Old Testament Miracle-workers in Early Judaism

ERKKI KOSKENNIEMI

The Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 206

Mohr Siebeck

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament • 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jorg Frey Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie • Judith Gundry-Volf Martin Hengel • Otfried Hofius • Hans-Josef Klauck

206

Erkki Koskenniemi

The Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism

Mohr Siebeck

ERKKI KOSKENNIEMI, born 1956; Classical studies at the University of Turku; 1979 Mag. phil.; 1984 Mag. theol.; 1992 PhD at Abo Akademi; Adjunct Professor at the University of Helsinki, Joensuu and of at Abo Akademi; teacher of biblical theology in Lutheran Evangelical Asso­ ciation in Finland.

ISBN 3 - 1 6 - 1 4 8 6 0 4 - 8

ISSN 0 3 4 0 - 9 5 7 0 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de. © 2 0 0 5 by Mohr Siebeck Tubingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Gulde-Druck in Tubingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Held in Rottenburg. Printed in Germany.

Preface I did not know where the path would lead me in 1983/84, when I prepared to leave Finland to study classical philology in Tubingen with the gentle help of the DAAD. After my master's thesis on Apollonius, which luckily was written only in Finnish and never printed, I was anxious about the theme of my further study. I could not find a way to approach Apollonius of Tyana, the primary target of my interest, and not Philostratus, who wrote about Apollonius in about A.D. 220. Shortly before leaving Finland I thought I had found a solution: I abandoned Apollonius and started to investigate Philostratus and his intentions. It took time before I - a young student of classical philology - realised that I had reinvented redaction criticism and done a lot of needless work seeking the method. Yet, I finally felt that I had advanced, and my time in Tubingen was a good one, during which I enjoyed and benefited from the deep knowledge of the philologists at the university. After my work was almost ready, I posted it to, among others, Professor Jukka Thuren (Abo Akademi), who had been my teacher during the slow progress of my theological studies. Typically for him, he reacted immediately, realising that my ideas had direct consequences for New Testament scholars: If Apollonius in Vita Apollonii Tyanensis was mainly a product of the third and not of the first century A.D., he was to be used only cautiously as a parallel figure to Jesus, although this had been common. After two enthusiastic weeks of work I could clarify my view on Apollo­ nius in the New Testament exegesis to my teacher, and also present it to Professor Martin Hengel, who had kindly invited me to his Oberseminar, and now strongly encouraged me to continue on the course I had chosen. I then published my work on Philostratus (Der philostrateische Apollonius, 1991), and wrote my theological dissertation on how Apollonius had been used in New Testament exegesis {Apollonius von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese. Forschungsbericht und Weiterfilhrung der Diskussion, 1994). I challenged the view that Gentile miracle-workers were a common phenomenon among the Greeks and Romans and that they were a model for Jesus as he was presented in the Gospels. Scholars were never able to name these many alleged men, but uncritically used Apollonius when constructing the famous concept of "divine man". I wondered why Jewish miracle-workers were so sorely overlooked by the scholars.

VI

Preface

The present book investigates the way the biblical miracles of the Old Testament figures, such as Moses, Joshua and Elijah, are retold in early Judaism. Some stories appear often and they share common nonbiblical details, which leads to the supposition of a strong written and oral tradi­ tion. I hope to still publish a book on historical Jewish miracle-workers in Jesus' times, but even if that book is published someday, I still have no solutions to several fascinating questions on the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels, especially concerning the historical Jesus. This, then, is the third book by the anxious man who found a sudden solution to an impossible problem, and I do not know how many there will still be. It took about ten years before the first two were finished, and more than ten before the ap­ pearance of this volume. If anything, this process has taught me patience. I owe my warm thanks to several scholars. Prof. Antti Laato generously gave of his time to help me, and Prof. Martin Hengel's advice has been of great value during the decade this book was written. The learned recom­ mendations of Prof. Jorg Frey have improved this book. The warden of the Tyndale House in Cambridge, Dr. Bruce Winter, and Dr. David InstoneBrewer helped me during the most difficult phases of the work. Timo Nisula, M.A., M.Th. always combines friendship with a strong indicium. The scholars at the Centre of Excellence of the Finnish Academy, especially professors Lars Aejmelaeus, Karl Gustaf Sandelin and Timo Veijola, have helped me greatly. My father, Prof. Heikki Koskenniemi, and brother, the Rev. Olli Koskenniemi, have offered many opportunities to discuss my views. Nancy Seidel, M.A. has corrected the language. During the writing of my book on Apollonius and New Testament exege­ sis, our family grew by five sons. During the last ten years, Tuomas, Jo­ hannes, Antti, Jaakko and Pietari have grown up to be eager partners in discussions, and their love has given me strength and joy. My wife Marja has not only allowed me to work but also supported and encouraged me. "A wife of noble character who can find?" (Prov 31:10). For a professor to lead an impatient young student of classical antiquity into the rich world of the New Testament and to become his Doktorvater should have been enough. However, during the most difficult phases of the writing of this book, Professor Jukka Thuren still guided a slightly older student into the world of early Judaism. It is a pleasure to dedicate this book to him, although, as with all my works intended for his desk, it comes terribly late.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction

1

a. Preliminary definition of the task b. What is a "miracle"? c. Competing miracle-workers and a story about a modern category d. Jewish miracle-workers in religious-historical study e. A more precise definition of the task and method

1 1 3 5 11

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

17

a. Introduction b. Moses c. Joshua d. Elijah e. Elisha f. Isaiah g. Conclusion

17 19 26 31 37 39 41

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees a. Introduction b. Abraham c. Moses d. Conclusion

44 46 54 62

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

64

a. Introduction b. The dialogue at the burning bush c. The plagues told in advance d. The miracle at the Red Sea e. A miracle-worker - but how much more? f. Conclusion

64 66 69 73 81 86

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography: Artapanus a. Introduction b. The leader is called c. The return, plagues and d. The Red Sea and the desert e. Conclusion

44

freedom

89 89 92 96 103 105

VIII

Table of Contents

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo a. Introduction b. The literal interpretation of the miracle stories c. The allegorical interpretation of the miracle stories d. Miracles explained rationally? e. Miracles of the prophet f. God or Moses? g. Miracles and legitimisation h. Conclusion

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets a. Introduction b. Isaiah c. Jeremiah d. Ezekiel e. Daniel f. Elijah g. Elisha h. Conclusion

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum a. Introduction b. Moses c. Joshua d. Kenaz Excursus: Magical practices in L.A.B e. Samson f. David g. Elijah /Phinehas h. Conclusion

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus a. Introduction b. Moses c. Joshua d. Samson e. Solomon f. Elijah g. Elisha h. Conclusion

108 108 110 129 146 148 151 155 156

160 160 163 165 169 177 184 186 187

189 189 192 203 206 214 216 219 224 225

228 228 231 249 255 259 264 271 278

Table of Contents

10. Conclusion a. LXX b. The texts retold c. The themes d. The Greek influence e. Biases and functions of the miracle stories f. The audience g. The roles of God and man and Moses' extraordinary position h. Geography and chronology

IX

281 281 282 290 292 293 297 297 299

Bibliography

301

Index of References

321

Index of Subjects and Scholars

346

1. Introduction a. Preliminary

definition of the task

The task of this book is to study how the Old Testament stories about He­ brew miracle-workers were used in early Jewish literature. Everyone retell­ ing a biblical story left his trace, making it possible to study what he re­ tained, what he left, what he added and what he changed. The study also reveals the early Jewish tradition, as well as various biases reshaping the stories through nonbiblical details circulating in the oral and literary folk­ lore of different eras.

b. What is a

"miracle"?

Neither the Old nor the New Testament contains anything that could be characterised as a definition of a miracle, and the early Jewish texts do not help either. Moreover, the Old Testament uses a variety of terms. God's miracles are riVm, mK*?Q3, mn« or D T I D I Q : All these words have been used in different ways during the long history of the Jewish tradition and they may include things not usually covered by modern definitions of miracle. A definition can thus not be based on an ancient term. David Hume formu­ lated possibly the most famous modern definition, which is very close to Aristotle's words: A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. But even 1

2

3

4

5

1

nt>iy in the sense of God's 'mighty deeds' occurs in Deut 10:21; Jer 33:3; 45:5; Ps 71:19; 106:21; Job 5:9; 9:10; 37:5. 2 Kgs 8:4 uses it for Elisha's mighty deeds. On the word see Jenni 1984, 402-409. m«*?S3 (from K*?s) points mostly to God's saving deeds in the past (Exod 3:20; Job 37:14). It does not necessarily mean a breaking of what we call the laws of nature, but that God helps in a hopeless situation, perhaps in a very "natural" way; see Albertz 1984, 416-420. rriR occurs 79 times in the Old Testament in all historical layers. On rm in the Old Testament see Stolz 1984, 91-95. irriDiD occurs in Exod 4:21 when God speaks to Moses about the miracles he should make in Egypt. In Joel 3:3 it points to phenomena in the skies. Aristotle said that a miracle was n a p a (|>uaiv (GA 770b). The similarity is, of course, not a coincidence, since Aristotle's philosophy deeply influenced the medieval learned world. Spinoza symbolized a milestone on the road to the modern concept. He dealt with the possibility of miracles in 1670: God has created the world and its harmony and a 2

3

4

5

2

1. Introduction

that is very problematic in the study of the early Jewish material. The idea of the laws of nature as separate from God's almighty power is seldom even alluded to in the Jewish texts. Generally there are no laws to be bro­ ken by an unusual event. God's help may come in a very natural way and still be praised as his "miracle". Since Jewish texts thus do not give a basis for a definition, and the modern view differs greatly from the world view of the writers, the use of the term "miracle" is difficult. Further, it is not always obvious whether, for instance, physical strength should be consid­ ered a miracle or not: David's unexpected triumph over Goliath may not have been supernatural in 1 Sam (although obviously in L.A.B. 61), but Samson indeed had superhuman powers in Judges and certainly in L.A.B. Some miracles are perhaps interpreted "rationalistically" in part of the tra­ dition, but does a natural explanation mean that the writer has not believed in miracles? It is impossible to find an unambiguous definition covering the Jewish as well as the modern perspectives. It is understandable that most studies dealing with miracles define the miracle very briefly or even omit the definition altogether, as Barry Blackburn and Werner Kahl do. Actually, Eric Eve suggests a new terminology, reserving the word "mira­ cle" for the biblical phenomenon and using the concept "anomaly" for a supposed exception to the laws of nature. Nevertheless, a sufficient defi­ nition is possible. Bernd Kollmann studies the New Testament terminology and observes that a modern view is incompatible with it. He uses a short definition: 6

7

"In dieser Untersuchung wird der Begriff Wunder im uberkommenen Sinne als Sammelbezeichnung fur auBergewdhnliche, aufsehenerregende Taten Jesu wie anderer Gestalten der Antike verwendet." 8

It may be considered problematic that a modern category including dispa­ rate material is applied to the ancient texts, but Kollmann's formulation provides a basis for the definition: A miracle is a fortuitous breaking of what we (although not the writers) call the laws of nature and which God 9

miracle breaking the good order is not only a positive thing. A miracle is against nature and against reason (see G. Maier 1986, 50-51). On these works see below p. 4, 9, and 15. Eve 2002, 1-2. Kollmann 1996, 53-54. John P. Meier (1994, 512-515) also uses a short definition: "A miracle is (1) an un­ usual, startling, or extraordinary event that is in principle perceivable by any interested and fair-minded observer, (2) an event that finds no reasonable explanation in human abilities or in other known forces that operate in our world of time and space, and (3) an event that is the result of a special act of God, doing what no human power can do." However, it should be emphasized that also this definition results in a modern, collecting category. 6

7

8

9

1. Introduction

or his agent allegedly causes. several times in this study.

3

The theme, of necessity, must be discussed

c. Competing miracle-workers and a story about a modern category The study of the biblical miracles has held a central position in the New Testament exegesis from at least the early 20 century. Richard Reitzenstein (1906, 1910) and Gillis Wetter (1916) considered that the first Christians lived in an atmosphere of tough competition. This view is ex­ pressed in the work of Helmut Koster (1982): th

11

12

"Miracles were performed not only by Christian missionaries, as described in the Acts of the Apostles and as Paul encounters them in the opponents of 2 Corinthians, but also by Jewish preachers, Neopythagorean philosophers, and by many other teachers, physicians, and magicians. The entire scale of miraculous deeds of power was commonly used, from magical tricks to predictions of the future, from horoscopes to the healing of diseases and maladies, even the raising of dead people. In those circles which were addressed by these philosophers of the marketplace, the power of speech and the greatness of miracle would have more profound effects than the depth and dignity of rational, moral, and religious insight." 13

14

The competition with the "mob of divine or deified men" allegedly led the first Christians to remodel their image of Jesus according to a pagan pattern, and make him a Hellenistic divine man (0e?os avrjp). The ac­ commodation to this model or the reaction against it allegedly colours all canonical Gospels, the pre-Pauline tradition, Second Corinthians, First Thessalonians and Philippians. 15

10

There are several borderline cases, such as the exceptional military strength men­ tioned above. One of them is divination, either in dreams or through different particles or astrological skills. They are excluded from the present study, but if a text retelling the Old Testament miracles deals with these techniques with the aim of accepting (as Artapanus) or rejecting them (as Liber antiquitatum biblicarum), they are briefly men­ tioned. Hellenistische Wundererzahlungen (1906) and Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen (1910). "Der Sohn Gottes". Eine Untersuchung iiber den Charakter und die Tendenz des Johannes-Evangeliums. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Heilandsgestalten der Antike. Helmut Koster, History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age 1-2, (1982, 1, 357). "Mob of divine or deified man", Morton Smith 1970, 184. A survey of the history of the research is found in Koskenniemi 1994, 114-168. 11

12

13

14

15

4

L Introduction

The concept of divine men was rarely motivated by ancient sources and it is widely criticised today. The Graeco-Roman world knew famous fig­ ures with a reputation for being miracle-workers, but both the heroes such as Hercules and men from the past such as Pythagoras should be compared to the Old Testament figures rather than to historical Jewish miracleworkers. Scholars have been able to name very few pagan miracle-workers from the time of Jesus, although it has been somewhat easier to name miracle-working gods, rulers and anonymous magicians. Moreover, the concept is ambiguous in many ways. For example, Reitzenstein, Gillis Wetter, Otto Weinreich and Ludwig Bieler differed greatly from each other, and were all heavily influenced by the ideologies current in the late 16

17

16

The most important critique of the hypothesis of divine men comes from Klaus Berger, Otto Betz, Martin Hengel and Barry L. Blackburn (see Koskenniemi 1994, 232-233); my book Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese (1994) is also very critical. David du Toit (1997) showed later in a detailed analysis that the words 6e?os avrjp (av8pco7TOs) were not a fixed terminus technicus. See also the critical article of Aage Pilgaard (1995) and the review in Hans-Josef Klauck's The Religious Context of Early Christianity. A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions (2000, 174-177). On Bernd Kollmann's book see below p. 9. See Koskenniemi 1994, 207-219. The last pre-Christian pagan miracle-worker known to us is Menecrates, who lived about 300 BC. Alexander of Abonuteichos is the first pagan miracle-worker known to us from contemporary sources after the time of Jesus. His floruit was in about 150 AD. The man mentioned in most studies is Apollonius of Tyana, who lived in the first century AD. However, the main source is Vita Apollonii Tyanensis of Lucius Flavius Philostratus, which was written in the religious world of the early 3 century (see Bowie 1978, Dzielska 1986 and Koskenniemi 1991). The main lines of my dissertation (1994) have received mostly positive reviews so far (November 2003); see Peres 1995, 447-448; Thummel 1995, 801-802; Ziegenaus 1995, 154-155; Danker 1996, 757-758. Jaap-Jan Flinterman, however, criticised them in a long review (1996). He relies more on the sources on Apollonius than I do and considers it possible to deal with the historical Apollonius. Moreover, he claims that there were more miracleworkers in Jesus' time, especially since it is not easy to draw the line between miracleworkers and magicians. I fully agree with Flinterman that Apollonius was considered a magician before Philostratus (see Koskenniemi 1994, 211). However, although some prominent scholars have tried to define here the historical nucleus, the historical figure escapes us (Koskenniemi 1991, 58-69; I returned to the theme in an article, which is in print). Also, neither Flinterman nor other scholars (Werner Kahl was not yet aware of my book; see Kahl 1994, 58-61) have added many new figures to my list. Although it is not easy to differentiate between magicians and miracle-workers, I considered it important, after all the confusing discussion, to collect the names of the historical persons who acted as miracle-workers and to study the common magical practices separately. The 0e?os ocvrjp-hypothesis was constructed with very few sources and great ideological fervour, moreover, with no respect for Jewish sourcees. It now seems reasonable to study the religious-historical parallels carefully, step by step. Flinterman's article plays an impor­ tant part in this work. On the discussion and open questions see also Klauck 2000, 168177. 17

rd

1. Introduction th

5

th

19 and early 20 centuries. Some recent scholars have regarded the model as a Hellenistic concept, while others have seen it as a modern concept. It is thus not possible to speak about the divine man model; it includes several different models, partly mutually exclusive. 0e?os ccvrip should no longer be considered as a fixed and Hellenistic but as a modern concept. The best solution is to realise that the whole concept is rather part of the western history of ideas and to investigate the Graeco-Roman paral­ lels to Jesus' miracles without this modern pattern, which has clearly hin­ dered rather than helped scholarship. 18

19

d. Jewish miracle-workers

in religious-historical

study

The fact that we know of very few pagan miracle-workers makes Jewish men with such a reputation more significant than ever. They have been investigated, but often through the perspective of the BeTos avrjphypothesis. It is obvious that the old History of the Religions school did not show enough interest in them, but sought more parallels from the "Hel­ lenistic" world. Although there is no reason to return to the old opposi20

21

18

H.D. Betz (1983, 235) considers 0e?os avrjp to be an ancient pattern, which is treated by the ancient writers in many ways and in many phrases and which could be interpreted in several ways (1983, 364). Kollmann agrees and cites H.D. Betz (1996, 5859). It is rather problematic that the archetype of these interpretations seems to remain a platonic idea. H.D. Betz cannot convincingly show that 0e?os avrjp was an ancient cate­ gory. Unlike most supporters of the hypothesis, Corrington regards "the divine man" as a modern, hypothetical category (The "Divine man His Origin and Function in Hellenis­ tic Popular Religion, 1986; for a review see Koskenniemi 1994, 95-98). E.g. Willi Schottroff characterises Moses in Eupolemus, Philo, Josephus and Artapanus as 0e?os avrjp (1983, 229-233). Most scholars suppose that the Jews had learned the concept from the Greeks and then mediated it to the first Christians (the view of Fer­ dinand Hahn 1963; see Koskenniemi 1994, 121). Precisely this view is studied and criti­ cised by Holladay in an early and important study of the 0s?os avrjp -hypothesis. Ac­ cording to Holladay, the Jewish writers did not remove the line between God and man, but drew it very clearly (Theios aner in Hellenistic Judaism: a Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology, 1977; reviewed in Koskenniemi 1994, 88-90). Corrington criticises Holladay's work severely and claims that Holladay has overlooked the social factors in early Judaism (Corrington 1986, esp. 46-47). Louis Feldman's new and undoubtedly correct approach is to list the general virtues of the heroes in the pagan literature without constructing a fixed pattern (1998a, 82-131). Bultmann offers a representative example in his famous Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1921, 147). According to him, scholars earlier considered the Old Testament the source of Christian miracle stories. Bultmann sees this as no longer credible, because the similarities are limited. Bultmann speaks now about a genealogy, but uses analogy to deal with the pagan stories (see Koskenniemi 1994, 45). Some scholars have always ob19

2 0

21

6

1. Introduction

tion between "Hellenistic" and "Jewish", it is strange how small a role the Jewish miracle-workers have had in the discussion about divine men. Si­ multaneously, characteristic Jewish features in the concept of miracle have been overlooked. The last decades have shown signs of better times, as the "new History of the Religions school" seeks the roots of Christianity in Judaism. However, neither the Jewish sources, which today are much wider than in the heyday of the 0 E T O S avrjp-hypothesis, nor the rich secon­ dary literature is given enough attention even to date. The pagan miracle-workers have thus won the interest of scholarship during the last century and provided most of the background for the New Testament study of Jesus' miracles. Yet, there have always been scholars who have observed the Jewish parallels. Two of them in particular pro­ vided an impulse to scholarship and deserve to be mentioned. Paul Fiebig (Judische Wundergeschichten im Zeitalter Jesu etc., 1911) argued that many Rabbis made miracles in Jesus' time, and that it was part of the Rabbi's image. Only the echoes of the vivid discussion between Fiebig and his opponent Schlatter, which related to the miracles of the his­ torical Jesus, can be heard today, but this debate was one of the most sig­ nificant in this area. These scholars opened the door for a study of the Jewish background of the New Testament miracles, but there were few who stepped in. Vivid research followed the first edition of Die Zeloten by Martin Hengel (1961), in which he investigates the movements, which revolted against the Romans and their religious background. Hengel's work has been subject to a discussion and severe criticism. Horsley and Hanson, for example, regard the zealots in his works as historical fiction. According to them there was not a unified movement before the Jewish war, in which armed revolt and the Jew­ ish religion were combined. Hengel responds to his opponents in the preface 22

23

24

25

26

served the Old Testament material. Berger, a critic of the 0e7os ccvrip-concept, empha­ sized the stories about Elijah and Elisha (Berger 1984, 305-306). Hengel was the first to use the phrase when introducing a book written by Larry W. Hurtado (1988). The programme of the school is formulated in Jarl Fossum's article "The New Religionsgeschichtliche Schule: The Quest for Jewish Christology" (1991). See also below, p. 82. Charlesworth (1995, 72) characterises the situation as follows: "In the sixties, when we considered the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha we usually meant 17 documents, but now we frequently mean at least 65. Then we examined about 12 Dead Sea Scrolls, but now well over 400." See Becker 2002, 16-21. Horsley and Hanson 1985, xiii-xvii. Horsley (1994, ix-xi) underlines the political relevance of New Testament scholar­ ship and openly expresses the political relevance of his own study: Observing the Jewish agrarian people and their problems leads to a better understanding of the South American theology of freedom. 2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

1. Introduction

1

and appendix of the English translation of his work. The unanimity of the scholars is obvious in the articles in the Cambridge History of Judaism III. However, Smith, who considers the concept of Horsley and Hanson absurd, attacks Hengel even more strongly. In contrast, Gabba is sympathetic to Hengel's position. Schaper characterises the zealots as "the left wing of Phari­ saism." The present book, which must often deal with the combination of religion and politics, certainly illuminates the question. During the discussion on the zealots, the research advanced in many ways. P.W. Barnett introduced the term "sign prophets", referring to men who tried to legitimate themselves as leaders by repeating Old Testament miracles (1981). Recently Rebecca Gray collected the evidence in Josephus (1993), and many figures have now been studied in detail. However, because, for instance, Atomus (Jos. Ant. 20,141-143) cannot be labelled either as a zealot or a "sign-prophet", he, as most men of his type, is usually not mentioned. The phenomenon of the historical figures has still not been studied thoroughly enough. The Jewish miracle-workers were again drawn to the centre of New Tes­ tament scholarship by Geza Vermes (Jesus the Jew, 1973; The Gospel of Jesus the Jew, 1981), who could combine his studies with the newly awak­ ened quest of the historical Jesus. Vermes underlined the Old Testament miracle-workers, especially Elijah and Elisha, and named many Jewish healers, exorcists and miracle-workers from the times of Jesus. He re­ garded the historical Jesus as one of the holy miracle-workers of Galilee. This view can either be accepted or rejected, but Vermes' studies are cited even today in discussions about the historical Jesus. Fiebig, as well as Vermes, dealt with historical, non-biblical Jewish miracle-workers, and several scholars have subsequently studied these figures. New Testament scholars can justly be criticised for what the Germans call Steinbruchsmentalitat: historical Jewish miracle-workers have all too often been studied because of the needs of New Testament scholarship; and the passages on 28

29

30

31

32

33

34

2 7

Hengel 1989b, xiii-xvii; 380-404. Smith 1999, 542-544, 566. "We cannot say with certainty exactly when this name (sc. Zealot) was first used, not least because the term was pregnant with religious and political significance the roots of which went back a long time", Gabba 1999, 154. Schaper 1999, 422. Prophetic figures in late Second Temple Jewish Palestine. The evidence from Jose­ phus. New York / Oxford 1993. Vermes 1973,58-85. Vermes 1973, 223. Goodman studied the differences between Judaism in Galilee and in Judea in the Cambridge History of Judaism 3 (1999, 569-617), but he did not deal with the miracles. See Becker 2002, 291. 337-340. 2 8

2 9

3 0

31

3 2

3 3

3 4

8

1. Introduction

Honi the Circle-drawer in Crossan's and Meier's books, for instance, lack the depth present in Green's and Becker's studies. However, these fig­ ures are studied vigorously. A further step was taken with Michael Becker's recently published dis­ sertation on rabbinical miracle-workers. According to Becker, the early rabbis were unwilling to tell about miracles made by men. This included biblical figures, as well as extra-biblical persons. Some miracles, however, were intimately connected to the history forming the Jewish identity, and were retold without reservation. That does not mean that they did not have to deal with miracles, but Becker's study reveals that the early rabbis wres­ tled long and hard with the problem. Statistics show the indisputable fact that the early collections contain fewer miracle stories, whereas the num­ ber grows markedly in the later texts. Becker's study confirms that the development in the Jewish world corresponds with the Graeco-Roman world, where miracle-workers were numerous from the late second century AD. 35

36

37

38

Just as the Graeco-Roman miracle-workers known to us were either his­ torical figures known from contemporary sources or great men of the dis­ tant past, their Jewish counterparts were either contemporaries of the early Jewish writers or figures known from the Old Testament. Much research must still be done on the historical, non-biblical figures for a clearer pic­ ture of the background of New Testament Christology. It is surprising, however, how little even the later traditions concerning the figures men­ tioned in the Old Testament have been studied. They are often noted sim­ ply in passing. On the other hand, scholars such as Martin Dibelius (1919) and Rudolf Bultmann (1921) tried to note the Jewish as well as the Graeco-Roman parallels, although their intention was to underline the "Hellenistic" world. Otto Bocher (1970, 1972) and Gerd Theissen (1974) have continued this kind of work. Some scholars have always pointed to the Old Testament and some very recent works attest that the Old Testa39

3 5

See Green 1979, 621-647; Crossan 1991, 142-148; Meier 1994, 581-584; Becker 2002, 291-337. "Wunder" und "Wundertdter" im fruhrabbinischen Judentum. Studien zum literarischen und historischen Phdnomen im paganen und fruhjiidischen Kontext und seine Bedeutung fur das Verstandnis Jesu (2002). See the summary in Becker 2002, 406-414. See Koskenniemi 1994, 207-219. In 1978, Michael Goulder, in investigating the Gospels, made cautious observations on Elijah's and Elisha's miracles; see 1978, 266-281 and also 1989, 304-305. Richard Glockner studied the connections between the Psalms and New Testament miracle stories (Neutestamentliche Wundergeschichten und das Lob der Wundertaten Gottes in den Psalmen. Studien zur sprachlichen und theologischen Wundergeschichten und Psalmen, 36

3 7

3 8

3 9

9

1. Introduction

ment miracle-workers are being given more attention today than some dec­ ades ago. However, Kollmann's book, mentioned above is a good exam­ ple of an unbalanced way to deal with the texts: He closely studies the traditions about Pythagoras, but not the traditions about Moses, Elijah or Elisha, which were certainly very close to the early Christians. Moreover, here as so often, the characteristic feature of the Jewish area, the combina­ tion of miracles of the past with the hope of future miracles, is mainly overlooked. It is now time to pay attention to the traditions about the Old Testament miracle-workers. 40

41

Many studies contain valuable material on the Old Testament heroes in later Jewish literature, but the timeline between the Old Testament and rabbinic literature is long and includes a great number of sources. Some special studies and works cover some parts of this vast material, some more or less all of it. Some figures have always been eagerly studied. Moses offers a good example: The early parts of the tradition have been thoroughly investigated, but descriptions given by later writers, such as Ezekiel the Tragedian, Artapanus or Pseudo-Philo in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, still offer extensive work for scholars. Other figures, such as David and Solomon, have received less attention. Much of the research covers a part of this rich material. Some studies follow traditions about heroes. Willy Schottroff, for example, investigated the images of the Old Testament miracle-workers in his RAC article 1983). Klaus Berger noted the Old Testament stories in his Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments, 1984, 305-306. Kahl is well aware that the Jewish side is neglected (see 1994, 21-22), and Craig Evans closely studies the Jewish miracle tradition (1995, 213-244). Jesus und die Christen als Wundertater. Studien zu Magie, Medizin und Schamanismus in Antike und Christentum (1996). Kollmann criticises some scholars, espe­ cially O. Betz and Glockner, because they one-sidedly observe the Old Testament and Jewish traditions and forget the Hellenistic parallels (1996, 26-27). He tries himself to observe both sides when studying the miracles of Jesus and the first Christians. Neverthe­ less, he overlooks several Graeco-Roman parallels, such as Eunus (about 136/135-132 BC, Liv. perioch. 56; Flor. epit. 2,7; Diod. 34); Damigeron (second century BC, Apul. apol. 90; Arnob. nat. 1, 52; we have only fragments of his own work de lapidibus), Publius Nigidius Figulus (about 100-45 BC; for the sources see Koskenniemi 1994, 209); the eremite in Plutarch (first century AD, Plut. mor. 421a-b); Peregrinus Proteus (died 165 AD, Lukian Peregr.; Gell. 8,3. 12,11; Athenag. suppl. 26,3-5) Arnuphis (about 174 AD, Dio Cass. 71,8-9, Hist. Aug. M. Aur. 24,4); Julianus (in the time of Marcus Aurelius, Prokl. Krat. 72, 10; rep. 2, 123, 12; Arnob. nat. 1, 52; Iul. epist. 12), Apsethus (before Hippolytus' haer. [222 AD], Hippol. haer. 6,7-8); and Neryllinus (about 177 AD, Athenag. suppl. 26,3-5). I give a list of the known pagan miracle-workers in my book; see Koskenniemi 1994, 207-219. On the other hand, Kollmann carefully notes such his­ torical figures as Theudas and the Egyptian, but shows no interest in the tradition of re­ telling new variants of the Old Testament miracles. 4 0

41

10

/. Introduction

(1983). However, he only observes the "divine men" (^GottmenscherT) of the Old Testament (Moses, Elijah, Elisha) and leaves aside even many later traditions about them. He also overlooks the Old Testament figures, such as David and Solomon, mentioned as miracle-workers only in the later tradition and not in the Old Testament. David L. Tiede (1972) and Carl L. Holladay (1977), two early critics of the 0 E T O S avrjp theory, studied many of the most important texts, and made observations still valuable today. Some studies do not follow the tradition of an individual miracle-worker through different texts, but instead concentrate on a certain text and all its heroes. In his monumental work, Louis Feldman studied the way in which Josephus treated the Old Testament figures, including all the miracleworkers. This does not mean that the work is complete because Feldman's work has been heavily criticised by Mark Roncace, who scrutinised his depictions of Deborah and Gideon, and Christopher Begg challenges Feldman's view in his study of Josephus' description of Elisha. Never­ theless, Feldman has collected and discussed a huge amount of material, which has been helpful in this study. Although there are no such works on, for example, the Lives of the Prophets or Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, the commentaries of Anna Maria Schwemer and Howard Jacobson are an equal contribution to the study of these texts. Eric Eve's book (Jewish con­ text of Jesus' miracles, 2002), in which the writer studies the role of the miracles in almost all relevant Jewish texts, deserves special attention. Eve has taken upon himself a huge task, because his work not only deals with the human miracle-workers, but also with the views on miracles, whether they be done by men or God, and he expands his investigation to historical figures such as Honi and the "sign prophets" in Josephus. The wide scope of the study necessarily means that he cannot investigate all the texts thor­ oughly enough. Scholars are now eagerly investigating the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and many studies and articles are of valuable help to the present work. Becker covers the rabbinical literature in his dissertation mentioned 42

43

44

45

4 2

Schottroff 1983, 220-233. He does not deal with the passages in Ben Sira, Ezekiel the Tragedian and L.A.B. Deborah and Gideon are not presented as miracle-workers in Josephus, and they are not treated in the present work, but Roncace's article may also affect other figures stud­ ied by Feldman. Roncace investigates Josephus' passages, but notes none of the strong redactional biases found by Feldman, and concludes in his article: "A close reading of the stories does not produce the results that Feldman claims. ... If the stories of Deborah and Gideon are any indication, then it appears that much of this work remains to be done" (2000, 247-274). Feldman promptly responded (2001, 193-220), but did not re­ move all doubts concerning his work. See below p. 271-278. See below e.g. p. 19, 109 and 162. 4 3

4 4

4 5

1. Introduction

11

above. However, there is still much to do before the Jewish tradition is observed as well as it deserves to be.

e. A more precise definition of the task and method The present work concentrates on the early Jewish interpretations of the miracles made by Israelites mentioned in the Old Testament. The Old Tes­ tament tells about many men who saved the nation with their great deeds, or manifested with their miracles that Israel's God was with them. They could be saviours of the nation, as Moses, or its great leaders, as Joshua, or miracle-working prophets, as Elijah and Elisha. They also could be strange figures, as Samson, the fighter with superhuman powers. It is interesting to note how their stories were retold in the Jewish texts. Some things may be omitted, intentionally or not, some things may be emphasized, and some totally new traits may appear in the picture. Moreover, it is interesting to discover which figures still play a role in the later traditions and which are largely forgotten in the sources we have. Certain elements were apparently crucial in different periods of Jewish history. Miracles could be connected with deep wisdom, with physical strength, great leadership or even with entertainment. In Judaism, unlike in Greek thought, they also could be linked with the glorious past of the nation and with an eschatological hope. The Jewish writers do not only retell new variations of the Old Testament miracles (possibly adding totally new features such as the prince of de­ mons, Mastema, in the events of Egypt in The Book of Jubilees). They also tell totally new stories about the Old Testament heroes. The Lives of the Prophets tells about Ezekiel, and some texts about men hardly mentioned in the Old Testament, such as Kenaz in L.A.B. The study of these stories and the traditions behind them is important, because they reveal the current values and hopes of the writers and their circles. This study aims to cover all Jewish literature, from the Old Testament to Liber antiquitatum biblicarum and Josephus. The early rabbinic literature is covered in Becker's book. The vast amount of material includes very disparate elements, as well stories and shorter passages. There are two ways to structure the material. One way would be to study all the tradi­ tions, for example, about Abraham; to collect every miracle-story we have about him and in so doing, track the history of the tradition. Some good studies of this kind have been done. I do not know of a study about Abra­ ham as a miracle-worker, and the traditions about Moses have been col­ lected only superficially. Elijah, however, has been investigated more 46

4 6

Many scholars have done valuable work. Willy Schottroff deals with Moses in his article "Gottmensch" in RAC (1983). Oberhansli-Widmer has collected abundant mate-

12

7. Introduction

thoroughly. An alternative, which has been chosen here, is to study the most important texts containing miracle stories about the biblical figures. It seems to offer better opportunities to investigate the role of the miracles and the biases of the different writers, and to trace the historical develop­ ment in Israel. It also enhances the collection of details that the tradition added to the biblical stories, and clarifies which stories passed into extinc­ tion in early Judaism. The shorter passages outside these writings, in which the miracles are mentioned or even briefly retold, will be observed to illus­ trate the texts receiving greater attention. In the study of recounted passages from the Old Testament, a series of questions is asked concerning every text. The writer has used either the Hebrew or the Greek text as the original. The first problem is the role of the Septuagint. Firstly, many books of LXX differ considerably from the Hebrew text, revealing the complicated his­ tory of the latter. In the texts studied below, the numerous deviations in the versions of the conquest of Jericho (Jos 5:13-6:27) make clear that the He­ brew original the translators used differed from the Masoretic text. The study of the Greek translation is thus useful even if it is compared with texts written originally in Hebrew (such as The Wisdom of Ben Sira and Jub.). Secondly, the Septuagint is not merely a translation; it is the first stage in the midrashic tradition of contextualizing and applying the He­ brew original, and the question is whether the intention of those translat­ ing the miracles-stories can be traced. Regardless of whether the devia­ tion is based on a different original or on an intentional change in the text, it may reveal a traditional, Hebrew interpretation. LXX is analysed in sev­ eral chapters dealing with writers who used the biblical stories, and the results are collected and evaluated in chapter 10. The task of identifying the biblical passages referred to is often easy and is part of the basic work of the editor or translator of the text (e.g. the Loeb editions of Philo and Josephus), but the passage that is paraphrased may 48

49

50

rial in her article in TRE (1994), but the material is too vast to be studied thoroughly in an article. On Elijah see especially Ohler 1997. See Hengel 2002, 84-85. See Hengel 2002, 85-90. Karl Ludwig Schimdt, for example, once expressed the common view that the Septu­ agint, in dealing with the fundamentals of the Jewish religion, was also strongly influen­ ced by the Hellenistic spirit ("Und gerade durch die genannte Septuagintabibel, die ja mehr als eine blofie Ubersetzung aus dem Hebraischen ins Griechische, namlich auf weite Strecken hin eine Hellenisierung sogar des herben semitischen Monotheismus bedeutet, ist das Judentum eine der selbstsichersten und werbekraftigsten Religionen des romischen Reiches geworden" (1927, 48). 4 7

4 8

4 9

5 0

13

1. Introduction

not be the only biblical text influencing the retold passage. It is a difficult task to identify the passages in Pseudo-Philo, for instance, because Liber antiquitatum biblicarum often links several other texts (the Psalms, for example) with the narration. A careful study is needed to find all the texts used or referred to. The subject has been extensively discussed, but the discussion should be continued. How the writers used the biblical ma­ terial, especially in the miracle stories, is always interesting. A thorough study is also needed to reveal the new traits in the stories and the biases of the writers. They may include omissions, additions, clarifica­ tions or alterations, with some details occurring repeatedly in different texts and revealing a common tradition. In dealing with all major versions of the retold stories about the biblical miracle-workers, the present study should throw more light on these common and traditional traits, which are collected in chapter 10. One important question involves the influence of Jewish and Gentile traditions. De Sampsone 23-24, for example, attests the obvious fact that the biblical stories were recounted in Jewish meetings and reveals that there were different oral traditions. Philo also considered the stories told by the elders as a source to be used alongside the Scriptures: 51

"[I will] tell the story of Moses as I have learned it, both from the sacred books, the wonderful moments of his wisdom which he has left behind him, and from some of the elders of the nation; for I always interwove what I was told with what I read, and thus believed myself to have a closer knowledge than others of his life's history" (Mos. 1,4).

We thus know that there was an oral tradition, that we have only fragments of the written, and part of all that was merged with the later traditions and written down in the texts dating after the scope of this study. As a result, dating the tradition is often very difficult. Some scholars intend to empha­ size the chain of the tradition and have often supposed that the traditions written down later were already known to writers such as Ezekiel, Philo and Josephus. Others have been more sceptical. On the other hand, some trait may resemble a Greek or Roman story. The versions of Moses' death are similar to the stories about the end of some Graeco-Roman famous men. The question is, did the writer himself borrow from the Gentile tradi­ tion, did he know it at all, or had the Jewish and Graeco-Roman traditions merged at an earlier stage? Although we may not be able to decide conclu­ sively whether a writer introduced a new trait to the biblical story or bor­ rowed it from an oral or written tradition, the question should be dealt with. 52

51

See below e.g. p. 195. Feldman generally supposes that the traditions were early and influenced the way Josephus deals with his material; see below, for example, p. 263. Jacobson is more cau­ tious and is well aware of the problems; see p. 75. 5 2

14

1. Introduction

The writers did not live in a vacuum. They were writing for a certain audience. Some Jewish authors wrote their works almost exclusively for the Jews, as the writer of The Book of Jubilees or Pseudo-Philo in his L.A.B. On the other hand, Philo and Josephus also intended their works for Gentiles. Differentiation between Jews and Gentiles, however, is not enough. Both audiences should be further analysed. What kind of Gentiles or what kind of Jews were supposed to read the story? Did many Jews, as often supposed, rationalise the miracle stories because of sceptical Gentile readers? It would be important to know more about each audience, and how it influenced the work. Moreover, since writers lived both in and out­ side Palestine, the geographical factor has to be observed, and finally, when all the texts are studied, some chronological lines can certainly be drawn in the final chapter. Many Jewish texts were written during crucial periods in the history of Israel, but the writers rarely if ever considered the Scripture as belonging only to the past. Everyone retelling the biblical original could adapt the holy past to his own situation. We could ask how much this was done consciously or not - in retelling the stories about the plagues in Egypt, the great exodus, the way in the desert and the conquest of the land in the times before and after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Miracles are, of course, always only one piece of the picture a writer draws of a biblical hero. While some writers do not mention, for example, Moses' miracles at all, in Philo's and Josephus' texts he is a philosopher, general, statesman and miracle-worker. Although it is unnecessary to deal with all these features in this study, we should ask what role the miracles play in the picture and what their function is. It is not always easy to treat them separately. Do mighty deeds make somebody a divine being, as many supporters of the 0e7os avrjp hypothesis have supposed? What other fea­ tures are linked with the miracles? It is important to ask these questions, especially if the stories are heavily remodelled on the biblical original. Why are the stories remodelled and what is the result? It is clear that usually, if not always, in the Old Testament God performs miracles, but may use a man as his agent. Also, the later Jewish writers followed the same method of retelling Old Testament miracles. It is often questionable whether a man can be called a "miracle-worker" at all. God may not use any human agent in the Old Testament, as for example, when destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, but Moses' person is very closely con­ nected with the plagues in Exodus. It is understandable that the roles of God and his possible agent strongly vary in such retold versions as the events in Egypt, at the Red Sea and in the desert. In some Jewish texts Moses' role is reduced to the point of no longer being mentioned (The 53

On Artapanus see p. 104, on Philo see p. 109-110, on Josephus see p. 228.

15

1. Introduction

Book of Wisdom highlights divine wisdom and not Moses), but sometimes (as in Artapanus or Josephus) he may appear as a more independent actor. The texts that characterise a man as a miracle-worker, as well as the roles of God and his agent in these texts, are studied here. Kahl developed a use­ ful tool for this work (1994): He tried to separate the different roles in the stories by identifying the "Bearer of the Numinous Power" (= BNP) actu­ ally causing the miracle, the "Mediator of the Numinous Power" (=MNP) used as the agent of the BNP, and the "Petitioner of the Numinous Power" (=PNP) asking the BNP to make the miracle. Eve asked the question studying many Jewish texts in his book (2002), but there is certainly still work to be done. 54

As seen above it is not easy to define a miracle, and even the genre "mira­ cle-story" is a subject under dispute. Scholars have long taken the exis­ tence of the genre for granted. In 1919, Martin Dibelius concluded (Formgeschichte des Evangeliums) that the early Christian stories were either short accounts ("Paradigmas") or longer narratives ("Novellen"), and that the latter were close relatives of Hellenistic stories. The birth of the Chris­ tian miracle stories has been based on either an extension of a paradigm from the Christian or non-Christian tradition, or on a non-Christian novel adopted and applied to Jesus. Rudolf Bultmann went on in his Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition to characterize the style of the miracle stories and give a list of stories similar to ones included in the New Testament. Gerd Theissen developed the methodology in his Urchristliche Wundergeschichten (191 A, transl. 1983) connecting the study of the mira­ cle stories with sociological aspects. Although all these scholars assumed the existence of the genre "miracle-story", this view has been justly chal­ lenged. Glockner pointed to the Psalms as the background of the New Tes­ tament miracle stories (Neutestamentliche Wundergeschichten und das Lob der Wundertaten Gottes in den Psalmen, 1983), abandoning the link be­ tween a miracle and a story. Fundamental criticism against the former scholarship came with Klaus Berger's two studies, "Hellenistische Gattungen und Neues Testament" (=1984b) and Formgeschichte (= 1984a), and radically new definitions of the central terms of form-criticism. They also concern the "miracle stories": Berger flatly denies the existence of such a genre, claiming that it is not a classical genre but a modern description defining the material poorly. According to him the "miracle stories" of the 55

56

57

5 4

5 5

5 6

5 7

Kahl 1994, 62-65. Dibelius 1919, 36-56, esp. 54-55. Bultmann 1921, 135-136. Bultmann 1921, 142-146.

16

I. Introduction

New Testament belong to several narrative genres. Recently, Kahl (1994) has also emphasized the variety of the genres in which the Gospel writers presented Jesus as a BNP. The criticism is also justified concerning the material studied in the present work: Ben Sira, for example, may describe the miracles of the ancient heroes in Laus patrum, Philo uses them in his ethical discourses and Josephus retells the history of Israel. It is very diffi­ cult to include them all in a single genre. The genre of a "miracle-story" is thus not an assumption here. Miracles of an Israelite could occur in very different kinds of texts, and they are all important. However, it is useful to study what kind of miracles occur in early Judaism, when the mighty deeds of the Old Testament figures were retold. A summary of "themes", follow­ ing mainly Theissen's catalogue, is given in chapter 10. 59

60

61

58

Berger 1984a, 305-307. Kahl 1994, 237. The Old Testament also tells about miracles made by non-Israelites, but Balaam, for example, is not included in this study. See below, p. 290. 5 9

6 0

61

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira a. Introduction As many other Jewish texts, the Wisdom of Ben Sira, written in Hebrew in about 180-190 and translated into Greek in approximately 130, has be­ come newly current. While not even a fresh commentary had existed some decades earlier, by the 1970s intensive research and even strong dis­ agreement had arisen on the main lines and goals of the work. Since then many detailed studies have revealed interesting new features of the work and about 600 publications regarding it were published between 1980 and 1997. Nevertheless, many questions are still open, and although many of them are part of the background of the present study, some may be clearly significant. In particular, the impact of politics and the writer's attitude toward Hellenism, both of which are discussed vividly, are relevant prob­ lems when investigating the role of the miracles, and the question that should be asked is how much Ben Sira contemporized the biblical stories. Although many important themes in the text have been studied, the role of the miracles in the work has not. While the main target of this study is the Hebrew original, the Greek translation is an interesting reworking of it and may reveal some independent tendencies. However, for most parts of the 1

2

3

4

5

1

Scholars agree almost unanimously on this date; for the older view, that the translator came to Egypt not in the 38 year of Euergetes II, i.e. 132, but already in the 3 century, see Stadelmann 1980, 1-3 and Reiterer 1997, 37. We have now the commentaries of Snaith (1974), di Leila and Skehan (1987) and Sauer (2000). Beentjes 1997, V. Did Ben Sira belong to the upper or lower echelons of society? Some scholars, such as Smend (1906, 345-346) have considered Ben Sira a member of the wealthy class, but Reiterer (1997, 35-37), as Tcherikover before him, assumes that he came from the poorer class and then rose in status. The question of his profession is closely connected with this problem. Stadelmann considers him a priest and scholar (1980, 14-26) and follows the line of Schlatter: "Gelehrte, die nichts als Gelehrte waren, kamen fur Jerusalem zuerst bei Sirach vor" (Stadelmann 1980, 17; cited also by Hengel 1991, 132 and Kieweler 1992, 53). Wright (1997, 189-222) underlines his support for the priests: "Ben Sira is a scribe, perhaps even a priest" (1997, 219). See below p. 31-36. th

2

3

4

5

rd

18

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

text we have only the Greek version and are thus unable to compare it with the original. The miracles of the Old Testament heroes are alluded to very briefly in some passages. Most of them are connected to the circle of exodus, the desert traditions and the conquest of the land (Sir 16:10; 38:5; 43:15-16). There was no need to retell or explain the stories, since it was assumed that the audience was familiar with the texts. The brief references are by no means uninteresting; on the contrary, they show how prominent the Old Testament miracles were in Israel. Moreover, the example in Sir 38:5 gives information about the writer's view. Nevertheless, although the miracles play a major role in only one part of the work, they are of notable signifi­ cance. Laus patrum, Sir 44-50, is an important section that has been given a variety of interpretations, and in which Ben Sira apparently discloses the influence that both the Jewish and Greek traditions had in helping him shape the hymn, although many literary models were written in prose and not in verse. On the other hand, the writer had many examples to follow in the holy writings. The Old Testament contains short presentations of Israel's his­ tory, such as Deut 26:5-11; Jos 24:2-25; Ps 78:105-106 and 135-136, Neh 9 and Ezek 20. Von Rad, however, already recognised the difference be­ tween Laus patrum and the earlier presentations: It was no longer God and his hidden or open presence but the famous men of the past that were the subject of praise. The Greek tradition also offered a model for short biographies, explain­ ing why Sir differed from the traditional Hebrew way of dealing with his­ tory. The most famous example of such biographies is Cornelius Nepos' 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

6

It is interesting that Ben Sira rejects divination in Sir 34:5 and prays for new miracles in Sir 36:5 (see below p. 31-36). In Laus patrum he refers to the deeds of David (Sir 47:3) and mentions that Enoch was taken to heaven (Sir 49:14). The passages, together with passages dealing with Moses and Joshua, are disputed below. The numeration follows Ziegler's edition of Septuagint, which is concordant with Beentjes' Hebrew text (1997). See below p. 20. Mack could still easily count the number of works on the hymn in 1985, 3, but since then the research has been prolific. On a history of the research see Reiterer 1997, 55-57. See Kieweler 1992, 59; Coggins 1998, 78-83. See von Rad 1989 (1962), 367-369; Mack 1985, 7. 217. Von Rad 1970, 330-331; see also Lee 1986, 23-31. It is strange that Whybray seems to be unaware of the long discussion. He denies the influence of Greek historiography and Greek and Hellenistic models (1999, 139). Whybray cites several Old Testament texts which touched on the history of Israel, but fails to see (as von Rad did) that the view is now different. On the historiographical and encomiastic influence see Mack 1985, 120-137. 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

19

De viris illustribus, although long before Nepos the philosophical tradition had created a way to briefly present a man and his deeds. Diogenes Laertius gives a good (although late) example of this genre in his work on the most famous philosophers. This type could be encomiastic, as Nepos' work was, but not necessarily. In the public and private libraries, espe­ cially, there was a need for works that briefly presented writers and his­ torical figures to the broader, superficially educated population. Given the transition from prose to Hebrew verse, Ben Sira was - as far as we know the first Jew who used the form of the Hellenistic short biographies to ful­ fil his task. Laus patrum is thus generally considered an important part of the work. Mack's analysis shows that it is carefully formulated and that the charac­ terisation of the fathers follows a well-planned pattern. He names their office, election, covenant, virtues, deeds, historical setting and rewards. The pattern works well but is not used mechanically. As far as I know, the role of the biblical miracles in Laus patrum has never been thoroughly in­ vestigated, although von Rad, and subsequently Stadelmann noted impor­ tant details. Eve deals with miracles in Ben Sira and makes many impor­ tant observations, but he writes quite briefly and without reference to sev­ eral important works. 15

16

17

18

b. Moses 19

Ben Sira is not the first early Jewish writer to write about Moses, but the first known to us to discuss the role of Moses' miracles. Moses occurs in 20

1 5

It is clear that the hymn shows encomiastic features, but, as he tries to show in his book (1986), it can hardly be labelled an encomium. The transition from prose to Hebrew verse means that the writer could not directly use any of the Greek genres. Von Rad inquired about the Hellenistic genre helping Ben Sira to shape the picture of Elijah, but could not find the answer (1970, 331). Later, the problem was solved when the study advanced to the Greek short biographies; see Mack 1985, 124-128; Mack Murphy 1986, 376-377 and Schwemer 1995, 43-50. Mack 1985, 17-26. Eve (2002, 106-114) does not refer to von Rad (1970), Tiede (1972), Middendorp (1972), Hengel (1974), Stadelmann (1980) or Beentjes (1989). Sauer's commentary (2000) and Ska's (1999), Whybry's (1999) and Hoffken's (2000) important articles ap­ parently came too late to be observed by him. Many Jewish writers deal with Moses, but not necessarily with his miracles. We, for example, have only a few fragments of Demetrius' work, written about 221-204 B.C. (see Walter 1989, 387; Collins 2000a,33-35). Alexander Polyhistor, who included these fragments in his lost work, has not cited the title (see Walter 1975,280-283; Holladay 1983,51-54). The method was Aporiai kai lyseis, common in the exegesis of Homer's works, in which the different passages were explained. Fragments F4 and F5 point to 1 6

17

1 8

1 9

20

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

Laus patrum, but also elsewhere in some passages which will be treated here. The writer mentions the 600,000 soldiers only briefly (Sir 16:10). More interesting for the present study is how Sir cites a miracle performed by Moses. It is part of the famous praise of the physician (Sir 38:4-7): 21

"God makes the earth yield healing herbs, which the prudent should not neglect. Was not the water sweetened by a twig that people might learn his power? He endows humans with the knowledge to glory in his mighty works, through which the doctor eases pain and the druggist prepares his medicines." Ben Sira clearly alludes to the story told in Exod 15:22-27, retold by several Jewish writers studied in the present book. Does the Septuagint already reveal some tendency in rendering the passage? The LXX translates the name m o / Meppcc (TTiKpi'cc) in v. 23. p is translated as £iiAov 25. God's words in v. 26 are given in the participle and not in the substantive 'iccxpds (l^sn m.T '»* o / eyed y a p E'IUI Kiipios 6 'icouevds as. Some of these details may be of some importance in the texts studied in the present book, al­ though hardly in Ben Sira. 22

m

v

The role of the physician in early Judaism is certainly obscure, but the Graeco-Roman point of view is not easy to define either. A simplified view sometimes suggested is that the traditional Old Testament belief banned the medicine used by the Greeks. It is easy to quote many critical passages from the Old Testament to show that it may have been considered a sin to seek help from physicians. According to Snaith and Sauer, Ben Sira is influenced by the Hellenistic view. The question is, however, 23

Moses' miracles, but contain no new interpretations. Appparently comparing Demetrius with Artapanus, Alexander Polyhistor claimed that the former wrote in accordance with the holy writings. Collins also includes Demetrius in the "faithful chroniclers" (Collins 2000a, 33). Aristobulus deals briefly with the miracles in Exodus in Fr. 2,8, rejecting all anthropomorphic interpretations. Moses' miracles are mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, sometimes briefly (as in 4Q226, 4Q422, 4Q434 and 4Q491), sometimes more extensively, but the text follows very faithfully the biblical original (4Q365). It is possi­ ble that even the mutilated 4Q377, which calls him "anointed", mentions his miracles (Zimmermann 1998,332-342). On Moses in Sir see Tiede 1972, 181-182; di Leila - Skehan 1987, 509. 510-511; Sauer 2000, 306-307. See Snaith 1974, 183-185; di Leila - Skehan 1987, 438-444; Sauer 2000, 260-263. The English translations given are by di Leila and Skehan (1987). Sauer (2000, 260-263) quotes the biblical passages in which the Lord is called healer: Gen 20:17; Exod 15:26; Deut 32:39; Ps 30:3; Isa 57:18. In 2 Chr 16:12 Asa seeks help from the physicians and not from God. Only the last of these texts unequivocally criticises the physician as such, while the others have different targets in addition to the physicians. 2 0

21

2 2

2 3

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

21

clearly more complicated. We know that medical treatment could be com­ bined with religious ideas in very different ways in classical antiquity as well as in early Judaism. Classical antiquity knew several medical traditions: Some were the first steps in empirical science, and medicine advanced strongly in Ptolemaic Egypt. Some traditions were related to religion, and healing gods were very popular. These two branches of traditions could easily be combined. The temples of Asclepius, for example, were centres offering a variety of medicaments and even longer cures. When magical treatments are added to the list of traditions it should be obvious that there is no "Hellenistic" view on the role of the physician, but many different views and their com­ binations. Also the view that medicine was banned in early Judaism is hardly cor­ rect. Admittedly Asa is criticised in 2 Chr 16:12 for seeking help from the physicians and not from God, and 1 En. 7:1 considers magical medicine as something taught to men by the Watchers. Common sense, however, tells us that these passages are not the entire truth: Men were ill and also treated in the Old Testament times. According to Exod 21:18-19, a man hitting another has to pay the costs ( K S T asm p TOSD p-i) and "Elijahu, the physician" is mentioned in a seal from the late seventh or early sixth cen­ tury. The Deuteronomistic belief explicitly rejected several arts of magi­ cal techniques (e.g., Deut 18:9-12), but Isa 1:4-9, Jer 8:22 and Jer 46:11 attest that a medical treatment was not always banned in Israel. Even Isa 38:21-22 / 2 Kgs 20:1-11 link God's help with a medical cure when a poul­ tice of figs is used to heal Hezekiah's boil. We know of different ways in which God's help and medical treatment were later integrated. Philo (Alleg. Interp. 2,6; Ios. 11,63) or Josephus (Vita 404, 421) never found it problematic. The community in Qumran, despite its awareness of 1 En. 7:1, seems to have used healing herbs and exorcistic techniques and repre­ sented a view close to the one in Jub. The most obvious parallel to Sir 38:1-15 is the book of Tobit, in which God's angel, who is ominously named Raphael, teaches the young Tobias to heal his old father (Tob 3:1624

25

26

27

2S

2 4

On the medicine of classical antiquity see Kollmann 1994, 61-72; Nutton 1999, 1107-1117. See van Cangh 1982, 264-269; Koskenniemi 1994, 220-221. Asclepius' cult cannot be regarded as a monolithic ideology. Chronological and pos­ sibly even geographical factors meant that the combination of religion and treatment was seen in different ways. Aelius Aristides writes that people stayed in sanctuaries for long periods (see LiDonnici 1995, 48-49). See Kaiser 2001, 12-19, who gives clear evidence of a positive attitude to medical cures. See below p. 51. 2 5

2 6

2 7

2 8

22

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

17; 11:7-8). In this book the apotropaic technique and medical cure are combined with the idea that God is the healer. Becker observes that the early rabbis often mention physicians in the Mishna and Tosefta. It is hardly a coincidence that Ben Sira, writing about the role of the physician, quotes Moses' miracle, because immediately after Moses casts the twig and makes the water sweet, God says to him: "If you listen carefully to the voice of the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay at­ tention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you" ("|»s"i mrr •»» o ) . Ben Sira thus reads Exod 15:25 very carefully, linking the miracle with verse 15:26: Moses acts skilfully, and this is precisely the way in which God acts as healer through his agent. But does Ben Sira rationalise the event? Sauer interprets the passage as displaying a marked rationalistic tendency, but offers no argument. Eve approaches the question briefly. It is obvious, though, that the term is problematic. Ben Sira hardly tries to rationalise the miracle. His concept of miracle differed from the modern one. According to Ben Sira, God helps his people in many ways. Philo later attests the view that the wood Moses cast naturally had such an ef­ fect, and apparently Ben Sira was also aware of the explanation that the water miracle was analogous to a physician's treatment: According to him, God has created everything and is able to let his people know how to treat others. The methods God uses to help his people may differ, but it is al­ ways God the Creator who should be praised. The combination of medi­ cal treatment and God's help differs somewhat from Tob or Jub., but all of these texts link the two in some manner. Ben Sira also retells other biblical stories without reservation. His link­ ing of a biblical story with the work of a physician does not indicate ra­ tionalisation, but the merging of different views into one. Labelling this view as Hellenistic or Jewish is problematic, since both cultures clearly 30

31

32

33

34

2 9

See Kottek 2000, 9. See Becker 2002, 385-388. "Eine bemerkenswert rationalistische Einstellung verrat Ben Sira dadurch", Sauer 2000, 262. According to Eve (2002, 108) Ben Sira does not make the work of the physicians more miraculous by association with the Mosaic story; he makes the Mosaic story less miraculous. However, the question is apparently not put properly, because neither of the two seems to be Ben Sira's intention. Philo mentions this as a possible explanation; see below p. 122. The Hebrew and the Greek texts differ markedly in Sir 38:15. The Hebrew reads im KSTI 'as ? naarr inenr ^a ? «oin, but the Greek 6 ccuapTccvcov evavri TOU noirjaavoTOs auTOV euTTeooi sis X ^P S 'taTpou. Eve (2002, 108) does not consider the text to be contradictory to a positive attitude towards the physician. 3 0

31

32

3 3

3 4

1

1

£

a

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

23

included several positions, most of which combined medical cures with religious beliefs. Ben Sira's way of alluding to the biblical stories makes it generally diffi­ cult to speak about a "numinous power." Consequently, Moses is not a BNP ("Bearer of Numinous Power") or a MNP ("Mediator of Numinous Power") in Kahl's terminology; instead, he could be considered a PNP ("Petitioner of the Numinous Power"). The function presupposed in the story has changed: When Moses in Exodus rescues his people by mediat­ ing God's help, the goal of the narrative is to connect the work of the phy­ sicians with God's helping hand. Ben Sira tells more about Moses' miracles in Laus patrum (Sir 44:2345:5): "From him he had spring the man, who should win the favour of all the living; Dear to God and humans, Moses, whose memory is a boon. God made him like the angels in honour and strengthened him with fearful powers, wrought swift miracles at his words and sustained him in the king's presence. He gave him the commandments for his people, and revealed to him his glory. For his trustworthiness and meekness God selected him from all humankind. He permitted him to hear his voice, and led him into the cloud, where he gave into his hand the commandments, the law of life and understanding, that he might teach his precepts to Jacob his covenant decrees to Israel." Ben Sira's brief summary of Moses' life does not allow a deeper study of its relation to the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Pentateuch (for a detailed comparison see pp. 20, 57, 66, 70, 74, 92, 99 and 123). However, one verse has played an important role in the scholarly debate, namely, Exod 7:1. In this verse (nvish crn^K -pnn] ntn) a man is appar­ ently honoured more highly than anywhere in the Old Testament, and Moses is called a god. Both Exod 7:1 and Exod 4:16 are highlighted in the studies investigating early Juda­ ism. Scholars supporting the OeTos avrjp hypothesis believed that the Jews were led to reinterpret their heroes as divine beings and half-gods. Exod 7:1 opened the door to this kind of reinterpretation, and it is interesting to examine whether or not it was used. In any case, the L X X preserves the sense of the Hebrew text (SESCOKO: oe 0e6v Qccpccco) without any trace that the words were problematic to the translators. However, here the Hebrew and Greek texts of Ben Sira differ (see below). 35

3 5

This view occurred sporadically earlier but was formulated by Hahn in his Chistologische Hoheitstitel (1963, 292-308).

24

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

Ben Sira mentions Moses more briefly than Aaron or many other persons after him. As usual Ben Sira shows less interest in certain periods of his­ tory or events than in persons. It is not easy to say which miracles pre­ cisely are referred to, especially because the Hebrew text is mutilated in 45,2-3: : t r a r m insotn Dvfr[ ] b'l (in margin) : -pn *Efr inptm nna [ ]-n rwn (in margin) 36

w

[

]-n

[...] %] irri2n

The Greek text reads E V Aoyois auTou OTjjjeTa KccTerrauaev eSo^aaev a u x o v KaTa rrpoacoTrov {JaaiAecov.

Skehan translates the Greek as "wrought swift miracles at his words", which seems to be correct. According to Eve, Ben Sira only refers to the miracles that Moses performed in the presence of the Pharaoh, "that is, the signs with rod and hand and the plagues", and he wonders why the mira­ cles of the Red Sea crossing and wandering in the wilderness are passed over in silence. However, it seems impossible to restrict the miracles re­ ferred to so precisely. The Pharaoh was of course present at the Red Sea, and unless the plural (3aaiAecov is a mistake it may even include the battle against Amalek or other nations. The fact remains, however, that although the water at Marah is mentioned in another context, Moses' miracles are reported only briefly. According to Skehan - di Leila and Eve, the reason is Ben Sira's desire to emphasise Aaron as the source of the Levitical priesthood. Still, the brief mention of Moses does not mean that he is relegated to a minor role in the hymn. On the contrary, in Sir 45:1-5, Ben Sira calls attention to two of his accomplishments: i.e., the miraculous leadership and the Law. These two aspects of his mission raise him above every other human being. Aaron may be the privileged heir, but Moses is the pioneer in Ben Sira. The hymn usually mentions the office of the fa­ ther, but it is now absent. This may indicate that Moses' mission was not easy to characterise: He was teacher, prophet and ruler, and his office was, as Mack says, certainly sui generis. Neither the events in Exodus nor the 37

38

39

40

41

36

See Mack 1985, 49. Eve 2002, 109. Di Leila - Skehan 1987, 510-511; Eve 2002, 110-111. Aaron is clearly given a larger role (Sir 45:6-26). The story about Dathan and Abiram and the "band of Korah" (cf. Num 16:1-17:31) is mentioned in this passage (Sir 45:18). Ska 1999, 186-187. See Mack 1985, 30. 37

3 8

3 9

4 0

41

25

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

journey in the wilderness is reported extensively: An allusion is enough, here as well as in Sir 43:16. Moses' miracles ( O T H J E T O C , Sir 45:3; the Hebrew text is mutilated) are alluded to very briefly, obviously because they were so well-known to the audience that they did not need to be retold. His role is summarised in words apparently essentially different in the Hebrew and Greek texts. The Hebrew text in Sir 45:2 is fragmentary. MS B reads crn^ ] with 'D*n in the margin. Vattioni reads Errf?[K IZPK ira]i, Tiede wrt7N2 irrcri (his translation: "he made him [Moses] as glorious as God"), but di Leila reads DTfrto m r o n . The Greek translation reads copoicooEv auxov 5ol;r) 42

4 3

44

45

46

47

4 8

t /

49

ayicov.

Alan Lowe, who is working on the manuscripts of Ben Sira, kindly checked the reading in manuscript B (Oxford). In his view, more letters can be read than Beentjes indicates in his edition: : D'orion insom •"'n^n* in3[ D ]i ™ (2a in margin), •nmon (2b in margin) : -pn "izb inpmn ino m m "Q-Q mm (3a in margin) : TTQD n[K ip *rm DOT imsn Although the exact Hebrew words are uncertain, they apparently followed the thought in Exod 7:1 (runs ? d'IYtk jam). The LXX still follows the sense of the Hebrew text, but Philo as well as the Samaritan tradition and ,

,

50

51

1

42

onn *)T irom in Sir 43:16 seems to point to Ps 114:4 and p'n *pnn mm in Sir 43:17a to Exod 14:21. A very similar allusion to Ps 114 is seen in Pseudo-Philo's L.A.B.; see below p. 195. On the word, see below p. 67-67. According to Mack, Ben Sira "recognised (the Pentateuch) as an epic and regarded it as significant mainly as an epic." The model is assumed to be the study of the Homeric epic in the Hellenistic schools "and especially among the Stoics" (1985, 114. 228-229). However, the view is hardly correct. Ben Sira shows very little signs of an allegorisation. Beentjes 1997, 78. Tiede 1972, 181-182. Di Leila - Skehan 1987, 509. Snaith (1974, 220-221) gives no Hebrew text, but according to him the Hebrew text compared Moses to a god, echoing Exod 7:1; the Greek translator misunderstood god to be angels. Sauer cites the manuscripts and gives a translation ("Gott lieB ihn hintreten", 2000, 306). The Vulgate reads similem ilium fecit in gloria sanctorum. Ben Sira apparently wrote in3[D]i, but, as in 44:23b the scribe has confused the rare verb H3D with the familiar pD. The small circles, which are in the manuscript, denote a variant reading. In ina[ D ] i (2a) n is not sure, and both the initial i and 3 are still more uncertain. In 3a the second i in mrriK is not sure, and the n in - m a is still more uncertain. In 3c uvn is uncertain, but fits the ink marks well. In 3d kti is definite and the b is fairly certain; all the following let­ ters are very uncertain but do fit the remaining ink. 4 3

4 4

4 5

4 6

4 7

4 8

4 9

5 0

51

,

,

, ,

26

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

the rabbinic texts found it problematic. The Greek text of the Wisdom of Ben Sira seems to share the problem, rendering the text in a changed form, in which copoicoaev auxov 5O£T] ayicov apparently indicates angels. Ben Sira himself seemed to have a problem with the Hebrew words. In neither Exodus nor in Sir do they mean deification, but a legitimisation by miracles: Moses' nature is not divine; he is a messenger of God. The Jewish tradition was, as Holladay noted, very careful not to mix the roles of God and man, and the Greek text is evidence of this view. The miracles certainly make clear in the Wisdom of Ben Sira that Moses is God's agent, but his miracles can be treated briefly, because he no longer needs legitimisation in a work written for Jews. In the passage dea­ ling with Joshua (Sir 46:1) Ben Sira refers to Moses as r w o n rwn m m . That he was a prophet (Deut 18:18) did not even need to be mentioned to the Jewish audience. 53

54

55

56

5 7

c. Joshua 58

After Aaron and Phinehas, Ben Sira summarises the miracles of Joshua: "Valiant conqueror was Joshua, son of Nun, aide to Moses in the prophetic office. Formed to be, as his name implies, the great saviour of God's chosen ones, wreaking vengeance on the enemy and giving to Israel their inheritance. What glory was his when he raised his hand to brandish his sword against the city! Who could withstand him

5 2

See below p. 153 and Holladay 1977, 124-125. Di Leila and Skehan cite Exod 4:16; 7:1 but also Ps 8:6 and interpret the Hebrew text to mean angels (1987, 509). For Abraham, Philo uses the words Tooe, CXYYeAoie, YCYOVWC, (Sacr. 5). Oberhansli-Widmer (1994, 354-355) regards Sir 45:1-2 as the first example of Moses' divinisation in Jewish literature (1994, 354-355). However, she completely over­ looks Exod 7:1 as the source of the verses as well as the difference between the Hebrew and Greek texts. See Tiede 1972, 181-182; Holladay 1977, 124-125. Holladay summarises his study as follows: "As to the question of whether in Helle­ nistic-Judaism it became easier for Jews to conceive of a divine man because the line of demarcation between man and God had become blurred, we have seen evidence that sug­ gests that Hellenization among Jews, rather than bridging the gap, only widened it" (1977, 235). See below p. 27. On Joshua in Sir see Snaith 1974, 227-230; Stadelmann 1980, 189-192; di Leila Skehan 1989, 517, 518-520; Sauer 2000, 313-316. 53

5 4

55

5 6

57

58

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

27

when he fought the battles of the Lord? Was it not at his same hand the sun stopped, so that one day became like two? He called upon the Most High God when he was hard pressed, with enemies on every side; And God Most High gave answer to him with the driving force of glistening hail. Which he rained down upon the hostile army till on the slope he destroyed the foe; That all the doomed nations might know the Lord was watching over his people's battles. And because he was a devoted follower of God and in Moses' times showed himself loyal, he and Caleb, son of Jephunneh, when they opposed the rebel assembly, averted God's anger from the people and suppressed the wicked complaint because of this, those two alone were spared of the six hundred thousand infantry, to lead the people into their inheritance, the land flowing with milk and honey" (Sir 46:1-8).

The book of Joshua tells four stories about Joshua, which are clearly mira­ cles: the crossing of the Jordan (Jos 3:1-5:1), the conquest of Jericho (Jos 5:13-6:27), the hailstones (Jos 10:8-14) and the stopped sun at Gibeon (Jos 10:12-13). Ben Sira heavily condenses the extensive biblical material. The LXX does not attest to any clear redactional tendencies in these passages. On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX, see below p. 249.

The last two events alone, which in Joshua are mostly miracles of God, are directly mentioned in the Wisdom of Ben Sira, and possibly with some inaccuracies. The omission of the first two, however, does not detract from the miraculousness of Joshua's leadership, especially because the hailstones are also mentioned in Sir 43:15. The Hebrew text uses the bibli­ cal words TODm m to characterise Joshua, but adds rwon (G: SidSoxos 59

60

61

5 9

Joshua's mission, of course, was "to lead the people into their inheritance" (Sir 46:8). Yet, the crossing of the Jordan is not retold in detail. According to Snaith, Ben Sira erringly connects Joshua's prayer with the hailstorm, whereas Jos 10:14 links it with the halting of the sun and moon (Snaith 1974, 229). The note is correct, but apparently Ben Sira has presumed that Joshua prayed prior to God's words "Do not be afraid of them" (Jos 10:8). Di Leila and Skehan (1987, 517) observe another possible inaccuracy, when Ben Sira links the miracle of halting the sun with Joshua's hand and not with his voice (Sir 46:4). However, it is also possible that Ben Sira supposed that Joshua was praying with raised hands. On similar questions, see below p. 36. Jos 1:1; Num 11:28. 6 0

61

28

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira 62

Mcouafj ev TTpo^riTEiais). Joshua is not only a helping hand, but also Moses' successor, and so Joshua is included among the prophets, not be­ cause of his words but because of his deeds. Moreover, this was the only time he was called a prophet: Josephus also calls him by this name (5id5oxos . . . E T T I . . . T O C ? S Trpo(|>r|TEiais, Ant. 4,165). If Josephus follows a tradition, it may have antedated Ben Sira's work. In Ben Sira, the miracles of Joshua are not only an isolated event in Joshua's life but clearly the main part of his mighty deeds. From the vast material included in Josh, the writer picked two of the four miracles for his short summary, and they thus play a prominent role. In contrast to Josh, the miracles now belong to the heart of Joshua's mission. They show that "the Lord was watching over his people's battles", and are now tightly bound with Joshua's militant leadership. Did Ben Sira believe that Joshua's miracles were important for his own time? This question, a sub­ ject of vivid discussion in the last 30 years, needs to be asked again. It is a wide issue that also has consequences for an interpretation of the miracles in the work. In 1972, Th. Middendorp published a book on the Wisdom of Ben Sira. He defended the view already presented long before, that the original work was not at all anti-Hellenistic. On the contrary, he identified some one hundred alleged quotations from Greek literature, about half of them from Theognis. Although the work was originally written in Hebrew, Mid­ dendorp assumed that Ben Sira had used a Greek florilegium and that his work was intended to be a schoolbook in the Greek manner. Some impor­ tant passages were now regarded as interpolations from the Maccabean 63

64

65

66

Sauer (2000, 313-316) correctly underlines Joshua's militant nature in The Wisdom of Ben Sira, but fails to see his prophetical mission. He is not only the servant of the prophet Moses, but also - as the Greek translation understandably puts it - his 5td5oxos in this mission. Ska (1999, 183.184) observes the innovation. See Snaith 1974, 228-229. Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus (1972). Particularly Pautrel tried already in 1963 to establish a connection between Ben Sira and the Stoics (Ben Sira et le Stoicisme). Middendorp 1972, 7-34. Middendorp supposed that the writer knew Greek literature better than the translator, who could no longer find the original Greek expressions (1972, 8). The contacts between Ben Sira and Greek writers have been studied and discussed long before and after Middendorp. Most scholars agree that Ben Sira was under Hellenis­ tic influence, but some deny the proposed direct literary contacts. On this question see Mack 1985, 91. 222-223; Hengel 1991, 149-150; Reiterer 1997, 41-43. Kieweler (1992) scrutinised the evidence presented by Middendorp and found it very weak. Indeed, Mid­ dendorp fails to give exact citations but works with the similarity of the ideas. However, many ideas were common to the Greek as well as to the Hebrew literature and it is diffi­ cult to prove Middendorp's assertion that Ben Sira used a Greek florilegium. 6 3

64

6 5

6 6

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

29

period. Middendorp's book was immediately and severely criticised in a review (1974) by Hengel, who had represented a totally different view in Judaism and Hellenism (the first German edition in 1969 and the second in 1973). Since these studies the alleged anti-Hellenism - aggressive or not - in the work has divided scholars. Some of them underline the national colouring of the work and Ben Sira's connection of all universal wisdom with Israel. Other scholars emphasize Ben Sira's contacts with Greek thought and deny any contradiction with it. The study of heroes' miracles may shed light on the question. Joshua's mighty deeds clearly belong to the history shaping the identity of Israel, and he is not called a prophet by coincidence; he guarantees the continuity of the covenant. Ben Sira considers him to be the bridge be­ tween Moses and the judges (especially Samuel). The promise in Deut 18:18 is applied to Joshua, who gave his people their heritage in the Prom­ ised Land. Sir 46:1-8 is undoubtedly marked by pride in the leader's militant power. Joshua attacks "all doomed nations" (mn na, G has only eBvn, Sir 46:6). Here the miracles have become a significant part of his image. Neither ad68

69

70

71

72

6 7

See below p. 34-36. Hengel 1974, 83-87, reprinted with an epilogue in Kleine Schriften 1 1996, 252-257. Hengel calls Middendorp's book "eine typische Anfangerarbeit." In his view, Midden­ dorp failed to demonstrate the alleged literary relations between The Wisdom of Ben Sira and many Greek sources, overlooked the fact that in Ben Sira's work, wisdom dwells exclusively in Zion, and excluded everything that did not fit his view, considering them as later additions. The German edition of Schurer considers Ben Sira a traditionalist. "Es ist die Zeit des hereinbrechenden Hellenismus. Der Vertreter gehort zu den Altglaubigen und beklagt es tief, dafi die gottlose Manner das Gesetz des Hochsten verlassen haben (41,8)" (4. ed. 3 [1909], 3, 215). R. Smend claims that Ben Sira had a deep hatred of the Greeks (1906, xxiv) and expressed a Jewish declaration of war against Hellenism (1907, 33). See also Hengel 1974, 83-85; repr. 1996, 252-257. These scholars may not deny that Ben Sira was a cultured man of his time and familiar with Greek literature, but consider his book to be a reaction against the wholesale acceptance of Greek ideas to the detriment of their faith. Recently the national colouring has been stressed by Whybray 1999, 138, Sauer 2000, 30-31 and VanderKam 2001, 117: "Ben Sira's purpose seems to have been to convince his audience, presumably Jewish, that the true wisdom was not to be sought in the books and teachings of the Greeks but in the writings and instruction of the Jewish tradition." Pautrel (1939, 545) stressed Ben Sira's contacts with Greek thought. In Mack's view Ben Sira's book reveals "the marks of an erudite cosmopolitan" and "openness to Helle­ nistic thought" (1985, 85; similarly also Mack - Murphy 1986, 374-375). Eve considers Ben Sira opposed "not to Hellenism as such, but to any form of modernization that threatened what he saw as the ancestral faith" (2002, 106-107). On the history of research see Marbock 1997, 42-43. On his own view see Marbock 1999, 170-173. See Becker 2002,211. Stadelmann 1980, 191. 6 8

6 9

7 0

71

7 2

30

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

ditions nor alterations to the biblical original were needed; the picture is now radically changed. The biblical material opens the door for a reinterpretation, but only after a careful selection of the material. Miracles and politics are combined in an aggressive way. With the exception of Laus patrum the work admittedly contains very few verses showing Ben Sira's political activity. He may advise the reader not to get mixed up in political matters, but he also reveals his interest in the life of his people. Appar­ ently Ben Sira thought that God's covenant with David as it once was belonged to history and that it was the High Priest who represented conti­ nuity. If that is true, one theocracy had made room for another, although the latter was less militant and possible satisfied to control only a narrow segment of society. Nevertheless, Israel's past offered enough fuel for political zeal. The word cnn, admittedly omitted in the Greek translation, shows that this fuel is by no means absent in Sir, although the target of the aggression is not yet clear. Even so, or possibly for that reason, later inter­ pretations of Joshua as a hero were controversial and he caused a moderate writer such as Josephus many problems. This kind of leader could be and indeed was used for political purposes during turning points in Israel's history. Some scholars (especially Stadelmann and Hengel) have seen a line leading from Ben Sira to the later Jewish movements such as the later apocalyptic prophets and even John the Baptist. Ben Sira's description of the great conqueror certainly gave enough evidence to those who desired a politically-minded Joshua. His miracles were emphasized and adapted to new situations. The German slogan, Die Endzeit entspricht der Urzeit, re­ veals a specific Jewish trait, which did not belong to Greek concepts of miracles. It is easy to quote Ben Sira and label Joshua as a PNP ("He called upon the Most High God ... and God Most High gave answer to him with the 73

74

75

76

77

78

7 3

Middendorp (1972, 163-164), as well as Hengel, underlines the writer's caution, but Hengel also attributes a clear political view to him (1991, 134). According to Midden­ dorp and Mack (1985, 58-59) he followed the politics of Simon the High Priest. Ben Sira does not forget David but, interestingly enough, mentions him in a strange place in the hymn, which otherwise follows a chronological order. He is mentioned in connection with Phinehas, after Aaron and before Joshua. Priest suggests that Ben Sira represented a belief in two Messiahs attested already in Zech 6 and common in Qumran (Priest 1964-66, 111-118). Also, the passage on Elijah shows that a sort of "Messianism" cannot be ruled out in Sir (see Martin 1986, 107-123). See Stadelmann 1980, 157. Mack, too, considers Simon's ministry to be the climax of the sacred history in Sir (1985, 49-52). According to Mack (1985, 84-85), Ben Sira was, as were the High Priests, happy with the Temple and cult and did not try to expand the power of the priests to the eco­ nomic or political world. See below p. 251-254. Stadelmann 1980, 179-184; Hengel 1991, 135-136. 7 4

75

7 6

7 7

7 8

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

31

driving force of glistening hail"), and indeed he can serve as a good exam­ ple of this label. Joshua's role is, however, not merely that of a man in prayer. He also acts as a leader sent by God. In fact, the comments on the sun in Sir could be interpreted to mean that none other than Joshua himself is the BNP, and that he alone makes the miracle ("Was it not at his same hand the sun stopped"). This tension between two passages so close to each other demonstrates that Kahl's terminology cannot be used without a framework within which to interpret the text. Jewish texts at times may depict someone as an independent miracle-worker without any mention of God. The question is how much interpretation between the lines there was. The audience is a crucial factor influencing the interpretation. Artapanus' text was obviously intended for both Jews and Gentiles, and different read­ ers undoubtedly understood Moses' role in different ways. This is not a problem in Ben Sira, and there is not even the need to be concerned about "a certain amount of poetical licence", because the passage on the glis­ tening hail already provides a more conventional view of Joshua's role: God is obviously the BNP initiating the miracles, but Joshua is clearly his tool, the mediator of God's help (MNP). Miracles play an interesting role in this passage. They do more than merely legitimate Joshua. The writer goes one step further to show how a legitimated leader takes his people to war without any hesitation or fear. His prophetical leadership (rwoaa n$ft rrwti) proves that God watched over his people. In the view of Ben Sira, this obviously did not only refer to the distant past. 79

80

d. Elijah The words about Elijah, again in Laus patrum, form a passage important in many ways (Sir 47:25-48:11): 81

"Their sinfulness grew more and more, and they lent themselves to every evil till a like there appeared a prophet whose words were as a flaming furnace. Their staff of bread he shattered, in his zeal he reduced them to straits; By God's word he shut up the heavens and three times brought down fire.

7 9

See below p. 105. Eve 2002, 111. On Elijah in Sir see Snaith 1974, 238-240; Stadelmann 1980, 197-200; di Leila Skehan 1987, 532-534; 1992, 931-945; Ohler 1997, 6-12; Sauer 2000, 325-327 and Eve 2002, 109-110. 8 0

81

32

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

How awesome are you, Elijah! Whose glory is equal to yours? You brought a dead child back to life from netherworld, by the will of the Lord. You sent kings down to destruction, and nobles, from their beds of sickness. You heard threats at Sinai; at Horeb avenging judgements. You anointed the bearer of these punishments, the prophet to succeed to your place. You were taken aloft in a whirlwind, by fiery captors, heavenward. You are destined, it is written, in time to come to put an end to wrath before the day of the Lord, to turn back the hearts of parents toward their children, and to re-establish the tribes of Israel. Blessed is he who have seen you before he dies! .—« (Sir 48:1-11). 82

The wide biblical material on Elijah offered many aspects to be summa­ rised. Early on, von Rad wondered why Ben Sira had selected the miracles of the prophet. As in Joshua's case they are strongly underlined and form the essence of Elijah's character. This is emphasized by the context: David's rule is an ideal period followed by an age of decadence and sin. Elijah, the prophet of fire, the bearer of punishment and the miracleworker appears in this situation. The biblical Elijah makes and witnesses many miracles. He closes the heavens with his prayer and is fed by ravens (1 Kgs 17:1-6). The widow who gave him a room and bread miraculously receives food every day (1 Kgs 17:7-16) and gets her son back from death (1 Kgs 17:17-24). The Spirit of the Lord takes Elijah and carries him long distances (1 Kgs 17:12. 49). God answers his prayer with fire on Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 17:16-39) and delivers the long expected rain (1 Kgs 18:41-45). Elijah prophesies the death of King Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1:1-8). The fire from heaven twice con­ sumes the men sent for him (2 Kgs 1:9-15). He is taken to heaven miracu­ lously (2 Kgs 2:1-18). 83

84

Ben Sira again strongly abridges long biblical passages, and a comparison between the Hebrew and the very faithful translation does not facilitate an understanding of his text. On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX, see below p. 265.

8 2

The Hebrew text is corrupt in l i b , the Greek reads Kai oi ev ayocTrrjoei KEKoaurmevoi (ms. KEKOiurjuEvoi) / Kai y a p f|us?s £corj £na6ue0a. Sauer considers the verse an interpolation (2000, 325-327). On the reading and the verse, see also di Leila Skehan 1987, 531-532. "Er sieht die Propheten fast nur noch als Wundermanner", von Rad 1970, 331. Stadelmann 1980, 197-198. 8 3

8 4

33

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

Although briefly, Ben Sira chooses a great deal from the biblical material: Elijah closes the heavens, calls for the fire from heaven three times, raises the son from the dead, prophesies Ahaziah's death and is taken to heaven. In the short summary, of course, most of the details are omitted, opening the door to speculations. In any case I do not believe that Jezebel and Baal were left out because the writer was afraid of the pagan rulers. Because the whole biblical story is condensed (as Snaith notes, "three times brought down fire" includes the events at Mount Carmel), there is no reason for guesswork. Elisha is very militant against the pagans in Sir. Ben Sira's short passage does not reveal any clear changes compared with the biblical stories. He neither retells Elijah's miracles nor even lists them, but only alludes to the material he clearly supposes to be known to everybody. The implied audience consists of Jews who had learned their lessons well. Yet, something is left out. Neither the food brought by the ravens nor the widow are mentioned, nor the long distance the Spirit car­ ried Elijah. The stories alluded to help us to understand why these parts of the tradition are omitted: The miracles of the past were also important when Ben Sira wrote his work. The miracles that he chose to retell did not concern the daily lives of individuals, but the nation as a whole. The miracles Ben Sira selected were of political importance. Elijah sent kings to destruction (cf. 2 Kgs 1:1-8) and "anointed the bearer of these punishments" (cf. 1 Kgs 19:16). The second part of the verse suggests that it is not Jehu, who killed Baal's prophets, who is referred to, but Elisha. The kings of the Northern Kingdom play no role in the glorious past of Israel. The real leadership belongs to a few figures who preserved the continuity of the covenant between God and Israel. One of them is Elijah, whose mighty deeds are not just isolated phenomena, but an essential part of his prophetical mission. This idea of mission would answer von Rad's apt question as to why Ben Sira makes the prophets "almost exclusively miracle-workers." Joshua is Moses' successor nwnn and Elijah the suc­ cessor of Joshua as leader of the nation. The covenant and continuity is a central theme in Laus patrum and it is here that Elijah's miracles find their place. Other material - the widow, the son and the ravens - is omit­ ted. For Elijah as well as for Joshua the hero's miracles are emphasized. 85

86

87

88

89

90

8 5

Middendorp 1972, 65; followed by Stadelmann 1980, 198 Snaith 1974,239. The Greek text has 6 X P (3aoiAs7s e'»S avTaTroSouo: (v. 8), which indicates •obo. However, the Hebrew text has moi^n tfro rrenian. Snaith (1974, 239-240) and Sauer (2000, 325) follow the Greek text, but see di Leila - Skehan 1987, 531. See Stadelmann 1980, 199-200. See above p. 31. Stadelmann 1980, 158. 8 6

8 7

8 8

8 9

9 0

, C 0 V

34

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

The miracles are essential parts of the holy history at decisive moments. This history shaped the identity of the nation. The biblical Elijah, the man without compromises, offers many opportu­ nities to show how miracles could change the world. The militant prayer in chapter 36 has sometimes been considered an interpolation, but it per­ fectly matches the bias described above: 91

92

93

"Come to our aid, God of the universe, and put all the nations in the dread of you! Raise your hand against the foreign folk, that they may see your mighty deeds. As you have used us to show them your holiness, so now use them to show us your glory. Thus they will know, as we know, that there is no God but you. Give new signs and work new wonders; show forth the splendour of your right hand and arm; rouse your anger, pour out wrath, humble the enemy, scatter the foe. Hasten the ending, appoint the time when your mighty deeds are to be proclaimed: Let raging fire consume the fugitive, and your people's oppressors meet destruction; smash the heads of the hostile rulers, who say: 'There is no one besides me!'" (Sir 36:1-12). 94

95

The age in which Ben Sira lived was not a peaceful one, but a time of con­ tinuous struggle between the Ptolemaic and Seleucidic rulers over the rule 91

It is difficult to share Whybray's view that Ben Sira's work lacks a view on history: "There is no continuity here, no sense of cause and effect, no feeling of a history moving towards a recognisable goal" (1999, 139). The continuity is formed from covenant and the goal of the history described is that the High Priests take over the role of the great kings. See Schurer 2 (1979), 498: "It is clear, that the author not only pleads, but really hopes, for the destruction of Israel's enemies and a glorious future for the nation corre­ sponding to God's promises." On the prayer see di Leila - Skehan 1987, 420-423, Hengel 1991, 152-153 and Sauer 2000, 247-251. See Middendorp 1972, 125-132; Mack - Murphy 1986, 374-377; Eve 2002, 113-114. However, even these scholars consider the interpolation very old, from the Maccabean period. The theory about an interpolation is not accepted in the commentaries; see Snaith 1974, 174; di Leila - Skehan 1987, 420-423; Sauer 2000, 251. Snaith (1974, 174-175), di Leila - Skehan (1987, 421-422) and Sauer (2000, 250) connect these works with the miracles of the exodus. This is probable but by no means certain. The Hebrew text reads -n^ir y* "iDiKn naiD T I K D mi roan. The verse has led scholars to various speculations. Middendorp (1972, 129) interprets this to mean Antiochus' bust in the temple. Di Leila - Skehan (1987, 422) and Sauer (2000, 250) understand it to refer to the Seleucids. 9 2

9 3

9 4

9 5

35

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

of Palestine. He himself knows that "dominion is transferred from one people to another because of the violence of the arrogant" (Sir 10:8), and the prayer cited above reflects the harsh reality of his own age. The words enn imt pom T Tmn nsia ran ma / eyKcuvioov armeia Kai aAAoicoaov 6au|jaaia, So^aaov x ^ P

a

*ai Ppaxiova 5e£iov (Sir 36:6) link

miracles with the help of God. It is no coincidence that Ben Sira, treating Elijah in Sir 48:10, adds a new feature to Maleachi's verses (Mai 4:5-6), the restoration of the tribes of Israel (cf. Isa 49:6). The restoration, men­ tioned also in Sir 48:10, is the goal and the task of the returning prophet. Elijah not only belongs to the past; he is also a future prophet. The miracles of the past were part of the present in Israel, and they formed an important part of the Jewish eschatology. The concept of Elia redivivus is attested to in Mai 3:23-24, in the New Testament (Luke 1:17 and Matt 11:10; 11:14; 17:10-13), apparently in a text from Qumran (4Q558), and it is commonplace in Mishna. Even if these few words do not allow a study of the eschatology of the work here, Sir 48:1-11 is an early passage indicating this expectation. Subsequent to Middendorp's book cited above there have been two alter­ natives to choose from: Middendorp also considers the verse Sir 48:10 an early interpolation, and regards the whole association between the miracles and politics as post-Maccabean enthusiasm. However, it is easy to rec97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

9 6

Middendorp characterises the period: "Die Zeit der Makkabaer unterschied sich tatsachlich grundlegend von den ruhigen Jahren ptolemaischer Herrschaft" (1972, 113). He is by no means alone in considering the age peaceful, but the view is challenged by some, such as Martin (1986, 118-119). In 198-180, when the work was written, the "dominion" had recently been "transferred from one people to another", i. e. from the Egyptians to the Seleucids. Hengel's summary of the period after the death of Alexander is totally different from Middendorp's: "The struggle for Phoenicia and Palestine was for the next 150 years a decisive factor in the policies of both kingdoms" (Hengel 1989a, 49). According to Stadelmann (1980, 165) Ben Sira has identified Elijah with the suffer­ ing servant in Isaiah, but the few words we have do not allow such a judgement. See di Leila - Skehan 1987, 534. See Stadelmann 1980, 200. Middendorp (1972, 134-135) attributes the words to a glossator. Martin (1986, 111-113) correctly connects Sir 36 with the passage dealing with Elijah and sees in him some kind of Messianic light. The view is also implied in 4Q521. See Zimmermann 1998, 314-316; Schreiber 2002, 529-534 and below p. 224. The view is also confirmed in Sib. Or. 2:187-202. On the Lives of the Prophets, see below p. 184. Cf. Lee 1986, 211-212: "Restoration of the tribes by Elijah may be Sirach's attempt to attribute a future 'political' deed to the prophet to go along with those he has already accomplished." Middendorp 1972, 134-135. He recognises the miracles and writes: "Die Erneuerung von Zeichen und Wundern durch ein neuerliches Eingreifen Gottes in die Geschichte 97

9 8

9 9

100

101

102

103

104

36

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

ognise a link between the miracle-working and politically active prophet and the other nationalistic passages in the work, and it leads one to con­ clude that the writer had a consistent view of the past and present of his people. The biblical Elijah, a strong, zealous and powerful politician, would be problematic for some Jewish writers trying to tone down his political activ­ ity. Ben Sira was still free to go in the opposite direction and identify God's power with the political miracles of the prophet. Elijah's most re­ markable miracles are reported briefly but clearly with pride and joy. Elijah may not have been an independent miracle-worker who could be termed a BNP, but he certainly mediated God's power among his people. 105

106

Some scholars have claimed that Ben Sira erred here, as in Joshua. The Old Testament does not say that Elisha was anointed, and if Sir 48:8 originally contained the kings, it is another inaccuracy: Elijah did not anoint Jehu but Elisha's pupil, and Hazazel is not anointed in the Old Tes­ tament at all. The words in Sir 48:6 (nra D O ^ O imon / o KOCTO:yaycov PaaiXeTs e'is arrcoAeiav apparently point to Ahaziah, but the plu­ ral C P D ^ D / (3ocaiAe7s is difficult in any case, if the harsh sentence against Ahab is not meant (1 Kgs 21:21-29). These details may be called mistakes, yet since God tells Elijah to anoint Elisha and the kings (1 Kgs 19:15-16) Ben Sira may have deemed this as sufficient. As in the passage dealing with Joshua, all inaccuracies are small and they can quite easily be ex­ plained. They also show how eager Ben Sira is to relate miracles dealing with rulers. The miracles are at the heart of Elijah's mission and their role is clear. They are part of his mission and manifest the presence of God's power. The eschatological hope of Israel was intimately connected with the glorious past. 107

108

seines Volkes (Verse 6, 7), gar noch im Sinne von Zorngerichten, entspricht in keiner Weise dem an der Stoa geschulten Gottesbild Ben Siras" (1972, 131; see also 1972, 127). In any case, the miracles play an important role in Laus patrum and are in agreement with the view in the prayer. See below p. 269. See above p. 27. Sauer 2000, 326. As Sauer (2000, 326) notes, it was not Elijah but Elisha who anointed the kings, Hazael, king of Aram and Jehu, king of Israel. Ben Sira may be inaccurate, but Sauer is equally "inaccurate", because it was not Elisha but his anonymous pupil who anointed Jehu (2 Kgs 9:6), and Hazael is not anointed at all in the Old Testament (however, see 2 Kgs 8:13). 105

106

107

108

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

37

e. Elisha Elisha is also one of the chosen fathers in Laus patrum, immediately after his master: 109

"When Elijah was enveloped in the whirlwind, Elisha was filled with his spirit. Twice as many signs he wrought, and marvels with every utterance of his mouth. His life long he feared no one, nor was any able to intimidate his will. Nothing was beyond his power; from where he laid buried, his dead body prophesied. In life he performed wonders, and after death, marvellous deeds. Despite all this the people did not repent, nor did they cease their sinning until they were rooted out of their land and scattered all over the earth But Judah remained, a tiny people, with its ruler from the house of David. Some of them did what was right but others were extremely wicked" (Sir 48:12-16). 110

Among the Old Testament figures, Elisha most certainly can be called a miracle-worker. His mighty deeds are reported in 2 Kgs 2-13. The great number and nature of his biblical miracles have led some scholars to re­ gard this part of 2 Kgs as a model of collections that allegedly preceded the Gospels. Elisha's miracles in the Bible differ slightly from Elijah's: A great part of them happened in the daily life of his kinsmen. The biblical Elisha hits the water of the Jordan with Elijah's cloak and crosses the Jor­ dan (2 Kgs 2:1-18), heals the water in Jericho (2 Kgs 2:19-22) and curses the children, who were soon eaten by bears (2 Kgs 2:23-25). He saves the troops of the kings (2 Kgs 3:1-27), fills the jars of a widow with oil (2 Kgs 4:1-7), foretells the birth of a son to a woman who gives him a room and bread (2 Kgs 4:8-17) and raises him from the dead (2 Kgs 4:18-37). Elisha makes a poisonous food edible (2 Kgs 4:38-41), feeds hundred of men with twenty loaves (2 Kgs 4:42-44) and heals Naaman the Syrian (2 Kgs 5:1111

109

On Elisha in Sir see Snaith 1974, 241-242; Stadelmann 1980, 200-204; di Leila Skehan 1987, 534-535; Sauer 2000, 327-328; Eve 2002, 109-110. Actually the Old Testament tells of only one miracle after Elisha's death, namely the story mentioned by Ben Sira. This may be considered another small error. Achtemaier (1972a, 175-179) supposed the existence of "miracle-catenae", which were modelled on the stories about Moses, Elijah and Elisha. This view has become more common recently; see Moore 1990, 151-152. Goulder already observed the stories care­ fully in 1978, 266-281. 1 1 0

111

38

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

18). He severely punishes Gehazi (2 Kgs 5:19-27), takes an axhead from the Jordan (2 Kgs 6:1-7) and helps kings and mighty men in various ways (2 Kgs 6:8-23; 6:24-7:20; 8:7-15; 13:14-19). Even after his death his bones bring a murdered man back to life (2 Kgs 13:20-21). Clearly, most of the biblical material consists of miracles. Ben Sira gives a brief summary of Elisha's miracles. The Septuagint follows the Hebrew original very faithfully and does not help to clarify Ben Sira's passage. On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX see below p. 272.

Ben Sira's summary of Elisha's life is interesting. As in 2 Kgs the mira­ cles form the main part of his depiction. The words in 2 Kgs 2:9 are inter­ preted to mean that Elisha doubled the miracles his forerunner made ( w r n ^ "jrrna o^bmb / Yevvrj0r)Tco 5rj SiirAd ev m/euijcm oou ett' e|je). Elisha's role is by no means diminished here. He can justly be called an MNP; it is only the contexts that preclude him from being considered an independent BNP. Although the short passage identifies only one story, namely the dead man returning to life in 2 Kgs 13:20-21, Ben Sira makes it clear that the miraculously found axhead was not the essence of Elisha's mission. Mundane miracles seem to have been rather uninteresting to Ben Sira. They are included in the summary, but another type of miracle clearly interests him more. Similarly to Elijah and others, Elisha formed a link between the good kings and the high priests who inherited the covenant God made with David. Elisha's mighty deeds were an essential part of his mission to convert Israel. Nonetheless, in spite of his miracles the peo­ ple did not return to the Lord, leading to the exile of the Israelis, with only a small number remaining in Judah. Ben Sira deals rather light-heartedly with the centuries. The political role of the prophet at this decisive mo­ ment of Israel's history is now clearly emphasized; as a matter of fact it is his only role. Ben Sira hardly wrote this passage because of an antiquarian interest; the passage on Elijah and chapter 36 reveal the adaptation of the biblical stories, the hope of new miracles. Joshua's and Elijah's miracles were a decisive part of their mission, a manifestation of God's power and presence. Moses did not need a legitimi­ sation in The Wisdom of Ben Sira, but the function of his miracles is simi­ lar to that of the mighty deeds of Joshua and Elijah. The miracles and the prophecy build a unity: VWOL K : U vnnnoi "ODD K^D] vb 121 (Sir 48:13). 112

113

114

1 1 5

112

Stadelmann 1980, 200-201. Stadelmann 1980, 203-204.215. Snaith observes that Ben Sira ignores Amos and Hosea, apparently because he used the books of Kings (Snaith 1974, 242). Snaith (1974, 241) and di Leila - Skehan (1987, 532) correct the Hebrew text (iroa to K33) and follow the Greek (Kai sv Koiurjaei eTrpo<J>rJTeuaev TO acouo: auxou). Sauer's translation shows that he seems to retain the reading ("... und noch nach seinem Tode 113

114

115

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

39

The miracles are not isolated phenomena in the passages on Elijah and Elisha; they are intimately linked to the mission to convert Israel. How­ ever, Elisha's mission failed. The people did not repent, and were scattered all over the earth, a rare example of a legitimisation rejected by God's peo­ ple. It is interesting that Ben Sira, waiting for the restoration of Israel (Sir 36:13; Sir 48:10), mentions the "scattered" tribes. Elijah's and Elisha's miracles should have been enough to convert the people, but they were not. This is not the only occurrence of the hymn giving to a father a place on the dark side of Israel's history, but rather seems to belong to the general pattern of the characterisation. In Sir 36:1-12 the writer prays for new miracles and waits for Elijah's return in Sir 48:10. We cannot say with certainty whether he linked these two hopes, but it seems probable. 116

117

/ Isaiah Ben Sira attributes a remarkable passage to Hezekiah and the dramatic events during his reign, and the king is treated positively. Nevertheless, the most important person in the passage is not Hezekiah but Isaiah the prophet: 118

"But they called upon the Most High God and lifted up their hands to him. He heard the prayer they uttered, and saved them through Isaiah. God struck the camp of the Assyrians and routed them with a plague. For Hezekiah did what is right and held fast to the paths of David, as ordered by the illustrious prophet Isaiah, who saw the truth in visions. In his lifetime he turned back the sun and prolonged the life of the king. By his dauntless spirit he looked into the future and consoled the mourners of Zion. He foretold what should be till the end of time, hidden things that were yet to be fulfilled" (Sir 48:20-25).

wurde Leben erschaffen durch sein Fleisch", 2000, 327). Stadelmann 1980, 202-203. See Mack 1985,23. On Isaiah in Ben Sira see Snaith 1974, 242-244; Stadelmann 1980, 204-208; di Leila - Skehan 1987, 536-539; Beentjes 1989, 77-88; Sauer 2000, 328-330; Eve 2002, 109-110 and especially Hoffken's detailed analysis (2000, 162-175). 116

1 , 7

118

40

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

Isaiah's miraculous deeds are reported in a very similar way in 2 Kgs 18:13-20:11 and Isa 36:1-38:22. In the passages treated here (Isa 37:1420; 36-37 / 2 Kgs 19:14-20; 35-37 and Isa 38:1-8; 21-22 / 2 Kgs 20:1-11) the major difference between the texts is the different location of the words on the poultice of figs (Isa 38:21-22 / 2 Kgs 19:7-8). It is not certain which of the texts is the original or whether both texts are from a common source, and the divergence of the texts reveals its complex history. We cannot determine whether Ben Sira followed 2 Kgs or Isaiah or both, but his view is definitely different from 2 Chr 32, where the prophet's role has been almost totally forgotten. The Greek version of Sir seems slightly more faithful to the biblical originals than the Hebrew. 119

120

121

122

It is certainly useful to ask again whether LXX reveals any significant alterations in translating the biblical stories of Isaiah. LXX follows the Hebrew text in Isa 37:14-20; 36-38 very accurately. In 37:14 it omits mm rra ironpn. In v. 38 LXX has n a x a x p o v

(sic; MT viTro, cf. 2 Kgs 19:37 0sou auxou) and in e'.s ' Apurjviav (MT em» p « ; cf. 2 Kgs 19:37 s\s yr\v Apapccr). In 2 Kgs 19:14-20; 35-37 LXX omits impm ^ s r n mm in v. 15. In Isa 38:1-9; 21-22 LXX replaces m« with TOU naxpds oou in v. 8 and adds b fjAios in the same verse. Isaiah's advice after Hezekiah's hymn (21-22) differs rom the Hebrew text: :mm ma nbim o rm no impm -ram :'rm ymn'bv vnD-i D^DWI rbyi iwzr imi>er nam / Kai EITTEV Hoaias rrpos E^EKiav Aa(3E TTaXd0r)V 'EK CUKCOV Kai xpTv|/ov Kai KaxcJ-rrXaaai Kai uyiris Eorj. Kai STTTEV E^EKias Touxo TO OTJUETOV oxi avaprjoouai sis xov OTKOV Kupiou xou 0EOU. In 2 Kgs 20:1-11 m» is rendered with cjtimeTOV in v. 9-10 (as in Isa 38:7; 22). In v. 11 LXX omits rm rnuoa mm im. All in all, it is very difficult to find any traces of conscious redactional biases of the translators concerning the miraculous, although the translators have slightly diminished the difficulties the location of Isa 38:21-22 causes. 123

124

Stadelmann already noted that Ben Sira diminished Hezekiah's role: It is not he (as in Isa 37:4-19 / 2 Kgs 19:14-20) but the people who pray to the Lord for help (Sir 48:20). Isa 38:1-6 / 2 Kgs 20:1-6 tells how the sick king's prayer resulted in help from the Lord, but this is omitted in The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Although the king is also presented in a positive light, Isaiah has a more prominent role. As in Isa 36-39 and 2 Kgs 18-20, the prophet is Hezekiah's teacher, and it is now the prophet who prolongs the

119

See Laato 1988, 271-296. See Laato 1988, 277-278. Isa 61:1-3 was certainly in Ben Sira's mind. On the reminiscences from Isaiah see Hoffken 2000, 170. See Hoffken 2000, 163-171. The Septuagint often modernizes names of biblical places and peoples; see Siegert 2000,214. Stadelmann 1980, 204-205. 120

121

122

123

124

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

41

king's life, and God redeems his people "by his hand" (Tn ojr&m Truer / eAuTpcoaaxo C C U T O U S ev x* P Haaiou, Sir 48:20). Moreover, his person is underlined in the miracle. While in 2 Kgs 20:811 Isaiah prays and God makes the miracle, it is now Isaiah who "turns back the sun." The role of the prophet has grown: he certainly can be called an MNP, and since God is not mentioned at all it is only the wider context that prevents the miracle from being solely attributed to the prophet. Similarly to Elijah and Elisha, Isaiah is also presented as a man of politi­ cal significance. Although he is already a politically powerful man in the Old Testament it is interesting that the miracles are now the device under­ lining his significance. If the writer saw God's covenant with David broken, it is understandable that he did not emphasize the role of the Davidic king. It was Isaiah the prophet and not the king who represented the continuity of the covenant between God and Israel, and the miracles manifested which line in history was the correct one. {

{

126

127

128

g. Conclusion The biblical miracles play a major role in Laus patrum. Ben Sira uses the biblical material to reveal his strong pride in the history of Israel. The glo­ rious past formed the identity of the nation, and the biblical miracles were an essential part of it. There is no need to repeat the miracles; the audience consisted of Jews and short allusions were enough to remind them of the stories. Moreover, the manner of alluding to miracles is already very so­ phisticated in Sir. He may combine the wood cast into the water by Moses with the work of a physician, because the following verse in Exodus speaks about God as healer, or refers briefly to a psalm alluding to a story told in Pentateuch. Ben Sira was the first known writer to retell the biblical miracles and it is difficult to distinguish tradition from something of his own invention. There is no clear evidence of Greek influence in the stories except for the form, but some details may already have belonged to the Jewish heritage in Ben Sira's time. At least Philo followed him in specula-

125

TrpooE0r|Kev £cor|v PccoiAe? (Sir 48:23). The mutilated Hebrew text cannot be read. See Hoffken 2000, 171-172. Hoffken plausibly points to the similar miracle made by Joshua, Sir 46:4 as a back­ ground. A certain caution is necessary: David's position in Laus patrum does not fit the chronological order, but underlines his significance; see above p. 30. 126

127

128

42

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

tions concerning the twig cast into the water and Josephus calling Joshua a prophet. The short passages do not allow a detailed study of the roles of God and man. Moses' casting of the twig into the water has a smaller role than in Exod 15:22-27, but apparently the Hebrew text of Sir rendered the thought in Exod 7:1 faithfully, while the Greek text is different. Joshua seems to be more than a PNP, and it is only the larger context that prevents him as well as Elijah, Elisha and Isaiah from being called independent miracle-wor­ kers, some kind of BNPs. However, although God is not necessarily even mentioned, as in the passage dealing with Elisha, the verses cannot be iso­ lated. The miracles of these men were not absorbed by wisdom, as in Wis­ dom, and they did not become mere messengers as in Chronicles, but their great deeds were retold with pride. The central question concerns the interesting mixture between miracles and politics. Did Ben Sira draw attention to the miracles, because he thought they were actually important? As seen, some scholars have underlined Ben Sira's political activity in this context, while others have been rather scep­ tical. There are very few passages in the work that can be interpreted from a political point of view, and it is generally lacking in material that could be used for a political programme. The conclusion, however, that the writer has little or no interest in political life is only partially true. Laus patrum, but also Sir 36, which is an original part of the work and not an interpola­ tion, contain material worth noting. Moreover, Ben Sira's method of using the biblical miracle stories shows that they were not merely Trapd5o£a, but that the mighty deeds had a political and prophetic significance. He clearly chose miracles that were significant for the history of Israel, while others were of no interest to him. It is strange that the crossing of the Jor­ dan did not interest him, either in the age of Joshua or in the times of El­ isha. Did Ben Sira have a political programme? Did he think that the mighty deeds told in the Scripture belonged solely to the past of the nation? The writer certainly had a view of the past and present of Israel, but there is not enough evidence that he had a political programme. Perhaps he was satis­ fied as long as the Temple stood and the Law was taught. Von Rad doubted whether Ben Sira himself understood how much he had developed the heritage, which he believed he was mediating. Here we may have the 129

129

"Als deren (Vater) Treuhander betrachtet er sich; man kann sogar fragen, ob er sich der Tatsache iiberhaupt bewuBt was, daB und wie er selbst diese uberkommende Traditi­ on nicht unerheblich weiter gebildet hat" (von Rad 1970, 307).

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

43

answer to the question of how Ben Sira treated the biblical miracles. He was eager to retell them and emphasize their political significance. They were part of the great past shaping the identity of the nation, but they did belong solely to the past, and the writer hoped that they could be repeated, moreover, in a militant context (Sir 36:6). Elia redivivus is expected to restore the nation, and the biblical miracles certainly influenced the view of contemporary times. Ben Sira obviously linked the eschatological future of Israel with its glorious past. Even so, the miracles were not part of a consistent political programme. Ben Sira considers himself to be rather the last of the wise men, not the first with a new political view. However, the militant Joshua and Elijah described by Ben Sira were especially open to an interpretation that called for revolts. This possibility was realised later. Although it was not Ben Sira's intention, he was, also here, an important link to the later prophets and movements.

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees a. Introduction Many Jewish texts studied in this work have been found in modern times. One very central early Jewish text was already well known in the early Church, but modern scholars first became aware of it in the mid-nineteenth century. In the text, The Book of Jubilees, God speaks to Moses and lets the "Angel of Presence" tell him about the creation and the history of the world up until Moses' own time. Some parts of the story follow quite accu­ rately the biblical original, but the anonymous writer also allows himself a great deal of freedom. R.H. Charles once dated the work between 135 and 105 BC and consid­ ered the writer a Pharisee, but the work is now generally considered to antedate this period today. According to VanderKam the latest historical event alluded to in the work is Judas Maccabeus' battle in 161 BC, and it is written before the break between the Essenes and Jerusalem. Since VanderKam's study the work has generally been dated to about between 161 and 140, with smaller variations. The provenance of the work is usually supposed to be in the antiHellenistic, religious circles opposing the new spirit of the times in Seleucidic Jerusalem, and more precisely the writer saw himself as belonging to 1

2

3

4

5

6

1

Charles (1902, Ixxiii-lxxxiii) gives a list in Jewish, Samaritan and Christian writers quoting or referring to the work. The Ethiopian version was edited in 1859 and translated into English by Charles in 1902 (VanderKam 1977, v; van Ruiten 2000, 1-2). "The Book of Jubilees was written in Hebrew by a Pharisee between the year of the accession of Hyrcanus to the high-priesthood in 135 and his breach with the Pharisees some years before his death in 105 BC" (Charles 1902, 1). A still later date was com­ monly supposed in the 19 century (see VanderKam 1977, 208-211). VanderKam 1977, 283. See Frey 1997, 324-325. Wintermute (1985, 44) gives precisely these years, Berger (1981, 300) the years 145140; Nickelsburg (1984b, 101-103); Halpern-Amaru (1999, 2) 160-150 and VanderKam 161-152 (1989, v; 2000, 448). Charles considered that the writer's objective was to defend Judaism against the at­ tacks of the Hellenistic spirit (1902, xiii). See also Berger 1981, 298 and Endres 1987, 237-238; Knibb 1989, 17; VanderKam 1997, 19-22. 2

th

3

4

5

6

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

45

7

the line of priestly writers going back to Levi. I Mace 1:11 tells about the Jewish renegades ending the separation between the Jews and the Gentiles. These people were obviously the opponents of the writer and his circles. The nation was divided, and while the reformers tried to establish contact with the Gentiles, the writer and his circles argued for the separation, and found hope in the nation's past. The work was very popular in Qumran. 8

9

10

The work is written in Palestine, and since Charles (1913), Hebrew is gen­ erally supposed to be its original language. Although some doubts have been raised the fragments found in Qumran confirm this opinion. The work was translated into Greek and from Greek into Ethiopic, which forms the basis for the scholarship. 11

Endres noted the great liberties the writer allowed himself with the text. The text was holy, but it did not prevent a free rendering of the stories. On the other hand, the writer only rarely adds a passage freely, and even then it is usually linked in some way to tradition. The subject of the work is biblical history up until Moses, which led the Church fathers to give the work the name Little Genesis (x\ AsTrrrj yeveots). It means that there are not many human miracle-workers in 12

13

7

See Frey 1997, 324; VanderKam 1997, 19. VanderKam 1997, 19-22. See Berger 1981, 298-299; Wintermute 1985, 45-46. Van Ruiten notes that the work speaks negatively of the actual Temple, but positively about the former sanctuaries (e.g. Eden) and about the future Temple. The reason is that the actual Temple was deficient and had to be restored (van Ruiten 1999, 215-227). The numerous fragments and the theological character led Delcor in the Cambridge History of Judaism II to suppose that the work was not only copied but also written by the Essenes, perhaps by several hands and not before 153 (Delcor 1989, 435-436). This view is by no means a new one but was represented, for example, by Jellinek (1855). Schiirer (German ed. 3 [1909], 375) rejected it with arguments that are still valid: There is no doubt that Jub. and the Essenes had much in common, but the work lacks some features, such as ritual washings, which were important in Qumran. The opposite view, that Jub. is written outside the society and before its origins, is held by scholars as Noack (1957-58, 191-207) and Wintermute 1985, 44. VanderKam correctly concludes: "Theo­ logically, Jub. and the Qumran texts are intimately related and are the product of a com­ mon and distinctive tradition; and the author of Jub. was not a member of the exiled Qumran society" (VanderKam 1977, 280-282). About one fourth of the Latin text, also translated from Greek, is preserved, and we also have Syriac fragments (Wintermute 1985, 42). On the history of the text see Berger 1981, 285-294; Wintermute 1985, 41-43 and VanderKam 1989, vi-xxxi. VanderKam edited the critical text (1989a), and his translation is used in the present work. Endres 1987, 249-259. Charles (1902, xv-xvi) supposed that the name goes back to the Hebrew title, be­ cause the form fj MiKpoyeveots also occurs. According to him the epithet "little" points 8

9

10

11

12

13

46

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

the Old Testament either to be studied or excluded. Nevertheless, the work tells about the miracles of two Old Testament heroes, Abraham and Moses, in both cases with new, interesting details. As far as I know, only Eve has studied thoroughly the role of miracles in the work, and his general con­ clusion is that they are not given much attention. However, there is still scope for further study, especially because he overlooks essential features in the passages concerning Abraham. 14

b. Abraham The angel tells Moses about Abraham's conversion and youth. Abraham was only a boy of 14 when he saved the fields in Chaldea. His opponent was no human being, but Mastema, the prince of the demons. In Jub. 11:11-24 Mastema sends ravens and other birds to eat the seed: "Then Prince Mastema sent ravens and birds to eat the seed which would be planted in the ground and to destroy the land in order to rob mankind of their labors. Before they plowed in the seed, the ravens would pick (it) from the surface of the ground. For this reason he named him Terah: because the ravens and bird reduced them to poverty and ate their seed. The years began to be unfruited due to the birds. They would eat all the fruit of the trees from the orchards. During this time, if they were able to save little of all the fruit of the earth, it was a great effort" (Jub. 11:11-13).

The young Abraham realised that the idols and impurity led people astray and began to pray to the Creator. His prayer brought results: "When the time for planting seed in the ground arrived, all of them went out together to guard the seed from the ravens. Abram - a child of 14 years - went out with those who were going out. As a cloud of ravens came to eat the seed, Abram would run at them before they could settle on the ground. He would shout at them before they could settle on the ground to eat the seed and would say: 'Do not come down; return to the place from which you came'! And they returned. That day he did (this) to the cloud of ravens 70 times. Not a single raven remained in any of the fields where Abram was. All who were with him in any of the fields would see him shouting: then all of the ravens returned (to their place). His reputation grew large throughout the entire land of the Chaldeans. All who were planting seed came to him in this year, and he kept going with them until the seedtime came to an end. They planted their land and that year brought in enough food. So they ate and were filled" (Jub. 11:18-22).

Compared with Genesis, with the Hebrew text and LXX, everything is ei­ ther taken from tradition or freely invented. Because the writer only sel­ dom adds anything not based on tradition (although he often allows himto the many details in the book. Also, Schiirer (German edition, 3 [1909], 375) notes that Jub. is more extensive than Genesis, but is of the opinion that the words emphasize the canonical value of the biblical book. Eve 2002, 155-172. 14

47

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

self a great deal of freedom), there is cause to look for biblical passages that may have influenced the text. Gen 15:11 may have served as a back­ ground, as it tells about Abraham and the birds disturbing his sacrifice. LXX does not give any direct evidence of the view that the birds were demons, translating Gen 15:11: Keener) 5 ' opvecc S T T I TOC ocopaTo; T C C 5ixoTO|JT]MC is rendered with xfjs (t>covf]s xou a n u s i o u : Rengstorf thought that the words might point to the wider range of Moses' miracles, but also Exod 20:18 has rftpn n« D'tn nvn (LXX ecopa xrjv ^covrjv), and these odd wordings were noted in early Judaism. The words the Hebrew text uses for miracles are translated quite consistently here, as well as in the other parts of Exodus analysed in the present study. arjueTov (3:12; 4:30), common already in profane Greek, is the standard translation of nu* in LXX. rm I arjUEiov is not only an extraordinary event, but it points in the correct direction. mtfjsa (from tfra) is translated into S a u u d a i a (Exod 3:20). The Hebrew word refers mainly to God's saving deeds in the past (also in Job 37:14). It does not necessarily mean a break­ ing of what we term the laws of nature; it indicates that God helps in a hopeless situation, in a very "natural" way. nsiD does not occur in this passage, but in Exod 4:21, where it is translated as x s p a s . It is common in profane Greek as the adjective X E p d c x i o v . In 23

24

25

26

27

28

LXX, Tepas is a translation of nsiQ in 34 of 38 occurrences in LXX a translation of nsia, 29

but a derivation offc^alies behind it on t w o occasions (Exod 15:11; Jos 28:29). In ex­ tra-biblical Greek x l p a s means 'sign', 'wonder', 'marvel' or 'portent', something which is TTcepd uoiv. LXX uses the word in peculiar way: XEpas, as the original Hebrew nsia, is given by God. The words orjueTa Kai XEpaxa may also occur in extra-biblical Greek (Polyb. 3,112,18; Plut. Alex. 75,1 706 a-b), but are used in an interesting way in LXX. D^riDiDi mrm appears in Israel's credo in Deut 26:5-11: "So the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with miracu­ lous signs and wonders" (LXX: ev orjueiots Kai EV XEpaaiv, Deut 26:8). In LXX the phrase onus? a Kai x l p a x a is reserved for Moses and his miracles. 30

31

32

A detail worth noting is the translation in 4:6 and 4:7. In the first verse LXX has omit­ ted the word runxo and has only EyEvrjBn f| xsip auxoG cooei xicov. Consequently 4:7 has i\s xrjv xpocxv xf]s aapKos auxou. Jacobson noted the deviation and regarded it as

a well-considered alteration: Many pagan authors attested the anti-Jewish version of exodus, according to which the Hebrews were expelled from the country because of the pestilence in Egypt. It is no wonder that the translators avoided the words AETrpa and

2 2

The Septuagint often modernizes names of biblical places and peoples; see Siegert 2000,21. Rengstorf 1964, 210. See also Deut 5:24. See Jacobson 1983, 99-100. See Liddell - Scott s.v. arjUETov. See Rengstorf 1964, 199-268. mK is almost always translated into oriUE?ov. On the other hand, in about 80% of the occurrences, ma lies behind criUE?ov. See Albertz 1984, 416-420. 2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

2 7

2 8

See Liddell - Scott s.v. X E p a s , XEpdoxtov.

2 9

Rengstorf 1969, 117-118. Aristot. gen. an 770b; Rengstorf 1969, 115. See Rengstorf 1969, 113-127. Rengstorf 1964,219-220.

3 0

31

3 2

68

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian 33

34

Aoiuos. In the same manner ~a~i ("bubonic plague") is in 9:3 rendered as 8dvaTos. Jacobson is apparently right, because the distorted version of the exodus is well attested among the Jews as well as the Gentiles. However, the Jews who retold the Scripture did not necessarily avoid the word Aoiuos, although one would except them to have done 35

In retelling the miracles, Ezekiel follows LXX: However, he has SpccKcov instead of 6$\s used in Exod 4:3: Both words fit the iambic trimetre, but the writer has preferred the word used in Exod 7:9-12. Instead of a leprous hand, Ezekiel has the hand coorrEpei x»cov. Whether Ezekiel intentionally avoided Aeirpa and A O I M O S or only followed LXX (cooei X ^ ) chose eooTrepsi because of the metre is another question. The fragment breaks off and there is no evidence of the third miracle, namely, when God tells Moses to take water from the Nile and throw it on the ground (Exod 4:9). This miracle may have been included in the origi­ nal play, but we cannot be sure. In his introductory comment on 120-131 Polyhistor said: "And concerning the rod and other wonders, he speaks thus in dialogue." Jacobson takes the word Kai TCOV a'AAeov TepaTcov as evidence of a third miracle, presuming that the water Moses threw on the ground turned to blood. This is possible, and Josephus includes this de­ tail (Ant 2,273), but it is speculative, because Polyhistor may also have in mind the list of miracles later referred to by God. Although precisely these verses do not tell about the reluctant, biblical Moses willing to reject the call, and about Aaron being needed as his helper, both elements are included in the previous verses (Ezek. Trag. 114119); Moses even says that he is not eloquent (v. 113-115). Aaron is often omitted from the retold stories, but Ezekiel is remarkably faithful to the biblical original, although neither Aaron's miracles nor his rod are men­ tioned in the verses we have. In Ezekiel, Moses is not concerned with how to make the Hebrews be­ lieve, but with how to convince the Pharaoh (cf. Exod 4:29-5 A). Jacobson sees here as well as in Exod. R. 3,16 a bias to exonerate Israel, but al­ though this possibility cannot be excluded, there is also another and per­ haps more plausible explanation. In Exodus the miracles serve to legiti,c

v

a n a
o(3r|8£is when he has the vision, as well as when the miracles fill him with fear (v. 124-125). Could iv iroifjsai). Since everyone was terrified, he seized it by the tail, picked it up, and made it a rod again" (Artap. 3,27). Artapanus thus retells Exod 6:28-7:13. LXX translates O'na© Wxvctycovos in v. 6:30. The important words in v. 7:1 are translated literally runs ? crrfra ynru mo / ' l6ou Ss'ScoKCX oe 0E6V Oapaco). In v. 7:3 the words TinirnK are translated with TOC GX]\IB\(X \IOM and n3iD"n«'i with rd T S p a T a . In v. 7:9 the Hebrew text does not use the word on: as in 4:3, but has prfr, and even LXX has changed the word (not 6is, but SpccKcov). Moses' op­ ponents are • DDn, D'DCDD and nacnn, and in LXX oo^iOTai and ap|jaKoi and ETTOCOISOI (7:11). 1

,,

,

As seen above, LXX uses two different words for the snake: it is 6is at Horeb and again on the river (Exod 7:15), but Spccxcov at the Pharaoh's court (Exod 7:9-10). Artapanus chooses the word oc|>is, although he omits all miracles in the theophany at Horeb. Another interesting feature is that the opponents are absent, although they soon appear. Artapanus does not differentiate between the second visit and the plagues (Exod 7:14- 2:36), but goes directly to the set of catastrophes: "He then stepped forward a few steps, struck the Nile with his rod, and the river flooded, inundating all of Egypt. It was from that time that the flooding of the Nile began. When the stagnant water began to smell, the animals in the river perished and the peoples as well began to die of thirst. Once these mighty wonders were accomplished, the king said

Eve 2002, 236. On Ben Sira see above p.23-26, on Philo see below p. 151-155. Eve 2002, 240.

100

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

that he would release the people after a month if Moses would restore the river to its banks. So Moses again struck the water with his rod and the waters subsided. When this had been done, the king summoned the priests who were over Memphis and threatened to kill them and destroy their temple unless they too performed some marvel­ lous act. Then, using charms and incantations, they made a serpent and changed the col­ our of the river. The king became arrogant as a result of such performances as this and consequently mistreated the Jews with every kind of vindictive chastisement" (Artap. 3,28-31). On a detailed comparison of plagues (Exod 7:14-12:36) in the Hebrew text and LXX, see p. 70. 62

The plague on the river is drastically changed in several ways. When Moses (not Aaron as in Exod 7 : 1 9 - 2 0 ) struck the Nile, the river flooded the first time and from that moment yearly. The stagnant water began to smell and the fish died, but the water did not become blood. That it changed col­ our when the Egyptians imitated Moses seems to be only a sign of Ar­ tapanus' inconsistency. When Artapanus says that this was the first time the river flooded, it is not "a rationalising touch", but a form of the topos mentioned above. Artapanus is eager to make all his heroes TrpcoTOi EuprjTCCt of various things. Now he also interprets the biblical miraclestory to serve the same end: Moses was the greatest of all and his ministry was a blessing to everyone who lived in Egypt. Artapanus may exaggerate the miraculous, but, when needed, he can also give a natural explanation if it shows Moses in a good light. The Pharaoh (unlike in Exodus) asks Moses to restore the river, which causes Moses to hit the river again. Artapanus thus freely elaborates on the biblical original, which tells nothing about the end of the plague. The opponents, previously absent, now appear, but it is not easy to de­ fine what kind of people they are. It is impossible to define the precise original sense of the Hebrew words, and although LXX translates faith­ fully the Hebrew text in Exod 7 : 1 1 , both of these versions may have dif­ ferent connotations and open to door for different interpretations, crcon is neutral and used in a positive sense, for example, in Gen 4 4 : 3 3 . ^ E D and its derivations are always pejorative and point to sorcery (for example, Exod 2 2 : 1 7 ) . Dftcnn is a loan word and used when speaking of Egyptian (also in Gen 4 1 : 8 ; 2 4 ) or Babylonian (Dan 1 : 2 0 ) soothsayer-priests and also of Daniel (Dan 4 : 6 ) . The words used in LXX are OO$\OT<X'\ and (|>ccp|JC(Kot and E T T C X O I S O I ; the first impression is a negative one, although Dan 4 : 9 63

64

65

66

6 2

See Holladay 1983,241. Collins notes the problem and suggests that Alexander Polyhistor has omitted the blood (1985, 902); however, Artapanus gives a totally new explanation for the plague. Eve 2002, 238. See above p. 93. See Houtman 1995, 372-373. 6 3

6 4

6 5

6 6

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

101

LXX uses the latter for Daniel. Dcnn, as used in the Hebrew text, can be understood to mean "priest", as Artapanus does, and Josephus agrees with him. Still, the "priests" were able to repeat Moses' miracles only by "us­ ing charms and incantations" - even that a nonbiblical addition. Appar­ ently, Artapanus had no clear idea of the opponents. He soon calls them physicians (Taxpoi), and he only uses the story to revile the Egyptian re­ ligion. A major difference in Artapanus - at least in our fragment - is that Aaron is absent and does not throw his rod before the Pharaoh. Moses alone performs the miracles, as he does in Ezekiel's verses. Although Aaron is mentioned earlier, as noted above, he no longer plays a role. Moses needs no helping hand and does not engage in dialogue with God, who is not even mentioned. The problem regarding the different interpreta­ tions is present again. A reader who is not aware of the biblical original undoubtedly considers Moses a powerful miracle-worker acting alone, in Kahl's terminology a BNP, but a Jew, knowing the biblical original in Exodus, had a more comprehensive view. 67

68

69

The success of the Egyptian priests leads the Pharaoh to use brutal vio­ lence against the Hebrews, and Artapanus goes on retelling the plagues: "When Moses saw this, he performed more signs and struck the ground with his rod and raised up a certain species of winged creatures to scourge the Egyptians. As a result of his actions, they all broke out in body sores. Even the physicians were unable to cure those who were suffering with the sores. Thus once again relief came to the Jews. Once again, Moses used his rod to raise up frogs as well as locusts and fleas. It was for this reason that the Egyptians set up a rod in every temple. They do the same with Isis be­ cause the earth is Isis and it produced these wonders when it was struck with the rod. Since the king persisted in playing the fool, Moses produced hail and earthquakes throughout the night so that those who fled the earthquakes perished in the hail and those who tried to avoid the hail were destroyed by the earthquakes. Also at that time all the houses and most of the temples collapsed. Finally, after enduring such calamities, the king released the Jews. After they had procured from the Egyptians many drinking ves­ sels as well as not a little clothing and numerous other treasures, they crossed the river towards Arabia. They covered a considerable distance and then came to the Red Sea in three days" (Artap. 3,28-33).

The extraordinarily interesting report shows several omissions, alterations and additions when compared with the text of Exodus. The order of the plagues is changed. The darkness and the death of the firstborn are totally omitted and replaced with new catastrophes. Artapanus 6 7

On Moses' opponents in Jub., see above p. 57; in Philo, below p. 113 and 134; in Josephus, below p. 236. On Artapanus and the Egyptian religion, see Koskenniemi 2002, 26-31. See above p. 96. 6 8

6 9

102

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography: Artapanus

obviously did not consider the plagues a fixed set of ten calamities. In any case, he links the plague of the river closely with the meeting in which Moses' rod is changed into a snake and calls both TspaTcx. Unlike in Exodus, there is no opportunity for the Pharaoh to free the people between the plagues, for which Artapanus uses the usual term oripeTa (Artap. 3,31). The next plague, "a certain species of winged crea­ tures" (£codv T I TTTrjvov), seems to be part of a broader tradition. Although Holladay is uncertain, this certainly is the fourth biblical plague, flies ( K U V O M U I C X , Exod 8:16-28). Philo also describes the flies in a manner that may help to understand Artapanus' words: They were not ordinary flies, and Artapanus tries to describe them. Moses' rod, carefully mentioned here as well, then calls forth the frogs (pccTpccxoi, as in Exod 7:27), locusts ( a K p i 5 a s , as in Exod 10:12) and fleas ( G K V ( ( | > E S , as in Exod 8:13). They seem to form a unity, but we do not know whether this is a result of epitomization. The hardened attitude of the Pharaoh is mentioned again before the following catastrophes, of hail (xcxAa^a, as in Exod 9:22) and earth­ quakes ( O E I O I J O U S ) . The earthquakes destroy "all the houses and most of the temples" and replace the firstborn's death as the final and decisive plague that ends the slavery (cf. Exod 11:1-2:36). The earthquakes might not be totally nonbiblical: they may be only an exaggeration of hail; or possibly Isa 25:2 and especially Ps 77:17-19 and Num 33:4 LXX form the background. Also, according to Jub., God took revenge on the Egyptian gods by burning them. Nonetheless, it is obvious that omitting the death of the firstborn (which according to speculation, is due to the redaction of Polyhistor) has not made the story much friendlier. That the physicians were unable to cure the people struck with the sores might be commonplace in the miracle stories, but it is evidence of what Jub. seemed to presume: the Egyptians tried to heal the people but they could not, and now Artapanus calls the opponents IccTpoi.The LXX dp|jaKOi (Exod 7:11) may have been a bridge leading from the Hebrew D'SBDD to the common physicians. Although $dpMCCKOs in our sources is always a pejorative word, (|)dp(jaKov is ambiguous and means a 'poison' as well as a 'medicine'. It is still more interesting that several passages again show the influence of magic. Moses uses his rod to call forth and to end the flood (Artap. 70

71

72

73

74

75

7 0

TepccTcc occurs earlier, in Artap. 3,29. On the words, see above p. 74. Holladay 1983, 242. On Philo's interpretation, see below p. 117. See Walter 1980, 135; Holladay 1983, 242. Freudental (1875, 216) and Holladay (1983, 242) consider that Polyhistor has omit­ ted the death of the firstborn; however, it is by no means certain. See Holladay 1983,242. 71

72

73

7 4

75

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

103

3,28-30), to call "the winged creatures" (Artap. 3,31), frogs, locusts and fleas (Artap. 3,32), as well as to later open the way through the sea and to close it (Artap. 3,36-37). Much of the story is based on Exodus, but Ar­ tapanus has added magical elements. Moses' rod is not an ordinary rod in Exod either (Exod 4:17), and it already plays a role in Ezekiel's Exagoge. It is interesting to note that one of the features of the Egyptian religion that Artapanus disparaged was that they worshipped the rod in every temple, including the temple of Isis (Artap. 3,32). Yet, the instrument that struck Israel's enemies has even more magical power in Artapanus than in Eze­ kiel and gives the whole story a new tone. Magic is also present in other additions, i.e. that God's name whispered into the king's ear kills him immediately and that the priest who showed contempt for the name written on a tablet meets a painful death. On the other hand, Artapanus reveals his dual attitude to the power of magic: The priests, under Pharaoh's threat, had no other choice than to repeat Moses' miracles with their charms and incantations. Although it is true that Artapanus does not distinguish the arts of the priests from Moses' skills, it is obvious from Artapanus that Moses did not use the same methods - "my miracles and your magic" is Artapanus' maxim. It was not only the lower echelons of the population that were unable to draw the line between magic that was acceptable and that which was not; the same difficulty could be found at the top of Graeco-Roman society, and it was by no means a strange feature in early Judaism. 76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

d. The Red Sea and the desert We have only a few lines summarising the rest of Artapanus' work. There is a short narrative of the miracle at the Red Sea and a still shorter one on the journey in the desert. See above p. 75. See Koskenniemi 2002, 26-31. It is not obvious how Artapanus' passage should be understood: Does he attribute a role to Isis, i.e. the earth, which produces the marvels (see Eve 2002, 239-240)? Appar­ ently this is only one of several comical misinterpretations of the Egyptians. The sacred animals, which occur also in Artap. 3,35 and which are ridiculed by the Jews as well as by the Romans, belong to this context; see Koskenniemi 2002, 28. On Moses' rod in Artapanus, see Tiede 1972, 170-174. Tiede 1972, 172; Eve 2002, 238. It is possible that Artapanus here makes a counter-attack on people who considered Moses a sorcerer (see Holladay 1983, 241). See Koskenniemi 1994, 224-226. Josephus proudly presents Solomon as a master of these arts and reveals a broader tradition; see below p. 259. 7 7

7 8

7 9

8 0

81

8 2

8 3

104

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX, see above p. 74.

Artapanus presents two different traditions regarding the miraculous es­ cape: "Now the Memphians claim that Moses, being familiar with the countryside, watched for the ebb tide, then led the multitudes through the dry part of the sea. The Heliopolitans, on the other hand, claim that the king rushed down on them with full force, carrying with them all the sacred animals because the Jews were crossing the sea, having taken the possessions of the Egyptians" (Artap. 3,35).

A superficial reading could give reason to think that Artapanus wanted to rationalise the biblical miracle-story and was trying to remove an obstacle. Many scholars have explained the stories of several Jewish writers in this way, but, to my knowledge, this explanation has been used very rarely for Artapanus, who served as an example of a Jew who loved "Hellenistic" miracles. Nevertheless, the passage in Artapanus is a good example of how inadequate such an explanation can be. As most of the Jewish writers, he retold many biblical miracles and even exaggerated them, and there is no reason to think that he would want to make the miracle at the Red Sea more credible through rationalisation. He hardly uses the literary technique of distancing himself from the miraculous story, but rather makes a su­ perficial attempt to transform Exodus into a sort of romantic history. One example of this is that the booty taken from Egypt is now the reason why the Pharaoh pursued the Hebrews. It also explains why the way to Egypt is changed in Artap. 3,22 into a military campaign, although the reinterpre­ tation contradicts itself later in the fragment. Artapanus allows himself plenty of freedom and is not always consistent. Artapanus goes on with the "Heliopolitan" tradition: 84

85

86

87

"The divine voice came to Moses instructing him to strike the sea with his rod and divide it. When Moses heard this, he touched the water lightly with his rod and the stream di­ vided, and the multitude passed through the dry channel. When the Egyptians went in together in hot pursuit, he says that a fire blazed in front of them, and the sea again flooded their path. All the Egyptians were consumed by fire and the flood" (Artap. 3,3637).

Georgi (1964, 155) however, considers the passage a rationalisation. According to him, Hellenistic Jewish writers connected the miracle and its rationalisation "in gleichem Atemzug." The view is hardly correct concerning Artapanus. On Philo, see below p. 110; on Josephus p. 228. The technique was admittedly common as of Herodotus (hist. 2,3-4); see Tiede 1972, 135, Walter 1976, 135 and Holladay 1983, 243. There might be echoes of several traditions here. On the one hand, the booty taken from Egypt (Exod 11:2-3) was very important for the writer of Jub. (see Jub. 48:19). On the other hand, the anti-Jewish tradition that labelled the Jews as thieves may have influ­ enced the story (Fraser 1972, 705; see also below p. 231-232). 8 5

8 6

8 7

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

105

The passage epitomises quite faithfully the biblical original. In any case, some features are hardly fortuitous. It is not surprising that the rod is men­ tioned again. Unlike the story in Exod 14, Moses hits the sea with the rod and the water is divided immediately. Yet, Artapanus does not stray far from the biblical story and the changes are traditional. The flood com­ bined with fire is a further step away from Exod 14:24. It is understandable that there is no desperation of the people as in Exod. 14:10-14, no quarrel against the leader and no dialogue between God and Moses. God is re­ duced to a "divine voice", as already in the theophany in Artap. 3,21. Ar­ tapanus cannot be characterised as a strict monotheist. He could retell freely the sacred history, but he was deeply rooted in the early Jewish tra­ dition of honourably reducing the anthropomorphic features of Israel's 88

The way in the desert is described in only a few words in our fragments. 90

"After the Jews had escaped the danger, they spent forty years in the desert. Mean­ while, God showered upon them meal similar in texture to rolled millet resembling the colour of snow" (Artap. 3,38).

There are few words, allowing only a few conclusions; nevertheless the key passage reveals Artapanus' intended audience. He did not assume that his readers knew the miracle of manna (Exod 16:1-36; Num 11:4-36) but tried to describe it in his own words ((SpEXOvros C C U T O ? S T O U 0 E O U Kpipvov opoiov E X U J J C O X ° TrccpociTArjcHov Tr]v x p o a v ) . It is evidently an attempt to find a broad audience in addition to those who had learned their lessons well. He also reached his goal, because his fragments are summarised by Alexander Polyhistor, a pagan author. I

v

i

e. Conclusion Artapanus took great liberties in his retelling of the biblical stories. He (as well as many later Jewish writers) did not hesitate to give a new shape to the stories of exodus and Moses. This gives us an opportunity to study Ar­ tapanus' own views on miracles and to inquire the function of the miracles.

8 8

8 9

On Ezekiel, see above p. 75, on Philo, see below p. 119, on Josephus, see p. 241 On Jub., see above p. 61, on Philo, see p. 112, on L.A.B., see p. 194, on Josephus, p.

234. 9 0

A manuscript reads TpiaKOVxa and was preferred by Freudenthal as lectio difficilior; see Holladay 1983, 243. If the reading is correct it would be evidence that Artapanus could make mistakes in retelling the biblical story.

106

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

A feature which should not be overlooked is Moses' role in the miracles, and, moreover, on two levels. Aaron's role is almost omitted, and even God is only rarely mentioned. In the biblical Exodus it is God who is in control. Moses and Aaron are only his servants, and sometimes totally bewildered. Artapanus has re­ duced God to a "divine voice" (Artap. 3 , 2 1 ; 3 , 3 6 ) . But although Artapa­ nus' Moses is more assured as to what to do than the occasionally helpless leader in Exodus, the fact that God's role as a speaking and guiding agent has been reduced to a minimum has not reduced his power and sover­ eignty, but rather increased it. God does not discuss things with men, but wields authority through his sovereign power. He is 6 rfjs o'lKouMewis S E O T T O T T I S ( 3 , 2 2 ) , who (apparently) opens the doors of the prison ( 3 , 2 3 ) and whose name, whispered into an ear, is enough to kill the Pharaoh ( 3 , 2 5 ) . Artapanus, thus, added magical features to the stories, hardly re­ flecting on the line between acceptable and unacceptable forms of magic. God is now at distance and, as noted in the previous chapter, it has neces­ sarily led to a redistribution of the roles in the stories. The question is, who was Artapanus' intended audience, and how did it understand his work? A reader well aware of the biblical stories certainly saw the new version in the perspective of the biblical original, but Artapanus obviously wrote his work for people not knowing the original stories. These readers undoubt­ edly interpreted Moses as a powerful, independent miracle-worker, in Kahl's terminology a BNP, occasionally led by a divine voice. It is not easy to evaluate the impact Artapanus had on the Gentile audience, but the fact that the stories about Moses were well-known among the cultivated pagans implies that he and the writers of his art did have readers, and we owe the fragments of his work to Alexander Polyhistor. Some details attest that Artapanus was also aware of both the GraecoRoman and the Jewish traditions. At times he seems to follow the stories of Sesostris, the Egyptian hero, but the most important feature is that the topos of Trpcoros euprjTrjs has a marked role in Artapanus' texts. What his work shows is an attempt to pre­ sent men who were wiser, greater and mightier than the Greek heroes. Unlike Philo, the field on which he tried to compete with the pagans was not that of deep philosophy. He was familiar with popular belief and daily Egyptian life. It is understandable that the yearly flood in his view is a miracle made by Moses. Some details attest that Artapanus was also familiar with the Jewish tra­ dition. The name of Tharmuth is traditional, and Moses' rod has a special position in his work as elsewhere in early Judaism. The opponents are characterised as Egyptian priests, as in Josephus, and because they are

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

107

called physicians, Artapanus apparently shared with Jub. the view that they tried to heal the victims of the plagues. It is not easy to find specific contemporizations in the miracle stories, but a general view presents itself. As most of the Jewish writers in Egypt, Ar­ tapanus did not appreciate native Egyptians and their culture and religion, but sought rather the favour of the Greeks. The way in which Artapanus writes about the Egyptians struck by plagues and killed at the Red Sea is compatible with this view. As mentioned, many scholars have assumed that Artapanus tried to use Moses as a shield against anti-Jewish attacks. Some degree of scepticism towards this view is only reasonable. Certainly the work attests the Jewish tendency to identify more with the Greeks than the Egyptians, and this can be regarded as an apology. However, the main function accorded to the miracles in this work of "competitive historiography" is simple to discern. A free and proud retelling of Israel's history, in which one's hero beats every opponent, can be entertaining.

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo a. Introduction We know Ezekiel and Artapanus only from scarce fragments of their works, but happily we need not study every Jew from some few scant pages nor has every Jewish writer been forgotten. Philo's works give us the opportunity to study his thoughts on the role of the biblical miracleworkers, the problem being the wide scope of his production. No Jewish writer knew the Greek culture as Philo did. Born about 20-10 BC he received an excellent education in Alexandria, the centre of the learned world. He saw the pogroms in the Egyptian city and took part in a delegation to Caligula in 40 AD. The latest date of his life, mentioned in his works, seems to be the year 47. 1

Philo's way of dealing with the biblical texts both literally and allegorically has often been investigated. Dawson formulates well the function of Philo's work: 2

"In contrast to modern historical-critical exegesis of scripture, which begins with the assumption that the ancient communities that produced the text were radically different from our own, for Philo exegesis of the Pentateuch was first of all commentary on the actual history of the community to which he belonged." 3

Similarly, Peder Borgen named his important book Philo of Alexandria. An exegete for his time, expressing the growing interest in the way Philo adapts the biblical stories for his contemporary readers. This question is asked concerning the literal as well as the allegorical interpretation. Although Philo's exegetical method is well researched, his method of retelling the biblical miracles is usually only discussed in passing by scholars. Some details, however, have been investigated thoroughly, as Borgen has done in his study of manna, and some individual miracle sto4

1

He may be pointing to the horse race mentioned by Pliny (nat. 8,160) in the year 47 (Borgen 1997, 14-26; Mondesert 1999, 878-879). On Philo's exegetical tradition, see esp. Alexandre 1986, 13-17 and Borgen 1997. On the allegorical method, see below p. 129-131. Dawson 1992, 116. Borgen, Bread from Heaven, 1965. 2

3

4

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

109

ries, but not necessarily Moses' miracles, are included in studies concern­ ing other themes that have been the subject of intensive investigation. Since Meeks (1976), some scholars have suggested that Philo may have also used these stories to illuminate his own times. In his chapter dealing with Philo, Eve does not present a detailed study of the stories about Moses, nor does he inquire whether Philo tried to adapt the stories. He also does not investigate the tradition and the details known to Philo, and chooses to almost completely leave out the allegorical interpretation. Philo's production nearly totally lacks the biblical miracle-workers, the main reason being that the production known to us is basically a commen­ tary on the Pentateuch, and there were not many biblical miracle-workers to leave out. He deals almost exclusively with the stories about Moses, as well as those about Aaron, but Joshua's role is markedly diminished, and includes no miracles. Is the Pentateuch, however, the sole reason for the lack of miracle stories in Philo's works? He does not, as does Pseudo-Philo in L.A.B., select new stories from the tradition about completely new mira­ cle-workers. He may retell the life of Abraham quite freely and in new details, but in retelling Gen 12, the role he gives to Abraham is not the same as in Genesis Apocryphon. He tells no new stories about miracles, either Abraham's or the prophets'. Rare exceptions may occur. A story about Elijah is interpreted allegorically: The woman was a widow, which means that she was free from "passions which corrupt and maltreat the mind" and she remembers her sins (cf. 1 Kgs 17:8) as every mind that is on the way to be widowed and empty of evil (1 Kgs 17, Deus 136-138). The prophet had a higher revelation and was taken to Heaven as Enoch (QG 1,86). Otherwise the miracles of the biblical heroes are not retold or rein­ terpreted, only left out. Did he find the miracles problematic? Actually, with only a few exceptions, the early rabbis were also reluctant to tell about man-made miracles, or even the biblical miracles. According to many scholars, the Jews were not keen to retell miracles, because they feared the pagans would mock them for being too credulous. This is a 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

5

On Moses as "divine man", see below p. 151-155. Eve 2002, 53-85. On Moses in Philo, see Meeks 1967, 100-131; Tiede 1972, 101-137; Holladay 1977, 103-198; Schottroff 1983, 229-231; Beegle 1992, 916; Barclay 1992, 37-40; OberhansliWidmer 1994, 350. See Feldman 2003, 165-178. See e.g. Abr. 70-71; 95-96. On astrology in Philo, see below p. 111. Cf. QE 2,3, where Philo interprets Exod 22:22 in this way. A special case for Philo, as for some other Jewish writers, is Balaam and his proph­ ecy; see p. 146 sq. See Becker 2002, 271-289. 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

110

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

common way to interpret Josephus, but it also occurs in the studies con­ cerning Philo. Nevertheless, Philo retells the biblical stories about Moses so often and extensively, interpreting them sometimes literally, sometimes allegorically, that they offer the opportunity to study the role of miracles in Philo's thought. 15

b. The literal interpretation of the miracle stories Philo is famous for his allegorical interpretation, but it is interesting to see that he also can treat the biblical miracle stories very literally, especially, but not exclusively, in Vita Mosis, where he retells the life of the hero. Vita Mosis belongs to the wide category of "rewritten Bible", and can be likened to Hellenistic biographies. Who its supposed readers were has long been debated, but it seems to be addressed partly to sympathetic Gentiles, and the work is conceived by the author as a sort of introduction to Juda­ ism. Borgen points to Mos. 2,43-44, and supposes that the work was writ­ ten before the pogroms and that Philo expected the Gentiles to accept the Torah as their Law. It does not mean that the work was not directed to the Jews; on the contrary, his own nation was meant to be the main audi­ ence, but Philo apparently used a doubled strategy. Philo is keen to pre­ sent Egypt to his readers as though the country and its climate were unfa­ miliar (for example, Mos. 1,5-7). It may demonstrate that he also intended this work to be read outside of Egypt. 16

17

18

19

20

21

The events of Moses' birth (Exod 1:1-2:25) are embellished with some new details: Philo clearly knows more than he tells. 22

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX, see above p. 92.

14

See p. 228. Georgi applies the interpretation to Artapanus' fragments; see above p. 104. See below p. 110. The way out of Egypt is briefly summarised in Hypoth. 6,2-4. The details of the bib­ lical original often occur and they are mentioned below. See Tiede 1972, 106. Mondesert 1999, 880. Borgen 1987, 19. "Moses may be praised by Philo as much to encourage the cultured Jew who tends to be embarrassed of his tradition as to win respect from the non-Jew" (Tiede 1972, 107); see also Dawson 1992, 122. David M. Hay (1991, 52) plausibly supposes that Philo, knowing that Plato, among others, had been read for centuries, expected or at least hoped for a wide and continuing audience. Philo characterises only briefly Moses' parents and family (Mos. 1,7-12). 15

16

17

18

19

2 0

21

2 2

111

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

An extra-biblical miraculous detail in Philo is that the girl is Pharaoh's "only, cherished daughter", who had been married for a considerable time but had never borne a child, and her father's kingdom was under threat of falling into the hands of strangers (Mos. 1,13). Also, Artapanus and Josephus say that the princess was barren. She had artificially enlarged the shape of her womb to make Moses pass as her real child and not a foundling (Mos. 1,19). Moses is, of course, a gifted child and soon exceeds his teachers from Egypt, Assyria, Chaldea and Greece (Mos. l,19-33). It is interesting that Moses is a master in Chaldean as well as in Egyptian astrology (Mos. l,23-24). When he kills the cruel Egyptian he is not a vile criminal, but a ruler-to-be and a political threat allegedly seeking the kingship (Mos. 1,45-46). Moses is a master in everything, also in manag­ ing flocks, which, under him, increase even in difficult regions (Mos. 1,6364). All this is told to glorify the legislator, sometimes straining the lim­ its of human power. 23

24

25

26

27

The meeting with God at Horeb (Exod 3:1-4:17) is presented extensively Mos. 1,65-84). On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 3:1-4:17, see above p. 66.

Philo describes the theophany in the bush, which is called T O TepdoTiov and TE0au|jaToupyr|(j8Vov (Mos. 1,71) and interprets it allegorically. He paraphrases the miracles God showed to Moses (arj|je?a, Mos. 1,77; 6au|jaTOUpyrj|jaTa, Mos. 1,71; 1,82), telling all three slightly more ex­ tensively than in Exodus, but without any significant alterations other than dramatisation (Mos. 1,77-81). Unlike Josephus, Philo does not tell about 28

23

29

See above p. 92 and below p. 233. Artapanus gives Moses teachers from different nations and lets him be a master of all of them; see p. 93. Philo does not completely reject astrology, but has strong reservations; see esp. Op. 58-60, Mig. 178-179; Abr. 82-83. According to Philo, Abraham could only see the stars and the rest of the visible world, but he realised the error: things created have no capacity to control the future. It is the invisible world that is real; the visible is not (see Sandmel 1984, 18). On CnXos in Philo, see Seland 2002, 460. Meeks (1976, 50) notes the topos that the king is shepherd of his people (esp. in Mos. 1,62). "In the midst of the flame was a form of the fairest beauty, unlike any visible object, an image supremely divine in appearance, refulgent with a light brighter than the light of fire. It might be supposed that this was the image of him that is; but let us rather call it an angel or herald, since, with a silence that spoke more clearly than speech, it employed as it were the miracle of sight to herald future events" (Mos. 1,66). See below p. 133. 24

25

26

27

28

29

112

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

the water-miracle at the theophany, but that God only promises the mira­ cle. Moses' hand is not leprous but AeuKOTepcc x»ovos (Mos 1,79): Philo either avoids the word Aoipos, or more probably only follows LXX. The snake-miracle (Philo uses the word SpbcKcov, Mos. 1,77) is repeated a little later when Moses starts his mission, but now God and Moses are alone together "like pupil and master", and during the lesson Moses learns to make the miracle by putting his hand to his bosom not once but twice to learn how to make the miracle. It is important to note that Philo does not say that Moses saw God, but a light, r\v av T I S uTTETOTTrioev e'iKova T O U O V T O S el veer KaAs(a0co 5e ayyeAos, and God speaks to Moses 5ia XP^l^M^Sv. In Exod 33:11 God speaks with Moses D'ErtK cms, and in Exod 3:4 it is God himself in both the Hebrew text and the LXX. Philo's version, however, is different. In Exod 3:2 it is, admittedly, God's angel and not God himself that calls Moses, but Philo has chosen the angel and removed God. Jub. introduces the Angel of Presence and Artapanus reduces God to a "divine voice." In Philo's theology God is not anthropomorphic and he is not susceptible to passion in any form. He denies categorically in QG 2,62 that man was created in the image of the Father of Universe, but of his logos. Since it is impossible for a man to see God, he sends the powers which are indica­ tive of his essence (QE 2,37; 2,47). The device is different, but the theol­ ogy is the same as in Jub. and Artapanus. The first known representative of the idea is Aristobulus: The anthropomorphic features of the Old Testa­ ment God are honourably reduced. Moses is reluctant, as in Exodus, but the reasons for the missing elo­ quence are new and Philo relates many of them: Firstly, the reason is given in Mos. 1,83-84: all human eloquence is, of course, dumbness compared with God's, and "the brother" (Aaron is not named, either here or in the rest of stories) is thus not more eloquent than Moses but his interpreter, ep|jr|V6\JS (Mos. 1,83-84). Secondly, Philo identifies eloquence with skills not suitable for a righteous man, which is clear when he deals with Moses' opponents. The third reason stems from Philo's way to deal with the 30

31

32

33

34

35

36

30

See above p. 235. On Ezek. Trag., see p. 72; on Josephus, see p. 235. On Philo and the pestilence in Egypt, see below p. 117. Philo briefly mentions the three miracles also in Det. 177, when speaking about the orjiJeTov God set to Cain. Usually God shows the nature of each object by means of signs (5id OTjpeiou) as in the case of Egypt. Philo thus plays with two different senses of 31

32

cmjjetov. 33

34

35

36

See especially Deus 51-68 and the comments of Williamson 1989, 74-85. See Helleman 1990, 60. On Aristobulus and the tradition preceding Philo, see Borgen 1987, 13-14. See below p. 134.

113

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

story allegorically. Whatever the explanation, it is obvious that the liter­ ate Philo could not consider Moses' lack of eloquence as comparable to human beings, especially when presenting him to a Gentile audience. 38

Philo omits the problematic story about Sippora and God willing to kill Moses (Exod 4:24-26). The miracles in the presence of the elders of Israel (Exod 4:30) are retold, but transferred to the phase after the growing op­ pression (Mos. 1,90). Philo obviously does not exonerate his people, be­ cause the elders' disbelief is told in Mos. 1,74. The snake-miracle is retold in Moses' encounter with the Egyptians (Exod 6:28-7:13; Mos. 1,91-94). On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 6:28-7:13, see above p. 99.

In Philo's text the short notes in Exodus have grown into stories: The event of "Moses' brother" waving his staff conspicuously ( K C C T a a e i o a s [id\a ETTiSeiKTiKcos) and flinging it on the ground is described dramatically. The most interesting detail, however, is not the dramatisation but the way Philo uses the story to berate his philosophical opponents. Philo calls the sorcer­ ers oofyiOTCXi and M^yoi, simultaneously attacking both the "sophists" and magicians: Aaron's miracle illustrates that it was not an effect of a v 8 p c o T r c o v aoia|jaTa KCCI Te'xvas (Mos. 1,94), as the tricks of the sor­ cerers were. Philo often equates the magicians with his philosophical op­ ponents (as in Migr. 82-85), using the biblical story either literally or alle­ gorically to do so. He also equates "the sins of the Amorites" with sophis­ tical arguments (Her. 304). The "ways of the Amorites" referred later to magic and Philo already seems to make the connection here. As seen above, Moses' Egyptian opponents played very different roles in early Judaism, and Exod 7:11 is open to several interpretations: craDn / ao(]>iaTai, C P S E D D / 4>ap|jaKo{ and crDcnn / 6 T T C C O I 5 O I can evoke various connotations. Philo does not consider the men priests, but chooses the worst alternative he knows, and likens them to his philosophical oppo­ nents, aoiaTai, and the magicians he despised. The philosophical oppo­ nents are often attacked in the allegorical interpretation. Philo's view on magic is ambiguous, as so often in classical antiquity, and he differentiates 39

40

41

42

See above p. 133. On Philo's view on rhetorics, see Alexandre 1986, 13-27. See below p. 134. On "the ways of the Amorites", see below p. 214. On Moses' opponents in Jub., see above p. 57; in Artapanus, below p. 100; in Josephus, below p. 236. On the allegorical interpretation of the opponents, see above p. 134. 3 8

3 9

4 0

41

4 2

114

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

between two forms of magic: The "true magic" (x\ ocATi0r|s ijayiKrj), which is acceptable, studies nature scientifically and is practised by the kings of Persia. Another art of magic, KCCKOTEXVICC, the way of charlatans and lower people, deals with charms and incantations. This is rejected by Philo (Spec. 3,100-103; Prob. 74), who actually considers it a religious duty to kill those who practice it. 43

Philo retells the ten plagues (Exod 7:14-12:36) with many new details.

44

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 7:14-12:36, see above p. 70.

Philo gives two different principles so important to him that they change the biblical order of the plagues. These are the idea of the four elements and different agents performing the miracles. Firstly, the Greek theory of the elements is readily adopted to interpret the holy writings. Philo sees the four elements in the war against the Egyptians and divides the plagues to correspond to each of them. The second reason for changing the order is the division between the different agents and their interaction with the dif­ ferent elements. The first three plagues belonged to the denser elements, earth and water, and were committed to "the brother of Moses"; the second set of three belonged to air and fire, and were given to Moses alone; the seventh belonged to both Moses and Aaron, and the last three God re­ served for himself. All the plagues have new features. According to Philo, water (Exod 7:14-24; Mos. 1,98-101) is the first tar­ get, because the Egyptians believe it to be the original source of All. The Pharaoh and the Egyptian magicians are removed from the exaggerated story. The river is afflicted immediately "from Ethiopia to the sea". Not only the fishes but also a great multitude of men die, and the new wells dug by the Egyptians along the Nile (Exod 7:24), are filled with blood (CUMCC, as in LXX). Like Artapanus, Philo completes the story by ending the plague. The Egyptians (not the Pharaoh as in Artapanus) ask Moses 45

46

4 3

See Seland 2002, 460 On the plagues, see Tiede 1972, 134-135. They are mentioned briefly in Mut. 125. Philo gives the division in Mos. 1,96-97 and repeats it often in Mos. 1,96-146. The theory of the elements (OTOIXETCX) was originally created by the Jonian monists. a x o i x s T a was "That out which everything is made, that from which the things first came" (Arist. metaph. 983b,7). Thales gave this status to water, Anaximenes to air, Anaximander to TO aireipov. The theory of four elements (pi^couaTa) comes from Empedocles. It had become the standard view, accepted by monistic, as well as dualistic, philosophers prior to Philo (on the theory see Kraft 1997, 978-980). The theory was commonplace in early Judaism and occurs, for example, in Wis 16:16-17, in which the plagues in Egypt are described. Philo uses the theory often (e.g. Op. 52; 131, Her. 152153), but is also critical and warns of deifying the elements (see Decal. 52-55; Cont. 3-6; Det. 8; Plant. 10). 4 4

4 5

4 6

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

115

and "his brother" to end the disaster. Philo does not say here that the water was good to the Hebrews, but he mentions it a little later (Mos. 1,144), and the same idea also occurs in Josephus andDeut. R. 3:8. The plague of frogs (PccTpocxoi, as in Exod 7:26-8:11; Mos. 1,103-105) has been rewritten. There is no dialogue between Moses and Pharaoh, but Pharaoh promises that they can "leave the land" (the biblical original says that they wanted to sacrifice for God). The plague is dramatized, but it is mainly paraphrased faithfully according to the biblical original. However, the Egyptian magicians are absent again and it is not Pharaoh but the Egyptian people who ask Moses to free them from the frogs. Moreover, the war against the elements is present when the aquatic animals colonise the opposite region. The biblical story about gnats (OKV?(|>SS, Exod 8:12-15; aKvTrres Mos. 1,107-112) especially interested Philo, and not only because it was the first in which God used the earth to afflict the Egyptians. He asks why God chose gnats to punish the Egyptians and gives the answer himself:God does not want to destroy the Egyptians; he wants to teach them a lesson: God does not choose the strongest and greatest, but the smallest to carry out his punishment. Philo then makes a smooth transition to the allegorical interpretation. It is worth noting that "God's finger" is mentioned (Mos. 1,112), not by the Egyptian magicians, who are absent again (Exod 8:19), but by "all Egypt." The mention about the offending practice of sacrifice (Exod 8:21-25) is omitted here, like the whole dialogue between Moses and Pharaoh, but mentioned in Mos. 1,87. The plague of hail (x«Aa^a as in Exod 9:22-35, Mos. 1,118-119) leads to the three punishments mediated by Moses and dealing with the higher elements, air and fire. The rage of the elements is present again. The natural antagonists, thunderbolts and hail, offer a strange scene, and some animals (slaves are not mentioned) survive half-burnt, serving as a warning to the beholders. The plague is preceded by a learned introduction to the Egyptian climate, but as usual not through God's dialogue with Moses (Mos. 1,113-117). In Philo, Moses neither meets Pharaoh nor warns him; consequently Philo does not say that God intentionally raised the Pharaoh to show his power (Exod 9:13-16). 47

48

49

50

4 7

See below p. 237. In Mig. 85 God's finger points to the holy writings. In Sacr. 51 Philo interprets the passage allegorically: Exodus points to virtues, which were abominations in Egypt. The story is the subject of pride in Wis 16:15-23, where the miracle is attributed solely to God. Like Philo, the writer seems to allude to the roles of the different ele­ ments. 4 8

4 9

5 0

116

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

The fifth plague in Philo (ccKp(5es, eighth in Exodus, Exod 10:1-20; Mos. 1,120-122) has been remodelled. Again, Moses does not meet Phar­ aoh as in Exodus, and Philo does not include the statement that the He­ brews wanted to feast e o p T r j in honour of the Lord. Moreover, the wind ( V O T O S PtcnoTccTos, LXX ave|jos V O T O S , Hebrew text nnp rrn) causes many problems, and in addition to the locusts, plays a big part in the disas­ ter. Philo himself lived in Egypt, and was keen to describe the climate in the country, as if writing to people not aware of it. The Pharaoh is men­ tioned, but only in dialogue with the Egyptian authorities, and the long discussion between Pharaoh and Moses is omitted, as are God's words pre­ ceding the plague. The sixth plague in Philo ( G K O T O S , ninth in Exodus, Exod 10:21-29; Mos. 1,123-125) is heavily dramatized. The dialogues with the Pharaoh are again omitted, and in fact it is only Moses who feels pity and prays to God for help without any contact from the Egyptians. The will to sacrifice is omitted, as is the entire dialogue, and so are Moses' words that not even the Hebrews yet knew what they were going to sacrifice. The darkness is partly described "rationalistically", but some exaggeration is involved. Philo considers the possibility of an extraordinary eclipse of the sun and the presence of unusual clouds. However, the darkness was unnatural (Mos. 1,126 o Trccaocv 'i5eav opr)0eis. 88

"... whereupon Moses, taking that sacred staff with which he accomplished the signs in Egypt, under inspiration smote the steep rock with it. It may be that the rock contained originally a spring and now had its artery clean severed, or perhaps that then for the first time a body of water collected in it through hidden channels was forced out by the im­ pact" (Mos. 1,211).

Philo seems to give a rationalistic explanation for the event, but continues with the theme in a crucial passage, which illustrates that the term "ration­ alistic" is not easy to use. Nevertheless, the problem has to be noted and it is treated below. 89

Philo also tells about the miraculous battle against Amalek (according to Philo, Phoenicians) and about Moses' prayer and hands, which were deci­ sive in the battle (Exod 17:8-16; Mos. 1,214-219). LXX renders CTGMK with avSpas Suvaaxous in 17:9 and adds Kai i5ou in the same verse. In 17:10 the Hebrew text has orftn'?, but LXX KOU e£eA0cov Trapexd£axo. In 17:15 LXX adds Kupi'co, and in 17:16 rr od- ?!) T D is translated ev xeipi Kpuc|>a(a. 1

_ ,

The whole story in Philo emphasizes the tactical situation more than the biblical original. Moreover, Philo contemporizes the story by changing the enemy from Amalekites to Phoenicians and embellishes it with new de­ tails. He writes about Moses' hands and prayer as follows: "But, when they were about to engage the fight, his hands were affected in the most mar­ vellous way (xepccxcoSeaxccxov TI aunPafvei TTCC0OS nepi x d s X^? S auxou). They became very light and very heavy in turns, and, whenever they were in the former condi­ tion and rose aloft, his side of the combatants was strong and distinguished itself the more by its valour, but whenever his hands were weighed down the enemy prevailed. Thus, by symbols, God showed that earth and the lowest regions of the universe were the portion assigned as their own to the one party, and the ethereal, the holiest region, to the other; and that, just as heaven holds kingship in the universe and is superior to earth, so this nation should be victorious over its opponents in war. While, then, his hands became successively lighter and weightier, like scales in the balance, the fight, too, continued to be doubtful; but, when they suddenly lost all weight, the fingers serving them as pinions, a

See above p. 75 and 102. See below p. 146-148.

126

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

they were lifted on high like the tribe that wings its ways through the air, and remained thus soaring until the Hebrews won and undisputed victory ..." (Mos. 1,217-218).

The Greek theory of four elements is again part of Philo's biblical exege­ sis, although the word OTOixeTa does not occur. The higher part of the universe belongs to God's people, the lower, the earth, to their enemies. The Greek theory did not remain unchanged during the centuries between Thales and the first century AD, but was represented in different forms. The passage shows a close relationship with the Aristotelian view, which formed the basis for the philosophical tradition in the Hellenistic period. Philo has omitted the rod of Moses (Exod 17:8), but added that Moses pu­ rifies himself T O ? S e'lcoBoai KaOappoTs (Mos. 1,216), obviously reducing the magical character of the story. A parallel in Mishna is to be noted.

90

91

All Jewish writers who retold the revolt of Korah and his supporters also remodelled it; Philo does the same (Num 16:1-17:31; Mos. 2,278-287). 92

93

In v. 16:1 the Hebrew text has npn, but LXX Kai EAa'AnaEV, and in v. 16:8 K] ij?OIO is ren­ dered eWaKouaocTE uou, which indicates W Q E . In 16:5 and 16:11 the Septuagint has 6 Beds and rrpos TOV 0E6V (mrr, m r r " ^ ) . In 16:14 the Hebrew text has *b but the Sep­ tuagint e'i Kai In v. 16:15 ETTtSuiinua shows that the translators had man and not -nan in their original. In 16:16 *]rnir ?pi nriK is translated' Ayiaaov Trjv auvaycoyrjv aou, and in l

16:24 and 16:27 LXX omits DTQR nro ]m. In v. 16:29 m p a is translated kcct 'ETTIGKE^IV

and in v. 16:30 mrr k i t rmniraKi ccAX fj ev dauaTi 5ei£ei Kupios. A clear deviation is in v. 17:2-3, where the Hebrew text is wwsnn mnna n« nanp *o nK^rrmT 0«rrmi nsnian p o Dntos]n n ^ n , but the Greek Kai TO irup TO aAAoTpiov TOUTO cnrsTpov 'EKE?, OTI

fryiaaav TCX TrupeTa TCOV auapTcoAcov TOUTCOV 'EV TOIS vpuxaTs auTcov. In verses 17:23 and 17:26 LXX adds K a i ' Aapcov, and has in the latter plural ETroinaav instead of the Hebrew singular. In spite of some deviations there is no trace of a theological redac­ tion of the miracle-story.

In Num the claim of the rebels is that the whole community is holy and, thus, the priesthood should be accessible to them (Num 16:3; 10). Philo, too, speaks about the sacrifice, but emphasizes other points. First of all, it is the statesman Moses who is challenged, as rulers often are ("This is what happens when subjects attack their rulers to confound that most ex­ cellent promoter of the common weal, order", Mos. 2,277). But secondly, the main target of Korah and his allies is Moses' prophecy. The rebels 94

9 0

See Kraft 1997, 980. According to Mishna, Moses' hands did not decide the battle; the decisive factor was that the thoughts of the Hebrews were either good or bad (m. Rosh HaSh. 3:8a-b). See Becker 2002,133-134. On L.A.B., see below p. 198-199, on Josephus see p. 244-246. On Korah in early Judaism, see also Derrett 1993, 59-78; Feldman 1998b, 91-109. Philo mentions the event briefly in Fug. 145 and retells it extensively in Praem. 7578; however, the story breaks off and there is an obvious lacuna in the text. All dialogue between God and Moses is removed again. 91

9 2

9 3

9 4

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

127

claim that the priesthood was not ordered under divine direction but by a false account (Mos. 2,278). This charge results in a new prophesy. Philo uses the words pETafiaAcov E I S irpocj>TiTr|v, "transformed into a prophet", as Colson translates (Mos. 2,280). Moses prophesies the earth opening and "living men descending into Hades." The prophecy replaces the theophany: mm--QD and God's dialogues with Moses are totally omitted. And, of course, the elements are again involved in the punishment: The earth swallowed them up and the ether added the rainstorm (an extrabiblical de­ tail unless the plague given by God in the cloud is not meant, Num 16:3250). Philo cuts out the story and does not mention the quarrels following Korah's death. The connection between prophecy and miracle is interesting and it will be studied more closely below. 95

Philo treats the biblical account (Deut 34:1-8) of Moses' death in two pas­ sages. LXX translates the report on Moses' death very literally. The only point in which the texts differ is v. 34:4: the Hebrew text has rbv, but the Septuagint n p o s MCOUOT|V. Thus, the Septuagint gives no evidence of any speculations on Moses' death.

Mos 2,288-291 tells that Moses' twofold nature of soul and body was re­ solved by God into a single unity, v o u s . When he was being exalted the divine spirit fell upon him and he prophesied his own end ( c o s 'ETEAEUTTIGE urjuco TEAEUTTJOCXS* MOS. 2,291). This is only an explanation of why the Pentateuch, attributed to Moses, contains an account of Moses' death. The parallel story in Virt. 72-79 does not add much to the material, but QG 1,86 gives a more detailed account of Moses' destiny. Generally death is not the end for worthy and holy men; it is a translation and approach to another place. Moses, however, was a special case: "For he seemed to be rapt away and become invisible. For then he was not found. And this is shown by the fact that when he was sought, he was invisible, not merely rapt from their eyes. For the translation to another place is nothing else than another position; but he is said (to have moved) from a sensible and visible place to an incorporeal and intelli­ gible form. This gift the protoprophet also obtained, for no one knew his burial-place. And still another, Elijah, followed him on high from earth to heaven at the appearance of the divine countenance, or, it would be more proper and correct to say, he ascended" (QG 1,86).

We have several versions of Moses' death, some of them included in this study. The story in the Pentateuch presented, above all, two points, which offered an opportunity for speculations, which could be closely related with Gentile views. First of all, "Moses" tells about his own death, and 96

On prophecy, see below p. 148 On L.A.B., see below p. 199; on Josephus and the possible Greek models, see p. 245.

128

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

secondly, Deut 34:1-8 first tells about the death and burial of Moses and then says that he was "a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone". These two details allowed different speculations about the end of his earthly life, namely that he pre­ served his appearance after his death. In Philo's version Moses does not die, but his end is paralleled by Elijah's ascension. What Philo says about Moses' end must be viewed against his ideas about anthropology and the destiny of man generally. The soul is pre-existent, a visitor in this world, residing in the body (Deus 1-2), while death is the soul's separation from the body (Alleg. Interp. 1,105-108). However, although death generally means the freeing of the soul, a holy man's death is always something spe­ cial, as was Abraham's: 97

98

"So too, when Abraham left this mortal life, 'he is added to the people of God' (Gen 25:8), in that he inherited incorruption and became equal to the angels" (Sacr. 5).

The texts quoted attest that Philo had no problem in reconciling Moses' death with his philosophy. Moses, although the best and wisest of all, went the way every man, especially the wise man, goes. To summarise, we can recognise some clear lines of direction in Philo's paraphrase of the miracles in Egypt. Philo is generally very exact in retelling the biblical stories. He stands, of course, in the midrashic tradition and consequently can add and empha­ size what he deems important. He often exaggerates the miracles, al­ though he sometimes even diminishes the miraculous. Still, he is quite faithful in rendering the biblical original. He gives Aaron a role almost equal to that given in the Pentateuch, although he seems to be unwilling to call him by name. He omits very few biblical miracles and treats most of them literally. The punishment of Miriam (Num 12:1-16), however, and the story about the bronze snake (Num 21:4-9) are interpreted only allegorically. In any case, a literal interpretation of the biblical miracle sto­ ries was by no means strange to Philo. 99

100

9 7

For this observation I thank Prof. Ruairidh Boid (Melbourne), who was kind enough to send me his unpublished manuscript (A Pair of Ancient Samaritan Eschatologies). He investigates the rich traditions of Moses' death among the Samaritans. Borgen (1984, 125) cites also Mark 9:2-8 par attesting the thought that Moses did not die. Philo himself tells about this tradition in Mos. 1,4: "(I will) tell the story of Moses as I have learned it, both from the sacred books, the wonderful moments of his wisdom which he has left behind him, and from some of the elders of the nation; for I always interwove what I was told with what I read, and thus believed myself to have a closer knowledge than others of his life's history" (see Borgen 1984, 124). See below p.l42and 141. 9 8

9 9

1 0 0

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

129

Philo

Philo tends to remove all human weakness from Moses' image. Exodus presents him as a reluctant leader, not eloquent enough, and occasionally anxious about his own rebellious people. In one way or another Philo has reduced or removed these features, and it is important to observe the passages exalting Moses above other human beings (see below p.151-155). Whether a Palestinian midrashic tradition can be separated from the Al­ exandrian is an old problem, and Philo's large production is perhaps the best source for an answer to the question. However, it does not seem possible to trace separate traditions in the details of Exodus. What we have in Philo we may have also in Sir, Jub. or in Ezekiel / Artapanus, or in both. But did Philo adapt the biblical stories to shed light on his own times? Some stories denote that he did, but we also need to study the allegorical stories before coming to a conclusion. Two interesting features give reason for a closer examination. On the one hand, Philo combines Moses' miracles with prophecy. On the other hand, he seems to treat some miracles "rationalistically." Both problems are treated in more detail below. 101

102

103

c. The allegorical interpretation of the miracle stories Philo is famous for his allegorical interpretation of the Bible, so it is not surprising that he also interprets the miracle stories in this way. It is impor­ tant, firstly, to understand his exegetical method and, secondly, to study whether he used the method to adapt the stories to his own world: Some scholars have questioned whether Philo used the allegorical interpretation as a commentary on life in his contemporary Alexandria. Borgen has stud­ ied Philo's words on Hagar and Sarah, i.e. on the Greek and Jewish educa­ tion, observing that Philo was worried about the possibility of Jewish youth being led astray from the Jewish belief. Whether Philo contempo­ rized the miracle stories to teach his fellow Jews (as especially Meeks and Birnbaum have assumed concerning some details) is worth asking. The pivotal study of Irmgard Christiansen (Die Technik der allegorischen Auslegunswissenschaft bei Philon von Alexandrien, 1969) on the method Philo used is still an important tool for an analysis of the pas­ sages, although it can justifiably be called too schematic. She showed 104

105

106

107

See also Holladay 1977, 174-177. On the history of the question see Borgen 1984, 124-125. See below p. 148-151. Borgen 1997, 163-164; Birnbaum 2003, 322-323. See below p. 132. On Philo's allegorical method and its roots in general, see also Sandmel 1984, 13-

130

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

that Philo did not merely borrow the method from Homeric interpretation, applying it arbitrarily to the Scriptures, but that he used a well-reflected tool filling all scientific requirements of his own time. The method fol­ lowed the Platonic doctrine of ideas: Plato considered the world of ideas real and tried to find it behind individual beings. His followers tried to sys­ tematise the world with the dialectic, diaeretic technique of disposing real­ ity, often with the help of the ten Aristotelian categories. A good exam­ ple is Speusippus' use of the method to define animals and plants. In the dialectic, diaeretic technique, an individual plant was defined by contrast­ ing it with other plants to find its 6 v with help of its |jr| 6 v , but the func­ tion of the system was to find the One including everything (TrdvTa Trepiex )Philo shared the concept, but in his view the world of ideas was hidden in the words of the Scripture, and the diaeretic technique was used to carefully define the individual truths in the Scripture, the result being to find their relationship with other phenomena or concepts ( T O 6Tepov), mostly outside the Scripture, but defined in the same way and presented as symbolic of the biblical word. This relationship between two concepts defined similarly and diaretically is the core of the allegori­ cal method, and the intention was to find the general truth behind individ­ ual truths. Christiansen's book is complemented by Dawson's chapter on Philo in his Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexan­ dria (1992). Philo never defines his allegorical method and often only briefly justifies his interpretation. In fact, he may not always have a systematic analysis in mind: Yet, Philo is often treated too systematically. Nevertheless, he some­ times gives a full argumentation for his view. The pattern is then as fol108

109

o v

1 1 0

111

112

113

114

22; Borgen 1984, 128-132 and especially Dawson 1992, 23 (non-Jews) and 74-82 (Jew­ ish writers). On Philo's allegory of the miracle stories, see also Tiede 1972, 132, Schottroff 1983, 229-231. Eve almost totally excludes the allegorical interpretation (2002, 53; but see 2002, 81-82). Borgen 1997, 149. The Stoics are usually considered eager allegorists, but the evidence for this tradi­ tional view is surprisingly meagre; see Long 1997, 198-210. Booth (1994, 160-161) quotes several interesting passages showing how important the dialectic between the opposite concepts was to Philo. Christiansen 1969,30-35. A reason why the truth was hidden in Philo's view was that Moses had to use human language in spite of its limitations; he used many words referring to the same objects and Philo is eager to find the synonyms (Dawson 1992, 91-97). Christiansen 1969, 29-46. On the way the eternal truths ended up in the Septuagint; see Dawson 1992, 85-90. Christiansen 1969, 47-98. Christiansen 1969, 53-74 studies the passages in Somn 1,102-104 / Exod 22:25; Somn. 1,33-156/Gen 3:1; Alleg. Interp. 2,72-76 /Gen 48:19 and Alleg. Interp. 3,90-93. 107

108

1 0 9

1 1 0

111

m

1 1 3

1 1 4

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

131

Philo

lows: 1) Philo quotes a biblical verse 2) he claims that a concept is T O ETepov, a symbol of another concept, 3) he shows the similarity between the definitions of the two concepts using either diaeresis or the etymology of the biblical name. Concerning the miracle stories interpreted allegorically, Philo sometimes gives an extensive argumentation, but often we only have to guess his line of thinking. The stories are very often interpreted with the help of a single, important pattern: Egypt represents everything bad and the escape from there is a spiritual emigration. Philo lived in Egypt, but he tried to find points of contact with Greeks, and did not hide his general dislike of the Egyptians (see e.g. Legat. 162173) and especially of their religion (Post. 165, Contempt. 7-8). Allegorically "Egypt" means TTCX0OS (Congr. 85-88) or land of the passions (Alleg. Interp. 3,38; 3,81; 3,94). This allegory is obvious outside and in­ side the retold miracle stories. The golden bull represents Egyptian vanity (Mos. 2, 270), Egypt is the land of sophists (for example, Migr. 83-85), and even the offensive Hebrew way to sacrifice (Exod 8:26) refers to vir­ tues, which were abomination in Egypt (Sacr. 51). The king of Egypt, "that is of the body", is 6 a v T i 0 E O s vous (Conf. 88) or "the mind which usurps the place of God" (Somn. 2,182-183). Since Egypt is the land representing everything bad, the way out repre­ sents the righteous man's own development. The whole Book of Exodus derives its name from the fact that the holy law means E^aycoyr] of the soul from the body. Philo formulates it very clearly in Migr. 14 (cf. even Migr. 151-155): 115

116

117

"Right well, then, did the Sacred Guide inscribe one entire sacred book of the Law­ giving 'Exagoge' or 'Leading out', for the name thus found was appropriate to the ora­ cles contained in it. For being well qualified to train men and fully furnished for the ad­ monition and correction, he contemplates the task of taking out all the population of the soul right away from Egypt, the body, and away from its inhabitants."

This thought is repeated again and again in Philo. Post. 155-156 uses the same theme: The whole way from "Egypt" means a battle against the bod­ ily passions and sexual lust, whose appeals to turn back are constantly heard. In the same way as Moses withdrew from Egypt, the soul flees the passions (Alleg. Interp. 3,12-13). These passages show that Philo 118

119

1 1 5

1 1 6

1 1 7

1 1 8

1 1 9

This was a common attitude among the Jews; see Koskenniemi 2002, 20-23. On sophists, see below p. 134. Philo, as Ezekiel (see p. 66), calls the biblical book' E^aycoyrJ. See also Agr. 88-89. See also Alleg. Interp. 3,37-39; 3,81; 3,175; Cher. 74-77; Sacr. 135.

132

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

considers the way from Egypt a spiritual emigration, and Philo uses the whole of the exodus as a lesson in ethics, i.e., the soul must be free from bodily passions. Abraham's departure from Chaldea was a similar spiritual 121

emigration. The pattern of spiritual emigration is a good example of Philo's use of the allegorical method. He tries to advance from details in the Scripture to universalities and to find the similarities between two concepts. In this pattern Egypt easily finds its STEpov namely rrdSos, and all the details, repeated again and again, find their correct place in his interpretation. On the other hand, Philo is, as shown by Helleman, heavily and openly dependent on Plato's Theaetetus. In Fug. 60-64 he quotes this text, and considers it man's mission to flee this earthly sphere and return home in ouoicoais 0ec3 (cj>uyr| 5e O M O I C O O I S 8eco KaTa S U V C C T O V ) . According to the Platonists and Stoics, the invisible world, Koajjos vorjxds, is real, but the visible, K O O I J O S cnaSrjTtKOs, is unreal, and Philo shares this basic view. This is undoubtedly the sense of the entire spiritual exodus in Philo. Moses' miracles are often interpreted similarly. Philo uses the sto­ ries on exodus to universalise the Jewish religion and to link it with Greek wisdom. Exodus was not, as Dawson notes, celebrated once a year; it now became ever-present. An important - and difficult - question is whether Philo used the pattern to contemporize the stories, using the past to elucidate life in contemporary Alexandria, as especially Meeks and Birnbaum have generally sug­ gested. As seen above, Philo generally disliked the native Egyptians, but the Greek population was also active in the pogroms in the years of Ca­ ligula. But although Philo does not hide his views in Legatio, he never un­ ambiguously uses the pattern to support his fellow Jews, who were under political pressure. If this was his intention, he writes with extreme caution. Moreover, as seen above, we cannot date Philo's treatises exactly. Borgen supposes that Vita Mosis was written before the pogroms and that Philo still had hope that the Gentiles would accept the Law, but Meeks considers this text to be a part of Philo's defence against attacks. The most obvi122

123

124

125

126

127

Symbolically, the entry into the country was an entry into the right philosophy; see 0*2,13. SeeAbr. 66-69; Migr. 9-10; 195 and Sandmel 1984, 17-18. Cf. also the way through Edom, Deus 148-161; Agr. 65. Helleman 1990, 51-71; see also the parallel work of Runia 1988, 48-75. See Helleman 1990, 51-54. See also Deus 31-32 and Migr. 9-10. Dawson 1992, 98-99. Meeks 1976, 45-54; Birnbaum 2003, 323-324. Borgen 1986, 19; Meeks 1976, 45-54. 121

122

123

124

125

126

127

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

133

Philo

ous adaptation seems to be the words o C C V T O E O S vous in Conf. 88, which Birnbaum plausibly connects with Gaius. 128

The story about the burning bush could be interpreted allegorically (Mos. 1,67-70) as a symbol of people suffering wrongs: "Yet that which burned was not burnt up, and this was a sign that the sufferers would not be destroyed by their aggressors, who would find that the aggression was vain and prof­ itless while the victims of malice escaped unharmed" (Mos. 1,67).

Some scholars have plausibly seen here an adaptation of the story. The Jews were oppressed in Alexandria, but they would never be defeated. The problem is again the date of the work. The question is asked again, when all evidence is collected. The rod of Moses, so important to Artapanus and possibly to Ezekiel, also awakens Philo's interest in the theophany (Exod 4:1-4:17). However, Philo's interpretation is totally different, although he also calls it f) 'lepa (3aKTr]pia (Mos 1,211). This is a part of a wide and important treatise dealing with Gen 2:18-3:1, according to which the creation of Eve must not be taken literally. God created first the mind, and then the senses and passions to be its servants (Alleg. Interp. 2,1-11). The treatise tells how the mind must be able to control pleasure. Passions and senses are thus T O ETEpov for Eve. Biblical miracle stories are often used to clarify this pat­ tern. Philo finds here a |JE0££IS between the rod and education. The rod is a symbol of T r a i S E i a , and a good education, like a rod, supports a virtu­ ous man. If the soul throws it away, it seeks more lust than virtue (just as Moses' rod became a snake) until the man again takes control over the passions (Alleg. Interp. 2,90-93). A good education was an important theme for Philo, and here, too, he adapts the biblical story to elucidate its significance. Exodus tells us that Moses lacked eloquence (Exod 4:10), and the literal, but especially the allegorical, interpretation gave Philo the opportunity to explain the Lawgiver's words. In Det. 38-40 he briefly deals with the theme, which he treats more extensively in Mig. 78-85, describing how God promised Abraham Aoyos - Philo's interpretation of the word EuAoyrjaco (Mig. 70-117). He uses Moses' lacking eloquence as part of his argumentation. The pairs of concepts are now Moses / Aaron and vous / Aoyos. Moses is vous and Aaron Aoyos. vous does not need help in deal129

130

131

132

133

Birnbaum 2003, 324-325. Meeks 1976, 48-49; Birnbaum 2003, 323-324. See below p. 157. On Moses' rod in Artapanus, see p. 102, on Ezekiel, see p. 102. See Christiansen 1969, 47. See Goulet 1994,357.

134

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

ing with God, but only dealing with alaSrjais, TTCCOOS and oco(ja, which are represented by Egypt and the "sophists." Aaron, i. e. speech, is needed to defeat the Egyptian magicians, i.e. wrong philosophers ridiculing God's miracles. The opponents are connected with the rod and snakes in the allegorical interpretation. When Aaron's rod becomes a snake and eats the snakes of the Egyptian magicians, it has a deeper sense: 134

"For all the arguments of sophists are devoured and done away with by Natures manysided skill, and the acknowledgement is made that these events are the 'Finger of God', and the word 'finger' is equivalent to a divine rescript, declaring that sophistry is ever defeated by wisdom, for Holy writ, speaking of the tables on which the oracles were engraved, says that they were written by the 'finger of God' wherefore the sorcerers can no longer stand before Moses but fall as in a wrestling-bout vanquished by the sturdy strength of the opponent" (Migr. 83-85).

The pairs of concepts are now Moses / ydyos and true philosophers / It is by no means the only passage in which Philo regards the sorcerers as both sophists and sorcerers. Philo calls the sorcerers ooc|)iG T O U (as LXX, Exod 7:11; Exod 7:26 oi enaoiSoi) and [idyox in Mos. 1,92-94 and equalises them also in Det. 38-40 and Migr. 76-85. "Sophist" is generally one of the worst words Philo can use to characterise a man. He not only means Protagoras (Post. 35), but generally his followers, too (e.g. Det. 1; 72). Philo thus uses the words in LXX to interpret the sorcerers as false philosophers. After Socrates, it was common to criticise the rhetori­ cians and sophists for using speech and words for the purpose of seduc­ tion, and for Philo this was one, although not the only reason, why Moses lacked eloquence. Philo uses the biblical miracle-story to fight his contemporary philosophical opponents, partly supported by Platonic criticism. aoiOTai.

135

136

137

138

The plagues are sometimes interpreted allegorically and the symbols are usually easily found. The plague which turns the Nile into blood is part of a larger context (Somn. 2,237-260). In Joseph's dream of standing on the edge of the river (Gen 41:17), Philo considers the river a symbol of speech. Both river and speech flow outward and both can be either beneficial or harmful. Philo does not deal with earthly rivers, but connects the passage with ethical in-

Also in QE 2,27, Moses is the most pure and God-loving mind and Aaron his word and the unlying interpreter of the truth (see QE 2,44). On the literal interpretation of the opponents, see above p. 113-114. See de Romilly 1975, 91; 69-88. See Winter 1997, 92; 104-105, and above p. 134. See Winter 1994,91-94. 1 3 5

1 3 6

1 3 7

1 3 8

135

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

struction. The two rivers, Euphrat and the river of Egypt (Gen 15:18), mean soul and body (Somn. 2,255-258). The river of Egypt changed into blood represents speech that calls for censure: it is ill-trained, ignorant and practically soulless, and cannot provide nourishment, for none can drink the speech of indiscipline. A good river produces fish (=thoughts), but a bad one kills the thoughts as the Nile kills the fish; moreover, it produces only frogs. Christiansen's pattern works perfectly: Philo 1) quotes a bibli­ cal verse, 2) says that speech is T O eTepov to the river, and 3) defines both concepts to show the similarity. The frogs mean "soulless opinions and conjectures, which produce noise and sound destitute and devoid of all reality." Pharaoh wanted to put off being free of them until "tomorrow", just as evil people want to main­ tain the unchanging level of their godlessness (Sacr. 69-71). The plague is only one link in a long chain of evidence against Cain's offering. The evidence consists of two parts: he offered "after some days" instead of at once, and he did not offer the first-fruits (Sacr. 52). The frogs belong to the former part. Good deeds should be done eagerly and without delay; Pharaoh is presented as a typical man acting as Cain and not seeking help from God, as 8Trajj(|>opiaTai generally do, seeking help from every other direction but only reluctantly from God. The uncommon darkness (vpTiAa^rjTOs . . . O K O T O S ) is understandably contrasted with God's light: The children of Israel had light in all their dwellings, which means that the darkness did not touch the body but the soul (Somn. 1,114; 117). This is a detail in a long passage (Somn. 1,72119), in which Philo interprets the words "for the sun was set" (Gen 28:11) as meaning several things, including human beings, sense-perception, God's word or God himself. The darkness in Egypt is part of the argumen­ tation for the last alternative (Somn. 1,87-119). Exod 22:25-27 tells man to give back the garment to the poor before the sunset. Philo takes the gar­ ment for reason (Aoyos), which is the only thing man really needs before the sun sets, i.e. before God leaves men in terrible darkness, as once hap­ pened to the Egyptians. The darkness, interpreted metaphorically as in Wis 17-18, is here only a small detail in the argumentation in which God is T O 139

140

ETepov to the sun.

t

The firstborn of the Egyptians are interpreted as lust, desire and other vices in Somn. 2,266. The context is the passage mentioned above about speech as a good or bad river, but now Philo gives human lips (xeTAos) two possibilities, citing the words about the bank (yjf\\os) of the river (Gen 41:17): either be silent or talk wisely. An argument encouraging si139

The frogs and the hail are briefly mentioned in Mut. 20-21. The passage is closely related to the interpretation of Gen 37, where "all the sophists of Egypt, augurs, ventriloquists, soothsayers" etc. sprang up from the Nile (Somn. 1,220). 140

136

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

lence is Moses' message to the Israelites: "The Lord will fight for you; you need only to be still" (Exod 14:14). As God's power once subdued the Egyptians, so his aid destroys "lust, pleasure, grief and fear, and injustice, folly, licentiousness with all their brethren and kin" and helps a man learn­ ing to be quiet and waiting for God's help. The pairs of concepts is thus river / speech and x^Aos = bank / x^os = human lips. The Passover and the destroyer, omitted in Mos. 1, occur in Alleg. Interp. 2,34, in the treatise dealing with the mind's mission to control the senses and passions. In this passage the context is Adam's sleep, sent by God, which means the mind's trance when it ceases to be engaged with the ob­ jects appropriate to it. Every soul meets this change, but God's people, unlike those who do not know him, do not sleep until they die. The de­ stroyer blocked from Israel's houses is destruction threatening the soul. Sacr. 62-63 also interprets the Passover as a fight against the passions. 141

142

143

144

The details in the final struggle between the Egyptians and the Hebrews (Exod 13:17-14:31) are often interpreted allegorically, as seen from the examples above. In Conf. 60-82 Philo explains Gen 11:2. Philo tells about a people who moved eastward and found a plain in Shinar, which he interprets "shaking out." According to Philo they actually moved away from virtues and shook them out. This is again applied to individuals, and the Egyptians, shaken and disordered in Exod 14:25, represent those who love the body, "who are shewn to us as flying not from the water but under the water, that is under the stream of passions" (Conf. 70). The events at the Red Sea thus serve as a small detail in the argumentation that moving to Shinar allegorically means moving away from virtues. In Philo, the king of Egypt was not an ordinary king, but "the boastful mind with his six hundred chariots, that is the six movements of the or­ ganic body" and the soldier did not ride a horse against Israel, but a soul with passion (Ebr. 111). This is only a part of a larger context and is of minor importance. Philo deals with several views on wine in Moses and sees it, among other things, as a symbol of foolishness or foolish talking (11-153). An example is a disobedient son, who is compared to the Israel­ ites' noisiness and worshipping of the golden calf; the opposite of this

See also Sacr. 134, where Philo deals with Num 3:13, comparing the firstborn of Egypt to "the most dominant elements of blind passion" and the firstborn of Israel to virtue. See also Alleg. Interp. 3, 165, Migr. 25 and Her. 255 See above p. 133. The context is presented above; see p. 135. 142

143

144

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

137

noise is the victorious song after the events at the Red Sea. Also here the smaller detail is used in ethical instruction. The cloud between the two peoples was A o y o s , which separates the good people from the evil. 145

"For on minds of rich soil that could send in gentle showers the drops of wisdom, whose very nature exempts it from all harm, but on the sour of soil, that are barren of knowl­ edge, it pours the blizzards of vengeance, flooding them with a deluge of destruction most miserable" (Her. 203-204).

Logos or wisdom is also identified with the cloud in Wis 10:17-19 and Philo obviously borrows from the same tradition, in which wisdom is pre­ sented as a widely independent being. Philo also deals with Moses' prayer at the Red Sea in Her. 14-19, eluci­ dating Abraham's bold way of speaking to the Lord (Gen 15:2-3). Exodus does not tell about Moses' prayer, but God asks why Moses is shouting at him, showing, according to Philo, that man is not in contact with God with his body but with his soul. In Conf. 36 the death of the Egyptians did not mean the separation of the soul from the body, but the end of godless teaching and thoughts. In this treatise Philo again plays with the word x ^ o s , now in Gen 11:1, and takes it to mean both human lips and a river bank: It allows him to link the events on the bank of the river with his moral instruction. A "symphony of evil" not only lives in multitudes, but also inside an individual. As Moses met Pharaoh on the "lip" of the river, so too were the Egyptians destroyed on the "lip" of the sea. Somn. 2,279-282 has mainly the same content. It is not only the Egyptian army but also, and especially, the wrong phi­ losophy that wars against virtue and is beaten. The context here is also XeTAos, although the aspect is different. 146

147

148

149

150

145

The horse is a symbol for passion, and the Egyptian rider is a mind in control of the passions - both are four-legged, because Philo adopts the view of four passions. The wider context is the main instruction in the treatise described above (see p. 133). The same interpretation occurs in Agr. 82-83. See Sandelin 1986, 106-107. "For Israel, it says, saw the Egyptians dead on the edge of the sea - not elsewhere. And when he says 'dead' he does not mean the death which is the separation of soul and body, but the destruction of unholy doctrines and of the words which their mouth and tongue and the other vocal organs gave them to use" (Conf. 36). Somn. 2,269-270 identifies briefly the rider cast into the sea with passion. On the one hand, the event meant a requital of all evil done by Pharaoh, but the story had a deeper sense: "Three messages, the best of tidings, does this text proclaim to the soul, one that the passions of Egypt have perished, a second that the scene of their death is none other than the lips of that fountain bitter and briny as the sea, those very lips through which poured forth the sophist-talk which wars against virtue, and finally that their ruin was seen" (Somn. 2,279-280). See above p. 134. 146

147

148

149

150

138

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

The praise after God's miracle is reinterpreted. Miriam (aTa0r)ais) led women, Moses ( v o u s ) men, "for it is right with both mind and sense to render hymns and sing blessings to the Godhead without delay" (Agr. 7983). Although briefly, cuo0r)ois is thus established as T O ETEpov for Miriam and v o u s for Moses. The events in Egypt were not the only subject that could be interpreted allegorically. The way in the desert was another. The entire journey was, of course, the way out of Egypt, the country of the body, and it took more than three days because of the "mixed and roughed multitudes" (Migr. 154). Spiritual emigration is a crucial theme in Philo's works. The water miracle at Marah (Exod 15:22-27) offers a possibility for sev­ eral interpretations, although the main pattern remains the same: That the water at Marah was bitter denotes that pleasure still harasses the wise man and tries to tempt him back to Egypt, i. e., to his earlier manner of life, but God produces the love of labour instead of the hatred of labour. In the passage in Post. 155-157 quoted above it is easy to define Philo's train of thought. In the wider context (Post. 124-157) the key word is water. Philo uses etymology as his tool, claiming that Seth means TroTiajJos, and the way is open for establishing water as T O ETEpov for wisdom: As water gives life to seeds and plants, so wisdom shoots up and improves (Post. 125). In this context the water at Marah is applied to an individual willing to return to "Egypt", but God prevents it with his food for the soul. Philo makes use of a broad tradition originating in the Old Testament (Prov 16:22 LXX). The interpretation in Congr. 163-167 is similar, but now the context is a proper education, which is an obvious contemporization. Philo was afraid that his fellow Jews would seek a Greek education only to get a good posi­ tion. He points to the right path: Although Hagar, the Greek education, 151

153

154

151

Cf. Mos. 1,147. Philo clearly uses the topic as an exhortation against intermarriage in his times: He uses hard words about the mixed people. They were accompanied by a "promiscuous, nondescript and menial crowd, a bastard host, so to speak, associated with the true-born. These were children of Egyptian women by Hebrew fathers, into whose families they had been adopted." On intermarriage in early Judaism, see Sanders 1994, 266. See above p. 131. See Sandelin 1986, 94-95. The question was a burning one in Alexandria. Philo, worried about the motives of his fellow Jews, applied a well-known Hellenistic allegory to the suitors of Penelope: a man may seek education because of bad motives (Alleg. Interp. 3,167). Philo applies this view to sacred history and to the relation between Abraham and Sarah / Hagar; see Borgen 1984, 116-117; Borgen 1997, 125; 162-165. 152

153

1 5 4

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

139 155

is needed, it is definitely subordinated to Sarah, the real philosophy. It means that a student is tested as Israel was in the desert, with the bitter water at Marah. Some people fail, but others let neither hunger nor thirst enslave them, and they will finally find their way. Also, in Migr. 36-38 the bitter water is combined with an exodus, but it is the spiritual wandering of Abraham that is used as model for everyone. This context contains Philo's famous words on inspiration given by God (Migr. 34-35) and immediately afterwards the passage telling how God makes everything sweet: 156

"Now the thing shewn is the thing worthy to be seen, contemplated, loved, the perfect good, whose nature it is to change all that is bitter in the soul and make it sweet, fairest seasoning of all spices, turning into salutary nourishment even foods that do not nourish. So we read: 'The Lord showed him a tree and he cast it into the water', that is, into the flabby, flaccid mind teeming with bitterness, that its savagery might be sweetened away. This tree offers not nourishment only but immortality also, for we are told that the Tree of Life has been planted in the midst of the Garden, even Goodness with the particular virtues, which accord with them to be its bodyguard. For it is Virtue that has obtained as it own the central and most honourable place in the soul. Such is that which is shown, and he that sees it is the wise man, for fools are blind or dim-sighted."

It is not surprising that Philo uses the story to teach ethical discipline and spiritual emigration out of the visible world. However, it is interesting that the tree is not an ordinary piece of wood, but a part of the Tree of Life. The same interpretation occurs in L.A.B 11,15. This interpretation leads Philo to the speculations quoted above. 157

158

159

The water from the rock (Exod 17:1-7 / Num 20:1-13) can also be inter­ preted allegorically (Alleg. Interp. 2,86), and the context in the treatise is

155

The water in Elim meant an entrance to virtue "for just as gateways are the begin­ nings of a house, so are the preliminary exercises of the schools the beginning of virtue" (Fug. 183). "But this result is brought about not by toil unaided, but by toil with sweetening. He says 'the water was sweetened', and another name for the toil that is sweet and pleasant is love of labour. For what is sweet in toil is the yearning, the desire, the fervour, in fact the love of good", Congr. 166. See Sandelin 1986,91-92. See below p. 242. Philo had no problem accepting the physicians. He mentions ap­ proving of Hippocrates (e.g. Op. 105; 124) and physicians generally (e.g. Alleg. Interp. 2,6; Cher. 15). The well dug by princes, mentioned in Num 21:16-18, occurs in Ebr. 112-113, and is interpreted similarly to the water of Marah. The well is wisdom, which lies deep below the surface and gives forth a sweet stream of true nobility for thirsty souls. In Fug. 183 the water in Elim means a gateway to virtue (see Sandelin 1986, 94-96). 156

157

158

159

140

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

described above: mind must have control over the senses and pleasures. The Hebrews tortured by the drought of passions are helped by God, "for the flinty rock is the wisdom of God, which he marked of highest and chiefest from his powers, and from which he satisfies the thirsty souls that love God".

Although Philo expresses this only in a few words, he seems to be aware of both the Jewish and non-Jewish traditions concerning the wisdom as a spring or well, which he now (and in Somn. 2,221-222) applies to bibli­ cal events. The passages on water from the rock are always connected with those on the food given by God. The following three passages illustrate Philo's fondness for this theme: 161

"And when they have been given water to drink, they are filled also with the manna, the most generic of substances, for the manna is called 'somewhat', and that suggests the summum genus. But the primal existence is God, and next to him is the word of God, but all other things subsist in word only, but in their active effects they are in some cases as good as non-subsisting" (Alleg. Interp. 2,86). "And indeed it says 'Behold I rain upon you bread from heaven'. Of what food he can rightly say that it is rained from heaven, save of heavenly wisdom which is sent from above on souls which yearn for virtue by him who sheds the gift of prudence in rich abundance, whose grace waters the universe, and chiefly so in the holy seventh (year), which he calls Sabbath (Mut. 259-260). "You see of what sort the soul's food is. It is a word of God, continuous, resembling dew, embracing all the soul and leaving no portion without part in itself* (Alleg. Interp. 3,169, see even 162-172). 162

The same thought appears with small variations: Manna is the heavenly food God gives to the soul (Fug. 138; Mut. 259-260; Deus 155), and the erring people, of course, prefer "the onions and the garlic, which give great pain and trouble to their eyes and make them close, or the other illsmelling things" of Egypt to it (Her. 79-80). Manna means the heavenly wisdom that God gives to people who seek virtue, and as seen above, Philo is clearly aware of a broad tradition interpreting the biblical story about manna. As Sandelin notes, Deut 8:3 LXX links manna with God's 163

164

160

165

See above p. 133. See Sandelin 1986, 94-96. Philo uses manna to show that God does not let those who feed on the divine words live in misery and suffering; the common people believe that God lets them suffer, be­ cause they have never tasted wisdom (Congr. 173-174). Det. 118 uses manna to teach the nature of the proper education. Philo contrasts manna / wisdom with encyclical studies in Mut. 259-260 (see Borgen 1997, 164). See above p. 123 and Borgen 1965, 9-20. Sandelin 1986, 104. 161

162

163

164

165

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

141

Philo 166

also Wis 16:20 says that manna was the food of angels. Thus al­ though this interpretation is not Philo's own, he eagerly adopts it. pfjua;

Philo also gives a slightly allegorical interpretation to the story of quails (Exod 16:1-36; Num 11:4-36): Desire was victorious over the Hebrews, who could not fight against it (Spec. 4,128-130). The literal and allegorical interpretations overlap here, and it is easy to understand: The biblical story not only deals with lack of food, but also with lack of spiritual strength, and it opens the door for Philo to interpret the punishment in Num 11:4-36 as punishment for gluttony and an uncontrolled life. 167

Exod 17:8-16 tells how Moses prayed for Israel when watching the battle between Israel and Amalek and how Aaron and Hur had to hold his hands up. Philo deals with the story twice in the third book of Legum allegoriae. In Alleg. Interp. 3,45 the context is that a soul finds in God the spring and aim of its own doings. Moses did find it, and consequently his hands were heavy unlike those of evil men, and he was steadied by "Aaron, the Word, and Hur, which is 'Light.'" Another view is offered later in the same book (Alleg. Interp. 3,186). Now he pays attention to the fighting nations and compares the battle to ethical life. Philo explains Gen 3:15, interpret­ ing the war between the snake's seed and the woman's seed as the war be­ tween passion's seed (pleasure) and the mind's seed (sense). The story about Amalek follows this pattern; the combatants are no longer two peo­ ples, but mind and passion. The diaeresis in Alleg. Interp. 3,185 follows the pattern described by Christiansen, and the war between the two peoples is only a detail in Philo's interpretations, although this time he also defines Amalek etymologically. 168

"...'Whenever Moses lifted up his hands, Israel prevailed, but when he dropped them, Amalek prevailed', showing that when the mind lifts itself up away from mortal things and is borne aloft, that which sees God, which is Israel, gains strength, but when it has lowered its special powers and grown weak, immediately passion, named 'Amalek', which means 'a people licking out', will become strong: for in very deed it eats up the whole soul and licks it out, leaving behind in it no seed or spark or virtue."

Philo does not use the story about Miriam's punishment (Num 12:1-16) in a literal sense in Vita Mosis, and the story is seldom mentioned in early Judaism. 166

See Sandelin 1986, 73-81. On Philo's way to use the material and parallels to the Christian writers and midrashic tradition, see the detailed exegesis in Borgen 1965, 2858. See above p. 123. 168 On the interpretation in Mishna, see above p. 126. 1 6 7

142

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

LXX calls the women A'iSioTnaaa (cf. rrBDrr) thus placing ©ID on the m a p . In v. 1 2 : 4 LXX inverts the order of Aaron and Miriam, and in v. 1 2 : 6 Kuptco would imply mrr ? in the translator's original, although our Hebrew text has mrr. In v. 1 2 : 8 mrr nJDn is ren­ dered TT)V 5 6 £ a v Kupiou, which may be a slight theological reworking of the original. In 1 2 : 1 0 frwD runxD is translated Xenpcoaa eoaei showing no traces of finding nmxD difficult. In v. 1 2 : 1 2 LXX adds coosi eKxpcoucc; in v. 1 2 : 1 5 the Hebrew text has *pRmi?, but the Septuagint has scos EKaOapioBn. 1 6 9

1

Philo, however, uses this story, but only allegorically (Alleg. Interp. 2,6567), and the wider context is the mind's control over the senses and pleas­ ures described above. The mind has three alternatives, a v c u o x u v T i a , aiScos and the lack of both (=bad, good and indifferent). Miriam repre­ sents vous under the power of a v c c i o x u v T i a , attacking Moses when he deserved praise. Philo does not, of course, interpret the Ethiopian woman literally, because he rejects intermarriage, but takes her to mean the unal­ terable steadiness of his soul. Philo does not seem to find the story prob­ lematic, since he mentions it only briefly, and it does not trigger, as of­ ten, an allegorical interpretation showing how impossible a literal read­ ing of the biblical passage would be. 170

171

172

Num 21:4-9 tells how the Israelites were punished with the venomous snakes and healed with a bronze snake. Philo deals with the story twice, in both passages with a widely similar view. The story teaches the control of pleasure. 173

LXX translates in v. 2 1 : 4 DtfrrosD sprn as Kai coXiyovpiixriaev b Xaos. In v. 2 1 : 5 the Hebrew text has w r ^ n , but LXX e^rjyayes, and the difficult bpbpn nn^n is rendered ev TCO dfpTco TOO SictKevco. In v. 2 1 : 6 the snakes, crsitDn O'rcmn, are rendered TOUS 6<J>EIS TOUS SavocTOiivTas. In v. 2 1 : 6 the words TCOV uieov laparjA implies that the translators had 'ptner ^nn in their original and not ^tnETQ, as in our Hebrew text. The translation is thus very literal.

Alleg. Interp. 2,76-84; 87, a treatise which generally deals with the mind's control over the senses and pleasures, naturally considers snakes to be symbols of various pleasures, and Philo happens to give an excep­ tionally thorough argumentation for the view a little earlier (Alleg. Interp. 2,74-75). Pleasure brings death - not separation of the soul from the 174

175

1 7 0

171

1 7 2

1 7 3

1 7 4

1 7 5

On the geographical names in the Septuagint, see Siegert 2 0 0 0 , 2 1 4 - 2 1 5 . See above p. 1 3 3 . On Philo and intermarriage, see Spec. 3 , 2 9 ; Virt. 3 5 - 3 6 . See Dawson 1 9 9 2 , 1 0 4 . The story is also alluded to in Wis 1 6 : 5 - 1 4 . See above p. 1 3 3 . Christiansen uses the passage to illuminate Philo's method; see Christiansen 1 9 6 9 ,

67-71.

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

143

body, but ruination of the soul through vice. The situation, however, is not hopeless: "Everyone, then, 'whom a serpent shall have bitten, when he looks on it shall live.' This is quite true. For if the mind, when bitten by pleasure, the serpent of Eve shall have suc­ ceeded in beholding in soul the beauty of self-mastery (O0)(|)poauvn), the serpent of Moses, and through beholding this, beholds God himself, he shall live; only let him look and mark well (povov 'ISETCO KCCI KaTavonaccTco)" (Alleg. Interp. 2 , 8 1 ) .

The pairs of terms are thus poisonous serpent / pleasure and Moses' ser­ pent / aco(|>pocnjvri. Here, as in Agr. 95-98, Philo sees a deeper meaning in the material of the healing snake: The firm metal shows that a man, al­ though once bitten by pleasure, can with self-mastery resist temptation and be saved. Philo shows in Agr. 95-98 his way to connect the literal interpretation with the allegorical. He first retells the biblical story literally, and the tran­ sition to the allegorical is interesting: "Told in this way these things are like prodigies and marvels (o:a|jo:cnv E'OIKE KCCI TEpccai), the serpent emitting a human voice and using quibbling arguments to an utterly guileless character, and cheating a woman with seductive plausibilities; and another proving the author of complete deliverance to those who beheld it. But when we interpret words by the meanings that lie beneath the surface, all that mythical is removed out of our way, and the real sense becomes as clear as daylight" (Agr. 9 6 - 9 7 ) .

The "real sense", which is "as clear as daylight" is that the story attacks the wrong philosophy: In both passages the snake undoubtedly has the voice of the Epicureans; in addition, the phrases "pleasure" and "selfmastery" let us conclude that the snake, which has bitten the mind with pleasure, then uses the arguments of philosophers airo TCOV KrjiTcov to charm its victims. Philo teaches that a man can return to the right path and stop listening to the beguiling voices. The literal sense is never re­ jected in the miracle stories, but the allegorical sense is the real and higher interpretation of the holy text. 176

It is a communis opinio that for Philo the allegorical method was not a de­ vice to destroy the literal. This view is also confirmed in this study of the miracle stories. There are very few passages in which Philo tries to avoid the literal sense with the help of the allegorical method. 177

176

On Epicurus in Philo, see Aet. 8 and on Epicureans Post. 2 . Although Philo men­ tions the Epicureans only twice, it is clear that their views are often his target; see Booth 1 9 9 4 , 1 5 9 - 1 7 2 . Frey ( 1 9 9 4 , 1 6 4 ) correctly identifies the snakes in Alleg. Interp. 2 , 8 1 with the snake in Paradise; however, he does not see the obvious link to the Epicureans. Wolfson: 1 9 4 7 , 1 . 1 2 2 - 1 2 6 ; Mondesert 1 9 9 9 , 8 8 7 - 8 8 8 . See however, e.g. Alleg. In­ terp. 2 , 1 9 , where Philo rejects the literal sense of woman's creation. 177

144

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

As seen above, some scholars have taken some features of the miracle stories as clear adaptations. Meeks tried to link the Egyptians with the opponents of the Jews in Philo's own time, more specifically with Gaius. Meeks undoubtedly asked an important question, but direct evi­ dence is scarce. If Philo wanted to covertly attack Gaius or Roman rule, he has hidden his message very skillfully. On the other hand, Philo had a well-thought-out view on statesmen, rulers and kings, which he could not help expressing when retelling the biblical events. The Alexandrian offi­ cials and Roman rulers of his own times formed the context in which Philo presents a Furstenspiegel to his reader, although Gaius is not directly men­ tioned and may not even be meant. As seen, the glorious past of Israel meant more to Philo than is often understood, and he had a developed, eschatological view. That we are not able to date precisely Philo's treatises makes investigating the details very difficult. Borgen's opinion that Vita Mosis was written before the pogroms fits the analysis presented above. Hay inquires about the implied readers of Philo and finds good answers; but unhappily, he does not focus his study on Vita Mosis, and the general answers are undoubtedly different from those concerning this work. The miracle stories imply that he indeed included Gentiles in his audience. It is easier to find other features in the stories that were relevant to the Gentile audience in Philo's time. It is interesting to compare Philo's literal interpretation with the anti-Jewish propaganda known to him. He almost consistently omitted all biblical verses pointing to the strange or offending manner of sacrifice, and he even dropped the whole story about Passover. Apparently he definitely wanted to present Moses to Gentile sympathisers, knowing that the Israelite manner of sacrifice was heavily attacked in antiJewish propaganda. On the other hand, although he does not mention pestilence at the burning bush, and says that Moses' hand was AeuKOTepa Xiovos, he adds of his own will the words AOIJJIKCX ccppcooTripaTa, when retelling the biblical plague. He also tells that the Egyptians expelled the Israelites from their country. Apparently Philo did not consistently remove everything, which was criticised by anti-Jewish writers. Generally, Philo pays very little attention to anti-Jewish writers. He seldom mentions them (but see Conf. 2 and of course Hypoth.), and when introducing Moses he does not, as Josephus, attack anti-Jewish writers, but regrets that the Greeks do not mention him (Mos. 1,1-3). 178

179

180

181

182

Meeks 1976, 48-49. On the literal interpretation and possible adaptations, see below p. 132. See above, p. 121. See Hay 1991,20-52. See below p. 231-232.

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

145

What Philo wrote on the Sabbath was an attempt to universalise the Jew­ ish feast, and he seems really to have believed that the Gentiles could adopt one of the most eminent features of Judaism. He was not writing to an imaginary audience: the annual celebration of the LXX translation had attracted a number of non-Jewish sympathisers, and it is conceivable that eschatological hope was especially alive before the pogroms. But Philo also uses the miracle stories - both literally and allegorically to attack his philosophical opponents or to adopt a view taken from the Greek tradition. Few can hear the voice of the Epicureans in the snake's voice, but it was not a problem for Philo. He also attacked people who used their education for selfish ends. The warning not to follow the way of the Egyptian sorcerers, i.e. "sophists", was also meant for those among his own people needing a good Greek education. Understandably, the dan­ gers of the non-Jewish culture were always present in Alexandria. The allegorical method is generally considered to be a way to make the biblical figures and God's commandments universal and to link Jewish belief with Greek philosophy. This bias is very clear in the miracle sto­ ries, when interpreted allegorically. Exodus not only means freedom for a single nation; it was a universal spiritual emigration, and Philo uses its details to include and exclude Greek philosophy in and from his teaching. More precisely, the method is used to serve as the main function of the allegorical interpretation. The author of Jub. wrote about the fathers of the nation, and adapted the stories to the entire nation. Philo's exegetical method was different: he wrote about peoples and great events, and adapted the stories to the life of an individual. The way from Egypt with all its details was a treasure for the Jewish philosopher, who could adapt the Platonic model to his own religion. The great Alexandrian scholar and moralist, semper talis, repeatedly attacked human desire and pleasure through his reinterpreted stories. Their main role is to integrate Jewish ethical teaching with contemporary Greek philosophy. 183

184

185

183

See Borgen 1997, 140-144. Dawson presents the situation in Alexandria well (1992, 126), but his description of the internal-Jewish divisions is not convincing (1992, 114-115). We have very little evi­ dence of these divisions and are consequently easily led to speculations. See e.g. Sandmel 1984, 14. 184

185

146

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

d. Miracles explained

Philo

rationally?

Some modern scholars claim that Jews were strongly criticised by the Greeks and Romans because of their belief in miracles. This is an impor­ tant issue in the study of Josephus' works, and it emerges briefly in the study of Artapanus' fragments as well. However, the religio-historical background is widely similar for Josephus and Philo at this point, espe­ cially because both hoped to reach Gentile audiences. Both supposedly were well aware of anti-Jewish propaganda, and both certainly felt the pressure if it existed. Moreover, the view common in the studies concern­ ing Josephus is by no means unknown in Philonic studies. We have en­ countered several stories in which such an explanation seems to be reason­ able. Now it is time to investigate them more closely. Philo is aware of potentially difficult objections that could be raised: for example, the Jews laughed at myths, yet told biblical stories that resembled them (Conf. 2-3). Sometimes one cannot help asking if Philo really did rationalise the biblical stories. He may have interpreted the story of Ba­ laam allegorically (Cher. 32-36) and may even have said that the literal meaning was merely "prodigies and marvels" (Agr. 96-97) or omitted the feature of the ass speaking (Mos. 1,269-275). Sometimes he revised a bib­ lical story: The darkness may have been caused by an unordinary eclipse of the sun or by unusual clouds (Mos. 1,123-125), and the tide was a par­ tial reason for the way opened to the Hebrews (Mos. 1,176). The tree cast in the water was "possibly formed by nature to exercise a virtue which had hitherto remained unknown" (Mos. 1,185-187), and a possible explanation for the water from the rock was that "the rock contained originally a spring and now had its artery clean severed, or perhaps that then for the first time a body of water collected in it through hidden channels was forced out by the impact" (Mos. 1,211). Thus, much of what he says supports the view that the Jews tried to give a natural explanation for the miracles. However, in his production, Philo sometimes deals with the question of whether a miracle is possible. In QE 1,32 he considers the question of how it was possible that the snake spoke in paradise, and finds an answer: 186

187

188

"Second, when some miraculous deed is prepared, God changes the inner nature (secundo, quando mira quaedam patranda sunt, subiectas naturas commutat Deus)".

On Artapanus, see above p. 104, on Josephus, see below p. 228-229. Wolfson presents a detailed view. On the one hand, he recognises a rationalising element; on the other hand, he is of the opinion that Philo really took all biblical miracles as historical events (1947,1.122-126; 1.350-356). According to Georgi, Philo connected the miracles and their rationalisation "in gleichem Atemzug" (1964, 155); see also Moehring 1973, 377-381 and Feldman 2000, 231. On the question, see Eve 2002, 54-55; 83-84. 187

188

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

147

In Mos. 1,201-202 he deals with the same theme. Moses speaks to his peo­ ple: "But God has subject to him not one portion of the universe, but the whole world and its part to minister as slaves to their master for every that he wills. So now it has seemed good to him that the air should bring food instead of water ..."

The talking snake or the bread from heaven were thus not overwhelming obstacles to Philo's faith. There is little or no evidence for the view that the stories about Moses' miracles would have been problematic for Philo, even though he may give a natural explanation for them. On the contrary, he clearly states his belief that God makes miracles: "If anyone disbelieves these things, he neither knows God nor has ever sought to know him; for if he did he would at once have perceived - aye, perceived with an firm appre­ hension - that these extraordinary and seemingly incredible events are but child's-play to God ( c m TCC TrapcfSo^a 5r| TOCUTO: KCCI TrapdXoya 0sou Traiyvicc ecrnv). He has but to turn his eyes to things which are really great and worthy of his earnest contemplation, the creation of heaven and the rhythmic movements of the planets and fixed stars, the light that shines upon us from the sun by day and from the moon by night... But these things, though truly marvellous, are held in little account, because they are familiar. Not so with the unfamiliar; though they be but small matters, we give way before what happens so strange, and drawn by their novelty, regard them with amazement" (Mos. 1, 212-213).

Philo clearly combines the miracles with the omnipotence of God, the Creator. He does not play down the miracles, but argues a fortiori that a God capable of creation is also capable of working any other miracle. An ancient writer may present a less miraculous version of a story, but it does not necessarily mean that he is trying to rationalise it. As long as Philo tells similar stories in his production and treats the possibility of miracles positively, there is no reason to consider the miracle stories diffi­ cult for him. Philo uses these stories as simple illustrations, both literally and allegorically, and the latter is not a mean to exclude the former. There is no bias to consistently tone down miraculous elements. There seems to be no evidence that he uncritically linked the miracles with their rationali­ sation "in gleichem Atemzug", as Georgi claimed. On the contrary, Philo obviously had a well-thought view of the miracles. On the other hand, while this is true concerning the biblical miracles, we can only guess what he thought about contemporary miracle-workers, if he was aware of them. If he ever felt pressure from the Greeks and Romans concerning the biblical miracles, his answer was that miracles were easy for God, the 189

190

191

189

Tiede formulates it correctly: "Philo's starting point is that everything is possible for God, including those things that are impossible and insuperable for men" (Tiede 1972, 133-134); similarly also Sandmel 1984, 27. Eve 2002, 53. Georgi 1964, 155. 1 9 0

191

148

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

Creator. It is not due to inconsistency that he explains his texts. The Jewish heritage and the modern world have different concepts of a "miracle." A "miracle" meant something different to Philo than to David Hume. The biblical miracles were not a violation of the laws of nature; nfrra impos­ sible for men were possible for God. That he apparently found the biblical miracles unproblematic to deal with has direct consequences on the study of Josephus. 192

e. Miracles of the prophet Philo is by no means the only Jewish writer who considers Moses a prophet. Deut 18:18 led to the expectation of a "prophet like Moses", and Ben Sira takes it for granted that Moses was a prophet. Yet it is very interesting to see how Philo combines prophecy and miracles. Moses speaks with the people at the Red Sea in a very interesting pas­ sage (Mos. 1,173-175). According to Philo, he uses his mind and speech simultaneously for different purposes. He silently intercedes with God with his mind, but with his body he acts as a good, calm leader. Then every­ thing changes: 193

194

"But, after a little, he came possessed, and filled with the spirit which was wont to visit him, uttered these oracular words of prophecy ..."

Philo thus clearly differentiates between Moses' usual speech and proph­ ecy. In this passage the prophecy precedes the death of the Egyptians. Interestingly enough, the prophecy is one of the four adjuncts to the truly perfect ruler, and of course, Moses was a prophet of the highest quality (Mos. 2,187-188). Philo writes a long passage about the theme and differ­ entiates between three kinds of prophecy. In the first, God speaks in his own person with his prophet as interpreter; in the second, the revelation comes through questions and answers. The most interesting is the third kind of prophecy, which is "spoken by Moses in his own person, when possessed by God and carried away out of himself' (xal e£ auTOu 195

196

KccTaaxeBevTOs).

Philo does not discuss the first kind of prophecy ("They are too great to be lauded by human lips", Mos. 2,191). Four examples are given of the 197

192

See above p. 1-2. See above p. 27. On Moses as a prophet, see Meeks 1967, 125-131; Tiede 1972, 113-119. This is the kind supposed in Spec. 1,64-65. On ecstasy, see also Her. 249-259. Meeks noted (1967, 127) that elsewhere Philo uses ep|jr|veus and TrporJTT}s almost interchangeably (see e.g. Praem. 55; Her. 260; Spec. 3,6). However, he overlooks the 193

1 9 4

195

196

197

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

149

second; two contain a punishment prophecy (the case of a blasphemer, Lev 24:10-16; Mos. 2,192-212; the punishment of a Sabbath-breaker, Num 15:32-36; Mos. 2,213-220). In the third types of prophecy the prophet him­ self speaks under divine inspiration (Mos. 2,246), and it is precisely the third type that Philo seems to combine with miracles. Philo returns to the events at the Red Sea, already told in the first book. Now he retells how Moses "was taken out of himself by divine possession ( O U K E T ' COV EV ECXUTCO 0eoopE?TCu) and uttered these inspired words" (Mos. 2,250), and then describes the miracle (Mos. 2,253-257). This was the way Moses "be­ gan and opened his work as a prophet possessed by God's spirit" (Mos. 2,258). The next example, too, combines prophecy and miracle, namely manna (Mos. 2,258-263). The third concerns manna on the Sabbath (Mos. 2,263-269), and also here Philo uses the word or)|JE?ov (MOS. 2,264). The fourth example is the only one without a miracle. It is the story of the golden calf, in which Moses acts as prophet (Mos. 2,270-274): "He therefore became another man (OUKETI [ISVCAV b CCUTOS), changed both in outward appearance and mind, and filled with the spirit, he cried (Mos. 2,272).

Philo tells how the prophet kills three thousand of his own people. The last example, the story about Korah, deals again with a miracle (Mos. 2,275287), in which Moses is "transformed into a prophet" (|JETa|3aAcov E'IS 198

TTpoc|>rJTr]v).

Philo presents many interesting details concerning prophecy, such as linking a clean life and freedom from passion with the life of a prophet (Mos. 2,68-69). This is not unique in Philo. He considers every good man a prophet. This may again be a device to universalise Jewish wisdom and integrate it with the Greek world. The most interesting features here are 1) the ecstasy of the prophet, 2) the connection between prophecy and other miracles and 3) the brutal violence of the prophet. 1) Religious ecstasy was a well known phenomenon in classical antiq­ uity, as Plato, Aelius Aristeides and Vergil (to mention only few) clearly attest. Levison's comparison of Philo's view on inspiration with Plu­ tarch's writings show that their views are widely compatible. However, Philo's concept can easily be traced to his Jewish heritage. Saul was "changed into a different person" and prophesied (1 Sam 10:6). Another 199

200

201

importance of the miracles for the third kind of prophecy. "While his heart was still hot within him, burning with lawful indignation, inspira­ tion came upon him, and, transformed into a prophet, he pronounced these words (Mos. 2,280). See Her. 259-260. See below p. 209. Levison 1995, 189-207. 198

199

2 0 0

2 0 1

150

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

very close parallel is Samson and his spirit-filled and violent leadership. This is a major theme in L.A.B., which owes much to this tradition. 2) Philo closely connects the miracles with Moses' prophecy. Almost all examples of the third art of prophecy contain a miracle. Prophecy is a many-sided phenomenon in Philo's works, a prophet being a righteous man and a righteous man a prophet. Miracles are not necessarily part of the picture of a prophet, but the analysis shows clearly that they can be. Moses is thus also a model for a miracle-working prophet. It means that the miracle-working "sign-prophets" are closer to Philo's view than is usu­ ally understood, especially if his eschatological hope is not overlooked. 3) Philo chooses very violent examples of the deeds of the prophet. No less than three out of five examples are very aggressive (the miracle at the Red Sea, the stories about the golden calf and the story about Korah). Philo could have presented many biblical prophets who performed miracles with vehemence. Several of the prophets used violence. The first of them is, of course, Elijah, who killed the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal (1 Kgs 18). Elisha cursed the boys mocking him (2 Kgs 2:22-24) as well as Gehazi (2 Kgs 5:24-27). Even if the biblical prophets did not make mira­ cles other than prophecy, most of them were critical of their audience, even furious at them. In any case, many biblical prophets could serve as models of the new traits of the miracle-working Moses. The link between violence and miracles is seen in the stories about Elijah and Elisha already mentioned. An interesting parallel is again L.A.B., written a little after Philo, with several violent and miracle-working figures. It is no wonder that such persons occur in a text roughly contemporary with the fall of Je­ rusalem. Torrey Seland has studied Philo's view on CfjAos and found ma­ terial rich in information. In his view, ^nXcoTrjs is in Philo an individual religious man and does not represent a movement. At any rate, the fact 202

203

204

205

206

2 0 2

See chapter 8. Noah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Abraham were true prophets, even if they did not make miracles {Her. 260-266); see Tiede 1972, 113-115). Tiede supposes that Philo pur­ posely omitted Abraham's prayer in Gen 20 (Her. 258), because the prophet had no need to prove himself divine through miracles (Tiede 1972, 115-116). However, although it is true that the story is not told in extenso, Philo quotes Gen 20:7: "restore the woman to the man, because he is a prophet and shall pray for you, and you shall live" (Her. 258). On the biblical story, see also Abr. 92-98, where the prayer is presumed (Her. 95), but not highlighted. See above p. 121. According to Barraclough (1984, 480) Philo "dehistorizes the coming event to the level of the individual soul", and Mondesert (1999, 898-900) also emphasizes the non-violent character of Philo's eschatology. However, this is only one side of the truth. Precisely the spiritual side of the eschatology also could include hopes, which were not necessarily non-violent, as the violent miracles attest. See below chapter 8. Seland 2002, esp. 459-461. 2 0 3

2 0 4

2 0 5

2 0 6

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

151

that Philo could add violent traits to his prophet Moses means that the roots of the movements, which were violent and religious, can be traced back to a broader tradition of interpretation. Ben Sira and his violent pas­ sages attest this tradition in the early second century BC. Josephus tried his all to show that the "zealotic" prophets had nothing to do with real Juda­ ism, but they resembled Philo's Moses more than is usually recognised.

/ God or Moses? Thus for Philo, Moses was a great miracle-worker. But was it God or Moses who made these miracles? Moreover, is the Moses in Philo's text a divine being or a human being? The early advocates of the divine man the­ ory considered Philo's Moses a 9eTos avrjp - actually Philo is one of the few writers who used the phrase (Virt. 177) - and he has always been a part of the puzzling question. Tiede's book was an important cri­ tique of the divine man hypothesis. He argued that Philo's Moses is 0 e 7 o s because he is an ideal oo<J>6s and has got ocpnTrj, not because of his mira­ cles. However, the decisive turn came with Holladay's book (1977), al­ though it has taken a long time for his results to gain the appreciation they deserve. Runia's (1988) and Hellemans's (1990) studies recently con­ firmed Holladay's main results, but it is certainly useful to treat the theme briefly, especially because Borgen disagrees with Runia. 207

208

209

210

211

The easier of the two questions above is Moses' role in the miracles. Ac­ cording to Tiede, Moses' prophecies do not produce miracles but merely anticipate God's action. Philo seems to avoid describing Moses as a 212

2 0 7

Philo's Moses was already 0e?os avrjp in e.g. Reitzenstein, Windisch and Bieler. On a history of the research, see Holladay 1977, 101-106 and du Toit 1998, 349-361. The use of this and related phrases has been studied by Du Toit (1997). A short list can be found in Koskenniemi 1994, 99-100. See Meeks 1967, 103-106; Georgi 1964, 152-167. According to Koster 1971 (1970), 201-204 Philo made his Moses a Hellenistic divine man for propagandistic reasons; see also 173-179. Apparently Tiede's book led Schweizer to doubt the presence of the pattern in Philo (Schweizer 1973, 534). According to Schottroff "ist Wundertun gerade kein charakteristisches Merkmal" in Moses' picture (however, he considers him GeTos avrjp in Philo, 1983,229-230). Cf. Beegle 1992, 916 "As a 'divine man' Moses is superhuman." According to Oberhansli-Widmer (1994, 354-355) Philo makes Moses divine. Holladay's work means a fundamental turn in the research according to Helleman (1990, 51-52) and du Toit (1997, 361-363); see also the short summary in Koskenniemi 1994, 88-90. Borgen (1997, 197-205) does not refer to Helleman. Tiede 1972, 129. 2 0 8

2 0 9

2 1 0

2 1 1

2 1 2

152

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

miracle-working hero, and it is true that Moses is generally not the inde­ pendent miracle-worker as presented, for example, in Artapanus. However, Philo is one of the few Jewish writers who scrupulously tries to distinguish the roles of God and Moses. According to Philo, some of the plagues were caused by Moses (and Aaron), but some had no human agent. Some texts reduced Moses' role in the stories or mentioned only God or his wis­ dom. Philo, however, gives Moses a significant role. It should not be overlooked that Philo, like, for example, Jub., distances God from men and does not put him in dialogues with men. It necessarily means a change of roles and it gave more room for Moses to act as God's agent. In Kahl's terminology, the oscillation is marked: Although Philo expressis verbis attributes some miracles to Moses (or Aaron), he hardly presents Moses as a BNP. At times he is certainly an MNP, as at the burning bush, or when mediating the plagues attributed to him in Egypt. Sometimes he is a PNP, at the Red Sea or in making the water sweet, but it is very difficult to find any consistent line of thought. Although Moses' human weakness is re­ duced and he is no longer the reluctant leader, Philo's rewriting of Exodus is more motivated by his desire to reduce God's anthropomorphic features and to remove dialogues between him and Moses than by reflection on the roles of God and Moses. 214

215

216

But do the miracles raise Moses above other human beings? Philo can say very surprising things about Moses. As seen above, Philo tends to dissoci­ ate all human weakness from Moses. He is not only called 0e?os avrjp (Virt. 1,777), but Philo clearly says that he is neither a man nor a god but something between these two: "on the border." The legislator of the Jews seems to have passed from a man into a god. His partnership with 217

218

2 1 3

Tiede's (1972, 115-117) view is that Philo ignores the possibility of attributing the miracle to Abraham in Gen 20 when retelling the story in Abr. 93-106. Tiede notes that the Old Testament passages, in which Moses' role culminates, do not link him with mira­ cles and gave no model for Philo to do it (Deut 33:1; Jos 14:6; Ezra 3:2; Ps 90:1; see Tiede 1972, 102. See above p. 77. So also Eve 2002, 66-74, who considers Moses and Aaron as PNPs. Eve deals thoroughly with some passages in which Philo's words seem to contradict his basic view that God is the real subject of the miracle; Eve analyses what he said and what he must have meant (2002, 71-74). It is easier to say that Philo did not have a con­ sistent line of thought. ueBopiov Trjs ccyevrixou Kai 0apTf]s <j>uaecos (Somn. 2,234). Philo links the words with Deut 5:5 ("I stood between the Lord and you"). Cf. the words on the High Priest, Spec. 1,116 and on parents Spec. 2,225. "The legislator of the Jews in a bolder spirit went to a further extreme and in the practice of his 'naked' philosophy, as they call it, ventured to speak of him who was possessed by love of the divine and worshipped the Self-existent only, as having passed 2 1 4

2 1 5

2 1 6

2 1 7

2 1 8

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

153

God was of a very special kind. He was deemed worthy to bear the same title; he was named god and king of the whole nation, and entered into darkness where God was (Mos. 1,158). Philo seems to believe that Moses was pre-existent: 219

"And even when God sent him as a loan to the earthly sphere and suffered him to dwell herein, he gifted him with no ordinary excellence, such that which kings and rulers have..." 220

Moses' death means that God "resolved his twofold unity, transforming his whole being into mind, pure as the sunlight" (Mos. 2,288). It is un­ derstandable that the passages referred to fuelled the modern discussion about divine men. As a matter of fact, they were observed surprisingly sel­ dom, and Borgen justly emphasizes them. However, the idea of calling Moses a god did not originate with Philo, but in Exod 4:16 and 7 : 1 , verses which offered an opportunity to ap­ ply the Hellenistic model - if it ever existed. Philo clearly qualifies Moses' person and status. He is a mortal man (Mos. 2,5), and he is not god for all parts of the world but only for men (Prob. 42). Actually, he is not a real god, but only a god for foolish people, and \xi\ irpos aArjBeiccv, 5o£fj Se J J O V O V . Philo also writes that it is impossible for a man to change into a god, and he considers this claim aor]PTi|jdTcov ... x a t a ^ T a T o v ; a god could sooner become a man (Legat. 118). Moreover, it is worth noting that Philo never supports Moses' extraordinary position with miracles. Prob. 221

222

223

224

225

from a man into a god, though, indeed, a god to men, not to the different parts of the nature, thus leaving to the Father of all the place of King and God of gods" (Prob. 42). The passages in which Moses is called a god are Alleg. Interp. 1,40; Det. 161-162; Mos. 1,158; Mut. 19; 125-129; Prob. 42 and Sacr. 8-10. Sacr. 9, see Tiede 1972, 125. On Moses' death, see above p. 127-128. As noted by Runia the Hebrew text and LXX differ (1988, 53): LXX reads ou Se auTco lot) TOC Trpos TOV 0s6v. However, Exod 7:1 is translated literally (5e5coKa oe 0e6v Occpaco; see above p. 99. See Tiede 1972, 123-126; Helleman 1990, 67-70; Goulet 1987, 361-362. "It follows as a consequence of this that, when Moses is appointed a god unto Phar­ aoh', he did not become such in reality, but only by a convention is supposed to be such; for I do indeed know God as granting favours and giving, but I am unable to conceive of him as being given; yet it is said in the sacred books, 'I give you as a god to Pharaoh', that which is given being passive not active; but he that really is must needs be active not passive. What then do we gather from these words? That the wise man is said to be a god to the foolish man, but that in reality he is not God, just as the counterfeit four-drachma piece is not a tetradrachm. But when the wise man is compared with him that is, he will be found to be a man of God; but when with a foolish man, he will turn out to be one conceived of as a god, in men's ideas and imagination, not in view of truth and actuality" (Det. 161-162). See Tiede 1972, 111-117. 2 1 9

220

221

2 2 2

2 2 3

2 2 4

2 2 5

4

154

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

42 does not mention Pharaoh or the plagues at all. Consequently, it is clear that it is not the miracle-working Moses who is divine. Moses is 0 e 7 o s be­ cause he is c r o w d s , and every aods is holy. Philo universalises the Jewish religion and links it with Greek wisdom and with famous philoso­ phers. Of course none o f the pagan philosophers was aoda|jaTa (B.J. 7,437450; Vita 432-435). Although Philo's Moses was once an important piece of evidence for the BeTos dvrjp theory, he cannot be used for this purpose. Philo admittedly

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

159

honours Moses in an exceptional manner, but he is not responsible for Moses being called a god. He quotes Exod 7:1 and defines the context in which a wise man can be called divine, using the Platonic model as the basis of his interpretation. Moses, of course, is the best example of a wise man and bpoicoais 8EC3, but Philo her uses the biblical miracle stories sparingly and favours other ways to emphasize Moses' special status. Philo generally distances God honourably from dialogues with men, which led him to edit the stories. Consequently, it is difficult to find a consistent role for Moses in the stories. Sometimes he appears as an MNP, sometimes as a PNP, but this is the consequence of avoiding anthropomorphism and not a result of a consistent reflection on the roles.

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets a. Introduction The intention of early criticism was to survey all miracle stories relevant to the interpretation of the New Testament. Masters, such as Bultmann, ob­ served not only Christian stories about saints but also traditions from the Middle Ages in Lithuania, and among the American Indians or African peoples. A collection of lives of the Old Testament prophets, Vitae Prophetarum, falsely attributed to Epiphanius, was seldom even mentioned and studied even less. The Lives of the Prophets is a collection of texts which has divided the views of scholars and still does. It has been dated from the early first cen­ tury or markedly later; it is considered to be a Jewish or a Christian text written originally either in Hebrew or Greek. That it is of Palestinian provenance seems to be unquestionable. The careful commentary of Anna Maria Schwemer now seems to have solved the problems. The collection was redacted in the first Christian century; it is a Jewish, not a Christian work, although it contains some Christian interpolations, and was written in bilingual Palestine. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

The Lives is copied in several Greek versions, and moreover, in Syriac, Armenian, Arabic, Ethiopic, Latin and Hebrew (see Schwemer 1995, 12-22; Satran 1995, 9-16). The text has been known since 1622 and is included in Migne, PG 43, 393-413 (see Goodman and Vermes 1987, 783-784). However, it was hardly observed in scholarship; see Nestle 1893, 1-6; Satran 1995, 16-29. Even the German edition of Schurer (1909) does not contain a chapter on it. Scholars who consider the collection written by Christians (de Jonge 1961-1962, 161178, Satran 1995) dare not date it exactly. The Christian elements are obvious in all manuscripts; see Torrey 1946, 9; Jeremias 1958, 11-13; Hare 1992, 502-503; Schwemer 1995, 11.3-34. Torrey considered the original language Hebrew (1946,1.7) and was followed by Jeremias (1958, 12). Schermann (1907b, 119-121.131-132) opposed the view that the collection is only a translation from a Hebrew original, and assumed a "hebraische Grundschrift" (followed by Wolff 1976, 42). Greek is supposed, among others, by Stone (1972, 1150) and Hare (1985, 380; 1992, 502-503). On the history of research, see Schwemer 1995, 56-58. Only the Life of Jeremiah points to Egypt. Torrey supposed that the story was told or written by an Egyptian (1946, 10-11); see also Schwemer 1995, 65-66. Studien zu den fruhjiidischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae prophetarum, 1995-1996. Hare agrees in his introduction with Schwemer on all essential points (1985, 3802

3

4

5

6

7

8

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

161

None of these judgements was new, but all were represented in the his­ tory of research. They were challenged in a book by David Satran, which he published in 1995, the same year that Schwemer published the first part of her own commentary. According to Satran the work is late and mainly a Christian product, but his view is not generally accepted and he admitted himself recently that he represents a minority. Today we have no reason to doubt that the Lives of the Prophets is a Jewish work, given its obvious Christian interpolations, and that the work was copied in the Christian tra­ dition alone, without any evidence of its use in Qumran. The youngest tra­ ditions in the original collection date to the first Christian century. The work was collected and redacted soon after this period, probably around the fall of the Second Temple. The collection thus mirrors the life of the Palestinian Jews under the sometimes harsh Roman rule, and MittmannRichert justly notes that this point of view is seldom observed well enough. Schwemer seems to have defined well the literary form of the Lives actually the early editors freely added the titles 6 T O U ( J I O S . . . Trpo<j)r]TOu or similar phrases. They follow a clear pattern and tell the name, place of birth, deeds, death and the grave of each prophet. The Lives were neither meant to be a Reisefuhrer for the pilgrims nor can they be labelled as encomia. As in Ben Sira's Laus patrum, the Lives have been influenced by Greek short biographies, which we know, for example, from the work 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

382), and so does Mittmann-Richert (2000, 156-158). The "English Schurer", i.e. Vermes and Goodman, is surprisingly uncertain both concerning the original language and date (1987, 783-786). Satran 1984, 56-60 is very cautious and does not oppose the communis opinio; he only observes the open questions. However, in 1980 he already expressed his view that the Lives was not a first century Jewish composition (1980, 47). Before Satran, this view was held especially by de Jonge (1961-1962, 161-178). Satran underlines that the geo­ graphical names in the Lives have no parallels in the Rabbinic literature and there is no other evidence for venerating the prophets' tombs than Jesus' words in Matt 23:29-30 and Luke 11:48-49 (Satran 1995, 34-50), the role of the miracles (1995, 46-58) and the affinity with the ideals and practices of the Christian monks (1995, 79-96). Satran 2000, 69. There seem to be two points which offer a terminus ante quern. The wall of Herod Agrippa was not built (Liv. Pro. 1:4) and Elijah's birthplace was under Nabatean control, which ended in A.D.106 (Liv. Pro. 21:1); see Torrey 1946, 11-12; Hare 1985, 380-381 and Schwemer 1995, 68-69. Mittmann-Richert 2000, 159-162. See Schwemer 1995, 34-35. This was the opinion of Jeremias, although he considered Fischel's formulation ("strongly resemble guides to the graves of the prophets", 1946-47, 375) "eine iiberspitzte Formulation", because the collection includes no route (1958, 11). See Schwemer 1995, 36-38. Schwemer 1995, 39. 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

162

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

of Diogenes Laertius. The Greek short lives could be used as reference in private and public libraries to give the biographical information on a writer in an easy form. Such a need was obvious to every student of the books of the prophets, and Schwemer's view that the lives were Beihefte for these books is plausible. It means that although written in Greek, the Lives were mainly intended for a Jewish audience, and their content confirms this view. 17

An obvious feature of the Lives are the numerous miracle stories. Satran took them as a clear sign that the Lives were not of Jewish but of Christian origin, because, according to him, only Ben Sira had connected the proph­ ets with miracles; several problems, however, are involved with that view. Firstly, precisely Ben Sira witnesses that the prophet could be linked with miracles in early Judaism. Secondly, the men described in Liv. Pro. were not the only ones considered prophets. Moses could also be inter­ preted as a prophet - "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers" (Deut 18:18) - and his miracles were commonplace in early Judaism. Philo writes about the miracles of the prophet Moses. Joshua is called a prophet in Ben Sira (Sir 46:1) and Josephus (Ant. 4,165). Thirdly, as the present study, along with many others, shows, Liv. Pro. is not the only work retelling the miracles of the prophets. Josephus retells the deeds of the biblical prophets and Pseudo-Philo introduces new pro­ phetical and miracle-working figures. The Lives of the Prophets is thus a text among several dealing with the miracles of the biblical prophets and is not a valid argument for consider­ ing the text Christian and not Jewish. In spite of Schwemer's work, the role of the miracles is a subject for further study. Eve only offers some superficial observations on the Lives, and except for Satran's view that the stories are written by a Christian hand we have only a few, and very different, views on the role of the miracles in the collection. Whereas Christian Wolff strongly emphasised the miracles ("ganz massiver Wunderglaube"), Schwemer considers them clearly less important in the work. A closer study would clearly be useful. 18

19

20

11

22

23

16

24

Schwemer 1995, 43-50; 1997, 544-545. On the genre, see also p. 18-19. Schwemer 1995,50-52. Satran 1995, 56-58. See above p. 148-151. See below chapters 8 and 9. Eve 2002, 249-250. 254.263. Wolff 1976, 83-89. See Schwemer's comment, 1995, 174. Hare's translation is used in the present study. However, the numbers are taken from Schwemer's Greek text compatible with Torrey. On the use of the Septuagint in the Lives, see Schwemer 1994, 62-91. 17

18

19

2 0

21

2 2

2 3

2 4

163

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

b. Isaiah The Life of Isaiah does not retell the Old Testament stories characterising the prophet as an independent miracle-worker. Isa 38:1-22 / 2 Kgs 20:1-11 contains the story about Hezekiah's healing, in which the shadow goes back ten steps; and Isa 37:14-37 / 2 Kgs 19:14-37 tells how God saved Jerusalem. Even here Isaiah plays a role, although a minor one, which can aptly be characterised as MNP. On the differences between the Hebrew text and the LXX in these stories, see p. 40. 25

Although there are no traces of the biblical traditions treated by Ben Sira and Josephus (who definitely attributes the miracle to God, Ant. 10,26-29), other miracles take their place. The Life of Isaiah tells that the prophet was killed by being sawn in two, and a miracle occurs at the moment of his death:

26

"And God worked the miracle of Siloam for the prophet's sake, for being faint before he died, he prayed for water to drink, and immediately it was sent to him from it; therefore it is called Siloam, which means 'sent'. And in the time of Hezekiah, before he made the cisterns and the pools, in response to the prayer of Isaiah, a little water came out, for the nation was besieged by foreigners and (this happened) in order that the city might not perish for lack of water. For the enemies were asking: 'From where are they drinking?' If, then, the Jews were coming, water would come out but if foreigners (approached), (it would) not. Wherefore to this day it comes out intermittently, in order that the mystery may be manifested" (Liv. Pro. 1:2-4). 27

The miracle (or||je?ov) is attributed to God rather than to the prophet, who only acts as a PNP, but it is undoubtedly worth mentioning in the pre­ sent work. The story shows how a prophet should be remembered. The water of Siloam was a well-known mystery in the first century A.D. It is mentioned in John 9 and understandably taken as evidence of Christian influence on Liv. Pro. by the scholars generally arguing for that view. 28

29

2 5

See p. 3 9 - 4 1 .

2 6

See Jeremias 1 9 5 8 , 6 1 - 6 7 and Schwemer's commentary, 1 9 9 5 , 1 2 2 - 1 4 6 . See above p. 7 4 - 7 5 . The use of the words or|ue?ov and Tepees is notable in the Lives. Tepees almost always points to eschatological events. ormsTov is used rarely and it be­ longs often, although not exclusively, to the later stage of the tradition; see Schwemer 2 7

1 9 9 5 , 8 2 - 8 7 , 1 2 3 - 1 2 5 ; for the use of the words, see also Satran 1 9 9 5 , 6 3 - 6 8 ; 2 0 0 0 , 7 3 . 28

The reason for the phenomenon was a subterranean siphon caused by a geological formation (Hare 1 9 8 5 , 3 8 6 ) . It is not clear whether the spring was inside or outside the wall. If it was outside it implies the setting before the new south wall was built by Herod Agrippa in A.D. 4 1 - 4 4 , as supposed by Hare 1 9 8 5 , 3 8 1 . However, I'xovTes TT^V TTOAIV is very difficult and it is may not be adequate to identify the enemies in v. 4 (on the ques­ tion see Schwemer 1 9 9 5 , 1 3 0 - 1 3 6 ) . 2 9

Satran 1 9 9 5 , 5 3 - 5 4 .

164

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

However, the etymology of the phenomenon is different in the two texts, and the water in Siloam is also an important theme in Josephus, who, in his speech included in B.J. 5,411, tries to stop the rebellion by pointing to the waters of Siloam. There is no need to see a Christian influence here. But what were the inmost thoughts of those telling and writing the story of Isaiah and the miraculous well? Although the Lives was not a Reisefuhrer for pilgrims, the Life of Isaiah links a well-known, local mysterious phenomenon with the holy man of the past, and shows that sacred history was also a part of the present. Simultaneously, mention of the enemy re­ minded one of danger, although the events described by Josephus had not yet occurred. The passage in Ben Sira represents the peak of Isaiah's reputation as a miracle-worker in early Judaism. Josephus attributes the miracle to God, and the story in the Life of Isaiah does not present Isaiah as an independent miracle-worker, but as a man closely associated with God's miracles. This is the view in the Old Testament. Isaiah was never accorded the role of an independent miracle-worker like Elijah or Elisha, either in Liv. Pro. or elsewhere in the Jewish tradition before the end of the Tannaitic era. Many other Lives offer much more material for the present study than the Life of Isaiah, but the story about Siloam is certainly worth noting. An im­ portant feature, or rather lack of it, must be observed. In one part of the tradition the death of the prophet is presented as the work of Beliar and the false prophets; and the Book of Jubilees connected the miracles with the war between good and evil spirits. It is difficult to separate the parts be­ longing to the Jewish original from the Christian redaction in Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, but even the Jewish original appears to have con­ sidered the death of the prophet as an episode in the war between the good and evil powers (Mart. Ascen. Isa. 1-5). This interpretation does not oc­ cur in the Life of Isaiah, although Beliar is mentioned in the Life of Daniel (4:6; 22) and the Life of Nathan (17,2). It is easy to agree with Hare: The dualism is present but it is not emphasised. 31

32

33

3 0

Hare 1983, 384. On the question see also Schwemer 1995, 127-128. See Becker 2002, 261-289. Nickelsburg (1984a, 52) attributes l,l-2a; 1,7-3 and 12; and 5,1-14 to the Jewish legend. Beliar dwells in Manasseh's heart, uses a false prophet as his agent and martyrs Isaiah. It is difficult to date the legend, which has a very dualistic view, but it may be­ long to the Maccabean period (Nickelsburg 1984a, 54-55; Knibb 1985, 149). Hare 1985, 382. Schwemer, too, notes the feature: "Manasse wird nicht damonisiert" (1995, 104). 31

3 2

3 3

165

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

c. Jeremiah Jeremiah's only miracles in the Old Testament are his prophecies. The Life proudly presents this prophetic office and even expands it, and new fea­ tures are added to the prophet's life. Jeremiah, similar to Isaiah, is mainly treated not as an independent miracle-worker, but the miraculous deeds God does using his person cannot be excluded from the present study. Some texts imply that he was linked with miracles elsewhere and that we actually know only a part of a rich tradition. Matthew 16:14 says that one guess of the people was that the miracle-working Jesus was Jeremia redivivus. Moreover, in Judah's vision, Jeremiah gives a sword from heaven to the Jews (2 Mace 15:13-16). The Life also tells that the buried prophet is famous for his miracles. 34

"He was buried in the environs of Pharaoh's palace, because the Egyptians held him in high esteem, having benefited through him. For he prayed, and the asps left him, and the monsters of the waters, which the Egyptians call Nephoth and the Greeks crocodiles. And those who are God's faithful pray at the place to this very day, and taking the dust of the place they heal asp's bites. And we have heard from the children of Antigonus and Ptolemy, old men, that Alexan­ der the Macedonian, after standing at the prophet's grave and witnessing his mysteries (MUOTrjpicc), transferred his remains to Alexandria and placed them in a circle around (the city) with due honour; and the whole race of asps was kept from the land, and from the river likewise the crocodiles. And to the same end he introduced the snakes which are called Argolai, which means 'snake-fighters', which he brought from Argos of the Pelo­ ponnesus, whence they are also called Argolai, that is, 'fortunate ones from Argos'; for everything fortunate they call laia" (Liv. Pro. 2:2-7). 35

36

The protection against snakes occurs in Graeco-Roman as well as in Jew­ ish culture. It is presented in the Life in two stories related to each other. The Egyptian practice is described in 2-4 and Alexander's veneration of Jeremiah in 5-7. Snakes were a terrible threat to be blocked in the Greek world. Every Greek with an elementary education had heard about Laocoon's death (for example, in Vergile Aen. 2,40-46; 199-231; Apollod. Epit. 5,17-18). The Egyptians were traditionally protected from snakes and crocodiles by Ho3 4

EuAov in Liv. Pro. 2:10 is either a negative allusion to gentile veneration of the cross or an expression of the Christian creed (Hare 1985, 388). The latter alternative is the more plausible; see Wolff 1976, 37; Schwemer 1995, 215-217. Torrey (1946, 49-52) took the reading' Eco0 from manuscripts Ep 2 and Dor and considered that the alleged Hebrew original did not speak about crocodiles, but about snakes (followed by Jeremias 1958, 108-109; see also Wolff 1976, 42). However, the Life is correct in saying that the Egyptians called the crocodile efot or later nefot; see Schwemer 1995, 176-177. Schwemer deals extensively with the passage in her commentary (1995, 173-193). See also Jeremias 1958, 108-111; Wolff 1976,40-43. 3 5

3 6

166

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

rus. The numerous stelaes and amulets of Horus support the view that the Life of Jeremiah, unlike the other lives, is obviously rooted in the Egyptian Jewish tradition. According to Jer 43, Jeremiah was, indeed, brought to Egypt, and this passage certainly gives a background to the Life? The motif of snakes was, however, also commonplace in Judaism. The well-known story in Num 21:4-9 shows that they were part of the common heritage. Job 20:19 tells about the final punishment of a godless man: 37

%

"He will suck the poison of serpents; the fangs of an adder will kill him."

Also, Jeremiah speaks about snakes: "'See, I will send venomous snakes among you, vipers that cannot be charmed, and they will bite you', declares the Lord" (Jer 8:17).

Jeremiah speaks about "charming" the snakes, which is closely connected with magic. Actually, also demons could take the form of snakes, and the threat of and protection against snakes could be very close to magic. Hanina ben Dosa was bitten by a snake but did not stop his prayer and his dis­ ciples found the snake dead (t. Ber. 3:20); the traditions concerning him reveal that some teachers regarded his skill as magic. Wisdom, riDDn, could include this type of activity, and this is clearly stated in the gnostic Acts of Thomas (111). The writer of the Life of Jeremiah, or the tradition behind him, had a popular dual heritage showing common traits. Snakes were a danger that could be averted by magical practices both in Greek and Jewish thought. However, it is the Graeco-Egyptian tradition that dominates here, and it is interesting that the Life shows a positive attitude towards native Egyptians (Liv. Pro. 2:2). Nevertheless, the Greek population in Egypt and Alexan39

40

41

42

3 7

See Torrey 1946, 10-11; Schwemer 1995, 65. See Schwemer 1995, 173-177. The crucial passages are Jer 8:17 cited above, Isa 13:22 LXX; Ps 58:6; Eccl 10:11 and 2 Kgs 18:4. See Colpe 1976c, 568-569; Maier 1976, 581; Bocher 1981, 276. See Becker 2002, 337-378. On the mantic and magical side of the wisdom in Israel, see especially Muller 1980, 376-378. Schwemer observes that the Egyptians esteemed the prophet. This is exceptional in the Jewish texts, which generally do not highlight the good relations between the Jews and native Egyptians. According to her, a similar attitude is attested in T. Jos. and in Artapanus (1995, 172). However, a closer study of Artapanus' fragments shows that he, as well as Philo and Josephus, rather felt contempt for the native Egyptians. He has noth­ ing negative to say about the Greeks, but the Egyptians are presented as the friendly, simple and stupid masses, who are led by evil people (see Koskenniemi 2002). This means that the amiable remarks in Liv. Pro. are even more significant and the reasons should be investigated. The pride in the prophet may be enough to explain it. 3 8

3 9

4 0

41

4 2

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

167

der the Great is more important: Jeremiah and his prayer took over the pro­ tective function among the Jews. This power is allegedly honoured by the pagans as well. Alexander had acknowledged the miraculous power (puaTrjpia) of the prophet in the leg­ end and transferred his remains from Taphnai to Alexandria. Jeremias saw the similarity between the Life and Historia Alexandri Magni, in which Alexander let the boundary of the new city be marked with flour. In the Jewish version, either the bones of the prophet or possibly the dust in the place he was buried took the place of the flour, showing that the tradition sets the Jewish prophet above the pagan helper. The Jewish story is influ­ enced by the pagan tradition, but the national enthusiasm allowed it. The detail of people taking dust from Jeremiah's place of burial to heal the asp's bites is also interesting because of the therapeutic technique. Schwemer mentions a very close, but late parallel from Acts of Thomas 170, where dust was taken from the place at which the apostle was mar­ tyred in order to expel a demon. We do not have other and earlier paral­ lels to the alleged practice, but undoubtedly such healings occurred in Egypt. The handkerchiefs and aprons of Paul mentioned in the New Tes­ tament (Acts 19:12) can also serve as analogies. 43

44

Jeremiah thus protects people from snakes and crocodiles. Moreover, he acts miraculously in taking and hiding the ark. "This prophet, before the capture of the temple, seized the ark of the Law and the things in it, and made them to be swallowed up in a rock. And to those standing by him he said: 'The Lord has gone away from Zion into heaven and will come again in power. And this will be for you a sign of his coming, when all the gentiles worship a piece of wood.' And he said: 'This ark no one is going to bring out except Aaron, and none of the priests or prophets will any longer open the tablets in it except Moses, God's chosen one.' And in the resurrection the ark will be the first to be resurrected and will come out of the rock and be placed on Mount Sinai, and all the saints will be gathered to it there as they await the Lord and flee from the enemy who wishes to destroy them.' In the rock with his fin­ ger he set as a seal the name of God, and the impression was like a carving made with iron, and a cloud covered the name, and no one knows the place nor is able to read the name to this day and to the consummations. And the rock is in the wilderness, where the ark was at first, between the two mountains on which Moses and Aaron lie. And at night there is a cloud like fire, just like the ancient one, for the glory of God will never cease from his law. And God bestowed this favour upon Jeremiah, that he might himself per­ form the completion of his mystery, so that he might become a partner of Moses, and they are together to this day" (Liv. Pro. 2:9-15).

It is understandable that the destiny of the ark after the fall of Jerusalem interested the Jews. We know several variations of the story, in which it 4 3

Jeremias 1958, 108-110. Hist. Alex. Magn. made use of an earlier source from the first century B.C.; see Pfister 1914 and Schwemer 1995, 180-183. "Schwemer 1995, 178.

168

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

was saved and hidden. The Jewish tradition concerning the saved ark names different agents. Eupolemus (c. 150 B.C.) attributes it to Jeremiah (Euseb. Praep. ev. 9,39,2-5), which is also attested in 2 Mace 2:4, 4 Bar. 3 and 4QApcrJer. Pseudo-Philo lets God himself say that he will take the precious stones and tablets from the temple and store them "in the place from which they were taken in the beginning" (L.A.B. 26,13). Baruch sees (2 Bar. 6:3-9) an angel saving the holy things of the Temple, and in several rabbinic texts it is Elijah. The writer of the Life of Jeremiah thus takes material from a strong Jewish tradition. I doubt whether Kahl's categories can be used here, but Jeremiah is remarkably active in the Life: He seizes the ark of the law and causes it to be swallowed up by a rock. According to the Life, the ark will be resurrected again at the end of the world. It waits for Moses and Aaron. The cloud-like fire, the ancient sign of God's pres­ ence in the desert, defends the place where Jeremiah wrote the holy name with his finger. The passage is extraordinarily interesting and important, especially for two reasons. That the prophet resembled Moses and became his "partner" (auyKoi— vcovos) should be a warning not to draw a sharp line between a miracleworking prophet and the miracle-working Moses. Philo was, as seen, very fond of the miracle-working prophet Moses. As a matter of fact, in Liv. Pro. Ezekiel also has some traits of Moses. The leader of the people was easily regarded as a prophet and a prophet as a leader of the people. The second feature of the passage, the strong eschatological colouring common in the texts dealing with the hiding or resurrection of the ark, also occurs in many other Lives. Jeremiah knew that the temple was de­ stroyed, but was waiting for the end of the world. The prophet and escha­ tology generally go hand in hand in the Lives of the Prophets. The function of the story and the intended audience are closely connected with its escha­ tology: The story is not contemporized here, but it offered an opportunity to use the traditions of the past to illuminate the present. MittmannRichert's observation that the collection mirrors the situation of the Jewish people living under Roman rule is important here. The prophets could be remodelled to resemble Moses and thus be given a new eschatological mis46

47

48

49

50

51

52

4 5

See Schwemer 1995, 203-210.

4 6

TauTrjv (sc. KI(3COTOV) 5E T C V lepeuiav KCCTCXOXSTV.

4 7

See Schwemer 1995, 206. On this passage, see Schwemer 1995, 217-220. See Schwemer 1995, 233-235. See below p. 169-177. The eschatological colouring is present, for example, in the Lives of Ezekiel, Elijah, Daniel and Jonah. Mittmann-Richert 2000, 159-162. 4 8

4 9

5 0

51

52

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

169

sion. These two features help us to understand people like Theudas, the Egyptian and Jonathan. Unhappily, we only have fragments from the later tradition of Jeremiah. The Life and the short mentions quoted above, however, attest that he had the reputation of a miracle-worker and that he was never forgotten. 53

d. Ezekiel The Old Testament does not tell about the miracles of the prophet Ezekiel, only about his prophecies. The Life of Ezekiel, on the contrary, relates many mighty deeds by him. It is short, although one of the longest in the collection, and consists mainly of miracles. The Life of Ezekiel and the Life of Daniel were arguments used by Satran to show that the whole collection was mainly Christian and not Jewish, because, according to him, no Jewish writer was so fond of miracles. The Z//e contains the following passages which must be observed: Crossing of Chebar, an abundant supply of fish, helping the men at the moment of death, the wonder of dead bones and the punishing wonder of the reptiles. 54

Crossing of Chebar (6-10) 55

"This prophet gave a portent (repots eScoKe) to the people, so that they should pay attention to the river Chebar: When it failed they should set their hope in the scythe which desolates to the end of the earth, and when it flooded, in the return to Jerusalem. For the saint also lived there, and many used to congregate to him. And once when there was a multitude with him, the Chaldeans were afraid that they would rebel, and came up against them to destroy them. And he made the water stop (oxfjvai) so that they might escape by getting to the other side. And those of the enemies who dared to pursue were drowned." 56

When compared to the Old Testament, the passage is simply an addendum. The advice to pay attention to water as an eschatological sign often occurs in Jewish literature. The story about the people finding a safe way through waters is much more interesting, and it has both Greek and Jewish parallels. 57

58

5 3

See below p. 171. On the Life, see Schwemer 1995, 238-295 and Satran 2000, 69-75. On the word xepas in the Lives, see above p. 163. On the story, see Schwemer 1995, 276-278 and Satran 2000, 73-74. Listed by Schwemer 1995, 271. There is no reason to follow Jeremias' view (1958, 112) based on ms. Ep. 1, accord­ ing to which the event is said to have happened on the tomb of the prophet and that the people consisted of pilgrims (see Hare 1985, 389). 5 4

55

5 6

5 7

5 8

170

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

Opening the sea for a multitude was not unknown to the Greeks. Alexan­ der's marvellous conquest was embellished with a miraculous event told by Arrian, Anabasis 1,26,1 and Strabo 14,3,9. Josephus rarely cites the Greek poets and perhaps knew them poorly, but he was an expert in the Greek historians. He was, of course, aware of the stories told about Alex­ ander and cites them (Ant. 2,347). They were certainly well-known in early Judaism. Although the Greeks knew similar stories, the Jewish heritage offers more material to compare with the story told in the Life. Moses is clearly a model for Ezekiel, who is reinterpreted throughout the Life. Ezekiel not only sees the heavenly original of the temple, as Moses did, but also re­ peats the miracle at the Red Sea (Exod 14). The story is closely connected with the preceding eschatological words (yap). The motif was vividly alive in early Judaism. The story of Elijah and Elisha has possibly been influenced by the stories about Moses (2 Kgs 2:7-8). The Fourth Book of Ezra (c. A.D. 100) gives an important parallel. Ben Sira quoted Mai 4:5-6 with a crucial emendation, namely, that Elijah would collect the ten tribes once lost in Assyria (Sir 48:10). Even Josephus says that an immense number of these people lived beyond the Euphrates (Ant. 11,133). Now 4 Ezr. 13:39-50 deals with them, and shows that they were never forgotten; God stopped the waters for them, and will do it again in the last times to let them return to their country. Liv. Pro. admittedly speaks about the cap­ tives taken from Judah, not from Israel, but the similarities between the stories are too great to be overlooked. They reveal a common tradition. The miracle at the Red Sea was never forgotten in Jewish literature, but lived on in the Psalms and in the hymns of choirs, and was always present in early Judaism. Although the link to Moses and the Red Sea is obvious, there is no rea­ son to exclude Joshua and the crossing of the Jordan from the background of the Life. Ben Sira, admittedly, does not mention this miracle and Josephus seems to make it more "rational", but this event was retold in several variants. Texts containing this tradition have been recovered in both Qumran and Masada. Moreover, although the Tosefta contains very few miracle stories, the crossing of the Jordan is retold and strongly exag­ gerated (t. Sotah S-A-6). 59

60

61

62

63

64

5 9

Satran 2000, 74. Schwemer, who is well aware of the pagan parallels, presumes a Jewish tradition behind Liv. Pro. (1995, 278). See p. 26 and 249-250. See p. 251-254. See below p. 252. See Becker 2002,211-212. 6 0

61

6 2

6 3

6 4

171

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

Ezekiel's manner of acting and the target audience are interesting ques­ tions. The prophet does not pray to God, who is not even mentioned. Eze­ kiel is remarkably independent, and if only this passage were studied, he would undoubtedly be seen as a BNP making the miracle alone. Although this feature is played down because of the context, it is interesting, and tells much about the role of the prophet. The intended audience consisted of Jews, and more precisely of Jews well aware of their historical situation and hoping for better times. The literary stories, but also historical persons, attest the strong afterlife of the miracle at the Red Sea in early Judaism. The Life tells about the Jewish multitude gathered peacefully, and about the Chaldeans, who were afraid that the Jews would rebel. This was all too well known in the first century AD to receive mention coincidentally. The Chaldeans had not been a threat for centuries. Roman soldiers, however, acted exactly as the Chaldeans had in the Life. Many reports show that they did not hesitate to first attack a multitude gathered without permission, and ask questions afterwards. In this manner they slaughtered the militant or non-militant Jewish people brought together by the Egyptian, Theudas and Jonathan, as well as the Samaritans at their holy mountain. Josephus is naturally un­ derstanding towards this kind of behaviour, especially if the attack was initiated by Vespasian and if the Samaritans were the target. He also re­ veals the Roman point of view (B.J. 2,258-260; 3,307-315):A crowd of people meant the first step towards a rebellion. The Law of the Twelve Tablets forbade unauthorised gatherings. If that was true in Rome con­ cerning its own citizens, it was clear that such spontaneous meetings were not allowed in Palestine. In addition to the fear of the "Chaldeans", some historical events were topical. Many men tried to imitate the great miracles of the Exodus and the conquest of the Holy Land. It is useless to discuss whether Theudas, who wanted to stop the flow of the Jordan, saw himself as Moses redivivus or Josua redivivus. He was a combination of the two, at least in the thoughts 65

66

67

68

69

6 5

See Hengel 1989b, 230. See Josephus B.J. 2,261-263; 7,437-450; Ant. 20,97-98; 20,167-172; Vita 423-425. There is no need to take these events as arguments for a late date of the Lives. They rather reflect the reality of the first century BC. Noted by Smith (1999, 566), who apparently points to Latro, decl. in Cat. 19. On Theudas, see Acts 5:36 and Jos. Ant. 20,97-98; and Barnett 1981, 680-681; Hengel 1989b, 229-230; Horsley and Hanson 1985, 164-167; Hemer 1989, 162-163.224225; Gray 1993, 114-116; Schwemer 1995, 277; Lichtenberger 1998, 18; Jervell 1998, 210; Gabba 1999, 143; Schreiber 2000, 293-294. Barnett (1981, 681) sees Moses and possibly even Joshua in Theudas; Lichtenberger (1998, 18) mentions both; Horsley and Hanson (1985, 166) and Aune (1983, 127) men­ tion also Elijah and Elisha. 6 6

6 7

6 8

6 9

172

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

of the people following him. The miracle of stopping the Jordan had, of course, lost its original function. The way through the waters would not help his troops flee from Egypt or conquer the Holy Land. Nevertheless, it should legitimate the man repeating the Old Testament miracles as a leader sent by God. The Life of Ezekiel thus significantly combines the multitude, miracles and attack of the enemies. Also, the eschatological colouring of the pas­ sage has to be carefully observed, especially because it also occurs in 4 Ezr. and in the historical figure of Theudas. Schwemer correctly notes the power of such thoughts: Without them, it would have been impossible for Theudas to amass the crowd. 70

71

The abundant supply of fish (v. 11a):

"Through prayer he furnished them of his own accord with an abundant supply of fish."

The Life reports very briefly, in only a few words, the miraculous feeding, which is again an addition to the Old Testament. However, it is possible, as both Schwemer and Satran suppose, that Ezek 47:10 formed the start­ ing-point for the tradition as Ezek 37:1-14 produced a miracle-story. Now only a prayer was needed and an abundant meal to appear - the prophet acts as a typical PNP. 72

73

LXX gives no support for any speculations on this verse.

Miracles in which a people were fed with fish or other food were not very common in the Graeco-Roman culture. Stories about human miracleworkers were generally uncommon in classical antiquity before 150 AD, and as far as I know they do not include a parallel to this. Schwemer quotes the story about Pythagoras, but although the tradition may be early, the text by Iamblichus is late (v.P. 36); Dillon actually takes the passage as evidence that Iamblichus intended to imitate the Gospels. While the Graeco-Roman parallels are rare, the Jewish tradition contains considerably more. Fish, as far as I know, is never mentioned in the stories 74

75

76

7 0

See Schwemer 1995, 277 On the story, see Schwemer 1995, 279-280 and Satran 2000, 74. "Fishermen will stand along the shore; from En Gedi to En Eglaim there will be places for spreading nets. The fish will be of many kinds - like the fish of the Great Sea." See Satran 1995, 58 and Schwemer 1995, 279. See below p. 174-176. See Koskenniemi 1994, 207-219. Kahl gives a list parallel to my version, but no relevant new material to be compared with the story is included (1994, 58-61). Schwemer 1995, 279 n.195 supposes that the miracles were common and points to Pesch 1984, 346-357. However, also Pesch cites only Jewish parallels. Dillon 2002, 297. 71

7 2

7 3

7 4

7 5

7 6

173

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

before the New Testament; of course, the miraculous feeding with manna and quails in the desert (Exod 16:1-36; Num 11:4-36) are especially im­ portant in the Life, in which Ezekiel possesses many of Moses' traits. Al­ though Elijah was also fed and feeds others miraculously (1 Kgs 17:1-16), it is Elisha in particular whose deeds form a very close parallel to the story. The prophet feeds a widow (2 Kgs 4:1-7), a hundred men with a few loaves of bread (2 Kgs 4:42-44) and makes a poisonous food edible (2 Kgs 4:38-41). The closest parallels are in the New Testament (Mark 6:3144; 8:1-10; John 6). The miracle is related very briefly, as though everybody should be aware of it. This again implies that the Life along with its several stories is part of a strong tradition. 77

Helping those at the point of dying (V.

78

lib):

" ... and for many who were at the point of dying he entreated that life should come from God." 79

Again the Life is brief, although we would gladly read much more. The passage is interpreted in various ways. 1) Torrey interpreted the Greek text as meaning the everlasting life given by God after death: 80

"Many who were at the point of death he cheered with the news of life coming to them from God."

The translation is free but the Greek words (KCU T T O A A O T S E K A E I TTOUOI £cor|V EA0E?V EK 0EOG TrapEKcxAECJEv) seem to leave the door open for inter­ preting it to mean life after death. There are, however, reasons to reject the interpretation. As Schwemer says, TrapccKaAE?v usually goes with the accusative. The direct object is the accusativus cum infinitivo (£cor)V EA0E7V) and the dative E K A E I T T O U O I is dativus commodi. TTapaKaAETv thus does not mean here 'to cheer' but 'to ask', or even 'to order'. 2) The second possibility is that Ezekiel not only cheered the dying peo­ ple with the life to come, but even raised them from the dead. Schwemer and apparently also Hare choose this alternative. An argument for this 81

82

77

Noted by Satran 2000, 74. See Schwemer 1995, 280-281. The late Ethiopic version of the Life tells more, namely, that Ezekiel had with his prayer raised from the dead those "who had died by the sword of their enemies" (see Mueller 1994, 18-19). The Babylonian Talmud attributes many different resuscitations to Ezekiel (b. Sanh. 92b). Moreover, see below the material combined with Ezek 37 (p. 175), which in 4 Mace 18:17 points to a coming resurrection. Torrey 1946, 37. See the analysis in Schwemer 1995, 280. Hare interprets the words as "a restoration to earthly life" (1985, 389): It is unclear 7 8

7 9

80

81

82

174

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

view is that the rabbinic tradition tells about such miracles o f Ezekiel, and the evidence seems to grow stronger. While the Graeco-Roman mate­ rial does not offer a single close parallel it is not difficult to find them in the Old Testament, even in the stories told about prophets. Both Elijah and Elisha raised people from the dead and the stories were retold in many variants. However, the present tense eKAeiTrouai points to dying rather than to dead people. A man raising people from the dead is thus not at­ tested in these words. 3) If the word EKAeiTrouai means dying and not dead people and life after death is not indicated, only one interpretation is left: Ezekiel acted as a healer and has the role of a PNP here, too. His closest parallel is neither Elijah nor Elisha, but Hanina ben Dosa, the Jewish miracle-worker from the first century AD. His activity is described only briefly; he prayed for the dying and knew who was going to survive. The short passage in Life should possibly be interpreted in a similar way. The figure of Hanina was not easy for the early rabbis to accept. It was possible that he, contrary to the usual manner of Jews, did not pray aloud, and his activity was thus dangerously close to magical practices. It took time before he could be rabbinised. It is possible - more cannot be said - that a similar activity is attested in the words of Life: Also TrapEKdAEOEV is strange and may in­ clude an exorcism. 84

85

86

87

88

9

The miracles save the people (V. 12-13):*

"When the people was being destroyed by its enemies, he went to the (enemy) leaders and, terrified by the prodigies (5ta xepaoxicov) they ceased. He used to say this to them: 'Are we lost? Has our hope perished?" and in the wonder of the dead bones (ev repcm TCOV ooTEcov TCOV veKpcov) he persuaded them that there is hope for Israel both here and in the coming (age)."

Ezekiel is, once again in Life, presented as Moses redivivus. Just as Moses visits the Pharaoh, the prophet visits the leaders of the enemies to terrify them with miracles. This time it is obvious that the Old Testament offers the starting point for the story. The vision in Ezek 37 is reinterpreted so whether he considers the people dead or ill. See Schwemer 1995, 280. See below p. 175. See Koskenniemi 1994, 193-198. According to Schwemer many Jewish people raised from the dead were still between life and death, but this is not the case in Life (Schwemer 1995, 280-281). This is true about 1 Kgs 17:17.22 and almost all pagan stories, but not, for instance, about 2 Kgs 13:20-21. Becker 2002, 337-378. Becker 2002, 348-355. See Schwemer 1995, 281-285. 83

8 4

8 5

8 6

87

8 8

8 9

7. Many Miracles:

175

The Lives of the Prophets

that the miracle of dry bones happens before the eyes of the enemies and ends the persecution. Liv. Pro. thus uses Ezek 37, and it is important to study the way LXX translates the He­ brew text. LXX has in v. 37:1 KCCI e y s v e T O , although the Hebrew text has nrrn, and adds avBpcoinvcov to the bones. Although the Hebrew text has mrr T i n , LXX has only KUPIOS in the passage (v. 37:3; 37:9; 37:12). orr-m rrn is translated TTveGpa Ccofjs in v. 37:5 and • r r m m i coa *nm with Scoaco m / s u p d p o u i\s u p a s , KCCI CrjaeoOe in v. 37:6. In 37:7 *7ip is interestingly translated a e i o p o s . In 37:7 i D S i r ' w una mosi? "impm is translated K a i T T p o o r i y a y e r a OOTCC EKCcrepov Trpos Trjv apjjcoviav CCUTOU. In v. 37:10 'TTJ is trans­ lated o u v a y c o y r j . The translation is accurate, but not slavishly literal.

The interpretation is not unique but it is attested by both the rabbis and the Christian fathers, which shows, according to Schwemer, that there were contacts between these groups in the Byzantine period. Moreover, the recent texts provide the opportunity to combine the different pieces of evi­ dence and help us understand Life as well as the whole tradition. Scholars have been well aware that the Church fathers knew two works of Ezekiel. This is mentioned in Josephus Ant. 10,79, in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, and in Epiphanius' Panarion 64,70,5 (GCS 15,515). Today we have several fragments that are either all part of one work or parts of a larger tradition. The question may be left open here, but the interesting point is that several fragments point to the bone vision and may be inter­ preted to mean that people were raised from the dead. Epiphanius says in Panarion 64,70,5 (GCS 15,515) \va 5e Kai TCX UTTO T O G ' le^eKirjA T O U 90

91

Trpo(|)rJTou ev TCO 'I5(CO aiTOKpv^co p r ) 0 e v T a

nepi

a v a a T a a e e o s Mil

TrapaaiOTrrjaeo. This is how Irenaeus understands the canonical Ezek 37 (haer. 5,34,1), but now at least two fragments of 4Q385 point to Ezek 37 and connect the text with being raised from the dead. 4Q385 2 contains the following words: 4

"And he said again: Prophesy about the four winds of heaven and let the wind blow on them and they will live. And it was so. And a great crowd of people stood and they blessed YHWH Sabaoth who made them live.' And I said: *0, YHWH, when will these things happen?' And YHWH said to me ,..." 92

Also, another fragment 4Q385,12 alludes to Ezek 37 (nvn l Q i p ^ ) and apparently to tombs, but the short fragment does not allow any conclusions and certainly not on the roles of God and Ezekiel. However, it seems clear that the later rabbinic tradition about Ezekiel raising people from death had a broader base in early Judaism, and apparently Life is only a part of it. 9 0

See Dassmann 1988, 1773-1776 and Schwemer 1995, 284. The texts with translations and comments in Stone and Wright 2000, 7-60. On the question about the number of the works, see Wright in Stone and Wright 2000, 54-57. Text and translation by Wright in Stone and Wright 2000, 440-441. 91

9 2

176

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

Ezek 37 seems to have been a widely used text, which was associated with the "Messiah of Ephraim." Pearson plausibly supposes that a concrete interpretation of Ezek 37 was used among the survivors of Bar Kochba's revolt to explain the fate of the dead warriors. If that is correct, religion and revolt are intimately connected, and it is more evidence that Ezek 37 was widely interpreted in the same way as in Liv. Pro. The political di­ mension is present again in Liv. Pro., and in a way typical of the collec­ tion: The work does not call for a rebellion, either openly or covertly, but reminds the reader of God's mighty deeds in the past. There are some indications that Life does not point to a single but to sev­ eral miracles of the prophet. Firstly, Hare interprets the imperfect tense eAeyev iterative ("he used to say this to them"), which seems to be correct, although Schwemer rejects it. Secondly, Life has a plural in Side T E paaTi'cov, but ev xepaxi to describe the miracle of the dead bones. These two may not be enough to assure certainty, but it seems that Ezekiel is thought to have performed several miracles to save his people. 93

94

95

96

The reptiles (v. 18):

"He pronounced judgement in Babylon on the tribe of Dan and that of Gad, because they were committing sacrilege against the Lord by persecuting those who were keeping the Law. And respecting them he worked this great wonder (KCCI eiroi'noev auToTs Tepas ueya,), that snakes devoured their infants and all their flocks" (Liv. Pro. 3:18). 97

In his translation, Hare takes the words O T I OI 6<j)6ts OCVTJAICTKOV TOC (3pe'(|>T] auTcov for a prophecy, but they should, as in Schwemer, be interpreted as a punishing miracle. There are several models in the Old Testament. The closest is in 2 Kgs 2:23-25, where Elisha curses the children in Betel. As summarised above, death by snakes was regarded as a terrible death by both pagans and Jews. The Life of Jeremiah, as well as the Life of Ezekiel, makes use of this motif. The tribes of Dan and Gad had, according to Life, not only rejected the Holy Law but also persecuted the righteous people, and the prophet pun­ ished them with a harsh miracle. Life tells that a man belonging to these tribes killed Ezekiel, so it is not surprising that these two tribes are ac­ cused. In L.A.B., they belong to the four tribes, which were ready to return 98

9 3

See Pearson 1998, 193-196. Pearson 1998, 196-201. Schwemer (1995, 282), who rejects Hare's interpretation, interprets "das auffallige Imperfektum" or as "Schilderung einer gehaltenen Rede" (BDR 329), which is possible; however, she overlooks the change from plural to singular (5ia TEpaoTi'cov but EV 9 4

9 5

Tepcm TCOV OOTECOV TCOV VEKpcov). 9 6

9 7

9 8

See Schwemer 1995, 290-294. Hare (1985, 389) translates this as "that snakes would devour". Seep. 165.

111

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

to Egypt and serve the enemies. Moreover, Dan and Gad try to kill Aseneth, Joseph's wife, in Joseph and Aseneth (Jos. Asen. 27,11), but Aseneth's prayer causes their swords to fall down and burn to ash. It is worth noting the view that the enemies of the Jewish people were not only from the outside but also from within the Jewish community. In Life and Joseph and Aseneth this view is incorporated into the miracles as well as into the tribes of Dan and Gad. 100

In their present form some of the Lives included in the collection are only summaries of the biblical stories. Whoever added the lists of the miracles of Elijah and Elisha followed the tradition closely. The Life of Ezekiel is different, and it mainly contains a tradition unknown from the Old Testa­ ment. Yet the miracles of the prophet again assume the major role in Life, Some of the miracles are ^interpretations of the biblical passages; others are not alterations but additions. Although we cannot date the traditions exactly, almost all of them are closely similar to other Jewish stories. Nev­ ertheless, the miracles are the core element of Life, and the biblical stories about Moses, Elijah and Elisha live again in a new hero, the prophet Eze­ kiel. It is obvious that the audience consisted of Jews and that we only know fragments of a broader tradition. Ezekiel plays a remarkably independent role in these stories. He is not limited (except in his healing activity) to the role of a PNP, as Isaiah is in his Life. Ezekiel's actions are those of an MNP, but although God is not necessarily mentioned, the implied audience was undoubtedly aware of the source of his power.

e. Daniel It is unusual for the Lives of the Prophets to deal with a single miraclestory and not to summarise the biblical events. However, although the Life of Daniel points to others, the only story retold is the sickness and healing of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Dan 4), and it forms the main part of the 101

102

" S e e p . 194. The work is often considered either Christian or very late, but see Collins 2000a, 103-110, who considers the proposed dates between the second century BC and the sec­ ond century AD. It is possible that the story is taken from a source without vigorous editing (Schwe­ mer 1995, 301). "And for other kings of the Persians he wrought many prodigies, which I did not write down" (4,17). Hare translates "which they did not write down", but An 1 has oacx OUK !ypav|/a, although Epl and Ep 2 have eypcxvpaijev / sypccvpa. The versions of this Life vary considerably (see Schwemer's synopsis, 1996, 22*-31*). 100

101

102

178

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

Life. The story is preceded by a short biographical survey (1-3) and suc­ ceeded by the short summary (17) mentioned above: information about his burial and his eschatological prophecy (20-23). 103

The Life offers a version of a tradition known from Dan 4:1-34. The Greek translations of the late biblical book cannot, of course, be considered a part of the Septuagint translated in the third century BC, but they are part of a complicated history of transmission, and it took time before both the Aramaic and the Greek text found their final forms. It means that the study of the translations is an especially interesting subject. The two Greek ver­ sions of Dan 4 ( L X X and 0 ) differ clearly from each other. 0 , attributed erroneously to Theodotion, generally stands closer to the Aramaic text, although it also contains large additions, such as in 4:1-3. The L X X version contains and omits large portions compared with the Masoretic version text and it is considered to represent a form, which is inde­ pendent of the Masoretic text and apparently even older than our Aramaic version. The very complicated history of the text cannot be studied here in detail, but what fol­ lows focuses on the possible redaction concerning the miraculous elements in the story. In particular, 0 offers an interesting look at the early Jews retelling the miraculous sto­ ries about Daniel. 104

105

MT uses five words (K'DDin, WSIOK, K'TBD, «nta and «D*?n) for the king's wise men in v.

4:4, but L X X omits all of them and 0 only has four (ETTCXOISOI, payoi, ya^apnvot, XaXSaToi and translates K'DQ-in m with 6 d'pxcov TCOV ETTOCOISCOV in 0 (in v. 4:6). Al­

though L X X omits these words here, it adds in v. 4:15 TOV AavirjA TOV apxovTcc TCOV aoaXaias HIS TO ueTcoTTOv OUTOU. The deviations attest, above all, that the Hebrew original of the translators differed from ours, but there is no intention to exaggerate or reduce the miraculous.

The line between great but conventional power and the miraculous is often blurred in L.A.B., but this time the war between Israel and the Philistines clearly has a new feature. It is not surprising after Joshua and Kenaz: The entire battle between the human beings is reinterpreted as a war between good and evil powers, and the name and specified function of the angel is mentioned again. The interpretation thus clearly resembles the one studied above in the Book of Jubilees, as well as many texts from the Qumran, but it is now applied to the military field. David himself is well aware of his role in this war, against both evil men and evil angels, and he is filled with courage to fulfil his task. Zervihel helps him as he helped Kenaz. This feature, which occurs so often in the work, is very important when studied against the background of the times in which L.A.B. was written. David strikes the enemy without fear, without mercy and with the help of the angel. Undoubtedly this was also the way the writer hoped the leaders of his own times would act. The political dimension of the miracles, un­ doubtedly urgent in the first century AD, should not be overlooked. 179

180

181

1 7 8

LXX generally agrees on many points with the Hebrew text of 4Q and represents an older form of the text; see Hengel 2002, 84. See DeboraL.yO. 31, Joshua L.A.B. 32,10 and Gideon L.A.B. 34-35. See above p. 57-58. The Latin text has the form Zervihel in L.A.B. 60,5 but Zeruel in 27,10. See above p. 208. 1 7 9

1 8 0

181

224

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

g. Elijah / Phinehas The political significance of the miracle culminates in a passage which does not contain a single miracle-story. We do not know who first identi­ fied Elijah, the zealotic prophet, with another zealot of the Old Testament, Phinehas, who drove a spear through an Israelite and a Midianite woman (Num 25:6-15). "Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron" is men­ tioned not only in Jos 22 but also in Judg 20:28, and his life apparently covers a very long and difficult period from the desert to the times of the later judges. This understandably led to speculations and to the identifica­ tion of Phinehas and Elijah. It is attested in many rabbinic sources, which may have been critical of Elijah. The identification occurs at least in some versions of the Lives of the Prophets and apparently also in the original. Consequently, the occurrence in the Lives cannot be an argument for the supposed later date of L.A.B. * Pseudo-Philo's work ends with Saul; although nothing is said about Elijah, one passage is too similar to stories about him to be a coinci­ dence. It tells about Phinehas as and old man: 182

183

184

1

5

186

187

"And in that time Phinehas laid himself down to die, and the Lord said to him: 'Behold you have passed the 120 years that have been established for every man. And now rise up and go from here and dwell in Danaben on the mountain and dwell there many years. And I will command my eagle, and he will nourish you there, and you will not come

Philo adds the detail that Phinehas ripped up "also her parts of generation because they had served to receive the illicit seed" (Mos. 1,302). The rabbinic texts identifying the two figures have been collected by Hayward (1978, 22-24). The date of the identification is quaestio vexata. The eldest written source is L.A.B., but it is unclear how long the tradition had been alive before this text. Aptowitzer and after him Hayward date it to the Hasmonean period (see Hayward 1978, 22-34). Hengel supposes that the idea was born in zealotic circles in the first century AD. The tradition is eliminated in the rabbinic texts by criticising Elijah, which implies that it had evolved late and died with the rebels; see Hengel 1989b, 162-168. However, Phinehas (a priest in the Hebrew but not in the Greek version of Sir 45:24) was a very important fig­ ure, whom the Hasmoneans referred to to justify their priesthood. Ps.-Jon. to Deut 33,11 seems to identify John Hyrcanus with "Elijah the priest", and it is conceivable, although not certain, that this identification already included traits of Phinehas (see Hayward 1978, 31-33). Jacobson considers Hayward's view "interesting, if speculative" (1996, 1060), but Ohler accepts it (1997, 24-25). See also Perrot - Bogaert 1976,2,208-211 and Dietzfelbinger 1979, 230-231. On the identification and tradition, see also Jacobson 1996, 1060-1061; Feldman 1998b, 293-294. See above p. 190. Jacobson (1996, 207) rejects Hayward's view and takes the identification as an ar­ gument for his view that the work was written in the second century. See above p. 189 sq. Pseudo-Philo tells about a conflict between the faithful Israelites and Jair, the ser­ vant of Baal, who is burned by Nathaniel, the angel in charge of fire (L.A.B. 38). 183

1 8 4

185

186

187

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

225

Biblicarum

down to mankind until the time arrives and you be tested in that time; and you will shut up the heaven then, and by your mouth it will be opened up. And afterward you will be lifted up into the place where those who were before you were lifted up, and you will be there until I remember the world. Then I will make you all come, and you will taste what is death'" (L.A.B. 48,1). 188

Pseudo-Philo follows here a broader tradition: Elijah and Phinehas are one and the same person. Phinehas, the famous zealot, returned to earth at a time of despair, closed heaven, and was known as Elijah. After his sec­ ond mission he was taken back to heaven to wait for his third: the words quousque rememorabor saeculi attest the idea of Elia redivivus} Although L.A.B. does not deal with Elijah's life, the short passages re­ veal Pseudo-Philo's view on the miracle-working prophet. While Josephus treated Elijah's political activities with caution, Pseudo-Philo, on the contrary, has no reservations about adapting the biblical story to his times. He follows the line attested in Ben Sira's work and apparently commonly adhered to at the time. Elijah's political activities are not toned down but emphasized. Miracles and politics are intimately connected in his person. m

90

191

h. Conclusion Liber antiquitatum biblicarum has an original approach when dealing with the biblical miracle stories. They are richly retold. The anonymous writer is very learned, and knowledgeable about both biblical and the later tradi­ tions. The anonymous Palestinian scholar was chronologically close to R. Judah. He certainly assumed that his audience knew the stories, and that he could very briefly summarise, for instance, the plagues in Egypt, or briefly point to the stories about Samson in Judges. The writer may retell the sto­ ries quite freely and occasionally combine the stories with other biblical material, either from the Psalms or from the Law. This gives a good oppor­ tunity to study his biases in terms of the miracle stories. For thousands of years, the Jewish religion has wrestled with two alter­ natives: God may be understood either as a distant, uncontroversial being with no anthropomorphic features, or he may be seen as a personal, feeling God, close to the human spheres. Most of the writers studied above have distanced him in the miracle stories, reducing his dialogues with men. 188

Philo does not attest the identification of Elijah and Phinehas, but he praises Phine­ has, of course, interpreting the story allegorically (Alleg. Interp. 3,242; Post. 182). The phrase also occurs in L.A.B. 16,3: et non morientur sed tabescent, quo usque rememorabor saeculi et ero innovans terram. Et tunc morientur et non vivent, et aufertur vita eorum de numero omnium hominum. See above p. 35-36. See below p. 269-271. 189

190

191

226

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

Pseudo-Philo did not reduce God to a divine voice as did Artapanus, and was not anxious to oppose anthropopathic theology, as was Philo. He went in the opposite direction, freely adding passages in which God speaks, alone or with men. The writers distancing God from men necessarily redis­ tributed the roles of God and men in the stories, seldom following a con­ sistent, reflective line of thought. Although L.A.B. increases God's pres­ ence in the stories instead of reducing his role, the problems are similar: Moses' role in the stories is clearly reduced, but on the other hand, he is given a totally new status. The text is not clear and the short allusions are not sufficient to remove all problems, but apparently Moses achieves a position comparable to the one supposed in Ezek. Trag. His death was cer­ tainly mourned in heaven, but it was hardly the end of his mission. We are led to assume that he had a position in heaven, possibly even a throne, as he and other figures had in early Jewish texts. The changed role of God also influences the roles attributed to human figures other than Moses. The emphasis laid on the spirit-filled leadership makes it especially difficult to apply Kahl's terminology. Joshua and Ke­ naz hardly fit any of his categories. Early on, Jub. attested the tendency to combine the miracle stories with the war between good and evil powers. This feature is obvious in L.A.B. The cosmological order determines the lives of human beings and nations in this world. When David throws out the demon torturing Saul he does it by appealing to this cosmological order. The magical skills used by sinners violate this order and they must be blocked by stronger skills and powers. The most important question is how much the writer has intended to re­ shape the biblical persons in order to tell his audience something about their own times. It is obviously impossible to separate the figures pre­ sented in the work from the context of the stormy late first century AD. We do not have exact knowledge of the spiritual background of the writer, but he certainly belonged to very religious circles. He was waiting for a leader sent by God, a man filled with Spirit. This trait is present in almost all the men studied above (Moses, Joshua, Samson), but above all in Ke­ naz, a figure created freely or taken from a militant tradition representing the ideal. He is not a king, but more. He is a man sent by God. The ancient, spirit-filled leadership of the Judges takes a new form in him, but not only in him. The Israelites had always had good leaders, who did not give up and were not ready to accept slavery. God had sent them, and their success was a direct consequence of the cosmic order described above. It meant a strong, and even dangerous, link between religion and politics, which should be observed in the discussion about religious and militant opposi­ tion against the Romans. This link is obvious in L.A.B., when the two zeal­ ots, Phinehas and Elijah, are identified as the same figure.

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

227

The anonymous writer could not create the picture of militant leaders making miracles from nothing. Several of the Jewish writers studied above showed that there were many ways to present the ancient leaders and mira­ cle-workers. The Old Testament gives an especially forceful description of Saul and Samson as spirit-filled and violent leaders. Ben Sira recalled the glorious past of the nation and repeated the great deeds done by its heroes. The Book of Jubilees revealed a bias to link the miracles with the war be­ tween good and evil leaders. Also, Philo's view on the strong, miraclemaking prophet Moses is an important analogy to Pseudo-Philo's work. This whole tradition is expressed more strongly in Pseudo-Philo's work than in any other. L.A.B. shows how close the past was to the present in the first century AD. The writer was perhaps not expecting a miracle-making Messiah, because the kings of his own times did not encourage these hopes, but he looked over the long, dark ages and waited for a miraclemaking righteous man similar to the biblical (and nonbiblical) judges. The implied audience and their situation thus shape the function of the re­ told stories in L.A.B. There was no longer a need to legitimate Moses, so these parts of the stories could be omitted. On the other hand, the militant Kenaz received legitimisation by miracles. This line of thinking, so impor­ tant for the first century militant "sign-prophets", plays a significant role in Pseudo-Philo's work. Israel's God protected, rewarded or punished with his miracles, and Pseudo-Philo was waiting for him to demonstrate his power again.

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus a. Introduction 1

Scholars still cannot agree whether Flavius Josephus betrayed his people or not when he gave himself to the Romans, prophesied that Vespasian would become emperor and finally became the writer of royal history at his court. However, the contribution of his work to scholars cannot be overestimated. His production also offers a good possibility for studying the interpretations of the Old Testament miracle workers. Research on Josephus has noted three important intentions influencing his way of deal­ ing with the miracles. 1) Josephus has often been said to rationalise the miracle stories. Thack­ eray and Marcus thus comment on the way Joshua crosses the Jordan with the Israelites: "Josephus, more suo, lessens the supernatural character of the miracle: the waters are not 'wholly cut off as in Joshua (3:14,16)." 2

The same view is often presented more subtly. MacRae underlined Jose­ phus' dual heritage: As a Jew he does not balk at accepting the miraculous whenever he encounters it because it is a sign of God's Trpovoia and S u v a u i s , but as a Hellenist "he does not hesitate to offer a pseudoscientific or pseudo-philosophical explanation as well whenever one comes to mind." Delling also represented a similar view in his article (1970) and Moehring in 1973. Today the most important advocate of this view is Louis Feldman, a prominent Josephus scholar since the sixties. He studied the portrait of Solomon in Josephus (1976) and continued with several Old Testament figures. In 1998 he published two works, Josephus's Interpreta3

4

1

Josephus was born in 37-38. Bellum Judaicum was published between 75-79; Antiquitates Judaicae 93-95; Vita may be an appendix to it, and Contra Apionem was published subsequently (Bilde 1988, 79; 104-106.113). Thackeray - Marcus 1934, 168-169. MacRae 1965, 142. Delling, "Josephus und das Wunderbare", (1970); Moehring, "Rationalisation of Mi­ racles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus" (1973), and Betz, "Das Problem des Wunders bei Flavius Josephus im Vergleich zum Wunderproblem bei den Rabbinen und im Johannesevangelium" (1987). 2

3

4

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

229

tion of the Bible (=1998a) and Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible (=1998b). In these extant monographs Feldman studies the portraits of vir­ tually all important Old Testament figures in Josephus' production, includ­ ing all the miracle-workers. In Feldman's view Josephus' general bias is very clear: He tried consistently to tone down the miraculous traits of the Old Testament heroes: "One of the stock charges against the Jews is credulity, as we can see from Horace, who has a proverb, "credat Iudaeus Apella", referring to the fact that only the credulous Jew Apella would believe that frankincense can melt without fire (Satires 1,5,97-103). To the Greeks, as we can see from Herodotus's criticism (1,60) of the ease with which the Athe­ nians allowed themselves to be deceived by Peisistratus's ruse in returning to power, such credulity was hardly admirable. Indeed, it was a standard tenet of the Epicureans that the gods do not intervene in human affairs, and thus do not perform miracles. In dealing with miracles, Josephus was clearly in a dilemma. On the one hand, as a believing Jew, he could hardly deny the centrality of such miracles as the plagues in Egypt, the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, and the revelation at Sinai. On the other hand, he hardly wished to expose himself to ridicule for being so credulous and insisted that Moses wrote nothing that was unreasonable, and that everything in Scripture was in keeping with the nature of the universe (Ant. 1,24)." 5

Feldman is well aware that some philosophical schools, such as the Stoics, did allow for divine intervention in the world. Nevertheless, Josephus fre­ quently uses a formula used by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lucian, Pliny, Herodotus and Thucydides, allowing the reader to make up his own mind. Feldman's general view is clear: 6

"On the whole, Josephus tends to downgrade miracles, as we see especially when we compare, for example, his depiction of Abraham and Moses as talented generals with the rabbinic portraits of these leaders as prevailing because of G-d's miraculous assistance." 7

The general view is thus that Josephus had to observe his sceptical, pagan audience. As seen above, Feldman is by no means the first to consider this an important bias in Josephus, and today, for example, Collins shares the 5

Feldman 1998a, 209; see also 1999, 907. The significance of the formula was often noted before Feldman. According to Thackeray (1930, 52-53; see also 1929, 56-57) it recurs "repeatedly where anything of a miraculous nature is in question (2,348; 3,81, etc)." He compares Josephus with Diony­ sius of Halicarnassus (48,1) and Lucian (Quomodo historia sit scribenda 60): "And should any myth come into question, it should be related but not wholly credited: rather it should be left open for readers to conjecture about it as they will, but do you take no risks and incline neither to one opinion nor to other." On the views on the formula see also Moehring 1973, 376-377; Feldman 2000, 39; Eve 2002, 26. Delling studies the use of the formula in Josephus and notes that it cannot be taken merely as noncommittal, because Josephus uses it also after describing the theophany in Ant. 3,322 (Delling 1971, 141-142). Also according to Ladouceur (1983, 25-29) Josephus does not always remain neutral in using the formula. Feldman 1998a, 209-210. 6

7

230

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

view that the Jews had to defend themselves against the charges of credu­ lity. Feldman's view, however, must be thoroughly investigated, espe­ cially because of its relevance in the articles he has written on several bib­ lical figures and now in many chapters in his two books. If a further moti­ vation for this scrutiny is needed, it is that Feldman's view, though now very common, is not the only one on the miracles in Josephus' production. Most scholars share the view that Josephus was more or less reserved about the miracles, but such scholars as Delling, Tiede, Betz and Eve pre­ sent their opinions with clearly greater emphasis on Josephus' ambivalence towards miracles. Moreover, Begg has rejected the view in connection with the passage on Elisha, although he accepts it elsewhere. The present study does not deal with all miracles included in Josephus' production, only with the miracles of figures in the Old Testament. The point of view is thus narrower than in Delling's, Moehring's and Betz's articles, or in Eve's book mentioned above, because they deal with "das Wunderbare", "Rationalisation of Miracles" and "das Problem des Wunders." 8

9

10

2) Josephus has usually been observed to allow the miracles to be influ­ enced by his political convictions, especially in Bellum Judaicum. Jose­ phus had good reason to separate religion and politics. Scholars may have different views on the historical motives for the rebellion, but it is clear that Josephus did not want to emphasize the religious reasons for the re­ volt, but rather to minimise them. He tells about the many Jews using miracles to legitimate themselves as leaders in a revolt against the Ro­ mans. They were, of course, men of his own time and not Old Testament figures, and such men as Theudas and the Egyptian do not directly belong to the present study. However, he certainly did not forget these men when retelling the miracles told in the Old Testament. He had a selective attitude toward the prophets of his own time: He did not reject the prophecies of Jesus ben Ananja (B. J. 6,300-309) or any paradoxical phenomenon refer­ ring to Jerusalem's fall, but considered all failed prophets leading political 11

8

Collins 2000a, 8. Delling 1970, 132-134; Tiede 1972, 215-217; Betz 1987, 212-235; Eve 2002, 26; Begg 1996, 69-109. The chapter in Eve's book covers all the miracles in Josephus regardless of whether a human agent occurs or not. The wide scope has produced many important points of view, but also prohibited a detailed study thoroughly investigating the stories and the secon­ dary literature. Eve, for example, cites only one work of Feldman (1998b), overlooks Begg's important article and is thus not aware of the suggestion that there is a lacuna in Josephus' work in the passage on Elisha (see below p. 277). Bilde 1988, 186-187; Gabba 1999, 148-156; Schreiber 2000, 284. 9

10

11

231

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

movements as pseudoprophets. Whether he let them influence the way he presented the ancient heroes of the people is an interesting question. 3) The discussion on divine men has, of course, influenced research on miracles in Josephus' production. Windisch (1934) included Josephus in this discussion, and he was followed by Georgi (1964) and Schottroff (1983) in their important studies. The problem has also been thoroughly studied by Tiede (1972) and Holladay (1977), and recently by du Toit (1998). Although simplified formulations occur sometimes, Josephus has never been a central writer in this discussion and the question is not crucial today. However, it cannot be overlooked in the present study. 13

14

15

We know many Jewish writers from only a few pages. Josephus is differ­ ent. His wide production allows a study in which his various intentions should be possible to define. 16

b. Moses Moses was famous in the Greek and Latin world, but his depiction at times was anything but positive. Hata quotes 24 Graeco-Roman writers who mentioned the Jewish lawgiver, partly in a positive, partly in a negative light. Many pagan writers knew a distorted version of the Exodus, ac­ cording to which the Israelites were not freed by God but expelled by the Egyptians. The reason for this was a disease which had spread among the Egyptians. They sought help from their gods and then were told to force the people who had caused the disease to leave. Moreover, Moses was con­ sidered a great sorcerer, both in a positive and in a negative sense. The origin and the details of this view are still under debate, especially the in­ tentions of the different Graeco-Roman writers, and Gruen attributes 17

18

12

See Rajakl983, 89-91. See Windisch 1934, 113-114; Georgi 1964, 152; Schottroff 1983, 232. Tiede 1972, 207-242; Holladay 1977, 47-102; du Toit 1998, 349-399. For example, Beegle writes (1992, 916): "Josephus ... portrays Moses as the divine man of Greek culture as well as the Israelite 'man of God.'" Josephus also tells the story about Isaiah and the sun, but strongly reduces the prophet's role and attributes the miracle to God; see Hoffken 1998, 37-48. Hata 1987, 180-181. See also Tiede 1972, 208-212 and Feldman 1998a, 374-375. The fundamental study was written by Gager (1972). A traditional disagreement among scholars is whether Manetho, an Egyptian priest in the early 3 century BC, al­ ready identified the people expelled (Kasher 1985, 6; 327-332) or whether this identifica­ tion happened later, after the Maccabean revolt had sparked an anti-Jewish attack (for example, Gabba 1989, 631). Gruen attributes the identification to Josephus (1998, 4172). See also Pucci ben Zev 1993, 215-234. 13

14

15

16

17

18

rd

232

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

much of it to the "distorting lens of Josephus." However, there is no doubt that these traditions were common in Josephus' times. Pompeius Trogus was well aware of them in Augustus' time: According to him, Jo­ seph had learned magic in Egypt and taught it to "his son Moses" (Historiae Philippicae libri 36 epitoma 2,5-15). Writing in Rome at Vespa­ sian's court, Josephus may personally have met his contemporary Tacitus, who, untouched by the attempts Josephus and other Jews made to invert the tradition, still wrote a negative version of the Exodus, including some versions of Moses' miracles (hist. 5,3,2). It was evidently not unproblematic to write about the great hero of the nation. Josephus himself reveals the pressure under which he wrote about Moses. "Seeing, however, that Apollonius Molon, Lysimachus, and others, partly from igno­ rance, mainly from ill will, have made reflections, which are neither just nor true, upon our lawgiver Moses and his code, maligning the one as a charlatan and impostor (ydr|Ta Kai aTraTscova)... " (c. Ap. 2,145). 20

It is important to observe that Josephus tells nothing about Moses' mira­ cles in Contra Apionem. This silence is a matter that needs to be explained, however, after a thorough study of the wide material included in Antiquitates Iudaicae. 21

Although Josephus has slightly abridged the biblical narration about Mo­ ses in Antiquitates Iudaicae, he devotes two and a half books to him (Ant. 2,205-4,331), giving the lawgiver a unique position in Antiquitates. The biblical miracles are mostly retold extensively, with some additions, altera­ tions and omissions. Moses' birth is told extensively and with new details (cf. Exod 1:1-2:25). 22

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 1:1-2:25 see above p. 92.

19

According to Gruen the Graeco-Roman writers did not distort the Jewish story, but the other way around: Josephus mixed Egyptian stories with the Jewish tradition to show that the Jews were an ancient people (Gruen 1998, 41-72). Gruen's chapter presents a fresh challenge to the traditional view, but does not change the fact that Moses was fa­ mous, and not always in a benign way. See also c. Ap. 1,229 mdAnt. 3,265-268. Compared with the Septuagint, Josephus' description of Moses is 83% (Feldman 1998a, 80). See the summary of the biblical material used and omitted in Hata 1987, 180197. On Moses in Josephus, see Tiede 1972, 206-238; Holladay 1977, 67-73; Beegle 1992, 916; Oberhansli-Widmer 1994, 350-351; Feldman 1998a, 374-442 (lit. 376), esp. 425-433. 2 0

21

2 2

233

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

Moses' birth is foretold by one of the sacred scribes (tepoypamjaTeusA who knew that a Hebrew child, if reared, would bring the Egyptian rule down (Ant. 2,205); that was the reason for the genocide. Amram, Moses' father, according to Josephus a noble man, prays to God, who foretells Moses' birth (Ant. 2,211-216). God's speech interestingly resembles the prophecy of Nathan in 2 Sam 7: The nightly vision promises the father a kind of eternal position. The child is born without Jochebed's labour (cf. Apollo's birth in Theogn. 1,5-10; Callimachus 4,249-259) so that he can be concealed (Ant. 2,218). Amram decides to trust the safety of the child to God, and puts him in the river, to be found by Thermuthis, the king's barren daughter. The child himself does not accept the breast of other women until Miriam seeks out his mother to feed him (Ant. 2,219-227). When brought to the Pharaoh, the admired child takes off the diadem put upon his head and tramples it underfoot. The scribe realises that he is the child whose birth has been foretold and tries to kill him, but his life is saved by Thermuthis (Ant. 2,232-237). Moses becomes, as in Artapanus, an Egyptian general in the war against the Ethiopians (Ant. 2,238-253) and marries an Ethiopian princess (Ant. 2,253). Josephus omits Moses' mur­ der of the Egyptian taskmaster and cites the envy and plots of the Pharaoh as the reasons for the escape. 23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

2 3

There is a Rabbinic tradition similar to this detail (Tg. Ps.-J. 1:15), which names Jannes and Jambres as Moses' opponents, but it is late; see Feldman 1998a, 380 and 2000, 188-189. A noble birth is a feature often added by Josephus to the biblical stories; see, for example, Ant. 5,276 (Samson) and Feldman 1998a, 378. It is commonplace in GraecoRoman literature, for example, Diog. Laert. 3,1 (Plato). The story that the birth of the child is told to his father is unique in Josephus (Feldman 1998a, 379). Moses' birth is prophesied by Miriam in L.A.B. (see p. 192). Ac­ cording to some scholars such as Feldman, Josephus has changed, for misogynic reasons, Miriam to Amram (1998b, 379). The view is justly rejected as speculation by Rajak (1974, 276). "He shall deliver the Hebrew race from their bondage in Egypt, and be remembered, so long as the universe shall endure, not only by Hebrews alone but each by the alien nations; that favour do I bestow upon you and upon your posterity", Ant 2,216. Jub. 47:5 calls her Tharmuth and Artap. 3,3 Merris. Josephus tells later (Ant. 2,232) that Thermuthis had no children of her own and had been worried about the succession. On the same topic in Artapanus, see above p. 92, in Philo p. 111. Also here the later Rabbinic literature knows the same story; see Exod. R. 1:26; Deut. R. 11:10 and Feldman 1998a, 382-383; 2000, 198-199. See above p. 93. Josephus does not retell the story about Miriam's punishment after the quarrel about Moses' non-Jewish wife in Num 12:1-16. The Hebrew text calls her rPBDn, but LXX 2 4

2 5

2 6

27

2 8

2 9

3 0

31

A'lSioTTtaoa. 32

Cf. above on Artapanus, p. 93.

234

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

The birth of the child is full of details known from both the earlier and later Jewish texts, but also from Greek literature. Prophecies announcing the birth of a famous man were, of course, very common in Graeco-Roman antiquity. According to Diogenes Laertius (3,2), Speusippus (died 339), told that Plato's father had a vision of Apollo. According to tradition, Alexander's birth was announced to his mother in a vision (Hist. Alex. Magni 1,4,8) and a little later Philostratus tells several such stories (VA 1,4-6; her. 45). Although no Jewish writer retold the events as broadly, several extrabiblical details are traditional: The vision occurs in L.A.B., although it is Miriam's; the daughter of Pharaoh is barren in Artapanus and Philo; she is named Tharmuth in Jub., and Moses is also an Egyptian gen­ eral in Artapanus. A broad Jewish tradition is inseparably combined with Graeco-Roman folklore. It is an interesting detail that Josephus, unlike Artapanus and Philo, does not mention Moses' education. The only words Josephus gives for Moses' education are that "he was educated (6Tpe<j>eTo) with the utmost care" (Ant. 2,236). 33

34

35

God called Moses to the mountain not invaded by the shepherds, because it was believed that God sojourned there. On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX see above p. 66.

The theophany (Tepas) in the burning bush is retold in a interesting way. Similarly to some other Jewish writers, Josephus reduced Israel's God to a divine voice, although the dialogue between God and Moses is only con­ densed and not completely omitted. The biblical miracles are briefly re­ told: 36

"He bade him cast his staff to the ground and to have faith in his promises. Moses did so, and lo, there was a serpent crawling and coiling itself in spiral fashion and rearing its head as in defence against assailants; then once more it became a stick. Next he bade him put his right hand into his bosom: he obeyed and drew it fourth white, of a colour resem­ bling chalk; then it resumed its ordinary aspect. Receiving a further command to take of the water of a neighbouring brook and pour it on the ground, he beheld it turned to the colour of blood. And while he marvelled at these wonders, God exhorted him to be of good courage, to be assured that his mighty aid would be ever with him, and to use mira­ cles to convince all men" (Ant. 2,272-274).

3 3

See Koskenniemi 1994, 192. According to Oberhansli-Widmer (1994, 351) the succession is "sicher griechisch inspiriert", but it is hopeless to try to separate the two traditions from each other. On Moses' good Greek education in Artapanus, see above p. 93, in Philo see p. 111. On the "divine voice" in Artapanus, see above p. 94, on the way in which Philo avoids God's anthropomorphism, see p. 112. According to Feldman (2000, 209) Josephus has removed the angel in Exod 3:2 in order to reduce the miraculous, but this is hardly true. 3 4

3 5

3 6

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

235

Josephus

All three miracles are slightly edited. Moses' rod becomes a serpent, but he is not afraid of it. His hand becomes white, but not expressis verbis lep­ rous: The detail is often taken as a deliberate alteration of Exod 4:6, and we cannot ignore the possibility of an intentional modification, especially because Josephus omits the miracle punishing Miriam (Num 12:1-16). However, because LXX also only has coast x ^ and Josephus does not avoid the disease later, he does not necessarily avoid the word here. In contrast to Exod 4 Moses not only listens to the description of the third miracle but also takes water and turns it to "the colour of blood." Ac­ tually, this is a detail that Jacobson supposed Ezekiel the Tragedian had included in the lost verses of his tragedy. Josephus has complemented the original with a miracle, which is mentioned but not performed in Exodus. The miracles (armeTa) were accessible to Moses whenever there was a need for them (Ant. 2,276). Also Philo compared Moses with a pupil who had learned at Horeb how to make miracles and repeated them to be sure. Moses is terrified (Ant. 2,267; 270) and partly also reluctant (Ant. 2,271), but less so than in Exodus. Josephus has reduced the arguments Moses expressed to avoid the mission: He is still 'ISICOTTJS and does not find the words to persuade his people. However, he is no longer the helpless man who needs Aaron to be his speaker, and his lack of eloquence is not explic­ itly mentioned. To be sure, Aaron is mentioned later, but his role is clearly reduced (Ant. 2,279). 37

ic

v

5

38

39

40

41

The brief reference in Exod 4:30 to Moses making the miracles in the presence of the Israelites is included in the work. Josephus emphasizes that Moses could not convince his people with a mere description of the mira­ cles but had to perform them before their eyes (Ant. 2,279-280). The legitimisation by miracles is present here as in God's words to Moses (Ant. 2,274). Josephus thus renders the biblical original very faithfully. 42

43

Exodus tells about the first failed visit to Pharaoh, when no miracles oc­ curred (Exod 5:1-5), the growing oppression and the second visit accom­ panied by miracles (Exod 6:28-7:13). Josephus has included miracles in 37

Hata 1987, 186-187; Feldman 1998a, 385-386; 2000, 210-211. See above on Ezek. Trag. p. 72 and on Philo 111. On Josephus see below p. 239. See above p. 68. See above p. 111-112. The episode in Exod 4:24-26 is omitted and God tries not to kill Moses. Moehring 1973,377. According to Feldman (2000, 313) Josephus contemporizes the story. He was well aware that people are generally not convinced by miracles and notes that the leaders were amazed at this astonishing spectacle. However, Exod 4:31 already noted that "they bowed down and worshipped." 3 8

3 9

4 0

4 1

42

4 3

236

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

the first visit (Ant 2,281-287). Moses informs Pharaoh about his previous merits and the signs (ar]|je?a) God showed him. The Pharaoh mocks him (but does not imprison him as Artapanus claims) and Moses repeats the miracles, which do not have a positive impact: Pharaoh dubs him a crimi­ nal, who used "juggleries and magic" (TepccToupyicus Kai jjayeiais, Ant 2,284) to impress people. He orders "the priests" (as in Artapanus, Artap. 3,30) to make the same miracles and to prove that Moses is not the only one with this ability. They drop their rods, which become snakes, leading Moses to comment politely: 44

45

"Indeed, O king, I too disdain to the cunning of the Egyptians, but I assert that the deeds wrought by me so far surpass their magic and their art ( T % TOUTCOV uccyei'as J Tsxvrjs) as things divine are remote from what is human" (Ant. 2,286). K a

It is not Aaron, as in Exod 7:8-13, but Moses who throws the rod to the ground before Pharaoh (Ant 2,287), and Josephus retells dramatically how Moses' snake ate the Egyptians'. Moses' role is thus emphasized and he certainly is an MNP. It is interesting that Josephus does not nullify the Egyptians' capacity to make miracles. On the contrary, he lets Moses politely respect it, but at the same time reject it with his greater skill. Josephus omits the rest of the miracles made by the Egyptian wise men and seems thus not to be willing to create a contest between them and Moses. It is not said that they were unable to make miracles, only that they, unlike Moses, used methods that were not allowed. What that precisely meant is not said and it is hard to believe that Josephus himself knew the answer. A well-known feature in classical antiquity is that one side of what we call "magic" was strictly forbidden, even punished by death, but another was commonly used, also in the cultured circles. 46

47

48

4 4

Artapanus lets the Pharaoh imprison Moses; see above p. 96. Josephus may reveal a tradition in common with Artapanus, both in making Moses an Egyptian general, and in letting the Pharaoh call Moses a criminal (Ant. 2,284). However, this is a very under­ standable midrashic trait and the texts may also agree occasionally, because Exodus tells that Moses had killed an Egyptian. On Moses' opponents in Jub., see above p. 57; in Artapanus, p. 100, in Philo, p. 113 and 134. The competing miracle-workers belonged to the nucleus of the divine man-hypo­ thesis. However, the present study has found very few texts in which a contest would be of importance. There is a fully dramatized story about a contest between men concerning miracles, but it is the contest between Moses and Korah and, thus, a Jew against a Jew; see below p. 244-246. See Delling 1970, 135; Duling 1985, 10-12; Feldman 1998a, 428-429. The view is thus similar to L.A.B.: Magical skills are by no means nonsense, but they are not allowed; see above p. 214 pp. See Koskenniemi 1994, 224. 4 5

4 6

4 7

4 8

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

237

The second visit includes no miracles, but interestingly, Moses threatens Pharaoh, saying that "neither earth nor air" will be friendly to the people opposing God (Ant. 2,292). Philo wrote that the four elements were at war against the Egyptians. However, the speculation about the different roles of heaven and earth in the punishment has also been traced elsewhere, and it is not necessarily linked with the Greek theory. However, Josephus and Philo, as well as Wis, seem here to be using a common tradition. 49

The plagues are retold in many new variants. On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and Septuagint in Exod 7:14-12:36, see above p. 70. 50

The river is changed into blood (Ant. 2,294-295) as in Exod 7:14-24, but there is no God to tell Moses what to do and no Aaron to help him. Moses does not meet Pharaoh and nobody uses his rod: The water becomes atpaxco5r]s at God's command. Unlike Exodus, the water tortured and caused excruciating pain to those who sought to drink of it. A new detail is that it was sweet to the Hebrews. The detail also occurs in Philo, Mos. 1,26; 144 and in Deut. R. 3:8. This can be traced to Exod 7:21 and 7:24, in which the Egyptians were not able to drink the water, but in which there is no mention of the Hebrews. Josephus has, however, removed the Egyptian magicians and had Pharaoh permit the Hebrews to depart. The frogs (Ant. 2,296-299) come and disappear as in Exod 7:26-8:11, God does not speak to Moses, Aaron is absent and no human agent is con­ nected to the plagues. The magicians are removed again. Pharaoh tells Moses and the Hebrews to go, but repents and seems to hope for new ca­ lamities. The next punishment is called OKV?(|>es in LXX (Exod 8:12-15), while Josephus uses the words (|>0eipcov ... aTreipdv TI TrXfjSos (Ant. 2,300302). Exodus has Moses and Aaron produce the plague with their rods, but Josephus has removed both, and the sorcerers are again omitted. The episode before the following plague shows that Josephus has inten­ tionally reduced the role of Moses and Aaron. Pharaoh opens the way, but only for men and not for the wives and children (a detail taken from the plague of locusts, Exod 10:10-11). This leads Josephus to comment: 51

"Thus he did but exasperate God the more, in thinking to impose upon his providence, as though it were Moses and not he who was punishing Egypt on the Hebrews' behalf (Ant. 2,302). 4 9

See above p. 114 and 124. Moses remembers the event in Ant. 3,17-18 in conjunction with the miracle at the Red Sea and again in Ant. 3,86. According to Tiede 1972, 221-22 and Feldman 2000, 217 this is a device used so as not to make Moses appear to be a mere magician. 5 0

51

238

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

The plague clearly differs from that in Exodus (Exod 8:16-28; Ant. 2,303). LXX reads KUVOJJUICC, "dog-fly", as does Philo, but in Josephus' very short presentation it is Brjpicov y a p TTCCVTOICOV KCCI iroAuTpoTrcov. Artapanus, Philo, Pseudo-Philo and now Josephus thus all seem to assume that they were not ordinary insects. The offending Hebrew manner of sacrifice is removed, as in Philo, and so is the entire dialogue between Moses and Pharaoh. The plague on livestock (Exod 9:1-11) is completely omitted and the following biblical plagues are summarised only briefly. The LXX sAxr) (Exod 9:8-12), is retold very briefly (Ant 2,304) but more catastrophically ("and the greater part of the Egyptians perished thus"). Not only the Egyp­ tian magicians, but also Moses and Aaron, with dust in their hands, are absent. Also the plague of hail (xccAa£a) is presented very briefly (Exod 9:13-35; Ant. 2,305), and the dialogues are omitted. The locusts are men­ tioned in only one sentence (Exod 10:1-20; Ant. 2,306). Josephus renders the plague of darkness (Exod 10:21-29) markedly longer (Ant. 2,307-310). The dialogue between Moses and Pharaoh pre­ cedes and follows the plague, although Exodus puts it before the calamity. The darkness is described in a new way: 52

53

54

55

"... and when time in consequence dragged on, dense darkness, without a particle of light, enveloped the Egyptians - darkness so thick that their eyes were blinded by it and their breath choked, and they either met with a miserable end or lived in terror of being swallowed up by the fog."

Josephus follows the broad tradition in retelling the biblical plague. LXX mentioned v|;r|Aar)T6s" O K O T O S , and Philo described the darkness as not only unnatural but also dangerous, while L.A.B. mentions tractabiles tenebre. As noted, the tradition also seems to be known to the writer of the Book of Wisdom and Melito of Sardes. Pharaoh is prepared to allow the people to go, but without cattle. Josephus has Moses resist, saying that they needed cattle as sacrifice. He does not mention that they were going 56

5 2

"For now he sent wild beasts of every species and kind, the like of which no man had ever encountered before, to infest their country, whereby the people perished and the land was deprived of the care of its labourers." On Artapanus, see above p. 102, on Philo, p. 117, on Pseudo-Philo, see p. 195. See above p. 144. Josephus does not use the words o f LXX (sAxr), ^AuKTiSes ava£e'ouaai), but drama­ tizes the event with stronger words (Setvcos cxuxoTs e£r)AKouTO TCX acojjaTa TCOV E V T O S 5ia0eipo|j6vcov). See above p. 116 and 193. Also T Sim. 8 tells about the darkness, although in a dif­ ferent way: The Egyptian sages knew that a special darkness would cover Egypt when Joseph's bones were carried out. 53

5 4

55

5 6

239

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

to offer the sacrifice in way that was offensive to the Egyptians (Exod 8:22; 10:26). The death of the firstborn (Exod 11:1- 12:36) is retold briefly, but unlike Philo, Josephus includes the Passover: "Hence comes it that to this day we keep this sacrifice in the same customary manner, calling the feast Pascha, which signifies 'passing over', because on that day God passed over our people when he smote the Egyptians with plague. For on that selfsame night destruction visited the firstborn of Egypt, insomuch that multitudes of those whose dwellings surrounded the palace trooped to Pharaotes to urge him to let the Hebrews go" (Ant. 2,313).

One word is especially worth noting. Josephus says that God A'tyuTrriois ETrav8aKr]v|/s xrjv voaov. Although he does not use the word Aoipos, vdaos is not a benign word either, and may be used for disastrous dis­ eases. It thus seems that Josephus has not intentionally avoided it, either here or in Ant. 2,273. Philo also used the words quite freely when pointing to the pestilence. The friendly relations between the Hebrews and most of the Egyptians are underlined (Ant. 2,311-315). Several smaller alterations apparently once again attest the tradition of retelling the biblical original freely. Josephus is the only author investi­ gated in the present study who follows almost exactly the biblical order of the plagues, leaving only one of them out. There is no obvious reason why the plague among livestock is omitted, but some features occur often and reveal a reflective, redactional work. Josephus has generally reduced dialogues, especially dialogues between God and Moses. Israel's God does not talk with men. Josephus here can be likened to Artapanus and Philo, but not to Ezekiel and Pseudo-Philo. It is clear that Josephus has reduced the role of human agents in the plagues. Aaron is totally absent as in many texts studied above and God is clearly more active than Moses. Consequently, Moses' rod plays no role and Moses is not as helpless as in Exodus. Moses does not take the role of an independent BNP, and Josephus unequivocally says that God made the miracles. It is not easy to classify Moses as an MNP or a PNP. The main reason why his role is changed is that Josephus does not include God in the dialogue as Exodus does, and this has necessarily led to a new distribution of roles, with Josephus reducing rather than expanding Moses' role. Josephus has - as Philo - omitted everything referring to the Hebrew's manner of the sacrifice, and the reason is obvious. He himself mentions the 57

58

59

57

Nooos means generally 'sickness', but vooos / vouoos is traditionally used also for diseases in the army, for example, 77. 1,10. See above p. 117. The reason seems to be that Josephus highlights the importance of Moses, Feldman 1998a, 387. The budding of Aaron's rod is told in Num 17:16-28 (Ant. 4,63-66). 5 8

5 9

240

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

rumours about Jewish ways of sacrificing human beings, and there is no need to quote the Scripture, according to which the Egyptians would kill the Hebrews if they saw what they sacrificed (Exod 8:22). However, regardless of these changes, Josephus retells almost every mi­ raculous feature, and there is no sign of a general intention to play down the supernatural features of the biblical stories. Such an intention is con­ ceivable when Josephus omits the stories about the rod of Moses (and Aaron) and the magicians in the plagues. On the other hand, darkness is described in more miraculous terms than in Exodus. After the final plague, the Hebrews are free to go (Exod 13:17- 14:31), and Josephus adds that the Egyptians honour the Hebrews with gifts and lament their hard treatment - to be sure, partly to speed their departure (Ant. 2,314-315). Still, it was apparently easier for Josephus, who was out­ side Egypt, to be friendlier toward the Egyptians than it was for Philo, in­ side the country. The miracle at the Red Sea (Ant. 2,320-348) is told much more extensively than in Exodus. Moses' wise leadership is empha­ sized. He chooses a good route to the land of Canaan, and God's thought in Exod 13:17-18 is now Moses' plan (Ant. 2,322-323). 60

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and Septuagint in Exod 13:17-14:31 see above p. 74.

The Egyptian forces are described in detail: alongside the biblical 600 chariots stood fifty thousand horsemen and two hundred thousand heavy infantry (Ant. 2,324). The numbers of the enemy vary in early Jewish lit­ erature. The Hebrew multitude, following LXX as in Ezekiel and Philo (Ant. 2,321; cf. Exod 13:18,), is overtaken unarmed by the Egyptians. The blame is laid on Moses, as in Exodus, but the controversy is dramatized: they were ready to stone Moses (cf. Exod 17:4) and decided to deliver themselves to the Egyptians. Moses, for his part, gives a beautiful speech to the people and offers a beautiful prayer to God (Ant. 2,329-337): 61

62

63

64

6 0

65

The miracle is mentioned briefly in connection with the plagues also in Ant. 3,86. Jub. 48:14 and Ezek. Trag. 203 say that a million Egyptians attacked the Hebrews. On Ezekiel, see above p. 75 on Philo, see p. 119. According to Josephus a good number of the Hebrews were armed after the victory over the Amalekites (Ant. 3,62). L.A.B. supposes that the nation was armed at the Red Sea and could choose between several options; see above p. 194. Cf. the presentation of the story in L.A.B, p. 194. However, Josephus does not differ­ entiate between different tribes and his words may be derived from Exod 14:12. In Josephus, Moses is not reluctant to go to Egypt because he is aware that he lacks eloquence: He is a good rhetorician, not only here but often, for example, Ant. 4,13-21. Like Philo (see above p. 119) Josephus has also read Exod 13:13-15 closely: Moses speaks to the people, but God asks why he is crying out to him. Josephus lets Moses first speak to the people and then pray to God. 61

6 2

6 3

6 4

6 5

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

241

Also here, Josephus seems to allude to the theory of elements or its Jewish variant mentioned above. He certainly attributes the miracle to God's al­ mighty power. There is no God's angel between the Hebrews and Egyp­ tians. Moses hits the sea with his rod, which is now also mentioned, and the way is immediately opened (Ant. 3,38). It is not only the sea that flows over the Egyptians, but showers of rain, with thunder, lightning and fire (Ant. 2,343). Josephus omits Moses raising his hand again and clos­ ing the way (Exod 14:26-27). In contrast to Ezek. Trag. Josephus tells that no one survived the catastrophe (Ant. 2,344). Moses composes a song to God "in hexameter verse" (Ant. 2,346). Josephus adds an important passage to the story: 66

67

68

69

70

71

"For my part, I have recounted each detail here told just as I found it in the sacred books. Nor let anyone marvel at the astonishing nature of the narrative or doubt that it was given to men of old, innocent of crime, to find a road of salvation through the sea itself, whether by the will of God or maybe by accident, seeing that the hosts of Alexander king of Macedon, men born but the other day, beheld the Pamphylian Sea retire before them and, when other road there was none, offer a passage through itself, what time it pleased God to overthrow the Persian empire; and on that all are agreed who have recorded Alex­ ander's exploits. However on these matters everyone is welcome to his own opinion" (Ant. 2,347-348).

Josephus knew the tradition, either from Arrian 1,26 or from some other source. He had learned his historians extremely well and was able to quote an impressive list of their works; see, for example, Ant. 1,107-108 and c. Ap.l, 6-18. He does not rationalise the story but supports it with a second, Gentile story. 72

6 6

"Nay, thine is the sea, thine the mountain that encompasseth us: this then can open at thy command, or the deep become dry land, or we might even find escape through the air, should it please thine almighty power that after this manner we should be saved" (Ant. 2,337). In Exod 13:26-27 Moses does not hit the sea and the way opens during the night. On these details in Ezekiel, Artapanus, Philo and L.A.B., see above p. 75, 105, 119 and 194. Feldman is surprised that Josephus does not rationalise the miracle and explain it in natu­ ralistic terms, but unlike Exodus tells that the miracle was instantaneous and that Moses divided the sea with his rod (2000, 228). However, Josephus follows a strong tradition and it is not clear whether he has generally toned down the miracles or not. Feldman sees a rationalisation in the thunder, lightning and fire (Feldman 1998a, 430), but Josephus apparently only quotes Ps 77:16-20, as noted already by Thackeray (1930, 315). To Josephus all the events show that the Creator of the universe was angry with the Egyptians. On Ezekiel, see above p. 77, on Philo, see p. 121. Thackeray (1929, 91) and Feldman (2000, 230) suggest that Josephus was acquainted with a collection of chants possibly adapted for a Temple choir (see Ant. 4,303). The event is mentioned in Ant. 3,18 and Ant. 4,44; in both cases it is clearly a mira­ cle. Delling 1970, 138-139. 6 7

6 8

6 9

7 0

71

7 2

242

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

The miracles in the desert are also included in Josephus' work. The short story about the water in Marah (Exod 15:22-27) is retold dramatically and clearly emended (Ant. 3,1-8). The well was considered insufficient from the very beginning. The distress of the people and chil­ dren is underlined and the way in which Moses healed the water is given in a new variant: 73

"And, God having consented to grant that favour, he picked up the end of a stick that lay at his feet, cleft it in twain, lengthwise, and then, flinging it into the well, impressed upon the Hebrews that God had lent an ear to his prayers and had promised to render the water such as they desired, provided that they executed his order with no remissness, but with alacrity. On their asking what they must do to procure the amelioration of the water, he bade those in the prime of life stand in a ring and draw, declaring that what remained, after they had drained off the larger part, would be drinkable. So they set to work, and the water, belaboured and purified by these incessant blows, at length became good to drink" (Ant. 3,7-8).

Josephus seems to have combined the story with the passage in Numbers (Num 21:10-18) and he does not tell the story twice. There seem to be traits of rationalisation in the story: A larger part of the water is drained off. Yet the event is still clearly a miracle. The piece of wood thrown into the water was treated in very different ways in early Judaism. Israel does not accuse Moses at Marah, but he is heavily attacked in the desert. Moses answers with a long speech also reminding his listeners of the preceding miracles (Exod 16:1-36; Ant. 3,13-22). After the speech, the quails come. The story about the quails is told very briefly in Ant. 3,25, as in Exodus, and there is not much to rationalise. It is interesting that the birds were opTiiycov Trf]0os and he does not use the word in LXX (opTuyoMrJTpcc). In retelling the feeding with manna (Ant. 3,26-32) Josephus has added new traits to the story: 74

75

76

77

78

"Immediately after this first supply of food God sent down to them a second. For, while Moses raised his hands in prayer, a dew descended, and as this congealed about his hands, Moses, surmising that this too was a nutriment come to them from God, tasted it and was delighted; and, whereas the multitude in their ignorance took this for snow and attributed the phenomenon to the season of the year, he instructed them that this heavendescending dew was not as they supposed, but was sent for their salvation and suste­ nance, and tasting it, he bade them thus too to convince themselves. They then, imitating their leader, were delighted with what they ate, for it had the sweet and delicious taste of 7 3

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX, see above p. 20. Noted already by Thackeray 1978, 325 and Feldman 2000, 234. On the story in Sir, see above p. 20; in Philo p. 122 and in L.A.B. p. 242. According to Moehring (1973, 380-381), also this story is rationalised. The food from heaven, i.e. quails and manna, are mentioned with the water from the rock also in Ant. 3,88 and Ant. 4,45. On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX, see above p. 123. 7 4

7 5

7 6

7 7

7 8

243

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

honey and resembled the spicy herb called bdellium, its size being that of a coriander seed; and they fell to collecting it with the keenest ardour" {Ant. 3,26-28).

It is not obvious whether manna means a miracle or not. It was still be­ lieved to fall from the skies in Josephus time: "and to this very day all that region is watered by a rain like to that which then, as a favour to Moses, the Deity sent down for men's sustenance" (Ant. 3,31). However, manna is God's answer to Moses' prayer. The story about the water from the rock (Exod 17:1-7; cf. Num 20:1-13) is told in somewhat dramatized form but without any greater alterations in content (Ant. 3,33-38). The rod of Moses, which plays a minor role in the plagues, is now present as in Exodus and the event is clearly a miracle (TTCcpdSo£ov, Ant. 3,38) without any "rationalisation." One interesting detail is that Josephus again refers to a writing deposited in the temple. Also, this underlines the importance of the miracles in Exodus for early Judaism. The obvious reason why Josephus is satisfied with one story about the water from the rock and does not retell the other version in Num 20:1-13 is that in so doing he can omit the reason why God did not allow Moses to go to the Promised Land. 79

The battle against the Amalekites (Exod 17:8-16) is heavily expanded in Josephus (Ant. 3,39-62). It is preceded, of course, by a marvellous speech of Moses, the model being taken from the Greek historians: A speech by the general before a battle is commonplace in classical antiquity. Although Moses' military genius is underlined, there is hardly any trace of a ration­ alisation of the story, despite Tiede's and Feldman's observance of such a bias: Moses' hands stretched out are still the decisive factor, and Jose­ phus has carefully preserved the core of the biblical story. Unlike other early Jewish writers, Josephus tells the story about the quails twice, although the second feeding is rendered much shorter than in the biblical original. The punishment of the people is preserved. Josephus clarifies that the reason for the following punishment was the people's mu81

82

79

Ant. 3,31: Josephus apparently identifies manna with the exudation of a species of the tamarisk-tree; see Thackeray 1930, 335 and Feldman 2000, 239. Feldman sees here a clear rationalisation of the story as in the passage dealing with quails (2000, 237. 239). Thackeray (1928, 336-337) takes the writing for a collection of chants made for the use of the temple singers. Tiede 1972, 227-228; Feldman 1998a, 432; 2000, 243. "So long as Moses held his hands erect, the Amalekites were discomfited by the Hebrews. Moses, therefore, unequal to the strain of this extension of his arms, and seeing that as often as he dropped them so often were his men worsted, bade his brother Aaron and his sister Mariamme's husband, by name Ur, stand on either side of him to support his hands and by their aid not suffer them to flag. That done, the Hebrews inflicted a crushing defeat on the Amalekites" (Ant. 3,53-54). 8 0

81

82

244

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

tiny (Num 11:4-36; Ant. 3,299). Moses is clearly a more active agent than in the biblical original. 83

The mutiny led by Korah (Num 16:1-17:31) awakened special interest in Josephus. 84

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and Septuagint in Num 16:1-17:31, see above p. 126.

The revolt is described extensively (Ant. 4,11-66), and the short biblical original has been made into a story about a "sedition for which we know of no parallel whether among Greeks or barbarians" (Ant. 4,12), and the rhe­ torical skill of both Korah and Moses. Philo and Pseudo-Philo have given new accents of the story, and so has Josephus; however, Josephus has preserved the original core of the story clearly better than Philo, who has Korah doubt Moses' prophecy, and Pseudo-Philo, who has redirected the mutiny against the holy Law (this point of view also occurs in Josephus, Ant. 4,13). However, a closer look shows that Josephus has also changed the focus. In Num Korah says that Moses and Aaron had set themselves above the rest of the people, and overlooked the fact that the whole com­ munity is holy (Num 16:3; 17:1-5). Josephus, in turn, has removed the thought that the priesthood should not be restricted to certain persons but should be given to everyone. To him it is clear that the priesthood is re­ stricted, but he lets the aristocratic circles of the Hebrews quarrel about the question of who should attain it (Ant. 4,18). The change may be uninten­ tional and may only show that Josephus could no longer imagine Israel without a priesthood. Yet the bitter clashes over the priesthood in the Hasmonean period have certainly influenced his view on the story. God does not want to kill the whole crowd and does not stand in dia­ logue with Moses and Aaron as in Num 16:20-21. In the prayer added by Josephus, Moses remembers the miracles God made in Egypt (Ant. 4,4347) and asks for the punishment of his opponents. In contrast to Numbers, Korah survives the earthquake (Ant. 4,51), but is killed along with 250 men by fire (Ant. 4,54-58). The budding of Aaron's rod ends the sedition and legitimates Aaron as the right priest (Num 17:1-13; Ant. 4,63-66). It would be tempting to see some elements of the Jewish war in the great OTaois. Josephus has heavily expanded the story, obviously meaning it as a lesson on the political consequences of a revolt. However, he seems to 85

86

87

8 3

Feldman 1998a, 426. See Feldman 1998b, 91-109. On Philo, see above p. 126, on L.A.B., see above p. 198. The priesthood was clearly a theme which influenced Josephus' way to retell the Scriptures; see Schwartz 1990, 88-90; Feldman 1998b, 100-101. Feldman 2000, 333-343 recognises the political tone of the remodelled story. 8 4

85

8 6

8 7

245

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

be more concerned about Moses' role as an excellent statesman than about the events of the Jewish war. Simultaneously he, of course, expresses his view of how a good leader leads his people and avoids all the dangers, which were not avoided some decades before Josephus' work was written. Josephus tells about the death of Moses in an interesting way: "And, while he bade farewell to Eleazar and Joshua and was yet communicating with them, a cloud of a sudden descended upon him and he disappeared in a ravine. But he has written on himself in the sacred books that he died, for fear least they should venture to say that by reason of his surpassing virtue he had gone back to the Deity" (Ant 4,326). 88

Philo and L.A.B. also give a version of Moses' death. Josephus' version has parallels in the Graeco-Roman world: Moses disappears, like Aeneas and Romulus (Dion. Hal. ant. 1,64,4; 2,56,2). However, the biblical stories about Enoch and Elijah and their later formulations are still closer paral­ lels. Josephus' version is an old puzzling question in the scholarship. The main point of the present study is that neither here nor elsewhere does Josephus attribute to Moses a position such as he has in Ezek. Trag. or L.A.B., although the passage has its mysterious elements. Moses may be the best of generals and lawgivers, but he is not a "divine man of Greek culture." 89

90

91

A few miracles are totally omitted. Josephus retells two water-miracles but leaves a doublet out (Num 20:113). In so doing, Josephus also passes over the reason why Moses did not enter the Promised Land, and it is hardly an accident. There are several reasons why Josephus omitted Miriam's punishment (Num 12:1-16), but it is difficult to choose between them: Josephus may have been unwilling to tell that Moses was challenged again, or he may have wanted to exonerate his own people; most probably he wanted to avoid the disease mentioned in the anti-Jewish propaganda.

8 8

See above p. 127 and 199 and Deut. #.11:10. See Oberhansli-Widmer 1994, 351-352; Sievers 1998, 24-25; Feldman 1998a, 396397; Feldman 2000, 472-473. Especially Jacobson (1983b), Tabor (1989) and Feldman 1998a, 173 see a connection with Sophocles' Oedipus Coloneus. Josephus uses the words 06?os avrjp about Moses once, in Ant. 3,180. However, this passage has nothing to do with the miracles. Moses is 0e?os because he was a "man of God" and because he had correct knowledge about God, and the Law and cult were di­ vine. Tiede considered that Moses was according to Josephus divine, because he was regarded as an ideal wise man (1972, 237), but Holladay (1977, 47-100) and finally du Toit (1998, 349-399) have put the question ad acta. See also Feldman 2000, 279-280. Beegle 1992, 916. 8 9

9 0

91

246

P. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

Also, the snakes in Num 21:4-9 are omitted. Some scholars presume that Josephus was unwilling to criticise Israel. This seems to be a logical ex­ planation - Josephus also excluded the story about the golden calf - but why is he so inconsistent in this bias? He also tells, for example, that the Hebrews did not believe Moses (Ant. 2,279-280) and that they mutinied against him several times. He even expands and dramatizes Korah's sedi­ tion. Apparently some details in the sacred history were too much for Josephus, but he by no means consistently excluded the errors of his own people, either in the miracle stories or elsewhere in his work. The view that Josephus was reluctant to relate the miracle stories is not supported by the text. In fact, Josephus omitted very few of Moses' mira­ cles. We are then led to ask how much Josephus rationalised other stories: The analysis shows that indeed some stories seem to have been rational­ ised. Josephus tells the miracle at the Red Sea, remaining faithful to the biblical original, but he adds the story about Alexander and the well known formula (Ant. 2,347-348). The water-miracle at Marah also contains a ra­ tionalistic explanation of the events (Ant. 3,7-8), and even in Josephus' time, manna was believed to fall from the skies (Ant. 3,31). The evidence of rationalisation is thus not very strong. Josephus is not saying that there was no miracle in the story about Alexander. In his view Israel's God had chosen Alexander to serve him, as Moses had done before him. In some stories the "rationalisation" proposed seems rather far-fetched. There is hardly any rationalisation in lightning and fire Ant. 2,343, or in the stories about the quails Ant. 3,25 or the battle against Amalek Ant. 3,39-62. Josephus might certainly have added a more natural explanation to the events. However, it is obvious that he himself believed that the biblical miracles really happened and was not at all unwilling to retell Moses' miracles. On the contrary, Josephus often exaggerated the miraculous, and considered them as God's saving deeds. Even the Egyptian 'lepoypccjjU C C T E U S , although he hated Israel and tried to kill Moses, was correct in his prophecy about Moses' birth and mission, and he was not the only Egyp­ tian who did not err in such matters: Kai y a p eWi S e i v o i Trepi T C O V J J E A A O V T C O V T I I V aArjSeiav eiiTeTv (Ant. 2,205). This is not unique in Josephus. It was not only the biblical Balaam who could prophesy cor­ rectly (Ant. 4,104-130), but a German soldier as well (Ant. 18,195-202). Josephus sometimes reduces magical traits in the stories about Moses and, for example, does not emphasize the importance of his rod as Artapanus 92

93

94

95

9 2

Oberhansli-Widmer 1994, 351-352. Thackeray noted that Josephus has "unlike the Biblical Chronicler ... not hesitated to tell the story of David's sin and the disastrous sequel" (1929, 58). Ant. 2,223 oco^ouevous S BK irapaSd^ou. Noted correctly by Delling 1970, 132-133. 9 3

94

9 5

247

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

does. Yet he retells almost all of Moses' miracles with very few altera­ tions. If he had reflected on leaving out those miraculous events which could provoke ridicule among the Epicureans, then the first story to be omitted might have been the one concerning Balaam's ass. However, it is included in his work with all the miraculous elements. 96

Even if it is hard to attest a strict rationalistic bias in the stories about Moses, other features of the redaction can be traced. Josephus has changed the roles of God and Moses in several stories in different ways. Feldman notes correctly that Josephus seems to develop the stories in two opposite directions: Sometimes he underlines God's and sometimes Moses' role. God is active especially in the plagues. To be sure, Josephus lets Moses prophesy to the people: 97

"For it is not Moses, son of Amram and Jochama, but he who constrained the Nile to flow for your sake a blood-red stream and tamed with diverse plagues the pride of the Egyptians, he who opened for you a path through the sea, he who caused meat to descend from heaven when you were destitute, water to gush from the rock when you lacked it" (Ant. 3,86).

The main reason to change the roles of God and Moses is the fact that Josephus was, as many Jewish writers, unwilling to retell the biblical dia­ logues between God and men. Consequently, a large number of these dia­ logues are omitted, also in the miracle stories. It necessarily leads to a new division of roles, which is not consistent. Sometimes Moses can be charac­ terised as an MNP, but often he loses his role, and can hardly even be called a PNP. In Josephus, Moses is not merely a miracle-worker, but also a good gen­ eral, statesman and rhetorician. This is apparently why Josephus can to­ tally omit Moses' miracles in Against Apion. He is a great leader, but not only because of his miracles. There is no intention to develop the idea that Moses was a godlike figure (Exod 7:1). The factors mentioned above are also featured in the miracle stories. The way to the Red Sea, as well as 98

9 6

See Num 22:28; Ant. 4, 09. Thackeray and Marcus note the formula used in 4,158 and consider it to "refer to the story of Balaam as a whole and in particular to the miracu­ lous element in it, such as the speaking of the ass" (1934, 79). However, the formula does not follow immediately after the detail, and it is not probable that Josephus meant pre­ cisely this detail. Moreover, the formula is not always used as a non-committal sentence; see Delling 1970, 138.141-142. See Feldman 1998a, 425-427. According to Eve (2002, 27-28) the miracles are defi­ nitely deeds of God. However, Moses' role as his agent can be bigger than in the biblical original. Tiede formulated it correctly: "Moses' elevated status does not rest on his miracles" (1972, 229). 9 7

9 8

248

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

the battle against the Amalekites, are led by a skilful general. The great statesman leads the people to freedom and to the desert. The man who could not rely on his rhetorical skill now controls people with his marvel­ lous speeches. All these are well-known general features of Moses' pic­ ture, also in the miracle stories. They may justly be called "Hellenizations." The stories about Moses' birth, childhood and death are undoubt­ edly influenced by the Greek, as well as by the Jewish culture. As noted above, Josephus was well aware of the distorted version of Exodus circulating among the literate Gentiles. It did not lead to his mak­ ing many alterations, although some are obvious: The offensive manner of sacrifice is omitted because of pagan criticism against the Jewish cult, and the story about Miriam's punishment is omitted because of the Gentile story about the leprous being expelled from Egypt. However, Josephus was not as concerned as many scholars have assumed. He admittedly does not use the word A o i p o s when retelling the story about the plague in Egypt; he uses the word v o o o s , however, which has similar connotations. Perhaps Josephus thought that the best way to oppose the distorted version was to faithfully retell the original? Some Jewish writers have almost totally dropped legitimisation through miracles, but Josephus has preserved it in several passages. Moses is legitimated by miracles (esp. Ant. 2,274.279-280), and so is Aaron (Ant. 4,63-66). One reason, of course, is that Josephus is markedly faithful to the biblical original. However, the second reason may be more important: Moses had always been the great authority for the Jews and did not need any legitimisation, but since Josephus was also writing for a Gentile audi­ ence, he needed the original function of the miracles. Because of the mira­ cles Moses himself believes that God has sent him (Ant. 2,275), as do the Hebrews, his opponents and, as Josephus hopes, his readers. Moses has to compete with the Egyptian magicians, and with Korah and his allies. According to Feldman, Josephus toned down the cruelty of his heroes. This feature can hardly be noted in Moses' miracles, although the friend­ ship between the Hebrews and Egyptians is emphasized (Ant. 2,311-315). The plagues are as disastrous as in Exodus, and Josephus adds details to the miracle at the Red Sea, which by no means lessen the punishment (Ant. 2,343). Also, Korah's punishment is retold without any mitigation (Ant. 4,51; 54-58), and Josephus' heroes occasionally followed God's words: 100

101

102

103

104

9 9

See Betz 1987, 402-405; Feldman 1998a, 401-411. Feldman lists the Hellenizations in 1998a, 437-441. See Feldman 1998a, 428. It is a novum that Moses lists the miracles of God in Elim and assures the continuous help of God, Ant. 3,925. The competition is by no means polemical (Ant. 2,286, see above p. 236). Feldman 1998a, 418. 1 0 0

101

102

103

1 0 4

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

249

"You will leave not one of your enemies alive after defeating them" (Ant. 4,191). Generally, however, the study of additions and omissions shows that Josephus is surprisingly faithful to the biblical original. He adds nonbiblical stories mainly in connection with Moses' birth, childhood and death, but otherwise he follows the original closely. He tells almost all the sto­ ries, even those that might have been difficult for him. It is worth noting that he also retells the crossing of the Red Sea and that Moses stroked the water with his rod, although these miracles could have negative connota­ tions in his own time.

c. Joshua Josephus has generally abridged heavily the biblical stories about Jo­ shua. According to Feldman he gives him only 47% of the space given to Joshua in LXX, although the corresponding amount for Moses is 87% and for Elijah 96%. These numbers make it clear that Joshua was not his favourite figure in the Old Testament. 105

In translating the crossing of the Jordan (Jos 3:1-5:1) LXX omits •pmar ^a'^ai Kin in 3:1. In 3:5 rviK^sa is rendered GCCUUCCOTO: and "piy in 3:7 uvpcooai O E (but mj£noEV in 4:14). Instead of the plural nan the singular pfjua is used in 3:9. The words vnmrv "iom are omit­ ted in 3:10 and a n o TCOV UICOV in 3:12 seems to indicate that the translator had "oao in­ stead of 'Daioo in his original, irm 13 n a m n*?»D*?o am-n D^DH p m ^ is translated T O uScop TOG ' lopSdvou E K X E ( \ | / E I , T O 5E (iScop T O KCCTCCPCUVOV OTrjOETcn in v. 3:13 (but ~u / Trqyua in 3:16). In 3:16 jrra i s a m T i n oiaa I K D is rendered uaKpdv o65pa ao5pcos EGOS UEpous KapiaSiapiu and reveals a Hebrew original different from ours, naiim in the same verse is rendered Trjv 0dXaaoav ' Apa(3a. LXX omits in 4:2 the words ids who and in 4:3 o^nan ?n asao. In v, 4:6 m is rendered or|UE?ov. In v. 4:7 LXX does not repeat )Tvn ' 0 lrnaa and in 4:10 omits ircnrr-riK n©D rranejK *?aa. In 4:13 the Hebrew original apparently did not include a in D ^ a i t o . In 4:14 LXX adds yEVOUS. In 4:21 DrnatcnK is rendered uuds and in 4:24 T 5uvau»s. In 5:1 contemporization has changed the nation ("Oittan, but T T J S OotviKrjs). The deviations from the Hebrew text are numerous, but d o not attest a reflected redaction of the miraculous. In the conquest of Jericho (Jos 5:13-6:27) the text of the Septuagint now differs con­ siderably from the Masoretic text after the prelude (Jos 5:13-15), showing verse after verse of several omissions and additions. A good example is v. 6:15: TurrnK iaon -iron rrfrio loaizH 'vyon ava CDtfs V2V T»n*n« n a o twin ova pn CTQDS J O D run DODOD which is rendered Kai Trj fiUEpa Trj E(35durj dvEOTrjoav 6p0pou Kai TTEpiriXSoaav Trjv TTOXIV E^riKts. However, it is very difficult to find any difference in the framework or new intentions in the miraculous story. In spite of the deviations, LXX tells the same story of the people marching around the city with the Holy Ark, and trumpets and falling walls. The only notable detail is that in v. 6:20 the Septuagint renders "lawn as m

,4

On Joshua in Josephus, see Delling 1970, 139-140; Feldman 1998a, 443-460.

250

P. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

ocxATn yyeov, and does not distinguish between the instrument mentioned in the previous verses. Otherwise, the deviations only reveal that the translators had a Hebrew original that was different from ours. LXX shows some smaller deviations from the Hebrew text of Jos 10:8-14. In v. 10:8 the Hebrew text has "pasn, but LXX EVCOTTIOV UUCOV. In v. 10:10 ODm is rendered a e^eoTrjoev and in 10:11 is translated nVna wn* \(0ous x Aa£ris. In v. 10:12 LXX adds fjViKa auvsTpivpev a u x o u s ev ra(3acov Kai auvsTpi'Prioav OTTO TTpoacoirou uicov l o panA, but in v. 10:13 omits "lern izo'bv rains K'm^n. In v. 10:13 the subject of the re­ venge is changed: The Hebrew text has ^a, but LXX o 0e6s. Most of the details only attest that the Hebrew original the translators used was different from the one we have. The only important difference is the variant na / 6 0e6s in v. 10:13 introducing a new agent of the deed.

It is not unique in Josephus that the role of man is smaller and of God greater than in the biblical original, but the bias is very clear in the miracle stories concerning Joshua. God's speech (Jos 3:7-8) is left out, and with it also the thought of legitimisation by miracles. The crossing of the Jor­ dan is retold, but the flow of the river is not stopped, only minimised. Given that it is still a miracle, the text is rather reserved: 106

107

"Now since the army was afraid to cross the river, which had a strong current and could not be crossed by bridges .... God promised to render the stream passable for them by diminishing its volume" (Ant. 5,16). "When the priests, who were the first to enter, found the river fordable — the depth having diminished and the shingle, which the current was neither full nor rapid enough to force from under their feet, lying as a solid floor — all thereupon confidently traversed the stream, perceiving it to be even as God has foretold that he would make it. But the priests stood still in the midst until the multitude had crossed and reached the firm ground. Then, when all had crossed, the priests emerged, leaving the stream free to re­ sume its accustomed course. And the river, so soon as the Hebrews had quitted it, swelled and recorded its natural magnitude" (Ant. 5,17-19). "And Joshua, with the stones which each of the tribal leader had, by the prophet's or­ ders, taken up from the river-bed, erected that alter that was to serve as a token of the stoppage of the stream, and sacrificed there to God" (Ant. 5,20).

Also, the miraculous conquest of Jericho is told,

108

but very briefly:

"For six days this was repeated, and on the seventh Joshua, having assembled the troops and all the people, announced to them the good news of the impending capture of the city to wit that on that day God would deliver it to them and that, spontaneously and without effort on their part, the walls would collapse" (Ant. 5,24).

1 0 6 « j j y j J U b g i to exalt you in the eyes of all Israel, so they may know that I am with you as I was with Moses", Jos 3:7. This passage has always been an example of Josephus' alleged intention to rational­ ise a biblical story. Thackeray and Marcus (1934, 168-169) comment on it briefly: "Josephus more suo, lessens the supernatural character of the miracle." On the crossing of the Jordan, see Feldman 1998a, 455. Josephus combines the conquest with the Passover (Ant. 5,22, see Thackeray - Mar­ cus 1934, 172-173). 0(

107

108

a

w

e

n

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

251

"And when they had compassed it seven times and had halted for a while, the wall fell down, without either engine or force of any other kind having been applied to it by the Hebrews" (Ant 5,27).

Nor is the battle at Gibeon an exception. The battle is described quite ex­ tensively (Ant. 5,58-61), but not the miracles, which are rendered very briefly: "Joshua, with his whole army, sped to their assistance and, marching all day and night, at early dawn fell upon the foe, routed them and followed in pursuit down to the slopes of the region called Bethora. There too he was given to know of God's co-operation, mani­ fested by thunder-claps, the discharge of thunderbolts and the descent of hail of more than ordinary magnitude" (Ant 5,60-61). "That the length of the day was increased on that occasion and surpassed the customary measure is attested by Scriptures that laid up in the temple" (Ant. 5,61).

Joshua's prayer is omitted and if the reader does not know the original, he attributes the miracle to God and not to Joshua, who is no longer the MNP described in the biblical Joshua. However, Josephus' intention was hardly to increase Joshua's role in the miracles, and a better explanation must be found. All the stories quoted are still miracles, but Josephus tells them very briefly and does not at all emphasize the miraculous. It is thus obvious that Josephus has heavily abridged both the biblical stories of Joshua and espe­ cially his miracles. Joshua was not Josephus' favourite figure, and al­ though he retells all the biblical miracles, he writes very briefly and with­ out any bias to underline Joshua's importance. Feldman considers that Josephus was careful not to arouse ridicule among his cultivated audi­ ence. But why does he tell almost all the miracles made by Moses with­ out any rationalisation, yet tones down the miracles made by Joshua? Joshua is Moses' S i d S o x o s . . . ETTI . . . TCCTS Trpoc|>r|Teiais (Ant. 4,165), which seems to be an echo of Ben Sira calling Joshua 5 i d 5 o x o s Mcouorj ev TTpo^rjTsiais. Nevertheless, he is treated with reservation. The answer is not found in the production of Josephus but by comparing the different depictions of Joshua. Josephus perhaps did not like Joshua and his mira­ cles, but other Jewish writers did, and the tradition was problematic to Josephus. As noted, Ben Sira revealed a notable interest in Joshua and especially in his miracles. As he enthusiastically put it, Joshua was the great hero awak109

110

109

According to Feldman (1998a, 445) Josephus has diminished Joshua's harshness, because utmost cruelty was one of the charges against the Jews. This is perhaps true in some cases, but not, for example, in Jos 11:11 / Ant. 5,67, and it is by no means a consis­ tent bias. Delling (1970, 139-140) sees here a rationalisation, as also Feldman 1998a, 455. 110

252

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

ening fear among his enemies (nnn *na, Sir 46:6) and hope among his people with his militant miracles. Ben Sira's work is not the only Jewish work in which Joshua and his miracles are praised. Jub. 1:7-15 also describes the situation before the conquest of the Holy Land and Berger rightly sees that the writer considered the situation analogous to his own. Liber antiquitatum biblicarum was written by an anonymous writer in the same decades as Antiquitates, and it gives a very militant picture of Joshua. That is not all, but we now have some fragments of a work or works be­ longing to writings concerning Joshua. The fragmentary Apocryphon of Joshua (4Q378-4Q379), a text written in the late second or early first century BC and perhaps outside the commu­ nity of Qumran, contains a version of the crossing of the Jordan. Unfor­ tunately the lines in 4Q379,4-13 cannot be read any more. Talmon has now published a fragment from the same or a similar text, and it is strik­ ing that the text was found precisely in Masada. According to Talmon it attests that the last Jewish rebels expected a repetition of the conquest. Also, Sib. Or. 5:256-259, the work apparently written in Egypt between 70-115 A D , tells that a man is coming, "the best of the Hebrews, who will one day cause the sun to stand, speaking with fair speech and holy lips." There is no agreement among the scholars as to whether these words are entirely a Christian interpolation or not. If they are not, they are clear evidence for the thought about an eschatological sign combined with the ancient miracle of Joshua. We can conclude that such expectations were certainly alive in Qumran as well as in Masada, possibly also in Egypt, where Jonathan was able to collect the crowd in the desert after the fall of Jerusalem. Mishna and Tosefta deal very rarely with miracles made by people who lived after biblical times. Moreover, this tradition was also generally re­ served regarding miracles made by biblical heroes. The mighty deeds of a man were not a favourite theme of the early rabbis. Elijah's or Elisha's miracles first gain importance in the later stage of the tradition. However, 111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

111

See above p. 26-30. Berger 1981,282. See above p. 203-206. N e w s o m 1996, 36-37. S e e N e w s o m 1996,61-66. The text in Talmon 1996, 128-139. Talmon 1996, 137-139. On the contacts between Qumran and the sicarii, see also Hengel 1989b, 401-402. Collins 2000,142-143. See Merkel 1998, 1126 and Schreiber 2000, 266-267. Seep, above p. 158. 112

113

114

115

116

1 1 7

118

119

120

253

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

there are some important exceptions. The miracles of Moses were some­ times retold without any reservation, and although Mishna does not refer to the miracles of Joshua, Tosefta contains an enthusiastic presentation of the crossing of the Jordan: The flow of the river was not really reduced, but the water stopped by God rose so high that the enemies of the people lost their courage (t. Sot. 3). The stones carried by the elders of the tribes weighed 40 seahs (about 400 kg) each. After the people had crossed the Jordan, the Holy Ark carried itself and the people carrying it over the river it. Sot. 8:6). It is an interesting feature of the story that the hornets looked at the events from a distance, and although they did not follow the people they spat poison after them. According to Becker the few miracles told by the early rabbis are the result of a well considered selection: They be­ long to the glorious past shaping the identity of the nation. Joshua be­ longed to this "identitatsstiftende Vergangenheit". The tradition traced above highlights Josephus' own stories about the men who wanted to repeat the miracles made by Joshua. Theudas, men­ tioned also in Acts 5:36, was the first of them: 122

123

124

"During the period when Fadus was procurator of Judaea, a certain impostor named Theudas persuaded the majority of the masses to take up their possessions and to follow him to the Jordan River. He stated that he was a prophet and that at his command the river would be parted and would provide them an easy passage. With this talk he de­ ceived many. Fadus, however, did not permit them to reap the fruit of their folly, but sent against them a squadron of cavalry. These fell upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them and took many prisoners. Theudas himself was captured, whereupon they cut off his head and brought it to Jerusalem" (Ant. 20,98).

An Egyptian Jew

125

also combined the miracles with revolt:

"For he asserted that he wished to demonstrate from there that at his command Jerusa­ lem's walls would fall down, through which he promised to provide them an entrance into the city. When Felix heard of this he ordered his soldier to take up their arms. Set­ ting out from Jerusalem with a large force of cavalry and infantry, he fell upon the Egyp­ tian and his followers, slaying four hundred of them and taking two hundred prisoners" (Ant. 20,170-171).

121

Becker 2002, 271-289. On the hornets (cf. Exod 23:28; Deut 7:20; Jos 24:12), see Bietenhard 1986, 190191. Philo also points to them; see QE 2, 24. Becker 2002, 211. On Theudas, see Horsley and Hanson 1985, 164-167; Pesch 1986,1,218-219; Hemer 1989, 162-163.224-225; Hengel 1989b, 229-230; Gray 1993, 114-116; Schwemer 1995, 277; Lichtenberger 1998, 18; Jervell 1998, 210; Gabba 1999, 143; Schreiber 2000, 293294. On the Egyptian, see Horsley and Hanson 1985, 167-170; Pesch 1986,2,231-232; Hengel 1989b, 231-232; Gray 1993, 116-118; Kollmann 1996, 145-146; Lichtenberger 1998, 19; Gabba 1999, 145; Schreiber 2000, 291-292. 122

123

124

125

P. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

254

It is obvious that these men really wanted to legitimate their political mis­ sion with a miracle similar to Joshua's in the Scriptures. It is unnecessary to quarrel about whether they wanted to be Moses redivivus or Josua redivivus, because the traditions about several biblical miracle-workers had grown together. Nevertheless, according to Josephus himself, they wanted to repeat the biblical miracles and thus legitimate themselves as leaders of Israel. Joshua belonged to the glorious past of the people and he was always present. 126

The political Joshua is thus well attested in early Jewish tradition. A study of the ancient texts often leads one to ask whether an idea or a tradition was strong enough to influence a writer or not. It does not matter whether or not these men wanted to imitate the biblical Joshua and to repeat his miracles. It is enough to see that Josephus himself claims it and that he tells about the expectations that Jordan would part before Theudas and that the walls would fall before the Egyptian. We undoubtedly have here the key to understanding Josephus' depiction of Joshua. There is no reason to believe that Josephus, out of respect for his culti­ vated audience, diminished Joshua's miracles, since he also included mira­ cles made by Moses and other biblical figures. He had other reasons not to glorify the militant and miracle-working Joshua. A bias generally assumed is that he tried to distinguish between religion and revolt. In some circles the bias was the opposite, as seen above: to repeat the miracles of the an­ cient heroes, which once had manifested that they were sent by God the Almighty. Josephus' desire to separate religion from rebellion seems to be the reason why Josephus mentions Joshua's miracles only briefly. He still retells the miracles, however, and says that Joshua was S i d S o x o s Mcouarj ev Trpo(|>r)Teiais. He has by no means consistently removed everything miraculous, but it is understandable that his passages on Joshua do not show the enthusiasm seen in Ben Sira, and especially in L.A.B. and the fragmentary texts quoted above. 127

126

Barnett (1981, 681) sees in Theudas Moses and possibly also Joshua; Lichtenberger (1998, 18) mentions both; Horsley and Hanson (1985, 166) consider the influence of the biblical Elijah and Elisha and so does Aune (1983, 127). The Egyptian is more like Joshua (Hengel 1989b, 231; Horsley and Hanson 1985, 169), but because he came from the desert it is unnecessary to exclude Moses, especially when Deut 18:18 led people to expect "a prophet like Moses". See above p. 230-231. 127

255

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

d. Samson Josephus is one of the few early Jewish writers who has left us a passage dealing with the miracles of Samson. Although there are not many of these writers, we have reason to believe that his memory was preserved in a strong tradition. This makes Josephus' depiction very interesting. He has written on Samson extensively. In his text, the space given to Sam­ son is 88% or 89% of the space given to him in the two Septuagint ver­ sions, while Moses has 83% and Joshua only 4 7 % . It shows that Josephus found Samson very interesting. Yet, it should be noted that the short presentation of Samson in the Scripture is not expanded and his role in Josephus should not be exaggerated. 128

129

130

131

On a comparison between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint concerning the stories about Samson, see above p. 216.

The story about the miraculous birth is retold vividly and with new details (Ant. 5,276-285). Unlike LXX, where the enemies are called aAA6(|>uAoi (version A ) , Josephus calls them TTaXaiaxivoi (Ant. 5,278). Samson's father Manoah is now "among the most notable of the Danites" and his mother "pre-eminent among the women of her time" (Ant. 5,276). Manoah's love for his wife is underlined strongly (jjavicoSris UTT e p c o T O S , Ant. 5,277) and jealousy towards the "comely and tall youth" awak­ ens a quarrel before Manoah understands that the man is God's angel. The angel touches the meat with his rod as in L.A.B. (L.A.B. 42,9) and smoke carries him to heaven as a chariot (Ant. 5,284). The entire story is told very freely, not in comparison with, for example, Pseudo-Philo's Liber antiqui­ tatum biblicarum, which contains a parallel and dramatized version of the biblical original (L.A.B. 42), but with, for example, the stories about Elijah in Josephus. Josephus adds several new features to the meeting be­ tween the angel and Manoah (Ant. 5,280-284). Samson grows up, and his food as well as his hair prove him to be a prophet (5f]Aos ify Trpo<J>r|Teuacov, Ant. 5,287). Josephus apparently only replaces the word va£ipoc?ov in Judg 13:7. He kills the lion as in Judg 132

133

134

135

128

See above p. 216-218. On L.A.B., see above p. 216-218. On Samson in Josephus, see Feldman 1998b, 461-489. See Feldman 1998a, 80. 461. On the Philistines in the Septuagint, see Siegert 2000, 214. See above p. 216. An interesting and nonbiblical detail is that the angel touches the meat with his rod and a fire blazes out (Ant. 5,284). The same detail is in L.A.B. 42,9. Feldman (1998a, 483) gives a deeper interpretation to the word, noting that Josephus may be ascribing to him the four traditional characteristics of a prophet as stated in the Talmud, namely physical strength, wealth, wisdom and humility. 129

130

131

1 3 2

133

1 3 4

135

256

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

14,5-6 (Ant. 5,287), but does not give the honey to his parents but to the girl (Ant. 5,287). He takes the garments of the Ascalonites, although Josephus does not say that Samson killed them (Judg 14:19; Ant. 5,294), and slays many of the Philistines (Judg 15:8; Ant. 5,297). He bursts his bonds asunder and kills a thousand Philistines in the fight (Judg 15:14-15; Ant. 5,300). Persecuted by the Philistines in Gaza, he takes the gates and carries them to the mountain above Hebron (Judg 16:1-3; Ant. 5,304305). Delilah binds him with seven vine-shoots still flexible - not with thongs as in Judg 16:8 (LXX ETTTCX veupas u y p a s ) - and seven cords weaving his locks into a web (Ant. 5,309-312). Samson loses his power, but retrieves it, and kills as many as 3,000 when he dies. Dagon is not mentioned in the story (Judg 16:26-30; Ant. 5,316). Almost everything is thus retold very faithfully according to the biblical original. However, a detailed study makes it clear that something very im­ portant has been removed. A crucial feature of Samson's depiction in Judges is that the man was filled with the Spirit, which gave him the su­ perhuman power to make him invincible. In Josephus' redaction this fea­ ture is totally removed. According to Judg 13:25 "the Spirit of the Lord began to stir him", but Josephus has omitted the verse. Spirit is not men­ tioned when Samson kills the lion (Judg 14:6: "The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power so that he tore the lion apart", cf. Ant. 5,287). Judg 14:19 and 15:14 tell about the battles against the Philistines: "The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power", but again Josephus has omit­ ted this, although he retells the fights (Ant. 5,300). Samson is as strong as Hercules, but he is by no means a leader filled with the Spirit. Actually, according to Levison, in retelling the Book of Judges, Josephus omits all references to the divine spirit. If something has been omitted, something new has been added. Josephus tells that Samson was filled with pride after his fantastic victory and forgot that he had done everything with God's help. That was the reason that God punished him with thirst, until he prayed to God, who gave him water from a rock (Ant. 5,301-303). The pride of the hero does not occur in Judges, but had to be added to it. Samson's life, however, displayed offered other traits, which could be morally criticised. Delilah binds the drunken man, who had forgotten the rules given to him (Ant. 5,309). In Josephus, Samson does not sleep in the house of a prostitute in Gaza but in "one of 137

138

139

136

The story is told very briefly, in a reserved rather than a proud way; cf. De Sampsone 27-28. Josephus has preserved Hebron and the distance of 40 miles. Cf. L.A.B. 43,2-3. Levison 1996, 253. MEQUOVTCC; some manuscripts read Ka0eu5ovTa and the Latin text has dormientem: They apparently follow the biblical original. 137

138

1 3 9

257

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

the inns" ( K a x a y c o y i o v , Ant. 5,304). Yet even after this revision Samson's morals could not serve as a model (Delilah is called £Taipi£ojj£vr|). He had learned to "transgress the laws of his forefathers and debase his own rule of life by the imitation of foreign usages" (Ant. 5,306). Josephus thus summarises his life, noting his virtues and vices: 14()

"And it is but right to admire the man for his valour, his strength, and the grandeur of his end, and also for the wrath which he cherished to the last against his enemies. That he let himself be ensnared by a woman must be imputed to human nature which succumbs to sins: but testimony is due to him for his surpassing excellence in all the rest" (Ant. 5,317). 141

In addition to Liber antiquitatum biblicarum and the rabbinic sources the closest parallel is the sermon De Sampsone mentioned and quoted above. The text, which is roughly contemporary with Josephus' works and written apparently in Egypt, deals vividly with Samson's virtues and vices. Some sentences reveal that the preacher was not the only one trying to explain why the man of God could fall, and consequently be taken by the Philistines. They found several reasons for Samson's destiny. Interest­ ingly enough, the problem is how the man, filled with the Spirit of the Lord as he was, could fall to sin ("Some of the wise men say ... but the others say", De Sampsone 23-24). The answer in the sermon is that Sam­ son had got one sort of spirit, but not another: He had got the spirit of physical power, but not the spirit of righteousness, and that was the reason why his soul lacked power and fell to sin (esp. De Sampsone 20 and 24). He sinned and lost his physical power. Satan, the invisible barber, could cut his hair and take his power (De Sampsone 1). The point of the sermon is that a man has to keep his task clearly in mind and fight against sin; oth­ erwise God abandons him, although not totally as he did not leave Samson but helped him. 142

143

It is now easy to understand the redaction of the stories. Two main lines should be noted. Josephus has consequently removed all passages telling about the Spirit of the Lord, and the reason is obvious. His depiction of Joshua implies that 140

Feldman sees here an attempt to protect Samson from criticism: Delilah is not TTopvri as in LXX, but a courtesan, ETCUpiCoue'vri; Feldman 1998a, 480. This is perhaps true, because in Josephus' version Rahab is not a prostitute (Ant. 5,7; see Thackeray and Marcus 1934, 165). Nevertheless, Samson is not exempted from moral criticism. Mishna and Tosefta do not mention Samson. In the later rabbinic tradition he was often strongly criticised (see Feldman 1998a, 467-472). See above p. 216. The content alone can help date the sermon. Siegert plausibly argues that it is writ­ ten in Alexandria between the first century BC and second century AD, presumably in the middle of this period; see Siegert 1992, 40-52. 141

142

143

258

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

the political side of the man was unpleasant to him, and the same is obvi­ ous in Samson's life. He might be a strong man and a hero, but the Spirit of the Lord plays no role in his life. Pseudo-Philo's Liber antiquitatum biblicarum shows how the thought about spirit-filled leadership was pre­ sent in early Judaism during these decades. Precisely that is the profile of Samson in Judges. In Josephus' view it was something to be consistently removed. The biblical Samson could be a dangerous model for people ea­ ger to fight against the enemies. The man at Vespasian's court had learned his lesson. The biblical heroes were not far enough removed from the life of Jews in Josephus' time. They could not be left untouched, but they had to be refigured. Their presence in early Judaism resulted in a quarrel about the heritage, and Josephus' reduction of the spirit-filled leadership is a part of this quarrel. Another side of the redaction is ethical teaching. As in De Sampsone and in the rabbinic texts, Samson is partly a negative exemplum. The sermon shows clearly that the miracle stories were used in ethical instruction. The best example of such a writer is Philo (although his works do not mention Samson) and the anonymous writer of De Sampsone, but also Josephus is aware of this tradition and is a part of it. A third bias proposed should be dealt with much more cautiously. Ac­ cording to Feldman, Josephus presents Samson as an Israelite Achill and Hercules. Achill's [sf\v\s is the subject of Ilias and Josephus has allegedly added opyrj to Samson's behaviour (Judg 15:15; Ant. 5,300). As tempt­ ing as it is to think that Samson, like Achill, allowed the wrath caused by a woman to determine his behaviour, there is not enough evidence in Josephus to support this view. Josephus does not himself compare Samson with Achill explicitly and the passages emphasized by Feldman are not sufficient evidence. Samson's wrath against the enemies is not rebuked but praised in the encomium (Ant. 5,317), but Achill's \IT\V\S leads him and his friend to a bitter end, and is strongly rebuked in Iliad 9. However, the ser­ mon mentioned above contains some new elements, presumably originat­ ing from the stories about Achill and Hercules: Samson is as invulnerable as Achill (De Sampsone 19), and his fight with the lion is retold with new details (De Sampsone 27-28), which can be traced to stories about Hercu­ les. The exceptional freedom Josephus takes when describing Samson's birth shows that he is well aware of the Jewish tradition, which mixed the Jewish and Greek elements. 144

145

146

147

See above chapter 6. See Feldman 1998a, 486-488. Feldman 1998b, 471-472. On the reputation of Hercules among the pagan philosophers, see Tiede 1972, 71100. On the similarities with the stories about Hercules, see Siegert 1992, 269-272. 145

146

147

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

259

e. Solomon 148

Solomon and his wisdom take a prominent position in Against Apion, in which Josephus refers more to Solomon and his wisdom than to any other biblical figure except Moses. In this work he appears as Josephus' star witness to disprove the view that the Jews had produced no wise men. Also, in Antiquitates Iudaicae Solomon is given notably more space than the LXX original would give reason to assume: 160% in comparison to 1 Kgs and 138% in comparison to 2 Kgs - 1 Chr. He has thus a clearly greater role than Moses (87%) and Joshua (47%), presented above. Josephus tells no miracles made by Solomon himself. However, he praises his wisdom and combines it with exorcisms: 149

150

151

152

"Now so great was the prudence and wisdom which God created Solomon that he sur­ passed the ancients, and even the Egyptians, who are said to excel all men in understand­ ing, were not only, when compared with him, a little inferior but proved to fall far short of the king in sagacity. He also surpassed and excelled in wisdom those who in his own time had a reputation for cleverness among the Hebrews, and whose names I shall not omit; they were Athanos and Haimanos and Chalkeos and Dardanos, sons of Hemaon. He also composed a thousand and five books of odes and songs, and three thousand books of parables and similitudes, for he spoke a parable about every kind of tree from the hyssop to the cedar, and in like manner about domesticated animals and all other kinds of living creatures and those that swim and those that fly. There was no form of nature with which he was not acquainted or which he passed over without examining, but he studied them all philosophically and revealed the most complete knowledge of their several properties. And God granted him knowledge of the art used against demons for the bene­ fit and healing of men. He also composed incantations by which illnesses are relieved, and left behind forms of exorcisms with which those possessed by demons drive them out, never to return" (Ant. 8,42-45). 153

The exorcisms, incantations and healings are thus combined expressis ver­ bis with Solomon. Josephus goes on telling about an exorcism made in the presence of Vespasian, his sons, tribunes and a number of other soldiers. A 148

Solomon in Josephus is studied by Feldman (1976, 69-98; 1998a, 570-628) and byDuling in a very good article (1985, 1-25). Feldman 1998a, 575. Feldman 1998a, 579. See Feldman 1998a, 80. Josephus retells very briefly the story about David helping Saul with his music: "When he came, Saul was delighted with him, made him his armour-bearer and held him in the highest honour, for his illness was charmed away spirits, whensoever they assailed him (Kai Ttpos Trjv CCTTO TCOV Saipovicov Tccpaxriv, OTTOTE CCUTG? TCXUTO: TrpoosA0oi, he had no other physician (ictTpos) than David, who, by singing his songs and playing upon the harp, restored Saul to himself (Ant. 6,168, cf. 1 Sam 16:14-23). The translation of Thackeray and Marcus (1934, 595), corrected by Duling (1985, 18-19): The text does not read "birds" but Trepi KTnvcov; however, Solomon also wrote (TTgpi) aepicov (Ant. 8,44). 149

1 5 0

151

152

153

260

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

certain Eleazar had thrown out a demon with the methods taught by Solo­ mon: "He put to the nose of the possessed man a ring which had under its seal one of the roots prescribed by Solomon, and then, as the man smelled it, drew out the demon through his nostrils, and, when the man at once fell down, adjured the demon never to come back into him, speaking Solomon's name and reciting the incantations which he had com­ posed. Then wishing to convince the bystanders and prove to them that he had this power, Eleazar placed a cup or footbasin full of water a little way off and commanded the demon, as it went out of the man, to overturn it and make known to the spectators that he had left the man. And when this was done, the understanding and wisdom of Solomon were clearly revealed, on account of which we have been induced to speak of these things, in order that all men may know the greatness of his nature and how God favoured him, and that no one under the sun may be ignorant of the king's surpassing virtue of every kind" (Ant. 8,47-49).

Josephus is no longer the first writer known to us connecting Solomon di­ rectly with exorcisms. He follows a strong tradition, which can be traced to before and, especially, soon after him, and the new sources help us to trace the history of the tradition. Solomon was considered a great magician in later Jewish, Christian and Moslem magic. He does not have this reputation in the Old Testament, but 1 Kgs 4:29-34 opens a door for this reprojection. Moreover, 1 Kgs 5:9-14 underlines his encyclopaedic wisdom as typical for the later magicians, and his psalms (LXX coSccf) were appar­ ently sometimes regarded as magical ETTCOSOCI. In any case, Solomon soon had a new reputation, which is attested in the archaeological evi­ dence, as well as in Wis 7:16-21. The text, written perhaps in the first century BC and perhaps in Egypt, praises the wisdom of the king. Al­ though no miracles are mentioned, the meaning is clearly implied. Solo­ mon not only knows the "structure of the world and the activity of the ele­ ments" and "constellations of the stars", but also "the natures of animals and the tempers of wild animals, the powers of spirits and the thoughts of human beings, the varieties of plants and the virtues of roots." This means that the main parts of the later picture are present. The later depictions combine great knowledge with encyclopaedic wisdom. Early on, noDn included several kinds of abilities. Moreover, the cosmological knowl­ edge gives him the power over the demons and, consequently, also over 154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

154

On H Q l l , s e e a b o v e p . 220. See esp. Preisendanz 1956; also Schurer 3.1. (1986), 377. See Duling 1992, 118. See Preisendanz 1956, Stemberger 1998, 727-729 and Alexander 1999, 1076-1078. Collins 2000a, 195. According to Georgi (1980, 426) the work was already written in the late second century and cannot be localised. See Georgi 1980, 426. See Muller 1980, 376-378. On demonology in early Israel, see Maier 1976a, 579-585; in Hellenistic Judaism, 155

1 5 6

157

158

159

1 6 0

161

261

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

various diseases. "Solomon" is the great expert of this kind of wisdom and the tradition also passes it on to his followers. The esoteric wisdom of the king is well attested, but 11Q11, cited above, shows that it led to exorcisms long before Josephus. Four texts, all roughly contemporary with him, attest the tradition. In L.A.B. 60 and 11Q11 Solo­ mon is undoubtedly alluded to as the coming master of demons. 2 Bar. 77:25 does not mention the demons, but it mentions wisdom, and the work lists several events in which God sent birds to help man. It also includes a story not occurring in the Old Testament: 162

"Also Solomon, in the time of his kingship, commanded a bird whither he wanted to send a letter and in whatever he was in need of and it obeyed him as he commanded i f (2 Bar. 77:25). 163

The Apocalypse of Adam demons:

reveals that Solomon could also make use of

"Solomon also sent his army of demons to seek the virgin" (Apoc. Adam 7:13).

164

All these texts clearly show the course of history: The wise man, the expert in nature, also became lord over the demons. This is also obvious in an­ other work, The Testament of Solomon, which is problematic in many ways. It may have been written in the early third century AD or even later, and it is not clear whether it was written by a Jew or a Christian. However, it contains older material, possibly from the first century A D . The text is explicit about Solomon's apotropaic technique. He rules the demons (T Sol. 1:1-13), even Beelzeboul (T. Sol. 3:1-5) with his ring. The text names the most important demons and describe their character, and gives the names of the angels controlling them, as well as the suitable apotropaic technique to be used against them. The text is late, but it contains much material compatible with Josephus' text. 165

It is easy to understand the side of Solomon portrayed by Josephus. In leg­ endary wisdom, Solomon does not compete with Greeks such as Socrates or Plato, but his wisdom surpasses "even the Egyptians." The words may not be a glimpse from Herodotus (2,121), but they reveal an important 166

Maier 1976b, 626-640; in the rabbinic writings, see Maier 1976c, 668-688. See above p. 219-220. The text from Nag Hammadi is difficult to date, but it may be from the first or sec­ ond century AD. It is not necessarily influenced by the New Testament and may contain older material (MacRae 1983, 708). Solomon is mentioned twice in conjunction with demons in the rest of the texts from Nag Hammadi {Orig. World 2,5 106-107; Gos. Truth 9,3 70). The manuscripts are writ­ ten in the early fourth century, but the works are older. Duling 1992, 117-119. Cf. Feldman 1998a, 584. 162

163

164

165

1 6 6

262

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

component in the history of religion. The Egyptian religion was ridiculed by the Greeks and Romans and, as other Jews, Josephus laughed with them. Now, however, Josephus does not speak about the worship of animals among the Egyptians, but about the wisdom he wants the Jews to compete with and excel in. It is the esoteric wisdom covering the knowl­ edge of herbs, as well as the power over demons. The Egyptians were ex­ perts in this kind of wisdom, as Josephus himself attests when telling that an Egyptian scribe prophesied Moses' birth. For certain reasons, and especially because of his universal wisdom praised in the Old Testament, Solomon became the hero through whom Mediterranean magic became part of the Hebrew heritage. A closer look at the passage on Solomon emphasizes the role of herbs and roots. The root mentioned in the exorcism performed by Eleazar was cer­ tainly Baaras, described accurately elsewhere in Josephus' production. Baaras was grown in hidden places, and picking it could be fatal, but if taken it was very effective. We have studied several Jewish texts showing a great interest in demonology. The Book of Jubilees closely links demonology with cosmology and the same bias is well known from Qumran. L.A.B. shows what an impor­ tant factor the war between the good and evil powers was. The depiction of Solomon and his wisdom undoubtedly shows that Josephus belongs to this tradition of the world of demons, apotropaic incantations and healings. In his writings medicine is not isolated from magic, but God is also the great healer. This view of Solomon and his wisdom is clearly the subject of pride for Josephus. It is thus hard to accept or even understand Feldman's view presented in his article in 1976 and mainly repeated in 1998, in which he notes that Josephus' main bias was to minimise the miraculous traits, both generally and in terms of Solomon: 167

168

169

170

171

172

173

1 7

"Quis nescit, Volusi Bithynice, qualia demens/ Aegyptos portenta colat? crocodila adorat /pars haec, ilia pavet saturam serpentibus ibin" Iuv. 15,1-2; see also 3-8. Weber (2000, 69) quotes several classical texts, namely Herodot. 2,46; Diod. 1,83-86; Strab. 16,2,35-39; Plut. Isis and Osiris 71; Lucian, Im. 11; Philostr. VA 6,19; Cic. nat. 1,36. Augustine (civ. 2,22) shows that the critique was commonplace in the ancient world. Josephus c. Ap. 1,225; 2,66. 81- 86.139. See above p. 233. Josephus describes Baaras extensively in B.J. 7,180-185 and tells in B.J. 2,136 that the Essenes used not only powerful roots but also stones. The roots and / or plants are also mentioned in Jub. 10:11-14 and 2 En. 7:1. Lange (1997, 348), unlike Alexander (1999, 347-348), rejects Josephus' testimony that herbal medicine was used in Qumran. See above p. 57. On Ben Sira, see above p. 20, on Jub. see p. 51; on Liv. Pro. see p. 180. Josephus had no problems using the help of physicians; see Vita 404. "In general Josephus attempts to tone down the miraculous and supernatural element of his narrative, since he apparently thought that such details might appear incredible to 168

1 6 9

1 7 0

171

172

173

263

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

"As in other portions of the Solomon pericope, Josephus avoids details that would seem incredible to the sophisticated reader here." 174

Feldman combines Solomon's universal wisdom in Josephus with the love of philosophy among the audience of the author. This is true if the word 'philosophy' points in a direction totally different from that of, for exam­ ple, in Philo's texts. Philo shows little interest in esoteric wisdom, but knows the tradition of classical Greek philosophy extremely well. Jose­ phus, on the contrary, as observed very clearly by Duling, makes Solo­ mon an expert in syncretistic wisdom and magical practices, and places Solomon among the best of the experts, even superior to the famous Egyp­ tians. Feldman overlooks the role of the roots and actually speaks very little about magic in Solomon's description. It is very problematic to claim, as Feldman does, that Josephus consequently tries to tone down the miraculous traits of his heroes, including Solomon, because he chooses to tell about an exorcism done by Solomon's followers. It would have been easy for Josephus to overlook all of Solomon's magical skills, because the Old Testament gives little or no evidence for that kind of interpretation, yet Josephus did not want to do this. The great encyclopaedic wisdom also included the power over demons, and magical practices. Josephus did not write for a sceptical audience. All levels of the Greek and Roman societies had a vivid interest in one type of magic and deeply hated another - how­ ever, it generally seems to have been very difficult to distinguish between 175

176

177

178

i

179

these two. One detail seems to be worth noting. The Old Testament tells that the king ended his life in idolatry (1 Kgs 11:4-10), and Josephus does not omit the Greek reader" (1976, 91). Feldman 1998a, 585. Feldman 1976, 87 Duling 1985, 18-23. Feldman sees in Solomon the traits of Oedipus as shown in Sophocles' two plays, Oedipus the King and Oedipus at Colonus (1998a, 579-586; 593-594). However, the evidence for this is scarce and very general. Feldman finds the details Josephus avoids in the later rabbinic tradition (1998, 585586). However, to say that Josephus has avoided some details one must prove that he knew them; Feldman does not date his sources. There is no evidence that Josephus has excluded here some part of the tradition. On the contrary, he has freely chosen to add an exorcism to the biblical presentation. Duling correctly notes the fact and supposes that the difficulty already existed in the first century BC (1985, 23-25). However, the magical love rite used by Theocritus in his second idyll (reworked in Vergil eel 8,64-109) attests that it was not impossible for a cultivated Greek poet to write about magic. It certainly influenced the Hellenized circles in Rome before the first century. The attitude was ambivalent: One type of magic is criminal, while another is interesting, and it was difficult to draw the line. On such views in Philo, see above p. 114. 174

175

176

177

178

179

264

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

this, the reason being that he perhaps only followed the Old Testament presentation, or that he rejected intermarriage (Ant. 8,211). However, The Testament of Solomon, which generally does not follow the Old Tes­ tament original at all, also tells that Solomon fell to idolatry and that the spirit of God departed from him. 180

"As a result I, wretched man that I am, carried out her advice and the glory of God com­ pletely departed from me: my spirit was darkened and I became a laughingstock to the idols and demons" (T Sol. 26).

Actually, the warning in the last chapter of the Testament is given as a rea­ son why "Solomon" wrote his book. Both Josephus and the Testament of Solomon have thus preserved the unfortunate demise of the king, and the reason is hardly of historical interest any longer. Does this perhaps reveal a broader tradition in early Judaism? Solomon is presented as a great man with universal wisdom and supreme power over demons. At the same time, every follower of his wisdom was warned of the danger of idolatry in­ volved in this kind of knowledge.

/ Elijah Also, Josephus' redaction of the biblical material relating to Elijah has recently been studied by Feldman, first in an article (1994) and then in his book, essentially repeating the view presented in the article. The main line here is also that Josephus has observed his audience and toned down all miraculous events, especially the violent fervour of the prophet. Thus the miracles of the prophet have been one of the main themes of the dis181

182

cussion. It is not possible to treat here the vast material on Elijah's miracles in LXX in as much detail as the shorter passages above, but every significant feature is observed. In 1 Kgs 17:1-6 the Hebrew text has zrun -iem on ?! -ipD3 iizm on ? in v. 17:6, but Septuagint only d'pTous* T O TTpcoi Kai Kpea T O SeiArjs. In 1 Kgs 17:7-16 the widow has only one child in the Hebrew text (v. 17:12 ^ i ) , but in the Septuagint several (Kai T O T S T B K V O I S Mou). In 1 Kgs 17:17-24 the Hebrew text has n o m ("stretched himself out on" in v. 17:21, but LXX has 6V6uarja6v, "breathed upon". In 1 Kgs 18:1-15 the Hebrew text has irra'n in v. 18:7, but LXX IOTTSUOEV. In v. 18:10 the Hebrew text has iT3e?m, but LXX eveirprjoev 1

1 8 0

1

Feldman (1998a, 570) notes that Josephus himself was descended from the Hasmonean kings, that the line of David was a rival to them and that David was identified as the ancestor of the anticipated militant messiah. This is perhaps one of the reasons why Josephus does not omit the criticism. On intermarriage in early Judaism, see Sanders 1994, 266. Feldman 1998b, 291-306. On Elijah in Josephus, see O. Betz 1987, 219-220; Feldman 1994, 61-86 and 1998b, 291-306. 181

1 8 2

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

265

("set fire"). In v. 18:12 LXX omits the words "[rcar *HR\. In 1 Kgs 18:16-45 Baal's name is sometimes removed 0?ion nrm, but T O U S Trpo^rJTas T T J S aioxuvrjS in v. 18:19 cf. 18:25), but, for example, not in 18:18 and 18:21. The unclear D'sron is translated 'lyvuais in v. 18:21. In v. 18:22 LXX repeats the prophets of Asherah. LXX adds in v. 18:24 B B\(XXT]0(XS and in 18:26 STTCCKOUCJOV fjucov. In verse 18:27 the Hebrew text is 1TB T> " p r n D T V? reroi, but the Greek cxSoAeoxia OUTCO e a n v Kai a p a prJTTOTe xpriMaTi'£ei a u T o s . LXX adds Kai eAdAnaev HAiou 6 ©eoPiTrjs T r p o s T O U S TTpo<j>TiTas TCOV TrpoaoxBiaMccTcov Aeycov MeTaoTriTe OTTO T O U V U V Kai 'eyco Troirjaco T O oAoKauTcopa' p o u in 18:29, and omits nmon m^m in v. 18:36. In v. 18:36 the Hebrew text has "["•"•im, but LXX Kai 5ia oe. Ahab's reaction is different in the two versions: ns-n, but Kai EKACUEV (18:45). In 1 Kgs 19:1-21 the formula of oath is markedly different in v. 19:2 :]W HDI D'rfrK ptDir-ra, but E'I o u e! HAiou Kai eyco le£a(3eA, TccSe iroirjaai p o i 6 0e6s Kai Ta'Se TTpooSeir]. A major alteration is that "jtfpo is replaced with T I S in v. 19:5, but mn ""|«'?D is translated ayyeAos Kupiou in v. 19:7: All in all, the result o f the altera­ tion is that the angel does not touch Elijah. LXX adds KOKST Kiipios in verse 19:12. mrr ? m»ax THIK is translated TCO K u p i c o TtavTOKpcfTopi in v. 19:14. The agent is changed in v. 19:18 (-rntram, but Kai KaTaAeivpeis). LXX omits n« 7i in v. 19:20. inrnen in v. 19:21 is translated eAeiToupyei. It does not seem t o be possible to trace any significant bias in Elijah's miracles in 1 Kings, and the stories with Elijah and Elisha together in 2 Kings (see below p. 272), are translated even more literally 183

,

1

,

l

Josephus has given Elijah a large role in his work. Feldman again com­ pares the text of Josephus to the one in LXX, the result being that Elijah is given 96% of the space LXX gives him, while Moses is given 83%, Joshua 47% and Elisha 72%. Elijah thus gets a prominent position among the miracle-working biblical heroes. As 1 Kgs 17:1-6 Josephus also tells how Elijah prophecies the drought, withdraws to the desert and is fed by ravens. The biblical original specifies the bread and meat, but Josephus writes only Tpoc|>r|V auTco KA0' fipepcxv KopaKes Trpoo6(|)6pov (Ant. 8,319). The widow gives him a room and bread, and miraculously gets food every day (1 Kgs 17:7-16, Ant. 8,320323). A new feature is Josephus' citation o f the historian Menander o f Ephesus, who mentions the drought (Ant. 8,324). The story o f the widow's son falling ill is told as in 1 Kgs 17:17-24 with small alterations: the mourning o f the widow is dramatized, and the death o f the son is not obvious at the beginning of the story (KaTaTreaovTOs e'is vdaov, cos Kai xrjv V|AJXI]V a ^ e T v a i Kai 5o£;ai VEKpov); however, it is clear later that the son is dead (Ant. 8,325-327). The story deviates from 184

185

186

187

183

184

185

186

On these changes generally in LXX, see Siegert 2000, 211-212. Feldman 1998a, 80-81. Noted as a rationalisation by Feldman 1998b, 298. Josephus interestingly has a singular T S K V C O , as in the Hebrew text, not the plural as

in LXX 187

TSKVOIS.

That the child "seemed" to be dead is noted as a rationalisation by Feldman; how­ ever, he seems to be selective in his argumentation, because he overlooks the words

266

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

the biblical original, because the prophet knows in advance that the son will live again (Ant. 8,326). The technique of resuscitation is not given in all details, but the subject of the story is obviously God (avs(3(coas). We might say that an MNP is thus interpreted as a PNP. Finally, Elijah meets Ahab. Josephus underlines that the prophet is not at all afraid of the king's anger (b 5' ou5ev UTroBcoTreuaas C C U T O V , Ant. 8,335). This is faithful to the biblical original, but the courage of a phi­ losopher facing tyrants was also commonplace in the Graeco-Roman tradi­ tion. Elijah calls the prophets of foreign gods (not of Baal as in the original, although in Ant. 8,318) to Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 18:1-19; Ant. 8,328-337). The events follow the biblical original faithfully. However, the crowd steps near to the altar to make sure that he does not secretly set the wood on fire, the jars are filled only once and not three times, and it is not Elijah but the crowd who kills the prophets (1 Kgs 18:16-45; Ant. 8,338-346). Josephus adds that the people understood that there was only one God and that the "others were mere names invented by unworthy and senseless opinion" (Ant. 8,343). Baal's name is consistently removed and replaced, for example, with £ e V I K O I 0eo( in Ant. 8,335; 338. The story is thus stripped of the ancient controversy between Baal and the Lord, updated for Josephus' own time and translated into a language understandable to everybody. It is not Jose­ phus' own innovation; he follows the Septuagint. The story is thus not only contemporized but also adapted. Another interesting point is that in Jose­ phus' version Elijah tells the people to kill the prophets, although he does not kill them himself (1 Kgs 18:40; Ant. 8,343). Josephus thus obviously sees no problem in punishing the Israelites serving foreign gods. He of­ fers an interesting parallel, when Jehu also kills Baal's prophets: In an ex­ tra-biblical addition all non-Israelites are removed from the crowd before Jehu reveals his real intention and kills the crowd (Ant. 9,136). Josephus 188

189

190

191

192

193

rrjv vpuxrjv EioTTS|jv|/ai TTCXAIV TOO Trai5i Kai trapaoxeTv auxco T O V P i d v iraoav TrpoaSoKiav ave(3icGae. The words of Obedias are worth noting: 1 Kgs 18:12 speaks about the Spirit of the Lord carrying Elijah away, but Josephus has replaced this with theophany: prj T O U 0eou r|v Kai ii5cop, Ant 8,349). Moreover, he does not tell that Elijah could travel forty days and forty nights strengthened by that food. Elijah does not tell God that he is the only one left of Israel but that he was being sought by the wife of the king. God's manifestation is reduced to a very short presentation. 195

196

"The next day, therefore, he came out of the cave and heard the earth rumble and saw a brilliant fiery light. And, when all became quiet, a divine voice exhorted him not to be alarmed by what was happening, for none of his enemies should have him in their power ..." (Ant. 8,352).

An interesting detail is that Hazael and Jehu are said to kill people, as in 1 Kgs 19:17, but Elisha is not, as Elijah does not in his own person kill the prophets. Elisha is sought to be Elijah's follower and he prophecies, unlike in 1 Kgs 19:19-21, soon after his call, and Josephus has omitted that he sacrificed the oxen (Ant 8,353-354). Marcus and recently Feldman consider the redaction of the theophany a rationalisation of the story. This is hardly true. In common with several Jewish writers, Josephus apparently was only reluctant to describe the theophany in detail. God's theophany was reduced to a divine voice in Ar197

194

Goldenberger 1997, 386. LXX: Kai i6ou T I S rjvpaxo airrou; in 1 Kgs 19:7 the angel is mentioned: Kai EiTETpsvpsv 6 ayyeAos Kupi'ou SK SeuTepou. Noted as a rationalisation by Feldman 1998b, 299. Marcus 1934, 404; Feldman 1998b, 299. 195

196

197

268

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

tapanus and Philo is also very reserved. Josephus' version of the theophany at the burning bush is less reserved than Artapanus' and Philo's, but like them, he does not usually put God in dialogue with men. 198

Again following the biblical original (1 Kgs 21:19), Josephus lets Elijah prophecy Ahab's death after Naboth's murder and tells about Ahab's re­ pentance and about the delay of the punishment (Ant. 8,360-362). Elijah also prophesies the death of Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1:1-8; Ant 9,20-21). When the king sends fifty men to catch him he prays twice for a fire from heaven to show whether he is a true prophet or not. When the third officer tries to persuade him to save himself and his men, Elijah follows him to the king and prophecies his death again (2 Kgs 1:5-2:17; Ant 9,22-26). The account is faithful to the biblical original with the exception that God's angel is omitted twice (2 Kgs 1:3; 15), which is not unusual in Josephus, while the first two officers behave in a more unfriendly way and the third in a more friendly way than in the original. 199

A major alteration is that Elijah's ascension (2 Kgs 2:1-18) is retold very briefly: "Now about that time Elijah disappeared from among men (e£ av8pconcov f|o:vio0r]), and to this day no one knows his end. He left behind him a disciple Elisha, as we have related. However, concerning Elijah and Enoch, who lived before the Flood, it is written in the sacred books that they became invisible (yeydvaotv ac^aveTs), and no one knows of their death" (Ant. 9,28).

The heavily redacted story about Elijah's end seems to be more similar to some of the pagan stories. Feldman plausibly points to the similar disap­ pearances of Aeneas (Dion. Hal. ant. 1,64) and Romulus (Ovid, metam. 14,805-885; fast. 2,481-509; Liv. 1,16), but the parallels with Sopho­ cles' Oedipus at Colonus are far-fetched. Josephus' version also resembles the story about Enoch, which Josephus himself refers to. However, the closest parallel is, of course, the death of Moses in Josephus. Moses also disappears and the problems are similar to Elijah's story. According to Feldman the story about Elijah's end is rationalised, and Josephus avoids setting Elijah over Moses, "who definitely did die, accord­ ing to both the biblical text (Deut 34:5) and Josephus himself (Ant 4,326). However, rationalisation is apparently not the reason for the 200

2

1

202

198

On Artapanus, see above p. 94-96, on Philo p. 112, and on the version in Josephus, see p. 234-235. See Marcus 1937, 13. Feldman 1998b, 301-302. See above p. 245-246. Feldman 1998b, 301. 199

2 0 0

201

2 0 2

269

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

heavy redaction of the story, the reason being Elijah's political fervour: The theme of the returning prophet was not a pleasant one for Josephus. Moreover, in Josephus, Moses and Elijah disappear in a similar way. 203

As 2 Chr 21, Josephus tells that Elijah sent a letter to Jehoram prophesying his punishment (Ant 9,99). Josephus follows the history of the people and not the life of Elijah. Consequently, he tells the story much later, and some manuscripts add the explanation e n y a p STTI yfjs i^v. A detailed study of the miracles thus shows that Josephus retells all the biblical miracle stories about Elijah, and that only the ascension of the prophet is rendered markedly shorter than in 2 Kgs 2. Josephus follows mainly the order of 1-2 Kings, but sometimes he improves on the flu­ ency or complements his presentation with 2 Chr. None of the miracles has thus been completely excluded, but most of them have been changed in some way. The most obvious alteration is clearly the heavy abridgement of the as­ cension of the prophet. Josephus does not complete the biblical account with the idea of Elia redivivus, found in Mai 4:22-24 and certainly known to him. It is obvious that the coming Elijah was not Josephus' favourite figure, especially if he was identified with Phinehas. His reasons are clear: these traits of Elijah were politically relevant and could be extremely dangerous. Josephus relates that Theudas wanted to part the Jordan and so be legitimated as the leader of Israel. Others were willing to repeat other biblical miracles to legitimate their revolt against the Romans. After the catastrophe Josephus had reason to avoid the story of Elisha striking the Jordan with his mantle and being legitimated as God's prophet. The com­ bination of religion and politics had led to the revolt, and Josephus was eager to separate the two. The fact that this is the only story about Elijah so heavily revised only underlines Josephus' bias. Nevertheless, Josephus is surprisingly faithful to the biblical original describing Elijah and his work. The view that Josephus has totally stripped his Elijah of political zealousness is common, but should be reconsid204

205

206

207

208

2 0 3

2 0 4

See above p. 35 1 Kgs 20 is understandably first paraphrased after 1 Kgs 21, as in LXX (Ant 8,355-

392). 2 0 5

In Josephus, the false prophet Zedekiah quotes Elijah's words written in 2 Kgs 21:19, which a nonbiblical detail in Ant. 8,408. As, for example, in 2 Chr 17 / Ant. 8,393-397 and 2 Chr 19 / Ant 9,1-17. The identification occurs in L.A.B., written in the same decades as the Antiquitates. Feldman supposes that Josephus was aware of it (1994, 85). See above p. 251-254. 2 0 6

2 0 7

2 0 8

270

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

ered. He still is the man who kills the false prophets and who calls on the fire to kill 50 soldiers twice. Although it is clear that Josephus does not share the unlimited delight in Elijah's zealousness shown in Sir, some of Elijah's fervour is still present. There are some definite Hellenizations in the stories about Elijah. It is important to Josephus to quote Menander on the rainless time (Ant. 8,324). Josephus had studied the Greek historians well. In Against Apion he de­ fends his people against several accusations. According to one of them, the Jews were never mentioned in ancient Greek literature. Josephus tries to find reasons for the scarce evidence and is always happy when he can see Jews mentioned in the literature. Baal's name is no longer needed to illustrate the controversy between the worshippers of Israel's God and of foreign gods. Following the example of the Septuagint, this polemic is up­ dated to correspond more to the way of life in Josephus' own time. Also, Elijah's end is similar to some Graeco-Roman stories. But what can be given as an argument for the view that Josephus has clearly toned down the miraculous traits in the life of the prophet? Feldman cites here the words of Horace (credat Iudaeus Apella, sat. 1,5,97-103). In retelling Elijah's miraculous feeding, Josephus leaves aside several traits, which according to Feldman would astonish a sceptical pagan. He omits God's commands to the birds, mentions the food brought by the ravens but does not specify exactly what they brought, namely bread and meat. The fire of the Lord does not lick up the water; the water goes up as steam and the ground becomes completely dry (Ant. 8,342). In the biblical version, Elijah hears the sound of the rushing rain, but the Josephan Elijah says that the rain will come in a little while (2 Kgs 18:41-45; Ant. 8,343). Josephus omits the angel who gives him the food that helped him to go forty days and forty nights (19:8; Ant. 8,349). The angel is omitted also in Ant. 9,20, and the 1 Kgs theophany in 1 Kgs 19 is strongly reduced. Also, Elijah's end is allegedly rationalised. 210

211

212

213

214

2 0 9

According to O. Betz 1987, 219-220, Josephus tones down Elijah's political fervour, and renders him "free from any zealot features" (1987, 219). According to Feldman (1998b, 302-303) "the key characteristic of Josephus' remolding of the biblical portrait of Elijah is his elimination of its Zealot features." Josephus' intention to separate be­ tween religion and politics is clear, but should here not be exaggerated: The only argu­ ments Feldman can present are that Josephus has twice omitted the biblical mentions of his zealotry (1 Kgs 19:10; 14) and that the Israelites, and not Elijah, killed the prophets (1 Kgs 18:40; Ant. 8,343). See p. 31-37. See, for example, c. ^4/7. 1,168-171. Feldman 1994, 74. Feldman 1998b, 298-302. Feldman supposes that Josephus has already observed the Christian interest in Elijah; this, however, is questionable (1994, 79-80). 2 1 0

2 1 1

2 1 2

2 1 3

2 1 4

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

271

Most of Feldman's arguments are weak and some far-fetched. No Jewish writer retelling the biblical stories repeated all details. As seen above, the details are more naturally explained in alternative ways. There are minor disagreements with the biblical original, but they should be seen in the light of the fact that Josephus retells almost all of Elijah's miracles and by far more faithfully than most of the Jews retelling the biblical stories. It seems that Feldman clearly exaggerates Josephus' intention to tone down the miraculous, and it is easy to agree with Roncace's criticism of other passages of Feldman's book. According to Roncace, Feldman's general view on Josephus' work leads him too strongly, and the evidence to the contrary is not observed. Josephus may give a more natural explanation or remove some miraculous elements from the story, but generally he summa­ rises Elijah's life surprisingly faithfully. He includes all the stories and makes only minor alterations, which do not warrant Feldman's critical in­ terpretation. 215

g. Elisha The great deeds of Elisha are presented by Josephus in his ninth book of Antiquitates Iudaicae in a very interesting way. We happen to have two recent and parallel studies on this passage. In addition to Feldman, Chris­ topher Begg (1996) has also investigated it. These parallel studies offer a possibility for comparing their respective results. 216

217

The translation of 2 K g s in LXX is, as in the last stories of Elijah, very literal and con­ tains only a few interesting details. In v. 3:13 LXX omits -JDK n r a In v. 3:15 the Hebrew text has the plural i n p , but the Greek the singular Ad(3E. In v. 3:18 bp: is rendered with Kouc|>r|. In v. 3:19 LXX omits T i m o T J T ^ D I . In v. 4:9 amp O T f r u art* is very literally translated d'v8pcoTTOs T O U 0EOG a y i o s . In v. 4:20 the Hebrew text has s e n , but the Greek Kai 6Koiuri8n. Sometimes, as in 4:25 and 4:27, the Hebrew has trrr^n BPK, but LXX EAioaie. In v. 4:35 the Hebrew text has TTITV rbss " i n n , but LXX ouvEKauvpEV ETT! T O naiSaptov. LXX adds Gehazi in v. 4:41. In v. 4:42 the Hebrew text has rrcr'TO • J M D , but the Greek 'EK BaiSaptoa. In v. 4:42 the Hebrew text has lftpsn baiD\ but the Greek TTaAd8as. An interesting change is in v. 5:11, where the translator seems to have up­ a dated the healing technique: D i p o n " ^ I T «pm, but Kai ETn0rjoEi Trjv x ^ P airrou eiri T O V T O T T O V . LXX adds in v. 5:17 Kai ou \io\ ocooets E K T % yfjs nuppds. In v. 218

2 1 5

See above p. 10. Begg's article in Henoch ("Elisha's Great Deeds according to Josephus", 1996, 69109) is an extensive study on the theme. Feldman deals with Elisha in 1998, 334-351. Moreover, see O. Betz 1987, 221. The passages disputed in the present work are 1 Kgs 19; 2 Kgs 2:19-22; 2:23-25; 3:1-27; 4:1-7; 4:8-37; 4:38-41; 4:42-44; 5:1-27; 6:1-7; 6:8-23; 8:1-6, 8:7-15, 9:1-13; 13:14-19; 13:20-21. Noted by Eve, 2002, 179. 2 1 6

2 1 7

2 1 8

272

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

5:19 p t r r r o D is rendered e'is 5ef3pcx8a T T J S y % . LXX omits • n'?Krn0 K in 5:20. In v. 6:8 the Hebrew text has but LXX EAMCOVI. In 6:11 xbm is rendered TTpo5i5coo(v MS. In v. 6:18 nmaoa ("dazzling light") is translated aopaoioc. LXX omits wo+m-'yn in v. 6:21 and Dserp in 6:31. In v. 6:30 the Hebrew text is liv, but the Greek e'lOTrJKei, and the translator apparently had mv in his original, er^to ("shield-bearer") is translated TpioTCXTrjs in v. 7:2. LXX adds T O U PaaiAs'cos in v. 7:14. In v. 7:17 our Hebrew text has f^nn, but the Greek T O V cxyysAov, attesting that the translator had -[vfyan in his origi­ nal. nruQ in v. 8:8 is rendered pcxvaa. OUTGO in v. 8:10 attests that the original had t> and not a ?. LXX omits *rwn, but adds o TEOVTIKCOS in v. 8:13. -QDQrr is rendered T O M