Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book

[stephan happy huller]

Later rabbinic tradition combined Genesis 14:17-20 with Psalm 110:4 and concluded that Melchizedek transferred his priesthood to Abraham and that Psalm 110:4 was thus spoken of Abraham. But at the time of Justin this seems to have been applied to Hezekiah. I can't for the life of me understand how or why but it was.

I was only saying you lacked sophistication when you attempted to say that because the Patriarchs were fictitious THEREFORE lineage wouldn't matter to Jews in antiquity. You may well be a sophisticated person in other respects. That was a stupid argument. You are probably young just like Richard Carrier. Doesn't mean you won't be great. Young just means you aren't great right now.

[stephan happy huller]

And speaking of Psalm 110:4 I am not sure the English translation has the right sense of the Hebrew here:

You are a priest forever, from the order (דִּבְרָתִֽי) of Melchizedek

I think 'likeness' or even 'manner' is a better translation. It doesn't mean that a second line of high priests was being established in heaven. It just means that Abraham, David or Hezekiah - whoever you want the Psalm to be about - was being compared to the heavenly ruler figure i.e. that he was divine. I don't see this as a particularly strong argument for mythicists. It's only describing a human being as 'godlike' or 'divine.'

[Tenorikuma]

But that wasn't the original sense of Psalm 110.

The original meaning is irrelevant. As you know, the Jews throughout that time felt free to reinterpret the text in light of the present day, giving it new meaning. The psalm's original context is unknown, although an argument has been made that it was about Simon Maccabeus, since it appears to use his name as an acrostic. Michael Goulder (Psalms of the Return: Psalms 107–150, p. 145) thinks the psalm was addressed to the high priest Joshua ben Jozadak.

If my hypothesis is correct, the Jewish sects — attested to by the Qumran sectarian scrolls — that had abandoned the temple and the Hasmonean priesthood as corrupt combed the scriptures for answers. They found Genesis 14, which attested to a priest of Yahweh in Jerusalem long before the establishment of the Levites. They also saw Psalm 110 as a prediction of a heavenly priestly messiah (himself a pre-existent being, according to LXX Psalm 100:3). The heavenly high priest wouldn't have to be of the traditional priesthood, because he would be of Melchizedek's order (if not Melchizedek himself). The Jewish sect(s) that venerated Melchizedek as their heavenly priest-messiah based their beliefs on this text. Practically every early Christian writer understood Jesus in terms of Psalm 110: Paul (1 Corinthians 15), Ephesians, Barnabas, Hebrews, 1 Clement, and the Gospels (especially Luke-Acts). These writings are all tributaries of the same stream, I suspect. The author of Acts, in fact, saw that the heavenly temple was the only one acceptable to a God that did "not dwell in temples made of human hands", unlike the pagan gods. John's Jesus claimed that his own death and ascension would initiate the new temple.

I wouldn't be surprised if that explains the development of Jesus — a high priest who could provide atonement and judgment from an eternal heavenly temple superior in every way to the earthly one. Some were convinced that this priest was already described in the Psalms, and they built an elaborate mythology around these passages. These ideas were centuries in the making, a natural evolution of a religion focused on a temple and a priesthood it no longer had access to, for one reason or another.

By the time you get to the Hellenistic church fathers, I think these origins have already been forgotten. They know Psalm 110 is important, because it appears in all these writings, but they don't really get why. They were never part of Judaism back when it had a real temple and real priests performing real sacrifices.

Please note: I'm not trying to make a mythicist argument per se. Maybe there was a real guy whose crucifixion inspired new developments in this theology — or maybe the Gospel writers were inspired by numerous would-be messiahs and prophets when they wrote their narratives. Mark certainly seems to draw from the example of Jesus Ben Ananias, and then you have traditions hinting at a link between Jesus and Ben Pantera or "the Egyptian". But I'm not sure Christianity needed a historical Jesus either.

I'm just writing all this off the top of my head, so feel free to point out any egregious errors.

[stephan happy huller]

No, I think you are right insofar as the text was reinterpreted. But I, not have cared about any of this stuff (Psalm 110, Hebrews 5) before found it interesting to see how ambiguous the original Hebrew was.

[stevencarrwork]

Maurice Casey gave out my name, place of residence, birthplace and profession in his book - without ever asking my permission.

I am so glad I don't have his standards.

[stevencarrwork]

Casey actually has exerted his psychic powers once more and claimed I visited Tyndale House while at Cambridge!

Is there no end to this guy's ability to make himself look an utter idiot by his belief that he possesses psychic powers which he doesn't actually have?

[Bingo]

Heck, we only have to look at 11QMelch to see that Jews already believed in a heavenly priest who would grant atonement and perform God's judgment on the world.

Fwiw - it looks to me like 11QMelch depends on Palm 82. And it looks to me like Palm 82 in turn, depends on Deuteronomy 32:7-ff.

Imho Deuteronomy 32:7-ff. juxtaposes an older Canaanite tradition with a newer Yahwist tradition. Under the older Canaanite tradition each nation was governed by one of the seventy sons of El. But under the newer paradigm Yahweh’s relationship with the tribe of Jacob was different: Yahweh found the tribe of Jacob wandering in the desert and he (Yahweh) took them for himself.

Given that, Psalm 82 extends what Deuteronomy 32:7-ff did. It says that Yahweh got pissed off one day, and intruded into El’s divine council and took control of the seventy nations from the seventy sons of El; and at the point Yahweh essential became the governing god of the entire world.

[I believe that the word ‘Yahweh’ originally appeared in Psalm 82:1, and I think that somewhere along the road someone replaced the word ‘Yahweh’ with ‘Elohim’. (Cf. Ps 14:2; Ps. 53:2)]

Given that, 11QMelch substitutes Melchizedek for Yahweh, and then mistakenly assumes that El was a ‘good god’ and not the legacy Canaanite god.

I think that the author of 11QMelch was just making shit up. He harvested/exploited Psalm 82 without understanding what it originally meant. He changed Psalm 82 from a story involving 72 gods, to a story about one god, seventy “sons of heaven”, and one high priest.

Am I making any sense?

[Bingo]

11QMelch to see that Jews already believed in a heavenly priest who would grant atonement and perform God's judgment on the world.

But you realize that in societies like this detailed genealogies were kept on everyone. It would be immediately obvious who was and wasn't of the line of the high priest. Jesus wasn't of priestly lineage. Jesus also couldn't have been 'the heavenly high priest' because his name wasn't Jesus. It doesn't make sense.

I think your perspective is naïve and ignores the way that these stories may have actually evolved.

May I suggest that you stop thinking in terms of what ‘believers believed’ and start thinking in terms of what ‘writers wrote’?

Allow for ignorance and indifference (and deceit).

Think in terms of how the lines of an automobile evolve from one model year to another.

It’s all just art.

[Bingo]

But that wasn't the original sense of Psalm 110.

The original meaning is irrelevant. As you know, the Jews throughout that time felt free to reinterpret the text in light of the present day, giving it new meaning.

Yep.

If my hypothesis is correct, the Jewish sects — attested to by the Qumran sectarian scrolls — that had abandoned the temple and the Hasmonean priesthood as corrupt combed the scriptures for answers. They found Genesis 14, which attested to a priest of Yahweh in Jerusalem long before the establishment of the Levites.

Fwiw, Yahweh was not the god in Genesis 14. The ‘Yahweh’ in verse 22 is a gloss. Genesis 14 (the entire chapter) was injected some time after the surrounding chapters were written. It appears to be a bastardized re-write of an earlier Canaanite story.

The 'god' of Genesis 14 is the Canaanite god El. The word 'melchi-zedek' (whatever it originally meant) has its origins in Canaanite mythology.

[Bingo]

... I think you are right insofar as the text was reinterpreted. But I, not have cared about any of this stuff (Psalm 110, Hebrews 5) before found it interesting to see how ambiguous the original Hebrew was.

If nobody (relevant) understood who Melchizedek was – or what the word melchi-zedek actually meant, then think of the creative opportunities that it presented for those who wished to exploit it.