Notes taken from: Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, “The High Priest as Divine Mediator in the Hebrew Bible: Dan 7:13 as a Test Case,” SBL 1997 Seminar Papers, pp. 161-93
Glancing at the Curricula
Vitae of the candidates for the post described in Dan 7:13-4 the high
priest is the front runner. In the first place, since the high priest is a
representative character some of the other figures are included in his
candidature: the high priest wears on his breastplate and shoulder pieces the
names of the twelve tribes and so represents Israel. To the extant that the
arrival of the “one like a son of man” before the Ancient of Days is interpreted
in 7:18, 22, 27 as the giving of the kingdom to Israel, the former must either
represent, or be symbolic of, the people of God. The high priest is, at the
very least, a representative of Israel, is not her concrete embodiment within
the cultic drama.
As a number of scholars have
recently demonstrated, the high priestly garments also associate him with Adam,
which is only natural given the strongly Edenic symbolism of the Temple. In Dan
7:2 the “four winds stirring up the great sea” reminds us of Gen 1:2 and the Chaoskampf
mythology is firmly embedded in ancient Near Eastern creation accounts so
the vision quite naturally climaxes with the coming of a “one like a human
being” just as does Gen 1:1-31. (p. 167)
In Daniel 7 verse 14 has bee just
cause for those who would see in v. 13 a messianic king, since there he is
given “dominion, and glory and kingship.” However, in Israel’s
pre-exilic period sacral kingship involved the king in a position tantamount to
that of high priest and there was good scriptural warrant, upon which the
Hasmoneans would capitalise, for a high priest with royal powers (esp. Psalm
110). . . . Not only does the high priest have a strong candidacy since he is
wedded so closely to other angelomorphic figures, he does so in that context
(the Temple cult) which was evidently the most significant for the development
of the human angelomorphic tradition. Time and again there are telling signs
that it is the temple cult, its drama and costume, its holiness and the experience
of worship in a time and space qualitatively other, which have contributed to a
given literary angelomorphic characterisation. (p. 168)
(Under the heading of “The High Priest, Baal, and the Chaoskampf”):
Because of the importance of the
Baal allusion it is incumbent upon us to say something about the high priest and
the Chaoskampf. That subject would merit extensive treatment in its own
right. Given the confines of this study I can only flag up work in progress and
give five reasons why I believe that prior to Daniel 7 the high priest had already
taken on an identity mimicking that of Baal:
(1) First, while Mosca is right to
draw attention to the way in which, for example in Ps 89, Baal motifs are
transferred to the pre-exilic king, in the post-exilic period the prerogatives
of kingship are transferred to priesthood. A priori, then, there is the
possibility that the role of the king in the cult with respect to his authority
over the mythical forces of chaos should be transferred to the role of the high
priest within the same sphere.
(2) Secondly, P.J. Kearney has
argued that in Exod 25-31 the sevenfold division in the instructions for the
building of the Tabernacle corresponds to the seven days of creation in the P
account of Genesis 1 (“Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Exodus 24-40,” ZAW
89 [1977] 375-87. Each section begins “And the LORD spoke to Moses saying . . .”
{Exod 25:1; 30:11; 30:17; 30:22; 30:34; 31:1; 31:12]). This correspondence is a
transparent for the third and seventh sections where the building of the bronze
laver (30:17-21: the “sea” of 1 Kgs 7:23) and the injunction to keep the
Sabbath (31:12-17) correspond perfectly to the third and seventh days of
creation in Gen 1:9-10; 2:2-3. . . .For our purposes Kearney’s suggestion is
significant because it places the description of Aaron’s garments and his
ordination (Exod 28-29) in parallelism with the first day of creation (Gen
1:1-5) where, however muted, there are echoes of God’s victory over the forces
of creation in ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies. Kearney himself saw a
parallelism between God creating light (Gen 1:3-4) and Aaron tending the
Tabernacle menorah, to which reference is made in Exod 27:20-21 and 30:7-8 – an
inclusion around Exodus 28-9 (“Creation and Liturgy,” 375. This relationship between
Aaron, God and the creation of light can be correlated with Zech 2:8; 3:9;
4:14). That, here, Aron plays the role within the cult that God plays within
creation Is important because, as John Day has noted with specific reference to
Gen 1:3-5, in the ancient Near East the defeat of the forces of chaos is
commonly associated with the dawn, light in general and the sun god or goddess
(Day’s God’s Conflict, 102, 121-2. See e.g. Ps 46:6; Isa 14:12f; 17:14;
Job 26:12-13; Hab 3:11 and esp. Psa 110:7 of the priest-king).
Similar conclusions are reached if
we examine the details of Exodus 28-9 in their ancient Near Eastern
history-of-religions context:
(3) The ephod (Exod 28:4f) has
puzzled commentators. There is now general agreement that originally and in
other contexts the biblical ephod was a garment that covered a statue of a god
(See esp Judg 17:5; 18:14-20; Hos 3:4; cf. 2 Kgs 23:7: ABD 2:550 “Ephod”; HALAT
1:77). As such it was a biblical example of a widespread interest in the
precious garments of the gods. This symbolism is then assumed to have been lost
when in P Aaron is given an ephod.
However, there are good reasons
to think the Aaronic ephod retained its divine garment symbolism. In the
post-biblical period Jewish tradition continues to interpret the ephod’s
symbolism in terms of divine clothing (In Gen. Rab. 38:8 the high priest
wears God’s garments [cf. y. Yoma 7:3, 44b; Lev. Rab. 21:11]. In 4QShirShabb
[4Q405 23 ii 5; 11QShirShabb 8-7 6] the ephodim are worn by the angelic priests
of the heavenly realm. See also Josephus, Ant. 3:180 in context,
Aristeas 99, Rev 1:13-16 . . .]). In the context of the cosmic symbolism of the
Tabernacle it would make excellent sense to have Aaron wear such divine
costume: “ . . . and not do different parts in the Temple and its objects
represent the heavenly abode, but even the priest . . . represent the divine
retinue, i.e. the angels” and so the high priest represents the presence of God
Himself.
Outside the Hebrew Bible there are
several instances of a word apparently cognate with the biblical אפור. In one
of these the usage points to this garment being worn by the god victorious in
the Choskampf. In a well-known passage from the Ugaritic Baal epic an ipd
is worn by Baal when he slays Leviathan (CTA 5.I.1-5).
Although you [Baal] defeated
Lotanu, the fleeing serpent,
destroyed the coiling serpent,
the Tyrant with the seven heads,
You were uncovered, the heaven came loose like the
girdle of your cloak (‘ipdk)! . . .
The first two lines of this text
are remarkably close to Isa 27:1 and they are frequently cited in the discussion
of Daniel 7. However, hitherto no notice has been taken to the reference in
line 5 to an Ugaritic ephod and the implications this might have to Dan 7:13.
(4) Fourthly the stones on the
high priest’s breastplate have several very specific and important symbolic
functions. In the first place the parallels to Ezek 28:12ff and the Greek
Addition to Esther D (15:6) clearly demonstrate that these are specifically
attached to divine kingship (Compare Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities 25:10-26:15
where the stones are related to those covering Amorite idols. Eschatologically,
they will be set above the two cherubim over the ark [26:12]). . . .
(5) Finally, confirmation for the
view that Aaron wears the garments of the God victorious in the Chaoskampf
is provided by a remarkable passage in Josephus’ Antiquities Book 3. In
his extended account of the tabernacle and the priestly clothing Josephus come
to describe the sash with which the priests’ robe is girded to the upper body:
. . . they gird [the robe] at the
breast, winding to a little above the armpits the sash, which is of a breadth
of about four fingers and has an open texture giving it the appearance of a
serpent’s skin. Therein are interwoven flowers of divers hues, of crimson and
purple, blue and fine linen, but the warp is purely of fine linen. Having taken
the end of the twisting across the breast and winding it around again, it is
tied and then hangs at length, sweeping to the ankles, but is so long the
priest has no task in hand, for so its beauty is displayed to the beholders’
advantage; but when it behoves him to attend to the sacrifices and perform his ministry,
in order that the movements of the sash may not impede his actions, he throws
it back over his left shoulder. Moses gave it the name of αβανηθ but we have learnt from the Babylonians to call it εμιαν, for so it is designated among them (3:154-6).
Why is the ash likened to a
serpent (οφις) and does this have anything to do
with Leviathan? The ash is referred to with the language of twisting (ελιξ), which is otherwise so
characteristic of a snake’s skin. This language is also reminiscent of that
used of the “twisting” serpent in Isa 27:1-2 and the parallel passage in the
Baal cycle (CTA 5.I.1-3) where, as we have seen there is a reference to
an ephod. A little further on Josephus says of the High Priest in particular
that
. . . by the sash, wherewith he
encompassed [the robe] he (i.e. Moses) signified the ocean, which holds the
whole in its embrace.
Clearly this suggests that it is
not a land serpent that is meant, but a sea serpent: the sash represents both
Yam or Tiamat and their monster Leviathan (Lotahn) or Qingu. That this symbolic
likely connection with the etymology of the name Leviathan (לויתן). It is
commonly assumed that this is related to the Hebrew noun לִוְיָה, which in Prov
1:9 & 4:9 is some kind of wreath or garland, not unlike our priest’s sash (BDB
531, cf. the ליות [sing. ליה] which decorate the stands of the basin in
Solomon's temple [1 Kgs 7:20, 30, 36]. Is it a mere coincidence that this basin
was called "the Sea"?). In turn it is supposed that both nouns are derived
from a hypothetical root HEB which would mean “to turn, twist, wind” (See most
recently John Merton’s discussion: “Leviathan and Ltn: The Vocalization
of the Ugaritic Word for the Dragon,” VT 32 [1982] 327-31). If some
connection between this mythical beast and a sash embroidered in its image does
in fact go back some way in biblical tradition this might explain the linguistic
discrepancy between the biblical lwytn and the alternative spelling of
the same creature’s name in CTA 5.I.1 where its consonants are ltn:
by the period of biblical transmission, if not before, this monster had become
associated with a cultic item of symbolic dress, and the precise form of its
name affected accordingly.
The express purpose of the
sash’s sea/chaos monster symbolism would require further examination. However,
at this juncture there should be no doubt that the high priest wears a vanquished
Leviathan: the sash hanging on his side evokes the image of a limp and
defeated serpent in the hand of its conqueror (It is worth comparing
cylinder seal images of the god victorious in the Chaoskampf, where the god
holds in his hand the limp serpent. See e.g. E. Williams-Forte, “The Snake and
the Tree in the Iconography and Texts of Syria during the Bronze Age,” Ancient
Seals and the Bible [ed. L. Gorelick and E. Williams-Forte; Malibu, CA: Undena,
1983] 18-43, 39 [figs. 1, 2 &4] for examples).
With these five points there is,
I submit, good evidence that, within the cult at least, the high priest takes
on the some of God’s identity in the victory over the forces of chaos. Needless
to say, whilst it would be over hasty to use the word “ditheism” of this
material, the pattern is close to that of the relationship between the Ancient
of Days and the ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel 7. (pp. 186-91)
