Shem in the Tents of Japhet: Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

SUPPLEMENTS TO THE

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF JUDAISM Editor J O H N J. C O L L I N S T h e Divinity School, Yale University

Associate Editor FLORENTINO GARCIA MARTINEZ Qumran Institute, University o f Groningen Advisory Board P. A L E X A N D E R - J. D U H A I M E - A . H I L H O R S T - P . W . V A N D E R HORST A . K L O S T E R G A A R D PETERSEN J. SIEVERS -

M . A . KNIBB — J . T . A . G . M . V A N RUITEN

G. STEMBERGER -

V O L U M E 74

J. TROMP

SHEM IN THE TENTS OFJAPHET Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism

BY

J A M E S L. K U G E L

BRILL LEIDEN • B O S T O N • K O L N 2002

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in Publication data Kugel, James L. Shem in the tents ofJaphet: essays on the encounter o f Judaism and Hellenism / [edited] by James L. Kugel. p. cm. — (Supplements to the Journal for the study o f Judaism, ISSN 1384-2161 ; v.74) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 9004125140 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Judaism—History—Post-exilic period, 586 B.C.-210 A.D.—Congresses. 2. Greek literature, Hellenistic—Jewish authors—History and criticism— Congresses. 3. Hellenism—Congresses. I. Kugel, James L. II. Series. B M 1 7 6 .S47 2002 296.3'9—dc21 2002021592

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Kugel James L. : Shem in the Tents o f Japhet: Essays on the Encounter o f Judaism and Hellenism / by James L. Kugel. - Leiden ; Boston; K o l n : Brill, 2002 (Supplements to the journal for the study ofJudaism ; Vol. 74) ISBN 90-04-12514-0

ISSN ISBN

1384-2161 90 04 12514 0

© Copyright 2002 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in anyform or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy itemsfor internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriatefees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 DanversMA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN T H E NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS

Preface

vii

List o f Contributors

ix

1. W e r e the Greeks Different? I f so, H o w and W h y ? A L B E R T I.

1

BAUMGARTEN

ISSUES O F L A N G U A G E

2. Bilingual J e w s and the G r e e k Bible A L B E R T I.

13

BAUMGARTEN

3. C o n t e x t a n d C o n n o t a t i o n . G r e e k W o r d s for Jewish C o n c e p t s in Philo N A O M I G.

31

COHEN

H E L L E N I S M IN J E W I S H W R I T I N G S

4. Hellenism in the Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Authors. R e s o n a n c e a n d Resistance C A R L R.

65

HOLLADAY

5. A p o c a l y p t i c E s c h a t o l o g y in Philosophical Dress in the Wisdom of Solomon J O H N J.

93

COLLINS

6. Philo a n d the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n o n Creation, Revelation, a n d P r o v i d e n c e : T h e H i g h - W a t e r M a r k o f Jewish Hellenistic Fusion

109

DAVID WINSTON

7. E u d a i m o n i s m in Hellenistic-Jewish Literature DAVID

T.

131

RUNIA

8. Josephus b e t w e e n R a b b i n i c Culture a n d Hellenistic Historiography CHAIM

159

MILIKOWSKY

THE

R E C E P T I O N OF JUDAISM B Y THE G R E E K FATHERS

9. O n e o f U s o r O n e o f T h e m ? Christian R e c e p t i o n o f Philo the J e w in Egypt DAVID

T.

RUNIA

203

VI

CONTENTS

10. Assessing Philo's Influence in Christian Alexandria: T h e Case o f Origen

223

ANNEWIES V A N DEN H O E K

11. " V a n i t y o f Vanities"? S o l o m o n ' s T r i l o g y and the Patristic Subversion o f Scripture

241

NICHOLAS CONSTAS

Index

261

PREFACE

T h i s v o l u m e contains the papers presented at t w o conferences. T h e first, at Bar Ilan University o n J a n u a r y 6, 1998, was entitled " S h e m in the Tents o f J a p h e t I: Jewish Writings in G r e e k in S e c o n d T e m p l e T i m e s . " T h e s e c o n d , at H a r v a r d University o n M a y 13, 1999 b o r e the title: " S h e m in the Tents o f J a p h e t II: A C o n f e r e n c e o n Hellenism and J u d a i s m . " T h e essays o f Baumgarten ("Bilingual J e w s " ) , C o h e n , H o l l a d a y , Collins, W i n s t o n , R u n i a ( " E u d a i m o n i s m " ) a n d M i n k o w s k y were presented at the first c o n f e r e n c e . T h o s e o f Baumgarten ( " W e r e the Greeks Different?"), R u n i a ( " O n e o f U s o r O n e o f T h e m ? " ) , van d e n H o e k a n d Constas w e r e delivered at the H a r v a r d c o n f e r e n c e . F o r this v o l u m e , the essays have b e e n arranged in four sections. Albert Baumgarten's reflections o n the difference b e t w e e n the Greeks a n d other c o n q u e r i n g p e o p l e s in antiquity serve as an introduction. Baumgarten's s e c o n d essay and that o f N a o m i C o h e n deal with issues o f bilingualism, a n d the linguistic p r o b l e m o f expressing Jewish ideas in Greek. T h e third section treats the influence o f Hellenistic cul­ ture in various Jewish writings o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d , pri­ marily Philo (Winston a n d R u n i a ) , but also the historians and poets w h o s e w o r k has survived o n l y in fragments (Holladay), the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n (Collins a n d W i n s t o n ) a n d Josephus (Minkowsky). T h e final section brings together three essays o n the reception o f Jewish traditions b y the G r e e k Fathers o f the Christian C h u r c h . T w o o f these (Runia, van den Hoek) deal with the reception o f Philo. Constas's essay deals with aspects o f patristic interpretation, in O r i g e n

and

G r e g o r y o f Nyssa. T h e t w o conferences that gave rise to this v o l u m e were m a d e p o s ­ sible b y the generosity o f M r . Dennis M e h i e l , a n d I w o u l d like to express m y gratitude to h i m here.

LIST OF C O N T R I B U T O R S

Albert Baumgarten, Bar Ilan University, R a m a t G a n , Israel N a o m i C o h e n , Haifa University, Haifa, Israel J o h n J. Collins, Y a l e University, N e w H a v e n , C T Nicholas Constas, H a r v a r d University, C a m b r i d g e , M A A n n e w i e s van d e n H o e k , H a r v a r d University, C a m b r i d g e , M A Carl R . H o l l a d a y , E m o r y University, Atlanta, G A C h a i m Milikowsky, Bar Ilan University, R a m a t G a n , Israel D a v i d R u n i a , L e i d e n University,

Netherlands

D a v i d W i n s t o n , Graduate T h e o l o g i c a l U n i o n (California), Emeritus

1

W E R E IF

T H E GREEKS

DIFFERENT?

SO, H O W A N D W H Y ?

ALBERT I. BAUMGARTEN

i T h e J e w s o f Antiquity w e r e well aware that they h a d b e e n

subject

to a series o f w o r l d empires. After the exile to Babylonia, the Persians h a d taken center stage as the great w o r l d p o w e r , a n d w e r e to b e replaced b y the Greeks. After the b r i e f interlude o f M a c c a b e a n inde­ p e n d e n c e , J e w s w e r e subject to R o m a n rule. A principal

expression

o f this awareness was the m e t a p h o r o f four beasts = w o r l d empires 1

(e.g. D a n 7—8), revised as necessary to c o m p l y with reality. E a c h o f these w o r l d empires shaped the nature o f subsequent Jewish

history,

for g o o d o r b a d , f r o m the edict o f Cyrus allowing the J e w s to return to Jerusalem, o r the likely Persian contribution to the codification o f the T o r a h ,

2

to R o m a n termination o f Jewish i n d e p e n d e n c e

nating in the

destruction

culmi­

o f the J e r u s a l e m T e m p l e . In this sense,

there was nothing n e w o r special a b o u t the transfer o f p o w e r w h i c h t o o k p l a c e with the c o n q u e s t o f A l e x a n d e r a n d the rule o f his suc­ cessor k i n g d o m s . O n e imperial p o w e r was replacing another as o v e r ­ l o r d o f the J e w s , as h a d h a p p e n e d at least o n c e centuries a g o a n d w o u l d continue to o c c u r for even l o n g e r

afterwards.

It might take s o m e time to adjust to the n e w order; the rise a n d fall o f empires o r dynasties might awake d o r m a n t eschatological h o p e , as at the tfime o f the civil w a r from w h i c h Darius e m e r g e d as vic­ torious, as reflected in the first nine chapters o f Z e c h a r i a h a n d

the

p r o p h e c i e s o f H a g g a i . T h e r e w o u l d likely b e s o m e local winners

and

losers: those

t o o closely identified

with the

old regime might

be

d e m o t e d , while locals with the foresight to have w o n the c o n f i d e n c e

1

See O . Irshai, "Dating the Eschaton," Apocalyptic Time (ed. A.I. Baumgarten; Leiden, 2000), 115 and bibliography, n. 6. See E.J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, M A / N e w York, 1988), 30-31. 2

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

2

o f the n e w rulers might b e elevated. T h e n e w imperial p o w e r w o u l d c o n t i n u e s o m e aspects o f the administration o f its predecessors, but also likely introduce s o m e n e w turns to the w a y J e w s w e r e g o v e r n e d , thus c h a n g i n g the course o f Jewish history. O n the w h o l e , h o w e v e r , e x p e r i e n c e d hands w h o e n j o y e d the allegiance o f the native p o p u ­ lation w e r e never t o o abundant, a n d a p r o v e n m e t h o d o f g o v e r n i n g was n o t easily discarded.

3

A n d yet, the t w o centuries o f G r e c o - M a c e d o n i a n reign in the L a n d o f Israel o c c u p y a special place in o u r imagination. T h i s e p o c h is n o t usually u n d e r s t o o d as a result o f o n e other transfer o f p o w e r a m o n g many. Indeed, w h e n conceiving that era, scholars often e m p l o y m o d e l s w h i c h derive f r o m m o d e r n e x p e r i e n c e a n d b a s e d o n seem­ ingly u n i q u e characteristics

o f the m o d e r n w o r l d . T h e r e is an

un­

spoken assumption b e h i n d m u c h o f m o d e r n scholarship: the ancient Jewish response to G r e e k culture was s o m e h o w fundamentally ilar to aspects o f the c o n t e m p o r a r y Jewish response to the

sim­

univer-

salist c o s m o p o l i t a n culture o f m o d e r n i t y (despite the essentially modern 4

character o f universalist c o s m o p o l i t a n i s m ) . T h e description b y e a c h scholar o f the nature o f the ancient p r o b l e m a n d the solution a p p r o ­ priate then displays a basic similarity to the w a y that scholar saw the m o d e r n p r o b l e m , a n d to the sorts o f solutions favored b y that scholar to the m o d e r n issues. I c o u l d easily offer a list o f scholars who

have written o n the response o f J e w s a n d Hellenistic culture to

e a c h other (Bickerman, M o m i g l i a n o , T c h e r i k o v e r , H e n g e l , F e l d m a n a n d G r u e n , for example) demonstrating this aspect o f their w o r k in detail.

3

5

For an intriguing challenge to the conventional view that ancient empires con­ tinued the practice o f their predecessors with few if any innovations, see S. Schwartz, " O n the A u t o n o m y o f Judaea in the Fourth and Third Centuries B.C.E.," JJS 45 (1994), 157-168. For a brilliant description o f the usual choices for identity available to m o d ­ erns, and the sometimes desperate search for other alternatives, see E. Gellner, Language and Solitude: Wittgenstein, Malinowski and the Habsburg Dilemma (Cambridge, 1998). For Jews in particular, and many o f the scholars w h o dealt with topics under discussion here were Jewish, the dilemma Gellner depicts had few geographic lim­ its, and was not confined to the boundaries o f the Habsburg empire. Although I decline to offer such a comprehensive analysis here, I intend to write a detailed discussion o f the contributions o f Bickerman, intended to elucidate the connection between the historian and his work. See, for now, A.I. Baumgarten, "Bickerman, Elias Joseph," Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. J.H. Hayes; Nashville, 1999), 1.126-127. According to M . Smith, "Elias J. Bickerman," in E.J. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History Part Three (Leiden, 1986), xi, Bickerman wanted to be remem­ bered only for his scholarship, hence he ordered his executors to burn his private 4

5

3

W E R E T H E GREEKS DIFFERENT?

Y e t , such an illustration m i g h t well p r o v o k e the m o s t b o r e d a n d h e n c e devastating

o f all reactions: so what! T h e r e is n o t h i n g n e w

a b o u t discovering the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n past a n d present in w o r k o f a historian. T h e victory o f the relativists, such as E . H . C a r r , What is History—summed

u p in the slogan that "the best guide to under­

standing the history written is to k n o w the historian"—is complete.

6

virtually

T o cite o n e recent e x a m p l e , related to the t o p i c u n d e r

discussion here, E. G r u e n introduces his b o o k as follows: Some Israeli friends have twitted me for approaching the subject from the skewed perspective o f a liberal, secular, diaspora Jew. I plead guilty to the characterization; others can judge how skewed is the perspective. 7

G r u e n is r e s p o n d i n g to attempts to relativize his w o r k b y relating it to his personal loyalties b y a c k n o w l e d g i n g these perspectives,

but

c o u n t e r i n g that such c o m m i t m e n t s m a y even b e useful, a n d certainly d o n o t prevent h i m f r o m having something beneficial a n d i m p o r ­ tant to say, f r o m w h i c h others (even those with different allegiances) m a y also profit. If the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the historian a n d his o r her history is t o o banal to pursue, questioning o f unspoken assumptions is a different matter. T h e y usually s e e m so o b v i o u s to the scholars w h o operate o n the basis o f such assumptions that they are rarely c o n s i d e r e d crit­ ically b y those scholars w h o e m p l o y t h e m . Y e t , f r o m the perspective

papers without being read. T h e enigma in Bickerman's case therefore seems sufficiently interesting to be worth the effort o f explanation. Compare M . Himmelfarb, "Elias Bickerman and Judaism and Hellenism," The Jewish Past Revisited: Reflections on Modern Jewish Historians (ed. D . N . Myers and D.B. Ruderman; N e w H a v e n / L o n d o n , 1998), 199—211. Himmelfarb concedes, however, that she did not see the most important source for describing Elias Bickerman from this perspective: the autobiographies o f his father, Joseph, and brother, J a c o b , pub­ lished by the latter as Two Bikermans (New York, 1975). See Himmelfarb, "Elias Bickerman," 209, n. 17. As Elias Bickerman himself was reticent in supplying bio­ graphical information that would help place his work in a particular context (order­ ing his private papers burned was not the only step—he was invited to contribute to the family collection o f autobiographies, but refused) the accounts supplied by his father and brother are the best available evidence. See also A . Momigliano, "The Absence o f the Third Bickerman," Essays on Ancient and Modem Judaism (Chicago, 1994), 2 1 7 - 2 2 1 . 6

M a n y if not all o f us r e c o m m e n d that our students read works such as Carr's, What is History? H o w many o f us also recommend that our students read the pas­ sionate attack against Carr by J.H. Hexter, " T h e Historian and His Society: A Sociological Inquiry, Perhaps," Doing History (London, 1971), 7 7 - 1 0 6 , arguing that knowing the historian is irrelevant and that there is a quality to g o o d historical work which rises above the personal commitments o f the historian? Heritage and Hellenism (Berkeley, 1998), ix. 7

4

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

o f a different

(usually subsequent) generation, living u n d e r

different

conditions a n d facing other issues, these unspoken assumptions fre­ quently s e e m blatantly tendentious, dated a n d irrelevant. T h e y often the first to g o in the n e w r o u n d

o f revisionism. It

are

therefore

seems w o r t h asking w h e t h e r G r e e k rule was as n o v e l for its time as the universalist c o s m o p o l i t a n culture o f m o d e r n i t y has b e e n for the past century? Is the unspoken analogy b e h i n d so m u c h o f scholar­ 8

ship c o r r e c t ? A full answer to this question w o u l d require an analy­ sis o f modernity b e y o n d both the limits o f this p a p e r and m y a c a d e m i c competence. Therefore,

in o r d e r to r e d u c e

the

discussion to rea­

sonable terms, I ask a simpler question: w e r e the Greeks

significantly

unlike o t h e r ancient w o r l d c o n q u e r o r s w h o p r e c e d e d o r t h e m , a n d if so h o w and w h y .

followed

9

ii O n e w i n d o w o f insight into these issues is to consider w h o was per­ c e i v e d as the designated outsider,

10

social c o n t a c t (such as eating o r

marriage) with w h o m was d e e m e d dangerous, a n d w h o s e ways w e r e n o t to b e a p e d . Ezra a n d N e h e m i a h , for e x a m p l e , s t o o d g u a r d o v e r the walls o f Jerusalem (in b o t h the literal a n d

figurative

senses), deter­

m i n e d to guard the boundaries o f the Jewish people, as they understood t h e m . T h e dangerous outsiders from their perspective w e r e local p e o ­ ples: A m m o n i t e s , M o a b i t e s , Ashdodites a n d

the

proto-Samaritans.

8

This unspoken assumption got substantial support from fact that Greeks and Greek culture occupied a central place in western style education that was an essen­ tial element o f the new universal culture o f modernity. This made the Greek connec­ tion with modern universalism even more self-evident. Thus, to the extent that the new universalism was either problematic or desirable, it inevitably involved the Greeks. For purposes o f this article I leave aside entirely the other side o f the ques­ tion: what, if anything, was different about the Jews as compared to other nations o f the near east that might explain a different Greek reaction, to the extent that the Greek reaction to the Jews was distinctive. See, however, P. Schafer, Judeophobia: Attitudes towards the Jews in the Ancient World ( C a m b r i d g e / L o n d o n , 1997), and the lively discussion this b o o k has generated, such as R . Goldenberg, " O n the Origins o f Anti-Semitism and the Problem o f Blaming the Victim," JSQ 6 (1999), 2 5 1 - 2 6 0 ; C. Hayes, 'Judeophobia: Peter Schafer on the Origins o f Anti-Semitism," JSQ 6 (1999), 261-273; P. Schafer, "Response to Christine Hayes and Robert Goldenberg," JSQ6 (1999), 2 7 4 - 2 8 1 . 9

10

It may not be superfluous to note that this role is never vacant, and is always occupied by some group in every culture, for as M . T h o m p s o n , R . Ellis and A. Wildavsky, Cultural Theory (Boulder/San Francisco, 1990), 4 stress: "to destroy the other is to murder the self."

W E R E T H E GREEKS DIFFERENT? The

5

Persians, the imperial p o w e r , did n o t figure at all in these cal­

culations. I n d e e d , to the extent the Persians w e r e i n v o l v e d in w o r l d o f Ezra a n d N e h e m i a h they w e r e patrons, w h o h a d Ezra his charter o f privileges and a p p o i n t e d N e h e m i a h to The

the

granted office.

situation was n o t m u c h different in R o m a n times. T h e his­

tory o f the p r o b l e m a t i c relations b e t w e e n the J e w s a n d their n o n Jewish

l o c a l n e i g h b o r s is w e l l k n o w n , as is the

conjunction o f

circumstances w h i c h m a d e this hostility a factor in the outbreak o f the G r e a t R e v o l t . L o c a l feuds w e r e at least as significant as the w a r against

the imperial p o w e r .

1 1

Political tension b e t w e e n J e w s

and

R o m a n s w o u l d b e c o m e high, but w e r e there e n o u g h R o m a n s in Palestine to p o s e a social a n d cultural d i l e m m a ?

12

In the Hellenistic era, b y w a y o f contrast, there w e r e m a n y warn­ ings issued against walking in the ways o f the gentiles, as in the b o o k o f Jubilees, but these outsiders w e r e n o t usually m e n t i o n e d b y n a m e . F o r e x a m p l e , w h i c h gentiles w e r e the p a r a d i g m for those w h o erred b y following a lunar calendar (Jub. 6:35—36)? T h i s is virtually i m p o s ­ sible to determine, as virtually all the p e o p l e s o f the

Mediterranean

basin o f that era e m p l o y e d a lunar calendar. In a similar vein, w h i c h gentiles w e r e s o m e J e w s imitating w h e n they refused to circumcise their sons (Jub.

1 5 : 3 3 - 3 4 ) ? S o m e t i m e s , h o w e v e r , the nature o f gen­

tile ways to b e a v o i d e d is so explicit that it seems clear that the Greeks w e r e intended, as in the denunciation o f those gentiles w h o w e n t naked (Jub.

3:31).

P e r h a p s the political c i r c u m s t a n c e s m a d e discretion

necessary.

Perhaps the literary nature o f m a n y o f the works o f the Hellenistic era, p s e u d e p i g r a p h a

o f different

sorts such as D a n i e l , E n o c h

and

Jubilees, required a degree o f obscurity lest the recent origin o f the works seem t o o blatant.

13

W h a t e v e r the explanations, it is interest­

ing that works explicitly c o n n e c t e d with M a c c a b e a n victory, such as 1 a n d 2 M a c e d o m e n t i o n the Greeks b y n a m e a n d their ways as those to b e a v o i d e d b y loyal J e w s (see further b e l o w ) . T h u s , unlike

11

For a convenient summary o f these issues see M . Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt Against Rome A.D. 66-70 (Cambridge, 1987), 13-14. For an account o f the R o m a n presence in Palestine in the first century, cor­ rectly stressing its minimal nature see E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (Harmondsworth, 1993), 15-32, esp. 2 7 - 3 1 . For an incisive analysis o f the significance o f the literary convention o f pseudepigraphy, see M . Bernstein, "Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls: Categories and Functions," Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. Chazon and M . Stone; Leiden, 1999), 1-26. 12

13

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

6

other ancient imperial rulers o f the J e w s , the Greeks w e r e p e r c e i v e d as a social a n d cultural p r o b l e m . Analysis o f the other side o f this c o i n yields similar results. I f w e inquire w h i c h J e w s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d to have apostatized

b y adopt­

ing foreign ways, behavior for which these " b a d " Jews were d e n o u n c e d a n d even penalized, the answer for the days o f Ezra a n d

Nehemiah

w e r e the local aristocrats, interested in marrying with families o f their social peers a m o n g the n e i g h b o r i n g nations (Ezra 9:2). N e h e m i a h m a r k e d the b o u n d a r y against these J e w s in the clearest w a y possi­ ble b y purifying the r o o m in the T e m p l e w h i c h h a d b e e n given to T o b i a h b y his relative, the high priest, w h e n N e h e m i a h cleared the r o o m o f T o b i a h ' s effects ( N e h

13:8-9).

In R o m a n times the situation was a bit m o r e c o m p l e x . Sicarii a n d Zealots

14

attacked R o m a n targets (Josephus,

War 7.258), as well as

J e w s w h o m they p e r c e i v e d to b e apostate collaborators War

(Josephus,

7 . 2 5 4 - 2 5 7 ) . T y p i c a l o f the m i x o f objectives was the attack b y

the Sicarii at M a s s a d a against the J e w s o f Ein G e d i a n d other neigh­ b o r i n g towns (Josephus,

War 4 . 4 0 2 - 4 0 5 ) . T h e i r objective, a c c o r d i n g

to Josephus (who m a y not b e wholly reliable, as his intent to d e n o u n c e the Sicarii is evident w h e n e v e r he mentions this group) was to secure fresh supplies. T h e s e same Sicarii d i e d at the e n d o f a defense o f Massada

against R o m a n siege, w h i c h lasted a b o u t three

T h u s , political warfare

months.

15

c o m b i n e d with attacks against collaborators,

as well as with e c o n o m i c motives. Participating in the religion

and

culture o f the R o m a n s , h o w e v e r , was never the crucial issue o r rea­ son

for o p p o s i t i o n .

M u c h the same was true o f the "eighteen d e c r e e s "

promulgated

b y a g r o u p at the nationalist e n d o f the spectrum in the years lead-

14

Following M . Smith, "Zealots and Sicarii: Their Origins and Relations," HTR 64 (1971), 1—19, M . Stern, "Zealots," Encyclopedia Judaica Yearbook, 1973 (Jerusalem, 1974), 135-152. and others, w h o take their lead from the terminology in Josephus, I would divide carefully between Sicarii = members o f the fourth philosophy and zealots. O n Josephus's account o f the siege o f Massada see S.J.D. Cohen, "Massada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains and the Credibility o f Josephus," JJS 33 (1982), 3 8 5 - 4 0 5 ; M . Stern, " T h e Suicide o f Elazar b . Yair and his followers at Massada and the 'Fourth Philosophy'." Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (eds. M . Amit, I. Gafni and M . D . Herr; Jerusalem, 1991), 3 1 3 - 3 4 6 (Hebrew). For a convenient summary o f the archeological evidence and its implications, with recent bibliography, see H . Eshel, "Masada: History," Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L . H . Schiffman and J.C. VanderKam; Oxford, 2000), 1.519-521. 15

7

W E R E T H E GREEKS DIFFERENT?

ing u p to the Great R e v o l t . T h e various versions o f these decrees preserved in rabbinic sources indicate that the objective o f these p r o ­ hibitions was to increase the distance b e t w e e n J e w s a n d foreigners. Y e t the foreign ways p r o s c r i b e d have little to d o with the and e v e n less with R o m a n

culture.

Romans

16

Matters w e r e significandy different at the time o f the

Hellenistic

empires, during the days o f the persecutions o f A n t i o c h u s I V , in par­ ticular. Apostates, willing to w o r s h i p a c c o r d i n g to the ways o f the gentiles, w e r e killed (1 M a c e 2 : 2 3 - 2 6 , 47) a n d children left c u m c i s e d b y their parents w e r e forcibly entered into the

uncir-

covenant

o f A b r a h a m (1 M a c e 2:46). Sinners w e r e supposedly never allowed to get the u p p e r h a n d (1 M a c e 2:48). A c c o r d i n g l y , it was n o t acci­ dental that those w h o a d o p t e d this p o l i c y t o o k Phinehas and Elijah— paradigms o f zeal f r o m the Bible, w h o s e targets w e r e apostates such as Z i m r i a n d A h a b ( N u m 2 5 : 1 - 1 5 a n d

1 Kings

18:18)—as their

heroes (1 M a c e 2:26, 5 4 , 58). D e n u n c i a t i o n s against J e w s w h o a c c e p t e d the culture o f the gen­ tiles is a key element in the o p e n i n g sections o f 1 M a c e , but while the practices d e n o u n c e d are characteristically G r e e k (gymnasium and r e m o v a l o f marks o f c i r c u m c i s i o n , 1 M a c e 1 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) they are

not

named

are

as G r e e k . In 2 M a c e 4 : 1 2 - 1 5 , h o w e v e r , G r e e k ways

explicitly identified as enticing J e w s , priests in particular, to aban­ d o n the traditions o f their ancestors. A variation o n this a r g u m e n t c a n b e f o u n d in at least t w o different sources f r o m the era. In a w o r l d g o v e r n e d b y the principle o f m e a ­ sure for measure, those apostate J e w s w h o a d o p t e d the ways o f the Greeks will b e punished b y the Greeks, w h o will b e c o m e their ene­ mies and turn against t h e m . T h i s was the penalty suffered b y the Hellenizing priests o f Jerusalem o f the generation o f A n t i o c h u s I V , a c c o r d i n g to 2 M a c e 4 : 1 6 . A similar c o n c l u s i o n emerges f r o m

an

analysis o f a sectarian source. T h e princes o f J u d a h are d e n o u n c e d towards the e n d o f the ideological section o f the D a m a s c u s D o c u m e n t (CD VIII: 3 - 2 l b ) .

1 6

1 7

T h e s e princes h o p e for healing, but they

are

O n the eighteen decrees see I. Ben-Shalom, The School of Shammai and the Zealots' Struggle against Rome (Jerusalem, 1993), 2 5 2 - 2 7 2 (Hebrew). M y interpretation o f this text takes its point o f departure from that suggested by J. M u r p h y - O ' C o n n o r , " T h e Critique o f the Princes o f Judah ( C D VIII, 3-19)," RB 79 (1972), 2 0 0 - 2 1 6 . Note that I only use passages from the A text, on the pos­ sibility that M u r p h y - O ' C o n n o r is correct in his argument that the A text was directed against the new ruling family, and that this denunciation was then re-worked as 17

8

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

really rebels. In fact (as o p p o s e d to the claim o f these princes), they have n o t forsaken

the ways o f the faithless,

having defiled

them­

selves. Q u o t i n g the verse in D e u t 3 2 : 3 3 , "their w i n e is the v e n o m o f serpents a n d the cruel h e a d o f asps," the author o f the D a m a s c u s D o c u m e n t explained that the serpents w e r e the kings o f the nations, a n d w i n e their ways (i.e. the ways o f the gentile kings, a d o p t e d b y the Jewish rulers), while the h e a d o f the asps was the c h i e f o f the kings o f the rulers.

18

Greeks, w h o will w r e a k v e n g e a n c e u p o n the Jewish

T h a t is, the Jewish rulers will p a y the appropriate price for

their sins: those foreign, i.e. Greek, kings w h o s e ways they a p e d will b e the source o f their destruction. In sum, the p r o b l e m with the G r e e k o v e r l o r d was n o t the

same

as with other imperial masters: it was n o t o n l y e c o n o m i c , political or

military,

but h a d important

religious a n d cultural c o m p o n e n t s .

J e w s therefore felt the n e e d to m a r k the b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n selves a n d Greeks m u c h m o r e than they felt that n e e d with

them­ other

imperial p o w e r s . J e w s w h o w e r e stringent a b o u t such matters also t o o k care to o p p o s e fellow Jews w h o m they p e r c e i v e d as having b e e n s e d u c e d b y G r e e k "culture.

19

T h i s c o m p a r i s o n o f the

Greeks

with

other empires suggests that there was something different a b o u t them.

in W h a t might that difference have b e e n ? T h i s is a c o m p l e x question w h i c h requires a detailed and n u a n c e d answer. F o r purposes o f this

ammunition against internal apostates in the B text. O n the various suggestions for understanding this text see further P.R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983), 156-172. Against M u r p h y - O ' C o n n o r , see espe­ cially S.A. White, " A Comparison o f the ' A ' and 'B' Manuscripts o f the Damascus Document," i?Q^48 (1987), 5 3 7 - 5 5 3 ; J.J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York, 1994), 8 0 - 8 2 . Note that at this stage o f the argument in C D VIII, those w h o suffered pun­ ishment at the hands o f the Greek king were the princes o f Judah, as they have been the subject throughout the preceding section, and the "builders o f the wall" have not yet been mentioned. Cf. B. Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk (Jerusalem, 1986), 137 (Hebrew). C o m p a r e the Greeks in Egypt according to Herodotus. Although G r e c o Macedonian rule in Egypt would occur two centuries after Herodotus, and Greeks living there in his day were mostiy mercenaries or traders, their way o f life pro­ voked the Egyptians. Egyptians, who were par excellence a people that did not eat cows (Hdt. 2.18, 41) would not kiss a Greek, or use a knife, spit or cauldron belong­ ing to a Greek, or even taste the flesh o f an o x (which Egyptians did eat) that had been cut by a Greek knife (Hdt. 2.41). This was because Greeks ate cows. 1 8

19

W E R E T H E GREEKS DIFFERENT? paper,

9

I w o u l d like to suggest o n e direction in w h i c h to look. I

believe a first avenue o f insight is already implicit in the discussion a b o v e . E v e n before there w e r e G r e e k empires there was an

exten­

sive G r e e k D i a s p o r a , w h i c h w o u l d g r o w in numerical terms a n d in cultural a n d political i m p o r t a n c e with the arrival o f the

Hellenistic

k i n g d o m s . T h i s D i a s p o r a w o u l d e n c o u r a g e an o n - g o i n g interest in ethnography (evident already in H e r o d o t u s in the fifth century B.C.E.), and p r o m o t e critical reflection about native G r e e k beliefs, with i m p o r ­ tant implications for the g r o w t h o f G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y a n d G r e e k cul­ ture in g e n e r a l .

20

W i t h the

flourishing

o f the Hellenistic m o n a r c h i e s

G r e e k institutions w e r e established for the n o w vast D i a s p o r a . T h e s e institutions w e r e o p e n to n e w c o m e r s , such as the famous a n d m u c h discussed A n t i o c h e n e s o f J e r u s a l e m (2 M a c e 4 : 9 ) .

21

These demo­

graphic facts help explain w h y G r e e k culture was such a potent force, far b e y o n d the cultures o f the w o r l d empires w h o p r e c e d e d o r suc­ c e e d e d the Greeks. G r e e k interest in foreign p e o p l e s w e n t b e y o n d curiosity o r ethnog­ raphy. T h e i r determination

to create a uniform "scientific" frame­

w o r k for the history o f other nations was such that they allowed themselves to rewrite the history o f the nations a m o n g s t w h o m they lived. T h e outlines o f the past e m b o d i e d in the H o m e r i c epics w e r e taken as the c o n t e x t into w h i c h the past o f other nations h a d to b e placed.

22

T h e transparent hellenocentrism o f this construct p r o v o k e d

a disdainful oriental reaction, d e n o u n c i n g the Greeks as n e w c o m e r s o n the scene a n d H o m e r as an author n o t w o r t h y o f such author­ ity. E v i d e n c e o f this response c a n b e f o u n d in the works o f M a n e t h o , Berossus, J o s e p h u s and Philo o f B y b l o s .

2 0

23

U n d e r these circumstances,

T h e role o f Ionian Greeks and those from Magna Graeca in pre-Socratic thought—before philosophy was brought down to the market place in Athens, and focused on moral and political issues—has long been noted. See already G.S. Kirk and J.E. Raven, The Presocratic Philosophers (2nd ed.; Cambridge, 1960), 73. See fur­ ther the more comprehensive account o f the contribution o f the Near East to Greek culture in W . Burkert, 77^ Orientalizing Revolution: The Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Period (Cambridge M A , 1992). See the important posthumous contribution on this topic by M . Stern, "The Founding o f the Gymnasium, the Transformation of Jerusalem into a Polis and the Rise o f Menelaus," %ym (5752), 233-246 (Hebrew). See, in particular, E.J. Bickerman, "Origines Gentium," Religions and Politics in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (eds. E. Gabba and M . Smith; C o m o , 1985), 3 9 9 - 4 1 8 . See R . A . Oden, "Philo o f Byblos and Hellenistic Historiography," PEQiWO (1978), 115-126, w h o does not acknowledge his substantial debt to Bickerman's "Origines Gentium." See also A.I. Baumgarten, The Phoenician History of Philo of 21

2 2

23

10

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

it is plausible to c o n c l u d e that a p e o p l e willing to rewrite the his­ tory o f their host nations might also dare to reform the religion o f their subject nations (1 M a c e 1 : 4 1 - 6 2 ; 2 M a c e 6 - 7 ) , e v e n t h o u g h ancient empires rarely, if ever, intervened in the beliefs o r practices o f their subjects, so l o n g as they did n o t e n d a n g e r p u b l i c o r d e r .

24

w Triangulation is a technique n o t limited to determining g e o g r a p h i c location. It has applications in the humanities a n d social sciences. I f a matter w h i c h seems w o r t h y o f attention b a s e d o n the

unspoken

assumptions o f o n e scholarly e r a — v i e w e d in light o f the tendencies, prejudices a n d experience peculiar to that e p o c h , also remains i m p o r ­ tant to a later generation, based o n a s o m e w h a t different style o f analysis—that set o f questions is likely to b e m o r e than a passing fancy. A n issue o f lasting significance has b e e n identified, w h i c h will c o n t i n u e to stimulate scholarly attention o v e r generations. I believe that the examination offered here indicates that there was s o m e t h i n g different: a b o u t the Greeks, w h i c h m a d e their inter­ action with other p e o p l e s special, a n d n o t the same as the experi­ e n c e with previous o r later ancient w o r l d empires. W h e n

unique

aspects o f the Greeks are c o m b i n e d with peculiar characteristics o f J e w s a n d J u d a i s m the b l e n d p r o d u c e d a cultural, political, intellec­ tual a n d religious a m a l g a m o f great p o w e r in antiquity,

a n d ulti­

mately o f monumental impact o n b o t h Jews and Greeks. This amalgam continues to challenge a n d enrich critical scholarship, as well as p r o ­ vide an endlessly rich resource f r o m the past to nourish c o n t e m p o ­ rary reflection o n the nature o f individual a n d collective identity.

25

Byblos: A Commentary (Leiden, 1981), 82~83. Note, however, that these oriental authors (and the author o f 2 Mace) all wrote in Greek. Some even expressed pride o n their achievements in presenting their native tradition in Greek to a wider audience. See e.g. Josephus, Ant. 20.263. Thus, the Greek language itself was not the heart o f the problem. C o m p a r e the thesis, fundamental to E.J. Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees (Leiden, 1979), xii—xiii, according to which ancient empires only reformed their own religions, never those o f their subjects. In Bickerman's opinion, this makes the actions o f Antiochus I V in Jerusalem an exception to the rule which requires spe­ cial explanation, which Bickerman proceeds to offer. I would like to thank Professor H . Cancik-Lindemaier o f Tubingen University for comments on an earlier version o f this paper that helped sharpen m y conclu­ sions. Responsibility for these conclusions, o f course, remains mine. 2 4

2 5

ISSUES O F

LANGUAGE

2

BILINGUAL JEWS

A N D T H EG R E E K

BIBLE*

ALBERT I. BAUMGARTEN

i

Bilinguals h a v e the potential o f p l a y i n g a u n i q u e role. Fluent in t w o languages, they c a n translate f r o m

o n e to the

other. A s languages

e n c o m p a s s a n d express a w h o l e cultural o u t l o o k , bilinguals m a y also b e biculturals, a n d c a n thus serve as tradents f r o m o n e cultural text to another, h e l p i n g t o lay the f o u n d a t i o n s for a fresh

con­

synthesis.

I n d e e d , in historical e x p e r i e n c e , y o u n g bilinguals h a v e often b e e n in the first w a v e o f cultural

c h a n g e , l e a d i n g others in staking o u t

b o u n d a r i e s o f a n e w identity.

1

the

T h i s p a p e r is i n t e n d e d t o e x p l o r e the

, \

* A n early version o f this paper was presented at the Symposium o n Figures Bibliques: Hermeneutique juive et chretienne a I'epoque hellenistique et romaine, co-sponsored by the Hebrew University and b y the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CRF), held in Jerusalem, Israel, in April 1990. M y thanks are due to D r . G . Bohak of T e l Aviv University for a number o f helpful suggestions in response to a much later version. Responsibility for the contents is, o f course, mine. See B. Anderson, Imagined Communities (2nd ed.; L o n d o n / N e w York, 1991), 9 0 - 9 3 and 118-120. For a discussion o f Moses that would fit well into Anderson's per­ spective—as the son o f foreign slaves, raised as an adopted child in the imperial culture, and then leading his native people to freedom—see J. Meleze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt (Princeton, 1995), 1 4 - 1 6 . There is a substantial literature o n bilingualism as a linguistic and social phe­ nomenon in the modern world. See, for example, F. Grosjean, Life with Two Languages (Cambridge, M A , 1982); C . Hoffmann, An Introduction to Bilingualism (2nd ed. L o n d o n / N e w York, 1991); S. Romaine, Bilingualism (Oxford, 1995). As these stud­ ies emphasize, bilinguals need not necessarily be bicultural. That potential is not always realized, but m y principal concern in this paper is with examples (ancient and modern) in which that possibility is actual. A m o n g the first to apply the insights o f modern study o f bilingualism to the ancient Jewish evidence was M . Silva, "Bilingualism and the Character o f Palestinian Greek," Biblica 61 (1980), 198—219. Silva's expertise was study o f ancient languages. For a meeting o f the perspectives written by a scholar whose training was in the study o f the modern phenomenon see B. Spolsky, 'Jewish Multilingualism in the First Century: A n Essay in Historical Sociolinguistics," in J.A. Fishman, ed., Readings in the Sociology of Jewish Languages (Leiden, 1985), 3 5 - 5 0 . For a fascinating analysis o f the issues, intended to undo some o f the anachronisms introduced into the dis­ cussion by modern linguistic romanticism and nationalism, see S. Schwartz, "Language, 1

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

14

attitudes o f ancient bilingual J e w s towards the translation o f the dation

document

o f Jewish experience and

authority—the Bible, and M y o b j e c t i v e is not gual, the (which was

extent the

the

the

T o r a h in p a r t i c u l a r — i n t o

to take u p the

o f bilingualism in

one

area to a n o t h e r (the

has

b e e n investigated b y others, and

Greek.

question o f just w h o was either d i r e c t i o n ,

first l a n g u a g e learned, and

foun­

ultimate s o u r c e

w h i c h the

or

its

of

2

bilin­

variety

second)

from

D i a s p o r a vs. Palestine, for e x a m p l e ) . T h a t the

e v i d e n c e for at least s o m e

H e b r e w / G r e e k bilingualism seems i n c o n t r o v e r t i b l e .

3

R a t h e r , as

out-

Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine," Past and Present, 148 (1995), 3 - 4 7 . A major focus o f Schwartz's study is the role o f Aramaic, not prominent in my discussion below, which concentrates on the Greek Torah. In antiquity, bilingualism was usually highly valued. Thus, according to Herodotus 2.154, Psammetichus took steps to have selected Egyptian children learn Greek, in order to create a class o f interpreters. For Greek/Latin bilingualism see the syn­ thesis in H.I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (New York, 1956), 3 4 2 - 3 5 7 . T o cite a few Jewish examples o f the esteem usually accorded to bilingualism, speak­ ing seventy languages was a supposed requirement for membership in the Sanhedrin, b. Sank. 17a. Philo, Corf. 13 asserted that learning many languages made you p o p ­ ular with those w h o spoke these languages., Josephus, AJ 20.264, turned the con­ vention on its head when he asserted that among Jews knowing many languages was not as highly valued as being an expert in the Torah, and explained that if knowing many languages were such a distinction h o w was it that many bilinguals were slaves. Herodotus's account o f the steps taken to produce interpreters should be c o m ­ pared with the rabbinic tradition about the permission granted the members o f the Patriarchal house to study Greek, necessary in order to enable them to serve as representatives o f the Jews to the R o m a n government, t. Sot. 15.8 (241-242, Lieberman) and b.B.K. 83a. For one possible example o f the implementation o f this policy see Libanius, Epist. 1078 and the discussion in M . Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Volume Two: From Tacitus to Simplicius (Jerusalem, 1980), 582 and 596. As the argument below will indicate, these Jews could read and write in both languages. This is a very high standard o f bilingualism even in modern terms (see e.g., R o m a i n e , Bilingualism, 11—19), not to speak o f the ancient world, in which lit­ eracy was far less extensive. O n literacy in antiquity see further the revisionist con­ clusions o f W . V . Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, 1989). It may therefore be no accident that while one important pool o f ancient bilinguals were slaves, forced by their circumstances to master a second language (see Josephus, AJ 20.264), the few ancient H e b r e w / G r e e k writing bilinguals w h o can be named were all o f aristocratic or priestly origins. Josephus, to be discussed more fully below, may stand as a telling witness to the social circumstances which produced these relatively rare individu­ als. For an analysis o f Josephus's educational development—stressing the gap between what he knew when writing JW and what he learned later, by the time he wrote Ant. and Ag.Ap., and indicating the advances Josephus made in his knowledge dur­ ing that period, both on the Jewish and Hellenic side—see S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (Leiden, 1990), 2 3 - 5 7 . 2

3

See esp. the summary article o f S. Lieberman, responding to critique o f his earlier work by other scholars, S. Lieberman, " H o w M u c h Greek in Jewish Palestine," in A . Airman, ed., Biblical and Other Studies (Cambridge, M A , 1963), 123-141. From

15

BILINGUAL JEWS A N D T H E GREEK BIBLE

lined a b o v e , I b e g i n with a recognition o f the special role bilinguals c a n play, a n d therefore ask a b o u t the attitudes o f ancient

Hebrew/

G r e e k bilinguals towards the translation o f the Bible a n d the

Torah

into G r e e k f r o m that perspective. I presume that the attitude o f these bilinguals towards the translation o f the T o r a h should merit special attention, as it was a matter within their realm o f special linguistic c o m p e t e n c e . F u r t h e r m o r e , as the translation o f the T o r a h was expression o f an o u t l o o k o n the relationship b e t w e e n the Jewish

an and

G r e e k worlds, a relationship to w h i c h these bilinguals likely m a d e a unique a n d leading contribution, their perspective o n that e n d e a v o r is o f particular interest.

II

A c c u r a t e translation o f the T o r a h into Greek^ is essential for a n y o n e who

wants to live based o n it in a G r e e k speaking e n v i r o n m e n t ,

in

w h i c h access to the H e b r e w original is n o t widely available. F o r that reason, it is n o surprise to find the Letter of Aristeas—an

a c c o u n t writ­ 4

ten to legitimate a n d praise the Septuagint b y relating its history — celebrating the exactness o f the w o r k d o n e b y the translators: As the books were read, the priests stood up, with the elders among the translators and from the representatives o f the "Community," and with the leaders o f the people and said, "Since this version has been made rightly and reverently, and in every respect accurately, it is good that this should remain exactly so, and that there should be no revision."

another perspective see J.N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? (Leiden, 1968). T h e renewed investigation o f Greek and Latin loan words in rabbinic texts, begun by D . Sperber, w h o published initial results in topical dictionaries such as A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature (Ramat Gan, 1984), promised detailed analyses o n which firm conclusions could be drawn. O n Sperber's results see R . Katzoff, Review o f Sperber, Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 20 (1989), 195-206. For a recent summary o f the state o f the question see A . Wasserstein, "Non-Hellenized Jews in the Semi-Hellenized East," Scripta Classica Israelica 14 (1995), 111—137. M u c h like Schwartz, "Language, Power and Identity," 12~31, Wasserstein stresses the role o f Aramaic, alongside Hebrew and Greek. For further bibliography on ancient bilingualism see also above, n. 1. 4

T h e reasons for the translation o f the T o r a h into Greek—royal initiative or community need—have been much debated, but they are beyond the interests o f this article. For a recent discussion o f the matter, within the context provided by e x p a n d i n g k n o w l e d g e o f Persian and Ptolemaic imperial p o l i c y , see M e l e z e Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 9 9 - 1 0 6 .

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

16

There was general approval o f what they said, and they commanded that a curse should be laid, as was their custom, on anyone who should alter the version by any addition or change to any part o f the writ­ ten text, or any deletion either. This was a good step taken, to ensure that the words were preserved completely and permanently in perpe­ tuity. (Aristeas 310-311) T h e reader o f Aristeas is s u p p o s e d to p r e s u m e that the local priests, the representatives o f the " C o m m u n i t y , " as well as the leaders o f the p e o p l e i n c l u d e d s o m e bilinguals, w h o s e testimony to the a c c u r a c y o f the translation was thus meaningful. Philo o f A l e x a n d r i a described the w o r k o f the translators in a similar vein: Sitting here in seclusion . . . they became as it were possessed, and under inspiration, wrote, not each several scribe something different, but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invis­ ible prompter. Yet who does not know that every language, and Greek especially, abounds in terms, and that the same thought can be put in many shapes by changing single words and whole phrases and suit­ ing the expression to the occasion? This was not the case, we are told, with this law o f ours, but the Greek words used corresponded liter­ ally with the Chaldean, exactly suited to things they indicated . . . The clearest proof of this is that if Chaldeans have learned Greek, or Greeks Chaldean, and read both versions, the Chaldean and the translation, they regard them with awe and reverence as sisters, or rather one and the same, both in matter and in words, and speak o f the authors not as translators but as prophets and priests o f the mysteries, whose sin­ cerity and singleness o f thought has enabled them to go hand in hand with the purest o f spirits, the spirit o f Moses. (Mos. 2.37-40) Philo's o w n k n o w l e d g e o f H e b r e w has b e e n the

subject o f m u c h

scholarly debate, with s o m e magnifying its extent and others minimalizing it.

5

5

Perhaps Philo thought o f himself as o n e w h o

mastered

See, for example, S. Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria—An Introduction (New York, 1979), 131. T h e current consensus favors minimalizing Philo's knowledge o f Hebrew. See Schwartz, "Language, Power and Identity," 3 8 - 3 9 . Thus, Schwartz notes, Philo was not always careful to distinguish between Aramaic and Hebrew, both o f which he often called "Chaldean." At times, Josephus too did not differentiate between Hebrew and Aramaic, calling both "Hebrew." Aristeas 11 warned against this con­ fusion. Ancient evidence indicates that locals, learned in the finer distinctions between peoples and languages did not conflate Phoenician and Syrian into one, and insisted on their separate identity. See the discussion in A.I. Baumgarten, The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary (Leiden, 1981), 2 3 2 - 2 3 5 . By these standards, Aristeas's warning is thus one additional indication, if one were needed, that the "real" author o f this pseudepigraph was Jewish, while Josephus was often thinking and writing in non-Jewish terms. Philo's conflation shows just h o w far he was from intimate personal knowledge o f Hebrew and Aramaic.

17

BILINGUAL JEWS A N D T H E GREEK BIBLE

b o t h C h a l d e a n a n d G r e e k , a n d c o u l d thus speak o n the basis o f his o w n k n o w l e d g e , o f the translators as prophets a n d priests o f the m y s ­ teries, w h o p r o d u c e d a w o r k in w h i c h the n o r m a l distinction b e t w e e n translation and original was irrelevant. In any case, whether

Philo

was speaking for himself o r not, his praise o f the G r e e k T o r a h k n e w n o b o u n d s . It was a miracle in every sense o f the w o r d , a result o f direct divine revelation, p e r f o r m e d b y prophets, and celebrated b y an annual festival at the site (Mos. 2.41—42). O r d i n a r y (i.e. h u m a n ) limitations thus did n o t apply to the G r e e k Bible, as bilinguals gladly attested. V

Hi

^

W h e n o n e turns f r o m authors the extent o f w h o s e bilingualism is o p e n to s o m e d o u b t , such as Philo, to those w h o s e mastery o f b o t h languages was b e y o n d question, the picture changes. I n d e e d , rather than ratifying the a c c u r a c y o f the translation o f the T o r a h , as o n e might e x p e c t based o n the c o m m e n t s a b o v e , it was called into ques­ tion. B e n Sira's grandson, in the p r o l o g u e to the translation o f his grandfather's w o r k , is a c o n v e n i e n t p o i n t o f departure.

Introducing

his o w n translation, he a p o l o g i z e d for its inadequacies, but explained that these faults w e r e n o t his alone: For what the same work, but differ not Translation Law

was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly sense when translated into another language. Not only this even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest o f the books a little as originally expressed.

is a difficult task, a n d n o t even the translation o f the

was i m m u n e from its imperfections.

6

6

Note the statement attributed to R . Judah b . Ilai in t. Meg. 4:42 (364, Lieberman): "one w h o translates a verse literally is a liar, while one w h o adds is a blasphemer." The difficulties o f translation were a theme among intellectuals o f oriental origin in the G r a e c o - R o m a n world. C o m p a r e Philo o f Byblos, F. Gr. H. 790 F 2.10.8 on the ambiguities o f the translation from Phoenician into Greek, as a result o f which Greeks erred in their understanding o f Phoenician history. For a similar comment in an Egyptian context see Corpus Hermeticum 16.1: "Hermes . . . said that to those who c o m e upon m y books their composition will seem absolutely straightforward and clear, although on the contrary, it is obscure and hides the sense o f the words. It will be yet more obscure when the Greeks later get the idea o f translating the books from our language into theirs. A complete distortion o f the text and total obscurity will result." For these authors (unlike Ben Sira's grandson, R . Judah b . Ilai or Josephus, to be discussed below), the difficulties o f translation were invoked in the service o f

18

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

O n a practical level, the testimony o f J o s e p h u s is o f great import. In his version o f the Letter of Aristeas, c o m p o s e d o v e r t w o centuries after the translation o f Ben Sira, Josephus i n t r o d u c e d m a n y changes.

7

O n e o f these c o n c e r n s events w h e n the translation was presented to the J e w s o f Alexandria, a n d should b e c o m p a r e d carefully with the original cited a b o v e :

8

and all o f them, including the priest and the eldest o f the translators and the chief officers o f the community, requested that, since the trans­ lation had been so successfully completed, it should remain as it was and not be altered. Accordingly, when all had approved this idea, they ordered that if anyone saw any further addition made to the text of the Law or anything omitted from it, he should examine it and make it known and correct it, in this they acted wisely, that what had once been judged good might remain forever. (AJ 12.108-109) A t first sight, Josephus w o u l d seem to b e rewriting Aristeas in his o w n w o r d s , but nevertheless not altering the effective m e a n i n g :

9

all p r e ­

sent agreed that n o c h a n g e should ever b e m a d e in the translation o f the T o r a h . Josephus continues, h o w e v e r , that if a n y o n e saw any­ thing w r o n g with the text o f the G r e e k T o r a h he was to c o r r e c t it a n d restore the original. T h i s advice is n o t w h o l l y consistent with what was just stated: Josephus did not counsel the person w h o believed he h a d f o u n d an error to consult the authoritative c o p y o f the trans­ lation supposedly deposited in Alexandria, a n d o f w h i c h a c o p y was given to the Jewish leaders (Aristeas 309). T h e identification o f the error a n d its c o r r e c t i o n w e r e b o t h d o n e o n private initiative.

That

is, J o s e p h u s is here continuing in the footsteps o f Ben Sira's grand­ son in his p e r c e p t i o n o f the difficulties o f translation, informing us o f the attitude and practice o f a bilingual ancient J e w towards the G r e e k T o r a h . T h e difficulties o f translation w e r e such a n d so preva­ lent that, a c c o r d i n g to Josephus, w h e n a bilingual Jew believed he h a d

more general anti-Greek sentiments. For a fuller discussion o f this oriental antiGreek reaction see my other article in this volume, "Were the Greeks Different,?" above, 9. S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome (Leiden, 1979), 3 4 - 3 5 . See E.J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, M A , 1988), 106. T h e difference between Josephus and Aristeas, his source, was also noted by I. Gruenwald, " T h e Polemic Concerning the Translation o f the Torah into Greek," Teudah 4 (5746), 70 [in H e b r e w ] , but its significance was not realized. See also R . Marcus's comment in his translation o f Josephus in the L C L series, V I I , 55, n.d. Compare A . Pelletier, Flavius Josephe, adapteur de la Lettre dAristee (Paris, 1962), 187—189. See above, n. 7. 7

8

9

BILINGUAL JEWS A N D T H E GREEK BIBLE

19

f o u n d a mistake in the G r e e k text, o n the basis o f his knowledge o f the H e b r e w original (whatever that H e b r e w version m i g h t h a v e b e e n : the a g r e e m e n t o f that H e b r e w text with the M a s o r e t i c version c a n ­ n o t b e taken for granted) he emended the G r e e k on his own to c o n f o r m to his n o t i o n o f the H e b r e w . Evidence o f another ing

who

sort indicates that J o s e p h u s w a s n o t

for h i m s e l f a l o n e , b u t

circle o f a n c i e n t thought

1 0

speak­

rather reflecting the p r a c t i c e o f a w i d e

bilingual J e w s .

they k n e w the

"Private

emendation," by

c o r r e c t reading, was c o m m o n

readers in

the

transmission o f G r e e k a n d Latin w o r k s . F o r the G r e e k Bible, its prin­ cipal practitioners s h o u l d h a v e c o m e f r o m the ranks o f J e w i s h bilin­ guals, w h o c o r r e c t e d the

G r e e k to the

best o f their k n o w l e d g e to

c o r r e s p o n d t o their text tradition a n d understanding The

i m p a c t o f this "perversity

o f ancient

Bible c a n b e t r a c e d in s o m e detail.

11

o f the H e b r e w .

revisers" o n the

Greek

It is explicitly attested t o b y

1 0

I should emphasize that Josephus did not display this attitude towards the Greek Pentateuch because he regarded it as illegitimate or inferior. While a num­ ber o f the attitudes he displayed, in AgAp. in particular, made him a full fledged participant in oriental anti-Greek sentiments (see above, n. 6), he regarded the Greek Bible as a worthy endeavor to communicate Jewish History to the Greeks, an effort which he saw the ancient translators as having accomplished only in part and which he intended to complete in his works. Josephus therefore considered the Greek Bible an important precedent for his o w n writings. See Josephus, AJ 1.9-12: Besides these motives there were two further considerations to which I had given serious thought, namely whether our ancestors, o n the one hand, were willing to communicate such information, and whether any o f the Greeks, o n the other, had been curious to learn our history. I found then that the second o f the Ptolemies, that king w h o was so deeply interested in learning and such a collector o f books, was particularly anxious to have our law and the political constitution based thereon translated into Greek; while, o n the other side, Eleazar, w h o yielded in virtue to none o f our high priests, did not scruple to grant the monarch the enjoyment o f a benefit, which he would certainly have refused had it not been our traditional custom to make nothing o f what is g o o d into a secret. Accordingly, I thought that it became me also both to imitate the high priest's magnanimity and to assume that there are still today many lovers o f learning like the king. For even he failed to obtain all our records: it was only the portion containing the L a w which was delivered to him by those w h o were sent to Alexandria to inter­ pret (translate) it. 11

See E.J. Bickerman, " S o m e Notes o n the Transmission o f the Septuagint," Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Part One (Leiden, 1976), 150-157. E. T o v , The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (2nd ed.; Jerusalem, 1997), 11 describes four stages in the development o f the text o f the L X X . T h e second stage was characterized by: "a multitude o f textual traditions resulting from the insertion o f corrections (mainly towards the Hebrew) in all known scrolls in the pre-Christian period, and to a lesser extent in the first century C . E . " T o v is describ­ ing the practice o f private emendation, to which Bickerman referred, from a different

20

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

O r i g e n , w h o c o m p l a i n e d bitterly that as a result o f this process the tradition o f p r o p e r names in the T o r a h and Prophets was often h o p e ­ lessly d e f o r m e d (Commentary on John, 6.41; GCS 1 0 . 1 5 0 - 1 5 1 ) .

1 2

In sum,

in his treatment o f Aristeas, Josephus has taken an ancient text and reinterpreted it as m e a n i n g what he and his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s

have

b e e n d o i n g , without a c k n o w l e d g i n g the g a p b e t w e e n the original a n d that p r a c t i c e .

13

iv In the b a l a n c e o f this p a p e r I w o u l d like to utilize k n o w l e d g e o f the attitude o f bilingual J e w s towards the G r e e k T o r a h , as expressed in their practice o f private e m e n d a t i o n , as the foundation o n w h i c h to p r o p o s e a n e w interpretation o f a g r o u p o f rabbinic passages w h i c h have b e e n m u c h discussed. T h e rabbinic traditions c o n c e r n i n g the translation o f the T o r a h into Greek, " w h e n the T o r a h was trans­ lated for K i n g P t o l e m y , " have b e e n the subject o f scholarly attention since the b e g i n n i n g o f the a c a d e m i c study o f J u d a i s m . T h e y consist o f various lists o f passages in w h i c h the translators supposedly c h a n g e d the G r e e k a w a y from a literal rendering o f the H e b r e w . T h e s e lists are enigmatic a n d offer little explanation o f their contents a n d o v e r ­ all p u r p o s e .

O n e item, the modification o f the translation o f L e v

11:6 is explained as having a political objective, but the other items have n o n e . Earliest scholarly efforts w e r e d e v o t e d to determining precise contents o f these lists o r list, on

14

the

while m o r e recent efforts focus

the readings in the G r e e k Bible b e h i n d these passages,

15

or on

perspective. Note that T o v ' s second stage was coming to an end in the first cen­ tury C.E., around the time Josephus was composing Ant. See further E. T o v , " T h e Rabbinic Traditions Concerning the 'Alterations' Inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and their Relation to the Original Text o f the L X X , " Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 15 (1984), 7 5 - 7 6 . For another example o f this practice by Josephus see my discussion o f his interpretation o f the obligation o f parents to teach their children the Torah as a commandment to teach children to read, AgAp. 2.204, in A.I. Baumgarten, "Literacy and the Polemics Surrounding Biblical Interpretation in the Second Temple Period," in J. Kugel, ed., Studies in Ancient Midrash (Cambridge, M A , 2001), 3 4 - 3 5 . See especially V . Aptowitzer, "Die rabbinischen Berichte iiber die Entstehung der Septuaginta," Haqedem 2 (1909), 11-27, 102-122; 3 (1910), 4 - 1 7 . T o v , "Alterations," 6 6 - 6 9 . As T o v is disinterested in determining the "origi­ nal" list behind the different variations he simply conflates all these versions and 12

13

14

15

BILINGUAL JEWS A N D T H E GREEK BIBLE

the

reasons m o t i v a t i n g

each

individual

change.

1 6

Not

21

surprisingly,

c o n s i d e r i n g the inherent obscurity o f the lists a n d their lack o f any clues, I k n o w o f o n l y t w o attempts, to b e discussed m o r e fully b e l o w , to c o n s i d e r the lists as a w h o l e . To

u n d e r s t a n d these a c c o u n t s , h o w e v e r , o n e must b e g i n b y r e c ­

o g n i z i n g that they c o m e in t w o versions: o n e a simple list o f places in w h i c h the

translation was c h a n g e d

(hereafter, V e r s i o n A ) ,

1 7

the

s e c o n d a m i r a c u l o u s description o f the p r o c e s s o f translation f o l l o w e d b y the list o f the c h a n g e d translations (hereafter, V e r s i o n B; V e r s i o n B is thus a miracle

1 8

story plus V e r s i o n A ) ,

with the

miracle

story

deals with fifteen passages in all, which he believes represent the "central tradition" (ibid., 66): G e n 1:1, 1:26, 2:2, 5:2, 11:7, 18:12, 49:6; Exod 4:20, 12:40, 24:5, 24:11; Num 16:15; Deut 4:19, 17:3, 14:7 = Lev 11:6. T h e lists are usually treated as a grab-bag o f verses, compiled from groups o f verses, some groups originating in divergent manuscript readings or in an attempt to close gaps in the biblical text, others in theological considerations (particularly to dispel any hint that the Bible might support belief in more than one G o d ) , and yet others in political concerns o f various sorts. T h e reasons proposed for the changes then vary from group to group. See, for example D . Barthelemy, "Eusebe, la Septante et 'les autres'," Etudes d'histoire du texte de Vancien testament (Gottingen, 1978), 187-193; G . Veltri, Eine Tora fiir den Konig Talmai (Tubingen, 1994), esp. the sum­ mary, 107; A . D . Wasserstein, " O n Donkeys, Wine and the Uses o f Textual Criticism: Septuagintal Variants in Jewish Palestine," in I. Gafhi, A . O p p e n h e i m e r and D . Schwartz, eds., The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World—Studies in Memory of Menahem Stem (Jerusalem, 1996), 119*-142*; D . Wasserstein, "Ptolemy and the Hare: Dating an O l d Story About the Translation o f the Septuagint," Scripta Classica Israelica 17 (1998), 7 7 - 8 6 , esp. 82, w h o characterizes the lists as a bringing together o f a num­ ber o f free-floating elements. Note, finally, that T o v concedes the varied background of the examples which comprise these lists in his comments, "Alterations," 8 2 - 8 9 . 1 6

17

T h e earliest sources for Version A are Mek. Bo, Parasha 14 ( 5 0 - 5 1 , HorowitzRabin): *nhrb -nrao onanno in« n n . . . cnan p » n iatr ~KDR h*rw aenm p r n vmpn isr mrrm chm D I K nt&PK franca tro DTT?K rh& IOPD m rcsro .-pan rranpa ma prism ,Dnsc a© rr?3Ri mrm ran ;P2®n nvn rrnen "won am bD'i V33 rim m©K nK n©o np'i ,oi3» npj? D D I S - D I niu inn o a « 3 "o ,^nxb bd7 Ttirb ama yrh^ T I phn im ,rwn onn im man vh ,m« $m DTSTI ••n noiai nhnn nrvx rwi t> anDi xravb rwwh n is vh h larai .cra:;n ,

,

.mso man H i m rue wba See also y. Meg. 1.11.7Id T h e earliest source containing Version B is b. Meg. 9a. tin ,wr\2 warn crmvn j r a n ,n"ip\ wm orse? "['pan "-n^rn n©i?a srcrn .•Dm ne?a mm ^ ram en ? TTTKI nnw nntf "?3 ^ 03331 . p r o no ^ an ? nmn •TrfrN i"? mroi .nn« run ? J'TD lo^om ,n^i? T I K I nna ^ 3^3 Kin -pra vrnpn jra rapn rar ^iraon nvn nnzn ^©n nvn ^ T B T D I tfxn DTR n©PK . n w n ara inn DSK3 ""D /psnps nia pnxm ,ansc •© n b 3 K i rrriN nnn mra ISTD ,IK~D 1 8

1

1

1

•*D 30101 ,D1t«l ^ D T D T I V33 nKl TTKD« nN HOD np l ,0138 npi? DJfirOl 112? •*CDio»r n» rftizn m»n miR ms"i» -IK©31 D H S Q p & 3 132?'' I O N ^xiw TT p^n im ;mm ana im non , I T nba vh ^an© 'enow ^3 1*7 i 3 T D i push vrci ^ I D » onn« • m'?« "nnyi p^pn ta"? i"wh amK i m » v

1

,

,

,

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

22

apparently serving as c o n f i r m a t i o n o r sanction for the actions o f the translators in c h a n g i n g those places, at the v e r y least. T h a t is, while the m i r a c l e story m a y have o t h e r functions

(see further b e l o w ) ,

its

m i n i m a l role in its c o n t e x t in V e r s i o n B is to indicate divine a p p r o v a l for

the

changes

remarkable.

made

b y the

translators. A s s u c h ,

V e r s i o n B is

It shares the t h e m e o f m i r a c u l o u s translation with sto­

ries t o l d b y P h i l o a n d

numerous

church

fathers,

19

b u t while these

latter authors all lived b y the translation into G r e e k a n d thus n e e d e d to assert its authority, the R a b b i s w h o told V e r s i o n B d i d n o t live b y that text at all, b u t rather b y the H e b r e w original as they inter­ preted it.

20

Perhaps this c o n s i d e r a t i o n will e x p l a i n the fact that while

V e r s i o n B shares the t h e m e o f a miracle story with Philo a n d Christian authors, it d o e s n o t e m p l o y it for the will b e

discussed m o r e fully b e l o w ,

the

ancient

same p u r p o s e . A s

miraculous

happenings

in

V e r s i o n B sanction the actions o f the translators in c h a n g i n g specific passages rather than functioning as authorization

for the translation

as a w h o l e . W h a t then c o u l d have b e e n the p u r p o s e o f V e r s i o n B ? T h e objectives o f those w h o t o l d V e r s i o n A are n o clearer. W h y

\th>a ,na® ran« 'nbrfrw inm® ^ s o / u n » n rim t> HDTO $bi phnn

mrsx

TIE?K an "from Dmrrn n ipnto now T h e only scholar I have seen w h o notes clearly the difference between Versions A and B, and is sensitive to its significance, is Veltri, Eine Tora, 1 9 - 2 0 . O n these traditions see A . Pelletier, Lettre d'Aristee a Philocrate (Paris, 1962), 78-98. For that reason I find it hard to comprehend the view o f those scholars, e.g. M . Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (New York, 1951), 83, w h o assert that the story o f the separation o f the scholars and the miraculous agreement o f their translations began in the rabbinic world and spread from there to Christian authors. This expla­ nation seems implausible: Philo, Mos. 2.37, cited above, already writes o f the seclu­ sion o f the scholars, w h o then wrote the same text word for word, as though dictated to each b y an invisible prompter. Admittedly, in this context Philo means the iso­ lation o f the translators from the pollution o f everyday life and their c o m m u n i o n with the elements, but his version could serve as a basis for someone to assert the separation o f the translators from each other. Philo clearly antedates the Rabbinic Versions A and B. Philo also has a more obvious motive than rabbinic authorities for needing to validate the sanctity o f the Greek translation. For these reasons I consider him (or some other Alexandrian Jew) a more likely source for the origin o f the tradition o f the isolation o f the scholars, and its appearance in Version B to be derivative. For a different and more convincing account o f the spread o f the miracle story, from Alexandrian Jews to Jewish Palestine see D . Barthelemy, "Pourquoi la T o r a h a-t-elle ete traduite en G r e c ? " Etudes, 325. In b. Meg. 9a R . Judah b . Ilai (a tanna, who lived in the mid- second century C.E.) is the tradent o f Version B. This same R. Judah visited Alexandria. Barthelemy suggests that perhaps R . Judah learned the tradition behind Version B while there.

.rmra

1 9

2 0

23

BILINGUAL JEWS A N D T H E GREEK BIBLE

should s o m e o n e have c o m p i l e d and preserved a simple list o f rela­ tively few passages w h e r e the G r e e k differs f r o m the H e b r e w , par­ ticularly in light o f the n u m e r o u s places w h e r e the t w o texts d o n o t agree? W h a t might b e special a b o u t these places to merit such notice? T h i s question is even m o r e p u z z l i n g as in contrast to V e r s i o n B n o claim for divine sanction o f any sort is b e i n g asserted. One

further consideration should guide the investigation: in spite

o f the natural t e n d e n c y to focus o n V e r s i o n B as the m o r e plete tradition,

21

com­

o n e must c o n s i d e r the possibility that V e r s i o n A

p r e c e d e d V e r s i o n B. T h a t is, the miracle story m a y b e a later addi­ tion to an already existing list, a n d the version with the miracle story is n o t necessarily the original. T h i s possibility is, in fact, e n h a n c e d b y other considerations. V e r s i o n A is f o u n d in sources w h i c h b e l o n g to earlier strata o f rabbinic literature (a T a n n a i t i c source a n d Palestinian

the

T a l m u d ) , while V e r s i o n B is first f o u n d as a baraita in

the B a b y l o n i a n T a l m u d a n d e v e n later w o r k s .

22

T h i s consideration

is, admittedly, far from decisive but it should serve as a

reminder

o f the possibility that the fuller a c c o u n t in V e r s i o n B m a y b e a later elaboration o f an existing

tradition.

v Numerous

d i f f e r e n c e s exist b e t w e e n the

M a s o r e t i c text

o f the

Pentateuch a n d the Septuagint translation. W h y m i g h t those R a b b i s who

c o m p i l e d V e r s i o n s A a n d B have selected o n l y a few o f these

differences for special attention? Is there o n e explanation w h i c h unites this apparent g r a b - b a g o f divergent verses t o g e t h e r ?

23

I f o n e w e r e to

j u d g e o n the basis o f V e r s i o n B alone the answer m i g h t seem clear a n d straightforward,

as p r o p o s e d b y I. G r u e n w a l d :

a n d preserved V e r s i o n B i n t e n d e d

24

those w h o told

to assert the legitimacy o f the

e n d e a v o r o f translating the T o r a h into Greek. G o d H i m s e l f a p p r o v e d

2 1

See e.g. Gruenwald, "Polemic," 6 5 - 7 8 . For a brief history o f scholarship on the relationship o f the two versions see T o v , "Alterations," 67. Version B also has the advantage o f being found in the Babylonian Talmud, in b. Meg. 9a, and the Babylonian Talmud remains the rabbinic source most widely studied by traditional Jews. See further Veltri, Eine Tora, 24. See above n. 16. Gruenwald, "Polemic," 65—78. 2 2

2 3

2 4

24

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

this p r o j e c t b y granting it a miraculous seal o f approval. W h e n w e r e m i n d ourselves, as G r u e n w a l d demonstrates, that there were s o m e w h o regarded the translation o f Scripture into another language as a desecration o f the s a c r e d ,

25

that provides us with a plausible c o n ­

text for the telling o f a miracle story to assert the opposite c o n c l u ­ sion. Nevertheless, Gruenwald's explanation ignores V e r s i o n A a n d does not d o full justice to the c o m p l e x i t y o f V e r s i o n B. It omits any consideration o f the list o f places in w h i c h the G r e e k translation differed from the H e b r e w , yet this issue is crucial to the miracle story in V e r s i o n B. If the p u r p o s e o f V e r s i o n B was to extend divine approval to the translation, then w h y list the places in w h i c h the translators d i d n o t offer a literal rendering o f the H e b r e w ? T h i s w o u l d seem to interfere with the supposed objective o f the story. O n e might therefore reformulate the understanding o f the story (on G r u e n w a l d ' s behalf) and c o n c l u d e that the p u r p o s e o f those w h o told V e r s i o n B was to assert that even though the translators c h a n g e d specific places they did so with divine approval, h e n c e the p r o j e c t was legitimate. O n e might g o further, perhaps

entire

(again o n

G r u e n w a l d ' s b e h a l f ) , a n d argue that the goal o f the miracle story was to claim that only certain deviations b e t w e e n the G r e e k a n d the H e b r e w h a d divine approval while all others did not, but b o t h these conclusions, h o w e v e r , weaken the effect o f the miracle story as a w h o l e , if its real p u r p o s e was to maintain the legitimacy o f transla­ tion o f Scripture into G r e e k . It is w o r t h r e m e m b e r i n g , as n o t e d a b o v e , that Philo a n d Christian authors—anxious, e a c h for their o w n reasons, to assert the authority o f the translation into G r e e k — k n e w nothing o f places w h e r e the translators did not offer a literal ren­ dering.

26

In a similar vein, the Letter of Aristeas c l a i m e d that the trans­

lation was r e c o g n i z e d b y the J e w s and their leaders as b e i n g perfect, in other w o r d s absolutely accurate, with n o deviations from the orig­ inal (Aristeas, 310). A c o m p a r i s o n o f V e r s i o n B with accounts definitely written to assert the authority o f the G r e e k translation shows the former's weakness as a story intended to a c c o m p l i s h that p u r p o s e ,

2 5

Gruenwald, "Polemic," 7 1 - 7 5 . See also A . Wasserstein, "Septuagintal Variants," 121*-122*. Philo's praise o f the accuracy o f the translation, Mos. 2.40, quoted above, is worth recalling. A bilingual person, he asserts, would regard the original and the translation with awe and reverence as sisters or "rather one and the same both in matter and words." 2 6

25

BILINGUAL JEWS A N D T H E GREEK BIBLE

a n d indicates that while V e r s i o n B m a y have b e e n told to legitimate the translation o f the T o r a h into G r e e k that explanation

does not

a c c o u n t for all its aspects, a n d d o e s n o t b e g i n to explain V e r s i o n A , w h i c h lacks the miracle story

entirely.

27

A n o t h e r attempt to explain the lists as a w h o l e has b e e n b y E. T o v .

2 8

made

A c c o r d i n g to T o v , the R a b b i s w e r e aware o f the read­

ings to b e f o u n d in the "original" manuscript o f the Septuagint. M o s t o f these readings w e r e c o r r e c t e d in the archetype o f all manuscripts k n o w n to us in o r d e r to c o n f o r m to the M a s o r e t i c text. T h e binic lists, h o w e v e r , preserved a n u m b e r o f such "original"

rab­

readings

and offer us a witness to the G r e e k T o r a h as first p r e p a r e d b y the translators.

29

T o v ' s assertions seem rather far-fetched

a n d m o r e in

the nature o f u n p r o v e n assumptions. T h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e that the R a b b i s k n e w a set o f "original" readings otherwise almost c o m p l e t e l y lost, a n d if such a list existed the R a b b i s seem to b e the least likely g r o u p to possess it. O n the w h o l e , the R a b b i s s e e m e d little interested in the G r e e k B i b l e .

30

O n c e it h a d passed into the hands o f the Chris­

tians, the G r e e k Bible was a source o f awkward embarrassment: e a c h side in the Jewish-Christian discussion c o u l d n o w p r o d u c e its o w n written e v i d e n c e to support its c l a i m s .

31

T h e k n o w l e d g e o f "original"

2 7

Gruenwald, "Polemic," 76 states that he chose to focus on the account I have called Version B as a matter o f convenience, simply because it is fuller. W h e n he comes to treat what I call Version A he asserts that it agrees with the claims o f Version B, "Polemic," 77. This, however, is less than fully candid. Version A agrees with B only when one has begun with B as the original, and not merely as a mat­ ter o f convenience. Taken by itself Version A makes no claim whatsoever for the legitimacy o f the translation o f the T o r a h into Greek. It merely states that when the T o r a h was translated—whether that was a g o o d or bad thing in the opinion o f those w h o told Version A is unstated—the following changes were made by the translators. For an interpretation o f Version B according to which its objective was to argue for divine approval o f the divergences in the specific cases noted, but make no claim whatsoever concerning the legitimacy o f the translation as a whole, treating it rather as a necessary but unavoidable evil, see Aptowitzer, "Berichte," Haqedem 3 (1910), 12-16. See above n. 12. See T o v , "Alterations," 76. See A . Wasserstein, "Septuagintal Variants," 123*—125*. Compare Veltri, Eine Tora, 109 w h o has a higher evaluation o f the degree o f interest o f the Rabbis in the Greek Bible from its earliest phases, but nevertheless considers it impossible to demonstrate that Versions A or B go back to a different original text type in Greek, as argued by T o v . For a discussion o f the competition between Jews and Christians in which each side produced its written p r o o f to its claims see A.I. Baumgarten, "Justinian and 2 8

2 9

3 0

3 1

26

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

readings in the L X X w h i c h T o v attributes to the R a b b i s is thus entirely out o f character. Furthermore,

w h y w o u l d the R a b b i s care

a b o u t the authentic text o f the Septuagint; o f w h a t interest was this matter to them; did they care e n o u g h a b o u t the Septuagint to cause t h e m to preserve the lists f o u n d in o u r sources? A s a final indication in favor o f the distance b e t w e e n the R a b b i s and

the

G r e e k text o n e s h o u l d n o t e the

argument advanced

by

D . Wasserstein c o n c e r n i n g the modification o f the n a m e o f the hare in L e v 11:6 a n d D e u t 14:7, as n o t e d a b o v e the o n l y c h a n g e in trans­ lation in the rabbinic lists for w h i c h they supplied an

explanation.

32

A c c o r d i n g to the R a b b i s , this c h a n g e was m a d e to a v o i d offending the king, b e c a u s e Ptolemy's wife o r m o t h e r was n a m e d rabbit (logos). T h i s is incorrect. T h e possible offensive translation c o n c e r n e d the n a m e o f the father o f the f o u n d e r o f the dynasty, P t o l e m y I (Lagos). T h e rabbinic a c c o u n t is therefore

out o f t o u c h with the reality o f

the P t o l e m a i c context, a n d an explanation w h i c h originated in that c o n t e x t has degenerated. I f the R a b b i s d i d n o t preserve correctly the circumstances b e h i n d the o n e c h a n g e w h o s e reason they supposedly r e m e m b e r e d , the likelihood that they k n e w a g r o u p o f original read­ ings in the G r e e k T o r a h is small. In sum, evaluating previous attempts to discover a single m o t i v e b e h i n d the formation o f the lists, Veltri c o m e s to the reluctant c o n ­ clusion that n o o n e reason c a n b e discovered. T h e lists have their origin in the exegetical traditions o f the R a b b i s , a n d the lists have a distinctly " r a b b i n i c " character. Appropriately, m a n y items take u p difficulties in scripture addressed elsewhere in rabbinic literature, a n d e m p l o y rabbinic exegetical t e r m i n o l o g y freely. Nevertheless, the items o n the list are there for a series o f different

reasons.

33

vi T h e discussion o f private

emendation

elaborated

a b o v e offers

an

alternate c o n t e x t for Versions A a n d B, preferable in m y o p i n i o n to

the Jews," in L. Landman, ed., Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein Memorial Volume (New York, 1980), 3 7 - 4 4 . These circumstances are the basis for the suggestion o f Barthelemy, "Eusebe, la Septante et 'les autres'," 191, that one reason for the presence o f cer­ tain items on the list o f passages "altered for King Ptolemy" was to deflect Christian interpretations o f these verses. D . Wasserstein, "Ptolemy and the Hare," 77—85. Veltri, Eine Tora, 107-111. 3 2

3 3

BILINGUAL J E W S A N D T H E G R E E K BIBLE

27

other suggestions offered thus far. I p r o p o s e that the R a b b i s w h o told Versions A a n d B w e r e addressing their natural constituency o f Palestinian J e w s (at least s o m e o f w h o were bilingual) c o n c e r n i n g private e m e n d a t i o n , a practice well attested a m o n g t h e m (unlike the hypothetical "original" version posited b y T o v as the context for the lists). T h e p u r p o s e o f these lists, I submit, was to put s o m e limits o n the t e n d e n c y o f these bilingual J e w s to i m p r o v e the G r e e k Bible in a c c o r d a n c e with their understanding o f the H e b r e w . E a c h item o n the lists m a y b e there for a different reason, but the lists as a w h o l e w e r e intended to teach this audience that there w e r e certain dis­ crepancies w h i c h were original ( V e r s i o n A ) a n d / o r even h a d divine sanction ( V e r s i o n B), h e n c e should b e u n t o u c h e d . B o t h V e r s i o n A and Version B thus b e c o m e fully meaningful (in contrast to Gruenwald's explanation). W h e t h e r o r n o t rabbinic notions o f original readings w e r e histor­ ically c o r r e c t b y o u r standards is irrelevant. F o r whatever reason(s) a n d b y whatever process they arrived at that c o n c l u s i o n , m y sug­ gestion is that the R a b b i s responsible for Versions A a n d B were c o n v i n c e d that they k n e w a g r o u p o f readings in the L X X w h i c h o u g h t to b e preserved against private e m e n d a t i o n , a n d they tried to achieve this goal through the lists o f deviations w h i c h w e r e in the T o r a h as translated for K i n g Ptolemy. O n e further p o i n t should b e n o t e d in support o f this suggestion. Private e m e n d a t i o n o f the G r e e k T o r a h , a c c o r d i n g to T o v , nourished in the era p r i o r to the destruction o f the T e m p l e , a n d c a m e to a close at the e n d o f the first century C . E .

3 4

Josephus, w h o wrote at

the e n d o f the first century C . E . a n d w h o s e c o m m e n t s o n private e m e n d a t i o n were a p o i n t o f departure a b o v e , thus fits well into the c h r o n o l o g i c a l context. In a similar vein, D . Wasserstein has suggested that the rabbinic accounts o f the translation o f the T o r a h for K i n g P t o l e m y w e r e c o m p i l e d b e t w e e n 70 a n d 1 3 2 ,

35

m o r e o r less at the

same time. If D . Wasserstein's dating is correct, understanding the rabbinic traditions o n the G r e e k Bible as a response to private e m e n ­ dation makes excellent c h r o n o l o g i c a l sense, as they were

addressing

an issue still current at that time, the same time at w h i c h Josephus wrote.

See above, n. 11. D . Wasserstein, "Ptolemy and the Hare," 83.

28

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

O n e final question n e e d b e asked: o n the interpretation p r o p o s e d , did the rabbinic effort succeed? D i d rabbinic intervention preserve the readings o n this list from private e m e n d a t i o n (or, in a kind o f b o o m e r a n g effect, did rabbinic e n d o r s e m e n t o f these readings cause t h e m to b e re-introduced into the manuscript tradition o f the G r e e k Bible, after they h a d already b e e n r e m o v e d ) ? T h e e v i d e n c e , as sur­ v e y e d b y T o v , suggests that if m y suggestion o f rabbinic motives is correct it was largely ineffective. O f the fifteen Biblical passages T o v considers as f o r m i n g the central tradition o f the rabbinic list only five o r at m o s t six are reflected in the manuscript tradition o f the L X X , while the other nine are f o u n d in n o n e o f the extant M S S . o f the L X X .

3 6

Accordingly, in discussing these examples, T o v attempts

reconstructions o f the G r e e k renderings w h i c h are reflected in the rab­ binic a c c o u n t .

37

A n attempt to discover the reasons for the apparent failure o f the intention I have attributed to the rabbinic list w o u l d pile specula­ tion o n speculation, h e n c e should b e a p p r o a c h e d with extreme cau­ tion. I w o u l d suggest, h o w e v e r , that if the c h r o n o l o g i c a l s c h e m e outlined a b o v e is correct, the R a b b i s w o u l d have intervened fairly late in the process, well towards the e n d o f the era o f private e m e n ­ dation, after m o s t o f the " d a m a g e " h a d b e e n d o n e . T h e i r efforts might have suited the o l d p r o v e r b o f closing the barn d o o r after the horse has b e e n stolen.

38

vii W h a t p r o m p t e d these ancient bilinguals to b e so critical o f the trans­ lation o f the T o r a h , to the extent that I suggest that R a b b i s believed that they n e e d e d to b e c u r b e d ? O n e part o f the answer m a y b e the pride felt b y elite bilinguals in mastering t w o languages.

39

T h u s , such

bilinguals are often fervent o p p o n e n t s o f c o d e switching (introducing

3 6

T o v , "Alterations," 7 3 - 7 6 . Ibid., 7 6 - 8 2 . I prefer this suggestion to its converse, which strikes me as perverse: combin­ ing the chronological evidence for the end o f the era o f private emendation with the date o f the rabbinic lists and then explaining the end o f private emendation as a result o f rabbinic intervention. Note, for example, Josephus's evident pride in his accomplishments in Greek, AJ 20.262-263. See also above, n. 2. 3 7

3 8

3 9

29

BILINGUAL JEWS A N D T H E GREEK BIBLE

w o r d s o r terms from o n e language into phrases in the o t h e r ) , though

40

their o w n practice m a y n o t always live u p to those

even stan­

dards. Perhaps this j u d g m e n t a l b e n t o f very high level bilinguals has its origins in a crucial stage o f acquiring another language: the real­ ization that the n e w language is an i n d e p e n d e n t tem, with its o w n l e x i c o n a n d syntax,

a n d separate sys­

a n d usually e m p l o y e d in a

specific context. T h i s stage is critical b o t h for those w h o learn a sec­ ond

language later in life, a n d those w h o g r o w u p speaking two o r

m o r e languages,

as p r o v e n b y the w o r d g a m e s bilingual

children

play, in w h i c h they m e r g e w o r d s , constructions, o r grammatical forms f r o m t w o languages for h u m o r o u s o r mischievous effect. T h e wit in these games is based o n the recognition that items from t w o systems w h i c h should b e kept separate are b e i n g j o i n e d . A bilingual o f that degree o f a c c o m p l i s h m e n t , w h o has l a b o r e d to o v e r c o m e that hur­ dle a n d successfully internalized

that recognition, m a y b e especially

critical o f those less effective at the

endeavor.

41

A c c o r d i n g l y , it is n o t surprising to learn that ancient bilingual J e w s disappointed the author o f Aristeas o r Philo o f A l e x a n d r i a

42

in their

attitude towards the G r e e k T o r a h . R a t h e r than c o n f i r m i n g its a c c u ­ racy, they insisted o n the difficulties o f translation and gave practi­ cal expression to this o u t l o o k b y constant

attempts to i m p r o v e

the

translation b y private e m e n d a t i o n . W h i l e full-fledged p r o o f remains elusive in the absence o f n e w e v i d e n c e , I p r o p o s e that the

rabbinic

accounts o f the changes in the T o r a h as translated for K i n g P t o l e m y are best u n d e r s t o o d

in this c o n t e x t a n d

against this b a c k d r o p ,

as

addressed to this a u d i e n c e o f bilinguals and as an attempt to regu­ late their disposition to c o r r e c t the G r e e k T o r a h . I f m y suggestion is a c c e p t e d , the extent to w h i c h bilinguals contradicted the c o n c l u ­ sions attributed to t h e m b y Aristeas a n d Philo is e v e n greater.

4 0

For an ancient example o f opposition to code switching see Neh 13:24, as explained by Spolsky, "Jewish Multilingualism," 36. O n this aspect o f bilingualism see Grosjean, Life with Two Languages, 186, 206-207 and Hoffmann, Introduction, 7 9 - 8 8 . In an informal survey, not meant to be more than anecdotal, I inquired o f fel­ low English speakers w h o live in Israel h o w many o f them read the subtitles in Hebrew in American movies, thus checking up on the work o f the translators and noting their frequent howling errors. Virtually all conceded that this was their practice. T h e gap between Philo's claims and the attitudes o f high level bilinguals such as Josephus may serve as yet one further indication that Philo's knowledge o f Hebrew was not extensive. Compare above, n. 5. 4 1

4 2

30

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

F r o m a n o t h e r p o i n t o f v i e w , to return to the perspective

with

w h i c h this article b e g a n , the j u d g m e n t a l attitude o f bilinguals towards the translation o f the T o r a h m a y b e a reflection n o t o n l y o f the effort required to speak a n d write b o t h l a n g u a g e s ,

43

but also o f the

p e r m a n e n t dissonance felt b y bilinguals b e t w e e n the t w o languages they k n o w a n d the t w o cultures these languages represent.

Under

those circumstances, o n e , w h o has l a b o r e d to o v e r c o m e that hurdle a n d successfully internalized that recognition, m a y b e especially crit­ ical o f those less effective at the e n d e a v o r , truly at h o m e in neither linguistic n o r cultural c o n t e x t .

44

In this sense, the attitude o f bilin­

guals towards the G r e e k version o f the T o r a h m a y b e o n e indica­ tion ( a m o n g o t h e r s )

45

o f the awkwardness they felt in sitting at

the

m e e t i n g p o i n t o f cultures.

4 3

See Josephus's comments o n his labors to learn Greek, marred at least in part when speaking Greek by his inability to overcome the accent associated with the language o f his youth, AJ 20.263. Anderson, Imagined Communities, 92~93, quotes Bipin Chandra Pal describing the pain o f a native Indian educated in English in India and England, w h o was "as much a stranger in his o w n native land as the European residents." O n the anomie experienced by bilinguals, their sense o f not really belonging to one world or the other, see also Hoffmann, Introduction, 146-148. See, for example, Josephus's awkward silence concerning Jewish hopes o f national redemption as expressed in the b o o k o f Daniel, AJ 10.210. Compare, also, the delicate balance o f polemic and apologetic in Josephus's treatment o f the fail­ ure o f Greek historians to mention the Jews, a major theme o f AgAp. 4 4

4 5

3

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION. GREEK WORDS F O R J E W I S H C O N C E P T S IN P H I L O NAOMI

G.

COHEN

W e are gathered today to discuss aspects o f the p h e n o m e n o n o f the straddling o f Jewish a n d G r e e k cultures in Hellenistic Jewish litera­ ture. I intend to deal with a very small aspect o f this—with s o m e G r e e k w o r d s ; a n d m o r e specifically, first, how certain w o r d s acquired idiosyncratic connotations in Hellenistic Jewish literature, a n d s e c o n d , what the details o f their m e t a m o r p h o s i s indicate respecting ideational and cultural developments in Hellenistic Judaism. I k n o w that this is a tall order, but all I wish to d o t o d a y is to present a m e t h o d o l o g y — replete with the appropriate examples, for the p r o o f is in the details. It is almost redundant to state that Philo was a religious thinker. W h a t e v e r else he m a y have b e e n , he in any event was eminently that. But what is rarely c o n s i d e r e d is the n o less o b v i o u s fact that w h e n he discoursed a b o u t matters o f religion it was n o t "religion in general" that he was thinking about, but m o r e particularly, religion as he c o n c e i v e d it to b e , in terms o f his o w n , the Jewish

tradition;

a n d the m o s t basic stage in w h i c h this is reflected is v o c a b u l a r y . W h i l e the writings o f any great thinker take o n a life o f their o w n w h i c h often goes b e y o n d the c o n c e r n s and the c o n s c i o u s intention o f their author, a n d in the final analysis the lasting significance o f their w o r k lies in this latter message, at the same time an i m p o r ­ tant d i m e n s i o n o f their writings is missed unless their w o r d s are also read in the same semantic field in w h i c h they were written;

and

respecting Philo, I a m c o n v i n c e d that this is the indispensable master key to understanding his writings as his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s read them. W h e n reading his w o r k , it is important to bear in m i n d that a significant n u m b e r o f w o r d s w h o s e connotation, w h e n they were used b y J e w s in Jewish contexts t o o k o n a specifically Jewish

meaning,

w h i c h t h o u g h related to their general c o n n o t a t i o n , is n o t the same. I h o p e to s h o w that Philo f o u n d m u c h o f what I shall henceforth term the " J u d e o - G r e e k " v o c a b u l a r y ready to hand, a n d that in the

32

NAOMI

G. COHEN

appropriate contexts these w o r d s were automatically understood with­ o u t further a d o b y the c o m m u n i t y o f users in their specific "JudeoG r e e k " c o n n o t a t i o n — a t the same time without losing sight o f the fact that this did not replace their general c o n n o t a t i o n . T o q u o t e G . W . H . L a m p e ' s statement respecting the connotation o f G r e e k words in patristic writings, in the introduction to his A Patristic Greek Lexicon, "It m u s t . . . o n n o a c c o u n t b e s u p p o s e d that the ordinary senses o f such a w o r d are a b s e n t . . . and have b e e n replaced b y a n o t h e r . . . the c o r r e s p o n d i n g entry in L i d d e l a n d

S c o t t is, as it w e r e , taken as

1

read . . Z ' T h i s is exactly what I have in m i n d respecting the "JudeoG r e e k " w o r d s n o w to b e discussed. D a v i d R u n i a , in his recent b o o k , Philo in Early Christian Literature, has n o t e d a n o t insignificant n u m b e r o f w o r d s w h i c h he calls verba Philonica "that are c o m m o n in Philo but f o u n d n o w h e r e else in p r e Christian G r e e k a n d that are then taken o v e r b y the C h u r c h fathers f r o m their reading o f Philo's w o r k s . "

2

W h i l e this is a related

facet

o f w h a t I intend to discuss here, it is n o t the same thing; for w h a t I h o p e to b e able to s h o w is the c o n v e r s e : that respecting several rather c o m m o n G r e e k words—VOLIOC;, voLioGecria, napadoaiq, 5iKaioaiL)vri, aocpia, a n d Xoyoq—Philo tion ready to h a n d — a n d

86y|ia,

found a Judeo-Greek connota­

these are merely exemplia gratia. A l t h o u g h

this is t o d a y often a c c e p t e d in p r i n c i p l e ,

3

it is still almost

entirely

disregarded in practice in Philonic studies. A

s e c o n d p o i n t w h i c h b e c a m e evident as I p r o c e e d e d , is that

s o m e w h a t later these w o r d s underwent yet another

metamorphosis.

In early Christian writings they w e r e again redefined in a c c o r d with the n e w needs o f Christian

theology, and

since

Hellenistic-Jewish

texts, including Philo, have survived virtually exclusively thanks to their adoptive Christian foster h o m e s , the Christian re-definitions o f the

" J u d e o - G r e e k " terms h a v e

at least until fairly recently

been

a c c e p t e d as their p r i m a r y c o n n o t a t i o n s b y scholars o f these texts. T h i s , I suggest, helps to explain w h y these w o r d s have heretofore so often b e e n misconstrued b y scholars o f Philo. I, for o n e , have f o u n d it fascinating

1

to d i s c o v e r h o w this redefinition

of common

G . W . H . Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961), introduction, vii. David Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature (Minneapolis, 1993), 108. See e.g. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 154: " T h e achievement o f Philo and his predecessors is to create a new language, what [E.F.] Osborn, ("Philo and Clement," Prudentia 19 [1987] 35-49:40), called the 'language o f biblical hellenism.'" 2

3

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION

33

" J u d e o - G r e e k " terms pinpoints s o m e o f the central theological issues in the early days o f Christianity, at the time that it still l o o k e d u p o n itself as a form o f Judaism, and was still d e v e l o p i n g its o w n sepa­ rate identity in terms o f a Jewish frame o f reference. A l r e a d y s o m e fifty years a g o , H a r r y Austryn W o l f s o n , in his m o n ­ umental w o r k , Philo, p o i n t e d to the use o f G r e e k w o r d s in specifically Jewish connotations. H e there n o t e d inter alia, that, In the Greek translation o f the Bible when the translators came to translate the various Hebrew terms for G o d , they did not attempt to coin new Greek terms; they borrowed terms already used in Greek religion. Elohim becomes Qeoq, even though the Greek term had already various connotations in Greek religion. Adonai and Jehovah,.. . (became) Lord (Rupioq), even though in Greek literature that term is used as an epithet o f various gods. Shaddai becomes TtocvxoKpcacop (= Almighty), even though, again, in Greek literature that term is used o f Hermes . . . The expression El Elyon (Gen 14:20; Ps 78:35), the most high G o d , is translated by 6 8eoq 6 vyiGioq, even though in Greek that expression is used o f Zeus . . . 4

A t the same time Wolfson also pointed out that since all the Hellenistic Jewish writers before Philo d e n o u n c e polytheism, its m y t h o l o g y a n d its mysteries, the a d o p t i o n o f an appellation used b y the Greeks for a G r e e k deity did not m e a n religious syncretism, but was only a recourse to the c o n v e n i e n c e o f language. Clearly the t e r m i n o l o g y has not merely been adopted, but also adapted. It has b e e n given an idiosyn­ cratic " J u d e o - G r e e k " c o n n o t a t i o n . A n d as for p e o p l e in general at all times, so t o o , for the G r e e k speaking J e w specific context was the overriding determining factor respecting c o n n o t a t i o n .

JVomos A n e x a m p l e respecting w h i c h there is general consensus is the use o f the G r e e k w o r d v6[ioq as a standard translation for the H e b r e w term T o r a h

(n~lin)

in Hellenistic Jewish literature. It is used regu­

larly in this m a n n e r b y the Septuagint w h o s e cultural frame o f ref­ erence

4

5

was first a n d foremost Jewish a n d b y a n d large

remained

Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1947), 12—13. At least o f the books o f the Pentateuch which is technically "the" Septuagint proper. 5

34

NAOMI G. COHEN

faithful to its a v o w e d aim o f rendering the biblical text into G r e e k as literally as possible. H e n c e respecting w o r d s w h o s e semantic range is n o t the same in the t w o languages, in the Septuagint it is normally the G r e e k w o r d w h i c h a c q u i r e d the H e b r e w c o n n o t a t i o n rather than the

reverse.

Because o f the popularity o f the Septuagint it c o u l d n o t but h a d a m a r k e d influence o n the dissemination

have

a n d a d o p t i o n o f its

particular " J u d e o - G r e e k " vocabulary. NOJLIO^, the w o r d under present consideration, is an excellent illus­ tration o f this. N o t e that what has c h a n g e d here is n o t the

mean­

ing o f T o r a h , but that o f N6|i.oc; w h i c h in G r e e k means " L a w , " but in " J u d e o - G r e e k " has m e t a m o r p h o s e d to include the entire contents o f the Pentateuch—stories,

poetry, et al. 6

It has b e e n p o i n t e d o u t , that the use o f the w o r d NOUOQ for T o r a h was felicitous because even in the original G r e e k the w o r d already h a d divine associations; a n d this t o o is an important p h e n o m e n o n u n d e r present consideration—that

aspect o f the

o n the w h o l e the

idiosyncratic " J u d e o - G r e e k " c o n n o t a t i o n was a natural outgrowth o f normative G r e e k usage—a conscious or u n c o n s c i o u s adaptation o f a particular facet o f it to the needs of expressing things Jewish in Greek.

No/uoOema A t the same time, side b y side with the Septuagint, a n d n o t entirely d i v o r c e d from it, was another not less important source for "JudeoG r e e k " — t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a Hellenized conceptualization o f J u d a i s m w h i c h expressed itself from within a frame of reference which was primarily Hellenistic rather than Jewish. T h e use o f the w o r d NouoGeam in " J u d e o - G r e e k " m o r e o r less as a s y n o n y m for that facet o f N6|ioc; = T o r a h , w h i c h c o n n o t e s the " M o s a i c C o d e o f L a w , " " T h e Laws o f M o s e s " is a case in point. W h i l e it is not f o u n d at all in the Septuagint

the term is f o u n d in

its general c o n n o t a t i o n as "constitution" in Plato's oeuvre s o m e thirtyfive times and in Aristotle's works fifteen times. Clearly, its use in Philo's writings close to forty times as a n o u n ,

6

See Alan Segal, "Torah and Nomos in Recent Scholarly Discussion," in Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 13 (1984), 1 9 - 2 8 (and repr.: The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity [Atlanta, 1987], 131-145).

35

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION

a n d even m o r e often in v e r b f o r m , o f reference—the o f the Jewish

7

clearly reflects a Hellenized frame

conceptualization o f the T o r a h as the

p e o p l e , a n d it o b v i o u s l y entered the

constitution

"Judeo-Greek"

l e x i c o n in o r d e r to fill the n e e d o f thoroughly H e l l e n i z e d J e w s

to

define their T o r a h in G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c t e r m i n o l o g y . I n d e e d its p r i m a r y locus in surviving Hellenistic-Jewish other than Philo is in highly H e l l e n i z e d contexts. It refers

writings to

the

T o r a h in 2 M a c e 6:23, w h i c h recounts the story o f the o l d priest Eleazar's h e r o i c fortitude during the religious persecution w h i c h trig­ g e r e d the M a c c a b e a n revolt, a n d it is also f o u n d in the very simi­ lar a c c o u n t in 4 M a c e 5:35 and id. 1 7 : 1 6 .

8

I hardly n e e d

remind

the reader that b o t h o f these are highly H e l l e n i z e d c o m p o s i t i o n s — the first a p p e a r a n c e

o f the terms IcmSaiauoc; and 'EAAnvicyuxx; is in

2 M a c e , while p o p u l a r Mace. The

Hellenistic p h i l o s o p h y is a hallmark o f 4

same is true for the writings

f o u n d four times. T w o o f these, Ant. exchanges between Demetrius

P t o l e m y Philadelphus

respecting

o f Josephus

12.36 a n d id. and

w h e r e it is 110 refer

to

his c h i e f librarian

the p r o p o s e d translation o f the

Bible,

9

and

C. Ap. 2.170 is a brief for Judaism in a Hellenistic frame o f reference. M i g h t I conjecture in passing that its rarity in the N e w T e s t a m e n t

10

11

should b e explained n o t o n l y b e c a u s e b y a n d large the audiences to w h i c h the N T b o o k s w e r e addressed,

e v e n w h e n they w e r e

speaking, w e r e for the m o s t part n o t philosophically

Greek

sophisticated.

P r o b a b l y at least as i m p o r t a n t is the fact that the authors o f the N T h a d n o desire to e n h a n c e the value o f the T o r a h in the hearts o f their readers. O n the contrary, m o r e often than not, w h e n the T o r a h is m e n t i o n e d , the context is o n e o f rejection.

7

A n d even more often yet as vouo9eTr)%eiv, oikcoc; Kai Qeov TO rcoietv K a i noXv ye \iaXXov, oaq) Kai Toiq aXXoiq owcaow dpxn TOV 8pav eaxiv. ev uivToi K a i TO (pdvat "KaxETiauaev," oi>%i "eitatxraTo" • navei \iev yap Ta 8oKovvTa TcoieTv OTJK evepyowxa, ov navexai 8e noicov avxbq. 816 K a i eTticpepei "KaTertavasv dw T i p ^ a T o " . o a a u l v yap TaiX£LI 6 vibq

Euuxop 6 Xoppaioc; 6 ctpxcov xr\q yr\q K a i

taxpcbv otuxryv £Koiur|0r| iiex' ax)xf|xr\v. K a i npoaeaxev xi] \|/t>xfi Aiva^ xr\q Qvyaxpbq IaKcoP K a i fiydnrioev xr\v 7iap0£vov K a i eA,dA,r|O E V K a x a xf|v 8 i d v o i a v xf|xf\. einev

8 E 2/u%£|i, npbq Eiiixcop

(xoi xriv 7iai8(aKr|v xavxriv EIvaiKa.

Shechem, the son o f H a m o r the Ghorraios (Hivite), the ruler o f

the land, saw her, and taking her, he lay with her and humiliated her. A n d he devoted himself to the soul o f Dinah, the daughter o f Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke to her in a manner befitting the girl's desire ( N R S V : spoke tenderly to her; lit., according to the desire o f the girl to her). And Shechem spoke to Hamor, his father, saying, "Get

me this girl for a wife."

Here I am indebted to David Runia's very helpful discussion in Philo of Alexandria and the T i m a e m of Plato (Amsterdam, 1983), 1.219-20. In particular, he notes (cor­ rectly, I think) Mut. 46 as a clear case o f influence from the Timaeus: " T h e last three words [of the quotation] disclose the discreet presence o f Plato's words in the background. A proper understanding o f the creational account leads to the con­ clusion that in Moses' view there can be n o talk o f a demiurgic retirement in the manner suggested b y Plato (even if it should be mythically intended). G o d ' s selfsufficient transcendence entails that his creatorship does not pose a threat to his immutability" (220). O n Philo's view o f creation as eternal rather than temporal, see Winston, Philo, 13-21. In G e n 33:19, J a c o b bought the plot o f land from the sons o f H a m o r for 100 pieces o f money. FHJA 2 . 1 1 4 - 1 7 . 6 7

6 8

84

CARL R. HOLLADAY

T h e o d o t u s ' paraphrase loses s o m e o f the n u a n c e o f the L X X a n d is in certain respects a harsher depiction o f S h e c h e m ' s actions. Like the L X X , T h e o d o t u s reports the initial incident for what it was: the rape o f a y o u n g girl, but the Bible's report o f S h e c h e m ' s

subsequent

a m o r o u s overtures is omitted b y T h e o d o t u s . Instead, a c c o r d i n g to T h e o d o t u s , S h e c h e m r a p e d her, then immediately asked his father to get her as his wife. Especially worth noting, for our purposes, is h o w T h e o d o t u s achieves this shift o f portrayal.

W h i l e his s u m m a r y

captures the essence o f

the biblical narrative, it departs rather c o n s p i c u o u s l y f r o m the f o r m . T h e L X X reports that S h e c h e m "saw her . . . t o o k her, lay with her, and violated her" (ei5ev ocoxfiv . . . ?uxP©v auxnv . . . £Koi|ir|6r| jxet amriq . . . exaneivoaaev straightforward.

ax>xr\v). T y p i c a l o f the Septuagint,

the language is

69

T h e o d o t u s uses i S o v m for L X X ei5ev, but for the other substitutes language

verbs

with a distinctively e p i c , especially H o m e r i c ,

flavor. His expression " l o v e d her" (epocaGfivai a\)tfjaXr\v, 8£ipfiv 8' ekev ev %epl Xaif\ Xei\\f£ 8' ext craoapcyuaav, mei novoq aXkoc, opcbpei. xocppa 8E Kai Aemv \ievoq ao%£%oc, eXkafie %aur\q youvcov cmx6|j,evov 2/u%£|x aarcexa uapyrivavxoc. r\kace 8e KA,r|'{8a uiar|v, 8u 8e ^((poq o^u ajtA-dyxva 8id axepvcov, Xine 8e yv>xt\ 8e\iac, evQiq. So then Simeon lunged for Hamor himself And struck his head, seized his throat with his left hand But let go as it gasped, since another task arose. Meanwhile, Levi, with unbounded strength, grabbed (Shechem's) locks of hair While Shechem, clutching his knees, raged furiously. And he struck the middle o f his collarbone, and the sharp sword pierced The internal organs through the breastbone and his life left his body immediately. In a m a n n e r similar to T Levi 6:4, T h e o d o t u s depicts t w o separate struggles—Simeon

against H a m o r

and

L e v i against S h e c h e m . B y

separating the t w o brothers and giving each his o w n o p p o n e n t , T h e o ­ dotus heightens

the dramatic

effect: t w o fights are

depicted, e a c h

e n d i n g in a death. S i m e o n strikes H a m o r ' s h e a d a n d then appar­ ently strangles h i m , while Levi slays S h e c h e m b y driving a s w o r d through drawn

his chest. T h e entire scene is e t c h e d with vivid imagery, a l m o s t entirely

f r o m the

towards H a m o r is reminiscent

e p i c tradition. S i m e o n ' s

o f c o m b a t scenes in H o m e r

m e n in battle rush towards e a c h o t h e r .

78

lunging where

T h e imagery o f one person

striking another's h e a d and seizing his throat also draws heavily o n language f r o m the e p i c tradition.

79

Levi's " u n b o u n d e d strength" (uivoc; aaxexoc;) recalls H o m e r i c lan­ guage,

78

80

as d o e s the i m a g e o f "loose-flowing hair."

81

T h e image o f

Cf. //. 14.401 (Trojans and Achaeans); also 11.92, 217; 15.726; 16.258. Cf. Od. 12.412; also, examples o f the head or throat being attacked in con­ texts o f struggle, cf. //. 3.371; 13.202; 14.412; 18.177; Od. 22.472. Od. 2.85; 3.104; 20.19 (Cyclops); also //. 5.892. //. 14.175; 23.141; also 10.15. 79

80

81

89

RESONANCE A N D RESISTANCE

S h e c h e m o n his knees, clutching at the knees o f Levi, recalls i m a g e o f L y c a o n clutching the knees o f Achilles his slayer.

82

the

In fact,

pleading for m e r c y as o n e clings to the knees o f o n e ' s enemies is a recurrent m o t i f in H o m e r and A p o l l o n i u s o f R h o d e s .

8 3

Being struck

in the c o l l a r b o n e is also an i m a g e from c o m b a t scenes in H o m e r .

8 4

T h e sharp sword (£i<poc; 6t]v) is a frequendy mentioned w e a p o n o f war in H o m e r ,

8 5

and "life leaving the b o d y immediately" (7dm 8e yx>%r\

5e|iac; euOuc;) is also a phrase with distinctive H o m e r i c resonance. In these aforementioned cases scarcely any o f the language occurs in the L X X . A t virtually every p o i n t in this description T h e o d o t u s is drawing o n a c o m p l e t e l y different

set o f images, m o s t o f them

well d o c u m e n t e d in the G r e e k epic tradition, most notably in H o m e r , but also in A p o l l o n i u s a n d Callimachus. T h e characters are biblical, but litde else is. T h e texture o f the story is G r e e k epic. T h e reader (or hearer) sees S i m e o n c h o k i n g H a m o r a n d S h e c h e m o n the g r o u n d b e g g i n g for m e r c y as he clutches the knees o f Levi, but the sounds and images are those o f the T r o j a n W a r , the wanderings o f Odysseus, a n d the A r g o n a u t s . W h a t

e m e r g e s b e f o r e us in 5 a is a literary

palimpsest: with Levi, S i m e o n , H a m o r , and S h e c h e m b e i n g repainted in H o m e r i c colors and hues. T o summarize, T h e o d o t u s presents us with yet another anomaly. A t o n e level, the biblical story is b e i n g recast into a G r e e k m o l d . T h e content o f the story is biblical, but the f o r m has m o v e d well b e y o n d that o f the Genesis narrative. It is not just a matter o f the Genesis narrative b e i n g rendered into hexameter verse. S o m e t h i n g else happens. A t another level, the G r e e k story—the Iliad, the Odyssey, Jason and the Argonauts—is b e i n g recast as well, a n d the images from these stories are n o w b e i n g i n c o r p o r a t e d into the biblical story, so that they are effectively b e i n g c o n v e y e d b y the biblical story itself. This m a y n o t have b e e n T h e o d o t u s ' intention, but it h a d that effect. T h e o d o t u s also exemplifies another a n o m a l y w e often

encounter

in these texts: an inverse correlation b e t w e e n degree o f Hellenization a n d a liberal spirit. Q u i t e often, w e assume that the greater o n e ' s willingness to a d o p t Hellenistic literary forms a n d recast the biblical

II. II. 77. II.

21.64-135, 24.357; Od. 5.146, 579; 21.116-18;

esp. 21.65. 22.339, 3 4 2 - 4 3 , 3 6 5 - 6 6 ; Apollonius o f Rhodes Arg. 4.82, 1013. 8.325; 21.117; 22.324. also 16.340.

90

CARL R. HOLLADAY

story into a Hellenistic m o d e , the m o r e liberal o n e ' s t h e o l o g i c a l outlook; or, the m o r e willing o n e is to blur the boundaries b e t w e e n Judaism

a n d Hellenism, to m e r g e the personalities o f S h e m

and

Japheth. T h e r e c o u l d hardly b e a better e x a m p l e o f a Jewish writer w h o has mastered G r e e k literary conventions than T h e o d o t u s . B y re-cast­ ing the story o f the rape o f D i n a h as G r e e k epic, he indicates his willingness to experiment with n e w literary forms. H e feels n o c o m ­ pulsion to stick with narrative as his genre o f c h o i c e . N o r d o e s he feel c o m p e l l e d to adhere to biblical imagery. H e feels perfectly free to d r a w his language f r o m the G r e e k epic tradition a n d substitute its w o r d s a n d phrases for those in the biblical text. N o t h i n g is lost, as far as he is c o n c e r n e d , in modifying the biblical s t o r y — n o w embell­ ishing, n o w sharpening it. In a certain sense, the biblical characters take o n a G r e e k identity: A b r a h a m b e c o m e s the " n o b l e A b r a h a m , " etched in colors reminiscent o f G r e e k heroes. T h e story o f the conflict b e t w e e n J a c o b a n d H a m o r resulting f r o m S h e c h e m ' s rape o f D i n a h is told in ways that reactivate images o f the T r o j a n W a r and Odysseus' wanderings. W e see S i m e o n and Levi slaying H a m o r a n d S h e c h e m , but they are faint images o f the biblical characters. T h e y take o n the life a n d m o v e m e n t s o f H o m e r i c characters. In this, and

many

other ways, the texture of the story b e c o m e s Greek. Y e t the message it conveys remains staunchly Jewish. Like the biblical account, T h e o d o t u s insists o n circumcision as a non-negotiable mark o f ethnic identity. H a m o r ' s family will have to b e c i r c u m c i s e d — n o debate. B y exten­ sion, there c a n b e n o intermarriage b e t w e e n J e w s a n d non-Jews. W e see v e r y little, if any, indication o f a liberal spirit in T h e o d o t u s . H e knows S h e m , a n d what makes h i m S h e m , a n d while he has spent a g o o d bit o f time dwelling in the tents o f J a p h e t h , he k n o w s that they are n o t his real h o m e ; or, at least, he keeps his distance u n d e r the tents.

Conclusion W e d o well to r e m e m b e r the obvious: the evidence o f the fragmen­ tary Hellenistic Jewish authors is fragmentary. W e o n l y have pieces from m u c h larger w h o l e s , a n d even those w e have at s e c o n d o r third hand. T h e c o r r u p t state o f the text at m a n y points also requires us to b e cautious. Y e t in spite o f the fragmentary, a n d sometimes corrupt,

R E S O N A N C E A N D RESISTANCE

91

state o f the evidence, w e are able to identify s o m e o f the contours o f these texts. O n e thing that emerges clearly across the b r o a d spec­ trum o f these texts is the serious e n g a g e m e n t with Hellenism. A s w e have seen, b o t h the extent a n d depth o f this e n g a g e m e n t are strik­ ing. A n d yet the ways they engage Hellenism are far from uniform. T h i s is not simply to say that s o m e e n g a g e d Hellenism while others resisted it, o r even that a single writing exhibits different levels o f resonance a n d resistance. Rather, they help us to see s o m e o f the complexities s y m b o l i z e d b y the h y p h e n a t e d expression "HellenisticJewish." T h e y r e m i n d us that neither J u d a i s m n o r Hellenism was a single, constant p h e n o m e n o n , but rather that e a c h was a c o m p l e x set o f beliefs a n d traditions that c o u l d c h a n g e , d e p e n d i n g u p o n the time

a n d p l a c e . F o r J e w s , then, to " b e c o m e H e l l e n i z e d " did n o t

always have predictable results. In fact, the forms this t o o k c o u l d sometimes b e p o l a r opposites, even within a single author o r within a single text. It b e h o o v e s us, then, to press for finer distinctions, even to ask m o r e refined questions. T h e m o r e w e understand b o t h sides o f the h y p h e n — H e l l e n i s m a n d J u d a i s m — t h e m o r e likely w e are to under­ stand the limits a n d possibilities o f e a c h for a c c o m m o d a t i n g to the other.

5 A P O C A L Y P T I C E S C H A T O L O G Y IN P H I L O S O P H I C A L DRESS IN T H E W I S D O M O F S O L O M O N

J O H N J.

COLLINS

Jewish apocalyptic literature was primarily written in A r a m a i c H e b r e w in the land o f Israel, at least in the earliest phase

and

o f its

d e v e l o p m e n t . W h i l e the b o o k o f D a n i e l a n d the various b o o k s o f E n o c h w e r e n o v e l in their context, a n d c a n b e v i e w e d as responses to the advent o f Hellenism in Israel, they w e r e expressed in tradi­ tional Semitic i d i o m , partly derived f r o m the Bible a n d partly reach­ ing b a c k to m y t h o l o g i c a l themes a n d motifs that are already attested in the pre-Israelite cultures o f the s e c o n d millennium B . C . E . T h e r e w e r e s o m e a n a l o g o u s d e v e l o p m e n t s in the

Greek-speaking Jewish

D i a s p o r a . T h e Jewish Sibylline Oracles, w h i c h first a p p e a r in the sec­ ond

century B . C . E . , replicate s o m e themes o f the a p o c a l y p t i c liter­

ature, such as the division o f history into periods a n d the prediction o f a c o m i n g j u d g m e n t , while expressing t h e m in the i d i o m o f the 1

sibyl, the G r e e k prophetess o f disaster. Later, in the p e r i o d after 70 C.E.,

the Jewish Sibylline Oracles b e c o m e m o r e markedly apocalyptic,

including predictions o f the destruction

o f this w o r l d ( B o o k 5) and

the resurrection o f the d e a d ( B o o k 4). A t the same time, w e find a number and

o f Jewish 2

2 Enoch.

apocalypses written in G r e e k , such as 3 Baruch

T h e s e D i a s p o r a apocalypses are

typically h e a v e n l y

ascents, rather than historical predictions in the m a n n e r o f Daniel, a n d their focus is o n the afterlife

o f the individual rather than o n

the restoration. But like all apocalypses, their i d i o m is m y t h o l o g i c a l a n d they are works o f imagination rather than o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l rea­ soning. In short, a p o c a l y p t i c literature was n o t exclusively o r p e c u ­ liarly Semitic in its linguistic expression. It remains true, h o w e v e r ,

1

J.J. Collins, " T h e Sibylline Oracles," i n J . H . Charlesworth, ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols; N e w York, 1983, 1985), 1.317-472. J.J. Collins, " T h e Genre Apocalypse in Hellenistic Judaism," in D . Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (Tubingen, 1983), 5 3 1 - 4 8 . 2 Enoch is only preserved in Slavonic. 2

94

JOHN J. COLLINS

that this literature is m o r e typical o f the land o f Israel than o f the D i a s p o r a in the Hellenistic and R o m a n periods. C o n v e r s e l y , while the

influence

o f G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y c a n b e f o u n d o c c a s i o n a l l y in

H e b r e w a n d A r a m a i c c o m p o s i t i o n s f r o m this time, it is far characteristic o f the Jewish a r o u n d the turn o f the

literature e m a n a t i n g f r o m

more

Alexandria

era.

T h e p r o b l e m that I want to discuss in this essay is n o t

primarily

a matter o f the expression o f apocalyptic ideas in G r e e k , but

the

i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f apocalyptic ideas into a kind o f literature that was heavily influenced b y G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y . M y e x a m p l e o f this kind o f literature is p r o v i d e d b y the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , w h i c h I take to have b e e n written in A l e x a n d r i a a r o u n d the m i d d l e o f the first c e n ­ tury C . E .

3

T h e b o o k has b e e n described as a logos protreptikos? o r

didactic exhortation,

o r alternatively as an encomium that describes

a n d c o m m e n d s w i s d o m . T h e designation encomium is suggested pri­ 5

marily b y the m i d d l e section o f the b o o k (6:22—9:18) w h i c h purports to tell " w h a t w i s d o m is a n d h o w she c a m e to b e . " W i s d o m is p o r ­ trayed in terms often used for the Stoic L o g o s , as a spirit that holds 6

all things together a n d orders all things w e l l . T h e philosophical c o n ­ text o f the b o o k , h o w e v e r , is n o w r e c o g n i z e d as M i d d l e w h i c h c o m b i n e s elements transcendent deity.

7

o f Stoicism with the

Platonism,

Platonic idea o f a

W i s d o m here is n o t itself the deity, b u t is "a

breath o f the p o w e r o f G o d , and a p u r e e m a n a t i o n

o f the glory o f

the A l m i g h t y . . . a reflection o f eternal light, a spotless mirror o f the w o r k i n g o f G o d " ( 7 : 2 5 - 2 6 ) . W i s d o m mediates b e t w e e n G o d a n d the

3

See D . Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43; N e w York, 1979), 2 0 - 2 5 . I demur only at Winston's statement that "the apocalyptic vision in which the author describes the annihilation o f the wicked with such ferocious passion (5:16-23) could only be called forth by a desperate historical situation in which the future o f the Jewish community o f Alexandria (and for a while even that o f Palestine) was dan­ gerously threatened . . ." J . M . Reese, Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and its Consequences (Analecta Biblica 4 1 ; R o m e , 1971), 119-21; Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 18. P. Bizzetti, II Libro delta Sapienza (Brescia, 1984) 157. See the review o f Bizzetti by Winston in CBQ 48(1986), 5 2 5 - 7 . Wis 8:1. See H . Hiibner, "Die Sapientia Salomonis und die antike Philosophic," in idem, ed., Die Weisheit Salomos im Horizont Biblischer Theologie (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1993), 5 5 - 8 1 ; H . Engel, " ' W a s Weisheit ist und wie sie entstand, will ich verkunden.' Weish 7,22-8,1 innerhalb des egkomion tes sophias (6,22-11,1) als Starkung der Plausibilitat des Judentums angesichts hellenistischer Philosophie und Religiositat," in G . Hentschel and E. Zenger, eds., Lehrerin der Gerechtigkeit (Leipzig, 1991), 6 7 - 1 0 2 ; C . Larcher, Le Livre de la Sagesse ou la Sagesse de Salomon (Paris, 1984), 4 7 9 - 5 1 8 . Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 33. 4

5

6

7

APOCALYPTIC

ESCHATOLOGY

c o s m o s and b e t w e e n G o d a n d humanity:

95

"in every generation

she

passes into h o l y souls a n d makes t h e m friends o f G o d a n d p r o p h e t s " (7:27). T h e workings o f w i s d o m in history are e x p o u n d e d in chapters 1 0 - 1 9 , w h e r e the success o f the heroes o f biblical history is attrib­ uted to the g u i d a n c e o f w i s d o m , b e g i n n i n g with A d a m , w h o m she delivered from his transgression. T h e r e is, then, a c o h e r e n t p h i l o s o ­ phy

that is p r e s u p p o s e d in this b o o k . It is true that the c o h e r e n c e

is strained b y the fact that the

righteous

are identified with

the

Israelites a n d the w i c k e d with their enemies in the re-telling o f the story o f the E x o d u s . But while a stubborn strand o f ethnic particu­ larism shines t h r o u g h

in this narrative, it is n o t o p e n l y a c k n o w l ­

e d g e d . T h e r e are n o explicit references to Israel, o n l y "the righteous," "a h o l y p e o p l e a n d blameless r a c e " o r " y o u r [ G o d ' s ] children." The

hortatory aspects o f the b o o k are m o s t clearly in e v i d e n c e in

the o p e n i n g section, 1:1—6:21. T h i s section begins a n d ends with an exhortation to justice, but m u c h o f it is taken u p with a

contrast

b e t w e e n the righteous a n d the w i c k e d . T h e w i c k e d explain their rea­ soning in a l o n g speech in 1:16-2:24; but then articulate their dis­ m a y in another speech in 5 : 1 - 2 3 , w h e n the j u d g m e n t is revealed.

8

It is primarily this j u d g m e n t scene in chapter 5 that raises the ques­ tion o f the integration o f apocalyptic ideas in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n .

Apocalyptic Motifs in the Wisdom of Solomon 1—5 As several scholars have n o t e d , the j u d g m e n t scene in W i s 5 is m o d ­ 9

eled o n the b e g i n n i n g o f the servant s o n g in Isa 5 2 : 1 3 - 5 3 : 1 2 . In Isa 5 2 : 1 3 - 1 5 , w e are told that the servant shall b e lifted u p ,

and

that he shall startle nations a n d kings shall shut their m o u t h s because o f h i m . In the o p e n i n g verses o f chapter

53 a n o n y m o u s

speakers,

p r e s u m a b l y the kings o f the earth, express their a m a z e m e n t that o n e so

despised should b e exalted. T h e transformation

servant b e c a m e a p a r a d i g m o f the transformation

8

o f the o f the

despised righteous

O n the structure o f this section o f the book see M . Kolarcik, The Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom 1-6 (Analecta Biblica 127; R o m e , 1991), 2 9 - 6 2 . G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Cambridge, Mass., 1972), 6 8 - 9 2 ; L. Ruppert, "Gerechte und Frevler (Gottlose) in Sap 1,1-6,21: Z u m Neuverstandnis und zur Aktualisierung alttestamentlicher Traditionen in der Sapientia Salomonis," in Hiibner, ed., Die Weisheit Salomos, 22-32. 9

96

JOHN J. COLLINS

in a p o c a l y p t i c literature. It is reflected in D a n

11-12, where

the

martyrs o f the M a c c a b e a n era are called maskilim, an allusion to the servant

song, w h i c h begins hinneh yaskil

shall p r o s p e r " ) .

10

c

abdi ( " b e h o l d m y

servant

W h e r e the servant m a d e m a n y righteous, the maskilim

m a k e m a n y understand ( D a n 11:33). In the e n d , they are lifted u p to shine like the stars in heaven. A closer parallel to the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n is f o u n d in the Similitudes o f E n o c h (1 Enoch 3 7 - 7 1 ) , w h i c h was also p r o b a b l y c o m p o s e d in the first century C . E . 1 En 62 describes the dismay that will c o m e u p o n the kings o f the earth w h e n they see the S o n o f M a n sitting o n his throne o f glory. T h e S o n o f M a n in the Similitudes was never a lowly figure, but he is h i d d e n for a time, a n d the powerful d o n o t believe in h i m until they see h i m in glory. T h e y r e c o g n i z e that if this figure is glorified, their

self-understanding

was ill-founded. W i s 5 d o e s n o t d e m o n s t r a b l y d e p e n d o n

either

D a n i e l o r the Similitudes, but it makes a similar use o f Isa 5 2 - 5 3 : the righteous at first seem to b e o f n o a c c o u n t , but eventually they are revealed in glory. M o r e o v e r , this chapter resolves the

conflict

b e t w e e n the unjust a n d the righteous that was described in W i s 2. T h i s passage (2:12—20) brings to m i n d the suffering o f the

servant

o f the L o r d in Isa 5 3 . ( T h e righteous m a n is called pais theou, w h i c h m a y m e a n servant

as well as child o f G o d . ) T h i s

figure

is repre­

sentative o f those w h o are exalted, to the a m a z e m e n t o f their ene­ mies, in W i s 5. T h e exaltation o f the righteous m a n in W i s 5 is expressed in lan­ guage familiar f r o m the H e b r e w and A r a m a i c a p o c a l y p t i c literature: " H o w has he b e e n r e c k o n e d a m o n g the sons o f G o d , and his lot is a m o n g the h o l y o n e s " (5:5). T h e sons o f G o d a n d the h o l y ones are the angels. C o m p a r e the claim o f the hymnist in the H o d a y o t f r o m Qumran:

" Y o u have purified the corrupt spirit f r o m great

sin so

that h e c a n take his p l a c e with the host o f the h o l y ones a n d c a n enter into c o m m u n i o n with the sons o f h e a v e n " ( 1 Q H 1 1 : 2 1 - 2 2 ) o r again : " F o r y o u r glory y o u have purified m a n from sin . . . to b e c o m e united with the sons o f y o u r truth in the lot o f y o u r h o l y o n e s " (1QH

19:10—11). T h e Epistle o f E n o c h promises the righteous that

" y o u will have great j o y as the angels in h e a v e n . . . for y o u will b e c o m p a n i o n s to the host o f h e a v e n " (1 En 1 0 4 : 2 - 6 ) . T h e Epistle also d e v e l o p s the theme o f the mistaken understanding

o f the w i c k e d :

See J J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, 1993), 385.

APOCALYPTIC

97

ESCHATOLOGY

But when you die, the sinners say about you, As we die, the right­ eous have died, and o f what use to them were their deeds? Behold, like us they have died in sadness and in darkness, and what advan­ tage do they have over us? From now on we are e q u a l . . . I say to you, you sinners, Y o u are content to eat and drink, and strip men naked and steal and sin and acquire possessions and see good days. But you saw the righteous, how their end was peace, for no wrong was found in them until the day o f their death. T h i s passage is very close to the false reasoning o f the w i c k e d in Wis

2, w h e r e they pursue a life o f self-indulgence a n d

exploitation

in the belief that " w e w e r e b o r n b y m e r e c h a n c e , and hereafter w e shall b e as t h o u g h

we had

n e v e r b e e n " (2:2). T h i s r e a s o n i n g

is

declared to b e false, because "they did n o t k n o w the mysteries o f God"

(2:22), o r realize that w h e n the righteous s e e m e d to die they

w e r e really in p e a c e . In light o f these parallels,

Lothar

Ruppert

has argued that W i s

2 : 1 2 - 2 0 a n d 5 : 1 - 7 are a distinct source, w h i c h he calls a " d i p t y c h , " originally c o m p o s e d in H e b r e w o r A r a m a i c in the land o f Israel, but b r o u g h t to E g y p t and translated into G r e e k before it was i n c o r p o ­ rated into the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n .

1 1

H e supposes that this d o c u ­

m e n t served as p r o p a g a n d a for a hasidic-apocalyptic g r o u p , that was critical o f the Hellenistic leanings o f the p r o t o - S a d d u c c e e s . I d o u b t that such a d o c u m e n t c a n b e reconstructed

f r o m the W i s d o m o f

S o l o m o n . T h e passages in question are very well e m b e d d e d in their contexts. It is likely that the author h a d an apocalyptic source, quite possibly c o m p o s e d originally in H e b r e w o r A r a m a i c , but he must have adapted it for his purposes, and n o t simply inserted it. M o r e o v e r , the idea o f immortality, as w e find it in W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , d o e s n o t take the f o r m o f resurrection, even the resurrection o f the spirit that is envisioned in the early E n o c h literature, and this argues against the simple i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f a Semitic apocalyptic source. A l s o , the apocalyptic overtones o f the o p e n i n g chapters o f W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n are n o t c o n f i n e d to R u p p e r t ' s alleged diptych. A l r e a d y in chapter 1 w e find that D e a t h is personified in a m a n n e r that recalls the

figure

o f M o t in Ugaritic myth, w h i c h in turn is reflected in biblical pas­ sages such as Isa 25:7, w h e r e G o d is said to swallow u p death for­ ever. T h e startling statement that " G o d did n o t m a k e d e a t h " (Wis

11

L. Ruppert, Der leidende Gerechte (Wurzburg, 1972), 70—105; "Gerechte und Frevler," 15-19.

98

J O H N J.

COLLINS

1:13) m a y p e r h a p s b e illuminated b y the m y t h o l o g i c a l pre-history o f death. T h e adversaries o f Baal in the Ugaritic myth, D e a t h a n d Sea, are uncreated, a n d in m u c h o f the H e b r e w Bible G o d ' s w o r k in cre­ ation consists o f mastering primeval adversaries a n d confining t h e m . T h e n o t i o n o f a " k i n g d o m o f H a d e s " (1:14) recalls the k i n g d o m o f Belial in the D e a d Sea S c r o l l s .

12

There

are also apocalyptic o v e r ­

tones to the c o n c e p t o f "the mysteries o f G o d . " T h e w o r d raz, m y s ­ tery, figures prominently in Daniel a n d again in the D e a d Sea Scrolls, w h e r e w e read in several texts o f "the mystery that is to b e . "

1 3

In

the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n the c h i e f mystery o f G o d is immortality. T h e fact that the apocalyptic motifs in W i s 1-5 are n o t c o n f i n e d to the s u p p o s e d diptych argues that the author w a s conversant with a range o f apocalyptic sources, but adapted t h e m freely for his purpose. R u p p e r t contends that despite the use o f G r e e k philosophical ter­ m i n o l o g y in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , the thought o f the b o o k is still d e t e r m i n e d

b y biblical a n d Jewish traditions. T h i s , h o w e v e r , is

only half the story. W h a t w e n o w have in W i s 1-5 is n o t an a p o c ­ alypse, b u t a w i s d o m text that attempts to make a philosophically c o h e r e n t argument. T h e philosophical sources o f the b o o k must b e a c k n o w l e d g e d just as fully as the Jewish, apocalyptic sources. W e have n o t e d that the plot against the righteous m a n in the W i s 2 calls t o m i n d the servant p o e m o f Isa 5 3 , b u t it also has a notable parallel in a G r e e k philosophical discourse, the test case o f the truly 14

just m a n offered b y G l a u c o n in the s e c o n d b o o k o f Plato's Republic.

G l a u c o n argues that w e must imagine the just a n d the unjust in their p u r e states: the just must n o t o n l y b e the best o f m e n , b u t must b e t h o u g h t to b e the worst. M o r e o v e r , "the just m a n w h o is thought unjust will b e scourged, racked, b o u n d — h e

will have his

eyes burnt out; a n d at last, after suffering every kind o f evil, h e will b e i m p a l e d " (Republic 3 6 1 ) . Socrates' rejoinder t o G l a u c o n o c c u p i e s m o s t o f the Republic, b u t significantly for o u r p u r p o s e , it culminates in B o o k

10 with a discourse o n "the greatest prizes a n d rewards

w h i c h await virtue." " A r e y o u n o t aware," asks Socrates, "that the soul o f m a n is immortal a n d imperishable?" (Republic 10.608). Socrates p r o c e e d s t o argue for the immortality

12

o f the soul o n the g r o u n d s

1 Q M 14:9; 1 Q S 1:23-24; 2:19. 1 Q S 11:3; 4 Q Instruction (4Q415-18) passim. See J.J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London, 1997), 40; Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville, 1997), 121-3. Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 195. 13

14

APOCALYPTIC

99

ESCHATOLOGY

that n o evil corrupts o r destroys the soul. In light o f immortality, the advantages

o f the w i c k e d are inconsequential. Socrates

argues

that justice attains rewards in this life, but "all these are as nothing, either in n u m b e r o r greatness in c o m p a r i s o n with those other rec­ o m p e n s e s w h i c h await b o t h the just a n d the unjust after death" (614). Plato brings the Republic to a close b y narrating the m y t h o f Er, the Pamphylian, w h o died o n the batde-field but returned to life

after

twelve days a n d told o f the j u d g m e n t o f the d e a d a n d the process of

reincarnation. T h e i m m o r t a l i t y o f the

soul is also crucially i m p o r t a n t

in

the

W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n . In 8 : 1 9 - 2 0 S o l o m o n boasts that "a g o o d soul fell to m y lot, o r rather b e i n g g o o d I entered an undented

body."

T h e language recalls the m y t h o f Er, w h e r e Lachesis, daughter o f Necessity initiates a n e w cycle o f mortality b y p r o c l a i m i n g : "Let h i m to w h o m falls the first lot first select a life to w h i c h he shall cleave o f necessity" (Republic 617E). T h e W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n d o e s n o t envision reincarnation, a n d never addresses the question o f the pre-existence o f the soul. W i s 8:20, " b e i n g g o o d I entered an undefiled b o d y , " w o u l d s e e m to identify the p e r s o n primarily with the soul. Similarly in 9:15 w e read that "a perishable b o d y weighs d o w n the soul," a n d idea that is paralleled in b o t h Plato a n d P h i l o . reference to b o d i l y resurrection,

15

T h e r e is never any

o r i n d e e d to resurrection

o f any

sort. Y e t , the h o p e o f the righteous is full o f immortality (3:4) a n d they only seem to die; they are said to "five forever" a n d their reward is with the L o r d (5:15). It seems clear then that the immortality envi­ sioned b y the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n is immortality o f the soul. In the Republic, Socrates tries to persuade G l a u c o n o f the i m m o r ­ tality o f the soul b y rational argument. In the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , immortality is classified a m o n g the mysteries o f G o d . Despite the apocalyptic overtones o f the w o r d mystery, h o w e v e r , the b o o k gives n o a c c o u n t o f angelic revelation such as w e find in Enoch o r D a n i e l . T h e understanding o f revelation in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n is m o s t clearly stated in the introduction to S o l o m o n ' s prayer in 8:21: "But I p e r c e i v e d that I w o u l d n o t possess w i s d o m unless G o d gave her to m e — a n d it was a m a r k o f insight to k n o w w h o s e gift she w a s . " T h i s is n o t Platonic reasoning, but neither is it a p o c a l y p t i c revela­ tion. W i s d o m helps the natural reasoning faculty; it d o e s n o t simply supersede it f r o m

above.

Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 207.

100

J O H N J.

COLLINS

T h e W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n does not fully share Plato's understanding o f immortality, even apart from the issue o f reincarnation. A c c o r d i n g to Plato, all souls are immortal,

a n d they c a n n o t b e dissolved b y

evil o r wickedness. In the Jewish b o o k t o o , G o d m a d e all and presumably Death,

all souls, for immortality.

a n d e x p e r i e n c e it. Righteousness

things,

But the w i c k e d invited

is immortal,

but

unright­

eousness apparently is not. P s e u d o - S o l o m o n is at pains to m a k e clear that the souls o f the righteous are in the h a n d o f G o d a n d that they live forever. But he says little o f the fate o f the w i c k e d . In the j u d g ­ m e n t scene in chapter 5 they lament that their wealth has vanished like a s h a d o w , a n d " w e also as s o o n as w e w e r e b o r n , ceased to b e , a n d w e h a d n o sign o f virtue to s h o w but w e r e c o n s u m e d in o u r wickedness" (5:13). T h e h o p e o f the u n g o d l y is like thistledown,

or

s m o k e in the w i n d . All o f this w o u l d seem to suggest that the w i c k e d simply cease to exist; contra Plato, their souls are dissolved b y their wickedness. In fact, the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e o f p u n i s h m e n t to sin is a recurring t h e m e in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , especially in chapters 1 1 - 1 9 . It is entirely appropriate,

then, that as the w i c k e d believed

that they w o u l d b e dissolved, so they

are.

But if the w i c k e d simply cease to exist, h o w are w e to a c c o u n t for the j u d g m e n t scene in chapter 5, w h e r e they are clearly present after death to witness the exaltation o f the righteous? I suggest that this a p o c a l y p t i c j u d g m e n t

scene plays a role similar to that o f the

M y t h o f Er in Plato's Republic—it is a fable o r myth, i n t r o d u c e d to facilitate

the discussion.

16

W e usually assume that j u d g m e n t

in a p o c a l y p t i c texts should b e taken m o r e literally. T h a t

scenes

assumption

is o p e n to question. It is characteristic o f apocalyptic texts that they juxtapose

slightly different

visions o f the

end-time.

(For

example,

there are four such visions in Daniel 7 - 1 2 . ) In the t e r m i n o l o g y o f Ian R a m s e y , they are n o t "picture m o d e l s , " that aspire to exact c o r ­ r e s p o n d e n c e with reality, but "disclosure" o r " a n a l o g u e " m o d e l s that try to c o n v e y a "structure, o r w e b o f relationship."

17

T h e y are v e n ­

tures in imagination that try to give c o n c r e t e expression to matters that are b e y o n d h u m a n experience. In this respect, the status o f the

16

Cf. Plato, Laws 4.713: " M a y I still make use o f fable to some extent, in the hope that I may be better able to answer your question?" I.T. Ramsey, Models and Mystery (London, 1964), 1—21; compare B.E. Meland, Fallible Forms and Symbols (Philadelphia, 1976), 26, 130; M . Black, Models and Metaphors. Studies in Language and Philosophy (Ithaca, N Y , 1962), 2 1 9 - 4 3 . 17

APOCALYPTIC

101

ESCHATOLOGY

j u d g m e n t scene in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n m a y not b e so different from that o f similar scenes in D a n i e l o r E n o c h . T h e difference is that in the apocalypses these visionary scenes are the o n l y m e a n s o f expressing transcendent realities. T h e W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , h o w e v e r , also e m p l o y s philosophical language w h i c h attempts to express these realities in a m o r e precise a n d

accurate w a y , a n d w h i c h provides

s o m e criteria against w h i c h the visionary language c a n b e measured. T h e personification

o f Death, and

the k i n g d o m o f H a d e s ,

also

a p p e a r s o m e w h a t less full-bodied in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n than they d o in p r o p h e t i c a n d apocalyptic texts. W i s d o m o n l y hints that there is a negative p o w e r that is s o m e h o w i n d e p e n d e n t

of God. We

are n o t told w h e r e D e a t h c o m e s from. T h e devil also makes a brief a n d enigmatic a p p e a r a n c e in explaining the origin o f evil in 2:24: " B y the devil's e n v y death entered into the w o r l d . " But there is n o real place for a devil in the w o r l d v i e w o f the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , and even death is an a n o m a l y . G o d , w e are told, created all things eis to einai, that they m a y exist, a n d the forces o f the c o s m o s tend to the preservation o f life. T h e r e is n o k i n g d o m o f H a d e s u p o n earth. T h e personification o f D e a t h a n d the m e n t i o n o f the devil are also figurative

language, ways o f expressing the negative forces, w h i c h the

author wants to disassociate

from G o d and wisdom. Whatever

m y t h o l o g i c a l o v e r t o n e s , D e a t h is spiritualized h e r e . brought

a b o u t b y the w o r d s a n d

its

It is a state

d e e d o f the u n g o d l y . It is o n l y

e x p e r i e n c e d b y those w h o are o f the p o r t i o n (meris) o f D e a t h , b y the righteous, w h o o n l y seem to die. Ultimately,

not

it is a state o f

n o n - b e i n g . D e a t h is not quite d e - m y t h o l o g i z e d here, since it is in fact personified. But it d o e s n o t enjoy the vivid m y t h o l o g i c a l life that it did in Ugaritic myth, o r that Belial enjoys in the D e a d Sea Scrolls.

The Divine Warrior We

find

another venture in m y t h o l o g i c a l language with apocalyptic

overtones in W i s 5 : 1 7 - 2 3 . T h i s passage God

18

of

as D i v i n e W a r r i o r , a constellation o f motifs that can b e traced

b a c k to the storm-theophany ond

describes a t h e o p h a n y

millennium.

18

o f Baal in Canaanite texts o f the sec­

T h i s i m a g e r y h a d b e e n c l a i m e d for the G o d o f

See especially F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), 145-94.

102

J O H N J.

COLLINS

Israel f r o m an early p o i n t in such texts as D e u t e r o n o m y 33

and

J u d g e s 5. It h a d also i n f o r m e d the celebration o f the E x o d u s in the Psalms, w h i c h sometimes suggest a divine attack o n the

sea. (Ps

7 7 : 1 6 - 2 0 : "the waters saw y o u , they w e r e afraid, the very d e e p trem­ b l e d . . . y o u r arrows flashed o n every side . . . the earth trembled a n d s h o o k " ) . T h e i m m e d i a t e source o f this i m a g e r y in W i s 5 is f o u n d in Isa 59:15—20. T h e r e the L o r d saw that there was n o justice and set o u t to redress the situation. " H e put o n righteousness like a breast­ plate, a n d a helmet o f salvation o n his head; he put o n

garments

o f vengeance for clothing and w r a p p e d himself in fury as in a m a n d e . " W e are assured that his adversaries will b e f o r c e d to p a y a c c o r d i n g to their deeds. Paul H a n s o n has m a d e a persuasive case that this text reflects dissensions in the Jewish c o m m u n i t y in the early postexilic p e r i o d .

19

T h e oracles o f Isa 5 6 - 6 6 reflect the views o f a party

that felt itself increasingly disenfranchized and called o n G o d to c o m e to their aid: " O that y o u w o u l d r e n d the h e a v e n a n d c o m e d o w n " (Isa 6 4 : 1 ) . H a n s o n categorizes this material as p r o t o - a p o c a l y p t i c , a n d i n d e e d this i m a g e r y also figures p r o m i n e n t l y in later a p o c a l y p t i c texts f r o m the Hellenistic and R o m a n era (e.g. the o p e n i n g chapter

o f 1 Enoch). T h e i m a g e r y o f Isa 59 is r e p r o d u c e d with m i n o r modifications in W i s 5: " h e will put

o n righteousness

as a breastplate,

and

wear

impartial justice as a helmet; he will take holiness as an invincible shield, a n d sharpen stern wrath for a s w o r d . " O u r question here is w h e t h e r the understanding o f this material is altered b y its n e w c o n ­ text in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n . T h e p r i m a r y difference w o u l d s e e m to lie in the i n v o l v e m e n t o f creation. W i s 5:16 says that G o d will a r m all creation to repel his enemies, a n d 5:20 affirms that creation will j o i n h i m in his fight. T o s o m e d e g r e e , the i n v o l v e m e n t o f cre­ ation is already i m p l i e d in the traditional i m a g e r y o f the D i v i n e W a r r i o r . In J u d g e s 5 w e are told that the stars fought f r o m h e a v e n against Sisera. In Psalm 77 the clouds p o u r e d d o w n water and light­ ning illuminated the w o r l d w h e n G o d led Israel through the sea. All o f this, h o w e v e r , is u n d e r s t o o d as a miraculous departure from the n o r m a l workings o f nature. T h e future intervention

o f the D i v i n e

W a r r i o r , as envisioned in Isaiah 5 9 , is similarly a departure f r o m the w o r k i n g o f nature, the action o f a deity w h o intervenes in this

P.D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia, 1975), 113-34.

APOCALYPTIC

ESCHATOLOGY

103

w o r l d to reverse its course. In the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , in contrast, creation itself is p r o g r a m m e d to ensure the implementation o f justice. T h e role o f creation in i m p l e m e n t i n g the j u d g m e n t o f G o d is illus­ trated in the a c c o u n t o f the E x o d u s in W i s 1 6 - 1 9 . T h e story o f the e x o d u s is taken to s h o w that "creation, serving y o u w h o m a d e it, exerts itself to punish the unrighteous, a n d in kindness relaxes o n b e h a l f o f those w h o trust in y o u " (16:24). P s e u d o - S o l o m o n draws here o n Stoic c o s m o l o g y , in w h i c h the elements admit o f different degrees o f tension o r relaxation.

20

N o t h i n g n e w is created, but ele­

ments are modified o r interchanged. A g a i n in the last chapter o f the b o o k w e are told that "the w h o l e creation in its nature was fash­ i o n e d a n e w , " in a c c o r d a n c e with G o d ' s c o m m a n d s , so that his chil­ dren w o u l d n o t b e h a r m e d ( 1 9 : 6 ) .

21

T h i s is n o t the n e w h e a v e n a n d

n e w earth o f apocalyptic visions, h o w e v e r . " F o r the elements c h a n g e d places with o n e another as o n a harp the notes vary the nature o f the rhythm, while e a c h n o t e remains the s a m e " (19:18). T h e c o s ­ m o s is a closed system, although it admits o f infinite variation. Philo also uses the idea o f tension a n d slackening to explain changes in nature. T h e b o w that G o d sets in the clouds after the f l o o d indi­ cates that "in the laxness a n d force o f earthly things there will n o t take p l a c e a dissolution b y their b e i n g c o m p l e t e l y l o o s e n e d to the p o i n t o f incongruity n o r will there b e force u p to the p o i n t o f caus­ ing a break" (QG 2.63). G o d also p r o v i d e d the m a n n a b y c h a n g i n g a r o u n d the elements (Mos 2 . 2 6 6 - 7 ) .

2 2

W e might infer f r o m these statements a b o u t the role o f nature in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , that justice must ultimately prevail in the c o s m o s . Just as the E x o d u s ends with a reshuffling o f the elements so that the Israelites are sustained a n d their enemies are u n d o n e , so, w e might think, must it also b e at the e n d o f history. In W i s 18:15 w e are told that, o n the eve o f the E x o d u s , " y o u r almighty w o r d l e a p e d f r o m heaven, f r o m the royal throne, into the midst o f the land that was d o o m e d , a stern warrior carrying the sharp s w o r d o f y o u r authentic c o m m a n d , a n d s t o o d a n d filled all things with death" (by killing the first-born o f the Egyptians). T h i s i m a g e brings to m i n d the vision o f J o h n o f Patmos in R e v e l a t i o n 19:

2 0

Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 300. O n the exegetical aspect o f this passage, and the implied understanding o f Genesis 1 and Exodus 14, see P. Enns, Exodus Retold. Ancient Exegesis of the Departure from Egypt in Wis 10:15-21 and 19:1-9 ( H S M 57; Atlanta, 1997), 112-18. Ibid., 3 3 0 - 1 . 21

2 2

104

JOHN J.

COLLINS

Then I saw the heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war . . . He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called the W o r d of G o d . . . From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations . . . T h e contexts o f the t w o scenes, h o w e v e r , are very different.

The

militant intervention o f the W o r d in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n rep­ resents an incident in history. In Revelation it signals the e n d o f his­ tory, a n d the c o m i n g o f the final j u d g m e n t . It is not apparent, h o w e v e r , that the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n

actu­

ally envisions an e n d o f history. T h e j u d g m e n t scene in chapter five c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d as the j u d g m e n t o f the d e a d . It does n o t require that history, and this w o r l d as w e k n o w it, have passed away. Neither d o e s Philo s e e m to have envisioned an e n d o f this w o r l d . T h e w o r l d is n o t indestructible, for Philo, since it "has b e c o m e what it is, a n d its b e c o m i n g is the beginning o f its destruction," but he allows that it m a y b e m a d e i m m o r t a l b y the p r o v i d e n c e o f G o d (Deed. 58). Elsewhere he refers to the v i e w o f s o m e philosophers that " t h o u g h b y nature destructible it will never b e destroyed, b e i n g held together b y a b o n d o f superior strength, namely the will o f its M a k e r " (Her. 246). T h i s w o u l d seem to c o n f o r m to the view o f Plato in the Timaeus (41 A ) , that "all that is b o u n d m a y b e u n d o n e , but only an evil b e i n g w o u l d wish to u n d o that w h i c h is h a r m o n i o u s a n d h a p p y . "

23

In such

a v i e w o f the w o r l d there is ultimately litde place for apocalyptic eschatology such as w e find in Revelation o r 4 Ezra. Philo, h o w e v e r , makes a place for traditional Jewish eschatology. In his treatise De praemiis et poenis, Philo first discourses o n the penal­ ties that await those " w h o have b e e n s e d u c e d b y the polytheistic creeds w h i c h finally lead to atheism a n d have forgotten the

teach­

ing o f their race a n d o f their fathers in w h i c h they were trained from their earliest years" (162). T h e discussion is part o f an exposi­ tion o f the laws o f M o s e s , and so the reference is clearly to

the

Jewish p e o p l e . If these p e o p l e repent, says Philo, following L e v 26:40, they will find favor with G o d . " E v e n though they dwell in the utter­ m o s t parts o f the earth, in slavery to those w h o led t h e m away c a p ­ tive, o n e signal, as it w e r e , o n e day will bring liberty to all. T h i s c o n v e r s i o n in a b o d y to virtue will strike awe into their masters, w h o

2 3

Plato is speaking o f the creation o f the lesser gods, w h o are not indestructible but are promised immortality.

APOCALYPTIC

105

ESCHATOLOGY

will set t h e m free, a s h a m e d to rule o v e r m e n better than themselves" (164). T h e y will then b e gathered to their a p p o i n t e d p l a c e , while the curses will b e turned against their enemies. " T h e r e will c o m e forth a m a n , " says Philo, citing Balaam's O r a c l e , " a n d leading his host to w a r he will subdue great a n d p o p u l o u s nations" (95). H a r r y W o l f s o n c o n c l u d e d from these passages that "the solution f o u n d b y Philo for the Jewish p r o b l e m o f his time was the revival o f the o l d p r o p h e t i c promises o f the ultimate disappearance o f the D i a s p o r a . "

24

But even

W o l f s o n also n o t e d that "the depiction o f the messianic age in Philo is quite evidently c o l o r e d with Stoic p h r a s e o l o g y . " Philo formulates

repeatedly

his antitheses in terms o f the virtuous a n d the w i c k e d ,

rather than o f ethnic particularism.

His G o d is o n e "to w h o m all

must b e l o n g w h o follow truth unfeigned instead o f mythical figments" (Praem. 162). T h o s e w h o are killed in the messianic w a r are " s o m e fanatics w h o s e lust for w a r defies restraint o r r e m o n s t r a n c e " (94) and those w h o receive the eschatological blessings are "those w h o follow God Yet

a n d always and everywhere cleave to his c o m m a n d m e n t s " (98). this treatise is remarkable

for its lack o f allegorical interpreta­

tion. Philo, like the author o f W i s d o m , h a d a stubborn streak o f eth­ nic particularism that was n o t entirely dissolved b y his universalizing p h i l o s o p h y . His m a i n

emphasis

is certainly

o n the

conversion o f

humanity to virtue, w h i c h he identifies with the stipulations o f M o s a i c law,

but he at least affirms

the ingathering o f the exiles a n d

messianic age, even if they are far f r o m the center o f his

the

thought.

It m a y b e that the author o f W i s d o m also affirmed t h e m , insofar as they w e r e f o u n d in the T o r a h , but he makes n o m e n t i o n o f t h e m in his b o o k . T h e c o s m o s is p r o g r a m m e d to deal with

unrighteous­

ness w h e n it arises, but the o n l y definitive resolution o f the p r o b l e m is f o u n d in the respective fates o f righteous a n d w i c k e d after death. T h e w o r l d v i e w o f the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , a n d o f Philo, is ulti­ mately very different from that o f the apocalypses e m a n a t i n g from the land o f Israel. In the apocalypses, history has a pattern, but wis­ dom

a n d justice are absent for l o n g stretches. T h i s idea is beauti­

fully expressed in the Similitudes o f E n o c h , in 1 En 4 2 : Wisdom found no place where she could dwell, and her dwelling was in heaven. Wisdom went out in order to dwell among the sons of men, but did not find a dwelling; wisdom returned to her place and

H.A. Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge, Mass., 1948), 2.407.

106

J O H N J. COLLINS

took her seat in the midst o f the angels. And iniquity came out from her chambers; those whom she did not seek she found, and dwelt among them, like rain in the desert, and like dew on parched ground. S u c h a retreat o n the part o f W i s d o m w o u l d b e unthinkable in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n . In the apocalypses, the collaboration o f nature in punishing the w i c k e d is deferred until the eschatological p e r i o d . In the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , it is an o n g o i n g feature o f c o s m o s a n d history. E v e n in the height o f his sharp p o l e m i c against the perver­ sity o f Canaanites and Egyptians, the Alexandrian author maintains his faith that the c o s m o s is in h a r m o n y with its maker.

Epilogue A s I n o t e d at the b e g i n n i n g o f this essay, the contrast

between

W i s d o m a n d the apocalypses is n o t simply a matter o f the transla­ tion o f H e b r e w thought into Greek. It is m o r e a matter o f genre, a n d the c h o i c e o f genre is influenced to s o m e degree b y historical setting. T h e m o s t o b v i o u s counterpoint to the withdrawal o f W i s d o m in the Similitudes o f E n o c h is f o u n d in Ben Sira 2 4 , a text origi­ nally written in H e b r e w , in Jerusalem, before the M a c c a b e a n revolt, w h i c h claims that W i s d o m did n o t retire to heaven but pitched its tent in Israel. Ben Sira differs sharply f r o m the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n o n the issue o f immortality, but his understanding o f nature is rather similar, if less systematic. T h e H e b r e w sage also saw the c o s m o s as the i m p l e m e n t o f G o d . H e speaks o f "winds created for v e n g e a n c e " a n d claims that wild animals and even "the s w o r d that punishes

the

u n g o d l y " never disobey the divine c o m m a n d . T h e righteous a n d the wicked experience nature differendy, as is also the case in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n : " A l l these [elements] are g o o d for the godly, but for the sinners they turn into evils" (Sir 39:27). B e n Sira shows little interest in national restoration, e x c e p t in a prayer

in chapter

36

w h i c h is o f very doubtful authenticity. Like his Alexandrian c o u n ­ terpart, he believes that divine justice is i m p l e m e n t e d in history o n an o n g o i n g basis. O n the other hand, Egyptian J u d a i s m w o u l d n o t always maintain its c o n f i d e n c e in the justice o f c o s m o s a n d history. B o t h the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n a n d Philo were products o f a l o n g process o f cultural assimilation, a n d reflected a stratum o f Jewish society that h a d b e e n very successful in Hellenistic a n d R o m a n Egypt. T h a t success is

APOCALYPTIC

107

ESCHATOLOGY

reflected in their confident t h e o l o g y o f nature, w h e r e b y the c o s m o s ensures the triumph o f the righteous. B y the time these authors wrote in the early R o m a n p e r i o d , h o w e v e r , that success was in j e o p a r d y . It m a y well b e that the bitter p o l e m i c against Gentiles in W i s 1 1 - 1 9 reflects the Caligula.

25

outbreak

o f hostilities

in A l e x a n d r i a in the

time o f

But m u c h w o r s e was to c o m e . T h e Jewish c o m m u n i t y in

A l e x a n d r i a was battered b y v i o l e n c e in 6 6 C . E . and virtually w i p e d out in the suppression o f the great D i a s p o r a revolt in the time o f Trajan. It is o n l y in the p e r i o d after 70 C . E . that w e get an a p o c ­ alyptic literature from Egyptian J u d a i s m that foresees the

destruc­

tion o f this w o r l d . T h e m o s t vivid expression o f the n e w , despairing, v i e w o f the w o r l d is f o u n d in the fifth Sibylline Oracle. T h e r e

again,

nature is enlisted to punish the w i c k e d : "a great star will c o m e from heaven to the w o n d r o u s sea a n d will b u r n the d e e p sea and B a b y l o n [ R o m e ] itself a n d the land o f Italy," because o f the destruction o f the H e b r e w s (Sib. Or. 5 : 1 5 8 - 6 1 ) . But this is n o t a h a r m o n i o u s

re­

a r r a n g e m e n t o f the elements such as w e f o u n d in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n . T h e Sibyl c o n c l u d e s with a batde o f the stars a m o n g them­ selves, instigated b y G o d : Heaven itself was roused until it shook the fighters. In anger it cast them headlong to earth. Accordingly, stricken into the baths o f ocean, they quickly kindled the whole earth. But the sky remained starless. {Sib. Or. 5:527-31). History is reflected in nature. T h e destruction o f nature mirrors

the

destruction o f the Jewish c o m m u n i t y in Egypt. It is a sad irony that a c o m m u n i t y that h a d p l a c e d so m u c h c o n f i d e n c e in the g o o d n e s s a n d o r d e r o f the c o s m o s should in the e n d b e driven to such a vision o f despair.

2 5

So S. C h e o n , The Exodus Story in the Wisdom of Solomon. A Study in Biblical Interpretation (Sheffield, 1997), 125-49.

6

PHILO A N D THE W I S D O M OF S O L O M O N

ON

CREATION, REVELATION, AND PROVIDENCE: THE

HIGH-WATER M A R K OF JEWISH HELLENISTIC FUSION

DAVID

WINSTON

Introduction In his grand p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o m m e n t a r y o n the Pentateuch,

Philo

generally retains the biblical t e r m i n o l o g y a n d i d i o m in the v e r y process o f transposing that text into a philosophical key. G r e e k p h i l o ­ sophical terms jostle freely with biblical locutions, and the reader is defdy beguiled into discovering G r e e k philosophical doctrine beneath the literal shell o f the scriptural narrative. N o philosophical teach­ ing appears to b e t o o abstruse to withstand the subtle interweaving o f traditions represented b y Philo's distinctive b l e n d o f divergent out­ looks. W h e n the disparate elements o f his bicultural heritage are not u n d u l y recalcitrant,

Philo often s u c c e e d s in fusing t h e m into

an

impressive unity that conceals their underlying dissonance. In a n u m ­ b e r o f instances, h o w e v e r , the Jewish c o m p o n e n t in the Philonic m i x resists total integration,

a n d in spite o f s o m e subtle modifications

i n t r o d u c e d here and there in o r d e r to diminish the jarring

effect,

what is peculiarly Jewish a n d normative c a n n o t b e given u p . T h u s the Jewish c o n c e p t o f repentance was a n o t i o n that was virtually non-existent o r at best o n l y marginal in G r e e k philosophical thought. Y e t Philo makes a valiant a n d almost desperate effort to retain it in his scriptural c o m m e n t a r y , a n d even in biblical passages w h e r e there is scarcely a trace o f it h e nonetheless feels constrained to introduce it into the text. A l t h o u g h he seeks assiduously to assimilate it to his o w n philosophical a p p r o a c h to Judaism,

traces o f his ambivalence

are readily detected in his writing. H e generally emphasizes the sec­ o n d a r y rank o f repentance in the hierarchy o f virtue, explicitly refers to the scars o f o l d misdeeds, a n d clearly indicates the lengthy intel­ lectual process that p r e c e d e s c o n v e r s i o n to a better life. Revealing,

110

DAVID

WINSTON

t o o , is his casual reference to repentance

as an irrational e m o t i o n ,

a v i e w that follows inevitably f r o m the fundamental

philosophical

principles o f his ethical theory. H e was u n d o u b t e d l y h e l p e d to s o m e extent b y his awareness

o f a Neopythagorean preoccupation

self-examination that was later taken u p b y the R o m a n Stoa, we

clearly have here a striking e x a m p l e o f the pervasive

that characterize m u c h o f his writing. In the present p a p e r ,

with 1

but

tensions

2

I h a v e f o c u s e d m y attention o n

several

themes in Philo's thought that resist an easy b l e n d i n g o f their Jewish and G r e e k elements. M y main c o n c e r n will b e his theory o f p r o p h e c y , perhaps the m o s t c o m p l e x illustration o f Philo's inner tensions,

and

his partially veiled attempt to camouflage his true intent. Since m u c h in the interpretation o f Philo's doctrine o f p r o p h e c y turns o n

his

c o n c e p t i o n o f creation, I have included a b r i e f a c c o u n t o f this trou­ b l e d Philonic teaching as well. F o r if it should b e the case that Philo held a doctrine o f eternal creation, a necessary c o n s e q u e n c e o f this w o u l d b e that G o d ' s revelation o f himself must b e part o f a c o n ­ tinuous

p r o c e s s . I will c o n c l u d e with

an

examination

o f Philo's

thoughts o n divine p r o v i d e n c e , w h i c h must r e c o n c i l e his n o t i o n o f cyclic

history with Jewish

messianic d o c t r i n e . Finally, in o r d e r

to

b r o a d e n the framework o f m y analysis o f Philo, I shall c o m p a r e his formulations o f the issues m e n t i o n e d a b o v e with those o f his p r o b ­ ably near c o n t e m p o r a r y , the author o f the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n .

Creation W e begin with a brief a c c o u n t o f the creation doctrine o f the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n . T h e author states explicitly that G o d created the w o r l d 3

" o u t o f formless matter" (e£ djiopcpoi) UA,TIC;), a n d there is consider­ able e v i d e n c e that makes it unmistakably clear that this formless mat­ ter was c o n s i d e r e d b y h i m to b e eternal, a n d n o t itself created b y God.

1

4

M o r e important for o u r purposes is W i s d o m ' s understanding

Epictetus 3.10.2; Seneca De Ira 3.36.1-4. For a full discussion, see D . Winston, "Philo's Doctrine o f Repentance," in The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion, In Memory of Horst R. Moehring, ed. John P. Kenney (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 2 9 - 4 0 . Wis 11:17. See D . Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43. Garden City: Doubleday, 1979) 38-39. 2

3

4

111

CREATION, REVELATION, A N D P R O V I D E N C E

o f the nature o f G o d ' s creative act. V a r i o u s indications p o i n t to the strong possibility that he c o n c e i v e d o f creation as an eternal process. The

m o s t remarkable

feature

o f his description o f W i s d o m is his

depiction o f her as an eternal effluence o r emanation o f G o d ' s p o w e r a n d glory ( W i s 7 : 2 5 - 2 6 , 2 9 - 3 0 ) , a N e o p y t h a g o r e a n n o t i o n that even the m o r e philosophically ambitious Philo was reluctant

to express

explicitiy, preferring instead to use locutions that o n l y i m p l i e d it.

5

Unlike Ben Sira (1:4; 24:9) w h o asserts that G o d has created W i s d o m , he says n o t a w o r d a b o u t her creation, describing her instead in the present tense as a divine radiance, o f w h i c h o n e w o u l d have to say m o r e precisely that she is "ever b e i n g p r o d u c e d a n d in a state o f having b e e n p r o d u c e d , " to use a late formulation e m p l o y e d b y the fifth century Neoplatonist P r o c l u s . Now,

6

since the p h i l o s o p h i c a l matrix in w h i c h this text seems to

b e e m b e d d e d is M i d d l e Platonist, it should b e n o t e d that with the e x c e p t i o n o f Plutarch a n d Atticus, the M i d d l e Platonists d e n i e d that Plato h a d taught the t e m p o r a l creation o f the w o r l d , instead that the description given in the

maintaining

Timaeus was only for the

sake o f "clarity o f instruction." F o r m o s t Platonists, there c o u l d b e n o adequate explanation o f w h y G o d should wait b e f o r e b e g i n n i n g to i m p r o v e the eternal formless matter. M o r e o v e r , since the

author

o f W i s d o m c o n c e i v e s o f Sophia as a c o n t i n u o u s e m a n a t i o n

o f the

G o d h e a d , a n d since it contains the p a r a d i g m a t i c F o r m s o f all things a n d is the instrument o f creation, it is reasonable to p r e s u m e that its creative activity is also c o n t i n u o u s a n d that he thus holds a d o c ­ trine o f eternal creation. Nevertheless, i n a s m u c h as the author o f W i s d o m is m o r e o f a rhetorician than a p h i l o s o p h e r , o n e c a n n o t b e certain that the p h i l o s o p h i c a l reasoning o f M i d d l e Platonism deci­ sively shaped his position o n this question. O d d l y e n o u g h , although Philo was m u c h m o r e the p h i l o s o p h e r than the author o f W i s d o m , he writes with an evidently deliberate ambiguity c o n c e r n i n g the p r i m o r d i a l matter f r o m w h i c h G o d c o n ­ stituted the o r d e r e d universe. Y e t , as I have s h o w n elsewhere, to attribute to h i m the v i e w that G o d created preexistent matter out o f n o t h i n g w o u l d n o t only contradict his explicit statement in Aet. 5 that " n o t h i n g c o m e s into b e i n g f r o m the nonexistent a n d nothing is

5

Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 38, 185-86.

6

In Plat. Tim. 290.25.

112

DAVID

destroyed into the nonexistent,"

7

WINSTON

but w o u l d also b e i n c o n g r u o u s with

his w h o l e language o f creation. T h e argument that G o d created the c o s m o s because H e did n o t b e g r u d g e a share in His o w n excellence to an existence that in itself h a d n o t h i n g fair o r lovely w o u l d c o m ­ pletely miss the mark if this "unlovely existence" was itself directly created

b y G o d . I n d e e d , P h i l o virtually

says as m u c h w h e n

he

poignantly states that: it was not the matter subjected to his creative activity, material inan­ imate, discordant and dissoluble, and what is more in itself perishable, irregular, and unequal, that G o d praised, but the works o f his own art accomplished by a power unique, equal, and uniform and through knowledge one and the same. (Her. 160) Logically, as I have attempted to s h o w elsewhere, G o d is, for Philo, indirectly the

source o f p r i m o r d i a l matter, b u t Philo w o u l d have

recoiled f r o m ascribing it to His direct creative activity, just as he recoiled from ascribing even the "shaping" o f matter directly to G o d . T h e alternative v i e w that primordial matter is for Philo an eternal entity b y the side o f G o d , is, I think, p r e c l u d e d b y the fact that Philo describes it as "in itself perishable" (Her. 160). In his descrip­ tion o f preexistent matter, Plato emphatically notes that it " d o e s n o t admit o f destruction" (Tim. 5 2 b : cpGopdv ou 7upooSe%6|iEvov).

8

In sum, inasmuch as G o d ' s creative act is transtemporal and instan­ taneous, its description as an o r d e r e d s e q u e n c e o f c o s m o g o n i c events is o n l y a function o f the finite h u m a n m i n d seeking analytically to distinguish its logical stages. A l t h o u g h G o d ' s creation o f the universe, in a c c o r d a n c e with this analytical m o d e l , involves a series o f logical m o m e n t s , the term " c r e a t i o n " is p r o p e r l y applied o n l y to the

for­

m a t i o n o f the universe as a w h o l e . W e must n o w determine the precise nature o f G o d ' s

atemporal

creative act a c c o r d i n g to Philo. A l t h o u g h his formulation o f this issue is n o w h e r e u n a m b i g u o u s l y stated, there are a n u m b e r o f strong indi­ cations that he held a doctrine o f eternal creation. T o b e g i n with, if Philo w e r e to a d o p t the v i e w that G o d ' s creative act h a d a begin­ ning, this w o u l d stand in o p e n contradiction to o n e o f the

funda­

mental and oft-repeated principles o f his o w n philosophical worldview,

7

Cf. Spec. 1.266. Tim. 52b: cpGopdv ov jrpoo8ex6(j.evov. See D . Winston, Philo of Alexandria (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), 7 - 2 1 . 8

113

CREATION, REVELATION, A N D PROVIDENCE

that G o d is u n c h a n g e a b l e .

9

A l t h o u g h often inconsistent in

minor

matters, Philo shows himself t o o c o m p e t e n t a student o f p h i l o s o p h y to contradict himself in so flagrant a m a n n e r . T h i s contradiction is further sharpened

b y his statement that " G o d a n d his beneficent

p o w e r s ever m a k e it their business to transmute the faultiness o f the w o r s e w h e r e v e r it exists a n d c o n v e r t it to the better" (Spec. 4.187). Since, a c c o r d i n g to the alternate v i e w o f a creatio continua, primordial matter exists eternally b y the side o f G o d , the D e i t y must have b e e n eternally i m p r o v i n g it b y transforming it into a c o s m i c order. A l t h o u g h the a b o v e considerations, in m y o p i n i o n , are in them­ selves sufficient to establish

that Philo's doctrine is o n e o f eternal

creation, there are t w o further passages that help to c o n f i r m it. In Leg. 1.20, c o m m e n t i n g o n G e n 2:4, " w h e n it c a m e into b e i n g , " Philo notes that Scripture d o e s n o t define " w h e n " b y a determining limit, "for the things that c o m e into b e i n g (tot ywoiieva) t h r o u g h the First C a u s e , c o m e into b e i n g with n o determining limit" (d7tepvypd(pa)c;). Now,

if the act o f creation b e g a n at an instant o f G o d ' s c h o o s i n g ,

it c o u l d n o l o n g e r b e d e s c r i b e d as taking p l a c e

(XTuepiypdcpcoc;,

10

since,

t h o u g h indeterminate a parte post, it is clearly determinate a parte ante, 11

i.e., it has a 7tepiypa(pr| o r nipaq

marking it o f f f r o m w h a t p r e c e d e d

it. Similarly, in QG 1.1, c o m m e n t i n g again o n G e n 2:4, Philo says that this verse "appears viding a refutation

to indicate indeterminate

time, thus p r o ­

disconcerting those w h o sum u p the n u m b e r o f

years, f r o m w h i c h p o i n t they believe the c o s m o s c a m e into b e i n g . " T h i s seems to b e a clear attempt o n Philo's part to assert that cal­ culation o f the anno mundi is in principle impossible, and the efforts o f those w h o seek to establish it t h r o u g h an analysis o f Scriptural c h r o n o l o g y are futile. T h i s c a n o n l y b e so if the process o f creation is n o t m e r e l y c o n t i n u o u s , b u t has in fact n o beginning.

Revelation W e are n o w ready to consider the doctrine o f revelation. T h e distinc­ tive features

o f the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n ' s n o t i o n o f revelation

are

r o o t e d in its c o n c e p t i o n o f W i s d o m as a divine hypostasis, felicitously

9

Cher. 90; Spec. 3.178; Deus 26; etc.

10

Cf. Sacr. 59.

11

Cf. Arist. Phys. 218a25: TO 6e vt»v Jtepac;

icxi.

114

DAVID WINSTON

defined b y Oesterly and B o x as "a quasi-personification o f an attribute p r o p e r to G o d , o c c u p y i n g an intermediate sonalities a n d abstract b e i n g s . "

12

position between per­

It is only in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n

a n d Philo, w h e r e S o p h i a is c o n c e i v e d as an eternal divine e m a n a ­ tion, that she appears in this f o r m for the first time in Hellenistic Jewish writings. I n d e e d , W i s 7:25 is the earliest attestation o f the term

djtoppoia, effluence,

applied to L o g o s / S o p h i a , although it is

very likely that the n o t i o n o f a divine outflow was already e m p l o y e d b y adherents o f the M i d d l e S t o a .

13

In 7 : 2 2 - 2 4 , the author describes W i s d o m b y a series o f twentyo n e epithets (7 X 3, a triple perfection), b o r r o w e d largely f r o m Stoic p h i l o s o p h y . Like the

Stoic deity, W i s d o m is an intelligent

breath

(7rveuLia voepov) that pervades (SirjKei) a n d permeates (%copei) all things

14

But her i m m a n e n c e in the c o s m o s is c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d b y the author's insistence that she nonetheless enjoys a symbiotic relationship with G o d , a c o n d i t i o n o f u n b r o k e n intimacy with the divine (8:3). It c a n thus b e said that there is an aspect o f G o d ' s essence in everything a n d in the h u m a n m i n d preeminentiy; yet for all that, this essence remains

inseparable

from

G o d . T h e o n l y c o m p a r a b l e c o n c e p t in

ancient Jewish thought is Philo's similar n o t i o n o f an

all-penetrating

divine L o g o s that reaches into e a c h individual's m i n d , thereby c o n ­ verting it into an extension o f the divine m i n d , albeit a v e r y frag­ mentary

one.

1 3

But if W i s d o m is pervasively present in all things, a n d a b o v e all in the operations o f h u m a n reason, what is the significance o f h u m a n ­ ity's h o t pursuit o f her a n d the n e e d for special supplication to the L o r d that H e dispatch her f r o m His heavenly throne (9:10)? T h e issue here is o n e o f perspective. Since W i s d o m is b o t h

immanent

a n d transcendent, these m o d e s o f description are readily interchange­ able, d e p e n d i n g o n the focus o f the writer. T h i s d o u b l e aspect will also explain w h a t often appear to b e patentiy c o n t r a d i c t o r y state­ ments c o n c e r n i n g h u m a n c o n s c i e n c e in the writings o f Philo. T h u s in Decal. 8 7 , it is emphatically described as "every m a n ' s birth fel­ l o w a n d h o u s e - m a t e . " In several passages it is clearly identified with

12

W . O . E . Oesterly and G . H . Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue (London: Pitman, 1911), 169. Cicero Nat. D. 2.79; cf. Div. 1.110; Seneca Ep. 120.14. SVF 2.416, 1021, 1033; Posidonius F 100 Kidd. Det. 90; Gig. 27; Leg. 1.37-38; cf. M . Aurelius 8.57; Corp. Herm. 12.1. 13

14

15

115

CREATION, R E V E L A T I O N , A N D P R O V I D E N C E

h u m a n reasoning o r as the true m a n within the s o u l .

16

S o m e schol­

ars, h o w e v e r , are impressed b y the m a n y passages w h e r e the tran­ s c e n d e n c e o f the c o n s c i e n c e is a p p a r e n d y upheld. M o s t e m p h a t i c is Deus 1 3 5 - 3 8 w h e r e c o n s c i e n c e , identified with the H i g h Priest, is described in quasi mystical terms as entering the soul like a p u r e ray o f light, to reveal o u r h i d d e n sins in o r d e r to purify a n d heal us. I f this interpretation

w e r e correct, it w o u l d m e a n that for Philo,

m a n ' s i m m a n e n t p o w e r s o f reasoning are ultimately inadequate for applying ethical n o r m s a n d that without the timely invasions o f G o d ' s transcendent

gift, h u m a n beings w o u l d b e morally adrift. T h e fact

is, h o w e v e r , that the language used b y Philo is n o t at all unparal­ leled in R o m a n Stoics like M . Aurelius a n d S e n e c a . T h e latter, for e x a m p l e , begins at o n e p o i n t b y saying that "it is foolish to p r a y for s o u n d understanding w h e n y o u c a n acquire it f r o m y o u r s e l f . . . G o d is near y o u , he is with y o u , he is within y o u . . . " W i t h i n the briefest c o m p a s s , h o w e v e r , the language o f i m m a n e n c e suddenly shifts almost imperceptibly to that o f transcendence: If you see a man who is unterrified in the midst o f dangers, untouched by desires, happy in adversity . . . Will you not say: "This quality is too great and too lofty to be regarded as resembling this petty body in which it dwells? A divine power has descended upon that man." When a soul rises superior to other souls . . . it is stirred by a force from heaven. . . . Therefore a greater part o f it abides in that place from whence it came down to earth. Just as the rays of the sun do indeed touch the earth, but still abide at the source from which they are sent, even so the great and hallowed soul, which has come down in order that we may have a nearer knowledge o f divinity, does indeed associate with us, but still cleaves to its origin . . . (Ep. 41.1-2, 4 - 5 ) Interestingly, Seneca's vivid simile, w h i c h p r o b a b l y derives from the M i d d l e Stoa, recurs m u c h later in the writings o f S c h n e u r Z a l m a n o f I i a d i , founder o f H a b a d Hasidism, w h o cites it from the Kabbalistic tract Pardes Rimmonim (1548) o f M o s e s C o r d o v e r o o f Safed. It is significant that the author, unlike B e n Sira, n o w h e r e explic­ itly identifies W i s d o m with T o r a h , a n d with the e x c e p t i o n o f a brief historical reference in 18:9 makes virtually n o mention o f the sacrificial cult. His statement that " l o v e for W i s d o m means the keeping o f her laws" (6:18) is a m b i g u o u s a n d p r o b a b l y refers to the statutes o f nat­ ural law. All w e have from h i m in this regard is but a passing allusion

Deus 50; Post. 59; Det. 23; Fig. 131.

116

DAVID

WINSTON

to Israel's mission o f bringing the imperishable light o f the law to the w o r l d (18:4). V e r y likely he b e l i e v e d with Philo that the teach­ ings o f the T o r a h w e r e tokens o f divine W i s d o m , a n d that they w e r e in h a r m o n y with the law o f the universe a n d as such implant all the virtues in the h u m a n p s y c h e .

17

H e c o n c e i v e s o f W i s d o m as

a direct bearer o f revelation, functioning through the workings o f the h u m a n m i n d , a n d supreme arbiter o f all values. She is clearly the archetypal T o r a h (the

illin

PIDTIp

o f the Kabbalists), o f w h i c h the

M o s a i c l a w is but an i m a g e . W h e n he insists that unless G o d send his W i s d o m d o w n from o n high humanity w o u l d n o t c o m p r e h e n d G o d ' s will (9:17) he is certainly implying that the T o r a h is in n e e d o f further interpretation for the disclosure o f its true m e a n i n g , inter­ pretation

that W i s d o m alone is able to p r o v i d e . T h e author

thus

closely approximates the position o f Philo, in w h o s e view, even before the Sinaitic revelation, the Patriarchs w e r e already constituted voiroi e[i\\fX)%oi, living e m b o d i m e n t s o f divine W i s d o m . Similarly, in W i s 10, S o p h i a h a d already served as a personal guide to six righteous heroes who

lived b e f o r e the Sinaitic revelation.

In Philo's g r a n d synthesis, the c o n c e p t o f divine revelation was b o u n d to b e o n e o f its m o s t sensitive elements. A l t h o u g h the H e l l e n i c elevation o f p h i l o s o p h i c reason to a p r e e m i n e n t position appears to have c a p t u r e d Philo's m i n d a n d heart very early o n , o n e senses n o inner crisis in his religious w o r l d view. T h e p r i c e he must p a y for this m e r g i n g o f disparate a n d ultimately divergent a n d at times c o n ­ tradictory a p p r o a c h e s , is a deliberate measure o f ambiguity in his m o d e o f exposition that diverts the reader's attention f r o m the sharp edges o f his construction o f reality. I n a s m u c h as the issue o f divine revelation is at the c o r e o f the M o s a i c tradition, it is o n l y to b e e x p e c t e d that the ambiguity inherent in Philo's analysis o f M o s a i c p r o p h e c y should reflect his deepest ambivalences. Since the original publication o f m y essay, " T w o T y p e s o f M o s a i c Prophecy,"

18

a full a c c o u n t o f Philo's c o n c e p t i o n o f scriptural inspi­

ration has b e e n published b y H e l m u t Burkhardt,

17

19

a response to m y

Cf. Josephus Ant. 1.24; Pseudo-Aristeas 161; 4 M a c e 1:16-17; 5:25-26; Philo Opif. 3; Mos. 2.52. D . Winston, " T w o Types of Mosaic Prophecy According to Philo of Alexandria," Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 4 (1989), 4 9 - 6 7 . H . Burkhardt, Die Inspiration heiliger Schriften bei Philon von Alexandrien (Basel: Brunner Verlag Giessen, 1988). 18

19

117

CREATION, REVELATION, A N D P R O V I D E N C E

essay b y J o h n L e v i s o n , by Yehoshua Amir.

2 1

20

a n d a modification o f his original position

I shall therefore first briefly summarize m y ear­

lier p a p e r a n d then try to r e s p o n d to the n e w studies just m e n t i o n e d . In m y analysis o f Philo's classification o f the divine oracles that c o n ­ stitute all o f Scripture (Mos. 2 . 1 8 9 - 9 1 ) , I attempted to s h o w that his first c a t e g o r y o f oracles, those "spoken b y G o d in his o w n person, with his p r o p h e t for interpreter," p r o b a b l y refers to the particular laws, n o t including the D e c a l o g u e as such, w h i c h he frequentiy tells us elsewhere was not "delivered through a spokesman o r interpreter."

22

Since Philo's o n l y c o n c e r n at this p o i n t in his b i o g r a p h y o f M o s e s was to explain w h y he was g o i n g to confine himself to the p r e d i c ­ tive p r o p h e c i e s spoken b y M o s e s in his o w n p e r s o n while "possessed o f his o w n a c c o r d " (it) ouxou Kaxac>%£0£vxoc;) (Philo's third c a t e g o r y o f oracles), a n d those laws that e m e r g e d f r o m a process o f question and answer (Philo's s e c o n d category), he simply referred to most o f the rest o f the laws without adding the further distinction that n e e d e d to b e drawn between the particular laws and the D e c a l o g u e . H o w e v e r , inasmuch

as the particular laws, a c c o r d i n g to Philo, o n l y spell out

the ten s u m m a r y principles o f the D e c a l o g u e , the latter is at least i n c l u d e d implicitiy. Burkhardt (and originally also A m i r ) is o f the o p i n i o n that the first category o f oracles refers o n l y to the D e c a l o g u e , but that i n a s m u c h as the particular laws are i n c l u d e d in the D e c a l o g u e a n d w e r e inter­ p r e t e d b y M o s e s , it c o u l d b e said that the D e c a l o g u e t o o was given by

G o d with M o s e s as interpreter. But while it is reasonable

to

assume that in referring to all the laws excluding those i n v o l v e d in the

question

and

answer

p r o c e s s , Philo m a y h a v e l u m p e d

them

together with the D e c a l o g u e , since they are at least implicitiy included in it, it seems to m e unreasonable

to assume that he w o u l d refer

specifically to the D e c a l o g u e in a m a n n e r that elsewhere explicitly excludes it.

2 0

23

J. Levison, " T w o Types o f Ecstatic Prophecy according to Philo," Stadia Philonica Annual 6 (1994), 8 3 - 8 9 . Y . Amir, "Authority and Interpretation o f Scripture in the Writings o f Philo," in Mikra, eds. M o r t o n J. Mulder and Harry Sysling (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 4 2 1 - 5 3 . Spec. 3.7; cf. Proem. 2; Deed. 19. In a later publication ("Authority and Interpretation," 437), Amir suggests that the first category "is undoubtedly the one that gives all the verses o f the T o r a h the character o f oracles. Perhaps because Philo is not concerned here with this first cat­ egory, but wants to get on to the third, he seems to have been somewhat careless 2 1

22

2 3

118

DAVID WINSTON

Philo's description o f the first a n d third categories o f oracles deliv­ ered b y M o s e s yields t w o types o f p r o p h e c y , hermeneutical o r noetic a n d ecstatic, the latter b e i n g m e d i a t e d through possession, the

for­

m e r through the prophet's noetic response to the divine v o i c e , w h i c h is seen b y Philo as a figure for rational soul. A s for the s e c o n d cat­ e g o r y o f oracles, inasmuch as there is n o clear indication in Philo's text that the evBouauxajioc; o f M o s e s w h e n he is p o s i n g his questions to the deity involves the kind o f possession that takes h i m out o f himself, it w o u l d seem that b o t h question a n d answer in the

four

cases cited b y Philo are exemplifications o f noetic p r o p h e c y , in w h i c h , as w e shall see, the prophet's m i n d is n o t o n l y not p r e e m p t e d , actually appears to seize the initiative. M o r e precisely, the side is p r e n o e t i c , o r a preliminary

but

question

state o f the noetic, m a r k e d

by

intellectual perplexity a n d uncertainty. In any case, Philo's m o m e n ­ tary restriction o f the use o f the term " p r o p h e c y " largely to the pre­ dictive m o d e l o f inspiration

conveniently enables h i m to focus the

reader's gaze almost exclusively o n ecstatic p r o p h e c y , a n d thus allows h i m to deal with the noetic type with almost casual lack o f c o n c e r n . W e are driven to a distant but singular passage in Decal. 32—35 if w e wish to seek out his understanding o f the latter f o r m o f p r o p h e c y . Philo's descriptions o f ecstatic possession are rhetorically elaborated in a series o f passages in w h i c h it is emphatically asserted that in that state the prophet's sovereign m i n d is entirely p r e e m p t e d b y the divine Spirit, so that he b e c o m e s a passive m e d i u m for the Deity's message. A close examination,

h o w e v e r , o f Philo's description o f M o s e s '

predictive p r o p h e c y reveals that while he has a d o p t e d the m o r e rad­ ical f o r m o f G r e e k ecstatic p r o p h e c y as his m o d e l with regard to the predictive p r o p h e c i e s o f A b r a h a m and B a l a a m ,

24

this is n o t the case

with those o f M o s e s . H e r e there is n o explicit reference to the dis­ placement o f the prophet's mind, to his ignorance o f his o w n prophetic w o r d s , o r to the fact that G o d p r o m p t s the w o r d s that he speaks. If this interpretation is correct, it w o u l d readily fit the pattern o f

in his definition, for if it is supposed to include the entire content o f Mikra, we might object that G o d does not speak in the first person throughout the Bible." In light o f Amir's suggestion, I am n o w inclined to entertain the notion that the first category includes not only all the laws but also the creation story (Koauo7toua) and the historical narratives (yzyzakoyvKov). Since the latter are interspersed with quo­ tations from G o d , it might be inferred that they were transmitted to Moses by G o d in his own person. Her. 2 6 4 - 6 6 ; Mos. 1.274-91. 2 4

119

CREATION, REVELATION, AND PROVIDENCE

uniqueness that frames Philo's portrait o f M o s e s , for it is n o w evi­ dent that not o n l y is M o s e s ' legislative p r o p h e c y unique, but even his predictive p r o p h e c y , a gift he otherwise shares with N o a h a n d the Patriarchs,

25

is likewise unique, since it is not as with the latter,

a p r o d u c t o f p s y c h i c invasion a n d displacement. It should b e n o t e d that Levison has c o r r o b o r a t e d m y interpretation through a detailed analysis that demonstrates

the integral c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n M o s e s '

e m o t i o n a l state, his experience o f inspiration and his utterance before the p e o p l e o f Israel. Levison, h o w e v e r , takes issue with m y assertion that Philo invokes the n o t i o n o f ecstatic possession o n l y to explain the ability o f the p r o p h e t to predict the future. H e notes that M o s e s '

announcement

o f the Sabbath a n d the c o m m a n d to slaughter the leaders responsi­ ble for the fiasco o f the g o l d e n calf are speeches a b o u t the present. But as for the c o m m a n d to slaughter the instigators o f the g o l d e n calf w o r s h i p , Philo himself admits that it was m o r e o f an exhorta­ tion than an oracular saying,

26

and as for his a n n o u n c e m e n t o f the

Sabbath, it is c o u c h e d in Scripture as a prediction. W h e n all the chieftains o f the c o m m u n i t y told M o s e s that o n the sixth day the p e o ­ ple gathered

d o u b l e the a m o u n t o f f o o d , he said to them:

"This

is what the L o r d meant: T o m o r r o w is a day o f rest, a h o l y Sabbath o f the L o r d . " T h i s a n n o u n c e m e n t is c o r r o b o r a t e d b y G o d in v. 2 9 : " M a r k that the L o r d has given y o u the Sabbath; therefore H e gives y o u t w o days' f o o d o n the sixth day." It should b e noted that although in E x o d 16:5, G o d tells M o s e s that o n the sixth d a y the p e o p l e will receive " d o u b l e the a m o u n t they gather e a c h d a y , " H e d o e s not indicate that the seventh day is the Sabbath. Levison further argues that Philo, in his a c c o u n t o f M o s e s ' a n n o u n c e m e n t o f the

Sabbath,

explicitly connects the m i n d o f M o s e s a n d the divine spirit: " F o r the m i n d , " says Philo, " c o u l d n o t have m a d e so straight an aim if there was not also the divine spirit guiding it to the truth itself."

27

According

to Levison, this suggests "that M o s e s ' ecstatic p r o p h e t i c inspiration can engage a n d quicken the m i n d , leading it to the truth . . . T h e r e m a y b e , then, a closer relationship b e t w e e n hermeneutical p r o p h e c y a n d ecstatic p r o p h e c y than W i n s t o n has suggested."

2 5

2 6

27

28

Her. 2 6 0 - 6 1 . Mos. 2.270. Mos. 2.265.

Levison "Two Types of Ecstatic Prophecy," 89.

28

120

DAVID WINSTON

It seems to m e , h o w e v e r , that Levison misreads Philo's intentions here. W h a t Philo is saying is that M o s e s ' a n n o u n c e m e n t o f the S a b ­ bath d a y was n o t so m u c h conjecture

as G o d - s e n t inspiration. In

general, says Philo, conjectures are closely akin to predictive p r o p h e ­ cies, insofar

as b o t h are

n o t the

" o w n " k n o w l e d g e , a n d therefore But a l t h o u g h

certain result o f an

individual's

r e m a i n uncertain until c o n f i r m e d .

predictive p r o p h e c y is n o t the

result o f o n e ' s o w n

k n o w l e d g e , inasmuch as it is disclosed b y the divine spirit, it is k n o w n with certainty. In the case o f M o s e s , his conjecture was c o n f i r m e d for h i m t h r o u g h a mildly ecstatic f o r m o f divine inspiration. W e r e M o s e s left to his o w n devices, he c o u l d at best o n l y have a n n o u n c e d his " c o n j e c t u r e " to the p e o p l e , but he c o u l d n o t have

announced

the S a b b a t h as a certainty. M o r e o v e r , it is Philo himself w h o explic­ itly tells us that in the third kind o f oracles that he is here recount­ ing " G o d has given to M o s e s o f his o w n p o w e r o f f o r e k n o w l e d g e (7tpoyvrooTiicric, ouvdcLrecoc;) a n d b y this he will reveal future

events."

29

F u r t h e r m o r e , in his introductory remarks to his description o f M o s e s here as p r o p h e t , Philo notes that the p r o p h e t declares b y inspiration (0£O7u£n) w h a t c a n n o t b e a p p r e h e n d e d

b y reason (Xoyiairco).

30

This

is further reinforced b y Philo's statement, w h e n speaking o f J a c o b ' s predictive p r o p h e c y (evOouoicovtoc,), that " a p p r e h e n s i o n o f the future d o e s n o t b e l o n g to T h e question,

man."

31

h o w e v e r , remains:

W h y d i d Philo include in

his

third kind o f p r o p h e c y w h a t he himself admits is really o n l y a case o f exhortation rather than prediction? T h e answer, I believe, lies in the fact that Philo is here p r o b a b l y w o r k i n g with an exegetical tra­ dition that g r o u p e d together examples o f M o s a i c statements for w h i c h there a p p e a r to b e n o indications in Scripture that G o d h a d

first

i n f o r m e d h i m c o n c e r n i n g these matters. T h u s , although the g o l d e n calf e p i s o d e d i d n o t really fit the predictive pattern, he i n c l u d e d it nonetheless, since it u n d o u b t e d l y a p p e a r e d in m o s t o f the lists that w e r e before h i m .

29

3 2

Mos. 2.190. Mos. 2.187. Her. 261. " T h e Mekilta adduces more than ten cases, where we find locutions like "as the Lord has spoken," "this is what the Lord said," yet scripture does not appear to inform us when these things were said. If one compares God's words to those o f Moses in the scriptural passages adduced by the Mekilta, he will immediately notice that, according to the Mekilta, Moses did not hesitate in most o f these cases 30

31

3 2

CREATION, REVELATION, A N D PROVIDENCE In sharp contrast

121

to ecstatic p r o p h e c y , divine v o i c e o r n o e t i c

p r o p h e c y d o e s n o t render its recipient passive. A l t h o u g h n o separate a c c o u n t is given b y Philo o f this m o d e o f M o s a i c p r o p h e c y , w e m a y discern its nature from his a c c o u n t o f the giving o f the D e c a l o g u e , w h i c h must serve us as the p a r a d i g m for p r o p h e c y through the divine voice.

3 3

G o d , w e are there told, is n o t as a m a n

tongue, and windpipe.

34

needing

mouth,

R a t h e r H e created a rational soul full o f

clearness a n d distinctness that shaped the air a r o u n d it into a ing fire, s o u n d i n g forth an

articulate v o i c e .

3 5

flam­

T h e articulate v o i c e

was activated b y the p o w e r o f G o d , w h i c h created in the souls o f all another kind o f hearing far superior to that o f the physical organ. " T h e latter is but a sluggish sense, inactive until aroused b y

the

i m p a c t o f the air, but the hearing o f the m i n d possessed b y G o d (evGeoi) 8iavoiaaa xoi