Marcus: A few reflections and broodings, also some questions...arranged chapter by chapter.
Chapter 2
2:1 Note the belief that the law (Gk: logos) communicated at Sinai was mediated by angels - but this is only implied in Septuagint, not in Hebrew OT (Deut 33:2). The belief was common (cf Gal 3:19, Acts 7:53 etc).
Bob: till the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint manuscripts were older than the Hebrew manuscripts by 1000 years. So the Greek though later than the LXX was the earliest version available. Scholars have tried to reconstruct the Hebrew parent text of the LXX, what is called the Vorlage and have compared with the now earlier Hebrew fragments available from the DSS. The Greek has been shown to be more reliable than the Masoretic text as a result. In validating the LXX, this might also validate the NT statements of the mediation of the Law. The idea is explicit in Acts 7:38 and Galatians 3:19, implicit in Hebrews 2:2. The JB notes imply Moses distancing from the Lord at Sinai - sounds wrong to me. The NET translation of Deut 33 implies no difference in Hebrew and LXX : He came with 10,000 of his holy ones; from his right hand he had a fiery law for them. (Their note With slight alteration the translation would be "from Meribath-Kadesh" (see Deut 32:51). However, the language of holy war in the immediate context which views Yahweh as accompanied by angelic hosts favors the reading of the MT.)
Marcus: This one is murky. The Hebrew text has "with fires (eshdath) at his right hand" (absolutely nothing about a law!). The Septuagint renders this as "with angels (angeloi) at his right hand" - neither of which explicitly suggest angelic mediation, but the latter version clearly brings the "angels" closer to the event. However, it is certainly the case that the early Christian communities believed in the angelic communication of the Mosaic covenant and it is crucial to the argument of Christ's superiority in the early chapters of Heb.
Chapter 4
Marcus: 4:8 In Gk text the names Joshua and Jesus are identical (Gk: jesous). This adds significant emphasis to the parallels of rest-giving. 4:16 The clause is translated "approach the throne of grace with confidence" or "come boldly unto the throne of grace" (KJV). However, literally the word translated as confidence or boldness is, in Gk, parresia, which means "free-speech" (Gk: pas = all and resis = speaking). Hard to be certain what this implies.
Bob: the invitation is plural. Singularly, I have let my speech be free to God. Can this be plural? Not really. Throne of grace I think must refer to the Mercy Seat in a figure. We come collectively in our worship at the Eucharist. We as Body of Christ share in his eternal priesthood and can therefore play the role of priest collectively. I am sure there are liturgical issues here that I do not want to explore in detail. Our liturgies have up until the last 20 years, tended to exclude the laos and abdicate to the president the role of priest. Our naming of this role in the Episcopal tradition perpetrates the risk of abdication to others what we must eagerly seek ourselves. (Let us be eager [Gk: dasomen] to enter into that rest - translated with a paradox - let us labour therefore to enter into that rest - verse 11).
Chapter 6
Marcus: 6:1 Note the 1st word "Therefore" (Gk: dio). Astonishing strategy: the fundamental principles of the Christian faith (Gk: stoikeia) are not well understood by the community addressed, so the author introduces more complex ideas to help them understand. This is top-down software engineering :) The problem is that the stoikeia are too familiar to the community, including as they do repentance, ritual ablution (NOT strictly baptism! - Ezekiel 36:25) etc.
Christianity and the orthodox Jewish practices are not sufficiently distinct - they already know the basic symbols, but they do know appreciate the new meanings that have been attached to the old symbols. The rest of the epistle attempts to clarify these issues.
Bob: JB note on baptismon Not only Christian baptism (Christian as an adjective did not exist when this was written!), but also all the washings, lustrations and purificatory rites then practised.
Chapter 7
Marcus: 7:1 Since the intention is to associate Christ with Melchisedek, it is curious that the author does not exploit the fact that Melchisedek brings bread and wine to Abraham (Gen 14:18). Indeed, the epistle is silent concerning the Eucharist - which is VERY odd(?). Surely this is the most essential reclamation/reinvention of Judaic ritual?
Note also etymology of Melchisedek in Hebrew: (Melchi = my King) + (sedek = righteousness). Through righteousness comes peace (cf Rom 5:1, also Isaiah 32:17).
7:22 1st mention of covenant (Gk: diatheke). Essential to recognize two different meanings:
The word in Hebrew that corresponds to (1) above is b`reeth, from the verb baru, which means "to bind". The Hebrew word does NOT have connotation (2). Therefore inferences can be made in the Greek text of the epistle that could not be made in Hebrew...
Bob: again the significance of the use of LXX as the original source of the writer's citations. On the silence of the Eucharist in this letter, is the whole epistle an invitation to such closeness as we know in the Eucharist? It is after all Christ who brings us the bread and wine. As Abraham have we conquered our equivalent of the coalition of the Five Kings? When we eat the bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of Christ until he comes (1 Corinthians 11). We eat the flesh and blood of Jesus - surely an intimate metaphor (John 6). In Hebrews we are invited to the symbolic place of atonement - the Mercy Seat - the place of the blood of the covenant where God says to Moses, there will I meet you - i.e. the same place as we come to in the Eucharist. We are at the cross, the place of atonement and at the feet of the Saviour, which is our altar. (See 13:10).
Marcus: Just to be clear(?): the mercy-seat of Heb 9:5 (Gk: ilasterion) refers to the lid of the Ark of the covenant in Exodus 25:17 (Hebrew: kaporeth - from keper, meaning "to cover"). The lid would have been sprinkled with sacrificial blood on the Day of Atonement. In Heb it is the earthly counterpart of the heavenly throne of grace, which is involved in the new covenant.
Chapter 8
Marcus: Covenant (partly in response to your specific questions): There are many covenants in the OT and of many different kinds. The main groups are:
1. Treaty between different communities:
2. Treaty between monarch and subjects:
3. Treaty between God and Man:
The nature of the covenants vary as do the signs (rainbow, thunder, etc). The response should always be love, of course :) The new covenant (Gk diatheken kainen) emphasizes the internalized, experiential nature of the association, along with the eternal (as opposed to ephemeral) remission of sin.
Marcus: As ever it depends how we agree to count :)
(NB: a useful definition of "etc" is "I can't think of any more examples at present, but I know where to find some".)
Bob: The parties to a covenant, the rules, and the token are usually specified. No significant covenant is without blood. (E.g. Abraham and the smoking firebrand between the halved sacrificial animals). The blood of the covenant is in circumcision. E.g. Zippora and the circumcision of Moses' children when the Angel of the Lord threatened Moses.
Exodus 4:24 Now on the way, at a place where they stopped for the night, the LORD met Moses and sought to kill him. 4:25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off the foreskin of her son and touched it to Moses' feet, and said, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me." 4:26 So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said, "A bridegroom of blood," referring to the circumcision.)
(When Rabbis instructed the young, they would note that the blood of the covenant creates the world. Note in the above, the feet of Moses is a euphemism for his genitals. This is a common phrase in the Tanakh)
Chapter 9
Marcus: 9:1-5 Note that the sanctuary (Gk: hagios) described is the tent from Exodus 25 and NOT the sanctuary of the temple. Why? Had the temple fallen? Were neither the author nor the community involved with Jerusalem temple?
9:16-17 This is the passage where the second meaning of diatheke is exploited: the covenant is a last will and testament - i.e., property is bequeathed by owner to various parties and the legal document comes into force when the owner is deceased. Note the references to the concept of inheritance in the epistle as a whole (e.g., Heb 1:2).
Bob: I think the temple is still standing from several other references (see the yellow background sections of the text). The author has picked the tabernacle for illustration since he began with the images of the wilderness and the promised land as applied to the promises we have in the present evil age but in which the new age has dawned in Christ. The power of the author's choosing as text the failure to enter into the land of which Numbers 14 and Psalm 95 speak is now more evident.
Chapter 10
Marcus: 10:1 Once again teleological emphasis - from Gk teleiow, "to make perfect". The making perfect of that which has already been partially accomplished.
10:5 Once again texts are "mis"-attributed. What sort of rhetorical/theological strategy is being used here when Psalm 40:6-8 is attributed to Christ? Is this strategy fair??
Bob: Isn't misattribution too strong a term. Many Messianic texts particularly from the Psalms are attributed to Christ in this epistle. Whether fair or not, does this indicate a common usage in some Judaic thought of the first century and prior? It would be instructive to see how Messianic texts are used in the Maccabean kingdom period or even which texts Herod the Great or his progeny might have used for their own propaganda.
Marcus: I agree (hence my attempt at ugly orthographical defusing: "mis"-attribution), yet so is the phrase "accurate attribution". All I would add is that the problem of attribution runs throughout the epistle. For instance, see Heb 2:6 where the author remarks: "Someone has borne witness somewhere to this effect...". What is going on here? Does he (presumably) not know who/what he is quoting? Of course not. But why, then, do the specific sources of the quoted passages not matter?
Chapter 12
Marcus: 12:1 Note that "witnesses" in Gk is marturon, from which we have "martyr".
The shift of meaning in the Greek from witness to martyr in Christian writing has perhaps already begun by the time of this epistle.
12:12 Revealing that a spiritual state should be analyzed via a metaphor concerning a physical state. What kind of relationship between the spiritual and the physical is posited in the epistle? Simple Hellenistic dualism - or something more profound?
Bob: I doubt that Platonic or Greek dualism is implied at all. For the anthropology, 4:12 is significant.
Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Marcus: I agree entirely about Heb 4:12 being crucial - and to my mind it makes the whole situation all the more complex. The sword divides the soul (Gk: pseukes) from the spirit (Gk: pneumatos). What (exactly) is the distinction that is being made here? I believe one finds the same distinction in Philo - but I forget where at present!
I would cite Romans 8 also for another implication of human interaction with God - the Spirit shall give life to your mortal bodies.
Is any anthropology simple?
Marcus: This is comparative - and I am sure that it would be possible to construct a less complex anthropology than the one outlined/implied in Heb. Of course, such an anthropology may also be less accurate :)
Chapter 13
Marcus: 13:1-end Strange that Hebrews ends like an epistle (advice and farewells etc), although it does not begin like one (no salutation etc). Is it an epistle or is it an homily?
13:1-6 Is the contrast between discussion of specific theological points (chapter 1 - 12) and pastoral advice (chapter 13) problematic? Similar to Romans. To what extent can a practical ethical code be inferred from a largely abstract disquisition?
13:10 Yet another chance to discuss the Eucharist - an opportunity that is (once again) avoided.
Bob: The final chapter is also a recapitulation (13:10-15) using yet other Scriptures. "Types and shadows have their ending, for the newer rite is here". The Eucharist is definitely in mind as noted above.
Your question on ethics is surely the only way they can be derived: if the Son of God loved me and gave himself for me, then surely I must love others and give myself for others (through his Spirit). The non-use of power for my own ends is the touch-point of all ethical behaviour. The fact of our guilt and the remedy for it and the power known by us (by grace) through the self-giving of sacrifice combine to confirm the paranaetic sections here and in the Pauline corpus. I have imagined Paul adding these notes to Aquila's sermon written up by Prisca to Roman congregations about the year 66-67 and Prisca then resuming her peregrinations to Corinth, Pontus, Asia, and Antioch leaving copies of the letter wherever she and Aquila went. (highly conjectural)
Marcus: Perhaps, but one would be reassured by the presence of intermediate stages - stepping stones leading from the abstract to the particular. Are we capable of making the transition? In Heb we are encouraged (it seems to me) to reflect, reassess and reinterpret. This is difficult, since, usually, I think, we would much prefer to be told what to do. Hence the discomfort. In order to gain access to Heb we have to jeopardize our own serenity - and this relinquishing is terrifying, forbidding. And the most humiliating aspect of it all is the realization that even after all the minutiae, the porcupine quills, the old, distant languages, so beautiful in their decay, the symbols, the doubts, and all those infuriating chapter:verse pairings (!!) - even after all these things we can only return to the same initial question: "Why do we read this?". A succinct, invulnerable question and I for one do not have a succinct, invulnerable answer. I do have a few glimpses, though, a few suspicions and I suspect that the answer has something to do with privileging disquiet over comfort, instability over security, movement over stillness and oddity over familiarity. Perhaps we have to read these things simply because not to read them would be an avoidance, an incompleteness, a rejection. By reading we enter, we confront and, though we certainly risk frustration, confusion, annoyance and general bafflement, possibly we shall also encounter moments of unimagined coherence. This too is part of the risk: rediscovering those things that we never even knew we possessed. And of course we shall fail. We always fail. But perhaps, by choosing to read, rather than not to read, we will learn to fail more successfully.
Marcus: Will be thinking of you all on Wednesday...
Home | Formative Events | Timeline | Text | Authors? | Questions