I won’t quote from or go into the content of his paper, but I wanted to present some of the notes I took from Professor Davila’s remarks after the presentation. He said some interesting things that are helpful for understanding how some Jews, in the couple of centuries leading up to the life of Jesus Christ, thought about the role of the Messiah. My notes are far from a complete and accurate rendering of what Professor Davila said, so please bear with me.

Professor Davila:

Messianism in Second Temple Judaism is a very messy problem because the problem of Jesus is bigger than the problem of messianism when you define Messiah simply as “anointed one” — for the case of Jesus, we also need to look at the early Jewish ideas surrounding divine mediator figures, principal angels, charismatic spiritual leaders, etc.

(See Davila’s article “Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron: Introductory Reflections on Divine Mediators and the Origins of the Worship of Jesus” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism (Leiden: Brill,1999) and also his online outline Methodology for Studying Divine Mediators)

The idea of a “messiah” encompasses two ideal figures: the Davidic King and the High Priest. However, these two characters became very complex in Second Temple Judaism:

• The High Priest can be eschatological or celestial
• Davidic king ideal can draw from Past — King David or Melchizedek
• Melchizedek can be both eschatalogical and celestial
• and so on…

For the figure of Melchizedek, there are some background issues that need to be addressed — See Gen. 14 and Psalm 110 — these should be considered when studying 11QMelchizedek (a Dead Sea Scroll)

In Gen. 14, Melchizedek is both a king (of Jerusalem) and a priest who offers sacrifice — he was a human being originally (like Jesus).

In Psalm 110 — a “royal psalm” — the only other reference to Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible — the Davidic king is enthroned at the right hand of God, and made a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek — the Davidic king is a Melchizedek priest sitting at the right hand of God (heavenly ascent, although not explicit, can be read into this)

Melchizedek is a human being who was exalted to be a god, which has connections to Jesus.

In a couple of places in 11QMelch, Melchizedek is called a god — for instance, where Psalms 82 and 7 are cited regarding him(Psalm 110 is probably in the background of 11QMelch. as well).

Anciently, both king and priest were anointed — so Melchizedek is anointed on two accounts. He would certainly be considered an “anointed one.”

Matt. 11:2–6 (Luke 7) and Luke 4:18–19 — Jesus identified himself as being the one anointed by the Spirit as mentioned in Isaiah 61 and then Isaiah 35:5–6.

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (Dead Sea Scrolls) are also of interest. They likely refer to Melchizedek as a priestly angelic figure, which reinforces 11QMelch.

Margaret Barker thinks that Jesus was aware of this Melchizedek tradition — the 70 weeks (10 Jubilee periods) mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls is supposed to have ended at the Great Revolt (according to Gospel writers and Josephus) — the 10th Jubilee was supposed to be “the end” — Jesus was aware that at the beginning of the 10th Jubilee, the Messiah was supposed to be active — he saw himself as the Melchizedek figure.

Qumran seemed to believe in messiahs (plural) of Aaron and Israel. [One of the big questions that was discussed in the student paper and in class was whether Jesus fit either or both of these conceptions of the messiah of Aaron -- a priestly, atoning messiah -- or the messiah of Israel -- the conquering Davidic king. The student had concluded, based on his research, that Jesus didn't fully fit either tradition.]

In the pre-exilic period you had the king and a Zadokite priest under him.  In the post-exilic period, the Jews were under Persian overlords, so there was no king — there was a governor, Zerubabbel, and a high priest, Joshua. Zerubabbel was of the line of David, but not allowed to be king. The people began to want to be independent (ca. 520 BC) and shirk Persian control. In the last verses of Haggai, Zerubabbel is the “messiah” — he will be the true king:

Haggai 2:21–23  1 Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;  22 And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother.  23 In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.

We should note that Haggai seems to be cut short abruptly. Zechariah has similar themes:

Zechariah 6:11–13  11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;  12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:  13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

The instruction is to set crowns (plural) on the high priest Joshua, who appears to be called here “the Branch”. However, it seems more likely that the Branch should have been Zerubbabel (the Davidic king as a tree was an ancient idea), but he was later omitted in the text. Zerubabbel then disappears from history and the governors are never from the line of David again. The High Priest remains as the ruling figure in Jewish society.

The Qumran texts are looking at this history of kings and priests and the early pre-exilic diarchy (king and high priest ruling together), and saying that this is the ideal. There must be two messiahs — one priestly (Aaronic) and the other a Davidic king (depicted as a conquering warrior). The Qumran texts seem to make the priestly Messiah more important. Why?

Interestingly, the Jewish pseudepigrapha don’t generally mention a priestly messiah. Also, the Rabbinic texts don’t have a priestly messiah, only Davidic. There may be many reasons for this. The Dead Sea Scrolls do seem to  have the two messiahs idea.

4Q285 — “they will kill the prince of the congregation” — this used to be taken as “suffering Messiah” text, but now is not generally accepted as such.

4Q174 — the “teacher of law” is called the “star” that comes out of Jacob

The Book of Revelation should not be ignored in this matter. Jesus is not only the priestly, atoning messiah, he is there depicted as an eschatalogical warrior. Mark 13 and parallels paint Jesus as the Son of Man coming as a conquering figure — this is more evidence for Jesus as the Davidic messiah figure as well.

My (brief) thoughts on this subject:

I believe that the Aaronic (priestly) vs. Davidic messiah dichotomy is post-exilic. The pre-exilic “messiah”, who was the Davidic monarch,  was both a priestly figure (connected to atonement) and a royal warrior figure (connected to the battle against the nations). He was associated with the figure of Melchizedek. The conception of the priestly messiah should likely have originally not been connected to Aaron at all (this is a post-exilic invention), but should have been the priest after the order of Melchizedek, as Christ is described in the Epistle to the Hebrews. I think this is where 11QMelch comes into play — Melchizedek, the ancient example of the ideal priest-king, would have embodied both messianic expectations — the priestly and the royal.  The Davidic kings were anointed following the example of Melchizedek — as both priest and king (see Psalm 110).  This is the pattern that we see in Jesus as the Messiah — he would have been considered to be the two conceptions of messiah in one — the atoning High Priest and Davidic King. However, Christians believed that his role as conquering warrior would only be fully accomplished with his Second Coming. The fact that this role was not apparent during his lifetime may be one of the main reasons he was not accepted as the expected Messiah. Furthermore, the fact that he was not an Aaronic high priest, but claimed to be after the ancient (and repudiated) order of Melchizedek, was probably another reason why the Jewish leadership felt so threatened by his claims.

(For more on the background for these politics of the priesthood, see my post here.)

Most ancient Hebrew biblical inscription deciphered

‘It indicates that the kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE, and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research.’

Credit: Courtesy of the University of Haifa

Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa who deciphered the inscription: “It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research.”

A breakthrough in the research of the Hebrew scriptures has shed new light on the period in which the Bible was written. Prof. Gershon Galil of the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David’s reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time.

The inscription itself, which was written in ink on a 15 cm X 16.5 cm trapezoid pottery shard, was discovered a year and a half ago at excavations that were carried out by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel at Khirbet Qeiyafa near the Elah valley. The inscription was dated back to the 10th century BCE, which was the period of King David’s reign, but the question of the language used in this inscription remained unanswered, making it impossible to prove whether it was in fact Hebrew or another local language.

Prof. Galil’s deciphering of the ancient writing testifies to its being Hebrew, based on the use of verbs particular to the Hebrew language, and content specific to Hebrew culture and not adopted by any other cultures in the region. “This text is a social statement, relating to slaves, widows and orphans. It uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah (“did”) and avad (“worked”), which were rarely used in other regional languages. Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah (“widow”) are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages. The content itself was also unfamiliar to all the cultures in the region besides the Hebrew society: The present inscription provides social elements similar to those found in the biblical prophecies and very different from prophecies written by other cultures postulating glorification of the gods and taking care of their physical needs,” Prof. Galil explains.

He adds that once this deciphering is received, the inscription will become the earliest Hebrew inscription to be found, testifying to Hebrew writing abilities as early as the 10th century BCE. This stands opposed to the dating of the composition of the Bible in current research, which would not have recognized the possibility that the Bible or parts of it could have been written during this ancient period.

Prof. Galil also notes that the inscription was discovered in a provincial town in Judea. He explains that if there were scribes in the periphery, it can be assumed that those inhabiting the central region and Jerusalem were even more proficient writers. “It can now be maintained that it was highly reasonable that during the 10th century BCE, during the reign of King David, there were scribes in Israel who were able to write literary texts and complex historiographies such as the books of Judges and Samuel.” He adds that the complexity of the text discovered in Khirbet Qeiyafa, along with the impressive fortifications revealed at the site, refute the claims denying the existence of the Kingdom of Israel at that time.

The contents of the text express social sensitivity to the fragile position of weaker members of society. The inscription testifies to the presence of strangers within the Israeli society as far back as this ancient period, and calls to provide support for these strangers. It appeals to care for the widows and orphans and that the king — who at that time had the responsibility of curbing social inequality — be involved. This inscription is similar in its content to biblical scriptures (Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 72:3, Exodus 23:3, and others), but it is clear that it is not copied from any biblical text.

###

English translaton of the deciphered text:

1′ you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].

2′ Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]

3′ [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]

4′ the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.

5′ Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

For more in-depth analysis of this announcement, see Jim Davila’s coverage and links at his PaleoJudaica.blogspot.com

Just for fun, compare this early Hebrew writing to some other ancient characters familiar to LDS readers; see here.