I present here my notes from her lecture.  As always, please realize that these are my own notes and do not fully represent the material that Dr Tiemeyer presented. She is publishing a much larger work on this topic (unfortunately I didn’t catch the title).  Please bear with the incomplete nature of these notes.

———————————————–

Dr Lena Sophia Tiemeyer on Isaiah 40-55

 Challenging the concept that one person wrote Isa. 40-55 during the Exile in Babylon

 –She is arguing that it was written in Judah during Exile

 Do the scholarly claims support a Babylonian setting? She argues that they only presuppose it — nothing necessitates a Babylonian-based author

 Methods: Shemaryahu Talmon’s four principles for comparative studies:

1) priority of biblical parallels over extra-biblical

2) proximity in time and space: contemporary societies should be used for comparisons

3) correspondence of social function: examples in Judah over outside

4) holistic approach vs. atomistic

Examples in biblical texts should be sought before Mesopotamian examples

Barr offers these guidelines for comparisons:

1) sources nearer to the Hebrew Bible in time

2) geographic closeness

3) Semitic sources

———

Because of their conquests of the region, we should expect to find a great degree of Mesopotamian influence over Judah during the time of Exile. Mesopotamian rulers lived in Judah — so it would be natural that we should see their influence there. Judahite scribes and possibly even regular people had a good idea of Mesopotamian religious ideas and practice since 6th-7th Century BCE.

–So there is not a good argument for the Assyrian/Babylonian elements in the Bible to have actually come from those places –such usage would have been known in Judah.

It is possible to detect Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian language) influence in Deutero-Isaiah — however, we would need to see if there are more Akkadian loan-words than are found in other texts.

–Kittel compares 2Isaiah to cuneiform literature (Akkadian) — lists parallels betwn Babylonian texts and 2Isa.

–there are similarities in vocabulary between these texts – but these could be cognates — we should look for inner-biblical parallels first

–we can also find many similarities between Isa. 60-62 and Babylonian texts although scholars wouldn’t claim authorship of these chapters in Babylon

–You didn’t need to be living in Babylon to know name of Cyrus

–Regarding some of the thematic elements in 2Isa: It is more likely that authors were influenced by Book of Exodus rather than Babylonian texts

Most texts in Hebrew Bible have Akkadian influence (not just 2Isa) — Amos has a large number of Akkadian loan words, but no one argues that Amos was in Babylon

–Akkadian was the politically dominant language of the time — it had significant influence on the local languages — it is natural that we find Akkadian elements throughout the Bible.  Language cannot be used to argue for a Babylonian setting — there are no more loan words in 2Isa than in the rest of the Hebrew Bible

–Ezekiel claims to have been written in Babylon, but has less loan words than Isa. or Jeremiah!

–we should note that there are also Ugaritic cognates in 2Isa — Dahood even argued that parts of 2Isa were written in Phoenicia!

–Akkadian was not even the major language during the Neo-Babylonian period — Aramaic was more used

–There would have been no need for the authors of 2Isa to know Akkadian if they were not part of the Babylonian royal court or cult

The presence of Akkadian cognates in the Heb. Bible is not evidence of the author’s presence in Babylon, but that loan words were known in Judah – evidence of Assyrian influence over conquered city-states

–”Self-Predication Formula” (“I am YHWH — the First and the Last”, etc.) — scholars argue that this comes from Babylonian influence — they argue that this is reminiscent of Sumerian hymns learned in Babylon

–again we should give precedence to biblical parallels — the authors likely drew from their own already existing self-presentation formula in their scriptures — maybe it ultimately stems from Sumeria, but can be found in Hebrew prophetic texts — the influence is likely pre-exilic Palestine

– There is no evidence of Assyrian prophetic texts having an influence in Babylon — there must have been earlier interaction between the people of Marduk and people of YHWH

–Isa 40-55 follows the pattern of earlier Isa chapters — We cannot conclude (from the above linguistic arguments cited) that authors must have been residents of Babylon

Another argument is that the passages in 2Isa that refer to religious practices (instructions for making of idols, etc.) are claimed to be related to Babylonian practices. –There are direct references to Babylonian deities

–tendency to worship idols is not novel to the Babylonian period  — you don’t have to be living in Babylon to know about their gods and practices

–all the terms used are attested to elsewhere in the  Heb. Bible — there are no details that would lead us to conclude that authors knew anything beyond what was commonly known

–no local features or local individuals are mentioned — a prophet in Judah would have been able to envision all of this

–Isa 46:1–2 — the picture of Babylonian gods depicted here does not fit the picture of what was going on in Babylon — King Nabonidus was replacing Marduk with moon-god Sin — this is not mentioned in 2Isa

–There is nothing in this material to warrant the conclusion that author of 2Isa was in Babylon — Jews would have known the customs of their conquerors.

The following tidbits come from the Q&A period after her presentation. I did not take note of the questions asked.

— There are many differences between the theology of 2Isa and the theology of Ezekiel — how could they come from contemporaries in the same group in Babylon?

– Evidence for the conflict between those who remained and exilees comes mainly from later texts, not contemporary

–***She says: We should first go to Psalter before we start considering Mesopotamian sources for these things*** (She said this subsequent to my asking if she had considered parallels between 2Isa and the biblical Psalms)

–Flora and fauna mentioned (plus coming of rain) — (e.g. Isa. 41:18–19) — seem to fit Israel/Judah better than Mesopotamia (In response to a question from Prof N.T. Wright) 

—Isa 48:11–12; 52 — talk about return from Babylon — but the majority of such passages in 2Isa talk about return from worldwide diaspora — so not necessarily written from perspective of those in Babylon

– The implications of this study are important. If 2Isa was written in Palestine, this changes a lot about how we understand these chapters and their relationship to other biblical literature written in the same period. If all chapters of Isaiah were written in Palestine, this has implications for our understanding of the unity of the Book of Isaiah as a whole (in response to a question by Allen Jones regarding what this research ultimately means for our understanding of 2Isa)

Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are part of a genre of literature somewhat unique among biblical books, but quite common throughout the ancient world.  This kind of writing is referred to as “Wisdom literature” and is composed of wise sayings and advice and is found in the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, and some of the Psalms.  It is quite distinct from the rest of the Bible in that no mention is made of Moses and his writings nor of many of the other traditional figures and histories.  The sayings contained in the biblical Wisdom literature is more akin to similar proverbial sayings found throughout the Ancient Near East, especially in Egypt.

The books considered in this lesson are both traditionally attributed to King Solomon, who was renowned for his great wisdom. Besides having as a source his God-given gift for wisdom, tradition also holds that Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter, and the ancient Egyptian traditions may also have been an influence on Israelite Wisdom literature.

Proverbs

The Book of Proverbs has no narrative — it is, seemingly, a quite random collection of wise sayings.  They are presented from the beginning (Chapter 1) as the “proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel.” Jewish tradition holds that Solomon was the author of over 3000 proverbs (1 Kgs 4:32), and there are other non-canonical books, such as the “Wisdom of Solomon” that have been influential to Jewish and Christian thought.

Despite the attribution to Solomon, most of the proverbs do not clearly attribute authorship or make reference to him. They are generally presented as a father’s wise counsels to his son.  In fact, a number of the proverbs are attributed in the text to other possible authors besides Solomon:  ”the wise” (chapters 22-23), Agur (chapter 30), and Lemuel (chapter 31 — I bet you didn’t realize Lemuel was so wise!!).  Some of the proverbs are said to have been collected under the direction of King Hezekiah.

The sayings are not even largely “religious”, but seek to present good advice on common life situations, including how to avoid life’s pitfalls.  These are the advice of someone who has experience in life and would that his children might steer clear of folly.

The Strange Woman and Lady Wisdom

Two recurring figures in the proverbs are the “strange woman” (an adulteress or prostitute; see, e.g., chptrs. 2, 5, 7) and the female figure of Wisdom (see chptrs. 1, 8).  While the “strange woman” is very dangerous and should be avoided at all costs, Lady Wisdom is completely praiseworthy and is to be sought out with great diligence.  One leads to death and the other to eternal life.  While these metaphors may be taken as a lesson on morality/chastity, it is apparent that early Jews and Christians saw in the opposing symbols of these two allegorical women a much broader spectrum of applications.

The Harlot leads to all evil, to death — away from the ways of Truth and Wisdom. “Running after” or “going in unto” the Prostitute is symbolic of apostasy from the truth.  This is what John had in mind in the New Testament apocalypse.  The Great Whore sitting upon many waters, committing fornication with the kings of the earth in Rev. 17 is an apostate imitation of the Great Lady who was clothed with the Sun, who was the Mother of the Messiah (Rev. 12). The Whore is dressed in scarlet robes and decked out with gold, precious stones and pearls. The name written on her forehead –Mystery, Babylon the Great…– is in imitation of that holy Name inscribed on the forehead of the High Priest. This “Strange Woman” represents the Great and Abominable Church, the Apostate Temple.²

Wisdom, on the other hand, represented all that was holy, pure, and true. She is depicted in John’s revelation as the Mother of the Son of God who was forced to flee into the wilderness. Her place is temporarily taken by the Harlot, but after the latter’s great fall, Lady Wisdom was to return in the last days in all her glory.  She is the true Church and Temple.  She is the Tree of Life (Prov. 3:18) standing by the Throne of God (see my post relevant to this topic here).  Many scholars see in Lady Wisdom a perpetuation of an ancient Hebrew belief in a Mother Goddess who was with God in the beginning and participated with him in the Creation.  Proverbs 8 is an example of the perpetuation of this belief (see also Prov. 3:19).  The idea that the Creator was both male and female makes sense in light of Gen. 1:26–27 where we are told that God said “Let us create man in our image” and Man was created both male and female.  Wisdom was the Queen of Heaven, the Heavenly Mother, and we are told that “happy is the man that findeth wisdom” (Prov. 3:13).³

A Favorite Proverb

I must say that I don’t know the proverbs as well as I would like to, despite having taught an Old Testament seminary course.  One that I have had impressed upon my memory not only because it is a Scripture Mastery verse, but also because it was a favorite of both my parents and my grandparents is Prov. 3:5–6:

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Ecclesiastes

This book is another collection of Wisdom literature attributed to King Solomon.  It is, however, a rather odd selection of thoughts that seem to deal largely with folly, despair and the inevitable nature of death.  Apparently there was a good deal of debate anciently as to whether or not it should even be included in the biblical canon — its authority as a book attributed to Solomon is likely what guaranteed its final placement among holy scripture.  Collins notes that its value as part of the canon continued to be questioned as late as the 4th century C.E. due to its “lack of coherence and its radical questioning of tradition.”⁴  While there are some good sayings and memorable lines in the book, most do not find it very inspiring as a whole.  You may notice that the Sunday School study guide contains no quotes from or references to passages in Ecclesiastes.

The Hebrew name for the book, Qoheleth, is difficult to interpret. It’s root in Hebrew is the word for “assembly”, which leads scholars to interpret the title to refer to a “gatherer” or “assembler.” The general idea is that Qoheleth was a preacher or teacher, a wise man who instructed the people in the ways of Wisdom.

Vanity of Vanities

The Hebrew word (hebel) that is often translated as “vanity” (see Eccles. 1:2) in English versions literally means “vapor.” The thought with the use of this language here is akin to Socrates’ “All we are is dust in the wind” (remember Bill and Ted?!).  The repeated theme is that nothing lasts. History repeats itself and man’s only destiny is to rot in the ground.

To Everything There Is a Seaon

As in the Book of Proverbs, one of Ecclesiastes’ most famous passages comes in chapter 3:

1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep bsilence, and a time to speak;

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

What Can We Get From All This

I really don’t know if we can consider Ecclesiastes to be “inspired” writing or not. It certainly doesn’t seem to claim such status for itself.  However, I do believe that there is something to be learned from every book of the Bible.  Even if we only take it to represent an ancient Hebrew philosophical treatise or the common-sense reasoning of the folk of the ancient world, I think there is Wisdom to be obtained in these writings.  One of the lessons that I take from Ecclesiastes is that we should seek wisdom, especially because we are usually so far from her. As the Preacher notes in 11:5:

As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

In Conclusion

As I look back over what I have written here about the Wisdom literature in the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, I don’t know that I have managed to offer much that is helpful. It has not been my intention to diminish either of these books and my few words here have certainly not done justice to the wealth of their contents.  But I believe that their true treasures can only be found in reading and pondering their sayings and finding those precious pearls of wisdom that can enrich your own life.  In a sense, the author of Ecclesiastes is correct in emphasizing the fact that history repeats itself — the wisdom of times past is so often relevant and applicable to ourselves in our own time as well.

Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding (Prov. 4:7).

1. Many of my thoughts for this post stem from my reading of the relevant chapters in John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004
2. See Margaret Barker, Temple Themes in Christian Worship, p. 53
3. For a great summary of her thoughts on the subject of Wisdom, see Margaret Barker, Temple Theology: An Introduction, pp. 75-93
4. Collins, Introduction, p. 518

—————————————————————————

Steve:

I’m new to your Heavenly Ascents blog – it looks fascinating and well researched.

I have two questions, if you would be kind enough to consider them: I was introduced to the ascent motif via the work of the late Morton Smith, who postulated that a mystical method of heavenly ascent was extant in Jesus’ time and that Jesus and his disciples may have had some personal experience with this practice. I realize that some of Smith’s statements were likely issued with a twinkle in his eye (did he forge Secret Mark, etc.), but he does seem to make a serious case for ascent in Jewish culture even before Jesus’ time, e.g., he points out that at least one other person “ascended” – one member of the DSS community, as reported in 4Q 491, who claimed to have ascended into the angelic assembly and to have gained divine wisdom thereby.

First question: But there are claims that most Jewish ascent literature came after Jesus’ time, too late to influence and/or be expressive of primitive Christian beliefs. I am unclear on this timeline. Some say, for example, that some of this literature was too late to have been strongly influential in nascent “Jewish Christianity”, with Enoch maybe dating from that time but maybe from a later time. So would you be able to firm up for me the time frame of ascent literature as it might bear on the religion of Jesus, his disciples, and their Jewish successors, say, until after the Second Revolt in CE 135? I.e., can we date extra-biblical ascent literature from Jesus’ own lifetime up until just after the final Jewish War?

The second question concerns what, from my admittedly meager reading, poses a mystery vis a vis the Jewish nature of ascent literature. I understand that with the rise of rabbinical Judaism post-Jamnia, orthodoxy was stressed, e.g., per Alan Segal, the rabbis came down on anything smacking of a “Two Powers in Heaven” belief, beliefs concerning a Chief Assisting Angel, and beliefs about God’s human form or “Kavod”. What puzzles me is that post-70 ascent literature – IF Jewish – seems to be replete with just those kinds of beliefs that were being more and more strongly condemned by the rabbis. Do we conclude from this (if my assumption is correct) that ascent authors and communities were not Jewish; or if they were Jewish, they were by definition heretical? And if they were heretical, by what means were these ideas promulgated and texts preserved?

Thanks for your consideration.

Regards,

Steve Bastasch¹

——————————————————–

Me:

Dear Mr Bastasch,

Thank you for your excellent and very relevant questions. Before I give my response, just as a forewarning, although my website is called Heavenly Ascents, I cannot claim to be an expert (yet!) on the topic, so bear that in mind as I give you my best answers to your questions.

I will begin by saying (and this may shape your opinion of my overall answer!) that in my estimation, the ascent to heaven motif is of great antiquity, much older even than the mentions attested to in the Qumran texts. It may not have been conceived of in exactly the same ways that it is later expressed in the Christian era, but I think that later texts build on these earlier attestations of the motif.

When I say much older, I believe that a form of heavenly ascent was practiced as a ritual in the pre-exilic times, the First Temple period. I base this conclusion partially on what I see as evidence for the idea in the liturgical setting of some of the Psalms. I believe that psalms such as 24, 47, 68, 118, and 132 (and others, cf. 139:8) describe a procession(s) that involved ascending the temple mount in order to reach the throne of God in the Temple. The Hebrew word for ascent (ʽālâ), is often used in this context. The expressed purpose of the ascent, according to Psalm 24:6, was to “seek the face of the God of Jacob” (see RSV or similar translation). The features of this ritualized ascent share many of the same features as the later ascent narratives, including passing through gates with guardians (Pss. 15, 24, 118 imply that there is a question-and-answer dialogue between those desiring to be found worthy of entry and the gatekeepers), seeing the Lord on his throne (Ps. 24:6; cf. Isa. 6, etc.), exaltation and enthronement of the individual (Pss. 2, 110, 89, etc.), and other similar features. While I can’t give a full description here, I believe that all this describes a practice of a primitive heavenly ascent ritual. The holy mountain with the temple at its pinnacle, while obviously located physically on earth, represented the mountain of God that reached into the heavens upon which God’s throne was located.

Whether one accepts these ideas and others in the Hebrew Bible as authentic precursors to the later ascent literature or not, I think there is still very good evidence that the belief in and practice of heavenly ascent was common in Jewish circles well before the Christian era. You mention the works of Morton Smith — he did some good research on this topic. However, you should take a look at the more recent work of James Davila in his article on heavenly ascents in the Dead Sea Scrolls in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (vol. 2; Brill, 1999), edited by Peter Flint and James VanderKam. Besides the one example of the anonymous figure ascending that you mention (4Q 491), Davila cites five other examples of ascent found at Qumran, including narratives of the heavenly ascent of Enoch, Melchizedek, Levi, Methuselah, and perhaps also Noah (4Q534) and Moses (4Q374, although this text is very unclear). Besides these, there are phrases from some of the sectarian literature that perhaps assume a belief in heavenly ascent. For example, in the Hodayot there are lines such as “You have exalted his [man's] glory beyond flesh” (7:21) and “[s]ons of God to be united with the sons of heaven” (frg. 2 10) and 11:19-23 where the speaker claims to have been “raised eternally to an exalted realm in communion of praise with the angels” (quoting Davila’s summary). Although the nature of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is much debated, and Davila expresses doubts in this article, elsewhere he and also other scholars such as Crispin Fletcher-Louis, have described this text as possibly narrating a heavenly ascent ritual performed at Qumran. In the Davila article above, he emphasizes the fact that there seems to be a “ritual context” and “experiential component” behind these ascent texts. For me, this is all pretty clear evidence for the practice of a heavenly ascent ritual before the time of Jesus Christ. If you look at some of the works of Old Testament scholar Margaret Barker, this is the assumption that she is working with as well.

As far as the age of the Enochic literature, I follow the general opinion that the oldest sections of 1 Enoch were likely written around 300 BC and the latest sections around the first century BC. Martha Himmelfarb, in her classic Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses considers 1 Enoch’s “Book of the Watchers” (ca. 3rd Century BC) to be the earliest “ascent apocalypse”. 2 Enoch, which has a much clearer account of the ascent to heaven, is a much later text, probably from the first century AD. It is debatable whether this is originally a Jewish or Christian text. Coming up with a timeline for specific texts is very tricky and scholars have widely diverging opinions on when some of these texts were originally penned and by what group — Jewish or Christian. There certainly seems to be a blooming of this type of literature in the first few centuries of the Christian era, and these texts are preserved more often by the hands of Christians than Jews — this fact, however, does not mean that they were not originally written by Jews, and it is possible that some of these texts are considerably older than the attested examples. It is very difficult to tell. I’m sorry that I don’t have more specific details for you, but in my opinion, we can be quite certain, based on the examples I mentioned above and others, that the ascent idea was quite prevalent in at least some Jewish circles well before the time of Christ, and may have even been a main feature of the pre-exilic Israelite religion. Although Martha Himmelfarb is one that would perhaps deny this, I also believe that beyond, and perhaps in some cases accompanying, the ancient narratives regarding ascent, there was also an ascent praxis.

For a great treatment of the idea of the “mysteries” in connection with human access to the divine council at Qumran, see Samuel I. Thomas’s very recent book, The “Mysteries” of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It doesn’t go into the “heavenly ascent” idea in much detail, but I think connections with ascent literature are not hard to make.

Why do we get so much talk of chief angels and the anthropomorphic Kavod in the ascent literature? My opinion is that these ideas are perpetuations of very old motifs that for some reason are well-preserved in this type of literature. If you look at the studies of scholars like Gabriele Boccaccini and others, you get the idea that there was a much larger degree of pluralism in early Judaism than most imagine. There seem to have been several different Jewish sects (even beyond the Pharisee, Sadducee, Essene, etc. divisions that we usually hear about). Some scholars claim that some of these Jewish sects preserved the older Israelite religion better than others. In the Second Temple period, some of the mainstream groups seemed to be very interested in reforming and reshaping the Jewish religion — censoring older ideas that they now found heretical. Theoretically, many of these ideas that they wanted to discard involved the possibility of heavenly ascent, of seeing God on his throne, of any “Two Powers” notions, etc. It seems that these issues were hotly debated well before the rise of Christianity. According to some, this may have been why the “sectarians” went to Qumran. The religious tenets that they held to had become unacceptable by the mainstream. Rabbinical Judaism would develop out of this mainstream of “Zadokite” Judaism and would continue to try to purge Jewish culture of these beliefs that they found heretical. It appears that the early Christians had beliefs that were in line with, or similar to, some of these “other” Jewish groups that were unacceptable to the Rabbis.

I don’t believe that all of the post-70 ascent literature was Christian. I think that a lot of it was originally Jewish, but that it came from Jewish groups that were outside of the Rabbinic mainstream. I think a lot of the literature was eventually preserved only by Christians because they had very similar beliefs and because the Jewish groups that would have possibly written the texts and could have preserved them eventually waned under Rabbinic suppression. However, we do see that there were Jewish circles that did preserve many of these more “mystical” ideas into medieval times and beyond (e.g. merkavah mysticism, hekhalot texts, Kabbalah, Sefer Yetzirah, Zohar, etc.). It seems that some of the groups that preserved these traditions were more ascetical and priestly and were generally opposed by the Rabbis. If you look at E.R. Goodenough’s work on the Dura Europos synagogue, which is full of mystical and ascent motifs, you can get an idea for how and by whom some of these ideas were perpetuated in Jewish circles. I believe that both Christians and these “sidelined” Jewish groups preserved this material because they believed that it was part of a more authentic ancient Israelite belief system that had roots in the First Temple period and that had not been so altered by reformers.

For more on this line of thinking, see Margaret Barker’s The Older Testament, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God, Temple Themes in Christian Worship, or pretty much any other book of hers.

I’m sorry if my thoughts here are more general than specific, but feel free to ask me any further questions. I would enjoy further discussing these ideas.

Cheers,

David

1. Author’s name reproduced with permission

Joseph  is the beloved son of his father and (although not born first) is essentially made the firstborn.  Jewish tradition held that Joseph was the son that most looked like his father and whose life most resembled Jacob’s. Jacob taught Joseph the mysteries and the learning that he had obtained in the school of Shem and Eber. His (priesthood) garment was dipped in blood. Joseph was sent to be a slave/servant in Egypt (which is associated with Babylon, or the World). He was made second-in-command (vice-regent) in Potiphar’s house, and resisted all temptation. He was put into prison for crimes he did not commit. While in prison, he helped (in a way) liberate the good (butler/cup-bearer) and condemn the wicked (baker). He was raised up out of the prison to become vice-regent of Pharaoh. He is responsible for providing fertility/prosperity to Egypt (the World) during a time of draught, and brings salvation to his brethren. I’m sure there are many other parallels that can be noted.

After we are told of the death of Joseph, the book of Genesis ends and Exodus begins. The Israelites have multiplied and, because the Egyptians (who possibly overthrew the dynasty that favored Joseph and his Semitic family) feel threatened by their numbers, they are made slaves. We are told that they were in this condition of slavery for over 400 years. They looked forward to a new savior who would free them and return them to their promised land.  They desired, in effect, for the Lord to give them a new beginning.

That is exactly how the psalms represent the Exodus events — as a new Creation.  The psalms speak extensively about the Creation of the world, which they describe as Yahweh’s victory over the Chaos Waters — often including great sea monsters (Rahab, Leviathan, etc.). Gen. 1 picks up on this idea when it describes God as “dividing” the waters in the early stages of creation. The psalms are much more graphic and likely represent older versions of the story.  A good example is Psalm 74:12–17:

Yet God my King is from of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth.

13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy might; thou didst break the heads of the dragons on the waters.

14 Thou didst crush the heads of Leviathan, thou didst give him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.

15 Thou didst cleave open springs and brooks; thou didst dry up ever-flowing streams.

16 Thine is the day, thine also the night; thou hast established the luminaries and the sun.

17 Thou hast fixed all the bounds of the earth; thou hast made summer and winter.

Psalm 89 expresses a very similar image of Yahweh’s conflict at the Creation:

9 Thou dost rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, thou stillest them.

10 Thou didst crush Rahab like a carcass, thou didst scatter thy enemies with thy mighty arm.

11 The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine; the world and all that is in it, thou hast founded them.

12 The north and the south, thou hast created them; Tabor and Hermon joyously praise thy name.

Compare also Psalms104:5-9; 93:1-4. Yahweh’s victory over the Chaos waters and its forces of darkness merits his being enthroned as king over the world. Sigmund Mowinckel believed that this was the basis of the so-called enthronement (and other related) psalms we have in our Bible. He commented:

Even the special hymns of enthronement bring out very clearly that the fundamental myth of the festival is the myth of creation … Yahweh has become king of the world, because he has created it. And as we have seen, these psalms do not refer to any abstract notion of creation, but to the same mythical and poetical idea which may be glimpsed behind the account of the creation in Gen. 1, but which is much more prominent in other passages of the Old Testament, namely the idea of creation as the victorious struggle of Yahweh against the dragon of the primeval ocean, or against the primeval ocean itself (tehom).¹

Mowinckel then points out that in the Psalms (and elsewhere) the rise, or “election”, of Israel in the Exodus story is equated with the Creation. Egypt becomes the chaotic monster Rahab and the Red Sea becomes the primeval ocean, Tehom (Isa. 30:7; Ex. 15:48). Just as Yahweh divided the primeval waters, he also divides the Red Sea for his people. Through this historical act of “creation”, Yahweh becomes king over Israel (Deut. 33:2, 4f.; 114:1f.; cf. Deut. 32:8 LXX). Yahweh then builds his temple on his holy mountain (Ex. 15:17f.). Yahweh establishes his covenant with his people, which is then renewed at the annual festival (when all these psalms about Creation, the Exodus, and Yahweh’s enthronement in his temple are sung).²

Psalm 77 presents the dividing of the waters at the Exodus in the same type of “conflict” language as the Creation.

13 Thy way, O God, is holy. What god is great like our God? 14 Thou art the God who workest wonders, who hast manifested thy might among the peoples. 15 Thou didst with thy arm redeem thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah 16 When the waters saw thee, O God, when the waters saw thee, they were afraid, yea, the deep trembled. 17 The clouds poured out water; the skies gave forth thunder; thy arrows flashed on every side. 18 The crash of thy thunder was in the whirlwind; thy lightnings lighted up the world; the earth trembled and shook. 19 Thy way was through the sea, thy path through the great waters; yet thy footprints were unseen. 20 Thou didst lead thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.

(Note the cool reference to God’s footprints in v. 19)

Psalm 114 contains very similar language, informing us that “When Israel went forth from Egypt…the sea looked and fled…at the presence of the Lord.”

One of the clearest passages that relates the primeval battle at Creation to the Exodus is Isa. 51:9–10:

Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not thou that didst cut Rahab in pieces, that didst pierce the dragon? 10 Was it not thou that didst dry up the sea, the waters of the great deep; that didst make the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over?

As Mowinckel noted, in the various manifestations of this motif, Pharaoh/Egypt seems to be cast as Rahab, the Dragon, the agent of Chaos in opposing Yahweh’s salvific works (liberating Israel). We also note that the plagues sent against Egypt line up quite well with the days of Creation — i.e., there are the plagues that have to do with water, with land, with the air, with darkness,  and with destruction of life (instead of creation). In the end, the waters are parted so that dry land appears, but then close down again to crush the Egyptians (Rahab). The Israelites (Adam and Eve) are placed in the Promised Land (eventually).

Last, but certainly not least, we should mention the role of Moses as Yahweh, dividing the waters. Exodus 7:1 alludes to this when God declares to Moses: “See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” Moses was placed in the position of Yahweh in this story. Philo, at the turn of the era, understood this very literally and wrote that Moses “was named God and king of the entire nation.”³ At Qumran, 4Q374 2 ii relates Exo. 7:1 to the story of Moses’ transfiguration after seeing God on Sinai. It seems to be suggesting that Moses’ resultant shining face was evidence of his deification. Crispin Fletcher-Louis suggests that Moses, with his shining face, is fulfilling the priestly blessing of Aaron expressed in Num. 6:25 — “The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee.” Moses’ face, Fletcher-Louis argues, is to the Israelites as if it were the Lord’s face shining upon them.⁴  In the Exodus story, Moses speaks to Pharaoh through Aaron (his prophet). Moses performs great wonders, including the parting of the Red Sea, just as Yahweh parted the great waters at Creation.

This Creation story is fundamental to the oldest sections of the Hebrew Bible and can be seen repeated over and over — in the Flood story, the Exodus, the Psalms, Isaiah, Job, many of the minor prophets, and elsewhere. Keep that in mind and you will find many fun and insightful parallels that will help you understand your reading better. God’s work of Creation is the first work of Salvation and that theme is repeated over and over again in the history of Israel.

1. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, Vol. 1, 143
2. See Ibid., 154ff.
3. Philo, Life of Moses 1:158
4. Crispin Fletcher-Louis, “Some Reflections on Angelomorphic Humanity Texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Dead Sea Discoveries, vol. 7, no. 3 (2000), 298

Melchizedek the Priest-King blessing Abram

The title of this post is actually somewhat deceptive as it implies that the post is going to be about Melchizedek, who can be considered a king, a priest, and also a god, and about the “Forbidden Degrees” (sounds tantalizing, eh?), which the title seems to suggest have some connection to Melchizedek. Well, as far as I know, there is no direct connection, so sorry if that was misleading.

But this post is about two exciting, if apparently unrelated, subjects that I’ve read about recently.

Melchizedek: King, Priest, and God

First, I would like to post a few very interesting remarks on the person of Melchizedek that I was recently re-reading in an article by my PhD supervisor, James Davila, entitled “Melchizedek: King, Priest, and God” (in The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response, ed. S. Daniel Breslauer (Albany: State University of New York) 217-34). This article contains some of the most current, thorough, and exciting research on Melchizedek I’ve seen. It covers the Melchizedek traditions from the Old Testament (Gen. 14; Ps. 110), the New Testament (Hebrews), the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QMelchizedek; Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice), Gnostic texts (2nd Book of Jeu, Pistis Sophia, a Coptic Gnostic tractate), and comparisons with the Ugaritic (Canaanite) traditions.

I highlight here some of the most significant ideas.

Davila addresses the first mention of Melchizedek, in Gen. 14:18–21.  Here, Melchizedek is presented as the king of Salem (which Davila later identifies as Jerusalem) and priest of God Most High (El Elyon). He notes that scholars have difficulty dating this passage and identifying its source.  John Van Seters wants to date it to the post-exilic period, imagining that Melchizedek describes the priestly leadership of the Second Temple period. Davila, on the other hand, rejects this view, explaining:

I see no reason for the post-exilic priesthood to hold up a non-Israelite priest-king as an example unless he had already been firmly established in the traditions of the First Temple period. I read Genesis 14 as an epic tale of the heroic exploits of the Abram that, in its present form, serves to show the ancient roots of the priesthood held by the line of Davidic kings. ((Davila, 218))

Psalm 110, Davila suggests, “unambiguously associates the priesthood of Melchizedek with the king in Zion.”¹ This psalm, one of the “royal psalms”, is the only other mention of Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible.  Most scholars agree that it had its life setting “in the pre-exilic Judean royal cult located in Solomon’s temple during the period of the Judean monarchy.” It is often associated with an annual New Year enthronement festival. The key verse (v. 4) in this psalm reads: The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. This promise of Melchizedek priesthood is given to the Davidic king.  Davila notes:

[T]here are other indications that the Davidic line of kings also carried out priestly functions. In 2 Samuel 6 we are told that  David himself wore a priestly ephod and danced before the ark of the covenant when it was brought into Jerusalem. The list of David’s court officials in 2 Sam. 8:15–18 also informs us that “David’s sons were priests” (v. 18). Thus, Psalm 110 associates a priesthood of Melchizedek with the Davidic royal cult in the Jerusalem temple.²

So, in summary, the Hebrew Bible presents Melchizedek as (apparently) a mortal man who is both the king of Jerusalem and a priest of God Most High. He was seen as the model for the Israelite kingship ideology, and the Davidic kings were likewise seen as both king of Jerusalem and priest of God Most High. Besides the passages in Genesis and Psalm 110, Melchizedek is not mentioned again in the Hebrew Bible — which we may think odd considering his apparent stature and influence in pre-exilic times.  Of course the great histories of the Bible were written just before and after the exile, and these scribes had varying (mostly negative) opinions concerning the monarchy, as well as significantly different religious ideas from that of the royal cult of pre-exilic times. It is only in the New Testament book of Hebrews that we hear tell of Melchizedek again. We read in Hebrews 7:1–3:

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;  2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;  3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Davila comments:

It is then argued that Melchizedek was greater than both Abraham and the Levitical Priesthood, and that Jesus is a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek as described in Psalm 110. For the writer of Hebrews, Melchizedek is a preexistent and immortal priestly divine being “like the Son of God.”³

He next turns his analysis to the Qumran text 11QMelchizedek, which although fragmentary, gives some incredible insights regarding the community’s view of this figure, which differs greatly from the simple treatment in the OT and gives possible insights into the thinking of the writer of Hebrews. Davila explains that this text speaks eschatologically and “seems to give a chronology leading up to the eschaton and then describes the final judgment as administered by a divine being named Melchizedek.” Melchizedek is supposed to come at the end of the “tenth jubilee”, on the Day of Atonement, to judge the nations, save the good and destroy the wicked. Furthermore, Davila notes:

…[I]n line 10 of this text Melchizedek is called a “god” (elohim)…So in this document from Qumran Melchizedek is pictured as an angelic or divine being (an elohim) who may have priestly associations and who is an eschatological judge.⁴

Davila goes on to highlight some of the other beliefs expressed in further texts from Qumran and from Gnostic sources.  In most of them, Melchizedek is described as an angelic high priest or god and even identified as Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. What are we to make of all this? Davila is right on with his analysis of it all. He says, summarizing the trajectory of these traditions:

He begins as a king and priest of pre-Davidic Jerusalem and then, some centuries later, is described also a a divine heavenly being, a god (elohim or theos) who defeats and destroys the forces of evil at the last judgment and delivers souls from the underworld. I submit that the problem of the development of this tradition has never been squarely face by scholars. How do we get from Melchizedek the priest-king to Melchizedek the god? My proposal is this: his divinity was not invented in the Second Temple period; rather it was suppressed in the Hebrew bible. In other words, the apparent change from man to god is a matter of suppression of older traditions that were excluded from the biblical canon, not of innovation in the Second Temple literature.⁵

This conclusion is remarkably significant. According to Davila, we are to assume that in the royal religion of the First Temple, Melchizedek would have been seen as a priest-king who was deified.  I think it stands to reason that we could say, then, that the subsequent kings of Jerusalem of the Davidic line could have been viewed in like manner. This helps us understand why in Psalm 45:6 the king is specifically addressed as a god.

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

While the idea that the king is somehow divine is common in Egyptian and other Ancient Near Eastern religions, the idea has not been readily accepted for the Israelite/Judean kings, and that has to do greatly with the fact that there is not much evidence for the idea in the Old Testament as we now have it. However, as Davila states it, it is very likely that these ideas did exist, once upon a time, but were suppressed by later writers and editors that no longer followed that belief system.

The Seal of Melchizedek

The Forbidden Degrees

The following is taken from Dr. Andrei Orlov’s blog (see the specific post here; don’t worry that some of it is in Russian, most is English). For those who haven’t followed this blog long, Andre Orlov was my adviser for my MA program in Theology at Marquette University.  Orlov (who has also written much on Melchizedek), is an expert in the mystical traditions of early Judaism.

I have reproduced some passages that he posted on his blog from the Hagigah (or Chagigah), a Jewish treatise found in the Babylonian Talmud.  I am no expert on these writings, so I really couldn’t share much background info on them with you. It seems that the word hagigah signifies “festivity” and refers to a “festal-offering” that was given at one or more of the three principal pilgrimage festivals of ancient Judaism. The writings apparently give rules for ritual cleanliness and guidelines for the offerings, but offer rules for many other subjects as well. Again, I’m no expert on this, but from what I’ve seen and what I quote below, there is some very interesting material, if you can get past all the technical language and debating over ritual requirements.

A word of warning: the following is not easy to get through and even less easy to understand.  If you can get anything out of it, consider yourself a true sage and enlightened soul!

One more introductory thought: the rabbis (R. Johanan, etc.) cited here were under the belief that certain mystical doctrines were too sacred to speak of (only under certain circumstances with worthy and prepared individuals). These include, as you can read below, the “forbidden degrees”, the “Story of Creation”, and the writings of Ezekiel concerning “the Chariot” (God’s throne). There were certain consquences (good and harmful) when these topics were spoken of, so the greatest of care was needed in addressing them, and they were never expounded on in public. I am not quite sure what the “forbidden degrees” refers to (I can speculate, but may be wrong). I have seen other lists of these forbidden topics, and from what I can remember, I believe the topic of sacred marriage (perhaps as discussed in Song of Solomon?) is sometimes cited. If anyone has any further insights on this, please let me know!

UPDATE: In an email, Dr. Orlov directed me to Rachel Elior’s opinion on what the “forbidden degrees” were as explained in her book, The Three Temples. She indicates that they may have had reference to “the sexual union of the Cherubim” in the Holy of Holies of the temple (I wasn’t far off!).  Now, if the rabbis wouldn’t talk about it, I probably shouldn’t either. I will say that there are some Jewish traditions that say that the cherubim that were in the Holy of Holies were (at least at times) understood to be entwined in a conjugal embrace which likely has something to do with the reason that holiest place was sometimes called “the bridal chamber.” To read more about this, have a look at Raphael Patai’s The Hebrew Goddess, and also Eugene Seaich’s A Great Mystery: The Secret of the Jerusalem Temple, The Embracing Cherubim and At-One-Ment with the Divine.

Here is the text, thanks to Dr. Orlov’s blog:

m. Hagigah 2:1 The forbidden degrees may not be expounded before three persons, nor like Story of Creation before two, nor [the chapter of] the Chariot before one alone, unless he is a Sage that understands of his own knowledge.

Whoever 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? And whosoever takes no thought for the honour of his Maker, it were better for him if he had not come into the world.

b. Hagigah 13 R. Johanan said to R. Eleazar: Come, I will instruct you in the ‘Work of the Chariot’. He replied: I am not old enough. When he was old enough, R. Johanan died. R. Assi [then] said to him: Come, I will instruct you in the “Work of the Chariot’. He replied: Had I been worthy, I should have been instructed by R. Johanan, your master.

The Rabbis taught: There was once a child who was reading at his teacher’s house the Book of Ezekiel, and he apprehended what Hashmal was, whereupon a fire went forth from Hashmal and consumed him. So they sought to suppress the Book of Ezekiel, but Hananiah b. Hezekiah said to them: If he was a Sage, all are Sages! What does [the word] Hashmal mean?-Rab Judah said: Living creatures speaking fire. In a Baraitha it is taught: [Hashmal means], At times they are silent, at times they speak. When the utterance goes forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they are silent, and when the utterance goes not forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they speak. b. Hag 14b Our Rabbis taught: Once R. Johanan b. Zakkai was riding on an ass when going on a journey, and R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak was driving the ass from behind. [R. Eleazar] said to him: Master, teach me a chapter of the ‘Work of the Chariot’.2 He answered: Have I not taught you3 thus: ‘Nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a Sage and understands of his own knowledge’? [R. Eleazar] them said to him: Master, permit me to say before thee something which thou hast taught me.4 He answered, Say on! Forthwith R. Johanan b. Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up,5 and sat upon a stone beneath an olive tree. Said [R. Eleazar] to him: Master, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? He answered: Is it proper that whilst thou art expounding the ‘Work of the Chariot’, and the Divine Presence is with us, and the ministering angels accompany us, I should ride on the ass! Forthwith, R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak began his exposition of the ‘work of the Chariot’, and fire6 came down from heaven and encompassed all the trees in the field; [thereupon] they all began to utter [divine] song. What was the song they uttered? — Praise the Lord from the earth, ye sea-monsters, and all deeps . . . fruitful trees and all cedars . . . Hallelujah.8 An angel9 [then] answered10 from the fire and said: This is the very ‘Work of the Chariot’. [Thereupon] R. Johanan b. Zakkai rose and kissed him on his head and said: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, Who hath given a son to Abraham our father, who knoweth to speculate upon, and to investigate, and to expound the ‘Work of the Chariot’ — There are some who preach well but do not act well, others act well but do not preach well, but thou dost preach well and act well. Happy art thou, O Abraham our father, that R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak hath come forth from thy loins.

Now when these things were told R. Joshua, he and R. Jose the priest were going on a journey. They said: Let us also expound the ‘Work of the Chariot’; so R. Joshua began an exposition. Now that day was the summer solstice; [nevertheless] the heavens became overcast with clouds and a kind of rainbow appeared in the cloud, and the ministering angels assembled and came to listen like people who assemble and come to watch the entertainments of a bridegroom and bride. [Thereupon] R. Jose the priest went and related what happened before R. Johanan b. Zakkai; and [the latter] said: Happy are ye, and happy is she that bore you; happy are my eyes that have seen thus. Moreover, in my dream, I and ye were reclining on Mount Sinai, when a Bath Kol was sent to us, [saying]: Ascend hither, ascend hither! [Here are] great banqueting chambers, and fine dining couches prepared for you; you and your disciples and your disciples’ disciples are designated for the third class. But is this so? For behold it is taught: R. Jose b. R. Judah said: There were three discourses: R. Joshua discoursed before R. Johanan b. Zakkai, R. Akiba discoursed before R. Joshua, Hanania b. Hakinai discoursed before R. Akiba; — whereas R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak he does not count! — One who discoursed [himself], and others discoursed before him, he counts; one who discoursed [himself], but others did not discourse before him, he does not count. But behold there is Hanania b. Hakinai before whom others did not discourse, yet he counts him! — He at least discoursed before one who discoursed [before others].

1. Davila, 219
2. Davila, 219
3. Davila, 221
4. Davila, 222
5. Davila, 224