Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 2: Exegetical Studies (Library of New Testament Studies 392)

STUDIES IN SCRIPTURE IN EARLY JUDAISM A N D CHRISTIANITY Edited by Craig A. Evans Volume 15 Published under LIBRARY...

Author: Craig A. Evans | H. Daniel Zacharias

275 downloads 840 Views 9MB 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

STUDIES IN SCRIPTURE IN EARLY JUDAISM A N D CHRISTIANITY

Edited

by

Craig A. Evans Volume 15

Published under LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

392 formerly

the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement

series

Editor Mark Goodacre

Editorial Board John M. G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, R. Alan Culpepper, James D. G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Robert L. Webb, Catrin H. Williams

EARLY C H R I S T I A N LITERATURE A N D INTERTEXTUALITY

Volume 2: Exegetical Studies

EDITED BY CRAIG A. EVANS H. DANIEL ZACHARIAS

t&tclark

Copyright © Craig A. Evans, H. Daniel Zacharias, 2009 Published by T&T Clark A Continuum imprint The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 80 Maiden Lane, Ste 704, New York, NY 10038 www.continuumbooks.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 0-567-34100-3 ISBN 13: 978-0-567-34100-6 (hardback) Typeset by Data Standards Ltd, Frome, Somerset, UK. Printed in Great Britain by the MPG Books Group, Bodmin and King's Lynn

P R E F A C E

Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality, published as two volumes, represents the fourteenth and fifteenth volumes to appear in Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity. Two of the previous volumes are monographs. The other eleven volumes are collections of studies that have more or less systematically worked through the Gospels, the letters of Paul, other Judaeo-Christian bodies of literature from late antiquity, or have investigated various questions pertaining to biblical understanding in the period under review. Several other studies have focused on the function of sacred Scripture in Rabbinic literature and other nonChristian Jewish writings. The present collection of studies focuses on the nature of sacred Scripture and various aspects of its intertextuality. Volume 1 is comprised of thematic studies. Early understandings of canon and Scripture, the use of Scripture in later writings, and the interpretation and application of various themes and narratives, allegories, and metaphors are treated in these several studies. Volume 2 is comprised of exegetical studies, where specific pericopes are treated. Most of these studies concern the function of Scripture in New Testament writings. New proposals are made and different approaches in method are considered. As in the previous volumes, the present volume is enriched with contributions by established scholars, as well as contributions by younger scholars, whose work is making itself felt in the discipline. The editors express their deepest thanks. The editors also wish to thank Sharon Leighton for her assistance in editing and formatting several of the papers and Adam Wright for assisting with the preparation of the indexes.

Craig A. Evans H. Daniel Zacharias Acadia Divinity College

CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS INTRODUCTION

ix xxvi 1

Craig A . Evans and H . Daniel Zacharias 1. A NEW VIEW ON THE RELATION BETWEEN SEPTUAGINT AND MASORETIC TEXT IN THE STORY OF DAVID AND GOLIATH

5

Jan-Wim Wesselius 2. A CASE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DUALISM: PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA AND THE INSTRUCTION ON THE TWO SPIRITS

27

Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer 3. JESUS' JEWISH HERMENEUTICAL METHOD IN THE NAZARETH SYNAGOGUE

46

R. Steven Notley 4. THE MAGNIFICAT AMONG THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE-SET PSALMS

60

Scot Becker 5. A N ECHO OF MERCY: A REREADING OF THE PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN

74

Nathan Lane 6. PSALM 2 AND THE SON OF GOD IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL

85

Steven B. Nash 7. JOEL 2.28-32A IN ACTS 2.17-21: THE DISCOURSE AND TEXT-CRITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF VARIATION FROM THE LXX

Steven E. Runge

103

viii

Contents

8. GENESIS 1-3 AND CONCEPTIONS OF HUMANKIND IN 4QINSTRUCTION, PHILO AND PAUL

114

Matthew Goff 9. WHY CAN'T THE ONE WHO DOES THESE THINGS LIVE BY THEM'? THE USE OF LEVITICUS 18.5 IN GALATIANS 3 . 1 2

126

Preston M. Sprinkle 10. SURROGATE, SLAVE AND DEVIANT? THE FIGURE OF HAGAR IN JEWISH TRADITION AND PAUL (GALATIANS 4 . 2 1 - 3 1 )

138

Troy A . Miller 11. SUBVERTING SARAH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT: GALATIANS 4 AND 1 PETER 3

155

Jeremy Punt 12. T WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS': PSALM 2.8-9 IN REVELATION 2.26-27

175

Tze-Ming Quek 13. EXEGESIS OF ISAIAH 11.2 IN APHRAHAT THE PERSIAN SAGE

188

Bogdan G. Bucur BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX OF REFERENCES INDEX OF AUTHORS

200 225 233

ABBREVIATIONS

AAeg AAS AASF AASOR AAT AB ABD ABRL AbrN ACNT AcOr ACW ADAJ Aeg AfO AGJU AGSU AHW AJA AJAS AJBA AJBI AJEC AJP AJSL AJSRev AJT AKG ALBO

Analecta aegyptaica Acta apostolicae sedis Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Agypten und Altes Testament Anchor Bible D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols; New York: Doubleday, 1992) Anchor Bible Reference Library Abr-Nahrain Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament Acta orientalia Ancient Christian Writers Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan Aegyptus Archiv fur Orientforschung Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Spatjudentums und Urchristentums W. von Soden, Akkadische Handworterbuch (3 vols; Wiesbaden, 1965-82) American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Arabic Studies Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity American Journal of Philology American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature Association for Jewish Studies Review American Journal of Theology Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte Analecta lovaniensia biblica et orientalia

X

ALGHJ ALUOS AnBib ANEP ANET ANF AnGreg AnOr ANQ ANRW

ANTF ANTJ AOAT AOS AOSTS APAMS APOT ArBib ASB AsiaJTh ASNU ASOR ASTI ATAbh ATANT ATAT ATD ATDan ATJ ATLA ATR AusBR AUSDDS AUSS BA BAC

Abbreviations Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society Analecta biblica J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near East in Pictures (Princeton, 1954) J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton, 1969) The Ante-Nicene Fathers Analecta Gregoriana Analecta orientalia Andover Newton Quarterly W. Haase and E. Temporini (eds), Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979-) Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung Arbeiten zum Neuen Testament und Judentum Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Oriental Series American Oriental Society Translation Series American Philosophical Association Monograph Series R. H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) The Aramaic Bible Austin Seminary Bulletin Asia Journal of Theology Acta seminarii neotestamentici upsaliensis American Schools of Oriental Research Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Das Alte Testament Deutsch Acta theologica danica Ashland Theological Journal American Theological Library Association Anglican Theological Review Australian Biblical Review Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series Andrews University Seminary Studies Biblical Archaeologist Biblioteca de autores cristianos

Abbreviations BAG BAGD

BAR BARead BASOR BASORSup BASP BBB BBET BBR BDB

BDF BDR BEATAJ BeO BETL BETS BEvT BFT BFCT BG BGBE BHEAT BHH BHS BHT Bib BibB Biblnt BibK BibLeb BibOr BibRev BibS(F)

XI

W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, 1957) W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, 1979) Biblical Archaeologist Review Biblical Archaeology Reader Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Supplements Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists Bonner biblische Beitrage Beitrage zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Bulletin for Biblical Research F. Brown, S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs (eds), A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907). F. Blass, A. Debrunner and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago, 1961) F. Blass, A. Debrunner and F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch Beitrage zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums Bibbia e oriente Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie Biblical Foundations in Theology Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie Berlin Gnostic Codex Beitrage zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese Bulletin dnistoire et d'exegese de VAncien Testament B. Reicke and L. Rost (eds), Biblisch-Historisches Handworterbuch (4 vols; Gottingen, 1962-66) Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia Beitrage zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblische Beitrage Biblical Interpretation Bibel und Kirche Bibel und Leben Biblica et orientalia Bible Review Biblische Studien (Freiburg, 1895-)

xii BibS(N) BibSem BibT BibTh BIES Bij BIOSCS BIS BJRL BJS BK BKAT BLE BLG BMI BMus BN BNTC BO BR BSac BSt BT BTB BThSt BToday BTS BTZ BU BWANT BWAT BZ BZAW BZNW C CBET CBQ CBQMS CCSL

Abbreviations Biblische Studien (Neukirchen, 1951—) The Biblical Seminar Biblical Theology Bibliotheque Theologique Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society ( = Yedioi) Bijdragen Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Biblical Interpretation Series Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Brown Judaic Studies Bibel und Kirche Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Bulletin de litterature ecclesiastique Biblical Languages: Greek The Bible and its Modern Interpreters Bibliotheque du Museon Biblische Notizen Black's New Testament Commentary Bibliotheca orientalis Biblical Research Bibliotheca Sacra Biblische Studien The Bible Translator Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblisch Theologische Studien Bible Today Bible et terre sainte Berliner theologische Zeitschrift Biblische Untersuchungen Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholica Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Corpus Christianorum: Series latina

Abbreviations CG CGTC CH CH ChicStud CHR ChrCent ChrCris CIJ

CJT CNT CollTheol Com Via ConB ConBNT ConBOT ConcorJ CPJ

CQR CR CRBS CRHPR CRINT Crit CritQ CSBSB CSCO CSCT CSEL CSR CT CTA CTM CTMis CTQ CTR DBSup Dial DiKi

xiii

Coptic Gnostic Codex Cambridge Greek Testament Commentaries Calwer Hefte Church History Chicago Studies Catholic Historical Review Christian Century Christianity and Crisis: A Christian Journal of Opinion J. B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum (2 vols; Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1936-52) Canadian Journal of Theology Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Collectanea Theologica Communio Viatorum Coniectanea biblica Coniectanea biblica, New Testament Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament Concordia Journal V. A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks (eds), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (2 vols; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957^60) Church Quarterly Review Critical Review of Books in Religion Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Cahiers de la Revue d'histoire et de philosophic religieuses Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad novum testamentum Criterion Critical Quarterly Canadian Society of Biblical Studies Bulletin Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition Corpus Scriptorum Ecelesiasticorum Latinorum Christian Scholars Review Christianity Today A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cuneiformes alphabetiques Concordia Theological Monthly Currents in Theology and Mission Concordia Theological Quarterly Criswell Theological Review Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement Dialog Dialog der Kirchen

xiv DJD DJDJ DJG DLZ DrewG DSD DT DTT Ebib EDNT

EFN EgliseTh EHAT EHS EI EJ EKKNT Encount EpworthRev ER

ErFor EstBib ETL ETR EUS EvErz EvFo EvQ EvT EWNT Exp Tim FAT FB FBBS FC FF

Abbreviations Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan J. B. Green, S. McKnight and I. H. Marshall (eds), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (1992) Deutsche Literaturzeitung Drew Gateway Dead Sea Discoveries Dalp-Taschenbiicher Dansk teologisk tidsskrift Etudes bibliques H. R. Balz and G. Schneider (eds), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 199093) Estudios de Filologia Neotestamentaria Eglise et Theologie Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Europaische Hochschulschriften Encyclopaedia of Islam C. Roth and G. Wigoder (eds), Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971) Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Encounter Epworth Review R. H. Eisenman and J. M. Robinson, A Fascimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols; Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991) Ertrage der Forschung Estudios biblicos Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Etudes theologiques et religieuses European University Studies Der Evangelischer Erzieher Evangelisches Forum Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie H. Balz and G. Schneider (eds), Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschung zur Bibel Facet Books, Biblical Series Fontes Christiani Forschungen und Fortschritte

Abbreviations FFRS FIOTL FoiVie Forum FOTL FRLANT FSOT FT FZPT GA GCS GGA GKC GNS Greg GTA GTB GTJ HAL AT HAR HAT HBD HBS HBT HDR HervTS HeyJ HibJ HKAT HNT HNTC HOS HR HSCP HSM HSS HTKNT

xv

Facets and Foundations - Reference Series Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature Foi et Vie Forum: Foundations and Facets Forms of Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Forschungen zur systematischen und okumenischen Theologie La foi et le temps Freiburger Zeitschrift fur Philosophic und Theologie Gesammelte Aufsatze Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, (ed. E. Kautzsch; trans. A. E. Cowley; Oxford, 1910) Good News Studies Gregorianum Gottinger theologische Arbeiter Giitersloher Taschenbiicher Grace Theological Journal W. Baumgartner et al. (eds), Hebrdisches und aramdisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch zum Alten Testament P. J. Achtemeier et al. (eds), Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco, 1985) Herders biblischen Studien Horizons in Biblical Theology Harvard Dissertations in Religion Hervormde Teologiese Studies Heythrop Journal Hibbert Journal Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harper's New Testament Commentaries Handbook of Oriental Studies History of Religions Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

Abbreviations

xvi HTKNTSup HTR HTS HUCA HUT IB IBR IBS ICC IDB IDBSup IEJ IJPR IJT IKZ IMWT INJ Int IOS IRT ISBE

2

ITQ JAAR JAC JANESCU JAOS JBL JBR JBS JBT JBT JC JE JES JETS JHC JHS JJS JL

Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, Supplements Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Hebrew Union College Annual Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie Interpreter's Bible Institute for Biblical Research Irish Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary G. A Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, 1962) The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplement Israel Exploration Journal International Journal for Philosophy of Religion Indian Journal of Theology Internationale katholische Zeitschrift Internationale Monatsschrift fur Wissenschaft und Technik Israel Numismatics Journal Interpretation Israel Oriental Society Issues in Religion and Theology G. W. Bromiley et al. (eds), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, 1979-88) Irish Theological Quarterly Journal of the American Academy of Religion Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Bible and Religion Jerusalem Biblical Studies Jahrbuch fur biblische Theologie Jahrbuch fur biblische Theologie (monograph series) Judaica et Christiana Judische Enzyklopddie Journal of Ecumenical Studies Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Higher Criticism Journal of Historical Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Judisches Lexihon (1927-30)

Abbreviations

xvii

Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal of Philology Jewish Quarterly Review Jewish Quarterly Review Monograph Series Journal of Religion Journal of Religious Ethics Journal of Religious History Journal of Roman Studies Jiidische Schriften aus hellenistisch-romischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, JSJSup Hellenistic and Roman Period, Supplements Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement JSNTSup Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOT JSOTManuals Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Manuals Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement JSOTSup Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSP JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series Jewish Studies Quarterly JSQ Journal of Semitic Studies JSS Journal for Theology and the Church JTC Journal of Theological Studies JTS Judaica: Beitrage zum Verstdndnis des judischen Schiksals Jud in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und aramdische KAI Inschriften (Wiesbaden, 1966-69) KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris KB Testamenti libros Kerygma und Dogma KD Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar uber das Neue KEKNT Testament Kirchen in der Zeit KiZ Kleine Texte KIT M. Dietrich et al. (eds), The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts KTU from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and other places (Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palastinas, 8; Minister: Ugarit-Verlag, 2nd edn, 1995)

JNES JNSL JPh JQR JQRMS JR JRE JRH JRS JSHRZ JSJ

XV111

LAI LCL LD LQ LR LRB LSJ LSTS LTK LUA Lum Vie LXX

McCQ McMNTS MHUC MM

MNTC ModCh ModTh MPI MPTh MSU MT

MTS MTZ Mus MVEOL NA

27

NAWG NBlack NCB NCBC NCE Neot NET NETS

Abbreviations Library of Ancient Israel Loeb Classical Library Lectio divina Lutheran Quarterly Lutherische Rundschau Lutheran Rundblick Liddell, Scott, Jones, Greek-English Lexicon Library of Second Temple Studies Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche Lund universitats Arschriften Lumiere et vie Septuagint McCormick Quarterly MacMaster New Testament Series Monographs of the Hebrew Union College J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan (eds), The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) Moffat New Testament Commentary The Modern Churchman Modern Theology Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Monatsschrift fur Pastoraltheologie Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens Masoretic Text Marburg theologische Studien Munchener theologische Zeitschrift Museon Mededelingen en Verhandelingen van het vooraziatischegyptisch Genootschap 'Ex Oriente Lux' E. Nestle and K. Aland (eds), Novum Testamentum Graece Nachrichten von der kon. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft zu Gottingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse New Blackfriars New Century Bible New Century Bible Commentary M. R. P. McGuire et al. (eds), New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1967) Neotestamentica Neutestamentliche Entwiirfe zur Theologie A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright, A New English Translation of the Septuagint (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)

Abbreviations NewDocs

NGS NHL NHS NIBC NIC NICNT NICOT NIDNTT NIDOTTE

NIGTC NITC NIV

NKZ NorTT NovT NovTSup NPNF

NRSV

NRT NTAbh NTC NTD NTL NTM NTOA NTS NTTij NTTSD Numen NumSup NZST OBO OBT OCT

xix

G. H. R. Horsley (ed.), New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (New South Wales: Macquarie University, 1976-89) New Gospel Studies Nag Hammadi Library Nag Hammadi Studies New International Biblical Commentary New International Commentary New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament C. Brown (ed.), New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (1975-78) W. van Gemeren (ed.), New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (5 vols; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997) New International Greek Testament Commentary New International Theological Commentary New International Version Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum, Supplements P. Schaff (ed.), A Selection of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series (14 vols; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1886; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954-71) R. E. Murphy, New Revised Standard Version La nouvelle revue theologique Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen The New Testament in Context Das Neue Testament Deutsch New Testamnt Library New Testament Message Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies Nederlands theologisch Tijdschrift New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents Numen: International Review for the History of Religions Numen: International Review for the History of Religions, Supplements Neue Zeitschrift fur systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie Orbis biblicus et orientalis Overtures to Biblical Theology Orientalia Christiana Periodica

XX

OG

OGIS Or OrChr OTE OTL OTP OTS OTS PAAJR PAM

PCB PEQ PG PGM PIBA PL Presby PrincSB PRS PS PSBSup PSTJ PTMS PW QC QD RAC RB RCB REB

Ref REJ RelEd RelS RelSRev RestQ Rev. SC. Re. RevExp

Abbreviations Old Greek W. Dittenberger, Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae I II (Leipzig, 1903-1905) Orientalia Oriens christianus Old Testament Essays Old Testament Library James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York, 1983-85) Oudtestamentische Studien (journal) Oudtestamentische Studien (monograph series) Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Palestine Archaeological Museum (in reference to the accession numbers of the photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls) Peake's Commentary on the Bible Palestine Exploration Quarterly J. Migne (ed.), Patrologia graeca K. Preisendanz (ed.), Papyri graecae magicae Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association J. Migne (ed.), Patrologia latina Presbyterion: Covenant Seminary Review Princeton Seminary Bulletin Perspectives in Religious Studies Patrologia syriaca Princeton Seminary Bulletin Supplement Perkins School of Theology Journal Princeton Theological Monograph Series A. F. Pauly, Paulys Realencylopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (49 vols; Munich 1980) The Qumran Chronicle Quaestiones disputatae Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum Revue biblique Revista de cultura biblica Revised English Bible Reformatio Revue des etudes juives Religious Education Religious Studies Religious Studies Review Restoration Quarterly Revue de Science Religieuse Review and Expositor

Abbreviations RevQ RevThom RGG

RHPR RHR RivBSup RL RM RNT RR RSB RSPT RSR RSRev RSV

RT RT RTL RTP RTR RVV SAC SAJ Sal SANT SB SB SBAB SBB SBEC SBET SBG SBL SBLABS SBLBMI SBLDS SBLEJL SBLMasS SBLMS

xxi

Revue de Qumran Revue thomiste K. Galling (ed.), Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Handworterbuch fur Theologie und Religionswissenschaft (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 3rd edn, 1957) Revue dnistoire et de philosophie religieuses Revue de Vhistoire des religions Rivista biblica, Supplements Religion in Life Rowohlts Monographien Regensburger Neues Testament Review of Religion Religious Studies Bulletin Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques Recherches de science religieuse Religious Studies Review Revised Standard Version Religion & Theologie/Religie & Teologie Religious Traditions Revue theologique de Louvain Revue de theologie et de philosophie The Reformed Theological Review Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten Studies in Antiquity & Christianity Studies in Ancient Judaism Salmanticensis Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament F. Preisigke et al. (eds), Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunde aus Agypten Sources bibliques Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbande Stuttgarter biblische Beitrage Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology Studies in Biblical Greek Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies SBL The Bible and its Modern Interpreters Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature Society of Biblical Literature Masoretic Studies Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

xxii SBLRBS SBLSBS SBLSCS SBLSP SBLTT SBS SBT SBTS SC ScEccl SCHNT SCL Scr SD SE SEA SecCent SEG SESJ SFEG SFSHJ SHR SHT SUB SJ SJLA SJOT SJT SKKNT SL SNT SNTS SNTSMS SNTU SNTU SNTW SOTSMS SP

Abbreviations Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Sources for Biblical and Theological Study Sources chretiennes Sciences ecclesiastiques Studia ad corpus hellenisticum novi testamenti Sather Classical Lectures Scripture Studies and Documents Studia Evangelica Svensk exegetisk drsbok Second Century Supplementum epigraphicum graecum Suomen Eksegeettisen Seuran Julkaisuja ( = Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society) Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism Studies in the History of Religions (supplement to Numen) Studies in Historical Theology Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin Studia Judaica Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scottish Journal of Theology Stuttgarter Kleiner Kommentar: Neues Testament Studia liturgica Studien zum Neuen Testament Society for New Testament Studies Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (jour nal) Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (monograph series) Studies of the New Testament and its World Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series Sacra pagina

Abbreviations SPB SR SSEJC SSL SSN sss

ST STDJ STK StOr StoneCamJ Str-B

St.Patr. StudBib StudLit StuttBA StZ SUNT SVTP SVTQ SWJT TAPA TBei TBI TBR TBu TDNT TDOT TEv TF TF TGI Th Th THAT ThEx ThG THKNT ThW

xxiii

Studia postbiblica Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics Studia semitica neerlandica Semitic Study Series Studia theologica Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift Studia orientalia Stone Campbell Journal H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (5 vols; Munich: Beck, 1922-61) Studia Patristica Studia biblica Studia liturgica Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbande Stimmen der Zeit Studien zum Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Studia in veteris testamenti pseudepigrapha Saint Vladimir's Theological Quarterly Southwestern Journal of Theology Transactions of the American Philological Association Theologische Beitrage Theologische Blatter Theological and Biblical Resources Theologische Biicherei G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids 1964-74) G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 1974—) Theologia evangelica Theologische Forschung (journal) Theologische Forschung (monograph series) Theologie und Glaube Theodotion Theology E. Jenni and C. Westermann (eds), Theologisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Theologische Existenz heute Theologie der Gegenwart Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologische Wissenschaft

xxiv TJT TLB TLZ TNTC TQ TRE TRev TrinJ TRu TS TSAJ TSF TSJTSA TSK TTij TTK TToday TTS TTZ TU TUMSR TWAT TWNT TWOT TynBul TZ UBS UBSGNT UF UJT UnSanc USQR UTB UUA VC VF VT VTSup VWGT

Abbreviations Toronto Journal of Theology Theologisches Literaturblatt Theologische Literaturzeitung Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Theologische Quartalschrift Theologische Realenzyklopddie Theologische Revue Trinity Journal Theologische Rundschau Theological Studies Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Theological Students Fellowship Theological Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America Theologische Studien und Kritiken Theologisch Tijdschrift Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke Theology Today Trierer theologische Studien Trierer theologische Zeitschrift Texte und Untersuchungen Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds), Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart, 1970-) G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds), Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Stuttgart, 1932-79) R. L. Harris (ed.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, 1980) Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift United Bible Society United Bible Societies Greek New Testament Ugarit-Forschungen Understanding Jesus Today Una Sancta Union Seminary Quarterly Review Urban-Taschenbucher Uppsala universitetsarsskrift Vigiliae christianae Verkundigung und Forschung Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Veroffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft fur Theologie

Abbreviations WBC WBKEL WF WMANT WPC WTJ WUNT YJS YOS ZAS ZAW ZDMG ZDPV ZKT ZNW ZPE ZRGG ZTK ZWT ZZ

xxv

Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Beitrage zur kirklich-evangelischer Lehre Wege der Forschung Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Pelican Commentaries Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Yale Judaica Series Yale Oriental Series Zeitschrift fur agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenldndischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldstina-Vereins Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie Zeichen der Zeit

CONTRIBUTORS

Scot Becker, University of Aberdeen Bogdan Bucur, Duquesne University Matthew Goff, Florida State University Nathan Lane, Palm Beach Atlantic University Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer, University of Aberdeen Troy A. Miller, Crichton College Steven Nash, Faculdade Teologica Batista de Sao Paulo R. Steven Notley, Nyack College Jeremy Punt, Stellenbosch University Tze-Ming Quek, University of Cambridge Steven Runge, Logos Bible Software; Research Associate, Department of Ancient Studies, Stellenbosch Preston Sprinkle, Cedarville University Jan-Wim Wesselius, Protestant Theological University, Kampen

I N T R O D U C I N G

E A R L Y

C H R I S T I A N

L I T E R A T U R E

A

N

D

I N T E R T E X T U A L I T Y

V O L U M E

2:

E X E G E T I C A L

S T U D I E S

Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias Scholarly interest and research in Jewish and Christian scriptural intertextuality show no sign of abating any time soon. There are many reasons for this, not least the discovery and publication of new materials, ongoing archaeological excavations and discoveries, which enrich our understanding of the cultural context in which early Jewish and Christian literature emerged, and new developments in method and procedure. Given these realities it was not surprising that in collecting papers for publication it became necessary to expand the planned single volume into two. Fortunately, the papers divided evenly into thematic studies and exegetical studies. Volume Two commences with a very interesting study by Jan-Wim Wesselius, entitled 'A New View on the Relation between Septuagint and Masoretic Text in the Story of David and Goliath'. Wesselius discusses the relationship between the Masoretic Text and LXX versions of 1 Samuel 16-17, concluding that the peculiar literary strategy of bipolar narration was employed and is retained in the earlier Masoretic Text version. The L X X editor, rather than rewrite the respective portions, chose masterfully to omit certain peculiarities to create a striking new version. In 'A Case of Psychological Dualism: Philo of Alexandria and the Instruction on the two Spirits', Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer examines the psychological dualism in Philo's QEx I 23, as well as the dualism in the Instruction on the Two Spirits (1QS 3.13-4.26). She concludes that various layers of dualistic thought - psychological, ethical, mythical, cosmic and eschatological - are present in 1QS. CD is also replete with dualism, which 1

1 For the convenience of our readers we have assembled a Selected Bibliography on Intertextuality in Early Christian Literature. It will be found at the end of the Introduction to Volume 1. See also n. 1 to Volume 1, Introduction.

2

Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2

in Qumran thought served the purpose of theodicy. Leonhardt-Balzer suggests that Philo was familiar with the tradition found at Qumran, drawing out the parallel lines of thought, and even suggesting a possible historical connection with Philo and the Qumran community or another Essene community. In 'Jesus' Jewish Hermeneutical Method in the Nazareth Synagogue', R. Steven Notley investigates Luke's version of Jesus' preaching in Nazareth (Lk. 4.16-30) and argues that it is the oldest account of the Jewish custom to follow the public reading of the Torah in the synagogue with a reading from the Prophets (the Haftara). Apart from Luke's report (see Acts 13.15-41), the earliest Jewish reference to this practice is the third-century-CE compilation of oral traditions in the Mishnah. Jesus' ingenious fusion of Isa. 61.1-2 and 58.6 also gives the clearest evidence that Jesus read from the Hebrew Scriptures and that Luke's source for the citation was not the Septuagint in this instance. Scot Becker's 'The Magnificat among the Biblical Narrative-Set Psalms', considers the Magnificat in the Gospel of Luke, highlighting its linguistic conventions, which serve to mimic biblical Hebrew poetry, which in turn makes it and the other canticles unique among the New Testament literature. Becker compares the Magnificat with narrative-set psalms from the Hebrew Bible, concluding that it is presented to the reader as an opportunity to appropriate the significance of the surround ing narrative and also provides an opportunity for them to welcome the annunciation of the angel and the rest of the good news in the Gospel. In 'An Echo of Mercy: A Rereading of the Parable of the Good Samaritan', Nathan Lane offers a rereading of the context of the parable of the Good Samaritan in the Gospel of Luke (Lk. 10.30-37), suggesting that the lawyer is actually a dynamic character who comes to properly understand the parable of Jesus. Lane applies Richard Hays's seven rules for identifying a scriptural echo and determines that Lk. 10.37 is an allusion to Exod. 34.6-7. Lane examines the view of mercy in the Exodus passage, noting that 'mercy' in Luke seems to echo the understanding of 'mercy' as portrayed in Exod. 34.6-7. The echo emphasizes the major theme of the passage - intersections of the love of God and the love of others. By the end of the parable the lawyer understands that eternal life requires that humans interact with others as God has interacted with humans. In 'Psalm 2 and the Son of God in the Fourth Gospel', Steven Nash discusses the importance of the Psalter for the understanding of Jewish messianism. In particular, he argues for reading the Psalter as being canonically shaped with editorial activity that provided a more cohesive theology than historical-critical scholars sometimes see. The Psalter's multi-faceted portrait of the Messiah as son, king and viceregent of Yahweh himself was critical for the author of the fourth Gospel, because

EVANS

and

ZACHARIAS

Introduction

3

it is this portrait, focused on Psalm 2, that provides the introduction for the Davidic lament psalms. It is this Old Testament background that forms the basis of the idea that the Messiah must suffer. In 'Joel 2.28-32a in Acts 2.17-21: The Discourse and Text-Critical Implications of Variation from the LXX', Steven Runge uses insights from discourse grammar to analyse the differences between the quotation of Joel 2.28-32a in Acts 2.17-21 and the LXX. He finds that a number of the differences in Acts were changes made to clarify and preserve the original Hebrew meaning that was otherwise ambiguous in the L X X version. Matthew Goff, 'Genesis 1-3 and Conceptions of Humankind in 4QInstruction, Philo and Paul', investigates the influence of the Jewish wisdom tradition found in 4QInstruction on Philo's De opificio mundi and 1 Corinthians. These two passages were shaped by an understanding of Genesis 1-3 that is similar to that found in 4QInstruction. Philo and Paul, undoubtedly coloured by their interaction with the wider Hellenistic world, used Genesis 1-3 to explain the nature of humankind in similar ways to 4QInstruction. Paul and the author of 4QInstruction both offer a dualistic understanding of humankind, in which is expressed the idea that some humans have the potential for life after the death of the body and others do not. The presentation of fleshly and spiritual types of humankind in 4QInstruction is also similar to Philo's argument that Genesis 1-3 recounts a mortal Adam and an immortal Adam. In 'Why Can't "The One Who Does These Things Live by Them"? The Use of Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12', Preston Sprinkle discusses various scholarly views on Paul's use of Lev. 18.5 in Gal. 3.12, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each. Sprinkle concludes that Paul takes great pains to make the distinction between matters of religion fashioned by mere human effort, and the gospel of Christ that is shaped by divine saving action. In 'Surrogate, Slave and Deviant? The Figure of Hagar in Jewish Tradition and Paul (Galatians 4.21-31)', Troy Miller examines the appearances and function of Hagar in Jewish writings prior to and concurrent with the time of Paul and compares it with Paul's creative use of Hagar in Galatians. Hagar is portrayed as a positive yet tragic character in the Genesis account. Josephus and other early Jewish texts characterize Hagar negatively. In contrast to the portrait in Genesis, Sarah receives little negative characterization by later authors as well. It is clear that Paul stands somewhere within this reading of the figure of Hagar. But Paul goes beyond this traditional reading by subverting the figures of Hagar and Sarah through a reversal of ethnic identities for the Galatian context. In 'Subverting Sarah in the New Testament', Jeremy Punt provides a portrait of Sarah from Genesis, and goes on to then look at how Galatians and 1 Peter appropriate the story of Sarah in a way that subverts the

4


original story. Beginning in the role of mother of the Jewish race, Sarah is changed into a model of faith for the Christian readers of Galatians and 1 Peter. Tze-Ming Quek's "I will give Authority over the Nations": Psalm 2.89 in Revelation 2.26-27' shows how Psalm 2, read messianically in certain contexts, has come to be used as a promise to the community of believers by John the Seer, not unlike what we find in 4Q174. It is argued that the likely explanation for this movement between singular and plural is the Davidic covenant seen as a basis for corporate protection. And finally, in 'Exegesis of Isaiah 11.2 in Aphrahat the Persian Sage', Bogdan Bucur examines Aphrahat's exegesis of Isa. 11.2, as Aphrahat provides valuable insight into early Christian doctrine and exegetical practices. Aphrahat prefers the LXX version of Isa. 11.2-3 with its enumeration of seven spirits. Bucur then compares Aphrahat's reading of Isa. 11.2-3 with Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr. He finds that Aphrahat uses Isa. 11.2 to support his doctrine of partial versus incomplete pneumatology, while Justin asserts the argument that the prophets only received a portion from the Spirit. Clement also connects the angels of the Face in Isa. 11.2 with intercessory activity of the Spirit, something Aphrahat does not do with this verse. 4

Chapter 1 A New View on the Relation between Septuagint and Masoretic Text in the Story of David and Goliath Jan-Wim Wesselius It is generally recognized that the main subject of 1 Samuel 16 and 17 is the first acquaintance of the young David, son of Jesse, with his future predecessor Saul, the first real king of Israel. Likewise, it has often been noted that in the Masoretic Text in either of these two chapters we are really given a potentially independent story about this first meeting of David and Saul, and that the relationship of the two stories is not at once evident. We can read them as subsequent, being informed in chapter 16 that the prophet Samuel arrives in David's ancestral town of Bethlehem under some pretext in order to anoint one of the sons of Jesse as the future king of Israel, who is to replace King Saul, who had been rejected by God himself in the preceding chapters. Clearly as a sequel of this story we are told that Saul's officers look for a capable musician who is to soothe him when he has one of the attacks by the evil spirit which plagues him since he was rejected. David then becomes Saul's musician and also, somewhat surprisingly, his arms-bearer. In the next chapter, 1 Samuel 17, we are told that David comes to the camp of the Israelites who were locked in a stand off against the Philistines and their hero, the giant Goliath of Gath. David has apparently not been drafted into the army himself, but visits the camp in order to see his brothers who were serving there. As a consequence of his youthful boasting David takes it on himself to fight with the giant and indeed kills him, which leads to his receiving a high position in Saul's army. At first sight it seems that we can indeed read the two episodes as subsequent, with the events of chapter 17 taking place after those of 16, and most orthodox paraphrases and commentaries take such a reading as their starting point. But this holistic reading requires some elaborate intellectual gymnastics, This article originated as a paper 'A Reconsideration of the Septuagint Version of 1 Samuel 17', read in the meeting of the IOSCS in Philadelphia on 21 November 2005. Biblical quotations according to the RSV, with some changes in order to bring them closer to the Masoretic Text.


6

for the Masoretic Text of these chapters is highly problematic. The situation is well known and has often been discussed. The two stories indeed seem to stand beside each other without any clear connection. Even more surprisingly, there appear to be frictions and contradictions between the two accounts. Especially remarkable is that King Saul at the end of chapter 17 has to ask his general Abner what is the name of the young man who defeated Goliath - whereas we have been told that David made music for king Saul day after day and was even appointed as his arms-bearer at the end of 1 Samuel 16, and that Saul was involved in the preparations for David's fight with Goliath in 17.31-39! In the Septuagint version of these stories, especially in chapter 17, which deals with the episode of David and Goliath, there is no trace of these problems. In comparison with the standard Hebrew text we miss a large number of verses in this chapter, namely 17.12-31, 41, 50, 55-58. By contrast, differences between the two in other verses are minimal. In the comparative table at the end of this article the text of the Revised Standard Version, which closely follows the Masoretic Text ( M T ) , is in the left-hand column, and the new English translation of the Septuagint (NETS) in the middle; there is no need for Hebrew or Greek for this purpose. It is clear that there is a close relationship between the two texts, each of which can be read independently and fits in the place where it is in 1 Samuel. Of course people have wondered which of the two texts would likely be the more original one, and there is a veritable stream of publications about precisely this issue. On the one hand it is pointed out that the Septuagint version corresponds closely with most of the Hebrew text in those verses where it has any text, but is absent for the verses which I just mentioned, which appears to suggest that these are secondary excisions; the reverse process, of suppletion of verses in various places, is much more difficult to imagine, especially since it is not easy to discern a reason for such an activity. On the other hand the Septuagint reads much more naturally than the Masoretic Text, which is unusually long and contains a number of ambiguities and contradictions, which are seemingly impossible to explain within one unitary literary text. There is much more to the relation between the two versions, but this is the basic dichotomy in 1

2

1 Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (eds), A New English Translation of the Septuagint (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); the translation of 1 Reigns ( = 1 Samuel in the Hebrew Bible) by Bernard A. Taylor. An electronic text is on http://ccat.sas. upenn.edu/nets/edition/. 2 See, for example, D. Barthelemy et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism Papers of a Joint Research Venture (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1986) and Arie van der Kooij, 'The Story of David and Goliath: The Early History of its Text', ETL 68 (1992): 118-31.

WESSELIUS

David and Goliath

1

the discussion, which has not led to anything even remotely like a consensus. The one thing, in my opinion, which is clear after many years of discussions about this aspect of the story of David and Goliath, is that it turns out to be impossible to prove the priority of either of the two versions based on literary merit or text-critical considerations only. Emanuel Tov carefully summarized and weighed the various arguments and cautiously proposed that the Septuagint version is to be regarded as the more original one, and that the present Masoretic Text is the result of a conflation with a second account, but his thesis clearly does not amount to a decisive proof of his position, at least not one which is able to convince the other scholars who dealt with this issue. As the discussion, in spite of scholars' exertions, has not resulted in a clear conclusion, it seems rather likely that the approaches which have been employed up to now cannot lead to such a conclusion. We shall therefore start our discussion from a completely different vantage point, namely the literary position of 1 Samuel 16-17 within the global literary framework of the Primary History, the historical work extending from Genesis 1 to the end of 2 Kings, and some important intratextual links which can be observed. An aspect which is very much present in Tov's article (as well as in the publications of many other scholars) is the traditional presupposition that contradictions, frictions and reduplications in texts are features which are in a sense irregular, and need an explanation from outside the text itself. Elsewhere I described a highly remarkable and hitherto unnoticed literary feature of these historical books at the beginning of the Bible, which partly applies also to some other narrative texts in the Hebrew Bible. The situation is well known: though the individual episodes look like fine literary works, often with a clear formal structure, the connection between them or between their constituent parts seems more or less haphazard, as if a number of well-formed stories, poems and lists have been glued together by a more or less incapable editor, who did not care about frictions, contradictions and duplications in the text. It can be observed, however, that certain highly regular patterns in the distribution of these strange features can be discerned and that one of the ordering principles of the Primary History is the presence of counter-intuitive features which may serve, firstly, to unify the text as a whole, secondly, to emphasize certain important events in the text, and thirdly, to express the 3

3 Emanuel Tov, 'The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in Light of the Septuagint', in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 333-62; for a recent survey of research, see A. Graeme Auld, 'The Story of David and Goliath: A Test Case for Synchrony plus Diachrony', in W. Dietrich (ed.), David und Saul im Widerstreit: Diachronie und Synchronie im Wettstreit; Beitrage zur Auslegung des ersten Samuelbuches (Fribourg: Academic Press; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2004), pp. 118-28; the volume also contains many other valuable contributions to this discussion.

8


presence of two distinct narrative voices in one text. Thus the irregular features are shown to be, not anomalies to be explained in some way, whether from the history of the text or from its literary nature, but instruments which structure the overall course of the narrative both on the formal level and for its substance. The authors of the Primary History and of several other narrative books in the Hebrew Bible indulged in various types of language play, such as deliberate balancing of continuity, discontinuity and super-continuity (the use of elements which are drawn together in spite of being really independent), interruption, emulation of and allusion to other works in the Hebrew Bible and outside of it, and the use of separate narrative voices to describe the same episode. These regularities having apparently been forgotten between the writing of the biblical texts and the beginning of the Common Era, when we would certainly expect some kind of reflex of them if they had still been remembered, we can safely presume that these writings originated in a literary culture (priestly circles in Jerusalem?) which died out sometime in the Hellenistic era, and which was characterized by a highly developed sense for literature of various origins, besides the original Israelite also Greek, Mesopotamian and general West-Semitic, and a pronounced taste for the use of various refined literary instruments, including techniques such as emulation and allusion, and deliberate use of ambiguity, contradiction and discontinuity. As in all cases of two closely related texts, the relation of which is to be determined, the existence of unrecognized features in such texts constitutes an Archimedean point from which in many cases the priority of one of the texts can be proven. This peculiar nature of some, mainly narrative, texts in the Hebrew Bible enables us to obtain a new view on the history of their texts, especially as far as our oldest witnesses, mainly the Septuagint and the Dead Sea manuscripts, are concerned. This is not to say that the principles 4

5

6

4 Jan-Wim Wesselius, 'Discontinuity, Congruence, and the Making of the Hebrew Bible', SJOT 13 (1999): 24-77; idem, The Origin of the History of Israel: Herodotus' Histories as Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible (JSOTSup, 345; London: Sheffield Academic Press and Continuum, 2002); idem, 'Alternation of Divine Names as a Literary Device in Genesis and Exodus', in Hermann Michael Niemann and Matthias Augustin (eds), Stimulation from Leiden: Collected Communications to the XVIIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden 2004 (Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 2006), pp. 35-43; idem, 'From Stumbling Blocks to Cornerstones: The Function of Problematic Episodes in the Primary History and in Ezra-Nehemiah', in Riemer Roukema et al. (eds), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornells Houtman (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), pp. 37-63; and at some length in my God's Election and Rejection: The Literary Strategy of the Historical Books at the Beginning of the Bible (forthcoming). 5 See the brief survey in Marieke den Braber and Jan-Wim Wesselius, 'The Unity of Joshua 1-8, its Relation to the Story of King Keret, and the Literary Background to the Exodus and Conquest Stories', SJOT 22 (2008), pp. 253-74. 6 Wesselius, God's Election and Rejection, 'Introduction'.

WESSELIUS

David and Goliath

9

set forth in this article have universal significance, as the history of these texts is hardly comparable for different books. They should, however, make us very cautious in dealing with translation issues for biblical books for which we do not see the rationale behind their present form. One of the features discussed above is of especial importance for our purpose. The introductions of the eight persons whose combined biographies form a large part of this great historical work which starts at creation and runs on to the taking and destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BCE, follow a highly similar literary pattern. A cursory reading of the separate texts will not reveal this at once, but once it has been pointed out it stands out very clearly. In each of these eight cases, at the beginning of each person's biography, two separate scenarios are presented to the reader, which can be read as subsequent episodes or as alternatives of some sort and thus provide the narrative with a basic ambiguity, which is reinforced by the fact that many later episodes in these biographies continue either of the two alternative accounts of their introduction. This is, in fact, not something which is hidden from the reader, and most scholars will know it for most or all of the persons involved: Humankind (or rather the first man), Abram, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, Saul and David. Most will also know that in each case the difference between the two versions can be formulated as a question which thus is basically left unanswered, or at least engenders tremendous discussion among scholars and ordinary readers alike: Was Abram called from Ur and/or from Haran? Was Joseph sold by his brothers and/or by the passing Midianites? Was Saul appointed as king of Israel in a private meeting with Samuel and/or in a kind of royal lottery? These questions are most prominent at the beginning of each biography, but in most cases the reader is reminded of them throughout each biography because of allusions to either of the two versions. This is particularly striking when of two so-called duplicate stories (e.g., Saul tries to kill David, David is able to kill Saul, but refuses to do so, etc.) each refers to one of the two versions. Interestingly, not rarely at the end of a biography one of the two is denied or strongly affirmed. A full survey of these striking common literary features of the biographies is in Table l. One of the characteristic features of this double introduction is the presence of a number of words and expressions, which the two alternative versions have in common, and which are sufficiently striking that we can say that they connect the two. We shall make a brief survey of such elements in the episodes which are under scrutiny here. In 1 Samuel 16 and 17 we encounter a considerable number of such common words and expressions: they are in the third column of the comparative table. Thus we see that in both the three eldest of Jesse's eight sons are mentioned by 7

7 A complete discussion of this figure is in my God's Election and Rejection.

10


Table 1 Table of the introduction of the subjects of the eight biographies in Genesis-Samuel and the two voices in the narrative. Humankind

Abraham

Jacob

Joseph

Movement to Question

The world When created?

Canaan Where from?

Haran Why did he go?

Egypt How was he sold?

Version 1

Gen. 1.1-2.3

Gen. 11.27-32

Gen. 27.1-46

Gen. 37.21-22

Version 2

Gen. 2.4-7

Gen. 12.1-5

Gen. 27.46-28.9

Gen. 37.26-27

Apparent point of contact

Gen. 2.4

Starting point of Rebekah's plan 12.1 is Haran

Sequence of events

Point of friction

Man made before or after other creatures, woman made from man (Gen. 2.21-22)

Abram is to go No reaction on out of both his deception country of birth and his father's house; Terah dies a long time after Abram leaves Haran

Reuben is looking for Joseph (Gen. 37.29-30)

Ambiguous statement

'In the day that 'The LORD said/ had said' (Gen. the LORD God 12.1) made the earth and the heavens' (Gen. 2.4); 'the LORD God made/ had made to grow' (Gen. 2.9); the LORD God formed/had formed' (Gen. 2.19)

'that Isaac had blessed Jacob' (Gen. 28.6); 'Listened to his father and his mother' (Gen. 28.7)

'They drew Joseph up...' (Gen. 37.28)

Direct sequel of version 2

Gen. 3

Gen. 28.10

Gen. 38

Jacob marries Laban's daughters

'you sold' (Gen. 45.4)

Jacob is a fugitive; 'a few days' (Gen. 29.20; 27.44)

'He is not' (Gen. 42.13, 32, 36); 'stolen' (Gen. 40.15); Reuben's reproach (Gen. 42.22)

Gen. 12.6

Indirect sequel of Gen. 4-11 etc. version 2

Indirect sequel of Gen. 5.1-2; Flood, version 1 Abimelech, Hagar, etc.

'I am the LORD who brought you from Ur of the Chaldeans' (Gen. 15.7)

WESSELIUS

Moses

David and Goliath

Samuel

Pharaoh's court Ramah to Shiloh Circumstances of his Was he educated in birth? Shiloh? Exod. 1.15-21 1 Sam. 2.1-10; 2.1921; 3.2-18 Exod. 1.22 1 Sam. 2.12-17; 2.2225; 2.27-36 Failure of Pharaoh's Transitional sentences plan with the 1 Sam. 2.11, 18, 21, midwives; omission of 26; 3.1, 19 nationality of the boys in 1.22 Sudden shift from private to public sphere

11

Saul

David

Jabesh in Gilead How did he become king? 1 Sam. 9.1-10.16

Saul's court How did he come to court? 1 Sam. 16

1 Sam. 10.17-27

1 Sam. 17 'That Ephrathite' (1 Sam. 17.12)

Duplication of Numbers of Israelites, Saul does not know prediction about Eli enemies Philistines/ David (1 Sam. 17.31and his house (1 Sam. other nations 39 and 55-58) 2.27-36 and 3.11-14)

'.. .all that I have 'A man from the house of Levi ... the spoken...' (1 Sam. daughter of Levi' 3.12) (Exod. 2.1)

'the rest of the people David going to and he sent home' (1 Sam. from Saul (1 Sam. 13.2) 17.15)

Exod. 2.1

1 Sam. 11

1 Sam. 4

Samuel lives in Sin in Gilgal: letting The Israelites are exceedingly numerous Ramah (passim), no Agag and cattle live (1 (passim) mention of Samuel in Sam. 15) episode of war with Philistines in 1 Sam. 4 Sin in Gilgal: The Israelites are sacrificing too early (1 related through close Sam. 13) family ties (passim)

1 Sam. 18 Various exploits; sword of Goliath (1 Sam. 21.9)

David as musician (passim)

12

Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2 Abraham

Jacob

Resemblance of 'create'; 'earth the two versions and heaven' (Gen. 2.4); duplications in stories of Flood and Abraham

'he took' . . . Lot and Sarai/Sarai and L o t . . . 'to go to the Land of Canaan'.... 'they came' (Gen. 11.31; 12.5)

Rebekah's Congruence, 'Why?' (Gen. 'blood', 'hand' 27.45, 46), 'go... (Gen. 37.21-27) take!' (Gen. 27.9; 28.2)

Characterization Elohim vs. YHWH of two voices

From Ur or from Haran; Elohim vs. YHWH Wife posing as sister (Gen. 12 and 20; cf. 26) Hagar leaves Abraham (Gen. 16 and 21) Announcement of Isaac's birth (Gen. 17 and 18) Wife found at well (Gen. 24 and 29; cf. Exod. 2)

For fear or for marriage

Reuben or Judah; sold or stolen

Explanation of Mahanaim (both in Gen. 32) Change of name to Israel (Gen. 32 and 35) Bethel (both in Gen. 35)

Speeches of Reuben and Judah (Gen. 42 and 43)

Humankind

Duplicate stories Genealogies or episodes (Gen. 4.17-22; 5.3-27)

Disquieting information

Name not known Abram is from previously (Exod. Nahor's city (Gen. 24.4-5) 3.13-15; 6.2)

Confirmation of For in six days... Abram is from version 1/ Haran (27.43) V. (Exod. 20.11) rejection of V. version 2 (or vice versa = V.V.) Rejection? 'Scribal errors'

Anonymity

Flood (Gen. 6-9) Genealogies (Gen. 4.17-22; 5.3-27) Eliezer and Nahor's city (Gen. 24)

Joseph

Jacob fears Esau Four sons of on his return Reuben (Gen. (Gen. 32) 46.9) Wives of Esau Genealogy of Judah (Gen. (Gen. 36.2-3); Rachel still alive 46.12) in Gen. 37 (37.10)

Names of Esau's wives (Gen. 26.34; 28.9; 36.23) Isaac ('his father', Gen. 37.35)

Midianites/ Medanites

Judah's wife (Gen. 38)

name, and that the names are the same in both versions and are found in the same order: Eliab, Abinadab and Shammah. The description of David when he is first introduced in 16.12, 'Now he was ruddy, and also with beautiful eyes, and good to look at' C»13101U'TV nST US ^ftlX K i m ) , and when we see him so to say through the eyes of Goliath in 17.42, ' [Goliath disdained him], for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and also with a beautiful countenance' (TWIG nST US ^DTK i m *U) is highly similar, though the appreciation is completely different: in ch. 16 David, though still very young, has the beauty expected of a king, in 17 he is despised by Goliath for his youthful looks. Jesse is described as one of the 9

WESSELIUS Moses

Samuel

David and Goliath

13

Saul

David

The son to die, the daughter to live (Exod. 1.16, 22)

No one like him, young man/chosen, 'From his shoulders upward' (1 Sam. 9.2; 10.23-24); family and tribe (9.21; 10.21)

Eight brothers, names of the first three and David youngest, herding the sheep; description of David

Israelites very numerous or members of one family

Numbers of Israelites, enemies Philistines/ other nations 'Saul among the prophets?' (1 Sam. 10.10-13 and 19.2324)

David as musician or as warrior Saul tries to kill David with spear (1 Sam. 18.10-11 and 19.9-10, cf. 20.33) David saves Saul (1 Sam. 24 and 26)

Moses is closely related to Levi himself (Exod. 6.16-19; Num. 26.58-59)

Merab, Michal (2 Sam. 21.8)

Grandsons of Moses and Aaron at the end of Judges (Judg. 18.30; 20.28)

Killing of Goliath by Elhanan (2 Sam. 21.19)

Num. 16 Manasseh/Moses

1 Sam. 13 and 15 'One year old' (1 Sam. Michal/Merab (2 13.1) Sam. 21.8); Jaare Oregim(2Sam. 21.19)

Moses' family (Exod. 2; Judg. 18)

Saul's uncle

'old men' of Bethlehem in both (16.4-5; 17.12), and David is summoned from between his small-cattle in both versions (16.11; 17.15,17). Note also the ambiguous verse 17.15, 'But David went and returned from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem', which can be understood either as saying that David regularly went back from his musical duties to his father's sheep, or, alternatively, sometimes left them alone for some time to visit his brothers in the army. Such ambiguous sentences are also part and parcel of these introductions of main personages, as is apparent from Table 1. What is especially important for our argument is that most of the

14


intratextual links are in the verses in 1 Samuel 17 which are not to be found in the Septuagint version. In particular the absence of the mention of David's three eldest brothers and of Jesse being already an old man in chapter 17 is striking, especially since we noted the importance of such intratextual links between the two alternatives of each introduction in the biographies. I think that in view of this observation the only way to maintain the thesis of priority of the Septuagint version or of a hypothetical Hebrew text underlying it would be to assume that an extremely capable editor saw that the clear and unproblematic introduc tion of David in 2 Samuel 16-17 was out of line with the remainder of the introductions of the biographies in the Primary History, noted that there were some additional striking features in ch. 16 which could be resumed in additions to the story of David and Goliath, and composed his new text on the basis of these considerations. This seems extremely unlikely, if not downright impossible. Our conclusion must necessarily be that the Masoretic Text of the story of David and Goliath is the original one, and that the Septuagint version was either based on a Hebrew text which had been edited, somewhat along the lines of some of the Samuel texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, or was edited during or shortly after the process of translation. In any case, the editor who was involved noted the contradictions within the literary complex of 1 Samuel 16 and 17 and, instead of rewriting it, he chose to remove, like a kind of literary surgeon, a large number of verses from various places in 1 Samuel 17. The result is a work, which surprisingly has greater literary merits on the surface than the Masoretic Text with all its ambiguities and contradictions. This same procedure I noted to have been followed with comparable results also in the Septuagint to the Aramaic court stories in Daniel 2-6. Firstly, there is an unusual strategy at the basis of the biblical text, in that case in Aramaic: the nature of the accusation against the Judaeans, as well as their rescue through an angel (in Daniel 3 and 6), and the solution of various riddles (in chs 2, 4 and 5), is postponed as long as possible, and in the places where this caused great problems for the translator or editor he felt free to make extensive changes to his text. Secondly, the intertextual references in Daniel to other works, especially the life of Joseph in Genesis 37-50 and the book of Ezra, like the intratextual feature of the bipolar structure of the biographies in the Primary History, are at the root of otherwise perplexing discontinuities 8

8 On the nature of the Old Greek of Daniel, see Alexander A. Di Leila, 'The Textual History of Septuagint-Daniel and Theodotion-Daniel', in Peter W. Flint and John J. Collins (eds), The Book of Daniel, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 586-607. On this aspect of the translation, see J. W. Wesselius, 'The Literary Nature of the Book of Daniel and the Linguistic Character of its Aramaic', Aramaic Studies 3 (2005); 241-83 (259-60); idem, 'The Origin of the Oldest Greek Version of Daniel' (forthcoming).

David and Goliath

WESSELIUS

15

and contradictions. Thus the correct chronological order of the chapters of Daniel in the Septuagint text on Papyrus 967 (7-8-5-6) can safely be assumed to be secondary to that in the Masoretic Text, because this counter-chronological order is the result of an emulation of the counterchronological order in Ezra 4-6. We do not know whether or not this editor recognized the literary principles underlying the original text, or just reorganized a text whose underlying regularity he did not fathom, but we now perceive that the text of the Septuagint is secondary to what we know as the Masoretic Text in these cases, and it is also clear why, as long as one does not recognize the encompassing literary strategy with regard to the structure of the biographies in the Primary History, it turns out to be virtually impossible to attain any firm conclusion about the priority of the Hebrew or the Greek version of the story about David and Goliath: on the surface the Septuagint is of superior literary quality, especially as far as consistency is concerned, but the deeper literary structure of the Masoretic Text, in which the unusual features find a perfectly natural place, shows it to have been the original text which the makers of the Septuagint or the makers of their Vorlage edited into a striking new version. Having established the priority of the Masoretic Text and the probable reasons why it was changed, we can proceed to the way in which it was edited into the form which we now have in the Septuagint. Three observations can be made. As noted above, the editing process largely consists of judiciously omitting, rather than in changing existing text. The boundaries of the omitted text nearly completely coincide with the verse boundaries, w . 12-31, 41, 50, and 55-58 having been omitted entirely; only in 48 the second half of the verse has been omitted with the first half remaining. Finally, whereas omitting verses elsewhere in the Septuagint is very rare, once the editor had started omitting the verses which contain the frictions and contradictions of ch. 17 in comparison with 16, he apparently felt free to leave out other verses as well, not only in ch. 17 but also in the sequel in ch. 18, even when there are few reasons for this, apart from stylistic and logical considerations which would evidently not have led to changes in other chapters, such as the episode of Saul trying to kill David in 18.10-11, which duplicates 19.10. It is difficult to discern what view of the biblical text, its authenticity 9

10

9 Wesselius, 'Literary Nature of the Book of Daniel', p. 253, contra Olivier Munnich, 'Texte massoretique et Septante dans le livre de Danielin Adrian Schenker (ed.), The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SBL SCS, 52; Atlanta: SBL, 2003), pp. 93-120. 10 As pointed out by Tov, 'The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18', pp. 349-50. Tov was right, of course, in noting that this episode has a more natural place in 19.10 than in 18.10-11, but we now see that one of the most important aspects of this episode is precisely its duplication, so it is not likely that 18.10-11 is secondary, as he suspected.

16


and its authority underlies this remarkable translation strategy. Did the translators (alternatively, the makers of their Vorlage or later editors of the LXX text) take a critical or pre-critical view of the origin of the text, with cases such as the contradictions between 1 Samuel 16 and 17 indicating that there were accretions to the text of a story or an episode which could be deleted from it to restore it to its former shape? Or were they aware to some degree of the peculiar literary strategy of bipolar narration employed in the biographies of the Primary History, and did they wish to choose one or the other of the two alternatives, and did they view this as their legitimation for deleting part of the text? An argument for the latter might be that the book of Chronicles apparently also removed one of the two narrative voices in favour of the other in all these cases. Against it, however, one can argue that in nearly all the other introductions to the biographies the translators appear to have refrained from such interventions, and that they apparently did not worry very much about other contradictions issuing from this literary strategy. In any case, a systematic survey of the relation between the literary form of the main biographies in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint is highly desirable and could throw new light on at least some of the issues which we addressed here with regard to the story of David and Goliath. One conclusion, however, can already be formulated. This new view of the literary nature of the Primary History allows us to have another peek into the degree to which the translators of the Septuagint understood the biblical texts which they worked on, and more importantly, it allows us to determine their starting point and strategy for the translation of some biblical books with more certainty than ever before. 11

12

11 See Wesselius, God's Election and Rejection. 12 Apart from the case of Moses, where his remarkably close family relation to Levi (he is his grandson through his mother Jochebed) is translated away in Exod. 2.1, though it remains in Exod. 6.20 and Num. 26.58-59.

WESSELIUS

David and Goliath

17

Comparative table of 1 Samuel 17, with, from left to right, RSV, the New English Translation of the LXX, and parallels from 1 Samuel 16 and some notes. Italics = words or expressions common to 1 Samuel 16 and 17. RSV

NETS

1

And the allophyles gathered their armies for battle, and they were gathered at Sokchoth of Judea, and they encamped between Sokchoth and between Azeka, in Ephermen. And Saul and the men of Israel were gathered and encamped in the valley; they formed ranks for battle opposite the allophyles. And the allophyles stood on the mountain here, and Israel stood on the mountain there, and the valley was between them.

Now the Philistines gathered their armies for battle; and they were gathered at Socoh, which belongs to Judah, and encamped between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephesdammim. And Saul and the men of Israel were gathered, and encamped in the valley of Elah, and drew up in line of battle against the Philistines. And the Philistines stood on the mountain on the one side, and Israel stood on the mountain on the other side, with a valley between them. And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. He had a helmet of bronze on his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail, and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of bronze. And he had greaves of bronze upon his legs, and a javelin of bronze slung between his shoulders. 2

3

4

5

6

And a mighty man came out from the ranks of the allophyles; Goliath was his name, from Geth; his height was four cubits and a span. And he had a helmet on his head, and he was armed with a coat of chain mail; and the weight of his coat was five thousand shekels of bronze and iron. And there were bronze greaves of brass on his legs, and a bronze shield between his shoulders.

Parallels in 1 Sam. 16 and notes

18


RSV

NETS

7

And the staff of his spear was like a beam of weavers, and his spear weighed six hundred shekels of iron; and the one who carried his armor would go before him. And he stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, and said to them, 'Why do you come out to draw up for battle array opposite us? Am not I an allophyle, and are you not Hebrews of Saoul? Choose a man for yourselves, and let him come down to me. And if he is able to fight against me, and if he strike me, then will we be to you for slaves: but if I am able and kill him, then you shall be to us for slaves and be subject to us.' And the allophyle said, 'Behold, today on this very day I have chided the ranks of Israel. Give me a man, and we both will fight in single combat.' And Saoul and all Israel heard these words of the allophyle, and they were dismayed and greatly terrified.

And the shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam, and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron; and his shield-bearer went before him. 8

He stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, 'Why have you come out to draw up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not servants of Saul? Choose a man for yourselves, and let him come down to me. 9

If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants; but if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall be our servants and serve us.' 1 0

And the Philistine said, 'I defy the ranks of Israel this day; give me a man, that we may fight together.' 11

When Saul and all Israel heard these words of the Philistine, they were dismayed and greatly afraid.


WESSELIUS

RSV

1 2

Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons. In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years.

1 3

The three eldest sons of Jesse had followed Saul to the battle; and the names of his three sons who went to the battle were Eliab the first-born, and next to him Abinadab, and the third Shammah. David was the youngest; the three eldest followed Saul, but David went back and forth from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem. For forty days the Philistine came forward and took his stand, morning and evening. And Jesse said to David his son, 'Take for your brothers an ephah of this parched grain, and these ten loaves, and carry them quickly to the camp to your brothers; also take these ten cheeses to the commander of their thousand. See how your brothers fare, and bring some token from them.' Now Saul, and they, and all the men of Israel, were in the valley of Elah, fighting with the Philistines.

NETS

David and Goliath

19

Parallels in 1 Sam. 16 and notes 16.4 The old men (RSV: elders) of the city came to meet him trembling [Jesse apparently belongs to this group]. 16.1011 seven of his sons . . . 'Are all your sons here?' . . . 'There remains yet the youngest'. 16.6-9Eliab... Abinadab ... Shammah.

1 4

16.11 'There remains yet the youngest*

1 5

Note: 17.15 is ambiguous!

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

20


RSV And David rose early in the morning, and left the sheep with a keeper, and took the provisions, and went, as Jesse had commanded him; and he came to the encampment as the host was going forth to the battle line, shouting the war cry. And Israel and the Philistines drew up for battle, army against army. And David left the things in charge of the keeper of the baggage, and ran to the ranks, and went and greeted his brothers. As he talked with them, behold, the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, came up out of the ranks of the Philistines, and spoke the same words as before. And David heard him. All the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him, and were much afraid. And the men of Israel said, 'Have you seen this man who has come up? Surely he has come up to defy Israel; and the man who kills him, the king will enrich with great riches, and will give him his daughter, and make his father's house free in Israel.' 2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

NETS


WESSELIUS

RSV

David and Goliath

NETS

2 6

And David said to the men who stood by him. 'What shall be done for the man who kills this Philistine, and takes away the reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?' And the people answered him in the same way, 'So shall it be done to the man who kills him.' Now Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spoke to the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, 'Why have you come down? And with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your presumption, and the evil of your heart; for you have come down to see the battle.' And David said, 'What have I done now? Was it not but a word?' And he turned away from him toward another, and spoke in the same way; and the people answered him again as before. When the words which David spoke were heard, they repeated them before Saul; and he sent for him. And David said to Saul, 'Let no man's heart fail because of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine.' 2 7

2 8

2 9

3 0

3 1

3 2

And Dauid said to Saoul, 'On no account let the heart of my lord collapse upon him; your slave will go and will fight with this allophyle.'


21

22

RSV

Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2 NETS

And Saoul said to Dauid, And Saul said to David, 'You are not able 'you will definitely not be able to go against the to go against this allophyle to fight with Philistine to fight with him, for you are a boy, him; for you are but a youth, and he has been a and he has been a warrior from his youth.' man of war from his youth.' But David said to Saul, And Dauid said to Saoul, 'Your servant used to 'Your slave was tending keep sheep for his father; the flock for his father, and when there came a and when the lion and the lion, or a bear, and took a bear would come and lamb from the flock, take a sheep from the herd, I went after him and And I would go after it, smote him and delivered then I struck it and pulled it out of his mouth; and if it from its mouth, and if it he arose against me, I turned against me, then I caught him by his beard, caught it by its throat and and smote him and killed struck it down and put it him. to death. Your servant has killed And your slave would both lions and bears; and smite both the bear and this uncircumcised the lion, and the Philistine shall be like one uncircumcised allophyle of them, seeing he has shall be like one of them: defied the armies of the shall I not go and smite living God.' him, and take away today a reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised one, who reproaches the ranks of the living God? The Lord who delivered And David said, 'The me from the paw of the L O R D who delivered me from the paw of the lion lion and from the paw of and from the paw of the the bear, he himself will bear, will deliver me from rescue me from the hand of this uncircumcised the hand of this Philistine.' And Saul said allophyle.' And Saoul said to Dauid, 'Go, and to David, 'Go, and the the Lord will be with L O R D be with you!' you!' 3 4

3 5

3 6

3 7


WESSELIUS

RSV

3 8

Then Saul clothed David with his armor; he put a helmet of bronze on his head, and clothed him with a coat of mail. And David girded his sword over his armor, and he tried in vain to go, for he was not used to them. Then David said to Saul, 'I cannot go with these; for I am not used to them.' And David put them off. 3 9

David and Goliath

NETS

23


And Saoul put a woolen cloak on Dauid, and a bronze helmet around his head.

And he girded Dauid with his sword over his woolen cloak, and he grew tired walking once and twice. And Dauid said to Saoul, 'I shall definitely not be able to go in these, for I am not experienced.' And they removed them from him. Then he took his staff And he took his staff in in his hand, and chose his hand, and chose for five smooth stones from himself five smooth the brook, and put them stones from the wadi and in his shepherd's bag or put them in his shepherd's wallet; his sling was in his bag, which he had with hand, and he drew near to him for collecting, and his the Philistine. sling in his hand; and he advanced against the man, the allophyle. And the Philistine came on and drew near to David, with his shieldbearer in front of him. And when the And Goliad saw Dauid, 16.12 Now he was ruddy, Philistine looked, and saw and he disdained him, for and had beautiful eyes, David, he disdained him; he was a boy, and he was and was handsome. for he was but a youth, ruddy with beauty of eyes. ruddy and comely in appearance. And the Philistine said And the allophyle said to to David, 'Am I a dog, Dauid, 'Am I like a dog, that you come to me with that you come upon me sticks?' And the Philistine with a rod and stones?' cursed David by his gods. And Dauid said, 'No, but worse than a dog.' And the allophyle cursed Dauid by his gods. 4 0

4 2

24


RSV

NETS

The Philistine said to David, 'Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field.' Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a javelin; but I come to you in the name of the L O R D of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the L O R D will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down, and cut off your head; and I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel,

And the allophyle said to Dauid, 'Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air, and to the animals of the earth.' And Dauid said to the allophyle, 'You come to me with sword and with spear and with shield, and I am coming to you in the name of the Lord Sabaoth, the God of the ranks of Israel, which you have reproached today. And today the Lord will shut you up into my hand, and I will kill you, and remove your head from you, and I will give your hmbs and the limbs of the camp of the allophyles on this day to the birds of the air, and to the wild animals of the earth; and all the earth will know that there is a God in Israel, and all this assembly will know that the Lord does not save by sword and spear, for the battle is the Lord's, and the Lord will give you into our hands.'

4 5

4 6

4 7

and that all this assembly may know that the L O R D saves not with sword and spear; for the battle is the L O R D ' S and he will give you into our hand.' When the Philistine And the allophyle arose arose and came and drew and came to meet Dauid, near to meet David. David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine.

4 8


WESSELIUS

RSV

David and Goliath

NETS

And David put his And Dauid stretched out hand in his bag and took his hand into the bag and out a stone, and slung it, took out from there one stone, and slung it, and and struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone struck the allophyle on his forehead, and the sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to stone penetrated through the helmet into his the ground. forehead, and he fell on his face on the ground. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine, and killed him; there was no sword in the hand of David. And Dauid ran, and Then David ran and stood over the Philistine, stood over him, and took his sword put him to and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath, death and cut off his head: and the allophyles and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When saw that their mighty one was dead, and they fled. the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled. And the men of Israel And the men of Israel and Joudas rose up and and Judah rose with a shouted and pursued shout and pursued the Philistines as far as Gath after them, as far as the and the gates of Ekron, so entrance to Geth, and as far as the gate of Ascalon, that the wounded Philistines fell on the way and the wounded of the allophyles fell on the way from Shaaraim as far as of the gates, even as far as Gath and Ekron. Geth, and as far as Akkaron. And the Israelites came And the men of Israel came back from turning back from chasing the aside after the allophyles, Philistines, and they and they trampled their plundered their camp. camps. And Dauid took the head And David took the head of the Philistine and of the allophyle, and brought it into brought it to Jerusalem; Ierousalem; and he put but he put his armor in his armour in his covert. his tent. 5 0

5 1

5 2

5 4


25

26


RSV When Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the commander of the army, 'Abner, whose son is this youth?' And Abner said, 'As your soul lives, O king, I cannot tell.' And the king said, 'Inquire whose son the stripling is.' And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand. And Saul said to him, 'Wliose son are you, young man?' And David answered, T am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.' 5 6

5 7

5 8

NETS


Chapter 2 A

P H I L O

O

F

C A S E

A L E X A N D R I A

O

A

F

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L

N

D

T

H

D U A L I S M

E I N S T R U C T I O N

O

N

T

H

E

T W O

S P I R I T S

Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer 1.

Introduction

Dualism is a concept that is hard to define. Originally a term developed to describe Iranian thought, at times it has come to refer to any type of opposites. Against this weak use of the term Ugo Bianchi proposed a strict definition of dualism as the opposition of two irreducible fundamental principles, either in the form of a 'radical' dualism with two principles versus a 'moderate' one with only one principle, a 'dialectical' (eternal) versus an 'eschatological' (limited in time) dualism, or a 'pro-cosmic' (the world is neutral or positive) versus an 'anti-cosmic' dualism (the world is negative). In Judaism, however, these distinctions do not apply: God's creation cannot be negative, any evil influence must be limited in time and the idea of a radical dualism of two powers would compromise the universal power of the creator. The conclusion is either that there is no dualism in Judaism or that more precise criteria for the definition of dualism in the Jewish context must be sought. Based on the textual material the following categories have been found: a 'metaphys ical' dualism, which finds two equal powers as the cause of the world, a 'cosmic' dualism which divides the world and mankind according to two opposing but not necessarily co-eternal or causal forces, a 'spatial' dualism, which divides the cosmos into heaven and earth, above and below and so on, an 'eschatological' or 'temporal' dualism which divides time and history into two separate eons, an 'ethical' dualism which divides mankind into good and evil people, a 'soteriological' dualism which divides mankind not on account of good and evil deeds but on their having faith or not, a 'theological' or 'prophetical' dualism, which opposes God to man, the creator to the creation, a 'physical' dualism 1

1 U . Bianchi, 'Dualism', in M . Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 4 (New York: Collier Macmillan, 1987), pp. 506-12 (esp. 505-9).

28


which divides matter and spirit, an 'anthropological' dualism which separates the principles of body and soul and a 'psychological' dualism which contrasts the internal good and evil intentions. These categories are not mutually exclusive and they have been combined in the ancient texts. Together they can help to understand the ways in which dualistic thoughts have been used in different ways to mark the acceptable and separate it from the unacceptable. A well-known dualistic text is the Instruction on the Two Spirits from the Community Rule in Qumran (1QS III,13-IV,26). This text - although only preserved in the sectarian context of Qumran - has been shown to be pre-sectarian on account of its language and concepts, which do not correspond to key terms and fundamental tenets of the community, and from early on the differences in the dualisms of the Instruction and of the other texts from Qumran have been noted. The Instruction has a very highly developed and multi-layered concept of dualism and has been influential not only for the Yahad but also for Christian texts such as 1 Jn 4.1-6 or the teaching of the Two Ways in the Didache 2.2-6.1 and Epistle of Barnabas 18-20. These are well-known and frequently studied trajectories. There is one line of influence, however, which has not been given as much attention so far. A passage in Philo refers to a similar tradition to the Instruction on the Two Spirits: Questions on Exodus 12.23c. Philo finds a dualism of two powers inside the human soul, one for salvation and the other for perdition (QE 1.23). E. Kamlah attempted to trace this idea to Iranian origins in 1964. In another attempt to find Iranian influence on Philo, in 1986 M. Philonenko in a short study compared QE 2

3

4

5

2 J. Frey, 'Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library', in M. Bernstein et al. (eds), Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995 (in honour of J. M. Baumgarten; Leiden: Brill, 1997) pp. 275-335 (esp. 282-5). 3 Cf. A. Lange, 'Kriterien essenischer Texte', in J. Frey and H. Stegemann (eds), Qumran kontrovers: Beitrage zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer (Einblicke, 6; Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003), pp. 59-69 (esp. 63-5); D. E. Aune, 'Dualism in the Fourth Gospel and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reassessment of the Problem', in D. E. Aune, T. Seland and J. H. Ulrichsen (eds), Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen (NovTSup, 106; Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 281-303 (292); A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (London: SCM, 1966), p. 114; P. S. Alexander and G. Vermes Qumran Cave 4.XIX: 4QSerekh Ha Yahad (DJD, 26; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p. 10; J. Licht, 'An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits in DSD', in C. Rabin and Y. Yadin (eds), Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ScrHier, 4; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2nd edn, 1965, pp. 88-99 (89); O. Betz, Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte (WUNT, 6; Tubingen: Brill, 1960), pp. 140-6. 4 Cf. M. W. Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1959), pp. 103-14; D. E. Aune, 'Dualism', pp. 293-4. 5 E. Kamlah, Die Form der katalogischen Pardnese im Neuen Testament, (WUNT, 7; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964).

Psychological Dualism

LEONHARDT-BALZER

29

6

1.23 to the Instruction on the Two Spirits. With the growing knowledge of Jewish wisdom literature the Iranian influence on the Instruction has become increasingly questioned by scholars. Thus, if there is an influence of the Instruction on Philo, the assumption of an Iranian influence on Philo falls with that of the Instruction. If there is no relationship between the two texts, the possibility of an Iranian influence on Philo's passage could still stand. The question of a relationship between the two texts has not been followed up any further. A more recent study of QE 1.23 does not look into the parallels to the Instruction but studies it in terms of the theory of the 'bad inclination' (yezer ha-rd) and that of original sin. Thus it is time to take another look at the QE 1.23 and the Instruction in the light of more recent scholarship on the Qumran writings. In QE 1.23 Philo emphasizes the psychological contrast of two different powers, whose conflict influences the moral behaviour of the individual. The fact that this passage has not been studied more often is largely due to it being against Philo's normal inclination to apply a different kind of 'dualism', more based on Hellenistic philosophical thought: the physical division of matter and spirit (Opif. 16-36) or the philosophical division of ideas versus material world (in Philo related to that of heaven and earth), as well as the anthropological division of mind and body or senseperception (Leg. 1.1; Her. 63-85). However, in his allegorical commen taries Philo also presents exegetical traditions more alien to his own thought world. One such is QE 1.23 and the way in which Philo takes up this tradition in comparison to the way in which it was used in the Yahad 7

8

9

6 M. Philonenko, 'Philon d'Alexandrie et rinstruction sur les deux esprits', in A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel and J. Riaud (eds), Hellenica et Judaica (Leuven and Paris: Editions Peeters, 1986), pp. 61-8. 7 Cf. J. I. Kampen, 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, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 211^13 (217-18). 8 G. H. Baudry, 'La theorie du penchant mauvais et la doctrine du peche original', BLE 95 (1994): 271-301. 9 On Philo's dualism, see A. M. Mazzanti, 'L'aggettivo ME0OPIOI e la doppia creazione dell'uomo in Filone di Alessandria', in U. Bianchi (ed.), La 'doppia creazione' dell'uomo negli Alessandrini, nei Cappadoci e nella Gnosi (Rome: Edizioni dell' Anteneo & Bizzarri, 1978), pp. 25-42; C. R. Holladay, "Theios oner' in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of this Category in New Testament Christology (SBLDS, 40; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), esp. pp. 103-98; R. A. Horsley, 'Spiritual Marriage with Sophia', VC 33 (1979): 30-54; (esp. 32-40); H. F. Weiss, Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des hellenistischen und paldstinischen Judentums (TU, 97; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966), esp. pp. 18-74, 248-82; H. Braun, 'Das himmlische Vaterland bei Philo und im Hebraerbrief, in O. Bocher and K. Haacker (eds), Verborum Veritas: Festschrift fur G. Stahlin zum 70. Geburtstag (Wuppertal: Theologischer Verlag Rolf Brockhaus, 1970), pp. 319-27; U. Bianchi, 'Dieu unique et creation double: pour une phenomenologie du dualisme', in Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata (Acta Iranica, 23; 2nd series; Hommages et opera minora, 9; Leiden: Brill, 1984), pp. 49-60; E. Brandenburger, Fleisch und Geist: Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit

30


shows how versatile this particular tradition is and the breadth of its influence on Second Temple Judaism. This paper will study the Instruction on the Two Spirits first in terms of the types of dualism it uses. Then the way in which the Qumran community took up this tradition will be contrasted. After that Philo's passage on the Two Spirits will be examined. A final part will sum up the results of the comparison and present a theory of the way in which the tradition of the Instruction could have reached Philo. 2. The Dualisms of the Instruction on the Two Spirits (1QS 111,13IV,26) The only complete version of the Instruction on the Two Spirits can be found in a single manuscript of the Commmunity Rule (1QS), dated to approx. 100-75 B C E . It was inserted there as an independent piece of tradition. As mentioned above, it lacks community terminology and ideology and it does not even have a specific concept of a community at all, it does not even refer to the TIT. By contrast it mentions once the 'God of Israel' (111,24) thus identifying itself as a Jewish writing aimed at the nation as a whole. The Instructions on the Two Spirits can broadly be structured in six parts: 1

0

11

12

1QS 111,13-15: Title and topic 1QS 111,15-18: 'Hymn of creation': God as lord of creation places it under the dominion of mankind. 1QS III, 18-IV, 1: The two spirits 1QS IV,2-14: The effect of both spirits and the fate of both kinds of people 2-8: Spirit of light 9-14: Spirit of deceit 1QS IV, 15-23: Struggle of the two spirits and final intervention of God 1QS IV,23-26: Summary and conclusion. 13

(WMANT, 29; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag des Eraehungsvereins, 1968), esp. pp. 114235; A. G. Hamman, L'homme image de Dieu: Essai d'une anthropologie chretienne dans l'Eglise des cinq premiers siecles (Relais-Etudes, 2: Paris: Ed. Desclee, 1987), esp. pp. 106-13. 10 J. H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls, vols. 1, 2 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994); A. S. van der Woude, 'Fifty Years of Qumran Research', in Flint and VanderKam (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, p. 29; Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, p. 116. 11 Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, p. 114; Alexander and Vermes, Qumran Cave 4.XIX, p. 10. 12 Cf. Licht, 'An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits', p. 89. 13 Without the subdivision of IV,2-14 in Frey, 'Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought', p. 290. Without the final subdivision of IV, 15-26 in Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei

LEONHARDT-BALZER


31

The Instruction is addressed to the 'Maskil', the teacher, instructor, the sage. He is to pass on the knowledge about the 'nature of all the sons of man (Era r m ' T r a ) . This is specified as instruction 'on all the kinds of their spirits in their signs, on their deeds in their generations and on the visitation of their punishments and the times of their peace'. 1 4

amnion a m r m t o

DDI'TO

1

t

t

m ? , m , 14-15 1

dx? a m i r o ] m i p s ? ! a m - v m Dirrara ?

Thus the heading does not create any explicit dualism, there is no specific mention that there are exactly two spirits, and the only potentially dualistic reference is that to rewards and punishments. The overall worldview is one of unity, not division. As in all Jewish writings, the emphasis in the Instruction on the Two Spirits is placed on the overwhelming power of the creator God. Right at the beginning it is emphasized that 'from the God of knowledge is all that is and that will be' ( T T T m I T p n *7D m O T ! 1QS 111,15). God rules over everything. The whole of creation is under his power (111,15-17). This could be seen as the first sign of a dualistic contrast, and thus it has been identified as a 'physisch-metaphysischen Dualismus', in the strict distinction between creator and creation. But this is not the metaphys ical dualism mentioned above, as there is no battle between the two, no counter-force to the power of God. At the beginning there is only the contrast between the supreme power of God and everything else which is created. And even the next step does not involve any dualistic powers. It is mankind that was created to rule the world (111,17-18). And only for the sake of man the two spirits are given (111,18). Only now the number of the spirits is introduced. It is not explicitly mentioned that they were created this would mean to admit that God created the evil spirit - but it can be implied from the fact that God is the origin of all there is and that nothing can act against his plan. 15

Welten, pp. 30-4. Licht divides the Instruction into 'A) Main statement, B) Elaboration, C) Summary', see Licht, 'An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits', p. 93. A more detailed structure can be found in A. Lange, Weisheit und Prddestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Pradestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ, 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 140-3, but it also follows this fundamental division. 14 On the translation 'nature', see Licht, 'An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits', pp. 89, 95; F. Garcia Martinez and E. Tigchelaar (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, vol. 1, (Leiden: Brill, 1997), p. 75. The translation is debated. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, p. 143, and Lange, Weisheit und Pradestination, pp. 137, 148-9 translate as 'history', parallel to the priestly genealogies in Gen. 10.1 and 4Q418. But the latter links the term to the rPrJD n, the 'secrets of being', a wisdom term which refers to the order of creation and not necessarily to the course of history. Similarly the Instruction expects the end of the effects of darkness, not that of humanity as a whole. 15 Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten, pp. 104-8, esp. 104, 108.


32

At this point it is open whether these spirits create a psychological dualism or whether the conflict is cosmic. Thus Wernberg-Moller reads the whole of the Instruction in terms of a psychological dualism and the two 'spirits' are consequently regarded exclusively as 'moods' or 'inclin ations'. This interpretation results from a one-sided emphasis on Genesis 2-3: the spirits are identified with God's gift of the breath of life to Adam at the creation. Considering the explicit reference in 1QS IV,23 to the 'glory of Adam' which the elect will receive, this psychological interpretation of the Instruction on the Two Spirits in terms of Genesis 2 is plausible. The psychological interpretation is also supported by IV,23: 'Until now the spirits of truth and deceit war in the hearts of man' 0 3 2 33*?3 "TIITI HDK T i n 1 3 n H3H IS)} However, the scope of the Instruction's dualism is broader than this exclusive focus on the psychological aspect admits. Linked to the psychological disposition is the actual behaviour of people. Thus the very name of the two spirits opens an ethical dualism: they are 'the spirits of truth and deceit' f71I?m nOKH D l i m , 111,18-19), and in them mankind is 'to walk' (DinnTlb) until the end (111,18). 'To walk in the way of something is an expression for the way a life is led. The instruction distinguishes those who 'walk on the ways of light' CO^nrP TK* *ym9 III,20) and those who 'walk on the ways of darkness' (DîUT ~[E7in ^ T H , 111,21). The behaviour of these two groups is described in greater detail in IV,2-6 on the sons of light and in IV,9-11 on the sons of darkness. The one is a catalogue of virtues influenced by the 'spirit of the sons of truth', from an attitude of benevolence towards others ('meekness, patience, compassion, goodness') to virtues of the mind ('intelligence, understanding potent wisdom', based on trust in God) and finally the proper behaviour informed by these ('a spirit of knowledge in all the plans of action, of enthusiasm for the decrees of justice, of holy plans with a firm purpose, of generous compassion with all the sons of truth, of magnificent purity which detests all unclean idols, of careful behaviour in wisdom concerning everything') and 'concealment concerning the truth of the mysteries of knowledge', all under the heading of the 'ways of the righteousness of truth' (pDK p l S 3 ~ H , IV,2). The other list is a catalogue of vices influenced by the 'angel of darkness': vices which affect human relationships: 'greed, sluggishness in the service of justice, wickedness, falsehood, pride, haughtiness of heart, dishonesty, 16

n

7

18

n

16 P. Wernberg-Moller, The Manual of Discipline: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction (STDJ, 1; Leiden: Brill, 1957), ad. loc. 17 The English translation in this paper is based on but does not follow exclusively the study edition of Garcia Martinez, and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 18 Cf. J. J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 41.

LEONHARDT-BALZER


33

trickery, cruelty, much insincerity, impatience, much foolishness, impudent enthusiasm for appalling acts performed in a lustful passion, filthy paths in the service of impurity, blasphemous tongue, blindness of eyes, hardness of hearing, stiffness of neck, hardness of heart' summarized as 'walking on the ways of darkness and evil cunning' (pDnC -|E7in ''3TI bFOl rabb, IV,11). Those who walk in the ways of light will be rewarded by well-being, many descendants, eternal life and eschatological bliss (IV,6-8), while those who walk in darkness will be punished in this life and have no future, they have no offspring and will find themselves in the 'abysses who walk in darkness until their destruction'. Thus the ethical dualism is limited to this life, although its rewards and punishments go beyond. The final part of the text goes back to the present. In this life there is an ongoing struggle between the two groups of people, and adherence to each is based on whether a person has more of a share in the light or in darkness (IV, 15-18). But there is an end set to this struggle through God's judgement, in which he will purify the sons of light and destroy all darkness (IV, 18-26). Thus there is undoubtedly an ethical dualism in the Instruction, which broadens the mere psychological dualism. However, this dualism is again only part of the fabric of the overall dualism of the text. The spirits of light and darkness not only extend to mankind, they are also spiritual beings which influence mankind. This is once again apparent in the terminology for these spirits: Apart from the ethical terms mentioned (truth and deceit) they are called the 'prince of lights' (D'HIK IE?) and the 'angel of darkness' QETin "pi^D, 111,20-21). The one comes from a 'spring of light', the other from a 'well of darkness'. Together they introduce a mythical dualism in which the fundamental conflict manifests itself in opposing personalities. The one has power over the 'sons of righteousness' (pHU ^33), the other over the 'sons of deceit' (bw 111,20-21). However, the angel of darkness also tries to influence the sons of light and cause their guilt and unjust actions as well as all the evils that befall them (111,21-23). This activity, however, does not go unchecked: 'The God of Israel and the angel of his truth' OHOft " p ^ l bHTW bW) support the angel of light and reject the angel of darkness and his lot (HI, 24-IV,l). Thus the scenario is set for a cosmic battle and the abovementioned final cleansing and destruction of darkness is not restricted to ethical aspects but also describes a cosmic dualism and a battle to end all darkness. This cosmic dualism is also eschatological in the sense that it finds its end in the final destruction of evil. 19

20

21

19 Translation: Garcia Martinez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition I, p. 77. 20 Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten, pp. 110-11. 21 Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten, p. 111.


34

Looking at the Instruction as a whole the image of dualism is multilayered: According to Bianchi's categories it would have to be termed moderate and eschatological. At the same time scholars have drawn up a contrast between the 'macroscopic' dualism of a struggle of two opposing powers and the 'microscopic' dualism of an 'ethically-psychological' conflict. The present study has so far identified even more aspects of dualism: psychological, ethical, mythical, cosmic and eschatological. The tensions within the dualism of the Instruction on the Two Spirits have been attempted to be defused by dividing the text into three layers of tradition: III,13-IV,14; IV,15-23a; 23b-26, but, the differences between the different aspects of dualism and the terminology associated with them do not follow this division, as has been shown above. Furthermore, this division does not explain how the tensions were explained in the overall text. Here, the combination of the more psychological, ethical and the mythical as well as cosmic elements is undeniable. Therefore it is necessary to look into the text as a whole and the way in which it was received by its readers. We are fortunate in that we know at least one group, which definitely read the Instruction: the community in Qumran. 22

23

24

25

26

3 . The Instruction

on the Two Spirits in the Qumran

Community

Although the Instruction on the Two Spirits did not originate in Qumran, it is the only 'systematic' presentation in the Qumran texts of what is now called predestination, dualism and eschatology. It was not written by the community, but it was valued by it: one indication of this is that it has a prominent place in the Community Rule, immediately after the opening section on the Covenant Liturgy and immediately before the actual rules. 27

28

22 Aune, 'Dualism', esp. p. 293. 23 Cf. Aune, 'Dualism', pp. 294^5. 24 On the division of traditions, see P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran (SUNT, 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969); cf. J. Duhaime, 'Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran', CBQ 49 (1987): 32-56 (esp. 36). On doubts as to the viability of the separation based on the continuity of dualistic motifs throughout the text, see H. Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in den Texten der Qumrangemeinde (SUNT, 15; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), pp. 141-2. 25 Cf. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 39. 26 Cf. J. G. Gammie, 'Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature', JBL 93 (1974): 356-85. 27 Licht, 'An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits', pp. 88-9. 28 This order is not particular to 1QS but can also be found in 4QS , cf. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 47-51. C

LEONHARDT-BALZER


35

Its dualism was eminently useful to explain a worldview, which separated the community sharply from the outsiders. The fact that it was valued can also be seen from the observation that it was taken up in various texts from Qumran, particularly in the Damascus Document and in 4Q181. There are quotations of the Instruction in CD-A 11,3-20, not complete sentences but an accumulation of expressions, which together support the conclusion that the passage in CD-A II refers to the Instruction: Thus when in 11,3 it is said that 'God loves knowledge' (7k nm niH) this reflects the 'God of knowledge' of 1QS 111,15. The term 'no remnant or escape' in 1QS IV,14 occurs literally in CD-A 11,6-7 referring to those who do not repent. CD-A 11,6-7, the destruction of those who depart from God's way and the emphasis that God did not elect them from the beginning as he knew their deeds in advance mirrors God's fixed plan of 1QS 111,15 as well as God's hatred of evil in 1QS IV, 1. The thought of God's love of the one and hatred of the other spirit is expanded into the concept of a predestinarian election. This predestinarian interpretation can also be seen in another, less literal parallel between the texts in the catalogues of virtues and vices and the future of the condemned in CD-A 11,3-8. The one group is saved because they show contrition and the other is condemned because God did not elect them (CD-A 11,7-8). Thus the thought of penitence in the elect and the two-fold predestination is introduced into the ethical dualism of the Instruction. The purpose of this insertion is the application of the dualism to the community: Unlike the Instruction, which does not define the 'sons of righteousness' beyond their visible actions and the fact that the God of Israel helps them, the Damascus Document specifies the rejected as Israel, from whom God withdraws his help until they are destroyed (11,8,10). By contrast, the idea of a remnant in Israel, preserved by God defines the elect: 'and he has instructed them through those who have been anointed with his Holy Spirit' QVip i m [TTBD] 11TB3D T 3 D I T T H , (13) 11,1113). This is a reference to the purification of the Holy Spirit in the Instruction (1QS IV,21). By contrast those God hates he causes to desert (CD-A 11,13), which is another reference to 1QS IV, 1, God's hatred for the one group and love for the other. The eschatological purification of the 'sons of light' is transformed in Qumran into the election of a remnant of Israel in the present. Israel is no longer the people of God, it is the people rejected by God. 29

30

31

32

29 Cf. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 43-5. 30 Cf. Lange, Weisheit und Prddestination, pp. 121-70. 31 Cf. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, p. 154. 32 For a more comprehensive analysis of the references, see J. Leonhardt-Balzer, 'Evil, Dualism and Community: Who/What did the Yahad not Want to Be?' in G. Xeravits (ed.), Dualism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).

36


Still, like the Instruction, CD draws a dualistic contrast between groups of human beings, and the ethical aspect is dominant. Thus in CD-A 11,1416 the readers are admonished not to be guided by a 'guilty inclination and eyes of whoredom' (TVttT ^FlIT] HOBR HIT, 16). However, at this point the dualism becomes cosmic, as the Watcher myth of the Enoch literature is given as an example for this seduction. And the dualism becomes more clearly defined than in the Instruction: it is not the elect who are seduced by the Watchers, the fact that someone lets themselves be drawn in by them shows that they are not one of the elect. This is another clear redefinition of the dualism of the Instruction, which assumed that the elect could be influenced by the 'spirit of deceit'. In CD the elect cannot be influenced by the evil spirits. This clear separation of the elect from the rejected is not contradicted by texts such as CD-A V,l 1 and VII,4, which admit that human beings can defile their holy spirit, because in neither text is there any reference to the influence of an evil spirit. And while in CD-A V,17-19 Belial is described as causing Jannes and Jambres to rebel against Moses and Aaron, Jannes and Jambres already belong to the forces of darkness who war against the forces of light. They are not elect who have fallen. Thus the picture in CD is consistent: the ethical dualism is framed by a cosmic dualism, which is not modified by the possibility of the elect making mistakes. The dualism of the Instruction is taken up but any ambivalence of the status of the elect removed. There cannot be any psychological conflict within the elect. The ambivalence of the 'angel of darkness' attacking the elect in the Instruction is not only removed, any evil action is attributed to the forces of evil and thus the responsibility taken from God - although he is still the supreme power behind everything. Thus the 'angels of destruction' punish those who depart from God's will in CD-A 11,6, which takes up the thought of the punishment of the wicked in the Instruction (1QS IV, 12) as well as that of the punishing angels of God in the Enoch tradition (7 En. 53.3; 56.1; 62.11; 63.1; 66.1). But while they are not evil in the two latter traditions, in CD-A VIII,2 the 'angels of destruction' are related to Belial. Again the reinterpretation of the ambivalence of the Instruction as to the behaviour of the 'sons of light' towards a clear division between the sphere of influence of good - the elect - and that of evil - the fallen - can be observed. Thus the dualism of the Yahad serves the purpose of theodicy: it is 33

34

35

33 Against P. Wernberg-Meller, The Manual of Discipline, p. 71. The other texts which he mentions, T. Dan 5.6 and T Ben. 3.3 are not community made and they are not older than the Instruction on the Two Spirits. 34 The addressees, who are called 'sons' in CD 11,13 are marked by the fact that they 'see and understand the deeds of God' "'BUM 'pnnVl Wblb, 14-15), and that they do not follow the 'guilty inclination and the spirit of whoredom'. 35 Cf. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran, p. 53.

LEONHARDT-BALZER Psychological

Dualism

37

meant to take away God's responsibility for evil. But the enemy responsible for evil, Belial, has his power only for a limited time and over a limited group. It is notable that the community does not speculate on Belial's origin or his surrounding but only contemplates his effect on the world. Mankind is divided into two groups, those who keep God's covenant - the rules of the community - and those who reject it and thus demonstrate their adherence to the forces of evil. Cosmic dualism is clearly tied to the social situation of the community. The only text in the Yahad on the origin of evil is the Instruction, and here the absence of the name Belial is notable. Still by naming the force of evil Belial the Yahad seems to intensify the mythical aspect of the Instruction. The ethical dualism is also amplified in the Yahad through a more precise separation of the two forces and their spheres of influence, which goes hand in hand with the claim that the Yahad as well as everybody else lives in the time of the 'dominion of Belial' (1QS 11,19) until the forces of evil will be finally overthrown and destroyed (1QM). This constitutes the same eschatolo gical dualism already present in the Instruction. Thus we find all aspects of the dualism of the Instruction - ethical, mythical, cosmic and eschatological - in the Yahad except one: the psychological dualism. This aspect is deliberately pushed aside and all references to the Instruction reinterpret the tradition to exclude any aspects of psycho logical conflict. This selective use is all the more reason to compare the use of the Instruction in a different tradition. And in this context Philo of Alexandria's reference to the two powers in QE 1.23 comes into its own. 37

38

39

4. Philo's Two Spirits in Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 1.23 The Quaestiones of Philo are instances of allegorical commentary on the books of Genesis and Exodus. They follow a clear structure: each passage provides the answer to a question on a particular verse. Philo always sets out to give the literal meaning of a passage and then provides its allegorical interpretation, sometimes using several exegetical traditions. The Quaestiones have been preserved completely in Armenian only (with a modern translation into Latin by Aucher) and in certain fragments in Greek quotations of the Church Fathers. Unfortunately for the passage in question there is no Greek fragment, only the reconstruction of individual Greek terms, and this makes the comparison to the language of the Instruction practically impossible. Therefore a comparison of concepts 36 37 38 39

Cf. Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten, pp. 95-8. Ibid., p. 9%. Ibid., pp. 99-103. Ibid., pp. 98-115.

38


will have to suffice. If a sufficient number of similar ideas is presented in the same order then it is likely that the two texts are related. The passage in question interprets Exod. 12.23c on the angel of God killing the firstborn sons of Egypt. Philo asks why God will not let 'the destroyer enter your houses to strike', quoting the LXX text. Philo's literal interpretation reads the passage as the emphasis that God cannot be regarded as the cause of any evil. Evil and destruction are not effected by God himself, called the 'first king' - probably 5ia TOU npaiTou (JaoiAEca in the original - but by his servants. The idea that God cannot be responsible for evil can be found in other passages in Philo, such as Conf. 161, 182. The reference to the king sums up the Philonic concept of God's two-fold powers, one royal - icupios - one divine - 0E6S. While God as 'God' only does good, as 'the Lord' he also needs to be strict and inflict punishment (cf. Somn. 1.163). The one power is creative and merciful, the other stern, sovereign and judging (Deus 116; Plant. 46; Abr. 121). Prayers can only be addressed to the merciful power (QG 1.13). But the creator God is also the king of the universe. Thus normally for Philo the idea of God as king is associated with punishment and necessary evils. But in QE 1.23 the king himself is exonerated from any evil actions. This fits in with the Rabbinic doctrine of the two middot, which also regards the royal power as beneficent. Thus here is another indication that Philo uses a different tradition from his usual point of view. Concluding, it can be said that in spite of Philo's emphasis that this is the literal interpretation of the biblical text, he already introduces a duality into the text which distinguishes between God and his servants powers in Philo's words, or angels in the Jewish tradition - as well as between God's two-fold properties of mercy and sovereignty. After the 'literal' interpretation Philo turns to the deeper meaning: 'Into every soul at its very birth (ccpcc xfj YEVEOEI) there enter two powers 40

41

42

40 Cf. H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, vol. 2 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947), p. 136. For a detailed description see N. Umemoto, 'Die Konigsherrschaft Gottes bei Philon', in M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer (eds), Konigsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und der hellenistischer Welt (WUNT, 55; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), pp. 207-56. 41 On the various terms (above all riysucov and BaoiAeus) and Philo's description of kingship as a definition of God's relationship with the world, see G. Mayer, 'Die herrscherliche Titulatur Gottes bei Philo von Alexandrien', in D. A. Koch and H. Lichtenberger (eds), Begegnungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter: Festschrift fur Heinz Schreckenberg (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), pp. 293-302 (esp. 2 9 « 0 1 ) ; cf. J. Leonhardt-Balzer, Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria (TSAJ, 84; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), pp. 105-8. 42 N. A. Dahl and A. F. Segal, 'Philo and the Rabbis on the Names of God', JSJ 9 (1978): 1-28; A. Marmonstein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, vol. 1: The Names and Attributes of God (London: Oxford University Press, 1927); idem, 'Philo and the Names of God', JQR (1931-32): 295-306.

LEONHARDT-BALZER


39

(Svvaueis), the salutary and the destructive (r\ uev ocoTnpia, r\ & <J)6opoTroi6s). If the salutary one is victorious and prevails, the opposite one is too weak to see'. Marcus assumes that in the Greek the last word was not opav - to see - but opuav - to attack. 43

44

Through these powers the world too was created. People call them by other names: the salutary (power) they call powerful and beneficent, and the opposite one (they call) unbounded and destructive.

Philo comments on how the planets were created by these two powers, particularly through the salutary one. But the nation is a mixture of both (these powers), from which the heavens and the entire world have received this mixture. Now sometimes the evil becomes greater in this mixture, and hence (all creatures) five in torment, harm, ignominy, contention, battle and bodily illness together with all the other things in human life, as in the whole world, so in man. And this mixture is in both the wicked man and the wise man but not in the same way. For the souls of the foolish men have the unbounded and destructive rather than the powerful and salutary (power), and it is full of misery when it dwells with earthly creatures. But the prudent and noble (soul) rather receives the powerful and salutary (power) and, on the contrary, possesses in itself good fortune and happiness, being carried around with the heaven because of kinship with it.

Philo then returns to the quotation of Exod. 12.23c and praises its use of terms. He interprets the text as referring to the fact that the evil power attempts to enter the soul but is driven away by the beneficent power of God. Philo adds a philosophical interpretation of the mixed and negative influences of this power on 'those from whom the favours and gifts of God are separated'. The first part on the two powers and their influences appears to describe a certain tradition, the second after the return to Exod. 12.23c applies this to the text. Comparing the tradition Philo presents here with the Instruction there are a number of notable parallels: the Armenian reference to the birth could, if the Greek was apex -rfj YEVEOEI, as seems likely, be a play on the double meaning of birth and creation. But even if Philo intended to write not about the creation of the world but the birth of man, this reading is still parallel to the Instruction's introduction of the two spirits after the reference that mankind was given dominion over creation (111,17-18). It is furthermore notable that this reference occurs 43 Translation R. Marcus, Philo: In Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes), supplement II: Questions and Answers on Exodus (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), pp. 33-4. 44 Ibid., p. 33.

40


after Philo introduces the 'literal' meaning of God as the sovereign king of creation. God's sovereign power is also a matter emphasized at the beginning of the Instruction (111,15-17) before it turns towards the two spirits. Philo's reference to the continuing struggle between the two powers, particularly if Marcus' emendation is correct, also runs parallel to Instruction IV, 15-18 and the continuing struggle between the divisions of man. After this Philo seems to include a different tradition, introduced by his reference to the different names for these powers. Philo's reference to astronomy could also imply an apocalyptic insertion in the particular version of the Instruction he had at his disposal. This is particularly noteworthy in view of the fact that the reference to the Instruction in the Damascus Document includes a reference to the Watcher myth and thus to Enochic material and the prominent astronomic references in the Enoch traditions. Coming back to the Instruction material itself Philo moves away from the discussion of the soul and turns towards the nation as consisting of two kinds of people. Here Philo moves from a psychological towards an ethical dualism, similar to the references to the 'sons of righteousness' and the 'sons of deceit' in 111,20-21. Philo does not introduce the idea of a remnant, he refers to the 'people' or 'nation'. This could reflect the Instruction's reference to the God of Israel and its indication that the Instruction is directed at the Jewish people. Philo proceeds to describe the influence of the evil power. At this point his account parallels the Instruction's references to the attacks of the 'angel of darkness' on the 'sons of righteousness' causing them to fail in their behaviour and to experience hardship (111,21-24). The different degrees of influence, of the mixture of the two powers, also mirror the different shares human beings have in the light and the darkness in 1QS IV,15f., 23-26. Even after the passage has moved from the account of the tradition to Philo's exegesis by referring back to God's protection of the soul from the 'destroyer', Philo's reference to God's beneficent power driving out the harmful influence of the evil power can be seen to reflect the Instruction's account of God's holy Spirit's cleansing the 'sons of righteousness' in IV, 19-22, which in Philo is followed by a reference to those rejected by God while the Instruction mentions the salvation of the elect, those chosen by God for his covenant (IV,22). A table can illustrate the parallels in concept between the two texts:

LEONHARDT-BALZER

Instruction on the Two Spirits


Philo QE 1.23

Title: Teaching about the nature of mankind, their spirits and their fate

41

Comments The title is either unknown or ignored by Philo.

(111,13-15). The God of knowledge created all things and everything occurs according to his will

Literal meaning of Exod. Both texts emphasize the 12.23c: God the sovereign supreme power of God. king does not cause any evil but his ministers.

(111,15-17). God created mankind to rule and gave them two spirits, that of truth and deceit (111,17-19). The prince of lights governs the sons of righteousness and the angel of darkness governs the sons of deceit (111,2021).

The angel of darkness causes the sins and mistakes of the sons of righteousness as well as their afflictions (111,2124).

The 'God of Israel' and the 'angel of his truth' assist the sons of light. God loves the spirit of light and hates that of darkness (III,2ÎV,1).

Deeper meaning: At its creation two powers enter each soul, the salutary and the destructive. The two powers struggle for dominance.

Two powers/spirits influence human beings. Both powers are incompatible.

Possibly an insertion of Philo referring to other traditions, as the emphasis on the variety of names for the powers seems to indicate. Philo's text is as open as the Instruction in terms of defining the sons of righteousness/light as either Israel (cf. 111,24 and Philo's reference to 'nation') or the good in mankind. Both emphasize the negative effect of the evil spirit on the virtuous although it causes external misfortunes. The mixture exists in the The two powers are not wicked and the wise, but equally balanced. Here Philo presents a thought not in the same way. also expressed in 1QS IV, 15-18 that the share in good and bad influences is not the same for each individual.

Through the two powers the world was created. They are called by different names. They caused the creation of the planets. The nation (human race or Israel) is composed of both. Sometimes evil gains power, this causes all evil, internal and external (e.g. torment, battle, illness) in mankind.

42


Instruction on the Two Spirits

Philo QE 1.23

Comments

The order is inverted in Philo: first the foolish, then the wise, while in the rest of his account after The good fortune and happiness of the prudent. the reference to Exod. 12.23 he discusses first the wise and then the foolish. Philo's text also resembles The two spirits influence Return to Exod. 12.23: the references to God's mankind throughout God prevents the and his angel's support history. God has set an destroyer from entering for the sons of end to the struggle of the the soul of the wise. righteousness in 1QS two spirits, he will purify III,24-IV,1 the sons of righteousness at the appointed time of his judgement (IV, 15-23). Until then the two spirits The soul of the foolish is The Instruction is not not protected from the matched clearly after continue to fight for evil influences and thus Philo's reference to the influence, those with a text in Exod. 12.23, Philo greater share in the light the compound appearances of the sense appears to take up the following righteousness basic idea outlined before and those with a greater perceptions can enter. in order to interpret his share in deceit living in text. wickedness (IV,23-26). The actions and the fate of the sons of light (IV,28). The actions and misfortunes of the sons of deceit (IV,9-14).

The misfortunes and misery of the foolish.

It is clear that Philo presents a philosophical version of the tradition he has. However, there are remarkable parallels in the development of thought to that in the Instruction. The terminology may be a Greek adaptation - for example, powers instead of spirits - and philosophical details have been included, but the structure of the tradition is similar and certain details are too close to be an accident: the two influences on mankind, the psychological and the ethical aspects, the struggle, the different degrees of influence of the one and the other, the preference of God for one over the other and so on. All these indicate a level of similarity, which supports the conclusion that Philo also drew on a tradition similar to the Instruction on the Two Spirits. The textual condition being as it is it is impossible to draw a conclusion as to the precise shape of this tradition. It is possible that Philo's version did not have much of 1QSIV, 15-26, as the textual parallels become fewer after the catalogues of virtues and vices. Philo's tradition then would be based on only the first of the above-mentioned sections of the different traditions identified within the Instruction by von der Osten-Sacken. However 45

45

P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial.

LEONHARDT-BALZER


43

Philo's thought of the mixture seems to take up the idea of each human being's being composed of unequal shares in light and darkness which is particularly prominent in IV, 15-16. Thus Philo seems to systematize the Instruction at a point where it repeats itself and where one of its emphases is on eschatological judgement, a thought completely alien to Philo. Whether Philo summarized his source or had a shorter tradition, what seems clear is that the Instruction on the Two Spirits had acquired a Greek version by Philo's time. And it is noteworthy that Philo's reception emphasizes everything, which the Qumran reception does not: the psychological dualism and the potential of 'wise' (Philo) or 'righteous' people being influenced by the evil power. 5. Philo and the

Instruction

The question remains now, how this tradition could have come to Philo. One suggestion would be through a direct contact of his with the Qumran Sectanarians. This suggestion is based on the frequently suggested assumption that on his well-known pilgrimage Philo met Essenes first hand and based his account in the Probus on first-hand experience. The fact that his account of the Essenes is clearly based on a Hellenistic source, similar but not quite identical to the one used by Josephus, as well as Philo's apparent ignorance of Hebrew, speaks against this theory. An even more intriguing possibility would be if the Therapeutae at the lake Mareotis were a kind of Egyptian branch of the Essenes, suggested by the similarities in Philo's account of the two groups. They could then have produced the Greek version of the Instruction and Philo could have derived it from them. However, apart from the fact that this is pure speculation without any basis on evidence, the identification of the Therapeutae and the Essenes based on their Hellenized description in the sources used by Philo is unsound and with this identification this theory crumbles as the one before. Can we go beyond what is generally known that Philo drew on a number of sources, many of which are lost to us now? Perhaps the sources of the Instruction can help. The Instruction's origins have been traced back to various sources. Without doubt it has an apocalyptic outlook, and references to the myth of the Watchers have been identified, although Collins points out that the explanation of evil does not use the same myth. An Iranian influence has been postulated, but particularly the contrasted terms light-darkness do not play any part in the Iranian myth, 46

47

46 Cf. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 38-41. 47 Cf. Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten, pp. 16-30. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 42-3.


44

just as the idea of the spirit of the lie, dominant in the Iranian myth, does not occur in the Instruction on the Two Spirits. By contrast, there are clear similarities between wisdom traditions and the Instruction: the tendency to divide the world into good and evil (e.g. Prov. 1-9 - even if this division here is mainly based on ethical grounds and here only represents a duality and no dualism, as the opposition does not permeate the whole world order). The revelation of the truth is more the unmasking of God's plan for salvation and of his secrets. Wisdom traditions have been found to move towards including apocalyptic ideas. And J. J. Collins emphasizes that in the Instruction on the Two Spirits, 'The literary form . . . is not apocalypse or revelation but the classic sapiential form of the instruction." The influence of apocalyptic wisdom can particularly be found in the ambivalent concept of the elect and the possibility of their being seduced by the evil power in other wisdom texts of the time. Thus 4QMysteries frg. 3a ii-b 4-6 contrasts the deceit and the evil doings of Belial to the wise, but due to the fragmentary state of the text it is unclear whether Belial actually seduces the wise. In 4QInstruction (4Q416f) the 'secrets of being' are related to the distinction between truth and deceit (4Q417 frg. 2 col. 3,14; 4Q416 frg. 2 col. 1, 1-6). It is the task of the wise to delve into the secrets of God's plan in everything there is. In view of this plan the success of evil remains a mystery. The term 'secret' has the same function in the Instruction. There the success of the spirit of deceit is inexplicable, it remains one of the 'secrets of God' ''"H until the end (111,23). Thus the Instruction takes up strands of apocalyptic wisdom literature, which are avoided in the original community texts. It is noteworthy that it is precisely these strands, which are prominent in Philo's reception: the emphasis on psychological and ethical dualism. Furthermore, Philo's reference to the stars might even indicate that his source had apocalyptic references at this point. This is highly speculative but it would fit with an apocalyptic wisdom text. And the book of Ben Sira shows that Israelite wisdom was thought to be of interest in the Alexandrian Jewish community. Philo's application of the Logos termin ology to the interpretation of Gen. 1.1-5 also shows his close knowledge of 48

49

50

51

52

53

48 Wernberg-Moller, The Manual of Discipline, pp. 66, 70. 49 Cf. W. L. Lipscomb and J. A. Sanders, 'Wisdom at Qumran', in J. Gammie et al. (eds), Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrin (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), pp. 277-85 (278); Kampen, 'Diverse Aspects of Wisdom', pp. 216-17. 50 See e.g. 4QSap A. Cf. Kampen, 'Diverse Aspects of Wisdom', p. 237. 51 J. J. Collins, 'Apocalypticism and Literary Genre in the Dead Sea Scrolls', in Flint and VanderKam (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, pp. 403-30 (422). 52 Cf. Kampen, 'Diverse Aspects of Wisdom', pp. 217-18. 53 The text is non-sectarian, see the pan-Israel perspective. Cf. Kampen, 'Diverse Aspects of Wisdom', pp. 228-9.

LEONHARDT-BALZER


45

wisdom speculation. Thus it is not inconceivable that Philo drew on an apocalyptic wisdom tradition translated into Greek for the use of Jews in Alexandria. In any case it shows that the exchange of traditions between Palestine and Alexandria extended not only to traditions easily converted into Hellenistic philosophy but even to apocalyptic wisdom texts with a strongly dualistic outlook. Conversely it shows the versatility of the Instruction's dualism, which could be adapted to such different readers as a secluded sect in the Judean desert and a scholar experienced in many aspects of Graeco-Roman culture in one of the largest cities of the Roman Empire.

54 Cf. J. Leonhardt-Balzer, 'Der Logos und die Schopfung: Streiflichter bei Philo (Opif. 20-25) und im Johannesprolog (Joh 1,1-18)', in J. Frey and U. Schnelle (eds), Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelism in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive (WUNT, 1/175; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp. 295-319.

Chapter 3 J E S U S '

J E W I S H

H E R M E N E U T I C A L S

Y

N

A

G

O

M E T H O D G

U

I

N

T

H

E

N A Z A R E T H

E

R. Steven Notley A great deal has been written about the importance of Jewish sources for our understanding of Jesus and the early Church. Unfortunately, there remains a lack of corresponding recognition regarding the contribution of the New Testament to our knowledge of Jewish life and thought during the closing days of the Second Commonwealth. The New Testament serves as an invaluable historical witness, because it often is our earliest written record. A few examples will illustrate. For archaeologists and historical geographers the New Testament provides seminal information, because it possesses the earliest written references to certain Jewish cities and villages founded in Galilee during the Hellenistic and Roman periods - for example, Tiberias, Nazareth, Capernaum, Chorazin, Bethsaida. On the other hand, Jewish and Christian students of the history of Jewish tradition rarely recognize that the earliest evidence for the common Jewish practice to name one's son at his circumcision on the eighth day is the Lukan birth narratives about John the Baptist (Lk. 1.63) and Jesus (Lk. 2.21). Outside of the New Testament, the next mention in written Jewish sources appears in the seventh-century-CE work, Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer. 1

2

3

4

The parents of Moses saw that his appearance was like that of an angel of God. They circumcised him on the eighth day and called him Yekutiel (Chapter 48).

1 D. Flusser and R. S. Notley, The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus' Genius (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 1-5. 2 See Y . Tsafrir, L. DiSegni and J. Green, Tabula Imperii Romani: IUDAEAPALESTINA: Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994). 3 L. V. Snowman, 'Circumcision', EJ 5:571. 4 S. Safrai, 'Naming John the Baptist', Jerusalem Perspective 20 (May 1989): 1-2.

NOTLEY Jesus' Hermeneutical Method

47

For this study we want to investigate another primitive testimony preserved in the Third Gospel. Luke's story of Jesus in Nazareth (Lk. 4.16-30) is the oldest account of the Jewish custom to follow the public reading of the Torah in the synagogue with a reading from the Prophets (the Haftard). Apart from Luke's report (see Acts 13.14-15), the earliest Jewish reference to this practice is the third-century-CE compilation of oral traditions in the Mishna. 5

]7]u n^nnis

njpatf n a m n r o o n i s r a n o v a nicpn ato o v a t r a n d^tbsdi o r r ^ r t v s ' p t a toa

On a Festival [the Law is read] by five [readers], on the Day of Atonement by six, and on the Sabbath by seven. They may not take from them but they may add to them, and they close with a reading from the Prophets (m.Meg. 4.2). 6

The verbal presentation in Luke's account belies a haphazard report. Already the seventeenth-century Dutch scholar, Hugo Grotius, recog nized the parallels between Jesus' actions (Lk. 4.16) and the synagogue caretaker in Tosefta Sukkah: m i m DMpb ltS\B PDlDn ]TITI : 'The caretaker of the synagogue stood to read in the Torah' (t.Suk 2.11). In recent years, Safrai has advanced the notion that the description that Jesus stood to read meant that he read first from the Torah. 7

The two Greek words translated 'he stood up to read' strongly suggest that Jesus had read a portion from the Torah before reading from the scroll of Isaiah. One does not stand up in order to read from the Prophets. 8

The Evangelist assumed that his readers would have first-hand knowledge of Jewish customs. He thus felt no need to detail what was already understood - that Jesus stood to read first from the Torah, and only then to read from the prophet Isaiah. In addition, Safrai observed that Luke's account - in which Jesus alone is reported to read publicly - accords with other ancient witnesses (e.g. m.Sot. 7.7-8; m.Yoma 7.1; Josephus, Ant. 4.209; Philo, Prob. 81-82). These indicate that Jewish practice prior to 70 CE allowed for only one public reader of the Torah in the synagogue, not seven readers as the Jewish community practised soon after the

5 S. Safrai, 'Synagogue', in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds), The Jewish People in the First Century (CRINT, 2; Assen and Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976), pp. 908-44 (928). 6 Contra H. Conzelmann, The Theology of Saint Luke (London: Faber, 1961), p. 30. 7 H. Grotius, Annotationes in Novum Testamentum (9 vols; Groningen: W. Zuidema, 1826-34) 3: 225. 8 S. Safrai, 'Synagogue and Sabbath', Jerusalem Perspective 23 (Nov.-Dec. 1989): 8-10.


48

destruction of the Second Temple, and a custom that is continued until this day. For the most part, modern scholarship has assumed that the sources for Luke's story about Jesus in Nazareth are thoroughly Greek. Yet, Sparks observed what others have acknowledged; namely, that Luke's Gospel over all is markedly Semitic. 9

After an author's preface of four verses, written in good idiomatic Greek, [the reader] is presented with a narrative of twenty-four chapters, of which the background, the ideas, and much of the phraseology, are unquestionably Semitic . . . there are in addition a whole host of peculiarly Lukan Semitisms, that is, constructions and phrases, some times complete sentences, which, awkward in Greek, are normal and idiomatic in Semitic. 10

What particularly challenged Sparks was that - unlike Mark and Matthew whose Semitisms find equivalents in either Aramaic or Hebrew - Luke preserves Hebraisms that have no parallel in Aramaic. In spite of the preponderance of linguistic evidence to the contrary provided by the Dead Sea Documents, as well as studies on Mishnaic Hebrew (particularly Tannaitic Hebrew) by such scholars as M. H. Segal and E. Y. Kutcher, New Testament scholarship still clings to the outdated notion first proposed by Geiger that 'save for small pockets or areas where Hebrew was still cultivated, Palestinian Jews used Aramaic as the common Semitic language and did not readily comprehend Hebrew'. Working with the presumption of an Aramaic-only environment, Hebraisms in Luke's Greek are routinely dismissed as an artificial attempt by the Evangelist to biblicize his Greek to imitate the style of the Septuagint. While Luke's account was composed in Greek, there are indications 11

12

13

14

15

9 Safrai, 'Synagogue', pp. 929-30; cf. D. Bivin, 'One Torah Reader, Not Seven!' Jerusalem Perspective 52 (Jul.-Sep. 1997): 16-17. 10 H. F. D. Sparks, 'The Semitisms of St. Luke's Gospel', JTS 44 (1943): 129-38 (129). 11 Sparks, 'Semitisms of St. Luke's Gospel', p. 132; cf. N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (4 vols; ed. J. H. Moulton; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1976), 4:46-50. 12 M. H. Segal, 'Mishnaic Hebrew and Its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic', JQR 20 (1908): 647-737; see also idem, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927). 13 E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1959): idem, 'Hebrew Language', EJ 16:1593-1607; idem, A History of the Hebrew Language (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982); and idem, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977 [Hebrew]). 14 A. Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah (Breslau: Leuckart, 1845); cf. A. Saenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J. Elwold; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 162. 15 J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (AB, 28; New York: Doubleday, 1981), p. 531.

MOTLEY Jesus' Hermeneutical Method

49

that the Evangelist has drawn from earlier reports (Lk. 1.1-4) that were shaped by a Hebrew language environment. Recognition that the incident in Nazareth occurred in a Semitic milieu opens up new possibilities for Hebrew idioms and fresh cultural perspectives. Close attention to the linguistic evidence can ultimately provide insight into the hermeneutical methodology of Jesus and other first-century Jews in their use of Scripture, and hopefully illuminate what Jesus intended to communicate to his hearers by his combination of texts. The first evidence for the linguistic environment of Luke's report is his introductory phrase, 'and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah' (Lk. 4.17). Little attention is given to the designation of Isaiah's work as a 'book'. Of course, in concrete terms the reader in a first-century synagogue would have been given a parchment scroll, not a book or codex. However, our interest here is not the physical shape of the document but the idiom, 'the book' of Isaiah - whether expressed in Greek (PipAos, [JiPAiov) or Hebrew O ? 0 ) . A quick search informs us that the work of Isaiah is never referred to as a 'book' in the Hebrew Scriptures. So, it seems it is a post-biblical designation. What is more surprising is to discover that the phrase, 'the book of Isaiah', never occurs in Jewish literature of the Second Commonwealth composed in Greek - for example, the Septuagint, Greek Pseudepigrapha, Josephus or Philo. Not only is Luke the only writer in the New Testament to preserve this idiom, his is the only occurrence in the entire Greek corpus of Jewish literature. On the other hand, seven times in the Hebrew portions of the Qumran library we hear citations from Isaiah with the prefaced phrase, iTfiET ISDH m r O *W&: 'as it is written in the book of Isaiah the prophet' (e.g. 4Q174 frag.l 2:15; 4Q176 frag.l 2:4; 4Q265 frag. 1,3) - the exact Hebrew equivalent of the Greek phrase recorded by Luke. In other words, the only time in first-century Jewish literature that the work of Isaiah is called a 'book', it appears in Hebrew. While this point may seem insignificant, the idiomatic usage signals to the modern reader the need to approach the words and setting in Luke's report from a Hebraic perspective. The implications of this shift will soon become apparent. Luke records that Jesus 'opened the book [i.e., scroll] and found the place' (Lk. 4.17). Evidence from the Cairo Genizah indicates that already in first-century Judaea designated weekly portions from the Torah were read in the synagogue in consecutive order on a triennial cycle (i.e., the Pentateuch was read through entirely in three years). By contrast, selections from the Prophets were not fixed. They were often chosen at the discretion of the reader to complement the Torah reading on the basis of 16

16 H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Talmud and Midrash (trans. M. Bockmuehl; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 263-4; Safrai, 'Synagogue', pp. 927-8; cf. b.Meg. 29b.

50


parallel themes, or even wording. Whereas the Torah portions were required to be read consecutively, such was not the case with the Prophets. Passages from different prophetic books could even be combined, rnira D ^ j H O y\X\ ^ 3 3 3 D ' a ^ T D : 'One may skip among the Prophets but one may not skip in the reading of the Torah' (m.Meg. 4.4). Jesus read from Isa. 61.1-2, but even the casual observer can detect that Luke's citation differs from the wording of Isaiah in the Hebrew Scriptures. Typically scholarship has assumed that these differences are explained by Luke's borrowing from the Septuagint. Yet, this explan ation is difficult to prove. The Septuagint's translation of these particular verses closely follows the Hebrew text. Thus, it is difficult to know with certainty whether the similarities between the Septuagint and Luke's citation are because the Evangelist is relying upon the Septuagint, or because another source for Luke's citation likewise faithfully renders the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Moreover, Fitzmyer notes that at times Luke's citation of Isaiah in our passage adheres even more closely to the Hebrew text than the Septuagint upon which Luke is presumed to depend. Coupled with other postbiblical, non-Septuagintal Hebraisms witnessed in Luke's narrative, the evidence seems to suggest that Luke has drawn his citation not from the Septuagint but from another source that was marked with stark Hebraisms. For example, see Lk. 4.21-22: 'fulfilled in your hearing' [lit. ears] (cf. Deut. 5.1: OlTDTijG; LXX: EV TOTS COOIV upcov); Lk. 4.22: 'words ...proceeded out of his mouth' (cf. Num. 30.2: V B D *«f H ^ D S niTI; LXX: TO pfjpcx auTou . . . E£EA0T] EK TOU OTopccTos CCUTOU). Whatever one's opinion concerning the language of Luke's source(s), there seems little question that Jesus is presented as reading from the Hebrew text of Isaiah. Randall Buth has brought my attention to the lack of any reference in our story to the reading of an Aramaic Targum in Nazareth. This silence coincides with the near non-existence of Aramaic Targums among the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the exception of the Targum of Job (11Q10 and 4Q157) - notorious for its difficult Hebrew they do not exist in the Qumran library. Their absence from Qumran and Nazareth challenge the almost universally accepted notion that first17

18

1 9

20

21

17 Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, pp. 530-9; I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), pp. 182^1. 18 Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, p. 533. 19 Marshall, Luke, pp. 185-6. 20 R. Buth, 'Aramaic Targumim: Qumran', in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (eds), Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, IL: I VP, 2000), pp. 91-3. 21 U. GleBmer, 'Targumim', in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 915-18 (916).


51

century Jews did not know Hebrew and needed the Aramaic translation to understand the Hebrew Scriptures. Indeed, we have no evidence of the presence and use of Aramaic Targums in synagogues of the Land of Israel prior to the Usha period (140 C E ) , following the Bar Kochba Revolt. The appearance of Aramaic Targums coincides with the immigration of Jews from Babylonia, who most likely brought their Aramaic Bibles (i.e., Targums) with them, and the decline of spoken Hebrew in the aftermath of the Bar Kochba Revolt due to population shifts. Additionally, in certain contexts the Aramaic Targums may have served not so much as literal translations, but as a type of simultaneous commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures - a repository of Jewish interpretation. So, we hear: 'He who translates a verse literally falsifies it' (t.Meg. 4(3).41). In a later time, the Targums would be read in the synagogues in languages other than Hebrew in order to distinguish them from Holy Scripture. A parallel to this practice exists. In the Babylonian Talmud block citations from the Mishna are recorded in their original Mishnaic Hebrew, and thus distinguished from later deliberations (i.e., the Gemara) upon the Mishna that are routinely preserved in Aramaic. In any event, this is a practice that developed after our period of interest. The most obvious deviation from Isa. 61.1-2 in our passage is the final phrase recorded in Lk. 4.18. Jesus interjects Isa. 58.6: 'to let the oppressed go free', and then returns to Isa. 61.2 with the conclusion, 'to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord'. As we will see, Jesus' ingenious fusion of Isa. 61.1-2 and 58.6 presents the clearest evidence that he read from the Hebrew Scriptures and that Luke's source for the citation was not the Septuagint. Jesus' creative reading from Isaiah is neither haphazard, nor coinci dental. It betrays an intimate familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures and contemporary Jewish methods of interpreting them. Fitzmyer has suggested that the combination of the two Isaianic verses is because of the Greek catchword a<J>EOis that appears in the Septuagint's translation of both verses (Isa. 58.6: DÊBri; Isa. 61.1: Ti*"n). His instincts are correct, but his presumption of Luke's reliance on the Septuagint has caused him to overlook the distinctive, unique verbal thread that enabled Jesus to combine these two passages. The Greek term, a<J>EOis, appears frequently 22

23

24

25

22 A. F. Rainey and R. S. Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World (Jerusalem: Carta Publishing, 2006), p. 398. 23 S. D. Fraade, 'Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries', in L. J. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992), pp. 253-86. 24 See J. W. Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1954), pp. 52-118. 25 Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX p. 533. y

52


in the Septuagint, occurring 50 times. In our passages it translates two entirely different Hebrew words. In fact, ac))60is translates eleven different Hebrew words. Nevertheless, we do have in Luke's Nazareth episode a good example of the Jewish interpretative technique, identified with Hillel and known as gezerah shavah (cf. t.Sanh. 7.11; Abot R. Nat. 37). According to this method two otherwise unrelated verses may be combined because of the appearance in Hebrew of similar words or clusters of words. The early implementation of this technique seems to have been based upon exact word forms. Jesus is portrayed by the Evangelists as being familiar with the hermeneutical method and he employs it elsewhere. In the well-known pericope of the Great Commandment (Mt. 22.34-46; Mk 12.28-34; Lk. 10.25-40), Deut. 6.5 and Lev. 19.18 are threaded by a rare concurrence; these are two of only three times in the Hebrew Scriptures in which a command begins rQilfcjO. As an aside, rarely is it noted that the remaining imperative to love, concerning the foreigner in Lev. 19.34 (\b rQnijO ^Ji03), may have given rise to the subsequent story in Luke's pericope regarding the benevolent Samaritan (Lk. 10.29-37). On another occasion, Jesus' antithetical parallelism in Lk. 19.46 (Mt. 21.13; Mk 11.17) is an elliptical citation of Isa. 56.7 and Jer. 7.11, which may have depended upon a non-Masoretic reading of Jeremiah in which TTO occurred. Elsewhere, I have suggested that Jesus' witness concerning the Baptist in Mt. 11.10 is an ingenious fusion of Exod. 23.20 and Mai. 3.1 to allude to the two contemporary expectations regarding the identity of the eschatological prophet (Deut. 18.15-18; Mai. 4.5-6 [ M T 3.23-24]; cf. 4Q175 1.5-8). Only in these two verses in the Hebrew Scriptures do we find the collocation of ^DNÔ and PIÊJ (with also ^|T7 and ^S*?), demonstrating another early example of the necessary use of identical word forms in the Hebrew verses to allow the speaker's combination of them. As a final example, Flusser has drawn attention to the underlying verbal 26

27

28

29

30

31

26 E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint (2 vols; Grand Rapids. Baker, 1987), 1:182. 27 Strack and Stemberger, Talmud and Midrash, p. 21. 28 R. S. Notley, 'Jesus as a Teacher of the Law' (Public paper delivered at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, September 2000). 29 J. Frankovic, 'The Intertextual-Rhetorical Background to Luke 19.46' (Unpublished study). 30 R. S. Notley, 'The Kingdom of Heaven Forcefully Advances', in Craig A. Evans (ed.), The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2000), pp. 279-311(292-3). 31 Exod. 23.20 according to the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.


53

structure in the exchange between Jesus and the high priest Caiaphas in Lk. 22.69-70. The former's allusion to Ps. 110.1-3, and his adversary's use of vocabulary drawn from Ps. 2.7, is based upon a consonantal reading of the Hebrew text which is identical in both verses. Only in these do we find ym^T (Ps. 110.3: your youth ^ 1 1 1 ^ ] ; Ps. 2.7: / have begotten you FpFn*^])- What is important in all of these examples is the recognition that the verbal links that allow the combination of otherwise unrelated verses are based upon the exact word forms of the Hebrew text, not the Aramaic Targums or Septuagint. While the rabbinical method may find its impetus from the world of Greek rhetoric (ouvxpiois npos '(oov),33 its application in rabbinical tradition is based on Hebrew verbal analogy. Are there Hebrew verbal links evident that allow Jesus to fuse Isa. 61.12 and 58.6? To my knowledge no notice has been given to the fact that in the entire Hebrew Scriptures only in our two blocks of Scripture (Isa. 58.1-9; 61.1-4) do we find the phrase HIPP b ]1in ('the Lord's favour'). Again, scholars have overlooked the verbal bridge between these two verses, because they have presumed that the Septuagint is the source of Luke's citation. Yet, the rendering of the Hebrew phrase is missing in the Septuagint's truncated Greek translation of Isa. 58.5: KaAeoeTS vrjaTeiav 5SKTT)V. It thus eliminates the essential verbal tie to Isa. 61.2. The linkage is likewise obscured in the Aramaic Targum of these verses. In other words, Jesus' creative genius is possible only if he is drawing upon the Hebrew Scriptures. Isa. 61.2a speaks of 'the Year of the Lord's favour', whereas Isa. 58.5-6 designates the time of the hoped-for redemption as 'the Day of the Lord's favour'. The difference between these two passages, however, is more than a temporal distinction (i.e. iT3E? and OV). The content of the redemptive expectations in these two passages represents starkly divergent hopes in Jesus' day regarding both the timing and the nature of God's future redemption of his people. It certainly is no accident that Jesus breaks off his quotation of Isa. 61.2, eliminating the final phrase: irrt^K^ Dj53 DVT: 'the day of the 32

34

35

32 See D. Flusser, 'At the Right Hand of Power', Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998), pp. 301-5; Flusser and Notley, The Sage from Galilee, p. 115 n. 24. 33 S. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine I Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1994), p. 62. 34 'Strictly speaking this {gezerah shavah] is only to be used if two given Torah statements make use of identical (and possibly unique) expressions' (Strack and Stemberger, Talmud and Mishnah, p. 21). 35 See A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic (4 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1962) 3:117, 121; J. F. Stenning, The Targum of Isaiah (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), pp. 195, 205.

54


vengeance of our God' (Isa. 61.2b). Jesus did not want to identify the day of the Lord's favour with a time of divine vengeance. In order to grasp the full significance of Jesus' exegetical message, some background on contemporary Jewish thought is needed. In his historical biography on Jesus, Flusser explored the widely diverging redemptive expectations that existed in the first century. The Qumran Congregation and John the Baptist shared a hope that their present day would be followed soon with the advent of a heavenly Redeemer, who would bring vindication for the righteous and punishment for the wicked. The immediacy of this time of judgement is reflected in John's proclamation: 'The axe is already at the root of the trees' (Mt. 3.10; Lk. 3.9). On the other hand, Jesus and his Rabbinic contemporaries embraced a tripartite view of redemptive history. In the opinion of Jesus and Israel's sages, between the present era and the future End of Days - which would include resurrection for the righteous and judgement upon the wicked they understood the need for an intermediate period. In the opinion of Jesus, that intermediate era began with the ministry of John the Baptist: 'The law and the prophets were until John' (Lk. 16.16), 'From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven forcefully advances' (Mt. 11.12). It was John's and Jesus' differing opinions concerning the stages of redemption that led to the Baptist's question: 'Are you the One who is to Come, or shall we look for another?' (Mt. 11.3). John defined the hopedfor Redeemer with notions belonging to eschatological judgement and adopted terminology related to the Coming One from Malachi: 37

38

39

40

41

'See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come* says the Lord Almighty. But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap (Mai. 3.1-3).

42

36 J. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 210. 37 By contrast, note the role of the priestly redeemer (Melchizedek) in 11Q13 in which Isaiah 61 is also heard. Following the citation, the author continues: 'Therefore Melchizedek will thoroughly prosecute the veng[ea]nce required by Go[d's] statu[te]s' (HQ 13 2.13). 38 Flusser and Notley, Sage from Galilee, pp. 76-96. 39 b.Sanh. 99a; Midr. Pss 90.15; cf. Flusser and Notley, Sage from Galilee, p. 92. 40 The redemptive content of Jesus' testimony is indicated by its Talmudic parallel IT&rn HID'''? bbk 1*0303 \*b Outran to: 'All the prophets prophesied solely concerning the days of the Messiah'. See b.Ber. 34b; b.Shab. 63a; b.Sanh. 99a. 41 Notley, 'The Kingdom Forcefully Advances', pp. 303-7. 42 See also Dan. 7.13: HIH HHtJ IZDtft "Q3 ; Flusser and Notley, Sage from Galilee, pp. 107-16.


55

John's message from the prison of Herod Antipas questioned: 'If the Redeemer has come bringing divine judgement, why are the righteous still suffering at the hands of the wicked?' Jesus' response addresses John's mistaken understanding of God's redemptive timetable. Not surprisingly, Jesus uses a combination of Isaianic passages - Isa. 29.18; 35.5; 42.7, 18; 26.19 - that included Isa. 61.1 (the same verse read in the Nazareth synagogue). Among the discoveries in the Qumran library, a work designated 4Q521 - and which Puech has suggested was likely nonsectarian - was composed around a similar compilation of biblical passages describing the messianic age. 43

[... For the heajvens and the earth shall listen to His Messiah [and all w]hich is in them shall not turn away from the commandments of the holy ones... For He will honor the pious upon the th[ro]ne of His eternal kingdom, setting prisoners free (Ps 146.7), opening the eyes of the blind, raising up those who are bo[wed down] (Ps 146.8)... and the Lord shall do glorious things which have not been done, just as He said. For He shall heal the critically wounded, He shall revive the dead, He shall send good news to the afflicted (Isa. 61.1). (4Q521 frag. 2 ii, 4.1-12)

In another work (11Q13) the Qumran Congregation described their expectation of a priestly redeemer identified with the biblical Melchizedek. The Qumran sectarians - like others of their contempor aries (e.g. T. Levi 17.1-18.2) - expected the advent of that redeemer to coincide with the Jubilee year. Since the Jubilee was inaugurated on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 25.9), their hope was that God would atone the sins of the nation and consequently redeem his people. One of the important proof-texts for this redemptive Jubilee framework was the passage read by Jesus in Nazareth - Isa. 61.1-2. Elsewhere, I have tried to show that these ideas form the background for John's proclamation of 'a baptism that would lead to a [Jubilee] remission of sins' ((3anTiOMCc jjETCcvoias B\S a<J>eaiv aiiapTicov: Mk. 1.4; Lk. 3.3). It seems that John (like his Qumran contemporaries) expected the redeemer to appear in the Jubilee year. John hoped that repentance and righteous initiative signified by the act of ritual immersion would bring 44

45

4

43 See E. Puech, Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521)', RevQ 60 (Oct. 1992): 475^522; Flusser and Notley, Sage from Galilee, p. 28. 44 D. Flusser, 'Melchizedek and the Son of Man', Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, pp. 186-92; R. S. Notley, The Eschatological Thinking of the Dead Sea Sect and the Order of Blessing in the Christian Eucharist', in R. S. Notley, M. Turnage and B. Becker (eds), Jesus' Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 128-35; A. Steudel, 'Melchizedek', in L. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1: 535-7; P. J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa (Washington, DC: CBAA, 1981), pp. 49-74. 45 See B. Z. Wacholder, 'Chronomessianism: The Timing of Messianic Movements and the Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles', HUCA 46 (1975): 201-18.

56


forward the day of God's redemption. His understanding of the redemptive role of repentance is similar to that heard from a first-century Rabbi, Yose Ha-Gelili: 'Repentance brings redemption near' (b.Yoma 86b). It should not be overlooked by the reader that in Jesus' first public statement in the Synoptic Gospels after submitting to John's baptism, he chose a passage of Scripture that complemented fully John's (Jubilee) redemptive expectation. Jesus punctuated his reading of Isa. 61.1-2 with the bold declaration - 'Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing' (Lk. 4.21). We have taken time to look at Jesus' and John's diverging opinions, because it also lies at the heart of the tension that day in Nazareth. The Baptist - like the congregation in Nazareth - found Jesus' innovations difficult. On that Sabbath, Jesus intentionally reshaped the redemptive presentation in Isa. 61.1-2. He eliminated Isaiah's mention of divine vengeance, because it was not the time for judgement. He put forth his own understanding of the present redemptive period with the inclusion of Isa. 58.5-7. The combination of his truncation of Isa. 61.2 and his insertion of Isa. 58.6 was intended to send an unmistakable message to his hearers concerning his innovative ideas regarding the hoped-for day of redemption. The role of the righteous would not be to exact divine vengeance upon the wicked (cf. 1QS 9.21-24) but to live lives of righteousness (cf. Tob. 2.14; 4.7; Mt. 6.1, 33; Acts 10.35; 2 Cor. 9.9) in the midst of this present wicked age. Acts of mercy and kindness would serve as a catalyst for God's redemptive purposes. Or in the words of Isa. 58.5-8 to which Jesus points his Nazareth hearers: 'Why have we fasted,' they say, 'and you have not seen it? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you have not noticed?' [The Lord responds]... 'Is this the kind of fast I have chosen, only a day for a man to humble himself? Is it only for bowing one's head like a reed and for lying on sackcloth and ashes? Is that what you call a fast, a day acceptable to the Lord! Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter - when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard. Then you will call, and the Lord will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am V (Isa. 58.3, 5-9).

How did the audience react to Jesus' creative reading that day in Nazareth? Most readers assume that the point of provocation was Jesus' sharp comments in Lk. 4.23-27. However, there are clear indications that


57

the audience was already taken aback by the message of Jesus' conflated reading from Isaiah and the message it signalled. Unfortunately, most English translations gloss over these indicators. The translates that the crowd 'spoke well of him'. Yet, the Greek passage describes their response: Ken iravxes euapTupouv auTcp, which should be rendered: 'They all witnessed (against) him.' The objection of the crowd is indicated by the unusual Greek construction of the dative pronoun with the verb uccpTupeTv. The Greek phrase reflects an underlying Hebrew idiom (e.g., Deut. 31.19: 'wnftr ^ 3 3 IBb; cf. Jer. 32.44; Mt. 23.31) Jeremias already recognized the immediate congregational discontent over Jesus' interpretative reading. N

R

S

V

Both verbs are ambiguous: martyrein with the dative can mean either 'give witness for' or 'give witness against,' and thaumazein can mean either 'be enthusiastic about,' or 'be shocked at.' The continuation of the pericope shows that the words must be interpreted in malam partam. In that case, the interpretation of ['concerning the words of grace'] (v. 22) must be: the people of Nazareth are shocked that Jesus quotes the words of grace from Isaiah 61 to preach about, and omits the mention of vengeance, although it occurred in the t e x t . 46

Jeremias' careful reading of the Greek text is doubtless correct in the initial negative reaction of the congregation in Nazareth towards Jesus' reading. Nevertheless, Jeremias overlooked the fact that Jesus' 'gracious' citation of Isa. 61.1-2 has been reinforced by his creative fusion of this passage with its exegetical pair from Isa. 58.5-6. We now understand more clearly the bafflement of the crowd: 'Is this not Joseph's son?' In other words, 'Has he not lived and been taught among us?' Jesus' provocative reading that Sabbath day in Nazareth challenged their rigid narrowness regarding God's redemptive designs. Jesus embraced the pioneering trends in first-century Jewish thought. Those innovations took to task the older ideas of divine justice. Contemporary recognition of universal human frailty brought into question the community's ability to determine in simplistic categories the identity of the just and the unjust. In an earlier study, Flusser noted that according to the new sensitivity within Judaism of the Second Commonwealth, it was recognized that, 'there are no perfect righteous and no completely wicked men - for in every human heart the noble and the base impulse are vying with each other'. The effect of this new thinking bore consequences on the ethics of Jesus. 47

48

46 J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology (London: SCM Press, 1987), pp. 206-7. 47 Mark's parallel clearly represents a 'Christian' hesitation to the Lukan patronymic. V. Taylor, The Gospel According to Mark (London: Macmillan & Co., 1957), pp. 299-300. 48 D. Flusser, 'A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message', Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, pp. 469-89 (480).


58

In his estimation one was in danger judging from a position of assumed self-righteousness. 'Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you' (Mt. 7.1-2). In the same spirit, Jesus' creative reading of Isaiah tempered his hearers' eagerness for harsh and precipitous judgement. The biblical illustrations of the widow of Zarephath (Lk. 4.25-26; 1 Kgs 17.8-16) and Naaman (Lk. 4.27; 2 Kgs 5.1-27) were intended to underscore his challenge to the Nazareth congregation's impatience for divine vengeance upon the unrighteous. Can it be a coincidence that both of these biblical figures were non-Israelites, and thus reckoned outside the covenant God established with his people Israel? Yet, among the vast array of human needs existing in their day, God focused his attention and divine care on these - the unrighteous. Jesus demonstrated that even in the biblical past the simplistic categories of righteous and sinner (or deserving and undeserving) could not withstand the weight of God's mercy. So also in the present era of God's redemptive economy: 'He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust' (Mt. 5.45). Jesus exhorts his family and friends in Nazareth - just as we hear more succinctly later - 'Be merciful even as your father is merciful' (Lk. 6.36). In this study, I have tried to illuminate not only what Jesus said, but how he communicated his provocative ideas through a creative handling of biblical texts. These two aspects of Jesus' teaching are inextricably linked. Through the window of a single New Testament episode, we have gained insight into how Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries employed sacred texts with creative ingenuity to grapple with the complex issues of their day. Yet, we should not be naive. Fresh ideas are rarely welcome. Entrenched biases die hard. Flusser conjectured regarding the emerging humanistic tendencies: '(these new trends) would have drawn much contemporary criticism and even charges of heresy'. His estimation aptly describes the response in Nazareth. The conflict in Nazareth, therefore, was not a 'rejection of Jesus' per se. His was only one voice. Instead, we witness within first-century Jewish society the internal struggle with innovative, even revolutionary ideas being advocated by Israel's sages and Jesus. It is the weakness of human nature to want to hold on to the old, simple categories. Their dissolution 49

50

51

49 This is likewise the opinion of Hillel: 'Do not judge your neighbor until you come into his place' (m.Abot 2.5; cf. b.Shab. 31a). 50 See a similar saying by R. Abbahu: 'Greater is the day of rainfall than the day of resurrection. For the latter benefits only the pious, whereas the former benefits pious and sinners alike' (b.Ta'an. 7a). 51 Flusser, 'A New Sensitivity', p. 482.


59

means that one must now examine more intently one's own desperate need for God's mercy and forgiveness. The spiritual challenges of the first century are both timeless and human - they remain with us. The message from Nazareth is a caution to remain vigilant against ungodly prejudices and the comfortable gravitation to easy categories. At the same time, it extends the promise of heavenly blessing to the willing: 'Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy' (Mt. 5.7).

Chapter 4 T H E

M A G N I F I C A T

A

M

O

N

G

T

H

E

B I B L I C A L

N A R R A T I V E - S E T

P S A L M S

Scot Becker Introduction A conspicuous feature of the infancy narrative of Luke's Gospel is that it contains several passages which follow linguistic conventions normally associated with biblical Hebrew poetry. These Lukan passages have a concentration of what Kugel calls linguistic 'heightening features'. In particular they show a consistent pattern of two-part lines where the latter part completes, or 'seconds' the former. The passages in question tend toward the compactness of Hebrew poetry, and make use of its characteristic syntactical patterns and conventional language. In addition, all are direct speech, set off from the narrating line by the common lexical and syntactic markers of embedded discourse. Both annunciations fall into this category (Lk.l.13-17 and 1.30-33, 35), as does the beginning of Elizabeth's greeting to Mary in 1.42 ('Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!') Such poetic speech can also be found in four expressions of praise, the so-called 'canticles' of Luke's infancy narrative, found on the lips of Mary (1.461

I would like to thank the participants of the 2007 gathering of the International Postgraduate Theological Symposium (Prague) who gave feedback on an earlier draft of this paper, which was then printed as a part of the conference proceedings in Parus Parusev, Ovidiu Creanga and Brian Brock, Ethical Thinking at the Crossroads of European Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third Annual Theological Symposium (Prague: IBTS Publishing, 2007), pp. 131-40. 1 In KugeFs understanding it is 'seconding' which is constitutive of Hebrew biblical poetic heightening, rather than parallelism itself: 'The parallelistic style in the Bible consists not of stringing together clauses that bear some semantic, syntactic or phonetic resemblance, nor yet of "saying the same thing twice," but of the sequence / / / i n which B is both a continuation of A and yet broken from it by a pause, a typically emphatic, "seconding" style in which parallelism plays an important part, but whose essence is not parallelism, but the "seconding sequence."' (James L . Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998], pp. 53-4.) For the purposes of this essay, 'poetic' and 'poetry' are used for spans of discourse with a high concentration of such two-part lines, terse syntax and frequent semantic parallelism.

BECKER

The Magnificat

61

55), Zechariah (1.68-79), the angelic host (2.14), and Simeon (2.29-32). As poetic expressions of praise within an otherwise prose narration, the literary form of these canticles is virtually unique in New Testament literature. 2

Genre and the Canticles The lack of early Christian points of comparison makes it particularly difficult to answer an important interpretative question, raised by the canticles' uniqueness: what sort of generic expectations should we understand these passages against? Are the conventions we associate with the genre of 'Gospel' (however we identify those) sufficient, or do we need to take other, additional generic features into account? Should we treat 'canticle' as an inset genre, (as we might do with 'parable' or 'woe pronouncement') with its own set of literary conventions which both the Lukan author and his historical readers might have been expected to know? The lack of New Testament parallels to the canticles does not leave us at a dead end, however. There are several similar passages within the Jewish Scriptures, a collection in which Luke shows more than a passing literary and theological interest. In fact, Luke's broad appropriation of a 3

4

2 The only significant analogue in the Gospels is the shout of the people at Jesus' entry into Jerusalem (Mt. 21.9; Mk 11.9-10; Lk. 19.38; Jn 12.13), which has discernible poetic sequencing in all four accounts. As an allusion to Ps. 118, the Lukan version does serve as an expression of joy at the 'royal entry' of Jesus, and so is a kind of praise. See Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 686-7. Outside the Gospels, the closest equivalents in the New Testament are the songs of Revelation (4.8b, 11; 5.9-10, 12, 13; etc.). 3 We are working with a concept of genre akin to Fowler's concept of the iocal inclusion' of one genre within another. Alastair Fowler, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), pp. 179-81. A concept of genre which operates on parts of a work is necessary for the Gospels, if for no other reason than the prominence of direct speech, which by its very nature enables the possibility of the 'inclusion' of a genre within another. 4 The following is a partial list of the intertextual activities which can be seen in the Lukan infancy narrative alone: (1) The narrative is explicitly set within the biblical account of God's covenantal attention to Israel. (2) The Lukan narrative imitates biblical stories, particularly the birth stories in the patriarchal narratives and those of Samson and Samuel (see Green, Luke, pp. 52-8). (3) Typology: Jesus will be the Davidic king; John will be a new Elijah. (4) Septuagintal linguistic features (parataxis, other 'Semitisms'), (H. F. D. Sparks, 'The Semitisms of Luke's Gospel', JTS 44 [1943]: 129-38; Bruce Chilton, God in Strength: Jesus' Announcement of the Kingdom [Freistadt, Austria: Plochl, 1979], esp. pp. 123-77. For recent discussion on Luke's use of the Jewish Scriptures, see Dietrich Rusam, Das Alte Testament bei Lukas [BZNW, 112; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003] and Kenneth Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God's People Intertextually [JSNTSup, 282; London: T & T Clark International, 2005]).

62


wide range of biblical linguistic and narrative features - to say nothing of his allusion to specific texts - provides more than enough initial reason for a careful comparison between Luke's parallelistic praise expressions and those found in Jewish scriptural narrative. This study starts from James Watts' proposal that these psalm-like passages in the Jewish Scriptures do indeed constitute an identifiable literary convention with visible narrative roles. In particular, I develop his idea of a rhetorical function for this literary convention, namely that these psalms in narrative contexts encourage a particular kind of participation in readers. I develop the concept of this function with respect to the so-called Song of the Sea (Exod. 15.1-18), before turning to the Lukan infancy narrative, where I suggest the significance of this convention for the reading of Mary's Magnificat. The concluding discussion explores some of the hermeneutical issues raised by the suggestion of the reader's participation in the narrative-set hymns. My argument with respect to the Magnificat will be that the canticle functions in the Lukan discourse in a manner that has important elements in common with Jewish and Christian liturgy. By its inclusion, the author of the Gospel of Luke is making use of a literary convention found in the Jewish Scriptures to present the reader with an opportunity to appropriate the significance of the surrounding narrative, and to actualize it in performative words which are taken up alongside Mary as the reader's own prayer. 5

6

5 The other meaningful points of comparison are of course those Second Temple Jewish works which likewise take up the same convention. These must unfortunately remain outside the scope of the present study: Add. Dan.; Jdt. 16.1-17; Tob. 3.11-15; 8.5-7, 15-17; 11.14-15; 13.1-17, and Pseudo-Philo's versions of the songs of Deborah and Hannah (cf. 1 Mace. 2.713). For related conventions in Greek literature, see James W. Watts, Psalm and Story. Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative (JSOTSup, 139; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), p. 215. Recent treatments of biblical poetry outside the Psalter include: Susan E. Gillingham, Poems and Psalms of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford Bible Series; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), esp. pp. 137-69; Steven Weitzman, Song and Story in Biblical Narrative: The History of a Literary Convention in Ancient Israel (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997); Hans-Peter Mathys, Dichter und Beter: Theologen aus spdtalttestamentischen Zeit (OBO, 132; Freiberg: Universitatsverlag, 1994). 6 James Watts, Psalm and Story; idem, ' "This Song": Conspicuous Poetry in Hebrew Prose', in Johannes de Moot (ed.), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (AOAT, 42; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1993), pp. 345-58 (esp. 353-5; idem, 'Biblical Psalms Outside the Psalter', in Peter W. Flint et al. (eds), Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (VTSup, 99; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 288-309. Watts uses the term 'narrative role' where I use 'rhetorical role', but at this point it is a difference in terminology only. In both cases we are speaking of the text's relationship to the reader.

The Magnificat

BECKER

The Narrative-Set

Hymn as a Literary

63 Device

As we said above, the Magnificat has a number of significant formal parallels in the Jewish Scriptures. In a 1992 study on psalms in narrative contexts in the Hebrew Bible, Watts identified nine passages which he calls 'inset psalms'. 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Exodus 15.1-18 (Song of the Sea) Deuteronomy 32.1-43 (Song of Moses) Judges 5 (Song of Deborah) 1 Samuel 2.1-10 (Song of Hannah) 2 Samuel 22 (David's Thanksgiving) Isaiah 38. 9-20 (Hezekiah's Psalm) Jonah 2.3-10 (Jonah's Psalm) Daniel 2.20-23 (A brief poetic praise offered by Daniel) 1 Chronicles 16.8-36 (Song of Asaph) 8

Watts' list could be modified in various ways, but it is a good starting point for comparison with the Magnificat, since its extent is established by reasonably straightforward formal criteria: (1) each of the nine passages is a poetic composition within an otherwise prose narration, (2) each is direct speech, spoken by one of the story's dramatis personae and (3) each contains an expression of praise. 1 take these psalms in narrative contexts as both models for Luke's use of the canticles and the best heuristic examples for understanding the canticles' narrative role. 9

The Rhetorical Function of Narrative-Set

Psalms

Several of the psalms in biblical narrative contexts (Exod. 15; Deut. 32; Jdg. 5; 1 Sam. 2; 2 Sam. 22; 1 Chron. 16) are found at or near the end of the narrative blocks that contain them. The tensions of the plot are resolved, frequently in a way that reveals God's particular attention toward Israel or its representatives. Watts finds the use of psalms at or 10

11

7 I use 'psalm', 'hymn', 'song' broadly of these passages. My argument does not turn on any precise definition of them. I do, however, prefer to call them 'narrative-set', since (to my ear) it relaxes the association with the putative editorial act of 'insetting' external material. The compositional history of these passages should be decided on an individual basis (as Watts does). 8 See Watts, Psalm and Story, pp. 14-16 for a longer discussion of his criteria for inclusion. 9 'They contain either an imperative invocation to praise God, an indicative statement of praise to God, both, or a promise of praise or worship to God' (Watts, Psalm and Story, p. 15). 10 Watts, 'This Song', p. 353. 11 Watts, Psalm and Story, pp. 186-9.

64


just after climactic moments to be evidence of a particular literary convention (later taken up, for example, in Jdt. 16 and Tob. 13) in which the reader is invited to respond to the glad resolution of the story: 'poetry in this position invites readers to join in the celebration, an effect which is especially strong in the victory songs of Exod 15, Judg 5 and Jdt 16'. It is this proposal that we will explore with respect to Exodus 15 and evaluate for the Magnificat. We will attempt this task from a hermeneutical perspective, which assumes that texts, like other acts of human communication, have social roles. Texts are transactional, and therefore textual discourses are rhetorical, a term which I use to mean 'the means by which a text establishes and manages its relationship to its audience in order to achieve a particular effect'. 12

13

The Song of the Sea As noted above, the Song of the Sea comes after the main tensions of the plot have been resolved, in particular those raised by the description of Israel's oppression in Exod. 1.8-14, and the report of God hearing the cry of the Israelites in their slavery and 'remembering his covenant' in 2.23-25. Together with Miriam's Song (Exod. 15.21), w . 1-18 conclude the account of the Red Sea crossing (Exod. 14.1-15.21). These two songs also conclude both the story of the departure from Egypt (12.37-15.21) and the first major section of the book of Exodus, the account of Israel's slavery in Egypt (1.1-15.21) before the entry into the wilderness (15.22). The prose account of the Red Sea crossing (Exod. 14) moves from a successful escape from Egypt to the realization of certain death at the hands of Pharaoh's army. From there it tells of the crossing of the sea and the destruction of the Egyptian army. It ends with these words: 14

Thus YHWH saved Israel that day from the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore. Israel saw the great work that YHWH did against the Egyptians. So the people feared YHWH and believed in YHWH and in his servant Moses. (14.30-31)

Thus, the reader who has until this point had to proceed through the account by inference and deduction is now granted an authoritative (i.e., narrator-given) assessment of the Red Sea crossing: YHWH saved Israel. 12 Ibid., p. 187. 13 Dale Patrick and Alan Scult, Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990), p. 12. This is basically a pragmatic or functionalist theory of language, as quintessentially expressed in J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (ed. J. O. Urmson and M. Sbisa; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2nd edn, 1975). 14 On the 'Red' vs. 'Reed' Sea in Exodus, see, convincingly, Bernard F. Batto, 'The Reed Sea: Requiescat in Pace', JBL 102 (1983): 27-35.

BECKER

The Magnificat

65

Since this will be the content of the song (15.2), the reader is here given the same insight as the singers have. The first half of the song (15.1-12) retells the story of the watery demise of Egypt's army. The beginning of this account (15.1-2) contains a general (i.e., not situation-specific) expression of praise to YHWH: 'YHWH is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation. This is my God, and I will praise him, my father's God, and I will exalt him' (v. 2). Verses 15.3-10 then narrate Pharaoh's fall, which resolves into a doxological comparison in v. 11 ('Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?') The effect is that the hymn fits plausibly within the narrative of the book of the Exodus, but the general, even liturgical elements which begin and end this first stanza suggest an affinity with Israel's tradition of cultic praise, and thus presumably with the cultic practice of both the editor and reader of Exodus. Beginning in v. 13, the song begins to speak of the conquest of Canaan, which, of course, in the scheme of pentateuchal chronology is still to come. The song's speakers have yet to experience YHWH leading them past the nations (Philistines, Edomites, Moabites and Canaanites, 15.1416) to 'the mountain of your possession, the place, YHWH, that you made your dwelling, the sanctuary, YHWH, that your hands have established' (15.17-18). According to Watts: 15

16

The psalm moves from the temporal perspective of the narrative, in which the land's settlement lies in the future, to that of the readers, for whom it is in the past. The effect of the move is to allow the readers to join in the celebration of the sea from their own temporal perspective. 17

Thus the narrative summary in 14.30-31, the traditional liturgical quality of some of the expressions of praise, and the temporal perspective of the hymn all serve to give the hymn a certain proximity to the ideal (ancient Israelite) reader's own frame of reference. Characterization Another clue to the rhetorical effect of Exodus 15 is what the hymn adds to the characterization of its speakers within the narrative. At the beginning of Exodus, the seventy (Gen. 46.27) who came down to live with Joseph in Egypt have become the bene yisrael, the 'children of Israel' (Exod. 1.7), a collective narrative figure with an initially sympathetic narrative portrayal. They are heirs to the promises of Genesis and have an implied claim on the royal protection given to Joseph. They prosper in their adopted country, even under 'a new king . . . who did not know 15 Cf. Pss. 22.22; 35.18; 43.4; 69.30; 71.16; 109.30; 119.7; 146.2; Isa. 25.1. 16 Cf. Pss. 35.10; 71.19; 113.5. 17 Watts, Psalm and Story, p. 51.

66


Joseph' (Exod. 1.8). The Israelites' fear of God is represented in the presence of Pharaoh by two midwives who defy the royal decree and refuse to kill the male Hebrew infants. As a nation, they cry out to God in their oppression (2.23), which from the perspective of the story is an appropriate response to their plight. However there is a shift in the book's portrayal of them. As Exodus progresses, Israel is increasingly cast more negatively: as stubborn, afraid, idolatrous, doubtful (14.9-12) and most recently, bitter ('Weren't there enough graves in Egypt for us?!' 14.11). But their hymn shows that whatever else may be true of them - they are capable of spontaneous, grateful praise. The characterization of Israel in Exodus has a particular rhetorical significance for the book. This is because the book of Exodus (as arguably much of Jewish scriptural narrative) projects some concept of Israel as its ideal reader. Certainly those who understand themselves in continuity with the Israel of Exodus have been its readers in fact. The narrator of the book of Exodus is both depicting the bene yisrael of the exodus as part of the story and apparently composing a work to be heard by those who understand themselves to be the heirs of that description. This makes it possible for Exodus's actual readers to engage with the narrative as the delivered ones. Indeed it would require a deliberate act of distancing for them to do otherwise. The case that identification with the Israelites of the exodus is part of the rhetorical effect of the book of Exodus is strengthened by two additional pieces of evidence, to which we now turn: (1) the significant place that the exodus event occupies within the Jewish scriptural texts and (2) the reception of the exodus in later Jewish practice. 18

19

The Exodus Tradition in the Hebrew Bible The events of the exodus have a particular prominence in the worldview of ancient Israel and therefore in its national rhetoric. If the Song of the Sea (as is commonly supposed) is in fact among the earliest compositions of the Hebrew Bible, then the narrative and liturgical memory of the delivery from Egypt appears in a range of texts whose chronological span easily

18 The narrator's approval of their cry is indicated by the fact that God 'looked upon the Israelites and took notice of them' (2:25). As with biblical narrators generally, the narrator of Exodus adopts a perspective on events, that is indistinguishable from God's own. On omniscient narrators, see Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), p. 84. 19 Watts, Psalm and Story, pp. 51-2.

BECKER

The Magnificat

67

rivals any other biblical event. The events from Moses' first audience with Pharaoh to the crossing of the Red Sea - often seen as a single divine act - are cited and celebrated in a variety of biblical literature as YHWH's prototypical victory on Israel's behalf. The following review of a few of those biblical citations of the event is made with the intent of showing how readily the exodus event is used liturgically and rhetorically. The book of Exodus itself places the memory of the deliverance from Egypt in prominent narrative positions. A celebrative recounting of the exodus is anticipated even before the actual escape itself. YHWH tells Moses that he has hardened the hearts of Pharaoh and his officials 'in order to set these my signs within him, and so that you may recount to the ears of your son and your son's son how I made a mockery of Egypt and the signs which I set among them - so that you may know that I am YHWH' (Exod. 10.1-2). Later, the institution of the Passover also includes a retelling of the events. ('You shall tell your son on that day, "It is because of what YHWH did for me when I came out of Egypt."' Exod. 13.8). In this way, the Israelites (and so the implied Israelite readers) are given an account of the significance of the exodus for generations yet to come. This calls to mind the rhetorical stance of Deuteronomy, which identifies the Israel of its own narrative with that of Sinai/Horeb: 'YHWH our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Not with our ancestors did YHWH make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today' (Deut. 5.2-3). Both Exodus's explicit attention to coming gener ations and Deuteronomy's insistence on the contemporaneity of the covenant are devices which serve to identify the pentateuchal narrators' implied audience with the Israel of their narratives. 21

The Rhetoric of Exodus in the Psalter Several psalms also recount the Red Sea events as raw material for praise. Psalm 77, a psalm of individual distress, ends with the following account of YHWH's deeds, in which he is given glory for the crossing of the Red Sea: 15

16

With your strong arm you redeemed your people, the descendants of Jacob and Joseph. (Selah) When the waters saw you, O God, when the waters saw you, they were afraid; the very deep trembled...

20 For the arguments for an early date, see Frank Cross, Jr., 'Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth', JTC 5 (1968): 1-25. 21 William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18: A New Translation and Commentary (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1999), p. 803.


68

Your way was through the sea, your path, through the mighty waters; yet your footprints were unseen. You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron, (NRSV)

Psalm 136 also lists the exodus and Red Sea crossing in its list of praises, giving thanks to YHWH: 1 3

1 4

1 5

Who divided the Red Sea in two, for his steadfast love endures forever; and made Israel pass through the midst of it, for his steadfast love endures forever; but overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea, for his steadfast love endures forever, (NRSV) 22

The compression of the Red Sea event and the entry into the promised land as a single divine movement is expressed in Psalm 114: 1

3

4

5

When Israel went out from Egypt The house of Jacob from a people of strange language... The sea saw and fled; The Jordan turned backward. The mountains skipped like rams, The hills like lambs. Why is it, O sea, that you flee, Jordan, that you turn back? (NRSV)

The celebration of the exodus continues in late biblical literature. In Nehemiah, we find the following in Ezra's prayer of national confession: 'And you saw the distress of our ancestors in Egypt and heard their cry at the Red Sea. You set signs and wonders upon Pharaoh and his officials and upon all the people of his land . . . and made yourself a name' (Neh. 9.9-10). The Postbiblical Reception of the Exodus Event An example of this kind of direct self-identification with the Israelites of the Torah - in this case exactly with the exodus and the crossing - can be found in the Qumran document 4Q504, the so-called Words of the Luminaries. It is a communal prayer, which identifies those praying with (as?) the ones whom God delivered: [..Rejmember, please, that all of us are your people. You have lifted us wonderfully [upon the wings of] eagles and you have brought us to you. And like the eagle which watches its nest, circles [over its chicks,] stretches its wings, takes one and carries it upon [its pinions] [...] 22

Also see Pss. 66.6, 78.13, 135.8.

BECKER

The Magnificat

69

[...] we remain aloof and one does not count us among the nations. And [...] Y o u are in our midst, in the column of fire and in the cloud [...] your [hol]y [...] walks in front of us, and your glory is in [our] midst [...] the face of Moses, [your] serv[ant .. . ] 2 3

The passage alludes to YHWH's words to Israel in Exod. 19.3-6 ('You have seen what I did to the Egyptians and how I bore you up on eagle's wings', cf. Deut. 32.11), as well as to the column of fire and cloud in Exod. 13.21-22, and to the 'face of Moses' (Exod. 34.34-35). Those for whom the prayer was written pray as the Israel of the exodus, thanking YHWH for his continued covenanted protection of them. Even apart from its specific engagement with the exodus itself, this Qumran text is witness to two processes that are relevant to our reading of Exodus 15. First, it presents a Jewish community who identifies itself with the Israelites of the Torah ('you have lifted us wonderfully on the wings of eagles . . . You are in our midst, in the column of fire and in the cloud'). Second, it uses the biblical events as the basis of its own thanksgiving. The deliverance of the exodus is superimposed onto themselves. Like the authors of Psalms 77, 114 and 136, those who prayed the Words of the Luminaries see their own experience according to the pattern of the exodus deliverance. In addition to the liturgical afterlives in which the exodus features, the Song of the Sea is also generally thought to have had a liturgical role prior to its inclusion in its present narrative context, presumably originating in the Israelite cult. For our purposes the hypothesis that the hymn had an independent cultic existence fits nicely with the proposal that it 'works' as liturgical prayer, even for those readers and hearers who are generations or centuries away from the events it celebrates. The rhetorical thrust of Exodus, the liturgical and doxological use made of the exodus theme elsewhere in the. Scriptures, and the post-biblical reception of the event all support the suggestion that the song in Exodus 15 could function as a site of special existential involvement for the reader. 24

25

23 As translated in Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 2:1009. Aside from the content prayers and doxologies whose first-person references are consistently plural - the preserved marginalia and headings reveal this as an apparently liturgical text. See Esther Chazon, '4QDibHam: Liturgy or Literature?' RevQ 15 (1991): 447-55. 24 Propp, Exodus 1-18, pp. 562-3. 25 See B. S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical Theological Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), p. 246. The reference in 15.17 to the 'sanctuary pTJjpD] established by your hands' located 'on the mountain of your possession' is frequently taken as a reference to the Jerusalem temple (J. D. W. Watts, 'The Song of the Sea - Ex. X V VT1 [1957]: 379-80; J. Muilenburg, 'A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh', in W. C. van Unnik and A. S. van der Woude (eds), Studia Biblica et Semitica (Festschrift T. C. Wriezen; Wageningen: H. Veenman, 1966), pp. 233-51 (249).

70


We will now see if there are indications of similar rhetorical dynamics in the Lukan infancy narrative. The

Magnificat

The beginning of the Gospel of Luke unfolds not so much as a biography of Jesus, but as a narrative of God's activity within Israel. Mary's hymn is uttered in the midst of this unfolding divine activity, responding both implicitly and explicitly to the divine message delivered in the three preceding scenes: the annunciation to Zechariah, the annunciation to Mary herself and Mary's visit to Elizabeth. Each of these scenes adds to the reader's growing sense of the significance of the events of Luke's story. In the two opening scenes, Zechariah and Mary each receive an angelic announcement regarding the birth of a child. According to the angel, Zechariah's son John will be 'filled with the Holy Spirit from birth', and will 'turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God'. He will 'go before him' (cf. Mai. 3.1) and 'turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous' (cf. Mai. 3.24). The angel's words proclaim that Israel's God will arrive, and that John will precede that arrival with his own work, which the angel describes as 'making ready for the Lord a people prepared' (1.17). According to the angel's announcement, Zechariah's son will be a prophet in the tradition of those in the Jewish Scriptures. The announcement to Mary is shorter, but its assertions about what is now underway go even further. God will give her son 'the throne of his ancestor David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end' (1.32-33). Like the announcement to John, this is an overwhelmingly eschatological announcement: Israel's God is acting within history to deliver the nation. When Elizabeth and Mary meet (1.39-56), Elizabeth's welcome serves to express her wonder at the new activity of God: 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb... Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of that which was spoken to her by the Lord' (1.42, 45). It is in response to this greeting that the Magnificat is spoken. The context is the announcement of an eschatological work of God, wherein a new prophet will precipitate a 26

27

28

26 Green, Luke, pp. 52, 292. 27 Green, Luke, pp. 59, 78. 28 Against the suggestion that Elizabeth should be understood as the speaker of the Magnificat see S. Farris, The Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning and Significance (JSNTSup, 9; Sheffield; JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 108-13, and U. MittmannRichert, Magnifikat und Benediktus: Die dltesten Zeugnisse der judenchristlichen Tradition von der Geburt des Messias (WUNT, 2/90; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), pp. 55, 95-6.

BECKER

The Magnificat

71

national repentance ('many in Israel will turn') and God will re-establish his covenantal rule over Israel through a new Davidic king. According to Mittmann-Richert, Mary's act of speaking this psalm represents her recognition of salvation (Heilserkenntniss). In a Gospel where the recognition of Jesus and the salvation which arrives through him is an important motif, it would be odd indeed, she contends, if we did not also find such recognition just here, where God's deliverance is first revealed to be underway. 'Luke could not put the Magnificat at any other place than exactly here, where the mother of the yet unborn messianic child recognizes her son as her own and the world's redeemer and steps into the new eon in conscious recognition of this redemptive deed'. In this way, the song functions much like the Song of the Sea, which also serves as an expression of Heilserkenntniss. Both songs are essentially responses to the saving activity of Israel's God. In fact, like the Song of the Sea, the Magnificat celebrates YHWH as a warrior (Exod. 15.3). In Exodus, Israel's God fights on behalf of those who 'groaned under their slavery and cried out' (Exod. 2.23). In Luke, he defeats the powerful and proud on behalf of the iowly' (1.52), the 'hungry' (1.53) and the nation itself (1.54). In both cases, God 'overthrows' the powerful (mn.Exod. 15.7; Ka9ccip£co: Lk. 1.52) with the strength of his arm (Exod. 15.16, Lk. 1.51). This idea of God protecting Israel by defeating its enemies is taken up even more explicitly in Zechariah's Benedictus (Lk. 1.68-79). The Magnificat has a conspicuous structural similarity to many of the canonical psalms. It begins with an opening declaration of praise and follows that with the grounds for this praise: 'My soul magnifies the Lord . . . for he has looked with favor' (1.46-47). This is the quintessential formula of Israelite praise, found in nearly all of the hymns and thanksgiving songs in the Psalter. It is not hard to see how Mary's hymn would have a particularly liturgical resonance for those whose communal prayers included these psalms. Strictly speaking, its narrative context makes Mary's song hers alone. She thanks God that he has looked with favour on his servant ( T % SouArjs OCUTOU:1.48) and for what he has done for her (1.49). Wherever the 2 9

30

31

29 Mittmann-Richert argues that the recognition motif in Luke is considerably more important than in Matthew or Mark, see Magnifikat und Benediktus, pp. 39-40, 233. 30 Mittman-Richert, Magnifikat und Benediktus, p. 233. 31 'While a hymn of praise can be elaborated in various ways, its basic structure is clear and consistent. There is either a declaration of praise or a call to praise God (or both) and a reason that is set forth to indicate why praise is appropriate and indeed compelling and unavoidable' (Patrick D. Miller, Interpreting the Psalms [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986], p. 69). On the basis of this similarity, the Magnificat has been classified form-critically as an 'eschatological hymn' (Gunkel, Mowinckel) and a 'declarative psalm of praise' (Westermann). See discussion in Farris, Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narratives, pp. 67-85.

72


psalm may have come from (and the non-Lukan theories are nearly all liturgical), it cannot be a completely open-ended liturgical prayer as it now stands. 32

The Possibilities for

Participation

It would not be quite right to stop there, however. Quite apart from the Christian liturgical tradition of praying the Lukan canticles, Jewish and Christian use of the Psalter is evidence that 'pinning' a psalm to a particular historical voice in particular circumstances does not prohibit its liturgical use. The historical superscriptions of the Psalter (which are generally taken to be secondary to the psalms themselves), and even the simple attributions ('of David', 'of Asaph') bear witness to this. In fact if the superscriptions were added to psalms in a collection, which was already in communal use, they may be evidence of the opposite tendency: a desire (on the part of the Psalms' redactor) for the community to take up prayers which are associated with the heroes of the faith. The very existence of the collection of biblical psalms, along with what we know about their use over some 3,000 years bears witness to the flexibility of the voice of the psalms and the ability of that voice to be appropriated. The same might be said of these canticles. Within the context of Luke, 'he has done great things for me' is a specifically Marian prayer. She (and not any Lukan reader) will become the mother of the Davidic royal Messiah. Anyone who would subsequently pray those words themselves has to take them up alongside Mary, but this is no more challenging than a healthy person praying the biblical complaints of the sick, or a Jew in exile asking blessing on the Davidic king, or a synagogue community of the diaspora praying a psalm of the exile. One consequence of the fact that the narrative-set hymns are invariably direct speech is that their words are particularly easy to reuse in communal or individual prayer. The canticles come pre-formed, so that as far as morphology and syntax are concerned, they 'fit' in the mouth of anyone who sees fit to revoice them. The same is true only in a much more limited sense of narrative discourse itself. It can be reused without syntactic changes only as narrative discourse, and therefore only in a limited range of real-world settings. Direct speech, on the other hand, can 33

34

32 For a survey of the proposed options, see Mittmann-Richert, Magnifikat und Benediktus, pp. 63-100. 33 Note that both the Song of the Sea and the Magnificat are included in the Book of Odes, a collection of psalms from narrative contexts which began to be appended to the LXX Psalter in the fifth century CE. 34 See Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1-59: A Continental Commentary (trans. Milton C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), pp. 22-3.

BECKER

The Magnificat

73

be repurposed in any context which the new speaker takes as corres ponding to the old one, any context, in fact, where the words can be made to 'fit'. It is the communal role of the texts containing these narrative-set hymns, which makes the concept of 'repurposing' relevant to our present discussion. It is not unreasonable to suppose, in the case of the Pentateuch - and for that matter of Luke within early Christianity - that these books had a scriptural, or proto-canonical, status among the communities who kept and read them. In such contexts where the words of the text are respected, and within communities which understand themselves to be in historical and therefore covenantal continuity with the people in the story, it is not at all odd that such communal readers might be inclined to let the words spoken in their stories echo in their own circumstances, particularly when they understand the relevant feature of their circumstances to be the same, namely an ancestral covenant between themselves and Israel's God. Within a tradition like that of the earliest Church to which Luke and his readers belonged, a tradition which maintained contact with biblical liturgical prayers, Mary's words too are prayable words. As we have said, the Magnificat is Mary's prayer, but the tradition Luke has appropriated ensures that the Magnificat can also be voiced as the prayer of another, namely any reader who stands in the line of descent which begins with Mary and Elizabeth, the first of many to believe the announcement from heaven regarding the Davidic Messiah in Mary's womb. 35

Conclusion I have argued with respect to Exodus 15, that for readers who understand themselves in continuity with the Israel of the story, the psalm works as a way for them to liturgically appropriate the event of deliverance described in the preceding narrative. To that I now add a similar conclusion for Mary's song: whatever else the Magnificat does in the Gospel of Luke, it has a specific function for readers who understand themselves in continuity with those in Luke's birth story. For readers who follow Mary in her reception of the angelic words about her son, her song presents them with first-person words of prayer by which they too can welcome the annunciation of the angel, and with it the rest of the good news according to Luke.

35

Lk. 24.44; cf. Acts 16.25.

Chapter 5 A N ECHO OF MERCY A REREADING OF THE PARABLE OF THE G O O D SAMARITAN

Nathan Lane The parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10.25-37) stands among the most often-remembered stories from Jesus' teaching. The message of exploding social classes and religious associations for ancient and contemporary times is far-reaching. This article will argue, however, that one of the main characters of the story has been largely neglected. Readers have traditionally understood the lawyer as simply either a foil for Jesus or as a character that has been portrayed wholly negatively. This article will argue that the lawyer is actually a dynamic character who eventually understands the parable of Jesus. Luke marks the lawyer's understanding by placing an Old Testament quotation in his mouth. This article will first set up some parameters for determining an echo/quotation, and then use those parameters to measure the lawyer's response to Jesus' parable. Defining an Echo I Quotation Finding a quotation or an echo of the OT in the NT are two radically different things. Quotations can either be direct or indirect. Direct quotations are marked by some type of introductory formula, such as Tt is written' (e.g., Mt. 4.4; Lk. 19.46; Mk 14.27; Jn 6.45). These direct quotations are the most easily found because of the volume of the quotation and the quotation marker. Indirect quotations are not marked 1

1 For a fuller discussion of the markers of direct quotations see Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), p. 3; and Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS, 69; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 65-6. See also Charles A. Kimball, Jesus' Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke's Gospel (JSNTSup, 94; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), who analyses all of the explicit quotations of Scripture by Jesus in Luke.

LANE

An Echo of Mercy

75

by introductory formulae, but are still readily noticed by the volume of the quotation (e.g., Gal. 3.6; 1 Cor. 15.32). The most elusive type of quotation is the theological echo. These quotations are the most difficult to define. When an echo is used, the NT writers were not seeking to literally quote a text, but to capture the theological ideas imagined in the original text. Richard B. Hays notes that these echoes permeate the NT because the NT writers (and especially Paul) were caught up in the symbolic field generated by the OT. Hays rightly understands that the Scriptures of Israel dominated the early Christian community. Not only did they find the meaning of who Jesus was in these ancient texts, they also found a language suitable to sustain the community. This was a community immersed in their texts. Thus all of the texts generated by the community reflect, to differing degrees, intertextuality with the OT. Hays's Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul sets up some tentative rules for finding allusions to the OT in the N T . The first rule that Hays proposes is availability. Availability asks quite simply if the quoted material was available to the writer. The second rule takes into account volume. 'The volume of an echo is determined primarily by the degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns, but other factors may be relevant: how distinctive or prominent is the precursor text within Scripture'. Third, recurrence takes into account how often a writer cites or alludes to a text. If there are other places where a writer definitely quotes a text then that strengthens the case that an echo is present in the questionable passage. Thematic coherence is the fourth rule proposed by Hays. This rule analyses how an allusion would fit in the context of a 2

3

4

5

2 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 15. 3 For a literary-theoretical analysis of the dialogic relationship between texts and communities see Michael Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (ed. Michael Holquist; trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist; University of Texas Slavic Series 1; Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981). Julia Kristeva, influenced by Bakhtin, has worked upon the ideas of intertextuality and concludes that all texts are in dialogue with other texts. She famously asserts that 'any text is the absorption and transformation of another' (Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art [ed. L. S. Roudiez; trans. T. Gora, A. Jardine and L. S. Roudiez; New York: Columbia University, 1980], p. 66). Kristeva's ideas of intertextuality differ from those of Hays. Hays seems to limit his idea of what constitutes a 'text' to written traditions, while Kristeva asserts that any number of cultural, social, ideological, etc. ideas function as 'texts'. 4 Hays, Echoes, pp. 29-33. For entry into the scholarly dialogue surrounding Hays's work see Kenneth D. Litwak, 'Echoes of Scripture? A Critical Survey of Recent Works on Paul's Use of the Old Testament', CRBS 6 (1998): 260-88 and Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 83; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). 5 Hays, Echoes, p. 30.

76


passage. Simply, does it fit with the rest of what we know about the author's theology? Fifth, the rule of historical plausibility guards against those who want to read their agendas into the author of the text. For example, Paul read as a first-century Jew, not a Lutheran or deconstructionist. Sixth, history of interpretation looks for others who have read the passage as an echo. This rule is the least binding of the seven; the fact that others have not heard the echo does not mean that it does not exist. Lastly, satisfaction asks whether or not the proposed intertextual reading makes sense to a community of competent readers. 6

The Parable of the Good

Samaritan

The second part of this paper will argue that Lk. 10.37 is an allusion to Exod. 34.6-7. The argument will follow Hays's seven rules for identifying an echo in Paul (availability, recurrence, volume, thematic coherence, historical plausibility, history of interpretation, satisfaction) applying them to an echo in the Gospel of Luke. The allusion has been missed by interpreters. This study will show that hearing the echo will change the meaning of the parable and the narrative surrounding it. 7

Availability The criterion of availability holds that Luke must have had the text of Exod. 34.6-7 available to him and that the audience of Luke must have been familiar enough with the text to hear it. The fact that Luke uses Scripture is widely held in scholarship. Some authors have even proposed that Luke was writing to God-fearing gentiles. John Nolland bases his commentary on the assumption that Luke's audience was God-fearers. These God-fearers would have been familiar with the synagogue, liturgy and traditions of the Jewish people. Joseph B. Tyson not only agrees with Nolland that the implied reader is a God-fearer, but he gives seven further characteristics of the implied reader. Two of these characteristics are important for our study. First, 'The implied reader has a limited 8

9

10

6 It is important to note that these are not hard and fast rules; every echo does not have to match each of these seven criteria. Instead they are given to help readers become attentive to echoes and intertextual allusions. 7 The rule of history of interpretation will not be discussed because as stated earlier interpreters of this passage have traditionally missed the echo. 8 Charles Kingsley Barret, 'Luke/Acts', in D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 205-19. 9 John Nolland, Luke 1-9.20 (WBC, 35A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), p. xxxii. 10 Joseph B. Tyson, Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1992), pp. 35-9.

LANE

An Echo of Mercy

11

knowledge of both pagan and Jewish religions, an aversion to some pagan practices, and an attraction to Jewish religious life'. Second, 'the implied reader is familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures in their Greek translation and acknowledges their authoritative status but is not familiar with those methods of interpretation that find their fulfillment of the scriptures in Jesus'. Thus, the implied reader is familiar with the LXX and familiar with Jewish religious practices. One of the central texts of the OT is Exod. 34.6-7. Literarily, the text comes in a very tumultuous time for the ancient Israelites. Shortly after the giving of the covenant in Exodus 20, the people apostatize and worship the golden calf (Exod. 32). Exodus 33-34 records an intense dialogue between Moses and YHWH concerning the future of the covenant people. YHWH eventually concedes to have mercy on the people and renew the covenant. Moses requests to see YHWH's glory, but is only granted a glimpse at God's back. The Lord hides Moses in a rock. As YHWH passes by Moses, YHWH proclaims: 11

12

The Lord is God, compassionate and merciful, longsuffering and full of mercy and truth. He keeps righteousness and gives mercy to the thousandth generation, taking away iniquity, unrighteousness and sin. But he does not make clean the guilty, bringing the sins of the fathers to the children and the children's children even to the third and fourth generation.

The significance of this passage comes as YHWH gives Moses divine attributes related to God's dealings with his people. These attributes become important for future OT writers in their discussion of YHWH's covenant faithfulness. The passage is quoted so much that some have called it the 'adjectival credo' of the ancient Israelites. In addition to the importance of its content, the numerous repetitions of the credo in the Old Testament also bear witness to its significant place in ancient Israelite religion. Parallels of Exod. 34.6-7 are seen in each of the three major sections of the OT. In the Torah, major parallels occur in Exod. 20.4; Num. 14.18-19 and Deut. 5.9-10. In the Prophets, there are parallels in Jer. 39.18; Jon. 4.2; Joel 2.13 and Nah. 1.2, 3. The Writings 13

14

11 Tyson, Images, p. 36. 12 Tyson, Images, p. 36. 13 Thomas Raitt has seen over twenty parallels to Exod. 34.6-7 in the OT: Thomas Raitt, 'Why Does God Forgive?' HBT 13 (1991): 38-45. 14 Walter Brueggemann, Old Testament Theology: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), p. 215. See also G. E. Wright, God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital (London: SCM Press, 1952) who notes: 'The nearest the Bible comes to an abstract presentation of the nature of God by means of his "attributes" is an old liturgical confession embedded in Exod. 34.6-7... This confession is one of the very few in the Bible which is not a recital of events' (p. 85).

78

Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality 2 15

contain parallels in Pss. 85.5, 15; 102.8; 144.8; and Neh. 9.17. This abundance of parallels shows how important and central the imagery and attributes of Exod. 34.6, 7 were to the faith of the ancient Israelites. Anyone who had some familiarity with the Scriptures of this people would have had a strong possibility of being familiar with this passage or its parallels. Theologically, the passage can be divided into two theologically distinctive poles. The first pole revolves around attributes that stress YHWH's compassion and covenant fidelity. YHWH is so full of compassion for the people that he forgives their transgression. The second pole stands in stark contrast as it holds that YHWH punishes the wicked and their children down to the fourth generation. The rehearsals of the passage normally emphasize the forgiveness pole by repeating it first and rehearsing more of the compassionate attributes. The writers of the OT would redact the parallel to fit their context. Eventually, the 'compassion' of YHWH on the covenant people (in Hebrew, lDfl; in Greek, TTOXUEXEOS or E'XEOS) came to be the signature attribute of the pole emphasizing YHWH's forgiveness. In the LXX, YHWH's eAeos is the only attribute emphasized more than once and it is repeated three times. Eventually, E'XEOS came to signify the whole of the forgiveness pole. The rehearsals of the credo in Exod. 20.5, 6 and Deut. 5.9, 10 only have 'showing mercy to the thousandth generation'. The other attributes of the forgiveness pole have been removed. It seems therefore, that for later OT writers EXEOS or TTOXUEXEOS became a metonymy that represented the fullness of YHWH's compassion/mercy as represented in the attributes of the forgiveness pole. Jeremiah 32.18, also an echo of the credo, is also marked by the use of the metonymy. In this passage, the prophet uses Exod. 34.6-7 to express his thanks to God for promises of deliverance. Psalm 85 begins with a partial reference to the forgiveness pole in 85.5 using only eXeos, but in 85.15 a fuller rehearsal of the forgiveness pole is given. Thus, after searching to answer the question of availability, the following has been shown. First, Luke and his hearers were very familiar with the OT and the customs of Judaism. Second, the attributes of God given in Exod. 34.6-7 are one of the most quoted passages of the OT. Third, the EXEOS of God becomes the catchword that signifies the whole of the forgiveness pole of Exod. 34.6-7 and is normally invoked to signify YHWH's covenant relationship with Israel. 16

17

15 Psalms are numbered according to the LXX. 16 For a thorough analysis of each parallel of the credo and its theological and literary context, see Nathan Lane, 'Exodus 34.6-7: A Canonical Analysis' (PhD. diss.: Baylor University, 2007). 17 The Heb. 10U 11 ('great mercy') becomes the compound word TTOAUEAEOS in the LXX.

LANE

79

An Echo of Mercy

Recurrence This section of the paper will look for other places than the parable of the Good Samaritan where Luke alludes to Exod. 34.6-7. The word EXEOS occurs six times in Luke. Five of those times come in the first chapter (1.50, 54, 58, 72, 78). The only other occurrence comes in 10.37 in the lawyer's answer to Jesus' question after the parable. All six of the occurrences are echoes of Exod. 34.6-7. They will be examined in the order of their appearance. Of the five first occurrences, Lk. 1.50 is the most obvious parallel to Exod. 34.6-7. Mary's Magnificat (1.46-55) comes as she is realizing that she is carrying the Messiah. In 1.50 she exclaims, 'His EXEOS is from generation to generation to those fearing him'. All three elements of 1.50 can be found in Exod. 34.6-7. First, TO EXEOS OCUTOU ('his mercy') refers to the "IDPl of YHWH that is central to the credo. The of YHWH is also central to Mary's song. It is the core attribute of God that governs her praise. Mary can glorify the Lord because of the mercy given to her (1.46-49) and because of the mercy given to the previous generations (1.50-55). Second, EIS YEVECCS KOU YEVECXS is given as a temporal limit of YHWH's mercy. The credo reflects this temporal limit with the affirm ation of the thousand generations that YHWH will forgive or punish the third or fourth generation of the sinful. For this attribute, the ancient Israelites held that God's mercy would be available to innumerable generations ('thousands'), but wrath was limited, extending to only three or four. Mary's praise is that God's mercy spills over from each generation to the next. Third, TOIS (|>O{$OUU£VOIS OCUTOV ('to those fearing him') is also part of the tradition of the credo of Exod. 34.6-7. 'The ones fearing him' appears with a version of the credo in Exod. 20.6, Deut. 5.10 and Ps. 102.17. This addition adds the human part of the divine-human element. Significant trajectories in the tradition of the credo show that YHWH's mercy is not given without reservation, but only to the faithful. All three of the parts of this portion of Mary's praise can be found in a parallel to the credo in Ps. 102.17. In fact, Joseph Fitzmyer holds that this section of Mary's song comes from Ps. 102.17. Not as specific as Fitzmyer, Stephen Farris notes that EXEOS is directly tied to YHWH's IDPl, stating 'God's "mercy" is his covenant love for his people' and links it to the tradition of Exod. 34.6-7. Darrell Bock also sees a connection with the theological balance of the credo between unmerited mercy and legalistic works. 18

19

20

18 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (AB, 28; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), p. 368. 19 Stephen Farris, The Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning, and Significance (JSNTSup, 9. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), p. 120. 20 Darrell L. Bock, Luke (ed. Grant R. Osborne; Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994), p. 47.


80

The second echo of the credo comes in Lk. 1.54 which states: 'He has helped his servant Israel, remembering his mercy'. While IAEOS is the only parallel phrase from the tradition of the credo, the themes of the verse show it to be an echo. The verse recalls YHWH's nDPI to Israel. Fitzmyer states: 'In the Lukan context [the uses of E'AEOS] are to be understood of Yahweh's intervention in Jesus' conception on behalf of his people Israel. The Davidic heir to be born is yet another instance of Yahweh coming to the aid of his people.' This verse emphasizes the covenantal relationship between YHWH and ancient Israel in which the credo played a significant role. The third echo (Lk. 1.58) comes in the narrative immediately following the Magnificat and is a narration of the E'AEOS mentioned in 1.54. It is also connected to 1.49-50 with a chiastic wordplay of Mary's original praise. Previously, Mary praised God's magnificent deeds (MsydAa) and his mercy (TO EAEOS CXUTOU), now the narrative states that 'the Lord has magnified (eneydAuvEv) his mercy to her' (TO EAEOS OUTOU). The last two occurrences of E'AEOS in Luke 1 come in the prophecy of Zechariah after the naming of John the Baptist. Luke 1.72 is a clear reference to Exod. 34.6-7. Zechariah proclaims: 'He has shown the mercy promised to our ancestors and remembered his holy covenant'. Zechariah roots the goodness of the Messiah's coming with YHWH's past faithfulness and mercy displayed during the Exodus. Out of this exodus context, his prophecy echoes the credo of the exodus tradition. Two aspects of this verse connect it to the original. First, the allusion to the 'fathers' (iraTEpcov) occurs in the credo. In the original, however, the 'fathers' refer to those who have sinned. Farris sees a difficulty because he wonders if Zechariah is limiting the mercy of YHWH only to the fathers. Farris misunderstands the emphasis of Zechariah's prophecy. Zechariah is thanking YHWH for showing mercy to those in the past. Second, the connection of this mercy with YHWH's remembrance of his holy covenant shows that it is a reference to God's covenantal HDll. A second echo comes as Zechariah references YHWH's 'tender' (oTrAayxva) mercy in forgiving the covenant people. The use of orrAdyxvcc with EAEOS never occurs in the LXX, but occurs in the extant Qumran literature twice. There it refers to the 'compassion' and 'mercy' of YHWH f l D n i Dm), two of the components of the original credo. Thus far it has been shown that each reference to EAEOS in Luke 1 is 21

22

23

24

25

26

21 Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, p. 368. 22 Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 107. 23 Green, Luke, pp. 116-17. 24 Farris, Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narrative, p. 137. 25 Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, p. 384. 26 Ibid., p. 386. (1QS2.1; 4QS1 39 1.23).

LANE

An Echo of Mercy

81

directly or indirectly related to the credo of Exod. 34.6-7. Three out of the five are very direct echoes. Luke 1.50 has three firm parallels with the original. Luke 1.72 shows connections with 'the fathers' and a reference to the covenant. Luke 1.78 shows continuities with Qumran literature that is parallel with the credo. The other two references (Lk. 1.54, 5 8 ) are indirectly related because they refer back to 1.50. Another important discovery is that all of the uses of EXEOS in Luke 1 are acts of God's mercy towards humanity. It is never used to describe one person's act of kindness toward another. 27

Volume Two factors govern the question of volume. First, a sheer word count is emphasized. How much of a proposed text is assumed to be an echo? How much of the original text is echoed? Second, the prominence of the text is considered. Are the echoed words important words in the passage? The first part is easily answered. The echo only contains one word and does not provide a significant amount of this aspect of volume. The placement of the echo, however, comes at a crucial point of the story and provides a significant amount of 'volume'. The parable (Lk. 10.25-37) begins with a lawyer coming to test Jesus by asking: 'What must I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus asks: 'How do you read the Law?' The lawyer answers correctly that a summary of the law is 'love God' and iove neighbour'. Jesus tells him that he has answered correctly and commands: 'Do this and live.' The dialogue continues as the lawyer again tries to trick Jesus by asking: 'Who is my neighbour?' Jesus answers this question with the Good Samaritan parable. Jesus then asks: 'Which of these three was as neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?' The lawyer answers, 'The one who had EXEOS on him.' Jesus again answers: 'Go and do likewise.' The allusion comes at the climax of the story. After Jesus' second question, the reader waits to hear what the lawyer will answer. The echo of Exod. 34.6-7 constitutes the substance of his answer. Another factor that would have increased the 'volume' of this echo is the placement of EXEOS in Luke's Gospel. As noted above, it appears five times in the first chapter. The reader would have been bombarded with the allusion very early in the narrative and would have been prepared for further allusions. The word only appears once again in the Gospel. The answer to Jesus' question with an echo would have reminded the readers of the first chapter occurrences and of the credo of Exod. 34.6-7. 28

27 J. Reiling and J. C. Swellengrebel, A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Luke (London: UBS, 1971), p. 74. 28 Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (AB; Garden City, NY: 1985), p. 878.

82


Thematic coherence The rule of thematic coherence asks: 'How does hearing an echo clarify the meaning of the passage?' Traditionally, the lawyer has been read as a static character in this passage. In this traditional view, the answers to both of Jesus' questions show the lawyer to be unaware of who God is and how God acts. The lawyer's response: 'The one who had EXEOS on him' is normally seen as racist against the Samaritan. Bock holds that the lawyer cannot bring himself to mention the Samaritan's race. He asserts that, 'he does not understand the call of God'. Likewise, Fitzmyer believes that the answer to Jesus' questions unmasks the lawyer's attempt at selfjustification. These two represent the typical stance of scholars concerning the lawyer's answer. Perhaps hearing the echo supports a more favourable reading for the lawyer. The lawyer answers both of Jesus' questions correctly. When asked: 'How do you read the Law?' he answers correctly. Jesus' response affirms the lawyer's answer. His answer to the second question: 'Who was a neighbour?' may also be better than most people initially imagine. I believe that the lawyer realized the message of Jesus' parable. His response does not de-emphasize the ethnicity of the Samaritan, but emphasizes the covenant mercy of YHWH. Reading E'XEOS as an echo shows the lawyer to have fully understood the implications of the parable. The radical implication of Jesus' teaching is that those in the community are called to extend the same kind of love toward one's neighbour as YHWH extended toward Israel. Jesus' second question then is directly related to the lawyer's question. Who one's neighbour is, is dramatically changed by how one views God's actions toward humanity. YHWH's mercy was extended to those who least deserved it. Continually the people sinned and deserved punishment. Exodus 34.6-7 was often used as an invocation of YHWH's covenant 29

30

31

32

mercy. Usually, those reading the parable leave out the vertical aspect of this horizontal mercy. Both of the lawyer's responses tie the two together. Bock has rightly seen that a major emphasis of the passage is the connection of the love of God and the love of others. One cannot love God without loving others. The lawyer's assertion shows that he recognized the Samaritan's mercy as mirroring that of YHWH. 33

29 Bock, Luke, p. 196. 30 Ibid., p. 199. 31 Fitzmyer, Luke XXXIV, p. 884. 32 Thorir F. Thordarson has argued that the credo played a major role in a yearly covenant renewal ceremony of the ancient Israelites. The people rehearsed the credo at a climatic time when it was imagined that YHWH renewed the covenant with the people ('The Form-Historical Problem of Ex. 34.6-7', PhD diss.: Chicago Divinity School, 1959). 33 Bock, Luke, p. 196.

LANE

An Echo of Mercy

83

The immediate following context also emphasizes the congruities between love of God and love of neighbour. In Lk. 10.38-42, the Evangelist tells the story of Jesus' visit to the home of Mary and Martha. Martha resents the fact that Mary is not helping with the domestic affairs, but is spending time with Jesus. Martha approaches Jesus concerning Mary's lack of help. Jesus sides with Mary. The narrative force does not emphasize a life of quiet worship and contemplation over an active Christian life. Instead, the emphasis is on right relationships with God and neighbours. Norval Geldenhuys states the balance nicely: 'What we do learn here is that in our life's active service we must not be anxious and agitated, sulky and dissatisfied with our fellow-Christians or with our Master, or that we should not busy ourselves to such an extent with outward things that we neglect the quiet worship of the Lord.' If this assessment is the case, then the lawyer has a more positive characteriza tion than Martha in this short pericope. Martha's only speech is incorrect. All of the speech of the lawyer is correct. 34

35

36

Historical Plausibility The rule of historical plausibility guards against the interpreter reading his theological agenda or ideology back into the ancient texts. For the echo to be present, the evangelist would need to have been familiar with Jewish Scripture. This topic has been covered above. Satisfaction The rule of satisfaction asks whether the proposed reading makes sense. This rule is the most intuitive and subjective. It weighs each of the other six rules and decides accordingly. I believe that hearing an echo enhances the meaning of the passage. All of the rules for hearing an echo are present. The arguments for hearing an echo come in four main points. First, Exod. 34.6-7 would have been a significant text for the early Christians as they retained the Jewish Scriptures. Undoubtedly, Luke, as a 34 Charles Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1982), p. 124, sees a chiastic structure in Luke's narration of these two stories together. The two great commands given in 10.27 are to love God (A) and to love neighbour (B). The Good Samaritan parable emphasizes love of neighbour (B') and the story of Mary and Martha emphasizes love of God (A')- Perhaps, the lawyer serves as a bridge between the two stories. 35 Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), p. 316. 36 Interestingly, this is Martha's only appearance in Luke. She does not enjoy the positive characterization that she receives in John. Lawyers in general are portrayed in a negative light (cf. Lk. 7.30; 11.46, 52). This makes the lawyer of this passage all the more remarkable.

84


reader of Scripture, would have been familiar with its imagery. Second, all five of the other occurrences of eXeos are firmly connected to the imagery of the credo. Also, all five refer to YHWH's mercy on humans. Third, I'XEOS comes at the climax of the story, its first appearance since the abundance of appearances in Luke 1. Fourth, hearing the echo emphasizes the major theme of the passage - intersections of the love of God and the love of others. By the end of the parable the lawyer understands that eternal life requires that we interact with others as God has interacted with us.

Chapter 6 P S A L M

2

A

N

D T

H

E S O N

O

F

G O D

I N T

H

E F O U R T H

G O S P E L

Steven B. Nash From the very first verse of the Fourth Gospel John alerts the reader that his use of the Old Testament will include intentional allusions to the Scriptures. Virtually all commentators admit an allusion to Gen. 1.1 in the opening of the Fourth Gospel, the prepositional phrase 'in the beginning' [ev apXT)] reflecting precisely the LXX rendering of the opening of the OT. Few, however, have noted the importance of the fact that the Prologue, though replete with striking allusions to the OT, has not a single verbatim citation. It seems to me quite likely that in its final form, the Prologue not only signals some important theological themes which will be developed in the Gospel (light and darkness, revelation, the deity of Christ, new life, testimony/witness, etc.) but also provides an interpretative clue to the reader in terms of the use of the OT in the document. John smiles at his biblically literate readers and alerts them to listen for further allusions to the Scriptures as he presents his story of Jesus. In reading this Gospel the reader must constantly ask: 'Why is John using this OT language? What text is he evoking? Why does he want me to think about this connection?' Indeed for John, allusions to the OT in which it appears he expects a thoughtful reader to hear the language and to consider the context being evoked are much more prevalent than specific citations. Early in the Gospel the disciples recognize that Jesus is the One spoken of in the OT Scriptures (1.45). When the writer explicitly states his purpose toward the end of the main body of the narrative, he juxtaposes two key OT messianic titles (20.31). What were the specific OT texts that found their fulfilment in Jesus the Messiah? This paper will argue that John made dual allusions to the second Psalm in the first major section of his

1 Kdstenberger, for example, observes: 'The phrase "in the beginning" echoes the opening phrase of the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 1.1) and establishes a canonical link between the first words of the OT Scriptures and the present Gospel' (Andreas J. Kdstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 25.

1


86 2

Gospel, and will offer a suggestion as to the purpose of these allusions. I propose that John's use of Psalm 2 reflects an early Christian tradition that saw the psalm as a bridge to the title 'Son of God', and as an introduction to the Psalter, and so to the psalms of lament and the idea of a rejected and suffering king. Before looking at these allusions in John, it would be appropriate to say a word about the Psalms, in general, and Psalm 2, in its canonical context. We will then take a sweeping glance at the first major section of John's Gospel which includes our two allusions: 1.19-4.54. Finally we will see how these allusions function in their contexts, evoking the OT in presenting the argument that Jesus is the Messiah. Psalm 2 in Canonical

Context

Before we embark on our look at the use of Psalm 2 in the Fourth Gospel, the proper subject of this study, we glance behind it for a moment at the theology and message of the Psalter in its final canonical form, with particular attention to the subject of kingship. I believe this approach is necessary since John's extensive and often subtle use of the Old Testament demonstrates his presupposition that his readers are immersed in the language and theology of the Old Testament generally and the Psalms particularly. However, John is also seeking to reorient his readers to an aspect of the Old Testament message they had apparently lost, that is, that the Scriptures predicted that the Messiah would suffer. Hence the rejection and suffering of Jesus is interpreted not as the defeat of a messianic pretender as the Jewish opposition would wish (Jn 19.21), but as an evidence and vindication of Jesus' messianic identity. Ironically, as critical studies in the last century changed the way scholarship looked at the Psalms, the New Testament use of the Psalms seemed more enigmatic. For example, historical-critical studies have tended to minimize the value of the psalm headings and correspondingly to downplay the role of David and the centrality of the Davidic king in the Psalter. From this perspective, the New Testament assumption of Davidic authorship (e.g., 3

4

2 This study is based on and partially excerpted from my doctoral dissertation, 'Kingship and the Psalms in the Fourth GospeF (PhD diss.: Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000). It was presented in an abbreviated form at the Annual Meeting of the SBL, in Washington, DC, 2006. 3 Hans-Joachim Kraus says it was because the language of the Old Testament was 'alive and present' that the early church could find 'analogies' to the Old Testament texts as the apostolic preaching took form (The Theology of the Psalms [trans. K. Crim, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], p. 190). 4 See Beckwith who argues for the antiquity of the psalm titles: 'The psalm-titles, therefore, may well be as old as the fourth century BC, and very little (if any) younger than the Books of Chronicles' (Roger T. Beckwith, 'The Early History of the Psalter', TynBul 46

NASH Psalm 2 and the Son of God

87

Acts 2.25-31, 4.25-28) and the hermeneutics of the New Testament writers, viewing passages from the Psalms as prophetic texts finding their fulfilment in the life and ministry of Jesus, appear at best unscientific and at worst arbitrary. How is it, as Hengel noted, that 'The Psalter, that is, the inspired collection of David's songs, became the most important book of prophecy for early Christianity'? There have been some recent studies, as we will show, that lend support to the assumption of the Church during the 19 centuries before the rise of modern criticism. The king, as the vicegerent and representative of the reign of Yahweh, is central in the Psalms, and this 'royal interpretation' provides the impetus to an interpretative trajectory that culminates in the messianic interpretation of the Psalms in the New Testament. We will argue that it is this perspective that allowed the church generally, and John specifically, to read the Psalms messianically. As Mowinckel observed, 'the content of the messianic figure was derived from the kingly ideal of ancient Israel'. We will show that John's hermeneutic assumes the reign of Yahweh as expressed in the Psalter and virtually identifies (economically, if not ontologically) Yahweh with his anointed one, the often rejected human king. 5

6

7

The Centrality of the Reign of Yahweh in the Psalms The centrality of the theme of the reign of Yahweh in the theology of Israel, and its eschatological implications, has long been observed. Mowinckel wrote: 'the fundamental thought in the Jewish hope of future restoration (even in its national and political form) is the idea of the kingly rule of Yahweh, "the kingdom of God". All other conceptions are grouped around this central one.' More recently, the centrality of this 8

[1995]: 1-28 [10]. Cf. B. S. Childs, 'Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis', JSS 16 (1971): 13750; idem, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 520; B. K. Waltke, 'Superscripts, Postscripts, or Both', JBL 110 (1991): 583-96. 5 M. Hengel, 'The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel', in C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner (eds), The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 104; SSEJC, 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), pp. 380-95 (382). 6 See, e.g. Beckwith, 'Early History'; S. J. L. Croft, The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms (JSOTSup, 44; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); John Durham, 'The King as Messiah in the Psalms', RevExp 81 (1984): 425-36; John W. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2nd edn, 1986); J. L. Mays,' "In a Vision": The Portrayal of the Messiah in the Psalms', Ex Auditu 1 (1991): 1-8; B. K. Waltke, 'A Canonical Process Approach to the Psalms', in John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, (eds), Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), pp. 3-18; J. H. Walton, 'The Psalms: A Cantata about the Davidic Covenant', JETS 34 (1991): 21-31; G. H. Wilson, 'The Shape of the Book of Psalms', Int 46 (1992): 129-42. 7 S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (Oxford: Blackwell, 1959), p. 21. 8 Ibid., p. 169.


88

9

theme in the Psalms has been proposed. Mays sees 'Yahweh reigns' as a central organizing theological motif of the Psalter. He writes: The sentence itself occurs in a relatively few but crucial psalms. In those contexts the verb malak means more an activity than an office. It is a term for a dynamic sovereignty administered in two patterns of activity. One is the pattern of ordering chaos to bring forth cosmos and world. The other is a scenario of intervening in human disorder by judgment and deliverance. The reign of God is God's activity as creator and maintainer of the universe, and as judge and savior who shapes the movement of history toward the purpose of God. 10

Though it might well be argued that the search for a single unifying theme in a collection as complex as the Psalter is tenuous at best, Mays's argument certainly shows 'Yahweh's reign' as a prominent theme in the Psalms and a useful perspective from which the collection can be considered. A critical aspect of the theology of the Psalms is certainly the relationship between the reign of God, and his vicegerent, the human king. Mays observes that 'Statements of YHWH's dominion are scattered through the Psalms, attached to a variety of topics. The roles of warrior, judge, benefactor, and shepherd, which belong to the human kingship depicted in the Psalms, are also those of Y H W H . ' He says that 'in the Psalms as a collection the Messiah plays a crucial role in the reign of Y H W H . ' He notes that 'as sovereign, YHWH has a special person. The person is called his king, his anointed, his son, his chosen, David his servant.' As Mowinckel has noted, 'The king stands in a closer relation to Yahweh than anyone else. He is His "son" (Ps ii 7).' This connection is introduced at the very beginning of the collection, in the second 11

12

13

14

15

16

9 James L. Mays, The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook of the Psalms (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 13. See also H. J. Kraus, who sees in the titles used of Yahweh in the Psalter a 'witness to an absolute right of lordship and majesty over the entire world, in contrast to the claims of all gods and supernatural powers' {Theology, p. 25). He treats in some detail the 'Kingship of Yahweh' as a significant theological motif in the Psalter (Theology, pp. 25-30). 10 Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 7. 11 Cf. Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1975). Hasel argues for a 'multiplex' approach to Old Testament theology. The Psalms themselves might well be so diverse as to demand a similar approach. 12 Mowinckel wrote: 'The Israelites' attitude to their king is most characteristically expressed in the term used of his relation to Yahweh, Yahweh's Anointed (He That Cometh, p. 63). Cf. Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 19. 13 Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 13. 14 Ibid., p. 17. 15 Ibid.,p.\9. 16 Mowinckel, He That Cometh, p. 67.

89


Psalm. Notice in Ps. 2.2 that the 'plotting' is against Yahweh and his anointed: Kara

TOU Kupiou

Kon K a x d

TOU xpioxou CCUTOU

In Ps. 2.3 it is their 'cords and bands' that are being cast aside: Siapprj^coMEV

xous

5EOMOUS OCUTCOV KCCI

afroppivpcoMEV acf)' f i p c o v

TOV

£ u y o v OCUTCOV

In 2.6, 7 the subject is God's king and God's son: eyco

5E KCXTEOTa&riv PCXOIAEUS UTT' OCUTOU... uios

18

Mou

i\

aii

If the son but asks, the nations, indeed the ends of the earth, are offered as an inheritance (v. 8): n

p*r Da& -jninî

y\bm

KCCI 6cooco o o i E0VT] TT|V KATIPOVOMICXV KCXTCXOXSOIV o o u TCX TTEPCXTCX TTJS Y% a i T T j o a i Trap' s p o u

aou

KCCI TT|V

Worshipping Yahweh (v. 11) is paralleled with doing homage to the son (v. 12).

OOUAEUOCXTE TCO K u p i c p EV 4>6{kD KCCI ayaAAicxoGE OCUTCO EV 5pcc£aa6£ iraiSsias MÔTE opyioBrj K u p i o s

Tpopcp

1 9

In fact the identification is so close, one might ask who is it that is the place of refuge, the object of trust, in Ps. 2.12c, Yahweh, or the son? MOCKOCpiOl TTOCVTES Ol TTETTOlBoTES ETT* CXUTCO

The identification between Yahweh and his anointed is so complete it is difficult to decide. It would most naturally be the son in the Masoretic 17 We will argue below that Psalms 1 and 2 form an introduction to the collection (see for example Gerald T. Shepherd, Theology and the Book of Psalms', Int 46 [1992]: 140-9 [149]). The Western variant at Acts 13.33 attributing a quotation from Ps. 2 to the 'first psalm' may indicate that the two psalms were viewed by some at the time as a two-part introduction to the collection. 18 The LXX diverges from the MT here. In the Greek, the anointed is the passive subject of the verb: T have been made king by him.' In the Hebrew, Yahweh is still speaking: T have set my king.' 19 Notice in the LXX the 'Lord' continues as the subject, in v. 12, whereas in the MT the command is to 'kiss the son'.


90

Text, whereas in the Septuagint it appears to be the 'Lord'. The son, God's anointed, the king, is his vicegerent and representative. Longman similarly notes that 'The Israelite King is the human reflection of the kingship of God. He rules because God established him as ruler.' Thus the 'reign of Yahweh' cannot be separated from the reign of his Messiah. 20

21

The Canonical Shape of the Psalter In his article evaluating current trends in Psalm studies, Kuntz noted that 'a growing new movement treats the Psalter as a coherent literary whole containing explicit and tacit indication of deliberate editorial activity'. Similarly McCann writes: 22

There is a growing interest among scholars in attempting to understand the book of Psalms not only as a collection of liturgical materials from ancient Israel and Judah but also as a literary whole... The purposeful placement of psalms within the collection seems to have given the final form of the whole Psalter a function and message greater than the sum of its parts. 23

Though the genesis of this approach was probably the work of B. S. Childs, it was Gerald Wilson who in his Yale dissertation especially called attention to the canonical shape of the Psalter. Wilson drew attention to the fact that the arrangement of the collection was intended to be a clue as to how the Psalms should be read, at least from the perspective of the final redactors. Said differently, it can be argued that in the Psalter we have not only a collection of canonical psalms, but a canonical collection of psalms. More recently Mays has developed the argument further. He writes: 24

25

There is a growing recognition that the psalms in the book are not simply the psalms of their origin in various settings in Israel's religious life. They have been revised and reread in the process of reuse and preservation. They are located in a new and final context of a book of scripture with an understanding of their language and purpose that is 20 Tremper Longman III, How to Read the Psalms (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1988), p. 69. 21 Cf. Mowinckel, He that Cometh, pp. 155-72. See also H. J. Kraus, Theology, pp. 10723. 22 J. Kenneth Kuntz, 'Engaging the Psalms: Gains and Trends in Recent Research', CRBS 2 (1994): 77-106 (93). 23 J. Clinton McCann, 'Preface', in J. C. McCann (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, (JSOTSup, 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 1-10 (7). 24 Childs, Introduction, pp. 505-25. 25 Gerald H. Wilson, Editing the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS, 76, Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985).


91

not identical with their meaning in Israel's cult. This final literary context is a setting that calls for study in its own right, along with historical and cultic settings. 26

1 argue that this structure lends support to a 'royal' interpretation of the Psalms, and also suggest that this structure, at least in one obvious feature, may have been noticed by the New Testament writers. Though not embracing the canonical shape of the Psalter as an authoritative key to its interpretation, Shepherd likewise concluded that 'the studies on the shape of the Psalter make it more than just probable that the book of Psalms has received a structure that calls attention to its messianic elements'. 27

Psalms 1 and 2 as an

Introduction

The first interpretative clue provided by the structure of the Psalter is the 'introduction' provided by Psalms 1 and 2. Mays notes that 'Psalms 1 and 2 form an introduction to the whole. They are held together by the "Happy are/is..." form of the sayings that constitute brackets around the two.' Miller similarly observed: 28

The introduction to the Psalter does not conclude with Psalm 1. It carries over to the second Psalm, as is immediately evident by the absence of a superscription at the beginning of Psalm 2 to mark it off from Psalm 1, as well as by the presence of a concluding 'Blessed...' clause at the end of Psalm 2, which echoes the 'Blessed...' clause at the beginning of Psalm 1, and forms a poetic bracket or envelope around both psalms in a way that shows them to be a two part introduction to all that follows. 29

McCann likewise recently noted that 'at the beginning of Book 1, Psalms 1 and 2 provide a literary context for reading Psalms 3-41 as well as for the Psalter as a whole'. 30

26 Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 120. L. C. Allen also noted of the placement of Psalm 2, that 'the Royal theme is obviously of prime importance in the redactional ordering of the Psalter' (Psalms: Word Biblical Themes [Waco: Word, 1987], p. 114). 27 J. Shepherd, 'Theology and the Book of Psalms', p. 450. Another unrelated study has argued that the LXX translation of the Psalter emphasized the messianic elements of the collection (J. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter [WUNT, 76; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995], esp. pp. 72-126). These two factors may provide evidence of a developing messianic expectation in the pre-Christian era. 28 Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 120. 29 P. D. Miller, Interpreting the Psalms (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), p. 87. See also Sheppard, 'Theology and the Book of Psalms', p. 149. 30 J. C. McCann, 'Books I—III and the Editorial Purpose of the Hebrew Psalter', in McCann (ed.), Shape and Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter, pp. 93-107 (103).


92

How is it that this 'introduction' was intended to lead the reader into the Psalter? The reader of the Psalms is first invited to identify himself with the righteous man of Psalm 1 who delights in God's Torah. Clearly the Psalter itself is being viewed as an expression of that Torah. Mays notes that 'the fivefold division of the book continues the identification. It gives the book a form that corresponds to the five books of the Mosaic Torah. The Psalter is a 'Davidic Torah,' which corresponds to and responds to the first one.' The reader is called upon to submit to God's Word, and so to experience the abundant life of blessing that he offers. The second part of the introduction, Psalm 2, introduces the reader to the motif of the reign of Yahweh, as it relates to the human subject of the Psalms, God's anointed, his 'son', the king. The absence of headings on Psalms 1 and 2 set them off from the following series of laments. It is possible that the Western reading of Acts 13.33 which alludes to Ps. 2.7 as being written in the 'first psalm', may indicate that either (1) Psalms 1 and 2 were viewed as a unit introducing the Psalter or (2) The Psalter was still in the process of being edited, and not all collections included Psalm 1 in its current position. The reader is introduced to the king in Psalm 2, and called upon to submit to his sovereignty. Mays states: 31

A topic is identified that is central and recurrent in the book as a whole: The kingship of the Lord. The Lord appears as one who reigns. His reign in the work [?] is represented by a place and a person. The place is Zion. The person is his chosen king. Zion as city of God and the king as the Lord's anointed will themselves be the subject of many particular psalms. What happens to them and through them involves the reign of the Lord. 32

Psalm 2 also introduces conflict: resistance to the rule of God and his anointed. This will help the reader of the Psalter understand the presence of the 'enemies' in the Psalms, and to put the experiences of crisis in the laments into perspective, with the assurance of God's ultimate and certain victory. Yahweh laughs at the foolish rebellion of humans, his kingdom will certainly be established. We should note that both Acts 4.25-28 and Heb. 1.5 (cf. 5.5) give canonical evidence that Psalm 2 was understood and interpreted quite early as messianic, and, in Acts, was seen as referring to the blindness of the religious leaders and secular authorities to the identity of Jesus. Is it coincidental that this psalm, which was arguably purposely placed at the beginning of the Psalter, is evoked near the beginning of all four Gospels, as it is at the beginning of Hebrews (1.5)? 33

31 Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 122. 32 Ibid. 33 There is little question that Ps. 2.7 is alluded to in the words of the Father at Jesus' baptism (Mk 1.11; cf. Mt. 3.17; Lk. 3.22) providing the literary and theological basis for the title Son of God' in the Synoptic Gospels. I will argue below that John invokes this psalm for a similar purpose (Jn 1.41, 49; 3.35-36). k

93


THE JOHANNINE

CONTEXT

Following the Prologue, the remainder of the first chapter of the Fourth Gospel continues the 'Introduction' to John's presentation of Jesus. John 1.19-51 is a pivotal section in that it shows that the 'revealer' spoken of in the Prologue is none other than the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. The identity of the incarnate Word is explicitly set forth: Jesus is Messiah, king and Son of God. It also continues to alert the reader to the depth and significance of the Old Testament background to the document. Through both explicit citations and subtle allusions, the reader is invited to think of Jesus in terms of what the writer views as the Old Testament messianic expectation. In this manner, the section serves as a transition between the Prologue and the body of the narrative. The Prologue has already driven the biblically literate reader back to the Old Testament, and this transitional section carries that further by alluding to several Old Testament messianic motifs. It also is integrated into the larger section 1.19-4.54. As with the Prologue, the section may be outlined concentrically. Like the Prologue, this section anticipates the purpose statement (Jn 20.31), moving from the christological aspect, which brackets the section (asking 'who is the Christ?') to soteriological implications at the centre (showing the need for 'new life'): 34

35

36

34 Its transitional nature is evident in that in outlining John, it could be included with the Prologue as an introduction to the document, although the majority of commentators see it as the beginning of the main body of the narrative. 35 Though I refer to this structure I will not take the time to argue for it since it is not integral to the point of the study. Some recent works have, with some success, attempted to argue for the extensive use of concentric parallelism or chiasm in John. See, e.g., M. Rodriguez-Ruiz, 'Estructura del Evangelio de San Juan desde el punto de vista cristologico y eclesiologjco', EstBib (1998): 75-96; G. Mlakuzhyil, The Concentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel (Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1987); J. Staley, 'The Structure of John's Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel's Narrative Structure', CBQ 48 (1986): 24164; P. Ellis, The Genius of John: A Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1984). 36 Several studies have agreed that the Johannine Prologue is structured concentrically, differing only in their assessment as to whether the 'centre' of the Prologue is 1.12-13 (Staley, 'Structure of John's Prologue', 1.12 (K. D. Booser, 'The Literary Structure of John 1.1-18: An Examination of its Theological Implications Concerning God's Saving Plan through Jesus Christ', Evangelical Journal 61 [1998]: 13-29), or 1.12b (R. A. Culpepper, 'The Pivot of John's Prologue', NTS 27 [1981]: 1-31). For a dissenting position, see M. Coloe, 'The Structure of John's Prologue and Genesis 1', AusBR 45 (1997): 40-55. In the above articles, Staley and Culpepper suggest that a chiastic structure in John 1.1 might fairly be seen as a 'clue' for the reader to be ready for such a structure in the Prologue. In view of the opening of the Gospel and the structure of the Prologue, it seems to me we should not be surprised to find examples of concentric or chiastic parallelism in the structuring of the narrative itself.


94 A.

1.19-34 John: T am not the Christ' John testifies regarding Jesus' identity B. 1.35-41 Jewish disciples confess Jesus: 'We have found the Messiah.. .Christ' C. 1.42-51 Jesus' first converts confess him: Psalm 2 allusion D. 2.1-11 (1st sign) wedding, water into wine (six large jugs) bridegroom E. 2.13-25 The Temple cleansing at Passover, disciples remember Ps. 69.9 F. 3.1-3 Nicodemus: 'We know you are a teacher sent from God' G. 3.4 Nicodemus questions, 'How can a man be born...?' H. 3.5 Born of water and spirit I. 3.6-7 'You must be born again' H' 3.8 Born of spirit G' 3.9 Nicodemus questions, 'How can these things be?' F' 3.10-12 Jesus: 'Are you the teacher of Israel and don't understand' E' 3.13-21 The 'lifting up' of the son predicted (reference to Moses) D' 3.22-30 John: much water, bride, bridegroom C 3.31-3.36 John's testimony: Psalm 2 allusion B' 4.1-25 Samaritan considers Messiah's identity: '... Messiah ... Christ' A' 4.26-54 Jesus: T who speak to you am he': Samaritan testifies to Jesus' identity The section begins with John the Baptist's statement: T am not [the Christ], (eyco OUK Eipi: 1.20), rather he was to prepare the way for the 'coming one'. It ends with Jesus' statement, T am he', (eyco elpi), that is, the Christ who was to come (4.26). The concern of the section (and the document, cf. 20.30-31) is that Jesus is the fulfilment of the Old Testament messianic expectation, and that in him we can have new life. The reader has already been reminded that that expectation included rejection and suffering. The subsection 2.1-4.54 is marked off by the references to the first sign (2.11) and second sign (4.54) in Galilee. These hearken back to the pivotal verse 1.18, which speaks of the revelatory character of Jesus, and also ahead to 20.30-31 and John's statement regarding his editorial purpose in incorporating specific 'sign stories' into his Gospel. Indeed, Jesus did many other signs, but those recorded in the Gospel were written, that the reader might believe Jesus is the promised Messiah, and so experience new life in him.

95


An Allusion to Psalm 2.7: 'Son of God, Messiah, King' (John 1.49) The confession of Nathanael in Jn 1.49 in the context of the initiation of the public ministry of Jesus stands as an unexpected affirmation full of christological implications: ou el 6 u i o s TOU 0EOU, o u paotAeus el TOU 'laparjA, You are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel

By its presence near the beginning of the main body of the document this statement is conspicuous, and the christological insight by a new disciple at the onset of Jesus' public ministry is shocking. Bringing two such lofty titles together in a parallel construction is unusual enough that it would demand the close attention of the reader. Note that Jesus' response in 1.50 is basically positive, essentially acknowledging it as a statement of faith based on a small amount of evidence (in contrast to what would subsequently be revealed). It is in these alternating titles that we find a subtle, but fairly certain allusion to Psalm 2, which will 'set the stage' for John's first overt Psalm citation in Jn 2.17. The striking repetition of messianic titles and Old Testament allusions in John 1 would certainly catch the attention of the reader. 'Son of God' is first found in John on the lips of John the Baptist (Jn 1.34) and echoed again here in the confession of Nathanael (1.49). For a biblically literate reader in the first century this title would be evocative of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7.14), where such a relationship between God and the King is promised ('He will be my son'), and perhaps especially of Ps. 2.7, where that promise becomes proclamation ('You are my son') as it is here. As F. F. Bruce observed, Nathanael is clearly confessing Jesus as 37

38

39

37 S. E. Johnson took a somewhat more qualified position when he wrote, 'messiahship is accepted even though it is only a stage toward the full revelation of Jesus' nature' ('The Davidic Royal Motif in John', JBL 87 [1968]: 136-50 [139]). 38 There is some question regarding the text here. The overwhelming majority of manuscripts, including B and notably p ' , read 6 utos TOU 0EOU, while Sinaiticus' first hand, along with a few other witnesses, reads 6 IKAEKTOS. The few witnesses for this second variant have fairly wide distribution, which makes it even more troubling. Since there is no obvious basis for a scribal error, with respect to internal evidence the question becomes 'which change was a scribe more likely to make?' I can think of no easy explanation for such a change being made if 'son' was indeed the original. On the other hand, 'son' could be an accommodation to Nathanael's confession (1.49) or to the Synoptic account of Jesus' baptism and the pronouncement of the Father (Mk 1.11, par.). Yet the external evidence is so overwhelming, with serious reservations I follow the UBS text (of course 'chosen one' is an important royal title in the Psalms as well [cf. Kraus, Theology of the Psalms, p. 109]). 39 M. J. J. Menken concurs that, at least on the lips of Andrew and Nathanael, these three titles indicate the Davidic Messiah, against the background of Ps. 2.7 and 2 Sam. 7.14 (Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form [Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996], p. 44). Collins has shown that the title was in use in a 'royal Davidic' sense in the first century (J. J. Collins, 'The Son of GodText from Qumran', in M. de 66

75

96


Messiah, and in so doing, he evokes the familiar language of the Old Testament. He notes: Tn effect he acclaims him as Messiah, using two messianic titles conjoined in the second psalm.' Moloney similarly writes: 40

The terms Nathanael uses to address Jesus can be understood as the expressions of first-century messianic hope. He joins the earlier disciples in addressing Jesus as 'Rabbi' (cf. v.38). 'King of Israel' is associated with Davidic messianic traditions, and the expression 'Son of God,' on the basis of 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 2:7, was part of a widespread Jewish royal messianic expectation. 41

Michaels likewise concurs that 'The two titles, virtually synonymous in this context, are alternate ways of saying that Jesus is the Messiah (cf. w . 41, 45). The designation of Israel's anointed king as God's son goes back to Psalm 2:6-7.' Contrast the position of Johnson, who concludes: 42

John turns aside the issues of Davidic royalty and Jewish messianic expectation as though, unlike the other evangelists, he does not have to

Boer (ed.), From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology [JSNTSup, 84; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], pp. 65-82, see also H. J. Kraus, Theology, pp. 111-19). It is notable that the Synoptic tradition evokes Ps. 2.7 (Mk 1.11; cf. Mt. 3.17; Lk. 3.22) in the Father's testimony at Jesus' baptism. As such it forms the basis for the 'Son of God' title in the first three Gospels (See J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992], pp. 48-79; E. E. Ellis, 'Background and Christology of John's Gospel: Selected Motifs', SWJT31 [1988]: 1-12 [12]). John's knowledge and/or use of the Synoptic tradition is a difficult question (for bibliography and an outline of some of the complexities to the question see J. G. Dvorak, 'The Relationship Between John and the Synoptic Gospels', JETS 41 [1998]: 201-13), but I would argue that this is an example of him assuming knowledge of that tradition (as he does with Jesus' baptism [1.29-34], the question of the place of his birth [7.41-43] and the charge brought against him at his crucifixion [18.33-34]) while employing the same text at the same point in his Gospel, in a somewhat different manner. Certainly if the reader is familiar with the Synoptics, and is expecting such an allusion, he is more likely to 'hear' an allusion to the psalm in the convergence of these titles (and I will argue, in the apparently overlooked allusion in Jn 3.35-36). 40 F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1983), p. 61. 41 F. J. Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina, 4; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), p. 56. 42 J. R. Michaels, John (NIBC, 4; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), p. 41. Mateos and Barreto agree that Nathanael is confessing Jesus in messianic terms based on the OT, but conclude that his parallel of Son of God and King of Israel reveals a nationalistic messianic hope: 'Para... Natanael, o Filho de Deus significaria o rei messianico, segundo as categorias do AT ("aquele descrito por Moises na Lei, e pelos Profeta>"), ou seja, o sucessor prometido a Davi (cf. SI 2,2.6-7; 2 Sm 7,14; SI 89,4s.27), que efetuaria uma salvacao sociologica. O horizonte de Natanael e nacionalista, Jesus e para ele o rei esperado, o predileto de Deus, que restaurant a grandeza do povo, implantando o regime justo prometido pelos profetas' (J. Mateos and J. Barreto, O Evangelho de Sao Jodo: Andlise Linguistica e Comentdrio Exegetico [Sao Paulo: Edicoes Paulinas, 1989], p. 117).

97

NASH Psalm 2 and the Son of God defend the church against the charge of sedition. The issues have been settled, and Jesus' kingship is only the transcendent royalty of the Son of God. 43

I would argue that John is correcting, or perhaps extending the popular messianic understanding, rather than turning it aside. Lindars points out that for John, this royal expectation was a correct, but limited understanding of Jesus' identity: 'Though John certainly holds the metaphysical implications of Son of God, as outlined in the prologue, he correctly understands it as, from a scriptural point of view, a messianic title derived from Ps 2.7Z Koester agreed that this idea of a 'royal messiah' was the starting place, but not the end, of Johannine Christology. He argued: 44

Nathanael understood the titles in terms of Jewish messianic expect ations; he coupled 'Son of God' with 'King of Israel' indicating that both should be taken as royal titles. His understanding was informed by OT passages that use the term 'messiah' for the 'king of Israel' who was designated as God's 'son' in Ps 2.7, 2 Sam 7.14, and Ps 89.26-27. Jesus accepted these titles, but declared they were only a beginning. 45

John had followed the Baptist's initial use of this title with a repetition of 'Lamb of God' in v. 36. Both 'rabbi' (v. 38) and 'Messiah' (v. 41) are simply transliterations from Aramaic (or Hebrew) which are then translated for the reader into Greek, as 'teacher' and 'Christ' respectively. Why does he give the Hebrew terms? Kostenberger suggests: Since John's Diaspora readership is not necessarily expected to know Aramaic, the predominant language of first-century Palestine (transla tions are also provided in 1:38; 42), John translates the Semitic term into the equivalent Greek expression (Xpioxos, Christos, the Anointed One). 46

However, the question is not whether the readers needed a translation, but rather why did he include the Semitic term at all? After all, the entire conversation was probably in Aramaic! The effect would seem to be to remind the reader that Jesus is the fulfilment of the Hebrew (that is, the Old Testament) expectation. The testimony of John the Baptist sets the stage for the statements of the 'soon to be' disciples. John spoke of the coming one (1.27) who would be Lamb of God (1.29-30) and Son of God (1.34). If the reader is not yet certain what John is saying, the testimony of 43 Johnson, 'Davidic Royal Motif, p. 140. 44 B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), p. 119. 45 C. R. Koester, 'Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael (Jn 1:45-51)', JSNT 39 (1990): 23-34 (27). 46 Andreas J. Kostenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 76.

98


Andrew makes it plain: he is speaking of the 'Messiah, which is translated Christ' (1.41). Philip then calls Nathanael, with the clear indication that this one whom they have found is the one spoken of throughout the Old Testament Scriptures (1.45). Finally, Nathanael's confession climactically brings together the titles 'Son of God' and 'King of Israel' in a parallel construction and stands at something of a climax in the chapter. Certainly the titles 'Son' and 'King' taken together with 'Messiah' (v. 41) are striking enough in their context to cause the reader to ponder their meaning and background. What do these terms mean? How do they apply to Jesus? If the coming one, that is, the Christ, was spoken of in the Old Testament, where is it that he is specifically called 'Son of God' and 'King'? These three titles, Messiah, Son and King, also occur in close context in Psalm 2. Psalm 2 is a royal psalm that especially focuses on the coronation of the king. As an allusion to Gen. 1.1 in the first verse of the document serves to evoke the creation context, the Pentateuch, and the Old Testament generally, an allusion to this prominent psalm, part of the introduction to the Psalter, would be evocative of that collection. It seems that the convergence of these titles, particularly as the parallel titles 'Son of God' and 'King' follow the transliterated Hebrew term jjeaaias, which is then translated for the reader's benefit as xpioTos, would evoke Psalm 2 in the mind of a biblically literate reader. Whereas in Ps. 2.7 God pronounces 'you are my son': uios pou el ou, in John, Nathanael expresses 47

48

49

50

47 W. Kraus points to this statement as an example of John's interest in showing Jesus to be the fulfilment of the OT Scriptures: 'Programmatisch fasst der Evangelist die christologische Zielrichtung des AT durch den Mund Philippus als eines der ersten Junger zusammen: Mose und die Propheten sprechen von Jesus' (W. Kraus, 'Johannes und das Alte Testament', ZNWU [1997]: 3-14[3]). 48 Clearly Jesus' response, alluding to Genesis 28 and Jacob's vision, invites the reader to be thinking of his identity in OT terms. Gomes writes: 'Bethel is for Jacob holy ground because of the unexpected presence of the Lord there... Nathanael, after his question at verse 46 and before his confession at verse 49, stands in the unexpected presence of one who is commended to him in the present by his knowledge of the past and his command of the future' (Peter J. Gomes, 'John 1:45-51', Int 43 [1989]: 282-6 [285]). In his answer to Nathanael, Jesus uses yet another title, 'Son of Man'. See the discussion of S. Mowinckel who develops that background and possible connotations of the term, with special attention to the Daniel 7 background (He That Cometh, pp. 346-450). 49 See Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50 (WBC, 19 (Waco: Word Books, 1983), p. 64. 50 Though Soards calls Jn 1.41 an 'allusion' to Ps. 2.2 (M. L. Soards, 'The Psalter in the Text and Thought of the Fourth Gospel', in R. B. Sloan and Mikeal C. Parson (eds), Perspectives on John: Method and Interpretation in the Fourth Gospel [Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1993], pp. 251-61 [259], standing alone it at best might be called an 'echo' of the psalm text. However it appears John will bring in 'catch words', that is, key words from the near context of a verse to which he alludes, in order to 'reinforce' an intentional allusion for his reader. It seems the 'echo' of Ps. 2.2 in Jn 1.41 serves such a purpose with respect to the allusion to Ps. 2.7 in 1.49. In the same way, the parallel title 'King' echoes Ps. 2.6, further reinforcing the allusion.

NASH Psalm 2 and the Son of

99

God

fc

the same truth, from his perspective, you are the son of God': ou el 6 uios TOU 9eou. Though this is not a verbatim citation, it is a rather close allusion. Soards concurs that 'the phrase "Son of God," cast confessionally in John 1.49 in relation to the phrase "king of Israel," is reminiscent of the reference to the "Son" of the Lord who is the King of Zion in Ps 2.7'. It serves to evoke a well-known text where the messianic titles converge, in order to introduce a key theme of John's Gospel in a most emphatic way. The king had come. The hope of Israel, the one promised in the Scriptures, had arrived. This fulfilment theme was made explicit by the statement of Philip in 1.45: 'We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law, and also the prophets wrote.' John is concerned with making a case for the messianic identity of Jesus (Jn 20.30-31), and his understand ing of 'Messiah' is founded squarely on the Old Testament. If John is intentionally evoking the second psalm, why does he do so at this point in the narrative? As Psalm 2 stands (together with Psalm 1) as an introduction to the Psalter, presenting the king who as Yahweh's vicegerent stands against a world in rebellion against the rule of God (and who would be the subject of the following laments), so the psalm may be here alluded to, introducing the reader to the king, the Son of God, whose life and passion would fulfil and reflect the suffering of the rejected king of the lament psalms. Notably the Synoptic tradition makes a similar allusion to this psalm near the beginning of the story of Jesus (Mk 1.11; cf. Mt. 3.17; Lk. 3.22). As the psalm in its canonical context served to introduce the reader of the Psalter to the king, who would be the subject of the following series of laments, so in John's narrative the reader is introduced to the king, who likewise would be a righteous sufferer. In view of the fact that the writer has invited the reader to read his Gospel through the grid of the Old Testament, and in view of the importance of the Psalms and the prominence of Psalm 2, it seems highly probable that the writer intends his thoughtful reader to perceive an intentional allusion 51

52

53

54

55

51 Soards, 'Psalter in the Text', p. 259. 52 See my discussion of this suggestion with supporting bibliography, 'Kingship and the Psalms', pp. 53-6. So Mays notes that 'Psalms 1 and 2 form an introduction to the whole' Mays, The Lord Reigns, p. 122. 53 This may hint that Psalm 2 was viewed in the early Church as a key passage linking the titles 'Messiah' and 'Son of God' with the suffering king of the laments. See also Heb. 1.5 where it serves a similar purpose at the beginning of that document. It may also imply that the NT writers were conscious of the structure of the Psalter as a 'clue' to how the Psalms should be read. 54 The question of the role of the king as the petitioner in the psalms of lament is debated. Personally I have found the arguments of John Eaton convincing in this respect (Kingship and the Psalms). 55 Luke gives us strong early evidence of the Church applying this psalm to Jesus in both the prayer of the disciples (Acts 4.25-28) and the first sermon of Paul (Acts 13.33). It appears also to function as a scriptural basis for the 'son of God' title in Heb. 1.5.

100


to Psalm 2. Is it coincidental that John has evoked the beginning of the Old Testament (1.1; cf. Gen. 1.1), the beginning of the second major section of Isaiah (1.23; cf. Isa. 40.3), and now the beginning of the Psalter (1.49; Ps. 2.7)? Following the unambiguous allusions to Genesis-Exodus in the Prologue, and the citation from Isaiah on the lips of John the Baptist, this allusion would serve to point to the third major section of the Hebrew Scriptures as also anticipating the coming of the Messiah. In so doing, John has provided a 'link' to the Psalter, which will help the reader understand his messianic interpretation of the Psalms. The first explicit Psalm citation in the Fourth Gospel, following this allusion to Psalm 2 comes in Jn 2.17 and stands as an initial invitation to the reader to begin thinking through the implications of Jesus' kingship specifically in terms of lament motifs. Remember, John explicitly states that an aspect of his presentation of the story of Jesus is to show his identity as Messiah and Son of God (20.30-31). Following Nathanael's confession of Jesus as the 'royal messiah' and the initial revelation of his glory at Cana, the scene in the temple, with its dual references to Passover (2.13, 23) and the citation of Ps. 69.9 (2.17), serves to qualify and clarify what it means for Jesus to be the Messiah, King, and Son of God. The echoes of Passover and allusions to and citations of lament psalms will continue throughout the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, showing that the Scriptures pictured a Messiah who would suffer and be rejected. I would concur with Keitzer that 'hints of the death of the messiah crop up throughout the Gospel account', but go further in asserting that these hints are frequently grounded in Scripture and presented as evidence of Jesus' identity. And so in the Fourth Gospel, the rejection of Jesus by his own people becomes a vindication of his messianic identity, and a fulfilment of the Scriptures. As the first citation from the Psalter, Ps. 69.9 provides an initial, scriptural basis for the inexplicable idea that the Messiah should be rejected, suffer and die. The allusion to Psalm 2 has provided a bridge to the messianic application of the psalm by the disciples (Ps. 69.9; Jn 2.17). 56

John 3.35-36: An Overlooked Allusion to Psalm 2? The initial section, 1.19-4.54, asserts that the promised Messiah has come, offering new life. I have argued that an allusion to Ps. 2.7 has served as an exegetical bridge to the lament psalms which will be part of John's scriptural argument that Jesus' fate was not a defeat, but a fulfilment of 56 Larry J. Kreitzer, 'The Temple Incident in John 2.13-25: A Preview of What is to Come', in C. Rowland and C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis (eds), Understanding, Studying, and Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton (JSNTSup, 153; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 91-101 (100).

101


Scripture and so a vindication of his messianic claim. It may be that John also follows his first citation from a lament psalm with another intentional allusion to Psalm 2, thus reinforcing the connection with the Psalter. The second allusion to Psalm 2 occurs in Jn 3.35-36 and has been almost completely overlooked. Certainly Son (of God) as it is repeated in the third chapter (3.16-18, 35, 36) echoes and invites the reader to recall the striking messianic confession of Nathanael in 1.49 (which we have argued in its context alludes to Psalm 2). If chapter 1 indeed evokes Psalm 2, and this passage is intended to recall chapter 1, would we be surprised to see again a subtle allusion to the psalm? First of all, there is a similarity with respect to the content and function of the psalm and the Johannine context. Note that Psalm 2 introduces us to the 'king', the 'son' who is the human subject of the Psalter. This section of John (chs 1-4) likewise introduces us to the son, the 'king of Israel', and here in ch. 3, like Psalm 2, speaks of the consequences of accepting or rejecting him. Moreover, in addition to the 'Son of God' title, there are several other verbal and conceptual parallels between the two passages. While Jn 3.35, from the writer's perspective of inaugurated eschatology, says the Father has given all things into the son's hand; employing the same verb, Ps. 2.8 promises that if the son but asks, the Father 'will give' him [all things]. Psalm 2.5 speaks of the 'wrath' of the Lord (cf. 2.12, MT) as does Jn 3.36. Notice that both Psalm 2 and John 3 spell out the consequences of rejecting the 'son'. Indeed, Jn 3.35-36 would serve as a very adequate summary of Psalm 2. Perhaps the most compelling verbal parallel is in Jn 3.36 which says that rejection (aireiSeco, 'do not obey') will lead to God's 'wrath', while Ps. 2.12 says that 'trust' (rreiSco) is the means of avoiding 'wrath' and finding blessing. Both texts employ the verbs in the participial form. The verb rreiSco does not appear in John and cciT£i9eco appears only here. In the Johannine context aTreiOlco appears as an unexpected contrast to those who 'believe' [TTIOTEUCO] in the Son. Why did John choose this word, which he uses nowhere else in the Gospel? It seems he is inviting his readers, familiar with the language of 57

58

59

60

57 J. Ramsey Michaels did note that Jn 3.35-36 is a 'brief meditation on Jesus' baptism' and 'echo(es) the synoptic tradition of a voice from heaven (Mark 1.11)' (John, p. 66). It seems more likely to me that both passages are alluding to the same source, i.e., Psalm 2. 58 'Son of Man' (3.13, 14) would appear to function separately, harkening back to its previous usage in the Gospel (1.51), there also on the lips of Jesus (See C. Ham, 'The Son of Man in the Gospel of John', StoneCamJ 1 [1998]: 67-84). Note that in both of these passages the allusion is to the Mosaic corpus. 59 Note my proposed concentric outline for the section (chs 1^1) above. If this is indeed valid, it is interesting that the two allusions to Psalm 2 occur at parallel points in the outline C and C . (See also, 'Kingship and the Psalms in the Fourth Gospel', p. 77.) 60 Though John does not use the same word as the Psalm, the terms are virtually synonomous and the conceptual parallel is unmistakable.

102


the LXX, to 'hear' an allusion to Psalm 2. The thematic and verbal links certainly echo Psalm 2 and are sufficient to show that an allusion probably was intended. Conclusion With this allusion complementing the earlier allusion to Psalm 2, the two together bracket the citation of Ps. 69.9 at Jn 2.17, forming an inclusio which helps explain the first explicit quotation from the Psalter in the document. They point to Psalm 2 as the scriptural basis for the 'Son of God' title. It is as Messiah, King, and Son of God that Jesus must suffer. John evokes the psalm, part of the introduction to the Psalter, inviting his readers to read the collection messianically. Thus Psalm 2, which was certainly viewed as messianic in the first-century Church (see Heb. 1.5; Acts 4.25-31; 13.33; cf. Mt. 3.17; Mk 1.11; Lk. 3.22; Rev. 2.26, 27), forms a kind of hermeneutical bridge to Psalm 69, and with it, to the other Davidic psalms of lament. Psalm 2 itself envisioned resistance, however futile, to the reign of Yahweh and his anointed one. The lament psalms are evoked in John as specific expressions of that resistance. And so the Psalms are used in this Gospel to explain the rejection of Jesus and as a vindication of his messianic identity.

Chapter 7 JOEL 2.28-32A IN ACTS 2.17-21 THE DISCOURSE A N D TEXT-CRITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF VARIATION FROM THE L X X

Steven E. Runge Introduction The text of Acts 2.17-21 is generally regarded as a quotation from the Septuagint ( L X X ) . However, the number and nature of the departures from the LXX reading that are attested in Acts 2 have led many to conclude that more is going on here than simple quotation. Ruis-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger state: 'More than simply citing the passage of Joel 2:28-32a LXX word for word, Peter will interpret and adapt it to [sic] so as apply it to the current situation.' In terms of textual criticism, several significant variants are attested between the Western text and the Alexandrian, with the former having a shorter reading rather than a longer one. Efforts to resolve these problems have followed traditional lines, arguing either for original adaptation by the writer, or for some kind of correction by a later scribe. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the practical impact that these 1

2

3

1 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Acts (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 73; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), pp. 73-5. 2 J. Ruis-Camps and J. Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition (LNTS; London: T & T Clark, 2004), p. 181. Cf. H. Conzelmann et al, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (translation of Die Apostelgeschichte; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), p. 18; C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 1994), p. 136; J. B. Polhill, Acts (The New American Commentary), 26 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), p. 109; B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), p. 295. 3 For a good overview of these approaches cf. S. E. Porter, 'Scripture Justifies Mission: The Use of the Old Testament in Luke-Acts', in S. E. Porter (ed.), Hearing the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 104-22.

104


changes and variations have on the quotation's meaning in the textual context of Acts 2. What practical difference do they make? What would motivate changes that have no textual basis in the L X X ? My purpose is not to resolve the text-critical issues, nor to argue for a preferred reading. Rather, I will focus on explaining the meaningful differences that the various attested readings would bring about from the standpoint of discourse grammar. Research in the field of discourse grammar and textlinguistics has demonstrated in recent years that many issues typically described as 'stylistic variation' in fact reflect meaningful choices made on the part of the writer-editor. My goal is to demonstrate the practical benefits to be gained from attending to discourse considerations, using the citation of LXX Joel 2.28-32a in Acts 2.17-21 as a test case. This paper does not discuss every textual variant from this passage, but is limited to the ones most influencing the overall exegesis. These issues are: •

the change from pera xauxa to e v TCUS e a x a T a i s fipepais in Acts 2.17a; the insertion of the prophetic formula Aeyei 6 0e6s in Acts 2.17a; the insertion of ye in Acts 2.18; the insertion of KCU irpoTlTeuGouGiv in Acts 2.18; the insertion of avco, arjMâ and KCCTCO in Acts 2.20.

• • • •

Each of these issues will be discussed in turn. Change of the Temporal Frame of Reference from Generic to Specific in Acts 2.17a. The two critical LXX texts and Codex Vaticanus read a rather generic temporal expression IGTCXI p e x a T a u T a , very much in keeping with that observed in the Hebrew Bible ( M T ) Q T ^ t J K ""Ô!)- Barrett comments that 'MSTCX TauTa simply looks forward and declares that the events in question will happen at some time in the future. Ev xaTs e a x a T a i s ilMepais points to the last act of history and claims that they are part of God's final act of redemption'. Similarly, Conzelmann states that the reference to the 'last days' 'has become a stereotyped expression (cf. 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim 3:1) and no longer expresses an expectation of an immediate end'. The insertion of a more detailed temporal expression has the effect of recasting the promise of the outpouring of the Spirit from some point in time after the events of Joel 2, to an eschatological time, one which Peter is 4

5

6

4 Karl Elliger, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1997). 5 Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 1:136. 6 Conzelmann et al., Acts of the Apostles, p. 19.

Joel 2.28-32a in Acts 2.17-21

RUNGE

105

7

announcing the arrival of in Acts 2. Thus, most have analysed this variation from the L X X as intentionally motivated to better contextualize the following quotation to the events of Pentecost. From the standpoint of the manuscript evidence, Metzger concludes that the reading of N A says more about the adaptation of Joel to the context than it does about some undocumented recension of Joel. The fact that Sinaiticus maintains disparate readings in Joel and Acts would seem to offer tacit support for this view. 27

8

Insertion of the Prophetic Formula in Acts 2.17a The insertion of Xlyei 6 9s6s has been described by Barrett as something of a semantic necessity in the context of Acts, to identify the intended speaker of the quotation. However, it is important to consider whether this formula is even necessary, and to consider its location within the overall clause. To begin with, Xeyei 6 Beos is attested only four times in Rahlfs' edition of the LXX, while the most likely Hebrew retroversion is unattested in BHS. These factors may have influenced the reading of KG for Qsos in Bezae. For the sake of discussion, I will look at the discourse function of the more widely attested collocation rnrP'TJK] in the MT in order to propose a discourse function for the presence of a comparable prophetic formula in Acts 2.17. 9

10

11

12

13

7 Polhill states: 'Joel's prophecy was originally given after a locust plague had ravaged the land, creating a severe famine. Joel called the people to repentance, promising the restoration of their prosperity and going on to foresee the coming of the Day of the Lord, the dawn of the messianic age, when the Spirit would be poured out on all of Israel. Peter could not miss its applicability to Pentecost. Joel began his prophecy by saying "and afterward." Peter's version refers more specifically to "in the last days," reflecting his conviction that the messianic age had already dawned in the resurrection of Christ, that we are indeed already living in the final days of God's saving history' (J. B. Polhill, Acts, p. 109). 8 Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 295. 9 'Asysi 6 8eos (kiysx K i i p i o s , D E latt Ir , GrNy) is an addition to the text of Joel (3.5 has KOCSOTI EITTEV icupios). An ascription is no doubt desirable in Acts; in Joel, after 2.27 (Eyco K u p i o s 6 0EoG uucov) it was not necessary' (Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 1:136). 10 L X X (Cambridge) and BHS join the temporal clause with the main clause using KCCI, whereas LXX (Gottingen) uses asyndeton. Whether the KCCI is original in the LXX or not, its omission in any GNT manuscripts is most likely caused by the addition of this prophetic formula. 11 Note that an inverted form of this frame (6 0E6S EITTEV) is found in Acts 7.7, also clause medial in an OT quote. However there is a variant reading attested in D, E and the Majority text, which transposes the elements, thus matching the reading found in Acts 2.17. 12 2 Sam. 23.3; Isa. 40.1; 41.14; 44.6. 13 For a thematic motivation for the reading in Bezae, cf. Ruis-Camps and ReadHeimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae, p . 169: 'Whereas 0E6S is a reference to God, Kiipios is potentially ambiguous since it can mean Yahweh, as in LXX, or Jesus. Verse 2.33 will make clear that Jesus is intended.' lat

106


Watson notes that expressions like HIIT'DiM and HliT H3, 'even if [they are] later editorial insertions - can help show where major structural segments are demarcated', stating on the following page that these introductions can also be used to arouse the reader's interest. Parunak, in attempting to provide a unified description of the discourse function of miTTD&W, notes that its most basic function is to mark a

14

T

15

"*

disjunction in the text. But he also claims that it is a focus marker, signalling 'a highly local highlighting of a clause or phrase that merits the recipient's attention'. In the vast majority of occurrences of HI IT TDM in the Hebrew Bible, the formula is found at the end of a clause, rather than in the middle as here in Acts 2. Only 14 out of the 65 (i.e., 22%) occurrences in the Book of the Twelve are clause-medial, and the proportion is even lower for the entire Hebrew Bible, 39 out of 268 (i.e., 15%). Of the 14 clause-medial occurrences of HI !T "DIM in the Twelve, nine of them separate a temporal frame of reference (e.g., Tt will come about in those days...') from the disclosure of what will happen at that time. In other words, placing the formula clause-medially after the temporal frame has the effect of delaying the disclosure of what exactly will come about in that day. This delay creates a greater sense of expectation than would have occurred using a clause-initial HIIT lib, or a clause-final HIiT'OK] I propose that the clause-medial prophetic formula used in the context of Acts 2.17 has the effect of highlighting the action that will come about in the last days, in a manner that is completely consistent with the usage of rnrP""DtM in Jeremiah and the Twelve. In other words, 'the pouring out of the Spirit' receives special prominence due to the clause-medial placement of the prophetic formula, the core point that Peter is making with the crowd regarding their misinterpretation of what they have seen. The writer could have just as easily (and perhaps more properly) used a clause16

14 W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (London: T & T Clark, 2001), p. 164. 15 H. V. D. Parunak, 'Some Discourse Functions of Prophetic Formulas in Jeremiah', in R. D. Bergen (ed.), Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), pp. 489-519 (514). 16 Ibid., p. 511. O'Connor attributes a similar function to oracle titles such as rnrrTMW which he refers to as 'discourse level focus-markings' (M. O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), p. 356. Similarly, Revell notes that repeated speech introductions can often be best explained as 'intended to draw attention to the following speech' (E. J. Revell, 'The Repetition of Introductions to Speech as a Feature of Biblical Hebrew', VT 47 (1997): 91-110 (109). Thus, most explanations either claim that it is structural or else accomplishing some sort of highlighting, but not both. I have argued elsewhere that these issues are more accurately described in terms of an entailment hierarchy, whereby one function is entailed within another; cf. S. E. Runge, 'A Discourse-Functional Description of Participant Reference in Biblical Hebrew Narrative' (diss.: University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2007), esp. ch. 6.

RUNGE

Joel 2.28-32a in Acts 2.17-21

107

initial Ta5e Aeyei Kiipios, or perhaps no quotative formula at all, to indicate to the Jewish crowd that the intended speaker in the quotation was not the prophet himself. Alternatively, the formula could have been placed at the end of the clause, as would normally be expected from its usage elsewhere. Regardless of the origins of the more specific temporal frame and the prophetic formula, they both contribute much to contextualizing the quotation from Joel 2 to the discourse context of Acts 2. The temporal frame recasts the promise for a generic later time into a specifically eschatological one. The location of the prophetic formula, whether semantically required or not, and regardless of whether one reads 6 Seosor KG has the effect of adding prominence to the very point that Peter was attempting to make, viz. the outpouring of the Spirit. Insertion of ye and its Impact on the Information 2.18

Structure in Acts

In Acts 2.18, most NT manuscripts read Kai ye, whereas the Cambridge and Gottingen editions of the LXX simply read Kai. BHS reads D31, which is regularly rendered in the Old Greek of the Twelve using only the connective Kai. Kcc\ is most commonly used as a co-ordinating conjunc tion. Thus, it is most often construed as a conjunction unless some other co-ordinating conjunction is present to disambiguate a non-conjunctive usage, or unless it is used in a context where asyndeton is prevalent. Kcu can also function adverbially, and is best understood as an 'additive'. This function specifies that the clause element it modifies should be added to some preceding, comparable element. This usage as an additive is usually translated into English as 'also'. Adverbial Kai can also add something to itself, usually translated into English as 'even'. This two-fold adverbial function of Kai is comparable to 03 in biblical Hebrew. Thus, when Kai occurs by itself, unless it is in a context of asyndetic clause connections or another connective, it is most likely to be construed as a connective rather than as an adverbial additive. In considering the context of the usage in LXX Joel 2.29, it is unclear whether the Kai functions adverbially or not. The principles described above for differentiating the co-ordinating function of Kai from its 17

18

17 J. K. Heckert, Discourse Function of Conjoiners in the Pastoral Epistles (Dallas: SIL International), pp. 71-90. 18 In describing the semantics and pragmatics of D3, Van der Merwe et al. state: 'Speakers or writers give an explicit indication to their audience that a specific something or someone must be added to something or someone referred to in the preceding context: also, even, moreover, even more so' (C. H. J. Van der Merwe et al, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (electronic ed; Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), p. 315.

108


adverbial use can give us insight into the significance of ye found in Acts 2.18. Joel 2.29a is the fifth consecutive clause to begin with KCCI, making it difficult to construe it as an additive without making reference to the Hebrew reading. However, the presence or absence of an additive in this context has a significant effect on how the information structure of the clause is processed. Acts 2.17c and 2.17d begin with what has traditionally been called a contrastive topic. This construction has the effect of establishing specific topical frames of reference for the clause that follows. Each topic frame is followed by the object of the verb, which I construe as positioned before the verb for the sake of emphasis. Thus, two back-to-back clauses use a fronted subject to create a new topical frame, followed immediately by an emphasized element before the verb. This structure in v. 17 leads Lenski to state, 'the three predicates form a unit, each predicate saying the same thing with variation, as each subject is only a variation'. Comparing the reading in Acts to Joel 2.29, the fronting of km TOUS SOUAOUS KCU km TCXS SouAas could easily be construed as signalling another switch of topic, specifying yet another entity that will experience some manifest ation of the Spirit. Similarly, an argument could also be made for construing it as fronted for emphasis, based on the previous context and the ordering of the components that follow. To one extent or another, its function is ambiguous as rendered in the L X X editions. If we now consider what difference the presence or absence of ye would make, I contend that it effectively disambiguates the intended function of km TOUS SouAous uou KOL\ km TCCS SouAas UOU. i BHS, the presence of • 3 indicates that rather than listing another contrastive topic, what follows indicates the extreme extent to which the outpouring of the Spirit will be experienced: even on the menservants and maidservants. The repetition of ""[SB from Joel 3.1 adds support for the view that what is being asserted in v. 2 is who else will receive the Spirit, rather than what 19

20

21

L X X

22

n

19 For a thorough introduction to the information structure observed in the Greek New Testament, cf. S. H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek (Dallas: SIL International, 2nd edn, 2000). 20 Ibid., pp. 37-45. 21 Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, p. 75. 22 Most commentators understand the fronted prepositional phrases of Acts 2.18a as emphatic, e.g., Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, p. 75; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1998), p. 253; Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 1:137; B. M. Newman and E. A. Nida, A Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles (UBS Handbook Series; Helps for Translators; New York: United Bible Societies, 1972), p. 44; however none discuss the difference that the presence or absence of ys has on this reading.

RUNGE Joel 2.28-32a in Acts 2.17-21

109

23

will happen to the menservants and maidservants. Thus, ye in Acts 2.18 has the effect of disambiguating the information structure of the clause, clarifying that the fronted element is emphatic, not contrastive. Though the reading in the LXX is ambiguous, NETS has translated the Kai adverbially. Thus, while reading ye may represent an addition with respect to the LXX, it plays a significant role in disambiguating the intended meaning of the clause, preserving the clarity that is attested in the MT. Codex Bezae departs from the other major manuscripts regarding the reading of Acts 2.18, reading eyco for y s . As I stated, Acts 2.17c and 2.17d began with contrastive subjects that establish new topical frames of reference for the following clause. This could create the expectation that 2 4

the fronting of ETH TOUS SouXous pou Ka\ im x a s SouXas \iov in v. 18 is

serving a similar function. However, the presence of the explicit subject eycb in Bezae would be construed as yet another topic frame, establishing a contrastive switch from the topic of v. 17d. Hence, even without ye, the fronted prepositional phrase would still be analysed as emphatic in Bezae since the question of whether it is a contrastive topic or not is settled by the presence of the contrastive personal pronoun. Bezae also omits the temporal phrase EV TaTs l u p o u s EKEivais, which further disambiguates that the motivation for fronting im TOUS SOUXOUS pou Kai im TCCS SouXas pou is for emphasis, not to establish a contrastive topic. Insertion of KCX\ TrpcKJHlTeuaouoiv in Acts 2.18 The concluding clause of Acts 2.18 (KO\ irpo^riTEuaouoiv) is not attested in the MT, LXX or Bezae. The content represents a repetition of the verbal clause from v. 17b. This addition has received little attention. Conzelmann simply notes that the Western text excludes it, without discussing the implications or rationale for its omission. Barrett and Polhill both attribute the reiteration to placing a high value on prophecy. While Polhill notes the parallelism created between w . 17-18, he does not discuss the impact of the Lxx/Bezae reading compared to the N A reading of Acts 2. Ruis-Camps and Heimerdinger assert that the parallelism of w . 17-18 25

26

27

23 For a very general introduction to information-structuring principles applied to English, cf. S. E. Runge, 'Relative Saliency and Information Structure in Mark's Account of the Parable of the Sower', Journal of the Linguistics Institute of Ancient and Biblical Greek 1 (2008): 1-16. 24 For an argument in favour of eyco being the superior reading, cf. Ruis-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae, p. 170. 25 Conzelmann et al., Acts of the Apostles, p. 20. 26 Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 1:137; Polhill, Acts, p. 109.


110

forms a chiastic structure, according to the reading attested in Bezae, which follows the text of the L X X :

2

7

[a]

I will pour out my Spirit [b] on all flesh [c] they will prophesy.. .see in visions.. .have dreams [b'] on my male servants and female servants [a'] I will pour out my Spirit Based on their analysis, the focus of the chiastic structure is placed on prophesying and the other attesting signs associated with the outpouring of the Spirit. This structure is not a possibility based upon the reading attested in N A . The addition of Kai TrpcxjmTSuaouaiv in v. 18 changes the poetic formulation of these verses in some important ways. While there may be several configurations possible, the simplest reformulation based on the N A text is to construe the structure as direct parallelism rather than as chiasm. 27

2 7

[a]

In those days I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh [b] and they will prophesy [c] the young men will see visions and the old men will dream dreams [a'] and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit [b'] and they will prophesy [c'] I will give wonders in the heavens a b o v e . . . In this new configuration, the emphasis shifts from the idea of prophecy, visions and dreams to a reiteration of key concepts. The outpouring of God's Spirit is assigned to 'all flesh', and reiterated more specifically as 'my menservants and my maidservants', with the result that they shall prophesy. This is followed by a description of the signs associated with this outpouring: seeing visions and dreaming dreams among humanity, and signs and wonders in the terrestrial and celestial domains. In this configuration, the shift no longer focuses on 'the move from the universal to the Jewish application of the prophecy'. Instead, it moves from the human realm to the cosmic. In as much as the addition of KOU irpcxjmTSUoouoiv seems to be rather insignificant in terms of the content that it contributes to the context, its impact on the overall structuring of the passage is much more significant. While this addition contributes no new information, the resulting 28

27 28

Ruis-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae, p. 170. Ibid., p. 183.

RUNGE

Joel 2.28-32a in Acts 2.17-21

111

repetition constrains the reader to process the lines as directly parallel, rather than as chiastic. Insertion of a v c o , or)|JE?a and KCCTCO in Acts 2.20 In the LXX editions of the quoted text, the Gottingen and Cambridge editions differ in their understanding regarding the intended parallelism of Joel 2.30. Based on the placement of the atnach accent in BHS, the text is to be read as a general statement about the giving of signs in the heavens and on the earth. This is followed by what would technically be called a right-dislocation, a syntactically independent appositional phrase that provides epexegetical information about some referent in the main clause. In this case, the signs (and possibly the wonders too) are given greater specification: blood, fire and columns of smoke. This is the reading adopted in the NETS version, exemplified in the use of a colon to separate the main clause from the right-dislocation. The Gottingen edition uses a comma to disambiguate how the text should be read, in agreement with BHS and NETS. There is an alternative reading reflected in the Cambridge edition, wherein there is a comma following oupavco. While the Cambridge edition is not considered the authoritative critical text, its reading points to the fact that the LXX text has some degree of ambiguity in how to read the verse, one which requires punctuation to disambiguate. This has a rather significant effect on the verse structure, creating contrasting statements about what will happen in the heavens and on the earth. KOC\ Scooco TEpocTa EV Tea oupavcp, K a i

ffi

V % a \ | j a Ka\ m j p

Ka\ ax|ji5a KOTTVOG,

And I will give wonders in the heavens, And on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke.

Read in this way, the verse creates a chiasm with the prepositional phrase in the second colon, which creates a new spatial frame of reference to switch from 'in the heavens' to 'on the earth'. The verb in the second colon would be construed as elided and thus dependent upon the first colon. On this basis, it seems that the reading in the LXX editions evinces an ambiguity in the Greek, one which each clarifies through the use of punctuation. On the other hand, the NT manuscripts nearly universally attest three additions in Acts 2.19, unattested in the LXX or in the MT: KCCTCO, OTIMÔC and avco. The presence of these words effectively counters the possibility of the second reading found in Cambridge edition, essentially disambig-

112


uating the nature of the parallelism without the use of punctuation. KCCI Scooco TBpccTa ev T c o oupavcp avco

And I will give wonders in the heavens above,

KCU anuEia ETTI TTJS yr\s

And signs on the earth below:

KOCTCO,

onucc KCCI mip Km ccTuiSa Katrvou*

blood and fire and columns of smoke.

Based on the additions attested in the NT texts, what is punctuated as right-dislocated in BHS and the Gottingen edition is outside the scope of the parallelism in the NT readings as well. Adding ornjeTa changes the parallelism of the first two cola from potentially chiastic to directly parallel, juxtaposing 'wonders' with 'signs', and 'above' with 'below'. Since the final colon is not in parallel with either of the preceding lines, it is understood as appositional to at least one of the preceding cola. Bezae omits the dislocated segment, but retains the additions described above. The net result is to maintain the same parallelism as the other NT manuscripts, without providing the additional detail about the signs and wonders. In other words, the primary difference between Bezae and the other NT manuscripts is one of semantic detail, not syntactic relations. Thus, I contend that the additions attested in the NT manuscripts have the effect of disambiguating the nature of the parallelism intended by the LXX, specifying the exact relationship of the lines to one another that does not necessitate the use of punctuation. Though the NT manuscripts attest several additions in Acts 2.19 compared to the LXX, I contend that the effect is to disambiguate how the lines are to be related to one another in the absence of punctuation. Conclusions We have surveyed how insights from discourse grammar can inform and even correct text-critical judgements in new and helpful ways. Understanding the discourse function of clause-medial prophetic formulas added insight into why an unattested addition in either the L X X or M T could reasonably be construed as original, helping to corroborate the widespread manuscript support. Insights from information structure combined with a functional description of KCU allowed us to see the meaningful difference that various readings would make on the overall structuring of the passage. Attention to the impact that the various readings would have on the poetic structure of the passage provided additional criteria for sifting through the text-critical evidence attested in this passage. Only one of the five significant variations from the LXX

RUNGE

Joel 2.28-32a in Acts 2.17-21

113

reading have been given much consideration within the literature, other than evaluating the manuscript evidence for or against the reading. The kinds of unattested variants found in Acts 2.17-20 often raise questions about whether they represent some later L X X reading, or alternatively an adaptation of the original into some new and different message. Other than the change in temporal frame from generic to specifically eschatological in Acts 2.17, I have demonstrated that each variation plays a significant role in its context of preserving the original Hebrew meaning, at least as it is attested in BHS, by clarifying ambiguity observed in the LXX readings. I contend that these variations should not be understood as evidence of later recensions, nor should they be rejected based on their absence from the LXX reading. Rather, the variations evince a consistent attempt to provide grammatical clarity to the message communicated.

Chapter 8 G E N E S I S

1-3

4

Q

A

I

N

S

N

T

R

D

C O N C E P T I O N S

U

C

T

I

O

N

,

P

H

I

L

O

O

F

H

A

N

D

U

M

P

A

A

N

U

K

I

N

D

I N

L

Matthew Goff Introduction 4QInstruction (1Q26, 4Q415-18, 423) is the last lengthy text from Qumran to be published. Its official edition appeared in 1999. The composition includes a dualistic understanding of humankind, using 'flesh' and 'spirit' terminology that is grounded in an interpretation of Genesis 1-3. There are similar anthropological reflections and exegesis of Genesis 1-3 in Philo and Paul. I will argue that these authors were influenced by Palestinian Jewish traditions that are attested in 4QInstruction, which shaped how they understood Genesis 1-3. Since 4QInstruction is a sapiential text, it is possible to understand this as an example of the influence of the Jewish wisdom tradition on both Philo and Paul. I will not be able to examine the full range of their writings but will focus on De opificio mundi and 1 Corinthians. 1

4QInstruction 2

First, some background regarding 4QInstruction. Most commentators A version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Diego, California on 18 November 2007.1 would also like to thank Eibert Tigchelaar for sending me his paper, 'Flesh and Spirit: Reading 4QInstruction in the Light of 1 Corinthians', that he presented in Leuven in December 2007. 1 J. Strugnell and D. J. Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2. 4QInstruction (Musar le Mebin): 4Q415ff. With a Re-edition of 1Q26 (DJD, 34; Oxford. Clarendon, 1999). T. Elgvin is the editor of 4Q423. 2 Recent books on 4QInstruction include M. J. Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction (STDJ, 50; Leiden: Brill, 2003); B. G. Wold, Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran Wisdom Document 'Musar leMevin' and its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions (WUNT, 2/201; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); E. J. C. Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (STDJ, 44; Leiden: Brill, 2001). For other scholarship, consult

GOFF

Genesis

1-3

And Conceptions of Humankind

115

date the work to the second century B C E . The composition is aptly classified as a wisdom text. It often uses the admonition form and provides instruction on mundane, worldly topics including marriage, bartering goods and the payment of debts. The document was written by a teacher to a student who is usually referred to as mebin (p30), or 'understanding one'. The work is devoted to his education and is explicitly pedagogical. 4QInstruction is in continuity with the practical wisdom of the book of Proverbs. But unlike this biblical book, 4QInstruction draws extensively from the apocalyptic tradition. This is evident in the composition's frequent use of the (TH] n . This expression signifies a form of supernatural revelation and can be translated 'the mystery that is to be'. It is probably the most important phrase in the composition. The raz nihyeh occurs over twenty times in 4QInstruction and elsewhere only three times (1Q27 1 i 3-4 [2 x ]; 1QS 11:3-4). The word raz is attested in Early Jewish literature, often to denote heavenly revelation. It is used repeatedly in Daniel 2, for example, in reference to God's disclosure to Daniel of Nebuchadnezzar's dream (w. 18-19, 27-30, 47 [2 x ]). Nihyeh is a niphal participle of the verb 'to be'. In 4QInstruction this participle denotes the entire range of history - past, present and future. The raz nihyeh is connected to a tripartite division of time in an unfortunately fragmentary passage: 'Everything that exists (rrn3n) in it, from what has been to what will be in it... His period which God revealed to the ear of the understanding ones through the mystery that is to be' (4Q418 123 ii 3-4; cf. 4Q417 1 i 3-4; 1QS 3:15; CD 2:9-10). The mystery that is to be signifies God's deterministic plan that shapes history and creation, presented to the mebin as a revealed truth. The addressee has elect status. He is in 'the lot of the angels' (4Q418 81 4-5). One benefit of this status is access to supernatural revelation, in the form of the raz nihyeh. Throughout the work the addressee is asked to meditate and reflect upon this mystery (e.g., 4Q418 43 4). He acquires wisdom primarily through the study of the raz nihyeh. 3

4

The Vision of Hagu, the Fleshly Spirit and the Spiritual People The expression 'the vision of Hagu' f U n n ]1Tn) also signifies heavenly revelation in 4QInstruction. The composition mentions this vision in a D. J. Harrington, 'Recent Study of 4QInstruction', in F. Garcia Martinez, A. Steudel and E. J. C. Tigchelaar (eds), From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Melanges qumraniens en hommage d Emile Puech (STDJ, 61; Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 105-23. 3 Goff, Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, pp. 228-32. 4 T. Elgvin, 'Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Early Second Century BCE - The Evidence of 4Qinstruction', in L. H. Schiffman (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), pp. 226-47.

116


lesson regarding the 'spiritual people' and the 'fleshly spirit' in 4Q417 1 i 13-18. This much-discussed passage reads: 13. And you, 14. understanding one, inherit your reward by remembering the mi[ght because] it is coming. Engraved is the statute, and ordained is all the punishment, 15. because engraved is that which has been ordained by God against all the iniquities of] the sons of Sheth. The book of remembrance is written before him 16. for those who keep his word - that is, the vision of Hagu for the book of remembrance. He bequeathed it to Adam (OTX) together with a spiritual people, be[cau]se 17. he fashioned it (lit. 'him') according to the likeness of the holy ones. But no more did he give Hagu to the fleshly spirit because it did not distinguish between 18. [go]od and evil according to the judgment of its [sp]irit. 5

This article will not discuss all aspects of this complex passage. It is addressed to the mebin and is presented as a teaching that he is to ponder and study (11. 13-14). The vision of Hagu is associated with a heavenly book and is thus reasonably considered a form of divine revelation. Lines 13-15 suggest that the revealed content of the vision includes knowledge of the final judgement. He is to understand that this judgement is divinely ordained (cf. 4Q416 1; 4Q418 69 ii). The vision of Hagu passage lays out two different types of humankind the 'spiritual people' (Tin US) and the 'fleshly spirit' p (TH). The former has access to the vision and the latter does not. The spiritual people are connected to angels (OÊTHp) and revelation (Hagu). The fleshly spirit is associated with a lack of revelation and of the knowledge of good and evil. The 'spirit' of the spiritual people represents affinity with the heavenly world, and the 'flesh' of the fleshly spirit signifies separation from this realm. The expression 'spiritual people' is not attested elsewhere in 4QInstruction but 'fleshly spirit' is. 4Q416 1 12 states that 'every fleshly spirit will be laid bare', or destroyed, during the final judgement. The 6

m

5 Scholarship on this passage includes GofT, Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, pp. 80-126; Wold, Women, Men and Angels, pp. 124-49; J. J. Collins, Tn the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran', in D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich (eds), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 609-19; A. Lange, Weisheit und Pradestination: Weisheitliche Urorahung und Pradestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ, 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 80-90. For discussion of the transcription upon which this translation is based, see Goff, Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, pp. 84-8. Consult also Strugnell and Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV, pp. 160-6; Tigchelaar'To Increase Learning, pp. 52-4. 6 The term 'the vision of Hagu' is similar to 'the book of Hagu' mentioned in the Damascus Document and the Rule of the Congregation (CD 10:6; 14:6-8; lQSa 1:6-7).

GOFF

Genesis 1-3 And Conceptions of Humankind

117

author in 4Q418 811-2 tells the addressee that he has been separated from the fleshly spirit in order to remove him 'from all that he (God) hates'. The fleshly spirit is doomed to die and is distinguished from the intended audience of the composition. The phrase 'fleshly spirit' evokes the mortality of the body. In the Hodayot the expression denotes bodily, creaturely existence that is distinguished from a soul or spirit with a connection to the heavenly realm. The speaker asserts: 'In the mysteries of your insight [you] have apportioned all these things... [However, what is] the fleshly spirit p E Q r m ) to understand all these matters?' (1QH 5:19-20). The poet refers to his base humanity with the term 'fleshly spirit' and he acknowledges its tension with his reception of revelation. In 4QInstruction the 'fleshly spirit' is denied revelation. The assertion in 4Q418 81 that the mebin is not among the fleshly spirit indicates that in this work, unlike the Hodayot, the expression does not refer simply to mere bodily existence. The phrase can be reasonably understood as referring to the rest of humankind, aside from the elect to whom the composition is addressed. 4Q418 81 asserts that God 'hates' the fleshly spirit, but polemic about its evil nature is not a prominent feature of the text (cf. 4Q416 1 16; 4Q417 1 ii 12). It never states that they are wicked. People in this category would include the unjust but would not be limited to such people. The core issue is not that the people of the fleshly spirit are evil but that they do not have the knowledge necessary to obtain eternal life. Those among the fleshly spirit are not in the lot of the angels, do not possess the raz nihyeh, and thus do not have the knowledge necessary to obtain eternal life. The situation is different with the spiritual people. Elsewhere 4QInstruction asserts that the angels enjoy eternal life (4Q418 69 ii 13). Since they are associated with the angels, the spiritual people can be linked to eternal life as well. They have the prospect of life after death, whereas the fleshly spirit does not. The spiritual people are not only associated with the angels. The vision is also disclosed to (1.16). While the interpretation of this term is debated, it is reasonable to consider a reference to Adam, as John Collins has argued (cf. 1QS 3:18). The reference to the knowledge of good and evil in the Hagu passage evokes Adam. The phrase 'according to the likeness of the holy ones' (CTKJnp rP3D!7D) can be understood as paraphrasing the expression 'in the image of God' (DTf*?K DÛD) from 7

7 Collins, *In the Likeness of the Holy Ones', pp. 613, 615. Strugnell and Harrington, Qumran Cave 4. XXIV, p. 164, suggest that is either a reference to the patriarch Enosh or to humanity in general. Both interpretations are possible but difficult to uphold. Enosh never receives revelation in early Jewish literature. If refers to humankind in 4Q417 1 i 16, the line states that all of humanity receives the vision of Hagu. This is difficult to reconcile with the assertion in line 17 that this vision is not given to the fleshly spirit.

118


Gen. 1.27, with DTlbfc interpreted as a reference to angels. The 'image of God' language of Genesis 1 is reformulated to be part of the claim that the spiritual people are 'fashioned' (HIT) in the likeness of the holy ones. Since the spiritual people correspond to the Adam of Genesis 1, the fleshly spirit can be reasonably connected to the creaturely, mortal depiction of Adam in Gen. 2.7, although the Hagu passage admittedly never alludes to this verse directly. The claim that God 'but no more' gave Hagu to the fleshly spirit in 4Q417 1 i 17 may imply that at one point the fleshly spirit possessed Hagu but that the vision was later taken away from it. The line would then contain an indirect reference to Adam's removal from the garden and thus the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 4QInstruction does not attest a 'fall of man' or doctrine of original sin. The explicit association between Adam and the spiritual people demonstrates that the author had a positive conception of this patriarch. This perspective is also evident in 4Q423, which likens the elect addressee to Adam by asserting that the mebin has been given authority over Eden. Given this posture towards Adam, it is not surprising that the text does not directly mention his disobedience or expulsion from Eden. If one grants that there are indirect allusions to Adam in the Hagu passage's presentation of the fleshly spirit, 4QInstruction attests a distinction between Adam in Genesis 1, who is connected to the spirit and the angels, and the Adam of Genesis 2-3, who is associated with the flesh and distinguished from the angels. Adam is in the background of 4QInstruction's presentation of both the spiritual people and the fleshly spirit. In this sense the author can be said to attest two different conceptions of Adam, each of which is associated with a type of humankind. 4QInstruction traces two very different modes of human existence (the finitude of the body, eternal life after death for the elect) back to the portrait of Adam in Genesis 1-3. The goal of the vision of Hagu passage is for the mebin to see himself as 8

9

10

11

8 The text can also be read as mentioning the inclination, or yetzer, of these spiritual people. 9 The phrase "lED 1TH may reflect the expression i m ©S3 ('living being') of Gen. 2.7. See Goff, Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, pp. 98-9. 10 I explore this interpretation at greater length in 'Adam, the Angels and Eternal Life: Genesis 1-3 in 4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon', in G. Xeravits (ed.), The Book of Wisdom and Jewish Hellenistic Philosophy (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). Lange, Weisheit und Prddestination, p. 53, translates: 'Doch die Erklarung wurde nicht dem Geist des Fleisches gegeben.' 11 J. J. Collins, 'The Mysteries of God: Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon', in F. Garcia Martinez (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BETL, 168; Leuven: Leuven University Press/ Peeters, 2003), pp. 287-305 (esp. 302); idem, 'Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve', in H. Najman and J. H. Newman (eds), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (JSJSup, 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004), pp. 293-308.

GOFF


119

similar to the spiritual people and different from the fleshly spirit. The spiritual people possess the vision of Hagu, as the addressee has the mystery that is to be. He is in the lot of the angels; the spiritual people are in the likeness of the holy ones. Like the spiritual people, the mebin is removed from the fleshly spirit (4Q418 81 1-2). The affinity with the angels suggests that the spiritual people enjoy the prospect of life after death, whereas the fleshly spirit does not. The elect addressees of 4QInstruction were apparently taught that they were to join the angels after death, and in that sense their elect status is only fully realized after the expiration of the body. As the spiritual people are connected to Adam, 4QInstruction portrays the addressee as having authority over Eden in 4Q423. 4Q417 1 i 13-18 provides a lesson to the mebin about his elect status. The spiritual people signify the elect. As such, they represent an ideal that the addressee is to emulate. This instructional aim, and the pedagogical nature of the work in general, assumes that the mebin could follow the wrong path. He can be like the spiritual people or fleshly spirit. It is God's plan that he should be among the elect but he has to realize this destiny through his own conduct, and he could fail. 12

Philo One of Philo's numerous interpretations of Genesis 1-3, known as the 'double creation of man', is similar to the Hagu passage of 4QInstruction in several respects. Philo argues that Genesis 1-3 has two different accounts of Adam. These biblical chapters contain two separate creations of man, one heavenly and one earthly. Writing before the emergence of 4QInstruction, in the 1980s Thomas Tobin suspected that Philo's 'double creation of man' relies on older tradition because at times he often 'corrects' the dichotomy so that it refers not to two men but two minds (e.g., Plant. 44-46; QG 1.8). As John Collins has suggested, 4QInstruction provides an impression of older Jewish interpretative 13

14

12 Collins, 'The Mysteries of God', pp. 294-8. 13 Among the numerous studies of Philo's exegesis of Genesis are P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (NovTSup, 86; Brill, 1997); T. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation (CBQMS, 14; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association, 1983); K. Martin Hogan, 'The Exegetical Background of the "Ambiguity of Death" in the Wisdom of Solomon', JSJ 30 (1999): 1-24; R. G Hamerton-Kelly, 'Sources and Traditions in Philo Judaeus: Prolegomena to an Analysis of his Writings', Studia Philonica 1 (1972): 3-26; B. L. Mack, 'Exegetical Traditions in Alexandria Judaism: A Program for the Analysis of the Philonic Corpus', Studia Philonica 3 (1974-75): 71-112. 14 Tobin, The Creation of Man, p. 137.

120


traditions that shape Philo's exegesis. One text of Philo in which this appears to be the case is De opificio mundi 134. Here, after citing Gen. 2.7, Philo writes: By means of this text (Gen. 2.7) too he shows us in the clearest fashion that there is a vast difference between the human being who has been molded now and the one who previously came into being after the image of God (Gen. 1.27). For the human being who has been molded as sense-perceptible object already participates in quality, consists of body and soul (EK OCOMOCTOS icon V|AJXHS), is either man or woman, and is by nature mortal. The human being after the image is a kind of idea or genus or seal, is perceived by the intellect, incorporeal, neither male nor female, and is immortal by nature (cf. Leg. 1.31). 16

Philo's 'double creation of man', in the words of Tobin, makes a distinction 'between a heavenly man and an earthly man'} The former is associated with Gen. 1.27 and the latter with Gen. 2.7. This has anthropological implications. Philo goes on to assert that man is a composite of 'earthly substance' and 'divine breath'. According to this conception of humankind, the flesh is created, into which the immortal divine breath, which is not created, is placed (Opif. 135). Philo interprets Genesis 1-3 in numerous ways, not all of which accord smoothly with Opif. 134. In Det. 83, for example, he offers a 'single creation' of man in Genesis 1-3, a view that harmonizes the term 'spirit' of Gen. 2.7, interpreted as a reference to Reason and thus an impression of the divine Logos, with the word 'image' of Gen. 1.27, which is also considered a reflection of the Logos. Philo's interpretations of Genesis 1-3 do not in toto comprise one consistent whole. The core issue for the present purpose is not Philo's exegesis in general but his double creation of man interpretation. Both Philo's double creation of man and 4QInstruction base a dualistic understanding of humanity upon Genesis 1-3. The Qumran wisdom text associates the spiritual people with Adam and angels through an understanding of Gen. 1.27. Philo in Opif 134 turns to this same verse 1

18

19

15 Collins, 'In the Likeness of the Holy Ones', p. 617. 16 Translation from D. T. Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses (Atlanta: SBL; Leiden: Brill, 2001), p. 82. 17 Tobin, The Creation of Man, p. 24. Italics his. 18 This has been understood as a Stoic interpretation of Gen. 2.7, based on the word Trvsuua, while he offers a Platonic understanding of Gen. 1.27, based on the word SIKCOV (cf. Leg. 1.42; Opif. 24-25). See Hogan, 'The Exegetical Background of the "Ambiguity of Death"', p. 6. The range of differing interpretations by Philo of material in Gen. 1-3 has been recently examined in S. Hultgren, 'The Origin of Paul's Doctrine of the Two Adams in 1 Cor 15.45-49', JSNT 25 (2003): 343-70. Also consult Tobin, The Creation of Man, pp. 87-98; J. Jervell, Imago Dei (FRLANT, 58; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960). 19 Borgen, Philo of Alexandria, p. 10.

GOFF


121

to describe a heavenly, spiritual Adam. However, there are significant differences in their interpretations. Philo is more exegetical than 4QInstruction. In Opif 134 Philo presents his views regarding two aspects of the human being as a way of explaining Gen. 1.27 and 2.7, citing the latter. 4QInstruction, by contrast, has no direct citation of Genesis. Philo, more explicitly than this Qumran wisdom text, considers Genesis 1-3 to attest two separate creation of man stories. The Alexandrian sage in Opif 134 understands there to be two Adams. This can be understood as similar but far from equivalent to the view that 4QInstruction employs two different conceptions of Adam when describ ing the spiritual people and the fleshly spirit. Philo in Opif. 134 emphasizes that Genesis 1-3 contains two different Adams, but this leads not to a claim that there are fleshly and spiritual kinds of humanity but a bodysoul dualism considered inherent to the human condition. Philo's dichotomy of two Adams is cast in a Platonic division between two realms, one corporeal and mortal, the other incorporeal and immortal. This is similar to 4QInstruction's distinction between the fleshly and spiritual kinds of humanity. Philo, however, grounds his exegesis in philosophical language that is unknown to 4QInstruction. Philo appears to reshape Palestinian exegetical traditions that are attested in 4QInstruction in the light of Hellenistic philosophy. 20

Paul An antithesis between flesh (oap£) and spirit (TTVEUMO) is a core element of Pauline anthropology. Both terms have a range of meanings, but in Paul 'spirit' often signifies the Holy Spirit, which can affect and indwell in a person (e.g., 1 Cor. 2.12), and the term can thus refer to that part of the human composition that has an innate attraction to the divine realm. 'Flesh', by contrast, refers to the physical body or to an outlook on life that is restricted to worldly, creaturely concerns. Romans 8 and 21

22

20 4QInstruction argues against the speculation of Hultgren, 'Origin of Paul's Doctrine', p. 347, that in the older exegetical traditions that influence Philo 'the creation of man at Gen. 1.27 referred to the creation of empirical man'. 21 Standard studies include R. Jewett, Paul's Anthropological Terms: A Study of their Use in Conflict Settings (AGJU, 10; Leiden: Brill, 1971); R. Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966). For more recent scholarship, see D. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995); J. D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). 22 Dunn, Theology of Paul, pp. 72, 77; J. Frey, 'Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage', in C. Hempel, A. Lange and H. Lichtenberger (eds), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (BETL, 159; Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2002), pp. 368-404 (esp. 368-74).


122

Galatians 5 , core texts for understanding Paul's conception of flesh, construe it as a negative force opposed to God's rule that can lead people astray. There has been an exhaustive search for the tradition-history informing Paul's use of the word sarx. Frey has suggested that the fleshspirit dichotomy in Paul is profitably read against the background of the Palestinian wisdom tradition, as attested by 4QInstruction. He has stressed that both 4QInstruction and Paul have a negative understanding of flesh. Like 4QInstruction, Paul distinguishes between fleshly and spiritual types of people. First Corinthians 3.1 reads: 'And so, brothers and sisters, I could not speak to you as spiritual people [cos TTVEUUCCTIKOTS], but rather as people of the flesh [cos oocpidvots], as infants in Christ.' Paul's 'people of the flesh' are 'infants in Christ' who are not fully mature in terms of their development as ethical followers of Christ. Paul presumes that one who is among the fleshly people can become a member of the spiritual people. Otherwise there would be no reason for him to continue his work among the Corinthians. The missionary aspect of Paul is somewhat different from 4QInstruction, which never addresses the fleshly spirit. The composition strives to ensure that the mebin is more like the spiritual people than the fleshly spirit, a goal, as argued above, which presumes that the addressee is free to make his own moral decisions. In both Paul and 4QInstruction an individual can act either fleshly or spiritually. The similarity between this text and 1 Corinthians 3 regarding the distinction both compositions make between spiritual and fleshly types of people can be plausibly understood as a consequence of influence from the Jewish sapiential tradition in this section of 1 Corinthians. 23

24

25

26

23

Refer to the summary of the relevant scholarship in Frey, 'Flesh and Spirit', pp. 371—

4. 24 Aside from his 'Flesh and Spirit' article, consult J. Frey, 'The Notion of "Flesh" in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage', in D. Falk et al. (eds), Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998 (STDJ, 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 197-226; idem, 'Die paulinische Antithese von "Fleisch" und "Geist" und die palastinisch-judische Weisheitstradition', ZNW 90 (1999): 45-77. 25 Frey, 'Flesh and Spirit', p. 403. 26 For the sapiential elements of 1 Cor. 1-4, see H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1990), pp. 55-62; S. Grindheim, 'Wisdom for the Perfect: Paul's Challenge to the Corinthian Church (1 Cor. 2.6-16)', JBL 121 (2002): 689-709 (esp. 692-7). Note that the word oofyia occurs sixteen times in this unit, but only three times elsewhere in Paul (Rom. 11.33; 1 Cor. 12.8; 2 Cor. 1.12). Paul in this section also employs the term 'mystery' to signify supernatural revelation that is disclosed to the elect, similar to the usage of raz in 4QInstruction (1 Cor. 2.7; 4.1).

GOFF


123

Paul, like 4QInstruction, grounds his conception of humanity in an understanding of Genesis 1-3. First Corinthians 15.45-49 reads: 27

Thus it is written, T h e first man, Adam, became a living being [eis vpuxnv Ccooccv]'; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit [TrveGpa £COOTTOIOGV]. But it is not the spiritual [Tn/EupaTiKov] that is first, but the physical [V|AJX»K6V], and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man o f dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust [TTJV e i K o v a TOU XOI'KOU], we will also bear the image of the man of heaven [TTJV eixovcc TOU eiroupaviou] [cf. v. 22].

The core distinction in this passage is not simply between sarx and pneuma (v. 50). The pericope is dominated by two interlocking oppositions. One is between psyche (VJAJXT)) and spirit. The other is between Adam and Christ. This latter dichotomy is expressed by three pairs of phrases - the first Adam and last Adam (v. 45), the first man and the second man (v. 47), and the man of dust and the man from heaven (v. 49). In the logic of the passage, psyche is associated with the man of dust and pneuma with the man from heaven. While the two words have a range of meanings, in 1 Corinthians the essential difference between them is that psyche signifies the vitality of living people, restricted to their creaturely existence, whereas spirit denotes the aspect of the human being that has affinity with the heavenly realm (cf. 1 Cor. 2.13-15). The meaning of the term psyche in 1 Cor. 15.4449 is thus similar to that of the word sarx in 1 Cor. 3.1 and ruah basar ('fleshly spirit') in 4QInstruction. All three expressions in these passages refer to forms of human existence that end with physical death. All three understand this type of life as a category of humankind that comprises not only the wicked, but all those who do not have the knowledge or potential to attain a blessed afterlife after death. I have already argued this with regard to the fleshly people of 1 Cor. 3.1 and the fleshly spirit of 4QInstruction. In 1 Cor. 15 the distinction between the two anthropo logical categories conveyed by psyche and pneuma, respectively, is made at the eschatological moment of the resurrection of the dead - some people have their existence end at physical death and others will live on, not with their 'psychical' bodies but rather their 'spiritual' bodies (v. 44; cf. v. 21). 4QInstruction and chs 3 and 15 of 1 Corinthians contrast those who are merely fleshly or 'psychical' with those who are spiritual. Both documents 28

27 Recent studies of this famous passage include J. R. Asher, Polarity and Change in 1 Cor 15: A Study of Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection (HUT, 42; Tubingen: MohrSiebeck, 2000); Hultgren, 'Origin of Paul's Doctrine', pp. 343-70. 28 I am not arguing for a general identification of the terms but rather that their meanings are compatible in these specific texts.

124


associate spirit with eternal life after death, but one should not conclude that they operate with the same conception of spirit or of the nature of the eternal life that awaits the elect. Paul and 4QInstruction utilize Genesis 1-3 in similar ways. In 4QInstruction the spiritual people are described with language that recalls Adam in Genesis 1 and the work's portrait of the fleshly spirit alludes, more indirectly than in the case of the spiritual people, to Adam in Genesis 2-3. In 1 Corinthians 15, Adam, the man of dust, is described with language that recalls Adam in Genesis 2-3, while the passage's account of Jesus, the man from heaven, draws upon terminology used for Adam in Genesis 1. Paul's claim in 1 Cor. 15.49 that 'we will also bear the image (TT|V e'tKovcri of the man of heaven' alludes to Gen. 1.27. The word EIKCOV translates D7H in LXX Gen. 1.27. In the schema of 1 Corinthians 15, bearing this 'image' refers to the 'spiritual body' which the followers of Christ will receive when the dead are resurrected. The 'image' language in 1 Cor. 15.49 is also employed in relation to Adam, the first man, a move which is unparalleled in 4QInstruction. The language of Gen. 2.7 is also applied to both Adam and Christ. This is obvious in the case of Adam, the 'man of dust'. The passage's frequent use of'dust' (XOI'KOS) language (vv. 47,48,49) is a patent reference to Gen. 2.7, which is loosely cited in 1 Cor. 15.45. This verse states: 'Thus it is written, "The first man, Adam became a living being [sis v^X ^ £>caoav]"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit [in/sOua £ C O O T T O I O U V ] ' . LXX Gen. 2.7 reads: 'God formed man, dust from the earth [TOV dvBpcoirov x°uv duo -rfjs yfjs], and breathed into his face a breath of life, and the man became a living being (eis V|AJXT|V Ccooav).' The expression eis ^ A J X ^ £ G X K X V , which Paul applies to Adam, is found verbatim in this verse. The phrase 'life-giving spirit' (trveuua £COOTTOIO\JV), which is associated with Jesus, alludes to the assertion in Gen. 2.7 that God blew a 'breath of life' (trvoriv Ccofjs) into Adam. The term v|Aixn of Gen. 2.7 is linked to Adam and TTvorj to Christ, by Paul's use of the word TTVEU|ja. The psyche-pneuma distinction is grounded in Gen. 2.7, a core text for the creation of 29

1

30

31

1

29 Martin, The Corinthian Body, p. 128. 30 B. A. Pearson, The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians: A Study in the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and its Relation to Gnosticism (SBLDS, 12; Missoula: SBL, 1973), pp. 24-6, argues that Paul and his Corinthian opponents have rival interpretations of Gen. 2.7, with the latter denying the resurrection because of their belief in an a-somatic immortality' based on a reading of Gen. 2.7 that was current in Hellenistic Judaism. He suggests that Paul's understanding of Gen. 2.7 depends on Jewish exegetical traditions that are preserved in Qumran and rabbinic literature (e.g., 1QS 11.20-22). 4QInstruction, which was not available when Pearson put forward his thesis, supports the idea that there are Palestinian antecedents to Paul's use of Gen. 1.27 and 2.7. 31 Note the similarity to 1 Cor. 15.47: b TTpcoTos avBpcoiTos EK yfjs x ° S - The translation of LXX Gen. 2.7 quoted above is from NETS. 4

O , K

GOFF


125

humankind. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul does not operate with a simple distinction between Gen. 1.27 and 2.7, but rather he connects each verse to both the man of dust and the man of heaven, who are opposed to one another. Paul's exegesis of Gen. 1.27 and 2.7 in 1 Corinthians 15 is similar to, but more complicated than, 4QInstruction's employment of language from Genesis 1-3 when making its contrast between the spiritual people and the fleshly spirit. The Hagu passage comprises an important earlier Palestinian parallel to Paul's assertion that there are two Adams. This suggests that in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is to some extent appropriating and expanding upon Palestinian exegetical traditions. Conclusion Philo and Paul, while undoubtedly coloured by their interaction with the wider Hellenistic world, turned to Genesis 1-3 to explain the nature of humankind in ways that are similar to 4QInstruction. Paul and the author of 4QInstruction both offer a dualistic understanding of humankind. They both assert in ways that draw upon Genesis 1-3 that some have the potential for life after the death of the body and that others do not. The presentation of fleshly and spiritual types of humankind in 4QInstruction is similar to Philo's argument that Genesis 1-3 recounts a mortal and an immortal Adam. 4QInstruction suggests that Philo and Paul appropriated and reworked exegetical traditions regarding Genesis 1-3 attested in the Jewish wisdom tradition in Palestine in the second century BCE. This thesis deserves to be explored further in future scholarship, because it can make a substantial contribution to the study of both Philo and Paul. This is particularly the case with regard to Paul since scholars at times explain his anthropology and use of Genesis by turning to Philo, as well as the Wisdom of Solomon, and thus understand Paul as drawing primarily on Hellenistic Jewish ideas. This article addresses but does not fully investigate the possibility that the Hellenistic Jewish traditions that shaped Paul's thought can themselves be traced back to Palestinian sources to an extent that was not possible before the full publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 32

32 G. E . Sterling and R . A. Horsley, for example, understand 1 Cor. 15 in part by pointing out its affinities with Opif. 134-35. See G. E . Sterling, 'Wisdom among the Perfect: Creation Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian Christianity', NovT 37 (1995): 364-76; R . A. Horsley, 'Pneumatikos vs. Psychikos Distinctions of Spiritual Status among the Corinthians', HTR 69 (1976): 269-88. Note also Pearson, The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology, p. 24; Hultgren, 'Origins of Paul's Doctrine', pp. 344-57.

Chapter 9 W H Y

C A N ' T T H E

T H E U S E

O N E O

F

W H O

D O E S

L E V I T I C U S

18.5

T H E S E I N

T H I N G S

L I V E

G A L A T I A N S

B

Y

T H E M ' ?

3.12

Preston M. Sprinkle 1.

Introduction

Galatians 3.10-14 is often considered among the most difficult passages in Paul, not because his assertions are ambiguous - they are in fact quite clear. The difficulty lies, rather, in his choice of scriptural texts used to support his assertions. With regard to Paul's use of Scripture here, most commentators focus on the enigma of 3.10 leaving little space for 3.12. But this latter passage, where Paul cites Lev. 18.5, plays a more fundamental part in Paul's theology of law: not only is Lev. 18.5 the 'John 3.16 of early Judaism' ('the one who does these things will live by them'), but it is also the antithesis of Paul's own 'John 3.16', namely, Hab. 2.4. But why? Why does Paul reject Moses' promise that if you obey the law you will have life? Or, why can't 'the one who does these things live by them'? The following treatment will concentrate on Gal. 3.11-12, giving special attention to Paul's use of Lev. 18.5 in Gal. 3.12b. I will first mention four main views on Paul's use of Lev. 18.5 in Gal. 3.12.1 will then interact with these views by examining the Leviticus citation in light of the letter as a whole, noting certain features of the letter that may shed light on Paul's opposition to Lev. 18.5. 1

This paper was presented at the annual SBL meeting in Washington D C in November 2006 and is reproduced here with little modification. For a more recent and thorough discussion of Lev. 18.5 in Gal. 3.12, see my, Law and Life: The Use of Leviticus 18.5 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation (WUNT 2.241; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2008), pp. 133— 64. 1 Richard Hays, The Letter to the Galatians, (The New Interpreter's Bible, 11; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), p. 257; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), p. 137.

SPRINKLE Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12 2. Approaches to Galatians 1

127

3.11-12

2

Law/Gospel (I). Doing the law in order to gain life is impossible because no one (in Adam) can do the law perfectly. So, the 'one who does these things can't live by them' because of his/her condition: the problem is an anthropological one. 2 Law/Gospel (2). Doing the law is denounced in light of faith, because the law itself is defective. Not only is the law unable to give life, but the Leviticus construction itself underscores human agency in attaining salvation. So, the 'one who does these things can't live by them' because 'these things' lack the power to give life to the human doer: the problem is a nomological one. 3 Non-Soteriological. Lev. 18.5 does not address soteriology: 'the one who does these things will live in them'; that is, if you do the law you will have to continue to live in accordance with it. So, 'living in these things' is the wrong sphere of existence: the problem is a locational one. 3

4

2 T. R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfilment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), pp. 60-1; Frank Matera, Galatians (SP 9; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 124; Seyoon Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), pp. 128-64; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 159 (to some extent); R. Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 146; Richard Longenecker, Galatians (WBC, 41; Dallas: Word Books, 1990), pp. 120-1; F. MuBner, Der Galaterbrief(HTKNT, 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974), pp. 191, 229-31; U. Borse, Der Brief an die Galater (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1984), p. 129: 'Da dem sundigen Menschen die Befolgung aller Gebote aber nicht moglich ist, kann er durch das gesetz nicht am Leben gelangen (vgl. V. 2If)'. 3 Hans Joachim Eckstein, Verheifiung und Gesetz: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Galater 2,15-4,7 (WUNT, 86; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996), p. 136; see also G. Klein, Tndividualgeschichte und Weltgeschichte bei Paulus', in G. Klein (ed.), Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsdtze am Neuen Testament (BEvT, 50; Munich: Kaiser, 1969), pp. 180-224 (206), cited in Eckstein, Verheifiung, p. 149; cf. 144-5. Francis Watson is similar, but frames the issue in terms of divine and human agency; Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T & T Clark, 2004), pp. 162, 200-1, 208, 276-7, 329, 428, 475. 4 See in particular James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 152-4, 374-5, and his recent collection of essays, idem, The New Perspective on Paul (WUNT, 185; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2005), pp. 65-7; cf. 125-6, 446, 454; see also Robert A. Bryant, The Risen and Crucified Christ in Galatians (SBLDS, 185; Atlanta: SBL, 2001), p. 177; Friedrich Avemarie, 'Paul and the Claim of the Law According to the Scripture: Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12 and Romans 10.5', in Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor (eds), The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2005), pp. 125-48 (141); Andrew H. Wakefield, Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul's Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3.1-14 (SBLDS, 14; Atlanta: SBL, 2004), p. 174; cf. 159, 167-77.

128 4


Salvation History. Faith (and Hab. 2.4) represents the time of covenant fulfilment; the law (and Lev. 18.5) represents the old covenant. So 'the one who does these things' no longer can 'live by them': the problem is a chronological one. 3. Critical Analysis

a. Galatians 3.11-12 in the light of Galatians 3.19-25 Paul discusses the relationship between the law and life in Gal. 3.19-25; as such, this passage may shed light on his opposition to Lev. 18.5 in 3.12. Of particular importance is his statement in 3.21: 6 o u v vo\xos KCCTCX TCOV ETTCCYYEAICOV TOU 0EOG; \n\ YBVOITO. E'I y a p EOOBTI vopos o 5uvd|jEvos CcporroiTioai, OVTCOS EK v o p o u av f\v r\ 5iKaioo\Jvrj

Is the law, therefore, against the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law was given that was able to make alive, then righteousness would really have been by the law.

Paul here reveals his disagreement with the common Jewish understand ing that the law was given for the purpose of leading to life, an understanding no doubt embraced by his opponents in Galatia. Significant for our concerns is the question whether Paul denies the validity of the life-giving power of the law in light of his anthropology or in light of his nomology. That is, is Paul critiquing the law or humanity's ability to perform it in 3.21? Bruce Longenecker argues for the latter: 'Paul evidently assumes a fundamental problem not with the law itself but with the condition of humanity; the law sets out a path to life, but those who seek to live by it inevitably fail to do so.' This emphasis on the condition of humanity for reading Gal. 3.21 may find additional support in 3.22 where Paul says that all humanity is under sin. 6

5 Joel Willitts, 'Context Matters: Paul's Use of Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12', TynBul 54 (2003): 105-22; Charles H. Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988), p. 59. 6 Bruce Longenecker, The Triumph of Abraham's God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), p. 120; see J. L. Martyn (Galatians: A Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB, 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997], pp. 359-60) and Hays (Faith, pp. 112-16) for the opposing view. I do not deny that Paul's radically pessimistic anthropology would prevent him from thinking that humanity is capable of adequately performing the law, but I do not think that this is the main point here in 3.19-22. Longenecker finds clear support for this in Romans 7 where Paul labours to defend the law against the potential claim that it was responsible for bringing death rather than life (Rom. 7.7-13). There, Paul emphatically, and empirically, claims that the law is not to blame; rather, the sin (or Sin), which took hold of the law and used it to effect death, is the culprit. But even in Romans 7-8, while not blaming the law for sin (7.7-13), Paul does affirm the law's inability to rescue humanity from their plight (8.3-4). And so it seems that both ideas are clearly in view there, the condition of mankind and the powerlessness of the law.

SPRINKLE Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12

129

But against this view, it is not clear that Paul is thinking primarily along anthropological lines here. In Gal. 3.19-22, Paul's discussion concerns the law, as his opening question makes clear (3.19), and the rest of this passage is focused on the salvation-historical role of the law (3.19-25). Even in 3.22, the one statement that refers explicitly to the condition of mankind, is focused on the accomplishments of the law ( = 'Scripture'): it has 'enclosed all things under sin'. And so Paul's primary attention in 3.21 is on the inability of the law to grant life, not on humanity's inability to gain life. This does not lessen Paul's pessimistic anthropology nor does it deny that the sinful condition of humanity prevents an adequate performance of the law. But when it comes to the supposed life-giving power of the law, Paul rejects this notion on fundamental grounds. Therefore, Paul does not entertain the suggestion that 'the law may in principle set out a means to life', but 'in practice something seems to have gone wrong' - at least not in Gal. 3.19-25. Paul, rather, denies both the ability and the intention of the law to be a life-giving agent. We see, then, from 3.21 (cf. 2.21) that Paul's denial of the law's ability to give life is based not explicitly on humanity's condition but on the law's own condition and divine intention. While this distinction cannot be pressed too far, it may shed light on Gal. 3.12. If Paul's reasoning in 3.21 underlies 3.12, then we can find support for the LawjGospel (2) view represented by Eckstein and Watson. According to this view, Paul rejects the law categorically because it was not intended to grant life; 'the one who does these things' in order to 'gain life by them' is attempting to elicit from the law something that it cannot, and was not intended to, give namely, life. And so if we were to ask Paul, 'Why can't "the one who does these things live by them"?' We might expect him to say, 'Because "these things" ( = the law) lack the ability to grant life to the doer and neither was it their intention to do so.' 7

8

9

10

7 The view that 'the Scripture' refers to 'the law' here is taken by F. F. Bruce, Galatians, p. 180; A. Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 3rd edn, 1973), p. 119; B. Longenecker, Triumph, pp. 124-5; cf. Martyn, Galatians, p. 360, for a similar view. For opposing views, see H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (KEKNT, 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 14th edn, 1971), pp. 164-5; H. D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galalia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 175; and the discussion in R. Longenecker, Galatians, p. 144. 8 Longenecker, Triumph, p. 120. 9 But see Rom. 7.7-13. 10 Rightly, E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983), p. 27.

130


b. The Law in Salvation-History Joel Willitts in a recent article argues that Paul views Hab. 2.4 and Lev. 18.5 through the lens of salvation history. Faith (Hab. 2.4) stands for the time of 'realized covenant potential' and law (Lev. 18.5) represents the time of 'unrealized covenant potential'. Viewing the faith-law antithesis as representations of periods of time finds support in 3.19-25. Here, not only is the temporal limitation of the law pronounced, but the term 'faith' has become hypostasized: 11

TTpb TOU 5s EA8EIV TTJV TTJOTIV UTTO vopov E<j>pouTrpoupE0a auyKAEiopEvoi sis TT]V [jEAAouoav TTJOTIV aTTOKaAucfrOfivai, GXJTE 6 vopos iraiSaycoybs Tipcov ysyovev sis Xpioxov, *(va EK THOTECOS SIKCCICOGGOMEV sAOouoris 5E TTJS TTJOTECOS OUKETI UTTO TTCCl5ayCOy6v EOJJEV.

Now before this faith came, we were confined by the law, being shut up until the faith about to be revealed, so that the law has become our child instructor to lead us until Christ, in order that we might be justified by faith; but when this faith has come, we are no longer under a child 12

leader. (Gal. 3.23-25) Here, 'faith' is personified and stands for an eschatological age or epoch that has been inaugurated with Christ. The 'law', which acts as a TTaiSaycoyos for a set period of time ('until Christ'), may also delineate the old epoch (i.e., the time of the law's jurisdiction over humanity). This passage, in as much as it can be correlated with 3.11-12, may lend support for Willitts's conclusion that 'faith' and 'law' ( = Lev. 18.5) delineate two distinct historical eras. The Leviticus formulation is opposed to faith in light of its chronological inferiority. But do Hab. 2.4 (faith) and Lev. 18.5 (law) mutually exclude each other simply because of their respective salvation-historical functions? One problem with this approach is that it downplays, or even eradicates, any inherent deficiency in Lev. 18.5. In Willitts's view, it seems that the only problem Paul has with adherence to Lev. 18.5 is that such adherence is simply past its time: in principle there is nothing wrong with 'doing these things' in order to 'live by them'. If Lev. 18.5 represents the time of 'unrealized covenant potential', then what has caused its unrealization? As seen above, Paul sees the law's inability to grant life as at least part of the problem, and Paul's pessimistic anthropology most certainly looms in the background (cf. 3.10). So while there is an eschatological orientation of 'faith' in 3.11-12 (and 13

11 'Context Matters'. 12 I understand eis here to be temporal not teleological (so Longenecker, Triumph, p. 118; Betz, Galatians, p. 178). 13 I am drawing here on R. Barry Matlock who critiques James Dunn on the same grounds (see his 'Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn's New Theology of Paul', JSNT12 [1998]: 67-90 [77]).


131

especially in 3.23-25), this does not exhaust its validity as the only basis on which one receives righteousness and life. c. Leviticus 18.5 and Human Endeavour But what about the very formulation of Leviticus: 'the one who does these things will live by them' (or 'have eschatological life as a result'). Did Paul did see something theologically wrong with doing the law, not only, as we have seen, in light of the law's incompetence and intention but because Paul saw something inherently wrong with human endeavour? Francis Watson answers it with a resounding 'yes'. For Watson's Paul, Lev. 18.5 embodies a theological construct in which blessing is contingent upon human endeavour; Hab. 2.4, however, testifies to God's promise of a future, unilateral saving act. The antithesis in 3.11-12 is one of divine and human agency. Watson's reading of Gal. 3.11-12 finds agreement with a thread of similar statements in Galatians where the priority of divine action over human action is highlighted. Paul sets up this divine-human antithesis in the opening sentence: 'Paul, an apostle not from a human source nor through agency but through the agency of Jesus Christ and God the Father' ( l . l ) . This antithesis between the human realm and the divine realm becomes essential to the entire letter, confirmed by the fact that this phrase, departing from a standard greeting, begins the letter. The antithesis is seen again in 1.11-12 where Paul says that his gospel 'is not according to human terms, for I neither received it from a human nor was I taught it, but (I received it) through the agency of a revelation of Christ'. In denying a 'merely human' source of the gospel, Paul points to its divine origin, setting up an antithesis that will underlie the following narratio (1.12-2.14). Throughout his autobiographical account, Paul will make clear that the gospel he preaches is the same gospel that invaded his life through unilateral divine intervention (1.13-20). Paul's narrative of 14

15

16

17

18

14 Watson, Hermeneutics, pp. 162-3. 15 TTauAos CCTTOOTOAOS OUK air' avOpcoTrcov OU6E 5I avOpcoTrou dAAd 5ta 'Inaou XpioTou KOI 0EOU TTCCTOOS.

16 OUK IOTIV KccTa avSpcoTTov ou5e yap eycb irapa dvOpcbirou TrapsAaPov CCUTO OUTE sSiSdxGny, dAAd 8\ aTroKaAuv|/Ecos' Inpou Xpiorou. 17 The phrase is from Betz, Galatians, p. 63. 18 Here, I am following B. R. Gaventa ('Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm', NovT2S [1986]: 309-26) who argues that Paul's autobiographical account of his conversion, along with his apostolic origin, is not primarily apologetic but paradigmatic. Paul, here, is not primarily defending his apostleship but giving a paradigm of how the gospel has laid claim to Paul's own life; cf. also John M. G. Barclay, 'Paul's Story: Theology as Testimony', in Bruce Longenecker (ed.), Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), pp. 133-56 (141-2); Martyn, Galatians, pp. 152— 3, 159-61; B. Longenecker, Triumph, pp. 148-9.


132

his own experience with the gospel is punctuated by references to divine activity, highlighted in particular by the frequent use of airoKaAuvpts (1.12, 16; 2.2), a term that establishes 'God as the central actor in this account'. Perhaps the most pronounced distinction between the priority of divine action versus human action comes in 4.9 where Paul corrects himself in mid-sentence: 'but now, knowing God, or rather being known by God} This mid-sentence shift demonstrates that Paul sees a distinction between knowing God and being known by God, and that the latter is the proper way to describe one's conversion, as his own autobiographical account makes clear. God's initiative in 'knowing' the Galatians was prior to the Galatians' own coming to know God. So then, Paul frequently emphasizes in Galatians the priority of God's activity against human activity in matters related to the gospel. But is this what Paul has in mind in Gal. 3.11-12? Evidence to support Watson's reading may be found in Gal. 3.1-5 with Paul's two-fold denial that the Galatians received the Spirit 'by works of the law'. Two points are largely agreed upon among interpreters. First, Paul's understanding of 'works of the law' at the very least correlates with his understanding of 19

0

21

22

19 Gaventa, 'Galatians 1 and 2', p. 316; see too, Martyn, Galatians, pp. 152-3, 159-61. 20 vuv 5s y v o v T s s 0s6v, uaAAov 6S YVCOOSSVTES UTTO 0EOG. 21 Cf. the stimulating essay by John Barclay, 'By the Grace of God I am what I am', in John Barclay and Simon Gathercole (eds), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Intellectual Environment (Edinburgh: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2006), pp. 140-57. Barclay, while not discussing Gal. 4.9, refers to similar instances in 1 Cor. 15.10; Phil. 3.11-12; and Gal. 2.19-21. 22 The interpretation of Ipycov vouou has been the subject of a long debate; for a good summary of the issues with extensive bibliography, see Tom Schreiner,' "Works of Law" in Paul', NovT 33 (1991): 214-44. More recently, the discussion is centred on whether the phrase refers to prescriptions of the law or to the actual performance of those prescriptions. The former view has been argued extensively by Michael Bachmann, 'Rechtfertigung und Gesetzeswerke bei Paulus', TZ 49 (1993): 1-33; reprinted in Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief: Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus (NTOA, 40; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag, 1999), pp. 1-31; idem, '4QMMT und Galaterbrief, m m "WO und EPrA NOMOY', ZNWS9 (1998): 91-113, reprinted in Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief, pp. 33-56. Bachmann's view has been recently countered by Otfried Hofius, who argues that the phrase refers to the actual performance of the law, see his,' "Werke des Gesetzes": Untersuchungen zu der paulinischen Rede von den spya v o p o u ' , in Dieter Sanger and Ulrich Mell (eds), Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literatur (WUNT, 198; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), pp. 271-310, esp. 273-85. With regard to these two options, James Dunn is probably correct in critiquing Bachmann for driving 'a wedge between "precept/prescription" and "deed (prescribed)", as though the former could be grasped without thought to the latter' ('Noch einmal "Works of the Law": The Dialogue Continues', in The New Perspective on Paul [WUNT, 185; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], pp. 407-22 [414]).

133


Lev. 18.5 - to do 'these things' is t o do the 'works of the law'. As such, Paul's resistance to the integration of justification by 'works of the law' (Gal. 2.16; cf. Rom. 3.20, 28) reflects his problem with attaining fife by 'doing these things' (Gal. 3.12; cf. Rom. 10.5). A second point of agreement among interpreters is that Paul's reference to 'works of the law' in Gal. 3.2, 5 is described as 'being perfected by the flesh' (oapKi): 24

TOUTO

u.ovov

0eXco paSeiv

ap uuxov

e£

spycov

vopou TO TTVEUMOC EXCCPETE

f\ E£ dxofis TTIOTECOS; OUTCOS a v o r j T o i EOTE, Evap£dpEvoi TrvEupaTi vGv

ETTITEXEIOBE; TOOCCGTCC ETTCXOETE EIKFJ. 6 o&v E T n x o p T i y c o v \ipiv TO TrvEupa K a i E V E p y c o v SuvapEis EV upTv, E£ E p y c o v vopou fj E£ a K o f j s TTIOTECOS;

oapKi

I only wish t o learn this from you; did you receive the Spirit by works o f law o r by the faith-message? Thus are you s o foolish, having begun by the Spirit are you now being perfected by the flesh? Have you suffered such things in vain - if indeed it was in vain? Therefore, the one who supplies you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, (does he d o it) by works o f law o r by the faith-message? (Gal. 3.2-5)

What is significant is the correlation between 'works of law' and 'flesh'. While the latter term, o d p £ , could refer to the act of circumcision, a hostile force, or to human nature in general, John Barclay has argued convincingly for a sense of 'that which is merely human' for odpc; when it is opposed to TTVEUMOC as it is here in Gal. 3.3. For Paul, the Spirit-flesh dualism designates activity that is merely human as opposed to divine activity through the Spirit. Barclay's interpretation finds support in the summary statement in v. 5 where the accent falls heavily on the action of God in the Galatian community. God freely gives the divine Spirit, the effective agent (TTVEUMCXTI) through which the community began their life in Christ, and he does this through the faith-message (CXKOTJS TTIOTECOS) of the crucified Christ not through the merely human endeavour of lawobedience. The point here is that since the Galatians began their 25

26

27

28

29

30

23

This is confirmed by Gal. 3.10-12 where the most likely antecedent to 'these things* of 3.12 is 'everything written in the book of the law' (TTOCOIV TOTS ysYpauuEvots sv TOO p(pXicp vouou) of 3.10, namely, the 'works of the law'. 24 Longenecker, Galatians, p. 103; B. Longenecker, Triumph, p. 75. 25 Martyn argues that the term in Gal. 3.3 refers to circumcision based on this meaning in Gal. 6.12-13 and the association of 'flesh' with 'circumcision' throughout Genesis 17. 26 Paul also uses oap£ to refer to an evil inclination or desire (cf. Gal. 5.17, 24) but this nuance cannot be intended here. 27 John M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: Paul's Ethics in Galatians (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988), pp. 202-9. 28 Ibid., p. 206. 29 Richard Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3.14.11 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 2002), p. 170. 30 Cf. Eckstein, Verheifiung und Gesetz, p. 86. (auTa)

134


Christian lives by receiving the Spirit through the faith-message, they cannot maintain that same divine power through human means; God alone is the source of their miraculous experiences (3.5). In sum, 'works of law' are described as being that which is merely human as opposed to divine activity effective through the faith-message and the Spirit; the antithesis is one of divine-human action. In as much as Paul sees Lev. 18.5 and 'works of law' as possessing the same theological deficiency, then it is probable that Paul considers Lev. 18.5 to be a 'merely human' way to appropriate life, the life which has been created through divine intervention (2.20-21; 3.21). Paul, then, does not oppose the law based on the wrong manner in which it is pursued (e.g., the LawjGospel [1] approach); rather, he opposes the law fundamentally: doing the law so as to gain life - no matter how well intentioned the pursuit may be - is a theological construct that prioritizes human action over divine action. 31

d. Habakkuk 2.4 and Leviticus 18.5: Tension or Contradiction? Virtually all commentators agree that the texts as they stand in Galatians form an antithesis, but interpreters are divided concerning the derivation of this antithesis. Has Paul driven a wedge between two scriptural passages that are otherwise compatible, or has he simply exploited a tension that was already present in the biblical text? The agitators would have sided with the former view: faith in Christ is not at odds with 'doing these things'; indeed, faithfulness to God's Messiah necessitates it. Has Paul, then, read against the grain of Scripture by creating a tension that did not previously exist? Most see the antithesis in Gal. 3.11-12 purely as a Pauline creation: the antithesis between Habakkuk and Leviticus did not exist prior to Damascus. Nevertheless, there is, we will argue, a hermeneutical potential in Paul's antithesis that is often missed by commentators who point out that Paul's 'faith-works' antithesis is foreign to the Old Testament. 32

33

31 This is different from the LawI Gospel (1) approach; e.g., even if someone did 'these things' perfectly and in a non-legalistic manner, this would still be a 'merely human' way of achieving what can only be created through divine action. 32 Such was the view also of the Qumranites as seen in their commentary on Hab. 2.4 '[But the righteous man will live because of their faith(fulness) to him] Its interpretation concerns everyone who does the law (pT\*\V\T\ "'Efll? 'TQ) in the house of Judah, whom God will free from the house of judgement on account of their toil (phOV) and their faith(fulness) (prtiDKI) in the Teacher of Righteousness' (lQpHab 7.14-8.3). Law-obedience (THinn "'CTl U; cf. lQpHab 7.11; 12.4-5) is conflated with faith(fulness) to (the teaching of) the Teacher of Righteousness, and both are necessary for God's restoration of the community. 33 An exception to this is Alan Gignac ('Citation de Levitique 18,5 en Romains 10,5 et Galates 3,12: Deux lectures differentes des rapports Christ-Torah?', Eglise et theologie 25 [1994]: 367^403), who argues through an intertextual analysis that these two passages are not antithetical in light of their original contexts.


135

Habakkuk as a whole highlights the priority and freedom of divine action, and at the same time the prophet struggles with the effectiveness of the deuteronomic law regime. Not only did God promise to 'raise up the Chaldeans' to bring judgement to Israel (Hab. 1.5), but the nation itself faced an internal crisis and the law, according to Habakkuk, seems to offer no hope: The law (THiri) is ineffective (312H) and justice (T15CD) never goes forth. The wicked [Judaeans] surround the righteous; thus, justice (HSOO) comes out perverted. (Hab. 1.4) 34

Habakkuk's complaint here is directed toward the ethical breakdown in society and he criticizes the Torah for its inability to keep the wicked from persecuting the righteous. This is the only occurrence of m m in Habakkuk. It does not show up in the vision-oracle (2.2-5) or in the salvation-poem (3.2-19); thus the only reference to Torah is confined to a context where the prophet expresses qualms concerning its effectiveness. The vision-oracle itself (2.2-5), from which Paul cites the prophet (Hab. 2.4 in Gal. 3.11a), focuses on the certainty of God's future act of salvation, a salvation envisioned in the theophany of Habakkuk 3. The theophany provides assurance for Habakkuk by promising a future time when God will bring judgement upon his enemies and salvation to his people. In short, the il31DK ('faithfulness, reliability') that mediates 'life' 35

34 The wicked are Judaeans; see Francis Anderson, Habakkuk: A New Translation and Commentary (AB, 25; New York: Doubleday, 2001), p. 24; Ralph Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC, 32; Waco: Word Books, 1984), pp. 94-5, 99; R. D. Haak, Habakkuk (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992), p. 34; contra Marshall Johnson, 'The Paralysis of the Torah in Habakkuk 1.4', (FT 35, 1985): 257-66 (259). 35 Although the meaning of TISD is debated, the sense of 'ineffective' is clear from the context and its use elsewhere. It is used in Gen. 45.26 to refer to Jacob becoming 'numb' or 'fainthearted'. In Ps. 77.3(2) it refers to 'a wearying paralysis'. In Ps. 38.9(8) it means 'broken', or 'numbed'; see further Johnson, 'Paralysis', pp. 259-60. But is Habakkuk's complaint directed to the Torah itself or the failure among the Judaeans to obey it? Marshall Johnson argues that Habakkuk's complaint is directed at a failure inherent in the Torah. Habakkuk, according to Johnson, was a 'disillusioned deuteronomist' who could not understand why the 'righteous' were not being blessed as the Torah promised (Johnson, 'Paralysis', p. 264). While Johnson's understanding would fit Paul's thought well, his argument that the prophet was concerned with the failure of Torah to mediate the blessings of Deuteronomy goes beyond the evidence in Habakkuk. It seems best to side with the majority that Habakkuk's complaint is directed toward the ethical breakdown in society; see Haak, Habakkuk, p. 34, G. Janzen, 'Eschatological Symbol and Existence in Habakkuk', CBQ 44 (1982): 394-414 (397-9); Smith, Micah-Malachi, p. 99. In any case, Habakkuk critiques the efficacy of the Torah, whether by its own inherent ineffectiveness or because of its inability to keep the wicked from persecuting the righteous.

136


to the righteous one is the reliability that God will intervene to perform a future act of salvation. The reliability of the vision (and thus of God) is meant to evoke a response of 'faith' from the prophet and all who are 'righteous', but all through the vision-oracle of 2.2-5 and the theophany of ch. 3, the emphasis lies in divine action as the solution to the problem of wickedness. Leviticus 18.5, on the other hand, does not depict the same theological outlook. It exhibits a conceptual world similar to the deuteronomists: blessing will come to those who obey the Torah - the very conception that had proved to be a failure in Habakkuk where the righteous were being persecuted, not blessed. In Leviticus itself, the conditions of Lev. 18.5 are not met as seen in the book as a whole, for the restoration of the nation (26.40-45) comes after a time of wickedness, apostasy, and exile (26.1439). The same is true in Ezekiel, where the text is cited three times (Ezek. 20.11, 13, 21) to highlight Israel's failure to meet the conditional demands. Israel's rebellion - its failure to 'do these things' (Lev. 18.5) - is written into the script of salvation history. It is not the case, therefore, that Paul has split apart two otherwise compatible texts as most interpreters think. Habakkuk 2.4 'n'envisage pas l'Alliance sous le meme angle que Lv 18,5' ('Does not envisage the Covenant under the same angle as that of Lev. 18.5'). According to Habakkuk, the accent is no longer on God's response to human action, but on human response to God's initiative. Within the Old Testament, there is at least the potential for Paul to read Lev. 18.5 as a cul-de-sac preparing the way for divine intervention anticipated by Hab. 2.4. 36

37

4. Conclusion In answer to our opening question - why can't 'the one who does these things live by them'? - and in response to the four different ways scholars have attempted to address that question, I suggest the following. First, the Law/Gospel (1) view has rightly stressed Paul's pessimistic anthropology, yet it does not seem that this is the driving force in Paul's criticism of the Leviticus passage. It may 'loom in the background', as I stated, but there is probably something else that shapes Paul's discourse here. Moreover, describing Paul's pessimism in terms of lack of perfect obedience seems to go beyond what Paul actually says. Second, the LawI Gospel (2) view has 36 It is probably this vision itself that is referred to, at least in the Hebrew, in the much discussed pronoun of Hab. 2.4b: 'but the righteous will live by its faithfulness' OmiDKn J7H1TI rTiT); so Janzen, 'Habakkuk 2.2-4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances', HTR 73 (1980): 53-78 (esp. 54-61); idem, 'Eschatological Symbol', pp. 395, 406; Haak, Habakkuk, p. 59; Anderson, Habakkuk, p. 214. 37 Cf. Gignac, 'Citation', p. 386.


137

rightly highlighted Paul's pessimistic 'nomology', and this probably is the driving force behind Paul's criticism of Lev. 18.5. Furthermore, Watson has very helpfully framed the question in terms of divine and human agency. Paul labours to make the distinction between matters of religion fashioned by mere human effort, and the gospel of Christ that is shaped by divine saving action. Within this, the two scriptural texts that sum up each theological construction are Lev. 18.5 (human action) and Hab. 2.4 (divine action). Third, while lack of space has prevented us in this essay for sufficient interaction with the Non-Soteriological view, I have argued elsewhere against the validity of this interpretation. Indeed, if this view were correct, then all the other views are wrong-headed. Fourth, the Salvation Historical view has merit and rightly emphasizes the eschato logical dimension of Paul's use of'faith' and 'law'. However, this view has not taken into account the antithesis between divine and human action, which seems to be fundamental in Galatians, nor has it rightly answered the question concerning why the Leviticus construct has not seen its realization. In short, the Law/Gospel (2) view, in underscoring the antithesis between divine and human action, carries the most merit. 38

38

Sprinkle, Law and Life, pp. 138-42.

Chapter 1 0 S U R R O G A T E ,

T H E

F I G U R E

O

F

S L A V E

H A G A R (

G

A

L

I

A

T

A

N

N J E W I S H I

A

N

S

D

D E V I A N T ?

T R A D I T I O N

A

N

D

P A U L

4.21-31)

Troy A. Miller Paul's use of Scripture is a subject that certainly has not suffered from a lack of attention within scholarly circles. Quite the contrary, studies assessing Paul's employment of Scripture have abounded. Included in this scholarly attention is Gal. 4.21-31 - the Sarah and Hagar pericope. A great deal of the scholarship on this passage has been focused specifically on trying to identify which established method of scriptural interpretation Paul is employing here, with the primary proposals being allegory, typology, midrash and targum. While these studies of the various Jewish conventions of Scripture interpretation have produced some valuable insights, more detailed studies on the actual Sarah and Hagar stories in Jewish literature are surprisingly not so common. With respect to Hagar, markedly absent in Pauline scholarship or elsewhere is a study dedicated to the interpretative traditions surrounding the figure in Second Temple Jewish literature - the body of writings that would reflect the various 1

2

1 A selection of these works includes E. Earle Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981); Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); J. W. Aageson, Written Also for Our Sake: Paul and the Art of Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: WJKP, 1993); Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T & T Clark, 2004); and Christopher D . Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (London: T & T Clark, 2004). 2 For the various proposals, see for example, C. K. Barrett, Essays on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), pp. 154-70; J. Louis Martyn, 'The Covenants of Hagar and Sarah', in John T. Carroll et al. (eds), Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 160-92; Patrick G. Barker, 'Allegory and Typology in Galatians 4.21-31', SVTQ 38 (1994): 193-209; Michael G. Steinhauser, 'Gal 4,25a: Evidence of Targumic Tradition in Gal 4,21-3P, Bib 70 (1989): 234^0; and Mary C. Callaway, 'The Mistress and the Maid: Midrashic Traditions Behind Galatians 4.21-31', Radical Religion 2 (1975): 94-101.

MILLER

Surrogate, Slave and Deviant

139

nuances in Jewish interpretation on Hagar and that also would allow one to assess how traditional or novel Paul's usage might be. While some commentators and writers on Galatians have alluded to or drawn on one or more of these Jewish texts on Hagar, such texts are strikingly absent in many studies and only partially surveyed in others, with some appealing largely or even exclusively to the Genesis narratives. In an effort to redress some of this imbalance, an examination of these Second Temple Jewish writings on Hagar is vital for 'connecting the dots' in Paul's interpretative portrait. Therefore, in this essay, I will (1) inventory and examine the appearances of'Hagar' in Jewish writings prior to and contemporaneous with Paul in an effort to highlight the unique interpretative dimensions that appear and (2) measure the significance of these texts and traditions for Paul's use of the figure in Galatians. On the latter element, I will seek to demonstrate that the portrayal of Hagar in Gal. 4.21-31 is in continuity with the Jewish interpretative traditions (outside Genesis) on the figure. However, I will also argue that Paul's reversal of ethnic identities, in his application of the story to the social setting in Galatia, represents a distinct innovation within Jewish tradition. Hagar in Jewish

Literature

Prior to surveying the Jewish writings on Hagar, a note on procedure is in order. The argument of this essay is neither dependent on, nor is it seeking to demonstrate, any linear development or literary dependence within the Jewish texts and traditions surveyed. Though the findings of this study may yield implications for such matters, the primary focus of the essay is to inventory the various Jewish writings on Hagar independently. It is only when I turn to Paul that I will seek to highlight similarities between his usage of the figure and the other independent Jewish traditions. 3

Genesis Tradition on Hagar (Genesis 16.1-15 and 21.8-21 ) Hagar comes onto the scene in Genesis 16 as a seemingly unimportant actor in the greater drama that the editor of Genesis is directing. She is provided no origins or background, other than that she is Egyptian (16.1). The Genesis storyline that introduces her revolves around the seemingly ineffective covenant promise of God, which is evident in the present lack

3 Though redaction critics rightly note that these texts, like many in Genesis, may have been shaped by the final redactor to fit the newly created narrative context, I will not attempt a source-critical or redaction-critical excavation of the texts in an effort to determine what underlies them. Such an analysis is highly speculative and therefore would be of little or no value to this study. Instead, I will examine these Genesis texts in their current form, using it to account for the Genesis tradition on the figure of Hagar.

140


of an heir for Sarai and Abram, and which results in Sarai's proposed resolution to that problem via the surrogacy of Hagar. Here it is Sarai, not Hagar (or Abram), who is the protagonist. It is Sarai who perceives the current lack of an heir to be a problem; it is Sarai who volunteers Hagar as a surrogate; and it is Sarai who gives the directive to Abram to 'go in to' Hagar (16.1-2). Later in the passage, it is Sarai who upbraids Abram regarding the results of Hagar's conception (16.5) and, finally, it is Sarai who afflicts and mistreats Hagar leading to her flight (16.6b). Sarai is not only the lead character, but also the one who bears the yoke of culpability in the story. Her subsequent actions toward Hagar (16.4) stem from her perception of a loss of status to Hagar, now that Hagar bears in her womb the potential inheritor of the covenant blessings. Though bbp {qll) can carry the sense of 'to curse' or 'to treat with contempt', it does not regularly do so in the qal stem. Here, as a passive verb (7pm), any demonstrable negative action by Hagar to Sarai is largely ruled out. Furthermore, there is no contextual support for Hagar having formally cursed Sarai. Not only would the qal stem make this an odd construction (i.e., 'her mistress was cursed in her sight'), the lack of any recognition by Abraham or the Lord of a proposed curse leaves such a translation and interpretation untenable. Rightly understood, ^pm communicates that Sarai, her mistress, was 'of little account' or 'lightly esteemed' in Hagar's sight due to the rising social status of Hagar, now that she had conceived. As Phyllis Trible notes, 'Structurally and substantively, new understanding encircles Hagar's view of herself and her mistress. Hierarchical blinders drop. The exalted mistress decreases; the lowly slave increases. Not hatred or contempt but a reordering of the relationship emerges.' The actions of Sarai that follow - that is, her blame of Abram (16.5) and her mistreatment of Hagar that caused her to flee (16.6b) - stem from Sarai's jealousy and/or lack of acceptance of the current standing of Hagar, as well as her likely anticipation of Hagar's further ascension in status if things persist. Hagar's flight does not even attract negativity to her in the account. 4

5

6

4 Issues related to the renegotiation of social standing, and therefore of power and authority, were not uncommon or without problem in this context, as is evidenced by the ancient legal codes that were constructed to regulate such tensions in marriage. See for example, Laws of Ur-Nammu 22-23 and Laws of Hammurabi 146; cf. Prov. 30.23. 5 Phyllis Trible, 'Ominous Beginnings for a Promise of Blessing', in Phyllis Trible and Letty M. Russell (eds), Hagar, Sarah, and Their Children: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), pp. 33-69(39). 6 Reinforcing this 'less-provoking' interpretation of Hagar is the often noted paralleling of Sarah's actions in 16.3 with those of Eve in 3.6, which further accentuates and characterizes Sarai's actions as initiatory and negative. Cf. W. Berg, 'Der Sundenfall Abrahams und Saras nach Gen 16.1-6', BN 19 (1982): 7-14.

MILLER


141

Instead, the reader observes almost the opposite - an affirmation of Hagar. This is visible in that the angel of the Lord (1) seeks Hagar out in her flight, hears her and cares for her (16.7-13), (2) grants her (through Ishmael) at least a part of the covenant blessing - multiplying of offspring (16.10), (3) sees her as a righteous sufferer in calling her back to Sarai in submission (16.9), (4) names her son Ishmael (16.11) and (5) allows Hagar to name the Lord (16.13). Wenham notes that: Though Sarai is portrayed as mistress throughout, not simply exploiting her maid Hagar but also telling her husband what to do, it is apparent that Hagar comes out best in the end. She becomes Abram's wife. She receives divine promises. And eventually she bears a son not for Sarai as was planned (v 2) but, as the narrative says three times ( w 15-16), for Abram. 7

Clearly, Hagar is presented as the positive, yet tragic, character in the account, which is in contrast to the negative portrayal of Sarai. The second of the two Genesis traditions involving Hagar (Gen. 21.821) seemingly reflects an effort of the final redactor to bring to resolution this as-of-yet unresolved side-story regarding Hagar, Ishmael and the inheritance of God's covenant blessings. Here, at the celebration of the weaning of Isaac, Sarah (no longer Sarai) remains the protagonist, with Hagar and Abraham retaining their supporting roles. Also, Sarah is again the one who is characterized negatively in the account. She is the one who jealousy takes notice of Ishmael being together with Isaac at the feast (21.9). She is the one who calls Abraham to cast out Hagar and Ishmael to protect the covenantal inheritance for Isaac (21.10). And Sarah is the one who sees her plans enacted with the assumption of divine approval (21.10, 12). By contrast, Hagar is a silent actor in the drama, save the words of utter exasperation that are voiced in the wilderness over the looming death of Ishmael (21.16). Her characterization is as the one who is oppressed the one driven out at the behest of Sarah (21.10), the one who is heard by the Lord in her desperation (21.17), and the one who was sustained and blessed by the Lord (21.18-21). Even Abraham's distress over the need to cast out Hagar and Ishmael (21.11) reinforces this characterization of Hagar. In opposition to this characterization of the two women, some turn to v. 9 and argue that pilH (shq), in its absolute form here, connotes the sense of 'jesting' or 'making sport of. Some contend for an even stronger usage of the term, either in the sense of 'mocking' (i.e., a distinctly negative stance of Ishmael toward Isaac; cf. Gen. 39.14, 17; Job 30.1; Hab. 1.10) or 8

7 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50 WBC, 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994), p. 4. 8 For the reader, a tension remains in the larger narrative. God's covenantal approval will go through Sarah but her outright culpability is also vividly apparent.

142


even in the sense o f conjugal caress' (cf. Gen. 26.8). These readings of the term here in 21.9 all infuse some level of negative behaviour into Ishmael's stance and/or actions toward Isaac, thus removing some or all of the responsibility from Sarah for her subsequent actions. Though the term is used in these negative senses in other places in the MT, such a reading is very difficult to sustain here for several reasons. First, such an interpretation lacks any contextual support for Ishmael's or Hagar's negative portrayal or culpability (in chs 16 or 21). Second, Sarah is consistently portrayed negatively, as the 'guilty one', in these same texts. Third, the MT provides no modifying terms or phrases as evidence for determining the specific type of or intention behind the proposed negative behaviour. However, fourth, the L X X contains a prepositional phrase, peTOc IOCXCXK (meta Isaak), as a modifier of naiôvTa (paizonta), which decidedly rules out these negative options. In the LXX, a neutral interpretation (e.g., 'playing', 'laughing', and/or 'dancing') is the only tenable option. In the MT, then, it is preferable to understand the term neutrally, possibly as a play on words with Isaac's name (which already is a prominent theme in the Genesis story), but surely communicates the playing and/or laughing of the two children (cf. Zech. 8.5; Job 40.20; Ps. 104.26). Skinner notes that, 'it is the spectacle of the two young children playing together, innocent of social distinctions, that excites Sarah's maternal jealousy and prompts her cruel demands'. Sarah perceives this shared laughter and play as being potentially 'dangerous' to Isaac's (as well as her own) unique position within God's covenant promises, and she moves to squelch it. In line with the previous narrative (Gen. 16), Sarah 9

10

9 Trible, 'Ominous Beginnings', p. 45 notes; 'For Sarah, Ishmael's laughing poses a threat because, by word association, Ishmael is "Isaacing". The son of Hagar plays the role of the son of Sarah.' 10 J. A. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2nd edn, 1930), p. 322. Cf. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, rev. edn 1973), p. 232. Skinner stands in opposition to those who argue for the common piel sense of the term (i.e., 'to mock') here. Yet, these others are still unable to articulate with any precision the type of negative behaviour or stance enacted by Ishmael. Furthermore, though Exod. 32.6 and Judg. 16.25 (the only other instances in the M T of the term in its absolute form) are at times cited as evidence for a negative interpretation being distinctive of the absolute form, the claim does not hold. The term in Judges does not even have negative overtones - the Philistines wanted Samson to 'play' before them for their amusement. Additionally, while the Exodus text clearly is one of negative sentiment and behaviour, it is not the term itself that communicates it. It is the worship of idols by the Israelites in the immediate context that characterizes their 'play' as negative. In the end, pHU requires contextual indicators to determine exactly how it is used, especially if it is deemed to be negative in sense, and the MT does not have any here in Genesis.

MILLER


143

retains the promise of the covenant but Hagar, ironically, is the more positively portrayed character. Jubilees Tradition on Hagar (Jubilees 14.21-24 and 17.1-14) The figure of Hagar also appears in Jubilees (c.150 B C E ) , a writing that relates stories of Israel's history (through the eyes of Moses) from creation to Moses' reception of the law on Mount Sinai. While Jubilees shares many stories in common with Genesis, the Genesis tradition should not, de facto, be considered normative when compared to Jubilees (or other texts that include the same stories). This essay, though, will still proceed via comparison and contrast between the different traditions on Hagar, not to prioritize one over another, but to highlight the unique interpret ative emphases of each of them. Jubilees contains mention of both of the Hagar stories in the Genesis tradition. The Jubilees tradition parallel to Genesis 16 {Jub. 14.21-24) unfolds similarly, but also varies at several points. The Jubilees text relates Hagar's identity as the Egyptian maid of Sarai (14.22), Sarai's plan for the use of Hagar as a surrogate (14.22), and the resulting conception and birth of Ishmael (14.24). However, the account is noticeably slimmer than the Genesis tradition. It moves from the conception to the birth of Ishmael without any intervening details, such as those in Gen. 16.4b-14. Not found in the Jubilees tradition are Sarai's demand to Abram for 'justice', Sarai's harsh treatment of Hagar that caused Hagar to flee, and the whole encounter between God and Hagar in the wilderness. Jubilees also contains no indication of Hagar being the recipient of divine favour and covenant blessing. As a result, a different qualitative characterization of the two female figures emerges from the Jubilees text. Hagar is portrayed neutrally as a silent surrogate. In variation, Sarai is a positively characterized figure. She acts in faithful obedience to God's covenant promise, which is a distinct variation from the Genesis tradition. This characterization of these two female figures stems not only from the details communicated for each, but also from the immediate context. In variation from the Genesis tradition, the Jubilees text does not begin with Sarai recognizing the lack of an heir and the need for making plans to 11

11 Jubilees is sometimes grouped, as a type of writing, under the heading 'rewritten Bible'. However, as many have observed, this heading is inadequate because it assumes the historical priority of the Genesis traditions. Yet, no name for the genre that would include Jubilees and other like writings has gained consensus. Descriptively, Jubilees characterizes itself as a revelation to Moses by the angel of the Presence (1.29-2.1) and it shares many stories in common with Genesis, though not without variation. On Jubilees, see James C . VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) and O. S. Wintermute, 'Jubilees', in OTP 2: 35-142 (citations from Jubilees are taken from Wintermute's translation).

144


aid God's covenant promise. Rather, it comes after God and Moses make a covenant with Abram (as had been done with Noah in that same month [14.20]). Abram then returns to Sarai rejoicing and believing that 'he would have seed' but unfortunately, Sarai 'did not give birth' (14.22). Abram is clearly positioned as the central figure in the Jubilees tradition and, comparatively speaking, Sarai takes a lesser place. As a result of this overarching context for the story, it is in covenant faithfulness (to God and Moses) that Sarai introduces Hagar as a surrogate, which is emphatically endorsed by Abram (14.23), so that they might receive an heir to the promise. In the Jubilees tradition, Abram and Sarah are not out of place in their introduction and use of Hagar. In Jubilees 17, at the feast for the weaning of Isaac, the account runs largely parallel to the Genesis tradition (Gen. 21), yet again not without its own unique features and emphases. Abraham is rejoicing and blessing God on this occasion because he 'had not died without sons', referring to both Ishmael and Isaac (17.2). Sarah observes Ishmael 'playing and dancing' (17.4), presumably with Isaac, and Abraham 'rejoicing very greatly' over it (17.4). Her response to such a sight is spelled out explicitly: 'she was jealous' (17.4), something that is only implied in the Genesis tradition. Sarah demands Hagar and Ishmael be driven out (17.4), Abraham is aggrieved over it (17.5), and God assures Abraham that Sarah's words are to be obeyed for the promise of his seed will go through Isaac (17.6-7). Unlike Jubilees 14, this story recounts Hagar and Ishmael's banishment by Abraham, her plight in the wilderness and God's coming to her (17.8-14). Notable in variation from the Genesis tradition, though, as VanderKam observes, is that 'the angel of God who appears to Hagar in Gen. 21.17 is in Jubilees "one of the holy ones" (17.11), that is, not an angel of the presence, but a member of the other noble class of angels'. This part of the Jubilees tradition (ch. 17) on Hagar, for the most part, reinforces the characterization of the figures in the Genesis tradition. Sarah is the jealous wife of Abraham, though still the one through whom the covenant will be established. Likewise, Hagar is still the one who is cast out. However, when taken together (chs 14 and 17), the Jubilees 12

13

14

12 One other indicator of Abram's protagonist status here in Jubilees 14 is apparent in the naming of Ishmael (14.24). In the Genesis tradition, it is the angel of the Lord who names Ishmael (Gen. 16.11), but here Abram himself performs that function. 13 The positive (or at least neutral) portrayal of Ishmael's stance and/or actions towards Isaac (at the feast for his weaning) here in Jubilees might also lend credence to the same understanding of pHK in Gen. 21.9. Additionally, 4Q365 preserves a small fragment of Genesis 21 (only two lines) where it is directly parallel to the MT of Genesis. Sarah observes Ishmael (noted as 'the son of Hagar the Egyptian') p!"[l£ with her son Isaac and then calls on Abraham to cast out Hagar and Ishmael, leaving Abraham distressed (this is where the fragment ends). 14 VanderKam, Jubilees, p. 52.

MILLER


145

tradition presents a slightly different portrayal of Hagar and Sarah than is seen in the Genesis tradition. Hagar is more explicitly cast as silent in Jubilees and she is not as strongly stressed as a tragic character. Instead, Hagar is more negatively characterized. Additionally, a number of details in Jubilees stress Sarah as a positive, faithful character (the actions in ch. 17 notwithstanding). Jubilees, therefore, can be seen as a distinct interpretative trajectory or tradition regarding the figure of Hagar. Genesis Apocryphon Tradition on Hagar (IQapGen™ col XX) The Genesis Apocryphon, which is usually dated in the first-century BCE or C E (before the destruction of the settlement, c.68 C E ) , is extant only in a small number of fragments. The only remaining note in the document on the figure of Hagar is that she was a gift to Abram from Pharaoh (fine 32), which intimates her Egyptian origin in line with the previous traditions surveyed. Interestingly, she was gifted to Abram (along with other gifts) because Abram prayed to remove the plagues that afflicted Pharaoh as a result of his taking Sarah as a wife, for which Abram called down a curse on him. It is noteworthy, however, that the text contains a number of items that accentuate positively the figure of Sarah. The Genesis Apocryphon tradition records that Sarah's chastity was preserved for the two years she was away from Abram in Pharaoh's household (lines 15-18), her beauty is extolled at great lengths, with language seemingly borrowed from the Song of Songs (lines 2-8), and she is the one who causes Abram's life to be spared, at the hands of Pharaoh, when she declares Abram to be her brother (lines 9-10). In these items, especially in comparison to the Genesis tradition, the reader observes a very strong positive characterization of the figure of Sarah - a characterization that emphasizes her courage, beauty, and virtue. Though the extant portion of the writing is largely silent on Hagar, this heightened approval of Sarah is not unimportant for this study on tradition and characterization. 15

Pseudo-Philonic Tradition on Hagar (L. A. B. 8.1-3) Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, which chronicles a recounting of the history of Israel from Adam to David, yields only a few details on the Hagar stories. Distinctive to this tradition are the following: Sarah is noted as sterile, Abram is the one who takes Hagar (the text notes Hagar as his maid), and Hagar bears Ishmael (8.1). Later, the writer notes that 15 The Genesis Apocryphon is not the only text from Qumran that notes the figure of Hagar. 4Q365 (noted above) preserves only two lines, which are in continuity with Gen. 21.911a, and 4Q254 (an even smaller fragment) may also preserve a reference to Hagar, but the lack of a context makes it uncertain. All the other references to the figure are in the biblical manuscripts.

146


Abraham knew his wife Sarah and she conceived and bore Isaac (8.3). Absent are almost all of the intervening details regarding the figures of Sarah and Hagar, save them giving birth to their children. The PseudoPhilonic tradition yields very little on Hagar; and what it does relate hardly deviates from the other traditions surveyed already. 16

Josephus Tradition on Hagar (Ant. 1.186-193, 213-221) Of the interpretative traditions on Hagar examined thus far, the Josephus tradition stands out as most distinct, even though it shares some features in common with the Jubilees and Genesis Apocryphon traditions. Like these traditions, the Josephus tradition conspicuously portrays Sarah and Hagar as positive and negative, respectively. This writing includes the following prominent details regarding the figure of Sarah: (1) It is Abram (not Sarah) who is distressed over Sarah's sterility (1.186). (2) Sarah brings Hagar to Abram's bed because of a command from God to do so; in variation from the Genesis tradition, it was not here initiated by Sarah (1.186). (3) When Ishmael was born, Sarah is said to have cherished him with no less affection than if he were her own son, knowing that he would one day be an heir (1.215). Also in the Josephus tradition, (4) at the weaning of Isaac, Sarah does not seek to get rid of Ishmael (and Hagar) due to jealousy over covenantal inheritance (as implied in the Genesis tradition and explicitly stated in the Jubilees tradition). Rather, she holds that the two should not grow up together because Ishmael may injure Isaac after Abraham dies (1.215). Even more so than the Jubilees tradition, the Josephus tradition presents a faithful, obedient, and caring portrait of Sarah. As such, the Josephus tradition not only varies from the Genesis tradition, but the characterization of the figure of Sarah in these two sources seems to bear only a faint resemblance. The Josephus tradition on Hagar complements the interpretative thrust seen above on the figure of Sarah, specifically as her counterpoint. Sarah's exceedingly positive picture is inversely matched by Hagar's decidedly negative characterization. In this tradition: (1) Hagar acts in a crass and haughty manner toward Sarah, exploiting her newfound identity as the mistress of Abram after conceiving ('Becoming pregnant, this servant had the insolence to abuse Sarra, assuming queenly airs as though the dominion were to pass to her unborn son' [1.188]). (2) Hagar flees from Sarah not because Sarah drives her out but because Hagar cannot endure the rightful punishment that Sarah is inflicting on her for her insolence (1.188). (3) In line with the Genesis tradition and the second part of the 16 Though Josephus' Jewish Antiquities are consistently dated later than Galatians, the writing is instructive for this study because it includes a recounting of the Hagar stories, and some of the traditions that Josephus recounts could well reflect Jewish interpretative traditions from a period contemporaneous with or even prior to Paul.

MILLER

147


Jubilees tradition (Jub. 17.1-14), God meets Hagar in her flight from Sarah. However, in variation from these other traditions, the divine words here in Josephus chastise Hagar for not exercising self-control in her behaviour toward Sarah. Also, though her return to Sarah is mandated by the Lord, it is predicted to be a happy return only if she expresses greater self-control and alters her behaviour, otherwise she will perish (1.189). Finally, the Josephus tradition notes that (4) Ishmael was named by God, but only after Hagar returned and received forgiveness from Sarah (1.190). No mention is made of Hagar naming Ishmael, as is seen in the Genesis tradition. In the end, the qualitative characterization of these two figures is starkly apparent and polarizing. Contra the Genesis tradition, but in line with nearly all of the other traditions surveyed in this essay, the figure of Hagar bears the brunt of the blame and negativity in the Josephus tradition. Inversely, almost nothing negative clings to the figure of Sarah here in Josephus. The Josephus tradition reflects not only a sharing in, but also a heightening of, the qualitative characterization of the figures of Hagar and Sarah seen previously. Philonic Tradition on Hagar Taking a step chronologically backward from Josephus, to a true contemporary of Paul, we see the figure of Hagar again in the writings of Philo of Alexandria. Though Philo was not entirely unacquainted with referring to Hagar in a literal sense, his primary mode of expression regarding the figure was - as in so much of his writing - a figurative one. The allegorical interpretation of 'Hagar' begins, not surprisingly, with Philo. For Philo, the figure of Hagar frequently serves as a trope, most often representing lower learning or even ignorance and lack of discipline. At the other end of the spectrum, 'Sarah' functions as a counterpart to 'Hagar', embodying higher learning or perfect virtue. An example of this type of usage by Philo can be seen in the following passage: 17

But nevertheless, she [Sarah] is thought worthy of such an honourable reception from the prince, that her womb is opened by him, so as to receive the seed of divine generation, in order to cause the production of honourable pursuits and actions. Learn therefore, O soul, that Sarah, that is virtue, will bring forth to thee a son; and that Hagar, or intermediate instruction, is not the only one who will do so; for her offspring is one which has its knowledge from teaching, but the offspring of the other is entirely self-taught. (Mut. 255-256) 18

4

17 Cf. Yehoshua Amir, The Transference of Greek Allegories to Biblical Motifs in Philo', in Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn, et al.; Chico: Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 15-25. 18 The translation is taken from LCL. Cf. Cher. 3, 6, 8; Post. 130; Congr. 11, 20, 23-24, 71, 88, 121-122; Somn. 1.240; and Peder Borgen, Some Hebrew and Pagan Features in 4

148


Philo's usage of the two figures is dominated by allegory and with them functioning as two types; types that are correlated with personal or mental qualities related directly to the Greek system of education and learning. In light of the other Jewish writings surveyed, Philo's qualitative distinction between the two figures stands in broad continuity with much of the tradition outside the Genesis tradition. Hagar represents the lower entity and Sarah embodies the higher qualities. Though the things that the Philonic Hagar represents are not despised (i.e., they are still of some value in attaining higher learning), it is still clear that one figure (Sarah) consistently stands above the other (Hagar) when allegorizing them. In the end, though the form in which the Philonic tradition on Hagar is found is a novum in Jewish tradition, the use or functions of the figures (as higher and lower) reflect the same basic interpretative thrust noted in the nonGenesis traditions above. This inventorying of Jewish traditions on the figure of Hagar reveals several salient observations. First, the Genesis tradition appears to be the only tradition that presents the figure of Hagar in a positive (or even neutral) light. Likewise, it is the tradition that most clearly and thoroughly characterizes Sarah negatively. All of the other traditions characterize the two, explicitly and/or implicitly, in exactly the opposite manner. It is clear, then, that the predominance of Jewish tradition reflects Hagar to be the antagonist, or even the villain, in the stories. Second, though all of these writings cannot be dated with precision, it is apparent that later in the Second Temple period (especially with Josephus) the negative character ization of the figure of Hagar is quite thorough. Finally, outside of Philo's allegorical form, all of these Hagar stories and traditions are found within works that purport to provide some span of Israelite or Jewish history; yet, none is without an interest in the contemporary circumstances in which they were written. 19

Philo's and Paul's Interpretation of Hagar and Ishmael', in Peder Borgen and Soren Giversen (eds), The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), pp. 151-64 (153). 19 While it is not the aim of this study to demonstrate a clear line of development or to chronologically prioritize the Hagar traditions in Jewish literature, it seems likely from this essay that the Genesis tradition precedes the others. I would contend that it is less likely that the Genesis tradition is later than the others (i.e., it effectively 'redeemed' Hagar from earlier negative portrayals of the figure). More likely, I would argue, is that Hagar is deviantized in the traditions outside of Genesis (later in the Second Temple period) as a distinct alteration to the positive (or at least neutral) portrayal in the Genesis tradition. Though the focus and parameters of this essay preclude going into the level of detail needed to fully substantiate such a claim, it is worth noting that Hagar is also negatively characterized in the Targums and early Midrashim (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 16.1, 5; Tg. Neof. Gen. 16.5; Gen. Rab. 45.4; Pirqe R. El. 30) and is consistently caricatured as 'the other' throughout the rabbinic literature, which lends credence to my supposition. Cf. Carol Bakhos, 'The Double Identity of Hagar and Keturah' (forthcoming).

MILLER


149

Paul (Galatians 4.21-31) and Jewish Tradition on Hagar Fundamental to the study of Paul's use of Scripture are the following: Paul was a Jew; Paul held Israel's Scriptures to be normative for interpreting his own contemporary experience; Paul shared in this enterprise with many of his 'own people' (i.e., fellow Jews); and, as a result, an ongoing conversation on the interpretation and significance of Israel's Scriptures ensued. As Francis Watson notes: 20

Whatever other factors help to shape them, scripture is the generative matrix within which these texts come into being, and it is therefore possible to see both the Pauline and non-Pauline texts as operating within the single intertextual field constituted by the communal acknowledgement of the earlier texts as 'scripture', and by the expectation that, as they are interpreted, these texts will themselves interpret and shape the world of present experience. Difference and disagreement . . . take place only on that common ground. 21

Therefore, any effort to assess Paul's use of Scripture must take a full account of the features and emphases of the scriptural or para-scriptural traditions in these Jewish writings, since they are implicit dialogue partners of his. Now I turn to Paul's use of Hagar in light of the Jewish writings and traditions surveyed above. Unquestionably, Jewish tradition underlies and informs Paul's use of the Hagar stories (Gal. 4.21-31). Yet which specific traditions? And in which specific places? The most visible connection is evident in the form of the passage. Paul's designation of the passage as an allegory (4.24) puts it, at least in its form, in line with the Philonic allegorical tradition on Hagar. While the focus of Philo and Paul's allegories differ, with Philo zeroed in on Greek education or ideals and Paul preoccupied with the current social context in Galatia, they both employ the same form and they both have contemporary contexts to which each is applied. Paul's allegory identifies the figures as two 'covenants' (4.24). Hagar is signified as: 'the slave woman' (4.22); the one whose child was born 'according to the flesh' (4.23); the one 'bearing children for slavery' (4.24); 'the present Jerusalem' (4.25); the one who will not share in the inheritance (4.30); and the one who is to be driven out (4.30). In 22

20 See Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics, pp. 1-13 and Hays, Echoes of Scripture, p. 35. 21 Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics, p. 3. 22 Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Pauls Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 324-5, finds Philo's allegorical use of Hagar (and Sarah) to be quite instructive and informative for reading Paul in Gal. 4, especially in the contemporizing function that they exhibit. This is in contrast to Barrett, Essays on Paul, pp. 154-70, who holds that Philo's allegory contributes very little in form or substance to Paul.

150


opposition, Paul allegorizes the figure of Sarah as: 'the free woman' (4.22); the one whose child was born 'according to the promise' (4.23); the Jerusalem above (4.26); as 'our mother' (4.26); and the one who will be the rightful inheritor of the promise (4.30). As Elizabeth Castelli rightly notes, 'allegory as a rhetorical trope possesses a capacity to persuade its reader or hearer to reimagine the meanings of a text or tradition'. The allegorical associations of Hagar and Sarah here in Paul are thorough and striking, offering a stereotyped, reimagined meaning of the two figures to characterize certain actors in the current Galatian drama. While the form of the passage clearly links Paul and Philo's use of Hagar to the same tradition, the significant variation in what the figures are allegorically linked to indicates that the Philonic tradition is not the only Jewish interpretative tradition that is evident in Paul's use of Hagar. Conspicuously absent in the cadre of Jewish traditions on the figure of Hagar is any normative set of details. Each writing records its own unique set, some fuller and some slimmer, based on variations within or alterations to the traditions. Paul's relating of the Hagar story in Gal. 4.21-31 is no exception. He offers a very brief and highly stylized account. The few details that he relates are as follows: (1) Abraham had two sons (4.22); (2) Ishmael (though not referred to by name) 'persecuted' Isaac (4.29); and (3) the slave woman, Hagar, and her child are to be driven out (4.30). Beyond its allegorical form, two additional aspects of Paul's account reflect a clear continuity with one or more of the Jewish interpretative traditions on Hagar. First, in line with the Jewish traditions outside of Genesis, especially Jubilees and Josephus, compellingly absent in Galatians are any of the particulars in the Genesis tradition (particularly Gen. 16) that negatively characterize the figure of Sarah. Paul does not contend for a positive characterization of Sarah in Galatians, rather he assumes it. Similarly absent in Paul are any of the details seen in the Genesis tradition that portray Hagar in a positive light. The figure of Hagar clearly is the negative trope. The most likely (or perhaps only) logical reason for how Paul can so matter-of-factly (i.e., without argumentation) present this highly charged, dualistic characterization of these two figures, is that his hearers and/or readers share with him a common knowledge of the Jewish traditions on these figures. On this, 23

24

23 Elizabeth A. Castelli, 'Allegories of Hagar: Reading Galatians 4.21-31 with Postmodern Eyes', in Edgar V. McKnight and Elizabeth Struthers Malbon (eds), The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament (Valley Forge: Trinity, 1994), pp. 228-50 (230). 24 Many (myself included) see the situation of Paul and the other teachers in Galatia as one of 'competing exegesis' - i.e., both are seeking to normatively interpret the story of Abraham (including that of Sarah and Hagar) for the Galatians. Seemingly, these other teachers have introduced their own interpretative account of these stories to the Galatians, and now Paul is providing an interpretative response (e.g., 3.7, 16). The Galatians' previous

MILLER


151

Castelli notes that, 'like other forms of rhetorical persuasion, allegorical interpretation depends upon what is familiar to the reader. In the course of interpretation, the familiar is refigured, and what is familiar is translated into something new, different and often remarkable.' I would contend that Paul's qualitative portrayal of the figures of Hagar and Sarah is not only traditionally Jewish, as seen in the preponderance of the traditions surveyed in this essay, but also that this traditional aspect of the Hagar stories has become common knowledge to the Galatians. A second key aspect of the Galatians account that is in continuity with Jewish tradition is the negative characterization of the actions of Ishmael at the weaning of Isaac. In variation from the more neutral, or even positive, term pTCJ (Gen. 21.9; LXX : irai^co) used in the Genesis tradition, Paul employs SICOKCO (Gal. 4.29) to negatively characterize Ishmael's actions and/or stance as 'persecuting' Isaac. Though some see Paul's interpretative choice here as a simple exegesis of a negatively laden term or idea in Genesis, such a reading is not convincing. More persuasive is that Paul's negative portrayal reflects Jewish tradition. In the writings of the Rabbis, Ishmael is seen as idolatrous (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J. Tg. Onq. Tg. Neof. on Gen. 21.9), wicked (e.g., Gen. Rab. 53.4; Exod. Rab. 3.2), and, specifically in his treatment of Isaac, as persecuting him by shooting 'deadly arrows' at him while hunting (e.g., Pesiq. R. 48.3; Pirqe R. El. 30). The profoundly negative characterization of Ishmael in the rabbinic literature not only paints a vivid picture of this scene, but it also reveals the traditional character of Paul's interpretation. Again, while this nuance of Jewish interpretative tradition in the Rabbis is not found in other prePauline Jewish texts, and though these rabbinic traditions cannot be dated prior to Paul with certainty, it is clear that Paul is in continuity with Jewish tradition in this characterization of Ishmael. A final traditional aspect of the Galatians account is evident in Gal. 4.30, where Sarah has been removed as the source of the command (as it is in the Genesis tradition) and 'Scripture' is inserted in her place. For Paul, 'Scripture' says, 'drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman' This critical command that Paul wishes the Galatians to hear and enact now does not come simply from Sarah, or even Paul, but from (and assuming the authority of) Scripture. This is an effort by Paul to further 25

9

y

( N R S V ) .

2

6

exposure to the Sarah-Hagar story seems sure due to what Paul assumes, as well as to the movement of the passage (e.g., 4.21, 24, 30). However, we do not and cannot know what shape or form it came to them in. The teachers themselves may well be the (or at least a) source for the Galatians' knowledge of these stories and traditions. See, for example, J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 18-19, 117-26, 302-7. 25 Castelli, 'Allegories of Hagar', p. 230. 26 See Hays, Echoes of Scripture, p. 116.

152


legitimate his interpretation (over others) in the eyes of the gentile Galatian believers and, ultimately, to more effectively persuade them to enact the driving out. Though 'Scripture' is not the specific voice used in the Jewish traditions on Hagar to further legitimize aspects of their interpretations, 'God' is used in this manner. As noted briefly above in Jewish Antiquities, Josephus overshadows any culpability on the part of Sarah for failing to wait on God's covenant promise, and for selecting Hagar as a surrogate, by indicating that it was God who commanded Sarah to do so (1.10.4). Because it was not of her own accord, she is exonerated of any wrongdoing or lack of faith. This legitimatory manoeuvre shades how specific behaviour and actions are to be understood and thus recasts how characters as a whole are to be perceived. Paul stands alongside Josephus in this act, keeping his text broadly in line with Jewish tradition. In summary, it is clear that the Galatians account of the Hagar story is quite traditional, as it shares a number of interpretative features with the Jewish traditions surveyed above. Paul constructs the passage within a distinctly Jewish framework and set of traditions. Yet, one aspect of it stands out as novel. Paul's clear indication that the story of Sarah and Hagar is playing out again, now through different actors in the Galatian drama, lacks a precise precedent in Jewish tradition. While it is true that Philo contemporizes the Sarah-Hagar story to address issues of his own day, nowhere does he (or any other Jewish writing) make application of it to other persons and social situations. Philo's contemporizing is limited to Greek educational ideals and learning, whereas for Paul, the current social context of strife in Galatia is that to which the story is applied. The Galatian social context appears to be the enzyme that once again sets it into motion. Witherington notes that 'it is of the essence of an allegory that the interpretation offered is not literally true about the subjects within the story, but rather it is true of persons outside the story, either members of the audience or those the audience knows about'. This is true for the Galatian audience. In the current casting of the Hagar-Sarah story in Galatia, the figure of Sarah is the gentile Galatian believers. They are the ones who are free and are the inheritors according to the promise. In opposition, the figure of Hagar is now the band of teachers who seek to 27

28

27 J. C. O'Neill,' "For This Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia" (Galatians 4.25)', in Steve Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North (JSNTSup, 189; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 210-19 (218), argues that Gal. 4.25 and much of the pericope is traditionally Jewish, but deems it to be of Essene origin. O'Neill, however, presents little compelling evidence to support such a specific claim. 28 Witherington, Grace in Galatia, p. 323. Cf. Castelli, 'Allegories of Hagar', p. 232 and Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia. (Hermeneia: Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), pp. 241-2.

MILLER


153

influence the gentile Galatian believers. They are the ones (in Paul's eyes) who are in slavery and bondage, and they are not the inheritors of the covenant promise. In the climax of the passage, and some would say of the entire letter, Hagar (i.e., the teachers) is to be driven out by Sarah (i.e., the gentile Galatian believers). Paul's interpretative innovation here with the recasting of the figures of Hagar and Sarah comes with its own twist - a reversal of the ethnic identities typical to the figures in Jewish tradition. The traditional 'Sarah', consistently reflecting covenantal Judaism as over against the nations, is now embodied in the Galatians 'Hagar'. Hagar, in Galatians, is the group of teachers who continue to demand Torah observance even for new gentile converts. They are the Sinai covenant. Likewise, the traditional 'Hagar', consistently reflecting the nations, is now found in the Galatians 'Sarah'. In this context, the figure of Sarah now represents the gentile Galatian believers. They are the Abrahamic covenant. For Paul, they are the inheritors of the promise through faith. In the end, it is not that one ethnicity (i.e., Jewish), along with the practice of its piety (e.g., Torah-observance), is being monolithically supplanted by another (i.e., gentile or Graeco-Roman). Paul is not rejecting, in their entirety, Judaism, the Jewish people, the law or even circumcision. Rather, here in Galatians, he inserts this innovation within Jewish tradition specifically to contend against the demand of Torahobservance, as a type of oppression, by these teachers (i.e., the Galatians Hagar) for the gentile Galatian converts to Christ (i.e., the Galatians Sarah). This radical final manoeuvre by Paul does not deny the traditional Jewish character of the Sarah-Hagar story evident in Gal. 4.21-31. Quite the contrary, Paul asserts it as an (or in Paul's mind the) authoritative interpretation within the ongoing Jewish conversation and tradition on Scripture. 29

30

31

Implications

of this Study

Space limitations will not allow an extensive consideration of the implications of this study, therefore I will only briefly highlight them below. First, the free telling and retelling (i.e., traditions) of Israel's history, particularly as seen in Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, and Josephus' Jewish Antiquities, should be identified 29 Cf. J. Bligh, Galatians (London: St. Paul Publications, 1969), p. 235. 30 Cf. Castelli, 'Allegories of Hagar', p. 241 and Barrett, Essays on Paul, p. 168. 31 Paul opposes any teachers (Jewish-Christians, non-Christian-Jews or others) who would demand Torah-observance of gentile converts to Christ. This practice, and not an ethnicity or religion, is the basis for Paul's oppositional stance.

154


as a distinct stream of Jewish tradition that informs Paul's use of Scripture in Gal. 4.21-31. At the very least, it should be inserted alongside the other Jewish methods of scriptural interpretation that have been offered to characterize Paul's act of interpretation here in Galatians. Additionally, studies that appeal only to Genesis, and that ignore the other Jewish texts and traditions, render themselves inadequate for interpreting the passage in Paul. Second, given the distinct continuity of the Galatians account with the Jewish traditions (on the interpretation of Hagar), it is important to ask, 'whose voice do we hear' in Paul's text? If it is the case, as I have argued, that Paul subverts the traditional identity assignments of the figures of Hagar and Sarah in Jewish tradition through a reversal of ethnic identities in the Galatian context, then the traditionally negative interpretation of Hagar does not, and logically cannot, represent Paul's voice. Paul is not subverting his own interpretation. Instead, he is subverting the traditional Jewish interpretation of Hagar as a negative figure (which most likely is being proffered by these other teachers) as he vies for the ears and the allegiance of the Galatian believers. Therefore, I would argue that, outside of Paul's innovation in the tradition, we largely hear in Gal. 4.21-31 'the voice' of these other teachers via Paul's recitation. To be convincingly made, though, this argument requires a great deal more space than can be afforded here. Therefore, it will need to be taken up in a forthcoming essay. Finally, in light of this essay and in corollary to the preceding implication, the effectual reading of Hagar in Galatians needs to be revisited. Although the figure of Hagar is the one to be driven out in the Galatians account, as she is in most all the Jewish writings, Paul's subversive alteration of ethnic identities also calls into question any contemporary readings that take Paul's portrayal of Hagar as an abuse of the oppressed or 'the other'. While the Galatians pericope has been understood as a 'text of terror' in some post-colonial and feminist readings, if my supposition is correct concerning Paul's application of it to the Galatian drama, then just the opposite is true. Paul is calling for those who abuse and agitate (i.e., the teachers who demand Torah-observance) the gentile Galatian believers to be cast out specifically because of their domineering stance and behaviour toward these 'others'. Paul calls for oppression and oppressive behaviour to be that which is cast out along with these teachers. Hagar is not re-abused or re-oppressed but freed and empowered. 32

32 This is another subject to which I will give further attention in a future essay.

Chapter 1 1 S U B V E R T I N G

S A R A H

G A L A T I A N S

I N

4

A

T

N

H

E N E W

D

1

T E S T A M E N T

P E T E R

3

Jeremy Punt Introduction The presence of a person as important as Sarah in the narratives of the Hebrew Bible comes as no particular surprise, since she was after all the one to whom Jewish people would trace their matrilineal descent: Sarah, mother of nations. Our modern perception and frame of reference should nevertheless not deceive us in taking the female presence outside of, and to some extent detached from, her home - and the public acknowledgement of a married woman - for granted in a patriarchal world. Nevertheless, apart from her role as consort or wife of Abraham, Sarah occupies an important position in the biblical narratives. Sarah's portrayal in the New Testament sees her deployed in important roles, but neither the particular ways in which she was appropriated, nor these portrayals as such, are without some ambivalence. At first glance, it could be noted that her presence is somewhat unexpected in the New Testament epistolary material, especially her generally positive depiction, given the Epistles' propensity for specificity and, of course, the patriarchal context of the time. On the other hand, reference to Sarah is not that surprising considering that she was the wife of the patriarch, the father of faith and therefore carried the responsibility of bearing him a child, a responsibility which was accentuated because of the particular role in which Abraham himself was portrayed. But again, while Sarah's ultimate responsibility to provide a lineage is reflected in the New Testament documents as they at times recount the compromising situation Sarah 1

2

This is an edited version of a paper read at the Annual SBL Meeting in Washington DC, USA, November 2006 - an earlier version appeared in Scriptura 96 (2007): 453-68, and it is published here with the kind permission of its editor. 1 T. J. Schneider, Sarah: Mother of Nations (New York and London: Continuum, 2004). 2 Cf., however, also the patterned literary presentations of women in the Hebrew Bible as described by A. Brenner, 'Female Social Behaviour: Two Descriptive Patterns within the "Birth of the Hero" Paradigm', FT 363 (1986): 257-73.

156


found herself in because of her sterility, there is more to how Sarah is presented in the New Testament. In the end, Sarah is mentioned only on a few occasions in the New Testament, but in interestingly different ways. While the distinct portrayals of Sarah are obviously related to the particular purpose of each document, these references can also - if only partly - be explained with reference to the variance found among the New Testament documents' appeals to Scripture. Comparing Sarah's portrayal in Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3 shows that the explanation of differences needs to include but go beyond distinct epistolary exigencies. While their use of Scripture adheres broadly to prevailing norms and practice, Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3 differ in the rationale for referencing Scripture, their interpretative interests and the ideological settings of the documents - these concerns will be addressed after briefly reviewing Sarah's portrayal in Genesis, Galatians and 1 Peter. Moreover, the subtle (and less subtle) subversion of Sarah's portrayal in Genesis, and her consequent subversive appropriation in the New Testament, will be traced in this contribution. 3

Sarah, Wife of Abraham,

in the Hebrew

4

Bible

In the patriarchal world of the Bible, bolstered by endogamous marriage practices and patrilineal descent, it is difficult to reflect upon Sarah without considering her in relation to Abraham. The New Testament documents show more than a fleeting acquaintance with the Abraham 5

3 Space does not allow discussion of the introductory questions concerning Galatians and 1 Peter. Suffice it to claim that Galatians is seen as one of Paul's authentic letters, addressed to the early Christian churches founded by Paul in central Asia Minor or central Anatolia (so Betz). It was most probably written in the early fifties (50 or 51 CE), although its provenance remains a puzzle: Ephesus, Macedonia, Corinth and even Rome have been suggested. Galatians is a short and confrontational letter, probably representing the early phase of a dispute with adversaries relating to the relationship between theological issues and socio-political matters such as the identity of the community, within the context of firstgeneration followers of Jesus. 1 Peter was most probably written in the period between 73 and 92 CE, pseudonymously and from Rome by a group of Jesus followers formed around the name and legacy of the apostle Peter. 1 Peter is directed to members of this group dispersed through Asia Minor. 4 Cf. an earlier discussion in J. Punt, 'Revealing Rereading. Part 2: Paul and the Wives of the Father of Faith in Galatians 4.21-5.1', Neot 40(1) (2006): 101-18. 5 Indeed, Sarah's role is circumscribed in her role as legitimate wife and mother of the male successor rather than being presented as an individual in her own right, cf. G. A. Yee, 'Sarah (person)', ABD 5.981-2. 'The chief aspiration which informs these women's being . . . is biological motherhood and its benefits' (Brenner, 'Female Social Behaviour', p. 264). Schneider presents a different perspective, and concludes: 'Thus, Sarah becomes not just the wife of the patriarch; instead, the Deity chooses Sarah as surely as Abraham, especially in terms of continuation of the promise' (Schneider, Sarah, p. 129).

PUNT Subverting Sarah

157

narratives of the Hebrew Bible, generally according him the mantle of father of faith in the New Testament (e.g., Rom. 4; Heb. 11; Jas 2). However, the interests of the New Testament representations of Abraham are soon exposed, showing their reliance on a committed traditional appropriation of the biblical texts of Genesis rather than a studious concern with the full extent and implications of the narratives of the Hebrew Bible on Abraham's character: a male figure that stood to lose nothing, having already left his native land and the empty house of his father: 'God's call is hardly inopportune'. At times Abraham appears as a 'silent, acquiescent, and minor figure in a drama between two women', and whose response to God's promise entailed minimal risks for considerable benefits. Leaving aside (the then still) Abram's motives for responding positively to God's call - faith, trust, ambition, sense of responsibility and so on - there is no evidence of including his family and especially his wife in the sharing of the blessing, although Sarai would evidently be vital to actualize the blessing. In fact, it is only when Sarai became Sarah ('princess') that she was explicitly included in the divine promise, to which Abraham responded with incredulous laughter. Nothing shocked Abraham more in his acceptance of God's promise than Sarah's inclusion in it. The irony amidst Sarah's marginalization is how it affected her behaviour towards others, in particular the few over which she exercised authority. In the same way that Abram traded Sarai for security and wealth in Egypt, Sarai herself later traded the sexuality and maternity of 6

7

8

9

10

11

6 D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, Gender, Power, and Promise: The Subject of the Bible's First Story (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), p. 40. 7 P. Trible, Texts of Terror. Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (OBT, 13; Philadelphia: Fortress Press), p. 11. 8 As W. Brueggemann {Genesis [Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982], p. 119) somewhat anachronistically puts it, 'an index of what we crave: well-being, security, prosperity, prominence'. 9 Fewell and Gunn, Gender, pp. 40-1, 47; cf. P. R. Davies, Whose Bible is it Anyway? (JSOTSup, 204. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 105-8. 10 The Hebrew Bible's narratives on the matriarchs develop according to a relatively fixed literary paradigm where the legitimate wife is paired with another, rival co-wife with characteristics not present in the former (Yes, 'Sarah', p. 981; cf. Brenner, 'Female Social Behaviour'). However, later interpreters found Hagar's maltreatment difficult to explain, and so, e.g., Philo in his generally positive portrayal of Sarah, carefully avoided Sarah's mistreatment of Hagar and Ishmael in his literal interpretation, dealing with it only allegorically, cf. M. R. Niehoff, 'Mother and Maiden, Sister and Spouse: Sarah in Philonic Midrash', HTR 91/4 (2004): 413-^4 (429). 11 In a less than positive portrayal of Abram in their return to Egypt when famine struck (Gen. 12), he showed fewer morals than Pharaoh in putting Sarai up for grabs, ostensibly because of the danger her beauty could cause him, and so incurring the favours and riches of the Pharaoh. While safety and certainly economic gain seem to be prime considerations for his actions, Abram showed little concern for Sarai as a partner to the divine blessing, much

158


the slave, Hagar, for her own security (Gen. 16), and so the victimized became the victimizer. 'For Sarai, Hagar is an instrument, not a person. The maid enhances the mistress.' When Sarai's plan to ensure a lineage through her slave led to unexpected complications, an indifferent Abram withdrew from Sarai's harsh and revengeful treatment of Hagar, which is so effective that Hagar flees into the desert. 'The struggle between the women is a regular power struggle, unaffected by love inasmuch as it is centered round motherhood and its attendant benefits.' Still, apart from this incident, Sarah's life in Genesis marks her as worthy of becoming the mother of the nation, and although her secondary place to Abraham was inscribed by patriarchy, her behaviour often subverted both her and Abraham's roles and aspects of such twists and turns in the Hebrew Bible narratives surfaces in the New Testament as well. 12

13

Sarah in the New

14

Testament

Women's stories of motherhood in Genesis are primarily about the nation of Israel over against other nations in a promise-focused

less an integral part in realizing it. In fact, through his 'sense of exclusivity' and distrust of God's protection, Abram has interfered with God's plan. Underlining his failure to appreciate Sarai's value, the earlier fearful Abram rallied at great personal risk to the defence of Lot in Gen. 14, and the participant of Egyptian riches later declined the king of Sodom's offer of wealth. A similar pattern is again present in Gen. 18-20 where Abraham deemed Lot more worthy of risk and trouble than his own wife (Fewell and Gunn, Gender, pp. 42-5). 12 Trible, Texts of Terror, p. 11. 13 Brenner, 'Female Social Behaviour', p. 272. Hagar returned to Abram and Sarai at God's instruction, but not before she also received a promise, even if an ambivalent one and secondary in all respects to the promise made to Abram, except that she too will have a mighty lineage. Ishmael will also be blessed, but it is through Isaac that God will renew the covenant (Gen. 17.19-21; Fewell and Gunn, Gender, pp. 45, 48). 14 Cf. also J. Punt, 'Revealing Rereading. Part 1: Pauline allegory in Gal 4.21-5.1', Neot 40(1) (2006): 87-100; idem, 'Revealing Rereading. Part 2'. Four direct references to Sarah are found in the NT: Rom. 4.19, on the contrast between Abraham's faith and Sarah's womb; Rom. 9.9, on the promise situated in Sarah's son; Heb. 11.11, on Sarah's conception and faith; and 1 Pet. 3.6, on Sarah's obedience; Gal. 4.21-5.1 is clearly about Sarah, referred to as the 'free [woman]'). The conspicuous absence of Sarah in Stephen's account of the history of Israel (Acts 7.2-53) is difficult to explain. Abraham is explicitly mentioned 73 times in the NT: Mt. (7); Mk (1); Lk. (15); Jn (i 1, all in ch. 8); Acts (7); Paul's letters (19; Rom. (9); 2 Cor. (1); Gal. (9); Heb. (10); Jas (2); 1 Pet. (1). Van Rensburg holds that references to Abraham's children would include Sarah of necessity (cf Rom. 9.7; Jn 8.39), and refers also to Isa. 51.2 who juxtaposes Abraham as father and Sarah as the one who gave birth (F. J. J. Van Rensburg, 'Sarah's Submissiveness to Abraham: A Socio-Historical Interpretation of the Exhortation to Wives in 1 Peter 3.5-6 to take Sarah as Example of Submissiveness', Hervormde Teologiese Studies 60/1, 2 (2004): 249-60 (257).


159

quest. The promise, which according to the Hebrew Bible came from God, concerns Israel becoming a great nation. The importance of the promise potentially sidelines interest in these women, and the significance of what they do or what happens to them and their children, to matters of secondary nature. On the other hand, and not without some irony, women as mothers are first and foremost caretakers of the promise, granting matriarchs a vital role in the patriarchal narratives. It follows that their babies, their children, are more than offspring but are those who will move, claim or lose the promise. Many of the tensions generated by powerful women in a patriarchal context reverberate through the New Testament, which picks up on the traditions regarding Sarah, albeit with varying emphases. 'The New Testament supplies several proof texts that the Christian community has used to shape its understanding of Sarah and her character.' While Rom. 4.19 focuses on her barrenness in contrast to Abraham's faith in God's promises, and 1 Pet. 3.6 sees in Sarah's behaviour a legitimation 16

17

18

19

20

15 The gender politics is determined by the male God who takes the initiative and enables/empowers the female of the patriarch to ensure his (God's and the patriarch's) promises and lineage. However, the male God challenged the quick-fix solution of the male patriarch in conceiving a child with his concubine. In their discussions, Fewell and Gunn (Gender) implicate the male God as much as the male patriarch. 16 Initially God addressed women (Sarah, Hagar, Rebekah) directly but no more after Rebekah and especially the birth of Jacob or Israel. Following the lead of Rebekah who ensured Jacob's inheritance of the choice land and prosperity to the detriment of Esau, Israel's mothers will from now on attend to the promise (Fewell and Gunn, Gender, pp. 8990). 17 Fewell and Gunn, Gender, pp. 89-90; C. Osiek, 'Galatians', in C. A. Newsom and S. H. Ringe (eds), Women's Bible Commentary (Louisville: WJK, exp. edn, 1998), pp. 232-7 (236). Abraham later married again and had other children too (Gen. 25.1-4), but the promise underwrote the contrast between Sarah and Hagar, and their sons. Cf. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), p. 245. 18 An interesting intertext is Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, in the book of Tobit. She was to become the wife of Tobias after all seven of her husbands were killed by the demon Asmodeus on their wedding night. In her patriarchal setting she also maltreated her servants, because they blamed her for being unable to keep a husband (Tob. 2.9-9) - creating an interesting parallel with the biblical Sarah's harsh treatment of Hagar. Cf. Yee, 'Sarah', p. 982. 19 Schneider, Sarah, p. 131. Schneider, Gender, pp. 124-33 argues that the NT is prominently responsible for a prejudiced reading of Sarah, in contrast to her portrayal in Genesis; on the other hand she admits both to not being a 'specialist in the New Testament', and coming to 'preliminary' conclusions after taking the NT 'at face value'. 20 R. Hoppin, 'The Epistle to the Hebrews is Priscilla's Letter', in A. Levine and M. M. Robbins (eds), A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004), pp. 147-70 (154-5) explains how Sarah's prominent and assertive role in steadying the lacklustre and at times weak conduct of Abraham has been translated away through androcentric concerns, and how this was done to retain the patriarchal image of Abraham.


160

of patriarchy and women's submission to their husbands, Heb. 11.11 emphasizes Sarah's own faith, making a positive connection between her faith and her ability to conceive in her old age. In other texts Sarah is instrumental for describing the relationship between Jewish and gentile followers of Christ, and also Jews as such. Romans 9.6-9 insists that not all descendants of Abraham are eligible to be called his children, and in Galatians 4.21-5.1 this tension reaches break point and harbours antiJudaic tendencies when Sarah is claimed as mother of the Christian community rather than of the Jews, who are portrayed as children of the slave woman Hagar. In this discussion the focus is on Sarah's portrayal in Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3, which respectively emphasized her leading socio-historical role in determining the identity of believers, and her role in grounding a distinctive but exemplary socio-cultural profile. In both instances, Sarah's specific portrayal not only grounded a particular claim and stance, but in the process also subverted other, traditional positions. Sarah in Galatians Galatians 4 provided an alternative, allegorical reading intent on a contemporary if dissident understanding of the Genesis narrative, challenging the notion that Jews belonged to the lineage of Abraham through their physical descent from Abraham and Sarah. Such a radical hermeneutical shift made Paul dependent on a disposition of trust towards the interpreter, that the Galatian churches would accept him as faithful interpreter of Scripture. In essence, Paul's retelling of the origin of Abraham's children rests on a comparison of his two wives, Sarah and Hagar. Paul's sublime appeal is through his hermeneutical procedure in which the example of Abraham is treated as typical and normative, concentrating on scriptural texts, which emphasized that Israel's special place with God, is relativized. 21

22

23

24

21 Cf. S. E. Fowl, 'Who can read Abraham's Story? Allegory and Interpretive Power in Galatians', JSNT 55 (1994): 77-95; C. D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture. The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T & T Clark, 2004), pp. 130-5. 22 Cf. Cyprian's Testimonia (1.20) for other instances of comparing wives: in the case of Jacob's two wives, Leah represents the synagogue and Rachel (mother of Joseph) the church; with Elkana's two wives the church is deemed to be symbolized by Hannah, mother of Samuel (another messianic figure). 23 In Gen. 25.1 another wife is mentioned, Ketura, and the names of six sons Abraham had with her. Scholars differ about the nature of the claim (biographical or literary, and the latter probably in order to associate certain peoples with Abraham), the chronology involved regarding its placement in the fife of Abraham (e.g., before or after sending Hagar away in Gen. 21), and so on (cf. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (WBC, 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994). 24 J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law. Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: WJK, 1990), p. 203.

161


The importance of employing the traditions about Abraham and his house is evident in Galatians, regardless of the debate about whether the 'opponents' also used this tradition in their arguments, compelling Paul to refute it. The centrality of promise (eTrayyeAia) in Galatians (cf. 3.629), and indeed in the whole Pauline corpus where Jesus is connected to the line of Abraham, obliges Paul to use this tradition. The significance of the promise emerges also in the initial contrast between the two modes of birth: K O T O odpica (according to the flesh) is initially set against 5id Trjs EirayyeAtas (through the promise) and only in 4.29 is the expected contrast, KOCTCX irveupa (according to the spirit), found. In the promise, the supernatural nature of Isaac's birth is recorded, and more importantly, the birth is portrayed as being preceded by and associated with the promise. Galatians 4 shifts the emphasis from Abraham to his two wives (and the distinction between them), made into types of freedom and slavery: Sarah rather than Abraham now assumes the role of progenitor of the nation of believers! In Paul's allegorical reading, only Hagar, mother of Ishmael, and Isaac son of Sarah are named. Sarah is not mentioned by name, but referred to as the eXeu9epa, the free woman or wife; Hagar is mentioned by name in the New Testament in Galatians 4 only. This discrete identification points 25

26

27

28

29

30

25 K. H. Jobes, 'Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Galatians 4.21-31', WTJ 55/2 (1993): 299-320 (300, 318) claims 'the story of Abraham was evidently a persuasive part of the Judaizers' argument'. Cf. e.g., the assumptions of J. Buckel, Free to Love. Paul's Defence of Christian Liberty in Galatians (Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs, 15; Louvain: Peeters [Eerdmans], 1993), p. 184; and E. Tamez, 'Hagar and Sarah in Galatians: A Case Study in Freedom', Word & World 20/3 (2000): 265-271 (267) based on the argument of C. K. Barrett, Essays on Paul (London: SCM, 1982), pp. 154-70; cf. Dunn, Galatians, p. 243. Such readings might not evade the accusation of mirror reading. 26 The contrast with the Johannine appropriation of the Abraham narrative is apparent, where Jesus is portrayed as not being on par with but actually preceding Abraham (e.g. Jn 8.39; 8.53; 8.58). 27 'Flesh' in Paul often signifies the negative in human existence, but could be more polyvalent in this context. In the Abraham narrative the weakness of human sexual appetite, the longing for an heir, and the attempt to bring about the fulfilment of God's promise could be in view. In the Galatian context, flesh would further emphasize Paul's adversaries' focus on circumcision, as well as reliance on physical descent as indicative of inclusion in the promise (Dunn, Galatians, pp. 246-7). Cf. J. L. Martyn, 'The Covenants of Hagar and Sarah', in J. T. Carroll, C. H. Cosgrove and E. E. Johnson (eds), Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 160-92 (180-4). 28 G. Ebeling, The Truth of the Gospel. An Exposition of Galatians (trans. D. Green; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), p. 234. 29 Freedom is of course an important concept in Pauline thought, functioning as a metaphor for the new age inaugurated through the Christ-events; conversely, the old age prior to Christ is characterized by bondage and decay. Cf. A. Verhey, The Great Reversal. Ethics and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 107-8. 30 Cf Martyn, Covenants, p. 175.

162


towards the emphasized features in Galatians 4. The first is that the threat comes from a slave woman, who regardless of bearing a child to the patriarch remained, with her offspring, caught up in slavery. And secondly, the promise is in the form of the child born through the promise, enacting the covenant of faith and a life of freedom. The claim to inheritance can only be made by those who are descendants of the patriarch: Ishmael was technically the firstborn, but because Isaac was the one born 'through the promise', he stood to gain it all. The picture is filled out with the emphasis on Sarah being GTeipcc (sterile) in Gal. 4.27 (cf. Heb. 11.11), which would have been considered a decided and considerable disadvantage by women of biblical times given a socio-cultural context where fertility was emphasized and considered of ultimate importance. Matters such as lineage, posterity, future of clans and now also in Sarah's case at a theological level in Genesis, the blessing of God was affected by the fertility or otherwise of women. 32

33

Sarah in 1 Peter Sarah makes a surprise appearance within the household code of 1 Peter, concluding - and justifying - the call upon Christian wives to submit to their husbands (3.1), while her conduct, even more surprisingly, is portrayed as impacting also on men - and potentially destabilizing gendered societal norms. The broader socio-cultural setting is highlighted in 1 Pet. 3.7 34

31 Rather than being an indication o f the audience's familiarity with the narrative (so M. C. De Boer, 'Paul's quotation o f Isaiah 54.1 in Galatians 4.27', NTS 50 (2004): 370-89 (375 n. 18). 32 Reappearing in a later and most radical format in the deutero-Pauline tradition, 1 Tim. 2.15: oco8rjaETai 6e 5ia TT\S T E i c v o y o v i a s ('[a woman] will be saved through childbearing'). On 'barrenness' in Gal. 4, cf. Jobes, 'Jerusalem', pp. 306-8. 33 Cf. also the discussion in J. Punt, 'The Female as Weaker Vessel in the Household Code of 1 Peter 3.7', South African Baptist Journal of Theology 13 (2004): 46-56. 34 The imbalance in instructions issued to men and women should not primarily be related to the social make-up of the community (e.g., T. Hanks, The Subversive Gospel. A New Testament Commentary of Liberation ([trans. J. P. Doner; Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2000], p. 212, 'immigrants, poor slaves, and women constituted the basic nucleus') but rather to the socio-cultural conventions regarding honour and shame (cf. J. H. Elliott, 'Disgraced Yet Graced. The Gospel According to 1 Peter in the Key of Honour and Shame', BTB 24/4 [1995]: 166-78). Richard sees 1 Peter's description (2.11) of the community members as irapoiKoi 'or political aliens' as entailing 'corresponding honor to officials and . . . their share of political and social duties' and as Traps TTI&EUOI or 'religious exiles' as owing 'their nonbelieving neighbors the honor owed God's creatures or servants' (E. J. Richard, 'Honorable Conduct Among the Gentiles - A Study of the Social Thought of 1 Peter', Word& World 24/ 4 [2004]: 412-20 [417, 420]). Elliott's comment that the reference to Abraham and Sarah might have been included as an example of the oikos amidst a paroikia situation (J. H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless. A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), p. 250 n. 92) disregards the point that the reference is primarily about Sarah and not Abraham!

163


which contains elements which may suggest pagan criticism of Christian women, as the author instructs Christian husbands to show consideration and respect to their (Christian) wives since they are 'joint heirs of the grace of life'. The author nevertheless accepted the contemporary cultural, patriarchal notion that women were assumed to be weaker than men in a general sense, referring to intelligence, physical strength, moral fibre and so on; conversely, men lived 'according to knowledge' or wisely, considerately. Women were considered to be 'of a lower order of humanity than men' according to popular Graeco-Roman sentiment. Such conventional wisdom was inscribed in a formulaic way in the household code as found also in 1 Peter and which required - among others - submission from wives to their husbands, as was typical in Christian and Jewish marriages of the 35

36

37

38

35 D. L. Balch, Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (SBLMS, 26; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981), p. 114 n. 92. 36 An important point of departure within Graeco-Roman ethics was the postulated inferiority of women, which was considered an important consideration in regulating relationships between men and women, and as of course between husbands and wives. It is already with Aristotle that it is considered important to rule over wives and children in the household (Politics 1.5.1), because men are their superiors (Laws 11.917a); these relationships should be arranged already in the household (Politics 1.2.1, 1253b). WTnle UTTOTCXOOCO ('to bring under control') is primarily about the 'maintenance of the divinely willed order' and not about inferiority and superiority (J. R. Slaughter, 'Submission of Wives (1 Peter 3.1a) in the Context of 1 Peter', BS 153 [1996]: 63-74 [70]) it is this very order which was believed to presuppose a gendered superiority and inferiority. For the household being a microcosm of the city-state, cf. W. A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christian (Library of Early Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), pp. 19-39. Such ideas also influenced Jewish society, with Josephus claiming the importance of a wife's submission as situated not in her humiliation but so that she can be 'directed' since God gave authority to men (C. Ap. 2.200201). 37 K. E. Corley, '1 Peter', in E. Schussler Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, vol. 2: A Feminist Commentary (London: SCM, 1994), pp. 349-60 (353). 38 It is not legitimate to claim that in the Christian Church of 1 Peter 'women had their equality and human dignity restored and were treated as persons in their own right' (Van Rensburg, 'Sarah's Submissiveness', p. 255) - such claims should be carefully qualified since while women in the early Christian Church did seem to have had relatively more freedom, the patriarchal net tightens around them at about the turn of the first century; and they were probably never legally treated as 'persons in their own right' but had their identity consistently determined by either a father or a husband. And the idea that 'partnership' increasingly replaces patriarchy (R. L. Richardson, 'From "Subjection to Authority" to "Mutual Submission": The Ethic of Subordination in 1 Peter', Faith and Mission 4 [1987]: 70-80 [74]) should be qualified in the same way; contrary to Richardson's suggestion, it is unlikely that the call towards mutual humility in 1 Pet. 5.5 should be read to include any others but the elders of the community! Slaughter's ('Submission', esp. pp. 68-9) notion of mutual submission and A. B. Spencer's ('Peter's Pedagogical Method in 1 Peter 3.6', BBR 10/ 1 [2000]: 107-19 [110]) claim that 'submission is respectful cooperation with others', are suspect for similar reasons. A certain degree of subversion of the social order seems to be on the cards, but socio-political equality in gender and status does not characterize 1 Peter.

164

Early Christian Literature 39

and Intertextuality

2

40

41

time. As part of the apologetic use of the household code in 1 Peter, Sarah is presented along chauvinistic lines as the ideal or perfect Hellenistic wife The appeal to husbands to treat their wives with consideration follows upon the section of the household code where wives ([cci] y u v a i K e s ) were exhorted to submit to their husbands (TOTS tSiots av5paoiv: 1 Pet. 3.16). The exhortation to be submissive is propped up with a missionary motif (ivcc.. .KEpSnOrjoovTai 'in order that [they] be won over'; 1 Pet. 3.1), where the - silent - behaviour of the wives will lead to their unbelieving husbands' conversion. Wives are exhorted to concentrate on the inward aspects of their lives rather than outward appearances, and in support of the call to submissiveness the obedience of Sarah to Abraham is cited, 4 2

43

44

Kupiov auTov KCcAouoa ('calling him Lord': 1 Pet. 3.6a).

45

46

The reference in 1 Pet. 3.6a is probably to Gen. 18.12, which is more 39 Balch, Wives, pp. 23-31, 33-59. 40 Carter takes the accommodationist reading of 1 Peter to its logical extreme and argues that 1 Peter actually advocated participation in the emperor cult (W. Carter, 'Going All the Way? Honoring the Emperor and Sacrificing Wives and Slaves in 1 Peter 2.13-3.6', in Levine and Robbins (eds), A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews, pp. 14-33). Other scholars argue for the opposite, that the household code is used in 1 Peter to warn against accommodation within or conformity to the society surrounding the community of faith and invokes resistance against the mores of the day (cf. P. J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), pp. 210-16; Elliott, 'Disgraced'; Hanks, Subversive Gospel, pp. 212-13). 41 Balch, Wives. 42 D. I. Sly, '1 Peter 3.6b in the Light of Philo and Josephus', JBL 110/1 (1991): 126-9 (129). Why this rather obvious portrayal of Sarah would 'necessitate an exceptionally low view of Scripture' (J. R. Slaughter, 'Sarah as a Model for Christian Wives (1 Pet. 3.5-6)', BSac 153 [1996]: 357-65 [360]) is not evident. 43 Sarah's uiraKouco or obeying is treated here as an example of UTTOTaooouEVoi, being submissive (cf. Achtemeier, / Peter, p. 215 n. 38). 44 Cf. Slaughter, 'Submission', pp. 199-211. 45 'One could read her statement [in Gen. 18.12] as questioning Abraham's virility, and yet the New Testament sanitizes the reference and turns it into a sign of submission by Sarah' (Schneider, Gender, p. 132). In 1 Pet. 3.15, however, the appeal is to revere Jesus Christ as Lord, creating some tension with the earlier text where Sarah used the same title for her husband and wives addressed by 1 Peter are encouraged to obey their husbands with similar deference (cf. J. K. Brown, 'Silent Wives, Verbal Believers: Ethical and Hermeneutical Considerations in 1 Peter 3.1-6 and Its Context', Word& World24/4 (2004): 395-403 (397); J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter (WBC, 49; Dallas: Word Books, 1988), pp. 187-9. 46 The only text in Genesis where Sarah refers to Abraham as 'lord' (M. Misset van de Weg, 'The Sarah Imagery in I Peter', in L. V. Rutgers et al. [eds], The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World [CBET, 22; Leuven: Peeters, 1998], pp. 111-26 [115]) - it is a question whether Sarah's use of 'lord' is tantamount to obedience and Balch {Wives, pp. 103-5) has argued that it, when read together with 18.12b, was rather insulting towards Abraham. Others have argued that Gen. 12 and 20 may be the more appropriate intertexts, although Sarah did not address Abraham in these texts with the title, 'Lord'; of course, even in Gen. 18.12 Sarah only refers to and did not address Abraham as 'Lord'; 18.12 also does not


165

regularly remembered for Sarah's laughing disbelief that she can still conceive at an old age, than for her all-but-fleeting reference to Abraham, as 'my Lord is (or has become) old' (|pT ^TKIT; LXX: 6 5e Kiipios pou irp£o(3uTspos). In Gen. 18 the emphasis seems to be on Abraham's age, rather than Sarah's reference to him as 'my Lord', a conventional term of submission, respect and honour at the time, as is clear throughout the Old Testament. Conversely, it is clearly important for the author of 1 Peter to stress both Abraham's lordship over Sarah, and her acknowledgement thereof. 'The author's hermeneutics of Scripture seems to be predomin antly determined by social, political and ideological concerns and objectives, which mutatis mutandis, mediated the actualization of the Abraham-Sarah cycle and resulted in his image of Sarah.' In short, women's submissiveness needed to be grounded in sacred tradition. The Sarah image is invoked to validate and add support to the appeal to wives to act with the necessary submissiveness towards their husbands, and the proper relationship is found illustrated in the title used by Sarah: Abraham is her lord or master. The issue is not about when or how women became believers, but how Christian wives are to act in potentially hostile situations of marriage to unbelieving husbands. Matters are even more ambiguous. As argued above, the figure of Sarah in the Old Testament is hardly one of being constantly submissive, although her initial childlessness, or failed sexuality according to the sentiment of the time, did complicate matters. In the end, Sarah is more of a good example of a woman whose husband denied their marriage, calling 47

48

49

50

51

present a situation where Sarah experienced unfair treatment (cf. Slaughter, 'Sarah', p. 360). Gen. 12 and 20 are probable intertexts because they share similar motifs of being faithful in a foreign country amidst unfair treatment of Sarah/wives and with accompanying motifs of prayer and beauty - cf. M. Kiley, 'Like Sara: The Tale of Terror Behind 1 Peter 3.6', JBL 106/4 (1987): 689-92), and for Gen. 12 in particular cf. Spencer ('Pedagogical method', pp. 112-16). Claiming that a general pattern rather than one incident is in view here because a present participle is used (Spencer, 'Pedagogical Method', p. 113), is not convincing. While Achtemeier is critical of 'other Jewish texts' than Gen. 18.12 serving as the source for the Lord title (7 Peter, p. 215 n. 141), Troy Martin proposed T. Abr. as the most probable intertext for 1 Pet. 3.6 (T. W. Martin, 'The TestAbr and the Background of 1 Pet 3,6', ZNW 90/1-2 [1999]: 139^6): Sarah frequently calls Abraham 'Lord' and is portrayed as the mother of the elect, and the document connects good deeds and fearlessness. 47 Misset van de Weg, 'Sarah Imagery', p. 125. 48 Moreover, Sarah is the mother of women proselytes, appropriate to the context here of winning converts as the main purpose of women's submission (Balch, Wives, p. 105). 49 Achtemeier insists that neither is Sarah made the type for Christian wives, nor do the latter become the fulfilment of the former (1 Peter, p. 216 n. 145). 50 Cf. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, p. 216. 51 'First Peter depicts Sarah as a pious, submissive wife (3.5-6), but in Genesis she is strong, not always submissive, and is the first person in the scriptures accused of "oppression"' (Hanks, Subversive Gospel, p. 196).


166

her his sister for self-protection (Gen. 12, 20), and in a certain sense an inappropriate example of being treated considerately and with respect as called for in 1 Pet. 3.7. Furthermore, with slaves being sexually available to their masters, and wives having to submit to the sexual inclination of their husbands in the first-century Mediterranean world, 1 Peter 3 seems to suggest that slaves and wives should be willing to submit to sexual abuse - as Sarah did! 'It is not implausible to see unjust treatment, probably at the hands of a husband, as a dynamic of the exhortation to wives as well.' To put it bluntly, Sarah's constructive role as presented in Genesis seems to come to naught in 1 Peter, and degenerates into little less than providing legitimacy for the abuse of wives in the interest of avoiding accusations against the broader community of faith, of being counterconventional! 53

54

Comparing Sarah in Galatians and 1 Peter Attention to the two documents and the particular ways in which the figure of Sarah was appropriated in each, reveals interesting similarities and differences and mutes the claim that the New Testament makes 'categorical' statements about Sarah, certainly not in any consistent way. What the New Testament documents consistently do is to present Sarah as a positive example to be emulated, and she even retains her Hebrew Bible role as mother of the nation (cf. Isa. 54.1-3; Josephus War 5.379). As a matter of fact, 'the classic Christian expression of Sarah as mother of Christian believers comes from Paul', and 1 Peter tacitly accepted this portrayal of Sarah. Ironically such positive portrayal is generally detrimental to the affirmative role of Sarah in Genesis, while 55

56

57

52 Cf. Hepner on Sarah as Abraham's half-sister (G. Hepner, 'Abraham's Incestuous Marriage with Sarah. A Violation of the Holiness Code', VT 53/2 [2003]: 143-55). 53 Corley, '1 Peter', pp. 352-3. The palpable tension in the text has convinced some scholars that 1 Peter is an attempt to balance 'being radically different from the surrounding culture because of their Christian identity' while 'affirming the best values of that culture for the sake of acceptance and witness' (S. Dowd, '1 Peter', in Newsom and Ringe [eds], The Women's Bible Commentary pp. 462-4 [463]). 54 Kiley, 'Like Sara', p. 691. 55 Schneider, Gender, p. 132. 56 Tn later rabbinic literature Sarah is viewed as the (nursing) mother of all Gentile proselytes' (G. Forbes, 'Children of Sarah: Interpreting 1 Peter 3.6b', BBR 15/1 [2005]: 105-9 [107]). However, the more common designation is Abraham as father of the nation, and covenant status expressed as being children of Abraham is found, e.g., in Ps. 105.6 and Lk. 13.16, complete with covenantal security as expressed in many later Jewish writings (b. 'Erub. 19a; b.Sabb. 33b; Gen. Rab. 48.8; Exod. Rab. 19.4) and Christian documents (Mt. 1.73; 3.8-9; Justin, Dial. 140) - cf. Forbes, 'Children of Sarah', p. 107. 57 Forbes, 'Children of Sarah', p. 107. For the strong traditions about Zion or Jerusalem being 'the mother of the children' of faith, cf. Gal. 4.26; Ps. 87; Isa. 49.20-23; 54.1-13.


167

being co-opted in subverting at least the socio-historical position of firstcentury Jews and contemporary socio-cultural norms - to some extent! Use of Scripture and Rationale Both Paul and the author of 1 Peter used Scripture according to conventional first-century hermeneutical practices which in short entailed that Scripture is holy and therefore should be interpreted; is the living word of God and therefore remains actual for the lives of other generations as well; and that Scripture can be interpreted by inspired, spirit-filled interpreters - roles which the authors of Galatians and 1 Peter certainly claim for themselves. In both our texts the presence of the Hebrew Bible, even if somewhat rewritten is palpable, contributing to the experienced reality of the authors of Galatians and 1 Peter, and focused in rhetorically determined, selected textual references to Sarah. Paul's use of Scripture in Galatians 4 demonstrates his intentional, calculated use of allegory, obviously conscious of its interpretative as well as theological prospects. He and his contemporaries oscillated without restriction between different interpretative approaches, and Paul applied the well-established procedures of allegorical interpretation consistently, with symbolic identification used as a hermeneutical key to unlock the rest of the text. Typically, understanding allegory as code entails an unconventional reading even if it implies a conventional understanding and mediating approach; on the other hand, taking allegory as counterconventional reading, means that its broader significance can be appreciated. Paul is confident that his tailor-made, allegorical interpret ation can persuade his audience that the narrative on the wives of 58

59

60

61

62

58 Although Paul refers in Gal. 4.24 to his rereading of the story of Abraham's two wives and sons as allegory, his use of Scripture was in line with the prevailing hermeneutical approaches of the day. It is unlikely to argue that Scripture functions simply as justification for an argument and that Paul only cited Scripture when disagreeing with opponents (A. Von Harnack, 'The Old Testament in the Pauline Letters and in the Pauline Churches', in B. S. Rosner [ed.], Understanding Paul's Ethics: Twentieth Century Approaches [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], pp. 27-^9 [33, 45, 48-9] ). 59 S.-K. Wan, 'Allegorical Interpretation East and West: A Methodological Enquiry into Comparative Hermeneutics', in D. Smith Christopher (ed.), Text and Experience. Towards a Cultural Exegesis of the Bible (The Biblical Seminar, 35; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 154-79 (164). 60 D. Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991); cf. Fowl, 'Abraham's Story'. 61 The traditional understanding of allegory makes the reading strategies of Philo, Valentinus and Clement appear simplistic and naive, and does not account for contemporary literary critical interest in allegory (Fowl, 'Abraham's Story', p. 81; cf. Dawson, Allegorical Readers). 62 Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, pp. 130-5.

168


Abraham in Genesis requires a counter-conventional reading, to say the least, which deconstructs and reconstructs Israel's history. Although no claims to allegorical readings are found in 1 Peter, roughly three different ways of referring to Scripture (LXX) can be identified in this document. Direct quotes; including words from Scripture without an introductory formula; and, as in 1 Pet. 3.6, referring to biblical history both generally and specifically. Scripture is consistently interpreted from a Christian or even Christological point of view, and 'clearly the Jewish scriptures are a major source for the author of 1 Peter, and an authority to which he appeals at decisive points'. In 1 Peter 3.6 the author engages in a midrashic interpretation of one word in the text (Kupios, in Gen. 18.12 LXX), unlike his more general appeal in 1 Pet. 3.5 and his broad focus on the quoted text (1 Pet. 2.21-25). 1 Peter was ostensibly addressed to Jews (1.1; 2.1-10, building upon Exod. 19.6 and Isa. 43.21) but the references to their lives prior to conversion (1.14, 18, 21; 4.3-5) has led to wide agreement that the recipients were in fact gentile Christians. The recipients of 1 Peter are best understood as socially marginalized rather than being sectarian, harbouring longings for the otherworldly and focusing on heaven as their ultimate and true home. 'The addressees are people on the edges of society, harassed by their neighbours and former associates, without political rights and subject to sporadic abuse, and tempted to abandon their faith.' The presence of Sarah in a foreign land or hostile 63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

63 Paul's interpretation cannot be dismissed as evidence of a Hellenistic attitude and approach to the Scriptures of Israel (pace M. L .Soards, 'The Life and Writings of Paul', in M. A. Powell [ed.], The New Testament Today [Louisville: WJK, 1999), pp. 86-99 [96]). 64 Cf. J. G. Janzen, 'Hagar in Paul's Eyes and the Eyes of Yahweh (Genesis 16): A Study in Horizons', Horizons 13/1 (1991): 1-22 (17). 'Paul's sublime appeal is through his hermeneutical procedure in which the example of Abraham is treated as typical and normative, concentrating on scriptural texts which emphasise that Israel's special place with God is relativised' (Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law, p. 203). 65 E.g., 1.16 (Lev. 19.2, introduced by o n 5I6TI yEypaTrrat, 'for it is written that'); 1.2425 (Isa. 40.6-8, introduced by SIOTI, 'for'; 2.6 (Isa. 28.16, introduced by 5I6TI TTEpisxEi ev ypa4>4 'for it says in writing') and 3.10-12 (Ps. 33[34]. 13-17, introduced by yap, 'for'). 66 E.g., 2.3 (cf. Ps. 33[34].9), 2.7-8 (cf. Ps. 117[118].22; Isa. 8.14); 2.22-25 (cf. Isa. 53.412); 3.14-15 (cf. Isa. 8.12-13); 4.18 (cf. Prov. 11.31); 5.5b (cf. Prov. 3.34). 67 In general as in 1.10-12; 4.6 or to specific events which are presumed as background, such as in 1.22 (cf. Jer. 6.15); 2.9 (cf. Exod. 19.6; Isa. 43.20-21); 2.10 (cf. Hos. 1.9-2.1; 2.13); 3.6 (Sarah and Abraham, cf. Gen. 18.12), 3.20 (the Noah story); 3.22 (cf. Ps. 8.7; 110.1); 4.8 (cf. Prov. 10.12); 4.14 (cf. Isa. 11.2); 5.8 (cf. Ps. 21[22].14). 68 Michaels, 1 Peter, p. xl. 69 Ibid., pp. xl-xli. 70 In this context, it is interesting that the central scriptural image invoked in 1 Peter is the exile and not the exodus (Michaels, I Peter). 71 M. E. Boring, 'First Peter in Recent Study', Word & World 24/4 (2004): 358-67 (3656).


169

environment may have presented the author of 1 Peter with an exemplary analogy for the required behaviour of Christian wives in the community he addressed - initiating for women over many centuries a tale of terror'. For the author of 1 Peter, the reference to a designation used rather offhandedly by Sarah for Abraham became the grounding reason for insisting upon good behaviour from wives, while not challenging their husbands - and as far as religion is concerned, not challenging them verbally - and thereby conforming to the late first-century image of the ideal wife. 4

72

Interpretative interests Paul is not hesitant to name the two wives - rather than the two sons - of Abraham as the allegorized versions of life under the law and life according to the Spirit, a fleshly versus a spiritual existence, a life of bondage or slavery as opposed to a life of freedom. Paul's allegorical reinterpretation of the Genesis material focuses attention on the 'inter pretative interests' of his reading, and the interpretative power which is evoked in the process. The socio-political setting of Paul's interpret ations is important for understanding how Paul put the Hagar-Sarah narrative to use, allegorically. The end result is, though, that Paul transposes traditional interpretation, although in later Pauline inter pretation his original internal Jewish polemics became part of the Christian empire, and its anti-Judaism. Paul's hermeneutical efforts jeopardized Jewish identity when he reduced the ethnic as well as spiritual link Jews treasured with Sarah, wife of Abraham, to spiritual lineage only. Not only was Sarah subverted, the link between her and the (largest part of the) Jewish nation severed, but Sarah, at least moment73

74

75

76

77

72 Kiley, 'Like Sara', pp. 690-2; cf Dowd, '1 Peter', p. 463. 73 Fowl, 'Abraham's Story', pp. 77-95. 74 Space does not allow for discussion of interesting further developments resulting from the influence of particular social locations in the history of Pauline interpretation - such as slavery during colonial times - on the understanding of Sarah and her actions (cf. Schneider. Gender, p. 133). 75 The Scriptures of Israel are testimony of Israel becoming like Hagar: she is 'enslaved in a foreign nation, cries out in pain, and escapes to the wilderness' (K. M. O'Connor, 'Abraham's Unholy Family: Mirror, Witness, Summons', Journal for Preachers 21/1 [1997]: 26-34 [31]). 76 'Successful formation of a religious discourse was one of early Christianity's greatest strengths. This is precisely what both Paul and Augustus recognized' (A. Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991], p. 42). 77 Cf. Osiek, 'Galatians', p. 426; D. Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Critical Studies in Jewish Literature, Culture, and Society, 1; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).

170


arily, subverted Abraham in becoming the primary reference point for the faithful! While Sarah is never presented in the Genesis narratives as obeying (UTTCXKOUEIV) Abraham, he on the other hand is presented on three occasions as obeying Sarah: Gen. 16.2, 6; 21.12. 'One may speculate that it is the author's culturally conditioned concern not to remind the addressees of a weakness of the "father of faith" that makes 1 Peter refrain from more explicitly referring to Abraham as one of the sources of Sara's problem.' Such details would have been problematic for an argument offered in support of sustaining the conventional husband-wife relationship of the patriarchal marriage in the first century. Arguing from adaptations made by Philo and Josephus to the Sarah narratives of Genesis as well as allegorical interpretations of these narratives, it has been suggested that the author of 1 Peter would have experienced the same pressures that the Sarah narratives put on patriarchal culture and its prescribed roles for wives and husbands. So while in 1 Peter 'wives are paradigmatic for the whole of the Christian community', their silence as commanded in 1 Pet. 3.6 is however not exemplary since it will then override the exhortation to provide a ready, verbal defence of their faith. In 1 Peter, therefore, the submission of wives is directly linked to 'non-verbal witness'. The author of 1 Peter therefore constructed a polemical argument going beyond the details of 78

79

80

81

82

83

78 Kiley, 'Like Sara', p. 691; cf. Schneider, Gender, p. 133 n. 1; Sly, '1 Peter 3.6b', p. 127. 79 Philo and Josephus as contemporaries of the author of 1 Peter made it clear that it incurred shame when husbands did as they were told by their wives, violating the common principles of hierarchy and patriarchy. Employing allegory, denial of Sarah's womanhood and altering details in the Genesis narratives are employed by Philo in order to sustain the socio-cultural and socio-political conventions of the day (cf. Sly, '1 Peter 3.6b', pp. 127-9). Whereas Josephus' interpretation diminishes Sarah's constructive role, and Philo's played itself out within patriarchal structures and notions complete with gender and sexual stereotypes, even to the extent of presenting Sarah with masculine traits, Philo did not downplay the significance of Sarah and her specific virtues (Niehoff, 'Mother and Maiden', pp. 413-44). 80 E.g., Philo allegorized Abraham as mind, and obeying virtue or wisdom as the allegorical meaning of Sarah (cf. Sly, '1 Pet. 3.6b', p. 127). 81 Brown, 'Silent Wives', p. 396; cf. Elliott, 1 Peter, pp. 559, 566-70. The repetition of characteristics highlighted in the ideal woman (1 Pet. 3.1-6) in the general admonitions of 1 Pet. 3.14-15 (cf. Richardson, 'Ethic of subordination', p. 75) suggests the woman as model. 82 See in Brown, the comparison between the language used in 1 Pet. 3.1-6 and 3.14-16, showing how the language used to describe wives is also used to describe the community's faithfulness amidst suffering, and so establishes 'a point of ethical tension' between the texts (Brown, 'Silent Wives', pp. 396-7). It is rather slaves (1 Pet. 2.18-25) who are to become examples for the whole community (e.g., Richardson, 'Ethic of Subordination', pp. 72-3). 83 Brown, 'Silent Wives', p. 398; contra Michaels, / Peter, p. 158 who contentiously argues that wives' verbal witness is possible but not obligatory.


171

the Genesis narrative and effectively moulding Sarah into an ideal Hellenistic wife. An important aspect in citing Sarah in 1 Peter is the author's concern to stress that Christian wives should not challenge the authority of their husbands but submit to them as was expected in the first century. And while the letter insists upon the community promoting both Christian identity and cultural affirmation, the author did not uncritically adopt the socio-cultural system as seen in the encouragement to slaves and women to hold onto their faith. But 1 Peter also works some subtle subversion with regard to Sarah. Firstly, while Sarah is not portrayed in the Genesis narratives as ever questioning Abraham, not even when she stands to lose her only child (Gen. 22.1-19), there is no indication that she worshipped a different God to Abraham. In 1 Peter the context is different, with Christian wives called upon to submit to non-believing husbands in such a way as to win them over' which probably entailed a brittle, subversive element within the traditional household code - along with 1 Pet. 3.7's non-traditional appeal to husbands also. Secondly, Sarah is not only a model of obedience for late first-century Christian wives but also an example of fearlessness, a portrayal not quite aligned with Gen. 18.15 where Sarah's fear is highlighted. Thirdly and ironically, whereas Sarah was cited in 1 Pet. 3.6 to sanction the contemporary submission of wives, it is her compliance in this regard which is enlisted to issue the call upon husbands to bestow honour (TIIJTI) on their wives (1 Pet. 3.7). And 84

85

4

86

87

88

89

84 Sly, '1 Peter 3.6b', p. 129. The strong condemnation in 1 Pet. 3 of outdoor adornment is remarkable in light of the tradition which held that Sarah was, apart from being exceedingly modest, also exceptionally beautiful: was the prohibition on external beautifying to encourage women to aspire towards the natural beauty of Sarah, or simply to establish a contrast between modesty and adorned beauty? 85 Dowd, '1 Peter', p. 463. 86 E.g., Brown, 'Silent Wives', p. 400. 87 Martin, 'TestAbr', p. 139. 88 In elaboration upon 1 Pet. 2.17 irdvTas TiurjoaTE ('honour all') (cf. Richard, 'Honorable Conduct Among the Gentiles', pp. 417-20) but contrary to the honour and shame culture of the first-century Mediterranean stratified society, where honour should properly be bestowed by the inferior upon the superior (cf. Elliott, 'Disgraced', pp. 166-7). Richard's ('Honorable Conduct', p. 419) notion that, 'all are owed honour according to their relationships in the social order' tends to transform honour into a rather twenty-first-century concept. Brown ('Silent Wives', p. 401) refers to Philo who cited a creation order argument in favour of a woman's lower honour compared to men (Philo, QG 1.27). 89 The instruction directed to men or husbands (oi ofv6pes) in 3.7 is also introduced (as in 3.1) by 'likewise' (ouoicos) and therefore connects at least indirectly with Sarah (the reference to her being part of the previous section, 3.1-6). Whether the compliance by men with such a counter-cultural instruction would necessarily have lessened the potential for the Christian community of being accused of subversion (so Brown, 'Silent Wives', p. 401), is debatable.

172


Sarah thus becomes once more, albeit in a different time, context and capacity, a model of subversive submission. 90

Ideological Settings of the Documents Sarah's role throughout the New Testament and also in Galatians and 1 Peter is, understandably so especially in the first-century patriarchal world, described in terms of her relationship to Abraham. But in both Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3 Sarah manages to have a life of her own for a brief moment, framed by and within the ideological concerns of each letter. The social location of the Galatian recipients and even of Paul as author needing to reassert his authority, did not permit a conciliatory stance, least of all to promote an accommodating stance within the social context within which the recipients of the letter found themselves. To the contrary, amidst the slander and vilifying of his opponents (e.g., Gal. 3.1; 5.15) in what appear as harsh or even rude terms at times (e.g., cf. Gal. 5.12), the ideological setting of Galatians was characterized by Paul's rhetorical pitch. In short, it was not about a negotiated settlement but about an argument that had to be won. The battle lines were drawn around the interpretation of the narratives of origin, the genealogical wherewithal of the faithful of God. It is Sarah's insistence that Hagar and Ishmael leave Abraham's household (Gen. 21.10) that forms the ultimate appeal in Galatians 4.215.1, and whether this command of exclusion is seen to be directed at the Judaizing or circumcising missionaries, or the Galatians seeking circum cision contrary to Paul's instructions, the ideological setting is clear. In Gal. 4.30 Paul completed the logic of his argument regarding the two wives of Abraham, and in particular his consistent emphasis on being aligned with Sarah as the free woman and her legacy. It is Sarah's words that reverberate through the Galatian church, to justify the exclusion of those who differed from Paul and his perception of the truth of the gospel. The appeals in 1 Peter were responding to a two-fold situation in that the author both addressed group cohesion as an intra-community matter, and felt obliged to respond to external forces in order to allay the fears that the Christian community was a corruptible influence. In what was clearly a conflict-ridden context, Sarah represented the fear of unjust treatment as articulated in 1 Pet. 3.6, of which the latter part may have been informed by Prov. 3.25. Sarah is redrafted from being the mother of faith or model of obedience into becoming an example of how to act in 91

90 Cf. Hanks, Subversive Gospel, p. 213. 91 Cf. S. G. Eastman, ' "Cast Out the Slave Woman and Her Son": The Dynamics of Exclusion and Inclusion in Galatians 4.30', JSNT 28/3 (2006): 309-36.


173

marriage, 'a model [for] those wives who obey their spouses in an unjust and frightening situation in a foreign land/hostile environment'. The appeal to the contemporary wives to become 'daughters of Sarah' was tantamount to calling upon them to emulate Sarah. The participles in the concluding part of 1 Pet. 3.6 ( l a p p a . . . r\s iyevr|ftr]TE TEKvd dya6o7ToioGoai KCX\ tyo$o6\i£va\ unSepiav irronaiv) have in the past often been translated - if not also interpreted - as conditional: ' [Sarah] of whom . . . you are . . . her children if you do right and let nothing terrify you'. They should more properly be read as consequential or resultative and further probably having imperative force: 'a command to action in light of new covenant status as Sarah's children'. Whereas the apologetic role of the household code already suggests some sociocultural conformity, Sly contended that 'some details in the Genesis account of Sarah and Abraham's marriage were embarrassing to men in the Hellenistic age and that consequently the writer of 1 Peter may have been more deliberate in reinterpreting the story'. In the end, it is not too surprising that Sarah appears in both New Testament letters which are often cited for their, albeit a contained and implicit, challenge to the socio-cultural structures of the time. Reference is often made to Gal. 3.28 and 1 Pet. 3.7" as instances of a significant contestation of the patriarchal system, or even a breakthrough in how gender relationships were conceived in the first century church. Sarah's portrayal in the Genesis narratives and to some extent also in these texts correlate with the different but nevertheless grounding roles she is accorded in Galatians and 1 Peter. 92

93

94

95

96

97

98

92 Kiley, 'Like Sara', p. 692, emphasis in original; cf. Achtemeier, / Peter, p. 216. 93 Slaughter, 'Sarah', p. 361 refers to the similar use of 'sons of...' as, e.g., in Mt. 5.4445 ('in order that you be sons of your Father') to express likeness in character. 94 Cf. Slaughter, 'Sarah', p. 361. 95 Cf. Forbes, 'Children of Sarah', pp. 105-9. 96 Balch, Wives. 97 The rest of the letter also suggests that the believing community it addressed, experienced some social ostracism and abuse, probably because of the believers' rejection of pagan temple activities (4.3-4) which would have been viewed as antisocial behaviour and not only withdrawing from religious activities. This provides the context for 1 Peter's call to comply with the social customs of the day, as also spelt out in the household code, but with the provision that their allegiance to Christ should not be compromised (2.12-13) (cf. Brown, 'Silent Wives', p. 401). 98 Sly, '1 Peter 3.6b', p. 126. 99 Richardson, 'Ethic of Subordination', p. 79 n. 14, quoting also Stendahl.


174

Conclusion In the New Testament, Sarah's role as mother of the Jewish race (Gen. 51.2) is subverted, and she is reappropriated as the model of faith in the Christian tradition - the characteristics she was traditionally renowned for, beauty and wisdom, still intact albeit in subtle ways! Sarah finds herself in positions she did not occupy in the Genesis narratives, especially since New Testament interpretations in an ironic way became the lenses through which Sarah's presence and behaviour in Genesis were and are read and evaluated. In Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3 Sarah is presented as an important figure regardless of the prominence bestowed on Abraham; and although she is presented and her life interpreted in different ways, she is mostly deemed exemplary by the New Testament documents - even if for different reasons as required by these authors' rhetorical goals and strategies. My contention is that closer investigation shows that New Testament authors could appropriate Scripture in ways that at times subtly and at times less subtly subverted traditional positions, whether at socio-political (Galatians) or socio-cultural (1 Peter) level. In the two texts examined it can hardly be claimed that Scripture was simply appropriated to provide sanction for traditionalist positions, while the representations of Sarah entailed both her subversion and enlisting her as mode and model of subversion, even if in subtle ways! 100

101

102

103

100 Cf. Achtemeier, / Peter, p. 216 n. 143. 101 Schneider, Gender, pp. 131-3. 102 The focus here was not on the different ways in which Scripture was quoted by the first-century New Testament authors, or the reasons for the variety: showing affinity for and continuation with a certain tradition(s); bolstering (weak) arguments; living in Scripture (LXX) to such an extent that of necessity its texts, themes and figures becomes part of the contemporary author's repertoire, to name a few concerns investigated by other scholars. 103 In fact, comparing Galatians and 1 Peter is instructive, showing how Galatians' counter-position has already become the norm in 1 Peter. 'First Peter speaks serenely to the Gentiles as heirs of all the privileges of Israel without any suggestion of having taken such privileges from the Jews' (Hanks, Subversive Gospel, p. 214).

Chapter 12 'I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS'

PSALM 2.8-9 IN REVELATION 2.26-27

Tze-Ming Quek Introduction The second psalm has been described as the favourite psalm of John the Seer. This is justified, as no other NT writing appeals to it more frequently. Allusions to Psalm 2 are found in Revelation 2.26-27; 11.15, 18; 12.5, 10; 19.15. This essay is concerned with the first of these, which occurs in the fourth of the letters to the seven churches near the beginning of Revelation. 1

2

Psalm 2 in Revelation 2.26-27:

Messianic?

At the end of each one of these letters, after the exalted Christ has reviewed the particular situation of the church and set out what he requires, a promise to the 'one who conquers' is put before the church. In the case of the letter to the church in Thyatira (2.18-29), this Uberwinderspruch (overcomer saying) is shaped by a clear appeal to Ps. 2.8-9. The 'Son of God', which is the self-presentation found at the 1 R. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (London: T & T Clark, 1993), p. 314; and note the title of S. Witetschek, 'Der Lieblingspsalm des Sehers: die Verwendung von Ps 2 in der Johannesapokalypse', in M. A. Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism (BETL, 195; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006), pp. 407-502. On the use of the Psalms in Revelation, see S. Moyise, 'The Psalms in the Book of Revelation', in S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (eds), The Psalms in the New Testament (London: T & T Clark, 2004), pp. 231-46. 2 Following Witetschek, 'Lieblingspsalm', pp. 490-1. Bauckham's list of allusions is almost the same, though he includes the dubious Rev. 14.1 ('Mount Zion') and leaves out 12.10, from which the (authority o f ) 'his Christ' should be adjudged a probable allusion to Ps. 2.1-2 in the light of the proximity to 12.5. See Bauckham, Climax, p. 371. The NA adds 17.18 and 19.19 probably on the basis of the 'kings of the earth', which is a possible allusion but hardly certain. 27

176


beginning of the letter, promises to 'the one who conquers and does my works to the end' that 'I will give him authority over the nations'. The words Scooco and E0VT) give the cue for Psalm 2, and this leads to a grammatically adjusted allusion to Ps. 2.9. Rev. 2.26b-27

LXX Ps. 2.8-9 cxiTTjoai trap Epou,

2 6 b

Scooco CXUTCO

I will give to him ££ouoicxv ETH TCOV EOVCOV

authority over the nations

Ask of me Ken Scooco ooi and I will give to you E6VTI TTIV KAripovopiav oou nations as your inheritance K0(\ TT|V KOTCXOXEOIV OOU

and as your possessions TCX TTEpCXTCX TT|S YT]S

the ends of the earth 2 7

Kcxi TTOIMCXVET CCUTOUS

and he will rule them EV pccpSco oi5r|pa with an iron sceptre COS TO OKEUT] TCX KEpCXMlKCX

as clay pots ouvTpipEi

is [sic] shattered 2 8

9

TTOIMCXVETS auTous

You will rule them

EV pa^Sco otSTipa with an iron sceptre COS OKEUOS KEpCXMECOS as a vessel of the potter OUVTplVpEIS auTous. You will shatter them.

c o s Kcxyco E'(AT](|>a

- just as I have also received TTCXpCX TOU TTOCTpOS |JOU,

from my Father, KOU SCOOCO CXUTCO

And I will also give t o him TOV CCGTEpa TOV TTpcOtVOV.

the morning star. The allusion in v. 27 is a parenthetical insertion, for the sentence containing the promise in v. 26 flows naturally into v. 28: Scooco OCUTCO sôuoiav . . . cos Kaycb eTAr|cJ>a i r a p a TOU i r a T p o s Mou (I will give to him authority . . . just as I have received from my father). This suggests that the allusion to Ps. 2.9 in v. 27 is an epexegetic expansion on the kind and 3

3 D. E. Aune, Revelation (3 vols; WBC 52; Dallas: Word Books, 1997-98), 1:212.

Psalm 2.8-9 in Revelation 2.26-27

QUEK

177

extent of the 'authority' which is to be conferred on the 'one who conquers'. Most commentators have understood this as a promise that the exalted Christ will grant the one who conquers a share or participation in the messianic kingdom, the extent of which, according to the idealized language of Ps. 2.8, apparently includes worldwide dominion over the nations. At this point, the commentators often make the observation that the idea of the followers of the Messiah sharing in his final rule is a characteristic feature of Jewish eschatological thinking. This idea of a reign together with the exalted Christ is not uncommon in Revelation (3.21; 20.4, 6). However, as Witetschek has noted, in these places the preposition UETOC is used explicitly. In Rev. 2.27 however, we encounter a different strategy. The text of the psalm has been grammat ically modified. The promise originally given by the Lord to the Davidic king in the second person is now rendered in the third person, so as to agree with the b VIKCOV at the start of the saying. Thus, Witetschek argues that the thought here is not a sharing of Christ's messianic kingdom. Rather, independent of an express Throngemeinschaft ('Throne commu nity') with Christ, the believer is put in a prospective ruler-like position as a hopeful perspective. The application of Ps. 2.8-9 to the corporate body of believers is possible because, as he further argues, in the first century Heilsworte ('salvation promises') could be received individually as well as collectively. Consequently, no direct messianic understanding of Ps. 2.9 is found here. So here we have two opposite approaches. The first, held by the majority, thinks the allusion to Ps. 2.8-9 evokes the motif of the conqueror sharing in Christ's messianic kingdom. The Psalm 2 reference applies to 4

5

6

7

8

9

4 J. Roloff, The Revelation of John: A Continental Commentary (trans. J. E. Alsup; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p. 56; Aune, Revelation, 1:210; G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), p. 266; G. R. Osborne, Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), pp. 1667; S. S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (London: SPCK, 2005), pp. 77-8. 5 E.g., R. H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rev. edn, 1998), p. 90; Smalley, Revelation, p. 77. 6 Witetschek, 'Lieblingspsalm', p. 498. 7 'Somit wird in Offb 2,26-28, unabhangig von einer ausdriicklichen Throngemeinschaft mit Christus, den Glaubigen als hoffnungsvolle Perspektive einer herrscherliche Stellung in Aussicht gestellt (ahnlich 5,10; 20,4.6; 22.5)' (Ibid.). 8 Citing M. Karrer, Der Gesalbte: die Grundlagen des Christustitels (FRLANT, 151; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), pp. 328-9. 9 Definitions of 'messianism' abound. I take it to refer to the expectation of a divinely appointed royal Davidic person who will fulfil Scripture and inaugurate a new age.


178

both Christ and the one who conquers. It is understood messianically. The second, as argued by Witetschek, thinks the allusion applies only to the one who conquers, and hence no direct messianic understanding of Ps. 2.9 is present. Which approach is correct? The observation that Rev. 2.2627 is different from other places where the preposition METCC is used is surely correct. Here, Scripture that originally referred to a Davidic king, and was understood as messianic at the very latest by the time of Ps. Sol. 17.23-24, is now applied as a promise to Christians corporately. As Prigent notes, 'the messianic interpretation of Ps 2 was a traditional and very widespread one . . . what is less traditional and widespread is the making of this text into a promise addressed to Christians'. However, I think Witetschek goes too far in his assessment that no messianic understanding is found here. Indeed, this paper will argue that it is the messianic understanding of the psalm that allows it to be applied to the corporate body of believers. In order to show this, a comparison with an exegetical text from Qumran is helpful. 11

Psalm 2 in 4Q174 (= 4Q

12

Florilegium)

Theme, Description 4Q174 is concerned with identifying and characterizing the community over against its enemies in the era of the 'latter days', enemies whose ultimate defeat is certain because of Yahweh's intervention and rule, thus resulting in the community's security and vindication after the time of testing. Annette Steudel's material reconstruction has thrown more light on the flow of the text in the twenty-six fragments that comprise 4Q174. Because of this I have also used her new column numbering. As a rough guide, columns 1 and 2 in DJD and Garcia Martinez are now columns 3 and 4 respectively. As reconstructed by Steudel, 4Q174 contains at least three 13

10 E.g., G. K. Beale, 'Solecisms in the Apocalypse as Signals for the Presence of Old Testament Allusions: A Selective Analysis of Revelation 1-22', in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (eds), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (JSNTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 421-46, (440). 11 P. Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John (trans. W. Pradels; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), p. 189. 12 For an introduction, analysis and thorough reconstruction of the text of 4Q174, see A. Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschaf' ) : Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 ('Florilegium') und 4Q177 ('Catena A') reprasentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden (STDJ, 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994). 13 G. J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup, 29; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), pp. 143-4; 59. b

QUEK

Psalm

2.8-9

in Revelation

179

2.26-27

distinct sections, each centred around the citation and eschatological interpretation of one main biblical text. And so the first section cites and comments on Deuteronomy 33, where Moses pronounces blessings over the tribes. The second section has an abbreviated citation and eschatological exegesis of Nathan's oracle in 2 Samuel 7 . The third section contains citations and eschatological interpretations of portions of Psalms 1; 2 and probably 5; after which the text breaks off. 14

'His Anointed* and 'the Chosen Ones of Israel* Our interest is because a citation of Ps. 2.1-2 occurs in lines 18-19 of Fragment 1, with the interpretation following on to the next column. It is the only place in the Qumran non-biblical corpus, which evidences undisputed citation and interpretation of a portion of Psalm 2. The citation, which has no formula introduction, is found in the last two surviving lines of the third column (III, 18-19): p «

- a t e ] •nir'BT p n i ] r r wtm^

wn

bin mrr bv TIT HDID

nab]

Line 18

o^nm

... -IMS irrOD] Line 19 The term 'pesher' introduces the interpretation of Ps. 2.1-2 which understands the rebellion against Yahweh and 'his anointed' in the following manner: '[The interpretation of the matter [is that the na]tions [shall set themselves] and con[spire vainly against] the Chosen ones of Israel in the latter days.' The text is lacunose, but Steudel's reconstruc tion, which corresponds closely to the wording of the psalm, has good claim to be the best one among several which are basically variations on the same idea. However, it raises the question of the apparent identifi cation of the plural 'Chosen ones of Israel' with the singular 'anointed' of Ps. 2.2. At least two attempts have been made to resolve this tension. The first came very early in the history of 4Q174 scholarship. Yigael Yadin, against the majority and against the MT, opted to restore the plural VITBO 'his anointed ones' at the beginning of line 19. Yadin also restored the pesher in the rest of line 19 to read: 'The hidden 15

16

14 No trace of the last line of column II survives, but some kind of citation of 2 Sam. 7.10-11 certainly has to begin there, since parts of w . 10c-1 la are found in what is clearly the first line of column III. Interestingly, what survives in III, 1 does not correspond exactly to the MT, since it contains a word not found in the MT: [ ~~ ]iHft (enemy). This is probably a result of influence from the near parallel from Ps. 89.23. See the discussion in Brooke, Exegesis, pp. 97-9; and Steudel, Midrasch, pp. 41-2. 15 See the reconstruction of Une 19 in Steudel, Midrasch, p. 25. 16 Y. Yadin, A Midrash on 2 Sam. vii and Ps. i-ii (4Q Florilegium) , IEJ 9 (1959): 95-8 (98). ,


180

interpretation of this refers to the Sons of Zadok the priests and they are the elect of Israel in the End of Days.' The second attempt comes from Brooke. Instead of restoring a plural in the lemma against the MT tradition, he looked to other characters in unquoted parts of Psalm 2 to relate the 'Chosen ones of Israel'. He settled on 'those who take refuge in him' from Ps. 2.12, and so his reconstruction reads: 'The real interpretation of the matter [is that "the nations" are the Kittjim and "those who take [refuge in Him" are] the chosen ones of Israel in the latter days.' In this way he breaks the identification between the 'his anointed' and the 'Chosen ones of Israel' in the pesher. Both the restorations of Yadin and Brooke have been shown to be inadequate by Steudel. I only highlight these two attempts to show the lengths to which scholars have gone to avoid the consequence of the likeliest restoration, which is the correspondence between the singular 'his anointed' and the plural 'Chosen ones of Israel'. It is better to take the tension as it stands and admit to some kind of correlation between the two. This should not be understood as a return to 'corporate personality', as popularized by H. Wheeler Robinson from the early part of the last century. Previously, scholars like Gartner attempted to account for the correlation between 'his anointed' and the 'Chosen ones of Israel' in 4Q174 by appealing to this concept. The problem is that subsequent scholarship has so seriously under mined Robinson's hypothesis that few resort uncritically to 'corporate personality' today; at least, not in the form he first envisaged and with the explanation he provided. Nevertheless, it remains the case that signifi17

18

19

20

21

17 See Brooke, Exegesis, pp. 93, 120-23. 18 Brooke is explicit about the 'uneasiness' of 'that identification' (ibid., p. 121). 19 H. Wheeler Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel (Biblical Series 11; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964), p. 25. This concept has been described as 'that important Semitic complex of thought in which there is a constant oscillation between the individual and the group - family, tribe, or nation - to which he belongs, so that the king or some other representative figure may be said to embody the group, or the group may be said to sum up the host of individuals' J. Reumann, 'Introduction' to Robinson, Corporate Personality, v. For a time, scholars used this idea to account for a host of interpretive issues. In NT studies, corporate personality has usually been deployed as one of the 'exegetical presuppositions' in early Christian interpretation of the OT, and/or to explain the 'Corporate Christ', the inclusion or incorporation of believers in Christ. 20 B. Gartner, The Temple and Community in Qumran and the New Testament (SNTSMS, 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 36. 21 See the brief survey of the history of scholarship in J. S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup, 196; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 1-22. In particular, Robinson's explanation of an alleged ancient Hebrew mentality has been shown to rest on untenable anthropological assumptions, evidence, and method. The force of these critiques have also registered somewhat in NT studies, but the concept of corporate personality continues to be invoked, albeit with some qualifiers and terminological changes, to account for the 'Corporate Christ'. E.g., J. D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the

QUEK

Psalm

2.8-9

in Revelation

2.26-27

181

cant parts of the OT (and the NT) imply a peculiarly strong sense of solidarity between an individual figure or speaker and the group, even if this is not to be accounted for by the incorporation of the group in an individual. Gartner's reliance on 'corporate personality' meant that the relation ship between the two terms amounted to simple identity - 'his anointed' actually means the 'Chosen ones of Israel'. The most obvious objection to this is that nowhere else in the Qumran corpus is the community called 'anointed'. A better way to understand the relationship is solidarity between an outstanding individual of a group and the group itself, so that whatever happens to that individual is seen to be happening to the group and vice versa. Some interrelated strands of evidence give clues on how this can be accounted for, and these clues lead us to a reading of the Davidic covenant. The first clue is found in the context of the biblical lemma Ps. 2.1-2, and the second is found in the context of 4Q174 as a whole, and the third comes from another Qumran document, 4Q252. 22

23

Context of Psalm 2.1-2 First, the rest of Psalm 2 reveals that this figure, 'his anointed', is undoubtedly a royal. If not David himself, he was very likely a Davidic king. Whether this Davidic figure, depicted in idealized terms, ever referred to a historical king of Judah is not important here - the point is that the Qumran community would have understood him to be standing under the Davidic covenant, and heir to all that it promised. Moreover, Ps. 2.6 is probably a reception of the dynastic promise contained in the Nathan oracle of 2 Samuel 7. This tradition has justifiable claim to be 24

Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 314; but see A. Perriman, 'The Corporate Christ: Re-assessing the Jewish Background', TynBul 50/2 (1999): 241-63 (245-6) for his critique on the validity of this. 22 See J. W. Rogerson, 'Anthropology and the Old Testament', in Ronald E. Clements (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 17-37 (25). In effect, Rogerson's target of criticism is not so much Robinson's data, but his explanation of the alleged primitive Hebrew mentality. Indeed, Kaminsky has demonstrated that corporate ideas (by which he means mainly corporate responsibility) in the OT are 'common, central and persistent'. See Kaminsky, Corporate, pp. 30-54. 23 Gartner wants to see the community at the centre of interpretation throughout 4Q174. In line with this, he proposes, by analogy with CD I, 4-11, that the 'Branch of David' in 4Q174 III, 11-13 is a symbol for the community, which appears under the leadership of the Interpreter of the Law. His explanation is forced, and flies against the evidence of other documents such as 4Q252 V, 3; where the 'Branch' is the 'Righteous Anointed/Messiah', and the context clearly demands an individual royal figure. 24 On the reception history of 2 Sam. 7.1-17 see W. M. Schniedewind, Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7.1-17 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), esp. pp. 69-70.

182


considered the fons et origo of Davidic ideology. It has not always been obvious, but Davidic ideology is corporate because its ultimate purpose is the typically deuteronomic motif of 'rest' for the nation. That the Davidic covenant is inextricably linked with the security of the nation can be clearly seen in the lines leading up to the dynastic promise of 2 Sam. 7.14: 25

And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. (2 Sam. 7.10-1 la)

As Avraham Gileadi has argued, in Davidic covenant theology, the fate and welfare of the nation and/or Jerusalem/Zion hinged on the king's loyalty to Yahweh. 26

Context of4Q174 Second, the context of 4Q174 reveals that in the section immediately preceding the citation of Psalm 2 (namely, 4Q174 III, 1-13), we have an eschatological commentary on 2 Sam. 7.10-14. The section begins with a citation and commentary of 2 Sam. 7.10-1 la. This is precisely the text from which the close connection between Davidic ideology and the fulfilment of God's promises of security for the nation can be seen. Moreover, in that commentary, the author of 4Q174 appropriates the 'I will give you [singular] rest' of 2 Sam. 7.11a and interprets it as ' [Yahweh] will give them [plural] rest from all the children of Belial' (III, 78). The promise to David is thus appropriated - without further explanation - by what must be the community. This exegetical move is very similar to the correlation between 'his anointed' and the 'Chosen ones of Israel' when the author comments on Ps. 2.1-2 later. In the commentary 27

25 Kaminsky, Corporate, pp. 47-8. See Deut. 12.9-10; Josh. 1.13; 21.42; 22.4; 23.1; 1 Kgs 5.18; 8.56. 26 A. Gileadi, 'The Davidic Covenant: A Theological Basis for Corporate Protection', in A. Gileadi (ed.), Israel's Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), pp. 157-63 (159). See 1 Kgs 9.4, 6-7; 2 Kgs 20.6; Isa. 37.35. Gileadi notes this as one of the resemblances between the Davidic covenant and Hittite and Neo-Assyrian suzerain-vassal relationships. 27 Following some older interpreters (Ewald, Wellhausen, Driver) who felt v. 1 la should contain a promise of 'rest' to Israel from its enemies rather than to David from his enemies, McCarter emends the text to: 'Then I shall give him (i.e., Israel) rest from all its enemies' P. K. McCarter Jr., / / Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB, 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), p. 193. There is no textual support for this reading, and the reading in 4Q174 clearly has the second-person suffixes.

QUEK

Psalm

2.8-9

in Revelation

2.26-27

183

to 2 Sam. 7.10-11, the promise of rest given to David is appropriated by the community (as true or faithful Israel). In the commentary to Ps. 2.1-2, the threat of rebellion against Yahweh and 'his anointed' is perceived as a time of persecution against the 'Chosen ones of Israel'. In both cases, it seems to me that the best explanation for this 'oscillation between the individual and the group' is a solidarity that understands the Davidic covenant as a basis for corporate protection. 4Q252 (= 4Q CommGen A) - Importance of the Davidic Covenant Indeed, the importance of the concept of the Davidic covenant in Qumran discussion of the Davidic Messiah can be seen in the following abstract from 4Q252, the only other text in the published Qumran corpus that speaks of the Branch of David ( T ^ nOH), Messiah/Anointed (TPDD), and seed (IHT) in the same document: A ruler shall [no]t depart from the tribe of Judah when Israel has dominion. [And] the one who sits on the throne of David [shall never] be cut off, because the 'ruler's staff is the covenant of the kingdom, [and the thousands of Israel are 'the standards', until the Righteous Messiah, the Branch of David, has come (Genesis 49.10). For to him and to his seed the covenant of the kingdom of His people has been given for the eternal generations. (4Q252 V, 1-4)

We note especially the idea that the 'ruler's staff is the covenant of his kingdom, which is further described as the 'covenant of the kingdom of His people'. Therefore, to sum up what is going on in 4Q174: Because of the Davidic covenant, the Branch of David stands in solidarity with the community, who understand themselves as eschatological Israel. The promise of rest to him applies to the community in their struggle against Belial. This is their interpretation of 2 Sam. 7.10-11. In the same way, the rebellion by the nations/children of Belial against Yahweh and his Anointed/Messiah is also a threat against the Chosen ones of Israel. This is their interpretation of Ps. 2.1-2. Thus, scholars who conclude that the 'corporate' understanding of 'his anointed' precludes a 'messianic understanding of Ps 2.1, 2' in 4Q174 are being unnecessarily fussy. Instead, it is only with the presupposition of a future Davidic Messiah in Ps. 2.1-2 who, under the Davidic covenant, stands in such solidarity with eschatological Israel, that the interpretation in 4Q174 III, 19 works.

184


Comparing 4Q174 and Revelation 2.26-27: The Davidic

Covenant

As a preliminary observation, one notes several ideas that are paralleled in 4Q174 and Rev. 2.18-29: 4Q174

Rev. 2.18-29

Messianic figure ('Branch of David') is the one spoken of as God's son in Nathan's oracle in 2 Sam. 7.14.

Self-description of the Exalted Christ is 'Son of God', (v. 18)

(Ill, 11-12)

God has initiated the building of an interim Sanctuary of Humans (D*7K CTTpft), wherein sacrifices are to be offered to him. Whether these are works of Torah or works of thanksgiving (III, 6-7) is disrupted. In any case, they are 'works'. The remnant shall perform all the Torah ( n m n n "TO n a w i n ) , (iv, 2) The enemies of the community are described as sons of Belial, who come to the plan of Belial ]rO£TCD 1K3) and devise wicked schemes to cause the sons of light to stumble. (Ill, 7-9)

'I know your works (oou xoc Ipya) your love, faith, service, and patient endurance. I know that your last works (xcc Ipya oou xa laxaxa) are greater than the first.' (v. 19) 'To everyone who conquers and continues to do my works (xoc Ipya pou) to the end', (v. 26)

Those in the Thyatiran church who have not committed adultery with Jezebel are described as 'the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call "the deep things of Satan" (xa PaSia xou oaxava)'. (v. 24) Jezebel is said to be teaching and From CD IV, 12-18, we learn more deceiving 'my servants to practice details on how this is to be accomplished: through the three nets of fornication and to eat food sacrificed to idols', (v. 20) Belial, fornication, riches, and defiling the sanctuary.

This is not to say that there is any direct dependence between the two texts. But it does seem to be that this cluster of eschatological ideas, found in common in 4Q174 and the Thyatiran letter, was there in the ether in the first century. It is interesting then that there is one more significant thing in common: the application to the messianic community of a biblical text that is understood elsewhere to refer to a Davidic Messiah. In the case of 4Q174, we see this for both 2 Sam. 7.10-11 and Ps. 2.1-2. In Rev. 2.26-27, we see this for Ps. 2.8-9. I have argued that this exegesis works in 4Q174 because of a conception of the Davidic covenant as a basis for corporate protection. Under the Davidic covenant, this Branch of David stands in solidarity with the community who understand themselves as eschatological Israel, because the promise of rest to him is linked to the nation's security as well. And so the promise of rest to David and his seed can be appropriated by the community in their struggle

QUEK

Psalm 2.8-9 in Revelation 2.26-27

185

against Belial. In the same way, the rebellion by the nations/children of Belial against Yahweh and his Anointed/Messiah (Ps. 2.1-2) is also a threat against the Chosen ones of Israel, the community (4Q174 III, 1819). This is not far from the picture painted in Rev. 2.26-27, where the promise of victory and rule to the Davidic Messiah in Ps. 2.8-9 is applied to the followers of the Messiah. A couple of observations suggest strongly that Davidic ideology and the idea of the covenant occurs just under the surface of the Thyatiran letter. The purposefully chosen self-reference of the exalted Christ is 'Son of God'. This has often been speculated to be a local reference, a polemic against Apollo Tyrimnaeus, patron of the trade guild in Thyatira and/or against the cult of the divine emperor, both sons of the god Zeus. That may be so, but surely indications from within the world of the text itself point strongly to an evocation of Ps. 2.7: T will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my son; today I have begotten you.'" This decree of the Davidic covenant is precisely that which the exalted Christ gives to the one who overcomes, the decree, which he has received from the Father. Bookending the allusion to Ps. 2.8-9 is the statement: 'To the one who conquers, I will give authority . . . just as I have received from my Father.' As both Osborne and Smalley point out, this statement is reminiscent of Ps. 2.7. A further indication of Davidic or royal ideology occurs in the gift of the morning star in v. 28. Several suggestions have been offered to what this means. The most plausible is that the star and the sceptre mentioned earlier are emblems of messianic authority, evoking Balaam's prophecy in Num. 24.17, where the future ruler of Israel is described as a 'rising star' and 'sceptre'. We can find a similar thing happening from the wider context of Revelation. In the vision of the new heaven and the new earth, the one who is seated on the throne promises the conqueror in the words of 2 Sam. 7.14: T will be his God and he will be my son' (Rev. 21.7; cf. LXX 2 Sam. 7.14). What is noteworthy is that once again the text that is 28

29

30

28 W. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia and Their Place in the Plan of the Apocalypse (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1904), pp. 312-22; C. J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting (JSNTSup, 11; Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), pp. 111-17, 127. 29 Osborne, Revelation, p. 167; Smalley, Revelation, p. 79. 30 Cf. Rev. 22.16, where Jesus speaks of himself and connects the messianic text Isa. 11.1 with the star: T am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star'. Num. 24.17 was interpreted messianically in Jewish writings, e.g., 4Q175 9-13. Some have noted that the use of Balaam's prophecy is apt here because Balaam is a symbol in Rev. 2.14 for the same false teaching described in Thyatira. See Beale, Revelation, p. 268.

186


applied to a corporate body is the text of Davidic ideology par excellence. There are also possible parallels from outside the biblical material. The collection of early Christian hymns (c.100 CE) known as the Odes of Solomon contains this: 'For I believed in the Lord's Messiah, and considered that he is the Lord. And he declared to me his sign, and he led me by his light. And he gave me the scepter of his power, that I might subdue the thoughts of the gentiles, and humble the strength of the mighty' {Odes. 29.6-8). Although the primary background to this Ode seems to be Psalm 110 rather than Psalm 2, it is interesting that the figure in the Ode who applies the terms of the messianic psalm to himself is not the Messiah but one who believes in him. The Midr. Pss. 2.10, when commenting on Ps. 2.8, clearly assumes the recipient of the biblical word is the Messiah; and yet, Midr. Pss. 2.9 interprets the son of Ps. 2.7 and the son of man in Dan 7.13 as Israel, and equates the figures of the two texts with the nation as God's firstborn of Exod. 4.22. In both the Odes and the Midr. Pss., the wider context speaks of the eschatological war against the gentiles, a motif we noted earlier in the cluster of ideas found in both 4Q174 and Rev. 2.26-27. 31

Conclusion Psalm 2.8-9 was interpreted messianically in the first century (Ps. Sol. 17.24-25; Rev. 12.5; 19.15), and Ps. 2.7 was widely construed as a messianic text in early Christianity (Mt. 3.16-17 par.; Acts 13.33-35; Heb. 1.5; 5.5) and perhaps Qumran (lQSa 2.11-12); that is, they referred to an individual eschatological Davidide. Here in Rev. 2.26c-27, Ps. 2.8-9 is given a corporate application to the followers of the Messiah. Something very similar happens in 4Q174 III, 18-21, where a pesher to Ps. 2.1-2 interprets the singular 'anointed' of Ps. 2.2 as the plural 'Chosen ones of Israel'. From readings of: (a) royal ideology as expressed in Psalm 2 and 2 Sam. 7.10-14; (b) the context of 4Q174; and (c) 4Q252; the best explanation for this oscillation between the singular and the plural for 4Q174 is not 'corporate personality' but an understanding of the Davidic covenant as a basis for corporate protection and security. I have argued that the same Davidic covenant and ideology underpins the interpretation in Rev. 2.26-27. Against the majority I do not think it sufficient to merely invoke the general motif of

31 See W. G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms (2 vols; YJS; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), pp. 40-2.

QUEK

Psalm

2.8-9

in Revelation

2.26-27

187

the followers sharing the Messiah's final rule. But against Witetschek I think the allusion to Ps. 2.9 applies to both the Messiah and his followers, for it is only with a messianic understanding of Ps. 2.9 and the corporate implications of Davidic covenant theology that the Seer's highly allusive and sophisticated use of Scripture works.

Chapter 1 3 EXEGESIS OF ISAIAH 1 1 . 2 IN APHRAHAT THE PERSIAN SAGE Bogdan G. Bucur

The writings of Aphrahat are noted for their 'traditionalism', even 'archaism', and represent, in the words of Arthur Voobus, a unique treasure trove of older exegetical and doctrinal traditions. This is why, even though he flourished in the fourth century, the so-called Persian Sage provides invaluable insight into earlier Christian doctrines and practices. 1

Isaiah 11.2 In

Aphrahat

The following passage occurs in Aphrahat's first Demonstration: And concerning this Stone he stated and showed: on this stone, behold, I open seven eyes [Zech. 3.9]. And what are the seven eyes opened on the stone other than the Spirit of God that dwelt upon Christ with seven operations? As Isaiah the Prophet said, There will rest and dwell upon him God's Spirit of wisdom and of understanding and of counsel and of courage, and of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord [Isa. 11.2-3]. These are the seven eyes that were opened upon the stone [Zech. 3.9], and these are the seven eyes of the Lord which look upon all the earth [Zech. 4.10]. 2

1 Marie-Joseph Pierre, 'Introduction', in Aphraate Le Sage Person: Les Exposes (trans. M. J. Pierre ; SC, 349; Paris: Cerf, 1988), p. 66; A. Voobus, 'Methodologisches zum Studium der Anweisungen Aphrahats', OrChr 46 (1962): 25-32 (32). Similarly, Friedrich Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien Adversus Marcionem und die anderen theologischen Quellen bei Irenaeus (TU, 46; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930), p. 260; Peter Bruns (trans.), Aphrahat: Unterweisungen (FC, 5/1; Freiburg: Herder, 1991), pp. 208-9; Ortiz de Urbina, 'Die Gottheit Christi bei Aphrahat', OCP 31 (1933): 1-140 (5, 22); Robert Murray, 'Some Rhetorical Patterns in Early Syriac Literature', in R. H. Fischer (ed.), A Tribute to Arthur Voobus (Chicago: The Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1977), pp. 109-31 (110); William L. Petersen, 'The Christology of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage: An Excursus on the 17th Demonstration', VC 46 (1992): 241-56 (241, 251). 2 Aphrahat, Dem. 1.9 (1/20). The numbers between parentheses indicate volume and page in Jean Parisot (ed.), Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes (PS I; Paris: FirminDidot, 1894).

BUCUR

Isaiah 11.2 in Aphrahat the Persian Sage

189

Isaiah 11.2 is quoted in a distinctly Syriac form, with an additional verb (sra) complementing the single 'to rest' in the Hebrew and Greek. Aphrahat combines Isaiah's 'seven operations' of the Spirit with Zechariah's seven eyes on the stone (Zech. 3.9) and the seven eyes [i.e., angelic servants] of the LORD, which look upon all the earth' (Zech. 4.10). Nothing extraordinary here; except that, on closer examination, Aphrahat's 'seven operations' of the Spirit are only six: wisdom, understanding, counsel, courage, knowledge and fear of the Lord! Neither the Hebrew of Isa. 11.2-3 (whether MT or the Great Isaiah Scroll at Qumran), nor the Peshitta, nor the Syriac quoted by Aphrahat, nor Targum Jonathan, mention a seventh 'spirit' at Isa. 11.3. Moreover, while the messianic interpretation of Isa. 11.1 -2 is known - but marginal in rabbinic Judaism, the use of this verse to support the notion of the seven-fold spirit resting on the Messiah is generally absent both in the apocalyptic writings of the Second Temple era, and in rabbinic literature. It is only the Septuagint that enumerates seven spirits at Isa. 11.2-3. The idea of seven spirits in Isaiah 11, its messianic connotation and very often the connection with the Zechariah passage, are widely disseminated 3

4

5

6

7

3 For details in this respect, see Sebastian Brock, 'The Lost Old Syriac at Luke 1.35 and the Earliest Syriac Terms for the Incarnation', in W. Petersen (ed.), Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), pp. 117-31; Columba Stewart, 'Working the Earth of the Heart': The Messalian Controversy in History, Texts, and Language to AD 431 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), p. 212. 4 Karl Schlutz (Isaias 11.2 [Die sieben Gaben des Heiligen Geistes] in den ersten vier christlichen Jahrhunderten [Munster: Aschendorff, 1932], p. 35) thinks that Aphrahat might have counted 'the Spirit of God' as one of the seven gifts. I find this very unlikely. First, Aphrahat clearly distinguishes between the two terms, 'the Spirit' and 'the seven operations of the Spirit'. Second, there is an obvious parallelism between 'the Spirit of God that abode on Christ with seven operations', and the immediately following proof text from Isa. 11.2-3: 'The Spirit of God shall rest and dwell upon him', followed by the 'seven' (in reality six) operations. Finally, patristic writers who echo this tradition count, without exception, seven gifts of the Spirit as distinct from 'the Spirit of God'. 5 Schlutz {Isaias 11.2, pp. 2-11) provides a detailed treatment of the versions and their relationship. 6 Isa. 11.2 is used in a speculation about the six spirits on the Messiah in Gen. Rab. 97. The numerous patristic references to Isaiah 11 and the Holy Spirit adduced by Schlutz have no counterpart in the rabbinic literature surveyed by Peter Schafer in his Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur (Munich: Kosel, 1972). 7 Schlutz, Isaias 11.2, p. 8. In / En. 61.11 the seven-fold angelic praise is said to rise up 'in the spirit of faith, in the spirit of wisdom and patience, in the spirit of mercy, in the spirit of justice and peace, and in the spirit of generosity'. Yet, as Schlutz (Isaias 11.2, p. 20) notes, this is in no way connected to Isa. 11.2-3. In / En. 49.3 the Spirit resting over the coming Messiah is five-fold.


190

among Christian writers. It is this very strong Christian tradition about the seven spirits resting on the Messiah that functions as Aphrahat's hermeneutical presupposition, allowing him to speak about the seven operations of the Spirit even though his biblical text only mentions six. The Holy Spirit and the Move From Unity to

Multiplicity

The difference between the Spirit resting on the Messiah and the Spirit present in the prophets is one of degree. More precisely, the Sage seems particularly fond of 'part-to-whole' comparisons: while the Messiah bears the seven-fold Spirit, the prophets only 'received [a portion] from the Spirit of Christ, each one of them as he was able to bear' {Dem. 6.12 [1/ 288]); John the Baptist, the greatest among prophets, still received the Spirit 'according to measure' {ba-kyalta). In the new dispensation, at baptism, believers receive the Holy Spirit 'from a little portion of the godhead'; at Pentecost, '[a portion] from the Spirit of Christ {w-men ruheh tub dileh da-msiha) is again poured forth today upon all flesh [Joel 3.1]'; Christ overshadows all believers - each of them severally {menta menta)} In his footnotes to the German translation of the Demonstrations, Bruns points to the 'exceedingly materialistic' imagery of these expressions. This is why I think it is justified to insert 'portion' in my English rendering of the phrases indicating the presence of the Spirit in the prophets. Aside from the seven-fold Spirit of Isa. 11.2, Aphrahat also finds another proof-text for the Messiah's full endowment with the Spirit: Jn 3.34, 'it was not by measure that his Father gave the Spirit unto him'. On the other hand, the partial presence of the Spirit in the prophets is illustrated by recourse to Num. 11.17 (God taking 'from the Spirit' of Moses to endow the seventy elders), as well as by a statement ascribed to 9

10

11

2

13

14

15

8 For the patristic exegesis of the passage, see Schlutz, Isaias 11.2, passim. Folker Siegert (Drei hellenistisch-judische Predigten: Ps.-Philon, 'liber Jona', 'liber Jona' < Fragment> und 'liber Simson' [WUNT, 61; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992], 2:275) views the homily's use of Isa. 11.2 as a Jewish precursor of the Christian tradition. 9 So also Ortiz de Urbina, 'Die Gottheit Christi bei Aphrahat', p. 127; Bruns, Christusbild, p. 140. 10 Dem. 6.12 (1/288); 10.8 (1/464); 1.19 (1/44); 6.13 (1/288); 6.12 (1/288); 6.10 (1/281); 6.14 (1/293). 11 Dem. 6.12 (1/288). 12 Dem. 6.10 (1/281). 13 Bruns, Unterweisungen, pp. 200 n. 22, 205 n. 26. The passages are Dem. 6.10 (1/281) and Dem. 6.14 (1/293). 14 Dem. 6.12 (1/285). 15 On the 'massive presence' of this verse in rabbinic literature, see Pierre, Exposes, p. 395 n. 73.

BUCUR


191

the apostle Paul: 'God distributed from the Spirit of Christ and sent it into the prophets' (d-palleg alaha men ruhd da-msiheh w-saddar ba-nbiye). Even though scholarship is not unanimous on this point, I find it indisputable that Aphrahat is quoting 'the blessed apostle' according to 3 Cor., an apocryphal text that Aphrahat and Ephrem seem to have regarded as canonical. The relevant verse (3 Cor. 2.10) reads as follows: 'For he [God] desired to save the house of Israel. Therefore, distributing from the Spirit of Christ, he sent it into the prophets (Mepioas ouv arro 16

17

18

TOU TTV£UpaTOS TOU XplOTOU ETTE|Jv|#V ElS TOUS TTpO<J>TlTas).

Isaiah 11.2 and Matthew

18.10

Once it is an established conviction that Isa. 11.2 speaks of the seven-fold Spirit resting on the Messiah, Aphrahat's connection with the seven eyes on the stone in Zech. 3.9 is a natural exegetical development. And given that the language of 'seven-fold' Spirit expresses the 'fullness' of the Spirit, it is, again, not surprising that Aphrahat should refer to the Spiritendowment of Old Testament prophets and New Testament believers by using the language of 'parts' and 'portions' of Spirit. But Aphrahat's exegesis makes yet another, this time more surprising, move. Speaking about the Spirit of the prophets, he says: This Spirit, which the prophets have received, and which we, too, have received, is not at all times found with those that receive it; rather it sometimes goes to him that sent it, and sometimes it goes to him that received it. Hearken to that which our Lord said, Do not despise any one of these little ones that believe in me, for their angels in heaven always gaze on the face of my Father. [Mt. 18.10] Indeed, this Spirit is at all times on the move, and stands before God and beholds his face; and it will accuse before God whomsoever injures the temple in which it dwells. 19

This passage is part of the Demonstration 'On the Sons of the Covenant'. Aphrahat argues here one of the axioms of his ascetic theory, namely that 16 Dem. 6.12 (1/285). 17 On 3 Cor., see Vahan Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy (New York: Peter Lang, 2000); Loofs, Theophilus, pp. 148-53. Pierre (Tntroduction', p. 139 n. 73) does not think that Aphrahat's Creed used 3 Cor. On the contrary, Bruns (Christusbild, p. 187 n. 13) states that Aphrahat is 'very obviously' quoting 3 Cor. 3.10. In Dem. 23 (11/64) also, where Aphrahat again mentions 'the Apostle who bears witness: Jesus Christ was born of the Holy Spirit by Mary of the house of David', Pierre believes this to be an echo of Rom. 1.3-4. Yet, 3 Cor. 2.5 offers a closer match: 'Christ Jesus [some mss: Jesus Christ] was bora of Mary of the seed of David by the Holy Spirit.' 18 Greek text in Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians, p. 149. 19 Aphrahat, Dem. 6.14-15 (1/293, 296, 297).

192


the Holy Spirit departs from a sinful person and goes to accuse that person before the throne of God. The above-quoted fragment is preceded by the following remarks: Anyone who has preserved the Spirit of Christ in purity: when it [the Spirit] goes to him [Christ], it [the Spirit] speaks to him thus: the body to which I went and which put me on in the waters of baptism, has preserved me in holiness. And the Holy Spirit entreats Christ for the resurrection of the body that preserved it in a pure manner... And anyone who receives the Spirit from the waters [of baptism] and wearies it: it [the Spirit] departs from that person . . . and goes to its nature, [namely] unto Christ, and accuses that man of having grieved it.

According to the Sage, Christians receive the Spirit at baptism. If one keeps the Spirit in purity, the latter will advocate for that person before the throne of God; if, on the contrary, one indulges in sinful behaviour, the Spirit leaves the house of the soul - which allows the adversary to break in and occupy it (Dem. 6.17) - and goes to accuse the person before God. For Aphrahat, the notion that the Spirit can be present in the believer, and subsequently leave, must have been part of a traditional ascetic theory. Indication that this is an inherited tradition can be found in the striking similarities with the Shepherd of Hermas. There are, however, no Syriac manuscripts of the Shepherd, and no references to this work among Syriac writers. Nadia Ibrahim-Fredrikson raises the hypothesis of a common source behind both Aphrahat and the Shepherd, a source whose views of spiritual dualism and divine indwelling would have been similar to that of the Community Rule at Qumran. What seems to have been overlooked is the fact that Aphrahat describes the work of the Holy Spirit by using unmistakably angelic imagery: the 20

21

22

20 According to the Shepherd of Hermas, the Trvsuucc inhabits the believer (Herm. Mand. 10.2.5) and, under normal circumstances, intercedes on behalf of that person. Yet, the Shepherd warns that the Holy Spirit is easily grieved and driven away by sadness (Herm. Mand. 10.1.3; 10.2.1), in which case he will depart and intercede with God against the person {Herm. Mand. 10.41.5). 21 Martin Leutzsch, Papiasfragmente: Hirt des Hermas (Schriften des Urchristentums, 3; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998), pp. 120-1; Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluss der christlich-palastinensischen Texte (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1922), pp. 75-7; Sebastian Brock, 'The Syriac Background to the World of Theodore of Tarsus', in From Ephrem to Romanos (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 1999), p. 37. 22 N. I. Fredrikson, 'L'Esprit Saint et les esprits mauvais dans le pasteur d'Hermas: Sources et prolongements', VC 55 (2001): 262-80 (273, 277, 278). For similarities between Aphrahat's ascetic theology and that of the Qumran documents see A. Golitzin, 'Recovering the "Glory of Adam": "Divine Light" Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Ascetical Literature of Fourth-Century Syro-Mesopotamia', in J. R. Davila (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 275-308.

BUCUR


193

Spirit 'is always on the move', he stands before the divine throne, beholds the face of God, entreats Christ on behalf of the worthy ascetics, accuses the unworthy and so on. It is significant that the action of carrying prayers from earth to the throne of God is sometimes (Dem. 4.13) ascribed to the archangel Gabriel. This is again similar to the Shepherd(Herm. Sim. 8.2.5), where the archangel Michael states that, in addition to the inspection of the believers' good deeds by one of his angelic subordinates, he will personally test every soul again, at the heavenly altar (syco OCUTOUS em TO 0uoiaoTripiov Soiaudaco). Both Aphrahat and the Shepherd deploy the traditional imagery of angels carrying up the prayer of humans to the heavenly altar. In the case of Aphrahat, the angelomorphic element is even more pronounced, given that the Spirit's toing and froing between earth and heaven, and his intercession before the divine throne, are 'documented' with an unlikely proof-text, namely Mt. 18.10 ('their angels in heaven always behold the face of my Father'). In his commentary on the Diatessaron, Ephrem interprets 'the angels of the little ones' as a metaphor for the prayers of the believers, which reach up to the highest heavens. Later Syriac authors (Jacob of Edessa, Isodad of Merv, Dionysius Bar Salibi) use Mt. 18.10 as a proof-text for the existence of guardian angels. For Aphrahat, however, the angels of Mt. 18.10 illustrate the intercessory activity of the Holy Spirit. 23

24

The 'Fragmentary'

Gift of the Spirit and Pneumatology

Angelomorphic

It may seem that this sort of angelomorphic pneumatology is not necessarily related to the 'fragmentary presence' of the Spirit discussed earlier. Such is not the case, however. In Dem. 6.10 (1/277-280), Christians are asked not to despise 'the pledge' - that is, the gift of the Holy Spirit received at baptism: Our Lord ... left us a pledge of his own when he ascended ... it behooves us also to honor that which is his, which we have received ... let us honor that which is his, according to his own nature. If we honor it, we shall go to him.... But if we despise it, he will take away from us that which he has given us; and if we abuse his pledge, he will there take away that which is his, and will deprive us of that which he has promised us. 25

23 For a long list of relevant texts and detailed discussion, see Loren Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology (WUNT, 70; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), pp. 173-80; Cornelis Haas, 'Die Pneumatologie des "Hirten des Hennas'", ANRWllj 21A (1993): 55286 (560, 567 n. 49). 24 Winfrid Cramer, 'Mt 18.10 in fruhsyrischer Deutung', OrChr 59 (1975): 130-46. 25 Dem. 6.10(1/279-280).


194

It is quite evident that 'the pledge' (rahbuna, appcc(3cov) refers to the Spirit. There is, first, the allusion to 2 Cor. 1.22; 5.5 and Eph. 1.14. There are, then, a number of obvious parallels with statements made elsewhere in the same Demonstration, where the same is said in reference to the Holy Spirit. The notion of 'despising' the Spirit is significant here. Aphrahat returns to it later in the same Demonstration, also supplying a fitting scriptural proof: 'the Spirit that the prophets received, and which we, too, have received' is indicated by something 'that our Lord said, Do not despise any of these little ones that believe in Me, for their angels in heaven always gaze on the face of my Father'. Aphrahat's notion of 'fragmentary' Spirit-endowment and his angelo morphic pneumatology should be considered jointly. The connection between Zech. 3.9, Isa. 11.1-3 and Mt. 18.10 illustrates very well what Pierre calls a 'network of scriptural traditions', which Aphrahat inherited from earlier Christian tradition. That this is, indeed, the case, is made clear by the occurrence of the same cluster of biblical verses and echoes of angelomorphic pneumatology in Clement of Alexandria. 26

27

28

Aphrahat and Clement of

Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria identifies the 'angels ever contemplating the Face of God' in Mt. 18.10 with the 'thrones' (Col. 1.16) and 'the seven eyes of the Lord' (Zech. 3.9; 4.10; Rev. 5.6), and understands all these passages as descriptions of the seven 'first-born princes of the angels' (npcoToyovoi ayyEXcov apxovTSs), elsewhere called the seven irpcoTOKTiQTOi. These seven protoctists, however, also carry a definite pneumatological content, since Clement identifies them not only with various types of angels, but

26 In the text just quoted, Christ leaves his pledge upon his ascension, just as in another passage: 'when he went to his Father, he sent to us his Spirit' (Dem. 6.10 [1/282]); the exhortation to 'honor the pledge' finds a counterpart in an earlier exhortation, to 'honor the Spirit of Christ, that we may receive grace from Him' (Dem. 6.1 p/241]); the characterization of the pledge as 'that which is of his [Christ's] own nature' is very similar to the statement about the Spirit going 'to its nature, [namely] unto Christ' (Dem. 6.14 [1/296]); 'two-way' discourse on the required attitude towards the pledge, corresponds perfectly to the ascetic theory of the same Demonstration, which opposes those who 'preserve the Spirit of Christ in purity' and those who defile the Spirit (Dem. 6.14-15). 27 Dem. 6.14-15 (1/292, 297). 28 Some of these traditions were embodied in a 'series of testimonia that might have circulated orally and been transmitted independently from the known biblical text'. As a matter of fact, Aphrahat is 'one of the richest witnesses' to the use of testimonia, with Dem. 16 furnishing 'the largest collection ever realized by a Father'. See Pierre, 'Introduction', pp. 115, 138, 68. See also Murray, 'Rhetorical Patterns', p. 110; idem, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (London and New York: T & T Clark International, 2nd edn, 2004), pp. 289-90; Schlutz, Isaias 11.2, pp. 33-4, 40, 58.

BUCUR


195

also with the 'seven spirits resting on the rod that springs from the root of Jesse' (Isa. 11.1-3 LXX): this, for him, is 'the heptad of the Spirit'. The exegesis of Clement of Alexandria and that of Aphrahat offer a surprising convergence. Both writers use the same cluster of biblical verses: 'the seven eyes of the Lord' (Zech. 3.9; 4.10), 'the seven gifts of the Spirit' (Isa. 11.2-3), and 'the angels of the little ones' (Mt. 18.10); both echo the tradition about the highest angelic company; finally, both use angelic imagery to express a definite pneumatological content. 29

30

Aphrahat and Justin

Martyr

As for Aphrahat's notion of a fragmentary endowment of the prophets with the gifts of the Spirit, and the comparison of this partial charismatic endowment with the complete possession of the Spirit by the Messiah, a comparable view occurs in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. Justin must respond to an interesting challenge from his Jewish opponent: The Scripture asserts by Isaiah:... and the Spirit of God shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and piety: and the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him (Isa. 11.1-2). I grant you (he said) that these words are spoken of Christ. But you also maintain that he was pre-existent as God . . . Now, how can He be demonstrated to have been pre-existent, since he is filled with the powers of the Holy Spirit, which the Scripture by Isaiah enumerates, as if He were in lack of them?

Trypho suggests that Isa. 11.1-3 deals with the reception of the seven 'powers of the Holy Spirit', and therefore excludes Justin's idea of a preexistent 'Lord', distinct from the Father, and endowed with the 'powers'. Justin responds by interpreting the Isaiah passage as a reference to the Jordan event: the seven powers of the Spirit rested on Jesus Christ when the Spirit 'fluttered down on' him (ITTITTTT^VQI, Dial. 88.3) at the Jordan baptism. In reaction, most likely, to contrary subordinationist views, Justin insists that Jesus' baptism was a theophany, which did not create Christ's identity but revealed it to the world (cf. Jn 1.31:1 va 4>avEpco8fl 31

29 Strom. 5.6.35; Eel. 57.1; Exc. 10; Strom. 5.6.35; Paed. 3.12.87. 30 For a detailed treatment of this topic in Clement, see Christian Oeyen, Eine fruhchristliche Engelpneumatologie bei Klemens von Alexandrien (Erweiterer Separatdruck aus der Internationalen Kirchlichen Zeitschrift: Bern, 1966); Bogdan G. Bucur, 'Revisiting Christian Oeyen: "The Other Clement" on Father, Son, and the Angelomorphic Spirit', VC 61 (2007): 381^13. 31 The connection between the seven-fold Spirit of Isa. 11.1-3 and the descent of the Spirit at the Jordan baptism also occurs in Irenaeus (Epid. 9), who regards it as an element of Church tradition.

196


Top 'lopar|X). In support of his view, he states that a fire was kindled (rrup avrj0Ti) in the Jordan at the moment of the baptism. For Justin, Jesus Christ pre-existed as bearer of the seven 'powers of the Holy Spirit', or, as he had explained earlier, as 'Lord of the powers'. This theory of the 'powers' proves serviceable for an account of Old Testament prophecy and New Testament charismatic endowment. According to Justin, each of the prophets received 'some one or two powers from God': KCU OTI oi irap'uMiv irpo^fjTai, e K a o x o s VIOLV TIVCX fi KOU SeuTspav Siivapiv i r a p a TOU 0eou Aaii(3avovTes. Thus Solomon had the spirit of wisdom; Daniel, that of understanding and counsel; Moses, that of strength and piety; Elijah, that of fear; Isaiah, that of knowledge. The seven powers of the Spirit enumerated by Isaiah were later reassembled in Jesus Christ, 'the Lord of the powers' (Dial. 87.4). Specifically, the Spirit 'ceased' (eirauoccTo) from being poured out fragmentarily upon the prophets when it is said to have 'rested' ( a v e i r a u o a T o ) upon him (Dial. 87.3) at the Jordan baptism. After his ascension, Christ turns the prophetic powers of the Spirit into various SOMCCTCC or xapiopocTa to the Church, thus fulfilling the prophecies of Joel 3.1 (/ shall pour out my Spirit over all flesh) and Ps. 67.19, LXX (He ascended on high, he led captivity captive, he gave gifts to the sons of men)? Justin is quite likely to be using a collection of testimonia here. He quotes Ps. 67.19 in a form closer to Eph. 4.8 than the LXX; his quotation from Joel 3.1 begins as in the LXX (KOL\ IOTOCI METCX TOUTO) rather than Acts 2.17 33

4

32 In fact, it is similar concerns over subordinationist interpretations of the Jordan event that explain why, after being an essential article of faith, the baptism of Jesus was eliminated from fourth-century creeds. See Gabriele Winkler, 'A Remarkable Shift in Fourth-Century Creeds: An Analysis of the Armenian, Syriac, and Greek Evidence', St.Patr. 17/3 (1982): 1396-1401. Similarly, Killian McDonnell, 'Jesus' Baptism in the Jordan', TS 56 (1995): 20936, (213, 212); Robert L. Wilken, 'The Interpretation of the Baptism of Jesus in the Later Fathers', St.Patr. 11 (1972): 268-77. 33 The tradition about fire and light at the Jordan baptism is widespread in early Christianity (e.g., Gospel of the Ebionites; Proclus of Constantinople; Gregory of Nazianzus; Ephraim Syrus; Jacob of Serugh; Philoxenus of Mabbug). See McDonnell, 'Jesus' Baptism in the Jordan', pp. 231-2. On the other hand, Justin's association of the Jordan event with Isa. 11.1-3 naturally leads to the idea that the Spirit 'rested' over Christ at his baptism. This also is similar to a tradition preserved in Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron: according to what must have been an original Syriac version of Jn 1.32, the Spirit 'descended and rested' upon Jesus - rather than 'descended and dwelt', as all Greek and Syriac witnesses have. It is however not the Syriac version of the Commentary that preserves this reading (most probably because later scribes adapted the New Testament quotations to the Peshitta, which here follows the Greek text), but the Armenian translation of the Commentary, where the quotation was 'frozen' in its original form. For a detailed and extensive argumentation, see Gabriele Winkler, 'Ein bedeutsamer Zusammenhang zwischen der Erkenntnis und Ruhe in Mt 11, 27-29 und dem Ruhen des Geistes auf Jesus am Jordan: Eine Analyse zur GeistChristologie in Syrischen und Armenischen Quellen', Mus 96 (1983): 267-326. 34 AOUQTCX: Dial. 39.2, 4, 5; 87.5-6; xapiaucn-a: Dial. 82.1; 88.1.


BUCUR

197

ev TO\S eoxiTous fiMepais), but then speaks of'my servants', as in Acts 2.18, rather than 'servants', as in Joel 3.2. Some of the gifts listed in Dial. 39.2, namely 'healing', foreknowledge', and 'teaching', echo 1 Corinthians 12, which also explains the shift from 5 o p a T a to XapiopccTa. It is noteworthy that the gifts of the Spirit received by the Church are also distributed fragmentarily: 'from the grace of the power of his Spirit to those who believe in him, to each one inasmuch as he deems him worthy'. Trypho finds nothing objectionable in Justin's pneumatology. This is not because 'Trypho' would be nothing more than a literary construct of Justin's - a position that Timothy J. Horner has challenged quite convincingly. It seems rather, as Michel Rene Barnes argues, that Justin and Trypho share a Pneumatology. * As a case in point, Justin's interpretation of Isaiah 11 finds its counterpart in the Pseudo-Philonic synagogal homily 'On Samson'. This text is at pains to explain how it was possible that Samson committed sins even though he was possessed by the Spirit. The argument is that the prophets only received one or the other of the 'spirits' mentioned in Isa. 11.2. Moving away from the wording of the verse, the homilist gives some examples: Abraham received the spirit of righteousness, Joseph the spirit of self-restraint, Simeon and (Kai eoTcci

35

36

37

3

39

35 Graham Stanton, 'The Spirit in the Writings of Justin Martyr', in G. N. Stanton, B. W. Longenecker and S. C. Barton (eds), The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 321-34 (332) has no doubt that the three Pauline terms are 'woven into the list'. Pierre Prigent (Justin et VAncien Testament: L'argumentation scripturaire du traite de Justin contre toutes les heresies comme source principale du Dialogue avec Tryphon et de la premiere Apologie [Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1964], pp. 112-13) and Jose Pablo Martin (El Espiritu Santo en los origenes del Cristianismo: Estudio sobre I Clemente, Ignacio, II Clemente y Justino Martir [Zurich: PAS Verlag, 1971], p. 204) are more reserved, although both agree that the loose treatment of Isa. 11.2 allows Justin to incorporate certain 'reminiscences paulines' into the list of spiritual gifts. Prigent (Justin et VAncien Testament, p. 114) shows that Justin's quotation from Ps. 67.19 is very close to Eph. 4.8, but he denies any influence from Acts 2. 36 Dial. 87.5. Compare airo rife x « P ° S "rife 5uvau£cos TOU TTVEUMCCTOS EKEIVOU . . . cos a£iov EKCXOTOV ETriaTcxTat with the statement about the 'powers of the Spirit' received by the L T

prophets: EKaoTos uiav i v a rj Kai SEimpav ouvapiv irapa TOO 6EOU AauPavovTEs. T

37 T. Horner, Listening to Trypho: Justin Martyr's Dialogue Reconsidered (Leuven and Paris: Peeters, 2001). Horner argues that the current Dialogue, composed around 155-160 CE, is an expansion of an older document, dated around 135 CE, which is very likely to have documented a real encounter between Justin and a well-educated non-rabbinic Jew from Asia Minor. 38 Barnes, 'Early Christian Binitarianism: The Father and the Holy Spirit' (paper presented at the North American Patristics Society, May 2001; online at <www.mu.edu/ maqom/baraes >). 39 This homily was most likely composed in Alexandria, in the first century C E . It survives in a very literal Armenian translation, dated to the early sixth century, alongside the genuine works of Philo. See Folker Siegert et al. (eds and trans.), Pseudo-Philon: Predications synagogales (SC, 345; Paris: Cerf, 1999), pp. 19-20, 38-9, 41.


198

Levi the spirit of zeal, and Judah the spirit of discernment. As for Samson, he only received 'the spirit of strength' - which explains his utter lack of wisdom! Despite the fact that 'On Samson' enumerates only six spirits in Isa. 11.2, the resemblance with Justin is obvious. I now return to the challenge posed by Trypho: how can Justin's claim about a pre-existent Messiah be consistent with the idea that he received the seven powers of the Spirit? I noted earlier that Justin rejects any subordinationist views, and affirms that the Jordan event is, essentially, a revelation of who Jesus Christ is: the pre-existent bearer of the seven 'powers of the Holy Spirit', or, as he had explained earlier, as 'Lord of the powers'. This language of Suvapeis, Suvaneis TOU TTVEUMCXTOS, and loipios TCOV SuvdpEcov, and the connection between the seven gifts of the Spirit (Isa. 11.2-3) and the 'powers' are not accidental. As has already been documented in scholarship, Justin understands the Old Testament phrase Kupios TCOV 5uvd|JEcov such that the 'Lord' is Jesus Christ and the 'powers' are, at the same time, certain angelic beings (Dial. 85) and the seven 'powers of the Spirit' referred to in Isaiah 11 (Dial. 8 7 ) . 40

41

42

Conclusions Both Aphrahat and Justin combine Isa. 11.2-3 (the seven gifts of the Spirit) with Joel 3.1 (T shall pour out my Spirit on all flesh') and Ps. 67 (68). 19 ('He ascended on high, he led captivity captive, he gave gifts to the sons of men'). Unlike Justin Martyr, who uses Isa. 11.1-3 to contrast the 'partial' outpouring of the Spirit over the prophets and Christ's 'full' and sovereign possession of the Spirit, Aphrahat uses the Isaiah verse only for the Messiah, and never to affirm the partial endowment of prophets and baptized Christians. In other words, Isa. 11.2 serves, in Dem. 1, the same role as Jn 3.34 ('it was not by measure that his Father gave the Spirit unto him') in Dem. 6. Like Justin, Aphrahat states that the prophets received only '[a portion] from the Spirit of Christ, each one of them as he was able to bear' - but he prefers to use 3 Cor. 2.10 rather than Isa. 11.2 in support of this statement. B o t h Aphrahat and Clement use the same cluster of biblical verses (Isa. 43

40 Ps.-Philo, 'On Samson', p. 24. 41 It should be noted that there are no literary connections between the homily and early Christian literature prior to the Armenian translation (Siegert, Drei hellenistisch-judische Predigten, p. 48; Siegert et al. (eds), Pseudo-Philon, pp. 38-9). 42 Oeyen, 'Die Lehre von den gottlichen Kraften bei Justin', StPatr 11 (1972): 214—21; B. G. Bucur, 'The Angelic Spirit in Early Christianity: Justin, the Martyr and Philosopher', JR 88 (2008): 190-208. 43 Justin, Dial. 87.6.

BUCUR


199

11.2-3; Zech. 3.9; Mt. 18.10) to express a definite pneumatological content. Nevertheless, since Aphrahat uses Mt 18.10 to illustrate the dynamism of divine indwelling and the intercessory activity of the Spirit, he never connects the angels of the Face with Isa. 11.2, an exegetical move that occurs in Clement of Alexandria. It is true that this particular arrangement of the proof-texts is determined by the necessities of the discourse, and that, in other contexts, Aphrahat would most likely have furnished a different 'constellation' using the same passages. As the texts stand, however, the scriptural support for Aphrahat's doctrine of 'partial versus complete' possession of the Spirit differs slightly from that of Justin and Clement. By way of consequence, the link between the notion of 'fragmentary Spirit' and angelomorphic pneumatology is also less clear than it is in these authors. Even though no literary connection exists between these two Greekspeaking writers and the Persian Sage, the exegesis of Isa. 11.2 and the 'midrashic' connections with other biblical passages are strikingly similar. There are, in fact, several other convergences between Aphrahat and earlier writers in the West, which, as I have stated earlier, cannot be explained by direct literary connection Gilles Quispel was convinced that behind both Clement and Aphrahat lies a tradition that goes back to Jewish Christian missionaries 'who brought the new religion to Mesopotamia', and were also 'the founding fathers of the church in Alexandria' Be that as it may, the comparison between Aphrahat, Justin and Clement suggests the existence of a primitive Christian tradition that used Isa. 11.2 to compare the Spirit-endowment of prophets with that of the Messiah. 44

4 5

46

44 In Aphrahat, Mt. 18.10 is instead linked to other texts such as 2 Cor. 1.22; 5.5; Eph. 1.14; 3 Cor. 2.10; Num. 11.17; 2 Sam. 16.14-23 (the evil spirit sent to Saul). 45 I have already mentioned the resemblance with the Shepherd of Hermas. Another case refers to the striking resemblance between the exegesis of Judg. 7.4-8 by Aphrahat (Dem. 7.19-21) and Origen (Horn. Judic. 9.2). R. H. Connolly ('Aphraates and Monasticism', JTS6 [1905]: 538-9) hypothesized that the sage might have read Origen. In response, Loofs (Theophilus, pp. 258-9) stated that a common source is a far more likely explanation. 46 Quispel, 'Genius and Spirit', 160, 164. See also Schlutz, Isaias 11.2, pp. 33-4. A fresh and compelling view has been proposed recently by April DeConick, Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of The Gospel And Its Growth (LNTS, 286; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2005), pp. 236-41.

Bibliography Aageson, J. W., Written Also for Our Sake: Paul and the Art of Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: WJKP, 1993). Achtemeier, P. J., 1 Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). Alexander, P. S., and G. Vermes, Qumran Cave 4.XIX: Serekh ha-Yahad: (DJD, 26; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). Allen, L. C , Psalms: Word Biblical Themes (Waco: Word, 1987). Amir, Y., 'The Transference of Greek Allegories to Biblical Motifs in Philo', in Frederick E. Greenspahn et al. (eds), Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (Chico: Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 15-25. Anderson, F., Habakkuk: A New Translation and Commentary (AB, 25; New York: Doubleday, 2001). Asher, J. R., Polarity and Change in 1 Cor 15: A Study of Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection (HUT, 42; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000). Auld, A. G., 'The Story of David and Goliath: A Test Case for Synchrony plus Diachrony', in W. Dietrich (ed.), David und Saul im Widerstreit: Diachronie und Synchronic im Wettstreit. Beitrage zur Auslegung des ersten Samuelbuches (Fribourg: Academic Press; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2004), pp. 118-28. Aune, D. E., 'Dualism in the Fourth Gospel and the Dead Sea Scrolls. A Reassessment of the Problem', in D. E. Aune, T. Seland and J. H. Ulrichsen (eds), Neotestamentica et Philonica. Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen (NovTSup, 106; Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 281-303. Revelation (3 vols; WBC, 52; Dallas: Word Books, 1997-98). Austin, J. L., How to Do Things with Words (ed. J. O. Urmson and M. Sbisa; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2nd edn, 1975). Avemarie, F., 'Paul and the Claim of the Law According to the Scripture: Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12 and Romans 10.5', in Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor (eds), The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2005), pp. 125-48. Bachmann, M., '4QMMT und Galaterbrief, m i m EH7D und EPTA NOMOY,' ZNW 89 (1998): 91-113. V

Bibliography

201

'Rechtfertigung und Gesetzeswerke bei Paulus', TZ 49 (1993): 1-33; reprinted in Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief: Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus (NTOA, 40; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag, 1999), pp. 1-31. Bakhos, C., 'The Double Identity of Hagar and Keturah' (forthcoming). Bakhtin, M., The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (ed. M. Holquist; trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist; University of Texas Slavic Series, 1; Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981). Balch, D. L., Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter (SBLMS, 26; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981). Barclay, J. M. G., 'By the Grace of God I am what I am', in J. M. G. Barclay and S. Gathercole (eds), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Intellectual Environment (Edinburgh: T & T Clark/ Continuum, 2006). pp. 140-57. Obeying the Truth: Paul's Ethics in Galatians (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988). 'Paul's Story: Theology as Testimony', in B. Longenecker (ed.), Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), pp. 133-56. Barker, P. G., 'Allegory and Typology in Galatians 4.21-31', SVTQ 38 (1994): 193-209. Barnes, M. R., 'Early Christian Binitarianism: The Father and the Holy Spirit' (paper presented at the North American Patristics Society, May 2001; online at <www.mu.edu/maqom/barnes>). Barrett, C. K., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 1994). Essays on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SCM, 1982). 'Luke/Acts', in D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 231-^4. Barthelemy, D. et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism (Papers of a Joint Research Venture; Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1986). Batto, B. F., 'The Reed Sea: Requiescat in Pace\ JBL 102 (1983): 27-35. Bauckham, R., The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (London: T & T Clark, 1993). Baudry, G. H., 'La theorie du penchant mauvais et la doctrine du peche original', BLE 95 (1994): 271-301. Baumstark, A., Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluss der christlich-paldstinensischen Texte (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1922). Beale, G. K., The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). 'Solecisms in the Apocalypse as Signals for the Presence of Old Testament Allusions: A Selective Analysis of Revelation 1-22', in C.

202

Bibliography

A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (eds), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (JSNTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 421-46. Beckwith, R. T., T h e Early History of the Psalter', TynBul 46 (1995): 128. Berg, W., 'Der Sundenfall Abrahams und Saras nach Gen 16: 1-6', BN 19 (1982): 7-14. Betz, H. D., Galatians: A Commentary on Pauls Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). Betz, O., Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte (WUNT, 6; Tubingen: Brill, 1960), pp. 140-6. Bianchi, U., 'Dieu unique et creation double: pour une phenomenologie du dualisme', Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblate (Acta Iranica 23; 2nd series Himmages et opera minora, 9; Leiden: Brill, 1984), pp. 49^60. 'Dualism', in M. Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 4 (New York: Macmillan, 1986), pp. 506-12. Bivin, D., 'One Torah Reader, Not Seven!' Jerusalem Perspective 52 ( J u l Sep. 1997): 16-17. Bligh, J., Galatians (London: St. Paul Publications, 1969). Bock, Darrell L., Luke (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994). Booser, K. D., 'The Literary Structure of John 1.1-18: An Examination of its Theological Implications Concerning God's Saving Plan through Jesus Christ', Evangelical Journal 61 (1998): 13-29. Borgen, P., Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (NovTSup, 86; Leiden: Brill, 1997). 'Some Hebrew and Pagan Features in Philo's and Paul's Interpretation of Hagar and Ishmael', in Peder Borgen and Soren Giversen (eds), The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), pp. 151-64. Boring, M. E., First Peter in Recent Study. Word & World 24 (2004): 35867. Borse, U., Der Brief an die Galater (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1984). Boyarin, D., A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Critical Studies in Jewish Literature, Culture, and Society, 1; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). Brandenburger, E., Fleisch und Geist: Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit (WMANT, 29; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungs vereins, 1968). Braude, W. G., The Midrash on Psalms (2 vols; YJS; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959). Braun, H., 'Das himmlische Vaterland bei Philo und im Hebraerbrief, in O. Bocher and K. Haacker (eds), Verborum Veritas: Festschrift fur G.

Bibliography

203

Stahlin zum 70. Geburtstag (Wuppertal: Theologischer Verlag Rolf Brockhaus, 1970), pp. 319-27. Brenner, A., 'Female Social Behaviour: Two Descriptive Patterns within the "Birth of the Hero" Paradigm', VT 36 (1986): 257-73. Brock, S. 'The Lost Old Syriac at Luke 1.35 and the Earliest Syriac Terms for the Incarnation', in W. Petersen (ed.), Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), pp. 117-31. 'The Syriac Background to the World of Theodore of Tarsus', in From Ephrem to Romanos (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 1999). Brooke, G. J., Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup, 29; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985). Brown, J. K., 'Silent Wives, Verbal Believers: Ethical and Hermeneutical Considerations in 1 Peter 3.1-6 and Its Context', Word & World 24/4 (2004): 395-403. Bruce, F. F., The Book of Acts: New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988). The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). Brueggemann, W., Genesis (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982). Old Testament Theology: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997). Bruns, P. (trans.), Aphrahat: Unterweisungen (FC, 5/1; Freiburg: Herder, 1991). Das Christusbild Aphrahats des Persischen Weisen (Bonn: Boren gasser, 1990). Bryant, R. A., The Risen and Crucified Christ in Galatians (SBLDS, 185; Atlanta: SBL, 2001). Buckel, J., Free to Love. Pauls Defence of Christian Liberty in Galatians (Louvain Theological & Pastoral Monographs, 15; Louvain: Peeters [Eerdmans], 1993). Bucur, B. G., 'Revisiting Christian Oeyen: "The Other Clement" on Father, Son, and the Angelomorphic Spirit', VC 61 (2007): 381-413. 'The Angelic Spirit in Early Christianity: Justin, the Martyr and Philosopher', JR 88 (2008): 190-208. Buth, R., 'Aramaic Targumim: Qumran', in C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter, (eds), Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000), pp. 91-3. Callaway, M. C , 'The Mistress and the Maid: Midrashic Traditions Behind Galatians 4.21-31', Radical Religion 2 (1975): 94-101. Cameron, A., Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991). Carter, W., 'Going All the Way? Honoring the Emperor and Sacrificing

204

Bibliography

Wives and Slaves in 1 Peter 2.13-3.6', in A. Levine and M. M. Robbins (eds), A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004), pp. 14^33. Castelli, E. A., 'Allegories of Hagar: Reading Galatians 4.21-31 with Postmodern Eyes', in Edgar V. McKnight and Elizabeth Struthers Malbon (eds), The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament (Valley Forge: Trinity, 1994), pp. 228-50. Chazon, Esther G., '4QDibHam: Liturgy or Literature?', RevQ 15 (1991): 447-55. Childs, B. S., The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974). Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). 'Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis', JSS 16 (1971): 137-50. Chilton, B., God in Strength: Jesus' Announcement of the Kingdom {SNTU, B/l; Freistadt, Austria: Plochl, 1979). Collins, J. J., '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, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 403-30. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997). 'Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve', in H. Najman and J. H. Newman (eds), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (JSJSup, 83. Leiden: Brill, 2004), pp. 293-308. 'In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran', in D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich (eds), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 609-19. 'The Mysteries of God: Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon', in F. Garcia Martinez (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BETL, 168; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2003), pp. 287-305. 'The Son of God Text from Qumran', in M. de Boer (ed.), From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology (JSNTSup, 84; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 65-82. Coloe, M., 'The Structure of John's Prologue and Genesis 1', AusBR 45 (1997): 40-55. Connolly, R. H., 'Aphraates and Monasticism', JTS 6 (1905): 538-9. Conzelmann, H., The Theology of Saint Luke (London: Faber, 1961). Conzelmann, H. et al, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (translation of Die Apostelgeschichte; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987).

Bibliography

205

Corley, K. E., '1 Peter', Searching the Scriptures, vol. 2: A Feminist Commentary (Fiorenza, ed.; London: SCM, 1994), pp. 349-60. Cosgrove, C. H., The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988). Craigie, P. C., Psalms 1-50 (WBC, 19; Waco: Word Books, 1983). Cramer, W., 'Mt 18, 10 in fruhsyrischer Deutung', OrChr 59 (1975): 13046. Croft, S. J. L., The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms (JSOTSup, 44; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). Cross, F. M., 'Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth', JTC 5 (1968): 1-25. Culpepper, R. A., 'The Pivot of John's Prologue', NTS 27 (1981): 1-31. Dahl, N. A., and A. F. Segal, 'Philo and the Rabbis on the Names of God', JSJ 9 (1978): 1-28. Davies, P. R., Whose Bible is it Anyway? (JSOTSup, 204; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Dawson, D., Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991). De Boer, M. C , 'Paul's Quotation of Isaiah 54.1 in Galatians 4.27', NTS 50 (2004): 370-89. De Conick, A., Recovering The Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of The Gospel And Its Growth (LNTS, 286; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2005). Den Braber, M., and J. W. Wesselius, 'The Unity of Joshua 1-8, its Relation to the Story of King Keret, and the Literary Background to the Exodus and Conquest Stories', SJOT 22 (2008), pp. 253-74. SJOT (forthcoming). Di Leila, A. A., 'The Textual History of Septuagint-Daniel and Theodotion-Daniel', in P. W. Flint and J. J. Collins (eds), The Book of Daniel, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 586-607. Doeve, J. W., Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1954). Dowd, S., '1 Peter', in C. A. Newsom and S. H. Ringe (eds), The Women's Bible Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, exp. edn, 1998), pp. 462-4. Duhaime, J., 'Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran', CBQ 49 (1987): 32-56. Dunn, J. D. G., Jesus, Paul, and the Law. Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: WJK, 1990). Dunn, James, 'Noch einmal "Works of the Law": The Dialogue Continues', in The New Perspective on Paul (WUNT, 185; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 407-22. The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993). The New Perspective on Paul (WUNT, 185; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2005).

206

Bibliography

The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Durham, J., 'The King as Messiah in the Psalms', RevExp 81 (1984): 42536. Dvorak, J. G., 'The Relationship Between John and the Synoptic Gospels', JETSAX (1998): 201-13. Eastman, S. G., '"Cast Out the Slave Woman and Her Son": The Dynamics of Exclusion and Inclusion in Galatians 4.30', JSNT 28 (2006): 309-36. Eaton, J. W., Kingship and the Psalms (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2nd edn, 1986). Ebeling, G., The Truth of the Gospel. An Exposition of Galatians (trans. D. Green; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). Eckstein, J., Verheifiung und Gesetz: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Galater 2,15-4,7 (WUNT, 86; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996). Elgvin, T., 'Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Early Second Century BCE - The Evidence of 4QInstruction', in L. H. Schiffman et al. (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), pp. 226-47. Elliott, J. H., 'Disgraced Yet Graced. The Gospel According to 1 Peter in the Key of Honour and Shame', BTB 24 (1995): 166-78. A Home for the Homeless: A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.) 1 Peter (New York: Doubleday, 2000). Ellis, E. E., 'Background and Christology of John's Gospel: Selected Motifs', SWJT 31 (1988): 1-12. Pauls Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981). Ellis, P., The Genius of John: A Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1984). Evans, C. A., and J. A. Sanders (eds), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 83; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). Farris, Stephen. The Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning and Significance (JSNTSup, 9; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985). Fewell, D. N., and D. M. Gunn., Gender, Power, and Promise: The Subject of the Bible's First Story. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993). Fitzmyer, J. A., The Acts of the Apostles: The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday Publishing House, 1998). Flusser, D., 'At the Right Hand of Power', in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998), pp. 301-5. 'Melchizedek and the Son of Man', in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998), pp. 186-92. 'A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message', Judaism

Bibliography

207

and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), pp. 469-89. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (AB, 28; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981). The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985). Flusser, D., and R. S. Notley, The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus' Genius (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007). Forbes, G., 'Children of Sarah: Interpreting 1 Peter 3.6b', BBR 15 (2005): 105-9. Fowl, S. E., 'Who can read Abraham's Story? Allegory and Interpretive Power in Galatians', JSNT 55 (1994): 77-95. Fowler, Alastair, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982). Fraade, S. D., 'Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries', in L. I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992), pp. 253-86. Frankovic, J. 'The Intertextual-Rhetorical Background to Luke 19.46' (unpublished study). Fredrikson, N. I., 'L'Esprit Saint et les esprits mauvais dans le pasteur d'Hermas: Sources et pr longements', VC 55 (2001): 262-80. Frey, J., 'Die paulinische Antithese von "Fleisch" und "Geist" und die palastinisch-judische Weisheitstradition', ZNW 90 (1999): 45-77. 'Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on Their Background and History', in M. Bernstein et al. (eds), Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995 (in honour of J. M. Baumgarten; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 275-335. 'Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage', in C. Hempel, A. Lange and H. Lichtenberger (eds), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (BETL, 159; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2002), pp. 368-404. 'The Notion of "Flesh" in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage', in D. Falk et al. (eds), Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998 (STDJ 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 197-226. Fung, R. Y. K., The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988).

208

Bibliography

Gammie, J. G., 'Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature', JBL 93 (1974): 356-85. Garcia Martinez, F., and E. J. C. Tigchelaar (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols; Leiden: Brill and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). Garcia Martinez, F. and E. Tigchelaar (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1997). Gartner, B., The Temple and Community in Qumran and the New Testament (SNTSMS, 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965). Gaventa, B. R., 'Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm', NovT 28 (1986): 309-26. Geiger, A., Lehr- und Lesebuch Sprache der Mischnah (Breslau: Leuckart, 1845). Geldenhuys, N., Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951). Gignac, A., 'Citation de Levitique 18,5 en Romains 10,5 et Galates 3,12: Deux lectures differentes des rapports Christ-Torah?', Eglise et theologie 25 (1994): 367-403. Gileadi, A., 'The Davidic Covenant: A Theological Basis for Corporate Protection', in A. Gileadi (ed.), Israel's Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), pp. 157-63. Gillingham, S. E., Poems and Psalms of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford Bible Series; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). GleBmer, U., 'Targumim', in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 915-18. Goff, Matthew J., 'Adam, the Angels and Eternal Life: Genesis 1-3 in 4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon', in G. Xeravits (ed.), The Book of Wisdom and Jewish Hellenistic Philosophy (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction (STDJ, 50; Leiden: Brill, 2003). Golitzin, A., 'Recovering the "Glory of Adam": "Divine Light" Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Ascetical Literature of Fourth-Century Syro-Mesopotamia', in J. R. Davila (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 275-308. Gomes, P. J., 'John 1.45-51', Int 43 (1989): 282-6. Green, J. B., The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997). Grindheim, S., 'Wisdom for the Perfect: Paul's Challenge to the Corinthian Church (1 Cor 2.6-16)', JBL 121 (2002): 689-709.

Bibliography

209

Grotius, H., Annotationes in Novum Testamentum (9 vols; Groningen W. Zuidema:, 1826-34). Haak, R. D., Habakkuk (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992). Haas, C , 'Die Pneumatologie des "Hirten des Hermas"', ANRWII. 27.1 (1993): 552-86. Ham, C , 'The Son of Man in the Gospel of John', StoneCamJ 1 (1998): 67-84. Hamerton-Kelly, R. G., 'Sources and Traditions in Philo Judaeus: Prolegomena to an Analysis of his Writings', Studia philonica 1 (1972): 3-26. Hamman, A. G., L'homme image de Dieu: Essai dune anthropologie chretienne dans l'Eglise des cinq premiers siecles (Relais-Etudes, 2; Paris: Ed. Desclee, 1987). Hanks, T., The Subversive Gospel: A New Testament Commentary of Liberation (trans. J. P. Doner; Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2000). Harrington, D. J., 'Recent Study of 4QInstruction', in F. Garcia Martinez, A. Steudel and E. J. C. Tigchelaar (eds), From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Melanges qumraniens en hommage a Emile Puech (STDJ, 61; Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 105-23. Hasel, G., Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1975). Hatch, E., and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint (2 vols; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987). Hays, R. B., The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3.1-4.11 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 2002). The Letter to the Galatians (The New Interpreter's Bible, 11; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000). Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). Heckert, J. K., Discourse Function of Conjoiners in the Pastoral Epistles (Dallas: SIL International, 1996). Hemer, C. J., The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting (JSNTSup, 11; Sheffield: JSOT, 1986). Hengel, M., 'The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel', in C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner, (eds), The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 104; SSEJC, 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), pp. 380-95. Hepner, G., 'Abraham's Incestuous Marriage with Sarah. A Violation of the Holiness Code', VT 53 (2003): 143-55. Hogan, K. M., 'The Exegetical Background of the "Ambiguity of Death" in the Wisdom of Solomon', JSJ 30 (1999): 1-24. Hofius, Otfried, '"Werke des Gesetzes": Untersuchungen zu der paulinischen Rede von den epya vouou', in Dieter Sanger and Ulrich Mell (eds), Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur

210

Bibliography

paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literatur (WUNT, 198; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), pp. 271-310. Holladay, C. R., 'Theios aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of this Category in New Testament Christology (SBLDS, 40; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977). Hoppin, R., 'The Epistle to the Hebrews is Priscilla's Letter', in A. Levine and M. M. Robbins (eds), A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004), pp. 147-70. Horner, T., Listening to Trypho: Justin Martyr's Dialogue Reconsidered (Leuven and Paris: Peeters, 2001). Horsley, R. A., 'Pneumatikos vs. Psychikos Distinctions of Spiritual Status among the Corinthians', HTR 69 (1976): 269-88. 'Spiritual Marriage with Sophia', VC 33 (1979): 30-54. Hovhanessian, V., Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy (New York: Peter Lang, 2000). Hultgren, S., 'The Origin of Paul's Doctrine of the Two Adams in 1 Cor 15.45^*9', JSNT 25 (2003): 343-70. Huppenbauer, H. W., Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten. Der Dualismus der Texte von Qumran (Hohle I) und der Damaskusfragmente. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Evangeliums (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1959). Janzen, G., 'Eschatological Symbol and Existence in Habakkuk', CBQ 44 (1982): 394-414. 'Habakkuk 2.2-4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances', HTR 73 (1980): 53-78. Janzen, J. G., 'Hagar in Paul's Eyes and the Eyes of Yahweh (Genesis 16): A Study in Horizons', Horizons 13 (1991): 1-22. Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology (London: SCM Press, 1987). Jervell, J., Imago Dei (FRLANT, 58; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960). Jewett, R., Paul's Anthropological Terms: A Study of their Use in Conflict Settings (AGJU, 10; Leiden: Brill, 1971). Jobes, K. H., 'Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Galatians 4.21-31', WTJ 55 (1993): 299-320. Johnson, M., 'The Paralysis of the Torah in Habakkuk 1.4', VT35 (1985): 257-66. Johnson, S. E., 'The Davidic Royal Motif in John', JBL 87 (1968): 136-50. Kaiser, W. C , Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985). Kaminsky, J. S., Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup, 196; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Kamlah, E., Die Form der katalogischen Pardnese im Neuen Testament (WUNT, 7; Tubingen: Brill, 1964). Kampen, J. I., 'The Diverse Aspects of Wisdom in the Qumran Texts', in f

Bibliography

211

P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 211-43. Karrer, M., Der Gesalbte: die Grundlagen des Christustitels (FRLANT, 151; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). Kiley, M., 'Like Sara: The Tale of Terror Behind 1 Peter 3.6', JBL 106 (1987): 689-92. Kim, S., Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). Kimball, C. A., Jesus' Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke's Gospel (JSNTSup, 94; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994). Klein, G., 'Individualgeschichte und Weltgeschichte bei Paulus', in G. Klein (ed.), Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsdtze am Neuen Testament (BevT, 50; Munich: Kaiser, 1969), pp. 180-224. Kobelski, P. J., Melchizedek and Melchiresa (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981). Koester, C. R., 'Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael (Jn 1.4551)', JSNT 39 (1990): 23-34. Koester, H., Ancient Christian Gospels (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1990). Kortner, U. H. J. and M. Leutzsch (eds and trans.), Papiasfragmente: Hirt des Hermas (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998). Kdstenberger, A. J., John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004). Kraus, H.-J., Psalms 1-59: A Continental Commentary (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). Theology of the Psalms (trans. Keith Crim; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). Kraus, W., 'Johannes und das Alte Testament', ZNW 88 (1997): 3-14. Kristeva, J., Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art (ed. L. S. Roudiez; trans. T. Gora, A. Jardine and L. S. Roudiez; New York: Columbia University, 1980). Kugel, J. L., The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998). Kuntz, J. K., 'Engaging the Psalms: Gains and Trends in Recent Research', CRBS 2 (1994): 77-106. Kutscher, E. Y., Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977 [Hebrew]). 'Hebrew Language', EJ 16:1593-1607. A History of the Hebrew Language (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982). The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1959). Lane, Nathan, 'Exodus 34.6-7: A Canonical Analysis' (PhD diss.: Baylor University, 2007).

212

Bibliography

Lange, A., 'Kriterien essenischer Texte', in J. Frey and H. Stegemann (eds), Qumran Kontrovers: Beitrage zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer (Einblicke 6; Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003), pp. 59-69. Weisheit und Pradestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und Pradestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ, 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995). Leaney, A. R. C , The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning. Introduction, Translation and Commentary (London: SCM, 1966). Lenski, R. C. H., The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961). Leonhardt-Balzer, J., 'Evil, Dualism and Community: Who/What did the Yahad not Want to Be?', in G. Xeravits (ed.), Dualism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria (TSAJ, 84; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). Leutzsch, Martin, Papiasfragmente: Hirt des Hermas (Schriften des Urchristentums, 3; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998). 'Der Logos und die Schopfung: Streiflichter bei Philo (Opif. 2025) und im Johannesprolog (Joh 1,1-18)', in J. Frey, and U. Schnelle, (eds), Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive (WUNT, 1/175; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp. 295-319. Levinsohn, S. H., Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek (Dallas: SIL International, 2nd edn, 2000). Licht, J., 'An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits in DSD', in C. Rabin and Y. Yadin (eds), Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Schertler, 4; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2nd edn, 1965), pp. 88-99. Lichtenberger, H., Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumran gemeinde (SUNT, 15; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980). Lieberman, S., Greek in Jewish Palestine!Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1994). Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972). Lipscomb, W. L., and J. A. Sanders, 'Wisdom at Qumran', in J. Gammie et al. (eds), Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978), pp. 27785. Litwak, K. D., 'Echoes of Scripture? A Critical Survey of Recent Works on Paul's Use of the Old Testament', CRBS 6 (1998): 260-88. Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God's People Intertextually (JSNTSup, 282; London: T & T Clark International, 2005).

Bibliography

213

Longenecker, B., The Triumph of Abraham's God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998). Longenecker, R., Galatians (WBC, 41; Dallas: Word Books, 1990). Longman III, T., How to Read the Psalms (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1988). Loofs, F., Theophilus von Antiochien Adversus Marcionem und die anderen theologischen Quellen bei Irenaeus (TU, 46; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930). Mack, B. L., 'Exegetical Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism: A Program for the Analysis of the Philonic Corpus', Studia philonica 3 (1974-75): 71-112. Marcus, J., The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992). Marcus, R., Philo: In Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes), supplement II: Questions and Answers on Exodus (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937). Marmorstein, A., The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, vol. 1: The Names and Attributes of God (London: Oxford University Press, 1927). 'Philo and the Names of God', JQR 22 (1931-32): 295-306. Marshall, I. H., Acts (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980). The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978). Martin, D., The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). Martin, J. P., El Espiritu Santo en los origenes del Cristianismo: Estudio sobre I Clemente, Ignacio, II Clemente y Justino Martir (Zurich: PAS Verlag, 1971). Martin, T. W., 'The TestAbr and the Background of 1 Pet 3,6', ZNW 90 (1990): 139-46. Martyn, J. L., 'The Covenants of Hagar and Sarah' in John T. Carroll, et al. (eds), Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 160-92. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997). Mateos, J. and Barreto, J., O Evangelho de Sao Jodo: Andlise Linguistica e Comentdrio Exegetico (Sao Paulo: Edi9des Paulinas, 1989). Matera, F., Galatians (SP, 9; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992). Mathys, H.-P., Dichter und Beter: Theologen aus spdtalttestamentlicher Zeit (OBO, 132; Freiberg: Universitatsverlag, 1994). Matlock, R. B., 'Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn's New Theology of Paul', JSNT 72 (1998): 67-90. Mayer, G., 'Die herrscherliche Titulatur Gottes bei Philo von Alexandrien', in D. A. Koch and H. Lichtenberger, (eds), Begegnungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter:

214

Bibliography

Festschrift fur Heinz Schreckenberg (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), pp. 293-302. Mays, J. L . , ' "In a Vision": The Portrayal of the Messiah in the Psalms'. Ex Auditu 1 (1991): 1-8. The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook of the Psalms (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995). Mazzanti, A. M., 'L'aggettivo MEQORIOS e la doppia creazione dell'uomo in Filone di Alessandria', in U. Bianchi, (ed.) La 'doppia creazione' dell'uomo negli Alessandrini, nei Cappadoci e nella Gnosi (Rome: Edizioni dell' Anteneo & Bizzarri, 1978), pp. 25-42. McCann, J. C , 'Preface', in J. C. McCann, (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter (JSOTSup, 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 1-10. 'Books I—III and the Editorial Purpose of the Hebrew Psalter', in J. C. McCann, (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter (JSOTSup, 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 93107. McCarter, P. K., Jr., / / Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB, 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984). McDonnell, K., 'Jesus' Baptism in the Jordan', TS 56 (1995): 209-36. Meeks, W. A., The Moral World of the First Christians (Library of Early Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986). Menken, M. J. J., Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form (Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996). Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975). Michaels, J. R., John (NIBC 4; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989). 1 Peter (WBC, 49; Dallas: Word Books, 1988). Miller, P. D., Interpreting the Psalms (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986). Misset van de Weg, M., 'The Sarah Imagery in I Peter', in L.V. Rutgers et al (eds), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World (CBET, 22; Leuven: Peeters, 1998), pp. 111-26. Mittmann-Richert, U., Magnifikat und Benediktus: Die dltesten Zeugnisse der judenchristlichen Tradition von der Geburt des Messias (WUNT, 2/ 90; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). Mlakuzhyil, G., The Concentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel (Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1987). Moloney, F. J., The Gospel of John (SP, 4; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998). Mounce, R. H., The Book of Revelation (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rev. edn, 1998). Mowinckel, S., He That Cometh (Oxford: Blackwell, 1959). Moyise, S., 'The Psalms in the Book of Revelation', in S. Moyise and M.

Bibliography

215

J. J. Menken (eds), The Psalms in the New Testament (London: T & T Clark, 2004), pp. 231^46. Muilenburg, J., 'A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh', in W. C. van Unnik and A. S. van der Woude (eds), Studia Biblica et Semitica (Festschrift T. C. Wriezen, Wageningen: H. Veenman, 1966), pp. 223-51. Munnich, O., Texte massoretique et Septante dans le livre de Daniel\ in Adrian Schenker, (ed.), The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SBL SCS, 52; Atlanta: SBL, 2003), pp. 9 3 120. Murray, R., 'Some Rhetorical Patterns in Early Syriac Literature', in R. H. Fischer (ed.), A Tribute to Arthur Voobus (Chicago: The Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1977), pp. 109-31. Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (London and New York: T & T Clark International, 2nd edn, 2004). MuBner, F., Der Galaterbrief(HTKNT, 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974). Nash, S. B., 'Kingship and the Psalms in the Fourth Gospel', (PhD diss.: Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000). Newman, B. M., and E. A. Nida, A Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles (UBS Handbook Series: Helps for Translators; New York: United Bible Societies, 1972). Niehoff, M. R., 'Mother and Maiden, Sister and Spouse: Sarah in Philonic Midrash', HTR 97 (2004): 4 1 3 ^ 4 . Nolland, J., Luke 1-9.20 (WBC, 35A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989). Notley, R. S., 'The Eschatological Thinking of the Dead Sea Sect and the Order of Blessing in the Christian Eucharist', in R. S. Notley, M. Turnage and B. Becker (eds), Jesus' Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 128-35. 'Jesus as a Teacher of the Law' (public paper delivered at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, September 2000). 'The Kingdom of Heaven Forcefully Advances', in Craig A. Evans (ed.), Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2000), pp. 279-311. O'Connor, K. M., 'Abraham's Unholy Family: Mirror, Witness, Summons', Journal for Preachers 21/1 (1997): 26-34. O'Connor, M., Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997). O'Neill, J. C , ' "For This Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia" (Galatians 4.25)', in Steve Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North (JSNTSup, 189; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 210-19. Oepke, A., Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 3rd edn, 1973).

216

Bibliography

Oeyen, C , Eine fruhchristliche Engelpneumatologie bei Klemens von Alexandrien (Erweiterter Separatdruck aus der Internationalen Kirchlichen Zeitschrift: Bern, 1966). 'Die Lehre von den gottlichen Kraften bei Justin', St.Patr. 11 (1972): 214-21. Ortiz de Urbina, 'Die Gottheit Christi bei Aphrahat', OCP 31 (1933): 1140. Osborne, G. R., Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002). Osiek, C , 'Galatians', in C. A. Newsom and S. H. Ringe (eds), Women's Bible Commentary (Louisville: WJKP, exp. edn. 1998), pp. 423-7. Osten-Sacken, P. von der, Gott und Belial (Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran; SUNT 6; Gottingen 1969). Parisot, J. (ed), Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrations (PS I; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1894). Parunak, H. V. D., 'Some Discourse Functions of Prophetic Formulas in Jeremiah', in R. D. Bergen (ed.), Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), pp. 489-519. Parusev, Parus, Ovidiu Creanga and Brian Brock, Ethical Thinking at the Crossroads of European Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third Annual Theological Symposium (Prague: IBTS publishing, 2007). Patrick, D., and A. Scult, Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990). Pearson, B. A., The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians: A Study in the Theology of the Corinthians Opponents of Paul and its Relation to Gnosticism (SBLDS, 12; Missoula: SBL, 1973). Perriman, A., 'The Corporate Christ: Re-assessing the Jewish Background', TynBul 50/2 (1999): 241^63. Petersen, W. L,. 'The Christology of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage: An Excursus on the 17th Demonstration', VC 46 (1992): 241-56. Philonenko, M., 'Philon d'Alexandrie et l'instruction sur les deux esprits', in A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel and J. Riaud (eds), Hellenica et Judaica: homage a Valentin Nikiprowetzky (Leuven and Paris: Editions Peeters, 1986), pp. 61-8. Pierre, M.-J., 'Introduction', Aphraate Le Sage Person (trans. Pierre, M.J.; Les Exposes; vol. 1; SC, 349; Paris: Cerf, 1988). Polhill, J. B., Acts (The New American Commentary, 26; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992). Porter, S. E., 'Scripture Justifies Mission: The Use of the Old Testament in Luke-Acts', in S. E. Porter (ed.), Hearing the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 104-26. Prigent, P., Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John (trans. W. Pradels; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001).

Bibliography

217

Justin et VAncien Testament: L'argumentation scripturaire du traite de Justin contre toutes les heresies comme source principale du Dialogue avec Tryphon et de la premiere Apologie (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1964). Propp, W. H., Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1999). Puech, E., 'Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521)', RevQ 60 (1992): 475522. Punt, J., 'The Female as Weaker Vessel in the Household Code of 1 Peter 3.7', South African Baptist Journal of Theology 13 (2004): 46-56. 'Revealing Rereading. Part 1: Pauline Allegory in Gal 4.21-5.1', Neot 40 (2006): 87-100. 'Revealing Rereading. Part 2: Paul and the Wives of the Father of Faith in Galatians 4.21-5.1', Neot 40 (2006): 101-18. Quispel, G., 'Genius and Spirit', in M. Krause (ed.), Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Pahor Lahib (Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 155-69. Rainey, A. F. and R. S. Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Cartas Atlas of the Biblical World. (Jerusalem: Carta Publishing, 2006). Raitt, T., 'Why Does God Forgive?' HBT 13 (1991): 38-45. Ramsay, W. M., The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia and Their Place in the Plan of the Apocalypse (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1904). Reiling, J. and J. C. Swellengrebel, A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Luke (London: UBS, 1971). Revell, E. J., 'The Repetition of Introductions to Speech as a Feature of Biblical Hebrew', VT Al (1997): 91-110. Richard, E. J., 'Honorable Conduct Among the Gentiles - a Study of the Social Thought of 1 Peter', Word & World 24/4(2004): 412-20. Richardson, R. L., 'From "Subjection to Authority" to "Mutual Submission": The Ethic of Subordination in 1 Peter', Faith and Mission 4(1987): 70-80. Robinson, H. W., Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel (Biblical Series, 11; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964). Rodriguez-Ruiz, M., 'Estructura del Evangelio de San Juan desde el punto de vista cristologico y eclesiologico', EstBib (1998): 75-96. Rogerson, J. W., 'Anthropology and the Old Testament', in Ronald E. Clements (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 17-37. Roloff, J., The Revelation of John: A Continental Commentary (trans. J. E. Alsup; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). Ruis-Camps, J., and J. Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison With the Alexandrian Tradition (LNTS; London: T & T Clark, 2004).

218

Bibliography

Runge, S. E., A Discourse-Functional Description of Participant Reference in Biblical Hebrew Narrative' (PhD diss.: University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2007). 'Relative Saliency and Information Structure in Mark's Account of the Parable of the Sower' (paper presented in the 'New Testament Greek and Linguistics' Section of the SBL Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, 19-22 November 2005). Runia, D. T., On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses (Atlanta: SBL; Leiden: Brill, 2001). Rusam, Dietrich, Das Alte Testament bei Lukas (BZNW, 112; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). Saenz-Badillos, A., A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J. Elwold; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Safrai, S., 'Naming John the Baptist', Jerusalem Perspective 20 (May 1989): 1-2. 'Synagogue', in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds), The Jewish People in the First Century (CRINT, 2; Assen and Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976), pp. 908^14. 'Synagogue and Sabbath', Jerusalem Perspective 23 (Nov.-Dec. 1989): 8-10. Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983). Schafer, P., Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur (Munich: Kosel, 1972). Schaper, J., Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT, 76; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995). Schlier, H., Der Brief an die Galater (KEKNT, 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 14th edn, 1971). Schlutz, K., Isaias 11.2 (Die sieben Gaben des Heiligen Geistes) in den ersten vier christlichen Jahrhunderten (Minister: Aschendorff, 1932). Schneider, T. J., Sarah. Mother of Nations (New York and London: Continuum, 2004). Schniedewind, W. M., Society and the Promise to David; The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7.1-17 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). Schreiner, T. R., The Law and Its Fulfilment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993). ' "Works of Law" in Paul', NovT 33 (1991): 214-44. Scroggs, R., The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966). Segal, M. H., A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927). 'Mishnaic Hebrew and Its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic', JQR 20 (1908): 647-737.

Bibliography

219

Shepherd, G. T., 'Theology and the Book of Psalms', Int 46 (1992): 140-9. Siegert, F., Drei hellenistisch-judische Predigten: Ps.-Philon, 'Uber Jona,' 'UberJona' und 'liber Simson (WUNT, 61; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992). et al. (eds and trans.), Pseudo-Philon: Predications synagogales (SC, 345; Paris: Cerf, 1999). Skinner, J. A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2nd edn, 1930). Slaughter, J. R., 'Sarah as a Model for Christian Wives (1 Pet. 3.5-6)', BS 153 (1996): 357-65. 'Submission of Wives (1 Peter 3.1a) in the Context of 1 Peter', BS 153 (1996): 63-74. Sly, D. I., '1 Peter 3.6b in the Light of Philo and Josephus', JBL 110 (1991): 126-9. Smalley, S. S., The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (London: SPCK, 2005). Smith, Ralph, Micah-Malachi (WBC, 32; Waco: Word Books, 1984). Snowman, L. V., 'Circumcision', EJ 5.571. Soards, M. L., 'The Life and Writings of Paul', in M. A. Powell (ed.), The New Testament Today (Louisville: WJK, 1999), pp. 86-99. 'The Psalter in the Text and Thought of the Fourth Gospel', in R. B. Sloan and M. C. Parson (eds), Perspectives on John: Method and Interpretation in the Fourth Gospel (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1993), pp. 251-61. Sparks, H. F. D., 'The Semitisms of St. Luke's Gospel', JTS 44 (1943): 129-38. Spencer, A. B., 'Peter's Pedagogical Method in 1 Peter 3.6', BBR 10 (2000): 107-19. Sperber, A., The Bible in Aramaic (4 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1962). Sprinkle, P., Law and Life: The Use of Leviticus 18.5 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation (WUNT; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2008). Staley, J., 'The Structure of John's Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel's Narrative Structure', CBQ 48 (1986): 241-64. Stanley, C. D., Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (London: T & T Clark, 2004). Paul and Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS, 69; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Stanton, G., 'The Spirit in the Writings of Justin Martyr', in G. N. Stanton, B. W. Longenecker, and S. C. Barton, (eds), The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 321-34. Steinhauser, M. G., 'Gal 4,25a: Evidence of Targumic Tradition in Gal 4,21-31', Bib 70 (1989): 234-40.

Bibliography

220

Stenning, J. F., The Targum of Isaiah (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953). Sterling, G. E., 'Wisdom among the Perfect: Creation Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian Christianity', NovT 37 (1995): 364-76. Sternberg, M., The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985). Steudel, A., Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschat ) : Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 ('Florilegium') und 4Q177 ('Catena A') reprasentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden (STDJ, 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994). 'Melchizedek', in L. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Stewart, C , Working the Earth of the Heart': The Messalian Controversy in History, Texts, and Language to AD 431 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991). Strack, H. L. and G. Stemberger, Talmud and Midrash (trans. M. Bockmuehl; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992). Strugnell, J., and D. J. Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2. 4QInstruction (Musar le Mebin): 4Q415ff; With a Reedition oflQ26 (DJD, 34; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999). Stuckenbruck, L., Angel Veneration and Christology (WUNT, 70; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). Swanson, R. J., New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus (Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, England, 1998). Swete, H. B., The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, vol. 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912). Talbert, C , Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1982). Tamez, E., 'Hagar and Sarah in Galatians: A Case Study in Freedom', Word& World 20/3 (2000): 265-71. Taylor, V., The Gospel According to Mark (London: Macmillan & Co., 1957). Thordarson, T. F., 'The Form-Historical Problem of Ex. 34.6-7' (PhD diss.: Chicago Divinity School, 1959). Tigchelaar, E. J. C , To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (STDJ, 44; Leiden: Brill, 2001). Tobin, T., The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation (CBQMS, 14; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association, 1983). Tov, E., 'The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in Light of the Septuagint', ab

Bibliography

221

in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 333-62. Trible, P., 'Ominous Beginnings for a Promise of Blessing', in Phyllis Trible and Letty M. Russell (eds), Hagar, Sarah, and Their Children: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives (Louisville: WJKP, 2006), pp. 33-69. Texts of Terror. Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (OBT, 13; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). Tsafrir, Y. and L. DiSegni and J. Green, Tabula Imperii Romani: IUDAEA-PALESTINA: Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994). Turner, N., A Grammar of New Testament Greek (4 vols; ed. J. H. Moulton; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1976). Tyson, J. B., Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1992). Umemoto, N., 'Die Konigsherrschaft Gottes bei Philon', in M. Hengel and A. M. Schwermer (eds), Konigsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und der hellenistischen Welt (WUNT, 55; Tubingen Mohr Siebeck 1991), pp. 207-6. VanderKam, J. C , The Book of Jubilees (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). Van der Kooij, A., 'The Story of David and Goliath: The Early History of its Text', ETL 68 (1992): 118-31. Van der Merwe, C. H. J., et al., A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (electronic edn; Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997). Van Rensburg, F. J. J., 'Sarah's Submissiveness to Abraham: A SocioHistorical Interpretation of the Exhortation to Wives in 1 Peter 3.5-6 to take Sarah as Example of Submissiveness', Hervormde Teologiese Studies 60 (2004): 249-60. Verhey, A., The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984). Von der Osten-Sacken, P., Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in der Texten aus Qumran (SUNT, 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969). Von Rad, G., Genesis: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: WJKP, rev. edn, 1973). Voobus, A., 'Methodologisches zum Studium der Anweisungen Aphrahats', OrChr 46 (1962): 25-32. Wacholder, B. Z., 'Chronomessiansim: The Timing of Messianic Movements and the Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles', HJJCA 46 (1975): 201-18. Wakefield, A. H., Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul's

222

Bibliography

Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3.1-14 (SBLDS, 14; Atlanta: SBL, 2004). Waltke, B. K., 'A Canonical Process Approach to the Psalms', in John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg (eds), Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), pp. 3-18. 'Superscripts, Postscripts, or Both', JBL 110 (1991): 583-96. Walton, J. H., 'The Psalms: A Cantata about the Davidic Covenant', JETS 34 (1991): 21-31. Wan, S.-K., 'Allegorical Interpretation East and West: A Methodological Enquiry into Comparative Hermeneutics', in D. Smith-Christopher, (ed.), Text and Experience. Towards a Cultural Exegesis of the Bible (The Biblical Seminar 35; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 154-79. Watson, F., Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T & T Clark, 2004). Watson, W. G. E., Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (London: T & T Clark, 2001). Watts, J. W., 'Biblical Psalms Outside the Psalter', in Peter W. Flint et al. (eds), Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (VTSup, 99; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 288-309. Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative (JSOTSup, 139; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). ' "This Song": Conspicuous Poetry in Hebrew Prose,' in Johannes de Moot (ed.), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (AOAT, 42; Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1993), pp. 345-58. Weiss, H. F., Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des hellenistischen und paldstinischen Judentums (TU, 97; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966). Weitzman, S., Song and Story in Biblical Narrative: The History of a Literary Convention in Ancient Israel (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997). Wenham, G. J.; Genesis 16-50 (WBC, 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994). Wernberg-Moller, P., The Manual of Discipline: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction (STDJ, 1; Leiden: Brill, 1957). Wesselius, J. W., 'Alternation of Divine Names as a Literary Device in Genesis and Exodus', in H. M. Niemann and M. Augustin (eds), Stimulation from Leiden: Collected Communications to the XVIIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden 2004 (Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 2006), pp. 3543. 'Discontinuity, Congruence, and the Making of the Hebrew Bible', SJOT 13 (1999): 24-77. 'From Stumbling Blocks to Cornerstones: The Function of Problematic Episodes in the Primary History and in Ezra-

Bibliography

223

Nehemiah', in Riemer Roukema et al. (eds), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornells Houtman (Riemer Roukema a. o., eds.; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), pp. 37-63. God's Election and Rejection: The Literary Strategy of the Historical Books at the Beginning of the Bible (forthcoming). 'The Literary Nature of the Book of Daniel and the Linguistic Character of its Aramaic', Aramaic Studies 3 (2005): 241-83, 259-60. The Origin of the History of Israel: Herodotus' Histories as Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible (JSOTSup, 345; London: Sheffield Academic Press and Continuum, 2002). 'The Origin of the Oldest Greek Version of Daniel' (forthcoming). Wilken, R. L., 'The Interpretation of the Baptism of Jesus in the Later Fathers', St.Patr. 11 (1972): 268-277. Willitts, J., 'Context Matters: Paul's Use of Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12', in TynBul 54 (2003): 105-22. Wilson, G. H., 'The Shape of the Book of Psalms', Int 46 (1992): 129-42. Winkler, G., 'A Remarkable Shift in Fourth-Century Creeds: An Analysis of the Armenian, Syriac, and Greek Evidence', St.Patr. 17 (1982): 1396-1401. 'Ein bedeutsamer Zusammenhang zwischen der Erkenntnis und Ruhe in Mt 11, 27-29 und dem Ruhen des Geistes auf Jesus am Jordan: Eine Analyse zur Geist-Christologie in Syrischen und Armenischen Quellen', Mus 96 (1983): 267-326. Wintermute, O. S., 'Jubilees', in James H. Charlesworth (ed.) The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1985), pp. 5-142. Witetschek, S., 'Der Lieblingspsalm des Sehers: die Verwendung von Ps 2 in der Johannesapokalypse', in M. A. Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism (BETL, 195; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006), pp. 487-502. Witherington III, B., Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Wold, B. G., Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran Wisdom Document 'Musar leMevin' and its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions (WUNT, 2/201; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). Wolfson, H. A., Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (2 vols; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947). Woude, A. S. van der, 'Fifty Years of Qumran Research', in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 1-45. Wright, G. E., God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital (London: SCM Press, 1952).

224

Bibliography

Wright, N. T., The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). Yadin, Y., 'A Midrash on 2 Sam. vii and Ps. i-ii (4Q Florilegium)', IEJ 9 (1959): 95-8. Yee, G. A., 'Sarah (person)', ABD 5: 981-2. Ziegler, J., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis editum, vol. 13 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984).

INDEX OF REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1 7 1-3 114 1.1 85, 98, 100 1.1-5 44 1.1-2.3 10 1.27 118, 120, 121, 124 (LXX), 125 2 32 2-3 32, 118 2.4 10,11 2.4-7 10 2.7 118, 120, 124, 125 2.9 10 2.19 10 2.21-22 10 3 10 3.6 140 4.17-22 11 5.1-2 10 5.3-27 11 10.1 31 11.27-32 10 11.31 11 12.1-5 10 12 11 12.1 10 12.5 11 12.6 10 14 158 14.20 143 14.22 143 14.23 144 14.24 144 15.7 10 16 11, 150 16.1 139 16.1-2 140 16.4b-14 143

16.7-13 141 16.11 144 16.2 170 16.3 140 16.4 140 16.5 140 16.6 140 17 11,133 17.2 144 17.6-7 144 17.8-14 144 18 11 18.12 164, 165, 168 18.15 171 20 11 21 11 21.8-21 141 21.9 144, 151 21.9-11 145 21.10 172 21.12 170, 142 22.1-19 171 24 11 24.4-5 11 25.1 160 25.1-4 159 26 11 26.8 141 26.34 11 27.1-46 10 27.46- 10 27.9 11 27.43 11 27.44 10 27.45 11 28.2 11 28.6 10 28.7 10 28.9 11 28.10 10 29 11

29.20 10 32 10, 11 35 11 36 10 36.2-3 11 37.21-22 10 37.26-27 10 37.29-30 10 37-50 15 37.10 11 37.21 11 37.28 10 37.35 11 38 10, 11 39.14 141 40.15 10 42 11 42.13 10 42.22 10 43 11 45.4 10 46.9 11 46.12 11 46.27 65 49.10 183 Exodus 1.7 65 1.8 66 1.8-14 64 1.15-21 13 1.16 13 1.22 13 1.52 71 1.53 71 1.54 71 2 11,14 2.1 13, 16 2.23 66, 71 2.23-25 64 3.13-15 11

226


4.22 186 6.2 11 6.16-19 14 6.20 16 10.1-2 67 12.23 38,39,41,42 13.8 67 13.21-22 69 14 64 14.9-12 66 14.11 66 14.30-31 64, 65 15 63, 64, 69, 73 15.1-2 65 15.1-12 65 15.1-18 62, 63 15.3 71 15.3-10 65 15.7 71 15.14-16 65 15.16 71 15.17 69 15.17-18 65 15.21 64 15.22 64 19.3-6 69 19.6 168 20 77 20.4 77 20.5 78 20.6 79 20.11 11 23.20 52 32 77 32.6 142 33-34 77 34.6 78,81 34.6-7 76-79, 81-83 34.34-35 69 Leviticus 18.5 126, 128, 130. 131, 133, 134, 136, 137 19.2 168 19.18 52 19.34 52 25.9 55 26.14-39 136 26.40-45 136 Numbers 11.17 190,199 14.18-19 77 16 14

24.17 177, 185 26.58-59 14, 16 30.2 50 Deuteronomy 5.1 50 5.2-3 67 5.9 78 5.9-10 77 5.10 79 6.5 52 12.9-10 182 18.15-18 52 31.19 57 32 63 32.1-43 63 32.11 69 33 179 Joshua 1.13 182 21.42 182 22.4 182 23.1 182 Judges 5 63 16.25 142 18 14 18.30 14 20.28 14 1 Samuel 2 63 2.1-10 13, 63 2.11 13 2.12-17 13 2.18 13 2.19-21 13 2.21 13 2.22-25 13 2.26 13 2.27-36 13 3.1 13 3.2-18 13 3.11-14 13 3.12 13 3.19 13 4 13 9.1-10.16 13 9.2 13 9.21 13 10.10-13 14 10.17-27 13

10.21 13 10.23 13 11 13 13 13 13.1 14 13.2 13 15 13 16-17 7 16 5, 16.4 19 16.4-5 12 16.6-9 19 16.10 19 16.11 12, 19 16.12 12, 23 17 5 17.12 12, 13 17.15 12, 13, 19 17.12-31 6 17.31-39 6, 13 17.41 6 17.50 6 17.55-58 6, 13 18 13 18.10-11 16 19.10 16 19.23-24 14 21.9 13 2 Samuel 7 179 7.1-17 182 7.10-11 182-185 7.10-14 182, 186 7.14 95-97, 182, 186 16.14-23 199 21.8 14 21.19 14 22 63 23.3 105 1 Kings 5.18 182 8.56 182 9.4 182 17.8-16 58 2 Kings 5.1-27 58 20.6 182 1 Chronicles 16 63 16.8-36 63

227

Index of References Ezra 4-6 15 Nehemiah 9.9-10 68 9.17 77 Job 30.1 141 40.20 142 Psalms 1 91, 179 2 86, 89, 91, 179 2.1-2 175, 179, 182186 2.6-7 96 2.8-9 176, 178, 185, 186 2.12 89, 101, 180 2.2 89, 98, 180 2.3 89 2.5 101 2.6 89,98 2.6 182 2.7 53, 92, 95-100, 185, 186 2.8 101, 177 2.9 176, 177, 187 5 179 8.7 168 21 168 22.22 65 33 168 35.10 65 35.18 65 38.9 135 43.4 65 66.6 68 67 198 67.19 196, 197 69.9 94, 100, 102 69.30 65 71.16 65 71.19 65 77 67,69 78.13 68 85.5 77,78 85.15 78 87 167 89.23 179 89.26-27 97 102.8 77 102.17 79 104.26 142

109.30 65 110.1 168 110.1-3 53 110.3 53 113.5 65 114 69 117 168 119.7 65 135.8 68 136 69 144.8 77 146.2 65 146.7 55 146.8 55 Proverbs 1-9 44 3.25 173 3.34 168 10.12 168 11.31 168 30.23 140 Isaiah 8.12-13 168 8.14 168 11.1 177, 185 11.1-3 194-196 11.2 168,190,191,197, 198 11.2-3 188, 189, 198, 199 25.1 65 26.19 55 28.16 168 29.1 55 35.5 55 37.35 182 38.9-20 63 40.1 105 40.3 100 40.6-8 168 41.14 105 42.7 55 42.18 55 43.20-21 168 43.21 168 44.6 105 49.20-23 167 51.2 158 53.4-12 168 54.1-3 166 54.1-13 167 56.7 52

58.1-9 53 58.3 56 58.5 53 58.5-6 53, 57 58.5-7 56 58.5-8 56 58.5-9 56 58.6 51, 53, 56 61.1 51, 55 61.1-2 50, 51, 53, 55-57 61.1-4 53 61.2 53, 54, 56 Jeremiah 6.15 168 7.11 52 32.18 78 32.44 57 39.18 77 Ezekiel 20.11 136 20.13 136 20.21 136 Daniel 2-6 14 2.20-23 63 7.13 186 Hosea 1.9-2 168 2.13 168 3.20 168 3.22 168 Joel 2.13 77 2.27 105 2.29 107, 108 2.28-32 103 2.30 111 3.1 108, 196-198 3.2 197 Jonah 2.3-10 63 4.2 77 Nahum 1.2 77 Habakkuk 1.4 135

228


1.5 135 1.10 141 2.4 128, 130, 131, 134137 2.2-5 135, 136 3.2-19 135 Zechariah 3.9 188, 189, 191, 194, 195, 199 4.10 188, 189, 194, 195 8.5 142 Malachi 3.1 52, 70 3.1-3 54 3.24 70 4.5-6 52

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 3.10 54 3.16-17 186 3.17 92, 96, 99, 102 4.4 74 5.7 59 5.45 58 6.1 56 6.33 56 7.1-2 58 11.3 54 11.10 52 11.12 54 18.10 191-5, 199 21.9 61 21.13 52 22.34-46 52 23.31 57 Mark 1.11 92, 96, 99, 101, 102 1.4 55 11.17 52 11.9-10 61 12.28-34 52 14.27 74 Luke 1.1-4 49 1.13-17 60 1.17 70

1.30-33 60 1.32-33 70 1.39-56 70 1.42 60,70 1.45 70 1.46 60 1.46-47 71 1.46-49 79 1.46-55 79 1.48 71 1.49 71 1.49-50 80 1.50 79,81 1.51 71 1.52 71 1.54 79-81 1.58 79-81 1.63 46 1.68-79 61, 71 1.72 79-81 1.78 79,81 2.14 61 2.21 46 2.29-32 61 3.3 55 3.9 54 3.22 92, 96, 99, 102 4.16 47 4.16-30 47 4.17 49 4.18 51 4.21 56 4.21-22 50 4.22 50 4.23-27 56 4.25-26 58 4.27 58 6.36 58 7.30 83 10.25-37 74, 81 10.25-40 52 10.27 83 10.29-37 52 10.37 76 10.38-42 83 11.46 83 11.52 83 16.16 54 19.38 61 19.46 52, 74 22.69-70 53 24.44 73

John 1.1-18 93 1.12-13 93 1.19-34 94 1.19-51 93 1.19-4.54 86 1.19-4.54 93 1.20 94 1.27 97 1.29-30 97 1.29-34 96 1.31 195 1.32 196 1.34 95,97 1.35-41 94 1.38 97 1.41 92, 98 1.42-51 94 1.45 85, 98, 99 1.49 92, 95, 98, 99, 101 2.1-11 94 2.11 94 2.13 100 2.13-25 94 2.13-25 100 2.17 95, 100, 102 3.1-3 94 3.6-7 94 3.10-12 94 3.13-21 94 3.16-18 101 3.22-30 94 3.31-3.36 94 3.34 198 3.35 101 3.35-36 92, 100, 101 3.36 101 3.4 94 3.5 94 3.8 94 3.9 94 4.1-25 94 4.26 94 4.26-54 94 4.54 94 6.45 74 7.41-43 96 8.39 158 12.13 61 18.33-34 96 19.21 86 20.30-31 94, 99, 100 20.31 85, 93

Index of References 2.17 104-8, 109, 113, 197 2.17-20 112 2.17-21 103 2.18 104, 107, 108, 109, 197 2.19 111,112 2.20 104, 111 2.25-31 87 4.25-28 87, 92, 99 4.25-31 102 7.2-53 158 10.35 56 13.14-15 47 13.33 89, 99, 102 13.33-35 186 16.25 73 Romans 1.3^ 191 3.20 133 4 157 4.19 158 7.7-13 128 8 121 8.3-4 128 9.7 158 10.5 133 11.33 122 1 Corinthians 2.7 122 2.12 121 2.13-15 123 3.1 123 4.1 122 12 197 12.8 122 15 123 15.1 132 15.32 75 15.44-49 123 15.45 124 15.45-49 123 15.47 124 15.49 124 2 Corinthians 1.12 122 1.22 194, 199 5.5 194, 199 9.9 56

Galatians 1.11-12 131 1.12 132 1.13-2 131 2.2 132 2.16 133 2.19-21 132 2.20-21 134 2.21 129 3.1 172 3.1-5 132 3.2-5 133 3.5 134 3.6 75 3.6-29 161 3.7 150 3.10-12 133 3.10-14 126 3.11 135 3.11-12 126 3.11-12 131, 132, 134 3.12 126, 129, 133 3.19-22 128, 129 3.19-25 128, 129 3.21 128, 134 3.22 128 3.23-25 130 3.28 173 4 156 4.3 151, 172 4.9 132 4.21-31 138, 139, 149, 150, 153, 154 4.21-5.1 158, 160 4.24 167 4.26 167 4.27 162 4.29 151, 161 5 121 5.12 172 5.15 172 5.17 133 6.12-13 133 Ephesians 1.14 194, 199 4.8 196, 197 Philippians 3.11-12 132 Colossians 1.16 194

229 1 Timothy 4.1 104 2 Timothy 3.1 104 Hebrews 1.5 92, 99, 102, 186 5.5 92, 186 11 157 11.11 158, 160, 162 James 2 157 1 Peter 1.1 168 1.10-12 168 1.14 168 1.18 168 1.21 168 1.22 168 2.1 168 2.12-13 173 2.17 171 2.18-25 170 2.21-25 168 2.22-25 168 2.3 168 2.7-8 168 2.9 168 3 156 3.10-12 168 3.1-6 164, 170 3.14-15 168 3.14-16 170 3.15 164 3.5 168 3.6 158, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173 3.7 162, 166, 171. 173 4.14 168 4.18 168 4.3-4 173 4.3-5 168 4.6 168 4.8 168 5.5 168 5.8 168 1 John 4.1-6 28

230


Revelation 2.14 177, 186 2.18-29 176, 184 2.26 102 2.26-27 178, 185-7 2.27 177 3.21 177 4.8 61 5.6 194 12.1 175 12.5 175, 186 14.1 175 19.15 186 20.4 177 21.7 186 22.16 177, 185 APOCRYPHA Judith 16 64 16.1-17

62

1 Maccabees 2.7-13 62 Tobit 2.14 56 3.11-15 62 4.7 56 8.5-7 62 8.15-17 62 11.14-15 62 13 64 13.1-17 62 OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDEPI GRAPHA

17.1-14

146

Odes of Solomon 29.6-8 186 Psalms of Solomon 17.23-24 178 17.24-25 186 Testament of Levi 17.1-18.2 55 TARGUMS Neofiti Gen 16.5 148 Pseudo-Jonathan Gen 16.1 148 D E A D SEA SCROLLS 1Q27 l i 3 - 4 115 4Q157 50 lQapGen: Genesis Apocryphon col. XX 145 1QH: Hodayot 5.19-20 117 lQpHab: Pesher to Habakkuk 7.11 134 7.14-8.3 134 12.4-5 134

111,15-17 31, 40, 41 111,15-18 30 111,17-18 31 111,17-19 41 111,18-19 32 111,18 IV, 1 30 111,20 32 111,20-21 33, 40, 41 111,21 32,41 111,21-23 33 111,21-24 40 111,23 44 111,24 30,41 III, 24-IV, 1 33, 41, 42 IV, 1 35 IV, 11 33 IV, 12 36 IV,14 35 IV, 15 40 IV, 15-16 43 IV, 15-18 33, 40, 41 IV, 15-23 30, 34, 42 IV, 15-26 42 IV, 18-26 33 IV, 19-22 40 IV,2 32,42 IV,2-6 32 IV,2-8 30 IV,2-14 30 IV,21 35 IV,22 40 IV,23 32 IV,23-26 30,34,40,42 IV,9-11 32 IV,9-14 30, 42 lQS : Rule of the Congregation 1.6-7 116 2.11-12 186 4Q174: Florilegium 4Q174 178-80, 183, 184, 186 III, 1-13 182 III, 7 - 8 183 111,11-13 181 111,18-19 185 111,18-21 186 111,19 184 4Q175: Testimonia 9-13 1.5-8 177 52 a

Biblical Antiquities 8.1-3 145 1 Enoch 53.3 36 56.1 36 62.11 36 63.1 36 Jubilees 1.29-2.1 143 14.21-24 143

1QS: Community Rule 3.15 115 3.18 117 9.21-24 56 11.3-4 115 11,19 37 111,13-15 30,41 III,13-IV,14 34 111,13-1 V,26 30 111,13 IV,26 28 III, 14-45 31 111,15 31, 35

Index of References 4Q176: Tanhumim frag.l 2.4 49 4Q181 35 4Q252 182, 186 V,l-4 183 V,3 181 4Q254 145 4Q265 frag. 1,3 49 4Q365 144-5 4Q416 1 116 116 117 Frg 2 col 1,1-6 44 4Q417 1,1,13—18 116 1,1,13-18 119 1.1.16 117 1.1.17 118 l,ii,12 117 frg 2 col 3, 14 44 4Q418 434 115 69 ii 116 69,ii,13 117 81 117 81,1-2 119 81,4-5 115 4Q423

14.6-8 116 1,4-11 181 11,11-13 35 11,13 35, 36 11,14-16 36 11,3 35 11,3-8 35 11,3-20 35 11,6 36 11,6-7 35 11,8 35 IV,12-18 184 V,ll 36 V,17-19 36 VII,4 36

4Q521 frag. 2 ii, 4.1-12 55 4QMysteries frg. 3a ii 44 11Q10 50 11Q13 55 2.13 54 Damascus Document 10.6 116

Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 63-85 29 Legum allegoriae I 1.1 29 1.31 120 De mutatione nominum 255-256 147 De opificio mundi 16-36 29 134 120, 121 135 120 De plantatione 46 38

JOSEPHUS AND PHILO Josephus Antiquities 1.10.4 152 1.186-193 146 4.209 47 War 5.379 166 Philo De Abrahamo 121 38 De cherubim 3 147 6 147 8 147

118, 119

4Q504 68

231

De confusione linguarum 161 38 182 38 De congressu eruditionis gratia 11 147 20 147 71 147 88 147 121-122 147 23-24 147 Quod Deus sit immutabilis 116 38

De posteritate Caini 130 147 Quod omnis probus liber 5/7 81-82 47 Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum 1.23 28, 29, 37, 38, 41, 42 12.23 28 De somniis 1.24 147 1.163 38 EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 3 Corinthians 2.1 191, 198, 199 2.5 191 3.1 191 Epistle to Barnabas 18-20 28 Didache 2.2-6.1 28 Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate 10.1.3 192 10 7 1

107


232 10.2.5 192 10.41.5 192

Ta'anit 7 58

Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 8.2.5 193

Yoma 86 56 Avot of Rabbi Nathan 37 52

RABBINIC LITERATURE Mishna Abot 2.5 58

Genesis Rabbah 45.4 148 53.4 151

Megillah 4.2 47 4.4 50 Sotah 7.7-8

Exodus Rabbah 3.2 151

47

Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 34 54

Midrash on the Psalms 2.1 186 2.9 186 Pesiqta Rabbati 48.3 151 Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 30 148 30 151

Megillah 4.41 51 Sanhedrin 7.11 52 99 54 Shabbat 31 58 63 54 Sukkah 2.11 47

OTHER ANCIENT WRITINGS Aphrahat Demonstrations 1.9 188 1.19 190 4.13 193 6 198 6.1 190, 193, 194 6.12 190

6.13 190 6.14 190 6.14-15 191, 194 6.17 192 10.8 190 23 191 Clement of Alexandria Excerpts from Theodotus 10 195 Paedagogus 3.12.87 195 Stromata 5.6.35 195 Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 39.2 196 82.1 196 85 198 87 198 87.3 196 87.4 196 87.5 197 87.5-6 196 88.1 196 88.3 195 Laws of Hammurabi 146 140 Laws of Ur-Nammu 22-23 140 Papyrus 967

15

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Aageson, J. W. 138 Achtemeier, P. J. 164^5, 173-4 Alexander, P. S. 28, 30 Allen, L. C. 91 Alsup, J. E. 177 Amir, Y. 147 Anderson, F. 135-6 Asher, J. R. 123 Augustin, M. 8 Auld, A. G. 7 Aune, D. E. 28, 34, 177 Austin, J. L. 64 Avemarie, F. 127 Bachmann, M. 132 Bakhos, C. 148 Bakhtin, M. 75 Balch, D. L. 163-5, 173 Barclay, J. M. G. 131-3 Barker, P. G. 138 Barnes, M. R. 197 Barreto, J. 96 Barrett, C K. 76, 103-4, 108-9, 138, 149, 153, 161 Barthelemy, D. 6 Barton, S. C. 197 Batto, B. F. 64 Bauckham, R. 175 Baumstark, A. 192 Beale, G. K. 175, 177-8, 186 Becker, B. 55 Becker, S. 2 Beckwith, R. T. 86-7 Berg, W. 140 Bergen, R. D. 106 Bernstein, M. 28 Betz, H. D. 129-31, 152 Betz, O. 28 Bianchi, U. 27, 29 Bivin, D. 48 Bligh, J. 153

Bocher, O. 29 Bock, D. L. 79, 82 Bockmuehl, M. 49 Booser, K. D. 93 Borgen, P. 119-20, 147 Boring, M. E. 169 Borse, U. 127 Boyarin, D. 170 Brandenburger, E. 29 Braude, W. G. 186 Braun, H. 29 Brenner, A. 155-8 Brock, B. 60 Brock, S. 189, 192 Brooke, G. J. 179-80 Brown, J. K. 164, 170-3 Bruce, F. F. 95-6, 127, 129 Brueggemann, W. 77, 157 Bruns, P. 188, 190 Bryant, R. A. 127 Buckel, J. 161 Bucur, B. G. 4, 195, 198 Buth, R. 50 Callaway, M. C. 138 Cameron, A. 169 Caquot A. 29 Carroll, J. T. 138, 161 Carson, D. A. 75 Carter, W. 164 Castelli, E. A. 150-3 Charlesworth, J. H. 30 Chazon, E. 69 Childs, B. S. 69, 87, 90 Chilton, B. 61 Collins, J. J. 15, 32, 34-5, 43-4, 95, 116-20 Coloe, M. 93 Connolly, R. H. 199 Conzelmann, H. 47, 1 0 3 ^ , 109 Corley, K. E. 163, 166

234


Cosgrove, C. H. 128, 161 Craigie, P. C. 98 Cramer, W. 193 Creanga, O. 60 Crim, K. 86 Croft, S. J. L. 87 Cross, F. M., Jr. 67 Culpepper, R. A. 93

Forbes, G. 166-7, 173 Fowl, S. E. 160, 167-9 Fowler, A. 61 Fraade, S. D. 51 Frankovic, J. 52 Fredrikson, N. I. 192 Frey, J. 28, 30, 45, 121-2 Fung, R. Y. K. 127

Dahl, N. A. 38 Davies, P. R. 157 Davila, J. R. 192 Dawson, D. 167-8 de Boer, M. 95-6, 162 DeConick, A. D. 199 de Moot, J. 62 den Braber, M. 8 de Urbana, O. 188, 190 Dietrich, W. 7 Di Leila, A. A. 15 DiSegni, L. 46 Doeve, J. W. 51 Doner, J. P. 162 Dowd, S. 166, 169, 171 Duhaime, J. 34 Dunn, J. D. G. 121, 127, 130, 132, 159, 161, 168, 181 Durham, J. 87 Dvorak, J. G. 96

Gammie, J. G. 34, 44 Garcia Martinez F., 31-3, 69, 115, 118, 179 Gartner, B. 181 Gathercole, S. 132 Gaventa, B. R. 131-2 Geiger, A. 48 Geldenhuys, N. 83 Gignac, A. 134, 136 Gileadi, A. 182 Gillingham, S. E. 62 Giversen, S. 147 GleBmer, U. 50 Goff, M. J. 3, 114-16, 118 Golitzin, A. 192 Gomes, P. J. 98 Gora, T. 75 Green, J. 46 Green, J. B. 54, 61, 70, 80 Greenspahn, F. E. 147 Grindheim, S. 122 Grotius, H. 47 Gunkel, H. 71 Gunn, D. M. 157, 159

Eastman, S. G. 172 Eaton, J. W. 87, 99 Ebeling, G. 161 Eckstein, H. J. 127, 133 Elgvin, T. 114-15 Eliade, M. 27 Elliger, K. 104 Elliott, J. H. 162-4, 170-1 Ellis, E. E. 96, 138 Ellis, P. 93 Elwold, J. 48 Emerson, C. 75 Evans, C. A. 50, 52, 75, 87, 175, 178 Falk, D. K. 122 Farris, S. 70-1, 79-80 Feinberg, J. S. 87 Feinberg, P. D. 87 Fewell, D. N. 157, 159 Fischer, R. H. 188 Fitzmyer, J. A. 48, 50-1, 79-82, 108 Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T. 100 Flint, P. W. 15, 29-30, 44, 62 Flusser, D. 46, 52-5, 57-8

Haacker, K. 29 Haak, R. D. 135 Haas, C. 193 Ham, C. 101 Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. 119 Hamman, A. G. 30 Hanks, T. 162, 164-5, 172, 174 Harnack, A. 167 Harrington, D . J . 114-17 Hasel, G. 88 Hatch, E. 52 Hays, R. B. 2, 75, 126, 128, 133, 138, 149, 151 Heckert, J. K. 107 Hemer, C. J. 185 Hempel, C. 121 Hengel, M. 38, 87 Hepner, G. 166 Hofius, O. 132 Hogan, K. M. 119-20

Index of Authors Holladay, C. R. 29 Holquist, M. 75 Hoppin, R. 159 Homer, T. J. 197 Horsley, R. A. 29, 125 Hovhanessian, V. 191 Hultgren, S. 120-1, 123, 125 Huppenbauer, M. W. 28, 30-1, 33, 37, 43 Janzen, G. 135-6, 168 Jardine, A. 75 Jeremias, J. 57 Jervel, J. 120 Jewett, R. 121 Jobes, K. H. 161-2 Johnson, E. E. 161 Johnson, M. D. 135 Johnson, S. E. 95, 97 Kaiser, W. C , Jr. 74 Kaminsky, J. S. 181-2 Kamlah, E. 28 Kampen, J. I. 29, 44 Karrer, M. 178 Kiley, M. 165-6, 169-70, 173 Kim, S. 127 Kimball, C A. 74 Klein, G. 127 Knibb, M. A. 175 Kobelski, P. J. 55 Koch, D. A. 38 Koester, C. R. 97 Koester, H. 122 Kostenberger, A. J. 85, 97 Kraus, H.-J. 72, 86, 88, 90, 95-6 Kraus, W. 98 Kreitzer, L. J. 100 Kristeva, J. 75 Kugel, J. L. 60 Kuntz, J. K. 90 Kutscher, E. Y. 48 Lane, N. 2, 78 Lange, A. 28, 31, 35, 116, 118, 121 Leaney, A. R. C. 28, 30-1, 35-6 Lenski, R. C H. 103, 108 Leonhardt-Balzer, J. 1, 35, 38, 45 Leutzsch, M. 192 Levine, A. J. 159, 164 Levine, L. J. 51 Levinsohn, S. H. 108 Licht, J. 28, 30-1, 34 Lichtenberger, H. 34, 38, 121

235

Lieberman, S. 53 Lindars, B. 97 Lipscomb, W. L. 44 Litwak, K. D. 61, 75 Longenecker, B. W. 128-31, 133,197 Longenecker, R. N. 127, 129, 133 Longman, T., Ill 90 Loofs, F. 188, 191 Mack, B. L. 119 Madas-Lebel, M. 29 Malbon, E. S. 150 Marcus, J. 96 Marcus, R. 39 Marmonstein, A. 38 Marshall, I. H. 50, 103 Martin, D. 121, 124 Martin, J. P. 197 Martin, T. W. 165, 171 Martyn, J. L. 128-9, 131-3, 151, 161 Mateos, J. 96 Matera, F. 127 Mathys, H.-P. 62 Matlock, R. B. 130 Mayer, G. 38 Mays, J. L. 87-8, 91-2, 99 Mazzanti, A. M. 29 McCann, J. C. 90-1 McCarter, P. K , Jr. 183 McDonnell, K. 196 McKnight, E. V. 150 Meeks, W. A. 163 Mell, U. 132 Menken, M. J. J. 95, 175 Metzger, B. M. 103, 105 Michaels, J. R. 96, 101, 164, 168,171 Miller, P. D. 71, 91 Miller, T. 3 Mittmann-Richert, U. 70-2 Moloney, F. J. 96 Moulton, J. H. 48 Mounce, R. H. 177 Mowinckel, S. 71, 87-8, 90, 98 Moyise, S. 152, 175 Muilenburg, J. 69 Munnich, O. 15 Murray, R. 188, 194 MuBner, F. 127 Najman, H. 118 Nash, S. 2, 86, 99, 101 Newman, B. M. 108 Newman, J. H. 118 Newsom, C. A. 159, 166

236


Nida, E. A. 108 Niehoff, M. R. 157, 170 Niemann, H. M. 8 Nolland, J. 76 Notley, R. S. 2, 46, 51-5 O'Connor, K. M. 169 O'Connor, M. 106 Oepke, A. 129 Oeyen, C. 195, 198 O'Neill, J. C. 152 Osborne, G. R. 79, 177, 185 Osiek, C. 159, 170 Oswald, M. C. 72 Parisot, J. 188 Parry, D. W. 116 Parson, M. C. 98 Parunak, H. V. D. 106 Parushev, P. 60 Pastor, J. 127 Patrick, D. 64 Pearson, B. A. 124-5 Perriman, A. 181 Petersen, W. L. 188-9 Philonenko, M. 29 Piene, M. J. 188 Pierre, M.-J. 188, 190-1, 194 Pietersma, A. 6 Polhill, J. B 103, 105 Porter, S. E. 50, 103 Powell, M. A. 168 Pradels, W. 178 Prigent, P. 178, 197 Propp, W. H. C. 67, 69 Puech, E. 55 Punt, J. 3, 156, 158, 162 Quek, T.-M. 4 Quispel, G. 199 Rabin, C 28 Rainey, A. F. 51 Raitt, T. 77 Ramsay, W. M. 185 Read-Heimerdinger, J. 103, 105, 109 Redpath, H. A. 52 Reiling, J. 81 Reumann, J. 180 Revell, E. J. 106 Riauel, J. 29 Richard, E. J. 162, 171 Richardson, R. L. 163, 170, 173 Ringe, S. H. 159, 166

Robbins, M. M. 159, 164 Robinson, H. W. 180-1 Rodriguez-Ruiz, M. 93 Rogerson, J. W. 181 Roloff, J. 177 Roudiez, L. S. 75 Roukema, R. 8 Ruis-Camps, J. 103, 105, 109 Runge, S. 3, 106, 108 Runia, D. T. 120 Rusam, D. 61 Russell, L. M. 140 Rutgers, L. V. 164 Saenz-Badillos, A. 48 Safrai, S. 46-9 Sanders, E. P. 129 Sanders, J. A. 44, 75, 175, 178 Sanger, D. 132 Sbisa, M. 64 Schafer, P. 189 Schaper, J. 91 Schenker, A. 15 Schiffman, L. H. 50, 55, 115 Schliitz, K. 189, 194, 199 Schneider, T. J. 155-6, 159, 164, 166, 170, 174 Schnelle, U. 45 Schniedewind, W. M. 182 Schreiner, T. R. 127, 132 Schussler Fiorenza, E. 163 Schwemer, A. M. 38 Scroggs, R. 121 Scult, A. 64 Segal, A. F. 38 Segal, M. H. 48 Seland, T. 28 Shepherd, G. T. 89 Shepherd, J. 91 Siegert, F. 190, 197-8 Skinner, J. A. 142 Slaughter, J. R. 163-5, 173 Sloan, R. B. 98 Sly, D. I. 164, 170-1, 173 Smalley, S. S. 177, 185 Smith, R. 135 Smith Christopher, D. 167 Snowman, L. V. 46 Soards, M. L. 98-9, 168 Sparks, H. F. D. 48, 61 Spencer, A. B. 163 Sperber, A. 53 Sprinkle, P. 3, 126, 137 Staley, J. 93

Index of Authors Stanley, C. D. 74, 138, 160, 168 Stanton, G. N. 197 Stegner, W. R. 87 Steinhauser, M. G. 138 Stemberger, G. 49, 52-3 Stendahl, K. 173 Stenning, J. F. 53 Sterling, G. E. 125 Stern, M. 47 Sternberg, M. 66 Steudel, A. 55, 115, 178-80 Stewart, C. 189 Strack, H. L. 49, 52-3 Strugnell, J. 114, 116-17 Stuckenbruck, L. 193 Swellengrebel, J. C. 81 Talbert, C. H. 83 Tamez, E. 161 Taylor, B. A. 6 Taylor, V. 57 Thordarson, T. F. 82 Tigchelaar, E. 31-3, 69, 114-16 Tobin, T. 119-20 Tov, E. 7, 16 Trible, P. 140, 142, 157-8 Tsafrir, Y. 46 Turnage, M. 55 Turner, N. 48 Tyson, J. B. 76-7 Ulrich, E. 116 Ulrichsen, J. H. 28 Umemoto, N. 38 Urmson, J. O. 64 VanderKam, J. C. 143-4 van der Kooij, A. Van der Merwe, C. van der Woude, A.

237

van de Weg, M. M. 164-5 van Rensburg, F. J. J. 158-9 van Unnik, W. C. 69 Verhey, A. 161 Vermes, G. 28, 30 von der Osten-Sacken, P. 34, 42 von Rad, G. 142 Voobus, A. 188 Wacholder, B. Z. 55 Wakefield, A. H. 127 Waltke, B. K. 87 Walton, J. H. 87 Wan, S.-K. 167 Watson, F. 127, 131, 137-8, 149 Watson, W. G. E. 106 Watts, J. W. 62-3, 65-6, 69 Weiss, H. F. 29 Weitzman, S. 62 Wenham, G. J. 141, 160 Wernberg-Moller, P. 32, 36, 44 Wesselius, J.-W. 1, 5, 8-9, 15-16 Westermann, C. 71 Wilken, R. L. 196 Williamson, H. G. M. 76 Willitts, J. 128, 130 Wilson, G. H. 87, 90 Winkler, G. 196 Wintermute, O. S. 143 Witetschek, S. 175, 177-8, 187 Witherington, Ben, III 149, 152 Wold, B. G. 114,116 Wolfson, H. A. 38 Wright, B. G. 6 Wright, G. E. 77 Wright, N. T. 126

29-30, 44, 50, 55, Xeravits, G. 6 H. J. 107 S. 30, 69

35, 118

Yadin, Y. 28, 180 Yee, G A. 156, 159

Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 2: Exegetical Studies (Library of New Testament Studies 392)

Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 1: Thematic Studies (Library of New Testament Studies 391)

Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Studies (New Testament Tools and Studies 3)

Deuteronomy in the New Testament (Library of New Testament Studies)

Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Studies

New Testament Studies, Volume 55, Number 2 (April 2009)

New Testament Studies, Volume 57, Number 2 (April 2011)

New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Number 2 (April 2010)

Community-Identity Construction in Galatians: Exegetical, Social-Anthropological and Socio-Historical Studies (Library Of New Testament Studies)

The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies

New Testament Masculinities (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies)

Cosmology and New Testament Theology (Library of New Testament Studies 355)

Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (New Testament Tools and Studies)

Semantics of New Testament Greek (Semeia Studies)

Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (New Testament Tools and Studies)

The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series)

Minor Prophets in the New Testament (Library Of New Testament Studies)

Ambrosiaster's Political Theology (Oxford Early Christian Studies)

The Extant Works (Oxford Early Christian Studies)

Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm (Library Of New Testament Studies)

The Early Christian World (2 Volume Set)

Biology and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Forgiveness and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Genetics and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Rights and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Biology and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Health Care and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Evil and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Alcohol, Addiction and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Evil and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 2: Exegetical Studies (Library of New Testament Studies 392)

Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 1: Thematic Studies (Library of New Testament Studies 391)

Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Studies (New Testament Tools and Studies 3)

Deuteronomy in the New Testament (Library of New Testament Studies)

Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Studies

New Testament Studies, Volume 55, Number 2 (April 2009)

New Testament Studies, Volume 57, Number 2 (April 2011)

New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Number 2 (April 2010)

Community-Identity Construction in Galatians: Exegetical, Social-Anthropological and Socio-Historical Studies (Library Of New Testament Studies)

The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies

New Testament Masculinities (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies)

Cosmology and New Testament Theology (Library of New Testament Studies 355)

Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (New Testament Tools and Studies)

Semantics of New Testament Greek (Semeia Studies)

Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (New Testament Tools and Studies)

The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series)

Minor Prophets in the New Testament (Library Of New Testament Studies)

Ambrosiaster's Political Theology (Oxford Early Christian Studies)

The Extant Works (Oxford Early Christian Studies)

Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm (Library Of New Testament Studies)

The Early Christian World (2 Volume Set)

Biology and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Forgiveness and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Genetics and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Rights and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Biology and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Health Care and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Evil and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Alcohol, Addiction and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Evil and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)

Recommend Documents