"Melchizedek in Hebrews 7." Biblica 90 (2009): 188–202.

Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 In the OT, the priest-king Melchizedek is only mentioned in Ps 110,4 — perhaps in the Hebrew text, definitely in the Greek text (LXX Ps 109,4) (1) — and briefly in a narrative about Abraham in the Pentateuch (Genesis 14). In the latter narrative, Melchizedek suddenly appears, before then equally suddenly disappearing from the OT narratives altogether. The letter to the Hebrews, however, has more to say about this priest-king Melchizedek. It offers information going beyond the literal meaning of the OT passages mentioning him. In the last century or so, several early texts, all having in common that they mention a figure with the name Melchizedek, have been either discovered or made available to a scholarly audience — above all the Melchizedek document from Qumran, the Nag Hammadi tractate with the name Melchizedek and the Melchizedek legend in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch. They all portray Melchizedek as a semi-divine figure—which also is the case with the presentation of Melchizedek in Hebrews. The question has therefore risen: How should one understand Hebrews in light of these discoveries? The letter to the Hebrews presents itself as a “word of exhortation” (Heb 13,22), written, probably with the purpose of being read aloud, by an anonymous author to an anonymous congregation. This lack of data makes it difficult for us to outline the historical and theological context into which the writing was originally written and read. Nevertheless, judging from the many quotations the author makes from the OT and from the words he addresses directly to the recipients of the letter, one can for a start draw two conclusions. Firstly, the author was well-versed in the Scriptures. As is evident in several places, he used a Scripture written in Greek — more or less identical with what (1) In my PhD thesis which was defended publicly in December 2008 I argue in Ps 110.4 originally probably was a nominal clause. See G. that Granerød, “Abraham, Melchizedek and Chedorlamomer: An Attempt to Read Genesis 14 as the Work of Scribal Activity in Second Temple Times” (unpublished PhD thesis; MF Norwegian School of Theology, Oslo 2008) 205225. Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 189 one usually refers to as the LXX (2). Secondly, the congregation he was addressing consisted of Christians who according to Heb 6,1 had already received a basic teaching about Christ (6,1 τον της αρχης του Χριστου λογον). The author’s intention was not to lay the foundation (θεµελιον) anew (3). The author strongly urges the recipients to seek “perfection” (τελειοτης). “By this time”, the author says in Heb 5,12, the recipients ought to be teachers — which however they are not. He holds against them that they still need milk, not solid food. This, however, means that they are still unskilled (απειρος) and infants (νηπιος, v. 13). In opposition to this, he continues, “solid food [η στερεα τροφη] is for the mature [τελειος]” (v. 14). In the context of Hebrews, what the author refers to as “solid food” for the mature is the Christology particularly characteristic of Hebrews — the view that Jesus is a priest in heaven. 1. The Sacerdotal Christology Characteristic in Hebrews The Christology evident in Hebrews is made up of at least two pillars(4). The first one is broadly attested in the rest of the NT literature as well, namely the idea that Jesus is God’s son. The second pillar, however, is the view that Jesus is a high priest who once for all sacrificed himself (Heb 9,26) and who “always lives to make intercession” (Heb 7,25). The latter, sacerdotal Christology, is characteristic of Hebrews. In the entire NT, the idea that Jesus continues to pray for those who believe in him — and does so after his resurrection and ascension to heaven — is found only a handful of places (5). In Rom 8,34, Paul explicitly connects Christ’s heavenly intercession with a Christological interpretation of Ps 110,1: “… It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us”. In other words, Paul assumes that Yahweh in the first oracle of Psalm 110 is addressing Jesus. The words “Sit at my right hand …” (Ps (2) E.g., using LXX Ps 109,4 and paraphrasing LXX Gen 5,22 in Heb 11,5. (3) Neither with respect to the necessity of “repentance from dead works and faith toward God”, baptism, the resurrection of the dead, nor eternal judgment. (4) See e.g., L. GOPPELT, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (UTB 850; Göttingen 1976) 580. — Here, I will briefly also point to the fact that Hebrews considers Jesus as Christ. Moreover, Jesus is spoken to as God (cf. Heb 1,8). (5) D.M. HAY, Glory at the Right Hand. Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville, TN 1973) 130-134. 190 Gard Granerød 110,1) are thought to be spoken to Christ. The first known Christian martyr, Stephen, probably made a similar association between Christ’s standing at the right hand of God and his intercession, just before he was stoned (Acts 7,55-56). In addition, we perhaps find the intercession of Jesus being connected to his sitting on the right side of God in 1 Pet. 3,21-22. Even though Jesus is not frequently called “a priest” in the NT, the author of Hebrews probably takes over traditions already existing when expounding the priesthood of Christ. However, what sets Hebrews apart from the other NT texts is above all the particular emphasis in terms of narrative space given to this idea. The designations “priest” and “high priest” are used many times throughout Hebrews (6). The question therefore arises: Why is it so important for Hebrews that Jesus is a “high priest”? One can approach this question in different ways. An attempt at an answer made on the basis of the history of theology of the early church is not unproblematic — in particular when the emphasis is on the chronological allocation of the various NT texts. Depending on the methods chosen and the data emphasized, the date of composition of Hebrews stretches from the beginning of the 60’s to the year 96 or 97 CE (7). It is therefore not easy to outline the chronological order of the NT texts depicting Jesus as “a priest” — including Hebrews. Nevertheless, it is a plausible assumption that there existed an early Christian tradition according to which Jesus was seen in this way — a tradition antedating Hebrews (8). A closer examination of the very opening of Hebrews (Heb 1,1-4) points in the same direction. According to many exegetes, the author opens Hebrews by somehow recalling a traditional, early JewishChristian hymn (9). Despite the fact that Jesus is not termed “a priest” in either of these opening verses, he is described as having performed priestly functions. For according to 1,3a, Jesus “made purification for (6) With the exception of the many occurrences in chapter 7: Heb 3,1; 4,14-15; 5,1.5.6.10; 6,20; 8,1.3.4; 9,7.11.25; 10,11.21; 13,11. (7) See P. STUHLMACHER, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen 1999) II, 86-87. The terminus ad quem is due to quotations of Hebrews which might be found in 1 Clem 17,1; 36,2-5. (8) See e.g. GOPPELT, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 584. (9) STUHLMACHER, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, II, 92-93. Other scholars are more sceptical. As C.R. Koester puts it, “[t]he most that can be said is that Heb 1:3 includes traditional elements”, cf. C.R. KOESTER, Hebrews (ABD; New York 2001) 179. See also A.C. MITCHELL, Hebrews (Sacra Pagina 13; Collegeville, MN 2007) 44-45. Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 191 sins” before he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty. The claim that the hymnic opening is not the work of the author of Hebrews is supported in various ways. First, the opening hymn offers the hapax legomena απαυγασµα (“reflection”) and χαρακτηρ (“exact representation”) (10). Neither of these words is exploited later on in Hebrews, despite their potential for the purpose of dealing with the pre-existence and incarnation of Christ (11). Further, the paraphrase of Ps 110,1 which we find in Heb 1,3, uses the term “Majesty”, not κυριος, the Greek counterpart of . This seems to reflect a typical Jewish tendency to avoid using the tetragrammaton. It therefore seems likely that the author in Heb 1,1-4 either opens his writing by means of an already existing hymn or by alluding to traditional hymnic elements. Although Christ is not called “a priest”, he is nonetheless de facto depicted as one — even before the composition of Hebrews. It seems that the author presupposes that the addressees of the writing are — or at least should be — acquainted with the idea of Christ as heavenly priest, sitting at the right hand of his Father and interceding for his people. 2. Typology Before looking closer at chapter 7, a few words should be added about the way the author of Hebrews uses the OT. In many of the other NT texts, the Christian theologians interpret OT passages — including passages from the Torah and the book of Psalms — according to a prediction–fulfilment scheme. Typically, the OT passage in question is conceived of as offering a prediction which then accordingly is considered as having been fulfilled in the life and work of Jesus (12). Although not entirely absent, such a prophecy-fulfilment argumentation is not typical for Hebrews (13). The author of Hebrews instead favours a typological scheme. Persons, institutions and events that the OT speaks of are seen as anticipations — dim shadows — of (10) Likewise, the phrase εν υψηλοις “on high” does not occur elsewhere in the NT. (11) In Wis 7,26 wisdom is a “reflection [απαυγασµα] of eternal light”. In inter alia Heb 1,2-3 we have proof for the concepts of pre-existence and incarnation being rooted in Jewish sapiential theology. See O. SKARSAUNE, Inkarnasjonen myte eller faktum? (Oslo 1988) 22-26 and O. SKARSAUNE, In the Shadow of the Temple. Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (Downers Grove, IL 2002) 325330. (12) See e.g. John 19,31-37. (13) The author is acquainted with it though. See Heb 8,8-12. 192 Gard Granerød realities which are either yet to come or which are already considered as a reality after Christ’s suffering, resurrection and ascension to heaven. Thus, according to Heb 3,1-6, the faith of Moses foreshadows the faith of Jesus. According to 3,7–4,11, the disobedience shown to God by the generation wandering in the wilderness functions as a negative example (υποδειγµα, 4,11) for the Christians. According to 8,2, the meeting tent and the sanctuary prescribed in the Torah was set up by mortals, the “true tent” (η σκηνη η αληθινη) however by the Lord. According to 9,1-10, the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly tent. Now, there is a new covenant for which Christ is the mediator (µεσιτης, 9,15). According to 9,25, the purification that the high priest performed on the Day of Atonement as prescribed in the old covenant (Leviticus 16) had to be repeated again and again (πολλακις, 9,25). Now, on the contrary, Christ has appeared once for all (απαξ) at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself (14). 3. Outline of Hebrews 7 — Place in Literary Context I will now turn to Hebrews 7. In this chapter, the sacerdotal Christology is thoroughly accounted for by means of typology. Melchizedek is presented as the antitype of Christ. Commentators often designate the entire chapter as a midrash — some sort of interpretation — on the Melchizedek material of the OT (15). We should keep in mind that the author of Hebrews does not introduce any new hermeneutical method here. Rather, the Melchizedek–Jesus typology in Hebrews 7 should be understood in light of the overall typological pattern which I just outlined: in the eyes of the author, persons, institutions and events in the old covenant are to be considered as anticipations of the new covenant. Before reaching chapter 7, the author of Hebrews has already briefly anticipated the typological relation between Melchizedek and Christ no less than three times. In Heb 5,5-6 he combines a quotation of (14) This is not the time and place to discuss the background of the dualistic concepts evident here. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that already in the Priestly source of the Pentateuch we find the idea that the (earthly) tabernacle and all its , LXX: παραδειγµα) furniture are made by Moses according to the pattern ( revealed to him by Yahweh (Exod 25,9). See STUHLMACHER, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, II, 89-90. (15) H.W. ATTRIDGE, The Epistle to the Hebrews. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, PA 1989) 186. Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 193 Ps 2,7 with LXX Ps 109,4 and argues that Christ “did not glorify himself in becoming a high priest, but was appointed by the one who said to him, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you”; as he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek’”. Moreover, a few verses later the author claims that Jesus, having been made perfect in connection with his obedience on Calvary, became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him. In relation to this God gave him the designation “a high priest after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb 5,10). Finally, in Heb 6,20 — on the threshold of chapter 7 — the author claims that Jesus, “having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”, is a forerunner (προδροµος), on behalf of his believers, to the inner shrine behind the curtain. This allusion to LXX Ps 109,4 is further developed in chapter 7, where the author for the first time also employs Genesis 14, the only other OT passage where the priest-king contemporary with Abraham is mentioned. Heb 7,1-3 read (NRSV): This “King Melchizedek of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him”; and to him Abraham apportioned “one-tenth of everything.” His name, in the first place, means “king of righteousness”; next he is also king of Salem, that is, “king of peace.” Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. In v. 4, the author continues: “See how great he is! Even Abraham the patriarch gave him a tenth of the spoils.” The author then makes Abraham, who is Levi’s great grandfather, a representative of the levitical priesthood. By giving a tithe to the priest Melchizedek, the author says, Abraham — and through him all the levitical priests — at the same time recognizes the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek (7,4-10). Moreover, in the second part of the chapter, in vv. 11-19, the author argues that the Levitical priesthood cannot attain perfection (τελειωσις). In addition, he also admits that Jesus does not have any priestly genealogy (v. 14). The author argues, however, that this does not matter, for he has not become a priest through the requirements of the Torah, according to which physical descend is necessary. Rather, Christ has become priest “through the power of an indestructible life” (v. 16). Yahweh’s oracle in LXX Ps 109,4 — which the author conceives of as addressing Jesus — results in the abrogation of the 194 Gard Granerød earlier commandment (εντολη) of the Torah — because the latter was “weak and ineffectual” (v. 18). In the third and last part of chapter 7 in vv. 20-28, the author elaborates further upon the characteristics of Jesus’ priesthood. His argumentation seems to be anchored in three points. First, by quoting the oracle in LXX Ps 109,4 for the fourth or fifth time, he focuses on the word “oath”. The other priests took their office without an oath — Jesus however became a priest with an oath, which moreover was spoken by the Lord himself. Second, by recalling the clause “You are a priest forever”, the author of Hebrews deduces that Jesus holds his priesthood permanently (απαραβατον εχει την ιερωσυνην), because he continues forever (εις τον αιωνα). Third, according to the author, not only does this eternal priest always live “to make intercession” (v. 25), but he also, unlike the other high priests, has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people. For “this he did once for all when he offered himself” (v. 27). 4. The Melchizedek Traditions Used by the Author It can be stated at once that the author of Hebrews bases his exposition in chapter 7 on at least two biblical sources. The first one is the oracle in v. 4 of LXX Psalm 109 — an oracle he quotes verbatim or alludes to no less than eight times in the entire letter. The second source is Genesis 14. It seems that he condenses Gen 14,17-20 — the story about Abraham’s successful return after having beaten the four kings and his subsequent meeting with Melchizedek. On the basis of what he actually finds written in these two sources, he explains the meaning of the name “Melchizedek” and the designation “king of Salem”. “Melchizedek” is said to mean “king of righteousness”, whereas “king of Salem” means “king of peace”, thus identifying the place name “Salem” with , the Hebrew word for “peace”. Whether or not these proposals are “correct” according to the standards of modern linguistics is not the concern here. For the sake of simplicity I will point to the fact that etymological interpretations of names are found several times within the Hebrew Bible and continued in Hellenistic and rabbinic Judaism (16). Therefore, the explanations offered by the author of Hebrews do not in principle represent anything unique. (16) See e.g. Num 21,3 where the name of the city Hormah ( ) is connected “to put under ban”. As for the name Melchizedek, see e.g. Philo, with the verb Congr. 44-45, All. Int. 3,79 and Josephus, War 6,438, Ant. 1,181. Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 195 However, in Heb 7,3 it seems that the author departs from the information offered by the OT sources he uses. The implication of this verse is that Melchizedek is no mere earthly figure. On the contrary, he appears as an immortal and perpetual priest (µενει ιερευς εις το διηνεκες) with a semi-divine status (µητε αρχην ηµερων µητε ζωης τελος εχων). The idea of Melchizedek’s immortality reappears in Heb 7,8 — of Melchizedek it is “testified that he lives” (µαρτυρουµενος οτι ζη), contrasting the mortality of the descendants of Levi. Further, the assumption that Melchizedek is an immortal priest is crucial for the author’s argumentation concerning the immortality of Christ and his perpetual priesthood (e.g., cf. 7,24-25). 5. Hebrews 7,3.8 — Deduced from Extra-Biblical Sources or an Argument from Silence? From where does the author get the information evident in Heb 7,3? What made him refer to Melchizedek as without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life etc.? For a long time exegetes have struggled with this crucial question. In short, the proposals have typically been made along two different paths (17). On the one hand, it has frequently been pointed out that speculations about this shadowy figure of ancient past flourished in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic circles. Somehow, then, it is thought that the author is dependent on one — or several — of these speculations about Melchizedek (18). On the other hand it has been argued that the author of Hebrews, in accord with Jewish hermeneutical techniques, simply utilizes a potential in the OT texts which he unfolds. In other words, it is argued that the author has made an argument concerning Melchizedek from silence. First, I will focus on the assumption that Heb 7,3 reflects an already existing Melchizedek legend. From the second century BCE up till the medieval age, there are a number of sources which have in common the fact that they in one way or another are about Melchizedek (19). (17) See e.g. ATTRIDGE, Hebrews, 187, 189-192; KOESTER, Hebrews, 338-343 and MITCHELL, Hebrews, 141-144. (18) So e.g. HAY, Glory, 153. (19) For a survey of the references to Melchizedek, see F.L. HORTON, The Melchizedek Tradition. A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 30; Cambridge 1976) and B.A. PEARSON, “Melchizedek in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Gnosticism”, Biblical 196 Gard Granerød In the Gnostic sources, Jesus and Melchizedek are identified, both being transcendental figures. These sources, however, are most likely later that Hebrews. More important, the identification is based on Heb 7,3. Among the Nag Hammadi texts discovered in Egypt in 1945 there is an apocalypse attributed to a Melchizedek who receives revelations and is identified with Christ (NHC IX,1: Melchizedek). The tractate is dated between the second and fourth century CE. The identification of Melchizedek with Christ is based on Heb 7,3 (20). As for the other Gnostic texts dealing with Melchizedek — and a transcendent Melchizedek for that matter (e.g. the Bala”izah fragment, The Second Book of Jeu, Pistis Sophia, books 1–4) — the “problem” with them is also their relatively late date — regardless of whether or not one can find traces of Hebrews in them. In the rabbinic literature a human Melchizedek appears. In the targums, midrashim and in Talmud he is identified with Shem, one of the sons of Noah (21). Although Melchizedek is an antediluvian figure, he is nonetheless human throughout. All the rabbinic sources are probably later than Hebrews. For the historian Josephus, Melchizedek is a thoroughly human figure — he is seen as a Canaanite and the first one to have built a temple (Bell. 6,438). Apart from this information, Josephus does not add much to the biblical texts except for some etymological interpretations of Melchizedek and Salem (Ant. 1,180). Philo of Alexandria died 50 CE. Thus, his works antedate Hebrews. At one point he interprets Melchizedek as the divine Logos(22). This may — or may not — imply knowledge of a Jewish tradition ascribing divine or semi-divine status to Melchizedek. However, this cannot be said with certainty — Philo sometimes Figures outside the Bible (eds. M.E. STONE – T.A. BERGREN) (Harrisburg, PA 1998) 176-202. Moreover, see also the excursus on Melchizedek in ATTRIDGE, Hebrews, 192-195; M. MCNAMARA, “Melchizedek: Gen 14,17-20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature”, Bib 81 (2000) 1-31 and J.J. PETUCHOWSKI, “The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek”, HUCA 28 (1957) 127136. (20) PEARSON, “Melchizedek”, 193. (21) Targ. Ps.-J., Targ. Neof., Frag. Targ. on Gen 14,18; midrashim: ARN 2; Gen. R. 43,1; 44,7; Talmud: e.g. b. Ned. 32b. Moreover, see V. APTOWITZER, “Malkisedek: Zu den Sagen der Agada”, MGWJ 70 (1926) 93-113. (22) Leg. all. 3,82 ιερευς γαρ εστι λογος, “For reason is a priest”. Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 197 interprets the Bible ad hoc and sometimes picks up current Jewish traditions in his works (23). In the 2 (Slavonic) Enoch 71–72 we find a fully-fledged nativity narrative concerning Melchizedek. In short, Melchizedek is reported to have been conceived in mysterious ways without man’s contribution. His mother Sopanim, who is sterile, dies and out of the corpse the Melchizedek child comes, already wearing priestly insignia and fully developed physically, like a three-year old child. The husband of Sopanim and the child’s stepfather, Nir, is Noah’s brother. Before the great Flood, the archangel Michael takes the Melchizedek child to Paradise where, it is said, he will be priest to all holy priests (2 En. 71,28-29). “In the last generation”, however, there will be “another Melchizedek” — apparently a mortal version this time because it is reported that he will be buried (2 En. 71,35-36). It is intriguing to speculate whether or not the tradition about the “first” — and heavenly — Melchizedek of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch has some relevance for explaining the background of the immortal Melchizedek who appears in Hebrews (24). Unfortunately, the textual situation of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch is complicated. No manuscripts of this pseudepigraphic work written in Church Slavonic earlier than the fourteenth century are known. Yet today it seems that experts in the field, despite certain Christian interpolations, date its composition to the first century CE and even before 70 CE, the year that Titus destroyed Jerusalem (25). Nevertheless, in my view, the textual situation alone makes it very difficult to draw any conclusions regarding a possible relation to Heb 7,3. (23) PEARSON, “Melchizedek”, 181. Moreover, see P. BORGEN, “Philo of Alexandria as Exegete”, A History of Biblical Interpretation (eds. A.J. HAUSER and D.F. WATSON) (Grand Rapids, MI 2003) I, 114-143.— In any case, Philo understands the name Melchizedek to mean βασιλευς δικαιος “righteous king”, cf. Leg. All. 3,79.82. (24) So C. BÖTTERICH, “Hebr 7,3 und die frühjüdische Melchizedeklegende”, The Bible in Cultural Context (eds. H. PAVLINCOVÁ – D. PAPUSEK) (Brno 1994) 63-68. (25) BÖTTERICH, “The Melchizedek Story of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Reaction to A. Orlov”, JSJ 32 (2001), 445-70; BÖTTERICH, “Die vergessene Geburtsgechichte: Mt 1–2/Lk 1–2 und die wunderbare Geburt des Melchizedek in slHen 71–72”, Jüdische Schriften in ihrem antik-jüdischen und urchristlichen Kontext (eds. H. LICHTENBERGER – G.S. OEGEMA) (Studien zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 1; Gütersloh 2002) 222-248 and F.I. ANDERSEN, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) ENOCH (late first century)”, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J.H. CHARLESWORTH) (AB Reference Library; New York 1983-1985) I, 91-222 (94-95). 198 Gard Granerød I have not yet mentioned the Melchizedek document from Qumran. 11QMelch is an exegetical work (26). The OT idea about the year of Jubilee found in Leviticus 25 is interpreted as an eschatological release of the captives of Belial, who is the lord of the spirits of darkness. Due to the fragmentary nature of the document, the details are not entirely clear, but in any case Melchizedek is Belial’s antagonist. As part of the redemption, the released ones will be freed from “their iniquities” , 11QMelch 2,6). Moreover, “atonement” ( ) shall be made ( for the “men of the lot of Melchizedek” (11QMelch 2,8). Nowhere in 11QMelch is Melchizedek called “a priest”. Nevertheless, both the removal of iniquities and atonement are usually related to priestly activities. Be that as it may, 11QMelch probably does identify Melchizedek with the of Psalm 82 — here probably with the meaning “angel, heavenly being” (27). The document quotes Ps 82,1: “Elohim will [st]and in the assem[bly of God,] in the midst of the gods he judges” (11QMelch 2,10). 11QMelch does not quote Genesis 14 nor Psalm 110. However, 11QMelch is a work that bases itself heavily on biblical material (28). It is therefore unlikely that the author came up with the character of Melchizedek independently and without knowledge of these two biblical texts (29). Summing up so far, 11QMelch thus portrays a Melchizedek who probably is a priest and definitely is a transcendental, eschatological and judgemental figure with access to the heavenly courts. There are probably some additional references to Melchizedek in (26) A. ASCHIM, “Melchizedek the Liberator: An Early Interpretation of Genesis 14?”, SBL 35 (1996) 243-258; A. ASCHIM, “The Genre of 11QMelchizedek”, Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (eds. F.H. CRYER – T.L. THOMPSON) (JSOTSup 290; Sheffield 1998) 17-31; A. ASCHIM, “Verdens eldste bibelkommentar? Melkisedek-teksten fra Qumran”, TTK 2 (1995) 85-103 and P.J. KOBELSKI, Melchizedek and Melchireπa¿ (CBQMS 10; Washington, DC 1981) 3-5. (27) For alternative proposals, see A. ASCHIM, “Melchizedek and Jesus: 11QMelchizedek and the Epistle to the Hebrews”, The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (eds. C.C. NEWMAN – J.R. DAVILA – G.S. LEWIS) (JSJSS 63; Leiden 1999) 129-147 (133-135). (28) See e.g. G.J. BROOKE, “Melchizedek (11QMelch)”, in D.N. FREEDMAN (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York 1992) IV, 687-688 and G.L. COCKERILL, “Melchizedek or “King of Righteousness”?”, EvQ 63 (1991) 305-312. (29) KOBELSKI, Melchizedek and Melchireπa¿, 51 n. 8. — According to Kobelski, the similarities between Psalm 110 and 11QMelch are too numerous and too basic to the interpretation of each document to be coincidental. Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 199 the literature from Qumran. In 4Q401 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice), fragment 11, line 3 has been restored to read “[… Melchi]zedek, priest in the assem[bly of God …]”. Moreover, it is commonly assumed that Melchizedek is present in 4Q543-548 (4QVisions of Amrama-f) as the antithesis to Melchiresha”, “king of iniquity”, who appears as the spirit of darkness in these very fragmentary texts (cf. 4Q544 2,3-5) (30). Except for the Melchizedek references evidently found in 11QMelch and possibly also in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and 4QVisions of Amrama-f, no other pre-Christian references to a figure called Melchizedek are found — if we set aside Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, as well as the Genesis Apocryphon, from Qumran (1QapGen), which I do not comment upon here. Palaeographically, 11QMelch is datable to the early first century CE or more likely to the late first century BCE (31). The question therefore arises: is the author of Hebrews somehow dependent upon the Melchizedek document/ documents from Qumran? The fragmentary nature of the Melchizedek document and the other texts of course makes it difficult to analyse them. Nevertheless, in light of what actually is possible to say about them — and in particular 11QMelch — the most likely answer is in my view no. The notion found in Hebrews that Melchizedek is “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” (7,3) and that it is “testified that he lives” (7,8) does not contradict what is actually said about Melchizedek in 11QMelch. But although Melchizedek probably is a priest in the Qumran documents(32), the function of the Melchizedek of 11QMelch is quite different from that of the Melchizedek found in Hebrews. In the Melchizedek document from Qumran he has an eschatological, clearly redemptive role. In contrast, in Hebrews he above all functions as the antitype of Christ. In the latter text he has no independent significance for salvation. Therefore, it does not seem that the author of Hebrews makes any clear allusions to the Melchizedek speculations evident in the Qumran (30) Dated to the second century BCE, cf. KOBELSKI, Melchizedek and Melchireπa¿, 25. — A figure called Mechiresha” also occurs in 4Q280 (Curses against Melchiresha) 1,2, dated to the first half of the first century BCE, cf. KOBELSKI, Melchizedek and Melchireπa¿, 37. (31) KOBELSKI, Melchizedek and Melchireπa¿, 3. (32) Despite the lack of such a characterization except for the restored one found in 4Q401 11,3. 200 Gard Granerød texts. There are no indications that he had direct access to, say, a composition related to the one we know today as 11QMelch. In principle, another explanation is possible, namely that the theologians at Qumran on the one hand and the author of Hebrews on the other — independently of each other — are dependent on a common Melchizedek tradition — a tradition which, then, has more to say about this figure than what is found in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110(33). If that is the case, the author of Hebrews has found such a tradition useful for his cause — namely to develop the idea that Christ, sitting at the right hand of God (Heb 1,3), is a priest who has made “a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people” (Heb 2,17) and continues to intercede (Heb 7,25). Above, I argued that there are reasons to believe that the author did not invent the idea about Christ being a priest. It was probably already part of Christian tradition. Nevertheless, I will argue that one should consider another explanation — instead of positing some kind of “Legendenkranz” related to Melchizedek (34). Although the author of Hebrews uses a Greek text of the OT, he nevertheless employs various Jewish hermeneutical techniques. Here, I will give a brief survey of them (35). I have already mentioned typology, which I consider to be the most dominant one in Hebrews. In addition, the author of Hebrews (1) expounds the text on the basis of the literal meaning of the text (e.g. Heb 1,7; 9,20). (2) He also occasionally interprets according to a prediction–fulfillment pattern (e.g. Jer 31,31-34 [LXX 38,31-34] å Heb 8,8-12). (3) He employs allegorical method, finding spiritually important content hidden in the literal meaning of the text (Num 12,7 å Heb 3,2.6). (4) He makes deductions a minori ad maius in a way comparable to the later Rabbis (Heb 9,13-14) (36). (5) He makes analogical deductions on the basis of two or more texts that he consider to be connected to each other due to common catchwords or common contents (gezerah shawah, catchword “rest” in Ps 95,11 [LXX 94,11] + Gen 2,2-3 å Heb 4,3-5). Is it possible to explain the surplus information that we find in Heb (33) So e.g. ASCHIM, “Melchizedek and Jesus”, 129-147 and recently also T. ELGVIN, “Sixty Years of Qumran Research: Implications for Biblical Studies”, SEÅ 73 (2008) 7-28 (26, referring to Aschim). (34) So e.g. BÖTTERICH, “Hebr 7,3 und die frühjüdische Melchizedeklegende”, 67. (35) See e.g. STUHLMACHER, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, II, 90. (36) Also present in the teaching of Jesus, cf. Matt 10,29-31. Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 201 7,3.8 concerning Melchizedek as the result of the author’s use of a certain hermeneutical technique? Methodologically, one should give priority to an explanation made on the basis of the hermeneutical techniques that the author of Hebrews seems to be using elsewhere in his writing. The alternative, the assumption that he somehow is dependent upon current traditions about a semi-divine Melchizedek, cannot be excluded. However, such presumptions unfortunately cannot be checked (37). We do not have access to the library which the author of Hebrews had at his disposal. And — we do not know precisely what oral traditions he was familiar with. However, it is noteworthy that the author explicitly makes arguments from silence in both Heb 7,14 and 7,20. In the former verse he states that “… it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.” A few verses later in 7,20, referring to the oracle in LXX Ps 109,4 which he understands as spoken to Jesus, he argues that “This was confirmed with an oath; for others who became priests took their office without an oath…”. My argument is that it is quite likely that the author of Hebrews in 7,3.8 in a similar way has “exploited” a potential already present in the Melchizedek texts of the OT. For, as he already made clear in Heb 5,6,10 and 6,20, it is essential for him that Jesus is a “(high) priest according to the order of Melchizedek”, in accordance with LXX Ps 109,4. In this oracle which is so important for the author, there is an additional phrase: the priesthood granted to Jesus is said to be (37) ASCHIM, “Melchizedek and Jesus”, argues that Hebrews makes use of a Melchizedek tradition that is very similar to the one in 11QMelch. The arguments are given in ibid., 136-143. For instance, on p. 140 it is said that the Yom Kippur motif found in both 11QMelch and Heb 9,7 provides “a point of contact that cannot be directly derived from the biblical Melchizedek passages [in Gen 14,1820 and Ps 110,4], an important indication of a shared tradition beyond that contained in the biblical texts.” In my view, however, the “Yom Kippurargument” as well as the other arguments Aschim puts forward to prove that 11QMelch and Hebrews both draw upon a common Melchizedek tradition, are not persuasive. The (relatively few) similarities with regard to Melchizedek can be explained differently. The author of 11QMelch on the one hand and the author of Hebrews on the other have both — independently of each other but using the same Scriptures and comparable hermeneutical methods — come up with a comparable, but by no means identical, result. The fact that the Day of Atonement ritual plays a role in both texts says more about the high esteem for the Yom Kippur rituals in various branches of Judaism than it says about a common Melchizedek tradition upon which 11QMelch and Hebrews draw. 202 Gard Granerød “forever” (εις τον αιωνα). If Jesus is to be “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”, it might have been obvious to the author that Melchizedek’s priesthood is eternal also. And if Melchizedek is a perpetual priest, it follows that he does not have any parents, does not belong to any priestly family nor has any end of life. * * * When all is said and done, the Melchizedek speculations in Hebrews should be put in context. These speculations do not represent the theological core of this writing. Rather, they are part of an argumentation with a clearly Christocentric purpose: to portray Christ as the “Son of God”, who in addition is a heavenly high priest. From his position at the right hand of God, this heavenly priest is interceding for his people. As David Hay puts it, Melchizedek is mentioned to demonstrate the reality and superiority of the priestly office of Jesus. He is not related to the priestly work of Jesus. After Heb 7,17 he drops out of sight altogether (38). The roots of the idea about Christ as a heavenly priest are probably earlier than the letter to the Hebrews. However, the author of Hebrews did not necessarily make use of earlier extra-biblical speculations about Melchizedek. Rather, he may have come up with the concept about a semi-divine Melchizedek simply by using the great “tool box” of hermeneutical techniques which was common to many Jewish groups, including that of making arguments from silence. MF Norwegian School of Theology PO Box 5144 Majorstua N-0302 Oslo Gard GRANERØD SUMMARY Hebrews has more to say about Melchizedek than what is said about him in LXX Ps 109,4 (perhaps also MT Ps 110,4) and Genesis 14. Heb 7,3 says that Melchizedek is “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” and that “he remains a priest forever”. I discuss where the author gets this information from. Methodologically, priority should be given to an explanation made on the basis of the hermeneutical techniques that the author uses elsewhere. I argue that the surplus information found in Heb 7,3.8 stems from arguments made from silence. The author explicitly makes arguments from silence in Heb 7,14.20. (38) HAY, Glory, 153.