2006-2007 - Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis - Jesus as the High Priestley Messiah (1) [JSHJ]

8/13/2019 2006-2007 - Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis - Jesus as the High Priestley Messiah (1) [JSHJ]

1/21

JESUS ASTHEHum PMSSTLY MSSSMH:PART 1

Crispin HH`.Fletcher-LouisSt Marys Bryanstcm SquareLondon, UK

igwi g?S H 5* 2

Juurnal for the Study of theHistorical Jesus

Vol. 4.2 pp. 155475DO1: 1(1.1177fl476869006064S73 200

6SAGEPubiicatiu

nsondon,ThousandOaks,CAand New Delhihttp:HJSH..sagcpub.ccm

ABSTRACTRecent study ofthe priesthood in Second Temple life and thought invites a recon-sideration of }esus self-understanding. The appeal to Psalm 1 0 and Daniel 7.13indicates that Jesus thought that, although not of priestly lineage, nevertheless hewould ultimately be the nati0ns king and priest after the order of Meichizedek.Mark 1-6 contains a programmatic statement of Jesus claim to a high priestlyidentity as the ho1y one of God (1.24), with a high priestly contagious holiness(1.40-45; 5 25-34; 5.35-43), freedom to forgive sins{2.1-i2) and the embodimentof divine presence in a Galilean cornfield (2.23-28). As true high priest he makesdivine presence draw near to Gods people (1.15), where before they had todraw near to the Jerusalem temple. The hypothesis that Jesus thought he was1sraeis long-awaited eschatological high priest resolves otherwise intractableprobiems in historical Jesus schoiarship. This is Part l of a two-part essay.

Key words: blasphemy, contagious purity, Clmoskampf Day of Atonement, divine _warrior, Enoch, forgiveness, high priest, John the Baptist, Meichizedek, messian-ism, political theology, Sabbath, Son of Man, temple _

Jilrgen Becker says hat if anything is ncontrovertible from the Jesusmaterial,it is that there is not the slightest connection between Jesusand the theologicalself-understanding of the Jerusalempriesthood? This fairly statesa scholarlyconsensus.However, reflection on the history of biblical scholarship and what,in fact, can be known of Jesus historical context provokes a consideration ofsome mportant evidence hat Jesus hought of himself as sraels eschatologicalhigh priest,and that this self-perceptionelucidatesotherwisepuzzling aspects fhis behaviour and teaching.

1. J. Becker, Jesus of Nazareth (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1998), p. 215; cf. J.D.G. Dunn, ~

r. m...i-.;,...;... i.. .1., ranting mmml Rapids: Eerdmans. 2003), p. 654.,......, D,,........JmwA { 'hricirrrmfv in M8 MGKIHE Luiuuu n1' *.|.r.sI1.\* K T)1E}.I1D#I"#6|' .' \.JUh$l-N|VNF.Y


2/21

156 Journaifor the Study ofthe Historical Jesus

ThePriesthood: A Poriczhqffiibiicai ScholarshipThe possibility that Jesus hought of himself in priestly terms hasnot receivedmuch seriousconsideration.Reflection on the nature of historical Jesus cholar-ship within the wider contextof biblical studies enerally, and he modern churchand academy n particular, suggests he prejudices of our times have created hislacuna.

In general, priesthood hasbeen marginalized in modern biblical studies. nthe Old Testament he prieSthooditsordination, clothing, sacrificial and otherresponsibilities-is described with considerable detail; within the Pentateuch(Exodus-Numbers), n theworks ofthe Chronicler and n other exts e.g. Ezekiel,Zechariah 3-6, Malachi, Joel). But Old Testamentscholarship has Sometimesjudged suchmaterial a amentabledecline n lsraelite religion from the pure faithof the prophets and the Deuteronomist into a post-exilic obsessionwith culticorder and nstitutional religiosity. J.We1lhausens razen derision of the Priestlymaterial nthe Pentateuch s a paradeexampleof this prejudice.2And Wellhausenis, n this respectof course,a clear example ofthe commitmentsand values of acertain (liberal) Protestantism hat has dominated biblical Scholarship or themajority of the modern period. Disinterest in, for example, the description ofAarons garments n Exodus 23 and the minutiae of the Tabernacle measure-mentsand upholstery in Exodus (chs.25-3 l, 35-40), reflects, or this scholarlytradition, a deeply elt antipathy o anything thatsmacks f a high churchspiritu-ality. That antipathyhas,until thepostmodern esurgence f interest n metaphor,story, drama and sacrament, een validated by the modern ear of mystery,alle-gory and ritual (a.k.a. magic) and myth.Happily, Old Testament scholarship is now more attentive to theseaspects f biblical religion and, hanks n particular to the eavening influence ofJewish members of the academy, he vital contribution of the priesthood andpriestly theology for biblical religion is at ast eceiving the attention t desewes.The impact of this revisionism on New Testament cholarship,however, is onlyjust beginning. E.P. Sandershas done much to advance he case or a Jesus et na emple- and cult-centred Judaismand his causehasbeen aken up in differentways by the likes of N.T. Wright, Bruce Chilton and Paula Fredricksen.3

2. As J. Blcnkinsopp (Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of JewishOrigins [Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 977], pp. 18-23) points out.

3. Bruce D. Chilton, TheTemple

qfJesus: His SacryiciolProgramwithin a CulturalHis-tory ofSocrpice (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press, l992); N.T. Wright,Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996); and P. Fredrikseu, Jesus of Nazareth, King. . . . Ha -..4 .r.- -...,,..,..,.,,.,. .rri1-;.t-umirn. {London; Macmillan, 2000).;.1... 1-....- A Tawtsh ljfn mad the tmeJQHC# Oi Ltrrrtottumty riuurmuii. rum. ...... .nf H12 .lR1M\. A .(:WISH LAIE uliu un: 1.un15m...


3/21

Fletcher-Louis Jesusas the High Priesthz Messiah 157However, Sandersand his followers are primarily concerned o relate Jesus

to the Temple.4 esus ooks forward to a new temple (Sanders), or actively setsabout establishing an alternative (Wright) or distinctive (Chilton) temple pro-gramme. For none of thesedoes Jesus ave a particular view ofthe priesthood:he is not interested n a particular political or cultic view of the priesthood. Hedoesnot seehimself as sraels true high priest;neither asclaimant o Caiaphasoflice, nor as he sacerdotalhead of a new cultic community outside Jerusalem.On the face of it, ofcourse, it would seem mpossible for Jesus o think in thesetermsbecausehe s not of priestly lineage. There s also,perhaps,a reluctance opursue a priestly Christology for fear of possible heological consequenceswasnpercessionist esuseven though historical analogiesat Shechern, eontopoiisand Qumran provide clear precedents or a heterodox leadership proclaimingitself to be the true priesthood.Scholarly reconstructionsof Jesuspolitical views have also,no doubt, hin-dered any appreciationof Jesusvision or the priesthood.The Third Questcanbeloosely divided into wo camps.First, hereare hosewho follow A. Schweitzer nthinking that Jesusexpectedan imminent divine intervention and a thoroughlyotherworldly new age.This apocalypticJesus asno interest n politics becausehe expects he imminent end to be wrought by God not by any human politicalprogramme. This Jesuss unlikely to have hought concretelyabout he role of ahigh priest in Israels future leadership, not to have set about ways to bring in atransformation of Israelspriestly polity.5 Secondly, here are hosewho espousea nonapocaiyptic political Jesuswho standsagainsteverything the temple andthe priesthood represented:Jesus rornulgates a brokerless Kingdom, free frominstitutional oppression, social hierarchies and ovelesspurity codes.Again, onthis view, Jesuss unlikely to have hought n anything but negative enns ofthecategory priesthood. Both theseviewsareproblematic.The first niputes o first-century Judaism a dualistic, and therefore necessarilyapolitical, worldview forwhich there is precious little evidence.The second paints a notveryJewishortrait of Jesus eprived of so many of the colours on the palette of the (canoni-cal and historically superior) Gospel exts.

4. The rediscovery of the Temple by Sanders and his successors has also been utterlylacking in any real appreciation of the Temples mythology; its cosmic and primeval signin-cance, which is now widely acknowledged in Old Testament and post-biblical scholarship.

5. Sec, for example, E.P. Sanders, The Iiistorical Figure qfjesus (Harmondsworth: Pen-guin, 1993), p. 188.

6. See he critique in C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis,

Apocalypticisrn, in S.E. Porter andT. Holmn eds.), TheHandbookofthe Study ofthe Historical Jesus Leiden:Brill, forthcom-ing) and C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, Jesus and Apocalypticisnf, in S.E. Porter and T. 1-lolmn- - . .. ,. .,,,. ,._:-- v.-..- n ..:.1M-.

Rrill fm-thcominszl. T . -- u ., s- :*....1.. .J}m I-H1nvrn E 1S |LEC51L Du n.ru.n.unnI, J, x u.....J1......iI, M tha Mum m me Hstvrtuw .1c.m. \i...~.r.. u.rk \ Hnvdhhh I0 IHS Duuy cg um .u" ........ ..--


4/21

158 Journal for the Study ofthe Historical Jesus ;In all this there has been a failure to appreciate he role and identity ofthe Z

priest in JesusJewish world, to which we now turn.

The High Priesthood inJesus Jewish WorldFor a proper assessment of the possibility that Jesus hought of himself as apriest or, even, as Israels true high priest, a fresh examination of (a) priestlyidentity and (ls) the position of the priesthood within the (competing) vision(s)of Israels polity, is necessary.TheJewish Priest: A Divine and Humor: OjiceHere I rely on the arguments of earlier publications to summarize.? Thedescription ofthe high priestly office in the Pentateuch esp. Exod. 28-29, 39-40) was intended, and was taken n the first century, to describe an office thatwas at once human, divine and cosmic.

7. See genera lly

C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis,

The High Priest as Divine Mediator in theHebrew Bible: Dan 7.13 as a Test Case, SBLSP (1997), pp. l6l-93; ident, The Worship ofDivine Humanity and the Worship of Jesus, in C.C. Newman, J R. Davila and G. Lewis (eds.),TheJewishRootsofChristologicol Monotheis

m.Popersjirom

theSt. AndrewsConference

onthe Historical Origins ofthe Worship of Jesus (JS.lSup, 63; Leiden: Brill, l999), pp. l l2-28;ident, Wisdom Christology and the Partingsof the Ways Between Judaismand Cli.ristianity, nS.E. Porter and B.W.R. Pearson (eds.), Jewish-Christian Relations Through the Centuries(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 52-68; idem, All the Glory of Adam: LiturgicalAnthropology in the Dead Seo Scrolls (STD], 42; Leiden: Brill, 2002) and see further idem,Gods Image, His Cosmic Temple and the High Priest; Towards an Historical and TheologicalAccount ofthe lncarnaticn, in T.D. Alexander and S. Gathercole (eds.), Heaven on Eorth: TheTemple

in Bibl ical Theology

(Carlisle:Patemoster

Press,2004),pp. S -99; idem, The TempleCosmology of P and Theological Anthropology in the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira, in C.A.Evans eds.),Of Scribes ondSoges. EorhtJewish nterpretation and Transmission of Scripture(Library of Second Temple Studies, 50; SSEJC, 9; London: T&T Clark International, 2004),pp. 69-I 13; ident, The Worship of the Jewish High Priest by Alexander the Great, in l...T.Stuckenbruck and W.S. North (eds.), Early Christian ond Jewish Monotheism (J SNTSup, 63;London: T&T Clark International, 2004), pp. 7 1- 02; ident, The Image of God and the BiblicalRoots of Christian Sacramentality, in C. Hall and G. Rowell (eds.), The Gesrures of God Explo-rations in Socromentality (London: Continuum, 2004), pp. 73-89. Many of the arguments nthese publications overlap with those of Margaret Barker; see esp. her I'he High Priest and theWorshipof .lesus, n Newman,Davila andLewis (eds.), TheJewishRoots of Christologicolrravmrhptent nn. 93-l 1 : ident, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000),WUHUt.ru:mm, py. lo-. . r , ........., . ..- - .-.chs. 1-3; ident, The Great High Priest:rata.-it tnmmurinnal. 2003)....11x nnmrrnsnuuu 2.....-

-}$}...-..;.-- ,.......rrt..t..n.m trturovLondon: l`&'I`Thu ILamnt1(OOt.Y OI L.rtrt.suuri pitursy (...LHC turuyuz uuum .


5/21

Fletcher-Louis Jesusos theHigh Priestly Messiah 159First, the high priest is obviously a human being. He is the new Adam,8

wearing the garments hat Adam lost on leaving Eden,9doing what Adam failedto do in the templeasrestored-Eden.m He represents,or embodies, he peopleof God, israel (who are, n turn, the true humanity); wearing on his breastpieceand lapels the names ofthe twelve tribes of Israel (Exod. 28.9-21). I-le bringshumanity and Israel to Godll I-Iealso brings the cosmos, he created world, toGod since his is representedby his garments n their various parts.This idea swidely attested n post

bib1icalliterature,12and can already be discerned inthemind of P, the author responsible for the final form of the bullc of the Penta-teuch.'

3 Secondly, the high priest brings the one creator God to Israel and tothe created world. 1-Ieembodies Gods Glory,'4 wearing the garment(s) of8. See, for example: Ezek. 28.12-16; the priestly characterization of Adam in Gen. 2-3

(discussed

by, e.g., G.J. Wenham,

Sanctuary

Symbolism n the Garden

of Eden Sto1y,

inR. Hess and D.T. Tsumura [eds.], 7Studied1nscrqtions_fiom before the Flood ANE Literaryand Linguistic Approaches to Gen 1-11 [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994], pp. 399-404) andthe equation ofthe high priest in Ben Sira 50 with Adam through the parallelism between 50.1and 49.16 (discussed, with parallels, in C.T.R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-biblicalSourcebook

[London:Routledge,

1996},

pp. 45-46).A longerdiscussion

would demonstratehat the Adamic identity of Aaron is fundamental to the theology of P.

9. E.g. Pseudo-Philos Biblical Antiquities 26.6.10. In his Biblical Antiquities 26.6 Pseudo-Philo faithfully spells out the narrative logic of

the intratextuality between Gen. 2-3 and the vision of Aaron in the restored Eden of the SinaiticTabernacle. lt is the priesthood that discerns between good and evil (Lev. 27.12) as Adam andEve were suppose

dto. The Levitesguar

dandkeep he sanctuar

yas Adam was called o (Gen.

2.15; Num. 3.8, 38). The ecundity of Eden s restored

at the sanctuary,

and so on.11. His relationship

with Israel s such hat his own personal

sin will bring guilt on hepeople (Lev. 4.3). And, conversely, the peop1es guilt is transferred and borne by the highpriest (Exod. 28.38). High priest and people coinhere: their identities are perichoretic.

12. Ben Sira 50.6-12; Wis. 18.24; Philo, Mos. 2.117-26, 133-35, 143; Josephus, Ant.3.180, 183-87.

l3. Besides the obvious vegetative language for the high priest s garments (Exod. 28.13-14 [cf. 1 Kgs 7.17, 43]; 28.33-34) and the homology of textiles and colours between Aaronsgarments and the tabemacle(-as-microcosm) materials, note the way in which the making ofthe priestly garments n Exod. 39 is structured so as to recall the tenfold sequence of creativeacts of Genesis 1 (see C.J. Labuschagne, Numerical Secrets ofthe Bible: Rediscovering theBible Codes {North Richland Hills, TX: Bibal Press, 2000}, pp. 44-46). This seems to say thatthe manui`actur

eof Aarons garment

sby Bezalel, the onewho has divine Wisdom and he

Spirit of God (Exod. 31.1-3), ecapitulates

Gods own creationofthe cosmos.14. Ben Sira 50.7; 4Q405 23.ii.9 (Fletcher-1.ouis,All the Glory ofrldam, pp. 374-77) and

the mareh cohen of the musoph prayer for Yom Kippur all identify the high priest with theanthropomcrphic Glory of Ezek. 1.26-28. Cil generally Aristeas 96-99 (where the high priestin his garments s the fulfilment of G1ory); losippon 10.11-12 and Samaritan Chronicle 11130a (see Fletcher-Louis, Worship ofthe Jewish High Priest, pp. 75-77, 98-102); T Levi 8.5- t V r..;-,... .......x. ... ns 1...1.. and honoured robe") and - no - -....13... 2..Vl.-vu vrv i:ur\nl'nU 'STDAT1Vl'1 IXUIV UUU Ul-'UV',,.1, -,... I ....1 I.- ..l.1 an rrrnl\T\\J ( KVHIU Kill EVUULJJV V \""|" \ *"urhm= I .H\I1 IS LYIVCTI 3. U \U \|lV Vi Y WIICIG L.Gv| La Ein.-- ......


6/21

160 Journal for the Stuojzofthe Historical JesusGl01y.l5On the stage of the cultic microcosm he is the creat0r, and divinewarrior surrounded by clouds of incense Exod. 40.27, 34; 1 Kgs 8.10; 2 Chron.5.11; Lev. 16.124 3; ci Lev. 9.22-24), cerryingfierjy coals, dressed n garb that(according o Josephus, J 5.23 ;Am. 3184) symbolizes hunder and ightning,his garments sprinkled with the blood of Gods victories (Exod. 29.1921;ofesp. sa.63.1-6, but also Deut. 33.2-3; Eudg.4-5; Ps,68.8-9, 18).*7He is divineWisdom sAvatar}3 According to a brief and antalizing passagen Josephusheis, n effect , called Yahweh, the mosthonoured of revered names(BJ 4.163-64). Israe1s ult was anieoriic,we have been old. But this view is mistakensince,at least for one dominant strand of biblical thought, the high priest is the trueidol, the image (tselem, Gen. 1.26-27), of the one creator God.] And as thestatue of the living God he is rightly the recipient of cultic devotion; of worhip.2Ali this, t must be stressed,s true ofthe high priestly ojfice (that s ritu-aiiy prescribed or particular times, a particular place, o specific garmentsandliturgical acts).None of this applies-ateastnot di1eetlyto the various privateindividuals who held that office when hey were about heir daily activities out-side the bounds of that office. You are to worship the high priest at the right

the anguage of Glory used ofthe (high priestly-Enochic) Son of Man in the Similitudes and ofthe Son of Man in the Gospels.

l5. This is the post-biblical expression (Sirach 50.11; 2 Enoch 22.8) that derives fromExod. 28 .2, 40 where Aarons garments are made 17REJl'l 71 'IWZD'7 (

for glory and for beauty),slr; Trwiv xori 560rv (forhonour and for giory) (cf. generally Pss. 29.1; 96.7; Job 37.22; LXXJob 40.10; Ps. 8.6). See also 1QSb 4.28; 4Q511 35 4; Ardsteas 97-99, and the peculiarexpression for the (high) priestly ministry in Gods Glory in Sirach 45.7 and 4Q405 23 ii.16. This is the burden ofthe complex intratextuality between Gen. l.12.4 and Exod. 25-31 in Sirach 24 and 50 which 1have discussed in Fletcher-Louis, Wisdom Christolo gy and thePartings ofthe Ways', pp. 52-68, Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory qfAdom, pp. 73-81 ; and Fletcher-Louis, 1`emp1eCosmology of P. The notion is tiindamerrtal to P itself, as can readily be seenfrom the way in which Aarons tendin

gof the tabernacl

emenorah

at the Tamid sacrifice(Exod. 27.20-21

;30.7-8) recapituiate

sGods separatio

nof the day and night throug

hthe

creation of light and the boundaries of the evening and morning (Gen. 1.3-5).17. See further F1etcherLouis, All the Glory of Adam, pp. 81-83, 222-51; Barker, The

High Priest and the Worship of Jesus, pp. 93-1 11 (and see Sirach 45.6-8; 40408 3; T Reub.6.12).

18. Hence the precise parallelism between Wisdom s and Simons prosopographies inSirach 24.1-24 and 50.1-21.19. See Fletcher-Louis, Gods {mage,His Cosmic Temple and the High Priest', pp. Bl-99;

Fletcher-Louis, 'The Worship ofthe Jewish High Priest, pp. 71-102 and Fletcher-Louis, TheImage of God', pp. 73-89; C.L. Meyers, Exodus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2005), pp. 242, 244-45 and Philo, On Dreams 1.208-215.

20. E.g. Pseudo-1-lecataeus in Diodorus Siculus XL.3 .4-6; ill Reub. 6.12; Ben Sira 50. 1 21s -- -.. .. .- A- .r A r g. a.,...r.... am r 221-445: b. Yomo69a;40405 23 ii; 2Enoch(esp. vv. 20-21); 1 Mace. 14.4i;sosepnus,zrm. r..>3r555,.,. r.,....,. .,..., .,, .-- .- - -- -- . .. -r- --1- ,..- ..4* +1.- wwmnnla rwnvm {ni YOITI KlDDuT.M. 1 ..1,.. oa


7/21

F1etcherLouis Jesusas the High Priestly Messiah 161moment on certain cultic occasions n the temple courts, but not if you happento bump into him in the Jerusaiern ruit market?The High Priesthood in Jewish Political TheologyEngagementwith the much-discussed uestion of Jesus elationship to Jewishmessianisrnhasbeen blighted by two conceptual mistakes.The first of these sthe common assumption hat Jewish nessianismmeansJewishexpectationof afuture deliverer. A future messianichope is a vital concern,but messianism sbefore all else a question of alternativeand competing modelsof political leader-ship; t is a matter of political theology. In the period of the monarchy the kingwas sraels messiah anointed one) with a high priest acting ashis deputy alongwith prophets,military commanders nd others n attendance).n the Pentateuch,Aaron, the chief priest, s the messiah. n neither of these s a future, eschato1ogial, messiahawaited andmessianisms dynastic, herebyguaranteeingcontinuitybetween he past,present and irture. In the post-biblical period, as n somepor-tions of the biblical text, a future messiah s looked for because, n the presentone or other messianicoffice is vacantor the current ncumbent s deemed nade-quate; a religious and political crisis must be rectified. To be sure, that crisisoften has cosmological ramifications and its resolution might entail cosmictransformation, but the political dimension remains.Jewish nessianicexpectationalwayspresumesa particular political theology;by what leadership he nation will achieve ts political goals and, hereafter,howits ideal constitution should be governed in a time of peace.Once a particulargroup or tradition decides upon a particular political theology the degree towhich it is yet unrealized in the presentdecides in what ways political actors,such as oyal (military) leaders,prophets andpriests,are expected n the future.So oo, n the caseof Jesus,a primary historical question mustbe, what view ofIsrael's ideal leadership (whether in this or in some new age) did the prophetfrom Nazareth ake?' The answer o that question hen eadsus to another; whatview of his own role in the nations leadership (in the present or messianicage ) did he have?Of course, n answering hese questions,at times, the pri-mary sourceswill have o be used o work backwards rom the second o the firstquestion:a particular expectationof the future arrival of a new David may ell usthat a group believed the nation should be ed by a king. On the other hand, otherevidence may indicate hat that group s political theology was diarchic, with thefuture royal messiahsubordinate o a priest already satisfactorily nstalled n hisofiice.22So, too, if Jesus ndorsesa Davidic messianichope, it doesnot mean

21. The high priest s forbidden

to wear his sacred

garments

outside he sanctuary

(Lev.2l.10-12; Ezek. 42.14; 44.19). For the Hasmoneans this meant keeping the garments in theAntonia fortress hat was evidentlyconsidere

dto fall within the bound

sof the sanctuar

ypre-

scribedby Leviticus and Ezekiel (seeJosephus,

Ant. 20.91

-92).r -

- V-

JA- t- -.1. . ..:....:~. ar nrrmmn wh;-rn there was already an #Sl3l7llSllCln 1~r.:.. .......-.wIma-pa tn the erhrmtnn a Uumraur wucrc urwc'7'7 'I `hm AHHTDXIHIHIBS LU UIC nuuuuun cn. yu.--;


8/21

162 Journal for the Study ofthe Historical Jesusthathe envisagesno future role for a high priest, alongside,above or beneath henations king. Nor does t mean he excluded he possibility that he would him-self be both that royal messiahand the nations priestly one.All this means hatour historical task mustbe attentive o the shapeof Jewish political theologies,not just instancesof a future hope, if we are to make senseof Jesusand hisoptions as a self-conscious eader of a movementvying for a place in the politi-cal game.The second weakness of historical Jesus esearch s its fixation on royalmessianism.This is understandable. n the Gospels oyal language s obvious othe casual eader. And throughout theNew TestamentJesuss hailed rnessiah,Son of David, where it is only Hebrews,at themargins ofthe canon, hat thereis any explicit interest n Jesus'high priesthood.Although, as shall argue, hereis priestly language in the Gospels, t is not obvious and the average modernreader of the New Testamentknows ittle ofthe material in the Pentateuch hatbrings it to light. Priestly categorieshave played a significant role in EastemChristianity, but in the (especially Protestant)West, they have all but disap-peared. But, as s now widely recognized,on close nspection here is not the nterestin royalty and royal messianic expectation in the Gospels or their historicalcontext that the reader might expect. According to the extant Gospel records,lesus reely spoke of himself as prophet and as Son of Mani He was reluctantto accept he title messiahor its royal associations, t east until his final entryinto Jerusalem and showdown with the authorities (Mk 10.46-52 and 11.1-llwith parallels). And even then, at his trial, just as he had qualified Peter'smessianicacclamation at CaesareaPhilippi (Mk 8.29-3 ; Mt. 16.16,20-21 Lk.9.20-22), he prefers to speak of the Son of Man rather than of David (or ofthe royal messiahwho is the son of Godlthe blessed).23The popular assumption hat all first-century Jewswere eagerly awaiting aroyal figure as heir sole messianichope of release rom (Roman) oppression salso not sustainedby the evidence.24We have perhaps ust one or two texts hat

high priesthood,

at least or someof the movements

history, thougha future royal, warriorprince was awaited (see esp. lQSb).

23. Mt. 26.63-64; Mk 14.6l; Lk. 22.69-70. The way the title messiah' is qualified byson of God1'son of the blessed' in the high priests questioning of Jesus is best explained bythe fact that messiah itself is an open title with several possible meanings. The appositionalson of God' makes clear that Caiaphas thinks lesus claims to be a royal rnessiah, given thepreponderance ofthe phrase son of God' in royal contexts (e.g. Ps. 2; 2 Sarn. 7.13-I4).

24. For those who have seena minimal (royal) messianicexpectation in J esusJewish con-text seeW.S. Green, ntroduction. Messiah n Judaism:Rethinking the Question', in J. Neusner,W.S. Green and E. Freriehs (eds.), Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn ofthe ChristianEra (Cambridge

:Cambridge

University Press, 1987),

pp. I -l 3; J l~l.Charlesworth,

l`heCon- ' ' ' '- - t'-- ----J--1 in W J-lsmcrwmrll-l_l zm1)OfIl1l(#(lS.),AU_fl'fl#gUWd Ju.- vr.r....-:..1. t.-. the- D=rrdnnrrnr1rla . H1. W . Hana: anu r r. nnant +t\1r l\/lntitilh H1 [HC l 5Cl.lLlUU\KilJ 1 ***CEDE 01 LUG Nuiaoruu ur use x ........


9/21

Fletcher-Louis Jesusas the High Priestly Messiah l63 Eunequivocally estify to sucha royal messianicexpectationn the centuries rrune-diately prior to the ministry of Jesus Psalms of Solomon l7-18; f SibyllineOracles 3.652-56). A sensitiveand responsibleuse of (a) the evidence or prob-ably royal messianicmovements n the first and secondcenturies,25 b) post-AD 70 pseudepigraphical literature (Sibylline Oracl es 5, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch),(c) traditionswhich speak n unspecifrc ermsof a (sometimes eavenly) edeemer(e.g. Dan. 7.13; Lk. 1.78), (d) the Targumsand (e) the possible rnessianicmoti-vations in the translations ofthe Hebrew Bible into Greek (the LXX), createsapicture of some Jewssome of the ime pinning their hopes and aspirations forthe future on a royal messiahfigure.2 Somehave exaggerated he absenceof abelief in a royal messiah.27 But much of the material that does attesta royalmessianiehope assumeshat that ndividual will act n tandemor overlap with ahigh priestly one.

Evidence for belief in a sole royal figure at Israels head is hard to findzsWhether hey were already exercising a political programme or looking forward

Niealergang der Rdmischen Welt (ANR PIO

(Berlin and New York: W. de Gruyter, 1979), ll. 19. 1,pp. 188-218 (2l7); .l.H. Charlesworth, From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology:Some Cavats and Perspectives', in Neusner, Green and Frerichs (eds.), Juclaisrns and TheirMessiahs, pp. 225-64 (29); E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Bel ef 63 BCE66CE London:SCM Press, 1992)

,p. 295.

25. That is, movements described by Josephus and from what we can learn of the leadersofthe second and third Jewish revolts in ll5l7 and 132-35 AD. Though it should be notedthat many of the revolutionarymovement

sandsevera

lof the key actors n the first Jewish

revolt as described by Josephus are priestly.26. For this approach see esp. W. I-lorbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult afCl1rist (Lon-

don: SCM Press, 1998); idem, Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepi-grapha,

in J. Day (eds.),King andMessiah

in srael and heAncientNearEast: Proceedings

ofthe Oxford Old Testament Seminar (J SOTSup, 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, l 998),pp. 402-33.

27. Sanders (Practice and Belirgf p. 296) is mistaken, for example, in claiming the WarScroll (XQM, 4QM) from Qumran has no royal military messiah. lt does, as 1QM 5.1 and,now, 4Q285, show.28. The Psalms qfS0lomon-the one apparently obvious example of a belief in a singleroyal messiah-is not, on close examination, devoid of comment on the role ofthe high priest-hood. The Hasmoneans are arrogant sinners who have, with the arrival of Pompey, beendethroned (17.4-10). The new Davidic king is to do what the Hasmoneans failed to do. He willglorify the name of God, the Lord (17.30-32) as the Lord messiah (contrast 17.6 where thel-lasmoneans 'did not glorify your honourable namea traditional high priestly duty, as lQSb4.28 shows) and he will cleanse Jerusalem of its sin and impurity, as had Judas Maccabeus inthe previous century (1 Mace. 4.36-41). Whilst the king takes over some ofthe responsibilitiesthat had previously been those of the high priesthood, the Psalms nowhere deny a continuing ' ` *~' And Miticism nf the 1-lasmoneans seems to imply the0l# {GT till?. .lBI'\. S3l#m high pt 1E.Sill0. Ami ur uiuraru ur we r..............--.. .,....,, . ., a -11.,:4, -.... char bunuro itc nlmih4-. W r ..........- ..-i+IMnA nlhmt nun Thill KHOWS HS UIELUU \ i...sA Fav er nrnmar HTIBRIHOOLI. HAUULL um: mm. mw vTBCG IG t Uupw pr auanuuvu ......-.-


10/21

164 Journal for the Studyofthe Historical Jesusto a new (eschatological and,perhaps, ranscendent) uture, the vast majority ofJews believed in one or other of three possible Godgiven orms of govern-ment.29 Thesewere hateither,1. the nation should be ruled by one (an0inted) high priest, and a

priest alone: the Samaritans,Heoataeus f Abderafu Ben Sira(?),3iDaniel,32 he Oniad connmmity at Leontopo1is(?),

33Judith,34 heAni-

mal Apocahzpse,35 the Epistle of Aristeas, the TestamentofMoses,35the view of some who send embassies o Pompey (63 BC) asking

29. This brief overview of the sources would need a much longer explanation to be fullydemonstrated.

And I haveomitted he role of Mosaic, Levitical andpropheticoffices, and hepart to be played by a supreme council, a Sanhedrin, that complicate the picture f urther. I {indno evidence to support E.P. Sa.nders proposal that someJewsdid not believe in the messiahbecause they thought God alone would bring about the eschatological clnouement (Practiceand Belief pp. 297-98).

30. Hecataeus (in Diodorus Siculus 40.3) describes a temple state ruled by priests forwhich reason

the Jews neverhavea king.3l. Seeesp. M. Himmelfarb, The Wisdom ofthe Scribe, the Wisdom ofthe Priest, andthe

Wisdom ofthe King according to Ben Sira, in R.A. Argall, B.A. Bow and R.A. Werline (eds.),For a Later Generation:The Transformatio

nof Tradition n Israel Early JudaismandEarly

Christianity (Harrisburg:

Trinity Press nternational,

2000),pp. S9-99.

The assignment

of cer-tain roles usually associated with kingship to the priest perhaps puts Ben Sira in the next cate-gory--(b), and it is not absolutely clear that Ben Sira and his grandson (Sirach) would notallow a diarchic government-(c).32. Danie1seschatological expectation and worldview is primarily priestly. The one likea son of man is a high priest (see below), in 9.24-27 the messianism is obviously priestlyand inthe man Daniel himself Israelite royalty (1 .3-7) is divested ofthe normal responsibilitiesof kingship and made an exemplar of a more general apocalyptic piety.

33. The direct literary evidence (from Josephus)and the likely indirect evidence of JosephandAseneth ndicates hat he Oniadcommunityat Leontopoli

shadan entirelypriestly eader

-hip. The communitys military role in supporting the Ptolemaic rule in Egypt suggests thatthey had little room for a royal leader alongside their Zadokite head. (See ABD, Ill. 1065-66.)

34. In 5.3 the Assyrian Holofemes asks who rules over the Jews as king. ln what followsthe answer is given by the Ammonite Achior and the works eponymous heroine: the Jews do nothave a king, because God is their king (5.5-22; 9.12). But the nation does have a (high) priest-hood (4.6-15; 15.8-10) that takes responsibilities for military matters like the high priest Simon(Ben Sira 50.4), the Oniads of Leontopolis and, later, the Maccabean Jonathan (e.g. l Macc.l0.18-2l).35. Judas Maccabeus plays the key role (90.9- 14), not a king. But, pace J J Collins, TheSceptreand the Star: The Messiah

sof the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature

(New York: Doubleday,

l995), p. 34 this doesnot mean hat the Animal Apocalypses

lacksmessianism;

it simply means

the messianism

is priestly. And the climactic vision ofthe whitebull with huge black horns n 90.37-3

9is of a new Adam with no clear royal, let alone

,avidic, characteristics.. . . .. .t.:.. -- re r .

ra

1 .1\ ami lrmlm Fmward to the coming36. T Mos. derides

lsraels recent ings (5.1-2;o.1-2 , anu ucks tomato ..- 1......... 1,.;.4.Nasal no H in the eschatological dnouement.... 1unl\r-lu|n*mT1 l'l1l'l HUGS . I. l\J1J 111 UN- *""Of E I'lB3V#HlV*uLuuaii instr relive. . ...


11/21

Fletcher-Louis Jesusas the High Priestly Messiah 165Rome to restore a hierocracy (Diodorus Siculus 40.2; Josephus, nt.14.41),37

or2. it should be ruled by an anointed one who is both priest and king(a priest who is also a king).3SThe Aramaic Levi Document,39 ome(pre-Christian) material in the Testament fTwelve Patriarchs, heHasmoneans rom John Hyrcanus I onwards, (some) Sadduceesfnsome Pharisees,42 Josephus preferred state ,*3 TheSimilitadesof

37. The views expressed in someofthese exts might n fact belong to thosewho believedhc nation should bc ruled by one who is both priest and king. For example, when Hccatacusdescribes the Judaism known to him hc neednot know, or faithfully report, hc fact that theJcws who worship hc high priest at thc headof thc templestatebelievehim to bc bcxhpriestcmdking.

38. Because in Genesis 1-2 Adam has both royal characteristics {in 1.26-30 and in ch. 2as Gods gardener) and priestly ones (sec c. g. Wcuham, SanctuarySymbolism in the Garden cfEden St01y,pp. 399-404} and becauseSecond Temple political theology sought to replicate theconditions ofthe paradisai Urzcit, thc combination of king and priest in one {igurc will havebeen conceptually far more attractive than modem scholarship has appreciated. D.W. Rcokcthinks that the Hasmcnca

np1icsth00ds

adoption

ofkiugship s an aberration

andEquivalentto blasphem

yof thc worst kind {Kingship as Pricsthocd:TheRelationship

between

thc HighPricsthcmd amd hc Monarclf, in J. Day [cd.}, King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient NearEast. Proceedings ofthe Oxford Old Testament Seminar {Sheffield: Shcif1cld Academic Press,1998], pp. 187~20S [207-208]). She docs not discuss the material that follows and there is nodirect cvidcncc

-:that anyon

ethought hc ater Hasmonca

npositionblasphcmcus

.The aking up

ofkingship into priesthood is already a feature of thc vision of P, where (pace Rocks:) Aaronwears garbpreviously associated

with (sacral)

kingship (Exud. 28).39. In this third century BC text Levi absorb

sthc characte

rof kingship. Isaiah 11.2 s

applied to Levi in 4QTL.cvi col. I. 14 (= Testamentofthe TwelvePatriarchs ms. c = Athcs Cod.39, 8). Sec M.E. Stone and J. C. Grccniicid, Thc Prayer of Lcvi, JBL 112 (1993), pp. 247-66(261),and cf. I Levi 2.3; 4.5; 18.7.Languag

ein thc royal blessin

gof Juda

h(Gcn. 49.10) s

transferred to Kchath in the Aramaic Levi Document 66-67 (= Camb. Cul. c. 5-6; ci TZLevi11.5, noted by M.E. Stone and J C. Grecniicld, Rcmarks on thc Aramaic Testament of Levifrom thc: Gcniza, RB 86 [1979], pp. 214-30 {223-24]). The statement that Kohath n


12/21

166 Jourmzlfor the Studyofthe Historical Jesus 2Enochfm 2 Ertoch,45 r

3. it should bc ruled jointly by an an0intcd priest and an an0intciking,46with the atter subordinate o the former: Jubilees (31.1 -20),QumranEsscnism, some (pre-Christian) material in the Testamentof the Twelve Poiriorchsfw Pseudo-Pi1ilos Biblical Antiquities,43Siracli(?), (probably) thc founders of thc fourEh pl1i1osophy,4

that aristocratic, Hasmonean, tradition (Josephus is priest and prophet: B.JQ3.352; Josephus ispriest and descendent of 1-lasmonean royalty: Vita l-6; Ant. 16.187; he thinks the Mosaic consti-tution is a clerical theocracy-an aristocracy: C. Ap. 2.164; 185-89; Ant. 4.2l4, 218 (cf. Deut.17.9); 6.83-84; 11.11l, 326-39; 20.224-29). And perhaps, as Bruce Chilton has suggested, hewas seeking himself to be given aposition of high priestly governance in Judaea by his Flavianpatrons (The Temple qfJesns, p. 77). At Ant. 4.223-224 (cf. 6.157) he concedes the possibilityof a constitutional monarchy, but only as a esser form of government and provided the king issubordinate

to the priesthood

andSanhedrin.4. I take t that he messiah

(48.10;52.4)ofthe Similitudes s identified hroughout

thetext with Enoch (so C.ll.T. Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts: Angels. Christology and Soteriology[WUN'1 , 2.94; Ttibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1997], pp, l 5 1 52, following the seminal insights ofl.C. VanclerKam, Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37-7 l ,in .l.ll.Charlesworth [eds.], The Messiah: Developments in EarliestJudaism and Christianity[Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992], pp. 161-91). 1also take it that the identification of Danie1sone like a son of man (in Eth. Enoch 46.1 and thereafter) with Enoch is based on the axio-matic identification of both Enoch and the figure in Daniel 7.13 as lsrae1s true (proto-, oreschatological) high priest. The Son of Man-rnessiahof the Similitndes s not aking, much lessa son of David, but he has absorbed the trappings of royalty, as the use of Isa. 11 n 49.1-4 and62.2, and apossible influence of Ps. 1 10 (M. Hengel, Studies in Earhz Christology [Edinburgh:T. &. T. Clark, 1995], pp. 184-85) shows. That the Similitucles has such an explicit priest-kingmessianic expectation will partly explain why it has not been found in the Qumran caves.

45. This appears to be the logic of the claim that Enoch is the founder of the line of thetrue priesthood (22.8-10; 68-72) and that, as the seventh from Adam, he possesses Adamsdivine kingship (30. l 2) (on this see A.A. Orlov, On the Polemical Nature of 2 [Slavonic]Enoch: A Reply to C. Bottrich , JSJ 34 [2003], pp. 274-303), The true lineage of high priests willpass to Melchizedek (chs. 7l72). The same view may be expressed in the earliest Enochicliterature 1 Enoch 1-36 etc. ...), where he priestly Enoch akesover he role ofthe Mesopo

-amianking-priest.46. This view, of course, finds precedent in biblical texts such as Jer. 33.17-22; Zech.

4.l4; 6.1 i-13 and, in effect, this is the position of the Deuteronomist (Deut. 17.18-20).47. E.g. TZ Judah 21.1-2; YZSim. 7.1-2.48. Anointed priest: 48.2 (Phinehas); 51.7 (Samuel); anointed king: 51.6. The difficultmaterial surrounding the Judahite Kenaz and the high priestly garments n chs. 25-28 appears

to have in mind a diarchic constitution for the nation.49. They are called Zadok and Judah (Josephus, Ant. 18.4), names that surely indicate a

claim to a true diarchic leadership of priest and king. This circumstantial evidence is supportedby textual material at Masada that has an Essenic provenance (see material in C.A. Newsom,Y. Yadin, S. Talmon and E. Qimron, Masada VI: Y gael Yadin Excavations, 1963-1965: F naReports:HebrewFragmentsom Masada Israel ExplorationSociety, HebrewUniversity of- -

- . wu. m.:1....-..i..= Atamhip mr-eeiiminm is nerhaus c0t1tlll\1Bd 0116 OT

. .4-.-- 1 rmmx r*1... H'm-th Ph1Innnhv'S' t1lBt C[l1tJI11c:su1u111ri1 ia yo--ray.; ~'T0111 111lUupuy umvinc

I've now changed my mind about 2Enoch and think it belongs inanother category - its interest inMelchezedek puts it in a similarplace to the gospels and Orlov iswrong in thinking that in 2 EnochEnoch is king


13/21

F etcher-Louis Jesusas theHigh Priestly Messiah 167Josephus acceptable,but not preferred state5 nd he leaders ofthethird Jewish revolt (Bar Kosiba and Eleazar).5l

The absence of a purely royal rncssianisrn and the ubiquity of the priestlyalternative in the political theology of the later years of the Second Templeshould not surprise us.52This is thepicture presented by the Hebrew Bible. Adescription of the biblical vision-and its egacy n the post-biblical material-that emphasizes he presence of royal messianism s only possible if the OldTestament s tself read without due attention o its canonical shape.53 Althoughit may be true hat historically lcingship-that of Saul, David, Solomon and herest--preceded a shift in the exilic and post-exilic period to the rule of the priest-hood, this s not he story the Bible tells. In its canonical orm the Sinaitic cove-nant, the nstitution of the tabernacle as deal temple) andthe supremacyofthe(high) priesthood of Aaron and he prophetic-teaching role of the Levite Mosesdefine the utopian vision of lsrael s political existence.54 The Pentateuch salmost devoid of royalty.55The highesthonour P gives o the older royal tribe ofJudah s responsibility for temple architecture,craftsmanshipanclconstruction(representedby the role of Bezalel from the tribe of Judah in Exod. 31 l-3),serving he needsofthe priests and he people.56n antiquity, unlike modernity,

two generat ions

later with .ludahs

(grand)son,

Menahem,

playing he role of royal messiah

(B-L2.434, 444) alongside the priest(l) Eleazar (BJ 2.447), who then leads the movement at Masada.

50. Ant. 2.223-24; 6.l57.5 1 . Their diarchic leadership is clear on coins minted by the revolutionaries that mentionEleazar the Priest alongside Simon. SeeE. Schtirer, G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black, TheHistory ofthe Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. C.-A.D. 135) (3 vols.; Edin-burgh: T. T. Clark, 1973-87), I, p. 544, who, without justification, refer to Simon only asBar Kochbas deputy.52. Pace, e.g., Collins, The Sceptre and the Star, p. 95. 1have not included the evidence ofPhilo hat s hard o define, hough t takes or grante

dthepriestly hegemon

yof thePentaeuc

h.3. ln all the highly productive, detailed examination of the Targums, the Septuagint andthe allusive interpretation of scripture in the pseudepigrapha and Dead Sea Scrolls that is nowundertaken in some quarters, there is a danger of missing the canonical narrative wood for theexegetical trees of the scriptures individual portions.

54. Sanders (Practice and Belief} p. 297) sees the dominance ofthe priesthood in the bibli-cal text, but not the full force of priestly hegemony in the narrative shapeof scripture.And ironi-cally, in this regard, he cites the Deuteronomist (Deut. 31.9)with no reference to P

s material.55. Royalty is implicitly exalted over priesthood)

in Gen.49. But the blessing

of Moses(Deut. 33) hat closes he Pentateuc

h,andperhap

ssupercedes

that of Jacob,

downplays

the roleof Judah (33.7) at the expense of Levi (33.8-1 l). The prophecy of Numbers 24.7, l7 looksforward o a royal iigure, thoughmany in the post-

biblicalperiod ead Ba1aam

soracle n

diarchic erms (esp. QL, but perhaps

also the LXX and he revolutionaries

Bar Kosiba andEleazar). See also Gen 17.6, I6; 35.11.

56. For the ikelihood hat Ps depictionof Aaron,Mosesand he Tabernacle

is a critiquer 7 - v-2-.--1-... 1*-....-.1-. Gu hmmtinrm-4-lr-,. ..1,1..- rwavtrlin Temnla state sec .l.D. LBVEHSOTLn tha f\1t]CT UHVIUJU usruprs. eww eu- -- **1*1-..- Tpvirealnm Icmt]1B H1 Uuvutrurxur

Typo Here: that should read Eleazar, not 'Simon


14/21

168 Journal for the Study ofthe Historical Jesus Iwhat matters, what is trustworthy and authoritative, is what is oid And thePentateuch s constructed o claim that the priestly temple stateon which thereturnees rom exile would model their life is basedon that of Sinai, and hat, nturn, the Tabernacle-camp evealed to Moses at Sinai is a recapitulation of theoriginally intended order of creation. n the biblical story the monarchy camelater and was bedevilled from the start by theological and political problems(1 Sam.8; l0.l7-l9; 12.12, 17-25).57 he prophets,by and large, see he futurein priestly terms (esp.Ezekiel, Zech. 1-8, Haggai, Joel, Malachi, Daniel), evenwhere future rule is sharedwith kings?JesusJewish contemporariesdid not have he metanarrative of modernhistorical criticism in which (the reality of pre-exilic) kingship precedes he(fiction of post-exilic) priestly hegemony.Whatever he historical actuality, aterJews ead their Bible as a whole and ook for granted its construal of israelitehistory. The competingpolitical theories hey espouse rise rom different fonnsof acco1n1noclation-where one is not clearly given in scripture tself-betweenthe priestly hegemony of the Pentateuchand he belief (outside Saniaritanism)that God had ordained, at least for a period, longs to rule the nation. The onestriking example of a hope for a single royal messiah Psalms ofSolcm0n 17-18) s highly situational in outlook, responding o the failure ofthe Hasmoneansafter the triumph of Pon1pey.5 his single witness s hardly statistically suffi-cient to establisha resurgenceof widespread nterest n David and the monarchyafter the collapse of the Hasmoneans, s s sometimesclaimed.Much ofthe evidence noted above s for a political theology that s alreadyrealized (e.g. Hecataeus,Judith), not a messianic expectation for a uture re-deemer.But even though priestsheld power to one degreeor another hroughoutour period, some ooked forward to a uture, when,becauseofthe contemporarycorruption of the priesthood, an ideal priest would reign.6 n addition, there is

and Visionary Experience, in A. Green (ed.), Jewish Spiri1uaIity. rom the Bible through theMiddle Ages (New York: Crossroad, 1986), pp. 32-61 (33-34). And for the anti-monarchicpriestly vision of Gods intended order see NLG. Brett, Earthing the Human in Genesis 1-3,in N.C. l

labelandS. Wurst (eds.), TheEarth Story in Genesi

s(Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic

Press, 2000),pp. 73-86 7 7-78).7. For a niceexampl

eof this sensitivity o the canonica

lnarrative hap

eof scriptureand

the consequent

supremacy

of the priesthood

in the ideal sraelite state seeBen Sira 4450.osephuspreference for a priestly aristocracy s also due to the narrative plot oflsrac-:1s politi-cal history (see Josephus, Am. 6.83-84; 11.1 1 -12; 20.224-51).

58. The conclusions

ot] for example,

Collins, TheSceptre rid he Star, p. 95, o the effectthat dual messianism s only really found at Qumran and within Essenism-

asa reaction to the

I-lasmonean

position-and

that he role ofthe pr iesthood

in messianism

is anaberration

fromthe biblical picture, is puzzling.

59. Seeesp.Pss. Sel. 2 and17.4-10.0. E.g. Y

ZMos. 10.1 (where the existing priesthood is corrupt-5.4;6. -3; cf 7.3); Qum--. - . . ...- .--.--..... ....:...1mm1

:mmm and he rue priesthoo

dofiiciates e S --.......:.. IL .- sulnnvn Han lefunn lem UYIBSIHDUU 15 UUUI-|lJ'* l '`ann rnm1mm|hHTm' WHUITI [HE JCI ubmmu lJ*W' ' **


15/21

Fletcher-Louis Jesusas the High Priesily Messiah 169 ;other circumstantial evidence hat the priestly office and ts accoutrementswerethe focus of messianic, evolutionary fervour. This is, no doubt, one reason whythe Romans put the high priests garb under lock and key for much of the firstcentury of the Christian era.6lThat garb represented hewhole cosmosand bothRomansand Jewswere alive to ts potentpolitical symbolism for Jewish aspira-tions of freedom andworld dominionfz Also there was symbolic significance nthe choice of a new high priest by the revolutionaries at the beginning of theGreat War with Rome. Judging by the evidence of Josephusand one rabbinictext, that significance was n part due to the numerical values in the lineage ofpriests leading up to his appointment. Josephus ays that there were 70 highpriests from the building of the first temple up to this last high priest (Ant.20.228) and hat there were 28 from the times of Herod onwards (Ari . 20.250).70 is the multiple of 7 and 10. 28 is both the 7th triangular number (7 + 6 + 5 +4 + 3 + 2 + l) and,also, aperfect number (a number hat s the sum of i ts divisors:1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + i4). i-le also ndicates hat the last, evolutionary, priest was the84th from Aaron (Ani. 20.227; cf. YZYoma 1.1).84 is a multiple of 7 and 12. Forsome he revolutionaries appointment of a high priest probably had Enochicconnotations since gematria on Enoclfs name is 84;63he would certainly havebeen thought to embody salvation-historical completion and mystical tran-scendence.

Jesusand the Political Theology of His AgeWhat does he hierocratic fonn of Jewishpolitical theology mean or our questfor the historical iesus? The following general considerations now demandfuller investigation:1. f this sketchof high priestly identity is anywhere near he mark, then, aspart of the question of Jesusmessianic self-consciousness, the possibility ofhim thinking he had a divine identity must be reopened. if Jesus hought ofhimself in priestly categories hen he could, in theory, have believed that he wasa singular embodiment of Gods own identity, ust as he high priest was (in the

down by the Dead Sea, ready in waiting for the communitys rise to power [lQSb, 4Q400-405]); he so-called FourthPhilosophy that is led, n part, by the Pharisaic priest Zadok as analternative revolutionary candidate for the nations priesthood over against the high priest ofRoman choice, Joazar son of Boethus [Josephus, Ant. 18.2-4]).

61. Ant. 15.403-406; l8.90-95; 20.6-9.62. Similar garments

were amously wornas a displayof military andpolitical powerbythe GreekDemetriusPoliocerte

sin the hird centuryBC seee.g. PlutarchsLives, Demetrius

XLI)." "" " """ "" """ " ~*l'=

nn the Fmervence of Jewish Mvsticism (Oxford:a FF D Elinr Tha 'lhrpn lPh1I7l#..' UH IBB DH.I#}dU"- *4} *""*-"' *"J""(1.5. LLL K. :.11ur, rm: une: reu,ut.... .,.. ...., ........-..-- ._,1 -.. toni v :1.-..... ..1-* rmuipl-. (lulim+in11 7Gll4\ D. 93. {Hunan I ihrnrv nf .IBWlSIl L1Vll lZ&illU11 LUU"U F- 7-'Lh LU1.x_y u .1uvv nm v ...a...........


16/21

l70 Journal for the Studyof the Historical Jesuscontext of his office). Since the fact that Jesus hought of himself in priestlyterms needsfirst to be established, a detailed consideration of this possibilitywill have o be closed off for a future occasion. nstead, turn in the restof thisessay o more immediate questions: what version of israels political constitu-tion did Jesusenvisage ? aud, did Jesus hink he was a priestly messiah? Aswe shall see,knowing what we now know about he divine ident ity of the (high)priest facilitates a full appreciation of Jesus(high) priesthood.2. In the ight of our sketchof Jewish messianis1nwe should now expect ofind more interaction with priestly categories n the Jesusmaterial than hashith-erto been assumedby those who have worked within the royal-messiah para-digm. Even f we were o decide hat Jesus id not, n any way, think in terms ofhis own priesthood, hat tself would be a fact hat called for historical comment.As it is, n what follows l will lay out someevidence hat Jesus hought of him-self as sraels true, eschatological high priest and hat this played a central rolein his aims, self-perception and the reasons or his death.I make a number of assumptions.First, taking seriously he canonical textsaccountof him, that Jesuswas not ust a preacherof subversivewisdom, but hathe identified himself and his mission with the larger sweepof Israels story,hercompeting eschatological, hat spol i tical , aspirationsand, herefore, hat, at thevery least,he believed himself to be a prophet of restoration. Secondly, assumethat he Jewisheschatologiescnown o him were not characterized y the kind ofradical transcendenceof history that hassometimes n modem scholarshipbeenretrojected nto the late Second Temple period.64As a good lewish prophet ofrestorationhe maywell have hoped or a transcendence f history-aransiigura-tion of time and space hat would entail a ransformationof Israels social,politi-cal and economic institutions. But, unlesshe dreamedup sucha scenario out ofnothing, he could not have expected he new age to have meant a completerejection of the institutions given to the nation in her canonical texts.Neitherwould his knowledge of, and participation in, an apocalyptic spirituality-anymeditative reading of Daniel, 1 Enoch and other such texts

havenurtured an

essentialhostility to temple, Torah and priesthood. On the contrary, if he hadvisions ofthe kind recorded n the apocalyptic and mystical texts hat have comedown to us he would perhaps have been drawn to think of himself in priestlyterms. Bearing in mind theseassumptionswe are bound to ask his question: if(as argued by E.P. Sanders and others)he believed that thepresent temple statestood under judgment and was to be replaced by a new one, how did he thinkthe nation would be led in the new age? He had five options:

7 . . . u . x A .1 4 - . {Jn n I I f CPE. ne, ..:.. :...i.....-+ and thncn that TOIIDW. ucc rmr.ure -.u FOI lClllS_]U(1gH1Cl lL l1I1U. Llluac men rurw , ....~n1-l..r. .... r ....i *uc smr A t10CEllVDlQlClSYTl.letcher-I .m1lS. Jtisus uuu n|J*-J 1****


17/21


18/21

172 Journal for the Study ofthe Historical Jesusbt?barely intelligible to his disciples, the crowds and he authorities. There ustwasnt the widespread expectation for the royal messiah that this scenarioassumes.The sourcesagree that a high priesthood has o figure somewhere nthe nations polity. But Jesusapparerttlyso scholarship has assuredus-hasnothing to say on the subject ofthe ideal priesthood. And if Jesuserases hehigh priesthood rom the eschatologicalpicture, why doeshe nowhere commenton the fact that the oliice is central to the Mosaic dispensation? The biblicalpattern of prophecy suggestsJesusshould have said something about Israelsfuture messianic arrangements.Why, if Jesuswas heard to state,or imply, theobsolescenceofthe priesthood, do the sourcesnot record that he was directlychallenged on this point ?65(v) Lastly, Jesusmight have hought he was sraelsdesignated oyal messiahand, as such,he was also her rue eschatological high priest. Again, for his fol-lowers, the crowds and he authorities his would have beena remarkable sort ofmessianism.There is hardly any precedent n post-biblical tradition for a kingclaiming the priesthood. For his Greco-Roman readers osephus s unequivocalon this possibility; Torah prohibits it.6And, of course, here is the grizzly taleof king Uzziahs ill-fated attempt to assume he priesthood as a warning to anyfuture aspirant 2 Chron. 26.16-21; cf l Sam. 13.7-14).But, on the other hand,abiblically literate Jew knows mattersare not so straightforward. For David andhis successors, kingship entailedcertaincultic responsibilities.Furthermore,eventhough he Davidic monarchy is subordinate salvation-historically to the priest-hood, he Aaronic dispensation s tself subsequento alternative political modelsthat precededSinai. I f lesus thought he was not only a royal messiah for whichhe qualities at birth), but alsoa high priest,he has wo biblical textswhich he canclaim to fulfil: the description of Adam in Genesis 3and Psalm 110.67

65. Il] as he Gospelsclaim, Jesusfinal mealwas nvested

with sacrificial symbolism-the making of a new covenant and the setting up of a new mechanism or the mediation oftheforgiveness of sins-then it is, again, hard to see how he did not consciously take a view on theproper ole ofthe priesthood

.It was he Levite Moseswho inaugura te

dthe covenan

tat Sinai

according

to which priests must preside

over sacrificial offerings. The trad ition that Jesus

isboth sacrificial victim and priest that is found, for example, in Hebrews and Revelation(victim: Rev. 5.6; priest: Rev. 1.13-16) is not simply the product of later theological reilection.Once Jesus is viewed as a sacrifice, within the historical context of his life story, the question,whieh priest offers that sacrifice?, follows immediately.66. Ant. 20.226: wherefore it is also a tradition that none should hold God s high priest-hood save him who is of Aarons blood, and that no one of another lineage, even if he happenedto be a king, should attain to the high priesthood. That Josephus can so liatly reject kings beingpriests, while idealizing he Hasmonea

nmodel of priestsbeingkings, rellects the axiomaticpriority of priesthoo

din the political and eligioussphere

s.7. I leave aside here discussion of Genesis 1-3 in which Adam has both royal andm-iesrlv haracteristics ( see r. 38 above}. although this is important for Jesusnot least becauseI l\;.J* \1A1\A.\u IDLIUD \\.\. In JU (uv Iv}, u-nannvubna wanna su utthe Son ofMan title has, at times, Adamic contours.


19/21

Fletcher-Louis esusas theHigh PrtestljaMessiah 173ln Psalm ll0 one who is first and foremost king (vv. 1-3) is also a priest

according othe order of Me1chizedek v. 4). Melchizedek s a priest-king who,according o biblical chronology,precedes he Aaronide priesthoodby some ourcenturies.For any Jew committed o the authority of antiquity, he supremacyofprimeval and patriarchal history over subsequent fallen history, Melchizedekoffers a potent alternative to the political models that give primacy to Sinai.68With the partial exception of material rom Zechariah,Psalm 110.1 s the onlytext to speakof a royal messiah that Jesus ites.And he cites t twice: once athis trial where he Psalrns priestking is identified with the Son of Man of Daniel7.l3 and once, in a less confrontational scene,while teaching in the templeshortly before his arrest.

In the atter context Mk l2.3537 nd parallels) Jesus skshis audiencehowit canbe that the royal messiah s the son of David if David himself speaks,nPsalm l 10.l , of him as his Lord, who is his superior. Jesusquestion is notanswered,but there should be ittle doubt what Jesuswas hinking. Psalm l0 isthe only biblical text that explicitly speaks of a king who is also a priest.Melchizedek, whosepriestly kingship the sraelite king is to follow, was a figurewho attracted considerable interest in Jesus Jewish world; not because as amythical figure he was a screenonto which merely religious imaginative specu-lation could be projected (as so much Melchizedek scholarship has assumed),but because, n a world where religion and politics were nseparable, he offereda distinctive, pre-Mosaic, political solution to the fraught questions of priestlyand royal functions in Gods Kingdom. The sources are eerily silent on thematter,7but it strains credulity to imagine that Melchizedek had not featuredprominently in the, sometimes loody, argumentsover he Hasmonean usion ofroyalty and priesthood. Melchizedek was along with his predecessorEnoch) osomeJews what Arthur was for medieval kings of England: a mythical proto-type for a political settlement.-

68. It is not a coincidence that Jubilees ignores Melchizedek in its retelling of thepatria1chal narratives: Jubtlees assiduously retrojects the Sinaitic dispensation into patriarchalnarratives

while advocating

a separation

of priestly and oyal ofhces.69. Zechariah 13.7 is cited in Mark 14.27 and parallels.70. l have suggested that Psalm l 10 influenced the behaviour of Herod Agrippa at

Caesarea Maritima (Josephus, Ant. 19.344-47; Acts 12.20-23) (Fletcher-Louis, All the Glow ofAdam, pp. l25-26), but otherwise it is nowhere used of an historical figure in extant SecondTemple sources. There is evidence that at points it has influenced the Jewish messianicexpectation in the Testament of the Twelve Patrlarchs and it was probably important for theSamaritans who located the Salem of Gen. 14 at Shechem (see the material in James L. Kugel,T aditfons ofthe Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it was at the Start ofthe Common Era [Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998], pp. 159-60).

71. The role of the Melchizedekian priesthood in 2 Enoch (ch. 7l) deserves far greaterattention as a witness to competing Jewish notions of political order than it has hithertoreceived, Desnite the fact that to a modern reader it seems more concerned with ure-scientificCUGIVULI. JJU].JII .U Luv L\L unt LU Q. 1LAUuv11| Iuuuv l


20/21

174 Journalfor the Study ofthe Historical Jesusit is absurd o imagine that Jesusaudience (and implied readers ofthe Gos-pels) did not have n mind the rest ofthe Psahn hat Jesus ites. n fact t is onlybecause hey know what follows that Jesus an reasonably expecthis hearers o

answer his question. The royal messiah s not adequately designated Davidsson because, as verses l4 of Psalm 110 show, David himself speaks of thatcharacteras one superior to his own, relatively recent kingship. The monarchyof Psalm l 10 combines priesthood and kingship in a fuller fashion than he everdid,72and is of more ancient pedigree than the parvenu David and his trouble-some heirs. n isolation, therefore, Mark l2.35-37 is Jesusthinly veiled publicstatementon the question of Israels Godintended schatological constitution:the nation should, and will, he thinks, be led by a king who is also a priest.73

Did Jesus hink he was that priestking? If he did, then he would have tocarefully manage his declaration of rnessianic intent. More than any othermessianicmodel this would get him into trouble. In the iirst place, t obviouslyentails a direct attackon the Sadduceanhigh priesthood. Secondly, few in thecrowds would be sympathetic to this claim. Some may have hankered (likeJosephus) fter the Hasmoneanmodel, but thataccordedmore straightforwardlywith the Mosaic priestly hegemony by having priestsbecomekings. Thosewholamented he Hasmonean corruption that opened he door to Roman rule willhave reacted violently to any suggestionof a fresh combination of priesthoodand kingship. As the Uzziah incident reminded hem,a monarch who usurps hepriesthood incurswrath from on high. During his ministry his disciples oo knewlesus piety and would, therefore, have had little thought for the possibility thattheir leader wasabout o launch his candidacyas he nations priest-king. If theythought he was a son of David, they would know that he could not also be a sonof Aaron.

cosmology,obscure

cultic instructionandbizarre eligiousexperience,

it is a vital witness othe ate Secon

dTemple orm of ahighly political genr

ein a continuou

straditionback hroug

hEnoch (via Priestly material in Ben Sira), all the way to Mesopotamian notions of an antedilu-vian sacral kingship. lndirectly, 2 Enoch probably attests to the importance of Melchizedek forthe Hasmoneans.

72. David is never called priest ( [ TID), though his nonreigning sons are in 2 Sam. 8.18,and israel s oiiicial history ofthe monarchy limits the cultic responsibilities of the king (see,e.g., the role ofthe priests in 1 Kgs 8) while describing the sacral duties of kings in particularlynegative contexts (1 Kgs 12; 2 Kgs 16).

73. Read this way, Marks version perhaps also becomes an attack on the scribes. OnceJesus

has appealed

to Psalm 110 or the scriptural iew of the messiah ,

his audience

hearsgain his original question, Why, indeed, do the scribes say that the messiah is a Son of David?

lf these are scribes who work for the temple establishment in support of the Sadduceanpriesthoodas

the location of Jesus teaching might suggest (cf 8.31; 10.33; 11.18, 27; 14. ,43, 53; 15.3 )then they have a vested interest in lookin g only for a non-priestly Davidic mes-siah who would. as all assumed, be subordinate to the (existing) high priestly establishment.


21/21

Fletcher-Louis Jesusas the High PriesthzMessiah 175 ggSo, if Jesusdid think he was a king-priest, he would have considerablepolitical obstacleso negotiateand publicdmage hurdles o overcome.Accordingto the Gospels he does not appeal o Psalm l0 until his last days n lerusalemand t is,ultimately, his self-referential interpretation of that passage hat bringsthe charges against him to a head. This is precisely the story we would expectthe Gospels o tell if lesus did indeed see himself as Israels Melchizedekianpriest-king. Is there any evidence hat during his ministry he already thought ofhimself in terms of lsraels true priesthood?As he wandered around Galilee andJudaea, did he prepare his disciples for a revelation of his Melchizedekianaspirations? s there anything in the pattern of his teaching and healing thatbetraysa priestly consciousness

?n what follows l offer in outline an ailirmative answer o thesequestions.Space s limited and a comprehensiveengagementwith thesequestions elies ona full treatment ofthe Son of Man title.74Although that is not possible here, lhave outlined a new interpretative paradigm for the Danielic one like a son ofman elsewhere.-isThe primary goal in the rest of this essay~a new reading ofthe programmatic Jesusmaterial in Mark l6depends in part on a new under-standing ofthe Son of Man title, that requires a brief review of that hypothesis. 6

[The second half follows in the next issue.]

74. Fuller discussion would show that the Son of Man title, along with other portions ofthe Gospel material, allows Jesu

sto exploit the other biblical preceden

tfor unification of

priestly and royal ofiicesthe original state of humanity before the fall in Gen. 23.75. Fletcher-Louis, Apocalypticism, followed by F etcher-Louis, Jesusand Apocalypti-

cism; cf Fletcher-Louis, The High Priest as Divine Mediator, pp. 161-93; C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, The Revelation ofthe Sacral Son of Man: The Genre, History of Religions Context andthe Meaning ofthe 'l ranstiguration, in F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger (cds.), Aifersiehung-Resurrection. The Fourth Durham-Tiibingen-Sympolrium. Resurrection, Excitation, and Trans-formation in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism, andEar(y Christianity (WUNT, 135; Tiibingen:MohrSiebecl

2006-2007 - Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis - Jesus as the High Priestley Messiah (1) [JSHJ]

Documents

Transcript of 2006-2007 - Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis - Jesus as the High Priestley Messiah (1) [JSHJ]