Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Biblical Traditions in Transmission Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb Edited by Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lie...

Author: Charlotte Hempel | Judith M. Lieu

114 downloads 6245 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Biblical Traditions in Transmission Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb

Edited by

Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2006

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Detailed Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data are available on the Internet at http://catalog.loc.gov Parsenios, George L. Departure and consolation: the Johannine farewell discourses in light of GrecoRoman literature / by George L. Parsenios. p. cm. — (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, ISSN 0167-9732; v. 117) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 90-04-14278-9 (alk. paper) 1. Bible, N.T. John XIII–XVII—Language, style. 2. Farewells in the Bible. 3. Greek Literature, Hellenistic—History and criticism. 4. Farewells in literature. I. Title. II. Series. BS2615.6.F35P37 2005 226.5’066—dc22 2004062544

ISSN 1384-2161 ISBN 90 04 13997 4 © Copyright 2006 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................ Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu

vii

A Bibliography of Michael A. Knibb ...................................... Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu

xv

Abbreviations .............................................................................. xxiii The “Coming of God” Tradition and its Influence on New Testament Parousia Texts ............................................ Edward Adams

1

The Lives of the Prophets in Syriac: Some Soundings ................ Sebastian Brock

21

The Formation and Renewal of Scriptural Tradition ............ George J. Brooke

39

A Fruitful Venture: The Origin of Hebrew Studies at King’s College London ...................................................... Ronald E. Clements

61

The Ya˙ad and “The Qumran Community” ........................ John J. Collins

81

And Enoch Was Not, For Genesis Took Him ...................... Philip R. Davies

97

Divine Sonship at Qumran: Between the Old and the New Testament ...................................................................... 109 Florentino García Martínez Maskil(im) and Rabbim: From Daniel to Qumran .................... 133 Charlotte Hempel From Jeremiah to Baruch: Pseudepigraphy in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch ........................................................ 157 Matthias Henze

vi

contents

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the “Two Ways” .......................................................................... 179 Marinus de Jonge Justin Martyr and the Transformation of Psalm 22 .............. 195 Judith M. Lieu Whom does the Term Ya˙ad Identify? .................................. 213 Sarianna Metso Speaking with the Voice of God: The High Court according to Greek Deuteronomy 17:8–13 .......................... 237 Sarah J. K. Pearce Sex and Death, or, the Death of Sex: Three Versions of Jephthah’s Daughter ( Judges 11:29–40) .......................... 249 Deborah W. Rooke The Creation of Angels and Natural Phenomena Intertwined in the Book of Jubilees (4QJuba) .......................... 273 Raija Sollamo Daniel 7 in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71) .......... 291 James C. VanderKam From Generation to Generation: The Sage as Father in Early Jewish Literature .......................................................... 309 Benjamin G. Wright III Christian Messianism and the First Jewish War with Rome ...................................................................................... 333 Adela Yarbro Collins Bibliography ................................................................................ 345 Contributors ................................................................................ 369 Index ............................................................................................ 371

INTRODUCTION Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu This collection of essays is offered as a tribute to Professor Michael Knibb in recognition of his rich contribution to scholarship and to the discipline to date. His bibliography shows his productivity to be thriving in his retirement, and we are looking forward to much more in the years to come. Here is not the place to described the many ways in which he has served his discipline except to note that the range of contributors, including many younger scholars, witnesses to the support he has given to so many, far beyond the circle of his immediate colleagues and students. The contributions themselves, as we shall see, offer many links with Michael’s own writings and testify to their breadth and the ways in which they have stimulated others. Despite the wide range of issues covered the volume’s theme of traditions in transmission runs through this collection as well as Michael’s oeuvre like a red thread. George Brooke’s admirable appreciation of Michael’s scholarship (“The Formation and Renewal of Scriptural Tradition”), which is so closely tied in with the topic of this volume as well as making his own characteristically insightful contributions along the way, makes very intimidating reading for editors about to write an introduction to Michael’s Festschrift. Brooke’s article will serve well as a more thorough account of Michael’s scholarship which will be dealt with much more briefly here. It also offers a helpful methodological introduction on the manifold and complex creations, uses and afterlives of traditions in late biblical and early Jewish and Christian literature which have such a prominent place in Michael’s work and in his Festschrift. To avoid repetition we refer readers to Michael’s bibliography included in this volume for full bibliographical details of his works referred to in the Introduction. Before focusing on the overall theme of the volume and the way in which it can be seen to lie at the heart of much of Michael’s scholarly interests, it is worth singling out four areas that are particularly representative of his scholarship.

viii

introduction 1 Enoch and Ethiopic Studies

Perhaps the work that comes to mind first and foremost when one thinks of Michael’s scholarship is 1 Enoch and Ethiopic studies, especially his acclaimed two volume edition The Ethiopic Book of Enoch. A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments. Moreover, his splendid translation of 1 Enoch in the volume edited by H. F. D. Sparks (The Apocryphal Old Testament) is very widely used. It is no exaggeration to say that Michael’s expert translations are the first port of call for most students and scholars interested in 1 Enoch, and they are well served indeed. He has, furthermore, published numerous articles devoted to specific issues in the study of 1 Enoch. A high point in Michael’s substantial contribution to the study of Ethiopic has been the publication of his Schweich Lectures of the British Academy of 1995 in the volume entitled Translating the Bible. The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament. Michael further contributed the translation of the Ethiopic texts with notes of the Ascension of Isaiah in the widely used two volume collection edited by J. H. Charlesworth (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha) as well as the translation and comments on extracts from the Ascension of Isaiah and 1 Enoch in M. de Jonge (ed.), Outside the Old Testament. Michael’s important contribution to the study of Semitic languages continues a longstanding tradition at King’s College London where he taught for thirty seven years, most recently as the holder of the Samuel Davidson Chair of Old Testament Studies. The contribution to this volume by the previous incumbent of the same chair, Ronald Clements (“A Fruitful Venture: the Origin of Hebrew Studies at King’s College London”) covers, amongst other things, the foundation of the Samuel Davidson chair and the origins of the study of Hebrew at King’s. He shows how the subject could become the focus of political and theological sensitivities, but also how its foundational importance for theological study was never doubted. Michael’s tenure of that chair was marked by a firm commitment to scholarly integrity. That the chair is now unfilled is a great loss to the subject. James VanderKam’s contribution (“Daniel 7 in the Similitudes of Enoch [1 Enoch 37–71]”) deals with matters Ethiopic and 1 Enoch at some length by offering a close reading of the influence of Daniel 7 on the Similitudes of Enoch, especially 1 Enoch 46–48 and 69–71. Having paid close attention to the textual evidence, VanderKam concludes that the view that Daniel 7 was a text that influenced the

introduction

ix

author of 1 Enoch 46–48 and 69–71 is indeed the most likely explanation of the evidence. In order to make his case, VanderKam further highlights common themes shared by Daniel 7 and the Similitudes such as sinful kings/kingdoms, their judgment, and a being closely associated with the righteous. Philip Davies’s contribution (“And Enoch Was Not, For Genesis Took Him”) also deals with the Enoch traditions. Beginning with the brief account of Genesis 6:1–4 and moving on to 1 Enoch 1–11 Davies argues that the former reflects an anti-Enochic reworking of the origins of humanity on the part of J. He also considers both the brief account preserved in Genesis and the fuller version in 1 Enoch as “products of ongoing rewriting and retelling”. Exile, Messianism, and Apocalyptic Another important and much cited study that many would immediately associate with Michael’s name is his perceptive essay on exile as a theological concept in the post exilic period (“The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period”). This programmatic and groundbreaking study was followed seven years later by a case study of the Damascus Document from the same perspective (“Exile in the Damascus Document”). Michael’s writings have further contributed to the theme of Messianism, a topic on which he has written two substantial surveys of the state of the field. Most recently he presided over the prestigious Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense for 2004 on the topic of “The Septuagint and Messianism”. Another interest that runs through Michael’s scholarly career is apocalyptic literature and the circles that produced and handed it on. Here one thinks, for instance, of his articles on Daniel and the Daniel tradition, his commentary on 2 Esdras, as well as his contribution in the Ackroyd Festschrift of which he is also a co-editor (“Prophecy and the Emergence of the Jewish Apocalypses,” in R. Coggins, A. Phillips and M. Knibb [eds.], Israel’s Prophetic Tradition). Prophetic Traditions In a pair of articles Michael dealt with the Ethiopic version of the Lives of the Prophets (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43 [1980] and 48 [1985]). This work is the focus of Sebastian Brock’s article which is devoted to the Syriac Version of the Lives of the Prophets (“The Lives of the Prophets in Syriac: Some Soundings”).

x

introduction

Brock offers a classification of the witnesses, reflections on the order of the lives, a translation of the nine lives of the Milan Syrohexapla manuscript, as well as an assessment of the relationship of the Syriac witnesses to each other as well as to the Greek Lives. More recently, Michael has published two articles on the use of Isaianic traditions in early Jewish sources. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha Michael has published widely on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha. 1987 saw the publication of a volume of first rate translations with concise introductions and judicious commentaries on a selection of texts from Qumran (The Qumran Community). With characteristic modesty he himself would claim the volume is out of date now. However, although he might well describe some aspects of the larger picture of the Qumran phenomenon differently today as well as include new manuscript evidence, his commentary is full of perceptive observations and will remain a concise and reliable guide for quite some time to come. The case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, where so much has happened even since Michael’s Qumran Community appeared, serves well to illustrate his willingness to take on board new evidence in a serious manner and to rethink his position in the light of the new evidence which has been pouring into the field since the early 1990s. A number of contributors to this volume deal with matters Qumran. Of the sectarian corpus the Damascus Document has always been a particular favourite with Michael, as indicated by the number of articles he has devoted to it. Most recently, the full publication of the Community Rule manuscripts has been a source of great interest to him, as testified by his article on this work in the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Three of the essays that follow deal with the Community Rule. John Collins and Sarianna Metso devote studies to the very fundamental question of what the self-designation Ya˙ad refers to in the Community Rule. Collins (“The Ya˙ad and ‘The Qumran Community’”) emphasizes that the term does not refer exclusively to the community at Qumran, but should be understood as an umbrella term and prefers to think of a number of individual communities. Metso (“Whom Does The Term Ya˙ad Identify?”) begins with an overview over the passages in the Community Rule

introduction

xi

that mention a plurality of communal gatherings and prefers to think of the accounts of multiple smaller settlements, especially 1QS 6, as reflecting a different stage in the literary growth of the Community Rule. Charlotte Hempel (“Maskil[im] and Rabbim: From Daniel to Qumran”) deals with the self-designation Rabbim and the office of the Maskil in the Community Rule, offering a fresh assessment of their relationship to the terminology in the Book of Daniel. The scrolls play an important role, furthermore, in a pair of articles devoted to the topic of sonship. Florentino García Martínez (“Divine Sonship at Qumran: Between the Old and the New Testament”) discusses traditions on divine sonship at Qumran and in the New Testament. His article focuses on four categories of sonship language found at Qumran: angelic “sons of God”, Israel “son of God”, the King “son of God”, and the Messiah “son of God”. The language of sonship is also the concern of Benjamin Wright III (“From Generation to Generation: The Sage as Father in Early Jewish Literature”). Wright examines the way in which the sapiential literary device of father-son discourse is used and developed in early Jewish literature with a particular focus on Ben Sira, the Qumran wisdom corpus, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The distinction between the pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls has always been an artificial one that is based on accidents of preservation and the interest or lack thereof on the part of later communities of faith. Michael’s studies on the theological portrayal of exile as well as his inaugural lecture on the Book of Jubilees and Qumran origins are important examples in his writings that illustrate the need to look beyond such categories. The essay by Wright mentioned above as well as Matthias Henze’s contribution laudably cross back and forth over these artificial boundaries. Henze’s study (“From Jeremiah to Baruch: Pseudepigraphy in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch”) deals with the tradition-history of the role of Baruch and the question how he becomes an appropriate figure for the pseudonymous authorship of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch. His essay further illustrates the fluidity of a complex web of traditions that encompasses recently published pseudo-prophetic works from Qumran Cave 4 (esp. Pseudo-Ezekiel and Apocryphon of Jeremiah C) and some long-known pseudepigrapha.

xii

introduction Bible in Transmission

A theme that runs across almost all of Michael’s scholarly publications is shared by the contributions to his Festschrift which deal with the way in which biblical traditions are transmitted, transformed, reused and given new creative interpretations by different communities of tradents. Raija Sollamo (“The Creation of Angels and Natural Phenomena Intertwined in the Book of Jubilees [4QJuba]”) outlines a stratum of Early Jewish creation accounts and hymns focusing particularly on the creation of angels and natural phenomena. Starting with the well known creation accounts found in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, Sollamo offers an analysis of such traditions in 4QJubileesa (4Q216) 5, the Hymn of the Three Young Men in Dan 3:52–90 LXX, the Hymn to the Creator (11QPsa), Pss 148 and 135, Job 38, and Sir 42:15–43:33. With this wide-ranging study Sollamo sheds new light on the development of creation traditions in the second half of the third-century and the first half of the second century bce. Judith Lieu (“Justin Martyr and the Transformation of Psalm 22”) offers a study of Justin Martyr’s exegesis of Psalm 22, including its relationship to earlier tradition and the LXX. She seeks to show how the reading of the Psalm and a tradition of Jesus’ passion intertwine to produce a new text for readers/hearers. The power of scripture means that the characters in the story, especially Jesus’ opponents, become mythicized. Sarah Pearce (“Speaking with the Voice of God: the High Court According to Greek Deuteronomy 17:8–13”) shows how the LXX translation of the Pentateuch and especially of Deuteronomy already reflects a concern to show how the ‘high court’ of Deut 17 has a special character because of its relationship with God granting access to an interpretation of God’s will. This tradition is taken up for apologetic purposes by Philo and Jospehus. Edward Adams (“The ‘Coming of God’ Tradition and its Influence on New Testament Parousia Texts”) demonstrates the way in which parousia accounts in the New Testament made use of ‘coming of God’ traditions inherited both from the Old Testament as well as from a number of early Jewish sources. He concludes that a number of New Testament accounts of the return of Christ represent a “Christologizing” of existing traditions of the coming of God. Adela Yarbro Collins (“Christian Messianism and the First Jewish War with Rome”) also deals with the Christian Messianic expectation of the

introduction

xiii

return of Christ and events associated with his coming. Yarbro Collins examines the way in which the First Jewish War with Rome left its mark on the messianic expectations of three early Christian thinkers: Mark, the author of 2 Thessalonians and those who according to 2 Thess 2:1–2 hold that the Day of the Lord is here already. All of these positions constitute attempts to offer a Christian interpretation of the First Jewish War in the second half of the first century ce. Whereas the latter two articles indicate similarities and differences in “Christian” and “Jewish” re-readings, Marinus de Jonge points to the precariousness of such distinctions. De Jonge (“The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the ‘Two Ways’”) argues that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs do not manifest a Jewish form of the Two Ways tradition, but make use of “Jewish” and “Christian” traditional material in ways in which that may helpfully be compared with other reformulations of such traditions including especially the Shepherd of Hermas. Deborah Rooke (“Sex and Death, or, the Death of Sex: Three Versions of Jephthah’s Daughter [ Judges 11:29–40]”) studies the relationship between the themes of death and sex in the biblical narrative of Jephthah’s daughter and its subsequent retelling by George Buchanon and by the liberettist T. Morrell for Handel’s oratorio. Her contribution again demonstrates the creative force of the biblical tradition and the way in which it continues to be re-read in different contexts and media. Michael’s scholarly output and the contributions brought together in this volume to honour his achievements demonstrate the way in which traditions moved seamlessly between canons and were shaped and re-shaped creatively in the biblical, early Jewish and Christian literature. Michael was a champion of a number of the sources that are dealt with in this volume long before they became semi-fashionable. His own scholarship both in making texts available and accessible to students as well as his detailed studies on themes and texts has played a major part in bringing this literature to the forefront of our minds. Because of his long-standing interest in the pseudepigrapha he has helped to set a trend that puts these works closer to the scholarly mainstream. Through the rigorousness of his scholarship he has made a lasting contribution to the field which will outlive many a new trend. Michael is not someone who is drawn to ‘isms’ and neat categories, be they the limitations entailed by restricting one’s interests to the canonical writings or the erstwhile isolation of Qumran studies from that of the wider corpus of Jewish texts

xiv

introduction

of the period with strong roots in the Hebrew Bible. Instead he perceives the fluidity and complexity in the traditions and texts in front of us. These insights are frequently reflected in and affirmed by the contributions that follow.

A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MICHAEL A. KNIBB 1966 • Peter R. Ackroyd and Michael A. Knibb, “Translating the Psalms”, The Bible Translator 17 (1966) 1–11 1976 • “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period”, Heythrop Journal 17 (1976) 253–272 • Review of J. Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter, in Journal of Semitic Studies 21 (1976) 197–200 1978 • The Ethiopic Book of Enoch. A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978) 1978/1979 • “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review”, New Testament Studies 25 (1978/79) 345–359 • “The Dead Sea Scrolls: Reflections on Some Recent Publications,” Expository Times 90 (1978/79) 294–300 1979 • Commentary on 2 Esdras in R. J. Coggins and M. A. Knibb, The First and Second Books of Esdras (CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) 1980 • “The Ethiopic Version of the Lives of the Prophets: Ezekiel and Daniel”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43 (1980) 197–206 • Review of J. C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees, in Journal of Semitic Studies 25 (1980) 272–274 1982 • “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 13 (1982) 56–74

xvi

a bibliography of michael a. knibb

• ed. with R. Coggins and A. Phillips, Israel’s Prophetic Tradition. Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) • “Prophecy and the Emergence of the Jewish Apocalypses”, in R. Coggins, A. Phillips and M. Knibb (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition. Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 155–180 1983 • “Exile in the Damascus Document”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25 (1983) 99–117 • Het Boek Henoch. het eerste of het Ethiopische boek van Henoch (Deventer: Ankh-Hermes, 1983) 1984 • “1 Enoch” (Translation of the Ethiopic Text with Textual Notes), in H. F. D. Sparks (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), pp. 169–319 1985 • “The Ethiopic Version of the Lives of the Prophets II: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Elijah, Elisha, Nathan, Ahijah, and Joel”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 48 (1985) 16–41 • “Ascension of Isaiah” (Translation of the Ethiopic Text with Textual and Exegetical Notes), in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1985), Volume II, pp. 143–176 • Translation and Comment on Extracts from the Ascension of Isaiah and 1 Enoch in M. de Jonge (ed.), Outside the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 26–55, 178–192 1986 • Review of M. Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch, in Journal for the Study of Judaism 17 (1986) 86–92


xvii

1987 • The Qumran Community (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 bc to ad 200 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 1988 • “Hebrew and Syriac Elements in the Ethiopic Version of Ezekiel?”, Journal of Semitic Studies 33 (1988) 11–35 1989 • “The Ethiopic Text of Ezekiel and the Excerpts in GEBRÄ HEMAMAT”, Journal of Semitic Studies 34 (1989) 443–58 • Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community (An Inaugural Lecture delivered on Tuesday 17 January 1989 at King’s College London. London: King’s College, 1989) • “Life and Death in the Old Testament”, in R. E. Clements (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 395–415 • ed. with P. W. van der Horst, Studies on the Testament of Job (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 1990 • “Pseudepigrapha”, in R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden (eds.), A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (London/Philadelphia: SCM/ Trinity, 1990), pp. 564–568 • “The Teacher of Righteousness—A Messianic Title?”, in P. R. Davies and R. T. White (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes ( JSOTSup 100. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), pp. 51–65 • Review of F. García Martínez and E. Puech (eds.), Mémorial Jean Carmignac (Revue de Qumran 13, fasc. 1–4), in Journal for the Study of Judaism 21 (1990) 113–118 1991 • “The Interpretation of Damascus Document VII, 9b–VIII, 2a and XIX, 5b–14”, Revue de Qumran 15 (1991) 245–251

xviii


• Review of R. Cowley, Ethiopian Biblical Interpretation. A Study in Exegetical Tradition and Hermeneutics, in Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1991) 276–281 • Review of S. Uhlig, Äthiopische Paläographie, in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 141 (1991) 405–408 1992 • “A Note on 4Q372 and 4Q390”, in F. García Martínez, A. Hillhorst and C. J. Labuschagne (eds.), The Scriptures and the Scrolls. Studies in Honour of A. S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 164–177 • Review of R. Zuurmond, Novum Testamentum aethiopice. The Synoptic Gospels. Part I: General Introduction. Part II: Edition of the Gospel of Mark, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 55 (1992) 124–126 1993 • “‘You are indeed wiser than Daniel’. Reflections on the Character of the Book of Daniel”, in A. S. van der Woude (ed.), The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (BETL 106. Leuven: Peeters, 1993), pp. 399–411 1994 • “The Place of the Damascus Document”, in M. O. Wise, N. Golb, J. J. Collins, and D. G. Pardee (eds.), Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site. Present Realities and Future Prospects (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), pp. 149–162 • Review of F. García Martínez, Textos de Qumrán. Edición y traducción, in Journal for the Study of Judaism 25 (1994) 85–89 • Review of J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (eds.), The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991, in Journal for the Study of Judaism 25 (1994) 130–135 1995 • “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls”, Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995) 165–184


xix

1996 • “Isaianic Traditions in the Book of Enoch”, in J. Barton and D. J. Reimer (eds.), After the Exile. Essays in Honour of Rex Mason (Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1996), pp. 217–229 • Review of J. Hofmann (†) und S. Uhlig, Novum Testamentum aethiopice: die katholischen Briefe. S. Uhlig und H. Maehlum, Novum Testamentum aethiopice: die Gefangenschaftsbriefe, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 59 (1996) 203–205 • Review of D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman (eds.), Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness. Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996) 217–219 1997 • “Isaianic Traditions in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha”, in C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans (eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997), Volume II, pp. 633–50 1998 • “Perspectives on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: The Levi Traditions”, in F. García Martínez and E. Noort (eds.), Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism. A Symposium in Honour of Adam S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 197–213 1999 • “Eschatology and Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999), Volume II, pp. 379–402 • Translating the Bible. The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1995. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1999) • Review of J. J. Collins, Daniel. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, in Journal of Semitic Studies 44 (1999) 126–128 2000 • “Community Organization in the Damascus Document”, “Community Organization in Other Texts”, “Exile”, “Interpreter of

xx

a bibliography of michael a. knibb the Law”, “Apocryphon of Joseph”, “Rule of the Community”, and “Teacher of Righteousness” in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) • “The Ethiopic Translation of the Psalms”, in A. Aejmelaeus and U. Quast (eds.), Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Symposium in Göttingen 1997 (Mitteilungen des SeptuagintaUnternehmens [MSU] XXIV. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), pp. 107–122 • Collaborator on Ethiopic writings in A.-M. Denis et collaborateurs avec le concours de J.-M. Haelewyck, Introduction à la littérature religeuse judéo-hellénistique (2 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000) • Review of F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, in Journal for the Study of Judaism 31 (2000) 87–91

2001 • “The Book of Daniel in its Context”, in J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception (2 vols. The Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 83. Leiden: Brill, 2001), Volume I, pp. 16–35 • “Christian Adoption and Transmission of Jewish Pseudepigrapha: The Case of 1 Enoch”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 32 (2001) 396–415 • “The Translation of 1 Enoch 70.1: Some Methodological Issues”, in A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrew— Biblical Texts. Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp. 340–54 2002 • “Enochic Literature and Wisdom Literature”, Henoch 24 (2002) 197–203 • “Interpreting the Book of Enoch: Reflections on a Recently Published Commentary”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 33 (2002) 437–450


xxi

2003 • “Bible Vorlage: Syriac, Hebrew, Coptic, Arabic” and “Cowley, Roger Wenman”, in S. Uhlig (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), Volume I • “The Book of Enoch in the Light of the Qumran Wisdom Literature”, in F. García Martínez (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BETL 168. Leuven: Peeters, 2003), pp. 193–210 • “The Use of Scripture in 1 Enoch 17–19”, in F. García Martínez and G. P. Luttikhuizen (eds.), Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome. Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 82. Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 165–78 • “Which Parts of 1 Enoch were known to Jubilees? A Note on the Interpretation of Jubilees 4.16–25”, in J. Cheryl Exum and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.), Reading from Right to Left. Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines ( JSOTSup 373. London: Continuum/Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), pp. 254–62 • Review of Stephen J. Pfann, Philip Alexander, Magen Broshi, and others, Qumran Cave 4. XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part I (DJD 36), in Dead Sea Discoveries 10 (2003) 440–445 2005 • “The Apocalypse of Weeks and the Epistle of Enoch”, in G. Boccaccini (ed.), Enoch and Qumran Origins. New Light on a Forgotten Connection (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 213–19 • “Temple and Cult in Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical Writings from Before the Common Era”, in J. Day (ed.), Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 422. London and New York: T. & T. Clark [Continuum], 2005), pp. 401–16

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABRL AGAJU AnBib ANRW APOT ATANT ATSAT BAR BDF

BDAG

BETL BJRL BJS BKAT BNTC BSOAS BWANT BZAW BZNW CBC CBQ ConBNT CRINT CSCO

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Research Library Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Analecta Biblica Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University, 1913) Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Biblical Archaeology Review F. Blass, A. Debrunner and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961) W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1999) Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Black’s New Testament Commentaries Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Cambridge Bible Commentary Catholic Biblical Quarterly Coniectanea Biblica. New Testament Series Compendium rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium

xxiv DJD DSD EBib EdF EJL ET EV(V) HeyJ HNT HSM HSS HTR HUT IEJ JBL JECS JHS JJS JSHRZ JSJ

abbreviations

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries Études bibliques Erträge der Forschung Early Judaism and its Literature English translation English Version(s) Heythrop Journal Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie Israel Exploration Journal Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (electronic) Journal of Jewish Studies Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Periods JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series KAV Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern LCL Loeb Classical Library LXX Septuagint MT Masoretic Text NEB New English Bible NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplement NTL New Testament Library

abbreviations NTOA NTS OTL PGM PTS PVTG RAC RB RechBib RHR RQ SBL SBLMS SBM SBT SC SNTS SNTSMS STDJ SUNT SVTP TB TDNT

xxv

Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies Old Testament Library Papyri Graecae Magicae Patristische Texte und Studien Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum Revue Biblique Recherches bibliques Revue de l’histoire des religions Revue de Qumran Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Stuttgarter biblische Monographien Studies in Biblical Theology Sources Chrétiennes Society for New Testament Studies Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha Theologische Bücherei G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ET. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76) TSAJ Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken TTZ Trierer theologische Zeitschrift VC Vigiliae Christianae VCSup Vigiliae Christianae Supplements VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements WBC Word Biblical Commentary WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

THE “COMING OF GOD” TRADITION AND ITS INFLUENCE ON NEW TESTAMENT PAROUSIA TEXTS Edward Adams In one of the most controversial quotations in the NT,1 the writer of the epistle of Jude cites 1 Enoch 1:9, introducing the text as a prophecy by Enoch, the seventh in line from Adam. Behold, the Lord is coming2 with holy ten thousands, to execute judgment on all, and to convict them concerning all the deeds of their impiety which they have impiously committed, and concerning all the hard things which the impious sinners have spoken against him.3

It is not certain whether Jude is following a Greek or an Aramaic version of the text of 1 Enoch.4 However, it does seem likely, from a comparison with the extant forms of the text of 1 Enoch 1:9 (including the Aramaic fragments discovered at Qumran), that he is adapting his source, in whatever form it came to him. Theologically, the most interesting alteration is the addition of the term kÊriow. In 1 Enoch, the subject of the verse is not specified but carries forward from vv. 3b–4 of the oracle. The referent is “the Holy and Great One”, “the Eternal God” (see further below). By adding the word kÊriow, the writer permits an identification of the coming one with Christ; the context suggests that this is probably what he intended.5

1 It is controversial because the writer seems to think that the patriarch actually said these words and because it appears to give Enochic material the same authoritative status as OT writings. This essay is written in honour of Michael Knibb, whom I was privileged to have as a colleague for several years, and who has contributed so much to scholarship on 1 Enoch. 2 The aorist ∑lyen is to be explained as “a prophetic perfect”; so R. J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50. Waco: Word Books, 1983), p. 93. 3 Following the translation of Jude’s quotation of 1 Enoch 1:9 given by M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch. A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), p. 60. 4 Bauckham ( Jude, p. 96) concludes that the writer “knew the Greek version, but made his own translation from the Aramaic.” 5 kÊriow is used of Jesus in vv. 4, 17, 21 and 25. In vv. 5 and 9, the “Lord” could be either Jesus or God. In v. 21, the “Lord Jesus Christ” is the object of eschatological expectation, and this is what makes it likely that Jesus is in view in v. 14.

2

edward adams

In Jude’s handling, therefore, a reference to God’s eschatological coming is turned “into a expression of the Christian hope for Christ’s return”.6 In applying an oracle concerning God’s future coming to the parousia of Jesus, the author of Jude “follows what seems to have been a widespread practice in primitive Christianity”.7 The OT and early Jewish hope of God’s coming was probably the main source of the early Christian expectation of Jesus’s parousia, that hope being transferred directly to Christ.8 The widespread use of the verb “to come” (¶rxomai), often without other qualifiers, with reference to Jesus’s anticipated return seems to point in this direction.9 The maranatha formula (1 Cor 16:22), beseeching Christ as Lord to “come”, suggests that the transfer took place at an early stage and within Aramaic-speaking Christian circles.10 The aim of this essay is to show how OT texts and motifs relating to the coming of God have influenced certain NT references to and descriptions of the parousia of Jesus. I shall begin by briefly sketching the development of the “coming of God” tradition within the OT and by highlighting its main features. I shall next look at the way the expectation of the divine coming develops in Second Temple Jewish texts. I shall then focus on NT parousia passages where “coming of God” allusions and associations are discernable.

6 D. G. Horrell, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (Peterborough: Epworth, 1998), p. 126. 7 Bauckham, Jude, p. 96. 8 Cf. T. F. Glasson, The Second Advent. The Origin of the New Testament Doctrine (3rd ed., London: Epworth, 1963), pp. 168–71. Also important was the tradition of the “day of the Lord”. On the influence of the latter on Paul, see L. J. Kreitzer, Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology ( JSNTSup 19. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987), pp. 112–28. In this essay, I will treat the “coming of God” tradition as distinct from the “day of the Lord”, while recognising that the two concepts have common characteristics (they are explicitly combined in Zech 14:1–5 and Mal 3:1–2). 9 E.g. Mark 8:28; 13:26; 14:62; John 14:3; Acts 1:11; 1 Cor 4:5; 11:26; 2 Thess 1:10; Rev 1:4, 7, etc. 10 M. Black, “The Maranatha invocation and Jude 14, 15 (1 Enoch 1:9)”, in B. Lindars & S. S. Smalley (eds.), Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1973), pp. 189–96. However, Black’s suggestion that 1 Enoch 1:9, as quoted by Jude, is the source of the Maranatha formula is doubtful: see Bauckham, Jude, p. 97.

the “coming of god” tradition

3

The Old Testament “Coming of God” Tradition OT writers frequently speak of a dramatic personal intervention or manifestation of God, using the verbs “come” (awB), “come down” (dry), “go forth” (axy).11 From these references, it is possible to trace a distinct tradition of God’s coming within the OT. In the earliest examples of this tradition, God’s manifestation is a past event: the Exodus (Deut 33:2; Ps 68:7–8); the descent to Sinai (Exod 19:11, 18–20; 34:5); the conquest ( Judg 5:4–5). Ps 18:6–19 portrays God’s coming to the aid of the petitioner in a particular time of need. Here God’s awesome advent is associated with a personal experience of divine deliverance (vv. 16–19).12 In prophetic discourse, God’s coming lies ahead.13 In pre-exilic and exilic prophecy, the divine coming is connected with an impending “local” event: the hopedfor restoration of Israel after the fall of the northern kingdom (Hos 6:3); judgement on Judah (Mic 1:3–4; cf. v. 9); judgement on Egypt (Isa 19:1); deliverance from the Babylonian exile (Isa 35:4; 40:10). A localised coming also seems to be envisaged in the post-exilic texts, Zech 9:14–15 and Mal 3:1–4. In Isa 59:15b–20 and especially 26:21, 64:1–3 and 66:15–18, the coming of God is unambiguously a universal event. The worldwide scope is also emphasised in Pss 96:13; 11 For a discussion of the Hebrew verbs used for the coming and appearance of God, see F. Schnutenhaus, “Das Kommen und Erscheinen Gottes im Alten Testament”, ZAW 76 (1964) 1–22. In the LXX, the main verb used to express God’s coming is ¥kv: Deut 33:2; Ps 49:2; 97:9; Isa 19:1; 35:4; 59:19–20; 66:15; Hos 6:3; Hab 2:3; 3:3; Zech 14:5; Mal 3:1 (in each case translating awB). ¶rxomai is used in Ps 95:13; Isa 30:27; 40:10; 66:18 (also translating awB). The verb §j°rxomai is adopted in Isa 42:13; Hab 3:13; Zech 9:14 (translating axy). Other verbs used are: §kporeÊomai (Ps 67:8; Mic 1:3; translating axy); kataba¤nv (Exod 19:11, 18, 20; 34:5; Num 11:25; 12:5; 2 Sam 22:10; Ps 17:10; 144:5; Mic 1:3; translating dry); parag¤nomai (Isa 63:1, for awB). In Judg 5:4, God’s going out is signified by the noun, §jÒdow, the prepositional phrase §n tª §jÒdƒ sou rendering the Hebrew ˚taxB. In Mal 3:2, God’s coming is denoted by the noun, efisÒdow (≤m°ran efisÒdou aÈtoË for /a/B μ/y) and in Isa 29:6 by §piskopÆ (for the verb dqP). A related idea to that of God’s coming or going out is that of his ‘rising’, a motif found especially in the Psalms (e.g. 3:7; 7:6; 9:19) and Isaiah (e.g. 14:22; 30:18; 33:10). References to and portrayals of God’s coming fall into the general category of ‘theophanies’, the classic study of which is J. Jeremias, Theophanie. Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung (WMANT 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965). 12 In 2 Sam 22:1–20, the psalm celebrates David’s deliverance from the hand of Saul. 13 In Isa 64:1–3 and Hab 3:3–15, God’s past coming (the revelation at Sinai in Isaiah 64 and the Exodus/conquest at in Habakkuk 3) serves as the paradigm for his future intervention. Cf. R. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), p. 200.

edward adams

4

98:7: “he is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness and the peoples with his truth/equity.” In Zech 14:1–9, God’s coming (v. 5) is depicted in supra-historical and unmistakably cosmic terms. The exact point of departure varies. The Lord is said to come, descend or go out from places in the south (Sinai, Deut 33:2; Seir, Judg 5:4; Edom, Isa 63:1; Teman and Mount Paran, Hab 3:3); the south generally (Zech 9:13); Zion (Ps 50:2–3); heaven (2 Sam 22:10; Ps 18:8; 144:5; Isa 64:1); “his place” (Isa 26:21; Mic 1:3); “from far away” (Isa 30:27). God comes for both judgement and salvation. In many texts, the execution of judgement is the exclusive purpose of God’s intervention.14 Sometimes, the emphasis is on deliverance,15 though the rescue of Israel also tends to involve the punishment of her oppressors (cf. Hab 3:12; Zech 9:15; 14:3). Judgement and salvation are intertwined in Isa 35:4: God comes to save, but he also comes “with vengeance, with terrible recompense”. The double emphasis is also apparent in Isa 59:15b–20. In Mal 3:1–4, the purpose of God’s coming is to bring about a reform of the temple cult (though the thought turns to judgement in v. 5). In Ps 50:3–5 and Isa 66:18, the divine coming effects a gathering: of the faithful in Ps 50:5; of “all nations and tongues” in Isa 66:18. When God is said to come down, the descent is usually for the purpose of revelation (esp. Exod 19:11, 18–20). His future descent, though, has judgement in view (Isa 64:1–3; Mic 1:3). God’s coming results in a revelation of his glory (cf. Isa 59:19; 66:18; Hab 3:3). Various images are associated with the divine epiphany. Storm imagery is prominent. God comes “riding on a swift cloud” (Isa 19:1). Clouds are especially associated with God’s descent.16 Thunder (Ps 18:13; Isa 29:6) and lightning (Ps 18:14; 114:5–6; Zech 9:14; cf. Ps 97:4) also accompany his advent. Yahweh manifests himself as a storm deity like Baal and Marduk. Fire is frequently associated with God’s coming.17 Isa 66:15–16 states that “the Lord will come in fire, . . . by fire the Lord will exe-

14

Ps 96:13; 98:7; Isa 19:1; 26:21; 30:27–38; 63:1–6; 66:15–16; Mic 1:3–4. Deut 33:2; Ps 18:6–15; Isa 40:10–11; Hab 3:3–15; Zech 9:14–15; 14:1–5. 16 Exod 19:9; 34:5; Num 11:25; 12:5; 2 Sam 22:12; Ps 18:11. 17 Exod 19:18; Ps 18:8; 50:3; 144:5; Isa 29:6; 30:27; 64:2; Mic 1:4. Fire is of course a standard instrument of divine judgement in the OT. 15


5

cute judgment”. In Mal 3:1–4, God in his coming is “like a refiner’s fire” (v. 2). Here, the fire does not so much effect destruction as purification (of temple worship). The coming of God is often depicted as the approach of a mighty warrior (Isa 42:13; 59:15b–20).18 Again, Ancient Near Eastern mythological patterns lie in the background. A gory picture is painted in Isa 63:1–6. A frightening figure comes from Edom, with robes “stained crimson”, like one who treads the winepress (vv. 1, 2). He comes from battle rather than to it. The combatant, who is identified as the Lord, exults in his single-handed victory over his enemies (v. 5): “I trampled down peoples in my anger, I crushed them in my wrath, and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth” (v. 6). In this passage (and in Isa 42:13 and 59:15b–20), Yahweh is a lone fighter. In other passages, he comes as the leader of celestial troops. We find this imagery in the earliest form of the tradition; “With him were myriads of holy ones; at his right hand, a host of his own” (Deut 33:2; cf. Ps 68:18). It recurs in what is probably the latest stratum, Zech 14:5: “the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him” (cf. Zech 9:14–15). In Judg 5:4–5, Hab 3:3–15, Zech 9:14–15 and 14:1–5, God’s coming is very clearly an intervention in war. As the tradition grows, the “holy war” expands into a worldwide phenomenon. Thus, in Zech 14:1–5, God enters into battle with all the world’s nations gathered against Jerusalem. The most striking images of God’s coming are those of upheaval in nature. The earth and parts of the earth convulse at the approach of the coming one. The sea makes a thunderous sound (Ps 96:11; 98:7); the ocean shrinks back to reveal the foundations of the world (Ps 18:15). Mountains shake, split, shatter and melt (Exod 19:18; Ps 144:5; Isa 64:1, 4; Mic 1:4; Hab 3:6, 10; Zech 14:4). The earth trembles and reels (Ps 18:7; 68:8; Hab 3:6). The sun and moon are affected (Hab 3:10–11). In Sir 16:18, the whole cosmos—the heaven, the earth and the abyss—quakes at God’s visitation.19 18 On the warrior theme in general, see P. D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM 5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1973). On the mythological background, see F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1973), pp. 91–111. 19 The imagery of upheaval in nature occurs in other OT theophany texts: Ps 77:16–20; 97:1–5; Nah 1:3–4. These passages envisage an advent or military advance of God without using the characteristic terms, ‘come’, ‘come down’ or ‘go forth’.

6

edward adams

As the tradition of God’s coming develops within the OT, it becomes more future-oriented and, finally, eschatological. The “eschatologization” of the theme is most apparent in Isa 66:15–16 and especially Zechariah 14. In the latter, the divine epiphany is followed by a radical transformation of the cosmos (vv. 6–11).20 As McKenzie writes, the divine intervention depicted here “is as clearly final as the author could make it”.21 Extra-biblical Jewish Texts The “eschatological” coming of God becomes a prominent feature of subsequent Jewish future expectation.22 It is linked with other “last things”: final judgement (1 Enoch 1:9; 91:7; 100:4; T.Mos. 10:7), the coming of the kingdom (T.Mos. 10:1), resurrection (L.A.B. 19:13) and the renewal of creation ( Jub. 1:27–29). There are two especially impressive descriptions of God’s advent in Jewish pseudepigraphical writings, both of which draw extensively on OT “coming of God” texts and images. The first is 1 Enoch 1:3b–7, 9, the passage from which Jude cites. (3b) The Holy and Great One will come out of his dwelling, (4) and the Eternal God will tread from there upon Mount Sinai, and he will appear with his host, and will appear in the strength of his power from heaven. (5) And all will be afraid, and the Watchers will shake, and fear and great trembling will seize them unto the ends of the earth. (6) And the high mountains will be shaken, and the high hills will be made low, and will melt like wax before the flame. (7) And the earth will sink and everything that is on the earth will be destroyed, and there will be judgement upon all, and upon all the righteous. . . . (9) And behold! He will come with ten thousand holy ones to execute judgement upon them, and to destroy the impious, and to contend with all flesh concerning everything which the sinners and impious have done and wrought against him.23

The oracle depicts God’s storming of the earth to mete out universal judgement; he comes to bring blessing to the chosen righteous, 20 The transformation envisaged goes beyond that depicted in Isa 65:17–26 in connection with the new heavens and earth. 21 J. L. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1974), p. 305. 22 2 Bar 48:39; L.A.B. 19:12–13; 1 Enoch 1:2–9; 90:15–17; 91:7; 100:4; 102:1–3; 2 Enoch 32:1; Jub. 1:28; Liv.Proph.Jer. 13; T.Abr. A 13:4; T.Mos. 10:3–10; T.Levi 8:11; T.Jud. 22:2. 23 Taken from M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, pp. 58–60.


7

but destruction to the wicked. The description employs the general imagery of upheaval of nature and the motif of the angelic entourage. Allusions are made to a number of OT “coming of God” texts (Deut 33:1–3; Isa 26:21; 66:16; Mic 1:3–4; Hab 3:3; Zech 14:5) along with other passages.24 According to Nickelsburg, what we have here is “unconscious combination rather than explicit selective citation”.25 But given the concentration on passages that embody the “coming of God” tradition, the usage is perhaps better described as “selective combination”. The other passage giving a vivid picture of God’s coming is T.Mos. 10:3–10. Again, it is worth setting out in full. (3) For the Heavenly One will rise from his royal throne, and he will go out from his holy habitation with anger and wrath on account of his sons. (4) And the earth will tremble until its extremes it will be shaken, and the high mountains will be made low, and they will be shaken, and the valleys will sink. (5) The sun will not give its light, and the horns of the moon will turn into darkness, and they will be broken; and the moon will entirely be turned into blood, and the orbit of the stars will be upset. (6) And the sea will fall back into the abyss, and the fountains of the waters will defect and the rivers will recoil. (7) For the highest God, the sole Eternal One, will rise, and he will manifest himself in order to punish the nations, and to destroy all their idols. (8) Then you will be happy, Israel, and you will mount on the neck and the wings of an eagle, and they will be filled, (9) and God will exalt you, and make you live in the heaven of the stars, the place of his habitation. (10) And you will look down from above, and you will see your enemies on the earth, and you will recognize them. And you will rejoice, and you will thank and praise your Creator.26

The description contains typical features of the coming of God: God’s departure from his abode; the reaction of nature to his coming; the rescuing of his people; the meting out of judgement on his enemies (but in contrast to 1 Enoch 1:3b–9, there is no mention of an angelic accompaniment). As with the oracle of 1 Enoch 1, familiar OT “coming of God” texts are alluded to (Ps 18:16; Mic 1:3; Isa 26:21; Hab

24

For a thorough discussion of the OT influences, see J. C. VanderKam, “The Theophany of 1 Enoch 1:3b–7, 9”, VT 23 (1973) 129–50. 25 G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1. A Commentary of the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36, 81–108 (Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), p. 144. 26 Translation taken from J. Tromp, The Assumption of Moses. A Critical Edition with Commentary (SVTP 10. Leiden: Brill, 1993), pp. 232–5.

edward adams

8

3:6, 8) in the course of the account.27 In characterising the response of the natural world, the author of this passage takes up the motif of the darkening of the sun and the moon, which in the OT is associated with the “day of the Lord”. Here, the tradition of the day of the Lord merges into that of the coming of God.28 An interesting feature of this passage is the transportation of Israel to heaven on the wings of an eagle (vv. 8–9). In 1 Enoch 52–53 (from the Similitudes of Enoch) and 4 Ezra 13:1–13, “coming of God” imagery is applied to the appearance of the divine representative. In 1 Enoch 53 the manifestation of the anointed and chosen one is marked by the levelling and dissolving of mountains (53:7). In the allegorical vision of 52, the metal mountains melt like wax at his presence (52:6). In the vision of 4 Ezra 13:1–13 the man who arises out of the sea (subsequently identified as the messiah, vv. 25–26) rides on the clouds of heaven.29 Everything beneath him trembles (cf. Ps 18:7, etc.) and his voice causes people to melt like wax near the fire (cf. Mic 1:4). He destroys those who gather to make war against him with a stream of fire, a breath of flames and a storm of sparks, projecting from his mouth (cf. Ps 18:8; Isa 30:27–28).30 The use of “coming of God” language in these portraits of the advent of the divine agent in these passages is a significant parallel to the use of such language in NT parousia texts. New Testament Parousia Texts The basic concept of Jesus’s parousia is that of “the coming of the exalted Jesus from heaven to earth”.31 It presupposes Christ’s resurrection and ascension.32 It is connected with final salvation and judge-

27

See further J. Tromp, Assumption, pp. 233–5. Tromp, Assumption, p. 234. 29 The manlike one of 4 Ezra 13 is clearly the “one like a son of man” of Dan 7:13. See M. A. Knibb, Commentary on 2 Esdras, in R. J. Coggins and M. A. Knibb, The First and Second Books of Esdras (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1979), p. 258. 30 In the interpretation given in vv. 25–53, the supernatural features of the vision, including the fiery projectiles, are given an allegorical interpretation: see M. A. Knibb, Commentary on 2 Esdras, p. 267. 31 I. H. Marshall, “The Parousia in the New Testament—and Today”, in M. J. Wilkins and T. Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin ( JSNTSup 87. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992), pp. 194–211, here p. 194. In some NT texts, the eschatological parousia is God’s rather than Christ’s: James 5:7, 8; 2 Pet 3:12; 1 John 2:28. 32 Acts 1:11; 1 Thess 1:9–10; Rev 1:5, 7. 28


9

ment, the culmination of human history and the fullness of the kingdom/new age. There is no single, coherent picture of the parousia in the NT (as there is no single portrait of God’s coming in the OT). A variety of images are used to portray the event, prominent among which are motifs relating to the advent of God. In the following parousia passages, representing the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the general epistles and the book of Revelation (i.e. the spectrum of NT writings), the influence of the “coming of God” tradition may be detected. Mark 8:38 + par. In this saying, Jesus warns his disciples that those who are ashamed of him and his words in the present generation, “of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (metå t«n égg°lvn t«n ég¤vn).33 The saying is usually interpreted as a reference to Jesus’s parousia.34 There is a basic allusion here to Dan 7:13. In Daniel’s vision, “one like a son of man” comes to the Ancient of Days to receive a kingdom. In Mark 8:38, Daniel’s manlike figure becomes the titled individual, “the Son of Man”, and is identified with Jesus.35 The notion of coming to the Ancient of Days is excluded along with the throne/court room scene of Dan 7:9–14. The allusion to Dan 7:13 is combined with an allusion to Zech 14:5: “then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him” (ka‹ ¥jei kÊriow ı yeÒw mou ka‹ pãntew ofl ëgioi metÉ aÈtoË). The fusion of images identifies the Son of Man, who is Jesus, with the Lord who comes from heaven, with his angelic army to dispense judgement. The movement in Daniel’s vision is reversed; the “coming” is not into the presence of God, but to the earth.

33 In Mark and Matthew (16:27), the glory is specifically that of the Father. In Luke’s version of the saying (9:27), the “glory” is distributed between the Son of man, the Father and the angels. 34 E.g. Marshall, “Parousia”, pp. 195–6. The parousia reference is denied by R. T. France ( Jesus and the Old Testament. His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and his Mission [London: Tyndale, 1971], pp. 139–40]. France insists that Gospel sayings on the coming of the Son of man have in view Jesus’ heavenly exaltation, his coming to God for vindication, along the lines of Dan 7:13 in its literary context ( Jesus, pp. 139–48). 35 There has been much discussion about the apparent distinction drawn here between Jesus and the Son of man, but there is no doubt that for Mark Jesus and the Son of man are one and the same.

10

edward adams

The reminiscence of Zech 14:5 is crucial to the portrait: it is precisely by means of this allusion that the idea of Jesus’ parousia, his end-time advent, is created.36 In Mark, the judgement for which the Son of Man comes is negative and focuses on disloyal disciples. Matthew’s rendition of the saying envisages a universal judgement, the outcome of which may be either punishment or reward (cf. Isa 40:10).37 Mark 13:24–27 + par. Mark 13 is commonly known as Jesus’s “eschatological discourse” (or more controversially, “the little apocalypse”). In Mark 13:5–23, Mark’s Jesus describes the woes that are to unfold before the end of the present age. Vv. 24–27 depict the eschatological climax. (24) But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, (25) and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. (26) Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. (27) Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

The coming of the Son of Man marks the end of the final woes, and thus the close of the age. This matches the climactic role of the coming of God in extra-biblical Jewish texts.38 The picture in Mark 13:24–27 contains a number of motifs associated with the advent of God in the OT. First, the coming is attended by convulsions in nature. Most of the OT texts alluded to in vv. 24–2539 are “day of the Lord” oracles rather than “coming of God” ones, but, as T.Mos. 10:5 shows, by Mark’s time the imagery of the day of the Lord had been incorporated into the tradition of God’s coming (cf. also L.A.B. 19:13). Second, the Son of Man comes with clouds. The image is of course taken from Dan 7:13 but it fits nicely within a picture of God’s manifestation, and was probably chosen for that purpose. Third, the coming of the Son of Man results in a manifestation of divine glory. Fourth, the Son of Man comes with an angelic entourage; 36 France ( Jesus, pp. 139–40) fails to see the allusion, thus misses its significance for establishing the thought of Jesus’ eschatological advent. 37 Matthew (16:28) adds, “and then he will repay everyone for what has been done”, ka‹ tÒte épod≈sei •kãstƒ katå tØn prçjin aÈtoË (Prov 24:12; cf. Ps 27:4; 62:12). Matthew omits Mark 8:38a (but cf. Matt 10:32–33). 38 Cf. 1 Enoch 1:1–9; 91:5–7; 100:1–4; T.Mos. 8–10. 39 Isa 13:10, 34:4; Joel 2:10; 4:15.


11

indeed, he is depicted as the commander (“he will send”) of the heavenly troops. Fifth, the coming is followed by a gathering: the Son of Man assembles his elect, drawing them from all over the earth. This image, though not the language,40 is reminiscent of Isa 66:18 in which God comes to gather together all nations to himself. Mark’s portrait of the coming of the Son of Man thus seems to be, to a very significant extent, modelled on OT pictures of the divine advent. Matthew (24:27, 29–31) retains these features of Mark’s presentation and adds to them, reinforcing the impression of God’s coming. Matthew’s Jesus compares the coming of the Son of Man to “lightning” that flashes across the sky (24:27). Lightning is not here a physical accompaniment of the Son of Man’s arrival, but an image for its frightening impact. Jesus also states that the Son of Man will dispatch his angels with a “loud trumpet call”, which is most likely a call to “holy war”.41 The comparison with lightning and the trumpet motif are both part of the depiction of the Lord’s coming in Zech 9:14. Then the Lord will appear over them and his arrow go forth like lightning; the Lord God will sound the trumpet and march forth in the whirlwinds of the south.42

Matthew may well be deliberately alluding to this verse. In Zech 9:14–15, God’s coming is a military intervention. The military nature of the event in Matt 24:27–31 is also suggested by the reference to the “sign” of the Son of Man that, according to v. 30, will appear in heaven just before he comes. The “sign” is best interpreted as a battle standard or ensign.43 Matthew thus represents the coming of the Son of Man as the coming of God to war.44

40

The actual wording echoes Deut 13:7, 30:4 and Zech 2:6. As J. Plevnik (Paul and the Parousia. An Exegetical and Theological Investigation [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997], pp. 57–8) points out, the trumpet motif occurs in OT depictions of the holy war. 42 The formulation, Àsper går ≤ éstrapØ §j°rxetai, resembles that of Zech 9:14, §jeleÊsetai …w éstrapØ. 43 D. C. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew (SNTSMS 88. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1996), p. 104. Sim (pp. 99–108) emphasises the militaristic character of Matthew’s scenario of the coming of the Son of man. 44 Luke (21:25–27) omits the references to the angels and the gathering of the elect. 41

12

edward adams

Matthew 25:31 Matt 25:31–46 is the climax of Matthew’s version of the eschatological discourse. The pericope pictures the last judgement and is without Synoptic parallel. The scene is introduced with a reference to the coming of the Son of Man in glory “and all the angels with him” (ka‹ pãntew ofl êggeloi metÉ aÈtoË). The latter clause clearly picks up Zech 14:5. As in the saying of Mark 8:38, it is the linkage of Dan 7:13 with Zech 14:5 and their joint application to Jesus that generates the notion of Jesus’ parousia. As in Matthew’s version of that saying (Matt 16:28), the coming of the Son of Man is presented as the occasion of universal judgement. Jesus is himself the judge. 1 Thessalonians 3:13 The parousia of Jesus is a prominent theme in 1 Thessalonians.45 It seems to have been a key element in Paul’s preaching in Thessalonica (1:9–10) and it obviously resonated with his converts, though by the time of writing, it had become problematic for them. 1 Thess 3:11–13 is a short prayer. Paul seeks divine blessing for himself (v. 11) and for his readers (vv. 12–13). He prays that the Lord (probably Jesus, cf. v. 11) may cause their love to abound and may strengthen their hearts, so that they “may be blameless before our God and Father at the coming (§n tª parous¤&) of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.” The words metå pãntvn t«n èg¤vn aÈtoË reflect the influence of Zech 14:5. It is debated whether the èg¤oi who come with Christ are deceased ‘saints’ or angelic beings. A reference to angels fits better with 4:16–17, according to which the deceased faithful rise to meet the returning Lord in the air.46 Both God and Christ are involved in the ultimate event; the traditional expectation of God’s coming is thus split between God and Jesus. God himself appears to be the judge, but the parousia and the heavenly host of angels are specifically said to be Christ’s.

45 The theme of Jesus’ parousia is given less attention in Paul’s other letters. For a concise yet informative discussion of the parousia of Jesus in Paul’s letters, see J. D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 294–315. Paul may well have the parousia of Jesus in view in citing Isa 59:20–21 in Rom 11:26–27, but this is highly debated. 46 So A. J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 32B. New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 214; C. A. Wanamaker, Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians (NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), p. 145.


13

1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 is an extended discussion of the parousia of Jesus and the “day of the Lord”. Paul addresses problems relating to the parousia which had arisen in his readers’ minds. 1 Thess 4:12–17 deals with a problem regarding the dead in Christ, and their participation in Christ’s coming. It appears that some members of the Thessalonian church had recently died. The question arose as to whether they would share in the glory of Christ’s return. Paul endeavours to reassure his anxious readers that believers who have died beforehand will not be disadvantaged, but will be included along with the living in the great event. Paul introduces his teaching on the parousia with reference to “the word of the Lord” (v. 15). Scholars debate whether he is referring to an actual teaching of Jesus—either an otherwise unknown saying of Jesus, or a version of the Synoptic eschatological discourse— or a prophetic revelation given by the Lord. Also debated is whether the “word” is what immediately follows in v. 15, or also incorporates vv. 16–17. These issues are important but they are not crucial for us. Vv. 16–17 give a brief description of Jesus’ parousia; this is the most detailed depiction of the event in Paul’s letters.47 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.

A commonly held view takes the picture in these verses to be that of a visit of a ruler or dignitary to a city, with a delegation of leading citizens going to meet him in order to escort him into their city.48 On this understanding, the coming Lord is met “in the air” by living and resurrected saints who then accompany him back to the earth. This interpretation lays a great deal of weight on possible, but by no means necessary, connotations of the words parous¤a and épãnthsiw. There is otherwise no indication that the saints return immediately to earth.49 47 The picture corresponds to the presentation in 1 Cor 15:51–55 which is not explicitly about Jesus’ parousia. 48 E.g. Dunn, Theology of Paul, p. 299 n. 25. 49 For criticisms of the “Hellenistic parousia” model of reading 1 Thess 4:13–18, see J. Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia, pp. 6–10, 89–90; idem, “1 Thessalonians 4,17:

14

edward adams

Paul employs several images associated with the coming of God: the descent from heaven (cf. 2 Sam 22:10; Ps 18:8; Isa 64:1); the archangel, whose presence suggests a fuller retinue; the sound of the trumpet (Zech 9:14); the idea of a gathering (cf. Ps 50:5; Isa 66:18). Plevnik relates the cry of command to the “rebuke” that God is sometimes depicted as issuing at his coming (cf. 2 Sam 22:16; Ps 18:16; Isa 66:15; cf. Job 26:22; Nah 1:4).50 The clouds are associated in this account not with the descent of the Lord from heaven but with the ascent of the living and resurrected faithful into the air.51 But it is not impossible that the clouds serve a dual function in this scenario: first bringing the returning Lord from heaven (implicit), then transporting the saints near to the Lord. Paul here ties the parousia closely to the resurrection of dead believers and the assumption of all the saints into the air. These connections have no precedent in OT “coming of God” texts. The association with resurrection is readily appreciable as part of the eschatologization of the coming of God that takes place in late OT prophecy and in Jewish apocalyptic thought. God’s coming is linked with the resurrection of the dead in L.A.B. 19:13. In T.Mos. 10:8–10, as we have seen, the coming of God results in the elevation of his sons from life on earth to life in heaven. This matches to some extent the mass assumption which Paul seems to imagine here. It is unlikely that the Testament of Moses exercised any influence on Paul or the particular Christian traditions on which he may be dependent in these verses; thus the linkage made in 1 Thess 4:16–17 between the eschatological epiphany and the taking up of the faithful should be viewed as a parallel, but distinctly independent, development. 2 Thessalonians 1:7–8 Second Thessalonians is one of the disputed Pauline letters, so we cannot be sure it was actually authored (or even “authorised”) by the apostle. The letter is dominated by eschatological material, especially in chapter 2. In 2 Thess 1:3–11, “Paul” prays for and encourages the Thessalonians in the midst of their persecutions and afflictions (v. 4). In vv. 7–8, he assures them that there will be rest for them

The Bringing in of the Lord or the Bringing in of the Faithful?”, Biblica 80 (1999) 537–46. 50 Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia, pp. 45–50. 51 Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia, pp. 60–63.


15

“when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire inflicting vengeance (§n pur‹ flogÒw didÒntow §kd¤khsin) on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel”.52 There is stress here on the heavenly origin of the revelation, which fits with the notion of the divine advent. Again, the words metÉ égg°lvn dunãmevw aÈtoË recall Zech 14:5 and the image of the angelic retinue.53 The parousia, like God’s coming, brings relief to the faithful, but punishment to God’s enemies, who are here defined both in traditional Jewish terms (those who do not know God), and in specifically Christian language (those who disobey the gospel). Like God, Jesus comes “in flaming fire”. V. 8 is commonly recognised as an allusion to Isa 66:15: “For the Lord will come in fire . . . to pay back his anger in fury, and his rebuke in flames of fire. For by fire will the Lord execute judgment” (fidoÁ går kÊriow …w pËr ¥jei . . . épodoËnai §n yum“ §kd¤khsin ka‹ époskorakismÚn §n flog‹ purÒw, går t“ pur‹ kur¤ou kriyÆsetai).54 2 Thessalonians 2:8 In 2 Thess 2:3–12, “Paul” outlines events that must take place before the parousia of Jesus, in an attempt to allay fears that the “day of the Lord” had already dawned. Central to these events is the figure of “the lawless one”, i.e., the eschatological antagonist (v. 3). V. 8 describes the fate of this individual when Jesus returns: “the Lord Jesus will destroy [him] with the breath of his mouth (énele› t“ pneÊmati toË stÒmatow aÈtoË), annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming.” Commentators see here an allusion to Isa 11:4 (which concerns the ideal Davidic king): “with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.”55 An echo of the ‘coming of God’ text, Isa 30:27–28 (alluded to in 4 Ezra 13), may also be heard (cf. Ps 18:8). See, the name of the LORD comes from far away, burning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke; his lips are full of indignation, and 52 Opinion is divided as whether the words §n pur‹ flogÒw go with what precedes or what follows. In view of the allusion to Isa 66:15, the phrase should probably be taken with didÒntow §kd¤khsin, as in the translation above: so Wanamaker, Thessalonians, pp. 226–7. 53 An allusion to Zech 14:5 may also be present in v. 10 (“when he comes to be glorified by his saints”), but this is less certain; cf. Kreitzer, Jesus and God, pp. 118–19. 54 E.g. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, p. 227. 55 E.g. E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC. London: A. & C. Black, 1986 [orig. pub. 1972]), p. 302.

16

edward adams his tongue is like a devouring fire; his breath (tÚ pneËma aÈtoË) is like an overflowing stream that reaches up to the neck.

Hebrews 10:37 In Heb 10:37, the writer assures his readers that “in a very little while, the one who is coming will come and will not delay” (¶ti går mikrÚn ˜son ˜son, ı §rxÒmenow ¥jei ka‹ oÈ xron¤sei). These words combine a clause of Isa 26:20LXX (mikrÚn ˜son ˜son) with the final line of Hab 2:4LXX (§rxÒmenow ¥jei ka‹ oÈ mØ xron¤s˙). In the Hebrew text of Hab 2:4, the subject is the prophetic vision. In the LXX, the subject of §rxÒmenow (which is anarthrous; the author of Hebrews has added the article) is God.56 Hab 2:3b became an important text in early Judaism for dealing with the problem of eschatological delay.57 Both Sir 35:19 and 2 Bar. 48:39 make use of it in asserting the assurance of God’s coming, despite the long time of waiting. In Heb 10:37, the coming one is Christ (cf. 9:28). The author of Hebrews acknowledges that Christ’s parousia seems delayed, but insists that it will happen. He is keen to keep alive the eager expectation of Christ’s return in the face of waning eschatological enthusiasm (cf. 9:28). It is highly significant that he finds the resources to do so in a text that in its Greek translation stands within the OT and Jewish “coming of God” tradition. 2 Peter 3:5–13 In this passage, the writer of Second Peter upholds the promise of the Lord’s parousia against contemporary detractors. Scoffers malign the “promise” of the Lord’s coming58 because of the long delay in its fulfilment and because it entails the ridiculous prospect of cosmic destruction (v. 4). I have argued elsewhere that the “promise” under attack is OT prophecy relating to God’s coming that was applied

56 Bauckham, Jude, p. 310. Isa 26:20 in its Isaianic context also concerns the coming of God. 57 H. W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), p. 303. On the eschatological use of Hab 2:3 in early Judaism (and in the NT), see A. Strobel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem auf Grund der spätjüdisch-urchristlichen Geschichte von Habakkuk 2.2FF (NovTSup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1961). 58 The aÈtoË in the expression t∞w parous¤aw aÈtoË in 3:4 probably refers to both Jesus (cf. 1:16) and God (cf. 3:12).


17

to Jesus.59 In vv. 5–13, the author defends the validity of this longstanding expectation (without making any explicit reference to Jesus). In v. 9, he insists that “the Lord is not slow about his promise”. This may well be an allusion to Hab 2:3b.60 The author uses the verb bradÊnv rather than xron¤zv as found in the LXX of Hab 2:3b, but bradÊnei is used in Aquila’s version and may represent a translation of the underlying Hebrew word, hhm, already current in the writer’s day. The most distinctive feature of the author’s description of the parousia is the emphasis on the destruction of the cosmos by fire. The author derives the notion of cosmic conflagration (and other aspects of the cosmology of this section) directly from Stoicism, rather than the OT or Jewish eschatology.61 Even so, the basic association of the parousia and fire probably reflects the OT linkage of God’s coming with fire (and perhaps the comparison of God’s appearance to a refiner’s fire in Mal 3:1 in particular).62 Revelation 19:11–16 The book of Revelation contains numerous references to the future coming of Christ.63 The theme is prominent at the beginning (1:7) and the end of the work (22:12, 20). The fullest description of the parousia is found in 19:11–21. In the eschatological scheme of Revelation, the parousia of Jesus comes between the millennium (or interregnum) and new creation, to some extent reflecting a pattern we find in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. It is linked with the theme of the great eschatological war (cf. v. 19). John sees the heavens opened and a warrior, plainly Christ, riding out on a white horse, accompanied by “the armies of heaven” (v. 14). He is clothed “in a robe dipped in blood” (v. 13), and he has various names (including a secret name, v. 12). Out of his mouth proceeds a sharp sword to smite the nations. He comes to “tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty”

59 E. Adams, “‘Where is the Promise of His Coming?’ The Complaint of the Scoffers in 2 Peter 3:4”, NTS 51 (2005) 106–22. 60 Bauckham, Jude, p. 311. See further, Strobel, Untersuchungen, pp. 79–86. 61 See further, Adams, “Promise”. 62 “The day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble; the day that comes shall burn them up.” For Malachi, the “day of the Lord” is the “day of his coming”; cf. 3:2. 63 1:7; 2:25; 3:3, 11; 16:15; 22:7, 12, 20 (possibly 2:5, 16).

18

edward adams

(v. 15). What is being pictured here is unequivocally the coming of the divine warrior at the head of the celestial army to do battle with his enemies, with Christ in the leading role. V. 19 describes the hostile forces gathered against him—a great army led by the beast. Within the general picture of vv. 11–16, there are various reminiscences of specific OT ‘coming of God’ texts (as well as other texts).64 The opening of heaven in v. 11 recalls the rending of heaven in Isa 64:1 for God to descend in judgement. In Isa 64:1–2, God is entreated to come down in power and make his “name” known to his adversaries. The “name” of the warrior is a subject of particular interest in the present passage. He is given several titles in vv. 11–16 (Faithful and True; the Word of God; King of kings and Lord of lords), though one of his names remains undisclosed. The coming one is said in v. 11, to judge with righteousness (§n dikaiosÊn˙ kr¤nei). God is often described in the OT as judging with righteousness. In Pss 96:13 and 98:6, the motif is specifically connected with his coming: “he is coming to judge the earth; he will judge the world with righteousness” (krine› tØn ofikoum°nhn §n dikaiosÊn˙). The reference to the blood-soaked garment in v. 13 picks up the image of Isa 63:1–3. In Isaiah 63, the warrior comes back from battle, and the blood is that of his enemies. Here, the slaughter lies ahead (vv. 17–21). The blood, therefore, is probably the warrior’s own, identifying him, within the visionary narrative of Revelation, as the lamb who was slain (5:6–12). The image of the sword proceeding from his mouth is taken by commentators to reflect a combination of Isa 11:4 (“he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth”) and 49:2 (“He made my mouth like a sharp sword”), but, as in 2 Thess 2:8, there may also be an echo of Isa 30:27–28 (which also places emphasis on the “name” of the Lord). The motif of treading the winepress of the fury of God’s wrath is obviously drawn from Isa 62:2–3. At v. 17, the scene switches to the ghastly aftermath of the eschatological battle; the actual conflict itself is not narrated. The truly gruesome picture of birds gorging on the flesh of the slain in vv. 17–18 and 21 is derived from Ezek 39:17–20. But the basic sequence of the arrival of the divine warrior with his heavenly army, his deci64 According to D. E. Aune (Revelation 17–22 [WBC 52C. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998], pp. 1048–52), this section combines eschatological warrior imagery with Roman triumph imagery.


19

sive victory and the devouring of the flesh of the defeated enemies was part of the “coming of God” tradition as reflected in Zech 9:14–15. Revelation 22:12 Rev 22:6–21 is the epilogue of the book. In v. 6, the Lord himself announces his speedy advent: “See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work.” The line fidoÁ ¶rxomai taxÊ, ka‹ ı misyÒw mou metÉ §moË reflects the wording of Isa 40:10LXX: fidoÁ kÊriow metå fisxÊow ¶rxetai . . . fidoÁ ı misyÚw aÈtoË metÉ aÈtoË ka‹ tÚ ¶rgon §nant¤on aÈtoË.65 The thought is expressed in the first person rather than, as in Isaiah, the third person. The word taxÊ has been added; the term is a characteristic feature of Revelation.66 The second part épodoËnai •kãstƒ …w tÚ ¶rgon §st‹n aÈtoË is based on Prov 24:12.67 Again, OT language used of God’s coming is taken up and applied to Jesus’s parousia. Conclusion The foregoing has shown that a considerable number of NT texts describing or referring to the parousia of Jesus are significantly based, at least in part, on OT texts and images relating to the coming of God. The OT and early Jewish “coming of God” tradition offered a rich storehouse of resources for describing and reflecting upon the anticipated event. NT writers drew both on specific “coming of God” texts (such as Isa 40:10 and Zech 14:5) and on images associated with God’s awesome intervention (the angelic host; upheavals in nature; etc.). As noted at the beginning of the essay, it is within the “coming of God” tradition that the early Christian expectation of Jesus’, coming belongs. This essay indicates that the hope of Christ’s coming as it is represented in the NT, is to a significant degree a “Christologizing” transmission of that tradition.

65 66 67

Aune, Revelation 17–22, p. 1218. 2:16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 20. Cf. Matt 16:27.

THE LIVES OF THE PROPHETS IN SYRIAC: SOME SOUNDINGS Sebastian Brock Among Michael Knibb’s important contributions to Ethiopic studies are two articles in which he edited various of the Lives of the Prophets in Ge'ez,1 so it will not be inappropriate to offer here in his honour something on the Syriac translation of this intriguing work, whose origin, Jewish or Christian, remains unclear.2 The Lives of the Prophets come down to us in Greek in at least six different recensions, studied and edited by Schermann,3 and recently provided with a detailed commentary by Schwemer.4 The Syriac translation, regularly attributed to Epiphanius, was not made from the Greek recensions which carry this attribution (Schermann’s ‘A’ and ‘C’; Schwemer’s ‘Ep1’ and ‘Ep2’), but rather from a Greek text which was evidently close to the ‘Anonymous recension’ (Schermann’s ‘D’; Schwemer’s ‘An1’) that is best represented in Vatican gr. 2125 (codex Marchalianus, of the 6th century), and to the Dorotheus recension (Schermann’s ‘B’; Schwemer’s ‘Dor’). The Syriac translation is to be found in a large number of witnesses, the most important of which have been available in a printed form for some time, though without a translation into a modern language. A complete text based on the three oldest Syriac manuscripts was published by E. Nestle in the chrestomathy of the second edition of his Syrische Grammatik (1888),5 while the nine Lives of the Minor Prophets which feature in the famous Milan manuscript of the Syrohexapla (Ambros. C.313 Inf., of the 8th/9th century) can

1 “The Ethiopic Version of the Lives of the Prophets I–II”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43 (1980) 197–206 and 48 (1985) 17–41. 2 That the work is entirely Christian has been argued by D. Satran, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine. Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets (SVTP 2. Leiden: Brill, 1995). 3 T. Schermann, Prophetarum Vitae Fabulosae (Leipzig: Teubner, 1907); Prophetenund Apostellegenden (Texte und Untersuchungen 31.3. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907). 4 A. M. Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden, Vitae Prophetarum (TSAJ 49–50. Tübingen: Mohr, 1995–6). 5 Pp. 86–107; in the first edition (1881) he only gave the text which concerns the Major Prophets. For the manuscript basis, see below.

22

sebastian brock

be found in Ceriani’s photolithographic publication of that manuscript.6 The only English translation available of any of the Syriac witnesses is of a late East Syriac manuscript, published by Hall.7 Classification of the Witnesses Various different classifications of the Syriac witnesses have been suggested.8 At present it would seem that these witnesses can best be classified into the following main groupings: 1. (a) The three oldest manuscripts containing the full text, as found in Vat. gr. 2125 (An1):9 British Library Add. 14536 (8th century); Add. 17193 (ad 874); and Add. 12178 (9th/10th century). Nestle provided an eclectic text on the basis of these, though primarily using Add. 14536. Collations of these three manuscripts were published by him separately, in his Marginalien und Materialien;10 these show that in fact Add.17193 often has the same revised text that is found in the Milan Syrohexapla.11 (b) The Lives of the first nine of the Twelve Minor Prophets in the Milan Syrohexapla, where they follow the text of the prophets in question. This text represents basically the same translation, but with some revision on the basis of the Greek; this revision displays a number of features characteristic of the translation practice of the Syrohexapla (and of the seventh century in general), e.g. shayna replacing shlama (Greek eirene).12 (c) Other earlier manuscripts: Vatican Syr. 152 (of ad 980), Barberini Or. 118 (of c. 1000), Paris Syr. 64 (11th century). The character of these remains to be properly investigated. 6 A. M. Ceriani, Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus (Monumenta Sacra et Profana 7. Milan: Pogliani, 1874). Both this and Nestle’s edition were used by Schermann (see especially, pp. 24–39, 129–33). 7 I. H. Hall, “The Lives of the Prophets”, JBL 7 (1887) 28–40. 8 See especially Schermann, Propheten- und Apostellegenden, pp. 24–39, and A.-M. Denis and J. C. Haelewyck, Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistique I (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), pp. 591–4. 9 In Add. 14,536 and 17,183 Job is included right at the end; neither, however, has the ‘miracles’ of Elijah and Elisha, which are found in Vat. gr. 2125, but not the other recensions. Add. 12,178 ends with Joam. 10 (Tübingen: Heckenhauer, 1893), pp. 36–43. 11 This is especially clear from the Life of Jonah, translated below. 12 Other features include the use of dileh, instead of the suffix -eh, to represent Greek autou; the representation of Greek aorist participles by kad + perfect (replacing paratactic ‘and’), etc. Revision of this nature, however, is far from consistent.

the

LIVES OF THE PROPHETS

in syriac

23

Manchester, John Rylands Library Syr. 4, of the early eighteenth century, when it was copied in Peking from a manuscript dated 752/3;13 the final text has the Lives of Isaiah, Hosea and Joel; although very difficult to read (since the copyist evidently did not know Syriac!), this is potentially an important witness. 2. The manuscripts of the later East Syriac manuscript tradition. Beside the manuscript translated by Hall,14 this group includes Mingana Syr. 108 (of 1550), 567 (of 1744), and Harvard Syr. 62 (18th/19th century).15 3. Abbreviated texts. These fall into at least three different categories: (a) in Sinai Syr. 10 (9th century; Melkite).16 (b) in West Syriac manuscripts, e.g. Vatican Borg. Syr. 133 (of 1224). (c) in East Syriac manuscripts, e.g. Mingana Syr. 152 (of 1891, copied from a manuscript rebound in 1521), and 161 (of 1872). The accounts in Theodore bar Koni and Solomon of Bosra are related to those in (b) and (c); see 5, below, for these two authors. 4. The West Syriac chronicle and exegetical tradition. Three West Syriac World Chronicles incorporate material from the Lives of the Prophets into the sections concerning Old Testament history: – the Chronicle ad annum 846:17 abbreviated notices of Ahijah, Elijah, Micah, Zechariah 1, Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Nahum, Isaiah, Joel, [Zechariah 2], Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. – the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian († 1199): full quotations (attributed to Epiphanius) of the following Lives:18 Elijah (pp.

13 The colophon of the original manuscript has been copied on f.232a; it is reproduced in J. F. Coakley’s A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library (= BJRL 75:2. Manchester: John Rylands University Library, 1993), p. 122. 14 New York, Union Theological Seminary Syr. 9; see note 7. 15 Likewise (to judge from Schermann, Propheten- und Apostellegenden, pp. 24–5) also Berlin Sachau 131. 16 Printed in A. S. Lewis, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the Convent of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai (Studia Sinaitica I. London: Clay, 1894), pp. 4–7; Latin translation in Schermann, Propheten- und Apostellegenden, pp. 105–6. 17 In E. W. Brooks, Chronica Minora II (CSCO Scr. Syri 3–4. repr. Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1960), pp. 160–65 (text), 125–9 (tr.). 18 In J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien I (tr.), IV (text) (Paris: Leroux,

24

sebastian brock 68/39–40), Obadiah (pp. 69/40), Elisha (pp. 69/41), Zechariah 1 (pp. 70/41), Amos (pp. 75/43), Nahum (pp. 75/43–4), Jonah (pp. 76/44, without attribution to Epiphanius), Hosea (pp. 78/46), [Micah (pp. 85/51), without attribution, and not from the Lives of the Prophets], Isaiah (pp. 87/52–3, beginning lost), Zephaniah (pp. 89/54), Jeremiah (pp. 89/54), Ezekiel (pp. 94/58), Daniel (pp. 96/59), Habakkuk (pp. 97/60), Haggai (pp. 101/63), Zechariah 2 (pp. 101/63), Malachai (pp. 101/63). These entries basically represent the same text as that of the three earliest manuscripts, and like them is a witness of An1 (Schermann, however, provided variants from Michael in the apparatus to Ep1 [his A], rather than An1 [his D]; this gives a misleading impression). Though Michael’s text has every now and then obviously been corrupted in the course of transmission, he is an important witness. – the Chronicle ad annum 1234: material based on, and partly quoting, the Lives of the Prophets is to be found for the following:19 Hosea (pp. 87:11–14/67:1–4), Elijah (pp. 88:5–10/ 67:21–9), Elisha (pp. 88:19–21/68:1–6), Amos (pp. 89:4–6/ 68:15–17), Zechariah (pp. 89:19–23/68:28–69:2), Nahum (pp. 90:6–10/69:13–16), Jonah (pp. 90:18–19, 91:21–24/69:23–4, 70:25–9), Micah (pp. 92:12–15/71:12–14), Isaiah (pp. 94:3/ 72:29–30), Zephaniah (pp. 94:21–4/73:17–20), Jeremiah (pp. 95:6–30/73:31–74:18), [Daniel (pp. 96/74, with a legend about his birth, not from the Lives)], Habakkuk (pp. 97:2–6, 11–12, 20–23/75:19 –23, 28; 76:1–3),20 Ezekiel (pp. 99:13–100:2/ 77:23–33). These entries are usually considerably abbreviated, and sometimes intermingled with material from other sources. – Bar Hebraeus († 1286), in his great commentary on the Bible entitled the Awsar Raze, ‘Treasury of Mysteries’, provides information based on the Lives of the Prophets at the beginning of

1899, 1910; repr. Bruxelles: Culture et Civilisation, 1963). The double references are to these two volumes (that for the translation is given first). 19 In J.-B. Chabot, Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens I (CSCO Scr. Syri 36 [text], 56 [tr]; repr. Louvain: Durbecq, 1953); the double references are to these two volumes, citing the text volume first; lines of the page are indicated after the colon. 20 In the prophecy about the destruction of the Second Temple, instead of a ‘western nation’ doing this, it is ‘an eastern’ one.

the


in syriac

25

each prophetic book; this varies in extent considerably from one prophet to another.21 Mention should also be made of some of the notices on the Prophets in the Old Testament Catena published under Ephrem’s name in the second Syriac volume of J. S. Assemani’s Sancti Patris nostri Ephraem opera omnia quae exstant (Rome: Typographia Vaticana, 1740).22 Material related to the Lives can be found for Jeremiah (col. 98), Hosea (col. 234), Joel (col. 249), Obadiah (col. 269) and Malachai (col. 312). 5. The East Syriac exegetical tradition Two East Syriac authors in particular give abbreviated accounts derived from the Lives of the Prophets, Theodore bar Koni (late 8th century),23 and Solomon of Bosra (13th century).24 For the most part Solomon’s account follows that of Theodore closely, though it reorders the sequence of the Prophets (for this, see below). Although Isho'dad of Merv (9th century) in his Commentary on the Old Testament makes occasional use of material from the Lives of the Prophets, he never quotes anything like an entire Life.25 Order of Books The sequence of the Lives varies considerably in the different Syriac witnesses. Three main criteria seem to be operative: the order of books in the Peshitta, that in the Septuagint, and the supposed historical sequence (this last especially affects the Chronicle tradition, but its influence can also be seen on the abbreviated notices in Sinai Syr. 10). As far as the first two criteria are concerned, this will affect 21 The entire work has recently been published by Metropolitan Julius Çiçek (Holland: Monastery of St Ephrem, 2003). 22 On this Catena, see D. Kruisheer, “Ephrem, Jacob of Edessa and the Monk Severus”, in R. Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1998), pp. 599–605. 23 Ed. A. Scher, Theodorus bar Koni, Liber Scholiorum I (CSCO Scr. Syri 19; repr. Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1960), pp. 349–53; tr. R. Hespel and R. Draguet (CSCO Scr. Syri 187. Leuven: Peeters, 1981), pp. 291–4. (The whole section is absent from the Urmi recension of the text). 24 E. A. W. Budge, The Book of the Bee (Oxford: Clarendon, 1886), chapter 32. 25 Since he makes use of material cited from Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentaries quoted in the margins of the Milan Syrohexapla manuscript (as well as Syh readings), it is possible that he drew his material on the Lives of the Prophets from the same source, that is, one of the copies of the Syrohexapla that Patriarch Timothy I informs us he had made (Letter 47; English translation in my A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature [Kottayam: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 1997], pp. 245–50).

sebastian brock

26

both placing of the Major Prophets, and the internal sequence of the Minor ones. The three oldest manuscripts behind Nestle’s text provide the order: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, XII Prophets, as found in the LXX Codex Sinaiticus, and in An1,2 and Ep1 of the Greek Lives (Ep2 has the normal Septuagint order, with XII Prophets before Isaiah, a sequence already found in Codex Vaticanus); this is also the sequence in Theodore bar Koni. The later Syriac manuscripts of the Lives, however, adopt the normal Peshitta order, i.e. Isaiah, XII Prophets, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel; this is also found in Solomon of Bosra. For the XII Prophets there is considerable variety, as the following examples will show: Nestle Syh ThbK Borg M152 NY M161

Hos Hos Hos Hos Hos Hos Hos

Am Am Mic Joel Joel Am Am

Joel Mic Am Am Am Mic Mic

Mic Joel Joel Obad Mic Obad Jon

Obad Obad Obad Jon Jon Joel Zeph

Jon Nah Jon Nah Jon Nah Mic Nah Zeph Obad Jon Nah Mal Obad

Hab Hab Hab Hab

Zeph Zeph Zeph Zeph Nah Hab Zeph Nah Hag

Hag Hag Hag Hag Hag Hag Jer

Zech Zech Zech Zech Zech Zech Hab

Mal Mal Mal Mal Mal Mal

The sequence in the Milan Syrohexapla is the norm in Septuagint manuscripts, and it is also the sequence found in Ep1,2 Dor and An2 of the Lives of the Prophets. Remarkably, Theodore bar Koni’s sequence for the XII Prophets preserves that of An1. That in Vatican Borg. Syr. 133 is adapted to the norm in Peshitta manuscripts (identical with that of the printed Hebrew Bible); this is also the case with Solomon of Bosra, though he inserts Elijah between Obadiah and Jonah. (The order given in Sinai Syr.10 and the Chronicles follow the presumed chronological sequence). Translation of the Nine Lives in the Milan Syrohexapla Manuscript With only a few exceptions, the translation is closely related to that found in the three early manuscripts used by Nestle. Where these (or some of these)26 have a different reading, this is given in square brackets.

26

The symbols Na, Nb and Nc represent Add. 14536, 17193 and 12178, respectively.

the


in syriac

27

HOSEA 1. This Hosea was from Ba'almot [Balmot], of [from] the tribe of Issachar, and he was buried in his country [+ in peace]. 2. And he gave a sign that the Lord was coming upon earth if the oak [terebinth] which is in Shalem [Shilo] is divided into twelve of its own accord, and becomes twelve trees [terebinths]. AMOS 1. Amos was from Teqoa', and Amasia his son, continually tearing him in pieces, killed him with a rod, striking him on his temples [Amasia was all the time afflicting him; finally his son also killed him with a blow on his temples with a stick Nac], 2. and while there was still breath in him, he came to his country and after some days died, and was buried there. MICAH 1. Micah the Marashite was from the tribe of Ephraim, and having done much to Ahab, he was killed by Joram his son, being thrown down a cliff-face, because he rebuked him for the wickedness of his parents; 2. and he was buried in his land alone, near the grave of strangers in Bekim. JOEL 1. Joel was from the land of Rubil, from the field called Matomoron [from the field of Beth Maron Nac], 2. and he died in peace and was buried. [ Joel comes before Micah in Nestle’s text]. OBADIAH 1. Obadiah was from the land of Shechem, from the hamlet called [om.] Beth 'Aqram. 2. This man was a disciple of Elijah, and having borne much for him, he was delivered. 3. He was the third captain of fifty on whom Elijah had pity, and he came down to Ahaziah [= Gk; Ahab Nac].27 4. Afterwards, having left the service

27 Ahab also features here in the abbreviated texts cited below (at notes 33, 38); according to 2 Kings 1:13 this was under Ahab’s son, Ahaziah; Ahab’s presence here will be due to identifying the third captain of fifty with Ahab’s steward Obadiah (1 Kings 18:3), an identification made explicit in some later forms of the Lives (see below, at note 38).

28

sebastian brock

of the king, he prophesied; and having died in peace [om. Nac] he was buried with his fathers [+ in peace Nac]. JONAH 1. Jonah was from the land of Quryath Na'rin [Ya'rin Nb], facing Azotos, the town of Greeks [Quryathim, a town next to the town of the pagans, 'Eqron Nac], which is beside the sea. And he fled from the word of the Lord, and remained in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights [sentence omitted Nac = Gk]. 2. And he was disgorged from the whale [the mouth of the fish Nac] and went to Nineveh, and he came back [returned Nac]. He did not remain [stay Nac] in his country, but having taken his mother, he sojourned in Tyre, in the region of the peoples of other race [he dwelt in Sherub (Shurub Nc), the region of Tyre and Sidon Nac]; 3. for he said, Here I will remove my shame, for I acted falsely when prophesying concerning Nineveh, the great city of the Assyrians [om. Nac]. 4. There was, therefore [om. Nac], Elijah who was rebuking Ahab, king of Israel [om. k. of I. Nac]; and when he summoned a famine upon the earth, he fled, and when he came to Sarepta of Sidon and found there a woman [om. there a woman Nac], a widow, with her son, the small boy Jonah, he dwelt with her [om. the—her Nac], for the prophet [he] was not able to dwell [be] with the uncircumcised. And he blessed her [+ and her son Nac], 5. and Jonah, who died, God raised from the dead through Elijah; for he wanted to show him that he cannot flee from God. And when he arose, after the famine he came to the land of Judah. 6. And when his mother died on the way, he buried her by the oak of Deborah. 7. Having lived in Sarar [Sor (= Tyre) Nb; in the land of Se'ir Nac], he died and was buried there [om. Nac] in the cave of Kenez who was a judge [+ of a tribe in the days Nac] when there was no king [head Nac ( pr. and Nc)]. 8. And he gave a sign concerning Jerusalem and all the land, that when they see a stone gasping out thunderously [sharply Nac], they should suppose [om. they—suppose Nac] that the end is close. Now [and Nac] when they see in Jerusalem all the peoples, that city up to the end will be entirely torn down [destroyed to the ground Nac].

the


in syriac

29

NAHUM28 1. Nahum was from Alqosh, beyond Beth Gabre [Beth Horim Nac], from the tribe of Simeon. 2. After Jonah, he gave a sign to Nineveh, that it would perish from sweet water and from a novel [underground Nac] fire. This actually took place, 3. for the lake which surrounded it submerged it in an earthquake [+ which happened], and when fire came from the desert against it, it burnt the portion of it which is high. 4. He died in peace, and was buried in his country. HABAKKUK 1. Habakkuk was from the tribe of Simeon, from the field of Beth Sukar. 2. He saw, before the captivity, concerning the subjection of Jerusalem, and he mourned greatly. 3. And when Nebuchanezzar came, he fled to Beth Pahhara [lit. place of the potter], and he sojourned in the land of Ishmael. 4. When the Chaldeans returned, and the remainder, those who stayed in Jerusalem, went down to Egypt, he was living in his country 5. and ministering to the harvesters in his field. 6. Now when he took the cooked food, he prophesied to his own people saying, I am going to a distant country, and I will straightaway return; but if I am late, return to the harvesters [+ and bring them food Nc]. 7. And he was in Babylon, and gave a meal to Daniel. And he returned and stood by the harvesters as they were eating. To no one did he say what had happened. 8. Now he understood that straightaway the people would return from Babylon. And he died two years before the return, 9. and was buried in his field, by himself. 10. He gave a sign in Judah, that they would see in the temple a light, and thus they would see the glory of the temple. 11. And concerning the end of the temple he predicted that it would be from a western people; 12. and the veil of the Debir will be torn little by little, and the capitals of the two pillars would be taken up, and no one would know where they were. 13. They would be taken up by angels to the desert where the tent of witness had been fixed from the beginning; 14. and over them the Lord would be recognized at the end, for they would illumine those who were persecuted by the serpent in the darkness, as at the beginning.

28 Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien, pp. 44–5, provides a preliminary edition and apparatus for the Syriac text.

30

sebastian brock

ZEPHANIAH 1. Zephaniah: this prophet was [om. this pr. was] from the tribe of Simeon, below the mountain of Ebrata [from the field of Sabarta]. 2. He prophesied concerning the city and concerning the end of the peoples, and the shame of the wicked. 3. And when he died he was buried in his field by himself. Etymologies The translation above does not include the etymologies given in the Milan Syrohexapla manuscript to some of the names of the Twelve Prophets. These are provided for Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zechariah; except in the case of the first two where the information is given at the end, the etymologies stand at the head of the Life. It is very striking that for Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah and Zechariah the same etymologies also turn up in Greek in Vat. gr. 2125, where the information is added by an early corrector: Amos Micah Joel Obadiah Zechariah

metpaqqdana manu hana hayltanuta d-marya pala˙ 'abduta l-marya 29 'uhdana d-alaha

= = = = =

§ntellÒmenow t¤w otow fisxÁw kur¤ou douleÊvn kur¤ƒ (so Dor) mnÆmh yeoË (so Dor).

Nestle’s text provides the same etymologies for Micah and Obadiah, but an examination of his apparatus in Marginalien und Materialien indicates that Add. 14536 has no etymologies, while Add. 17193 provides exactly the same range of etymologies that the Milan Syrohexapla has. Add. 12178, on the other hand, has them only for Micah and Obadiah: evidently Nestle only printed them when two of his manuscripts provided them! Clearly, the etymologies have been introduced at a secondary stage in all the texts where they appear; though there is some overlap with those in the Dorotheus recension, others are completely different. The remaining etymologies, common to Nb and the Milan Syrohexapla, are:

29 The rendering is characteristic of the translation practice of Paul of Tella in the Syrohexapla (see, e.g., Zeph 3:9, Zech 2:9, Mal 3:17, etc.).

the Jonah or Nahum or


ba'uta d-marya yawna etbayya" et†pis

in syriac

= = = =

31

d°hsiw kur¤ou (so Dor) peristerã parãklhtow parãklhtow

The two Syriac words represent different translations of the same Greek (compare the similar case in the Syriac New Testament [Luke 2:25] where parãklhsiw is rendered ba'uta in the Old Syriac but buyya"a in the Peshitta). Habakkuk

'apeq

= perilambãnvn

Ziegler curiously retroverts the Syrohexapla as amelhw (which is found in some Greek witnesses); in fact the Syriac corresponds to the etymology given by Jerome (PL 25, 947). Etymologies are also sometimes given in some of the later East Syriac manuscripts; thus Mingana Syr. 152 and 161 provide the following: Amos Joel or Obadiah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai

– as in the Milan Syrohexapla marya w-alaha ‘Lord and God’ mawhabta d-alaha ‘gift of God’ 'abda d-alaha = doËlow kur¤ou buyya"a = parãklhsiw (so Dor) – as in the Milan Syrohexapla dawqa d-marya = skop¤a kur¤ou 'ida = •ortÆ (so Dor).

All these feature in the Syriac Onomastica published by Wutz (whereas those in the Milan Syrohexapla and Add. 17193 are not represented there).30 Relationship to the Greek Although the Syriac translation is regularly attributed to Epiphanius, it is much closer to the Greek Anonymous and Dorotheos recensions than to the Greek Epiphanius one. This can readily be seen from comparing the Syriac with the juxtaposed texts of the Greek recensions usefully provided by Schwemer: none of the many major distinctive features of the Greek Epiphanius recension are to be found

30 F. X. Wutz, Onomastica Sacra II (Texte und Untersuchungen 41,2. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915), pp. 792–847.

32

sebastian brock

in the Syriac. Apart from the openings of each Life in Dor, An1 and Dor are usually very close to one another, but there is a sufficient number of cases where the Syriac supports An1 against Dor: notable examples can be found in Ezekiel 16b, Daniel 21 (end), 22, Jonah 8, Habakkuk 10, Nathan 3–4, where Dor either has additional material not found in An1 or Syr, or omits such material that is found in An1 and Syr.31 Cases concerning the addition or omission of text, where Syr = Dor against An1, are almost entirely confined to the Lives of Elijah and Elisha; there both Syr and Dor omit the lists of these prophets’ miracles that are to be found in An1 (obviously a secondary development). This situation gives greater weight to the small number of instances involving smaller variants where Syr = Dor against An1, as for example at Habakkuk 3 where Syr has ‘sojourner’ (= Dor Ep2), rather than ‘he sojourned’ (= An1, 2). The same applies to the rare cases where Syr = Ep1 against An1 and Dor: thus at Habakkuk 7 ‘he returned’ is only found in Ep1. Where Nestle’s text and that of the Milan Syrohexapla differ, the situation is puzzling: in some cases it is simply a question of an inner Syriac variant, with the Milan Syrohexapla providing a more precise rendering (though the opposite is occasionally the case, as at Nahum 2a). Elsewhere it is evidently correcting a free translation (e.g. Jonah 1, 2 end), but there are also occasions when it has a reading further away from the extant Greek (e.g. Jonah 3). Where the Greek witnesses are divided, as at Zephaniah 1, the Milan Syrohexapla’s replacement of ‘field’ by ‘mountain’ goes against An1 and Dor, and surprisingly follows instead Ep1. Another intriguing feature is to be found in the forms of some of the place names, notably Jonah 1, 2, 7 and Nahum 1. Although not in the sections translated above, mention in passing should also be made to Joad [Syr Yo'am] 2, where the false prophet is given a name, ‘Abi†on’, otherwise unattested.32 Clearly these are all areas which require a much more detailed discussion than is possible here.

31 The details can be identified by consulting Schwemer’s juxtaposed texts. Other cases of this sort occur at Jeremiah 7c, 8, Ezekiel 12, 15, 20, Daniel 6, 7, 13, Hosea 2, Habakkuk 10, Zechariah 6, Nathan 2–4, Joad 1b, Zechariah (II) 2. 32 Although the Arabic translation otherwise seems to be based, often in an abbreviated form, on Greek An1, rather than Syriac, it also provides a name, though a different one, ‘Qi†on’: see O. Löfgren, “An Arabic Recension of the Vitae Prophetarum”, Orientalia Suecana 25/6 (1976/7) 77–105.

the


in syriac

33

Inner Syriac Developments Abbreviation This is a characteristic of several of the later forms of text; this feature is already attested in Theodore bar Koni, and it is also found in the independent manuscript tradition of the Lives, in both West and East Syriac manuscripts. It is interesting that the West Syriac manuscript Borg. Syr. 133 (dated 1224) has very much the same abbreviated text that is already found in the East Syriac tradition in Theodore (late 8th century); thus, for Obadiah they both have the following:33 Obadiah: from the land of Shechem. He was Head of Fifty of the soldiers of Ahab.34 He urged Elijah and went (as) his disciple; he bore many evils from Ahab because he had abandoned him and gone off after Elijah. (Theodore adds: He died in peace. Now he was held worthy of prophecy because he had followed Elijah).

Expansion An example of this can already be seen in the Milan Syrohexapla, in the Life of Jonah, where a whole sentence has been added (‘and he fled . . . three days and three nights’) to smooth over the abrupt following sentence, ‘And he was disgorged from the whale . . .’. In several of the later Syriac manuscripts there is a tendency to add chronological information, and this may sometimes be combined with further explanatory material of a specifically Christian interest. Thus, for example, at the end of the Life of Hosea, the division of the oak into twelve is explained in Mingana Syr 567 as follows: (. . . when the Lord comes on earth, the oak which is in Shilo will be divided into twelve parts of its own accord) + like the twelve tribes. He chose and guided to himself twelve disciples, and the world was assisted by them. He prophesied for 70 years, and preceded Christ in the body by 700 years; and he died and was buried in his country.

A number of expanded elements will also be found in the late East Syriac transmission of the Life of Jonah, cited below.

33 34

Borg. Syr. 133, f.75r; Theodore bar Koni, p. 350. See note 27, above; and the abbreviated text at note 38, below.

34

sebastian brock

Fusion and Confusion A good example of fusion is to be found in certain late manuscripts which have combined Zechariah I and II. The oldest manuscripts, represented by Nestle’s text, provide the following two entries: Zechariah I (ed. Nestle, lines 306–17): 1. Zechariah came from Beth Kaldaye when he was a young man.35 There he prophesied many things to the people, and gave signs as a demonstration. 2. He told Jozadaq that he would beget a son and he would be a priest in Jerusalem. 3. And he blessed Shelathiel himself, giving him the name of Zorobabel. 4. And concerning Cyrus he gave a sign of victory, and he foretold his ministry which he was to perform in Jerusalem, 5. and concerning the end of the peoples and of Israel, and of the temple, and the cessation of prophets and priests, and concerning the double judgement laid up. 6. He fell sick and died in great old age, and was buried beside Haggai. Zechariah II (ed. Nestle, lines 375–84): 1. Zechariah was from Jerusalem, the son of Jojada' the priest. He was killed by Joash beside the altar, and those of the house of David poured out his blood between the qastroma.36 The priests took him and buried him with his fathers. 2. From then on there were signs of hallucinations in the temple, and the priests were unable to behold the vision of the angels of God, or to give answer from the Debir, or to ask questions with the Ephod, or to steal37 (the hearts of ) the people with (oracular) signs, as previously.

35 As Michael Knibb pointed out, this is one of the places where the Ethiopic version follows the Syriac against the Greek (which has ‘already advanced’ sc. in days); Theodore bar Koni’s abbreviated Life (p. 351), by contrast, follows the Greek, ‘when he was an old man’. 36 All the Greek texts have Ailam (i.e. Hebrew 'ulam), but the Syriac substitutes qastroma (< Greek katastroma), which translates Hebrew 'ulam at Joel 2:17 and Ezek 8:16. Although the term does not occur at Matt 23:35 and Luke 11:51 (referring to Zechariah son of Barachiah), it does feature in a number of references to the verse, e.g. Syriac translation of Eusebius, Theophania (ed. Lee), IV.17; Chronica Minora (ed. Brooks), II, p. 109; Chronicon ad annum 1234 (ed. Chabot) I, p. 118. The Epiphanius recension (Ep1, 2) specifically identifies Zechariah II with the father of John the Baptist (a widespread tradition, on which see especially R. W. Cowley, “The Blood of Zechariah [Mt 23:35] in Ethiopian Exegetical Tradition”, Studia Patristica 18:1 [1985] 293–302). 37 The Syriac text has negnbun, which will be a corruption of ne'nun, ‘give answer’ (thus the Greek).

the


in syriac

35

Out of these two narratives a number of late East Syriac manuscripts provide a single text, consisting of three elements: (a) and (c) derive from Zechariah II, while (b) is from Zechariah I. (a) Zechariah was from Jerusalem, the son of Jojada' the priest whom Joash king of the Jews killed by the qastroma of the altar. (b) He told Jozadaq that he would beget a son and he would be a priest in Jerusalem; and he blessed Shelathiel with a son, giving him the name of Zorobabel. Concerning Cyrus, son of Cambyses, he gave a sign that he would renew the temple in Jerusalem. And he died in deep old age. (c) From then on there were signs of hallucinations in the temple, and the priests were unable to see the vision of the angels of God, or to give answer from the Debir, or to ask of the Ephod, or to steal (the hearts of ) the people as before with (oracular) signs. Another case of fusion of two different traditions concerning Obadiah is to be found in a different group of East Syriac manuscripts,38 and is also attested in the West Syriac tradition, in the Patriarch Michael’s Chronicle. The East Syriac version starts off with an abbreviated form of the original Syriac translation, identifying Obadiah with ‘the third captain of fifty’, of 2 Kgs 1:13 and (implicitly) with Ahab’s steward (1 Kgs 18:3; see note 27). It then goes on, however, to add a further identification, with the husband of the widow of 2 Kgs 4:1, and makes the reference to the Obadiah of 1 Kgs 18:3 explicit. The whole entry thus reads: Obadiah: from the land of Shechem. He was the captain of fifty on whom Elijah had pity, and he came down to him to Ahab. He was persuaded by Elijah and was instructed by him. And his wife is the person who came to Elisha and told him about her two sons who were required for the debt their father had incurred when he fed the 100 prophets whom he had hidden from Jezebel.

Michael simply added on the same information, but in a different form, at the end of the original translation: And Obadiah’s wife was the person who approached the prophet Elisha and he rescued her sons from the debtor by means of the water which

38

I use Mingana Syr. 152, 161 and 424.

36

sebastian brock he changed to oil, for he (sc. Obadiah) had borrowed and fed the groups of 50 prophets in those two caves.

It is intriguing that the same combination of traditions is to be found in the highly compressed account in Sinai Syr. 10: “Obadiah from the tribe of Ephraim: he was head of the forces of Ahab, he hid 100 prophets in a cave, and was a disciple of Elijah the prophet.” As an example of an interesting confusion which arose from a misunderstanding of the earlier form of the text, one might cite Theodore bar Koni’s section on Jonah, which was followed by Solomon of Bosra (with some variation at the end) and by at least part of the later Syriac manuscript tradition of the Lives (including Borg. Syr. 133). Some of the late East Syriac manuscripts add their own further contribution (given in square brackets below).39 In the original Syriac translation Jonah is identified as the son of the widow of Sarepta whom Elijah revived; in Theodore’s account this is no longer the case: instead Jonah visits the same widow, and she receives him as she had received Elijah. Theodore’s account (also found in Borg. Syr. 133) reads as follows (p. 351): Jonah was from Gad Hephar,40 the town of Adamant (Adamas), and close to Gaza and Ashkelon, by the edge of the sea. [+ After he had prophesied to the Ninevites in the time of king Sardana, (also in Solomon of Bosra)] he did not remain in his country, but took his mother and lived in the land of Athor since he was afraid of [+ the reproach and] the envy of the Jews because he had prophesied and his prophecy had not turned out in fact. [+ It is said that in the time of king Sardanapalos, in the second year of Uzziah, he was sent to preach repentance to the Ninevites. They say that this king burnt himself in fire, because he was defeated by Arbaq the Mede. The place to which Jonah wanted to go and flee to is said to be Antioch, but others say Tarsus]. He rebuked Ahab and summoned a famine over the earth; he fled and came to Elijah’s widow, and dwelt with her; and he blessed her because she had received him as with Elijah. And he returned again to Judah. His mother died on the way and he buried her beside the tomb of Deborah, and he dwelt in the land of Sarida. He was buried in the cave of Qenez. This man prophesied that when Christ comes, the city of the Jews will fall.

39 I use Mingana Syr. 108 and 567; the New York manuscript translated by Hall has the same text. 40 This place name, altered from the names found in Nestle’s text and in the Milan Syrohexapla, is of course based on 2 Kings 14:25.

the


in syriac

37

These preliminary soundings have largely been concerned with basic features and with certain aspects of the inner development of the Syriac tradition; only superficially have they touched on the relationship of the earliest form of this translation to the Greek. Clearly the Syriac, which must go back at least to the sixth century, is a witness of considerable importance which deserves a detailed study. Likewise there is much more that could be said of the many intriguing features of the Syriac tradition in its own right.

THE FORMATION AND RENEWAL OF SCRIPTURAL TRADITION George J. Brooke Introduction1 This essay is a consideration of some aspects of the formation and renewal of scriptural tradition. In what does tradition consist? What are its parameters? Although the term “tradition” is widely used, not least by scholars of the Bible, even in the titles of books2 or as the label for a critical way of life (Traditionsgeschichte), little has been written to my knowledge which explicitly discusses the constituent parts of tradition or its motivating forces.3 I am sure that what I present here is inadequate both in itself, and also as a token of the esteem in which Michael Knibb is held. Nevertheless the topic has seemed to me to capture some of the overall concerns of Michael’s research and publications, many of which are referred to in this study. Looking to the Past Fascination Almost as much as R. H. Charles, the name of Michael Knibb is associated with 1 Enoch.4 As may become apparent in several parts 1 This essay is based on a lecture that I was privileged to deliver at a study day in March 2003 at King’s College London in honour of Professor Michael A. Knibb, F.B.A. I first met Michael in 1978 in the Deanery at Salisbury, over a glass of whisky bountifully supplied by the Very Reverend Sydney Evans, a former Dean of King’s. In several ways Sydney Evans embodied tradition and it is that topic which has provided a framework for this consideration of Michael’s work. 2 A good example is G. W. Anderson (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation. Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979). 3 The index to G. W. Anderson (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation, p. 459, gives some indication what such a survey might include: “Tradition: Complexes, Jerusalemite, Jewish, Local, Monarchical, Pre-Monarchical, Mosaic, Oral, Parallel, Transmission, Tribal, Reinterpretation, Sinai, Written.” It is categories such as “transmission” and “reinterpretation” which I attempt to articulate in some form in this essay. 4 M. A. Knibb, “A New Edition of the Ethiopic Enoch in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments” (PhD Dissertation. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1974); A New Edition of the Ethiopic Enoch in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (in consultation with E. Ullendorff. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978);

40

george j. brooke

of this essay it is 1 Enoch that poses the conundrum of tradition as much as any set of compositions from the late second temple period. On the one hand much that is associated with Enoch seems nonscriptural, but on the other hand it is obvious that Enoch is mentioned in the primeval history as seventh from Adam; he is part of Genesis, part of the Torah. To this extent he belongs somewhere among the lists of the great, even heading one such roll call in some versions of Ben Sira 44:16: “Enoch pleased the Lord and was taken up, an example of repentance to all generations.” A similar approbation is rehearsed at the end of the sequence: “Few have ever been created on earth like Enoch, for he was taken up from the earth” (Sir 49:14). Through this reference to authoritative scripture, a case can be made for at least the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36) to be viewed as some form of rewritten Bible composition.5 Knibb puts the same point in another way: “the number of writings associated with the name of Enoch is an indication of the fascination which this figure held for later generations, a fascination aroused no doubt by the enigmatic statement of Gen 5:24, ‘Having walked with God, Enoch was seen no more, because God had taken him away’.” There is a straightforward fascination with some aspects of the past which leads to reflection upon their significance and importance for the reader or hearer. Fascination leads to the formation of tradition. Aetiological Readings A second aspect of the past which is present within scripture as tradition, but which is also present in the conversion of scripture into tradition is the search in the past for explanations for things. Two examples can be offered briefly from Knibb’s discussion of sectarian compositions found in the Qumran library. First, the lessons of the past that are rehearsed in CD 2:14–3:12 are “a summary of some of the main events of Israel’s past in which it is shown that by following the guilty inclination God’s people had repeatedly brought punishment on themselves. The purpose of the summary governed Het Boek Henoch. Het eerste of het Ethiopische boek van Henoch (Deventer: Hermes, 1983); “1 Enoch”, in H. F. D. Sparks (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), pp. 184–319; “The Ethiopic Book of Enoch”, in M. de Jonge (ed.), Outside the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985), pp. 26–55. 5 See e.g. D. Dimant, “1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work”, JJS (2002) 223–37: “we may already assign 1 Enoch 6–11 to the growing body of texts reworking the Bible to various degrees” (p. 237).

the formation and renewal of scriptural tradition

41

the choice of the events and persons mentioned in that almost all are negative in character.”6 The rehearsal of scriptural traditions is a rhetorical device to explain why punishment overtakes God’s people who might have thought themselves in some way immune from divine wrath. The recitation of past punishments serves as an explanation for how and why the group reading the text can and should understand that the rest of Israel is still under punishment in some way. Another aetiological reading of tradition can be observed in Knibb’s description of part of the so-called Treatise on the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community 3:13–4:1. “The explanation of human behaviour in terms of an explicit dualism represents a new development in Judaism, but the background to the ideas of the Community Rule can be found in the Old Testament itself. The Old Testament often speaks of God’s spirit which stirs men to action (cf. e.g. Judg 14:6; 1 Sam 10:10), but it also knows of spirits that are to some extent independent of him (cf. e.g. 2 Kgs 19:7; Num 27:16); it can even speak of God sending an evil (1 Sam 16:14–16) or a lying (1 Kgs 22:21–3) spirit. The doctrine of the two spirits in the Rule may be seen as a development of these Old Testament ideas, a development perhaps influenced by the dualistic beliefs of Zoroastrianism, the religion of ancient Iran.”7 Scriptural traditions are seen to lie at the basis of the construction of an elaborate doctrine explaining why humans behave as they do. Alternative Pasts A particular interest in the past may result from awareness that there are alternative ways in which the past can be read and reconstructed. Authoritative versions of the past, however convoluted and multifaceted, such as those collections of definitive traditions to be found in the Torah, always represent the vision or visions of one or a few sets of people; it is the victors who write the history. But there are always alternative pasts and the writings compiled in 1 Enoch may be understood as much as an alternative version of the past as they can be comprehended as some kind of interpretation of what many 6 M. A. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200, 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987), p. 29. 7 M. A. Knibb, The Qumran Community, pp. 95–96.

42

george j. brooke

may have thought was the authoritative or definitive vision as found in Genesis. A significant set of alternative pasts can be found in the many different views in the late second temple period concerning the duration of the exile. In a significant article on “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period”,8 which has been much cited, Knibb has laid out some aspects of the views of the past which consideration of the motif of exile entails. Several groups seem to have held the common opinion that the exile did not finish in the sixth century, but that in some real sense, Israel remained in exile beyond the time of Cyrus. For some, such as those responsible for parts of 1 Enoch and Daniel, the past was constructed on the basis of exegesis of various prophetic passages, most notably the seventy years of Jeremiah, for others there was an attempt to offer what might be called an integrated reading of the past based on the schematic application of a pattern, discernible elsewhere in the traditions of Israel’s history in which Israel goes repetitively through the stages of sin, exile and return.9 Although those in power in Jerusalem from the fifth century bce onwards might have considered themselves to belong to the stage of return, others (for their own purposes) viewed themselves as belonging still to the period of exile. But alternative pasts can also be created in minor and subtle ways (and often of course with an eye to the present). It is intriguing to observe in 2 Esd 1:38 that Ezra is designated as father. The title does not occur in the Hebrew Bible; for Ezra it occurs only in 2 Esd 1:38 and 2:5. “Perhaps the author’s intention was to compare Ezra with Abraham who is more usually called ‘father’; cf. Luke 16:24, 30.”10 By applying the designation of Abraham to Ezra the author creates an affiliation in every sense of the word and maybe suggests by inference what he most certainly intends, that the Church is the immediate heir to the promises given to Abraham; Ezra becomes 8 M. A. Knibb, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period”, Heythrop Journal 17 (1976) 253–72. 9 Knibb has further developed his interests in the conceptualisation of the extent of the exile in his study “A Note on 4Q372 and 4Q390 ”, in F. García Martínez, A. Hilhorst and C. J. Labuschagne (eds.), The Scriptures and the Scrolls. Studies in Honour of A. S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (VTSup 49. Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 164–77. 10 M. A. Knibb, “Commentary on 2 Esdras”, in R. J. Coggins and M. A. Knibb, The First and Second Books of Esdras (Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1979), p. 87.


43

a means of passing the divine promises given to Abraham directly to the readership of the adjusted 2 Esdras. The scriptural tradition is construed and appropriated in a way that is an alternative to the majority Jewish reading of the same scriptural source. In the opening of 2 Esdras 3 something similar happens. The prayer of Ezra opens with his setting himself in Babylon thirty years after the fall of Jerusalem. Though many scholars have agonized over the datings of Ezra and Nehemiah, none has taken the view that Ezra belongs actively to thirty years after the destruction of the first temple. The author knows it too and so has Ezra take the name of Salathiel, in Hebrew Shealtiel. Shealtiel was either the uncle (1 Chr 3:17–19) or father (Ezra 3:2) of Zerubbabel. Whatever the case he is a suitable “link between the beginning and the end of the period of the exile, and a date thirty years after 587 bc is not inappropriate for him.”11 Through an ingenious device the author of 2 Esdras 3 creates an alternative past which allows for a typological comparison between the time after the destruction of the first temple and the same time after the destruction of the second. A little bit of revision for suitable reasons can go a long way. Looking to the Present Making the Past Present 1. Translation Translations, both ancient and modern, play their role in enhancing or inhibiting scriptural traditions, particularly in the ways in which they make texts from the past available to contemporary readers and listeners. Knibb has undertaken much translation work and commented upon issues of method faced by the translator.12 His Schweich Lectures on the Ethiopic version of the Old Testament provide his keenest insights into the work of translators as the transmitters and adaptors of tradition.13 In his first chapter he outlines

11

M. A. Knibb, “Commentary on 2 Esdras”, p. 115. E.g., M. A. Knibb, “The Translation of 1 Enoch 70.1: Some Methodological Issues”, in A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts. Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman ( JSOTSup 333. The Hebrew Bible and its Versions, 2. London: Sheffield Academic, 2001), pp. 340–54. 13 M. A. Knibb, Translating the Bible. The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament (The 12

44

george j. brooke

many of the problems (and some of their solutions) that modern scholars face in the analysis of Bible translations in a language such as Geez. One of those problems might be the gap between the likely date of translation and the actual date of the earliest manuscript witnesses, so that it is not always clear whether one is reading the tradition as adapted by the translator or as transmitted and generated over generations through the minor adaptations of scribes. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Ethiopic version of the Old Testament was made primarily, if not necessarily exclusively, from the Septuagint. However, it is equally clear that the whole was not completed from a single known text-type or recension,14 although some books may be associated with individual manuscripts or text-types. In addition to the initial translations of individual books, there has been a more or less complicated process of revision, a process that may well have begun very shortly after the initial act of translation. Furthermore there is some debate concerning whether Syriac and Hebrew manuscripts were used at the time of the original translations or only subsequently, for the Syriac particularly through the Syro-Arabic text. Only detailed consideration of all the manuscript evidence permits modern readers to know which generation of traditors is responsible for what. As far as the Ethiopic version is concerned, Knibb’s detailed investigations, based particularly on Ezekiel, show that though the restraints of the Ethiopic language require many minor adjustments as the Greek is rendered into Ethiopic, the version nevertheless provides not a literal rendering but a “faithful” translation.15 This “faithfulness” is expressed in many minor deliberate additions and omissions and the use of free translation that is usually the simplification of the underlying text, but occasionally seems to suggest that the translator simply did not understand what he was reading. Part of the free translation is an apparent lack of consistency in the rendering of certain Greek words: consistency in verbal rendition was not pursued for its own sake but in light of the variety of renderings of some words, which Knibb describes as “instinctive”, it is difficult to

Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1995. Oxford: Oxford University for the British Academy, 1999). 14 M. A. Knibb, Translating the Bible, p. 19. 15 M. A. Knibb, Translating the Bible, p. 61.


45

“speak with any certainty of the intention of the translators”.16 Overall, understanding the place of translators of scripture as transmitters and adaptors of tradition is returning to the scholarly agenda. In part this seems to be the result of the way in which the so-called biblical manuscripts from the Qumran caves have reinstated the ancient versions as witnesses to more than just dozens of scribal errors through which families of manuscripts can be stemmatically related. As for modern translations, one example may be cited. In his comments on the New English Bible version of 2 Esdras, Knibb notes that the NEB version is often more paraphrastic than is helpful in revealing the background of several passages. In 2 Esd 6:1–5 the “description of the time before creation is similar to the description in Prov 8:24–9 (although the NEB translation does not fully bring out the points of contact), and Prov 8 may have been in the mind of the author when he wrote this passage.”17 In this respect, because the NEB has an agenda other than the faithful representation of tradition, unlike those who rendered the Greek Old Testament into Ethiopic, it does not faithfully represent the tradition that is being developed from a scriptural source in an early Jewish text. 2. Exegesis In that significant article already mentioned on “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,”18 Knibb not only suggested that there were alternative ways of constructing the past, but also he laid out some aspects of the role of exegesis in bridging the gap between the past and the present. In the article he was particularly concerned with describing the various ways in which the exile is referred to in early Jewish literature. Overall he saw many common issues in the various early Jewish writings that he discusses: a shared view that Israel remained in a state of exile long after the sixth century and that the exile would only be brought to an end when God intervened in this world order to establish his rule. But it is varieties of exegesis that particularly draw his attention. Daniel and 1 Enoch variously interpret and reuse the prophecies of Jeremiah, especially the seventy-year prophecy, in order to provide an overall 16

M. M. 18 M. Heythrop 17

A. Knibb, Translating the Bible, pp. 110–12. A. Knibb, “Commentary on 2 Esdras”, p. 146. A. Knibb, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period”, Journal 17 (1976) 253–72.

46

george j. brooke

periodized chronicle within which the authors stand at pivotal moments. The Assumption of Moses takes the exegesis of Jeremiah in Daniel yet a stage further, and the alternative traditional periodization of history, also represented in Daniel, of four world empires, is picked up and reworked in Enochic writings as well as in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. In many and various ways the prophets of old are interpreted; the interpretation obviously forms the basis of developing tradition. Another example of exegesis at work is plain to see in the prayer in 2 Esd 6:38b–59. This is a reworking of the story of creation in order to state a problem of concern to the author, namely, that “if the world was created for Israel’s sake, why is she ruled over by other nations and unable to enter into possession of the world (verses 55–9)?”19 The creation story is not retold verbatim, but adjusted in minor but significant ways. Some of the adjustments allow the modern reader to see that the author has introduced ideas that reflect some aspects of contemporary Jewish cosmology and its active spirits (2 Esdras 6:41; cf. 1 Enoch 60:15–21). Other additions, such as the notion that the sea occupies one seventh of the world and the land six-sevenths are otherwise unknown, though seven is a common and significant number in other respects.20 3. Making sense of experience Something of the significance of the role of translation and exegesis has already been indicated. Both activities, which may not in the end be entirely distinguishable from one another, are undertaken because translators and interpreters recognise the significance for themselves of the texts of another group and another time. Such texts are taken seriously, understood authoritatively, and brought into the present to assist contemporary hearers or readers to make sense of their own experiences. But the process from text to tradition is far from straightforward; all manner of convoluted intervening stages are to be recognised, not least many of those now to be associated with the phenomenon of rewriting and reworking texts of emerging authority. Who suggests which texts will be relevant for making sense of the present? How is the interpretative process to work? Who will assess or recognise it as suitable interpretation? 19

M. A. Knibb, “Commentary on 2 Esdras”, p. 156. Cf. 1 Enoch 77:4–8. For commentary on this section of 2 Esdras see M. A. Knibb, “Commentary on 2 Esdras”, pp. 156–57. 20


47

There are indeed many instances when it is difficult for modern readers to understand the process of the creation of the literature before them. One such example can be seen in 2 Esd 1:26. Part of Israel’s rejection as depicted in the passage is phrased as follows: “when you pray to me, I will not listen. You have stained your hands with blood.” Apparently this is based on Isa 1:15: “When you lift your hands outspread in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you. Though you offer countless prayers, I will not listen. There is blood on your hands.” As such the rejection of Israel seems to be the fulfilment of prophecy. But it could also be the case that such a reference to blood may rather “have been occasioned by Jewish illtreatment of Christians”.21 Which came first, knowledge of the prophetic text that is selected for its negative picture of the relationship between God and Israel, or the experience of persecution at the hands of some Jews for which a suitable piece of prophetic tradition was sought by way of explanation? We can never know, nor do we need to, since commonly it is the two matters that work hand in hand: tradition, and the language it provides, and experience are formatively interwoven at all times. Occasionally, however, it is clearer which takes priority in the process. 4. Pluralism of tradition An important aspect of understanding the role of tradition in the late second temple period has become increasingly apparent as the entire corpus of extant compositions amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls has been published. It is no longer possible to argue that tradition is passed from one generation to another along single trajectories. Intelligent readings of the evidence from before the fall of the temple in 70 ce and even thereafter demand that the pluralities of early Jewish tradition are taken seriously. No longer is it possible, even if it ever was, to read back interpretative norms in a direct way from one age into another. That the past, or traditions from the past, has more than one meaning is clear to see; there are as many pasts as there are observers in the present. We have already described and commented briefly on the range of views concerning the continuation of the exile in the second temple period. Another, but much smaller example of

21

M. A. Knibb, “Commentary on 2 Esdras”, p. 84.

48

george j. brooke

such diverse readings of the past can be seen in 2 Esd 5:7 in which a prophecy of fish in the Dead Sea is understood as a reversal of the natural order and as such an ominous portent of something destructive. The prophecy on which the idea may well be based, Ezek 47:7–10, portrays fish in the Dead Sea as one of the blessings of the new era22 and such could also be envisaged in other more or less contemporary Jewish texts.23 What is it to be, blessing or curse? Does it just depend on whether one likes fish? 5. The Process of Accretion For 1 Enoch it is clear that the earlier Enoch traditions develop and are elaborated through a process of formative accretion: “the book of Watchers is, with the exception of the book of Astronomy, the oldest part of 1 Enoch and the basis upon which the other sections have been built; there are allusions to it and echoes of it in the Parables, the book of Dreams and the Epistle. It is not all of one piece, but acquired its present form by a process of accretion”.24 Or, even within the book of Watchers “it would appear that chapters 12–16 stem from the author of the book of watchers himself; they serve as an elaboration of the material in chapters 6–11, which was probably taken over from the book of Noah. Much of what is said in the earlier chapters is repeated, but one significant new point is made: the continuing existence of evil in the world is attributed to the activities of the spirits which are held to have come from the giants (cf. 15:8–12).”25 The same can be said of much of the literature that is found in the authoritative collections of Law, Prophets and Writings, but also in many instances in the early Jewish literature of the second temple period. A fine example of such a process of accretion is the growth of 2 Esdras. In his commentary on the work, Knibb offers a succinct summary of the process whereby the three constituent parts of this

22

M. A. Knibb, “Commentary on 2 Esdras”, p. 133. See the references in G. J. Brooke, “4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:11”, in B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold, A. Steudel (eds.), Antikes Judentum und Frühes Christentum. Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag (BZNW 97. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), pp. 253–65; reprinted in G. J. Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Essays in Mutual Illumination (London: SPCK/Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2005), pp. 282–97. 24 M. A. Knibb, “The Ethiopic Book of Enoch”, p. 29. 25 M. A. Knibb, “The Ethiopic Book of Enoch”, p. 39. 23


49

composite work have been put together: “2 Esdras 15–16 seems to have been written from the outset as an appendix to chs. 3–14 which was intended to make the earlier work relevant to a new situation, chs. 1–2 initially had an independent existence.”26 The different character of 2 Esdras 1–2 is based on the presentation of Ezra as a prophetic inaugurator of a particular reading of the tradition with the thesis that Israel has been rejected (2 Esd 1:1–2:9) and the Church with her glorious future has taken Israel’s place (2 Esd 2:10–48); the author of the two chapters draws “very heavily on the Old and New Testaments for the language and content of his work which in places has the appearance of being a mosaic of biblical quotations.”27 Identity The traditions in which authors stand and to which they appeal betray something of their identity and social location.28 Indeed, in the absence of passports and other documentation, it is through the correct reading of their traditions that authors may be most suitably identified. A simple but persuasive example makes the case. The character of the passage in 2 Esd 1:28–32 in which God expresses his concern for Israel emphasizes that Israel’s rejection was very far from being God’s original intention. The character of the passage is a strong indication that “the author was a Jewish, rather than a gentile, Christian”.29 Much more complicated has been the scholarly discussion of the last thirty years concerning the identification of the traditors of the early Jewish apocalypses. Much ink has been spilt on this matter, but Knibb has attempted to shed some light on the complex issues involved. In his contribution to the Ackroyd Festschrift, a volume which he also co-edited, he considers the topic of prophecy and the emergence of the Jewish apocalypses. He discusses what might be known about those who developed the biblical traditions in the ways 26

M. A. Knibb, “Commentary on 2 Esdras”, p. 76. M. A. Knibb, “Commentary on 2 Esdras”, pp. 77–78; many of the likely Old Testament sources (from the Law, Prophets and Psalms) are noted briefly by Knibb on p. 80. 28 Though it is also very easy to over-interpret matters; see, e.g., Knibb’s criticism of G. W. E. Nickelsburg’s view, based on certain key geographical signals, that 1 Enoch 6–16 was composed in Galilee: M. A. Knibb, “Interpreting the Book of Enoch: Reflections on a Recently Published Commentary”, JSJ 33 (2002) 437–450, p. 450. 29 M. A. Knibb, “Commentary on 2 Esdras”, p. 85. 27

50

george j. brooke

that are represented in the eschatologies and cosmologies of the apocalypses. In evaluating the place of wisdom as the source and context for the writing of the apocalypses over against those who were the heirs of the prophetic traditions, he characteristically and astutely describes the apocalypses as “a kind of interpretative literature” which is a significant feature of their character as learned writings. “The Jewish apocalypses,” he concludes, “are properly to be regarded as a continuation of Old Testament prophecy, but they belong very firmly within a learned tradition.”30 This might seem very tentative, but discovering the identity of traditors from the traditions they pass on and develop is no easy matter; Knibb has been the master of resisting grand reconstructions that might fall once one fine detail of a text has been understood aright or which depend on extensive arguments from silence. For Daniel he has been able to argue that while the vision-reports in Daniel 7 and 8 clearly show continuity with a literary genre familiar in prophetic literature, in fact it is plain that “there is overwhelming evidence which suggests that the Book of Daniel is rooted firmly in the traditions of wisdom”.31 Daniel is a book embedded in the mantological exegesis of oracles. Such a conclusion can be supported, furthermore, by consideration of other compositions: “the texts preserved in 4Q243–44, 4Q245, and 4Q246 all appear to represent a continuation of the tradition according to which Daniel was a mantic attached to the royal court, the mediator of divine revelations, just as he is in Daniel 2, 4, and 5, and all probably are dependent on the biblical book.”32 If the discussion of the identity of those who wrote and developed the traditions present in the early Jewish apocalypses is ongoing, so also is the debate about the origins of the Qumran community and more widely of the Essenes from which they come. In reaction against and in interaction with the proposals of J. Murphy-O’Connor in several articles Knibb has investigated the parameters of the traditions 30 M. A. Knibb, “Prophecy and the Emergence of the Jewish Apocalypses”, in R. Coggins, A. Phillips and M. A. Knibb (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition. Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1982), pp. 155–180, p. 169. 31 M. A. Knibb, “‘You are indeed wiser than Daniel’: Reflections on the Character of the Book of Daniel”, in A. S. van der Woude (ed.), The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (BETL 106. Leuven: Peeters, 1993), pp. 399–411, p. 403. 32 M. A. Knibb, “The Book of Daniel in its Context”, in J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001), I, pp. 16–35, p. 31.


51

to be found in the sectarian texts and found that claims for a Babylonian origin for the movement to be unfounded. Whether it is in considering the motif of exile and the movement’s self-understanding in their relation to its end,33 or whether in terms of the role of the Book of Jubilees in the matter,34 Knibb has repeatedly argued that the Essenes belong in Palestine. Through his handling of the traditions developed from such writings as parts of 1 Enoch, Daniel, Ben Sira, and especially Jubilees, he has concluded that “it seems entirely plausible to think of the Essenes—and the Qumran community—emerging in a Palestinian context from the movement that lies behind Jubilees.”35 Traditions create identity; identity reforms and renews tradition. Another matter of identity that has taken Knibb’s time concerns the Teacher of Righteousness. In discussing 1QHa 12:8b–9a (“They have banished me from my land like a bird from its nest”) and 13:7b–8a (“You have placed me in a dwelling with many fishers who spread a net upon the face of the waters and with the hunters of the sons of iniquity”) Knibb declares that “the first passage quotes from Prov 27:8, the second is built up from Jer 16:16 and Isa 19:8. In view of these considerations it is difficult to interpret the Qumran Hymns as referring to concrete experiences of a specific individual.”36 In this way Knibb demonstrates that sometimes becoming aware of the scriptural traditions through which an individual is portrayed may obscure as much as reveal their identity. Inventing the Past 1. Apocalyptic The invention of the past commonly belongs to innovators who claim authority for their utterances and understandings of the world in terms of the medium through which they have had access to the heavenly secrets. At its most extreme this access to heaven reflects

33

M. A. Knibb, “Exile in the Damascus Document”, JSOT 25 (1983) 99–117. M. A. Knibb, Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community (An Inaugural Lecture in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies. London: King’s College, 1989). 35 M. A. Knibb, “Exile in the Damascus Document”, p. 114. 36 “The Teacher of Righteousness—A Messianic Title?”, in P. R. Davies and R. T. White (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History ( JSOTSup 100. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), pp. 51–65, p. 54. 34

52

george j. brooke

individual religious experience that cannot ultimately be verified. Most institutional religion is astutely suspicious of such experience and any claims based upon it. Despite the continuing appearance of apocalyptic motifs in the sectarian scrolls from Qumran, it does not seem surprising to me that the sectarian compositions do not contain the description of any individualistic visions. The Qumran community was not an apocalyptic community, whatever that might mean, but a reforming one: nearly all the compositions in its library can be seen as developments of traditions found in one authoritative scripture or another.37 In the strict sense, the community and the movement of which it was a part, was traditional, as Knibb has pointed out most extensively in his book on the Qumran community.38 However, even apocalypses in their most explicit form as narrations of visions or auditions are caught out by the need to find a language in which their insights can be rendered meaningful. Most apocalypses depend upon a standard set of literary tropes which have developed in various ways from prophetic and other traditions, as has been often observed, not least by Knibb himself. 2. Experience It is clear too that another cause of inventing a past may come from one’s experiences in the present. The section of 1 Enoch known as the Book of Astronomy may well be the oldest part of 1 Enoch, in some form or other,39 dating to the third century bce. When considering the provenance of the Book of Astronomy, Knibb points out that the interest in astronomy reflects a concern over the calendar, and “underlying the material (as well as material in Jubilees and the Qumran scrolls) is a dispute about the proper calendar to be followed.”40 Such a calendrical concern may well go back many years before the author of the Book of Astronomy set out his stall, but a significant motivating factor behind creating the Book and associating it with the knowledge which Enoch was privileged with according to tradition arises from a present uncertainty which required the author to take a point of view on the matter. Whatever the influences on the author may 37

As I have tried to argue explicitly in G. J. Brooke, “The Dead Sea Scrolls”, in J. Barton (ed.), The Biblical World (2 vols. London: Routledge, 2002), I, pp. 250–69. 38 M. A. Knibb, The Qumran Community. 39 The differences between the calendrical information in the Aramaic forms of the Astronomical Book and that in the Ethiopic version are sometimes overlooked. 40 M. A. Knibb, “The Ethiopic Book of Enoch”, p. 28.


53

have been, part of the need for laying out the way it should be seen in relation to the practice of one calendar rather than another may well have been the very ambiguity of the tradition concerning the matter. Appeal to Enoch with regard to the solar calendar could at least take advantage of his age: 365 years. Looking to the Future: Projection and Retrojection Careful study of the literary compositions of early Judaism shows that in several instances traditions are projected into the future and then retrojected to the present in order, through expressions of hope and fear, to encourage a particular world view in the here and now. In a number of studies Knibb has studied the messianism of the second temple period. One example of his cautious handling of text and tradition concerns his sensitivity towards the Ethiopic phraseology involved in the presentation of the Son of Man in 1 Enoch. Based in part on his analysis of the use of the demonstrative in Ethiopic Ezekiel, he concludes that the presence or absence of the demonstrative with reference to the angelic scribe (Ezek 9:2) “seems to have been entirely an arbitrary matter.”41 Therefore, in relation to the Son of Man in 1 Enoch nothing should be made of the presence or absence of the demonstrative as some scholars have proposed.42 More overtly in relation to the sectarian scrolls from Qumran, Knibb has proposed that any discussion of messianism should begin with the reference in Rule of the Community 9:11 to “the coming of a prophet and the messiahs of Aaron and Israel” and the list of prooftexts in 4QTestimonia. His initial discussion of the importance of these texts in combination stresses that they reflect what has become known as a typical Qumran expectation of two messiahs, one a priest and the other a royal figure. “The roots of this belief in exilic and post-exilic texts are well known.”43 Knibb thus acknowledges that Qumran messianic belief is an expression for the future based on the developments of traditions from the past. He goes on to argue this in the particular case of the most suitable understanding of the

41

M. A. Knibb, Translating the Bible, p. 73. Cf. M. A. Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls”, DSD 2 (1995) 165–184, p. 179. 43 M. A. Knibb, “Eschatology and Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2, pp. 379–402, p. 385. 42

54

george j. brooke

figure of the Interpreter of the Law in the Damascus Document. Is the Interpreter of the Law a priest or a prophet? By evaluating the various kinds of scriptural traditions which might be seen as having influenced the precise functions of the Interpreter of the Law, Knibb concludes, suitably to my mind,44 that a background in Deut 33:8–11 and the attributes of Levi support viewing the eschatological interpreter as priest. This view is well supported by other sectarian compositions at Qumran. But there is more to Knibb’s description of messianism at Qumran which is worth mentioning. He outlines the views of H. Stegemann concerning the existence of three stages in the development of messianic beliefs amongst the community part of which eventually came to occupy Qumran: to begin with there was a collective view, as in Daniel, then an expression of a royal messianism (1QSa, 1QSb) developed in reaction against the priestly pretensions of Jonathan Maccabee, then a third stage in which the expectations of a prophet and a priest were developed. For Stegemann all comes about through the Essenes reflecting on certain deficits in their contemporary understandings of their experiences: the rejection of Jonathan’s pretensions creates royal messianism and the death of the Teacher produces yet further developments. Knibb’s succinct comment on the view of Stegemann sums up neatly several aspects of what I have tried to present in this essay on the formation and renewal of scriptural tradition: “It is difficult to know,” he states, “how to balance the relative influence of tradition, as represented by the texts in the Hebrew Bible that were interpreted in a messianic sense, against the direct impact of events in the formation of messianic beliefs. But the messianic interpretation which is apparently given to Gen 49:10 and Num 24:17 in the Septuagint shows that these ideas were already traditional by the second century bce, and at least to this extent Stegemann’s emphasis on the creative role of the Essenes in the formation of messianic beliefs seems questionable.”45 Just so. In addition, one may note that it is not just a question of modern readers trying to discern whether the development of tradition depends more upon interpretative antecedents or more on actual life experiences; it is also worth noting that however the tradition is being developed, 44 Since this agrees with what I have concluded: G. J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran. 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context ( JSOTSup 29. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), pp. 202–205. 45 M. A. Knibb, “Eschatology and Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, p. 392.


55

in part its significance for making sense of the present derives from projecting matters into the future which when suitably expressed in some way bring illumination to the present in light of the past: projection and retrojection is what seems to take place in the development and expression of eschatological traditions. A further example of this is presented by Knibb in his study of the Book of Enoch in the light of the Qumran wisdom literature. Knibb argues that the problematic phrase raz nihyeh “includes knowledge of past, present, and future (4Q418 123 i–ii 3–4), understanding of the present order of the world (“the ways of truth . . . all the roots of iniqity”; 4Q416 2 iii 14), and knowledge concerning the future judgement (4Q217 2 I 10c–11).”46 Knibb notes that this speculation concerning wisdom has its background in texts like Prov 8:22–31 and Job 28. With regard to the Book of Remembrance of 4Q417 1 i 14–18 Knibb comments that “the reference to the ‘vision of meditation’ perhaps suggests that revelation is linked to the understanding of scripture.”47 Thus past, present and future are brought together to illuminate the present in particular; all is based on scriptural tradition projected into the future and then retrojected into the present. Altogether Knibb notes how the description of the divine descent for judgement referred to in 1 Enoch 17–19,48 “as of that in chapters 20–36, that it draws extensively on the Hebrew Bible for its content—not by way of direct quotation, but by incorporating and reworking material from relevant passages into the narrative. The way in which the narrative, from one point of view, represents the outcome of reflection upon, and interpretation of, scripture gives the narrative something of a learned character.”49

46 M. A. Knibb, “The Book of Enoch in the Light of the Qumran Wisdom Literature”, in F. García Martínez (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BETL 168. Leuven: Peeters, 2003), pp. 193–210, p. 202. 47 “The Book of Enoch in the Light of the Qumran Wisdom Literature”, p. 203. 48 Knibb has developed his ideas on the use of scripture in 1 Enoch 17–19 in “The Use of Scripture in 1 Enoch 17–19”, in F. García Martínez and G. P. Luttikhuizen (eds.), Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome. Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst ( JSJSup 82. Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 165–78. A somewhat different and less nuanced view of the use of scripture in 1 Enoch 17–19 is taken by K. C. Bautch, A Study of Geography of I Enoch 17–19. ‘No One Has Seen What I Have Seen’ ( JSJSup 81. Leiden: Brill, 2003). 49 “The Book of Enoch in the Light of the Qumran Wisdom Literature”, p. 209.

56

george j. brooke The Demise of Tradition

This essay has focussed on some of the ingredients which create and renew tradition over many generations, but consideration of the nature of such an amorphous phenomenon as scriptural tradition would not be complete without reflecting briefly on the demise of tradition. Since the discovery of their absence amongst the Qumran finds, the Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71) have exercised not a few creative minds. As is well known, the Son of Man traditions are present exclusively for the Enoch materials in the Parables section. Of particular concern has been their dating, not least because of the interest of many scholars in ascertaining whether the Enochic Son of Man traditions in any form have influenced either Jesus himself, in the way he chose to talk about himself, or those who talked and wrote about him. When J. T. Milik published his landmark preliminary edition of many of the Qumran Enoch fragments50 with the proposal that the Parables section was likely to belong to the third century ce and to have been added to the corpus of 1 Enoch even later, there were several critical reactions. Amongst the most detailed was a critical review by Knibb, first delivered in draft at King’s College in May 1978 and subsequently at the SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminar in Paris the same year.51 Milik’s proposals depend upon a number of details which when scrutinised closely do not seem to be very strong arguments. His use of the early third century Sibylline literature as a source for some parts of the Parables, notably 1 Enoch 61:1 (Sib. Or. 2:233–37) and 1 Enoch 56:5–7 (Sib. Or. 5:104–10) are not detailed enough to demonstrate securely dependence of the Parables on the Sibyllines. His similar insistence that 1 Enoch 51:1–3 depend upon 2 Esdras 7:32–33 and Pseudo-Philo’s Book of Biblical Antiquities (L.A.B.) is more assertion than fact, since the dependence could well be the other way. Two factors are used by Knibb to indicate a possible way forward. Whilst acknowledging that the lack of the Parables amongst the 50 J. T. Milik (with the collaboration of M. Black), The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976); for a review see E. Ullendorff and M. A. Knibb, BSOAS 40 (1977) 601–602. 51 M. A. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review”, NTS 25 (1979) 345–59.


57

Qumran Enoch fragments makes it unlikely that they were written and transmitted within broad Essene circles before the destruction of Qumran in 68 ce, he uses our knowledge of the traditions in the Parables in two subtle ways which are exemplary for the mature handling of complex evidence such as is found in what survives of this literature. The most significant is his concern to argue that where it is difficult or even impossible to show the literary dependence of one form of a tradition upon another, then the first step should be to let the traditions stand in juxtaposition side by side. The similarities and differences between 1 Enoch 51:1–3, 2 Esdras 7:32–33 and the L.A.B. 3:10, should encourage the reader to suppose their contemporaneity, rather than provoking insecure constructions of tradition history. But a second factor supports the permission which Knibb gives for us to take these traditions together. Milik has argued for the late date of the Parables on the grounds of the absence of any interest in the Son of Man in Christian writers of the first to fourth centuries. Knibb turns the argument on its head and notes that interest in Son of Man christology died out with the composition of the Gospels, so it is hardly surprising that there should be no quotations in early Christian literature from the Son of Man sections of the Enoch corpus, when there is so little concern for the title Son of Man in any case. The tradition which Jesus picks up from mixing the Book of Daniel with common parlance and which is developed in sundry ways by the Gospel writers and their sources, comes to a noticeable end. This is not the place to attempt an explanation for the demise of a tradition, but to highlight the creative way in which the end of a tradition can be as significant as its formation and transmission. What We Do Not Know In several places in his writings Knibb confesses correctly that modern readers must remain in ignorance regarding certain matters. For example, in considering what traditions, scriptural and otherwise, might lie behind Jubilees 4:16–25, he declares after detailed investigation that “it is difficult to find unambiguous references in Jubilees to either the Apocalypse of Weeks or the Epistle of Enoch. It is in fact likely that both the Apocalypse of Weeks and the Epistle as a whole were in existence by the time Jubilees was composed, but that can

58

george j. brooke

neither be proved nor disproved from Jubilees.”52 The close analysis of similar materials often reveals as many differences as similarities, so that the presentation of tradition is rarely a simple matter of one ancient text citing another. In most cases it is better to err on the side of caution and to be aware that there was more going on in antiquity than we will ever know. The transmission and development of tradition is a partial and problematic affair. Another example of Knibb’s reticence to follow the crowd of scholarly opinion in oversimplifying lines of tradition can be seen in his treatment of the famous parable in 2 Esd 4:12–18 in which the trees plan to attack the sea and the waves plan to attack the forest; neither plan comes to anything and the point of the parable is that Ezra recognizes that everything is assigned to its proper place and that the place of humans is to understand earthly things and not the things of heaven. In commenting on the passage Knibb observes suitably that “the imagery of the story reminds us in some ways of Jotham’s fable ( Judg 9:7–21), and the author of 2 Esdras 3–14 may perhaps have drawn his inspiration from there. But it is also possible that the author has taken over from another source a fable that was already in existence.”53 Conclusion In this brief review we have noticed several intriguing phenomena. In writing this short essay in honour of Michael Knibb, I have convinced myself that the study of tradition is an all-encompassing task. His many fine studies on the literature of the second temple period have a coherence in them which is a mark not only of Michael’s own scholarly integrity, but also of the patterns of interwoven traditions and identities which are indeed discernible in these diverse compositions. Michael’s part in illuminating what makes up the study of tradition in early Jewish literature and in demonstrating how such study should be done is a major contribution not only to the wider ambit of Biblical Studies, but also to the Humanities in general, because many disciplines face very similar issues. 52 M. A. Knibb, “Which Parts of 1 Enoch Were Known to Jubilees? A Note on the Interpretation of Jubilees 4.16–25”, in J. C. Exum and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.), Reading from Right to Left. Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines ( JSOTSup 373. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003), pp. 254–262, p. 261. 53 M. A. Knibb, “Commentary on 2 Esdras”, p. 123.


59

To what tradition does Michael Knibb belong? To that tradition of precise scholarship which through its careful and helpful reading of the evidence displays a keen ability in letting texts and traditions speak for themselves.

A FRUITFUL VENTURE: THE ORIGIN OF HEBREW STUDIES AT KING’S COLLEGE LONDON Ronald E. Clements The granting of the charter for the foundation of King’s College, London, in 1828 as an expression of Christian commitment for the advancement of education among a wider circle than that provided by the two established English universities may appear to make the inclusion of a Professorship of Hebrew among its foundation chairs an occasion of surprise.1 Yet this should not be so. A greatly increased Christian interest in Hebrew and the Old Testament lay at the centre of the distinctive religious principles on which King’s College was founded. Since the sixteenth-century Reformation the study of Hebrew and the Old Testament had been subjects of great importance to Christian theology. What was new at the time when the new college was planned was that the study of Hebrew had acquired a greatly increased significance for the English evangelical Church tradition in the wake of the French Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic wars. The Religious Background of King’s College The strong contemporary significance to concern with Hebrew rests in the fact that, since, the events in France of 1789, and more especially since Napoleon’s army landed in Egypt in1798, questions regarding the destiny of the Jews could be seen in a new light.2 Not only had these events re-opened new perspectives on the Islamic world, but they had revived issues regarding the significance for the Christian Church of the fact of continued Jewish existence. Furthermore the 1 For the origin of King’s College London, see F. J. C. Hearnshaw, The Centenary History of King’s College London 1828–1928 (London: Harrap, 1929), pp. 46–69; G. Huelin, King’s College London 1828–1978. A History Commemorating the 150th Anniversary of the Foundation of the College (London: King’s College, 1978), pp. 1–20. 2 Cf. for the whole subject Mayir Veretë, “The Restoration of the Jews in English Protestant Thought 1790–1840”, Middle Eastern Studies 8 (1972) 3–50 and the unpublished dissertation of John A. Oddy, “Eschatological Prophecy in the English Theological Tradition c. 1700–c. 1840”, University of London, 1982. Both writings contain an extensive bibliography of the subject.

62

ronald e. clements

state of the Palestinian ‘holy land’, and the possibility of a Jewish return there, were prominent aspects of this. The re-awakened concern had been further encouraged by the first steps in Europe towards opening Jewish ghettoes to wider access and this fundamental change in the social standing of Jews marked the beginning of a new era of Jewish history. Taken together these changes greatly strengthened the hitherto perfunctory Christian concern to engage in missionary work among Jews. In several ways old, but familiar, questions of biblical interpretation had been reopened in the previous quarter century concerning what the continued existence of Jews signified for Christians. 3 Expectations of an eventual Jewish conversion to acknowledge Jesus as the messiah were now reinvigorated in the belief that, with the French Revolution, the papal ‘Antichrist’ had fallen. The new situation was believed to mark a demonstrable ‘sign of the times’ that the new millennial age was now imminent and encouraged the hope that the conversion of many Jews to acknowledge Jesus as messiah would soon occur.4 For two centuries an influential stream of evangelical Protestantism had nursed the belief that this conversion would accompany the dawning of the millennial age. At some point Jesus would return to inaugurate an era of world peace, all of which was believed to have been foretold in biblical prophecy.5 These hopes were coupled with

3 Christian concern with the destiny of Jews and its relationship to biblical prophecy had first surfaced in England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Cf. especially Christopher Hill, “Till The Conversion of the Jews”, in R. H. Popkin, Millenarianism and Messianism in English Literature and Thought 1650–1800. Clark Library Lectures 1981–82 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), pp. 12–36. Hill mentions particularly Andrew Willet’s publication in 1590 De Judaeorum Vocatione (Cambridge, 1590) and Sir Henry Finch, The World’s Great Restauration or The Calling of the Jews, published in 1621. See also Henning Graf Reventlow, “The Saints of the Most High und die Rätsel der Chronologie. Danielrezeption in England im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert”, in M. Delgado, K. Koch, E. Marsch (eds.), Europa, Tausendjähriges Reich und Neue Welt. Zwei Jahrtausende Geschichte und Utopie in der Rezeption des Danielbuches (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag/Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), pp. 306–325. 4 This was the title of a booklet issued by the Baptist preacher James Bicheno from Newbury first published in London in 1793 which quickly ran to several reprints and revisions, the last of them in 1817. Its full title—The Signs of the Times: or the overthrow of the papal tyranny in France, the prelude of destruction of popery and despotism, but of peace to mankind—explains its relevance as an interpretation of biblical prophecy in the light of the French Revolution. 5 Cf. especially K. R. Firth, The Apocalyptic Tradition in Reformation Britain 1530–1645 (Oxford: Oxford University, 1979).

a fruitful venture

63

the belief that Jews were predestined to return to their ancient homeland in Palestine. So the Napoleonic age and its aftermath marked the beginning of a period when what we now recognise as an emergent Christian Zionism enjoyed a remarkable and widespread popularity. Since the renewed contact with the Ottoman states after the defeat of France brought about improved European access to the biblical lands, opportunity for the fulfilment of these ancient prophecies appeared to have been divinely established. The inauguration of King’s College, London was directly caught up in these expectations and the inclusion of Hebrew and Rabbinic studies among its foundation subjects was a direct consequence of their popularity. The subject was in close accord with the religious aims for which the College existed. Christian concern regarding the destiny of Jews and hopes of the imminent dawning of a millennial age, were based on a presumed ‘sacred calendar of prophecy’ that embraced all world history.6 Furthermore the conversion of the Jews was believed to hold the key to the prospects for Christian world mission more widely so that the success of the former enterprise was thought to be inseparable from the success of the second. In this way the study of Hebrew was directly linked to the contemporary explosion of concern for a Christian mission to the world. Missionary endeavour, expectations of a millennial kingdom of peace, and belief in the future destiny of Jews to acknowledge the messianic status of Jesus had all become linked together as priorities for the evangelical wing of the national Church. Speculations and theories were rife over how soon these

6 I have dealt with the subject more extensively in my essay on the work of George Stanley Faber, “George Stanley Faber as Biblical Interpreter”, in P. Mommer and W. Thiel (eds.), Altes Testament. Forschung und Wirkung. FS Henning Graf Reventlow (Frankfurt am Main/Berlin: Peter Lang, 1994), pp. 247–267. The title The Sacred Calendar of Prophecy is that of an extensive three-volume work by Faber published in London in 1828 (2nd edition 1844). It was a large scale attempt to piece together the presumed elements of prophecies, drawn from the Old Testament and the Apocalypse of St. John in the New Testament to construct a picture of world history, understood to have been predetermined by God to lead to a “restoration” of Jews to their former land and the dawning of a millennial rule of Christ. Faber cautiously predicted these events to reach their climax sometime in the 1860s. For Faber see now also the essay by S. W. Gilley, “George Stanley Faber: No Popery and Prophecy”, in P. J. Harland and R. Hayward (eds.), New Heaven and New Earth. Prophecy and the Millennium. Essays in Honour of Anthony Gelston (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 287–304. Gilley appears to have been unaware of my earlier essay on the work of Faber.

64

ronald e. clements

events would occur and in what sequence they would be accomplished. Infusing all of them was the further conviction that the victories over France had shown that Britain was destined to fulfil a special role in this presumed divine plan. Much has been written about the extravagant hopes that were pinned on such problematical interpretations of prophecy, which, within a half century, lost much of their credibility. However the tendency has been to focus on their popularity among the sectarian and marginalized sectors of the Christian Church, with too little admission that, for the first half of the nineteenth century they stood at the centre of debate in Church life. They were closely related to the origin of the Oxford Movement, a contemporary Church development which has received far more attention. Both the Christian Mission to Jews and the emergence of a new ‘Catholic’ dimension to English Church life were responses to the belief that the events of 1789 marked a watershed for the history of the Papacy. In revisiting the circumstances of the introduction of Hebrew at King’s College, it is valuable to reflect on the lasting achievement that this departure brought. In spite of the extravagant expectations which surrounded its inception, it proved to be a very fruitful venture. It was initially mired in many controversies, but it eventually led to a positive dialogue between Jews and Christians and marked a major step in promoting Hebrew and Jewish Studies well beyond the borders of the increasingly sterile arguments over the interpretation of Old Testament messianic prophecies. Far from pandering to the more eccentric elements of religious belief, the serious and informed study of Hebrew language and literature brought into the academic curriculum a rich vein of Europe’s intellectual heritage. Among Christians the study of Hebrew had previously been almost exclusively a defensive apologetic focused on inconclusive arguments about the interpretation of messianic prophecies. Once the concept of a mission to Jews had broadened to embrace a dialogue between the Christian and Jewish traditions of biblical interpretation, the value, if not necessity, of inaugurating a more informed study of Hebrew than had hitherto prevailed marked a significant advance. By the end of the century a far greater awareness was current in the English Church of Jewish history and Hebrew literary heritage. Moreover, although the Society which had initially been at the centre of these developments later divided into a number of different groups, the basis for an intelligent dialogue between Jews and Christians

a fruitful venture

65

had been established. Only when this was achieved could entrenched partisanship progress to meaningful interchange. Nor today can one read the careful and honest reflections of the key figure in this enterprise, without sincere admiration. This was the Irish Anglican Churchman, Alexander McCaul (1799–1863). Although he was not the first holder of the new professorial appointment, he was the prime mover in the development of the subject at King’s and the immediate successor of the first appointee when the time came for the latter to accept responsibilities elsewhere. The introduction of Hebrew at King’s College was, from its beginning, a direct consequence of the close relationship between those Christian circles which strove for the founding of the College and the interests of the London Society for the Propagation of Christianity among Jews (LSPCJ).7 This Society had been founded in London in 1809. Originally started as a multi-denominational evangelical agency, it became formally Anglican in Church allegiance in 1815. A comparable German society with similar missionary aims was founded in Berlin in 1822 which established a seminary for the teaching of Hebrew. Under McCaul’s leadership the LSPCJ initiated a comparable teaching institute in London. By 1828 a concern with the destiny of the Jews had become a topic of debate at a national, as well as ecclesiastical, level and influential lay persons from the world of politics and banking were included in the ranks of supporters of the LSPCJ.8 Consequently the Society enjoyed privilege and influence in the highest circles of both Church and government.9 Best known are such celebrated figures as the Earl of Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper) and the bankers Henry Drummond (1786–1860) and Thomas Baring (1772–1848). 7

Founded in 1809, the Society was dedicated to missionary work among Jews, both in England and abroad. It had emerged out of the work of the London Missionary Society (founded in 1795) when a converted Jew, J. S. C. F. Frey, had come to England from Berlin (1801) and begun working among the Jews of London. The origins of the Society, which remained closely linked to the evangelical wing of Anglican Church life, is described in W. T. Gidney, The History of the London Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews. From 1809 to 1908 (London: LSPCJ, 1908). 8 The whole subject, and the many interesting and colourful personages who became involved with the work, are very fully described in T. C. F. Stunt, From Awakening to Secession. Radical Evangelicals in Switzerland and Britain 1815–1835 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000). 9 Cf. Bp. Michael Solomon Alexander, “An Introductory Lecture” delivered publicly in King’s College, London, November 17, 1832 (Published, King’s College, London, 1832).

66

ronald e. clements

Other outstanding figures concerned directly with the mission were Charles Simeon (1755–1836), Edward Irving (1792–1834) and, for a time, Francis W. Newman (1805–97), the younger brother of J. H. Newman. Also involved were B. W. Newton (1807–1899) and J. N. Darby (1800–1882), leading figures in the early Brethren movement, whose disenchantment with the national Church was to have major consequences for future Church development as well as for the future of biblical scholarship.10 Seen in retrospect the early nineteenth-century commitment to the mission to Jews was a feature widely shared by all the leading evangelical clergy, even though it was expressed in many controversial and diverse ways. When it eventually broke up into a number of different activities and groups, a whole archive of Hebrew literature had been opened up to a wider readership. Probably the best known, and most popular, of such writers was the converted Jewish Christian Alfred Edersheim (1823/4–1889).11 Throughout the nineteenth century the Christian mission to Jews remained at the centre of missionary enterprise. The LSPCJ12 played the foremost role in promoting the work in the early years and the two founding fathers of Hebrew at King’s College were numbered among its closest and most prestigious supporters. At this time Napoleon’s venture into Egypt marked the commencement of a remarkable new era of discovery and research which had lain hidden in the dust for almost two thousand years.13 As a central focus of concern within the evangelical wing of the national Church, the mission to Jews shared a close link with the Church Missionary Society. It enjoyed support from many dissenting congregations in England and enjoyed wide support in Scotland from such leaders as Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847). In 1820 the LSPCJ sent a Swiss pastor, Melchior Tschoudy, to Palestine as its first emissary there, and in 1823 Lewis Way, a key figure in the origin and financing of the Society, travelled to the 10 For these men cf. H. H. Rowdon, The Origins of the Brethren 1825–1850 (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1968) and T. F. C. Stunt, op. cit. note 8. 11 Born in Vienna, Alfred Edersheim was an important nineteenth century Jewish convert to Christianity whose writings served to popularise a Christian knowledge of Judaism and its primary Rabbinic sources. 12 I am particularly indebted to Dr. Stephen Orchard of Westminster College, Cambridge for making available to me relevant material from his dissertation on the subject. 13 Cf. W. D. Jones, Venus and Sothis. How the Ancient Near East Was Rediscovered (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1982), especially pp. 1–23.

a fruitful venture

67

holy land to promote the new work. This was shortly after the arrival there of the first American Protestant missionaries, Levi Parsons and Pliny Fish, who had sailed from Boston in November, 1818 under the auspices of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.14 Neither of these missionaries, however, survived for very long in the uncongenial climate. The arrival of the LSPCJ emissaries marked the beginning of an important link between the British interest in Palestine, the mission to Jews, and the development of geographical and archaeological research in the region. In this development Alexander McCaul was to be intimately involved. The First Professor of Hebrew and Rabbinic Literature: Michael Solomon Alexander The first holder of the Professorship of Hebrew and Rabbinic Literature at King’s College was Michael Solomon Alexander (1799–1845).15 He was a Jewish convert to Christianity who had formed a close link with the LSPCJ and was sponsored by them. Born in 1799 in Posen he had been educated in Talmudic Judaism in Germany and had become a recognised teacher in the subject before moving to England in 1820. After working for a time as a rabbi in Plymouth, he converted to Christianity, being baptised there in 1825.16 He was ordained a priest of the Anglican Church before spending a period as a missionary working among Jews in Danzig. He then returned to England in 1830 to work for the LSPCJ. It was from this post that he was appointed to the professorship at King’s College, thereby illustrating the close connections between the College and the Society. He delivered his inaugural lecture in the College in 1832. However, Alexander’s tenure of the post was short-lived, since his Jewish-Christian credentials brought him further promotion. This

14 Cf. A. L. Tibawi, American Interests in Syria 1800–1901. A Study of Educational, Literary and Religious Work (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966), pp. 13–23. 15 The details of Alexander’s life are taken from L. Stephen (ed.), Dictionary of National Biography (3 vols. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1885), Vol. I, cols. 273b–275a. A fuller account is provided by M. W. Corey, From Rabbi to Bishop. The Biography of the Right Reverend Michael Solomon Alexander (London: Church Mission to Jews, n.d.). 16 Record of the sermon preached by the Vicar of St. Andrew’s, Plymouth, is preserved in the Cambridge University library. Cf. J. Hatchard, The Predictions and Promises of God respecting Israel. A sermon preached on June 22, 1825 in the Parish Church of St. Andrew’s, Plymouth on the baptism of Mr M. S. Alexander, late Reader in the Jewish Synagogue (Plymouth: Rowes, 1825).

68

ronald e. clements

took the form of elevation to the newly founded Protestant (AngloGerman) bishopric of Jerusalem in 1841. The plan for the newlyestablished diocese included an agreement that the right of appointment would alternate between England and Prussia. Alexander’s appointment as the first holder of the post was England’s choice. The person initially chosen had been none other than Alexander McCaul, but he declined, arguing that it was appropriate that the bishop of Jerusalem should be of Jewish birth. This commitment to ethnic Jewish origin was a feature of great importance to McCaul, reflecting his belief that, after acknowledgement of Jesus as Messiah, Jews were to play a unique role in God’s plan for the world. As a part of this plan Jerusalem was to fulfil a unique role in Christian world mission, as had been declared in biblical prophecy. The consecration of the new bishop took place in Lambeth Palace on November 7, 1841, when Alexander McCaul preached the sermon.17 Michael Alexander preached a farewell sermon at the Episcopal Jews Chapel in Bethnal Green on Nov. 8, 1841.18 He arrived with his family, in Jerusalem in January, 1842, having sailed on the somewhat ominously named ship HMS Devastation,19 made available by courtesy of her majesty’s government. Sadly he died of a heart attack on 23 November 1845 on the way to Egypt, after planning a return to England. In accord with the terms of the agreement, the succeeding bishop, Samuel Gobat, was the appointee of the Prussian authorities and held the appointment from 1846 until 1879. By that time much had changed and British interests in Palestine had shifted to a more political and academic agenda.20 In 1842 the inauguration of the bishopric in Jerusalem was regarded by the LSPCJ as a primary achievement, being seen as central to the missionary strategy envisaged for the work among Jews. It was a step towards fulfilling the larger world mission, the hope of which filled the horizons of both Bishop Alexander and Alexander McCaul. 17 Alexander McCaul, A Sermon Preached in the Chapel of Lambeth Palace, at the consecration of the Lord Bishop of the United Church of England and Ireland in Jerusalem, Nov. 7, 1841 (London, 1841). 18 Michael Solomon Alexander, Farewell Sermon, Preached at the Episcopal Jews Chapel, Bethnal Green, Nov. 8, 1841. (London: LSPCJ, 1841). 19 Even more ominously the alternative vessel, a steam frigate which was first offered but refused, was named HMS Infernal! 20 For this side of the story of the Jerusalem bishopric and its aftermath see J. J. Moscrop, Measuring Jerusalem. The Palestine Exploration Fund and British Interests in the Holy Land (London & New York: Leicester University, 2000).

a fruitful venture

69

The advocates of ‘the sacred calendar of prophecy’ were convinced that the conversion of Jews would soon occur and would lead on to a successful world-wide mission, led by Jewish converts. Jerusalem would then occupy a unique place as the centre of a world Church (cf. Isa 2:1–4). This strategic missionary plan was an evangelical enthusiasm, but was not one shared generally by others in the national Church.21 It was linked to too many partisan ambitions for this to have been possible and, in a celebrated rebuttal of it, and all that it implied, J. H. Newman declared the introduction of the Jerusalem Bishopric to be “the last straw” which led to his resignation from the national Church and his conversion to Rome.22 In the event, however, the extent to which the new bishopric achieved much by way of missionary success among Jews in Palestine, or elsewhere, was relatively small. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches in Jerusalem looked upon the Protestant intruders with suspicion and the Ottoman authorities foresaw its great disruptive potential. Bp. Gobat eventually obtained recognition of the Protestant Church from the Sultan in 1850 and, after many disappointments, the Church Missionary Society renewed work in Jerusalem and Nazareth under a new, exclusively Anglican, authority in 1851. Understandably the Muslim Ottoman authorities were highly reluctant to permit activities which would disrupt the sensitive and difficult relationships between Jews, Christians and Muslims. So, apart from setting up a school and caring for the poorest Jews, little significant progress was made, at least not along the lines that those who had sponsored the mission had originally hoped to achieve. The New Professor of Hebrew: Alexander McCaul Michael Alexander’s promotion to the bishopric brought McCaul right into the centre of the story of Hebrew at King’s College. Born in Dublin on 16 May 1799, Alexander McCaul had entered Trinity College, Dublin in 1814, graduating BA in 1819 (MA, 1831, DD

21

It is of significance that E. B. Pusey preached on the subject of world mission as a duty for the Christian Church which he subsequently published as The Church the Converter of the Heathen. Two Sermons preached September 9, 1838 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1838). 22 Cf. F. M. Turner, John Henry Newman. A Challenge to Evangelical Religion (New Haven: Yale University, 2002), pp. 395–97.

70

ronald e. clements

in 1837). After a brief period as tutor to the Earl of Rosse, he was ordained into the Anglican Church in 1822. He had already, while in Ireland, developed a special interest in Christian missionary work among Jews and, in consequence he linked up with the LSPCJ immediately after moving to England. Through the Society he established friendships with key figures who were involved in its work, which had by this time become a pioneering and favoured evangelical cause. McCaul wholeheartedly shared the commitment to the Christian millennial hope and the belief that the Jewish mission held the key to the success of contemporary missionary endeavour as a whole.23 With the support of the LSPCJ, McCaul had studied Talmud in Germany at the Berlin Mission Seminary and went, in 1821, to develop the Society’s mission among the Jews of Warsaw. The work in Poland was to remain a matter of special personal concern for him. After returning to England, where he married, he went to Russia where he was received by the Czar. He returned to Warsaw in 1823 to become head of the LSPCJ’s mission and stayed until 1832 when he returned to London. Here he set up a Hebrew Institute with the particular aim of training workers for the Society and published A Hebrew Primer in 1834.24 A revision of this appeared in 1847. Through his connection with the mission to Jews McCaul was also much involved with a number of other causes that were, in the mid-nineteenth century, warmly espoused by the evangelical wing of the Church. These included the theological education of clergy at a time when there was need to extend this beyond the established boundaries of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The rapid growth of the great cities like London placed a heavy burden on the existing clergy and its parochial arrangements. McCaul was appointed, alongside F. D. Maurice and R. C. Trench, to be one of the three Professors of Divinity when a department for the training of ordinands was introduced in 1846. His appointment reflects his reputation as a representative of the evangelical wing of Anglican life since his two colleagues were to represent ‘Broad’ and ‘High’ Church principles. When F. D. Maurice was dismissed in 1853 as 23

Cf. Alexander McCaul, The Conversion and Restoration of the Jews. Two Sermons preached before the University of Dublin (London: B. Wertheim, 1837); idem, The Divine Commission of the Christian Ministry. Three Sermons preached at the Episcopal Jews Chapel (London: B. Wertheim, 1834). 24 A. McCaul, A Hebrew Primer (2nd edn. London, 1834) and idem, Introduction to Hebrew Grammar; for the Use of Beginners (London, 1847).

a fruitful venture

71

‘unsuitable’ for a Professorship of Divinity, McCaul was pressed into the teaching of Church history in the College. The Teaching of Alexander McCaul Even before his appointment at the College, McCaul had begun in 1836 publication of a weekly pamphlet for the LSPCJ under the general heading ‘The Old Paths’. These studies continued to appear for a total of sixty weekly issues.25 In all respects these articles, when brought together later and published in book form, were to become his most enduring monument. Their sub-title explains fully their character and purpose: A Comparison of the Principles and Doctrines of Modern Judaism with the Religion of Moses and the Prophets. A revised edition of the combined, single-volume, work was published in 1846. In this McCaul was pleased to report that the studies had been well received by many Jews, had influenced Jewish Reform Societies, and had been especially influential in the origin of the West London Synagogue (op. cit. p. vii). Moreover, by this time, the original work had been translated into French, German and Hebrew. He especially emphasises that he in no way intended an attack upon the Jewish people, nor desired to give offence to any. The work strongly reflects McCaul’s experience of Jewish life in Warsaw and argues that much popular Jewish tradition had become encrusted over with a host of superstitious, magical and legendary elements which had no proper place in authentic Jewish teaching. Its key theme is the authority of the truth of the Hebrew Bible, when contrasted with the mixture of taboos, superstitions and conventions, which had no warrant in the Bible itself. He particularly castigates rabbinic Jewish attitudes to womankind, but many of the points that he makes could almost as readily be applied to the manner in which popular Christian sub-culture has, over long centuries, accrued a host of distorted and marginal features of religious activity. Many of the points made illustrate how easily serious religious faith lapses into superstitious and semi-magical practices and beliefs. He is keen to point out the Jewish origin of Christianity, that Jesus was a Jew and that much of the teaching of the New Testament 25 Alexander McCaul, The Old Paths; or, A comparison of the principles and doctrine of modern Judaism with the religion of Moses and the Prophets (London: LSPCJ, 1846). The pamphlets were widely reissued and used by the London Jews Society. Cf. further A. McCaul, The Old Paths, or the Talmud tested by Scripture (London: LSPCJ, 1868).

72

ronald e. clements

develops and reflects moral and spiritual issues that are to be found in the Hebrew Bible. The studies are an apologetic plea for a reasoned and informed Jewish faith which, McCaul believed, should convincingly lead to an acceptance of Christian claims for the messianic status of Jesus of Nazareth. Although polemical in intent and all too easily denigrated today as comparing a pure and ideal expression of Jewish and Christian teaching with the rather mixed bag of religious beliefs and practices which he had found in the alarmingly impoverished ghettoes of Eastern Europe, they are, nonetheless, an important contemporary document. In no small measure they provide an illuminating window on the aims and concerns which motivated the LSPCJ, for whom McCaul had become the most academically qualified spokesman. A sustained Jewish rejoinder to the ‘Old Paths’ was made by Isaac Baer Levinsohn. Together with other scholars McCaul took an active role in the preparation of a Hebrew translation of the Greek New Testament which was published by the Society. He also provided additional notes for a new edition of the eighteenth-century work of the Anglican priest Humphrey Prideaux on the historical unity of the Old and New Testaments.26 Other polemical works relating to Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Hebrew Bible were his translation and annotation of David ben Joseph Kimchi’s Commentaries on the Prophecies of Zechariah (published London, 1837) and a translation and annotation of the work of the Jewish apologist Isaac Orobrio de Castro entitled Israel Avenged (published in three parts 1839–40). McCaul was concerned to show the errors of the oft-repeated conventional Christian slanders against Jews. Nevertheless his primary focus was on the meaning and message of biblical prophecy. Probably his most perceptive and challenging remarks concerning the mission to Jews are found in his sermons, the most important of which he published. Taken together they express a deep awareness of the tragic course of Christian-Jewish history and the need for a new beginning, a new understanding based on sound scholar-

26 Humphrey Prideaux, An Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments. Comparing the History of the Jews and Neighbouring Nations . . . to which is added an account of the Rabbinic authorities by A. McCaul (2 vols. London: B. Wertheim, 1845; new edition revised by J. T. Wheeler, 1858).

a fruitful venture

73

ship, and a new willingness to rekindle the flame of learning between the two traditions. In a sermon on Lamentations 1: 2 entitled “Our Duty towards the Jewish People” he voices his feelings: The Jews, though few in numbers comparatively, are the chosen instruments to effect the conversion of the world. Upon every country of Europe there rests a mighty load of guilt, not only for neglecting the Jews, but for persecuting and oppressing them . . . Believe me, my brethren, the great obstacle in the way of Jewish conversion, is not the obstinacy of the Jewish people, but the past oppression and the present apathy of the Christian Church, . . . Jews have learned from history to regard Christians as their natural enemies.27

In many ways McCaul’s role in the Professorship at King’s College was to encourage the study of Hebrew and Rabbinic Literature over a far greater range than had hitherto been customary. He published a short primer aimed at helping Christians to engage in the study of post-biblical Jewish literature in the Mishnah and Talmud.28 Within a relatively few years the value of this paid off in a far more informed approach to the Gospels and New Testament than had previously prevailed. The later work of Professor G. H. Box at King’s College well illustrates this important legacy of learning. Acknowledging the unpopularity in some circles of the idea of a mission to Jews, with all the assumptions of privilege and priority that this brought with it, McCaul nevertheless sought as fully as possible to bring the wealth of Jewish learning into the centre of academic and religious life. Highly informative in this respect is the sermon preached by him in 1849 in support of the admission of Jews to Parliament, entitled “England’s Duty to Israel’s Sons”.29 In this he lists the many and various achievements of Jewish scholars and writers, not only in the realm of religious thought, but especially in music, medicine and philosophy. Interesting also is the expression of his repeated conviction that Britain had been uniquely entrusted by God with the task 27 Alexander McCaul, “Our Duty Towards the Jewish People”, in Plain Sermons on Subjects Practical and Prophetic (London: Wertheim, 1840), pp. 375–6. 28 Alexander McCaul, An Apology for the Study of Hebrew and Rabbinical Literature (London, 1844). In Measuring Jerusalem (see above note 20), p. 33 J. J. Moscrop describes McCaul as the “foremost gentile expert on Jewish matters.” 29 Alexander McCaul, England’s Duty to Israel’s Sons. Being a Candid Inquiry into the Policy of Admitting the Jewish people into the British Legislature by A Clergyman of the Church of England (London: Houlston & Stoneman, 1849).

74

ronald e. clements

of assisting a Jewish return to their homeland—a task which he clearly believed the founding of the bishopric in Jerusalem was bound to advance.30 Certainly the introduction of British, and especially Protestant, interests in Jerusalem did have important long-term consequences for scholarship, as well as for those causes which had been at the top of the LSPCJ’s agenda. The British vice-consul, appointed in 1846, was James Finn who married Alexander McCaul’s daughter Elizabeth, and the couple continued to play an active role in the development of British interests in the city.31 Through his connections with the LSPCJ McCaul himself remained closely involved with affairs there.32 Besides the concern with the Christian missionary outreach to Jews33 and with defending the strongly millenarian stream of prophetic interpretation34 which was at that time a prominent feature of evangelical life,35 McCaul was much concerned with the education of the clergy. He was appointed Proctor for the London Clergy in 1852. Probably his other most notable publications were the series of Warburton Lectures which he delivered at Lincoln’s Inn first during the years 1837–1840,36 followed by a second series dealing with the messiahship of Jesus published in 1852. McCaul’s heavy workload at this time had occasioned a delay in publication. In this second series McCaul was able to engage with one of the strongest challenges to his dependence on the traditional Christian “argument from prophecy”. This had appeared in the work of David Friedrich Strauss on the life of Jesus and was to have a powerful influence on the writer George Eliot. The established line of Christian New 30 Alexander McCaul, David ben Joseph Kimchi. Commentaries on the prophecies of Zechariah. Translated with notes (London, 1837). 31 Cf. J. J. Moscrop, Measuring Jerusalem, p. 37. 32 Cf. Moscrop, op. cit., p. 53 who mentions McCaul’s involvement with the Jerusalem Water Relief Fund. 33 Cf. Alexander McCaul, The Restoration and Conversion of the Jews (London, 1846). 34 Cf. Alexander McCaul, Good Things to Come. Being Lectures during Lent, 1847, at St. George’s, Bloomsbury (London, 1847). 35 It is worth noting that G. S. Faber and others had cautiously calculated the return of Jesus Christ and the beginning of the millennium to occur sometime in the 1860s, perhaps 1865. As a consequence the sense of urgency for mission work remained strong, even among those who remained suitably cautious about the correctness of their interpretations. 36 Alexander McCaul, Lectures on the Prophecies proving the Divine Origin of Christianity (London: J. W. Parker, 1846).

a fruitful venture

75

Testament apologetic lay in the claim that many remarkably accurate and detailed prophecies recorded in the Hebrew Bible had been fulfilled in the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth. They were so many and so remarkable as to amount to a proof of the divine authority and messianic status of Jesus. Strauss’s criticism was that this seemingly ‘remarkable’ matching of prophecy and fulfilment was, in reality, no such thing but simply a literary artifice indulged by the Gospel writers and based on a miscellany of supposed messianic foretellings. In this, as on several other issues, McCaul inveighed against the application of rigorously reasoned historical criticism to the biblical writings, which he regarded as an attempt at a rational dismissal of any supernatural element in religion.37 Throughout his work, the “argument from prophecy”, very much along the lines earlier laid out by William Paley (1743–1805), played the leading role. Most of this was not new, but McCaul developed it extensively on the basis of a literal interpretation of further prophecies which he believed foretold the future world mission of the Christian Church, the return of Jews to their ancient homeland, and their conversion to an acknowledgement of the messiahship of Jesus. By the later years of his work at King’s College, not only had fresh controversies affecting the shape and aims of the national Church introduced new division into it, but the study of Hebrew prophecy too underwent major revision. Most especially a very different interpretation of the symbols and ciphers of the Book of Daniel came to the fore once other ancient Jewish apocalyptic writings became better known. The origins, setting and purpose of these powerful, yet enigmatic, writings threw into doubt the whole concept of a “sacred calendar of prophecy” on which the earlier chronological calculations regarding the mission to Jews had rested. Interpretations on which McCaul had staked so much lost their credibility in the national Church. Similarly a fresh understanding of the revelatory character and significance of the other great prophets of the Hebrew Bible brought a further change of outlook on the role of the Old Testament in Christianity more generally. The traditional “argument from prophecy” came to carry less and less weight in Christian teaching. A quite new direction of interest in the later

37 A. McCaul, Rationalism and the Divine Interpretation of Scripture (London: J. W. Parker, 1850).

76

ronald e. clements

Jewish writings emerged under the guise of ‘background’ to the New Testament. It was left to a later series of Warburton Lectures delivered by the young Cambridge scholar, Alexander Kirkpatrick,38 to show the wider doctrinal implications of these newer approaches to biblical interpretation in regard to Hebrew prophecy. The last of the controversies over biblical interpretation in which McCaul became engaged was one that heralded a fresh page in the story of the nineteenth century Church. It was to be a major upset, with far-reaching consequences, although McCaul’s part in it was relatively small. This was the controversy over the publication in 1860 by J. W. Colenso, Bishop of Natal, of a series of enquiries into whether the literal understanding of the stories of the Pentateuch concerning Israel’s origins was either historically credible or theologically edifying. McCaul published a short refutation of Bishop Colenso’s problems, shortly before his own death in 1863.39 These later years, until his death on 13 November 1863, were, for Alexander McCaul, years of defensive argument in support of the methods and assumptions of the interpretation of biblical prophecy which had prevailed for more than half a century and which had become inseparable from the work of the LSPCJ. However, new insights and methods of literary and historical analysis brought about their demise. As a result the causes and interpretations which McCaul had embraced so strongly, fell into disfavour and were dropped. Not surprisingly, McCaul himself has largely slipped below the horizon of attention in the many studies that have been published of the course of nineteenth-century biblical interpretation in Great Britain. Yet this is a fate that he has not deserved, since the reasons, motivation and methods of his advocacy of the study of Hebrew, hold good today as an engagement with one of the great spiritual traditions of antiquity. McCaul saw this as a basic and central task, inseparable from a serious engagement between Christians with Jews. Christian familiarity with Jewish rabbinic teaching was to provide a vital step forward towards removing the ignorance, hostility and suspicion that had coloured centuries of bitterness and hate. Without understanding there could be no reconciliation. McCaul fully grasped 38 A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Doctrine of the Prophets. The Warburtonian Lectures 1886–1890 (London: Macmillan, 1892, revised editions 1897 and 1901). 39 Alexander McCaul, An Examination of Bp. Colenso’s Difficulties with regard to the Pentateuch (London: Rivington’s, 1863).

a fruitful venture

77

the fact that this could only be achieved if it was pursued at a serious academic level of linguistic and literary competence. His reasons for pressing the claims of Hebrew were of the finest. Regrettably, for all his eagerness and enthusiasm for serious Christian engagement with Jewish learning, he did not extend the same warmth towards the Islamic tradition. No doubt this was an issue that only a further century of Church life and religious reflection could correct. Nevertheless, in his own day, he opened a door to think afresh about Jewish-Christian encounter after centuries of sterile hostility and ignorance had left it closed. Certainly it comes as no surprise that, as the development of more critical approaches to the study of the Bible advanced during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, so the ‘futurist’ interpretation of biblical prophecy that McCaul had become wedded to, lost credibility in mainstream Anglican Church life. Nevertheless these ideas lived on in the hands of various Christian movements which have shown the greatest vitality. Not least these movements have done much to encourage the study of Hebrew among Christians when others have been content to neglect it. One of McCaul’s contemporaries who suffered as a result of embracing the critical approach to biblical scholarship that had emerged in Germany was Samuel Davidson, who, in a celebrated case, was dismissed from his appointment at the Lancashire Independent College in 1857 and moved to work in London, where he was appointed a university examiner. In 1925 Samuel Davidson’s daughter made a bequest in her father’s name for the establishing of a Professorship in the University of London to be named after him. So the Samuel Davidson Chair of Old Testament Studies in London was created and this was subsequently combined with the Professorship of Hebrew and Rabbinical Literature which had originated at King’s College as far back as 1832. A certain irony attaches to the fact that, in their own days, McCaul and Davidson came to find themselves on opposite sides of the controversies about the critical methods of biblical interpretation which had arisen in Germany.40 Yet both men were at one in their love of Hebrew and the Old Testament. Out of the fruitful venture of the introduction of Hebrew 40 Samuel Davidson’s work, and the impact of his dismissal from Lancashire Independent College is recounted in J. W. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century. England and Germany (London: SPCK, 1984), pp. 197–208.

78

ronald e. clements

classes to King’s College, London, in 1832 a very rich and varied stream of scholarship was to emerge. In recognising that Davidson’s achievement was to have promoted the serious study of the Old Testament in the light of new techniques of historical analysis, the contrast with McCaul’s work is evident. The latter scholar worked hard and long for a different kind of criticism among Christians which gave recognition to the importance of the Hebrew Bible as the fountainhead of all Hebrew literature and as the central testimony to Jesus as the one whose coming the ancient prophets had foretold. For too long Christians had regarded rabbinic treatises and scripture interpretation, as an anomaly, best ignored, or at best useful only as a target for criticism and rejection. Out of McCaul’s renewed interest in it, which was based on respect and deep involvement, there emerged the basis for a serious dialogue between Jews and Christians. Mission turned into dialogue, and the groundwork for a better relationship between all parties in the study of this historic language emerged. Happily later generations have been able to build on that and make it a rewarding task to pursue. It is with the greatest pleasure that I can offer these reflections on the origin of the teaching of Hebrew at King’s College, London in honour of Professor Michael Knibb. He has been an exemplary colleague who has shown by his own outstanding scholarship how fruitful was the venture that placed Hebrew among the subjects to be studied at the new college when its charter was drawn up in 1828. Postscript The following two studies that relate closely to the origin of Hebrew Studies at Kings College, London, became available too late for inclusion in this study of the work of Alexander McCaul: Victoria Clark, Holy Fire. The Battle for Christ’s Tomb (London: Macmillan, 2005) contains important details regarding the establishing of the joint Anglo-Prussian Bishopric in Jerusalem in 1842 and the tenure of the post by Michael Alexander. Crawford Gribben and Timothy C. F. Stunt (eds.), Prisoners of Hope? Aspects of Evangelical Millennialism in Britain and Ireland, 1800 –1880

a fruitful venture

79

(Studies in Evangelical History and Thought. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2004) includes significant relevant detail concerning the influence of apocalyptic millennialism on evangelical thought and missionary activity in the first half of the nineteenth century. Especially relevant is the essay by Andrew Holmes on the subject “Millennialism and the Interpretation of Prophecy in Ulster Presbyterianism, 1790–1850” (pp. 150–176) which serves to provide a much needed background to McCaul’s Irish religious upbringing. All the essays in the volume shed further light on the major influence that apocalyptic speculation exercised on Jewish-Christian relationships and provided a fuller stimulus to serious Christian engagement with the study of Hebrew language.

THE YAÓAD AND “THE QUMRAN COMMUNITY” John J. Collins One of the most important transformations of biblical tradition in the Second Temple period was the idea that the people of YHWH was not simply identical with the ethnic descendants of the peoples of Israel and Judah, but was rather constituted by the commitment of individuals to the Mosaic covenant. The roots of this idea can be found in the exilic period. Ezekiel distinguished between those who sighed and groaned over the abominations committed in Jerusalem and the rest of the population, which was consigned to destruction (Ezekiel 9). In the Persian period rifts emerged between “those who trembled at the word of the Lord” and less observant Judeans.1 In the Hellenistic period, such divisions between rival conceptions of the inheritance of Israel erupted into full-scale sectarianism.2 The paradigmatic example of a sectarian Jewish movement is provided by the association called a ya˙ad in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This movement had an ambiguous relationship to historic Israel.3 On the one hand, it claimed to be the true embodiment of Israel and fulfillment of the covenant. On the other hand, it quite clearly distinguished itself from “the majority of the people” and saw itself as a group set apart. This ambiguity would be resolved in the eschatological future, when the enemies of the sect would be defeated and the remainder of Israel would rally to the sectarian understanding of the covenant. In the scholarly literature, this sectarian movement has often been identified as “the Qumran community”, as in the title of the classic introduction to the main sectarian texts by Michael Knibb.4 This 1

J. Blenkinsopp, “A Jewish Sect in the Persian Period”, CBQ 52 (1990) 5–20. A. I. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era. An Interpretation ( JSJSup 55. Leiden: Brill, 1997). 3 J. J. Collins, “The Construction of Israel in the Sectarian Rule Books”, in A. J. Avery-Peck, J. Neusner and B. D. Chilton (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity. Part 5. The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1. Theory of Israel (Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 25–42. 4 M. A. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge Commentaries on Jewish Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200, 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987). 2

82

john j. collins

designation of the sect, however, has become increasingly problematic in the period since Knibb’s book was published. Ever since the discovery of the Scrolls, the great majority of scholars have believed that the sectarian movement they describe was a branch of the Essenes. The classic accounts of the Essenes in Philo and Josephus make quite clear that this sect was not confined to a single settlement; rather they were scattered all over the land of Israel. Nonetheless, scholars have tended to assume that the Scrolls describe a community that lived at Qumran and that was sui generis, self-contained, and independent. In the early phase of research on the Scrolls, scholars simply neglected the references to a broader Essene community in Philo and Josephus. In more recent years, one strand of scholarship has even supposed that “the Qumran community” was a schismatic offshoot of the Essene movement.5 In my view, scholarship has been misled by this tendency to associate the movement described in the Scrolls with the site of Qumran. There is no evidence that any of the Scrolls were written specifically for a community that lived by the Dead Sea. Neither is there any evidence in the Scrolls that “the Qumran community” had split off from the Essenes or that it ever ceased to be part of a broader sectarian movement. The Ya˙ad Since the early days of Dead Sea Scrolls studies it has been very widely assumed that the so-called “Manual of Discipline” found in Cave 1 (Serek Ha-Ya˙ad, or 1QS) was the rule book of a community that lived at Qumran. Consequently, it has become standard practice to speak of “the Qumran community” and “the ya˙ad” as interchangeable terms. So, for example, the article on “community organization” in the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls begins: “the Qumran community (ha-ya˙ad) was organized . . .”.6 The assumption that the ya˙ad refers specifically to the Qumran settlement 5 J. Murphy-O’Connor, “The Essenes and their History”, RB 81 (1974) 215–44, esp. p. 233; P. R. Davies, Behind the Essenes. History and Ideology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (BJS 94. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 18–19; F. García Martínez, and A. S. van der Woude, “A Groningen Hypothesis of Qumran Origins”, RQ 14 (1990) 521–41, p. 537; G. Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis. The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 16. 6 J. H. Charlesworth, “Community Organization in the Rule of the Community”, in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols. New York: Oxford University, 2000) I, 133–36, p. 133.

the ya˙ad and “the qumran community”

83

underlies the widely accepted explanation of the differences between this “Manual of Discipline” or Community Rule and the Damascus Document. In the words of Geza Vermes: “The Community Rule legislates for a group of ascetics living in a kind of ‘monastic’ society, the statutes of the Damascus Document for an ordinary lay existence.”7 It also underlies attempts to distinguish between “the parent movement” and “the Qumran community”.8 The assumption that the ya˙ad was a technical term for “the Qumran community” is probably shared by the majority of scholars in the field. Yet this assumption is without foundation in the Scrolls. In recent years, several scholars have questioned whether there was a “Qumran community” at all, that is to say, whether the settlement was occupied by a sectarian community such as is described in Serek Ha-Ya˙ad.9 This debate is primarily a matter of the interpretation of the archeological site, and is not the issue that concerns us here. While the issue now appears more complicated than it did in the past, I still believe that the site is most satisfactorily explained as a sectarian settlement. I also continue to believe that the sect in question should be identified with the Essenes.10 What I wish to question is the meaning of the word ya˙ad, and some of the current assumptions about the relationship between this association and the movement described in the Damascus Document. 7

G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin, 1997), p. 26. The suggestion that the “Manual of Discipline” was designed for a “monastic” order was made already by Millar Burrows in the press release announcing its discovery in April, 1948. See J. C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), p. 6. 8 C. Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document. Sources, Traditions, and Redaction (STDJ 29. Leiden: Brill, 1998), p. 111. 9 N. Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? (New York: Scribner, 1995); Y. Hirschfeld, “Early Roman Manor Houses in Judea and the Site of Khirbet Qumran”, JNES 57 (1998) 161–89; idem, “The Architectural Context of Qumran”, in L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), pp. 673–83. For a concise bibliography, J. Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 18, and her refutation of attempts to see Qumran as a country villa, ibid., pp. 90–104. Several papers on this issue can be found in the proceedings of a conference at Brown University on “Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls” in November 2002. 10 J. J. Collins, “Essenes”, in D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992), II, pp. 619–26; J. C. VanderKam, Dead Sea Scrolls Today, pp. 71–98; T. S. Beall, “Essenes”, in Schiffman and VanderKam (eds.) Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I, pp. 262–9; J. C. VanderKam and P. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002), pp. 239–54.

84

john j. collins The Usage of Ya˙ad

The word ya˙ad occurs more than 50 times in 1QS, the most complete manuscript of the Serek. It also occurs 7 times in 1QSa, the “Rule of the Congregation”, and 3 times in 1QSb, the “Scroll of Blessings”. It occurs several times in pesharim and related texts such as 4Q174 (Florilegium), 4Q177 (Catena) and 4Q252 (Pesher Genesis), but only once in CD (assuming that “the men of the ya˙id”, literally “the unique one”, in CD 20:32 is a mistake for “the men of the ya˙ad”).11 There are also 4 occurrences in 4Q265, a text that combines elements of the Serek and the Damascus Rule. Most of the occurrences in the Serek are in such phrases as “the men of the ya˙ad” or “the council of the ya˙ad”, and occasional references to “the ya˙ad of God.” A possible biblical source for this nominal usage of the word can be found in Deut 33:5, which refers to “the union of the tribes of Israel”.12 Shemaryahu Talmon suggested another precedent in Ezra 4:3, where Zerubbabel and the leaders of the Jewish community rebuff the offer of the Samaritans to help rebuild the temple by saying “we ya˙ad will build”.13 (In this case, the word is usually translated as “alone,” admittedly an unusual usage). While the suggestion that ya˙ad might have served as the name of the exclusive community of returned exiles is attractive, the word is not otherwise attested in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and so the suggestion has not won acceptance. In the Scrolls, the ya˙ad is evidently a voluntary association, with elaborate procedures for admission and regulations for conduct. As such, it has much in common with other voluntary associations in the Hellenistic world.14 It has sometimes been suggested that the ya˙ad corresponds to the koinon,

11

M. Abegg, The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2003), I, p. 308, also reconstructs an occurrence in 4Q270 (4QDe). 12 There is one other nominal occurrence, in 1 Chr 12:18 (English, 12:17), where David tells the Judahites and Benjaminites that if they have come to him in friendship he will have “a heart for union” with them. 13 S. Talmon, “The Qumran djy—A Biblical Noun”, in idem, The World of Qumran from Within ( Jerusalem: Magnes/Leiden: Brill, 1989), pp. 53–60. 14 M. Weinfeld, The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect. A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associations of the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986); M. Klinghardt, “The Manual of Discipline in the Light of Statutes of Hellenistic Associations”, in M. O. Wise et al. (eds.), Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site. Present Realities and Future Prospects (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), pp. 251–70.


85

or community, in the Greek associations.15 The choice of this specific Hebrew word, however, is better explained by analogy with Deut 33:5, although the Scrolls never refer to “the ya˙ad of the tribes.”16 Nothing in any of the Scrolls requires that the word ya˙ad refer to a single settlement. Only one text can plausibly be taken to refer to a geographical setting in the wilderness (1QS 8:13), and in that case the identity of the group that goes there is problematic. Most of the references are compatible with an identification with the putative Qumran community, but do not require it.17 There is, however, one passage that is clearly incompatible with the view that the ya˙ad is a technical term for the Qumran settlement. This is found in 1QS 6:1b–8: In this way they shall behave in all their places of residence . . . They shall eat together (ya˙ad), together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel. In every place where there are ten men of the council of the ya˙ad, there should not be missing amongst them a priest . . . And in the place in which the ten assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night . . .

This passage clearly envisions several small “cell” communities, with a minimum membership of ten.18 Members of the ya˙ad, or of “the council of the community” are scattered among many places of residence. We may compare the statements in Philo and Josephus that 15

B. Dombrowski, “djyh in 1QS and to koinon. An Instance of Early Greek and Jewish Synthesis”, HTR 59 (1966) 293–307. 16 The suggestion of H. Stegemann (“The Qumran Essenes—Local Members of the Main Jewish Union in Late Second Temple Times”, in J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner [eds.], The Madrid Qumran Congress [STDJ 11. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1991] I, pp. 83–166) that “Ha-ya˙ad meant a confederation of all existing Jewish groups, their union in a pre-existent body, that had never existed before”, (p. 155) has found no followers. 17 This assessment is not in any way altered by the so-called ya˙ad ostracon (F. M. Cross and E. Eshel, “Ostraca from Khirbet Qumrân”, IEJ 47 [1997] 17–28; idem, “1 KhQOstracon”, in S. Pfann, P. S. Alexander et al. [eds.], Qumran Cave 4 XXVI. Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea Part 1 [DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000], pp. 497–507). The reading “ya˙ad” is at best doubtful. See A. Yardeni, “A Draft of a Deed on an Ostracon from Khirbet Qumran”, IEJ 47 (1997) 233–7. Even if the reading were correct, it would suggest at most that Qumran was one settlement of the ya˙ad, not that the ya˙ad was identical with “the Qumran community”. See also C. M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (STDJ 40. Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 383–86. 18 See already J. J. Collins, “Forms of Community in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman and W. W. Fields (eds.), Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 97–111, esp. p. 104.

86

john j. collins

the Essenes “are not in one town only, but in every town several of them form a colony.”19 The ya˙ad, then, is the umbrella organization, the union of these smaller communities.20 A similar form of organization, with different terminology, is presupposed in the Damascus Document, which refers to “those who live in camps according to the order of the land” (CD 7:6) and specifies that the members of the new covenant “shall be ten in number as a minimum, to (form) thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. And in a place of ten, a priest learned in the book of HAGY should not be lacking” (CD 13:1–2). CD also provides a rule for “the assembly of all the camps” (14:3) and distinguishes between the Inspector (mebaqqer) of the camp (13:7) and the Inspector who is over all the camps (14:8–9).21 Needless to say, the reference to multiple dwelling places in 1QS 6 has been noted by commentators. A. R. C. Leaney claimed that the passage “legislates for the life of the sect as it was lived in small scattered groups”.22 For this, he was taken to task by Jerome MurphyO’Connor, who agreed with Leaney that the word translated “places of residence” (mgwryhm) usually suggests a more or less temporary lodging.23 Murphy-O’Connor, whose whole theory of the literary development of the text was tied to the archeological phases of Qumran as reconstructed by de Vaux, suggested that the reference was to the huts or tents in which the sectarians lived around Qumran. On this theory, we should imagine ten men to a tent, eating and studying apart from the rest of the community, a rather far-fetched scenario. Leaney assumed that the following passage, which is introduced as “the rule for the session of the Many”, relates to “the larger community at Qumran”.24 That passage, however, refers to an assembly rather than a community. It may refer to people who live apart

19 Josephus, J.W. II. 122; compare Philo, Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit, 75; Apologia in Eusebius, Praep Ev 8.11.1. 20 Compare E. Regev, “The Ya˙ad and the Damascus Covenant: Structure, Organization and Relationship”, RQ 21 (2003) 233–62. 21 Hempel, Laws of the Damascus Document, p. 111 explains the correspondence by assigning the legislation to “the parent movement of the Qumran community”. She does not discuss how this legislation would be understood in 1QS as it stands. 22 A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning (London: SCM, 1966), p. 180. 23 J. Murphy-O’Connor, “La Genèse Littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté”, RB 66 (1969) 528–49, esp. p. 536. 24 Leaney, Rule of Qumran, p. 186.


87

but come together to discuss communal matters, in the manner of “the assembly of all the camps” in the Damascus Document. Moreover, it gives no indication of the location. Such an assembly may have taken place at Qumran, but this is never specified in the Scrolls. Michael Knibb also noted that these verses “appear to be concerned with those members of the wider Essene movement who lived, not at Qumran, but amongst their fellow Jews”.25 Knibb, however, suggested that “the particular character of the regulations in lines 1c–8a, together with the occurrence of a new heading (1c–2a), suggests that material from a source different from that of the surrounding passages is being used here”.26 Sarianna Metso, likewise, has described these verses as a distinct section that “was introduced into the composition of the Community Rule”, in part because of close affinities with the vocabulary of the following section on the assembly of the many.27 Metso argues that this section is a foreign body, because the Serek “seems to mirror the circumstances of a larger Essene settlement rather than those of the small local communities of towns and villages”.28 The idea of an insertion into the Serek, however, has been problematized by Metso’s own study of the literary history of the document, in light of the fragments from Cave 4. We now know that columns 1–4 were not found in all copies of the Rule (they are missing in 4QSd,e), and that cols. 10–11 were lacking in 4QSe. The nucleus of the Rule, then, was found in cols. 5–9. Differences in style and vocabulary indicate that cols. 5–7 and 8–9 were originally distinct. Even within these older sections of the Rule, redactional differences can be seen between the different manuscripts, and, on Metso’s reconstruction, which I find convincing, older forms of the text are attested in copies that are dated later on paleographic grounds. Moreover, the passage in 1QS 6 that speaks of multiple places of residence is attested in 4QSd, which preserves an older form of the text than 1QS. There is no extant textual evidence for a form of the Serek that does not contain the provision for multiple small communities. The Serek is composed of small literary units

25

Knibb, Qumran Community, p. 115. Ibid. 27 S. Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 133–5. 28 Metso, Textual Development, p. 135. 26

88

john j. collins

that were then combined, but the passage in 1QS 6 is no more distinct literarily than other pericopes in the Rule. Neither can it be said that the regulations in 1QS 5–9, or in the Serek as a whole, mirror the circumstances of a larger Essene settlement rather than those of the small local communities of towns and villages. To be sure, the regulations are not designed for individual local communities. Rather, they formulate the rules that govern the ya˙ad as a whole, and so apply to any of the constituent communities. It is apparent that membership in the ya˙ad was not granted at the discretion of local communities, but required the approval of the association as a whole. The “session of the Many” (6:8) is an assembly of members, regardless of number. The twelve men and three priests in col. 8 are a special case, to which we shall return, but the rules in 1QS 5–7 can be explained satisfactorily as regulations for an association that is dispersed in small settlements of ten or more members and holds periodic assemblies. A similar situation obtains in the rule for the eschatological age in 1QSa, which provides for gatherings of groups of (at least) ten members of “the council of the ya˙ad” with the messiah in “the end of days” (1QSa 2:22). It should be noted that “the council of the ya˙ad” retains an elite role in the end of days, even when “all the congregation of Israel” follows the regulations of the sect.29 The Council of the Community Eyal Regev has been one of the few scholars to recognize that ya˙ad must be seen as a union of local communities.30 He, however, draws a further conclusion from the passage in 1QS 6, that “the council of the ya˙ad is a [smaller] community within the larger sectarian organization of the ya˙ad”. There was extensive debate in the earlier years of Scrolls research as to whether the “council” was an inner council31 with special authority, or was rather a council of the whole. The consensus that emerged has favored the view that the council of the ya˙ad is simply the same thing as the ya˙ad. In any case, the council of the ya˙ad cannot be equated with the local com-

29

Collins, “Forms of Community”, pp. 109–110. Regev, “Ya˙ad and the Damascus Covenant”. 31 So J. T. Milik, Ten Tears of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (SBT 26. London: SCM, 1959), p. 100. 30


89

munity. 1QS 6:3 reads: “and in every place where there are ten men from the council (tx[m) of the community.” The partitive mem indicates that the ten do not constitute the council, but that it is a larger group of which they are members. Again, the council and the ya˙ad are interchangeable in the procedures for admission in 1QS 6:13–23. Most of the arguments about the identity of the council have focused on the enigmatic passage in 1QS 8:1: “In the council of the community there are twelve men and three priests, perfect in all that has been revealed from the whole Torah”.32 1QS 8:1–4a begins a new section with a general statement of the purpose of this group. This is followed by three sections, each of which begins with the phrase larçyb hla twyhb, when these are, or become, in Israel (8:4b, 12b; 9:3). In the first case, Knibb translates: “When these exist in Israel, the council of the community shall be established in truth as an eternal plant, a holy house for Israel and a most holy assembly for Aaron”.33 In 8:10–11 there is a further temporal clause: “when these have been established in the fundamental principles of the community for two years in perfection of way, they shall be set apart as holy within the council of the men of the community.” Then the second section, beginning in 8:12b, says that “when these exist as a community in Israel (larçyb djyl hla twyhb. The word djyl is inserted above the line) they shall separate themselves from the settlement of the men of injustice and shall go into the wilderness to prepare there the way of him.” Finally 9:3, “when these exist in Israel in accordance with all these rules as a foundation of the spirit of holiness in eternal truth . . .” seems to be a reformulation of 8:4b–10. 1QS 8:15–9:11 is missing from 4QSe. The omission may be accidental, but Metso argues that the whole passage is a secondary insertion.34 8:16b–19 and 8:20 to 9:2 provide penal codes for judging transgressions, which hardly seemed necessary in the idealistic opening verses. 9:3–11 duplicates 8:4b–10. Our concern here, however, is with the identification of the twelve men and three priests, 32 The only other place in the Scrolls where such a group is mentioned is in a fragmentary context in 4Q265, which is restored to read “in the council of the community fif[teen men]” but the reading is reconstructed by analogy with 1QS 8. See J. Baumgarten, “265. 4QMiscellaneous Rules”, in J. M. Baumgarten et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXV (DJD 35. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), pp. 57–78, esp. p. 72. 33 Knibb, Qumran Community, p. 128. 34 Metso, Textual Development, p. 72.

90

john j. collins

and this question is not significantly affected by the disputed passage beginning in 8:15. 1QS 8:1, “In the council of the community (there shall be) twelve men and three priests” can be read in either of two ways. The twelve men and three priests can be taken to constitute the council of the community. This again can be understood in either of two ways. Either they constitute an elite council within the community or they constitute the original core of the movement (if the council is simply the ya˙ad itself ). The theory of E. F. Sutcliffe and MurphyO’Connor that this passage represents the original “manifesto” of the movement takes the passage in the latter sense.35 But it is also possible to take the verse to mean that the twelve men and three priests are a special sub-group within the council of the ya˙ad (= the ya˙ad itself ). This is in fact how they are understood in 1QS 8:10–11: “When these have been established in the fundamental principles of the community for two years in perfection of way, they shall be set apart as holy within the council of the men of the community.” They are not, then, a council in the sense of an administrative or executive body. Rather, they are an elite group set aside for special training. The establishment of such a group is necessary for the completion of the ya˙ad: “when these exist in Israel the council of the community is established in truth” (8:5). The idea that this group at one time constituted the ya˙ad might seem to derive some support from 8:12: “when these become a community in Israel.” The word djyl is inserted above the line and may be a gloss, intended to clarify that the group in question pertains to the ya˙ad, not just to Israel. (The word appears to be lacking in 4QSd).36 In any case, if we accept that this verse belongs to the same literary unit as the preceding verses, the antecedent is the group that is set apart within the “council of the community” and given special training. The group in question cannot be taken to constitute the whole ya˙ad, at any stage of its existence, unless we perform gratuitous surgery on the extant text.

35 E. F. Sutcliffe, “The First Fifteen Members of the Qumran Community”, JSS 4 (1959) 134–38 and Murphy-O’Connor, “Genèse Littéraire”. 36 See Alexander and Vermes, Qumran Cave 4. XIX, p. 107.


91

The Withdrawal to the Desert The withdrawal of this group to the wilderness has often been taken as a reference to the founding of the settlement at Qumran. The fact that it is described as the fulfillment of prophecy in no way detracts from the likelihood that it was an actual occurrence.37 It is, of course, impossible to prove that the reference is specifically to Qumran, but this remains an attractive hypothesis. If we assume for the sake of the argument that the twelve men and three priests were the founding members of “the Qumran community”, what then would be the relationship between that community and the ya˙ad? Many scholars who have assumed that the passage relates to the founding of the Qumran community understand it as describing the initial sectarian break with broader Jewish society. Michael Knibb spoke for many when he wrote: “This material thus appears to be the oldest in the Rule and to go back to the period shortly before the Qumran community came into existence; it may be regarded as reflecting the aims and ideals of conservative Jews who were disturbed by the way in which the Maccabean leaders were conducting affairs, and whose decision to withdraw into the wilderness was motivated by the desire to be able to observe strictly God’s laws in the way that they believed to be right. It probably dates from the middle of the second century bc.”38 Leaney, to his credit, comments that “the community or movement out of which it arose must have been represented by groups dispersed throughout the land.”39 If 1QS 8:1–13 is read as a unit, the people who withdraw to the wilderness were already members of the ya˙ad and were selected and commissioned deliberately to go to the wilderness to live a more holy life than was possible elsewhere. On this reading, the Qumran community was one special settlement of the ya˙ad, but cannot be identified either with the ya˙ad or with the council of the ya˙ad without remainder. If the Essene hypothesis is accepted, the ya˙ad is the whole Essene sect, not just the Qumran community.

37 See G. J. Brooke, “Isaiah 40:3 and the Wilderness Community”, in G. J. Brooke and F. García Martínez (eds.), New Qumran Texts and Studies (STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 117–32. 38 Knibb, Qumran Community, p. 129. 39 Leaney, Rule of Qumran, pp. 210–11.

92

john j. collins The Alleged Schism

This conclusion has implications for the widely held view that the “Qumran community” originated as a group that broke away from the wider Essene movement.40 Josephus famously refers to a second order of Essenes, who married and had children, but he gives no hint that the existence of the two orders of Essenes was due to a schism. Quite the contrary. He claims that they were “in agreement with the others on the way of life, usages, and customs”, and they differed only with respect to marriage ( J.W. 2.160). The best evidence for a distinction of two orders in the Scrolls is found in CD 7, which can be taken to distinguish between those who “walk in perfect holiness” and those who live in camps according to the order of the land, and marry and have children.41 Here again there is no suggestion of a schism. CD legislates for both. Similarly in the Serek, the people who are said to go into the desert to prepare the way of the Lord in 1QS 8 are not schismatics, but are people who are set aside within the ya˙ad for a life of holiness. There is no indication that the Community Rule and the Damascus Document represent different sides in a schism. Both rules allow both for “men of perfect holiness” and for multiple settlements. It would seem then that the two orders of Essenes represented different options within the sect, not dissenting factions. The idea of schism within the parent movement is based above all on the references in the Damascus Document to the “Scoffer” (CD 1:14) and to those who turned back with the man of the lie (CD 20:15).42 It is clear that some people rejected the Teacher during his lifetime and broke with his community. One may well argue, then, that the whole Essene sect arose as the result of a schism within a wider movement (such as the Hasidim), and this was in fact the usual argument in the early phase of research on the Scrolls.43 But 40 Murphy-O’Connor, “The Essenes and their History”, p. 233; Davies, Behind the Essenes, pp. 18–19; García Martínez and van der Woude, “Groningen Hypothesis”, p. 537; Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis, p. 16. 41 J. M. Baumgarten, “The Qumran-Essene Restraints on Marriage”, in L. H. Schiffman (ed.), Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990), pp. 13–24. 42 See especially H. Stegemann, Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde (Bonn: published privately, 1971), pp. 48–52. 43 Milik, Ten Years of Discovery, pp. 80–81; F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (3rd edn. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), p. 104; Stegemann, Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde, p. 250.


93

there is no reason to suppose that the people who settled at Qumran were the only ones loyal to the Teacher. Equally, there is no reason to regard those who turned back with the “Man of the Lie” as Essenes.44 The identification of any group described in the Scrolls as Essenes rests primarily on the similarities between the Serek and the account in Josephus, and so if any group described in the Scrolls is to be identified as Essenes it is the ya˙ad. The Ya˙ad and the Damascus Document As noted at the beginning of this essay, the word ya˙ad only occurs once in CD. In that text, the preferred word for the community is 'edah, congregation, which can also be used to refer to other communities, including those of the enemies of the sect.45 Despite this apparently neutral usage, 'edah has a strong biblical background, especially in the Priestly strand of the Pentateuch, with reference to Israel in the wilderness, and is an appropriate name for a movement that saw itself as the true Israel.46 CD also uses the language of a new covenant (CD 6:19; 8:21; 19:33; 20:12). The difference in terminology is only one of a number of differences between the two rule books.47 The admission process in CD 15:5b–16:1a consists of swearing an oath in the presence of the mebaqqer. An oath is also required for admission in 1QS 5:8, but in 1QS 6 we find a much more elaborate procedure for admission in several stages. CD, like 1QSa, explicitly mentions women and children, while 1QS does not, although it should be noted that 1QSa does so in the context of “the whole congregation of Israel” in the last days. CD allows for private property (CD 9:10b–16a; 13:15–16; 14:12–13), in contrast to the emphasis on communal property in the Serek.48 More generally, the Damascus 44

Stegemann, Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde, p. 253, made a strong case for identifying them as the Pharisees. So also H. Eshel, “The Meaning and Significance of CD 20:13–15”, in D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich (eds.) The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 330–36, esp. p. 336. 45 We also find the terms ˙eber (CD 14:16) and ˙ibbur (CD 12:8). See M. A. Knibb, “Community Organization in the Damascus Document”, in Schiffman and VanderKam, Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I, p. 137. 46 S. Metso, “Qumran Community Structure and Terminology as Theological Statement”, RQ 20 (2002) 429–44, esp. pp. 432–34. 47 C. Hempel, “Community Structures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Admission, Organization, Disciplinary Procedures”, in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999) II, pp. 67–92. 48 For a nuanced study of attitudes to wealth and property in these documents see Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 25–162.

94

john j. collins

Rule legislates for matters of concern to all Jews, regardless of where they lived, such as the sabbath and dealings with Gentiles, whereas the Serek is concerned with conduct within the ya˙ad. These differences, however, must be weighed against several striking points of similarity. Like the Serek, CD provides for multiple communities with at least ten members. Both rules provide for “men of perfect holiness” who are distinguished from other members of the associations (CD 7:5; 20:2,5,7; 1QS 8:20, cf. 8:21; 9:8). Both rules use the terms maskil and mebaqqer for community officials.49 CD refers to the sectarian movement as a new covenant; 1QS begins with an elaborate covenant renewal ceremony. Moreover, both rules have complex literary histories, and some manuscripts combine elements from both traditions.50 It has been plausibly argued that the reference to “the men of the ya˙ad” in CD 20 is part of a redaction of CD from the perspective of the ya˙ad.51 Elements from S and D are combined in the so-called Serek Damascus, 4Q265. Most scholars have assumed that the Damascus Rule and the Community Rule reflect the same movement, despite their problematic differences. As we have seen, scholars have commonly regarded the Serek as the rule for a quasi-monastic community at Qumran and related the Damascus Document to “the marrying Essenes”, and this explanation can no longer be maintained. An alternative model makes the contrast between a parent movement, reflected in CD, and an “offshoot” or “splinter group” reflected in 1QS and 4QS.52 In the latter case, it is important to clarify the relationship between the ya˙ad and the supposed parent group. According to CD column 1, the movement was in existence for 20 years before the advent of the Teacher. After the Teacher’s arrival, some people turned back

49

Metso, “Qumran Community Structure”, pp. 438–9. S. Metso, “The Relationship between the Damascus Document and the Community Rule”, in J. M. Baumgarten, E. G. Chazon and A. Pinnick (eds.), The Damascus Document. A Centennial of Discovery (STDJ 34. Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 85–93. 51 P. R. Davies, “The Judaism(s) of the Damascus Document”, in Baumgarten, Chazon and Pinnick, The Damascus Document, pp. 27–43, esp. p. 36. The full redactional theory proposed by Davies (The Damascus Covenant. An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document” [Sheffield: JSOT, 1983]) is highly problematic. See J. J. Collins, “Review of Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant ”, JBL 104 (1985) 530–33. 52 Hempel, Laws of the Damascus Document; eadem, “The Qumran Sapiential Texts and the Rule Books”, in C. Hempel, A. Lange and H. Lichtenberger (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (BETL 159. Leuven: Peeters, 2002), pp. 277–95, esp. p. 277. 50


95

with “the man of the Lie”. The narrative of CD, however, posits continuity between this parent movement and the followers of the Teacher. Even if the claim of continuity is tendentious,53 it shows the self-understanding of the community reflected in CD. Again, in 1QS 8 we may speak of the group that withdraws to the desert as an offshoot of a broader movement, but as we have seen this group was not in schism with the ya˙ad but was rather commissioned by it for a special life of holiness. Moreover, while the Teacher is not mentioned in the Serek, he is clearly linked with the ya˙ad in the pesharim. In the Damascus Rule, the Teacher plays a key role, not only in the “ya˙ad recension” in col. 20 but also in col. 1, where he is the key figure in the development of this movement. He must also be identified with the “interpreter of the law” who establishes the precepts for the movement in CD 6:9.54 It would seem then that both the ya˙ad and the movement described in the Damascus Rule were followers of the Teacher. In light of this complex situation, we cannot posit any sharp break between the congregation of CD and the ya˙ad.55 They cannot be regarded as two completely distinct communities, as has recently become fashionable. The proposal that the differences between the two rule books should be explained by diachronic development is nonetheless attractive. At least in some cases, such as the admissions process, the Serek reflects a more highly developed arrangement than was the case in the D texts. The situation is complicated by the fact that both the D and S rules were preserved in more than one form. Earlier formulations continued to be copied, and it is possible that different local communities preserved different forms of the rules. There is much in this situation that is unclear, and much that is likely to remain unclear unless new evidence is discovered.

53 So Hempel, “Community Origins in the Damascus Document in the Light of Recent Scholarship”, in Parry and Ulrich (eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 316–20, esp. p. 321. 54 M. A. Knibb, “The Teacher of Righteousness—A Messianic Title?”, in P. R. Davies and R. T. White (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes ( JSOTSup 100. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), pp. 51–65; idem, “The Place of the Damascus Document”, in Wise et al. (eds.), Methods of Investigation, pp. 149–60, esp. p. 158; J. J. Collins, “Teacher and Messiah? The One Who Will Teach Righteousness at the End of Days”, in E. Ulrich and J. VanderKam (eds.), The Community of the Renewed Covenant (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1994), pp. 193–210. 55 So also Knibb, “Place of the Damascus Document”.

96

john j. collins

We have, however, reached a point where it is no longer helpful to characterize any part of the textual evidence as describing “the Qumran community”. Whether there was an Essene or other sectarian community at Qumran will continue to be debated on the basis of the archeological evidence. But if there was such a community at Qumran, it was not isolated or sui generis. Both the S and D rules, and also the accounts of the Essenes, posit an extensive sectarian movement with multiple places of residence scattered through the land. The settlement at Qumran may well have been occupied by members of the ya˙ad, but the ya˙ad can not be equated with “the Qumran community”.

AND ENOCH WAS NOT, FOR GENESIS TOOK HIM Philip R. Davies This paper deals with Pentateuchal criticism. But it also involves 1 Enoch and I hope is especially appropriate for dedication to Michael Knibb, a treasured colleague and friend. I begin with the Genesis account of the “heavenly descent” in 6:1–4, and with the observation that this short passage bristles with difficulties.1 First among these is what Blenkinsopp calls “the garbled state of the text”:2 the sequence of events is not unambiguously clear.3 Second: the episode does not fit into any interpretative scheme for either Genesis 1–11 as it now stands, or for the J4 narrative within it. For most interpreters find in these chapters (or at least in J) a pattern of human misdeeds or rebellions followed by divine response, and accordingly regard this episode and the Flood as another instance. But the language of 6:1–4 itself contradicts this interpretation, for in fact the offspring are called gibborim and "anshey shem, terms whose usage elsewhere in the Bible connotes approval. Moreover, no causal connection between heavenly descent and flood is declared in the text: rather, the divine remedy for the mixing of human and divine natures is a shortening of human lifespan. The reason given for the flood itself as stated in 6:5 is human wickedness. This wickedness is presented rather as a gradual deterioration of human behaviour manifested in 1 For a useful discussion and (improbable) proposal, see D. J. A. Clines, “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6.1–4) in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’ (Genesis 1–11)”, JSOT 13 (1986) 33–46. 2 J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch. An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York: Doubleday/London: SCM Press, 1992), p. 75. 3 One oddity, for example, concerns the nephilim. Did they perish in the flood? The story narrates that only Noah’s family survived (7:1). What, then, of the phrase “and also afterwards” in 6:4? This perhaps betrays a recognition that nephilim did survive the flood; for these giants are encountered by the spies in Numbers 13:33 (did one of the nephilot marry into Noah’s family?) And is the connection between this nephilim tradition in Numbers and the idea of a ‘fall’ (npl ) from heaven intrinsic or secondary? The verb does not occur in 6:1–4. 4 In using the symbols J and P I am not necessarily endorsing the conclusions of the New Documentary Hypothesis regarding these sources. I do, nevertheless, accept that there are two sources here, and as far as Genesis 1–11 goes, they may as well be given the conventional sigla.

98

philip r. davies

the deeds and words of Cain and Lamech (which in the J narrative immediately precede the heavenly descent). The line of Cain, the murderer, from which all humans are descended, produces even more murder (and will continue to do so: see 8:21).5 There is no hint of wickedness apparent in the union of divine beings and human women. The story in Gen 6:1–4 is therefore curious, tantalizing in its brevity and lack of clarity, and infuriating in its inconsequentiality. It was for this reason that Martin Noth proposed that it could well be an addition to the narrative later than either J or P.6 Yet he was unable to conjecture why the story might have been added, and it is hard to see the purpose of such an insertion (one might almost say “interruption”) into what would have been otherwise a coherent sequence of events. In view of the use of the divine name, however, the majority of commentators accept that it should be assigned to J. It is therefore necessary to find a reason (and that is the purpose of this essay) for the inclusion. A reasonable assumption is that in view of the story’s incoherence and inconsequentiality it was not composed de novo but represents a reworking of an existing tale. That assumption (which many commentators share) I hope to confirm in what follows. However, it still remains to discover a reason why it should have been included at this point in J’s narrative. Genesis and 1 Enoch We have a fuller version of the story of Gen 6:1–4 story narrated in 1 Enoch 6–11,7 where it seems probable that two versions of the story have been interwoven.8 In both versions the descent of the 5 P. R. Davies, “Sons of Cain”, in J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season. Essays in Honour of William McKane ( JSOTSup 42. Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), pp. 35–56. 6 M. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Translated by B. W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972), p. 28 n. 83. 7 Although Jubilees is clearly related to the Enoch literature, the version of the story in Jubilees 5 appears to be a slightly harmonizing rewriting of the Genesis account. 8 See P. D. Hanson, “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in Enoch 6–11”, JBL 96 (1997) 195–233; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1. A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch: Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), pp. 171–2. Hanson’s suggestion that a single account has been converted into a double account by the addition of material about 'Asael is largely followed by Nickelsburg, who thinks that the 'Asael material is drawn from an independent myth of a single fallen angel that revealed hidden knowledge. But Leviticus 16’s

and enoch was not, for genesis took him

99

heavenly beings is presented as the origin of evil on earth; in one the Flood is sent to wipe out the evil from the earth, while the leader 'Asael (= 'Azazel)9 is bound and set under a rock in the desert; in the other the leader, whose name here is Semi˙azah, must first witness their offspring destroy each other, “for length of days they have not”, then they shall be bound for seventy generations “underneath the rocks of the ground”. The existence of two versions of the story certainly complicates any exegesis, though it also supports the suggestion that the story predates 1 Enoch (we need not imagine two variants being simultaneously invented, then being rather awkwardly combined). But in both versions the cause of wickedness on the earth is the descent of the heavenly beings, and the view of evil as something originally supernatural is intrinsic to 1 Enoch as a whole. However, it contradicts the view of J, which is that sin originated with human disobedience; and here, I suggest, lies the reason for its inclusion in Genesis in a way that severs the connection between the descent, wickedness and punishment, by denying that the nephilim were evil and that the incident provided the cause for the Flood. The preservation of the story in the Enochic Book of the Watchers (and allusions in other Enochic writings) draws attention, however, to the figure of Enoch in the early chapters of Genesis, where he receives very brief mention. In the genealogy of the Yahwist (Gen 4:17–18) nothing special is hinted about him at all; he is the son of Cain, who built a city for him and named it after him. In P, however, he is placed between Yared (in J Irad is his son) and Methuselah connection of 'Azazel with human sin makes this suggestion improbable. Nickelsburg then has to regard the accusation of bringing sin against 'Asael in 1 Enoch 13:1–3 as an “interpolation” (p. 172). He notes here also that Shemi˙azah is more common in the Book of Giants, while 'Azazel predominates in 4Q180 and in the Animal Apocalypse and Parables, but his argument that the name 'Azazel gradually supplanted Shemi˙azah is a little tendentious. It seems safer to accept that the tradition about descending heavenly beings was transmitted in more than one form. Against Nickelsburg’s suggestion that the revealing of secrets and the introduction of sin are separate themes is the fact that both are connected with Cain in Genesis; the line is characterized both by the invention of arts and sciences and by increasing violence. 9 On the alternation of names, see J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), p. 131. The form 'Azazel is used in the Qumran Aramaic fragment 4QEnGiantsa (= 4Q203). See also L. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran (TSAJ 63. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), pp. 77–87, esp. p. 82 n. 59: “The identification of ‘As/zeal’ or a comparable form . . . as the biblical Azazel does not constitute a problem as may initially seem.” Stuckenbruck also discusses here the alternation of Shemi˙azah and 'Azazel/'Asael as leaders of the group.

100

philip r. davies

and it is said (Gen 5:22–23) that he “walked with God after he begot Methuselah for three hundred years, and had sons and daughters: and Enoch lived for 365 years”. There are two strange things in this P record: Enoch apparently did not die, and he lived the number of years in a solar year. We have, as in Genesis 6:1–4, the impression of a story that is known but not fully told. We find a fuller account of Enoch in the books of Enoch, explaining how he taught a solar calendar and how he was translated to heaven. However, given that Genesis 5 is a brief genealogy, it is doubtful that P has deliberately omitted further information: indeed the additional information here is notable.10 Contrasted with J’s treatment of Enoch in 4:17–18, 5:21–23 represents an adequate account of his importance. The difference between J and P in respect of Enoch is an issue to be taken up later. What is the relationship between the Genesis material and the Enoch stories? Scholarly orthodoxy prefers the conclusion that the stories in Enoch are an expansion of the Genesis text.11 But this solution, which certainly seems superficially the simplest, does not account for the evidence.12 First, there is a logical problem: if Gen 6:1–4 is a truncated version of an earlier and fuller story, as seems to be the best explanation, then the fuller story known to the writers (and readers) of Genesis was probably also known to the writers of the Enoch text, since they cherished the figure of Enoch. These writers would therefore hardly need to expand brief allusions in Genesis when they could utilize the fuller story to which these allusions point. Second, the Enoch story takes account of material elsewhere in the scriptures. The most significant of these is the ceremony of the scapegoat in Leviticus 16. Here the name of Azazel is men10

Nevertheless, the wording “and he was not, for God took him” does provoke some puzzlement: it is a very odd and elliptical expression. The possibility that it has been made deliberately obscure (by J?) cannot be ruled out, but that can only be a conjecture, and one that does not need to be established. 11 E.g. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11”, JBL 96 (1977) 383–405; J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1984), pp. 38f.; M. Delcor, “Le mythe de la chute des anges et de l’origine des géants comme explication du mal dans le monde dans apocalyptique juive: Histoire des traditions”, RHR 190 (1976) 3–53. 12 As is well known, Milik (Books of Enoch) proposed that the Enoch story was earlier than Genesis. M. Black (The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch. A New English Edition [Leiden: Brill, 1985], pp. 124–5) favours this opinion but remains open to the alternative that both Genesis and Enoch go back to an earlier source (the position advocated in this essay).


101

tioned, but neither its significance nor the significance of sending the chosen goat into the wilderness is provided. Again, however, a rationale is provided in 1 Enoch by the imprisonment there of Azazel,13 from whom human sin originated and to whom it is being returned by the scapegoat. On the majority view, here also 1 Enoch in addition to expanding brief Genesis references will have creatively explained another ancient ritual as well. However, since it has been shown that the Genesis allusions to the fall of deities and to Enoch must refer to an earlier story, it is logical that this earlier story was connected to the ritual of the scapegoat that gives cultic expression to its theology of the cause of sin. So far my argument has been that a story (and a ritual) about the origin of sin from a heavenly invasion lies behind the Genesis narrative—which largely conceals that story. This story, rather than the Genesis abbreviation alone, is a more likely source for the 1 Enoch version—which, as has been noted, in its extant form (1 Enoch 6–11) already indicates the conflation of two versions of that story. The history of this narrative is more complex, therefore, than current explanations suggest. Finally, the fact that in the J narrative in Genesis both the figure of Enoch and the narrative of the descent of heavenly beings exhibit the same kind of abbreviated treatment suggests that the connection of the descent story with the figure of Enoch underlies not only 1 Enoch but J’s narrative also. If this argument is sound, then one and the same reason perhaps underlies both features. Why would J (but not necessarily P: see later) suppress an Enoch tradition? Boccaccini has argued at length that the kernel of that tradition is a view of the origin and nature of sin, and that a competing view understood sin as arising from human disobedience.14 In illustrating this phenomenon, he shows how a compromise of “Enochic” and its alternative (which he calls “Zadokite”) views appear in works such as ben Sira, Daniel and the Qumran scrolls. Ben Sira is an 13 Although 1 Enoch mentions also the name of Semi˙azah as the leader of the descending heavenly beings, 'Azazel is the name preserved in 4Q180. See P. S. Alexander, “The Enochic Literature and the Bible: Intertextuality and its Implications”, in E. D. Herbert and E. Tov (eds.), The Bible as a Book. The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (London: The British Library and Oak Knoll Press in association with The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2002), pp. 57–69 for a discussion of this text. 14 G. Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis. The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); idem, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism. An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).

102

philip r. davies

extremely important testimony because his book seems to reflect a wider range of options (despite Boccaccini’s arguments).15 For he celebrates a “glorious Adam”,16 and imputes no disobedience to him. He also grants Enoch in 44:16 and 49:14 a more worthy mention than does Genesis, including (in 44:16) a reference to his “repentance” (also absent from Genesis). However, unlike Boccaccini’s “Enochic Judaism”, ben Sira does not believe in any afterlife or eschatological judgment. Unless he is a rather unrepresentative writer, his Wisdom suggests a fluidity of notions about the nature and origin of sin at the beginning of the second century bce. At all events, he hardly endorses the viewpoint of Genesis against that of Enoch and thus implies that Genesis as we now have it was not understood by him as a definitive account.17 The evidence that Boccaccini reviews for a negotiation between “Zadokite” and “Enochic” Judaism, if perhaps channeled rather too narrowly, is persuasive and provides a realistic context for the attitude of Genesis 1–11 towards Enoch and Enochic traditions. For in advocating a myth that sin originates in human disobedience, Genesis 2–4 opposes the myth of a heavenly origin. The effacing of much of the character of Enoch (in both J and P) is in accordance with that strategy, for Enoch’s ascent to heaven has no place in the theology of these chapters. However, this is not the extent of the treatment. The Enochic story of the heavenly descent has also, as discussed above, been amended by detaching from it any connection with the origin of sin in the world and thus denying its significance as an account of the origin of sin. But the revision in fact goes a good deal further. There are elements in Genesis 1–11 that suggest a deliberate reworking of the story of the heavenly descent, a transposition into the alternative story. In the Book of the Watchers the angels also bring knowledge of arts and sciences to humans. In that story also, the birth of 15

G. Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 134–150. Yet again we are faced, nevertheless, with a complex tradition, for the figure in Ezekiel 28:12–19, used as a metaphor for the king of Tyre, once glorious, has fallen. 17 For a nuanced analysis of shared features of ben Sira and 1 Enoch, see R. A. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach. A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment (Atlanta: SBL, 1995). For an appraisal of ben Sira’s connection between women and sin (and other theories of the origin of evil in early Judaism) see P. R. Davies, “The Origin of Evil in Early Judaism”, Australian Biblical Review 50 (2002) 43–54. 16


103

giants leads to bloodshed, and the earth cries out and its voice is heard in heaven. The perpetrator does not die but remains imprisoned in the wilderness. All these features, omitted in Genesis 6:1–4, reappear in connection with the figure of Cain. In Genesis 4 it is the descendants of Cain who invent the arts and sciences; it is after Abel’s murder that the earth cries out because of the blood and is heard in heaven, and it is Cain who remains in the wilderness.18 Indeed, in his words “my sin is too great for me to bear” (Gen 4:13) may lie an allusion to the fate of the scapegoat (the “Azazel” goat) itself, condemned not to die but to wander in the desert under the weight of Israel’s iniquities. It is an improbable coincidence that these three features of the Enoch story are all applied to Cain. The only other solution is that the author(s) of the 1 Enoch story have moved these details from Cain to Azazel. Did they, then, also invent the scapegoat ritual? I am arguing, then, that Genesis, or rather J in Genesis 1–11, contains a deliberate anti-Enochic revision of human origins in which heavenly agency (even the snake is a creature that YHWH made) is entirely absent. It is a product of that negotiation between myths of evil that Boccaccini has discussed at such length within Second Temple Jewish literature. The issue is not one of priority as between 1 Enoch and Genesis. Assigning specific dates to texts and to stories is extremely difficult: both are usually products of ongoing rewriting and retelling. What can sometimes be reconstructed, however, is a relative chronology: certain stories (or versions of stories) imply the existence of others. As far as the relationship between Genesis and 1 Enoch is concerned, we know that the earliest extant manuscript of 1 Enoch is older than the earliest of Genesis; but that proves little. In any case, 1 Enoch itself often shows an awareness of scriptural texts. But it can be demonstrated that the myth in the Book of the Watchers is not elaborated from Genesis but a version of a story of heavenly descent, including the introduction to humans of both violence and heavenly knowledge, that is older than both it and Genesis; and that J’s narrative is a radical revision of that story.19 In the final part of this 18 The “mark of Cain” may have a connection with the Mishnaic tradition that a ‘mark’ was placed upon the goat in the wilderness, specifically a ‘thread of crimson wool’: see m. Yoma 6:6. 19 For a recent essay in a similar direction, see A. Bedenbender, “Traces of

104

philip r. davies

essay, I want to turn back to the narrative of Genesis 1–11 and to the two strands that comprise it. J and P in Genesis 1–11 The attitude towards Enoch in J and in P is quite different. As noted, P refers to Enoch’s lifespan and to his being “taken” by God. By contrast, Genesis 6:1–4 and the figure of Cain both exhibit features characteristic of J. It is J that has rewritten 'Azazel into Cain and stripped the story of heavenly descent of its original significance. It is also J’s genealogy that denies Enoch any distinction at all. But what of P’s stance on the question of the origin of evil? P actually gives us no account at all. In 1973, Cross had observed that “There is no account of primordial human rebellion in the Priestly strata of Genesis 1–11. Save for the rubric in Genesis 2:4a, P is absent in chapters 2 and 3 . . . That a Priestly narrative once existed without an account of man’s rebellion and sin is very hard to believe.”20 Having insisted (Gen 1) that when God created the world it was good, it now states, at the onset of its own Flood narrative (Gen 6:11) that “the earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence”. It is an abrupt and enigmatic assertion.21 What explanation might P have offered? Would P have agreed with J, or with 1 Enoch, or with some other view? There are several clues to the answer: first, P acknowledges at least something of the Enoch story in 5:21–23; second, P is ideologically and probably literarily connected with the authorship of Leviticus, in which the scapegoat ceremony appears, and in which the eating of blood is forbidden (Leviticus 17); third, the P Flood narrative contains indications of a calendrical reckoning similar to that used in the Enochic literature,

Enochic Judaism Within the Hebrew Bible”, in G. Boccaccini (ed.), The Origins of Enochic Judaism. Proceedings of the First Enoch Seminar. University of Michigan, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy June 19–23, 2001 (Freiburg: Herder, 2003), pp. 39–48, who speaks of “mythological competition” and “counter-reactions”. 20 F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1973), p. 306. Cross used this to argue (in my view, wrongly) that P was never an independent narrative. 21 C. Westermann, (Genesis. An Introduction [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], p. 53) seems to suggest that P is not interested in the reason for the Flood, only the decision to bring it. But P does give a reason (the earth was corrupt); it is the lack of explanation of that reason that is curious.


105

namely months of thirty days each.22 Fourth, and finally: the Noachic covenant (Gen 9:1–7) focuses on the shedding of blood—something else for which there is no description other than the widespread bloodletting in the Enochic story of the giant offspring —and the phrase “the earth was corrupt” rather than “humans were corrupt” fits very well the details in 1 Enoch that the earth cried out because of the blood shed on it. Indeed, the remedy of the universal flood, is not only a reversal and then renewal of creation (as more or less universally recognized), but is also appropriate for a Priestly writer as a means of purification. The most likely answer, therefore, is that the author(s) of P agreed with the authors of 1 Enoch in respect of the origin of evil. If P’s account of the origin of evil would have been the story of a heavenly descent, was that story in fact originally included in its narrative? The consensus on this maintains it was not, because P is generally held to be later than J.23 On that view, P would have had that story already available in the narrative ( J’s narrative). But elsewhere, P narratives stand alongside J narratives as doublets (creation: ch. 1, chs. 2–4; spread of humanity: ch. 10, ch. 11:1–9; genealogies: 4:17–24, ch. 10) or, as in the case of the Flood, combined (chs. 6–9). There is no other case of P’s omitting an episode that J also narrates. Moreover, that P would have been content with J’s version of the heavenly descent is doubtful, since it does not convey the necessary significance, and, if P’s Noachic covenant alludes to the bloodshed caused by the giant offspring of the union of heavenly and earthly beings, then J’s form of the narrative does not provide that detail. The basis of an alternative explanation for the absence of a P version of the origin of evil has been provided by Blenkinsopp, who 22 On the precise details of P’s calendar there remains a good deal of discussion, with which there is no space here to engage, and which does not matter here. For a recent discussion and a proposal that P uses a 364-day calendar also in Gen 1, see S. Najm and Ph. Guillaume, “Jubilee Calendar Rescued from the Flood Narrative”, JHS 5:1 (2004). One unexplained issue is the 365 days of Gen 5:23. This figure does not reflect the 364 days of the Enochic (or Qumranic) calendar. It has possibly been scribally altered, though there is hardly a plausible motive for this. More likely, we have a variant version of a lunisolar calendar. 23 This view is nevertheless currently under challenge by a number of particular Jewish scholars influenced by Kaufmann: for a good recent discussion, see E. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century. The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Oxford University, 1998), pp. 218–21. Unfortunately, Blenkinsopp’s important proposal for the priority of P in Genesis 1–11 is omitted from this otherwise useful book.

106

philip r. davies

has also noted that “The P version of human origins has no explicit account of what happened to bring about the deluge.”24 (He finds it embedded in the genealogies with their decreasing lifespans).25 Blenkinsopp has argued that J is in fact a supplement to P. While this view has not gained widespread acceptance (though inertia rather than strong counter-arguments seem to motivate this reluctance), it offers a cogent solution for our present problem. The present narrative in Genesis 6:1–4 is not in fact a grudging recognition that a story of a heavenly descent was well-known and therefore had to be dealt with somewhere: it lay precisely here already, in the P narrative, preceding the flood story (where its placement still induces several commentators to take it as a pretext for the flood). Conclusions and Implications I have concluded that both the narratives interwoven in Genesis 1–11 engage in different ways with an earlier story of primeval origins that is also preserved in the Enochic literature. The intention of J was to replace the earlier myth, already associated with the figure of Enoch, with a new one, in which sin originated in human disobedience. To this end the earlier story has been mutilated, key elements from it transposed to Cain, and the figure of Enoch all but obliterated. The view that Enoch represents a later development of Genesis—still maintained by the majority of commentators on 1 Enoch—cannot explain the configuration of the Genesis narrative. I have argued that in the fascinating interplay of contending traditions and ideologies that Second Temple texts reveal, the canonized text itself cannot be exempted from consideration and that the early part of Genesis represents part of a conflict well documented in other literature. For the Bible does not, of course, have a privileged status, even historically, in an examination of the emergence of Judaism(s) in the Second Temple period (and what “Second Temple” itself implies is not historically very precise or accurate: it is actually ideologically loaded). The historian will also be aware that the Enochic account of the origin of sin has actually prevailed over the Yahwist’s in sub-

24

Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch, p. 9. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch. His view of P’s account of the origin of evil has been maintained in recent private discussion. 25


107

sequent Christian mythology. Lucifer (the Fallen Angel, Satan, the devil, the Serpent) survived J’s attempt to reduce him to a mere creature (and a crawling one at that) to instill evil in human hearts, while the problem of the origin of evil continues to threaten the intellectual foundations of all monotheistic systems.26

26 This paper should not conclude without proper acknowledgement that many of the “implications” sketched here were spelled out over twenty years ago by Margaret Barker (“Reflections upon the Enoch Myth”, JSOT 15 [1980] 7–29)— and of course have been pursued since in numerous publications.

DIVINE SONSHIP AT QUMRAN: BETWEEN THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENT Florentino García Martínez In column 17 of the Hodayot the poet addresses God with the following words: For you have known me since my father, from the vitals [you have established me,] [from the womb of ] my mother you have filled me, from the breast of her who conceived me your compassion has always been upon me, from the lap of my wet-nurse [you have looked after me.] ... For my mother did not know me and my father abandoned me to you. Because you are father to all sons of your truth. In them you rejoice, like one full of gentleness for the child, and like a wet-nurse, you clutch to your chest all your creatures.1

In the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as in Biblical Hebrew, there are no specific words to express the abstract concept of “fatherhood” or of “sonship”. A study of divine sonship at Qumran should thus start from an analysis of the words that normally express the genetic relationship among humans (such as father, son, first-born, etc.) or from the words that express the actions that bring about such genetic relationships (such as conceive, engender, beget, give birth, etc.). In the fragment of the poem just quoted, the author expresses his sonship very concretely (“my father”, “the vitals”, “the womb of my mother”, “the breast of her who conceived me”), but

1 1QH 17:29–31 and 35–36, Editio princeps, E. L. Sukenik, The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University ( Jerusalem: Magnes 1955) col. 11. The Hebrew text used, the numbering of columns and lines, are from F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols. Grand Rapids/Leiden: Brill/Eerdmans, 2000) I, p. 184 (= DSSSE ). The translation is taken from F. García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English (2nd edn. ET W. G. E. Watson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 349–350.

110

florentino garcía martínez

the same poet does not hesitate to use the same concrete language when speaking about God, presenting him like a wet-nurse and asserting the he is “father to all the sons of your truth” lwkl ba hta yk hktma ynb. Obviously, such a full study is out of the question here, even if it were to be restricted to the most characteristic word that expresses sonship: the substantive “son”.2 Hebrew ˆb (be it in the singular or in the plural) is found no less than 628 times in the non-biblical texts from Qumran, and the Aramaic rb 325 times (ba father and μa mother are less frequently used, 171 and 43 times respectively).3 I thought for a moment of the possibility of restricting the study to the quotes in which “son” is used clearly as a metaphor, without reference to the carnal generation that is the basis of “sonship”. In the quoted text, the divine sonship that the author claims is clearly metaphoric, since it is directly opposed to the real human paternity. Very common expressions, such as “sons of light” or “sons of darkness” are also clearly metaphorical. Determining the precise extent and meaning of these metaphors, however, seems to me an impossible task. A single example, familiar to students of the New Testament, should serve to provide a clear illustration of the difficulty involved in determining the precise meaning of metaphors that express sonship. In the First Letter of John 3:10, the antithetical expressions t°kna toË diabÒlou “sons of the devil” and t°kna toË YeoË “sons of god”, are used, and all the interpreters understand them in a metaphorical sense.4 A little further in the same Letter (1 John 3:12), however, we are told that Cain was §k toË ponhroË, a parallel expression to t°kna toË diabÒlou, which in this case could refer to genetic sonship if the Letter is alluding to the tradition preserved in the Targum Pseudo Jonathan.5 According to the said Targum, Adam is not the

2 E. Puèch, “Dieu le Père dans les écrits péritestamentairs et les manuscrits de la mer Morte”, RQ 20/70 (2001) 287–310 has recently attempted an overview of the theme of “fatherhood” of God, also at Qumran. 3 M. G. Abegg, The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. Volume One. The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran. Part One and Two (Leiden: Brill, 2003). 4 See, for example, G. Strecker, The Johannine Letters (Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), p. 105. 5 As it is interpreted by a good number of commentators. See, for example, R. E. Brown, The Epistles of John (AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), pp. 442–43. T. C. de Kruif, “Nicht wie Kain (der) vom Bösen war . . . (1 Joh 3,13)”, Bijdragen 41 (1980) 47–63. On the related text, John 8:44 see the classic work N. A. Dahl, “Die Erstgeborene Satans und der Vater des Teufels (Polyk 7:1 und Joh 8:44)”, in

divine sonship at qumran

111

true father of Cain but rather Samma"el.6 Thus if Cain is a son of the Devil in the most basic meaning of the word, how far does the metaphor reach in the parallel expressions t°kna toË diabÒlou and t°kna toË YeoË? For these reasons, and because I am now developing a new hermeneutic paradigm to look at the relationship between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament which is based on the common use in both corpora of the elements provided by the Hebrew Bible, I have chosen to look at the three categories in which texts are commonly grouped that speak of divine sonship in the Hebrew Bible (1: the angelic “sons of God”; 2: Israel “son of God”; 3: the king “son of God”) in order to show, with the help of some selected texts, the progress (or the modifications) that we can register in the Dead Sea Scrolls in each one of these categories with respect to the idea of sonship. To these three classical categories I will add a fourth that is not found in the Hebrew Bible, but which appears in some Qumranic texts: 4: the Messiah “son of God”. The Angelic Sons of God The expression “sons of (the) God(s)” (μyhla[h] ynb),7 used as a collective name to designate angelic beings in Gen 6:2, 4 and Job 1:6; 2:1; 28:7,8 is not used at Qumran where it is usually replaced by

W. Eltestser (ed.), Apophoreta. Festschrift Ernst Hänchen (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964), pp. 70–84, and more recently G. Reim, “John. 8:44—Gotteskinder-Teufelskinder”, NTS 30 (1984) 619–24. 6 On this topic see F. García Martínez, “Caín, su padre y el origen del mal”, in V. Collado Bertomeu (ed.), Palabra, Prodigio, Poesía. in Memoriam P. Luis Alonso Schökel (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2003), pp. 17–35. 7 There is abundant literature on the topic. Among the classic studies, see W. Schlisske, Gottessöhne und Gottessohn im Alten Testament. Phasen der Entmythisierung im Alten Testament (BWANT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973); O. Loretz, “Aspekte der kanaanäischen Gottes-Söhne-Tradition im Alten Testament”, Ugarit-Forschungen 7 (1975) 586–589 and J. Luis Cunchillos, Cuando los ángeles era Dioses (Bibliotheca Salmanticensis 14. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 1976). Among the more recent studies, see M. S. Smith, The Early History of God. Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990). 8 And originally in Deut 32:8, as proved by a copy of Deut from Cave 4 (4Q37, 4QDeut j) which uses it (as the LXX) where MT has changed it to “sons of Israel”. See E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4. IX. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), p. 90. On the meaning, within the context of the poem, see P. Winter, “Der Begriff ‘Söhne Gottes’ im Moselied Dtn 32.1–43”, ZAW 67 (1955) 440–481.

112


“sons of heavens” (μymç ynb),9 an expression already used in 1 Enoch to designate the “son of the gods” that consorted with the “daughters of men” according to Gen 6:2–4. The μyla ynb of Ps 29:1 and 89:7 are present in a few texts (like 4Q381 15:4, which is a direct reference to Ps 89:7, and in two other fragmentary texts)10 and are mentioned twice in frag. 2 of the Sukenik edition of the Hodayot, a fragment that is probably part of the present column 23. The first of these two references to the μyla ynb in the Hodayot (line 3: “and in your land and among the sons of gods and among the sons of . . .”) implies the presence of these angels in the land of Israel. The second (line 10) is important, not only because it proves that the two angelic names (“sons of gods” and “sons of heavens”) are equivalent, but because it suggests that it is the (divine) spirit who makes the author, who has identified himself as dust in the poem, form a community with the angels: “and upon the dust you stretch out the spirit [. . .] in the mud [. . . the so]ns of gods, to be in communion with the sons of heavens (μymç ynb μ[ dyjhl) [. . . et]ernal without return of darkness”.11 The unique expression of Ps 82:7 “sons of the Most High” (ynb ˆwyl[) is not found in the plural in the Qumran texts, although we do find two instances of the expression la ynb that do not occur in the Hebrew Bible (in 1QH 2 ii 13 and in 11Q13 2:14),12 always within a fragmentary context. In the Hebrew Bible, the divine sonship of the angels represents either an echo of the original plurality of divine beings, an adaptation of the Canaanite divine council,13 or the remains of an already

9 Both in the Hebrew texts (1QS 4:22; 11:8; 1QH 11:2; 2 i 10; 4Q181 1:2; 4Q416 1:12; 4Q418 2+2ca–c: 4; 69 ii 12), and in the texts in Aramaic (1Q20 2:5; 2:16; 5:3; 6:8; 4Q546 14:4). 10 4Q381 has been published by E. Schuller in E. Eshel et al., Qumran Cave 4. VI. Poetical and Liturgical Texts (DJD 11. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998). Only here it is used with the determinative, μylah ynb. The other two occasions, as in the biblical text, appear without it. These two occasions are 4Q491 24:4 “in praise together with (μ[ djy) the sons of gods” (published by M. Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4. III [DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982], p. 43) and 5Q13 1:6 “you chose from the sons of gods”, published by J. T. Milik in M. Baillet et al., Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân. (DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), p. 183. 11 García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSSSE I, p. 198. 12 Published in F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11. II (DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), p. 225. 13 See T. E. Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM 24. Chico: Scholars, 1980).


113

surpassed mythology. It was used more as a taxonomic element intended to underline its appurtenance to the celestial order and its distinction from the realm of humans than to indicate a father-son relationship. The occasional and very restricted survival of this terminology within the angelology of Qumran seems to have the same function. This appears most clearly when considering one of the most frequently used generic names for the angels: μyla (divine beings). The name appears more than 50 times (20 in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice)14 and it is only surpassed by ˚alm.15 The name μyla underlines the heavenly nature of the angels, leaving aside the theme of divine sonship. The same happens with the use of other divine names that are used of angels, including μyhwla. While it is true that some of the uses of μyhwla are ambiguous and could refer equally to God, other texts, such as “the glory of the King of the god-like beings (μyhwla ˚lm) they declare in the dwellings where they have their station”,16 or “O you chiefs of the princes of all the god-like beings, praise the majestically praiseworthy God (yhwlal wjbç μyhwla lwk twjbçt)”,17 leave no doubt that μyhwla is also used for the angels.18 At Qumran, the angels are not “sons of God,” but their heavenly nature is strongly underlined.19 On this point, the texts from Qumran are no different from the rest of the Jewish literature of the time and show the same general development of angelology of the period.20 Other aspects of Qumran angelology, however, offer us a clear development of the “divine sonship of the angels” because they extend to human angelic characteristics. In the Genesis Apocryphon (in the first fragmentary columns of which we find four references to the ynb

14

Published by C. Newsom in E. Eshel et al., Qumran Cave 4. VI, pp. 173–401. The word appears some 115 times. 16 4Q400 2:5, cf. Newson, Qumran Cave 4. VI, p. 187. 17 4Q403 1 i 32–33, Qumran Cave 4. VI, p. 269. 18 See C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. A Critical Edtion (Harvard Semitic Studies 27. Atlanta: Scholars, 1985), pp. 23–29. 19 On Qumranic angelology see M. J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran ( JSPS 11. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992). 20 See G. Delling, “Die Bezeichnung ‘Söhne Gottes’ in der jüdischen Literatur der hellenistisch-römischen Zeit”, in J. Jervell and W. Meeks (eds.), God’s Christ and His People (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), pp. 18–28 and B. Byrne, “Sonship of God in the Intertestamental Literature”, in “Sons of God”—“Seed of Abraham”. A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background (AnBib 83. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1979), pp. 18–70. The most complete overview is given by M. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992). 15

114


μymç) the story of the birth of Noah is told, which we can complete thanks to 1 Enoch 106. The description of the physical appearance of Noah has not been preserved, but the parallels show that the child does not have a human but an angelic appearance (“And his father Lamech was afraid of him and fled and went to his father Methusalah. And he said to him, I have begotten a strange son: he is not like a man, but is like the children of the angels of heaven, of a different type, and not like us.”)21 The reaction of the father Lamech preserved in col. 2 is totally clear: “Behold, then, I thought in my heart that the conception was (the work) of the Watchers, and the pregnancy of the Holy Ones, and it belonged to the Nephilin, and my heart within me was upset on account of this boy.”22 In another Aramaic text, originally published as a Horoscope of the Messiah,23 but which is now interpreted as dealing also with the birth of Noah,24 it is said of a boy of portentous appearance that “Counsel and prudence will be with him and he will know the secrets of men. And his wisdom will reach to all the peoples. And he will know the secrets of all living things.” (4Q534 1 i 7–8).25 This text does not use the language of sonship, but rather the language of election, since it defines the protagonist as ahla yryjb “elect of God”. It reveals, nevertheless, that a human person (an exceptional one, of course)26 can be equal to angelic beings, “the sons of God”. 21

1 Enoch 106: 5, translation by M. A. Knibb in H. F. D. Sparks (ed.) The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), p. 314. In 106:2 the boy is described: “And his body was white like snow and red like the flower of a rose, and the hair of his head was white like wool . . . and his eyes were beautiful; and when he opened his eyes, he made the whole house bright like the sun so that the whole house was exceptionally bright.” 22 1QapGen 2: 1, published by N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1956); García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSSSE I, p. 29. 23 J. Starcky, “Un texte messianique araméen de la grotte 4 de Qumrân”, in Mémorial du cinquantenaire 1914–1964. Ecole des Langues Orientales Anciennes de l’Institut Catholique de Paris (Travaux de l’institut Catholique de Paris 10. Paris: Bloud and Gay, 1964), pp. 51–66. 24 The text has been published in DJD with the title 4QNaissance de Noé a ar, see E. Puèch, Qumrân Grotte 4. XXII. Textes araméens Première Partie (DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), p. 132. 25 García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSSSE, II, p. 1073. 26 A couple of texts present the figure of Moses in this way. In 4Q374 2 ii 6 it is said that God “made him like a God” (μyhwlal wnntyç, García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSSSE II, p. 740) and in 4Q377 1 ii 11 it is asserted that Moses “spoke as an angel through his mouth” (whypm rbdy ˚almkw) (García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSSSE II, p. 744). In other literary traditions, of course, we find the same phenomenon attributed to other characters like Adam, Seth, or even Cain.


115

The same equation appears in other elements of Qumranic angelology. The polysemic word jwr is used both for angels and for the human “spirit”.27 The beginning of a new Hymn in Column 11 of the Hodayot, can be used by way of an example: I thank you, Lord, because you saved my life from the pit, and from Sheol and Abaddon you have lifted me up to an everlasting height, so that I can walk on a boundless plain. And I know that there is hope for someone you fashioned out of clay to be an everlasting community. (μlw[ dwsl). The corrupt spirit (hw[n jwrw) you have purified from the great sin so that he can take his place with the host of the holy ones (μyçdq abx μ[), and can enter in communion with the congregation of the sons of heaven (ynb td[ μ[ djyb awbl μymç). You cast eternal destiny for man with the spirits of knowledge (t[d twjwr), so that he praises your name together in celebration (hnr djyb), and tells your wonders before all your works.28

In this text “spirits of knowledge” is parallel to “sons of heaven” and to “host of the holy ones”, and is clearly an angelic designation. The “corrupt spirit” is the poet (and everybody who recites the Hymn) saved by God from the pit. jwr is thus used both for angels and for men. The same is the case with the word çdwq which is applied to both categories. In column 10 of the War Scroll 29 we read: And who (is) like your people, Israel, whom you chose from all the peoples of the earth, a people of holy ones of the covenant (tyrb learned in the law, wise of knowledge [. . .] alert to the voice of Glory,

yçwdq μ[),

27 See A. E. Sekki, The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran (SBLMS 110. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989). 28 1QH 11:19–23, cf. García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 332. 29 Published by E. L. Sukenik, The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1955).


116

seers of the holy angels (çdwq ykalm yawr), with open ears, hearing of profound things?30

And in column 12: For there is a multitude of holy ones in heaven and a host of angels in your dwelling to [praise] your [name.] And the chosen ones of your holy people you have established for yourself among t[hem].31

The use of both words (“spirits” and “holy ones”) as angelic names has obvious roots in the Hebrew Bible.32 Both terms come from the heavenly sphere and both are used here also to designate human beings. Other words used for angels come from the human realm, particularly in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.33 In this composition (besides the omnipresent ˚alm and many other angelic names) angels are called “priests” (μynhwk), “princes” (μyayçn) and “chiefs” (μyçar). “Priest” comes from the cultic realm, “princes” and “chiefs” from the tribal organisation, both military and political. These words are used generally in the plural as class names, are sometimes combined as a single title (“chiefs of the princes”), and on one occasion they are joined to the abstract twnhwk “the chiefs of the princes of the wondrous priesthood”.34 If angels are presented in the Songs as heavenly priests, human priests are equated to angels on the Rule of Blessings:35 You shall be like an angel of the face in the holy residence for the glory of the God of the Hosts [. . .] You shall be around, serving in the temple of the kingdom, sharing the lot with the angels of the face and the council of the community [. . .] for eternal time and for all the perpetual periods.36

The community between angels and men is expressed here as “sharing the lot” (lrwg), a term that appears more than 100 times in the

30

1QM 10:9–11, see García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, pp. 102–103. 1QM 12:1–2, see García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 105. 32 Ps 89:6; Job 5:1; 15:15, Zech 14:5; Dan 4:14; 8:13, and Num 16:22 and 27:16 respectively. 33 For bibliographical details see note 14 above. 34 In 4Q403 1 ii 21 = 4Q405 8–9:5–6. 35 Published by J. T. Milik in D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955). 36 1QSb 4:24–26, see García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 433. 31


117

preserved texts and that reveals the ultimate origin of this belief: the dualistic thinking of the group in which humanity is divided into two camps: “sons of light” and “sons of darkness”, a division that corresponds directly to the division of the angelic world as expressed in the “tractate of the Two Spirits”:37 “In the hand of the Prince of Lights (μyrwa rç) is dominion over all the sons of justice; they walk in the paths of light. And in the hand of the Angel of Darkness (˚çwj ˚alm) is total dominion over the sons of deceit; they walk in paths of darkness.”38 Angels and men share indeed the same “lot”. The intimate association of the “sons of light” with the angelic host39 appears explicitly in the context of the eschatological war where both fight together:40 “On this (day) the assembly of the gods and the congregation of men shall confront each other for great destruction. The sons of light and the lot of darkness shall battle together for God’s might, between the roar of a huge multitude and the shout of gods and men, on the day of calamity.”41 And this association is intended to endure forever. In the hymn that closes the Rule of the Community we can read in the copy from Cave 1: To those whom God has selected he has given them as everlasting possession (μlw[ tzjwal); until they inherit them in the lot of the holy ones (μyçwdq lrwgb). He unites their assembly to the sons of heaven (μymç ynb) in order (to form) the council of the Community and a foundation of the building of holiness to be an everlasting plantation (μlw[ t[fml) throughout all future ages. (hyhn ≈q lwk μ[).42

37 That is part of the Community Rule, 1QS 3:13–4:26. The text has been very intensively studied, lately by J. Duhaime, “Cohérence structurelle et tensions internes dans l’Instruction sur les Deux Esprits (1QS III 13–IV 26)”, in F. García Martínez (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BETL 80. Leuven: Peeters, 2003), pp. 103–131, with references to previous studies. 38 1QS 3:20–21, see García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 6. 39 The association of the impious with the host of evil angels is even expressed with the terminology of “sonship”, since the expression l[ylb ynb “sons of Belial” is found five times: 4Q174 1:8; 4Q286 7 ii 6; 4Q386 1 ii 3; 4Q525 25:2 and 11Q11 6:3. 40 The reason given for exclusion from the camp and from the battle to all those who are not in a state of perfect purity is precisely the presence “of the angels of sanctity who are with their armies” 1QM 7:6. 41 1QM 1:10–11, see García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 95. 42 1QS 11:7–8, see García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 18.

118


The language of election and inheritance and the references to communal structures show us that this communion with the angelic world is an exclusive privilege of the members of the community in the present time and that it is destined to endure forever. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the members of the community were able to appropriate angelic language in a famous hymn, partially preserved in four different copies, in which the protagonist presents himself as someone superior to the angels, whose glory cannot be compared, dwelling in heaven and sitting on a throne in the middle of the congregation of the gods. The “I” from this hymn has been interpreted in many different ways: an angel, a man, an “angelic” or divine man, the priestly Messiah, the Messiah King, the historical Teacher, or the Teacher expected at the end of times. Elsewhere,43 I have argued strongly that the protagonist of this poem, in the form in which the text has been preserved in one of the manuscripts related to the War Scroll from Cave 4,44 is the archangel Michael, the chief of the angelic host who intervenes during the decisive phase of the eschatological battle. In the form in which the poem has been transmitted in the three copies of the Hodayot,45 it contains ideas and expressions common to both the Hymns of the Teacher and the Hymns of the Community, which proves that the poem has been reinterpreted in such a way that the words of the archangel at the moment of the eschatological battle can now be appropriated by each single member of the community in order to express their communion with the angelic world. In this poem, the protagonist (Michael, the Teacher, or each single member who appropriates the words) expresses himself primarily with the mythical images of the heavenly court: “a mighty throne in the congregation of the gods”, (μyla td[b zw[ ask). However, there is also a subtle allusion to sonship: “for among the gods is my position and my glory is with the sons of the King” (μ[ ayna ayk ˚lmh ynb μ[ aydwbkw aydm[m μyla).46 In so far as I am aware, this is the only occasion in Qumran in which angelic divine sonship is expressed with the image of the “sons of the King”. But “King”,

43 F. García Martínez, “Old Texts and Modern Mirages: The ‘I’ of Two Qumran Hymns”, ETL 78 (2002) 321–339. 44 4Q491 11. 45 1QH 26:2–18; 4Q427 7 and 4Q431 1. 46 4Q491 11 i 11.


119

“King of Kings”, and “King of Glory” appear as a divine titles about 50 times in the preserved parts of Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Summarising this first point: the divine sonship of the angels is practically reduced at Qumran to an indication of the heavenly nature of the angels. At the same time, however, this angelic nature is extended somewhat to human beings, the members of the community who are in communion with the heavenly beings, partake of the heavenly cult, fight together the eschatological battle, and use angelic language to express their community with the angelic “sons of God”. Israel “Son of God” The idea that a clan, a tribe or an entire people has a special relationship with its own god is something common in the semitic world. This idea is frequently expressed with the metaphor of sonship, which does not intend to express any genetic relationship.47 In Jer 2:27, in what seems to be a clear allusion to the Ashera and the Massebah, God reproaches the Israelites: “They said to wood ‘You are my father’, and to stone ‘you gave birth to me’.” He explains to them that he is “his master” (3:14)48 and hopes that they will finish by calling him “my father” (yl warqt yba) (3:19). This idea of a peculiar relationship is expressed in the theophoric names with the component ab- (which expresses the appurtenance to the group for which the god is “father” more than a father-son relationship) and in the expression of possession which indicates the appurtenance of a people to its god (“my people”). Hosea 1:9, 2:1 and 2:25 give us a good example of the interchange of expressions of possession and sonship which help to define the meaning of the metaphor. In Hos 1:9 God orders that the prophet give the name “not my people” (ym[ al) to one of the sons of the prostitute “for you are not my people and I will not be your God”. Hos 2:25 presents the transformation of the situation with the expected antithesis (“And I will say to Lo-ammi, ‘You are my people’, and he will respond ‘[You are] my God’”), but in 2:1 the expected equivalent does not appear and it is replaced by the metaphor of sonship: “and instead of being

47 The “canticle of Moses” in Deut 32 is a good example, with a concentration of the uses of the metaphor. 48 Or that he has espoused them; the meaning of ytl[b is uncertain.

120


told, ‘you are not my-people’ they shall be called children of the living God.” (yj la ynb). The themes which express this special relationship of God with the people of Israel in terms of sonship are many, and all of them underline its metaphoric character: the father-creator,49 the fathercorrector,50 the father-helper in danger,51 and the father full of tenderness52 are the more frequent. The motifs are formulated in terms of election, covenant and the promise of inheritance (the land of Israel). Exod 4:22 expresses the same motif in terms of primogeniture: “Israel is my first-born son”, and Jer 31:9 announces the renewal of this relationship in terms of the new covenant: “For I am ever a father to Israel, Ephraim is my first-born.” Even in the most solemn and strong expression of the divine sonship of Israel in Deut 14:1 (“You are the children of YHWH your God” μkyhla hwhyl μta μynb), the rest of the sentence makes clear that the metaphor does not imply any genetic relationship but expresses rather the peculiar relationship of Israel with God in the context of election and the covenant: “For you are a people consecrated to YHWH your God: YHWH your God chose you (rjb) to be his treasured people from among all other peoples (μym[h lkm hlgs μ[l) on earth.” The use of this metaphor continues, of course, in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In one of the prayers from the composition known as Words of the Luminaries 53 (a prayer destined to be recited on Thursday) we read: Behold, all the peoples are like nothing in front of you; they are reckoned as chaos and nothing in your presence. We have invoked only your name; for your glory you have created us; you have established us as your sons in the sight of all the peoples. For you called Israel “my son, my first born” and have corrected us as one corrects a son.54

49 For example, Isa 64:7: “But now, YHWH, You are our father; we are the clay, and You are the potter. We are all the work of your hands.” 50 For example, Deut 8:5: “Bear in mind that YHWH your God disciplines you just as a man disciplines his son.” 51 For example, Wisdom 2:18: “For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.” 52 For example, Hos 11:1: “I fell in love with Israel, when he was still a child; and I have called (him) my son ever since Egypt.” 53 Published by M. Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4. III, pp. 137–177. 54 4Q504 1–2 iii 3–7, see García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 414.


121

In these few lines, full of allusions to biblical texts, many of the threads that form the metaphor of divine sonship in the Hebrew Bible converge: appurtenance of the people to God, exclusivity of this relationship, creation, election, paternal correction, filiation and primogeniture. Besides this reproduction of the data of the Hebrew Bible, I think that at Qumran we can ascertain two lines of development of the idea of the divine sonship of Israel. On the one hand we can observe the use of the metaphor at an individual level to express the inner relationship with God not of Israel as such but of a single person. On the other hand, the extension of the divine sonship of Israel tends to be restricted to the members of the group only. As an example of the first line of development (together with the poem with which I have started) I can quote a prayer previously known as the Apocryphon of Joseph and now published as 4Q372, 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositionb .55 And in all this, Joseph [was delivered] into the hands of foreigners, consuming his strength and breaking all his bones up to the time of his end. And he shouted [and his call] summoned the powerful God to save him from their hands. And he said: “My father and my God (yhlaw yba), do not abandon me into the hands of gentiles, do me justice, so that the poor and afflicted do not die. You have no need of any people or of any help. Your finger is bigger and stronger than any there are in the world. For you choose truth and in your hand there is no violence at all. And your tenderness is great and great is your compassion for all who seek you; they are stronger than me and all my brothers who are associated with me.”56

The protagonist, the eponymous ancestor of the tribes of the North, presents himself in an anguishing situation, in exile, surrounded by enemies, and having recourse to God as saviour, appealing directly to the theme of “sonship.” The narrative context of the composition as a whole makes clear that the Patriarch represents the people and contains a clear polemic against the Samaritans and their pretension of being the true descendants of the Patriarch. The true descendants of Joseph are, however, in a situation of exile, and in this situation each one of them may call upon God for salvation as Joseph did.

55 Published by E. M. Schuller in M. Bernstein et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXVIII (DJD 28. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), pp. 165–197. 56 4Q372 1:14–20, see García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 225.

122


This prayer, calling God “my father”, has preserved the oldest attestation of the expression by a person other than David.57 An alternative text in which the same expression appears is 4Q460, where we can read at the end of a section: “[. . .] for you have not abandoned your servant (hkdb[l) [. . .] my Father and my Lord (ynwdaw yba).”58 The “servant” could be the collective Israel, of course, but it seems to me more likely that he is no other than the individual who speaks in the first person in line 2 of the fragment, who does something “in Israel” in line 3, who considers himself a servant of God to whom he appeals in line 6. Although the formula employed looks different from the one used in 4Q372 because of the changing of “my God” to “my Lord,” this difference may only be an expression of the tendency to avoid not only the divine name but also its synonyms in later compositions. These two texts and the references to God’s paternity in the Hodayot, illustrate the first of the two tendencies: the use of the theme of sonship to express the inner relationship with God at a personal level. The second tendency, to reduce divine sonship to the members of the group, is a logical and unavoidable consequence of the premises articulated by two basic documents: the Damascus Document and the Rule of the Community.59 The means employed are different in each document, but the results obtained are the same: only the members of each group, as the angels, are true “sons of God”. In the Damascus Document “Israel” is appropriated as a designation of the group, whose members are defined as “the converts of Israel” or the “chosen of Israel”. These members form a “New Covenant”, which is not with all Israel but only with a “rest of Israel” constituted by the group which one enters. The Rule of the Community does

57 The origin of the expression is to be found in the yt[wçy rwxw yla hta yba from Ps 89:27, which puts it in the mouth of David, and corresponds to the use of “father” in the Nathan oracle, 2 Sam 7:14. On the position of this composition within the context of Second Temple prayers, see E. Schuller, “The Psalm of 4Q372 1 within the Context of Second Temple Prayer”, CBQ 54 (1992) 67–79. 58 4Q460 9 i 5–6. The text has been published by E. Larson in P. Alexander et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXVI. Miscellanea, Part 1 (DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), p. 382. 59 For a detailed treatment of this point see F. García Martínez, “La memoria inventada: el ‘otro’ en el Documento de Damasco y en la Regla de la Comunidad ”, in J. Campos Santiago and V. Pastor Julián (eds.), Congreso Internacional. “Biblia, memória histórica y encricijada de cultura”. Actas (Asociación Bíblica Española. Zamora: Cicero, 2004), pp. 49–71.


123

not use the concept of the “new Covenant” but transforms even more radically the concept of the covenant which is now restricted to the “covenant of the community”, a covenant which seems void of all ethnicity, which the members enter “in order to love all the sons of light, each one according to his lot in God’s plan, and to detest all the sons of darkness, each one in accordance with his blame in God’s vindication.”60 In other texts of a more eschatological character, such as the War Scroll or the Rule of the Congregation, after the destruction of all “sons of darkness” the “new covenant” and “the covenant of the community” will be co-extensive with “Israel” and it will form “all the congregation of Israel”. At this moment, of course, all the sons of Israel will be “sons of light”, and consequently “sons of God”. Summarizing this point: the divine sonship of Israel maintains in the Qumran texts the same collective and metaphoric character it has in the Hebrew Bible. At the same time, however, the metaphor starts being used to express a personal, inner relationship with God on the one hand (and we find there the earliest uses of the invocation of God as “my father”) and on the other hand (and for the time being) divine sonship of Israel tends to be restricted only to the members of the group, the same group to which divine angelic sonship has already been extended. The King, Son of God In the Hebrew Bible the King is the only individual who is called “son of God”. This special relationship of the King with God has been explained in many ways:—as a divinization of the King, influenced by the model of the Egyptian religion;61—as due to the influence of the Assyro-Babylonian idea of the King as “image of God”;62—as result of the “divine adoption” of the King at the moment

60

1QS 1:9–11, see García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 3. By H. Donner, Adoption oder Legitimation. Erwägungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament auf dem Hintergrund der altorientalischen Rechte. Aufsätze zum Alten Testament aus vier Jahrzehnten (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994). H. Merklein, “Ägyptische Einflüsse auf die messianische Sohn-Gottes-Aussage des Neuen Testaments”, in H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger and P. Schäfer (eds.), Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion. FS Martin Hengel (3 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), III, pp. 21–48, applies these ideas to the New Testament. 62 By J.-G. Heinz, “Royal Traits and Messianic Figures: A Thematic and Iconographic Approach”, in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah. Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), pp. 52–66. 61

124


of his enthronement;63—or as a simple intensification of the divine sonship of Israel within the context of the covenant.64 Whatever the explanation, there is no doubt at all that this “divine sonship of the King” expresses a very peculiar relationship of the King with the divinity.65 The classic proof-texts with respect to this “divine sonship of the King” are those provided by the royal Psalms (Ps 2, Ps 110 [at least according to the interpretation of the LXX] and for some scholars Isa 9:1–6) on the one hand,66 and on the other the oracle of Nathan on the Davidic dynasty preserved in 2 Sam 7:14, repeated in 1 Chron 17:13–14; 22:10–11, clearly evoked in Ps 89:27–30, to which 1 Chron 28:9–10 alludes when David transmits the instructions for the building of the temple to Solomon, and 2 Chron 7:17–20 after the dedication of the temple.67 The expressions used in the royal Psalms present the King, “the anointed”, as engendered by the divinity: “You are my son, I have fathered you this day” says Ps 2:7. Ps 110 (which also promises the King an eternal priesthood) presents the King sitting to the right hand of God, and possibly also uses the same language of sonship, since it employs the same term found in Ps 2:7 (˚ytdly), although the Masoretic text vocalises it here otherwise.68 At least the LXX (A) has understood the Hebrew in this way since it translates “I have begotten you from the womb, before the morning” §k gastrÒw prÚ

63 By R. de Vaux, “L’adoption divine”, in Les Institutions de l’Ancien Testament. I (Paris: Du Cerf, 1958), pp. 171–173. 64 By B. Byrne, “Sons of God”—“Seed of Abraham”, pp. 17–18. 65 The topic has been studied from many different perspectives. See T. N. D. Mettinger, King and Messhiah. The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (Lund: Gleerup, 1976). The study of G. Cook, “The Israelite King as Son of God”, ZAW 73 (1961) 202–225 is still valuable in spite of its age. 66 For a classic statement on the royal ideology of Israel in its oriental context, see S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (ET G. Anderson. Nashville: Abingdon, 1955), and his The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (2 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962). 67 The most complete study of the dynastic oracle and of its interpretation is K. E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 7. Atlanta: Scholars, 1998). 68 Compare the translation of M. Dahood in Psalms III: 101–150 (AB 17A. New York: Doubleday, 1970), p. 112: “In the battle with your foes he was your Strong One, your Valiant on the day of your conquest. When the Holy One appeared he was your Comforter, the dawn of life for you, the dew of your youth”, with the translation by R. Tournay: “A toi le principat au jour de ta naissance, l’éclat sacré dès le sein, dès l’aurore de ton enfance”, R. Tournay, “La Psaume CX”, RB 67 (1960) 5–41, p. 14.


125

•vsfÒrou eg°nnhsã se.69 The royal Psalm 45 (a psalm which does

not employ the language of sonship) addresses the King as a divine being, an μyhwla “your throne, O God, is everlasting” (according to the plain meaning of the Hebrew text, interpreted in this way by the LXX: ı yrÒnow sou, ı yeÒw, efiw afi«na toË afi«now, 44:7). Nathan’s oracle uses the language of paternity and sonship (“I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me”), but royal sonship thus expressed could mean no more than the sonship of Deut 8:5 (the father as corrector) because the text continues “when he does wrong, I will chastise him with the rod of men and the affliction of mortals”. This dynastic oracle is transmitted in two forms: one which alludes to the perpetuity of the promise without the terminology of sonship (1 Chron 28:8–19 and 2 Chron 7:17–20) and another in which this vocabulary is used and somehow intensified, because the second part of the sentence which alludes to paternal reproof has been omitted (1 Chron 17:13–14 and 22:10–11) and the emphasis is on the divine sonship of David. This emphasis is even greater in the form of the oracle reflected in Ps 89:27–30. There David will invoke God, “You are my father, my God, the rock of my deliverance”. God will appoint him first-born (whnta rwkb yna πa), while the second part of the oracle is explicitly applied not to David but to his descendants (Ps 89:31–34). At Qumran we find some echoes of these biblical texts on the divine sonship of the King where the motif of sonship has disappeared. In the Dibrey ham-meorot, for example, there is a clear allusion to Nathan’s oracle without the language of sonship: And you chose the land of Judah and established your covenant with David so that he would be like a shepherd, a prince over your people, and would sit in front of you on the throne of Israel forever.70

In other texts, however, such as 4Q174,71 the language of sonship of the biblical text has been preserved, although the text is applied Other MSS read §jeg°nnhsa, which is the preferred reading of Rahlfs. 4Q504 1–2 iv 6–8, cf. M. Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4. III, pp. 143–144 and García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 415. 71 Published by J. M. Allegro, Qumrân Cave 4. I (DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), pp. 53–57. See the study by G. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran. 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context ( JSOTSup 29. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1985). The text is now considered to be part of a larger composition, part of which is also 4Q177, see A. Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata.b) (STDJ 13. Leiden: Brill, 1994). 69 70

126


not to an existent King but to the King expected at the end of times: And “YHWH declares to you that he will build you a house. I will raise up your seed after you and establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me.” This (refers to the) “branch of David” who will arise with the Interpreter of the law who will rise up in Zion in the last days.72

This text quotes and interprets 2 Sam 7, applying it directly to the “branch” of David, the jmç of Jer 23:5; 35:15, Zech 3:8 and 6:12,73 which is identified with a royal figure at the end of times. The manuscript continues with a commentary on Ps 2, of which only the comments on the first verse have been preserved. The royal personage to which the text refers is identified in other Qumran texts (in 4Q285) with the “Prince of the Congregation”, which is one of the names of the messiah in the texts of Qumran and which is described with the words of Isa 11:1–5, messianically interpreted, in 4Q161. Another text, 4Q252,74 which interprets the blessing of Jacob to Judah from Gen 49:10, will explicitly call the expected descendant of David “messiah of justice”: A sovereign shall not be removed from the tribe of Judah. While Israel has the dominion, there will not lack someone who sits on the throne of David. For “the staff ” is the covenant of royalty, the thousand of Israel are “the feet.” Until the messiah of justice comes, the branch of David. For him and to his descendants has been given the covenant of royalty over his people for all everlasting generations.75

These texts prove that the mythological language of the royal Psalms and the dynastic oracle of Nathan have provided the textual basis for the development of the messianic idea also at Qumran, and have contributed definitely to the formulation of the expectation “at the end of times” of a Royal Messiah. They have done this, however, 72 4Q174 1–3 i 10–12, cf. Allegro, Qumrân Cave 4. I, p. 53 and García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 136. 73 See W. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel. Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period ( JSOTSup 304. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000). 74 Published by G. Brooke as “Commentary on Genesis A”, in G. Brooke et al., Qumran Cave 4. XVII. Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), pp. 185–207. The fragment in question was originally published as “Patriarchal Blessings” by J. Allegro, “Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature”, JBL 75 (1956) 174–75. 75 4Q252 col. 5 frag. 6, see García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 215.


127

without having recourse to the language of divine sonship for this figure. Nevertheless, other texts found at Qumran did use the language of sonship when talking of an expected saviour at the end of times who enjoys all the characteristics of a messianic figure, thereby allowing us to suggest that the title “son of god” could be used as a messianic title at Qumran. The Messiah Son of God The interpretation of the texts in question as messianic is generally accepted, although the scholars do not agree on what type of “anointed one” is precisely being alluded to within the plurality of messianic expectations attested in the Scrolls.76 This discussion is irrelevant here, however, since what is important in our context is the use of sonship language applied to this expected figure. The first text is part of a manuscript known as Rule of the Congregation (1QSa) which was originally attached to the Rule of the Community from Cave 1: This is the assembly of the famous men, [those summoned to] the gathering of the community when [God] begets the Messiah with them. [The] chief [priest] and all the congregation of Israel shall enter, and all [his brothers, the sons] of Aharon, the priests [summoned] to the assembly, the famous men, they shall sit befo[re him, each one] according to his dignity. After, [the Me]ssiah of Israel shall ent[er] and before him shall sit the chiefs . . .77

According to this reading and reconstruction of the text, the language of sonship is applied directly to the expected Messiah, who is “begotten” or “fathered” by God within the community. The reading of the key word, dylwy, is uncertain and very much disputed.78 76 See F. García Martínez, “Messianic Hopes in the Qumran Writings”, in F. García Martínez and J. Trebolle Barrera, The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 159–189. 77 1QSa 2:11–14. The text was edited by D. Barthélemy in D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), pp. 108–118. Cf. García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 127. 78 The reading dylwy is the one of the first editor, Barthélemy, and the excellent photographs in my possession confirm it. But Barthélemy, following a suggestion by Milik, understands the word as a copyist’s error for ˚ylwy, which would give to the whole sentence the meaning “au cas où Dieu mènerait le Messie avec eux” (Qumran Cave 1, p. 117). Y. Yadin, “A Crucial Passage of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, JBL 78 (1959) 238–241, reads wd[wy, and J. Licht, The Rule Scroll. A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea, ( Jerusalem: Bialik, 1965) (Hebrew), p. 27, lists eight different

128


In my opinion, however, it represents the best reading and in view of the use of ˚ytdly in Ps 2 it is quite normal. This serves as evidence that the language of sonship used of the Davidic descendants could be employed for the expected (Davidic) messiah of Israel. The next text is unproblematic in terms of uncertain readings, but its fragmentary character leaves us uncertain as to whom the language of sonship (indicated with the use of rwkb ˆb “first born,” and with the expression “like a father to his son” wnbl bak) is being applied. The text (4Q369) has been named the Prayer of Enosh by the editors on the basis of the genealogy that appears in the first column of the manuscript and that allows us to assume that Enosh is the protagonist. From the second column of this fragment only the right hand segment has been preserved with the beginning of several lines: for his seed according to their generations an eternal possession, and all [. . .] and your good judgments you explained to him to [. . .] in eternal light, and you made him for you a first-born son [. . .] like him, to (be) a prince and ruler in all/your/inhabited world [. . .] the crown of the heavens, and the glory of the clouds. You have placed on him [. . .] the angel of your peace in his congregation and [. . .] for him righteous rules, as a father to his son [. . .]79

Two different interpretations of the identity of the protagonist have been proposed. The first sees him as an individual figure who will arise to guide and rule the Israel of the end of times.80 The second

readings and prefers wdwty “will unite”, which is the reading followed by L. H. Schiffman, The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. A Study of the Rule of the Congregation (SBLMS 38. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989), pp. 53–54. E. Puèch, “Préseance sacerdotale et Messie-Roi dans la Règle de la Congrégation (1QSa ii 11–12)”, RQ 63 (1996) 351–365, proposes to read hlgty and interpretes the sentence “quand sera révélé le Prince Messie parmi eux.” H. Stegemann, “Some Remarks to 1QSa, to 1QSb and to Qumran Messianism”, RQ 65–68 (1996) 478–505, suggests reading wlkawy, “When they eat together, and the messiah is together with them.” All these readings seem to me very difficult palaeographically, and clearly inferior to the original reading of the first editor. 79 4Q369 1 ii 4–10. The text has been edited by H. Attridge and J. Strugnell, in H. Attridge et al., Qumran Cave 4. VIII. Parabiblical Texts Part 1 (DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), pp. 356–357. Cf. García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSSSE, I, p. 731. 80 The editors remark: “The prayer or prophecy mentions a place, most likely Jerusalem, and a ‘prince’ or ‘ruler’ (cf. line 7) whose identity remains obscure. If


129

sees this figure as a collective expression for Israel.81 The strongest argument in favour of this collective interpretation is the use of ynb yrkb in Exod 4:22, and the application in ancient Jewish literature of some of the motifs that appear in our text to Israel. The strongest argument in support of the individual and messianic interpretation is the influence of Ps 89:27–28, where we find three of the elements appearing in the text applied to the King: God will make him “firstborn” (rwkb), he will establish him as the most exalted King on earth, and the King will call God “father.” If we add to these elements from Ps 89 a possible parallel with another fragmentary Qumran text where the same expression yrkb also appears,82 I think that the balance ultimately inclines us towards the individual and messianic interpretation. In this text, 4Q458, published as 4QNarrative A,83 the expression appears without any context. In the best preserved fragments (4Q458 1), however, we find another expression, “the beloved” (dydyl in line 1, and dydyh in line 2), which could refer to the same personage, as well as the expression “anointed with the oil of kingship” ˆmç jyçm twklm (4Q458 2 ii 6) which clearly refers to the royal Messiah, because, as the editor notes, “the establishment of his kingdom is apparently connected with both the destruction of the uncircumcised referred to in line 4 and the establishment of righteousness among the chosen people of God.”84 In spite of the uncertainties brought

there is only one figure involved, he is to ‘establish God’s name’ in a special place (line 1); have descendants who will have an eternal possession (line 4); be purified by God’s judgments (line 5); enjoy the status of God’s son (line 6), as well as heavenly glory (line 8). Such an individual may be either a biblical figure such as Abraham or David, or, more likely, an eschatological messianic figure.” (Attridge et al., Qumran Cave 4. VIII, pp. 13, 358). A messianic interpretation has been strongly defended by C. A. Evans, “A Note on the ‘First-Born Son’ of 4Q369”, DSD 2 (1995) 185–201 and “Are the ‘Son’ Texts at Qumran Messianic? Reflections on 4Q369 and Related Scrolls”, in J. H. Charlesworth et al. (eds.), Qumran-Messianism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), pp. 135–153. Also by M. Philonenko, “De la ‘Prière de Jésu’ au ‘Notre Père’ (Abba, targum du Psaume 89,27; 4Q369 1,2,1–12; Luc 11,2)”, RHPR 77 (1997) 133–140 and G. Xeravits, King, Priest, Prophet. Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library (STDJ 47. Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 89–94. 81 Strongly defended by J. Kugel, “4Q369 ‘Prayer of Enosh’ and Ancient Biblical Interpretation”, DSD 5 (1998) 119–148. 82 4Q458 15:1. 83 4Q458 has been published by E. Larson in P. Alexander et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXVI, pp. 353–365. 84 Op. cit., p. 360.

130


about by poor preservation, therefore, these texts also show that the language of sonship was applied to the royal Messiah as an extension of the sonship language originally applied to the King. Also 4Q246, the famous “son of God” text, now published under the official title 4QApocryphe de Daniel ar,85 applies the language of sonship to the Messiah (albeit to the royal Messiah, son of David, or what I call the “heavenly Messiah”):86 He will be called son of God, and they will call him son of the Most High. Like the sparks of a vision, so will their kingdom be; they will rule several years over the earth and crush everything; a people will crush another people, and a city another city. Until the people of God arises and makes everyone rest from the sword. His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all his paths in truth and uprightness. The earth (will be) in truth and all will make peace.

Although the word “anointed” does not appear in this Aramaic text, the messianic interpretation of its exalted protagonist is generally accepted87 (now, even by its editor,88 who in the official edition left open the possibility of a negative interpretation of the protagonist). This text likewise offers us a perfect parallel to the messianic titles used by Luke 1:32. Since I have dealt repeatedly with this text,89 I will add no further comment at this juncture. Together with the other texts quoted, 4Q246 offers us the proof not only that the sonship terminology of the King as “son of God” was transferred to the future Messiah at Qumran, but that the title “son of God” could

85

Published by E. Puèch in G. Brooke et al., Qumran Cave 4. XVII, pp. 165–184. F. García Martínez, “Two Messianic Figures in the Qumran Texts”, in D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks (eds.), Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 20. Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 14–40. 87 See the presentation of part of the very abundant bibliography originated by the text (before and after the official publication) in J. Zimmermann, “Observations on 4Q246—The ‘Son of God’”, in J. H. Charlesworth et al. (eds.), Qumran Messianism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), pp. 175–190. In the same volume J. J. Collins strongly defends the messianic character of the text in the section “Messiahs and Son of God” (pp. 107–112) of his contribution, “Jesus, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls”, pp. 100–119. 88 E. Puèch, “Le ‘Fils de Dieu’ en 4Q246”, Eretz Israel 26 (1999) 143–152 (FS F. M. Cross). “Ceux-ci conviennent mieux, il faut le reconnaître, au roi messie, ainsi que la séquence en rapport avec la victoire eschatologique du roi à la tête de son peuple, car il n’y a pas de royaume sans roi.” (p. 149) 89 Long before its official publication, see F. García Martínez, “4Q246: ¿Tipo del Anticristo o libertador escatológico?”, in V. Collado and E. Zurro (eds.), El misterio de la palabra (Madrid: Cristiandad, 1983), pp. 229–244. 86


131

be applied to the Messiah without the need to specify its character as “anointed”. *

*

*

If at the end of this overview we ask what is precisely the meaning of “son of God” in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the answer must be that the texts do not allow a clear-cut answer to the question because they do not allow us to determine the exact meaning of the metaphor used in any of the four categories of sonship presented. A final example, taken from the same Hodayot as that quoted at the beginning of this paper, can serve to illustrate the difficulty of determining the exact signification of the language of sonship used. 1QHa 11:6–18 (3:6–18 in the numbering of Sukenik) has preserved a poem that can be interpreted (and has been interpreted) in very different ways.90 Some scholars have seen in it a description of the Messiah and of the anti-Messiah; others see in it a description of the birth of the community and its opponents; and others still see in the serpent an echo of Eden and in the two women the primordial Eve from whom both good and bad originate: I was in distress like a woman giving birth the first time when her birth-pangs come on her and a pain racks her womb to begin the birth in the “crucible” of the pregnant woman. Since sons reach the frontiers of death and the woman expectant with a man is racked by her pains, for from the shores of death she gives birth to a male, and there emerges from the pains of Sheol,

90 See, among others, A. Dupont-Sommer, “La mère du Messie et la mère de l’aspic dans un hymne de Qumran (DST iii,6–18)”, RHR 147 (1955) 174–88; L. H. Silberman, “Language and Structure in the Hodayot (1QH 3)”, JBL 75 (1956) 96–106; M. Delcor, “Un psaume messianique de Qumran”, in Mélanges bibliques rédigés en l’honneur d’André Robert (Paris: Bloud & Gray, 1957), pp. 334–40; O. Betz, “Das Volk seiner Kraft. Zur Auslegung der Qumran-Hodajah III,1–18”, NTS 5 (1958–59) 65–75; P. S. Brown, “Deliverance from the Crucible: Some Further Reflections on 1QH III,1–18”, NTS 14 (1967–68) 247–59; E. M. Laperrousaz, “La mère du Messie et la mère de l’aspic dans les ‘hymnes’ de Qumrân: Quelques remarques sur la structure de ‘1QH’ III,1–18”, in Mélanges d’histoire des religions offerts à H.-C. Puech (Paris: Presse universitaires de France, 1974), pp. 173–85. For a complete bibliography of this poem see E. M. Schuller and L. DiTomasso, “A Bibliography of the Hodayoth, 1948–1996”, DSD 4 (1997) 70–72.

132

florentino garcía martínez from the “crucible” of the pregnant woman a splendid counselor with his strength, and the man is freed from the womb. Into the woman expectant with him rush all the spasms and the wrenching pains of his birth; terror (sizes) those giving birth, and at his birth all the pains come suddenly, on the “crucible” of the pregnant woman. And she who is pregnant by the serpent is with a wrenching pain; and the edge of the pit is with all the deeds of terror.91

In this poem, the language of sonship is very concrete, both when the text speaks about giving birth to “a splendid counselor with his strength”, as when it speaks of the woman who is pregnant of the serpent and gives birth to “all deeds of terror”. The poet makes clear (in the last line of the hymn, 11:18) the demonic character of the serpent, with his cohort of malignant spirits, because the woman is pregnant with wickedness and gives birth to demons: And the gates of the pit close upon the woman expectant with wickedness, and the everlasting bolts upon all the spirits of the serpent.92

To this woman, who is pregnant by the serpent and who gives birth to demons, the poem opposes the pregnant woman who gives birth to the “splendid counselor”, an expression based on Isa 9:5–6, a text which has been messianically interpreted and could allow us to see in our text an allusion to the birth of the Messiah. From the metaphoric character of the “wickedness” from which “all the spirits of the serpent” are born we might conclude that the “sonship” of the “splendid counselor” is equally metaphoric, not only here but in all other texts that speak of the “divine sonship of the Messiah”. Nevertheless, the shadow of Samma"el introduces the same doubts at this juncture as it cast on the interpretation of 1 John 3:12.

91 92

1QH 11:7–12, cf. García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 331. 1QH 11:18, cf. García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 332.

MASKIL(IM) AND RABBIM: FROM DANIEL TO QUMRAN* Charlotte Hempel The aim of this study is to take another look at the much discussed question of the Maskilim in Daniel 11–12 in light of the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The identity of this elevated group of the wise in the final chapters of Daniel has received a vast amount of scholarly attention because it is generally believed that the author/redactor of the book of Daniel belonged to this select circle.1 It is further taken for granted by most that we must allow for a relationship of some kind between the circles behind Daniel and the communities behind the scrolls.2 In light of the rapid developments of all kinds in scrolls scholarship over the last few years it seems timely to reexamine the relationship of Daniel to the Scrolls afresh. * Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Old Testament Seminar in Cambridge on the 24th November 2004, the King’s College London Biblical Studies Research Seminar on the 17th of February 2005, and the Summer Meeting of SOTS in July 2005. I am grateful to the chairs of the Cambridge and London seminars, Profs. Robert Gordon and Judith Lieu, as well as the members of the SOTS programme committee for giving me an opportunity to discuss an evolving paper and to those present for their insights and comments. It is a great pleasure to offer what follows in honour of my teacher Michael Knibb as a small token of my gratitude towards him. In the spirit of the theme of this volume I have benefitted greatly from the tradition of scholarship and learning he exemplifies. 1 On the social setting of the Book of Daniel see the contributions by R. Albertz, (“The Social Setting of the Aramaic and Hebrew Book of Daniel”, pp. 171–204); S. Beyerle (“The Book of Daniel and Its Social Setting”, pp. 205–228), L. L. Grabbe (“A Dan[iel] for all Seasons: For Whom was Daniel Important?”, pp. 229–246) and P. R. Davies (“The Scribal School of Daniel”, pp. 247–265) in volume I of the collection edited by J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint, The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002) and the further literature referred to there. Further, K. Koch, Das Buch Daniel (EdF 144. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980), esp. ch. 7; and J. J. Collins, “Daniel and His Social World”, Interpretation 39 (1985) 131–143. 2 On this issue see, inter alia, F. F. Bruce, “The Book of Daniel and the Qumran Community”, in E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (eds.), Neotestamentica et Semitica. FS Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1968), pp. 221–235; M. Henze, The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar. The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4 ( JSJSup 61. Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 217–243; Koch, Buch Daniel, pp. 168–169, and the monograph by A. Mertens, Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer (SBM 12. Stuttgart: Echter KBW, 1971).

134

charlotte hempel

Before turning to the specific texts a number of more general observations can be made regarding points of contact between the author/redactor of Daniel and the groups behind the scrolls. • We have a bilingual milieu both in the book of Daniel which famously switches from Hebrew to Aramaic in 2:4 and back to Hebrew at the beginning of chapter 8 as well as in the scrolls which include Aramaic compositions alongside Hebrew ones.3 As is well known, the Qumran manuscripts of the Book of Daniel attest the shift from Hebrew to Aramaic in 2:4 and back to Hebrew after 7:28. The rationale or reason behind the dividing line between the material preserved in Hebrew and Aramaic is not clear-cut in either collection. However, it seems fair to say that in both cases the use of language is not arbitrary. Thus, in Daniel most of the Aramaic material comprises the tales, with the notable exception of chapter 7. In the scrolls the Aramaic material is confined to non-sectarian texts,4 and according to a survey of the contents of the scrolls Devorah Dimant has calculated that the Aramaic component in the scrolls is around thirteen per cent.5 She further describes the content of the Aramaic works as much more uniform and notes. “They contain almost exclusively visionary-pseudepigraphic compositions, testaments and narrative aggadic works.”6 It seems fair to say that both collections, Daniel and the scrolls, were read,

3 On this issue see J. J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), pp. 12–24; Koch, Buch Daniel, pp. 34–54; A. S. van der Woude, “Die Doppelsprachigkeit des Buches Daniel”, in A. S. van der Woude (ed.), The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (BETL 106. Leuven: Peeters, 1993), pp. 3–12. R. R. Wilson, “From Prophecy to Apocalyptic: Reflections on the Shape of Israelite Religion”, Semeia 21 (1981)79–95, esp. pp. 92–93 suggests that a change in the make-up of the group behind Daniel may explain the change of language. The presence of bilingualism at Qumran that is in many ways compatible to the evidence of Daniel seems to indicate that the group Wilson is referring to may be much larger than the circles behind the book of Daniel. 4 So already S. Segert, “Die Sprachenfrage in der Qumrangemeinschaft”, in H. Bardtke (ed.), Qumran-Probleme (Berlin: Akademie, 1963), pp. 315–339, who suggested, somewhat analogously to Rainer Albertz on Daniel (see note 7 below): “Bei den hebräischen ausserbiblischen Schriften wird es sich, soweit kein Gegenbeweis vorliegt, um essäische Erzeugnisse handeln, während die Schriften fremden Ursprungs eher unter den aramäischen gesucht werden können.”, p. 322. 5 D. Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance”, in D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman (eds.), Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness. Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990 (STDJ 16. Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 23–58, pp. 34–35. 6 Dimant, “Qumran Manuscripts”, p. 35.

MASKIL(IM)

and

RABBIM:

from daniel to qumran

135

cherished, written and redacted in circles in which at the very least the elite was completely at home in either language. Moreover, both seem to associate some types of material with Aramaic and other types of texts with Hebrew. And finally, in both cases it seems that the Aramaic component goes back to or deals with the community’s past, its heritage, whereas the texts or passages dealing most closely with the present are composed in Hebrew.7 • Beyond this, both the communities behind the scrolls and the author/redactor of Daniel cherished and preserved some of the same kind of material as manifested by the presence of a wider Daniel-cycle in the scrolls.8 Whereas it used to be taken for granted that these writings presuppose the Book of Daniel,9 current thinking is to allow for the possibility that they are independent traditions related to Daniel.10 Thus, at Qumran we have a community who cherished the book of Daniel, earlier traditions of the kind incorporated in the book such as the Prayer of Nabonidus,11 as well as other independent traditions. The way this is often put is to say that the scrolls testify to an interest in Daniel by preserving eight

7 Note that Albertz has recently argued that “the entire Aramaic section of Daniel 2–7 can be interpreted as an older source that was incorporated by a Hebrew-writing editor”, “Social Setting of Daniel”, p. 178. 8 For recent discussions of the Daniel cycle at Qumran see G. J. Brooke, “Parabiblical Prophetic Narratives”, in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999), I, pp. 271–301, esp. pp. 290–297; J. J. Collins, “Apocalypticism and Literary Genre in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in Flint and VanderKam (eds.), Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years, II, pp. 403–430, esp. pp. 410–417; J. J. Collins, “Daniel, Book of: Pseudo Daniel”, in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols. New York: Oxford University, 2000), I, pp. 176–178; P. Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran”, in Collins and Flint (eds.), Book of Daniel, II, pp. 329–367 and M. A. Knibb, “The Book of Daniel in Its Context”, in Collins and Flint (eds.), Book of Daniel, I, pp. 16–35. 9 Cf. J. T. Milik, “Prière de Nabonide et autres écrits d’un cycle de Daniel”, RB 63 (1956) 407–415. This was the earlier view of Collins, Daniel, p. 72, and is still the favoured position of M. A. Knibb, cf. “Book of Daniel in Its Context”, pp. 19–24. 10 So J. J. Collins and P. Flint in G. Brooke et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. XVII. Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), p. 136; Flint, “Daniel Tradition at Qumran”, p. 340. See also Grabbe, “Dan(iel) for All Seasons”, p. 237 and L. Stuckenbruck, “Daniel and Early Enoch Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in Collins and Flint (eds.), Book of Daniel, II, pp. 368–386, esp. pp. 371–377. 11 Note, however, the stimulating essay by A. Steinmann, “The Chicken and the Egg. A New Proposal for the Relationship Between the Prayer of Nabonidus and the Book of Daniel”, RQ 20 (2002) 558–570, who challenges the order of priority of both works.

136

charlotte hempel

copies of the book as well as texts from a wider Daniel cycle. Another way of looking at this is to note that both the community behind the Book of Daniel and the communities behind the scrolls were tradents of Danielic traditions.12 An important difference is the way in which the book of Daniel has shaped the material into a coherent composition and that this composition itself is already amply attested at Qumran and quoted from as an authoritative text in a number of places (such as 4QFlor and 11QMelch).13 But if we imagine ourselves just before the process that resulted in the book of Daniel was completed then we have a community behind Daniel just like the community behind the scrolls handing on and cherishing the same kind of traditions.14 There is no need, furthermore, to assume that the further developments of these traditions as represented by the Danielic cycle found at Qumran were an exclusively sectarian endeavour. By contrast, it seems entirely feasible that the same circles who cherished and produced those traditions prior to the composition of the book continued to do so.15 • Both groups, though they emerged some time in the second century bce, lay claim to having ideological or historical (or conceivably both) roots in the exile (cf. e.g. the setting of the tales and CD 1//4QD).16 An interesting difference is the popularity of reviews of history culminating in the emergence of a reform movement in the second century bce in comparable texts such as CD 1//4QD, 1 Enoch

12 See F. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ 9. Leiden: Brill, 1992), p. 149. 13 On this issue see the nuanced discussion in K. Koch, “Stages in the Canonization of the Book of Daniel”, in Collins and Flint (eds.), Book of Daniel, II, pp. 421–446, esp. pp. 427–432. 14 See Bruce, “Book of Daniel and the Qumran Community”, p. 225. 15 So also Flint, “Daniel Tradition at Qumran”, pp. 363–364. See also E. Eshel, “Possible Sources of the Book of Daniel”, in Collins and Flint (eds.) Book of Daniel, II, pp. 387–394 and L. Stuckenbruck, “Daniel and Early Enoch Traditions”. 16 On the Babylonian diaspora as background to Daniel see Koch, Buch Daniel, pp. 170–171. On exile in the Second Temple Period and the Damascus Document in particular see M. A. Knibb, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period”, HeyJ 17 (1976) 249–272; idem, “Exile in the Damascus Document”, JSOT 25 (1983) 99–117. For a literal interpretation of exile in the Damascus Document see J. Murphy-O’Connor, “An Essene Missionary Document? CD II,14–VI,1”, RB 77 (1970) 201–229. For an overview of the discussion and further literature see C. Hempel, The Damascus Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), pp. 56–60. A similar connection of both Daniel and Qumran with the notion of “exilic orgins”, to use a convenient shorthand, is made by Davies, “Scribal School of Daniel”, p. 259.

MASKIL(IM)

and

RABBIM:


137

(e.g. 93:10) and Jubilees (e.g. 21:24), in contrast to the absence of any such account of the emergence of a reform movement as the legitimate objects of divine favour in Dan 11–12. Whereas in CD 1 the biggest event in the historical overview is the emergence of a pious movement and subsequently its leader the Teacher of Righteousness, in the last chapters of Daniel the event in focus is the Antiochene crisis. The favourable portrayal of the wise is mentioned as the most appropriate and exemplaric response to the crisis without itself being the main point of the story. We may have a missing link in 4Qpseudo Danielc (4Q245) 2:4 if we follow the interpretation put forward by the editors Collins and Flint that the verb μwq refers to the rise of a reform movement17 over against García Martínez, Puèch, and Knibb who take the term to refer to resurrection.18 • Both communities attest to a learned environment where the scriptures are studied and applied to the author’s contemporary situation. The learned, scribal character of the scrolls’ communities is evident, and the Habakkuk Pesher is a prime example of the way in which these texts apply the scriptures to events of the authors’ own day. As far as Daniel is concerned, Philip Davies has described the situation very well when he notes, “Daniel, then, is a book in which everything significant is done by writing”.19 • More specifically both collections give prominence to notions of mystery and interpretation as manifest in the use of raz and pesher/peshar terminology.20 Rather than assuming that the scrolls were influenced by the Book 17 See Collins and Flint in Brooke et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. XVII, pp. 153–164, esp. p. 163 and Collins, “Apocalypticism and Literary Genre”, pp. 412–413. 18 See García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, pp. 137–149; E. Puèch, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future. Immortalité, resurrection, et vie éternelle (Paris: Gabalda, 1993), pp. 568–570; M. A. Knibb, “Eschatology and Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in Flint and VanderKam (eds.), Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years, II, pp. 379–402, esp. pp. 382–384; and Knibb, “Book of Daniel in Its Context”, p. 20. 19 P. R. Davies, “Reading Daniel Sociologically”, in van der Woude (ed.), Daniel in the Light of New Findings, p. 353. On the learned, scribal character of the circles behind Daniel see further, for instance, Albertz, “Social Setting”; p. 201; Davies, “Scribal School of Daniel”, pp. 255, 257–258; M. A. Knibb, “‘You are Indeed Wiser than Daniel’. Reflections on the Character of the Book of Daniel”, in van der Woude (ed.), Daniel in the Light of New Findings, pp. 399–411, esp. pp. 404 ff.; Knibb, “Book of Daniel in Its Context”, pp. 16–19. 20 See Bruce, “Book of Daniel and the Qumran Community”, pp. 225–229. On “secret” as an important symbol in Daniel see Davies, “Reading Daniel Sociologically”, pp. 356–357. On the subtle differences in the usage of pesher terminology in Daniel and Qumran see Koch, “Canonization of the Book of Daniel”, p. 429.

138

charlotte hempel

of Daniel it seems wise to allow for the possibility that there was a certain section of Second Temple Jewish society who favoured such preoccupations and used the same terminology. Collins seems right when he cautiously sums up the evidence: “The Essene understanding of mystery and interpretation may be indebted to Daniel 2 and 4 but can be attributed to the common milieu.”21 As far as raz is concerned, we now have a host of new evidence in the form of the recently published substantial wisdom texts Mysteries (1Q27; 4Q299–301) and Instruction (1Q26; 4Q415–418.418a.418c.423).22 Neither of these texts, interestingly, preserve an occurrence of pesher nor do they employ the term Maskil with reference to a particular office or individual.23 Given the sparsity of our sources it seems to me unwise to assume that the terminology raz and pesher was not used more widely by Second Temple period Jews, and that the best way of accounting for the common usage in Daniel and the scrolls is the fact that the same groups lie behind some of the traditions in the Scrolls and behind Daniel. • Finally, both the Scrolls and the Visions of the Book of Daniel alongside other early Jewish texts such as 1 Enoch reflect a selfunderstanding characterized by a close relationship of some kind with the angelic realm.24 As far as the Scrolls are concerned obvious examples are the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice large parts of which describe the worship of angelic priests in the heavenly temple and

21

Daniel, p. 79. The secondary literature dealing with these texts is extensive. For a recent discussion of the Qumran wisdom texts in relation to Daniel that includes further bibliographical information see Knibb, “Book of Daniel in Its Context”, pp. 31–34. Since the publication of Knibb’s discussion four major books on the topic have appeared: J. J. Collins, G. E. Sterling, and R. A. Clements (eds.), Sapiential Perspectives. Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 51. Leiden: Brill, 2004); M. J. Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction (STDJ 50. Leiden: Brill, 2003); C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (BETL 159. Leuven: Peeters, 2002); and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones. Reading and Reconstructing the Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (STDJ 44. Leiden: Brill, 2001). 23 See C. Hempel, “The Qumran Sapiential Texts and the Rule Books”, in Hempel, Lange and Lichtenberger (eds.), Wisdom Texts from Qumran, pp. 277–295, esp. p. 287. Note, however, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “Towards a Reconstruction of the Beginning of 4QInstruction”, in the same volume pp. 99–126, p. 123. 24 See M. Mach, “Angels”, in Schiffman and VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I, pp. 24–27 and further literature referred to there. Also, A. Lacocque, “Socio-Spiritual Formative Milieu of the Daniel Apocalypse”, in van der Woude (ed.), Daniel in the Light of New Findings, pp. 315–343, esp. p. 324. 22

MASKIL(IM)

and

RABBIM:


139

the War Scroll. As far as the Visions of Daniel are concerned Collins has drawn attention to the term “people of the holy ones” and the references to “the backdrop of a heavenly battle between Michael, the angelic prince of Israel, and the ‘princes’ of Persia and Greece”.25 He has further made a good case for seeing communion with the angelic hosts as the primary objective of the Maskilim.26 So much by way of general observations which do make a strong case for a common milieu between both groups of texts. The remainder of this study will deal with the evidence of Dan 11–12 and the Community Rule in turn. The Maskilim in Daniel 11–12 The hiphil participle plural Maskilim occurs several times in the last chapters of the book of Daniel apparently with reference to a particular privileged group within the community. It is widely held that the authors/editors of the book are to be found in those circles.27 When we look at this material it becomes clear very quickly that we are told very little about this group. They are introduced rather abruptly, it seems to me, in Dan 11:33 after the previous verse 32 spoke about the make-up of the people in terms of those who violate the covenant over against the people (μ[) who know their God.28 The text continues in verses 33–35: 33 The Maskilim of the people shall instruct the many (μybr), but they will stumble by sword and flame, captivity and plundering for some days. 34 When they fall they will receive a little help, and many (μybr) shall attach themselves to them under false pretences. 35 Some of the Maskilim will stumble in order to refine amongst them and to purify and to make white until the time of the end for this is still at the appointed time.

25 Collins, “Daniel and His Social World”, p. 139; idem, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM 16. Missoula: Scholars, 1977), pp. 123–147; idem, “The Mythology of Holy War in Daniel and the Qumran War Scroll: A Point of Transition in Jewish Apocalyptic”, VT 25 (1975) 596–612. 26 Collins, “Daniel and His Social World”, p. 140. 27 Cf., e.g., Albertz, “Social Setting of Daniel”, p. 193 and Collins, Daniel, pp. 66–67. 28 Note that B. Hasslberger refers to the passus on the wise in Daniel 11 in terms of an excursus, Hoffnung in der Bedrängnis. Eine formkritische Untersuchung zu Dan 8 und

140

charlotte hempel

One way around the sparse amount of detail we are given about this group is to argue, as Collins does, for instance, that since they are the group behind the book, the kinds of views expressed in the book of Daniel also give expression to the ideology of this group. This seems likely, although large parts of the contents of the book clearly emerged independently, and it seems to be in the framework and the presentation of these components that we are closest to the voice of the Maskilim. Thus, a good case has been made that in view of the astonishing amount of knowledge displayed in chapter 11 about Greek history we should reckon with the incorporation and adaptation of a history of the Ptolemies and Seleucids in this chapter.29 In any case, the few passages where the group of the Maskilim comes out in the open and names itself are clearly of particular interest, and there is little doubt that those passages are part of the redactional work of those responsible both for the book as a whole as well as chapter 11 in particular. Plöger famously saw in this group and behind the Book of Daniel “the conventicle-spirit of deliberate separatism” and argued for taking this material as referring to membership in a particular group.30 His views on the opposition between priestly hierarchy and visionary conventicles as the cornerstones of post-exilic society have now been recognized as too simplistic. As far as the present passage is concerned, the boundaries between those who are with us and those who are against us seem to be relatively fluid and low.31 It is char10 –12 (ATSAT 4. St. Ottilien: Eos, 1977), p. 267. Koch also convincingly argues that the way in which the term Maskil is used in Daniel 11–12 gives the impression that the term was “an established term for the authors of Daniel [. . .] not their invention”, “Canonization of the Book of Daniel”, p. 429. 29 So G. A. Barton, “The Composition of the Book of Daniel”, JBL 17 (1898) 62–86. More recently see U. Rappaport, “Apocalyptic Vision and Preservation of Historical Memory”, JSJ 23 (1992) 217–226 and P. L. Redditt, “Daniel 11 and the Sociological Setting of the Book of Daniel”, CBQ 60 (1998) 463–474, pp. 470–471. Collins, Daniel, p. 377, notes, however, that “It is clear that Daniel does not simply incorporate a source, because the account exhibits traditional theological patterns and is modeled on Daniel 8 to some degree.” A number of possibilities of how a Greek source may have been incorporated are outlined by Rappaport, “Apocalyptic Vision”, p. 224 n. 14. 30 O. Plöger, Theocracy and Eschatology (ET S. Rudman. Richmond VA: John Knox, 1969), p. 19. For a critique see, e.g., Koch, Buch Daniel, pp. 169–170. 31 I wonder whether, in light of the fluid and low boundaries between the wise and the rest of the people envisaged here, the description of the author’s attitude as “incipient sectarian” is not too strong a term for this material, cf. Collins, “Mythology of Holy War”, p. 603.

MASKIL(IM)

and

RABBIM:


141

acterized by a certain elitism32 that is nevertheless willing to admit the right kind of aspirants into the fold. This non-insular generosity is indicated by the fact that this group is said to instruct (wnyby) the many and welcomes those who join them as long as they do so sincerely. Moreover the hiphil participle literally implies already the causative (making someone have insight) which fits the context well.33 Maybe we could describe the portrayal of the wise here as advocates of aspirational elitism. It is further generally recognized that both the terms Maskilim and rabbim in this part of Daniel are based on the suffering servant as portrayed in Isa 53:11.34 This is particularly clear further on in Dan 12:3 which clearly alludes to Isa 53:11 in its description of the eschaton and the elevated fate of the Maskilim at that time: “The Maskilim shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who bring righteousness to many like the stars for ever and ever.” Maskil at Qumran35 In the Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance recently published by Martin Abegg we find thirty seven entries for Maskil in the sense of “Instructor” 32 Here my own position is close to the one outlined by Davies, “Scribal School of Daniel”, p. 253, who also speaks of “elitism” in this context and emphasizes the lack of “separatism”. 33 This is also highlighted with reference to Dan 11:33, 35; 12:3 (in contrast to Dan 1:4) by K. Koch, Daniel (BKAT 22.1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), pp. 18, 20, 44, see also p. 4. See further Davies, “Scribal School of Daniel”, p. 253. 34 See, e.g., H. L. Ginsberg, “The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant”, VT 3 (1953) 400–404 and Mertens, Buch Daniel, p. 70 who admits to simplifying the picture when he sums up his reading of the evidence as follows: “An die Stelle des Ebed Jahwe bei Jesaja sind im Daniel-Buch die ‘Weisen’ getreten. Im Schrifttum vom Toten Meer aber steht an derselben Stelle der ‘Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit’ . . .”. Further, Beyerle, “Daniel and Its Social Setting”, p. 215 and n. 40; Collins, Daniel, p. 385; Davies, “Scribal School of Daniel”, pp. 251–252; and Knibb, “You are Indeed Wiser than Daniel”, pp. 406–407. 35 See Hempel, “The Sapiential Texts and the Rule Books”, pp. 286–294; J. I. Kampen, “The Diverse Aspects of Wisdom in the Qumran Texts”, in Flint and VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years, I, pp. 211–243, esp. pp. 238–239; H. Kosmala, “Ma≤kîl”, in Studies, Essays and Reviews (3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1978), I, pp. 235–241; C. Newsom, “The Sage in the Literature of Qumran: the Functions of the Ma≤kîl”, in J. G. Gammie and L. G. Perdue (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 373–382; eadem, “Apocalyptic and the Discourse of the Qumran Community”, in JNES 49 (1990) 135–144; eadem, Self as Symbolic Space, pp. 169–174, 189–190; A. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18. Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 144–164.

142

charlotte hempel

in the Scrolls.36 Some of those are multiple occurrences in different copies of the same document. The texts that mention this individual or office are the Damascus Document (×3),37 the Rule of the Community (×4), the Rule of Blessings (×3), the Hodayot (×4), Hodayot-like text (×1), The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (×7), as a heading in an Address by the Maskil to the sons of Dawn (×1), Songs of the Maskil (×2), 4QInstruction (×3) and once in 4QWays of Righteousness and 4QNarrative B respectively. One curiosity, to begin with, is that if the Maskilim of Daniel, as often and rightly thought, were teachers of eschatological speculation it is extremely perplexing that the individual/office Maskil does not occur in most of the eschatological documents from Qumran. Thus, the term is entirely absent from the War Scroll (a text that has been called “a sort of midrash on the end of Dn 11 and the beginning of Dn 12”),38 4QSerekh ha-Milhama (4Q285 and 11Q14), the Rule of the Congregation (1QSa), 1QpHabakkuk, and 11QMelchizedek. The term is present in 1QSb, the Rule of Blessings, as is often noted. Given the well-known close relationship between the Book of Daniel and the War Scroll in particular, the absence of the designation in this work certainly deserves to be reflected upon.39 We note also the prevalence of the term in liturgical texts which reminds us of the use of Maskil in the heading of a number of Psalms as well as its use in Chronicles with reference to the cultic duties of the Levites.40 In what follows I would like to focus on the Community 36 M. G. Abegg, The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. Volume One. The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran [Part One] (Leiden: Brill, 2003), p. 489. 37 Here and in the following examples I am not including occurrences of the same passage in different copies of the same work. 38 Bruce, “Book of Daniel and the Qumran Community”, p. 233. 39 An exception is an occurrence of the plural in the liturgical part of 1QM in 1QM 10:10 where the holy people of the covenant are described as qwj ydmwlm h]nyb ylykçm, cf. J. Duhaime, “War Scroll (1QM, 1Q33)”, in J. H. Charlesworth et al. (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Damascus Document, War Scroll and Related Documents [ The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project 1. 10 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994], II, pp. 116). It has also been suggested to reconstruct a reference to the maskil in the lost title of 1QM, cf. J. Duhaime, The War Texts. 1QM and Related Manuscripts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 6. London: T. & T. Clark, 2004), pp. 53–54 and previous literature referred to there. 40 For the view that the Maskil ’s liturgical role was a later development see C. Dohmen, “Zur Gründung der Gemeinde von Qumran (1QS VIII–IX)”, RQ 11 (1982) 81–96. On this issue see also Newsom, “Sage in the Literature of Qumran”, p. 375 and p. 380 n. 11 where she tentatively proposes, in marked contrast to

MASKIL(IM)

and

RABBIM:


143

Rule, in particular, because this text figures rather prominently in discussions of Daniel and Qumran.41 Maskil and Rabbim in the Community Rule The standard textbook account of the relationship of the Maskilim in Dan 11–12 and the Qumran community runs as follows: the Maskil appears as a key community functionary in the sectarian scrolls and the community itself which he leads has adopted the designation ha-rabbim. This represents an institutionalization of the terminology we find in Daniel.42 I would like to suggest that things are not quite as simple as that. Let me begin this discussion with another curiosity. It is true that we have both the Maskil and the designation ha-rabbim as important terms in the Community Rule, but the two terms are never closely linked to one another with one possible partial exception. By contrast, when the texts introduce the maskil, which is across the board most often in headings, designations other than ha-rabbim are used. Thus in the Teaching on the Two Spirits we have a variety of terms to designate “the good side” (e.g. children of light, children of righteousness, children of truth—never rabbim). The other long section on the Maskil in 1QS 9:12ff., to be discussed below, never associates this figure with the rabbim, but instead uses other designations (such as children of righteousness [4QSe]/Zadok [1QS],43 chosen ones of the time, the chosen of the way [4QSd]/those who have chosen the way [1QS]). There is certainly no shortage of the designation harabbim in the Community Rule. It occurs no less than thirty four times, but not once in the two passages most closely associated with the Maskil which employ other terms. Thus, whereas it is still correct to say that we have both terms in the same key text, it is equally significant that when we look a little deeper they certainly do not go hand in hand. I will deal with the four most important texts from the Community Rule in turn.

Dohmen, that the term Maskil might have entered the vocabulary of the sect via the pre-sectarian Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. 41 See e.g. Davies, “Scribal School of Daniel”, pp. 259–264. 42 Cf. Collins, Daniel, p. 73; Henze, Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar, pp. 232–233, 241; Koch, Buch Daniel, p. 169; Mertens, Buch Daniel, p. 64. 43 On this variant see R. Kugler, “A Note on 1QS 9:14: the Sons of Righteousness or the Sons of Zadok?”, DSD 3 (1996) 315–320.

144

charlotte hempel

1. The Restored Title of the Rule of the Community It is widely held that the best way to reconstruct the first word of the title of the Community Rule in 1QS 1:1, this part of the title not being attested by any of the 4QS manuscripts, is with lykçml.44 On the basis of such a reconstruction it has been argued that the scroll is best taken as a handbook for the maskil.45 This frequently endorsed restoration may or may not be correct, and it seems prudent not to build too much on any reading that is not attested. It is noteworthy, moreover, that the preserved occurrences of Maskil in the Community Rule never associate the official with the term ˚rs as proposed in the restored title. Instead there is a clear preference for other terms such as μyqwj (1QS 9:12//4QSe III:7), μynwkt (1QS 9:21//4QSd VIII:5//4QSe IV:2) and once çrdm (4QSd I:1//4QSb IX:1). The situation is very similar in the Damascus Document where the Maskil is referred to alongside the term μyqwj (cf. CD 12:22//4QDa 5 i 17). Even if we were to grant limited weight to the restoration, the related point of the importance of the Maskil in the final form, we might say the Endredaktion, of 1QS, and certainly of 4QSd, where the reading Maskil is preserved in the heading,46 is beyond doubt. On my reading the evidence is best explained if we think of Maskil traditions originally associated with terms such as μyqwj and μynwkt having been incorporated into larger documents such as the Damascus Document and the Community Rule.

44 So, e.g., P. S. Alexander and G. Vermes, Qumran Cave 4. XIX. Serekh ha-Ya˙ad and Two Related Texts (DJD 26. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), p. 32; J. Carmignac, “Conjecture sur la première ligne de la Règle de la Communauté”, RQ 2 (1959) 85–87; S. Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 111–112; and C. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space. Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (STDJ 52. Leiden: Brill, 2004), p. 102. A different view has been put forward by H. Stegemann who considers 1QS a Sammelhandschrift rather than a single composition and argues that the title of 1QS 1:1 refers only to 1QS 1:1–3:12, cf. “Some Remarks to 1QSa, to 1QSb and to Qumran Messianism”, RQ 17 (1996) 479–505. 45 P. S. Alexander, “The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Ya˙ad: A Proposal”, RQ 17 (1996) 437–456, a view most recently endorsed by Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, p. 102. Note that already in 1959 Huppenbauer proposed that various parts of S were intended for community leaders rather than the membership at large, cf. H. W. Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten (ATANT 34. Zürich: Zwingli, 1959), p. 44 n. 145. 46 The opening lines of 4QSd have been discussed extensively in recent years, see Alexander and Vermes, Qumran Cave 4. XIX, pp. 83ff. for the text and further literature, and section 3. below.

MASKIL(IM)

and

RABBIM:


145

2. The Introduction to the Teaching on the Two Spirits 1QS 3:13–4:26 The title and introduction to the Teaching on the Two Spirits reads as follows, For the Maskil to instruct and to teach all the children of light about the biographies of humanity 14with regard to all the varieties of their spirits as signified by their actions during their lives and with regard to the punishment of their sufferings as well as 15their happy times.

The value in what follows this heading for our understanding of the Maskil in the Community Rule is influenced, maybe I should say limited, by three factors. First, it has become clear—since the publication of the Cave 4 manuscripts—that some manuscripts of the Community Rule did not incorporate the Teaching on the Two Spirits or indeed anything from the first four columns in 1QS and began instead with the equivalent of 1QS 5.47 Secondly, and not unrelated, is a recent school of thought that considers the teaching on the two spirits as an originally independent composition that was secondarily incorporated into the Serekh.48 This view stands in marked contrast to the traditional understanding of the treatise as a succinct summary of “Qumran theology”.49 And finally, there have been a number of studies making a strong case for the composite character of the treatise.50 A literary history for the growth of the treatise is further suggested by the presence of a 4QS fragment (4QSa frg. 3) containing a small amount of text that is reminiscent of the Teaching on the Two Spirits but does not parallel any portion of it exactly.51 47

Ibid. See Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, chapter 4 and J. Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library. Reflections on their Background and History”, in M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen (eds.), Legal Texts and Legal Issues. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 275–335. 49 See e.g. H. Ringgren’s description of the Teaching on the Two Spirits, which he incidentally recognized as an originally independent source, as “a short presentation of the theology of the sect”, The Faith of Qumran. Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls (rev. and enl. edn. New York: Crossroad, 1995), pp. 2–3. More recently Collins has referred to the treatise as “the heart of the sect’s theology”, “Apocalypticism and Literary Genre”, p. 421. 50 See J. Duhaime, “L’instruction sur les deux esprits et les interpolations dualistes à Qumran”, RB 84 (1977) 566–594; P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran (SUNT 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), chapters 6–8; H. Stegemann, “Zu Textbestand und Grundgedanken von 1QS III,13–IV,26”, RQ 13 (1988) 95–131. 51 See Alexander and Vermes, Qumran Cave 4. XIX, pp. 36–37; Metso, Textual 48

146

charlotte hempel

For the purposes of the present enquiry it suffices to note that the association of the Treatise with the Maskil by way of the heading and introduction is best seen as a secondary development and part of the editorial process that shaped 1QS as a whole.52 I am not denying a link at some stage of the teachings contained in this material with the Maskil.53 I do suggest, however, that this relationship is not as completely organic as is sometimes assumed.54 More caution is necessary when we try and make a case for the relevance of this material for evaluating the relationship to Daniel. 3. The Introduction to 1QS 5//4QSb IX//4QSd I55 1QS 5:1–3a 51And this is the rule for the people of the community who eagerly volunteer to turn back from all evil and to hold fast to all that He has commanded as His wish. They shall keep separate from the congregation of 2the people of injustice to form a community with regard to law and wealth. They shall be accountable to the sons of Zadok, the priests who keep the covenant and to the multitude of the people of 3the community who hold fast to the covenant. On their authority decisions shall be taken regarding any matter pertaining to law, wealth, or justice.

4QSb IX and 4QSd I (Composite Text) b1 d1 / Midrash for the Maskil over (or: concerning) the people of the law who eagerly volunteer to turn back from all evil and to hold fast to all b2 that He has commanded. d2

They shall keep separate from the congregation of the people of injustice to form a community with regard to la[w] and wealth. They shall be accountable b3to the many

regarding any matter d3pertaining to law and wealth.

Development, pp. 90–91, 137; and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “‘These are the names of the spirits of . . .’. A Preliminary Edition of 4QCatalogue of Spirits (4Q230) and New Manuscript Evidence for the Two Spirits Treatise (4Q257 and 1Q29a)”, RQ 21 (2004) 529–548. 52 Here I am in agreement with Metso, Textual Development, pp. 139, 145 and Duhaime, “L’instruction”, pp. 580, 589. 53 Note the helpful discussion in Metso, Textual Development, pp. 135–140, esp. pp. 136–137. See also C. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (STDJ 40. Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 112–114. 54 In fact, Duhaime (“L’instruction”) and Metso (Textual Development, pp. 136–137) point to links between parts of the Teaching on the Two Spirits and the Statutes for the Maskil in 1QS 9, and the composite nature of the treatise may hold the answer to the complex question of its relationship both to the Maskil heading and the Maskil section in 1QS 9. 55 This synoptic translation is taken from C. Hempel, Rules and Laws I (Eerdmans

MASKIL(IM)

and

RABBIM:


147

The opening lines of 1QS 5 and 4QSdb have received a fair amount of scholarly attention over the last few years because they preserve a number of significant variants between different manuscripts of the Community Rule. For our present purposes we need to note the presence of the Maskil in the heading of the 4QS manuscripts over against 1QS. In the case of 4QSd this passage constitutes the title of the whole document.56 The most discussed feature of those passages is the authority entrusted in 1QS to the sons of Zadok over against the many (ha-rabbim) in 4QSdb. When I first looked at the 4QSdb text with Daniel in mind I thought it was significant that we have here the Maskil in the heading and the rabbim in the main text actually occurring alongside one another. I still think this is significant. However, I would now want to stress that the group immediately associated with the Maskil in the heading in 4QSdb is called “the people of the law (hrwth yvna)—a hapax legomenon in the scrolls.57 It is interesting to observe that in the Cave 4 manuscripts the Maskil is associated by way of the heading with admonitions to keep separate from the people of injustice. This group is also linked to the Maskil in 1QS 9 to which I will now turn. 4. The Statutes for the Maskil 1QS 9:12–25//4QSb XVIII:1–7//4QSd VIII: 1–9//4QSe III:6–IV:8//4QSf I:1–258 I. 1QS 9:12–21a a. 1QS 9:12–14a 12 These are the statutes for the Maskil to walk in them (in his dealings) with all the living according to the rule for each time and according to the weight of each

I. 4QSe III a. 6 These are the sta[tutes] 7for the Mas[kil to walk in] them (in his dealings) with all the living according to the rule for each [time] 8and according to the wei[ght of each person. He

Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming). It is based on the editions of the Hebrew text of 1QS by E. Qimron (“Rule of the Community [1QS]”, in J. H. Charlesworth et al. (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Rule of the Community and Related Documents [The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994], I, pp. 6–51) and of 4QS by Alexander and Vermes (Qumran Cave 4. XIX) for the text of the 4QS manuscripts. 56 Cf. Alexander and Vermes, Qumran Cave 4. XIX, Plate X. 57 Cf. Alexander and Vermes, Qumran Cave 4. XIX, p. 96. 58 For the sources of the Hebrew texts and translation see note 55 above.

148

charlotte hempel

person. 13He shall execute the will of shall exe]cute the will of God accordGod according to everything that has ing to everything that has been been revealed from time to time. He revealed [from time to time]. 9He shall acquire every insight which has sh[all acquire every insight] which has been found been found before the times according to the times and the [statute] 10of time. and 14the statute of time. b. b. 1QS 9:14b–18a [He shall separate and] weigh He shall separate and weigh the sons of righteousness the sons of Zadok according to their spirit. He shall sus- according to their sp[i]rit. 11He shall tain the chosen ones of the time [sustain the chosen ones of the time] according to 15His will according to according to His will according to that which He has commanded. He that which He has commanded. He shall execute judgment on each per- shall [execute 12judgment on] each son according to his spirit. He shall person [according to his spirit.] He shall bring near bring near 1QS 4QSbd (Composite Text) 4QSe each person according dIII:13[each person] aceach person according to the cleanness of his cording to the cleanto the cleanness of his hands and 16according ness of [his] ha[nds hands acc[ording to 13 to his insight. and] dIV:1according to his insight. his insight. And equally his love And equally his love And equally] his [lo]ve and his hatred. and his hatred. He and his hatred. He He shall not rebuke or shall not rebuke or get shall not [rebuke] 14or get into an argument into an argument with [get into an argument with the people of the the people of the pit with the peo]ple of d2 pit 17but conceal but conceal the pit but conceal the counsel of the law his/His counsel the coun[sel of ] 15the law in the midst of the in the midst of the [in the midst of the people of injustice. He people of injustice. He people of injustice. He shall discipline with shall discipline with shall] discipline with true knowledge and true knowledge and true knowledge and righteous judgment righteous judgment righteous 16judgment those who have chosen the chosen of the way the cho[sen of the way, 18 the way, each accord- each according to his each] according to his ing to his spirit spirit spirit according to the rule of and according to b1the rule and according to his rank. time. of d3time. c. 1QS 9:18b–21a c. c. He shall guide them The time (is here) to He shall guide them with guide them 17with with knowledge and thus knowledge and thus knowledge [and thus instruct them instruct them instruct them

MASKIL(IM)

and

in the wonderful and true mysteries in the midst of 19the people of the community so that they may conduct themselves perfectly each with his neighbour according to all that has been revealed to them.

RABBIM:


149

b2

in] the wonderful mystein the wonderful and true mysteries in the midst ries. And if the way of the assembly of the comof the people of the munity 18reaches perfection, community so that they may con- so that they may con[duct themselves duct themselves perperfectly each] with fectly each with d4 his neighbours his neighbour according to all that according to all b3that has been revealed to has been revealed to them. them. 19 This is the time to This is [the time to This is the time to prepare the way 20to prepare the way] 20to prepare the way to the wilderness. the wilderness. the wilderness. He shall instruct them He shall make them rulers He shall instruct them in with all over all all 1QS 4QSb and 4QSd that has been found to do that has been found to do. at this time, and Vacat b4At this d5[time they shall keep away from everyone they shall keep away] from everyone who has not averted his path 21from who has not averted his path from all injustice. Vacat. all injustice. Vacat II. 1QS 9:21b–25 II. These are the rules of conduct for These are b5the rules of conduct for the Maskil during these times with the Maskil during [these] d6tim[es with regard to his love and his hatred. regard to his love and] his hatred. (He shall direct) eternal hatred 22to- (He shall direct) eternal hatred towards the people of the pit with a wards b6the people of the pit with a spirit of secretiveness. He shall leave spirit of secretiveness. He shall leave to them property and wages like a to them property and wad7[ges like servant to his master (displaying) a servant to] his [ma]ster (displaying) humility before 23his ruler. humility before b7his ruler. He shall be a person who is dedi- He shall be a person who is dedicated to the statute cated to the statute 1QS 4QSb and 4QSd 4QSf f1 and its time until and ready for [and its time until the day of vengeance. the day of [vengeance.] the day of vengeance. He shall perform the He shall [perform d8the He shall perform the will (of God) in every- will (of God) in every- will (of God) in everything he thing he thi]ng he f2 does 24and in everydoes and in] everydo[es and in everything that is under his thing that is under his thing that is under his control (he) shall com- control (he) shall com- control (he) shall comply with that which ply with that whi[ch ply with that whi[ch

150

charlotte hempel

He has commanded. He has commanded. He has commanded.] Everything he Every]thing he Everything he encounters encounters encounters 1QS 4QSb and 4QSd shall readily delight him and he shall shall readily delight him and [he shall derive no pleasure except from the derive no pleasure] d9except from the will of God. 25[A]ll His words shall will of [God. All His words shall delight him, and he shall not desire delight him, and he shall not desire anything that He has not com- anything th]at He has not [comman[ded]. He shall continually look manded. He shall] con[tinually] look out for God’s judgment. out [for] God’s [judgme]nt.

To my mind this passage is the most important one to be discussed here and very probably offers us some of the tradition-historically earliest material on the Maskil in S.59 A good case can be made for the independent origin of this section. Firstly, the same heading as is found in 1QS 9:12 (“These are the statutes for the Maskil to walk in them [in his dealings] with all the living . . .”) occurs in the Damascus Document (CD 12:20–21//4QDa 5 i 17) without any statutes following it. As I have argued elsewhere, the best way to account for this curious state of affairs in the Damascus Document, is to argue that this piece was an independent tradition which was available to the redactor of the Damascus Document and subsequently became overshadowed by other rules and offices in the Laws, such as the overseer and the camps.60 The publication of the Cave 4 manuscripts of the Community Rule has provided even stronger pointers towards the originally independent character of this section, since one of the manuscripts that includes it lacks a block of material just before it and has a different block of material just after it. I am referring to 4QSe which lacks the equivalent of 1QS 8:15b–9:11 up to and including the famous reference to the coming of the prophet and the Messiah of Aaron and Israel immediately before our heading in 9:12 and continues after it with a calendric text Otot rather than the final psalm.61 There is no reason to think that any

59 For a recent treatment of this material see Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, pp. 165ff. 60 C. Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document. Sources, Traditions and Redaction (STDJ 29. Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 105–106, 114–121, 189. 61 See Metso, Textual Development, pp. 48–51; Alexander and Vermes, Qumran Cave 4. XIX, pp. 50–51; U. Glessmer, “Calendars in the Qumran Scrolls”, in Flint and VanderKam (eds.), Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years, II, pp. 213–278, esp. pp. 262–268.

MASKIL(IM)

and

RABBIM:


151

of the Cave 4 manuscripts lacked the Maskil section. But if we think of the work of the author/redactor of the Community Rule manuscripts as, at least in some cases, making use of some building blocks, it seems that different manuscripts put together the material in different ways just before and after our section. All of these considerations seem to me fairly strong evidence for the originally independent character of this section. As is so often the case the term Maskil, which occurs twice in this section, is again used in headings. However, in both of these cases the individual seems to be quite clearly in mind in the material that follows the headings. The statutes that follow are presented as addressed to the Maskil and spell out his duties. It may be, therefore, that we ought to direct our attention first and foremost to this section in our assessment of the Maskil traditions in the Community Rule and Daniel. Looking at the text that follows the first heading we noted earlier the absence of rabbim language. We may also note that although there are indicators of some form of incipient communal mentality in parts of this we are quite a way away from the rigidly organized procedures, frequently with reference to the rabbim, laid down in most of columns 5–7 of the 1QS. We are also in different territory from the one mapped out in the previous column which describes the emerging council of the community in cultic terms as having an atoning function and employs language to describe the community otherwise applied to the sanctuary. Whatever the Maskil might be in other contexts,62 here we get the feeling the orientation is that of an esoterically inclined lay person as opposed to the saturation with cultic and temple imagery we find in 1QS 8.63 Both passages are idealistic, but the idealism in

See also Dohmen, “Gründung der Gemeinde”, p. 95 and Knibb, “Eschatology and Messianism”, pp. 385–386. 62 See Metso, Textual Development, p. 136 who argues that the Maskil ’s role in 1QSb points to a priestly figure. Whether we should read the evidence of the Community Rule in the light of 1QSb is another matter. 63 On the esoteric sphere of influence of the Maskil see Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, p. 170, who characterizes him as “a figure of mystery”. For a recent assessment of the Maskil as a scholarly instructor and role model for community members, though not a priest, see L. H. Schiffman, “Utopia and Reality: Political Leadership and Organization in the Dead Sea Scrolls Community”, in S. M. Paul et al. (eds.), Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 413–427, esp. p. 423.

152

charlotte hempel

each one is of a different flavour. As far as Daniel is concerned, scholars are divided on the role of priestly concerns in the book.64 It seems fair to say, however, that in the passages specifically dealing with the Maskilim cultic language is not at the forefront. When we look at the whole passage a case can be made for some developments even within this section.65 This is clear already from a number of differences between the manuscripts which are printed in italics in my translation. There are good indications, on my reading, to take the second heading and everything that follows it (II.) until the end of the passage as a secondary enlargement on what precedes. As I have indicated by way of underlining relevant phrases, almost every issue that is raised in this second part takes up something that was mentioned previously and occasionally elaborates upon it. If we focus our attention on the material that follows the first heading I. it seems appropriate to divide this into three sub-sections which I have designated a., b. and c. in my translation. a. 1QS 9:12–14a//4QSe III:6–10 As far as the first part of this section is concerned, two features are striking. One is the universalistic tone and outlook. Note the reference to the Maskil’s dealings with all the living (yj lwk) according to the weight of each person (çyaw çya lqçml). He is to acquire every insight that has been found. In these opening lines we do not find any designation for a particular group associated with him, not even a national all-Israel scenario backdrop as in Dan 11:33–35, but rather a universalistic outlook that is concerned with the Maskil’s role visà-vis humankind. It may be one thing to imagine that this individual’s teachings covers all of humanity, but this passage is talking 64

For a concise overview see Koch, Buch Daniel, pp. 169–170. Two diametrically opposed positions are represented by O. Plöger who advocates anti-hierocratic circles (Theocracy and Eschatology) and J. H. C. Lebram who has tried to make a case for priestly authorship (“Apokalyptik und Hellenismus im Buche Daniel”, VT 20 [1970] 503–524). On this topic see also e.g. Davies, “Reading Daniel Sociologically”, pp. 359–361; idem, “Scribal School of Daniel”, p. 260; E. Haag, “Die Hasidäer und das Danielbuch”, TTZ 102 (1993) 51–63, pp. 53, 61; and Lacocque, “SocioSpiritual Formative Milieu”, pp. 335–336. 65 C. Dohmen has argued that a part of this section together with parts of the previous column forms the original Manifesto of an emerging community (i.e. 1QS 8:1–7a+12b–15a and 1QS 9:16–21a). He further holds that 1QS 9:12–16a+21b26 (i.e. two sections introduced with a Maskil heading, the latter heading being identified as a “redaktionelle Notiz”, p. 88) belong to an originally independent composition that has been inserted here, cf. “Gründung der Gemeinde”.

MASKIL(IM)

and

RABBIM:


153

about his dealings with all the living (yj lwk μ[ ˚lhthl). This is in marked contrast to a number of other headings, such as 1QS 3:13 (the Maskil is to instruct and teach all the sons of light) or 4QSd I:1 discussed above which speaks of the Maskil and the people of the torah, or outside of the Community Rule we have a text that bears a title resembling its heading, the “Address of the Maskil to all the Sons of Dawn”. Unlike a majority of cases the present passage does not associate the Maskil with a particular group—quite the opposite, he has dealings with all the living. The repetition of the term ‘all’ or the use of syntactical features that have a similar meaning such as çyaw çya underlines the all-encompassing universalistic frame of mind.66 The second feature that strikes us as we read these lines is the persistent emphasis on time (t[).67 Unlike in Daniel, here the concern with time does not seem to be eschatological, but rather of an esoteric, learned, halakhic nature (note the reference to the statute of time and to everything that has been revealed from time to time)68 and with time in the sense of season, alloted time.69 It would be worthwhile to explore this universalistic concern expressed here further and see where it comes to the fore in other texts from the corpus of the scrolls or even in the Community Rule.70 There is certainly a universalistic sub-text to the Teaching on the Two Spirits.71 Although

66

For an insightful discussion of this characteristic, though not with reference to the present passage, see Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, p. 81. 67 Note a similar statement in 1QS 8:15. On this emphasis see A.-M. Denis, “Évolution de structures dans la secte de Qumrân”, in J. Giblet et al. (eds.), Aux origines de l’église (RechBib 7. Louvain: Desclée de Brouwer, 1965), pp. 44–45; C. Hempel, “The Gems of DJD 36. Reflections on Some Recently Published Texts”, JJS 54 (2003) 146–152, esp. pp. 149–150; Newsom, “Apocalyptic and the Discourse of Qumran”, pp. 143–144; eadem, Self as Symbolic Space, pp. 81–83, 169, 174–186. See also G. Brin, The Concept of Time in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 39. Leiden: Brill, 2001) and K. Koch, “Das Geheimnis der Zeit in Weisheit und Apokalyptik um die Zeitenwende”, in F. García Martínez (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalyptic in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BETL 168. Leuven: Peeters, 2003), pp. 35–68. 68 See Hempel, “Gems of DJD 36” and Newsom, “Apocalyptic and the Discourse of Qumran”, p. 143. 69 See J. Maier, “Zum Begriff djy in den Texten von Qumran”, ZAW 31 (1960) 148–166, esp. p. 156. 70 I have recently drawn attention to the close resemblance between 1QS 8:4 and 1QS 9:12, for instance, cf. C. Hempel, “Emerging Communal Life and Ideology in the S Tradition”, in F. García Martínez (ed.), Defining Identities. ‘We’, ‘You’ and ‘the Others’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ. Leiden: Brill) forthcoming. 71 Cf. Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, p. 88.

154

charlotte hempel

the Maskil is to instruct the sons of light and humankind is divided, the knowledge to be passed on is described in 1QS 3:13f. as “the biographies of humanity (çya ynb lwk twdlwt) with regard to all the varieties of their spirits”. See also 1QS 4:15 “All human generations (çya ynb lwk twdlwt) are governed by these (two spirits)”. The pronounced dualism that goes hand in hand with the universalistic subtext of the Teaching on the Two Spirits is not found in the opening lines of the present text. We do have a reference to the weight of each person in 9:12 which does point in the direction of dividing humanity, but this emphasis here is rather low key. Turning to Daniel, the vantage point of the Maskilim in chapters 11–12 seems to be fairly and squarely within a national frame of reference. The divisions that matter are those within the people (μ[) rather than all of humankind. b. 1QS 9:14b–18a//4QSb XVIII:1//4QSd VIII:1–3//4QSe III:10–16 The infinitive ‘to separate’ (lydbhl) in 1QS 9:14a does away with this universalistic landscape and introduces the idea of separation which is prominent elsewhere in the Community Rule, cf. the opening lines of 1QS 5//4QS discussed above. Line 14 continues with a reference to weighing the children of righteousness/sons of Zadok depending on which manuscript we follow. On both readings it is clear that the frame of reference has changed from talking about the weight of each person out of the whole of all the living, to talking about weighing a particular group. Still in line 14 we are introduced to the unusual designation of the in-group as the chosen ones of the time (t[h yryjb) and the time element in this designation provides some continuity with what went before. Lines 15–16 introduce rudimentary community structures reminiscent of more elaborate procedures spelt out elsewhere in the Community Rule such as the use of the verb brq for admission. Noteworthy are the relatively simple requirements for membership, as well as the absence of references to handing over property or to swearing an oath. Lines 17–18 confirm the frame of reference as a particular community, but this time the designation is “the chosen of the way” or “those who have chosen the way” again depending on which manuscript we decide to follow. We not only have a group with a variety of names that is separate and ranked internally by “weight”, we also have opponents: the people of the pit (tjçh yçna) according to line 16, or the people

MASKIL(IM)

and

RABBIM:


155

of injustice (lw[h yçna)72 according to line 17. A number of concerns and terms found in this section resemble the opening lines of 1QS 5//4QS discussed above, such as the notion of separating and the people of injustice. It seems that whereas the opening lines of the Maskil section were far more universalistic and inclusive than the horizon of those called Maskilim in Dan 11–12, lines 14b–18a are closer to the Danielic Maskilim in their focus on a particular group within the nation which has disagreements with other groups. Two important differences are that the larger context of the Jewish people as a whole73 is of no explicit interest in the 1QS passage, and that the structures in place referring to some kind of community with membership approval go beyond anything that is said in Daniel. c. 1QS 9:18b–21a//4QS b XVIII:1–4//4QS d VIII:3–5//4QS e III:16–IV:2 This last passage to be dealt with here seems to have moved on yet further integrating the Maskil as someone at work within “the people of the community” (djyh yçna) thus alluding to and aligning this part of the statutes for the Maskil with other parts of the Community Rule where designations of this kind are common place—here it is out-of-place in light of the designations we came across in the last section. Moreover, the allusion to Isa 40:3 which is dealt with in somewhat greater detail in 1QS 8 further indicates that these lines were written at a time when other parts of the Rule were influencing the author/redactor’s choice of words. Conclusion I hope to have shown that the relationship of the Maskilim in Daniel 11 and 12 to the Rule of the Community is more complex than often portrayed. The position outlined in the early part of this study differs sharply from a recent assessment by Stefan Beyerle who argues

72 I have argued elsewhere that the people of injustice stratum is a very early tradition complex that has been incorporated in various S manuscripts even in otherwise radically different portions, cf. C. Hempel, “The Community and Its Rivals According to the Community Rule from Caves 1 and 4”, RQ 21 (2003) 47–81. 73 See Albertz, “Social Setting” who rightly emphasizes that the circles behind the “Hebrew Book of Daniel” (p. 200) “saw themselves as teachers of the whole people”, p. 201.

156

charlotte hempel

that given that the Danielic texts found at Qumran do not display sectarian features, they say “more about the social setting of the Book of Daniel than about the Qumran community itself ”.74 This assessment implies a rigid, and in my view outdated, tendency to compartmentalize our sources. If we decompartmentalize both our notions of the Qumran community and its heritage and the Book of Daniel and its setting and heritage we may find that both groups are not so different and maybe even overlapped at one point in their history. What I tried to do in the latter half of this study was to offer a fresh assessment of the Maskil traditions in the Community Rule that takes into account the complex literary history of this text. This individual appeared in a number of different contexts, some universalistic, others with rudimentary communal requirements, and yet a third group of texts that are quite developed and employ Ya˙ad terminology. In addition to these texts, the Maskil is also found in headings throughout the Community Rule manuscripts and must have been an authority figure both in a number of early traditions as well as at the point of the Endredaktion of the manuscripts. It seems likely that the closest points of contact between these traditions and the Danielic Maskilim are found somewhere along this line of development, probably near but not at the beginning. Whereas Matthias Henze has stated rather eloquently that “The covenanters have made Daniel’s language their own”, I have tried to suggest that, to some extent, it was their own.75 In other words the overlap can just as well be accounted for by the shared roots of these movements than by the influence of Daniel upon Qumran.

74 75

“Daniel and Its Social Setting”, p. 208. Henze, Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar, p. 242.

FROM JEREMIAH TO BARUCH: PSEUDEPIGRAPHY IN THE SYRIAC APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH Matthias Henze The common use of pseudonymity in apocalyptic literature of the Hellenistic and Roman periods is a rhetorical device well recognized by modern scholars. One of its key functions is to lend authority to an ancient text by attributing it, albeit falsely, to a venerable figure of the remote past. The present article is concerned with one such pseudonym, Baruch, scribal assistant to the prophet Jeremiah and fictitious author of the Syriac apocalypse named after him. The purpose of our reflections here is to address the question why the author of 2 Baruch chose Baruch as his pseudonym, and what the significance of this choice is for our understanding of the text. Professor Michael Knibb has devoted much of his scholarly career to the study of apocalyptic language and literature, with 1 Enoch holding pride of place. In his 1995 Schweich Lectures on the Ethiopic version of the Old Testament, Professor Knibb discussed the origin, transmission and character of the Ethiopic Bible, particularly as it relates to the other versions, including the Syriac.1 In his work Professor Knibb also emphasizes the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, including the Qumran fragments.2 As will be evident from this article, his work has had, and continues to have, immediate bearing on my own writing, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to contribute this article to his Festschrift. Baruch as Pseudonym The term “pseudepigraphy” requires some comment. Etymologically it simply means “having a false title”. Its derivate, Pseudepigrapha,

1 M. A. Knibb, Translating the Bible. The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1995. Oxford: Oxford University, 1999). 2 The editor of the series Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Professor Knibb has made numerous seminal contributions on a variety of topics, including his The Qumran Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987).

158

matthias henze

however, is most often used in connection with the Apocrypha, the term designating those writings included in the Greek and Latin versions of the Old Testament but absent from the Hebrew Bible. Therefore the term Pseudepigrapha, particularly in Protestant use, has come to define a corpus of texts, however loosely composed, which share several features. Generally speaking, the Pseudepigrapha are writings connected with the Bible, which—with few exceptions— never became part of any of the biblical canons; they were composed for the most part during the Hellenistic period, even though in several cases both date and provenance are difficult to determine; and they are predominantly Jewish compositions, although transmitted in various translations by Christian churches.3 The question of their Jewish origin and Christian transmission has recently been subject of much debate, not least because it is not always clear when to call a work Jewish or Christian, and why.4 A salient feature of the Pseudepigrapha, from which they derive their name, is, of course, that they are attributed to an author of great antiquity, usually a biblical figure. The terms “pseudonymity” and “pseudepigraphy” have been used interchangeably to describe the same phenomenon, with no clear conceptual distinction between the two.5 Popular pseudonyms among the Pseudepigrapha include for the most part biblical sages and scribes, and to a lesser degree 3

M. E. Stone, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha”, DSD 3 (1996) 270–95. 4 See in particular M. A. Knibb, “Christian Adoption and Transmission of Jewish Pseudepigrapha: The Case of 1 Enoch”, JSJ 32,4 (2001) 396–415. Recently, Rivka Nir, The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (Early Judaism and Its Literature 20. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), has proposed that 2 Baruch is a Christian text. It must be said, however, that her arguments are far from conclusive. 5 It has been suggested that the term pseudonymity is best used for such cases in which the name of the pseudonymous author is not inextricably linked with the form and content of the book, as in the Letter of Aristeas or the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, whereas the term pseudepigraphy denotes cases in which the invocation of the ancient author is much more deliberate and provides a key to the understanding of the book; see M. J. Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls: Categories and Functions”, in E. G. Chazon and M. Stone (eds.), Pseudepigraphic Perspectives. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 31. Brill: Leiden, 1999), p. 7, n. 11, where Bernstein refers to a communication with Albert Baumgarten. D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BCE–AD 100 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), pp. 127–39; J. J. Collins, “Pseudonymity, Historical Review and the Genre of the Revelation of John”, CBQ 39, 3 (1977) 329–43; K. Berger, “Hellenistisch-heidnische Prodigien und die Vorzeichen in der jüdischen und christlichen Apokalyptik”, ANRW II 23,2 (1980), pp. 1428–1469.

from jeremiah to baruch

159

prophets. In some cases the name of a biblical figure may have served as a pseudonym, but the literature gathered under that name is preserved too poorly to reconstruct the full extent of the corpus. For example, there may have been at some point a collection of texts about Noah. Like Enoch, Noah “walked with God” (Gen 5:22, 24; 6:9), and, since he survived the flood, became a type of the righteous in early apocalyptic literature, thought to escape the final judgment (1 Enoch 10:2–3; 16–17).6 There are references to a Book of Noah, of which excerpts may be preserved at Qumran (1Q19), and which may be quoted in 1 Enoch. However, no book under that title is extant today.7 Pseudonyms that are well attested—Daniel, Enoch, Ezra, and Baruch—differ from one another, both with respect to the biblical overtones they carry and in the way in which they were used in early Jewish literature. Daniel, the biblical sage and apocalyptic seer par excellence, clearly ranks among the most popular apocalyptic pseudonyms. As is well known, the biblical book that carries his name exists in more than one version, and the surviving versions display significant divergences. The Greek versions, for example, include three so-called Additions, while among the Dead Sea Scrolls a number of compositions were found that either mention Daniel by name (4Q243–245) or are closely linked with the book by association (4Q242; 4Q246). This suggests that already during the latebiblical period variant collections of compositions circulated with Daniel as their protagonist and purported author, of which the Aramaic/Hebrew and Greek versions are but two. Daniel’s popularity remained unabated even beyond the biblical period, as is attested by the great number of Danielic compositions transmitted in Jewish and Christian circles well into the Middle Ages.8 Like Daniel, Enoch became the pseudonym of a sizeable group of apocalypses that enjoyed considerable popularity and authority at Qumran, as indicated by the eleven Aramaic fragments of 1 Enoch discovered there. Even though the prediluvian Enoch and the exilic/ 6 G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1. A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), pp. 219–20. 7 M. E. Stone, “Texts of Noah”, in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Oxford University, 2000), pp. 613–15. 8 For a list of post-biblical apocalypses attributed to Daniel see M. Henze, The Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), pp. 3–5.

160

matthias henze

post-exilic Daniel represent the opposite ends of the biblical canon, in both cases their appeal derives from their unique status as recipients of eschatological secrets regarding the end of time. The similarities between the Danielic and the Enochic traditions are striking, as even the most cursory reading through the allegorical dream visions in the Enochic Book of Dreams (1 Enoch 83–90) and through the Son of Man passages in the Similitudes (1 Enoch 38–71) reveals. It now is clear that the two strands of apocalyptic traditions converged as early as during the years leading up to the Maccabean crisis, i.e., even before the book of Daniel reached its final form.9 Ezra and Baruch, on the other hand, present a somewhat different case. The biblical text credits neither of them with having been associated with angels or with esoteric revelations. To the contrary, Ezra and Baruch were scribes, charged with recording and disseminating the divine word—the Torah and the words of the prophet Jeremiah, respectively—to the people. While both Ezra and Baruch proved to be highly popular pseudonyms among the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, no extra-biblical compositions bearing their name were found at Qumran. Among the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the known compositions ascribed to Baruch include the apocryphal book of Baruch (second century bce, composed possibly in response to the desecration of the temple by Antiochus IV in 167 bce),10 the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (or 2 Baruch; late first or early second century ce), the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (or 3 Baruch; second century ce), the Paraleipomena of Jeremiah (or 4 Baruch, known in the Ethiopic manuscripts as The Rest of the Words of Baruch; middle of the second century ce), and the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Baruch (or 5 Baruch; seventh century ce).11 As apocryphal Baruch is the oldest of these texts, it would appear that it is the first to bear Baruch’s pseudonym. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert 9 L. T. Stuckenbruck, “Daniel and Early Enoch Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (VTSup 83. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 368–86; M. Henze, “Enoch’s Dream Visions and the Visions of Daniel Reexamined”, in G. Boccaccini (ed.), Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005, pp. 17–22. 10 The Letter of Jeremiah appears in the Vulgate as chap. 6 of Baruch, whereas in the LXX is an independent book, divided from Baruch by Lamentations. 11 Fifth Baruch, the least known of these texts, was introduced and translated by Wolf Leslau in his Falasha Anthology (New Haven: Yale University, 1951), pp. 57–76, 162–72.


161

has argued in a number of publications, however, that in its early history of transmission, Baruch 1–5 was appended to the book of Jeremiah without a proper title and hence would not have been recognized as an independent book.12 In the LXX Baruch simply follows Jeremiah 52. The opening line of the book, “These are the words of the book that Baruch son of Neriah . . . wrote in Babylon” (Bar 1:1) may well be understood as a reference to Jeremiah. Nothing in Bar 1:1–14 attributes the book that follows to Baruch. In fact, the opening lines are reminiscent of Jeremiah 36, which relates how Baruch recorded Jeremiah’s words on a scroll. Moreover, both Greek and Latin Fathers, with few exceptions, quote from the book of Baruch as Jeremiah, and early Latin and Greek Bibles do not distinguish between Jeremiah and Baruch. Bogaert thus concluded that 2 Baruch, not apocryphal Baruch, was the first composition attributed to Baruch. He also argued that both the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch and the Paraleipomena of Jeremiah followed 2 Baruch’s lead.13 The latter hypothesis is further supported by the fact that 2 Baruch clearly exerted some influence on later writings bearing the scribe’s name. It is clear, for example, that 2 Baruch served as a direct source for the Paraleipomena of Jeremiah, as is evident from a comparison of the numerous parallels in both works, and that it most likely also influenced the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch.14 The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch Syriac Baruch was of pivotal importance in establishing Baruch as a pseudonym. What was it about the biblical figure that made him so appealing to the author of the apocalypse? The biblical account is rather terse in its depiction of Baruch. There Baruch’s name and title are merely given as “Baruch, the son of Neriyahu, the scribe” ( Jer 36:32).15 Baruch’s most prominent attribute is his title “the

12 “Le livre deutérocanonique de Baruch dans la liturgie romaine”, Mélanges liturgiques offerts au R. P. dom Bernard Botte à l’occasion du cinquantième anniversaire de son ordination sacerdotale (4 juin 1972) (Louvain: Abbaye du Mont César, 1972), pp. 31–48; and “Le nom de Baruch dans la littérature pseudépigraphique. L’Apocalypse syriaque et le livre deutérocanonique”, in W. C. Van Unnik (ed.), La littérature juive entre Tenach et Mischna. Quelques problèmes (RechBib 9. Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp. 56–72. 13 “Le nom de Baruch”, p. 72. 14 J. Herzer, Die Paralipomena Jeremiae. Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer Haggada des frühen Judentums (TSAJ 43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), pp. 33–77. 15 J. Edward Wright, Baruch Ben Neriah. From Biblical Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer (Studies

162

matthias henze

scribe”. His scribal identity is now corroborated by the discovery of a seal, which reads “Belonging to Berekhyahu, son of Neriyahu, the scribe”.16 Baruch is the one who records, transmits, and reads in public Jeremiah’s teaching. Most pseudepigraphic authors of early Jewish apocalypses act as scribes. Thus Baruch’s role as scribe in the book of Jeremiah is reminiscent of the role of Ezra, both in the biblical account and in 4 Ezra. In the Bible Ezra is “a scribe skilled in the Torah of Moses which the Lord God of Israel had given” (Ezra 7:6). The biblical author greatly underscores Ezra’s outstanding role as priest, expert scribe and skilled instructor, who set his heart to study and to teach Torah (Ezra 7:10–11). Clearly, the emphasis on Torah establishes Ezra’s credentials and authority as community leader. It also places Ezra firmly in line with the pre-exilic past, specifically with Moses, the first lawgiver. Finally, it identifies the Torah as the constitutional foundation of the Second Temple community of returnees.17 All of these elements are adopted and developed further in 4 Ezra. In the final chapter of the book, the apocalyptic author distinguishes between an exoteric and an esoteric revealed tradition. Ezra is told to publicize the former, a reference to the biblical books, yet to keep secret the latter, the apocalyptic lore (4 Ezra 14:5–6, 45–46). Michael Knibb has demonstrated how the seer is portrayed here as a Moses redivivus. The mentioning of a bush and the double address, “Ezra, Ezra!” (Exod 3:4), both in v. 1, followed by a direct reference to Moses in vv 3ff and the call to instruct the people (v. 13) all lean in that direction. “Thus there emerges in this chapter a picture of Ezra as a law-giver, a Second Moses, and this might suggest that apocalyptic has links with law”.18 Similarly, early interpreters understood Enoch’s proximity with the angels (Gen 5:21–24) to imply that he was “the first who learned writing and knowledge and wisdom” ( Jub. 4:17; 1 Enoch 83:3, 10). In 1 Enoch the seer is assigned several scribal functions and variously carries the title “scribe” (12:3; 92:1), “scribe of truth” (15:1), and on Personalities of the Old Testament. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina, 2003), with further bibliography. 16 H. Shanks, “Fingerprint of Jeremiah’s Scribe”, BAR 22 (1996) 36–38. 17 A similar praise of the scribe is found in Ben Sira. Sira extols the scribe for studying the Torah, for seeking wisdom, and, God willing, for being filled with the spirit of understanding (Sir 39:1–11). 18 “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra”, JSJ 13 (1983) 56–74, p. 63.


163

“scribe of righteousness” (12:4).19 In the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36), Enoch serves as an emissary, who first records and recites the watchers’ petition and subsequently reports back to them the heavenly reply. Enoch is also called a scribe in the superscription of the “Epistle of Enoch” (92:1), thus clearly identifying him as the author of that letter. Even where Enoch is not explicitly called a scribe, he nonetheless acts like one, carefully studying the heavenly tablets, praising God, and instructing his son Methuselah in everything Enoch has learned (1 Enoch 76:14; 81:1–10 and Jub. 4:18–19; also 1 Enoch 14:7; 33:3; 74:2; 81:1). Enoch is the fictitious author/scribe of a sizeable corpus of eschatological writings, composed by Enoch himself and presented as scripture, “intended to constitute the eschatological community of the chosen”.20 The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch takes the form of an extended dialogue between God and Baruch, narrated by Baruch in the first person as an autobiographical account. The narrative frame of the apocalypse (chaps. 1–9) reports the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians and thus sets the fictitious stage for the book to unfold. God calls on Baruch, Jeremiah and “all those who resemble you” to leave Jerusalem, because their presence shields the city (2:1–2; 85:1–2; Jer 1:18). The account of the fall of Jerusalem sets in motion a prolonged dialogue between God and Baruch, impelled by several visions. Dialogue and visions are closely intertwined, so much so in fact that there are no clear demarcations between the individual sections of the book. The apocalypse ends, like 1 Enoch, with an epistle, sent by Baruch to the nine and a half tribes (chaps. 78–87). While in biblical Jeremiah Baruch is an ideal scribe, the title “scribe” is conspicuous for its absence from 2 Baruch. Unlike Ezra and Enoch in their respective apocalypses, Baruch is never called a scribe in the Syriac apocalypse, just as he does not have any other titles or stock epithets. The opening verse of the book introduces 19 The title “scribe of righteousness” has been used, in one form or another, by several apocalyptic communities during the Greco-Roman period to designate their leadership; see, for example, the “Teacher of Righteousness” in 1QpHab 1:13 et al.; CD 1:11 et al., “the wise . . . who lead the many to righteousness” (Dan 12:3), and “those who seek righteousness and justice” (1 Macc 2:29); Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, p. 65. 20 G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Scripture in 1 Enoch and 1 Enoch as Scripture”, in T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm (eds.), Texts and Contexts. Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman (Oslo: Scandinavian University, 1995), p. 342.

164

matthias henze

him by his full name, “Baruch, son of Neriah” (1:1), and from then on he is referred to simply as Baruch (22:2; 39:1; 48:26; 50:1 et al.). It is common in Jewish apocalypses for the seer to be told to write down the content of his visions and to keep it secret (e.g., Dan 8:26; 12:4, 9). The command is necessary in part because of the pseudepigraphic device, since the revelation supposedly took place several centuries earlier. It also reinforces the esoteric quality of the revelation. In 2 Baruch the closest analogy is found in 20:1–5. Therefore, see the days are coming when the times will hasten more than the former. The seasons will be swifter than those that have gone by; the years will go by faster than the present ones. Therefore, now have I taken away Zion, so that I will hasten [even] more to visit the world in its time. Now, then, keep in your heart everything I am commanding you, and seal it in the innermost part of your mind. Then will I reveal to you my mighty judgment and my unsearchable paths. Go, therefore, and sanctify yourself for seven days, do not eat bread or drink water or speak to anyone.

In reply to Baruch’s persistent concern that only a few believers were able to live their lives in accordance with Moses’ Torah, while most “took from the darkness of Adam” (18:2), God admonishes Baruch not to look back, as the end of times is quickly drawing near. Instead, Baruch is to preserve in his heart everything he has learned, keep it to himself, and prepare himself for more revelations to come. Of course, the fact that the entire apocalypse is related by Baruch in the first person presumes that he is, in fact, its author, but this is not made explicit in the text, for example through a divine command to record what he has learned. Similarly, Baruch is told later on to commit what he hears to memory, but again nothing is said about actually writing it down. “Listen, Baruch, to this word, and write down in the memory of your heart everything you learn” (50:1).21 The only clear evidence that Baruch is engaged in the act of writing is found at the end of the book. Here the Israelites plea with Baruch that he write a letter to those who are in exile (77:12, 17–19). The letter, which closely follows the book of Deuteronomy, particularly Deuteronomy 33, serves as Baruch’s farewell address at the 21 See also 43:1, “But you, Baruch, strengthen your heart in light of what you have been told and understand what has been revealed to you, for you have many consolations that will last forever”.


165

end of his life, much like Deuteronomy is Moses’ farewell speech to the Israelites, and thus takes the form of his testament.22 This episode about Baruch as the author of the epistle which concludes the apocalypse—not unlike Enoch who is the author of the Epistle of Enoch at the end of 1 Enoch in chapters 91–107—is the only unambiguous description of Baruch as scribe. We can get some clues about the reasons for the absence of any reference to Baruch as scribe when we examine two other notable elements in the depiction of Baruch, his relationship with Jeremiah, and the way in which Baruch’s multiple roles as disputant with God, intercessor in behalf of the Israelites, and as second lawgiver are carefully modeled after Moses, the first and finest prophet (Deut 18:15–22; 34:10). Jeremiah is mentioned but five times in 2 Baruch. In 2:1 Baruch and Jeremiah are told to leave Jerusalem. They do so reluctantly and stay nearby to lament the impending disaster (5:5–7). Having witnessed the destruction of the city on the following day, the two companions rend their garments, weep, and mourn for seven days (9:1–2).23 At this point a twin imperative for Jeremiah to go with the exiles to Babylon and for Baruch to stay in Jerusalem forms the transition from the narrative frame of the book to the apocalyptic section (10:1–5). After seven days the word of God came to me. He said to me: “Tell Jeremiah to go and support the captivity of the people unto Babylon. As for you, however, stay here among the devastation of Zion. I will be showing you after these days what will happen at the end of days.” I spoke with Jeremiah as the Lord had commanded me. He went away with the people, whereas I, Baruch, returned and sat before the gates of the temple. I lamented with this lamentation over Zion [. . .]

In 33:1–3, finally, the last reference to Jeremiah, the people remind Baruch of the words which Jeremiah had spoken to him before he

22 M. F. Whitters, The Epistle of Second Baruch. A Study in Form and Message ( JSPSup 42. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003), pp. 156–68. The apocalypse as a testament modeled after Deuteronomy 33 also has a precedent in 1 Enoch. There chapters 1–5 in particular are a paraphrase of Moses’ deuteronomic fare-well address and final blessing; L. Hartmann, Asking for a Meaning. A Study of 1 Enoch 1–5 (ConBNT 12. Lund: Gleerup, 1979), pp. 22–26. On the genre of the testament as a form of revelatory literature attributed to a hero of biblical antiquity see also the Testament of Moses, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, especially the Testament of Levi. 23 Josephus, J.W. VI. 288–315.

166

matthias henze

left for Babylon. Clearly the assumption is that Jeremiah has long joined “the rest of our brothers in Babylon” (33:2).24 Wherever Jeremiah is mentioned, he appears at Baruch’s side. The people of Jerusalem refer to him in their conversation with Baruch as “your friend Jeremiah, the prophet” (33:1). The author of 2 Baruch emphasizes Jeremiah’s virtues by stressing how his “heart was found to be pure from sins” (9:1). Jeremiah’s reputation remains untarnished. And yet, even though the prophet is a virtuous companion of Baruch, his role is notably compromised and ultimately ancillary to that of the new protagonist, Baruch. Jeremiah appears only in the narrative frame of the apocalypse; he never takes any initiative, and in a startling departure from the biblical text God, communicates with Jeremiah only through Baruch, rather than vice versa (2:1–2; 5:5; 10:2–4).25 Once he moves to Babylon, in obedience to the divine command, Jeremiah disappears from the book altogether. From the first verse onward God communicates directly with Baruch only. It is Baruch who now receives “the word of the Lord” (1:1; 10:1; 13:2), much like Jeremiah before him when God spoke only with him ( Jer 1:2, 4, 11, 13; 45:1; et al.). In short, no longer the scribal assistant, Baruch is a prophet in his own right and successor to Jeremiah. The striking reversal of roles between Jeremiah and Baruch helps to explain why Baruch is no longer called “a scribe” in 2 Baruch. In the biblical account that title served, first and foremost, to define Baruch’s relationship with Jeremiah as that of a scribal assistant, a role he no longer occupies in Syriac Baruch. The prophetic mantle has been passed from Jeremiah to Baruch. The reasons for the transferal of prophetic authority from Jeremiah to Baruch are not immediately apparent. A possible scriptural anchor is Jeremiah 45, an oracle of salvation addressed to Baruch in which Baruch is promised that his life will be spared from the impending disaster. The word that the prophet Jeremiah spoke to Baruch son of Neriah, when he wrote these words in a scroll at the dictation of Jeremiah of Judah: Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, to you, 24

Whereas Jeremiah 43:1–7 relates how the prophet is taken to Egypt, several early interpreters know him in Babylon (4Q385a; Paraleipomena of Jeremiah 3:11 [15]; Pesikta Rabbati 26:18; see also the Letter of Jeremiah and 2 Maccabees 2:1–4). 25 J. E. Wright, “Baruch: His Evolution from Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer”, in M. E. Stone and T. A. Bergren (eds.), Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1998), pp. 270–71.


167

O Baruch: You said, “Woe is me! The Lord has added sorrow to my pain; I am weary with my groaning, and I find no rest.” Thus you shall say to him, “Thus says the Lord: I am going to break down what I have built, and pluck up what I have planted—that is, the whole land. And you, do you seek great things for yourself ? Do not seek them; for I am going to bring disaster upon all flesh, says the Lord; but I will give you your life as a prize of war in every place to which you may go.” This oracle marks the transition of the divinely endowed authority from Jeremiah to Baruch. Note how the voices of Jeremiah and Baruch are intertwined in this short chapter and echo one another.26 Baruch is the recipient of an oracle, which is delivered to him through the mouth of Jeremiah. The episode opens with a lament spoken earlier by Baruch, which reminds the reader of Jeremiah’s own laments, that play such a prominent role in the earlier part of the book (e.g., Jer 15:15–18). God responds in words highly reminiscent of Jeremiah’s own call narrative, “See, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant” ( Jer 1:10). In the end, Baruch is admonished, much like Jeremiah was admonished by God previously (e.g., Jer 15:19–21). Jeremiah 45 bristles with interpretive problems that have been subject to considerable debate. A principal interpretive crux arises from the apparent discrepancy between the date given in verse one, which links the oracle to an earlier episode, Baruch’s reading of a scroll in the Temple in the year 605 bce ( Jer 36:1), and the oracle’s present position in the book of Jeremiah, which suggests a much later date. Furthermore, the chapter seems oddly out of place in its present canonical context, given that it is followed by the oracles against the nations (chaps. 46–51). A number of interpreters have addressed the problem by arguing that the alternate arrangement of the chapters in the Septuagint is to be preferred over that in the MT. In Greek Jeremiah the oracles against the nations are placed in the middle of the book, and the oracle to Baruch stands at its end. That canonical arrangement, so the argument, also emphasizes that Jeremiah has surrendered his prophetic authority to his successor Baruch. “[T]he placement of the oracle for Baruch at the end 26 C. R. Seitz, “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah”, ZAW 101 (1989) 3–27.

168

matthias henze

of Greek Jeremiah suggests that this editor is portraying Baruch as the successor to Jeremiah.”27 While there can be little doubt that by positioning the oracle to Baruch at the end of the book, Greek Jeremiah emphasizes the transfer of the prophetic office, it is by no means certain that it was the Greek version of Jeremiah, not the MT, that marks the scriptural starting point of that tradition, let alone that 2 Baruch was influenced primarily by Greek Jeremiah. In an important article on the influence of the deuteronomic description of Moses on the canonical shape of Jeremiah, Christopher Seitz has offered a convincing counter-argument. Seitz argues that just as Deuteronomy saw in Moses the first prophet, “the type against which others are measured”,28 the prophetic tradition is effectively coming to an end, according to the deuteronomic view, with the last prophet, Jeremiah. Jeremiah is finally taken back into Egypt ( Jer 43:1–7), against his will, reversing the first prophet’s Exodus, and in violation of the deuteronomic command never to return that way again. The succession of prophets like Moses has come full circle, and the prophetic office appears to have been terminated. However, the demise of Moses and Jeremiah gives way to a new generation, symbolized in the deuteronomic tradition by Moses’ successors Caleb and Joshua, and subsequently in the book of Jeremiah by Ebed-Melech and Baruch. In other words, it is not simply the canonical arrangement in Greek Jeremiah that establishes the continuity of the prophetic office through Baruch, but the deuteronomic view of prophecy and of the prophetic office that underlies the book of Jeremiah both in the MT and the LXX. The fact long recognized by modern scholars that the life and message of Moses served as a type for the biblical portraits of Jeremiah29 was not lost on the author of 2 Baruch. As we have seen above, Jeremiah plays only a supporting role at the beginning of the

27 Wright, Baruch Ben Neriah, p. 37, with extensive bibliography. P.-M. Bogaert, “De Baruch à Jérémie: Les deux rédactions conservées du livre de Jérémie”. See in particular P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Le Livre Jérémie. Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission (BETL 54. Leuven: Leuven University, 1981), pp. 168–73. 28 Seitz, “The Prophet Moses”, p. 5. Seitz’s detailed observations are immediately relevant for, and are corroborated by, the post-canonical reception history of the book of Jeremiah, for example in the prominent roles played by Baruch and Ebed-Melech in the Paraleipomena of Jeremiah, an aspect not mentioned by Seitz. 29 C. Maier, Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora. Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in Fortschreibung des Jeremiabuches (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002).


169

Syriac apocalypse. Much more prominent is Baruch’s description as a second Moses.30 Indeed, the Torah of Moses stands at the heart of Baruch’s message. It is a lamp lit by Moses at Sinai (17:4; 19:1; 54:5), which presents Israel with a choice between life and death (38:2; 46:3; 51:3–5). Like Moses before him, Baruch repeatedly admonishes the people to follow the Torah (38:2; 77:3; 84:2–11). At the end of his life Baruch is told by God to ascend a mountain and stay there for forty days to view all the territory below (76:2–4).31 Baruch then delivers a farewell address to the twelve tribes, which he opens with the words, “Hear, O children of Israel . . .”. (77:2–10; cf. 31:3). As we have noted above, the letter at the end of 2 Baruch, with chapter 84 at its center, is Baruch’s testament, in which he explicitly cites Moses’ own testament in the book of Deuteronomy.32 The close link between Baruch and Moses in 2 Baruch meets several interpretive needs. First, as Moses is the greatest prophet, the connection between him and Baruch further establishes Baruch’s prophetic credentials.33 Indeed, Syriac Baruch as a whole has much in common with the prophetic books in the Bible: it espouses a deuteronomic theology, and the protagonist, a prophet, receives his revelations as much through auditions as through visions (13:1; 22:1). Second, the link between Baruch and Moses addresses a problem of fundamental importance for all apocalyptic authors of the Second Temple period, the question of how their claims to revelation and authority relate to the already established authority of Mosaic revelation at Sinai. Pseudepigraphy provided the apocalypticists with a means to confront the issue. In the case of Enoch it was Enoch’s old age and the simple fact that he received his revelations long before the time of Moses and the prophets that enabled Enochic Judaism to make its revelatory claims. In the case of 2 Baruch, any confrontation based on competing claims to authority is altogether 30 A. F. J. Klijn, “Die syrische Baruch-Apokalypse”, ( JSHRZ 5/2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1976), pp. 115–16; F. J. Murphy, The Structure and Meaning of Second Baruch (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1985), pp. 117–34; Wright, Baruch Ben Neriah, pp. 87–94. 31 P.-M. Bogaert, L’Apocalypse syriaque de Baruch. Introduction, traduction du syriaque et commentaire (2 vols.; Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 1969), 2, pp. 132–34. 32 M. F. Whitters, “Testament and Canon in the Letter of Second Baruch (2 Baruch 78–87)”, JSP 12 (2001) 149–63. 33 To a lesser degree, Ezra acts as a prophet who intercedes on behalf of the people in 4 Ezra. Note the people’s complaint, “For of all the prophets you alone are left to us” (12:42).

170

matthias henze

avoided and the single, salvific importance of Mosaic Torah fully embraced. Third and finally, since Baruch is modeled closely after Moses, he is able to perform what may well have been Moses’ single most important duty, something which even Jeremiah had not been able to do: to act as prophetic intercessor on behalf of the people. The occasions on which Moses was able to avert Israel’s doom by gaining divine favor are well known, most prominently among them the golden calf episode (Exod 32:11–14) and the people’s rebellion at Kadesh (Num 14:17–19). By contrast, the prophet Jeremiah is explicitly forbidden to intercede ( Jer 7:16; 11:14; 14:11). Baruch, on the other hand, shows greatest concern for those left behind in Jerusalem, as is made evident in the three public speeches he delivers (chaps. 31–34; 44–46; 77). The Apocalyptic Roots of 2 Baruch The author of 2 Baruch made ample use of diverse legends and apocalyptic traditions and incorporated these into his own apocalypse. This is evident from the numerous parallels between 2 Baruch and related works such as 4 Ezra, Pseudo-Philo, Pesiqta Rabbati, and the Paraleipomena of Jeremiah.34 Beginning with R.H. Charles, students of 2 Baruch have argued that the assimilation of diverse sources resulted in tensions and occasionally even contradictions in the text, particularly in the eschatological passages dealing with the temple and the messiah. It should be borne in mind, however, that 2 Baruch is not a theological treatise that strives for theological consistency. Deeply affected by Israel’s suffering, the seer is overcome with profound grief (3:1–3; 10:1–12:5) and struggles to find an explanation for the current catastrophe. Moreover, a close reading of the passages in question shows that the contradictions are often more apparent than real.35 2 Baruch stands in a long and established tradition of apocalyptic compositions to which it relates in numerous ways. The author fre34 Bogaert, L’Apocalypse syriaque de Baruch, 1, pp. 177–258; Bogaert’s commentary was published in 1969, and so the Dead Sea Scrolls receive only scant attention. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Narrative Traditions in the Paralipomena of Jeremiah and 2 Baruch”, CBQ 35,1 (1973) 60–68. On the linguistic parallels between the books listed above, see F. Zimmermann, “Textual Observations on the Apocalypse of Baruch”, JTS 40 (1939) 151–56. 35 R. H. Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch (London: Black, 1896), and his “II Baruch”, in Charles, APOT, 2, pp. 470–526; J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination. An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 214–15.


171

quently adopts and modifies traditional language, concepts, and literary genres, which, by his time, had become commonplaces in apocalyptic literature. Syriac Baruch thus marks an important stage in the development of Jewish apocalyptic thought right after the end of the Second Temple period.36 With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls further texts have been unearthed that shed additional light on the prehistory of 2 Baruch and on the intellectual milieu from which it emerged. Specifically, the library of Cave 4 at Qumran has yielded two hitherto unknown pseudo-prophetic works, 4QPseudo-Ezekiel and 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C, both composed in Hebrew possibly during the second century bce, which display important links with 2 Baruch. Because of the extremely fragmentary condition of the manuscripts, the exact number of the original compositions, the organization of the fragments, or even the attribution of the fragments to one, two or more biblical figures must remain tentative. In the case of PseudoEzekiel, Devorah Dimant proposes in her recent edition that a total of six copies of the text survive.37 The composition (the best preserved sections are from 4Q385 and 4Q386) includes a long dialogue between God and the prophet. The seer, who is identified both as Ezekiel (4Q385 3:4; 4Q385b 1) and by his biblical title “son of man” (4Q385 2:5; 4Q386 1 ii. 2), is shown three visions, most prominently the biblical visions of the Dry Bones (Ezekiel 37) and of the Merkabah (Ezekiel 1), as well as one non-biblical vision about Egypt and Babylon, which appears to be modeled after Ezekiel 29–32. Each vision is followed by a terse remark that Ezekiel witnessed its realization. The first two visions have corresponding sections in the biblical text which they follow very closely. Ezekiel’s vision of the Dry Bones is triggered by his question about the future recompense of the righteous for their loyalty (4Q385 2:2–3). This is a key theme in the composition, Ezekiel’s persistent concern for the history of 36 For example, in two cases Baruch’s allegorical visions include highly schematized historical reviews (2 Baruch 27; 53). The earliest examples of such periodizations of history are the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93:1–10; 91:11–17), thought to be the oldest extant historical apocalypse, and the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90). L. L. Grabbe, “Chronography in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch”, Society of Biblical Literature 1981 Seminar Papers, pp. 49–63. 37 D. Dimant, Qumran Cave 4. XXI. Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), pp. 7–9; M. Brady, “Biblical Interpretation in the ‘Pseudo-Ezekiel’ Fragments (4Q383–391) from Cave Four”, in M. Henze (ed.), Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 88–109.

172

matthias henze

Israel, the problem of retribution and recompense, and, ultimately, for the resurrection of the dead. Unlike the biblical author, PseudoEzekiel interprets the vision of the Dry Bones not in a metaphorical sense, but understands it, as well as two other key passages in Scripture, Isa 26:19 and Dan 12:2, as real predictions of the resurrection of the righteous, which is to happen in the near eschatological future. Pseudo-Ezekiel bears close resemblance with later Jewish writings such as Pseudo-Philo and 4 Ezra. It is the literary character of PseudoEzekiel, however, that is particularly reminiscent of 2 Baruch. The most striking parallels include the fact that the text as a whole takes the form of a dialogue between the prophet and God, the central role played by the prophet as the driving force, the prophetic visions shown to the prophet in response to his persistent probing, his perpetual insistence that eschatological promises are not good enough, and the way in which the prophetic texts are recontextualized and interpreted in such a way as to satisfy the author’s urgent eschatological demands. Like 2 Baruch, Pseudo-Ezekiel employs a pseudepigraphic framework that provides the author with a fictitious setting in the biblical period. He is now free to speak in the idiom of the biblical prophets, and use their language, style, and genres, in order to express his own theological concerns. As in Syriac Baruch, all of this is cast in the form of an autobiographical report related in the first person of the protagonist.38 Throughout the composition Ezekiel speaks directly with God, without the aid of an interpreting angel, another feature that links the text specifically to Syriac Baruch. There, too, the seer communicates for the most part directly with God, and the role of the otherwise dominant angelus interpres is greatly reduced.39 The parallels between Pseudo-Ezekiel and 2 Baruch are not limited to literary form and phraseology, however, but are even more pronounced in the theological problems both texts address. In both cases, the composition is driven by the persistence with which the prophet/seer returns to the question of individual retribution and 38

J. Strugnell and D. Dimant, “4QSecond Ezekiel”, RevQ 13 (1988) 45–58. Ramael, “the angel who is set over true visions” (55:3), only appears towards the end of the book to interpret Baruch’s final vision of the cloud that rains black and white waters. Ramael is again mentioned in 63:6 (see also 4 Ezra 4:36 where he appears as Jeremiel), 1 Enoch 20:8, and 81:1–2 (see the commentary ad loc. by Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, pp. 338–39). Bogaert, L’Apocalypse syriaque de Baruch, 1, pp. 428–38. 39


173

the reward of the righteous in the current pervasive state of injustice. The allegorical visions are firmly embedded in God’s replies. They do not satisfy the prophet, however. In both Pseudo-Ezekiel and 2 Baruch the visions are then interpreted and applied to the history of Israel. That is, the visions provide the historical review, and the divine interpretations that follow relate them to the events that are imminent in the Last Days. The overarching concern is with the resurrection of the righteous and the full redemption of Israel, both prominent themes in early Jewish apocalypses. As seen above, this schematization and eschatological interpretation of the history of Israel, particularly as it concerns the fate of the righteous, has its precedent in the early Enochic literature in the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93:1–10; 91:11–17) and in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90), and so Pseudo-Ezekiel must be seen as representing an intermediate stage between 1 Enoch and Syriac Baruch. Neither Ezekiel nor Baruch is content with the divine assurances regarding the eschatological events. Thus Ezekiel asks God repeatedly and with obvious concern, “When will these be?” (4Q385 2:3 and 2:9; similarly 4Q386 1 ii 3), a question also put to God by Daniel (Dan. 8:13; 12:6), Ezra (4 Ezra 4:33–35; 6:59), and Baruch (2 Baruch 24:4). God, it is assumed, is master over periods and times and can change them at will (2 Baruch 48:2–3; 54:1; 81:4; 83:1).40 The wording is significant. In 4Q385 2:2 Ezekiel remarks, “I have seen many men from Israel who have loved Your name”. The fact that the righteous are many is one more reason for God not to delay his intervention. A very similar formulation is used by Baruch who also argues that, even though some have fallen away, many are still living in compliance with God’s Torah (2 Baruch 41:1–6).41 The exchange between God and the prophet that follows, as well as God’s poignant reply to Ezekiel’s sorrowful request, express a key concern of the author. 1. [ ]Instead of my grief 2. make my soul rejoice and let the days hasten quickly that it be said 3. by men: ‘Indeed the days are hastening on so that the children of Israel may inherit’. 40

Dimant, DJD 30, p. 14, n. 8. M. Kister and E. Qimron, “Observations on 4QSecond Ezekiel (4Q385 2–3)”, RQ 15,4 (1992) 602, postscript. 41

174

matthias henze

4. And the Lord said to me: ‘I will not re[fu]se you, O Ezekiel! I will cut 5. the days and the year[s ] 6. a little as you said [ ] 7. [for ]the mouth of the Lord has spoken these things v[acat ]42 The fragment opens in line 1 with the prophet’s confession of grief. Even though the reasons for his sorrow are not stated, the context makes clear that the seer continues to be troubled by the deferment of an end to the present evil, particularly to the desolation of the land of Israel (4Q386 1 ii–iii), a prominent motif also in 2 Baruch (3:2–3; 10:5–19). Lines 2 and 3 relate the prophet’s query. He calls on God to curtail the passing of time and to hasten the granting of the inheritance, i.e., the return of the exiles and the complete restoration of Israel in the land (Isa 26:19–20; 60:21–22). In lines 4 and 5 God agrees to grant Ezekiel’s request. The notion that God will shorten the days and years that precede the appointed time is attested widely in Second Temple literature and is played out in several different variations. It appears in 1 Enoch 80:2; 1QM 1:2; 4 Ezra 4:33–52; 8:26; L.A.B. 19:13; Sir. 36:10; Mark 13:20//Matt 24:22; 1 Clem. 50:4; and several times in Syriac Baruch.43 The biblical base text is Isa 60:21–22, an oracle promising the redemption of Zion. Once again the choice of language is significant. The formulation used in 4Q385 4:3, “the days are hastening on” (Hebr. μymyh wlhtyw), has a verbatim parallel in 2 Baruch 20:1–2. Therefore, behold, the days will come and the times will hasten (Syr. wnstrhbwn zbna), more than the former, and the periods will hasten more than those which are gone, and the years will pass more quickly than the present ones. Therefore, I now took away Zion to visit the world in its own time more speedily.

The argument here is that God will move the predetermined day of his intervention closer to the present by accelerating the progression of time, and, at the same time, by shortening it. Again and again Baruch gives voice to the urgency of his request (2 Baruch 16:1; 21:19; 54:1; 83:1). His overriding concern regarding the events of 42 4Q385 4 (previously 4Q385 3). Translation taken from Dimant, DJD 30, p. 38; note also Dimant’s discussion of the placing of the fragment in DJD 30, p. 41. 43 Dimant, DJD 30, pp. 40–42; Kister and Qimron, “Observations”, p. 600.


175

the End Time is that the reward of the righteous will happen soon. The fact that the divine promise to accelerate the passing of time for the sake of the righteous is so widespread in early Jewish and Christian documents makes it unlikely that 2 Baruch is dependant on Pseudo-Ezekiel in any way. However, both texts belong to the same genre of pseudo-prophetic literature. They are similar in form and overlap in content. The second work discovered at Qumran is the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, extant in six copies, most of which are severely fragmented. The Apocryphon differs from Pseudo-Ezekiel in several ways. Pseudo-Ezekiel contains a dialogue between the prophet and God about future events, interspersed with prophetic visions and propelled by the prophet’s intense longing for God’s eschatological intervention. The composition as a whole, its literary style and themes are modeled closely after canonical Ezekiel, and there is no sectarian language that would indicate that Pseudo-Ezekiel was composed at Qumran. By contrast, both themes and terminology of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C show close affinity to the literature found at Qumran, particularly to the Damascus Document, Jubilees, and the Enochic pseudepigrapha. According to the arrangement of the fragments proposed by Devorah Dimant in her recent edition, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C opens with a narrative that relates how, during a gathering in Babylon some time after the destruction of Jerusalem, a letter sent by the prophet Jeremiah from Egypt is read in public.44 The letter contains the report of a divine revelation to Jeremiah shortly after the fall of Jerusalem. The vision which is then told makes up the bulk of the Apocryphon. It consists of a long historical review, beginning in the biblical period possibly at Mount Sinai (4Q388a 1), and continues through the Second Temple period, which receives detailed attention. The review culminates in the eschatological era with the demise of Greece and Egypt (4Q385; a similar review of history is found

44 Dimant’s recent edition of 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah in DJD 30, pp. 91–260, presents a departure from her earlier arrangement of the material; see D. Dimant, “New Light from Qumran on the Jewish Pseudepigrapha—4Q390”, in J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (eds.), The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March 1991 (STDJ 11.2. Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2, pp. 405–48. G. J. Brooke, “The Book of Jeremiah and its Reception in the Qumran Scrolls”, in A. H. W. Curtis and T. Römer (eds.), The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception. Le livre de Jérémie et sa réception (Leuven: Leuven University, 1997), pp. 183–205.

176

matthias henze

in the Animal Apocalypse in 1 Enoch 85–90). If Dimant is correct in her reconstruction of the text, then the Apocryphon of Jeremiah bears significant resemblance with another pseudo-prophetic text from Qumran, Pseudo-Daniel (4Q243–45). Like the Apocryphon, Pseudo-Daniel is ascribed to a biblical prophet who is mentioned by name. It has a narrative frame similar to that of the biblical book, and it includes a sweeping apocalyptic review of Israel’s history from primeval to eschatological times.45 The Apocryphon has some parallels with Syriac Baruch, even though the connection is less immediate than in the case of Pseudo-Ezekiel. Mostly the elements shared by both texts have to do with the character of the protagonists and not with the specific content of Jeremiah’s revelation.46 As noted by Dimant, the image of Jeremiah in the Apocryphon differs from that in the biblical book.47 The last of the Judean prophets, Jeremiah has to witness the fulfillment of his own prophecy regarding the demise of the Judean kingdom and the destruction of the temple. He becomes a transitional figure in that he inaugurates a new era in the history of Israel, in which the temple ritual gives way to the practice of the Torah. In this respect, Jeremiah is portrayed at Qumran much like Moses, an analogy we have found in Baruch’s autobiographical account in 2 Baruch. Jeremiah sets up camp by the river, not unlike Moses’ camp in the Plains of Moab on the opposite site of the Jordan. From there he admonishes the people to heed the Mosaic commandments and to keep God’s covenant.48

45 J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint, “Pseudo-Daniel”, in G. Brooke et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. XVII. Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), pp. 95–163; J. J. Collins, “Pseudo-Daniel Revisited”, RQ 17 (1996) 111–131; P. W. Flint, “4Qpseudo-Daniel ar c (4Q245) and the Restoration of the Priesthood”, RQ 17 (1996) 137–49. The reconstruction of both pseudo-prophetic compositions from Qumran is predicated on the assumption that both texts follow the chronological sequence of events they describe. Even though this is a likely reconstruction, it has to remain tentative. An additional point of contact between the pseudo-prophetic texts is the reference to a jubilees chronology of “seventy years” in 4Q387 2 ii 3–4, 4Q388a 4:2, 4Q390 1:2 (and possibly also in 4Q243 16 where it has to be reconstructed). 46 4Q383 4:2 (formerly 4Q389 16) may be the only place in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah that mentions Baruch by name. As Dimant has noted (DJD 30, p. 122), however, it could also be a passive participle. Given the extremely poor state of the fragment either reading will have to remain conjectural. 47 Dimant, DJD 30, pp. 105–10. 48 Brooke, “The Book of Jeremiah”, p. 191.


177

Conclusion The choice of Baruch as the pseudonymous author of 2 Baruch provides the reader with an important key to the understanding of the apocalypse. The author seeks to extend the prophetic authority of Jeremiah to his own work in order to transfer it to Baruch. No longer a scribe, Baruch the prophet is now the bearer of the Jeremiah tradition. Baruch’s newly gained position becomes all the more remarkable when compared with the roughly contemporary Paraleipomena of Jeremiah, which has preserved many of the same apocryphal traditions, though with the important difference that Jeremiah retains his dominant status. The apocryphal compositions about Jeremiah discovered at Qumran illustrate the range of material in circulation during the Second Temple period. The considerable overlap in form and content among these texts demonstrates that the material was still fluid. 2 Baruch and the Paraleipomena of Jeremiah, both composed after the destruction of the Temple, attest to the parting of the ways, with either text appropriating important narrative material about Jeremiah. If the Mosaic features of Jeremiah are accentuated in the apocryphal Jeremiah texts from Qumran, the role of Baruch as a Second Moses is even more pronounced in 2 Baruch. What prompted the transferal of prophetic authority from Jeremiah to Baruch is not entirely clear. 2 Baruch shows no signs of animosity towards Jeremiah or the rich post-biblical Jeremiah tradition to which it is heir. On the contrary, the author of 2 Baruch adopts much of the material and reappropriates it to make it part of his own theological program. In a way, the passing of the prophetic mantle is in harmony with the deuteronomic view of Jeremiah as the last prophet. Like Moses, who was not allowed to enter into the promised land, Jeremiah was destined to fail and was brought to Egypt. Both Moses and Jeremiah die against their will. Baruch, by contrast, is promised by God repeatedly that he will not die, but that he will be “preserved until the end times to be a testimony” (2 Baruch 13:3; also 25:1). Like Jeremiah before him, Baruch becomes a transitional figure. The recipient of several eschatological visions and of the promise to be preserved until the end, he becomes the new leader of the people, who will guide them into the fulfillment of the divine promise, that is, into the world to come.

THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS AND THE “TWO WAYS” Marinus de Jonge The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Christian Document The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs have come down to us as a writing transmitted by Christians, and the text that lies at the basis of the available textual witnesses—to be reconstructed with modern text critical methods—is a Christian text.1 Yet this writing has commonly been treated as part of Jewish “intertestamental” literature, thanks to the work of F. Schnapp and R. H. Charles, responsible for the section on the Testaments in the highly influential collections Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (1900) and The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (1913) respectively. Both assumed Christian interpolations in a Jewish document and thought they could delimitate and remove them (though they differed widely in detail). Their approach has been followed by many scholars in the twentieth century—who, again, failed to reach agreement as to the contents of the supposed Jewish original.2 For the past fifty years the present author has tried to make sense of the document as it lies before us. He has questioned the literary critical methods used to determine later interpolations and redactions. Critics use standards of consistency that may or may not be applicable in the case of ancient documents. And if inconsistencies exist they are hardly more understandable if ascribed to the interventions of an interpolator or redactor than if one author or a group of authors is held reponsible. Moreover, comparison with indubitably Jewish material, such as the Aramaic Levi Document known from

1 See M. de Jonge et alii, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (PVTG I,2. Leiden: Brill, 1978). 2 For further details see ch. 5 “Defining the Major Issues in the Study of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” (pp. 71–83) and ch. 6 “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as a Document Transmitted by Christians” (pp. 84–106), in M. de Jonge, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature. The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve (SVTP 18. Leiden: Brill, 2003).

180

marinus de jonge

fragments found in the Cairo Genizah and preserved in 4Q213–214, highlights the centrality of Christian elements in the present Testaments.3 Exhortation is a major component of the Testaments; the references to events in the life of the patriarch, and/or that of Joseph, the paradigm of virtue, as well as the predictions concerning God’s intervention in the future, serve to illustrate and to underscore the admonishments of the sons of Jacob. One of the reasons why Charles was very much interested in this writing was that it possessed a noble system of ethics on the subject of forgiveness. This ethical teaching, in his view, prepared the way for that of early Christianity, as represented in the New Testament. Also in this respect Charles’s views have been influential, as is evident in many studies of early Christian ethics. Yet we cannot simply regard the ethics of the Testaments as those of an “open” type of Judaism from which Christianity is supposed to have originated. There was, no doubt, a considerable measure of continuity between Hellenistic, Hellenistic-Jewish and early Christian ethics, and the Testaments are a witness to that continuity. But that does not mean that all that is not overtly or exclusively Christian in the Testaments may be regarded as stemming from an earlier Jewish version of the writing. If we use the terms “Jewish” or “Christian” at all in connection with the ethics of the Testaments we should add quotation marks, and realize that it is wrong to think in terms of “either-or”.4 And one thing remains to be considered: the paraenesis in question has come down to us in words transmitted by (a) Christian author(s)—who clearly regarded this terminology as adequate, whatever its provenance. This should also be 3 For further details see ch. 7 “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Related Qumran Fragments” (pp. 107–23) and ch. 8 “Levi in the Aramaic Levi Document and in the Testament of Levi ”, (pp. 124–40) in De Jonge, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature. 4 For further details see ch. 9 “The Two Great Commandments in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, (pp. 141–59) in De Jonge, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature. On pp. 148–49 of this chapter I also refer to agreements between the Testaments and Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho (compare Irenaeus and Tertullian). For Justin the Law of Moses contains eternal and universal commandments obeyed by the faithful in the time before Moses, plus a great number of extra regulations of a temporary nature and binding upon Jews only. Since the coming of Jesus Christ humanity lives in a new dispensation in which the eternal and universal commandments, summed up in the love to God and the love to one’s neighbour, are the only ones valid, for Jews and non-Jews alike. In the Testaments the sons of Jacob teach these commandments, besides announcing to their offspring the coming of Jesus Christ (compare also pp. 102–5).

the

TESTAMENTS OF TWELVE PATRIARCHS

& the “two ways”

181

borne in mind when we compare aspects of the ethics of the Testaments with ethical material in other early Christian writings—such as the “Two Ways”—instruction, that has come down to us in various recensions. The ‘Two Ways’ in the Didache and in other Christian writings The first six chapters of the Didache give ethical instructions introduced by the sentence: “There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between the two ways” (1:1). A description of the “way of life” follows in 1:2–4:14; it begins with the two great commandments: “First you shall love the God who made you, and secondly your neighbour as yourself ”, followed by the negative form of the Golden Rule. 5:1–2 gives lists of vices introduced with the sentence, “And the way of death is this . . .”. In 6:1 the overall conclusion is: “See to it that no none leads you astray from this way of the teaching, for he teaches you apart from God.” Finally we should note that the author(s) of the Didache regarded the contents of the “Two Ways”-section as basic catechetical instruction in the period before baptism, for in 7:1 an instruction for baptism begins with the words: “Having said all this beforehand, baptize . . .”. The chapters at the beginning of the Didache may be compared with the chapters 18–20(21) in the Epistle of Barnabas. Ps.Barnabas begins this final section in 18:1 with the words, “Now let us pass on to another type of knowledge (gn«siw) and teaching (didaxÆ). There are two ways of teaching and authority (§jous¤a), that of light and that of darkness. And there is a great difference between the two ways. For over the one are set light-bringing angels of God, but over the other angels of Satan.” 18:2 adds: “And the one is Lord from eternity and to eternity, the other is the ruler of the present time of iniquity.” The description of the way of light in 19:1–12 shows several parallels with the corresponding part in the Didache, but gives these in a different order. There are no parallels to Did. 1:3–2:1 (often called the sectio evangelica because of its many agreements with texts in the Sermon of the Mount), and to 3:1–6 (the so-called t°knon-sayings). 19:2 commands, “You shall love the one who made you, you shall fear your Creator, you shall glorify him who redeemed you from death”, but does not continue with the commandment to love one’s neighbour.

182

marinus de jonge

Chapter 20 decribes “the way of the Black One”, and calls it “crooked and full of cursing; for it is the way of eternal death with punishment, and on it are (the vices) that destroy men’s soul . . .” (20:1). This section shows many agreements with the corresponding one in the Didache, and in its second part we find even agreement in order. Chapter 21 forms the conclusion of the “Two Ways”section as well as of the entire epistle, and we do not know to what extent it reflects the tradition to which the author had access. The influence of the “Two Ways”-tradition is anyway not restricted to chs. 18–20 (see, for instance, 4:9–10), and it is therefore likely that we find it also in ch. 21, particularly in the eschatological statement in v. 1b, “. . . for he who does these things will be glorified in the kingdom of God and he who chooses the other things will perish with his works. For this reason there is resurrection, for this reason there is recompense” (cf. vv. 3, 6). A third “Two Ways”-document that requires our attention is the Latin Doctrina Apostolorum that has come down to us in two medieval manuscripts, one fragmentary, the other (Cod. lat. Monac. 6264 from the XIth century) complete.5 Its text runs parallel to Did. 1–6, but omits the sectio evangelica 1:3–2:1. The opening words remind us of Barn. 18, in that they speak of “light” and “darkness” as well as “life” and “death”, and mention the two angelic powers. The last verses in the Doctrina (after 6:1) differ from those in the Didache. Apart from a Christian doxology at the end they admonish the readers to persevere to the end (cf. Barn. 21). It is generally agreed that the Doctrina is not dependent on the Didache, but goes back to a lost Greek original closely related to the “Two Ways”-text adopted by the author(s) of that writing. The last important witness to be mentioned briefly is the Apostolic Church Order, also known as the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Holy Apostles, together with the related Epitome of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, commonly dated in the early fourth century. There are many textual problems, but the Church Order and the Epitome basically give the text of the “Way of Life” (without the “Way of Death”) as in the Didache, again without the sectio evangelica. It is divided into admonitions pronounced by the various apostles. Probably this text is not dependent

5 The best accessible edition is that in W. Rordorf and A. Tuilier, La Doctrine des Douze Apôtres (Didachè) (SC 248. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1978), pp. 203–10.

the



183

on that of the Didache, but on a common source. There are some agreements in terminology with Barnabas, and at the end Can. 14 runs parallel to Barn. 21:2c–4, 6a. This may point to direct dependence on Barnabas or to a common source behind Barnabas and the Church Order. It is not easy to define the precise relationships between the various recensions of the “Two Ways”-instruction, let alone to determine form and content of the text which may be supposed to lie at the basis of all later developments. After a careful analysis of the available evidence Niederwimmer offers a tentative stemma with basically two branches.6 The first is represented by the recension found in Barnabas; the second is more complex: here we find the recension first represented by the Didache and the Greek text behind the Doctrina, and (at a later stage) by the Apostolic Church Order and the Epitome. Where the two branches divide one may posit the earliest form of “Two Ways”-instruction now lost. Niederwimmer thinks that the recension in Barnabas is nearer to this original than the other one, but, of course, much remains uncertain, especially with regard to the beginning and the ending of the oldest form of “Two Ways”instruction (see, for instance, the role played by the two angels; “light” and “darkness” and/or “life” and “death”; and the eschatological setting)—not to mention the numerous difficulties one encounters when one attempts to determine the precise wording of the archetype. In what the various recensions—all found in Christian documents!— have in common there is nothing that is overtly Christian, and therefore one has assumed some Jewish Urform of “Two Ways”-instruction, taken over by early Christians who, at least at an early stage, saw no reason to christianize it. Niederwimmer supposes that the differences between this Urform and the text that lies at the basis of the “Christian” recensions known to us were minimal. Given the many uncertainties connected with the reconstruction of the Christian archetype he regards it impossible, however, to determine the form and the content of the Jewish tractate. The existence of a Jewish “Two Ways”-tractate is accepted by many but, in view of the differences between the “Christian” recensions 6 See K. Niederwimmer, Die Didache (KAV 1. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), Introduction §6 on the relationship of the Didache and the “Two Ways”-tractate (pp. 48–64; see also his note on the topos of the Two Ways on pp. 83–7).

184

marinus de jonge

we know, few have attempted to reconstruct it.7 One has looked for other examples of Jewish ethical instruction using a two ways-scheme, and to dualistic apocalyptic texts in which two angels figure. The instance that is always mentioned first of all is the “Instruction about the Two Spirits” in 1QS 3:13–4:26 with the “Spirit of Truth” and the “Spirit of Deceit” (also referred to as the “Prince of Light” and the “Angel of Darkness”) leading humankind along two ways, the way of light and the way of darkness, both described at some length, together with the rewards and punishments accompanying them (in an eschatological setting). The spirits operate in the heart of every human being; at the same time there is a clear division between the children of light and the children of darkness. There is no way in which this part of the Manual of Discipline might be a source, however distant, of the “Two Ways”-instruction we are discussing. But it does raise the question whether the apocalypticized version of “Two Ways”-instruction (as found in 1QS and Barnabas) or the nonapocalypticized version (as in the Didache and the Doctrina) is likely to be prior. This is the matter under discussion in the recent essays of Nickelsburg and Kraft;8 the outcome is that “both types of two ways-traditions have left their impact on early Christian literature, and probably both derive from variations already present in the Jewish roots from which Christianity emerged”.9 In this context also a few texts in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs are sometimes mentioned,10 in particular T. Asher 1:3, which 7 See, for instance, Prigent in P. Prigent and R. A. Kraft, Épître de Barnabé (SC 172. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1971), pp. 15–20; Rordorf in Rordorf-Tuilier, La Doctrine des Douze Apôtres, pp. 22–34; K. Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet (Schriften des Urchristentums II. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984), pp. 20–2. For H. van de Sandt and D. Flusser, The Didache. Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (CRINT III,5. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum/Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002) see the next section. 8 See G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Seeking the Origins of the Two-Ways Tradition in Jewish Christian Ethical Texts”, in B. G. Wright (ed.), A Multiform Heritage. Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft (Homage Series vol. 24. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1999), pp. 95–108 and R. A. Kraft,“Early Developments of the ‘Two-Ways Traditions’ in Retrospect’”, in R. A. Argall et alii (eds.), For a Later Generation. The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Festschrift for G. W. E. Nickelsburg (Harrisburg PA: Trinity International, 2000), pp. 136–43. 9 So R. A. Kraft, “Early Developments”, p. 142. 10 See, for instance, Prigent in Prigent-Kraft, Épître de Barnabé, p. 18; M. J. Suggs, “The Christian Two Ways Tradition: Its Antiquity, Form and Function”, in D. E.

the



185

mentions “two ways” besides “two dispositions, two kinds of action and two modes of living and two ends” and T. Asher 6:4–6, where “the angels of the Lord and Satan” are mentioned in connection with “the ends of men”. The question to what extent passages in the Testaments point to knowledge of a “Two Ways”-and/or “Two Angels”-instruction will be discussed below. In view of what I argued in the opening section I shall treat them as another Christian writing that adopted “Jewish” paraenetical teaching, and not as evidence for Jewish use of the “Two Ways”-scheme. In fact, in the case of the “Two Ways”-instruction and in the case of the Testaments we encounter the same situation: transmission of ethical material that may be Jewish and Christian in a Christian document. Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser on the “Greek Two Ways” as a Jewish Document Van de Sandt and Flusser devote the first section (pp. 1–190) of their recent book on the Didache11 to “The Two Ways Tractate: Did 1–6”. They do not only assume the existence of a Jewish “Two Ways”-document, they also present a reconstruction of it (Chapter 4, pp. 112–39). This is followed by an analysis of the “Two Ways” as a Jewish document by comparing it with other sources (Chapter 5, pp. 140–90). In all this they go considerably further than other contemporary scholars writing on the subject and therefore we shall have to deal (briefly) with their approach. Special attention will be given to their use of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, because of their thesis that the “Greek Two Ways” and the Testaments originated in the same Jewish circles. Chapter 4 gives a hypothetical reconstruction of the original Greek text behind the Doctrina Apostolorum with the help of the Greek wording in the Didache and Barnabas. This reconstructed text, it is claimed, “contains no trace of Christian interpolation and is nearest both in literary framework and general line of development to the Qumran teaching in 1QS 3.13–4.26. In certain respects, the document thus exhibits the oldest preserved witness to the Jewish Two Ways tradiAune (ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature. Essays in Honor of Allan Wikgren (NovTSup 33. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), pp. 60–74, esp. p. 68; Rordorf in Rordorf-Tuilier, La Doctrine des Douze Apôtres, p. 24; Niederwimmer, Die Didache, pp. 57, 85–6. 11 See note 7 above.

186

marinus de jonge

tion” (p. 112). It is nearer to the Didache than to Barnabas, whose text is considered to be the result of extensive reworking of this original document, and plays no role with regard to establishing its contents (pp. 70–80). One may rightly ask, however, whether the authors are not too confident in their reconstruction and analysis, and whether they always escape reasoning in a circle. Let us take, for example, the question of the introduction of the “Two Ways”-instruction in Barnabas and in Doctrina/Didache. Barnabas does not have the double love commandment that is found in the other two texts. With others, Niederwimmer12 supposes Christian influence in Doctr./Did. and favours priority of Barnabas. Van de Sandt and Flusser disagree and assume that the Jewish “Two Ways”-instruction contained the two commandments; they stress that Doctr./Did. attest to a tradition independent of the Synoptic gospels, and try to demonstrate that juxtaposition of these two precepts is not unknown in first-century Judaism. Their prime witness here is the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; the fact that the many relevant texts in the Testaments are embedded in a document transmitted and redacted by Christians is disregarded (see pp. 73, 156–8). The emphasis on the precepts to love God and one’s fellow men, they say, represents a universal ethic also found in the “Derekh Erets” literature. This points to a common origin of the “Greek Two Ways”, the Testaments and the early portions of the Derekh Erets literature in a milieu of groups of pious Jews, located on the periphery of the Essene movement, near (what they call) “‘the left wing’ of the Pharisaic circles”. Because the double love commandment is also found in Jesus’ teaching in the gospels, he, too, may have belonged to this milieu.13 Another example: Doctr./Did. 3:1–6 consists of sayings from a fatherly teacher who addresses his pupil as t°knon mou. There is no parallel in Barnabas, and this may be due to the fact that this unit once existed independently and made its way into the “Two Ways”instruction only at a later stage. Van de Sandt and Flusser incorporate the unit in their reconstructed “Greek Two Ways”, explaining its absence in Barnabas as yet another result of the “idiosyncratic 12

Die Didache, pp. 89–91. See “The Spiritual and Ethical Milieu of the Greek Two Ways” (pp. 180–2). For a similar assessment of the Testaments, see already D. Flusser, “Patriarchs, Testaments of the Twelve”, Encyclopaedia Judaica ( Jerusalem: Keter Books, 1971) vol. 13, pp. 184–6. 13

the



187

employment of traditions” in this letter.14 However this may be, it is the interpretation of the teaching of this pericope that matters here. The introductory sentence in v. 1, “My child, flee from all evil and from everything like it”, is followed by admonitions to avoid a minor sin in order not to commit a major one. So anger is said to lead to murder (v. 2); (sexual) desire to fornication (v. 3, that later also mentions adultery); soothsaying to idolatry (v. 4); lying to theft (v. 5); grumbling (against God) to blasphemy (v. 6). Van de Sandt and Flusser (pp. 165–72) point to Sifra on Lev 18:4 which mentions the prohibitions of robbery, sexual immorality, idolatry, blasphemy and bloodshed as commandments indispensable to the survival of humankind, and they find parallels for the thesis of v. 1 and for the argumentation in 3:2–6 in numerous passages in the “Derekh Erets” literature. Following other interpreters15 they also point for vv. 2–6 to the Testaments where “the effects of a minor vice are expressed by the verb ıdhg°v” (p. 170)—see, for example, T.Jud. 19:1, “my children, love of money leads to idols (≤ filargur¤a prÚw e‡dvla ıdhge›)”, and compare 14:1, “wine . . . leads the eyes into error”. Not only may the idiomatic expression “x leads to y” come from the Testaments, also the stylistic pattern of these single phrases with this sterotyped formula “may be traced back to a Jewish tradition which is mirrored in rabbinic literature and, especially in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” (p. 171). However, as to the latter writing this is extremely unlikely, because there the verb ıdhg°v clearly means “leading in a certain direction, to a particular destination”,16 and only in T.Jud. 19:1 the subject is a “minor vice” (leading not to “idolatry” but to “idols”). I shall not express an opinion on the parallels in rabbinic literature (and the “Derekh Erets” texts in particular), but I would advise leaving the Testaments out of consideration in this case.17 14 See pp. 124, 133–4. They print the text (practically) in the form found in the Didache, because the Doctrina omits vv. 3–4a and has ‘fili’ only in v. 1. 15 See, for instance, Rordorf-Tuilier, La Doctrine des Douze Apôtres, pp. 152–5; Niederwimmer, Die Didache, pp. 123–5. 16 It is also found in T.Reub. 2:9, “(ignorance) leads the young man as a blind man to a pit . . .”; T.Dan 5:4, “for an angel of the Lord guides them both (i.e. Levi and Judah)”; T.Gad 5:7, “godly and true repentance . . . leads the disposition to salvation”; T.Benj. 6:1 (speaking about the good man), “for the angel of peace guides his soul”. Compare also the use of prosegg¤zv in T.Reub. 4:6 and T.Sim. 5:3. 17 In “Didache 3, 1–6: A Transformation of an Existing Jewish Hortatory Pattern”,

188

marinus de jonge

That is not to say that one should not look for parallels in the biographical and paraenetical sections of the Testaments while discussing the vices mentioned in Did. 3:1–6 and elsewhere, and of the virtues in the various forms of “Two Ways”-instruction in our sources. But such parallels cannot be used as evidence for the origin of the “Two Ways”-instruction in specific Jewish circles, let alone for the background of the verbatim content of a reconstructed “Two Ways”document. They only testify to the continuity between Jewish and Christian paraenesis in the Testaments as well as in the “Two Ways”sections in the Christian writings under discussion. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the “Two Ways” In the Testaments the sons of Jacob urge their offspring to choose between God and Beliar. Levi, at the end of his farewell speech, tells his sons, “And now, my children, you have heard all. Choose, therefore, for yourselves either darkness or light, either the law of the Lord or the works of Beliar” (T.Levi 19:1). This theme recurs in other testaments (T.Reub. 4:6; T.Sim. 5:3; T.Iss. 6:1; T.Dan 6:1; T.Napht. 2:6; 3:1). Exhortation is closely connected with warning against the influence of evil spirits. God, with the help of angels, is engaged in a permanent struggle against Beliar and his spirits. Man has to fight against evil influences coming from outside but operating in his mind and body. He has to obey God unconditionally, and will in turn be protected by him. So T.Benj. 3:3–5 mentions Joseph as a supreme example of one who because of his fear of God and love towards his neighbour is protected by God against all sorts of human and demonic attacks (see also T.Benj. 6:1–6 below). And what is now real and valid for those who fear the Lord will become full reality in the future when Beliar and his spirits will suffer a final defeat (T.Sim. 6:6; T.Levi 3:3; 18:12; T.Jud. 25:3; T.Iss. 7:7; T.Zeb. 9:8; T.Dan 5:10–11; cf. T.Benj. 3:8).18 JSJ 23 (1992) 21–41 Van de Sandt attempts to show that Did. 3:1–6 is a transformation of a hortatory pattern found in the Palestinian Targum to the second table of the Decalogue. T.Jud. 23:1–4 is used to prove an early date of the tradition in the Targum. In Van de Sandt–Flusser, The Didache, pp. 204–37 parallels and differences between Did. 3:1–6 and Matt 5:(17–20), 21–48 are discussed in detail. 18 Beliar’s defeat is connected with Jesus’ coming on earth as well as with his parousia, both aspects of God’s final intervention in the future as seen from the standpoint of the patriarchs. Further remarks on the dualistic nature of the parae-

the



189

The necessity of a radical choice for goodness and truth as revealed in God’s commandments, and a rejection of wickedness and lying inspired by Beliar, is also emphasized in T.Asher, the only Testament to use the expression “the two ways”:19 Listen, children of Asher, to your father, and I will declare to you all that is upright (eÈy°w) in the sight of God. God has given two ways (ıdoÊw) to the sons of men and two dispositions (diaboÊlia) and two kinds of action (prãjeiw) and two ends (t°lh). Therefore all things are by twos, one over against the other. (There are) two ways, of good and evil, and with them there are two dispositions in our breasts, distinguishing between them. (1:2–5)

The opposition between good and evil is embedded in the duality inherent to God’s creation (see also 5:1–3 and compare Sir 15:11–20; 33(36):7–19; 42:15–25). This opposition is not further illustrated by a description of the two ways given in the “Two Ways”-instruction found in other sources. In v. 5 the central issue is: for which of the two ways and, consequently, for which destination does the diaboÊlion in our breast decide?20 There are two options, described in vv. 6–7 and vv. 8–9 respectively. Either a person chooses the good, and then every action is righteous (and if he sins, he repents immediately); so one overthrows evil and uproots sin. Or a person turns to evil and is ruled by Beliar; whenever he starts doing good the end of his action leads to doing evil. 1:8–9 is taken up in chapter 2 and 1:6–7 in chapter 4, dealing with actions or combinations of actions that may be called diprÒsvpon (“having two aspects”) but are, in reality, either completely bad or good. In chapter 3 Asher’s children are warned not to become diprÒsvpoi (“people with two faces”—one of goodness and one of wickedness). They should “cleave to goodness only, for God rests upon it” (v. 1); so they will destroy the devil with their good actions

nesis and the angelology/demonology of the Testaments may be found in H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A Commentary (SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985), pp. 41–50. 19 For details see Hollander-De Jonge, A Commentary, pp. 338–61. 20 Although the author speaks of two diaboÊlia, he intends to say that every person has one diaboÊlion faced with two fundamentally different options. Hence the translation “disposition” is to be preferred to “inclination”.

190

marinus de jonge

(v. 2). In the final exhortation 5:1–6:3 Asher urges his children to take heed “to the commandments of the Lord, following the truth with a single face” (6:1); and in the only autobiographical remark found in this testament he says: All these things I tested in my life, and I did not wander from the truth of the Lord and I searched out the commandments of the Most High according to all my strength, walking with a single face to what is good. (5:4)

Anything double is not in agreement with God’s will (see also diploËw in T.Benj. 6:5–7). “Doubleness” is hypocrisy and hypocrisy means unreliability. The opposite, èplÒthw is the central virtue in T.Issachar; it means “simplicity”, “integrity” and is used besides eÈyÊthw (cf. T.Ash. 1:2). Man should serve God and obey his commandments wholeheartedly, completely. This is also the message in T. Asher. We now turn to T.Ash. 6:4–6 dealing with the “ends of men”, when their righteousness becomes evident and when they recognize “the angels of the Lord and of Satan”. Here a person’s final destiny is determined by his/her response to the angel of the Lord or the angel of Satan; a parallel passage, T.Jud. 20, mentions in this connection the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit. This leads to the question whether the author of the Testaments, who did not adopt any ethical “Two Ways”-instruction, was perhaps familiar with the two angels-scheme known from 1QS 3:13–4.26; Barn. 18–20 (21); cf. Doctr. 1:1. In T.Ash. 6:4–6 the “angel of the Lord” is also called “the angel of peace” (cf. T.Benj. 6:1);21 he comforts with (or, in) life the person who departs quietly with joy. The angel of Satan is also denoted as “the evil spirit” who torments the soul who departs troubled,22 after serving him during his life in its desires and evil works. T.Jud. 20 comes somewhat unexpectedly at the end of the paraenetic section in this testament. The diaboÊlion of T.Asher is now called “the spirit of understanding of the mind” (v. 2). The spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit (see 1John 4:6 and cf. 1QS 3:18–19; 4:9, 21, 23) devote themselves to man, on whose breast (st∞yow) the

21 In T.Dan 6:2–5 the “angel of peace” is identified with the angel who intercedes for Israel (and for the righteous, cf. T.Levi 5:6–7). 22 TaraxÆ is caused by evil spirits, see, for instance, T.Sim. 4:9; 5:1; T.Benj. 6:5.

the



191

works of truth and the works of deceit are written. The Lord knows each of them (vv. 3–4). V. 5 adds, “And the spirit of truth testifies all things and accuses all (cf. John 15:26–27; 16:8–11) and the sinner is burnt up from out of his own heart (cf. T.Gad 5:3) and cannot raise his face to the judge”. There is still a third passage that should be discussed, T.Benj. 6:1–4, where the activity of God’s angel is connected with the notion of God’s indwelling in a person. It belongs to the discourse on “the good man” in chapters 3–6, which sums up the most important features of the paraenesis of the Testaments. This section begins with statements about the two great commandments and highlights Joseph’s exemplary love for his brothers; it even draws a clear parallel between Joseph and Jesus (3:8).23 Speaking about the good man whose “disposition . . . is not in the hand of the deceit of the spirit of Beliar” the author tells us, “the angel of peace guides his soul” (6:1); “the Lord is his portion” (v. 3), and finally, “the Lord dwells in him and lights up his soul” (v. 4). The first two expressions are traditional.24 The last one requires some further discussion, together with the statement in T.Benj. 8:2 about the person “who has a pure mind”: “the spirit of God rests upon him”. The notion that God dwells in a person who keeps his commandments is also found in T.Dan 5:1–3 (where the commandments are summed up in v. 3 as, “Love the Lord in all your life and each other with a true heart”) and in T.Jos. 10:2–3 where Joseph exhorts his children to “follow after chastity and purity with patience and humility of heart”. He assures them no less than three times that the Lord dwells in a person who practises such virtues, and adds that God “also exalts and magnifies him, even as me”.25 The best parallels are found in Christian sources, such as Herm. Man. III.1; X.1.6 (to be discussed presently); Barn. 16:8–10; Tatian, Orat. 15:2. 23 See Hollander-De Jonge, A Commentary, pp. 411–3, 416–30 and De Jonge, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature, pp. 142, 155–8. 24 For “guides his soul” see, e.g., Ps 25:9, “He leads the humble in what is right and teaches the humble his way”. Here, and elsewhere, the Lord, not his angel is the guide. For “the Lord is his portion”, see, e.g., Ps 119:57. For further examples from the Book of Psalms, see Hollander-De Jonge, A Commentary, pp. 427–8. 25 We also find an eschatological (christological) variant in T.Zeb. 8:2, “Because also in the last days God will send his compassion on earth and wheresoever he finds feelings of mercy, he dwells in him”; cf. T.Napht. 4:5; T.Levi 4:4 and see also T.Jud. 24:1; T.Iss. 7:7; T.Dan 5:13; T.Napht. 8:3.

192

marinus de jonge

God dwells in man by his spirit according to Rom 8:9–11; Eph 2:22; 2 Tim 1:14; Jas 4:15; Herm. Man. III.1; Tatian, Orat. 15:2. and this is the notion found in T.Benj. 8:2, which has a typical parallel in a description of (again) Joseph in T.Sim. 4:4: But Joseph was a good man and he had the spirit of God in him; being compassionate and pitiful he did not bear malice against me; but even loved me, as his other brothers.

For T.Benj. 6:4 and T.Benj. 8:2 together we may point to some interesting parallels in the Mandata of Hermas, and mention a number of further connections between the Testaments and the Mandata.26 In Man. III.1 Hermas is told to love truth and to let truth proceed from his mouth, “in order that the spirit which God has made to dwell in this flesh may be found true by all men, and the Lord who dwells in you will thus be glorified . . .”. A little further it is stipulated that “an evil conscience ought not to dwell with the spirit of truth, nor should it bring sorrow (lÊph) on a spirit that is holy (semnÒw) and true” (v. 4). In Man.X lÊph is said to be “the most evil of all spirits”; it destroys man and drives out (§ktr¤bei) the holy spirit (X.1.2). This theme recurs a few times in Man. X.1 and X.2. In X.3 lÊph is opposed to joyfulness (fllarÒthw) “which always has favour with God”. Every joyful man does good deeds and has good thoughts; but the sorrowful man does wicked things, so he “grieves the holy spirit given joyful to man” (X.3.2). When X.1.6 speaks about persons “who have the fear of God in themselves” and stresses that “they perceive quickly all that is said to them”, it adds “for where the Lord dwells, there also is great understanding”. A third instance combining indwelling of God and the presence of the holy spirit in man is Sim. IX.32.2 where we read dominus habitat in his viris qui pacem diligunt, quoniam pacem amavit, followed by habebitis 26 On the complex pneumatology in the Shepherd of Hermas, directly related to its paraenesis, see C. Haas, De geest bewaren. Achtergrond en functie van de pneumatologie in de paraenese van de Pastor van Hermas (’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1985) summarized and updated in “Die Pneumatologie des ‘Hirten des Hermas’”, ANRW II.27.1 (Berlin-New York: De Gruyter, 1993), pp. 552–586. See also Nadia Ibrahim Frederikson, “L’Esprit saint et les esprits mauvais dans le Pasteur d’Hermas: sources et prolongements”, VC 55 (2001) 262–280. This author, however, emphasizes, with A. Dupont-Sommer and M. Philonenko, the Essene character of the pneumatology of the Testaments.

the



193

domini spiritum, sicut accepistis, integrum. In passing we may also point to the admonition in Sim. V.7.1, “Guard this flesh of yours pure and undefiled so that the spirit which dwells in it may testify for it, and your flesh may be justified”—which offers a parallel to T.Jud. 20:5. Man. V.1 and V.2 praise makroyum¤a (“patience”, “longsuffering”) opposed to Ùjuxol¤a (“ill temper”, “irascibility”). If a person is patient, the holy spirit which dwells in him will be pure and will not be darkened by another evil spirit (V.1.2). But if any ill temper enters, the delicate holy spirit is oppressed, “it is choked by the evil spirit”, and departs “having no room to serve the Lord as it wishes”. “For the Lord dwells in long-suffering, and the devil dwells in ill temper”. And if both spirits dwell in the same person, that is unprofitable and evil for that person (V.1.3–4). Here, as in Man. X man is faced with a choice between vice and virtue, between the holy spirit given by God (easily oppressed and driven out) and the evil spirits, between God and devil. In Man. VI.1 this is expressed with the help of the metaphor of the two ways, mentioned only briefly and not worked out in any detail: “That which is righteous has a straight path, but that which is unrighteous a crooked path” (v. 2; cf. Matt 7:13–14, but there the road to destruction is easy, and the road that leads to life is hard).27 In Man. VI.2 there follows, unconnected, a section on the two angels. “There are two angels with man, one of righteousness and one of wickedness (eÂw t∞w dikaiosÊnhw ka‹ eÂw t∞w ponhr¤aw)” (v. 1). We know them through their activities (§n°rgeiai) and works (¶rga) that are summed up in v. 3 and vv. 4–5 respectively.28 The angel of righteousness is characterized as “delicate, meek and gentle” (v. 3), and the angel of wickedness as “ill-tempered, bitter and foolish” (v. 4). Man has to make a radical choice for the angel of righteousness and against his opponent. However faithful a person may be, once the thought (§nyÊmhsiw) of the angel of wickedness rises in his heart, he must commit some sin (v. 7). Fortunately, also the opposite holds true (v. 8). 27 A. Hilhorst, “Hermas”, RAC XIV, cols. 682–701 mentions in cols. 692–3 one parallel to our Hermas text: “. . . years of cleanliness employed in laudable actions, and in straight travelling not on the rough road or more properly pathless waste of evil, but on the smooth high road through virtue’s land” (Philo, Vit. Mos. II.138, transl. F. H. Colson). 28 In v. 5 the angel of wickedness is said to be and to operate in a person, like the evil spirits mentioned elsewhere.

194

marinus de jonge

Looking back on the parallels between the Testaments and the Shepherd of Hermas we may conclude that both writings use the metaphor of the “Two Ways”, but that neither presents an elaborate ethical “Two Ways”-instruction. In both cases the dualistic pneumatology/ angelology is certainly related to the notion of the “Two Angels” in Barnabas and, earlier, that of the “Instruction of the Two Spirits” in 1QS 3:13–4:26, but each of the two writings has developed this basic theme in its own way. Concluding Remarks It would be possible to compare in more detail the exhortations of the Shepherd of Hermas and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in connection with their notions about good and evil spirits/angels, and about God and the devil/Beliar. Then not only the parallels but also the differences between the two writings, written with different situations in view, would come out clearly. Nevertheless, the brief analysis in the preceding section will have made clear that the Testaments and the Shepherd of Hermas have in common that they connect their paraenesis with a variety of descriptions of the influences of good and evil spirits in the world and, particularly, in the lives of individual persons. Both also require complete obedience to God and his commandments and permanent vigilance against the attempts of the devil/Beliar and his spirits to lead man astray. This is a matter of ultimate concern. Man’s final destiny is at stake, as we hear in T.Ash. 6:4–6 and T.Jud. 20:1–5. Summa summarum: The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs do not offer any real help to those who want to go back to the Jewish roots of the “Two Ways”/“Two Angels”—instruction found in the Didache, Barnabas and related sources. Their place is further down the line of transmission, in Christian circles. And they should be studied as an interesting case of incorporation and assimilation of traditional material (which may be called “Jewish” and “Christian”)—alongside other Christian documents, such as the Didache and Barnabas, but especially the Shepherd of Hermas.

JUSTIN MARTYR AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF PSALM 22 Judith M. Lieu In Hieronymus Bosch’s painting, “The Crowning with Thorns”, a serene Jesus gazes at the viewer, seemingly impervious to the four mocking figures who surround him. Each, dressed in contemporary garb, represents, it has been suggested, both different groups in Bosch’s own society, singled out for symbolic attack against their corruption and oppression, and different types of character and temperament.1 The soldier to the upper right of the painting, his arm around Jesus’s right shoulder more menacing than comforting, wears a leather collar embossed with two rows of spikes, a dog collar. To the innocent observer an oddity, this, to the initiate, is ultimately an allusion to Psalm 22:17, “Because (many, LXX) dogs encircled me”.2 Between text and painting stands a growing fascination with the suffering of Jesus in mediaeval piety, and the elaboration of the story of his humiliation both in narratives of the Passion and in art.3 The primary source of such elaboration was the OT, which, understood as predictive of Christ, provided an abundant supply of pain and

1 See the Catalogue of the London National Gallery’s exhibition “Seeing Salvation” (26th Feb.–7th May 2000), The Image of Christ (London: National Gallery Co. Ltd., 2000), pp. 114–15. For discussion, see R. Foster & P. Tudor-Craig, The Secret Life of Paintings (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1986), pp. 59–73. The oak leaves on the soldier’s hat may be an allusion to the family of Pope Julius II. 2 We shall follow the traditional (MT and EVV) numbering of the Psalms— although Justin, using the LXX, knows it as Psalm 21 (Dial. 97.3)—and shall use the versification of MT and LXX where v. 1 is the title (ctr. many EVV). The edition used is A. Rahlfs (ed.), Psalmi cum Odis (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis, X. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). 3 See J. H. Morrow, Passion Iconography in Northern European Art of the Late Middle Ages and Early Renaissance. A Study of the Transformation of Sacred Metaphor into Descriptive Narrative (Ars Neerlandica 1. Kortrijk, Belgium: Van Ghemment, 1979). For the social and religious context of Bosch’s painting, see G. Marsden, “Bosch’s ‘Christ Carrying the Cross’”, History Today 47.3 (1997) 15–21; the tightly packed figures around Jesus in this painting may also represent Ps 22:17. Whether someone working within this tradition, like Bosch, would have been consciously aware of the OT sources of the imagery is uncertain.

196

judith m. lieu

torments that he “must have” suffered; a key catalyst in this was Psalm 22, which already had a leading place within the Good Friday and Holy Week liturgies, and which is rich in the imagery of suffering and of bestial violence. James Morrow describes in fascinating detail how, “by the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the metaphorical imagery of the psalm had entered into the descriptive vocabulary of the passion by interaction with the Gospel narrative and with other Old Testament allusions to the persecutors”.4 Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ” has controversially demonstrated the longevity of the dramatic and pictorial effect,5 but an internet search for “Psalm 22” reveals its widespread currency in written and homiletic form. The beginnings of this transformation of biblical metaphorical imagery into descriptive narrative are notoriously difficult to determine. Allusions to Psalm 22 are deeply embedded in the earliest Gospel accounts of Jesus’s death; strikingly, only in John 19:24 is the appeal to the fulfilment of scripture explicit, but in the synoptic accounts Jesus’s “cry of dereliction”, the mockery, and the soldiers’ division of his garments, are told in the language of the Psalm.6 It remains one of the most perplexing questions of the story of Jesus’s death, particularly as accessible through the canonical Gospels, how far, for example, “scripture (Ps 22:18) imposes upon the gospel story of the passion the division of garments by casting lots”, how far remembered events only subsequently found their correlation and explication in the psalm, with particularly vigorous debate surrounding Jesus’s cry of Ps 22:2 (Mark 15:34).7 It is, however, with Justin Martyr 4

Passion Iconography, esp. pp. 33–43, 62–3, 79–80 (quotation from p. 43). Released 2004; Gibson’s dependency on mediaeval piety for “apocryphal” detail has been much discussed, but less so the latter’s earlier roots: the paintings of Bosch and others, as well as the OT passages often seen as predictive of Christ’s suffering in this tradition, provide a revealing commentary on the film. See now, Kathleen E. Corley & Robert L. Webb, Jesus and Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. The Film, the Gospels and the Claims of History (London & New York: Continuum, 2004). 6 John 19:28, “that scripture might be fulfilled, ‘I thirst’”, more probably refers to Ps 68:22 than to Ps 22:16. Clear allusions: Ps 22:2 (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34), 8 (Mark 15:29//), 9 (Matt 27:(40) 43), 19 (Mark 15:24//); possible allusions: v. 3 (Matt 27:50), 9, 22 (Matt 27:49), 18b (Matt 27:36); see D. Senior, “The Lure of the Formula Quotations: Reassessing Matthew’s Use of the OT with the PN as Test Case”, in C. M. Tuckett (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, (BETL 131. Leuven: Peeters, 1997), pp. 89–115. S. van Tilborg, “Language, meaning, sense and reference: Matthew’s passion narrative and Psalm 22”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 44 (1988) 883–908, finds additional allusions via the LXX and Targumim. 7 Quotation from F. Bovon, “The Lukan Story of the Passion of Jesus (Luke 22–23)”, Studies in Early Christianity (WUNT 161. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 5

justin martyr and the transformation of psalm 22

197

that we find the first sustained attempt to show that “the whole Psalm was spoken with reference to Christ” (Dial. 97–106 [quotation from 99.1]), and the consequent elaboration of the story of the Passion under the guidance of the Psalm—an enterprise in which he would soon have many followers.8 Justin and the Christological reading of Scripture The christological reading of Scripture advances significantly with Justin, and his understanding and use of the OT have been much discussed.9 While he certainly had his predecessors, and, perhaps, some knowledge of Jewish exegesis, he introduces five developments that will shape Christian understanding of the nature of Scripture, and cast a shadow even over the present: a vocabulary of the relationship between Scripture (OT) and “Christian” story; the identification of an authoritative text where minor variations are matters of life and death, of faithfulness to God or of willful apostasy; the correct, and exclusive, interpretation of that text, which can only have one meaning or reference; the reading of Scripture as narrative, demanding attention to extended portions and not just to context-free “sound-bites”; and, most important, the appeal to and interpretation of Scripture as a site of, and as a weapon in, conflict, both internal and external.10 pp. 74–105, p. 84. V. Robbins, “The Reversed Contextualization of Psalm 22 in the Markan Crucifixion. A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis”, in F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, J. Verheyden (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift Frans Neirynck (BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University, 1992), pp. 1161–83 understands Mark’s use of the Psalm in terms of a “progymnastic composition” (p. 1175). R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (2 vols. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1994), esp. pp. 953–1088, 1455–65 feels that the clearest allusions concern events that were intrinsically not unlikely, but he remains uncommitted as to whether Jesus’s words in Mark 15:34 (Matt 27:46) rely on tradition or are an interpretation of an inarticulate cry. 8 Already in Tertullian, Adv. Marc. III.19.5–6; IV.42.4–5. Dissentient voices include Theodore of Mopsuestia (see F. M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1997], pp. 182–5) and Martin Bucer (see R. G. Hobbs, “Martin Bucer on Psalm 22: A Study in the Application of Rabbinic Exegesis by a Christian Hebraist”, in O. Fatio & P. Fraenkel [eds.], Histoire de l’exégese au XVI e siècle. Textes du colloque international tenu a Genève en 1976, [Genève: Libraire Droz, 1978], pp. 144–63). 9 P. Prigent, Justin et l’ancient testament (EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1964); W. A. Shotwell, The Biblical Exegesis of Justin Martyr (London: SPCK, 1965); O. Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy. A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Traditions: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile (NovTSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1987). 10 See Shotwell, Biblical Exegesis; J. M. Lieu, Image and Reality. The Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second Century (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), pp. 103–53.

198

judith m. lieu

The Psalms are an important part of Justin’s scriptural resources— there are clear citations of twenty-four different Psalms, and possible allusions to at least eight others; it is within that context that his reading of Psalm 22 should be set. So, he also quotes other Psalms in their entirety, perhaps more frequently than the surviving text retains.11 The textual differences between such extended, generally septuagintal, quotations and the shorter, sometimes textually idiosyncratic, testimony passages on which his argument itself usually relies provide a snapshot of the difficulties that compelled the early Christians to adopt the LXX, and that ensued when they did so.12 Best known is Justin’s testimonial appeal to Ps 96 (LXX 95):10a as “Say among the nations, The Lord reigns from the tree”; his text of the whole Psalm omits the italicised words, and he addresses the problem by claiming that they had been excised by the Jews, a crime “more dreadful than the making of the golden calf ” (Dial. 73). Frequently, as there, he remains concerned with only one or two verses, and cites the whole mainly in defence against charges of misquoting and in support of the Christian claim to rightful ownership of the scriptures; occasionally, however, he does treat a whole Psalm as conveying a sequence of truth, although not necessarily in any precise order: for example, Psalm 1–2, read as a unity, shows “how the prophetic spirit instructs people to live, and how he signifies the concerted action against Christ of Herod the king of the Jews and of the Jews themselves and of Pilate, your governor among them, together with his soldiers, and that he was going to be believed in by people of every race, and that God calls him son and promised to subject to him all enemies, and how the demons endeavour, as far as they can, to escape the authority of God the father and lord of all, and that of Christ himself, and how God calls all to repentance before the day of judgement comes” (Apol. 40).13 His treatment of Psalm 22, however, far exceeds any other sustained reading of a

11 E.g. Dial. 30.2 may indicate that the text of Psalm 19 has been omitted by scribes; see M. Marcovich (ed.), Dialogus cum Tryphone Iustini Martyris (PTS 47. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), pp. 4–5; Skarsaune, Proof from Prophecy, pp. 174–5; Prigent, Justin, pp. 75–8 argues that Justin is “lifting” material from an earlier writing. 12 Skarsaune, Proof from Prophecy. 13 See D.-A. Koch, “Auslegung von Psalm 1 bei Justin und im Barnabasbrief ”, in K. Seybold & E. Zenger (eds.), Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. Für Walter Beyerlin, (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), pp. 223–42.


199

Psalm, both in its total length and in its analytical, paragraph-byparagraph, method. Psalm 22 in Justin This distinctive approach to this Psalm, together with some evidence of an independent vocabulary of interpretation, and supported by the way that the substantive exegesis disrupts the flow of argument which links chapter 97 with 106, identify the exegetical chapters as an excursus introduced by Justin probably from an earlier writing of his own, a strategy he uses elsewhere.14 However, it has itself been expanded by additional material interrupting its own internal logic, some of which has parallels elsewhere in the Dialogue, and it has also been more explicitly integrated through the use of cross-references to the broader argument.15 All this demonstrates the literary complexity of the Dialogue in its current form, regardless of whether it preserves elements of a genuine encounter; it is hard to resist somewhere in the background the “school” model that many have used to understand the development of early Christian scriptural interpretation. This makes it impossible to separate the internal dynamics from the external concerns that shaped such interpretation. Certainly, by the time of Justin in the mid-second century the transmission of the biblical text and its understanding are a serious affair, dependent on close attention to written texts, and, as we shall see, a site of internal as well as of external conflict. We might have expected that Psalm 22 would have been a core text in any early Christian collection of Testimonies, but there is no appeal to it in the Dialogue outside chapters 97–106, despite Justin’s tendency to make repeated use of favourite texts, with or without internal cross-reference. This might, then, lead us to question just how widespread any appeal to Psalm 22 was before him. However, perhaps providing some evidence of earlier tradition, the extended exegesis in these chapters is prompted by the inclusion of vv. 17c–19 in a catena of testimonia defending Jesus’ death by crucifixion, his

14 So Prigent, Justin, pp. 204, 216; Skarsaune, Proof from Prophecy, pp. 220–23; consequently, neither include these chapters in their meticulous discussion of Justin’s use of the OT. 15 E.g. Dial. 100.2–6 (Skarsaune, Proof from Prophecy, pp. 221–223); 102.6, and below, p. 203.

200

judith m. lieu

burial, and his subsequent resurrection—Ps 3:5, 6; Isa 65:2; 57:2; 53:9; Ps 22:17c–19 (Dial. 97.1–3). Justin had already used parts of this collection (Isa 65:2; 50:6–9; Ps 22:19b, 17c; Ps 3:5–6; Ps 22:8b–9a) in Apology 38; there, in contrast to the LXX text followed in Dialogue 97, there are hints of the use of an earlier testimonia-tradition, namely differences, mainly in word order, from the LXX, the combination and reverse sequence of verse 19b followed by 17c, and the absence of any break between these verses and Ps 3:5–6.16 Confirming these hints, a little earlier in the Apology (35.3–6) Ps 22:17c, 19b, again continuous but correctly sequenced, had similarly been used following Isa 65:2, although in this case with the interposition of Isa 58:2.17 Yet, although the whole of v. 19 is familiar from the Gospel accounts (Matt 27:35//), and v. 19b is cited by Barn. 6:6, Justin himself is the first both to cite v.17c (“they dug my hand and feet”) and to apply it to “the nails which were fixed on the cross through his hands and feet” (Apol. 35.7)—although it is hard to imagine the reason for the inclusion of the verse in a previous testimonia collection other than via this application of the problematic “they dug” (vÖrujan).18 In Dial. 97, however, although, as already noted, within a testimonia context, Justin quotes Ps 22:17c–19 in full and following a broadly septuagintal text; there may, however, be a trace of that earlier tradition in his defence of the christological application of the

16 Apol. 38.4: [Ps 22:19b] aÈto‹ ¶balon kl∞ron §p‹ tÚn flmatismÒn mou [LXX ka‹ Örujãn mou pÒdaw ka‹ xe›raw §p‹ tÚn flmatismÒn mou ¶balon kl∞ron], [17c] ka‹ v [LXX vÖrujan xe›rãw mou ka‹ pÒdaw (A and Dial. 97.3 + mou)]. [Ps 3:5–6] §gΔ d¢ §koimÆyhn ka‹ Ïpnvsa, ka‹ én°sthn [LXX and Dial. 97.1 §jhg°ryhn], ˜ti kÊriow éntelãbeto [so also Dial. 97.1; LXX éntilÆmceta¤] mou . . . [Ps 22:8b–9a] §lãlhsan §n xe¤lesin, §k¤nhsan kefalØn l°gontew, =usãsyv •autÒn [LXX •lãlhsan §n xe¤lesin, §k¤nhsan kefalÆn. ≥lpisen §p‹ kÊrion, =usãsyv aÈton]. 17 Apol. 35.5: aÈto‹ vÖrujãn mou pÒdaw ka‹ xe›raw [ctr. 35.7 mou xe›raw ka‹ pÒdaw] ka‹ ¶balon kl∞ron §p‹ tÚn flmatismÒn mou. 18 MT yrak (? “like a lion”), but note the reading of XÓev/Se4 wrak (? “they have bored”). The nailing of Jesus to the cross is not described in the gospels but it is implied by the appearance narratives in John 20:25, 27, which refers to nail prints in the hands only, and in Luke 24:39–40 ( Jesus’s hands and feet), but neither refer to the Psalm. Barn. 5:13 cites Ps 119 (LXX 118):120, “they have pierced my flesh”, immediately following Ps 22:21, to explain Jesus’s death by the cross and not by the sword. On the problem of and the use of v.17c (and for earlier bibliography) see N. Koltun, “Psalm 22’s Christological Interpretive Tradition in the Light of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemic”, JECS 6 (1998) 37–57; Koltun ignores the possible earlier testimonia use of Ps 22:17c, and her argument that v. 17c is more important to Justin than v. 19b is not persuasive.


201

Psalm: “no [anointed] king mentioned in your race was dug in feet and hands (cf. Apol. 35.5; 38.4) while alive”. Thus, contrary to other instances where testimonium and full text conflict with each other, when he next proceeds to cite what he claims is “all the Psalm” in a clearly septuagintal-type text, he neither gives nor has to justify any conflict with the verses as already quoted or subsequently interpreted (98). This makes it the more difficult to draw any firm conclusions either from the fluid relationship between his text and particular LXX MS traditions, or from the few minor differences between his continuous text and that of his detailed analysis, some of which may be due to the scribe of the primary surviving manuscript of the Dialogue.19 Justin’s text can invariably be found, if not in the main text, then in the foot-noted variants of a modern edition of the LXX; often these variants are of little significance, but on occasion they do shape his exegesis—although we might equally ask whether his exegesis has shaped them.20 The absence of other contemporary evidence renders it impossible to determine whether Justin is an early witness for an existing text, or whether he demonstrates how Christian usage influenced the subsequent textual tradition. Certainly, there is no indication that he is aware of the significant differences between the MT and the LXX: it is the latter with which he has to struggle.21 Even so, we shall discover that as he rereads his text he makes nuanced changes, ignoring parallelism and redividing lines and sentences: for example, by taking the closing words of v. 11 with the beginning of v. 12 he emphasises the affirmation of trust and he evades any potential adoptionism: “From my mother’s womb] You are my God,/do not withdraw from me [Because tribulation is near” (102.6).22 Even more significantly, it is remarkable that he

19 Marcovich regularly “corrects” the text at these points, including adding apparent omissions, e.g. ka‹ §s≈yhsan, §p‹ so‹ ≥lpisan (vv. 6b–7a) at 101.1, and vv. 10a, 12a at 102.1; supporting the former are references to “being saved” in the exegesis, while v. 12a (but not 10a) is subsequently cited at 102.6; 103.1. See, however, below n. 44 on v. 9. More uncertain is v. 4 where the manuscript tradition has Justin read ı ¶painow toË ÉIsraÆl, but his argument would seem to imply the omission of toË as in the LXX, and adopted for Justin by Marcovich (98.2; 101.1). 20 See, for example, nn. 39, 46, 50. 21 For reasons of space this paper will follow his silence. 22 See below n. 41; Justin reads épÚ gastrÒw (+ L) at v. 11b (LXX MSS §k koil¤aw) but does not comment on v. 11a–ba.

202

judith m. lieu

does not, as he claims to, cite the whole Psalm in ch. 98, but finishes, mid-sentence, at v. 24, which is also the point at which his exegesis of “the rest of the Psalm” concludes (106.2). V. 24, with its switch to second person plural verbs, and without its following causal clause (v. 25), becomes the content of the first person singular proclamation of v. 23, placed on the lips of the risen Jesus: “I shall recount your name amongst my brethren, I shall hymn you in the midst of the congregation, ‘Praise him, you who fear the Lord . . .’” This is a highly fitting climax, but it remains surprising that Justin does not use the end of the Psalm to establish the ultimate glorification of the suffering Jesus, a favourite application of other Psalms, nor does he, here or elsewhere, add the final section, and specifically v. 28, to his arsenal of prophecies of “the corners of the world” and “the tribes of the gentiles” turning to the Lord, although it would have served him well.23 We may wonder whether verses 25–32 were known to him or to other early Christian writers—an uncertainty that should sound a cautionary note against those who assume that for the gospel writers Jesus’ despairing cry of v. 2 already anticipated the Psalm’s final affirmation of confidence.24 Pre-announcement and authoritative tradition Justin believes that this, like other Psalms, was spoken “with reference to Christ” (eflw tÚn xristÒn) (99.1; similarly 34.1 of Psalm 72). He rejects a hypothetical counter-argument, that it refers to some other king (97.4), but this sounds like his own invention: he does not here charge the Jews with identifying the referent as Solomon or even Hezekiah, as he does elsewhere of Psalms 24, 72, and 110, applications that many accept as true of contemporary Jewish “historicising” exegesis, although actual supporting evidence is considerably later.25 Generally, then, it is a messianic, as well as a specifically

23 For the glorification of Jesus see Dial. 36; 63; 64; 73 (appealing to Pss 24; 45; 72; 96; 110); for the universal theme see Apol. 40; Dial. 42.1; 64.8 (Pss 2; 18). 24 Early references to these verses are rare and incidental: Tertullian, adv.Marc. III.23.6 (v. 26a), Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III.12.1 (v. 27). 25 At 34.1 note efiw tÚn xristÚn ≤m«n. Solomon: Ps 24: Dial. 36.2–6; 85.1; Ps 72: Dial. 34.1–7; 64.5; Hezekiah: Ps 24: Dial. 85.1; Ps 110: Dial. 33.1; 83.1, 3; also Isa 7:10–16: Dial. 43.8; 71.3; 77.2 [67.1; 68.7; 77.1 by Trypho]; see Shotwell, Biblical Exegesis, pp. 71–83. Since Justin does not imply any competing Jewish messianic exegesis of Psalm 22 it seems unnecessary to go hunting for such: ctr. A. Yarbro Collins, “The Appropriation of the Psalms of Individual Lament by Mark”, in


203

christological, interpretation of the Psalms that is at stake, not the application of a shared messianic reading, while in the case of this Psalm there is not even an agreed royal reference. Justin’s interest is, however, yet more precise: the broader context is his extensive attempt to legitimate Jesus’s suffering by crucifixion, something identified by Trypho, and no doubt by others, as particularly problematic; this has occupied him since Dial. 89.2, where Trypho, surprisingly, accepts that “the Christ is passible” [payhtÒw] but balks at crucifixion, cursed in the law (Deut 21:23). “This mystery of being crucified” brackets Justin’s exegesis of Psalm 22 (97.4; 106.1), confirming it as an excursus, but one that, none the less, provides the detail lacking in Justin’s other crucifixion testimonia.26 Justin does not, however, use the language of prophecy (profhte¤a) and fulfilment (plhrÒv) to explain the relationship between Psalm and Jesus-story. The Psalm offers a “teaching and pre-announcement” (didaskal¤a ka‹ proaggel¤a) of what was to happen (105.1);27 according to the initial testimonia David was speaking “in a mystic parable” (§n parabolª` musthri≈dei: 97.3; cf. Apol. 35.3–6), but in the main exegesis the speaker of the Psalm is never identified. Hence, despite the use of verbs such as “spoke in advance” (prol°gein) or “intimated” (mhnÊein), the lack of clear grammatical connection between the citation and what follows obscures their subject.28 In the Apology (38) Justin had explained Ps 22:19b, 17c via the rhetorical topos of prosopopoiea, as spoken “from the persona of Christ” (épÚ pros≈pou toË XristoË), but the apologetic context there—claiming a device shared with his audience and misunderstood by the Jews— should not simply be transferred to the setting in the Dialogue. Instead Justin treads an uncertain line between seeing the application of the Psalm as self-evident (dhlvtikÒn, 103.2) and claiming it as hidden, dependent for its understanding on revelation and grace (100.2).

Tuckett (ed.), Scriptures in the Gospels, pp. 223–41; R. Rowe, God’s Kingdom and God’s Son. The Background to Mark’s Christology from Concepts of Kingship in the Psalms (AGAJU 50. Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 295–304. 26 E.g. 105.2 on Ps 22:22 where “the horns of the unicorn” (MT wild bull), from which the speaker calls for salvation, signify the shape of the cross alone; cf. 91.2 based on Deut. 33:13–17, to which he cross-refers. 27 The latter is a favourite term: 102.1, 5; 103.1, 7, 9; 104.1; 105. 1; otherwise 53.4; 131.6; only the adjective is found in the Apology (32.7; 36.2; 45.5). 28 Marcovich adds clarification through adjustments to the text (e.g. 102.6; 104.1; 105.2), but perhaps the lack of clarity does go back to Justin.

204

judith m. lieu

The exercise demands matching the Psalm (what it “spoke in advance”) to a received tradition of what Jesus said and did. The subsequent exegesis proceeds by citing, largely sequentially,29 short passages of the Psalm, following them by an account of words “he said” or something that “happened to him”. For the modern reader of Goodspeed’s edition,30 the “match” is reinforced by the underlining of editorially-identified synoptic tradition; closer attention, however, reveals that the wording is rarely precisely that of any one of the synoptics, provoking continuing debate as to whether it was to these that Justin had access or to a gospel harmony, perhaps including the Gospel of Peter.31 Goodspeed’s underlining also detracts attention from where Justin’s “match” does not echo the gospels: for example at 97.3, “when they crucified him they drove in nails and dug his hands and feet, and they who crucified him divided his garments for themselves, casting a lot each according to the throw of the dice that which he had wanted to choose”. Whether the earliest audience would have been familiar with the narrative detail and able to identify its precise wording cannot be known, and what may be of more interest is the apparent randomness of careful use of the same vocabulary as the Psalm in details absent from the synoptics (“they dug”), alongside deviation from both—“(they) divided” (§m°risan) here (also 104.2; Apol. 37.8) is not the verb used in the synoptics, which do follow Ps 22:19 LXX (diamer¤zesyai).32 From Justin’s perspective, however, there is a dialogical relationship between Scripture and Jesus-tradition. This is underlined by his repeated appeal in this section, and only here in the Dialogue, to “the Memoirs of his apostles”, both in the core exegesis (101.3; 102.5; 103.8; 104.1; 105.5; 106.1; 107.1) and in digressions (100.4; 103.6; 105.1, 6; 106.3,4).33 Justin emphasises that these Memoirs are “written”,

29 Signalled by Justin as tå d¢ ékÒlouya/tÚ d¢ ékÒlouyon, terms used only in this section and at 120.5. 30 E. J. Goodspeed, Die ältesten Apologeten. Texte mit kurzen Einleitungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914 [repr. 1984]). 31 See A. J. Bellinzoni, The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr (NovTSup 17. Leiden: Brill, 1967), esp. pp. 118–21 on Dial. 98–106; P. Pilhofer, “Justin und das Petrusevangelium”, ZNW 81 (1990) 60–78 who argues that the “memoirs” to which Justin appealed (see next paragraph) included the Gospel of Peter. 32 So also the Gospel of Peter, a possible source of the rare laxmÒw (“lot”) (but compare John 19:24, lagxãnv). 33 In the present text 106.3 refers to “his [Peter’s] memoirs”, sometimes identified with Mark or with the Gospel of Peter, but the undoubted corruptions in the man-


205

but his failure to appeal to them elsewhere in the Dialogue undermines any suggestion that for him they are an alternative or supplementary written (“scriptural”) authority in polemic against the Jews—and it would be mistaken to assume that all his other references to Jesus tradition are culled from the Memoirs and that his readers would know this.34 In the two sole references to the Memoirs in the Apology they are identified as “Gospels” (ì kale›tai eÈagg°lia) and as read at Christian gatherings as an alternative to the writings of the prophets—among which Justin would have included the Psalms (Apol. 66.3; 67.3). This makes good sense: originating in these gatherings, an exegesis such as that of Psalm 22 would have interpreted and made present the “mysteries” of Scripture (“the prophets”), while also allowing Scripture to explain, and to expand, the perplexities of the traditions about Jesus. For example, the potentially perplexing silence of Jesus before Pilate, recorded in the Memoirs, is explained by Ps 22:16 (“my tongue cleaved to my throat”), and so can be shown to be “according to the will of the father”, while the metaphorical language of the Psalm acquires a particularity and immediacy it would otherwise lack (102.5).35 For an audience who had no other access to either, the two would form a single text, a single story. The Message of Psalm 22 More precisely, Justin identifies his intention as to demonstrate through the Psalm Jesus’s “piety to the father and how he surrendered everything to him, asking even to be saved from this death . . ., the identity of those who opposed him . . ., and that he truly became man susceptible of suffering” (98.1). While it would be out of character for Justin to restrict himself to his stated task, these three themes are well-marked and provide a good illustration of his technique and his concerns.

uscript make possible here a scribal omission of “apostles”. 107.1 falls outside the exegesis strictly speaking but continues the theme of Jesus’s resurrection introduced by 106.1 commenting on Ps 22:23–4. 34 Ctr. C. D. Allert, Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation. Studies in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (VCSup 64. Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 194–220. 35 Justin achieves this by the mediation of Isa 50:4, “The Lord gives me a tongue (gl«ssa) to know when I must say something”.

206

judith m. lieu

Truly susceptible of suffering Elsewhere in the Dialogue, Justin seeks scriptural support for Jesus’s first coming as passible man (payhtÒw) mainly in order to set up a contrast with the anticipation of a second coming in glory, to which the Psalms attest.36 Here, however, the almost credal expression that Jesus “truly became man”, peculiar to this section (élhy«w ênyrvpow g°gonen: 98.1; 99.2; 103.8; cf. Ignatius, Smyrn. 2:1; Trall. 9:1), suggests a different apologetic concern, one opposed to any suggestion that he, “being Son of God did not participate in the things that came upon and happened to him” (103.8).37 Justin’s support for this position comes from the opening verses of the Psalm which “from the beginning spoke in advance” Christ’s own words on the cross (Ps 22:2, “My God, my God . . .”) and his prayer in Gethsemane “on the day on which he was to be crucified” (Ps 22:3, cf. “I cried out to you by day”), both of which he then cites (99.2).38 Similarly, later, since v. 15a, “all my bones . . . are poured out like water”, matches what “is written in the Memoirs . . . his sweat was like drops” (fldrΔw …se‹ yrÒmboi), the rest of the verse “clearly” details the extent of Jesus’ anguish and “trembling of heart” (103.7–8).39 On the other hand, the final phrase of Ps 22:3, “and not to my folly” (ka‹ oÈk efiw ênoian §mo¤), demonstrates that he ( Jesus) was not ignorant of the suffering he would undergo: the ignorance (“folly”) was not his (§mo¤), but rather that of those who thought that he would remain in Hades as an ordinary man (koinÚn ênyrvpon, 99.3)—another christological formula not found elsewhere in Justin.40 In this way any difficulty posed by Jesus’s prayer for release is ameliorated, and the Psalm adds colour to the Passion Narrative, while also carefully negotiating any potential christological pitfalls it might pose.

36 See 34.2; 36.1; 39.7; 41.1; 49.2; 52,1; 68.9; 70.4; 74.1; 76.6; 85.2; 89.2; 110.2; 111.2; 126.1; also Apol. 52.3; see above n. 23. 37 “Participate” is éntelambãneto; cf. 98.1 éntilhptikÚw pay«n; otherwise in Justin compare only 125.5 §n éntilÆcei toË pãyouw. 38 Justin reads prÚw s° with BSA etc. Space prohibits detailed comparison with synoptic wording here; see Bellinzoni, Sayings of Jesus. 39 Justin reads 3 s. “poured out” (§jexÊyh) (1 s. read by BSA and accepted by Rahlfs). Luke 22:44 a* D L Y etc. describes Jesus’s sweat as like “drops of blood” (yrÒmboi a·matow)—Justin’s omission of “of blood”, if he knows it, fits the Psalm more closely. Here “the Memoirs” are “drawn up by his apostles and those who followed (parakolouye›n: cf. Luke 1:3) them”. Ps 22:16 is again referred to Jesus’s silence before Pilate. 40 99.3: Justin understands ênoia in the sense of êgnoia.


207

His piety to the father The theme of submission is pervasive throughout the Psalm, but again the detail addresses particular concerns. Through the words “our fathers hoped in you” (Ps 22:5–6) Jesus acknowledges as his own those who were also “the fathers of the virgin, through whom he became man”, demonstrating that he would be saved by the same God, and that he did not boastfully claim any achievements of his own (101.1). Although only a hint, this may exclude any (“Marcionite”) separation between the Father God of Jesus and the God of the Scriptures, and also rule out any suggestion that Jesus’s crucifixion was the iniquitous act of the latter and that his resurrection was a defeat of the same. Ps 22:10b, “my hope from my mother’s breasts”, points to how Joseph, at God’s command, took Jesus with Mary to Egypt to escape the murderous intent of Herod, and leads to a brief excursus on God’s gift of free will against “anyone who might say to us, ‘Could not God rather have killed Herod?’”; but the verse also indicates that the Father had already determined that the one whom he had begotten would be put to death (102.2).41 The verses of the Psalm, and chapters of exegesis, that follow further trace Jesus’s dependence on God, while reaffirming that all was pre-announced and so “according to the will of God” (102.5; 103.8); but they do not let us forget that he was “only-begotten” to the Father of all— Justin apparently overlooks that his text reads “my only-begotten one” (Ps 22:21b: Dial. 105.1).42 As the Psalm has enriched the tradition, so the tradition (“the Memoirs”) legitimates the Psalm: Justin brings this theme to a triumphant close by capping Ps 22:21–22 with (the Lukan) Jesus’s words on the cross, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (105.5, Luke 23:46); any arguable contradiction with the opening cry of dereliction, omitted by Luke, is overcome. So understood, verses 23–24 of the Psalm—for Justin, as we have seen, its finale—declare Jesus’s trust in God to raise him from the dead, and supply him with the words that bring the apostles (“my brethren”) to repentance 41 As noted above, Justin takes the end of Ps 22:11, “You are my God”, with the beginning of v. 12, “Do not abandon me”; this allows him to take the rest of verse 12 (12ab and 12b) with verses 13–15c, and then to exegete verse 12b after verse 13, thus excluding any suggestion that God fails as “the helper” (103.1–2). 42 Perhaps, although “to the Father of all” is dative not genitive, and Justin does not otherwise use monogenÆw christologically. There is a further appeal to the Memoirs at this point.

208

judith m. lieu

and turn them, and all who fear God, to praise of God.43 As well as its theological utility this theme sounds a pervasive paraenetical note: Jesus’s own words of submission on the cross, confirming those supplied by the Psalm (vv. 20–22), offer a model to be imitated in the struggle to be righteous, not least when close to death (105.5); similarly, earlier, if Jesus so relied on God, the only source of salvation, how much more should sinful mortals (102.6: Ps 22:11bb–12aa)? The identity of those who opposed him Justin’s exegesis of “those who rose up against him” is predictable and is partly supplied by the influence the Psalm had already had on the passion tradition, but the effect is intensified as details from the Psalm become part of Jesus’ story. Ps 22:8–9, the mockery of on-lookers, is fulfilled by the very traditions that these verses have already shaped (Matt 27:39–43//), but these are in turn further embroidered from the Psalm as “they pursed their lips and snorted through their nostrils” (101.3).44 Perhaps acknowledging his creativity, Justin only attributes to the Memoirs their actual words, although he gives these in a form that differs from all the synoptics, and the inter-textual influence between text form and earlier sources is particularly intractable (101.3).45 Tradition also dictated, as we have seen, the initial interpretation of Ps 22:17c–19, although here that aspect of these verses is passed over with a brief cross-reference to what “I said before”—rendering it uncertain whether the extended exegesis in its earlier form had recognised the significance of “they dug” (104). Instead Justin is more interested in the subjects of verse 17, “many dogs have surrounded me, a gathering of evildoers have encompassed me”: they, as the implied subjects of the following

43

See above, p. 202. Moving from §jemukt∞risan (they derided) to its root, mujvt∞rew (nostrils). 45 At 101.3 Justin omits svsãtv aÈtÒn (Ps 22:9ba, included in the continuous text at 98.3; compare Ps 22:6ab, above n. 19). Although Marcovich, Dialogus, p. 244, and Skarsaune, Proof from Prophecy, p. 79 supply the missing words, they are also omitted at Apol. 38.6 and in the quasi-quotation at Matt 27:43 (“He trusted in God, let him rescue now, if he wants him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God’”). The mockery Justin attributes to the Memoirs, “He called himself Son of God, let him come down and walk; let God save him”, echoes Matt 27:40, 43, but in the Synoptics the mockery is that Jesus should save himself (cf. Apol. 38.6, 8 on Ps 22:9a, above n. 16). However, as already noted, the necessity of, like Christ, hoping on God, through whom alone one can be saved (cf. Ps 22:6, 9), dominates Justin’s subsequent exegesis even of verses 11–12. 44


209

clauses, “they dug my hands and my feet, they counted my bones”,46 are responsible for Jesus’ conviction and for his death. Here interpretation requires only the addition of the article, producing “the synagogue [gathering] of the evil-doers” (≤ sunagvgØ t«n ponhreuom°nvn): for Justin the Jews are the primary actors in Jesus’ death, and “the synagogue” can be used antithetically of them.47 The Psalm offers a literal pre-announcement, and “dogs” (kÊnew) can become a metonymy of hunters (kunhgeiw = dog-leaders), and so migrate into the story to provide the vocabulary for their action against Jesus: “those who hunted him and gathered together striving to secure his condemnation”.48 Adopting a similar strategy towards Ps 22:7b, “a thing to be set at naught of people” (7bb) when repeated becomes “of the people” (§jouy°nhma [toË] laoË), and is then explained as “because he was set at naught by your people” (ÍpÚ toË laoË Ím«n) (101.2)—again the verb (“set at naught”) has migrated from Psalm to narrative.49 To underline the point, Justin next reverts to the parallel first phrase (7ba), “a reproach of men” (ˆneidow ényr≈pvn),50 and, exploiting the more neutral ênyrvpoi, treats it as an antithesis: “reproach for us, the men who believe in him”. While this means that he ignores (if he is aware of ) the tradition in Matt 27:44//Mark 15:32 where those crucified with him reproached (»ne¤dizon) him, it enables him to indulge in one of his favourite exegetical and polemical ploys in the Dialogue, namely finding scriptural warrant for setting “you” over against “us”. Justin’s most elaborate detection of Jesus’ opponents emerges as he exegetes Ps 22:13–14 (103.1–4). “The heifers”, which he glosses as “likely to gore and ready to destroy”,51 represent “those of your

46 As at 97.3; 98.4, Justin reads the 3 pl. §jhr¤ymhsan against the 1 s. of the MT and printed editions of the LXX. 47 See J. M. Lieu, “The Synagogue and the Separation of the Christians”, in B. Olsson & M. Zetterholm (eds.), The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins until 200 C.E. (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2003), pp. 189–207, pp. 190–3. 48 sunÆxyhsan (cf. sunagvgÆ) echoes Matt 26:57; Justin appeals to the Memoirs as evidence. 49 Justin’s quotation of the verse does not have the article but his argument supplies its presence. Justin does not interpret v. 7a, “I am a worm”, a phrase which later encouraged traditions of Jesus being trampled on (Morrow, Passion Iconography, pp. 62–3). 50 Reading the plural with S against the singular of B and A. 51 Marcovich, Dialogus, p. 246 sees an allusion to Exod 21:29 where keratistÆw

210

judith m. lieu

people” who “encircled” Jesus on the Mt of Olives; “the fat bulls”— again ignoring the poetic parallelism—acted similarly, but, as parents responsible for their offspring, are those who sent them and to whom Jesus was brought: although these are initially identified as “the Pharisees and scribes”, Justin prefers, here as elsewhere, to proceed to label them “your teachers”, creating a natural elision between the past and those whom he blames for present opposition to the Christians.52 The ravening lion of Ps 22:14b is Herod, whom Justin labels as “the then King of the Jews” and wrongly identifies as the son of Archelaus and grandson of the Herod who murdered the children, of whom Justin had spoken in the previous chapter. However, although, as Justin knows (103.4), it was Pilate who sent Jesus to Herod (as in Luke’s Gospel), he has no counterpart in the Psalm and so slips out of the exegesis, playing no further role. The progressive blaming of the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus, and the effectual veiling of Pilate, is becoming embedded within and legitimated by the interpretation of Scripture.53 Similarly, the context implies that “those who crucified him . . . [who] divided his clothes for themselves” are not the (Roman) soldiers but the Jews (104.2; so explicitly Apol. 38.7). Indeed, it is as if Justin takes his cue from the contrast he twice emphasises between Jesus’ divinely ordained and scripturally foretold silence before Pilate (Ps 22:15, see above), and the vigour of his refutation of “the Pharisees and scribes and all the teachers in your people” (102.5; 103.9), consigning the former to silence while directing all attention to the latter. While in the other two themes discussed Justin addresses theological or christological issues, here it is the connections with his polemic against the Jews in the Dialogue as a whole that are strongest.

is the bull that has gored in the past; pro≈lhw, usually “utterly destroyed”, perhaps means not just “bent on destruction” but “already a destroyer”. There is some disorder in the text here. 52 Cf. 102.5; 137.2 for the association with the Pharisees; 140.2; 142.2 etc. for the choice between “your teachers” and Christ/our teaching. 53 Justin here adds an alternative exegesis of the lion as the devil (cf. 1 Pet 5:8), responsible for the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness (see J. M. Lieu, “Reading Jesus in the Wilderness”, in R. S. Sugirtharajah (ed.), Wilderness. Essays in Honour of Frances Young (London: T. T. Clark, 2005), pp. 88–100). Like the digression in Dial. 100.3–6, this, although more implicitly, presupposes a recapitulation theme. It is difficult to judge whether it would have belonged in a form of the Psalm 22 exegesis prior to the Dialogue, and Justin does not take the opportunity to link the activity of the devil or demons with the persecution by Jews as he does in 131.2.


211

Conclusion We probably cannot rediscover a point at which Psalm 22 was not enmeshed in the telling of the passion of Jesus. Interest may start from what happened to Jesus and how it fulfilled scripture, but it quickly moves beyond this to the identity and the characterisation of the participants in the drama. In Justin this process becomes more transparent, and we begin to trace its consequences as the exercise of reading obscures the difference between text and event, or as the language of one becomes part of the telling of the other, creating a single narrative. The effect of this for the portrayal of Jesus is familiar, possibly already in the Gospels. More ominously, in the case of Jesus’s opponents, their location amongst the enemies of the Psalmist does not allow the necessity of fulfilment to absolve them of responsibility; rather, it ensures that they are no longer contingent historical players but will ever remain part of the mythicised retelling of the story. In turn, the mythical-metaphorical language of the Psalm offers ever-new possibilities of enriching a “historicised” narrative or depiction.54 Justin transmits for his readers the text of Psalm 22, but it is no longer what it was before.55

54

Justin does not exploit the animal imagery of vv. 21–2, as would later narrative and pictorial interpreters, because his Greek perception takes “my soul” (tØn cuxÆn mou) in v. 21 as post-mortem, prompting an excursus on the post-mortem survival of souls, and the danger awaiting them from “any evil angel”. 55 This essay is offered in deep respect and gratitude to Michael Knibb for many conversations which in different ways have wrestled with this problem.

WHOM DOES THE TERM YAÓAD IDENTIFY?1 Sarianna Metso At the heart of the question regarding the social structure and organization of the Essene movement lies the problem of the relationship of three central documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls: the Damascus Document (D), the Community Rule (S), and the Rule of the Congregation (Sa).2 Fairly early in Qumran scholarship, a sort of consensus was formed—no doubt influenced by Josephus’s and Pliny’s reports on the Essenes—that the Community Rule describes the life of the community at Qumran, identified with the ya˙ad, whereas the Damascus Document was addressed to the members of the larger Essene movement living in the ma˙anot, or camps, in towns and villages throughout Palestine. The relationship of the third document, the Rule of the Congregation, to these two, has been perplexing, for its regulations, while seemingly describing a future, messianic time, bear uncanny resemblance to rules for everyday practice included in both the Damascus Document and the Community Rule. To complicate the picture further, a more recently published manuscript, 4Q265,3 “Miscellaneous Rules”, dealing with ordinary legislation, similarly combines features from both the Damascus Document and the Community Rule. Introduction In this paper, I seek to find clarity regarding the identity and organizational structures of the groups behind the Dead Sea Scrolls, and

1 It is with deep gratitude that I offer this contribution in honor of my teacher Michael Knibb who both in his writings and as a mentor has been a model of scholarship for me. 2 Acknowledging that this statement presupposes that these three documents are products of the Essene movement, the following discussion takes place within the broad framework of the Essene hypothesis. It needs to be emphasized, however, that the relationships between these documents and the historical realities behind them are highly complex, as I point out below under “Methodological reservation.” 3 J. Baumgarten, “265. 4QMiscellaneous Rules”, in J. Baumgarten et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. XXV. Halakhic Texts (DJD 35. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), pp. 57–78.

214

sarianna metso

more specifically, regarding the identity of the ya˙ad. The special impetus for this paper was given by John Collins’ recent article “Forms of Community in the Dead Sea Scrolls”.4 Collins deals with the question of how the term ya˙ad should be understood within the context of the Essene movement and the Dead Sea Scrolls and, engaging in discussion with studies indicating significant parallels between the communities described in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hellenistic voluntary associations,5 argues that the term ya˙ad should not be identified with an individual community such as the Qumran settlement, but should be understood as an umbrella term for smaller groups, such as those of ten members referred to in 1QS 6:3. The specific community centered at Qumran, in his view, should be viewed not as the ya˙ad but as an elite group within the ya˙ad—a “‘council of holiness’ who withdrew to the desert to walk in perfection of the way” (cf. 1QS 8:10–14).6 Although the relationship between the Community Rule and the Damascus Document is not at the center of Collins’ discussion, he postulates within the Essene movement yet a third form of community organization, that comprising the ma˙anot described in the Damascus Document. He has elaborated his theory in a forthcoming article.7 To be sure, the type of a characterization of the ya˙ad he suggests is not totally novel; similar ideas with varying details have been presented, e.g., by Hartmut Stegemann, and Eyal Regev.8 4 J. J. Collins, “Forms of Community in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in S. H. Paul et al. (eds.), Emanuel. FS Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 97–111. 5 M. Weinfeld, The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect. A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associations of the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986); M. Klinghardt, “The Manual of Discipline in the Light of Statutes of Hellenistic Associations”, in M. O. Wise et al. (eds.), Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site. Present Realities and Future Prospects (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), pp. 251–270. 6 Collins, “Forms of Community”, p. 107. 7 I want to thank Professor Collins for kindly sending me a copy of his “The Ya˙ad and the Qumran Community”, now published in this volume (pp. 81–96), and for his helpful comments on this paper. 8 H. Stegemann,“The Qumran Essenes—Local Members of the Main Jewish Union in the Late Second Temple Times”, in J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (eds.), The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March 1991 (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1992), I, pp. 83–166; E. Regev, “The Ya˙ad and the Damascus Covenant: Structure, Organization and Relationship”, RQ 21 (2003) 233–262. See also M. Wise, M. Abegg Jr., and E. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls. A New Translation (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), pp. 123–126 and 133–134.

whom does the term ya˙ad identify?

215

Steps To Be Taken At the center of the question as to whether ya˙ad could be an umbrella term for smaller Essene communities, comprising the groups of at least ten members mentioned in 1QS 6:1c–8a, there lie a number of passages dealing with community organization, and more specifically with meetings of the community members.9 In light of Collins’s theory, of particular interest are the passages in 1QS 6:1c–8a and 8:1–13, and their relationship to comparable passages in various rule texts describing community organization. These passages seem interrelated, yet there are clear dissimilarities between them. As I try to sort out the relationships between these passages I will focus especially on the question of how the term ya˙ad should be understood in relation to the groups of ten (esp. in 1QS 6:3 and CD 13:1), the ma˙anot, and the community council mentioned in 1QS 8:1, described as consisting of “twelve men and three priests”.10 For the purpose of clarity, I will contrast the relevant passages, pointing out similarities and differences in vocabulary and paying special attention to the aspects of type and place of meeting, members present, and authority and hierarchy in decision making. I am particularly interested in the relationships between these passages and how they function in their contexts. Methodological Reservation At the outset of this analysis I find it necessary to state a methodological reservation: Since the passages are often thematically very similar, we may suspect that they have undergone redaction in light of each other, perhaps changing the details of the settings from which they originated, and also have undergone reworking in the contexts in which they were inserted. This realization, in my view, sets limits to the extent to which we can approach these passages simply as historically accurate descriptions of actual circumstances within the

9 1QS 6:1–8; CD 12:22–13:7; CD 10:4–10; 1QSa 2:11–22; 1QS 6:8–13; CD 14:3–12; CD 14:12–18;1QS 8:1–12; 4Q265 7:7–10; 4QpIsad frg 1. 10 This council is referred to as “council of holiness” by Collins (“Forms of Community”, p. 107). The word “holy” (çdwq) is not used as an attribute to the council in 1QS 8:1 where the group of twelve men and three priests is mentioned, but the wording çdwqh tx[ occurs later in 8:21. Also, in 1QS 8:11 we read: “they shall be set apart as holy within the council of the men of the community.”

216

sarianna metso

Essene movement. Also, I think it is overly optimistic to expect these passages necessarily to fit nicely in a single coherent system—after all, the community at Qumran alone, and probably also Essene settlements elsewhere in Palestine, of which we have no archeological remains preserved, existed well over one hundred years.11 Moreover, the organizational terms served not only to denote the social structures of the community, but also to give expression to the theological self-understanding of the community. This self-understanding was very idealistic and, as I have argued elsewhere, quite often “sociological clarity was less the goal of the Essene writers than theological impact”.12 A final difficulty is posed by the question regarding the function of documents such as the Community Rule and the Damascus Document. Rather than as manuals or lawbooks that would have authoritatively regulated community life and actively determined judicial cases, these documents may well have served as records of past judicial decisions and archives of community traditions, important for education of members but less so for the decisionmaking in the community, which probably rested more on the oral authority of the rabbim and the community leaders than on written traditions.13 Thus, it is questionable as to what degree these texts would have been up to date at any given moment. Groups of Ten Relevant Passages I will start with passages describing the smallest of the organizational units mentioned in the texts, i.e., the group of ten, and the relationships of these passages to other passages describing community

11 In addition, a number of scholars have carried out extensive analysis to distinguish clues in the textual material pointing to a parent movement behind the communities described in the Dead Sea Scrolls. See e.g., Charlotte Hempel’s overview in “Community Origins in the Damascus Document in the Light of Recent Scholarship”, in D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich (eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 316–329. 12 S. Metso, “Qumran Community Structure and Terminology as Theological Statement”, RQ 20 (2002) 429–444, esp. p. 430. 13 I have elaborated on this in “In Search of the Sitz im Leben of the Community Rule”, Parry and Ulrich, The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 306–315.


217

meetings. A total of four passages in three documents (S, D, Sa) mention the quorum of ten. According to a passage in the Community Rule (1QS 6:1–8), a minimum of ten members, one of which has to be a priest, is required for meetings in places of μhyrwgm, usually translated as “their dwelling-places” (1QS 6:2).14 In the Damascus Document, the same requirement of a quorum of ten that includes one priest is applied to the meetings that take place in twnjmh, ‘the camps’ (CD 12:22–13:7).15 In a second passage in the Damascus Document, “the judges of the congregation” shall be ten in number, “four from the tribe of Levi and Aaron, and six from Israel” (CD 10:4–10).16 In the Rule of the Congregation, the procedure governing the messianic banquet is applied to every meal in which “at least ten men are gathered together” (1QSa 2:22).17 Thus, the quorum of ten is mentioned in several parts of the rule corpus, and it is natural to ask, in what relationship these passages stand to each other: Are at least some of them describing identical community meetings, or was the quorum of ten applicable to various settings?

14 In 4QS material, fragmentary parallels for 1QS 6:1–8 are preserved in 4QSd II (frg. 1a ii) 6–10 (par. 1QS 6:1–7); 4QSg frgs. 2a–c lines 2–5 (par. 1QS 6:2–5); 4QSi lines 1–5 (par. 1QS 6:1–4), see P. S. Alexander and G. Vermes, Qumran Cave 4. XIX. Serekh ha-Ya˙ad and Two Related Texts (DJD 26. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), pp. 98–102, 176–177, and 199–200. 15 Fragmentary parallels are preserved in 4QDa frg. 9 ii (only a few letters extant from par. CD 13:4–5); 4QDb frg. 9 iv, 1–3 (par. CD 13:5–7); 4QDf frg. 5 ii, 20–21 (only a few letters extant from par. CD 13:5–6). 16 Fragmentary parallels are preserved in 4QDa frg. 8 iii, 4–9 (par. CD 10:4–10); 4QDe frg. 6 iv, 15–19 (par. CD 10:4–10). The mention of ten judges is particularly interesting, for the majority of judicial bodies mentioned in the Scrolls reflect the duodecimal system, see J. M. Baumgarten, “The Duodecimal Courts of Qumran, Revelation, and the Sanhedrin”, JBL 95 (1976) 59–78 and idem, “Judicial Procedures”, in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols. New York: Oxford University, 2000), I, pp. 455–460. Noting that ten is the quorum for judges in CD 10:4–6 as well as for community members in 1QS 6:3–4, Baumgarten (“Judicial Procedures”, p. 456) writes: “The passage [CD 10:4–10] does not define the nature of the cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the court of ten. It has been suggested that the quorum may be derived from the ten elders in Ruth 4.2, although [they] were apparently convened on an ad hoc basis. According to the Rule of the Community (1QS vi.3–4) ten was also the minimum quorum for a functioning unit of the sect, including deliberations ‘for their counsel on any matter’.” 17 Material parallel to 1QSa 2:17–22 is also preserved, although extremely fragmentarily, in the cryptic 4QSEf,g,h, see S. Pfann, “Cryptic Texts”, in P. S. Alexander et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXVI (DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), pp. 562, 568 and 571.

218

sarianna metso 1QS 6:1–8 An Interpolation in the Context of the Serek?

Many commentators have pointed out that in the context of the Community Rule, the passage mentioning the group of ten in 1QS 6:1c–8a is unusual in its setting and thus may be an interpolation.18 Five points support this view: First, nowhere else in the Serek is a group of ten mentioned. Secondly, the term μyrwgm occurs in this passage, though it occurs nowhere else in the Community Rule.19 Thirdly, in this passage the term “priest” (ˆhwk çya) is used in the singular; elsewhere in the Community Rule, the word is always in the plural, and it seems that the presence of a multitude of priests is presumed in any given situation. A fourth feature that sets this passage apart is a minute one, but potentially very significant: only here is the preposition before the term “council of the community” ˆm “from”: “In every place where there are ten men from the council of the community” (djyh tx[m); elsewhere in the Serek, one gets the impression that when the members gather, they are in the council of the community.20 Fifthly, according to this passage, any priest was permitted to function as head of community deliberations, whereas elsewhere in S (in the community assembly described in 1QS 6:8b–13a) procedural authority rested with the “mebaqqer at the head of the rabbim” (μybrh l[ rqbmh çyah).21 Thus, an argument can be made that the passage may have originated in a different setting, described that which happened somewhere else than in the community behind the

18 A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning. Introduction, Translation and Commentary (New Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966), p. 180; M. A. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 bc to ad 200, 2. Cambridge: CUP, 1987), p. 115; S. Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 115–116 and 134–135; C. Hempel, “Interpretative Authority in the Community Rule Tradition”, DSD 10 (2003) 59–80, esp. pp. 67–68. 19 Etymologically, this term is derived from the root rwg meaning “to dwell as a client”, and in the Hebrew Bible, it often has the connotation of exiles (see e.g. Gen 17:8; Exod 6:4; Ezek 20:38). This connotation may well have affected the word choice of the Essene writer, but most commentators have translated the term here neutrally as a “dwelling” or “a place of sojourn”. 20 The ˆm in1QS 8:21–23 is of no relevance here, for the sentence belongs to a penal code and speaks about excluding a member from the community: “Every man of them who transgresses a word from the law of Moses presumptuously or negligently shall be sent away from the council of the community (djyh tx[m) and shall never return.” 21 Nonetheless, in both 1QS 6:1–8 and 6:8–13 priests had hierarchical precedence in the seating order.


219

Serek, and then may have been secondarily borrowed and inserted into the Serek. 1QS 6:1–8 Literarily Distinguishable or Not? Collins, while analyzing this passage, points out that the entire Serek “is composed of small literary units that were combined”, and argues that “the passage in 1QS 6 is no more distinct literarily than other pericopes in the Rule”. He continues: “Neither can it be said that the regulations in 1QS 5–9, or in the Serek as a whole, mirror the circumstances of a larger Essene settlement rather than those of the small local communities of towns and villages.”22 Putting aside for a moment the question of the social setting of the Serek as a whole, I must respectfully disagree regarding the literary character of 1QS 6. Though it is true that the Serek is a composite document and includes passages that differ both in vocabulary and in genre, the organizational terminology in sections regulating community life in 1QS 5–7—if 6:1c–8a is removed—seems to be envisioning a relatively consistent community structure and hierarchy and a sizeable community. Quite apart from the questions of either the function of this passage in the Serek, or the social setting of the passage, the fact that at least five features of this passage find no parallel elsewhere in the document is significant in my view, and do distinguish this passage literarily from the rest of the community regulations listed in the Serek. Do Other Mss from Cave 4 Indicate Whether 1QS 6:1–8 is an Interpolation? Already in the early stages of the analysis of the Community Rule it was suggested that 1QS 6:1c–8a forms an interpolation. The last sentence of the passage referring to the rabbim can be seen as a resumptive clause created by the redactor to tie the material together with what went before, and also as a bridge to the rules for the session of the rabbim (1QS 8:8b–13a) that follow.23 A counterargument

22

Collins, “The Ya˙ad and the Qumran Community”, pp. 87–8. The rabbim are mentioned in 1QS 6:1a at the end of the rule for reproof. With the sentence in 6:7b–8a (“And the rabbim shall watch together for a third of all the nights of the year to read the book, to study the law, and to pray together”) the editor also linked the passage in 6:1b–7a to the rules for the session of the rabbim (1QS 8:8b–13a) that follow. 23

220

sarianna metso

might be that the passage is also included in 4QSd, which generally has preserved a more original version of the Serek than 1QS.24 The fact that no manuscript evidence of a form of the Serek is preserved that would not include this passage is seen as problematical by Collins and as undermining the idea of insertion.25 In my view, there is methodologically no problem in relying on internal textual clues in the absence of manuscript evidence, nor in presuming that the passage in question was inserted into the composition at a very early stage. There is no reason to presume that 4QSd would have preserved the very Urtext of the Serek. A considerable amount of analysis in our field of scholarly study is based on the assumption that it is possible to detect literary seams and redactional layers in texts using the standard criteria of literary-critical study. Thus, though the Serek is a composite work, 6:1–8 seems to be an interpolation literarily distinguishable from the rest of the Serek. If 1QS 6:1–8 is an Interpolation, what was the Rationale for its Inclusion in S? One can look for a reason for the passage’s inclusion in the Community Rule from its context. Immediately following 1QS 6:1c–8a are the rules for the session of the rabbim (μybrh bçwml ˚rsh), i.e. for the general assembly of the community (1QS 6:8b–13a). A number of lexical similarities between the passages can be detected: Both sections use the word ˆwkt in denoting the rank of members, and ordinal numbers (tynçb, hnwçrl) occur in both passages designating the order of the members (6:5; 6:8). Both sections use wh[r ta çya (6:2; 6:10) to regulate how the members should behave toward each other; and both use the same syntactical pattern to regulate decision-making: rbd lwkl μtx[l wlaçy ˆkw (6:4)/rça rbdw hx[ lwklw fpçml wlaçy ˆkw μybrl hyhy (6:9). The council of the community, djyh tx[, is

24 4QSd II (frg. 1a ii) 6–10 (par. 1QS 6:1–7). The passage is preserved only fragmentarily, and its end appears to have been shorter in 4QSd. The view that 4QSb,d have overall preserved a more original version of the text than 1QS is supported by studies by, e.g., J. T. Milik, “Numérotation des feuilles des rouleaux dans le scriptorium de Qumran (Planches X et XI)”, Sem 27 (1977) 75–81, esp. p. 78; G. Vermes, “Preliminary Remarks on Unpublished Fragments of the Community Rule from Qumran Cave 4”, JJS 42 (1991) 250–255, esp. p. 255; Metso, Textual Development, esp. pp. 74–90. This view has also been accepted by Collins, “The Ya˙ad and the Qumran Community”, p. 87. 25 Collins, “The Ya˙ad and the Qumran Community”, pp. 87–8.


221

mentioned in both passages (6:3; 6:10), but there is a clear difference in the contexts in which the term is used: the participants of the meetings in the places of μyrwgm are from the council of the community (djyh tx[m), while the participants in the session of the rabbim appear to be in the council of the community, for according to 1QS 6:10, this is the body to whom each member in the session “offers his knowledge”. Thus, regarding the relationship between these two passages and their social settings, a lot rests on the interpretation one gives to the term μyrwgm, and the significance one attaches to the preposition ˆm preceding djyh tx[ in 1QS 6:3. Following A. R. C. Leaney and M. A. Knibb,26 it would seem logical to suggest that 1QS 6:1c–7a and 1QS 6:8b–13a describe communities of two different scales: whereas the latter passage, the rule for the session of the rabbim taking place in the council of the community, describes circumstances of a large Essene settlement, such as that at Qumran, the former passage, the rule for the places of μyrwgm, describes meetings in smaller Essene settlements, perhaps in towns and villages of Palestine.27 Before delving into the different possibilities for the function of 1QS 6:1–8 in the context of the Community Rule, an important parallel in D needs to be discussed.

26

See note 18 above. While discussing the social setting of 1QS 6:1–8 in relation to its surrounding material, and especially to 1QS 6:8–13, Collins (“The Ya˙ad and the Qumran Community”, p. 86) argues that 6:8–13 “. . . refers to an assembly rather than a community. It may refer to people who live apart but come together to discuss communal matters, in the manner of ‘the assembly of all the camps’ in the Damascus Document . . . it gives no indication of the location. Such an assembly may have taken place at Qumran, but this is never specified in the Scrolls.” Admittedly, there is nothing in the text of 1QS 6:8–13 that explicitly excludes the idea that people living apart come together to discuss communal matters, but neither is there anything in the text that would require this interpretation. The passage could equally well be interpreted as a regular community meeting taking place in a permanent large Essene settlement. Collins is right, of course, that the description of the session of the rabbim in 1QS 6:8–13 gives no indication of the location, but the fact that the membership present is said to consist of the priests, the elders, and the rest of the people does indicate that the locale in question is large, certainly something other than a place of μyrwgm, in which availability of a single priest might have been a matter for concern. 27

222

sarianna metso Groups of Ten in The Context of The Damascus Document

The Damascus Document provides “a rule for those who live in camps” (CD 12:22–13:7), and a quorum of ten is required there, too. A verbal parallel involving the use of the word μwqm can be detected: hrç[ μwqmbw (CD 13:2)/μyçna hrç[ μç hyhy rça μwqm lwkbw (1QS 6:3). As in 1QS 6:1–8, the presence of a priest is required, but a special requirement for the priest is stated in CD 13:2: He has to be knowledgeable of the book of HAGU. If the priest does not fulfill this requirement, a qualified Levite, or the Overseer can take the place of the priest in certain deliberations. Hempel notes about this passage in the Damascus Document: “It seems unlikely that all of these authority figures mentioned here operated simultaneously in any real community. Rather, the material on the authority structure in the camp appears to have undergone development perhaps reflecting changes in the actual authority structure of a community.” In her view, the absence of priestly and levite figures in the passages that immediately follow (CD 13:7–14:18) indicate “that at some point in the development of the Laws the figure of the overseer seems to have become the dominant authority in the camp”.28 Groups of Ten: A Common Source Behind 1QS 6:1–8 and CD 12:22–13:7? Might 1QS 6:1–8 have originated in a setting more like D than S? As we further compare the passage of the Serek mentioning the quorum of ten (1QS 6:1–8) with the similar passage in CD 12:22–13:7, it can be asked whether the “man who studies the law” in 1QS 6:6 should be identified with the overseer in CD 13:5–6 who is capable of instruction “in the matters of law”, or whether he should be identified with the “priest knowledgeable in the book of HAGU” mentioned earlier in CD 13:2. To be sure, it is not entirely clear whether the “man who studies the law” in 1QS 6:6 is even one and the same with the priest mentioned only two lines earlier in the same passage (1QS 6:4). Thus, although it does not seem possible to obtain full clarity regarding the identity of the officials, there do exist ter-

28 C. Hempel, The Damascus Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), p. 40.


223

minological affinities between the two passages, 1QS 6:1–8 and CD 12:22–13:7, which suggest that 1QS 6:1–8 may have originated in the same circles as CD 12:22–13:7, and that it was brought into the composition of the Serek from a source different from the sources for surrounding material in 1QS 5–7.29 Groups of Ten: The Function of 1QS 6:1–8 in the Composition of the Community Rule As we now turn to the question of the function of 1QS 6:1–8 in the Community Rule, we shall see that there is no consensus regarding the interpretation of this passage; at least five different views have been presented in the most recent literature alone. (1) Charotte Hempel in her article of 2003 discusses this passage, focusing on the question of the interpretative authority in the Community Rule tradition. She sees in this passage a three-stage development, at the heart of which is 1QS 6:1c–3a that “gives the impression of going back to the earliest and simplest beginnings of communal life, if it can be called that, where small numbers of individuals congregated together to eat, pray, and take counsel together”. In her view, two passages both mentioning the ten were then added: 6:3b–6a “elaborates on the taking counsel (tx[ laç [nif 'al]) and eating ( lka) aspect by giving the priest a central role and offering more elaborate guidelines;” 6:6b–8a “elaborates on the prayer (˚rb) aspect and adds a strong emphasis on the study of the Scriptures.” Hempel’s idea that 1QS 6:1c–8a “contains some rather early and organizationally primitive material”30 is worth considering, although I am not quite sure about the presence of multiple redactional layers in the passage. I am hesitant to separate the statements about eating, praying, and taking counsel into different layers, since in the light of the analogy of the Hellenistic communal meals pointed out by Klinghardt and Collins, it is unlikely that eating, praying, and taking counsel should be understood as three activities separate from

29

Commenting on 1QS 6:3 and CD 12:23–13:2, C. Hempel (The Laws of the Damascus Document [STDJ 29. Leiden: Brill, 1998]) writes: “The most likely explanation for this overlap between 1QS 6,3 and CD 12,23–13,2 is the preservation of communal legislation drawn from the traditions of the parent movement of the Qumran community in both cases” (p. 111). 30 Hempel, “Interpretative Authority”, p. 67.

224

sarianna metso

each other and something to be commented upon separately, but rather as elements of a single meeting to be discussed as a unit.31 (2) Eyal Regev takes 1QS 6:1–8 as a description of a “council of the ya˙ad”, which he describes as “a local community within the ya˙ad organization.” He interprets 1QS 6:1–8 as a regulation that “applies to several very small and scattered communities of at least ten members”, and sees the ya˙ad as a group composed of such small communities.32 While one can easily agree with Regev that 1QS 6:1–8 describes communities of a small scale, the problem of Regev’s argument is that the ten men in 1QS 6 are not said to form a council of the community, but they are from the council of the community. In other words, the ten do not constitute the council but are only a part of it; the preposition used in the text is ˆm. Moreover, as many scholars have pointed out, in several parts of the Community Rule, djyh tx[ is spoken of with reference to the totality of the members of the community (1QS 3:2; 5:7; 6:10,13,16; 7:2,22–24), pointing rather in the direction that djyh tx[ should be identified with djyh, not a small group within it.33 Admittedly, an exception is found in 1QS 8:1 where the council of the community is said to consist of twelve men and three priests (I will discuss this passage below), but even there djyh tx[ is not identified with a quorum of ten members. (3) John Collins takes 1QS 6 as an integral part of the Rule and concurs with Regev in that 1QS 6 attests to smaller groups within the ya˙ad. The ya˙ad, in his view, should be understood as an “umbrella organization of these smaller groups”.34 Collins does not agree, however, with another view of Regev that these small groups would have formed “councils” of the community; in Collins’s view, the term djyh tx[ is synonymous with djyh. While I agree with Collins that a small group of ten should not be identified with djyh tx[, I view the role of 1QS 6 within the composition of the Rule differently. As argued above, the passage is unique in the composition of the 31 M. Klinghardt, Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft (Tübingen: Francke, 1996), pp. 229–230; Collins, “Forms of Community”, p. 103. 32 Regev, “The Ya˙ad and the Damascus Covenant”, pp. 235–236. 33 Especially, 1QS 5:7–20 and 6:13–23 dealing with the admission of new members seem to use the term djyh tx[ synonymously with djyh (see esp. 5:7, and cf. 6:13 with 6:18 and 23). The identification of djyh tx[ with djyh in 1QS 5–7 is also accepted by Hempel (“Interpretative Authority,” p. 75) and Collins, “The Ya˙ad and the Qumran Community”, pp. 88–89. 34 Collins, “Forms of Community”, p. 104.


225

Rule, and may well form an interpolation that in its outlook originated in a community closer to a ma˙aneh described in D than to a ya˙ad described in S. Collins, however, sees the groups of ten described in S as distinct from the ma˙anot described in D, envisioning two Essene orders, both of which lived in small communities throughout Palestine, but differed from each other with regard to ownership of property and probably also marital status.35 In the light of this theory, the large community living at Qumran, and the material in the Rule that seems to presume the presence of large membership at any given moment, requires an explanation. (I will return to Collins’s discussion of this question shortly.) (4) I have raised the possibility that the reason for including the interpolation of 1QS 6:1–8 in the composition of the Serek was to provide a rule of conduct for the members of the ya˙ad (i.e. members from the council of the community, djyh tx[m) while they were visiting areas outside large Essene settlements such as the one at Qumran, and would have been in contact with Essenes living in towns and villages and lodging in settlements small enough that gathering the quorum of ten would have been an issue.36 With the unusual term μyrwgm, derived from the root rwg, “to dwell as a client,” the writer may have wanted to communicate that for ya˙ad members, these were temporary lodges, not permanent ones. The idea of temporariness can be seen as further strengthened by the writer’s use of the words wh[r ta çya axmnh lwk “whoever encounters another” (1QS 6:2), right after after the word μhyrwgm. This choice of words may have been influenced by Judges 17:7–8 that describes a Levite travelling from his former place, Bethlehem, “to live wherever he could find a place” (axmy rçab rwgl). In the light of the reports by Pliny and Josephus, this kind of scenario is not unthinkable. Pliny locates a major Essene settlement near the Dead Sea, “remarkable beyond all the other tribes of the world, as it has no women and has renounced sexual desire, has no money, and has only palm-trees for company”.37 Josephus, on the

35

Ibid. S. Metso, Textual Development, p. 135. 37 Pliny, Nat. Hist. V.15 §73. A convenient brief summary of the relationship of this passage to its parallels in the writings of Synesius, Philo and Josephus is available in D. W. Palmer, “Pliny the Elder”, in C. A. Evans and S. J. Porter (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 36

226

sarianna metso

other hand, describes the life of Essenes living in towns of Palestine and spares no words describing their hospitality: They have no one city, but settle in large numbers in every town. On the arrival of any of the sect from elsewhere, all the resources of the community are put at their disposal, just as if they were their own; and they enter the houses of men whom they have never seen before as though they were their most intimate friends. Consequently, they carry nothing whatever with them on their journeys, except arms as a protection against brigands. In every city there is one of the order expressly appointed to attend to strangers, who provides them with raiment and other necessaries.38

T. S. Beall has noted a connection with this passage of Josephus and the statement in CD 14:13–15, according to which a two-day wage of each month is to be given to the overseer and the judges, to provide for the poor and needy and other afflicted persons in the community ( lhqh). Beall writes: “While not specifically mentioning visiting Essenes, this passage does indicate that officials of the community were assigned the task of providing for the welfare of certain needy groups.”39 A problem with this interpretation of 1QS 6:1–8 is that when understood literally, the members of the group of ten referred to in 1QS 6:3 are all said to belong to the council of the community, i.e. the ya˙ad.40 There is no mention of members of ma˙anot being present although, as argued above, the group described in 1QS 6:1–8 is very similar to the description of ma˙anot in CD 12:22–13:7. Thus, we should envision a group of ten ya˙ad members travelling together or, alternatively, individual ya˙ad members getting together while encountering each other on a journey.41 On the basis of the simipp. 807–808. See also G. Vermes and M. D. Goodman, The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989). 38 Josephus, J. W. II.8.4 [124–125]. Translation by T. S. Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (SNTSMS 58. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1988), p. 15. 39 Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes, p. 50. 40 I would like to thank Jutta Jokiranta for pointing this out to me and for her many perceptive comments on my paper. 41 A third less likely possibility is, though there is no archeological evidence, that there were Essene communities in different parts of Palestine that required of its members an equally high degree of purity and separation as described in the Community Rule, thus multiple ya˙ad communities. According to this hypothesis, 1QS 6:3 could describe a few members from one ya˙ad community travelling and visiting another ya˙ad community.


227

larity with the ma˙aneh communities described in D, it is tempting to think that the places for such encounters would have been ma˙aneh communities in towns and villages of Palestine, but the text does not explicitly state that. (5) In light of these similarities between S, D, and the ancient historians, F. M. Cross’s analysis of 1QS 6:1–8 in relation to CD 12:22–13:3 is highly interesting. He writes: “It is possible, but not probable, I think, that more than one community could have been termed the yá˙ad. In the Damascus Document, for example, the term yá˙ad seems to be used only of the old community, the ‘Community’ of the founder [see dyjy in CD 20:1, 14, 32], while the term ‘camp’ is regularly used of the various settlements, the units of the inclusive 'èdàh, ‘congregation’.” He elaborates on this point: “The standard quorum of ten applies to the ‘camp’, CD 12.22–13.3. In 1QS 6.2–8 one may recognize in prescriptions for a quorum of ten, etc., provision for more than a single yá˙ad. I think that in fact, however, in the development of Essenism, the term ma˙ânèh replaced yá˙ad for all but the desert settlement.”42 Thus, like Hempel, Cross reckons with the possibility that 1QS 6:1–8 would have preserved an early piece of community legislation, and he finds community development as the explaining factor for the anomaly of a group of ten being associated with “the council of the ya˙ad ” instead of the “ma˙anot”. In sum, the short passage in 1QS 6:1–8 poses a dilemma that interpreters have tried to solve basically in two ways. Either 1QS 6:1–8 is integral to the Community Rule and the ya˙ad consisted of small communities, analogous but not identical to the ma˙anot, thus postulating two Essene orders each of which lived in towns and villages throughout Palestine (Regev and Collins). Or 1QS 6:1–8 is an interpolation in 1QS that originated in early stages of the Essene movement in circles that organizationally seem to have been quite similar to the ma˙aneh communities described in D (Cross, Hempel, and Metso). Since the Serek has preserved material mirroring various stages of community development, the passage in 1QS 6:1–8 may derive from an earlier stage in the Essene movement, have been incorporated into 1QS as a time-honored set of directives, and thus

42 F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), p. 71.

228

sarianna metso

not mirror the same circumstances as the surrounding material in 1QS 5–7. The Community Rule in general seems to envision an Essene settlement considerably larger and more isolated than the ma˙anot described in D.43 Different Types of Essenes Scholars are in agreement that the Essene movement consisted of differently organized groups. Traditionally, largely on the basis of Josephus’s and Pliny’s reports, they have reckoned with only two different orders in the Essene movement.44 Collins, however, pro-

43 In addition to the discrepancies noted above, the passages related to the rabbim in S and D highlight the differences in social structure in the communities behind S and D. According to the Serek, the session of the rabbim (μybrh bçwm; 1QS 6:8–13) is associated with the council of the community (djyh tx[), while in the Damascus Document, the regulations for the rabbim (μybrh ˚rs; CD 14:12–18) are included in the rule for the session of all the camps (twnjmh lk bçwm ˚rs; CD 14:3–18). The vocabulary of these two passages points in the direction of a different social outlook: First, in the session of the rabbim taking place in the council of the ya˙ad (1QS 6:8–13), the membership is divided into the three categories of priests, elders, and the rest of all the people, while in the session of all the camps described in the Damascus Document, the members are divided into the four categories of the priests, Levites, Israelites, and the proselytes, and it is explicitly said that this is the order in which they can be addressed in the meeting of the rabbim. Secondly, according to CD 14:12–18, the rabbim are to take care of the business of the entire association (rbjh/rbjh tyb), including “their wounded . . . the poor and needy, and the [sickly] elder, the man with a skin-disease, whoever is taken captive by a foreign nation, the girl without a near kinsman, the boy without an advocate”. In contrast, in the Community Rule, there is no mention of proselytes or the Israelites, nor the kind of indigent groups listed in CD 14:14–16, including the youth and especially the females. Thirdly and importantly, the term ma˙aneh is used nowhere in the Community Rule, and conversely, the term ya˙ad is not used of the community in the Damascus Document (though manuscript B uses dyjyh in CD 20:1,14 and 32 as a possible alternate for djyh). These three points indicate that these two groups—the rabbim in the council of community described in S, and the rabbim in the session of all the camps described in D—would not have been identical. (Regev [“The Yahad and the Damascus Covenant”, p. 260] too concludes that “the rabbim in D are quite different from the rabbim in S!” [emphasis his].) Considering the exclusive makeup of the community behind the session of the rabbim described in S, I would argue that a permanent large Essene settlement would be a more likely setting than towns and villages throughout Palestine for the session of the rabbim described in S. 44 The umbrella term for the totality of all Essene communities, i.e., the designation that the members of the Essene movement themselves used, may not be extant in the rule texts but preserved only in the pesharim. J. VanderKam (“Identity and History of the Community”, P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam [eds.], The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment [2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998], II, pp. 487–533, esp. pp. 490–97) suggests that behind the name Essene lies the


229

poses that within the Essene movement, there were three “different forms of community: the camps of married people attested in CD, the ‘cell groups’ of ten or more that we find in the Community Rule without reference to women and children, and the elite ‘council of holiness’ who withdrew to the desert to walk in perfection of the way”.45 We have already discussed the first two groups. The idea of an elite group within the ya˙ad remains to be discussed. The Desert Community: An Elite Group within the Ya˙ad? Collins compares the desert community (at Qumran?) to an elite group within the ya˙ad, a “‘council of holiness’ who withdrew to the desert to walk in perfection of the way”.46 He bases this view on his interpretation of the material in 1QS 8: 1QS 8:1, “In the council of the community (there shall be) twelve men and three priests,” can be read in either of two ways. The twelve men and three priests can be taken to constitute the council of the community. This again can be understood in either of two ways. Either they constitute an elite council within the community or they constitute the original core of the movement (if the council is simply the ya˙ad itself ). . . . But it is also possible to take the verse to mean that the twelve men and three priests are a special sub-group within the council of the ya˙ad (= the ya˙ad itself ). This is in fact how they are understood in 1QS 8:10–11: “When these have been established in the fundamental principles of the community for two years in perfection of way, they shall be set apart as holy within the council of the men of the community.” They are not, then, a council in the sense of an administrative or executive body. Rather, they are an elite group set aside for special training.47

The Question of the Textual Evidence for the Elite Community The idea of an elite group within the council of the community (tx[ djyh, which Collins identifies with djyh itself ), however, is problematical in the light of a similar passage following a little later. In

form ˆyç[ (ˆy—reflecting the Aramaic ending), found for example in Pesher Habakkuk in the phrase hrwth yçw[, “in contexts where it certainly appears to be a self-designation” (p. 496) (1QpHab 7:10–12; 8:1–3; 12:4–5). 45 Collins, “Forms of Community”, p. 107. 46 Collins, “Forms of Community”, p. 107, and “The Ya˙ad and the Qumran Community”, p. 91. 47 Collins, “The Ya˙ad and the Qumran Community”, p. 90 emphasis mine.

230

sarianna metso

1QS 9:5–6 we read: “At that time the men of the community (yçna djyh) shall separate themselves (wlydby) as a holy house for Aaron, that they may be united (djyhl) as a holy of holies, and as a house of community for Israel ( larçyl djy tyb), as those who walk in perfection (μymtb μyklwhh).” First, the ones described as ‘holy of holies’ are the men of the community, not a special group within the community. Throughout the Serek, this term, djyh yçna, is used of the general membership of the ya˙ad. Secondly, the expression djy tyb, used as an equivalent to the men of the community, likely refers to the entire ya˙ad (see 1QS 5:6). Thirdly, in several parts of the Serek it is stated that walking in perfection is expected of all members of the ya˙ad,48 not only of some that would form an elite within the ya˙ad. Thus, the language of “perfection” or “holiness” does not seem to be indicative of a special status within the ya˙ad, but a quality required of the entire ya˙ad. Moreover, the statement in 1QS 8:10–11 regarding “two years” after which members would be “set apart as holy”, is more natually understood as a reference to the period of two years of probation that is required of all new community members (cf. 6:13–23), as Knibb suggests,49 rather than as a reference to an elite group within the ya˙ad. Different Interpretations of 1QS 8 Granted, the interpretation of the material in 1QS 8–9 is very difficult. One view, the idea that the material constitutes an early manifesto, a foundational programme for a community about to be established has dominated the discussion,50 but in the light of the evidence provided by 4QSe and 4QSd, the issue gets very complicated indeed. A major portion of the text of 1QS 8–9, namely 1QS 8:15b–9:11, including 1QS 9:5–6, is not found in 4QSe, and as I have argued elsewhere, it forms a secondary insertion in 1QS.51 In 4QSd the passage is included, but the important words djyh yçna are not part of

48

1QS 1:8; 2:2; 3:9; 8:9, 10, 18, 20, 21; 9:2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 19. Knibb, The Qumran Community, p. 133. 50 This idea was originally introduced by E. F. Sutcliffe, “The First Fifteen Members of the Qumran Community. A Note on 1QS 8:1 ff.”, JSS 4 (1959) 134–138. It was subsequently adopted by, e.g., Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, pp. 112, 115, 211; J. Murphy-O’Connor, “La genèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté”, RB 76 (1969) 528–549, esp. p. 529; and Knibb, The Qumran Community, p. 129. 51 S. Metso, “The Primary Results of the Reconstruction of 4QSe”, JJS 44 (1993) 303–308. 49


231

the text.52 In the context of 4QSe, the material parallel to1QS 8:1–15a seems to have formed an introduction for the passages addressed to the Maskil, comparable to the introductions at the beginning of 1QS 1 and 5, rather than part of a manifesto. But regardless of whether 1QS 8–9 was a manifesto or a passage for the Maskil, that does not yet solve the question as to whom the mention of twelve men and three priests in 1QS 8:1 refers. The Evidence of 4QpIsad and 4Q265 In 1QS, the linking of the group of twelve men and three priests with djyh tx[ occurs only in 1QS 8:1. Elsewhere in the Serek, tx[ djyh is spoken of with reference to all full members of the community (1QS 3:2; 5:7; 6:10,13,16; 7:2,22–24). The pesher 4QpIsad provides an important parallel to 1QS 8:1, for in its interpretation of Isa 54:11–12 it speaks of “the priests and the people” as those who founded (or: will found) the council of the community” (wdsy ≥≥≥μ][hw μynhwk[h] djyh tx[ ta), and it refers to ‘the congregation of his chosen one’ or ‘his chosen ones’ (wryjb td[),53 i.e. the congregation chosen by God. In the same fragmentary context, the numeral twelve ( ]rç[ μynç) is preserved as a part of the interpretation, as well as a reference to the heads of the tribes of Israel (larçy yfbç yçar).54 In the light of these verbal parallels, Milik’s insight that the number fifteen in 1QS 8:1 was used symbolically to create a link with the twelve tribes of Israel and three priestly families appears correct.55 The language of the whole passage in 1QS 8 is strongly theological,

52 That is, the words had not been in the text, they are not just not extant, see 4QSd VII:6/1QS 9:5–6. 53 The diphthong wy—has probably contracted in the suffix, as frequently happens in Qumran Hebrew, see E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986), p. 59. 54 Moreover, the verb wdsy in the pesher is from the same root dsy “to found” or “establish” as the noun dwsy in 1QS 8:10 designating the foundation of the community (djyh dwsy), and the construct infinitive dwsyl in 1QS 9:3: “When these exist in Israel in accordance with all these rules in order to establish the spirit of holiness in eternal truth, . . .”. The phrase wryjb td[ can be compared to ˆwxr yryj{y}b, “the ones chosen by the will (of God)” in 1QS 8:6. But compared to the Serek, the use of the term hd[ in the phrase wryjb td[ in the pesher catches attention, for in the Serek it is used only once (1QS 5:20), whereas in the Rule of the Congregation (1QSa) it is used as the standard designation for the addressee group. 55 J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (ET J. Strugnell. SBT 26. London: SCM, 1959), p. 100.

232

sarianna metso

and throughout the Serek almost all of the organizational terminology is derived from the ancient Hebrew Scriptures, used theologically to make the point that the present community is now the elect of God. Read in the context of 4QpIsad and the occurrences of the term djyh tx[ elsewhere in the Serek, it seems likely that the group of fifteen symbolized the twelve tribes of Israel and the three priestly families, i.e. the entire community of the elect of God, and was now used to represent the entire ya˙ad as the current elect of God. Thus, the group of fifteen functioned as a symbolic and theological reference for the entire community rather than as a reference of an elite group within it. The recently published 4Q265 also holds an important parallel for the text in 1QS 8, in a section (frg. 7 lines 7–10) that has major overlaps with 1QS 8:1–8. Both passages start with the formulaic twyhb and speak of a group of fifteen men in the community council (djyh tx[b). In 1QS, the group of fifteen is said to consist of twelve men and three priests (hçwlç μynhwkw çya rç[ μynç). 4Q265, although the text is fragmentary at this point, appears only to state the number fifteen without distinction of roles. Both passages state that the council of community is “established in truth” (tx[h hnwkn tmab djyh) and that the members of the council are “chosen by the will of God” (ˆwxr yryjb). Both passages compare the council to the “aroma of a pleasing fragrance” (jwjyn jyr) and state that the purpose of the council is to “bring atonement to the land” (rpkl d[b ≈rah/l[) and that there will be an end to “injustice” (hlw[). Obviously, there is a literary dependency, direct or indirect, between these passages. The context in which this passage appears in 4Q265 is quite surprising: It is preceded by rules for the sabbath (cf. CD 10:14–11:18), and followed by rules for childbirth (paraphrasing Lev 12:2–5). In this context, Collins’ interpretation of 1QS 8:1–13 is problematic as a description of “people who withdraw to the wilderness” and who were “already members of the ya˙ad and were selected and commissioned deliberately to go to the wilderness to live a more holy life than was possible elsewhere” (p. 91 above). In the context of 4Q265, the group of fifteen appears rather tied together with the larger populus, not separated from it.56 Admittedly, in the light of

56

The material in 4Q265 is very heterogeneous, however, and does not appear


233

4Q265 my earlier attempts at interpreting the same passage turn out to be likewise problematic. The group of fifteen remains an enigma. Considering also the leadership roles of mebaqqer, paqid and maskil, and the Zadokites, the rabbim, and the men of reputation mentioned in 1QSa, it is difficult to see how all these leaders could have functioned as administrators of the Essene movement without a bureaucratic nightmare or some serious clashes of egos. It certainly raises the question as to what degree these passages describing organizational units can be taken as representative of actual life and activity among the Essenes at any single given time and place, and to what degree they should be viewed as literary works that during their transmission processes took lives of their own and were often separated from their original mooring. These texts, while perhaps not totally disconnected from real circumstances, served to present an ideal for the community as the elect of God in continuation with the biblical past. Conclusion The relationship between the central documents describing Essene community organization and practices remains a problem difficult to solve neatly. Our attempts at sorting out this problem are hampered by the fact that these texts incorporate material originating in different time periods and social circles, and have often undergone redaction, limiting the extent to which passages can be interpreted as historically accurate descriptions at any given moment. Theological selfunderstanding affected the way organizational terminology was used in Essene communities, both linking the community with the biblical past and setting an ideal for the present and future. Thus, it is unlikely we will find a single coherent organizational system in these texts. The focus of this paper has been the question of how the term ya˙ad should be understood in relation to the groups of ten mentioned in 1QS 6:3, the ma˙anot of at least ten members mentioned

originally to have belonged together. Baumgarten (Qumran Cave 4. XXV ) designates the council mentioned in 4Q265 as an “Eschatological Communal Council” (p. 58) apparently on the basis of frg. 7 line 10: “the periods of iniquity will come to an end by judgment”. In light of the similar statement in 1QS 8:10, an eschatological interpretation is not required.

234

sarianna metso

in CD 13:1, and the community council mentioned in 1QS 8:1, described as consisting of “twelve men and three priests”. Scholars have tended to think that the Community Rule describes the life of the community at Qumran, identified with the ya˙ad, whereas the Damascus Document was addressed to the members of the larger Essene movement living in the ma˙anot, or camps, in towns and villages throughout Palestine. In a recent article by Collins, however, it is suggested that there were three “different forms of community: the camps of married people attested in CD, the ‘cell groups’ of ten or more that we find in the Community Rule without reference to women and children, and the elite ‘council of holiness’ who withdrew to the desert to walk in perfection of the way.”57 The question as to whether the community termed the ya˙ad designated a large Essene group such as the one at Qumran, or consisted of numerous small cell groups, rests on how the short passage in 1QS 6:1–8 is interpreted. Two main ways have been suggested: (1) If 1QS 6:1–8 is integral to the Community Rule, then the ya˙ad can be seen as consisting of small communities, analogous but not identical to the ma˙anot (Regev and Collins). (2) If 1QS 6:1–8 is an interpolation that was incorporated into S as an earlier, time-honored set of directives, it may not mirror the same circumstances as the surrounding material in 1QS 5–7 that envisions a large Essene settlement, such as the one at Qumran (Cross, Hempel, Metso). The question as to whether the “council of holiness” designated the entire ya˙ad or an elite subgroup within it depends on how the mention of twelve men and three priests in 1QS 8 is interpreted. Different possibilities have been suggested here as well: (1a) The twelve plus three are the founding members of the Qumran community (Sutcliffe, Murphy-O’Connor, Knibb, Collins), but (1b) at that time the ya˙ad already existed as an umbrella organization and the reference in 1QS 8:10–11 that they would be “set apart as holy” after “two years” signifies the elite status of the fifteen, as they were set aside for special training within the ya˙ad (Collins). (2) The fifteen is a theological designation for the entire ya˙ad community (Metso), claiming that the fifteen represented the twelve tribes of Israel and the three priestly families (Milik), and thus the entire ya˙ad community is the elect of God (Metso). The reference to “two years” is

57

Collins, “Forms of Community”, p. 107.


235

more naturally understood as a reference to the two-year probationary period (cf. 6:13–23) required of all members as they joined the community (Knibb, Metso). The recent articles by Collins, Hempel and Regev are most welcome contributions for sparking sharper discussion of these issues and will surely invite further studies. Close source-critical and literarycritical analysis of multiple texts can further our knowledge about the history and sociological outlook of the Essene movement as we try to bridge the gap between historical reality and the literary representations of that reality.

SPEAKING WITH THE VOICE OF GOD: THE HIGH COURT ACCORDING TO GREEK DEUTERONOMY 17:8–131 Sarah J. K. Pearce In Greek-writing Judaism of the later Second Temple Period, when writers like Philo and Josephus wrote of a supreme judicial tribunal for Jews as having been mandated by Moses,2 they did so substantially through their representation of Scripture and, in particular, of a version of Deut 17:8–13 which deals with something like a high court. Almost the sole interest of these writers in their discussions is the special nature of this court and, in their very different ways, they stress that this is a court characterised by its special relationship to the knowledge of God’s commands and its unique ability to represent the authority of God. This interpretative approach to the law does not, to my knowledge, appear in non-Greek Jewish sources in antiquity, but, as I will argue in this paper, the Greek translation of the Pentateuch, and of Deuteronomy in particular, may represent the beginning of our evidence for that tradition. Greek Deuteronomy represents the high court in the following terms:3

1 It is a very great pleasure to dedicate this brief study to Professor Michael Knibb, a great scholar and teacher, and a very kind and supportive first employer. I am also very grateful to a number of other people for their advice and helpful criticisms with regard to the preparation of this paper, in particular to my colleagues in the AHRB Parkes Centre Greek Bible project, Professor Tessa Rajak, Dr Jennifer Dines and Dr James Aitken, and to Dr Robert Murray SJ and Professor Anneli Aejmelaus. Earlier versions of this paper were read at the Society for Old Testament Studies (Birmingham, 2001, under the presidency of Professor Michael Goulder), and the IOSCS section at the Society of Biblical Literature (Toronto, 2002): I acknowledge with gratitude the helpful responses from the participants in these events. 2 Philo, De Specialibus Legibus IV.188–192; Josephus, A.J. IV.218 on which S. J. K. Pearce, “Josephus as Interpreter of Biblical Law: The Representation of the High Court of Deut. 17.8–12 according to Josephus, Antiquities 4.218”, JJS 46 (1995) 30–42. 3 The text reproduced here is from J. W. Wevers (ed.) (with the help of U. Quast), Deuteronomium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977).

238

sarah j. k. pearce 8 ÉEån d¢ édunatÆs˙ épÚ soË =∞ma4 §n kr¤sei énå m°son aÂma a·matow ka‹ énå m°son kr¤siw kr¤sevw ka‹ énå m°son èfØ èf∞w ka‹ énå m°son éntilog¤a éntilog¤aw, =Æmata kr¤sevw §n ta›w pÒles¤n sou, ka‹ énaståw énabÆs˙ efiw tÚn tÒpon, ñ ên §kl°jhtai kÊriow ı yeÒw sou §piklhy∞nai tÚ ˆnoma aÈtoË §ke›, 9 ka‹ §leÊs˙ prÚw toÁw flere›w toÁw Leu¤taw ka‹ prÚw tÚn kritÆn, ˜w ên g°nhtai §n ta›w ≤m°raiw §ke¤naiw, ka‹ §kzhtÆsantew énaggeloËs¤n soi tØn kr¤sin. 10 ka‹ poiÆseiw katå tÚ =∞ma, ˜ ên énagge¤lvs¤n soi §k toË tÒpou, oÏ ên §kl°jhtai kÊriow Ù yeÒw sou §piklhy∞nai tÚ ˆnoma aÈtoË §ke›, ka‹ fulãj˙ sfÒdra poi∞sai katå pãnta, ˜sa ên nomoyethyª soi: 11 katå tÚn nÒmon ka‹ katå tØn kr¤sin, ¥n ên e‡pvs¤n soi, poiÆseiw, oÈk §kkline›w épÚ toË =Æmatow, o ên énagge¤lvs¤n soi, dejiå oÈd¢ éristerã. 12 ka‹ ı ênyrvpow, ˜w ên poiÆs˙ §n Íperhfan¤& toË mØ ÍpakoËsai toË fler°vw toË paresthkÒtow leitourge›n §p‹ t“ ÙnÒmati kur¤ou toË yeoË sou μ toË kritoË, ˜w ên ¬ §n ta›w ≤m°raiw §ke¤naiw, ka‹ époyane›tai ı ênyrvpow §ke›now, ka‹ §jare›w tÚn ponhrÚn §j ÉIsraÆl: 13 ka‹ pçw ı laÚw ékoËsaw fobhyÆsetai ka‹ oÈk ésebÆsei ¶ti.

The following translation aims to provide as close a rendering as possible of the idiom of the Greek: (8) And if a matter of judgment is impossible for you between blood and blood, and between judgment and judgment, and between stroke and stroke, and between controversy and controversy, words of judgment in your cities, when you have arisen you shall go up to the place, whichever the Lord your God will choose that his name be called upon there. (9) And you shall go to the Levitical priests and to the judge, whoever he may be in those days, and when they have searched they shall declare the judgment to you. (10) And you shall do according to the word, whatever they may declare to you from the place, whichever the Lord your God will choose for his name to be called on there, and you shall observe very carefully to do according to everything, whatever may be ordained by law for you. (11) According to the law and according to the judgment, whatsoever they may say to you, you shall do; you shall not turn from the word, whatever (it is that) they declare to you, to the right or to the left. (12) And the person, whoever acts in arrogance in not heeding the priest standing to officiate in the name of the Lord your God, or the judge, whoever

4 Both the context and the textual support show that tÚ =∞ma is original, see J. W. Wevers, The Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), p. 134. The alternative reading in B, tÚ prçgma, is interesting, however, for its exegetical implications: prçgma is less ambiguous than =∞ma (a word or a thing), referring more decisively to a concrete thing, and not to a word. A similar direction in interpretation is reflected in the variant prostçgma “the command” (found only in the “n” group including the fifth-century uncial W1).

speaking with the voice of god

239

he may be in those days, then that person shall be put to death, and you shall remove the evil-doer from Israel. (13) And when all the people have heard this, they shall be afraid and no longer act impiously.5

In many respects, Greek Deuteronomy 17:8–13 is characteristically close to its MT equivalent. In sentence structure and the choice of translation equivalents, the translator seems to have aimed at the close replication of a text like MT Deuteronomy. This literalism, which is often at the expense of regular Greek idiom and syntax, suggests the high value which the translator attributed to the close reproduction of the source text, and is typical of the legal sections of Greek Deuteronomy.6 In other cases, it is hard to tell whether differences from MT are due to alternative text traditions or to the translator. In any case, literalism is not the ruling principle; idiomatic Greek constructions appear alongside Hebraising translation equivalents.7 Thus, our text is a complex mixture of literal and non-literal translation elements. In comparison with MT, however, the translation is also typical in its tendency, which it shares with other ancient sources like the Temple Scroll, to standardise similar Deuteronomic expressions: the designation of “the place”; the intensification of the command “to be very careful to do”; the repetition of the formula “the judge, whoever he may be in those days”. Furthermore, various aspects of the Greek translation reveal an interpretation of the law of Deut 17:8–13 which stresses two dominant characteristics of this court: first, that it represents the authority of God; and, second, that its primary concern is with judgment, with dealing with the judgments of others, and with producing an authoritative judgment. It is the first of these matters that provides the focus for this paper.

5 The Greek text represents singular verbs agreeing with the subject ı laÒw, i.e. “it shall be afraid . . .” 6 The literal reproduction of prepositions based on the Hebrew model is especially striking. Examples include: épÚ soË imitates Hebrew ˚mm where ˆm is used with verbs to express the comparative; the expression énå m°son followed by a double noun construction; and the phrase §n(kr¤sei) for (fpçm)l (Deut 17:8). 7 On interpretation in Greek Deuteronomy, see the recent studies of A. Aejmelaeus, “Die Septuaginta des Deuteronomiums”, in T. Veijola (ed.), Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), pp. 1–22; and J. W. Wevers, “The LXX Translator of Deuteronomy”, in B. A. Taylor (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organisation for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1997), pp. 57–89.

240

sarah j. k. pearce The court as representative of God’s authority

In its presentation of the membership of the high court as consisting of Levitical priests and the judge, and as represented by the priest and the judge, Greek Deuteronomy agrees with MT. But other details reveal a distinct emphasis which characterises this court as representative of divine authority. The first sign of this emphasis appears in the translation of the opening verse which defines matters for the court, “§ån d¢ édunatÆs˙ épÚ soË =∞ma (If a matter is impossible for you . . .)” (Greek Deut 17:8). The place where such a matter will be judged is, by implication, the sphere where what is impossible for others to decide can be resolved. The translation also suggests, in my view, that such things are possible here because “the place” is associated with the divine. The key to this interpretation is in the translator’s choice of the verb édunat°v, signifying “to be impossible” or “to be without power”, to render the Hebrew niphal form alpy which appears in the opening statement of the law: §ån d¢ édunatÆs˙ épÚ soË =∞ma (Greek Deut 17:8). This example of a form of alp is unusual in the context of its usage in biblical Hebrew. So far as I am aware, the verb is not otherwise associated with the inability to make decisions in judgment. What is also striking about alp is that the Hebrew Bible associates this verb with divine power as contrasted with human limitations, with things that only God can know or do. Should that connotation also be seen in Deut 17:8–13, where the court judges in the place chosen by God? I believe that the Greek translation represents an interpretation pursuing precisely this sense. As to Greek Deuteronomy, it is striking that this is the only example where this translator associates édunat°v with forms of the verb alp.8 All other forms of alp which appear in MT Deuteronomy have been rendered differently according to their various contexts. So, for example, we have the threat that “the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful” (ka‹ paradojãsei for alphw, Greek Deut 28:59), the Greek agreeing with one common sense of alp; and the statement that “this command is not distant from thee” (Íp°rogkÒw for talpn, Greek

8 Aquila appears not to have been happy with the earlier LXX equivalent which he replaced with forms of yaumastoËsyai “to be regarded as a marvel”, following the fixed equivalence in his translation between forms of alp and yaumastÒw, yaumastoËn, and reflecting the more common Greek Bible equivalent of forms of alp.


241

Deut 30:11). These translation choices seem to have been made with some care for context, which raises the question of what is behind the choice of édunat°v in the present context, all the more so since it is a rare translation equivalent for forms of alp in the Greek Pentateuch. The significance of édunat°v The uses of édunat°v in other parts of the Greek Pentateuch may help to illuminate the question. Here it is clear that, as in classical Greek, the verb can refer simply to human inability.9 This is undoubtedly what is also meant in Greek Deut 17:8: the high court decides on matters which others are unable to judge. However, there is also other evidence, which bears striking similarities with the language of Greek Deut. 17:8, which suggests that more is signified by the choice of édunat°v. Greek Genesis provides the only other example in the Greek Pentateuch where édunat°v replaces alp.10 The link between the passages in question is less surprising, perhaps, when one considers that they share an otherwise unparalleled construction in which rbd is the subject of the construction ˆm alpy, which is reproduced in a literal-type translation in Greek Genesis. There the Lord assures Abraham that the elderly Sarah will conceive a son by posing the question, mØ édunate› parå t“ ye“ =∞ma, “Is anything impossible for the Lord?” (Greek Gen 18:14, cf. MT, rbd hwhym alpyh). The question, which expects the answer “no”, affirms the power of God who can make Sarah, “old and well stricken with age”, conceive a child. It is reasonable to suppose, given the evidence for the priority of the Greek translation of Genesis,11 that the translator of Deuteronomy chose édunat°v on the basis of this passage. There édunat°v functions rhetorically to express the sense that God’s power knows no bounds. Divine power is also the focus in other statements in the Hebrew

9

See, for example, Herodotus, Hist. V.9; Greek Leviticus 25:35. The equivalence is also found in LXX Zach 8:6 and reflected in Prov 24:53 (30:18). All other examples of the verb édunat°v in the Greek Bible are unique equivalents or additional by comparison with the Hebrew of MT. 11 The dominant assumption in modern scholarship is that Genesis was the first book of the Greek Bible corpus to be translated. 10

242

sarah j. k. pearce

Bible which employ forms of alp.12 In addition, God’s power is expressed several times in the Greek Bible corpus by negative expressions of édunat°v. These examples are important because, in each, we have either a unique translation equivalent or an addition in comparison with MT. This evidence indicates, I suggest, the existence of a Jewish-Greek interpretative tradition, beginning in the Greek Pentateuch, which represents God’s power in expressions employing the verb édunat°v.13 What then are the implications for the appearance of édunat°v in Greek Deut 17:8? In that verse, the verb is used to define matters of judgment as impossible for those who are outside “the place” and which must be brought to “the place” for judgment. By implication, such things are not impossible for the court which is in “the place”. That court, like the power of God, embodies a power which is the opposite of what édunat°v—which is associated with those outside the court—expresses. Read in the context of the Pentateuch as a whole, this is surely a hint that this court represents the authority of God. This interpretation builds on the relationship of the high court with the divine which is articulated in other ways in Greek Deuteronomy. In the first place, a connection may be seen in the court’s location. According to MT, this is “the place which the Lord will choose” (MT Deut 17:8, 10). Greek Deuteronomy adds to this that it will be chosen by God that his name may be called upon there. Pious developments of Deuteronomic language about “the place” are common in later Second Temple period writings, and reflect developments in thinking about God’s presence in the Temple. The formulation in Greek Deut 17:8, 10 is distinctive of this translation and of the Greek Bible corpus in general. It often appears where the MT equivalent states that “the place” is “where God will make His name dwell”,14 and, indeed, this formulation may have been in the

12

For example, Ps 118:23; Job 37:14. LXX Job 10:13; 42:2; 2 Chr 14:10; Wis 12:9. Theod. Daniel 4:9 represents Daniel-Belteshazzar, from whom the king requests an interpretation of his vision, as ˘n §gΔ ¶gnvn ˜ti pneËma yeoË ëgion §n so‹ ka‹ pçn mustÆrion oÈk édunate› se. This usage represents a semantic neologism: édunat°v is associated only with human subjects in classical Greek, as observed by C. Dogniez and M. Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie. Le Deutéronome (Paris: Éd. du Cerf, 1992), p. 223. 14 Deut 12:5; 12:26; 14:23–24; 16:2, 6, 11, 15; 26:2. 13


243

translator’s source text.15 The Greek expresses a preference for a more abstract conception of God’s presence in his name, as that which can be called upon, without any implication that God has a material presence.16 Secondly, we are told in Greek Deuteronomy that the court’s priestly representative officiates in the Lord’s name: “toË fler°vw toË paresthkÒtow leitourge›n §p‹ t“ ÙnÒmati kur¤ou toË yeoË soË (the priest who stands to serve in the name of the Lord your God)” (Greek Deut 17:12). The translation appears to be based on the reading hwhy μvb trvl, “to serve in the name of the Lord”, as in MT Deut 18:5, 7. In contrast, MT Deut. 17:12 reads hwhy ta μv trvl (“to serve the Lord there”), an expression which does not occur anywhere else in classical Hebrew sources. The Greek translator, as John Wevers has suggested, probably intended to harmonise our passage with the formulae in Deut 18:5–7 (hwhy μvb trvl).17 In a third connection, Greek Deuteronomy may also allude to the relationship of the court to the divine in the language employed to represent disobedience to the court. In Greek Deuteronomy, the man is condemned whose arrogance consists of not heeding (mØ ÍpakoËsai) the court’s representatives (Deut 17:12). Within Greek Deuteronomy, the verb ÍpakoÊv is used more often of obedience (or, negatively, disobedience) towards God than to human subjects.18 Indeed, the same verb is used of obedience and, negatively, disobedience, towards human subjects only here and in the case of the rebellious son who

15 See the Temple Scroll ’s equivalent to Deut 17:10: “the place on which I shall choose to establish my name” (11QT 56:5). No material equivalent to Deut 17:8 survives in 11QT. 16 This is a development of Deuteronomy’s preference for theological language which abstracts the concept of God’s presence. Von Rad observes that the expression “to cause his name to dwell” reflects a new theological idea of the deity, which was meant to combat the belief that the deity actually dwelled in the sanctuary, see further G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (London: SCM, 1953), pp. 38–39. This view is supported by Weinfeld’s comment that “there is not one example in the deuteronomic literature of God’s dwelling in the temple or the building of a house for God. The temple is always the dwelling of his name, and the house is always built for his name”; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972). 17 J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1995), p. 284; cf. Z. Frankel, Über den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Barth, 1851), p. 225. 18 Greek Deut 26:14, 17; 30:2.

244

sarah j. k. pearce

disobeys his parents and is punished, as here, with death.19 The observant reader might well have heard in this verb the sense that the court speaks with an authority akin to that of God, which must be obeyed. Finally, further evidence for the translator’s linking of the court with divine authority is suggested in the closing words of the law. There it is stated that the extermination of the disobedient evil-doer20 will bring an end to impiety among the people: they, the law asserts, “will not be impious again (oÈk ésebÆsei ¶ti)”. The use of éseb°v, in the context of Greek Bible usage, indicates more clearly than do Hebrew parallels that impiety towards God is meant. The Greek refers more precisely to irreverence or impiety than does the Hebrew of MT, which declares that the people “will not act presumptuously again” (dw[ ˆwdyzy alw, MT Deut 17:13).21 The Hebrew dwz usually means, in this kind of context, to act presumptuously or rebelliously. But in the Greek Bible corpus, éseb°v and related words refer more specifically to irreverent behaviour towards the divine or wicked behaviour towards human subjects.22 If the latter sense only is meant here, the Greek would appear to represent little semantic difference from MT. But a sense of impiety towards the divine may also be intended in the light of the use of éseb°v by translators of the biblical books. Within the whole Greek Bible corpus, éseb°v represents Hebrew dwz only twice:23 here and in Greek Deut 18:20 where éseb°v

19

Deut 21:18–21. In Greek Deuteronomy, the disobedient man is also the evil-doer, a translation which personalises the more abstract conception in MT that it is “the evil” which is to be exterminated. This is a characteristic phenomenon of Greek Deuteronomy (see also Greek Deut 13:6; 22:22; 24:7, and the discussion in G. Harder, “ponÆrow”, TDNT VI, pp. 546–66, p. 550), and one that also appears in the targums, thus pointing to a general trend towards personalisation of evil. Some Greek witnesses to Deut 17:13, however, conform with MT in reading “the evil thing (tÚ ponhrÒn)”. 21 The equivalence dwz = éseb°v is not matched in Greek Deut 17:12: there, disobedience is to act “presumptuously (§n Íperhfan¤&)”. Gooding suggests the possible influence of the phrase §n xeir‹ Íperhfan¤aw in Greek Num 15:30, which renders hmr dyb; see further D. W. Gooding, “The Greek Deuteronomy” (PhD. Cambridge University, 1954), pp. 171–72. 22 For example, Greek Exod 23:7; Greek Deut 19:16; 25:1–2. See further G. Foerster, “sÄebomai”, TDNT VII, pp. 168–96, p. 187. 23 parabiãzomai—“to do a thing by force against nature or law”—represents dwz in Greek Deut 1:43, and describes the action taken by those who would not listen (efisakoÊv), “but rebelled against the commandment of the Lord”. 20


245

is to speak a word in the name of God which God has not commanded. Indeed, these are the only places in the Greek Pentateuch where it is clear against whom the impious (ésebÆw) offends. To represent disobedience towards the court as an act of impiety that must be deterred associates this act, through the language of éseb°v, with the impiety against God, which is defined in Greek Deut 18:20–22. Through the language of “impiety”, the translation brings out more clearly the significance of presumptuous action (dwz) against the court in terms of the behaviour of false prophets towards God (Deut 18:20–22). Greek Deuteronomy is the likely influence behind Josephus’ statement in the Contra Apionem about a person who does not obey the decision of the High Priest: anyone who disobeys him will pay the penalty as for impiety (éseb«n) towards God himself (C. Ap. II.194). This notion of the court as in some sense God’s representative is also developed in other ways in Greek Deuteronomy. This is apparent, firstly, in the nature of the court’s verdict. Greek Deuteronomy orders strict obedience to “everything that is laid down as law (nomoyethyª) for you”.24 It is by no means clear that this means what the court teaches, as MT has it (wrwy rva lwkk). The aorist tense and passive form of the Greek contrast with the future active “they will teach” of MT. The Greek suggests a different understanding of the sources of the court’s judgment as based on something established in the past and not, as in MT, something which may be produced in the future. But we may go further in looking at the significance of nomoyet°v here. If the Greek Bible is our main guide to the use of language in Greek Deuteronomy, as I believe it should be, then the verb nomoyet°v is a crucial indicator that the translator refers here to God-given, and not human-made, law. In the Greek Bible corpus, this verb appears, as here, for hiphil forms of hry only where its object is an established, God-given instrument of instruction.25 It is never used (in contrast with Greek practice in non-Jewish writings) of human law-giving. Very instructive in this context is the language of Greek Exodus

24 Wevers translates “ordered by law”, in J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Deuteronomy, p. 284. 25 See Greek Exod 24:12; Pss 24(25):8, 12; 26(27):11; 118(119):33, 102, 104.

246

sarah j. k. pearce

which presents the law and the commandment revealed at Sinai as written down by Moses to be “laid down as law for them” (tÚn nÒmon ka‹ tåw §ntolåw ëw ¶graca nomoyet∞sai aÈto›w, Greek Exod 24:12). The connection between this and our deuteronomic passage is especially striking because these are the only two places in the Greek Pentateuch where the verb nomoyet°v appears. For a reader familiar with Greek Exodus, Deuteronomy’s demand to obey what is “laid down as law for you”, in the context of obedience to the court, must surely have suggested the court’s role as the transmitter of the divine law revealed at Sinai. Learned readers were to understand, I suggest, that this court resolves what is impossible for others by means of a divinely revealed law. They were also to understand that this court does not originate law, but transmits the established revelation: what they pass on, according to Greek Deuteronomy, is not, as in MT, what they teach but what they make public (énagge¤lvs¤) (Greek Deut 17:10).26 Furthermore, when the Greek refers in the next verse to “the law (ı nÒmow)” which must be obeyed, it does so without reference to the Hebrew of MT which presents the law as one taught by the members of the court: “wrwy rva hrwth (the teaching which they will teach you)” (MT Deut 17:11). In comparison with MT, the Greek avoids any sense that the court itself makes law. In conclusion, I suggest that there is extensive evidence that the translator’s language was intended to suggest the special relationship between this court and the divine. The high court, like God, can resolve what is impossible for others. Its judgment is associated with what has been set down in divine revelation. It is, as the translation emphasises, the place where the Lord’s name may be called upon and a court whose priestly representative serves in the Lord’s name. The reader is meant to understand that the court is to be obeyed as is the voice of God. The legacy of this translation in antiquity is to be seen above all, I believe, in Philo’s account of the law of Deuteronomy in his Special Laws. There, while preserving virtually

26

This is part of a wider tendency in Greek Deut. to make human authorities proclaim or reveal the law. See Greek Deut 24:8, which refers to “all that the Levitical priests shall proclaim (énagge¤lvsin, cf. MT wrwy—the only example in the Greek Pentateuch where hry = énagg°llv) to you”; and Greek Deut 33:10 which declares that “[the Levites] shall reveal (dhl≈sousi, cf. MT wrwy—the only example in the Greek Pentateuch where hry = dhlÒv) to Israel thy law”.


247

no word of Greek Deuteronomy (as we know it) itself, he focuses entirely on the significance of the court as representing those who engage in the contemplation of the divine realm—the true priests are those who can perceive, where others are blind, the mysteries of the heavenly world.27

27

Philo, Spec. IV.188–192.

SEX AND DEATH, OR, THE DEATH OF SEX: THREE VERSIONS OF JEPHTHAH’S DAUGHTER ( JUDGES 11:29–40) Deborah W. Rooke The biblical story of Jephthah and his daughter is a narrative that has got under people’s skins. It is set in the days when the Israelites are battling against neighbouring tribes to establish themselves in the land, probably somewhere between about 1200 and 1000 bce. Jephthah is a guerilla fighter. He has been expelled from his family-home in Gilead by his so-called brothers because he is the son of a harlot, but he is brought back by them to head their army against the attacks of marauding Ammonites. Jephthah is endowed with the spirit of the Lord in order to undertake his military campaign, and he vows that if the Lord gives him victory over the Ammonites he will sacrifice the first creature that comes out of his house to meet him when he returns from battle. The battle is won, and Jephthah comes home victorious, only to be met by his daughter who is his sole child. He is at a loss, but she calmly accedes to her fate, asking first a two-month stay of execution while she goes to the mountains to “bewail her virginity”. He agrees; she goes and returns two months later; and then he “did with her according to his vow which he had made”. The daughters of Israel are then said to have set up an annual festival in her honour. Two works of scholarship in particular, one very recent and the other somewhat older, illustrate the wide appeal and interest generated by the eleven verses that form the heart of this story. In a recent survey of biblical commentators from the first century ce down to the Reformation, John L. Thompson has traced a long history of commentary on Jephthah’s daughter among both Jewish and Christian exegetes, who wrestle with how to understand the story in the context of their ideas about God.1 On the literary and cultural side,

1 J. L. Thompson, Writing the Wrongs. Women of the Old Testament among Biblical Commentators from Philo through the Reformation (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University, 2001).

250

deborah w. rooke

Wilbur Sypherd lists hundreds of treatments of the story in literature, drama, music and visual art for the period from the sixteenth century down to the 1940s when he compiled his catalogue.2 In modern biblical criticism, too, the story continues to generate considerable interest, not least among feminist critics who highlight the story’s patriarchal agenda and have tended to see the daughter’s actions as either claiming her own personhood and dignity in the face of the inevitable or as buttressing the very system that allows her to be put to death.3 Such a vast array of treatments simply beg to be compared with each other; and so this is what I plan to do here, keeping in mind what might be regarded as the story’s key themes of death and sex. I shall examine the biblical narrative itself and two subsequent literary treatments, one from the sixteenth century and one from the eighteenth. The main issue that will be examined in each case is how the death of Jephthah’s daughter is portrayed.

2 W. O. Sypherd, Jephthah and His Daughter. A Study in Comparative Literature (Newark: University of Delaware, 1948). 3 So, for example, Trible speaks of the daughter’s response as “tak[ing] responsibility for integrity” and “shap[ing] meaning for herself ” (P. Trible, Texts of Terror. Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives [Overtures to Biblical Theology 13. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], pp. 103, 104). Bal comments, “The daughter cannot but submit, but within the limits assigned to her by patriarchy . . . she exploits the possibility left open to her. Using oral history . . . she makes her fellow-virgins feel that solidarity between daughters is a task, an urgent one, that alone can save them from total oblivion” (M. Bal, “Between Altar and Wondering [sic] Rock: Toward a Feminist Philology”, in M. Bal [ed.], Anti-Covenant. Counter Reading Women’s Lives in the Hebrew Bible [Sheffield: Almond, 1989], pp. 211–31 [p. 228]. Fewell and Gunn speak of the daughter “taking control of the vow, turning it from a weapon of victory accidentally causing unavoidable collateral damage to a chilling lesson about recklessness, thoughtlessness, and human worth” (D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, Gender, Power and Promise. The Subject of the Bible’s First Story [Nashville: Abingdon, 1993], p. 127). By contrast, Exum argues that the daughter “participates in the patriarchal system”, and that she “speaks on behalf of the sacrificial system and patriarchal authority, absolving it of responsibility” ( J. C. Exum, “Murder They Wrote: Ideology and the Manipulation of Female Presence in Biblical Narrative”, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 43 [1989] 19–39 [pp. 32, 33]). Fuchs similarly comments, “Although the daughter might know that her life is at stake, she appears to be willing not only to obey her father, but also to justify him”, and concludes, “Literary strategies work here in the interests of patriarchal ideology, the ideology of male supremacy” (E. Fuchs, “Marginalization, Ambiguity, Silencing: The Story of Jephthah’s Daughter”, in A. Brenner [ed.], A Feminist Companion to Judges [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993], pp. 116–30 [pp. 126, 130]).

sex and death, or, the death of sex

251

Jephthah’s daughter in the book of Judges When we read the narrative of Jephthah’s vow and its fateful outcome in the book of Judges, it has to be said that the terse report has a decidedly surreal quality. Many critics have noted that a feature of Old Testament narrative in general is its economy of style, whereby only the main outlines of a narrative are presented and readers are left to make what they will of those outlines. But even so, the mind boggles at just how little is presented here. A man intends to sacrifice his only child as an offering to his God because of a vow that he has sworn and that no one except the deity has witnessed; and yet no one tries to stop him. The characters whose natural reaction should be horror and opposition to the deed—not least the girl’s mother—are missing, and none of those who do appear in the narrative make any attempt to alter the course of events. This bizarre and rather frightening spectacle of acquiescence has the effect of maintaining the focus on Jephthah himself rather than transferring attention to his intended victim. It keeps the story as one about his tragedy rather than one about his daughter’s, because it enables him to be regarded as foolish and unfortunate rather than as callous and brutal. Because no one challenges his intention or questions his vow, he does not have to insist on it or defend it, and so he is not shown as actively seeking to sacrifice his daughter. The fact too that she is given no name but is presented simply as “his daughter” ( Judg 11:34) reinforces the focus upon Jephthah; and when the (nameless) daughters of Israel are said to celebrate a yearly festival in her honor, she is referred to as “the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite” ( Judg 11:40), so that even the festival of women’s mourning for her is pressed into service to memorialize the name of the man who sacrificed her.4 The tragedy, then, is Jephthah’s, rather than his daughter’s. But this raises the question of precisely what the tragedy consists in. It seems to me that when the narrative of his daughter’s sacrifice is

4 Bal, “Between Altar and Wondering [sic] Rock”, argues that even though the daughter is remembered as Bath-Jephthah, it is she and not her father who is “made immemorial” [i.e. memorialized] in this festival (p. 228). Certainly the festival celebrates the daughter, not the father, but the fact still remains that as long as she is remembered as the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, he can enjoy the memorial that has been denied to him through his lack of descendants. See further the discussion below.

252

deborah w. rooke

viewed in the context of his life as a whole, Jephthah’s tragedy appears as one of isolation, anonymity and extinction: he is a man with no past and no future. This isolation is expressed by using the motifs of sex—as embodied in the two women in his life, his harlot mother and his virgin daughter—and death—as exemplified by the sacrifice of his daughter. But in order to understand the basis for such an interpretation, we need to understand the ancient ideas about sex and death. As modern readers, the aspect of Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter that may well strike us is its emotional pathos, arising from the emphasis in the text on the nameless daughter as Jephthah’s only child (11:34—“she alone was his only child; apart from her he had neither son nor daughter”). However, for the biblical audience, the death of an only child would have been more than just a matter of pathos. In the society in which Jephthah’s tale first circulated, death was the end, and there was no life beyond death except by being memorialized in some way, most usually through one’s descendants who by their very existence would maintain the family name and line. As long as Jephthah had offspring who could marry and raise their own children, his existence would continue via the living memorial to him that his descendants would embody. But the childless death of the only child is also the death of the parent, whose prospect of living on through later generations is snuffed out along with the child’s life. However, this is not the only consideration that affects our view of Jephthah’s position. In the ancient Israelite worldview men were regarded as seed-producers and women as fields in which to sow the seeds. Genealogy therefore came to be reckoned exclusively via the male line, and women were the resource by means of which men were able to realize their genealogical aspirations. As such, women passed from the authority of one man to another as they traversed the various stages of their life. This meant that a father would ultimately lose his daughter to the man who married her, and any children that she bore would memorialize her husband’s name, not that of her father.5 So in having a sole daughter

5 This is epitomised in the provisions of so-called levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 24—where a man dies childless, it is the duty of his brother to impregnate his widow in order to raise up children for the dead man and to prevent his name from being wiped out in Israel.


253

as his offspring, Jephthah is already genealogically challenged, so to speak. He is effectively dead to posterity even before his daughter’s death, and as soon as she is introduced as his only child we know that his line is doomed to annihilation whether or not she is sacrificed.6 The sacrifice merely hastens the inevitable and highlights with greater clarity Jephthah’s true situation; the real tragedy for him is not that he has to sacrifice his daughter, but that his only child is a daughter.7 But having a daughter as his only child is the least of the genealogical problems troubling Jephthah. His own paternal descent is overshadowed by his nameless maternal line, causing his fellows to reject him (11:2);8 indeed, his father’s line is so obscure that he is described as having been fathered by Gilead, which is the name of his tribe (11:1).9 After all, no one can really be sure of the paternity of a harlot’s child, not even the woman herself.10 So the effect on Jephthah

6 Note the pun in 11:34 on bêtô (“his house”) and bittô (“his daughter”) which, taking bayit in the dual sense of “household” as well as “dwelling place”, raises and immediately dashes the possibility of Jephthah having sons—“he came to Mizpah to his house(hold); and behold, his daughter . . .” We expect to see a household, but all we see is a daughter, who is his only household. 7 So M. Bal, Death and Dissymmetry. The Politics of Coherence in the Book of Judges (Chicago and London: University of Chicago, 1988), p. 10: “The lack of sons is the tragedy and major impulse of the judges.” 8 A parallel can perhaps be drawn here with the Abraham/Sarah/Hagar episode, where the offspring of the concubine slave-girl is expelled in favour of the offspring of the wife. Bal argues that the designation “harlot” is undeserved, and that the text describes a situation where one of Gilead’s marriages is patrilocal and the other is virilocal; as the son of the patrilocal marriage, Jephthah is being sent back to his mother’s and grandfather’s place of abode by the sons of the virilocal marriage (Death and Dissymmetry, p. 112). The fact that Jephthah’s brothers simply refer to him as the son of “another woman”, so that the term "ishâ is used indiscriminately of both Gilead’s wife and the supposed harlot, implies that there is no difference in the status of the two women (ibid.; so also T. J. Schneider, Judges, [Berit Olam. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2000], p. 163). However, two considerations seem to favour the more traditional interpretation in this context. First, the interpretations to do with virilocal versus patrilocal marriage are founded to a large extent on the question of how to interpret the narrative in Judges 19 about the Levite and his “concubine”, and in particular, how to translate the Hebrew term pîlege“ which is used to describe the woman. However, the text as we have it in Judges 11:1 clearly states that Jephthah is the son of a harlot (zônâ), a word about which there is no such ambiguity; and although it may conceivably be a pejorative gloss on a situation of patrilocal marriage, its effect on the interpretation of the subsequent narrative cannot simply be ignored. Secondly, the confusion between Gilead as place, tribe and progenitor is a warning against taking the narrative too literalistically. 9 Trible, Texts of Terror, p. 94; Schneider, Judges, p. 162. 10 Perhaps, too, making Jephthah the son of a harlot is a way of underscoring

254

deborah w. rooke

of having a harlot mother and a sacrificed virgin daughter is to make him an isolated character who comes from nowhere and who goes nowhere genealogically speaking; his line of descent is compromised because of his mother, and doomed to extinction because of his daughter. This genealogical isolation is mirrored in Jephthah’s social isolation.11 Because of his low birth, he is driven out of the country; and although he is recalled to fight the Ammonites, the subsequent report of his death in the Hebrew text of 12:7 says that he was buried in the cities of Gilead, rather than in any one specific place.12 Even the manner of his daughter’s death reinforces this picture of isolation. She is offered as a burnt offering, which means being slaughtered and then burned to ashes on the altar, so that she is eliminated as completely as if she had never lived. Thus, neither father nor daughter has an identifiable place of burial, the one form of physical memorial that in the absence of descendants might keep their names alive for future generations. In this way, the text maintains to the end the picture of Jephthah as a generic Gileadite who has no identifiable origin and no identifiable destination.13 The daughter’s sacrifice, then, is just one element among several that bespeak Jephthah’s destiny of extinction. But although this might answer the “what” question—what is going on in narrative terms

his mercenary character—like a harlot, he will go where he gets the best profit, regardless of group or kinship loyalty. Indeed, the reaction to Jephthah by the Gileadites can also be likened to the treatment of a harlot—just as the harlot is ostracised socially but tolerated when her services are required, so Jephthah is ostracised by his “brothers” or fellow Gileadites but is tolerated when his services are required. Jephthah is to the Gileadites militarily what the harlot is to them sexually. 11 This point is also made by Exum, “The Tragic Vision and Biblical Narrative: The Case of Jephthah”, in J. C. Exum (ed.), Signs and Wonders. Biblical Texts in Literary Focus (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 59–83 (p. 65). 12 The midrashic commentary Genesis Rabbah 60:3 takes the Hebrew literally and argues that Jephthah died a painful death in which his limbs dropped off as he went round the cities and were buried where they fell. This was his punishment for sacrificing his daughter. 13 Similarly Exum, “The Tragic Vision”, p. 72. F. Landy, “Gilead and the Fatal Word”, in D. Assaf (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem, August 4 –12 1985. Division A: The Period of the Bible ( Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986), pp. 39–44, identifies a slightly different pattern of social and geographical exclusion in the Jephthah narrative. He argues that Jephthah’s descent marks him out as a marginal figure and an outsider, and that both of the places where Jephthah lives, Gilead and Tob, are ambiguous frontier lands in relation to the rest of Israel (pp. 40–41).


255

when Jephthah sacrifices his daughter—it does not answer the “how” question, which is about the ideology that allows a man to sacrifice his daughter with impunity: how is it possible that Jephthah can do this without anyone attempting to stop him? The issue becomes particularly pressing when the narrative of Jephthah’s daughter is compared with the two other OT narratives in which Israelite figures set out to sacrifice their own children. The most well-known is Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:1–19), but there is also the incident in 1 Samuel 14 where king Saul makes an oath which his son Jonathan then unwittingly transgresses, thereby bringing sin on the people and making Jonathan liable for the death penalty. Both Abraham and Saul are prevented from killing their sons. Abraham is prevented by God himself, who at the last moment tells him not to harm the lad and provides a ram as a substitute (Gen 22:12–13), and Saul is prevented by the Israelites, who protest against Saul’s intention and ransom Jonathan so that he is not killed (1 Sam 14:45). Not so for Jephthah’s daughter; as we noted earlier, not a word of protest is raised to prevent her being sacrificed, and she dies by her father’s hand.14 Nor is she the only example in the Old Testament of a virgin daughter who is deemed expendable in a crisis. Although there are no other narratives of daughter sacrifice, in both Genesis 19 and Judges 19 fathers offer their virgin daughters as victims to a hostile mob in order to prevent the mob from molesting the fathers’ male houseguests. All these examples suggest that Jephthah is enabled to sacrifice his daughter by an ideology of expendability that attaches to women in general and virgin daughters in particular.15

14 The Targum of Judges 11:39 is clearly uncomfortable at the apparent ease with which Jephthah sacrifices his daughter, and adds a statement at the end of the verse to the effect that offering children as holocausts was thenceforth forbidden by law. It also states that Jephthah did not consult Phinehas the high priest, but if he had done, Phinehas would have advised him on the possibility of redeeming his daughter with blood (i.e. an animal sacrifice). See D. J. Harrington and A. J. Saldarini (trans.), Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets (The Aramaic Bible, Volume 10. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987), p. 83. 15 On the concept of the expendability of virgin daughters, see G. Lerner, The Creation of Patriarchy (New York and Oxford: Oxford University, 1986), pp. 172–75; A. M. Tapp, “An Ideology of Expendability: Virgin Daughter Sacrifice in Genesis 19.1–11, Judges 11.30–39 and 19.22–26”, in Bal (ed.), Anti-Covenant. Counter-Reading Women’s Lives, pp. 157–74.

256

deborah w. rooke

But this in turn raises the question of why daughters should be expendable. The answer to this question seems to be that sons have functions that are important in the public domain, and therefore to the well being of the nation as a whole, whereas daughters do not. In the first place, as already discussed, sons beget, and so it is they who maintain the identity and lineage of the nation. But in addition to this, sons are governors and warriors, thereby once again maintaining the stability and security of the community. These factors are clearly at work in the narratives of Abraham and Isaac, and Saul and Jonathan. As future progenitor of the nation, Isaac is evidently not expendable, and it is precisely this fact that makes God’s command to sacrifice him such a fearsome test of Abraham’s faith, as well as ultimately ensuring that he is not sacrificed. Jonathan for his part is not expendable because he is a skilled warrior at a time when the country is under attack from the neighboring Philistines, and it is this that makes the people ransom him. “Shall Jonathan die, when he has achieved this great salvation in Israel?” they say (1 Sam 14:45). “Like hell he will!” Jonathan is far too valuable a military asset to be slaughtered on a whim, oath or no oath. But Jephthah’s daughter is not a progenitor of the nation—in fact, she is not a progenitor at all. She can bear, but she cannot beget, and so she cannot maintain the lineage and identity of the nation. Indeed, far from maintaining it, the example of Jephthah’s harlot mother suggests that his daughter (like any daughter) could actually become a threat to the nation’s lineage and identity. Neither does Jephthah’s daughter have any function in the public realms of government or battle; her death will have no detrimental effect on the war effort or the stability of the community, because she contributes to neither. She is needed for nothing; therefore, she is expendable, and so she is sacrificed. In his well-known study Violence and the Sacred, anthropologist René Girard comments on the principles that govern how human victims are selected for sacrifice. Girard argues that in societies where human sacrifice is practiced, the superficially diverse categories of sacrificial victim all consist of those who are perceived as in some way marginal to the sacrificing community. Thus, typical victims include prisoners of war, slaves, children, unmarried adolescents, and the disabled.16

16

R. Girard, La Violence et Le Sacré (Paris: Grasset, 1974), p. 27.


257

When the scenario of Jephthah’s daughter is viewed in the light of this principle, the reason for her expendability becomes clear: from the perspective of the men who are doing the sacrificing—and incidentally, it is always the men who offer sacrifice17—she is completely other. From the perspective of the adult male Israelite sacrificing community, Jonathan son of Saul is a completely unsuitable victim, because as a healthy adult male Israelite, he is a fully integrated and participatory member of the sacrificing class in Israel. To sacrifice him would be the equivalent of self-mutilation for the sacrificing class; it would be to turn the cathartic power of sacrificial violence against the sacrificers themselves, like the body’s immune system attacking the body’s own cells instead of foreign ones. Isaac son of Abraham is more marginal, because he is only a child or at most an unmarried adolescent; but although he is “other” in terms of his age, he is nevertheless a male, which means that he has a link with the adult norm that constitutes the basis of full membership in the society. But the unnamed daughter of Jephthah has neither age nor sex on her side. She still lives with her father, which implies that like Isaac she is at most an unmarried adolescent; and she is a female, which means that she has nothing in common with the adult norm by which full membership in the society is reckoned, nor indeed will she ever have. From the perspective of an adult male, an adolescent female is completely other, and so she can be sacrificed with impunity. This, then, accounts for the “how” of the sacrifice—what makes it possible for a young woman to be sacrificed at all; but not for the “why”, that is, for the rationale behind the vow and the resultant sacrifice. Jephthah’s vow is surely the equivalent of one that would give a portion of the victor’s spoil to the Lord, and in this instance it can be argued that Jephthah’s own people and household are conceived as part of the spoil inasmuch as they are protected from and so in a sense recovered from the Ammonites.18

17 For a discussion of this, see N. Jay, “Sacrifice as Remedy for Being Born of Woman”, in C. W. Atkinson, C. H. Buchanan and M. R. Miles (eds.), Immaculate and Powerful. The Female in Sacred Image and Social Reality, (Boston: Beacon, 1985), pp. 283–309. 18 W. L. Humphreys, “The Story of Jephthah and the Tragic Vision: A Response to J. Cheryl Exum”, Signs and Wonders, pp. 85–96, comments that Jephthah’s vow has no clear link with the conflict, “for example, through dedication of the spoils

258

deborah w. rooke

Hence, in the same way that human conquerors can take unmarried, virgin women as spoil from their defeated enemies (cf. Num 31:17–18), the deity in a fit of anthropomorphism chooses Jephthah’s unmarried, virgin daughter as his share of the spoil. When seen in this light, the sacrifice can be read as a metaphor for sexual union with the deity, especially if, as some scholars argue, the two months that she spends bewailing her virginity on the mountains reflect some kind of pre-marital rite of passage.19 The penetration of the sacrificial knife and the resultant flow of blood becomes the equivalent of first intercourse, and the subsequent burning to ashes ensures the woman’s total commitment to the male who has chosen her. Indeed, metaphorically speaking, whenever a woman has sex for the first time, a virgin dies; but in the case of Jephthah’s daughter, the metaphor and the reality have changed places. For her, it is not a case of sex as metaphorical death, but death as metaphorical sex. In the biblical narrative, then, the death of Jephthah’s daughter is part of the whole pattern of his life, a life that comes from obscurity, is spent in isolation and ends in annihilation. Jephthah has no clear origins because his mother was a harlot, and no hope of establishing his own family line because his only child is a daughter; in this context, the sacrifice of his daughter pitilessly exposes his genealogical vulnerability, and eradicates all physical traces of his offspring, just as at his own death he has no identifiable burial site. However, the daughter’s sacrifice also exposes her vulnerability; her inability to provide Jephthah with descendants, together with her general sec-

of victory or something of that sort” (p. 87). He does not seem to think it a possibility to regard the victor’s preserved household as having anything to do with the conflict. Bal, “Between Altar and Wondering [sic] Rock”, draws a parallel between Jephthah’s daughter and Achsah the daughter of Caleb in Judges 1, who is given by her father as a reward to Othniel for capturing the town of Kiriathsepher; instead of being given to a human husband, Jephthah’s daughter is given to the male deity (p. 213). The difficulty with this is that it seems to imply that Jephthah intends to sacrifice his daughter, whereas viewing the sacrifice as dedication of spoil to the deity allows for the deity to demand the portion of spoil that will be dedicated regardless of Jephthah’s own intentions. 19 For this approach, see B. Gerstein, “A Ritual Processed: A Look at Judges 11:40”, in Anti-Covenant. Counter-Reading Women’s Lives, pp. 175–93 (p. 186); Bal, “Between Altar and Wondering [sic] Rock”, pp. 214–18. P. L. Day, “From the Child is Born the Woman: The Story of Jephthah’s Daughter”, in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), pp. 58–74, sees behind the narrative a ritual celebration of menarche.


259

ondary status as a woman, makes her expendable and therefore sacrificeable in a way that would not be true of a son. Hence, she is available to be given to the deity as spoil, in a ritual of death that both mirrors and replaces sex as her exit from her virgin state. George Buchanan, Jephthes, sive votum As remarked earlier, the story of Jephthah and his daughter has exercised a perennial fascination over the creative and artistic minds of many generations. One of the most significant treatments of the story is that by the sixteenth-century Scottish humanist and intellectual George Buchanan (1506–82), a sometime tutor to Mary Queen of Scots and James VI, who spent much of his adult life in France and Portugal.20 Buchanan transformed the narrative of Jephthah’s daughter into a neo-classical Latin tragedy modeled on two plays of Euripides which both include the sacrifice of a virgin daughter, namely, Iphigenia at Aulis and Hecuba.21 The resulting treatment of the Old Testament narrative is entitled Jephthes sive votum (“Jephthah, or, the vow”), and indeed, over half of it (ll. 495–1330, i.e. 836 out of 1450 lines)22 focuses on the question of whether or not it is right for Jephthah to fulfil his vow at the cost of his daughter’s life. This of course is precisely the debate that is so conspicuously absent from the biblical narrative. But as well as the detailed focus on the vow, there are a number of other significant ways in which Buchanan has adapted the biblical narrative for his play. The first important adaptation is in the prologue, which sets the context of Jephthah’s military exploits. Here, an angel explains that the reason for choosing a man of low birth to deliver the nation is

20 A summary of Buchanan’s biographical details is given by D. M. Abbott in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Vol. 8, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 468–72. 21 For details of Buchanan’s debt to Euripides and other classical authors for Jephthes, see P. G. Walsh, “Buchanan and Classical Drama”, in I. D. McFarlane (ed.), Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Sanctandreani. Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies, St Andrews, 24 August to 1 September 1982 (Medieval and Early Renaissance Texts and Studies 38. Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1986), pp. 99–112. 22 Line numbers and Latin textual quotations are taken from the edition of the text in P. Sharratt and P. G. Walsh (eds.), George Buchanan Tragedies (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic, 1983).

260

deborah w. rooke

so that the people will realise that they owe their deliverance to God, not to their own strength of arms (ll. 41–51). Moreover, the angel continues, in order to ensure that Jephthah himself remains humble, enormous grief will overwhelm him as a result of his vow, in order to shatter his pride (ll. 51–67). Thus, both Jephthah’s low birth and the outcome of his vow are incorporated into the theological scheme that dominates the whole prologue and contextualizes the play: too much experience of God’s goodness breeds complacency, arrogance and apostasy, and so God deliberately inflicts periodic hardship (including war) in order to recall the people to their proper devotions (ll. 15–32). According to this understanding, Jephthah’s questionable origins and sacrificed daughter are not simply expressions of Jephthah’s isolation and ultimate annihilation, but reflect a broader concern on the part of God to engender in both the nation and its heroes an appropriately deferential attitude. The second important adaptation is the way in which Jephthah’s vow is presented. The Hebrew version of the vow in Judges 11:30–31 uses masculine singular forms to refer to the creature or person that comes out of the house to meet Jephthah, which makes it quite legitimate to translate the vow, “Whoever comes out of my house, . . . I will sacrifice him”. This is partly because the Hebrew language has no neuter gender and so no way of saying “whatever” rather than “whoever”; but it could also be because Jephthah envisages a human victim from the start (although presumably not his daughter). Indeed, the vocabulary used to describe the action of coming out of the house to meet Jephthah is more appropriate to humans than to animals;23 and the biblical narrative is inexplicable without the assumption that human sacrifice was acceptable under certain circumstances. So Jephthah’s vow is ambiguous; it is not clear whether he means an animal or a human. But there is no such ambiguity in Buchanan’s play. Unlike Hebrew, Latin does have a neuter gender, and Buchanan uses it in his presentation of the vow. In the prologue, the angel says that Jephthah has promised to make a sacrifice of whatever (quodcumque, l. 58) should first come to meet him.24 Later on, Jephthah

23 D. Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow (Lubbock: Texas Tech University, 1986), pp. 13–14. 24 Contrast the Vulgate of Judges 11:31: “quicumque primus fuerit egressus de foribus domus meae mihique occurrerit revertenti cum pace a filiis Ammon eum holocaustum offeram Domino.”


261

himself reiterates the vow, and promises as a sacrificial victim the first thing (quod primum, l. 484) that meets him from his house. In this way, it is made clear that Jephthah does not envisage a human sacrifice, and so when his daughter comes to meet him the shock is quite devastating. The vow has been offered in good faith, but it has been turned against Jephthah in a way that he never intended.25 Gone is the biblical narrative’s fatalistic acquiescence that springs from an acceptance of human sacrifice in general and virgin daughter sacrifice in particular; now, there is a clear sense that it would be morally wrong to sacrifice the girl. This provides the tension that gives the plot its interest, by setting up a God-inflicted moral dilemma: is it a greater sin to neglect a vow to the Almighty, or to kill one’s daughter in fulfillment of the vow? The resolution of this dilemma forms the heart of the play. Having set up this dilemma by the wording of Jephthah’s vow, Buchanan then makes a third major alteration by means of which the dilemma is explored: drawing on his Euripidean models, he introduces several other characters, all of whom plead with Jephthah not to sacrifice his daughter. Most striking by comparison with the biblical narrative is the introduction of Jephthah’s wife, whom Buchanan names Storge (a Greek word for the affection between parents and children). There is also a friend of Jephthah called Symmachus (meaning “fellow fighter”, and implying a comrade in arms), and a priest whom Jephthah consults for advice over what to do about his vow. Finally, there is a chorus of young women who comment on the action at intervals, thereby both expressing and manipulating the audience’s perception of the course of events. This all transforms the sense of isolation in the biblical narrative into a highly charged, emotional scenario, with Jephthah tormented by the tension between the perceived irrevocability of his vow and his love for his daughter whom everyone else is urging him to spare. The daughter herself is rescued from the shadows of anonymity and given the name Iphis, in a clear allusion to the classical myth of Iphigenia who was doomed to be sacrificed by her father Agamemnon in order to facilitate the success of the Greek army in

25 J. R. C. Martyn, “The Tragedies of Buchanan, Teive and Ferreira”, in Acta Conventus, pp. 85–98, thinks that the angel regards Jephthah’s vow as rash (p. 87), but there is no indication in the text that the vow is seen as rash.

262

deborah w. rooke

their campaign against Troy. Iphis’s characterisation owes more to the Euripidean Iphigenia than to the biblical daughter of Jephthah; although she does ultimately agree to die and relieve her father (ll. 1256–81), an outcome which is in line with the biblical narrative, she does not do so without having first attempted to dissuade him from his plan (ll. 1215–28). In fact, so feisty is she that when Jephthah is overcome at her decision to die and resolves to die himself in her place (ll. 1297–1313), she dismisses the idea and tells him not to weaken her own resolve by his gentle words (ll. 1314–18). In this way, her death is shown as her own choice, that is made in the face of a proffered alternative, rather than as the fatalistic acceptance of patriarchal power by a powerless victim. But when we come to the way in which Iphis’s death and its significance are depicted, we see a fascinating transformation. Physically speaking, Iphis remains a young woman to the end of the play; but once she leaves the stage for the last time having resolved to die, she undergoes a kind of conceptual sex-change. First, she is praised by the chorus for her courage and manly spirit (animi nimium virgo virilis, l. 1333) through which she puts to shame all those men who are afraid to die for their nation (ll. 1331–60). Then the messenger who comes to report her death to Storge speaks of Iphis’s “firmness of heart beyond her sex” (supra . . . sexum pectoris constantiam, l. 1392), and in an echo of the chorus’s words he calls her a “girl of manly spirit” (animi virilis . . . puella, l. 1410). The messenger’s account of the sacrifice also emphasizes Iphis’s amazing bravery and self-control, in contrast to those around her, who are all weeping and trembling— including Jephthah and the priest who is to perform the sacrifice (ll. 1378–92, 1400–04, 1410–34). So in her death, whilst physically remaining a young girl (ll. 1393–99), spiritually speaking Iphis exchanges maidenhood for manhood.26 As if to highlight this conceptual sex change, Buchanan omits all mention of the biblical statement that the girl bewailed her virginity for two months prior to the sacrifice; indeed, once Iphis has made up her mind to die, she urges that the deed be done as soon as possible (ll. 1320–23).27

26 Walsh, “Buchanan and Classical Drama”, p. 109, suggests that Buchanan has in mind at this point Joan of Arc, “another virgin patriot”, who put on her male clothes before being burned at the stake. 27 The telescoped action in comparison with the biblical narrative is probably a result of Buchanan adhering to the classical demand for unity of time, which means


263

Alongside this conceptual sex change, the significance of the sacrifice is altered from its significance in the biblical narrative. There, as argued earlier, the vow was presented implicitly as a dedication of spoil to the victorious deity, so that the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter could be viewed as the equivalent of her sexual union with the deity. Here, however, the sacrifice is described explicitly as atonement for the slaughter of the Ammonites (ll. 1294–6), and as expiation for Israel’s apostasy (ll. 1416–19). So instead of fulfilling her womanhood by being united with the deity in the quasi-sexual rite of sacrifice, Iphis the manly maiden transcends her womanly identity to become a kind of warrior, in that she lays down her life as part of the campaign to secure her country from the Ammonites.28 In this version of events, therefore, death replaces sex instead of becoming a metaphor for it. In the biblical version, then, the narrative shows the death of Jephthah’s daughter as part of his own tragedy of isolation, and the daughter’s sex both determines her sacrificeability and the significance of the sacrifice. In Buchanan’s presentation, Iphis’s sacrifice is part of Jephthah’s tragedy, but it is primarily intended by God to humble him, not to cut off his line of descent. No longer is it acceptable to sacrifice human beings at all, and so in place of the ready acceptance of the demand to sacrifice there is an extended moral debate over whether the sacrifice should be carried out. Finally, there are quite different sexual overtones to the sacrifice; instead of being virgin spoil who is dedicated to God in a rite that substitutes for sex, Iphis transcends her womanly body by means of her manly

that all the action of the play has to take place within the space of a single day (so K. Spronk, “The Daughter of Jephthah: Changing Views on God, Man, and Violence in Plays and Oratorios since George Buchanan”, in J. Bekkenkamp and Y. Sherwood (eds.), Sanctified Aggression. Legacies of Biblical and Post Biblical Vocabularies of Violence [ JSOTSup 400/Bible in the Twenty-First Century Series 3. London and New York: T. & T. Clark 2003], pp. 10–21 [p. 14]). However, the telescoping has the effect of underlining the conceptual sex change, because it removes features that in the biblical account emphasize Iphis’s femininity, namely, her female friends and the bewailing of her virginity. 28 This “conceptual sex change” along with the atoning nature of the sacrifice in Buchanan is extremely interesting in the light of the observation that Jephthah’s daughter is seen in the biblical commentary tradition as a precursor of Christ. See J. H. McGregor, “The Sense of Tragedy in George Buchanan’s Jephthes”, Humanistica Lovaniensia—Journal of Neo-Latin Studies 31 (1982) 120–40 (p. 134). See also note 39 below.

264

deborah w. rooke

spirit, and dies as a warrior on behalf of her country in a sacrifice of atonement. Thomas Morell and the libretto for Handel’s Jephtha As well as stage versions of the Jephthah story, there have also been plenty of musical versions of it. Probably one of the most well known musical versions is Handel’s Jephtha, which was completed in 1751. The libretto for Jephtha was written by Thomas Morell, an Anglican scholar-clergyman with whom Handel had already collaborated several times starting in 1746 when Morell produced the libretto for Handel’s hugely popular oratorio Judas Maccabaeus. In writing the libretto for Jephtha, Morell was clearly dependent upon Buchanan for many of the details in his presentation.29 Like Buchanan, he included a number of characters not present in the biblical narrative, and the characters themselves are very similar to those in Buchanan’s play. Thus, Jephthah’s daughter is named Iphis, and she is given a mother whose name is Storge. As a classical scholar, Morell would have been well aware of the resonances of both these names. A third character that Morell employs is Hamor, Iphis’s fiancé and one of Jephthah’s soldiers. The idea of including Iphis’s fiancé may have been inspired by Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis, where Iphigenia is told that she is to be engaged to the warrior Achilles from her father’s army, in order to get her to come to the Greeks’ camp at Aulis for sacrifice. Finally, Morell replaces Buchanan’s character Symmachus with Zebul, who is Jephthah’s brother, fellowsoldier and confidante. As well as similarities in the characters, there are also similarities of plot between Morell and Buchanan. These are particularly noticeable in Morell’s libretto from the middle of Act 130 to the end of Act 2, which looks like a potted version of Buchanan’s lengthy series of debates over the rights and wrongs of sacrificing Iphis. However, where Morell departs strikingly from both Buchanan and the biblical text is in the way he handles the fulfillment of

29

An English translation of Buchanan’s play by William Tait had been published in 1750. See K. Nott, “‘Heroick Vertue’: Handel and Morell’s Jephtha in the Light of Eighteenth-Century Biblical Commentary and Other Sources”, Music & Letters 77 (1996) 194–208 (p. 196). 30 Specifically, from Act 1 Scene 5, where Storge speaks of the dreams that have terrified her and filled her with foreboding.


265

Jephthah’s vow. The biblical story is one that provoked a good deal of discussion in the eighteenth century on account of its primitive portrayal of an angry and cruel God who was willing to accept the sacrifice of children,31 and by the time Morell was producing his libretto a number of scholars had preached and published material on the story in an attempt to show, by a combination of logic and philology, that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter, and never intended to sacrifice any human who came out to meet him on his return from battle.32 The arguments were not new, nor were they confined to the Christian exegetical tradition; but they were pressed into service with great vigor in an age when it was becoming increasingly necessary for churchmen to defend the rationality of biblical faith and show God as an Enlightenment gentleman intellectual rather than as a primitive vengeful tyrant.33 The central plank in this apologetic tradition used an interpretation first introduced by the renowned medieval rabbinic commentator David Kimchi (1160–1235),34 to 31

See Nott, “‘Heroick Vertue’”, p. 199; R. Smith, Handel’s Oratorios and EighteenthCentury Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995), pp. 338, 434 n. 10. 32 An elaborate defence of the Jephthah story along these lines is given in a sermon preached by W. Romaine, and later published, entitled Jepthah’s Vow fulfilled, and his Daughter not Sacrificed, Proved in a Sermon Preached before the University, at St. Mary’s in Oxford (London, 1744). Romaine’s remarks well illustrate how problematic the story was in the contemporary intellectual climate. Of Jephthah’s vow, he says, “This Vow has been the Subject of much Ridicule; it has been represented as rashly made and immorally executed, and the Scripture itself has suffered through the Character of Jepthah” (p. 1). Commenting on the idea that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter in fulfillment of the vow, he says that such an act is “so contrary to the Laws of GOD and Man, . . . that it is not easy to conceive, how it came to pass, that such an Opinion was ever entertained at all, much less how it became so general; especially as no historical Passage of Scripture has laid more open to the wanton Jests of the Infidel, or is more difficult to be explained by the sober Believer” (p. 3). See also Nott’s discussion of the commentaries of Simon Patrick and Samuel Humphreys (“‘Heroick Vertue’”, pp. 195–200). 33 W. Neil poses the dilemma of orthodoxy in the face of Deist criticism thus: “How could the essentially time-conditioned figure of Jehovah, as presented in the Bible, at worst a Jewish tribal deity, at best the creator and ruler of a midget globe, be reconciled with the God of the philosophers?” (“The Criticism and Theological Use of the Bible, 1700–1950”, in S. L. Greenslade (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Bible. III: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1963], pp. 238–93 [p. 242].) 34 Details of Kimchi’s arguments are given in Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow, pp. 8, 17–18. The eighteenth-century commentator Simon Patrick refers to “the Kimchi’s” (i.e. David and his father Joseph, to whom David attributed the argument) and cites their argument in his discussion of Jephthah’s vow. See S. Patrick, A Commentary upon the Historical Books of the Old Testament Vol. II (5th ed. corrected. London, 1738), pp. 146, 147.

266

deborah w. rooke

argue that those who thought that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter had misinterpreted his vow. The standard interpretation of the vow was, “. . . whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me . . . shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering”. However, Kimchi argued, the Hebrew conjunction w e that is translated “and” in the phrase “and I will offer it up as a burnt offering” can also be translated “or”; so what Jephthah meant was, “. . . whatever comes out . . . shall surely be the Lord’s, or I shall offer it up as a burnt offering”. The point is, Jephthah could not know who or what was likely to come out, and as generations of exegetes prior to Kimchi had pointed out it could very easily be something or (someone) unacceptable under the Jewish Law as a sacrificial victim, such as a dog or an ass,35 or indeed, a human being. So Jephthah cannily hedges his bets, and says, “If whatever comes out is not suitable for sacrifice, then it shall be dedicated to the Lord, but if it is suitable, then it shall be sacrificed.” Hence, when Jephthah’s daughter comes out to meet him, because she is not suitable for sacrifice she is dedicated to the Lord in some other way, and this, according to Kimchi, meant that she became a celibate recluse. He deduces this both from the statement in Judges 11:37 that the daughter asks for time to bewail not her life but her virginity, and from the fact that the text does not actually state that Jephthah killed her. Morell was obviously aware of these arguments, and would have understood them well; he was a clergyman as well as a classical scholar, and had a knowledge of Hebrew. So it is no surprise to find that he incorporates them into his oratorio libretto. The first important move he makes is to show Jephthah’s vow as being unequivocally inspired by the spirit of God: What mean these doubtfull Fancies of the Brain? Visions of Joy rise in my raptur’d Soul, There play awhile and set in darksome Night. Strange Ardor fires my Breast—my Arms seem strung With tenfold vigour, and my crested Helm To reach the Skies. Be humble still, my Soul—it is the Spirit of God— In whose great Name I offer up my Vow.36

35

Genesis Rabbah 60:3. Quotations are taken from the libretto that was printed for the oratorio’s opening run at Covent Garden in February–March 1752. 36


267

In doing this, Morell is removing the ambiguity of the biblical text, where although Jephthah offers his vow after having been endowed with the spirit of God, it is unclear whether or not he offers it as a result of being endowed with the spirit of God. Buchanan for his part makes no mention of the Spirit in connection with Jephthah making his vow, and shows Jephthah reiterating the vow after his victory over the Ammonites, in full possession of his faculties and influenced by nothing but his own thankful heart. But Morell’s Jephthah clearly speaks his vow under the overwhelming influence of the Spirit; and the elimination of this ambiguity over the vow’s motivation leads to the elimination of the ambiguity in its wording. Instead of leaving open the possibility that the vow might either have envisioned a human victim (as in the Hebrew text) or might accidentally be applied to one (as in Buchanan), Morell’s version of the vow reflects the exegetical argument that the vow would cause a creature unsuitable for sacrifice to be dedicated instead to God’s service: If, Lord, sustained by thy almighty Pow’r Ammon I drive, and his insulting Bands, From these our long-uncultivated Lands, And safe return, a glorious Conqueror— What—or who—ever shall first salute mine Eyes, Shall be for ever Thine; or—fall a Sacrifice. ’Tis said—Attend, ye Chiefs, and with one Voice, Invoke the holy Name of Israel’s God.

Quite clearly, Morell is operating with the conviction that God would never inspire anyone to make a vow that it would be sinful to honor, and certainly not one that left its offerer open to the possibility of having to make a human sacrifice. However, Morell’s concern to exonerate the deity spoils the plot of the libretto by making Jephthah’s subsequent agonizing over the prospect of sacrificing his daughter redundant and rather forced. If Jephthah has vowed to dedicate or to sacrifice whatever meets him, there is no reason for him to make such a fuss about having to sacrifice his daughter. It might be argued that since he made his vow under the influence of the Spirit, he did not really know what he was saying; but he knows enough to be aware that he vowed to make a sacrifice, so he surely ought to know that he was not bound to sacrifice whatever it was that met him if it would constitute an inappropriate sacrifice. Morell’s answer to this problem, as becomes clear in the final act in the libretto, is to follow

268

deborah w. rooke

an interpretation that appears in at least one contemporary commentator and portray Jephthah as having been mistaken in his understanding of the vow;37 but this seems rather weak as an explanation, and smacks of the desire to reconcile the irreconcilable. The final and most dramatic move that Morell makes in his representation of the vow is to introduce an angelus ex machina at the end, who intervenes at the moment of sacrifice to prevent the priests from killing Iphis, and explains that Jephthah has misunderstood the vow. The intention, says the angel, was never that Iphis should die but rather that she should be consecrated to a life of celibacy: Rise, Jephtha.—and ye Reverend Priests withhold The slaught’rous Hand.—No vow can disannull The Law of God; nor such was its Intent When rightly scann’d, and yet shall be fulfill’d. Thy Daughter, Jeptha, Thou must dedicate To God in pure and Virgin state for ever, As not an object meet for sacrifice, Else had she fall’n an Holocaust to God. The Holy Spirit that dictated thy Vow, Bade thus explain it, and approves your Faith.

This of course is the natural correlative of Morell’s version of the vow, and results in great rejoicing among those who are watching. It seems to have escaped Morell’s notice that if this is indeed the correct interpretation of the Hebrew text of Judges 11:31, then Jephthah’s response to it in Judges 11:35 is hardly one of rejoicing; so in the light of the biblical text Morell’s ending might be thought inappropriate. However, in the context of the libretto, the joyful reaction can be interpreted as relief that Iphis is spared death, rather than as joy at the specific outcome of perpetual celibacy.38

37 Patrick, A Commentary, pp. 147, 148, argues that Jephthah was mistaken in his understanding of the vow, and that he did not need either to sacrifice his daughter or to dedicate her to celibacy, because under the Jewish Law she could have been redeemed with money, or indeed, according to one Jewish interpreter, simply allowed to go free because she was so clearly unsuitable for sacrifice. Patrick’s interpretation makes sense in the context of his overall interpretation, namely, that Jephthah needlessly dedicated his daughter to a life of celibacy; but it does not make sense in the context of Morell’s view that the daughter’s dedication to celibacy was the appropriate outcome of the vow. 38 Nott, “‘Heroick Vertue’”, p. 194 n. 3, comments that so-called “happy endings” of this type are relatively happy rather than absolutely happy.


269

But sanitizing the vow is not the only important modification in Morell’s version of the narrative. There is also another change, which alters significantly the view of what is at stake in Jephthah’s proposed sacrifice of his daughter. Act Three of the libretto opens on the morning of the sacrifice, with Jephthah begging the sun to hide its beams, presumably so that the day of sacrifice will not dawn; and he then offers a prayer to the angels to receive Iphis: Waft her, angels, through the skies Far above yon azure Plain; Glorious there like you to rise, There like you for ever reign.

Iphis herself then appears and urges the priests not to be afraid to carry out the sacrifice, telling them, “the call of Heav’n . . . with humble resignation I obey.” With this she proceeds to say farewell to the world she knows: Farewel, ye limpid Springs and Floods, Ye flow’ry Meads, and mazy Woods; Farewel, thou busy World, where reign Short Hours of Joy, and Years of Pain. Brighter Scenes I seek above, In the Realms of Peace and Love.

Thus, both Jephthah and Iphis are represented as believing in a better world to which Iphis has been summoned by God; so even if there is the sorrow of parting, there is not the finality of annihilation. The agony of Jephthah’s—and Iphis’s—predicament is relieved, because it can be viewed as a mercy; and indeed, Iphis’s impending death is presented as her entry to everlasting existence. This is a strong contrast with the ethos of the biblical narrative, where the idea of an afterlife would not have been available to the society from which it emerged, and where the girl’s childless death is not simply her own final extinction but the extinction of those who might have relied upon her to continue their line. It is also a strong contrast with Buchanan, whose play offers no real hope of an afterlife for Iphis except in the fame that will carry her name round the world (ll. 1340–49).39 39 McGregor, “The Sense of Tragedy”, argues that this hope of world-wide, everlasting fame for Iphis in Buchanan’s play is dependent upon her status in Christian tradition as a Messianic ante-type; just as Iphis’s fame will go round the world, so

270

deborah w. rooke

In place of the biblical picture of sacrificial death as sex, then, Morell presents us with a picture of the sacrificial death of sex. But this is not all. With the death of sex, the virgin Iphis is represented as entering the blessed deathless existence with the angels in the here and now, since her celibate state resembles theirs. Indeed, the angel who halts the sacrifice sings an air to Iphis that associates and almost confuses human virgins with angels: Happy, Iphis, shalt thou live While to Thee the virgin Choir Tune their Harps of golden wire And their yearly tribute give.40 Happy Iphis all thy Days Pure angelic virgin state Shalt thou live, and ages late Crown thee with immortal praise.

The virgin choir with harps of golden wire could be either humans or angels; and the description of the virgin state as “pure” and “angelic” is equally suggestive. Similarly Hamor, whilst clearly downcast at losing his fiancée, describes her in angelic terms: ’Tis Heav’n’s all-ruling powr That checks the rising sigh Yet let me still adore And think an angel by, While thus each charm and beauteous line With more than human lustre shine.

Of course, this could just be lover’s talk, but in the context of the other statements about angelic virginity it is very suggestive. For Iphis, it seems, the death of sex is really a transcendence of death altogether; she now embodies the angelic, deathless state, and is ready to be wafted through the skies to everlasting bliss. In comparing these three versions of the case of Jephthah’s daughter, then, we can see a fascinating progression in the way that the

Christ, the hope of the Israelites, expands the limits of the chosen people to the ends of the earth (p. 134). The thought is an interesting one, although it runs the risk of over-interpreting the material. 40 This reflects the idea, again expressed in contemporary literature, that the daughters of Israel would come year by year to Jephthah’s daughter, either to converse with her, to bring her gifts, or to celebrate her selfless action. See Patrick, A Commentary, p. 148; Romaine, Jepthah’s Vow fulfilled, pp. 16–19.


271

motifs of death and sex are intertwined. In the biblical narrative, the daughter’s death is a symbol of her own and her father’s isolation and vulnerability, and death replaces sex as the fulfillment of her womanhood by becoming a metaphor for her union with the deity. In Buchanan, Iphis’s death is intended to humble Jephthah’s pride by afflicting him with great grief, and in her death she transcends her womanly body by means of her manly spirit, dying as a warrior on behalf of her country in a sacrifice of atonement. In Morell, Jephthah has the inspiration and approval of God throughout, and the idea of Iphis’s death is commuted to that of her celibacy, whereby she dies to sex and is thus transformed into a quasi-deathless being. We have therefore moved from death as sex, through death as transcending sex, to the death of sex that signifies the death of death.

THE CREATION OF ANGELS AND NATURAL PHENOMENA INTERTWINED IN THE BOOK OF JUBILEES (4QJUBa) Angels and Natural Phenomena as Characteristics of the Creation Stories and Hymns in Late Second Temple Judaism Raija Sollamo The creation stories of the Old Testament have been studied and interpreted many times over the centuries. This is true for both the two creation stories at the beginning of Genesis (Gen 1:1–2:4a and 2:4b–25) as well as descriptions of creation in the Book of Isaiah and Psalms (e.g., Isa 42:5; Ps 8:4–9; Ps 104). We are also familiar with the creation theology of the New Testament including the conviction that Christ, the Son, was present already at the creation— like Lady Wisdom according to Proverbs (Prov 8:22–31)—and everything has been created through him (e.g., Col 1:16). The New Testament also speaks of a new creation and new creatures in the spirit of Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 43:19) and Trito-Isaiah (Isa 65:17). The New Testament ideology shows diversity in this respect: the new creation is either already present in Christ and his believers (e.g., 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15), or it will first appear at the end of days when God will create a new heaven and a new earth and everything old will disappear (2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1, 5). Even if these biblical traditions are familiar to us, it is not generally known that there were still other kinds of creation stories circulating in late Second Temple Judaism. The Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed a great collection of parabiblical writings, of which the Book of Jubilees, for instance, contains one example of these creation stories. It is told in 4Q216 (4QJuba) 5:1–17 providing the text of Jub. 2:1–4, 7–12. The starting point is to compare this creation story with that of Genesis in order to find out its distinctive characteristics. Thereafter we will look for contemporary Jewish parallels containing similar features in their descriptions of creation. When looking for parallels, it is only necessary to note the items of content, i.e., what was created and in which order, disregarding, for instance, the

274

raija sollamo

literary forms and genre. A story in prose may have a parallel in a hymn. In this way, a peculiar stratum of creation items typical of third-second century Judaism can be discovered and discussed. The main parallels are the Hymn of the Three Young Men (Dan 3:57–90 LXX, in particular verses 57–73), the Hymn to the Creator 11QPsa; Ps 148; Ps 135; Job 38; and Sir 42:15–43:33. 4QJubileesa The creation story of 4QJuba written in Column 5 of 4Q216 belongs to the part of the manuscript which was copied c. 125–100 bce.1 It is probable that 4QJuba is the oldest extant copy of the book of Jubilees, excluding Cols. 1–2 and 4 copied by a later hand. The origin of 4QJuba comes close to that period when the Book of Jubilees was compiled (between 160 and 150 bce).2 The Book of Jubilees and its Creation story are pre-Qumranic and “non-sectarian” in origin. Even though the Book of Jubilees was not “sectarian”, it was one of the most popular works used and read at Qumran. Fourteen or fifteen (fifteen if 4Q217 is included) copies of the Book were found at Qumran in five different caves (Caves 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11).3 Hebrew was apparently the original language of the book which was translated into Greek and from Greek to Ethiopic and Latin. The Ethiopic translation has been preserved very well and it is utilized by scholars to reconstruct the gaps in Hebrew manuscripts of Jubilees. James C. VanderKam has published the Ethiopic text and translated it into English,4 and it is this critical edition by him that is nowadays usually consulted. For the opening part of the creation chapter in Jubilees,

1

J. C. VanderKam and J. T. Milik, “4QJubileesa”, in H. Attridge et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. VIII Parabiblical Texts. Part 1 (DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), pp. 1–4. 2 VanderKam and Milik, “4QJubileesa”, pp. 1–4; J. C. VanderKam, “Jubilees, Book of ”, in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols. New York: Oxford University, 2000), I, pp. 434–438 whereas M. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987), pp. 8–9, argues that the Book of Jubilees “very probably dates from about 170 BC”. 3 The manuscripts are nicely listed by C. Hempel, “The Place of the Book of Jubilees at Qumran and Beyond”, in T. H. Lim (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), pp. 187–196. 4 J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees. A Critical Text and Translation (Scriptores Aethiopici 87–88. CSCO 510–511. Leuven: Peeters, 1989).

angels and natural phenomena in the

BOOK OF JUBILEES

275

there is also a Greek version available, namely Epiphanius’s Greek citation of Jubilees’s creation story.5 The first interesting difference between the creation stories of Genesis and 4QJuba is an expansion concerning the works created on the first day. According to Jubilees, there were seven great works created on the first day. In Genesis only the creation of heaven and earth and light are enumerated, but if we count up everything else that is mentioned as existing in the beginning, the total indicates that there were seven works created on the first day in Genesis, namely heaven, earth, darkness, depth, waters, the spirit of God, and light. In addition to these seven works, a great number of spirits serving God were created on the first day according to 4QJuba, while God’s spirit in the singular form is not mentioned.6 The spirits are called angels and they have different tasks: “the angels] of the presence; the angels of ho[liness;] and the a[ngels of the spirits of fire; the angels of the winds that blo]w, the angels of the spirits of the [clouds], of dark[ness, ice, hoar-frost, dew, snow, hail and fro]st; the angels of sound[s] (= thunder); the angels of the [storm]-winds; [the angels of the spirits of cold and] heat, of winter and summer, [and of all] the spirits of his creatures [which he made in the heavens, which he made in the ear]th and in every (place); the dept[hs], darkness, dawn, [light, and evening which he prepared through] his [know]ledge.”7 The descriptions of the works created on the following days are more in keeping with Genesis and show no exceptional expansions or reductions, except for concerning the keeping of the Sabbath ( Jub 2:17–18). The smaller changes which can be attested are typical features of rewriting or Fortschreibung, like the exact division of the waters so that ”half of them went up above the firmament, and half of them went down below the firmament . . .” ( Jub. 2:4) and the inclusion

5 A. M. Denis, Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt Graeca (PVTG 3. Leiden: Brill, 1970), pp. 71–75, and J. T. Milik, “Recherches sur la version grecque du Livre des Jubilés”, RB 78 (1971) 545–557. 6 The serving spirits twjwr (“spirits” or “winds”) recall Ps 104:4 which is also a hymn of creation. 7 The English translation according to the editors Milik and VanderKam, “4QJubileesa”, p. 14.

276

raija sollamo

of Eden from the creation story of the Yahwist (Gen 2:8–14) on the third day of creation ( Jub. 2:7). To sum up, the creation of the angels and the natural phenomena, such as the winds, clouds, ice, frost, snow, hail, thunder; cold and heat, winter and summer, can be considered distinctive characteristics of the creation story of Jubilees.8 These characteristics are interwoven while the task of the angels is to take care of natural phenomena. Behind this new development there might be a scriptural interpretation of Ps 104:4, which is also a hymn of creation. Psalm 104:4 reads: “You make the winds your messengers, fire and flame your ministers” (NRSV).9 Though this is the main line of the angelology of Jubilees at the beginning of the creation story, the depiction contains two other categories of angels that are not combined with natural phenomena, namely angels of the presence and angels of holiness. These angels are characterized as spirits who serve before God. Certainly, the angels of the natural phenomena may also be included in the reference to those serving before him, but the angels of the presence and the angels of holiness seem to be serving at a closer range, as if standing before the celestial throne and near to God (see for instance Ps 102:20). They are “face-to-face” angels.10 The term ˚alm μynph does not appear in the Scriptures, excluding one case (a crux interpretum) in Isa 63:9.11 In the end of the description of the creations of the first day “we”, i.e., all the angels of the presence and all the angels of holiness, blessed him (God) and offered praise before him because of his seven great works of the first day ( Jub. 2:3). Seemingly, the “angelology” of 4QJubileesa is one of the first steps towards depictions of a heavenly temple service with a priestly hierarchy of the angels, a development which is seen one step further

8 See also G. J. Brooke, “Exegetical Strategies in Jubilees 1–2. New Light from 4QJubileesa”, in M. Albani, J. Frey and A. Lange (eds.), Studies in the Book of Jubilees (TSAJ 65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), p. 53. 9 Ps 103:4 LXX “He who makes spirits his messengers, and flaming fire his ministers” as translated by A. Pietersma, A New Translation of the Septuagint. The Psalms (Oxford: Oxford University, 2000), p. 101, with comments: “‘spirits’ perhaps ‘winds’; ‘messengers’ or ‘angels’”. This verse is also quoted in Heb 1:7. 10 In Greek fragments of Jubilees êggeloi prÚ pros≈pou, see Denis, Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt Graeca, p. 71. 11 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 19B. New York: Doubleday, 2003), pp. 251–261, esp. pp. 252, 254, 260–261.


BOOK OF JUBILEES

277

in Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4QShirShab) dated after Jubilees, perhaps the second half of the second century bce or later.12 Mention must also be made of Tob 12:15 in this connection. According to 4QJuba, one of the angels of the presence dictated the creation story to Moses ( Jub. 2:1) who is ordered to write down everything from the creation onwards as it is dictated to him. The sending of an angel of the presence to Moses emphasized Moses’ high position and honour on the one hand and the trustworthiness of the information of this informant on the other hand, even though the way of thinking differed remarkably from the scriptural presentation of Moses conversing directly with God himself (e.g., Exod 19; Deut 34:10). It is a cognate feature to an angel speaking to Zechariah (e.g., Zech 1:14; 2:2; 4:1, etc.) and interpreting his visions to him (e.g., Zech 1:14; 2:2; 4:1, etc.) instead of the Lord himself who appeared to the earlier prophets. This is what generally happens in late biblical times: angels come between human beings and Yahweh. A scriptural growth of various categories of angels is visible in the Septuagint, too, where μyhla ynb or μyhla, forming like a celestial court or a rejoicing and God-praising chorus, is translated by êggeloi toË yeoË or êggeloi for instance, in Ps 97(96):7; 138(137):1 and Job 38:7 (cf. Ps 8:6 and Deut 32:8).13 These cases, of course, coming in addition to ordinary instances, such as Ps 103(102):20–21 where the Hebrew noun μykalm is translated by êggeloi. The Hymn of the Three Young Men The creation story of Jubilees 2:1–4, 7–12 shows interesting similarities with the Hymn of the Three Young Men in Dan 3:52–90 LXX, in particular with verses 57–73. My aim is now to compare this hymn with the creation story of Jubilees. The comparison with Dan 3 is essentially faciliated by the study on Die drei Männer im Feuer written by Curt Kuhl in 1930. He investigated chapter 3 of the Book of Daniel in MT and its Greek additions and showed that the Hymn

12 “Probably prior to the emergence of the Qumran community”. C. A. Newsom, “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice”, in Schiffman and VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, II, pp. 887–889, esp. p. 887. 13 R. Hanhart, “Die Söhne Israels, die Söhne Gottes und die Engel in der Masora, in Qumran and in der Septuaginta”, in C. Bultmann, W. Dietrich and C. Levin (eds.), Vergegenwärtigung des Alten Testaments. Beiträge zur biblischen Hermeneutik für Rudolf Smend zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), pp. 170–178.

278

raija sollamo

of the Three Young Men was originally compiled in Hebrew and it did not belong to the original context of the Book of Daniel but was an older hymn which was cut out of its original context and inserted into chapter 3 of Daniel in order to display the piety of the three men.14 The Aramaic text, which we have in the MT, related that the pagan king praised the God of those three men (3:28–29) after having seen that the fire did not hurt them at all. But there is not a word in this text indicating that the rescued Jewish heroes would have thanked their God. A later writer of the Greek Daniel wanted to save their faces and put into their mouths a lengthy thanksgiving hymn to God. According to Kuhl, this hymn was originally written in Hebrew. Whether it was originally added to the Hebrew and Aramaic Book of Daniel or only to the Greek Daniel is hard to know. However, a Hebrew hymn placed in the middle of the Aramaic narrative of Dan 3–4 does not seem very likely if we do not suppose that there was an entire Hebrew Vorlage of Daniel in front of the Greek translator.15 Apparently this was the case, but if not, one has to imagine that a Greek translation of a Hebrew creation hymn found elsewhere was slightly edited and inserted into the Greek Daniel. Be it as it may, the main thing here is that we have a Hebrew creation hymn, apparently from the second century bce or earlier. Kuhl presupposes a relatively early date for the hymn in Hebrew.16 The Hymn of the Three Young Men does not refer to the concrete situation of Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael at all, except for verse 88, almost at the end. The main part (vv. 57–87) is a creation hymn written in the style of the Old Testament Psalms, such as Ps 148. The actual beginning of the creation hymn lies in Dan 3:57 eÈloge›te pãnta tå ¶rga toË kur¤ou tÒn kÊrion. Preceeding that, there is a doxology (vv. 52–56), the opening verse (52) resembling the beginning of Tobias’s prayer in Tob 8:5 LXXBA. The main part of the hymn enumerates God’s creations and urges everything that is

14 C. Kuhl, Die Drei Männer im Feuer (Daniel Kapitel 3 und seine Zusätze). Ein Beitrag zur israelitisch-jüdischen Literaturgeschichte (BZAW 55. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1930), pp. 84–129. 15 Kuhl, Drei Männer, p. 164, suggests that there once existed a Hebrew original text for the entire Book of Daniel, but later on the middle passage Dan 2:4–8:1 disappeared and was completed with the aid of the Aramaic translation. 16 Kuhl, Drei Männer, p. 99.


BOOK OF JUBILEES

279

created to praise God. In the final section (vv. 83–87), the whole of Israel is invited to praise the Lord together with the other creations. The hymn concludes with verses 88–90 which give the arguments why one should praise the Lord. These are expressed in the form of ˜ti-clauses very typical of the Psalms. Verse 88 is exceptional, presenting the only concrete reference to the three men and their miraculous rescue from the fire in the entire hymn. This reference must have been compiled and placed here in the final stage of the editorial process when the hymn was inserted into the context of Dan 3. The main part of the actual hymn enumerates creation works. The list and the order of creation works in the Hymn of the Three Young Men is interesting if compared with the creation story of Jubilees. Of course, in case of the hymn, the creation works must be picked out from their hymnic frame. We are not here interested in the literary form or genre; it is only the presence and order of different creation works that is considered. The lists of creatures and created things are as follows: Jubilees 2:1–3:

Daniel 3:57–73 LXX:

heaven earth all the spirits who serve him angels of presence

57 all the works of the Lord17 58 angels of the Lord 59 heavens 60 all the waters above the heaven 61 all the hosts of the Lord 62 sun and moon 63 stars of the heaven 64 rain and dew 65 all the winds 66 fire and glow 67 cold and heat 68 dew and falling snows 69 cold and heat18

angels of holiness angels of the spirits of fire angels of the winds that blow angels of the spirits of clouds, of darkness, ice, hoar-frost, dew snow, hail, and frost angels of the sounds angels of the storm winds angels of the spirits of cold and heat

17 The order of vv. 57–59 differs in the LXX and in YÉ and in Kuhl’s retroversion. Here I follow the LXX. 18 V. 67 is translated here according to YÉ, while the LXX gives “frost and cold”.

280

raija sollamo

Jubilees 2:1–3:

Daniel 3:57–73 LXX:

of winter and summer of all the spirits of his creatures Depths Darkness Dawn Light Evening.

70 71 72 73

frosts and snow nights and days darkness and light lightning and clouds

The absence of the earth from the beginning of the Hymn of the Three Young Men is deliberate. The hymn is structured so that it is opened with a strophe (vv. 57–63) describing the heavenly sphere, following which is the description of elements coming from heaven (vv. 64–73). This is succeeded by the creation of the earth and the creatures living on it and in its waters vis-à-vis waters of the heaven in the first strophe (vv. 74–81). The third strophe also follows the usual order of creation in that water animals and birds appear before the wild animals, cattle and human beings. In the fourth strophe (vv. 82–90), all people, and Israel in particular, are called to join in praising God. This hymn and 4QJuba are similar in that they mention the creation of angels and natural phenomena, such as winds, cold and heat, fire, rain, frost, snow, clouds, lightning, nights and days, light and darkness (or darkness, dawn, light, evening). In contrast to 4QJuba, the angels and natural phenomena are not intertwined, but the natural phenomena belong to the sphere closely related to heaven. The Book of Jubilees is closer to Genesis in comparison to the Hymn of the Three Young Men. Jubilees constructs a bridge back to the story in Genesis by returning in the end of the Fortschreibung to Gen 1:5 containing the creation of day and night, evening and morning. Interestingly enough, the depths ([twm]hth) are even mentioned before darkness, dawn, light and evening whereas the depths do not appear in the actual Hymn of the Three Young Men. The depths only occur in the opening doxology: “Blessed are you who sit upon the cherubim and look upon the depths” Dan 3:54 LXX,19 but the dox-

V. 69 is a repetition of v. 67, but the reading varies from “ices and cold” (LXX) to “cold and heat” in B-26 Q. 19 As translated by C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions. A New


BOOK OF JUBILEES

281

ology (vv. 52–56), being written in the second person singular, must be kept separately from the actual hymn.20 Instead of darkness, dawn, light and evening, the words nights and days, darkness and light are used in this order, still followed by lightning and clouds in the Hymn of the Three Young Men. Vv. 66–73 appear in a very different order in different Greek MSS and ancient versions. The order of the LXX is followed here, even though its logic does not seem to be perfect and some creations recur. It would have been reasonable to follow y’, the upholder of the oldest text tradition, but the logic is not better: the discussed items “nights and days, light and darkness” occur between vv. 68–69. Perhaps some verses should be deleted as duplicates or glosses and the order should be corrected.21 Kuhl preserved all the verses in his retroversion into Hebrew without having repetitions of the same words, but he has also changed the order of the verses.22 This means that the repetitions might depend on the translator’s concise vocabulary for natural phenomena. At any rate, a close relationship between the lists of creation works in the Book of Jubilees and the Hymn of the Three Young Men can be taken as certain as far as angels and natural phenomena are concerned. Both of them share the ideology that even angels are created like the other creatures. The main difference between these two is that the creation of angels and their task of taking care of natural phenomena are not intertwined in the Hymn of the Three Young Men. The angels of the presence and the angels of holiness have no equivalent in the Hymn of the Three Young Men. This is a difference, but the doxology in vv. 52–56 contains a description of a heavenly temple service with God sitting on his throne and being praised and honoured. Even though it is not explicitly mentioned who are those praising God in this doxology, the reader easily combines this and the actual hymn where angels are told to praise God (v. 59). Thus, the heavenly chorus of the angels is present, at least between the lines and in the readers’ imagination. Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), p. 66. 20 Kuhl, Drei Männer, p. 93. 21 For different solutions and discussion see Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions, pp. 66–76. 22 Kuhl, Drei Männer, pp. 111–133. He puts the verses in the following order: 64, 65, 69, 67, 68, 73, 66, 70, 71, and 72.

282

raija sollamo

This examination of the creation story of Jubilees and the Hymn of the Three Young Men has displayed the existence of a certain stratum which is more recent than the creation story of Genesis, but seems to have flourished in Early Judaism at the end of the third century (the Hebrew Vorlage of the Hymn of the Three Young Men) and during the first half of the second century bce. Characteristics of this stratum are the presence of angels and natural phenomena among God’s creation works. It is necessary, then, to see how widely this stratum—or excerpts from it—were spread in Second Temple Judaism. The Hymn to the Creator (11QPs a) In his article on “Jubilees and the Qumran Psalter”, Patrick W. Skehan highlighted that the creation story of Jubilees has borrowed one verse unit from the Hymn to the Creator (11QPsa Creat.), a non-canonical Psalm following the canonical Psalms 149 and 150 in 11QPsa. He dates the Hymn to the Creator to the second century bce.23 The quotation that he refers to is Jub. 2:2–3 in 4QJuba (the quotation is in italics): For on the first day he created the heaven]s that are above, the ear[th,] [the waters, and all the spirits who serve before him: the angels] of the presence; the angels of ho[liness;] and . . .; the dept[hs,] darkness, dawn, [light, and evening which he prepared through] his [know]ledge.24 Then we saw his works, and we [blessed him] regarding all his [wo]rks, and [we offered praise before him because he] had ma[de seven] great works [on the first day.] ( Jub. 2:2–3).25

The corresponding passage in the Hymn to the Creator reads:26 4 “Separating light from deep darkness, by the knowledge of his heart he established the dawn. 5 When all his angels had witnessed it they sang aloud, for he showed them what they had not known . . .”27 23

P. W. Skehan, “Jubilees and the Qumran Psalter”, CBQ 37 (1975) 344–346. VanderKam and Milik reconstruct “his knowledge”, but the Ethiopic version has “the knowledge of his heart/his mind”. VanderKam and Milik, “4QJubileesa”, pp. 13–14, cf. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees Translated, p. 8. 25 As translated by VanderKam and Milik, “4QJubileesa”, p. 14. 26 As translated by J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPs a) (DJD 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), pp. 89–91. 27 Sanders translates in verse 4 (lines 11–12) “by the knowledge of his mind . . .”, but I changed it to “by the knowledge of his heart . . .” in order to be more literal. The italics are mine. 24


BOOK OF JUBILEES

283

The expression wbl t[db rjv ˆykh is unique in referring to God. The closest parallel appears in Jubilees, particularly in its Ethiopic translation. Skehan supposed that the writer of Jubilees was dependant on the Hymn to the Creator. He also suggests that the author of Jubilees took the theme of angels praising God from this hymn. It is not easy to see which one of the two depends on the other.28 It could as well be vice versa because the angels are more in harmony with the content of Jubilees and the Hymn to the Creator contains late vocabulary. In the Hymn to the Creator, the angels appear out of nowhere and act as a leading group of the rejoicing chorus after the dawn has been established. The rejoicing chorus resembles the morning rejoicing of the sons of God (translated as angels in the LXX) and the stars at the creation in Job 38:7. The verb for rejoicing, shouting from joy is ˆnr in both 11QPsa and Job 38:7, but different in Jub. 2:3 (˚rb piel and llh piel). This praising of God and rejoicing has its parallel in the practice of the Qumran community which gathered every morning at sunrise to praise God (˚rb piel 1QS 9:26–10:1). Verse 5 (Col. 26:12) of 11QPsa Creat. agrees to some extent with Hodayot 1QH 13:11 = 5:17. The Hymn to the Creator reads: “for he showed them what they had not known . . .”, while 1QH 5:17 has: “for you have shown them what they had never s[een, . . .]”.29 According to Sanders, verses 7–9 “undoubtedly derive from some liturgical hymn of praise of the Creator”,30 but our hymn as a whole also shows similarities with wisdom literature. God’s understanding and wisdom with which he created the world are signs of his greatness: 7 “Blessed be he who made the earth with his strength establishing the world with his wisdom. 8 By his understanding he stretched out the heavens and brought forth wind from his storehouses.

28 Skehan, “Jubilees and the Qumran Psalter”, p. 346 (note 9) dates Jubilees to the end of the second century bce: “The independent witness of 1QS and 1QH show the theme and language (especially 5b) of the Hymn were current early in the history of the Qumran sect, hence prior to the composition of Jub.” I share the jubilarian M. Knibb’s stance that Jubilees is pre-Qumranic in origin; Knibb, The Qumran Community, pp. 8–9. 29 As translated by F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1, p. 151. 30 Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPs a), p. 89.

284

raija sollamo 9 He made lightning for the rain, and caused mists to rise from the end of the earth.”31

This Hymn to the Creator is an interesting parallel to the opening chapter of the creation story of Jubilees and to the Hymn of the Three Young Men. All three originate from approximately the same period and are rather late in biblical terms, i.e., third or second century bce. All in all, the Hymn to the Creator might be a sapiental hymn,32 and probably later than 4QJuba and the Hymn of the Three Men.33 There appears the same vocabulary as in 1QS and 1QH:34 “Darkness” hlpa (line 4a) also occurs in 4QJuba 5:10 (= Jub. 2:2), 1QH 13:32 = 5:33; 17:2 = 9:2; 1QS 2:8, rf[m (line 6) occurs in 11QPsa 19:7; Sir 45:25 twbwnt (line 6) in 1QS 10:16; Sir 11:3, yj lwk (line 6) is common in 1QS (four times), in CD (twice), in 1QH 15:22 = 7:25, and in Sir (ten times).35 The natural phenomena are scarcely represented in the Hymn to the Creator, only wind, lightning, rain and mists are enumerated, and it is God himself who is responsible for natural phenomena. The task is not delegated to the angels as in 4QJuba. The Hymn to the Creator well agrees with Job 38 in that it stresses Yahweh’s superior wisdom. The idea of the storehouses of winds is interesting and new in comparison with Genesis, 4QJuba and the Hymn of the Three Young Men, while the celestial storehouses of winds occur in Jer 10:13; 51:16; 1 Enoch 18:1; 60:11, those of snow and hail in Job 38:22 and a celestial storehouse of all good, especially rain, is mentioned in Deut 28:12 and storehouses of winds, hail, mist and clouds in 1 Enoch 41:4. In the Qumran texts the reservoirs of similar kinds often appear, e.g. 1QS 10:2; 1QM 10:12; 1QHa 9:12 = 1:12. But are there still other hymns or fragments of texts quite similar to the creation stories or creation hymns discussed so far?

31

As translated by Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPs a), p. 90. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPs a), p. 89. 33 Skehan, “Jubilees and the Qumran Psalter”, p. 346 and Brooke, “Exegetical Strategies in Jubilees 1–2. New Light from 4QJubilees”, p. 54 consider the Hymn to the Creator to be older than 4QJuba which is dependent on it. 34 Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPs a), p. 89: “It (the Hymn) has vague affinities with the Hodayot in the first six verses, but vv. 7–9 are made up of phrases which are found in Jer 1012–13 (5115–16) and Ps 1357.” 35 Skehan, “Jubilees and the Qumran Psalter”, p. 344. 32


BOOK OF JUBILEES

285

Psalm 148 The Hymn of the Three Men is usually compared with Ps 148 which is suggested to be one of the possible sources for the scribe who composed the Hymn. There appear some similarities of structure, such as Ps 148:1–2a and Dan 3:58–59; Ps 148:2b–3 and Dan 3:61–63, and Ps 148:9, 10, 11–12 and Dan 3:75, 81 and 82. The structure is very clear and transparent in the Hymn of the Three Young Men. The Hymn consists of four strophes or stanzas in logically progressing order, as presented above. In contrast to this, Ps 148 is not construed equally well and with formal eloquency. It divides into two parts: vv. 1–6 “Let all the heavenly beings praise Yahweh” and vv. 7–14 “Let the earth and all that is in it praise Yahweh”. Creatures and creation are present, but not as dominating as in the Hymn of the Three Young Men where the actual hymn begins with a call to all creatures to praise Yahweh. Here we also have an enumeration of creatures and created things, but only in connection with the sun and moon, stars, heavens and waters above the heavens is it highlighted that they were created by (the name of ) Yahweh who commanded and they were brought into being. It remains unclear what the position of the angels was, i.e., whether they belonged to the created beings or not. The second strophe considers the earth and all that is in it and includes the natural phenomena, such as fire (i.e. lightning), hail, snow, frost (or mist, LXX reads krÊstallow “ice”) and stormy wind. Whereas Jubilees combines the angels and the natural phenomena, here the angels and the natural phenomena are not intertwined, but the angels belong to the heavenly sphere, and the natural phenomena to the earth. At the end of the list, the whole of humankind, all kings and peoples, are called to praise God, or actually the name of Yahweh (vv. 12–13). The Psalm concludes with verse 12 in the Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa 2:6–16),36 a fact which may indicate an editorial Fortschreibung. In the final verse (v. 14), the main reason for the praise is that Yahweh has raised a horn for his people, a biblical idiom meaning that he has given fresh strength and courage to his people.

36

Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPs a), p. 23.

286

raija sollamo Psalm 135

Psalm 135 is partly related to the Hymn to the Creator (11QPsa Creat.), of which verses 7–9 correspond to Ps 135:7. In these verses, the creation of natural phenomena is presented. This Psalm is a hymn, but not a hymn of creation, but rather a hymn in praise of the covenant God. It combines creation and salvation history. In vv. 15–18, the praise of Yahweh is stressed by pointing out the uselessness of idols. The different groups participating in the post-exilic Temple cult are called to praise the Lord (vv. 19–20). The Psalm is not an original composition by an individual poet, “but more like a mosaic from fragments of other Psalms, especially Pss 115, 136”.37 The Psalm was compiled in the late post-exilic period. I agree with Sanders that it is, however, earlier than 11QPsa Creat.38 Both are included in the Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa).39 Concerning angels and natural phenomena, only a few natural phenomena are enumerated in verse 7: clouds, lightning, rain and storm. Lightning and rain were associated with each other and originally belonged to the power of the Cananite god Baal, but were transferred to Yahweh at an early stage.40 The storehouses of storms are mentioned here. Verse 6 serves as an introduction to both creation and salvation history by pinpointing the greatness of Yahweh: whatever he pleases, he can do. Examining Ps 135 did not add much to what has already been dealt with above. It demonstrates, however, the circulation of the stratum of the creation of natural phenomena in different Psalms and the extent of the variation available in descriptions. Job 38 Yahweh’s Cosmic Design Chapter 38 begins a new part in the Book of Job containing Yahweh’s first speech defending his cosmic design.41 In this framework, angels and natural phenomena also appear. The purpose of Yahweh’s speech,

37

A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms (London: Oliphants, 1972), p. 889. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPs a), p. 89. 39 For Ps 135:1–9, 17–21 see cols. 14–15 in Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPs a), pp. 35–36. 40 H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen (BKAT 15/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1978), p. 1075. 41 N. C. Habel, The Book of Job. A Commentary (OTL. London: SCM, 1985), pp. 517–535. 38


BOOK OF JUBILEES

287

which actually continues until 40:5, is to show Job his unparalleled wisdom and power. The first rhetorical question is already typical: “Where were you when I laid earth’s foundations?” ( Job 38:4). It soon continues with the question: “(Where were you) when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” ( Job 38:7). This verse was already noted in connection with the Hymn to the Creator in 11QPsa. The Hebrew parent text speaks about “the sons of God/gods” μyhla ynb, but the Septuagint translator has introduced here his interpretation that “the sons of God/gods” denote “angels” and his rendering reads: ˜te §genÆyhsan êstra, ≥nesãn me fvnª megãl˙ pãntew êggelo¤ mou.

The translation is altogether very free: “When the stars were born, all my angels praised me loudly.” The angels are present in the Septuagint, but neither in Hebrew nor in Greek is it stated in expressis verbis that they were created. Here the sons of God/gods or angels celebrate the construction of the earth and represent the celestial court.42 Another interesting passage is Job 38:22–38 where the creation of natural phenomena is described. The manner of presentation differs throughout from that of Jubilees and creation hymns. It is the genre of sapiental literature that is manifest in this poem. The natural phenomena familiar to us from the previous texts appear here, e.g., snow, hail, lightning, wind, thunderstorm, rain, dew, hoarfrost, and clouds as well as the storehouses of snow and hail. It is, of course, presupposed here that God has created all these, but the method of presentation highlights their order, laws and ways of functioning. God has power over the natural phenomena and uses the natural phenomena for his purposes. Everything is meant to stress Yahweh’s sovereign wisdom: he has established the order of the natural phenomena and knows their laws, he has created the way to disperse lightning and scatter the east wind over the earth. The dating of the book of Job and its different poems is problematic. I suppose that the book might be as late as the third century bce; in any case it was completed before 200 bce.43 42

Habel, The Book of Job. A Commentary, pp. 537–538. R. Smend, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Theologische Wissenschaft 1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978), p. 202. 43

288

raija sollamo Sir 42:15–43:33 The Works of God in Creation

The last text to be dealt with in this study consists of a lengthy poem in Sir 42:15–43:33 describing the works of God in creation.44 As is known from the preface to the book of Sirach, the grandson of Ben Sira made his Greek translation in the second half of the second century bce, while Ben Sira composed the Hebrew during the first half of the second century bce. Seldom can a book be dated with such certainty. According to the poem, all nature proclaims God’s honour and wisdom. He is greater than all his works (Sir 43:28b). For our purposes, the focus lies on 43:13–22, because the natural phenomena are dealt with there. Rain, clouds, hailstones, thunder, south wind, whirlwind, hurricane, storm wind, snow, frost, nothern blasts and dew are enumerated. The way in which these phenomena are referred to is different from the other texts discussed thus far. A novel aspect is the admiration of the beauty of those phenomena. The description of snow is very special in Sir 43:18: “Its (Snow) shining whiteness dazzles the eyes; the mind marvels at its steady fall.”45 Similarly, earlier in this poem, the rainbow is depicted as a fulfillment of perfect beauty. Apparently Ben Sira also enjoyed looking at frozen ponds and the frost. Studying this passage of Sirach both in Hebrew and Greek would be worth an entire article, but here it suffices to conclude that the natural phenomena are enumerated and praised as creations of Yahweh and they witness his greatness and wisdom. Another novel idea is that God uses natural phenomena for his purposes in order to punish and bless his people (Sir 39:21–22, 28–29). Angels are not mentioned, excluding Sir 43:26, the interpretation of which causes difficulties. It might refer to an angel as a messenger (the singular is somewhat strange) accomplishing his will—an idea which has dominated almost all the above passages on angels in creation stories and hymns. Otherwise, we do not know how the natural phenomena and this angel are intertwined. Because the main purpose of the poem is to proclaim the greatness of God who also is the Creator, it is self-evident that any greater delegation of God’s duties to angels did not come into the question. 44 P. W. Skehan and A. A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB. New York: Doubleday, 1987), pp. 484–496. 45 As translated by Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, p. 486.


BOOK OF JUBILEES

289

Conclusion This survey has given a glimpse into the formation of early Jewish creation stories and hymns in the late Second Temple period. As a result, we have discovered a certain layer of similar thinking on the creation of angels and natural phenomena in third-second century Jewish literature. The time limits are difficult to assess, but roughly speaking, the texts discussed above originate from the third-second centuries, and more accurately perhaps from the second half of the third century and from the first half of the second century bc. The selection of the texts began with the creation story of 4QJubileesa because I wanted to investigate the literary setting of its origin and closest parallels. The other texts were taken into consideration as far as they displayed similarities to the creation story of Jubilees. These similarities were characterized by a combination of angels and natural phenomena. Both were created by Yahweh and intertwined with one another in that the angels had to control and command the natural phenomena. Thus, the Creator delegated his power to the angels. However, the angels and the natural phenomena still belonged to the celestial sphere: the angels sent rain, hail, and snow, etc. from heaven to the earth. The association of the angels with the natural phenomena is unique; it is not attested in the earlier Jewish scriptures. The origins of the combination of angels and natural phenomena are to be seen in creation hymns of a slightly earlier or contemporaneous period. The closest parallels were The Hymn of the Three Young Men (Dan 3:57–90), the Hymn to the Creator (11QPsa), the Psalms 148 and 135, and further Job 38 and Sir 42:15–43:33. It was customary in the period to include the natural phenomena when the theme of creation was touched upon. This happens in all the examples, cf. Jub. 2:1–3; Dan 3:57–90; 11QPsa Creat.; Ps 148; Ps 135; Job 38; and Sir 42:15–43:33. Another important topos typical of the stratum of creation stories and hymns of the time consisted of angels who were given special duties at creation. In a few examples, it was crucial to say that the angels belonged to the creations (4QJuba and Dan 3:57–90), while in other cases, the creation of the angels was passed by, the most prominent role of the angels being to stand as witnesses at the creation and praise the Lord after having seen his mighty works (The Hymn to the Creator [11QPsa]; Job 38 and Ps 148). In Jubilees, there clearly appear three categories of angels: the angels of the

290

raija sollamo

presence, the angels of holiness and the angels taking care of the natural phenomena. All of the angels were servants of the Lord, but the first two kinds of angels served near to the throne, while the angels intertwined with the natural phenomena were as if sitting at a window or standing at a door of a heavenly storehouse, looking at the earth, and sending there in turn rain and snow, darkness and light, cold and heat. In earlier times, when Yahweh and Baal were competing for the prominent role of rain sender, the idea of a delegation of tasks was impossible, but in much later times, when Baal was no real danger to the Israelites, the delegation of power to the angels was natural. At the same time, a divine court with diffent kinds of angels and their hierarchy began to grow. One important task of the heavenly court was to praise and extoll God as if participating in a celestial temple service. The greater the god, the mightier the court. Finally, God became isolated from ordinary people and the angels took on the role of mediators between God and the people. In sapiental literature and hymns ( Job and Sir), the angels do not play as significant a role as in other creation stories and hymns. The stratum outlined here is earlier than the so-called “sectarian” literature of Qumran. The Hymn to the Creator in 11QPsa comes closest to this literature. Scholarly opinions vary about its nature and sectarian stance. Be that as it may, 11QPsa cannot be more than a borderline case moving towards sectarian literature, the mainstream of sectarian literature being composed somewhat later. This study has not touched upon the angelology of Qumran, only the first roots of it in creation stories and hymns in late Second Temple Judaism.

96C>:A,>CI=:H>B>A>IJ9:HD;:CD8= %9BC7&*P&.-)R.Ä(&# ) 8dbbZciVidghd[iZccdiZi]Vi^hdaViZYldgYhdge]gVhZhXdbZ[gdb9Vc^ZaZ#\#! ^c%9bcW\)%/&!WjihdbZ]VkZ[djcYaVg\ZgWdggdl^c\h#G#=#8]VgaZhH\Y6cc_cZ 9bcW\cf=9bcW\PDm[dgY/8aVgZcYdc!&.&'R!e#&%&![dgdcZ!i]dj\]ii]Vi%9bcW\*'! ^cl]^X]:cdX]hZZhh^mbdjciV^chbVYZd[ Y^[[ZgZcibZiVah!lVhWVhZYdc9Vc'/(&Ä )*! CZWjX]VYcZooVgÉh YgZVb d[ i]Z hiVijZ Xdch^hi^c\ d[ [djg bZiVah VcY XaVn# I]Z eVgVaaZa ^ckdak^c\ bZiVah ^h dWk^djh! l]âZ i]Z ^YZV d[ bdjciV^ch Vh hnbWdah [dg i]Z edlZgh d[ i]Z ZVgi] XdjaY Vahd XdbZ [gdb 9Vc^Za ' ^c l]^X] V bdjciV^c ^h egZhZci# Yk]g\5dcWU`mdh]W@]hYfUhifYUbX]bh\YFYjYÙh]cbcZ >c\b PAVc]Vb! B9/ Jc^kZghîn EgZhh d[ 6bZg^XV! &.-)R ]Vh VXXZeiZY 8]VgaZhÉ egdedhVa VcYVYYZYidî/cdidcanYdi]ZldgaY`^c\YdbhVcYbZiVahXdbZ[gdb9Vc^Za!Wji Vahdi]ZÆk^h^dcd[ i]ZhZ`^c\Ydbh^hÈgZkZVaZYÉVhVÈhZXgZiÉdgÈbnhiZgnÉ&:cdX]*'/'Ä (!*09Vc#'/&-Ä&.!'-Ä(%!),l]^X]###^ckdakZhi]Z^gg]ai`hUbYcigVcYihhYfYZhigjXi^dc Wn V bZhh^Vc^X Ò\jgZ & :cdX] *'/+Ä.0 9Vc# '/()Ä(*! ))Ä)*#### 6 ÒcVa Xdbbdc ZaZbZci^hi]ZZhiVWa^h]bZcid[ VY^k^cZ`^c\Ydbl]^X]hjXXZZYhi]ZldgaY`^c\Ydbh & :c# *'/)0 9Vc# '/(*! ))Ç e# &%,0 ^h i]Z hidcZ ^c 9Vc^Za ' V ÆbZhh^Vc^X Ò\jgZÇ4# 7ZVaZVahdi]^c`hi]Vii]Zcdi^dcd[ i]Z`^c\YdbhhZgk^c\i]ZVcd^ciZYdcZbVnXdbZ [gdb9Vc,/&)V!Wji]ZgZXd\côZhi]Vii]ZgZ^hcdkZgWVaYZeZcYZcXZ[dgVcnd[ i]ZhZ ZaZbZcih VcY cd egdd[ i]Vi i]^h bViZg^Va XVbZ [gdb 9Vc^Za ' ee# &%,Ä&%-# =Z

?C%9BC7hVlVi]djhVcY i]djhVcYhVcYiZci]djhVcYi^bZhiZci]djhVcY!VbjaiîjYZWZndcY cjbWZgdggZX`dc^c\!l]dhiddYWZ[dgZi]Z\adgnd[ i]ZAdgYd[ He^gîh Pአእላፈ፡ አእላፋት፡ ወትእልፊተ፡ ትእልፊት፡###ይቀውሙ፡ ቅድመ፡ ስብሐተ፡ እግዚአ፡መናፍስት፡R#ÇI]^hVc\Za^Xi]gdc\ZX]dZh9Vc^ZaÉhÆPVRi]djhVcY i]djhVcYh hZgkZY ]^b! VcY iZc i]djhVcY i^bZh iZc i]djhVcY hiddY ViiZcY^c\ ]^bÇ ,/&% አእላፈ፡ አእላፍ፡ ይትለአክዎ፡ ወምእልፊት፡ አእላፍ፡ ይቀውሙ፡ቅድሜሁ፡X[#%9bcW\&/.0&)/''#+>c%9bcW\)%/'i]Zk^h^dcVgn hZZh dc i]Z [djg h^YZh d[ i]Z YZîn Æ[djg Ò\jgZh Y^[[ZgZci [gdb i]dhZ l]dlZgZhiVcY^c\#ÇI]dhZÒ\jgZh^c%9bcW\)%VgZ^YZci^ÒZYVhVc\Zah kk#-Ä&%#hV )(/&! ,0 ))/*0)*/(0)-/&'!hd]ZgZi]ZHdcd[ BVc^hcVbZY!dgYZh^\cViZY![dg V WVh^X! a^[Z"h]Ve^c\ ejgedhZ#Ç ') I]Z iZmi i]Zc \dZh dc id YZVa lî] ^hhjZh gZ\VgY^c\ i]Z [jgi]Zg ^YZci^ÒXVi^dc d[ i]^h ZmigVdgY^cVgn X]VgVXiZg# 9Vc^Za,^c%9bcW\+.Ä,& I]ZhZXdcYhZXi^dc^cl]^X]i]ZaVc\jV\Zd[ 9Vc^Za,^heVgi^XjaVgan egdb^cZci XdbZh Vi i]Z ZcY d[ i]Z i]^gY eVgVWaZ *-Ä+. VcY ^c i]Z aVhiX]VeiZgd[ i]ZH^bâîjYZh#DcZd[ i]Z[gZfjZcidXXjggZcXZhd[ i]Z '(

6 cjbWZg d[ bVcjhXgêih aVX` i]Z Xdc_jcXi^dc! eZg]Veh eaVX^c\ i]Z [daadl^c\ iZgb^cVeedhî^dcidኀይሉ፡# ') LVaX`!ÆI]ZHdcd[ BVc^cBVii]ZlVcYi]ZG]a]`]hiXYgcZ 9bcW\Ç!e#&)(#

(%%

E Qc,&/'lZaZVgci]Vi:cdX]VXijVaanhVlildhjX] g^kZgh#

'*

HZZ?#Bdci\dbZgn!57f]h]WUÙbX9lY[Yh]WU`7caaYbhUfmcbh\Y6cc_cZ 8Ub]Y`>88# :Y^cWjg\]/I#I#8aVg`!&.',!ee#'.+Ä.,![dghdbZd[ i]Zhj\\Zhi^dch# '+ HZZ :# H_WZg\! 8Yf AYbgW\Ybgc\b ]a sh\]cd]gW\Yb ckk#.Ä&%lZ gZVY VWdji i]Z hZhh^dc d[ i]Z Xdjgi! l]âZ kk# &&Ä&' iZaa VWdji i]Z Vcc^]âVi^dc d[ i]Z [djgi] WZVhi VcY gZedgi i]Vi i]Z di]Zgh lZgZ VaadlZYidZm^hi[dgVX^gXjbhXg^WZYaZc\i]d[ i^bZ#i ^h Vh ^[ 9Vc^Za^X hZXi^dch jcîZ l]Vi a^Zh WZilZZc! l]âZ i]Z ^YZci^ÒXVi^dc d[ :cdX] hjeea^Zh Vc VchlZg id V fjZhi^dc aZ[i deZc Wn i]Z hXgêijgVa X]VeiZg/l]d^hi]ZdcZa^`ZVHdcd[ BVc46cYi]ZhZXi^dchi]Via^Z WZilZZcX]Veh#)+Ä)-!+.Ä,&!a^`Zi]ZhZX]VeiZgh!VgZ]ZVkân^bWjZY lî]9Vc^Za^Xi]ZbZh#

&..'! ee# &,+Ä-*0 8daa^ch! ÆI]Z Hdc d[ BVc ^c ;^ghi"8Zcijgn ?jYV^hbÇ! )*'Ä*,0 @c^WW!ÆBZhh^Vc^hb^ci]ZEhZjYZe^\gVe]V^ci]ZA^\]id[ i]ZHXgdaahÇ!8G8'&..* &,,Ä-%# () HZZ 8VhZn! ÆI]Z JhZ d[ i]Z IZgb ÈHdc d[ BVcÉ ^c i]Z H^bâîjYZh d[ :cdX]Ç! ''Ä'-#

FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION: THE SAGE AS FATHER IN EARLY JEWISH LITERATURE* Benjamin G. Wright III Listen, my child, and accept my judgment; do not reject my counsel. (Sir 6:23) Listen to me, my child, and acquire knowledge, and pay close attention to my words. I will impart discipline precisely and declare knowledge accurately. (Sir 16:24–25)

Scattered throughout the Wisdom of Ben Sira we encounter numerous passages like the two I have cited here in which the sage/teacher takes upon himself the role of the students’ father in order to command attention to his instruction. In the case of this Jewish wisdom book, the sage is certainly not the addressee’s actual parent, but a teacher engaged in training Israelite young men for successful careers as public servants, probably as scribes/sages like himself.1 By assuming the language of a parent speaking to a child, the sage does more than simply invoke that relationship, however. He constructs his students as his children and thereby claims the authoritative leverage with them that a father has with his sons. The student, who is on the receiving end of the construct, is subtly coerced into the role of the submissive child. “I am not merely a teacher to whom you should listen”, says the sage, “I am your father to whom you must listen”.

* I am delighted to offer this article in celebration of Michael Knibb’s scholarly career. As I have come to know him, Michael has been a colleague in the very best sense of the word. He has been supportive of my work at the same time as he has engaged it critically. For that I am grateful and certainly a better scholar. I also extend my appreciation to Sidnie Crawford, Lynn LiDonnici, Robert Rozehnal and Monica Najar, who read drafts of this paper and offered very valuable comments. 1 On the term scribe/sage, see R. A. Horsley and P. Tiller, “Ben Sira and the Sociology of the Second Temple”, in P. R. Davies and J. M. Halligan (eds.), Second Temple Studies III. Studies in Politics, Class and Material Culture ( JSOTSup 340. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), pp. 99–103 and B. G. Wright and C. V. Camp, “‘Who Has Been Tested By Gold and Found Perfect?’ Ben Sira’s Discourse of Riches and Poverty”, Henoch 23 (2001) 153–74.

310

benjamin g. wright iii

Elsewhere in Second Temple Jewish literature, we find frequent examples of sages speaking with a father’s voice. In some cases, especially in texts that have been labeled as wisdom, the “father” (the presumptive author of the text) is a wise sage giving instruction to his “son(s)” (the students/readers are addressed by the singular or plural “you”), as in the examples from Ben Sira above. In other instances, like Aramaic Levi and the Testament of Job, a father speaking to his children occupies a central place in the narrative. This same device serves as the overarching framework for the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs. These scenarios particularly characterize the genre testament, but even apocalyptic texts, such as 1 Enoch, can employ this device. Those Second Temple texts in which the author assumes the role of father might be construed at minimum as being dependent on a literary tradition found in earlier Israelite wisdom texts. The biblical book of Proverbs, perhaps the quintessential Israelite wisdom text, presents itself as homegrown wisdom given by a father (and sometimes a mother) to a son. The topics are varied—speech, wealth, relations with women, among others—but all get conveyed as parental instruction to a beloved child. Indeed, some scholars maintain that this literary device may actually reflect the original domestic context of ancient Israelite wisdom instruction.2 Proverbs, for example, highlights on several occasions the instructional role of parents as teachers and counselors.3 An Israelite son would have received much of his instruction from his parents in the home, and the sage’s adoption of that role indicates the critical importance of that institution as a locus of instruction.4 The sage, who wants to establish credibility and authority in the eyes of his students, essentially adopts the father’s authority. Thus, one could see the central literary frame of a book like Proverbs influencing a sage like Jesus ben Sira, who addresses his own students as sons, even though there is almost no

2 For wisdom and the family in Proverbs, see the summary comments and bibliography in R. Murphy, “Israelite Wisdom and the Home”, in J.-C. Petit (ed.), Où demeures-tu? la maison depuis le monde biblique: en hommage au professor Guy Coutrier (SaintLaurent, Quebec: Fides, 1994), pp. 199–212. 3 C. R. Fontaine, “The Sage in Family and Tribe”, in J. G. Gammie and L. G. Perdue (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 155–164. 4 On the Israelite family and its functions, see most recently, P. J. King and L. E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2001).

the sage as father in early jewish literature

311

chance that Ben Sira’s wisdom originated as family instruction. Ben Sira engages students in a formal context of pedagogy, and his didactic goal is to prepare them to enter into and to cultivate successful careers. So, in 51:23, he advertises his services, “Draw near to me, you who are uneducated, and lodge in the house of instruction.”5 To observe that these texts are borrowing a literary device from earlier tradition does not do them justice, however.6 The direct address to students, for instance, may represent the actual setting and manner of instruction and thus give some clues as to the social location of these texts. While one can imagine a sage instructing his students or parents teaching their children in this manner in a real context of pedagogy, the intentional use of such discourse may work in another altogether different way as well. The author’s use of the first-person “I” and the second person “you” (sometimes singular and sometimes plural) in addition to imperative verb forms also draws, even coerces, whoever reads the text into this same relationship, one in which the author’s words possess the force of paternal authority. I would suggest that even if the text might indeed reflect actual pedagogical technique, this particular discourse has as a central aim the extension of this same authority to the reader, whoever he or she might be. In a short and illuminating article, Carol Newsom argues that this is precisely the case in Proverbs 1–9. She explains that the “I” and “you” of the text’s direct address are “linguistic blanks or empty signs filled in only when individual speakers and addressees appropriate them in specific instances of discourse . . . The striking prominence of the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘you’ and the repeated use of vocative and imperative address in Proverbs 1–9 are clear indicators of what is at stake in these chapters: the formation of the subjectivity of the reader.”7 The author, through the use of ideologically charged 5 The Hebrew of Ms B reads yçrdm tybb. The Greek has §n o‡kƒ paide¤aw. P. W. Skehan and A. A. Di Lella argue that the original Hebrew probably read rswm tyb (The Wisdom of Ben Sira [AB 39. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987], p. 575). Whatever the case, the phrase certainly indicates some context of formal pedagogy or schooling. 6 See, for instance, Skehan’s and Di Lella’s comment on 6:23. “In v 23, Ben Sira appeals to his own authority in addressing his readers in the tone of a father . . . In so doing, he was modeling himself on Prov 4:10.” (Wisdom of Ben Sira, p. 193). 7 C. Newsom, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom: A Study of Proverbs 1–9”, in P. L. Day (ed.), Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), p. 143.

312


discourse, “recruits” the reader, who by responding must take some position vis-à-vis that ideology, a process Louis Althusser called “interpellation”.8 All readers of Proverbs, according to Newsom, “are called upon to take up the subject position of son in relation to an authoritative father. Through its imitation of a familiar scene of interpellation the text continually reinterpellates its readers.”9 The sage’s choice of the setting of the patriarchal family is not a neutral one, argues Newsom; it has ideological force: “Since it is in the family that one’s subjectivity is first formed, the malleability called for in the text is made to seem innocent, natural, inevitable. In addition the symbol of the family causes the discourse to appear outside of specific class interests.”10 The discourse further reinforces the hierarchical and authoritative nature of the relationship between father and son and hence of the author and reader since the text denies the literary son an opportunity to talk back, either to question or to challenge that authority. Just as the son does not speak, the reader, who is separated from the author by the text, has no opportunity to speak either. As a result, the teacher/father/author presents his instruction to the student/son/reader not with the expectation of dialogue, but with the anticipation of acquiescence, acceptance and internalization of the instruction. These same arguments apply to those Second Temple texts that feature a father/son mode of address through the use of first- and second-person pronouns. They employ many of the same discursive and rhetorical devices, not simply because they occur in such an influential text as Proverbs, but because this discourse is pedagogically productive and powerful. Additionally, these sages also exploit avenues of their own that contribute to the effectiveness of this discourse. Second Temple Jewish society remained dominated by the patriarchal family, even if that construction changed somewhat over the years that intervened between the composition of texts like Proverbs 1–9 and Ben Sira.11 Jewish society at large, like the fam-

8 Newsom takes the concept of interpellation from Althusser (Lenin and Philosophy [New York: Monthly Review, 1971], pp. 174–175), who argues that no discourse is ideologically neutral. Ideology “recruits” or “hails” a subject, who, responding to the hailing, “takes up a particular position in a particular ideology”. This action he calls “interpellation”. 9 Newsom, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom”, pp. 143–144. 10 Newsom, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom”, p. 144. 11 Proverbs 1–9 may not be all that remote from Ben Sira, however. Many schol-


313

ily, was hierarchical and rigidly patriarchal, structured in such a way that the maintenance of honor and the avoidance of shame determined men’s social standing.12 In this world, the father almost certainly retained his traditional position as his sons’ primary teacher and disciplinarian, providing the sage the important social springboard for his claims on his students. Thus, we can imagine motivations for a sage like Ben Sira to resort to rhetorical strategies that are similar to those that Newsom identified in Proverbs. The author/father controls what gets taught and how it is presented. As part of that agenda, the father of the text determines how undesirable people and actions get characterized.13 So, in Ben Sira, the loose woman, the fool, the wealthy or the faux-friend all become included in the father’s discourse and his portrayal of them. In those verses that begin “Do not say . . .”, the same fate befalls even the speech of the son (cf. for example, 5:1, 3, 4, 6). The paternal monologue reinforces the extreme submissiveness/subjectivity of the son/reader and the corresponding and contrasting power of the father/teacher. Yet as Newsom observes about Proverbs, the attempt to construct a submissive reader is not simply about internalizing teaching; it is also about stifling “recalcitrance before legitimate authority”. She writes, “But one may sense behind this supine persona, a shadow figure of significant power. A world made of discourse, a symbolic order, an ideology exists only by consensus. If it cannot recruit new adherents and if those whom it reinterpellates do not recognize themselves in its hailing, it ceases to have reality.”14 In a world of competing discourses, the father’s complete control over the discourse is intended to recruit the son into adopting the father’s ideology and

ars date these chapters to the post-exilic period, perhaps close to the book of Malachi with which they show some similarity. See C. V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (Decatur, GA: Almond, 1985), pp. 235–254. 12 On honor and shame, see C. V. Camp, “Understanding a Patriarchy: Women in Second Century Jerusalem Through the Eyes of Ben Sira”, in A.-J. Levine (ed.), “Women Like This.” New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (SBLEJL 1. Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), pp. 1–39. 13 Newsom, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom”, p. 144. 14 Newsom, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom”, p. 146. In this section, she argues that Wisdom is the public voice “who occupies the places that are physically symbolic of collective authority and power.” I think that Wisdom functions a bit differently in Ben Sira, but the point that she makes applies to Ben Sira as well.

314


values, to ensure internalization of those values and to reduce the possibility of their rejection. At the same time it serves to protect the son from those competing discourses that might capture his attention and divert it from the “right” path. In short, the discourse of father/son in wisdom texts like Proverbs and Ben Sira works to reinforce in the reader what Newsom terms the “dominant symbolic order”. With such a potent weapon in their rhetorical arsenal, it should not surprise us that Second Temple authors would rely upon father/son discourse so frequently, especially in instruction or moral exhortation. My purpose is to show that the use of father/son discourse is not an innocent literary borrowing, but that these authors employ it to accomplish similar goals to those of the author of Proverbs 1–9.15 I will look at three different kinds of texts to explore how they employ the discursive features of Proverbs and how they formulate their own versions of this father-son discourse. The first type is perhaps the clearest—those wisdom texts, like Ben Sira, that adopt father/son discourse as a primary strategy for addressing their readers. While these are the texts in which the discourse identified by Newsom shows up most clearly, we can extend Newsom’s analysis to two other kinds of texts. A second group of texts, mostly fragmentary works from Qumran, preserve direct address with the singular or plural second person pronoun without any clear identification of the “I” with a father or the “you” with sons. Do these texts reflect the familial discursive features of Prov 1–9? Might any of these fragmentary texts have been framed originally as father/son discourse? Finally, the narrative texts that feature a father and his sons in which the father is a revered figure from the past might also, but in a somewhat different fashion, attempt to achieve the same goals as those texts that use the direct I-you address of father to son.

15 Newsom’s interest in her article is also how that dominant symbolic order is patriarchal, and she spends a great deal of time explaining the crucial role that the strange woman of Proverbs plays in that discourse. While Ben Sira employs the metaphor of Woman Wisdom, he does not exploit the strange woman or Folly. What turns out to be interesting and could be the subject of separate investigation is that in the Second Temple period some texts use the strange woman of Proverbs (see 4Q184) or the metaphor of Woman Wisdom (see 4Q185) while others do not. On this image at Qumran, see my “Wisdom and Women at Qumran”, DSD 11 (2004) 240–261.


315

The Sage as Father Whereas Ben Sira is the most obvious Second Temple period work in which to find the kind of discourse that Newsom identified in Proverbs, the sage in several other wisdom texts also constructs the reader as the child through the explicit use of the vocative “son(s)” and the consistent use of the pronouns “you”. Most prominent in this group are 4Q185, 4Q412, 4Q525 and 4QInstruction. One additional work, the Damascus Document, although it is not a wisdom text, also addresses its readers as sons. Each of these works shares a number of features with Prov 1–9. In addition, several other features appear in these texts that reinforce the power of the father’s position and hence his authority. Ben Sira Although Ben Sira did not compose the kind of extended meditation on wisdom as Proverbs 1–9, he employs almost all of the rhetorical features found there.16 In addition, other rhetorical schemes work to inscribe the reader’s filial subjectivity and hence the authority of the author’s teaching. For instance, like Proverbs, Ben Sira relies on the abstract language of righteousness and justice (e.g., 7:5–6; 35:5–9).17 He presents the image of walking a path or way, playing on the double entendre of a traveler on a real path and of a student on a metaphorical path in life (see especially 32:20–22). This latter image appears frequently in Second Temple literature. Newsom comments on its appearance in Proverbs, “A path is a social product, made by many feet over a period of time . . . A path does not, in fact, exclude movement in any direction. It only makes its own direction the easiest, most natural, most logical way of proceeding . . . Customary social behavior, represented by the image of the path, is a type of nonverbal discourse.”18 One of Ben Sira’s primary adaptive strategies for constructing the sinners and their destructive actions, a feature of the discourse in

16

The Praise of the Ancestors (chaps. 44–50) does have an overall coherence, but it is not a meditation on wisdom in the manner of Proverbs 1–9. 17 On the place of these abstract nouns in the discourse of Proverbs, see Newsom, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom”, p. 144. 18 For a fuller explanation of the metaphor, see Newsom, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom”, pp. 147–148.

316


Proverbs, is to begin a teaching with the phrase “Do not say. . . .”. This device allows him to accomplish two complementary ends. He can portray the sinners and their disregard for proper values and behaviors as he wants the son to hear them. He thus presents the competing discourses of the world that rival those of the patriarchal order as he chooses, and he then takes the opportunity to turn the case around to reinforce his own patriarchal ideology and values, which contrast with those of his rivals. A typical example is 5:4–5: “Do not say, ‘I have sinned, yet what has happened to me?’ for the Lord is slow to anger. Do not be so confident of forgiveness that you add sin to sin.” Perhaps most famously, Ben Sira constructs appropriate and inappropriate sexual relationships as either reinforcing or threatening the patriarchal order, a prominent device in Proverbs 1–9.19 In a society where honor and shame determine a man’s status, women possess the frightening ability to destroy a man’s honor or the contrasting potential to build it up.20 It is somewhat curious, then, that, unlike Proverbs where the portrait of the foreign/strange woman who lures the son away occupies a central position in the discourse, Ben Sira does not really exploit this dangerous woman as a symbol of marginality or otherness. Woman Wisdom, however, acts in Ben Sira in a very similar way to Proverbs to buttress the speech of the father. What Newsom says for Proverbs applies also to Ben Sira. “Where the father is the authoritative voice in the family, Hokmot is the corresponding public voice . . . who occupies the places that are physically symbolic of collective authority and power . . . She also has the power to save from disaster.”21 In Proverbs, people hear wisdom’s public voice “in the streets” (1:20) or “at the entrance to the gates” (1:21). In Ben Sira 24, wisdom gets one major speech, but she speaks both “in the midst of the people” (v. 1) and “in the assembly of the Most High” (v. 2). Now she resides in the most central of all places, the Temple in Jerusalem (vv. 10–12), and she is embodied in the “book of the covenant of the Most High God” (v. 23). Meanwhile, she calls directly

19 On this feature of the discourse in Proverbs, see Newsom, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom”, pp. 153–55. 20 Camp, “Understanding a Patriarchy”. 21 Newsom, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom”, p. 146.


317

to the student/reader in words of desire and possession (vv. 19–20). Even more, though, Ben Sira connects his own teaching directly with wisdom. 24:23–29 make a transition between the speech of wisdom and the first-person speech of the author. These verses are replete with mentions of rivers (the Pishon, Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan, Nile and Gihon) as metaphors of sources of wisdom. V. 30 begins, “As for me I was a canal from a river”. Ben Sira, the father who speaks to his sons, has a direct channel to this fluvial source of wisdom, and thus he draws his teaching directly from that wisdom. By making this series of moves from Wisdom to Torah to his own teaching, Ben Sira argues that his values are built into the very fabric of the world. Wisdom’s divine nature and Ben Sira’s connection with her anchors his own discourse in the “transcendent realm”.22 One of Ben Sira’s most effective strategies for constructing the subjectivity of the reader occurs in the book’s opening chapters. Chapters 1 and 2 have as their major themes the grounding of wisdom in creation and the fear of the Lord. Ben Sira uses the phrase “fear of the Lord” seventeen times in these chapters. Chapter 3 then begins, “Listen to me your father, O children” and continues through v. 16 with a poem about proper relationships with parents. As we might expect, Ben Sira affirms unconditionally the authority and position of parents above their children. The conclusion of the poem (vv. 14–16) makes the ultimate connection of the divine and the parental. “For kindness to a father will not be forgotten, and will be credited to you against your sins; in the day of your distress it will be remembered in your favor; like frost in fair weather your sins will melt away. Whoever forsakes a father is like a blasphemer, and whoever angers a mother is cursed by God.” By identifying himself explicitly as a father and speaking to the student/reader as a child, Ben Sira effectively assumes the parent’s authority, which is linked directly to proper reverence for God. Ben Sira reinforces his position and authority as the reader’s father by the repeated use of the vocative, “my child,” which occurs eight times in book’s first six chapters. In chapters 44–50, Ben Sira praises a series of famous people from Israel’s past.23 His introduction to this section tacitly enlists the 22

Newsom, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom”, pp. 150–51,

157. 23

On the Praise of the Ancestors and its larger function in the book, see

318


reader as one of the descendents of these righteous ancestors, thus placing the reader in a chain of inter-generational transmission of the patriarchal order. This rhetorical strategy, which Proverbs also employs, helps assure the son that he will not always be at the bottom of the hierarchy. He will assume his own place as a bearer of the tradition. Ben Sira begins his praise, “Let us now sing the praises of famous men, our ancestors (lit. fathers) in their generations” (46:1). Later in vv. 10–15, he notes several times that the “wealth” and “inheritance” left by these fathers will remain with their descendents, who will “stand by the covenants”. Their progeny “will continue forever”. Who else could be the legitimate heirs of this inheritance but those to whom Ben Sira speaks? By framing this entire section with the first-person plural “we” and “us”, Ben Sira has placed his sons, both students and readers, in a larger chain of father-son relationships in which they are expected to become the fathers who pass on the inheritance to their descendents. 4QSapiential Work (4Q185)24 The author of this fragmentary wisdom text specifically invokes patriarchal authority by addressing his readers as sons in 1–2 ii 3, “Listen to me, my sons, and do not defy the words of YHWH.” But this is not the only form of direct address in the work. 1–2 i 9 directs a prophetic woe to “you, O sons of men”, and i 13–14 appeals to “my people” and “you simple ones”. Each vocative assumes a somewhat different, though still hierarchical, relationship between the author and the reader: ruler-subject, teacher-student, father-son. In the lines following the paternal address, the author employs several features we have seen in Proverbs and Ben Sira. First, he draws on the metaphor of walking a path (ii 1, 4). Second, the father’s presentation of the wicked takes the form of a direct quotation of their words, “The wicked persons should not brag saying,

B. Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic. Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1985). 24 For the text of 4Q185, see conveniently F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997) I, pp. 379–380. For the most recent edition of the text, see H. Lichtenberger, “Der Weisheitstext 4Q185—Eine neue Edition”, in C. Hempel, A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (BETL 159. Leuven: Peeters, 2002), pp. 127–150.


319

‘She [presumably wisdom] has not been given to me and not[. . .’” (ii 9). He then leaves the son no room for latitude in response: “Whoever glories in her will say . . .” (ii 11). These contrasting statements assume that wisdom is a woman that the son can “take as a possession” (hç[wr]y). Here the father of 4Q185 resorts to an old strategy, but with a new twist. Newsom noted about the discourse of Proverbs, “For the young deferral is not endless. So, in Proverbs 1–9, where the reader is continually reinterpellated in the subject position of the son, chapter 4 speaks of the transformation of sons into fathers in the chain of tradition.”25 One way Ben Sira accomplishes that goal is to insert the reader into the chain of the famous ancestors. The author of 4Q185 utilizes a different strategy. He claims that wisdom gets passed down through the generations as an inheritance, and “as she was given to his fathers, so will he inherit her [and hold fast] to her . . . And he will give her in inheritance to his descendents” (1–2 ii 14–15). The “he” of these lines is the “whoever glories in her” of l. 11, that is, the dutiful son/reader. Wisdom in this text, then, is both the woman with whom the son will have “long days, and greasy bones, and a happy heart, rich[es and honor]” (ii 12), but she is also a possession that can pass from generation to generation as a valuable family heirloom. In the former case, the allusion to wisdom as a good wife reinforces the patriarchal order through the son’s proper sexual choices. In the latter case, the father creates the expectation that the son will now become part of the patriarchal order, and he will continue that tradition. 4QBeatitudes (4Q525)26 This work is best known for the series of five beatitudes or macarisms contained in 2 ii + 3:1–7. Due to the fragmentary state of the manuscript, the precise context of these beatitudes is uncertain, but they seem to be part of a meditation on the acquisition and benefits of Woman Wisdom in which wisdom is identified with the Torah.27 The text contains several appeals for the reader to pay attention or

25

Newsom, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom”, p. 151. É. Puèch, Qumrân Grotte 4. XVIII (DJD 25. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), pp. 115–178. 27 D. J. Harrington, Wisdom Texts from Qumran (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 66–70. 26

320


listen and in 2 ii + 3:12 the addressees are called “sons.” In fragment 14, however, the discourse becomes second person singular. Exactly when the transition from plural to singular happens and what its significance is remains unclear.28 The most prominent feature of the father-son discourse in 4Q525 is the metaphor of walking on paths. References both to good and bad paths occur throughout the various fragments of the work. Three of the five beatitudes speak of paths or walking. Twice the paths lead away from the law and wisdom and so are “perverted” and “insane” (2 ii + 3:2), and once the blessed person “walks in the law of the Most High” (2 ii + 3:3–4). Later in that same fragment keeping wisdom in front of one’s eyes keeps one off the wrong path (2 ii + 3:7). Wisdom herself sets out ways for the righteous to follow (5:7, 9) and they “dig her paths” (5:12). Altogether the word path or way (˚rd) occurs 13 times in the extant fragments of 4Q525.29 The text represents wisdom as a woman throughout, and it is clear that the reader is to pursue her. Although the language does not generally have the same double entendre sexual overtones as other texts we have seen, there are occasions where they peek through. Fragment 2 iii, although poorly preserved, seems to be describing the beauty of wisdom. 2 ii + 3:8 may suggest a longing for her on the part of the son. Unfortunately the thing that causes the longing is not extant in the fragment, but “on her account (it) eats away his heart” (hyla wbl μtyw). 13:5, part of another incomplete fragment, may refer to wisdom as an inheritance. While the extant text contains no reports of the direct speech of sinners themselves, the author represents their actions, which the son needs to avoid, through a series of “Do not” statements (frag. 5).30 In fragment 14, the author, as in our previous texts, attempts to situate the reader in a chain of generational transmission of patriarchal values. In this case, however, the author appeals directly to the post-mortem legacy of the reader. The son truly becomes the father

28 14 ii 18 is particularly notable because the addressee is called “understanding one” (ˆybm), a term found with great frequency in 4QInstruction (see below). 29 This number comes from the concordance to DJD 25 (p. 218). See also M. G. Abegg Jr. et al., The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. Volume 1: The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 2003). 30 These kinds of statements are especially frequent in wisdom literature. Ben Sira contains a large number of them.


321

here. “[. . .] he will give you as an inheritance; he will fill your days with goodness, and with abundant peace you will [. . .] you shall inherit honor; and when you are snatched away to eternal rest they will inhe[rit . . .] and in your teaching, all those who know you will walk together” (14 ii 13–15). These imperfect tenses (translated as futures in English) form the conclusion of a long passage in which the sage/father reassures the student/son that he will not fail in the difficult times. Those who hate the son will not triumph (14 ii 8–11), and indeed, God will drive away evil and fear (14 ii 12). The voice of the reassuring parent enables the author to warn the child about the possible trials ahead, but at the same time to accept the values he offers since those who hold different views cannot succeed. The ultimate result is the incorporation of the child into the patriarchal order as a transmitter of that order. 4QInstruction (4Q415–418, 423, 1Q26)31 This wisdom book is perhaps the most important one discovered at Qumran, and it survives in at least seven copies. It takes the form of instruction by an older sage to a younger one, who is typically called “understanding one” or “maven” (ˆybm, hereafter mevin), although in one fragment the sage addresses a woman (4Q415 2 ii) and in several passages the “you” is plural rather than singular (e.g., 4Q417 1 i 20, 27). In two places (4Q417 1 i 18; 4Q418 69 ii 15), however, the sage addresses the student directly as “you, O understanding son” (ˆybm ˆb htaw), and in another (4Q417 1 i 25) he calls the mevin “sage son” (lykçm ˆb).32 While the single term ˆybm is the sage’s preferred mode of address, scholars are almost unanimously agreed that the fragmentary nature of the manuscripts obscures any understanding of its overall scope and structure, if it had one.33 Yet, the extant passages demonstrate that the sage did resort to the strategy of

31 J. Strugnell and D. J. Harrington, Qumran Cave 4. XXIV Sapiential Texts, Part 2 4QInstruction (Musar Le Mevin) (DJD 34. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999). 32 While these phrases could be taken as referring to a member of a certain class of people or to people who have certain qualities, it seems significant to me that the author departs from his usual designation of the simple ˆybm for some combination with ˆb. Thus, the idea of sonship seems implicit in the sage’s address. 33 M. Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction (STDJ 50. Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 2–5.

322


assuming the role of a father, and indeed several other features of father-son discourse also appear in the work. Two major themes dominate much of the book: the poverty of the mevin and the “mystery that is to come” (hyhn zr). The sage frequently comments on the mevin’s poverty, which is clearly material.34 Yet despite his low estate, the mevin has access to the hyhn zr, and the sage exhorts him to study this mystery in order to understand “all the ways of truth” (4Q416 2 iii 14). The hyhn zr perhaps offers an element unique to 4QInstruction among the rhetorical strategies connected with the sage’s role as father. Although the text does not spell out its content, it clearly has an eschatological component.35 Does the eschatological promise of the hyhn zr provide an additional incentive for the reader/son to listen to the teaching of the sage/father? Does the father’s anticipation of reward and punishment compel the son to the right course of action? This problem is further complicated precisely because the hyhn zr is never explained. Is the expectation that the reader, like the mevin, will know what it is?36 In any case, the hyhn zr occupies a central place in the teaching that the sage gives. For my purposes, however, what matters is how the mevin learns the mystery. 4Q416 2 iii contains an extended section on honoring

34

See my article, “The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature”, in J. J. Collins, G. R. Sterling and R. A. Clements (eds.), Sapiential Perspectives. Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 51. Leiden: Brill, 2004), pp. 101–123 and C. M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community (STDJ 40. Leiden: Brill, 2002). 35 On the “mystery that is to come” and its content, see T. Elgvin, “Wisdom, Revelation, and Eschatology in an Early Essene Writing”, in E. H. Lovering (ed.), SBL Seminar Papers 1995 (Atlanta: SBL, 1995), pp. 440–463; idem, “Early Essene Eschatology: Judgment and Salvation According to Sapiential Work A”, in D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks (eds.), Current Research and Technological Developments (STDJ 20. Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 126–165; idem, “The Mystery to Come: Early Essene Theology of Revelation”, in F. H. Cryer and Th. L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments ( JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), pp. 113–150; D. J. Harrington, “The Raz Nihyeh in a Qumran Wisdom Text (1Q26, 4Q415–418, 4Q423)”, in Hommage à Jósef T. Milik, RQ 17 (1996) 549–553; idem, Wisdom Texts from Qumran, chap. 6; and most recently Goff, Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, pp. 30–79. 36 This question raises the issue of the anticipated audience for these texts. If, for instance, the text were directed to an insider audience who would know the content of the mystery (as it appears here), then eschatology would most likely contribute to the overall agenda of the father working to get the child to adopt his values. Such issues could easily be the topic of a separate study.


323

one’s parents. Two elements of the discourse serve to connect the sage as father to the student/reader as child. First, God is explicitly compared to parents: “For as God is to a man, so is his own father; and as the Lord is to a person, so is his mother” (l. 16). In this same section the sage compares the procreative act of the parents with that of God: “For they are the womb that was pregnant with you, and just as he (i.e. God) has set them in authority over you and fashioned (you) according to the spirit.” Second, those same parents taught their child about the hyhn zr: “And as they have uncovered your ear to the mystery that is to come, honor them for the sake for your own honor” (ll. 17–18).37 In another fragment, 4Q418 184, however, it appears that God teaches the mystery to the mevin, and the same phrase, hyhn zr hknza hlg, appears in both 4Q418 and 416 2 iii 18.38 Since parental actions in these texts are compared and even conflated with God’s, by directly addressing the mevin as “son”, the sage inserts himself into that relationship, effectively claiming the same authority that he has urged between the mevin and his “real” parents. At the same time, the linkage of the sage to the mevin’s parents to God essentially grounds the sage’s teaching in the divine order. “Your father is like God to you, and I am a father to you,” says the sage. How could one fail to listen? The concept of inheritance, denoting an important family possession that is passed from the father to his legitimate heirs, plays an important role in 4QInstruction. In some cases, like 4Q416 2 ii 18 or 4Q416 2 iv 11–12, the term probably refers to material inheritance, but far more frequently it is connected with words like “glory” or “truth”. Several examples illustrate the point. In 4Q417 i 10–11, an eschatological inheritance contrasts with the things of this life: “Lest you have trouble in your life [gaze upon the mystery] that is to come and comprehend the birth-times of salvation, and know who is to inherit glory and toil.” In 4Q416 4:3 the sage encourages the

37 The entire passage is very difficult and subject to different translations. For the reasons behind this translation, see DJD 34, pp. 120–122. For a different translation, see García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Study Edition, II, p. 853. 38 The editors have taken God as the subject here, because God apparently is the subject in the previous line. The subject could have changed, however. Without any broader context, we cannot know with certainty. The most likely alternative here is the mevin’s parents, as in 4Q416. In any case, this ambiguity does not affect my overall argument.

324


mevin to “rejoice in the inheritance of truth” (tma tljnb hjmç). One passage suggests that the “mystery that is to come” contains an inheritance for the wicked (and, I imagine, for the righteous as well, although such a statement is not extant). 4Q417 1 i 18–24, which begins with the sage calling the mevin “son”, is a long passage on the “mystery that is to come” and knowledge of it. Lines 23–24 speak of evildoers: “Do not be contaminated by evildoing [. . . for everyone who is contaminated] with it shall not be treated as guiltless. According to his inheritance in it (the mystery) he shall be tr[eated as wicked . . .].” For the sage of 4QInstruction, God distributes an inheritance to all humankind, but he is the “portion” (qlj) and “inheritance” (hljn) of the mevin. 4Q418 88:7–8 may even suggest that in death there is an inheritance: “Then you shall be gathered in (your) sorrow [into death . . .] and in truth your in[her]itance shall be fulfilled.” A single passage employs the idea of inheritance to place the mevin in the chain of patriarchal tradition. 4Q416 2 iii 7–8 claims that if the mevin is faithful and uncorrupted by money “then (at death) you will sleep in faithfulness, and at your death your memory will flow[er forev]er, and your posterity will inherit joy”. Inheritance serves an import rhetorical function in the sage’s strategy of constructing the mevin (and the reader) as his child. By appealing to this idea, the sage accomplishes more than one end. First, the language of inheritance makes concrete the hierarchical nature of the relationship, particularly in this text since the author compares God to one’s father, and so the metaphor serves to reinforce the readers’ subjectivity. Second, by highlighting that one can inherit good and bad from God in the eschaton, the reader essentially must choose to hear and to obey his legitimate father, one who will give a desirable inheritance, or essentially be disinherited and abandoned to destruction. The stark reality of the choice is clear. Finally, as we have seen, the father’s appeal to the receipt of an inheritance assures the son that he will take his place in the patriarchal order, if he adopts the values of the father. Each of these uses of inheritance furthers the aim of having the student/reader adopt the dominant symbolic order. 4QInstruction also utilizes a number of other features of fatherson discourse that Newsom identified. The metaphor of walking correctly and on the right paths appears at several points in the extant fragments, although sometimes simply the verb “walk” alone serves to elicit the metaphor (see 4Q416 2 iv 7; 4Q417 1 i 10–12, 18–19;


325

4Q417 1 ii 11; 4Q418 87:10–11). Although they do not feature prominently in the work, the sage does frame rival discourses through the use of “do not say” (4Q416 2 iii 12) or direct report (4Q418 69:10–11). While a number of passages in the extant fragments advise the mevin how to have a good relationship with the “wife of your bosom” (4Q416 2 iv 5), one fragmentary passage may suggest that the sage also referred to the dangers of illicit sexuality (4Q418 243). The notable feature lacking in 4QInstruction is any idealization of wisdom or her counterpart, folly, as a woman.39 The Damascus Document (CD; 4Q266–273)40 The Damascus Document begins with a call for “all who know justice” to “listen and understand the actions of God” (CD I:1). The text continues with the claim that God has a dispute (byr) with all flesh, after which the author narrates the early history of the group for whom the text is written. In CD II: 2, the author again appeals for his readers to listen. This time the addressees are called “all who enter the covenant”. In this section the author will “open your ears to the paths of the wicked.” In a third call to listen (CD II:14), the author moves to addressing the readers as “sons”. Now, after having described the group’s beginnings, those who opposed it, and the paths of the wicked, the author plans to “open your eyes so that you can see and understand the deeds of God so that you can choose what he is pleased with and repudiate what he hates”. He then frames the choice before the readers in the language of walking paths. His “sons” are expected to follow perfect paths, while at the same time avoiding “the thoughts of a guilty inclination and lascivious eyes” (CD II:16), presumably the wrong path. Many have strayed because of these things, says our author, who then embarks on a long review of history beginning with the fall of the Watchers and extending to his present and then to the eschatological future. In the first two instances of the call to listen the author describes the

39 On women in 4QInstruction and other Qumran wisdom texts, see my article “Wisdom and Women at Qumran”. 40 I am grateful to Charlotte Hempel for this reference. For the text of CD, see M. Broshi, The Damascus Document Reconsidered ( Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society/The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1992). For the cave 4 manuscripts, see J. M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4. XIII. The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (DJD 18. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996).

326


situation before the readers as he assesses it. When he wants to present his readership with a choice to make, he calls them “sons”. Here he adopts the language of the parent who understands that his children have a choice to make, but he has a clear preference for which option they select, or using the metaphor of the text, which path they decide to tread. He uses his presumed authority as the readers’ “parent” to bias their decision in his favor. The decision is not really a free one since the author/parent expects that the readers/sons will see that what lies before them is really not a choice at all, but an expectation that they will walk the path to which the author/father directs them. Texts Addressed to “You” A number of works from Qumran address the reader as “you”, but their extant fragments do not contain any explicit mention of the addressee(s) as “son(s)”. In a couple of these, the addressee’s identification is explicit, however. 4Q298 preserves in its first line what was presumably the title of the work, “Words of a sage, which he spoke to all the Sons of Dawn”, and it begins with a familiar call, “Listen to me, all men of heart and pursuers of justice, understand my words, and seekers of truth hear my words.” Unfortunately, not much of the work survives, but it contains a reference to the “path of life” (i 3). The work also preserves a call to the addressee to “understand the end of the ages” (iii 9–10). 4Q302, another short and fragmentary work, uses the second person plural, and its author calls out, “Understand this, O wise ones” (2 ii 2). The rest of these works are extremely fragmentary and little can be made of them. Yet, every so often in them as well some features of father-son discourse survive. One text, however, deserves a more detailed examination. 4Q424 is a wisdom work whose three largest fragments contain warnings about various kinds of people to avoid. Fragment 3 ends with the beginning of a list of people who are approved by the sage. The constant refrain of “Do not do x with x sort of person because . . .” presents in an explicit and unmistakable fashion those whom the sage regards as sinners. The metaphorical use of “path” occurs one time, when the sage warns against using a lazy person to help with one’s business “for he will not take care of your paths” (1:7). The list of approved people is dominated by such abstract terms as justice (3:10, “sons of justice”) and righteousness (3:9 “righteousness for


327

the poor ones”) together with the adjectives “wise”, “prudent” and “upright”. The sage presents a clear contrast for the student to see. The most prominent feature of this text, however, is its division of the self into a series of body parts and adjectives describing them, all of which are used metaphorically to identify moral categories. Newsom highlights the strategy of rewriting the self as its parts in Proverbs 4, and she comments, “The self is not presented as a simple entity. Or perhaps it is better to say that the various parts of the body can represent the whole by synecdoche. The individual’s subjectivity can be seen as invested in each of these parts, any of which has the power to work his ruin.”41 In 4Q424 individuals become symbolized by a single body part, thus reinforcing the ways that any individual body part can control a person. So, the text warns against the “person with twisted lips” who distorts the truth (1:8–9), the “person with an evil eye” who will squander or steal one’s wealth (1:10–12). One should not “send a dim-sighted person to observe the upright” (3:3) nor the “hard of hearing . . . to investigate a case” (4–5). The “fat of heart” should not be asked to “unearth thoughts, because the wisdom of his heart is hidden . . .” (3:6–7). In such a small amount of extant text, just three fragments, we find a number of aspects of the father-son discourse that we have seen elsewhere. Finding such a dense use of these devices in such limited remains suggests that the sage of this work may have explicitly presented himself as a father to a son. Narrative Fathers Speaking to Sons The narrative device of a father giving his sons advice, especially as he is about to die, appears with relative frequency in Second Temple Jewish literature. In some cases, like the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs or Testament of Qahat (4Q542), the father’s deathbed testament to his sons frames the entire work.42 In other instances, like Tobit 4 and

41

Newsom, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom”, p. 152. While I recognize that not all scholars agree that the Testaments were originally Second Temple Jewish works (see De Jonge, above, pp. 179–194), all concur that the work is heavily dependent, at the least, on Jewish sources. The best example is, of course, T.Levi and Aramaic Levi. On that relationship, see M. E. Stone, “Aramaic Levi Document and Greek Testament of Levi”, in S. M. Paul, R. A. 42

328


14 or 1 Enoch 82:1–4, the scene is incorporated into a larger and more diverse work. In each case, however, the speech of the father is characterized by the “I-you” of the wisdom texts I examined above. What makes a considerable difference is that the narrative frame of the speech distances and separates the reader from the father of the text, because the “I” and the “you” are no longer “linguistic blanks or empty signs,” to use Newsom’s phrase. These pronouns now have specific dramatis personae as their referents. When we look at the speeches themselves, we can see many of the same features of the father-son discourse that we have already noted. It would certainly be possible to create a laundry list of where these features occur in these texts, but my purpose here is not to detail their presence in each work. Several examples will suffice to demonstrate the point. (1) The metaphor of walking paths occurs often. In 1 Enoch 82:4 Enoch blesses the righteous “who walk in the path of righteousness.” Aramaic Levi (4Q213 3 + 4:8) presents the patriarch as warning his sons that they will “forsake the paths of justice and all the ways of [. . .”. The Testaments are replete with references to walking either on paths or in God’s commandments, in simplicity, etc. (i.e., T.Sim. 5:2; T.Jud. 13:2; 26:1; T.Iss. 4:1, 6; 5:1; T.Naph. 4:1; T.Asher. 1:3; T.Jos. 18:1). (2) All these texts rely on abstract notions of righteousness, justice, etc. The clearest example of how these terms can function is in the Testament of Qahat (4Q542 1 i 11–13), “. . . because you have carried on [the] inheritan[ce] which your fathers gave you, truth, justice, and uprightness, and perfection, and puri[ty and ho]liness, and the priest[ho]od. . . .” (3) Many texts emphasize the difference between approved and disapproved sexual relationships, which work to replicate or threaten the patriarchal order. Thus, women often function as symbols of otherness and marginality. This theme stands out especially in the Testaments and Tobit. (4) Generally in these testamentary scenes the sons do not have an opportunity to reply to the father’s words, and thus the patriarch gets to present the sinners and their behaviors and values in his terms (cf., e.g., 1 Enoch 82:4b–6; Aramaic Levi ). Kraft, L. H. Schiffman, W. W. Fields (eds.), Emanuel. Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (SVT 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 429–437. Since these works contain many of the features of the discourse I have outlined above, they contribute to the overall argument of this paper. See H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A Commentary (SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985).


329

The topics purveyed in these works, such as moral exhortation, proper cultic practice or warnings about eschatological rewards and punishments, suggest that these narrative father-son discourses are aimed at influencing the readers’ behavior and values. Thus, a crucial question is whether these texts contain any features that bridge the gap between the narrative “I” and “you” and the reader so that the reader can “take up the subject position of son” in relation to the father of the narrative.43 If readers found themselves in the same subject relationship to the text that we saw above, then the elements of father-son discourse contained in them potentially could affect the readers and encourage their adoption of the values of the text’s patriarch. One feature of these texts that might accomplish such an aim is the command on the part of the textual father for his sons to transmit his teachings to their children. This obligation on the part of the textual sons has the potential to place the reader at the end of a chain of transmission of the father’s teaching through the generations. In a sense, the reader would become one of the descendents of the narrative patriarch. To this end, the device that probably creates the highest degree of obligation in the reader to adopt the father’s teaching is when he gives writings to his sons and obligates them to transmit them to their sons throughout subsequent generations. In this case, the recipient, who reads or listens to the book being read, has physical possession of the legacy of the father’s instruction, which creates a link between the patriarch and the reader. The readers then may perceive that the “I-you” discourse of the father is directed at them. Other features of this discourse will most likely function as they do in those works in which the sage addresses the reader directly through the text. We find this strategy in 1 Enoch, Aramaic Levi Document and the Testament of Qahat (4Q542). In 1 Enoch 82:1–2, Enoch, who has seen heavenly visions, transmits records of them to Methuselah: And now my son Methuselah, all these things I recount and write for you, and all of them I have revealed to you, and I have given you books about all these things. Keep, my son Methuselah, the books of the hand of your father, that you may give them to the generations

43 The quote comes from Newsom, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom”, p. 143.

330

benjamin g. wright iii of eternity. Wisdom I have given you and to your sons and to those who would be your sons that they may give to all the generations until eternity this wisdom that surpasses their thought.44

Enoch’s command for Methuselah to pass on these books “to those who would be your sons” contains the implication that anyone who receives this wisdom is a son of Methuselah, and hence of Enoch. Thus, Enoch speaks to the reader directly through the “I-you” discourse contained in his written legacy.45 Both Aramaic Levi and Testament of Qahat give strong indication that their teaching is to be handed down in written form. In Aramaic Levi (4Q213 1 i 9–10 and Cambridge col. e 18–19) the patriarch requires his sons to “teach reading and writing and the teaching of wisdom to your children and may wisdom be eternal glory for you.”46 Here reading and writing are connected with wisdom that is to be handed to a next generation. While this passage is not as clear as 1 Enoch, the implication is that written material is to be transmitted by the patriarch’s sons. Although fragmentary, one passage in the Testament of Qahat (4Q542 1 ii 9–13) has the patriarch say, “And now to you, Amram my son, I comma[nd . . .] and [to] your [son]s and to their sons I command [. . .] and they have given to Levi, my father, and which Levi, my father, has gi[ven] to me [. . .] all my writings as witness that you should take care of them [. . .] for you; in them is great worth in their being carried on with you.” Elsewhere in the work (4Q542 1 i 3–4) Qahat refers to “your sons in the generations of truth forever”. Although the details are somewhat obscure, it appears as if Qahat is passing down his literary legacy to Amram so that he can pass it on to future generations. A variant of this notion may be found in the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs. Each of the twelve separate deathbed speeches from the patriarch to his sons begins with the claim that it is a copy of the

44 The original place of this passage is a matter of dispute. In the version of the work that we have it forms part of the conclusion of the Astronomical Book. See G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), pp. 333–344. 45 While the claims of the text gain authority from the fact that they are written and passed down from the patriarch, the texts themselves probably derive authority by taking on the voices of known and revered patriarchs. 46 4Q213 1 ii + 2:12–13 contains the phrase “in the books read”, but there is no context. It is not clear if these are written books from Levi or something else entirely. This passage does not appear to have a parallel in the Geniza manuscripts.


331

patriarch’s words that he spoke to his sons before his death. Five of these also contain in them some additional command that the sons transmit the patriarch’s teaching and wisdom to their sons (T.Iss. 6:3; T.Dan. 6:9; T.Naph. 8:2; T.Gad. 8:1; T.Asher 7:4). This combination of a claim to the exact words of the patriarch and the command to transmit them may position readers at the end of the chain of transmission and thus obligate them to hear and adopt the father’s teaching. Three of the testaments, Simeon, Levi and Benjamin, make more explicit reference to the time after the patriarch’s grandsons. T.Sim. 7:3 reads, “Therefore, I give you these commands, that you may command your children that they may observe them through their generations.” T.Jud. contains the notice at the very beginning, “A copy of the words of Levi, which he enjoined on his sons before his death according to all that they would do and that would befall them until the day of judgment.” T.Levi contains other references to transmission beyond the patriarch’s sons (4:5; 13:2) as in other testaments. Finally, T.Ben. 10:4 has, “For I teach you these things instead of any inheritance. And do you also, therefore, give them to your children for an everlasting possession.” These three combine the command to transmit or possess the patriarch’s teachings over periods of time that extend well beyond a generation or two. In these, readers are certainly included as the descendents of the patriarch who should observe his teaching.47 Conclusion What Newsom brought to light in Proverbs was that the sage was not content simply to offer instruction and see what happened. He resorted to a discourse that limited the ability of his students or his readers to decide on their own whether or not to adopt his values and symbolic order. By constructing students and readers as children of an authoritative father, he placed obligations on them to accept those values just as they would those of their “real” fathers. In order to accomplish this end, the sage of Proverbs employed a variety of strategies to recreate and reinforce the subjectivity of those

47 In the case of Tobit 14:8–9, Tobit commands his children to command their children “to do what is right, to give alms, and to be mindful of God, and to bless his name at all times”. He does not bequeath a written legacy to his children and this case is not as compelling as those in which written texts get handed down.

332


who engaged the text. Each of these strategies served to bolster the authority of the sage and the power of the values and symbolic order he presented to his students/readers. The sages represented in these Second Temple wisdom texts moved beyond trading on a literary device they found in the tradition; they clearly found it effective for accomplishing their own similar goals. Thus, they did more than borrow. They adopted and adapted this fatherson discourse and created additional strategies, like 4QInstruction’s emphasis on the centrality of inheritance or Ben Sira’s use of historical review to enlist the son as a potential father, that enabled them to claim the paternal authority that they employed as instructional tools. All these sage fathers had themselves once been sons, figuratively as well as literally, who had been integrated into the values of their own fathers. They had been successfully transformed from sons into fathers, and they in turn bequeathed their legacy to their children and to their children’s children. Because of the open and inclusive nature of readership, the preservation of these texts has enabled these textual parents to speak to innumerable readers as their children in times and places they could never have imagined.

CHRISTIAN MESSIANISM AND THE FIRST JEWISH WAR WITH ROME Adela Yarbro Collins In the late 1960s, Lloyd F. Bitzer introduced the term “rhetorical situation” into the vocabulary of rhetorical theory. He proposed that a rhetorical situation be regarded as “a natural context of persons, events, objects, relations, and an exigence which strongly invites utterance”.1 According to Bitzer, rhetoric is essentially related to situation, since a work of rhetoric is pragmatic. Its function is to produce action or change in the world.2 His examples show that the typical rhetorical exigence that he had in mind is a specific historical situation of crisis, not a typical social situation. In the meantime, Bitzer has been criticized for implying that the rhetorical situation and its exigence have an objective existence apart from the perceptions of the persons involved in the context. This criticism has resulted in more attention to the way in which a speaker or writer must construct an understanding of the situation before setting out to modify it.3 The thesis of this article is that a number of early Christians perceived the first Jewish war with Rome as an historical crisis and that this perceived crisis presented them with a rhetorical exigence. One of these was the author of the Gospel according to Mark. Another was an anonymous individual or group alluded to in 2 Thessalonians who claimed that “the Day of the Lord” had come. A third was the author of 2 Thessalonians, who was impelled to respond to that claim. Each construed and responded to the situation in a different way, but each drew upon the Scriptures in order to interpret and respond to the historical crisis. The authors of the two works that eventually became part of the New Testament made use especially

1 Lloyd F. Bitzer, “The Rhetorical Situation”, Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968) 1–14, p. 5. 2 “Rhetorical Situation”, pp. 3–4. 3 Paul A. Holloway, Consolation in Philippians. Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy (SNTSMS 112. Cambridge: Cambridge University), pp. 37–41.

334

adela yarbro collins

of the book of Daniel. All three had an important influence on the development of Christian messianism and eschatology. Mark 13 The Gospel of Mark reflects the Jewish war most clearly in the speech of Jesus presented in ch. 13. It opens abruptly but powerfully in v. 5 with the admonition: “See that no one leads you astray”. This warning is followed by an explanation that seems to allude to concrete historical circumstances. The interpretation of this explanation, pollo‹ §leÊsontai §p‹ t“ ÙnÒmat¤ mou legontew ˜ti §g≈ efimi, is disputed. The main clause should be translated “Many will come with my power and authority”. This clause is analogous to two constructions in the Septuagint in which verbs of motion are also used with the phrase §p‹ t“ ÙnÒmat¤ mou or a similar phrase, namely, 1 Kgdms 17:45 and 2 Chron 14:10.4 The reference is to those who claimed to be the Messiah of Israel and to exercise the power and authority that, from the point of view of Mark, only the risen Jesus had. The dependent clause would then be translated “saying, ‘I am he’”, that is, the Messiah, an interpretation attested by Matt 24:5. By means of a speech placed in the mouth of Jesus, Mark responded to an aspect of the situation in which he was writing. Messianic leaders of the revolt had emerged, first Menachem in the summer of 66 and then Simon, son of Gioras. Simon began to play a major role in 67, and by the Spring of 69 was master of Jerusalem. If Mark was writing before the destruction of the temple in 70, as the rhetorical force of the speech in ch. 13 as a whole makes likely, he had to contend with the fact that a large portion of the Jewish people had accepted Simon as the Messiah. Not only that, but Mark had to face the possibility that Simon might be victorious against the Romans. He responded by defining Simon and his ilk as deceivers, unmasked in advance by the prophecy of Jesus. Mark foresaw that Simon would be defeated, but not in the way that events actually unfolded. The eschatological scenario described in Mark 13 has three stages: the beginning of the birth pangs, described in vv. 5–13; the tribulation, portrayed in vv. 14–23; and the parousia, depicted in vv. 24–27. Some scholars have argued that

4

1 Sam 17:45 and 2 Chron 14:11 in the English versions.

christian messianism and the first jewish war with rome 335 the events associated with both “the beginning of the birth pangs” and “the tribulation” had already occurred from Mark’s point of view. Only the prophecy of the parousia remained to be fulfilled, according to these scholars. A major problem with this point of view is that it requires taking the deceivers mentioned in vv. 5–6 as the same group against whom Jesus warns the disciples in vv. 21–22, namely, false messiahs and false prophets. But the former belong to the period of “the beginning of the birth pangs”, whereas the latter belong to the next stage of the eschatological scenario, “the tribulation”. For this and other reasons, it makes more sense to see v. 14 as the turning point: “Now when you see ‘the desolating sacrilege’ standing where he should not—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains etc.”. It has been argued that the parenthesis in v. 14, “let the reader understand”, is strong evidence for the use of a written source, a kind of apocalyptic broadsheet. This argument is not compelling.5 The clause is better taken as an aside from the evangelist to his audience, an hypothesis supported by the concluding statement in v. 37, which makes clear that the speech is directed to a broader audience than the four disciples named in v. 3. The phrase “the desolating sacrilege” or “the abomination of desolation”, tÚ bd°lugma t∞w §rhm≈sevw either alludes to the book of Daniel or to an apocalyptic tradition inspired by it. The wording of the phrase in Mark 13:14 is is closest to Dan 12:11; cf. Dan 9:27; 11:31; 1 Macc 1:54. The term in Daniel originally referred to a pagan altar built upon the altar in the temple in Jerusalem. It is doubtful, however, that the author of Mark was aware of this interpretation. Given the eschatological perspective of Mark and the analogies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is likely that the evangelist read the ex eventu prophecy of Dan 9:27 as a genuine prophecy of an event to take place in the last days. How he envisioned that event is disputed. The term bd°lugma is used in a variety of ways in the Septuagint. One well attested usage is to designate the image of a foreign god.6 Especially significant for Mark 13:14 is the fact that

5 A. Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel. Probings of Mark in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), pp. 77–81. 6 Deut 7:25–26; 27:14–15; 29:15–16 (vv. 16–17 in English); Isa 2:8, 20; 44:19; cf. Jer 7:30; Ezek 8:10; 20:30.

336


the term may refer both to the image and to the deity that it represents.7 Thus, the shift from the neuter noun bd°lugma to the masculine participle •sthk≈w may be explained in terms of this equivalence. The masculine participle would thus refer to the emperor or to the deity who he claimed to be or whom he claimed to represent. Zuntz argued that Mark 13:14 alludes to Caligula’s attempt to have his statue set up in the temple in Jerusalem (and that therefore the Gospel as a whole was written in 40 ce); the masculine participle represents tÚn éndriãnta toË basile«w.8 Although he does not say so, the use of the noun éndriãw by Philo and Josephus in their accounts of this crisis supports the idea that this is another credible way to explain the shift from the neuter to the masculine.9 When the desolating abomination appears, the faithful must take to headlong flight. Hartman has suggested that this flight is patterned on Lot’s flight from Sodom. The idea that links Genesis 19, Daniel 9:27 and Mark 13 is that an ungodly place or thing will be destroyed by God’s wrathful judgment. The flight commanded in Mark 13:14–16 therefore is a matter of escaping from God’s punishment that will befall the ungodly thing.10 But Hartman did not address the question how this expected punishment relates to the historical situation of Mark. It is likely that Mark expected the Romans to set up a statue in the temple and that this act would evoke the wrathful punishment of God, that is, the destruction of the temple and its environs by fire, a destruction analogous to that of Sodom. Lambrecht concluded that the evangelist adapted tradition which used the story of Lot typologically, but that he did not preserve a clear allusion to the story. Nevertheless, he points out that the words diå toÁw §klektoÊw in Mark 13:20c recall the d¤kaioi in Genesis 18.11

7 Deut 32:16–17; 3 Kgdms 11:6 (v. 5 in English), 33; 4 Kgdms 23:13; Wis 14:8–11. 8 Günther Zuntz, “Wann wurde das Evangelium Marci geschrieben?”, in Hubert Cancik (ed.), Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), pp. 47–71, pp. 47–8. 9 Philo Legat. XXIX. 188; Josephus A.J. XVIII.8.2 [261]. 10 Lars Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted. The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 par. (ConBNT 1. Lund: Gleerup, 1996), pp. 151–4. 11 Jan Lambrecht, Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse. Literarische Analyse und Strukturuntersuchung (AnBib 28. Rom: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967), pp. 159, 165 n. 2.

christian messianism and the first jewish war with rome 337 Such an expectation fits the typological thinking of apocalyptic writers and early Christians. The Book of the Watchers seems to imply that there will be a flood in the last days like the one in the time of Noah. The Synoptic Sayings Source, followed by Matthew and Luke, compared the arrival of the days of the Son of Man to the flood in the days of Noah, and Luke adds (or also preserves) a comparison to the destruction of Sodom, when fire and brimstone rained from heaven.12 Furthermore, Josephus gives ample evidence that those who rebelled against Rome expected a divine intervention during the war that would preserve the temple from destruction. This expectation is clearly described in J.W. V.11.2 [459]. Two other passages allude to it.13 Schwier argued that Josephus tried to minimize this hope for divine aid.14 Furthermore, the way in which Simon, son of Gioras, presented himself to the Romans seems to indicate that he thought of himself as the messianic king and expected a divine intervention to give him the victory. He wore a purple mantle and emerged from the ground on the very spot where the temple had stood.15 It is likely that this intervention was also expected to be the inauguration of the new age. In an expression of pãyow analogous to Mark 13:14–18, Josephus stated his belief that, had the Romans delayed in destroying the city, either the earth would have opened up and swallowed it, or it would have been swept away by a flood, or it would have had a share in the thunderbolts of Sodom.16 In addition to the well-known stories of Noah and Lot, Josephus alludes here typologically to the story of Korah and his companions in Numbers 16. He presented these hypothetical disasters as punishment upon the leaders of the revolt, especially John of Gischala, for what Josephus perceived to be temple-robbery or sacrilege.17 Thus, both Josephus and Mark imagined a destructive, miraculous, divine intervention against the city, but for different reasons and probably with different degrees of seriousness.

12

Matt 24:37–39//Luke 17:26–27 on Noah; Luke 17:28 on Lot. Josephus J.W. V.7.3 [306]; VI.2.1 [98]. 14 Helmut Schwier, Tempel und Tempelzerstörung. Untersuchungen zu den theologischen und ideologischen Faktoren im ersten jüdisch-römischen Krieg (66–74 n.Chr.) (NTOA 11. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), p. 30 n. 1. 15 J.W. VII.2.2 [29]. 16 J.W. V.13.6 [566]. 17 flerosul¤a (ibid., § 562). 13

338

adela yarbro collins Second Thessalonians

It is clear that the author of 2 Thessalonians had a copy of Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians). We have no evidence that he knew any of the other letters of Paul that have come down to us. The reference to “a letter supposed to be from us” (2 Thess 2:2) and the greeting at the end, allegedly in Paul’s own hand as a sign of authenticity (3:17), suggest that the author knew of pseudonymous Pauline letters. Paul described “the coming (parous¤a) of the Lord” in 1 Thess 4:13–17 and then spoke about “the Day of the Lord” in 5:1–11, which he associated with ‘destruction’ (ˆleyrow) in v. 3 and the wrath (ÙrgÆ) of God in v. 9. The author of 2 Thessalonians apparently associated the two passages and inferred that the arrival of the risen Jesus would lead to destruction for the wicked and salvation for the faithful followers of Jesus. This is a credible reading of 1 Thessalonians and is supported by the undisputed Pauline letters that survive to this day. In those letters Paul at times seems to equate or at least closely associate “the Day of the Lord” with the day of the final judgment of the righteous and the wicked.18 Other passages imply that judgment according to works will take place on the Day of the Lord.19 At other times, however, he characterizes this Day in terms of destruction, for example, by fire.20 1 Cor 5:5 is ambiguous, but may be understood as implying that those excluded from the community will be destroyed, along with outsiders, on the Day of the Lord, whereas the community, because of the presence of the Spirit, will be preserved. But before the community can be saved, the presence of the Spirit must be preserved by driving out the sinner.21 After an epistolary prescript, modeled on that of 1 Thessalonians, the pseudonymous author of 2 Thessalonians wrote a long prayer of thanksgiving that introduces the theme of the letter, “the revelation (épokãluciw) of the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven with his powerful angels”.22 In this prayer, the author states that, at the time

18

1 Cor 1:8; cf. Rom 2:5, 16. 2 Cor 1:14; Phil 1:6, 10–11; 2:16. 20 1 Thess 5:2–3; 1 Cor 3:13. 21 Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Function of ‘Excommunication’ in Paul”, HTR 73 (1980) 251–63. 22 The thanksgiving comprises 1:3–12 (Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the 19

christian messianism and the first jewish war with rome 339 of the revelation of Christ, the addressees will receive relief from their tribulations, but those who oppress them will be repaid with oppression (2 Thess 1:6–7). Furthermore, when he appears, the Lord Jesus Christ will “punish those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess 1:8). The description of the revelation of Christ ends with the phrase “on that day”, which is thus placed in an emphatic position (2 Thess 1:10). The body of the letter opens with a statement of the issue that is the occasion for the letter: “We entreat you, brothers and sisters, concerning the coming (parous¤a) of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, not to be too easily shaken from the composure of your minds or to be frightened, neither through a spirit nor discourse nor a letter supposed to be from us, as if the Day of the Lord were upon us” (2 Thess 2:1–2).23 The context in which the author presents the view that he opposes implies that people were saying that the parousia was about to occur. It is highly unlikely that anyone was saying that the parousia had already occurred. Early Christian tradition is clear about the expectation that the parousia would be a public, cosmic event, so that its arrival would be unmistakable. Presumably, none of the members of the Christian communities had as yet been transformed and risen into the air to meet the returning Lord. As we have seen, the author of 2 Thessalonians expected the punishment of the wicked to follow the parousia and to be executed by Christ. In holding and communicating this understanding, the author probably understood himself to be maintaining Paul’s view of the matter, as suggested above. We noted also that Paul’s remarks concerning “the Day of the Lord” manifest some diversity in connotations. It may well be that, for him and for some other early Christians, the term still carried with it connotations from its usage in older Scripture. “The Day of the Lord” is a common term in the books of the prophets of Israel

Thessalonians [AB 32B. New York: Doubleday, 2000], p. 358); the quotation is from v. 7. 23 The phrase …w ˜ti §n°sthken ≤ ≤m°ra is equivalent to …w §nest≈shw t∞w ≤m°raw (BDF § 396). See also Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978), pp. 93–94.

340


and Judah. It is most often described as a future event in which God will take vengeance, show his wrath, and punish the wicked.24 Why did people think that “the Day of the Lord” was present or extremely imminent? If letter-writing, a type of rhetorical expression, is pragmatic, we as interpreters must ask what historical event in the period after the death of Paul could have led people to announce that “the Day of the Lord” was at hand. Given the connotations of the term in older Scripture, it is likely that the first Jewish war with Rome was the reason why some were making the claim that the author of this letter opposed. The claim that “the Day of the Lord” was on the horizon could well have been inspired by the military isolation of Jerusalem by Vespasian in the first half of 68 or by the march of Titus and his legions against the city in the first half of 70. Like Mark, the Christians making the claim to which 2 Thess 2:1–2 alludes probably saw the hand of God in the pending destruction of the temple and city, which they viewed as vengeance for the rejection of Jesus as Messiah. Or, if the temple had just been destroyed, they may have believed that the coming of the Lord would occur immediately, as Mark 13:24 seems to imply. In the thanksgiving, the author of 2 Thessalonians instructs his audience concerning the judgment. When Christ appears, he says, he will punish “those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess 1:8). These descriptions include all Gentiles and Jews who have not joined a Christian community. The punishment to be executed must fall, he implies, not only on those in Jerusalem who rejected Jesus as the Messiah, including their descendants, but also on all those who have rejected the Christian proclamation about Jesus. This view is more explicitly universal than Paul’s and has a more vindictive tone, but is probably not substantively different. Paul, however, expresses intense hope and indeed the expectation that all Jews will eventually be saved (Romans 9–11). None of the three perspectives discussed here involves any sense of the “delay of the parousia” or any attempt to dampen imminent eschatological expectation. Mark wrote during the Jewish war and expected the parousia to follow soon after its climax. Those opposed 24 Glenn S. Holland, The Tradition that You Received from Us. 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline Tradition (HUT 24. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988), pp. 96–7; Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, pp. 290–1.

christian messianism and the first jewish war with rome 341 by the author of 2 Thessalonians evidently held a view similar to that of Mark. The eschatological teaching of the author of 2 Thessalonians differed in emphasis from the first two, but was not significantly less imminent. The mystery or secret of lawlessness was already at work in his view (2 Thess. 2:7). The eschatological adversary, “the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition”, was ready to burst on the scene. It was only the restraining force (tÚ kat°xon) that prevented his appearance. The “one who restrains” (ı kat°xvn), until he himself is removed from the scene, is most likely an angel, acting as an agent of God.25 Dibelius argued that the language of restraint here is evidence for the mythological origin of the notion of the Antichrist, which is present here even though the term is not used.26 Dibelius did not cite the passages listed in n. 25 above. He did, however, point to Rev 20:2–3, 7–10 as “the best biblical description of the retarding factor”.27 He also pointed to a magical papyrus (PGM IV. 994–95), in which Horus is described as the one who restrains the dragon (kat°xvn drãkonta), and to another spell (PGM IV. 2769–70), in which Michael is addressed as one who restrains the one they call the great serpent (kat°xvn ñ kal°ousi drãkonta m°gan).28 According to the scenario of 2 Thessalonians 2, when “the restrainer” is removed, the eschatological adversary will appear, “who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thess 2:4). This is the earliest text that states clearly that the eschatological adversary or Antichrist will take his seat in the temple. The author of 2 Thessalonians, adapting earlier traditions, may well be the creator of this specific motif. Although its presence is not by itself definitive proof that the letter was written before the temple was destroyed in 70, it is more likely that this motif originated before that date than afterward. Dibelius pointed out that the motif occurs in texts composed after the destruction of the temple.29 Sometimes the motif was modified in light of the destruction and sometimes not. It is more easily intelligible that an 25

Cf. 2 Bar. 6–8; Rev 7:1–3; 9:14–15. Martin Dibelius, An die Thessalonicher I II. An die Philipper (HNT 11. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1937), pp. 47–8. 27 Ibid., p. 49. 28 BDAG, s.v. kat°xv; Dibelius, An die Thessalonicher, pp. 49–51 and Vielhauer, Geschichte, p. 92 n. 8. 29 An die Thessalonicher, p. 45. 26

342


already existing motif would be handed on without comment, although it no longer corresponded to contemporary circumstances, than that it would be created in spite of that lack of correspondence. The “man of lawlessness” will be accepted by many who are destined to perish. This acceptance constitutes the “apostasy” or “rebellion” that must occur before the parousia.30 The focus of the activity of this individual on the temple and the remark in 2:12 that those who accept him will be those who did not believe in the truth suggest that the author of 2 Thessalonians expected his followers to be those members of the Jewish people who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. A similar theme occurs in Mark 13. False messiahs and false prophets will appear and deceive many, immediately before the revelation of the Son of Man.31 But the main difference between Mark 13 and 2 Thessalonians 2 seems to result from different interpretations of the prophecy of the “abomination of desolation” in Daniel.32 Whereas Mark expected the Romans to fulfill this prophecy by setting up a statue in the temple, the author of 2 Thessalonians expected the prophecy to be fulfilled by an evil king, resembling the veiled description of Antiochus in Daniel 11, who would usurp God’s place in the temple. Compare 2 Thess 2:4 with the depiction of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel, especially Dan 11:36–37. Other historical figures and texts may have had an influence, such as the Roman general Pompey, who, after capturing Jerusalem in 63 bce, entered into the holy of holies of the temple. Pss. Sol. 17:11–15 refers to him as “the lawless one” (ı ênomow) who “acted arrogantly” (§po¤hsen Íperhfan¤an). The Roman emperor Gaius Caligula (37–41 ce) commanded the governor of Syria, Petronius, to set up statues of Caligula in the sanctuary (naÒw) of the temple in Jerusalem. Josephus says of Caligula: “he wished to be considered a god and to be hailed as such”.33 Nero put to death a large number of Christians in Rome after the fire of 64. Lawlessness could also be attributed to him because he had his mother put to death. In 69 a pseudo-Nero arose in Asia and Achaea, anticipating Parthian aid, but he was caught and put to death. 30

Compare 2 Thess 2:9–12 with 2:3. See Mark 13:21–22 for the warning about false messiahs and false prophets and 13:24–27 for the revelation of the Son of Man. 32 Compare Mark 13:14 and 2 Thess 2:4 with Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11. 33 Josephus J.W. II.10.1 [184]; trans. from LCL. 31

christian messianism and the first jewish war with rome 343 Literary influences include the poem in Isa 14:12–15, which is based on the myth of Athtar from Ugarit. The passage in Isaiah adapts the myth in a taunt regarding the fall of Babylon. The poem was later interpreted in terms of the rebellion and fall of Satan. Ezekiel 28 contains the following address to the king of Tyre: “Because your heart is proud and you have said, ‘I am a god; I sit in the seat of the gods, in the heart of the seas,’ yet you are but a man, and no god. . . .”.34 The apocalyptic instruction regarding the appearance of “the man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians seems to result from a creative exegetical combination of passages about the abomination of desolation with the summary of Antiochus’s activity in Dan 11:36–37. It is tempting to speculate about the identity of this figure from the point of view of the author of 2 Thessalonians. Did he imagine that Simon, son of Gioras, would exalt himself in this way once the war against Rome had been won? Did he envision the revelation of a new leader, a kind of Jewish super-Messiah, who would work miracles, including the defeat of the Romans? Or did he think of this evil king as the Roman emperor or his agent who would expect divine honors after winning the war against the Jews? The text does not reveal this secret. But if the letter was composed during the war, the author would probably have had some ideas about how it would turn out. And this result was expected to be according to the Scriptures. Conclusion This discussion of three early Christian perspectives on the first Jewish war with Rome leads to several conclusions about early Christian messianism and apocalyptic eschatology in the second half of the first century. First, instruction on these matters was presented as the authoritative teaching of founding figures, Jesus in the case of Mark and Paul in the case of 2 Thessalonians. Second, early Christians perceived the first Jewish war with Rome as an historical crisis that had to be addressed and interpreted from a Christian point of view. And third, creative exegesis, especially of the book of Daniel, played an important role in the process of formulating or updating that authoritative teaching in response to the perceived rhetorical exigence.

34

Ezek 28:2; trans. RSV.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott D. M., “Buchanan George”, in H. C. G. Matthew and B. Harrison (eds.), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography vol. 8 (Oxford: Oxford University, 2004), pp. 468–72 Abegg M. G. with J. E. Bowley and E. M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. Volume One. The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran. Part One and Two (Leiden: Brill, 2003) Adams E., “Creation ‘Out of ’ and ‘Through’ Water in 2 Peter 3:6’,” in G. H. van Kooten (ed.), The Creation of Heaven and Earth. Re-interpretations of Genesis 1 in the Context of Judaism, Ancient Philosophy, Christianity, and Modern Physics (Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 195–210 ——, “Where is the Promise of His Coming? The Complaint of the Scoffers in 2 Peter 3:4,” NTS 51 (2005) 106–22 Aejmelaeus A., “Die Septuaginta des Deuteronomiums,” in T. Veijola (ed.), Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), pp. 1–22 Albertz R., “The Social Setting of the Aramaic and Hebrew Book of Daniel,” in J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002), I, pp. 171–204 Alexander M. S. Bp., An Introductory Lecture delivered publicly in King’s College, London, November 17, 1832 (London: King’s College, 1832) ——, Farewell Sermon, Preached at the Episcopal Jews Chapel, Bethnal Green, Nov. 8, 1841 (London: LSPCJ, 1841) Alexander P. S., “The Enochic Literature and the Bible: Intertextuality and its Implications,” in E. D. Herbert and E. Tov (eds.), The Bible as a Book. The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (London: The British Library and Oak Knoll Press in association with The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2002) pp. 57–69 ——, “The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Ya˙ad: A Proposal,” RQ 17 (1996) 437–456 Alexander P. S. et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXVI. Miscellanea, Part 1 (DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000) Alexander P. S. and G. Vermes, Qumran Cave 4. XIX. Serekh ha-Ya˙ad and Two Related Texts (DJD 26. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) Allegro J. M., Qumrân Cave 4. I (DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) ——, “Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature,” JBL 75 (1956) 174–75 Allert C. D., Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation. Studies in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (VCSup 64. Leiden: Brill, 2002) Anderson A. A., The Book of Psalms (New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1972) Anderson G. W. (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation. Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979) Argall R. A., 1 Enoch and Sirach. A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment (Atlanta: SBL, 1995) Assemani J. S., Sancti Patris nostri Ephraem opera omnia quae exstant (Rome: Typographia Vaticana, 1740) Attridge H. W., The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) Attridge H. et al., Qumran Cave 4. VIII. Parabiblical Texts Part 1 (DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) Aune D. E., Revelation 17–22 (WBC 52C. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998)

346

bibliography

Avigad N. and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1956) Bachmann J., Der Prophet Jesaia nach der Äthiopischen Bibelübersetzung auf Grund handschriftlicher Quellen. 1. Teil: Der Äthiopische Text (Berlin: Felber, 1893) Baillet M., Qumrân Grotte 4. III (DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982) Baillet M. et al., Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân (DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962) Bal M., “Between Altar and Wondering [sic] Rock: Toward A Feminist Philology,” in M. Bal (ed.), Anti-Covenant. Counter-Reading Women’s Lives (Sheffield: Almond, 1989), pp. 211–31 ——, Death and Dissymmetry. The Politics of Coherence in the Book of Judges (Chicago and London: University of Chicago, 1988) Bampfylde G., “The Similitudes of Enoch. Historical Allusions,” JSJ 15 (1984) 9–31 Barker M., “Reflections upon the Enoch Myth,” JSOT 15 (1980) 7–29 Barthélemy D. and J. T. Milik, Qmran Cave 1 (DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955) Barton G. A., “The Composition of the Book of Daniel,” JBL 17 (1898) 62–86 Bauckham R. J., Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50. Waco: Word, 1983) ——, The Climax of Prophecy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000) Baumgarten A. I., The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era. An Interpretation ( JSJSup 55. Leiden: Brill, 1997) Baumgarten J. M., “The Qumran-Essene Restraints on Marriage,” in L. H. Schiffman (ed.), Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), pp. 13–24 ——, Qumran Cave 4. XIII. The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (DJD 18. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) ——, “265. 4QMiscellaneous Rules,” in J. Baumgarten et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. XXV. Halakhic Texts (DJD 35. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), pp. 57–78 Baumgarten J. M., E. G. Chazon and A. Pinnick (eds.), The Damascus Document. A Centennial of Discovery (STDJ 34. Leiden: Brill, 2000) Bautch K. C., A Study of Geography of I Enoch 17–19. ‘No One Has Seen What I Have Seen’ ( JSJSup 81. Leiden: Brill, 2003) Beale G. K., The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of John (Lanham MD: University Press of America, 1984) Beall T. S., “Essenes,” in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols. New York: Oxford University, 2000), I, pp. 262–9 ——, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (SNTSMS 58. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1988) Bedenbender A., “Traces of Enochic Judaism Within the Hebrew Bible,” in G. Boccaccini (ed.), The Origins of Enochic Judaism. Proceedings of the First Enoch Seminar. University of Michigan, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy June 19 –23, 2001 (Freiburg: Herder, 2003), pp. 39–48 Bellinzoni A. J., The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr (NovTSup 17. Leiden: Brill, 1967) Berger K., “Hellenistisch-heidnische Prodigien und die Vorzeichen in der jüdischen und christlichen Apokalyptik,” ANRW II 23/2 (1980), pp. 1428–1469 Bernstein M. J., “Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls: Categories and Functions,” in E. G. Chazon and M. Stone (eds.), Pseudepigraphic Perspectives. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 1–26 Bernstein M. J. et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXVIII (DJD 28. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001) Betz O., “Das Volk seiner Kraft. Zur Auslegung der Qumran-Hodajah III,1–18,” NTS 5 (1958–59) 65–75 Beyerle S., “The Book of Daniel and Its Social Setting,” in J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002), I, pp. 205–228 Bicheno J., The Signs of the Times: or the overthrow of the papal tyranny in France, the pre-

bibliography

347

lude of destruction of popery and despotism, but of peace to mankind (London: Printed for the author, 1793) Bitzer Lloyd F., “The Rhetorical Situation,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968) 1–14 Black M., “The Maranatha Invocation and Jude 14, 15 (1 Enoch 1:9),” in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley (eds)., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1973), pp. 189–96 ——, “The Eschatology of the Similitudes of Enoch,” JTS 3 (1952) 1–10 ——, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch (SVTP 7. Leiden: Brill, 1985) Blenkinsopp J., “A Jewish Sect in the Persian Period,” CBQ 52 (1990) 5–20 ——, Isaiah 56–66. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 19B. New York: Doubleday, 2003) ——, The Pentateuch. An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York: Doubleday/London: SCM, 1992) Boccaccini G. (ed.), The Origins of Enochic Judaism. Proceedings of the First Enoch Seminar. University of Michigan, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy June 19 –23, 2001 (Freiburg: Herder, 2003) ——, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis. The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) ——, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism. An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) Bogaert P.-M. (ed.), Le Livre Jérémie. Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission (BETL 54. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1981) ——, “De Baruch à Jérémie: Les deux rédactions conservées du livre de Jérémie,” in Le livre de Jérémie. Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission (BETL 54. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1981), pp. 168–173 ——, “Le livre deutérocanonique de Baruch dans la liturgie romaine,” in Mélanges liturgiques offerts au R. P. dom Bernard Botte à l’occasion du cinquantième anniversaire de son ordination sacerdotale (4 juin 1972) (Louvain: Abbaye du Mont César, 1972), pp. 31–48 ——, “Le nom de Baruch dans la littérature pseudépigraphique. L’Apocalypse syriaque et le livre deutérocanonique,” in W. C. Van Unnik (ed.), La littérature juive entre Tenach et Mischna. Quelques problèmes (RechBib 9. Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp. 56–72 ——, L’Apocalypse syriaque de Baruch. Introduction, traduction du syriaque et commentaire (2 vols. Paris: Cerf, 1969) Borsch F., The Son of Man in Myth and History (NTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967) Bovon F., “The Lukan Story of the Passion of Jesus (Luke 22–23),” in Studies in Early Christianity (WUNT 161. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), pp. 74–105 Brady M., “Biblical Interpretation in the ‘Pseudo-Ezekiel’ Fragments (4Q383–391) from Cave Four,” in M. Henze (ed.), Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 88–109 Brin G., The Concept of Time in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 39. Leiden: Brill, 2001) Brock S., A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (Kottayam: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 1997) Brooke G. J., “Exegetical Strategies in Jubilees 1–2. New Light from 4QJubileesa,” in M. Albani, J. Frey and A. Lange (eds.), Studies in the Book of Jubilees (TSAJ 65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), pp. 39–57 ——, “The Book of Jeremiah and its Reception in the Qumran Scrolls,” in A. H. W. Curtis and T. Römer (eds.), The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception. Le livre de Jérémie et sa réception (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), pp. 183–205 ——, “4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:11,” in B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold, and A. Steudel (eds.), Antikes Judentum und Frühes Christentum. Festschrift für Hartmut

348

bibliography

Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag (BZNW 97. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), pp. 253–65; reprinted in G. J. Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Essays in Mutual Illumination (London: SPCK/Minneapolis MN: Fortress, 2005), pp. 282–97 ——, “Isaiah 40:3 and the Wilderness Community,” in G. J. Brooke and F. García Martínez (eds.), New Qumran Texts and Studies (STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 117–32 ——, “Parabiblical Prophetic Narratives,” in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999), I, pp. 271–301 ——, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” in J. Barton (ed.), The Biblical World (2 vols. London: Routledge, 2002), I, pp. 250–69 ——, Exegesis at Qumran. 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context ( JSOTSup 29. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985) Brooke G. et al., Qumran Cave 4. XVII. Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) Brooks E. W., Chronica Minora II (CSCO Scr. Syri 3–4. repr. Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1960) Broshi M., The Damascus Document Reconsidered ( Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society/The Shrine of the Book/Israel Museum, 1992) Brown P. S., “Deliverance from the Crucible: Some Further Reflections on 1QH III,1–18,” NTS 14 (1967–68) 247–59 Brown R. E., The Death of the Messiah (2 vols. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1994) ——, The Epistles of John (AB. Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1982) Bruce F. F., “The Book of Daniel and the Qumran Community,” in E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (eds.), Neotestamentica et Semitica. FS Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1968), pp. 221–235 Budge E. A. W., The Book of the Bee (Oxford: Clarendon, 1886) Byrne B., “Sonship of God in the Intertestamental Literature,” in idem, “Sons of God”—“Seed of Abraham”. A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background (Analecta Biblica 83. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1979), pp. 18–70 Camp C. V., “Understanding a Patriarchy: Women in Second Century Jerusalem Through the Eyes of Ben Sira,” in A.-J. Levine (ed.), “Women Like This.” New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (EJL 1. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), pp. 1–39 ——, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (Decatur GA: Almond, 1985) Carmignac J., “Conjecture sur la première ligne de la Règle de la Communauté,” RQ 2 (1959) 85–87 Ceriani A. M., Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus (Monumenta Sacra et Profana 7. Milan: Pogliani, 1874) Chabot J.-B., Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens I (CSCO, Scr. Syri 36 [text], 56 [tr]. repr. Louvain: Durbecq, 1953) ——, Chronique de Michel le Syrien I (tr.), IV (text) (Paris: Leroux, 1899, 1910; repr. Bruxelles: Culture et Civilisation, 1963) Charles R. H., “2 Baruch,” in R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), II, pp. 470–526 ——, The Apocalypse of Baruch (London: Black, 1896) ——, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912) Charlesworth J. H., “Community Organization in the Rule of the Community,” in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols. New York: OUP, 2000), I, 133–36 Çiçek J. (ed.), Bar Hebraeus, Awsar Raze (Holland: Monastery of St Ephrem, 2003) Clark V., Holy Fire. The Battle for Christ’s Tomb (London: Macmillan, 2005) Clements R. E., “George Stanley Faber as Biblical Interpreter,” in P. Mommer

bibliography

349

and W. Thiel (eds.), Altes Testament. Forschung und Wirkung. FS Henning Graf Reventlow (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1994), pp. 247–267 Clines D. J. A., “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6.1–4) in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’ (Genesis 1–11),” JSOT 13 (1986) 33–46 Coakley J. F., A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library (= BJRL 75:2. Manchester: John Rylands Univeristy Library, 1993) Collins J. J., “Pseudo-Daniel Revisited,” RQ 17 (1996) 111–131 ——, “Pseudonymity, Historical Review and the Genre of the Revelation of John,” CBQ 39/3 (1977) 329–43 ——, “Apocalypticism and Literary Genre in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999), II, pp. 403–430 ——, “Daniel and His Social World,” Interpretation 39 (1985) 131–143 ——, “Daniel, Book of: Pseudo Daniel,” in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols. New York: Oxford University, 2000), I, pp. 176–178 ——, “Essenes,” in D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols. New York: Doubleday: 1992), II, pp. 619–26 ——, “Forms of Community in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman and W. W. Fields (eds.), Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 97–111 ——, “Jesus, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in J. H. Charlesworth et al. (eds.), Qumran Messianism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), pp. 100–119 ——, “Review of Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant,” JBL 104 (1985) 530–33 ——, “Teacher and Messiah? The One Who Will Teach Righteousness at the End of Days,” in E. Ulrich and J. VanderKam (eds.), The Community of the Renewed Covenant (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame, 1994), pp. 193–210 ——, “The Construction of Israel in the Sectarian Rule Books,” in A. J. AveryPeck, J. Neusner and B. D. Chilton (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity. Part 5. The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1. Theory of Israel (Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 25–42 ——, “The Mythology of Holy War in Daniel and the Qumran War Scroll: A Point of Transition in Jewish Apocalyptic,” VT 25 (1975) 596–612 ——, “The Son of Man in First Century Judaism,” NTS 38 (1992) 448–466 ——, Daniel. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) ——, The Apocalyptic Imagination. An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (New York: Crossroad, 1984/2nd edn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) ——, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM 16. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977) ——, “The Ya˙ad and the Qumran Community,” in C. Hempel and J. Lieu (eds.), Biblical Traditions in Transmission. Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 81–96 Collins J. J. and P. W. Flint, “Pseudo-Daniel,” in G. Brooke et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. XVII. Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), pp. 95–163 Collins J. J., G. E. Sterling, and R. A. Clements (eds.), Sapiential Perspectives. Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 51. Leiden: Brill, 2004) Cook G., “The Israelite King as Son of God,” ZAW 73 (1961) 202–225 Corey M. W., From Rabbi to Bishop. The Biography of the Right Reverend Michael Solomon Alexander (London: Church Mission to Jews, n. d.) Corley K. E. and R. L. Webb, Jesus and Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. The Film, the Gospels and the Claims of History (London & New York: Continuum, 2004)

350

bibliography

Cowley R. W., “The Blood of Zechariah (Mt 23:35) in Ethiopian Exegetical Tradition,” Studia Patristica 18:1 (1985) 293–302 Cross F. M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1973) ——, The Ancient Library of Qumran (3rd edn. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) Cross F. M. and E. Eshel, “1 KhQOstracon,” in S. Pfann, P. S. Alexander et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. XXVI. Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea Part 1 (DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), pp. 497–507 ——, “Ostraca from Khirbet Qumrân,” IEJ 47 (1997) 17–28 Dahl N. A., “Die Erstgeborene Satans und der Vater des Teufels (Polyk 7:1 und Joh 8:44)”, in W. Eltestser (ed.), Apophoreta. Festschrift Ernst Hänchen (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964), pp. 70–84 Dahood M., Psalms III: 101–150 (AB 17A. New York: Doubleday, 1970) Davidson M. J., Angels at Qumran ( JSPSup 11. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) Davies P. R., “The Scribal School of Daniel,” in J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002), I, pp. 247–265 ——, “Reading Daniel Sociologically,” in A. S. van der Woude (ed.), Daniel in the Light of New Findings (BETL 106. Leuven: Peeters, 1993), pp. 345–361 ——, “Sons of Cain,” in J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season. Essays in Honour of William McKane ( JSOTSup 42. Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), pp. 35–56 ——, “The Judaism(s) of the Damascus Document,” in J. M. Baumgarten, E. G. Chazon and A. Pinnick (eds.), The Damascus Document. A Centennial of Discovery (STDJ 34. Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 27–43 ——, “The Origin of Evil in Early Judaism,” Australian Biblical Review 50 (2002) 43–54 ——, Behind the Essenes. History and Ideology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (BJS 94. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) ——, The Damascus Covenant. An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document” (Sheffield: JSOT, 1983) Day P. L., “From the Child is Born the Woman: The Story of Jephthah’s Daughter,” in P. L. Day (ed.), Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), pp. 58–74 Delcor M., “Le mythe de la chute des anges et de l’origine des géants comme explication du mal dans le monde dans apocalyptique juive: Histoire des traditions,” RHR 190 (1976) 3–53 ——, “Un psaume messianique de Qumran,” in Mélanges bibliques rédigés en l’honneur d’André Robert (Paris: Bloud & Gray, 1957), pp. 334–40 Delling G., “Die Bezeichnung “Söhne Gottes” in der jüdischen Literatur der hellenistisch-römischen Zeit,” in J. Jervell and W. Meeks (eds.), God’s Christ and His People (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), pp. 18–28 Denis A.-M., “Évolution de structures dans la secte de Qumrân,” in J. Giblet et al. (eds.), Aux origines de l’église (RechBib 7. Louvain: Desclée de Brouwer, 1965), pp. 44–45 ——, Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt Graeca (PVTG 3. Leiden: Brill, 1970) Denis A.-M. and J. C. Haelewyck, Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistique I (Turnhout: Brespols, 2000) Dibelius M., An die Thessalonicher I II. An die Philipper (HNT 11. 3rd edn. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1937) Dillmann A., Das Buch Henoch (Leipzig: Vogel, 1853) Dimant D., “New Light from Qumran on the Jewish Pseudepigrapha—4Q390,” in J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (eds.), The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March 1991 (2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill, 1992), II, pp. 405–48

bibliography

351

——, “1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work,” JJS 53 (2002) 223–37 ——, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” in D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman (eds.), Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness. Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989 –1990 (STDJ 16. Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 23–58 ——, Qumran Cave 4. XXI. Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000) Dogniez C. and M. Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie. Le Deutéronome (Paris: Cerf, 1992) Dohmen C., “Zur Gründung der Gemeinde von Qumran (1QS VIII–IX),” RQ 11 (1982) 81–96 Dombrowski B. W., “djyh in 1QS and to koinon. An Instance of Early Greek and Jewish Synthesis,” HTR 59 (1966) 293–307 Donner H., Adoption oder Legitimation. Erwägungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament auf dem Hintergrund der altorientalischen Rechte. Aufsätze zum Alten Testament aus vier Jahrzehnten (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994) Downing F. G., “Cosmic Eschatology in the First Century: ‘Pagan’, Jewish and Christian,” L’Antiquité Classique 64 (1995) 99–109 Duhaime J., “Cohérence structurelle et tensions internes dans l’Instruction sur les Deux Esprits (1QS III 13–IV 26),” in F. García Martínez (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BETL 80. Leuven: Peeters, 2003), pp. 103–131 ——, “L’instruction sur les deux esprits et les interpolations dualistes à Qumran,” RB 84 (1977) 566–594 ——, “War Scroll (1QM, 1Q33),” in J. H. Charlesworth et al. (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Damascus Document, War Scroll and Related Documents (The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), pp. 80–203 ——, The War Texts. 1QM and Related Manuscripts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 6. London: T. & T. Clark, 2004) Dunn J. D. G., The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) Dupont-Sommer A., “La mère du Messie et la mère de l’aspic dans un hymne de Qumran (DST iii, 6–18),” RHR 147 (1955) 174–88 Elgvin T., “Early Essene Eschatology: Judgment and Salvation according to Sapiential Work A,” in D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks (eds.), Current Research and Technological Developments (STDJ 20. Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 126–165 ——, “The Mystery to Come: Early Essene Theology of Revelation,” in F. H. Cryer and Th. L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments ( JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 113–150 ——, “Wisdom, Revelation, and Eschatology in an Early Essene Writing,” in E. H. Lovering (ed.), SBL Seminar Papers 1995 (Atlanta: SBL, 1995), pp. 440–463 Eshel E., “Possible Sources of the Book of Daniel,” in J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002), II, pp. 387–394 Eshel E. et al., Qumran Cave 4. VI. Poetical and Liturgical Texts (DJD 11. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) Eshel, H., “The Meaning and Significance of CD 20:13–15,” in D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich (eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 330–36 Evans C. A., “A Note on the ‘First-Born Son’ of 4Q369,” DSD 2 (1995) 185–201 ——, “Are the ‘Son’ Texts at Qumran Messianic? Reflections on 4Q369 and Related Scrolls,” in J. H. Charlesworth et al. (eds.), Qumran-Messianism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), pp. 135–153 Exum J. C., “Murder They Wrote: Ideology and the Manipulation of Female Presence in Biblical Narrative,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 43 (1989) 19–39 ——, “The Tragic Vision and Biblical Narrative: The Case of Jephthah,” in J. C.

352

bibliography

Exum (ed.), Signs and Wonders. Biblical Texts in Literary Focus (Atlanta: Scholars, 1989), pp. 59–83 Faber G. S., The Sacred Calendar of Prophecy (3 vols. London: Rivington, 1828, 2nd edn. 1844) Fewell D. N. and D. M. Gunn, Gender, Power and Promise. The Subject of the Bible’s First Story (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993) Finaldi G., The Image of Christ (London: National Gallery, 2000) Finch H. Sir, The World’s Great Restauration or The Calling of the Jews (London: Published by W. Gouge/Printed by E. Griffin for W. Bladen, 1621) Firth K. R., The Apocalyptic Tradition in Reformation Britain 1530–1645 (Oxford: Oxford University, 1979) Flint P., “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” in J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002), II, pp. 329–367 ——, “4Qpseudo-Daniel ar c (4Q245) and the Restoration of the Priesthood,” RQ 17 (1996) 137–49 Flusser D., “Patriarchs, Testaments of the Twelve,” Encyclopaedia Judaica ( Jerusalem: Keter, 1971) vol. 13, pp. 184–86 Foerster G., “s°bomai,” TDNT VII, 168–96 Fontaine C. R., “The Sage in Family and Tribe,” in J. G. Gammie and L. G. Perdue (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 155–164 Foster R. and P. Tudor-Craig, The Secret Life of Paintings (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1986) Frankel Z., Über den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Barth, 1851) Frederikson N. I., “L’Esprit saint et les esprits mauvais dans le Pasteur d’Hermas: sources et prolongements,” VC 55 (2001) 262–80 Frey J., “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library. Reflections on their Background and History,” in M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen (eds.), Legal Texts and Legal Issues. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 275–335 Fuchs E., “Marginalization, Ambiguity, Silencing: The Story of Jephthah’s Daughter,” in A. Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Judges (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 116–30 García Martínez F., “4Q246: ¿Tipo del Anticristo o libertador escatológico?,” in V. Collado and E. Zurro (eds.), El misterio de la palabra (Madrid: Cristiandad, 1983), pp. 229–244 ——, “Caín, su padre y el origen del mal,” in V. Collado Bertomeu (ed.), Palabra, Prodigio, Poesía. in Memoriam P. Luis Alonso Schökel (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2003), pp. 17–35 ——, “La memoria inventada: el ‘otro’ en el Documento de Damasco y en la Regla de la Comunidad,” in J. Campos Santiago and V. Pastor Julián (eds.), Congreso Internacional. “Biblia, memória histórica y encricijada de cultura.” Actas (Asociación Bíblica Eapañola. Zamora: Cicero, 2004), pp. 49–71 ——, “Messianic Hopes in the Qumran Writings,” in F. García Martínez and J. Trebolle Barrera, The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 159–189 ——, “Old Texts and Modern Mirages: The ‘I’ of Two Qumran Hymns,” ETL 78 (2002) 321–339 ——, “Two Messianic Figures in the Qumran Texts,” in D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks (eds.), Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 20. Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 14–40 ——, Qumran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ 9. Leiden: Brill, 1992)

bibliography

353

——, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English (2nd edn. ET W. G. E. Watson. Grand Rapids/Leiden: Brill/Eerdmans, 1996) García Martínez F. and A. S. van der Woude, “A Groningen Hypothesis of Qumran Origins,” RQ 14 (1990) 521–41 García Martínez F. and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997) García Martínez F., E. J. C. Tigchelaar and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11. II (DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) Gerstein B., “A Ritual Processed: A Look at Judges 11:40,” in M. Bal (ed.), AntiCovenant. Counter-Reading Women’s Lives in the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Almond, 1989), pp. 175–93 Gidney W. T., The History of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews. From 1809 to 1908 (London: LSPCJ, 1908) Gilley S. W., “George Stanley Faber: No Popery and Prophecy,” in P. J. Harland and R. Hayward (eds.), New Heaven and New Earth. Prophecy and the Millennium. FS Anthony Gelston (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 287–304 Ginsberg H. L., “The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant,” VT 3 (1953) 400–404 Girard R., La Violence et Le Sacré (Paris: Grasset, 1974) Glessmer U., “Calendars in the Qumran Scrolls,” in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999), II, pp. 213–278 Goff M. J., The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction (STDJ 50. Leiden: Brill, 2003) Golb N., Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? (New York: Scribner, 1995) Gooding D. W., “The Greek Deuteronomy” (PhD Thesis. University of Cambridge, 1954) Goodspeed E. J., Die ältesten Apologeten. Texte mit kurzen Einleitungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914 [repr. 1984]) Grabbe L. L., “A Dan[iel] for all Seasons: For Whom was Daniel Important?,” in J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002), I, pp. 229–246 ——, “Chronography in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1981 Seminar Papers, pp. 49–63 Gribben C. and T. C. F. Stunt (eds.), Prisoners of Hope? Aspects of Evangelical Millennialism in Britain and Ireland, 1800–1880 (Studies in Evangelical History and Thought. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004) Haag E., “Die Hasidäer und das Danielbuch,” TTZ 102 (1993) 51–63 Haas C., “Die Pneumatologie des ‘Hirten des Hermas’”, ANRW II.27.1 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1993), pp. 552–86 ——, De geest bewaren. Achtergrond en functie van de pneumatologie in de paraenese van de Pastor van Hermas (’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1985) Habel N. C., The Book of Job. A Commentary (OTL. London: SCM, 1985) Hall I. H., “The Lives of the Prophets,” JBL 7 (1887) 28–40 Hanhart R., “Die Söhne Israels, die Söhne Gottes und die Engel in der Masora, in Qumran und in der Septuaginta,” in C. Bultmann, W. Dietrich und C. Levin (eds.), Vergegenwärtigung des Alten Testaments. Beiträge zur biblischen Hermeneutik für Rudolf Smend zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), pp. 170–178 Hanson P. D., “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in Enoch 6–11,” JBL 96 (1997) 195–233 Harder G., “ponhrÒw,” TDNT VI, 546–66 Harrington D. J. and A. J. Saldarini, Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets. Introduction, Translation and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 10. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987)

354

bibliography

Harrington D. J., “The Raz Nihyeh in a Qumran Wisdom Text (1Q26, 4Q415–418, 4Q423),” Hommage à Jósef T. Milik, RQ 17 (1996) 549–553 ——, Wisdom Texts from Qumran (London: Routledge, 1996) Hartman L., Prophecy Interpreted. The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 par. (ConBNT 1. Lund: Gleerup, 1966) ——, Asking for a Meaning. A Study of 1 Enoch 1–5 (ConBib NT Series 12. Lund: Gleerup, 1979). Hasslberger B., Hoffnung in der Bedrängnis. Eine formkritische Untersuchung zu Dan 8 und 10 –12 (ATSAT 4. St. Ottilien: Eos, 1977) Hatchard J., The Predictions and Promises of God Respecting Israel. A Sermon Preached on Wednesday, June 22nd, 1825, in the Parish Church of St. Andrews, Plymouth, on the Baptism of Mr. Michael Solomon Alexander, Late Reader in the Jewish Synagogue (Plymouth: Rowes, 1825) Hearnshaw F. J. C., The Centenary History of King’s College London 1828–1928 (London: G. G. Harrap, 1929) Heinz J.-G., “Royal Traits and Messianic Figures: A Thematic and Iconographic Approach,” in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah. Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), pp. 52–66 Hempel C., “Community Origins in the Damascus Document in the Light of Recent Scholarship,” in D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich (eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 316–329 ——, “Community Structures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Admission, Organization, Disciplinary Procedures,” in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999), II, pp. 67–92 ——, “Emerging Communal Life and Ideology in the S Tradition,” in F. García Martínez (ed.), Defining Identities. ‘We’, ‘You’ and ‘the Others’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ. Leiden: Brill), forthcoming ——, “Interpretative Authority in the Community Rule Tradition,” DSD 10 (2003) 59–80 ——, “The Community and Its Rivals According to the Community Rule from Caves 1 and 4,” RQ 21 (2003) 47–81 ——, “The Gems of DJD 36. Reflections on Some Recently Published Texts,” JJS 54 (2003) 146–152 ——, “The Place of the Book of Jubilees at Qumran and Beyond,” in T. H. Lim (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), pp. 187–196 ——, “The Qumran Sapiential Texts and the Rule Books,” in C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (BETL 159. Leuven: Peeters, 2002), pp. 277–295 ——, Rules and Laws I (Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming) ——, The Damascus Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) ——, The Laws of the Damascus Document. Sources, Traditions, and Redaction (STDJ 29. Leiden: Brill, 1998) Hempel C., A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (BETL 159. Leuven: Peeters, 2002) Henze M., “Enoch’s Dream Visions and the Visions of Daniel Reexamined,” in G. Boccaccini (ed.), Enoch and Qumran Origins. New Light on a Forgotten Connection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 17–22 ——, The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar. The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4 ( JSJSup 61. Leiden: Brill, 1999)

bibliography

355

——, The Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) Herzer J., Die Paralipomena Jeremiae. Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer Haggada des frühen Judentums (TSAJ 43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994) Hespel R. and R. Draguet, Théodore bar Koni. Livre des scolies: recension de Séert (CSCO Scr. Syri 187. Leuven: Peeters, 1981) Hilhorst A., “Hermas,” RAC 14, cols. 682–701 Hill C., “Till The Conversion of the Jews,” in R. H. Popkin (ed.), Millenarianism and Messianism in English Literature and Thought 1650 –1800. Clark Library Lectures 1981–82 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), pp. 12–36 Hirschfeld Y., “Early Roman Manor Houses in Judea and the Site of Khirbet Qumran,” JNES 57 (1998) 161–89 ——, “The Architectural Context of Qumran,” in L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), pp. 673–83 Hobbs R. G., “Martin Bucer on Psalm 22: A Study in the Application of Rabbinic Exegesis by a Christian Hebraist,” in O. Fatio and P. Fraenkel (eds.), Histoire de l’exégese au XVI e siècle. Textes du colloque international tenu a Genève en 1976 (Genève: Droz, 1978), pp. 144–63 Holland G. S., The Tradition that You Received from Us. 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline Tradition (HUT 24. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988) Hollander H. W. and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A Commentary (SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985) Holloway P. A., Consolation in Philippians. Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy (SNTSMS 112. Cambridge: CUP, 2001) Holmes A., “Millennialism and the Interpretation of Prophecy in Ulster Presbyterianism, 1790–1850,” in C. Gribben and T. C. F. Stunt (eds.), Prisoners of Hope? Aspects of Evangelical Millennialism in Britain and Ireland, 1800–1880 (Studies in Evangelical History and Thought. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004), pp. 150–176 Horrell D. G., The Epistles of Peter and Jude (Peterborough: Epworth, 1998) Horsley R. A. and P. Tiller, “Ben Sira and the Sociology of the Second Temple,” in P. R. Davies and J. M. Halligan (eds.), Second Temple Studies III. Studies in Politics, Class and Material Culture ( JSOTSup 340. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), pp. 74–107 Huelin G., King’s College London 1828–1978. A History Commemorating the 150th Anniversary of the Foundation of the College (London: King’s College, 1978) Humphreys W. L., “The Story of Jephthah and the Tragic Vision: A Response to J. Cheryl Exum,” in J. C. Exum (ed.), Signs and Wonders. Biblical Texts in Literary Focus (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 85–96 Huppenbauer H. W., Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten (ATANT 34. Zürich: Zwingli, 1959) Jay N., “Sacrifice as Remedy for Being Born of Woman,” in C. W. Atkinson, C. H. Buchanan and M. R. Miles (eds.), Immaculate and Powerful. The Female in Sacred Image and Social Reality (Boston: Beacon, 1985), pp. 283–309 Jones W. D., Venus and Sothis. How the Ancient Near East Was Rediscovered (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1982) Jonge M. de, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature. The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve (SVTP 18. Leiden: Brill, 2003) Jonge M. de et alii, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (PVTG I/2. Leiden: Brill, 1978) Kampen J. I., “The Diverse Aspects of Wisdom in the Qumran Texts,” in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999), I, pp. 211–243

356

bibliography

King P. J. and L. E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2001) Kirkpatrick A. F., The Doctrine of the Prophets. The Warburtonian Lectures 1886–1890 (London: Macmillan, 1892, revised editions 1897 and 1901) Kister M. and E. Qimron, “Observations on 4QSecond Ezekiel (4Q385 2–3),” RQ 15/4 (1992) 595–602 Klijn A. F. J., “Die syrische Baruch-Apokalypse,” JSHRZ 5/2 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1976), pp. 103–91 Klinghardt M., “The Manual of Discipline in the Light of Statutes of Hellenistic Associations,” in M. O. Wise et al. (eds.), Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site. Present Realities and Future Prospects (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), pp. 251–70 Knibb M. A., “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra,” JSJ 13 (1983) 56–74 ——, “Christian Adoption and Transmission of Jewish Pseudepigrapha: The Case of 1 Enoch,” JSJ 32/4 (2001) 396–415 ——, “The Ethiopic Version of the Lives of the Prophets I,” BSOAS 43 (1980) 197–206 ——, “The Ethiopic Version of the Lives of the Prophets II,” BSOAS 48 (1985) 17–41 ——, “‘You are Indeed Wiser than Daniel’. Reflections on the Character of the Book of Daniel,” in A. S. van der Woude (ed.), Daniel in the Light of New Findings (BETL 106. Leuven: Peeters, 1993), pp. 399–411 ——, “1 Enoch,” in H. F. D. Sparks (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), pp. 169–319 ——, “A Note on 4Q372 and 4Q390,” in F. García Martínez, A. Hilhorst and C. J. Labuschagne (eds.), The Scriptures and the Scrolls. Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (VTSup 49. Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 164–77 ——, “Commentary on 2 Esdras,” in R. J. Coggins and M. A. Knibb, The First and Second Books of Esdras (Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1979) ——, “Community Organization in the Damascus Document,” in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols. New York: Oxford University, 2000), I, pp. 136–38 ——, “Eschatology and Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999), II, pp. 379–402 ——, “Exile in the Damascus Document,” JSOT 25 (1983) 99–117 ——, “Interpreting the Book of Enoch: Reflections on a Recently Published Commentary,” JSJ 33 (2002) 437–50 ——, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls,” DSD 2 (1995) 165–184 ——, “Prophecy and the Emergence of the Jewish Apocalypses,” in R. Coggins, A. Phillips and M. A. Knibb (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition. Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1982), pp. 155–80 ——, “The Book of Daniel in Its Context,” in J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002), I, pp. 16–35 ——, “The Book of Enoch in the Light of the Qumran Wisdom Literature,” in F. García Martínez (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BETL 168. Leuven: Peeters, 2003), pp. 193–210 ——, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,” NTS 25 (1978–79) 345–59

bibliography

357

——, “The Ethiopic Book of Enoch,” in M. de Jonge (ed.), Outside the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985), pp. 26–55 ——, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,” HeyJ 17 (1976) 249–272 ——, “The Place of the Damascus Document,” in M. O. Wise et al. (eds.), Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), pp. 149–60 ——, “The Teacher of Righteousness—A Messianic Title?,” in P. R. Davies and R. T. White (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History ( JSOTSup 100. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), pp. 51–65 ——, “The Translation of 1 Enoch 70.1: Some Methodological Issues,” in A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts. Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman ( JSOTSup 333. The Hebrew Bible and its Versions 2. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp. 340–54 ——, “The Use of Scripture in 1 Enoch 17–19,” in F. García Martínez and G. P. Luttikhuizen (eds.), Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome. Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst ( JSJSup 82. Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 165–78 ——, “Which Parts of 1 Enoch Were Known to Jubilees? A Note on the Interpretation of Jubilees 4.16–25,” in J. C. Exum and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.), Reading from Right to Left. Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines ( JSOTSup 373. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), pp. 254–62 ——, “A New Edition of the Ethiopic Enoch in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments” (PhD Dissertation. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1974) ——, Het Boek Henoch. Het eerste of het Ethiopische boek van Henoch (Deventer: Hermes, 1983) ——, Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community (An Inaugural Lecture in the Department of Theology & Religious Studies. London: King’s College, 1989) ——, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch. A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978) ——, The Qumran Community (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 bc to ad 200 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987) ——, Translating the Bible. The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1995. Oxford: Oxford University for the British Academy, 1999) Koch D.-A., “Auslegung von Psalm 1 bei Justin und im Barnabasbrief,” in K. Seybold and E. Zenger (eds.), Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. Für Walter Beyerlin (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), pp. 223–42 Koch K., “Das Geheimnis der Zeit in Weisheit und Apokalyptik um die Zeitenwende,” in F. García Martínez (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalyptic in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BETL 168. Leuven: Peeters, 2003), pp. 35–68 ——, “Stages in the Canonization of the Book of Daniel,” in J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002), II, pp. 421–446 ——, Daniel (BKAT 22/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986) ——, Das Buch Daniel (EdF 144. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980) Koltun N., “Psalm 22’s Christological Interpretive Tradition in the Light of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemic,” JECS 6 (1998) 37–57 Kosmala H., “Ma“kîl,” in idem, Studies, Essays and Reviews (3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1978), I, pp. 235–241 Kraft R. A., “Early Developments of the ‘Two-Ways Traditions’ in Retrospect,” in R. A. Argall et alii (eds.), For a Later Generation. The Transformation of Tradition in

358

bibliography

Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity. FS G. W. E. Nickelsburg (Harrisburg PA: Trinity International, 2000), pp. 136–43. Kraus H.-J., Psalmen. 2.Teilband Psalmen 60–150 (BKAT 15/2. 5th edn. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978) Kruif T. C. de, “Nicht wie Kain (der) vom Bösen war . . . (1 Joh 3,13),” Bijdragen 41 (1980) 47–63 Kruisheer D., “Ephrem, Jacob of Edessa and the Monk Severus,” in R. Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1998), pp. 599–605 Kugel J., “4Q369 ‘Prayer of Enosh’ and Ancient Biblical Interpretation,” DSD 5 (1998) 119–148 Kugler R., “A Note on 1QS 9:14: the Sons of Righteousness or the Sons of Zadok?,” DSD 3 (1996) 315–320 Kuhl C., Die drei Männer im Feuer (Daniel Kapitel 3 und seine Zusätze). Ein Beitrag zur israelitisch-jüdischen Literaturgeschichte (BZAW 55. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1930) Lacocque A., “Socio-Spiritual Formative Milieu of the Daniel Apocalypse,” in A. S. van der Woude (ed.), Daniel in the Light of New Findings (BETL 106. Leuven: Peeters, 1993), pp. 315–343 Lambrecht J., Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse. Literarische Analyse und Strukturuntersuchung (AnBib 28. Rom: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967) Landy F., “Gilead and the Fatal Word,” in D. Assaf (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem, August 4–12 1985. Division A: The Period of the Bible ( Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986), pp. 39–44 Lange A., Weisheit und Prädestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18. Leiden: Brill, 1995) Laperrousaz E. M., “La mère du Messie et la mère de l’aspic dans les ‘hymnes’ de Qumrân: Quelques remarques sur la structure de ‘1QH’ III,1–18,” in Mélanges d’histoire des religions offerts à H.-C. Puech (Paris: Presse universitaires de France, 1974), pp. 173–85 Leaney A. R. C., The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning. Introduction, Translation and Commentary (NTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) Lebram J. H. C., “Apokalyptik und Hellenismus im Buche Daniel,” VT 20 (1970) 503–524 Lee S. (ed.), Eusebius of Caesarea. Theophania (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1843) Lerner G., The Creation of Patriarchy (New York and Oxford: Oxford University, 1986) Leslau W., Falasha Anthology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951) Lewis A. S., Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the Convent of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai (Studia Sinaitica I. London: C. J. Clay, 1894) Licht J., The Rule Scroll. A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea ( Jerusalem: Bialik, 1965) (Hebrew) Lichtenberger H., “Der Weisheitstext 4Q185—Eine neue Edition,” in C. Hempel, A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (BETL 159. Leuven: Peeters, 2002), pp. 127–150 Lieu J. M., “Reading Jesus in the Wilderness,” in R. S. Sugirtharajah (ed.), Wilderness. Essays in Honour of Frances Young (London: T. & T. Clark, 2005), pp. 88–100 ——, Image and Reality. The Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second Century (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996) ——, “The Synagogue and the Separation of the Christians,” in B. Olsson and M. Zetterholm (eds.), The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins until 200 C.E. (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2003), pp. 189–207 Löfgren O., “An Arabic Recension of the Vitae Prophetarum,” Orientalia Suecana 25/6 (1976/7) 77–105

bibliography

359

——, Die äthiopische Übersetzung des Propheten Daniel (Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1927) Loretz O., “Aspekte der kanaanäischen Gottes-So(ö)hn(e)-Tradition im Alten Testament,” Ugarit-Forschungen 7 (1975) 586–589 Luis Cunchillos J., Cuando los ángeles era Dioses (Bibliotheca Salmanticensis 14. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 1976) Mach M., “Angels,” in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols. New York: Oxford University, 2000), I, pp. 24–27 ——, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992) Mack B., Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic. Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985) Mackay A., “Buchanan, George (1506–1582),” in L. Stephen (ed.), Dictionary of National Biography (London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1886), Volume 7, pp. 186–93 Magness J., The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) Maier C., Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora. Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in Fortschreibung des Jeremiabuches (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002) Maier J., “Zum Begriff djy in den Texten von Qumran,” ZAW 31 (1960) 148–166 Malherbe A. J., The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB 32B. New York: Doubleday, 2000) Marcovich M. (ed.), Dialogus cum Tryphone Iustini Martyris (PTS 47. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997) Marcus D., Jephthah and his Vow (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1986) Marsden G., “Bosch’s ‘Christ Carrying the Cross’,” History Today 47/3 (1997) 15–21 Marshall I. H., “The Parousia in the New Testament—and Today,” in M. J. Wilkins and T. Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church. Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin ( JSNTSup 87. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992), pp. 194–211 Martyn J. R. C., “The Tragedies of Buchanan, Teive and Ferreira,” in I. D. McFarlane (ed.), Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Sanctandreani. Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies, St Andrews 24 August to 1 September 1982 (Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 38. Binghamton NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1986), pp. 85–98 McCaul A., England’s Duty to Israel’s Sons. Being a Candid Inquiry into the Policy of Admitting the Jewish People into the British Legislature by a Clergyman of the Church of England (London: Houlston & Stoneman, 1849) ——, “Our Duty Towards the Jewish People,” in Plain Sermons on Subjects Practical and Prophetic (London: Wertheim, 1840), pp. 375–376 ——, A Hebrew Primer (2nd edn. London, 1834) ——, A Sermon Preached in the Chapel of Lambeth Palace, at the Consecration of the Lord Bishop of the United Church of England and Ireland in Jerusalem, Nov. 7th 1841 (London, 1841) ——, An Apology for the Study of Hebrew and Rabbinical Literature (London, 1844) ——, An Examination of Bp. Colenso’s Difficulties with regard to the Pentateuch (London: Rivington’s, 1863) ——, David ben Joseph Kimchi. Commentaries on the prophecies of Zechariah. Translated with Notes (London, 1837) ——, Good Things to Come. Being Lectures during Lent, 1847, at St. George’s, Bloomsbury (London, 1847) ——, Introduction to Hebrew Grammar. For the Use of Beginners (London, 1847) ——, Lectures on the Prophecies proving the Divine Origin of Christianity (London: J. W. Parker, 1846) ——, Rationalism and the Divine Interpretation of Scripture (London: J. W. Parker, 1850)

360

bibliography

——, The Conversion and Restoration of the Jews. Two Sermons Preached Before the University of Dublin (London: B. Wertheim, 1837) ——, The Divine Commission of the Christian Ministry. Three Sermons preached at the Episcopal Jews Chapel (London: B. Wertheim, 1834) ——, The Old Paths, or the Talmud tested by Scripture (London: LSPCJ, 1868) ——, The Old Paths, or, A comparison of the principles and doctrine of modern Judaism with the religion of Moses and the Prophets (London: LSPCJ, 1846) ——, The Restoration and Conversion of the Jews (London, 1846) McFarlane I. D., Buchanan (London: Duckworth, 1981) McGregor J. H., “The Sense of Tragedy in George Buchanan’s Jephthes,” Humanistica Lovaniensia—Journal of Neo-Latin Studies 31 (1982) 120–40 McKenzie J. L., A Theology of the Old Testament (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1974) Merklein H., “Ägyptische Einflüsse auf die messianische Sohn-Gottes-Aussage des Neuen Testaments,” in H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger and P. Schäfer (eds.), GeschichteTradition-Reflexion. FS Martin Hengel (3 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), III, pp. 21–48 Mertens A., Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer (SBM 12. Stuttgart: Echter, 1971) Metso S., “Qumran Community Structure and Terminology as Theological Statement,” RQ 20 (2002) 429–44 ——, “The Primary Results of the Reconstruction of 4QSe,” JJS 44 (1993) 303– 308 ——, “The Relationship between the Damascus Document and the Community Rule,” in J. M. Baumgarten, E. G. Chazon and A. Pinnick (eds.), The Damascus Document. A Centennial of Discovery (STDJ 34. Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 85–93 ——, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997) Mettinger T. N. D., King and Messhiah. The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (Lund: Gleerup, 1976) Milik J. T., Dix ans de découvertes dans le Désert de Juda (Paris: Cerf, 1957) ——, “Numérotation des feuilles des rouleaux dans le scriptorium de Qumran (Planches X et XI),” Semitica 27 (1977) 75–81 ——, “Prière de Nabonide et autres écrits d’un cycle de Daniel,” RB 63 (1956) 407–415 ——, “Recherches sur la version grecque du Livre des Jubilés,” RB 78 (1971) 545–557 ——, Ten Tears of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (SBT 26. ET J. Strugnell. London: SCM, 1959) Milik J. T. with the collaboration of M. Black, The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) Miller P. D., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM 5. Cambridge MA: Harvard University, 1973) Montgomery J., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927) Moore C. A., Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah. The Additions. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1977) Morell T., Jephtha, an oratorio or Sacred Drama. As it is Perform’d at the Theatre-Royal in Covent-Garden. Set to Musick by Mr. Handel (London, 1752) Morrow J. H., Passion Iconography in Northern European Art of the Late Middle Ages and Early Renaissance. A Study of the Transformation of Sacred Metaphor into Descriptive Narrative (Ars Neerlandica 1. Kortrijk, Belgium: Van Ghemment, 1979) Moscrop J., Measuring Jerusalem. The Palestine Exploration Fund and British Interests in the Holy Land (London & New York: Leicester University Press, 2000) Mowinckel S., He That Cometh (ET G. Anderson. Nashville: Abingdon, 1956)

bibliography

361

——, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (2 vols. Nashwille: Abingdon, 1962) Mullen T. E., The Assembly of the Gods. The Divine Council in Cannanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM 24. Chico: Scholars, 1980) Munnich O., Susanna • Daniel • Bel et Draco (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum XVI/2. 2nd edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999) Murphy C., Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (STDJ 40. Leiden: Brill, 2002) Murphy F. J., The Structure and Meaning of Second Baruch (Atlanta GA: Scholars, 1985) Murphy R., “Israelite Wisdom and the Home,” in J.-Cl. Petit (ed.), Où demeures-tu? la maison depuis le monde biblique. En hommage au professor Guy Coutrier (Saint-Laurent, Quebec: Fides, 1994), pp. 199–212 Murphy-O’Connor J., “An Essene Missionary Document? CD II,14–VI,1,” RB 77 (1970) 201–229 ——, “La genèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté,” RB 76 (1969) 528–549 ——, “The Essenes and their History,” RB 81 (1974) 215–44 Najm S. and Ph. Guillaume, “Jubilee Calendar Rescued from the Flood Narrative,” JHS 5:1 (2004) Neil W., “The Criticism and Theological Use of the Bible, 1700–1950,” in S. L. Greenslade (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Bible. III: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day (Cambridge: CUP, 1963), pp. 238–93 Nestle E., Marginalien und Materialien (Tübingen: Heckenhauer, 1893) ——, Syrische Grammatik (1st edn., Berlin: Reuther, 1881/2nd edn. 1888) Newsom C. A., “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols. New York: Oxford University, 2000), II, pp. 887–889 ——, “Apocalyptic and the Discourse of the Qumran Community,” JNES 49 (1990) 135–144 ——, “The Sage in the Literature of Qumran: the Functions of the Ma≤kîl,” in J. G. Gammie and L. G. Perdue (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 373–382 ——, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom: A Study of Proverbs 1–9,” in P. L. Day (ed.), Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), pp. 142–160 ——, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. A Critical Edtion (HSS 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) ——, The Self as Symbolic Space. Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (STDJ 52. Leiden: Brill, 2004) Nicholson E., The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century. The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Oxford University, 1998) Nickelsburg G. W. E., “Narrative Traditions in the Paralipomena of Jeremiah and 2 Baruch,” CBQ 35/1 (1973) 60–68 ——, “Scripture in 1 Enoch and 1 Enoch as Scripture,” in T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm (eds.), Texts and Contexts. Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman (Oslo: Scandinavian University, 1995), pp. 333–54 ——, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11,” JBL 96 (1977) 383–405 ——, “Seeking the Origins of the Two-Ways Tradition in Jewish Christian Ethical Texts,” in B. G. Wright (ed.), A Multiform Heritage. Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft (Homage Series 24. Atlanta GA: Scholars, 1999), pp. 95–108 ——, “Son of Man,” in K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD) (Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 800–802

362

bibliography

——, 1 Enoch 1. A Commentary of the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36, 81–108 (Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) Niederwimmer K., Die Didache (KAV 1. 2nd edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993) Nir R., The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (EJL 20. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) Noth M., A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (ET B. W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972) ——, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament II (TB 39. München: Kaiser, 1969) Nott K., “‘Heroick Vertue’: Handel and Morell’s Jephtha in the Light of EighteenthCentury Biblical Commentary and Other Sources,” Music & Letters 77 (1996) 194–208 Oddy J. A., “Eschatological Prophecy in the English Theological Tradition c. 1700–c. 1840” (PhD Thesis. University of London, 1982) Orobio de Castro I., Israel Avenged (ET A. McCaul. London: Wertheim, 1839–40) Osten-Sacken P. von der, Gott und Belial. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran (SUNT 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969) Palmer D. W., “Pliny the Elder,” in C. A. Evans and S. J. Porter (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 2000), pp. 807–808 Parry D. W. and E. Ulrich (eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999) Patrick S., A Commentary upon the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Vol. II (5th edn. corrected. London, 1738) Pearce S. J. K., “Josephus as Interpreter of Biblical Law: The Representation of the High Court of Deut. 17.8–12 according to Josephus, Antiquities 4.218,” JJS 46 (1995) 30–42 Pfann S., “Cryptic Texts,” in P. S. Alexander et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXVI. Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea Part 1 (DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), pp. 515–701 Philonenko M., “De la ‘Prière de Jésu’ au ‘Notre Père’ (Abba, targum du Psaume 89,27; 4Q369 1,2,1–12; Luc 11,2)”, RHPR 77 (1997) 133–140 Pietersma A., A New English Translation of the Septuagint. The Psalms (Oxford: Oxford University, 2000) Pilhofer, P., “Justin und das Petrusevangelium,” ZNW 81 (1990) 60–78 Plevnik J., “1 Thessalonians 4,17: The Bringing in of the Lord or the Bringing in of the Faithful?,” Biblica 80 (1999) 537–46 ——, Paul and the Parousia. An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1997) Plöger O., Theocracy and Eschatology (ET S. Rudman. Richmond VA: John Knox, 1968) Pomykala K. E., The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism (EJL 7. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) Prideaux H., An Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments. Comparing the History of the Jews and Neighbouring Nations . . . to which is added an account of the Rabbinic authorities by A. McCaul (2 vols. London: B. Wertheim 1845. revised edition by J. T. Wheeler, 1858) Prigent P., Justin et l”ancient testament (EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1964) Prigent P. and R. A. Kraft, Épître de Barnabé (SC 172. Paris: Cerf, 1971) Puèch E., “Dieu le Père dans les écrits péritestamentairs et les manuscrits de la mer Morte,” RQ 20/70 (2001) 287–310 ——, “Le ‘Fils de Dieu’ en 4Q246,” Eretz Israel 26 (1999) 143–152 ——, “Préseance sacerdotale et Messie-Roi dans la Règle de la Congrégation (1QSa ii 11–12),” RQ 63 (1996) 351–365

bibliography

363

——, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future. Immortalité, resurrection, et vie éternelle (Paris: Gabalda, 1993) ——, Qumrân Grotte 4. XVIII (DJD 25. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) ——, Qumrân Grotte 4. XXII. Textes araméens. Première Partie (DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001) Pusey E. B., The Church the Converter of the Heathen. Two Sermons Preached September 9, 1838 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1838) Qimron E., “Rule of the Community (1QS),” in J. H. Charlesworth et al. (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Rule of the Community and Related Documents (The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), pp. 6–51 ——, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986) Rad G. von, Studies in Deuteronomy (London: SCM, 1953) Rahlfs A. (ed.), Psalmi cum Odis (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis X. 2nd edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967) Rappaport U., “Apocalyptic Vision and Preservation of Historical Memory,” JSJ 23 (1992) 217–226 Redditt P. L., “Daniel 11 and the Sociological Setting of the Book of Daniel,” CBQ 60 (1998) 463–474 Regev E., “The Ya˙ad and the Damascus Covenant: Structure, Organization and Relationship,” RQ 21 (2003) 233–262 Reim G., “John. 8:44—Gotteskinder-Teufelskinder,” NTS 30 (1984) 619–24 Reventlow H. Graf, “The Saints of the Most High und die Rätsel der Chronologie. Danielrezeption in England im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert,” in M. Delgado, K. Koch, E. Marsch (eds.), Europa, Tausendjähriges Reich und Neue Welt. Zwei Jahrtausende Geschichte und Utopie in der Rezeption des Danielbuches (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag/ Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), pp. 306–325 Ringgren H., The Faith of Qumran. Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls (rev. and enl. edn. New York: Crossroad, 1995) Robbins V., “The Reversed Contextualization of Psalm 22 in the Markan Crucifixion. A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis,” in F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift Frans Neirynck (BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University, 1992), pp. 1161–83 Rogerson J. W., Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century. England and Germany (London: SPCK, 1984) Romaine W., Jepthah’s Vow fulfilled, and his Daughter not Sacrificed, Proved in a Sermon Preached before the University, at St. Mary’s in Oxford (London, 1744) Rordorf W. and A. Tuilier, La Doctrine des Douze Apôtres (Didachè) (SC 248. Paris: Cerf, 1978) Rose W., Zemah and Zerubbabel. Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period ( JSOTSup 304. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000) Rowdon H. H., The Origins of the Brethren 1825–1850 (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1968) Rowe R., God’s Kingdom and God’s Son. The Background to Mark’s Christology from Concepts of Kingship in the Psalms (AGAJU 50. Leiden: Brill, 2002) Russell D. S., The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic. 200 BCE–AD 100 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964) Sanders J. A., The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPs a) (DJD 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965) Sandt H. van de, “Didache 3, 1–6: A Transformation of an Existing Jewish Hortatory Pattern,” JSJ 23 (1992) 21–41 Sandt H. van de and D. Flusser, The Didache. Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early

364

bibliography

Judaism and Christianity (CRINT III/5. Assen: Van Gorcum/Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002) Satran D., Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine. Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets (SVTP 11. Leiden: Brill, 1995) Scher A. (ed.), Theodorus bar Koni, Liber Scholiorum I (CSCO Scr. Syri 19. repr. Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO 1960) Schermann T., Prophetarum Vitae Fabulosae (Leipzig: Teubner, 1907) ——, Propheten- und Apostellegenden (TUGAL 31/3. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907) Schiffman L. H., “Utopia and Reality: Political Leadership and Organization in the Dead Sea Scrolls Community,” in S. M. Paul et al. (eds.), Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 413–427 ——, The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. A Study of the Rule of the Congregation (SBLMS 38. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989) Schiffman L. H. and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols. New York: Oxford University, 2000) Schlisske W., Gottessöhne und Gottessohn im Alten Testament. Phasen der Entmythisierung im Alten Testament (BWANT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973) Schneider T. J., Judges (Berit Olam. Collegeville MN: Liturgical, 2000) Schnutenhaus F., “Das Kommen und Erscheinen Gottes im Alten Testament,” ZAW 76 (1964) 1–22 Schuller E., “The Psalm of 4Q372 1 within the Context of Second Temple Prayer,” CBQ 54 (1992) 67–79 Schuller E. M. and L. DiTomasso, “A Bibliography of the Hodayoth, 1948–1996,” DSD 4 (1997) 70–72 Schwemer A. M., Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden, Vitae Prophetarum (TSAJ 49–50. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995–1996) Schwier H., Tempel und Tempelzerstörung. Untersuchungen zu den theologischen und ideologischen Faktoren im ersten jüdisch-römischen Krieg (66–74 n.Chr.) (NTOA 11. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) Segert S., “Die Sprachenfrage in der Qumrangemeinschaft,” in H. Bardtke (ed.), Qumran-Probleme (Berlin: Akademie, 1963), pp. 315–339 Seitz C. R., “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah,” ZAW 101 (1989) 3–27 Sekki A. E., The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran (SBLMS 110. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989) Senior D. “The Lure of the Formula Quotations: Reassessing Matthew’s Use of the OT with the PN as Test Case,” in C. M. Tuckett (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels (BETL 131. Leuven: Peeters, 1997), pp. 89–115 Shanks H., “Fingerprint of Jeremiah’s Scribe,” BAR 22 (1996) 36–38 Sharratt P. and P. G. Walsh (eds.), George Buchanan Tragedies (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic, 1983) Shotwell W. A., The Biblical Exegesis of Justin Martyr (London: SPCK, 1965) Silberman L. H., “Language and Structure in the Hodayot (1QH 3),” JBL 75 (1956) 96–106 Sim D., Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew (SNTSMS 88. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1996) Sjöberg E., Der Menschensohn im Äthiopischen Henochbuch (Acta Reg. Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 41. Lund: Gleerup, 1946) Skarsaune O., The Proof from Prophecy. A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Traditions: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile (NovTSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1987) Skehan P. W., “Jubilees and the Qumran Psalter,” CBQ 37 (1975) 343–347 Skehan P. W. and A. A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39. Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1987) Slater T., “One Like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism,” NTS 41 (1995) 183–198

bibliography

365

Smend R., Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Theologische Wissenschaft 1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978) Smith M. S., The Early History of God. Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990) Smith R., Handel’s Oratorios and Eighteenth-Century Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995) Spronk K., “The Daughter of Jephthah: Changing Views on God, Man, and Violence in Plays and Oratorios since George Buchanan,” in J. Bekkenkamp and Y. Sherwood (eds.), Sanctified Aggression. Legacies of Biblical and Post Biblical Vocabularies of Violence ( JSOTSup 400/Bible in the Twenty-First Century Series 3. London and New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003), pp. 10–21 Starcky J., “Un texte messianique araméen de la grotte 4 de Qumrân,” in Mémorial du cinquantenaire 1914–1964. Ecole des Langues Orientales Anciennes de l’Institut Catholique de Paris (Travaux de l’Institut catholique de Paris 10. Paris : Bloud and Gay, 1964), pp. 51–66 Stegemann H., “Some Remarks to 1QSa, to 1QSb and to Qumran Messianism,” RQ 17 (1996) 479–505 ——, “The Qumran Essenes—Local Members of the Main Jewish Union in Late Second Temple Times,” in J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (eds.), The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March 1991 (2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1992), I, pp. 83–166 ——, “Zu Textbestand und Grundgedanken von 1QS III,13–IV,26,” RQ 13 (1988) 95–131 ——, Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde (Bonn: published privately, 1971) Steinmann A., “The Chicken and the Egg. A New Proposal for the Relationship Between the Prayer of Nabonidus and the Book of Daniel,” RQ 20 (2002) 558–570 Steudel A., Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschat a.b) (STDJ 13. Leiden: Brill, 1994) Stone M. E., “Texts of Noah,” in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols. New York: Oxford University, 2000), II, pp. 613–15 ——, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha,” DSD 3 (1996) 270–95 ——, “Aramaic Levi Document and Greek Testament of Levi,” in M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman and W. W. Fields (eds.), Emanuel. Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (SVT 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 429–437 Strecker G., The Johannine Letters (Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) Strobel A., Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem auf Grund der spätjüdischurchristlichen Geschichte von Habakuk 2.2FF (NovTSup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1961) Strugnell J. and D. Dimant, “4QSecond Ezekiel,” RQ 13 (1988) 45–58 Strugnell J. and D. J. Harrington, Qumran Cave 4. XXIV Sapiential Texts, Part 2 4QInstruction (Musar Le Mevin) (DJD 34. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999) Stuckenbruck L. T., “Daniel and Early Enoch Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception (VTSup 83. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001), II, pp. 368–86 ——, The Book of Giants from Qumran (TSAJ 63. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) Stunt T. C. F., From Awakening to Secession. Radical Evangelicals in Switzerland and Britain 1815–1835 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000) Suggs M. J., “The Christian Two Ways Tradition: Its Antiquity, Form and Function’,” in D. E. Aune (ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature. Essays in Honor of Allan Wikgren (NovTSup 33. Leiden: Brill, 1972), pp. 60–74 Sukenik E. L., The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University ( Jerusalem: Magnes 1955) Sutcliffe E. F., “The First Fifteen Members of the Qumran Community. A Note on 1QS 8:1 ff.,” JSS 4 (1959) 134–138

366

bibliography

Sypherd W. O., Jephthah and His Daughter. A Study in Comparative Literature (Newark: University of Delaware, 1948) Talmon S., “The Qumran djy—A Biblical Noun,” in idem, The World of Qumran from Within ( Jerusalem: Magnes/Leiden: Brill, 1989), pp. 53–60 Tapp A. M., “An Ideology of Expendability: Virgin Daughter Sacrifice in Genesis 19.1–11, Judges 11.30–39 and 19.22–26,” in M. Bal (ed.), Anti-Covenant. CounterReading Women’s Lives (Sheffield: Almond, 1989), pp. 157–74 Theisohn J., Der auserwählte Richter. Untersuchungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Ort der Menschensohngestalt der Bilderreden des Äthiopischen Henoch (SUNT 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) Thompson J. L., Writing the Wrongs. Women of the Old Testament among Biblical Commentators from Philo through the Reformation (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University, 2001) Tibawi A. L., American Interests in Syria 1800–1901. A Study of Educational, Literary and Religious Work (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966) Tigchelaar E. J. C., “‘These are the names of the spirits of . . .’. A Preliminary Edition of 4QCatalogue of Spirits (4Q230) and New Manuscript Evidence for the Two Spirits Treatise (4Q257 and 1Q29a),” RQ 21 (2004) 529–548 ——, “Towards a Reconstruction of the Beginning of 4QInstruction,” in C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (BETL 159. Leuven: Peeters, 2002), pp. 99–126 ——, To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones. Reading and Reconstructing the Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (STDJ 44. Leiden: Brill, 2001) Tilborg S. van, “Language, Meaning, Sense and Reference: Matthew’s Passion Narrative and Psalm 22,” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 44 (1988) 883–908 Tournay R., “La Psaume CX,” RB 67 (1960) 5–41 Trible P., Texts of Terror. Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Overtures to Biblical Theology 13. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) Tromp J., The Assumption of Moses. A Critical Edition with Commentary (SVTP 10. Leiden: Brill, 1993) Turner F. M., John Henry Newman. A Challenge to Evangelical Religion (New Haven: Yale University, 2002) Ullendorff E. and M. A. Knibb, “Review: J. T. Milik (with the collaboration of M. Black), The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976),” BSOAS 40 (1977) 601–602 Ulrich E. et al., Qumran Cave 4. IX. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995) VanderKam J. C., “The Theophany of 1 Enoch 1:3b–7, 9,” VT 23 (1973) 129–50 ——, “Jubilees, Book of,” in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols. New York: Oxford University, 2000), II, pp. 434–438 ——, The Book of Jubilees. A Critical Text and Translation (Scriptores Aethiopici 87–88. CSCO 510–511. Leuven: Peeters, 1989) ——, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) VanderKam J. C. and P. W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002) VanderKam J. C. and J. T. Milik, “4QJubileesa,” in H. Attridge et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. VIII. Parabiblical Texts. Part 1 (DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) Vaux R. de, “L’adoption divine,” in idem, Les Institutions de l’Ancien Testament. I (Paris: Cerf, 1958) Vereté M., “The Restoration of the Jews in English Protestant Thought 1790–1840,” Middle Eastern Studies 8 (1972) 3–50 Vermes G., “Preliminary Remarks on Unpublished Fragments of the Community Rule from Qumran Cave 4,” JJS 42 (1991) 250–255 ——, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin, 1997)

bibliography

367

Vermes G. and M. D. Goodman, The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989) Vielhauer P., Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978) Walck L., “The Son of Man in Matthew and the Similitudes of Enoch” (PhD dissertation. Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame, 1999) Walsh P. G., “Buchanan and Classical Drama,” in I. D. McFarlane (ed.), Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Sanctandreani. Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of NeoLatin Studies, St. Andrews, 24 August to 1 September 1982 (Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 38. Binghamton NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1986), pp. 99–112 Wanamaker C. A., Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians (NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) Weinfeld M., Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) ——, The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect. A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associations of the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986) Wengst K., Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet (Schriften des Urchristentums II. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984) Westermann C., Genesis. An Introduction (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) Wevers J. W., “The LXX Translator of Deuteronomy,” in B. A. Taylor (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organisation for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (Atlanta GA: Scholars, 1997), pp. 57–89 ——, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy (Atlanta GA: Scholars, 1995) ——, The Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) Wevers J. W. with the help of U. Quast (ed.), Deuteronomium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) Whitters M. F., “Testament and Canon in the Letter of Second Baruch (2 Baruch 78–87),” JSP 12 (2001) 149–63 ——, The Epistle of Second Baruch. A Study in Form and Message ( JSPSup 42. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003) Willet A., De Judaeorum Vocatione (Cambridge, 1590) Wilson R. R., “From Prophecy to Apocalyptic: Reflections on the Shape of Israelite Religion,” Semeia 21 (1981) 79–95 Winter P., “Der Begriff ‘Söhne Gottes’ im Moselied Dtn 32.1–43,” ZAW 67 (1955) 440–481 Wise M. O. et al. (eds.), Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site. Present Realities and Future Prospects (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), pp. 251–70 Wise M., M. Abegg Jr., and E. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls. A New Translation (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996) Woude A. S. van der, “Die Doppelsprachigkeit des Buches Daniel,” in A. S. van der Woude (ed.), The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (BETL 106. Leuven: Peeters, 1993) Wright B. G., “The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature,” in J. J. Collins, G. R. Sterling and R. A. Clements (eds.), Sapiential Perspectives. Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 51. Leiden: Brill, 2004), pp. 101–123 ——, “Wisdom and Women at Qumran,” DSD 11 (2004) 240–61 Wright B. G. and C. V. Camp, “‘Who Has Been Tested By Gold and Found Perfect?’ Ben Sira’s Discourse of Riches and Poverty,” Henoch 23 (2001) 153–74 Wright J. E., “Baruch: His Evolution from Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer,” in M. E.

368

bibliography

Stone and T. A. Bergren (eds.), Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (Harrisburg PN: Trinity International, 1998), pp. 264–89 ——, Baruch Ben Neriah. From Biblical Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer (Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament. Columbia SC: University of South Carolina, 2003) Wutz F. X., Onomastica Sacra II (TUGAL 41/2. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915) Xeravits G., King, Priest, Prophet. Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library (STDJ 47. Leiden: Brill, 2003) Yadin Y., “A Crucial Passage of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” JBL 78 (1959) 238–241 Yarbro Collins A., “The Function of ‘Excommunication’ in Paul,” HTR 73 (1980) 251–63 ——, “The Appropriation of the Psalms of Individual Lament by Mark,” in C. Tuckett (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels (BETL 131. Louvain: Leuven University, 1997), pp. 223–41 ——, The Beginning of the Gospel. Probings of Mark in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) Yardeni A., “A Draft of a Deed on an Ostracon from Khirbet Qumran,” IEJ 47 (1997) 233–7 Young F. M., Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1997) Ziegler J., Duodecim Prophetae (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum XIII. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1943) Zimmermann F., “Textual Observations on the Apocalypse of Baruch,” JTS 40 (1939) 151–56 Zimmermann J., “Observations on 4Q246—The ‘Son of God,’” in J. H. Charlesworth et al. (eds.), Qumran Messianism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), pp. 175–190 Zuntz G., “Wann wurde das Evangelium Marci geschrieben?,” in H. Cancik (ed.), Markus-Philologie. Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), pp. 47–71

CONTRIBUTORS Dr. Edward Adams, King’s College London Prof. Sebastian Brock, University of Oxford Prof. George Brooke, University of Manchester Prof. Emeritus Ronald Clements, King’s College London Prof. John J. Collins, Yale University Prof. Philip Davies, University of Sheffield Prof. Florentino García Martínez, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Dr. Charlotte Hempel, University of Birmingham Prof. Matthias Henze, Rice University Prof. Emeritus Marinus De Jonge, Leiden University Prof. Judith M. Lieu, King’s College London Prof. Sarianna Metso, University of Toronto Dr. Sarah J. K. Pearce, University of Southhampton Dr. Deborah W. Rooke, King’s College London Prof. Raija Sollamo, University of Helsinki Prof. James C. VanderKam, University of Notre Dame Prof. Benjamin G. Wright III, Lehigh University Prof. Adela Yarbro Collins, Yale University

INDEX OF ANCIENT PRIMARY SOURCES This index is arranged alphabetically in an attempt to avoid placing a number of works into scholarly categories that, though still habitual, are now debatable and debated. The writings of the ‘Hebrew Bible and Versions’, the ‘New Testament’ and ‘Qumran’ are presented as groups. Within each group the writings are arranged alphabetically or numerically. Apostolic Church Order 14

182–183 183

Assumption of Moses

46

Barnabas 4:9–10 5:13 6:6 16:8–10 18 18–20 18–20(21) 18:1 19:1–12 19:2 20 20:1 21 21:1 21:2–4 21:3 21:6

184–186, 194 182 200 200 191 182 182, 190 181 181 181 181 182 182 182 182 183 182 182, 183

2 Baruch (Syriac Baruch) 17, 46, 157–177 1:1 164, 166 1–9 163 2:1 165 2:1–2 163, 166 3:1–3 170 3:2–3 174 5:1–7 165 5:5 166 6–8 341 9:1 166 9:1–2 165 10:1 166 10:1–5 165 10:1–12:5 170 10:2–4 166 10:5–19 174

13:1 13:2 13:3 16:1 17:4 18:2 19:1 20:1–2 20:1–5 21:19 22:1 22:2 24:4 25:1 27 31–34 31:3 33:1 33:2 33:1–3 38:2 39:1 41:1–6 43:1 44–46 46:3 47 48:2–3 48:26 48:39 50:1 51:3–5 53 54:1 54:5 55:3 63:6 76:2–4 77:2–10 77:3 77:12 77:17–19

169 166 177 174 169 164 169 174 164 174 169 164 173 177 171 170 169 166 166 165 169 164 173–174 164 170 169 170 173 164 6, 16 164 169 171 173–174 169 172 172 169 169 169 164 164

372

index of ancient primary sources

78–87 81:4 83:1 84 84:2–11 85:1–2 3 Baruch (Greek Apocalypse) 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena of Jeremiah) 3:11

163 173 173–174 169 169 163 160–161 160–161, 168, 170, 177 166

5 Baruch (Ethiopic Apocalypse)

160

1 Clement 50:4

174

Clement of Alexandria Miscellanies III.12.1

202

Damascus Document (CD) 54, 142, 175, 213, 221–222, 229, 234, 315, 325–326 1 94, 95, 136–137 1:1 325 1:11 163 1:14 92 2:2 325 2:14 325 2:14–3:12 40 2:16 325 6:9 95 6:19 93 7 92 7:5 94 7:6 86 8:21 93 9:10–16 93 10:4–10 215, 217 10:14–11:18 232 12:8 93 12:20–21 150 12:22 144 12:22–13:3 227 12:22–13:7 215, 217, 222–223, 226

12:23–13:2 13:1 13:1–2 13:2 13:4–5 13:5–6 13:5–7 13:7 13:7–14:18 13:15–16 14:3 14:3–12 14:3–18 14:8–9 14:12–13 14:12–18 14:13–14 14:14–16 14:16 15:5–16:1 19:33 20 20:1 20:2 20:5 20:7 20:12 20:14 20:15 20:32

223 215, 233 86 222 217 217, 222 217 86 222 93 86 215 228 86 93 215, 228 226 228 93 93 93 94, 95 227–228 94 94 94 93 227–228 92 84, 227–228

Didache 1–6 1:2–4:14 1:3–2:1 3:1–6 5:1–2 6:1 7:1

181–186, 194 182, 185 181 181–182 181, 186–188 181 181 181

Doctrina Apostolorum 1:1

182–186 190

1 Enoch

39, 41, 42, 45, 48, 51, 52, 53, 56, 99, 101, 103–106, 112, 136, 138, 157, 159, 310, 329–330 7 165 xi

1 1–5 1–11

index of ancient primary sources 1–36 (Book of Watchers) 1:1–9 1:2–9 1:3–4 1:3–7 1:3–9 1:9 6–11 6–16 10:2–3 12–16 12:3 12:4 13:1–3 14:7 14:20 14:21 15:1 15:8–12 16–17 17–19 18:1 20–36 20:8 33:3 37–71 (Book of Parables) 38–44 38:2 38:4–5 38:5 39:5 39:12 39:13 39:14 40:1 40:2 40:5 40:8–10 41 41:4 45 45-57 45:2 45:3 46 46–48

40, 48, 99, 102, 103, 162, 337 10 6 1 6, 7 7 1, 2, 6, 7 40, 48, 98, 101 49 159 48 162 163 99 163 296 297 162 48 159 55 284 55 172 163 x, 48, 56, 99, 160, 291–307 293 305 306 293 293 293 293 293 292–293, 299, 301 293 305 293 293 284 294 292 294 294, 298, 305 294, 296 x, xi, 291,

46:1 46:1–3 46:2 46:3 46:3–8 47 47:3 47:4 48 48:2 48:4 48:7 48:8 51:1–3 51:3 51:5 52 52:2–3 52:4 52:5 52:6 52:6–9 52-53 52:2–6 53 53:5 53:6 53:7 54:2 55:1 55:4 56:5–7 58–69 60:2 60:11 60:15–21 61:1 61:5 61:8 61:9 62:1–12 62:7–8 62:14 63:1–12 67:4–13 67:8–13 69–71 69:26 69:26–71:17

373 293, 300, 306–307 294, 297, 299, 301 294 297, 302, 307 307 306 294 294, 298–299, 301 299 294 294, 299 305 305 306 56, 57 298 305 8, 292 292 292 292 8 292 8 293 8 306 305 8 306 294 298, 306 56 299 294 284 46 56 305 298, 305 305 306 305 305 306 292 306 x, xi, 291, 299, 306–307 300, 305 291

374


69:27 69:29 70:1 70:3 71 71:2 71:3 71:8 71:10 71:11 71:12 71:12–14 71:13 71:14 71:16–17 72–82 (Astronomical Book) 74:2 76:14 77:4–8 80:2 81:1 81:1–2 81:1–10 82:1–2 82:1–4 82:4 82:4–6 83–90 (Book of Dreams) 83:3 83:10 85–90 90:15–17 91–107 91–108 (Epistle of Enoch) 91:5–7 91:7 91:11–17 92:1 93:1–10 93:10 100:1–4 100:4 102:1–3 106

298, 300 298, 300 300 305 294, 300, 307 200, 301–302 301 301 94, 296, 301 302 294 302 294 294, 307 305 52, 330 163 163 46, 48 174 163 172 163 329 328 328 328 48, 160 162 162 171, 173, 176 6 165 48, 57 10 6 171, 173 162–163 171, 173 137 10 6 6 114

106:2 106:5

114 114

2 Enoch (Slavonic Enoch) 32:1

6

Epitome of the Canons of the Holy Apostles

182–183

2 Esdras

1 1–2 1:1–2:9 1:26 1:28–32 1:38 2:5 2:10–48 3–14 4:12–18 4:33–35 4:33–52 4:36 5:7 6:1–5 6:38b–59 6:59 7:32–33 8:26 12:42 13 13:1–13 13:25–26 13:25–53 14:1 14:3ff. 14:5–6 14:13 14:45–46 15–16

17, 43, 45, 46, 48, 162, 170, 172 43 49 49 47 49 42 42 49 49, 58 58 173 174 172 48 45 46 173 56, 57 174 169 8, 15 8 8 8 162 162 162 162 162 49

Euripides Hecuba Iphigenia at Aulis

259 259, 264

Genesis Rabbah 60:3

254, 266


375

Hebrew Bible and Versions Baruch 1–5 1:1 1:1–14

160 161 161 161

1 Chronicles 3:17–19 12:18 17:13–14 22:10–11 28:8–19 28:9–10

43 84 124–125 124–125 125 124

2 Chronicles 7:17–20 14:10 14:10 (LXX)

124–125 242 334

Daniel

1:4 2 2:4 2:4–8:1 2:18–19 2:28–30 2:31–45 2:34–35 2:44–45 2:47 3 3–4 3:28–29 3:37–73 (LXX) 3:52–56 (LXX) 3:52–90 (LXX) 3:54 (LXX) 3:57 (LXX) 3:57–59 (LXX) 3:57–73 (LXX) 3:57–87 (LXX) 3:57–90 (LXX) 3:58–59 (LXX) 3:59 (LXX) 3:61–63 (LXX) 3:64–72 (LXX) 3:66–73 (LXX)

42, 45, 46, 50, 51, 57, 101, 135–136, 138, 142, 159, 334–335, 342–343 141 50, 138, 292–293 134 278 292 292 292 292 292 292, 306 277–278 278 278 274 278, 281 xiv, 277 280 278 279 277, 279–280 278 274, 289 285 281 285 281 281

3:67 (Theodotion) 3:68–69 (LXX) 3:74–81 (LXX) 3:75 (LXX) 3:81 (LXX) 3:82 (LXX) 3:82–90 (LXX) 3:83–87 (LXX) 3:88 (LXX) 3:88–90 (LXX) 4 4:9 (Theodotion) 4:10 4:14 4:17 4:25 5 5:21 7 7:1 7:1–8 7:2 7:2–8 7:7 7:9 7:9–10 7:9–14 7:10 7:11–12 7:12 7:13 7:14 7:14–28 7:15 7:15–18 7:16 7:17 7:19 7:19–27 7:22 7:23 7:24 7:27 7:28 8 8:13

279 281 280 285 285 285 280 279 278–279 279 50, 138 242 293 116, 293 306 306 50 306 xi, 50, 134, 291–307 293, 296, 302 302 294 302 306 293–296, 301, 303 298, 300, 304 9 293, 298–299, 301, 303 302, 304 302 8, 9, 10, 12, 294, 296–297, 299, 303 292, 302–303 302 301 302 298 304 306 302 294, 303 304 304 293 134, 293, 301–302 50, 134, 140 116, 173

376 8:15 8:16 8:17 8:18 9:21 9:21–23 9:27 10:9 10:10–11 10:13 10:15 10:18 10:21 11 11–12

11:31 11:32 11:33 11:33–35 11:35 11:36–37 12:1 12:2 12:3 12:6 12:11 Deuteronomy 1:43 (LXX) 7:25–26 (LXX) 8:5 12:5 12:26 13:6 (LXX) 13:7 14:1 14:23–24 16:2 16:6 16:11 16:15 17 17:8 17:8 (LXX) 17:8–13 (LXX) 17:10 17:10 (LXX) 17:11 17:12 17:12 (LXX) 17:13

index of ancient primary sources 297 293, 301 301 301 301 293 335–336, 342 301 301 293, 301 301 297 301 342 133, 137, 139–140, 142–143, 154–156 335, 342 139 141 139, 152 139 342–343 298, 301 172 141, 163 173 335, 342 168–169 244 335 120, 125 242 242 244 11 120 242 242 242 242 242 xiv 239, 242–243 240–242 xiv, 237–247 242–243 242, 246 246 243 243–244 244

18:5–7 18:20 (LXX) 18:20–22 18:20–22 (LXX) 19:16 (LXX) 21:18–21 (LXX) 21:23 22:22 (LXX) 24 24:7 (LXX) 24:8 (LXX) 25:1–2 (LXX) 26:2 26:14 26:17 27:14–15 (LXX) 28:12 28:59 (LXX) 29:15–16 (LXX) 30:2 30:4 30:11 (LXX) 32 32:8 32:16–17 (LXX) 33 33:1–3 33:2 33:5 33:8–11 33:10 (LXX) 33:13–17 34:10

243 244 245 245 244 244 203 244 252 244 246 244 242 243 243 335 284 240 335 243 11 240–241 119 111, 277 336 164–165 7 3, 4, 5 84, 85 54 246 203 277

Epistle of Jeremiah

160, 166

Exodus 3:4 4:22 6:4 18:15–22 19 19:9 19:11 19:18 19:18–20 19:20 21:29 23:7 (LXX) 24:12 (LXX) 32:11–14 34:5 34:10

162 120, 129 218 165 277 4 3, 4 3, 4, 5 3, 4 3 209 244 245–246 170 3, 4 165

index of ancient primary sources Ezekiel 1 1:26 8:10 (LXX) 8:16 9 9:2 20:30 (LXX) 28 28:2 28:12–19 29–32 37 39:17–20 47:7–10

53, 175, 297 171 297 335 34 81 53 335 343 343 102 171 171 18 48

Ezra 3:2 4:3 7:6 7:10–11

43, 84 43 84 162 162

Genesis

42, 99, 101, 103, 282 104–105 97, 102, 103–106 273 280 104 102, 105 104 273 276 104 103 103 99, 100 1–5 100 100, 104 162 159 100 105 40, 159 105 xi, 97, 98, 100, 103, 104, 106 111 112 97, 111 97 159 104

1 1–11 1:1–2:4 1:5 2 2–4 2:4 2:4–25 2:8–14 3 4 4:13 4:17–18 4:17–24 5 5:21–23 5:21–24 5:22 5:22–23 5:23 5:24 6–9 6:1–4 6:2 6:2–4 6:4 6:5 6:9 6:11

7:1 8:21 9:1–7 10 11:1–9 17:8 18:14 19 22:1–19 22:12–13 49:10

97 98 105 105 105 218 241 255, 336 255 255 54, 126

Habakkuk 2:3 2:3 (LXX) 2:4 2:4 (LXX) 3 3:3 3:3–15 3:6 3:8 3:10 3:10–11 3:12 3:13

3, 16, 17 17 16 16 3 3, 4, 7 3, 4, 5 5, 7–8 7–8 5 5 4 3

Hosea 1:9 2:1 2:25 6:3 11:1

119 119 119 3 120

Isaiah 1:15 2:1–4 2:8 (LXX) 2:20 (LXX) 7:10–16 9:1–6 9:5–6 11:1–5 11:4 13:10 14:12–15 14:22 19:1 19:8 26:19 26:19–20 26:20 26:20 (LXX) 26:21

47 69 335 335 202 124 132 126 15, 18 10 343 3 3, 4 51 172 174 16 16 3, 4, 7

377

378 29:6 30:18 30:27 30:27–28 30:27–38 33:10 34:4 35:4 40–55 40:3 40:10 40:10 (LXX) 40:10–11 41:4 42:5 42:6 42:13 43:1 43:7 43:19 44:5 44:13 44:19 (LXX) 45:3–4 48:12 49:1 49:2 50:4 50:6–9 53:9 53:11 54:11–12 57:2 58:2 59:15–20 59:19 59:19–20 59:20–21 60:21–22 62:2–3 63 63:1 63:1–3 63:1–6 63:2 63:5 63:6 63:9 64:1 64:1–2 64:1–3 64:2 64:4 64:7

index of ancient primary sources 3, 4 3 3, 4 15, 18 4, 8 3 10 3, 4 291 155 3, 10, 19 19 4 295 273 299 3, 5 299 299 273 299 297 335 299 299 299 18 205 200 200 141 231 200 200 3, 4, 5 4 3 12 174 18 18 3, 4, 5 18 4, 5 5 5 5 276 4, 5, 14, 18 18 3, 4 4 5 120

65:2 65:17 65:17–26 66:15 66:15–16 66:15–18 66:16 66:18 Jeremiah 1:2 1:4 1:10 1:11 1:13 1:18 2:27 3:14 3:19 7:16 7:30 (LXX) 10:13 11:14 14:11 15:15–18 15:19–21 16:16 23:5 31:9 35:15 36 36:1 36:32 43:1–7 45 45:1 46–51 51:16 52 Job 1:6 2:1 5:1 10:13 (LXX) 15:15 26:22 28 28:7 37:14 38 38:4

200 273 6 3, 14, 15 4, 6 3 7 3, 4, 11, 14 42, 45, 46, 162–163, 167–168, 176 166 166 167 166 166 163 119 119 119 170 335 284 170 170 167 167 51 126 120 126 161 167 161 166, 168 166–167 166 167 284 161 287 111 111 116 242 116 14 55 111 242 xiv, 274, 284, 286, 289 287

index of ancient primary sources 38:7 38:7 (LXX) 38:22 38:22–38 40:5 42:2 (LXX)

283, 287 277, 287 284 287 287 242

Joel 2:10 2:17 4:15

10 34 10

Judges 1 5:4 5:4–5 9:7–21 11:1 11:2 11:29–40 11:30–31 11:31 11:31 (Vg) 11:34 11:35 11:37 11:40 12:7 14:6 17:7–8 19

251 253 3, 4 3, 5 58 253 253 xv, 249–271 260 268 260 251–253 268 266 251 253 41 225 253, 255

1 Kings 11:6 (LXX) 11:33 (LXX) 18:3 22:21–23

336 336 27, 35 41

2 Kings 1:13 4:1 14:25 19:7 23:13 (LXX)

27, 35 35 36 41 336

Lamentations 1:2

73

Leviticus 12:2–5 16 17 25:35 (LXX)

232 98–101 104 241

1 Maccabees 1:54

335

2 Maccabees 2:1–4 2:29

166 163

Malachi 3:1 3:1–2 3:1–4 3:2 3:5

3, 17 2 3, 4, 5 3, 5, 17 4

Micah 1:3 1:3–4 1:4 1:9

3, 4, 7 3, 4, 7 4, 5, 8 3

Nahum 1:3–4 1:4

5 14

Nehemiah

43, 84

Numbers 11:25 12:5 13:33 14:17–19 15:30 (LXX) 16 16:22 24:17 27:16 31:17–18

3, 4 3, 4 97 170 244 337 116 54 41, 116 258

Proverbs 1–9 4 4:10 8 8:22–31 8:24–29 24:12 24:53 (LXX) 27:8 Psalms 1–2 2

379

310, 312–316, 318–319, 331 311–312, 314–316, 319 319, 327 311 45 55, 273 45 10, 19 241 51 198 124, 126, 128, 202

380 2:7 3:4 3:6 3:7 7:6 8:4–9 8:6 (LXX) 9:19 17:10 18 18:6–15 18:6–19 18:7 18:8 18:11 18:13 18:14 18:15 18:16 18:16–19 19 21 (LXX) 22 22:2 22:3 22:4 22:5–6 22:6 22:6–7 22:7 22:8 22:8–9 22:9 22:10 22:11 22:11–12 22:12 22:13–14 22:13–15 22:15 22:16 22:17 22:17–19 22:18 22:19 22:19 (LXX) 22:20–22 22:21 22:21–22 22:22 22:23 22:23–24 22:24 22:25–32

index of ancient primary sources 124 200 200 3 3 273 277 3 3 202 4 3 5, 8 4, 8, 14, 15 4 4 4 5 7, 14 3 198 195 xiv, 195–211 196, 202, 206 196, 206 201 207 208 201 209 196 200, 208 196, 201 201, 207 201, 207 208 201, 207 209 207 206 196, 205–206 195, 203 199–200, 208 196 196, 203 204 208 200, 207 207, 211 196, 203 202 205, 207 202 202

22:28 24 24:8 (LXX) 24:12 (LXX) 25:9 26:11 (LXX) 27:4 29:1 29:6 44:7 (LXX) 45 49:2 50:2–3 50:3 50:3–5 50:5 62:12 67:8 68:7–8 68:8 68:18 68:22 72 77:16–20 87:2 89 89:6 89:7 89:27 89:27–28 89:27–30 89:31–34 95:13 96 96:7 (LXX) 96:10 96:11 96:13 97:1–5 97:4 97:9 98:6 98:7 102:20 102:20–21 (LXX) 103:4 (LXX) 104 104:4 110 114:5–6 115 118:23 118:33 (LXX) 118:102

202 202 245 245 191 245 10 112 4 125 125, 202 3 4 4 4 4, 14 10 3 3 5 5 196 202 5 112 129 116 112 122 129 124–125 125 3 202 277 198 5 3, 4, 18 5 4 3 18 4, 5 276 277 276 273 275–276 124, 202 4 286 242 245 245

index of ancient primary sources 118:104 119:57 119:120 135 135:1–9 135:6 135:7 135:15–18 135:17–21 135:19–20 136 137:1 (LXX) 144:5 148 148:1–2 148:1–6 148:2–3 148:7–14 148:9 148:10 148:11–12 149 150

245 191 200 xiv, 274, 284, 286, 289 286 286 286 286 286 286 286 277 3, 4, 5 xiv, 278, 285, 289 285 285 285 285 285 285 285 282 282

5:4–5 5:6 6:23 7:5–6 15:11–20 16:18 16:24–25 24 24:1 24:2 24:10–12 24:19–20 24:23 24:23–29 24:30 32:20–22 33:7–19 35:5–9 35:19 36:10 39:1–11 39:21–22 39:28–29 42:15–25 42:15–43:33

Ruth 4:2

217

1 Samuel 10:10 14 14:45 16:14–16 17:45 (LXX)

41 255 255–256 41 334

2 Samuel 7 7:14 22:1–20 22:10 22:12 22:16

126 122, 124 3 3, 4, 14 4 14

Tobit 4 8:5 12:15 14 14:8–9

51, 101–102, 288, 310–318, 320 317 317 317 317 313 313 313

Wisdom of Solomon 2:18 12:9 14:8–11

Sirach 1 2 3:1–16 3:14–16 5:1 5:3 5:4

43:13–22 43:18 43:28 44–50 44:16 45:25 46:1 46:10–15 49:14 51:23

Zechariah 1:14 2:2 2:6 3:8

381 316 313 309 315 189 5 309 316 316 316 316 317 316 317 317 315 189 315 16 174 162 288 288 189 xiv, 274, 288–289 288 288 288 315, 317 40, 102 284 318 318 40, 102 311 328 327 278 277 327 331 120 242 336 277 277 11 126

382 4:1 8:6 (LXX) 6:12 9:13 9:14 9:14–15 9:15 14

index of ancient primary sources 126 277 241 4 3, 4, 11, 14 3, 4, 5, 11, 19 4 6

Herodotus Histories V.9

241

Ignatius To the Smyrnaeans 2:1

206

To the Trallians 9:1

206

Irenaeus

180

Josephus Against Apion II.194

225, 228 245

Jewish Antiquities I.218 XVIII.261

237 336

Jewish War II.124 II.124–125 II.160 II.184 V.306 V.459 V.562 V.566 VI.98 VI.288–315 VII.29

86 226 92 342 337 337 337 337 337 165 337

Jubilees 1:27–29 1:28 2:1 2:1–3 2:1–4 2:2–3 2:3 2:4 2:7

51, 52, 57, 98, 137, 175, 276 6 6 277 279–280, 289 273, 277 282 276, 283 275 276

14:1–5 14:1–9 14:3 14:4 14:5 14:6–11

2, 4, 5 3 4 5 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 116 6

2:7–12 2:17–18 4 4:16–25 4:17 4:18–19 21:24

273, 277 275 98 57 162 163 137

Justin Martyr Apology 35.3–6 35.5 35.7 37.8 38 38.4 38.6 38.7 38.8 40 52.3 66.3 67.3 98

200, 203 200–201 200 204 200, 203 200–201 208 210 208 198, 202 206 205 205 201

Dialogue with Trypho 30.2 33.1 34:1 34.1–7 34.2 36 36.1 36.2–6 39.7 41.1 42.1 43.8 49.2 52.1 53.4 63 64 64.5

180, 201 198 202 202 202 206 202 206 202 206 206 202 202 206 206 203 202 202 202

index of ancient primary sources 64.8 67.1 68.7 68.9 70.4 71.3 73 74.1 76.6 77.1 77.2 83.1 83.3 85.1 85.2 89.2 91.2 97 97–106 97.1 97.3 97.4 98 98–106 98.1 98.2 98.3 98.4 99.1 99.2 99.3 100.2 100.2–3 100.3–6 100.4 101.1 101.2 101.3 102.1 102.5 102.6 103.1 103.1–4 103.2 103.4 103.6 103.7 103.7–8 103.8

202 202 202 206 206 202 198, 202 206 206 202 202 202 202 202 206 203, 206 203 199–200 197, 199 200 195, 200, 203–204, 209 202–203 202 204 205–206 201 208 209 197, 202 206 206 203 199 210 204 201 209 204, 208 201, 203 203–205, 210 199, 201, 203, 208 201, 203 209 203 210 204 203 206 203, 206

103.9 104 104.1 104.2 105.1 105.2 105.5 105.6 106 106.1 106.2 106.3 106.4 107.1 110.2 111.2 120.5 125.5 126.1 131.2 131.6 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo) 3:10 19:12–13 19:13 Lives of the Prophets

383 203, 210 208 203–204 204, 210 203–204 203 203, 208 204 199 203–205 202 204 204 204–205 206 206 204 206 206 210 203 56, 170, 712 56 6 6, 10, 14, 174 6, 21–37

Lives of the Prophets: Amos 27 Lives of the Prophets: Habakkuk

29

Lives of the Prophets: Hosea

27

Lives of the Prophets: Joel

27

Lives of the Prophets: Jonah 28 Lives of the Prophets: Micah

27

Lives of the Prophets: Nahum

29

Lives of the Prophets: Obadiah

27

Lives of the Prophets: Zephaniah

30

Magical Papyri PGM IV.994–995 PGM IV.2769–70

341 341

384

index of ancient primary sources New Testament

Acts 1:11

2, 8

Colossians 1:16

273

1 Corinthians 1:8 3:13 4:5 5:5 11:26 15:51–55 16:22

338 338 2 338 2 13 2

2 Corinthians 1:14 5:17

338 273

Ephesians 2:22

192

Galatians 6:15

273

Jude 4 5 9 14 15 17 21 25

1 1 1 1, 2 2 1 1 1

Luke, Gospel of 1:3 1:31 9:27 11:51 16:24 16:30 17:26–27 17:28 21:25–27 22:44 23:46 24:39–40

210, 337 206 130 9 34 42 42 337 337 11 206 207 200

xv, 204, 333, 343 8:3–8 + par. 9 8:28 2 8:38 9, 10, 12 13 334–337, 342 13:3 335 13:5 334 13:5–6 335 13:5–13 334 13:5–23 10 13:14 335–336, 342 13:14–16 336 13:14–18 337 13:14–23 334 13:20 174, 336 13:21–22 335, 342 13:24 340 13:24–25 10 13:24–27 334 13:24–27 + par. 10 13:26 2 13:37 335 14:62 2 15:24 196 15:29 196 15:32 209 15:34 196–197

Mark, Gospel of Hebrews 9:28 10:37

16 16

James 4:15 5:7 5:8

192 8 8

John, Gospel of 8:44 14:3 15:26–27 16:8–11 19:24 19:28 20:25 20:27

110 2 191 191 196, 204 196 200 200

1 John 2:28 3:10 3:12 3:13 4:6

8 110 110, 132 110 190

index of ancient primary sources Matthew, Gospel of 5:17–20 5:21–48 7:13–14 10:32–33 16:27 16:28 23:35 24:5 24:22 24:27 24:27–31 24:29–31 24:30 24:37–39 25:31 25:31–46 26:57 27:35 27:36 27:39–43 27:43 27:44 27:46 27:49 27:50

337 188 188 193 10 9, 19 10, 12 34 334 174 11 11 11 11 337 12 12 209 200 196 208 196, 208 209 196–197 196 196

1 Peter 5:8

210

2 Peter 1:16 3:4 3:5–13 3:12 3:13

16 16, 17 16–17 8 273

Philippians 1:6 1:10–11 2:16

338 338 338

Revelation 1:4 1:5 1:7 1:13–17 2:5 2:16 2:25 3:3 3:11 5:6–12 7:1–3

2 8 2, 8, 17 295 17 17, 19 17 17 17, 19 18 341

9:14–15 11:14 16:15 19:11–16 19:11–21 19:17–21 19:19 20:2–3 20:7–10 21:6 22:6–21 22:7 22:12 22:13 22:20

385 341 19 17 17–19 17 18 17, 18 341 341 295 19 17, 19 17, 19 295 17, 19

Romans 2:5 2:16 8:9–11 9–11 11:26–27

338 338 192 340 12

1 Thessalonians 1:9–10 3:11–13 3:13 4:12–17 4:13–17 4:13–18 4:13–5:11 4:16–17 5:1–11 5:2–3 5:3 5:9

12, 338 8, 12 12 12 13 338 13 13 12, 13, 14 338 338 338 338

2 Thessalonians 1:3–11 1:3–12 1:6–7 1:7 1:7–8 1:8 1:10 2 2:1–2 2:2 2:3 2:3–12 2:4 2:7 2:8 2:9–12

xv, 333, 338–343 14 338 339 339 14 15, 339–340 2, 15, 339 14, 341–342 xv, 339–340 338 342 15 341–342 341 15, 18 342


386 2:12 3:17

342 338

Pesikta Rabbati 26:18

170 166

Peter, Gospel of

204

Philo Apologia

225, 237 86

That Every Good Man is Free

86

On the Embassy to Gaius XXIX.188 336 On the Life of Moses II.138

2 Timothy 1:14

On the Special Laws IV.188–192 Pliny Natural History V.15.73

192

246 237, 246 228 225

Polycarp 7:1

110

Psalms of Solomon 17:11–15

342

193

Qumran (excluding the Damascus Document from Cairo) 1QH a (Hodayot) Suk. frag. 2 Suk. frag. 2:3 Suk. frag. 2:10 2 i 10 2 ii 13 7:25 9:12 11 11:2 11:6–18 11:19–23 12:8b–9a 13:7b–8a 13:11 13:32 17:2 17:29–31 17:35–36 26:2–18

142 112 112 112 112 112 284 284 115 112 131–132 115 51 51 283 284 284 109 109 118

1QpHab (Pesher Habakkuk) 137, 142, 229 1:13 163 7:10–12 229 8:1–3 229 12:4–5 229

1 1–4 1:1 1:8 1:9–11 2:2 2:8 3:2 3:9 3:12 3:13 3:13–14 3:13–4:1 3:13–4:26

3:18–19 3:20–21 4:9 4:15 4:21 4:22 4:23 5 5–7

1QS (Community Rule)

84, 139, 142, 146, 184, 213, 231, 234

5–9

231 87 144 230 123 230 284 224, 231 230 144 153 154 41 117, 143, 145, 184–185, 190, 194 190 117 190 154 190 112 190 145–147, 154–155, 231 87, 88, 151, 219, 223–224, 228, 234 87, 88, 219

index of ancient primary sources 5:1–3a 5:6 5:7 5:7–20 5:8 5:20 6 6:1 6:1–3 6:1–4 6:1–7 6:1–8 6:2 6:2–5 6:2–8 6:3 6:3–4 6:3–6 6:4 6:5 6:6 6:6–8 6:7–8 6:8 6:8–13 6:9 6:10 6:13 6:13–23 6:16 6:18 6:23 7:2 7:22–24 8 8–9 8:1 8:1–4 8:1–7 8:1–8 8:1–12 8:1–13 8:1–15 8:4 8:4–10 8:5 8:6 8:8–13

146 230 224, 231 224 93 231 xiii, 86, 87, 88, 93, 219, 224 219 223 217 217, 219–221 85, 87, 215, 217–227, 234 217, 220, 225 217 227 89, 214–215, 221–223, 226, 233 217 223 219, 222 22 222 223 219 88, 220 215, 218, 220–221, 228 229 220–221, 224, 231 224, 231 89, 224, 230, 234 224, 231 224 224 224, 231 224, 231 88, 89, 92, 95, 151, 155, 229–232, 234 87, 230–231 89, 90, 215, 224, 229, 231, 233 89 152 232 215 91, 215, 232 231 89, 153 89 90 231 219

8:9 8:10 8:10–11 8:10–14 8:11 8:12 8:12–15 8:13 8:15 8:15–9:11 8:16–19 8:18 8:20 8:20–9:2 8:21 8:21–23 9 9:2 9:3 9:3–11 9:5 9:5–6 9:6 9:8 9:11 9:12 9:12ff. 9:12–14 9:12–16 9:12–25 9:14–18 9:16–21 9:18–21 9:21 9:21–26 9:26–10:1 10–11 10:2 10:16 11:8 1QSa 2:11–14 2:11–22 2:17–22 2:22

387

230 230–231, 233 89, 90, 229–230, 234 214 215 89, 90 152 85 90, 153 89, 150, 230 89 230 94, 230 89 94, 215, 230 218 146–147 230 89, 231 89 239 230–231 230 94, 230 53 144, 150, 153 143 152–154 152 147–156 154–155 152 155–156 144 152 283 87 284 284 112 54, 84, 88, 93, 116, 123, 142, 213, 231, 233 127 215 217 88, 215

1QSb 4:24–26

54, 84, 142, 151 116

1Q19 (Noah)

159

388


1Q20 (Genesis Apocryphon ar) 2 114 2:1 114 2:5 112 2:16 112 5:3 112 6:8 112 1Q26 (Instruction)

138, 321–325, 332

1Q27 (Mysteries)

138

1Q33 (War Scroll)

123, 139, 142 174 117 117 115 116 142 284 116 117 116

1:2 1:10–11 7:6 10 10:9–11 10:10 10:12 11 11:7–8 12:1–2

1–2 1–2 1–2 1–2 1–2 1–2 1–2 1–2

i 13–14 ii 1 ii 3 ii 4 ii 9 ii 11 ii 12 ii 14–15

318 318 318 318 319 319 319 319

4Q203 (Enoch Giants a ar)

99

4Q213–214 (Levi ar)

179–180, 310, 327, 329–330

4Q213 (Levi a ar) 1 i 9–10 1 ii + 2:12–13 3 + 4:8

330 330 328

4Q216 (Jubilees a) 1–2 4 5 5:1–17 5:10

273–290 274 274 xiv, 274 273 284

4Q37 (Deuteronomy j)

111

4Q217 (papJubileesb?)

274

4Q161 (Pesher Isaiah a)

126

4Q164 (Pesher Isaiahd) 1

4Q242 (Prayer of Nabonidus ar)

135

231–232 215

4Q174 (Florilegium)

84, 125, 136 126 117

1–3 i 10–12 1:8 4Q175 (Testimonia)

53

4Q177 (Catena)

84, 125

4Q180 (Ages of Creation A)

99

4Q181 (Ages of Creation B) 1:2

112

4Q184 (Wiles of the Wicked 314 Woman) 4Q185 (Sapiential Work) 1–2 i 9

314–315, 318–319 318

4Q243–245 (Pseudo Daniel a–c )

50, 159, 176

4Q243 (Pseudo Daniel a ) 16

176

4Q245 (Pseudo Daniel c) 2:4

137

4Q246 (Apocryphon of Daniel ar)

50, 130, 159

4Q249f (pap crypticA Serekh ha-'Edah f )

217

4Q249g (pap crypticA Serekh ha-'Edah g)

217

4Q249h (pap crypticA Serekh ha-'Edah h)

217

index of ancient primary sources 4Q252 (Commentary on Genesis A) V frg. 6

84, 126 126

4Q255 (Rule of the Community a) 3 145 4Q256 (Rule of the Community b) IX 146–147 IX:1 144 XVIII:1 154–155 XVIII:1–4 155–156 XVIII:1–7 147–150 4Q258 (Rule of the Community d) I I:1 II:6–10 VII:6 VIII:1–3 VIII:1–9 VIII:3–5 VIII:5 4Q259 (Rule of the Community e) III:6–10 III:6–IV:8 III:7 III:10–16 III:16–IV:2 IV:2 4Q260 (Rule of the Community f ) I:1–2

87, 90, 230 146–147 144, 153 217, 220 231 154–155 147–150 155–156 144 87, 89, 150, 230–231 152–154 147–150 144 254–255 144 151 147–150

4Q261 (Rule of the Community g) 2a–c:2–5 217 4Q263 (Rule of the Community i) 1–5 217 4Q265 (Miscellaneous Rules) 7:7–10

84, 89, 94, 213, 231–232 215, 232–233

4Q266–273 (Damascus Document a–h)

389 325–326

4Q266 (Damascus Document a) 5 i 17 144, 150 8 iii 4–9 217 9 ii 217 4Q267 (Damascus Document b) 9 iv 1–3 217 4Q270 (Damascus Document e) 84 6 iv 15–19 217 4Q271 (Damascus Document f ) 5 ii 20–21 217 4Q285 (Rule of War)

126, 142

4Q286 (Blessings a) 7 ii 6

117

4Q298 (cryptA Words of the Maskil to All Sons of Dawn) i 3 iii 9–10

142, 326 326 326

4Q299–301 (Mysteries a–c)

138

4Q302 (papAdmonitory Parable) 2 ii 2

326 326

4Q369 (Prayer of Enosh) 1 ii 1 1 ii 4 1 ii 4–10 1 ii 5 1 ii 6 1 ii 7 1 ii 8

129 129 128 129 129 128 129

4Q372 (Narrative and Poetic Composition b) 1 122 1:14–20 121 4Q374 (Exodus/Conquest Tradition) 2 ii 6 114 4Q377 (Apocryphon Pentateuch B) 1 ii 11 114

390


4Q381 (Non-Canonical Psalms B) 15:4 112

4Q405 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice f ) 8–9:5–6 116

4Q383 (Apocryphon Jeremiah A) 4:2 176

4Q412 (Sapiential-Didactic Work A)

4Q385.385b.386.388.391 (Pseudo Ezekiel)

4Q415–418.418a.418c.423 (Instruction a–g)

4Q385 (Pseudo Ezekiel a) 2:2 2:3 2:5 2:9 3:4 4 4:3

171–173, 175–176 175 173 173 171 173 171 174 174

4Q385a.387.387a.388a.389.390 (Apocryphon Jeremiah C) 171, 175–176 4Q385a (Apocryphon Jeremiah C a)

166

4Q385b (Pseudo Ezekiel c) 1

171

4Q386 (Pseudo-Ezekiel b) 1 ii–iii 1 ii 2 1 ii 3

174 171 117, 173

4Q387 (Apocryphon Jeremiah C b) 2 ii 3–4 176 4Q388a (Apocryphon Jeremiah C c) 1 175 4:2 176 4Q390 (Apocryphon Jeremiah E) 1:2 176 4Q400–407 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice a–h)

138, 142–143, 277

4Q400 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice a) 2:5 113 4Q403 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice d) 1 i 32–33 113 1 ii 21 116

315 138, 142, 315, 320–325, 332

4Q415 (Instruction a) 2 ii

321

4Q416 (Instruction b) 1:12 2 ii 18 2 iii 2 iii 7–8 2 iii 12 2 iii 14 2 iii 16 2 iii 17–18 2 iii 18 2 iv 5 2 iv 7 2 iv 11–12 4:3

112 323 322–323 324 325 55, 322 323 323 323 325 324 323 323

4Q417 (Instruction c) 1 i 10–11 1 i 10–12 1 i 14–18 1 i 18 1 i 18–19 1 i 18–24 1 i 23–24 1 i 20 1 i 25 1 i 27 4 ii 11

323 324 55 321 324 324 324 321 321 321 325

4Q418 (Instruction d) 2+2ca–c:4 69:10–11 69 ii 12 69 ii 15 87:10–11 88:7–8 123 i–ii 3–4 184 243

112 325 112 321 325 324 55 323 325

index of ancient primary sources 4Q420–421 (Ways of Righteousness a–b)

142

4Q424 (Instruction-like Work) 326–327 1:7 326 1:8–9 327 1:10–12 327 2 326 3:3 327 3:4–5 327 3:6–7 327 3:9 326 3:10 326 4Q427 (Hodayot a) 7 4Q431 (Hodayote) 1

118 118

4Q433a (papHodayot-Like Text B)

142

4Q458 (Narrative A) 1 1:1–2 2 ii 6 15:1

129 129 129 129

2 ii + 3:8 2 ii + 3:12 2 iii 5 5:7 5:9 5:12 13:5 14 14 ii 8–11 14 ii 12 14 ii 13–15 14 ii 18 25:2

4Q542 (Testament of Qahat ar) 1 i 3–4 1 i 11–13 1 ii 9–13

5Q13 (Rule) 1:6

4Q461 (Narrative B)

142

11Q5 (Psalms a) 2:6–16 14–15 19:7 26

4Q491 (War Scroll a) 11 11 i 11 24:4

118 118 112

26:7–8 26:11–12 26:12

4Q525 (Beatitudes) 2 2 2 2

ii ii ii ii

+ + + +

3:1–7 3:2 3:3–4 3:7

142 315, 319–321 319 320 320 320

114 327, 329–330 330 328 330

4Q546 (Visions of Amram d ar) 14:4 112

122 122 122

4Q510–511 (Songs of the Maskil)

320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 321 321 321 320 117

4Q534 (Birth of Noaha ar) 1 i 7–8

4Q460 (Narrative Work and Prayer) 9 i 2 9 i 3 9 i 5–6

4Q504 (Words of the Luminaries a) 1–2 iii 3–7 120 1–2 iv 6–8 125

391

112 xiv 285 286 284 274, 282, 287, 289–290 286 282 283

11Q11 (Apocryphal Psalms) 6:3

117

11Q13 (Melchizedek)

136, 142

11Q14 (Book of the War)

142

a

11Q19 (Temple ) 56:5 Shepherd of Hermas Mandate III.1

243 194 191–192


392 III.4 V.1 V.2 VI.1–5 VI.7–8 X X.1 X.2 X.3 X.6

192 193 193 193 193 192–193 191–192 192 192 191–192

Similitude V.7.1 IX.32.2

193 192

Sibylline Oracles 2:233–237 5:104–110

56 56

Sifra on Leviticus 18:4

187

Synesius

225

Targum Judges 11:39

255

Tatian Orat. 15:2

191–192

Tertullian Against Marcion III.19.5–6 III.23.6 IV.42.4–5

180 197 202 197

Testament of Abraham 13:4 6 Testament of Job

310

Testament of Moses 8–10 10:1 10:3–10 10:5 10:7 10:8–9 10:8–10

165 10 6 6, 7 10 6 8 14

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

165, 179–194, 310, 327–328, 330

Testament of Asher 1:2 1:2–5 1:3 1:6–9 2 3 3:1 3:2 4 5:1–3 5:1–6:3 5:4 6:1 6:4–6 7:4

190 189 184, 328 189 189 189 189 190 189 189 190 190 190 185, 190, 194 331

Testament of Benjamin 331 3–6 191 3:3–5 188 3:8 188, 191 6:1 187, 190 6:1–4 191 6:1–6 188 6:4 192 6:5 190 6:5–7 190 8:2 191–192 10:4 331 Testament of Dan 5:1–3 5:4 5:10–11 5:13 6:1 6:2–5 6:9

191 187 188 191 188 190 331

Testament of Gad 5:3 5:7 8:1

191 187 331

Testament of Issachar 4:1 4:6 5:1 6:1 6:3 7:7

190 328 328 328 188 331 188, 191

Testament of Joseph 10:2–3 18:1

191 328

index of ancient primary sources Testament of Judah 13:2 14:1 19:1 20 20:1–5 20:2 20:3–5 20:5 22:2 23:1–4 24:1 25:3 26:1

331 328 187 187 190 194 190 191 193 6 188 191 188 328

Testament of Levi 3:3 4:4 4:5 5:6–7 8:11 13:2 18:12 19:1

165, 327, 331 188 191 331 190 6 331 188 188

393

Testament of Naphtali 2:6 188 3:1 188 4:1 328 4:5 191 8:2 331 8:3 191 Testament of Reuben 2:9 4:6

187 187–188

Testament of Simeon 4:4 4:9 5:1 5:2 5:3 6:6 7:3

331 192 190 190 328 187–188 188 331

Testament of Zebulon 8:2 9:8

191 188

Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Freyne (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Building Jewish In The Roman East (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Scripture in transition: essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea scrolls in honour of Raija Sollamo (Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism, Vol. 126)

The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Shem in the Tents of Japhet: Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Seers, Sybils, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Households, Sects, And the Origins of Rabbinic Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Making History: Josephus And Historical Method (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Passover in the Works of Josephus (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, V. 75)

Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome: Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra: Wisdom Debate and Apocalyptic Solution (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices And Rites In The Second Temple Period (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

When Judaism and Christianity Began: Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Saldarini (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. Vanderkam (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Descenders to the Chariot: The People Behind the Hekhalot Literature (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, V. 50)

Philo's Scriptures: Citations from the Prophets and Writings, Evidence for a Haftarah Cycle in Second Temple Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Sixteenth-century Scotland: essays in honour of Michael Lynch

Libraries, Translations, and 'Canonic' Texts: The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

On Earth As In Heaven: The Restoration Of Sacred Time And Sacred Space In The Book Of Jubilees (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Exploring the Scripturesque: Jewish Texts and their Christian Contexts (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Freyne (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Building Jewish In The Roman East (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Scripture in transition: essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea scrolls in honour of Raija Sollamo (Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism, Vol. 126)

The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Shem in the Tents of Japhet: Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Seers, Sybils, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Households, Sects, And the Origins of Rabbinic Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Making History: Josephus And Historical Method (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Passover in the Works of Josephus (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, V. 75)

Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome: Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra: Wisdom Debate and Apocalyptic Solution (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices And Rites In The Second Temple Period (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

When Judaism and Christianity Began: Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Saldarini (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. Vanderkam (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Descenders to the Chariot: The People Behind the Hekhalot Literature (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, V. 50)

Philo's Scriptures: Citations from the Prophets and Writings, Evidence for a Haftarah Cycle in Second Temple Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Sixteenth-century Scotland: essays in honour of Michael Lynch

Libraries, Translations, and 'Canonic' Texts: The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

On Earth As In Heaven: The Restoration Of Sacred Time And Sacred Space In The Book Of Jubilees (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Exploring the Scripturesque: Jewish Texts and their Christian Contexts (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Recommend Documents