Abstract
Dongshin Don Chang focuses his monograph on the combination of the concepts of covenant and priesthood in Second Temple Jewish and Jewish-Christian texts. To that end, Chang discusses three sets of texts: 1 and 2 Maccabees (chaps. 1 and 2), some of the Dead Sea Scrolls (chaps. 3 and 4), and Hebrews (chaps. 5 and 6). He posits four questions that guide the discussion of each of the sets of texts. First, how did different groups understand the combination of covenant and priesthood? Second, why did the groups of texts combine the priesthood and covenant? Third, how did this combination influence priestly covenantal ideology for the groups? Finally, how do the priestly covenantal claims reflect the character of the groups in question? (pp. 2–3). Chang discusses the absence of scholarly interest in the combination of the concepts, noting that much of scholarship is relatively indifferent to priestly conceptions of covenant. He observes that “studies on the concept of covenant in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and in Second Temple Judaism have been performed mainly in relation to the identity of the Israelites and the Jewish people and their relationship with God in general” (p. 11).
In Part I, Chang hypothesizes that 1 Maccabees develops a priestly concept of covenant in order to legitimate the high priesthood of the Hasmonean heirs (p. 24). His discussion of the use of the term “covenant” in 1 Maccabees is particularly helpful in the conclusions he draws. Notably, Chang suggests the use of the term in Mattathias’s deathbed scene, describing Phinehas, links the priestly aspect of covenant from Phinehas to Mattathias. This suggests the priesthood moves from Phinehas to Mattathias (pp. 39–40). He then connects the fatherhood motif, also from Mattathias’ deathbed scene, to Simon as high priest and ruler of the Jewish people (p. 42). Chang uses these two motifs to suggest the line of Phinehas–Mattathias–Simon represents the legitimate covenantal priesthood in 1 Maccabees (p. 44). He concludes Part I by suggesting that the motif of Phinehas’ zeal is found in other literature, including some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, providing a bridge to Part II.
In Part II, Chang discusses pre-sectarian and sectarian priestly covenant traditions. Chang begins chapter 3 with a review of different priestly ideologies, providing excellent background on the Levitical, Zadokite, and Aaronic priesthoods and linking them to sectarian ideologies discussed in chapter 4 (pp. 55–65). He then continues discussing the Phinehas–Aaron connection in Sir 45:6–25. He notes the frequent use of the term “covenant” in Sir 44:16–45:25, suggesting that the author includes the concept of covenant as a significant theme of the first set of fathers which builds toward the priestly covenant (p. 69). Chang concludes that a significant feature of the Aaron and Phinehas section of Ben Sira is the explicit use of covenantal language. For Chang, this suggests that the author of Ben Sira emphasizes the priestly covenantal ideology in regards to Aaron and Phinehas, something overlooked by other scholars (p. 78). Furthermore, he suggests that the emphasis of the didactic role of the priest in Ben Sira is reflected in some of the sectarian literature from Qumran (p. 79). In his discussion of sectarian literature in chapter 4, Chang argues that the Qumran community likely used different priestly traditions based on particular needs (p. 90). He focuses his discussion on the use of “sons of Aaron” and “sons of Zadok,” suggesting that after the death of the Teacher of Righteousness, the movement shifted from a movement with a charismatic leader to a community led by a group with exclusive authority (p. 126). Moreover, he rightly notes that the role of the priests in the community was more didactic than redemptive.
In Part III, Chang discusses aspects of the combination of priesthood and covenant in Hebrews. Though he discusses aspects of authorship, provenance, and dating briefly in the beginning of chapter 5, his argument does not hinge on any of these aspects. Chang focuses his discussion in chapter 5 on the use of the terms “priesthood,” “priest,” “high priest,” and “covenant” in Hebrews. Throughout the discussion of these terms, Chang observes that “the author attempts to understand Jesus’ redemption through the lens of the cultic role of the high priest” (p. 149). Chang further notes the differences between the priestly roles at Qumran as didactic, and the role of Jesus as high priest in Hebrews as redemptive. Chang devotes chapter 6 to a discussion of Melchizedek in Hebrews. He suggests that the author uses the Melchizedek traditions from Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 to emphasize the motifs of eternity and oath-taking (p. 189). He further suggests that Hebrews 7 helped transition the priesthood from a Levitical understanding to Jesus “in the order of Melchizedek” as a means to anticipate the transition to a new and better covenant in Hebrews 8 (p. 189). Chang provides a brief discussion on Melchizedek in Qumran and Hebrews, noting that Melchizedek in 11Q13 is quite different than Melchizedek in Hebrews (p. 197). He concludes that the author of Hebrews uses Melchizedek, along with the blood-sprinkling motif, to combine the concepts of priesthood and covenant in order to develop a priestly Christology of Jesus (p. 199).
The first two parts of Chang’s monograph are well connected by discussions of the use of Phinehas in Maccabean literature and in Ben Sira. Part III, a discussion of priesthood and covenant in Hebrews, however, seems less connected to Parts I and II. While this is only minor, the flow for the reader seems interrupted as the work advances two centuries with few connections between Parts I and II and the introduction to Part III (apart from a brief paragraph summarizing the arguments from the previous two parts). The connection only becomes apparent in the discussion of 11Q13 and Hebrews. Nevertheless, Chang brings a nuance to the discussion of priestly covenant ideology that has, until now, been lacking in scholarship. His work on the subject provides both brief histories of scholarship and new insights into understanding and interpreting texts from the late Second Temple period.