Rick Sumner

In a recent thread, I suggested my idea of the development of Essene ideas in the authorship of Hebrews. This is something of a divergence of how I had previously viewed the letter--previously I'd been inclined to see it circulating as something of a generic epistle, with no real intended audience. It speaks well to a wide selection of Messianic expectations, so I'd viewed as something of a "got a Messianic expectation? Here's how Jesus filled it."

After reading Yadin's comments on it, I was inclined to view it as I've previously outlined--written to Essenes, perhaps by an Essene. Now I'm not so sure.

Most here will know that Hebrews favors the LXX over the MT. In the light of the scrolls, which seem to favor both at random, this really isn't much a divider anymore. But dialogue with Phillip Engmann has brought something else to my attention:

Hebrews favors the scrolls only when the scrolls are in agreement with the LXX. It's author, thus, didn't have the Scrolls. He had the LXX, and the original divider works just fine.

The problem this causes for Yadin's position is simple: No Essene--a group who devoted their lives to constant study of the Law--would have quoted verses that didn't exist in their text (eg.Heb.1.6//Dt.32.43). That its author was an Essene, however, isn't really the thrust of his position. It's that it was written to Essenes.

But would any Essene listen to a letter that quoted verses that didn't exist in their text? The entire argument is rooted primarily not in language, but in effectiveness: Hebrews would be an effective message for an Essene audience.

But would it?

Regards,
Rick