–16; P. T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans; Apollos, 2010, 20–22. 11 L. Wills, ‘The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity’, HTR 77:3–4 (1984), 277–99. Wills’ research is confirmed and fine-tuned by C. Clifton Black II, ‘The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon’, HTR 81:1 (1988), 1–18. See also H. Attridge, ‘Paraenesis in a Homily’, Semeia 50 (1990), 211–26. Gelardini’s suggestion that Hebrews is a synagogue homily for the ninth of Av is perhaps a little too specific (G. Gelardini, ‘Hebrews, An Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha be-Av: its Function, its Basis, its Theological Interpretation’, in idem (ed.), Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005, 107–27). 12 See Koester, Hebrews, 19–46. 10



4

Chapter 1: Introduction

sebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.2; 6.25.11). (4) The theological emphases of Hebrews and Paul’s letters are quite different. For example, the centrality of Christ’s heavenly high priesthood finds no place in Paul’s writings, whereas Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith does not appear in Hebrews. (5) Although none of these aforementioned factors conclusively rules out Pauline authorship (although cumulatively they make a strong case), the most compelling reason against Pauline authorship is the author’s admission to having heard the gospel second hand (Heb 2:3), something Paul would probably never do (see Gal 1:11–12; 1 Cor 9:1; 2 Cor 11:5–6). Although it is almost certain that Paul did not write Hebrews, the author still has much in common with Paul, and one cannot rule out the possibility of some kind of contact with the Pauline circle.13 If the reference to ‘our brother Timothy’ (Heb 13:23) refers to Paul’s co-worker (e.g. Phil 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1; Acts 16:1), then a connection with the Pauline circle may be taken for granted. Among the limited pool of NT authors, Luke is perhaps the strongest candidate,14 although at the present time we can scarcely do better than to concur with Origen that only God knows the identity of the author of Hebrews (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.14). Nevertheless, it is beyond reasonable doubt that since the author was known to the recipients (Heb 13:19) and employs a self-referring masculine participle (11:32), he was male. Moreover, the eloquence of his Greek, his rhetorical skill, and the ease with which he traverses the profound and complex history, scriptures, structures and rituals of ancient Judaism tell us that he was a welleducated Hellenistic Jewish Christian,15 rather like Paul and, of course, countless other individuals in the first-century Greco-Roman world. Beyond this very general profile, the best we can do is to speculate responsibly. Although the author clearly believes that the ‘Christ-event’ has eclipsed the temple and its sacrificial cult (e.g. 10:1–18), he seems to maintain the validity of certain Jewish practices, such as ritual immersions (6:2; 10:22) and a kosher diet (13:9),16 which may suggest a connection with the Jerusalem church. Moreover, as we shall see, there are good reasons for supposing that his Christian faith was firmly rooted in Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. As is well known, the title OQNIÉD?AQ@H NTI is not part of the authored text, but, by the Third Century, had become a customary designation (e.g. Ter 13

See L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought, SNTSMS 65, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 107–24. 14 So D. L. Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology, Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010. 15 Lane, Hebrews 1–8, xlix–li. 16 See Chapter 7.7.



Chapter 1: Introduction

5

tullian, Pud. XX; ¥46), and is probably a second-century inference based on the book’s contents.17 Providing this is not taken in its linguistically restricted sense (to denote Aramaic (and/or Hebrew) speaking Israelites, as in Acts 6:1), the title is an adequate term for designating the Christians to whom this author wrote. The author presupposes that his audience have an extensive knowledge of, interest in, and respect for the history, scriptures and rituals of ancient Judaism, suggesting that they were more or less like him – Hellenistic Jewish Christians.18 This is supported by the author’s characterization of his group as ‘the seed of Abraham’ (Heb 2:16; cf. 3 Macc. 6:3).19 This does not necessarily mean that there were no Gentiles among the recipients, but if there were, they were probably proselytes to Judaism or ‘God-fearers’ prior to their adoption of Christianity (see Josephus, J.W. 7:45; Ag. Ap. 2:282).20 Moreover, like the author of Hebrews, it shall be argued that they were mystically orientated. The author is clearly personally acquainted with his audience (Heb 13:18–19, 22–24). He has specific knowledge of their religious life (2:3–4; 6:4–5, 10–12; 10:32–34; 12:4) and understands their circumstances (3:12– 13; 6:10–12; 10:24–25, 35–39; 12:3–7), which involves some degree of persecution (10:32–35; 13:13) and serious struggles with their Christian faith (2:1; 4:14; 5:11–14; 6:4–12; 10:23; 12:1–3, 25; 13:9). It is unlikely, therefore, that Hebrews is directed to an ideal audience, and that the author is much more concerned with presenting a systematic Christology than with the well-being of his actual audience.21 Although the Christology of Hebrews transcends specific historical circumstances, it is inadequate to contrast this with the author’s pastoral concern for his audience. On the contrary, one of the main reasons for his particular Christological configuration seems to be his pastoral concern. As Schenck explains, Hebrews repeats the same basic exhortation throughout its whole, namely, that the audience must remain confident and bold in their commitment to the Christian confession. . . However, the ‘main point’ is that Christ is an effective high priest (8:1). This focal point leads us to believe that the atoning efficacy of Christ bore directly on their waning confi-

 17

Koester, Hebrews, 46. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, Rev. Ed. NICNT, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1990, xxiii–xxx. 19 So C. P. Anderson, ‘Who Are the Heirs of the New Age in the Epistle to the Hebrews?’, in J. Marcus and M. L. Soards (eds.), Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. Louis Martyn, JSNTSS 24, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989, 255–77. 20 For a lucid discussion of ‘Proselytes’ and ‘God-fearers’, see J. R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other?, Leiden: Brill, 2005, 25–29. 21 As Pamela Eisenbaum has recently suggested (P. M. Eisenbaum, ‘Locating Hebrews within the Literary Landscape of Christian Origins’, in Gelardini (ed.), Contemporary Methods, 213–37). 18



6

Chapter 1: Introduction

dence in some way . . . the author believed he could best address this waning confidence by unfolding the full, covenant-changing, atoning significance of Christ to them.22

Schenck is surely correct in this observation, although it should be stressed that it is not simply the atoning efficacy of Christ that addressed their waning confidence, but also his heavenly status. The ‘main point’, according to Heb 8:1 is not merely that he is an effective high priest, but that he is an effective and accessible high priest who is enthroned in the heavens. As we shall see, his heavenly status is inextricably intertwined with, and prerequisite to, his high priesthood; after all, ‘if he was on the earth, he would not even be a priest’ (8:4), much less a high priest. With regard to the location of the audience, the only certainty is some connection with Italy (13:24), perhaps Rome, although whether Hebrews was sent to Italy or from Italy remains an open question.23 With regard to date, the most that can be said with certainty is that it was written between 60 and 100, although probably before 90 CE.24 Since the author makes no reference to the destruction of the temple, and discusses the tabernacle in such a way that seems to suppose that sacrifices are still being offered (e.g. 7:27–28; 8:3–5, 13; 10:1–3), many are persuaded that Hebrews must have been written before 70 CE.25 Given that the events of 70 would have proved the author’s point concerning the obsolescence of the temple cult, this is perhaps as strong as an argument from silence can be, but it remains an argument from silence, and therefore inconclusive. Alternatively, it has been argued, with some plausibility, that Hebrews may be read as a sermon of consolation composed in the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem to bolster confidence in the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, now that the temple has gone,26 but, again, this is speculative and inconclusive.  22 K. L. Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice, SNTSMS 143, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 24–47 (quotation, 40). 23 See Attridge, Hebrews, 9–10; Koester, Hebrews, 48–50. Most tend to prefer the former, although the latter is equally plausible (see Allen, Lukan Authorship, 351–52). It is also possible of course that Hebrews was neither sent to nor from Italy, and that the reference in Heb 13:24 simply refers to Jewish Christian Roman citizens from Italy who were living elsewhere in the Empire. On Jews in Rome, and their occasional need to emigrate, see J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996, 282–319. 24 See Attridge, Hebrews, 6–9; Koester, Hebrews, 50–54. 25 E.g. Johnson, Hebrews, 38–39; Bruce, Hebrews, xliii–xliv; P. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1993, 31–33; J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 1976, 200–4. 26 See Schenck, Cosmology, esp. 195–98; Mitchell, Hebrews, 7–11; M. E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, JSNTSup 73, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.



Chapter 1: Introduction

7

The riddles of Hebrews are by no means limited to these introductory issues, and, as any major critical commentary on Hebrews will demonstrate, the purpose(s), the chief theme(s), the life-setting, the structure, the theology, the use of scripture, inter alia, all provide their own challenges and conundrums. Although it has implications for some of these other issues, the particular riddle with which this study is concerned is the conceptual matrix of Hebrews, the historical sub-culture of the author and his Christian community, that helped to shape this mysterious document, and which clarifies its meaning. The aim of the present study is to explore the role of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism in Hebrews, an underappreciated topic that can contribute a great deal to our understanding of these crucial issues as well as Hebrews as a whole. On the other hand, despite the gap in previous research on Hebrews, this topic has not been entirely overlooked, and it would be a mistake to ignore the often valuable probing that has already taken place. Therefore, in the following two sections we shall briefly outline and evaluate the research that has already observed and sought to delineate the relationship between Hebrews and Jewish apocalyptic and mystical literature.

1.2 Hebrews and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature Until relatively recently it was more or less universally assumed that Hebrews essentially reflects the Middle Platonism of the day and is akin to the Platonizing programme of Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE–50 CE). This perspective is at least as old as Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 314),27 but the first thoroughgoing defence is that of Eugène Ménégoz.28 As most now recognize, this point of view peaked with the work of Ceslas Spicq, who has probably produced the most definitive demonstration of the author’s debt to Philo’s Platonism. According to Spicq, the points of contact between Hebrews and the writings of Philo are substantial and extensive enough to suggest that the author of Hebrews was a student of Philo who later converted to Christianity.29 Although few would go as far as Spicq, most of the twentieth-century scholarship on Hebrews was dominated by the belief that the author’s conceptual background was predominantly that of Middle Platonism and little time was given to possible alternatives. The words of Moffatt are fairly representative of this period when he notes the following.  27

Eusebius, Praep. ev. 12.19, notes how the view expressed in Exod 25:40 and Heb 8:5 resembles the discussion in Plato, Resp. 6.500C–501C. 28 E. Ménégoz, La Théologie de l’Épître aux Hébreux, Paris: Fischbacher, 1894. 29 C. Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, 2 vols., Ébib, Paris: Gabalda, 1952–53, 1:39–91.



8

Chapter 1: Introduction

The author writes from a religious philosophy of his own – that is, of his own among the NT writers. The philosophical element in his view of the world and God is fundamentally Platonic. Like Philo and the author of Wisdom, he interprets the past and the present alike in terms of the old theory (cp. on 8 5 10 1) that the phenomenal is but an imperfect, shadowy transcript of what is eternal and real.30

As Moffatt’s comment illustrates, two of the most important examples that are often cited in demonstration of the author’s debt to Platonic traditions are Heb 8:5 and 10:1. In Heb 8:5, for example, having established that Jesus is a heavenly priest who serves in the ‘true’ (@UKGPHMN I) sanctuary, the author compares the earthly priests saying: NH:SHMDIÉ T?ONCDH FL@SHÉ J@HÉ RJH@[É K@SQDT NTRHMÉ SVMÉ DUONTQ@MH VMÉ J@PVIÉ JDBQGL@ SHRS@HÉ ,VTRGIÉLD KKVMÉDUOHSDKDHMÉSGMÉRJGMG M;ÉN:Q@ÉF@ QÉEGRHMÉONHG RDHIÉO@ MS@ÉJ@S@ÉSNMÉST ONMÉ SNMÉCDHBPD MS@ÉRNHÉDUMÉSV[ÉNQDH;É They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary; for when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain” (RSV).31É

For many this kind of language is a clear example of the author’s Platonism.32 For Plato and the Middle Platonists, the sense-perceptible world was an ever-changing parody; it is a ‘shadow’ of the true reality which is located in the eternal heavenly realm of archetypal ideas. The same may be said for Philo who even appeals to Exod 25:40 in defence of a Platonic cosmological dualism (Leg. 3:102; cf. QE 2:82), the same text cited in Heb 8:5. Although this may sound like a convincing case for the author’s Platonic tendencies (and this is where the evidence is strongest), in the last fifty years the argument for Platonic and/or Philonic influence on Hebrews has been seriously challenged. Some have deliberately scrutinized this per-

 30

J. Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, ICC, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924, xxxi. So also S. G. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews: A Comparison of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Philo Judaeus and the Epistle to the Hebrews, Richmond: John Knox, 1965; L. K. K. Dey, Intermediate Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews, SBLDS 25, Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1975; J. W. Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews, CBQMS 13, Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1982. Moffatt’s opinion is closely echoed in Johnson’s twenty-first century commentary: ‘The Platonism of Hebrews resembles that found in the writings of Philo Judaeus and the Book of Wisdom, a version that would soon be termed “middle Platonism”’ (Hebrews, 18). 31 The ‘Platonic’ language is clearer in the RSV which uses the term ‘copy’ to translate T?ON CDHFL@. In the light of Hurst’s research the NRSV substitutes ‘sketch’ (see Hurst, Background, 136 n. 47). 32 Cf. Plato, Resp. 7.514–15; 9.592A–B; Tim. 28A–29D; Crat. 439A.



Chapter 1: Introduction

9

spective and found it wanting,33 while others have found more convincing conceptual backgrounds in alternative traditions.34 The most extensive critique of Spicq’s position remains that of Ronald Williamson. Having meticulously examined the lexical, thematic and exegetical points of contact between Hebrews and the works of Philo, Williamson concludes that the lexical similarities are ‘superficial and accidental’,35 that ‘the differences of attitude and outlook between our author and Philo are fundamental’,36 and that ‘[n]either in his basic judgment about the essential character of the O.T. nor in his chief method of scriptural exegesis does the Writer of Hebrews appear to owe anything to Philo’.37 Although Williamson’s study has been criticized for sometimes exaggerating the differences between Philo and the author of Hebrews, Williamson’s central conclusion that there is little evidence for a direct dependence upon Philo may be regarded as established.38 The first clear signs of a break away from the Platonic background of Hebrews towards a more Jewish apocalyptic background appeared in 1956, just a few years after Spicq’s commentary, with C. K. Barrett’s essay on  33

E.g. R. Williamson, ‘Platonism and Hebrews’, SJT 16 (1963), 415–24; idem, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, ALGHJ 4, Leiden: Brill, 1970; L. D. Hurst, ‘How “Platonic” are Heb. viii.5 and ix.23f.?’, JTS 34 (1983), 156–68; idem, Background, 7–42. 34 With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, came the realization that many of the concerns addressed in Hebrews were shared by the Qumran community. This has inspired some to propose some kind of Qumranic background to Hebrews, even causing Spicq to modify his views (C. Spicq, ‘L’Épître aux Hébreux, Apollos, Jean-Baptiste, les hellénistes et Qumran’, RevQ 1 (1959), 365–90). For a survey of possible backgrounds to Hebrews, see Hurst, Background. 35 Williamson, Philo, 133. 36 Ibid., 493 (cf. H. Montefiore, The Epistle to the Hebrews, London: A&C Black, 1964, 8). 37 Ibid., 538. This last conclusion, which has since become widely accepted, has recently been challenged somewhat by Svendsen, Allegory Transformed, who argues that the author of Hebrews draws heavily on the allegorical hermeneutical techniques represented by Philo, but, in contrast to Philo, the author of Hebrews uses these methods to demonstrate the soteriological insufficiencies of the Mosaic covenant. 38 See K. L. Schenck, ‘Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews: Ronald Williamson’s Study after Thirty Years’, SPhilo 14 (2002), 112–35. Schenck maintains, however, that the author of Hebrews and Philo drew upon common traditions and quotes with approval the conclusion of Sowers that ‘Philo’s writings still offer us the best single body of religionsgeschichtlich material we have for this N.T. document’ (Sowers, Hermeneutics, 66, cited by Schenck, ‘Philo’, 135). One should note, however, that despite Schenck’s repeated refrain that ‘Philo provides us with best background . . .’ he does not explore alternatives. Admittedly this was outside the scope of his paper, but it nevertheless highlights a gap within Hebrews scholarship. The Platonic/Philonic background of Hebrews has been explored for centuries, whereas the examination of the Jewish apocalyptic and mystical background is in its early stages.



10

Chapter 1: Introduction

the eschatology of Hebrews.39 Having examined three important themes in the epistle (the saints’ rest (Heb 3–4), the pilgrim’s progress to the celestial city (Heb 11) and the heavenly temple (Heb 8–10)), Barrett concludes that primitive Christian eschatology governs the interpretation of these passages and that ‘certain features of Hebrews which have often been held to have been derived from Alexandrian Platonism were in fact derived from apocalyptic symbolism’.40 In view of the pervasive presence of eschatology in Hebrews, Barrett, and now others,41 contends that certain Jewish apocalyptic traditions offer a conceptual background which is much closer to that of Hebrews. By presenting the heavenly world as the world to come (Heb 13:14), for example, the thought of Hebrews departs from Alexandrian Platonism and closely reflects certain Jewish apocalyptic traditions in which the Jerusalem above is conceived as the Jerusalem to come. This is clear, for example, from 2 Baruch, a late first-century or early second-century Jewish apocalypse written in response to the destruction of the second temple and fall of Jerusalem.42 The work is set in the Sixth Century BCE when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and, as Baruch laments the destruction of the city, the God of Israel speaks to him saying: Do you think that this is the city of which I said: On the palms of my hands I have carved you? It is not this building that is in your midst now; it is that which will be revealed, with me, that was already prepared from the moment that I decided to create Paradise. And I showed it to Adam before he sinned. But when he transgressed the commandment, it was taken away from him – as also Paradise. After these things I showed it to my servant Abraham in the night between the portions of the victims. And again I showed it also to Moses on Mount Sinai when I showed him the likeness of the tabernacle and all its vessels (4:2–5; cf. 59:4; Jub. 31:14).

Like Hebrews, this text maintains a belief in a parallel heavenly world which will one day appear and replace the present earthly order. The same idea can be found in the early Christian Apocalypse of John when he says, Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them . . .” (Rev 21:1–3; cf. 3:12; 11:19).

 39 C. K. Barrett, ‘The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, in W. D. Davies and D. Daube (eds.), The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology: Festschrift for C. H. Dodd, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956, 363–93. 40 Ibid., 393. 41 E.g. S. D. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews, WUNT II 223, Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2007. 42 See Davila, Provenance, 126–31.



Chapter 1: Introduction

11

Barrett’s deference to a Jewish apocalyptic background seems to be inspired by his recognition of the primacy of eschatology in Hebrews. Although Barrett rightly notes that apocalyptic thought ‘supplies the notion of both a heavenly temple, and an eschatological temple’,43 he implies that it is because of the eschatology of Hebrews that apocalyptic literature offers the most illuminating background. This is clear when he describes the relation between the earthly and heavenly tabernacle in Heb 9:23–28 as a ‘Platonic paragraph’ and states that the author ‘may well have read Plato and other philosophers, and must have known that his images and terminology were akin to theirs’.44 Thus, for Barrett, eschatology governs the message of Hebrews and because of this it may be understood in relation to Jewish apocalyptic literature. The author’s interest in and conception of heavenly reality, however, is regarded by Barrett as a reflection of Middle Platonic cosmology. The tendency to reduce Jewish apocalyptic traditions to eschatology (and the assumption that temporal categories reflect Jewish apocalyptic traditions whereas spatial categories reflect Hellenistic philosophical traditions) is evident in much of the subsequent research on the relationship between Hebrews and Jewish apocalyptic literature. MacRae, for example, argues that the author reinforces the ‘apocalyptic, futurist eschatology’ of his audience, with his own ‘Hellenistic, dualist category of the true reality located in the heavenly world’.45 A similar position has recently been advanced by Eisele, who argues that the author is engaged in a thoroughgoing Middle Platonic transformation of early Christian apocalyptic eschatology. 46 Similarly, though conversely, Sterling argues that since the author can presuppose certain Platonizing exegetical traditions (Heb 9:5), it was the community that held to a Platonic understanding of the tabernacle, upon which the author imposed the apocalyptic eschatology of nascent Christianity. 47 Thus, although the Jewish apocalyptic background of Hebrews is now more widely appreciated, this is usually construed in terms of the eschatology of the apocalyptic tradition while the cosmology of the epistle is often explained with reference to Platonic traditions.48  43

Barrett, ‘Eschatology’, 386. Ibid., 385, 393 (italics mine). 45 G. MacRae, ‘Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews’, Semeia 12 (1978), 188–91. This is despite his earlier admission that the idea of a temple in heaven, of which the earthly one is a copy, is an apocalyptic motif (ibid., 182–84)! 46 Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich. 47 G. E. Sterling, ‘Ontology versus Eschatology: Tensions between Author and Community’, SPhilo 13 (2001), 190–211. This is discussed in detail in Chapter 4.3. 48 See, for example, Williamson, ‘Platonism and Hebrews’, 420; Montefiore, Hebrews, 137; Anderson, ‘Who Are the Heirs’, 255–56; Hurst, Background, 13–21; Koester, Hebrews, 62; Schenck, ‘Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews’, 114; J. W. Thompson, 44



12

Chapter 1: Introduction

One of the most adamant advocates of the Jewish apocalyptic background of Hebrews is L. D. Hurst. In his 1990 monograph, which is a revised and shortened version of his 1982 PhD thesis, Hurst examines the various conceptual backgrounds through which Hebrews has been interpreted over the years. This includes Philo and Alexandrian Platonism, Qumran, pre-Christian Gnosticism, the Samaritans, Merkavah mysticism, the Stephen tradition, Pauline theology and 1 Peter. Having evaluated the arguments in defence of each of these backgrounds Hurst reaches the following conclusion: Our analysis of possible backgrounds of Hebrews has yielded negative and positive results. On the negative side, attempts to locate Auctor’s center of gravity in Philo, Qumran, gnosticism, the Samaritans or Merkabah mysticism presented difficulties which outweighed any advantages. At one or two points (e.g., a “spiritualized” heavenly cultus) some form of modified Philonic influence could be said to be a possibility. But those emphases could equally be explained by influences within the apocalyptic tradition, and other indications suggest that this is the direction that future study should take in the effort to uncover first-century parallels for Hebrews.49

On the positive side Hurst notes the impact of certain sections of the Septuagint,50 the same use of scripture as in Acts 7, an exposure to a ‘Paullike’ theology, and the influence of Jewish apocalyptic traditions.51 Although Hurst specifically considers the influence of Pauline theology and the Stephen tradition (Acts 7), there is no chapter on the influence of the Septuagint or Jewish apocalyptic traditions. With regard to the use of scripture, the student of Hebrews is considerably well served,52 and  Hebrews, Paideia, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008, 21–28. Svendsen makes the same observation and, unlike MacRae and Sterling, correctly assigns both the vertical and horizontal perspectives of Hebrews to Jewish apocalypticism (Allegory Transformed, 4, 60–66). Like Eisele, Sterling, and MacRae, however, he still maintains that the way in which apocalyptic metaphysics are deployed in Hebrews is significantly determined by Platonic and Philonic thought. 49 Hurst, Background, 131 (italics mine). 50 I follow Dines, among others, in using the term ‘Septuagint’ loosely as the allembracing term for both the original Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures (including the apocrypha) and its subsequent revisions (J. M. Dines, The Septuagint, London: T&T Clark, 2004, 3; cf. T. R. McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2003, 5–7). 51 Hurst, Background, 133. 52 See the survey articles by G. H. Guthrie for details (‘Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research’, CBR 1.2 (2003), 271–94; ‘Hebrews in its FirstCentury Contexts: Recent Research’, in S. McKnight and G. R. Osbourne (eds.), The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004, 430–37). See also D. J. Harrington, SJ, What Are They Saying about the Letter to the Hebrews, New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2005, 41–63. To the works discussed here one should now add the studies of D. M. Allen, Deuteronomy



Chapter 1: Introduction

13

Gheorghita’s monograph has more than compensated for Hurst’s lack of ‘a separate, explicit and detailed discussion’ of the role of the Septuagint in Hebrews.53 The same kind of detailed discussion of the role of Jewish apocalyptic traditions in Hebrews, however, largely remains a desideratum. Hurst’s analysis of Hebrews’ apocalyptic background is restricted to his discussion of Philo, Alexandria and Platonism.54 He seeks to build upon the work of Barrett and Williamson by evaluating the oft cited point of contact between Plato and Hebrews, namely, the alleged Platonic dualism contained in Hebrews 8–10. He extends Williamson’s contribution by examining certain terms around which this discussion typically revolves, namely, T?ON CDHFL@ (8:5; 9:23), RJH@ (8:5; 10:1), @UMSH STONI (9:24), DHUJV M (10:1) and @UKGPHMN I (8:2; 9:24), and concludes that they do not bear the distinctly Platonic nuance that is normally assigned to them.55 Hurst makes the following points. First, the vocabulary used by Plato and Philo to discuss ‘heavenly realities’ and ‘earthly copies’ provides a contrast with the vocabulary used by the author of Hebrews. For Plato and Philo O@Q@ CDHFL@ is the term typically employed to refer to heavenly reality and LH LGL@ or DHUJV M to refer to earthly copies. This terminology is absent from Hebrews, however, with the exception of DHUJV M, which is used once, but not to denote earthly copies, as in Plato and Philo, but heavenly realities.56 Secondly, with regard to the key terms T?ON CDHFL@ and RJH@ (Heb 8:5), Hurst argues that these terms do not denote a ‘copy and shadow’ of heavenly things, but a ‘prefiguration’ of future things. That is, T?ON CDHFL@, as in Heb 4:11, denotes an ‘example’, which might be copied (cf. John 13:15); RJH@ , as in Heb 10:1, denotes an insubstantial foreshadow of things to come (cf. Col 2:17). Thus, Hurst maintains that in Hebrews, ‘heavenly things do not cast their outline beneath them (the “Platonic” model), but that future  and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative Re-presentation, WUNT II 238, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008, S. E. Docherty, The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation, WUNT II 260; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009; Svendsen, Allegory Transformed; G. J. Steyn and D. J Human (eds.), Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception, New York; London: T&T Clark, 2010; G. J. Steyn, A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011; K. L. She, The Use of Exodus in Hebrews, Studies in Biblical Literature 142, New York: Peter Lang, 2011. 53 R. Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews: An Investigation of its Influence with Special Consideration to the Use of Hab 2:3–4 in Heb 10:37–38, WUNT II 160, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003 (quotation, 2). 54 Hurst, Background, 7–42. 55 Ibid., 13–21. 56 Although Plato and the Middle Platonists generally employ DHUJV M with reference to the sense-perceptible world, it is also occasionally employed with reference to the noetic realm (see Mackie, Eschatology, 106–14).



14

Chapter 1: Introduction

events and entities cast their outline ahead of them (the “apocalyptic” model)’.57 Although Hurst’s lexical analysis is generally valid, he fails to appreciate fully the determining role of the context within which these terms are appropriated in Hebrews. While it is undoubtedly correct that some of these terms sometimes acquire a temporal nuance in Hebrews (e.g. RJH@ in Heb 10:1), it is the context that determines this nuance (RJH@ . . . SVMÉ LDKKN MSVMÉ @UF@PVM). It is illegitimate, therefore, to read this temporal nuance back into the earlier use of T?ON CDHFL@ and RJH@ in Heb 8:5 where the contrast is not a temporal one but a spatial one.58 Thus, although Hurst speaks of the ‘dichotomy by which a “horizontal” (temporal) framework is Jewish and a “vertical” (cosmological) framework is Greek’, as a ‘fiction of modern scholarship’,59 parts of his discussion nevertheless labour under this fictitious dichotomy. Hurst extends Barrett’s discussion by arguing that he did not go far enough in redressing the balance of opinion away from Platonism toward Jewish apocalyptic traditions.60 He criticizes Barrett’s imprecise language for describing the heavenly tabernacle and its ministrations as both ‘eternal archetypes’ and ‘eschatological events’.61 Hurst maintains that describing the heavenly tabernacle as an eternal archetype not only prejudices the argument in favour of a Platonic background, but misrepresents Hebrews in which the heavenly tabernacle is described as ‘built’ (OG FMTLH) by God (8:2), and is therefore not an ‘eternal archetype’. Although Hebrews does not say when it was built, Hurst urges that, like the author of Enoch’s Dream Visions (1 En. 90:28–29), the author of Hebrews envisages the heavenly sanctuary to be constructed anew at the end of the age, which explains the enigmatic reference to the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary (9:23) as a reference to inaugural cleansing.62 Ellingworth also understands the purification as inaugural, but, in contrast to Hurst, demonstrates that for the author of Hebrews (8:5) the heavenly sanctuary is at least as old as the time of Moses.63 This suggests that the heavenly sanctuary was not thought to be a new entity constructed by God at the end of the age. Moreover, the only text Hurst cites for this idea  57 Hurst, Background, 16. Observe the association between a spatial orientation and Platonic thought and a temporal orientation and apocalyptic thought. 58 See further Schenck, Cosmology, 117–21, 165–68; K. Son, Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18–24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle, Paternoster Biblical Monographs, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005, 177–84. 59 Hurst, Background, 21. 60 Ibid., 33–42. 61 Barrett, ‘Eschatology’, 385; Hurst, Background, 34. 62 Hurst, Background, 38–41. 63 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 408, 477; cf. Mitchell, Hebrews, 162, 194.



Chapter 1: Introduction

15

is 1 En. 90:28–29, a text which is only extant in Ethiopic, and which, contrary to Hurst’s assertion, implies that the ‘new house’ already existed (in heaven) before its manifestation upon the earth, since it is stated that it was ‘brought’ in by the Lord.64 It is far more likely that the author of Enoch’s Dream Visions thought that heaven already contained God’s true temple (cf. 1 En. 14:8–16), and that it is the heavenly city and temple that will be established upon the earth in the end times (cf. 4 Ezra 7:26; 8:52; Rev 21:1–3).65 Like many others, Hurst’s analysis seems to labour under the assumption that proof for the author’s indebtedness to Jewish apocalyptic traditions lies in his horizontal or temporal perspective. However, as we have seen, this not only leads to some dubious interpretations of Hebrews but also to a lopsided understanding of Jewish apocalyptic traditions. While it is true that the temporal or eschatological perspective of the epistle clearly distinguishes it from Platonic traditions and aligns it more closely with typical Jewish (apocalyptic) traditions, this is no less evident in the author’s spatial or vertical orientation, which, as we shall see, also reflects a fairly typical Jewish apocalyptic and mystical orientation, which, after all, appropriated and modified certain aspects of Greek cosmology.66 As Rowland has recently noted with regard to Hebrews, ‘the likelihood is that any influence from this [Platonic] quarter already had infiltrated the emerging apocalyptic tradition with its contrasts between the heavenly world and the world below’.67 The alleged Platonism that has been discerned in the cosmology of Hebrews, therefore, is just as likely to be the result of influences from the Jewish apocalyptic tradition, which was of course part of the wider Hellenistic world. As Hengel reminds us, ‘[f]rom about the middle of the third century BC all Judaism must really be designated “Hellenistic Judaism”’.68 It is inac 64

So R. H. Charles, ‘Book of Enoch’, APOT 2:259; E. Isaac, ‘1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch’, OTP 1:71; M. A. Knibb, ‘1 Enoch’, AOT, 290; see G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001, 404. 65 It is not even clear that the ‘house’ stands for the temple in 1 En. 90:28–29. Given that the temple is symbolized by a ‘tower’ (e.g. 1 En. 89:73), the ‘house’ should probably be identified as the entire city of Jerusalem (so J. J. Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature of the Second Temple Period, International Rennert Guest Lecture Series 1, Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University (1998), 9). 66 See M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period, trans. J. Bowden, 2 vols., London: SCM Press, 1974, 1:175–218; J. E. Wright, The Early History of Heaven, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, 139–84. 67 Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 168. 68 Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:104 (italics original).



16

Chapter 1: Introduction

curate and simplistic to suppose that there always existed a fixed boundary between Jewish traditions and Hellenistic traditions. The first-century Greco-Roman world accommodated a number of Jewish groups, including Christian groups, with permeable boundaries, which were simultaneously Jewish and Hellenistic in various ways and in different degrees. As Wayne Meeks notes, the adjectives ‘Jewish’ and ‘Hellenistic’ are of little help in sorting out the diversity, and with regard to early Christianity, ‘the questions that have to be asked are more particular: Which parts of the Jewish tradition were being assumed and reinterpreted by this or that group of early Christians?’.69 Which parts of Platonic traditions were assumed and reinterpreted in Hebrews has been explored for centuries, and the research in this area is becoming more and more sophisticated. But where exactly, and the extent to which, Hebrews is indebted to Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, something vital for an accurate understanding of the epistle and the origins of Christianity, remains considerably underappreciated. Scholarship on Hebrews is now more or less divided between those who emphasize its Platonic/Philonic background and those who emphasize its Jewish apocalyptic background.70 This need not be an either/or question, of course, and many interpreters freely draw upon a variety of background literatures for parallels to illuminate Hebrews. After all, the ancient world did not exist in the neat categories that are devised for heuristic purposes. Philo, for example, was a thoroughly Hellenized Middle Platonist, yet there is no question about his loyalty to the Jewish community or his observance of the ancestral customs,71 and there is even evidence to suggest that he was familiar with certain Jewish apocalyptic traditions (e.g. Somn. 1:22–24), although their impact upon Philo’s thought was limited.72 Similarly, as we have just noted, Jewish apocalyptic traditions developed in dialogue with the wider Greco-Roman world, and, like much of late Second Temple Judaism, is a product of Hellenism. While it may be helpful, and in some ways accurate, to distinguish between the Greek philosophy of Philo and the apocalyptic mysticism of the apocalypses, the boundaries are  69 W. A. Meeks, ‘Judaism, Hellenism, and the Birth of Christianity’, in T. EngbergPederson (ed.), Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001, 26. 70 Among the commentators, these two poles are perhaps best illustrated by Lane and Johnson. Lane heartily supports Hurst’s research and maintains that Hebrews has developed scriptural themes eschatologically under the influence of Jewish apocalyptic and primitive Christian tradition (Hebrews 1–8, cviii [1991]). Johnson, on the other hand, confidently assigns Hebrews to an essentially Platonic outlook similar to that of Philo, though, of course, shaped by Jewish and Christian traditions (Hebrews, 15–21 [2006]; cf. also Thompson, Hebrews, 23–26 [2008]). 71 See Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 158–80. 72 See H. Chadwick, ‘St. Paul and Philo of Alexandria’, BJRL 48 (1966), 304.



Chapter 1: Introduction

17

sometimes permeable. Having said this, the specific purpose of this study is to explore the role of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism in the epistle to the Hebrews. The work of Barrett, and others, has shown that the eschatology of apocalypticism plays a significant role in the epistle to the Hebrews,73 but to what extent have the more mystical elements of Jewish apocalyptic traditions also influenced this work?74

1.3 Hebrews and Jewish Mystical Literature In the 1970s, a few scholars started to note the parallels between Hebrews and Hekhalot literature (and related traditions), suggesting that the background of Hebrews lies in an early form of Merkavah mysticism.75 Thus, with regard to the veil (Heb 6:19–20; 10:19–20), Hofius continued his critique of Käsemann’s thesis, which favours a Gnostic background to Hebrews,76 and argued that the author has not been influenced by Gnostic speculation, but by Jewish traditions (e.g. Tg. Job. 26:9; 3 En. 45; Massekhet Hekhalot §28; b. ‫ۉ‬ag. 12b–13b; 15a). Hofius concludes that the author of Hebrews has taken over the idea of a curtain before the throne of God, together with the notion of a heavenly sanctuary, from the esoterical Merkavah speculation of ancient Judaism.77 Similarly, Schenke places the con 73

See Scott D. Mackie’s, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews, who pays a great deal of attention to the eschatology of Jewish apocalyptic traditions. 74 According to Rowland, of course, the mere presence of eschatology in early Christianity does not necessarily suggest the impact of the Jewish apocalyptic tradition, since eschatology is common throughout much of ancient Judaism. Rather it is ‘a question about the impact of a “vertical” rather than a “horizontal” way of thinking on early Christian doctrine’ (Open Heaven, 349–441 (quotation, 356)). 75 For the most important texts of the Hekhalot literature, see P. Schäfer (ed.), in association with M. Schlüter and H. Georg von Mutius, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur, TSAJ 2, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981. For a summary and translations of selected passages, see P. Schäfer, The Hidden and Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism, trans. Aubrey Pomerance, Albany: State University of New York, 1992. With the exception of 3 Enoch, Hekhalot texts are cited in accordance with the name and section numbers provided by Schäfer. For Massekhet Hekhalot, see K. Herrmann (ed., trans.), Massekhet Hekhalot: Traktat von den himmlischen Palästen, TSAJ 39, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. 76 See E. Käsemann, The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews, trans. R. A. Harrisville and I. L. Sandberg, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984; O. Hofius, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief, WUNT 11, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1970. 77 O. Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 6,19f. und 10,19f., WUNT 14, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972. This approach has also been taken up more recently by Jordi Cervera i Valls, but with due cognizance of the methodological obstacles involved (‘El vel Celestial en He-



18

Chapter 1: Introduction

ception of Christ’s heavenly status and priesthood in Hebrews within the same tradition that ascribes similar prerogatives to Michael (e.g. b. ‫ۉ‬ag. 12b) and Metatron (e.g. 3 Enoch), early traces of which can be discerned with reference to Melchizedek at Qumran (e.g. 11Q13). Schenke notes that the author of Hebrews could be and has been described as both Jewish and Gnostic, and suggests that a background in an early form of Jewish Merkavah Mysticism is the most plausible explanation for this riddle and adequately accounts for the author’s priestly orientation.78 Williamson put this thesis to the test, noting that a number of characteristic features of Merkavah mysticism resonate strongly with the epistle to the Hebrews.79 These include the author’s attention to angels (Heb 1:4–14; cf. 3 En. 12:1–5; b. ‫ۉ‬ag. 13b–14b), and his interest in the heavenly sanctuary and celestial throne beyond the veil (Heb 1:3; 4:14–16; 6:19–20; 8:1; 12:2; cf. 3 En. 1:1; 45:1), which is presently accessible to the recipients of the epistle (Heb 4:16; 10:19–20; 12:22; cf. Num. Rab. 12:12). In view of these parallels, Williamson submits that if a search is being made for the antecedents of the mystical language in Hebrews, ‘it is a suggestion worthy of further exploration that they are to be found in some early form of Jewish Merkabah mysticism’.80 This suggestion has not convinced many, no doubt partly because the body of research is relatively small, frequently cursory, and largely in German, but mostly because the Jewish mystical literature with which Hebrews tends to be compared is considerably later than the NT. Although Hofius, Schenke, and Williamson make some reference to sources that are contemporaneous or prior to the NT, the primary sources for Merkavah mysticism are much later. As Williamson himself notes, ‘[o]ne major problem confronting the thesis of Schenke is that of date’.81 If we take 3 Enoch, for example, which is regularly drawn upon in these discussions, we have a medieval text,82 which may have even been shaped in response to Christian claims about Jesus.83 Although 3 Enoch no doubt incorporates earlier material, it remains methodologically questionable to treat such texts as a  breus i en la mística jueva antiga’, in Armand Puig i Tàrrech (ed.), Bíblia i mística, Scripta Biblica 11, Barcelona: Associació Bíblica de Catalunya i de Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 2011, 177–207). 78 H.-M. Schenke, ‘Erwägungen zum Rätsel des Hebräerbriefes’, in H. D. Betz and L. Schotroff (eds.), Neues Testament und christliche Existenz: Festschrift für Herbert Braun zum 70. Geburtstag am 4. Mai 1973, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973, 421–37. 79 R. Williamson, ‘The Background of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, ExpTim 87 (1976), 232–37. 80 Ibid., 235. 81 Ibid. 82 See P. Alexander, ‘3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch’, OTP 1:225–29. 83 So Schäfer, Origins, 315–27.



Chapter 1: Introduction

19

source for late Second Temple Judaism, without first tracing the antiquity of the motif under consideration, and with due sensitivity to any developments that may have taken place. Thus, in his analysis of possible conceptual backgrounds to Hebrews, Hurst swiftly dismisses Merkavah mysticism since he regards it as a post-Talmudic phenomenon, and explains the points of contact between Hebrews and Hekhalot (and related) literature in terms of a common dependence upon the Psalms, a conclusion which seems to have become widely accepted.84 Nevertheless, Hurst acknowledges the possibility that one may speak of ‘pre-Merkabah tendencies’ within Jewish apocalyptic traditions that might have influenced the author of Hebrews, but this is not explored. While there are almost certainly connections between the Hekhalot literature and the ancient Jewish apocalypses,85 greater attention is needed to the mystical background of Hebrews which prioritizes the Jewish apocalyptic literature of the late Second Temple Period.86 Research into early Jewish and Christian mysticism has already yielded significant results, but this is only occasionally related to Hebrews and mostly in the form of brief digressions,87 or in lists of references for comparison.88 This shows that  84

Hurst, Background, 84–85; cf. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, cix; Koester, Hebrews, 63. As Scholem famously put it, ‘[s]ubterranean but effective, and occasionally still traceable, connections exist between these later mystics and the groups which produced a large proportion of the pseudepigrapha and apocalypses of the first century before and after Christ’ (G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, New York: Schocken, 1961, 42). See also I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, AGJU 14, Leiden: Brill, 1980; R. Elior, The Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism, trans. D. Louvish, Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004; J. R. Davila, ‘The Ancient Jewish Apocalypses and the Hekhalot Literature’, in A. D. DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism, SBLSS 11, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006, 105–25; Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, esp. Parts II and III. For a less optimistic assessment, see M. Himmelfarb, ‘Heavenly Ascent and the Relationship of the Apocalypses and the Hekhalot Literature’, HUCA 59 (1988), 73–100; P. Schäfer, ‘New Testament and Hekhalot Literature: The Journey into Heaven in Paul and in Merkavah Mysticism’, JJS 35 (1984), 19–35. For an important review of research on the Hekhalot literature, see R. S. Boustan, ‘The Study of Heikhalot Literature: Between Mystical Experience and Textual Artefact’, CBR 6.1 (2007), 130–60. 86 Compare A. D. DeConick, Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas, VCSup 33, Leiden: Brill, 1996; J. J. Kanagaraj, ‘Mysticism’ in the Gospel of John, JSNTSup 158, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998; P. R. Gooder, Only the Third Heaven? 2 Corinthians 12:1–10 and Heavenly Ascent, LNTS 313, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006; I. K. Smith, Heavenly Perspective: A Study of the Apostle Paul’s Response to a Jewish Mystical Movement at Colossae, LNTS 326, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006. 87 E.g. C. R. A. Morray-Jones, ‘Transformational Mysticism in the ApocalypticMerkabah Tradition’, JJS 43 (1992), 11, 22; G. A. Gieschen, ‘Baptismal Praxis and Mys85



20

Chapter 1: Introduction

there is a growing awareness that Hebrews somehow belongs somewhere within the matrix of early Jewish and Christian mysticism, but this is rarely explored in detail. More substantial discussions have emerged in the works of Timo Eskola, Philip Alexander, Christopher Rowland, and especially Scott Mackie, who are all agreed that the conception and role of the celestial temple in Hebrews places it in the path of Jewish apocalyptic and mystical traditions of the late Second Temple era.89 In the same way, Eskola and Rowland also integrate the Christology of Hebrews into this framework. Eskola pays particular attention to God’s throne, noting how the conception of Christ’s enthronement in Hebrews, which is both royal and priestly in nature, reflects the cultic context of apocalyptic throne mysticism. Rowland concurs, but, unlike Eskola, maintains that apocalyptic divine agency figures, such as principal angels, remain an important background to the Christology of Hebrews.90 Although these scholars explore the role of Jewish apocalyptic and mystical traditions in Hebrews more fully than most, it still requires greater substantiation and a more thorough exploration of how exactly and to what extent Hebrews absorbs, appropriates and modifies the various aspects of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, and whether or not, and the extent to which,  tical Experience in the Book of Revelation’, in DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now, 351, 353– 54. 88 E.g. A. D. DeConick, ‘What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism?’, in DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now, 14; A. Chester, Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology, WUNT 207, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007, 37, 115, 388. 89 T. Eskola, Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse, WUNT II 142, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001, 202–11, 251– 69; P. Alexander, The Mystical Texts: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Related Manuscripts, Library of Second Temple Studies 61; Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 7, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006, 139–40; idem, ‘The Background to the Idea of the Heavenly Tabernacle in the Epistle to the Hebrews’ (forthcoming); Rowland and MorrayJones, Mystery of God, 167–73; Mackie, Eschatology, 155–230; idem, ‘Heavenly Sanctuary Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, JTS 62 (2011), 77–117; idem, ‘Ancient Jewish Mystical Motifs in Hebrews’ Theology of Access and Entry Exhortations’, NTS 58 (2012), 88–104. See also G. Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie, WUNT II 212, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006; D. Stökl, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity, WUNT 163, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003; H. Löhr ‘Thronversammlung und preisender Tempel. Beobachtungen am himmlischen Heiligtum im Hebräerbrief und in den Sabbatopferliedern aus Qumran’, in M. Hengel und A. M. Schwemer (eds.), Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt, WUNT 55, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991, 185–205. 90 Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 168; Rowland, Open Heaven, 112–13; cf. Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 132–63. For a probing critique of Eskola’s approach, see Chester, Messiah, 27–43.



Chapter 1: Introduction

21

the author and his community may be described as mystics. The present study, therefore, is intended as a partial response to this need.

1.4 Method and Overview of the Present Study In the light of previous research, it is apparent that several scholars have recognized the importance of Jewish apocalyptic and mystical traditions for the interpretation of Hebrews. Nevertheless, there remains a need for sustained and detailed attempts at exploring the plausibility and precise contours of this phenomenon. Moreover, it is also apparent that a study of this kind becomes more methodologically robust and historically plausible if we prioritize the Jewish mysticism of the late Second Temple era. Consequently, this is a study of the role of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism in the epistle to the Hebrews, that is, the Jewish mysticism that emerges in the ancient Jewish apocalypses and related literature. Although I have made occasional reference to the Hekhalot literature, this study is not an attempt to explore the relationship between Hebrews and the Hekhalot traditions.91 There is already adequate information on Jewish mystical traditions from the late Second Temple era to acquire a good idea of the contours of this phenomenon without having to resort to texts from a later period, and it is the aim of this study to see what we may learn by comparing Hebrews with roughly contemporaneous apocalyptic and mystical texts and traditions. In order to explore the role of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism in Hebrews, one must first define Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. Part I, therefore, is an attempt to delineate this phenomenon by paying particular attention to the major sources and trying to understand them in their own right and on their own terms. In Chapter 2 the major sources for Jewish apocalyptic mysticism are determined and the critical issues they raise are discussed. Providing they are used with due caution, I argue that there are several textual sources that offer us a window into Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. In Chapter 3 I identify some of the major recurring themes that emerge from these sources. This helps to ensure that our reconstruction is truly representative of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, and provides a relatively sound basis for comparisons and contrasts with Hebrews. The results of Part I are applied to Hebrews in Part II, which is the heart of the present investigation, and constitutes a sustained exploration of the role of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism in Hebrews. In Chapter 4 I discuss the nature of the heavenly realm in Hebrews, which is predominantly un 91 Neither is it a comment on the validity of such studies. The work of Morray-Jones in particular has demonstrated the value of approaching the mysticism of the New Testament from the perspective of the Merkavah mysticism of the Hekhalot traditions.



22

Chapter 1: Introduction

derstood in terms of a temple, and bears a distinct affinity with a major strand of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. In Chapter 5 the phenomenon of Christ’s high priesthood is elucidated in the light of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. Although there are no doubt a range of factors that helped to facilitate the ascription of priesthood to a non-Levite, I argue that this development makes particular sense in the light of the heavenly ascents and priestly investitures narrated in certain ancient Jewish apocalypses. In Chapter 6 I explore the heavenly enthronement of Jesus and argue that, according to the author of Hebrews, Jesus is enthroned in the celestial Holy of Holies as the divine Name-bearing anthropomorphic Glory of God. Although this is in many ways unprecedented, its meaning and significance shine with particular clarity in the light of certain apocalyptic visions of God and his Name-bearing Angel. Furthermore, an assertion such as this is an implicit claim to knowledge of heavenly reality, which suggests that the author is drawing upon his own mystical experiences. This possibility is taken up in Chapter 7 where I discuss the various references to religious experience in Hebrews, which are many and various, and mostly interpreted and articulated in apocalyptic and mystical terms. Consequently, the evidence for the appropriation of Jewish apocalyptic and mystical themes in Hebrews should not merely be regarded as a conceptual and literary enterprise, but also as an expression of living experience. The overall conclusion of Part II is that the mysticism of Hebrews is a distinctively Christian manifestation of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, which reflects mystical experiences as well as mystical ideas. In Part III I apply the conclusions of Part II to a particular passage in Hebrews. Having demonstrated the strong and substantial role of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism in Hebrews, I examine Heb 1:5–13 in the light of this conclusion and attempt to discern how the unique use of scripture, and the precise contours of the Christology, may be illuminated with reference to the mysticism of Hebrews. In Chapter 8 I argue that, contrary to current trends, the way in which the scriptural texts are presented in Heb 1:5–13 encourages us to move beyond a framework of contextually sensitive and text orientated exegesis and pay closer attention to the new context in which these texts are appropriated. In their new context these texts have been reconfigured into a series of divine speech acts that are occasioned by Christ’s entry into the heavenly realm, which is an implicit claim to knowledge of heavenly realities and probably points to the role of mystical experience. In Chapter 9 I argue that these divine utterances make particular sense within a context of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism since they engage a number of the themes discussed in Part I. Consequently, the way in which these scriptural texts are used, and the motifs they take up, suggest that it was the author’s mystical concerns and experiences that gave rise to the text of Heb 1:5–13 and the unique use of scripture therein. Like much



Chapter 1: Introduction

23

of Hebrews, this passage represents the intersection of experience, reflection and rhetoric. It is the result of an ultimately unrecoverable combination of mystical experiences of the risen Jesus, interpreted within a matrix of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, expressed with the vocabulary of the Jewish scriptures, and written for rhetorical purposes.







Part I

Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism “Apocalypse” is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial, insofar as it involves another supernatural world.1 [An apocalypse is] intended to interpret present, earthly circumstances in light of the supernatural world and of the future, and to influence both the understanding and the behaviour of the audience by means of divine authority.2

This oft quoted definition of an apocalypse represents the fruitful years of labour of the Apocalypse Group of the SBL Genres Project and has now become more or less standard. Although it does not please everyone in all its details,3 it is nevertheless a superb place to begin in the defining of terms. It is important to note that this definition was never ‘intended as a complete or adequate description of the constituent works’, but as a way of marking the boundaries of the genre in contradistinction from other genres.4 It must also be noted that within the genre there remains considerable variation. Some apocalypses emphasize the temporal or horizontal axis (e.g. Daniel 7–12; 4 Ezra), whereas others emphasize the spatial or vertical axis (e.g. 2 Enoch; 3 Baruch). Although the precision of the Group’s further subdivisions5 can be misleading,6 Collins is clear that the six types of  1

J. J. Collins, ‘Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre’, Semeia 14 (1979),

9. 2 A. Y. Collins, ‘Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypticism’, Semeia 36 (1986), 7; cf. D. Hellholm, ‘The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John’, Semeia 36 (1986), 27, and D. E. Aune, ‘The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre’, Semeia 36 (1986), 87. The second half of this definition, which defines the function of an apocalypse, was added later. J. J. Collins registers his approval of the amendment in his article ‘Genre, Ideology and Social Movements in Jewish Apocalypticism’, in J. J. Collins and J. H. Charlesworth (eds.), Mysteries and Revelations: Apocalyptic Studies Since the Uppsala Colloquium, JSPSup 9, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991, 19; cf. idem, Apocalyptic Imagination, 41–42. 3 See DiTomasso, ‘Apocalypses and Apocalypticism in Antiquity (Part I)’, 242–47. 4 J. J. Collins, ‘Introduction’, 10. 5 J. J. Collins distinguishes between apocalypses which do not contain an otherworldly journey (Type I) and those that do (Type II) and identifies the following six subdivisions: Ia: ‘Historical’ Apocalypses with No Otherworldly Journey; Ib: Apocalypses with Cosmic and/or Political Eschatology (which have neither historical review nor otherworldly journey); Ic: Apocalypses with Only Personal Eschatology (and no otherworldly

26

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

apocalypse are by no means in sharp distinction from one another but are subtle variations within the one genre.7 As Collins perceptively states, ‘the key word in the definition is transcendence’.8 Wherever the emphasis may fall in any given text, the revelation is invariably derived from direct contact with the divine world. The authors of the apocalypses write as those who have accessed a superior transcendent reality and have become privy to certain heavenly secrets, the contents of which are conveniently summed up in the Mishnaic prohibition. Whosoever gives his mind to four things it were better for him if he had not come into the world – what is above? what is beneath? what was beforetime? and what will be hereafter? (m. ‫ۉ‬ag. 2:1).9

Although the SBL definition has been criticized for making eschatology a central component of the definition,10 this is broadly conceived,11 and does not dominate the definition; the spatial axis is just as central as the temporal one. Although eschatology is often an important component of many apocalypses, it can no longer be considered the determining or defining element. There is more to the apocalypses than futuristic eschatology and those who highlight the importance of the vertical dimension and more mystical elements are absolutely right to do so.12 With these qualifications in mind, the aforementioned definition of an apocalypse is perfectly adequate. If an ‘apocalypse’ is a narrative which reveals a transcendent reality etc., then the term ‘apocalyptic’ may be taken as an adjective to refer to the  journey); IIa: ‘Historical’ Apocalypses with An Otherworldly Journey; IIb: Otherworldly Journeys with Cosmic and/or Political Eschatology; IIc: Otherworldly Journeys with Only Personal Eschatology (ibid., 13–15). 6 See F. Flannery-Dailey, ‘Lessons on Early Jewish Apocalypticism and Mysticism from Dream Literature’, in DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now, 238–44. 7 J. J. Collins, ‘Introduction’, 15–19. 8 Ibid., 10. Though Collins maintains that eschatology plays a central role in the Jewish apocalypses (Apocalyptic Imagination, 10). 9 See Rowland, Open Heaven, 75–189. 10 See M. Himmelfarb, ‘The Experience of the Visionary and Genre in the Ascension of Isaiah 6–11 and the Apocalypse of Paul’, Semeia 36 (1986), 97–111; Aune, ‘Apocalypse’, 65–96; DeConick, ‘What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism?’, 18–19. 11 E.g. the ascent of the soul in the Gnostic apocalypses is described as ‘eschatological salvation’ (F. T. Fallon, ‘The Gnostic Apocalypses’, Semeia 14 (1979), 125). 12 E.g. Scholem, Major Trends, 40–79; Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, 29–72; Rowland, Open Heaven, 9–72; Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 3–31; Morray-Jones, ‘Transformational Mysticism’, 1–31; Davila, ‘The Ancient Jewish Apocalypses’, 105– 25; Flannery-Dailey, ‘Lessons’, 231–47; M. Mach, ’From Apocalypticism to Early Jewish Mysticism’, in J. J. Collins (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism: Volume 1: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, New York: Continuum, 1998, 229–64.

Introduction to Part I

27

kind of material that characteristically emerges from, or is distinctive to, the apocalypses.13 ‘Apocalypticism’, on the other hand, may be understood as the ideology or world view that is expressed in the apocalypses and that emphasizes the apprehension of transcendent revelation.14 Thus, for the purposes of this study, ‘apocalyptic mysticism’ may be understood in terms of ‘vertical apocalypticism’,15 that is, it is characterized by a special interest in that which is above, although this cannot be neatly separated from what is below, before or hereafter. Although he prefers not to define early Jewish mysticism, Schäfer, among others, argues persuasively that the notion of unio mystica (mystical union with or absorption into God), a category that has long been cherished by historians of religion, is inappropriate with reference to the Jewish apocalypses and related literature.16 Although he includes a greater range of sources than we will consider in this study, and therefore encounters more diversity, he nevertheless concludes that the mystical elements running through Ezekiel, the ascent apocalypses, Qumran, Philo, the Rabbis, and the Merkavah mystics, are united in their craving ‘to bridge the gap between heaven and earth, between human beings and heavenly powers, between man and God’.17 Furthermore, instead of the notion of unio mystica, he notes that the notions of unio liturgica (liturgical communion with the angels in heaven) and unio angelica (‘angelification’ of humans) have a much greater basis in the texts under consideration, particularly the Jewish ascent apocalypses and related literature, which form the backbone of this present study.18 All this coheres well with the work of Rowland and Morray-Jones, whose understanding of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism may be summarized in terms of immediate and transformative experiences of the divine resulting in the revelation and apprehension of divine mysteries.19 Perhaps the most helpful definitions to emerge from recent research of Jewish and Christian mysticism are April DeConick’s definition of early Jewish and Christian mysticism and Bernard McGinn’s definition of Christian mysticism.  13

See J. J. Collins, ‘Genre’, 13. See DiTomasso, ‘Apocalypses and Apocalypticism in Antiquity (Part I)’, 239–41; Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, xv–xviii, 13–17. 15 J. Fossum, The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology, NTOA 30, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995, 1. 16 Schäfer, Origins, 1–20. 17 Ibid., 353. Schäfer also omits some important apocalypses that are included in this study (e.g. 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch and 3 Baruch). 18 Schäfer, Origins, 53–153; cf. K. P. Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament, AGJU 55, Leiden: Brill, 2004, 235–36. 19 Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, esp. Part I. 14



28

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

“mysticism” . . . identifies a tradition within early Judaism and Christianity centred on the belief that a person directly, immediately, and before death can experience the divine, either as a rapture experience or as one solicited by a particular praxis.20 the mystical element in Christianity is that part of its belief and practices that concerns the preparations for, the consciousness of, and the reaction to what can be described as the immediate or direct presence of God.21

Although McGinn is specifically concerned with Christian mysticism, his definition serves the Jewish apocalyptic context equally well,22 although one would be inclined to replace ‘presence of God’ with something like DeConick’s ‘experience of the divine’, since the latter phrase has the advantage of including a broader range of mystical phenomena, such as angelophanies, otherworldly journeys and human transformations, as well as encounters with the Most High God.23 DeConick’s definition is based upon Jewish as well as Christian evidence, so it is preferable as a definition of ‘Jewish apocalyptic mysticism’, but McGinn’s definition has the advantage of mentioning the person’s ‘preparations’ and ‘reaction’ to mystical experience, thereby overtly specifying and including the interpreted articulation of mystical experience and associated theology within his definition of mysticism.24 In summary, ‘Jewish apocalyptic mysticism’ centres upon the transcendent elements that one finds in the Jewish apocalypses, such as the heavenly realm, its realities and occupants, and the human encounter with this world through mystical experiences, such as revelatory dreams and visions, unio liturgica, and otherworldly journeys, often involving some kind of transformation (e.g. unio angelica). It is this aspect of the apocalyptic tradition that has all too often been overlooked in the interpretation and understanding of Hebrews. Therefore, in order to fully appreciate, and accurately orientate ourselves to this phenomenon, the next two Chapters are devoted to unpacking ‘Jewish apocalyptic mysticism’ more fully, by delineating and discussing the pertinent literary sources (Chapter 2) and by setting forth some of the major themes therein (Chapter 3).  20

DeConick, ‘What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism?’, 2 (italics original). B. McGinn, The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism: Vol. I. The Foundations of Mysticism: Origins to the Fifth Century, New York: Crossroad, 1992, xvii. 22 McGinn regards the Jewish matrix as part of the foundation of Christian mysticism (ibid., 9–22). 23 See also Moshe Idel’s succinct definition of Jewish mysticism as ‘contact with the divine world as a result of the intensification of religious life’ (M. Idel, Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism, London: Continuum, 2007, 67). 24 The rest of DeConick’s essay shows that all this is included, but it is not self evident in the definition itself. 21



Chapter 2

Major Sources Over the years New Testament scholars have provided countless parallels between the NT documents and the diverse and numerous background literatures.1 This is, of course, an important exercise and continues to yield precious insights into the NT. Unfortunately, as we have already observed above,2 this exercise is far too often carelessly executed and results in assertions that on closer inspection are not supported by the evidence. Frequently this is the result of a failure to appreciate one or more aspects of the background literature and/or to fall into ‘parallelomania’.3 Thus, a study of this kind, which seeks to explore the role of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism in Hebrews, risks riding roughshod over the background literature in an attempt to uncover parallels. Therefore, what follows is an attempt to determine and appreciate the relevant primary sources in their own right and on their own terms.4 Since so much of this study revolves around the relevant background literature, it would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of such an exercise. Collins identifies fifteen Jewish apocalypses which he dates to the First Century CE or before, nine of which are classified as ‘type 2’ apocalypses; that is, they are distinguished by their use of an otherworldly journey. 5  1

For an excellent guide to the background literature, see Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005. 2 See above, Chapter 1.2. 3 Sandmel defines parallelomania as ‘that extravagance among scholars which first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction’ (‘Parallelomania’, JBL 81.1 (1962), 1). 4 See also the relevant sections in George Nickelsburg’s excellent historical and literary introduction (G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, Second Edition, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005). 5 J. J. Collins, ‘The Jewish Apocalypses’, Semeia 14 (1979), 21–49. Collins also notes some related texts, which, though not formally recognized as apocalypses, have a great deal in common with them. See also A. F. Segal, ‘Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and their Environments’, ANRW II.23.2 (1980), 1358–79; M. Dean-Otting, Heavenly Journeys: A Study of the Motif in Hellenistic Jewish Literature, Judentum und Umwelt 8, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1984, 1–33; M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 3–8.

30

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

These are the works which emphasize the spatial dimension and display a greater interest in the more mystical elements of the tradition, and are particularly relevant for our study of Hebrews. They are the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36), the Astronomical Apocalypse (1 En. 72–82), the Similitudes of Enoch (1 En. 37–71), 2 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Testament of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, the Testament of Levi, and 3 Baruch. The other six works are classified as ‘type 1’ apocalypses or ‘historical’ apocalypses, and contain no otherworldly journey. These are the works which emphasize the temporal dimension, generally showing less interest in the vertical dimension, although one certainly cannot draw a neat line of distinction. They are Daniel, the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 83–90), the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:1–10 + 91:11–17), Jubilees, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch.

2.1 The ‘Jewish’ Apocalypses Although the identification of these works as apocalypses can hardly be denied,6 establishing their ancient Jewish origins is another matter altogether. As several scholars are now pointing out,7 one cannot simply assume that the ‘Old Testament Pseudepigrapha’, as they are commonly  6 Himmelfarb has some reservations about classifying the Testament of Abraham as an apocalypse (Ascent, 8). Other than noting the third person narration (which excludes it from the pseudepigrapha), she does not really explain how it ‘stands apart’ from the ascent apocalypses. The absence of pseudonymity is not a reason to exclude it from the apocalypse genre. First, pseudonymity is not exclusive to the apocalypses but can be found in a variety of Greco-Roman, Jewish and Christian texts (see D. A. Carson, ‘Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy’, DNTB, 857–64). Secondly, there are more exceptions to the pseudonymous tendency than is sometimes realized. Not only are there several apocalyptic texts which discard this device (Dan 1–6; 1 En. 6–11; Jub. 23; Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, Revelation, Shepherd of Hermas), but many pseudonymous apocalypses begin with a third person summary of events (1 En. 1:1–2; cf. 12:1–2; T. Levi 1:1–2; 2 En. 1a:1–6; 3 Bar. 1–2; Ascen. Isa. 6:1–17). As John Collins notes, pseudepigraphy was simply one way among many of lending authority to a text; its absence is a very limited departure from the conventions of the apocalyptic genre (Apocalyptic Imagination, 270– 71). 7 E.g. R. A. Kraft, ‘The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity’, in J. C. Reeves (ed.), Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, SBLEJL 6, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994, 55–86; idem, ‘The Pseudepigrapha and Christianity Revisited: Setting the Stage and Framing Some Central Questions’, JSJ 32 (2001), 371–95; M. de Jonge, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve, SVTP 18, Leiden: Brill, 2003; Davila, Provenance. The present discussion is deeply indebted to these works, particularly Davila’s.

Chapter 2: Major Sources

31

called, and to which almost all of these apocalypses belong, are a source for ancient Judaism and NT background. Most of this literature is only extant in late copies and translations, which have been transmitted (and in some cases reworked or perhaps even composed) entirely by Christians. In their present form, therefore, many of these texts are first and foremost Christian works, which tell us something about the Christianity in which they functioned. Thus, this should be the starting point if these texts are to be used in a methodologically responsible manner, and one may only posit ancient Jewish origins in the light of positive evidence. What, then, may be regarded as positive evidence? It has often been assumed that if a pseudepigraphon exhibits no overtly Christian elements, or if the Christian elements are marginal, and may be removed without damaging the sense of the work, then the work is Jewish. This approach can only take us so far, and is undermined by the facts that the first Christians were Jews, and that Christianity remained intertwined with Judaism long after the fall of Jerusalem.8 Moreover, it is perfectly plausible that Christians may have written pseudepigrapha with only marginal Christian elements or with no Christian elements whatsoever.9 The task is complicated further by the diversity within Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity. Aside from the initial permeable boundaries between Jews and Christians, there is the problem of what exactly may be regarded as distinctively Jewish or distinctively Christian. What are the themes and concerns that characterize Jewish groups in distinction from Christian groups and allow us to determine whether a given pseudepigraphon is rooted in ancient Judaism? These are the issues taken up in James Davila’s excellent monograph on The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha. On the basis of external criteria (i.e. extant Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts copied by Jews in the preChristian era), the various texts discovered at Qumran, Masada and throughout the Judean desert make up an indisputable corpus of ancient Jewish literature. In addition to the Hebrew Bible, these manuscripts include fragmentary copies of the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36), the Astronomical Apocalypse (1 En. 72–82), the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85– 90), the Epistle of Enoch (1 En. 91–105), Jubilees, Tobit and Sirach, all of  8

See A. H. Becker and A. Y. Reed (eds.), The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003; O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik (eds.), Jewish Belivers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2007. Elgvin argues that Jewish believers in Jesus often constitute the most plausible translators and/or transmitters of OT pseudepigrapha (T. Elgvin, ‘Jewish Christian Editing of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha’, in Skarsaune and Hvalvik (eds.), Jewish Belivers in Jesus, 278–304). 9 See Davila, Provenance, 74–119.



32

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

which seem to have been accurately preserved by the Christian translators.10 Based on this preliminary corpus of indisputable ancient Jewish literature, Davila is able to construct a ‘polythetic’ classification of common Judaism, that is, all the different Jewish groups of antiquity will exhibit a number of the following elements, although no single element or core essence is common to all of them. These elements include membership in a particular Jewish community, the worship of the God of Israel alone, the acceptance of the Jewish scriptures as revelation by this God, and the following of the laws and rituals mandated in those scriptures. Although one or more of these elements may be exhibited in Christian groups, Christianity is distinctive in its devotion to Jesus of Nazareth as the eschatological Messiah and ultimate agent of salvation. Moreover, Christianity embraced the nations and tended to disavow the temple cult and ritual laws, whereas Judaism remained an ethnic and national religion with a focus on the temple cult and Holy Land.11 One must also take into account the fact that Jewish relations among themselves, with Christians, and with non-Christian Gentiles, produced a complex array of Jews and Gentiles with various levels of commitment to Judaism. Davila discusses proselytes, God-fearers, sympathizers, syncretistic Jews, Jewish Christians, Judaizing Gentile Christians, Samaritans, and Galileans, recognizing that these are simply points on a continuum occupied by real people, many of whom may have had the means and motivation to compose OT pseudepigrapha. Thus, the range of possible origins for an ancient pseudepigraphon is somewhat more complex than Jewish or Christian, and, for a greater level of precision, these options should be kept in mind. This said, it is possible to isolate OT pseudepigrapha written by someone occupying one of the extremes on this continuum, someone to whom making a distinction was important. Based on the contents of the indisputable Jewish works (verified by external criteria), Davila identifies a number of internal criteria (i.e. signature features congenial to boundarymaintaining Judaism), which may function as positive evidence for the Jewish origins of a given pseudepigraphon. These signature features include substantial Jewish content, strong evidence for pre-Christian composition, strong evidence that the work was translated from Hebrew or Ara 10

There is of course a great deal more literature than that mentioned here. These particular works are noted because of their importance for the present study. In the light of positive evidence, Davila also includes the writings of Philo, Josephus and the Tannaitic Rabbis (ibid., 12–14, 164–79). 11 See also Rowland’s, Christian Origins: The Setting and Character of the Most Important Messianic Sect of Judaism, Second Edition, London: SPCK, 2002.

Chapter 2: Major Sources

33

maic, sympathetic concern with the Jewish ritual cult and law, and a concern with Jewish ethnic and national interests. Corresponding Christian signature features would include favourable references to Jesus, the church, the apostles, quotations or allusions to the NT, and hostile references to the Jews, the temple and Jewish ritual cult. The weakness with this approach is that it is mostly the extreme boundary-maintaining Jewish texts that may be identified as Jewish, which will inevitably exclude some genuinely Jewish pseudepigrapha.12 The great strength of this approach, however, is that it allows us to establish, on the basis of positive evidence, a corpus of pseudepigrapha whose Jewish origins are beyond reasonable doubt, and, as Davila stresses, a false negative does less harm to our reconstruction of ancient Judaism than a false positive.13 In the light of positive internal evidence, therefore, Davila maintains that the following pseudepigrapha may be regarded as an incomplete list of Jewish texts from the late Second Temple period: the Letter of Aristeas, 2 Baruch, the Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra, 3–4 Maccabees, the Testament or Assumption of Moses, Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities, and the Psalms of Solomon.14 It is encouraging to see that even after the application of Davila’s rigorous methodological principles, many of the texts to be utilized in this study to explore the Jewish apocalyptic and mystical context of Hebrews may be regarded as Jewish works from the late Second Temple period. On the other hand, Collins has identified a number of other ‘Jewish’ apocalypses which Davila does not discuss, or does not consider Jewish beyond reasonable doubt. They are 2 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Testament of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, the Testament of Levi, and 3 Baruch. In different ways and degrees, these texts are also potentially important witnesses to Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, but they each have their own difficulties and limitations that qualify any role they may have in elucidating this phenomenon. Therefore, these texts shall be discussed in this Chapter in order to determine the extent to which they offer us a window onto the apocalyptic mysticism of late Second Temple Judaism. 2.1.1 2 Enoch For the purposes of the present study, particular attention should be given to apocalyptic Enochic traditions, since, as we shall see, the author of Hebrews overtly references Enoch in such a way that suggests familiarity  12 As Davila notes, if it were not for the positive external evidence, for example, the Book of the Watchers and the Epistle of Enoch would be excluded since they do not exhibit any Jewish signature features (Provenance, 121). 13 Ibid., 10–73. 14 Ibid., 120–64.



34

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

with apocalyptic Enochic traditions.15 In view of this, and in the interests of situating 2 Enoch in relation to the relevant antecedents, a brief synopsis of some of the salient features of apocalyptic Enochic lore is in order. According to Genesis, Enoch was the son of Jared and the father of Methuselah, and, instead of the ‘living’ and ‘dying’ that characterizes all the other antediluvians, Enoch ‘walked with God’ and, after a mere 365 years, God ‘took’ him (5:18–24). The double reference to Enoch’s ‘walk with God’ (vv. 22, 24) emphasizes his habitual righteous behaviour, and his mysterious disappearance probably implies that he avoided death and ascended directly to the abode of God (cf. 2 Kgs 2:1, 5, 9, 10).16 This brief and enigmatic account probably presupposes a great deal of Enochic lore, such as the traditions found in the Book of the Watchers and Astronomical Apocalypse.17 As Milik notes, the discovery of Aramaic fragments among the Qumran scrolls ‘allow us to establish that from the first half of the second century B.C. onwards the Book of Watchers had essentially the same form as that in which it is known through the Greek and Ethiopic versions’.18 In view of the quotation of 1 En. 1:9 in Jude 14–15, we may, at the very least, trace the Greek version to the First Century CE, although it may have belonged to the same general stage of translation as the Septuagint version of Daniel.19 The Book of the Watchers weaves together the story of Enoch with that of the fallen angels (cf. Gen 6:1–4) in a detail which far surpasses the elusive biblical references. The book describes itself as: ‘The words of the blessing with which Enoch blessed the righteous chosen who will be present on the day of tribulation, to remove all the enemies; and the righteous will be saved (1 En. 1:1)’.20 The introductory chapters establish Enoch’s  15

See Heb 11:5–6 and the discussion in Chapter 9.4. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary 1, Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987, 128. 17 So J. R. Davila, ‘Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron: Introductory Reflections on Divine Mediators and the Origins of the Worship of Jesus’, in C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila and G. S. Lewis (eds.), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, JSJSup 63, Leiden: Brill, 1999, 8; C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leiden: Brill, 2002, 22; M. E. Stone, ‘Enoch, Aramaic Levi and Sectarian Origins’, JSJ 19.2 (1988), 162–63; J. T. Milik, with the collaboration of M. Black, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4, Oxford: Clarendon, 1976, 30–32; Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 33–34. 18 Milik, Books of Enoch, 25. 19 So J. Barr, ‘Aramaic-Greek Notes on the Book of Enoch’, JSS 23 (1978), 184–98. 20 Unless noted otherwise all translations of 1 Enoch are taken from G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. For Aramaic texts, see Milik, Books of Enoch. For Greek texts, see M. Black (ed.), 16

Chapter 2: Major Sources

35

righteousness and the authenticity of his revelation (1–5) followed by an account of the fall of the watchers and their corruption of humanity (6–11). Having been imprisoned for their crimes, the condemned watchers implore Enoch to petition the Lord on their behalf, which he does (12–13). This provokes his rapture into the heavenly realm where he is commissioned by God to pronounce judgment against the watchers (14–16), which is followed by guided journeys through ‘inaccessible regions’, disclosing that the places of condemnation and reward are already present and prepared (17–36). The Astronomical Apocalypse or Book of the Heavenly Luminaries is roughly contemporaneous with the Book of the Watchers, and offers a more detailed account of the astronomical phenomena mentioned at the end of the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 33–36).21 There is no record of Enoch’s ascent into heaven, but his heavenly location is evident from the astronomical content of the revelation, and the fact that he is returned to earth at the end of it (81:5).22 The Book purports to be written by Enoch for his son Methuselah (76:14; 79:1) and subsequent generations (82:1–3). It documents the laws by which the heavenly bodies operate, and demonstrates the integral role of their angelic rulers (82:9–13). In contrast to some Jewish groups (e.g. Sir 43:7), the (Ethiopic) Astronomical Apocalypse emphasizes the accuracy and importance of the 364-day solar calendar (72:32; 74:10–75:3; 82:4–20).23 What is resoundingly clear from this apocalypse is the inextricable connection between heaven and earth, and the importance that an understanding of the heavenly world has for establishing orthodox thought and practice. The divinely ordained movements of the heavenly luminaries deter Apocalypsis Henochi Graece, PVTG 3, Leiden: Brill, 1970. For Ethiopic texts, see M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments, 2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. 21 Given that the Astronomical Apocalypse opens with an unnamed narrator on an angelically guided cosmic tour, Olson suggests that ‘this booklet was probably written as a conscious continuation of the “Book of the Watchers”’ (D. C. Olson, Enoch: A New Translation: The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch, Translated with Annotations and Cross-References, North Richland Hills, Texas: BIBAL Press, 2004, 13). On the other hand, there is some evidence to suggest that the Astronomical Apocalypse may be a little earlier (see G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 37–82, Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012, 390–94). 22 When Enoch is returned to earth he is given one year to transmit the revelation to Methuselah, after which he will be finally taken (81:6). Thus, when read in conjunction with Gen 5:23, Enoch is 364 when he is returned to earth. 23 See VanderKam’s excellent introduction in Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 335–407. The Aramaic fragments give much more attention to the phases of the moon, which is heavily abbreviated in the Ethiopic version, a development that might have happened during the Greek phase of the work.



36

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

mine the correct calculation of the holy days and festivals that are so central to Jewish religion, thereby ensuring blessed harmony between the heavenly pattern and the earthly imitation (cf. 1Q28 [1QS] I 14–15; 1QHa XX 5–10). Erroneous calendars, on the other hand, transgress the heavenly pattern and lead those who follow them into sin and error with devastating consequences (cf. Jub. 6:32–38).24 As Collins notes, the purpose of the apocalypse is more specific than the Book of the Watchers, but the assumption that ‘right observance is determined by an understanding of the heavenly world’ is the same.25 Although the work is primarily concerned with what is above, an eschatological note is struck when Uriel, the leader of the luminaries, speaks of the days when ‘everything on earth will change’ even ‘the moon will change its order’ and the ‘heads of the stars will stray’ and be mistaken for gods (80:2–8).26 Similarly, some time after the Book of the Watchers and the Astronomical Apocalypse, the Dream Visions of Enoch (1 En. 83–90) also identify Enoch as the recipient of special revelations, but the contents primarily concern what is to come. Enoch observes the history of humanity unfold from the creation of the world down to what is probably the author’s own time, the Maccabean revolt (see 90:9–12), with the restoration of primordial order expected imminently. In a slightly different vein, and on the basis of the revelations granted to Enoch, the so-called Epistle of Enoch (1 En. 91–105) records various exhortations and encouragements delivered by Enoch to his children for future generations. Although all the booklets that comprise 1 Enoch are unanimous in their testimony to the exceptional privileges of Enoch, and in his unique status as a mediator of heavenly wisdom, the apocalyptic career of Enoch takes a significant turn in the Parables or Similitudes of Enoch (1 En. 37–71). Despite Milik’s suggestion that the Similitudes of Enoch is a late thirdcentury Christian composition,27 it is widely agreed that this apocalypse emerged from a Jewish context around the First Century CE. While the Jewish origin of the text is largely undisputed, more precise identifications  24

See Rowland, Open Heaven, 120–22. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 62. 26 Olson argues that 80:2–8 was originally the conclusion of the apocalypse and should be understood as a satirical piece on those who follow incorrect calendars. ‘The universe is not collapsing; it only seems that way to fools who follow wrong calendars and lag behind the true reckoning of the seasons’ (Enoch, 176, 273–76). Many regard most of chapters 80–82 as secondary amendations, introduced when the Astronomical Apocalypse was edited together with other parts of the Enochic corpus (see the discussion in Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 359–67; J. C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, CBQMS 16, Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984, 76–79, 106–9). 27 Milik, Books of Enoch, 89–98. 25

Chapter 2: Major Sources

37

of date tend to fluctuate between scholars.28 Nevertheless, there are good reasons for dating the Similitudes to the decades around the turn of the Common Era.29 Unlike the other booklets that comprise 1 Enoch, the Similitudes of Enoch is currently only extant in late Ethiopic translations of a Greek version, which was itself a translation of the original Semitic version.30 Thus, we are dealing with a translation of a translation, although one cannot rule out the possibility that some Aramaic witnesses were consulted during the production of the Ethiopic version.31 It should also be noted that the Ethiopic version of 1 Enoch cannot simply be regarded as a straight translation. Rather, it is probably more precise to think of it in terms of a new edition, which belongs to a different literary and historical context.32 The ‘vision of wisdom that Enoch saw’ consists of three parables for ‘those who dwell on the earth’, which document the various heavenly secrets that were revealed to Enoch (37:1–5). The first parable (38–44) briefly documents Enoch’s ascent into the heavens where he perceives angelic dwellings, the resting places of the righteous, and the ‘Chosen One’. The judgment of sinners is anticipated (41:1–2, 9) and reinforced by the fact that wisdom is forced to remain in heaven, for she is not welcome among human beings (42:1–3). Thus, in contrast to certain wisdom traditions (e.g. Sir 24), the Similitudes assert that wisdom is derived from the heavenly world (cf. 1 En. 48:1; 49:1). Once again, we find the assumption that one must look up in order to walk straight. The second parable (45– 57) is more eschatological and concerns ‘those who deny the name of the dwelling of the holy ones and of the Lord of Spirits’ (45:1). They shall be judged by the ‘Chosen One’ who is the pre-existent, angelomorphic and messianic ‘son of man’ (46–49), whereas the righteous shall enjoy resurrection, renewal, and great joy in paradise (50–51). In the third parable  28

Knibb, for example, although he concedes the possibility that the Similitudes might be earlier, urges a date around the end of the First Century CE (M. A. Knibb, ‘The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review’, NTS 25 (1978/79), 345–59). Olson, on the other hand maintains that the Similitudes in their original form can be no later than 50 BCE (Enoch, 12, 138 n. 16; cf. D. D. Hannah, ‘The Book of Noah, The Death of Herod the Great, and the Date of the Parables of Enoch’, in G. Boccaccini (ed.), Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2007, 469–77). Collins (Apocalyptic Imagination, 177–78), Davila (Provenance, 132–37), Nickelsburg (Jewish Literature, 254–56) and Rowland (Open Heaven, 264–66) all place the work somewhere in between. 29 See Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 58–63. 30 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 15–16; Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 30–34. 31 So Knibb, ‘The Date of the Parables’, 345–59; cf. idem, Ethiopic, 2:37–46. 32 See M. A. Knibb, Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions, SVTP 22, Leiden: Brill, 2009, 36–76.



38

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

(58–69)33 Enoch is shown more cosmological secrets and promises peace and glory to the righteous, and a time when the Chosen son of man will judge the angels and the kings and the mighty. In its present form the Similitudes of Enoch has two conclusions. The first (70:1–4) gives a brief account of Enoch’s final departure from the earth into the presence of God to dwell with the angels and the righteous. The second conclusion (71:1–17), which may have been added later,34 also records Enoch’s ascent into heaven, but gives a considerably more elaborate account. Like 60:1–6, 71:1–17 has much in common with 14:8–25, a passage the author(s) may have known well. Michael takes Enoch into ‘the heaven of heavens’ where he beholds the house of hailstones immersed in tongues of fire and surrounded by a variety of innumerable celestial beings (71:5–8; cf. 14:10–23). The ‘Head of Days’ emerges from the house, Enoch falls upon his face (71:9–13), and the Deity35 reveals a remarkable secret to Enoch that ‘you are that son of man who was born for righteousness’ (71:14), which identifies Enoch with the Chosen One who was described earlier (e.g. 46:1–8; 48:1–10; 69:26–29).36 Compared with the rest of 1 Enoch, this is a significant development towards an even more exalted view of Enoch, which parallels the exaltation of Enoch in 2 Enoch (and of course 3 Enoch).37 In its own words, 2 Enoch is about ‘the taking away of Enoch’ and how the Lord made him a witness of the most wise and great, unchanging and almighty sovereignty of God, and of the very great many eyed and immovable throne of the LORD, and of the brightly shining station of the LORD’S servants, and of the ranks of the powerful, fireborn, heavenly armies, the

 33

Chapters 65–68 (and probably 69:1–25) seem to be a later addition (see Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 253; Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 294–96). 34 See Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 330–32; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 190. 35 Instead of ‘and that angel came to me’ (so Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 95), some manuscripts simply read: ‘and he came to me’ (so Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 321, 327–28). Given that attention is drawn to the voice of this person (a motif that occurs in 1 En. 15:1 when God is the speaker (cf. Ezek 1:28; 2:1; 2 En. 22:5)), the latter reading is perhaps preferable. The phrase ‘and that angel’ may have arisen because of a perceived awkwardness of God referring to himself in the third person. 36 Alternatively, ‘son of man’ may be nothing more than an idiomatic form of address, indicative of humanity, as in 60:10 (cf. Ezek 2:1 etc.). Thus, Isaac translates 71:14 as: ‘You, son of man, who art born in righteousness, and upon whom righteousness has dwelt, the righteousness of the Antecedent of Time will not forsake you’ (‘1 Enoch’, OTP 1:50). Davila objects to this interpretation noting that ‘the description of Enoch in 71:14 deliberately echoes the language of 46:3, a passage that describes the cosmic Son of Man’ (‘Methodology’, 10). 37 Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 69–70, 328–32.

Chapter 2: Major Sources

39

indescribable combination of a great multitude of elements, and of the variegated appearance and indescribable singing of the army of cherubim, and of the light without measure (1a:1–6).38

In his 365th year, two large and magnificent ‘men’ take Enoch through the heavens into the seventh heaven where he beholds the Lord upon his throne and is transformed into one of the glorious angels (3–22). Having been instructed by Vereveil, and even the Lord himself (23–37), Enoch is returned to earth where he relays the revelations he had been granted to his children (38–67). When the allotted 30 days are over, the angels return Enoch to the Lord who makes him ‘stand in front of his face for eternity’ (67:2). The remaining chapters (68–73) narrate Methusalom’s divine call to the priesthood which is passed on to ‘Nir’ and then to the miraculously born ‘Melkisedek’, who ‘will be my priest to all priests’ (71:29). Since 2 Enoch exists almost entirely in Slavonic translations written by Christian scribes, none of which are earlier than the Fourteenth Century, it could be argued that 2 Enoch has no place in the reconstruction of ancient Judaism or as background to the NT.39 Establishing the provenance, date, and textual character of this apocalypse is indeed fraught with difficulties and it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this time.40 Nevertheless, the recent discovery of some medieval Coptic fragments of 2 Enoch41 demonstrates unequivocally that it did not originate among the Slavic peoples, as Maunder claimed,42 and was not the work of a ninth or tenth 38

Unless noted otherwise, all quotations are from Andersen’s translation of the short recension [A] (F. I. Anderson, ‘2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch’, OTP 1:103–213). 39 So F. L. Horton Jr., The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and the Epistle to the Hebrews, SNTSMS 30, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976, 81; E. F. Mason, ‘You Are a Priest Forever’: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, STDJ 74, Leiden: Brill, 2008, 136–37. Horton’s chief concern is the Melchizedek section, which he erroneously dismisses on the basis that it is found in only one recension. The tradition is in fact found in both recensions, in six manuscripts representing four text families (Anderson, ‘2 Enoch’, OTP 1:92 n. 3). Similarly, Segal states that texts extant only in Slavonic should be distrusted on account of Bogomil influence, but notes further that ‘there is nothing in the ascension tradition per se that is characteristic of Bogomil invention’ (‘Heavenly Ascent’, 1362 n. 100). With the exception of ch. 31, which is only found in the long recension, it could be argued that there is nothing in the entire work that is characteristic of Bogomil invention. Moreover, the emphasis upon God as creator is utterly contrary to Bogomil thought. 40 See Anderson‚ ‘2 Enoch’, OTP 1:92–97. 41 For details, see J. L. Hagen, ‘No Longer “Slavonic” Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia’, in A. Orlov, G. Boccaccini, and J. Zurawski (eds.), New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only, Leiden: Brill, 2012, forthcoming. 42 A. S. D. Maunder, ‘The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch’, The Observatory 41 (1918), 309–16 (cited by Anderson, ‘2 Enoch’, OTP 1:94).



40

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

century Byzantine monk, as Milik suggested.43 In fact, this discovery takes a significant step towards confirming Charles’ judgment that it was written by an Alexandrian Jew in the first half of the First Century CE.44 At the very least, the work may be traced to early medieval Egyptian Christianity, although since most Coptic texts of this kind have been translated from Greek,45 these fragments further confirm the existence of a Greek 2 Enoch circulating in late antiquity, most likely in and around Alexandria.46 Despite some Christian interpolations, the secondary nature of which is betrayed by their presence in only one manuscript (family), 2 Enoch exhibits no overtly Christian elements. Given the lack of certain Jewish signature features, it could be argued that the work exhibits no overtly Jewish elements either, although the evidence does seem to point to a Jewish origin. The centrality and exalted status of Enoch is highly unlikely to be of Christian origin, but, like the Similitudes, places the work within a developing Jewish tradition, somewhere on the trajectory between the early apocalyptic Enochic texts and the later Hekhalot text of 3 Enoch.47 This is corroborated further by the advocacy of the (Enochic) solar calendar (2 En. 13–16; cf. 1 En. 72–82), the concern for making correct animal sacrifices (e.g. 2 En. 59:1–5; 69:9–13), and the support for the temple (51:4). Thus, it seems likely that 2 Enoch originated among Hellenistic Jews (proselytes? God-fearers? syncretistic Jews?), perhaps around the same time as the Similitudes of Enoch.48 Although the work is more relevant to the Jewish context of early Christianity than some seem to think, it must be used cautiously for such purposes and never exclusively. In its entirety the work only exists in late Slavonic translations,49 which represent (at least) two recensions, both of  43

Milik, Books of Enoch, 109–12. Charles, ‘Book of the Secrets of Enoch’, APOT 2:425–30; cf. C. Böttrich, Weltweisheit, Menschheit, Urkult, WUNT II 50, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992, 192. 45 Similarly, as Anderson notes, ‘[m]ost of the early religious literature in Slavonic was translated from Greek’, and a Greek Vorlage can in fact be discerned from the fact that the Adam acronym (30:13) only works in Greek (‘2 Enoch’, OTP 1:94, 152; cf. Charles, ‘Book of the Secrets of Enoch’, APOT 2:426). Furthermore, the abundance of Semitisms (e.g. 69–70) may point to a Hebrew or Aramaic source behind the Greek (see Anderson, ‘2 Enoch’, OTP 1:94), though this is far from certain. 46 See also the possible reference to 2 Enoch by Origen (Princ. I. III. 3). 47 See Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 221–25; A. Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, TSAJ 107, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, 40–208 esp. 148–208. 48 Through the application of the methodology developed by Davila, Grant Macaskill tentatively maintains that a Jewish origin is more likely than a Christian one (Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 115, Leiden: Brill, 2007, 197–98, 228). 49 The Coptic fragments contain chapters 36–42. 44

Chapter 2: Major Sources

41

which have incorporated secondary emendations.50 Although at certain points the long recension is more coherent and probably contains some ancient material that has been deleted in the short recension, the short recension naturally contains fewer expansions and interpolations, and is supported by the recently discovered Coptic fragments. 2.1.2 The Apocalypse of Abraham The Apocalypse of Abraham divides neatly into two parts: chapters 1–8 and 9–32. The first part elaborates on Genesis 12, describing Abraham’s conversion from idolatry through a series of amusing events and his consequent departure from his father’s house (cf. Jub. 11–12; L.A.B. 6:5–18; Josephus, Ant., 1:154–60). The second part elaborates on Genesis 15 and comprises the apocalypse proper. God speaks to Abraham and sends him his principal angel Iaoel to strengthen and guide him. Having made all the necessary sacrifices, and overcome the hostilities of Azazel, they ascend into the heavens. In the seventh heaven the fearsome Eternal One approaches them, concealed in fire with a voice like the raging sea, so Abraham and Iaoel worship him and sing the celestial hymn, which seems to function as a kind of protective charm that prevents further fear and adverse effects (cf. 1 En. 22:10–14; 71:11–12),51 and perhaps marks Abraham’s achievement of angelic status.52 As they sing the fire rises upwards to reveal the fiery throne-chariot underneath, surrounded by celestial beings who are also singing the song. God remains concealed in the fire, but his voice proceeds forth and beckons Abraham to observe and understand. From the seventh heaven Abraham sees other heavens, a multitude of angels, hosts of stars, and the elements who obey them, but no other God. He studies a series of visions and God explains all the salient features of the past, present and future, including creation, Eden, Israel’s election, the corruption and destruction of the temple, and its restoration in the last days, and Abraham ‘accepted the words of God in his heart’. The Apocalypse of Abraham is extant only in a Slavonic translation, representing several Russian redactions dating from the Fourteenth to the Seventeenth Centuries, although the original form of the Slavonic text is fairly clear.53 The donor language was most likely Greek, although the numerous Semitisms strongly suggest a Hebrew or Aramaic original,  50

See Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom, 196–204. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, 55–56; Himmelfarb, Ascent, 63; D. Merkur, ‘The Visionary Practices of Jewish Apocalyptists’, in L. B. Boyer and S. A. Gralnick (eds.), The Psychoanalytic Study of Society, Vol. 14, Hillsdale: The Analytic Press, 1989, 40–41. 52 Himmelfarb, Ascent, 61–65; cf. Schäfer, Origins, 91. 53 R. Rubinkiewicz, ‘Apocalypse of Abraham’, OTP 1:681–82. 51



42

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

thereby pointing to its Jewish origins.54 Other than the Jewish Christian interpolation at 29:3–13,55 and the occasional Bogomil clanger (e.g. 22:5),56 the book exhibits no overtly Christian elements. On the other hand, it includes substantial Jewish content, focusing on the person of Abraham, his rejection of idolatry, his election and progeny, and the importance of God’s commandments and temple cult. Moreover, Abraham’s ascent and throne vision clearly stand within a context of early Jewish mysticism.57 Since the Apocalypse of Abraham describes the destruction of Jerusalem (27:1–12), belongs to the same tradition as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch,58 and seems to have been known by the author of The Recognitions of Clement (c. 200 CE),59 most date the original composition somewhere between 70– 150 CE.60 2.1.3 The Testament of Abraham Although the Testament of Abraham is not exactly a testament, it does concern Abraham’s last days and addresses the inevitability and fear of death.61 God commands his archangel Michael to tell Abraham that his death is near and to make his preparations. Eventually, Abraham reluctantly accepts his fate but he wants to see the world first. God agrees and commands Michael to do whatever he asks. God has to interrupt his tour, however, because he keeps condemning sinners to destruction and ‘if he  54 J. J. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 225; Rubinkiewicz, ‘Apocalypse’, OTP 1:682–83; A. Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha: Toward the Original of the Apocalypse of Abraham, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004, 37, 61. 55 See Elgvin, ‘Jewish Christian Editing’, 302–3. 56 See Rubinkiewicz, ‘Apocalypse’, OTP 1:684. 57 See Scholem, Major Trends, 52, 61, 68–70; Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, 54–55; Schäfer, Origins, 92; Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 81–84, 249. 58 See Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 288; J. J. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 194–232, and the various parallels noted by G. H. Box, The Apocalypse of Abraham and Ascension of Isaiah: Translations of Early Documents, London: SPCK, 1919, 42–46, 59– 61, 64–68, 75–77, 80–86. 59 1:32: ‘[Abraham], being an astrologer, was able, from the account and order of the stars, to recognize the Creator, while all others were in error, and understood that all things are regulated by His providence. Whence also an angel, standing by him in a vision, instructed him more fully concerning those things which he was beginning to perceive. He showed him also what belonged to his race and posterity, and promised him that those districts should be restored rather than given to them’. See also L.A.B. 18:5; 2 Bar. 4:4 and 4 Ezra 3:13–14 which also show an awareness of some of the traditions preserved in the Apocalypse. 60 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 288; Rubinkiewicz, ‘Apocalypse’, OTP 1:683; S. E. Robinson, ‘Apocalypse of Abraham’, DNTB, 37. 61 J. J. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 253–55; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 325.

Chapter 2: Major Sources

43

were to see all those who pass their lives in sin he would destroy everything that exists’ (10:13)!62 Instead Abraham is taken to the first gate of heaven where he sees two ways and Adam sitting on a golden throne, rejoicing over those who enter the narrow way into paradise, and mourning over those who enter the broad way into destruction. A glorious enthroned figure identified as Abel is responsible for the first judgment (13:1–6; cf. 1 En. 22:7), which is followed by a further two judgments. Seeing that one particular soul must await the decision of ‘the judge of all’, Abraham and Michael intercede and God saves the soul. Abraham repents of his earlier condemnation of the sinners, God forgives him and Michael returns him to earth. He is instructed to prepare for death once more, but once more he resists and Death has to deceive him into giving up his spirit. The text of the Testament of Abraham is preserved in two recensions, a long [A] and a short [B] recension. The long recension is attested in twenty three Greek manuscripts dating from the Fourteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries and a late Romanian version. The short recension is attested in nine Greek manuscripts dating from the Eleventh to the Sixteenth Centuries as well as several versions. The oldest extant witness is a fragmentary fifthcentury Sahidic papyrus, which is generally closer to the short recension, though in a few places it agrees with the long recension against the short.63 It is generally acknowledged that the contents and order of the original text is better preserved in the (more coherent) long recension, even though it contains a greater measure of modernisation and secondary interpolations. Although the short recension shows less evidence of Christian influence and interpolation, it seems to have heavily abbreviated its source.64 Despite some Semitisms, which may be better described as Septuagintalisms,65 Greek is the most likely language of composition.66 The Sahidic Coptic papyrus, which is probably a translation from the Greek, allows us to situate the work in (Egyptian) Christian circles of late antiquity.  62

Unless noted otherwise, all quotations are taken from E. P. Sanders’ translation of the long recension [A] (‘Testament of Abraham’, OTP 1:882–95). Likewise, this summary is based on the long recension. For the Greek texts, see M. R. James, The Testament of Abraham, Texts and Studies 2.1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892; reprinted in M. E. Stone, The Testament of Abraham: The Greek Recensions, Missoula, Montana: University Press, 1972. 63 D. C. Allison Jr., Testament of Abraham, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003, 4–11. 64 Sanders, ‘Testament’, OTP 1:871–73; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 322, 327, 417 n. 94; Davila, Provenance, 201; Allison, Testament of Abraham, 12–27. 65 So Delcor, Le Testament d’Abraham, 34, cited by Sanders, ‘Testament’, OTP 1:873. 66 Sanders, ‘Testament’, OTP 1:873–74.



44

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

The internal evidence is extremely difficult to evaluate and does not really allow us to move beyond the aforementioned context with any certainty. On the one hand, the work lacks Jewish signature features, exhibits clear and fully integrated influences from the NT (e.g. 11:2–11 [A]; 8:3–11 [B]; cf. Matt 7:13–14) and concludes with a Trinitarian doxology (T. Ab. 20:15 [A]; 14:9 [B]). On the other hand, a number of elements from chapters 10–14 in the long recension are particularly difficult to reconcile with Christian authorship, such as the depiction of Abel as the glorified and enthroned eschatological judge,67 and the role of the twelve tribes of Israel in this scenario (13:1–8). Although a typological interpretation may have made these elements acceptable in a Christian context, it is perhaps more plausible that the Testament of Abraham originated in Jewish circles. Thus, although it has clearly incorporated Jewish traditions, and the extant recensions may represent Christian reworkings of an earlier Jewish work,68 there is currently little to commend the Testament of Abraham as anything other than an ancient (Egyptian) Christian composition, with limited value for NT background.69 Nevertheless, in view of the Jewish influences, and the possibility that the author(s)/redactor(s) could have been Jewish Christians, it is still a relevant witness to the phenomenon of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, but, for the time being, it should be placed alongside other early overtly Christian apocalyptic literature, such as Revelation, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the Shepherd of Hermas. 2.1.4 The Apocalypse of Zephaniah In his Stromateis, Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215) refers to a statement of Zephaniah the prophet, which relates a vision of the fifth heaven in which exalted angels are ‘dwelling in the temples of salvation and singing

 67

Unless it suggests some kind of dialogue with Cainite Gnosticism? For some references to the Cainites in early Christian literature, see Tertullian, Praescr. 2; Bapt. 1; Hippolytus, Haer. 8.13; Irenaeus, Haer. 1.31.1. 68 Allison has recently argued in favour of a Jewish Urtext originating among Egyptian Jews some time before the Second Century CE (Testament of Abraham, 28–40). See also Sanders, who argues that the original document was a product of Egyptian (Alexandrian) Judaism c. 100 CE (‘Testament’, OTP 1:874–76). 69 So Davila, Provenance, 199–207; cf. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 327: ‘In its present form the Testament of Abraham is a Christian text’. The same may be said for the Testament of Isaac and the Testament of Jacob, which appear to consciously imitate the Testament of Abraham, and, in their present form, clearly belong to early Coptic Christianity (see K. H. Kuhn, ‘The Testament of Isaac’, AOT, 423–25; idem, ‘The Testament of Jacob’, AOT, 441–42; W. F. Stinespring, ‘Testament of Isaac’, OTP 1:903–4).

Chapter 2: Major Sources

45

hymns to the ineffable most high God’.70 Clement’s quotation clearly does not belong to the biblical book of Zephaniah, but comes from a long lost extra-biblical composition customarily referred to as the Apocalypse of Zephaniah. Similarly, an early fifth-century Sahidic Coptic fragment also mentions an extra-biblical apocalyptic vision of Zephaniah. In this fragment Zephaniah witnesses five thousand angels punishing a soul, which causes him to fall upon his face in fear. The angel of the Lord comforts him, and explains that ‘the soul was found in its lawlessness’. The next scene mentions a broad place with thousands upon thousands of diverse beings with ‘loose’ hair before the fragment breaks off.71 The final witness is a fourth-century Akhmimic Coptic manuscript which is considerably more extensive than the Sahidic fragment and Clement’s quotation, but still only preserves a portion (perhaps a fourth) of the text. Unfortunately the beginning and end of the Akhmimic text are missing and the visionary remains anonymous in the surviving portion. In view of the connections with the Sahidic fragment, which does identify the visionary as Zephaniah, the Akhmimic text might also be an extract from the so-called Apocalypse of Zephaniah.72 The Akhmimic text describes part of an otherworldly journey in which the visionary is shown various spheres and scenarios by the angel of the Lord. He observes various facets of human life, the torture of certain souls, the recording angels, a ‘beautiful city’, Hades, the fearsome angelic accuser, and the glorious angel Eremiel who assures him of his righteousness and safety. Before the text breaks off, we read of the seer’s transformation, triumph over the accuser and ascent into heaven. Since Clement quotes the Apocalypse as a relatively authoritative document, it must have been circulating for some time. Given the reference to Susanna (6:10), however, it could not have been composed any earlier than the First Century BCE, making some time in the First Century CE a likely possibility. Although some Christian colouring may have crept in during the transmission and translation of the document, these are barely discernable, and there are no distinctively Christian elements. Rather the work is entirely intelligible as a Jewish apocalypse, and, although it is dif-

 70 Clement, Strom. 5.11.77 OTP 1:508. An apocalypse of Zephaniah is also mentioned, but not quoted, in three other ancient witnesses (see O. S. Wintermute, ‘Apocalypse of Zephaniah’, OTP 1:499–500). 71 Wintermute, ‘Apocalypse of Zephaniah’, OTP 1:508–9. 72 K. H. Kuhn, ‘Apocalypse of Zephaniah’, AOT, 916.



46

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

ficult to be more specific, it was most likely written by an (Alexandrian) Greek-speaking Jew.73 2.1.5 The Testament of Levi As with the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as a whole, in its current form the Testament of Levi is a Greek (Jewish) Christian document.74 Regardless of whether the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs represents a (Jewish) Christian translation and reworking of an earlier Jewish work or was originally authored by (Jewish) Christians, there can be no doubt that they are heavily indebted to Jewish sources and traditions.75 With regard to the Testament of Levi this is undeniable since the parallel Aramaic Levi Document (hereafter ALD), which may be assigned to a (priestly) wing of Judaism around the Second or Third Century BCE,76 testifies to its antiquity.77 Unfortunately ALD has been preserved only in fragments, but the content and order of the original document appears to have proceeded as follows.78 1:1–3: The Story of Dinah (cf. Gen 34; Jub. 30; T. Levi 6–7) 2:1–5: The Wars of the Sons of Jacob (cf. Jub. 34:1–9; T. Jud. 3–7) 3:1–18: Levi’s Prayer for purity (cf. T. Levi 2:10; 4:2)79 4:1–13: Travels and Vision of Levi (cf. T. Levi 3–5; 8; Jub. 32:1) 5:1–8: Levi’s Priesthood, Blessing and Instruction (cf. T. Levi 8–9) 6:1–5: Priestly Teaching on purity 7:1–7: Priestly Teaching on wood offerings (cf. Jub. 21:6; T. Levi 9:11–12) 8:1–7: Priestly Teaching on Sacrifices

 73

So S. E. Robinson, ‘Apocalypse of Zephaniah’, DNTB, 39; Wintermute, ‘Apocalypse of Zephaniah’, OTP 1:500–1; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 242; Himmelfarb, Ascent, 51. 74 H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, Leiden: Brill, 1985, 82–85; Elgvin, ‘Jewish Christian Editing of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha’, 286–92. 75 Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 133–36; H. C. Kee, ‘Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, OTP 1:777–78; idem, ‘Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, DNTB, 1200–5; Elgvin, ‘Jewish Christian Editing of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha’, 286–92. 76 J. C. Greenfield, M. E. Stone and E. Eshel (eds.), The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary, SVTP 19, Leiden: Brill, 2004, 19–22. 77 R. A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition From Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi, Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1996, 171–98; Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 17–25; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 159–65. 78 The enumeration and ordering of ALD follows that of Greenfield et al., Aramaic Levi, 11–19. 79 See also the eleventh-century Athos manuscript (ms e) which includes the Greek equivalent (M. de Jonge in cooperation with H. W. Hollander, H. J. de Jonge and Th. Korteweg, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text, PVTG 1:2, Leiden: Brill, 1978, 25; Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 458–60).

Chapter 2: Major Sources

47

9:1–18: The Measures of Wood, Salt, Flour etc. (cf. T. Levi 9:13–14) 10:1–14: Concluding Injunctions and Blessing (cf. Jub. 21:1, 17–18) 11:1–11: Levi’s Children (cf. T. Levi 11) 12:1–9: Levi’s Grandchildren and Great-Grandchildren (cf. T. Levi 12) 13:1–16: Levi’s Teaching – The Wisdom Poem (cf. T. Levi 12–13)

The vision which begins in ALD 4:4 involved a heavenly ascent (4:5) and some kind of angelic activity (4:6; see 4Q213a [4QLevib ar] 1 II 15–18). Because of the fragmentary nature of the manuscript little more can be determined, but it clearly demonstrates the late Second Temple Jewish origins of Levi’s vision and heavenly ascent as preserved in T. Levi 2–5.80 Furthermore, it has been observed that ‘there is little evidence of Christian influence in these chapters’,81 and that the description of the heavenly sphere reflects standard Jewish apocalyptic traditions.82 In view of this it seems reasonable to maintain that the story of Levi’s ascent in T. Levi preserves a genuine Jewish tradition from the late Second Temple era.83 Like Enoch in the Book of the Watchers, Levi is asleep when his mystical experiences ensue. In his dream the heavens are opened and an angel invites him to enter (2:6). The angel guides him through three heavens and promises to show him four more. The other four heavens are holy, and in the highest (seventh) heaven dwells ‘the Great Glory in the Holy of Holies’ (3:4–5). The angel assures Levi that the Most High has heard his prayer (cf. ALD 3:1–18) and that he will be delivered from unrighteousness and will become a priest of God (4:2–6). Finally, the highest heaven is opened and Levi beholds ‘the holy temple and the Most High upon a throne of glory’ and receives the blessings of the priesthood (5:1–2). Levi’s ascent authenticates the Levitical priesthood by demonstrating its heavenly origin and provides justification for the vengeance against Shechem.84 In a subsequent vision (T. Levi 8), which also seems to have its origins in the Second Temple period (cf. Jub. 32:1; ALD 4:9–13),85 Levi is formally consecrated  80 Greenfield et al., Aramaic Levi, 13–17, 66–69; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 306–7. 81 Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 138. One obvious Christian interpolation occurs at 4:4 and Collins notes that a possible Christian reference may be found at 2:11 (ibid., n. 88). Kugler is inclined to judge all of 2:7–4:1 as a secondary interpolation (Patriarch to Priest, 179–83). 82 G. W. E. Nickelsburg, ‘Enoch, Levi and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee’, JBL 100 (1981), 588–90; Alexander, Mystical Texts, 79–85. 83 The translation of T. Levi followed here is that of Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 129–83. For the Greek text, see de Jonge, Critical Edition, 24–50. 84 This latter detail suggests a background of Jewish hostility towards Samaria (cf. Sir 50:26; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 139). 85 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 160–61, 307; Greenfield et al., Aramaic Levi, 15– 17, though, as Greenfield et al. note, whether the two visionary experiences of T. Levi



48

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

as priest. The text does not specify a heavenly location but the continuity between the two visions is emphasized (8:1, 18), which may indicate that the location is the same. 2.1.6 3 Baruch The apocalypse known as 3 Baruch is preserved in both Greek and Slavonic manuscripts. The two extant Greek manuscripts date to the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries and are separate witnesses to a single Greek version. The twelve (or more) Slavonic witnesses range in date from the Thirteenth to Eighteenth Centuries and can be divided into two major families.86 Although the Slavonic version is a translation from Greek, in many instances it provides a witness to a more original form of the work than the Greek version, which contains more overtly Christian elements.87 Nevertheless, both the Slavonic and the Greek versions are alternative Christian reworkings of an older Greek work and are more or less equally valid witnesses to this ancient version. The overtly Christian elements in 3 Baruch show that the present form of the work must be considered a Christian document.88 Most scholars maintain, however, that the Christian elements are secondary glosses to what was originally a Jewish work from around the beginning of the Second Century CE.89 Although this tends to be assumed rather than argued, Harlow has rigorously scrutinized this consensus and largely confirmed its validity. He concludes that the original work emerged in the late First or early Second Century in the context of Hellenistic Jewish responses to the destruction of the Second Temple. Although the present form of the work naturally reads as a Christian text, the Christian redactional elements are relatively obvious, and the broad outline of 3 Baruch as an early Jewish text is recoverable from the extant versions.90  were originally one is impossible to determine because 4:1–6 and 4:9–13 are derived from separate fragments, 4Q213a [4QLevib ar] and 4Q213b [4QLevic ar] respectively. 86 See A. Kulik, 3 Baruch: Greek-Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature, Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010, 7–8. 87 H. E. Gaylord Jr., ‘3 (Greek Apocalypse of) Baruch’, OTP 1:653–55. 88 E.g. 4:15 [G]; 4:17; 13:4; 15:3 [S]; 15:4 [G]; 16:2 [S]; 16:3–4 [G] (see D. C. Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch) in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity, SVTP 12, Leiden: Brill, 1996, 78–85). 89 So Hughes, ‘3 Baruch’, APOT 2:529–30; J.-C. Picard (ed.), Testamentum Iobi, Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece, PVTG 2, Leiden: Brill, 1967, 75–78; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 248. 90 Harlow, Apocalypse of Baruch, 77–108. In the subsequent chapters Harlow provides a sustained reading of 3 Baruch as a Jewish (109–62) and Christian (163–205) text (cf. Kulik, 3 Baruch, 13–60).

Chapter 2: Major Sources

49

The apocalypse is set in the Sixth Century BCE against the backdrop of the destruction of Jerusalem: ‘Lord, why have you set fire to your vineyard and laid it waste?’ (1:1 [G]). An angel appears to Baruch, and seeks to redirect his attentions by leading him through the heavens and explaining the mysteries therein. After surveying four heavens, the angel takes Baruch into the fifth heaven where Michael, the heavenly high priest descends.91 Michael receives the prayers (virtues and good deeds [G]) of humanity via three groups of angels and ascends in order to present the offerings to God (11–14).92 When Michael returns he gives instruction for the rewards and punishments that are to be administered to humanity (15–16). Having witnessed all of this, Baruch’s angelic guide returns him to earth and Baruch gives glory to God (17:1–4). Although Baruch’s distress over the destruction of Jerusalem is never directly addressed, his complaints are transformed into worship. The experience has evidently reorientated his priorities. As Harlow’s analysis demonstrates, Baruch learns that the appropriate occasion for lament is the sinfulness of humanity and consequent estrangement from God (4:14; 13:1), not the destruction of Jerusalem (1:1–6). Moreover, as the scene of the fifth heaven demonstrates, a relationship with God does not depend on the temple, but on prayers and good deeds.93 Since Baruch’s ascent culminates in the fifth heaven and there is no vision of God, as is in other ascent apocalypses, some maintain that the original ending has been lost.94 The somewhat abrupt ending together with the repeated promise that Baruch shall see the glory of God (6:12; 7:2; 11:2) does give the work a truncated quality. Nevertheless, Harlow has recently provided a compelling argument in favour of the literary integrity of the closing chapters.95 He argues that the present ending is essentially complete and ‘is among the more carefully preserved scenes in the apocalypse, with a perfectly coherent beginning, middle, and end’.96 Harlow takes the angelic promises (6:12; 7:2; 11:2) seriously97 and argues that the  91

Himmelfarb, among others, maintain that ‘Baruch and his guide remain outside the gates for the duration of the ascent’ (Ascent, 90; cf. Gaylord, ‘3 Baruch’, OTP 1:653). But although their entry is not explicitly narrated it is clearly implied (see Harlow, Apocalypse of Baruch, 36). 92 Michael’s descent to and ascent from the fifth heaven clearly indicates the existence of higher heavens. It seems likely that author presupposes seven heavens. 93 Harlow, Apocalypse of Baruch, 56–58. 94 So Hughes, ‘3 Baruch’, APOT 2:527; Himmelfarb, Ascent, 90. 95 Harlow, Apocalypse of Baruch, 34–76. 96 Ibid., 41. 97 In contrast to some who equate the glory of God with the works of God (e.g. DeanOtting, Heavenly Journeys, 51, 109–10; Gaylord, ‘3 Baruch’, OTP 1:678 n. 16a), Harlow maintains that the command to ‘wait’ (LDHMNM, 6:12; DJCDW@H, 7:2; @UM@ LDHMNM, 11:2) and



50

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

ending entails a conscious narrative reversal, that is, ‘the ending can be said to frustrate the very expectation that the narrative itself has generated’ by deliberately narrating an aborted ascent.98 The reason for this narrative reversal may reside in the author’s reluctance to speak about God’s form, a trend which is not uncommon in the apocalyptic tradition.99 Alternatively, perhaps the author was ‘engaged in a polemic’ against the notion of heavenly transformation found in some apocalypses.100 There is probably some truth in both of these suggestions, but Harlow’s explanation has the advantage of accounting for the setting of the apocalypse when he suggests that the narrative reversal ‘reflects a polemical stance against tendencies in the Jewish apocalyptic tradition that attached undue symbolic importance to the Temple’.101 In the wake of 70 CE the Jews had to develop alternative centres of Jewish life and different forms of piety. In contrast to apocalyptic visions of the Great Glory in the heavenly temple, which make ‘the Temple an integral part of eschatological hope’,102 3 Baruch teaches the dispensability of the temple and shows that life may continue normally without it. Thus, the expectations of the readers are reorientated; the manifestation of God’s glory in the heavenly temple is unattainable and unnecessary. The appropriate relation to the divine, according to 3 Baruch, may be summed up as ‘passing through life rightly’ (11:7 [G]).

2.2 The Mystical Texts from Qumran In addition to works that may be formally classified as apocalypses, any discussion of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism that did not consider the scrolls discovered in the caves at Qumran would be overlooking an important witness to this phenomenon.103 Although there are a number of docu the future tense ‘you will see’ (NXDH) redirects Baruch away from the glories of the lower heavens to a forthcoming climactic theophany (Apocalypse of Baruch, 50–53). 98 Ibid., 55. 99 Rowland, Open Heaven, 81–86. 100 Himmelfarb, Ascent, 90–91. 101 Harlow, Apocalypse of Baruch, 74 (italics original). 102 Ibid., 72 (italics original). 103 See, for example, J. R. Davila, ‘Exploring the Mystical Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010, 433–54; idem, ‘Dead Sea Scrolls and Merkavah Mysticism’, in T. H. Lim, L. W. Hurtado, A. G. Auld and A. Jack (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000, 249–64; idem, Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Liturgical Works,

Chapter 2: Major Sources

51

ments among the Scrolls that pertain to early Jewish mysticism, the major concerns all seem to converge in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice or Angelic Liturgy. Palaeographical analysis places the earliest extant fragments of the Sabbath Songs around 75–50 BCE.104 This suggests that they were composed no later than 100 BCE, though how much earlier depends on whether or not they are sectarian in origin, which remains debatable.105 Although the text contains some language that is characteristic of more sectarian texts, this is minimal and could have been introduced as the text was copied and reworked. Neither is the discovery of a copy at Masada decisive since this is capable of more than one explanation. It may indicate that the Sabbath Songs were known more widely and were possibly of nonsectarian origin. Alternatively, it may have been taken there by members of the Qumran community who joined the revolutionaries when the Romans invaded in 68 CE. Although all the copies of the Sabbath Songs are fragmentary, enough has survived to discern the general outline and contents. It consists of thirteen songs to be sung consecutively over the first thirteen Sabbaths of the year. The Sabbath Songs presuppose a solar year of 364 days which is divided into twelve months containing fifty-two Sabbaths; thirteen in each quarter (cf. 1 En. 72–82). Each song probably began in the same way by stating that it is ‘for the instructor’ (O\N;PO) on a certain Sabbath. This is followed by an exhortation to praise God, which is then developed differently depending on the number of the song. They begin by describing the angelic ‘priests in the highest of heights’ (4Q400 1 i 14, 20) that God has established as ‘ministers of the presence in his glorious sanctuary’ (4Q400 1 i 3; cf. lines 17 and 19).106 The breathtaking service and generally superior nature of this celestial priesthood is noted throughout Songs I–II. Unfortunately Songs III–V are very fragmentary, but it would seem that they included further descriptions of angels and some reference to war in heaven. In Song VI we meet seven sovereign princes who worship the God of glory with seven sevenfold Psalms. This leads to a description of ‘the uppermost exalted tabernacle, the glory of His kingdom’ (4Q403 1 ii 10), which also sings his praise (Song VII), followed by another series of sevenfold praises, this time offered by the deputy princes (Song VIII). The Sabbath Songs show a clear progression towards the end as they move  Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2000, 41–167; Elior, Three Temples; Alexander, Mystical Texts; Schäfer, Origins, 112–53. 104 C. A. Newsom, ‘4Q400’, DJD XI: 173–74. 105 C. A. Newsom, ‘Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice’, DNTB, 1138. 106 Unless noted otherwise all quotations of the Sabbath Songs are from Newsom, ‘4Q400–407’, DJD XI: 173–401, and F. García Martinez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar and A. S. van der Woude, ‘11Q17’, DJD XXIII: 259–304.



52

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

from the outer chamber(s) of the celestial temple (Song IX) through the curtain into the Holy of Holies (Song X), culminating in a vision of the throne of Glory (Songs XI–XII), which, in the first quarter, coincided with the Festival of Weeks.107 Since it is badly damaged, the role of Song XIII is difficult to determine. It could have ‘functioned as a kind of coda or denouement that described the heavenly cult’108 or it could be a part of the climax of the liturgy describing the anthropomorphic vision of God.109 Either way, the Sabbath Songs conclude by reiterating and perhaps intensifying their profoundly cultic orientation. Because of the fragmentary nature of the manuscripts the overall genre of the work remains unclear, but as Davila notes ‘it does share a number of features with apocalypses containing otherworldly journeys (e.g., 1 Enoch 1–36). Like some of these, it carries the reader on a revelatory journey through the heavenly realm’.110 It also seems clear that when Newsom describes the cycle as ‘the praxis of something like a communal mysticism’ and ‘a quasi-mystical liturgy designed to evoke a sense of being present in the heavenly temple’, she undoubtedly captures something of the heart of this work.111 The liturgy, it seems, was conducted by a senior priestly figure who facilitated participation in the worship of the celestial temple. If the work originated among priestly circles in Jerusalem, then the Sabbath Songs may have originally been understood in terms of revealing the world behind, and united with, the sacrificial system of the temple cult in which the priests participated (cf. Exod 25:8–22; Pss 11:4, 7; 22:4).112 Alternatively, the worship envisaged in the Sabbath Songs may have compensated for the sect’s rejection of the Jerusalem temple and its sacrifices (see 1QpHab XII). Thus, the benefits that were normally derived from participating in the temple service of the Jerusalem priesthood were being derived instead by participating in the superior celestial temple service of the  107 Alexander, Mystical Texts, 49–50; Davila, Liturgical Works, 86–90; C. A. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition, Harvard Semitic Studies 27, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985, 12–17. In view of the Songs preoccupation with the number seven Newsom considers the seventh song as the climax of the cycle. Although the seventh song seems to manifest a climactic juncture, the true climax is surely to be found in the twelfth song, in the vision of God’s glory upon the throne as in similar texts (see C. R. A. Morray-Jones, ‘The Temple Within’, in DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now, 162; cf. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory, 264–67). 108 So Davila, Liturgical Works, 90. 109 So Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory, 356–91. 110 Davila, Liturgical Works, 87; cf. Collins, ‘Introduction’, 48. 111 Newsom, Songs, 19, 59; cf. Alexander, Mystical Texts, 13–61, 93–120. 112 See T. Elgvin, ‘From the Earthly to the Heavenly Temple: Lines from the Bible and Qumran to Hebrews and Revelation’, in C. A. Evans (ed.), The World of Jesus and the Early Church: Identity and Interpretation in Early Communities of Faith, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2011, 23–28.

Chapter 2: Major Sources

53

angelic priesthood.113 Nevertheless, whatever way this was spun, the heavens are clearly envisaged as open, and, as in some of the Thanksgiving Hymns (e.g. 1QHa XI 19–23), some kind of communion with angels is clearly operative. This is not only evident from the human exhortations to the angels but also from the angelic blessings bestowed upon the worshippers. This transmission of blessings is especially apparent in Song VI, which describes the psalms and blessings offered by the seven chief princes. Mostly the recipient is God himself but some of the blessings are extended to angels and humans. The sixth chief prince, for example, ‘will bless all those whose way is perfect’ (4Q403 1 i 22; cf. 4Q405 13 4–7) and the seventh chief prince ‘will bless all who are app[ointed for ]righteous[ness] (4Q403 1 i 25; cf. lines 16–17, 27).114 The identification of these referents as mortal earthlings, rather than the angels, is supported by the concluding benediction (4Q403 1 i 26–29), which blesses both angels (‘the divine gods’) and humans (‘those appointed for righteousness’). As Alexander notes, in order to receive these blessings ‘the community on earth has to be present, so to speak, when they are uttered, and this implies some sort of mystical “ascent” to the heavenly temple’.115 At the very least, the heavens are regarded as open and all those participating in the worship envisaged by the Sabbath Songs are meaningfully and mystically involved in the supernatural realm.  113

So Schäfer, Origins, 130–46. The phrase UG\P\PW (‘those whose way is perfect’) is used frequently in Qumran literature, always with reference to human beings, usually denoting the members of the community (Newsom, ‘4Q403’, DJD XI: 265; Davila, Liturgical Works, 121–22). Similarly, although there is no exact parallel to TGF \G>ZQ (‘those appointed for righteousness’), the rather similar G[\KWF>OP\G>ZQK (‘those appointed to the assembly’) is applied to the community in 1QSa II 2 (Newsom, ‘4Q403’, DJD XI: 267; R. Abusch, ‘Seven-fold Hymns in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Hekhalot Literature: Formalism, Hierarchy and the Limits of Human Participation’, in J. R. Davila (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers From an International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001, Boston, Massachusetts: Brill, 2002, 235 n. 36). Although some aspects of Fletcher-Louis’ revised reading of the Sabbath Songs remain problematic (see Alexander, Mystical Texts, 45–47; Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels, 149–55), he argues cogently for more references to the human worshippers than has previously been recognized (All the Glory, 254–64). Schäfer has taken the opposite extreme and argues that humans ‘are almost nonexistent in the songs’ and that ‘there are no traces of the idea of a liturgical communion of angels and humans’ (Origins, 144). Nevertheless, Schäfer subsequently allows that it is ‘not unlikely’ that the worshippers regarded themselves as uniting with the angels through the reading of the songs (ibid., 152). 115 Alexander, Mystical Texts, 27–28. See also J. J. Collins, ‘The Angelic Life’, in T. K. Seim and J. Økland (eds.), Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity, Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009, 291–310. 114



54

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

2.3 Levels of Priority The sources for Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, composed during the late Second Temple Period, and whose Jewish authorship is beyond reasonable doubt include: the Book of the Watchers, the Astronomical Apocalypse, the Dream Visions, the Epistle of Enoch, Jubilees, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the mystical texts from Qumran. The Jewish apocalyptic and mystical background to the NT may be elucidated from these sources with a great degree of confidence. The sources that were probably composed by Jews towards the latter end of this period, or perhaps a little beyond, include: the Similitudes of Enoch, 2 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, the Testament of Levi, and 3 Baruch. These sources are also important witnesses to Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, but because of the various factors and uncertainties outlined in this Chapter, they should be used more cautiously as NT background. Furthermore, since Christianity emerged from late Second Temple Judaism, we may also regard the early Christian apocalypses (such as Revelation, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the Shepherd of Hermas) as testimony to the overtly Christian manifestation of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. It is among this category of sources that we should probably place the Testament of Abraham. Thus, the Christian preservation of pseudepigrapha along with the various manuscript discoveries from ancient Israel have provided us with a fairly extensive body of literary sources for elucidating the apocalyptic and mystical traditions of late Second Temple Judaism. The use of these sources is not without its problems however. It is not simply the different levels of priority that must be acknowledged (and, to be fair, even this is more complex than the aforementioned categories suggests), but it must also be acknowledged that, in their complete form, all of these pseudepigraphical texts were transmitted by Christians, often only in translation, and sometimes in multiple recensions. In view of all this, it is necessary to avoid isolated parallels and proof-texts, and instead focus on major themes and repeated ideas.116 This is why we have attempted to appreciate the major sources on their own terms, and, in the next Chapter, will attempt to identify some of the major themes therein.

 116

See J. R. Davila, ‘The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha as Background to the New Testament’, ExpTim 117.2 (2005), 57.



Chapter 3

Major Themes Although the Jewish apocalyptic tradition is certainly not a uniform and invariable system of thought, and later traditions may challenge or even contradict earlier ones,1 it is nevertheless possible to isolate certain major motifs and assumptions with which this tradition operates. What follows, therefore, is an investigation into some of the major themes and concerns of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. Although such an exercise is valuable in its own right, it is also a necessary prerequisite for any study which sets out to explore the extent to which an early Christian text belongs to this milieu. The themes that are discussed in this Chapter are by no means exhaustive of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, but have been selected because they represent major repeated themes within the primary sources themselves, and provide significant points of contact with Hebrews.

3.1 The Heavenly Realm As one might expect the heavenly realm in these texts is out of this world! It is the divine abode where God and his angels dwell and is normally inaccessible to human beings. From the accounts of those who enter the heavenly world it is clear that they find an exceptionally bewildering, even terrifying, place of breathtaking splendour and glory. More often than not fire is the element which dominates the description of heaven in the apocalypses. In the Similitudes, for example, when Enoch enters the heaven of heavens and beholds the divine throne room, it consists of fire and is encircled by rivers of fire and is guarded by Seraphim, Cherubim and Ophannim (1 En. 71:5–6; cf. 14:9–22; 2 En. 10:2; 20:1; T. Ab. 10:11 [A]; 12:3–4 [B]; Apoc. Ab. 15:4; 17:1; 18:1–4, 12–13; 19:4; 4Q405 15 ii-16 2– 3). Thus, if the fundamental constitutional element of the heavenly sphere is fire, it is no surprise that those who dwell there are often described in terms of their fiery form. Although the heavenly and earthly worlds sometimes correspond in certain respects (though the heavenly version is always superior), it is often  1 A point well made in Italian scholarship. See G. Boccaccini, ‘Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: The Contribution of Italian Scholarship’, in Collins and Charlesworth (eds.), Mysteries and Revelations, 33–50.

56

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

clear that the heavens do not conform to terrestrial paradigms and are not subject to terrestrial laws. This is evident from the Book of the Watchers, for example, where antithetical elements of fire and ice can coexist side by side, making the place simultaneously hot and cold, and where the inner house is larger than the outer house that encloses it (1 En. 14:9–19). As Alexander argues, these obvious inconsistencies can only be deliberate and suggest that the author is attempting to communicate the utter otherness and ontological difference between heaven and earth. Such details suggest that heaven is conceived in terms of another dimension or parallel universe, a conceptuality which emerges in the later Jewish mystical texts (e.g. 3 En. 42).2 3.1.1 The Celestial Temple The heavenly sphere is often conceived in terms of God’s true temple. This can be seen, for example, in the all-important Book of the Watchers. On three occasions heaven is described as a ‘holy place’ or ‘sanctuary’ (;GT; @:FHNM; @?FH @RL@). When the sin of the watchers reaches devastating proportions (7:1–8:4) we are told that the four archangels observed the godlessness ‘from the sanctuary of heaven’ (9:1).3 Later, when Enoch is given his first commission to announce judgment against the watchers, they are further defined as those ‘who forsook the highest heaven, the sanctuary of the(ir) eternal station’ (12:4).4 Later still, when Enoch is commissioned a second time to deliver the definitive verdict, the question is posed: ‘why have you forsaken the high heaven, the eternal sanctuary’ (15:3).5 Although this need imply nothing more than a holy heaven (by virtue of God’s presence), given the biblical precedent and contemporary usage of

 2 P. S. Alexander, ‘The Dualism of Heaven and Earth in Early Jewish Literature and its Implications’, in A. Lange, E. M. Meyers, B. H. Reynolds III, and R Styers (eds.), Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011, 169–85. See also T. Levi 3:2; 2 En. 10:2; 29:1–2 [J]; Apoc. Ab. 17:3. 3 Although omitted in the Ethiopic versions and CodPan, Sync.1, 2 reads: DUJÉSVMÉ@?FH VMÉ SNTÉ NTUQ@MNT. Milik reconstructs the relevant section of 4Q201 thus: [K\P; \];GT P, ‘from the sanctuary [of heaven]’ (Milik, Books of Enoch, 157–58). 4 Ethiopic: ‘the high heaven and the holy eternal place’ (Knibb, ‘1 Enoch’, AOT, 198; cf. Isaac, ‘1 Enoch’, OTP 1:19). Cod Pan reads: SNMÉNTUQ@MNMÉSNMÉT?XGKNMÉSNÉ @?FH @ RL@ÉSGI É RS@ RDVIÉSNTÉ@HUVMNI. There are no Syncellus or Aramaic witnesses for this verse. 5 Knibb (‘1 Enoch’, AOT, 203) and Isaac (‘1 Enoch’, OTP 1:21) both render the Ethiopic: ‘the high, holy and eternal heaven’. Cod Pan reads: SNMÉNTUQ@MNMÉSNMÉT?XGKNMÉSNMÉ @:FHNMÉSNTÉ@HUVMNI. There are no Syncellus or Aramaic witnesses for this verse.

Chapter 3: Major Themes

57

employing ‘sanctuary’ as a synonym for the temple,6 this terminology probably presupposes an understanding of heaven as God’s temple. This is confirmed by the description of heaven in 14:8–23.7 Heaven consists of two houses surrounded by a wall, a structure which closely resembles that of the Jerusalem temple (e.g. 1 Kgs 6:14–19; cf. Ezek 40– 42).8 Similarly, just as Solomon’s temple was decorated throughout with cherubim (1 Kgs 6:29), so the heavenly sanctuary is full of the same creatures (1 En. 14:11, 18).9 The earthly tabernacle and temple was covered in depictions of cherubim, whereas the heavenly temple is full of living cherubim, ablaze and audible, an indication of the superiority of the heavenly temple in comparison to its earthly counterpart (cf. 4Q405 19).10 The Sabbath Songs are particularly explicit in their conception of heaven as a temple.11 As Newsom notes, Only a very few terms in the Sabbath Shirot allude to heaven in general language (\P; ZWZNOP, aZU\PZUP, etc.). Virtually all of the expressions describe a heavenly building in terms largely drawn from the technical language of the cult. The two most common terms in the Shirot are U\EG and ;GTP, with ;GZT, N;P, and ON\K also occurring.12

In the seventh song, for example, ‘the f[oundations of the hol]y of holies’ are exhorted to praise along with ‘the uplifting pillars of the extremely exalted abode’ (4Q403 1 i 41). This language recalls certain features of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 6:16; 7:15–22; 8:13), but the immediate context places this structure in the heavenly realm. This is clear from the following lines in which the ‘spirits’ are exhorted to praise the ‘shining firmament of [His] holy sanctuary (;GZT ;GTP) . . . the firmament of the upper[m]ost heaven, all [its] b[eams ]and its walls’ (4Q403 1 i 42–43; cf. 4Q400 1 i 1–  6 E.g. 1 Kgs 8:10 (;GT; @:FHNM); 1 Chr 22:19 ( ;GTP; @?FH @ RL@); 2 Chr 5:11 (;GT; @:FH@); 29:5 (;GT; @:FH@), 7 (;GT; @:FHNM); 30:8 (;GTP; @?FH @ RL@); Isa 43:28 (;GT; @:FH@); Ezek 8:6; 9:6 (;GTP; @:FH@); 41:21 (;GT; @:FH@); 44:27 (;GT; @:FHNM); 1 En. 25:6 (@:FHNM); 1 Macc 1:21, 36, 37, 39, 45, 46 (@?FH @ RL@); Sir 47:13 (@?FH @ RL@). 7 See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 254–66. 8 Himmelfarb, Ascent, 14; cf. Morray-Jones, ‘Temple Within’, 148; Schäfer, Origins, 59. Joyce argues that the temple of Ezek 40–42 is the heavenly temple, whereas the temple of Ezek 43–48 is the Jerusalem temple, the copy of the true one (P. M. Joyce, ‘Ezekiel 40–42: The Earliest “Heavenly Ascent” Narrative?’, in H. J. de Jonge and J. Tromp (eds.), The Book of Ezekiel and its Influence, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2007, 17– 41). 9 Rowland, Open Heaven, 219. Himmelfarb (Ascent, 15) also notes the images of cherubim woven into the tabernacle hangings (Exod 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35). 10 See also Schäfer, Origins, 66. 11 Newsom, Songs, 39–58; Alexander, Mystical Texts, 52–55; Morray-Jones, ‘Temple Within’, 155–57. 12 Newsom, Songs, 47.



58

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

20; 4Q405 14-15 i 1–8).13 The second half of the Sabbath Songs draw heavily upon Ezekiel 1, 10 and especially 40–48 as they develop this conception of the heavenly temple and the worship that is offered therein.14 The celestial temple is equally overt in the Testament of Levi. Not only do we find angelic priests (3:5–6) and the promise that Levi’s ascension will result in a bestowal of priesthood (2:9–10; 4:2–6), all of which strongly implies that the heavenly sphere is conceived in terms of a temple, but heaven itself is explicitly described as a temple. The angel informs Levi that in the highest (seventh) heaven dwells G?É LDF@ KGÉ CN W@É DUMÉ @?FH V[É @?FH VM, ‘the Great Glory in the Holy of Holies’ (3:4–5); when the highest heaven is opened Levi beholds SNMÉM@NMÉSNMÉ@:FHNMÉJ@HÉ DUOHÉ PQN MNTÉCN WGIÉ SNMÉT:XHRSNM, ‘the holy temple and the Most High upon a throne of glory’ (5:1). Although not all the apocalypses are as forthcoming in their identification of a celestial temple, certain details suggest that many others presuppose the same motif. The Similitudes, for instance, mentions a ‘house’ in the heavens (71:5–9; cf. 14:10–17), which is a place where ‘holy angels’ dwell and the priestly angels Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Phanuel may freely enter (71:8–9; 40:2–9; cf. 9:1–4; 14:23). The term ‘house’ is also used in the Book of the Watchers to denote the outer and inner ‘house’ of the celestial temple (14:10, 15), a passage which has significantly influenced the author of 1 En. 71.15 Although the ‘house’ in the Similitudes is built of hailstones (71:5), and in this respect corresponds to the first house of Enoch’s vision (14:10), given that those who encircle the house guard ‘the throne of his glory’ (71:7), the house in the Similitudes corresponds to the second house of Enoch’s vision (14:15–23) i.e. the inner sanctuary and most holy place. This is confirmed elsewhere in the Similitudes which clearly conceives the divine throne room in cultic terms as a place where ‘holy ones’ make intercession and the blood of the righteous ascends (47:1–4; cf. 39:5; 40:6).16 The idea of heaven as the celestial equivalent of the earthly temple is of course not peculiar to Jewish apocalyptic mysticism or even to Judaism generally. The ancient Babylonian creation epic relates Marduk’s creation of earthly ‘sanctuaries’ for the gods ‘as counterpart to Esharra’, that is, ‘[h]e shall make on earth the counterpart of what he brought to pass in  13

Davila, Liturgical Works, 126. See Newsom, Songs, 51–58. 15 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 254. 16 The conception of heaven as a temple is perhaps also implied in 2 Enoch by Enoch’s priestly transformation in heaven (see Chapter 3.2.2) and in the Apocalypse of Abraham by the sacrificial prerequisite to his ascent into heaven (Apoc. Ab. 9–15). 14

Chapter 3: Major Themes

59

heaven’.17 The same idea appears in connection with the construction of the tabernacle (Exod 25:9, 40; 26:30; 27:8),18 and Solomon’s temple (1 Chr 28:11–19; cf. Ps 11:4; Wis 9:8).19 Nevertheless, the celestial temple is one of the major presuppositions with which Jewish apocalyptic and mystical traditions operate, and where it finds greatest attention. For some reason, and no doubt there were several, certain apocalyptically orientated Jews at certain times emphasized the heavenly cult that was operating within the archetypal temple. In and of itself, this emphasis, and the aforementioned perspective, does not necessarily imply that the earthly counterpart had been rejected. Emphasising a heavenly parallel may in fact serve to validate and enhance the glory of the earthly temple and its sacrifices as the means by which the earthly community join the angels in the worship of God (see Jub. 31:14).20 Nevertheless, perhaps the most obvious reason for this perspective and emphasis is dissatisfaction with the (destroyed and/or defiled) temple in Jerusalem.21 According to Ezekiel, God’s Glory has departed from the earthly temple (8–11), and would not be restored until the manifestation of the eschatological temple (40–48), which, according to subsequent apocalyptic traditions, is presently located in heaven (e.g. 1 En. 14:10–15; 90:28–29; 2 Bar. 4:3–6; 59:4; T. Levi 3:4; 5:1; cf. Ezek 1). As Himmelfarb explains, If for Isaiah in the mid-eighth century the temple was the natural place to encounter God, by the beginning of the sixth century Ezekiel had come to understand the temple as so defiled that it was no longer a fit resting place for the glory of God. The Second Temple is never able to emerge from the shadow of the disengagement of the glory of God. The ark and the cherubim are gone. In the period of the Second Temple, under the influence of Ezekiel, those who are unhappy with the behavior of the people and especially its priests come to see the temple not as God’s proper dwelling, the place

 17

Enuma Elish 5:118–30; 6:110–15 (COS 1:400, 402). See U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. I. Abrahams, Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1967, 322–24; R. G. Hamerton-Kelly, ‘The Temple and the Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic’, VT 20.1 (1970), 5–6; M. Himmelfarb, ‘The Temple and the Garden of Eden in Ezekiel, the Book of the Watchers, and the Wisdom of ben Sira’, in J. Scott and P. Simpson-Housley (eds.), Sacred Places and Profane Spaces: Essays in the Geographics of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York: Greenwood Press, 1991, 68. 19 R. J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1972, 177–80. 20 Pace Schäfer who sometimes exaggerates the anti-temple polemic in these traditions, particularly with reference to T. Levi 2–5 and the Sabbath Songs (see Origins, 69, 141–46). 21 R. Elior, ‘From Earthly Temple to Heavenly Shrines: Prayer and Sacred Song in the Hekhalot Literature and its Relation to Temple Traditions’, JSQ 4 (1997), 217–67. 18



60

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

where heaven and earth meet, but rather as a mere copy of the true temple located in heaven.22

3.1.2 Multi-tiered Perhaps related to the notion that heaven is a temple is the idea that heaven may comprise of multiple levels. This may be implied as early as the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 14) where the three areas of the heavenly temple (the wall and two houses) are perhaps simultaneously conceived as three celestial levels.23 Multiple, perhaps three, heavens may also be presupposed in the Similitudes of Enoch when it is stated that Enoch’s spirit ‘ascended into the heavens’ (71:1),24 in ‘to the heaven of heavens’ (71:5),25 but this is far from clear and need not be taken this way.26 Explicit enumeration of heavens, however, can be seen in the Testament of Levi, which according to one version relays three heavens, whereas another version relays seven. According to Charles the extant manuscripts of the Testaments reflect two distinct forms (@ and A), which he projected backwards to two Hebrew recensions (H@ and HA).27 Charles maintained that the earlier tradition (@) described three heavens, which was subsequently expanded into  22

Himmelfarb, Ascent, 12, 13; cf. Hamerton-Kelly, ‘Temple’, 1–15; Schäfer, Origins, 48–51, 65–67, 69–71, 92–93, 141–46. On the oft noted distinction between the prophetic visions ‘on earth’ and the apocalyptic visions ‘in heaven’, Morray-Jones is probably correct to describe it as ‘somewhat overstated’ and perhaps not very meaningful to the ancient authors (‘Temple Within’, 146–47). Although Isaiah’s vision is apparently located in the earthly temple, he is simultaneously ‘in heaven’, that is, in the presence of YHWH who is sitting upon his throne and surrounded by Seraphim. This is reminiscent of the ancient Mesopotamian Tablet of Shamash (Ninth Century BCE), which depicts king Nabuapaliddina in the earthly temple before Shamash’s heavenly throne (see J. H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, Nottingham: Apollos, 2007, 100, 168; J. E. Wright, Early History of Heaven, 36–37). Similarly, Ezekiel’s temple vision in chapters 40–42 is comparable to the ‘pattern’ shown to Moses (Exod 25:9) and could be understood as a vision of the heavenly temple (see Joyce, ‘Ezekiel 40–42’, 17–41). Given that Ezekiel is placed in the land of Israel (40:2), this is probably not how it was originally intended. 23 So C. R. A. Morray-Jones, ‘Paradise Revisited (2 Cor. 12:1–12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate: Part 1: The Jewish Sources’, HTR 86.2 (1993), 203–5. 24 Isaac, ‘1 Enoch’, OTP 1:49; also Charles, ‘Enoch’, APOT 2:235 and Knibb, ‘1 Enoch’, AOT, 255, whereas Nickelsburg and VanderKam translate with a singular (1 Enoch, 93). 25 A. Y. Collins, ‘The Seven Heavens in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses’, in J. J. Collins and and M. Fishbane (eds.), Death, Ecstasy and Other Worldly Journeys, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995, 66. 26 Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 325. 27 Charles, ‘Testaments’, APOT 2:286–89.

Chapter 3: Major Themes

61

seven heavens (A).28 But, apart from Charles’ hypothetical Hebrew Testaments, there are two difficulties with this reconstruction. First, the three tiered cosmology shows signs of heavy, even clumsy, abbreviation. For instance, having described two heavens, the angel then refers to the ‘holy ones’ who are above them (3:1–3). This would sound like a reference to the angels in the third heaven, were it not for the fact that verse 4 begins a new topic concerning the contents of the ‘highest’ heaven (which Charles, among others, tell us is the third heaven). This leaves some confusion concerning the location of the ‘holy ones’ (v. 3), namely, they are higher than the second heaven but they are not in the highest heaven. Furthermore, in the heaven below the highest heaven are the angels who bear answers (3:7). Once again, if one assumes a three-fold cosmology, these angels must be in the second heaven, but why is it not called the second heaven and why were they not mentioned in the discussion of the second heaven? Gooder suggests that ‘either the second heaven is described here in three different ways or there are in fact descriptions of five heavens. If the latter is true then it might indicate that R. H. Charles’ text has been abbreviated from a longer text’.29 Thus, it is not simply a choice between the seven-heaven cosmology of A or the three-heaven cosmology of @, since the enumeration of heavens in @ is somewhat confused. Secondly, in the light of new manuscript evidence and subsequent research the distinction between @ and A must now be modified. In de Jonge’s modern critical edition of the Greek text he argues that the ‘main division is no longer that between A and @, but between family I and family II’.30 Moreover, he considers family I as representing the older tradition. This is significant because it enumerates seven heavens, and forms the basis of his edition, translation and commentary. With regard to the Greek Testament of Levi, the seven-heaven schema may represent the original text more accurately. In the light of Paul’s ascent into the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2) one can understand why later Christian scribes might ‘correct’

 28

Ibid., 304; followed by H. Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjudentum, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1951, 3–4; Rowland, Open Heaven, 81; Kee ‘Testaments’, OTP 1:788–89; A. Y. Collins, ‘Seven Heavens’, 62–66. 29 Gooder, Third Heaven, 53. 30 De Jonge, Critical Edition, xl. Charles assigned manuscripts c, h and i to text a, and manuscripts a, b, d, e, f, g to text b, whereas de Jonge assigns manuscripts b and k to family I and manuscripts g, l, d, m, e, a, f, c, h, i and j to family II (ibid., xxxiii–xli). De Jonge also identifies three sub families within family II, one of which includes c, h and i (= Charles’ @ text) plus j, n Serb and Ngr, but he finds no basis for Charles’ A text.



62

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

the Testament of Levi to bring it into conformity with their own particular cosmology.31 The Jewish apocalypses which enumerate or assume seven heavens are 2 Enoch 3–20 [A], Apocalypse of Abraham 19:4–9 and 3 Baruch 2–17. The seven heaven schema is also utilized in the Apocalypse of Moses 35:2 and the Ascension of Isaiah 7–9 and was not uncommon in Jewish and Christian circles in the first two centuries CE. The idea of ‘seven heavens’ has its origins in ancient Mesopotamia, where it seems to have been understood as a symbolic or magical concept, rather than a literal statement about the structure of the cosmos.32 The motif was later developed and popularized by Greek astronomers for whom the seven heavens were the seven spheres within which the seven planets orbited the earth (e.g. Plato, Resp. 10.616–17; Tim. 38C–E; Aristotle, Metaph. 12.1073–74; cf. Philo, Her. 221–24; Cher. 21–25). The Jewish ascent apocalypses make no connection between the seven heavens and the seven planets, however, and are perhaps better understood in the light of Mesopotamian parallels.33 The details of the heavenly sphere and the number seven in particular are all attempts at expressing the inexpressible. The seven heavens of the ascent apocalypses most likely reflect the Jewish understanding of the Sabbath as the culmination of ordered reality. The number seven may be a symbolic way of communicating the totality and perfection of the heavenly realm, and of emphasizing the transcendence and finality of the one who dwells in the ‘seventh heaven’. Something of this can be seen in the Sabbath Songs which regularly refer to seven heavenly sanctuaries, yet simultaneously employing singular terms to denote the same place, sometimes alongside the plural terms (e.g. 4Q403 1 ii 10–16).34 Thus, Newsom interprets much of the plural terminology as ‘plurals of majesty . . . to communicate something of the elusive transcendence of heavenly reality’. 35 Although the heavenly sphere is often described with concrete, tangible and familiar terminology, it is essentially symbolic language which successfully communicates the existence and imposing majesty of a reality beyond the world of terrestrial norms.36  31 So J. E. Wright, Early History of Heaven, 147–48. Although Paul mentions the third heaven, this does not necessarily mean that he knew of only three heavens (see Gooder, Third Heaven, 184–87, 190–92). 32 J. E. Wright, Early History of Heaven, 40–41. 33 See A. Y. Collins, ‘Seven Heavens’, 59–93; J. E. Wright, Early History of Heaven, 139–84. 34 Clement’s possible quotation from the Apocalypse of Zephaniah speaks similarly of a plurality of temples in the heavens (see Chapter 2.1.4). 35 Newsom, Songs, 49; see also Alexander, Mystical Texts, 53–54. 36 See also Elior, Three Temples, 29–62, 77–81.

Chapter 3: Major Themes

63

3.2 The Ascender Generally speaking, the one who ascends into heaven is a famous figure or hero from Israel’s past. He stands out from his contemporaries on account of his special righteousness, and as a result is permitted to enter the heavenly sphere, converse with angels, receive revelations, approach the Deity and hear his voice. Upon entering heaven, awe and fear is the characteristic emotional response, often causing the ascender to fall on his face. Words of comfort normally follow and angelic assistance and guidance is granted. Moreover, the ascender typically undergoes some kind of transformation and is permitted to peer into the celestial Holy of Holies where a semblance of the glorious God is seated upon a throne surrounded by formidable celestial attendants. 3.2.1 Righteous and Raptured According to one school of thought, the heavens belong to YHWH and are off-limits to humanity (Gen 11:1–9; Deut 30:12; Isa 14:3–15; Ps 115:16; Prov 30:4).37 Consequently, an ascent into heaven could be regarded as an unwelcome invasion of heaven, as in certain later strands of rabbinic and Hekhalot traditions.38 Although this motif is not entirely absent from the ancient Jewish ascent apocalypses (see Apoc. Ab. 13:3–14; 2 En. 22:6–7; cf. Ascen. Isa. 9:1), it is negligible. In these texts the heavenly ascent tends to be viewed with approval and the visionary ascender is typically assisted by angels and well received into the heavenly sphere.39 This no doubt has something to do with the seer’s exceptional righteousness and the fact that the ascent is invariably initiated by God himself. A comparison of Enoch’s successful heavenly ascent (Gen 5:18–24) with the thwarted attempt of the Babylonians (11:1–9) illustrates this well. In contrast to the Babylonians’ wickedness, Enoch ‘walks with God’ and in contrast to their presumptuous efforts to ascend, Enoch is ‘taken’ by God’s initiative (cf. 3 Bar. 2–3). The same may be said of Elijah, another exceptional ‘man of God’ (e.g. 2 Kgs 1:9–12) who is taken into heaven by God’s initiative (2:1–15), which may be contrasted with the wicked king of  37

See J. E. Wright, Early History of Heaven, 26–97. See also the passing comment from Josephus explaining why Moses reserved the third division of the tabernacle for God CH@É SNÉ J@HÉ SNMÉNTUQ@MNMÉ@UMDOH A@SNMÉDHM@HÉ@UMPQV ONHI ‘because heaven is inaccessible to humanity’ (Ant. 3:181). 38 See D. J. Halperin, ‘Ascension or Invasion: Implications of the Heavenly Journey in Ancient Judaism’, Religion 18 (1988), 47–67; J. D. Tabor, ‘Heaven, Ascent to’, ABD 3:91–92. 39 See Dean-Otting, Heavenly Journeys, 25–26; Himmelfarb, Ascent, 66–71.



64

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

Babylon whose misguided determination to ascend to heaven is frustrated by the Most High God (Isa 14:13–15). The same factors can also be observed in some of the apocalypses. In the Book of the Watchers, for instance, Enoch’s righteousness is highlighted on several occasions (e.g. 1 En. 1:2; 12:4; 15:1; cf. Jub. 10:17). In view of the author’s portrayal of God as the transcendent and inaccessible heavenly king (1 En. 14:8–23), Nickelsburg notes that ‘it is paradoxical that Enoch gets as far as he does. . . . The whole tradition leads us to suppose that it is his special righteousness that enables him to enter God’s presence’.40 This is surely correct and is confirmed by the converse affirmation that the fallen watchers are excluded from ascending into heaven on account of their wickedness (14:5; cf. 45:2). It would seem, therefore, that it was Enoch’s impeccable righteous character that commended him as a candidate for heavenly ascent and intercession. Similarly, the ‘righteous’ constitute one of the major concerns in the Similitudes, which discusses their character on several occasions. As well as being described as ‘righteous’, they God’s ‘chosen’ people, and, like the angels, they are the ‘holy’ ones. They appear to be experiencing some kind of persecution (46:8– 47:4) from the wicked ‘who deny the name of the dwelling of the holy ones and of the Lord of Spirits’ (45:1), and put their trust in the things of this world (46:7; 63:7). By contrast, the righteous ‘despised this age of unrighteousness’ (48:7) and ‘believe in the name of the Lord of Spirits forever and ever’ (43:4). The righteous are characterized by their faith in the realities of the heavenly world, especially in that son of man – the Chosen One (48:4–6), and in the Lord of Spirits (48:7; 50:3; 61:3–4).41 Likewise, the Chosen One is ‘the Righteous One’ (38:2 etc.), the one who has righteousness and with whom righteousness dwells (39:6; 46:3; 62:2), whom we later discover is the impeccably righteous Enoch (71:14–16).42  40

Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 260. See J. J. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 181–83; Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 98–101. 42 See also 2 En. 1a:1–2; 7:4; 3 En. 4:3; Apoc. Ab. 9:6; 10:5; 13:10–14; Apoc. Zeph. 2:7; 4:9; ALD 3:5–18; T. Levi 2:3–4; 4:2; 8:2; 3 Bar. 7:5; 17:3 [G]; and 1 Macc 2:58: ‘Elijah, because of great zeal for the law, was taken up into heaven’. The Testament of Abraham also emphasizes Abraham’s righteousness (1:1; 2:3, 6; 4:6; 7:8; 9:1–2, 8; 12:16; 13:2, 4, 14; 14:2, 8; 15:6, 14–15; 16:7, 9, 11; 17:7, 10; 18:1, 6, 11; 19:7, 14; 20:3). There is perhaps some inconsistency, however, in the long recension. On the one hand it could hardly be more adamant that Abraham possessed a special and exceptional righteousness, even declaring him to be without sin (10:14). On the other hand, Abraham repeatedly resists God’s will (7:12; 15:10; 16:16; 19:4; 20:4), declares himself a sinner (9:3) and needs God’s forgiveness (14:12–14). Although Abraham is portrayed as possessing an exceptional righteousness in the short recension (4:10; 13:9–13), it is not exaggerated to the point of sinlessness. Moreover, although Abraham’s compassion for sinners contrasts with God’s compassion for sinners (12:12–13), there is nothing which con41

Chapter 3: Major Themes

65

Righteousness alone does not guarantee access to heaven however. Despite the fact that biblical and Second Temple Jewish literature tells of many righteous individuals, only a few experience this privilege. Although righteousness is an essential prerequisite and makes heavenly ascent possible, its realization repeatedly resides in the willingness and initiative of God. 2 Enoch, for example, remains close to Gen 5:24, when it states that the Lord ‘took’ Enoch (1a:1). Again, when the angels arrive, they state: ‘Do not fear! The eternal LORD has sent us to you. And behold, today you will ascend with us to heaven’ (1:8). Subsequently, the angels take, bring, place, carry, lift and lead Enoch through the heavens into the seventh heaven, where he remains until the Lord returns him to earth as promised (36:1–3; 1:10; 2:4; cf. 3 Bar. 1:3–4; 2:1–2; 3:1; 6:1; 8:1; 10:1; 11:1; 17:1– 4). When the allotted 30 days are completed the Lord once again sends the angels to bring him back (67:1–3). God’s initiative is equally evident in the earlier Enoch traditions. It was God who ‘opened’ Enoch’s eyes and ‘showed’ him visions, according to his good pleasure (1 En. 1:2; 37:4). It was ‘clouds’ that were ‘summoning’ him, ‘shooting stars and lightning flashes’ that were ‘hastening’ him and ‘winds’ that made him fly and brought him to heaven (14:8; 39:3; cf. Apoc. Ab. 15:4). Similarly, it was angels who ‘took’ him and ‘led’ him on his otherworldly journeys and ‘showed’ him the secrets of the cosmos (17:1–4; 36:4; 72:1; 74:1; 79:6; 80:1) in accordance with the Lord’s instructions (82:7). Thus, the apocalypses seem to place considerable emphasis on the overarching agency and initiative of God in the execution of a successful ascent into heaven (cf. Apoc. Ab. 9–10; T. Ab. 1:4–7; 10:15; 14:14; 15:1; 16:5; 10:2 [B]; Apoc. Zeph. 2:1; 3:2; 4:9; 5:3; 8:1; T. Levi 2:3, 6; 5:1–2; 8:2–10). Although there are certain prerequisites, the seer’s ascent into heaven typically originates in God’s will and results in what may be described as a rapture experience.43  tradicts the portrayal of Abraham as an exceptionally righteous man who pleases God. For the connection between righteousness and exaltation in rabbinic and Hekhalot literatures, see Idel, Sonship, 113–93, 645–70. 43 Schäfer describes this as the main difference between the ascent in the Hekhalot literature and the ascent apocalypses (Origins, 339–40 and n. 13). The ascenders of the apocalypses are unquestionably worthy and are characteristically the recipients of direct divine agency and angelic assistance. The Merkavah mystics, however, typically undertake the journey on their own initiative, and, as a result, are exposed to formidable angelic scrutiny and, if unworthy, opposition. This needs to be nuanced a little by the fact that the ‘descent to the Merkavah’ in the Hekhalot literature is something that is desired by God (e.g. Hekhalot Rabbati §218), and the ascent to heaven (and other mystical experiences) in the apocalypses are often facilitated by ritual practices (see below, Chapter 3.5).



66

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

These factors are perhaps most clearly evident in 3 Baruch, which deliberately contrasts Baruch with the Babylonians. Whereas the Babylonians remain imprisoned in the second heaven, Baruch is permitted to travel to the fifth heaven; despite his great virtue, the higher heavens remain closed, even to Baruch, simply because he is not invited.44 The same factors may be implied in two other Jewish apocalypses from around the turn of the Second Century CE: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. These apocalypses do not contain a narrative of heavenly ascent but they illustrate the importance of personal righteousness and God’s initiative in connection with mystical experience. In 4 Ezra, Ezra stands out among his contemporaries on account of his righteousness, yet we are specifically informed that he did not ascend into heaven (4:8). Later in the narrative such an experience apparently becomes possible, but remains unfulfilled. When the woman who appeared to Ezra is suddenly transformed into an established city, Ezra becomes terrified and cries for the return of his angelic guide Uriel (10:25–28). Uriel returns, reassures Ezra and explains this bewildering phenomenon (10:29–59). Because of Ezra’s righteous conduct and his sorrow over the destruction of Jerusalem, the beautiful city of the Most High has been manifested upon the earth for Ezra’s benefit (10:38–54). Therefore do not be afraid, and do not let your heart be terrified; but go in and see the splendour and vastness of the building, as far as it is possible for your eyes to see it, and afterward you will hear as much as your ears can hear. For you are more blessed than many, and you have been called before the Most High, as but few have been (10:55–57).

At this juncture Ezra is told to enter the heavenly city and experience the divine environs as in 1 Enoch 14–16 and related texts.45 But the text gives no indication that Ezra enters the city. Rather he seems to refrain from entering and goes to sleep instead (10:58–59).46 The fulfilment of the command to ‘go in and see’ does not take place until later, at the conclusion of his ministry, when he ‘was caught up, and taken to the place of those who are like him’ (14:50; cf. 14:9).47 Rowland maintains that the lack of heavenly ascent and vision of God in 4 Ezra is due to Ezra’s participation ‘in the evil human race and as such not of sufficient holiness to enter the holy realm of God’.48 Given 4 Ezra’s  44

See also the discussion in Harlow, Apocalypse of Baruch, 57–62. See M. E. Stone, ‘The City in 4 Ezra’, JBL 126.2 (2007), 402–7. 46 Compare Hekhalot Rabbati §258 (see Schäfer, Hidden and Manifest God, 37). 47 Translation by M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990, 438. 14:49–50 are present in all versions except the Latin and are most likely part of the original text (ibid., 442). 48 Rowland, Open Heaven, 54. Harlow makes a similar point with regard to the lack of theophanic vision in 3 Baruch (Apocalypse of Baruch, 57, 60–62). 45

Chapter 3: Major Themes

67

rather pessimistic anthropology and Ezra’s identification with fallen humanity (e.g. 7:116–26; 8:46–62), this interpretation makes good sense. On the other hand, it should be noted that there is no doubt concerning Ezra’s holiness (e.g. 8:47); what is lacking is affirmative divine agency. The importance of God’s initiative is evident in Ezra’s hesitance to enter God’s city (perhaps he is waiting for further encouragement), and in the phrase ‘caught up and taken’ when he is finally received into heaven. Similarly, because of Baruch’s righteousness he is promised that he ‘will be taken up’ (2 Bar. 48:30) ‘[f]or you will surely depart from this world, nevertheless not to death but to be kept unto (the end) of times’ (76:2; cf. 13:3; 25:1; 43:2; 46:7). The fulfilment of this promise is never narrated, and paradoxically Baruch informs his family and people that he will soon die just like everyone else (44:2; 78:5; 84:1). Charles explains that the ‘conflict of accounts’ is due to different sources behind the text,49 but perhaps there is no conflict. Perhaps Baruch simultaneously understands the promise yet chooses not to publicize it (46:7). One can only speculate as to why Baruch withheld this information, but perhaps it has something to do with respect for God’s initiative. Even though God had promised him an ascent, he neither boasts about it nor pursues it (the Babylonian characteristics). Rather he continues to live a righteous life and waits for God to intervene in accordance with his will. Although the emphasis is clearly upon the initiative of God in the ancient Jewish apocalypses, and ‘rapture’ is an adequate description of the seer’s experience,50 this needs to be qualified in the light of the presence of certain mystical praxes, that is, practices commonly associated with generating mystical experiences. As Davila has noted, the kinds of practices that are prescribed in the Hekhalot literature and that occur cross-culturally to induce mystical experiences are frequently carried out by the heroes of the apocalypses in preparation for their visionary ascents and other mystical experiences.51 Thus, Enoch’s famous dream vision ensues immediately after he isolates himself by the waters of Dan and prays himself to sleep (1 En. 13:7). The angel Gabriel comes to Daniel to impart visions and revelations as a result of his pleading in prayer, fasting, and sackcloth and ashes (Dan 9:1–27). Similarly, Ezra’s vision of the heavenly Jerusalem is facilitated by seven days of isolation, certain dietary restrictions, and prayer (4 Ezra 9:23–10:59). In addition to the examples provided by Davila, one could note the extensive preparations carried out by Abraham in order to  49

Charles, ‘2 Baruch’, APOT 2:488 n. 3; 474–76. So M. Himmelfarb, ‘The Practice of Ascent in the Ancient Mediterranean World’, in Collins and Fishbane (eds.), Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys, 128–33. 51 Davila, ‘Ancient Jewish Apocalypses’, 105–25; cf. A. Y. Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism, Leiden: Brill, 2000, 12–19. 50



68

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

receive divine revelations (Apoc. Ab. 9:5), and the ascent of Levi (T. Levi 2–5), which, according to the so-called Prayer of Levi, was facilitated by water immersions and prayer (see also 2 En. 1:2–3 [A]; 3 Bar. 1:1–5).52 3.2.2 Terrified and Transformed Despite the safety that personal righteousness and God’s agency guarantee, the heavenly ascender typically experiences profound terror as they enter the heavenly sphere and draw near to the Deity. 2 Enoch is perhaps the most expressive in this regard. As Enoch enters the seventh heaven his fear becomes evident on three occasions. First, upon his initial entrance into the seventh heaven, he falls down in terror, but his angelic escorts help him to his feet and exhort him, ‘Be brave, Enoch! Don’t be frightened!’ (20:1–2). Secondly, having been shown the Lord upon his throne surrounded by numerous celestial creatures, Enoch’s escorts leave him and he is once again overcome with fear (21:2), but the Lord sends Gabriel to comfort him, who then places him in front of the face of the Lord (21:3–6). Thirdly, having gazed upon the face of the Lord, his great throne, and glorious attendants, Enoch falls down in fear and worships God (22:1–4). This time the Lord, ‘with his own mouth’ tells Enoch not to be afraid and the archangel Michael lifts him to his feet and places him before the Lord (22:5–6). The same pattern of fear followed by comfort and assistance can be seen in 1 En. 14:24–15:1; 60:1–4; 71:2–3; Apoc. Ab. 10:1–8; 16–17; Apoc. Zeph. 4:1–10; 6:4–15; 3 Bar. 7:5–6 [G]; cf. Isa 6:5; Ezek 1:28; 3:23; 43:3; 44:4; Dan 8:16–18; 10:5–11; Rev 1:12–17; Hekhalot Rabbati §§246–50. One notable exception to this trend is found in the Testament of Levi. Compared with similar scenes in other apocalypses, Levi’s lack of fear as he experiences the divine environment is noteworthy. In view of the statement that angels tremble in the presence of God (3:9), this is all the more significant. Gooder explains Levi’s lack of fear with reference to 3:10 which states that humans ‘have no perception of these things’. Thus, ‘Levi like other human beings is caused no fear by the proximity of the Lord’.53 This cannot be correct, however, since Levi is contrasted with the insensitive sinners mentioned in 3:10. First, he does perceive these things and, secondly, he is righteous (4:2). Himmelfarb, on the other hand, maintains that it was not the character of Levi but the author who was insensitive, that is, insensitive to the awesomeness of temples (perhaps because he was a second-century Chris 52

For a translation, see Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 458–60. Although it is deleted in nearly all the Greek manuscripts, it clearly belongs to the earliest stratum of the tradition. It is present in ALD 2:4–3:18 (see 4Q213a) and T. Levi 4:2 refers to it. 53 Gooder, Third Heaven, 54.

Chapter 3: Major Themes

69

tian).54 This explanation betrays Himmelfarb’s emphasis upon the conception of heaven as a temple in the ascent apocalypses. Although the heavenly temple is sometimes the cause of fear (e.g. 1 En. 14:9, 13), this is not the sole, or even primary, cause in these apocalypses. The appearance of angels and visions of the Merkavah are at least equally important. Thus, if authorial insensitivity is the reason for the omission of the fear factor, then he was not only insensitive to temples, but to angels and God as well! Perhaps Levi ascends no higher than the second heaven,55 and so merely peers into the seventh heaven from a safe distance. On the other hand, the most natural understanding of the angel’s promise (2:10) is that Levi will enter the highest heaven and, although it is not affirmed (5:1), neither is it denied (cf. 1 En. 14:21). Moreover, given that the angel opened the doors for Levi’s benefit (GMNHWD É LNHÉN?É@FFDKNIÉS@IÉOT K@IÉSNTÉ NTUQ@MNT), he most likely entered, since this is the purpose and result of such an action (e.g. 2:6; Apoc. Zeph. 5:3; 3 Bar. 11:2; Jdt 10:9; Ps 118(117):19). One further possibility which may explain Levi’s lack of fear is the author’s desire to emphasize Levi’s holiness and intimacy with God. Whereas the angels tremble in God’s presence, Levi is entirely comfortable, like a son in the presence of a loving father. This picture leaves the audience in no doubt that one so close to God and at home in the heavenly temple is a priest of exceptional quality whose priesthood is unrivalled in its efficacy. Thus, the ease with which Levi experiences the divine environment may serve to exalt and elevate the Levitical priesthood.56 A number of apocalypses record some kind of transformation in connection with an individual’s ascent into heaven. At the very least the visionary receives life changing revelations and acquires special insights and capabilities as a result of the experience. Thus, Enoch acquires a prophetic and priestly ministry (1 En. 14–16) and Abraham is transformed into a merciful intercessor (T. Ab. 14:5–15; cf. 10:15). Sometimes, the transformation is even more dramatic and consists of a kind of glorification as the visionary is assimilated among the immortals of heaven (e.g. 2 En. 22:8–10; Apoc. Zeph. 8:1–5). Himmelfarb argues that the understanding of heaven as a temple with angelic priests has shaped the way in which heavenly transformations are understood in the ascent apocalypses. She observes that several such transformations invoke the ritual of priestly investiture and indicate that by becoming an angel, the seer becomes a kind of priest (T. Levi 2–5, 8; 2 En. 22; 3 En. 12; Apoc. Zeph. 8; Ascen. Isa. 8–9; 1 En. 62:15–16; 71:11; Apoc. Ab. 13:14; 17).57  54

Himmelfarb, Ascent, 32–33. Gooder, Third Heaven, 53. 56 Himmelfarb acknowledges, but dismisses this possibility as unlikely (Ascent, 32). 57 Himmelfarb, Ascent, 29–46, 53–56, 60–61, 64–65. 55



70

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

In the Testament of Levi the importance of priestly investiture in connection with Levi’s heavenly ascent is undeniable. Even if one deletes 2:7– 4:1 it remains clear that the purpose of Levi’s summons into heaven is to impart the blessings of priesthood. In other apocalypses it is less clear, although it is at times implied. In 2 Enoch, for instance, Michael is instructed to extract Enoch from his earthly clothing, anoint him with delightful oil, and put him into clothes of glory, making Enoch like one of the glorious ones with ‘no observable difference’ (22:8–10; cf. 56:2). Himmelfarb suggests that this anointing and clothing invokes the ritual of priestly investiture and that by becoming an angel Enoch becomes a kind of priest.58 Although this is not explicit, given that the author presumes that Enoch was a priest (59; 64:5; 68–73)59 and yet apparently has some reservations about him exercising priestly duties before his transformation (7:5), Himmelfarb’s interpretation makes good sense. Two further (and earlier) texts also seem to support Himmelfarb’s observation. First, Enoch’s acquisition of a priestly status can be discerned in the Book of the Watchers when the Great Glory invites Enoch into the celestial Holy of Holies (1 En. 15:1). Given that some angels are permitted entry on the basis of their priestly status (14:23), this invitation to enter demonstrates his (high) priestly identity, and could be interpreted as the moment of his priestly investiture.60 This supports the contention that Enoch’s priestly status, as evidenced in Jubilees 4:23–25 and 2 Enoch, can be traced back to the Book of the Watchers.61 Secondly, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice begin by recounting how the ‘holiest of the holy ones have become (Z\K\Z) for Him priests’ (4Q400 1 i 3). ‘He established (GV\) for Himself priests of the inner sanctum, the holiest of the holy ones . . . priests of the highest heavens those who [draw n]ear’ (1 i 19–20). Like the Levi and Enoch traditions, this text refers to the establishment of a divinely sanctioned priestly order, which is specifically inaugurated in the celestial sanctuary (cf. Zech 3:1–10; 3 En. 1:3; 2:3).62 Angelification and priestly investiture does not exhaust the ways in which heavenly transformations are conceived in apocalyptic literature.  58

Ibid., 40; see also Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory, 23–24. See Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 224; Orlov, Enoch-Metatron, 200–3. 60 See D. J. Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot: Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision, TSAJ 16, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988, 81–82; Stökl, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 79– 85. 61 See Himmelfarb, Ascent, 23–25; A. Orlov, ‘The Celestial Choirmaster: The Liturgical Role of Enoch-Metatron in 2 Enoch and the Merkabah Tradition’, JSP 14.1 (2004), 8–14. 62 This fact remains regardless of whether one regards the priesthood as angelic (so Newsom, Songs, 95–106; Davila, Liturgical Works, 97–103; Alexander, Mystical Texts, 15–17) or human (so Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory, 280–93). 59

Chapter 3: Major Themes

71

Morray-Jones, for example, draws together a vast array of sources pertaining to early Jewish mysticism and reconstructs an ancient tradition of ‘transformational mysticism’ whereby ‘the vision of God’s glory transforms the visionary into the likeness of that glory’. In this tradition the ascender’s glorious transformation is variously conceived as the restoration of Adam’s primordial glory, the attainment of angelic (or supra-angelic) existence, the embodiment of the divine name, and is frequently accompanied by the investment of certain mediatorial powers.63 As Morray-Jones notes, elements of this tradition can be discerned in the heavenly transformation of the visionary in certain apocalyptic traditions (e.g. 1 En. 62:15– 16; 71; 2 En. 22; 3 En. 7–15; Apoc. Ab. 13:14; Ascen. Isa. 8–9; T. Levi 8; Rev 3:5). The pattern outlined above is also evident in the mystical liturgy discovered at Qumran. We have already observed that some of the angelic blessings are extended to the worshippers on earth on the basis of their righteousness (e.g. 4Q403 1 i 22–29).64 One may also note, however, the indication of God’s initiative in the transmission of special revelations to the earthly community. This can be discerned in 4Q401 14 ii 1–8, which, among other things, states that ‘they make known hidden things’ (line 7). ‘They’ are probably the ‘princes’ mentioned in line 6, the holiest of the angelic priests (cf. 4Q400 1 i 1–21) and, based on the analogy with CD-A III 13–15, the recipients are the earthly worshippers.65 Given that ‘holy Sabbaths’ and ‘glorious feasts’ head the list of the ‘hidden things’ that were revealed to the faithful remnant (CD-A III 14), it is not surprising to find such an assertion in the Sabbath Songs. It would seem that the Sabbath Songs themselves, or at least certain elements, were included among the heavenly secrets that were revealed to the worshipping community.66 Thus, this God-given liturgy allowed the faithful worshippers to participate in and benefit from the celestial temple service of the angelic priesthood (cf. 1Q28 [1QS] XI 7–9). Despite their election and righteousness, the congregation experienced, at least initially, a degree of fear in the presence of the angelic priesthood and were acutely aware of the superiority of their angelic counterparts (4Q400 2 5–7). It would seem, therefore, that although the Songs clearly express unio liturgica, they are less clear with regard to unio angelica.67 This is not the case in other texts however, such as the exalted one of the so-called Self Glorification Hymn whose right 63

Morray-Jones, ‘Transformational Mysticism’, 1–31 (quotation, 30); cf. DeConick, ‘What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism?’, 18–22; Chester, Messiah, 45–80. 64 See Chapter 2.2 above. 65 So Newsom, ‘4Q401’, DJD XI: 209; Davila, Liturgical Works, 110. 66 So Alexander, Mystical Texts, 21. 67 See Abusch, ‘Sevenfold Hymns’, 235–41; Schäfer, Origins, 130–46.



72

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

eousness surpasses all others and who is permitted to visit the heavens where he is counted among the sons of God (4Q491c 1 4–11).68

3.3 Angels Perhaps one of the most salient features of apocalyptic literature is the ubiquity and innumerability of celestial beings, which is to be expected given the transcendental preoccupation of the genre. Visions of ‘tens of thousands of angels without number’ is often noted (e.g. 1 En. 14:22; 40:1; 60:1; 71:8, 9, 13; 75:1; 82:11–12); and their glorious demeanour and formidable power are frequently pondered.69 There is no systematic angelology in the apocalypses, but in general one may observe that angels are heaven-born spirit creatures (1 En. 15:4–7) who seem to share a close affinity with fire.70 They may also assume many other forms, such as wind (1 En. 60:14–19; 2 En. 21:5; 4 Ezra 8:22)71 and lightning (1 En. 43:1–2; 44:1; 2 Bar. 51:11), stars (1 En. 18:14–16; 21:l–6; Apoc. Ab. 19:9) and, of course, human beings (1 En. 17:1; 2 En. 1:4–6; Apoc. Ab. 10:4; Dan 9:21) among other things (cf. 3 En. 35–36). The overarching role of angels is that of worship; worship and praise of the sovereign God, the creator of heaven and earth (e.g. 1 En. 9:4–5; 39:12–13; Apoc. Ab. 17:1–21; T. Ab. 4:4–5 [B]). The worship of these mysterious creatures does not simply consist in the singing of praise, but is also expressed in a vast array of bewildering activities, all in the service of God and humanity.  68

See J. R. Davila, ‘Heavenly Ascents in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, 2 vols., Leiden: Brill, 1999, 2:473–80; M. G. Abegg Jr., ‘Who Ascended to Heaven? 4Q491, 4Q427, and the Teacher of Righteousness’, in C. A. Evans and P. W. Flint (eds.), Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997, 61–73; Schäfer, Origins, 146–51. It is also perhaps just about possible to read Song XIII as an account of the climactic glorious transformation of the Maskil into a celestial priest, but the text is too broken to be certain (see Alexander, Mystical Texts, 50; cf. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory, 356–94). On mystical praxis at Qumran, see Alexander, Mystical Texts, 93–120. 69 On angels in ancient Judaism generally, see the helpful overview by Newsom, ‘Angels’, ABD 1:248–53. 70 E.g. 1 En. 14:11; 17:1; 71:1; 2 En. 11:4–5; 20:1; 29:3; T. Ab. 12:1, 10; 13:11; 16:6; Apoc. Ab. 19:6; 3 Bar. 6:2 [S]; 4Q403 1 ii 6–9; 4 Ezra 8:22; 2 Bar. 21:6; 51:11; Rev 4:5. 71 In 1 Enoch 72:5; 73:2 ‘wind’ drives the chariots of the sun and moon, whereas in 2 Enoch 11–17 ‘angels’ drive the chariots of the sun and moon (cf. 3 Bar. 6–9). 1 Enoch 18:1–5 may also presuppose the motif of angelic winds, but this could be poetic personification.

Chapter 3: Major Themes

73

3.3.1 Cosmic Supervisors In many instances one acquires the impression that angels are ultimately responsible for the supervision of God’s creation. This is particularly clear from the first, fourth, and sixth heavens of 2 Enoch, which show angels exercising breathtaking levels of authority over the created order. In the sixth heaven, for example, Enoch saw ‘angels over seasons and years . . . angels over rivers and oceans, angels over fruit and grass, and of everything that breeds; and angels of all people’ (19:4–5). As Anderson has astutely observed, a ‘disproportionate amount of space is given to the duties of the innumerable angels in the various heavens, with the result that God himself is hardly involved in the running of the universe’.72 Although the supremacy of God is maintained by virtue of the fact that he is the creator (2:2; 10:6; 24:2–5; 33:8; 40:3), it often appears that the governance of his creation has been delegated to the angels. The same picture emerges from the Astronomical Apocalypse, as the archangel Uriel, the ‘guide’ and ‘leader’ of the luminaries, unveils the secrets of the cosmos including the names, ranks and numbers of the angels who govern the created order (1 En. 72–82; cf. 8:3; 17–18; 33–36; 60:11–22; 3 Bar. 6–9). Even in the Apocalypse of Abraham, where the purpose of Abraham’s ascent is to demonstrate the sovereignty and singularity of the one true God, we read of angels carrying out orders and ‘the elements of earth obeying them’ (19:9; cf. Jub. 2:2; Rev 7:1–3; 14:8; 3 En. 14:3–4). 3.3.2 Guardians Related to the idea of cosmic supervision, though not as prominent, is the concept of guardian angels. In the Testament of Levi, Levi’s angelic guide remains unnamed but is identified as ‘the angel who intercedes for the race of Israel’ (5:6). This is most likely Michael who was regularly conceived as Israel’s national patron (cf. 1 En. 20:5; Dan 10:21; 12:1; 1Q33 [1QM] XVII 7–8; 1Q28 [1QS] III 24–25).73 This is, of course, a specific example of the concept of angels of the nations, whereby certain angels were thought to have authority over the nations (Deut 32:8 (LXX);74 Dan 10:20;  72

Anderson, ‘2 Enoch’, OTP 1:97. Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 145; D. D. Hannah, Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity, WUNT II 109, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999, 33–38, 42–44, 64–75. 74 The MT reads: ‘When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all the human race, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel’ (TNIV). Instead of ‘sons of Israel’ (ODU;\\QE) the LXX reads ‘angels of God’ (@UFFD KVMÉ PDNT), which accurately testifies to an earlier reading (see P. W. Skehan, ‘A Fragment of the “Song of Moses” (Deut. 32) from Qumran’, BASOR 136 (1954), 12; D. D. Hannah, ‘Guardian Angels and Angelic National Patrons in Second 73



74

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

Sir 17:17; Jub. 15:30–32; 1 En. 56:5–6; 61:10; 89:59–90:19).75 Although Michael is regularly identified as Israel’s national guardian, some texts distinguish Israel from the nations on the basis of their lack of an angelic guardian; God alone is their ruler and protector (Deut 32:8–9 (LXX); Sir 17:17; Jub. 15:30–32).76 In addition to national guardians 3 Baruch 12–16 suggests that individuals also have guardian angels (cf. 2 En. 19:5; 33:11– 12; 35:2; Apoc. Zeph. 3:2–9). Given the close parallel with the thirdcentury Christian Apocalypse of Paul 7–10 (cf. Matt 18:10; Herm. Vis. 5, 1:1–4; Sim. 5, 5:3; 6:2), it could be argued that this motif is a secondary Christian interpolation, but the angelology found here probably also reflects ancient Jewish traditions.77 3.3.3 Priests In the same way that a priestly class of humans operated within the earthly temple, so a priestly class of angels was thought to operate within the heavenly temple. In the Testament of Levi, for instance, the angel informs Levi that in (the heaven next to) the highest heaven are ‘the angels of the presence of the Lord, those who minister and make propitiation to the Lord for all the sins of ignorance of the righteous, and they offer to the Lord a pleasant odour, a reasonable and bloodless offering’ (3:5–6).78 It could be argued that the passage is a Christian interpolation,79 but the substantial overlap with the Sabbath Songs makes such an explanation unnecessary and suggests that T. Levi’s depiction of heaven represents an earlier Jewish tradition.80 The title ‘priest’ (KZN) is applied to angels several times in the Sabbath Songs but is comparatively rare in Jewish literature outside this work.81 Nevertheless the concept of angelic priests is not unusual and is  Temple Judaism and Early Christianity’, in F. V. Reiterer, T. Nicklas and K. Schöpflin (eds.), Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2007, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007, 417). 75 L. T. Stuckenbruck, ‘Angels of the Nations’, DNTB, 29–31. 76 Hannah, ‘Guardian Angels’, 416–23. 77 Ibid., 423–33; Harlow, Apocalypse of Baruch, 151–54. Harlow also notes two important differences with the Apocalypse of Paul, namely, Michael is less central and the guardian angels worship in the presence of God. 78 NH?É @FFDKNHÉ SNTÉ OQNRV ONTÉ JTQH NT,É NH?É KDHSNTQFNTMSDIÉ J@HÉ DUWHK@RJN LDMNHÉ OQNI É JT QHNMÉ DUOHÉ O@ R@HIÉ S@HIÉ @UFMNH @ HIÉ SVMÉ CHJ@H VM.É OQNRED QNTRHÉ CDÉ JTQH V[É NURLGMÉ DTUVCH @IÉ KNFHJGMÉJ@HÉ@UM@H L@JSNMÉOQNRENQ@ M. 79 See Hollander and de Jonge for numerous Christian parallels (Commentary, 138). 80 Alexander, Mystical Texts, 81; Himmelfarb, Ascent, 34–35. 81 See Newsom for references (Songs, 26). One notable reference outside the Sabbath Songs is the description of Metatron as the high priest of the celestial temple (Num. Rab. 12:12; cf. 3 En. 15B:1).

Chapter 3: Major Themes

75

found several times in apocalyptic literature (1 En. 9:1–4; 14:23; 15:2; 39:5; 40:6; 47:2; Apoc. Ab. 12:9; 13:1; 15:1; 3 Bar. 12:1–5; Rev 8:3–4; Apoc. Mos. 35:2; Jub. 30:18; 31:14; cf. Tob 12:15; Philo, Spec. 1:66).82 Moreover, certain principal angels are often portrayed as exalted priestly figures. This is particularly clear from the depiction of Michael in 3 Baruch 11–16 (cf. T. Levi 5:6–7; 2 En. 33:10; b. ‫ۉ‬ag. 12b)83 and is implied by the priestly appearance and activity of Iaoel (Apoc. Ab. 11–15) and Eremiel (Apoc. Zeph. 6:11–12). At Qumran all this was perhaps relatively well systematized and closely reflects the order of the earthly administration. Melchizedek seems to be the celestial high priest with a deputy high priest and the rest of the angels of the presence under him. They were followed by the ordinary priestly angels who were distinguished from the rest of the non-priestly angels.84 3.3.4 Guides Another major role in which angels operate in the apocalypses is that of guide and angelus interpres. As we noted above,85 the various heavenly ascents and otherworldly journeys are grounded in the initiative of God, but it is normally his angels that are commissioned to guide the seer through the heavens and explain the mysteries.86 This role is fulfilled by a variety of angels, including Michael (T. Ab., T. Levi, 1 En. 71), Phanael (3 Baruch), Semeila and Rasuila (2 Enoch), Iaoel (Apoc. Ab.), Uriel (1 En. 72–82), the angel of peace (1 En. 39–69) and the angel of the Lord (Apoc. Zeph.). Similarly, Enoch’s tour of the inaccessible regions is managed (1 En. 17:1–4; 21:9; 22:1; 24:1; 33:3) and interpreted (19:1; 18:14; 21:5; 22:3; 25:3; 27:2; 32:6; 33:4) by the seven archangels Uriel, Raphael, Reuel, Michael, Sariel, Gabriel and Remiel (20:1–8). A slight variation on this theme occurs in 1 Enoch 14:8–25 where Enoch’s ascent into heaven is largely unaccompanied (cf. 39:3; 70:2). Although Enoch receives some angelic assistance in the last part of his ascent (14:25), and his initial rap 82

See further, Elior, Three Temples, 165–200. Hannah, Michael and Christ, 42–45, 64–75. 84 Alexander, Mystical Texts, 56–59; Newsom, Songs, 30–38. 85 See Chapter 3.2.1. 86 Nevertheless, even their revelations must first be authorized by God (see 1 Enoch 6–11 and the discussion in S. Beyerle, ‘Angelic Revelation in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature’, in Reiterer, Nicklas and Schöpflin (eds.), Angels, 205–19). The same motif stands behind many, if not all, of the apocalypses. In the Astronomical Apocalypse, for example, Uriel discloses cosmic revelations to Enoch in accordance with the ‘orders’ that the Lord of creation gave him (82:7). Similarly, in 2 Enoch Vereveil instructs Enoch on ‘everything that it is appropriate to learn’ (23:2). 83



76

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

ture may have involved similar assistance (14:8),87 in comparison to cognate texts, the angelic involvement in the actual ascent is somewhat reduced. According to Gooder, ‘[t]he effect of reducing the main characters in the narrative to two is to concentrate the attention on the significance of the encounter between the human Enoch and the figure on the throne’.88

3.4 The Most High God As Dean-Otting notes in her analysis of Jewish heavenly journey texts, the ‘Deity plays the central role, his power evident behind every action of the drama played out in the ascent’.89 Although the apocalypses often devote more space to descriptions of the heavenly sphere and the role of angels than to the Most High God, Dean-Otting’s conclusion is justified. As we have seen, it is God to whom all things are subject; the heavens are his abode and the angels are his servants. Moreover, the climax and reward of a journey into heaven is a vision of God enthroned, an encounter with the creator and king of the universe. Visions of glorious angels blazing with immeasurable light in an enclosure consisting of fire all serve to elevate the one enthroned in the centre of it all, the one to whom all attention is directed. Apocalyptic visions of God have been the subject of several major studies in recent years and it is widely agreed that certain motifs characterize these visions. An irreducible minimum would include an appearance of God, seated on a throne, in a fiery sanctuary, surrounded by a host of celestial attendants.90 The appearance of God, however, is partial and is often an anthropomorphic manifestation of his Glory, which is almost entirely impenetrable to the human eye. These elements have their antecedents in the biblical theophanies (e.g. Exod 24; Isa 6; Ezek 1; Dan 7), which have clearly influenced the way in which the Deity is portrayed in the ascent apocalypses, though the authors of the latter works freely omit, develop

 87 Note in particular the driving force and involvement of the stars, lightning and winds. Elsewhere in the Book of the Watchers ‘stars’ is a designation for ‘angels’ (18:12– 14; 21:1–6), and if Milik (Books of Enoch, 194) is correct to reconstruct ‘winds’ as D\[ZU, then ‘spirits’ is an equally viable translation (cf. Ezek 8:3; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 262). Moreover, the Similitudes show that ‘lightning’ and ‘winds’ may also refer to ‘angels’ (43:1–2; 44:1; 60:17; cf. Ps 104:4; 4 Ezra 8:22). 88 Gooder, Third Heaven, 47. 89 Dean-Otting, Heavenly Journeys, 4. 90 See, for example, the almost identical taxonomies of Gruenwald (Apocalyptic, 31) and Dean-Otting (Heavenly Journeys, 280–82).

Chapter 3: Major Themes

77

and add to their sources, probably based on mystical experiences of their own.91 3.4.1 The Enthroned God More often than not the manifestation of the Most High God takes place on a (chariot) throne in the celestial Holy of Holies (e.g. 1 En. 14:18–20; 47:3; 2 En. 20:3; T. Levi 5:1; 4Q405 20 ii-21-22 6–14).92 The royal connotation of such an image is more than a mere implication, since the portrayal of God as the supreme ruler and King of kings is a recurring motif in apocalyptic-mystical literature (e.g. 1 En. 9:4; 63:2–4; 2 En. 39:8; 4Q405 14-15 i 3–7; 15 ii-16 3–7).93 In contrast to the seated status of God, angels are portrayed as standing in the presence of God, indicating their reverence and readiness to do his will (e.g. 1 En. 14:22; 39:12–13; 2 En. 21:1; 4Q401 2 3).94 In certain rabbinic traditions it is even asserted that angels have no knee joints and so are physically unable to sit down (e.g. Gen. Rab. 65:21), a belief which may be earlier than the rabbinic period.95 Although certain exalted figures may be seated on heavenly thrones (e.g. T. Ab. 11–13 [A]; 8–11 [B]; Apoc. Zeph. [Clement, Strom. 5.11.77]; cf. Dan 7:9–10; Rev 4:4; 20:4), nothing really compares to the vision of God upon his throne. This image is normally reserved for the Most High God who sits upon his

 91 See C. Rowland, ‘The Visions of God in Apocalyptic Literature’, JSJ 10 (1979), 137–54; idem, Open Heaven, 214–47; and Rowland with P. Gibbons and V. Dobroruka, ‘Visionary Experience in Ancient Judaism and Christianity’, in DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now, 41–56. On the use of scripture in apocalyptic literature generally, see C. Rowland, ‘Apocalyptic Literature’, in D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, 170–89; idem, Christian Origins, 54–61. 92 See also 1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:1; Ezek 1:26; Dan 7:9; 1 En. 9:4; 25:3; 60:2; 71:7; 2 En. 1a:4; 22:2; Apoc. Ab. 18:1–14; 4 Ezra 7:33; 8:21; 2 Bar. 21:6; Rev 4:2; 5:1; Ascen. Isa. 6:8. 93 See also Isa 6:5; 1 En. 25:3–5; 84:2; T. Levi 3:9; 2 Bar. 54:13; 55:8; 3 En. 1:5–10. See further P. Alexander, ‘The Family of Caesar and the Family of God: The Image of the Emperor in the Heikhalot Literature’, in L. Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire, JSOTSup 122, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991, 276–97. 94 See also 1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:2; Dan 7:10; Job 1:6; 2:1; 1 En. 40:1; 47:3 60:2; T. Ab. 7:11; 8:1; 9:7; 4 Ezra 8:21; 2 Bar. 21:6; 48:10; 51:11; Luke 1:19; Rev 7:11; 8:2; 3 En. 16:1–5; 18:24; 33:1; 35:3–4. 95 11Q17 VII (16-18) 4 specifically asserts that ‘they do not sit’ (see D. D. Hannah, ‘The Throne of His Glory: The Divine Throne and Heavenly Mediators in Revelation and the Similitudes of Enoch’, ZNW 94.1–2 (2003), 89; Alexander, Mystical Texts, 40, 87 n. 4).



78

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

unique throne of Glory and is surrounded by a host of worshippers standing to attention.96 3.4.2 The Anthropomorphic Appearance of God In addition to the portrayal of God ‘sitting’ on a throne there are several other anthropomorphic details relating to the manifestation of the Deity. Reference is made to God’s indescribable ‘apparel’, which blazes brighter than the sun, to the splendour and glory of his ‘face’, and to his white and pure ‘head’ (1 En. 14:20–21; 71:10; 2 En. 22:1–6). One of the most elaborate attempts to describe the contours of the divine form, however, comes from 2 Enoch. Having entered the seventh heaven, Enoch is overcome with infinite terror at the sight of the Lord and declares him to be so glorious that he defies description (22:2). Nevertheless, this does not deter Enoch from attempting such a description when he relays his experience to his children. Enoch tells his children that it is not from his own lips that his words are derived, but from the fiery lips of the Lord, whose lips are a furnace and whose words are flames and thunder, whose face is like burning iron emitting sparks, whose eyes are terrifying, like rays of the shining sun, and whose right hand fills the heavens (39:2–8). Although this kind of account would not be out of place among the shi’ur qomah speculations of later Jewish mysticism (e.g. Hekhalot Zutarti §419),97 2 Enoch is exceptional among the ancient Jewish apocalypses, which are more reserved with respect to God’s form, no doubt inspired by the biblical injunction that no human can see God’s face and live (Exod 33:20).98 The Apocalypse of Abraham, for instance, though it affords an opportunity for describing God, makes no such attempt. Abraham is specifically told that he will not look at the Eternal One himself (16:3–4), and although he sees God’s throne and angelic entourage, all he can see dwelling upon the throne is consuming fire and indescribable light (17:1; 18:1– 4, 12–14; cf. Jub. 1:3; L.A.E. 25:3). It remains clear that this is a manifestation of the divine presence, since the voice of God proceeds from the midst of the fire (19:1; cf. Deut 4:11–36). Similarly, there are no descriptions of God’s form in the Astronomical Apocalypse, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, 3 Baruch and the Testament of Abraham, though these works  96

Hannah, ‘Throne of His Glory’, 81–95; R. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008, 161–72. Other than Jesus in early Christian texts, the only real exception to this is the Chosen One like a son of man in the Similitudes who not only takes a seat, but sits upon God’s unique throne of glory (1 En. 45:3; 51:3; 55:4 61:8; 62:2–5; 69:27–29). This is discussed below in Chapter 6.3. 97 See Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 501–79, esp. 569. 98 See Rowland, Open Heaven, 84–87.

Chapter 3: Major Themes

79

do not afford the same opportunity as the other ascent texts, since there is no record of the seer approaching the divine throne room. The Astronomical Apocalypse is preoccupied with the movements of the heavenly bodies and the section of the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, which may have contained some kind of theophany, has not survived. In 3 Baruch, Baruch is promised a vision of the Glory of God (6:12; 7:2; 11:2), but his ascent is aborted at the fifth heaven, so there is no climactic theophany. Similarly, the Testament of Abraham, records Abraham’s return to earth before he has had a chance to approach the Deity (15:1–2 [A]; 12:12–14 [B]). Although it is noted that God is @UN Q@SNI, ‘invisible’ (16:3–4; cf. Apoc. Mos. 35:3), this does not mean that the author of the Testament of Abraham thought that there was nothing to see when God manifests his presence. Despite 2 Enoch’s elaborate description of God, it is still maintained that ‘he himself is invisible’ (48:5; 67:3 [J]; cf. Apoc. Ab. 19:4)! Likewise the Book of the Watchers and the Similitudes suggest that a vision of God is something that can only be endured momentarily, if at all, before one’s sight fails (1 En. 14:19, 21; 39:14; 60:4). Thus, those visionaries who peer into the divine throne room both see and do not see God. There can be no doubt that these visions are supposed to be understood as authentic visions of God, but it remains clear that there is more to God than what they see, for the fullness of God’s form is beyond the range of human perception. Moreover, God’s essential form emits so much glorious light and fire that he is effectively hidden from human gaze by the glory of his own presence, a paradox which emerges in the biblical theophanies (e.g. Exod 33; Isa 6) and later Jewish mysticism (e.g. Hekhalot Zutarti §§348–56).99 3.4.3 The Glory of God The character of the heavenly world and the concept of ‘glory’ seem to go hand in hand in the Jewish apocalypses. In his analysis of glory in the Jewish apocalypses, Newman summarizes that ‘when a seer peers into the heavens, he sees Glory – be it associated with God, a throne, or angels’.100 With reference to God the term is sometimes used in an absolute or titular sense as in ‘the Great Glory’ (1 En. 9:3 [Sync. 1]; 14:20; 102:3; T. Levi 3:4; Ascen. Isa. 9:37; 2 En. 22:4 [J]), ‘the Lord of Glory’ (1 En. 40:3; 63:2), ‘the Glory of the Lord’ (1 En. 40:1; 41:7), or simply ‘the Glory’ (4Q405 18 4; 20 ii-21-22 7; cf. Apoc. Ab. 19:4; Tob 3:16; 12:15). All such  99

See Schäfer, Hidden and Manifest God, 57–60, 162–63; cf. DeConick, Seek to See Him, 101–5; A. Orlov, ‘God’s Face in the Enochic Tradition’, in DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now, 179–86. Morray-Jones has provided a preliminary English translation of Hekhalot Zutarti in Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 265–301. 100 C. C. Newman, Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition & Rhetoric, Leiden: Brill, 1992, 91.



80

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

expressions denote the luminous manifestation of the divine presence and highlight ‘God’s supreme position in the heavenly hierarchy’.101 Sometimes it is the anthropomorphic appearance of God that is described in terms of the Glory of YHWH (e.g. 1 En. 14:18–21), an association which has its roots in Ezekiel’s vision of a human-like figure seated on a throne who is identified as ‘the appearance of the likeness of the Glory of YHWH’ (Ezek 1:26–28).102 An important background to this glory language is the Hebrew Bible where we find manifestations of ‘the Glory of YHWH’ upon Mount Sinai (Exod 24:16), in the wilderness tabernacle (40:34–35) and in the first temple (1 Kgs 8:10–11), pivotal moments in the life of Israel which assured them of God’s presence and approval. Several centuries later, of course, Ezekiel informed the people that the Glory of YHWH has departed from the temple, because of their sins (11:22–23). Nevertheless, Israel can expect the return of God’s Glory when the eschatological temple is established (43:1–5).103 3.4.4 The Voice of God As he reflects upon his past visions Enoch asks the following question: ‘who among the sons of men can hear the voice of the Holy One and not be troubled?’ (1 En. 93:11).104 One of the less frequently noted features of apocalyptic visions of God is the major role played by the voice or words of God. Time and again attention is drawn to the fact that God himself actually addresses the seer. This fact alone is evidently a noteworthy phenomenon. The content of the divine communication is often one of commendation and, of course, special revelation. Thus, at the climax of Levi’s ascent into the highest heaven we read, ‘he [the Most High God] said to me: Levi, I have given you the blessings of the priesthood’ (T. Levi 5:2). In the Book of the Watchers Enoch was apparently unable to see the divine face (either because of blindness (14:19) or because he did not dare to look up (14:25)), but this did not interfere with the purpose of his ascent which  101

Ibid., 102. See further Dean-Otting, Heavenly Journeys, 50–58; J. Fossum, ‘Glory’, DDD, 349–50; Newman, Paul’s Glory-Christology, 92–104; DeConick, ‘What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism?’, 11–14. 103 See further, Fossum, ‘Glory’, DDD, 348–49; Newman, Paul’s Glory-Christology, 17–24, 53–75. 104 Olson, Enoch, 225. The relevant section of 4Q212 reads ‘[And who is there of the all the children of men] who can hear the words of the Holy One [and not be troubled]’ ([OKEW\ DOZ ]D;GT \OP >P;\ ON\ \[G] [;ZQD \QE OZN P DQK ZQPZ]) (Milik, Books of Enoch, 269–70). 102

Chapter 3: Major Themes

81

was to hear the divine response to the watchers’ petition. Thus, when Enoch reaches the divine throne room he reports that the Lord called me with his own mouth, saying: ‘Come near to me, Enoch, and hear my word.’. . He spoke to me; I heard his voice: ‘Do not fear, Enoch, righteous man, scribe of righteousness! Come near to me and hear my voice’ (14:24; 15:1 (italics mine); cf. Ezek 1:3, 24–3:11; 10:5; Isa 6:8).105

The Lord then proceeds to outline the profound wickedness that the angelic watchers have committed by violating their divine calling and introducing evil spirits into the world. Therefore, Enoch is instructed to pronounce judgment against the fallen watchers (15–16). The same emphasis upon God’s voice is evident in 2 Enoch. When Enoch enters the seventh heaven and falls before the throne of God he says that ‘the LORD, with his own mouth, called to me, “Be brave Enoch! Don’t be frightened! Stand up, and stand in front of my face forever”’ (22:5). Subsequently, Enoch relates that, ‘the Lord called me and he placed me to the left of himself . . . [a]nd the LORD spoke to me: “Whatever you see, Enoch . . . I myself will explain it to you”’ (24:1–2). Then the Lord proceeds to explain, like someone talking to a neighbour (36:4), how he alone created all things (25–33). Even 2 Enoch’s elaborate description of God’s form serves to elevate God’s words whose lips are ‘a furnace of fire’ and whose words are ‘the fiery flames which come out’ (39:2–3, 7; 40:1). This probably explains why Enoch’s face was glowing with heat and had to be chilled before he was returned to earth (37:1–2). This is, of course, reminiscent of the transfiguration of Moses where it is affirmed ‘that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God’ (Exod 34:29).106 The voice of God also plays an important role in the Apocalypse of Abraham. Abraham’s first encounter with God is in his house when ‘the voice of the Mighty One came down from the heavens in a stream of fire’ calling Abraham and identifying himself as the Creator and God of gods (8:1–2). Later when the voice addresses him again he falls to the ground and loses all his strength (10:1–3). Finally, having ascended into heaven, Abraham perceives terrifying fire which exudes the voice of God, ‘like a voice of many waters, like the voice of the sea in its uproar’ (17:1–2).

 105

Olson, Enoch, 47. Codex Panopolitanus reads: N?É JT QHNIÉ SV[É RSN L@SHÉ @TUSNTÉ DUJ@ KDRD MÉLDÉJ@HÉ DHOD MÉLNH,É/QN RDKPDÉV CD,ÉU%MV B,ÉJ@HÉ SN MÉKN FNMÉLNTÉ@JNTRNM . . .É*@HÉ @UONJQHPDHIÉDHOD MÉLNH,É?.É@MPQVONIÉN?É @UKGPHMN I,É@MPQVONIÉSGI É@UKGPDH @ I,ÉN?É FQ@LL@SDT I;É J@HÉ SGIÉ EVMGIÉ @TUSNTÉ GJNTR@;É LGÉ ENAGPGI,É U%MV B,É @MPQVONIÉ @UKGPHMN IÉ J@HÉ FQ@LL@SDTIÉ SGI É@UKGPDH @I;ÉOQN RDKPDÉV CD,ÉJ@HÉSGI ÉEVMGI ÉLNTÉ@JNTRNM. 106 Orlov, ‘God’s Face’, 188.



82

Part I: Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism

From the midst of the fire, God addresses Abraham and explains the secrets of creation and of past, present and future events.107

3.5 Apocalyptic Literature and Mystical Experience So far we have taken it for granted that the dreams, visions and revelations narrated in the apocalypses reflect, or are at least informed by, the mystical experiences of their authors. Not everyone is convinced however. Himmelfarb, for example, argues that since the visionary elements are inextricably woven into the narrative as a whole, couched in convention, and extensively articulated in biblical language and imagery, they should not be regarded as reflecting the authors’ own experiences, but as part of the fictional career of the pseudepigraphic hero.108 Along with many others, it is maintained here that if we are to appreciate this literature on its own terms, we must take seriously the claims therein to extraordinary encounters with the divine.109 An apocalypse is, by definition, a narrative account of a revelatory experience, and as Adela Yarbro Collins has noted, ‘[e]ven if such an account is a literary convention, the result is that the text points beyond itself to a mystical experience and is legitimated by the claim that the author had such an experience’.110 Regardless of how we evaluate the claim, the claim exists, and there are positive reasons for supposing that the claimants were describing what they believed to be extraordinary experiences of the divine. First, as Himmelfarb concedes, conventional language does not preclude actual vi-

 107

See now Schäfer, who has also noted the importance of audition in the ascent apocalypses (Origins, 35–36, 43, 48, 63, 70, 87, 91, 336). See also Sir 45:5; 4Q405 18 4; 2 Bar. 22:1; 3 En. 15B:1. 108 Himmelfarb, Ascent, 95–114; cf. Schäfer, Origins, 64–65, 337–39. 109 E.g. A. Y. Collins, Cosmology, 1–20; DeConick, ‘What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism?’, 5–8; Rowland, Open Heaven, 214–47; idem, with Gibbons and Dobroruka, ‘Visionary Experience’, 41–56; S. Niditch, ‘The Visionary’, in G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. J. Collins (eds.), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, SBLSCS 12, Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1980, 153–79; M. E. Stone, ‘Apocalyptic, Vision, or Hallucination?’, Milla Wa Milla 14 (1974), 47–56; idem, ‘A Reconsideration of Apocalyptic Visions’, HTR 96.2 (2003), 167–80; Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 84–90; Merkur, ‘Visionary Practices’, 119–48; idem, ‘Cultivating Visions through Exegetical Meditations’, in D. V. Arbel and A. A. Orlov (eds.), With Letters of Light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic, and Mysticism in Honour of Rachel Elior, Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2011, 62–91. 110 A. Y. Collins, Cosmology, 7.

Chapter 3: Major Themes

83

sionary experience.111 When a person describes their experiences, they have no choice but to use the language of their culture and tradition.112 Moreover, the evidence for a conscious exegesis of biblical texts in the apocalypses does not amount to evidence against an actual mystical experience. Not only is it inevitable that genuine apocalyptic visions would include elements of a person’s recent exegetical perceptions, and that Jewish visionaries would interpret their experiences in the light of biblical antecedents, but there is evidence to suggest that exegetical activities may also have been a way of consciously cultivating visionary experiences.113 Secondly, Fletcher-Louis has argued reasonably cogently that the anthropology and cosmology of certain apocalypses suggest that there is ‘every reason to believe that their authors and readers expected themselves or some of their contemporaries to experience the kind of encounters with the heavenly world described in these texts’.114 Thirdly, the kinds of practices that occur cross-culturally in association with mystical experiences are frequently carried out by the heroes of the apocalypses with similar results, making it perfectly plausible that the apocalypses reflect the actual practices and experiences of the people behind them.115 Thus, in all likelihood the apocalypses are rooted in and informed by genuine mystical experience, and the false dichotomy between literary artefact and mystical experience probably hinders rather than helps our understanding of them.

 111 Himmelfarb, Ascent, 112–13; cf. Rowland, with Gibbons and Dobroruka, ‘Visionary Experience’, 43–46. 112 Stone, ‘A Reconsideration of Apocalyptic Visions’, 177–79. 113 See Merkur, ‘Cultivating Visions through Exegetical Meditations’, 62–91. 114 C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, ‘Religious Experience and the Apocalypses’, in F. Flannery, C. Shantz, and R. A. Werline (eds.), Experientia, Volume 1: Inquiry into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Early Christianity, SBLSymS 40, Atlanta: SBL, 2008, 143–44. See also R. G. Hall, ‘The Reader as Apocalyptist in the Gospel of John’, forthcoming. 115 Niditch, ‘The Visionary’, 153–79; Merkur, ‘Visionary Practices’, 119–48; Davila, ‘Ancient Jewish Apocalypses’, 105–25; Rowland, with Gibbons and Dobroruka, ‘Visionary Experience’, 51–54; A. Y. Collins, Cosmology, 12–19.





Conclusion to Part I Having surveyed the ancient Jewish apocalypses identified by the SBL Genres Project, and some related literature, we may conclude with relative confidence that the apocalyptic and mystical traditions that emerge from the texts discussed in Chapter 2,1 which are characterized by the themes discussed in Chapter 3,2 bear witness to an ancient Jewish apocalyptic mysticism of the late Second Temple and early Christian period. Although the apocalypses are, essentially, what modern literary critics would call ‘fiction’, this classification does not adequately capture the fact that, for at least some first-century Jews and Christians, they revealed transcendent truth and expressed their presuppositions, aspirations and experiences. Although Jewish apocalyptic mysticism should not be regarded as a static or fixed phenomenon, it may be defined as a phenomenon occurring in late Second Temple Judaism (including early Christianity), which finds literary expression in the apocalypses and related literature, and exhibits a preoccupation with the realities of the heavenly realm, and the human experience of this realm and its occupants. Although the texts, themes and motifs discussed in this Part are by no means exhaustive, and may be utilized for a variety of purposes, they do constitute some of the most significant topics of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. Moreover, as we shall see in the rest of this study, Jewish apocalyptic mysticism not only provides many instructive points of contact with Hebrews, but also offers us a plausible context in which to situate this ancient Jewish-Christian word of exhortation.

 1

Namely, in no particular order, 1 and 2 Enoch, Daniel, Jubilees, 4 Ezra, 2 and 3 Baruch, ALD, the Testament of Levi, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, the Apocalypse and Testament of Abraham, Revelation, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the mystical texts from Qumran. 2 Namely, the awesome and mysterious heavenly world, which is often conceived in cultic terms as a (multi-tiered) temple; the virtually ubiquitous presence of various celestial creatures performing a bewildering array of functions; the Most High God of Israel enthroned in the celestial Holy of Holies surrounded by hosts of worshippers; and, of course, righteous individuals (and congregations) who may seek the divine (by means of intensifying their religious devotion), and, God willing, ascend to heaven, join the angels and be enlightened and transformed through visions and revelations.



Part II

Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities Having determined the sources and contours of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, we are now in a position to begin exploring the role of this phenomenon in the epistle to the Hebrews. According to Heb 8:1–2, (1) The main point of this speech is that we have such a high priest, who sat on the right side of the throne of the majesty in the heavens, (2) a minister of the Most Holy Place and of the true tabernacle, which was not built by any man, but by the Lord.

At this juncture the author treats his audience to a JDE@ K@HNM, a brief summary of his principal point.1 There can be no doubt, therefore, about the author’s chief concern, although even without this helpful summary, it would be impossible to miss the centrality and importance of accessible heavenly realities in Hebrews. The author’s focus upon heavenly realities is plain from the outset. His introductory comments are orientated around the Son who has made purification for sins and has been enthroned above the angels in heavenly heights at the right side of God himself (1:1–4). This is immediately followed by what Schenck has appropriately described as a celebration of the enthroned Son (1:5–13).2 Because of these heavenly realities, it is all the more necessary to persevere in faithfulness (2:1–4), and fix one’s eyes upon Jesus, the Lord of the angels in the world to come, who intercedes as a faithful high priest, and leads his brothers to Glory (2:5–18). In view of the author’s focus upon Israel’s wilderness wanderings and his text orientated exposition of Ps 95(94):7–11, one might easily mistake Hebrews 3–4 as somewhat tangential to his main point. On closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that the purpose of Hebrews 3–4 is to establish that the opportunity of entry into God’s rest is available ‘today’, and that God’s rest is in fact the eternal Sabbath that exists in the immediate presence of God in the heavenly realm (cf. 12:22–24).3 All this is skilfully summarized in Heb 4:14–16, the first clear peak in Hebrews, which both concludes 1:1–4:16 as well as identifies the main theme of the discourse that shall be elaborated further hereafter.4  1

See BDAG, 541; Louw and Nida §33.12. K. L. Schenck, ‘A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1’, JBL 120.3 (2001), 469–85. 3 See Chapter 7.3. 4 See Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 88–139. 2

86

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

(14) Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold on to the confession. (15) For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all of the same ways, yet is without sin. (16) Therefore, let us approach the throne of grace with boldness, in order that we may receive mercy and find grace in our time of need.

In these verses the author exhorts his audience to approach the throne to which Jesus has ascended, and points to the high priestly work of Jesus as the basis for this extraordinary experience of heavenly ascent. The central section of Hebrews is likewise preoccupied with accessible heavenly realities. Hebrews 5–10 identifies Jesus as the Melchizedekian high priest who provides definitive access to the superior heavenly temple. As with the first section, all this culminates in a discourse peak (10:19–25), which summarizes and concludes the preceding discourse, as well as anticipates what follows.5 (19) Therefore, brothers, since we have the authority to access the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, (20) which he inaugurated for us as a new and living way through the veil, that is through his flesh, (21) and since we have a great priest over the house of God, (22) let us approach with a truthful heart in the certainty that comes from faith with our hearts cleansed from the consciousness of evil and the body washed in pure water; (23) let us hold on to the steadfast confession of hope, for the one who promised is faithful, (24) and let us consider how to provoke love and good deeds among one another, (25) and not forsake meeting together, as some are accustomed, but encourage each other, and especially now that you see the day drawing near.

Once again, having established the definitive nature of Christ’s heavenly high priesthood, the author encourages his audience to depend upon Christ and enter the heavenly sanctuary with confidence. At this juncture the author begins to signal the subtle shift that emerges in the final section of Hebrews. Generally speaking, Hebrews 1–10 highlights the person and work of Jesus, whereas Hebrews 10–13 reflects a focus upon the believers. One might say that Hebrews 1–10 is concerned with accessible heavenly realities, whereas Hebrews 10–13 is concerned with accessible heavenly realities. In the final section of Hebrews, the author highlights the responsibility of those who have such a great high priest, namely, faithfulness, which is expressed in a variety of ways including love, good works and active care for the community. Above all, however, the primary responsibility of those who have the high priest described in Hebrews 1–10 is to function as priests themselves, join the angels, and draw near to God, all of which is climactically expressed in Heb 12:22–24.6  5 6

Ibid., 140–241. Ibid., 242–96.

Introduction to Part II

87

(22) But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to tens of thousands of angels in sacred assembly (23) and to the congregation of the firstborn enrolled in the heavens and to the Judge and God of all and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect (24) and to the mediator of a new covenant, Jesus, and to the sprinkled blood which communicates something better than the (blood of) Abel.

Thus, even a cursory glance over Hebrews reveals a significant preoccupation with accessible heavenly realities, a feature that not only addresses the situation of the intended audience, but also points to the influence of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, and suggests that Hebrews may have emerged from a similar context. In the following Chapters we shall explore the author’s understanding of the heavenly realm (Chapter 4), Christ’s heavenly high priesthood (Chapter 5) and enthronement (Chapter 6), and the religious experiences of the people behind this document (Chapter 7). At each stage we shall observe how Hebrews testifies to an early and distinctively Christian manifestation of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism.



Chapter 4

The Heavenly Temple It would be difficult to exaggerate the centrality and significance of the heavenly realm in Hebrews, since it permeates the entire document. Moreover, the dominant image to emerge from the author’s discussion of the nature of heaven is that of a temple, a motif with particular importance for Jewish apocalyptic mysticism.1 In this Chapter we shall undertake a detailed study of the main references to the heavenly realm in Hebrews and revisit the debate noted in Chapter 1 concerning the alleged Platonism of the author’s cosmology. We shall see that the Platonic influences are marginal and that the understanding of heaven in terms of a temple belongs to the world of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. We shall also attempt to move beyond this debate and ask more particular questions concerning the nature and function of the heavenly temple in Hebrews and ascertain precisely how and the extent to which the apocalyptic and mystical traditions have been appropriated and modified.

4.1 Temple versus Tabernacle? As is well known, Hebrews nowhere uses H?DQN M or M@N I, the terms that most readily denote a temple.2 Instead, Hebrews largely relies on Israel’s wilderness tabernacle (RJGMG ; N;P) to supply much of the language and imagery for denoting the divine abode. Given the ancient and widespread equivalency and continuity between the tabernacle and the temple,3 the distinction should probably not be pressed, and certainly not to the point of  1

See Chapter 3.1. The terms are also often distinguished from one another, with H?DQN M denoting the entire temple precinct and M@N I denoting the inner sanctum where the Deity dwells (see Louw and Nida §§7.15, 16). 3 E.g. Exod 25:8–9; 1 Chr 28:11, 19; Ps 27:4–6; Wis 9:8; 2 Macc 2:4–18; Jub. 1:10; 49:18, 21; 1 En. 89:40–50; L.A.B. 22:8–9; 4Q504 [4QDibHama] 1-2 IV 2–12; Philo, Mos. 2:71–73, 88–89; Josephus, Ant. 3:123–25; Rev 15:5 (see C. R Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament, CBQMS 22, Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1989, 6– 75). 2

Chapter 4: The Heavenly Temple

89

excluding apocalyptic traditions which describe a heavenly temple as a possible background to Hebrews’ conception of a heavenly tabernacle.4 Nevertheless, it could be argued that this equivalency is not made explicit in Hebrews and that the focus upon the wilderness tabernacle requires some explanation. According to Koester a few NT texts seem to distinguish between the tabernacle and the temple, viewing the former favourably and the latter less so (John 2:19–21; Acts 7:44–50; Rev 21:22). The clearest evidence for such a distinction comes from Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:44–50. Koester maintains that this passage indicates that the construction of the tabernacle was in accordance with God’s will, whereas ‘the temple was solely Solomon’s doing’ and even ‘paralleled the apostasy at Sinai’.5 Although Koester concedes that Stephen’s criticism is somewhat novel, it has antecedents in Jewish criticisms of the second temple.6 If such a distinction is assumed in Hebrews, one can see why the author focused his argument on the tabernacle. If the tabernacle housed a superior sacred space than the temple, then the argument for the superiority of Christ’s sacred space to the tabernacle is all the more impressive. The evidence for this distinction is relatively thin and Koester has stretched the texts concerned to their limit and possibly beyond their limit.7 First, although criticisms of the (first and second) temple are by no means difficult to find in biblical and post-biblical Jewish literature,8 the problem is never identified in the fact it is a temple rather than a tabernacle. Secondly, the replacement of the temple in early Christian literature (John 2:19–21; Rev 21:22) and positive use of tabernacle imagery (John 1:14; Rev 7:15; 21:3) is not contrasted, but is used in a way that favours a continuity between the two sanctuaries. In John, the M@N I is replaced with another M@N I, ‘the temple of his body’ (2:21), the assumption of which is described with tabernacle terminology (1:14). Likewise, in Revelation, the replacement of the M@N I is another M@N I (Rev 21:22), which is synonymous with RJGMG (21:3; cf. 15:5). Even Stephen’s speech does not clearly demonstrate a contrast between the tabernacle and the temple, and Koester must largely rely on what Stephen does not say in order to make this distinction. Stephen’s speech is far better understood as a criticism of faulty  4

Pace Sterling, ‘Ontology’, 204–5 (see Chapter 4.3). Koester, Dwelling, 79–85. 6 Ibid., 89–99. 7 So R. J. Daly, ‘A Review of Craig R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament, CBQMS 22, Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1989’, CBQ 54 (1992), 356– 57. 8 Apocalyptic literature in particular reflects a deep dissatisfaction with the second temple and looks forward and upward to the heavenly and eschatological temple (see J. J. Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple, 1–31). 5

90

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

thinking about God’s presence; namely that God is not restricted to manmade structures (Acts 7:48), a criticism which applies to the temple and tabernacle equally (cf. Heb 9:11, 24).9 Thus, there is little, if any, evidence to support such a distinction between the tabernacle and the temple. It is reasonable to maintain the same kind of continuity between tabernacle and temple in Hebrews as in Second Temple Judaism generally. After all, RJGMG is also used as a general term for God’s sanctuary and @:FHNI is used with reference to both tabernacle and temple structures.10 The absence of more explicit temple language may be a deliberate accommodation of certain Jewish sensitivities regarding the status of the temple. Rather than attacking the temple directly, which might prove counter-productive (cf. Acts 6–7), the author demonstrates the unsatisfactory nature of the tabernacle from scripture, thereby allowing the implications for the temple to appear by extension.11 Alternatively, if Hebrews was written after 70 CE, it could be argued that the temple is not explicitly mentioned because it did not exist.12 Consequently, the focus upon the tabernacle gives the argument a timeless character and acts as a symbol for law-observant Jewish worship (cf. Josephus, Ant. 3:179–80).13  9 See S. Walton, ‘A Tale of Two Perspectives? The Place of the Temple in Acts’, in T. D. Alexander and S. Gathercole (eds.), Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology, Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004, 138–43. The same message is equally clear in the Western text of Acts (see J. Ruis-Camps and J. Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition. Vol. 2, Acts 6:1–12:28: From Judea and Samaria to the Church in Antioch, LNTS 302, New York; London: T&T Clark, 2006, 98–100). 10 See, for example, 2 Chr 29:1–7, where Hezekiah commands the priests and Levites to cleanse ‘the house of the Lord’ (SNMÉNHJNMÉJTQH NT [KZK\W\E]) and to remove the impurity ‘from the Holy Place’ (DUJÉSVMÉ@?FH VM [;GTKP]), because their fathers turned away ‘from the tabernacle of the Lord’ (@UONÉ SGIÉ RJGMGIÉ JTQH NT [KZK\ N;PP]) and shut ‘the doors of the temple’ (S@IÉPT Q@IÉSNTÉM@NT [aOZDKWZWOG]); cf. Ps 27(26):4–6. 11 So S. Motyer, ‘The Temple in Hebrews: Is it There?’, in Alexander and Gathercole (eds.), Heaven on Earth, 177–89. 12 See K. L. Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003; 88–105; idem, Cosmology, 195–98. 13 So Koester, Dwelling, 152–83. Michaels reasons that: ‘[q]uite possibly this one verse of Scripture (Exod 25:40) is the main reason the author of Hebrews fastens his attention on the Tabernacle in the desert rather than on the Temple in Jerusalem. No one ever claimed that God told Solomon, “Be sure that you make everything according to the pattern I have shown you,” when he built the first Temple in Jerusalem’ (J. R. Michaels, ‘Hebrews’, in L. Belleville, J. C. Laansma, and J. R. Michaels, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 17: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 2009, 391). Although 1 Chr 28:11–19 may suggest the very thing Michaels denies (see J. R. Davila, ‘The Macrocosmic Temple, Scriptural Exegesis and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice’, DSD 9 (2002), 7–9), it is certainly plausible that the preoccupation

Chapter 4: The Heavenly Temple

91

4.2 God’s True Temple Despite the fact that the author of Hebrews does not use H?DQN M or M@N I, it is clear from Hebrews 8–9 that one of the ways in which heaven is understood is in terms of God’s true temple. Three passages in particular are important for determining the author’s conception of the celestial temple and these shall be quoted in full. Having established what kind of priest Jesus is, namely an eternal and blameless high priest in the order of Melchizedek (4:14–7:28), the text continues: (8:1) *DE@ K@HNMÉ CDÉ DUOHÉ SNHIÉ KDFNLD MNHIÉ SNHNTSNMÉ DBNLDMÉ @UQBHDQD @É N;: 4Q403 1 ii 4; 4Q405 23 i 9–10; cf. Exod 27:16; 1 Chr 9:23; Ezek 40:3–48), ‘decorations’ (KE;[P: 4Q403 1 ii 13– 14; cf. Exod 35:32–35), ‘engravings’ ([WS: 4Q405 14-15 i 5; 19 5; cf. 1 Kgs 7:36; 6:29; 2 Chr 3:7; Ezek 41:20) and ‘brickwork’ (KQEO: 4Q405 19 5–6; 11Q17 IV (6-8) 4–5), gives the heavenly temple an undeniably concrete and ‘literal’ feel. As the biblical references show, these details parallel the descriptions of one or more of Israel’s earthly sanctuaries, yet, like RJGMG , @:FH@ and J@S@OD S@RL@ in Hebrews, for instance, they are used to describe the heavenly sanctuary. At the same time, the Sabbath Songs describe the celestial temple in ways which defy terrestrial norms and suggest that the language is essentially metaphorical. As Alexander notes, ‘there are strong hints that this  76

Davila, Liturgical Works, 102; Newsom, Songs, 40–41. Davila, Liturgical Works, 126: GZP> (1 Kgs 7:15–22; 2 Chr 3:15–17); OE] (1 Kgs 8:13 // 2 Chr 6:2); KUZT and U\T (2 Chr 3:7). The term GZP> is also used with reference to the wilderness tabernacle; to denote the four ‘pillars’ before the Holy of Holies (Exod 26:31–32; 36:35–36); or the five ‘pillars’ at the entrance to the tabernacle (26:36–37; 36:37–38); or the ‘pillars’ marking the courtyard for the tabernacle (27:9–17; 38:10–19). 77

108

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

material language is meant figuratively, and that since the temple belongs to the spirit world, it too must be a spiritual structure’.78 First, although the text clearly envisages a single (two-chambered) heavenly structure (see below), almost everything is pluralized. In addition to referring to God’s ‘sanctuary’, as in the text cited above, reference is also made to multiple ‘sanctuaries’ (4Q403 1 ii 21; 4Q404 5 5; 4Q405 6 7) and ‘temples’ (ON\K: 4Q401 1 i 13; 11Q17 X (23-25) 8), to ‘seven exalted holy places’ (4Q403 1 ii 11) and ‘seven [most] hol[y] precincts’ (4Q403 1 ii 27). Likewise, having just referred to U\EGWNZUS, ‘the veil of the shrine’, reference is made to DOSK\U\EGWZNUS, ‘the veils of the wondrous shrines’ (4Q405 15 ii-16 3, 5), to seven a\U\EG (4Q405 7 7), and to multiple thrones of glory (e.g. 4Q405 20 ii-21-22 3–5). Although the Sabbath Songs seem to envisage multiple heavens, the sevenfold enumeration seems to be a means of expressing the inexpressible perfection of the celestial temple.79 Secondly, much of the material architecture of the heavenly temple is presented as living and intimately involved in the liturgical activities. In the text cited above, various parts of the celestial temple are instructed to offer praise. Later in the same song, we read that the ‘decorations of the inner shrine make haste with wondrous psalms’ and ‘the chariots of His inner shrine give praise together, and their cherubim and thei[r] ophanim bless wondrously’ (4Q403 1 ii 13, 15). Similarly, ‘the portals of entrance and the gates of exit make known the glory of the king, blessing and praising all the spirits’ (4Q405 23 i 9). Thus, although the heavenly structure is the archetypal temple, which may be imagined in terms of a literal earthly temple, it remains abundantly clear that the earthly temple is only a partial representation, and that the heavenly equivalent, being of a different order of existence, far exceeds anything here on earth, and is ultimately, unimaginable. Although Hebrews does not offer as elaborate a description of the celestial temple as the Sabbath Songs, the identification of a tabernacle in heaven, complete with veil, Holy of Holies, and divine throne, places the work in a similar context. Moreover, the author’s assertion that it was necessary to purify the heavenly things (S@ÉDUONTQ@ MH@), in the same way that it was necessary to purify the earthly tabernacle and all the liturgical vessels (O@ MS@ÉS@ÉRJDT GÉSGIÉKDHSNTQFH @I), seems to presuppose a more elaborately furnished sanctuary than the author overtly describes (Heb 9:21–23).80 There can be little doubt that the author of Hebrews imagined the heavenly  78

Alexander, Mystical Texts, 54. See Chapter 3.1.2. 80 Löhr suggests that the author clearly knows about a furnishing of the heavenly sanctuary, but resists giving a detailed description because it would have involved a disruptive digression (‘Thronversammlung’, 194). 79

Chapter 4: The Heavenly Temple

109

sanctuary in much the same way as the earthly. It is equally clear, however, that the heavenly sanctuary is wholly other. The heavenly sanctuary is by definition otherworldly; it is the archetypal sanctuary, from which the wilderness tabernacle was derived (8:5), and which requires superior sacrifices (9:23). In one place, the Holy of Holies is located in a particular heaven (9:24; cf. 8:4; 10:12), elsewhere, the same place is referred to with the plural ‘heights’ or ‘heavens’ (1:3; 8:1; cf. 4Q400 1 i 19–20), which parallels the Sabbath Songs and is perhaps indicative of the mysterious transcendence of the heavenly Holy of Holies. Although there is some basis for Schenck’s claim that the author of Hebrews refrains from associating blood with the heavenly sanctuary and spiritualizes Jesus’ heavenly offering (9:13–14, 25–26), this is not always the case. Heb 9:12 specifically compares the annual sprinkling of blood upon the Mercy Seat (9:7; Lev 16:14–15) with Jesus’ bloody heavenly offering: NTUCDÉ CH5É @H:L@SNIÉ SQ@ FVMÉ J@HÉ LN RBVMÉ CH@É CDÉ SNTÉ HUCH NTÉ @H:L@SNIÉ DHURGKPDMÉ DUE@ O@WÉ DHUIÉ S@É @:FH@ (cf. Heb 10:19; 12:24). While Schenck is correct to criticize those translations which interpret CH@ as denoting accompaniment, this does not change the fact that the author associates Jesus’ blood with the heavenly Holy of Holies in the same way that he associates the blood of goats and calves with the earthly Holy of Holies. This is reminiscent of the bloody image that emerges from Songs XII–XIII, which refer to a ‘whole offering’ (O\ON) in the heavenly realm (4Q405 23 i 5–6) and to the ‘sacrifices’ ([E]) of the holy ones (11Q17 IX (21-22) 4). When O\ON is used with reference to a sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible, it denotes the whole burnt offering, and [E] typically refers to a slaughtered animal sacrifice.81 Like Hebrews, however, we also find the heavenly offerings presented in essentially spiritual terms, consisting in praises and blessings (4Q400 2 7–8; 4Q403 1 i 39–40; 4Q405 23 ii 12; cf. Heb 13:15). Thus, although all language is ultimately metaphorical, and this is especially so when discussing another dimension of existence, it is important to resist the urge to label the heavenly sanctuary in Hebrews as either ‘literal’ or ‘metaphorical’ since the nature of the heavenly sanctuary in Hebrews could reasonably be described as both ‘literal’ and ‘metaphorical’, which is perhaps indicative of the ultimate inadequacy of these labels. Moreover, this is not unlike certain mystical traditions, which show the same oscillation between ‘literal’ and ‘metaphorical’ language. Perhaps we would do well to abandon such heavy-laden, baggage-bearing labels when discussing something as unfathomable as the mystical heavenly temple. Both labels capture something of the reality of the heavenly sanctuary, but they also lack the comprehensive explanatory power that is often given to them.  81

BDB, 483, 257.

110

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

4.4.2 One or Two Chambers? Kenneth Schenck has recently argued that, for the author of Hebrews, the heavenly sanctuary is conceived as a single area consisting simply of the Holy of Holies with no outer chamber. According to Schenck, RJGMG and @:FH@ are one and the same, making it unlikely that the author is drawing upon apocalyptic heavenly temple traditions. Heb 8:2 (SVMÉ@?FH VMÉKDHSNTQFNIÉJ@HÉ SGIÉRJGMGIÉSGIÉ@UKGPHMGI) has already been discussed at the beginning of this Chapter (4.2), where it was concluded that SVMÉ@?FH VM is most likely a reference to the Holy of Holies and SGIÉRJGMGI to the sanctuary as a whole. Schenck concurs with this interpretation, but rather than taking the Holy of Holies as a part of the true sanctuary, he understands the Holy of Holies as the true sanctuary. Although the phrase certainly allows for this interpretation, nothing in Hebrews 1–8 (or Second Temple Judaism generally?) has prepared its audience for such an idea.82 According to Schenck, it is 9:1–10 which make this meaning plain (see below), which raises questions with regard to a linear reading of Hebrews. If it is not clear until 9:1–10, how could it be understood at 8:2? At the very least, we should suppose that the question is open at 8:2; though surely the most natural picture to emerge from this sanctuary language is that of an ancient Israelite sanctuary, which always consisted of an inner and outer chamber. This is in fact confirmed in Heb 8:5 when the author asserts that the earthly priests serve in a sanctuary which is T?ON CDHFL@É J@HÉ RJH@ of the heavenly one, and that Moses was instructed to make ‘everything’ (O@ MS@) according to the heavenly ‘pattern’ (ST ONM). Schenck admits the difficulty that this verse poses for his interpretative paradigm, but notes that the verse, and ST ONI in particular, only suggests a general correspondence, and that if we approach it with the belief that Hebrews does not envisage an outer chamber in the heavenly sanctuary, then nothing in the verse explicitly contradicts this belief.83 Admittedly, the verse does envisage a loose or general correspondence between the heavenly and earthly sanctuary (as in apocalyptic traditions),84 and it is probably misdirected to imagine a heavenly counterpart for every detail of the earthly sanctuary. A two-part sanctuary, however, is not a de 82

According to Sterling ‘the tabernacle is explicitly linked to the Holy of Holies’ in 4Q403 1 ii 10 (‘Ontology’, 206). The text refers to ‘the uppermost exalted tabernacle (N;P), the glory of His kingdom, the inner shrine (U\EG)’. The final word ( U\EG) is badly damaged, however, and therefore uncertain. Moreover, the syntactical ambiguity of the phrase and the fact that the remainder of the sentence has not survived makes the precise relationship between N;P and U\EG unclear (see Newsom, ‘4Q403’, DJD XI: 285). 83 Schenck, Cosmology, 171–73. 84 See Himmelfarb, Ascent, 14–16.

Chapter 4: The Heavenly Temple

111

tail, but a basic and unchanging component in all of ancient Israel’s sanctuary structures. As Schenck’s comments suggest, the only way one could read Heb 8:5, and come away with his interpretation, is if one already believes his interpretation. The same may be said for Heb 8:2. What then is the inspiration for this interpretation? The strength of Schenck’s interpretation comes primarily from the discussion in Heb 9:1–10. First, Schenck notes that Heb 9:8–9 interprets the outer chamber of the earthly tabernacle as a hindrance to God’s presence. In view of this negative connotation, it is hard to imagine the heavenly sanctuary having an outer chamber, especially when one of the author’s basic theological points is the access that the perfected have to God’s presence.85 Although this conclusion certainly appears plausible, one wonders if it truly captures the author’s conception of the heavenly sanctuary. There are three difficulties with Schenck’s conclusion. (i) Heb 9:1–10 is the result of text orientated exegetical reflection consisting of a metaphorical interpretation of the earthly tabernacle. It does not necessarily follow, therefore, that what is said here applies to the heavenly tabernacle. (ii) If the attachment of negative connotations to the earthly tabernacle determines the author’s conception of the heavenly tabernacle, then we would have to conclude that the heavenly tabernacle has no Holy of Holies either since negative connotations are attached to the entire earthly tabernacle (e.g. Heb 8:2; 9:1, 11, 23–25). (iii) This interpretation runs counter to the linear progression of the speech, which has already established the structure of the heavenly sanctuary (8:2, 5), and given no indication to suggest that it lacks an outer compartment (or compartments). Secondly, Schenck notes that although the author ‘refers to the earthly tabernacle as plural tents, he refers to the heavenly tent only twice and both times in the singular’.86 According to Schenck, this suggests that the heavenly sanctuary consists of a single chamber. It should be noted, however, that the author also refers to the earthly tabernacle as a single RJGMG (9:21; 13:10), yet this does not indicate the absence of an outer chamber; so why should it indicate the absence of an outer chamber with regard to the heavenly sanctuary?87 Furthermore, the only instance where the author speaks of the earthly tabernacle in terms of two RJGM@H is in 9:1–10 and, as Schenck explains,  85

Schenck, Understanding, 85; idem, ‘Archaeology’, 14–15; idem, Cosmology, 149–

55. 86

Schenck, ‘Archaeology’, 16. Similarly, despite references to multiple sanctuaries, the Sabbath Songs only mention a singular heavenly N;P (see Davila, Liturgical Works, 128–29). At the same time, however, the Sabbath Songs clearly envisage a journey through outer chambers, beyond the curtain, into the throne room (see the next section below). 87

112

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

the author strangely speaks of the two chambers in the earthly tabernacle in terms of two tents rather than two rooms (e.g., 9:2–3, 6–7). The reason becomes apparent when we get to 9:7–8. The author is interpreting the two “tents” of the earthly tabernacle allegorically in terms of the two ages of salvation history.88

Thus, the author speaks ‘strangely’ for the specific purpose of allegorizing the two chambers of the earthly sanctuary and associating them with the two covenants mentioned in 8:6–13.89 Heb 9:1–10, therefore, is a dubious passage to base one’s reconstruction of the author’s heavenly temple. A more reliable guide for this exercise are those passages cited above which specifically comment upon the heavenly sanctuary (i.e. 8:1–5; 9:11–12, 23–25). With regard to Heb 9:11–12, the most important (and controversial) phrase for our present purposes is CH@É SGIÉ LDH YNMNIÉ J@HÉ SDKDHNSD Q@IÉ RJGMGI. There are two major points of contention. First, to what does RJGMG refer in this instance? The description ‘greater and more perfect’ contrasts this RJGMG with the RJGMG discussed in 9:1–10 and clearly designates the heavenly sanctuary. According to Lane, RJGMG should be understood with reference to its closest antecedent, which is found in 9:8 where it refers to the outer compartment.90 On the other hand, it is unlikely that RJGMG refers merely to the outer compartment in 9:11. As Schenck notes, with the exception of 9:1–10, where the word is carefully qualified, RJGMG denotes the entire sanctuary, and there is nothing in 9:11 to indicate otherwise.91 The LD M/CD correlation, begun in 9:1 and picked up in 9:11, suggests a contrast between the whole @:FHNMÉJNRLHJN M (9:1) and the whole heavenly sanctuary (9:11).92 Furthermore, it seems highly improbable that the author’s reference to ‘the greater and more perfect tabernacle’ would exclude the inner sanctum.93 The second contentious issue concerns the meaning of CH@ , which may be understood in three different ways: (i) instrumental: by means of the tabernacle (ii) spatial: through the tabernacle or (iii) modal: ‘by way of the tabernacle. Schenck’s superb discussion of this complex issue leaves little more to be said.94 We simply note that Schenck would agree that nothing in these verses demonstrates his interpretative paradigm. As in 8:2 and 5  88

Schenck, ’Archaeology’, 14–15. Schenck, Cosmology, 147–55; Sterling, ‘Ontology’, 196–97; Koester, Dwelling, 157–59. 90 Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 238. 91 Schenck, Cosmology, 158–59. 92 Ibid., 159, 161; cf. S. E. Runge, A Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis, Logos Research Systems inc., 2010, §4. 93 Schenck, ‘Archaeology’, 17–18. 94 Schenck, Cosmology, 155–64. 89

Chapter 4: The Heavenly Temple

113

one has to assume it in order to see it. Schenck’s modal reading is a cogent explanation of the phrase in question, but it does not preclude the possibility that the author conceived of a two-part heavenly sanctuary. On the contrary, a two-part heavenly sanctuary remains the most likely presupposition in this instance. If the RJGMG and @:FH@ are one and the same, then the author is essentially saying that ‘by way of the heavenly sanctuary Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary’. The main reason why Schenck rejects the instrumental reading is because his interpretative paradigm makes the phrase in question redundant and boils down to ‘by means of the tent he enters the tent’.95 The same redundancy is equally evident in the modal reading, however, if one assumes his interpretative paradigm.96 If we assume a twopart sanctuary, as 8:1–5 and the terms RJGMG and @:FH@ suggest, then the modal reading makes good sense. In contrast to the ministry carried out in the earthly tabernacle, Christ’s ministry was carried out via the heavenly tabernacle; and in contrast to the ineffective sacrifices of the old covenant, Christ inaugurated a new covenant of lasting salvation when he entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary. All this is reiterated in Heb 9:23–25. As Schenck rightly notes, the idea that heavenly realities require cleansing (9:23) contradicts the Platonic/Philonic interpretative scheme in which the highest heaven is a realm of unchanging perfection.97 Furthermore, ‘the contrast of BDHQNONH GS@É@:FH@ and @TUSNIÉ N?É NTUQ@MN I [9:24] leads to the conclusion that heaven and the heavenly sanctuary are identical’.98 Given that the @:FH@ is the place where the high priest enters once a year (9:25), it is clearly the Holy of Holies that is in mind in this instance (cf. 9:7).99 According to Schenck, the reference to heaven (9:24) denotes heaven as a whole and ‘makes the earthly Holy of Holies correspond to heaven itself, not to one room of a building in heaven’.100 The use of the singular NTUQ@MN I, however, in stark contrast to the plurality of heavens expressed elsewhere (e.g. 4:14; 7:26; 9:23), may suggest the very thing Schenck denies.

 95

Ibid., 163. Schenck gets around this by noting the slightly different connotations (ibid., 164). 97 Ibid., 167–68. 98 Löhr, ‘Thronversammlung’, 189: ‘Die Gegenüberstellung von BDHQNONH GS@É @:FH@ und @TUSNIÉ N?É NTUQ@MN I führt zu dem Schluß, Himmel und himmlisches Heiligtum seien identisch’. 99 This is clarified in the margin of Codex Sinaiticus, which adds SVMÉ@?FH VM after S@É @:FH@. 100 Schenck, Understanding, 85; cf. idem, Cosmology, 173–75. 96

114

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

4.4.3 Christ’s Otherworldly Journey Hofius notes an important parallel to Heb 9:24 in the account of Levi’s heavenly ascent, which helps us to understand the use of the singular in this verse. At the beginning of Levi’s heavenly journey we are told that GUMDV [BPGR@MÉ NH?É NTUQ@MNH É (T. Levi 2:6). The plural NTUQ@MNH is used which reflects the multi-tiered cosmology of the story and is found when the heavens are referenced in a general way. At 3:4, however, the angel explains that DUMÉ SV[É @UMVSD QV[É O@ MSVMÉ J@S@KT DHÉ G?É LDF@ KGÉ CN W@É DUMÉ @?FH V[É @?FH VM} Given that this comment appears in the middle of a description of the heavens, ‘the highest of all’ (SV[É @UMVSD QV[É O@ MSVM) clearly refers to the highest heaven of all the heavens, which is designated here as the Holy of Holies. When Levi finally reaches this heaven we read that GMNHWD É LNHÉ N?É @FFDKNIÉS@IÉOT K@IÉSNTÉ NTUQ@MNT;ÉJ@HÉ DHCNMÉSNMÉM@NMÉSNMÉ@:FHNMÉJ@HÉ DUOHÉ PQN MNTÉCN WGIÉSNMÉT:XHRSNM (5:1). Hofius maintains that the use of the singular NTUQ@MN I in Heb 9:24 is used in the same way as it is in the Testament of Levi 5:1, to denote the highest heaven and divine dwelling room.101 The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice envisages a similar scenario and provide further support for Hofius’ claim from an indisputable Jewish text of the late Second Temple period. In a passage from Song VII (4Q403 1 i 42–43 [cited above]), for example, reference is made to the ‘most pure firmament of [His] holy sanctuary’ ([ Z];GZT ;GTPO a\UZKM UKZM >\TU). Although the Sabbath Songs mention multiple firmaments (e.g. 4Q405 23 i 6–7), here we read of a particular firmament. Similarly, although the Sabbath Songs regularly refer to multiple sanctuaries, in this instance the singular is used, which seems to refer to a particular sanctuary. If so, the immediate context (cf. line 41), and the addition of ;GZT (cf. Lev 16:33; Ezek 45:3–4), implies that the Most Holy Place is intended. This is immediately followed by another reference to the ‘firmament’ (>\TU) of the sanctuary, but this time it is described as the ‘firmament of the upper[m]ost heaven’ (a\[P]ZUP;ZU>\TU). The term ‘chief’ (;ZDU/;ZU) is a common angelic title in the Sabbath Songs, but here the singular references are continued and ;ZU is used to denote the utmost point of the heights, i.e. the highest heaven.102 Morray-Jones is justified, therefore, when he claims that the parallel expressions ‘firmament of [His] holy sanctuary’ and ‘firmament of the upper[m]ost heaven’ indicate that the innermost sanctuary of the heavenly temple is identical with the highest heaven.103 The parallel with Hebrews is perhaps more significant in light of the fact that in the Septuagint ;GTP is usually rendered into Greek with either  101

Hofius, Vorhang, 70–71. So Newsom, ‘4Q403’, DJD XI: 276–77; Davila, Liturgical Works, 126. 103 Morray-Jones, ‘Temple Within’, 156. 102

Chapter 4: The Heavenly Temple

115

(SN) @UFH @RL@ or (S@) @:FH@. 5!FH @RL@ is rarely, if ever, used in early Christian literature, but, as we have seen, Hebrews uses (S@) @:FH@, the preferred equivalent in Ezekiel,104 to denote the Holy of Holies of both the earthly sanctuary (as in the scriptural sources) and the heavenly sanctuary (as in 4Q403 1 i 42). As we noted above, ;GTP is typically used for an earthly sanctuary in the Hebrew Bible, but never with reference to the heavenly realm. By contrast, this term is used on several occasions in the Sabbath Songs, and always with reference to the celestial sanctuary.105 Similarly, according to Syncellus’ Greek text of the Book of the Watchers, the heavenly sanctuary from which the four holy archangels heard the complaints of humanity against the fallen watchers is designated S@É @:FH@ (1 En. 9:1).106 By referring to the heavens in terms of a RJGMG and @:FH@ and by placing the @:FH@ in the highest heaven, Hebrews recalls these visionary temple traditions, and places the author’s understanding of the celestial sanctuary in the world of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. Although the entire two-part sanctuary may have been envisaged as residing in (the highest) heaven, given that the author specifically equates the Holy of Holies with the highest heaven, it is perhaps more accurate to envisage the different chambers of the heavenly temple as different heavens, as in the Testament of Levi and the Sabbath Songs, and perhaps 1 Enoch 14.107 Although Schenck finds this line of interpretation somewhat plausible, he resists it on the basis that Hebrews ‘lacks those distinct indicators of a progression through multiple heavens which 1 Enoch and TLevi clearly have’.108 Schenck may have underestimated the significance of Heb 4:14 however. According to Heb 4:14, Jesus has progressed through the heavens: DBNMSDIÉNTMÉ@UQBHDQD @ÉLD F@MÉCHDKGKTPN S@ÉSNTIÉNTUQ@MNT IÉ5)GRNTMÉSNMÉTH?NMÉ SNTÉ PDNTÉ JQ@SVLDMÉ SGIÉ N?LNKNFH @I}É Although Hebrews does not offer an extended narrative of ascent through each heavenly region, one should at least allow for the possibility that CHDKGKTPN S@ÉSNTIÉNTUQ@MNT I presupposes  104

Almost half the occurrences of ;GTP appear in Ezekiel, which is almost always rendered into Greek with (S@) @:FH@. 105 Davila, Liturgical Works, 102; Newsom, Songs, 40–41. 106 *@HÉ @UJNT R@MSDIÉ NH?É SD RR@QDIÉ LDF@ KNHÉ @UQB@ FFDKNHÉ ,HB@GKÉ J@HÉ .TUQHGKÉ J@HÉÉ ?1@E@GKÉ J@HÉ '@AQHGKÉ O@QD JTX@MÉ DUOHÉ SGMÉ FGMÉ DUJÉ SVMÉ @?FH VMÉ SNTÉ NTUQ@MNT É See also 1 En. 12:4 which refers to ‘the high heaven, the sanctuary of eternal permanence’ (SNMÉÉ NTUQ@MNMÉSNMÉT?XGKN MÉSNÉ @?FH @ RL@ÉSGI ÉRS@ RDVIÉSNTÉ@HUVMNI), and 15:3 which refers to ‘the high heaven, the eternal sanctuary’ (SNMÉ NTUQ@MNMÉ SNMÉ T?XGKNMÉ SNMÉ @:FHNMÉ SNTÉ @HUVMNI). Like Hebrews, the heavenly realm is described as T?XGKN I (cf. Heb 1:3) and is conceived in terms of the @:FHNI (cf. Heb 8:2; 9:12, 24–25; 10:19). 107 It may also be significant that when the author refers to the @:FH@ at 9:24 NTUQ@MN I is singular, whereas when he refers to the @:FH@ and the RJGMG at 8:1–2 NTUQ@MN I is plural. 108 Schenck, Cosmology, 174.

116

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

the kind of progression through multiple heavens that we see in apocalyptic heavenly ascent traditions. Since the author understands the highest heaven in terms of the innermost chamber and envisages some kind of progression through the celestial temple (6:19–20; 9:11–12, 24), this seems likely. As Michel notes: Strictly speaking, we must therefore distinguish between the sphere of the creation (JSH RHI), of the tent (RJGMG ) and the sanctuary (@:FH@): Christ was a member of the creation while he was on earth, he passed through the tent in his ascent, and he brought the offering into the holy of holies before God. JSH RHI, RJGMG , @:FH@ are therefore spheres one after the other. One must actually distinguish in Hebrews also a threefold use of the word “heaven”: 1. the heavens which belong to this creation and are therefore transitory (1:10– 12); 2. the heavens through which Christ passed (4:14; 9:10–12); 3. the heaven as the actual dwelling of divinity (9:24).109

The sameÉconsistency with which Hebrews uses RJGMG and @:FH@ does not seem to apply to the use of NTUQ@MN I. As Michel subsequently points out, both singular (NTUQ@MN I) and plural (NTUQ@MNH ) are used with reference to all three kinds of heaven.110 Nevertheless, Christ’s progression through celestial spheres, conceived in terms of temple chambers, remains clear. Like a number of apocalyptic heroes, Jesus has ascended ‘through the heavens’ (Heb 4:14) to the archetypal sanctuary of God (9:11). Having arrived in the outer court(s) of the celestial temple, he beholds a veil (6:19–20; 10:19– 20), an item of particular interest to the Merkavah mystics (e.g. 3 En. 45; Hekhalot Zutarti §372; Massekhet Hekhalot §28), which may point to the mystical context of Hebrews.111 As in the Hekhalot and Merkavah traditions, the veil marks off the heavenly Holy of Holies and immediate presence of God (cf. Exod 26:31–35; Lev 16:2; Heb 9:3), but, like a high priest on the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev 16; Heb 9:7), Jesus enters within the veil, with the blood from his own death, to make atonement at the throne of God (Heb 1:3; 6:19–20; 9:11–12, 23–26; 10:19–20). Therefore, although Hebrews does not express Christ’s otherworldly journey in narrative form, a narrative of ascent is clearly presupposed, a  109 O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer, KEK 13, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957, 203 (translation by Schenck, Cosmology, 158 n. 45): ‘Streng genommen müßten wir also zwischen dem Bereich der Schöpfung (JSH RHI), des Zeltes (RJGMG ) und des Heiligtums (@:FH@) unterscheiden: Christus war auf Erden Glied der Schöpfung, durchschritt bei der Auffahrt das Zelt und brachte im Allerheiligsten das Opfer vor Gott. JSH RHI RJGMG  @:FH@ sind also Sphären, die einander ablösen. Eigentlich müßte man im Hb auch einen dreifachen Sprachgebrauch vom ’Himmel’ unterscheiden: 1. die Himmel, die zu dieser Schöpfung gehören und deshalb vergänglich sind (1.10–12); 2. die Himmel, durch die Christus hindurchschreitet (4.14, 9.10–12); 3. den Himmel als den eigentlichen Wohnort der Gottheit (9.24)’. 110 Ibid.; cf. Löhr, ‘Thronversammlung’, 190. 111 See Hofius, Vorhang, 4–27, 73–75; Cervera, ‘El vel celestial en Hebreus’, 187–97.

Chapter 4: The Heavenly Temple

117

narrative which aligns closely to the movement envisaged in certain ascent texts (e.g. 1 En. 14:8–23; 2 En. 3–22; Apoc. Ab. 15–20; ALD 4:4–6; T. Levi 2–5). The nature of the heavenly realm in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, for example, aligns particularly closely to that in Hebrews. As the liturgy draws to a climax it is possible to discern a progression from outer chambers to inner chambers – through the curtain – into the Holy of Holies, which is the divine throne room. In Song IX the entrances to the heavenly temple are described and the inner chambers are anticipated. (4) ]m the vestibules of their entryways (aK\DZEP\POZD), spirits of the most holy in]eternal [ ner sanctum (a\;GZT;GZTEUZT\[ZU) b[ (5) [And the liken]ess of living god-like beings is engraved in the vestibules where the King enters (OP\DZEP\PODE[WZSP), figures of luminous spirit[ K]ing, figures of glorious li[ght,] spirits of (6) in] the midst of spirits of splendour is a work of wondrous mingled colours, figures of living god-like being .[ in the] glorious shrines (4Q405 14-15 i 4–6).

The image that emerges from this fragment is that of the outer entrance(s) through which the King and his ministers must pass on their way to the inner shrine(s). The precise pattern of the heavenly sanctuary is (probably deliberately) difficult to discern. In the Hebrew Bible, the ‘vestibule’ (aOZD) refers to the outer porch of Solomon’s (and Ezekiel’s) temple, which leads to the main hall (ON\K), which leads to the inner sanctum (a\;GTK;GTor U\EG). Perhaps aOZD has the same referent in 4Q405 14-15 i 4–5 and DZEP (‘entrance’) refers to the main hall(s), thereby envisaging a three-part structure. Alternatively, DZEP may stand in apposition to aOZD, thereby designating the aOZD as the entrance to the inner sanctum and envisaging a two-part structure as in 1 Enoch 14.112 At the very least, there are two parts to the heavenly sanctuary, and it is clearly the outer part(s) that is in view at this juncture.113 Very little survives of Song X, but a sense of movement towards the inner sanctum is clearly discernable. This is primarily evident in the reference to the ‘veil of the shrine of the King (OPK U\EGWNZUS)’ (4Q405 15 ii-16 3). At this juncture, the Sabbath Songs express wonder at the colourful beauty of the veil before the Holy of Holies. With Song XI, we have moved beyond the veil to ‘[the de]bir of the King . . . the Holy of [Ho]lies’ (4Q405 19 3–4). The Song concludes with references to the priests of the inner sanctum and the divine chariot throne (4Q405 20 ii-21-22 1–5; 11Q17 VII (16-18) 1–7). Song XII continues this theme, beginning with exuberant wonder and praise at the sight of the throne of Glory.  112 113

So Alexander, Mystical Texts, 34–35, 52–53. Newsom, ‘4Q405’, DJD XI: 332–33; cf. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory, 340.

118

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

(7) [wo]ndrous [years] and exalt Him according to the Glory. In the tabern[acle of the God of] knowledge the [cheru]bim fall before Him; and they bl[es]s as they lift themselves up. A sound of divine stillness (8) [is heard; ]and there is a tumult of jubilation at the lifting up of their wings, a sound of divine [stillnes]s. The image of the chariot throne (KENUPDVNW\QEW) do they bless (which is) above the platform of the cherubim. (9) [And the splendo]ur of the luminous platform do they sing (which is) beneath his glorious seat (ZGZENE;ZP). And when the wheels move, the holy angels return. They go out from between (10) its glorious hubs. Like the appearance of fire (are) the most holy spirits round about, the appearance of streams of fire like hashmal. And there is a [ra]diant substance (11) with glorious mingled colours, wondrously hued, brightly blended, the spirits of living [g]odlike beings which move continuously with the glory of [the] wondrous chariots (4Q405 20 ii-21-22 7–11).

As several scholars have noted, Songs IX–XII compare favourably with 1 Enoch 14 and describe a progression through the heavenly temple, beginning with the outer entrance(s) and proceeding to the Holy of Holies and its chariot throne of Glory.114 As we have already noted, the same progression through the heavens (Heb 4:14) – by way of the heavenly tabernacle (9:11), beyond the veil (6:19–20), into the Holy of Holies (9:12, 24), to the throne of the King (8:1–2) – is assumed for Jesus in Hebrews. This suggests that the cosmology of Hebrews belongs to the same Jewish apocalyptic and mystical context, and that the heavenly sanctuary is likewise imagined in terms of a multi-chambered structure. Although the nature of the heavenly realm reflects contemporary Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, the heavenly realm in Hebrews functions as the stage upon which certain extraordinary events take place. As we shall see in the following Chapters, the way in which these events are understood and expressed also illustrates the impact of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. At the same time, however, it is here that the mysticism of Hebrews acquires a distinctively Christian flavour. We have already discussed the heavenly ascent of Jesus in Hebrews, which is significant in itself, but the author of Hebrews has even more heavenly realities to disclose, namely the priestly transformation and enthronement of Jesus, events which endow his followers with a privileged access to the heavenly sanctuary.  114 Newsom, ‘4Q405’, DJD XI: 340; Alexander, Mystical Texts, 34–41; FletcherLouis, All the Glory, 266–67, 340–50, 385–86; Davila, Liturgical Works, 84, 137–57. Despite his close analysis of the Sabbath Songs, which implicitly acknowledges the progression described here, Schäfer curiously concludes that ‘there is nothing in the songs to suggest that they are meant to evoke the idea of a heavenly journey’ (Origins, 144).



Chapter 5

The Heavenly High Priesthood of the Son The first hint of Jesus’ priesthood comes in Heb 1:3, which notes that his heavenly enthronement was preceded by an act of atonement, but it is not long before the author provides more than a hint (2:17; 3:1), and subsequently proceeds to relentlessly identify Jesus as the high priest par excellence. Since entry into the Holy of Holies was an exclusively high priestly prerogative (9:7), Jesus must be regarded as a high priest when he enters the heavenly Holy of Holies, but when did he become a high priest, and on what grounds can a man from the tribe of Judah (7:14) be regarded as a high priest? Although the NT documents regularly appropriate terminology and motifs from Israel’s sacrificial system to elucidate the death of Jesus (e.g. Mark 10:45; Rom 3:25; 1 Pet 2:24; 1 John 2:2), the identification of Jesus as a (high) priest is unique to Hebrews. Some regard this as a testimony to the author’s creativity, 1 while others think that it is implicit in other NT books and probably represents broader Christian traditions.2 The arguments for antecedents in wider Christian traditions are only rarely accepted since, as Mason has recently demonstrated, they are generally ‘stated with little supporting evidence and with dependence on a highly speculative reconstruction of history’.3 The fact that Hebrews is the only NT book to discuss Christ’s priesthood (and offer various proofs for it) suggests that it was not part of the wider Christian tradition of the day. The NT texts suggest that it was in Hebrews that a high priestly Christology was first developed. This is the opinion of Baigent, who, after considering the various arguments and passages that are normally advanced for the concept of Christ’s priesthood in the NT outside Hebrews, reaches the following conclusion. Ideas are expressed in various parts of the NT which do indeed bear a distinct affinity to the high priest concept of Hebrews. Some statements could imply that the author had the beginnings of such a concept, or are consonant with the possibility that he held such a concept. Some statements could even have sparked off, or been the springboard for, the

 1 E.g. B. Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 58–84; Hughes, Hebrews, 30. 2 E.g. O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, trans. S. C. Guthrie and C. A. M. Hall, Second Edition, London: SCM Press, 1963, 83–107. 3 See Mason, You Are a Priest Forever, 43–49 (quotation, 43).

120

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

development of the high priest concept of Hebrews. But no reference which we have examined compels us to attribute to the writer a priestly concept of Jesus. Certainly we are unable to follow those who think that a sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ necessarily involves the idea of his priesthood. This assumes that when a person uses a metaphor (e.g. sacrifice) he inevitably has all aspects of the picture in mind. It is certainly not the case. We cannot resist the impression that those who claim to find a priestly view of Jesus in other parts of the NT have imported the idea from Hebrews and read it back into these passages.4

Lindars concurs with this assessment and accounts for the emergence of the concept of Christ’s priesthood as the author’s response to his audience’s dwindling confidence in Christ’s atonement, a concept which is legitimated by means of a messianic reading of Psalm 110.5 Lindars is probably correct to stress the author’s creativity, and he helpfully identifies the pressing needs of his audience as the impetus for the priestly presentation of Christ, although, as we shall see, this is probably not the only impetus. In all likelihood, the author’s own Jewish apocalyptic mysticism also played a role.

5.1 Possible Antecedents Lindars’ analysis of possible Jewish antecedents extends to the Hasmonean priest-kings, the ‘messiah of Aaron’ expected at Qumran, and contemporary Melchizedek speculation, all of which are rejected as possible influences. Lindars notes that the Levitical and temporary priesthood of the Hasmonean rulers (e.g. 1 Macc 14:41) bears no resemblance to the eternal Melchizedekian priesthood of Christ, that there is no indication of an expectation of a priestly messiah in Hebrews, such as there was at Qumran, and that everything the author says about Melchizedek can be derived from Genesis 14 and Psalm 110.6 Although he makes some good points, Lindars analysis of possible antecedents to Christ’s heavenly priesthood is somewhat limited. His evaluation of the Qumran evidence, for example, is un 4 J. W. Baigent, ‘Jesus as Priest: An Examination of the Claim that the Concept of Jesus as Priest may be Found in The New Testament Outside the Epistle to the Hebrews’, VE 12 (1981), 39. Baigent covers Jesus’ use of Psalm 110 (e.g. Mark 12:35–37; 14:62), his ‘priestly’ mediation (e.g. Matt 10:32; Luke 12:8; 22:32; John 17; Rom 8:34; 1 Pet 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 2:2), his ‘priestly’ authority over the temple (Matt 12:6; Mark 14:58; John 2:19) and his ‘priestly’ apparel (John 19:23; Rev 1:13). Overall, his analysis and conclusions are fair, but his dismissal of Rev 1:13 is perhaps overly pessimistic (see below). 5 Lindars, Theology, 58–66. 6 Ibid., 64–65, 73–75.

Chapter 5: The Heavenly High Priesthood of the Son

121

necessarily dismissive.7 Moreover, the concept of exalted and/or heavenly priestly mediators in late Second Temple Judaism was more widespread than Lindars seems to appreciate. 5.1.1 Philo’s Logos In the light of Philo’s writings, Spicq argued that the author of Hebrews exploited Philo’s conception of the Logos to the advantage of his presentation of Christ’s priesthood.8 In his work On Dreams, Philo describes the world as a temple and the PDHNIÉ KN FNI as the @UQBHDQDT I and OQVSN FNMNI (Somn. 1:215; cf. Conf. 146 Gig. 52). The same conceptuality emerges in Philo’s allegorical exegesis which discovers insight into the divine Logos from the figure of the high priest and his accoutrements. When considering the cities of refuge (Exod 21:12–14; cf. Num 35), Philo asks why a refugee could not return until after the death of the high priest (Fug. 87)? He concludes that this cannot be intended literally because it makes little sense and is unjust (106–7). Rather, an allegorical explanation is required, whereby we see that ‘high priest’ refers to the high priest, the KN FNIÉPDHNI, and the death of the high priest denotes the separation of the most sacred reason (N?É H?DQV S@SNIÉ KN FNI) from the soul (108–17). ‘It is worthwhile, therefore, to pray for the high priest to live in the soul as king and judge’ (118; cf. Mos. 2:117–35).9 Although there are some similarities of language, Spicq’s contention has not convinced many. As Williamson states, it is not enough to merely cite apparent similarities and conclude that one writer is dependent upon another. Rather, we must probe more deeply and ask what exactly do they mean and why do they say what they say? 10 The Logos was Philo’s answer to the philosophical problem of divine transcendence, for, according to Philo, to ‘inquire about essence (NTURH @) or quality (ONHN SGI) in God, is a folly fit for the world’s childhood’ (Post. 168). Not even to Moses, the all wise, did God accord this, albeit he had made countless requests, but a divine communication was issued to him, “Thou shalt behold that which is behind Me, but My Face thou shalt not see” (Exod. xxxiii. 23). This meant, that all that follows in the wake of God is within the good man’s apprehension, while He Himself alone is beyond (@UJ@S@ KGOSNI) it, beyond, that is, in the line of straight and direct approach, a mode of approach by which (had it been possible) His quality would have been made known; but on account of the powers that follow and attend him, apprehension be-

 7

So Mason, You Are a Priest Forever, 40–43, 64–203. See Spicq, Hébreux, 1:70; 2:123; cf. Sowers, Hermeneutics, 69, 120. 9 Translation mine: CHN ODQÉ @WHNMÉ DTBDRP@HÉ YGMÉ DUMÉ XTBG[É SNMÉ @UQBHDQD @ É N?LNTÉ J@HÉ A@RHKD @ ÉCHJ@RSGMÉDKDFBNM. 10 Williamson, Philo, 412. 8

122

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

comes possible; for these make evident not his essence (NTURH @) but his subsistence (T:O@QWHI) from the things which he accomplishes (Post. 169).11

God may be known indirectly by his ‘powers’, and his primary power or ‘chief messenger’ is his Logos (Her. 205–6), which is both the ‘image’ of God and the ‘idea’ of creation (Somn. 2:45), the ‘world of ideas’ (JN RLNIÉ MNGSN I) and middle ground between God and humans (Opif. 19–25).12 By maintaining a totally transcendent God and rooting the JN RLNIÉ MNGSN I in the mind of God or ‘divine reason’ (PDHNIÉKN FNI), Philo articulates a fairly orthodox form of Middle Platonism.13 His discussion is also clearly influenced by Jewish traditions in which the KN FNIÉ PDNT, like Wisdom, which Philo identifies with the Logos (e.g. Leg. 1:65), was discussed as a distinct being and regarded as the agent of creation and revelation (e.g. Prov 8:22– 31; Wis 9:1–4; 18:14–16).14 Thus, in the context of Philo’s broader conception of the Logos, it is not difficult to see why the metaphor of high priest was so suitable. Put philosophically, what Philo is saying in those passages in which he represents the High Priest as the Logos is that by contemplation of the noumenal world, the world of Ideas, the mind of man can know God. . . It is because of the presence in him of a fragment or ray of the divine Reason, the Logos, that it is possible for any communication to take place between God and man. 15

Although both the Logos in Philo’s thought and the Christ in Hebrews are regarded as the supreme high priest and mediator between God and humans, the way in which this is understood is quite different. For Philo, a person may draw near to God by exercising their intellect and contemplating the archetypal world of ideas, which is conceived in the divine Logos, and God draws near to a person through the operation of his Logos in the human soul.16 Although Philo refers to the Logos in personal terms, it soon becomes clear that the Logos is an abstract concept, used mostly for describing the relative immanence of God as apprehended by human reason.17 It seems dubious, therefore, to interpret Philo’s metaphorical per 11

Adapted from the translation of Colson and Whitaker, LCL. Williamson, Philo, 413–17; cf. Schäfer, Origins, 155–60. 13 See Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 155–61. 14 See Hannah, Michael and Christ, 79–83; McGinn, Foundations, 37–38. 15 Williamson, Philo, 419, 426. 16 See now the excellent summary in Schäfer’s Origins, 154–74. 17 See also L. W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, Second Edition, Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd, 1998, 44–48; J. D. G. Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence, London: SPCK, 2010, 81–84. It is often assumed that since Philo speaks about the Logos as a separate figure, he must think that the Logos is a separate figure (e.g. Chester, Messiah, 363–66; B. J. L. Peerbolte, ‘Jewish Monotheism and Christian Origins’, in A Houtman, A. de Jong and M. Misset-van de Weg (eds.), Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in 12

Chapter 5: The Heavenly High Priesthood of the Son

123

sonification of the Logos as evidence for the independent personhood or hypostasis of the Logos, especially in the light of Philo’s similar personification of the sense perceptible world as the younger son of God (Deus 31– 32; cf. Ebr. 30). In essence, Philo’s Logos bears little affinity with the messianic, new covenant inaugurating, Melchizedekian high priest of Hebrews, whose eschatological sacrifice and heavenly enthronement are the guarantees of human salvation from sins and access to the very presence of God.18 5.1.2 Angelic Priests More recently it has been suggested that ‘the Jewish tradition of angelic heavenly priests provides the most probable background for the High Priest Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews’.19 As we have already seen, the author’s understanding of the heavenly sanctuary (e.g. 8:1–5; 9:11–12) belongs within the context of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism where the celestial temple often plays a major role.20 Moreover, given that angels are regularly regarded as the priests of the celestial temple in these traditions (e.g. 4Q400 1 i 1–20; 1 En. 14:23; T. Levi 3:5–6), it seems likely that the author would have been familiar with this particular facet of apocalyptic angelology. Indeed, this is overtly indicated by the author’s description of angels as KDHSNTQFNH (Heb 1:7; cf. 1:14), a term which has sacerdotal import in Hebrews (see 8:2, 6; 9:21; 10:11; cf. T. Levi 3:5; Jub. 2:2). It is perfectly plausible, therefore, that this notion provided a conceptual framework for developing a high priestly Christology. This said, given the author’s emphasis upon Jesus’ humanity (e.g. Heb 2:5–18) and distinction from angels (1:4–14), it is unlikely that the tradition of angelic priests can fully explain the origins of Christ’s high priesthood. Hannah has further suggested that the identification of Michael as the heavenly high priest in apocalyptic (e.g. 3 Bar. 11–16) and rabbinic (e.g. b. ‫ۉ‬ag. 12b) literature, along with the ‘probable’ identification of Michael with Melchizedek at Qumran, points to the pre-Christian origins of Michael’s heavenly high priesthood, and probably helped the early Church articulate the significance of Christ.21 Although the identification of Michael with Melchizedek is somewhat less certain than is sometimes im Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst, AGJU 73, Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008, 242–43). The one does not necessarily follow from the other however. 18 See also Williamson, Philo, 430–34; Mason, You Are a Priest Forever, 57–63. 19 Hannah, Michael and Christ, 125; cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 99–103; Schenke, ‘Erwägungen’, 429–30; Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 170–71. 20 See Chapter 4 above. 21 Hannah, Michael and Christ, 42–45, 70–74, 100–1, 150–51; cf. Schenke, ‘Erwägungen’, 430–37.

124

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

plied,22 the possibility that Michael’s heavenly high priesthood was an idea circulating in the First Century CE seems plausible, although, as Hannah notes, there is no direct evidence that this tradition was known to the author of Hebrews.23 5.1.3 The Apocalyptic Imaginaire of an Eschatological Yom Kippur Stökl has also helped to reconstruct an element of the apocalyptic atmosphere in which the high priesthood of Jesus developed. Stökl highlights the importance of Yom Kippur in the apocalyptic ‘imaginaire’, that is, the possible range or repertoire of motifs, and their possible role in the development of the high priestly Christology of earliest Christianity. 24 The impact of Yom Kippur can be seen in the sin-bearing function, punishment, and name of Asael in 1 En. 10:4–8, which closely resembles the scapegoat ritual of Yom Kippur, the goat that is sent away to Azazel (Lev 16:8–10, 20–22). One important difference between Leviticus 16 and 1 Enoch 10, however, is that the former pertains to an annual Yom Kippur, whereas the latter envisages an eschatological Yom Kippur, one that inaugurates an absolute end of sin and restoration for the earth. Similarly, despite its fragmentary nature, 11QMelchizedek also clearly envisages an eschatological Yom Kippur. According to these fragments, Melchizedek, the heavenly redeemer, shall mediate God’s judgments and deliver his people from the power of Belial. And this [wil]l [happen] in the first week of the jubilee which follows the nine jubilees. And the d[ay of aton]ement (a\UZ[SNK aZ]\) is the e[nd of] the tenth [ju]bilee in which atonement (USN) shall be made for all the sons of [light and] for the men [of] the lot of Mel[chi]zedek (11Q13 II 6–8).

The impact of Yom Kippur can also be discerned in the Apocalypse of Abraham 13–14, when Abraham encounters Azazel (cf. Lev 16:8–10; 1 En. 10:4–8), the deceiver who brings wrath upon the earth, who is sent ‘into the untrodden parts of the earth’ (Apoc. Ab. 14:5; cf. Lev 16:22; Philo, Spec. 1:188). Moreover, the possible role that Zechariah 3 might play in the apocalyptic imaginaire of Yom Kippur can also be observed here. In both Zechariah 3 and the Apocalypse of Abraham, a single human being (Joshua ben Jehozadak/Abraham) stands before two angels, one who  22 The identification is doubted by Sullivan (Wrestling with Angels, 97) and FletcherLouis (All the Glory, 216–21). 23 Hannah, Michael and Christ, 150. 24 D. Stökl, ‘Yom Kippur in the Apocalyptic Imaginaire and the Roots of Jesus’ High Priesthood’, in J. Assmann and G. G. Stroumsa (eds.), Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions, Leiden: Brill, 1999, 349–66; idem, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 78– 95, 180–97.

Chapter 5: The Heavenly High Priesthood of the Son

125

accuses him and one who defends him, resulting in the humiliation of the accuser and the vindication of the accused, which is symbolized with reference to a change of clothes. The impact of Yom Kippur on Zechariah 3 is far from certain, although it is possible to discern some connections,25 but the Apocalypse of Abraham illustrates how Zechariah 3 could be utilized and caught up in the apocalyptic imaginaire of an eschatological Yom Kippur. Similarly, Hebrews probably also reflects the apocalyptic imaginaire of an eschatological Yom Kippur to some extent when it speaks of a single sacrifice offered in the Holy of Holies at the end of the ages (Heb 9:7, 12, 26; cf. Lev 16:34; Zech 3:9–10; 1 En. 10:5–8; 11Q13 II 7–8), and associates this work with the liberation of God’s people from the power of the devil (Heb 2:14–15; cf. Lev 16:10; Zech 3:1–4; 1 En. 10:4–8; 11Q13 II 13; III 7; Apoc. Ab. 14:5–7).26 The connections with 11QMelchizedek are particularly impressive,27 and Stökl is probably correct to suppose that both texts are indebted to a common apocalyptic imaginaire of an eschatological Yom Kippur, one that longed for a high priestly figure who would liberate his followers from their sins and the power of the Evil One. It is also quite likely ‘that the author of Hebrews knew some similar traditions to 11QMelchizedeq and probably even corrected them by superimposing Jesus over Melchizedeq’.28 Less convincing, however, is the alleged centrality of Zechariah 3 in the origins and justification of the high priesthood of the non-Levite Jesus.29 According to Stökl, the priestly Christology of Hebrews is introduced suddenly in Heb 2:17, ‘a sign that the tradition was already well known to the readers and did not need any explanation’ (cf. Rev 1:13; Barn. 7:9; Ign. Phld. 9:1; Pol. Phil 12:2; Mart. Pol. 14:3).30 Stökl suggests, therefore, that the high priesthood of Jesus originated among Christian Jews and was justified typologically with reference to Zechariah 3 and Jesus’ namesake, the high priest Joshua (>;ZK\/ÉU)GRNTI) son of Jehozadak (cf. Justin, Dial. 115– 16; Tertullian, Marc. III.7). Although this speculative reconstruction is possible, it is unlikely that sharing the same name as a Levitical high priest would have been sufficient to inspire the ascription of high priesthood to  25

See Stökl, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 80–82. Ibid., 180–94; cf. J. McRay, ‘Atonement and Apocalyptic in the Book of Hebrews’, ResQ 23 (1980), 1–9; Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 212–319. 27 See below, Chapter 5.1.5. 28 Stökl, ‘Yom Kippur in the Apocalyptic Imaginaire’, 358; cf. P. J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchirešac, CBQMS 10, Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981, 127–29. 29 Stökl, ‘Yom Kippur in the Apocalyptic Imaginaire’, 362–66; idem, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 194–97. 30 Stökl, ‘Yom Kippur in the Apocalyptic Imaginaire’, 362. 26

126

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

the non-Levite Jesus. Moreover, Christ’s high priesthood is not introduced suddenly in Heb 2:17; it is implied as early as 1:3, and perhaps also in 1:4, 5, 8–9 (see below), and it requires substantial explanation in Hebrews 5– 10, which is an indication of its originality, and not just the originality of its Melchizedekian nature, as Stökl maintains. Heb 2:17, along with 1:3 and 3:1, are examples of ‘teasers’ and the mark of an effective discourse; they raise expectations and signal forthcoming information, which keep the audience in attentive suspense, until all is explained. The questions and expectations that would have been raised by Heb 1:3, 2:17 and 3:1 are subsequently answered and satisfied in the extended argument occurring throughout Hebrews 5–10.31 As we noted at the beginning of this Chapter, Hebrews is the first text to identify Jesus as a priest, and the detailed defence of this idea that is offered in Hebrews suggests that it was a relatively new development. In all likelihood, this development emerged within a context of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, and was probably facilitated by the apocalyptic imaginaire of an eschatological Yom Kippur, and subsequently regarded as a ‘fulfilment’ of Zechariah’s vision of Joshua ben Jehozadak.32 5.1.4 Priestly Messianism One of the most recent and extensive studies of possible Jewish antecedents to the priestly Christology of Hebrews is that of E. F. Mason. Mason argues that priestly messianism and Melchizedek speculation (see below) provided a precedent for, and may have influenced, the priestly Christology of Hebrews. With regard to priestly messianism, Mason pulls together and explores a number of relevant sources and traditions, drawing primarily on references in the Qumran texts.33 Mason notes that several scrolls refer to a ‘messiah of Aaron’, who is clearly a priestly messiah, and who is closely associated with a ‘messiah of Israel’ who is Davidic in orientation (e.g. 1Q28 [1QS] IX 11; 4Q266 [4QDa] 10 I 12; cf. CD-A XIV 19). Furthermore, although he is not designated ‘messiah’ several other texts seem to envisage a priestly ‘messianic’ figure. These include the Rule of the Congregation, where the high priest has a pre-eminent status and leads the proceedings at the messianic banquet (1Q28a [1QSa] II 11–22), and the War Scroll, where a certain high priest participates in the eschatological war by making atonement for the congregation (1Q33 [1QM] II 1–6), blessing and encouraging the troops (X 1–6; XV 4–XVI 1) and even taking  31

See Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 84, 108. See also W. R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes, WMANT 53, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981, 200–2; Mackie, Eschatology, 177–81. 33 Mason, You Are a Priest Forever, 64–137. 32

Chapter 5: The Heavenly High Priesthood of the Son

127

a position on the front line and promising unstoppable angelic assistance (XVI 13–XVII 9). Mason helpfully amasses numerous passages from the Qumran library, which could be read as descriptions of the status and activities of a priestly messiah. Unfortunately, many of these texts are poorly preserved and Mason must frequently rely on reconstructed texts and his imagination in order to discern their meaning. As a result, many of his suggestions are far from certain.34 Nevertheless, there are enough unequivocal indications to establish Mason’s overall conclusion that a priestly, eschatological messianic figure was, at one time or another, expected by at least some Jews in the Second Temple period. Moreover, Mason draws attention to a wider interpretative tradition that understood Levi’s vengeance against Shechem (Gen 34) as a demonstration of his zeal for righteousness and qualification for priesthood.35 This interpretation is expressed in the fragmentary Aramaic Levi Document, as well as Jubilees (30:18–20) and the Testament of Levi (5:1–6). In different ways, each of these texts testifies to a heavenly bestowal of eternal priesthood upon Levi, and Mason argues that this exalted understanding of the Levitical priesthood ‘almost certainly influenced Qumran’s priestly messianism’.36 With regard to Hebrews, Mason suggests that just as the Christian identification of Jesus as the Davidic messiah has roots in broader Second Temple Jewish messianic expectation, so Hebrews’ identification of the messiah as a high priest may have similar roots.37 For example, in both the Qumran texts and Hebrews a priestly figure is discussed in the context of a Davidic figure (although at Qumran they are separate figures, whereas in Hebrews they are one). Like Jesus in Hebrews, Qumran’s messianic high priest appears to make some kind of eschatological sacrifice of atonement (although the nature and effects of this are understood quite differently; at Qumran, it is Levitical and militaristic; in Hebrews, it is Melchizedekian and mystical). In both Hebrews and the exalted Levi traditions, an eschatological priesthood is of heavenly origin and is given by divine decree (Heb  34

E.g. Mason’s suggestion that ‘one might with only a little imagination propose (especially in the light of CD A XIV, 19) that the author of 1QSb conceived of a high priest who would make an eschatological sacrifice of atonement in the heavenly temple’ (ibid., 99). 35 This interpretation could have been discerned by association with Exod 32:25–29, Num 25:6–15 and Deut 33:8–11, which relate priesthood and vengeance upon sinners, and may be observed as early as Mal 2:4–7 (see Kugler, Patriarch to Priest, 9–22; J. C. VanderKam, ‘Jubilees and the Priestly Messiah of Qumran’, RevQ 13 (1988), 353–65). 36 Mason, You are a Priest Forever, 111–33 (quotation, 133); cf. VanderKam, ‘Jubilees’, 353–65. 37 Mason, You Are a Priest Forever, 196–99.

128

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

5:5–6; Jub. 30:18–20; 31:11–17; T. Levi 5:2). Consequently, Mason plausibly concludes that: it is reasonable in light of the positive correspondences to assert that the author’s conception of Jesus as a heavenly priest was prompted at least in part by an intellectual context in which a priest called [\;P was expected and the priestly endowment of Levi in the Hebrew Scriptures was understood in heavenly terms. Jesus is not the ‘messiah of Aaron’ of Qumran or the Levi of Jubilees and ALD, but those conceptions – along with the broader heavenly temple cult supposed in Jewish apocalyptic texts – provided a precedent for the author of Hebrews to conceive of Jesus similarly as a priest making atonement and eternal intercession in the heavenly sanctuary.38

5.1.5 Melchizedek Speculation The role of Melchizedek speculation is also clearly relevant for understanding the high priesthood of Jesus in Hebrews, something that has also been recently revisited by Mason.39 Most of the references to Melchizedek in Second Temple Jewish literature are of the ‘mundane’ variety and are essentially rewritten versions of Genesis 14 (e.g. 1Q20 XX–XXII; Jub. 13; Ps.-Eup. [Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.17.5–6]; Philo, Abr. 235; Congr. 99; Leg. 3:79–82; Josephus, J.W. 6:438; Ant. 1:179–81). It is only in the scrolls from Qumran that we find a heavenly Melchizedek, and possible allusions to Psalm 110. Although the name Melchizedek must be partially restored, it seems likely that the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice portray this figure as an angelic (high) priest of the celestial temple. 40 This seems to be confirmed in 11QMelchizedek, which portrays Melchizedek as an angelic warrior who mediates eschatological judgment (cf. 4Q544 [4QVisions of Amramb ar]; 1Q33 XIII; XVII), although, as we have seen, this is associated with an eschatological Yom Kippur (11Q13 II 7–9), which implies a high priestly status for Melchizedek.41 With regard to Hebrews, Mason, among others, notes that, like the more ‘mundane’ presentations, Melchizedek in Hebrews was a king-priest of Salem who encountered Abraham and received tithes (Heb 7:1–2), and, like Philo (Leg. 3:79) and Josephus (J.W. 6:438; Ant. 1:179–81), the author plays with the etymological significance of Melchizedek’s name (Heb 7:2). In 7:3 Melchizedek is said to be like the Son of God and an eternal – presumably angelic – priest (cf. 7:8, 15–17).42 These statements clearly indi 38

Ibid., 199. Ibid., 138–90. 40 4Q401 11 3, for example, refers to ODW]G>EKZNTGF[ \NOP, ‘Melchi]zedek, priest in the assemb[ly of God’ (cf. 11Q13 II 10; Ps 82:1). See also Alexander, Mystical Texts, 56–57; Davila, Liturgical Works, 166–67; Newsom, Songs, 37–38. 41 See above, Chapter 5.1.3. 42 See also Kobelski, Melchizedek, 122–27; Dey, Intermediary World, 189–91. 39

Chapter 5: The Heavenly High Priesthood of the Son

129

cate an exalted status for Melchizedek in the thought of the author and strongly echo the conception of Melchizedek as an angelic heavenly priest in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and 11QMelchizedek. Moreover, the fact that the author asserts on numerous occasions that Christ’s priesthood is of the Melchizedekian order (e.g. 5:10; 6:20; 7:17), and ascribes to Christ certain prerogatives given to Melchizedek at Qumran (e.g. heavenly exaltation, eschatological redemption),43 suggests some familiarity with the kind of Melchizedek speculation evident at Qumran.44 Mason distances himself from those who claim a direct connection between Hebrews and Qumran, but concludes that the two elements contributing to the priestly Christology of Hebrews – namely, ‘the notion of a heavenly priesthood and an angelic understanding of Melchizedek – are best paralleled in ideas found in the Dead Sea Scrolls’.45 Although Mason’s analysis of the Scrolls is thorough and perfectly plausible, it is unfortunate that so much rests upon fragmentary texts, some of which may be sectarian in origin. Nevertheless, he makes a cogent case for his modest conclusion. The notions of a heavenly priesthood and an angelic Melchizedek were clearly embraced at Qumran, and the former of these was certainly more widespread in late Second Temple Judaism. The evidence for exalted Melchizedek speculation outside Qumran is lacking, although in view of his role in Hebrews, and a range of later sources (e.g. 2 En. 68–73; Melch. (NHC IX, 1); Hippolytus, Haer. 7.24; b. Sukkah 52b; Song Rab. II. 13, 4),46 it seems likely that this was more widespread (unless Hebrews is directly dependent upon Qumran traditions). Mason is probably correct to identify Melchizedek speculation, as well as elevated Levi traditions and priestly messianism, as precedents to, and possible influences on, the author of Hebrews. It should be stressed, however, that none of this has been merely adopted in an uncritical fashion, but is sifted, modified and remoulded in the service of the author’s unique vision of Jesus. It is surprising that Mason makes no reference to the work of Martha Himmelfarb and her contention that heavenly transformations are often understood in terms of priestly investiture in Jewish and Christian apoca-

 43

For additional similarities, see Horton, Melchizedek, 167–68; Kobelski, Melchizedek, 128. 44 Mason, You Are a Priest Forever, 199–203; cf. J. R. Davila, ‘Melchizedek, the “Youth,” and Jesus’, in Davila (ed.), Dead Sea Scrolls as Background, 253; Stökl, ‘Yom Kippur in the Apocalyptic Imaginaire’, 358; Kobelski, Melchizedek, 115–29. 45 Mason, You Are a Priest Forever, 203. 46 On Melchizedek in later sources up to the fifth century, see Horton, Melchizedek, 87–151. See also A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, Leiden: Brill, 1977, 194–95 n. 33.

130

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

lypses.47 Given the exclusively heavenly orientation of Christ’s priesthood in Hebrews, the possibility that this particular antecedent may have facilitated and influenced the conception of Christ’s priesthood in Hebrews also deserves to be explored.

5.2 Christ’s Priestly Investiture as a Heavenly Transformation As we noted above, there are a number of heavenly ascents in Jewish apocalyptic literature that result in some kind of transformation, and that this transformation is sometimes understood in terms of priestly investiture (e.g. T. Levi 2–5, 8; 2 En. 22; 1 En. 14–15; cf. 4Q400 1 i 1–21; 11Q13).48 We will now consider the evidence to suggest that these traditions helped to facilitate the high priestly Christology of Hebrews 5.2.1 The Heavenly Orientation of Christ’s High Priesthood The exclusively heavenly location of Christ’s high priesthood in Hebrews is overtly indicated in at least two passages. First, in 8:4 we read that, ‘if he was on earth, he would not even be a priest’ (DHUÉ LDMÉNTMÉGMÉ DUOHÉ FGIÉ NTUC5É @MÉ GMÉ H?DQDT I). This contrary to fact conditional clause imagines an unreal scenario (i.e. the present earthly location of Christ) and shows that an earthly location would in fact exclude Christ from the priesthood. As it is, in his heavenly location, he is not only a priest, but the high priest (8:1– 3). Secondly, in 6:20 the author coordinates Jesus’ entry into the celestial Holy of Holies with his assumption of high priesthood: DHURGKPDMÉ 5)GRNTIÉ J@S@ÉSGMÉS@ WHMÉ,DKBHRD CDJÉ@UQBHDQDTIÉFDMN LDMNIÉDHUIÉSNMÉ@HUVM@. It is possible to take the participle FDMN LDMNI as expressing an action antecedent to the main verb DHURGKPDM, meaning that Jesus became a high priest just before he entered the celestial Holy of Holies. On the other hand, since both the main verb and the participle are aorist,49 and the participle follows the  47

Himmelfarb, Ascent, 29–71. The same could be said of Eskola’s study, Messiah and the Throne. Although Eskola cites Himmelfarb several times, he largely overlooks, and even dismisses (see p. 268), the connection between priesthood and heavenly ascent. This, together with his pessimistic evaluation of the usefulness of divine agency figures for understanding NT Christology, means that he fails to explore a potentially fruitful background to the priestly Christology of Hebrews. 48 See Chapter 3.2.2. 49 Wallace notes that although an aorist participle often denotes an action antecedent to the main verb, when the main verb is also aorist, the participle will often be contemporaneous to the main verb (D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996, 624).

Chapter 5: The Heavenly High Priesthood of the Son

131

main verb,50 it is preferable to take the participle as expressing an action simultaneous with the main verb. Although prior priestly activity is not necessarily excluded, it remains clear that Christ did not fully assume the office of high priest until he entered the celestial Holy of Holies. Ellingworth captures it nicely when he notes, The meaning is thus that God declared Jesus to be high priest because of his selfoffering. His entry into the heavenly sanctuary, and his appointment as high priest are one; Jesus was made high priest because of what he did.51

One should also mention Heb 5:5–10, where it is noted that God designated the Christ as high priest when he said, ‘You are my Son, today I have become your father’ and ‘You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek’ (cf. Pss 2:7 and 110(109):4). Significantly, the former declaration is a repetition of Heb 1:5 and shows that the author of Hebrews connects this declaration with the inauguration of Christ’s priesthood. In the language of ‘speech-act’ theory, the author regards this utterance is a ‘performative’ declaration; when God said, ‘You are my son . . .’ he made him a priest.52 As Stökl notes, ‘Christ’s high priesthood is DHUIÉSNMÉ @HUVM@ (5:6), but not @UONÉSVMÉ@HUV MVM, i.e. his high priesthood is not preexistent, since he was appointed (3:2; 5:5)’.53 It is clear from these passages that the author regards Christ’s priestly investiture as a heavenly transformation. Although his earthly service prepared and commended him for the priesthood, his official consecration takes place in the heavenly realm. This resonates strongly with that feature of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, which associates the heavenly ascent and transformation of a righteous individual with their priestly investiture. Although there is no narrative documenting the consecration of Christ, such as we find in the Testament of Levi 8, Hebrews 1 seems to allude to the inauguration of Christ’s heavenly priesthood in ways which further echo these mystical traditions, thereby preparing the ground for the more elaborate discussion that will ensue in Hebrews 5–10.  50

Porter notes that if a participle occurs after the main verb, it tends to refer to simultaneous or subsequent action (S. E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994, 188). 51 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 349; cf. D. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’, SNTSMS 47, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, 191–95; Westcott, Hebrews, 164. 52 See also D. M. Moffitt, ‘“If Another Priest Arises”: Jesus’ Resurrection and the High Priestly Christology of Hebrews’, in R. Bauckham, D. R. Driver, T. A. Hart and N. MacDonald (eds.), A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in its Ancient Contexts, LNTS 387, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2008, 68–79, who argues cogently that the affirmation of Christ’s high priesthood depends upon his resurrection to the perfection of an indestructible life (Heb 7:11–16; cf. Eskola, Messiah, 258–64). 53 Stökl, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 184 n. 181.

132

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

5.2.2 Allusions to the Priestly Investiture of the Son in Heb 1:3–4 (3) NGEKNQZ[\Za\\[ON;EKNEOUD\Z 72

In the Greek text a (divine) passive is used: DRS@HÉDUMÉ@UMPQV OV[ÉODEVSHRLD MV[ÉEVI . Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 162–63. See also T. Levi 18:9; Sib. Or. 1:339–41. 74 See Harris, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 336–37 and n. 112. 73

190

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

ied in Christ.75 Like Hebrews, the enlightenment is transcendent and transformative, but this particular parallel further suggests the possibility that the enlightenment in Hebrews may have also involved apocalyptic visions of the risen Jesus, ‘the radiance of the Glory’ (Heb 1:3).76 Secondly, they have ‘tasted the heavenly gift’. In Heb 2:9 the author notes that Jesus ‘tasted’ (FDT NL@H) death for everyone, meaning that he ‘suffered’ or ‘experienced’ death for everyone. Thus, to taste the heavenly gift means to (mystically?) experience the heavenly gift,77 but what is this heavenly gift? Possibilities include the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2:28; 10:45; 11:17), Christ himself (cf. 2 Cor 9:15; John 6:32–33), eternal life (cf. John 4:10; Rev 21:6; 22:17), grace (cf. Rom 5:15; Eph 3:7; 4:7), righteousness (cf. Rom 5:17), teaching (cf. Barn. 9:9), an enlightened mind (cf. Corp. Herm. 4:4–5), angelification (cf. Pr. Jac. 18–20), or the Torah (cf. Gen. Rab. 6:7; 4 Ezra 9:29–37).78 Although there is almost certainly a connection with the heavenly calling mentioned in Heb 3:1, the sense is too general to identify any particular gift. Perhaps ‘tasting the heavenly gift’ re 75 So Chester, Messiah, 86–89; Newman, Paul’s Glory-Christology, 220–25, 229–35; A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990, 59–62. 76 The following passage from 1 Clement seems to weave all this together: ‘This is the way, beloved, in which we find our Savior, even Jesus Christ, the High Priest of all our offerings, the defender and helper of our infirmity. By Him we look up to the heights of heaven. By Him we behold, as in a glass, His immaculate and most excellent visage. By Him are the eyes of our hearts opened. By Him our foolish and darkened understanding blossoms up anew towards His marvelous light. By Him the Lord has willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge, who, being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they’ (36:1–2). The dependence upon Hebrews (particularly Hebrews 1) is clear, but the language of peering into heaven, beholding the bright Glory embodied in Christ, and tasting immortal knowledge, is suggestive of experience as well as exegesis. Such comments may suggest that the text of Hebrews was appropriated experientially in some early Christian circles, that is, by meditating upon Hebrews one may imagine and reexperience that which is described by the author of Hebrews. On the experiential engagement with scripture, see Rowland, with Gibbons and Dobroruka, ‘Visionary Experience’, 46–51; Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 84–90; M. Carruthers, The Craft of Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 77 Alexander describes ‘tasting’ as mystical language, which, like sense perception, captures the immediate nature of the experience (Mystical Texts, 9; cf. Scholem, Major Trends, 4). 78 Mathewson, who argues that the wilderness generation (cf. Num 13–14; Ps 95) discussed in Heb 3–4 is the background and interpretive key to this warning, suggests that ‘the heavenly gift’ parallels the ‘bread from heaven’ (Exod 16:4, 15; Neh 9:15), something which some Jews expected to be repeated in the eschaton (e.g. 2 Bar. 29:8), and, in Hebrews, metaphorically denotes ‘the whole sum of spiritual blessings’ (D. Mathewson, ‘Reading Heb 6:4–6 in Light of the Old Testament’, WTJ 61 (1999), 216–17, quoting Bruce, Hebrews, 121).

Chapter 7: A Present Reality of Privileged Access

191

flects a ‘solemn liturgical expression’,79 and is intended to capture the atmosphere of Christian salvation and all that it entails.80 Nevertheless, it remains clear that the source and sphere of this ‘gift’ is heaven, which suggests some kind of participation in the heavenly life. Thirdly, they have ‘become partakers of the Holy Spirit’ (LDSN BNTIÉÉÉ FDMGPD MS@IÉ OMDT L@SNIÉ @?FH NT). We have already noted that for the early Christians the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was regarded as an eschatological phenomenon, enabling visions, dreams, prophecy and a variety of spiritual gifts (Acts 2:14–21; 1 Cor 12–14). It is probably the distribution of gifts that is alluded to in Heb 2:4, but the language of the present verse and the image it conveys are somewhat different. To partake of the Holy Spirit suggests participation in the Holy Spirit, which is a more intimate connection than simply receiving his gifts. In anthropological parlance, one might describe this as a kind of spirit possession.81 The enlightened ones have come under the revelatory influence and control of the Holy Spirit (cf. Luke 2:25–35; John 16:13; 1 Cor 12:3), who mediates access to the supernatural world (cf. Acts 7:55–56; Eph 2:18; Rev 1:10; 4:1–3) and the hidden wisdom and deep things of God (1 Cor 2:6–16). Moreover, given the role of the Spirit with respect to dreams and visions (Acts 2:17),82 the phrase could easily allude to the mystical experiences of the community members, thereby illustrating the way in which they ‘tasted the heavenly gift’. In Revelation, for example, FDMD RP@HÉ DUMÉ OMDT L@SH, which is conceptually analogous to FDMD RP@HÉLD SNBNIÉOMDT L@SNI, expresses the agency of the Spirit of prophecy in the impartation of apocalyptic visions and otherworldly journeys.83 In Rev 1:10 the phrase denotes the onset of the visionary state and in 4:2 refers to John’s rapture into heaven (see 4:1; cf. Ascen. Isa. 7:23; Odes Sol. 36:1). Similarly, John’s movements DUMÉ OMDT L@SH seem to be conventional terminology for supernatural or otherworldly transportation (Rev 17:3; 21:10; cf. 1 Kgs 18:12; 2 Kgs 2:16; Ezek 3:12, 14; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 37:1; 43:5; Acts 8:39–40; 2 Bar.  79

So Michel, Hebräer, 148. See Attridge, Hebrews, 170; Bruce, Hebrews, 121. 81 See Davies, Jesus the Healer, esp. 22–51, 151–203. Vincent Crapanzano defines spirit possession as ‘any altered or unusual state of consciousness and allied behaviour that is indigenously understood in terms of the influence of an alien spirit, demon, or deity’ (‘Spirit Possession: An Overview’, in L. Jones (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion, Second Edition, Vol. 13; Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005, 8687). 82 See also Num 24:2–4; Sir 48:22–25; L.A.B. 9:10; Acts 7:55; Rev 1:10; 4:2; 17:3; 21:10; Josephus, Ant. 4:118; Ascen. Isa. 6:10–12; T. Ab. 4:7–9; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.11.77 [Apoc. Zeph.]. 83 See R. Bauckham, ‘The Role of the Spirit’, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993, 150–73. 80

192

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

6:3; Herm. Vis. 1, 1:3; 2, 1:1).84 Thus, to become a partaker of the Holy Spirit is a particularly appropriate expression for denoting mystical experience, which may be part of the significance of the phrase in Heb 6:4. Fourthly, they have ‘tasted the goodness of God’s word and the powers of the age to come’. Once again the author uses the verb ‘to taste’, which highlights the experiential immediacy of the phenomena. The word of God was experienced through the teaching of faithful Christian leaders (e.g. 3:7–4:13; 13:7), but also apparently in a more direct way from heaven itself (e.g. 12:25; 1:5–13). The point of Heb 6:5, however, which is emphasized by the word order, is the goodness of God’s word (cf. Ps 34(33):9 [EV 34:8]). They have not merely heard God’s word but discovered its beauty and nobility (cf. Ezek 3:3–4; Rev 10:9–10; Philo, Fug. 137–38). Furthermore, they have experienced the ‘powers of the age to come’, a phrase which not only demonstrates the author’s assent to a two-age eschatology (see Heb 1:2; 2:5; 9:26; cf. 4 Ezra 7–8), but also shows that the world-age to come is already available in some way.85 According to Heb 2:5 the world to come is the world discussed in Hebrews 1, which is the heavenly world where the high priestly Son of God is enthroned.86 According to Heb 6:5, believers may currently access this world. The ‘powers’ may correspond to the ‘manifold powers’ mentioned in 2:4, but, like the heavenly gift, it is probably misguided to specify a precise referent; it should probably be taken comprehensively as a reference to a variety of experiences of the heavenly world and their effectual impact.

7.6 Entering the Celestial Veil (Heb 6:19–20) (19) G and Latin equivalent saeculum, has a dual meaning and may be rendered ‘world’ or ‘age’ (see Mackie, Eschatology, 55–56). 86 See Part III; Schenck, ‘Celebration’, 469–85; Koester, Hebrews, 100, 192, 213. 87 Instead of DBNLDM, a few witnesses (e.g D, 0278) readÉ DBVLDM, which makes little sense in this context, and probably arose accidentally under the influence ofÉ DBVLDM in the previous verse (so Bruce, Hebrews, 128 n. 72; Attridge, Hebrews, 178; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 346). 85

Chapter 7: A Present Reality of Privileged Access

193

‘Beyond the veil’ probably refers to the innermost sanctum of the heavenly temple where Jesus entered, was enthroned, and now intercedes (cf. 8:1–2; 9:11–12, 24–25). The term ‘forerunner’ (OQN CQNLNI) denotes one who undergoes an experience in advance of others in order to show the way, 88 and clearly portrays the experience of Jesus as paradigmatic for all believers (cf. 2:10).89 In this respect, the entry is unlike the annual entry of the high priest on Yom Kippur, which was not regarded as an access-providing ritual. On the other hand, it echoes the typology noted earlier (Chapter 7.3) of the ancient Israelites entering the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua, which may suggest the influence of a Joshua Christology upon the author’s understanding of Christ’s high priesthood.90 The poetic nature of the language should be noted, and, strictly speaking, it is hope that enters into the heavenly Holy of Holies. Nevertheless, given that Jesus is described as the forerunner who has entered the Holy of Holies for us (cf. 2:10; 3:14), and in light of the parallel with 7:19, which defines the Christian hope as a means by which DUFFH YNLDMÉSV[É PDV[, Hofius locates the hope in heaven (cf. Col 1:5; 4 Ezra 7:120) and identifies it with the priestly approach to God, namely entry into the celestial sanctuary.91 This hope is for the soul what an anchor is for a ship, and securely connects the believer to the divine realm with indubitable certainty. 92 Those who have fled for refuge are encouraged to seize the hope before them with renewed vigour and to enter the heavenly sanctuary. As with the previous passages we have discussed in this Chapter, the use of the present tense (DBNLDMÉ DHURDQBNLD MGM) suggests that life in the heavenly realm was not simply a future expectation, but also a present reality, the experience of which is encouraged by the author. As Chrysostom observed, the author ‘shows that while we are still in the world, and not yet departed from this life, we are already among the promises. For through hope we are already in heaven’ (Homilies on Hebrews 11:3). Thus, ‘hope’ is clearly a prerequisite to experiencing the world to come, but there is no basis for restricting the experience that is envisaged here to the mere possession of hope, as if having hope, in and of itself, is the experience of the divine, which is to confuse the means with the end. Rather, hope is identified as a means by which mystical entry into the celestial sanctuary is achieved (cf. Odes Sol.  88

Louw and Nida §36.9. Note also Heb 1:6, where Jesus is called the firstborn (OQVSN SNJNI), which implies that there are also other children, such as the ‘many sons led to Glory’ (2:10) and the ‘assembly’ (DUJJKGRH @ ) of the firstborn (12:23). 90 Ounsworth, The Soteriology of Christ’s Entry, 139–84. 91 Hofius, Vorhang, 86–87; cf. Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 227–28. 92 Hofius, Vorhang, 87–88. 89

194

Part II: Hebrews and Its Accessible Heavenly Realities

5:10–15), a motif which re-emerges more forcefully in Heb 10:19–25 and 12:22–24.

7.7 An Exhortation to Communal Mysticism (Heb 10:19–25) (19) %BNMSDIÉ NTMÉ @UCDKENH É O@QQGRH @ MÉ DHUIÉ SGMÉ DHRNCNMÉ SVMÉ @? FH VMÉ DUMÉ SV[É @H:L@SHÉ 5)GRNT (20) G introduced a little awkwardness, there are at least two  55

Hurst, ‘Christology’, 160–62. The Septuagint employs a masculine pronoun (@TUSN M) and participle (DUQBN LDMNI) to translate terms that originally referred to a feminine antecedent (N:Q@RHI). Thus, in the Septuagint it is no longer the vision (N:Q@RHI) that should be expected, but ‘him’ (@TUSN M), ‘the coming one’ (DUQBN LDMNI), which could be understood as a messianic title (see BDAG, 394 (1.b); Gheorghita, Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 211–18). 57 KQ> may mean ‘to break’ (e.g. Ps 89:23) or ‘to answer’ (e.g. 2 Sam 1:16), among other things (see BDB, 772, 775, 776, 777). 58 Motyer, ‘Psalm Quotations’, 20 n. 54. 59 Ibid., 20. 56

232

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

ways that the Greek version of the Psalm may have been understood without resorting to additional participants. One could construe the afflicted man as the subject of @UODJQH PG and YHWH as the referent of @TUSV[. On this reading the words @UODJQH PGÉ@TUSV[ function as a discourse marker signalling the resumption of the man’s petition mustered from his remaining strength (DUMÉN?CV[É HURBT NIÉ@TUSNT).60 Having digressed a little in verses 19–23 by documenting his hopes for the reading material of the next generation, @UODJQH PGÉ@TUSV[ (v. 24) may be understood as reasserting the referential framework of verse 1. U!ODJQH PGÉ @TUSV[É DUMÉ N?CV[É HURBT NIÉ @TUSNT, therefore, introduces and underscores the man’s concluding plea to his God (vv. 24b–29), which, incidentally, reiterates the content of his earlier plea (vv. 12–17). Alternatively, YHWH may be construed as the subject of @UODJQH PG and the afflicted man the referent of @TUSV[. On this reading the whole clause @UODJQH PGÉ@TUSV[É DUMÉN?CV[É HURBT NIÉ@TUSNT is understood as the conclusion and climax of the record he hoped would be read by the next generation. In addition to the grandiose theme of establishing Zion, he wanted the next generation to know that N?É JT QHNIÉ @UODJQH PGÉ SV[É OSVBV[ (cf. v. 18). He knew that the power employed in establishing God’s kingdom is the same power at work in answering the petition of an afflicted man. He then proceeds to address his God directly in verses 24b–29 as in verses 12–17. It will be noticed that both of these interpretations maintain that verses 26–28, like the Hebrew Vorlage, are addressed to YHWH, which remains the most likely understanding of the Psalm. This is indicated further by the declaration of the unique sovereignty of YHWH (RTÉ CDÉ N?É @TUSNIÉDH v. 28; cf. Isa 52:6),61 and his identity as the eternal and immutable creator, features which typically distinguish the God of Israel from everything else.62 In all likelihood, the author of Hebrews understood Ps 102(101):26–28 as an address to the God of Israel. The author’s use of this text in Hebrews 1, therefore, cannot be explained on the basis of contextually sensitive, text orientated exegesis. He has taken a text, which was originally addressed by an afflicted man to God, to express his confidence in God, and transformed it into a heavenly declaration from God to the Son, to establish the superior position of the Son in the heavenly hierarchy. The imposition of textually  60

One might object that @UONJQH MNL@H typically introduces a reply but it is also frequently used to signal the continuation of a discourse (see BDAG, 114). 61 See C. H. Williams, I am He: The Interpretation of ‘Anî Hû’ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, WUNT II 113, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000, 50–52, 56–57. 62 E.g. ETERNAL: Exod 3:14; Lam 5:19; Pss 9:7(8); 29(28):10; Isa 44:6; Sir 18:1; 1 En. 84:2; Rev 1:8; 4 Ezra 8:20; IMMUTABLE: Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Mal 3:6; Heb 6:18; Jas 1:17; CREATOR: Gen 1:1; Neh 9:6; Pss 8:4; 89(88):12; Isa 44:24; Jer 10:11– 13; Sir 18:1; 1 En. 84:2–3; Acts 14:15; Heb 3:4; 11:3; 4 Ezra 6:38–55. See Bauckham, ‘Hebrews 1’, 167–68; idem, God Crucified, 6–13.

Chapter 8: The Use of Scripture in Hebrews 1:5–13

233

focused exegetical operations struggle to explain this phenomenon, but within a context of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, the words of Ps 102(101):26–28 offer a particularly appropriate formula for expressing the superiority of the Son over the angels, as we shall see in the next Chapter. Moreover, in Heb 1:10–12, these words are uttered by the highest authority, namely God himself, which might suggest that the author is using the words of Ps 102(101):26–28 to capture some kind of auditory revelation that was disclosed during a mystical experience.

8.2 The Distinctive Use of Scripture in Hebrews 1:5–13 Although the use of scripture in Heb 1:5–13 may be partially illuminated by parallels both within and outside of Hebrews, one must also reckon with its uniqueness. Although a convincing case can be made for contextually sensitive text orientated exegesis of Ps 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4, for example, this is considerably more difficult to demonstrate for Hebrews 1. Such an exercise often leads to a speculative reconstruction of how the author (and others before him) might have understood a certain text,63 and to an over-reliance upon the sections of the texts that are not quoted, often in an attempt to find connections between texts and therefore explain why they are strung together.64 Moreover, this approach to Heb 1:5–13 overlooks the relatively distinctive use of scripture therein. In Hebrews 3–4 the author quotes his text and then proceeds to comment on it, repeat it, illuminate it with other texts, and explain its relevance to his audience. This provides a stark contrast with Hebrews 1. As Docherty recognizes, the ‘use of the Old Testament in Hebrews 1 is unique in the New Testament, in that the author builds up an argument about who Jesus is almost entirely through his selection and arrangement of scriptural citations’.65 She notes further that the citations are set ‘apart from other formally similar collections (such as those discovered  63 See, for example, Docherty’s comments on Psalm 2 (Use of the Old Testament, 145) or Motyer’s comments on Psalm 102 (‘Psalm Quotations’, 19–20). 64 E.g. Docherty, Use of the Old Testament, 144–72; Motyer, ‘Psalm Quotations’, 15– 21; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 112–13, 114–16, 121, 125, 130. Reference to the wider context of a citation has also led to conflicting identifications of the source. Ellingworth, for instance, notes that the citation at Heb 1:5b must be from 1 Chr 17:13, rather than 2 Sam 7:14, because the wider context omits the reference to punishing the son’s sin and is therefore more conducive with Heb 4:15 (Hebrews, 114). Docherty argues that the citation must be from 2 Sam 7:14 because punishing sons for iniquity is a feature of Hebrews (e.g. Heb 12:1–11) and the reference to rest from enemies at 2 Sam 7:11 (but not in 1 Chr 17) resonates with Heb 3–4 (Use of the Old Testament, 155–56). 65 Docherty, Use of the Old Testament, 144.

234

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

at Qumran)’ since ‘the author does more than simply cite relevant biblical passages: he uses them to develop his theological argument’.66 Similarly, France observes that Hebrews 1 ‘differs in character from the expositions which follow’ and constitutes a ‘notable exception’ to the distinctive expository method of Hebrews.67 Motyer also seems to recognize this when he explains that it might be the author’s purpose ‘to tantalize, provoke, even upset . . . to baffle, overwhelm and fascinate his readers’.68 One wonders, however, if this distinctiveness has been fully appreciated by those who seek to harmonize the use of scripture here with the use of scripture elsewhere in Hebrews or in late Second Temple Judaism generally. Much of the research that has emphasized the author’s text orientated exegesis is extremely valuable, but, with regard to Hebrews 1, this emphasis quickly meets it limitations. Above all, it overlooks the way in which the author presents – what subsequent readers have recognized as – the citations. Although modern critical editions of the Greek NT italicize (NA27) or embolden (UBS4) scriptural quotations, it is unlikely that they were originally penned in this way. In the earliest extant copies of Hebrews (e.g. ¥46 D A B) the quotations are visually indistinguishable from the rest of the text, and, although they are quoted texts, the author refrains from acknowledging this. He does not present them as quoted texts; rather, he presents them as divine speech, uttered when the Son is received into the heavenly realm. By drawing the reader’s attention to quoted texts, as in modern editions and translations, our attentions are diverted to the textual source of the citation more rapidly than was probably intended, if it was intended at all.69 Thus, studies of Heb 1:5–13 have been dominated by a desire to discover the author’s textual sources, hermeneutical assumptions and exegetical methods. As a result, the uniqueness of this passage has not  66

Ibid., 152, cf. 175, 178. France, ‘The Writer of Hebrews as a Biblical Expositor’, 256, 272; cf. P. Enns, ‘The Interpretation of Psalm 95 in Hebrews 3.1–4.13’, in Evans and Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation, 352. 68 Motyer, ‘Psalm Quotations’, 14–15. 69 As Esler reminds us, the majority of the intended audience would have heard and remembered Hebrews, rather than read it (see P. F. Esler, ‘Collective Memory and Hebrews 11: Outlining a New Investigative Framework’, in A. Kirk and T. Thatcher (eds.), Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, Semeia Studies 52, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005, 158–61). Esler notes that the author’s complete lack of references to written scripture ‘detextualize’ the sources with which he interacts, and argues that the ‘sources’ that the author appropriates are in fact collective social memories (ibid., 151–71). Although he overstates his case, by leaving little or no room for contextually sensitive textual exegesis, Esler has offered an important caution to a scholarly community that often seems to be obsessed with the author’s use of textual sources. 67

Chapter 8: The Use of Scripture in Hebrews 1:5–13

235

been adequately appreciated, and the function that it was intended to perform for the original audience has been relatively neglected.70

8.3 Detextualized Speech Acts in a New Context Basic to the study of intertextuality is the acknowledgement that whenever a text is quoted it is also simultaneously relocated, and this act of relocation inevitably leads to a dislocation from its original context. Consequently, in different ways and degrees, the quoted text inevitably takes on new meanings in accordance with its new context.71 Indeed, the deliberate exploitation of this potential semantic variability of quoted texts is commonplace in ancient Greco-Roman rhetoric (e.g. Cicero, Inv. 2.40–48), a practice that served the early Christians well.72 Similarly, the texts quoted in Heb 1:5–13 have been thoroughly dislocated from their original contexts and adapted for an entirely new context. Moreover, unlike many early Jewish and Christian quotations of scripture, the texts quoted in Heb 1:5–13 are not even presented as quoted texts. They are not introduced with FD FQ@OS@H, or an equivalent phrase, but are presented as heavenly declarations from the mouth of God: ‘to which of the angels has God ever said (DHODM) [Ps 2:7]’ (1:5).73 ‘when he led the firstborn into the heavenly realm, he says (KD FDH) [Deut 32:43]’ (1:6). ‘to which of the angels has he ever said (DHQGJDM) [Ps 110(109):1]’ (1:13).

The first (1:5a) and last three citations (1:8–13) are first person direct addresses to the Son, who is Jesus (2:9). The other three citations (1:5b–7) are spoken for the benefit of a third party, which, in view of 1:7, must be the angels, to direct their attention towards the Son. It is perhaps closer to the author’s intention, therefore, to speak of seven statements rather than seven citations. The author maintains that this Son-centred revelation is both in continuity with God’s speech in the prophets and, by virtue of its  70 Although there are of course notable exceptions, this imbalance is something which reflects scholarly studies of the use of the scripture in the NT generally (see further S. Moyise, ‘Does the NT Quote the OT Out of Context?’, Anvil 11.2 (1994), 133–43; M. Daly-Denton, ‘Going Beyond the Genially Open “cf.”: Intertextual Reference to the Old Testament in the New’, Milltown Studies 44 (1999), 48–49. 71 S. Moyise, Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2008; M. Worten and J. Still (eds.), Intertextuality: Theories and Practices, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990. 72 M. M. Mitchell, Paul, the Corinthians and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010; Carruthers, Craft of Thought. 73 Compare the way Ps 2:7 is introduced in Acts 13:33: V?IÉ J@H DUMÉ SV[É X@KLV[É FD FQ@OS@HÉSV[ÉCDTSD QV[, ‘as it is written in the second Psalm’.

236

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

eschatological timing, constitutes the climax of God’s discourse to his people (1:1–2). Although the author makes no apostolic claim, and essentially denies himself any such authority (2:3), he nevertheless presents the God of Israel as the direct source of these revelatory pronouncements. Unlike some of the other scriptural references in Hebrews, Heb 1:5–13 is not presented as a text orientated, contextually sensitive exegetical activity. Hebrews 1 is about a person, and, rather than explicate this person with his own words, the author chose to employ appropriate scriptural phrases, in much the same way that proverbs or clichés are employed. A proverb is not uttered for the purpose of exegeting the proverb in its original context, but because it captures something of the reality of the situation in view. Hay seems to recognize this in his study of Psalm 110 in early Christianity when he notes that ‘the psalm often seems to function as a kind of phrase book, supplying vocabulary and imagery to writers not obviously concerned to argue from it in strict exegetical fashion’.74 Similarly, in Hebrews 1, the author seems to be using scripture as an authoritative phrase book to supply the speech of God, and to capture certain truths regarding the Son’s exaltation into the heavenly realm. One might say that this is not so much a comment upon scripture as a comment with scripture, a procedure which is probably more common than is currently appreciated.75 A similar use of scripture can be observed in Heb 2:11–13 where Ps 22:22 and Isa 8:17–18 are used to capture the attitude of Jesus towards his followers (cf. Matt 12:46–50; Mark 2:15–17; 3:31–35; Luke 7:36–50; 15:1–7; John 17:6), and Heb 10:5–7 where Ps 40:7–9 is used to capture the attitude of Jesus towards God (cf. Matt 9:13; Mark 12:33–34).76 As Koester notes, ‘[t]he issue for the author was apparently not whether Jesus actually quoted these OT texts, but whether these texts truly express Christ’s mission’.77 Similarly, the issue in Heb 1:5–13 is not so much whether the author has provided a valid interpretation of the texts, or even  74

Hay, Glory, 157. Similarly, Gathercole suggests that ‘the author regards the OT as a kind of script for a drama . . . Hebrews uses the OT as a dramatic script to construct imaginary lines or speaking parts for God, the Son, and Christian believers’ (S. J. Gathercole, The Pre-existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2006, 45). This sounds dangerously close to imposing a false homogeneity upon the author’s use of scripture. Although he certainly does this with scripture, this is not all that he does. 75 Margaret Mitchell notes, but does not explore, the importance of this procedure in the early Christian use of scripture (Paul, 12, 31–33, 73, 88). 76 See Koester, Hebrews, 237–39, 432–34; cf. H. W. Attridge, ‘The Psalms in Hebrews’, in S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (eds.), The Psalms in the New Testament, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004, 208–12. 77 Koester, Hebrews, 106 (cf. the use of Isa 51:9 in 3 En. 48A:3).

Chapter 8: The Use of Scripture in Hebrews 1:5–13

237

whether God recited scripture to the ascended Son, but whether these texts accurately capture the kind of reception Jesus received at his exaltation into the heavenly realm. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the motifs expressed by these texts find several parallels in the heavenly ascent traditions of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, as we shall see in the next Chapter. 8.3.1 The Setting of Hebrews 1:5–13 In Heb 1:1–4 the author shares his knowledge of heavenly realities when he describes the Son as enthroned in the celestial Holy of Holies as the embodiment of the divine Glory and possessor of the divine Name. Something that is often overlooked in the analysis of Heb 1:5–13 is the setting and context provided by 1:1–4. As we have seen in Part II, this opening sentence is reminiscent of certain apocalyptic visions and presents the Son as the divine Name-bearing anthropomorphic Glory of God enthroned in the celestial sanctuary. This is the context for the divine announcements that follow (1:5–13), an expectation of which has already been aroused in verses 1–2, which specifically introduce the God of Israel as the God who speaks (N?É PDNIÉK@KG R@IÉ É É ÉDUK@ KGRDMÉ É É ), and the fact that ascents into heaven typically culminate in a word from God (e.g. 1 En. 14:24; 15:1; 2 En. 22:5; 24:1–2; T. Levi 5:2; Apoc. Ab. 17:1–2; 18:2; 19:1 cf. Ezek 1:25, 28–2:2; Isa 6:8).78 Apart from the reference to the NHUJNTLD MG in Heb 1:6, there is nothing to suggest a change of scene in 1:5–13, so we are clearly intended to imagine the same setting for the entire chapter. In other words, 1:3–4 sets the scene for 1:5–13, so these divine declarations should be understood as taking place in the heavenly realm at Christ’s exaltation, as several interpreters have realized.79 The only possible objection to this understanding of the setting of Heb 1:5–13 is the way in which the divine declaration is introduced in verse 6. N:S@MÉ CDÉ O@ KHMÉ DHUR@F@ FG[É SNMÉ OQVSN SNJNMÉ DHUIÉ SGMÉ NHUJNTLD MGMÉ KD FDH;É J@HÉ OQNRJTMGR@ SVR@MÉ@TUSV[ÉO@ MSDIÉ@FFDKNHÉPDNT}ÉÉ And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” (NRSV)

First, it should be noted that the notion that the author is directing his audience to a particular interpretation of a scriptural text is persuasively un 78

See Chapter 3.4.4. E.g. Schenck, ‘Celebration’, 469–85; Mackie, Eschatology, 214; J. W. Jipp, ‘The Son’s Entrance into the Heavenly World: The Soteriological Necessity of the Scriptural Catena in Hebrews 1.5–14’, NTS 56 (2010), 557–75. Docherty also stresses the importance of Heb 1:1–4 for providing the new co-text for the citations that follow (Use of the Old Testament, 146–47, 177). 79

238

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

dermined by the way the author introduces the citation. The citation is no longer a song of Moses, but is reconfigured into something God declared when he introduced the firstborn into the NHUJNTLD MG. This supports the argument that the author uses scripture in Heb 1:5–13 to supply the speech of God. On the other hand, it also challenges the possibility that this divine declaration takes place when the Son is received into the heavenly realm, for, according to some, Heb 1:6 does not, and even cannot, refer to Christ’s ascension into the heavenly realm. According to Westcott, for example, ‘it appears to be more natural to connect O@ KHM with DHUR@F@ FG[’ and take the clause as a reference to the future second coming of Christ upon the earth.80 Moreover, ‘N:S@MÉ DHUR@F@ FG[ must refer to this’ since this construction ‘cannot describe an event or a series of events, already completed in the past’.81 While it is certainly correct that O@ KHM could be connected with DHUR@F@ FG[, this is not necessarily the most natural interpretation. Given that the adverb has just been used to introduce an additional divine statement/citation (1:5), and is predominantly used in this way throughout Hebrews (e.g. 2:13; 4:5; 10:30), it seems more natural to connect O@ KHM with KD FDH, and take it as an introduction to another statement.82 Neither do grammatical considerations necessitate an absolute future reference for N:S@MÉ DHUR@F@ FG[. Although the temporal value of the Greek verb is a matter of some controversy, all sides are agreed that the subjunctive mood is a timeless mood.83 Therefore, one cannot assert that N:S@MÉ DHUR@F@ FG[ can only refer to a future event. Turner comes close to assigning a temporal value to the subjunctive when he observes that ‘the aorist subjunctive most commonly refers to a definite action taking place in the future’.84 This is qualified, however, when he notes that the action of the aorist subjunctive is ‘concluded before the action of the main verb’.85 Thus, the subjunctive is a timeless mood, and although it tends to be employed in future referring contexts, the timing of the subjunctive is determined by the timing of the main indicative verb.86 The main verb in Heb 1:6 is the present tense KD FDH, suggesting a sequence of God’s introduction of the first 80 Westcott, Hebrews, 22; cf. Michaels, ‘Hebrews’, 333, 336; Käsemann, Wandering People of God, 98–101; Héring, Hebrews, 9; Svendsen, Allegory Transformed, 91. 81 Westcott, Hebrews, 22. 82 So Koester, Hebrews, 192; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 26; Attridge, Hebrews, 55; Bruce, Hebrews, 15; Bateman, Hermeneutics, 221. 83 E.g. Porter, Idioms, 56–59; Caragounis, Development, 332; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 463. 84 N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Volume III: Syntax, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963, 112. 85 Ibid. cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 55 n. 64. 86 For examples of N:S@M + aorist subjunctive referring to a past event, see Matt 23:15; 1 Cor 15:27; Philo, Sacr. 3; Somn. 1:5.

Chapter 8: The Use of Scripture in Hebrews 1:5–13

239

born into the NHUJNTLD MGM followed by God’s command to the angels to worship him. If the author had intended a future reference, the future tense was readily available, but he chose the present tense. In view of the parallel aorist (1:5) and perfect (1:13) verbs of speech, KD FDH should probably be taken as a historical present, denoting a past event, and highlighting the speech that follows.87 Westcott’s arguments for a reference to the second coming of Christ are not convincing, and the concept of the Parousia seems out of place at this juncture. Nevertheless, there remains one further objection to interpreting Heb 1:6 as a reference to the Son’s exaltation in the heavenly realm, namely the meaning of NHUJNTLD MG. According to Bauer’s lexicon, the term NHUJNTLD MG denotes ‘the earth as inhabited area, exclusive of the heavens above and nether regions’.88 By maintaining a heavenly setting for Heb 1:5–13, we must assign a currently unattested meaning to NHUJNTLD MG as a reference to the heavenly realm, a meaning so specialized that Attridge feels compelled to interpret the entire verse as a reference to Jesus’ birth.89 This is an overreaction since the other occurrence of NHUJNTLD MG in Hebrews is also used in a way that excludes the usual sense: NTUÉ F@QÉ@UFFD KNHIÉ T?OD S@WDMÉ SGMÉ NHUJNTLD MGMÉ SGMÉLD KKNTR@MÉ ODQHÉ G IÉ K@KNTLDM (2:5). In this instance the author defines SGMÉ NHUJNTLD MGM as ‘the world to come, about which we are speaking’. The qualification SGMÉ LD KKNTR@M excludes the usual meaning of NHUJNTLD MG by providing a contrast with the current inhabited world and pointing to a world that is yet to be realized. Moreover, the explanatory phrase ODQHÉ G IÉ K@KNTLDM shows that the world to come has been the subject of the author’s discourse thus far. This phrase highlights the cohesion between Hebrews 1 and 2 and links the NHUJNTLD MG of 2:5 to the NHUJNTLD MG of 1:6.90 In other words, the world that is coming is clearly not the present earthly world, yet it is the world outlined in Hebrews 1. Thus, for some reason,91 the author has used the term NHUJNTLD MG, not to re 87 For a discussion of the function of the historical present, see Runge, Discourse Grammar, §6. 88 BDAG, 699; cf. Louw and Nida §§1.39, 83; 9.22. 89 Attridge, Hebrews, 56; cf. Montefiore, Hebrews, 45–46. 90 Most commentators recognize this, e.g. Bruce, Hebrews, 17; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 27–28; Koester, Hebrews, 192; Johnson, Hebrews, 79; Mitchell, Hebrews, 48; Thompson, Hebrews, 54; O’Brien, Hebrews, 69; H.-F. Weiss, Hebräer, 163–64. It is also often noted that, in contrast to Heb 1:6, the incarnation was the point where the author of Hebrews considered Jesus to be lower than the angels (see 2:6–9). See also Eisele’s extended analysis who likewise concludes that Heb 1:6 pertains to Christ’s entrance into heaven (Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 49–65). 91 This may reflect the author’s view of the heavenly world as the superior and unshakeable habitation and therefore the only true NHUJNTLD MG (so Schenck, ‘Celebration’, 478). Meier explains this use of the term as ‘middle-platonic’ (‘Symmetry’, 507), but

240

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

fer to the earth in its present state (for which he prefers FG (e.g. 1:10; 8:4; 12:25–26) or JN RLNI (e.g. 4:3; 9:26; 10:5)), but to refer to the present heavenly world (1:6)92 which, though experienced now (see Chapter 7), is expected to appear more fully in the future (2:5; cf. 13:14).93 The new world/age, therefore, seems to be conceived in terms of a ‘new creation’94 whereby the present heavenly world expands its borders to incorporate the entire cosmos (cf. 4 Ezra 7:26–44; 2 Bar. 4:2–6; 44:8–15; 51:1–13; Rev 21–22). As Koester notes: ‘[Hebrews 1] offers a glimpse of “the world to come” (Heb 2:5) through a portrayal of the heavenly “world” where the Son now reigns (1:5–6)’.95 Attridge notes that ‘introduce into the world’ is a common Hebrew idiom (aOZ>OD\EK) for giving birth, and cites the notes provided by Michel and Spicq.96 Attridge cites no examples of this so-called Hebrew idiom, however, and the examples provided by Michel and Spicq are in fact the same example from the second-century CE Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Spicq notes that ‘[i]n the 2nd century, Eleazar ben Azariah said: “the father and mother get the man into this world, but you (Eliezer ben Hyrcanus) get us into this world and the world to come”’.97 This is not a particularly convincing parallel however. The ‘idiom’ would be closer to Heb 1:6 if birth was expressed in terms of God introducing a person into the world. The connection with apocalyptic ascents into heaven, where the ascent is invariably conceived as residing in the initiative of God,98 offers a more plausible parallel. Although the verb DHUR@ FV probably could be used to re provides no evidence. According to Attridge, there is no evidence for this usage in Platonic traditions (Hebrews, 56 n. 66). The cosmology, if not the exact terminology, of Hebrews parallels the two-age eschatology of certain Jewish apocalyptic traditions which likewise envisage a ‘world to come’ which is presently reserved in heaven (see Mackie, Eschatology, 30–37). Some texts even employ the same phrase (e.g. 4 Ezra 8:1; 2 Bar. 44:15; 1 En. 71:15; 2 En. 50:2; cf. 4 Ezra 7:50; 9:13; 2 Bar. 15:7–8; 51:16; 57:2), though, unfortunately, none of them are extant in Greek. 92 For a similar restriction of JN RLNI, see 1 En. 20:4. 93 Perhaps the article indicates a ‘well known’ NHUJNTLD MG or the NHUJNTLD MG par excellence? See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 222–25 for these categories. 94 See E. Adams, ‘The Cosmology of Hebrews’, in Bauckham, Driver, Hart, and MacDonald (eds.), The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, 122–39; idem, The Stars Will Fall from Heaven: “Cosmic Catastrophe” in the New Testament and its World, LNTS 347, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007, 52–100, 182–99; cf. N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, London: SPCK, 2003, 457–60. 95 Koester, Hebrews, 100. 96 Attridge, Hebrews, 56 n. 67. 97 Spicq, Hébreux, 2:17: ‘Au IIe siècle, Eléazar ben Asaria disait: “Le père et la mère font entrer l’homme en ce monde, et toi (Eliezer ben Hyrcan) tu nous fais entrer et dans ce monde et dans le monde à venir”’. 98 See Chapter 3 (3.2 and 3.3.4).

Chapter 8: The Use of Scripture in Hebrews 1:5–13

241

fer to birth,99 this is, at best, a rare usage and is unlikely to have been the most obvious sense. Given the co-text and the fact that the NHUJNTLD MG is populated with angels, the setting envisaged in Heb 1:6 should be understood as the heavenly world, as it is in the rest of the chapter. Thus, this verse actually reasserts the heavenly location assumed for the events narrated in Hebrews 1. As Bruce notes, the scenario is similar to Rev 5:6–14 where the lamb appears before the throne to assume his prerogatives and the host of heaven worship him.100 This use of DHUR@ FV finds its closest parallel in the otherworldly visionary journeys narrated in apocalyptic literature. In Ezekiel’s vision of the eschatological temple and city (40–48 [LXX]), for example, the verb form DHUR@ FV occurs fifteen times (40:3, 17, 19, 28, 32, 35, 44, 48; 41:1; 42:1; 43:5; 44:4, 7; 46:19; 47:1), with the cognates DUW@ FV (42:1, 15; 43:1; 46:21; 47:2), ODQH@ FV (46:21; 47:2) and @FV (40:1, 24; 43:1; 47:6) occurring a further eleven times. With the exception of 44:7, which condemns Israel for ‘leading’ the uncircumcised into the sanctuary, 101 the pattern is one of YHWH, his angel or his spirit, leading Ezekiel into the various otherworldly temple areas (cf. 8:3, 7, 14, 16; 11:1, 24). This, together with many other similar usages,102 suggests that the verb @FV and its compound forms are quite natural in contexts where God, or his messenger, takes someone on an otherworldly or heavenly journey. The verb is undoubtedly used this way in Heb 2:10 (with reference to the one who ‘leads’ many sons to glory) and 13:20 (affirming that the God of peace ‘led’ Jesus out of the realm of the dead). Heb 1:6, therefore, may be understood in the light of apocalyptic journeys, and as an affirmation of God’s initiative in leading Jesus into the heavenly realm, which reiterates the celestial setting that is assumed for Heb 1:5–13.103 Thus, the citations in Heb 1:5–13 have been detextualized, that is, they are not presented as quoted texts. Rather, they are all grouped together into a single new context: the reception of Jesus into the heavenly realm, and function as divine speech acts, performative utterances that definitively establish the superior position of Jesus in the heavenly hierarchy. This, together with the critique offered above (Chapter 8.1), suggest that a text  99

So, apparently, Epictetus and Pseudo-Musonius (see Moffatt, Hebrews, 10). Bruce, Hebrews, 17 n. 78. See Chapter 9.2. 101 /QNR@ FV also occurs (42:14; 44:13, 15), but it refers to the activity of priests. 102 The same use of @FV and its compound forms can also be observed in 2 Kgs 2:1; 1 En. 14:25; 17:1, 2, 4; T. Ab. 10:1, 15; 11:5; 14:14; 15:1; 16:5; 10:2 [B]; 3 Bar. 2:1, 2; 3:1; 6:1; 8:1; 10:1; 11:1; Apoc. Mos. 37:6; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 1:7; 4:8, 13, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25; 5:21, 27; Hist. Rech. 10:5. 103 Since it is normally an angel who guides the seer in the ascent apocalypses, perhaps the direct involvement of God in Christ’s heavenly journey is intended as further proof for his superiority over the angels (cf. 1 En. 14:8–23; Gooder, Third Heaven, 47). 100

242

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

orientated and contextually sensitive exegesis of scripture was considerably less important to the author of Hebrews than the recent scholarship on Heb 1:5–13 implies. On the other hand, in Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, the speech of God is regularly highlighted, and often appears at the climax of an ascent into heaven, which is precisely what takes place in Heb 1:5– 13 when God welcomes the Son into the heavenly realm and establishes his place in the heavenly hierarchy. Moreover, as we shall see in the next Chapter, the motifs taken up in Heb 1:5–13 resonate strongly with Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, which suggests that the author’s mystical orientation was an important, probably primary, impetus in his choice and use of scripture in this instance.104

 104

I am not necessarily ruling out the role of text orientated, contextually sensitive exegesis in the author’s choice and use of scripture in Heb 1:5–13. After all, he must have known these texts in order to be able to use them, and since he knew them, he no doubt had an understanding of their meaning and significance. Rather, I am merely arguing for an additional, and probably more significant, dynamic in his use of scripture here. The themes that are expressed in Heb 1:5–13 and the way in which they are presented points to the role of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. In all likelihood, therefore, it was the author’s mystical interests and experiences that led to the use of these texts as detextualized heavenly speech acts that establish the superiority of Jesus over the angels. This does not rule out the possibility that there was already something about these texts that made them particularly suitable for this task.



Chapter 9

The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son The rationale for comparing Christ with the angels has already been discussed above.1 We concluded that within Christian circles influenced by Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, delineating Christ’s identity in relation to the angels would have been a natural, necessary and important subject to address. We have already seen that one particular way in which the author of Hebrews privileges the Son over the angels is by noting his inheritance of the divine Name, a motif which activates one of the means by which heavenly beings are differentiated from one another in a mystical context. We will now consider Heb 1:5–13, which offers further proof for the Son’s superiority to the angels. We shall continue to see that it is the angelology of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism that provides the most plausible context for many of these comments, and that it is the author’s mystical context that provides the impetus for this particular portrayal of Jesus and this particular selection of texts.2

9.1 The Sonship of Jesus (Heb 1:5) 3H MHÉ F@QÉ DHOD MÉ ONSDÉ SVMÉ @UFFD KVM;É TH?N IÉ LNTÉ DHÉ RT É DUFVÉ RG LDQNMÉ FDFD MMGJ@ É RD€É J@HÉ O@ KHM;ÉÉDUFVÉDRNL@HÉ@TUSV[ÉDHUIÉO@SD Q@ÉJ@HÉ@TUSNIÉDRS@HÉLNHÉDHUIÉTH?N M€ For to which of the angels has God ever said, “You are my Son; today I have become your father”? And again, “I will be a father to him, and he will be a Son to me”?

 1

See Chapter 6.3.2. Contra Schenck, who regards Philo’s comments on angels as some of the closest parallels to the discussion in Hebrews 1 (‘Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews’, 129), but this is asserted rather than argued. Moreover, the references provided (Virt. 74; Somn. 1:141–43; Conf. 174; Decal. 46; Mos. 1:66, 166; Plant. 14) merely establish that angels are radiant heavenly spirits and messengers of God, which, as Schenck admits, is hardly peculiar to Philo (cf. Svendsen, Allegory Transformed, 87–90, who offers a slightly more developed defence). Rowland suggests that the concern to stress the superiority of the Son over the angels is ‘entirely understandable in the light of the sophisticated angelology of the Jewish apocalyptic and mystical tradition’ (Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 168; cf. Rowland, Open Heaven, 112–13). Although Rowland, like Schenck, only offers a brief explanation for his statement, the evidence discussed in Chapter 6.3.2 and in the rest of this Chapter supports it. 2

244

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

In Heb 1:5 the author demonstrates the superiority of the Son over the angels by means of two divine declarations, both affirming that he is God’s Son. The first declaration is addressed directly to the Son in the second person: ‘you are my son, today I have begotten you’. Various suggestions have been made regarding the ‘day’ to which this announcement refers, such as Christ’s birth, baptism (cf. Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22), resurrection (cf. Acts 13:33), exaltation or the timeless generation of the eternal Son.3 As most commentators recognize, the immediate context supports a reference to his heavenly exaltation.4 The second declaration switches to the third person (‘I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to me’), and implies the presence of a third party. In view of the heavenly setting, and the overall purpose of this section, we should probably understand this second announcement not only as a reiteration of the first, but also as an utterance specifically for the benefit of the heavenly host, a declaration about the Son in order to direct their attention to the Son (cf. 3 En. 10:3–6).5 The author introduces these two statements with a rhetorical question (‘to which of the angels has he ever said’), implying that God has never spoken this way to the angels. How exactly these declarations are supposed to distinguish the Son from the angels and demonstrate his superiority remains obscure. As we have already shown above, the title ‘son’ does not distinguish Jesus from the angels, since angels are regularly characterized as God’s sons, something of which the author was almost certainly aware.6 How, then, can the author give Jesus the same title as angels and yet claim that it distinguishes him from the angels? We have already observed the  3

See Ellingworth for details (Hebrews, 113). We might also add the transfiguration as a possibility since God refers to Jesus in a similar manner (Mark 9:7 par.), although the third person (this is my son) matches the next statement (Heb 1:5b) more closely. While it is unlikely that Heb 1:5 refers to his transfiguration or baptism, it is interesting that these two apocalyptic visions in the life of Jesus specifically reveal his sonship. According to the author of Hebrews, the same thing happened at his exaltation into heaven. 4 E.g. O’Brien, Hebrews, 67; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 114; Koester, Hebrews, 191. The term RG LDQNM is taken up again in 3:7–4:11, where it also denotes the new eschatological age (see Schenck, ‘Keeping’, 94; Docherty, Use of the Old Testament, 148–49). 5 Mackie also notes how the shift from second to third person implies the presence of a third party, but links it to Heb 2:12–13 and infers that it is the recipients who are present during this liturgical drama in the heavenly sanctuary who are addressed in Heb 1:5b (Eschatology, 216–20; idem, ‘Early Christian Eschatological Experience’, 107–8). Although Heb 2:12–13 clearly indicates the community’s presence in the heavenly sanctuary, and it is perfectly plausible that they were also thought to be present during the events narrated in Heb 1:5–13 (indeed the fact that these events are recorded at all implies at least one witness), given the overt intention to compare Jesus with the angels in Heb 1:4–14, the primary beneficiary of the third person statements in Heb 1:5b–7 must be the angels, as Heb 1:7 overtly states. 6 See Chapter 6.3.2.

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

245

weaknesses with previous attempts to alleviate this tension, such as the alleged absence of the designation in the author’s sources or the possibility that angels are only ‘sons’ collectively. A more promising suggestion is that of Johnson who notes that ‘no angelic figure is formally declared “son” in connection with the sort of royal enthronement envisaged by these two texts’.7 Johnson is correct to draw attention to the fact that it is not the mere title ‘son’ which distinguishes Jesus from the angels, but the title as defined by the context. For Johnson, that context is a messianic reading of Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7. While it is perfectly plausible that the author interpreted these texts messianically (cf. 4Q174; Pss. Sol. 17:22–25), and that this influenced their deployment in Heb 1:5, as we have argued in the previous Chapter, it does not seem to be the author’s intention to direct his audience to a particular interpretation of certain scriptures in Hebrews 1. Besides, the application of messianic status does not necessarily suggest superiority to the angels.8 The more immediate context for understanding Heb 1:5 is Heb 1:1–4. As we have already observed above (Chapter 5.2.3), when we come to Heb 1:5, the title ‘Son’ (TH?N I) has acquired a discourse concept, and recalls the broader concept of TH?N I provided by the author’s discourse thus far. Therefore, it is the use of the title as defined by 1:2–4 that distinguishes him from the angels. The superiority of Jesus to the angels does not merely consist in the designation ‘son’ (a title which may equally be attributed to angels), nor in his messianic status, but in the particular entailments of sonship outlined in 1:2–4. Although this no doubt includes his messianic and priestly status and locates him somewhere within the heavenly hierarchy, Heb 1:2–4 also contains certain details that are particularly appropriate for determining the supreme uniqueness of a mystical kind of sonship. As we argued in Chapter 6, the portrayal of the Son in Heb 1:3–4 is strongly reminiscent of certain apocalyptic visions of God. In these verses Jesus is conceived as God’s visible image who shares God’s Name. Therefore, declaring that he is God’s Son is a convenient and appropriate affirmation of these features, since, as Idel has noted, within the matrix of Jewish mysticism the concept of sonship may be regarded as a quintessential expression of the ‘morphonominal’ unity between God and the one at the centre of the experience of the divine.9 Thus, as part of the process of Enoch’s transformation into Metatron, he becomes an extension of God – God’s image or ‘form’, and receives the divine Name (3 En. 3–15; 48C).  7

Johnson, Hebrews, 77. See Horbury, Jewish Messianism, 39, 83–108. 9 See Idel, Sonship, 1–193. Note also Mackie’s discussion of the possible hints of family relatedness in Heb 1:3–4 (‘Confession of the Son of God in the Exordium of Hebrews’, 437–53). 8

246

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

Accordingly, he is described as ‘unique among all the sons of the heights (a\PZUP\QEONPG[D)’ (48C:1; cf. 4:1–2),10 and is taken into God’s confidence when he explains to him all the heavenly secrets ‘like a father (EDN)’ (48C:7).11 This text testifies to the use of ‘son’ as an angelic designation, while simultaneously affirming the uniqueness of Metatron’s sonship.12 Although this particular manifestation of mystical sonship cannot be taken as a direct background to Hebrews, in view of the echoes of earlier Jewish, Christian and Gnostic traditions,13 it seems likely that the configuration in 3 Enoch represents a preservation or re-emergence of earlier Jewish themes rather than a medieval innovation. It also helps to answer some of the difficult questions regarding Jesus’ sonship in Hebrews, such as how it distinguishes him from the angels, and how he can both be a son during his earthly life (Heb 5:8) and become a son at his heavenly exaltation (1:5). With reference to the former question, Jesus’ sonship is unlike the angels’ because he is the only son who shares God’s Name and embodies his presence, making him the Son of God. With reference to the latter question, the aforementioned mystical sonship is understood as a heavenly transformation; the mystical birth of his eschatological and heavenly status as the Name-bearing high priestly Glory of God in the celestial Holy of Holies. In many ways, the exaltation of Jesus in Hebrews is parallel to the exaltation of Enoch-Metatron in 3 Enoch 3–15. Like ‘Aher’ in 3 Enoch 16, anyone reading or hearing Heb 1:3–4 in the First Century might understandably conclude that ‘there are indeed two powers in heaven’. In 3 Enoch, the divine voice powerfully refutes such a conclusion (16:4),14 whereas in Heb  10

See Schäfer, Synopse, §72; Odeberg, 3 Enoch, II:166; III:ZV. Alexander translates: ‘unique among all the denizens of the heights’ (‘3 Enoch’, OTP 1:311), which obscures the notion of sonship. 11 Alternatively, some manuscripts read EKDE, ‘in love’ (see Schäfer, Synopse, §73; Alexander ‘3 Enoch’, OTP 1:312). For a defence of EDN, ‘as a father’, see Idel, Sonship, 145–46; Odeberg, 3 Enoch, II:169; III:[V. 12 For other examples of mystical sonship, see Odes Sol. 3:5–7 where the one who loves the Son is united to the Son and becomes a son, and b. Ber. 7a, which records that R. Ishmael once entered the Holy of Holies to offer incense, and saw Okteriel, Yah, the Lord of Hosts, seated upon a high and exalted throne, who said to him, ‘Ishmael, My son, bless Me’. See also Ma’aseh Merkavah §§547ff. where the ‘phrase son of the world to come seems to be a technical term for an individual who has successfully ascended’ (Janowitz, Poetics of Ascent, 34 n. 11 [italics original]). 13 E.g. Isa 9:5; Philo, Conf. 145–48; 4Q246; 4Q369 1 II; Wis 2:12–3:9; (7:24–30); Rom 8:14–23; Justin, Dial. 128; Origen, Cels. VI.27; Tri. Trac. (NHC I, 5) 65–66; 86– 87. 14 See also b. ‫ۉ‬ag. 15a and the discussion in Segal, Two Powers, 60–73; Schäfer, Origins, 234–37, 315–27. For the possibility that the ‘heresy of two powers in heaven’, as it came to be called by the rabbis (with reference to various heretical groups), may be discerned in the NT, see Segal, Two Powers, 205–19.

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

247

1:5 (and following) the divine voice powerfully confirms such a conclusion.

9.2 The Worship of the Son (Heb 1:6) N:S@MÉ CDÉ O@ KHMÉ DHUR@F@ FG[É SNMÉ OQVSN SNJNMÉ DHUIÉ SGMÉ NHUJNTLD MGMÉ KD FDH;É J@HÉ OQNRJTMGR@ SVR@MÉ@TUSV[ÉO@ MSDIÉ@FFDKNHÉPDNT}É On the contrary, when he introduced the firstborn into the heavenly realm, he declared, “let all the angels of God worship him.”

Having introduced the firstborn into the heavenly realm, God declares, ‘let all the angels of God worship him’. In its original context, of course, this is a statement made by Moses with reference to the God of Israel (Deut 32:43). In its new context, it is a divine decree uttered in heaven, which further illustrates the superiority of the Son over the angels in a number of ways. First, it is widely acknowledged that by isolating this excerpt from its original context, the referent of @TUSV[ has been rendered ambiguous, but that in its new context @TUSV[ clearly refers to the Son.15 Similarly, in its new context, the term PDNT probably also refers to the Son,16 thereby indicating that the angels belong to him. Secondly, the adjective ‘all’ shows that no angel is excluded from the worship of the Son. Since all the angels are instructed to worship him, this is clearly not the sort of worship that lesser angels give to higher angels (e.g. 3 Bar. 11:6; 3 En. 18). By referring to the category of angels, rather than a certain kind of angel, the author may be hinting at an ontological difference between Jesus and the angels, something that becomes clearer in subsequent affirmations. Thirdly, and most importantly, Jesus’ superiority is most clearly illustrated by the fact that he is the object of angelic worship. While the divine command to worship the firstborn undoubtedly establishes his superiority over the angels, the question remains as to just how superior he is. What degree of superiority does this action envisage? The mere use of the term ‘worship’ (OQNRJTMD V) does not answer this question since it may be used to denote a broad spectrum of ‘worship’ gestures.17 On the one hand, it may denote the worship that is exclusively due to the one God of Israel and that distinguishes him from everything else (e.g.  15

See Docherty, Use of the Old Testament, 156–57. It is clear from Heb 1:8 that the author considers PDN I to be an appropriate designation for the Son (see below). Moreover, although the term PDN I is not used, the Christological configuration outlined in 1:3–4, clearly demonstrates that the Son is included within, and is an extension of, the Most High God (see Chapter 6). 17 See J. L. North, ‘Jesus and Worship, God and Sacrifice’, in Stuckenbruck and North (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, 186–95. 16

248

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

Exod 20:5; Matt 4:10).18 On the other hand, the term may denote the Ancient Near Eastern custom of prostrating (and submitting) oneself to an authority figure (e.g. 2 Sam 18:28; Matt 18:26). In between these two poles, we may also observe a number of scenarios in which the ‘worship’ offered to someone other than God is somewhat more weighty than a customary prostration, but it is not regarded as a compromise to monolatry (e.g. Isa 45:14; 4Q400 2 1–7; 1 En. 48:5; 62:1–9; Rev 3:9; Jos. Asen. 15:11–12; L.A.E. 12–16; 3 Bar. 11:6).19 This said, certain polemical traditions, such as the angelic refusal of worship (e.g. Apoc. Zeph. 6:11–15; Rev 19:10; 22:8–9), shows that this action had the potential to become idolatrous, and that Jews and Christians of the late Second Temple Period were generally very careful to safeguard the worship that was due to God alone (cf. Exod 20:1–6; 1 Kgs 19:18; Isa 44:6–19; Wis 13:10–19; 15:1–19; Philo, Legat. 114–16; Matt 4:8–10; Acts 10:25–26), even though the worship of one God among the early Christians was defined by its inclusion of Christ (e.g. Phil 2:6–11; 1 Cor 8:4–6; Rev 5:8–14; John 5:23).20 Put simply, we may distinguish between at least three kinds of ‘worship’ in Jewish and Christian communities around the turn of the era. (1) Worship Proper, which denotes the worship that was exclusively due to the one God of Israel, and that was sometimes inappropriately or mistakenly offered to divine mediators/authority figures or sacrilegiously offered to other gods. (2) Veneration, which refers to an appropriate honorific reverence of divine mediators/authority figures.21 (3) Obeisance, which denotes a customary and/or courteous prostration in acknowledgement of an authority figure. Although this brief summary does not do justice to all the complexities involved or the wealth of scholarly discussion on the sub-

 18

See Bauckham, God Crucified, 13–16; Hurtado, One God, 1–39. See also C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, ‘The Worship of Divine Humanity as God’s Image and the Worship of Jesus’, in Newman, Davila and Lewis (eds.), Jewish Roots, 112– 28; L. T. Stuckenbruck, ‘“Angels” and “God”: Exploring the Limits of Early Jewish Monotheism’, in Stuckenbruck and North (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, 45–70. 20 See R. Bauckham, ‘The Worship of Jesus’, Climax, 118–49; idem, Jesus and the God of Israel; Hurtado, One God; idem, ‘The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship’, in Newman, Davila and Lewis (eds.), Jewish Roots, 187–213; idem, At the Origins of Christian Worship: The Context and Character of Earliest Christian Devotion, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999; idem, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2003; Dunn, Did the First Christians. 21 This is Stuckenbruck’s distinction (‘“Angels” and “God”’, 69). I have merely widened the scope to include mediators and authorities generally, rather than angels specifically. 19

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

249

ject,22 it is a sufficient preamble to an examination of a particular text. Something that becomes apparent time and again in the scholarly discussions is the need to assess the evidence on a case by case basis. Only the context can determine the nature of the ‘worship’ being offered in a given instance. With this in mind, we may consider Heb 1:6. The setting that the author of Hebrews establishes for this scenario is immensely helpful in determining the kind of worship envisaged. As we have just observed, the way in which this decree is introduced reiterates the setting provided by Heb 1:3–4. It specifically refers to God’s initiative in instigating Christ’s ascent into heaven, which culminated in his enthronement alongside God, as 1:8 and 1:13 will recapitulate and enhance. In view of the context, Heb 1:6 is clearly a reference to the heavenly worship offered by angels, a well-established apocalyptic and mystical motif, which may have been partly inspired by an experience of unio liturgica (see Heb 12:22–24).23 Therefore, one can rule out the customary obeisance that was offered in Ancient Near Eastern cultures. We are clearly dealing with a more weighty form of ‘worship’ in this instance. As Dunn remarks, Heb 1:6 is ‘[v]ery striking’ and moves ‘well beyond the sense of someone acknowledging the authority of someone of higher status’.24 Indeed, but what exactly is so striking and how precisely does it move beyond obeisance? In view of the grand scale of this ‘worship’ (all the angels) and the fact that it is decreed by God himself (and so does not compromise monotheistic worship), it may, at the very least, be classified as veneration. Moreover, there are two partial parallels, which might help explain how the veneration envisaged in Heb 1:6 was regarded as legitimate within the bounds of ancient Jewish monolatry. First, the Latin Life of Adam and Eve 12–16 explains the fall of Satan as the result of his refusal to worship Adam. “O Adam, all my enmity and envy and sorrow concern you, since because of you I am expelled and deprived of my glory which I had in the heavens in the midst of angels, and because of you I am cast out onto the earth. . . When you were created, I was cast out of the presence of God and was sent out from the fellowship of the angels. When God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God, Michael brought you and made (us) worship you in the sight of God . . . Michael

 22

In addition to the works already cited, see, for example, the two important collections of essays in Newman, Davila and Lewis (eds.), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism, and Stuckenbruck and North (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. 23 Compare Isa 6:1–3; 4Q405 20 ii-21-22 7–12; 11Q17 VIII (19-20) 2–10; Rev 4–5; 1 En. 9:4–5; 39:12–13; 2 En. 22:1; Apoc. Ab. 17; T. Levi 3:4–8; T. Ab. 4:4–5 [B]; Ascen. Isa. 7–9; 3 En. 1:12; 35–40; Hekhalot Rabbati §§94–106, 152–69. 24 Dunn, Did the First Christians, 11.

250

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

went out and called all the angels, saying, ‘Worship the image of the LORD God, as the LORD God has instructed.’ And Michael himself worshipped first, and called me and said, ‘Worship the image of God, Yahweh.’ And I answered, ‘I do not worship Adam. . . I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me.’ . . . When they heard this, other angels who were under me refused to worship him. . . And the LORD God was angry with me and sent me with my angels out from our glory; and because of you, we were expelled into this world. . .”25

In the light of this tradition, Steenburg has suggested that some Jews seem to have regarded some kind of primordial worship of God’s image, insofar as it is a visible or physical manifestation of God, as legitimate, and that this tradition could have provided a partial warrant for the Jewish worship of Jesus, the second Adam and image of God (cf. Phil 2:5–11; Col 1:15– 20; Heb 1:3).26 Although the tradition cannot be regarded as a precedent for the early Jewish worship of Jesus,27 which is not what Steenburg is suggesting,28 the literary parallels between L.A.E. 12–16 and Hebrews 1 are quite impressive. Both texts refer to universal angelic veneration of God’s ‘image’ at God’s behest. On the other hand, the parallel falls short of full explanatory power. Aside from the uncertain date and provenance of this tradition,29 L.A.E. 12–16 refers to a one-off primeval act of angelic ‘worship’ towards an earthly being,30 whereas Hebrews 1 describes the perpetual disposition of the angels towards one who shares the celestial throne of Glory. The scenes of worship before the celestial throne are routinely directed towards God alone, as the Life of Adam and Eve confirms (e.g. 25–29; cf. Apoc. Mos. 22:1–4; 33:1–5). Perhaps the ‘worship’ of the Chosen son of man in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 En. 48:5; 62:1–9) offers a more promising parallel, since he is  25

M. D. Johnson, ‘Life of Adam and Eve’, OTP 2:262 (italics original). Steenburg, ‘Worship of Adam’, 95–109; cf. Fletcher-Louis, ‘Worship of Divine Humanity’, 112–28. 27 See Hurtado, One God, x–xi; idem, Lord Jesus Christ, 39–40. 28 Pace Fletcher-Louis, ‘Worship of Divine Humanity’, 114. 29 This story does not occur in the parallel Apocalypse of Moses and may be a later (Christian) expansion on the notion of Satan’s fall (cf. Apoc. Mos. 39:1–3), giving the reason behind his expulsion from heaven and hostility towards humanity (so Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 40 n. 42; L. T. Stuckenbruck, ‘Worship and Monotheism in the Ascension of Isaiah’, in Newman, Davila and Lewis (eds.), Jewish Roots, 88 n. 65). For a discussion of the critical issues, see M. D. Johnson, ‘Life of Adam and Eve’, OTP 2:249–52; de Jonge, Pseudepigrapha, 181–99; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 330–32. 30 The distinction made between the presence (facies) of God, from where the Devil is expelled (13:2), and the sight (conspectus) of God, where the worship of Adam takes place (13:3), seems to suggest that Adam is on earth (in Eden) when he receives this ‘worship’ (contra Fletcher-Louis, ‘Worship of Divine Humanity’, 114). Compare Adam’s exhortation to Eve to repent in the sight (conspectus) of God, when they are on earth (4:3), with his request to God not to be cast out of his presence (facies), when he is in heaven (27:2). 26

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

251

clearly a heavenly figure who shares the throne of Glory. On the other hand, as we have already discussed, the Chosen One’s right to the throne is limited to his eschatological role,31 and the ‘worship’ he receives is likewise bound up with eschatological judgment, indicating the nations’ acknowledgment of God’s chosen servant (cf. Isa 45:14; 49:7; 52:13–15; Rev 3:9).32 Although Hebrews is equally eschatological in orientation, the Son’s unity with God (Heb 1:3), and the eternity of his enthronement (1:8), suggest that the divine decree in Heb 1:6 is intended to include Christ in the permanent pattern of angelic worship of God in heaven. Further differences with Hebrews 1 may also be observed in that the veneration of the Chosen One is offered by earthlings, not angels, and the Chosen One seems to be included among the angelic family (e.g. 1 En. 46:1; 61:10), rather than distinguished from all the angels. ‘Veneration’, therefore, does not really do justice to the kind of worship that is offered to Jesus in Heb 1:6. The closest analogy to the scene envisaged in Heb 1:6 is in fact the scene envisaged in Rev 5 (cf. Ascen. Isa. 7:13–17; 8:16–18; 9:27–10:6). Like Rev 5, among other worship scenes, Heb 1:6 may be understood as reflecting Jewish-Christian attitudes towards Christ, which included him in the worship of the one God. This is perhaps already implied by the author’s choice of Deut 32:43 to capture the divine decree, a passage from the Song of Moses, which originally referred to the worship of YHWH. Like Rev 4–5, the scene envisaged in Heb 1:6 resonates strongly with Jewish apocalyptic and mystical traditions in which the angelic worship of God in heaven is a regular source of fascination, and may reflect the author’s own mystical experiences of liturgical communion with the angels.33 Moreover, the fact that God commands the angels to worship the Son may presuppose the exceptional, even objectionable, nature of the Son’s ascent and exaltation. This is reminiscent of 2 Enoch when Enoch is brought into the seventh heaven and the LORD ‘sounds out’ or ‘tests’ his servants by inviting Enoch to stand in front of his face forever and they respond with obeisance and agree that Enoch should yield to the invitation, which is followed by Enoch’s anointing and angelification (2 En. 22:6–10).34 The scene is of course quite different to that envisaged in Heb 1:6 since Jesus is  31

See Chapter 6.3. So Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 38–39; see Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 171–72, 258–59. 33 It may be significant that, according to Rev 15:3, the ‘Song of Moses’ is included among the angelic praises, which alludes to Deuteronomy 32, among other texts (see Beale, Revelation, 793–94; Moyise, Evoking, 111–24). 34 See Anderson, ‘2 Enoch’, OTP 1:138 n. j; Schäfer, Origins, 81–82; cf. Apoc. Ab. 13:4–5; Ascen. Isa. 9:1. 32

252

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

distinguished from the angels and shares the divine throne, whereas Enoch becomes an angel and stands before the throne. It is also clear from the immediate context that the object of the angelic obeisance in 2 En. 22:7 is the LORD (see 20:3; 21:1; 22:4), whereas the angelic worship envisaged in Heb 1:6 is clearly directed towards Jesus. Nevertheless, the importance of angelic consent to a potentially objectionable new heavenly reality is common to both texts and further illustrates the apocalyptic and mystical orientation of Heb 1:6. In the light of this context, Heb 1:6 is perhaps one of the most significant passages in the New Testament to ascribe worship to Jesus since it pertains to the ideal heavenly worship of God and places Jesus at the heart of it, a revelation that probably has its roots in mystical experiences of joining the angels in their worship of God.35

9.3 The Celestial Servants of the Son (Heb 1:7) J@HÉ OQNIÉ LDMÉ SNTI É @UFFD KNTIÉ KD FDH;É N?É ONHVMÉ SNTIÉ @UFFD KNTIÉ @TUSNTÉ OMDT L@S@É J@HÉ SNTIÉ KDHSNTQFNTIÉ@TUSNTÉOTQNIÉEKN F@ É To the angels he says, “He is the one who makes his angels into winds, and his ministers a blazing fire.”

As we have observed above, the statement in 1:5a is God’s direct address to the Son, which personally confirms his sonship as defined by 1:2–4, whereas Heb 1:5b and 1:6 are more general announcements to the angels, which function to direct their attention to the Son. The introductory formula used in 1:7 (J@HÉ OQNIÉLDMÉSNTIÉ@UFFD KNTIÉKD FDH) connects this divine utterance with the previous two and overtly identifies it as another declaration to the angels, which likewise directs their attention to the Son.É The preposition OQN I followed by the accusative denotes direction towards something or someone.36 With verbs of speech, the OQN I + accusative construction normally identifies the addressee (cf. 1:13). Since the statement that follows does not address the angels directly, many interpreters assign an indirect nuance to the preposition. Bauer, for instance, sug 35

It is surprising, therefore, that Heb 1:6 receives so little attention in the studies of Christ devotion. For example, despite Hurtado’s voluminous contribution to the topic, the significance of Heb 1:6 is barely mentioned. Perhaps this is because those who are likely to discuss Christ devotion do not appreciate the heavenly setting and mystical orientation of Heb 1:6 (e.g. North, ‘Jesus and Worship’, 189). Bauckham, on the other hand, does regard Heb 1:6 as illustrative of Christ’s inclusion within the ‘unique divine identity’, but bases this upon the fact that the original referent of Deut 32:43 was YHWH (‘Hebrews 1’, 179). 36 Porter, Idioms, 172.

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

253

gests the translation ‘concerning, with reference to’ in this instance.37 Similarly, many English translations simply translate OQN I with ‘of’.38 As Leschert’s analysis of the 152 instances of OQN I + accusative with a verb of speech in the NT shows, ‘apart from Heb 1:7, Rom 10:21 is the only instance in the NT where KD FDHÉOQN I can lay strong claim to this meaning’. Although this makes him suspicious of the indirect nuance, he still maintains that it the most likely meaning in Heb 1:7.39 Ellingworth is more certain and insists that OQN I ‘must’ mean ‘concerning, with reference to’,40 although, apparently, not everyone is convinced.41 It is worth noting that if the author wanted to introduce the statement indirectly, as a comment ‘about’ angels, he could have omitted the prepositional phrase altogether or used ODQH in its place. Although there is some overlap between the two prepositions, ODQH basically means ‘about, concerning’ (e.g. Heb 2:5; 4:4, 8; 5:11; 7:14; 9:5; 10:7), whereas OQN I means ‘towards, to’ (e.g. Heb 1:13; 4:13; 5:5, 7; 7:21), a difference which the author of Hebrews seems to appreciate. The only reason OQN I is interpreted and translated as an indirect comment about the angels, rather than a comment to them, is because they are not directly addressed in the second person, but spoken of in the third person. This simply continues the procedure of the previous two declarations, which are likewise spoken to the angels, but prompted by observations on the Son. In other words, 1:7 is not so much a comment about the angels; it is a comment about the Son to the angels. In all likelihood the use of OQN I is significant and should be allowed to retain its inherent lexical meaning. The author’s use of OQNIÉ LD M (1:7) draws attention to the way in which God addressed the angels on this occasion, and the use of OQNIÉCD (1:8) suggests that the contrast between Christ and the angels extends to the manner in which they are addressed by God. When he speaks to the Son, the address is direct and personal, in the second person (1:8–13; cf. 1:5a), but when he speaks to the angels, the address is indirect and impersonal, in the third person, and is virtually a soliloquy on the significance of the Son (1:7; cf. 1:5b, 6). This contrast further demonstrates the intimacy between God and the Son and hints at the special relationship between God and the Son that does not extend to the angels.  37

BDAG, 875; cf. NLT; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 21. [N]RSV; [T]NIV; [N]KJV; NAS, ESV; Attridge, Hebrews, 49; Bruce, Hebrews, 9. 39 Leschert, Hermeneutical, 25–27. 40 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 120; cf. O’Brien, Hebrews, 71 n. 162; Mitchell, Hebrews, 38

48. 41

See NJB; DRA; Koester, Hebrews, 190, 193; Johnson, Hebrews, 77.

254

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

According to 3 Enoch, one of Metatron’s roles is to acquire deafening fire from beneath the throne of Glory in the heavenly tabernacle and to put it in the ears of the holy creatures to protect them from the sound of the voice of God (15B:1). The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice bears witness to a similar motif when (in the context of a manifestation of the divine presence in the celestial sanctuary) the angels are said to ‘hasten from the voice of the Glory’ (4Q405 18 4).42 Perhaps a similar presupposition underlies the author’s presentation of God’s speech to the angels in Heb 1:7. If so, God’s personal and direct address to the Son is all the more significant. For undisclosed reasons Buchanan’s translation switches from ‘he [God] said’ in 1:5, 6 to ‘it [scripture] says’ in 1:7, 8 and back to ‘he said’ in 1:13.43 This switch is surprising since there is no indication in Hebrews that the speaker has changed and there is no antecedent for his new subject (other than the fact that the statement is taken from scripture, as are the other statements). This kind of mutilation of Hebrews illustrates how difficult it is for modern interpreters to handle a quotation without relying on its source. The reason for Buchanan’s switch is no doubt an attempt to solve a certain referential awkwardness, since, as Ellingworth notes, Ps 104(103):4 refers to God as N?É ONHVMÉSNTIÉ@UFFD KNTIÉ@TUSNTÉ OMDT L@S@ÉJSK and that since God is the speaker in Heb 1:7 he is rather awkwardly portrayed as speaking about himself in the third person.44 All this relies too heavily upon the textual source of the quotation and fails to adequately account for its role in Hebrews. The awkwardness to which Ellingworth refers, and which Buchanan attempts to solve, ceases to exist when we stop imposing Psalm 104 onto Heb 1:7. In the context of Hebrews the speaker is God, the addressees are the angels and the statement is about the Son. In the Psalm N?É ONHVM refers to YHWH, in Hebrews it refers to the Son.45 In Heb 1:5b @TUSV[, @TUSN I and TH?N M indisputably refer to the Son. In the same way, OQVSN SNJNM, @TUSV[, PDNT (1:6), ONHVM, @TUSNT and @TUSNT (1:7) all refer to the Son. In these verses God is speaking to the angels about the Son. Although he is addressing the angels, his gaze is apparently fixed upon the Son (cf. 12:2). Heb 1:7, like the rest of Hebrews 1, has Christ’s exalted heavenly status in view and expounds on this further when God identifies him as the one who makes his angels into winds, and sets his ministers ablaze with fire. The affirmation provides additional warrant for the angelic worship of the Son since it establishes that he is their sovereign. Once again the author  42

See Alexander, Mystical Texts, 38–39. Buchanan, Hebrews, 11–12. 44 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 120–21. 45 So, correctly, Meier, ‘Symmetry’, 512; Bauckham, ‘Hebrews 1’, 179–80. 43

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

255

shows his indebtedness to Jewish apocalyptic traditions where the mutability of the angelic form is a recurring theme, something that the author had probably witnessed personally in his mystical experiences.46 As is sometimes noted in the commentaries,47 one particularly clear and close parallel to Heb 1:7 comes from Ezra’s prayer in 4 Ezra 8:20–22. O Lord who inhabits eternity, whose eyes are exalted and whose upper chambers are in the air, whose throne is beyond measure and whose glory is beyond comprehension, before whom the hosts of angels stand trembling and at whose command they are changed to wind and fire, whose word is sure and whose utterances are certain, whose ordinance is strong and whose command is terrible.

The passage shares many themes with Hebrews 1, such as the celestial abode and divine throne, and the incomprehensible glory of God’s presence, all of which echo traditional apocalyptic concerns. Of particular relevance to Heb 1:7 is the belief in the mutability of angels who may be transformed into wind and fire at God’s behest (cf. 2 Bar. 21:6; 48:8). By appropriating this apocalyptic motif, the author of Hebrews draws attention to the fact that the angels are ‘created beings, subject to change at the command of their Creator’.48 What is significant, of course, is that, while 4 Ezra depicts the God of Israel as the eternal commander of the angelic hosts, Heb 1:7 depicts the God of Israel identifying the Son as the one who fulfills this role, thereby aligning him with the eternal creator God, something that becomes more explicit in 1:8–12 (cf. 1:2). Furthermore, Bauckham has argued that in view of the previous reference to worship in 1:6, ‘ministers’ (KDHSNTQFNH ) should probably be given its cultic sense in 1:7, and draws attention to the Jewish apocalyptic tradition that portrays the angels who worship around the celestial throne as angels of flame (2 Bar. 21:6; Apoc. Ab. 15:6–7; 19:6).49 This is certainly contextually appropriate, and given that KDHSNTQFN I and its cognates are  46

See Chapter 3.3. The following passages are especially pertinent to Heb 1:7: 4Q403 1 ii 1–16; 1 En. 17:1; 60:17; 2 En. 20:1; 29:3; 3 En. 35–36; 4 Ezra 8:22; 2 Bar. 21:6; 48:8; 51:11; Apoc. Ab. 15:6–7; 19:6; Jub. 2:2. In its original context, Ps 104(103):4 is not about angels per se, but pertains to God’s awesome mastery of creation in making the elemental forces of wind and fire serve him. By appropriating this text in a discourse on angels, one can see clearly how the author has used a biblical phrase (about God) to express a heavenly declaration (from God), which is thoroughly immersed in apocalyptic mysticism. 47 So Bruce, Hebrews, 18; Koester, Hebrews, 194; Michel, Hebräer, 55; Moffatt, Hebrews, 12. 48 Bauckham, ‘Hebrews 1’, 181. 49 Ibid., 179–81. One might add 4Q403 1 ii 1–16; 2 En. 20:1; Hekhalot Rabbati §269 (cf. Ezek 1:13–14), though it must be noted that fiery angels are also portrayed in scenarios other than worship around the heavenly throne of Glory (e.g. 2 En. 11:4–5; T. Ab. 12:1–14 [A]).

256

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

used with sacerdotal import everywhere else in Hebrews (8:2, 6; 9:21; 10:11), it seems reasonable that there is an allusion here to the concept of priestly angels (cf. T. Levi 3:5; Jub. 2:2). If so, this further confirms that these announcements are taking place in the celestial sanctuary and that the Son has preeminence over the priestly angels. This suggests that the Son has some kind of high priestly identity, which is probably at least part of the significance of the reference to his anointing above his fellow ‘companions’ (1:9).50

9.4 The Deity and Righteousness of the Anointed Son (Heb 1:8–9) OQNIÉ CDÉ SNMÉ TH?N M;É N?É PQN MNIÉ RNTÉ N?É PDNIÉ DHUIÉ SNMÉ @HUVM@É SNTÉ @HUVMNIÉ J@HÉ G?É Q?@ ACNIÉ SGIÉ DTUPT SGSNIÉ Q?@ ACNIÉ SGIÉ A@RHKDH @IÉ RNT} (9) GUF@ OGR@IÉ CHJ@HNRT MGMÉ J@HÉ DULH RGR@IÉ @UMNLH @ M;É CH@ÉSNTSNÉDBQHRD MÉRDÉN?ÉPDNIÉN?ÉPDN IÉRNTÉDK@HNMÉ@UF@KKH@ RDVIÉO@Q@ÉSNTIÉLDSN BNTIÉRNT} É But to the Son (he says), “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the sceptre of justice is the sceptre of your kingdom. (9) You love righteousness and hate lawlessness, therefore, O God, your God has anointed you with the oil of joy above your fellow companions.”

The use of LD M in 1:7 anticipates a corresponding CD clause, which appears in 1:8 and introduces and relates the whole of 1:8–12 to 1:7. Given the correlation with 1:7, some interpret the preposition OQN I indirectly,51 but, although this could be argued for OQN I in 1:7, there is no basis for it in 1:8. In view of the consistent use of the second person, the usual directional nuance is preferable, hence ‘to the Son’.52 In this instance, the author is drawing attention to the contrasting ways in which God speaks to the angels and the Son and the different ways in which he describes them. On the one hand, his speech to the angels is impersonal and merely exhorts them to behold the Son, whereas his speech to the Son is personal and leaves the heavenly community (as well as the earthly community who overhear) in no doubt about his superiority to the angels. Whereas angels are subject to the will of the one who makes them, the Son possesses the eternal throne and may even be addressed as N?É PDN I, thereby illustrating his transcendent authority and power. The grammatical function of N?É PDN I may be understood in a number of ways, and not all are agreed that the Son is addressed as ‘God’ in this instance. Although the form is technically nominative, and may be understood as a subject (God is  50

See Chapter 5.2.3.2. So Westcott, Hebrews, 25; Buchanan, Hebrews, 20; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 28. 52 Attridge (Hebrews, 57–58), Ellingworth (Hebrews, 122) and Leschert (Hermeneutical, 25–26) insist on this meaning even though they prefer an indirect nuance in 1:7. 51

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

257

your throne) or predicate (your throne is God), the vocative function of N?É PDN I is also amply attested in the Hellenistic era.53 Whereas PDD is relatively rare in the literature from this period, N?É PDN I is frequently employed as a vocative. Although God is regularly addressed in the Psalms, for instance, the Septuagint consistently prefers N?É PDN I (e.g. 21:2; 39:9 [cited in Heb 10:7]; 103:1).54 Similarly, with the exception of Matt 27:46, God is universally addressed with N?É PDN I in the NT (e.g. Mark 15:34; Luke 18:11; John 20:28; Heb 10:7; Rev 4:11; 11:17; 15:3). So the form N?É PDN I could conceivably function as a nominative or vocative in this instance, although the vast majority of interpreters prefer the latter.55 The chief difficulty with a nominative rendering is the meaning. If N? É PDN I is to be taken as a nominative subject (or predicate) then the image this creates, namely, identifying God as a throne, is somewhat unusual. As Meier explains, ‘it is difficult to understand what it would mean to our author to say that God (the Father) is the eternal throne on which the Son sits’.56 As we have already seen, Hebrews envisages the Son sharing the throne and sitting alongside his father (1:3, 13; 8:1).57 In an attempt to alleviate this difficulty, various amplified translations have been offered, such as: ‘God is the support of thy throne’, ‘thy throne represents God’58  53 See BDF §147.3; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 56–59. The text-critical issue may also play a role (see Chapter 5.2.3.2 for a discussion of the text). According to Westcott, among others, @TUSNT requires that N?É PDN I be taken as a nominative, whereas RNT requires that N?É PDN I be taken as a vocative (Westcott, Hebrews, 26; cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 593). Although RNT is more conducive with a vocative N?É PDN I, and @TUSNT with a nominative, Westcott overstates the case. It is possible, albeit a little unnatural, to adopt @TUSNT, relate it back to SNMÉTH?N M and still interpret N?É PDN I as a vocative (see Ellingworth, Hebrews, 122–23; Bruce, Hebrews, 10, 19–20). Similarly, one’s adoption of RNT does not necessitate a vocative N?É PDN I , although it seems to be the most natural understanding. Thus, Moffatt, for instance, prefers RNT but translates N?É PDN I as a nominative (Hebrews, 11). In his comments, however, he admits that the vocative interpretation ‘yields an excellent sense’ (ibid., 13). See also the NWT: ‘But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne . . .”’, though one suspects that the translation has been influenced by Watchtower dogma, which cannot allow the Son to be addressed as N?ÉPDN I. 54 Pace Attridge, Hebrews, 58 n. 91, who incorrectly cites Pss 3:8 and 138:17 as containing examples of PDD . In the Septuagint PDD occurs only a few times, whereas the articular nominative is regularly employed as a vocative (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 57 n. 71; Leschert, Hermeneutical, 51). 55 For an impressive list of grammarians and commentators who construe N?É PDN I as a vocative see M. J. Harris, ‘The Translation and Significance of N?ÉPDN I in Hebrews 1:8–9’, TynBul 36 (1985), 146–48. 56 Meier, ‘Symmetry’, 514 (italics original). 57 See Chapter 6. 58 E. C. Wickham, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Westminster Commentaries, Second Edition, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1922, 8 (italics mine).

258

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

or ‘thy kingdom is founded upon God’.59 This kind of interpretative expansion assumes that N?É PQN MNIÉRNTÉN?É PDN I is elliptical, but for something to be elliptical, that which has been omitted must be patently self evident.60 In the case of N?É PQN MNIÉRNTÉN?É PDN I the alleged omission is not clear from the context. On the other hand, this difficulty is only apparent if we take the language involved in a strictly literal fashion. A more metaphorical understanding of God as the Son’s throne in terms of an impression of the intimacy that exists between God and his bosom-dwelling Son may be more appropriate (cf. John 1:18; Sefer Yetzirah 6:4).61 Similarly, the Son’s location at the right hand side of God should probably be regarded as a symbolic indication of his unique supremacy, subordinate only to God. Nevertheless, since OQNIÉCDÉ SNMÉTH?N M introduces 1:8–9 as a direct address to the Son, which is confirmed by the use of the second person throughout 1:8– 12, the context clearly favours a vocative N?É PDN I in 1:8,62 and, given the parallelism, perhaps 1:9 also (cf. 1:5).63 Given the exceptionally exalted statements in the preceding verses, and the fact that these declarations are an attempt to validate what has been said in 1:1–4, a vocative N?É PDN I addressed to the Son makes excellent contextual sense. Although it may be bold and shocking,64 it is also entirely consistent with the affirmations made thus far. If the Son is the visible manifestation of God (1:3) and may be included within the angelic worship of God (1:6), then the Son’s identity as God is a significant though not incongruous declaration. Although the designation itself does not necessarily distinguish Jesus from the angels,65 it nevertheless establishes his divine or transcendent existence, and, coupled with the theme of his eternal en 59

Westcott, Hebrews, 25–26 (italics mine). BDF §479. 61 See Idel, Sonship, 133–35. 62 See the detailed discussions of Harris, ‘N?É PDN I’, 129–62, and Leschert, Hermeneutical, 23–40. ?.É PDN I and a\KOD in Ps 45(44):7 were most likely understood in the same way (see L. C. Allen, ‘Psalm 45’, 221–31; Leschert, Hermeneutical, 50–78; M. J. Harris, ‘The Translation of Elohim in Psalm 45:7–8’, TynBul 35 (1984), 65–89). 63 Attridge, Hebrews, 59; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 124. Harris maintains that, although a vocative N?É PDN I in 1:9 is ‘eminently reasonable’, a nominative interpretation is preferable (‘N?É PDN I’, 149–51; cf. O’Brien, Hebrews, 74 n. 182). His reasons are largely based upon an exegesis of the Psalm, however, and are therefore of limited relevance to Hebrews. In view of the emphasis on Christ’s righteousness in 1:8–9, and the reference to his anointing, one is reminded of the rabbinic tradition that three were called by the name of God: the righteous, the Messiah and Jerusalem (b. B. Bat. 75b). 64 See Johnson, Hebrews, 80. 65 Angels are regularly called a\OD or a\KZOD in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, for example, (see 4Q400 1 i 20; ii 7, 17; 4Q403 1 i 32–33; cf. Exod 15:11; Pss 8:6; 82(81):1, 6; 97:7, 9; 138:1). 60

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

259

thronement, makes it plain that he is God of gods forever (cf. Deut 10:17; Ps 136:2; Dan 2:47). A similar phenomenon can be observed in 11Q13, which uses the term a\KZOD with reference to Melchizedek and portrays him as God’s chief agent in the heavenly council and king of Zion.66 Melchizedek takes his stand among the gods however (11Q13 II 10), whereas Jesus sits enthroned above the gods (cf. 4Q491c). Thus, that which was implied in 1:7, namely the sovereignty of the Son over the angels, is made explicit in 1:8 by unequivocally establishing his divinity and eternal right to the celestial throne of Glory. In addition to deity and enthronement, Heb 1:8–9 shows a particular interest in righteousness when it refers to Christ’s possession of a sceptre of justice (1:8) and emphasizes his total commitment to righteousness (1:9). Sceptres were widely used in antiquity, particularly by monarchs, to symbolize their power and their authority to rule.67 It is by means of a gesture with his sceptre that the Persian king Xerxes asserts his authority over the life of Queen Esther (Esth 4:11; 5:2; 8:4), and it is by placing a ‘crown’ on his head and ‘sceptre’ in his hand that the Roman soldiers mockingly depict Jesus as a king (Matt 27:29).68 In view of the reference to his kingdom, this is no doubt the connotation of the Son’s sceptre in Heb 1:8; it symbolizes his regal authority in the present heavenly kingdom (cf. 12:22– 28),69 a kingdom which is also ‘the world to come’ and will one day incorporate the entire cosmos (2:5; 13:14).70 What is intriguing in the light of the present investigation is that a number of apocalyptic visions portray various exalted figures with sceptres (Ezek. Trag. 70–74; Jos. Asen. 14:9; T. Levi 8:4; Apoc. Ab. 11:3; Sib. Or. 5:415; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 1:4; cf. Judg 6:21; Odes Sol. 29:8; Herm. Vis. 5, 1:1; Sim. 9, 6:3), suggesting that it may have been traditions such as these and the author’s own mystical visions that have influenced his choice of imagery here. What is paramount for the author of Hebrews, however, is that the Son wields a sceptre of justice, as is clear from the following affirmations of his love for righteousness, and hatred of lawlessness, because of which he is anointed and exalted (Heb 1:9). It is significant that the author highlights Jesus’ righteousness here (cf. 4:15; 7:26) since, as we have already noted, this is repeatedly emphasized  66

See Mason, You Are a Priest Forever, 173–85. C. Schneider, ‘Q?@ ACNIÉQ?@ ACH YVÉQ?@ ACNTBNI’, TDNT VI: 970. 68 See also Isa 9:3; 11:1; 36:6; Jer 48(31):17; Ezek 19:11–14; Pss 2:9; 23(22):4; 45(44):7; 110(109):2; Nah 1:13; Josephus, J.W. 2:365–66. 69 See the similar portrayal of Michael ‘the holder of the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (3 Bar. 11:2) and Metatron, the prince and ruler over the ministering angels in the heavenly heights (3 En. 4:5–9). 70 See Chapter 8.3.1. 67

260

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

with reference to those who ascend into heaven and is seen as an essential prerequisite to such experiences.71 This theme is an integral part of the apocalyptic Enoch tradition,72 something of which the author of Hebrews discloses an overt awareness in his handling of Enoch in Heb 11:5–6.73 Not only does he include Enoch in his list of exemplary heroes,74 but his assessment of Enoch suggests a familiarity with something more than the elusive reference in Genesis.75 According to Gen 5:24, Ca\KODZWD[TO\NZQQ\DZa\KODKWDZQ[OKW\Z Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him. J@HÉDTUGQD RSGRDMÉ]%MVBÉSV[ÉPDV[ÉJ@HÉNTUBÉGT?QH RJDSNÉN:SHÉLDSD PGJDMÉ@TUSNMÉN?ÉPDN I ÉÉ Enoch was pleasing to God; then he was not found, because God transferred him.

According to Heb 11:5–6, /H RSDHÉ ]%MVBÉ LDSDSD PGÉ SNTÉ LGÉ HUCDHMÉ P@ M@SNMÉ J@HÉ NTUBÉ GT?QH RJDSNÉ CHN SHÉ LDSD PGJDMÉÉÉ @TUSNMÉN?É PDN I}ÉOQNÉ F@QÉSGIÉLDS@PD RDVIÉLDL@QST QGS@HÉDTU@ QDRSGJD M@HÉSV[É PDV[;É(6)ÉBVQHIÉ CDÉ OH RSDVIÉ @UCT M@SNMÉ DTU@ QDRSGR@H;É OHRSDTR@HÉ F@QÉ CDHÉ SNMÉ OQNRDQBN LDMNMÉ SV[É PDV[É N:SHÉ DRSHMÉJ@HÉSNHIÉDUJYGSNTRHMÉ@TUSNMÉLHRP@ONCN SGIÉFH MDS@H}É

 71

See Chapter 3.2.1 (e.g. Apoc. Ab. 13:10–14; Apoc. Zeph. 4:9; 3 Bar. 7:5; T. Levi 2:3–4; 4:2; 1 Macc 2:58; T. Ab. 4:6; 17:7; 13:9–13 [B]). 72 E.g. 1 En. 1:2; 12:4; 15:1; 39:6; 46:3; 62:2; 71:14, 16; 2 En. 1a:1–2; 7:4; 3 En. 4:3; 6:3; Jub. 10:17; T. Levi 10:5; T. Ab. 11:3 [B]. By specifically referring to Enoch’s faithfulness (KQZPD), as well as his righteousness, 3 En. 6:3 closely parallels Heb 11:5–6 (cf. 1 En. 39:6). 73 Surprisingly, Hebrews is largely overlooked in the surveys of Enoch in early Jewish and Christian literature. Hebrews receives only brief references in Rowland’s chapter on Enoch in Jewish and Christian tradition (Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 34–35, 57, 61), and no mention at all in VanderKam’s survey of Enoch in early Christian literature (VanderKam and Adler (eds.), The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, 33–101). VanderKam does devote a brief paragraph to Heb 11:5–6 in Enoch: A Man for All Generations, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995, 169–70. 74 The only other references to Enoch in the NT are in Luke’s genealogy (3:37) and Jude’s quotation from the Book of the Watchers introduced as a prophecy of Enoch, the seventh from Adam (Jude 14–15). Jude also shows an awareness of the story of the fallen watchers (1 En. 6–16) when he speaks of the angels who abandoned their proper dwelling and are presently imprisoned in darkness until the final judgement (Jude 6; cf. 1 Pet 3:18–20; 2 Pet 2:4). 75 Although it is widely agreed that the author goes beyond the text of Genesis, there also appears to be some reluctance in attributing the author’s comments to influences outside Genesis! Ellingworth, for instance, affirms that ‘Hebrews goes beyond what is said of Enoch in Genesis’, but in the next sentence states that ‘Hebrews does not appear to have been influenced by the extensive Enoch traditions outside Genesis’ (Hebrews, 574). If the author’s understanding of Enoch did not come from Genesis, where did it come from? Either he made it up or he has been influenced by Jewish traditions. In what follows, I shall argue for the latter, and show that it is Jewish apocalyptic traditions that have influenced the author.

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

261

On account of faith, Enoch was transferred so that he did not see death, and he was not found because God transferred him. For, before he was transferred, it was said that he was pleasing to God; (6) so without faith it is impossible to please God, for the one who approaches God must believe that he exists and becomes a rewarder of those who earnestly seek him.

The Hebrew text of Gen 5:24 could be interpreted as a reference to Enoch’s sudden and unexpected death,76 but probably presupposes Enoch’s ascent into heaven (cf. 2 Kgs 2:1–11). The Septuagint makes this sense clearer with its translation of [TO with LDS@SH PGLH (rather than the more usual K@LA@ MV).77 Compared with LDS@SH PGLH, K@LA@ MV is relatively neutral and simply denotes the taking hold of something or someone, whereas LDS@SH PGLH specifically denotes movement from one place (or state) to another.78 Therefore, it seems unlikely that the Greek translators understood Gen 5:24 as a routine reference to Enoch’s death. Rather, the Septuagint seems to assume a more elaborate understanding of Enoch’s ‘disappearance’. This allusion to extra-biblical Enochic lore is, of course, carried over into Hebrews by virtue of the author’s dependence upon the Septuagint, but his comments on Enoch cannot be explained solely on the basis of the Greek translation of Gen 5:24. While Enoch’s righteousness is plain from both the Hebrew and Greek versions of Genesis, neither account specifically connects his righteousness with his disappearance. In Genesis, the reason Enoch cannot be found is because God took him. In Hebrews, the reason Enoch cannot be found is because God took him and because (F@ Q) he was pleasing to God. Hebrews makes it plain that Enoch’s faith and godliness were the essential preconditions that permitted his translation into the presence of God (cf. 12:14). Similarly, Hebrews clarifies that the ‘taking’ of Enoch means that he did not see death, something which Genesis allows but does not state. These additional assumptions on the part of the author of Hebrews strongly suggest a familiarity with the apocalyptic Enoch traditions, which likewise  76 See, for instance, Jacob’s confession that ‘Joseph is not’ (ZQQ\D#VZ\ ), which denotes Joseph’s death (Gen 42:36; cf. Job 7:21), and Job’s declaration that the Lord ‘has taken away’ ([TO), which refers to the untimely death of his children (1:21; cf. Ezek 24:16; 33:4, 6). Targum Onqelos to Gen 5:24 reads: ‘And Enoch walked in reverence of the Lord, then he was no more, for the Lord had caused him to die’ (trans. B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis: Translation, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes, The Aramaic Bible 6, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988, 51). For targumic interpretations of this verse, see VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations, 165–68; Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 35–39. 77 The Septuagint translates [TO with K@LA@ MV over 800 times, whereas LDS@SH PGLH is used only once at Gen 5:24. ,DS@SH PGLH, on the other hand, is used to translate JZV where it denotes ‘transferring’ the location of boundary stones (Deut 27:17; Prov 23:10; Hos 5:10). 78 See Louw and Nida §§15.2; 18.1; BDAG, 642.

262

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

portray Enoch as exceptionally righteous and specifically connect this righteousness with his ‘disappearance’ which is interpreted in terms of a pre-death transferral into the heavens. The connection with the apocalyptic Enoch tradition is clear from the alternative, even negative, assessment Enoch sometimes receives outside this tradition. In Philo’s writings, for example, Enoch is treated rather differently. In his work On the Life of Abraham, Gen 5:24 is understood as a reference to Enoch’s change of lifestyle wrought by God and it is his old wicked way of life that ‘was not found’ (Abr. 17–24; cf. Sir 44:16 [G]; Gen. Rab. 25:1). In his work On Rewards and Punishments, this is reiterated and Philo implies that ‘he was not found’ further suggests that, having turned from his wicked ways, Enoch opted for a solitary life, in order to avoid temptation (Praem. 15–21; cf. Wis 4:11).79 All this provides something of a contrast with Heb 11:5–6, which treats Enoch as an example of faithfulness, on account of which he escaped death and was translated into a heavenly life with the angels, along with the rest of the faithful (12:1, 22–23), all of which aligns closely with what we know of Enoch from Jewish apocalyptic and mystical traditions. In the same way, the author of Hebrews stresses the righteousness of the Son in 1:8–9, noting that it was because of (CH@É SNTSN) his impeccable righteousness that God has anointed and exalted him over his ‘companions’ (LD SNBNH), which, in this context, must be a reference to the angels.80 The divine utterance in Heb 1:8–9 unequivocally affirms that the angels are subject to the Son. He has been installed as king in the heavenly kingdom and the angels are his servants. Moreover, his rule is consistently upright and is characterized by a scrupulous commitment to righteousness.81 Angels, by contrast, may not always show the same propensity for what is right (e.g. 1 En. 6–11; 54:1–6; Dan 10:13, 20; Rev 12:7–9; 2 En. 18; Apoc.

 79

Elsewhere, Philo quotes Gen 5:24 to prove that the mortal body ceases to exist when one’s mind and soul is entirely pleasing to God (Mut. 34–38). Thus, when Enoch attained a pleasing way of life, he was ‘not found’ for such purity cannot unite with mortality, but must unite with that which is immortal and incorporeal (cf. QG 1:82–86). These comments perhaps show some connection with the apocalyptic traditions, although it has been re-expressed in philosophical terms. 80 So Attridge, Hebrews, 60; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 30; O’Brien, Hebrews, 74. Compare 1 En. 104:4–6: Take courage and do not abandon your hope, for you will have great joy like the angels of heaven. . . Fear not, O righteous, when you see the sinners growing strong and prospering, and do not be their companions (LD SNBNH); but stay far from all their iniquities, for you will be companions of the host of heaven. (Unfortunately, this last clause is absent from the Greek version) 81 According to b. Sanh. 93a, ‘the righteous are greater than the ministering angels’.

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

263

Ab. 13–14), a reminder of which is supplied by the author’s reference to the Devil (Heb 2:14).82 There may also be some truth in Gleason’s suggestion that the recipients of Hebrews were accustomed to seeking angelic assistance, and part of the purpose of the author’s contrast between Jesus and the angels is to redirect them to Christ, so that they might not neglect the necessary and superior help that he offers.83 If so, one can easily imagine how the affirmation of Christ’s righteous rule of the angels could achieve this end. It not only illustrates his superior power, but also his unwavering upright character, thereby making him the preferable source of assistance.

9.5 The Eternal Creator (Heb 1:10–12) *@H ;É RTÉ J@S5É @UQB@ IÉ JT QHDÉ SGMÉ FGMÉ DUPDLDKH VR@IÉ J@HÉ DQF@É SVMÉ BDHQVMÉ RNT É DHURHMÉ NH?É NTUQ@MNH ; (11) @TUSNHÉ @UONKNTMS@HÉ RTÉ CDÉ CH@LD MDHIÉ J@HÉ O@ MSDIÉ V?IÉ H?L@ SHNMÉ O@K@HVPG RNMS@H (12) J@HÉ V?RDHÉ ODQHAN K@HNMÉD?KH WDHIÉ@TUSNT I ÉV?I ÉH?L@ SHNMÉJ@HÉ @UKK@FG RNMS@H;ÉRTÉ CDÉ N?É@TUSNI ÉDHÉJ@HÉS@ÉDSGÉRNTÉNTUJÉDUJKDH XNTRHM}É And, “In the beginning, O Lord, you established the earth and the heavens are the works of your hands; (11) they will pass away, but you remain, and, like cloth, they will all wither. (12) Like a cloak, you will roll them up and, like cloth, they will be changed, but you are the same and your years will not end.”

The sixth declaration also begins with a divine title addressed directly to the Son: ‘in the beginning O Lord (JT QHD)’. The term ‘Lord’ of course can be used with reference to a variety of personages and may indicate nothing more than a respectful acknowledgement of someone’s authoritative status (e.g. Gen 31:35; 44:18; Matt 13:27; Acts 16:30).84 In view of the way in which the ‘Lord’ is described in Heb 1:10–12, JT QHNI is most likely in 82

In the late Second Temple period, CH@ ANKNI came to be used as a proper noun to denote the great angelic adversary of God and righteousness, and leader of the fallen angels (e.g. Jub. 10:1–11; Wis 2:24; L.A.E. 12–16; Eph 6:11–12; Rev 12:9; 3 Bar. 4:8; Apoc. Ab. 23:11), a notion with its roots in the Jewish scriptures (e.g. Job 1–2; 1 Chr 21:1; Zech 3:1–2) (see G. J. Riley, ‘Devil’, DDD, 244–49; S. Schreiber, ‘The Great Opponent: The Devil in Early Jewish and Formative Christian Literature’, in Reiterer, Nicklas, and Schöpflin (eds.), Angels, 437–57). According to Heb 2:14–16, Jesus has broken the Devil’s power; not for the benefit of angels, but for the ‘seed of Abraham’. 83 Gleason, ‘Angels and the Eschatology of Heb 1–2’, 90–107. 84 See BDAG, 577. For the title applied to an angel, see the repeated use in 3 Baruch and the Shepherd of Hermas (cf. Dan 12:8; Acts 10:4). Note also the angelic rejection of the title in the Ascension of Isaiah 8:4–5, which functions to highlight the Lordship of Christ (see the discussion in Stuckenbruck, ‘Worship and Monotheism’, 82–83). Although the author of Hebrews does not employ the same device, he clearly regards the Son’s Lordship as one of the factors which distinguishes him from the angels.

264

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

tended as a divine title, and, as we have already discussed, is probably indicative of the Son’s possession of the divine Name (1:4).85 The way in which the Son is described in Heb 1:10–12 leaves no doubt about his superiority to the angels. The prepositional phrase J@S5É@UQB@ I is equivalent to DUMÉ@UQBG ,86 and clearly demonstrates the pre-existence of the Son; he was present at the beginning of all things (cf. 1:2; John 1:1). Not only was he present, but God identifies him as the one who created the heavens and the earth. By referring to the two extremities of the cosmos, the statement leaves nothing outside of his creative activity (cf. John 1:3), and implies that the respective inhabitants of the heavens and the earth are included, making angels, among other things, a part of the Son’s creation (cf. Col 1:15–20). This is perhaps already implied in Heb 1:6 when the author mentions the @FFDKNHÉ PDNT, where PDNT refers to Christ, suggesting that they have their origin in him. Moreover, whereas creation is subject to change and will eventually grow old and wither, the Son is outside of this process, and as LORD of creation he will remain the same and his years shall never end. What is one to make of this extraordinary affirmation? Is this really what the author intended to convey? Not everyone believes that the text should be understood in this way, but urge that great caution should be employed when interpreting such statements. Hurst, for instance, understands the text quite differently and, by building on the work of Caird,87 he argues that Hebrews 1 has very little, if any, interest in the personal pre-existence of a divine being, but is concerned with a human being who has attained the destiny which God ordained for humanity, namely the glory described in Psalm 8 and explored in Hebrews 2.88 Although Hurst correctly notes that much of Hebrews 1 describes certain events that were achieved by the man Jesus of Nazareth (rather than describing the eternal prerogatives of God the Son), and that one must not read Hebrews 1 through the lens of Nicea or Chalcedon, none of this  85

See Chapter 6.3.2. BDAG, 138 (1.b), 512 (B.2.a). 87 Caird argued that the use of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2 controls the argument of Hebrews 1, which illustrates that the theme of the Psalm (i.e. that humanity is destined for a glory above the angels) has been fulfilled in Jesus (‘Exegetical Method’, 44–51; idem, ‘Son by Appointment’, in W. C. Weinrich (ed.), The New Testament Age: Essays in Honour of Bo Reicke, Macon: Mercer University Press, 1984, 1:73–81). Nevertheless, not only is it debatable that this is the theme of the Psalm (the Greek version speaks of a present reality rather than a future destiny), but the author specifically notes that ‘we do not yet see all things subjected to him’ (2:8), that is, it has not been fulfilled in Jesus – the world to come has not yet come, the heavenly reality is not yet an earthly reality. 88 L. D. Hurst, ‘The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2’, in L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (eds.), The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird, Oxford: Clarendon, 1987, 151–64. 86

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

265

changes the fact that the author portrays the God of Israel addressing this exalted human being as the eternal creator. With reference to Heb 1:10–12, Hurst cites the work of Bacon89 and maintains that the citation comes from a section in Psalm 102(101) in which the Greek version presents God addressing another party, most likely his Messiah. Thus, according to Hurst, one cannot conclude that the author of Hebrews was transferring to Christ what was normally only said of God; he was simply following the idea that was already inherent in his Bible. With regard to the ‘eternity’ that is ascribed to the Son, Hurst argues that this simply reflects Ancient Near Eastern court protocol whereby royal figures ‘were assigned divine attributes while remaining human figures’.90 In the Wisdom of Solomon, for example, the rulers of the nations are instructed to honour wisdom so that they may reign forever (6:21). Moreover, it is not unusual for royal subjects to employ the accolade, ‘O king, live forever’ when addressing the monarch (Dan 2:4; 3:9; 5:10; 6:6, 21; cf. 1 Kgs 1:31; Neh 2:3). With regard to the Son’s role as creator, Hurst maintains that attributing a creative function to a royal figure ‘would not be inappropriate for one destined by God to be the bearer of his wisdom’.91 Pseudo-Solomon, for instance, prays for God’s wisdom by whom he made all things (Wis 9:1–4), and who may enter holy souls (7:27). In view of this background, Hurst suggests that Heb 1:10–12 may be understood as God ‘addressing his own wisdom in its earthly receptacle’.92 In response, one should note the following. First, Bacon’s interpretation of the Greek version of the Psalm is profoundly flawed. Further analysis suggests that the section in question was almost certainly regarded as an address to YHWH.93 Secondly, one must allow the context to determine the precise contours of the ‘eternity’ in view. The passage from the Wisdom of Solomon, for instance, where wisdom promises an eternal reign to the monarchs who honour her (6:21), is followed by a response from one such monarch. In his speech he not only acknowledges his mortality (7:1, 5–6), but understands this ‘eternity’ in terms of being remembered after his death (8:13). The eternity of the Son in Hebrews, on the other hand, is qualitatively different. Wishing an earthly monarch a long ‘eternal’ reign does not really compare with the God of Israel announcing that the heavenly Son was present in the beginning as the creator and will continue forever, long after his creation has withered. The ‘eternity’ of the royal fig 89

See Chapter 8.1.1. Hurst, ‘Christology’, 161. 91 Ibid., 163. 92 Ibid., 162. Schenck follows the same line of interpretation (‘Celebration’, 474–76; idem, ‘Keeping’, 111–15; cf. Dunn, Christology, 206–9). 93 See Chapter 8.1.1. 90

266

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

ures is a potentiality that extends forwards only, whereas the eternity of the Son is an actuality asserted by the highest authority that extends backwards as well as forwards. Thus, in certain contexts, ‘eternity’ may be (metaphorically) applied to beings other than the Most High God, but when one spoke of ‘the one who lives forever who created all things’ (Sir 18:1; cf. Rev 10:6), it is almost certain that first-century Jews and Christians would have understood this as transferring to Christ an exclusive prerogative of the God of Israel. Thirdly, the words of Heb 1:10–12 are not addressed OQNIÉSGMÉRNEH @M, but OQNIÉSNMÉTH?N M (1:8). Unless the author is portraying wisdom as male and giving her the title ‘Son’, then the text must be understood as God’s address to the person described in 1:2–9, rather than God ‘addressing his own wisdom in its earthly receptacle’.94 The text which Hurst believes to be the most suitable background to Christ as creator reads as follows, O God of my ancestors and Lord (JT QHD) of mercy, who have made all things by your word (DUMÉ KN FV[É RNT), and by your wisdom (SG[É RNEH @[É RNT) have formed humankind to have dominion over the creatures you have made, and rule the world in holiness and righteousness, and pronounce judgment in uprightness of soul, give me the wisdom that sits by your throne, and do not reject me from among your servants (Wis 9:1–4).

Although wisdom traditions may have influenced the Christology of Heb 1:2, where the Son is the one through whom God made SNTIÉ@HUVM@I, it is not the figure of wisdom that is echoed in 1:10–12, but the God of Israel. The Son in Heb 1:10–12 and the God of Israel in Wis 9:1–4 are both addressed as Lord and regarded as the primary agent of creation. Wisdom, on the other hand, is portrayed as a secondary agent in the Wisdom of Solomon; the means by which God created (cf. 9:9; Sir 1:4–10; 24:3; Philo, Leg. 1:65; Her. 1:199; Jer 10:12; Prov 3:19; 8:22–31; Ps 104(103):24). There is no reason, therefore, why Heb 1:10–12 should not be taken at face value as a straightforward identification of the Son as the eternal creator.95 If so, it is within the context of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism that this declaration becomes particularly necessary and intelligible, as we shall now see. Apocalyptic traditions often display an extravagant interest in creation and the secrets of cosmological phenomena. The Astronomical Apocalypse, for example, is almost entirely devoted to this subject, but it emerges as a major theme throughout apocalyptic literature (e.g. 1 En. 17–18; 33–36; 41–44; 69:13–25; 2 En. 4–6; 11–17; 25–30; 3 En. 41–42; 4 Ezra 6; 3 Bar. 6–9; Apoc. Ab. 19–22). Significantly, as we noted above,96 it is often the  94

Hurst’s analysis also fails to appreciate the heavenly setting of Hebrews 1. See also S. M. McDonough, Christ as Creator: Origins of a New Testament Doctrine, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 205–8. 96 See Chapter 3.3.1. 95

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

267

angels who are responsible for governing the cosmos. Uriel, for example, Enoch’s guide in the Astronomical Apocalypse, is regularly described as the ‘leader’ of the luminaries (1 En. 72:1; 74:2; 79:6). He has been ‘set over all the heavenly luminaries’ (75:3) and ‘has power in heaven over night and day to make light appear over humanity: the sun, the moon, the stars, and all the heavenly powers which revolve in their circuits’ (82:8). He does not work alone, but is accompanied by ‘the thousands who are over all the creation’ (75:1; cf. 82:9–20). The same theme emerges on numerous occasions in apocalyptic and mystical literature (e.g. 2 Bar. 6:6–9; 3 En. 14:3–4; 17:1–8), but one of the most succinct expressions comes from the longer recension of 2 Enoch. And those men took me from there, and they carried me up to the sixth heaven. And I saw there 7 groups of angels, brilliant and very glorious. . . And these groups carry out and carefully study the movements of the stars, and the revolution of the sun and the phases of the moon, and the well being of the cosmos. . . These are the archangels who are over the angels; and they harmonize all existence, heavenly and earthly; and angels who are over seasons and years, and angels who are over rivers and the ocean, and angels who are over the fruits of the earth and over every kind of grass, and who give every kind of food to every kind of living thing; and angels who record all human souls, and all their deeds, and their lives before the face of the LORD (19:1–5).97

In relation to creation, angels occupy a pre-eminent position. They know the secrets of the cosmos, and they have an exceptional level of authority over it. This said, there is simultaneously no doubt that the Most High God possesses ultimate supremacy throughout the universe. Although angels govern and order the cosmos, their charge and authority are given by God. In relation to creation, the angels are second only to God, but they are second. This distinction often emerges with reference to the fact that God alone is the eternal creator and ultimate sovereign. Thus, despite Uriel’s elevated status, he has received his orders from ‘the Lord of the entire creation’ (1 En. 82:7; cf. 2 Bar. 48:7–10; 54:13), and despite the fact that Enoch’s tour consisted in observations of angels governing the universe, his response is to bless ‘the great Lord, the king of glory forever, as he has made every work in the world’ (81:3; cf. 36:4). The same distinction is made in 2 Enoch. And the LORD spoke to me: “Whatever you see, Enoch, things standing still and moving about and which were brought to perfection by me, I myself will explain it to you. Before anything existed at all, from the very beginning, whatever is I created from non-being into being, and from the invisible things into the visible [cf. Heb 11:3]. And not even to my angels have I explained my secrets, nor related to them their composition, nor my endless and inconceivable creation which I conceived, as I am making them known to you today” (2 En. 24:2–3).

 97

The shorter recension is essentially identical, just shorter.

268

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

Despite their intimate knowledge and awesome command of the natural world, there are certain secrets that are only known to the creator, and those to whom he chooses to reveal them. While the angels are extremely exalted beings, they are a part of God’s creation; their composition is known only to him, the one true God and creator of everything (cf. 33:3–8; 47:3–4; 65:1–6; 66:3–5). Significantly, according to 2 Enoch, it is this attribute that legitimates worship, as Enoch’s counsel to his children makes plain: ‘Do not turn away from the LORD, nor worship unreal gods, who did not create either the heaven or the earth’ (2:2; cf. 10:6; 66:5 [J]). Similarly, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice likewise illustrate that, as creator, God is superior to the angels. From the God of knowledge came into being everything which exists forever. And from his knowledge and purposes all the things which were eternally appointed have come into existence. He makes the former things [in] their seasons and the latter things at their appointed times. And there are none among those who have knowledge who can discern [his wondrous] revelations before he acts. And when he acts, (even) the god-like beings cannot comprehend that which he purposes. For they are part of his glorious works; before even they existed, they were part of his plan.98

Like 2 Enoch, the passage illustrates the limits of angelic knowledge and the distinction between God, the creator, and the gods, who are a part of his creation (cf. 4 Ezra 6:1–6; 2 Bar. 21:4–7; Apoc. Ab. 7:10; 8:3; 3 En. 35:6). It is little wonder, therefore, that the heavenly praise of God regularly dwells upon his role as the eternal creator (e.g. 1 En. 9:4–5; 4Q403 1 i 30–36; Rev 4:9–11; 3 En. 25:5; 47:2; cf. Heb 1:8–12).99 With reference to Hebrews, one can see how this particular facet of apocalyptic angelology may have provided a rationale for Heb 1:10–12. By identifying the Son as the eternal creator in a discourse demonstrating the Son’s superiority over the angels, a belief in the highly exalted status of angels in relation to creation seems to be presupposed. In the apocalyptic literature there is really only one who qualifies as superior to the angels: the creator. It is with reference to this role that God’s superiority is established and celebrated. The author of Hebrews appropriates the same technique in distinguishing the Son from the angels. It seems perfectly plausible, therefore, that the aforementioned apocalyptic traditions have influenced the way in which the author chose to demonstrate the Son’s superiority over the angels. If the all-encompassing command of the angels over creation is presupposed, then the only conclusive proof for the Son’s supe 98 This translation conflates Newsom’s translation of 4Q402 4 12–15 and Mas1k I 2– 7, two copies of the last part of the fifth song (DJD XI: 229, 242). 99 The thematic parallels between 1 En. 9:4–5 and Heb 1:8–12 are particularly striking. The sevenfold praise in Sabbath Songs VI and VIII (cf. Rev 5:12; 7:12), and the sevenfold glorification of the Son in Hebrews 1 is another intriguing parallel.

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

269

riority over the angels is if he is the creator of all things. Moreover, this particular affirmation also legitimates the worship of the Son (Heb 1:6) since, as we observed in 2 Enoch, only the creator is the true God and worthy of worship (cf. Isa 44–45; Ps 96(95):5; Jub. 12:1–4; Rev 4:11; 14:7).100 Thus, the author’s use of Ps 102(101):26–28 is akin to his use of other texts in Heb 1:5–13. It is an appropriate phrase with which to capture a heavenly revelation, a divine declaration to the ascended Son, which establishes his superiority over the angels. The author is ascribing to the Son something that was normally only said of the Most High God. On the basis of the highest authority, namely God himself, the Son’s superiority to the angels is established by identifying him as the eternal creator, a move which makes particular sense in the light of certain angelic speculations of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, and was probably partly inspired by apocalyptic dreams and visions and mystical experiences of unio liturgica where Christ was included in the praise of the Creator.

9.6 A Divinely Ordained Heavenly Reality (Heb 1:13) OQNIÉSH M@ÉCDÉSVMÉ@UFFD KVMÉDHQGJD MÉONSD;ÉJ@ PNTÉDUJÉCDWHVMÉLNTÉD:VIÉ@MÉPVÉSNTIÉDUBPQNT IÉ RNTÉT?ONON CHNMÉSVMÉONCVMÉRNT€É To which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right side while I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

The image of the Son seated at the right hand side of God has already been expressed with the author’s own words in 1:3 (DUJ@ PHRDMÉ DUMÉ CDWH@[É SGIÉ LDF@KVRT MGIÉ DUMÉ T?XGKNHI). In 1:13, however, God is the speaker and his utterance is captured in the words of Ps 110(109):1. The seventh and final declaration is introduced in the same way as the first (1:5), with a rhetorical question which highlights a contrast between the Son and the angels. In contrast to the introductory formula of 1:5, the main verb in 1:13 is conjugated in the perfect tense (DHQGJDM), indicating that the God of Israel is now to be understood as one who has invited another to share his eternal throne. The significance of the Son’s enthronement at the right hand of God has  100

McDonough has recently asked how and why the role of creator was attributed to Jesus (Christ as Creator). It is suggested here that it helped define his identity in relation to the angels. According to Svendsen, the author of Hebrews adopts Philo’s angelology since he assigns angels a place in the created realm, which ‘differs significantly from what we encounter in most apocalyptic literature’ where angels belong to the world of transcendence (Allegory Transformed, 87–93, following Thompson, Beginnings, 134– 35). Angels do indeed belong to the transcendent world in apocalyptic literature, as they do in Hebrews, but, as we have just demonstrated, they are still viewed as created beings, a fact which may be exploited to distinguish them from the Most High God.

270

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

already been discussed in Chapter 6, where we concluded that the Son shares the very throne of God as the king-priest and divine Name-bearing anthropomorphic Glory of God. Heb 1:13 adds to this in two ways. First, it refers to the moment of the Son’s enthronement and unequivocally demonstrates that this was a divine appointment. He did not take it upon himself to assume the throne, but was specifically invited by the Most High God. Secondly, since it is part of 1:5–13, and given the way it is introduced, the image is specifically contrasted with angels in 1:13. The author is probably presupposing the recurring theme throughout apocalyptic and mystical traditions that angels do not sit.101 These ‘Standing Ones’, as the Samaritans called them,102 were the unceasing servants of the one seated upon the throne. The seated Son, therefore, is a powerful image of his angelic sovereignty. Furthermore, the image is also a convenient indicator of his superiority over a particular class of angel, the cherubim. Given that God’s throne is regularly regarded as a cherubim-throne (e.g. 2 Kgs 19:15; Ezek 1:15–26; Apoc. Mos. 22:3; Heb 9:5), Christ’s enthroned status is a vivid image of his position above these angelic cherubim. This final declaration is a fitting conclusion and climax to these revelatory speech acts. It recalls the opening affirmation that the Son is enthroned in the celestial Holy of Holies as God’s Name-bearing Glory (Heb 1:3–4) as well as all that has been associated with it (1:5–12), and unequivocally establishes that this astonishing revelation is a divinely ordained heavenly reality, an affirmation that probably has its roots in mystical experience.

9.7 Mystical Experience and the Use of Scripture in Hebrews 1 As we have seen in Part II, there is compelling evidence to suggest that the author of Hebrews, and the Christian group that he represents, embody a form of late Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. Among other things, this would have involved various mystical experiences, such as the heavenly ascents and apocalyptic visions reported in works such as Revelation and the Shepherd of Hermas. In Part III we have observed that the author’s appropriation of scripture in Heb 1:5–13 consists of a reconfiguration of various scriptural texts into a series of divine declarations occasioned by Christ’s entry into heaven (Chapter 8), and that the author’s choice of texts engage a number of significant apocalyptic and mystical motifs (Chapter 9). Thus, in contrast to recent trends that regard contextu 101 102

See Chapter 3.4.1. See Fossum, Name, 121–24.

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

271

ally sensitive exegesis of the scriptural texts as the impetus behind their appropriation in Heb 1:5–13, the themes of Heb 1:5–13 suggest the influence of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. Moreover, the way in which Heb 1:5–13 is presented, implies knowledge of heavenly realities, which points to the author’s own mystical experiences, and suggests that there is an experiential impetus behind the use of scripture in Heb 1:5–13. As we have argued at length in Chapter 8, and as Lane notes, ‘[t]he seven quotations are presented as a succession of words spoken by God to the Son, which the Church on earth is permitted to overhear’.103 Mackie puts it slightly differently, and argues that the congregation is in the heavenly sanctuary during this drama, which is overtly confirmed in Heb 2:12–13 where the Son extends family membership to them in the presence of God.104 Thus, perhaps the reason why the scriptural texts are presented this way is because they were experienced this way, not necessarily in the sense that God was heard reciting these particular scriptural texts in heaven, but that these scriptural texts were suitable vehicles for expressing what was witnessed in apocalyptic dreams and visions and mystical experiences of unio liturgica. It is often taken for granted that some kind of textual exegesis generated the exalted Christological propositions of the early Christians. With regard to Ps 110:1, for instance, Hay acknowledges that the idea of Jesus at the right hand of God in heavenly glory existed independently of the Psalm, but assumes that the text gave rise to the belief. This is indicated when he speaks of the session becoming an established theologoumenon and that some had forgotten its connection with the Psalm,105 and when he supposes that the Psalm influenced the ‘conception’ of the Christology found in Hebrews.106 The same assumption can be discerned in Hengel’s study of Ps 110:1 in the NT when he states that ‘the significant majority of the New Testament texts . . . evidences the influence of Ps. 110:1, from which an apparently basic christological statement originated’.107 His comment on Rom 8:34 betrays the same belief: ‘(. . . the being of Christ) at the right hand of God has already separated itself from the LXX text of Ps. 110:1’.108 Both Hay and Hengel have correctly observed that the image of Jesus at the right hand of God in heavenly glory was an early and widespread belief  103 104

Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 32; cf. Koester, Hebrews, 201. E.g. Mackie, Eschatology, 216–30; idem, ‘Heavenly Sanctuary Mysticism’, 77–

117. 105

Hay, Glory, 17 n. 9, 43–44, 157–58. Ibid., 153. 107 Hengel, Studies, 134 (italics mine). 108 Ibid., 139 (italics mine). 106

272

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

that often manifested itself independently of the text of Ps 110:1. They both assume that the idea originated from the Psalm and later established itself as an independent thought, but it is equally possible that the development progressed in the opposite direction, namely that the Christian belief in Christ’s exalted glory inspired the use of Ps 110:1. This certainly seems to be implied by the use of scripture in Hebrews 1, where the quotations function as vehicles for expressing what the author already knows about the realities of the heavenly realm and its occupants. This can be seen particularly clearly with regard to Ps 110:1. One of the peculiarities of the so-called references to Ps 110:1 in the NT is the different textual forms employed. While the Septuagint renders \Q\P\O (‘to my right’) with DUJÉ CDWHVMÉ LNT (cf. Matt 22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Luke 20:42; 22:69; Acts 7:55–56; Heb 1:13), the alleged ‘allusions’ employ DUMÉ CDWH@[ (Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3, 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22) or SG[É CDWH@[ (Acts 2:33; 5:31). Hay has suggested three possible reasons for this variation: (1) different authors depended upon different Greek translations, (2) some may have referred to a Hebrew text and given their own translation, or (3) some may be quoting early liturgical materials.109 Hay prefers the third option for most of the NT references, maintaining that a large proportion of the quotations and allusions appear to be based not directly on the Psalm but on intermediate sources such as testimony collections, confessions, or hymns.110 Following Montefiore111 and Synge,112 Hay maintains that the quotation of Ps 110:1 in Heb 1:13 (DUJÉ CDWHVM) along with all the citations in Heb 1:5–13 were derived from a common collection of scriptural testimonies.113 Moreover, he suggests that the ‘allusions’ to Ps 110:1 in Heb 1:3, 8:1, 10:12 and 12:2 (DUMÉ CDWH@[) were dependent upon an early hymn or creed partially preserved in Heb 1:2b–3.114 As we have already observed above, Heb 1:1–4 is a single intricately woven sentence, which introduces some of the major themes of the book.115 While it is possible that the author is echoing some lost hymn, the thematic pertinence and syntactic precision of these verses strongly sug-

 109

Hay, Glory, 35. Ibid., 38–42. 111 Montefiore, Hebrews, 43–44. 112 Synge, Hebrews, 1–6, 53–54. 113 Hay, Glory, 38–39. Since the author of Hebrews connects so much of his message to Ps 110:1, 4, Hay thinks that it was likely that he studied this text directly (ibid., 44; contra Synge who maintains that the author worked exclusively from a Testimony Book (Hebrews, 53–54)). 114 Hay, Glory, 41. 115 See Chapter 5.2.2. 110

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

273

gest that Heb 1:1–4 is the author’s own composition.116 Similarly, the possibility that Heb 1:5–13 is taken from some lost Testimony Book is not only highly speculative, but ignores the relevance of this passage, not only to Hebrews as a whole,117 but to the author’s opening thesis (1:1–4),118 which strongly suggests that the responsibility for this particular selection and arrangement of citations lies with the author of Hebrews.119 The use of intermediate sources, therefore, is probably not the reason for the DUJÉ CDWHVM – DUMÉCDWH@[ variation in Hebrews. Hengel appears to prefer the first option since he postulates that ‘DUMÉCDWH@[ is an indication of a variant translation of the Hebrew text which was independent of the LXX’.120 Although this may explain why different authors display different textual forms, with respect to Hebrews the author consistently employs DUMÉ CDWH@[ except in 1:13, where he uses DUJÉCDWHVM, which ‘follows all readings of the Septuagint exactly’. 121 In other words, we can be confident that recourse to a variant translation does not explain his use of DUMÉ CDWH@[ since he provides the wording of his source in 1:13, and it reads DUJÉCDWHVM. Neither is Hay’s second option a real possibility since, as is well known, the author of Hebrews relies exclusively upon a Greek version of the Jewish scriptures.122 It would seem, therefore, that DUMÉ CDWH@[ reflects the author’s own idiom, while DUJÉCDWHVM reflects the Greek version of Ps 110:1 with which he was familiar. For the author of Hebrews, as with many other NT authors, the idea of Christ’s heavenly glory is independent of Ps 110:1, although it is a useful text for expressing this idea. Thus, in contrast to the view that text orientated exegesis generated the exalted Christological propositions of the early Christians, is it not equally plausible that mystical experiences of the resurrected Jesus, which confirmed certain Jesus traditions (e.g. Mark 8:38), led to the exalted Christology of the earliest Christians, which was then expressed with the aid of Ps 110:1 and other scriptural texts? This is certainly one possible sequence of events, but given the speed with which such a high Christology emerged, and the many factors that contributed to this phenomenon, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to discern the

 116 See Black, ‘Hebrews 1:1–4’, 175–94; Meier, ‘Symmetry’, 524–28; Ebert, ‘Chiastic’, 163–79. 117 See Schenck ‘Celebration’, 469–85; Jipp, ‘The Son’s Entrance’, 557–75. 118 See the Introduction to Part III. 119 See also Docherty, Use of the Old Testament, 172–76. 120 Hengel, Studies, 141. 121 Docherty, Use of the Old Testament, 137. Docherty shows that the author customarily reproduces his scriptural citations accurately (ibid., 121–42). 122 See, for example, Bateman, Early Jewish Hermeneutics; Gheorghita, Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews.

274

Part III: The Intersection of Experience, Reflection and Rhetoric

precise sequence of events.123 Nevertheless, the role of experience in the formation of early Christianity deserves a prominent position, and with regard to Heb 1:5–13, it would seem that experience takes priority over exegesis, bearing witness to a kind of experiential exegesis. Although meditative textual exegesis could be a means of generating mystical experiences,124 and it is perfectly plausible that the author of Hebrews engaged in such practices, the use of scripture in Heb 1:5–13 seems to be of a different order, and is analogous to certain rabbinic advice regarding the interpretation of dreams. According to the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi (early Third Century CE) said, If one sees a river in his dreams, he should rise early and say: Behold I will extend peace to her like a river [Isa 66:12], before another verse occurs to him, viz., for distress will come in like a river [Isa 59:19]. If one dreams of a bird he should rise early and say: As birds hovering, so will the Lord of Hosts protect [Isa 31:5], before another verse occurs to him, viz., As a bird that wandereth from her nest, so is a man that wandereth from his place [Prov 27:8] (b. Ber. 56b).

Such advice presupposes the inherent power and revelatory capacity of dreams and urges Jewish dreamers to associate the images in their dreams with a positive scriptural text, lest they get associated with a negative scriptural text.125 In other words, it is the experience that gives rise to the use of scripture, and it is the isolated portion of scripture, irrespective of its context, that helps to articulate the significance of the experience. Heb 1:5–13 resembles this kind of process. On the one hand, the heavenly setting and the revelatory words of God to the ascended Son implies heavenly knowledge and points to mystical experience. Indeed, it could even be argued that the way in which scripture is used in Heb 1:5–13 to articulate heavenly realities and capture divine discourse, with no overt regard for textually orientated and contextually sensitive exegesis, as is common elsewhere in Hebrews, may be explained as the result of visionary experi 123

Chester, Messiah, 105–7, 115–19. On the causative potential of revelatory religious experiences, see Hurtado, ‘Religious Experience and Religious Innovation’, 179– 204. Concerning the various forces/factors that combined to produce the distinctive ‘binitarianism’ of early Christianity, Hurtado identifies four: (1) the Jewish monotheistic roots with its ability to accommodate exalted mediators; (2) the impact of Jesus’ ministry; (3) revelatory religious experiences; (4) the encounter with the wider Roman-era religious and cultural environment (Lord Jesus Christ, 27–78). 124 See Merkur, ‘Cultivating Visions through Exegetical Meditations’, 62–91; Rowland, with Gibbons and Dobroruka, ‘Visionary Experience’, 46–51; C. Deutsch, ‘Visions, Mysteries, and the Interpretative Task: Text Work and Religious Experience in Philo and Clement’, in Flannery, Shantz, and Werline (eds.), Experientia, 83–103; idem, ‘The Therapeutae’, 287–311; Carruthers, Craft of Thought, esp. 171–220. 125 See Niditch, ‘The Visionary’, 164–66; cf. Carruthers, Craft of Thought, 193–96.

Chapter 9: The Angelic Sovereignty of the Son

275

ence.126 On the other hand, Heb 1:5–13 exhibits a great deal of considered reflection, and not only in terms of his selection of scriptural texts, but also in terms of the rhetorical purposes for which it was composed. Heb 1:5–13 is clearly a carefully composed text that is conditioned by literary, theological and pastoral concerns, but the possibility that it has its origins in mystical experience deserves to be taken seriously.

 126

See Rowland, Open Heaven, 236–37; Chester, Messiah, 105–7.



Conclusion to Part III Our analysis of Heb 1:5–13 has situated this passage at the intersection of experience, reflection and rhetoric. The scriptural citations in Heb 1:5–13 are not presented as quoted texts, but have been detextualized. They are all grouped together into a single new context: the reception of Jesus into the heavenly realm, and function as performative utterances that definitively establish the superior position of Jesus in the heavenly hierarchy. This, together with many of the details of these utterances, points to the author’s knowledge of heavenly realities, and makes particular sense within a context of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. In all likelihood, therefore, it was the author’s mystical concerns and experiences that gave rise to the text of Heb 1:5–13 and the unique use of scripture therein. On the other hand, Heb 1:5–13 is not an account of mystical experience. Rather, it is mystical experience combined with various other influences and concerns that have given rise to the text of Heb 1:5–13. Without wishing to delineate a particular sequence of events, the following factors should be taken seriously in any attempt to explain the rationale for the author’s use of scripture in Heb 1:5–13. (1) The author’s Jewish apocalyptic mysticism. The fact that Heb 1:5–13 is presented as a divine address, which is occasioned by an ascent into heaven, is also a recurring, and often climactic, feature of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism is probably not a coincidence. Perhaps the author of Hebrews witnessed the heavenly reception of Jesus in visions (cf. Rev 5; Ascen. Isa. 11:22–33) or perhaps he used the form as a kind of template for ordering related experiences and reflections. Either way, it seems likely that heavenly ascents and apocalyptic visions of Jesus, combined with certain major mystical interests (particularly the relationship between angels and someone who ascends into their habitat), gave rise to this particular selection and presentation of scriptural texts. Seers and visionaries often note the indescribable and inexpressible nature of their mystical experiences (e.g. 2 Cor 12:4; cf. 3 Bar. 1:1; 2 En. 22:1–3), which might explain why the author of Hebrews resorted to phrases from the Jewish scriptures rather than relying on his own words. (2) The author’s familiarity with the Jewish scriptures. It goes without saying that the author must have known the texts cited in Heb 1:5–13 in order to be able to use them. The scholarship on Hebrews has paid particular care to this factor, and, although it has been overstated, it is certainly possible that there was already something about these texts that made them particularly suitable for their new context. The early and widespread Christological significance of Ps 110:1 in Christian circles, for instance, was almost certainly a factor in the author’s choice and use of this text in Heb 1:13. Consequently, it

Conclusion to Part III

277

was his Jewish apocalyptic mysticism combined with his knowledge of the Jewish scriptures that gave rise to Heb 1:5–13. (3) The author’s pastoral concern. Hebrews is a word of exhortation (13:22), written to encourage a group of Christians to persevere in their faith, despite the difficulties and disappointments they have encountered. Heb 1:5–13 is no less a part of this agenda and serves as an argument for the heavenly pre-eminence of Jesus, which is written to remind the recipients of their earlier knowledge and experience of the divine so that they might renew their devotion and not drift away (2:1–4). If Heb 1:5–13 deliberately evoked some of their earlier mystical experiences, then the use of scripture to articulate these experiences could be a way of validating their significance, and giving them a particular interpretation, as in the rabbinic dream advice. This assumes that the audience would be expected to recognize the original source of the words, however, which is unclear and uncertain. On the other hand, the early and widespread use of Ps 110:1 suggests that they would have recognized this text, and accepted its Christological significance. So, at the very least, by associating all that is said in Heb 1:3–12 with this text, the author expands and drives home the full significance of the Christological interpretation of Ps 110:1, a move with the potential for great rhetorical impact, since it skilfully alerts the recipients to the fuller meaning and significance of something they already believe. Given the importance of rhetorical expediency in the ancient Christian use of texts, a feature which is rooted in Greco-Roman rhetorical education (e.g. Cicero, Inv. 2.40–48),1 it almost goes without saying that these texts have been adapted for the situation-specific benefit of the immediate audience.

Thus, it was a combination of the author’s Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, knowledge of the Jewish scriptures and pastoral concern that gave rise to the unique text of Heb 1:5–13. Although I have emphasized the role of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism in Heb 1:5–13 (because it is typically neglected), one cannot adequately understand this passage without paying attention to at least these three dimensions. Like so much of Hebrews, 1:5– 13 represents the intersection of experience, reflection and rhetoric, and one suspects that the analysis (and emphasis) offered in this last Part of our study might be profitably applied to other passages of Hebrews, as well as other early Christian literature.

 1

See Mitchell, Paul, esp. 10–37.





Chapter 10

Conclusions 10.1 A Summary of Conclusions From our survey of research we concluded that the interpretation of Hebrews has traditionally been, and in some quarters continues to be, dominated by a Platonic philosophical framework, typically with reference to Philo of Alexandria. Although this has yielded some results and has some validity, as Williamson and others have shown, it has often been exaggerated, something we have also periodically observed in this study (e.g. Chapters 4.3 and 5.1.1). Others have found Jewish apocalyptic traditions much closer to the thought world of Hebrews, but this has often been construed in terms of eschatology, with the more mystical dimensions of apocalyptic traditions being largely overlooked as a background to Hebrews. Moreover, until relatively recently, those who have noted the mystical dimension of Hebrews have tended to draw parallels from Jewish mystical literature which is much later than Hebrews. Therefore, we concluded that a detailed study of the mysticism of Hebrews which prioritizes the apocalyptic traditions of late Second Temple Judaism remains a desideratum, and is the main impetus for the present study. In Part I we delineated the sources and contours of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, concluding that it is a phenomenon occurring in late Second Temple Judaism (including early Christianity), which finds literary expression in the apocalypses and related literature, and exhibits a preoccupation with the realities of the heavenly realm, and the human experience of this realm and its occupants. In different ways, the ancient Jewish apocalypses, particularly the ascent apocalypses and related literature, such as the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, provide a precious insight into this phenomenon and bear witness to the importance of the following themes. (1) The mysterious heavenly realm, which is typically regarded in cultic terms and often overtly described as a celestial temple, and sometimes thought to consist of multiple levels or courts. (2) Glorious angels, who populate this realm, appear in many forms and undertake a bewildering array of activities, such as supervising the cosmos, transmitting heavenly secrets to humanity, and acting as priests in the celestial temple, all to the glory of the Most High God. (3) The Supreme Sovereign and God of Israel, who is enthroned in the celestial Holy of Holies in the midst of impenetrable fiery light, be-

280

Conclusions

cause of whom and for whom all things exist and take place. (4) The human contact with this realm, which is often facilitated by certain ritual preparations, but always originating in the will of God. This privilege is reserved for exceptionally righteous individuals (and congregations), who often experience awe, even terror, in the divine environs and in the company of angels. This is quickly overcome, however, as the seer is welcomed and assisted by angels, and enlightened and transformed through visions and revelations of and from God himself. Moreover, the purpose of these revelations is communal, for the edification of the people of God, to inspire steadfast obedience to the message they have received, and offer the prospect of similar privileges to similar personages. In Parts II and III we discussed Hebrews in the light of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism and concluded that the cosmology, Christology and soteriology resonate strongly with this phenomenon. As in Jewish apocalyptic and mystical traditions, the author of Hebrews envisages the heavenly realm in cultic terms, as the superior celestial equivalent of Israel’s sanctuary (8:1–5; 9:11–12). The heavenly realm is populated with innumerable angels (1:6; 12:22) who serve and worship the Most High God who dwells upon the throne in the celestial Holy of Holies (8:1; 12:2). Akin to the mystical ascents of Enoch (1 En. 14–16; 2 En. 3–37), Abraham (Apoc. Ab. 15–32) and Levi (T. Levi 2–5, 8), Jesus ascended through the heavens (Heb 4:14), proceeded through the heavenly temple (9:11–12), beyond the celestial veil (6:19–20) into the Holy of Holies (8:1–2), where he beheld the face of God (9:24), received revelations from the mouth of God (1:5–13) and was transformed into the ultimate high priest of God (1:5, 8–9; 5:5–6; 6:19–20) and angelic sovereign (1:4–14), all of which was facilitated by his exceptional righteousness (1:8–9; 4:15; 7:26). With reference to the Day of Atonement ritual, the author of Hebrews parallels Christ’s death with the slaughter of the sacrificial victim outside the sanctuary, and parallels his ascent into heaven with the moment when the high priest enters the Holy of Holies to present the sacrifice and effect the atonement. Thus, in his death, Christ became the sacrifice, in his resurrection and ascent into the celestial Holy of Holies, he became the high priest. His high priesthood, therefore, is understood as a heavenly transformation, a motif which engages and modifies the apocalyptic tradition of the priestly investiture of exalted patriarchs (e.g. T. Levi 2–5, 8; 2 En. 22; 1 En. 14–15; cf. Jub. 4:23–25). Thus, although the author of Hebrews interacts with the traditional Christian understanding of Christ’s death as a sacrifice, he also develops it within a context of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, resulting in a unique vision of the risen Christ as the heavenly high priest who also enables believers to enter the heavenly sanctuary, all of

Conclusions

281

which was probably partly inspired by his own mystical experiences (cf. Rev 1:13). In contradistinction to the aforementioned experiences of Enoch, Abraham and Levi, however, Jesus is invited to share the throne of God (1:13), and, like the apocalyptic visions of the anthropomorphic Glory of God (e.g. Ezek 1:26–28; 1 En. 14:18–23; 2 En. 22:1–6; 39:2–8), Jesus is conceived in terms of the enthroned human form and Glory of God who bears the divine Name (Heb 1:3–4), which probably reflects the author’s own experience and knowledge of apocalyptic visions of the risen Jesus. All these themes resonate particularly strongly with the experience and vision of Enoch as described in the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 14:8–25), which is perhaps not surprising given the author’s familiarity with apocalyptic Enoch traditions (Heb 11:5–6). The possible presence and role of apocalyptic visions and other mystical experiences among the ‘Hebrews’ was explored in Chapter 7, where we concluded that there are good reasons for supposing that the kind of mystical experiences narrated in the Jewish apocalypses and early Christian literature were also operative among the author of Hebrews and his community. In view of this, it is perfectly plausible, and quite likely, that Hebrews does not merely testify to a literary and conceptual appropriation of Jewish apocalyptic and mystical themes, but also reflects actual mystical experience such as apocalyptic visions and unio liturgica. In Part III we discussed the hotly debated issue of the author’s use of scripture in Hebrews 1 and concluded that, although a text orientated and contextually sensitive exegesis explains the author’s use of scripture in many passages of Hebrews, this does not seem to be the procedure that is followed in Hebrews 1. The scriptural citations of Heb 1:5–13 are deliberately detextualized and deployed in order to capture the content of God’s speech to the ascended Son, which establishes his superiority to the angels. The themes that are engaged by the author’s choice of scriptural texts resonate strongly with Jewish apocalyptic mysticism and were probably partly inspired by his own mystical experiences. The concern to stress the superiority of the Son over the angels, and the way in which this is achieved, is perfectly understandable within a context of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism in which angelology, and the relationship between angels and someone who ascends into their habitation, is a recurring theme. Like the principal angel Iaoel (e.g. Apoc. Ab. 10:3–8; cf. Exod 23:20–22; 3 En. 12:3–5), Jesus is said to have inherited the divine Name, which distinguishes him from the angels (Heb 1:4, 10). Like the angels, Jesus is a son, but his sonship is distinct from angelic sonship since it is defined not only in terms of sharing God’s Name, but also in terms of embodying God’s Glory upon the celestial throne for eternity (1:5; cf. 1:3–4,

282

Conclusions

8). His unique sonship is demonstrated further with reference to the mystical theme of angelic worship of God in heaven when God includes the Firstborn as a recipient of such worship (1:6). Jesus’ superiority over the angels is conclusively established when God identifies him as their source and the eternal creator of all things (1:7, 10–12). In apocalyptic traditions certain angels relate to the cosmos with a superiority and authority that is comparable to that of God himself (e.g. 1 En. 82:8; 2 En. 19:1–5). The supremacy of God is maintained with reference to the fact that he is the creator whereas the angels are part of his creation and therefore must mediate and direct all worship to him (1 En. 81:3; 2 En. 24:2–3; 33:3–8), one of the themes which is appropriated in Heb 1:6–12 to illustrate the superiority of the Son. Overall it would seem that Jewish apocalyptic and mystical traditions were a significant influence upon the author of Hebrews, or, to put it another way, among other things, Hebrews is an early Christian expression of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism.

10.2 Concluding Reflections As we saw at the beginning of our study, the ‘Epistle’ to the Hebrews is more accurately described in homiletic terms as a ‘word of exhortation’ (13:22).1 In view of the role of apocalypticism in Hebrews, perhaps we may define Hebrews a little more precisely as an apocalyptic word of exhortation. Hebrews has in fact been described this way before by Anderson, although this was prompted by his appreciation of the eschatology of Hebrews.2 Mackie is equally impressed by the importance of eschatology in Hebrews, but describes the work more responsibly as an ‘eschatological exhortation’.3 Nevertheless, Anderson’s classification is preferable, not necessarily because of the eschatology of Hebrews, but because of its elaborate conception of, and sustained preoccupation with, the mysterious and accessible heavenly realities. If Hebrews is an apocalyptic word of exhortation, in what kind of environment and context might it have been delivered? Given our conclusions regarding the mystical orientation of the Christians behind Hebrews, perhaps the sacred assemblies of similar groups give us an idea of how Hebrews might have been used in such contexts. According to Eusebius, the Therapeutae described in Philo’s work On the Contemplative Life were Christians and one of the texts they used in their sacred assemblies was the  1

See Chapter 1.1. Anderson, ‘Who Are the Heirs’, 256. 3 Mackie, Eschatology, 1–2; cf. Schenck, Cosmology, 62 n. 31. 2

Conclusions

283

epistle to the Hebrews (Hist. eccl. 2.17.1–24). Although Eusebius is probably mistaken about the specifically Christian character of the Jews described by Philo, his comments are suggestive of how appropriate a discourse such as Hebrews would have been in a mystical sacred assembly, such as those of the Therapeutae. According to Philo, the Therapeutae (so called because their practices heal the soul) are devoted to the true God, and are characterized by their simplicity, their contemplation of the divine, and their extensive study of sacred texts. Every morning they pray for their minds to be filled with heavenly light and they devote themselves to the sacred scriptures and the composition of psalms and hymns with such depth that even their dreams are permeated by visions of the divine (Contempl. 25–29). All this is typically undertaken in solitude, but on the seventh day they assemble together to listen intently to a mature member of the congregation powerfully elucidate the meaning of their sacred texts (30–31). Similarly, at the end of every seven weeks, these practices/preparations culminate in a most sacred feast, where the meat consists of meditative homilies on sacred texts, which makes that which is unseen, visible, and leads to singing and dancing, and an intoxication resembling that of the bacchanalian assemblies (65–85), although without the wine, insanity and iniquity (see 40–64). The ultimate goal of this kind of worship is heavenly ascent and a vision of the living God (11–12), making the Therapeutae citizens of both heaven and earth (90).4 One of the major functions of the sermon among the Therapeutae is mystagogical, it leads to and mediates experiential access to the divine. Although there are of course important differences between Philo’s Therapeutae and the recipients of Hebrews, the role of the sermon among the Therapeutae might shed some light on the role that was envisaged for Hebrews. Given our conclusions with regard to Hebrews, and the repeated exhortations in Hebrews to enter the celestial sanctuary and approach the throne (Heb 4:14–16; 10:19–22), culminating in the affirmation that they have entered the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22–24), perhaps Hebrews has a similar function. Perhaps Hebrews has a mystagogical string to its bow and is, inter alia, a kind of liturgical basis for inspiring and actualizing a present reality of unio liturgica and privileged access to the celestial sanctuary. Perhaps the author was one of their senior members, a kind of mystagogue who was accustomed to leading the community in their exposition of sacred texts and mystical experience of the divine, but in his absence, a letter had to suffice, which was perhaps intended as a kind of guide to  4

See also Deutsch, ‘The Therapeutae’, 287–311.

284

Conclusions

heavenly ascent and transformation.5 The fact that the Therapeutae were contemporaneous with the ‘Hebrews’ and were not restricted to Egypt, but ‘may be met in many places’ (Contempl. 21) suggests that the mystagogical function of the sermon may have been more widely known and practiced, and makes it more plausible that Hebrews had such a function. All this remains to be tested, of course, and would benefit from further research. Moreover, if this was not one of the original intentions of Hebrews, one can certainly see how it is suited for such a task (cf. 1 Clem. 36:1–2), making the reception of Hebrews in later mystical traditions a desideratum for future research. As we argued in Chapter 1, a detailed study of the mystical context of Hebrews which prioritizes the apocalyptic traditions of late Second Temple Judaism is greatly desirable. Although we have concluded that Hebrews may be regarded as an early Christian expression of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, this is based on a limited analysis of Hebrews. Consequently, this conclusion would benefit from further testing by applying the same kind of detailed analysis articulated in Part III to other pertinent passages of Hebrews. Overall, our analysis of selected passages in Hebrews suggests that the interpretation of Hebrews in the light of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism would be a fruitful focus of further research, and encourages interpreters of Hebrews to take the mysticism of Hebrews seriously.

 5

Robin Griffith-Jones has recently argued something similar for the Gospel of John (‘Transformation by a Text: The Gospel of John’, in Flannery, Shantz and Werline (eds.), Experientia, 105–23; idem, ‘Apocalyptic Mystagogy: Rebirth-from-above in the Reception of John’s Gospel’, forthcoming).



Bibliography Primary Sources Aland, B., K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, and B. M. Metzger (eds.), NestleAland Novum Testamentum Graeca, Twenty Seventh Revised Edition, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. –, The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001. Baumgarten, J. M. ‘4Q271’, in J. M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4, XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273), DJD XVIII, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Black, M. (ed.), Apocalypsis Henochi Graece, PVTG 3, Leiden: Brill, 1970. Box, G. H. The Apocalypse of Abraham and Ascension of Isaiah: Translations of Early Documents, London: SPCK, 1919. Braude, W. G. (trans.), The Midrash on Psalms, 2 vols., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. Charles, R. H. (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Charlesworth, J. H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols., New York: Doubleday, 1983. Cohen, A. The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakot: Translated into English for the First Time, with Introduction, Commentary, Glossary and Indices, Cambridge: The University Press, 1921. Colson, F. H. and G. H. Whitaker (trans.), Philo, 10 vols., LCL, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press, 1927–62. Danby, H. The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933. Elliott, J. K. (ed.), The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Epstein, I. The Babylonian Talmud: Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices, 35 vols., London: Soncino, 1935–48. Fowler, H. N., W. R. M. Lamb, R. G. Bury, and P. Shorey (trans.), Plato, 12 vols., LCL, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1914–37. Freedman, H. and M. Simon (eds.), Midrash Rabbah: Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices, 10 vols., London: Soncino, 1939. García Martinez, F. and E. J. C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols., Leiden: Brill, 1998. García Martinez, F., E. J. C. Tigchelaar and A. S. van der Woude, ‘11Q17’, in F. García Martinez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11, II: 11Q2– 18, 11Q20–31, DJD XXIII, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, 259–304.

286

Bibliography

Greenfield, J. C., M. E. Stone and E. Eshel (eds.), The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary, SVTP 19, Leiden: Brill, 2004. Grossfeld, B. The Targum Onqelos to Genesis: Translation, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes, The Aramaic Bible 6, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. Hallo, W. W. (ed.), The Context of Scripture, 3 vols., Leiden: Brill, 1997. Harrington S.J., D. J. and A. J. Saldarini, Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets: Introduction, Translation and Notes, The Aramaic Bible 10, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987. Herrmann, K. (ed., trans.), Massekhet Hekhalot: Traktat von den himmlischen Palästen, TSAJ 39, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. James, M. R. The Testament of Abraham, Texts and Studies 2.1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892. Jonge, M. de, in cooperation with H. W. Hollander, H. J. de Jonge and Th. Korteweg, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text, PVTG 1:2, Leiden: Brill, 1978. Knibb, M. A. The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments, 2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. Levey, S. H. The Targum of Ezekiel: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes, The Aramaic Bible 13, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987. Marcus, R. Philo Supplement I: Questions and Answers on Genesis, LCL, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953. –, Philo Supplement II: Questions and Answers on Exodus, LCL, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953. Milik, J. T., with the collaboration of M. Black, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4, Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Newsom, C. A. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition, Harvard Semitic Studies 27, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. –, ‘4Q400–407’, in E. Eshel, H. Eshel, C. Newsom, B. Nitzan, E. Schuller and A. Yardeni, in consultation with J. VanderKam and M. Brady, Qumran Cave 4, VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1, DJD XI, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, 173–401. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. and J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Niese, B. (ed.), Flavii Josephi Opera, 7 vols., Leipzig: Weidmann, 1885–95. Odeberg, H. 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928. Olson, D. C. Enoch: A New Translation: The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch, Translated with Annotations and Cross-References, North Richland Hills, Texas: BIBAL Press, 2004. Picard, J.-C. (ed.), Testamentum Iobi, Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece, PVTG 2, Leiden: Brill, 1967. Preuschen, E. (ed.), Origenes Werke: Vierter Band: Der Johanneskommentar, Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1903. Rahlfs, A. and R. Hanhart, Septuaginta, Revised Edition, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Roberts, A. and J. Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, 10 vols., Revised by A. C. Coxe. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Edinburgh: Eerdmans, 1989–90. Robinson, J. M. (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library in English, Third Completely Revised Edition, Leiden: Brill, 1988.

Bibliography

287

Schäfer, P. (ed.), in association with M. Schlüter and H. Georg von Mutius, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur, TSAJ 2, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981. Scott, W. (ed. and trans.), Hermetica: Volume 1: Introduction, Texts and Translation, Oxford: Clarendon, 1924. Smith, M. (trans.), Hekhalot Rabbati: The Greater Treatise Concerning the Palaces of Heaven, corrected by G. Scholem, transcribed and edited with notes by D. Karr. Online: http://www.digital-brilliance.com/kab/karr/HekRab/HekRab.pdf (accessed July 2012). Sparks, H. F. D. (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament, Oxford: Clarendon, 1984. Stec, D. M. The Targum of Psalms: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, Notes, The Aramaic Bible 16, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2004. Stone, M. E. The Testament of Abraham: The Greek Recensions, Missoula, Montana: University Press, 1972. Thackeray, H. St. J., R. Marcus, A. P. Wikgren, and L. H. Feldman (trans.), Josephus, 9 vols., LCL, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1926–65.

Secondary Sources Abegg, Jr., M. G. ‘Who Ascended to Heaven? 4Q491, 4Q427, and the Teacher of Righteousness’, in C. A. Evans and P. W. Flint (eds.), Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997, 61–73. Abrams, D. ‘The Boundaries of Divine Ontology: The Inclusion and Exclusion of Metatron in the Godhead’, HTR 87.3 (1994), 291–321. Abusch, R. ‘Seven-fold Hymns in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Hekhalot Literature: Formalism, Hierarchy and the Limits of Human Participation’, in Davila (ed.), Dead Sea Scrolls as Background, 220–47. Adams, E. The Stars Will Fall from Heaven: “Cosmic Catastrophe” in the New Testament and its World, LNTS 347, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007. –, ‘The Cosmology of Hebrews’, in Bauckham, Driver, Hart, and MacDonald (eds.), The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, 122–39. Alexander, P. ‘Midrash’, DBI, 452–59. –, ‘The Family of Caesar and the Family of God: The Image of the Emperor in the Heikhalot Literature’, in L. Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire, JSOTSup 122, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991, 276–97. –, The Mystical Texts: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Related Manuscripts, Library of Second Temple Studies 61; Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 7, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006. –, ‘The Dualism of Heaven and Earth in Early Jewish Literature and its Implications’, in A. Lange, E. M. Meyers, B. H. Reynolds III, and R Styers (eds.), Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011, 169–85. –, ‘The Background to the Idea of the Heavenly Tabernacle in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, forthcoming. Alexander, T. D. and S. Gathercole (eds.), Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology, Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004. Allen, D. L. Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology, Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010. –, Hebrews, New American Commentary 35, Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010.

288

Bibliography

Allen, D. M. Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative Representation, WUNT II 238, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Allen, L. C. ‘Psalm 45:7–8(6–7) in Old and New Testament Settings’ in H. H. Rowdon (ed.), Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie, Leicester: IVP, 1982, 220–42. Allison Jr., D. C. Testament of Abraham, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Anderson, C. P. ‘Who Are the Heirs of the New Age in the Epistle to the Hebrews?’, in J. Marcus and M. L. Soards (eds.), Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. Louis Martyn, JSNTSS 24, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989, 255–77. Anderson, H. ‘The Jewish Antecedents of the Christology in Hebrews’, in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992, 512–35. Arbel, D. V. and A. A. Orlov (eds.), With Letters of Light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic, and Mysticism in Honour of Rachel Elior, Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Aschim, A. ‘Melchizedek and Jesus: 11QMelchizedek and the Epistle to the Hebrews’, in Newman, Davila and Lewis (eds.), Jewish Roots, 129–47. Attridge, H. W. ‘Let Us Strive to Enter that Rest’, HTR 73 (1980), 279–88. –, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. –, ‘Paraenesis in a Homily’, Semeia 50 (1990), 211–26. –, ‘The Psalms in Hebrews’, in S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (eds.), The Psalms in the New Testament, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004, 197–212. Aune, D. E. The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity, Leiden: Brill, 1972. –, ‘The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre’, Semeia 36 (1986), 65–96. Ausloos, H. ‘Psalm 45, Messianism and the Septuagint’, in M. A. Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism, Leuven: University Press, 2006, 239–51. Bacon, B. W. ‘Heb 1, 10–12 and the Septuagint Rendering of Ps 102, 23’, ZNW 3 (1902), 280–85. Baigent, J. W. ‘Jesus as Priest: An Examination of the Claim that the Concept of Jesus as Priest may be Found in The New Testament Outside the Epistle to the Hebrews’, VE 12 (1981), 34–44. Barclay, J. M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Barker, M. The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem, London: SPCK, 1991. –, ‘The High Priest and the Worship of Jesus’, in Newman, Davila and Lewis (eds.), Jewish Roots, 93–111. –, Temple Themes in Christian Worship, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Barr, J. ‘Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament’, VTSup 7 (1960), 31– 38. –, ‘Aramaic-Greek Notes on the Book of Enoch’, JSS 23 (1978), 184–98. Barrett, C. K. ‘The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, in W. D. Davies and D. Daube (eds.), The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology: Festschrift for C. H. Dodd, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956, 363–93. Bateman, H. W. Early Jewish Hermeneutics and Hebrews 1:5–13: The Impact of Early Jewish Exegesis on the Interpretation of a Significant New Testament Passage, American University Studies VII. 193, New York: Peter Lang, 1997.

Bibliography

289

Bauckham, R., D. R. Driver, T. A. Hart and N. MacDonald (eds.), A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in its Ancient Contexts, LNTS 387, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2008. –, The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009. Bauckham, R. The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993. –, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament, Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998. –, ‘Monotheism and Christology in Hebrews 1’, in Stuckenbruck and North (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, 167–85. –, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008. Bauer, W. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition, F. W. Danker (ed.), W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich (trans.), Chicago: University Press, 2000. Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999. Becker, A. H. and A. Y. Reed (eds.), The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Bénétreau, S. L’épître aux Hébreux, 2 vols., Vaux-sur-Seine: Édifac, 1989, 1990. Beyerle, S. ‘Angelic Revelation in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature’, in Reiterer, Nicklas and Schöpflin (eds.), Angels, 205–23. Bietenhard, H. Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjudentum, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1951. –, ‘NMNL@ÉNUMNL@ YVÉDUONMNL@ YVÉXDTCV MTLNI’, TDNT V: 242–83. Black, D. A. ‘Hebrews 1:1–4: A Study in Discourse Analysis’, WTJ 49 (1987), 175–94. Blass, F. and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Translated and Revised by R. W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961. Boccaccini, G. ‘Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: The Contribution of Italian Scholarship’, in Collins and Charlesworth (eds.), Mysteries and Revelations, 33–50. –, (ed.), Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2007. Böttrich, C. Weltweisheit, Menschheit, Urkult, WUNT II 50, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. –, ‘The Melchizedek Story of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Reaction to A. Orlov’, JSJ 32.4 (2001), 445–70. Boustan, R. S. ‘The Study of Heikhalot Literature: Between Mystical Experience and Textual Artefact’, CBR 6.1 (2007), 130–60. Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, Rev. Ed. NICNT, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1990. Buchanan, G. W. To the Hebrews, AB 36, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1972. Caird, G. B. ‘The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, CJT V (1959), 44– 51. –, ‘Son by Appointment’, in W. C. Weinrich (ed.), The New Testament Age: Essays in Honour of Bo Reicke, Macon: Mercer University Press, 1984, 1:73–81.

290

Bibliography

Calaway, J. C. Heavenly Sabbath, Heavenly Sanctuary: The Transformation of Priestly Sacred Space and Sacred Time in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews, Columbia University, PhD thesis, 2010. Caragounis, C. C. The Development of Greek and the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006. Carruthers, M. The Craft of Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Carson, D. A. ‘Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy’, DNTB, 857–64. Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. I. Abrahams, Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1967. Cervera i Valls, J. ‘El vel Celestial en Hebreus i en la mística jueva antiga’, in Armand Puig i Tàrrech (ed.), Bíblia i mística, Scripta Biblica 11, Barcelona: Associació Bíblica de Catalunya i de Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 2011, 177–207. Chadwick, H. ‘St. Paul and Philo of Alexandria’, BJRL 48 (1966), 286–307. Charlesworth, J. H. ‘The Portrayal of the Righteous as an Angel’, in Nickelsburg and Collins (eds.), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism, 135–51. Chesnutt, R. D. From Death to Life: Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth, JSPSup 16, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Chester, A. Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology, WUNT 207, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Clifford, R. J. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1972. Clifton Black II, C. ‘The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon’, HTR 81:1 (1988), 1–18. Cockerill, G. L. ‘Heb 1:1–14, 1 Clem. 36:1–6 and the High Priest Title’, JBL 97.3 (1978), 437–40. Coggins, R. J. and J. L. Houlden (eds.), A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990. Collins, A. Y. ‘Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypticism’, Semeia 36 (1986), 1–11. –, ‘The Seven Heavens in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses’, Collins and Fishbane (eds.), Death, Ecstasy and Other Worldly Journeys, 57–93. –, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism, Leiden: Brill, 2000. Collins, J. J. ‘Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre’, Semeia 14 (1979), 1– 20. –, ‘The Jewish Apocalypses’, Semeia 14 (1979), 21–59. –, ‘Genre, Ideology and Social Movements in Jewish Apocalypticism’, in Collins and Charlesworth (eds.), Mysteries and Revelations, 11–32. –, Jerusalem and the Temple in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature of the Second Temple Period, International Rennert Guest Lecture Series 1, Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University (1998), 1–31. –, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, Second Edition, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –, ‘The Angelic Life’, in Seim and Økland (eds.), Metamorphoses, 291–310. Collins, J. J. and J. H. Charlesworth (eds.), Mysteries and Revelations: Apocalyptic Studies Since the Uppsala Colloquium, JSPSup 9, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Collins, J. J. and M. Fishbane (eds.), Death, Ecstasy and Other Worldly Journeys, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. Comfort, P. W. and D. P. Barrett (eds.), A Corrected, Enlarged Edition of The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers Inc., 2001.

Bibliography

291

Cotterell, P. and M. Turner, Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation, Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 1989. Craigie, P. C. and M. E. Tate, Psalms 1–50, Second Edition, Word Biblical Commentary 19, Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2004. Crapanzano, V. ‘Spirit Possession: An Overview’, in L. Jones (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion, Second Edition, Vol. 13; Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005, 8687–94. Cullmann, O. The Christology of the New Testament, trans. S. C. Guthrie and C. A. M. Hall, Second Edition, London: SCM Press, 1963. Dahl, N. A. ‘A New and Living Way: The Approach to God According to Hebrews 10.19–25’, Int 5 (1951), 401–12. Daly, R. J. ‘A Review of Craig R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament, CBQMS 22, Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1989’, CBQ 54 (1992), 356–57. Daly-Denton, M. ‘Going Beyond the Genially Open “cf.”: Intertextual Reference to the Old Testament in the New’, Milltown Studies 44 (1999), 48–60. Davies, S. L. Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance, and the Origins of Christianity, London: SCM, 1995. Davila, J. R. ‘Heavenly Ascents in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, 2 vols., Leiden: Brill, 1999, 2:461–85. –, ‘Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron: Introductory Reflections on Divine Mediators and the Origins of the Worship of Jesus’, in Newman, Davila and Lewis (eds.), Jewish Roots, 3–18. –, ‘Dead Sea Scrolls and Merkavah Mysticism’, in T. H. Lim, L. W. Hurtado, A. G. Auld and A. Jack (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000, 249–64. –, Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Liturgical Works, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2000. –, Descenders to the Chariot: The People behind the Hekhalot Literature, JSJSup 70, Leiden: Brill, 2001. –, (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers From an International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001, Boston, Massachusetts: Brill, 2002. –, ‘Melchizedek, the “Youth,” and Jesus’, in Davila (ed.), Dead Sea Scrolls as Background, 248–74. –, ‘The Macrocosmic Temple, Scriptural Exegesis and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice’, DSD 9 (2002), 1–19. –, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other?, Leiden: Brill, 2005. –, ‘The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha as Background to the New Testament’, ExpTim 117.2 (2005), 53–57. –, ‘The Ancient Jewish Apocalypses and the Hekhalot Literature’, in DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now, 105–25. –, ‘Exploring the Mystical Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in Lim and Collins (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 433–54. Dean-Otting, M. Heavenly Journeys: A Study of the Motif in Hellenistic Jewish Literature, Judentum und Umwelt 8, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1984. DeConick, A. D. Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas, VCSup 33, Leiden: Brill, 1996.

292

Bibliography

–, Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature, JSNTSup 157, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. –, (ed.), Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism, SBLSS 11, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. –, ‘What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism?’, in DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now, 1–24. –, ‘Jesus Revealed: The Dynamics of Early Christian Mysticism’, in Arbel and Orlov (eds.), With Letters of Light, 299–324. deSilva, D. A. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews”, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000. Deutsch, C. ‘The Therapeutae, Text Work, Ritual, and Mystical Experience’, in DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now, 287–311. –, ‘Visions, Mysteries, and the Interpretative Task: Text Work and Religious Experience in Philo and Clement’, in Flannery, Shantz, and Werline (eds.), Experientia, 83–103. Dey, L. K. K. Intermediate Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews, SBLDS 25, Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1975. Dillon, J. The Middle Platonists: A Study of Platonism 80 B.C. to A.D. 220, London: Duckworth, 1977. Dines, J. M. The Septuagint, London: T&T Clark, 2004. DiTommaso, L. ‘Apocalypses and Apocalypticism in Antiquity (Part I)’, CBR 5.2 (2007), 235–86. –, ‘Apocalypses and Apocalypticism in Antiquity (Part II)’, CBR 5.3 (2007), 367–432. Docherty, S. E. ‘The Text Form of the OT Citations in Hebrews Chapter 1 and the Implications for the Study of the Septuagint’, NTS 55 (2009), 355–65. –, The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation, WUNT II 260; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology, London: Nisbet, 1952. Dunn, J. D. G. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 1975. –, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, Second Edition, London: SCM Press, 1989. –, The Partings of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity, London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1991. –, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence, London: SPCK, 2010. Ebert IV, D. J. ‘The Chiastic Structure of the Prologue to Hebrews’, TJ 13 (1992), 163– 79. Eisele, W. Ein unerschütterliches Reich: Die mittelplatonische Umformung des Parusiegedankens im Hebräerbrief, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. Eisenbaum, P. M. ‘Locating Hebrews within the Literary Landscape of Christian Origins’, in Gelardini (ed.), Contemporary Methods, 213–37. Elgvin, T. ‘Jewish Christian Editing of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha’, in Skarsaune and Hvalvik (eds.), Jewish Belivers in Jesus, 278–304. –, ‘From the Earthly to the Heavenly Temple: Lines from the Bible and Qumran to Hebrews and Revelation’, in C. A. Evans (ed.), The World of Jesus and the Early Church: Identity and Interpretation in Early Communities of Faith, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2011, 23–36.

Bibliography

293

Ellingworth, P. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1993. Elior, R. ‘From Earthly Temple to Heavenly Shrines: Prayer and Sacred Song in the Hekhalot Literature and its Relation to Temple Traditions’, JSQ 4 (1997), 217–67. –, The Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism, trans. D. Louvish, Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004. –, ‘The Emergence of the Mystical Traditions of the Merkabah’, in DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now, 83–103. Emmrich, M. ‘Hebrews 6:4–6 – Again! (A Pneumatological Inquiry)’, WTJ 65 (2003), 83–95. Engberg-Pedersen, T. ‘The Construction of Religious Experience in Paul’, in Flannery, Shantz, and Werline (eds.), Experientia, 147–57. Enns, P. ‘The Interpretation of Psalm 95 in Hebrews 3.1–4.13’, in Evans and Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation, 352–63. Eskola, T. Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse, WUNT II 142, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Esler, P. F. ‘Collective Memory and Hebrews 11: Outlining a New Investigative Framework’, in A. Kirk and T. Thatcher (eds.), Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, Semeia Studies 52, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005, 151–71. Evans, C. A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005. Evans, C. A. and J. A. Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, JSNTSS 148, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Evans, C. A. and S. E. Porter (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament Background, Downers Grove, Illinois; Leicester, England: IVP, 2000. Fallon, F. T. ‘The Gnostic Apocalypses’, Semeia 14 (1979), 123–58. Fernández Marcos, N. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible, trans. W. G. E. Watson, Leiden: Brill, 2000. Fiorenza, E. S. ‘Wisdom Mythology and the Christological Hymns of the New Testament’, in R. L. Wilken (ed.), Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, Notre Dame; London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975, 17–41. Flannery-Dailey, F. ‘Lessons on Early Jewish Apocalypticism and Mysticism from Dream Literature’, in DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now, 231–47. Flannery, F., C. Shantz, and R. A. Werline (eds.), Experientia, Volume 1: Inquiry into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Early Christianity, SBLSymS 40, Atlanta: SBL, 2008. Flannery, F. with N. Roddy, C. Shantz, and R. A. Werline, ‘Introduction: Religious Experience, Past and Present’, in Flannery, Shantz, and Werline (eds.), Experientia, 1– 10. Flannery, F. ‘The Body and Ritual Reconsidered, Imagined, and Experienced’, in Flannery, Shantz, and Werline (eds.), Experientia, 13–18. Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T. ‘The Worship of Divine Humanity as God’s Image and the Worship of Jesus’, in Newman, Davila and Lewis (eds.), Jewish Roots, 112–28. –, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leiden: Brill, 2002. –, ‘Alexander the Great’s Worship of the High Priest’, in Stuckenbruck and North (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, 71–102.

294

Bibliography

–, ‘Religious Experience and the Apocalypses’, in Flannery, Shantz, and Werline (eds.), Experientia, 125–44. Fossum, J. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origins of Gnosticism, WUNT 36, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. –, The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology, NTOA 30, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. –, ‘Glory’, in DDD, 348–52. France, R. T. ‘The Writer of Hebrews as a Biblical Expositor’, TynBul 47.2 (1996), 245– 76. Gäbel, G. Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie, WUNT II 212, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. –, ‘Rivals in Heaven: Angels in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, in Reiterer, Nicklas and Schöpflin (eds.), Angels, 357–76. Gärtner, B. E. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament, SNTSMS 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Gathercole, S. J. The Pre-existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2006. Gelardini, G. (ed.), Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005. –, ‘Hebrews, An Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha be-Av: its Function, its Basis, its Theological Interpretation’, in Gelardini (ed.), Contemporary Methods, 107–27. Gheorghita, R. The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews: An Investigation of its Influence with Special Consideration to the Use of Hab 2:3–4 in Heb 10:37–38, WUNT II 160, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Gieschen, C. A. ‘The Different Functions of a Similar Melchizedek Tradition in 2 Enoch and the Epistle to the Hebrews’, in Evans and Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation, 364–79. –, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, AGJU 42, Leiden: Brill, 1998. –, ‘Baptismal Praxis and Mystical Experience in the Book of Revelation’, in DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now, 341–54. –, ‘The Name of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch’, in Boccaccini (ed.), Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 238–49. Glasson, T. F. ‘The Plurality of Divine Persons’ and the Quotations in Hebrews I. 6ff.’, NTS 12 (1965–66), 270–2. Gleason, R. C. ‘Angels and the Eschatology of Heb 1–2’, NTS 49 (2003), 90–107. Gooder, P. R. Only the Third Heaven? 2 Corinthians 12:1–10 and Heavenly Ascent, LNTS 313, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Goulder, M. ‘Hebrews and the Ebionites’, NTS 49 (2003), 393–406. Griffith-Jones, R. ‘Transformation by a Text: The Gospel of John’, in Flannery, Shantz and Werline (eds.), Experientia, 105–23. –, ‘Apocalyptic Mystagogy: Rebirth-from-above in the Reception of John’s Gospel’, forthcoming. Gruenwald, I. Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, AGJU 14, Leiden: Brill, 1980. Guthrie, G. H. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, NovTSupp 73, Leiden: Brill, 1994. –, ‘Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research’, CBR 1.2 (2003), 271–94.

Bibliography

295

–, ‘Hebrews in its First-Century Contexts: Recent Research’, in S. McKnight and G. R. Osbourne (eds.), The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004, 414–43. Haber, S. ‘Common Judaism, Common Synagogue? Purity, Holiness, and Sacred Space at the Turn of the Common Era’, in McCready and Reinhartz (eds.), Common Judaism, 63–77. Hagen, J. L. ‘No longer “Slavonic” Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia’, in A. Orlov, G. Boccaccini, and J. Zurawski (eds.), New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only, Leiden: Brill, 2012, forthcoming. Hall, R. G. ‘The Reader as Apocalyptist in the Gospel of John’, forthcoming. Halperin, D. J. Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision, TSAJ 16, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988. –, ‘Ascension or Invasion: Implications of the Heavenly Journey in Ancient Judaism’, Religion 18 (1988), 47–67. Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. ‘The Temple and the Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic’, VT 20.1 (1970), 1–15. Hannah, D. D. Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity, WUNT II 109, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. –, ‘The Throne of His Glory: The Divine Throne and Heavenly Mediators in Revelation and the Similitudes of Enoch’, ZNW 94.1–2 (2003), 68–96. –, ‘The Book of Noah, The Death of Herod the Great, and the Date of the Parables of Enoch’, in Boccaccini (ed.), Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 169–77. –, ‘Guardian Angels and Angelic National Patrons in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity’, in Reiterer, Nicklas and Schöpflin (eds.), Angels, 413–35. Harlow, D. C. The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch) in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity, SVTP 12, Leiden: Brill, 1996. Harrington, D. J. SJ, What Are They Saying about the Letter to the Hebrews, New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2005. Harrington, H. K. The Purity Texts, Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 5, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Harris, M. J. ‘The Translation of Elohim in Psalm 45:7–8’, TynBul 35 (1984), 65–89. –, ‘The Translation and Significance of N?É PDN I in Hebrews 1:8–9’, TynBul 36 (1985), 129–62. –, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005. Hartenstein, F. ‘Cherubim and Seraphim in the Bible and in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources’, in Reiterer, Nicklas, and Schöpflin (eds.), Angels, 155–88. Hay, D. M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, SBLMS 18, Atlanta, Georgia: SBL, 1973. Hellholm, D. ‘The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John’, Semeia 36 (1986), 13–64. Hengel, M. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period, trans. J. Bowden, 2 vols., London: SCM Press, 1974. –, Studies in Early Christology, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. Héring, J. The Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock, London: Epworth, 1970. Himmelfarb, M. ‘The Experience of the Visionary and Genre in the Ascension of Isaiah 6–11 and the Apocalypse of Paul’, Semeia 36 (1986), 97–111. –, ‘Heavenly Ascent and the Relationship of the Apocalypses and the Hekhalot Literature’, HUCA 59 (1988), 73–100.

296

Bibliography

–, ‘The Temple and the Garden of Eden in Ezekiel, the Book of the Watchers, and the Wisdom of ben Sira’, in J. Scott and P. Simpson-Housley (eds.), Sacred Places and Profane Spaces: Essays in the Geographics of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York: Greenwood Press, 1991, 63–78. –, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. –, ‘The Practice of Ascent in the Ancient Mediterranean World’, in Collins and Fishbane (eds.), Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys, 121–37. Hofius, O. Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief, WUNT 11, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1970. –, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 6,19f. und 10,19f., WUNT 14, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972. Hollander, H. W. and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, Leiden: Brill, 1985. Horbury, W. ‘The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, JSNT 19 (1983), 43–71. –, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, London: SCM Press, 1998. Horton, F. L., Jr. The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and the Epistle to the Hebrews, SNTSMS 30, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Hughes, P. E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1977. Hurst, L. D. ‘How “Platonic” are Heb. viii.5 and ix.23f.?’ JTS 34 (1983), 156–68. –, ‘Eschatology and “Platonism” in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, SBLSP 23 (1984), 41– 74. –, ‘The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2’, in L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (eds.), The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird, Oxford: Clarendon, 1987, 151–164. –, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought, SNTSMS 65, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Hurtado, L. W. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, Second Edition, Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd, 1998. –, ‘The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship’, in Newman, Davila and Lewis (eds.), Jewish Roots, 188–213. –, At the Origins of Christian Worship: The Context and Character of Earliest Christian Devotion, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999. –, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2003. –, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2005. Idel, M. Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism, London: Continuum, 2007. Isaacs, M. E. Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, JSNTSup 73, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Janowitz, N. The Poetics of Ascent: Theories of Language in a Rabbinic Ascent Text, Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1989. Jipp, J. W. ‘The Son’s Entrance into the Heavenly World: The Soteriological Necessity of the Scriptural Catena in Hebrews 1.5–14’, NTS 56 (2010), 557–75. Johnson, L. T. Religious Experience in Earliest Christianity: A Missing Dimension in New Testament Studies, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.

Bibliography

297

–, Hebrews: A Commentary, New Testament Library, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Johnsson, W. G. ‘The Heavenly Sanctuary – Figurative or Real?’, in F. B. Holbrook (ed.), Issues in the Book of Hebrews, Maryland: Review and Herald Publishing, 1989, 35–51. Jonge, M. de, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve, SVTP 18, Leiden: Brill, 2003. Joyce, P. M. ‘Ezekiel 40–42: The Earliest “Heavenly Ascent” Narrative?’, in H. J. de Jonge and J. Tromp (eds.), The Book of Ezekiel and its Influence, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2007, 17–41. Kanagaraj, J. J. ‘Mysticism’ in the Gospel of John, JSNTSup 158, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Käsemann, E. ‘The Beginnings of Christian Theology’, JTC 6 (1969), 17–46. –, The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews, trans. R. A. Harrisville and I. L. Sandberg, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Keel, O. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, trans. T. J. Hallett, London: SPCK, 1978. Kistemaker, S. The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Amsterdam: van Soest, 1961. Koester, C. R. The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament, CBQMS 22, Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1989. –, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York: Doubleday, 2001. Knibb, M. A. ‘The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review’, NTS 25 (1978/79), 345–59. Reprinted in Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions, 143–60. –, Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions, SVTP 22, Leiden: Brill, 2009. Kobelski, P. J. Melchizedek and Melchireša c, CBQMS 10, Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981. Kraft, R. A. ‘The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity’, in J. C. Reeves (ed.), Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, SBLEJL 6, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994, 55–86. –, ‘The Pseudepigrapha and Christianity Revisited: Setting the Stage and Framing Some Central Questions’, JSJ 32 (2001), 371–95. Kugler, R. A. From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition From Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi, Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1996. Kulik, A. Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha: Toward the Original of the Apocalypse of Abraham, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. –, 3 Baruch: Greek-Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature, Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. Laansma, J. ‘I Will Give You Rest’ The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4, WUNT II 98, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Lane, W. L. Hebrews 1–8; 9–13, 2 vols., Word Biblical Commentary 47, Dallas: Word Books, 1991. Leithart, P. J. ‘Womb of the World: Baptism and the Priesthood of the New Covenant in Hebrews 10.19–22’, JSNT 78 (2000), 49–65.

298

Bibliography

Leschert, D. F. Hermeneutical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some Core Citations from the Psalms, National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Dissertation Series 10. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1994. Levinsohn, S. H. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek, Second Edition, Dallas, Texas: SIL International, 2000. Lewis, S. M. What Are They Saying about New Testament Apocalyptic?, New York; Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 2004. Lim, T. H. and J. J. Collins (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Lincoln, A. T. Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to his Eschatology, SNTSMS 43, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. –, ‘Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in the New Testament’, in D. A. Carson (ed.), From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1982, 197–220. Lindars, B. The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Loader, W. R. G. Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes, WMANT 53, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981. Löhr, H. ‘Thronversammlung und preisender Tempel. Beobachtungen am himmlischen Heiligtum im Hebräerbrief und in den Sabbatopferliedern aus Qumran’, in M. Hengel und A. M. Schwemer (eds.), Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt, WUNT 55, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991, 185–205. Longenecker, R. N. The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, London: SCM Press, 1970. –, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1975. Louw, J. P. and E. A. Nida (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, Second Edition, New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. Macaskill, G. Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 115, Leiden: Brill, 2007. Mach, M. ‘From Apocalypticism to Early Jewish Mysticism’, in J. J. Collins (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism: Volume 1: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, New York: Continuum, 1998, 229–64. Mackay, C. ‘The Argument of Hebrews’, CQR 168 (1967), 325–38. Mackie, S. D. Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews, WUNT II 223, Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2007. –, ‘Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews’, NTS 53 (2007), 114–29. –, ‘Confession of the Son of God in the Exordium of Hebrews’, JSNT 30 (2008), 437–53. –, ‘Heavenly Sanctuary Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, JTS 62 (2011), 77– 117. –, ‘Ancient Jewish Mystical Motifs in Hebrews’ Theology of Access and Entry Exhortations’, NTS 58 (2012), 88–104. –, ‘Early Christian Eschatological Experience in the Warnings and Exhortations of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, TynBul 63.1 (2012), 93–114.

Bibliography

299

MacRae, G. ‘Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews’, Semeia 12 (1978), 179–99. Magness, J. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002. Mason, E. F. ‘You Are a Priest Forever’: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, STDJ 74, Leiden: Brill, 2008. Mathewson, D. ‘Reading Heb 6:4–6 in Light of the Old Testament’, WTJ 61 (1999), 209– 25. McCready, W. O. and A. Reinhartz (eds.), Common Judaism: Explorations in Second Temple Judaism, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. McCullough, J. C. ‘The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews’, NTS 26 (1980), 363–79. McDonough, S. M. Christ as Creator: Origins of a New Testament Doctrine, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. McGinn, B. The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism: Vol. I. The Foundations of Mysticism: Origins to the Fifth Century, New York: Crossroad, 1992. McLay, T. R. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2003. McRay, J. ‘Atonement and Apocalyptic in the Book of Hebrews’, ResQ 23 (1980), 1–9. Meeks, W. A. ‘Judaism, Hellenism, and the Birth of Christianity’, in T. EngbergPedersen (ed.), Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001, 17–27. Meier, J. P. ‘Structure and Theology in Heb 1, 1–14’, Biblica 66 (1985), 168–189. –, ‘Symmetry and Theology in the OT Citations of Heb 1, 5–14’, Biblica 66 (1985), 504– 533. Ménégoz, E. La Théologie de l’Épître aux Hébreux, Paris: Fischbacher, 1894. Merkur, D. ‘The Visionary Practices of Jewish Apocalyptists’, in L. B. Boyer and S. A. Gralnick (eds.), The Psychoanalytic Study of Society, Vol. 14, Hillsdale: The Analytic Press, 1989, 119–48 (reprinted in J. H. Ellens and W. G. Rollins, Psychology and the Bible, Vol. 2, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2004, 317–47). –, ‘Cultivating Visions through Exegetical Meditations’, in Arbel and Orlov (eds.), With Letters of Light, 62–91. Mettinger, T. N. D. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies, trans. F. H. Cryer, Lund: Gleerup, 1982. Metzger, B. M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, London: United Bible Societies, 1994. Michaels, J. R. ‘Hebrews’, in L. Belleville, J. C. Laansma, and J. R. Michaels, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 17: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 2009, 303–478. Michel, O. Der Brief an die Hebräer, KEK 13, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957. Milligan, G. The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899. Mitchell, A. C. Hebrews, Sacra Pagina 13, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2007. Mitchell, M. M. Paul, the Corinthians and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Moffatt, J. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, ICC, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924. Moffitt, D. M. ‘“If Another Priest Arises”: Jesus’ Resurrection and the High Priestly Christology of Hebrews’, in Bauckham, Driver, Hart and MacDonald (eds.), A Cloud of Witnesses, 68–79. Montefiore, H. The Epistle to the Hebrews, London: A&C Black, 1964.

300

Bibliography

Morray-Jones, C. R. A. ‘Transformational Mysticism in the Apocalyptic-Merkabah Tradition’, JJS 43 (1992), 1–31. –, ‘Paradise Revisited (2 Cor. 12:1–12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate: Part 1: The Jewish Sources’, HTR 86.2 (1993), 177–217. Reprinted, revised and expanded in Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 341–79. –, ‘Paradise Revisited (2 Cor. 12:1–12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate: Part 2: Paul’s Heavenly Ascent and Its Significance’, HTR 86.3 (1993), 265–92. Reprinted, revised and expanded in Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 379–419. –, ‘The Temple Within’, in DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now, 145–78. Reprinted in Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 303–39. Motyer, S. ‘The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-Free Zone?’, TynBul 50.1 (1999), 3–22. –, ‘The Temple in Hebrews: Is it There?’, in Alexander and Gathercole (eds.), Heaven on Earth, 177–89. Moule, C. F. D. The Birth of the New Testament, Second Edition, London: Black, 1966. Moulton, J. H. and W. F. Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Volume II: Accidence and Word Formation, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956. Moyise, S. ‘Does the NT Quote the OT Out of Context?’, Anvil 11.2 (1994), 133–43. –, ‘Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament’, in S. Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North, JSNTSS 189, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000, 14–41. –, Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Newman, C. C. Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric, Leiden: Brill, 1992. –, ‘Glory’, DLNT, 394–400. Newman, C. C., J. R. Davila and G. S. Lewis (eds.), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, JSJSup 63, Leiden: Brill, 1999. Newsom, C. A. ‘Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice’, DNTB, 1137–39. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. ‘Enoch, Levi and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee’, JBL 100 (1981), 575–600. –, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. –, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, Second Edition, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. and J. J. Collins (eds.), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, SBLSCS 12, Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1980. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. and J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 37–82, Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Nida, E. A., J. P. Louw, A. H. Snyman and J. v. W. Cronje, Style and Discourse with Special Reference to the Text of the Greek New Testament, Cape Town: Bible Society, 1983. Niditch, S. ‘The Visionary’, in Nickelsburg and Collins (eds.), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism, 153–79. Nongbri, B. ‘A Touch of Condemnation in a Word of Exhortation: Apocalyptic Language and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric in Hebrews 6:4–12’, NovT 45 (2003), 265–79. North, J. L. ‘Jesus and Worship, God and Sacrifice’, in Stuckenbruck and North (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, 186–202.

Bibliography

301

O’Brien, P. T. The Epistle to the Philippians, NIGTC, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1991. –, The Letter to the Hebrews, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans; Apollos, 2010. Orlov, A. ‘The Celestial Choirmaster: The Liturgical Role of Enoch-Metatron in 2 Enoch and the Merkabah Tradition’, JSP 14.1 (2004), 3–29. –, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, TSAJ 107, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. –, ‘God’s Face in the Enochic Tradition’, in DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now, 179–93. Ounsworth, R. J. /QN CQNLNIÉT?ODQÉG?LVMÉDHURGKPDMÉ5)GRNTI (Hebrews 6.20): The Soteriology of Christ’s Entry into the Heavenly Sanctuary in Relation to Joshua’s Entry into the Promised Land, University of Oxford, DPhil thesis, 2010. Peerbolte, B. J. L. ‘Paul’s Rapture: 2 Corinthians 12:2–4 and the Language of the Mystics’, in Flannery, Shantz, and Werline (eds.), Experientia, 159–76. –, ‘Jewish Monotheism and Christian Origins’, in A Houtman, A. de Jong and M. Missetvan de Weg (eds.), Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst, AGJU 73, Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008, 227– 46. Peterson, D. Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’, SNTSMS 47, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Pietersma, A. ‘Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original LXX’, in A. Pietersma and C. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Ontario: Benben Publications, 1984, 85–101. Porter, S. E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. –, ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology’, in Evans and Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation, 79– 96. Rasell, M. Exploring the Heavenly Sanctuary: Understanding Seventh-Day Adventist Theology, Milton Keynes: AuthorHouse, 2009. Reiterer, F. V., T. Nicklas and K. Schöpflin (eds.), Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2007, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. Riley, G. J. ‘Devil’, DDD, 244–49. Robinson, J. A. T. Redating the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 1976. Robinson, S. E. ‘Apocalypse of Abraham’, DNTB, 37–39. –, ‘Apocalypse of Zephaniah’, DNTB, 39–40. Rowland, C. ‘The Visions of God in Apocalyptic Literature’, JSJ 10 (1979), 137–54. –, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity, New York: Crossroad, 1982. –, ‘Apocalyptic Visions and the Exaltation of Christ in the Letter to the Colossians’, JSNT 19 (1983), 73–83. –, ‘Apocalyptic Literature’, in D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, 170–89. –, ‘Apocalyptic, Mysticism, and the New Testament’, in H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and P. Schäfer (eds.), Geschichte Tradition Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, 3 vols., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996, 1:405–30. –, Christian Origins: The Setting and Character of the Most Important Messianic Sect of Judaism, Second Edition, London: SPCK, 2002.

302

Bibliography

–, ‘Apocalypse, Prophecy and the New Testament’, in L. L. Grabbe and R. D. Haak (eds.), Knowing the End From the Beginning: the Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and their Relationships, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2003, 149–66. Rowland, C. with P. Gibbons and V. Dobroruka, ‘Visionary Experience in Ancient Judaism and Christianity’, in DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now, 41–56. Rowland, C. and C. R. A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, CRINT 12; Leiden: Brill, 2009. Ruis-Camps, J. and J. Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition. Vol. 2, Acts 6:1–12:28: From Judea and Samaria to the Church in Antioch, LNTS 302, New York; London: T&T Clark, 2006. Runge, S. E. A Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis, Logos Research Systems inc., 2010. Sanders, E. P. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies, London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990. Sandmel, S. ‘Parallelomania’, JBL 81.1 (1962), 1–13. Schäfer, P. ‘New Testament and Hekhalot Literature: The Journey into Heaven in Paul and in Merkavah Mysticism’, JJS 35 (1984), 19–35. –, The Hidden and Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism, trans. Aubrey Pomerance, Albany: State University of New York, 1992. –, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Schenck, K. L. ‘Keeping His Appointment: Creation and Enthronement in Hebrews’, JSNT 66 (1997), 91–117. –, ‘A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1’, JBL 120.3 (2001), 469–85. –, ‘Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews: Ronald Williamson’s Study after Thirty Years’, SPhilo 14 (2002), 112–35. –, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. –, ‘The Archaeology of Hebrews’ Tabernacle Imagery’, SBL 2005 Annual Meeting, 1–25. Online: http://kenschenck.com/Hebrewsarchaeology.pdf (accessed July 2012). –, Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice, SNTSMS 143, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Schenke, H.-M. ‘Erwägungen zum Rätsel des Hebräerbriefes’, in H. D. Betz and L. Schotroff (hrsg.), Neues Testament und christliche Existenz: Festschrift für Herbert Braun zum 70. Geburtstag am 4. Mai 1973, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973, 421–37. Schneider, C. ‘Q?@ ACNIÉQ?@ACH YVÉQ?@ACNTBNI’, TDNT VI: 966–71. Scholem, G. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, New York: Schocken, 1961. Scholer, J. M. Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews, JSNTSup 49, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Schreiber, S. ‘The Great Opponent: The Devil in Early Jewish and Formative Christian Literature’, in Reiterer, Nicklas, and Schöpflin (eds.), Angels, 437–57. Segal, A. F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, Leiden: Brill, 1977. –, ‘Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and their Environments’, ANRW II.23.2 (1980), 1333–94. –, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. –, ‘The Afterlife as Mirror of the Self’, in Flannery, Shantz, and Werline, Experientia, 19–40.

Bibliography

303

Seim, T. K. and J. Økland (eds.), Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity, Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. Shantz, C. Paul in Ecstasy: The Neurobiology of the Apostle’s Life and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. She, K. L. The Use of Exodus in Hebrews, Studies in Biblical Literature 142, New York: Peter Lang, 2011. Skarsaune, O. and R. Hvalvik (eds.), Jewish Belivers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2007. Skehan, P. W. ‘A Fragment of the “Song of Moses” (Deut. 32) from Qumran’, BASOR 136 (1954), 12–15. Smith, I. K. Heavenly Perspective: A Study of the Apostle Paul’s Response to a Jewish Mystical Movement at Colossae, LNTS 326, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Smith, J. Z. ‘The Prayer of Joseph’, in J. Neusner (ed.), Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, SHR 14, Leiden: Brill, 1968, 253–94. Son, K. Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18–24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle, Paternoster Biblical Monographs, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005. Sowers, S. G. The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews: A Comparison of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Philo Judaeus and the Epistle to the Hebrews, Richmond: John Knox, 1965. Spicq, C. L’Épître aux Hébreux, 2 vols., Ébib, Paris: Gabalda, 1952–53. –, ‘L’Épître aux Hébreux, Apollos, Jean-Baptiste, les Hellénistes et Qumrân’, RevQ 1 (1959), 365–90. Steenburg, D. ‘The Worship of Adam and Christ as the Image of God’, JSNT 39 (1990), 95–109. Sterling, G. E. ‘Ontology versus Eschatology: Tensions between the Author and Community in Hebrews’, SPhilo 13 (2001), 190–211. Steyn, G. J. and D. J Human (eds.), Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception, New York; London: T&T Clark, 2010. Steyn, G. J. A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews, Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Stone, M. E. ‘Apocalyptic, Vision, or Hallucination?’, Milla Wa Milla 14 (1974), 47–56. –, ‘Enoch, Aramaic Levi and Sectarian Origins’, JSJ 19.2 (1988), 159–70. –, Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. –, ‘A Reconsideration of Apocalyptic Visions’, HTR 96.2 (2003), 167–80. –, ‘The City in 4 Ezra’, JBL 126.2 (2007), 402–407. Stökl, D. ‘Yom Kippur in the Apocalyptic Imaginaire and the Roots of Jesus’ High Priesthood’, in J. Assmann and G. G. Stroumsa (eds.), Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions, Leiden: Brill, 1999, 349–66. –, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity, WUNT 163, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Strachan, R. H. The Authority of Christian Experience: A Study in the Basis of Religious Authority, London: Edinburgh Press, 1929. Stroumsa, G. G. ‘Mystical Descents’, in Collins and Fishbane (eds.), Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys, 139–54. Stuckenbruck, L. T. Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Apocalypse of John, WUNT II 70, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. –, ‘Worship and Monotheism in the Ascension of Isaiah’, in Newman, Davila and Lewis (eds.), Jewish Roots, 70–89. –, ‘Angels of the Nations’, DNTB, 29–31.

304

Bibliography

–, ‘“Angels” and “God”: Exploring the Limits of Early Jewish Monotheism’, in Stuckenbruck and North (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, 45–70. Stuckenbruck, L. T. and W. E. S. North (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. Sullivan, K. P. Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament, AGJU 55, Leiden: Brill, 2004. Svendsen, S. N. Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews, WUNT II 269, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Swartz, M. D. Mystical Prayer in Ancient Judaism: An Analysis of Ma’aseh Merkavah, TSAJ 28, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Swetnam, J. ‘Jesus as +N FNI in Hebrews 4,12–13’, Biblica 62 (1981), 214–24. –, ‘Another Note on +N FNI as Christ in Hebrews 4,12–13’, Filología Neotestamentaria 18 (2005), 129–34. Synge, F. C. Hebrews and the Scriptures, London: SPCK, 1959. Tabor, J. D. ‘Heaven, Ascent to’, ABD 3:91–94. Tate, M. E. Psalms 51–100, Word Biblical Commentary 20, Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1990. Thomas, K. J. ‘The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews’, NTS 11 (1964–65), 303–25. Thompson, J. W. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews, CBQMS 13, Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1982. –, Hebrews, Paideia, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008. Toorn, K. van der, B. Becking and P. W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Second Edition, Leiden; Boston: Brill; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999. Turner, M. The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts Then and Now, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996. Turner, N. A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Volume III: Syntax, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963. Ulrichsen, J. H. ‘$H@ENQV SDQNMÉ NMNL@ in Hebr. 1,4: Christus als Träger des Gottesnamens’, ST 38 (1984), 65–75. VanderKam, J. C. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, CBQMS 16, Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984. –, ‘Jubilees and the Priestly Messiah of Qumran’, RevQ 13 (1988), 353–65. –, Enoch: A Man for All Generations, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995. VanderKam, J. C. and W. Adler (eds.), The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, CRINT 3.4, Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Vanhoye, A. Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Susidia Biblica 12, Roma: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1989. Wallace, D. B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996. Walton, J. H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, Nottingham: Apollos, 2007. Walton, S. ‘A Tale of Two Perspectives? The Place of the Temple in Acts’, in Alexander and Gathercole (eds.), Heaven on Earth, 135–49. Wasserstrom, S. M. ‘The Medium of the Divine’, in Flannery, Shantz, and Werline (eds.), Experientia, 75–82.

Bibliography

305

Webster, J. ‘One Who Is Son: Theological Reflections on the Exordium to the Epistle to the Hebrews’, in Bauckham, Driver, Hart and MacDonald (eds.), Epistle to the Hebrews, 69–94. Weima, J. A. D. ‘Letters, Greco-Roman’, DNTB, 640–644. Weiss, H.-F. Der Brief an die Hebräer, KEK 13, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Wenham, G. J. Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary 1, Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987. Werline, R. A. ‘The Experience of Prayer and Resistance to Demonic Powers in the Gospel of Mark’, in Flannery, Shantz, and Werline (eds.), Experientia, 59–71. Westcott, B. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays, Second Edition, London; New York: Macmillan and Co., 1892. Westfall, C. L. A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning, LNTS 297, London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2005. Wickham, E. C. The Epistle to the Hebrews, Westminster Commentaries, Second Edition, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1922. Wilckens, U. ‘B@Q@JSG Q’, TDNT IX: 418–19. Williams, C. H. I am He: The Interpretation of ‘Anî Hû’ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, WUNT II 113, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Williamson, R. ‘Platonism and Hebrews’, SJT 16 (1963), 415–24. –, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, ALGHJ 4, Leiden: Brill, 1970. –, ‘The Background of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, ExpTim 87 (1976), 232–37. Wills, L. ‘The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity’, HTR 77:3–4 (1984), 277–99. Witherington III, B. Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Worten, M. and J. Still (eds.), Intertextuality: Theories and Practices, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990. Wright, J. E. The Early History of Heaven, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God, London: SPCK, 2003. Wright, T. J. ‘The Seal of Approval: An Interpretation of the Son’s Sustaining Action in Hebrews 1:3’, in Bauckham, Driver, Hart and MacDonald (eds.), Epistle to the Hebrews, 140–48. Young, N. H. ‘The Gospel According to Hebrews 9’, NTS 27 (1981), 198–210. Zerwick S.J., M, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, English Edition adapted from the fourth Latin Edition by J. Smith S.J., Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 114, Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1963. Zissu, B. and D. Amit, ‘Common Judaism, Common Purity, and the Second Temple Period Miqwa’ot (Ritual Immersion Baths)’, in McCready and Reinhartz (eds.), Common Judaism, 47–62. Zuntz, G. The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition Upon the Corpus Paulinum, London: Oxford University Press, 1953.





Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Genesis 1:1 2:2 5:18–24 5:23 5:24 6:1–4 11:1–9 12 14 15 16:7–14 18:1–19:1 31:35 42:36 44:18

232 180, 181 63 35 65, 260–62 34, 160, 161 63 41 120, 128 41 164, 165 164 263 261 263

Exodus 3:2–16 3:14 12:23 15:8 15:11 16:4 16:9 16:10 16:15 20:1–6 21:12–14 23:20–21 23:20–22 23:20–23 23:21 23:22 24:1–2 24:6–8 24:10–16 24:16 24:16–17

164 232 157 176 258 190 186 186 190 248 121 164 281 135 136, 165 165 187 196 187 80 155

25:8 25:8–22 25:8–9 25:9

107 52, 99 88, 94 59, 60, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102, 107 25:17–22 145 25:31–40 142 25:40 7, 8, 59, 90, 91, 94, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102 26:1 57, 93 26:30 59, 96 26:31 57 26:31–32 107 26:31–35 116 26:33 107 26:36–37 107 27:8 59 27:9–17 107 27:16 107 28:4 135, 142 28:36 170 28:36–37 135 28:40 135 28:41 140 29:4 196 29:6 135 29:7 140 29:9 135 29:21 140, 196 29:30 93 31:3 176 32:25–29 127 33:14 181 33:18–20 162 33:18–34:8 155 33:19 162 33:20 78 34:29 81 35:2 181

308

Index of Ancient Sources

35:32–35 36:8 36:35 36:35–36 36:37–38 38:10–19 39:30–31 40:26 40:30–32 40:34–35

107 57 57, 135 107 107 107 135 99 196, 199 151

Leviticus 1:1 4:6 4:17 5:9 8:6 8:9 8:12 8:13 8:15 8:23 8:30 9:7–8 10:4 12:4 13:28 14:9 15:11 15:13 15:16 15:21 15:27 16 16:2 16:4 16:8–10 16:10 16:14–15 16:14–16 16:16 16:22 16:24 16:26 16:28 16:33 16:34 17:2 18:6 19:30

93 196 196 196 196 135 140 135 207 196 140, 196 185 93 107 152 196 196 196 196 196 196 93, 116, 124 116, 145 135, 196 124 125 109 196 93 124 196 196 196 114 125, 196 138 138 183

21:17 21:18 21:21 21:23 22:5–6 22:6 26:2

185 185 185 185 196 196 183

Numbers 1:1 3:28 5:17 6:22–27 8:5–7 11:14–29 11:29 12–14 19:7–8 23:19 24:2–4 25:6–15

93 93 196 136, 207 196 176 177 180 196 232 176, 191 127

Deuteronomy 4:11–36 78 10:17 259 12:5 162 12:9–10 180 23:10–11 196 23:10–15 201 23:12 196 27:17 261 30:12 63 31:7 181 32 224, 251 32:8 73 32:8–9 74 32:43 160, 161, 219, 224, 228, 235, 247, 251, 252 33:8–11 127 Joshua 1:13 21:43–45 22:4

180 181 181

Judges 6:11–23 6:14 6:16 6:21

164 165 165 259

309

Index of Ancient Sources 13:3–22

164

1 Samuel 4:4 15:29

145 232

2 Samuel 1:16 7 7:5 7:11 7:12–13 7:13 7:14 18:28

231 137, 148, 245 163 233 163 162 219, 233 248

1 Kings 1:31 1:46 6–8 6:14–19 6:16 6:29 7:15–22 7:36 8:10 8:10–11 8:11 8:12–20 8:13 8:20 8:56 18:12 19:18 22:19

265 148 102 57 57, 107 57, 107 57, 107 107 57 80, 151 162 163 57, 107 163 181 191 248 77, 145

2 Kings 1:9–12 2:1 2:1–11 2:5 2:9 2:10 2:16 19:15 23:4 25:18

63 34, 241 261 34 34 34 191 145, 270 141 141

1 Chronicles 9:23 107

16:5 17 17:13 21:1 21:14–30 22:5 22:19 28–29 28:11 28:11–12 28:11–19 28:18 28:18–19 28:19 29:11

141 137, 233 233 263 164 163 57, 107 102 88 102 59, 90 145, 146 102 88 145

2 Chronicles 2–7 102 3:7 107 3:15–17 107 5:11 57 6:2 107 20:8 162 29:1–7 90 29:5 57 29:7 57 29:21 107 30:8 57 31:12 141 Ezra 9:8

188

Nehemiah 2:3 9:6 9:15 9:20

265 232 190 176

Esther 4:11 5:2 8:4

259 259 259

Job 1–2 1:6 1:21 2:1 7:21

263 77, 160 261 77, 160 261

310

Index of Ancient Sources

11:8 38:7

133 160

Psalms 2 2:7 2:9 3:8 8 8:4 8:6 9:7 11:4 11:7 13:4 19:9 20:1–2 22:4 22:22 23:4 27:4–6 29:1 29:10 34:6 40:7–9 45 45:7 45:7–8 82:1 82:6 89:6 89:7 89:12 89:23 93:4 95 95:7–11 96:5 97 97:7 97:9 99:3 102 102:16 102:26–28 103:19 104 104:1–2 104:4 104:24

137, 148, 219, 233, 245 131, 235 259 257 228, 264 232 258 232 52, 59 52 188 188 162 52 236 259 88 160 232 188 236 219, 227–28, 258 258, 259 227 128, 258 160, 161, 258 160 160 232 231 133 190, 228 85, 154, 180, 227, 233 269 228 228, 258 258 162 219, 228, 229–33, 265 163 229, 232, 233, 269 145 254 149 76, 254, 255 266

110 110:1 110:2 110:4 113:4–5 115:16 118:19 119:130 132 132:8 132:11–12 136:2 138:1 138:17 139:7 148:13

120, 128, 219, 228, 236 235, 269, 271–73, 276, 277 259 120, 131, 228, 272 133 63 69 188 181 181 148 259 258 257 176 162

Proverbs 3 3:19 4 8:22–31 23:10 25:3 27:8 30:4

223 266 223 122, 152, 230, 266 261 133 274 63

Isaiah 6 6:1 6:1–3 6:2 6:5 6:8 8:17–18 9:3 9:5 11:1 14:3–15 14:13–15 25:1 31:5 32:15 36:6 38:3 43:28 44–45 44:3 44:6 44:6–19

76, 79, 144, 145, 155 77 155, 249 77 68, 77, 195 81, 237 236 259 161, 246 259 63 64 162 274 177 259 195 57 269 177 232 248

311

Index of Ancient Sources 44:24 45:14 49:7 52:13–15 51:9 52:6 57:15 59:19 60:1 60:19 63:10–14 66:1 66:12

232 248, 251 251 251 236 232 133 274 188 188 176 181 274

Jeremiah 10:11–13 10:12 31:31–34 31:33 31:33–34 48:17

232 266 91, 227, 228 196 189 259

Lamentations 5:19 232 Ezekiel 1 1:3 1:13–14 1:15–26 1:24–3:11 1:25 1:26 1:26–28 1:27–28 1:28 1:28–2:2 2:1 3:3–4 3:12 3:14 3:23 8–10 8–11 8:2 8:3 8:6 8:7 8:14

27, 115 58, 59, 76, 146, 166 81 255 270 81 237 77, 155 80, 155, 281 155 38, 68, 149, 166 237 38 192 191 191 68 146 59 166 76, 191, 241 57 241 241

8:16 9:6 10 10:5 11:1 11:22–23 11:24 19:11–14 21:31 23:38 24:16 33:4 33:6 36:24–29 36:25–26 36:25–27 37:1 39:29 40–42 40–48 40:3–48 41:20 41:21 41:22 43–48 43:1–5 43:3 43:5 44:1 44:4 44:5 44:7 44:10–16 44:16 44:18 44:27 45:3–4

241 57 58 81 191, 241 80 191, 241 259 135 183 261 261 261 176 177, 196, 197 189 191 177 57, 60 58, 59, 102, 241 107 107 57 207 57 80 68 191 107 68 107 107 140 185 135 57 114

Daniel 1–6 2:17–19 2:4 2:47 3:9 3:25 5:10 6:6 6:21 7

30, 84 30 186 265 259 265 160, 161 265 265 265 76

312

Index of Ancient Sources

7–12 7:9 7:9–10 7:10 8:16–18 8:17 9:1–27 9:3 9:21 10:3 10:5–11 10:6 10:13 10:20 10:21 12:1 12:1–3 12:3 12:8

25 77, 149, 166 77, 146 77, 208 68 195 67 207 72 207 68, 195 149 262 73, 262 73 73 208 149, 159 263

Hosea 5:10

261

Joel 3:1–5 3:5

177 162

Micah 3:8 7:8

176 188

Nahum 1:13

259

Habakkuk 2:3

230–31

Zechariah 3 3:1–2 3:1–4 3:9–10

70, 124–26 263 125 125

Malachi 2:4–7 3:6

127, 140 232

Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 30, 33, 41–42, 54, 73 8:1–2 81 9–15 58 10:1–3 81 10:3 135 10:3–8 165 10:3–15 166 10:6 135 10:8 135 11:2–3 166 11:3 135 11:5 135 12:4–10 135 13–14 124–25 13:14 158 15:1–4 135 16:3 166 16:3–4 78 17:1 78 17:1–2 81 17:1–21 166

18:1–4 18:12–14 19:1 19:4–9 19:9

78 78 78 62 73

Apocalypse of Moses 22:1–4 250 22:3 270 29:4 187 33:1–5 250 35:2 75 35:3 79, 156 37:6 241 39:1–3 146, 250 Apocalypse of Zephaniah 30, 33, 44–46, 54, 75, 77, 78, 79, 84, 191 2:1 65 2:7 64 3:2 65

313

Index of Ancient Sources 3:2–9 4:1–10 4:9 5:3 6:4–10 6:4–15 6:11 6:11–12 6:11–15 8 8:1 8:1–4 8:1–5

74 68 64, 65, 260 65, 69 195 68 149 75 248 69 65 158 69

Ascension of Isaiah 44, 54, 84, 214 6:1–17 30 6:8 77 6:10–12 191 6:10–16 210 7–9 62, 249 7:13–17 251 7:23 191 8–9 69, 71, 158 8:4–5 263 8:7 164, 170 8:16–18 251 9:1 63, 251 9:5 164, 170 9:6–42 208 9:27–10:6 251 9:37 79 11:22–33 276 Baruch 2:11

176

2 Baruch 4:1–7 4:2–5 4:2–6 4:3–6 4:4 4:5 6:3 6:6–9 6:7 9:1–2 13:3

10, 30, 33, 54, 66, 84 101, 208 10 240 59 42 97 191–92 267 99 207 67

15:7–8 21:4–7 21:6 22:1 25:1 29:8 34–40 43:2 44:2 44:8–15 46:7 48:7–10 48:8 48:10 48:30 51:1–13 51:3 51:10 51:11 51:16 54:13 55:8 56:10–14 57:2 59:4 73:1 76:2 78:5 84:1

240 268 72, 77, 255 82 67 190 186 67 67 240 67 267 255 77 67 240 149, 159 159 72, 77, 255 240 77, 267 77 161 240 10, 59, 101 181 67 67 67

3 Baruch

1–2 1:1 1:1–5 1:3–4 2–3 2:1–2 2:2 2–17 3:1 3:1–2 4:8 4:15 6–9 6:1 6:2 6:12 7:2

25, 30, 33, 48–50, 54, 66, 75, 78, 84, 263 30 276 68 65 63 65, 241 187 62 65, 241 187 263 179 72, 73, 266 65, 241 72 79 79

314 7:5 7:5–6 8:1 10:1 11–16 11:1 11:2 11:6 12–16 12:1–5 17:1–4 17:3 1 Enoch 1–36 1:1 1:1–2 1:2 1:9 3:4 5:8 6–11 6–16 6:2 7–8 8:3 9 9:1 9:1–4 9:3 9:4 9:4–5 10 12:1–2 12:3 12:4 13:6–8 13:7 13:8 14 14–15 14–16 14:3 14:5 14:8 14:8–16 14:8–23 14:8–25 14:9

Index of Ancient Sources 64, 260 68 65, 241 65, 241 75, 104, 123, 141 65, 241 69, 79, 187, 259 247, 248 74 75 65 64

30, 31, 34–35, 52, 54, 98 34 30 64, 65, 260 34 145 189 30, 161, 262 260 160 56 73 163 56, 115 58, 75 79 77, 162 72, 249, 268 124, 125 30 145 56, 64, 115, 260 186 67 160 58, 60, 104, 115, 117, 118, 155 130, 140, 280 66, 69, 280 160 64 76 15 57, 64, 117, 241 75, 281 69, 195

14:9–19 14:9–22 14:9–24 14:10–15 14:11 14:13 14:15–23 14:18 14:18–20 14:18–21 14:18–22 14:18–23 14:19 14:20 14:20–21 14:21 14:22 14:23 14:23–25 14:24 14:24–15:1 14:25 15–16 15:1 15:2 15:3 15:4–7 16:2–4 17–18 17–36 17:1 17:1–4 18:12–14 18:14 18:14–16 19:1 20:1–8 20:4 20:5 21:1–6 21:5 21:9 22:1 22:3 22:3–9 22:7 22:10–14 24:1 25:3 25:6

56 55 187 58, 59 57, 72 69, 195 58 57 77, 144, 155 80 154 281 79, 80, 156 79, 149 78, 156 69, 79, 156, 158 72, 77, 138, 157 58, 70, 75, 123 158 195, 218, 237 68, 81 75, 80, 241 81, 158 64, 70, 237, 260 75, 218 56, 115 72 218 73, 266 158 72, 255 75, 241 76 75 72 75 75 240 73 72, 76 75 75 75 75 208 43 41 75 75, 77 57

Index of Ancient Sources 27:2 32:6 33–36 33:3 33:4 36:4 37–71 37:4 39–69 39:3 39:4–5 39:4–8 39:5 39:6 39:12–13 39:14 40:1 40:2–9 40:3 40:6 41–44 41:7 43:1–2 44:1 45:2 45:3 46:1 46:1–8 46:3 47:1–4 47:2 47:3 48:1–10 48:2–5 48:5 49:2 51:3 51:4 54:1–6 55:4 56:5–6 60:1 60:1–4 60:2 60:3 60:4 60:11–22 60:14–19 60:17 61:8

75 75 73, 266 75 75 267 30, 33, 36–38, 54, 64, 147 65 75 75 181 208 58, 75 260 72, 77, 249 79, 156 72, 77, 79, 157 58 79 58, 75 266 79 72, 76 72 64 78, 146, 147, 181 166, 251 158 260 58, 144 75 77 158 152 248, 250–51 147 78, 146, 147 149 262 78, 146, 147 74 72, 157, 208 68 77, 208 195 79, 156 73 72 76, 255 78, 146, 147

61:10 62:1–9 62:2–5 62:2 62:15–16 63:2 63:2–4 64–69 69:13–25 69:13–28 69:26–29 69:27–29 70:2 71 71:2–3 71:5–6 71:5–7 71:5–9 71:7 71:8 71:9 71:10 71:11 71:11–12 71:13 71:14 71:15 71:16 72–82

315

74, 251 248, 250–51 78, 146, 147 260 69, 71, 149, 159 79 77 161 163, 266 152 158 78, 146, 147 75 58, 60, 71, 72, 75 68 55 144 58, 104 58, 77 58, 157 58, 157 78, 156, 166 69, 176 41 157 158, 218, 260 240 260 30, 31, 35–36, 40, 51, 54, 73, 75, 78–79, 266, 267 75:1 72, 267 81:3 267, 282 82:8 267, 282 82:11–12 72, 157 83–90 30, 36 85–90 31 84:2 77, 232 84:2–3 154, 232 89:40–50 88 89:59–90:19 74 89:73 15 90:28–29 14, 15, 59 91–105 31, 36, 54 91:1 176 91:11–17 30 91:17 189 92:2 189 92:5 189 93:1–10 30 93:10 189

316 93:11 98:2 101:3 102:3 104:1–6 104:2–6 104:4–6 108:11–15 108:12

Index of Ancient Sources 80 145 145 79 208 149, 159 262 149 146

2 Enoch 1a:1 1a:1–2 1a:1–6 1a:4 1:2–3 1:4–6 1:8 1:10 2:2 2:4 3–20 3–22 3–37 4–6 7:4 7:5 10:2 10:6 11–17 11:4–5 12:1 13–16 18 19:1–5 19:4–5 19:5 20:1 20:1–2 20:3 21:1 21:2 21:3–6 21:5 22 22:1 22:1–3 22:1–4

25, 30, 33, 38–41, 54, 84 65 64, 260 30, 38–39 77 68 72 65 65 73, 268 65 62 117 280 266 64, 260 70 55, 56 73, 268 72, 266 72, 255 166 40 161, 262 267, 282 73 74 55, 72, 255 68, 195 77, 252 77, 252 68, 195 68 72 69, 71, 130, 154, 280 249 138, 276 68

22:1–5 22:1–6 22:2 22:4 22:5 22:5–6 22:6–7 22:6–10 22:7 22:8–10 22:9 23:2 24:1–2 24:2–3 24:2–5 24:3 25–30 25–33 29:1–2 29:3 33:3–8 33:8 33:10 33:11–12 35:2 36:1–3 36:4 37:1–2 39 39:1–4 39:2–8 39:3–4 39:8 40:1 40:3 47:3–4 48:5 50:2 56:2 59 64:5 65:1–6 66:3–5 66:5 66:7 67:1–3 67:2 67:3 68–73

195 78, 156, 281 77, 78, 100 79, 252 38, 81, 142, 147, 218, 237 68 63 251 252 69, 70, 104, 140, 158 149 75 81, 237 267, 282 73 158, 218 266 81 56 72, 255 268, 282 73 75 74 74 65 81 81 154 138 78, 81, 156, 281 149 77 81 73, 158 268 79, 156 240 70 70 70 268 268 268 149 65 147 79 70, 129, 141

317

Index of Ancient Sources 3 Enoch 1:1 1:3 1:5–10 1:12 2:3 3–15 4:1–2 4:3 4:5–9 6:3 7–15 10 10:3 10:3–6 10:4–5 12 12–13 12–14 12:3–5 14:1–5 14:3–4 15B:1 16 16:2 17:1–8 18 18:24 25:5 33:1 35–36 35–40 35:3–4 35:6 41–42 42 42:3 45 45:1 47:2 48A:3 48C 48C:1 48C:7 48D:5

18–19, 38, 40, 169 18 70 77 249 70 158, 245, 246 246 64, 260 259 260 71 146 168 244 169 18, 69 163 135 168, 282 168 73, 267 74, 82, 254 77, 168, 246 135 267 247 77 268 77 72, 255 249 77 268 266 56 138 17, 116 18 268 236 245 246 169, 246 163

1 Esdras 4:46

145

Ezekiel the Tragedian 68–82 146 70–74 259 4 Ezra 2:42–48 3:1–36 3:13–14 4:8 5:13 6 6:1–6 6:31 6:38–55 7–8 7:26 7:26–44 7:29 7:33 7:36–38 7:50 7:75 7:88–101 7:91 7:97 7:116–26 7:120 8:1 8:20 8:20–22 8:21 8:22 8:46–62 8:47 8:52 9:10–12 9:13 9:23–10:59 9:29–37 10:25–28 10:29–59 10:38–54 10:55–57 10:58–59 14:9 14:22 14:22–25 14:40–41 14:50

25, 27, 30, 33, 54, 66, 84 208 186 43 66, 187 207 266 268 207 232 192 15 240 229 77 181 240 182 208 182 149, 159 67 193 240 232 255 77 72, 76, 255 67 67 15, 181, 208 187 240 67 187, 190 66 66 66 66 66 66 176 176 176 66

318

Index of Ancient Sources

Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 1:4 259 1:7 241 4:8–25 241 5:21 241 5:27 241 History of the Rechabites 5:4 160, 161 6:3 160 10:5 241 Joseph and Aseneth 188 8:11 187 14:9 259 15:11–12 248 22:3–8 167

49:18 49:21

88 88

Judith 4:15 10:9 12:7–9

135 69 202

Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo) 6:5–18 41 9:10 176, 191 18:5 42 22:8–9 88 27:9–10 176 Life of Adam and Eve 12–16 248, 249–250, 263 25:3 78, 138, 156

Jubilees 1:3 1:10 2:2 2:17–33 2:27 4:23–25 5:1 6:32–38 10:1–11 10:17 11–12 12:1–4 13 15:30–32 15:34 21:1 21:6 21:16 21:17–18 23 30 30:1–23 30:18 30:18–20 31:14 32:1 33:13–16 34:1–9 36:7

30, 31, 54, 84 78, 138, 156 88 73, 123, 141, 255, 256 141 187 70, 140, 280 161 36 263 64, 260 41 269 128 74 187 47 46 196, 198 47 30 46 140 75 127, 128 10, 59, 75 46, 47 187 46 163

Letter of Aristeas 98–99 135 304–6 202 1 Maccabees 1:21 57 1:36 57 1:37 57 1:39 57 1:45 57 1:46 57 2:58 64, 260 4:33 162 10:24 3 10:89 143 11:58 143 12:9 3 14:41 120 2 Maccabees 2:4–18 88 4:10 152 7:24 3 12:38 202, 203, 205 15:1 181 15:11 3 3 Maccabees 33 2:9 163

319

Index of Ancient Sources 6:3

5

4 Maccabees 33 15:4 152 Odes of Solomon 3:5 184 3:5–7 246 3:7–8 184 5:10–15 194 11 186, 211 11:2 210 11:3–24 210 11:11–17 184 16 186, 211 20:7–9 184 21 186, 211 28:3 184 29:8 259 30:1–7 184 35 186, 211 35:5–7 184 36 186, 211 36:1 184, 191 37:1–4 184 38 186, 211 38:1–4 184 39:7–8 164, 170 42:20 170 Prayer of Jacob 18–20 190 Prayer of Joseph 167–68 1:6–7 160 1:7 138, 141 Prayer of Levi 68, 206 Prayer of Manasseh 3 163

Psalms of Solomon 33 7:6 162

17–18 17:22–25

229 148, 245

Pseudo-Eupolemus 128 Sibylline Oracles 1:339–41 189 3:591–93 202 5:415 259 Sirach 1:4–10 17:10 17:17 18:1 18:5 24 24:3 24:7–11 34:17 43:7 43:26 44:16 45:5 45:12 45:17 47:13 48:22–25 50:11–21 50:26

31 266 163 74 232, 266 145 37, 152 266 181 188 35 153 262 82 136 188 57 176, 192 207 47

Susanna 6:10

45

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 46 Testament of Benjamin 6:4 188 11:2 188 Testament of Dan 5:3 195 5:12 181 Testament of Gad 5:7 188

320

Index of Ancient Sources

Testament of Judah 3–7 46 Testament of Levi 30, 33, 46–48, 54, 60–62, 70, 75, 84, 98, 101, 104, 115, 206 1:1–2 30 2–5 47, 59, 68, 69, 117, 130, 280 2:3 65 2:3–4 64, 260 2:6 47, 65, 114 2:6–7 187 2:9 187 2:9–10 58 2:10 46, 69, 138, 142 3–5 46 3:2 56 3:3 206 3:4 59, 79, 114, 144, 154, 206 3:4–5 47, 58 3:4–8 249 3:5 123, 141, 256 3:5–6 58, 74, 123 3:9 68, 77, 145 3:10 68 4:2 46, 64, 68, 138, 206, 260 4:2–6 47, 58 4:6 47 5–7 140 5:1–6 127 5:1 58, 59, 69, 77, 114, 144, 154 5:1–2 47, 65 5:2 80, 128, 138, 218, 237 5:6 73 5:6–7 75 6–7 46 8 47, 69, 71, 131, 280 8–9 46 8:1 48 8:1–10 138 8:2 64 8:2–10 65 8:3–4 140 8:4 139, 259 8:5 196 8:10 135, 170 8:19 48 9:9 206 9:11 196, 206

9:11–12 9:13–14 10:5 11 12 12–13 17:2 18:6 18:9

46 47 260 47 47 47 138 138 189

Testament of Reuben 6:8 140 Testament of Simeon 4:4 176 Testament of Abraham [A] 30, 33, 42–44, 54, 64, 75, 78, 84 1:4–7 65 4:6 260 4:7–9 191 7:11 77 8:1 77 9:7 77 10:1 241 10:11 55 10:15 65, 69, 241 11:5 241 11–13 77, 146 12:1 72 12:1–14 255 12:4–5 149 12:5 160, 162 12:10 72 13:11 72 14:5–15 69 14:14 65, 179, 241 15:1 65, 138, 141, 241 15:1–2 79 16:3–4 79, 156 16:5 65, 241 16:6 72, 151 16:8 150, 151 17:7 260 20:15 44 Testament of Abraham [B] 30, 33, 42–44, 54, 64–65, 75, 78, 84

321

Index of Ancient Sources 4:4–5 8–11 10:2 11:3 12:3–4 12:12–14 13:9–13 14:9

72, 249 77, 146 65, 241 260 55 79 260 44

Wisdom of Solomon 8 2:12–3:9 246 2:24 263 4:11 262 6:21 265 7–9 152 7:1 265 7:5–6 265 7:25–26 150–51 7:26 150, 153 7:27 265 8:4–6 153 8:13 265 9:1–4 122, 265, 266 9:4 154 9:8 59, 89 9:9 266 9:10 154 13:10–19 248 15:1–19 248 18:14–16 122 18:24 170

Testament of Job 48–49 187, 212 48–50 158 Testament of Moses 33 Tobit 3:16 12:15 13:4–9

31 79 75, 79 145

Dead Sea Scrolls Apocryphon of Daniel 4Q246 246 Apocryphon of Moses 4Q377 1 II 1–12 187 Aramaic Levi Document 46–47, 54, 84, 127, 128, 139 2:4–3:18 68, 206 3:5–18 64 4:4–6 117 4Q213a 1 II 15–18

48, 68, 206 47

4Q213b

48

Damascus Document CD-A I3 107 III 13–15 71

VI 11–20 X 10–23 XI 21–22 XIV 19

205 205 202, 203, 205 126, 127

4Q266 10 I 12

126

4Q268 1 11

107

4Q271 5 I 15

202

Deuteronomy 4Q44 224–25 Enochic Fragments 4Q201 56 4Q212

80

322

Index of Ancient Sources

Florilegium 4Q174 148, 245 Genesis Apocryphon 1Q20 XX–XXII 128 Melchizedek Document 11Q13 18, 103, 124, 125, 128, 129, 130, 141, 142 II 1–9 182 II 6–8 124 II 7–8 125 II 7–9 128 II 10 128, 259 II 13 125 III 7 125 Pesher on Habakkuk 1QpHab XII 52 Prayer of Enosh 4Q369 1 II 246 Purification Rules and Liturgies 4Q277 198 4Q414 198 4Q512 198, 205 Rule of Blessings 1Q28b IV 28 135 Rule of the 1Q28 I 14–15 II 3 III 3–9 III 9 III 24–25 IV 18–26 IV 22

Community 36 189 201, 205 198 73 189 160

IX 11 XI 7–9 XI 8

126 71 160

Rule of the Congregation 1Q28a II 8–9 205 II 11–22 126 Self Glorification Hymn 4Q491c 259 1 4–11 72 1 11 160 Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice 51–53, 57–58, 62, 71, 74, 101, 102, 106–9, 111, 114, 115, 117–18, 128, 183, 184, 186, 205, 211, 279 4Q400 1 i 1–20 57–58, 123 1 i 1–21 71, 130 1i3 51, 70 1 i 3–20 141 1 i 14 51 1 i 17 51 1 i 19 51 1 i 19–20 70, 109 1 i 20 51, 258 1 ii 7 258 1 ii 17 258 2 1–7 248 2 2–7 103 2 5–7 71, 195 2 7–8 109 4Q401 1 i 13 23 11 3 14 ii 1–8 22 3

108 77 103, 128, 141 71 103, 141

4Q402 4 12–15

268

4Q403 1 i 16–17 1 i 22

53 53

323

Index of Ancient Sources 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

i 22–23 i 22–29 i 23–27 i 25 i 26–29 i 28–29 i 30–36 i 30–47 i 32–33 i 39–40 i 41 i 41–44 i 42 i 42–43 ii 1–16 ii 4 ii 6–9 ii 10 ii 10–16 ii 11 ii 13 ii 13–14 ii 15 ii 16 ii 18–20 ii 21 ii 27

4Q404 55 4Q405 6 77 13 14-15 i 15 ii-16 18 4 19 20 ii-21-22 23 i 5–6 23 i 6–7 23 i 9 23 i 9–10

208 71 207 53 53 207 268 211 258 109 57 106–7 115 57, 114 255 107 72 51, 110 62, 101, 144 108 108 107 108 102 141 103, 108, 141 108

108

106, 108 108 53, 141 58, 77, 107, 117 55, 77, 107, 108, 117 79, 82, 254 57, 107, 117 77, 79, 101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 144, 249 109 114 108 107

23 ii 12 109 11Q17 IV (6-8) 107 VII (16-18) 77, 117 VIII (19-20) 249 IX (21-22) 109 X (23-25) 108 Mas1k I 2–7

268

Temple Scroll 11Q19 102 III 11 107 VIII 20 176 Thanksgiving Hymns 1QHa IV 20 162 IX 30 162 XI 21–22 205 XII 5–6 189 XV 7 176 XIX 10–14 205 XX 5–10 36 XX 11–13 176 XI 19–23 53 Visions of Amram 4Q544 128 War Scroll 1Q33 II 1–6 X 1–6 XIII XV XVI XVII

126 126 128 126 126, 127 73, 127, 128

Words of the Luminaries 4Q504 1-2 IV 2–12 88

324

Index of Ancient Sources

Philo of Alexandria De Abrahamo 17–24 262 69–79 188 235 128

3:79–82 3:95–96 3:101–2 3:102

De cherubim 95 201

De migratione Abrahami 34–35 188 89–93 201

De confusione linguarum 21–25 62 64 97 145–48 246 146 121, 168 174 243 De congressu eruditionis gratia 99 128 De decalogo 45 202, 203 46 243 De ebrietate 30 123 132–34 95 De fuga et inventione 87 121 106–18 121 109 152 137–38 192 De gigantibus 6 161 52 121 55 176 In Flaccum 96 199 Legatio ad Gaium 114–16 248 Legum allegoriae 1:65 122, 266 2:16 200 3:69 201

128 153 179 8

De mutatione nominum 34–38 262 De opificio mundi 19–25 122 25 95 146 95, 150 De plantatione 14 243 18 153 19–26 179 50 150 De posteritate Caini 122 97 168 121 169 121–22 De praemiis et poenis 15–21 262 Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum 2:21–106 98 2:29 187 2:51–55 99 2:52 96 2:53–68 99 2:82 8, 96 2:90 96 2:91 97 2:94–95 99 Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 1:82–86 262 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 36 153

325

Index of Ancient Sources 199 205–6 221–24 221–29 256

266 122 62 98 97

Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat 54 153 Quod Deus sit immutabilis 8 198, 201, 202, 203 31–32 123 57 152 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 3 238 8 152 De somniis 1:5 1:22–24 1:81 1:141–43 1:215 2:3 2:45 2:252

238 16 198 243 121 97 122 176

De specialibus legibus 1:66 75

1:188 1:256–66 1:258 1:261–62 3:6 3:58 3:89 3:205–6 4:123

123 200 198 198 188 196 196 198 150, 153

De virtutibus 74 243 De vita contemplativa 214, 282–83 83–89 186, 211 De vita Mosis 1:66 243 1:166 243 2:71–73 88 2:74–76 96 2:81–108 98 2:88–89 88 2:101–8 99 2:114–16 135 2:117–35 121 2:131 135 2:143 196 2:265 176

Josephus Against Apion 2:203 198 2:282 5 Jewish Antiquities 1:73 161 1:154–60 41 1:179–81 128 3:122–23 98 3:123 99 3:123–25 88 3:179–80 90 3:181 63 3:181–83 98 3:186–87 135

4:118 4:118–19 11:331 12:106 14:258 18:117

191 176 135 202 203 201

Jewish War 2:129 2:129–31 2:138 2:149–50 2:152 2:159 2:365–66

198, 203, 206 203 206 198 199 206 259

326 4:164 5:213–19 5:215–18 5:219 5:235

Index of Ancient Sources 135 98 99 99 135

6:438 7:45

128 5

The Life of Flavius Josephus 1:11 198

New Testament Matthew 3:17 4:8–10 4:10 4:23–25 5:17–20 6:9 7:13–14 9:13 10:32 12:6 12:46–50 13:27 18:10 18:26 22:44 23:15 24:42 26:64 27:29 27:46

244 248 248 176 198 162 44 236 120 120 236 263 74 248 272 238 230 272 259 257

Mark 1:9–11 1:34 2:15–17 3:31–35 7:4 8:38 9:2–8 9:7 10:45 12:33–34 12:35–37 12:36 13:20 14:58 14:62 15:34 15:39

171 176 236 236 198 273 171 244 119 236 120 272 230 120 120, 272 257 161

16:19

272

Luke 1:19 1:49 2:25–35 3:22 3:37 4:38–41 7:36–50 9:31–32 12:8 15:1–7 18:11 20:42 22:32 22:69

77 162 191 244 260 176 236 155 120 236 257 272 120 272

John 1:1 1:1–14 1:3 1:9 1:14 1:18 2:19 2:19–21 4:10 5:23 6:32–33 8:12 8:23 12:41 13:15 16:13 17 17:6 17:11 19:23 20:28

264 154 264 188 89, 155 146, 258 120 89 190 248 190 188 179 155 13 191 120 236 164 120 257

327

Index of Ancient Sources Acts 2:14–21 2:16–21 2:17 2:22 2:28 2:33 2:40 2:43 3:1–10 5:12–16 5:31 6–7 6:1 6:8 7 7:44–50 7:45 7:48 7:55–56 8:39–40 9:3–19 10:4 10:9 10:25–26 10:45 11:17 13:15–41 13:33 14:3 14:8–10 14:15 15:12 15:29 16:1 16:13 16:30 16:33 21:20 21:25 22:6–16 22:17 22:17–18 22:17–21 26:13–19

191 177 177, 191 176 190 272 3 176 176 176 272 90 5 176 12 89 181 90 156, 172, 177, 191, 214, 272 191 172, 189 263 186 248 190 190 3 235, 244 176 176 232 176 199 4 202 263 197 198 199 172, 189 186 214 156, 206 172, 189

Romans 3:25 5:15 5:17

105, 119 190 190

8:14–23 8:34 9:17 10:12 10:21 15:9 15:19

246 120, 271, 272 162 162 253 162 176

1 Corinthians 1:24 154 2:6–16 191 3:16–17 182 8:1–13 199 8:4–6 248 9:1 4, 177 10:14–33 199 11:10 211 12–14 191 12:11 177 15:25–28 147 15:27 238 15:44 202 2 Corinthians 3:18 155 4:4–6 189 5:12 139 6:11 139 9:15 190 10–13 179 11:5–6 4 12:1 156 12:1–4 172, 206, 214 12:2 61, 176 12:4 276 Galatians 1:11–12 1:12 4:26

4, 156 214 179

Ephesians 1:18 1:20 1:20–21 2:18 3:7 4:7 5:14 5:26

188 272 164 191 190 190 188 197

328 6:11–12

Index of Ancient Sources 263 1:5–13

Philippians 1:1 2:5–11 2:6–11 2:8 2:9–11 3:14 3:21

4 250 169, 248 133 164 179 155

Colossians 1:5 1:15 1:15–20 1:20 2:9 2:16 2:17 2:18 2:21 3:1 3:1–2

193 156 250, 264 133 156 207 13 186, 211, 214 207 272 179

1 Thessalonians 1:1 4 Titus 3:5 Hebrews 1 1–2 1–4 1–10 1–12 1:1–4 1:2 1:2–4 1:3

1:3–4 1:4 1:4–14 1:5

197

175, 177, 190, 192, 236, 255, 264 157–59, 178, 218 85 86 209 132, 141, 218, 237, 245, 272, 273 153, 189, 192, 220, 266 137, 219 18, 91, 109, 115, 116, 119, 126, 142, 144, 146, 148, 149–57, 162, 163, 190, 219, 250, 251, 257, 272 132–36, 142, 170, 214–15, 247, 249, 270, 281 157–70 18, 123, 244 131, 137–38, 159–61, 164,

1:5–14 1:6

1:7 1:8 1:8–9 1:10 1:10–12 1:12 1:13 1:14 2 2–10 2:1 2:1–4 2:3 2:3–4 2:4 2:5 2:5–18 2:6–9 2:8 2:9 2:10 2:11–13 2:12 2:12–13 2:14 2:14–15 2:14–16 2:14–18 2:16 2:17 3–4 3:1 3:2 3:4 3:7–4:13 3:12 3:12–13 3:14 4:1–16

219, 233, 243–47, 254 22, 136–42, 148, 158, 214, 215–16, 217–77, 281–82 132, 142 164, 193, 221, 224, 225, 228, 237–41, 247–52, 254, 264, 269 123, 140, 221, 244, 252–56 142, 146, 147, 148, 247, 249 138–42, 164, 219, 227, 256– 63 164, 240 153, 219, 221, 223, 229–33, 263–69 147 142, 219, 249, 252, 253, 257, 269–70, 272, 276 123, 140, 210, 218 264 228 5 175–78, 218, 277 4 5 178, 186, 191, 192 3, 192, 240, 253 123, 218 229, 239 228, 264 156, 177, 190 148, 176, 241 236 162 223, 244, 271 263 125 263 148 5 119, 125, 126, 141 10, 85, 178, 180–84, 190, 227, 228, 233 119, 126, 178–80, 190 131 232 178 187 5 178 148

Index of Ancient Sources 4:3 4:4 4:8 4:8–9 4:8–10 4:11 4:12–13 4:13 4:14 4:14–16 4:15 4:15–16 4:16 5–7 5–10 5:5 5:5–10 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:9 5:10 5:11 5:11–14 5:11–6:12 6:1 6:1–2 6:2 6:4 6:4–5 6:4–6 6:4–8 6:4–12 6:5 6:9 6:10 6:10–12 6:18 6:19–20 6:20 7:1–2 7:1–17 7:3 7:11–16 7:11–19 7:14 7:15–17 7:16

178, 179, 180–84, 186, 240 148, 253 253 227 228 13 154 156, 253 5, 113, 115, 116, 118, 133, 280 18, 85, 182, 184–87, 283 139, 233, 259 148 18, 144, 199, 209 228 86, 103, 126, 131 131, 137, 253 131 131 253 246 176 129 3, 253 5 211 188 199 4, 198 178, 210 5 186, 187–92 187 5 209 187 162 5 188, 232 17, 18, 98, 116, 118, 133, 148, 179, 192–94, 280 129, 134 128 148 128, 141 131 228 119, 137, 148, 253 128 92, 133

7:17 7:18 7:21 7:24 7:25 7:26 7:26–28 7:27–28 8–9 8–10 8:1 8:1–2 8:1–5 8:1–6 8:2 8:3–5 8:4 8:5 8:6 8:6–13 8:7–13 8:13 9:1 9:1–5 9:1–8 9:1–10 9:2 9:3 9:4 9:4–5 9:5 9:6 9:7 9:8 9:9–10 9:10 9:11 9:11–12 9:11–14 9:12 9:13–14 9:13–22 9:14 9:18–26

329 129 198 253 141 148 113, 139, 259 148 6, 198 91–94 10, 13–14, 182, 227, 228 3, 6, 18, 92, 94, 98, 109, 145, 257, 272 85, 118, 133, 134, 136, 144, 146, 207, 280 93, 112, 113, 136 91 93, 94, 110, 111, 112, 115, 123, 138, 141 6 6, 92, 105, 109, 133, 134, 240 7, 8, 13, 14, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 109, 110, 111, 145, 146 123, 141, 198 112, 228 91 6, 198 93 98 94 92, 99–101, 110–12 93 93, 116 139 145 11, 145, 146, 157, 253, 270 93 105, 109, 113, 116, 119, 125 93 198 198, 199 90, 93, 111, 118, 133 92, 94, 97–98, 112, 116, 136, 280 148, 196 93, 109, 115 118, 125, 133 105, 109 92 134 196

330 9:21 9:21–23 9:23 9:23–25 9:23–26 9:23–28 9:24 9:24–25 9:25 9:25–26 9:26 9:27–28 10–13 10:1 10:1–3 10:1–4 10:1–12 10:1–18 10:4 10:5 10:5–7 10:7 10:10 10:11 10:11–14 10:12 10:12–13 10:19 10:19–20 10:19–22 10:19–25 10:20 10:21 10:22 10:23 10:23–29 10:24–25 10:25–36 10:26 10:26–31 10:31 10:32 10:32–34 10:32–35 10:35–39 10:37 11 11:3 11:5–6

Index of Ancient Sources 93, 111, 123, 141 108 105, 109, 113, 134 92, 111, 112, 113, 133 98, 116 11 90, 92, 93, 94, 99, 109, 114, 116, 118, 133, 145, 156, 280 115 93 105, 109, 148, 198 125, 189, 192, 240 105 86 8, 13, 14, 92 6 196 133 4, 105, 198 188 134, 240 223, 236 253, 257 134 123, 141 148 109, 146, 148, 272 144 93, 109, 115 17, 18, 116, 148 179, 283 148, 194–208 105 138, 182 4, 196–206, 209 5 187 5 211 188, 189 148 156 188 5 199 5 230 10 267 34, 195, 260–62, 281

11:6 11:9–16 11:27 11:28 11:32 12:1–2 12:1–3 12:1–11 12:1–29 12:2

12:23 12:24 12:25 12:25–26 12:28 12:29 13:2 13:4 13:6 13:17–25 13:9 13:9–15 13:10 13:11 13:14 13:15 13:18–19 13:19 13:20 13:22 13:22–24 13:23 13:24

188 181 154, 156 157 3, 4 144 5 233 208–9 18, 98, 133, 146, 147, 148, 254, 272 5 5 223 178 223 180 18, 148, 157, 178, 181, 186, 199 86, 179, 186, 194, 208–11, 249, 283 193 109, 196 5, 178 240 148 138, 156, 195 157, 210 148 223 2 4, 5, 198–99 207–8 93, 111 93 10, 209, 240 109, 162, 204 5 4 241 2, 3, 277 5 4 6

James 1:17

232

12:3–7 12:4 12:5–6 12:8 12:13 12:14 12:22 12:22–24

1 Peter 12

331

Index of Ancient Sources 2:24 3:18–20 3:21 3:22

119, 120 161, 260 197 272

2 Peter 2:4

161, 260

1 John 2:2

119, 120

Jude 6 14–15 25

161, 260 260 145

Revelation 1:8 1:10 1:10–20 1:12–17 1:13 1:17 2:20 3:5 3:9 3:12 3:21 4–5 4–6 4–7 4:1–3 4:2 4:4 4:5 4:9–11 4:11 5 5:1 5:6 5:6–14 5:8–14 5:11–14 5:12 6:9 7:1–3 7:9–17 7:11 7:12

232 191 172, 214 68 120, 125, 142–43, 215, 281 195 199 71, 208 248, 251 10 146, 147 144, 172, 210, 249, 251 156 211 191 77 77 72 268 257, 269 251, 276 77 143, 147 241 248 208 268 208 73 208 77 268

7:15 7:17 8:2 8:3 8:3–4 9:13 10:1 10:6 10:9–10 11:17 11:18 11:19 12:5 12:7–9 12:9 13:1 14:1 14:7 14:8 14:13 15:3 15:4 15:5 15:6 17:3 18:1 19:10 19:11–16 19:11–21 19:12 20:4 20:11–15 20:12 21–22 21:1–3 21:2 21:3 21:6 21:10 21:10–14 21:22 21:23 21:27 22:1–3 22:1–5 22:4 22:5 22:8–9 22:17

89, 181 146, 147 77 99, 207 75 99 166 266 192 257 162 10 230 262 263 170 170 269 73 182, 183 251, 257 162 88, 89, 143 143 191 149 248 170 155 164, 170 77, 146 147 208 240 10, 15 208 89 190 191 208 89 188 187 146 147 170 188 248 190

332

Index of Ancient Sources

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Paul 7–10 74

Gospel of Truth (NHC I, 3) 38–39 156, 164

Apocalypse of Peter 15 166

Melchizedek (NHC IX, 1) 129

Apocryphon of John (NHC II, 1) 1–2 156

On the Origin of the World (NHC II, 5) 105 168

Apostolic Constitutions and Canons VIII:V 3

Pseudo-Clementine Homilies II:23 198 X:1 199, 202 XI:1 199, 202 XI:25–33 199

3 Corinthians 3:6 195 Gospel of Thomas 27 214 59 214 108 214

Recognitions of Clement 1:32 42 Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5) 65–66 246 66–67 156 86–87 246

Gospel of Philip (NHC II, 3) 53–56 164 57–58 156

Early Church Fathers Barnabas 4:3 7:9 9:9 1 Clement 36 36:1–2 36:2

230 125 190

221 190, 284 150

Clement of Alexandria Stromateis 5.11.77 44–45, 62, 77, 191 Eusebius of Caesarea Historia ecclesiastica 2.17.1–24 282–83 6.25.14 4

Praeparatio evangelica 9.17.5–6 128 12.19 7 Hippolytus Refutatio omnium haeresium 7.24 129 8.13 44 Traditio apostolica 20.5 199 Ignatius To the Philadelphians 9:1 125 Irenaeus Adversus haereses 1.31.1 44

333

Index of Ancient Sources John Chrysostom Homilies on Hebrews 11:3 193

Shepherd of Hermas 30, 44, 54, 84, 214, 263, 270 Visions 1, 1:3 192 1, 1:4 186 2, 1:1 192 2, 1:2–3 186 2, 2:1 207 3, 1:2 186, 207 3, 10:6–7 186, 207 5, 1:1 186, 259 5, 1:1–4 74

Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 115–16 126 122 188 125 168 128 157, 246 130 224 First Apology 61 188 65 188

Similitudes 5, 1:1–3:9 5, 1:1 5, 5:3 5, 6:2 5, 7:1–4 6, 1:1–2 9, 6:3 9, 14:5

Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:3 125 Origen Contra Celsum VI.27 246 Commentarii in evangelium Joannis II.25 167 De principiis I.III.3 40 Polycarp To the Philippians 12:2 125

207 186 74 74 201 186 259 164, 170

Tertullian Adversus Marcionem III.7 125 De baptismo 1 44 De praescriptione haereticorum 2 44

Targumic Literature Targum to Ezekiel 36:25–26 177 Targum to Job 29:6 17 Targum to 2 Kings 2:9–15 176 Targum Onqelos to Genesis 5:24 261

Targum to the Psalms 29:1 160 45 228 89:7 161 102 230 Targum to 1 Samuel 10:6 176 10:10 176 19:20 176 19:23 176

334

Index of Ancient Sources

Rabbinic Literature Mishnah ‫ۉ‬agigah 2:1 Miqwa’ot 1–10 1:7–8 2:1–2 8:2 Pesa‫ۊ‬im 10:5 So‫ܒ‬ah 7:6 9:15 Yoma 3:3 6:2

26

197 198 198 196

15a

17, 168, 246

Sanhedrin 38b 93a

168 262

Sukkah 52b

129

Yoma 39b

207

189 Midrashim Deuteronomy Rabbah 6:14 177

207 176

Genesis Rabbah 225 6:7 190 12:10 163 25:1 262 65:21 77

196, 203 152, 207

Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra 75b 258

Midrash Psalms 102 230

Berakhot 7a 56b

246 274

Numbers Rabbah 12:12 18, 74 15:25 177

‫ۉ‬agigah 12b 12b–13b 13b–14b

18, 75, 123, 207 17 18

Song of Songs Rabbah II. 13, 4 129

Hekhalot Literature According to the section numbers of Schäfer’s Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur 3 Enoch (see Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha) Hekhalot Rabbati 81 186, 211 93 210

94–106 152–69 163 168 218 225–27 246–50 258 269

249 249 208 207 65 210 68 66 255

335

Index of Ancient Sources 296

168

Sar Torah 299 300–3

204, 207 204

560 560–65 590–94

207 204 207

Hekhalot Zutarti 348–56 79 372 116 406 168 419 78

Merkavah Rabbah 655 163 655–56 204 675 204 680 204 683 204 705 204

Ma’aseh Merkavah 544 186 547 204, 246 550 186

Massekhet Hekhalot According to the section numbers of Herrmann’s Massekhet Hekhalot 28 17, 116

Greco-Roman Literature Aristotle De caelo 1.3

97

Metaphysica 12.1073–74 62 Rhetorica 2.5.1

187

Cicero De inventione rhetorica 2.40–48 235, 277 Corpus Hermeticum 1:1–4 189 1:32 189 4:4–5 190

Plato Cratylus 439A

8

Respublica 6.500Cff. 6.509Eff. 7.514–15 7.515–17 9.592A–B 10.616–17

7 95 8 95 8 62

Timaeus 28A–29D 38C–E

8 62

Plutarch De adulatore et amico 74 187



Index of Modern Authors Alexander, P. 18, 20, 47, 53, 56, 71, 72, 75, 102, 107–8, 117, 190, 225, 246 Allen, D. L. 2, 4, 6, 154 Allen, D. M. 12, 181, 187, 228 Attridge, H. W. 3, 6, 93, 100, 123, 133, 145, 159, 182, 191, 192, 197, 198, 224, 230, 236, 239–40, 257, 262 Bacon, B. W. 230–31, 265 Baigent, J. W. 119–20, 142–43 Barclay, J. M. G. 6, 16 Barker, M. 135, 197 Barrett, C. K. 9–11, 13, 14, 17, 209 Bauckham, R. 78, 135, 146, 157, 162, 164, 191, 232, 248, 252, 254, 255 Bénétreau, S. 197 Bruce, F. F. 5, 6, 133, 149, 151, 159, 179, 191, 197, 198, 211, 241, 255 Buchanan, G. W. 138, 230, 254, 256 Caird, G. B. 222, 223, 227, 228, 264 Calaway, J. C. 182, 183, 195 Cervera i Valls, J. 17–18, 116, 173, 178 Chester, A. 20, 71, 122, 166, 171, 172, 190, 229, 274, 275 Collins, A. Y. 25, 60, 61, 62, 67, 82, 83 Collins, J. J. 1, 15, 25–27, 29–30, 33, 36, 37, 38, 42, 46, 47, 48, 52, 53, 64, 89, 159 Davila, J. R. 5, 10, 19, 31–33, 37, 38, 44, 50, 52, 54, 67, 70, 83, 90, 102, 103, 106, 107, 114, 115, 129, 158, 204, 207 Dean-Otting, M. 29, 49, 63, 76, 80 DeConick, A. D. 19, 26, 27–28, 71, 79, 80, 82, 155, 156, 170, 177, 211, 214, 215 DeSilva, D. A. 182–83

Deutsch, C. 214, 274, 283 Dines, J. M. 12, 224 Docherty, S. E. 13, 137, 154, 181, 221, 222, 223–27, 230, 233–34, 237, 244, 247, 273 Dunn, J. D. G. 122, 152–53, 168, 171, 176, 177, 210, 223, 248, 249 Eisele, W. 1, 11, 239 Eisenbaum, P. M. 5 Elgvin, T. 31, 42, 46, 52, 173 Ellingworth, P. 6, 14, 92, 93, 131, 137, 145, 149, 152, 178, 183, 195, 222, 223, 230, 233, 244, 253, 254, 256, 257, 258, 260 Elior, R. 19, 51, 59, 62, 75, 104, 140, 155, 204, 205, 207, 208 Eskola, T. 20, 130, 131, 134, 144, 145, 148 Esler, P. F. 234 Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T. 34, 52, 53, 70, 72, 83, 117, 118, 124, 135, 140, 248, 250 Fossum, J. 15, 80, 155, 163, 165, 166, 270 Gäbel, G. 20, 95, 96, 97, 125, 134, 157, 159, 183, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 212 Gheorghita, R. 13, 137, 223, 231, 273 Gieschen, C. A. 19, 142, 162, 163–64, 165, 166, 210 Glasson, T. F. 230–31 Gleason, R. C. 157, 263 Gooder, P. R. 19, 61, 62, 68, 69, 76, 241 Gruenwald, I. 19, 26, 41, 42, 76 Guthrie, G. H. 12, 132–33, 194, 218, 223

Index of Modern Authors Haber, S. 203 Hannah, D. D. 37, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 122, 123–24, 146, 147, 154, 157, 164 Harlow, D. C. 48–50, 66, 74 Harris, M. J. 139, 189, 257, 258 Hay, D. M. 133, 146, 221, 236, 271–73 Hengel, M. 15–16, 146, 271, 273 Himmelfarb, M. 19, 26, 29, 30, 41, 46, 49, 50, 57, 59–60, 63, 67, 68–69, 70, 74, 82–83, 110, 129–30, 135, 140 Hofius, O. 17, 18, 105, 114, 116, 181– 83, 193, 195 Horbury, W. 137, 210, 229, 245 Horton. F. L. 39, 129, 182 Hurst, L. D. 4, 8, 9, 11, 12–15, 16, 19, 97, 104, 105, 160–61, 230–31, 264– 66 Hurtado, L. D. 122, 166, 167, 171, 172, 174, 248, 250, 251, 252, 274

337

Lincoln, A. T. 179, 182 Lindars, B. 119, 120–21 Löhr, H. 20, 93, 102, 106, 108, 113, 116, 209, 211

Käsemann, E. 1, 17, 238 Kistemaker, S. 222, 227–28 Koester, C. R. 3, 5, 6, 11, 19, 88, 89, 90, 93, 99–100, 112, 133, 134, 136, 137, 139, 145, 149, 151, 153, 154, 159, 161, 177, 178, 183, 188, 192, 207, 219, 224, 230, 236, 238, 239, 240, 271 Knibb, M. A. 15, 35, 37, 56, 60 Kobelski, P. J. 125, 128, 129

Macaskill, G. 40, 41 Mackie, S. D. 10, 13, 17, 20, 95, 96, 97, 104, 126, 152, 159, 173, 178, 179, 183, 186, 187, 192, 210, 211– 12, 237, 240, 244, 245, 271, 282 MacRae, G. 11, 12 Magness, J. 203, 205 Mason, E. F. 39, 95, 103, 119, 121, 123, 126–30, 139, 140, 141, 157, 259 McDonough, S. M. 266, 269 McGinn, B. 27–28, 122, 174 Meeks, W. A. 16 Meier, J. P. 132, 133–34, 136, 149, 219, 239, 254, 257, 273 Ménégoz, E. 7 Merkur, D. 41, 82, 83, 274 Metzger, B. M. 92, 132, 138, 139, 180, 257 Michaels, J. R. 90, 159, 186, 238 Michel, O. 116, 151, 191, 240, 255 Mitchell, A. C. 3, 6, 14, 93, 159, 177, 197, 239, 253 Mitchell, M. M. 235, 236, 277 Moffatt, J. 7–8, 139, 157, 159, 161, 195, 196, 197, 222, 230, 241, 255, 257 Moffitt, D. M. 131 Montefiore, H. 9, 11, 93, 150, 159, 221, 239, 272 Morray-Jones, C. R. A. 2, 19, 21, 26, 27, 42, 52, 57, 60, 71, 78, 79, 114, 168, 172, 186, 206, 208 Motyer, S. 90, 148, 222, 223, 228, 231, 233, 234 Moule, C. F. D. 230 Moyise, S. 223, 235, 251

Laansma, J. 181, 183 Lane, W. L. 2, 3, 4, 16, 19, 105, 112, 132, 133, 136, 139, 149, 151, 153, 159, 160, 179, 195, 196, 197, 198, 209, 211, 219, 221, 222, 230, 238, 239, 253, 256, 262, 271 Leschert, D. F. 139, 222, 228, 253, 256, 257, 258

Newman, C. C. 79, 80, 156, 190 Newsom, C. A. 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 62, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 101, 102, 106, 107, 110, 114, 115, 117, 118, 128, 268 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 15, 29, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 57, 58, 60, 64, 70, 76, 147, 155, 163, 189, 250, 251

Idel, M. 28, 65, 245, 246, 258 Isaacs, M. E. 6, 137, 153, 157, 181, 186, 230 Johnson, L. T. 3, 6, 8, 16, 93, 95, 133, 137, 139, 148, 151, 153, 162, 171, 172, 174, 177, 188, 210, 230, 239, 245, 253, 258 Jonge, M. de. 30, 46, 47, 61, 68, 73, 74, 206, 250

338

Index of Modern Authors

O’Brien, P. T. 3, 138, 154, 159, 177, 180, 183, 186, 188, 195, 197, 198, 207, 209, 230, 239, 244, 253, 258, 262 Orlov, A. 40, 70, 79, 81 Ounsworth, R. J. 183, 193 Peterson, D. 131, 134, 209 Porter, S. E. 131, 200, 223, 238, 252 Rowland, C. 1, 2, 15, 17, 19, 20, 26, 27, 32, 34, 36, 37, 42, 50, 57, 61, 66, 77, 78, 82, 83, 94, 123, 134, 162, 164, 166, 169, 171, 172, 177, 190, 207, 214, 243, 260, 261, 274, 275

Stökl, D. 20, 70, 94, 124–26, 131, 134, 141 Strachan, R. H. 174, 175, 213 Stuckenbruck, L. T. 74, 157, 248, 250, 263 Sullivan, K. P. 27, 53, 124, 159, 168 Svendsen, S. N. 1, 9, 12, 13, 95, 153, 157, 222, 238, 243, 269 Synge, F. C. 221, 222, 272 Thompson, J. W. 8, 11, 16, 95, 96, 239, 269 Turner, M. 137, 153, 176, 177 Turner, N. 238 Ulrichsen, J. H. 162, 164–65

Sanders, E. P. 43, 44, 197, 201, 203 Schäfer, P. 2, 17, 18, 19, 27, 41, 42, 51, 53, 57, 59, 60, 65, 66, 71, 72, 79, 82, 118, 122, 155, 163, 168, 169, 204, 205, 210, 246, 251 Schenck, K. L. 5–6, 9, 11, 14, 85, 90, 93, 95, 97, 100, 104, 105, 109, 110– 13, 115, 144, 153, 157, 159, 160, 192, 221, 237, 239, 243, 244, 265, 273, 282 Schenke, H.-M. 17–18, 123, 157 Scholem, G. 19, 26, 42, 155, 190 Scholer, J. M. 133, 134, 141, 185–86, 195, 196, 197, 199, 209–10 Segal, A. F. 29, 39, 129, 144, 190, 202, 246 Shantz, C. 173, 174 Smith, I. K. 19, 214 Smith, J. Z. 167, 168 Sowers, S. G. 8, 9, 121, 222 Spicq, C. 7, 9, 121, 153, 222, 240 Steenburg, D. 152, 250 Sterling, G. E. 11, 12, 89, 95–104, 110, 112 Stone, M. E. 34, 43, 46, 66, 82, 83

VanderKam, J. C. 1, 35, 36, 38, 60, 127, 260, 261 Wallace, D. B. 130, 133, 140, 200, 238, 240, 257 Walton, J. H. 60 Walton, S. 90 Wasserstrom, S. M. 173 Weiss, H.-F. 3, 153, 162, 164, 197, 222, 239 Westcott, B. F. 92, 131, 138, 161, 162, 185, 238–39, 257, 258 Westfall, C. L. 2, 85, 126, 136, 175, 178, 182, 194, 218, 219 Williams, C. H. 232 Williamson, R. 9, 11, 13, 18, 121, 122, 123, 144, 150, 152, 153, 279 Wills, L. 3 Wright, J. E. 15, 60, 62, 63 Young, N. H. 105 Zerwick, M. 152 Zuntz, G. 92, 180



Index of Subjects Aaron 135, 139, 186 Abraham 10, 41–43, 64–65, 69, 81, 124, 128, 181, 189 Abel 43, 44, 208 Adam 10, 43, 71, 208 Angelification 27, 39, 69–70, 158–59, 190, 251–52 Angel of YHWH 45, 75, 135, 164–65, 168 Angel of the Name 135, 164–69, 213, 215 Angels – Archangels 56, 73, 75, 102, 115, 151, 158, 163, 167, 267 (see also Michael, Gabriel etc.) – As Comforters 45, 47, 66, 68, 138, 165 – As Cosmic Supervisors 35, 73, 266– 69 – As Fire/Fireborn 38, 55, 72, 118, 252, 254–55 – As gods 53, 258, 259, 268 – As Guardians 73–74 – As Guides/Interpreters 35, 47, 49, 65, 66, 73, 75–76, 114, 241 – As Messengers 41, 47, 66, 75–76, 137, 164–65, 241, 243, 279 – As Priests 49, 51, 53, 58, 69, 71, 74– 75, 102, 123–24, 129, 141, 143 – As Servants 38, 77, 252–56, 262 – As Sons of God 72, 160–61, 167–68, 205, 244–45 – As Wind 72, 76, 217, 252, 254–55 – As Worshippers 51, 72, 247–52, 282 – Creation of 72, 73, 264, 267–69, 282 – Fallen 34, 81, 260, 262–63 – Hosts of 41, 68, 72, 87, 186, 208 – Human Communion with 27, 53, 59, 71, 86, 184, 186, 205, 208–11

– Standing 77, 270 Anthropomorphism 52, 76, 78–79, 80, 154–57, 158, 166, 170, 215, 237, 270, 281 U!O@T F@RL@ÉÉ149–52, 154, 156 Apocalypses, Apocalyptic(ism) 1–2, 10–17, 19–21, 29–50, 54 – Definition of 25–27 – Recurring Themes 55–84 Azazel 41, 124, 158 Baptism(s) (see ‘Immersion(s)’) Cherubim 39, 55, 57, 59, 99, 108, 118, 145, 146, 157, 185, 270 Christology – Angelomorphic 17–18, 20, 123–24, 135–36, 139, 140–41, 159–61, 164– 70, 243, 244–47 – Divine 142, 146, 151–56, 247–52, 255, 256–59, 264–69 – Glory 132, 146, 149–57, 169–70, 189–90, 214–15, 237, 246, 270, 281 – Priestly 4, 5–6, 18, 22, 85–87, 91–92, 94, 97, 103, 105, 119–43, 148, 169, 172, 180, 183, 185, 190, 193, 194, 212, 213–214, 215, 219, 255–56, 280 – Son of God 132, 135, 137–38, 159– 61, 212, 220, 243–47, 253, 271 – Wisdom 152–54, 265–66 Cosmology 8, 9–11, 13–15, 35–36, 55– 62, 91–118, 239–41, 264–69 David 163, 181, 228 Day of Atonement 116, 124–26, 128, 134, 193, 213, 280 Devil 125, 249–50, 263 Dietary Rules 4, 198–99

340

Index of Subjects

%HUR@ FV 240–41 Enoch 33–39, 47, 56, 58, 60, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 75, 140, 141–42, 154– 55, 158, 187, 195, 245–46, 251–52, 260–62, 267–68, 280, 281 Eremiel 45, 75 Eschatology 10–11, 13–15, 17, 25–26, 36, 37, 44, 59, 80, 95, 100–3, 124– 25, 126–27, 128, 147, 176–77, 179, 181–84, 189, 192, 210, 219–20, 239– 40, 251, 282 Exegesis 76–77, 82–83, 121, 190 (see also ‘Hebrews, Use of Scripture’) Ezekiel 59, 117, 140, 241 Gabriel 58, 67, 68, 75 God – Creator 39, 43, 72, 73, 76, 81, 153, 165–66, 232, 255, 266–68, 282 – Glory/Form of 47, 49–50, 52, 59, 71, 76, 78–80, 108, 117, 118, 145–46, 151–52, 154–56, 162–63, 166, 172, 186, 245, 255, 281 – Name of 135–36, 152, 162–70, 207– 208, 215, 237, 245, 246, 281 – Throne of 10, 17, 20, 38, 39, 41, 47, 52, 55, 58, 60, 68, 76–78, 79, 85, 94, 98, 116–18, 133–34, 144–47, 154– 55, 163, 166–67, 172, 184–87, 211, 214, 250–51, 254, 255, 266, 269–70 – Voice/Word of 41, 78, 80–82, 154, 171, 167, 187, 192, 217–20, 226, 229, 231, 235–38, 241–42, 246–47, 254, 269–70, 281 Heaven(s) 26–27, 35–37, 49, 55–56 (see also ‘Sanctuary, Heavenly’) – Ascent to 38, 45, 47, 52, 53, 63–72, 75–76, 83, 84, 86–87, 114–18, 130– 31, 172, 178–211, 213–14, 276, 283– 84 – Number of 39, 41, 60–62, 114–16 Hebrews, the Epistle to the – Authorship 3–4 – Date 6, 90 – Destination 6 – Genre 2–3, 282–84 – Recipients 4–6 – Textual Variants 91, 92, 113, 132, 138–39, 175, 180, 192, 194, 257

– Use of Scripture 9, 96–100, 217, 220, 221–42, 258, 264, 270–77, 281 Hekhalot Literature 17–19, 21, 65, 67, 104, 116, 204 Holy Spirit 171, 172, 175–78, 187, 190, 191–92, 197, 202, 210 Iaoel 41, 75, 135–36, 139, 158, 165–67, 168, 281 Immersion(s) 4, 68, 171, 188, 190, 195–208, 210, 244 Isaiah 59, 60, 210 Israel – Archangel 167–68 – Land of 54, 60, 203 – Nation of 5, 41, 44, 73, 74, 80, 160, 165, 180, 193, 208, 219, 228, 241 Jesus Christ – Creator 153, 219, 255, 263–69, 282 – Death of 92, 105, 116, 119–20, 133– 34, 142, 154, 169, 190, 197, 207, 213, 280 – Enthroned 6, 20, 85, 94, 98, 123, 133–34, 144–70, 172, 184–85, 192, 212, 213, 215, 237, 249, 256–59, 269–70, 281 – Image of God 149–57, 169–70, 189, 245–47, 250 – King 139, 148, 170, 185, 259, 262 – Lord 170, 175, 263–64, 266 – Pre-existence of 222, 223, 264–69 – Resurrection of 131, 154, 207, 213, 280 – Superior to the angels 132, 136, 140– 42, 146–47, 157–70, 214–15, 219– 20, 229, 232–33, 241–77, 281–82 – Visions of 156–57, 169–70, 177–78, 180, 190, 215, 281 Joshua ben Jehozadak 124–26 Joshua ben Nun 181, 183, 193 Logos 121–23, 150, 152–53, 154 Melchizedek 18, 75, 91, 103, 120, 123, 124, 128–30, 131, 141–42, 148, 157, 259 Merkavah (Chariot-Throne) 17, 18, 41, 42, 52, 65, 69, 77, 107, 117, 118, 144–46, 155, 172, 184–87, 204, 254

Index of Subjects Merkavah Mysticism 12, 17–19, 20, 27, 42, 65, 116, 144 Messiahs and Messianism 32, 37, 120, 126–28, 129, 137, 140, 147, 148, 194, 228, 229, 230–31, 245, 258 Metatron 18, 74, 135–36, 158, 168–69, 245–46, 254, 259 Michael 18, 38, 42–43, 49, 58, 68, 70, 73–75, 104, 123–24, 140–41, 249– 50, 259 Midrash 222, 225–26 Miqva’ot 197, 203, 205 Moses 10, 81, 96, 121, 162, 187, 247 Mystical Experience 22, 27–28, 66–68, 77, 82–83, 148, 156–57, 169–70, 171–212, 214–15, 218, 220, 233, 242, 249, 251–52, 255, 269, 270–77, 281 Mystical Practices 28, 41, 52, 67–68, 72, 83, 204–8, 214, 274, 283–84 Mysticism, Jewish Apocalyptic – Definition 25–28, 84, 279–80 – Sources 29–54, 167 – Themes 55–83, 279–80 New Covenant 6, 9, 87, 91–93, 97, 112–13, 123, 157, 185, 196, 198, 208

341

Religious Experience 171–75 (see ‘Mystical Experience’) Rest 85, 148, 179, 180–84, 195 Sanctuary (Tabernacle/Temple) – Earthly 4, 6, 10–11, 33, 40, 41–42, 48–50, 52, 57, 59, 63, 74, 80, 88–91, 93, 94, 96, 98–103, 107, 111–12, 117, 120, 145, 146, 162–63, 183, 196, 199, 205, 206, 207, 241, 280 – Ezekiel’s 57, 58, 59, 60, 80, 102, 107, 115, 117, 140, 241 – Heavenly 8, 10, 11, 14–15, 17–18, 20, 44, 47, 50–53, 56–60, 69, 71, 74, 84, 85–86, 88–118, 123–24, 127–28, 133–34, 140–46, 148, 154, 169, 172, 181–83, 185, 193, 199, 206, 207, 209–10, 211–12, 213–15, 237, 244, 254, 256, 271, 279, 280, 283 Sonship – of Believers 182–83, 193, 212, 246, 271 – of Jesus (see ‘Christology’) Soteriology 32, 85–87, 105, 116, 123, 132–36, 147–48, 185–86, 194–95, 212, 213–214 (see also ‘Heaven, Ascent to’, ‘Mystical Experience’ and ‘New Covenant’)

.HUJNTLD MGÉÉ237–41ÉÉ Uriel 36, 66, 73, 75, 167–68, 267 Paul 3–4, 12, 61–62, 154, 172, 189–90, 198, 202, 206 Philo of Alexandria 1, 7–9, 12–17, 27, 32, 96–100, 103, 121–23, 128, 144, 150, 152, 153, 179, 187, 188, 200–1, 243, 262, 269, 279 Plato and Platonism(s) 1, 7–17, 88, 94– 101, 103–4, 113, 122, 202, 279 Priesthood – Levitical 46–48, 69–70, 103, 121, 125, 126–28, 138–40, 148, 185, 196 – of Believers 185, 193, 194–96, 199, 209–10 – of Jesus (see ‘Christology’) Qumran 12, 27, 31, 50–53, 71–72, 75, 120–21, 126–29, 188–89, 201, 203, 205, 211, 214

Veil – Heavenly 17, 18, 52, 98, 107, 108, 111, 116, 117, 118, 133, 148, 192– 94, 195, 196, 213, 280 – Earthly 57, 91 Wisdom 37, 122, 150–51, 152–54, 176–77, 179, 188, 189, 191, 230, 265–66 World to Come 10, 85, 181–84, 187– 92, 204, 207, 209, 237–41, 259, 264 Worship 32, 41, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 71, 172, 184–86, 202, 208–11, 214, 241, 247–52, 254–55, 268–69, 282–83 Yahoel (see ‘Iaoel’) Yom Kippur (see ‘Day of Atonement’)