Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Things Revealed

Supplements to the

Journal for the Study of Judaism Editor

John J. Collins The Divinity School, Yale University Associate Editor

Florentino García Martínez Qumran Institute, University of Groningen Advisory Board

j. duhaime ‒ a. hilhorst ‒ p.w. van der horst a. klostergaard petersen ‒ m.a. knibb ‒ j.t.a.g.m. van ruiten j. sievers ‒ g. stemberger ‒ e.j.c. tigchelaar ‒ j. tromp

VOLUME 89

Michael E. Stone

Things Revealed Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone

Edited by

Esther G. Chazon, David Satran and Ruth A. Clements

.. .

TU

..

.

.

P AA LL LL AA S S

TA SU

AEGID E

B

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2004

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in Publication data Things revealed : studies in early Jewish and Christian literature in honor of Michael E. Stone / edited by Esther G. Chazon, David Satran, and Ruth A. Clements. p. cm. — (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism ; v. 89) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-13885-4 (alk. paper) 1. Apocryphal books—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Dead Sea scrolls. 3. Christian literature, Early—History and criticism. I. Stone, Michael E., 1938– II. Chazon, Ester G. III. Satran, David. IV. Clements, Ruth. V. Series. BS1700.T55 2004 229’.06—dc22 2004054468

ISSN 1384-2161 ISBN 90 04 13885 4 © Copyright 2004 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 any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS

Abbreviations ..............................................................................

ix

Introduction ................................................................................ Esther G. Chazon and David Satran

xv

Michael E. Stone: An Appreciation ........................................ xxiii Frank Moore Cross Festschrift Presentation: Letter to Michael .............................. Harold W. Attridge

xxv

APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA The Third Sybil Revisited ........................................................ John J. Collins

3

Jubilees 32 and the Bethel Cult Traditions in Second Temple Literature ...................................................................................... Esther Eshel

21

Reviving (and Refurbishing) the Lost Apocrypha of M. R. James .......................................................................................... Robert A. Kraft

37

Where is the Place of Eschatological Blessing? ...................... George W. E. Nickelsburg The Traditions About Abraham’s Early Life in the Book of Judith (5:6–9) ........................................................................ Adolfo Roitman Scripture in the Astronomical Book of Enoch ........................ James C. VanderKam Wisdom, Instruction, and Social Location in Sirach and 1 Enoch ........................................................................................ Benjamin G. Wright III

53

73 89

105

vi

contents

Whither Elijah? The Ascension of Elijah in Biblical and Extrabiblical Traditions .............................................................. J. Edward Wright

123

DEAD SEA SCROLLS Two Notes on Measuring Character and Sin at Qumran .... Gary A. Anderson

141

Dibre Hame"orot and the Apocalypse of Weeks ........................ Hanan Eshel

149

The Purity Laws of 4QD: Exegesis and Sectarianism .......... Martha Himmelfarb

155

Historical Implications of the Early Second Century Dating of the 4Q249–250 Cryptic A Corpus ...................................... Stephen J. Pfann

171

The Special Character of the Texts Found in Qumran Cave 11 ...................................................................................... Emanuel Tov

187

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA A Neglected Text of Philo of Alexandria: First Translation into a Modern Language .......................................................... David T. Runia

199

Abraham and the Promise of Spirit: Points of Convergence Between Philo and Paul ............................................................ Sze-kar Wan

209

EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE Abraham’s Refutation of Astrology: An Excerpt from Pseudo-Clement in the Chronicon of George the Monk .......... William Adler

227

contents Mother Jerusalem, Mother Church: Desolation and Restoration in Early Jewish and Christian Literature ............ Theodore A. Bergren

vii

243

A “Prayer Alleged to be Jewish” in the Apostolic Constitutions .... Esther G. Chazon

261

Why not Naphtali? ...................................................................... Vered Hillel

279

Twenty-Five Questions to Corner the Jews: A Byzantine Anti-Jewish Document from the Seventh Century ................ Pieter W. van der Horst

289

Sidelights on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs from the Greek Catena on Genesis .......................................................... Marinus de Jonge

303

Galen, Papias and Others on Teaching and Being Taught .... Jaap Mansfeld

317

Isaac of Antioch and the Literature of Adam and Eve ........ Edward G. Mathews, Jr.

331

The Adam and Eve Traditions in The Journey of Zosimos ...... Ronit Nikolsky

345

Deceiving the Deceiver: Variations on an Early Christian Theme ........................................................................................ David Satran

357

Bibliography of the Works of Michael E. Stone ....................

365

Index of Modern Authors ........................................................ 381 Index of Ancient Sources .......................................................... 386

ABBREVIATIONS

AArmL AASOR AB ABD ABR ABRL ACCS AGJU ALGHJ ANRW

ANTZ APAT ASOR ATD AThR BA BAR BETL BHM BHT BibOr BJRL BJS BNTC BSOAS BZAW

Annual of Armenian Linguistics Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 Australian Bible Review Anchor Bible Reference Library Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972– Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments. Translated and edited by E. Kautzsch. 2 vols. Tübingen, 1900 American Schools of Oriental Research Das Alte Testament Deutsch Anglican Theological Review Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Bet-HaMidrash. Ed. A. Jellinek. 6 vols. 2d edition. Jerusalem: Wahrman, 1967 (Hebrew) Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica et orientalia Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Brown Judaic Studies Black’s New Testament Commentaries Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

x BZNW

abbreviations

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CFHB Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae CJ Classical Journal ConBNT Coniectanea neotestamentica or Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum CSCO Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium CSHB Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae CWS Classics of Western Spirituality DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DJDJ Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan DSD Dead Sea Discoveries EPRO Etudes préliminaries aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain EvT Evangelische Theologie FB Forschung zur Bibel FC Fathers of the Church. Washington, D.C., 1947– GCS Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies HALOT Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ed. L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000 HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HSS Harvard Semitic Studies HTKNT Herder theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review HTS Harvard Theological Studies HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual HUCM Hebrew Union College Monographs ICC International Critical Commentary IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IOS Israel Oriental Society JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

abbreviations JCS JJS JNES JQR JSAS JSHRZ JSJ

xi

Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Periods JSJ Supp. Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNT Supp. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOT Supp. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSP Supp. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series JSQ Jewish Studies Quarterly JSS Journal of Semitic Studies KEK Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neuen Testament LCC Library of Christian Classics LCL Loeb Classical Library LLC Literary and Linguistic Computing MedArch Medieval Archaeology MES Middle Eastern Studies MTZ Münschener theologische Zeitschrift NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NovT Novum Testamentum NovT Supp. Supplements to Novum Testamentum OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OCP Orientalia christiana periodica OLA Orientalia lovaniensia analecta OrChrAn Orientalia christiana analecta OTL Old Testament Library OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Ed. J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983–85 OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research PBH Patma-banasirakan handês

xii PO PVTG RB REArm REJ RelSRev RevQ RHPR RNT RSR SANT SBFA SBLDS SBLEJL SBLMS SBLRBS SBLSBS SBLSCS SBLSymS SBLTT SEAug SHR SJ SJLA SNTSMS STDJ StPB SUNT SVTP TDOT

TDNT

THKNT

abbreviations Patrologia orientalis Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece Revue biblique Revue des études arméniennes Revue des études juives Religious Studies Review Revue de Qumrân Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Regensburger Neues Testament Recherches de science religieuse Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testaments Studii biblici Franciscani analecta Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and its Literature Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum Studies in the History of Religions (supplement to Numen) Studia Judaica Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia post-biblica Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Ed. G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry. Tr. J. T. Willis, D. E. Green, and D. W. Stott. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974– Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Tr. G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament

abbreviations TLG

xiii

Thesaurus linguae graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works. Edited by L. Berkowitz and K. A. Squitier. 3d ed. Oxford, 1990 TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum TUGAL Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur VC Vigiliae christianae VCSup Supplements to Vigiliae christianae VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

INTRODUCTION

This volume honors Michael E. Stone on the occasion of his sixtyfifth birthday. It is presented in recognition of his luminous contribution to the research and teaching of post-biblical Judaism and early Christianity as well in gratitude for the years of guidance and friendship which so many of us have enjoyed. It is also an opportunity to say thank you to those dearest to Michael—to Nira, his “helper and partner,” their children Aurit and Dan, and now their grandchildren Paz, Moran and Yarden—for allowing us to feel part of the Stone family in so many different ways. Michael Edward Stone was born in Leeds, UK on October 22, 1938, and was raised in Sydney, Australia, receiving his B.A. in Semitics and Classics from the University of Melbourne in 1960. In that year, out of both deep personal conviction and strong family commitment, Michael came to Israel and began his lifelong relationship with Jerusalem and the Hebrew University. He then traveled to Cambridge, Massachusetts and in 1965 completed his Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, under the direction of Frank Moore Cross. In 1966, following a one-year appointment at the University of California at Santa Barbara, Michael returned to Jerusalem and took up a permanent faculty position at the Hebrew University, where he is today the Gail Levin de Nur Professor of Religious Studies as well as Professor of Armenian Studies. During almost forty years of service at the Hebrew University, Michael has at various times chaired three different departments, served on countless faculty and university committees, directed scores of theses and dissertations and left his mark on several highly distinct areas of research and teaching. Two particular contributions demand special attention. Michael single-handedly pioneered the study of Armenian language, literature and history; he has made Jerusalem (largely through his own scholarship and industry) one of the important centers of Armenian studies in today’s academic world. Furthermore, he has accomplished this through intensive, warm relations with the Armenian communities in Jerusalem and throughout the world. No less inspired was the drive and vision

xvi

introduction

with which Michael founded the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1995. In so doing, he realized a longstanding dream to integrate the study of the Scrolls with that of the vast body of Second Temple literature and to make the Hebrew University of Jerusalem the home for this new integrative and interdisciplinary research. Michael served as the Orion Center’s Director during its first three years and continues to chair its Academic Committee and to play an active role in the life of the Center. Michael’s influence on the academic study of early Judaism and Christianity, however, extends far beyond the lecture halls and seminar rooms of Givat Ram and Mount Scopus. Indeed, he has proven himself an energetic and enthusiastic teacher and researcher within the context of at least a half-dozen leading universities and institutes worldwide. During the late 1970s and early 1980s Michael was a longterm visiting professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He also has enjoyed visiting professorships at the University of Melbourne, Harvard Divinity School, Yale University, Leiden University, and served as the Distinguished National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Visiting Professor at the University of Richmond. Michael has been a frequent Fellow-in-Residence at the Netherlands Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) and most recently was honored as a Kluge Distinguished Visiting Senior Fellow at the Library of Congress (Washington, D.C.). He directed, together with Gary A. Anderson, a NEH Summer Seminar on “Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Tradition,” which convened both at the University of Virginia (1993) and at the Hebrew University (1996). Michael’s “extramural” academic activities have been no less extensive. He played an instrumental role in the formative period of the Pseudepigrapha Group of the Society of Biblical Literature, serving for a decade (1972–1982) on its steering committee and on the editorial board of the SBL Pseudepigrapha Series. This was truly a renaissance period in the study of post-biblical literature, one of whose most important and influential expressions has been Michael’s volume Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (1984) for the Compendia project. In more recent years, he has served on the editorial boards of both the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha and Dead Sea Discoveries. While for many of us this might seem a more than adequate level of scholarly cooperation, we should remember that the far greater part of Michael’s organizational efforts over the

introduction

xvii

last two decades has been devoted to the creation of an international framework for Armenian Studies—an aspect of his activity which demands proper and fitting treatment in another context. When we think of Michael’s scholarly contribution, our first thoughts are undoubtedly of a record of publication which is dazzling in both its depth and breadth. By latest count, there stand on the shelves or are currently in press no fewer than fifty volumes which Michael has either authored or edited, in addition to more than two hundred and fifty published articles and reviews. Lest anyone fear that the pace has slackened at all, Michael’s most recent bibliography indicates three monographs in preparation and fifteen articles in press at the moment. To even begin to do justice to Michael’s contribution to the study of the vast body of Second Temple period literature and its subsequent Jewish and Christian transmission, as well as to the history of religious experience, praxis, and thought, would require a full-length essay in its own right. In the present context, only a few titles, representative of his lifelong interests and collaborative efforts, will have to suffice. Michael Stone launched his academic career with his dissertation on Features of the Eschatology of IV Ezra (Harvard University 1965 [1989]). He continued to pursue this research into the 1980s with a series of groundbreaking studies on the structure, meaning, and transmission history of that text as well as examinations of the pivotal nature of Ezra’s conversion experience. These studies came to ultimate fruition in his authoritative commentary, Fourth Ezra, for the Hermeneia series (1990). It is possible, in overview, to speak of at least four distinct and significant bodies of research which Michael has advanced. The first found its expression in a series of formative articles on the nature of apocalyptic thought and literature of the Second Temple period, ranging from the fourth/third century origins of the Enoch books through the visions composed in the wake of the Destruction. A second critical area has been the investigation of both the early Jewish sources for and the later transmission history of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, particularly those of Levi and Naphtali. Third, especially during the last decade, we have witnessed the mapping of the vast literature of Adam and Eve—the history of the “protoplasts”— in the widest possible range of sources and languages extending far

xviii

introduction

beyond antiquity into the Western Middle Ages as well as the churches of Byzantium. Finally, a major area of his scholarly interest always has been the tracing of the contours of Jewish and Christian apocryphal literatures within the Armenian tradition. As indicated earlier, to even venture to survey Michael’s scholarship in the field of Armenian studies lies far beyond the scope of this volume, although mention should be made, nevertheless, of his monumental Album of Armenian Paleography published in 2002. Perhaps the ultimate recognition for these academic and scholarly contributions came in 2001, when Michael received the first annual Landau Prize for lifetime achievement in research in the Humanities. Indeed, in the face of these manifold professional milestones and personal achievements—teaching posts, research appointments, scholarly affiliations and a list of publications that makes one’s knees weak—it may seem paradoxical to look elsewhere to detect Michael’s greatest contribution to the study of religion in the ancient world. Yet, not a few of us regard Michael’s creation of intense, rewarding interpersonal frameworks of scholarship to be his true magnum opus. Despite the innumerable hours which he has spent poring over texts in the privacy of his study and the corresponding time invested in the task of writing which makes that private investigation accessible, Michael ultimately views scholarship as a powerfully social process. Though sometimes perceived as the “lonely knight of (philological) faith,” Michael’s deepest enjoyment has always been the collaborative study of texts and problems—the ideal of hevruta. An overview of Michael’s scholarly career quickly reveals the central importance of friendship and cooperative investigation. During the years of his appointment at the University of Pennsylvania, Michael joined forces and shared students with Bob Kraft, playing a key role in the direction of doctoral candidates as well as participating actively in the “Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins.” While involved closely with the working group on the Pseudepigrapha of the SBL, Michael coauthored, with George Nickelsburg, the anthology Faith and Piety in Early Judaism (1982)—a volume that still figures prominently in the teaching of the field. During this same period, Michael was also forging strong academic and personal relations with scholars of another city: Leiden in the Netherlands. There, Michael has worked closely with colleagues such as Marinus de Jonge, Jaap Mansfeld, Luk van Rompay and David Runia—as well as, on matters Armenian, with Jos Weitenberg.

introduction

xix

This combination of study and friendship was best defined, perhaps, by the long partnership between Michael and the late Jonas C. Greenfield which spanned over two decades, ending sadly with Jonas’ sudden death in 1995. The Greenfield-Stone collaboration produced nearly a dozen joint publications, culminating in their DJD edition of the Aramaic Levi Document and the proximate publication of the full textual edition with translation and commentary. It is not only with his senior colleagues and contemporaries that Michael has sought and encouraged collaborative research: a long line of students, both from Jerusalem and abroad, have been initiated into the finer points and demands of scholarship through joint publication. A number of examples will have to suffice: together with Esther Eshel, Michael has written on a number of Qumran texts and brought to culmination the edition of Aramaic Levi; with Esther Chazon, Michael has co-authored the DJD edition of 4QTime of Righteousness and co-edited two volumes of the proceedings of the Orion Center’s annual symposia: Biblical Perspectives (1998) and Pseudepigraphical Perspectives (1999). With Gary Anderson, he co-authored two editions (1994, 1999) of A Synopsis of the Primary Adam Literature and with Ted Bergren, he co-edited the award winning Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (1999 Biblical Archeology Society Prize). Indeed, there has been no more striking or longstanding expression of Michael’s commitment to the social context of scholarship than the “Thursday night seminar” graciously hosted by the Stones in their home for more than thirty years. The pinnacle of Michael’s academic training of graduate students from Israel and all over the globe, the seminar has provided a nurturing environment and an intellectually challenging forum for students and scholars to share their work and exchange ideas. More than three hundred students and invited guests have attended the seminar: a bi-monthly, three-hour oasis where virtually every text, language, and tradition from the ancient world is fair ground for investigation and discussion. The working atmosphere of the seminar also has found its way into a number of publications. Notable in this regard was the appearance of the seminar’s long term research project on literature and traditions associated with the prophet Ezekiel in the volume The Apocryphal Ezekiel, jointly edited by Michael, Ben Wright and David Satran, with contributions from an additional seven members of the seminar. Several years ago, scores of Thursday night veterans gathered at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature held in Boston (1999) in order to mark the thirtieth anniversary of the seminar and to pay tribute to Michael.

xx

introduction

In a very real sense, the “Thursday night seminar” finds its natural extension in this volume, which offers twenty-five diverse investigations by many of Michael’s closest colleagues, co-authors, and doctoral students, both past and present. The articles are organized under four generic headings—Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo of Alexandria, and Early Christian Literature —though many of the pieces overlap two or even three of these categories. We hope that the range of texts, periods, and disciplines represented in the volume is in itself at least a partial reflection of the breadth and interdisciplinary character of Michael’s own scholarship. Certainly the international character of Michael’s academic career and scholarly influence are evidenced by the contributors, and the editors have chosen to preserve the flavor of their manifold and varied voices and styles. Ultimately, the volume is an attempt to continue our conversation with Michael in the spirit of the intellectual openness and generosity that has always defined his own efforts. Inspired by his own seminal article on “Lists of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature” (1976), we have entitled this Festschrift: “Things Revealed”: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone. There are, of course, still other sides of Michael which do not easily submit to a review of this sort and are generally less well known. One thinks of his enormous love of literature, especially English poetry, as well as his own contributions to that genre. So too, despite his unrepentantly “textual” persona, Michael has always led a somewhat covert “archeological” existence. For example, while his intensive work on the “Rock Inscriptions and Graffiti Project” is well-known and has issued in numerous publications, few are aware of Michael’s love of the deep desert and its beauty—see his soon-to-be-published Sinai Diary! Similarly, not a few of his articles on the Armenian presence in the Holy Land have a very substantial fieldwork dimension. Most recently, one thinks of Michael’s close cooperation with David Amit on the publication of the spectacular discovery of the medieval Jewish cemetery in Eghegis, in the Vayots Dzor region of Armenia. Finally, there is for us all—colleagues, students, friends—the model of Michael as not only scholar and teacher but equally paterfamilias. Nira, Aurit and Danny have always been Michael’s true “collaborators” in his career and his achievements. (Nira and Michael are, of course academic partners in the very real sense: the joint fruits

introduction

xxi

of Michael’s textual acumen and Nira’s visual expertise are about to appear in dual monographs from the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin.) Moreover, the Stone home and household has always been the active scene and encompassing context of Michael’s research and teaching. In an age where lifestyles are increasingly centrifugal and the center often does not hold, Michael and his family have been an exemplum of integrity. In short, it is in deepest gratitude and with the desire that we be graced with his scholarship and friendship in the decades to come— μyrç[w ham d[—that we offer Michael this volume. Acknowledgements This volume could not have been brought to fruition without the dedication, long hours, and wisdom of our third co-editor, Ruth Clements, who serves as Chief of Publications at the Orion Center. We would also like to acknowledge the expert proofreading job by our colleague Betsy Halpern-Amaru, as well as the meticulous bibliographical and technical assistance provided by Orion Research Assistant Shelly Zilberfarb-Eshkoli, joined as the volume was nearing completion by Orion Intern Gunnar Magnus Eidsvåg and Michael’s doctoral student Vered Hillel. Thanks also go to series editors John J. Collins and Florentino García Martínez, who were receptive to the project from its inception, as was our publisher, Hans van der Meij. Also at Brill, Mattie Kuiper and Willy de Gijzel were most helpful in providing the materials necessary for us to prepare the bound copy of the manuscript presented to Michael during the dinner in his honor at the Ninth Orion Symposium. The dinner was impeccably organized by Orion administrative manger Ariella Amir. We owe a debt of gratitude to Michael’s brother, Jonathan Stone, for making the long journey from Australia for this occasion and for sharing with all present his personal insights and anecdotes; to Michael’s longtime colleague, Harold W. Attridge, who graciously agreed to reveal the secret of this Festschrift in his letter of appreciation read at the dinner and published herein; and to our dear friend and fellow Stone seminar participant Benjamin G. Wright, who supplied wise counsel and expertise from the initial planning sessions through the editing of this introduction for its reading at the celebratory presentation. Finally, we thank the bodies that support

xxii

introduction

the Orion Center—the Orion Foundation, the Sir Zelman Cowen Universities Fund, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem—for providing the resources required to prepare the volume for publication. Esther G. Chazon David Satran The Hebrew University of Jerusalem January 2004/Shevat 5764

MICHAEL E. STONE: AN APPRECIATION Frank Moore Cross Harvard University

Shortly after Michael Stone came to Harvard University in the early sixties, he sat down with me in the Harvard Semitic Museum to discuss his academic program. He proposed a major in the Judaism of the Greco-Roman age, a subject I later discovered he already knew more about than I. My own interest in the field had been stimulated by my abrupt emersion in the Qumran finds some years earlier. In any case we agreed on his major and then discussed the area to serve as his minor. Persian and Zoroastrianism seemed an appropriate area. Consulting with the professor of Iranian, Michael learned that he would have to prepare himself in comparative Indo-European languages including Sanskrit before tackling the Avesta, his primary interest— otherwise the program would not be considered serious enough for a minor. Michael Stone, needless to say, was not afraid of languages. He was trained in classical languages to which he added both ancient and modern Semitic tongues, not to mention modern European languages. He did wish to finish his doctorate before he was middle aged. Perhaps, we decided, he should elect rather to study Armenian, a richer and more immediately useful field for the study of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. So he became the Hebrew University’s first Ordinarius in Armenian Studies. He was later to add to his title of Professor of Armenian Studies the further title of Gail Levin de Nur Professor of Religious Studies. Not only does he hold two professorships, but his publications are in excess of those expected from two chairs. He has written more than fifty books and monographs as well as more than 250 articles divided between Armenian studies and studies of the Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period. To be sure most of his work on Armenian texts has dealt with Armenian translations of Jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works, so that there is integrity in his labors in the two fields. In my judgment he is the leading scholar in both these areas of his work, a master of detailed and exacting textual and philological analysis on the one hand, and on the other hand having a vision

xxiv

frank moore cross

of the whole, the elements and structure which constitute apocalyptic. Moreover, he has a unique grasp of the overall historical developments in the Judaism of the Greco-Roman era which differentiate it from the Judaism both of late biblical times and of the rabbinic period that follows. His magnum opus (though more than one of his works competes for this designation) is his great commentary on Fourth Ezra. Here his grasp of detail and understanding of the place of Fourth Ezra in the sweep of the religious literature and history of the era combine exquisitely in a commentary which will not be replaced for a number of generations (if ever). Another volume that stands out in his authorship—at least in my restricted knowledge of his work—is his Selected Studies in Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha. I must single out one brief paper, “Three Transformations in Judaism: Scripture, History, and Redemption.” It is a gem, in brief compass opening to scholar and layman the essential logic of the history of Judaism in this crucial era. I must confess that one of my favorite little volumes of his is The Armenian Inscriptions from the Sinai, one of a series of volumes publishing inscriptions and graffiti of Armenian pilgrims, a project which has culminated in the Album of Armenian Paleography of which Michael Stone is editor-in-chief. The inscriptions in question are of particular interest in illuminating the typological development of the earliest Armenian writing. I suppose the little volume is of some sentimental value to me as a palaeographer delighted to see a former student pursuing the subject, and, if I am honest, because Michael has dedicated the volume to me—although I am unable to read the book. (I did learn the Armenian alphabet to follow his sequence dating.) One may be surprised to discover that Michael Stone has traipsed off on long expeditions to the Sinai collecting forgotten inscriptions. Somehow it seems to me just the kind of thing Michael would do, and with extraordinary success. Among the major projects initiated by Michael Stone is the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature. He has taken an interest in the Dead Sea finds from the beginning, and has been an editor of a number of Qumran texts often in association with colleagues or former students. I could go on at length in this appreciation of Michael Stone, but however long would still fail to mention much of importance in his writings and activities. He is a most accomplished scholar—a scholar of great energy, of great imagination, and of great discipline—in whom his former teacher takes enormous pride.

FESTSCHRIFT PRESENTATION: LETTER TO MICHAEL* Harold W. Attridge Yale Divinity School

Dear Michael: It is a joy to celebrate with you on this occasion your scholarly accomplishments and the gifts that you have brought to our common enterprise. I well remember our first meeting. It was at a party at the home of John Strugnell in Arlington, Massachusetts. You were at the time a visiting professor at Harvard and I, a young doctoral student, as self-important as folk at that stage of life can be. I thought at the time that I knew something about Jewish literature and history of the Second Temple period. After all, I had taken courses from Frank Cross, John Strugnell and the New Testament faculty at Harvard! But at that party we had a conversation, and in your gently probing way you asked for my opinion on the then hot topic of “apocalypticism.” The conversation was, I confess, rather like a Socratic dialogue, where I soon turned into the befuddled Euthryphro or Lysias, reduced to a state of aporia. I went away from that conversation chastened, but more importantly impressed, by the breadth of your knowledge, the incisiveness of your judgments, the persistence that led you to pursue the truth of the matter. Over the years since then I have come to appreciate all the more the qualities that were manifest in that first encounter, as well as many others. Most memorable perhaps were the sessions of the seminar at your home in Jerusalem, where you and Nira so graciously hosted mature and budding scholars from around the world. You brought together there, as you have in many of your scholarly endeavors, talented people with very diverse interests—philological, sociohistorical, literary. The one sine qua non was the competence to read

* Editors’ note: This letter was read by Harry Attridge at the presentation of the Festschrift to Michael Stone, during the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature. The Symposium, “Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity,” co-sponsored with the Hebrew University’s Center for the Study of Christianity, was a fitting context to honor Michael Stone’s contributions across these disciplines.

xxvi

harold w. attridge

ancient sources with care and the willingness to contribute to the give and take of serious scholarly conversation. All of us who have participated in that seminar or in conversations with you at international congresses have learned from one another and from you. We have benefited from those conversations as the broader learned world has benefited from your scholarship; from your magisterial commentary on 4 Ezra, your work on Armenian literature, art, and epigraphy, your explorations of Jewish intellectual and social history in the Second Temple period. Particularly as a specialist in Armenian you have opened paths to new resources important for the history of both Jews and Christians. You have been a path-breaker and a supportive colleague to many of us in the scholarly world, in many and diverse ways, through your organization of scholarly interchanges, through your participation in the Society of Biblical Literature, and not least of all, through the work of the Orion Center. It is my great pleasure to celebrate your contributions to our common life through the presentation of this Festschrift. It is a token of thanks and esteem, but also an invitation to continue the conversations, multos ad annos.

APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

THE THIRD SIBYL REVISITED John J. Collins Yale University

The third book of Sibylline Oracles, in the standard collection, runs to 829 verses, and is one of the longer texts that can be attributed to Hellenistic Judaism outside of Philo’s writings. The attention it has received in recent scholarship is hardly proportional to its length. To my knowledge, the recent dissertation of Rieuwerd Buitenwerf 1 is the first full monograph devoted to this text since that of Valentin Nikiprowetzky, more than thirty years ago.2 There have, of course been several other treatments in the intervening years, in connection with other Sibylline books or with Hellenistic Jewish literature.3 Nonetheless, the Sibyl has not been very prominent in recent scholarship, and has evidently fallen from the lofty perch that won her a place on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Ironically, when the Sibyl was at the height of her fame in the Middle Ages, the books attributed to her were known only from scattered quotations. One may fairly say that the recovery and subsequent analysis of these books, beginning in the mid-sixteenth century, went hand in hand with the decline of her reputation. Medieval Christianity had venerated her as a pagan prophetess. Critical scholarship concluded that her oracles were Jewish or Christian forgeries, and often tedious besides.4 1 R. Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and its Social Setting, With an Introduction, Translation and Commentary (SVTP 17; Leiden: Brill, 2003). 2 V. Nikiprowetzky, La Troisième Sibylle (Études juives 9; Paris: Mouton, 1970). 3 J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (SBLDS 13; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974); “The Sibylline Oracles,” in OTP, 1:354–80; Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2d ed.; The Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 83–97, 160–65; M. Goodman, “The Sibylline Oracles,” in E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) (3 vols.; rev. ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1987), III.1:618–53; J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE) (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 216–28; E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 269–91; H. Merkel, Die Sibyllinen ( JSHRZ 5.8; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1998), 1057–1080; J.-D. Gauger, Sibyllinische Weissagungen (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998). 4 Buitenwerf, Book III, 5–64, provides an excellent history of research.

4

john j. collins

Among the Sibylline books of the standard collection, Book Three has received more attention than any other, partly because it has been deemed to be the oldest book in the collection. In this case, there has been a significant degree of consensus on the major critical issues regarding its literary character and the time and place of its composition. This consensus was worked out in the nineteenth century and solidified above all in the work of Johannes Geffcken at the beginning of the twentieth.5 While there have been many variations in detail, the great majority of commentators have held that it is a composite work, but that it is possible to identify an original core, composed in Egypt in the middle of the second century BCE. Nikiprowetzky challenged this consensus, by claiming that the book was a unity, composed in the first century BCE in the time of Cleopatra.6 His claim did not win much acceptance. Recently, however, the identification of a core composition from the second century BCE has been challenged vigorously by Erich Gruen.7 Buitenwerf, in his dissertation, goes farther, rejecting not only the core composition and second century date, but also the Egyptian provenance.8 Revisionism is the life-blood of scholarship, and these new proposals have the advantage of revitalizing the discussion of a neglected pseudepigraphon. In my opinion, however, the challenges are not well founded, and the consensus that prevailed for most of the last century still provides the most plausible context for the study of this Sibylline book.

The Composition of the Book The oldest manuscripts of the Sibylline Oracles date from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries CE. It is generally acknowledged that the first 92 verses of the third book originally constituted the end of a different book, the second, while Sib. Or. Fragments i and iii were probably part of the now missing beginning of Book Three.9 Lactantius 5 J. Geffcken, Komposition und Entstehungszeit der Oracula Sibyllina (TUGAL n.F. 8.1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902), 1–17. Geffcken also produced the standard edition of the Sibylline Oracles, Die Oracula Sibyllina (GCS 8; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902). 6 Nikiprowetzky, La troisième Sibylle, 206–17. 7 Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 269–79. 8 Buitenwerf, Book III, 124–34. 9 Ibid., 65–91.

the third sibyl revisited

5

(ca. 250–317 CE) cites several passages from these fragments and from Book Three, and attributes them to the Erythrean Sibyl, “since she inserted her true name into the book and foretold that she would be called the ‘Erythrean’ although she was of Babylonian descent.”10 Passages cited, in addition to those from the fragments, are Sib. Or. 3:228–29, 618, 619–23, 741–43, 763–66, 775, 788–92 and 815–18. It would seem then that Lactantius knew the book in substantially its present shape, but it should be noted that lengthy sections of the book are not attested. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215 CE) cites Sib. Or. 3:586–88 and 590–94. Theophilus of Antioch (second century) cites Sib. Or. 3:97–103 and 105. The passage about the tower of Babylon, in Sib. Or. 3:97–107, was cited by Alexander Polyhistor, who compiled his work in the period between 80 and 40 BCE.11 On the basis of these attestations, Buitenwerf claims that “Sib. Or. III must have existed before 40 BCE,” and that it can be concluded “that Sib. Or. III was written by a Jew sometime between 80 and 40 BCE.”12 Both conclusions are blatant non-sequiturs. Only a small passage (Sib. Or. 3:97–107) is attested before the second century of the Common Era. We may reasonably infer that this passage was part of a larger Sibylline book, and even that that book was a form of what we now know as Book Three, but not that the book already existed in its present form. Buitenwerf offers no argument whatever for the terminus a quo. Presumably he relies on the fact that some passages in Sibylline Oracles 3 are universally acknowledged to date from the first century BCE; but if Polyhistor knew the work, or part of it, between 80 and 30 BCE we should expect that it was composed some time earlier than that. Buitenwerf ’s conclusion assumes that Sibylline Oracles 3 was composed ab initio as a literary unity, by an author who had an integral view of the whole. He grants that this author drew on earlier sources but argues that “in establishing the meaning of the author’s final text, however, it is methodologically unwarranted to separate passages which can be seen to be based on earlier sources from other passages, since from the author’s point of view all of these passages formed an integral part of the literary unity he was creating.”13 Buitenwerf ’s demonstration of the supposed 10

Lactantius, Divine Institutes 1.6.13–14. Cf. Sib. Or. 3:813–14. J. Strugnell, “General Introduction, with a Note on Alexander Polyhistor,” OTP, 2:777–79. 12 Buitenwerf, Book III, 130. 13 Ibid., 124–25. 11

john j. collins

6

literary unity, however, is an outline of “structure” which is little more than a table of contents.14 He offers no explanation of the supposed coherence of the book. Buitenwerf ’s claim of literary coherence in Sibylline Oracles 3 contrasts sharply with other recent assessments of the book. According to Martin Goodman in Schürer’s revised History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, “it is unfortunately not the case that each Book formed an original whole; individual Books also in part comprised an arbitrary number of individual passages. . . . Obviously, much was at first in circulation as isolated pieces and the collection in which they subsequently found a place is fortuitous.”15 According to Erich Gruen, “it seems clear that the third Book of the Sibylline Oracles constitutes a conglomerate, a gathering of various prophecies that stem from different periods ranging from the second century BCE through the early Roman Empire.”16 While these judgments may be extreme, they raise the serious possibility that the book may be a collection of oracles, analogous to biblical prophetic books such as Isaiah or Jeremiah, rather than the unified composition of a literary author. Pagan Sibylline oracles in antiquity were very brief, often consisting of a verse or two.17 These oracles were distributed by chrèsmologoi, who adapted them constantly to changing historical circumstances. If these pagan oracles served at all as a model for the Jewish sibyllist, we should hardly expect a coherent work of more than 800 verses. Buitenwerf ’s assumption of literary coherence is implausible, and in any case cannot be taken as a default position. The literary structure discerned by Buitenwerf divides the book into 6 sections. (Verses 1–92 are left out of account as constituting the end of a different book.) The first section is identified with Fragment i. The second consists of Fragment iii and Sib. Or. 3:93–161, although the reason for grouping this material together is not apparent. The remaining sections are marked by introductory formulae in which the Sibyl exclaims that God inspires her to prophesy. These formulae are found in 3:162–65; 3:196–98; 3:295–300 and 3:489–91. 14

Ibid., 139–43. Goodman, “Sibylline Oracles,” 631. 16 Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 272. The fluidity of the Sibylline collection is also emphasized by D. S. Potter, “Sibyls in the Greek and Roman World,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 3 (1990): 471–83. 17 On the nature of pagan Sibylline oracles see H. W. Parke, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity (ed. B. C. McGing; London: Routledge, 1988), 1–22. 15

the third sibyl revisited

7

If these are taken to mark the major sections of the book, the last section (489–829) is disproportionately long. Buitenwerf distinguishes four admonitions within it, in 545–623, 624–731, 732–61 and 762–808. Each of these admonitions is introduced by direct address. Whether these admonitory addresses necessarily indicate new sub-sections might be disputed, but this division of the book is not unreasonable. Even a cursory reading of Buitenwerf ’s structure shows that his section 5 (3:295–488) consists of a different kind of material from the other sections. It is essentially a concatenation of very brief pronouncements of doom against a wide range of peoples and places, many of them in Asia. The only reference to Jewish history in this section is in an oracle against Babylon at the beginning. There is also a biblical allusion in the mention of Gog and Magog in verse 319. After this, however, there is no mention of anything Jewish for 170 verses. The only passage in this section that contains any moral admonition is the passionate oracle against Rome in 350–80, and there is no mention of Jews or Judea in that passage. All of this contrasts sharply with the other sections. The first section and part of the second in Buitenwerf ’s analysis are drawn from the Sibylline fragments, and the attribution of this material to Book Three is uncertain. In any case it is different in kind from the rest of the book. Section 3 (162–95) begins with Solomon and ends with a promise of Jewish rule. Section 4 is largely taken up with praise of the Jews and ends with mention of the restoration under the Persians. Section 6 is dominated by appeals to the Greeks to convert, and predictions of the future exaltation of the Jews. Section 2 (vv. 93–161) is somewhat anomalous, as it contains a lengthy euhemeristic account of Greek mythology, but it also contains a retelling of the Flood (of which only the end survives) and the tower of Babel. Moreover, the following section, which consists of only 33 verses, complements Section 2 by continuing the discourse on world kingdoms. The long Section 5 stands out because of its lack of engagement with Jewish themes, apart from the opening verses, and for the rather disjointed juxtaposition of very brief oracles of destruction. A few more points should be noted about Section 5. While it exhibits a consistent theme of judgment and destruction, it is episodic rather than continuous. Two-line oracles of destruction against specific places could be added or removed without changing the character of the whole. The oracle against Rome in vv. 350–80 stands out because of its length and coherence, as well as its passion. Most of this section

8

john j. collins

could have been written by a Gentile as easily as by a Jew. Verses 400–488 have sometimes been attributed to the Erythrean Sibyl, who is said to have sung of the Trojan war (cf. 3:414–16) and to have said that Homer would write falsehoods (cf. 3:419).18 It should be noted that all the undisputed references to the first century BCE in Sib. Or. 3:93–829 fall in Section 5. Likewise, the great bulk of the references to Asian places are found in this section. There is good reason, then, to doubt whether all of this section comes from the same hand as the rest of the book. The beginning of the section is clearly Jewish, but the typical themes of the rest of the book are displaced here by oracles that are quite similar to pagan Sibylline (and other) oracles. Of course it is possible, and even plausible, that a Jewish sibyllist incorporated some pagan material in his book to help establish Sibylline credentials.19 We must also, however, reckon with the possibility that some of this material was added secondarily by scribes who thought it was appropriate to a book of Sibylline oracles. These scribes would not have been authors in Buitenwerf ’s sense. They did not necessarily re-conceive the book as a whole, but rather regarded it as an anthology of oracles to which other passages might be added.

The Question of Dating and the Seventh King The primary argument for a second century date for a core of Sibylline Oracles 3 has always rested on three references to the seventh king of Egypt, which are usually thought to require a date in the middle of that century. The reference is obviously to a Ptolemaic king, and since it does not speak of restoration, it implies that the line is still extant. Ptolemaic kings were not usually known by numeral in antiquity, and so there is more than one possible identification for the seventh king of the line. (Note, however, that in the sixth fragment of Demetrius the Chronographer, there is a reference to “Ptolemy the Fourth.”)20 If Alexander the Great is counted as a king of Egypt, then 18 Varro in Lactantius, Inst. 1.6; Pausanias Descr. 10.2.2. See Collins, The Sibylline Oracles, 27. 19 J. J. Collins, “The Jewish Transformation of Sibylline Oracles,” in idem, Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 189. 20 Clement, Strom. 1.21.141.1–2; C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Vol. 1: Historians (SBLTT 20; Pseudepigrapha Series 10; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 79. It is unclear whether the reference derives from Demetrius or from Clement. I am indebted to Fr. Fred Brenk for bringing this reference to my attention.

the third sibyl revisited

9

Ptolemy VI Philometor was the seventh Ptolemy. His son, Ptolemy Neos Philopator, ruled briefly with his father and was promptly liquidated after his death. His rule may have been too brief to be counted. Ptolemy VIII Euergetes (Physcon) could also arguably be the seventh king, since he had ruled jointly with his brother Philometor, and briefly alone, before the accession of Neos Philopator. But there is no reason to regard the references in the Sibylline Oracles as ex eventu prophecy. The events associated with the reign of the seventh king are clearly in the future from the perspective of the author. Accordingly, the seventh king may have been one who was yet to come. The oracles might, for example, have been written during the reign of Philometor, in hopeful anticipation of a transformation to come in the reign of his successor, Neos Philopator, or later in his own reign. But, if the adjective “seventh” is granted numerical significance at all, these passages could hardly have been composed later than the reign of Ptolemy Physcon. Once oracles are in circulation they are copied and reinterpreted even if their literal meaning is no longer credible.21 The Sibylline Oracles were copied long after the end of the Ptolemaic line, despite the obvious non-fulfillment of the oracles. But we must assume that the oracular predictions were possible in principle at the time of their composition. Since Philometor was famously favorable to the Jews, and Physcon was his enemy, a date during the reign of Philometor seems most likely, although the time of Physcon is not impossible either. Erich Gruen, however, has argued that the adjective “seventh” should not be accorded any numerical significance, and in this he has been followed (uncritically) by Buitenwerf.22 Gruen notes that “the number seven possessed high symbolic import for the Jews,” which indeed it did.23 He then notes that it recurs in apocalyptic literature and concludes that “the number must be understood as carrying

21 The reinterpretation of the 70 years of Jeremiah’s prophecy in Daniel 9 is a famous example, but there are numerous others in the biblical corpus. See M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 458–99. 22 Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 272–77; similarly his essay, “Jews, Greeks and Romans in the Third Sibylline Oracle,” in M. Goodman, ed., Jews in a GraecoRoman World (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 15–36. See Buitenwerf, Book III, 126–130. Buitenwerf claims the support of Gauger, Sibyllinische Weissagungen, 440–51, but while the latter favors a date around 31 BCE for the redaction of Book Three he allows that the book may contain oracles from the second century BCE. 23 See A. Yarbro Collins, “Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature,” in her Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism ( JSJSup 50; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 57–89.

10

john j. collins

mystical import, an abstract and spiritual sense, not the denotation of royal tenure.”24 Buitenwerf adds that, “the number seven merely indicates the moment of the turn in history has already been determined. The author has the Sibyl prophesy in a veiled manner that at a certain predetermined moment, God will intervene in history. In other Jewish and Christian prophetic and apocalyptical writings, numbers are used in a similar way.”25 It is true that the Sibyl prophesies in a veiled manner, as prophets and oracles typically do. If the numeral were part of the royal title, it would have been too specific for her purpose. But numbers in apocalyptic and prophetic writings are not used for “carrying mystical import” in “an abstract and spiritual sense,” even though they may seem obscure to people unfamiliar with the genre. Numbers are used in three quite distinct ways: to calculate the time of a future event, to divide history into periods, and to project a period that is entirely future. The last category, naturally, has no historical coordinates. The thousand-year reign in the Book of Revelation is a case in point. The reference in Sib. Or. 3:728 to “seven lengths of annually recurring times” is entirely future, and therefore indefinite.26 The division of history into periods (four kingdoms, seven weeks of years etc.) is imprecise, but the numbers are not abstract or insignificant. When Daniel speaks of four kingdoms that are to come before divine intervention, he means four, not some indefinite mystical number, and it is not difficult to identify them. Gruen and Buitenwerf cite 1 Enoch 91:12–17; 93:3–10, that is, the Apocalypse of Weeks, which predicts the turning point of history in the seventh week of years. To be sure, the calculation of world history in terms of weeks of years is not chronologically exact, but the reader would be in little doubt as to the reference of the seventh week, in which an apostate generation would arise, and at whose end the turning point would come. In Daniel, the final persecution is supposed to last for the last half-week of seventy weeks of years from the time of the profanation of the Temple (cf. Dan 12:7). Since the time of the profanation was well known, the end of the half-week pointed to a very specific date. At this point, the division of history into periods 24

Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 277. Buitenwerf, Book III, 129. 26 This verse is cited by Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 277, as a supposedly representative use of the number seven. 25

the third sibyl revisited

11

shades over into the first category of numerical reference, the attempt to predict a future event. Buitenwerf cites Dan 12:7, 9–13 as supposed examples of indefinite predictions. Dan 12:7 says that the time until the “end” (of the desecration of the Temple) would be a time, two times and half a time, or three and a half years, hardly an indefinite period. In Dan 12:12–13, this period is translated into specific numbers of days, first 1,290 days, then, in an evident revision, 1,335.27 There is nothing mystical or abstract about these numbers, and they would not have offered much consolation to the people who were enduring persecution if they were. The specificity of the number was essential to the prophecy, even though it later required revision and then reinterpretation. Again, the horns of the beast in Daniel 7, the heads of the dragon in Revelation 12 and the heads and wings of the eagle in 4 Ezra 12, all had highly specific referents, even if modern commentators have trouble figuring them out. Where numbers are used to indicate the time at which something will happen, and there is a reference to some historical datum (such as the desecration of the Temple or the number of Roman emperors), then specificity is crucially important. Apocalyptic literature is not vague or mystical just because a modern interpreter is unfamiliar with it or finds it obscure.28 Gruen also has misgivings about the contexts in which the references to the seventh king occur. The first of these references is found in 3:192–93. At the end of a passage that clearly refers to Rome, the Sibyl says, “it will cut up everything and fill everything with evils, with disgraceful love of gain, ill-gotten wealth, in many places, but especially in Macedonia. It will stir up hatred. Every kind of deceit will be found among them until the seventh reign, when a king of Egypt, who will be of the Greeks by race, will rule. And then the people of the great God will again be strong who will be guides in life for all mortals.” Many scholars have doubted that an anti-Roman oracle in a Jewish work could date from the second century BCE.29 However, Rome is not accused here of any offence 27 For a discussion of these numbers and their function in predicting the “end” see my commentary, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 400–401. 28 Yarbro Collins, “Numerical Symbolism,” 64–69, also refers to “imprecise, rhetorical calculations,” in 4 Ezra and Revelation, but these are cases where no specific number is given. 29 For references, see Collins, The Sibylline Oracles, 31. Geffcken, Die Oracula Sibyllina, 58, bracketed the reference to the seventh king as a later addition. Nikiprowetzky,

12

john j. collins

against Jews or Judea, but rather against Macedonia. Gruen recognizes that the passage refers to the Roman conquest of Macedonia, which was divided after the battle of Pydna in 168 BCE and made a Roman province in 147, all within the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor.30 He objects, however, that “no ex eventu forecast could have set the fall of Roman power to that period, a time when its might was increasing and its reach extending. Nor can one imagine the Sibyl (or her recorder) making such a pronouncement in the reigns of Philometor or Euergetes themselves when its falsity was patent.”31 But no one has ever suggested that this prophecy was ex eventu; it is obviously a future prediction that was never fulfilled. Gruen concludes that the passage “can hardly refer to a present or past scion of the Ptolemaic dynasty.” It cannot, of course, refer to a past figure. It is an unrealistic and somewhat utopian prediction of what would happen in the near future. There is no reason why it should not refer to a future point in the reign of the present monarch, or to the reign of his anticipated successor. If this passage were written shortly after the Roman seizure of Macedonia in 147 BCE, it could refer to Ptolemy Neos Philopator, son of Philometor, who was heir to the throne and who is sometimes reckoned as Ptolemy VII. The prediction was unrealistic in any case. Roman rule would not end in the reign of any Ptolemaic king, nor would Jews attain world power. But the fact that a prophecy was unrealistic does not mean that it was not specific in its reference. The second reference to the seventh king is found in Sib. Or. 3:318. The context is a prediction of affliction for Egypt: A great affliction will come upon you, Egypt, against your homes . . . for a sword will pass through your midst and scattering and death and famine will lay hold of you, in the seventh generation of kings, and then you will rest.

Predictions of “war, famine and pestilence” are ubiquitous in Greek and in biblical prophecy. As we have seen already, this entire section of Sibylline Oracles 3 (295–488) is dominated by such prophecies against La Troisième Sibylle, 210–11, argued that the passage required a date in the first century BCE. 30 Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 271. Buitenwerf, Book III, 188, implausibly suggests that the reference is merely to the fact that Macedonia was the empire preceding that of the Romans. 31 Heritage and Hellenism, 273.

the third sibyl revisited

13

various places, to a degree that is anomalous in the book. Gruen jumps to the conclusion that there can be no historical specificity in any of these oracles, and says that “nothing in the passage gives any reason to evoke the era of Philometor and Euergetes.”32 But this is obviously not true: “the seventh generation of kings” points immediately to this era. The reference to a sword passing through the midst of Egypt has often been interpreted as a reference to the civil war between Philometor and Euergetes, or to the strife that continued during the reign of the latter.33 Gruen dismisses this as “pure conjecture,” but it is a conjecture that fits the context very well. Here again the prophecy is not ex eventu; it is a prediction. There was ample reason to predict civil strife in Egypt throughout the reign of Philometor and for some time thereafter. The passage would have made good sense in the time of Philometor. There is nothing to suggest that “the seventh generation of kings” was not a chronological reference. The third passage concerning the seventh king is found in another eschatological oracle in Sib. Or. 3:601–23. Again, there is a reference to “war, famine and pestilence,” which will come about “whenever the young seventh king of Egypt rules his own land, numbered from the line of the Greeks.” A king will come from Asia, who will “overthrow the kingdom of Egypt” and take away its possessions by sea. This will be followed by conversion to the true God: “then they will bend a white knee on the fertile ground to God the great immortal king.” After this, “God will give great joy to men” and the earth will be transformed. Many scholars have taken this passage as an ex eventu prophecy of the first invasion of Egypt by Antiochus Epiphanes.34 Such a reading is problematic. While Epiphanes’ first campaign in Egypt, in 170 BCE, was successful, it was followed a mere two years later by another invasion which ended in humiliation at the hands of the Romans. It is much more plausible that this passage, like the others that refer to the seventh king, is a real prediction. Invasion from Asia was a recurring nightmare in Egyptian history, dating back to the time of the Hyksos in the second millennium, revived by the invasion of the Persians Cambyses and Artaxerxes Ochus, and projected into the future in Egyptian oracles of the Hellenistic period, such as the Potter’s 32 33 34

Ibid., 274. See Collins, The Sibylline Oracles, 31. Ibid., 29–30.

14

john j. collins

Oracle and the predictions of Nechepso and Petosiris. This passage in Sibylline Oracles 3 may be informed by the relatively recent memory of Antiochus’ invasion; however, it is not an ex eventu prophecy, but part of an eschatological tableau. This tableau is analogous to what is often called the “messianic” or “eschatological woes” in Jewish tradition—the idea that the coming of salvation is preceded by a period of extreme upheavals and distress.35 The pattern is repeated in Sib. Or. 3:635–56, where “king will lay hold of king” and “peoples will ravage peoples” before “God will send a king from the sun who will stop the entire earth from evil war.” Gruen rightly remarks that the model for this tableau “should more properly be sought in something like the thunderings of Isaiah than in the special circumstances of a Ptolemaic reign.”36 But this only means that the prophecy is not ex eventu. It does not warrant the conclusion that the reference to “the young seventh king of Egypt” is insignificant. Since the events in question are said to occur while the king is young (or new), the oracle was most probably written before or at the beginning of his reign. Unless we are willing to suppose that no one had any idea how many Ptolemaic kings there had been, such a prophecy would scarcely have been credible after the reign of Philometor. It should be noted that Philometor’s son and heir, Ptolemy Philopator, bore the epithet Neos, “young.” The three references to the seventh king are not identical. Verse 192 refers to the “seventh reign” of an Egyptian king of Greek descent, v. 318 to “the seventh generation of kings,” and v. 608 to “the young seventh king of Egypt” from the dynasty of the Greeks. Buitenwerf argues that the variation suggests that the author did not refer to a specific Ptolemaic king of Egypt.37 The argument smacks of desperation. Buitenwerf himself elsewhere grants that “the agreements between the three passages, especially in the use of the number seven, suggest that the author intended to refer to the same period in all three passages.”38 The variation in terminology is simply a matter of poetic style, and in no way lessens the specificity of the references. Neither does the cryptic style of the prophecies, which use a numeral rather than a play on a king’s name or some other more specific 35 Compare Dan 7:19–22; 12:1; 4 Ezra 12:22–30; 13:5–11; 4Q246 ii Mark 13:8 etc. 36 Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 276. 37 Buitenwerf, Book III, 128–29; 188. 38 Ibid., 265.

2–3

etc.;

the third sibyl revisited

15

give-away.39 This again is simply a matter of oracular style and did not necessarily obscure the reference at all. The references to the seventh king of the Ptolemaic line are not ex eventu prophecies, but their bearing on the date of the composition is nonetheless crucial. These prophecies cannot have been composed at a time when it was clear that more than seven Ptolemies had reigned. The latest Ptolemy who could be regarded as the seventh king of the dynasty was Euergetes II Physcon. But as we have seen, these oracles were most probably composed either before the seventh king came to power or at the very beginning of his reign. A date in the mid-second century remains by far the most likely.

The Role of the Seventh King The three passages we have considered refer to the reign of the seventh king as a chronological marker. In his time “the people of the great God will again be strong” (192), or the events that lead to the conversion of Egypt will take place (608). Whether this king has an active role in these events depends on whether he should be identified as the “king from the sun” sent by God in v. 652, as I have argued on other occasions.40 Many recent scholars have argued against the identification, apparently because of resistance to the idea that the exaltation of the Jewish people would be brought about by a Gentile king.41 Gruen regards this king as a Jewish Messiah, and cites Isa 41:25 (LXX) which says that God will bring someone aph’ hèliou anatolòn, from the sunrise. However, he fails to notice that the reference in Isaiah is not to a Jewish Messiah but to the Gentile Cyrus of Persia. There is no other hint of messianic expectation in the Third Sibyl. Passages that speak about the future exaltation of the Jewish people (3:194; 702) do not mention a Jewish king or kingdom. Moreover, messianic expectation is poorly attested, if at all, even in the apocalyptic literature from the land of Israel in the second century BCE.42 39

Contra Buitenwerf, ibid., 129. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles, 40–42; “The Sibyl and the Potter,” in Seers, Sibyls and Sages, 199–210; Between Athens and Jerusalem, 92–95. 41 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 223; Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 277–78; Buitenwerf, Book III, 272–75. 42 J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 31–38. 40

16

john j. collins

The phrase “king from the sun” (ap’ èelioio theos pempsei basilèa) has clear associations in Egyptian royal mythology. The closest parallel is found in the Potter’s Oracle, where it refers to the hope for restoration of native Egyptian rule, but the Ptolemies also drew on Pharaonic imagery and claimed association with the sun.43 Buitenwerf tries to evade those associations by translating “king from the east.”44 This translation is only justified if the phrase is regarded as an abbreviation of aph’ hèliou anatolòn, from the rising of the sun, the phrase used in Deutero-Isaiah to refer to Cyrus of Persia. There is no parallel for such an abbreviation in any Jewish source. Buitenwerf then identifies this king with the king from Asia in Sib. Or. 3:611–14.45 The latter is viewed by most scholars as a negative, destructive figure.46 If the book is read in an Egyptian context, the negative associations are obvious. He is said to ravage and despoil Egypt. A king from Syria plays a similar role in the Potter’s Oracle, and kings from Asia had negative connotations all the way back to the Hyksos. Buitenwerf, however, believes that Sibylline Oracles 3 originated in Asia Minor, an issue that we will discuss below. He also regards the book as a literary unity, and so he views this passage in light of the enmity between Asia and Rome expressed in 3:350–80.47 But Rome plays no part in the long last section of the book, 3:489–829, and it is difficult to see why an anti-Roman king from Asia should attack Egypt, in the Ptolemaic era. The invasion of the king from Asia is better understood as part of the eschatological upheavals that precede the time of peace that will be ushered in by the king from the sun. 43 See Collins, The Sibylline Oracles, 41–42; “The Sibyl and the Potter,” 202–6. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 278, n. 134, evidently misunderstands the latter article, which is not an attempt to “get around” the anti-Ptolemaic stance of the Potter’s Oracle but a discussion of the different ways in which the Pharaonic imagery is used in the two texts. The Egyptian associations of the phrase are conceded by Barclay and Gruen. On the Potter’s Oracle, see most recently L. Koenen, “Die Apologie des Töpfers an König Amenophis, oder das Töpferorakel,” in A. Blasius and B. U. Schipper, ed., Apokalyptik und Ägypten: eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten (OLA 107; Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 139–87. 44 Buitenwerf, Book III, 272–73. He is by no means the first to resort to this evasion. He regards the Egyptian associations as irrelevant because he believes that the book was written in Asia Minor. Pace Buitenwerf, I have never regarded this oracle as ex eventu. 45 Buitenwerf, Book III, 275. 46 See Collins, The Sibylline Oracles, 39–40. An exception is A. Peretti, La Sibilla Babilonese nella Propaganda Ellenistica (Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice, 1943), 392–93. 47 Buitenwerf, Book III, 266–67.

the third sibyl revisited

17

The king from Asia is said to overthrow, or cast down (rhipsei ) the kingdom of Egypt during the reign of the young seventh king, as Antiochus Epiphanes had done early in the reign of Philometor. His action is disruptive, but he then departs, and does not assume control of Egypt. The Sibyl does not say whether the seventh king resumes his rule, and does not explicitly identify him as the “king from the sun.”48 Yet the seventh king is a king of Egypt, and “king from the sun” is a pharaonic title.49 If the two kings are not one and the same, it is difficult to imagine why the Sibyl should repeatedly use the reign of the seventh Ptolemy as the chronological marker for a transformation that would be brought about by some other king.

The Provenance of the Third Sibyl The great majority of scholars have taken the references to the seventh king of Egypt as a clear indication of the Egyptian provenance of the work. Buitenwerf is exceptional in challenging that consensus, and may be the first to argue that the entire book was composed in Asia Minor.50 He offers primarily two arguments for this conclusion. First is the frequency with which Asia and places in Asia are mentioned. But the great majority of these places are mentioned in the section that runs from 295 to 488, which as we have seen is largely anomalous in the book, and much of which is widely and rightly regarded as deriving from different sources than the rest of the book. Of fifteen references to Asia in the book, only three fall outside this section. The disproportional frequency of references to Asia in this part of the book cannot serve as a guide to the provenance of the other sections. Rather, it is the basis for an argument against the compositional unity of the book. The second argument is that “the Sibyl to whom the book is attributed is designated as the Erythrean Sibyl (III 813–814), the

48 It is not unusual for eschatological upheavals to continue after the advent of the savior figure in apocalyptic literature. In Dan 12:1, even the rise of the archangel Michael is followed by a period of unprecedented distress. The messiah often comes under attack (e.g. 4 Ezra 14:5). 49 The epithet neos is also associated with the god Horus. See R. E. Witt, Isis in the Ancient World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1997), 210–21. 50 Buitenwerf, Book III, 130–33.

18

john j. collins

very famous Asian Sibyl.”51 This statement, however, is an oversimplification. The Sibyl in fact claims to have originated in Babylon, and to be “a fire sent to Greece,” but that “throughout Greece mortals will say that I am of another country, a shameless one, born of Erythrae.” In short, the Sibyl explicitly rejects the designation as the Erythrean Sibyl. Sibyls, including the Erythrean, were well-known throughout the Greek-speaking world. By the fifth century BCE Sibylline oracles were well enough known in Athens to inspire the mockery of Aristophanes.52 The fact that there was a well-known Sibylline shrine in Asia Minor does not in any way require that the earliest Jewish Sibylline oracles were composed there. As Buitenwerf is well aware, the obvious objection to Asian provenance is that the future transformation foretold by the Sibyl is dated by reference to a king of Egypt from the line of the Greeks. His response to that objection is weak: “Now between 80 and 40 BCE, Egypt was still an important, widely respected political power. It is, therefore, imaginable that an author who did not live in Egypt might use a reference to an Egyptian king as a chronological means to designate a future period in which certain crucial events would take place.”53 Imaginable, perhaps, but not very likely. Buitenwerf cites no evidence for the supposed respect for Egypt in Asia Minor. Regardless of the Jewish author’s attitude to the Ptolemies, the association of the future turning point of history with a Ptolemaic reign suggests very strongly that the core of the book, containing those passages, was written in Ptolemaic Egypt.

Conclusion The author of these Sibylline verses was, of course, a Jewish propagandist, who was interested in the glory of Judaism, not that of the Ptolemies. The same could be said of the roughly contemporary Letter of Aristeas, which co-opts Ptolemy Philadelphus to join in the praise of Judaism.54 But Jews in the Diaspora were well aware that

51

Ibid., 133. Aristophanes, Peace 1095, 1116; Knights 31. 53 Buitenwerf, Book III, 131, cf. 189. 54 See my essay, “Culture and Religion in Hellenistic Judaism,” in The Honeycomb of the Word: Interpreting the Primary Testament with André Lacocque (ed. W. D. Edgerton; 52

the third sibyl revisited

19

their well-being depended on the good graces of their rulers. Even though the Sibyl is uncompromising in condemning idolatry, and regards the Egyptians as a “baleful race” (3:348), she consistently holds out hope for the conversion of the Greeks.55 This conversion would come in the reign of the seventh king of Egypt from the Greek line. The number symbolizes fulfillment, to be sure, but its chronological value is no less for that. It points to the mid-second century BCE, a time when Jews prospered in Egypt under the patronage of Ptolemy Philometor. From the perspective of the Egyptian Jew who adopted the voice of the Sibyl, the triumph of “the people of the great God” would come about in the reign of a Ptolemaic king, in the context of Ptolemaic rule.56

Chicago: Exploration Press, 2001), 17–36. Gruen also notes that in the Letter of Aristeas “the emphasis is again and again on Ptolemaic patronage” (Heritage and Hellenism, 214). 55 Cf. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 287: “The Sibyl reaches out to the Hellenic world, exhorting its people to repentance, urging acknowledgment of the true god and offering hope of salvation.” In contrast, Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 223, finds only “recurrent criticism of the Greeks and Macedonians.” 56 Michael Stone was on sabbatical at Harvard when I was writing my dissertation on the Sibylline Oracles in 1971–72, and graciously served as a sounding board for my emerging ideas. This essay is offered to him in memory of old friendship.

JUBILEES 32 AND THE BETHEL CULT TRADITIONS IN SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE* Esther Eshel Bar-Ilan University

The biblical tradition of Bethel as a cultic center can be traced in Second Temple literature. Although the fragmentary nature of many of the extant Second Temple period sources relating to Bethel does not enable establishment of a linear literary tradition, the sources can be subjected to thematic examination. Jubilees 32, centered on Levi’s investiture and the celebration of Sukkot at Bethel, serves as the fulcrum of this paper. As it includes a passage (32:21–26) rejecting Jacob’s earlier expressed desire to build a temple at Bethel after Levi’s appointment to the priesthood, this chapter is problematic. The first part of this article surveys the Second Temple period texts that mention Bethel and the motifs featured in each. The second part addresses the question of why Jubilees takes a negative stance toward Jacob’s desire to build a temple at Bethel, and also suggests a possible source for Jacob’s vision. The biblical cultic history of Bethel begins with Abraham’s construction of an altar between Bethel and Ai (Gen 12:8), followed by a second visit to Bethel (Gen 13:3–4). Jacob also visits Bethel on two occasions: the first when he dreams of the ladder and makes a vow (Gen 28:10–22), and the second upon his return from Haran, when he builds an altar there (35:1–8). During the period of the judges the ark of the covenant was situated in Bethel, administered by Phinehas ben Eleazar ( Judg 20:26–28). Jeroboam ben Nebat installed a golden calf there after the split in the kingdom, making Bethel a cultic center for the northern tribes (1 Kgs 12:29–33). Opposition to

* This article, based on a lecture given at the Seventh International Orion Symposium in 2002, represents the fruits of a joint project with Professor Michael Stone: the preparation of a critical edition of the Aramaic Levi Document, which he began with Jonas Greenfield l”z. On sharing Michael’s wisdom while preparing this edition, it is appropriate to quote the Wisdom Poem found in the Aramaic Levi Document: hdgn ryjm lk ytya alw, “and it is priceless” (13:13).

esther eshel

22

the cultic center at Bethel was voiced by the prophets Amos (3:13–14) and Hosea (10:15). In 622 BCE, in the course of Josiah’s reform, Bethel’s temple was defiled and its altar destroyed (2 Kgs 23:15).1 There is evidence for the occupation of Bethel after the destruction of the Temple and in the fourth century BCE.2 Bethel subsequently lost its importance as a cultic center, though it was a fortified city during the Hasmonean period (1 Macc 9:50; Ant. 13.15). Some scholars suggest, based on historical considerations and archeological finds, that a temple devoted to the God of Israel functioned at Bethel after 586 BCE.3 However, because this temple was almost certainly destroyed by the second century BCE, the textual traditions examined here bear no relationship to a functioning temple at Bethel.4 The starting point for my consideration of Bethel-related cultic traditions is Jubilees 32 and the related accounts of Levi’s investiture at Bethel found in the Greek Testament of Levi and the Aramaic Levi Document.5 As recounted in Jubilees, following Levi’s vision of investiture at Bethel (32:1), Jacob gives a tithe. Levi then performs the Sukkot sacrifices and celebration at Bethel (vv. 4–9), as his grandfather Abraham had done earlier in Beersheba (16:20–31). Jacob also presents the second tithe to Levi (32:10–15). After imparting the laws of the second tithe, Jubilees relates Jacob’s intention to build a temple at Bethel: 16

During the next night, on the twenty-second day of this month [the first day after Sukkot], Jacob decided to build up that place and to surround the courtyard with a wall, to sanctify it, and make it eternally holy for himself and for his children after him forever.

1

See H. Brodsky, “Bethel (Place),” ABD 1:710–12. W. F. Albright, “The Kyle Memorial Excavation at Bethel,” BASOR 56 (1934): 14. 3 The crucial find that dates the destruction layer of Bethel is a small fragment of Greek lekythos, dated to the second half of the fifth century BCE. See W. F. Albright and J. L. Kelso, The Excavation of Bethel (1934–1960) (AASOR 39; Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1968), 80. On the suggestion that there was a temple to the God of Israel there, see H. Eshel, “The Historical Background of Building Temples for the God of Israel in Bethel and Samaria Following the Destruction of the First Temple” (M.A. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1989), 23–27 (Hebrew); A. Rofé, Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch ( Jerusalem: Academon, 1994), 64–65 (Hebrew). 4 See J. L. Kelso, “Bethel,” The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (ed. E. Stern; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta, 1993), 1:194. 5 For a detailed discussion of these sources and the development of their traditions, see J. Kugel, “Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings,” HTR 86 (1993): 1–64. 2

JUBILEES

32 and the bethel cult traditions

23

This is followed by God’s appearance and blessings (vv. 17–19): 17

The Lord appeared to him during the night. He blessed him and said to him: “You are not to be called Jacob only but you will (also) be named Israel.” 18 He said to him a second time: “I am the Lord who created heaven and earth. I will increase your numbers and multiply you very much. Kings will come from you, and they will rule wherever mankind has set foot. 19 I will give your descendants all of the land that is beneath the sky. They will rule over all the nations just as they wish. 20Afterwards, they will gain the entire earth and they will possess it forever.”

Comparison of Jubilees 31–32, T. Levi, and the Aramaic Levi Document 6 shows a striking resemblance between their descriptions of the activities of Jacob and his family in the Bethel region. They differ, however, in the amount of detail provided and in the order of events. Jubilees

Testament of Levi

31:1 Starting point: Shechem 31:3 Jacob goes to Bethel and sends word to Isaac and Rebecca, asking them to come to Bethel 31:4–5 Isaac refuses to come and invites Jacob, Levi and Judah to visit him at Abraham’s residence 31:30 Isaac sends Rebecca and Jacob to Bethel 32:1 Levi’s dream of investiture at Bethel

2:1 Starting point: Shechem

8:1 Levi’s dream of investiture at Bethel 9:1 Judah, Levi, and Jacob visit Isaac

Aramaic Levi Document

4:9–12 Levi’s vision and investiture 5:1 “We” go to visit Isaac

6 This study is based on the forthcoming edition of The Aramaic Levi Document (ed. and trans. with commentary by J. C. Greenfield l”z, M. E. Stone, and E. Eshel; SVTP 19 Leiden: Brill, 2004), which presents the Aramaic Levi Document, insofar as the witnesses allow, as a single work. We placed all the extant textual material in a sequential order that is either borne out by the physical remains of the manuscripts or else can plausibly be supported by arguments based on those parts of the book preserved sequentially. The citations refer to the chapter and verse divisions of this edition.

24

esther eshel

Table (cont.)

Jubilees

32:2 Jacob gives a tithe to Levi 32:3 Jacob invests Levi 32:4–9 Jacob celebrates Sukkot and offers tithes through Levi

Testament of Levi

Aramaic Levi Document

9:2 Isaac refuses to come to Bethel; Isaac blesses Levi 5:1 Isaac blesses Levi 9:3–4 Levi and Judah return to Bethel; Jacob has a vision of Levi as a priest; Jacob gives a tithe 5:2 Jacob gives a tithe; Jacob invests Levi 5:3–5 Levi offers sacrifices and blesses his father and brothers in Bethel 9:5 “We” go to Hebron 9:6 Isaac instructs Levi (in Hebron?)

5:6 They leave Bethel and encamp at the residence of Abraham with Isaac 5:7–8 Isaac blesses his sons and instructs Levi

As seen from the table, certain incidents found in the Aramaic Levi Document and in T. Levi are related earlier in Jubilees. Both Jubilees and T. Levi name Shechem as Jacob’s starting point. The next parallel event takes place at Bethel, where Levi has his vision of investiture. These locations are mentioned explicitly in T. Levi (7:4–8:1) and in Jubilees (32:1); the poor preservation of the Aramaic Levi Document does not enable us to determine the locations to which it had referred. According to T. Levi, the clan proceeds straight to Bethel from Shechem. Jubilees’ more expansive report introduces additional events between Jacob’s departure from Shechem and his arrival at Bethel. Isaac’s refusal to attend the sacrifice at Bethel, briefly mentioned in T. Levi (9:2), appears earlier in Jubilees, where it is based on his advanced age; he repeats the excuse “I am unable” three times (31:27). Nonetheless, Isaac’s attitude toward Jacob’s fulfillment of his vow at Bethel is clearly positive; he encourages him, wishes him success, commands him not to delay, and expresses hopes for divine acceptance (31:29). Isaac sends Rebecca, joined by Deborah, to Bethel (31:30) where Jacob invests Levi into the priesthood.

JUBILEES

32 and the bethel cult traditions

25

Jubilees and the Levi texts are not the sole extant Second Temple period works that portray Bethel in a cultic role. Among the themes represented, we find Bethel as a place for sacrifice and thanksgiving, as the location of the tabernacle, as a link to the future temple by virtue of God’s covenant with Jacob, and as an elect place for the celebration of Sukkot. I begin with the Genesis Apocryphon, which specifies Bethel as the place to which Abraham moved, where the MT provides a more general location: “the hill country east of Bethel” (Gen 12:8). According to the Genesis Apocryphon, Abraham rebuilt the altar at Bethel and “offered upon it holocausts and an offering” (col. 21:2). This is followed by an addition containing Abraham’s thanksgiving for God’s help—in fulfillment of Abraham’s promise on his journey from Canaan. This description of Abraham’s deeds at Bethel partially parallels Jub. 13:8–9, where Abraham called on the Lord’s name and offered a sacrifice on the altar.7 In 4Q522 (Prophecy of Joshua) we find the Tent of Meeting in connection with Bethel. This nonsectarian text contains a prophecy explaining why Joshua did not conquer Jerusalem or establish the Temple there. Frg. 9 ii reads as follows:8 ?waçyw yn[nk¿h‚ ˆm qwjr d[?wm lh¿a ta hnyk?ç¿n ht[w .12 ?hlçl la¿ tybm d[?wm lh¿a‚ ta [?wçyw¿ róz[la .13 12

. . . And now, let us establish the T[ent of Mee]ting far from [the Canaanite (?) . . . and] 13Eleazar [and Joshu]a (carried ) the T[ent of Mee]ting from Beth[el to Shiloh. . . .

The reason provided for not leaving the Tabernacle at Bethel, as well as for not bringing it to Jerusalem, is the close presence of the 7 Another possible reference to Bethel in a cultic capacity may occur in 1QapGen 19:8, which reads: açydq arwfl tqbd al ˆ[k d[ “Up till now I had not reached the holy mountain” ( J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971], 58–59). Fitzmyer, 106, debated whether this refers to Jerusalem or to the Bethel mountain. açydq arwf clearly refers, as noted by M. Bernstein in a personal communication, to Gen 12:8, hrhh μçm qt[yw. See Tg. Neof. to Deut 3:25 hçdwq tyb rwfw ˆydh hbf arwf —ˆnblhw hzh bwfh rhh; margin: tyw ˆydh bf ˆwyx rwf açdqm; Onqelos: açdqm tybw ˆydh abf arwf. 8 É. Puech, “522. Prophétie de Josué,” Qumran Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes Hébreux (4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579) (DJD 25; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 55; the reading is based on the correction by E. Qimron, “Concerning ‘Joshua Cycles’ From Qumran,” Tarbiz 63 (1994): 503–8 (Hebrew). See D. Dimant, “The Apocryphon of Joshua—4Q522 9 ii: A Reappraisal,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S. M. Paul et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 179–204.

esther eshel

26

Canaanites in the nearby mountains. The exact location of the Tent of Meeting at the time of Joshua’s speech is not clear from the manuscript, although the text conveys the impression that the setting was not far from Jerusalem, in the vicinity of Bethel. That the ark was at Bethel is reflected in the LXX for Judg 2:1, which states that the angel of the Lord went from Gilgal to Bochim and to Bethel (the MT mentions only Gilgal and Bochim). According to the MT, the ark came to Bethel, where Phinehas ben Eleazar ministered, at a later date ( Judg 20:26–28). As Emanuel Tov has noted: It is not impossible that 4Q522 comes to grips with the various biblical traditions embedded in the Books of Joshua and Judges regarding the ark, explaining how the ark came to Bethel and moved from there to Shiloh, where it was indeed found at a later stage according to Josh. 18.9

Thus, Jubilees and the Levi texts are not the sole postbiblical works with traditions regarding a cultic center at Bethel. Whereas the Genesis Apocryphon changed the location of Abraham’s altar from some unspecified place to Bethel, 4Q522 placed the Tent of Meeting at Bethel in Joshua’s day.10 References to cultic activity at Bethel are found in additional compositions, for example the Temple Scroll, which creates a link between God’s covenant with Jacob and the future Temple. Col. 29 reads as follows:11 ytnkçw μlw[l μhl hyha yúkwnaw μ[l yl wyhw μóyútóyxrw .7 ˆykóçóa rça ydwbkb yçdqó?m ta¿ hçdqaw d[w μlw[l hmta .8 yçdóqóm ta yna arba rça hyrbh μwy d[ ydwbk ta wyl[ .9 la tybb bwqó[óyú μ[ó ytrk rça tyrbk μymyhó lwk yl wnykhl .10 9

E. Tov, “The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May 1996 (ed. M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon; STDJ 28; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 247. 10 A much later source, Tg. Ps.-J. to Gen 35:7, states: “He built an altar there and he called the place ‘. . . who caused his Shekinah to dwell in Bethel (hytnykç yrçad la tybb),’ because there the angel of the Lord had been revealed to him when he was fleeing from before Esau his brother . . .” Hayward comments: “The mention of God’s Shekinah as dwelling in Bethel is intended to remind us that Bethel has already been identified as the place of the temple: so much is made clear in Ps-Jon. Gen. 28.11, 12, 17, 19 and 22”; see C. T. R. Hayward, “Jacob’s Second Visit to Bethel in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (ed. P. R. Davies and R. T. White; JSOTSup 100; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 181. 11 Reading with E. Qimron, The Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions (Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University Press; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1996), 44 (Hebrew).

JUBILEES

32 and the bethel cult traditions

27

7

I will accept them, and they shall be my people, and I will be theirs for ever, [and] I will dwell 8 with them for ever and ever. And I will consecrate my [t]emple by my glory, (the temple) on which I will settle 9 my glory, until the day of creating on which I will create my temple 10 and establish it for myself for all times, according to the covenant which I have made with Jacob at Bethel.

As Yadin notes, this is “undoubtedly the Temple of the time to come, which the Lord Himself will build. This Temple is part of the new creation at the End of Days. . . . The author of the scroll regards this new creation as the fulfillment of the promise made by the Lord in his covenant with Jacob at Bethel.”12 Perhaps the Temple Scroll reflects a tradition, similar to the one found in Jubilees, that Jacob intended to build a temple at Bethel. The earlier part of the above-cited passage provides a link to another significant aspect of the Bethel tradition, which is also found in Jubilees: the celebration of Sukkot at Bethel. Traditions associating Sukkot and dedications of temples, whether at Jerusalem or Bethel, have biblical roots. According to 2 Chr 7:8, Solomon celebrated the dedication of the Temple and its altar on Sukkot. Jeroboam later celebrated Sukkot at Bethel, but in the eighth month (1 Kgs 12:32–33). When exiles returned from Babylonia, they celebrated the Sukkot festival as part of the renewal of the Jerusalem Temple (Neh 8:14–18). In his commentary on the Temple Scroll Yadin notes two other fragmentary sectarian compositions that hint at the tradition linking Sukkot and Jacob to Bethel: 5QSectarian Rule (5Q13) and 4QCatena A (4Q177). 5Q13 2 7–13 reads as follows:13 la tybb ht[d?wn¿ bwq[y la? ¿°w htwmth qó?jxy ta ¿ .7 dwgúal wl ˆttw ht?ldb¿h ywll taw ? hky¿ç[mb ˆybhlw l°? ¿ .8 taxl ywl ?ˆm¿ hótóró?jb ˆwrhabw ¿ tdwb[ t°? ¿ .9

14

12 Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983), 1:182–85, esp. p. 184. Yadin also noted a connection between Jacob’s initial arrival at Bethel, which took place on the first day of the first month according to Jubilees (28:19), and the construction of the Tabernacle. 13 The reading and translation are based on M. Kister, “5Q13 and the 'Avodah: A Historical Survey and Its Significance,” DSD 8 (2001): 137. 14 I suggest that dwgal wl ˆttw “and you appointed him to bind” may refer to Sukkot. The root d”ga usually appears in the Bible as a noun (‘bunch’—Exod 12:22; ‘a group of people’—2 Sam 2:25). In Mishnaic Hebrew it is also used as a verb, meaning to ‘bind something,’ but it is used mainly to refer to the binding of the Four Species on Sukkot (i.e., m. Sukk. 3:1, 8). I further submit that the use of the infinitive dwgal, with its special connotation of binding the Four Species, in 5QSectarian Rule might also allude to the celebration of Sukkot by Jacob and his sons, presumably granting Levi a special role in preparing the Four Species.

esther eshel

28

hkynpl hmót‚yrb?b wn[?y¿ rjaw h? l[ ?w¿t‚[wb?ç ta?

tw¿rtsn [yd?whl¿°? awblw¿ ¿°°??ry¿hózhl whwxtów_ hnçb ?hnçb‚¿ ¿°larçy çya lwúkólú? ¿yl[ l?

.10 .11 .12 .13

7

Isa]ac you have selected out and [. . .]. You [made] yourself known to Jacob in Bethel 8[. . .] to understand [your] works. And Levi have you se[parat]ed and you appointed him to bind [ 9. . .]service of [. . . and Aaron you have ch]osen [from] Levi to go out [10and come in . . . to ma]ke hidden thing[s] known [. . . in] their covenant before you [11eve]ry year and you commanded him to admon[ish (?) . . .] and afterwards they [will] declare [12. . .] to every man of Israel [. . . his] oat[h] concerning 13[. . .]

Influenced by the Temple Scroll, Yadin’s reconstruction of line 7 reads: ?hktyrb ta¿ la tybb h‚t[d‚?w¿h bwq[y laó “In Bethel You [ma]de [Your covenant] known to Jacob.”15 According to Yadin, another fragment related to the Bethel context is 4QCatena A (4Q177) frg. 1–4. This sectarian eschatological text contains a description of the sect’s victory:16 hrs wyl[ wrbdyw wtx[ yçn?a lw¿k‚ wsam rça tynç hrwth rps ha?yh . . .14 l[ jmçw twtgh l[ dmw[ bwq[yw ?. . .¿°h‚ l[ twlwdg {[} twt?wa ?. . .¿15 j)l)çyw . . . br‚j‚b ?. . .¿ 16 t‚dr 14

[. . . i]s the book of the Second Law which a[ll the m]en of his council have spurned and they have spoken revolt against him. And he sent 15great [si]gns[. . .] over [. . .] And Jacob will stand at the winepresses and will rejoice over the flow (?) of [. . .] 16[. . .] by the sword [. . .] (col. 2:14–15)

Based on comparison with the Temple Scroll (col. 29), Yadin suggests that twtg “winepresses” perhaps reflects the Feast of Ingathering (πysah gj) as described in Deut 16:13.17 I would like to suggest that another source was also familiar with the tradition linking Sukkot and Bethel. The words la tyb appear in the Apocryphon of Joshua B (4Q379), frg. 26, which was published

15

Yadin, Temple Scroll, 2:129. Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:185 n. 5; see J. M. Allegro, “177. Catena (A),” Qumrân Cave 4.I (4Q158–4Q186) (DJDJ 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 68. The reconstruction is based on A. Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschat a,b) (STDJ 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 73, 110 (Col. X). 17 Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:185 n. 5. 16

JUBILEES

32 and the bethel cult traditions

29

by Carol Newsom.18 In the official publication of the text, the fragment reads as follows: μ°°at‚h ˆ°°°l°? l‚a tybób w_k‚s‚ la‚? wqjr yk‚ °°°? ¿°? 19 ¿°°l?

.1 .2 .3 .4

Based on the use of the form ˚s* in the Bible with reference to God’s shelter (Ps 27:5, 76:3), where the context implies that hks/wks refers to the Temple, and by analogy with the use of sukkah as a symbol for the Temple, as found later in piyyutim for the Sukkot holiday,20 I suggest the following reconstruction: (?) yn[nkh ˆm¿ wqjr yk‚ ?. . .3¿l‚a tybób w_k‚s‚ la‚? (?) ˆbyw2 2

. . . and God [built (?) his abode (sukko) in Bethel [3. . .] so they will be far [from the Canaanites (?)

If this proposed reconstruction is correct, then the Apocryphon of Joshua, like 4Q522, also refers to the setting up of the Tabernacle at Bethel. It, however, represents an earlier station of the Tabernacle than 4Q522, which indicates that Joshua decided to move it to Shiloh for the same reason. Gen. Rab. 56:10 contains the most developed connection between a sukkah and the Temple: d[ wblj ùr μçb hykrb ùr . . . “hary ùh awhh μwqmh μç μhrba arqyw” yhyw” bytkd awh adh hkwtb llptm hyhw hkws hùùbqh wl hç[ μlç awhç ≥çdqmh tyb ˆyynybb haryç ˆwxr yhy rmwa hyh hmw “.ˆwyxb wtnw[mw wkws μlçb

18 For her initial publication of the text and for her initial reading wbs, see C. A. Newsom, “4Q378 and 4Q379: An Apocryphon of Joshua,” in Qumranstudien (ed. H.-J. Fabry, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996), 79. Tov accepted her reading of wbs (from b”bs); see his “Rewritten Book of Joshua,” 249. 19 C. A. Newsom, “379. 4QApocryphon of Joshuab,” in Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (ed. G. Brooke et al.; DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 282–83. Dimant (“Apocryphon of Joshua,” 198 n. 37) suggests reading la tybb yks. 20 See J. Rubenstein, “Cultic Themes in Sukkot Piyyutim,” American Academy for Jewish Research 59 (1993): 186, where he notes: “On the one hand, the piyyutim preserve the conception of Sukkot as the primary temple festival as it was in the temple times. . . . On the other hand, by making the sukkah a symbol for the fallen temple, the paytanim underscore their awareness of the discontinuity between the celebration of Sukkot in temple times and the present.”

esther eshel

30

“And Abraham named that site Adonai-yireh.” R. Berachia in the name of R. Helbo: Before it was “Salem” God made a sukkah for himself and would pray in it. This is what is written, “Salem became his abode (sukko), Zion his den” (Ps 76:3). And what would he say? May it be that I should witness the building of the Temple.21

Thus, we have seen that a number of Second Temple period sources reflect a strong tradition of cultic activity at Bethel. Some of these texts evince a close association between Bethel and the celebration of Sukkot by Jacob and his sons. Others treat Bethel as the location of the Ark of the Covenant. Another significant feature of some of the traditions is a connection between God’s covenant with Jacob at Bethel and the future Temple. Yet we have not come to the end of this examination. Although, as we have seen, some of the above-cited texts exhibit a close relationship between the Temple and Bethel, Jubilees 32 contains a second angelic revelation to Jacob, in which his earlier expressed desire to build a temple at Bethel is rejected: 21

In a night vision he saw an angel coming down from heaven with seven tablets in his hands. He gave (them) to Jacob, and he read them. He read everything that was written in them—what would happen to him and his sons throughout all ages. 22After he had shown him everything that was written on the tablets, he said to him: “Do not build up this place, and do not make it an eternal temple. Do not live here because this is not the place. Go to the house of your father Abraham and live where your father Isaac is until the day of your father’s death. 23For you will die peacefully in Egypt and be buried honorably in this land in the grave of your fathers—with Abraham and Isaac. 24Do not be afraid because everything will happen just as you have seen and read. Now you write down everything just as you have seen and read.” 25Then Jacob said: “Lord, how shall I remember everything just as I have read and seen?” He said to him: ‘I will remind you of everything.” 26When he had gone from him, he awakened and remembered everything that he had read and seen. He wrote down all the things that he had read and seen.

Surprisingly, this vision rejects Jacob’s desire to build a temple, found earlier in the chapter (vv. 16–17). Given the favorable light in which Bethel was previously presented, as the place where Jacob went to fulfill his vow, where Levi was invested with the priesthood, where

21 For a discussion of the sukkah as a symbol of the Temple, see Rubenstein, “Cultic Themes.” The translation of the midrash was cited from ibid., 188.

JUBILEES

32 and the bethel cult traditions

31

they celebrated Sukkot, and where the laws of the second tithe were taught, this is unexpected and requires explanation. I would like to stress that this vision cannot simply be explained as pure exegesis of Gen 28:22, which records Jacob’s two-part promise to build a temple and to give a tithe: hyhy hbxm ytmç rça tazh ˆbahw ˚l wnrç[a rç[ yl ˆtt rça lkw μyhla tyb “And this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God’s abode; and of all that You give me, I will set aside a tithe for You.”22 According to Gen 35:7, 14–15, Jacob fulfilled his vow, building an altar and setting up a stone pillar there. This place, where Jacob set up the stone pillar and on which he poured a libation, he named Beit El.23 But in the description appearing in Genesis 35, no mention is made of Jacob giving a tithe. This missing action is supplied in Jub. 32:8: “He tithed all the clean animals and made an offering of them.” Other scholars have addressed the difficulty presented by Jubilees 32. Alexander Rofé argues that the words of the angel in Jacob’s vision indicate that the author of Jubilees had objections to the temple at Bethel, and that although it mentions the initiation of Levi at Bethel, Jubilees brings “a negative cult tradition,” in which God blocks Jacob’s attempt to build a temple there and even sends him away.24 Joshua Schwartz takes a different approach. Based on James VanderKam’s original dating of Jubilees to between 161 and 152 BCE, which was grounded in his interpretation of Jubilees 34 as a literary version of Judah Maccabeus’ military campaigns,25 Schwartz argues that Jacob’s second sojourn in Bethel, as related in Jubilees 31–32, reflects the time when Judas was forced to retreat to the mountains of Gophna after the second campaigns of Beth-Zur and Beth-Zechariah (162 BCE). Jerusalem no longer being accessible, the inhabitants of Bethel sought to reclaim their ancient cultic primacy, but were unsuccessful.26 22 See M. Kister, “Some Aspects of Qumranic Halakhah,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March, 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 587 n. 57. 23 According to Gen 28:22 Jacob promised to make this place μyhla tyb, and according to Gen 35:7 he called it la tyb. 24 A. Rofé, “Moses’ Blessing, The Sanctuary of Nebo and the Origin of the Levites,” in Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East: Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday (ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau; Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1978), 421–22 n. 55 (Hebrew). 25 J. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Studies, 1977), 214–85. 26 J. Schwartz, “Jubilees, Bethel and the Temple of Jacob,” HUCA 56 (1985):

esther eshel

32

As VanderKam subsequently dated Jubilees to a broader time span, sometime between 170 and 150 BCE, I submit that there is insufficient evidence in Jubilees to support the precise dating suggested by Schwartz. Another possibility is to view the duplication in light of James Kugel’s observation: “It frequently happens that ancient texts like Jubilees present two separate and even mutually contradictory explanations for something.”27 Whereas the latter opinion is one way of looking at the disparities surrounding the temple at Bethel in Jubilees 32, I view the opposition to its building in the angelic vision somewhat differently. Primarily, I argue that the presence of different attitudes regarding a temple at Bethel represents the incorporation of different traditions by the author of Jubilees.28 I suggest that Jubilees’ purpose in stating its opposition to Jacob’s desire to build a temple at Bethel was not to contest Bethel’s cultic status for the patriarchal period, but rather to emphasize the centrality of the Jerusalem Temple. Moreover, it is unlikely, as I noted earlier, that the opposition expressed here in any way reflects the actual existence of a rival cultic center at Bethel at that time. I further submit that several unusual features in the second angelic vision in Jubilees 32 support my assumption that the author reworked its sources. I will also propose a possible source for this vision. The first unusual element is the seven tablets mentioned in v. 21.29 Jubilees does not usually specify the number of heavenly tablets. Indeed, the term “heavenly tablets” occurs twenty-nine times in Jubilees with-

63–85. See also M. Testuz, Les idées religieuses du Livre des Jubilées (Geneva: Droz, 1960), 67, for his opinion that, being inspired by God’s promises and certain that he would be allowed to realize them, Jacob began to build a sanctuary at Bethel. But as Schwartz (p. 70) notes, “the promises to which Testuz refers would seem to have been given after Jacob decided to build the Temple ( Jub. 32:17–20).” 27 Kugel, “Levi’s Elevation,” 7. 28 Jub. 32:20–21 was partly preserved in one of the Qumran copies of Jubilees, 4Q223–224:4–5 (4QpapJubilees h), which reads:

harmb aryw21 hmymçh hl[ rça d[ bwq[y fbyw wyl[m ¿h)l[yw wta rb‚?dl lkyw20¿ . . . ˚a¿l‚m‚ hnhw hl?ylh he finished spea]king with him and he went up [from him. Jacob watched until he went up into heaven. 21He saw in the vision of the nig]ht an an[gel . . . See J. C. VanderKam, “4Q223–224,” in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 100. 29 Latin: tabulae buxeae. See J. T. Milik, “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân: d’Hénoch à Amram,” in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (ed. M. Delcor; BETL 46; Paris: Duculot, 1978), 104 n. 19; J. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Edition (2 vols.; CSCO 510–511; Louvain: Peeters, 1989), 2:213. 20

JUBILEES

32 and the bethel cult traditions

33

out specification of number.30 Second, there is the motif of the ‘reminding angel’ (vv. 25–26), found only here in Jubilees but known from parallel sources (such as 2 Enoch 22).31 Third, it is unusual for a divine commandment not to be fulfilled immediately; nonetheless Jacob fails to fulfill the angel’s command to go the house of Abraham without delay. According to Jubilees, the Bethel story took place “during the first year of the sixth week,” while it was only two years later, “during the third year of the sixth week” (33:21), that Jacob and all his sons took up residence at the house of Abraham, near Jacob’s parents. Fourth, earlier in the chapter, after Levi’s investiture, Jacob gives him the second tithe (32:9), which was “the reason it is ordained as a law on the heavenly tablets to tithe a second time, to eat it before the Lord—year by year—in the place which has been chosen (as the site) where his name will reside. This law has no temporal limits forever” (v. 10). It is difficult to believe that Jubilees’ author was unaware of the connection between the second tithe and Jerusalem. It appears that Jubilees’ author is “playing with the future” here: because of Levi’s investiture to the priesthood at Bethel, Jubilees attributes the performance of Temple rites to that site. Finally, in her study of the special language of the heavenly tablets, Liora Ravid claims that the laws and commandments were written in “repetitive, laconic language.” This special language can be used to distinguish between what she calls “real laws” and “intuitive laws,” which do not belong to the heavenly tablets. The seven tablets read by Jacob are an example of laws that do not display the specific language of the tablets.32

30 Mentioning more than one tablet, and even further, specifying their number as seven, is unusual; see the two tablets mentioned in the Book of Giants, 4Q203 7b ó al ˆ[k d[ anyntw ? ¿ ayjwl yrtl, “the two tablets [. . .] and the second ii 2–3: a¿y_rq (tablet) until now has not been rea[d”; see L. Stuckenbruck, “203. 4QEnochGiantsa ar,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Miscellanea, Part 1 (ed. P. Alexander et al.; DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 25–26; and 4 Ezra 14:24: “But prepare for yourself many written tablets.” See M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press), 428. Thus we may have a separate tradition of seven tablets, introduced to the text of Jubilees. 31 This motif also appears in the Testament of Levi 9:6: “And Isaac called me continually to put me in remembrance of the law of the Lord,” which elaborates on and interprets Aramaic Levi Document 5:8: “When he learned that I was priest of the Most High God, the Lord of heaven, he began to instruct me (yty hdqpl yraç) and to teach me the law of the priesthood,” where dqp is to be understood as “remember” in Hebrew. 32 L. Ravid, “The Relationship of the Sabbath Laws in Jubilees 50:6–13 to the Rest of the Book,” Tarbiz 69 (2000): 161–66 (Hebrew).

34

esther eshel

Having noted this vision’s unusual features, I would now like to suggest a possible source for it in a related composition, 4Q537, the so-called Testament of Jacob.33 Frg. 1–3 reads as follows:34 a¿y_r‚yçyw ayqydx lk ˆwratçyw ˚[rz ¿jktçy dw[ al rqç lkw lw[ ¿alwk ayrqw ayjwl bs ˆ[kw ¿y_dy ˆm ajwl?. . .¿yOyj ynç 35[ó?bçw ˆy[braw ham . . . y¿l[ aty yd lkw ytq[ lkw ¿y_dó hb bytk tyzjw?. . .y¿h‚w_dy ˆm ajwl ˆd bsn?w ¿μódwq ˆm ˆyqyúró ˆ_?wlzyt al . . .¿ μwybw hnm ˆwqpt? ydw

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6

. . . ] 1your descendants. And all just men will survive and [the] upright [. . .] 2debauchery, and absolutely no deceit is to be found [. . .]3 and now, take the tablets and read everything [. . .] 4and all my troubles and all that was to happen to [me over the one hundred and forty sev]en years of my life. [Again, he said to me: Take] the tablet from [my] hands [. . .] 5 [I] took then [this tablet from his hand . . .] and I saw written in them that [. . .] you will come out of it, and on the day [of . . . you will not] exit empty-handed before [. . .]

As Puech has noted, this text resembles the angelic vision in Jubilees 32, telling Jacob’s future as well as that of his sons.36 I propose that 4Q537 is a possible source for the angelic vision in Jubilees. Several significant elements found in Jubilees are missing here, including the specification of seven tablets and the opposition to Jacob’s desire to build a temple at Bethel. The text twice mentions tablet, ajwl, in the singular (ll. 4–5), and only once in the plural ayjwl (l. 3). I disagree with Puech’s reconstruction of the text in which, based on Jubilees, he reads the prohibition against building the temple at Bethel here.37 I agree with Milik against Puech that the tablet talks about Jacob’s future and refers to the Exodus from Egypt.38

33 First published by: M. Testuz, “Deux fragments inédits des manuscrits de la mer Morte,” Semitica 5 (1955): 37–38; Pl. 1 Fig. 1 (the only photograph of this part); see Milik, “Écrits préesséniens,” 103–5. The editio princeps was published by É. Puech, “537. Testament de Jacob?ar” in Qumrân Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Araméens, Première Partie (DJD 31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 171–89. 34 Readings based on DJD 31 with emendations by the author. 35 Milik, Ecrits préesséniens, 103, reconstructed: l[w ynb ˆwkyl[w y¿l[ aty yd lkw yyj ynç [?bçw ˆy[çt ˆwkynb based on the calculation of Jacob’s age at that point. 36 Puech, DJD 31. 173, 176. 37 Ibid., 175. 38 Ibid., 183–84. The word ˆynqyr seem to refer to the promise given to Moses, according to Exod 3:21: μqyr wklt al ˆwklt yk hyhw μyrxm yny[b hzh μ[h ˆj ta yttnw. The tentative reconstruction ˆynqyr ˆwlzyt is based on Tg. Neof. to Exod 3:22: ˆynqyr ˆwlzyt al—μqyr wklt al “you will not go away empty-handed.”

JUBILEES

32 and the bethel cult traditions

35

In Jubilees we also find the element of the telling of the future, as part of Jacob’s vision at Bethel, in the context of his actions preceding his death: 14

Israel blessed his sons before he died. He told them everything that would happen to them in the land of Egypt; and he informed them (about) what would happen to them at the end of time . . .16 He gave all his books and the books of his fathers to his son Levi so that he could preserve them and renew them for his sons until today. (45:14–16)

Although Bethel is not explicitly mentioned in this passage, that the context is Jacob’s vision seems quite clear. The place-name Bethel does occur however in another fragment of this composition, 4Q537 Frg. 14: ¿°°ç qpnw ays°°? ym l[ tyz rab h‚t‚?a ¿°°? ¿° lúató?yb ˆwmról qpnw abrq tljól fwçq ˆ_? ¿h‚ç°‚ ?

.2 .3 .4 .5

2

. . .] and he left [. . .3 . . . Be]thel . . . [he ca]me (to) Beer Zeit, upon the Water of [4. . .] truth, [. . .] the valley of the fight (?), and he left for Rimmon.

Fragment 14 refers to a battle and also mentions Beer Zayit and Rimmon. We might consider the possibility that 4Q537 is referring to the story of the fight between the tribe of Benjamin and the other tribes of Israel, according to Judges 21, where the tribe of Benjamin is said to have fled to “the Rock of Rimmon” (v. 13). There is nothing in 4Q537 to indicate that it is a testament. It is best characterized as a vision, and in my view, it should be so titled. If we view the so-called Testament of Jacob as a source for the angelic vision of Jubilees 32, I would now like to suggest a tentative reconstruction of the development of the vision. In the first tradition the angel gives Jacob a tablet, which he reads. It contains everything that will happen to him and his sons (v. 21). The angel also tells Jacob that he will die in Egypt and will be buried in Canaan. The angel reassures Jacob and commands him to write everything down (vv. 23–24).39 To this we may add, as Martha Himmelfarb noted, that 39 The words of Isaac to Jacob before he dies ( Jub. 22:23–24): “Do not be afraid, my son Jacob . . . May the most high God keep you from corruption . . . This house I have built for myself to put my name on it upon the earth. It has been given to you and your descendants forever. It will be called Abraham’s house. It has been given to you and your descendants forever because you will build my house and will establish my name before God until eternity. Your descendants and your name

36

esther eshel

the Jubilees passage alludes to a revelation of the future course of history, “but does not report any of the content.”40 Reference is made to this angelic vision later in Jubilees, when Jacob is en route to Egypt, but without the prohibition against building a temple in Bethel: “When Jacob remembered the dream that he had in Bethel, he was afraid to go down to Egypt” (44:2). 4Q537 may contain an additional quotation from the revelation of the future by the angel, such as the priestly sacrifices mentioned in frg. 12. In any event, the command forbidding Jacob to build a temple in Bethel or even to live there definitely does not belong to “what would happen to him and his sons throughout all ages” ( Jub. 32:21). At some point this tradition opposing the construction of a temple at Bethel was incorporated into the angelic vision of the future for Jacob’s sons (v. 22). To sum up: we have seen that Jubilees portrays Bethel in a favorable light, as the scene of the divine covenant with Jacob, Levi’s investiture, Sukkot celebrations, and the proclamation of the laws of the second tithe. I submit that the opposition to Jacob’s building a temple there, found only in Jubilees 32, reflects Jubilees’ aim of stressing the centrality of the Jerusalem Temple, on the one hand, and the opposition to Bethel during the monarchic period, as found in the prophecies of Hosea and Amos, on the other. Moreover, based on the available texts, I tentatively suggest that 4Q537 reflects an earlier version of Jacob’s vision, and that this or some related text was known to the author of Jubilees, who used and developed this tradition, introducing some additional elements, including the prohibition against building a temple at Bethel.

will remain throughout all the history of the earth” seems to refer to the family, not to a physical dwelling. 40 M. Himmelfarb, “Torah, Testimony, and Heavenly Tablets: The Claim to Authority of the Book of Jubilees,” in A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert Kraft (ed. B. G. Wright; Scholars Press Homage Series 24; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 24.

REVIVING (AND REFURBISHING) THE LOST APOCRYPHA OF M. R. JAMES Robert A. Kraft University of Pennsylvania

In 1920, Montague Rhodes James (1862–1936) published The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament: their Titles and Fragments Collected, Translated and Discussed.1 He arranged the materials under the names of the biblical figures with whom they were associated, starting with Adam and working through the Jewish scriptural period to a somewhat unsure (and blatantly Protestant)2 conclusion with Ezra (as a religious figure) on the one hand and Hezekiah (as a regal figure) on the other. Some afterthoughts and appendices dealing with materials less easy to classify (unidentified quotations in early fathers, Hystaspes, Ladder of Jacob, Lost Tribes, etc.) conclude this slim volume, which gives clear evidence of the breadth of the author’s knowledge and his acquaintance with various texts and traditions scattered throughout Europe’s collections, but also betrays a certain haphazardness and haste (or perhaps scholarly impatience) in presentation.3 1 London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; New York: Macmillan. The biographical information on MRJ (as he often styled himself ) is taken primarily from Montague Rhodes James, by R. W. Pfaff (London: Scholar, 1980); and M. R. James: An Informal Portrait, by M. A. Cox (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983). See also A Memoir of Montague Rhodes James, with a list of his writings by A. F. Scholfield, by S. G. Lubbock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939). 2 James was the son of an evangelical Episcopal clergyman, and while not exactly following in his father’s path, neither did he break with that tradition. In a lighthearted early publication, MRJ comments, perhaps mimicking a “Puritan” Anglican perspective, “We tolerate the Lessons from Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], and Baruch, which are read in October and November; but your Tobits and Judiths, your Bel and the Dragon, and Susanna, are so many unmasked imposters, and we are not quite sure, some of us, that they were not invented by the Pope” (from the Guardian of 2 Feb. 1898, 163–64, cited by Pfaff, James, 161). It is interesting that none of the latter group of names (and only Baruch of the former) occurs in the index to Lost Apocrypha, although Susanna is mentioned in passing in MRJ’s summary of the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, Tobit in the Prayer of Joseph discussion, and Bel and the Dragon under Habakkuk. Of course, most of these names occur also in the ancient lists of books that he cites. 3 This volume seems to have drawn little attention from reviewers. An excellent assessment of its contents and impact can now be found in Pfaff ’s biography of

38

robert a. kraft

In his Lost Apocrypha, James attempted a compromise between his technical scholarly works and his more popular fictional endeavors.4 It was a work with a long gestation period, if we can trust the biographers of MRJ. Already in 1879, as a sixteen-year-old Eton schoolboy, MRJ recorded in his notebook, “A Complete List of all Apocryphal Books (belonging to Both Testaments), Lost and Extant, with references added shewing in what Former volumes of notes [by MRJ ] may be found either Notices, Fragments, Abstracts or Translations of each Book.”5 In the same year, he began his scholarly publishing career, with unrealistic ambitions regarding the “apocryphal” materials.6 Decades later, in 1913, he published a slim volume of translations for children entitled Old Testament Legends, Being Stories Out of Some of the Less-Known Apocryphal Books, dedicated “to Jane and my godchildren.”7 And in 1917, he wrote to Claude Jenkins (Lambeth Palace Librarian) and MRJ. Pfaff also provides a bibliography of MRJ’s scholarly publications, but does not include the writings of “the other” MRJ, well known even today as an author of ghost stories (see the following note). A more complete bibliography was published by N. Rogers on pp. 239–67 of The Legacy of M. R. James: Papers from the 1995 Cambridge Symposium (ed. L. Dennison; Donington, Lincolnshire: Shaun Tyas [Paul Watkins], 2001). An electronic synthesis of these materials may be found on my web site: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/publics/mrjames/index.htm (the internet links to this article are most easily accessed from the electronic version there as well). 4 James enjoyed writing, and performing, stories for children, in addition to his production of tales of the supernatural—of course, the two interests are not necessarily unrelated. For internet interest in MRJ as a pioneer of writing ghost stories, see http://www.fadl12200.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mrjframes.html and its various links. Indeed, the magazine Ghosts and Scholars focused on his work—see http://www.users. globalnet.co.uk/~pardos/GS.html. 5 Cited by Cox Portrait, 35, from an unpublished Fitzwilliam Museum (Cambridge) notebook entry dated to January 1879 (alluded to by Pfaff, James, 36). See also the letter reproduced in Pfaff (32), written only three months later (4 April 1879), with its playful reference to MRJ’s future intention to publish a “Corpus Apocryphum Omnium V. T. et N. T. collegit edidit compilandum typisque committendum curavit M. R. J.” [Complete Corpus of OT and NT Apocrypha, collected, edited, etc. by MRJ] in about six or eight volumes. 6 Later that same year, he had his first scholarly note published, and planned to follow it with a series of “apocryphal” texts (Assumption of Moses, “3rd Baruch,” Aseneth, Testament of Job; see the letter cited by Pfaff, James, 33). 7 Published by Longmans. Although Pfaff does not include this volume among MRJ’s scholarly bibliography, he does mention it ( James, 371 n. 84). He also explains there the reference to “Jane”—the daughter of MRJ’s close family friend Gwendolen McBryde with whom lifelong bachelor MRJ carried on a lifetime correspondence (see her edition Montague Rhodes James: Letters to a Friend [London: Edward Arnold, 1956]). MRJ’s interest in children, and in composing stories for them, is well illustrated not only by such publications, but also by his extant letters—see, for example, his “Letters to a Child” cited on http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~pardos/ArchiveChild.html (dated to 1903).

the

LOST APOCRYPHA

of m. r. james

39

mentioned that he was “trying to make a little English book containing the bits of the lost pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament” (Pfaff, James, 371). As Pfaff incisively observes, the “success, or failure [of the Lost Apocrypha volume], results largely from a determined attempt to write non-technically on a highly technical subject. It could be said that what MRJ had done, in fact if not intention, was to provide a manual of concise information for those who already largely know what they are looking for” (Pfaff, James, 371). Well, not entirely; Lost Apocrypha combines generalized and popularized information with various new materials, sometimes in rather cryptic references, but also in sometimes extensive excerpts from the author’s own forays among the manuscripts he had examined/explored, as well as reflecting his special interests in Christian hagiography, art and architecture.8 “The lack of precise references is maddening, especially in a work which does provide a tremendous amount of information, albeit somewhat off-handedly. What MRJ should have written—and could, with very little additional work—is a proper manual for students about the ‘Lost Apocrypha’ ” (Pfaff, James, 372). A work somewhat similar to Lost Apocrypha—addressed to a popular audience, following the sequence of biblical narrative, and even more frustrating for its failure to identify its sources in the early volumes, but also much more ambitious and comprehensive—had already appeared from the desk of Louis Ginzberg (1873–1953) and his admirer and translator Henrietta Szold in 1909–1913 under the title The Legends of the Jews.9 Although there is no indication that MRJ was familiar with this work at the time he wrote Lost Apocrypha,10

8 From early youth, MRJ was smitten with “Archaeology,” by which he meant “all antique knowledge, . . . exploring every accessible church in the holidays and writing copious notes on everything” (Eton and King’s: Recollections, Mostly Trivial, 1875–1925 [London: Williams & Norgate 1926], 14). His publications abound with notes and observations on church architecture and art, which were also linked with his interests in “hagiology”—the lives, deaths, and commemorations of the saints. Here he found a rich trove of little known texts and legendary materials, along with often mysterious symbols and artistic depictions. He also catalogued thousands of manuscripts during his very fruitful lifetime. 9 7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909–1938. See the preface to Ginzberg’s vol. 5 (1925): “Volumes one to four, containing the Bible as mirrored by Jewish imagination and phantasy, are intended chiefly for the general reader and not for the scholar” (vii). 10 James wrote in full consciousness of the work of his predecessors and contemporaries, as the extensive index to Lost Apocrypha demonstrates. Unsurprisingly, especially in the period following the first world war, and in a work attempting to

40

robert a. kraft

Ginzberg’s efforts focus on one aspect of MRJ’s interest, the popular impact of the biblical personages on subsequent users (see n. 14 below). The extensive scholarly notes to Ginzberg’s Legends that would have interested MRJ most—and remain the most valuable aspect of Ginzberg’s Legends for scholars—were not published until 1925–28, well after the appearance of Lost Apocrypha.11 Integrating Ginzberg’s information into the outline of Lost Apocrypha promises to be a challenging and rewarding task (see further below). Although MRJ clearly could think of the “OT” and “NT” apocrypha as constituting a single series (see above, at n. 5), his respective treatments of the materials in Lost Apocrypha and in his widely used Apocryphal New Testament volume that appeared a few years later, in 1924,12 follow different organizational principles. In ANT he did not attempt to group materials under the onomastic/biographical umbrellas used in Lost Apocrypha, but followed the traditional divisions of the canonical NT anthology itself—organized according to the standard literary groups of Gospels, Acts, Epistles, Apocalypses. This ANT compilation was intended to displace the widely used archaic volume with the same title by William Hone (1820; see MRJ’s preface to ANT, xiv–xvii) and obviously succeeded in addressing a continued interest among English readers. James’ ANT went address a semi-popular English language audience, he shows most familiarity with British and American scholarship (there are many references to the work of R. H. Charles, and to J. Rendell Harris), but he also alludes to the standard German works and workers (Gebhart, Harnack, Zahn, Schürer, Resch, Hilgenfeld, von Dobschutz, Tischendorf, Jellinek, Röensch—although surprisingly not Kautzsch [1900]), as well as to a few French scholars (de Bruyn, Morin, Amelineau). Jewish scholarship is not strongly represented (Gaster gets mentioned, but not Ginzberg, Kohler, or the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901–1905) [but see Pfaff, James, 76 n. 17], although rabbinic sources receive some notice). Scholarly journals in various languages are referenced, along with constant mentions of manuscripts and papyri, published and unpublished. Of course he cites or alludes to his own scholarly work frequently, although the indexer refrains from including an explicit entry for “James, M. R.” 11 “Volumes five and six, which contain the notes to the previous four volumes, are meant primarily, if not exclusively, for the student” (Ginzberg, Legends, 5:vii). The Lost Apocrypha and other materials by MRJ are cited in these notes. Ginzberg’s plan for the seventh volume (see vol. 5:xi—“which will consist of the Excurses, Index and Bibliography”) was not carried out by him, but an extensive index appeared in 1938 by Boaz Cohen. It does not include modern authors or bibliography. In 1926, MRJ did review briefly a volume with a similar title: F. H. Marshall, ed., Old Testament Legends from a Greek Poem on Genesis and Exodus by Georgios Chumnos (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1925); see JTS 27 (1926): 320—without any mention of Ginzberg. Note also the allusion by MRJ below, in dealing with the giant Og, to other older collections of Jewish legendary material by Eisenmenger and Baring-Gould. 12 Oxford: Clarendon Press; supplemented edition in 1953.

the

LOST APOCRYPHA

of m. r. james

41

through numerous reprintings and continues to be widely used in electronic segments today [as also is Hone!], although it has now been replaced in print by J. K. Elliott’s more recent edition from the same publisher (1993).13 The situation with respect to these overtly early Christian writings resembles that of the Jewish scriptural counterparts—various bibliographies, introductions and anthologies, and individual studies have continued to appear (see further below). But with these “ANT ” materials, there is no “manual” in English of the type MRJ created in his Lost Apocrypha. In planning to expand and update Lost Apocrypha electronically, it makes sense to consider addressing the need for a parallel (or continuous) “NT” manual similarly organized by personal names (or groups). As has been noted, from his youth, James was interested in religious stories and how they were told, whether in the “biblical apocrypha” as he broadly defined that category, or in hagiographical depictions, or church painting and art.14 In his preface to ANT, MRJ even compares the materials he has collected there to those he dealt 13 J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993). For internet use of James’ ANT, see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ or http://wesley.nnu.edu/ noncanon/ (and related sites). For information on Hone, see http://libraries.adelphi. edu/bar/hone/intro.html; for the electronic survival/revival of Hone’s ANT, see the renamed Forbidden Books of the New Testament collection [derived from Hone’s edition, which itself goes back to the collection by W. Wake]: http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/ etext04/fb01w10.txt. Even more recently, J. R. Porter has produced a very introductory volume titled The Lost Bible: Forgotten Scriptures Revealed (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001; see http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=1739), in which excerpts from both “OT”-like and “NT”-like works are introduced and presented, along with some striking pictures. 14 See n. 8, above. Noteworthy is his defense of studying “the popular beliefs of average Christians in . . . earlier times” through the often “obscure and devious bypaths” attested by the “apocryphal literature”; he writes that “no one cares very much to investigate the apocryphal books: . . . I cannot altogether sympathize with the contempt that is rather freely showered upon the literature as a whole. It is plain to be seen that most of the books are very badly written, some of them very savage and horrible, all of them most obviously unhistorical. But ought we not to be alive to the interest which they possess as being the products of human minds? To me there is real pathos in the crude attempts of these ignorant or perverted souls to tell their friends or their disciples what—to be feared or hoped for—lies in the unseen future, or on the other side of the grave. But if the pathos is obscured to many readers by the crude fancy or the barbarous language, not many will deny that these books possess considerable historical value. . . . The apocryphal books stand in the relation of by-paths—not always clean or pleasant—to the broad and well-trodden high-roads of orthodox patristic literature” (Apocrypha Anecdota 1 [Texts and Studies 2.3; Cambridge: University Press 1993], vii–viii). James saw the visual aspects of churches and manuscripts in a similar light.

42

robert a. kraft

with in Lost Apocrypha—“they resemble many of the Jewish Midrashim and apocrypha” in their representations of history and legend (xii). Fortunately, MRJ also spends several pages of the preface explaining what he has not included in the ANT volume—“gnostic apocrypha,” works on church order and liturgy, “the Clementine literature,” writings ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, a miscellany of works associated with various early Christian figures, and Christian-tainted material on the various “Old Testament” personages dealt with in Lost Apocrypha (ANT xxii–xxvii). He admits that much more could have been mentioned, but at least he has given us a running start for creating expanded prosopographical/onomastic structures for those materials, in conscious continuity with the patterns in Lost Apocrypha. In the decades following the publication of Lost Apocrypha and ANT, a flood of relevant literature has appeared, from focused bibliographies (e.g. Maynard [1927], Marcus [1946–47], Delling [1969, 1975\2], Charlesworth [1973 and 1981], DiTommaso [2001]), to detailed introductions and/or anthologies (e.g. Riessler [1928], Bonsirven [1953], Denis [1970], Charlesworth [1983–85], Sparks [1984], HenneckeSchneemelcher-Wilson [1963–1992]), to numerous specific editions and studies.15 As in the days of MRJ, who contributed at least once to the relatively short-lived International Journal of the Apocrypha (1905–17),16 we now have our own contemporary Apocrypha journal (1990–; Brepols; mainly in French) as well as the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha (1987–), although I know of nothing exactly parallel for the early Christian materials. We also have the rapidly expanding collection of old and new information on the internet, with its wealth of exciting presentational possibilities as well as its often misleading or outdated aspects. There is much additional material along with new ways to format it that can be employed, along the lines used in Lost Apocrypha, to create an updated manual of the sort Pfaff envisioned! What I am describing in this article, since it is already under construction through my internet web site, is just such an electronic “manual,” that both updates and expands what M. R. James initiated 15 See especially L. DiTommaso, A Bibliography of Pseudepigrapha Research 1850–1999 ( JSPSup 39; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), for “OT” bibliography; and E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha (rev. ed.; English tr. ed. R. McL. Wilson; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991–92), for “NT.” Online, see James Davila’s site (among others) http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/otpseud_ bibliog_02.html. 16 It was called Deutero-Canonica in its first seven issues; MRJ’s contribution appeared in no. 25 (1911), a brief precis/review of J. Viteaux, ed. and tr., Les Psaumes du Salomon: introduction, text grec et traduction (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1911).

the

LOST APOCRYPHA

of m. r. james

43

in his Lost Apocrypha.17 As has been noted, progress in the study of these materials has been immense in the past eight decades, especially prompted by new discoveries (papyri, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi codices, and the like) and the work of scholars such as Michael E. Stone in uncovering, translating and interpreting the materials. It is an ideal project for internet publication, with the ability to update and adjust as needed—providing an openended electronic resource to which all knowledgeable and interested parties are invited to contribute, directly or indirectly. Why bother to develop such an onomastic approach based roughly on biblical sequence? How does it represent a significant improvement over the now tried and true practice of grouping things alphabetically or by genre according to the names and forms of the various writings represented (see DiTommaso and the various anthologies)? In a sense, we are talking about a collection of individual encyclopedia type entries, organized neither alphabetically nor by literary type, but in a rough sequence of the appearance of the associated individuals or groups in the biblical accounts and/or the chronologies derived therefrom. Each individual name becomes a magnet for listing not only associated writings, but also what is known about each personage in pre-modern extracanonical tradition (e.g. hagiographical material, art). Each entry will mention stories and other types of ongoing influence as well as known or lost writings (objects and sites) associated with the name. For those who might find an alphabetic or some other type of organization preferable, the electronic format is sufficiently flexible to permit such variations. And the format also permits progress beyond the initial scope described here, which has “biblical” materials in primary focus. To be more specific, an advantage of doing this electronically is that links (to materials outside the base file) and anchors (within the file) can be created to existing accessible material, thus avoiding needless duplication. Once the outline/structure is in place, following the approach pioneered by MRJ in Lost Apocrypha,18 additional information and links can be inserted with relative ease and existing material can 17

See n. 3 above for the internet address. As a glance at the table of contents for Lost Apocrypha makes clear, MRJ based his initial approach on the various major “lists” from Christian antiquity that mentioned extracanonical works no longer in existence—thus the “Lost” focus in his title. However, he did not limit his presentation to the “lost” items, but created from these lists a structure within which to speak of parabiblical texts and traditions more broadly. This is the approach proposed below for the “NT” materials as well. 18

44

robert a. kraft

be modified. Moving within the material (e.g. alphabetically) or to other files (e.g. existing electronic encyclopedias) is a relatively simple matter, as is modifying the base file to which it all connects. Example #1, “Eve” (Lost Apocrypha, p. 8 ): One of the shortest entries in Lost Apocrypha is that for “Eve” (half a page), following more than seven pages on “Adam” in which “Adam and Eve” materials also are treated. Here is what MRJ has for “Eve” by herself:19 The only book current under this name was a “Gospel,” and Epiphanius is the only authority for its existence. In the same 26th Heresy (2.3 [better 2.6 in K. Holl’s GCS edition]) he says: “Others do not scruple to speak of a Gospel of Eve, for they father their offspring upon her name, as supposedly the discoverer of the food of knowledge by revelation of the serpent that spake to her.” “Their words,” he goes on, “like those of a drunkard, are fit to move sometimes laughter, sometimes tears. They deal in foolish visions and testimonies in this Gospel of theirs.” Thus: “I stood upon a high mountain, and I saw a tall man and another, a short man, and I heard as it were the voice of thunder, and drew near to hearken, and he spake to me and said: ‘I am thou and thou art I. And wheresoever thou art, there am I, and I am dispersed among all things, and whence thou wilt thou canst gather me, and in gathering me thou gatherest thyself.’ ” This is pantheistic stuff, of a kind, one would suppose, very easy to write, if a model were furnished. I give it a place here only for the sake of completeness: it is no more an Old Testament apocryph than it is a gospel.

Of course, in this case MRJ has allowed himself to touch an area he normally avoids—and explicitly excludes from ANT (see above)—the gnostic Christian use of Jewish scriptural names and traditions. This now becomes especially relevant in the post Nag Hammadi discoveries era, with the larger problem of “gnostic” use of “Jewish” materials brought to the fore. Thus our new entry for “Eve” should provide some guidance into those materials, one way or another. But on the 19 The treatment of relevant women in Lost Apocrypha is perhaps worth a brief note. In addition to “Eve,” there is an entry for “NOAH: NORIA HIS WIFE,” following the treatment of Noah alone. Asenath/Aseneth does not get a separate entry, although in connection with “Joseph,” MRJ expounds his theory that the “Prayer(s) of Aseneth” is a substitute title for the “Prayer of Joseph” (which does have its own entry). There are no separate treatments of Susanna or Judith or the Maccabean martyr/mother (“Martha Shamuni”?) or of the Sibylline Oracles (but see xiv, 12, 101). Otherwise, he does mention the Acts of St. Katherine (p. 33) and “Queen Mary’s Prayer-book” (13f ) among relevant sources to explore.

the

LOST APOCRYPHA

of m. r. james

45

“pseudepigrapha” side of things, DiTommaso has no entry for “Eve,” apart from “Adam,” and does not seem to have a sub-entry under “Adam” for this “Gospel of Eve”—at least not that could be located through the table of contents (unfortunately, DiTommaso lacks an index). On the “NTA” side, although Hennecke-Schneemelcher includes a section on “Gospels under the names of holy women” within the larger entry for “Other Gnostic Gospels and Related Literature” (by H.-C. Puech, revised by B. Blatz), this “Eve” material is not mentioned there. Denis does include a brief notice, in discussing Epiphanius’ evidence, and refers also to E. Preuschen’s Antilegomena: Die Reste der ausserkanonischen Evangelien und urchristlichen Überlieferungen, no. 19.20 We have here a good example of material that seems to fall helplessly between the conventional “OT” and “NT” categories—not unlike various other items represented in Lost Apocrypha and ANT— and hopefully by paying closer attention to this material, we may be able to throw further light on its origins and development. Eve is not an insignificant figure in the Nag Hammadi texts,21 and the way she is treated in some of these materials (e.g. the Apocalypse of Adam), suggests that the description found in Epiphanius is not all that remote from what may well have been pre-Christian Jewish traditions that focused on Eve, despite MRJ’s rather cursory dismissal. Example #2, Og and the Giants (Lost Apocrypha, 40–42): The section by MRJ on “Og” is somewhat longer than his “Eve,” and nicely illustrates various shortcomings of Lost Apocrypha as well as some of its values and potential. The “Og” material now requires extensive adjustment, since it deserves to be part of (or related to) a general section on “the Giants” that we find so important in the “Enochic” and other ancient Jewish and Christian (and Muslim) traditions. James knew that there was at least one ancient claim that there was a Manichaean book on “The Activities of the Giants,” but

20 Giessen: Töpelman, 1901; 2d ed. 1905. See A.-M. Denis, Introduction aus Pseudepigraphes Grecs d’Ancien Testament (SVTP 1; Leiden: Brill 1970), 302. 21 The first edition of The Nag Hammadi Library in English (ed. J. M. Robinson; New York: Harper & Row, 1977) includes a convenient index that unfortunately was dropped from later editions. Eve appears numerous times (listed here by codex number/[title]/lines): 2.1 [Apocryphon of John] 24.15 (see also the version in 4.1.38.4–6; 2.3 [Gospel of Philip] 68.23; 70.20; 2.4 [Hypostasis of the Archons] 91.31, 34ff.; 2.5 [Origin of the World ] 113.33ff.; 5.5 [Apocalypse of Adam] 64ff.; 9.1 [Melchizedek] 10.1; 9.3 [Testimony of Truth] 46.3, 8.

46

robert a. kraft

instead of attempting to discuss it as such, he subsumes it under his “Og” treatment. Today, we speak unhesitatingly about a “Book of the Giants” associated (most notably by J. T. Milik) with the Enoch materials from the Dead Sea Scrolls.22 Here is what MRJ has to say about “Og,” to which I have added some proposed supplements and adjustments in brackets as a move in the direction of the “New (electronic) James” project (further elaborated in the outline that follows): Og [and “the Giants” in general] The book of Og the Giant who is said by the heretics to have fought with a dragon after the Flood. This is the most sensational entry in the Gelasian Decree. How we should like to have the book in which such stirring incidents were related! What can we elicit from records, or reasonably conjecture, about it? It was circulated by heretics. What heretics? I guess the Manichaeans, for in a list of Manichaean books given by Timotheus, Presbyter of Constantinople (Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N.T. 1, 139) is one called “The matter (or treatise) of the Giants” (≤ t«n gigãntvn pragmate¤a), which may fairly be identified with the Book of Og [or more probably, with the “Book of the Giants” mentioned elsewhere]. Other Manichaean writings—the Foundation and the Treasure of Life—are condemned, be it noted in passing, in the Gelasian Decree. But how should Og, who was conquered and slain by Moses [Num 21.33, 32.33, Deut 1.4, 3.1–13, 4.47, 29.7, 31.4; note that Deut 3.11 identifies him with the giants, and presents a legend about his unusual bedstead], have fought with a dragon after the Flood? It is the constant [frequent, at least—see Ginzberg 3:346 = 6:117, 119] Rabbinic story that 22 See DiTommaso, Bibliography, 426f. (“On the Book of Giants in Rabbinic and Manichean sources”—no specific reference to “Og”); and especially W. B. Henning, “The Book of Giants,” BSOAS 11 (1943–46): 52–74; and J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976). For more recent detailed discussions, see F. García Martínez “The Book of Giants” in his Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 97–115; and J. C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (HUCM 14; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992). The index to Ginzberg’s Legends of the Jews includes an entry for “Giants, see also Angels, the fallen, Nephilim, and Og” and under “Og,” there are about thirty-four references— see especially 6.117ff. for the detailed notes. García Martínez hazards a convenient summary of the lost Book of Giants, based on the identified DSS fragments (110): “it consisted of a summary of the Book of Watchers [‘1 Enoch’ 1–36], a detailed description of their progeny, a distinction between the punishment inflicted on Azazel and that reserved for Shemihazah, a narrative of some deeds of the giants, prior to their confinement in prison, and a minute account of the discussions between Shemihazah and Hahyah that gave way to a double message from Mahaway to Enoch, in which he begged him to interpret his dream, as well as Enoch’s response in which he rebuked the giants and praised God.”

the

LOST APOCRYPHA

of m. r. james

47

he was one of the antediluvian giants, and that he escaped the Flood by riding on the roof of Noah’s ark, being fed by Noah [Ginzberg 1:160, n. 35] and, further, that he was identical with Eliezer the servant of Abraham [Ginzberg 1:203 on “Ogi” and/or Eliezer, 3:344 on their identity]. Once one of his teeth fell out, and Abraham made an armchair out of it [Ginzberg 3:344, he made a “bed” from it]. This and many other stories demonstrating his great size [e.g. Ginzberg 3.343], may be found collected in Eisenmenger’s Entdecktes Judenthum [around 1700 (2d ed. 1711)] or Baring-Gould’s Legends of Old Testament Characters [1871; and more fully in Ginzberg’s Legends of the Jews]. But there is nothing in them about a dragon.23

At this point James introduces some material from the undocumented Dialogue of Salomon [or Solomon] and Saturn24 as follows: An unexpected source gives what may be a reminiscence of that incident. In the metrical Anglo-Saxon Dialogue of Salomon and Saturn are the following question and answer: “Salomon: Tell me of the land where no man may step with feet. “Saturnus quoth: The sailor over the sea, the noble one, was named Wandering Wolf (weallende Wulf ), well known unto the tribes of the Philistines, the friend of Nebrond (= Nimrod), He slew upon the plain five-and-twenty dragons at daybreak, and himself fell down there dead: therefore that land may not any man—that boundary place any one visit, nor bird fly over it, or any more the cattle of the field. Thence the poisonous race first of all widely arose, which now bubbling through breath of poison force their way. Yet shines his sword mightily sheathed, and over his burial-place glimmer the hilts.” Only a reminiscence, clearly, if that: for Og, we see, survived the combat for many centuries [to the time of Moses!]. But quite possibly 23 A more comprehensive depiction of the biblical and rabbinic Og stories can be found in the article by Hirsch, Schreiber, Bacher, and Lauterbach in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which also would have been available to MRJ had he cared to use it (and is now available online at http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/enc.jsp). 24 Found in MSS 422 and 41 in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. An Old English prose version of this material is also found in British Library Cotton Vitellius A.15 (part 1) [see http://www.bartleby.com/211/0400.html; see also Cotton Julius A.ii at http://www.shef.ac.uk/hri/bl/mss/jul1.htm], and was edited by J. M. Kemble, The Dialogue of Salomon and Saturnus (London: Aelfric Society, 1848)—see http:// www.northvegr.org/lore/othin/002_01php for the suggestion of H. M. Chadwick: “In the dialogue of Salomon and Saturn the following passage occurs: ‘Tell me who first invented letters? I tell thee, Mercurius the giant’ (Mercurius se gygand). It is, of course, possible that the Graeco-Latin god is meant. There is another possible reference in the Runic poem. 1.10: ‘ “Os” is the beginning of every speech,’ etc. The meaning of the passage is exceedingly obscure. It is not unlikely that the poem has been revised by some person who did not thoroughly understand his original. In the older poem Os might have meant Woden” [or perhaps we are seeing an Og passage?]; see also the “Solomon” entry in the “New (electronic) James.”

48

robert a. kraft a reminiscence, for the hero is of the right sort of date, the friend of Nimrod, and early enough to be connected with the rise of the whole tribe of venomous beasts. Dragons and floods are not unconnected in mythology. Sometimes the dragon, it is thought, is a torrent or flood personified; sometimes (as in Rev 12.15) he is the source of it. We may remember that it was after the Deucalion flood that the Python took up his abode at Delphi, where Apollo slew him. Some such myth as that lies, perhaps, at the bottom of the lost story of Og.

We can see the wheels spinning in the mind of this savant of antique legends, this imaginative creator of ghost stories and paranatural fictions. We can also sample the frustration of the less-well-instructed reader attempting to follow the drift of his pregnant conjectures and the attendant allusions.25 For our “New (electronic) James,” the outline for the section/article dealing with Og thus takes this shape: • Title and coverage (Giants), including biblical contexts and connections—A general discussion of the “giants” traditions (Nefilim, Gibborim, Rephaim, Anakim, etc.), with bibliography and links to available encyclopedic sources such as the Jewish Encyclopedia http://www. jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=215&letter=G [Giants article] • Extrabiblical Legends & their transmitters (general, and also for specific figures such as Og or Goliath—see e.g. http://www. creationdays. dk/biblestudy/Giants-OG%20def.html; or http://www. jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=35& letter=O) • Ancient Near East (Ugaritic? see “Daniel/Dan’el” entry)26 • early Jewish apocalyptic (“Watchers” materials) • Rabbinic stories (see especially Ginzberg)

25 Nimrod is described as one of the “mighty ones” in Gen 10.8–9 (see also 1 Chr 1.10), and is often identified as a giant (e.g. in Dante) or as connected with giants in various traditions; the theme of dragons and floods conjures up discussions of primeval struggles between goddess Tiamat and Tehom (the deep) in Babylonian cosmogeny, and also of the sea-monster Leviathan (see Isa 27.1), among other traditions; Deucalion is the Greek counterpart to biblical Noah, and in Greek tradition the god Apollo slew the Python-serpent which came from the mud of the deluge of Deucalion. For a quick impression of the abiding influence of such traditions, internet searches on google.com are most revealing. 26 A separate article entitled “Daniel Outside the Traditional Jewish Canon: In the Footsteps of M. R. James” is forthcoming, and is also included, in a fuller form and with any updates or revisions, at the appropriate location on the project web site (see above, n. 3).

the

LOST APOCRYPHA

of m. r. james

49

• various Christian traditions including “heretical” Manichaean interests • Muslim traditions • Specific Writings (with bibliographical guides): • Book of the Watchers (“1 Enoch” 1–36) • Book of Giants (fragmentary) • Book of Og (lost) • Perhaps at this point the “Heavenly Tablets” also deserves mention?27

Expanding the “New James” Concept to Early Christian Materials Carrying this approach over into early Christian material with “NT” associations is not difficult, at least in principle. Most of the main personages mentioned in the traditions about Jesus and/or the early development of what becomes “Christianity” have literature associated with them. But attempting to follow the lead provided by the various ancient literature lists (as MRJ does at the start of Lost Apocrypha) can lead to various difficulties.28 Not all of the materials in those lists are associated with individuals (e.g. Gospel of the Hebrews), nor are the associations included in the lists always within the historical context of the “NT” anthology (e.g. Penitence of Origen). A taxonomy of these “NT” and early Christian materials would begin with a primary focus on persons mentioned in the canonical 27 The Enochic (and associated) literature frequently makes reference to things written on “the heavenly tablets,” and the extent to which such a concept may have influenced the development of “apocalyptic” traditions deserves closer scrutiny. Whether antiquity knew of any actual writings by that title, and if so, what their connection to the Watchers/Giants may have been, is not clear. 28 For example, in the Muratorian Canon (ca. 200 CE? from an eigth century Latin Fragment) we find reference to rejected writings by Arsinous, Valentinus, Miltiades, Marcion, and Basilides [Montanus?]; in the Gelasian Decretal (sixth century?; see also Stichometry of Nicephorus [ca. ninth century?] and Catalogue of the Sixty Books [seventh century?]) there are various “odd” references that challenge the proposed organization such as: Gospels which Lucian has forged, Gospels which Hesychius has forged, Gospel of the Hebrews, The Teaching of Ignatius, The Teaching of Polycarp, All books which Leucius, the disciple of the devil, has made, Book which is called Foundation, Book which is called Treasure, Book which is called of Nepos, Book which is called Penitence of Origen, Book which is called Penitence of the Holy Cyprian, The book Physiologus, compiled by heretics and called by the name of the blessed Ambrose, The History of Eusebius Pamphili (and several other patristic authors), Passion (Martyr Acts) of Cyricus and of Iulitta, Passion of Georgius, and a long list of “heretical” writings down through the 5th century. For the texts of the main lists see http://www.ntcanon.org/lists.shtml.

50

robert a. kraft

texts, including, e.g., John the Baptist and his family members, Jesus and his family members, Roman officials (Augustus, Pilate), the women and other disciples (“the Twelve,” “the Seventy”) surrounding Jesus, Paul and his associates (Timothy, Titus, Thecla, etc.). There would be a category of “Writings Associated with Christian ‘Heretics’ ”— judaizing (e.g., Gospel of the Hebrews) or gnosticizing (e.g., Gospel of Basilides, Marcionite works). Major second century figures such as Ignatius or Polycarp would be represented as well. Barnabas Sample Entry (In Outline) For a sample entry, consider “Barnabas,” the main elements of which are summarized here: • Biblical Connections and Extrabiblical Traditions: • Joseph, surnamed Barnabas (“son of encouragement”), a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4.36f. [var Barsabbas]) • Acts 1.23 var (replacement for Judas): Joseph called Barsabbas (var Barnabas D 1831 it aeth) • Sold land and donated proceeds to Jerusalem followers of Jesus (Acts 4.36f.) • Sponsor/companion of Paul (Acts 9.27, 11.25f., 12.25ff., etc., 1 Cor 9.6) • Commended by Paul in 2 Cor 8.18? (Luke or Barnabas according to [ps-?] John of Damascus, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul {TLG 2934.053} Migne 95.749 line 22) • Rebuked by Paul at Antioch for “hypocricy” (Gal 2.11ff.) • Separated from Paul, associated with “cousin” John called Mark (Acts 15.38f., Col 4.10) • Introduced Clement of Rome to Christianity (Ps.-Clem. Rec. 1.7–13) • One of the seventy [or 72] sent out by Jesus in Luke 10.1 (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.20; Hypotyposeis in Eusebius HE 2.1.5) • Preached in Alexandria (Ps.-Clem. Hom 2.5.1; Alexander, Laudatio Barnabae 381) • First preached Christ in Rome, then became bishop of Mediolanos—see Vitae Prophetarum, Index apostolorum discipulorumque Domini {TLG 1750.004} ed. Scherman (1907), p. 135 line 17 • Martyred in Cyprus (Acts of Barnabas 23)—see also Christophorus Mytilenaeus, Calendaria metrica (stichera et canones) {TLG 3019.001} ed. Follieri (1980) Month iun stichera-canon can line 37

the

•

•

• •

LOST APOCRYPHA

of m. r. james

51

• [Association of a relic of Barnabas on Cyprus with a noteworthy copy of the Gospel of Matthew]—Georgius Monachus, Chronicon {TLG 3043.001} ed. de Boor (1904) p. 619 Writer of an “Epistle” (also mentioned in several lists, included in biblical codex Sinaiticus): • Biographical notice in Jerome, de viris inlustribus 6: “Barnabas the Cypriot, also called Joseph the Levite, ordained apostle to the Gentiles with Paul, wrote one Epistle, valuable for the edification of the Church, which is reckoned among the apocryphal writings. He afterwards separated from Paul on account of John, a disciple also called Mark, none the less exercised the work laid upon him of preaching the Gospel.” • Author of NT Epistle to the Hebrews according to some traditions: e.g. Tertullian [ca. 200, North Africa] De Pudicitia (Concerning Modesty) 20: “For there is extant an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas—a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself in the uninterrupted observance of abstinence.” Writer of a Gospel: • Gospel of Barnabas (ancient, apparently lost) • Gospel of Barnabas (late medieval, Muslim orientation) Focus of Acts of Barnabas {TLG 2949.001} ed. Bonnet (1903) Eulogized by Alexander, Laudatio Barnabae apostoli {TLG 2860.003} ed. von Doun (1993)

Hopefully, the potentials of such an approach are obvious—it gathers and coordinates various sorts of material under the name of the individual (or sometimes the group or text) with whom some ancient extrabiblical writings have been connected (thus “Lost Apocrypha,” broadly speaking). As a magnet (or set of magnets) for associated information, it is a dynamic, living project, and invites contributions from and linkage to various sources. It will not automatically generate the sort of quasi-popular treatment that MRJ apparently had in mind in his Lost Apocrypha, but it owes a great debt to him for getting the ball rolling in a direction he could scarcely have imagined.

WHERE IS THE PLACE OF ESCHATOLOGICAL BLESSING? George W. E. Nickelsburg The University of Iowa

In a review of my commentary on 1 Enoch, John Collins questions the propriety of my describing the collection’s eschatology as primarily “this worldly.”1 One should emphasize, rather, the transformatory character of 1 Enoch’s eschatology, whether it be set on earth or in heaven. That the end time effects the transformation of humans and their cosmic context is clear enough, as I have, in fact, emphasized at a number of points.2 Nonetheless, Collins’ observation suggests that a closer look at the setting of 1 Enoch’s eschatology is an appropriate topic for a tribute to Michael Stone, a longtime friend who has spent a lifetime working on this literature. My comment about the “this worldly” character of 1 Enoch’s apocalypticism was responding to a stereotype, frequently expressed by Christian interpreters, that apocalyptic texts posit heaven as the place of salvation. In fact, 1 Enoch’s references to the future place of blessing for the righteous are complex and sometimes ambiguous. The present study will review the relevant texts in A) 1 Enoch; B) some contemporary Jewish literature; and C) a few books of the New Testament; and I shall conclude that a new or renewed earth is more often the object of promise than many suppose.

1 J. J. Collins, “An Enochic Testament? Comments on George Nickelsburg’s Hermeneia Commentary,” in George W. E. Nickelsburg in Perspective: An Ongoing Dialogue in Learning (ed. J. Neusner and A. Avery-Peck; 2 vols.; JSJSup 80:1–2; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 2:377–78. 2 G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 5, 49, 167, 224, etc. ad loc. All translations of 1 Enoch in this paper are my own.

george w. e. nickelsburg

54

A. 1 Enoch 1. Chapters 6–11 This conflation of traditions is at its heart an eschatologized interpretation of Genesis 6–9.3 When the mating of the sons of God and the daughters of men causes the devastation and pollution of the earth, God sends Sariel, Raphael, Gabriel, and Michael to exact judgment on the culprits and to renew and purify the earth (1 Enoch 10:1–11:2). In describing this renewal and purification, the author reinterprets the post-diluvian scenario in Genesis 9, employing motifs from Third Isaiah, especially 65:17–25.4 According to Third Isaiah, God will “create new heavens and a new earth” (cf. also 66:22), as well as a new Jerusalem. Evil will be purged, people will live to an old age, the earth will be fruitful and at peace, and the renewed cosmos and the righteous people of God and their descendants will remain in God’s presence (66:22). The author of 1 Enoch 10:1–11:2 transforms and enhances Third Isaiah’s motifs, but never completely strays from them. Different from Isaiah 65–66, heaven is mentioned here only once, and not as the object of a new creation, but as the source of the blessings that will be poured out upon the earth (11:1). The text focuses on “the earth” (which is mentioned five times) and what will occur on it. New creation (though this expression is not used) involves, first, a moral and ontological transformation—the removal of “all impurity,” “all wrong,” “all lawlessness,” and “all sin.” Second, there is a material or physical dimension: “all the righteous . . . will live until they beget thousands, and their days will be completed in peace” (10:17). Moreover, the earth itself will be fabulously fertile, with an enormous productivity of wine, grain, and oil (10:18–19). This situation is truly eschatological, and it is universal. These circumstances will continue “forever,” “for all the generations of eternity,” “for all the days of eternity,” and “for all the generations of humanity” (10:16, 22; 11:2): the adjective “all” or “each” occurs twenty-five times in twenty-six lines. The mythic dimensions of this description notwithstanding, the humans who live to great old age are not said to be immortal, nor is there any mention of resurrection or of a blessed post-mortem existence on earth or in heaven. 3 4

Ibid., 166–68. Ibid., 226–27.

where is the place of eschatological blessing?

55

2. 1 Enoch 20–36 If chapters 6–11 do not say anything about resurrection and eternal life, chapters 20–36 are ambiguous in what they say about these issues. 1 Enoch 22 recounts the seer’s vision of the mountain of the dead— a geographic variation on Sheol, located in the far west.5 A first version of the traditions in vv. 1–4 described a mountain with an unspecified number of caves in which all the souls or spirits of the dead were “gathered.” A later revision of this tradition specifies the number of caves as four, which separate the righteous and various groups of the non-righteous from one another (vv. 2, 9–13). Thus, the authors of these traditions focus on the condition of humans after they die, and in the second case, appropriate retribution occurs in this place of the dead. The righteous are favored with “light” and a “fountain of water.” This mountain, however, is not the final resting place of the righteous. Certain of the non-righteous—because they were already recompensed during their lives—will “not be raised” (v. 13). This negative formulation presumes that the spirits of certain other persons will be raised. Such a resurrection pertains explicitly to the extremely wicked, who will be judged and relegated to terrible future torment (v. 11). But what of the righteous? In Enoch’s vision of the mountain of God (24:5–25:6),6 Michael, the interpreting angel, explains that at the time of the great judgment, the tree of life will be transplanted to the place of the sanctuary ( Jerusalem), where it will nourish the righteous and pious and chosen (25:5–6). The passage echoes Third Isaiah’s oracle about the new earth and the new Jerusalem (65:17–25). As in chapters 10–11, the eschaton is here located on a transformed earth. The “torments and plagues and suffering” that characterize life here and now will disappear, and the righteous will live on earth a bodily existence that is as long as that of Enoch’s forebears (900 years). As in chapters 10–11, the author emphasizes the blessed earthly future of the righteous, but does not say what will happen to them after those 900 years. Whether this almost millennial existence of the righteous is promised to the righteous dead (chapter 22), as well as the righteous who are alive on earth at the great judgment is uncertain. The text does not explicitly speak to the final post-mortem state of the righteous. 5 On this text, see ibid., 300–309, where I follow M.-T. Wacker, Weltordnung und Gericht: Studien zu 1 Henoch 22 (FB 45; Würzburg: Echter, 1982). 6 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 312–16.

george w. e. nickelsburg

56 3. 1 Enoch 1–5

These chapters, which were composed as an introduction to a stage in the development of the Enochic corpus that included chapters 6–36,7 describe the coming theophany, and the consequences of the great judgment for the sinners and the righteous and chosen. Chapter 5:5–9 spells out these consequences in a set of three strophes, whose alternating units about the fate of the sinners and the chosen echo the form and language of Isaiah 65.8 The chosen, we are told twice, will “inherit the earth,” and, moreover, But the number of the days of their life they will complete; and their life will grow in peace; and the years of their joy will increase in rejoicing and eternal peace, in all the days of their life. (5:9)

The scenario is roughly the same as that in chapters 6–11 and 24:2– 25:7. The shape of the world changes in that the sinners are destroyed, and the chosen live an (unspecified) long period of time on the earth. The expression 'alam (which I presume to stand behind the Greek aiònos [‘eternal’] in v. 9) need not be taken to mean “unending,” but may designate, as in the previous text, a life into an unimaginably long future. The author does not refer to a resurrection or to an eternal existence in heaven. His focus is on future life on earth. 4. 1 Enoch 93:1–10; 91:11–17 The Apocalypse of Weeks differs from the previous texts in that it is structured temporally as a periodized account of human history from creation into the eschaton.9 Of these ten historical periods, called “weeks” or “heptads,” the first six summarize history from creation to the Babylonian Exile (93:3–8). The seventh period provides a transition into a series of four judgments. The main part of the seventh period runs from what we call the sixth century BCE to the early second century BCE It is a time of total perversity, and the return from the exile and the rebuilding of the Temple are not even mentioned (93:9). 7 L. Hartman, Asking for a Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1–5 (ConBNT 12; Lund: Gleerup, 1979), 138–45; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 132. 8 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 161. 9 Ibid., 434–50.

where is the place of eschatological blessing?

57

The end of the seventh period is the transition to the eschaton, and with one exception, all the remaining events in the Apocalypse of Weeks take place on earth. To some degree they correspond to, and elaborate on, the events in chapters 10–11. At the end of the seventh period, the revelation of sevenfold wisdom constitutes the eschatological community of the chosen from “the eternal plant of righteousness” (93:10; cf. 10:16). Functioning as “witnesses of righteousness,” they execute judgment by uprooting the foundations of violence and the structure of deceit (91:11)—those persons (or that community) whose false teaching and violent acts are a threat against the community of the chosen. This is the first judgment. In the eighth period—a “week of righteousness” (91:12–13)—“all the righteous” (evidently a larger group than the initial chosen) wield God’s sword and execute judgment on “all the wicked.” At the conclusion of this period, the righteous acquire great wealth, and “the temple of the kingdom of the Great One will be built in the greatness of its glory for all the generations of eternity.” Clearly, this series of events occurs on earth. This is also the case in the ninth period: in which righteous law will be revealed to all the sons of the whole earth; and all the deeds (or doers) of wickedness will vanish from the whole earth and descend into the eternal pit; and all humankind will look to the path of eternal righteousness (91:14).

As in 10:20–22, humanity apart from the community of the righteous becomes righteous by obeying the right law that is now revealed to them, presumably through the agency of the community of the righteous and chosen. Thus, the earth is cleansed of all wickedness, and the situation described in 10:20–22 obtains: the whole earth returns to its primordial pristine condition. The major difference from chapters 10–11 is that in the Apocalypse of Weeks, God gives to the righteous the judicial functions that the early tradition ascribes to the angel Michael. The eschatological scenario continues in the tenth period, when God exacts judgment on the rebel Watchers. This, too, appears to occur on earth (cf. the parallel traditions in 10:4–5, 11–12; 14:5).10 With the earth totally renewed through the removal of sin and sinners, the other event described by Third Isaiah now occurs. In the tenth 10 For a tradition that places the Watchers’ prison in the heavens, however, see J. H. Elliott, 1 Peter (AB 34B; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 700–704.

george w. e. nickelsburg

58

period, a new heaven appears, and all the luminaries shine with full brightness (91:16). It is the one event that does not occur on earth. This final disposition of things is only the beginning. The tenth week is followed by “many weeks without number forever” (91:17). The author expects the new heaven and the new earth to continue without end. That the earth is included in this scenario is indicated by the last two lines. The eternal procession of weeks comprises those: in which they will do piety and righteousness, and from then on sin will never again be mentioned.

It would be superfluous to make this claim for existence in heaven. The eternal destruction of sin is appropriate in a reference to a renewed earth, from which the sin that had predominated is eternally removed. The author of the Apocalypse of Weeks has elaborated the TritoIsaianic scenario as it was already interpreted in the traditions in 1 Enoch 1–36. Like Third Isaiah, and different from the earlier Enochic traditions, his vision is explicitly cosmic and refers to a renewed heaven and earth. Also different from various parts of 1 Enoch 1–36, he makes no reference to the great old age of the righteous or to their post-mortem condition. 5. 1 Enoch 92–105 The Apocalypse of Weeks came to be embodied in a larger unit, known as the Epistle of Enoch (1 Enoch 92–105).11 The body of the Epistle (chapters 94–105) indicates some important points of continuity with the Apocalypse of Weeks. As in the eighth week (91:12), the righteous will wield the sword of the Lord against the sinners, who have been delivered into their hands (95:3; 98:12). Moreover, the community of the righteous will mediate revelation (here explicitly Enochic instruction) to those who turn from their sinful ways (104:12–105:2; 100:6). Overall, however, the Epistle has a different focus from the Apocalypse and complements this with a different eschatology that applies to individual human beings. The dominant literary components in the Epistle are long strings of woes that focus on the details of the sinners’ misdeeds and the unjust suffering of the righteous, which will be the object of God’s judgment. The pattern of action/lack of consequence/ 11 On the possible relationship of the Apocalypse and the Epistle, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 24–26, 335–37. On the Epistle as a whole, see ibid., 416–29.

where is the place of eschatological blessing?

59

ultimate retribution is epitomized and examined in detail in 102:4– 104:8.12 Especially noteworthy is the belief that the spirits of the righteous and the sinners descend into Sheol after death. Although this section alludes to Enoch’s vision in chapter 22, there are some important differences. Here the author deals unambiguously with the events that follow, and his eschatology differs, in part, from chapters 20–36. First, the spirits dwell in Sheol rather than in the mountain of the dead in the west. Second, although the sinners will be pitched into eternal torment (22:11; here the fires of Sheol, 103:7–8), the spirits of the righteous will ascend to heaven, where they will be transformed into the likeness of the angels and live forever as their companions (104:4, 6). As I understand it, this is the first reference in the Enochic corpus to an eternal heavenly existence for the righteous. How this assertion fits with other Enochic views of a renewed earth and a long life on it for the righteous is unclear. This author does not explicate the relationship between the judgment that brings the righteous and the sinners out of their status intermedius, the judgment against the wicked in which the righteous participate, and the eschatological promulgation of Enochic teaching. As the Epistle is finally structured, however, one is justified in reading the various events of the judgment in light of the Apocalypse of Weeks.13 Chapters 102–104, however, focus on the problem of theodicy and the fate of the righteous who died unjustly. 6. 1 Enoch 85–90 The Animal Vision, which dates from the first third of the second century BCE, is an extensive allegorical account of the history of humanity from creation to the eschaton. It is related to the Apocalypse of Weeks, though the precise relationship is unclear.14 The last part of the Vision depicts a series of judgments that correspond to those in the Apocalypse of Weeks. First, the sheep (Israel) are given a sword to use against the wild beasts and birds of prey (the gentiles) (90:19; cf. 91:12). Then the books are opened and judgment is rendered against the rebel Watchers and the negligent angelic shepherds (90:20–25; cf. 91:15). Then the apostate Jews are cast into 12 13 14

Ibid., 516–30. Ibid., 424–25. Ibid., 360, 398–99.

george w. e. nickelsburg

60

Gehenna (90:26–27). After this, the new Jerusalem is built (90:28–29; cf. 91:13). Next, the dispersed and destroyed Israelite sheep are returned to Jerusalem (90:33), evidently a reference to the return of the diaspora and/or a resurrection of the dead. Finally, a great white bull is born, analogous to Adam or one of the primordial patriarchs, and all the wild beasts and birds of prey are transformed into white bulls (90:37–38). This reversion of the whole human race to the pristine purity of creation corresponds to other Enochic references about the conversion of “all the sons of the whole earth” (10:21–22; 91:14; 105:1–2; 100:6). The whole scenario is played out on earth and in the vicinity of a new and restored Jerusalem. Heaven, on the other hand, is the place of God and the angels, as well as two very special people whom tradition puts there, namely Enoch and Elijah. If 90:33 refers to a resurrection of the dead, their new place is in the new earthly Jerusalem. 7. 1 Enoch 37–71 The Enochic Book of Parables is dominated by accounts of the seer’s heavenly visions of the Chosen One/Son of Man and the events of the judgment over which he will preside.15 These passages present some interpretive problems relating to the issue under discussion. One text explicitly locates the place of the righteous dead in heaven, among the angels. Enoch has been taken up to heaven. He recounts his first vision; I saw there another vision—the dwellings of the holy ones, and the resting places of the righteous. There my eyes saw their dwellings with his righteous angels, and their resting places with the holy ones. And they were petitioning and interceding and praying for the sons of men. (39:4–5d)

In the Parables, “the righteous and the chosen” is the normal word pair applied to the people of God. Here the author calls them “the holy and the righteous,” a term he also applies to the angels. If I correctly understand the antecedents of the pronouns, v. 5cd also attributes 15

G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 214–21; idem, “Son of Man,” ABD 6:138–40.

where is the place of eschatological blessing?

61

to these human beings the intercessory functions of the angels, thus suggesting their transformation to an angelic state. Thus this text appears to parallel 102:4–104:8. Other texts in the Parables complicate the issue. The second Parable concerns the sinners and states that they will not ascend to heaven (45:1–2). This implies that the righteous will ascend to heaven. But the text continues in a different direction. The Chosen One will sit on the throne of glory in order to judge these sinners (45:3). On that day, I shall make my Chosen One dwell among them (my chosen ones), and I shall transform heaven and make it a blessing and a light forever; and I shall transform the earth and make it a blessing. And my chosen ones I shall make to dwell on it, but those who commit sin and error will not set foot on it. For I have seen and satisfied with peace my righteous ones, and have made them to dwell in my presence. But the judgment of the sinners has drawn near to me, that I may destroy them from the face of the earth. (45:4–6)

Here the author takes up the Trito-Isaianic notion of a new heaven and a new earth, tying it temporally to the time of the judgment. As elsewhere in 1 Enoch, the righteous/chosen will live on this earth, which will be rid of the presence of sin and sinners. The reference to “my presence” stands in parallelism with “the face of the earth.” This could mean that the righteous who live in heaven will descend to live on the transformed earth. It could also refer to those who are still alive at the judgment. Two resurrection passages emphasize future earthly existence. According to 51:1–5, 1) In those days, the earth will restore what has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will restore what it has received, and destruction will restore what it owes. 5a) For in those days, my Chosen One will arise,16 2a) and choose the righteous and holy from among them, for the day on which they will be saved has drawn near.

16

Following R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 2:218, I posit a displacement of 51:5a because “my Chosen One” seems a better subject of “choose” than does “destruction.”

62

george w. e. nickelsburg 3) And the Chosen One, in those days, will sit upon my throne, and all the secrets of wisdom will go forth from the counsel of his mouth for the Lord of Spirits has given (them) to him and glorified him. 4) In those days the mountains will leap like rams, and the hills will skip like lambs satisfied with milk; and the faces of all the angels in heaven will be radiant with joy, 5b) and the earth will rejoice, and the righteous will dwell on it and the chosen will walk on it.

First there will be a general resurrection of those who dwell in Sheol. Then the Chosen One, who presides over the judgment, will choose the righteous and holy from among those who have risen. Then, according to vv. 4 and 5b, the righteous and chosen will dwell on the earth. This scenario appears to stand in blatant contradiction to 39:4–5, which places the righteous dead in heaven among the angels. A similar notion of resurrection appears in 61:5: And these measures will reveal all the secrets of the depths of the earth, and those who were destroyed by the desert, and those who were devoured by beasts, and those who were devoured by the fish of the sea; so that they may return and rely on the day of the Chosen One; for no one will be destroyed in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, and no one is able to be destroyed.

Here resurrection appears to bring to life those who lie in the depths of the earth, evidently Sheol. One final passage is ambiguous: And the righteous and the chosen will be saved on that day; and the faces of the sinners and the unrighteous they will henceforth not see. And the Lord of Spirits will abide over them, and with that son of man they will eat, and they will lie down and rise up forever and ever. And the righteous and the chosen will have arisen from the earth, and have ceased to cast down their faces, and have put on the garment of glory. And this will be your garment, the garment of life from the Lord of Spirits; and your garments will not wear out, and your glory will not fade in the presence of the Lord of Spirits. (62:13–16)

where is the place of eschatological blessing?

63

The passage employs language from Isaiah 52:1–2 to refer to a resurrection of the righteous dead. It is unclear, however, whether their glorious garment refers to a transfigured state in heaven or to a glorious existence on a transformed earth. The presence of God and the Son of Man need not imply heaven.17 Part of the evidence in the Parables is clear; part of it is ambiguous and may indicate tension among differing traditions. For the author of the Parables, the primary problem is “the kings and the mighty” ( passim) who “possess the earth” (48:8; 62:1, 6; 63:1, 12). This situation will be ameliorated when “it will not be the mighty and exalted who possess the earth” (38:4). Rather, after the judgment it will be the righteous and chosen who dwell on an earth that is transformed by the removal of sin and that lies under a transformed heaven. This is a leitmotif in the Parables, and at least one passage clearly indicates that these righteous and chosen include those who have been raised from the dead. Another passage, however, places the righteous dead in a glorified state in heaven. 8. Summary Four of the five major sections of 1 Enoch presume that the eschaton will usher in the ongoing existence of a new and transformed earth, totally bereft of sin, and with it, of course, a new heaven. To these we may add the fifth major section, the Book of Luminaries (chapters 72–82), which awaits the new creation that endures forever (72:1; cf. Isa 66:22). The new and transformed earth will be the home of the righteous, who will live astronomically long lives there. Whether at the end of these lives they ascend to heaven is not altogether clear. Only the end of the Epistle of Enoch posits a resurrection to an angelic existence in heaven, and a similar viewpoint is evident in the final appendix of the corpus (108:11–13). Additionally, just one passage in the Parables describes the angelic existence of the righteous in heaven at the time of their death. Overall, however, the various strata of the Enochic corpus emphasize that the eschaton will result in the transformation of the earth. For the most part, this transformation involves the total removal of sin and wickedness.

17

See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 237.

george w. e. nickelsburg

64

B. Other Jewish Writings 1. The Book of Daniel The Book of Daniel evidences the double pattern that we have seen in 1 Enoch. According to chapter 7, after the great judgment (vv. 9–12, 26), all the kingdoms under heaven will be given to “the people of the holy ones of the Most High” (Israel), under the tutelage of the high angel described as “one like a son of man,” and all dominions will serve and obey them (vv. 13–14, 27). That is, life on earth will continue after the great judgment has rid the earth of the violence typified especially by the last of the four kingdoms. The scenario in Dan 12:1–3, with its description of the great judgment and its consequences, is more ambiguous. The exaltation of the wise teachers described in v. 3—although expressed as a simile (“those who are wise will shine like the firmament, and those who bring many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever”)—may well indicate that the members of this special group have ascended to heaven and been transformed into an angelic existence (cf. 1 Enoch 104:4, 6).18 Verse 2 is less clear: Many of those who sleep in the land of dust will awake, some to eternal life and some to eternal reproach.

When I first discussed this passage, I argued that the author was positing a resurrection of the body that was based on an interpretation of Third Isaiah.19 The righteous would live a long life in the new Jerusalem (Isa 65:17–25), and the wicked would have their corpses exposed in the Valley of Hinnom (Isa 66:25). I assumed that since the Isaianic passages referred to bodily existence, the present text must presume the same. What I had not recognized at the time was that (a) the double scenario in v. 2 corresponds precisely to the double vision in 1 Enoch 24:2–25:7 and 26:1–27:5)20 and (b) that this section of 1 Enoch is older than Daniel 12. Thus, Daniel 12:2 looks like an epitome of this section of 1 Enoch. This appears to strengthen the case for

18 For the alternatives, see idem, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS 26; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 26; J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Fortress, 1993), 393–94. Translations of Daniel are my own. 19 Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 19–23. 20 Idem, 1 Enoch 1, 315–16.

where is the place of eschatological blessing?

65

interpreting Dan 12:2 to refer to a resurrection to bodily existence in and around the new Jerusalem. The case is further strengthened by Daniel 7, which presumes the ongoing existence of Israel among the nations after the great judgment, a point I had not made. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that an interpreter need not understand a tradition as it was originally construed. Daniel’s language of resurrection is less specific than one might wish.21 2. The Book of Jubilees This text is roughly contemporary with Daniel.22 In chapter 1 the author speaks of a new creation, like that in Third Isaiah and 1 Enoch. The book is a transcription of part of the heavenly tablets that recount human history: From the time of the new creation when the heavens, the earth, and all their creatures will be renewed like the powers of the sky and like all the creatures of the earth, until the time when the temple of the Lord will be created in Jerusalem on Mt. Zion. All the luminaries will be renewed for (the purpose of ) healing, health, and blessing for all the elect ones of Israel and so that it many remain this way from that time throughout all the days of the earth.23 (1:29)

There will be a new creation of heavens and earth, Jerusalem will have a new sanctuary, and the chosen of Israel will live in these new conditions. The present circumstances of Israel are another matter, however, and chapter 23 deals explicitly with the end time (vv. 12–31).24 Like 1 Enoch and Daniel, the author draws on the language of Third Isaiah (vv. 26–31). In the midst of great sin and divine punishment, “the children” will study the laws and return to the path of righteousness. Then the prematurely old will become young and live to almost a 21 Collins, Daniel, 392. For a similar vague formulation, cf. Pss. Sol. 3:11–12; 13:11; 14:10; 15:13, discussed in Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 131–34. 22 On the date, see J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 17–22; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in M. E. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT 2:2; Assen: van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 101–3. 23 Translation by J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text (CSCO 511; Louvain: Peeters, 1989), 6–7. Text enclosed in brackets is reconstructed by the editor at the suggestion of Michael Stone. 24 Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 31–33.

66

george w. e. nickelsburg

thousand years. When they die, “their bones will rest in the earth, and their spirits will have great joy” (v. 31). Thus the language of Third Isaiah is understood as 1 Enoch 25:4–6 interprets it. The divine judgment does not preclude the ongoing existence of bodily life in a world now bereft of sin and Satan (v. 29). However, the author further specifies, as the other texts do not, that when this bodily life ends, the spirits of the righteous will have a joyful existence in God’s presence. 3. The Testament of Moses This text, which dates in its earliest form to the time of the Book of Daniel,25 provides an interesting contrast to the texts previously discussed. First, it is, as a whole, an interpretation of the last chapters of Deuteronomy rather than of Third Isaiah. Its eschatological scenario in chapter 10 is a conflation of language from Deuteronomy 33 as well as motifs paralleled in both 1 Enoch 1 and Daniel 12:1–3.26 Although its cosmic perspective is explicated in language like that of 1 Enoch 1, there is no reference to a new creation of either the heavens or the earth (cf., however, 10:1). Instead, it states that at the end, God will “exalt” Israel “to the heaven of the stars,” where they will look down on their enemies on earth (10:9–10).27 The notion of exaltation, which Dan 12:3 applies to the wise teachers, here refers to all the righteous of Israel, as it does in 1 Enoch 104:4–6. 4. Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch These three texts date to the latter part of the first century CE,28 roughly 250 years after the writings treated in sections 2–4. Their views on the issues I have been discussing are somewhat clearer than the previous texts. Their authors anticipate a new or renewed creation and also believe in an eternal life for the righteous in heaven. Pseudo-Philo, in a passage that closely parallels 1 Enoch 51:1, states

25

Ibid., 43–45; idem, Jewish Literature, 80–83. Idem, Resurrection, 29, n. 10; idem, 1 Enoch 1, 143–44. 27 For an alternative interpretation, see idem, Resurrection, 31, n. 101. 28 On these texts, see idem, Jewish Literature, 266–68, 281–94 and the literature cited on pp. 275, 308. For more recent works, see F. J. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993; M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). 26

where is the place of eschatological blessing?

67

that there will be a universal resurrection of the dead “when the years appointed for the world have been fulfilled” (3:10). Then “there will be another earth and another heaven, an everlasting dwelling place.” The verse also hints at the tradition about the fertility of the new earth. A second passage asserts that the dwelling place of the resurrected righteous will be “the immortal dwelling place that is not subject to time” (19:12). Fourth Ezra also speaks of a renewed creation (7:75, 112–13), which appears to include a renewed earth (cf. 7:30–32).29 At the same time, the author states that souls of the righteous, now made incorruptible and immortal, will shine like the sun and be made like the light of the stars (7:97), and they will have the privilege of seeing “the face of him whom they have served in life and from whom they are to receive their reward when glorified” (7:98). In 2 Baruch 72–74 the interpretation of the vision of the black and white waters (chapters 53–69) concludes with reference to the coming of the Messiah, whose destruction of Israel’s enemies initiates “the consummation of what is corruptible and the beginning of what is not corruptible” (74:2). It is a time that reverses the curses of Eden (cf. 73:1–74:1 with 56:6) and initiates a renewed earth, blessed with fertility, healing, and harmony between humanity and the wild beasts (cf. Isa 65:25). However, it will not be the home of the resurrected righteous. They, for their part, will ascend to heaven, “the world that does not die” where they will be transformed into the splendor of the angels and the stars (chapters 49–51).30 5. Summary These texts continue the double motif that we have seen in various parts of 1 Enoch. 1) There is an emphasis on a renewed creation with a renewed earth, in part described using motifs from Third Isaiah. 2) The texts also indicate an increasing emphasis on heaven as the final home for the glorified souls or spirits of the exalted righteous.

29 30

Stone, Fourth Ezra, 239, 252. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 84–85.

68

george w. e. nickelsburg C. The New Testament

Although the NT appears to favor the notion of a future blessed life in heaven, the data are more complex than one might suppose. I can sample only a few texts, some of which indicate the double motif that we have seen in the Jewish texts. 1. The Gospel of John Perhaps the most familiar NT example of a heaven-is-my-home theology is the Fourth Gospel. Here “the world” has little positive value. It lies in darkness, and Jesus the Word comes to enlighten it (1:9), but mainly to rescue people from it. In the end, he tells his disciples, “In my Father’s house are many rooms . . . I go to prepare a place for you, that where I am you may be also” (14:1–3). Of the future of this world, we hear not a word. 2. 1 Peter Although 1 Peter is not an apocalypse, it shares general and specific features with 1 Enoch.31 Not only does it use the story of Enoch’s journeys as an archetype for Jesus’ ascent through the heavens (3:18–22),32 it shares 1 Enoch’s dualistic world view. Heaven is the place of divine realia—where the Christian’s imperishable, undefiled, and unfading inheritance is kept until it is revealed at the end time with the appearance of Christ (1:3–9). Nothing here suggests that the “salvation” of the Christians’ souls (1:9) will take place anywhere except in heaven. Other texts preserve the double heaven/earth eschatology of 1 Enoch and other Jewish writings. 2. The Gospel of Matthew Alongside Matthew’s eschatologically oriented theology, which has been influenced by elements of a Son of Man theology paralleled in the Parables of Enoch,33 we find this beatitude: “Blessed are the meek, for 31

Idem, 1 Enoch 1, 560. Elliott, 1 Peter, 652–705. 33 J. Theisohn, Der Auserwählte Richter: Untersuchungen zur traditionsgeschichtlichen Ort der Menschensohnsgestalt den Bilderreden des Äthiopischen Henoch (SUNT 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 182–201. 32

where is the place of eschatological blessing?

69

they will inherit the earth” (5:5) How this future inheritance of the earth fits Matthew’s eschatology is not clear. It is reminiscent of a motif in the Book of Parables. Its uniqueness in Matthew (as opposed to other Q parallels in Luke) is noteworthy and speaks for its importance for this evangelist. 3. The Writings of the Apostle Paul The imminent coming of Christ is central to Paul’s eschatology. His wish is that he might die before that time, so that he can be “with the Lord” (Phil 1:21–24), but here he may be positing a special privilege for himself, since elsewhere he speaks of a resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15; 1 Thess 4:13–17). At the time of the Parousia, the dead will rise and all who are in Christ—dead and alive—will be invested with bodies that have been transformed into the likeness of Christ’s resurrection body (1 Cor 15:49–54; Phil 3:21). Here the Jewish motif of angelic glory has been christologized. According to 1 Thess 4:13–17, Paul expects that the dead and the living will live forever with Christ, having been taken up to meet him in the air. In tension with these and other passages, however, is Rom 8:18–25, which anticipates the liberation and transformation of the whole material creation.34 How Paul reconciled these apparently conflicting assertions is not clear. However, the Jewish precedent for such a double motif cautions us against too quickly downplaying the importance of the Romans passage. 4. 2 Peter Like 1 Peter, this text refers to the Enochic story of the rebel Watchers (2:4).35 It is also one of two NT texts that explicitly refer to the creation of new heavens and a new earth. The presently existent heavens and earth will dissolve in fire, but “we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which (masc. pl.) righteousness dwells” (3:5–13).

34

J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 505–6. B. A. Pearson, “A Reminiscence of Classical Myth at 2 Peter 2:4,” GRBS 10 (1969): 71–80. 35

70

george w. e. nickelsburg

5. The Book of Revelation In its form as an apocalypse in which the seer is taken to heaven to see the events relating to the coming judgment, this work offers the closest first century Christian analog to the Parables of Enoch. A number of other Enochic elements are present as well.36 Of importance here, this author believes that the souls of the righteous dead are in the presence of God (6:9–11; cf. 1 Enoch 39:4–5). The place of their eternal destiny is another matter. One often hears of John’s millennialism—the martyrs’ thousand year reign on earth (20:4–6). Earth, however, plays an additional, much more important role in John’s eschatology: the end of the apocalypse describes a new heaven and a new earth and a glorious new Jerusalem that descends from heaven to earth. It is here, on a new earth, that God will dwell with God’s people (21:1–22:5); they do not ascend to dwell with God in heaven. 6. Summary In the NT texts sampled here, one finds one or the other of the two eschatological motifs found in 1 Enoch, and sometimes both of them. Second Peter and the Johannine Apocalypse refer explicitly to a new heaven and a new earth, and Matthew anticipates eschatological existence on the earth that is to be inherited by the poor. First Peter and the Gospel according to John (a different person from the author of the NT apocalypse) assert that eternal life will take place in heaven, which is contrasted with an earth that is a place of deprivation or even downright evil. Paul anticipates eternal life in heaven, but he also celebrates the coming renewal of the earth.

D. Conclusion Exemplars of Jewish eschatology balance two assertions: (1) the future will see the creation and ongoing existence of a new, transformed earth, bereft of the presence of sin, on which people will live fabulously long lives in total harmony with their friendly environment; (2) after their death the righteous will live an eternal life in heaven. 36 R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (2 vols.; ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920), 1:lxxxii–lxxxiii; 2:141–42.

where is the place of eschatological blessing?

71

The early texts, with their cosmic view, play down the latter motif. Later texts, with the focus on God’s justice for individuals, emphasize it and make it explicit, but for the most part they do not omit the former motif. In keeping with this tendency, NT writers make the latter motif explicit, but the belief in new earth continues in the tradition. Thus, modern theological criticisms of “millennialism” are less to the point than the polemicists acknowledge and may be an end product of the increasingly Platonic disposition of early developing Christian theology.

THE TRADITIONS ABOUT ABRAHAM’S EARLY LIFE IN THE BOOK OF JUDITH (5:6–9)1 Adolfo Roitman The Israel Museum, Jerusalem/ The Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies

I. Introduction The biblical narrative does not tell us very much about Abraham’s early life, that is, the years between his birth and God’s revelation to him in Genesis 12:1–3. All that we have are a few details regarding the patriarch’s family (Gen 11:26–30, 32) and the laconic account of their move from Ur of the Chaldeans, initiated either by Terah (v. 31) or by God (15:7 [Neh 9:7], 24:7; cp. Josh 24:3), along with Joshua’s statement that “In olden times, your forefathers—Terah, father of Abraham and father of Nahor—lived beyond the Euphrates and worshiped other gods” (24:2).2

1 The current article is a revised and expanded version of an article published a few years ago in Hebrew: “Judith 5:6–9—A Forgotten Source Regarding Abraham’s Early Life,” in The Faith of Abraham In the Light of Interpretation Throughout the Ages (ed. M. Halamish, H. Kasher and Y. Silman; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2002), 47–58 (Hebrew). The article, in turn, is adapted from chapter 5 of my doctoral dissertation, “The Structure and Meaning of the Book of Judith” (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1992 [Hebrew]), written under the supervision of Prof. Michael Stone. I want to take this opportunity to express my most sincere gratitude to Prof. Stone for his scholarship, his knowledge, and especially his friendship. I wish to thank Prof. Richard Freund for his encouragement, Ms. Anna Barber for the translation, Mr. Carl Savage for his computer collaboration, Ms. Ronit Selig and Mr. Cyril Hirsh for assistance in editing, and the Yad Avi Ha-Yishuv Foun-dation and the Greenberg Center for Jewish Studies (University of Hartford) for their financial support. 2 The biblical quotations follow Tanakh: A New Translation of The Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985). To this list, G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (2d rev. ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 67, adds Isa 29:22 (LXX on this verse differs slightly): “Assuredly, thus said the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, to the House of Jacob.” He believes this verse belongs on the list because the divine epithet here alludes to later traditions about the patriarch, such as God’s saving Abraham from the furnace in Ur. However, according to S. Sandmel (Philo’s Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature [enl. ed.; New York: Ktav, 1972], 30), the phrase in Isaiah is “a very late gloss based on material subsequently developed elaborately in rabbinic writings.”

74

adolfo roitman

Although the scanty information about, or interest in, this subject may have been acceptable to writers and readers of the biblical period, a radical change of viewpoint occurred following the Babylonian exile. Later generations, as part of the general tendency to explain and to expand the biblical text,3 were anxious to learn more about Abraham’s past and to find out who this man was before God chose him. Why, indeed, was he chosen? Did he know of God’s existence prior to the moment of revelation in Gen 12:1–3—and if he did, how did the discovery take place? Why did Abraham and his family leave Ur? These and many other unanswered questions led to a plethora of midrashic traditions during the Second Temple period, as the attempt was made to fill in the “gaps” in the biblical narrative.4 Evidence of these midrashic traditions and exegetical developments can be found in ancient sources produced over a period of some 400 years, from 200 BCE to 200 CE: (1) Jubilees (11:14–12:31); (2) Judith (5:6–9); (3) Pseudo-Eupolemus (Praeparatio Evangelica, 9.17.2–9; 9.18.2); (4) Orphica (25–31; long recension); (5) Philo (De Abrahamo, 68–88; De Migratione Abrahami, 176ff.; De somniis, 1.44ff., etc.); (6) Flavius Josephus (Antiquities, 1.7.1–2); (7) Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 6–7); (8) Apocalypse of Abraham 1–8; (9) Acts 7:2–4; (10) Targum Neofiti 1 and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ( passim). Such traditions, very common in antiquity, were perpetuated along with a wealth of additions in Jewish,

3 On ancient biblical interpretation, see H. Mack, The Ancient Commentary on the Bible (Tel Aviv: Misrad ha-Bitachon, 1993 [Hebrew]); A. Shinan, The World of the Aggadic Literature (Tel Aviv: Misrad ha-Bitachon, 1987 [Hebrew]); J. L. Kugel and R. A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986). 4 J. Weingreen (“˚ytaxwh in Genesis 15:7,” in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas . . . [ed. P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars; London: Cambridge University Press, 1968], 215) believes that “. . . in ancient Israel, folk stories about the adventures of Abraham, other than those recorded in Genesis, were in circulation and that indirect references are sometimes implied in biblical texts. This view suggests, furthermore, that the Midrash has a long tradition, stretching back into biblical times, and that there was much Midrashic material in existence in, what we would call, the Oral Torah.” For the same line of thought, see Y. Zakovitch, “The Exodus from Ur of the Chaldeans: A Chapter in Literary Archaeology,” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine (ed. R. Chazan, W. Hallo and L. Schiffman; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 429–39. However, in my opinion, Weingreen and Zakovitch do not prove this thesis convincingly. It seems to me that most of the extra-biblical traditions about Abraham’s early life originated in the Second Temple period and should therefore be understood in that historical context alone. I hope to establish this thesis in future research.

the traditions about abraham’s early life

75

Christian, and Muslim literature.5 Even in these later sources, however, it is possible to uncover ancient motifs.6 Many of the stories about Abraham’s origins have been closely examined, yet the passage in Judith—although reflecting early and at times unique traditions—has received little attention.7 It is not clear why this should be the case. Perhaps the passage, when compared to Jubilees or Josephus, is too short to merit much scholarly comment, or perhaps the reason has to do with the fact that Abraham is not mentioned by name in Judith.8 In any event, now is the time to correct this oversight and examine the forgotten midrashic traditions in the Book of Judith.9 These will be discussed in literary terms, following the method of diachronic research, and their content will also be compared to information about Abraham’s origins appearing in the Bible and other Second Temple sources.

5 On these stories, see L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909–1938), 1:185–217; 5:207–18. For a useful compilation of all these traditions, see J. A. Tvedtnes, B. M. Hauglid and J. Gee, eds., Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham (Studies in the Book of Abraham 1; Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2001). 6 For a retrogressive historical study, see Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 67–95. 7 For example, although scholars such as Ginzberg, Vermes, and W. L. Knox (“Abraham and the Quest for God,” HTR 28 [1935]: 55–60) dealt with most of the traditions about Abraham’s early life, they did not mention the midrashic material found in Judith. For a rare exception to this rule, see Kugel and Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, 85–90. Others, such as Sandmel and J. R. Lord (“Abraham— A Study in Ancient Jewish and Christian Interpretation” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1968]), who surveyed all the Abraham traditions in ancient Jewish literature, included the traditions in Judith, but did not analyze them in depth. See also recently, D. A. De Silva, “Why Did God Choose Abraham?” BR 16 (2000): 17–21, 42–44. 8 The name of Abraham is not mentioned explicitly in the Book of Judith, since the writer’s method throughout the literary unit in which the Abraham tradition is embedded is to consistently avoid mentioning personal names (see below). However, since it is absolutely clear from the content of Judith 5:6–9 that we are talking about the father of the nation, I henceforth refer to the traditions describing the people of Israel as if they were connected to Abraham. 9 Most scholars believe that the Book of Judith, found in Greek in the Septuagint, was originally written in Hebrew in the land of Israel, probably at the end of the second century or the beginning of the first century BCE. See E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) (ed. and rev. by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), 3.1:218–19; C. Moore, Judith (AB 40; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 67–70; M. Enslin and S. Zeitlin, The Book of Judith: Greek Text with an English Translation, Commentary and Critical Notes ( Jewish Apocryphal Literature 7; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 26–31.

76

adolfo roitman II. Literary Characterization and Source Comparison

Judith 5:6–9 is part of a larger literary unit, Achior’s speech (5:5–21). This speech comes immediately after the introductory chapters (1–4) and during the opening scene that unveils the main plot—the meeting between Achior and Holofernes (5:1–6:10).10 The speech is thus placed in a strategic location in the structure of the narrative. We are told that Holofernes, the commander leading the conquest, was furious at the Israelites’ impudence, when he realized that the citizens of Bethulia were not willing to surrender to the Assyrian army. It was hard for him to understand their stubbornness, especially after the quick surrender of the coastal residents. Therefore, he summoned his deputies and asked them for details about the unexpected rebellion. In this dramatic scene, Achior stepped out from the group and gave a reasoned speech answering Holofernes’ questions.11 Achior chose to phrase his answer in a well-defined literary format: an historical survey. The survey deals with eminent epochs in the chronicle of the Jewish nation. It gives priority to geographical movements of the people and is characteristic in its lack of individual names; the main protagonist of the survey is “this people” (ı laÚw otow). The survey is divided into three parts: the patriarchal period, until the conquest and the settlement of the land of Israel (6–16); the period of judges and kings (17–18); and the period of the destruction of the Temple, the exile, and the return to Zion (18–19). Our unit (6–9) opens the first part.12 The practice of opening the historical survey of Israel with the patriarchal period is customary and known from other sources.13 However, it is not the only way to begin. In some cases, surveys start with the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.14 Sometimes, surveys 10 On the structure of the Book of Judith, see Roitman, “Structure and Meaning,” 43–78, especially 64–67. 11 On the function and meaning of Achior in the structure of the story, see A. Roitman, “Achior in the Book of Judith—His Role and Significance,” in “No One Spoke Ill of Her”: Essays on Judith (ed. J. C. VanderKam; SBLEJL 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 31–45. For a rhetorical analysis of Achior’s speech, see Roitman, “Structure and Meaning,” 112–39. 12 The name of this unit, “the patriarchal period,” may mislead a little, since the survey does not relate to all the fathers, but only to the traditions connected with Abraham. Nevertheless, within the literary structure, the unit represents the entire patriarchal period. 13 See, for example, Deut 26:5; Josh 24:2; Neh 9:7; Acts 7:2. 14 See Judg 6:8; 2 Kings 17:7; Hos 2:7; 11:1; 12:10; 13:4; Amos 2:10; 3:1; 9:7; Mic 6:4; 7:15.

the traditions about abraham’s early life

77

that start with the patriarchal period begin with Jacob rather than Abraham.15 However, there are some other characteristics at the beginning of the survey in the Book of Judith which are unique: (1) Apart from Judith, only in Neh 9:7–8 does the mention of Abraham stand for all the fathers. Elsewhere, the other fathers are mentioned, but the emphasis is mainly on Abraham.16 (2) Contrary to other surveys, this one does not mention motifs or stories that are naturally connected with Abraham’s life. For example, there is no reference to the covenant between God and Abraham, or the sacrifice of Isaac.17 (3) The focus on Abraham’s early life—from birth to God’s revelation to him (Gen 12:1–3)—is very rare. The biblical literature does not elaborate on this period in Abraham’s life, neither in Genesis nor in most historical surveys.18 These formal observations tell us that the survey in Judith regards Abraham’s time, especially his early years highly. This preference also emerges as a result of thorough study of the unique traditions included in this literary unit. Now, after these comments, it is time to look closely at the content of the unit:19 6 This people are descendants20 of the Chaldeans. 7 (a) And formerly did they sojourn in Mesopotamia21 (b) because they would not follow the gods of their fathers, who were born22 in the land of the Chaldeans.23

15

For example, see Deut 26:5; 1 Sam 12:8. For the emphasis on Abraham, see Josh 24:2–3; Acts 7:2–8; 4 Ezra 3:13–15; for mention of other fathers, see Deut 26:5; Josh 24:3–4; Wis 10:10–12; 4 Ezra 3:16; Acts 7:8, 12, 14–15 ( Jacob); Ps 105:17–22; Acts 7:9–14; Wis 10:13–14 ( Joseph). There is also a “reversed” example which diminishes the importance of Abraham (Wis 10:5). 17 On the covenant, see Neh 9:8; Ps 105:9; 4 Ezra 3:15; Acts 7:8. On the motif of the sacrifice of Isaac, see Wis 10:5. 18 However, see Josh 24:2–3 and Acts 7:2–4. 19 The English translation follows Enslin, Book of Judith. The Greek text is from R. Hanhart, ed., Iudith (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 8.4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). 20 In Greek, épÒgonoi. The word appears only a few times in the LXX (see 2 Sam 21:11, 22; 2 Chr 20:6; Wis 7:1; 4 Macc 18:1). 21 Referring to the biblical Haran. 22 In Greek, o· §g°nonto. Enslin translates “who were born,” taking the subject to be “their fathers.” Y. Grintz (Sefer Yehudith [ Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1957; 2d printing 1986], 110 [Hebrew]), however, understands these words as referring to “the gods of their fathers.” A number of Greek mss. (as well as the Syriac and Vulgate) add the word ¶ndojoi, which gave rise to the version “who were revered”— clearly referring to the gods. 23 It refers to “Ur of the Chaldeans.” The Hebrew phrase μydçk rwa is always rendered “the land of the Chaldeans” (§n g∞ xalda¤nvn) in the Septuagint. 16

78

adolfo roitman 8 (a) And they24 left the way of their parents (b) and worshiped the God of heaven, a god whom they had come to know, (c) and they were driven out25 from before their gods, (d) and fled into Mesopotamia (e) and sojourned there many days. 9 (a) And their God told them (b) to go forth from the place in which they were sojourning and to go into the land of Canaan, (c) and there they came to dwell (d) and were greatly increased in gold and silver and much cattle.

This survey of the people’s founding may be divided by its content into three parts: (1) v. 6, ethnic origins; (2) vv. 7–8, the new faith and its consequences; and (3) v. 9, revelation and migration. These three parts contain a wealth of interpretative material: exegetical developments, revisions, omissions, and additions to the original biblical story. Verse 6 opens Achior’s survey not only of the patriarchal period, but of Israelite history in general, with the question of Abraham’s ancestry: “This people are descendants of the Chaldeans.”26 Thematically, this version does not fall into line with Abraham’s genealogy in Genesis.27 However, even though the statement that Abraham was of Chaldean ancestry does not appear anywhere in the Bible, this is not really an extrabiblical tradition, devoid of any biblical basis. Although the Bible does not say explicitly that Abraham was Chaldean, the biblical narrative might lead one to that conclusion since Abraham and his family come from “Ur of the Chaldeans” (Gen 11:31). Thus, v. 6 might be called an exegetical development.28 24 The subject is not clearly identified, but seems to refer to “this people” (i.e., Abraham), as Enslin (Book of Judith, 87) writes: “apparently Abraham and his family [are meant] or, as the author is recounting the old story, the Hebrews in general.” 25 In the Greek, the subject changes here: “They [the Chaldeans] drove them out.” 26 I have elaborated on this elsewhere: A. Roitman, “ ‘This People are Descendants of the Chaldeans’ ( Judith 5:6): Its Literary Form and Historical Setting,” JBL 113/2 (1994): 245–63. 27 According to the Torah, Abraham is a descendant of Shem (Gen 11:10–27); the Chaldeans, although also descended from Shem, belonged to the line of Chesed, son of Abraham’s brother Nahor (Gen 22:22). Abraham’s line is therefore considered in the biblical account to be, at most, “cousins” of the Chaldeans, but in no sense “their descendants.” 28 Concerning the social context and historical reasons for this exegetical development, see Roitman, “ ‘This People,’ ” 254–62.

the traditions about abraham’s early life

79

Unlike v. 6, v. 9 bears a strong resemblance to the biblical story, with the exception of two seemingly minor digressions. First, the text in Judith suggests that immediately after receiving God’s command in Mesopotamia (i.e., Haran)29 “. . . to go forth from the place in which they were sojourning and to go into the land of Canaan” (9b), Abraham and his family “. . . came to dwell” there (9c). According to the story in Genesis, Abraham does indeed obey God and leave Haran (12:4–5), but he does not settle permanently in the land (vv. 6–20) until after returning from Egypt, when we read for the first time that “Abram remained (bçy) in the land of Canaan” (13:12). Second, v. 9d in Achior’s speech seems to indicate that Abraham became wealthy in Canaan, whereas the text in Genesis (12:16; 13:1–2) states that he accumulated riches in Egypt. The basic difference between the stories, which are “almost” identical, lies in the fact that the narrative in Judith omits any reference to Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt (Gen 12:10–20).30 This in turn gives rise to two “new facts”: 1) Abraham settled in Canaan immediately without descending to a foreign country; and 2) it was in Canaan that he gathered his gold, silver, and cattle. The new version in Judith 5:9 therefore intentionally revises the biblical tradition of Gen 12:4–13:12.31

29 On this point, the author of Judith accepted the Bible’s chronology, according to which God revealed himself to Abraham for the first time in Haran. On this, cp. Jub. 12:16–22. However, according to another interpretation, the revelation narrated in Gen 12:1–3 happened while Abraham was still in Ur (see Acts 7:2–4). On this issue, see I. Teshima, “Biblical Interpretation and Historiography in the Second Temple Period,” Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, July 29–August 5, 1997. Division A: The Bible and Its World (ed. R. Margolin; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999), 209–17, pp. 212–16. 30 On the problematic nature of this story in ancient Jewish interpretations, see A. Shinan and Y. Zakovitch, Abram and Sarai in Egypt: Gen 12:10–20 in the Bible, the Old Versions and the Ancient Jewish Literature ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem [Press], 1983 [Hebrew]). 31 Enslin (Book of Judith, 88) disagrees—“It is idle to try to guess the reasons (other than space) for this omission”—as does Moore, who writes ( Judith, 159), “v. 9 is not a contradiction of the Genesis account but the briefest statement of the ‘facts’.” However, it seems to me that the omission and resulting changes were deliberate on the part of the author, to make certain points. First, Abraham’s temporary stay in Canaan and problematic sojourn in Egypt were “overlooked” in order to portray the father of the nation as flawless, the perfect believer; Abraham’s faith was so strong that he obeyed God immediately and settled permanently in Canaan as soon as he arrived. Second, it is important that he accumulated his wealth here and not in Egypt—a material reward for his faith and his decision to stay in the land. On the reasons for this tendentious revision, see below.

80

adolfo roitman

In terms of their contents, vv. 7–8 are very different from vv. 6 and 9. Where verse 6 manifests an exegetical development and v. 9 a revision of an existing biblical tradition, vv. 7 and 8 present truly extra-biblical material relating to Abraham’s ancestry. Verse 7 is made up of two components: 7a tells that Abraham (i.e., Israel) came to live in Mesopotamia, and 7b explains why this happened—“because they would not follow the gods of their fathers, who were born in the land of the Chaldeans.” Both components contain information not found in the Pentateuch. The change in 7a seems to be minor; here, we read that they “sojourned” (par–khsan) in Mesopotamia; Gen 11:31 states that “they settled (wbçyw) there.” Thus, in Judith the stay was temporary, while in Genesis it was permanent.32 The difference in 7b, in fact, adds to the biblical account by providing a reason for something that is not explained in Gen 11:31, why did Abraham and his family leave Ur? The words, “because they would not follow the gods of their fathers,”33 suggest that they left for religious reasons, of their own free will. In this extrabiblical tradition, it is assumed, though not stated explicitly, that Abraham believed in God even before the latter appeared to him (v. 9; Gen 12:1–3); otherwise the words in 7b make no sense. The verse contains another subtle deviation from the biblical account; it suggests that Abraham himself decided to leave Ur, whereas in the Bible the initiative comes from Terah (Gen 11:31), or God (Gen 15:7 [Neh 9:7], 24:7; Josh 24:3). The reason given in v. 7b for Abraham’s departure from Ur is highly significant. Since the account in Genesis does not indicate that he left because he was opposed to idol worship, this rationale would appear to be non-exegetical. However, if modern scholars are correct in arguing that Joshua 24 makes a causal connection between Abraham’s migration from across the river (v. 3) and the fact that his ancestors “worshiped other gods” 32 Grintz (Sefer Yehudith, 110) rightly notes that the author of the historical survey makes a consistent distinction between a temporary sojourn in a foreign land (par–khsan, vv. 7, 8, 9, 10) and permanent settlement in the land of Israel (kat–khsan; vv. 9, 15, 16, 19). Cf. also E. Zenger, “Das Buch Judith,” in Historische und Legendarische Erzälungen ( Judische Schriften aus Hellenistisch Römischer Zeit 1.6; Gutersloh: Mohn, 1981), 471. Nevertheless, Moore ( Judith, 159) incorrectly identifies these terms as “two words both meaning ‘settled’ in a nonpermanent sense”; L. Soubigou (“Judith,” in: Le Sainte Bible (ed. L. Pirot and A. Clamer; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, [1951]), 4:526) also errs when he sees the terms as synonymous. 33 For the cultic significance of the phrase “to follow the gods of their fathers” see Judg 2:12, 19; 1 Kings 18:21; Hos 11:10.

the traditions about abraham’s early life

81

(v. 2),34 the version in Judith is not entirely extrabiblical. Rather, it makes explicit the implicit meaning of Joshua 24.35 Verse 8 also comprises two main parts: sections (a) to (d) tell of the spiritual transformation Abraham underwent in Ur and of the grave results of that transformation; section (e) informs us that Abraham lived in Mesopotamia “many days.” The first part of the verse includes unique midrashic traditions concerning Abraham’s early life: (1) Abraham’s “conversion” (8a–b): Since the account in Genesis does not imply that idol worship was practiced in Ur, there is no need for the biblical author to explain Abraham’s faith against the background of the polytheistic society in which he lived. The biblical author takes it for granted that the patriarch of Israel always believed in the God of Israel. The author of Judith 5:8 assumes something entirely different and, as in v. 7, posits the existence of polytheistic worship in Ur.36 However, in contrast to v. 7, which does not indicate the source of Abraham’s faith, v. 8 relates that Abraham came to worship the one God as the result of a spiritual-religious process made up of three stages. These stages are highly reminiscent of Cohen’s description of conversion: (1) undergoing a religious experience (“a god whom they had come to know”); (2) cutting off the past (“they left the way of 34 See Y. Grintz, The Book of Genesis: Its Uniqueness and Antiquity ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1983), 72, and cp. Kugel and Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, 80: “For what might have been the (otherwise unexplained) cause of God’s choosing Abraham and promising him such blessings? Does not the author of Joshua hint at the cause in his words ‘and they served other gods’? Abraham, so reasoned the early exegetes, was unique among his family in understanding that a single Deity controlled men’s fortunes, and he went on to worship that God and do his bidding with unparalleled devotion. ‘They served other gods’—but not Abraham! ‘Then I took your father Abraham from beyond the River’ to Canaan, presumably both to reward him for his monotheistic insight and to allow him to worship the true God away from his idolatrous environment.” 35 To the best of my knowledge, the midrashic tradition of 7b is not found in ancient Jewish literature. I am not familiar with any ancient source stating that Abraham left Ur because of his objection to idolatry. It is interesting to add though, that a story similar to Abraham’s is found in Strabo, related of Moses (Geographica, 16.2.35). On this, see M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1976–1984), 1:299–300. I wish to thank Dr. David Satran for referring me to this source. 36 The words “the way of their parents” (8a) refer to cultic practices (cp. 2 Kings 16:3) and in the context of Judith, the phrase should be understood as idol worship. In the Second Temple period it was commonly accepted that polytheism was widespread in the time of Abraham; see Jubilees 11; Ant. 1.7.1 (155); Pseudo-Philo 6:2–4; Apocalypse of Abraham 1 passim.

82

adolfo roitman

their parents”); and (3) adopting a new religious identity (“[they] worshiped the God of heaven”).37 This tradition, which understands Abraham’s transition from idolatry to monotheism as a process similar to conversion, bears a close resemblance to Jub. 11:16–17. Both sources describe the same religious journey, and perhaps even the same stages: And the lad began understanding the straying of the land, that everyone went astray after graven images and after pollution. And his father taught him writing. And he was two weeks of years old. And he separated from his father so that he might not worship the idols with him. And he began to pray to the Creator of all so that he might save him from the straying of the sons of men, and so that his portion might not fall into straying after the pollution and scorn.38

(2) Abraham’s banishment and flight (8c–d): These two mutually dependent traditions provide an explanation—not found in the biblical story— of why Abraham and his family left Ur for Haran (Gen 11:31): Abraham was forced to leave because of local hostility to his new faith. It seems that the Chaldeans were upset by his behavior, that is his heresy (“they left the way of their parents” [8a]) and by his possibly public demonstration of his religious convictions (“and worshiped the God of heaven” [8b]). 37 See S. J. D. Cohen, “Conversion to Judaism in Historical Perspective. From Biblical Israel to Post-biblical Judaism,” CJ 36 (1983): 31. More generally, see A. D. Nock, Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (London: Oxford University Press, 1933; repr. 1965), 1–16; L. R. Rambo, s.v. “Conversion,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion (ed. M. Eliade; New York: McMillan, 1987), 4:73–79. 38 The quotation follows O. S. Wintermute’s translation (“Jubilees,” in OTP 2:35–142). Cp. Jub. 20:7–10; 21:3–8. According to E. Bickerman (The Jews in the Greek Age [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988), 289), Jub. 12:16–18 suggests an alternative version of God’s revelation to Abraham (via observation of the stars). A detailed account of Abraham’s religious conversion from idolatry to monotheism appears in the Apocalypse of Abraham (Chapters 1–6), according to which the change came about as a result of his contemplation of nature (Chap. 7). In rabbinic literature (Genesis Rabbah 38:13 and parallels), the naturalist and iconoclast versions are inextricably intertwined. In Pseudo-Philo no explanation for Abraham’s faith is provided—it is taken for granted. Philo and Josephus (see also PseudoEupolemus, Orphica [long recension], vv. 25–31 [Abraham?]) mention Abraham’s conversion, emphasizing not the transition from polytheism to monotheism, but rather that from—or via—astrology/astronomy to monotheism. On this subject, see Knox, “Abraham and the Quest for God”; S. Sandmel, “Abraham’s Knowledge of the Existence of God,” HTR 44 (1951): 137–39; L. H. Feldman, “Abraham the Greek Philosopher in Josephus,” TPAPA 99 (1968): 143–56. For rabbinic parallels, see Midrash HaGadol on the Pentateuch: Genesis (ed. M. Margulies; Jerusalem: Mosad haRav Kook, 1975), 1:204.

the traditions about abraham’s early life

83

These two midrashic motifs are all but unparalleled in Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. To the best of my knowledge, the closest parallel to the account in Judith of the flight from Chaldea appears in Flavius Josephus.39 Josephus provides three reasons why Abraham left Ur:40 (a) “Therrus having come to hate Chaldaea because of the loss of his lamented Aran, they all migrated to Charran in Mesopotamia” (Ant. 1.6.5 [152]).41 (b) “It was in fact owing to these opinions that the Chaldaeans and the other peoples of Mesopotamia rose against him, and he, thinking fit to emigrate, at the will and the aid of God, settled in the land of Canaan” (Ant. 1.7.1 [157]).42 (c) “For it was I [i.e., God] that led Abraham hither from Mesopotamia when he was driven out by his kinsfolk and that brought thy father to prosperity; and no less than theirs shall be the portion that I shall bestow on thee” (Ant. 1.19.1 [281]).43 39 Jubilees makes no mention of Abraham’s being banished from, or forced to leave, Ur with his family. The text resembles the biblical account: “And Terah went out of Ur of the Chaldees, he and his sons” (12:15). Even though the book tells how he burned down “the house of idols” (12:12–14), this incident apparently has nothing to do with Abraham’s departure. Quite the contrary: Abraham even asks God: “Shall I return unto Ur of the Chaldees who seek my face so that I should return to them?” (v. 21)—the implication being that the Chaldeans missed Abraham after he left. However, cp. Kugel and Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, 87. 40 All quotations follow the translation of H. St. J. Thackeray (Flavius Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities: Books I–IV (LCL; London: Heinemann, 1930). 41 Moore ( Judith, 159) and Soubigou (“Judith,” 525) think that this tradition parallels the one in Achior’s account, v. 8, but in my opinion this passage in Josephus is unconnected to the banishment described in Judith. 42 Grintz (Book of Genesis, 111) quotes this tradition as a parallel to the account in Judith. However, although indeed much closer to our passage than the first version in Josephus, this version still differs significantly. Abraham is not banished; he “thinks fit” (dokimãsaw) to emigrate, whether for pragmatic reasons or convenience. Also, it is his opinions that arouse the ire of the Chaldeans, rather than his behavior, which seems to be the decisive factor in Judith. Finally, there is an interesting parallel between this passage in Josephus and another tradition in his book relating to Noah: “But Noah, indignant at their conduct and viewing their counsels with displeasure, urged them to come to a better frame of mind and amend their ways; but seeing that, far from yielding, they were completely enslaved to the pleasure of sin, he feared that they would murder him and, with his wives and sons and his son’s wives, quitted the country” (Ant. 1.3.1 [74]). According to S. Rappaport (Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus [Vienna: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1930], 102, n. 83), “Jos. will seine beiden Helden auf Kosten seiner Zeitgenossen erhöhen und macht sie zu Martyrern ihres Glaubens. Er stimmt darin mit der Agada überein (vg. Koh. 4. 3, 15; Lev. 4. 27, 5).” 43 The difference between (b) and (c) is clear: in (c) Abraham is “driven out” (§launÒmenon) by his neighbors, whereas in (b) he “thinks fit” (dokimãsaw) to emigrate.

84

adolfo roitman

In my opinion, this last account, usually considered insignificant and overlooked by most scholars, proves that Josephus was familiar with the tradition concerning Abraham’s banishment from Ur. It seems to me that this passage constitutes the only true ancient parallel to the tradition found in Judith.44 A comparison of the midrashic developments in vv. 7 and 8 reveals that both deal with the same subject, namely Abraham’s early life in Chaldea and his emigration, and even repeat certain pieces of information. In v. 7a, we read that “formerly did they sojourn in Mesopotamia”; v. 8d–e repeats “and [they] fled into Mesopotamia and sojourned there many days.” Verse 7b states that these people (i.e., Abraham) “would not follow the gods of their fathers” and v. 8a repeats that they “left the way of their parents”—in other words, idolatry. Wouldn’t one mention of these details have sufficed? Why the needless repetition? Moreover, it should be noted that the traditions in these verses reflect different points of view and even contradict each other in terms of content. To begin with, the tradition in v. 8a–b refers only in a general way to Abraham’s rejection of idolatry (“they left the way of their parents”), but describes his adoption of monotheism in considerable detail (“[they] worshiped the God of heaven, a god whom they had come to know”). Although the tradition in v. 7b, by contrast, says nothing about the start of Abraham’s new faith, it stresses his repudiation of polytheism (“because they would not follow the gods of their fathers”). Second, according to v. 7b, he apparently left Ur of his own choice, whereas v. 8c–d states in no uncertain terms that he was banished from his city and forced to flee to Mesopotamia because of the hostility and intolerance of his compatriots. As far is I know, Moore is the only scholar thus far to have noted the duplication—all the more striking in the carefully written Book of Judith—in these two verses. In his opinion, “v. 8 is best understood as a parenthetical expression, if not an actual gloss”;45 however, to 44 The oldest tradition is apparently that of Abraham’s banishment, which raises the question of why Josephus, who knew and quoted the tradition, felt the need to provide a different motivation in his central version of the story. It would seem that he considered a portrayal of a persecuted character unworthy of the father of the Jewish people and therefore wrote that Abraham himself chose to leave Ur. Why Josephus nevertheless retained version (c) is not clear. Could it be that he overlooked the contradiction? 45 Moore, Judith, 159. Regarding this view, see J. C. Dancy, The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha: Tobit, Judith, Rest of Esther . . . (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 87.

the traditions about abraham’s early life

85

explain v. 8 as a “parenthetical expression” is not terribly convincing. It does seem that the two verses relate to the same subject, if in different ways—yet the fact that they convey the same information only in part, and moreover, contradict each other, suggests another explanation. It appears unlikely to me that v. 8 is a gloss, added at a later date by a redactor or scribe, since it cannot be understood without the information conveyed in preceding verses. The unspecified “they” of v. 8 refers to “this people” in v. 6. In a similar way, the subject of 8c is insinuated by the word “Chaldeans” that appears in v. 7b. Secondly, v. 8 does not specifically refer to the place of events, since the verse assumes, as narrated in verse 7b, that Abraham was initially living in Ur of the Chaldeans; and, finally, v. 8 is an integral part of the book’s structure, fulfilling an important purpose.46 From this perspective, there might be another explanation for the duplication in the text, wherein v. 8 reflects an alternative midrashic tradition concerning Abraham’s departure from Ur. This tradition was already known at the time Judith was written and the author integrated it into Achior’s survey, and even added it to the tradition in verse 7.

III. Conclusion Like other post-exilic sources, Judith 5:6–9 contains midrashic traditions concerning the early life of the patriarch Abraham. These traditions may be classified according to an objective criterion: do they or do they not contain material not found in the story in Genesis? Verses 6 and 9 of this passage do not, although v. 6 includes some sort of exegetical development, based on Gen 11:31, and v. 9 apparently offers a tendentious, revisionist synopsis of Gen 12:1–13:12. Verses 7 and 8, on the other hand, contain truly extra-biblical traditions. When compared with other Second Temple period sources, these verses are seen to preserve early, and even unique, midrashic elements. The tradition that Abraham left Ur because of his opposition to idol worship (v. 7b) is not found anywhere else in early Jewish literature. The story of Abraham’s conversion (v. 8a–b) represents, along with Jubilees (11:16–17), one of the most ancient sources for this tradition. The idea that Abraham was banished from Ur and 46

On this issue, see below.

86

adolfo roitman

forced to flee to Mesopotamia (v. 8c–d) has no closer parallel than Flavius Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews (1.19.2 [281]). Finally, the repetitive elements in the verses suggest that the traditions in verses 7 and 8 represent alternative traditions regarding Abraham’s early life, and that v. 8 might have been added by the author of the book for a specific reason. Finally the question to be asked is: Why did the author take so much trouble to rewrite Abraham’s early life with corrections, additions and omissions? It seems that the reason lies with the author’s desire to glorify Abraham’s character. Therefore, according to this “new version” we now learn that Abraham—in his early years in Ur—was already a great believer, who revolted against the idolatry all around him, who was willing to suffer as a martyr for his faith, who strictly obeyed God’s law and gained God’s reward. It seems that the author’s final goal was to make Abraham’s character, and particularly his early years, into a prototype of the ideal Jew for all ages, in keeping with the saying, “Like father, like son” (twba hç[m μynbl ˆmys).47 In more precise terms, the character of Abraham in Judith functions as a model for both of the most positive characters in the book, Judith and Achior. As said above, Abraham is described in this brief section as a great believer who is ready to suffer for his faith, and who stands in contrast to the pagan Chaldeans. His attitude anticipates Judith’s. Judith, like Abraham, is described in the story as a great believer in God, who denies the divinity of Nebuchadnezzar, and who fiercely opposes the pagans. Yet Judith also stands in contrast to the Jews in Bethulia. While she has a strong faith in God and is willing to suffer for it (8:24–27), the Jews of Bethulia are ready to surrender to the Assyrian army (7:23–28). Likewise, Abraham is also the model for Achior. Both (1) believe in God (5:8ab//14:10); (2) are expelled because of their faith (5:8c//6:11); and (3) convert to a new faith (5:8ab//14:10).48 That is to say, according to the Book

47

Cf. Gen. Rab. 48:7. On this issue, see Roitman, “Structure and Meaning,” 137–39. An intriguing linguistic parallel between Achior and Abraham can also be adduced. It is said of Achior in 14:10 that he “believed in God” (§p¤steusen t“ ye“). Strikingly enough, the same expression appears only once throughout the entire Bible: in Gen 15:6, to describe Abraham’s belief in God ( ¤ hb ˆymahw’ = §p¤steusen t“ ye“ [LXX]). I thank Prof. D. Dimant for having called my attention to this fact. Incidentally, it is suggestive that Gen 15:6 played a key role in the appraisal of Abraham’s place in Judaism (cp. Sir 44:20; 1 Macc 2:52; Jub. 48

the traditions about abraham’s early life

87

of Judith, the righteous pagan who converts to Judaism would, like the native Jew, have Abraham as his model or “father.” Such a doctrine strongly resembles the teaching of Philo, Paul, and the rabbis some centuries later.49

17:17–18) and in Christianity, especially in Paul’s proselytizing of gentiles (cp. Gal 3:6–14; Rom 4:1–25). See also Jas 2:23. 49 On Abraham in Philo and Paul, see J. S. Bosch, “La figura de Abraham en Pablo y en Filón de Alejandría,” in Salvación de la Palabra. Targum-Derash-Berith: En memoria del Profesor Alejandro Diez Macho (ed. D. M. León; Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1986), 677–88; as well as the article by Sze-kar Wan in this volume. On the rabbis, see C. G. Montefiori and H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology (New York: Schocken Books, 1974), 574 (no. 1599), 577–578 (no. 1608).

SCRIPTURE IN THE ASTRONOMICAL BOOK OF ENOCH James C. VanderKam University of Notre Dame

Though we know precious little about Jewish history between 300 and 200 BCE, it has become the accepted wisdom in modern scholarship that two sets of texts—the Aramaic Levi and the oldest Enochic booklets (the Astronomical Book and the Book of the Watchers)—date from the third century, possibly even to an earlier time. As the experts recognize, we lack firm proof for this proposition, but a sufficient body of evidence is available to make the conclusion likely. Aramaic Levi has been dated to the third century primarily on the basis of its literary relations. On paleographical grounds, the oldest copy from Qumran was made in the Hasmonean period, but as the work served as a source for Jubilees, whether directly or indirectly, its date of composition must have been earlier. Jubilees was written in ca. 160–150 BCE, possibly a decade or so before according to some scholars. If so, then Aramaic Levi very likely should be assigned to the third century.1 Perhaps a stronger argument exists for attributing the earliest Enochic works to the third century. J. T. Milik, in his preliminary publication 1

See M. E. Stone, “Levi, Aramaic,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. Schiffman and J. VanderKam; New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 486; R. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi (SBLEJL 9; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 131–34. Of course, we owe to Stone and J. C. Greenfield the official editions of the 4QAramaic Levi fragments: “Aramaic Levi Document,” in Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (ed. G. Brooke et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam; DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 1–72. A fragment of 4Q213 subjected to AMS testing yielded a date range of 197–105 BCE (one sigma), 203–53 (two sigma) according to the Zurich lab’s results as revised accord-ing to the 1997 decadal calibration (see G. Bonani, S. Ivy, W. Wölfli, M. Broshi, I. Carmi and J. Strugnell, “Radiocarbon Dating of Fourteen Dead Sea Scrolls,” Radio-carbon 34 [1992]: 843–49; their dating was 191–155 BCE). For the recalibration, see G. Doudna, “Dating the Scrolls on the Basis of Radiocarbon Analysis,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (2 vols.; ed. P. Flint and J. Vander-Kam; Leiden: Brill, 1998–99), 1:469. For the positions on the date of Jubilees, see VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 17–21.

90

james c. vanderkam

of the fragments from Qumran Cave 4, dated two manuscripts, 4QEna (4Q201), which contains material from the Book of the Watchers, and 4QEnastra (4Q208), to very early times: the former to the first half of the second century2 and the latter to the end of the third or beginning of the second century.3 If accurate, these dates would favor a thirdcentury date of composition. There are also literary arguments which point to a similar time of origin for these two Enochic works.4 If these texts do indeed come from the little-known third century, they afford us a welcome opportunity to observe a few Jewish writers in action and to perceive their concerns, interests, and procedures. Our honoree has devoted many studies to these third-century works; in them he has highlighted the contributions the Levi and Enoch texts make to the development of Jewish thought.5 In this essay I wish to focus on one of these third-century works, the Astronomical Book of Enoch, and on one facet of it—the author’s use of earlier scriptures in his account of the revelations which the angel Uriel gave to Enoch before the patriarch’s final removal from earth. If the Astronomical Book is as old as claimed, we have in it one of the first examples of an author from the period of Early 2 He also maintained that this manuscript was copied from a model that comes from at least the third century (The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1976], 140–41). 3 The Books of Enoch, 273–74. F. M. Cross, however, has not included this script in his lists of third-century manuscripts from Qumran (see, for example, “Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March 1991 [2 vols.; ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992], 2, where he assigns only three to the third century: 4QSamb, 4QExf, and 4QJer a). A fragment of 4Q208 has also been tested for an AMS date. The Tucson lab reported a range of 166–102 (one sigma) and 186–92 (two sigma) (A. Jull, D. Donahue, M. Broshi, and E. Tov, “Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments from the Judean Desert,” Atiqot 28 [1996]: 86). Doudna now gives the dates 167–53 (one sigma) and 172–48 (two sigma) (“Dating the Scrolls,” 470). In the official edition of 4Q208, E. J. C. Tigchelaar and F. García Martínez, who cite the AMS test results, have retained Milik’s dating of the scribal hand (“4QAstronomical Enocha ar,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1 [ed. S. J. Pfann et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam and M. Brady; DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000], 106). 4 See, for example, the survey in J. C. Greenfield and M. E. Stone, “The Book of Enoch and the Traditions of Enoch,” Numen 26 (1979): 92–95 (they think the suggested literary allusions yield no more information for dating than paleography does); VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQMS 16; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984), 83–88. 5 A few examples are: “The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century BCE,” CBQ 40 (1978): 479–92; “Enoch, Aramaic Levi, and Sectarian Origins,” JSJ 19 (1988): 159–70; Scriptures, Sects and Visions (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).

scripture in the astronomical book of enoch

91

Judaism who used older, authoritative texts in the course of presenting a message to his readers and hearers. It is a commonplace in scholarship that the writers in the Enoch tradition regularly resorted to the ancient literature of Israel to fashion and support their message. The Book of the Watchers begins with a description of a theophany which is heavily indebted to biblical language, while the story of the angels who sinned, whatever other sources may underlie it, takes its structural elements from Gen 6:1–4 and other passages in the context. The Book of Dreams, especially the Animal Apocalypse, is based directly on the scriptural narrative, and the Epistle of Enoch draws on biblical language and ideas throughout, not just in the Apocalypse of Weeks. The later Book of Parables or Similitudes also betrays its biblical sources at many points (e.g. chap. 46).6 Among these Enochic booklets, the Astronomical Book is unusual in that its appeal to scripture is more subdued and thus less obvious. True, the writer selected a biblical character as the recipient of the revelation which he recounts, but for major sections of the booklet there is no explicit scriptural foundation. A good illustration of this fact is the author’s presentation of the solar and lunar calendars, topics to which he returns several times. Whereas in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28–29 and in later works such as Jubilees and the Qumran texts the calendar is intimately connected with the roster of festivals, the Astronomical Book says nothing about them. There is no reference to Passover, Weeks, or Tabernacles; and even the Sabbath is not mentioned. Instead, there are only vague allusions to “feasts” in 82:7, 9. The absence of the Sabbath is all the more remarkable because units of seven lie at the base of the solar calendar and other astronomical phenomena treated in the book. We could attribute the writer’s failure to mention festivals and Sabbath to an insistence on remaining faithful to his pseudepigraphic disguise: in scripture the holidays were revealed to Moses, and in the traditions incorporated into Jubilees the first of them was disclosed to Noah after the removal of Enoch ( Jub. 6:15–22). Yet our writer does not consistently carry through his

6 G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Scripture in 1 Enoch and 1 Enoch as Scripture,” in Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman (ed. T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm; Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995), 333–54; 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 57–58.

92

james c. vanderkam

pseudepigraphic pose, so this may not be the answer. And of course the Sabbath was present from the beginning according to Gen 2:1–3. Although there is little explicit resort to older scriptures in the Astronomical Book, the author leaves clues showing that he was aware of earlier texts and found them useful for his purposes. The intent in this paper is not to compile an exhaustive list of possible scriptural references and allusions in the book; rather, the goal is to study the use in the astronomical sections of two scriptural passages—Gen 1:14–19 and Isa 30:26. Before turning to the relevant passages, we should address one other issue. The Astronomical Book was written no later than the third century, but only a small amount of the original Aramaic text has survived; a full text is extant only in Ethiopic, a granddaughter translation of the original. And, as Milik emphasized in his edition, eyecatching differences separate the Aramaic from the Ethiopic version. In fact, 4QEnastra overlaps with nothing preserved in the Ethiopic manuscripts apart from a short summary in 73:1–74:9, while 4QEnastrd supplies parts of the ending that are not in the Ethiopic version. In addition, even for those parts of 4QEnastrb,c where the Aramaic and Ethiopic overlap, there are noteworthy variants.7 The textual situation entails that, in the absence of a fragment from Qumran for a portion of text, we cannot be confident the Ethiopic reading reflects the original. It so happens that only one fragment from the Cave 4 Enoch manuscripts includes any of the passages that we will consider below. There is, nevertheless, a consideration which points in a more positive direction. The Aramaic and Ethiopic versions, while differing in many respects, set forth the same system for the luminaries and their relations. The scriptural passages that we will discuss are connected with features of this system or pattern and thus have a good likelihood of belonging to the original form of the booklet. It will be helpful to have a few details of the author’s system before us as we proceed. Among its central features are the following. Year: The 364-day system—30 days for each of the 12 months plus the four extra days which are an essential part of the count (72:32; 74:12; 75:1–3; 82:4–6)—is familiar, but the book is not explicit about 7

Milik, The Books of Enoch, 7–8, 273–74; M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), 2:11–13. The translations of 1 Enoch in this paper are taken from Knibb’s second volume and citations of the Ethiopic text are from vol. 1.

scripture in the astronomical book of enoch

93

the fact that 364 is exactly divisible by seven (in 79:2 the author does refer to the week as a unit of time). He makes reference to the four parts of the year but again fails to note that 91 (the number of days in a quarter year [82:15, 18]) is also a multiple of seven (82:11, 13). Later sources such as Jubilees differ in making the heptadic base more explicit. Sun and moon: the two celestial lights are of the same size, but the sun is seven times brighter than the moon (72:37; 73:3; 78:3–4). The moon’s surface: the moon progressively gains or loses light in units described as covering one-fourteenth of its surface (e.g., 78:7; note the “seventh parts” in 74:3). Sevens: The number plays a part in other sections: seven highest mountains, seven rivers, seven large islands (77:4–8). And all of this was revealed to the seventh man, Enoch. The laws that Uriel reveals to Enoch consist of “all their regulations exactly as they are, for each year of the world and for ever, until the new creation shall be made which will last for ever.” (72:1b) So, the astronomical principles disclosed to the ancient patriarch are those which are valid from the first until the second creation when apparently there may be changes.8 At several points in the narrative we learn that God is the one who appointed Uriel as ruler over the luminaries that he had created (75:3; cf. 72:36; 81:3; 82:7). Those references and even the appeal to the new creation turn one’s thoughts to Genesis 1. Did the author use the first biblical creation story? A. Gen 1:14–19: Given the subject with which he deals, it comes as no surprise that the section of Genesis 1 dealing with God’s making of the luminaries (1:14–19) was in the writer’s mind as he described the sun, moon, and stars. The designations of the luminaries: Even though the writer declares in 72:37; 78:3 that the sun and the moon are the same size (both are “great lights” in Gen 1:14 and in 1 Enoch 78:3), he echoes biblical language by designating the sun “the great light” in 72:35–36: it “is the great eternal light which for ever and ever is named the

8 This fact makes it very difficult to believe that 1 Enoch 80:2–8 originates from the same composition as the other parts of the Astronomical Book. In those verses the luminaries change their accustomed courses “in the days of the sinners,” while elsewhere in the book these bodies never deviate from their assigned routes before the new creation.

94

james c. vanderkam

sun. And this which rises is the great light, which is (so) named after its appearance, as the Lord commanded” (cf. 72:4).9 The Ethiopic wording is berhàn 'abiy (in 72:4 it is berhàn za-ya'àbi ).10 The Ethiopic version of Genesis refers to the sun as za-ya'abbi berhàn in 1:16.11 The moon is correspondingly called “the smaller light” in 73:1 (berhàn ne"us). In Ethiopic Gen 1:16 the moon is za-yene""es berhàn. Hence, the Astronomical Book with Genesis calls both sun and moon great lights and names the sun the great light and the moon the little light. Signs: There are several references in the Astronomical Book to “signs” which may be influenced by the tta in Gen 1:14 (ta"amer in Ethiopic Gen 1:14).12 In ch. 72 the term in the singular is employed in connection with the four points of the year (the equinoxes and solstices). These are also the four times in the year when there are 31 days in a month rather than 30 as in the other eight months. 72:13 reads: “And the sun returns to the east, and comes to the sixth gate, and rises and sets in the sixth gate for thirty-one mornings because of its sign [ba"enta te"merta zi"ahu].” As v. 14 indicates, the writer is speaking about the summer solstice.13 The same information is given in 9 F. Martin (Le livre d’Hénoch [Documents pour l’étude de la Bible, Les apocryphes de l’Ancien Testament; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1906]), referred to Gen 1:14–16 in connection with 1 Enoch 72:36. 10 Knibb’s reading is taken from Ryl 23, a manuscript in the II or b group; this reading also appears in the edition of J. Flemming, Das Buch Henoch: Äthiopischer Text (TUGAL 7/1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902), 90 (berhàn za-ya'abbi ). R. H. Charles (The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch [Anecdota oxoniensia; Oxford: Clarendon, 1906], 132), however, read berhàn 'àbiy on the basis of his manuscript g (from the I or a group). 11 Readings from Ethiopic Genesis are taken from J. O. Boyd, ed., The Octateuch in Ethiopic, According to the Text of the Paris Codex, with the Variants of Five Other Manuscripts (Bibliotheca Abessinica 3; Leiden: Brill; Princeton: The University Library, 1909). 12 Commentators have not had an easy time determining what P meant by tta in Gen 1:14. As J. Skinner observed, Jer 10:2, where μymçh twta are astrological, has led some to find that sense in Gen 1:14. He rejected that view as unlikely and favored the notion of “token, indication” which is defined by the words that follow—“for seasons and for days and years.” The presence of a conjunction before “for seasons” complicates this solution. In the end he decided that none of the standard explanations is free of difficulties (Genesis [2d ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1930], 25–26). C. Westermann has suggested “distinguishing mark” as the sense of the term (Genesis 1–11: A Commentary [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984], 130). 13 A. Dillmann (Das Buch Henoch. Uebersetzt und erklärt [Leipzig: Vogel, 1853], 225 n. to v. 13) pointed out that the feminine suffix on zi"a- referred to the gate, not the sun, which is treated as masculine. In 1853 only a small amount of textual evidence was available, and the masculine suffix is now well attested (as in Knibb’s manuscript apparently, although the reading is not clear from the photograph). The connection with the solstice is recognized by all the commentators, whichever form of the suffix is to be read. See, for example. S. Uhlig, Das Äthiopische Henochbuch ( JSHRZ 5/6; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1984), 641.

scripture in the astronomical book of enoch

95

72:19 for the autumnal equinox;14 strangely, the author fails to mention the signs for the winter solstice and vernal equinox but the same circumstances would apply (72:25, 31 are the places where we would have expected the term).15 In 78:7 sign is used again in connection with the moon—the full moon “according to the sign of the year.”16 Functions: The word sign is used not only in this sense in the Astronomical Book but also in more general statements that use a number of the terms found in Gen 1:14–15a: “And God said, ‘Let 14

Jub. 4:17 says of Enoch that he “wrote down in a book the signs of the sky in accord with the fixed pattern of their months so that mankind would know the seasons of the year according to the fixed patterns of each of their months.” For the signs in the Astronomical Book, see O. Neugebauer in M. Black, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch: A New English Edition (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 395: “The translation of te"merta zi"ahà [some manuscripts, as noted above, read a masculine and some a feminine suffix on this word] as ‘its sign’ is misleading since it could be taken as a reference to zodiacal signs (which do not exist in Enoch’s astronomy). The purpose of this remark, however, is to explain that 31 days of the sun’s risings in the same gate is indicative for the position of the equinoxes and solstices.” That the signs refer to the zodiac had been a widespread claim in the literature: Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch, 233; G. Beer, “Das Buch Henoch,” in APAT 2.278 n. l; Charles, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), 152–53 n. to 72:8. Charles thought the writer “tried to replace the heathen conception of the sun’s revolution through the signs of the zodiac by a scheme founded as he believes on the O.T. . . .” (152). Cf. M. Albani, Astronomie und Schöpfungsglaube: Untersuchungen zum astronomischen Henochbuch (WMANT 68; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994), 329–32; Albani properly recognizes the signs for what they are and deals with them in connection with related texts. The term twa has elicited renewed discussion because of its use in 4Q319 and 4Q320 where it marks the time when the vernal equinox and the new or full moon (which one is not clear) coincide, something that happens every three years (see the discussion of J. Ben-Dov, “Otot,” in Qumran Cave 4 XVI Calendrical Texts [ed. S. Talmon, J. BenDov, and U. Glessmer; DJD 21; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001], 208–10). 15 In this regard the rendering of Gen 1:14 in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is interesting: “God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs and as festival times, and for counting the reckoning of days, and for sanctifying the beginnings of months and the beginnings of years, the intercalations of months and the intercalations of years, the solstices, the new moon, and the cycles (of the sun).’ ” The translation is from M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Genesis: Translated, with Introduction and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 1B; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992; according to the practice in this series, words differing from the MT text are italicized). 16 Even Neugebauer says about this use of sign: “What the character of the ‘year’ has to do in this context (verse 7) I do not understand. Error for ‘month’ (hollow/ full)?” (The Book of Enoch, 409.) Dillmann (Das Buch Henoch, 241) thought the sign referred to an instance in which there was a month with fifteen days until the full moon, that is, a thirty-day month; Charles, (The Book of Enoch or I Enoch, 168 n. to v. 7) seems to agree. The signs mentioned in 82:16, 19 have to do with the different characteristics of the times of the year when the four leaders are in charge (only two of which are found in the Ethiopic version). See Neugebauer, The Book of Enoch, 414: “climatic and agricultural characteristics.”

96

james c. vanderkam

there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs [Ethiopic Genesis: ta"amer] and for seasons [zaman] and for days [mawà'el] and years ['àmatàt], and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth’.” In 1 Enoch 75:317 we read: “For the signs [te"mert] and the times ["azmàn] and the years ['àmatàt] and the days [mawà'el] the angel Uriel showed to me, whom the Lord of eternal glory has placed in charge of all the lights of heaven, in heaven and in the world, that they might rule [ yemleku] on the face of heaven, and appear [ yetra'àyu] over the earth, and be the leaders of day and night, (namely) the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and all the serving creatures who revolve in all the chariots of heaven.” Similar statements appear in the last chapter. In 82:7 Enoch tells Methuselah: “And the account of it (is) true, and the recorded reckoning of it (is) exact, for the lights, and the months, and the feasts [ba'àlàt], and the years, and the days18 Uriel showed me, and he inspired me—he to whom the Lord of the whole created world gave commands to the host of heaven for me.” Or in vv. 9–10: “And this is the law of the stars which set in their places, at their times ["azmànihomu], and at their feasts [ba'àlàtihomu], and in their months. And these (are) the names of those who lead them, who keep watch that they appear at their times, and in their orders, and at their proper times, and in their months, and in their periods of rule [“el†ànàtihomu], and in their positions.” 19 The thought that the sun and moon rule the day and night arises from Gen 1:16 (hlylh÷μwyh tlçmml; in Ethiopic Genesis the verb yemlak is used in both instances).20 So we may conclude that the writer of the Astronomical Book 17

Dillmann (Das Buch Henoch, 233) noted that Gen 1:15–18 underlay this passage. As both 1 Enoch 75:3 and 82:7 support the order years/days, it may be that the writer’s text of Gen 1:14 (end) read in this way, although among the Greek witnesses to Genesis it is a poorly attested variant (see J. Wevers, ed., Genesis [Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis, vol. I; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974], 78). 19 For this passage we have Aramaic evidence: 4QEnastrb frg. 28 lines 1–2 preserve several words from v. 9: ˆwhylgdl ˆwhyçdjl ˆwhyd[m?l and from v. 10: ˆwhnfl?çkw ˆwhtrsm lkl. See Milik, The Books of Enoch, 295; Tigchelaar and García Martínez, “4QAstronomical Enochb ar,” DJD 36.165. 20 Albani argues that both the Genesis statement and the parallels in the Astronomical Book arise, not through use of the former by the latter, but from a common source (the MUL.APIN system) (Astronomie und Schöpfungsglaube, 329–33). While that is possible, the number of close parallels in wording with Genesis 1 make direct literary dependence more likely. 18

scripture in the astronomical book of enoch

97

was familiar with the Genesis account of the fourth day when God created the luminaries, the subject of the Astronomical Book. He borrowed from its wording and its teachings about the two major celestial lights that affect the earth’s inhabitants.21 B. Isa 30:26: The author read the Genesis creation story in the context of other scriptural givens, including Isa 30:26, a passage that generally, but especially in the wording of some witnesses (1QIsaa and the MT), invites comparison with the creation chapter. 1. The verse in Isaiah: Isa 30:26 appears in a context in which the prophet speaks of future judgment (vv. 8–17) and blessing (vv. 18–26). It is thus the concluding part in a promise made to the people of Zion. The promise includes a prediction of great plenty on the earth because of an ample water supply. Then finally the writer turns to the heavens: “Moreover the light of the moon ?hnblh¿ will be like the light of the sun ?hmjh¿, and the light of the sun ?hmjh¿ will be sevenfold, like the light of seven days, on the day when the Lord binds up the injuries of his people, and heals the wounds inflicted by his blow.” The words sun and moon, sevenfold and seven days, make it difficult to dissociate Isa 30:26 from Genesis 1. Yet we should notice that Isaiah, unlike Genesis, uses words for sun and moon. Also, the phrase “like the light of seven days” is problematic. It is absent from the LXX,22 although it is present in 1QIsaa. In the latter it has an odd appearance: the ink seems darker (perhaps because the scribe had just dipped his quill in the inkpot), and the definite article before “days” is written in the margin but by the same scribe.23 That definite article could have exegetical significance: without it the 21 It is possible to reverse the order, claiming that Genesis borrowed from the Astronomical Book. Milik, for one, thinks that Gen 5:23 refers to it (The Books of Enoch, 8). All indicators, though, suggest that Genesis is the earlier text and the Astronomical Book the later one (see Stone and Greenfield, “The Books of Enoch and the Traditions of Enoch,” 92–93; they correctly state that, even if Gen 5:23 did suggest there were Enochic works in existence, we would not know the Astronomical Book was one of them). 22 As a result, it is also absent from the Ethiopic version of Isaiah. In the edition of J. Bachmann, Der Prophet Jesaia nach der Aethiopischen Bibeluebersetzung auf Grund handschriftlicher Quellen, 1. Teil: Der Aethiopische Text (Berlin: Emil Felber, 1893), no manuscripts are listed as including these words. The fact that they are reflected in the Astronomical Book (see below) indicates that the Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch at this point has not been influenced by the Ethiopic version of the Bible. 23 I thank my colleague Eugene Ulrich for discussing the evidence of the manuscript with me.

98

james c. vanderkam

phrase could be rendered as “like light of seven days” explaining the previous “seven-fold”; with the definite article it means “like the light of the seven days,” possibly referring to the creation week rather than to just any seven-day period. The passage presents a number of difficulties, and modern commentators understandably spend little time with it. It begins by saying that the light of sun and moon will be the same and adds that the sun’s light will in some sense also be sevenfold (like [the] seven days). How the latter part of the verse relates to the first is unclear. More germane to our purposes is how it may have been understood in antiquity. One example of relatively early interpretation is the targum of Isaiah, which renders the verse as: “Moreover, the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be about to shine three hundred forty-three times more, as the light of seven days, in the day when the Lord will return the exiles of his people, and will heal the sickness inflicted by his blow.”24 The eschatological bent of the text is retained, but the unusual feature is the number 343 for the light of the sun: the number equals, not the sevenfold of the Hebrew text, but seven cubed.25 Perhaps the thought was: the sun is seven times brighter than the moon; the moon’s brightness will therefore be increased sevenfold in the future, but the sun’s brightness will then be further increased μyt[bç, with the dual form understood as seven times seven. 2. The verse in the Astronomical Book: Judging from the history of exegesis elsewhere (see below), our writer uses Isa 30:26 to clarify a potential problem in Gen 1:14–19. The language of the Isaianic passage is reflected in several places in the Astronomical Book; we should examine them before turning to the exegetical issue. 1 Enoch 72:37: “And thus it [= the sun] rises and sets; it neither decreases, nor rests, but runs day and night in (its) chariot. And its light is seven times brighter than that of the moon, but in size the two are equal.”26 Here we find the first declaration in the Astronomical 24 The translation is from B. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 11; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1987). 25 Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, 61, apparatus. 26 The commentators have noted that the passage stands in some sort of relation to Isa 30:26. See, for example, Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch, 226 (where he mentions that Isa 30:26 is also used in 1 Enoch 91:16); Beer, “Das Buch Henoch,” 280 n. e (surprisingly, Charles failed to mention the scriptural verse in his 1912 commentary). But E. Rau (“Kosmologie, Eschatologie und die Lehrautorität Henochs: Traditions- und formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum äth. Henochbuch und zu

scripture in the astronomical book of enoch

99

Book that the two great luminaries are of the same size27 but the sun is distinguished from the moon by its far greater brightness. The information about relative size and levels of illumination does not arise explicitly from the text of Genesis 1; as we will see, however, it does respond to a problem in the text. 73:3: “And every month its [= the moon’s] rising and its setting change, and its days (are) as the days of the sun, and when its light is uniformly (full), it is a seventh part of the light of the sun.”28 In this case it seems that the author concluded from the second half of Isa 30:26 that the light of the sun was seven times that of the moon, even though the two will be the same according to the first part of the verse (see below). 78:3–4: “These are the two great lights; their disc (is) like the disc of heaven, and in size29 the two (are) equal. In the disc of the sun (are) seven parts of light which are added to it more than to the moon, and in fixed measure (light) is transferred (to the moon) until a seventh part of the sun is exhausted.”30 An interesting feature of this passage is that it juxtaposes a phrase from Gen 1:16 (“the two great lights”) with a statement about the comparative brightness of the sun and moon. As we shall see, this was the issue that exercised ancient exegetes. 3. The verse in other texts: Isa 30:26 played a role elsewhere in Jewish deliberations about the meaning of Gen 1:14–19; as these verwandten Schriften [unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Hamburg, 1974], 197) sees matters differently. He grants that the passage may stand in relation to Isa 30:26 but doubts that it and 1 Enoch 73:3 (see below) have developed directly from it because of the difference in wording and in the conception involved. “Wahrscheinlicher ist ein Zusammenhang mit der in 74,3 beschriebenen Vorstellung, dass das Licht des Mondes (also ein Siebtel des Lichts der Sonne) sich selbst wiederum aus Portionen von je einem Siebtel des Halbmondes zusammensetzt.” As we will see, the content of the verse from Isaiah and the combination of it with Gen 1:14–19 in the history of exegesis make Isa 30:26 the likeliest source of 1 Enoch 72:37 and parallels. A difference in wording is hardly an impediment to the derivation. 27 As Neugebauer comments, the statement about size “is very nearly correct, as is common knowledge in ancient astronomy (based on evidence from solar eclipses”; as he also observes, it is nearly correct only in the sense of their “apparent sizes” (The Book of Enoch, 396 and n. 12). 28 Cf. Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch, 227. 29 Although the manuscripts in the II or b group have “their size,” many other manuscripts offer the longer reading “the size of their disk/roundness [kebabomu]” (so Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch; Flemming, Das Buch Henoch). 30 It is only at this point that Martin (Le livre d’Hénoch, 180, n.) refers to Isa 30:26, adducing also 1 Enoch 72:7 by which he must have meant 72:37. Dillmann (Das Buch Henoch, 239–40) argued that some of the names for the sun and moon in 1 Enoch 78:1–2 derived from hmj and hnbl in Isa 30:26.

100

james c. vanderkam

other uses will clarify the ones in the Astronomical Book, we should examine them. The point that drove the debate was a perceived conflict in Genesis 1 which calls both sun and moon “great lights” yet labels the sun “the great light” and the moon “the small light.” How could the moon be both great and small?31 One solution was to posit an early demotion of the moon from a status of equality with the sun. In b. Óul. 60b we find: R. Simeon b. Pazzi pointed out a contradiction [between verses]. One verse says: And God made the two great lights, and immediately the verse continues: The greater light . . . and the lesser light. The moon said unto the Holy One, blessed be He, “Sovereign of the Universe! Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” He answered: “Go then and make thyself smaller.” “Sovereign of the Universe!” cried the moon, “Because I have suggested that which is proper must I then make myself smaller?” He replied: “Go and thou wilt rule by day and by night.” “But what is the value of this?” cried the moon. “Of what use is a lamp in broad daylight?” He replied: “Go. Israel shall reckon by thee the days and the years.” “But it is impossible,” said the moon, “to do without the sun for the reckoning of the seasons, as it is written: And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.” “Go. The righteous shall be named after thee as we find, Jacob the Small, Samuel the Small, David the Small.” On seeing that it would not be consoled the Holy One, blessed be He, said: “Bring an atonement for Me for making the moon smaller.” This is what was meant by R. Simeon b. Lakish when he declared: Why is it that the he-goat offered on the new moon is distinguished in that there is written concerning it unto the Lord? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Let this hegoat be an atonement for Me for making the moon smaller.32

Some of the issues in this passage figure also in Gen. Rab. 6.3, a section that records comments on Gen 1:16 (the two great lights). “Since [God] calls them ‘great,’ how is it possible that he then goes and diminishes [one of] them by saying, ‘the great light and the lesser light’ (Gen. 1:16)? It is because [the latter] entered the territory of its fellow. [The moon sometimes appears by day, not only by night.]”33 The passage goes on to discuss the unique phrase “for 31 Jubilees avoids the problem by not reproducing the words “the two great lights” of Gen 1:16 in 2:8. God simply made sun, moon, and stars, and the sun is called “a great sign” later in 2:9, not the moon which, of course, is assigned no calendrical function in the book. 32 For all passages from the Babylonian Talmud, the Soncino translation is cited. 33 The translation (with the explanatory comment in brackets) is cited from J. Neusner, Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis A New American Translation, vol. I (BJS 104; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985).

scripture in the astronomical book of enoch

101

the Lord” with respect to the new moon offering (Num 28:15) with the same explanation as in b. Óul. 60b. The idea that the moon became smaller at a later time is expressed also in 3 Bar 9:6–7 where God became angry at the moon for giving light to Samael when he took on the disguise of a serpent; as a result he made the moon smaller and its days fewer.34 That the moon was punished appears as well in Pirqe R. El. 4: On the fourth day He created the two great lights—neither one was bigger than the other, but the two were equal in their height, their form, and the light that they gave off, as it is written, “And God made the two great lights. . . .” But then they began to strive with one another: one would say to the other, “I am greater than you,” and the other would say, “No, I am greater than you!” and there was no peace between them. What did God do? He made one great and the other small, as it is written, “the great light to rule the day, and the small light to rule the night.”35

Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 1:16 reads this interpretation into its rendering of the verse: “God made the two great lights, and they were equal in glory for twenty-one hours [variant: years] less six hundred and seventy-two parts of an hour. After that the moon spoke with a slanderous tongue against the sun, and it was made smaller. And he appointed the sun which was the greater light to rule over the day, and the moon which was the lesser light , and the stars.”36 The targumist and/or the tradition he records realized that the change had to happen within one day because both of the phrases—”the two great lights” and “the lesser light”—were used in the paragraph about the fourth day of the creation.

34 An archangel teaches Baruch who has just asked why the moon is sometimes larger and at other times smaller: “ ‘Listen, O. Baruch: That which you see was designed by God to be beautiful without peer. And during the transgression of the first Adam, she gave light to Samael when he took the serpent as a garment, and did not hide, but on the contrary, waxed. And God was angered with her, and diminished her and shortened her days.’ ” The translation is from H. Gaylord, “3 (Greek Apocalypse of ) Baruch (First to Third Century AD),” in OTP 1:673. 35 The translation is cited from J. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press, 1998), 78. In G. Friedlander, Pirkê de Rabbi Eliezer (repr.: New York: Hermon, 1970), the passage is found in ch. 6. Similar material is present in ch. 51. 36 M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Genesis. In his notes to the passage (p. 18), Maher refers to some of the passages given in this section.

102

james c. vanderkam

In b. Pesa˙. 68a the passage from Isa 30:26 is contrasted with Isa 24:23: R. Hisda opposed [two verses]. It is written, Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed; whereas it is written, Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of the seven days? There is no difficulty: the former refers to the world to come; the latter to the days of the Messiah. But according to Samuel, who maintained, This world differs from the Messianic age only in respect of the servitude to governments, what can be said?—Both refer to the world to come, yet there is no difficulty: one refers to the camp of the righteous; the other, to the camp of the Shechinah. (the same material is found in b. Sanh. 91b)

In clarifying the contrast between the two Isaianic verses, the exegetes correctly note the eschatological import of Isaiah’s words. The author of the Astronomical Book confronted the same problem that the rabbinic scholars faced much later as they read Gen 1:16. In other words, the problem is very old in the history of exegesis. The solution he adopted, however, was different. In his system, once created, the luminaries did not change from the situation commanded for them by their maker. Hence there was no room for reducing the size of the moon as a punishment. As we saw above, in 1 Enoch 78:3–4, the problematic phrase in Gen 1:16, “the two great lights,” is brought into direct contact with the theme of Isa 30:26—the sun’s light is seven times brighter than that of the moon. Though the two luminaries are equal in size (“the two great lights”), they differ in brightness. In this way the writer of Gen 1:16 was justified in calling one the greater and the other the lesser light in the very next phrase after calling both great.37 The Astronomical Book, while evidencing familiarity with the interpretive issue, moves in a different direction than those pursued in the rabbinic texts. The writer knew of the inference that the two heavenly bodies were the same size (see Pirqe R. El. 4) and accepted it, but this was not the situation only at the beginning; it continues to be the case and will remain true until the end. Unlike b. Pesa˙. 68a, he 37 J. Kugel, who adduces some of these passages under the rubric “Shrink the Moon,” considers the Enochic author’s handling of the difficulty in Gen 1:16 “a clever solution” (Traditions of the Bible, 78).

scripture in the astronomical book of enoch

103

did not read all of Isa 30:26 in an eschatological vein. Rather, in the Astronomical Book one of the statements of Isaiah about the relative brightness of sun and moon is taken to describe conditions between the first and second creations. It is likely that our ancient expositor did not ignore the clear eschatological formulation of Isa 30:26. Rather, as he read the passage, the problematic phrase mentioned above (“like the light of the seven days”), though it figures in a verse about the future, alludes to the first creation (“the seven days”) when, as the previous term μyt[bç expresses, the sun’s light was seven times greater than something, which in the context he sensibly took to be the moon. We could conclude that the author of the Astronomical Book was solving a problem of interpretation, nothing more. The truth proves to be different. The solution was for him not just an exegetical nicety, but an inference that served as the basis of, or at least a support for, one of his fundamental teachings about the luminaries.

WISDOM, INSTRUCTION, AND SOCIAL LOCATION IN SIRACH AND 1 ENOCH* Benjamin G. Wright III Lehigh University

In his seminal article, “Lists of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature,” Michael Stone addressed, among other matters, the relationship between apocalyptic and wisdom literature as evidenced in the lists of secrets revealed to apocalyptic seers.1 In that article and several others, Stone also commented more specifically on the relationship between the Wisdom of Ben Sira, 1 Enoch and Aramaic Levi.2 His provocative comments led me some years ago to give close readings to a number of passages in Sir that struck me as attempts to refute ideas like those made in certain sections of 1 Enoch, especially the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36) and the Astronomical Book (1 Enoch 72–82), as well as the Aramaic Levi Document.3 I was spurred on further when I encountered Randal Argall’s work on the relationship

* I have learned more than I probably realize from Michael Stone—from his published works, in seminars with him, and in collegial conversation. I am pleased to offer this contribution in honor of an esteemed teacher and friend. It is an extensive revision of my paper, “Wisdom and Instruction in Ben Sira and 1 Enoch” presented in the “Wisdom and Apocalypticism in Early Judaism and Christianity Group” at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in Toronto, November 23–26, 2002. In that seminar George W. E. Nickelsburg and John Kampen offered very cogent responses to my paper. The authors have generously allowed me to include material from their responses in this article. I refer to them below as Nickelsburg, “Response” and Kampen, “Response.” In what follows I employ the abbreviation Sir to refer to the wisdom book and Ben Sira to indicate its author. 1 In Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright (ed. F. M. Cross Jr., W. E. Lemke and P. D. Miller; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 414–52; reprinted in M. E. Stone, Selected Studies in Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha: With Special Reference to the Armenian Tradition (SVTP 9; Brill: Leiden, 1991), 379–418. 2 “Lists,” passim; “Enoch, Aramaic Levi and Sectarian Origins,” JSJ 19 (1988): 159–70, p. 167 (reprinted in Selected Studies, 247–58); “Ideal Figures and Social Context: Priest and Sage in the Early Second Temple Age,” Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, S. D. McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 575–86, pp. 578–82 (reprinted in Selected Studies, 259–72). 3 Some of these ideas also appear in the Epistle of Enoch (1 Enoch 92–105), which I did not treat in my earlier work, but which I will examine below.

106

benjamin g. wright iii

between 1 Enoch and Sir.4 While Argall argued very persuasively that there was a literary and conceptual relationship between the two, my research focused on trying to detect any specific social connections between people like Ben Sira, who supported the priestly establishment in Jerusalem, and others like those represented especially in the Book of the Watchers and Aramaic Levi who apparently criticized those in power in the Temple.5 The extent to which one can identify a specific group standing behind any ancient Jewish text presents a major methodological obstacle to this kind of inquiry, however. Warnings abound against assuming that a text represents a social group, and on more than one occasion Stone himself has noted the perilous nature of moving too blithely from understanding a text to imagining a social group responsible for it. As he wrote in CBQ in 1978, “Caution in such matters is wise, for the movement from tendencies of thought discerned in the analysis of texts to the positing of the existence of otherwise unattested social groups is fraught with peril. Yet that danger is one that the scholar must brave if his analysis is conducted in terms that imply a sociological matrix of the development of ideas.”6 In this paper, I want to think about “a sociological matrix of the development of ideas” in the Wisdom of Ben Sira and in three sections of 1 Enoch (the Astronomical Book, the Book of the Watchers, the Epistle of Enoch) without trying to posit identifiable social groups behind them and thus falling into the group-identification morass. Here I want to ask some questions not about what social groups might have produced the texts, but in what social locations these works may have originated or at least been used. The argument essentially breaks down into three parts. First, Michael Stone, George Nickelsburg and Randal Argall have all offered strong cases that parts of 1 Enoch employ sapiential forms, language and ideas, although 4 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment (SBLEJL 8; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). 5 “Putting the Puzzle Together: Some Suggestions Concerning the Social Location of the Wisdom of Ben Sira,” Society of Biblical Literature 1996 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 133–49; “ ‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research (ed. P. C. Beentjes; BZAW 255; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 189–222. 6 “The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century BCE,” in Emerging Judaism (ed. M. E. Stone and D. Satran; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 65–66 (originally in CBQ 40 [1978]: 479–92). More recently, see L. Grabbe, “The Social Setting of Early Jewish Apocalypticism,” JSP 4 (1989): 27–47.

wisdom, instruction, and social location

107

they are frequently invested with different content and meaning.7 In my own work I have argued that the authors/redactors of the Book of the Watchers and the Astronomical Book presented their work as wisdom to be handed down from generation to generation.8 To what extent can we characterize the Enochic books as wisdom? Second, those Israelite and Jewish works traditionally included in the category “wisdom” have a clear pedagogical/instructional function. The use of the short maxim or proverb meant to condition behavior, what we might call ethical training and character formation, and the transparent mentoring relationship of father to son (even, as in Proverbs 31, mother to son) or teacher to student (often articulated in a fictive father/son relationship) point to some pedagogical context. When compared with a book like Sir, does the use and reformulation of wisdom elements in the Enochic works indicate that their authors/redactors intended them as instruction? Third, scholars have variously situated ancient instruction as taking place in the family, the “school,” the Temple or the royal court.9 If we are warranted in characterizing the Enochic books as containing wisdom that is offered as instruction, might we then situate the genesis and subsequent life of these texts in any of those traditional ancient contexts where pedagogy routinely took place?

The Enochic Books of Wisdom In my article “Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest” I tried to make the case that we can read parts of Sir as polemical comments about matters of calendar, revelatory visions and priestly legitimacy such as we find in the Book of the Watchers, the Astronomical Book and

7

For discussion of various wisdom elements in 1 Enoch, see Stone, “Lists”; “Enoch, Aramaic Levi,” 162–63; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom: An Alternative to the Mosaic Torah?” in HESED VE-EMET: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs (ed. J. Magness and S. Gitin; BJS 320; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 123–32; Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 17–52. In this paper I only discuss the three sections of 1 Enoch that look to be contemporary with Sir or that predate it. One could also examine the Book of Dreams and the Parables, but these postdate Sir. 8 See Wright, “Putting the Puzzle Together,” 146–49 and “Fear the Lord,” 218–22. 9 On the problem of the school as the setting of biblical wisdom, see A. Lemaire, “The Sage in School and Temple,” in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. J. G. Gammie and L. G. Perdue; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 165–81 and the literature cited therein.

108

benjamin g. wright iii

Aramaic Levi. The authority for Ben Sira’s teaching rests on the foundation of the Israelite sapiential tradition—the Torah and the accumulated wisdom of the sages. Disciplined study of the Torah and attentiveness to the sages’ words constituted for him the vehicles for acquiring wisdom and knowledge and for leading a life pleasing to God and other people. Indeed, in Sir 38:34b–39:11, Ben Sira compares his wisdom to prophecy, which he receives through prayer. The sage’s wisdom thus constitutes inspired wisdom and, as Stone notes, in that respect brings “Ben Sira’s conception of the sage close to the apocalyptic seer, particularly in actions and attitudes relating to inspiration.”10 The Enochic authors/redactors bolster their claims by articulating a notion of wisdom that relies on a different authority from that claimed by sages like Ben Sira. They anchor their claims to authority in an “esoteric revealed wisdom” received directly from heaven through Enoch’s dreams and visions and handed down from antedeluvian times.11 Those who would read and understand Enoch’s wisdom/knowledge would learn proper calendar reckoning and priestly conduct, and they could know that the events foreseen by the ancient patriarch—that some would act impiously—referred to those in power in Jerusalem.12 Thus, the wisdom granted to Enoch could function for those who used his books as a counter-wisdom to that proffered by sages like Ben Sira. The “account” of Enoch’s transmission of this knowledge to his son Methuselah in 1 Enoch 82:1–3 establishes the antiquity and written continuity of his wisdom. And now, my son Methuselah, all these things I am recounting to you and writing down for you; and I have revealed to you everything, and given you writings of all these things. Keep, my son, Methuselah, the writings of your father’s hand, that you may deliver them to the generations of eternity. Wisdom I have given to you and to your children, and to those who will be your children, that they may transmit it to their children, and to generations of generations forever, to whoever is endowed with wisdom; and they shall celebrate all the wise. Wisdom shall slumber, (but) in their mind those who have understanding shall not slumber, but they shall hearken with their ears that they may learn this wisdom, and it shall be better for those that partake of it than rich food.

10 11 12

Stone, “Ideal Figures,” 581. The phrase comes from Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 251. Wright, “Fear the Lord,” 218–22.

wisdom, instruction, and social location

109

In this passage, the handing down of Enoch’s wisdom from father to son recalls the home and family setting of much ancient wisdom instruction (see Proverbs, for example) or even the artificial family relationships invoked by the sage in the school, who can address his charge as “my son.” This passage thus evokes two of the principal ancient contexts where wisdom would be transmitted. 1 Enoch does more than employ the image of the transmission of wisdom from father to son or sage to student. It routinely incorporates forms, language and ideas of the Israelite sapiential tradition, and in these respects it demonstrates an affinity with wisdom texts. In “Lists of Revealed Things,” to cite one example, Stone demonstrated the connections between lists of natural and cosmological secrets revealed to apocalyptic seers and the cosmological elements of the wisdom tradition, even though the apocalyptic lists reformulate the older wisdom material. 1 Enoch 93:11–14 does just that when it adopts the sapiential rhetorical device of using an interrogative to emphasize the inscrutability of God’s wonders. In taking over the sapiential form, Stone argues, the apocalypticist adapts it to its new context. . . . [T]he significance of 1 Enoch 93 is that an interrogative formulation can be moved from a pure Wisdom context to one in which, in both content and form, it refers to and is relevant to the secret tradition of apocalyptic speculation. This particular transformation of a Wisdom form and of Wisdom language is part of a general movement in the apocalyptic writings toward interpretation and reuse of Wisdom language. “Wisdom” is invested, therefore, with a new meaning.13

Even though he concludes that the origins of some apocalyptic speculations about natural phenomena “are to be sought in Wisdom passages, or in hymns of praise to God as Creator,” Stone explicitly distinguishes his position from that of G. von Rad, who maintained that apocalyptic had its origins in the wisdom tradition.14 He notes that the wisdom material does not help “directly to explain the more curious and less obvious objects of apocalyptic speculation. It seems most probable that part of this speculative concern of the apocalyptic lists derived from Wisdom sources, although the lines of connection may prove difficult to trace. It is impossible, however, to see Wisdom tradition as the only source from which the interest in these 13

Stone, “Lists,” 426. Stone, “Lists,” 431. See G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (Nashville: Abingdon; London: SCM, 1972). 14

110

benjamin g. wright iii

subjects sprang.”15 Yet the wisdom given to the antedeluvian wisdom figure, Enoch, differs dramatically from traditional Israelite wisdom. The Enochic authors presented their texts as revealed wisdom, not acquired through study or human reflection, even if in doing so they appealed to the familiar language of Jewish sapiential tradition.16 Randal Argall offers a variety of elements throughout the Enochic corpus as evidence that these works employ wisdom forms and ideas and that the corpus, as a collection, is portrayed as a book of wisdom. Right at the beginning, the framework of the Book of the Watchers is reminiscent of a testament, a form of instruction in which wisdom gets transmitted from parent to child.17 In what may have originally been the conclusion to the Book of the Watchers, 81:5–82:3 provides a testamentary closing, which explicitly interprets the book’s revelation as wisdom that Enoch writes down for transmission to future generations (see the citation above).18 As an additional framing device, 1 Enoch 1:2, 3 also describe the content of the patriarch’s visions as a lçm or parabolÆ, a common wisdom term.19 Argall argues that several other features of the Book of the Watchers—the teaching of forbidden knowledge by the angel Asael (chaps. 6–11), Enoch’s role as “scribe of righteousness” (12:1), the Tree of Wisdom (chap. 32)—all reflect sapiential language and motifs.20 Argall demonstrates that both the narrative bridge to the Epistle (91:1–10, 18–19) and the Epistle itself (92–105) reveal strong wisdom connections as well. The superscription describes it as “this complete sign of wisdom” addressed to “all my sons upon the earth, and to the last generation who will observe truth and peace” (92:1). Its author explicitly utilizes the wisdom categories of the wise and the foolish in 98:9–99:10 and 104:9–105:2 to describe his own community and 15 “Lists,” 438. The same can probably be said of the relationship between wisdom and apocalyptic more broadly. Although I argue here for influence and use of wisdom in apocalyptic texts, Stone’s conclusion is certainly correct. 16 On Enoch as a wisdom figure, see Stone, “Enoch, Aramaic Levi,” 162–63 and literature cited therein. On revealed wisdom, see Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 35 17 The opening chapters of 1 Enoch allude to Moses’ testament in Deuteronomy 33. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 18; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 135. 18 On these verses as a conclusion to the Book of the Watchers, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 334–37. 19 This initial section of 1 Enoch is based on Balaam’s oracle. On the term lçm/ parabolÆ in this context, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 138–139 and Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 19–20. 20 For detailed argument, see Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 24–35.

wisdom, instruction, and social location

111

those whom he opposes. Argall identifies the most important indicators of the Epistle’s central concern with wisdom as: (1) The wise are teachers who are in some conflict with those who teach others to disregard their words. (2) This conflict involves written texts— “Woe to those who write lying words and words of error; they write and lead many astray with their lies when they hear them” (98:15); disputes over differing interpretations of the Torah most likely lie at the heart of the problem. (3) At the end, the superiority of the wisdom of the wise will become plain for all to see.21 Argall concludes about the Epistle: This approach by the author(s) of the Epistle serves to reinforce the notion that the words of Enoch are grounded in what he learned from his tour of the upper, unseen world and in the authority he received to reveal it to his children and the last generation. In the Epistle, this perspective is used to shed light on a controversy between teachers who possessed Enoch’s books of revealed wisdom and teachers who possessed books that advocated a different way. Enoch foresaw the controversy and addressed it in the strongest possible terms. Those who follow another way are fools and idolaters. They must abandon their lies or they will perish in the judgment of God. Only the wisdom books of Enoch, the Epistle now included, reveal the paths of righteousness and truth, paths that lead to eternal salvation.22

The Astronomical Book turns out to be somewhat different from the Book of the Watchers and the Epistle in that it does not employ sapiential language and forms in any consistent and obvious manner. Yet, the book in its current form is presented in its entirety as revealed cosmological knowledge that Enoch wrote down and passed on to Methuselah (82:1–5).23 This perception is reinforced in several other passages. 1 Enoch 74:2 claims that Enoch wrote down his revelations, and in two places, Enoch mentions that he “showed” them to Methuselah (76:14; 79:1). The transmission of revealed wisdom from heaven to earth with Enoch after his ascent recalls the sapiential myth of the descent of Wisdom found in Ben Sira 24 and Baruch 4. Its use in 1 Enoch

21 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 46–47. For most of this section Argall relies on the analysis of George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Epistle of Enoch and the Qumran Literature,” Essays in Honour of Yigael Yadin (= JJS 33 [1982]) (ed. G. Vermes and J. Neusner; Totowa, N.J.: Allanheld, Osmun, 1983), 333–48. 22 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 49. 23 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 52.

112

benjamin g. wright iii

differs dramatically from its use in these other two contexts, however. As in Sir 24 and Baruch 4, the authors of 1 Enoch take up an idea found in Proverbs 8, but whereas Ben Sira and Baruch localize wisdom in the Torah, 1 Enoch’s readers are assured that they have access to this divine wisdom through Enoch’s written legacy (82:3; 104:12–13).24 Other major themes as well point to what Nickelsburg calls 1 Enoch’s “roots in the sapiential tradition.”25 1 Enoch takes its own fictive setting seriously. Since Enoch received his revelation generations before God gave the Torah to Moses, 1 Enoch downplays Moses’ importance so that “its putative author received full and definitive divine revelation millennia before the birth of Moses.”26 Indeed 1 Enoch contains “the written repository of heavenly wisdom, received by the ancient patriarch Enoch and transmitted for the salvation of the last generations who were to live before the final judgment,” and it lacks the legal forms characteristic of the Mosaic Law.27 So, for example, the author of the Epistle can describe human behavior using the metaphor of the “two ways,” a common sapiential ethical motif, rather than appealing to any legal proscription.28 He construes obedience as walking the right path and disobedience as straying from it and treading the path of wickedness. Throughout the Epistle sapiential motifs and language appear instead of formal legal language and forms. Nickelsburg concludes, “Thus the Enochic texts provide a window into a time and place in Israel’s religious history in which the Mosaic Torah is known, but revealed instruction, necessary for salvation, is tied to Enoch rather than Mosaic authority.”29 Indeed the Enochic books stand so much closer to the Israelite wisdom tradition than to the Pentateuch that Nickelsburg can assert that wisdom is an “almost all-encompassing” category in them.30 24 On Enoch and the myth of Wisdom’s descent, see Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom,” 127 and Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 53–98. 25 Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom,” 126. 26 Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom,” 129. 27 Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom,” 129. 28 For recent discussion of two-ways wisdom, see R. A. Kraft, “Early Developments of the ‘Two-Ways Tradition(s),’ in Retrospect,” For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. R. A. Argall, B. A. Bow and R. A. Werline; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 136–43 and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Seeking the Origins of the Two-Ways Tradition in Jewish and Christian Ethical Texts,” A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft (ed. B. G. Wright; Scholars Press Homage Series 24; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 95–108. 29 Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom,” 130. 30 Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom,” 125.

wisdom, instruction, and social location

113

The Instructional Function of Wisdom The sapiential character of so many elements of the Enochic works and the framing of them as wisdom books raise the question of whether texts so infused with wisdom language, forms and ideas, no matter how reformulated, have some instructional or pedagogical function similar to that of the traditional didactic wisdom of the Israelite sages. Does the sapiential character of a work like 1 Enoch indicate that it was intended to provide instruction/teaching for those who read it, and if so, for what purpose? Before discussing whether 1 Enoch might be intended as instruction and, if so, where it might be located, I want to think a little about these issues using Sir, a traditional Jewish wisdom book whose pedagogical intent is not a matter of dispute. In his response to my Toronto SBL paper, George Nickelsburg outlined four interrelated characteristics of instruction that I have found helpful in my subsequent thinking about the issue. He says that instruction can be thought of as “(1) the imparting of knowledge, (2) by means of certain literary or oral forms (and perhaps through certain kinds of action or activity), (3) within particular concrete social circumstances, (4) to accomplish specific purposes or objectives.”31 As he observes, the content of that knowledge and the forms that it takes (#1 and #2) are often much easier to identify than the setting and purpose (#3 and #4). For Sir, identifying these characteristics does not appear to present insoluble difficulties. The book is obviously didactic; its central focus is instructional, with character formation and success in life as its central goals (#4). Ben Sira frequently characterizes his teaching using the terms paide¤a/rswm (cf. 23:2, 7; 24:27, 32; 33:18; 41:14; 51:28), and he delivers it in a teacher/student relationship in some sort of formal pedagogical setting, what the text calls a “house of instruction” (51:23; #3). Those who receive that instruction and put it to use will achieve a happy and secure life. Character formation, using instruction to shape students’ behavior and their way of relating to the world, provides the basis for achieving and maintaining that “good life.” In the honor/shame society in which Ben Sira lived, his teaching equipped his students to maintain and even enhance their honor in the face of attempts to undermine it.32 31 32

Nickelsburg, “Response.” On Ben Sira and honor/shame, see C. V. Camp, “Understanding a Patriarchy:

114

benjamin g. wright iii

Instruction and character formation have in Sir a definite presentworld and practical focus (#1), and Ben Sira delivers his teaching through the medium of the wisdom saying or maxim, often connecting several together in short poems about topics like friendship, riches, powerful patrons and women (#2). He does not encourage his students to behave in a particular fashion so that they might avoid some post-mortem punishment or achieve an eschatological reward. Their reward comes in the good things that accrue to them in this life, benefits such as social status, honor and family.33 The content of Ben Sira’s teaching and the authority for it are founded on a particular notion of wisdom. God has indeed revealed wisdom to humankind, but that revelation is not apprehended in a revelatory encounter with God.34 Ben Sira claims that God sent Wisdom from heaven to dwell with his people in the Jerusalem Temple (24:8–12). No one went to heaven to get Wisdom; God sent her to Jerusalem where the Temple cult and the priests who officiate there mediate her to the community at large. Ultimately, however, Ben Sira claims that Wisdom became embodied in the “book of the covenant of the Most High God, the law that Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob” (24:23). Despite the fact that there are no direct citations from the Law in Sir, divine wisdom flows like a great river from the Mosaic Torah (24:23–29). That wisdom, mediated to humans in the Mosaic Law, requires additional mediation, found in the teaching of inspired sages, which is how Ben Sira describes his own teaching (24:30–34). Our Jerusalemite sage sees himself as the custodian and transmitter not only of the wisdom embodied in Torah, but also of an inherited tradition of scribal wisdom. Additionally, Ben Sira has acquired wisdom on his Women in Second Century Jerusalem Through the Eyes of Ben Sira,” in “Women Like This”: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (ed. A.-J. Levine; SBLEJL 1; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 1–39; idem, “Honor and Shame in Ben Sira: Anthropological and Theological Reflections,” in Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research, 171–87 and B. G. Wright and C. V. Camp, “ ‘Who Has Been Tested by Gold and Found Perfect?’ Ben Sira’s Discourse of Riches and Poverty,” Henoch 23 (2001): 153–74. 33 The major underlying reason for this emphasis is undoubtedly that Ben Sira’s view of the afterlife does not allow for any other possibilities. According to Ben Sira, and here he is in agreement with the Hebrew scriptural tradition, every human being inherits the identical post-mortem shadowy world of Sheol where there are no luxuries and all people suffer the same fate (14:16). This life, then, is what there is to enjoy. 34 In fact he seems to dismiss the legitimacy of such encounters. See Wright, “Fear the Lord,” 208–14.

wisdom, instruction, and social location

115

own by observation of human behavior and the workings of the natural world. So, for example, Ben Sira’s teaching on riches and poverty can depend on the Torah and life experience at the same time. “The prayer of the humble pierces the clouds, and it will not rest until it reaches its goal” (34:21) affirms claims made in Exod 22:21–27 that God hears the pleas of the oppressed and vindicates them.35 Yet, “A merchant can hardly keep from wrongdoing, nor is a tradesman innocent of sin” (26:29) recognizes the real-life risk of doing business in the marketplace. Ben Sira anticipates reward and blessing from God for obedience, which takes the form of success in this world, characterized by material benefit and enhanced honor, not some deferred future salvation in the time of judgment. God’s judgment also occurs in the here-and-now, and the wicked will not escape it in their lifetimes (cf. 11:14–28; 14:11–16). The situation in the Astronomical Book, the Book of the Watchers and the Epistle differs from that in Sir in several crucial respects, and thus the question of whether their authors intended them in whole or in part as instruction is more difficult to sort out. While we can reconstruct a social setting for Sir, the Enochic works are pseudonymous, and their social settings must be extrapolated from their fictional ones.36 Whereas the topics and literary form of Sir make its didactic function clear, 1 Enoch’s use of revelatory visions and extended narrative in and of itself does not immediately signal an instructional purpose, although Enoch’s visions do serve as a vehicle for imparting knowledge. The Astronomical Book may be perhaps the clearest case of instruction in 1 Enoch. In essence, the Astronomical Book almost exclusively contains data—that is, cosmological, astronomical and meteorological information set out in excruciating detail. In a rather straightforward manner, the work provides the details of the movements of the sun and moon throughout the years, months and days, especially information about the way in which the solar and lunar years become increasingly out of sync with one another (#1). This compendium comes to the reader in the form of revelation that the seer Enoch has received from the angel Uriel (#2). While the revelatory instruction about these astronomical phenomena does not give any indication of a specific social setting, one can at minimum say that “[i]ts setting appears to have 35 36

See Wright and Camp, “Who Has Been Tested,” 160. Nickelsburg, “Response.”

116

benjamin g. wright iii

been some venue where persons concerned with astronomical observation and calendrical observance carried out their activity” (#3).37 The work’s “specific purposes or objectives” (#4) get spelled out to some extent in the text. Its author attempts to counteract the incorrect calendrical practices used by “the sinners,” who do not reckon the four epagomenal days that bring the calendar to a total of 364 rather than 360. Observing these days is equivalent to walking “in the way of righteousness” (82.4). Nickelsburg summarizes the material in the Astronomical Book this way, “We have [in the Astronomical Book] instruction pure and simple, presented as ancient revelation, intended to change religious (rather than social or ethical) practice, undergirded by an explication of the consequences of contrary practice.”38 The Book of the Watchers presents a more difficult set of circumstances to disentangle. Unfortunately, the work provides few clues as to its social setting, although it may have some connections with priests (#3).39 The content of the work chronicles Enoch’s heavenly journeys in which an angel conveys to him knowledge of cosmological secrets and eschatological realities, particularly places of punishment of the stars and the angels that transgressed God’s command (1 Enoch 18–21) as well as the fates of righteous and wicked people (1 Enoch 22–27) (#1). From the opening oracle, the Book of the Watchers employs its sapiential language and motifs, especially observations about nature, in the service of warnings about eschatological salvation and judgment. By means of such teaching, the author of the Book of the Watchers, through interpreted apocalyptic visions, encourages his readers to remain on the path of righteousness (#4). This road, however, does not lead to the “good life” of traditional Israelite wisdom, but to future, eschatological reward through faithfulness to God. When we look at the Epistle, its condemnation of false teachers who write lying words points to some conflict over right and wrong instruction (98:15; #3?).40 For the author of the Epistle, the foolish possess “neither knowledge nor wisdom” (98:3) and they do not listen to the teaching of the wise (98:9). The righteous, by contrast, will listen to the “words of the wise and understand them” (99:10).

37

Nickelsburg, “Response.” Nickelsburg, “Response.” 39 Wright, “Fear the Lord,” 197–201 and the literature cited therein. 40 On the nature of this conflict, see R. Horsley, “Social Relations and Social Conflict in the Epistle of Enoch,” in Argall, et al., For a Later Generation, 100–115. 38

wisdom, instruction, and social location

117

Additionally, the Epistle’s use of traditional wisdom forms that convey ethical teaching, such as two-ways material, suggests some didactic function, although the Epistle also employs prophetic “Woes” extensively in its vituperations against the impious (#2). But the Epistle differs somewhat from Ben Sira and the other two Enochic books in that it does not explicitly enumerate the positive behaviors that put one on the path of peace. Despite the fact that in 91:18, the Epistle says that Enoch will show to his sons “the paths of righteousness and the paths of wrongdoing,” he never really spells out what actions constitute righteousness. Rather than providing teachings that explicate righteous behavior, the Epistle enumerates the actions of the wicked, so that the righteous know the paths to avoid, and, in fact, the Epistle details quite a number of wicked deeds (i.e. 1 Enoch 99). The teaching of the false teachers constitutes the counterpart to the teaching of the wise of the Epistle (#1). The example of the wicked is clear, “And now I say to you righteous, ‘Do not walk in the wicked path, nor in wrongdoing, nor in the paths of death, and do not draw near to them, lest you be destroyed’ ” (94:3). The Epistle’s main emphasis comes through loudly and clearly; the righteous must remain faithful, shunning the wicked thoroughfares and walking on the paths of peace. The Epistle’s author admonishes his readers so that they will not end up sharing the harsh eschatological judgment to befall the wicked, but rather that they will receive a reward for their faithfulness (#4). If we compare instruction in the Astronomical Book, the Book of the Watchers and the Epistle to a clearly didactic work like Sir, we might say that while the purpose and goals of the teaching seem similar, the payoff is very different. I used the phrase “character formation” earlier to describe Ben Sira’s goal of shaping his students’ behavior and their manner of relating to the world. In this sense, all three of the Enochic works have character formation as a central concern. Each of them seeks to inculcate certain behaviors and values and to make them part of the readers’ daily lives. The Astronomical Book seeks to establish a particular religious practice in order that its readers keep to the path of righteousness, which, beyond simply possessing the right calendar, presumably leads to salvation. The Book of the Watchers does not focus its attention on the “good life” in the present, but on faithfulness to God that leads to eternal reward. Its use of the myth of the fallen Watchers that leads up to the extensive sections describing Enoch’s heavenly journeys

118

benjamin g. wright iii

may function at the same time as critique of the Jerusalem priesthood and as admonition to proper (priestly?) behavior.41 The Epistle’s instruction reflects something like the Torah-oriented teaching of Ben Sira, although the two works certainly differ in their understanding of what happens as a result of keeping the Law. The wicked deeds condemned in the Epistle violate specific elements of the Mosaic Torah, and certainly the Epistle’s passionate denunciations of riches (94:8–10), of consuming blood (99:11), and of idolatry (99:7–8) seek to shape the reader’s routine behavior.42 Yet, whereas Ben Sira advocates living according to the Law in order to obtain happiness and security in this life, the Epistle’s author, in view of the impending judgment, instructs his readers and exhorts them to faithfulness so that they receive an eschatological reward. Nickelsburg’s assessment of 1 Enoch in its entirety also applies individually to these three Enochic works: “Thus in contrast to the received paradigm of a Judaism centered around the authoritative Mosaic Torah, we find an Enochic corpus, presented as sacred scripture, embodying the divine wisdom necessary for salvation for those who live in the last times.”43 Not only is the payoff of Enoch’s instruction different from traditional wisdom, the manner in which knowledge gets acquired differs as well. While those living in the last times—that is, those who read and used the Enochic books—received the written Enochic wisdom, the source of that wisdom was God via revelation to the patriarch. Enoch did not acquire his wisdom through some earthly sage; it does not reside in a Torah needing to be unpacked by some teacher. In this sense, Enoch the sage is more akin to a wisdom figure like Job, whose questions about theodicy elicited a response from heaven. Whereas Enoch goes up to heaven and descends with wisdom, Job has heaven come to him. The result is essentially the same, however— an encounter with the Almighty.44 This mechanism of acquiring knowledge does not characterize the Israelite sapiential tradition of which Sir is more representative. While Ben Sira may regard his teaching as in some sense “inspired,” he receives it in a more mundane 41

Wright, “Fear the Lord,” 197–201, 218–22. Kampen, “Response.” 43 Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom,” 127. 44 On Job as a sage, see S. Terrien, “Job as a Sage,” in Gammie and Perdue, The Sage in Israel, 231–42 and on revelatory knowledge in Job, see R. Albertz, “The Sage and Pious Wisdom in the Book of Job: The Friends’ Perspective,” in Gammie and Perdue, The Sage in Israel, 251–52. 42

wisdom, instruction, and social location

119

manner, through study of the Law and the accumulated wisdom of the sages and through observation of the way that the world works.

Wisdom, Instruction, and Social Location With respect to the problem of social location, Sir almost certainly derives from a formal pedagogical context, however we might imagine the particular institution of instruction. Much of the context of Ben Sira’s teaching indicates that this wisdom sage trains aspiring young scribe/sages for careers in public service.45 Topics such as behavior at banquets, in law courts, etc. suggest a location of formal career training rather than a family context. Ben Sira appeals explicitly to the uneducated to come to his “house of instruction” (51:23) so that they might gain wisdom, and thereby “silver and gold,” i.e. success. The term “wisdom school” would seem a most appropriate description of Sir’s social location, if by the term “school” we simply mean a formal pedagogical context in which teachers instruct students. Like more traditional Jewish wisdom material, might the constituent parts of 1 Enoch have been transmitted in similar social contexts, i.e. the family, the royal court, the Temple or the “school”? Scholars have increasingly come to understand apocalyptic literature as the product of learned circles.46 If these texts do come from educated elites, there is a limited range of places in the social landscape of ancient Judaism to find such learning. The royal court, the Temple or the school are the most likely places, since these institutions would have had the most invested in writing, interpreting and teaching ancient texts and traditions. We should consider cult and education together in this instance, since in the period of the Second Temple scribes and priests appeared to have had a close association, with the traditional priestly function of teaching the Law perhaps moving more into the purview of the learned scribe, who worked as a priestly

45 For the designation scribe/sage, see R. A. Horsley and P. Tiller, “Ben Sira and the Sociology of the Second Temple,” in Second Temple Studies III: Studies in Politics, Class and Material Culture (ed. P. R. Davies and J. M. Halligan; JSOTSup 340; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 99–103. 46 See, for example, Stone, “Book of Enoch and Judaism”; J. Z. Smith, “Wisdom and Apocalyptic,” Map is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions (SJLS 23; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 67–87; J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 30; Horsley, “Social Relations,” 100–115; Grabbe “Social Setting,” 32–35.

120

benjamin g. wright iii

retainer.47 This conclusion echoes Stone’s suggestion that the sorts of “scientific” speculations found in parts of 1 Enoch may well have originated with circles “of educated men and may possibly have been associated with the traditional intellectuals, the wise and the priests.”48 Even though 1 Enoch is pseudonymous and lacks specific information about social location(s), I think the cumulative evidence points to a school context, that is circles of teachers and students, for this material. The individual Enochic works that I have examined give evidence of the transmission and adaptation of various “scholarly” matters, especially astronomical, cosmological and meteorological lore. The incorporation of sapiential language and forms, the presence of instruction with the purpose of character formation and the emphasis on transmission to future generations in the form of books all constitute signposts going down that road. Enoch’s own roles as ancient wisdom figure and as “scribe of righteousness” (12:4) may provide further indication of the importance of the learned scribe/sage in the generation and transmission of Enochic revelatory wisdom. Even though the content of the teaching and the authority that gives it status may differ from traditional Israelite wisdom, the school remains the most prominent social location where all of the factors outlined above coalesce. Yet to suggest a social location for this material is not the same thing as identifying a social group to which those teachers and students might belong. So, while it might be enticing to go the next step and see 1 Enoch and Ben Sira as representing antagonistic wisdom schools hotly contesting their different and competing views of wisdom—as tempting as such a recreation might be—the analysis pursued here cannot really lead us there. John Kampen has offered a persuasive argument for why we might hesitate to take this tantalizing step. Kampen sees “no evidence to suggest that Jewish groups used wisdom as a category for differentiating themselves from one another in ways that led to concrete social manifestations.”49 That is, Jews in the Second Temple period disagreed about a number of issues— 47 Horsley and Tiller “Ben Sira,” 99–103; Horsley, “Social Relations,” 106; Wright and Camp, “Who Has Been Tested,” 162–68. For an argument that scribes did not constitute a class independent of priests, see S. Fraade, “ ‘They Shall Teach Your Statutes to Jacob’: Priest, Scribe and Sage in Second Temple Times,” unpublished paper. I am grateful to the author for making the paper available to me. 48 Stone, “Book of Enoch and Judaism,” 73. 49 Kampen, “Response.”

wisdom, instruction, and social location

121

one could cite Temple, calendar, eschatology or Torah as possibilities. Disagreements over these matters would have been fundamental to the formation of concrete political and social divisions within Jewish society. Whereas wisdom’s content may make a decisive difference, wisdom per se does not appear to fall into this category of possible areas of divisive disagreement. Kampen argues that “wisdom and instruction are merely readily available and comprehensible servants” to those competitions and disagreements.50 As such wisdom and instruction do not constitute categories for self-definition in a text; they are tools to express, articulate or formulate that self-definition. So, I return briefly to Stone’s caution about identifying social groups behind texts with which I began this paper. While I think that the presence of wisdom and instruction in parts of 1 Enoch provide a plausible location for these works in the social landscape of ancient Judaism, we cannot take that same evidence of wisdom and instruction as offering testimony for knowing who those teachers and students were, with what group or community they might have been associated, or what their relationship was to other teachers, schools or learned circles. Scholars will have to look elsewhere for the clues to brave answers to those questions.

50

Kampen, “Response.”

WHITHER ELIJAH? THE ASCENSION OF ELIJAH IN BIBLICAL AND EXTRABIBLICAL TRADITIONS J. Edward Wright University of Arizona

The biblical stories about Elijah the prophet have inspired the literary and artistic imagination for generations, from the postbiblical traditions about the prophet, to the seventh century CE inscriptions and mosaics of the Church of the Prophet Elijah in Medaba, Jordan,1 and to the modern artistic depictions of Elijah in the works of Marc Chagall.2 Moreover, Jewish folktales about the prophet have abounded through the centuries.3 The most striking biblical legend about Elijah is the account of his departure from earth as he was swept up by a whirlwind and disappeared (2 Kgs 2:1–12). But where did he go? I hope to show that an original tale about the transposition of the prophet to the ends of the earth to join the immortals was transformed during the Greco-Roman period into a story about the prophet’s ascension into heaven. The idea of a human actually joining the divine realm would have been unimaginable to the biblical tradents responsible for the earliest versions of the book of Kings (i.e., the Deuteronomists). Rather, heavenly ascent was a motif that became popular in Jewish circles later during the Greco-Roman period.4 As 1 See M. Piccirillo, The Mosaics of Jordan (Amman: American Center of Oriental Research, 1993). 2 M. Friedman, “The Prophet Elijah’s Ascension in the Works of Chagall,” Journal of Jewish Art 10 (1984): 102–13. 3 P. Schram, Tales of Elijah the Prophet (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1991). Note also J. A. Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti (2 vols.; Hamburg: Felginer, 1713–23), 1:1070–86; L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909–38), 4:195–235, 6:316–42; M. R. James, The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1920), 53–61; and M. E. Stone and J. Strugnell, The Books of Elijah, Parts 1–2 (SBLTT 18; Missoula.: Scholars Press, 1979). 4 See I. P. Culianu, Psychanodia I: A Survey of the Evidence Concerning the Ascension of the Soul and Its Relevance (EPRO 99; Leiden: Brill, 1983); M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); G. Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas (SANT 26; Munich: Kösel, 1971); and A. F. Segal, “Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and their Environment,” ANRW II.23:2, 1333–94.

124

j. edward wright

a result, the story of Elijah’s departure from earth was reinterpreted to fit the new religious imagination: Elijah, who was originally considered a super-mortal, became a model for the righteous who aspired to join the divine in the heavenly realm. This study is offered in honor of Michael Stone whose many scholarly interests include the postbiblical Nachleben of biblical figures, especially Elijah.

Elijah in the Bible Elijah’s ultimate destiny is no less mysterious than his origins. The Bible informs us merely that he was a Tishbite from the area of Gilead (1 Kgs 17:1). The stories in 1 Kings 17–2 Kings 1 of Elijah’s encounters with king Ahab and Queen Jezebel, his miracles, and his battles on behalf of the strictest version of Yahwistic religion have made Elijah one of the greatest figures in Jewish history. Apart from his “ascent,” Elijah does seem to be able to move from one location on earth to another rather miraculously. With the hand of Yahweh upon him, Elijah was able to outrun King Ahab’s chariot from Carmel to Jezreel (1 Kgs 18:45–46). Nonetheless, nothing in these stories prepares the reader for the final act of Elijah’s life—his “ascent” into heaven (2 Kgs 2:1–12). Although similar in many ways to the vaguely worded account of Enoch’s departure from earth, Elijah’s “ascent” into heaven is explicitly mentioned and was even witnessed by Elisha. Enoch, on the other hand, simply disappeared: “Enoch walked with God and was seen no more for God took (jql) him” (Gen 5:24). It was only later interpretations that promoted the idea that Enoch ascended into heaven.5 Like Enoch, Elijah was “taken” (jql) somewhere by God (2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 9, 10). The account of Elijah’s disappearance, however, states that he actually went upward: “They (Elijah and Elisha) were walking and talking when suddenly a fiery chariot and fiery horses appeared and separated them from one another. Then Elijah went up in a whirlwind into the sky” (2 Kgs 2:11). The Hebrew here is admittedly awkward. The phrase μymçh hr[sb whyla l[yw is literally

5 See J. C. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1995). That such speculation began in the Hellenistic period is apparent in the Greek translation of Gen 5:24, ıti met°yhken aÈtÚn ı yeÒw, “because God translated him,” a rendering that hints at an awareness of Enoch’s heavenly journeys known in later texts.

whither elijah?

125

rendered “then Elijah went up in a (the) whirlwind the sky.” The ambiguity in the meaning of the term μymçh (“sky” or “heaven”) here could have been avoided in a couple of ways. First, it could have been put into a genitival relationship with the term “whirlwind” (hr[s), thus “a whirlwind of the sky,” but no such phrase occurs in the Hebrew Bible, and the only close parallel would be “whirlwind of Yahweh” (hwhy tr[s Jer 23:19, 30:23). Second, μymçh could have been governed by a preposition indicating direction towards (i.e., l or la), as it is in the Aramaic Targum (whyla qyls aymç tyxl alw[l[b, “Elijah went up in a whirlwind towards the sky”). Finally, the authors could have used the “locative he” (i.e., hmymçh), a fairly common construction used both for “skyward” (Gen 15:5; Exod 9:8, 10; Deut 4:19; Josh 8:20; Judg 13:20, 20:40; Job 2:12) and “heavenward,” that is, towards the realm of the gods (Gen 28:12; Deut 30:12; 2 Chr 6:13).6 Any of these options would have removed the ambiguity of how to understand μymçh in 2 Kgs 2:11. The modifications apparent in the Greek translation hint at some of the difficulty the ancients had with this verse: ka‹ énelÆmfyh ÉHlioÁ §n susseism“ …w efiw tÚn oÈranÒn (“Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind as it were into heaven”). Another biblical figure was “taken” (jql) by God and moved to a distant place on earth—Ezekiel: “He (God) stretched out the form of a hand and took (jql) me by the hair of my head. A wind (jwr) bore me aloft between earth and sky and brought me to Jerusalem in divine visions” (Ezek 8:3). Ezekiel experienced this as a vision and went only from the vicinity of Babylon to Jerusalem. It may be that Elijah and Enoch were understood to have been similarly “taken” (jql) to another, farther removed place at the ends of the earth. In fact, after watching Elijah disappear, Elisha returned to the “sons of the prophets” (2 Kgs 2:13–15), who asked where Elijah had gone and were concerned that “perhaps Yahweh’s wind (jwr) lifted him up and tossed him onto one of the mountains or into one of the ravines” (2 Kgs 2:16). This association of Yahweh’s “wind” (jwr) with movement (cf. Ezek 8:3; 1 Enoch 14:8, 39:2–4) suggests that Yahweh

6 The Deuteronomistic historians occasionally use the term μymçh with the sense of hmymçh (1 Sam 5:12; 1 Kgs 8:22, 54); see HALOT 4.1444. Several times in 1 Kings 8 (vv. 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 49) the term μymçh occurs without a directional preposition but clearly needs either la or ˆm. Compare also Deut 4:19 where the MT has hmymçh, while the Samaritan has μymçh.

126

j. edward wright

miraculously transports people from one place to another on earth by a “wind” (jwr).7 Thus, the issue of what happened to Elijah hinges on how to understand the Hebrew word μymçh in 2 Kgs 2:1 and 11. Does the text intend to suggest that Elijah simply went “skyward” and disappeared or that the prophet actually entered the divine realm?8 Both options are plausible textually and philologically. To be sure, the majority of modern Jewish and Christian interpreters assume that μymçh means “heavenward” and that Elijah ascended into the divine realm.9 The solution to this problem may lie in an examination of the beliefs about the heavenly realm and the where the righteous go after death, or even before death.

7 Cf. 1 Enoch 52:1. Rushing winds and clouds are associated with Moses and Elijah’s “departures” and appear also in Roman tales about heavenly ascents. See J. D. Tabor, “ ‘Returning to the Divinity’: Josephus’s Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses,” JBL 108:2 (1989): 233–36, and S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Death of Moses,” in Studies on the Testament of Abraham (ed. George W. E. Nickelsburg; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 185–217. 8 On Israelite images of the heavenly realm see H. Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjudentum (Tübingen: Mohr, 1951); C. Houtman, Der Himmel im Alten Testament: Israels Weltbild und Weltanschauung (OtSt 30; Leiden: Brill, 1993); J. E. Wright, The Early History of Heaven (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); and idem, “Biblical Versus Israelite Images of the Heavenly Realm,” JSOT 93 (2001): 55–71. 9 Cf. M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1988), 30–35; N. H. Smith and R. Calkins, The First and Second Books of Kings (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954); H. S. Gehman, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951), 353–54; S. L. Gordon, “The Book of 2 Kings,” TANAK (Tel Aviv: Gordon, 1966), 4:6–8 [Hebrew]; R. D. Patterson and H. J. Austel, 1 and 2 Kings (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 176. The tenth century Karaite scholar Abu Yusuf Ya‘qub al-Qirqisani made the following speculation: “Having thus expressed our view that Enoch and Elijah ascended bodily to heaven, we must now explain how they did so. We say therefore that each one of them reached heaven in his (earthly) body, but once he arrived there, God stripped him of this body and clothed him with a more nobler body. For this former body was terrestrial and coarse, [liable to perish] in the heat of the celestial sphere; not so his latter noble body. Then, after he reached the apogee of the heavenly sphere, God divested him of all corporeality, and he became a purely spiritual substance”; quoted from L. Nemoy, “The Ascension of Enoch and Elijah: A Tenth Century Karaite Interpretation,” in Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of The Dropsie University (1909 –1979) (ed. A. I. Katsh and L. Nemoy; Philadelphia: Dropsie University, 1979), 361–64. David Qimchi, attempting to explain how flesh and blood can ascend into the spiritual realm, suggested that Elijah was transformed into a spirit before his ascent (Qimchi on 2 Kgs 2:11; cf. Qimchi on 2 Chr 21:12; Gen. Rab. 25; Zohar 2:197a, 3:88b). Sepher Hekhalot (3 Enoch) 15 suggests that Enoch’s body was consumed by fire as he ascended.

whither elijah?

127

The Place of the Super-Mortals in the Biblical Period The Hebrew Bible, apart from the Hellenistic book of Daniel, consistently suggests that all humans share the same postmortem fate— Sheol. This is the dark, dusty netherworld where all go after death without moral or social distinction.10 In fact, according to the ideology of the Deuteronomistic biblical tradents, the very thought of apotheosis or of ascending to heaven to join the divine realm was not a fitting hope for faithful Yahwists. The Hebrew Bible records two stories warning of the terrible results of supposing oneself capable or worthy of ascending into the heavenly realm. The story of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1–9 [ J]) recounts the fate of people who intended to build a tower tall enough to allow them to explore the heavenly realm. The divine response to this act of impiety was a disabling plague. The prophet Isaiah proclaimed a divine indictment against the king of Babylon, whom Isaiah portrays as arrogantly supposing himself worthy of residing in the heavenly realm. The desire to reside in the heavenly realm was tantamount to claiming to be a god (Isa 14:14), and the king’s punishment for such impiety was an ignoble death (Isa 14:13–15). In addition, according to the words of Agur, no one has ever ascended into the heavenly realm (Prov 30:4). Most tellingly, according to Ps 115:16, “the heavens belong to Yahweh, but the earth he has assigned to humanity.” Ascending into the heavenly realm to join the Divine was not a typical component of biblical piety. It seems, therefore, that the image of Elijah going into μymçh may have meant something else for these biblical tradents. The various traditions of Enoch’s ascent to and travels in the heavenly realm were very popular in early Judaism and Christianity. But did Iron Age Israelites and Judahites believe that Enoch ascended into the heavenly realm? That is to say, did they take Genesis 5:24 (P)—“Enoch walked with God and was seen no more because God took him”—to mean that God transported Enoch into the heavenly 10 See A. E. Bernstein, The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), 131–202; E. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead ( JSOTSup 123; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992); H. M. Barstad, “Sheol,” Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1452–57; and R. S. Hallote, Death Burial, and Afterlife in the Biblical World (Chicago: Doe, 2001).

128

j. edward wright

realm itself ? For some time it has been known that the figure of Enoch in the Hebrew Bible, “the seventh from Adam,” was modeled in part on that of Enmeduranki, the seventh king of Sippar according to some versions of the Sumerian King List, and Utuabzu, the seventh antediluvian sage and contemporary of Enmeduranki.11 Both of these ancient Mesopotamians entered the divine realm to learn all the divinatory and scientific secrets of the gods.12 Like Enmeduranki and Utuabzu, Adapa, who possessed all wisdom and learning, was thought to have ascended temporarily into heaven. The “Legend of Adapa” recounts Adapa’s brief visit to the realm of the gods,13 where he was denied immortality and from which he returned to earth.14 One of the lessons of this tale, much like the anti-ascent theme in the Bible, is that humans do not belong in the heavenly realm of the gods. Some Enochic traditions suggest that Enoch was “taken” in much the same way as the antediluvian sage Utnaphishtim, the Mesopotamian Noah, was “taken” by the gods to a mystical region at the ends of the earth (Gilgamesh Epic xi.190–95).15 Jewish traditions from the Second Temple period attest the belief that Enoch, too, lived at the ends of the earth (1 Enoch 65:2; 106–7),16 and just as Gilgamesh had to journey to the ends of the earth to meet Utna-phishtim to learn otherwise unknowable secrets and obtain eternal life, so Noah

11 See T. Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939); M. Albani, Astronomie und Schöpfungsglaube: Untersuchungen zum Astronomishen Henochbuch (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1994), 237–40; R. Borger, “Die Beschwörungsserie bìt mèserì und die Himmelfahrt Henochs,” JNES 33 (1974): 1192–93; cf. J. C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984), 33–51, 70 101; J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 34–36; U. Glessmer, “Das astronomische Henoch-Buch als Studienobjekt,” BN 36 (1987): 69–129; P. Grelot, “La légend d’Hénoch dans les Apocryphes et dans la Bible: origin et signification,” RSR 46 (1958): 5–26, 181–220; H. L. Jansen, Die Henochgestalt: Eine Vergleichende Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Oslo: I Kommisjon Hos Jacob Dybwad, 1939); and H. S. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1988). 12 See W. G. Lambert, “Enmeduranki and Related Matters,” JCS 21 (1967): 126–38. 13 See translation in S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 182–88. 14 On Adapa’s wisdom see P. Machinist and H. Tadmor, “Heavenly Wisdom,” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg; Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993), 146–51. 15 Grelot, “La légend d’Hénoch,” 21–23, 197–210; J. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), 140–46. 16 Cf. VanderKam, Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, 174–77, and R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), 129, 265.

whither elijah?

129

(1 Enoch 65:1–5; 66:3) and Methuselah (1 Enoch 106:7–8a) had to journey to the “ends of the earth” to meet Enoch (1 Enoch 65:2).17 Likewise, when Lamech sought an explanation for the exceptional appearance and behavior of his newborn child Noah, he went to his father Methuselah and asked him to go to “the ends of the earth” and there ask Enoch to explain this mystery (1 Enoch 106:7–8a; cf. Genesis Apocryphon col. 2). These Enochic traditions accord with the ancient Mesopotamian speculation that the extreme ends of the earth is where immortalized antediluvian sages live.18 1 Enoch 60:8, allegedly recording the words of Noah as he described the places of the eschatological torment of the mythical monsters Leviathan and Behemoth, states that the place of their torment is beyond “. . . the garden where the chosen and righteous dwell, where my great-grandfather (i.e., Enoch) was received, who was the seventh from Adam.”19 Again, this text suggests that Enoch can be found at the far ends of the earthly plane. The Book of Jubilees notes that angels led Enoch from the midst of humanity to “the Garden of Eden in majesty and honour; and there he records the condemnation and the judgement of the world, and all the wickedness of the sons of men. And because of him the water of the flood did not reach the land of Eden; for he was established there as a sign to bear witness against all the sons of men and keep a record of all the deeds of every generation till the day of judgement” ( Jub. 4:23–24).20 The author of Jubilees, therefore, appears to depend on a tradition that located Enoch in Eden at the distant ends of the earth. The fact that Enoch can be found either in heaven (1 Enoch 70–71; cf. 2 Enoch and the Hekhalot literature) or at the ends of the earth (1 Enoch 12–13, 14:8, 60:8, 65:1–5, 66:3, 106:7–8a; 4Q530 3:3–6a; Jub. 4:23–24) suggests that there were two stages in Enoch’s “departure,” or that there were two traditions about his ultimate destiny.21 17 On the mythic geography of 1 Enoch see M. Gil, “Enoch in the Land of the Living,” Tarbiz 38:4 (1969): 322–37; P. Grelot, “La géographie mythique d’Hénoch et ses sources orientales,” RB 65 (1958): 33–69; and J. T. Milik, “Hénoch au pays des aromates (ch. XXVII à XXXII): Fragments araméens de la Grotte 4 de Qumran,” RB 65 (1958): 70–77. 18 See Grelot, “La géographie mythique d’Hénoch,” 61–64, 69. 19 M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 2:144. 20 R. H. Charles and C. Rabin, “Jubilees,” The Apocryphal Old Testament (ed. H. F. D. Sparks; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), ad loc. 21 See also VanderKam, Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, 174–77.

130

j. edward wright

These two images of Enoch’s ultimate destiny appear to stem from different interpretations of “for God took him” (μyhla wtwa jql yk, Gen 5:24). According to what was likely the earlier form of this tradition, God transported Enoch to the ends of the earth where he joined the immortals, but the later reinterpretation understood that Enoch was taken up to the heavenly realm. Since, as noted above, the biblical tradents did not value ascent to heaven, their understanding of μyhla wtwa jql yk, “for God took him (Enoch),” was earthbound. It seems that what began as a story about Enoch’s move to the ends of the earth to join the immortals was later reinterpreted and transformed into a story about his ascent into heaven itself. The Elijah legend may have followed a similar transformation. In the case of Elijah, however, the Bible is much more specific. 2 Kings 2:11 says explicitly that Elijah went towards or into μymçh, although the question remains, what exactly μymçh means. I propose that the ancient biblical tradents meant “sky” and were narrating the disappearance of Elijah, who was taken to the mystical ends of the world to join the antediluvian immortals such as Enoch and Utnaphishtim.

Ascent to Heaven While ascent to heaven was not a central tenet of the biblical religious imagination, the ascent motif became prominent in many Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures during the course of the Greco-Roman period.22 The account of Elijah’s departure in 2 Kings 2:11 was reinterpreted during this period to mean that the prophet ascended into heaven itself; that is to say, μymçh was understood to mean “into heaven,” the realm of the divine. The postbiblical traditions start from this perspective and use the theme of ascent to heaven in several literary contexts and with a variety of socioreligious goals. This transformation of the biblical legend in the Elijah pseudepigrapha and other postbiblical texts demonstrates how biblical themes were modified to fit new cultural environments.23 That the exceptionally meritorious enjoyed life at some mythical place at the ends of the earth was a belief common in Greece as early as the Homeric Age, roughly the same time that the Deuteronomistic 22 23

See the studies mentioned in n. 4 above. See my Early History of Heaven, 117–202.

whither elijah?

131

tradents of the Hebrew Bible were composing and compiling the Elijah stories.24 Although humans descend into Hades at death according to Homeric thought, we read of very few corresponding Homeric journeys into the heavenly realm. The idea of a human joining the divine ranks was a rare, undeveloped idea in Homeric times. The notable exceptions were, of course, the valiant Heracles who by virtue of his own superhuman efforts was elevated to join the divine ranks (Theogony 943–44),25 and Ganymedes who, because he was the handsomest of humans, was taken up by the gods on an eagle to dwell with them and become Zeus’ cupbearer (Iliad 20.231–35). A god or goddess may come to earth and take on a human form—a frequent motif in Homeric epics—but humans do not ascend to heaven because they do not belong there. Earthlings were too unlike the immortals, no matter how noble they might be, as Odysseus insists: “I do not resemble the immortals, just mortal men” (Odyssey 7.208–10; cf. 6.243, 280–81, 17.483–87). Book eleven of the Odyssey recounts a tale of the giants Otus and Ephialtes who intended to stack mountain upon mountain in order to climb into heaven (11.305–20). Their plans were thwarted, however, when they were killed in their youth by one of Zeus’ sons. This story appears to be a polemic about ascending into heaven much like the tale of the Tower of Babel. For the early Greeks, Mt. Olympus and the heavenly realm were the domiciles of the gods alone. Truly exceptional humans might become immortal through an offer from the gods, but even these offers were most often thwarted, thus maintaining a clear separation between mortals and immortals. For example, Calypso offered immortality to her beloved Odysseus (Odyssey 1) and Demeter attempted to immortalize her “stepson” Demophoon (Hymn to Demeter), but in the end all such attempts at immortality were frustrated. While humans went down to “the house of Hades” after death, no one, living or dead, went into heaven, the realm of the immortal gods, without a rare act by the gods to immortalize that person.

24 For general introduction see E. Rohde, Psyche: The Cult of the Souls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks (tr. W. B. Hillis; 2 vols.; 8th ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1966). 25 But note that in Iliad 18.117–19 and Odyssey 11.601–4, Heracles is said to have died. There were thus conflicting traditions about his fate. Theogony 942 suggests that Semele joined the ranks of the gods after she gave birth to Zeus’s son Dionysus. Note also Dionysus’s wife Ariadne (Theogony 949) and Aphrodite’s immortal priest Phaethon (Theogony 988–91).

132

j. edward wright

In Homeric times the “Elysian Fields” or “Isles of the Blessed” were where the souls of truly exceptional people were thought to go after death.26 These regions were believed to be located at the furthest ends of earth, whither only a god could transport people: “But for yourself, Menelaus, fostered by Zeus, it is not ordained that you should die and meet fate in the horse-pasturing Argos, but to the Elysian plain and the ends of the earth will the immortals convey you . . . where life is easiest for men. No snow is there, nor heavy storm, nor ever rain, but always Ocean sends up blasts of the shrill-blowing West Wind that they may give cooling to men . . .” (Odyssey 4.561–68). The truly noble or valiant were rewarded for their behavior not by being received into the divine realm but by being transferred to the land of the blessed. The postmortem residence of the human soul was transferred to the heavenly realms, however, at least by the fourth century in Greek thought. This belief stems in part from Pythagorean and Platonic ideas that the human soul originated in the ethereal realm, became imprisoned in the earthly body, and after the death of the body will return again to the ethereal realm.27 For instance, in Plato’s “Myth of Er” (Republic, X, 614A–621D), the hero Er dies, but before his funeral his soul leaves his body and visits the netherworld and the heavens. Er’s soul returns to his body after these tours, and he revives long enough to tell his contemporaries what the other realms are like. This myth intends to confirm that the soul survives the body, and that although it aspires to rejoin the pure spiritual realm, it also fully expects to be rewarded or punished for its body’s conduct. The Roman poet Cicero’s “Dream of Scipio,” indicates that in the first century BCE many Romans imagined that after death the noble or ethical soul would find an “eternal home” in the heavenly realm.28 To do so, however, it must have prepared itself through living a life devoted to the wellbeing of the commonwealth while also avoiding sensual pleasures. Otherwise, the soul will undergo punishment to purge it of

26 Regarding Greek myths about these realms, see P. Capelle, “Elysium und die Inseln der Seligen,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 25/26 (1927/1928): 245–64/17–40; H. F. North, “Death and Afterlife in Greek Tragedy and Plato,” Death and Afterlife: Perspectives of World Religions (ed. H. Obayashi; Contributions to the Study of Religion 33; New York: Greenwood Press, 1992), 49–64; and Culianu, Psychanodia I. 27 See Plato, Phaedo, 85E–86D; 91C–95A; 115C–D; and 246E–249D; and W. Bousset, “Die Himmelsreise der Seele,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 4 (1901): 35–42. 28 See F. Cumont, After Life in Roman Paganism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922).

whither elijah?

133

the earthly vices that prevent its ascent into the higher, purer realms. Although several texts locate Enoch at a mythical place at the ends of the earth, the clearly dominant postbiblical tradition is that Enoch ascended into heaven to join the heavenly ranks. This theme appears throughout the Enochic pseudepigrapha and other Jewish and Christian texts (i.e., Heb 11:5; T. Isaac 3:16; Asc. Isa. 9:6–9). The “Similitudes of Enoch” (1 Enoch 37–71) end with an account of Enoch’s ascent into heaven. He is transported on “chariots of the wind” to a place in the far northwest region of the earth—apparently the ends of the earth—where the patriarchs and the saints of old dwell (70:1–4).29 Enoch then reports that “my spirit was carried off, and it went up into the heavens” (71:1). His spirit eventually arrives in “the highest heaven” where it encounters the Divine and becomes a resident of the heavenly realm (71:5–17). Similarly, the entire book of 2 Enoch narrates Enoch’s ascent through multiple heavens, as do the later rabbinic Hekhalot texts that also focus on Enoch/Metatron. Thus, in the course of the Greco-Roman period, as the Jews encountered new ways of imagining themselves, their God, their world and the world beyond, the heavenly ascent of the righteous after death became a popular Jewish belief.

Elijah in Heaven? There are several accounts of heavenly ascents by Enoch, and the traditions of exactly how he ascended or was conveyed into the heavenly realm are diverse. The means of Elijah’s conveyance is fairly consistent, however, because of the biblical tradition of his ascending in a whirlwind (2 Kgs 2:1, 11). Early Jewish and Christian literature rather consistently locates Elijah in heaven:30 “Elijah because of unrelenting zeal for the Torah was taken up into heaven” (1 Macc 2:58).31

29

Grelot, “La géographie mythique d"Hénoch,” 36. See G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS 26; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972); and É. Puech, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future—Immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle: Histoire d’une croyance dans le judaïsme ancien (2 vols; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1993), 1.53. See also Lohfink, Himmelfahrt Jesu, 41, 51–74, and U. Kellerman, Auferstanden in den Himmel: 2 Makkabäer 7 und die Auferstehung der Märtyrer (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 95; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1979), 10. 31 Cf. Sir 48:1–12; 1 Enoch 89:52, 93:8; 4 Ezra 6:26; Acts of Pilate 15:1, 25. 30

134

j. edward wright

Elijah, therefore, had become not only a hero who was rewarded for his piety, but a model of piety for all to follow, and his reward of ascent to heaven is now available to all who will likewise remain loyal to God. Because he was taken from this world before death, he is expected, along with Enoch, to return to inaugurate the eschaton and to resist the forces of evil.32 Several Christian texts explicitly describe Elijah as residing in heaven or coming from heaven in the eschaton.33 For example, the third century Christian Apocalypse of Elijah assumes that Elijah and Enoch are in heaven when they “come down” to battle the Antichrist in the eschaton (Apoc. Elijah 4:7; 5:32).34 The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra recounts how Ezra ascended to heaven and then proceeded to the east in heaven where he entered “paradise” and saw Elijah, Enoch, Moses, Peter, Paul, Luke, Matthew, “and all the righteous and patriarchs” (5:22).35 Rabbi Jose, citing Ps 115:16 and obviously opposing the idea of humans existing in the presence 32 Mal 3:22–23 (English 4:5–6); Rev 11:1–13; Sib. Or. 2:187–95; Apoc. Pet. 2; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 8:4; Cyril Catecheses, 14.16.25–26 (PG 33:845, 857, 860); m. Sotah 9:15; m. B. Metzi"a 1:8, 2:8, 3:4–5 etc.; m. Eduyot. 8:7; Gen. Rab. 99.11 (Midrash Bereshit Rabbah [ed. C. Albeck; 3 vols.; Berlin: n.p., 1903–35], 3.1282); Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 5 (ed. B. Mandelbaum; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1.9). See also H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (6 vols. in 7; Munich: Beck, 1922–61), 4.2:764–98; W. Bousset, The Antichrist Legend (New York: AMS Press, 1985), 203–11; idem, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter (3rd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1926), 232–33; and M. M. Faierstein, “Why Do the Scribes Say that Elijah Must Come First,” JBL 100/1 (1981): 75–86. 33 Gosp. Bart. 1:17; Apoc. Pet. 2, 17; Apoc. Dan. 14:1–5; Epistle of Pseudo-Titus. 34 Verses according to O. S. Wintermute, “Apocalypse of Elijah,” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; ed. James H. Charlesworth; Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1983–5), 1.721–53. See also Albert Pietersma, Susan Turner Comstock, and Harold Attridge, The Apocalypse of Elijah (SBLTT 19; Chico, Calif.; Scholars Press, 1981), 48–49, 62–63; Georg Steindorf, Die Apokalypse des Elias (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichssche Buchhandlung, 1899), 104–5, 124–25; Jean-Marc Rosenstiehl, L’Apocalypse d’Elie (Paris: Geuthner, 1972), 95–98; David Frankfurter, Elijah in Upper Egypt: The Apocalypse of Elijah and Early Egyptian Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), ad loc.; and James C. VanderKam, “1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,” The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (ed. James C. VanderKam and William Adler; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 88–100. Oddly, this text (Apoc. Elijah 4:7; 5:32) suggests that Elijah and Enoch return to earth twice to battle the antichrist. On this see Richard Bauckham, “Enoch and Elijah in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah,” Studia Patristica 16:2 (1985): 69–76, and “The Martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah: Jewish or Christian?” JBL 95:3 (1976): 447–58. 35 The text is confused at this point and may indicate that Ezra was on the earthly plane when he proceeded to the farthest reaches of the earth in east where he the entered “Paradise.” Several texts locate “paradise” in the heavenly realms—Life of Adam and Eve 25–29; Apoc. Mos. 1:1–2, 29:5, 37:3–5, 40:1; and T. Abr. 11:1–4. An earthly “paradise” for the righteous appears in Apoc. Sedr. 9:1, 16:5–7.

whither elijah?

135

of God, says that Moses and Elijah did not ascend into the Divine presence but remained just outside the dwelling place of the Divine or in a lower heaven.36

Elijah at the Ends of the Earth? Notwithstanding the aptness of the idea of heavenly ascent for the Elijah narrative, the “earthbound” tradition persists. Sirach 48:9 refers to Elijah as, fittingly, “the one who was taken upwards (jqlnh/énalhfye¤w) in a whirlwind, in chariots of fire . . .”37 This parallels his description of Enoch: “Enoch pleased the Lord and was taken up (jqln/metet°yh). He was an example [of repentance] to all generations” (Sir 44:16).38 But note the different Greek verbs and also Sir 49:14: “No one like Enoch has been created on earth for he was taken up (jqln/énelÆfyh) from the earth.” These passages seem to imply that for Ben Sira, Elijah was not like Enoch, in that he was not taken up into heaven itself. Therefore, Ben Sira seems to believe that although Elijah went skyward, he did not go where Enoch went. Tellingly, instead of the ambiguous μymçh in 2 Kgs 2:11, Hebrew Ben Sira uses the word hl[m, “upwards,” to describe what happened to Elijah. This term removes any confusion about whether he went “to heaven”: Elijah, in Ben Sira’s mind, went upwards (hl[m), but apparently he did not go into heaven itself (μymçh). Where else could he have gone? That the righteous go to the ends of the earth after death is a Jewish belief that Josephus attributes to the Essenes. Thus, the Essenes, and certainly many of their compatriots, held a view common among Greeks and Romans that the righteous had a luxurious place at the ends of the earth awaiting them after death. Agreeing with the sons of the Greeks, they declare that an abode is reserved beyond the Ocean for the souls of the just; a place oppressed neither by rain nor snow nor torrid heat, but always refreshed by the gentle breeze blowing from the Ocean. But they relegate evil souls to a dark pit shaken by storms, full of unending chastisement. The Greeks, 36 b. Sukkah 5a; cf. b. Erubin 45a; Mekilta, Bachodesh, 4:45–58 (ed. Lauterbach; 3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1933–35), 2.224, 3.158–59. 37 Cf. LXX ad loc. and M. Segal, μlçh arys ˆb rps (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958), 330. 38 Ibid., 306.

136

j. edward wright I think, had the same idea when they assigned their valiant ones, whom they call “heroes” and “demigods”, to the Islands of the Blessed, and the souls of the bad to Hades, the place of the wicked, where according to their mythology, certain people such as Sisyphus, Tantalus, Ixion and Tityus, undergo their torment.39

When recounting the story of Elijah’s departure, Josephus (Ant. 9 §28) says simply, “Elijah disappeared from men and until today no one knows of his end.”40 This “purposely ambiguous” account is not simply Josephus’s way of getting around the sticky theological issue of apotheosis,41 but seems to allow for both traditions of what became of Elijah: he ‘disappeared’ to be sure, but did he ascend to heaven or go to the ends of the earth? Josephus’s ambiguity on this issue allows, and is perhaps inspired by, the two competing traditions about the prophet’s fate. Obviously dependent on Jewish traditions, some early Christians did assume that Elijah was somewhere on earth or would return to earth in a physical body. This belief is apparent in the confusion about the identity of John the Baptist in the Gospel narratives. Apparently some people thought John to be Elijah redivivus based on Malachi 3:22–23.42 The Acts of Pilate 2543—actually an account of Christ’s descent into the netherworld appended to the Acts of Pilate—suggests that Elijah and Enoch remain somewhere on earth until the eschaton when they will come forth to battle the forces of evil (cf. Rev 11:3–12). The Apocalypse of Zephaniah 7:9 recounts that Zephaniah ascended out of Hades and proceeded to the ends of the earth where he boarded a boat, changed into angelic garments,44 and crossed over a vast 39 Josephus, War 2.151–58, cf. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 9.27; translations of both from The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (ed. G. Vermes and M. D. Goodman; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 45, 47, 72–73. 40 See Tabor, “Returning to the Divinity,” 227–30; and C. Begg, “Josephus’s Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses,” JBL 109:4 (1990): 691–93. 41 So Tabor, “Returning to the Divinity,” 228. 42 Matt 11:7–15; Mark 9:11–13; John 1:19–23; cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 49:1. 43 E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha 2 vols., (ed. W. Schneemelcher and R. McL. Wilson; 2 vols.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 1:525. 44 A change into the heavenly robes of the righteous is indicative of transition into the heavenly realm. Cf. 1 Enoch 62:15–16, 71:1, 90:31; 2 Enoch 22:8–10; 3 Enoch (Sepher Hekhalot) 12:1–2, 18:22; Apoc. Abr. 13:14; Apoc. Pet. 13; Asc. Isa., passim; Pirqe R. El. 33 (ed. G. Friedlander; London: K. Paul, Trench, and Trubner, 1916; repr. New York: Sepher-Hermon, 1981), 245; Alphabet of Rabbi Aqiba, Kaph (BHM, III:33–34). See also M. Himmelfarb, “From Prophecy to Apocalypse: The Book of Watchers and Tours of Heaven,” Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible Through

whither elijah?

137

watery divide. This body of water is “Okeanus,” the earth-encircling cosmic ocean that one must cross to enter the abode of the righteous. Once in the land of the righteous, Zephaniah saw Elijah, Enoch and other biblical notables (8:1–9:5). This narrative closely parallels the account of the Apostle Paul’s journey to the earthly “paradise” where he too met Elijah and a similar list of biblical heroes (Apoc. Paul 46–51).45 These several texts all seem to imagine Elijah living at a mythical place at the ends of the earth. The belief in earthly location of Elijah would persist and receive attention much later when the theologian Thomas Aquinas would write in his magisterial Summa Theologica IIIa (question 49, article 5, section 2) that Elijah remained in an earthly paradise until the eschaton: Ad secundum dicendum quod Elias sublevatus est in caelum aereum, non autem in caelum empyreum, qui est locus sanctorum: et similiter etiam Enoch raptus est ad paradisum terrestrem, ubi cum Elia simul creditur vivre usque ad adventum Antichristi.

Conclusion: Whither Elijah? According to the Hebrew Bible, Enoch and Elijah did not experience death. But where did they go? I have suggested that in addition to the belief that they ascended into the heavenly realm, there was an ancient tradition that located them at the ends of the earth. That is to say, Elijah and Enoch remained on the earthly plane, albeit at the mythical ends of the earth. Elijah’s origin and destiny are shrouded in mystery: he appeared on the biblical scene from Transjordan without any background, and he disappeared just as mysteriously without a trace. Elijah’s departure from the earth has inspired literary and artistic imagination for generations. I have tried to show that the development of the motif of the prophet’s ascent, from the Bible through the early Jewish and Christian literature, displays two persistent and conflicting understandings of what became of Elijah. During the course of the

the Middle Ages (ed. A. Green; New York: Crossroad, 1986), 152; Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 156–57; and J. Strugnell, “The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran, 4QSerek “îrôt 'Olat Ha““abbat,” VTSup 7 (1960): 340. 45 Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, 2.737–43. Apoc. Paul 20 locates Enoch and Elijah in the third heaven.

138

j. edward wright

Greco-Roman period, what was originally a tale about Elijah’s conveyance to the ends of the earth to join the immortals was transformed into a myth about the prophet’s ascent into heaven in the many apocryphal texts and traditions about Elijah. The idea of a human joining the divine realm would have been unimaginable to the ancient Israelites and Judahites. The heavenly ascent motif became popular, however, during the Greco-Roman period. As a result, the story about Elijah’s departure from this world was transformed to fit the new religious imagination. Elijah, who was once considered a super-mortal, became a model for the righteous of all generations who aspire to join the Divine in the heavenly realm.

DEAD SEA SCROLLS

TWO NOTES ON MEASURING CHARACTER AND SIN AT QUMRAN1 Gary A. Anderson University of Notre Dame

1 In the Rule of the Community 9:12–16 we are told of a set of laws that the Maskil must adhere to and follow in his dealings with “every living being.” But the laws are not static; two important factors condition the nature of obligation. Firstly, there is a particular “standard of measurement” (ˆwkt) that holds sway for each and every period of time (t[l t[). In the eyes of the sect, knowledge of the Torah, and consequently what it demands, evolved gradually over time. The second factor is the particular “weight”—meaning the character— of each individual person (çyaw çya lqçml). Evidently, the character of each person also varied and had to be considered before any specific judgment could be made. After these brief introductory sentences, a set of lamed-clauses established the purpose of setting these standards and weighing human achievement in light of them. The citation of 1QS 9:13–16 that follows includes my enumeration of these successive purpose clauses:2 [1.] To do the will of God in accord with all that is revealed in each age; [2.] to measure all knowledge that is found according to the various times and the law of each time; [3.] to separate and weigh (perhaps a hendiadys, “to distinguish by weight”) the righteous ones according to their spirits; [4.] to hold firmly the chosen ones of the ages in 1

This study is the fruit of a seminar the author led while a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University, on 1 November, 2001. Unknown to me then, my colleague Menahem Kister was at work on the same theme but from a much broader comparative perspective. His presentation, entitled “Physical and Metaphysical Measurements Ordained by God According to the Literature of the Second Temple Period,” is a far more systematic treatment of the evidence. His lecture was given at the Orion Center International Symposium in January 2002 and will be published in the forthcoming conference volume. 2 All translations in this paper are my own, unless otherwise noted.

142

gary a. anderson accordance with the will of God as he commanded; [5.] to judge each one according to his spirit; [6.] to bring each one nearer (i.e. to the sacred inner-circle of the sect) according to the purity of his hands and to advance him according to his knowledge.

For our purposes, the second and third of these clauses are most interesting. The standards of measure that the Maskil must attend to allow him “to measure (dwml) all knowledge that is found according to the various times and the law of each time and to distinguish by weight [the levels of ] the righteous ones according to their spirits.” Most commentators have understood this measurement-language in a loose and highly metaphoric manner. In fact, many who have worked on this text have preferred to emend the second lamed-clause to read “to learn (dwmll in place of dwml) all knowledge that is found.”3 The reasons for such a judgment are not difficult to discern. Learning is a highly praised activity in the sect and a clear sign of one’s advancement in the ways of God. But more precisely, if the text is taken at face value, one is faced with the unusual declaration that the Maskil was charged with measuring knowledge. How does one do that? Yet even earlier readers should have been more reluctant to emend the text, on the basis of the very next line. For here we are told in no uncertain terms that the Maskil must also weigh character according to one’s “spirit,” a task far more difficult to imagine than measuring knowledge. The publication of the wisdom texts from Qumran, however, puts this whole paragraph in a new light. Let us begin with 4Q415.4 The text is highly fragmentary but enough of it is sufficiently clear to get a sense of what is going on. I have set the most important terms for measurement in italics. 1. her measure in a[ll . . . in them, For like scales of righteousness 2. [. . . they will not be . . . For this (pan) will rise up, and that one will sink down which are not (measured out) 3. [by ephah and e]phah, by omer and omer [ 4. [ ] . . . which are not together [And their spirit to the beauty of its appearance] 3 See J. Licht, Megillat Ha-Serakim ( Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965), 195 (Hebrew). He prefers to read the word “to learn” but acknowledges the possibility of reading “to measure.” 4 J. Strugnell and D. Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2 (ed. J. Strugnell, D. J. Harrington and T. Elgvin; DJD 34; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 57–62. The text that they print on page 57 is composite. It is reconstructed on the basis of the parallel accounts in 4Q418 167 and 4Q418a 15. The translation that follows is that of Strugnell and Harrington.

measuring character

143

5. [ ] understanding ones. For according to the spirits will they be me[asured out . . . Thou hast measured out their spirit in public(?)] 6. [A]ll her blemishes recount thou to him, And make [him] understand her bodily defects. And it shall be when he stubs his foot] 7. in the da[rk]ness, [Then] she will (not?) be for him like a stumbling block in front of him . . . [. . . And God] 8. [will] send forth [ ] His blow, And his anger will burn against . . .[ 9. with a weight their spirit will be meted out in [

Although the text is in a bad state of repair, there is enough of it preserved so that we can get a fascinating glimpse into one aspect of the sect’s anthropology. As Qimron noted, “the whole fragment can be interpreted as having one common theme, giving advice to the maven on one subject, namely on his marrying off his daughter; she should not be esteemed according to her looks (or bodily defects), but it is rather according to her spirit that the bridegroom should ‘weigh’ her.”5 The language of the fragment is remarkable. For though the Bible makes clear that the weighing of the human heart is possible, it also makes clear that such judgments reside in the hands of God alone. Yet at Qumran we see the injunction to weigh the spirit of this bride-to-be. And the language, though obviously metaphoric, is far more “realistic” than would be expected. We are told of scales, and pans that rise or fall as the weighing takes place. Strugnell and Harrington conclude their discussion with this observation: “In general, the phrase μjwr djyb ˆwkt seems to refer to a public examination by the maven of his daughter and of his prospective son-in-law with regard to their spiritual worth.”6 This observation is remarkable but at the same time it dramatically parallels the language of 1QS 9:12–16. For there, as we have seen, the Maskil has a similar task in regard to the members of the sect. He is to use the measure (ˆwkt) appropriate to a particular age and weigh the spirit of each member of the sect.7 It is difficult not to read 1QS 9:12–16 in light of 5:21–24. For in the latter text we learn that this act of measuring is a public affair and part of a yearly ritual of assessing where each member of the sect belongs in relation to his peers: 5

Cited in DJD 34.59; emphasis added. DJD 34.59. 7 The importance of the root t-k-n at Qumran should be noted. A comprehensive study of the term is a clear desideratum. It is especially frequent in the sapiential texts and 1QS, occurring over a dozen times in the latter text alone. 6

144

gary a. anderson When someone enters the covenant in order to do all these laws [. . .] they shall do an examination of their spirit in the community so as to differentiate between a man and his neighbor according to their knowledge and deeds of Torah [. . .]. They shall record them in order, each one before his neighbor in accord with their knowledge and deeds so that those members found to be lower can be answerable to those above them. Examine their spirits and their deeds year by year so as to elevate each one according to his knowledge and wholeness of living and to hold back each one according to his errant ways.

In this text, measuring a person’s accomplishments becomes a routine within the sect. Given the fact that weights and measures served such an important role in the ancient world—the office charged with establishing such standards can be usefully compared to the importance of maintaining proper currency rates in our own day—it is useful to digress briefly and inquire as to how such standards were kept in the ancient world. Shlomo Naeh has noted that the Mishnah requires that shopkeepers regularly clean and calibrate their scales.8 Among the particular responsibilities incumbent upon them is that of checking their weights against the publicly maintained standards. In every Greco-Roman city (including those in Syria-Palestine) there was the office of the agoranomos who oversaw that the standards for weights and measures of a particular city were reflected in the practices of each and every merchant.9 Moreover, this well known institution of the classical world was not only well known in Tannaitic circles, it was highly respected. The Sifra interprets the biblical injunction to keep just measures as necessitating the appointment of an agoranomos (ˆwmrgna).10 Because weights and measures could vary according to time and place, it was important to have an office established in each locality which would assure that the standards were displayed and would monitor their application. At Qumran there is a similar concern about such standards of measure, yet here the crucial variable was not geography but time. Because Torah-knowledge was steadily increasing, the publicly set standard for obligation was ever-increasing. Strikingly, also 8 S. Naeh, “Polishing Measures and Cleaning Seals: A Chapter from the Tractate of Weights and Measures,” Tarbiz 69 (1989–90): 379–95. The Mishnah in question, which becomes the focus of the study, is Baba Batra 5:10. 9 On this office see D. Sperber, “On the Office of the Agoranomos in Roman Palestine,” ZDMG 127 (1977): 227–43. 10 See the Sifra, Qedoshim section Het, on Lev 19:36. For a brief commentary on this text see Naeh, “Polishing Measures,” 381–82.

measuring character

145

at Qumran, there was a concern to appoint an individual who would establish these standards and make sure they were applied in the proper manner. The Maskil—a person who assumed a role not unlike that of the agoranomos—was charged with making sure the standards matched those established by God (“so that he might do the will of God according to all that is revealed from age to age and to measure all the knowledge . . .”). Evidently, as knowledge in the Torah deepened, the “weights” used to measure the “spirit” [character] of the individual would increase so that more and more learning and good deeds would be required during the yearly evaluation. As a result of such “weighings” each member of the sect would be moved up or held back in the hierarchy of the sect.

2 There is another text from Qumran that we can perhaps read differently in light of the recently published wisdom materials. In CD 5:2–6 we read that the Torah had been hidden away during the days of the early monarchy, and thus many of its commandments were not known. For this reason David’s sins could be so quickly forgiven because he committed them inadvertently. “The [mis]deeds of David,” the author of the CD writes, “went up (l[yw) apart from (dblm) the blood of Uriah; and God forgave David for them” (CD 5:5–6). A troubling word in this sentence is the reference to David’s sins “going up.” One line of explanation is that they “disappeared” or were “removed.” On this view, the verb “to go up” is understood in its not infrequent extended sense: “went away,” “depart” or even “disappear.”11 This works well in the main but leaves one difficulty—the internal logic of the sentence is put under some strain. If the sins “disappeared” then what would remain for God subsequently “to forgive?” This may be an overly literal reaction. After all this piece of prose could have poetic resonances wherein the second clause (“God forgave David”) parallels that of the first (“The [mis]deeds disappeared”).

11 So M. Kister, “Plucking Grain on the Sabbath and Jewish-Christian Polemic,” in Mehqare Yerushalayim be Mahshevet Yisrael ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1984), 3:354 n. 17 (Hebrew). Indeed modern Hebrew provides ample testimony to this tendency by employing the Aramaic root s-l-q (the equivalent of Hebrew '-l-h) in the hitpael to mean “to leave, or disappear.”

146

gary a. anderson

There is, however, another way to consider the matter. In Psalm 62:10, we read: “Man is a mere breath; mortals, an illusion. When placed on a scale altogether, they weigh less [literally “go up”] than even a breath.”12 Here the insignificance of the human character is characterized through the metaphor of a scale. If a shopkeeper could find a weight equal to that of a human breath to put on one pan of a scale—itself an impossible task—then when a human being’s moral achievements were assembled and placed in the opposite pan, they would be so inconsiderable that they would be outweighed by the mere breath. In short, they would, in the words of the Psalmist, “go up.” Though the idiom in this Psalm is not that of sin and forgiveness, it is easy to see how all of this could be transferred in that direction. We know that at Qumran legal standards for measuring sin and righteousness evolved over time and that it was the sect’s task to set the proper standards against which human activity could be weighed. Indeed 4Q415 referred specifically to pans that rose during the evaluation of the character of a bride-to-be. If such was the image behind CD 5:4–5, the entire sentence would have a consistent logic: since the pan that contained the “weight” of David’s misdeeds “rose,” this indicated their insignificance. As a result, God could justly forgive him his sins.13 In rabbinic texts the image of weighing of merits and demerits is such a commonplace that it hardly needs further development. But one text from Pesikta de Rav Kahana is very relevant to this entire 12

The Hebrew is: djy lbhm÷hmh twl[l μynzamb. It is tempting to see within this image the reason why rabbinic Hebrew (and modern Hebrew by extension) expresses the notion of cost by the idiom: “how much does this rise [up to]?” The Sitz im Leben is that of a merchant, his scales, and a set of weights of various standard units. The buyer would first put his goods on one pan whereupon it would sink to the ground. The seller would then try to match the weight of the goods with his set of standard weights. How much the buyer would have to pay in the end would be determined by how much weight would have to be put on the pan in order to make the pan with the merchandise rise. Hence the idiom: “how much [weight does it take] to make my goods rise [to an even balance].” For the judgment of sin the matter is slightly different. Here one did not wish to achieve an even balance but rather an asymmetrical position. In this case the sinner hoped that the pan holding his sin would rise and the correlative pan containing the prevailing “standard” would fall. In this case, his offense would be “too light” to be punished. A crucial variable in this process was the weight of the standard that the Divine judge would use to evaluate the culpability of human behavior. The rabbinic and modern Hebrew idiom for rendering a decision is, not surprisingly, [yrkh, that is, a “pushing down [on the scales]” with the goal of achieving an asymmetry that would favor one pan over the other. On the use of the metaphor of scales for rendering judgment see Naeh, “Polishing Measures,” 394–95 n. 58. 13

measuring character

147

problematic. “R. Nahman took the verse [in Psalm 62:10] to mean: notwithstanding all the ‘vanity’ that Israel commits and the ‘lies’ that she utters in the world, Abraham is of sufficient merit to win expiation for all of Israel’s wicked deeds when they come under divine scrutiny. The phrase, ‘in the scales they will go up’ means that [through Abraham] expiation will be won for you.”14 R. Nahman provides a compelling confirmation of how one might read CD 5:4–5. Because David’ sins were so light, they went up on the divine balance and consequently the verdict reached was one of forgiveness. The suggestion of how to read this account of the forgiveness of David’s sin draws significant support from the overall importance of weighing souls at Qumran and making sure that the standard used in each weighing correlates to knowledge of Torah in that age. Just as weights and measures varied from locality to locality and the office of the agoranomos was established to make sure every weighing conformed to the standard, so at Qumran it was the Maskil who bore the responsibility to make sure the standards were just and appropriate to the requisite knowledge of Torah in his own day. David benefited from living in an age in which the standard of comparison was relatively benign.

14 Piska 23. See the standard edition of B. Mandelbaum (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962).

DIBRE HAME "OROT AND THE APOCALYPSE OF WEEKS Hanan Eshel Bar-Ilan University*

The Apocalypse of Weeks is a vision that chronicles world history in a very concise manner by dividing it into specific time units called “weeks.” Each week is described as being either positive or negative in content. The Apocalypse of Weeks is preserved in the Epistle of Enoch, one of the compositions included in 1 Enoch (chapters 90–105). In the Ethiopic manuscripts of 1 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Weeks is divided into two parts: 93:3–9 describes seven weeks from the creation of the world until the end of days; and 91:12–15 describes the last three weeks, during which God judges the wicked—beginning with those in Israel, followed by those among the Gentiles, and ending with the fallen angels. Following R. H. Charles, most scholars have favored moving the final three weeks to the end of the Apocalypse of Weeks.1 Support for doing so has since been found in an Aramaic copy of the book of 1 Enoch from Qumran in which the three weeks follow the vision of the seven weeks (4QEng).2 The consensus among scholars is that one needs to differentiate between the vision of the seven weeks, which describes real historical periods, and the vision of the last three weeks, which deals with meta-history.3 It is also agreed that the

* I wish to thank my friends Magen Broshi and Esther Chazon for their useful comments. 1 R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch: Or, 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), 232–34. See also M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon; New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 2:218; J. C. VanderKam, “Studies in the Apocalypse of Weeks,” CBQ 46 (1984): 511–23; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 438. 2 J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 247, 361; M. Black, “The Apocalypse of Weeks in Light of 4Qeng,” VT 28 (1978): 464–69; F. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 79–96. 3 See R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 2:262–63; F. Dexinger, Henochs Zehnwochenapokalypse und offene Probleme der Apokalyptikforschung (StPB 29; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 102–9; M. Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985),

150

hanan eshel

Apocalypse of Weeks is the oldest extant Jewish historical apocalypse, and that it should be dated to the middle of the second century BCE.4 According to the Apocalypse of Weeks, history is divided into seven periods (“weeks”): the first begins with creation and ends with Enoch; the second ends with the flood in the days of Noah; the third ends with Abraham; the fourth ends the events at Mount Sinai and the giving of the Law; the fifth with the construction of the Temple in Jerusalem; the sixth with the Temple’s destruction; the seventh ends with the choosing of the righteous elect who will be granted understanding of God’s mysteries. The eighth week, first in the meta-historical cycle, deals with the judgment of the wicked from within Israel as well as with the construction of an everlasting Temple; the ninth deals with the judgment of the wicked from among the Gentiles; and the tenth with the judgment of fallen angels.5 In Cave 4 at Qumran, three copies of a liturgy called Dibre Hame"orot (4Q504–6) were found.6 The title of the composition appears on the back of the first sheet of 4Q504. On paleographical grounds, 4Q504 is dated to the middle of the second century BCE. In light of this dating, coupled with the fact that Dibre Hame"orot does not exemplify any sectarian characteristics, it is generally assumed that someone outside of the Qumran sect composed the text, a collection of prayers for the seven days of the week.7

291; J. Licht, “The Attitude to Past Events in the Bible and in Apocalyptic Literature,” Tarbiz 60 (1990–1991): 10–11 (Hebrew); M. Broshi, “A Commentary on the Apocalypse of Weeks (4Q247),” Eretz-Israel 26 (1999): 39–42 (Hebrew). 4 J. C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQMS 16; Washington D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984), 142–46. 5 On this division, see J. Licht, “Time and Eschatology in Apocalyptic Literature and in Qumran,” JJS 16 (1965): 178–80; S. B. Reid, “The Structure of the Ten Week Apocalypse and the Book of Dream Visions,” JSJ 16 (1985): 190–95; D. Dimant, “The Seventy Weeks Chronology (Dan 9, 24–27),” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (ed. A. S. van der Woude; BETL 106; Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1993), 66–71). 6 The first edition of the three scrolls which contained the prayer Dibre Hame’orot was published by M. Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 137–75. A most important work on the Dibre Hame"orot is E. G. Chazon, “A Liturgical Document from Qumran and its Implications: ‘Words of the Luminaries’ (4QDibHam)” (Ph.D. Diss., Hebrew University, 1991 [Hebrew]). Furthermore, a prayer similar to Dibre Hame"orot was found in Cave 11; see H. Eshel, “Three New Fragments from Qumran Cave 11,” DSD 8 (2001): 5–8. 7 See E. G. Chazon, “Is Dibre Hame"orot a Sectarian Prayer?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill; Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press and Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1992), 3–17.

DIBRE HAME "OROT

and the apocalypse of weeks

151

All three scrolls containing Dibre Hame"orot are quite fragmentary. From 4Q504 there remain portions of two parchment sheets (the first with two columns and the second with five columns), six larger fragments (nos. 3–8), and 41 smaller fragments. Ten papyrus fragments remain from 4Q505, only one of which is large enough to allow for content identification. From 4Q506, which was also written on papyrus, 46 fragments have survived, but only three are large enough to permit determination of content. Because all the copies of this prayer were fragmentary, M. Baillet, who edited the original publication of the three scrolls, was not able to grasp the structure of Dibre Hame"orot. However, in an important article published in 1992, E. Chazon showed how the content of the different prayers for the successive days of the week reflects a chronological order.8 She noticed several elements in the structure of each prayer. Each prayer begins with a title, such as “[. . . on] the fourth [da]y. Remember, O Lord, [. . .]”; or “Thanksgivings on the day of the Sabbath. Give thanks [. . .].” Immediately following is a reference to certain historical events or periods which God is called upon to remember. Next are requests for physical salvation and help in following the Torah. Finally, each prayer concludes with a series of blessings to which the congregation was expected to respond with “Amen! Amen!.”9 There are some notable similarities between the historical divisions recorded in the Apocalypse of Weeks and those mentioned in Dibre Hame"orot. In her doctoral dissertation, written under the supervision of Michael Stone, Chazon divided all the surviving fragments of Dibre Hame"orot into different prayers corresponding to the different days of the week.10 The prayer for Sunday describes the creation of the world and the Garden of Eden.11 For Monday’s prayer, the fragments 8 E. G. Chazon, “4QDibHam: Liturgy or Literature?” RevQ 15 (1992): 447–55. In this article, Chazon suggests that the historical overview contained in Dibre Hame’orot resembles those found in biblical prayers, such as those in Psalm 105 and Neh 9: 6–37. 9 On the structure of the prayers found in Dibre Hame"orot, see also B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (tr. J. Chipman; STDJ 12; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 89–99. 10 See also D. T. Olson, “Words of Lights (4Q504–506),” in J. H. Charlesworth et al., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 4a: Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck]; Louisville: Westminster, 1997), 110–37. All quotations of Dibre Hame"orot are based on this translation. 11 4Q504 6 10 reads: “[. . .] you (were) in our midst in a pillar of fire and cloud”; later, in line 12, the phrase “Moses [your] serv[ant . . .]” seems clearly to signal that this fragment is describing the Exodus. It has been suggested that the fragment

152

hanan eshel

are too small to permit identification of the historical event being described.12 Tuesday’s prayer recalls God’s love for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the election of their offspring.13 Relatively well preserved, the prayer for Wednesday mentions the covenant made at Mount Horeb between God and Israel, the laws and commandments which were given to Moses face to face and the fact that “[. . . eye] to eye you have been seen in our midst . . . in order to test us [and in order that] your [fear] may be on us that we may not si[n . . .].”14 Thus, there is no doubt that the event being described is what took place at Mount Sinai. The fragments that relate to Thursday’s prayer recall certain miracles which took place in Egypt and during the wanderings in the wilderness.15 One fragment recalls the fact that God thought of destroying Israel because of its sin in the desert, but that Moses atoned for the sin that the nation committed.16 A well-preserved fragment of this prayer recalls the choosing of Jerusalem and the tribe of Judah, and the covenant that “you established with David, that there may be from his seed17 a prince over your people. He was seated upon the throne of Israel before you all the days, and all the nations saw your glory (by) which you were honored as holy in the midst of your people Israel; and to your great name they brought their offerings: silver and gold and precious stone(s) with all the treasure(s) of their land in order to glorify your people and Zion, your holy city, and your marvelous house. . . .”18 It therefore appears that the prayer for Thursday describes various historical events leading up to the construction of the Temple in the days of King Solomon. For Friday, the prayer talks about the people abandoning the spring of living water, the land deserted by young and old alike because of God’s should be assigned to Sunday’s prayer (Chazon, “A Liturgical Document,” 129, 133). If this is the case, there is an exception to the historical order put forward by Chazon. D. Olson, however, does not ascribe this fragment to the Sunday prayer (Olson, “Words of Light,” 107). 12 Chazon (“A Liturgical Document,” 176) suggests that fragment 26 of 4Q504 deals with the election of Israel. However, judging from the parallels between Dibre Hame"orot and the Apocalypse of Weeks, it would appear to be dealing with the election of Noah’s firstborn son, Shem. 13 4Q505 124 6. 14 4Q504 3 ii 7–9. 15 4Q504 1 i 8–10. 16 4Q504 1 ii 7–10. 17 On the reading “from his seed,” see E. Qimron, “Improvements to the Editions of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Eretz-Israel 26 (1999): 26 (Hebrew). 18 4Q504 2 ii 3–12.

DIBRE HAME "OROT

and the apocalypse of weeks

153

wrath; although Israel was scattered throughout the nations, God made sure they would not be forsaken in the places to which He had exiled them.19 Undoubtedly then, Friday’s prayer recalls the destruction of Judah and Israel’s guilt for its deportation. The prayer for the Sabbath opens with the line “Thanksgiving for the day of the Sabbath.” Only a few fragments of this prayer, which mentions the “nobles” who will “exalt” and “[te]ll of the glory” of God, have survived.20 The lists of historical events in both texts seem to be entirely parallel. The correspondence between Sunday’s prayer, which deals with Creation and the Garden of Eden, and the events of the First Week, which begins with the Creation account, cannot really be considered significant. However, the historical events listed in the Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday prayers in Dibre Hame"orot correspond to the historical divisions found in the Apocalypse of Weeks. Tuesday’s prayer mentions God’s election of the nation’s forefathers and their seed after them, while the last event of Week Three is God’s call of Abraham. Wednesday’s prayer describes at length God’s covenant at Horeb, the most important event listed in Week Four of the Apocalypse. The last event recalled in Thursday’s prayer is the construction of the Temple, the same event which concludes Week Five. Friday’s prayer describes the destruction of the land and the people’s exile, events which bring Week Six to a close. The prayer for the Sabbath mentions the nobles who will tell of God’s wonders, and Week Seven of the Apocalypse portrays the righteous elect receiving understanding of God’s mysteries. Such similarities between the Apocalypse of Weeks and Dibre Hame"orot can hardly be viewed as coincidental. As mentioned above, Dibre Hame"orot has been dated to the middle of the second century BCE,21 the same time period scholars have assigned to the composition of the Apocalypse of Weeks. In light of the character of Dibre Hame"orot, it is clear that its author was primarily interested in liturgy. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that he was not the author of the system dividing the history of mankind into seven periods. Rather, to establish a framework for the presentation of his liturgy, he drew upon an external source, most likely the Apocalypse of Weeks.

19 20 21

4Q504 2 v 2–13. 4Q504 2 vii 4; and the back side of vii Chazon, “Sectarian Prayer?” 7–9.

1–3.

154

hanan eshel

Two other compositions found at Qumran offer evidence that the Apocalypse of Weeks was known to at least a few authors of the Qumran scrolls. The first, Pesher on the Apocalypse of Weeks (4Q247) mentions “the fif[th] week” and describes the construction of the Temple in the days of King Solomon, 480 years after the exodus from Egypt. The end of the fragment includes the words “Kin[g] of the Kittim.”22 The other document, 11QMelchizedek, is a thematic pesher which places much importance on Melchizedek in its description of the End of Days. It contains the phrase “in the first week of the jubilee after [the] ni[ne] jubilees. And [the] d[ay of atonem]ent i[s] the end of [the] tenth [ ju]bilee, in which atonement is made for all the Sons of [Light]” (11Q13 2:7–8).23 It now appears that the author of Dibre Hame"orot also was aware of the Apocalypse of Weeks and adopted its historical divisions to provide a structure for his own liturgy. Thus, Dibre Hame"orot offers yet further evidence of the important role Enochic literature played in Jewish religious compositions of the Second Temple period.24

22 Milik, The Books of Enoch, 256; Broshi, “A Commentary on the Apocalypse of Weeks,” 39–42, and “247. 4QPesher on the Apocalypse of Weeks,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts (ed. S. J. Pfann); and Miscellanea, Part 1 (ed. P. Alexander et al., in consultation with J. C. VanderKam and M. Brady; DJD 36; Clarendon: Oxford, 2000), 187–91; H. Eshel, “The Kittim in the War Scroll and in the Pesharim,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Asssociated Literature, 27–31 January 1999 (ed. D. Goodblatt, A. Pinnick and D. R. Schwartz; STDJ 37; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 31–32. On the contributions of this fragment to the understanding the place of the Apocalypse of Weeks at Qumran, see D. Dimant, “4QApocryphon of Jeremiah: Introduction,” in Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4; Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (ed. D. Dimant; DJD 30; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 114, n. 37. 23 “Week and “[divi]sions of [time]” also appear at the end of the document (11Q13 3:17–18). The author of 11QMelchizedek apparently uses a system in which the terms “week” and “jubilee” have the same meaning. See F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11.I (11Q2–18, 20–31) (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 225, 234. 24 On the important role of the Books of Enoch during the Second Temple period, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 64–81 and the literature listed there.

THE PURITY LAWS OF 4QD: EXEGESIS AND SECTARIANISM Martha Himmelfarb Princeton University

The laws of skin eruptions and genital discharge in 4QD stand out among the laws of the Damascus Document for their distinctive form. Unlike most of the laws of the Damascus Document,1 they are intimately linked to the Torah; it would be impossible to make sense of them without reference to the discussion of these topics in Leviticus 12, 13, and 15. I shall argue here that they are intended as a sort of commentary on the text of Leviticus. They display an understanding of the purity laws of the Torah as a system, and they use elements of that system to explicate other elements, focusing on aspects of the text of Leviticus they found particularly difficult. Although they now form part of a sectarian work, there is nothing sectarian about their rhetoric, nor do they give any indication of the communal setting evident elsewhere in the Damascus Document.2 Nonetheless, I shall argue that the laws of genital discharge reflect a sectarian ethos. Each section of the purity laws in 4QD refers to itself as a rule, fpçm, the construct form with the appropriate category. Thus, for example, the unit on skin eruptions concludes, t¿[r?xh fpçm¿ hz, “This is the rule of skin eruptions”3 (4Q272 1 ii 2),4 while the section 1 The communal laws of the Damascus Document are independent of the Torah, while most of the laws that draw on the Torah, such as laws of the Sabbath (CD 10:14–11:18) and laws of oaths (CD 16:10–12), are presented as positive and negative commandments, usually without reference to the text of the Torah. On the formal features of the laws of the Damascus Document, see C. Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition and Redaction (STDJ 29; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 30–38; and A. Shemesh and C. Werman, “Halakhah at Qumran: Genre and Authority,” DSD 10 (2003): 112–19. My analysis of the treatment of Leviticus 12 in the purity laws of 4QD is quite different from that of Shemesh and Werman. 2 Hempel assigns these laws to what she calls the “halakhah” stratum of the Damascus Document, the stratum that does not show a connection to a specific community (Laws, 38–39, 50). 3 All translations of material from 4QD unless otherwise noted are taken from J. M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (DJD 18; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996). For my “rule of skin eruptions” above, Baumgarten

156

martha himmelfarb

on male genital flow begins, wbwz ta bzh fpç?mw¿, “[And the r]ule concerning one who has a discharge . . .” (4Q266 6 i 14, 272 1 ii 3).5 In this usage, fpçm appears to be an interpretation of the term hrwt as it is used in Leviticus 12–15, where it appears in the construct state, introducing and more frequently concluding discussion of a particular kind of impurity, for example, “tdlwyh trwt taz,” “This is the law for her who bears a child . . .” (Lev 12:7); or, “trwt taz bzh,” “This is the law for him who has a discharge” (Lev 15:32).6 The substitution of fpçm for hrwt may reflect the eclipse of the meaning of hrwt in Leviticus 11–15, “law” or “teaching,” as the term came to designate the Book of the Torah; it may also be a way of signaling that these laws are not intended as competition for the laws of the Torah, but rather as interpretation. The term fpçm appears more widely in the Damascus Document, but only in one other instance does it have the same meaning it has in the passages discussed here: twbdnh fpçm l[, “Concerning the law of donations” (CD 16:13, 4Q271 4 ii 12–13).7 This title belongs to a larger group of headings with l[ (CD 10:10//4Q270 6 iv 20, 10:14,

translates, “rule of ßara"at ” (190). For material that appears only in CD, the translation is that of F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). 4 Baumgarten’s reconstruction yields the somewhat redundants [rxh t?rwt¿ fpçm hz for the parallel in 4Q266 6 i 13 (DJD 18.52). 5 See also ?ˆq¿zhw çwrh qtn fpçmw, “And the rule for a scall of the head or the bea[rd]” (266 6 i 5; parallel in 273 4 ii 10, which breaks off after the r); and fpçm?w hbzh¿, “[And] the law [of a woman who has a discharge]” (272 1 ii 7). All come at the beginning of the relevant laws with the exception indicated above. 6 Introduction: the laws of purification for one with skin eruptions (Lev 14:2). Conclusions: the laws of permitted and prohibited animals (Lev 11:46); the laws of the impurity of the parturient (Lev 12:7); the laws of eruptions of fabrics and leather (Lev 13:59), a topic not treated in 4QD; the offering of the poor man with skin eruptions (Lev 14:32); the laws of eruptions generally (Lev 14:54, 57); the laws of genital discharge Lev 15:32). The same usage appears also in Lev 6:2, 7, 18 and Lev 7:1, 11, introducing different types of sacrifice; Num 5:29, concluding the laws of the woman suspected of adultery; and Num 6:13, 21, introducing sections of the laws of the Nazirite. All translations of biblical texts are taken from the RSV unless otherwise noted. 7 The first item following the heading prohibits vowing any unjust gain to the altar. It is worth noting that the Torah juxtaposes vowing and the term hrwt in Num 6:21: “This is the law (hrwt) for the Nazirite who takes a vow.” Unlike the purity laws, however, the passage on donations to the sanctuary is not closely linked to a single passage in the Torah. There are other places in the Damascus Document (e.g., CD 10:14, 15:7, 16:12) where fpçm means something like “rule” but it is not in the construct nor is it used as the heading or conclusion for a specific set of laws.

the purity laws of 4qd

157

16:10, and perhaps 4Q266 6 iii 3–4//4Q270 3 ii 128); the others lack fpçm. 4QOrdinancesa also contains an instance of this type of heading (4Q159 1 ii 6).9 Elsewhere the Damascus Document uses the term ˚rs, “rule,” as a heading in a fashion similar to fpçm in the purity laws, either with the demonstrative or without: “And this is the rule for the judges of the congregation” (CD 10:4; also 12:19, 22–23; 13:7; 14:3, 12). The term ˚rs appears to be associated particularly with sectarian communal regulations. Most instances of all three types of heading are preceded by a vacat. The l[ and ˚rs headings appear exclusively at the beginning of sections. The use of fpçm in at least one instance as a conclusion echoes the practice of the Torah in Leviticus 11–15, where . . . trwt taz is used only once as a heading but six times as a conclusion.10 As I have noted elsewhere, the purity laws of 4QD attempt to clarify the difficult language of Leviticus 13.11 They define the obscure tjps (RSV: “eruption”; NJPS: “rash”) as a scab caused by a blow (4Q269 7 1–2//4Q272 1 i 1–2), clearly distinguishing it from other types of skin eruption; and they adopt the term tramm, “malignant,” used in Leviticus only of eruptions of fabric (13:51–52) and houses (14:44), to clarify the status of skin eruptions in human beings (4Q266 6 i 5//4Q272 1 i 13). This portion of the purity laws also signals its relationship to the text of the Torah by offering an explicit interpretation of Lev 13:33 in an otherwise unknown version (4Q266 6 i 8–9//4Q272 1 i 17).12 As far as we can tell from the preserved material, the laws of skin eruptions in 4QD follow the order of the laws in Leviticus. The opening of the passage is lost, but the preserved text begins with the definition of tjps, a term that appears at the very beginning of Leviticus’ discussion (Lev 13:2).13 Thus the amount of material lost

8

This rubric involves some reconstruction by Baumgarten; most important, the word l[ appears only in 4Q266, where it is crossed out (DJD 18.58). 9 As Shemesh and Werman note (“Halakhah,” 115). 10 For a list of occurrences in Leviticus 11–15, see n. 6 above. I count Lev 14:54, 57 as a single instance. Elsewhere in the Torah, the term appears seven times as an introduction and twice as a conclusion (n. 6 above). 11 M. Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin in 4QD, 1QS, and 4Q512,” DSD 8 (2001): 16, with more detailed discussion of the treatment of tjps and tramm. 12 See Baumgarten, DJD 18.54. 13 Toward the beginning of the passage on skin eruptions, Leviticus switches to the variant tjpsm (Lev 13:6–8). The term tjps appears again only in the summary of the laws of eruptions in Lev 14:56.

158

martha himmelfarb

in 4QD may have been quite small, perhaps only an introduction.14 The passage concludes with a discussion of scall of the head or beard, which comes toward the end of Leviticus’ procedures for judging the purity status of skin eruptions (Lev 13:29–37); the concluding formula has been preserved. The laws of genital discharge, on the other hand, clearly and purposefully rearrange the laws of Leviticus. Leviticus 15 opens with the laws of abnormal male genital discharge (Lev 15:1–15), moves on to normal male genital discharge (seminal emission; Lev 15:16–18), then to normal female genital discharge (menstruation; Lev 15:19–24), and concludes with abnormal female genital discharge (Lev 15:25–30). The laws of 4QD follow the lead of Leviticus 15 by treating the varieties of male genital discharge together before female genital discharge. But unlike Leviticus they place the discussion of the parturient (Leviticus 12) together with that of the menstruant and the woman with abnormal genital discharge under the rubric of the rule of the hbz (4Q272 1 ii 7).15 While Leviticus does not use the crucial root bwz, “flow,” in its discussion of the parturient, it compares the first stage of the impurity of the parturient to menstrual impurity (Lev 12:2, 5). The key to this reconfiguration of the laws of Leviticus, as well as to the radical rereading of the laws of male genital discharge to which I shall turn in a moment, is the interpretation of the root bwz. In the portion of Leviticus 15 devoted to the impurity of male genital discharge, the priestly source uses the root bwz for abnormal discharge only: bwz means “flow” and thus is not properly applied to seminal emission, which involves ejaculation.16 For normal male genital discharge, that is, seminal emission, P uses the term [rz tbkç (Lev 15:16–18). It does not make any difference whether the seminal emission takes place in the course of sexual relations or without sexual relations; the purity consequences are the same in either case. For women, both normal and abnormal genital discharges are flow. 14 There is about two-thirds of a column lost before the preserved material. The last third of col. 2 in 4Q266 5 is missing, as is the first third of col. 1 of 4Q266 6. This judgment is compatible with what is preserved in 4Q273 4 i and ii. 15 In the single manuscript containing the laws of the parturient, the discussion of the woman with abnormal flow concludes in the middle of a line and the discussion of the parturient begins on the next line (4Q266 6 ii 4–5). But despite this possible indication of a new unit, the absence of an introductory phrase with fpçm and the active rearrangement of the material of Leviticus 12–15 to place the impurity of the parturient together with the other types of impurity of genital discharge strongly suggests that the parturient is here treated as a third type of hbz. 16 J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 934.

the purity laws of 4qd

159

Thus the discussion of menstruation begins: “When a woman has a flow (hbz hyht), her flow being blood from her body, she shall be in her impurity seven days . . .” (Lev 15:19).17 For the priestly authors of the body of Leviticus 15, then, the root bwz has nothing to do with abnormality; it has only to do with the mode of discharge. But biblical Hebrew lacks a term equivalent to English “discharge” that includes both flow and seminal emission. The absence of such a term caused confusion as far back as biblical times. This confusion is evident in the contribution of the editors of Leviticus 15, who employ the root bwz as an umbrella category for all the types of genital discharge with which Leviticus 15 is concerned, including seminal emission, in their concluding summary of the chapter: “This is the law for one who has a flow (bzh): for him who has a seminal emission ([rz tbkç) and becomes impure from it, and for her who is sick with her impurity, and for a man or woman who has a flow (wbwz ta bzh), and for a man who lies with an impure woman.”18 In other words, they use the root bwz to mean not only its proper referents, the various types of genital flow, but also seminal emission. The rule for male genital discharge in 4QD is only four and onehalf lines long,19 and it is not well preserved. I have argued elsewhere that it uses the term bz in the extended sense of the conclusion of Leviticus 15 (vv. 32–33), rather than in the more limited sense of the laws of Leviticus 15:2–31. [And the r]ule concerning one who has a discharge (wbwz ta bzh): Any man/ with a [dis]charge from [his] flesh, [o]r one [who] brings upon himse[lf ] lustful thoughts or one20 who/ [ ] his contact is like that of [ / he shall launder his clo[th]es and [bathe in water21 ]/ him, who touches him shall ba[the (4Q266 6 i 14–16//4Q272 1 ii 3–7).22

17

My translation. My translation. 19 Both fragments in which the passage is preserved contain the opening heading. While 4Q266 6 breaks off before the end of the passage, 4Q272 1 ii 7 contains the opening heading for the topic that follows, female genital discharge. 20 I have added “one” to Baumgarten’s translation (DJD 18.53, 190). If the first rça wa is translated “or one who,” then this rça wa should also be translated “or one who.” The translation of García Martínez and Tigchelaar rightly suggests three categories: “Regula[tion concerning the man with a disch]arge. Eve[ry man] [with a di]scha[rge from his flesh, or who brings upon himself a] lustful thought or who[. . .]” (Study Edition, 1:625). 21 The words, “bathe in water,” are Baumgarten’s reconstruction, as his transcription of the Hebrew indicates, but in the translation the words are not placed in brackets (DJD 18.190). I have corrected this error in the quotation above. 22 I have combined Baumgarten’s translations of the two relevant fragments (DJD 18

160

martha himmelfarb

Baumgarten’s translation of wbwz ta bzh (4Q266 6 i 14/4Q272 1 ii 3) as “one who has a discharge” is in the spirit of the editors of Leviticus 15, and it responds to the inclusion in this category of the one whose discharge is caused by lustful thoughts. Such discharge is surely an instance of seminal emission without sexual relations (Lev 15:16).23 Like the editors of Leviticus 15, then, the purity laws of 4QD make no distinction between flow and seminal emission. Thus I have suggested that the third type of bz, whose existence is indicated by the last rça wa, “or who,” but whose description is unfortunately lost to us, is the man who has had a seminal emission in the course of sexual relations (Lev 15:18). As far as I can see, Leviticus 15 provides no other candidates for the role, and the evident inclusion of the man who has had a seminal emission outside of sexual relations in the category bz makes plausible the appearance of the man who has had one in the course of sexual relations. The missing line after wa rça might have read something like, [rz tbkç hça bkçy, “has a seminal emission in the course of sexual relations with a woman.”24 This restoration is drawn from the language of Lev 15:18; it is certainly possible that the language of the description was less closely related to Leviticus 15, as for the second type of bz. The process of purification Leviticus decrees for the man with abnormal flow is very different from the process for the man with a seminal emission. The man who has had a seminal emission has only to bathe and wait for sundown to become pure (Lev 15:16, 18). The man with abnormal discharge, on the other hand, washes his clothes and bathes on the seventh day after the cessation of the flow; on the eighth day, he offers a sacrifice (Lev 15:13–15). Anyone who has physical contact with the man with abnormal discharge, or with his spittle, or anything he lies, sits, or rides upon also becomes impure

18.53, 190). I indicate lacunae only where neither fragment preserves the text, and I have not made any effort to show the actual size of the lacunae. 23 Baumgarten points out that m. Zabim 2.2 exempts discharge from being considered a sign of bz impurity if it can be connected to sexual stimulation (DJD 18.54; “Zab Impurity in Qumran and Rabbinic Law,” JJS 45 [1994]: 275). But his comment on the passage in 4QD, “It would appear from the context that a discharge resulting from lustful thoughts was considered as coming under the category of zab and would therefore be defiling” (DJD 18.54), is somewhat misleading. Any discharge is defiling, but according to Leviticus 15 normal seminal emission defiles for a much shorter period than abnormal discharge and far less effort is required to remove the impurity. 24 My proposal leaves room for several other words on the line.

the purity laws of 4qd

161

(Lev 15:5–10); he must wash his clothes and bathe, and he remains impure until evening (Lev 15:11–12). In contrast, the touch of a man who has had a seminal emission does not convey impurity; only the semen itself does so. The impurity caused by the semen is removed by bathing for human beings and by laundering for garments and skins, and then by waiting until evening (Lev 15:16–18). Unfortunately, the text of 4QD is too fragmentary to permit certainty about the nature of its procedures for purification for the man with genital discharge. Still, the brevity of the text makes it extremely unlikely that it offered different procedures for men with abnormal discharge and men with seminal emission. The references to laundering as well as bathing (4Q272 1 ii 6) and the emphasis on the problem of contact with the bz (4Q272 1 ii 5, 7) appear to reflect Leviticus’ rules for the man with abnormal discharge.25 The fragmentary conclusion of the preceding line suggests that the subject of the laundering and bathing is the one who has had contact with the bz rather than the bz himself. It is not clear from what is preserved whether the rule ordains laundering and bathing for the man with the discharge himself or indicates the length of his period of impurity. One aspect of Leviticus’ purification procedure that is almost certainly missing is the sacrifice the man with abnormal discharge must bring on the eighth day. I shall return to this problem in my discussion of the treatment of the parturient’s sacrifice, but it is worth noting here that the purity laws of 4QD appear to assume participation in the temple cult.26 Despite their fragmentary state, it is virtually certain that the purity laws of 4QD understand the man who had had a seminal emission without sexual relations to convey impurity to others. If I am correct that the third type of bz is the man with a seminal emission in the course of sexual relations, he too was understood to convey impurity by his touch. This is an extraordinary intensification of the impurity of seminal emission, but it is not without parallel. 4QTohorot A (4Q274) claims that the impurity of seminal emission can be communicated by contact: “And when [a man has] an emiss[ion] of 25 It is frustrating that the phrase, “his contact is like that of . . .” (4Q266 6 i 16// 4Q272 1 ii 5) breaks off where it does. Perhaps contact with the bz is compared to contact with the hdn, which is apparently the subject a few lines later (4Q272 1 ii 9–10). 26 Hempel considers the assumption of participation to be characteristic of the legal material in the Damascus Document (Laws, 37–38).

162

martha himmelfarb

semen his touch is defiling” (1 i 8).27 Indeed, the recognition that the purity laws of the Torah constitute a system might encourage such intensification. Seminal emission is exceptional among the types of discharge discussed in Leviticus 15: the period of impurity it causes is far shorter than those caused by other types of discharge, and only the discharge itself, but not the one with the discharge, conveys impurity to others. As just noted, the state of the text does not permit certainty about whether it reiterated Leviticus’ requirements of laundering and bathing for the man with abnormal discharge or indicated the duration of the impurity. It is perhaps more likely that it did not. Yet since it is clear that the purity laws of 4QD offer only a selective treatment of the laws of Leviticus, this probably means not that they rejected these requirements, but rather that they assumed them. But how could the authors of these laws have ignored the plain sense of Lev 15:16–18 and applied the longer period of impurity and more complex rituals of purification for a man with abnormal discharge to a man with seminal emission? Perhaps they noted that while the Torah refers to the man with abnormal discharge becoming pure (Lev 15:13), it states that the man with seminal emission bathes and remains impure until evening (Lev 15:16, 18). This mode of expression surely implies the return to a state of purity, but the absence of explicit 27 Tr. J. Baumgarten, “474. 4QTohorot A,” Qumran Cave 4.XXV: Halakhic Texts (ed. J. Baumgarten et al.; DJD 35; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 99–110. This translation reflects the restoration [rzj tbk?ç çam a¿xt μaw. Milgrom restores the texts differently [rzh tbk?ç wnmm a¿xt μaw, “4QTOHORAa: An Unpublished Qumran Text on Purities,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990 (ed. D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman; STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 59–68. (Baumgarten’s first discussion of the text, “The Laws about Fluxes in 4QTohoraa [4Q274],” Time to Prepare, 1–8, also uses this restoration.) In Milgrom’s reading, the man with the seminal emission is the man referred to in the previous line as counting the days of purification. Milgrom argues that the touch of this man defiles after the seminal emission because as a former bz (in Leviticus’ sense) who has not yet completed the waiting period before the ritual of purification, he was still somewhat impure even before the seminal emission; the seminal emission serves to increase his impurity so that his touch is now defiling. This argument rests on Milgrom’s view that 4QTohorot A implies first-day ablutions for the impurities it discusses (“4QTOHORAa,” 66–67). 4QD’s attribution of a defiling touch to a man who has had a nocturnal emission is virtually certain even if the attribution of such a touch to the man who has a seminal emission during sexual intercourse is less so. It seems to me that this strengthens the case for Baumgarten’s reading, in which the defiling touch of 4QTohorot A is independent of the previous state of purity of the man who has had the seminal emission.

the purity laws of 4qd

163

mention perhaps made it easier to argue that the Torah really intended that the longer period it decrees for the man with abnormal discharge applies also to the man with a seminal emission. Arguing for laundering in addition to Leviticus’ requirement of bathing would have been relatively easy since the text of Leviticus 15 elsewhere fails to mention a ritual it surely assumed, i.e., bathing for the purification of the menstruant.28 If, as I have suggested, the laws of 4QD treat a man with a seminal emission as belonging to the category of the bz and thus as bound by the laws of purification for a man with abnormal discharge, the consequences for married life are profound. Even nonpriests would need to plan carefully so as to be in a state of purity for the occasions on which they wished to bring sacrifices. But for priests and their families, ordinary married life would have been virtually impossible if they wished to be able to eat sanctified food, including not only portions of various sacrifices, but also tithes. Thus the impact of these laws would have been felt beyond the two-week period of service of a particular priestly watch. Nor is this intensification of the regulations for seminal emission the only place where the laws of 4QD go beyond the laws of Leviticus in a way that would seem likely to wreak havoc with everyday life. They also require that infants be nursed by a wet nurse as long as the mother is in a state of postpartum impurity. This requirement is presumably the result of the quite reasonable inference that according to the principles of Leviticus the mother would convey her post-childbirth impurity to her baby. Leviticus apparently did not find the idea of a baby in a state of impurity troubling.29 Despite their radical intensification of the laws of Leviticus, the laws of 4QD are presented in a matter-of-fact manner, without any rhetorical flourish, as if there were nothing surprising about them at all. They appear to be directed at all Israel, not at a pious remnant; they give no hint of the communal organization reflected in other portions of the Damascus Document. Yet surely most Jews would have found their demands intolerable. They would have been quite suitable, however, for the married Essenes who, according to Josephus, did not have sexual relations during pregnancy because they saw the purpose of marriage as procreation, not pleasure ( Jewish War 2.160–61). Among 28 29

Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 934–35. Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin,” 25–26.

164

martha himmelfarb

such Jews, sexual activity would at least ideally be quite limited. It is worth noting that 4QD’s list of transgressors appears to include a man who has had sexual relations with his pregnant wife (4Q270 2 ii 15–16).30 The legislation in 4QD’s version of the penal code about a man “who comes near to fornicate with his wife contrary to the law” (4Q270 7 i 12–13) may also be relevant.31 Further, if sexual relations were to be limited to efforts at procreation, the purity laws of 4QD might have been somewhat easier to observe. Perhaps a man did not undertake the full process of purification after each act of sexual intercourse, but waited until his wife had become pregnant to undergo the process. Such an approach would do little to mitigate the impact of these laws on priests, however. As I have already noted, the “rule of the hbz” in 4QD treats the menstruant, the woman with abnormal flow, and the parturient. But while the treatment of the three types of male genital discharge was remarkable for offering a single set of rules for all three, the laws of 4QD present the regulations for each of the three types of female discharge separately. Thus the treatment of female genital discharge is considerably longer than that of male discharge. 4QD’s understanding of the purity laws of the Torah as a system is visible also in its treatment of the consequences of impurity. The only place that the laws of Leviticus spell out the restrictions on someone in a state of impurity is in relation to the first case it discusses, the parturient: “She shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until her days of purifying are completed” (Lev 12:4). The laws of 4QD applied these prohibitions to the woman with abnormal discharge as well, but with some significant changes in the wording: “She shall not eat any hallowed thing,32 nor co[me] into the sanctuary until sunset on the eighth day” (4Q266 6 ii 3–4). This version of the prohibitions is more pointed than that of Lev 12:4, indicating more precisely the nature of the contact to be avoided by changing Leviticus’ [gt, ‘touch,’ to lkwt,33 ‘eat’; eating was the 30 The words “pregnant woman” are preserved, but not enough else survives to be certain of the nature of the transgression. See J. Baumgarten, “A Fragment on Fetal Life and Pregnancy in 4Q270,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 445–48. 31 M. Kister, “Notes on Some New Texts from Qumran,” JJS 44 (1993): 280–81. 32 Baumgarten, DJD 18.56, “anything hallowed”; I have changed the translation slightly to make it clear that 4QD and Leviticus here use the same term, çdq. 33 Forms of the root lka are usually spelled without the a in 4QD (see the concordance in Baumgarten, DJD 18.202).

the purity laws of 4qd

165

primary way in which a non-priest, whether a lay person or a member of a priestly family, might have contact with holy things.34 The laws of 4QD apparently repeated at least a portion of this passage for the parturient; only the prohibition on eating survives, and there does not appear to be room for a time limit (4Q266 6 ii 9). The passage in Leviticus 12 refers to the period of the parturient’s purification without mentioning the actual length of time: “until her days of purifying are completed.” This is a convenient expression in its context because the length of the period differs depending on the sex of the baby (Lev 12:4–5). But while the language of Lev 12:4 could be applied to any type of impurity, the laws of 4QD prefer to specify the length of time for the woman with abnormal discharge: “until sunset on the eighth day.” Perhaps the authors were wary of confusing the time required for purifying the woman with abnormal discharge and the time required for the parturient. But they may also have intended to resolve another question raised by the text of Leviticus: When does the woman suffering from abnormal genital discharge become pure? On the one hand, the Torah us tells that after counting seven days from the cessation of the flow, the former sufferer returns to a state of purity (Lev 15:28; Lev 15:13 for men). On the other hand, she (or he) is required to bring a sacrifice on the eighth day (Lev 15:29; Lev 15:14 for men). Despite the Torah’s explicit reference to becoming pure on the seventh day, the fact that the procedure is not complete until the eighth day permits the authors of these laws to decide that purity is restored only on the eighth day. The stringent approach of the laws of 4QD does not stop there, for they insist that the former sufferer does not achieve a state of purity until sunset. This rule, too, reflects a reading of the Torah’s purity laws as a system. While Leviticus 15 does not indicate at what point on the last day of impurity the process of purification is complete for the other categories of genital impurity, it says explicitly that the impurity of seminal emission lasts until evening (Lev 15:16–18). So too it notes repeatedly that the impurity caused by contact with bearers of impurity (Lev 15:7, 19) or with those of their belongings that convey impurity (Lev 15:5–11, 21–23, 27) lasts until evening. The conclusion of the purity laws of 4QD that the Torah intended the same timing to apply to the purification of the woman with abnormal discharge is not at all unreasonable. 34

Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 751–52.

166

martha himmelfarb

Some scholars have read the insistence that purification is complete only at sundown as representing the Sadducean side of a debate with the Pharisees.35 They identify the Pharisees’ position on the basis of the remarkable report in m. Parah 3:7 that the “elders of Israel” used to render impure the priest who was to burn the red heifer. Thus he would have to perform the task after he had bathed but before the sun had set, making him, in the terminology of the rabbis, a μwy lwbf. Space does not permit full discussion of this topic. Let me note only that neither the passage from 4QD on the woman with abnormal discharge nor the relevant passages in the Temple Scroll offer any indication that they understood the requirement of waiting for sunset to be the subject of controversy.36 Even 4QMMT’s references to waiting for sunset for purification from skin eruptions and for the burning of the red heifer are not polemical in tone. I would suggest that the emphasis on waiting for sunset is intended not to oppose an early version of the rabbinic concept of the μwy lwbf, but to apply systematically the principle of waiting until sundown to all types of impurity. At the end of the rule of the hbz comes a rather complete paraphrase of the beginning of Leviticus 12 and its laws for the parturient, including two significant additions, a death sentence for contact with the holy (4Q266 6 ii 10) and the requirement of a wet nurse for a newborn (4Q266 6 ii 11), noted above. But the rule clearly did not contain all of the instructions for the parturient’s sacrifice (Lev 12:6–8). Rather, it appears to have skipped the standard sacrifice (Lev 12:6–7) in order to clarify the somewhat unusual provision for a less expensive bird sacrifice if the woman cannot afford a lamb (Lev 12:8). Thus it replaces Leviticus 12’s rather uncommon term for “affords,” hdy axmt, literally, “her hand finds,”37 with the expression, ?h¿dy hgyçh, literally, “her hand reaches” (4Q266 6 ii 12); the imperfect of this expression is used for all the other sacrifices that permit the substitution of less expensive alternatives to

35 Baumgarten, DJD 18.56; idem, “The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts,” JJS 31 (1980): 157–61; L. H. Schiffman, “Pharisaic and Sadducean Halakhah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Case of Tevul Yom,” DSD 1 (1994): 285–99. 36 Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin,” 23–25. 37 The expression and its variations appear a number of other places in the Bible ( Judg 9:38; Sam 10:7; Isa 10:10, 14; Hos 2:9; Job 31:25; Eccl 9:10), but it means ‘afford’ only in one other instance (Lev 25:28).

the purity laws of 4qd

167

the preferred sacrifice.38 The remaining words in the fragment also appear to be intended to clarify the nature of the procedure in Leviticus: ¿h t?a¿ hrymh?w¿, “[and she] shall substitute [it for the . . .]” (4Q266 6 ii 13). The term “substitute” does not appear in the Torah’s laws for this sacrifice or the others in which a less expensive alternative is indicated, but the Torah uses the term in the prohibition on exchanging an animal for one set aside for sacrifice (Lev 27:10, 33). If an allusion to that passage is intended, it is presumably meant to contrast permitted substitution with forbidden. The parturient’s sacrifice (4Q266 6 ii 12–13) is the only one of the purification sacrifices of Leviticus 12–15 that appears in 4QD. Enough of the text is preserved to show that the portions of the text devoted to skin eruptions39 and the woman with abnormal discharge40 did not treat sacrifices; their absence is not merely the result of partial preservation. The text of 4QD breaks off in the midst of the parturient’s sacrifice, and there is a little more than half a column lost before the beginning of a new topic, the laws of agriculture. Thus it is possible that mention of some other sacrifices followed. The feature of the parturient’s sacrifice that attracted attention was the possibility of substituting a less expensive offering. Thus the sacrifice after skin eruptions might have required comment, but not that after abnormal discharge. Still, the apparent absence of discussion of the sacrifice after skin eruptions is not altogether surprising, for the topic of skin eruptions in general seems to have been of less concern to the authors of these purity laws than that of genital discharge. Perhaps this is because the laws of skin eruptions were of less importance for defining the sectarian way of life. I have emphasized the way the laws of 4QD construe the Torah’s laws of genital discharge as a system. But they also reflect the influence of another relevant part of the Torah, the laws of forbidden sexual relations in the Holiness Code. Nowhere in the course of Leviticus

38 Lev 5:11; 14:22, 30, 31, 32. It is also used for sacrifices that do not involve substitution (Num 6:21; Ezek 46:7), and it appears in other contexts as well with the meaning ‘afford’ (Lev 25:26 [perfect], 47; 27:8). 39 The conclusion of the rule for skin eruptions is preserved, and as I noted above, the laws of skin eruptions in 4QD follow the order of the Torah, where the sacrifice is treated at the end of the discussion. 40 Although it is very fragmentary, 4Q266 6 ii 2–4 seems to contain the complete treatment of the woman with abnormal discharge, and there is no indication of a discussion of sacrifice.

168

martha himmelfarb

15 does P prohibit sexual relations with a menstruant.41 It mentions such relations in order to lay out their implications for the purity of the man who engages in them. The Holiness Code, however, prohibits them twice (Lev 18:19, 20:18). Well aware of these prohibitions, the authors of the laws of 4QD change the rather neutral description of the result of sexual relations with a menstruant in Leviticus 15, wyl[ htdn yhtw, “her impurity is upon him” (Lev 15:24), to wl[ hdn ˆw?[¿, “the sin of menstrual impurity [is] upon him” (4Q266 6 ii 2). It is not the impurity of the menstruant that 4QD associates with sin; rather, the sin is the fact of sexual relations with her.42 The formulation of these forbidden relations in the purity laws of 4QD is also indebted to the Holiness Code. The verb P uses in Leviticus 15 for sexual relations with a menstruant is emphatic and straightforward, bkçy bkç, “lies,” or as the KJV translates in an effort to capture the emphasis, “lie with her at all.” One of the prohibitions of sexual relations with a menstruant in the Holiness Code uses the same verb without the infinitive absolute (Lev 20:18), but the other uses the euphemism brqy, “approaches” (Lev 18:19). The laws of 4QD adopt the euphemism, apparently without an infinitive absolute, although lacunae in the text make it impossible to be certain (4Q266 6 ii 1). The behavior was perhaps sufficiently shocking to require a euphemism. The laws of 4QD take the Torah’s purity laws as a system, but a system that the Torah fails to present as clearly as it might. Thus they organize the purity laws of Leviticus more clearly than Leviticus does and make explicit connections that the Torah fails to make. The laws explicate difficult language, particularly in the section on skin eruptions, but the dominant concern in the laws of genital discharge is to systematize. The best explanation for the contours of these laws, as far as their partial preservation allows us to discern it, is that they focus on difficulties in the text of Leviticus. It is in this light that we should understand the absence of significant portions of Leviticus’ laws of skin eruptions, the lack of purification procedures for men with genital discharge, and the treatment of only 41 See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 940, for a discussion of the absence of a prohibition in P. I am not sure that P is as obsessed with purity as Milgrom thinks; the purity laws discussed here obviously thought it insufficiently obsessed. 42 Baumgarten’s comment on this passage, “The association of impurity with sin (ˆw[) is characteristic of the Qumran outlook” (DJD 18.56), thus ignores Leviticus 18 and 20. See Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin,” 21–22.

the purity laws of 4qd

169

one type of purification sacrifice. The subjects not treated were those where the text of the Torah was sufficiently clear—or sufficiently in line with the thinking of the authors of the laws. The distinctive form of the purity laws of 4QD suggests that they existed in writing before their inclusion in the Damascus Document, and there is nothing in their language to connect them to the communal organization described in the Damascus Document. Yet the demands they make are extreme, and it is difficult to imagine their observance outside of a sectarian community or at least a community on a trajectory toward sectarianism. I have noted their suitability for the Essenes as they are depicted in our sources, and I have also pointed to other evidence from the Scrolls for the ideal of limiting sexual relations even within marriage. While I have argued that these laws are genuinely exegetical, like all exegesis, theirs is informed by a particular view of the world. The use of the verb bwz in Leviticus 15 certainly poses problems, but the particular resolution to the problems in these laws reflects an inclination to limit sexual relations. The conclusion that an infant requires a wet nurse because the new mother is in a state of impurity rests on a plausible reading of Leviticus 12, but only a community prepared to disrupt daily life for the purposes of higher levels of purity would permit such a conclusion to be drawn.

HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE EARLY SECOND CENTURY DATING OF THE 4Q249–250 CRYPTIC A CORPUS Stephen J. Pfann University of the Holy Land, Jerusalem

Until 2001, little was known about the corpus of manuscripts found at Qumran that were written in an esoteric script known as “Cryptic A.” However, with the aid of twenty diagnostic criteria, it has been determined that what had once been thought to be no more than six manuscripts was actually a corpus of approximately fifty to one hundred manuscripts.1 Among these manuscripts written in Cryptic scripts mainly on papyrus are the earliest copies of ‘sectarian’ documents, particularly, Serekh Ha-'Edah (4Q249a–i [SEa–i], the Rule of the Congregation), previously known only from 1QSa.2 A combination of radiocarbon dating of the manuscripts and relative paleographic dating of the titles of documents in this corpus dates several of the sectarian compositions (especially 4QSEa–e) to a period no later than the first half of the second century BCE.3 This fact warrants a re1 This paper was developed in connection with the author’s dissertation under the able guidance of Prof. Michael Stone, to whom it is dedicated with deep appreciation. See S. Pfann, “Cryptic Texts: 4Q249a–z and 4Q250a–j: Introduction,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts (ed. S. J. Pfann); and Miscellanea, Part 1 (ed. P. Alexander et al, in consultation with J. C. VanderKam and M. Brady; DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 515–46; “249. 4Qpap crypt A Midrash Sefer Moshe,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXV: Halakhic Texts (ed. J. M. Baumgarten et al.; DJD 35; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 1–24; and “The Character of the Early Essene Movement in Light of the Manuscripts Written in Esoteric Scripts from Qumran” (Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2001). 2 At least four of these manuscripts can be dated on relative palaeographic grounds to the first half of the second century BCE. See Pfann, DJD 36.515–74. 3 Radiocarbon testing dates 4Q249aa Midrash Sefer Mosheb (olim 4Q249 13–14) to 191–90 BCE. Due to a tendency or bias evident among the radiocarbon results for the manuscripts tested at the Tucson facility, the early part of that range is to be preferred; see Pfann, DJD 36.523 and discussion there, and cf. A. J. T. Jull et al., “Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments from the Judean Desert,” Radiocarbon 37 (1995): 11–19 and Table 2. Furthermore, it is evident that this manuscript is a copy, not an autograph, and thus a span of time must be allowed for the process of composition and copying. The palaeographic date of the title of 4Q249 Midrash Sefer Moshe a, written in Jewish square script, can be no later than the early second century BCE; see Pfann, DJD 35.4–6.

172

stephen j. pfann

examination of certain traditional views concerning the early history of the community associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls.4

Reconstructions of the Community’s History: The Emergence of a Consensus During the first half of the twentieth century the only window onto the early history of the Essenes was provided by two incomplete copies of the Damascus Covenant (CD) found in the Ibn Ezra Synagogue in Cairo. In that document the author(s) laid out their history with specific dates which were pinpointed relative to the date of the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (586/5 BCE). The historicity of the resulting dates for the group’s self-professed, early history, including ca. 196 BCE for the beginning of the group’s formation and ca. 176 for the arrival of the Moreh Tsedeq, were almost universally accepted.5 With the publication of various key Dead Sea scrolls during the 1950s more details became available for reconstructing the early history of the group. The studies that ensued led to a nearly universal rejection of the professed chronology of CD based primarily upon four assumptions, enumerated below. These assumptions led to the development of a new consensus that readjusted the historical schema of CD. The majority of scholars who formed the consensus identify the group with the Essenes. They see the reactionary group as having emerged in the second half of the second century BCE during a time of conflict between the early Hasmonean high priests/rulers (especially Jonathan or Simon) and a pious laity or priesthood, followed by the building of a community center at Qumran during subsequent decades. The discussion has tended to revolve around proposed identifications of the various sobriquets of leaders and peoples connected with the group’s beginnings

4 The author accepts the identification of the community of the scrolls with the Essenes. 5 See, e.g., E. Meyer, Die Gemeinde des Neuen Bundes im Lande Damaskus: eine jüdische Schrift aus der Seleukidenzeit (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1919), 13–14; R. Travers Herford, The Pharisees (London: Allen and Unwin, 1924), 24; and alternatively, L. Ginzburg, An Unknown Jewish Sect (rev. and updated ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1970).

historical implications of the 4q249‒250 cryptic a corpus 173 (including the Wicked Priest, the Teacher of Righteousness, the Man of Lies, Seekers of Smooth Things, etc.). The evidence for an early date provided by the 4Q249–250 Cryptic A corpus calls for a fresh examination, and subsequent rebuttal, of these four objections: 1. The paleographic dating of the sectarian scrolls is too late.6 The existence of copies of community documents which date to the first half of the second century, i.e., predating the period of Hasmonean rule, has recently been established.7 Furthermore, as F. M. Cross had earlier pointed out:8 . . . the time of composition must almost certainly be pressed back . . . to permit the textual development and parenetic expansions which characterize our earliest copies. Further we should postulate a certain interval between the decisive events which created the sect and sent it and the Righteous Teacher into exile in the desert and the composition of the systematic discipline of the community.

If we apply the same principles to the Cryptic A documents 4Q249aa and 4Q317,9 the original composition of these works should then be dated no later than the first half of the second century BCE. Thus, the early second century library has always been present among the Qumran scrolls but had been misidentified for the past fifty years. As it turns out, the scrolls produced during the period of the community’s genesis were written, for the most part, in Cryptic A script on papyrus. 2. The archaeological dating of the Essene occupation of Khirbet Qumran is too late.10 The community professed to have spent a considerable period of time in exile in Syria before returning to the land. Thus, the buildings and stratigraphic layers at Qumran should not be considered germane to the questions of the time and place of the community’s origin. On the other hand, these data may be of interest when pursuing questions bearing on subsequent community history: for example, as to when, after forty years of waiting, they entered the land to possess it (and to reactivate the covenant; see below). 6 So argued, e.g., F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (3d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 95–96. 7 See discussion above, with nn. 2–4. 8 Cross, Ancient Library, 95–96. 9 See Pfann, DJD 36.523; and Jull, “Radiocarbon Dating,” 11–19. 10 Cf. F. García Martínez and A. S. van der Woude, “A ‘Groningen’ Hypothesis of Qumran Origins and Early History,” RevQ 14 (1990): 521–41.

174

stephen j. pfann

3. Chronological records of the post-exilic period are notoriously inaccurate.11 The sources cited to sustain this assumption are either too distant from the region (Alexandrian) or too late (rabbinic) to be considered compelling for the discussion. The existence of archives from Egypt and the Levant, with papyri and ostraca which contain exact records and regnal years of kings spanning the entire Persian and Hellenistic Periods, also works against such an assumption.12 Furthermore, the most reputable sources for determining chronology during the Second Temple Period, including the lists kept by the high priests, unfortunately were lost during the First Revolt, and these plausibly lie behind the dates in CD.13 That such a high priestly chronology may have been kept by the Qumran community is supported by the fact that an introduction to such a list is likely preserved in CD 4:4–6: And the sons of Zadok are the chosen of Israel, the (men) named with a name who shall stand at the end of days. This is the accurate list of their names according to their lineage and the time of their existence and the number (of the days) of their afflictions and of the years of their exile, and the accurate account of their works . . .14

11 So argued, e.g., H. H. Rowley, in: The Relevance of Apocalyptic: A Study of Jewish and Christian Apocalypses from Daniel to the Revelation (3rd and rev. ed.; New York: Association Press, 1963); The Zadokite Fragments and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Blackwell, 1952), 63; “The Teacher of Righteousness,” BJRL 40 (1957): 116; “The History of the Qumran Sect,” BJRL 49 (1966): 218. Although he confirmed that the dates 196 and 176 BCE almost exactly coincided with his own suggested dates based upon his identification of the sobriquets, he maintained that the coincidence was only “accidental.” 12 These sources include both Jewish and non-Jewish archives from Egypt; cf. B. Porten, “The Calendar of Aramaic Texts from Achaemenid and Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Irano-Judaica: Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture Throughout the Ages (ed. S. Shaked; 3 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1982–94), 2:13–32; and I. Eph'al and J. Naveh, Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century BC from Idumea ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1996), 16–18. 13 These were maintained, updated, and corrected by the current High Priest and apparently included a sequential list of the high priests and their years of tenure; cf. Josephus, Ant. 20.244–51. Concerning Josephus’ intermittent use of this source elsewhere, cf. G. Hölscher, Die Quellen des Josephus für die Zeit vom Exil, bis zum jüdischen Kriege (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904), 73–75. Also cf. D. Schwartz who notes: “It thus seems likely that for this third period [i.e., from the return from exile to Antiochus V Eupator] Josephus used the high priestly chronicle as an auxiliary source, inserting the data from it at the proper points (as he thought) in his narrative”; in “KATA TOUTON TON KAIRON: Josephus’ Source on Agrippa II,” JQR 72 (1982): 252. 14 English translations of Qumran writings, unless otherwise noted, are from A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (tr. G. Vermes; Oxford: Blackwell, 1961).

historical implications of the 4q249‒250 cryptic a corpus 175 Unfortunately, the actual list that was intended to follow was deleted in CDa. Although this intended list may have been only a partial list (“at the end of days”), it represents a practice traditionally maintained by the Zadokite line of priests as described by Josephus. 4. The designations “390 years” and “40 years” are merely symbolic, deriving from Ezek 4:4–6, and thus should not be taken as exact. However round, symbolic, or approximate the numbers of years are in any given prophecy, the readers of subsequent generations tend to take the numbers quite literally. This is especially so if they anticipate that the conclusion of an era will take place during their own lifetime. This religious community, living at the end of the third/beginning of the second centuries BCE, had calculated the beginning of the 390-year period to coincide with the exile under Nebuchadnezzar, and thus anticipated that the period would end in ca. 196/5 BCE, the point at which they, as a group, would make their decisive move to the “Land of Damascus.” These observations are also consistent with the evidence of other literary and historical sources (i.e., 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus) for the formation of sects and parties in the early second century BCE. In light of the witness of the Cryptic A corpus and the obvious weakness of the arguments for rejecting CD’s own testimony concerning the early second century origins of the group, the feasibility of CD’s dates warrants reconsideration.

The Community’s Autobiographical History: CD and the New Evidence of the Cryptic Texts The basic phases of the community’s history and the duration of each are laid out in two passages in the Damascus Covenant, CD 1:1–11 and 20:13–15: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The Period of Wrath: 390 years (CD 1:5–6); The Period of Groping: 20 years (CD 1:9–10); The Tenure of Moreh Tsedeq: unspecified duration (CD 1:10–11); The Last Days/Generation: “about 40 years” (CD 20:13–15; 4Q171 (4QpPsa) 1–10 ii 6–8); 5. Eternal Inheritance: a thousand generations/forever (CD 19:1f, 20:22; 4Q171 [pPsa] 1–10 ii 26–iii 2).

176

stephen j. pfann

1. The Period of Wrath: 390 years (CD 1:5–6; 586/5–196 BCE) Therefore hear now, all you who know justice and comprehend the works of God! For He tries all flesh and will judge all those who scorn Him. For because of the unfaithfulness of those who abandoned Him,15 He hid His face from Israel and its Sanctuary and delivered them up to the sword. But remembering the Covenant of the Patriarchs,16 He left a remnant to Israel and did not deliver them to destruction. And in a time of wrath, three hundred and ninety years after He had delivered them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, He visited them. . . . (CD 1:1–7)

CD 1:5 speaks of ˆwrj ≈q, the “time of wrath” while CD 7:21 and 19:11 speak of ˆwçarh hdwqph ≈q, the “time of the first visitation.” These phrases refer to a perceived era of punishment for Israel’s iniquity which extended from the destruction of the First Temple to the emergence of the community as the remnant of Israel.17 CD specifies 390 years as the duration of this period. Thus taken literally, the beginning of the movement is placed by CD at 196/5 BCE (586/5 BCE + 390 years = 196/5). The arrival of the exiled Moreh Tsedeq is placed 20 years later (i.e., at 176/5 BCE), at the end of the period of “groping.” Although the entire 390 year period is understood in CD to be a time of wrath for Israel’s unfaithfulness, God had throughout that time preserved a remnant, who were destined to be reconciled with Him under the provisions for reconciliation detailed in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 26). These events served as the foundation for the revitalization of the covenant (as the hçdj tyrb) and the provisions for life in the land promised under that covenant. The importance of Leviticus 26 for the community’s thought is made clear by the allusions to it in CD 1:3–4 and by the presence of three manuscripts from the 4Q249–250 second-century Cryptic A corpus that specifically relate to it: 4Q249j cryptA Leviticush?, 4Q249k Text Quoting Lev 26 A, and 4Q2491 Text Quoting Lev 26 B.18 15 16

whwbz[ rça μl[wmb yk, cf. Lev 26:40 ybAwl[m rça μl[wmb. μynçar tyrb wrkzbw, cf. Lev 26:45 μynçar tyrb ytrkz.

17 The group’s self-identification as the remnant of Israel who had embraced the renewal of the covenant between God and Israel is reflected in many passages from the Dead Sea Scrolls, e.g., CD 1:4; 1QM 13:8, 14:8f; 1QHa 14:8; 4Q174 4 2; 4Q390 PsMose 1 10. The biblical basis for the remnant is seen in passages including 2 Kgs 19:31; Isa 37:30–32, 46:3; Jer 23:3, 31:7; Mic 2:12, 4:7, 5:7f; Zeph 2:7–9, 3:13 and Zech 8:11f. 18 See Pfann, “4Q249j–l,” in DJD 36.575–82.

historical implications of the 4q249‒250 cryptic a corpus 177 Although the three fragmentary copies of these related or identical works contain no restorable material beyond the actual text of Leviticus 26, the additional, unrecognizable lines on at least two of the copies imply that the biblical text has been elaborated upon in some way. The proposed paleographic dating of these three manuscripts ranges from the first half of the second century BCE (4Q249j) to the last quarter of that century (4Q249l). The fact that these copies span the entire early period of the community’s history would imply that the concerns and doctrines of the group continued to revolve around Leviticus 26 throughout that period. It was not just the carrying out of the covenantal obligations of the law that was necessary for Israel to be considered worthy of the covenant promises. According to the Books of Moses, especially the book of Deuteronomy, the heart was intended to play a major role in Israel’s obedience to the covenant (Deut 4:29; 6:5–6; 10:15–16; 11:13–18; 13:3; 15:7–10; 17:20; 26:16; 24:47; 30:2–6, 10, 14). In Leviticus 26, so often cited in these early documents, humility of heart lay at the center of the reconciliation process (Lev 26:41). The emphasis on repentance by the faithful remnant and the issue of the uncircumcised heart (Lev 26:41, cf. Deut 30:6) is taken up and elaborated upon by several of the later biblical prophets.19 The Seleucid annexation of the land in 198 BCE may have indicated to pious thinkers that the terms of the covenant had been breached in such a way that Israel was again being punished. In view of the 390 years prophecy in Ezek 4:4–5, they may have regarded these events as an important historical juncture at which to arise and seek God’s mercy and guidance. The nation still lacked the blessings, prosperity and sovereignty it had been promised for abandoning idolatry and embracing obedience to monotheism and the covenant. In fact, there was no convincing evidence that the terms of reconciliation with God had ever been properly enacted since the expulsions under Nebuchadnezzar. The nation could be seen as under a constant term of punishment over the past 390 years for their sins and the sins of the fathers. Surely the author of CD 1 perceived the entire period as having had no redeeming value, since 19 Most of these elements are drawn together in the Book of Jubilees (cf., e.g., 1:15–18; 16:26; 21:21–24; 36:6). Jub. 1:15–18, in addition to treating these themes, also introduces the theme of building (a sanctuary) among the people, which in the scrolls functions as a motif that contributes metaphorical terms for community structure (cf. dswm, dsy, dws, tynbt, etc.).

178

stephen j. pfann

an act of true repentance had never actually taken place. In fact, since the process of reconciliation after a breach of the covenant as laid out in Leviticus 26 was never enacted satisfactorily, the return to the Land at the time of Zerubabel, Ezra and Nehemiah had been premature and could only incur the wrath of God. Thus, it evidently seemed to this group that the only proper response for this repentant remnant was to seek God’s forgiveness and atonement according to the conditions of the covenant laid out in Leviticus 26, apparently even leaving the Land to do so.20 2. The Period of Groping: 20 years (CD 1:9–10; 196/5–175 BCE) He visited them, and caused a root of planting (t[fm çrwç) to spring from Israel and Aaron to possess His land and to grow fat on the good things of His earth. And they understood their iniquity, and recognized that they were guilty men. But they were like blind men, and like men who groping seek their way for twenty years. (CD 1:7–10)

The allegory that depicts God as transplanting the remnant-shoot, restoring it and providing it with water in the land of the covenant is a favorite theme adopted by the prophets and later by the sect. The faithful community is identified as the remnant of Israel (CD 1:4; 1QM 13:8; 14:8f; 1QHa 14:8; 4Q174 4 2; 4Q390 1 10), the “root of planting,” whom God had preserved for himself in accordance with the prophets and Lev 26:39. This remnant comprises a coalition of both laity and Aaronide priests (cf. CD 1:7) who, although presently in exile, were destined to inherit the Promised Land and be blessed in it.21 Key factors separated them from their contemporaries, including the fact that they had become aware of and confessed their guilt and the guilt of their forefathers (cf. 1QS 1:24–26); had acted accord-

20 It is possible that the community felt it necessary to return to exile in “the land of Damascus” in order to fulfill the prophecy of Amos 5:27–6:1 and enact the role of the remnant of Israel; cf. CD 3:21–4:4, especially 4:2–3: “ ‘The priests’ are the repentant of Israel who go out from the Land of Judah and the Levites are those who go with them.” 21 Cf. CD 1:1–11 and 7–8 with Isa 37:30–32: “And this shall be the sign for you: this year eat what grows of itself, and in the second year what springs of the same; then in the third year sow and reap, and plant ([fn) vineyards, and eat their fruit. And the surviving remnant (hraçnh) of the house of Judah shall again take root (çrç) downward, and bear fruit upward; for out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant (tyraç), and out of Mount Zion a band of survivors. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.”

historical implications of the 4q249‒250 cryptic a corpus 179 ing to God’s good pleasure; and had sought God with a perfect (lit. ‘circumcised’) heart. In so doing, they had fulfilled the terms for reconciliation between the wayward nation and its God as laid out in Leviticus 26 (especially Lev 26:40–45). The first time God planted the nation, the results were unfruitful and the nation or “vineyard” had to be abandoned ( Jer 45:4; Ps 80:7–19; Ps 44:2–3; Ezek 17:1–24). But the promise remained that if the nation should repent, God would plant it again and not abandon it (Isa 60:21, 61:3, 7; Jer 24:5–7, 42:10; Amos 9:15; 2 Sam 7:10 [= 1 Chron 17:9]). The metaphor of planting must have been applied to the community’s self-understanding during this period of groping, or shortly thereafter, since it was combined with the promise of rain in Hos 10:12 and Joel 2:23 that came to form the designation of the sect’s founder, the Teacher of Righteousness (qdx hrwm). Admittedly, it is difficult to know whether the ‘Righteous Rain’ (qdx hrwy) metaphor was introduced before (prophetically) or after (retrospectively) the arrival of the Priest who was called by that name. However, if 1QHa 16:16f was written by the Moreh Tsedeq, then the interpretation was already current during his life and ministry (see below). It is likely that the earliest form of Serekh ha-'Edah (represented in 4Q249a–i) was compiled during this period (or shortly thereafter, during the time of the Moreh Tsedeq). Serekh ha-'Edah provided an elaboration on the biblical covenant pattern as it was interpreted by the early remnant-community. It set forth rules for community instruction and fulfillment of the covenant. In order to carry out properly the principles of repentance and reconciliation according to the guidelines of Leviticus 26, the group had to repent as representatives of the nation, even if numerically they constituted only a remnant of the whole. This meant that the nation, both priesthood and laity together, had first to reconstitute itself in a place of exile. This reconstitution would have to be carried out according to the pattern for the nation laid out in the Books of Moses. Midrash Sefer Moshe (4Q249 and 4Q249aa) was also likely composed during this period. This, the earliest of the group’s halakhic works, already reflects a rather developed methodology. The method bears certain striking similarities to that used in the Pharisaic and rabbinic traditions. There is no reason to assume that this form of midrash was developed by the remnant community, nor introduced by the Moreh Tsedeq, since the methodology was not unique. The fact that

180

stephen j. pfann

two disparate, competing branches of Judaism share this methodology may point to their shared traditions or even to common origins. One potential candidate for a common provenance is both groups’ purported origins in the Hasidim/Hasideans, headed by a skilled interpreter of the Law. In the Damascus Covenant and in the various pesharim we learn that the commands of the Torah were initially elucidated by an individual known as the Doresh ha-Torah (likely modeled on Ezra the Priest/Scribe; cf. Ezra 7:10: wbbl ˆykh arz[ yk fpçmw qj larçyb dmllw tç[lw hwhy trwtAta çwrdl). His work was observed and carried on by the faithful community, which was chosen in order to separate itself for this purpose (CD 1:7–10, 6:7–11) and to move to the land of the north, the land of Damascus. 3. The Tenure of the Moreh Tsedeq (unspecified duration; CD 1:10–11; perhaps 175–170 BCE) And God considered their works, for they had sought Him with a perfect heart; and He raised up for them a Teacher of Righteousness (qdx hrwm) to lead them in the way of His heart and to make known to the last generations what He <would do> to the last generation, the congregation of traitors. (CD 1:10–12)

Since the discovery of the first copies of the Damascus Covenant over one hundred years ago, the terms qdx hrwm and qdx hrwy have been translated “Teacher of Righteousness.”22 The term has consistently been understood to signify the individual who played a decisive role in helping to crystallize the group’s self-understanding in its early years. Lexicographically, hrwm may equally be used to mean ‘early rain’ or ‘teacher’ while hrwy is used to signify only ‘early rain’ (or ‘archer’) and never ‘teacher.’ The primary scriptural, indeed prophetic, basis for the figure known as the Moreh Tsedeq is found in two biblical passages, Hos 10:12 and Joel 2:23. The symbolic language surrounding these terms originally bore agricultural overtones, as seen in these passages:23

22 The occurrences in question are: qdx hrwm CD 1:11, 20:32; qdxh hrwy CD 6:11; djy hrwm CD 20:1; djyh hrwy CD 20:14; qdx¿h hrwm ˆhkh 4Q171 pPsa 1–10 iii 15; ˆhkh 4Q171 pPsa 1–10 ii 18. 23 The eventual reading of the terms on two levels, signifying both the promise of the rain/presence of God and of a teacher as the vehicle for such, may have begun in passages such as Isa 30:20, where the terms are intended to have a double meaning.

historical implications of the 4q249‒250 cryptic a corpus 181 Sow for yourselves righteousness, reap the fruit of steadfast love; break up your fallow ground, for it is the time to seek the LORD, that he may come and rain salvation upon you. (Hos 10:12 [RSV]) MT: hwhyAta çwrdl t[w ryn μkl wryn dsjAypl wrxq hqdxl μkl w[rz

μkl qdx hryw awbyAd[ LXX: spe¤rate •auto›w efiw dikaiosÊnhn trugÆsate efiw karpÚn zv∞w fvt¤sate •auto›w f«w gn≈sevw §kzhtÆsate tÚn kÊrion ßvw toË §lye›n genÆmata dikaiosÊnhw Èm›n

Note that the LXX of Hos 10:12 omits “and,” reading instead d[ μkl hrwy awby; thus it may reflect a textual understanding that a hrwy qdx, rather than God Himself, will come. In Deut 11:14 and Jer 5:23–25, the hrwy/hrwm (‘early rain’) was promised (along with the çwqlm or ‘late rain’) as a grace or blessing from God awarded to Israel as it remained righteous (i.e., faithful to obey the covenant). Although in these passages the terms qdx hrwm and qdx hrwy initially signified “the early rain of righteousness,” to be awarded to those who sought God when the remnant-movement was like a young sapling, it is likely that the terms underwent a transition in interpretation in the early history of the group. The multiple meanings of the term hrwm in particular, which might reflect God’s blessing through the gifts of rain and his teaching/teacher, led to a realization of the fulfillment of God’s promise in and through the specific person of the Moreh Tsedeq. Indeed, the Moreh’s own writings reflect his self-awareness as the fulfillment of that very prophetic promise: bzky alw .μyyj μym [wbmw ?amx¿ lwkl μçg hrwyk ypb htmç yla htaw wçwby al μymçh jwtpl And You, my God, have endowed my mouth with what is like a downpour of early rain and a spring of living water for all who thirst. It (my mouth) will not fail to open (even as) the heavens shall not run dry.24

During his ministry the Moreh was able to illustrate to the community the method by which one should interpret the prophets and the psalms, a method that can already be discerned in the Thanksgiving Hymns that are attributed to him. Evidently it was according to this method that the Teacher made “known to the last generations what He <would do> to the last generation, the congregation of traitors” (= CD 1:11–12; cf. also 1QpHab 2:1–10; 7:1–8). 24

Author’s translation.

182

stephen j. pfann

The method of interpreting the Prophets (including the Book of Psalms), was developed and crystallized under the tutelage of the Moreh Tsedeq. Under the Moreh, the Prophets were not only viewed as authoritative by the community, but they achieved equal status with the Torah and were considered absolutely essential for interpreting it.25 The Prophets also deserved to be treated with a special form of inspired interpretation (or pesher) which defined the worldview of the community, past, present and future. It seems unlikely that this method of interpretation, which was to develop in the coming decades as the community produced its biblical commentaries, was actually applied to entire or even large portions of biblical books during the tenure of the Moreh.26 Although the length of time between the Moreh’s exile to the land of Damascus and his death is not specified in the Dead Sea scrolls, the day and month of his death may be indicated in 1QpHab 11:7: on the Day of Atonement in the seventh month; i.e., the month of Tishri. In addition, two passages in CD predict that approximately forty years after the Moreh’s death the second period of wrath would come to an end and the faithful would inherit (or begin to inherit) the land. If the terminus a quo for the end of the forty year period is indicated by the earliest presence of the community at the site of Kh. Qumran, dated by Roland de Vaux at ca. 130 BCE (Period 1b),27 then the beginning of the forty years, coinciding with the death of the Moreh Tsedeq, would be ca. 170 BCE. His tenure in the land of Damascus would then have been approximately five years, from about 176/5–170 BCE. It is likely that 4Q249m Hodayot-like Text28 and the Teacher’s Hymns in 1QHodayot a29 were composed during this period. 25 This is in contrast to the Pharisaic view of the holy writings that viewed the Prophets as being on a lesser level of authority than that of the Torah. Thus issues raised by the Prophets, as in the case of circumcision of the heart, were seen as meritorious but not absolutely necessary for proper Torah observance. The Sadducees, according to Josephus, did not accept the Prophets as being authoritative in any way. On the other hand, the Torah and the Prophets were likewise held as being of equal authority and “inspiration” in the early Christian canon. 26 In the continuous pesharim (4QpIsa mss, 4QpHos, 1QpHab, 4QpNah, 4QpPsa, etc.), the period of the Teacher is viewed as part of the group’s past history. 27 For a discussion of the archaeology of Qumran and its link to the early history of the group, see “Appendix C” in Pfann, “The Character of the Early Essene Movement.” 28 See Pfann, “249m. Hodayot-like Text E,” in DJD 36.583. 29 Those hymns which, by and large, are typified by the use of a highly individualized “I,” have widely been attributed to the Moreh Tsedeq. Cf. J. Murphy-

historical implications of the 4q249‒250 cryptic a corpus 183 4. The Last Days/Generation (CD 20:13–15; 4Q171 pPsa 1–10 ii 6–8; 170–130 BCE?) Now from the day when the Unique Teacher was taken, until the overthrow of all the fighting men who turned back with the Man of Lies, (there shall pass) about forty years. (CD 20:13–15)

The rebellion against the Moreh that was instigated by the Man of Lies and his followers in the land of Damascus seems to be compared here with the rebellion against Moses at Sinai. And, as the faithless generation at Sinai had to perish before the people could enter the Promised Land, so the current generation of rebels had to perish before the remnant could re-enter the land and renew the covenant. As forty years had served as the defining period in which the Sinai generation perished (Num 14:33, 32:13), and as the duration of the Babylonian Exile (Ezek 4:6), so it would be with the period of punishment for those who fell away in the Land of Damascus, ca. 170–130 BCE. The trauma of the rebellion against the Moreh by one of the community’s own members led them to understand the event in eschatological terms. Thereafter in their literature, they referred to the event and the generation that followed using characteristic eschatological language (e.g., μymyh tyrja CD 4:4; ˆwrjah rwd 1QpHab 1:2f; ˆwrj yxq 4Q166 pHosa 1:12; h[çrh tlçmm ≈q 4Q510 1 6f, etc.). In the mind of the community, the end of days had already begun: 4Q398 MMT 11–13 4 (C21) “Now this is the Last Days: when all those of Isra[el] shall return.” The forty year period was to be a time of purging (4Q171 pPsa 1–10 ii 6–8: “This refers to all of the wicked at the end of the forty years. When they are completed, there will no longer be any wicked person in the Land”); a time of testing and purification (4Q174 2:1–3); and the time of “the three nets of Belial” (CD 4:12–21).30 While utilization of the Cryptic A script declined in this period, there was a renewed productivity in sectarian writing. Compositions deriving from this period likely include the early portions of the Damascus Covenant 31 and the Pesher on Psalm 37, in both of which the inheritance of the land and the dawning of the Messianic Age have O’Connor, “The Judean Desert” in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg: Philadelphia: Fortress; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 130–33. 30 Jub. 50:1–5 notes that the last generation would be a time of teaching. 31 Cf. Murphy-O’Connor, “The Judean Desert,” 126–28.

184

stephen j. pfann

not yet taken place. Other compositions of this period may include the Midrash HaTorah Ha"A˙aron,32 the second edition of Serekh Ha'Edah (4QSE f–i),33 the Community Hymns from the Hodayot,34 and the first edition of Serekh Ha-Ya˙ad. In these writings, particularly in the Damascus Covenant and the Pesher on Psalm 37, the Community is in a state of waiting and anticipates the realization of their expectations at the end of the forty years. 5. Eternal Inheritance: A Thousand Generations/Forever (CD 19:1f, 20:22; 4Q171 pPsa 1–10 ii 26–iii 2; after 130 BCE) “They [will no]t be put to shame in [an evil time” (Psalm 37:19a). This refers to . . .]the ones who return from the wilderness, who will live a thousand generations in virtue. To them and their descendants belongs all the heritage of Adam for ever. (4Q171 1–10 ii 26–iii 2) And God told Habakkuk to write down the things which will come to pass in the last generation, but the consummation of time He made not known to him. . . . For there is yet another vision relating to the appointed time; it speaks of the end and does not deceive. The explanation of this is that the final time will last long and will exceed everything spoken of by the Prophets; for the Mysteries of God are marvelous. If it tarries, wait for it; for it will surely come and will not delay. The explanation of this concerns the men of truth who observe the Law, whose hands do not slacken in the service of Truth when the final time delays for them; for all the seasons of God come to pass at their appointed time according to His decree concerning the Mysteries of His Prudence. (1QpHab 7:5–14)

We may imagine that the community, poised to follow in Joshua’s footsteps, may have crossed the Jordan to possess the Land when the forty year period of wrath came to an end. After crossing the Jordan, it would quickly have become apparent to them that the full inheritance of the Land would not be immediate. The “last generation” (i.e., the 40 years) and its punishments had been prolonged “due to the mysteries of God” (1QpHab 7:1–14). The beginning of the era of eternal blessing and faithfulness to the covenant was necessarily and mysteriously delayed due to the continued existence of the wicked in the Land and the Holy City. The group settled in the Judean wilderness in “camps” and towns, and especially at Qumran, which seems to have become the premier 32 Cf. 4Q266 11 20 (= 4Q270 7 ii 15); and the discussion in Pfann, “The Character of the Early Essene Movement,” 28–30. 33 Cf. Pfann, “Appendix 2,” in DJD 36.544–46. 34 Cf. Murphy-O’Connor, “The Judean Desert,” 130–31.

historical implications of the 4q249‒250 cryptic a corpus 185 camp. Here the elite Ya˙ad community carried out essential rites and determined correct doctrine.35 The opinions or interpretations as to when and how the group would finally inherit the land in its totality seem to have been varied, ranging from gradual settlement and permeation, to the sudden dispossession of the land by military force (as in the case of the War Scroll ),36 each of which would lead to the ushering in of the Messianic Age. However, for decades in the interim, the community was left with no other choice than to carry on with the task of building and sustaining the community of the righteous until the Messianic Age would begin. Left thus, they would continue to “prepare the way of the Lord” in “the wilderness of Jerusalem” as they had previously done in the wilderness of the Gentiles.

Conclusion Both radiocarbon and paleographic dating of the manuscripts written in the Cryptic A script indicate that the earliest manuscripts originate in the early second century BCE. The strength of this dating compels a re-examination of the beginning of the second century as the period in which the community of the scrolls emerged and allows for a serious reconsideration of the dating of the community with respect to its own self-professed history, utilizing the schema provided in sectarian compositions like CD and pHab. In addition, in the context of an early second century BCE dating for the genesis of the Community of the Scrolls, the identification of key figures such as the Teacher of Righteousness, the Wicked Priest, and the Man of Lies bears reconsideration––only a few candidates are possible for each sobriquet. The merging of the self-defined history of the movement with the events and characters recorded in the ancient histories provides additional details for building the history of this group and others. Identifications such as Onias III as the Teacher of Righteousness and Menelaus as the Wicked Priest warrant serious reconsideration in the light of the early second century Cryptic A manuscripts from Qumran Cave 4.37

35

These rules were compiled in the Rule of the Community (1QS). Although an immediate battle upon the return to the “desert of Jerusalem” was predicted in the War Scroll, in actuality no battle took place. Thus, in the understanding of the community, the acquisition of Jerusalem, which was to be the final prize (1QM 11:7), had been delayed. 37 This will be explored in the forthcoming publication of the author’s dissertation. 36

Fig. 1: The Autobiographical Schema of the Essene Movement

186 stephen j. pfann

THE SPECIAL CHARACTER OF THE TEXTS FOUND IN QUMRAN CAVE 11* Emanuel Tov The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

In Cave 11 at Qumran, the remains of thirty-one different compositions have been found, among them the longest of the surviving Qumran scrolls, 11QTemple a, as well as several very fragmentary texts. The biblical texts comprise two scrolls of Leviticus (11QpaleoLeva and 11QLevb), one of Deuteronomy (11QDeut), one of Ezekiel (11QEzek), five of Psalms (11QPsa-e), and a copy of the Targum of Job (11QtgJob), while the remaining twenty-one texts are non-biblical. All the texts from this cave are included in DJD 231 except for two long compositions, 11QTemple a and 11QpaleoLeva, published elsewhere.2 The evidence presented in this paper suggests that the texts from this cave are more homogeneous with regard to their content than those found in the other caves. More specifically, the corpus of texts found in most caves cannot be characterized in any way, with the exception of Cave 7, which contained nineteen Greek papyrus fragments, probably mainly biblical texts; and of Cave 6, which contained twenty-one Hebrew papyri, a few of them biblical, out of a total of thirty-one items. We would like to suggest that the collection of items in Cave 11 reflects a common origin, being more sectarian, so to speak, than the contents of the other caves. It seems that the great majority of the texts from this cave were either copied according to the Qumran scribal practice, or were of interest to the Qumran community; in most cases, both conditions are met. * This paper is dedicated to Michael Stone, a dear friend and colleague, who has a longstanding record of research on the Qumran scrolls, as well as having provided support for their investigation through the founding of the Orion Center at the Hebrew University. 1 F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31 (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998). 2 Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977 [Hebrew]); idem, The Temple Scroll (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983); D. N. Freedman and K. A. Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985).

emanuel tov

188

1. Qumran Scribal Practice Most of the texts from Cave 11 whose distinctive characteristics are recognizable were copied according to the Qumran scribal practice. The characteristics of all the texts from Cave 11, positive and negative, are tabulated as follows: No. Name

Qumran Scribal Practice

Sectarian Content

Notes

11QpaleoLeva 11QLevb 11QDeut 11QEzek 11QPsa 3 11QPsb 11QPsc 11QPsd 11QPse? 11QtgJob 11Qapocryphal Psalms 11QJubilees + XQText A5 13 11QMelchizedek 14 11QSefer ha-Mil˙amah 15 11QHymnsa

no yes? no data no yes yes yes yes no data irrelevant yes yes

— — — — yes?4 — — — — — no? yes?6

See group 4 below. paleo-Hebrew Tetragr.

yes yes no data

yes yes yes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

3 This text was published by J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJDJ 4; Oxford: Clarendon, 1965). Additional fragments were published in DJD 23.29–36. 4 The sectarian nature of this scroll, probably serving as an early prayer book, is shown by the prose composition in col. 27. The listing of David’s Psalms in this composition presupposes the Qumran calendrical system. For a discussion of the sectarian nature of this scroll, see especially M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa): A Problem of Canon and Text,” Textus 5 (1966): 22–33; S. Talmon, “Pisqah Be'emsa" Pasuq and 11QPsa,” Textus 5 (1966): 11–21. For a critique of this view see P. W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill 1997), 207–13. 5 This fragment was published by S. Talmon as “XQText A (= 11QJub frg. 7a),” in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts (ed. S. J. Pfann); and Miscellanea, Part 1 (ed. P. Alexander et al., in consultation with J. C. VanderKam and M. Brady; DJD 36; Clarendon: Oxford, 2000), 485–86. It was to be published as XQText A (from the Nachlass of Y. Yadin), but at the last moment it was identified correctly by H. Eshel, “Three New Fragments from Cave 11,” Tarbiz 68 (1999): 273–78. 6 See n. 15 below. This composition, though not sectarian in the narrow sense of the word, had a great influence on the Qumran community.

the special character of qumran cave 11 texts

189

Table (cont.)

No. Name

16 11QHymnsb + XQText B7 17 11QShirot 'Olat haShabbat 18 11QNew Jerusalem ar 19 11QTemple a 20 11QTemple b 21 11QTemple c ? 22 11QpaleoUnidentified Text 23 11QcryptA Unidentified Text 24 11QUnidentified Text ar 25 11QUnidentified Text A 26 11QUnidentified Text B 27 11QUnidentified Text C 28 11QpapUnidentified Text D 29 11QFragment Related to Serekh ha-Ya˙ad 30 11QUnclassified Fragments 31 11QUnidentified Wads

Qumran Scribal Practice

Sectarian Content

Notes

yes

yes

no? irrelevant yes yes no data no data

yes? no yes?8 yes? yes? no data

See group 4 below

no data

no data

See group 3 below

irrelevant

no data

no data

no data

no data

no data

yes

no data

no data

no data

no data

yes

yes?

no data

no data

no data

7 This fragment was published by S. Talmon as “XQText B (= 11QHymnsb frg. 2),” in DJD 36.487–89. The fragment was likewise identified correctly by H. Eshel, “Three New Fragments.” 8 Many, if not most, scholars believe that this composition is sectarian. For a summary of the arguments, see F. García Martínez, “Temple Scroll,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2:930–31. If the present form of the work is not sectarian, it is at least close to the interests of the Qumran community; see L. Schiffman, “Utopia and Reality: Political Leadership and Organization in the Dead Sea Scrolls Community,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman, and W. W. Fields, with the assistance of E. Ben David; VTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 413–27.

190

emanuel tov

It is suggested with differing degrees of certainty that fourteen of the Cave 11 texts had been copied according to the Qumran scribal practice.9 This group forms a majority among the thirty-one texts, since nine other texts provide too little information on their system of Hebrew orthography and morphology (11Q3, 9, 15, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29), while three Aramaic texts are irrelevant for such an analysis (11Q10, 18, 24). On the other hand, three other texts (11Q1, 4, 17) do not reflect the characteristics of the Qumran scribal practice. The main argument for ascribing a text to the Qumran scribal practice pertains to orthography and morphology, while several texts additionally exhibit scribal phenomena which within the Qumran corpus are characteristic of the Qumran scribal practice.10 In the case of 11QLevb the main criterion for the assumption of the Qumran scribal practice is a scribal habit (writing the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew letters), rather than morphology and orthography. If indeed F. García Martínez, E. Tigchelaar, and A. van der Woude are correct in assuming that 11QTemple c ? (11Q21) and 11Q Jub (11Q12) were written by the same hand, this would support our view to some extent.11 9 Within the Qumran corpus, the present author has isolated a group of texts as reflecting a Qumran scribal practice, the characteristics of which are visible in peculiarities of orthography, morphology, and scribal features. One such text was also found at Masada (MasQumran-type Text [Mas 1n]). This group of texts has close connections with the Qumran community since virtually all commonly agreed-upon sectarian writings (with five or six exceptions) were copied according to this Qumran scribal practice. The evidence analyzed shows that the great majority of the distinctive scribal features occur in texts that also display Qumran orthography and morphology. The main argument adduced in favor of the existence of a Qumran scribal practice is based on orthographic and morphological evidence, allowing a distinction between a group of texts displaying a “Qumran orthography and morphology” and texts which do not display these features. In spite of the five or six exceptions, it remains true to say that practically all Qumran sectarian works were penned according to this scribal practice, at Qumran or elsewhere. This notion is further supported by strong circumstantial evidence showing that several scribal features unrelated to the orthographic and morphological practices, such as the writing of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew, occur mainly or exclusively in texts displaying these practices. A group of Qumran tefillin, differing from rabbinic regulations, is identified as well. The detailed evidence, especially regarding scribal features, is provided in the following paper, which includes references to earlier studies: E. Tov, “Further Evidence for the Existence of a Qumran Scribal School,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; exec. ed. G. Marquis; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), 199–216. 10 Cancellation dots in 11QPsa and 11QTa, parenthesis signs in 11QpaleoLeva, marks written at the ends of lines as a line-filler in 11QTb (11Q20) 4 9, writing the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew letters in 11QPsa. 11 DJD 23.411.

the special character of qumran cave 11 texts

191

The following fourteen texts were probably copied according to the Qumran scribal practice: 11QLevb: In this text, the Tetragrammaton is written in paleo-Hebrew, a phenomenon otherwise attested solely in twenty-eight (twenty-nine?) texts almost exclusively displaying the Qumran orthography and morphology.12 The text is too short for orthographic analysis, but it contains one doubtful instance of ayk (frg. 5+6 2), otherwise connected with the Qumran scribal practice. 11QPsa–d 11QApocryphal Psalms (11Q11) 11QJubilees (11Q12) 11QMelchizedek (11Q13) 11QSefer ha-Mil˙amah (11Q14) 11QHymns b (11Q16) + XQText B13 11QTemple a (11Q19) 11QTemple b (11Q20) 11QUnidentified Text C (11Q27) 11QUnclassified Fragments (11Q30) (too small for analysis, but frg. 10 reads ayk).

A remark on the statistical picture is in order. The analysis is based on the Qumran corpus containing fragments of 930 texts, from which 150 Aramaic and 27 Greek texts were excluded since they display no features comparable to the orthographic and morphological peculiarities recognized for the Hebrew. By the same token, at least another 150 items should be excluded due to their extremely fragmentary state. This leaves us with some 600 texts, of which 300–500 are large enough for analysis. Among these texts, 180 items are presumed on the basis of the afore-mentioned criteria to have been copied according to the Qumran scribal practice. It cannot be coincidental that the great majority of the sectarian texts were copied, admittedly somewhat inconsistently, in a common orthographical and morphological style 12 See Tov, “Further Evidence.” With two or three exceptions, all these texts are written in the Qumran orthography and morphology. Since the texts written in the Qumran scribal practice form a minority within the Qumran corpus, the connection between the specific writing of the Tetragrammaton and the Qumran scribal practice is evident. A reverse examination of the texts written according to the Qumran scribal practice reveals that thirty-six texts did not use a special system for the writing of the divine names with paleo-Hebrew characters or Tetrapuncta. It therefore appears that within the Qumran scribal school different practices were employed for writing the divine names, possibly by different scribes or in different periods. 13 In the analysis of the orthography, XQText B (DJD 36) especially is taken into consideration. See n. 7 above.

192

emanuel tov

and with common scribal features; rather, the only plausible explanation seems to be that the sectarian scribes used set scribal conventions. This group of sectarian texts represents probably half of the Qumran texts; the argument adduced here claims that certain scribal features are reflected very frequently in this group of texts that, for other reasons, are ascribed to the Qumran scribal practice.

2. Sectarian Content and Terminology While the nature of the Qumran community will remain controversial, it espoused specific ideas and a terminology of its own. The community has often been described as a sect, and hence its ideas and terminology have been dubbed “sectarian.” On the basis of these two criteria, D. Dimant has composed a list of the presumably sectarian writings found at Qumran,14 which is followed in our listing of the sectarian writings from Cave 11. The case of Jubilees is a special one, as the community had a close affiliation to this pre-Qumranic work.15 In most cases, the sectarian texts were also copied according to the Qumran scribal practice (denoted below as ‘Qu’), but in some cases insufficient evidence is available: 11QPsa? (11Q5) (Qu) 11QJubilees (11Q12) (probably) (Qu) 11QMelchizedek (11Q13) (Qu) 11QSefer ha-Mil˙amah (11Q14) (Qu) 11QHymnsa (11Q15) 11QHymnsb (11Q16) (Qu) 11QShirot 'Olat ha-Shabbat (11Q17)

14 D. Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness. Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990 (ed. D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman; STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 23–58. When that study was written, not all the Qumran compositions were known. 15 Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts,” 28 distinguishes between works composed by the community and works written outside the community such as Jubilees and 1 Enoch, sharing religious ideas and concepts with the Qumran sectarian literature. Works of the latter type may have influenced the community and were definitely cherished by the Qumran community, as is shown also by their relatively large representation in the corpus.

the special character of qumran cave 11 texts

193

11QTemple a (11Q19) (Qu) 11QTemple b (11Q20) (Qu) 11QTemple c? (11Q21) 11QFragment Related to Serekh ha-Ya˙ad (11Q29) Since eleven of the twenty-two non-biblical texts are sectarian, they comprise a large group, taking into consideration that for seven texts insufficient data are available and that three texts are in Aramaic (there is no proof that the Qumran community wrote in any language other than Hebrew).16 The data registered in this section run parallel to the previous one, providing a different outlook on more or less the same texts. To be precise, seven of the eleven sectarian texts listed here are also recorded in the previous section. The four sectarian texts for which there was insufficient proof of a link with the Qumran scribal practice (underlined: 11Q15, 17, 21, 29) may now be added to the fourteen texts mentioned in section 1.

3. A Cryptic Text A single fragment written in the cryptic A script was probably written by the Qumran community: 11QcryptA Unidentified Text (11Q23). This script, described by S. Pfann17 as a development from the Late Phoenician scripts, was used for several texts of a Qumran sectarian nature (4Q249, 249a–i, 298, 317), as well as for other texts which may have had a special meaning for the Qumran community.18 According to Milik19 and Pfann, this script was used especially by the Maskil.

4. Texts Written in the Paleo-Hebrew Script Two texts completely written in paleo-Hebrew script, one very fragmentary, may have been linked to the Qumran community:

16

See Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts,” 34. “4Q298: The Maskil’s Address to all Sons of Dawn,” JQR 85 (1994): 203–35. 18 See Pfann, “The Writings in Esoteric Script from Qumran,” in Schiffman et al., Fifty Years After, 177–90. 19 Quoted by Pfann, “Writings,” 177. 17

194

emanuel tov 11QpaleoLeva 11QpaleoUnidentified Text (11Q22). In this text, ˚yhlal was written with a different color of ink (red?), implying either the use of a different pen, or the involvement of a different scribe, or both.20 If indeed this word was written with a different pen, this would be the only instance of the special treatment of a divine name in a text completely written in paleo-Hebrew characters

The background of the writing of complete scrolls in the paleoHebrew script remains unknown. It has been suggested cautiously that these texts were written by the Sadducees,21 a community from which the Essenes may have branched off.

Summary In short, the special sectarian nature of the thirty-one texts found in Cave 11 is based on the following evidence: 14 texts copied according to the Qumran scribal practice (most of which reflect the ideas and terminology of the Qumran community). 4 texts, for which insufficient proof is available regarding their orthography and morphology, reflecting sectarian ideas and terminology. 1 text written in the cryptic A script, possibly linked to the Qumran community. 2 texts completely written in the paleo-Hebrew script, possibly connected with the Sadducees, from whom the Essenes may have branched off.

The link with the Qumran community seems convincing, since the remaining texts from Cave 11 are either written in Aramaic (three), a language in which the Qumran community is not known to have written, or are too small for analysis (seven; viz., 11Q3, 4, 9, 25, 26, 28, 31). Within the latter group, 11Q4 (11QEzekiel ) is not written according to the Qumran scribal practice. The collection of texts found in Cave 11 must have come as a whole from the Qumran community itself, possibly from a specific

20 The fragment itself could not be located, and the photograph remains our only source. 21 E. Tov, “The Socio-Religious Background of the Paleo-Hebrew Biblical Texts Found at Qumran,” in Geschichte—Tradition—Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Cancik et al.; 3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1996), 1:353–74.

the special character of qumran cave 11 texts

195

location. Within this collection several special material features are recognizable as well: 1) The beginnings, or parts thereof, of a number of texts from Qumran (fifty-one, or 5.5% of all the preserved scrolls) and other sites in the Judean Desert (2 scrolls) have been preserved. The ends of a smaller number of scrolls have been preserved (twenty-nine from Qumran [3.1% of the total scrolls from that site] and two from Masada). It is probably no coincidence that for a large percentage of the texts from Cave 11 (six of the twenty-one texts from that cave,22 disregarding the small unidentified fragments), one of the two extremities has been preserved, in this case always the ending. This implies relatively favorable storage conditions in that cave. 2) Among those texts preserving a separate (ruled or unruled) uninscribed handle sheet (protective sheet, ¶sxatokÒllion) stitched after the last inscribed sheet, the high frequency of scrolls from Cave 11 is striking. In several instances, the handle sheet is still attached. Among the Qumran scrolls for which the ending is known, this system is the exception rather than the rule. In most cases, an uninscribed area was left at the end of the scroll without a protective handle sheet.23 Among the seven scrolls for which such a final sheet is either extant or reconstructed, four were found in Cave 11,24 while the other three were found in Cave 4,25 a cave preserving twenty times more texts than Cave 11. It is also noteworthy that all the Qumran texts in this group (from both caves) were copied according to the Qumran scribal practice. The preservation of such a large number of ends of scrolls shows favorable storage conditions in Cave 11, while the preponderance of handle sheets among the Cave 11 scrolls reflects a specific type of preparation or treatment of these scrolls. 3. “Some of the manuscripts from Cave 11 were of especially fine, thin leather, others of coarse leather.”26 While 11QTa (11Q19) is one 22 11QpaleoLeva, 11QPsa, 11QtgJob, 11QapocrPs (11Q11), 11QShirShabb (11Q17), 11QTa (11Q19). 23 1QpHab; 4QDeutq; 4QJudgb; 4QpsDanc ar (4Q245); 4QDa (4Q266); 4QDe (4Q270) 7; 4QMish H (4Q329a; 4QOrdo (4Q334) 7; 4QMMTf (4Q399); 4QHod.like Text C (4Q440) 3; 4QShirb (4Q511) 63; 11QPsa; 11QtgJob. Often the straight vertical edge of the scroll has been preserved, but in a few cases such evidence is lacking. The system of 1QHb (1Q35) 2 is unclear. 24 11QpaleoLeva, 11QapocrPs (11Q11), 11QShirShabb (11Q17), 11QTa (11Q19). 25 1QS, 1QSa, 4QDd (4Q269) frg. 16. 26 H. Stegemann, The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 78.

196

emanuel tov

of the finest scrolls from Qumran, study of the Qumran leather samples is not advanced enough to make any statement beyond mere impressions. A strong sectarian connection of the fragments from Cave 11, stronger than that of the other caves, together with the preponderance of handle sheets among the Cave 11 texts characterize the contents of this cave. These characteristics suggest that the collection of texts found in Cave 11 must have come as a whole from the Qumran community itself, possibly brought from a specific location.

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA

A NEGLECTED TEXT OF PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA: FIRST TRANSLATION INTO A MODERN LANGUAGE David T. Runia Queen’s College, The University of Melbourne

Introduction Michael Stone, whom we honour in this volume, laid the foundations for his subsequent illustrious academic career at the University of Melbourne, where he studied Classics and Semitics in 1956–1959. During this time he made his first foray into the world of scholarship, writing an honours thesis on Philo of Alexandria. It is thus surely appropriate that a contribution to his Festschrift should come from Melbourne, even though my own contact with him has mainly been on the other side of the world. It is also not unsuitable that this article should focus on Philo, and especially on that part of the Philonic corpus that is mainly preserved in Armenian, the language that Michael was to make a focal point of his research. May he accept this offering in the spirit that it is given, parvulum pro tantis. Philo’s massive exegetical work, the Quaestiones in Genesim et Exodum, which according to our sources originally extended to six and five books respectively, has been preserved primarily in a sixth century Armenian translation, first published in 1826 by J. B. Awgerean (Aucher).1 Only two small sections of the original Greek work survive as part of the manuscript tradition.2 One of these, covering most of QG 2.1–7, is found in the ms. Vatopedinus 659 and was edited by J. Paramelle almost 20 years ago.3 The other was first edited in 1 J. B. Aucher, Philonis Judaei Paralipomena armena. Libri vidilicet quatuor in Genesin, Libri duo in Exodum. Sermo unus de Sampsone. Alter de Jona. Tertius de tribus angelis Abraamo apparentibus (Venice: Libraria PP Mechitaristarum [S. Lazari], 1826). 2 Beside these there are many short fragments, mostly found in the Catenae and the Florilegia; cf. the excellent edition of F. Petit, Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum: fragmenta graeca (Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 33; Paris: Cerf, 1978). 3 J. Paramelle, Philon d’Alexandrie: Questions sur la Genèse II 1–7: texte grec, version arménienne, parallèles latins (Cahiers d’Orientalisme 3; Geneva: Cramer, 1984).

200

david t. runia

1831 by A. Mai; since then, its Greek text has been published at least five more times.4 It covers QE 2.62–68, seven questions dealing with the Cherubim and other external aspects of the Ark of the Covenant. The text is found at the end of the ms. Vaticanus graecus 379 (f. 385v–388v), a late and badly preserved manuscript which contains twenty-two Philonic treatises.5 It must be recognized that this text has suffered a curious neglect in Philonic studies. Instead of being delighted that at least a small piece of the original text has been integrally preserved, Philonists have pushed it to the margins of scholarship. For puristic reasons, i.e. because it was not properly speaking a fragment, F. Petit did not include it in her edition of the fragments of QG and QE.6 Instead it was printed as an Appendix to Terian’s edition of the Armenian translation of QE.7 An unfortunate consequence of Petit’s omission was that it was not included in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae CD-ROM (TLG ), and so cannot be electronically searched. To make things even worse, it was not included in the Norwegian Complete Greek Word Index to Philo’s writings.8 Strangest of all, this section of the Greek text has never 4

A. Mai, Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum tomus IV (Rome: Vatican, 1831), 430–41; C. A. O. Grossmann, Philonis Iudaei Anecdoton Graecum de Cherubinis (Leipzig: Edelmann, 1856); C. Tischendorf, Philonea, inedita altera, altera nunc demum recte ex vetere scriptura eruta (Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient, 1868), 144–52; J. R. Harris, Fragments of Philo Judaeus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1886), 63–68; R. Marcus, Philo. Supplement II: Questions and Answers on Exodus (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953), 253–56; A. Terian, Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum I et II e versione armeniaca et fragmenta graeca (Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 34c; Paris: Cerf, 1992), 283–86. I would like to express my warm thanks to Prof. J. R. Royse for supplying me at short notice with Tischendorf ’s text, which was unavailable to me in Melbourne, and also for making valuable comments on a draft of this article, many of which I have incorporated into its final version. In a letter to me he makes the point that a proper critical edition has never been made of this manuscript. It is to be hoped that he himself will be inspired to produce such an edition in the near future. It would be of great benefit to Philonic studies. 5 See the descriptions in L. Cohn and P. Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt (6 vols.; Berlin: Reimer, 1896–1915), 1:xxv–xxvii; H. L. Goodhart and E. R. Goodenough, “A General Bibliography of Philo Judaeus,” in E. R. Goodenough, The Politics of Philo Judaeus: Practice and Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967), 146. On this manuscript see also the study by J. R. Royse, “The Text of Philo’s Quis rerum divinarum heres 167–173 in Vaticanus 379,” in Theokratia 3 (1973–75) = Festgabe für H. Koch zum 70. Geburtstag (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 23–59. 6 Petit, Quaestiones, 13, 273. She does print two fragments of QE 2.64 and 65 from the Florilegia; see pp. 274–75. 7 Terian, Quaestiones et Solutiones, 283–86. 8 P. Borgen, K. Fuglseth and R. Skarsten, The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word

a neglected text of philo of alexandria

201

been integrally translated into a modern language.9 The only existing complete translations of the passage are based on the Armenian.10 The purpose of the following contribution will be to fill this gap by presenting an English translation of the Greek text of QE 2.62–68. I will translate the text basically as it has been transmitted in the ms. Vaticanus gr. 379. My starting point will be the most recent edition of Terian, which appears to be ultimately based on that of Tischendorf. To my translation I shall append some brief philological notes. Where the Greek text is obviously wrong and can be corrected from the Armenian, I shall include the correction in my translation.11 Moreover, the assistance given by two small fragments of the text at 2.64 and 2.65 that survive in the Florilegia will not be spurned.12 From the methodological point of view the situation is delicate. The Armenian translation was made from a sixth century text that may well have been superior to the text of the ms. but the Armenian manuscripts themselves date to the thirteenth and fourteenth century.13 Moreover the translators, though using a method which remained closely faithful to the original, nevertheless often allowed inaccuracies to creep into their work.14 What is given below will thus be a translation of the Greek text, and as such it will be the first. My method will be to adhere reasonably closely to the original, sacrificing stylishness to accuracy where necessary. Words that have to be supplied for a Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria (2d. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 2000). The omission was pointed out in my review of the first edition in SPhA 10 (1998): 132. A complete index of this section of text will soon be published in The Studia Philonica Annual. 9 Translations of substantial parts of the text can be found in E. R. Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935, repr. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1969), 25–27 (translations are very loose); C. Termini, Le potenze di Dio: studio su dynamis in Filone di Alessandria (SEAug 71; Rome: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum, 2000), 126–34. 10 By Marcus, Questions and Answers on Exodus, and Terian, Quaestiones et Solutiones. On the whole they translate the Armenian, but quite often they import improvements from the Greek text. One can never be quite sure what they are translating. 11 I would like to emphasize that I have not mastered the Armenian language, so am dependent on Aucher’s Latin and the interpretative remarks of other scholars. 12 See above n. 6. 13 See the list in A. Terian, Alexander: vel De ratione quam habere etiam bruta animalia (De animalibus) e versione armeniaca: introduction, traduction et notes (Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 36; Paris: Cerf, 1988), 29–39. 14 On the date and method of the so-called hellenizing school of Armenian translation see A. Terian, Philonis Alexandrini de Animalibus: The Armenian Text with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Studies in Hellenistic Judaism: Supplements to Studia Philonica 1; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981), 6–14.

202

david t. runia

fluent English rendering, but which are absent in the original, are placed in brackets. The title I have given to the translation is taken from the Greek manuscript.15

Translation: From the Questions and Answers on Exodus or the Departure § 62. Who are the Cherubim (Exod 25:18)? The Cherubim are interpreted as ‘much knowledge’ (§p¤gnvsiw pollÆ), (but) elsewherea the word is interpreted as ‘rich and diffused science’ (§pistÆmh plous¤a ka‹ kexum°nh). They are symbols of the two powers of the One who is (toË ˆntow), the creative and the kingly. The creative power is conceptually older in age than the kingly. In fact all the powersb pertaining to God are of the same age, but in a certain way the creative power is thought of prior to the kingly power, for someone is king not of what does not exist but of what has come into being. In the sacred writings the creative power has obtained the name of God (yeÒw), because the ancients said creating was ‘placing’ (ye›nai). The royal power (has obtained the namec ) Lord (kÊriow), since the Lordship (kËrow) of all things was attributed to the king. Notes a. The syntax is awkward here. Grossmann conjectured √ at the beginning of the clause, and in this he was followed by Tischendorf and Harris, but not Terian. Presumably this was done on an analogy with a text such as Fug. 55, foitÆsaw oÔn parå guna›ka sofÆn, √ sk°ciw ˆnoma. But the phrase is nowhere used for etymologies. The phrase §n •t°roiw is very common and simply means ‘elsewhere.’ It may have been followed by a d° which has fallen out, contrasting the two alternative etymologies. The Armenian appears to reflect §n •t°roiw ÙnÒmasin, which seems attractive to Termini, Le potenze di Dio, 126 n. 112, but cannot, I believe, be the right reading. b. Tischendorf was right to emend a·te to a·ge, followed by Harris and Terian. c. The Armenian translation appears to reflect kale›tai (are called), but this word may not have been present in the original Greek. 15 It reads ÉEk t«n §n ÉEjÒdƒ ≥toi ÉEjagvgª zhthmãtvn ka‹ lÊsevn; cf. Cohn and Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini, 1:xxvii. Philo himself uses the title Exagôgê instead of Exodus; cf. N. G. Cohen, “The Names of the Separate Books of the Pentateuch in Philo’s Writings,” in Wisdom and Logos: Studies in Jewish Thought in Honor of David Winston [= The Studia Philonica Annual 9 (1997)] (ed. D. T. Runia and G. E. Sterling; BJS 312; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 58–61.

a neglected text of philo of alexandria

203

§63. Why are they made out of gold and worked in relief (Exod 25:18)? The gold is a symbol of the most preciousa substance, the workmanship in relief (is a symbol) of the nature that is skilled and knowledgeable. For it was necessary that the primary powers of the One who is, being as they are ideas of ideas, also participate in the nature that is purest and unmixed and most precious and furthermore most knowledgeable. Note a. The Armenian translation has the ordinary adjective, with no representation indicating the superlative.

§ 64. Why did he fit the Cherubim on both sides of the Mercy-seat a (Exod 25:18–19)? (He indicates that) the limits of the entire heaven and cosmos are secured by the two highest guards, the one in accordance with which God made the entire universe, the other in accordance with which he rules that which has come into being. For their role would be to take care of a possession that was most intimately and closely related (to them), the creative power (doing so) so that what came into being through its agency would not fall apart, the kingly power (doing so) so that nothing would exceedb or be exceeded, because things are arbitrated by the law of equality,c which ensures that reality lives on forever.d After all, excessiveness and inequality are what stimulates war and cause what exists to fall apart, whereas good organizatione and equality are the seeds of peace,f producing safety and a continuing existence which is perpetual. Notes a. The Armenian translator mistakenly read ‘the altar’ here (cf. Exod 27:1). b. The Armenian translation omits ‘would exceed.’ c. The Armenian translation has difficulty with this phrase. Marcus translates “mediating the victory by law as a sign of equality.” d. diaivn¤zetai, which is a good Philonic word. But Tischendorf was right to be concerned about the passive usage, which is not found elsewhere in Philo. The TLG yields a single example, in Athanasius. e. Tischendorf ’s alteration of tÚ eÎnomon to tÚ ¶nnomon is superfluous. f. The Greek ms. reads t°rmata (limits), but the Florilegia confirm the Armenian reading sp°rmata.

204

david t. runia

§ 65. Why does he (Moses) say: the Cherubim extend their wings so that they cover (the Mercy-seat) with their shadow (Exod 25:20)? All the powers of God are endowed with wings,a desiring and aspiring to the path upward to the Father. They overshadow the parts of the universe as if with wings. He is speaking in riddles about how the cosmos is guarded by protectionsb and guardposts, namely the two powers mentioned (earlier), the creative and the kingly. Notes a. The Platonizing verb pterofuoËsi is a hapax in Philo. It is confirmed by the fragment in the Florilegia; see Petit Quaestiones, 275. b. The Armenian translation omits “protections and.” Note that the Greek words sk°pai and fulaktÆria are not normally used of persons.

§ 66. Why do the faces of the Cherubim a turn towards each other and both (do so) towards the Mercy-seat (Exod 25:20)? The image portrayed by what is said is a splendid one and fitting for God. It was in fact necessary for both the creative and kingly powers to observe each other,b understanding each other’s beauties and conspiring together for the benefit of that which has come into being. In the second place, since God, who is One, is both creator and king, it is quite right that the separated powers obtain unity again. They have indeed been usefully separate, so that the one creates and the other rules. Each of them in fact is distinct. They have also been joined together in another way through the perpetual application of the names, so that the creative power is associatedc with the kingly and the kingly power with the creative. Both (the powers) are inclined towards the Mercy-seat and rightly so. For if God was not merciful to those now existing,d nothing would have been produced through the creative power and nothing would have been well organized through the kingly power. Notes a. Marcus and Terian wrongly omit the words t«n xeroub¤m, which are present both in the Greek ms. and in the Armenian (I owe this point to Prof. J. R. Royse). b. The Greek reading efiw éllhgor¤an éforçn must be wrong, and the editors rightly follow the reading underlying the Armenian translation, efiw éllÆlaw éforçn. c. The Armenian verb rendered by Aucher as spectatrix sit (Terian suggests skope›n) is less suitable than the Greek ¶xhtai. d. The Armenian translation renders to›w sunoËsin rather than the to›w

a neglected text of philo of alexandria

205

nËn oÔsi of the Greek ms., no doubt under the influence of the earlier verb sunneÊousin (are inclined). The Greek reading is to be retained.

§ 67. What is (meant by the words): ‘I shall be made known to you from there’ (Exod 25:22)? The most undefiled and most prophetic mind obtains knowledge and science concerning the One who is, not from the One who is himself—for it (the mind) could not contain his greatness—, but from his primary and ministering powers. Moreover one should be content that it is ‘from there’ that the rays of light are borne to the soul,a so that it is possible by means of the secondary splendour to observe what is more venerable and more brilliant. Note a. The Armenian uses the plural, i.e. ‘souls.’ But Prof. Royse informs me that the plural in Armenian often renders the singular cuxÆ.

§ 68. What is (meant by the words): ‘I shall speak a from above the Mercyseat in between the Cherubim’ (Exod 25:22)? He reveals through this (statement) firstly that the divinity is superior to the gracious and the creative and every (other) power. Next, that he speaks along the very middle of both the creative and the kingly power. The mind understands this along the following lines. The Logos of God, as it is in the middle, leaves nothing in nature void. Filling the whole, it mediates and conciliates for those on each side which appear to be separated, producing friendship and concord. For it is ever the cause of communion and the creator of peace.b The individual features of the ark have thus been stated. But, starting from above, I should take them collectively and go through them for the sake of knowing of what things they are the symbols. These are what are symbolic: the ark and the ordinances kept as treasures inside it; on top of it the Mercy-seat and on the Mercy-seat the Cherubim, as they are called in the Chaldean language; beyond these in the middle the voice and Logos, and right on top He who speaks. It seems to me that, if you were to understand accurately the nature of these things, captivated by their most god-like beauties, you would bid farewell to all other things, no matter how desirable. Let us examine what each (of them) is. First there is He who is more venerable than the unit and the monad and the first principle (érxÆ). Then there is the Logosc of Him who is, the spermatic

206

david t. runia

substance of those things which exist. From the divine Logos, as from a spring, two powersd split off. The one is the creative power, in accordance with which the craftsman placed all things and ordered them, and this power is named ‘God’ (yeÒw). The other is the kingly power, in accordance with which the creator rules what has come into being, and this power is called ‘Lord’ (kÊriow). From these two powers others have grown forth. Beside the creative power the gracious power sprouts forth, and its name is ‘beneficent’. Beside the kingly power the legislative power sprouts forth, and its correct name is the ‘punitive’ (power). Below these and beside these is the ark. The ark is the symbol of the intelligible cosmos. The ark contains all that is established in the innermost sanctuary in symbolic form, the incorporeal cosmos, the ordinances which have been called ‘testimonies’, the legislative and punitive power, the Mercy-seat, the gracious and beneficent power, and the powers above them, the creative power, which is a suretye for the gracious and beneficent power, and the kingly power, which is the root of the punitive and legislative power. The divine Logos who is in the middle has a superior position,f but above the Logos is He who speaks. The number of enumerated items is completed by the hebdomad, i.e. the intelligible cosmos, the two related powers of punishment and beneficence, and another other two powers prior to these, the creative power and the ruling power, which have kinship to the creator rather than to that which has come into being, then sixth the Logos and seventh He who speaks. But if you do the counting from the top, you will find Him who speaks first, the Logos second, third the creative power, fourth the rule (érxÆ),g then ranked under the creative power as fifth the beneficent power, and ranked under the ruling power as sixth the punitive power, and seventh the cosmos consisting of the ideas. Notes a. The Armenian translation reads “I shall speak to you (so¤ ) from above the Mercy-seat in between the two Cherubim.” The italicized words are both found in the LXX text, so in two respects the Armenian text is closer to the biblical text being quoted than the Greek text in the ms. Philo sometimes abbreviates the biblical lemma he is quoting, so it is difficult to determine whether these words were originally present in this passage. On the other hand, as Prof. Royse points out to me, Philo quotes the same text at Her. 166 and Fug. 101, in both cases including the words possibly missing here. He thinks that it is quite likely that the Greek scribe left the two words out here, rather than that the Armenian translator inserted them.

a neglected text of philo of alexandria

207

b. The word efirÆnhw is present in the Greek text as read by Mai and Grossmann, but Tischendorf omitted it in his text, followed by Harris. Terian is incorrect in suggesting that it was added to the text by the editors. (I owe this point to Prof. Royse.) c. The Greek text reads ¶peita toË ˆntow lÒgou. Tischendorf ’s emendation to ¶peita ı toË ˆntow lÒgow, which agrees with the Armenian, seems mandatory. d. The editors add afl, i.e. the two powers, on the basis of the Armenian, but this is not really necessary. e. I have translated p¤stiw as found in the Greek text. It makes sense. Because God is creator, he is also gracious and beneficent. The Armenian translation, however, renders phgÆ (source). This is of course neatly parallel to =¤za in the following phrase and so is the more likely reading. Marcus is thus right to suggest that the text should be emended. f. The Greek ms. reads Èpemfa¤netai (‘is revealed,’ ‘is hinted at’), which would be a hapax in Philo. On the basis of the Armenian, Terian conjectures Èperbãlletai, which makes much better sense (cf. earlier in the chapter, where the superior position of the Logos is emphasized). I have translated accordingly. g. The Greek reading érxÆ is somewhat unexpected (it cannot mean ‘principle’ or ‘source’ in this context). Aucher translates the Armenian with principativa. The original text was most likely érxikÆ, i.e. ‘the ruling (power).’ This term is used of the kingly power in Abr. 99.

Conclusion The above close reading of the Greek text has revealed that it can stand well on its own two feet. Few emendations and conjectures are required. In addition to the help given by the Greek fragment of § 64 in the Florilegia, on one occasion in § 66 (efiw éllÆlaw éforçn) and on four occasions in § 68 (lÒgou, phgÆ, Èperbãlletai, érxikÆ), the Armenian translation suggests readings that may improve what is found in the Greek. These suggestions are very welcome. But they in no way should give the impression that the Armenian translation gives access to a superior text. As the apparatus to Terian’s text reveals,16 the translation has many omissions and makes a number of mistakes. There is no justification for the neglect that this brief Greek text has suffered, a situation which the present contribution in honour of Michael Stone hopes to go some way in rectifying.

16

Terian, Quaestiones et Solutiones, 283–86.

ABRAHAM AND THE PROMISE OF SPIRIT: POINTS OF CONVERGENCE BETWEEN PHILO AND PAUL Sze-kar Wan Andover Newton Theological School

Interpreters have long recognized the strategic importance of both the appeal to the Spirit and the reference to Abraham in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.1 Both constitute central themes in Paul’s indirect quarrel with his detractors, a quarrel Paul elects to conduct by direct admonishment of his converts. One question continues to elude interpreters, however: What gave Paul’s argument internal coherence and logical force? What was the conceptual framework that enabled him to juxtapose reception of the Spirit with the Abrahamic promise, a juxtaposition made explicit in Gal 3:14, “. . . in order that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, in order that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” The answer to this question might be sought in the type of Hellenistic-Jewish mysticism reflected in the writings of Philo, who alternatively presented Abraham as a mystic and turned the story of the patriarch into an allegory of the soul. From an analysis of the Philonic Abraham, a coherent portrait emerges that suggests points of contact with Paul’s Abraham in Galatians—points that might indicate a broad, consistent pattern of appropriating the Abrahamic traditions in Hellenistic Judaism.

1 Studies on Abraham in Galatians or Paul continue to proliferate. See, e.g., C. Dietzfelbinger, Paulus und das Alte Testament: Die Hermeneutik des Paulus untersucht an seiner Deutung der Gestalt Abrahams (Theologische Existenz Heute 95; Munich: Kaiser, 1961), 32ff.; K. Berger, “Abraham in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen,” MTZ 17 (1966): 47–89; R. Martin-Achard, Actualité d’Abraham (Bibliothèque Théologique; Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1969), 112–37; G. Mayer, “Aspekte des Abrahambildes in der hellenistisch-jüdischen Literatur,” EvTh 32 (1972): 118–27; S. Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 148–54; F. E. Wieser, Die Abrahamvorstellungen im Neuen Testament (Bern: Peter Lang, 1987), 36–93; G. W. Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts ( JSNTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 175–99; and R. A. Harrisville III, The Figure of Abraham in the Epistles of St. Paul: In the Footsteps of Abraham (San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1992), 47–135.

210

sze-kar wan The Problem

The crux is Gal 3:14. After appealing to the Galatians’ miraculous experience of the Spirit (3:1–5, esp. vv. 2, 5), Paul steps onto an exegetical platform, first erected probably by the itinerant teachers,2 to debate the relevance of Abraham to gentile converts. Paul’s argument begins with Abraham’s faith (Gen 15:6) and continues with a reference to “the blessing of Abraham” (Gen 12:3; 18:18). This blessing, Paul claims, has been available to all Gentiles from the start, so long as they believe in the same manner as Abraham (3:6–9). Blessing brings up its correlative, curse, which Paul associates with the law but from which Christ has redeemed the believers (3:10–13).3 At this point of his argument, in 3:14, Paul draws a two-part conclusion to his discussion of Abraham based on his exegetical argument: 14a: ·na efiw tå ¶ynh ≤ eÈlog¤a toË ÉAbraåm g°nhtai §n Xrist“ IhsoË,

14b: ·na tØn §paggel¤an toË pneÊmatow lãbvmen diå t∞w p¤stevw.

in order that the blessing of Abraham might come4 to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, in order that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

This carefully constructed parallel structure forms the conclusion to the midrash on the Abraham story. The two ·na-clauses are syntactically consecutive to v. 13, and elements making up the conclusion are extracted mostly from the exegetical discussion of vv. 6–13. The first ·na-clause is constructed out of results from the blessingand curse-sections: the Gentiles are blessed with the faith of Abraham (3:9) and Christ has redeemed us (3:13). This proof is strictly a terminological one, held together by Stichwörter. The construction of the second ·na-clause is the same in principle 2 The key argument is based on Gal 3:6–7. Paul cites Gen 15:6, “Abraham believed in God and it was reckoned to him righteousness” in v. 6, but draws the non sequitur conclusion in v. 7, “those who believe, these are the children of Abraham.” The harsh transition from “righteousness” to “children of Abraham” would be inexplicable unless it was first raised by the Opponents. See detailed analysis by J. L. Martyn, “A LawObservant Mission to Gentiles: The Background of Galatians,” Scottish Journal of Theology 38 (1985 [1983]): 307–24, p. 318; F. Mußner, Der Galaterbrief: Auslegung (3d rev. ed.; HTKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974), 216; Hansen, Abraham in Galatians, 173–74. 3 Paul’s midrashic argument of 3:10–13 is notoriously complicated and will not be considered here. Suffice it to say that what follows is not dependent on any particular way of reading these four verses. 4 Mußner, Galater, 235, prefers to translate g°nhtai in the stronger sense of “Wirklichkeit werden.”

abraham and the promise of spirit

211

but also introduces an as-yet-unmentioned element, “promise” (v. 14a). The promise made to Abraham is an integral part of the story. It might have already been alluded to in 3:8–9, where the Stichwort is “blessing,” since blessing is understood to be the content of God’s promise to Abraham in Gen 12:2–3 and elsewhere.5 But Paul’s exegesis of vv. 6–13 does not make that explicit, and he nowhere equates “blessing” with “promise.” In fact, the introduction of “promise” into the text is so abrupt that some scribes assimilated §paggel¤a to eÈlog¤a.6 Nevertheless, it is not inconceivable that Paul would introduce “promise” into his conclusion. To complicate the matter, in the second half of his conclusion Paul joins “promise” to the reception of the Spirit (v. 14b).7 The promise to Abraham, which is part of God’s covenant with him, consists of progeny, blessings of all nations, land, and a further promise to Abraham’s seed.8 While Paul makes use of the promises of progeny and blessings in his exegesis, he makes no mention of land. Instead, Paul asserts that the reception of the Spirit is fulfillment of that promise. What could have prepared the ground for Paul to put these two elements together? This question becomes starker when we turn to Rom 4:13, where Paul does speak of the inheritance of “the world,” possibly a natural extension of “land,” as part of the covenantal promise. The equation of “promise” with “the reception of Spirit” in Gal 3:14b, on the other hand, seems at first sudden and capricious. Various solutions have been proposed, appealing to prophetic texts,9 5 So H. D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 153. 6 So Marcion and Ambrosiaster, among others. The reading is supported by P46 D* Fgr G 88*, but is clearly inferior to §paggel¤a. See comments in B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), 594. 7 Virtually all commentators agree that ≤ §paggel¤a toË pneÊmatow of v. 14b is to be taken as appositional: it does not mean “the Spirit’s promise” but “the promise which is the Spirit” or, better, “the promised Spirit.” See H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (10th ed.; KEK 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949), 96–97; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 168; J. Rohde, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (THKNT 9; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989), 145; J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 179; U. Borse, Der Brief an die Galater (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1984), 130; Mußner, Galater, 235 n. 116. 8 The promise of progeny can be found in Gen 12:2; 13:16; 15:5; 18:18. The promise of land: Gen 12:7; 13:14–15, 17; 15:7, 18–21; 17:8. The promise that all nations will be blessed in Abraham: Gen 12:3; 18:18. The promise to Abraham’s seed: Gen 22:18. 9 For example, R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (SBLDS 56; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 211,

212

sze-kar wan

to the supposed logic of the narrative,10 and to a hypothetical position of the opponents.11 At the end, however, the most probable author of the “promise”/“Spirit” equation is Paul. But this does not resolve all the problems either: What could have prepared Paul for such an equation? Whence did it derive its persuasive force? The question raised twenty years ago still stands: “Was there something within the realm of Jewish expectations which did associate the Spirit with the promises to Abraham?”12 The answer might be found in the kind of Hellenistic Judaism that presented the patriarch as a mystic and the promises as attaining true knowledge.

Abraham the Mystic According to Philo Abraham was a standard topos in first-century Judaism.13 Taking their starting point from Genesis, Jewish writers found in Abraham a prime cites LXX Isa 44:3; Mußner, Galater, 235, lists a number of prophetic texts: applicable to the Messiah (Isa 11:2–3); to Israel (Isa 32:15; 44:3; 59:21; Ezek 11:19; 36:26–27; 39:29); and to Gentiles ( Joel 3:1–2). He also lists Rom 8:23; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14 as NT parallels. All these texts run into the same difficulty as Isa 44:3. 10 Hays, Faith, 212. Mußner, Galater, 235, makes a similar observation: one might expect Paul to follow v. 14a, which ends in §n Xrist“ ÉIhsoË, with an immediate identification of Christ as “the seed of Abraham” in v. 14b. But this is precisely what Paul does not do, at least not until the following section. 11 C. H. Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1989), 86, 101–18. Martyn, “LawObservant Mission,” 315, suggests that “God is now reaching out for the Gentiles and thus for the whole of humankind. . . . [Such an act] is marked by the fact that he bestows his Spirit even on communities of Gentiles if their communal life is ordered by correct exegesis of scripture and thus by true observance of his Law” (my emphasis); see also his Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 323. 12 Hays, Faith, 211; his emphasis. 13 There is no lack of surveys on Abraham in Jewish literature. See, e.g., W. L. Knox, “Abraham and the Quest for God,” HTR 28 (1939): 55–60; Martin-Achard, Actualité d’Abraham, 132–37; Wieser, Abrahamvorstellungen, 153–79; J. Jeremias, “ ÉAbraãm,” TDNT 1:8–9; L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909–28), 1:183–308, 5:207–69; K. Berger, “Abraham,” Theologische Realenzyklopädie (ed. G. Krause and G. Müller; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1977–), 1:372–82; S. Sandmel, “Abraham’s Knowledge of the Existence of God,” HTR 44 (1951): 137–39; idem, Philo’s Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature (Augmented ed.; New York: KTAV, 1971), 30–95; H. Moxnes, Theology in Conflict: Studies in Paul’s Understanding of God in Romans (NovTSup 53; Leiden: Brill, 1980), 117–69; Hansen, Abraham in Galatians, 175–99; and J. S. Siker, Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 17–27, with 202 n. 16 for bibliography.

abraham and the promise of spirit

213

representative for their ethnic aspirations and expressions ( Jubilees 11–12, 20–23). He was the first proselyte and missionary (Gen 15:6; cf. Jub. 11:16–18; 12:1–21; Apoc. Abr. 1–8), an example of perfect obedience observing even the not-yet-written Torah ( Jub. 16:28). Most important, he was the recipient of promise, through which God established the covenant with his people (Gen 12:7; 13:14–17; 15:18–19; 17:1–8). Among Hellenistic-Jewish authors Abraham was one who conformed to Hellenistic standards of distinction: he was a model of virtue and a mystic par excellence.14 Abraham’s virtue and mysticism are prominently on display in a summary statement in Philo’s De virtutibus (§§212–19). In the course of discussing whether noble birth determines a person’s character (§187), Philo points to Abraham, who exemplifies the principle that virtue does not come through birth but is grasped by the mind (noËw): §212 The most ancient member of the Jewish people was a Chaldean by birth, the son of an astrologer, one of those who study the lore of that science, and think that the stars and the whole heaven and cosmos are gods. . . . §214 Perception of these truths [regarding the true God] and divine inspiration induced him to leave his native country, his race and paternal home, knowing that if he stayed the delusions of the polytheistic creed would stay within him and render it impossible for him to discover the One, . . . whereas if he departed, the delusion would also remove from his mind and its false creed be replaced by the truth. §215 At the same time also, the fire of yearning, which possessed him to know To On, was fanned by the divine warnings vouchsafed to him. With these to guide his steps, he went forth never faltering in his ardor to seek for the One, nor did he pause until he received clearer visions, not of His essence, for that is impossible, but of His existence and providence. §216 And, therefore, he is the first said to believe in God, since he is the first to have grasped a firm and unswerving conception that there is one Cause above all, and that it provides for the cosmos and all therein. . . . §217 Indeed, they continued to treat him with a respect which subjects pay to a ruler. . . . For the society also which he sought was not the same as they sought but oftener under inspiration another more august. . . . §219 He is the standard of nobility for all proselytes, who, abandoning the ignobility of strange laws and monstrous customs which assigned divine honors to stocks and stones and soulless things in general, have come to settle in a better land, in a commonwealth full of true life and vitality, with truth as its director and president.15 14 See, e.g., Josephus, Ant. 1.256, where Abraham is called “a man superior in every éretÆ”; Sib. Or. 3.234. 15 All translations of Philo are adapted from Philo of Alexandria (ed. and tr. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and R. Marcus; 10 vols. and 2 suppl.; LCL; London: Heineman; New York: Putnam, 1929–62), unless noted to the contrary.

214

sze-kar wan

Since the intended audience of the passage was clearly Gentiles, this portrait of Abraham might well have served a missionary purpose.16 That seems to be the only way to make sense of the introduction of Abraham as “the most ancient member of the Jewish people” (§212) and the emphasis on Abraham’s conversion (§§214, 216). In connection with Abraham’s conversion three observations can be made. First, Philo freely admits that Abraham was born a Gentile (“a Chaldean”) and was the son of an astrologer (§212). Second, the conversion of Abraham entailed changing his belief system from polytheism to monotheism, from obeisance to the phenomenal and senseperceptible bodies to allegiance to the Prime Cause, from serving the created (“many”) to serving the Uncreated (“the One”) (§§212–13). Third, Abraham, the progenitor of the Jewish people, is identified as “the first said to believe in God” (§216), an obvious dependence on Gen 15:6, §p¤steusen ÉAbråm t“ ye“.17 Vision, Ecstasy, and the Allegorical Interpretation of Abraham Thus far Philo’s portrayal of Abraham is not extraordinary by standards of his day, although it fits the mindset of the apologists rather than that of the rabbis.18 The emphasis on Abraham’s visions and ecstasies, however, is characteristically, if not uniquely, Philonic. According to Virt. 214, Abraham recognized the error of polytheism “when he was divinely inspired” (§piyeiãzein). This set off a spiritual journey that led ultimately to a vision of God. Philo interprets the journey literally in that Abraham did leave Chaldea for Canaan; but he also reads it symbolically, since the journey in his hands quickly becomes a pursuit for the One, a ceaseless endeavor leading to “clearer visions, not of [God’s] essence—for that is impossible— but of his existence and providence” (§215). This progress towards perfection is also noted for a transformation of Abraham the seer. As a philosopher-king, Philo goes on, Abraham searched, “under inspiration” (§piyeiãzein again), for a more august society than the 16 See M. Friedländer, Geschichte der jüdischen Apologetik als Vorgeschichte des Christentums. (Zürich: Schmidt, 1903), 302–10; Knox, “Abraham,” 59; Mayer, “Aspekte,” 119. This question will be discussed in greater detail in “Vision, Ecstasy, and the Gentile Mission,” below. 17 Elsewhere in Virt. 68, 218 Philo uses pisteÊein exclusively to refer to Abraham’s faith in God. 18 Berger, “Abraham,” 373.

abraham and the promise of spirit

215

mundane imitations. As a mystic, he formed a union with the divine that was reflected in a metamorphosed countenance (§217): Whenever he was possessed, everything in him changed to something better, eyes, complexion, stature, carriage, movements, voice. For the Divine Spirit that was breathed upon him from on high made its abode in his soul, and invested his body with singular beauty, his voice with persuasiveness, and his hearers with understanding.

At every step of Abraham’s journey, divine inspiration played such a constitutive role that he earned the title “pneumatic.”19 Philo regularly incorporates Abraham into his allegory of the soul. In Gig. 60–61, Philo suggests that there are three classes of human souls: earth-born, heaven-born, and God-born. The “earth-born” are those who delight in the pleasures of the body; the “heaven-born” are lovers of learning who develop the heavenly element that inhabits the mind; while the “God-born” are the accomplished prophets and priests who have “risen wholly above the sphere of sense-perception and have been translated into the world of the intelligible. . . .” (§61). These categories represent three stages in the soul’s progress towards perfection. Abraham at first typifies the “heaven-born”20 who, while sojourning in Chaldea, searched for God through a study of nature (§62). When he rose to a higher stage, he became “God-born” (§§63–64).21 Philo never calls Abraham “earth-born”; that distinction goes to Nimrod (§§65–66). Nimrod was unable to escape fleshliness, not only because he was wicked but also because he was a deserter who abandoned the quest before it began (§67). “Earth-born” is therefore a category for the spiritual laggard before he is awakened. Corresponding to these three classes of souls are three stages of development on the journey towards perfection—awakening, understanding, vision. In Abr. 70–71, Abraham stands for the “virtue-loving soul” (cf. §68), while “Chaldea” retains its usual association with astrology (cf. §69): 19 D. Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (2d and expanded ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 58, where he also writes, “Pneumatic and prophetic gifts here clearly coincide with missionary skills, not least of all because Abraham shares the prerequisites of the others: the general human condition as well as the initial lack of faith and finally the possibility of conversion.” 20 Philo calls him “man of heaven” in accordance with §§12–15. 21 Or “man of God.” According to Philo this progress from “man of heaven” to “man of God” is evidenced by the change of name from “Abram” (“uplifted father”) to “Abraham” (“the elect father of sound” or “the good man’s reason”).

216

sze-kar wan In this [false] creed Abraham had been reared, and for a long time remained a Chaldean. Then opening the soul’s eye as though after profound sleep and beginning to see the pure beam instead of the deep darkness, he followed the ray and discerned what he had not beheld before, a charioteer and pilot presiding over the world and directing in safety his own work. . . . To establish more firmly in his understanding the sight that had been revealed to him, the Divine Logos follows suite and says to him, “Friend, the great is often known by its outlines as shown in the smaller. By looking at them the observer finds the scope of his vision infinitely enlarged. Therefore, dismiss the rangers of the heavens and the science of Chaldea and depart . . . from the greatest of cities, this world, to the lesser. Then, you will be able to apprehend the Overseer of the All.”

The soul, initially, is awakened from its slumber and is granted a preliminary glimpse of God as the Driving Cause (Plato’s “charioteer”).22 As a second stage of perfection, the “Divine Logos” offers the soul a rational explanation, so that it might come to a deeper understanding of the initial vision. As a third and final stage of perfection, the soul arrives at its destination and achieves a vision of the “Overseer of the All.”23 But the two descriptions of spiritual progress in Virt. 212–19 and Abr. 70–71, in spite of their similarities, are different in hermeneutical assumption and intent. The portrait of Abraham in De virtutibus is cast as a literal interpretation:24 it presents Abraham as the historical progenitor of “the Jewish people.” The interpretation in De Abrahamo, however, is allegorical: “Abraham” is now the soul that must advance in its quest for true vision. Yet these journeys mirror each other, so much so that they seem to transcend the normal distinction between the literal and allegorical. Abraham’s journey becomes the soul’s journey and vice versa. 22 So also Mut. 16. See S. Wan, “Charismatic Exegesis: Philo and Paul Compared,” SPhA 6 (1994): 54–82, p. 57 nn. 16–17. 23 For more detail of the vision in De Abrahamo, see §§107–30, esp. 121–22, and discussion in Wan, “Charismatic Exegesis,” 69–70. 24 On this passage, Sandmel, Philo’s Place in Judaism, 105 n. 10, comments: “The passage is a good example of Philo’s merging of the literal and the allegorical. Abraham leaves Chaldea; Abraham leaves astrology; departure from the literal Chaldea ensures departure from astrology.” In support of Sandmel’s observation is the equation of Chaldea to astrology that is explicitly labeled a “symbolic” interpretation in QG 3.1, and as one “in accordance with the laws of allegory” in Abr. 68–69. But the Chaldea-astrology equation was fixed well before Philo (see, e.g., Jub. 11:8). It is used in Philo to symbolize the type of atheistic philosophy (Stoicism?) that mistakes the created order for God. Note, too, that “Chaldeans” in Abr. 68–69 refers to the historical people of Chaldea.

abraham and the promise of spirit

217

What binds these two interpretations together is the biblical text that describes Abraham’s ecstasy: “about sunset, an ¶kstasiw fell on Abraham and great, terrifying darkness fell upon him” (LXX Gen 15:12). As far as Philo is concerned, the “historical” Abraham went through exactly the same progress of spiritual journey as the soul of every other human being. In Her. 265, Philo treats this text as a description of the soul’s ecstatic experience: “The mind is evicted at the arrival of the Divine Spirit, but when that departs the mind returns to its tenancy. Mortal and immortal may not share the same home” (Her. 265).25 In Virt. 217, Philo probably has the same biblical text in mind when he says, “the Divine Spirit, which was breathed upon [Abraham] from on high, made its lodging in the soul.” This qualifies Abraham, not simply any soul, as prophet and, according to Virt. 219, as “the standard of nobility for all proselytes” (ëpasin §phlÊtaiw26 eÈgene¤aw §st‹ kan≈n). Exactly what kan≈n means here will become clear in due time; for now it is enough to note that Abraham fulfills both the literal and allegorical requirements, because he is not only the first proselyte but also the proto-mystic both typologically and genealogically. Vision, Ecstasy, and the Abrahamic Promise The role ecstasy plays in Philo’s schema becomes clearer when it is considered in the context of his discussion of the Abrahamic covenant and its attendant promise in Her. 314–16, an extended discussion on Gen 15:18. The LXX reads: “On that day the Lord established a covenant with Abraham, saying, ‘To your seed I will give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates.’ ” “Land,” according to Philo, is a symbol for the “Wisdom of God”: What “land” does he mean, [if not] the land whose fruit is the sure and steadfast apprehension of the Wisdom of God? In accordance with it, he separates all things through his Cutters and keeps those that are good untouched by evil . . . (Her. 314).27 25

Cf. also QG 3.9. See below for discussion on §§249–66, esp. §§259–66. That §phlÊthw is a synonym of prosÆlutow is clear from Virt. 102–104, where Philo changes prosÆlutow (Heb., ger) in LXX Lev 19.33–34a twice to §phlÊthw (and also to its cognate §pÆlutow). In the process he alters the Levitical rule of accepting sojourners to a commandment to accept proselytes into Judaism. 27 The text is corrupt, but I have provisionally accepted Colson’s emendation; PLCL 4.444 n. 2; 4.576. 26

218

sze-kar wan

This passage is construed as part of an extensive allegorical interpretation that spans the whole treatise. “Cutters” (tome›w) recalls Her. 130–32, an interpretation of Gen 15:10, die›len aÈtå m°sa (“he divided them [sc. the animals] in the middle”). Philo deviates from the more natural reading of “Abraham” as the subject of die›len, and insists that the unseen subject is “God,” who is invisible. God, by means of his “Logos-Cutter,” severs “the whole succession of things material and immaterial whose natures appear to us to be woven together” (§130). The Logos-Cutter is a principle of reason, according to which the variegated world of differences and multiplicity can be organized (§§133–236).28 At the same time, Logos Cutter is also an agent of divine inspiration, providing the morally upright with prophecy; but the wicked cannot be inspired by God (§259). By em-phasizing the double roles of the Logos-Cutter, Philo assimilates the rational function of Logos into the moral function of Divine Wisdom. In the same passage, Philo adduces the examples of Noah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses—as well as Abraham (§§260–63)—all just men who prophesied after being possessed by Logos. The whole section, §§249–65, in fact, is an extended commentary on Abraham’s ¶kstasiw. But as shown earlier, the principal agent of Her. 265, as well as Virt. 217, is the “Divine Spirit.” “Land,” on the other hand, recalls Philo’s earlier discussion in §§96–99 on Gen 15:7, “I am God who led you out of the land of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit.” This refers to two promises, Philo tells us, one old and one new. The old promise has to do with the departure from Chaldean astrology; the new is the inheritance of Wisdom which cannot be received by sense, but is apprehended by a wholly pure and clear mind. Through this Wisdom the best of all migrations becomes an established fact, the migration of the soul which passes from astrology to real nature study, from insecure conjecture to firm apprehension, and to give it its truest expression, from the created to the uncreated, from the world to its Maker and Father (§98).29

The function of Wisdom in this context corresponds exactly to Abraham’s conversion as described in Virt. 212. This cannot be accidental, for Philo in both treatises wants to show that Abraham is a 28 The discussion of the Logos-Cutter thus occupies almost half of the whole treatise! 29 Cf. also QG. 3 1 on Gen 15:7.

abraham and the promise of spirit

219

“wise man” (sofÒw). The only difference is that the role of apprehending firm knowledge, normally a function of Logos, is here taken over by Divine Wisdom. The conclusion seems inevitable: Logos, Spirit, and Wisdom are all functionally equivalents in Her. 314.30 The juxtaposition of Wisdom and the Logos-Cutter in the identification of “land” is therefore hardly surprising.31 If so, what is promised to Abraham and his descendants, according to this Philonic pattern, is divine Wisdom, the reception of which is the first step leading to perfection. Elsewhere Philo describes this reception in terms of sexual union between Abraham and Sarah, which in allegorical terms is really a union between the mind and Wisdom (Abr. 100–102).32 Vision, Ecstasy, and the Gentile Mission Philo’s mystical Abraham was clearly fashioned with an apologetic purpose, and its natural Sitz im Leben would seem to be the proselytization of Gentiles. By describing the genesis of the Jewish people as coinciding with rejecting star worship and embracing monotheism, as embodied in the conversion of Abraham, the possibility is open to all Gentiles trapped in the same astrological tangle to become acquainted with and, in the language of Gen 15:6, “to believe” in God. By “the Jewish people” (tÚ t«n ÉIouda¤vn ¶ynow, Virt. 212), consequently, Philo refers not simply to his fellow-Jews but to all who 30

This is also the conclusion of D. M. Hay, “Philo’s Treatise on the LogosCutter,” SPhA 2 (1973): 9–22, p. 15, after an analysis of Heres: “Thus the idea of intellectual and moral division permeates the treatise. One only needs to recognize that ‘divine dividing powers’ and ‘divine wisdom’ and ‘divine Logos’ are all essentially equivalent and interchangeable terms to unravel the basic structure of Philo’s thought.” See also E. R. Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935), 158. In a study of the general relationship between Wisdom and Logos in Philo, Burton Mack similarly concludes that these two figures are assimilated into each other in Philo; B. L. Mack, Logos und Sophia: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie im hellenistischen Judentum (SUNT 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 20, 133–34. But see the cautionary note by T. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1980), 140–42 and 140 n. 7. 31 See Mack, Logos und Sophia, 118–19, for discussion of the merging of the mythological and Jewish Wisdom-speculation reflected in this identification. Hay, “LogosCutter,” 19–20, has also shown that the “Logos-Cutter” in Heres functions as an agent of creation as well as redemption; the notion appears to have originated with Philo, and he crafted it partly by utilizing popular ideas of Hermes, Isis, and Osiris as personifications of Wisdom. 32 See discussion in Goodenough, Light, 139–40.

220

sze-kar wan

hold the right belief of God regardless of ethnicity.33 Gentiles can become “Jewish” by means of adherence to monotheism. As Dieter Georgi concludes: “It remains clear that Abraham is meant to present a possibility which is also offered to others, since it is in general the true possibility of human existence. . . . Abraham shows to those who want to see it, to those who are ready to follow his path, the enormous possibilities of human existence.”34 This is almost required by the logic of Philo’s argument in De virtutibus: nobility has to do with perfection through the mind and not with birthright. To call the Philonic variation “law-free” Judaism would be a mistake. At the end of our passage in De virtutibus, the perfected Abraham is called “a kan≈n of nobility for all proselytes.” This is set in contrast to “strange laws and monstrous customs” (éllÒkotoi nÒmoi ka‹ ¶kyesma ¶yh, §219). In the same treatise, the paradigmatic and archetypal Moses is called a “kan≈n ka‹ nÒmow” to all future rulers (§70). At this point, kanwvn dovetails with ¶mcuxow nÒmow (“ensouled law”), the better-known designation of Abraham and the patriarchs (Abr. 5). This latter term is usually taken to imply an embodiment of the law, as if Philo were only concerned with demonstrating how Abraham could have obeyed the law before it was written down. That is doubtlessly Philo’s understanding, since he goes on to tell us that “the enacted laws are nothing more than memorials or commentaries (ÍpomnÆmata) of the life of the ancients” (§5).35 But Philo’s intention is not merely defensive; he is also concerned with lifting Abraham up as an ideal type of the virtue-loving soul, that by following the path established by Abraham could achieve perfection. Thus Philo can conclude De Abrahamo by saying that Abraham is not so much “lawful” (nÒmimow) as “he himself is a law and an unwritten statute (yesmÚw êgrafow)” (§276). Properly understood, that is to say allegorized, Abraham is the law. Thus, following the law means the reception of the Wisdom of God that was promised to Abraham and his 33 Friedländer, Apologetik, 302–10; and Georgi, Opponents, 56, come to the same conclusion though via a different route. 34 Georgi, Opponents, 58–59. 35 That ¶mcuxow nÒmow is intimately related to the notion of nÒmow fÊsevw in Philo is conclusively demonstrated in H. Koester, “NOMOS FUSEVS: The Concept of Natural Law in Greek Thought,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (ed. J. Neusner; SHR 14; Leiden: Brill, 1968), 521–41. One of the factors that motivated Philo to develop more fully the notion of nÒmow fÊsevw is his concern to show that Abraham and the other patriarchs conducted their lives in accordance with the law of nature.

abraham and the promise of spirit

221

descendants. And his descendants, as established earlier, are none other than those willing to follow the path of progress opened up by Abraham, regardless of ethnicity.36 Sandmel has argued that Philo knew nothing of the missionary Abraham whom Rabbinic Judaism later championed; instead, he insisted that Philo only presented Abraham as a significant convert.37 Sandmel might be drawing too sharp a distinction between convert and missionary, however, since the Philonic Abraham, as the protoproselyte, could have been easily used in a missionary context. Once Abraham became the kanwvn for all proselytes and an agent of change for all those around him, it was but a small step to make him the central topic in a Gentile mission.38 Philo’s Abraham might not have been an active missionary, but his interpreters most definitely were. Philo’s was only one among many portraits of Abraham in firstcentury Judaism. This can be documented by the different attitudes towards Abraham’s association with astrology. Philo nowhere mentions Abraham as an astrologer, only that he had been trapped in the erroneous doctrine of Chaldea before his new perception of monotheism. This should not surprise us given Philo’s concern to present Abraham as a convert from error to truth. But set within the first-century debate, Philo’s position was a mediating one. On one side were the Hellenists who presented Abraham as the protoastrologer. In Ps.-Eupolemus frag. 1 [= Euseb., PE 9.17.3, 8, 9], it is said that Abraham’s knowledge of astrology was so prodigious that he taught the Egyptian priests the same art while sojourning there. On the other side were those who categorically denied that Abraham or any of his descendants ever practiced astrology. In Sibylline Oracles Book 3 the author explicitly rejects “the astrological predictions of the Chaldean” and “astronomy” (lines 227–28).39 Likewise according to Jub. 12:16–17, 36 Abraham is presented as a mystagogue in the Testament of Orpheus (tr. M. LaFargue, OTP 2:795–801). In lines 26–28, OTP 2:799, Abraham is introduced as “a certain unique man, an offshoot from far back of the race of the Chaldeans. For he was knowledgeable about the path of the Star, and how the movement of the Sphere goes around the earth.” He is a supernatural being, a heavenly man, who sits on a golden throne and communicates God’s revelation to human beings (lines 32–41, OTP 2:800). See discussion in Georgi, Opponents, 54–56; Knox, “Abraham,” 56. 37 Sandmel, Philo’s Place in Judaism, 109 n. 9, 200. 38 Georgi, Opponents, 49–60, partially dependent on Knox, “Abraham,” 55–60. 39 Tr. J. J. Collins, OTP 1:317–472, p. 367.

222

sze-kar wan . . . Abram sat up during the night on the first of the seventh month, so that he might observe the stars from evening until daybreak. . . . And he was sitting alone and making observations; and a word came to his heart, saying, “All of the signs of the stars and the signs of the sun and the moon are all in the hand of the Lord. Why am I seeking?”40

This episode takes place in the narrative immediately after Abraham rejected Chaldean idols (11:16–12:14). As part of this wholesale rejection, Abraham is said to have given up on astrological observation as a means to knowledge of the true God. Jubilee’s Abraham is a law-abiding patriarch. He faithfully obeys the “law of circumcision” (15:23–24), attends to God’s commandment and promulgates it to future generations (15:25–32); he even anticipates the future abandonment of the law (15:33–34). Philo’s Abraham stands mid-way between these two extremes. He does not reject the studies of stars and other heavenly bodies. Abraham’s discovery of God in Virt. 214 is a result of “grasping the notion” (¶nnoian lab≈n) of the true God41 and of “being divinely inspired” (§piyeiãsaw). This double description might well reflect a typical Hellenistic-Jewish view: true knowledge of God comes as a result of astrological observations accompanied by revelatory knowledge. Likewise in Her. 280–82, Philo reports the opinions of two groups of interpreters: those who would take Abraham’s “fathers” of Gen 15:15 to be not his biological ancestors in Chaldea but “the sun, moon, and other stars” (§280) and those who would take it to mean “the first four principles and powers, earth, water, air, fire” (§§281–82). Philo does not repudiate either view but adds a third opinion, “the principle of the ancients” (ı t«n érxa¤vn lÒgow), which holds that a fifth principle or element, “moving in a circle, differing by its superior quality from the four, out of which they thought the stars and whole of heaven had been made and deduced as a natural consequence that the human soul also was a fragment thereof ” (§283). In spite of the high premium he places on revelation, nature study does have a place in Philo’s scheme, so long as it leads eventually to the soul’s contemplation of the true God.

40 Tr. O. S. Wintermute, OTP 2:35–142, p. 81; emphasis added. Cf. Knox, “Abraham,” 57. 41 The phrase ¶nnoian labe›n has been well established as the perception by the noËw since Plato: of tÚ ˆn, Phb. 59d; of an idea, as opposed to a‡syhsin labe›n, Phaedo 73c. Philo himself uses it in this sense in Leg. all. 1.37; 2.32, etc.

abraham and the promise of spirit

223

Paul and Philo on Abraham This presentation of Philo’s Abraham is admittedly selective, but it has sufficiently documented a mystical interpretation of Abraham in Hellenistic Judaism that might shed light on the Galatian controversy. The composite picture of Abraham that emerges from Philo’s writings is that of a mystic. Nature study leads him to abandon the astrology of his pagan upbringing and to conversion to monotheism. He thus becomes the first convert. This initial stirring in turn spurs him on to a higher and clearer vision of God. Divine intervention— either mediated through the divine agents, “Logos,” “Wisdom,” “Spirit,” or described in terms of inspiration, possession, or transformation—is an irreducible part of his spiritual progress towards perfection. Through an ecstatic experience he receives the promise that God will impart to him and his descendants divine Wisdom. How was the figure of Abraham used in an apologetic or missionary context? Philo used the mysticism of Abraham to redefine “the Jewish people” as those who would convert to monotheism. The law in this connection is differentiated at two levels: the unwritten law “ensouled” in the lives of the patriarchs, and the written commentaries. While Philo does not discard the second, his preference is clearly with the first: although Philo maintains the necessity of the written law, for him the more superior way of fulfilling the law is by means of acquiring virtue through union with divine Wisdom, as promised in God’s covenant with Abraham. Paul’s Abraham in Gal 3:1–14, sketchy as it is, contains several points of contact with Philo’s. It takes its starting point from Gen 15:6 (Gal 3:6). Though Paul makes no mention of Abraham’s conversion from paganism, he does place the discussion in the context of the Galatians’ conversion experience (3:1), which revolves around receiving the Spirit and witnessing its miraculous manifestations (3:2, 5). The Galatians themselves are said to have turned away from the worship of false gods (4:9) and from astrological bodies (stoixe›a, 4:3, 9).42 Abraham, on the other hand, is said to have been “preevangelized” (proeuaggel¤zesyai, 3:8). The term does not describe Abraham’s conversion, but the content of the promise—that “all the

42 The exegetical problems surrounding stoixe›a are legion and will not be entertained here, but “astrological elements” remains one of the best translations.

224

sze-kar wan

Gentiles will be blessed in you” (Gen 12:3; 18:18)—is related to the Galatians’ reception of blessing through Abraham. These two portraits of Abraham are of course painted on entirely different canvasses. Philo’s schema is based on the Hellenistic model of contemplation; Paul’s is eschatological.43 It is illegitimate to equate simplistically and haphazardly Philo’s “Wisdom of God” to Paul’s “Spirit,” as if they were just different titles for the same figure. They assume altogether different roles in their respective schemata. The worthwhile point of comparison is how the promise of Abraham functions in both as a vital link between the patriarch and his descendants. As the content of God’s promise to Abraham and his descendants and as the energizer of lived experience in the here-and-now, this crucial link—Wisdom of God in Philo and Spirit in Paul—creates a homology between the life of Abraham and that of the believer. Not the content but the manner in which Philo and Paul appropriated Abraham is what unites the two Hellenistic-Jewish writers. If this hypothesis is correct, there might have been a great deal more contact between Paul and Hellenistic-Jewish mysticism than hitherto assumed.

43

Though recent discussions ought to warn us against too strict a distinction between Pauline eschatology and mysticism; see, e.g., A. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 34–58; Wan, “Charismatic Exegesis,” 55 n. 11.

EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

ABRAHAM’S REFUTATION OF ASTROLOGY: AN EXCERPT FROM PSEUDO-CLEMENT IN THE CHRONICON OF GEORGE THE MONK William Adler North Carolina State University

Part of the Chronicon of George the Monk, a popularly known Byzantine chronicle of the ninth century, consists of biographical sketches of the life and times of biblical patriarchs and heroes. One of George’s most developed accounts concerns Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt and his dealings with the astrologers of Egypt. Purportedly on the authority of Clement of Rome, George recalls how, in the court of the Egyptian pharaoh Abimelech (sic), Abraham demonstrated that astrology is a counterfeit science, and that, even worse, its underlying assumptions represent an implicit challenge to the authority of the pharaoh himself. By routing the astrologers in debate, Abraham wins the favor of the pharaoh, at the same time gaining many Egyptian converts to the cause of true belief in the one God.1 Although George credits “Clement of Rome, a genuine disciple of Peter” as his source, only one portion of the story is independently attested in a work associated with Clement of Rome. Abraham’s final discourse, a polemic against Greek (sic) culture, is virtually identical to an oration found in the fourth homily of the pseudo-Clementine Homilies. The Homilies, however, provide a different, and much more suitable, setting for the speech. Here it is delivered by Clement himself during a debate about Greek learning with the grammarian Apion, the infamous enemy of the Jews.2 Extracts and digests of George’s account of Abraham’s dealings with the Egyptian astrologers appear later in the Suda lexicon, and in the chronicles of George Cedrenus and Michael Glycas (twelfth 1 George Monachus, Chronicon 1.95.4–100.9 (ed. C. de Boor and P. Wirth; 2 vols.; 2d ed.; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1978). For a brief description of George’s chronicle, see H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 12.5; Beck: Munich, 1978), 1:347–49. 2 Ps.-Clement, Homilies 4.11.1–13.2 (ed. B. Rehm and G. Strecker; 3d ed.; GCS 42; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1992–94).

228

william adler

century).3 The story also is cited in a celebrated debate between Glycas and the Byzantine emperor Manuel Comnenus I.4 As a tribute to a scholar who has contributed so much to our appreciation of the rich tradition about biblical figures “outside of the Bible,” I offer here a translation of the relevant section from George’s chronicle, along with an analysis of its composition, purpose and significance.

George the Monk, Chronicon 95.4–100.10 (ed. de Boor and Wirth) Concerning him [Abraham], moreover, Clement of Rome, an extremely wise and genuine disciple of the great Peter, said the following: When a famine arose, Abraham left the land of the Canaanites and went away to Egypt; there Abimelech the king took his wife Sarah by force. After God immediately put him to the test and absolutely terrified him once he afflicted him with paralysis of his limbs, God said to him, “Return this wife to the man, because he is a prophet and will offer prayers for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, know that you and everything that belongs to you will die.”5 And Abraham thus received Sarah back undefiled. When he offered up a prayer on his behalf, Abimelech was cured of his paralysis and the members of his household were cured of this affliction from God. Whereupon the king, revering him thereafter as a righteous man and servant of God, gave heed to his words; and he [Abraham] became a teacher of piety and vast knowledge to the Egyptians. For Abraham was the first man, as Josephus says, to proclaim God as the creator, and when he came down to Egypt was the first to teach the Egyptians arithmetic and astronomy.6 When he had thus earned their affection and absolute admiration, the king saw fit to be instructed by him in the subjects of astrology and magic, seeing that he was both extremely knowledgeable and a Chaldean. (For astrology and magic originated from the Magousaioi, that is the Persians. In fact, the Persians are called “Magog” by the local residents.) So when the astrologers and magicians were assembled, the king took his seat, together with Abraham and his acquaintances. And once there was silence, Abraham said, “I would like to learn from you sages whether nativity7 and magic are in your opinion able to harm or benefit anyone.” In response to which an Egyptian astrologer and magician said, “Teacher,

3 4 5 6 7

See below, p. 235. See below, pp. 239–41. Gen 20:7. Cf. Jos. Ant. 1.155, 167–68. That is, one’s horoscope at the time of birth.

abraham’s refutation of astrology

229

you have provided us with an excellent opportunity to take up questions that are both great and pressing. And it is fitting to keep hidden from you none of our secret doctrines. We know that all men are subject to nativity and fate. For it is impossible for a man to be killed or die contrary to his nativity.” And Abraham said. “You have been quite mistaken in saying this, unaware that you were speaking in the presence of a judge and king, who exercises authority over men.” Irate, the king said to the astrologer, “So now suppose I summon one of my subjects; and after performing an investigation for us, you say that he has or does not have time left to live. If I cause it to turn out the opposite way, have you then not clearly exposed yourself as a liar? For if you say that he still has time to live, I will immediately order him to be killed. Whereas if you say that he had no time remaining except for the present moment, I will release him from the judgment against him. But as for you, I will at once expunge you from life for being a liar—this, so that henceforth your death might straightaway convince everyone that this make-believe of yours about astrology and your other nonsense has not even a suggestion of truth.” When the king had spoken these words, the Egyptian became shaken and fell prostrate, beseeching him for mercy, both he and those who were of like mind with him. And the king showed favor to Abraham for being his teacher and by use of his wits bringing this deceit clearly to light; and he acquiesced when he pleaded with him on behalf of these babblers, while further ridiculing their irrational belief as being feeble and misleading the people. Indeed, at the suggestion of Abraham he ordered that a certain man who had been previously condemned be burnt in the fire. And he commanded that his nativity and his death be thoroughly researched, and that once they had conducted the investigation they tell him how he would die. After doing the research conscientiously and at length, they said, “He will die by burning, since his nativity establishes it and declares this clearly—but not now, for he still has time left to live. And the time of his death has not yet arrived.” And the king said, “Tomorrow I will release this man from the sentence of death by fire and order that he be executed by water, thereby making it clear to you by my action that something can happen against nativity.” And in this way he refuted very ably their prediction concerning the length of his life and their sentence of death. When everyone became silent, Abraham began to speak, “Most great king and most devoted lover of truth, since I see that you are reflecting deeply on the question at hand, I will briefly offer you something truer, since as a servant of that which is really true, I speak the complete truth.” The king said, “In doing this, you will perform a great service for me.” Abraham then said, “Not only men, but dumb animals are also subject to nativity. Human beings, however, possess something in themselves that is free and not subject to nativity, inasmuch as it has precedence over nativity—and that is thinking and free will, which is something given to us from God. For that reason, since we are stronger

william adler

230

than dumb animals, we are also endowed with the power to kill them; likewise, just as we have power over them, you are stronger than we are, since you have the power over us. Therefore, since we, being superior to the irrational animals based on our superior reasoning power, rule over them, in the same way you, my King, being stronger than we are, have power over us in accordance with the definition of rule.8 So then, even as there is not a man who is stronger than you, God, the invisible one, is both creator and master of everything, from whom it is fitting to ask for what is proper.” Now when Abraham had said many things like this on the subject of astrology and found favor with the king, he attracted many of the Egyptians to devotion to God; and with the following words, he set right their flawed knowledge and learning in astronomy, astrology and magic: 9 “There is a great difference, sirs, between truth and custom. For whereas truth is completely discovered when it is honestly sought, custom, howsoever it is received, whether true or false, is strengthened by itself without the exercise of judgment. And the one who received it is neither pleased with it when it is true nor is grieved with it when it is false. For this person has believed not by judgment, but by preconception, surrendering his own hope to the opinion of those before him on a vague chance. And it is not easy to shed the ancestral garment, even though it is well shown to him to be folly and laughable.” “To begin with, therefore, I say that the learning among the Greeks, and their babbling, is a most grievous fabrication of a wicked demon. For some of them have introduced many gods, and these are evil and subject to all kinds of passions, so that the one who wants to do similar things does not feel shame, which is characteristic of man; for he has as an example the most wicked and ignoble lives of the gods described in myth. And by not being ashamed, such a person exhibits no hope of repentance. And others have fashioned fate, another error, the so-called nativity, without which they make the fanciful argument that no one is able to experience or do anything, and they fall into the same error and impiety. For anyone who believes that no one has the power to do or experience anything contrary to nativity or fate, easily then falls, like a wild beast, into sinning, and having sinned is not at all repentant for the impious acts he has committed, putting forth a groundless justification that he was forced to do these things by nativity. And since he is not otherwise able to rectify his nativity, he does not have shame for the sins he has committed. And others introduce an unforeseeing and godless destiny, as if everything happens and moves of its own accord, with no superintending Lord and

Greek: Àw oÔn ≤me›w katå tÚ logik≈teron t«n élÒgvn z≈vn éme¤nouw ˆntew êrxomen. oÏtvw ≤m«n sÊ basileË, kre¤ttvn Ípãrxvn katå tÚn t∞w érx∞w lÒgon tØn §jous¤an ¶xeiw. It is difficult to render the many plays on the words érxÆ and lÒgow into English. 8

9

Cf. Hom. 4.11.1–13.2.

abraham’s refutation of astrology

231

master. Therefore those who think such things are not easily or quickly or at all improved or chastened.” The king praised him effusively for these words. And seeing him admired by all, in the presence of everyone he honored him with gifts both numerous and great, and acknowledged the benefit of his teaching. As Abraham was eager to return home, the king sent him forth with servants and maidservants, astonished at his high level of intelligence, his wisdom, and his devotion to God in all the subjects on which he expounded.

Commentary George’s story of Abraham’s triumphs in Egypt enlarges upon two images of Abraham, both well-attested in Jewish and Christian tradition: 1) Abraham the culture-hero and teacher of the Egyptians; and 2) Abraham the astrologer (or astronomer), who discovers the one true God through observation of the orderly motion of the stars. This latter theme is developed in a recitation of world history by the apostle Peter found in the first book of the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions. There Peter recalls how Abraham, through contemplation of the stars, first came to an understanding of the one true God: “Since he was an astrologer, Abraham was able to recognize the creator from the account and order of the stars, while all others were in error, and he understood that all things are regulated by his providence.”10 Abraham’s discourses to the pharaoh and his court about the errors of nativity expand on this same theme. In response to the astrologer’s claim that the course of human existence is prescribed by the stars at birth, Abraham demonstrates that the stars are not autonomous agents, but operate only according to the authority and direction of the God who created them. Later in the Chronicon George cites quite extensively from the pseudo-Clementine Homilies.11 Conceivably, then, this story may also have at some point constituted part of the pseudo-Clementine literature

10 Ps.-Clement, Recognitions 1.32 (ed. B. Rehm and F. Paschke; 2d ed.; GCS 51; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1965). 11 For George’s use of the pseudo-Clementines elsewhere in his Chronicon, see, for example, 366.13–367.19 (= Hom. 3.38–39); 367.20–26 (= Hom. 3.42.4–5); 369.2–11 (= Hom. 3.42.7–43.1); 369.11–370.5 (= Hom. 3.43.4–44.2); 370.13–371.9 (= Hom. 55.3–57). For other Clementine material, see also 371.10–12; 371.18–372.7; 372.12–373.3.

232

william adler

known to Byzantine chroniclers. In any case, it does preserve the novelistic flavor of the pseudo-Clementines. Like many protagonists in Jewish and Christian historical romances, Abraham is the biblical hero who ascends to fame in a foreign land, and then must face some challenge. Summoned by the Egyptian king to provide instruction in the Chaldean sciences, he is soon embroiled in a dispute with the court astrologers about the question of nativity. Like portions of the pseudo-Clementines, the narrative consists of persuasive orations, punctuated by brief descriptions of some dramatic action. Since the debate is conducted for the edification of the Egyptian king, defeating his opponent involves more than the repudiation of his doctrines. Abraham must also earn the approval of the king, at the same time turning the king against the astrologers in his court. Ultimately, it is the king himself, not Abraham, who refutes the astrologer’s claims about nativity. To ensure this outcome, Abraham convicts the astrologer by his own words. By denying everyone, even a ruler and a judge, the power to reverse the pre-ordained verdict of the stars, the astrologer provokes his patron by unwittingly challenging the king’s authority. Completely disgraced, the defeated astrologer falls down in fear when the king threatens to make an example of him for others. He escapes death only when Abraham intercedes on his behalf. Abraham, on the other hand, is a beneficiary of the king’s largesse. After each speech, there is a reference to the king bestowing his favor on Abraham, acknowledging his genius, and showering him with gifts. As an added dividend, many Egyptians are converted to belief in the one God (97.6–9; 98.18–20; 100.2–9). It is notable that, although Abraham’s discourses chiefly treat the errors of astrology, he is initially pitted against both astrologers and magicians in the court of the Egyptian king. Upon his arrival in Egypt, Abraham is invited by the king to instruct him in “astrology and magic” (96.2). The question that Abraham first poses to an audience consisting of both astrologers and magicians is whether “nativity and magic” are able to hurt or benefit anyone (96.6, 9). The Egyptian sage who answers this question is described as an “astrologer and magician” (96.11). And at the conclusion of his first discussion on the erroneous assumptions of astral determinism, Abraham is said to have corrected the false learning of the Egyptians “concerning astronomy, astrology and magic” (98.21). This raises the possibility that George’s story may have been excerpted from a longer work treating Abraham’s triumphs in debates with the astrologers and magicians of Egypt.

abraham’s refutation of astrology

233

The story in its present form seems to have been pieced together from several smaller units. The erroneous identification of Abimelech, king of Gerar, with the king of Egypt may have arisen at least in part from close similarities in Genesis’ account of the pharaoh’s and Abimelech’s attraction to Sarah (cf. Gen 12:10–20; 20:1–7).12 In any case, the section about Abimelech’s designs on Sarah and his subsequent punishment by God does not fit at all well into the narrative. The remaining portion of the story never again refers to the Egyptian king as Abimelech. Moreover, the explanation it provides for Abraham’s rise to fame in Egypt is incompatible with the explanation that follows. Abraham is said to have become a “teacher of piety and much learning to the Egyptians” as soon as Abimelech and his household realized that he was a prophet and that his intercessory prayers had delivered them from plagues sent by God. But in the next section, the story suggests, on the authority of Josephus, that the Egyptians came to admire Abraham once they became aware of his great learning in arithmetic and astronomy. The attributions to Josephus originate in two separate passages in the Antiquities (1.155, 167). The connection between the two passages is implicit in Josephus’ account of Abraham’s discovery of the oneness of God. According to the Antiquities, Abraham inferred the existence of the oneness of the creator God “from the course of the sun and moon and from all the celestial phenomena.” What he concluded from these observations—and what ultimately led to his falling out with the Chaldeans—was that the stars and anything else that contribute to man’s welfare do so not by their own inherent power, but through the guidance of the God who created them.13 “Clement” must have assumed, therefore, that when Abraham introduced the Egyptians to astronomy, his discovery that celestial objects are neither sentient nor autonomous beings was at the heart of his teachings to them. Indeed, in Abraham’s subsequent discourses on astrology, this is the gravamen of his indictment of astrologers. Their teachings about “nativity,” Abraham argues, falsely assign to the stars an authority independent of the God who created them.

12

Like George, later versions of the story also identify Abimelech, king of Gerar, as the king of Egypt. The copyist of ms. P, however, evidently aware of the error, emended “Abimelech” to “pharaoh” (96.7, 14; see de Boor’s notes ad loc.). 13 Jos. Ant. 1.155–57.

234

william adler

After Abraham’s rise to fame in Egypt, the king asks to be enlightened by him about astrology and magic; this is because the king recognized him as a Chaldean knowledgeable in such matters.14 But the statement that there were in his court astrologers and magicians in possession of secret doctrines implies that the Egyptians already were deeply familiar with this subject. The unresolved tension in the narrative flows from two conflicting aims. Following Josephus’ account, the story depicts Abraham as a culture-hero, the first one to introduce Chaldean science to the Egyptians. But in order to heighten the drama of a public dispute about astrology in the Egyptian court, the narrative required adversaries up to the task of engaging Abraham in debate. The second of Abraham’s speeches against astrology has been rather artlessly incorporated from a discourse by Clement against Greek culture, found in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies. In its original setting in the Homilies, Clement delivered this oration in reply to Apion’s demand that he justify his embrace of Judaism and his abandonment of Greek culture and customs. Greek learning, Clement claims, is a mass of unexamined doctrines, the effect of which is to promote irresponsible moral conduct. As an illustration, he cites the example of astral determinism. Since this doctrine teaches that no one “has the power to do or experience anything contrary to nativity or fate,” it becomes a perfect alibi for unrepentant sinners.15 Presumably, this was the reason why the speech found its way into George’s story. But the fit is less than ideal. At the outset of the previous speech, Abraham promises to reveal to the emperor further truths about astrology. After doing so, he succeeds in delighting the emperor and bringing many Egyptians to true belief. The somewhat irrelevant critique of Greek culture tacked on to this story of Abraham’s triumph over the astrologers is thus anti-climactic. Nor has the editor done a creditable job of integrating it into the narrative. Copied reflexively from Clement’s speech in the Homilies, it preserves a reference to “Greek learning (tØn parÉ ÑEllÆnvn paide¤an),” wholly anachronistic in the mouth of Abraham.16 The actual con14 The parenthetical remark about the origin of astrology and magic from the “Magousaioi” (96.3–5), virtually identical to a statement on the same subject made earlier (11.9–11), is probably a gloss by George himself. 15 Hom. 4.12.4. 16 George Mon. 99.9. But cf. 98.22, where Clement’s address (Hom. 4.11.1) to “the men of Greece (Œ êndrew ÜEllhnew)” has been changed simply to Œ êndrew. In the later version of the oration known to George Cedrenus (1.55.10–56.8), anachronistic references to Greek learning have been removed.

abraham’s refutation of astrology

235

tents of the speech belie its initial characterization as Abraham’s refutation of “astronomy, astrology and magic.” What we find instead are indictments of atheists and those who reject divine providence, subjects largely irrelevant in the context of Abraham’s critique of astral determinism. Even the criticisms of astrology are unrelated to those expounded previously. In the previous part of the story, Abraham’s case is essentially based on the a fortiori argument that if the pharaoh, a ruler of men, has the power to overturn nativity, then God, the creator of the universe, has even greater authority to do so. But in this speech, he puts forth an entirely different argument: namely that by relieving the wrongdoer of any sense of shame over his actions, a belief in nativity produces moral decline. The later versions of the story known to the Suda, George Cedrenus, and Michael Glycas are mainly derivative of George’s account. The Suda’s entry on Abraham includes the section recounting Abraham’s dealings with Abimelech.17 Cedrenus characteristically replaces narrative and speeches with shorter summaries, in one place substituting material from another source.18 In Glycas’ chronicle, a brief summary of the story is prefaced with a longer narrative (also excerpted from George’s chronicle) describing Abraham’s estrangement from astrology.19 It may be of some significance that only George explicitly attributes the story to Clement of Rome.

17 Suda, Lexicon 1.10.36–11.7, s.v. ÉAbraãm (ed. A. Adler; 5 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1928–35) (cf. George Mon. 95.6–17). 18 George Cedrenus, Compendium historiarum 1.53.19–56.8 (ed. I. Bekker; 2 vols.; CSHB; Bonn: Weber; 1838–39). At 1.56.3–4 (cf. George Mon. 81.16–20), Cedrenus has imported material from another source. 19 See Annales 246.7–23: “Josephus thus says about Abraham that when he came down to Egypt he favored them with arithmetic and taught them about astronomy. For before the arrival of Abraham there, the Egyptians were ignorant of these things. From the Chaldeans, then, this learning came down to Egypt, and from there to the Greeks. George also says the following about this (cf. George Mon. 93.16–94.18): When Abraham was 14 years old he began to receive knowledge of God, and was the first to proclaim God as creator. For seeing the sky at one time illuminated and at another time darkened, he said to himself, “Even though others worship it, it is not god.” He spoke in like manner about the sun, the moon, and the other stars. For he was a highly accomplished astronomer. After which, God saw this man and called him. But at the time of Abimelech, he says (fhs‹) that he (Abraham) came down to Egypt because of the famine, and at that time put to shame the wise men and those who extol Fate. For after he received knowledge of God, he no longer wanted to turn his mind to the stars.”

236

william adler Abraham and the Problem of Astrology in Byzantium

George’s story about Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt and his discourses on the errors of astrology constitutes only one segment of a large body of traditions available to him and other Byzantine chroniclers about the contributions of biblical figures to the celestial sciences. Creating order and continuity from competing and even contradictory traditions was only one of the challenges facing the compilers of this material.20 The other was establishing what these traditions might reveal about the legitimacy of astrology and related occult sciences—an often controversial and polarizing issue in Byzantium.21 The figure of Abraham was bound to be the target of much of this discussion because of his connection, firmly entrenched in the tradition, with contemplation of the heavens. When the chronicler Michael Glycas reviewed what he had learned from these ancient traditions, he was convinced that it offered no warrant for the practice. Granted, he says, Abraham might once have been a Chaldean, but he renounced their learning once the oneness of God the creator was revealed to him.22 There is a vast difference, he writes elsewhere, between the two branches of the celestial sciences, astronomy and astrology. By foolishly ascribing the administration of human affairs to nativity and fate, astrology, an invention of the Chaldeans, ignores the God who created the stars and everything else in the universe. Recognizing its capacity to beguile the masses by diverting their minds from the creator to his creations, the fathers of the Church wisely prohibited its practice.23 Nor does 20

George’s own account of the origins and transmission of this learning credits Seth with having discovered the “signs of the sky, and the yearly seasons and the months and the weeks, and he conferred names on the stars and the five planets so that they might be recognized by men and for this reason alone” (10.5–9; see also 44.4–6). The words “for this reason alone (ka‹ mÒnon)” were probably George’s way of making it clear that Seth’s discoveries had nothing to do with astrology. After the flood, Kainan, son of Arphaxad, recorded the science of astronomy, when he discovered the naming of the stars by Seth and his descendants recorded on a stone tablet (10.12–24; cf. Jub. 8.1–4; Jos. Ant. 1.69–71). Astrology and astronomy were subsequently passed on to the Babylonians and Persians by Nimrod, who was also a teacher of magic and hunting. It was from the Persians that the Greeks learned about astrology and the casting of nativities (11.1–11). 21 See H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 2.232–36; 241–44. 22 See below, pp. 240–41. 23 In S. Eustratiades, ed. Efiw tåw épor¤aw t∞w ye¤aw graf∞w kefãlaia, 1.469.7–475.15 (2 vols.; Athens: Sakellariou, 1906–1912). The letter, addressed to Kyr Alypios, bears

abraham’s refutation of astrology

237

it share anything in common with astronomy, a respectable and pious science sanctioned by the church fathers. In its teachings about the placement and orderly motion of the stars, astronomy draws the mind from the creation to the creator and his wisdom and ineffable majesty. That kind of science, and not astrology, originated in a divine revelation: “We have heard from an ancient history (§k palaiçw . . . flstor¤aw),” Glycas writes, “that the angel stationed among the stars, namely the divine Uriel, descended to Seth and Enoch and thereupon showed to them the turning of the seasons and the signs of the stars.”24 Glycas, a self-avowed opponent of astrology, had his own reasons for drawing a tight distinction between it and astronomy.25 But doing so meant imposing this system on older sources that were not nearly as scrupulous as Glycas might have preferred. In the culturally competitive environment of the Hellenistic world, there was simply too much prestige to be won from casting Seth, Enoch and Abraham as active participants in the discovery and transmission of Chaldean knowledge about the heavens. Upon his arrival in Egypt, Artapanus writes, Abraham taught the pharaoh astrology.26 Pseudo-Eupolemus credits Enoch with having anticipated the Chaldeans in discovering astrology; from him it was passed on to the Chaldeans, including Abraham,

the superscription: “Whether it is necessary to consider the celestial sciences as entirely to be avoided.” 24 Eustratiades, 1.468.2.9–13. Glycas does not reveal where he learned about this “ancient history.” But a reference to the same tradition about Seth and Enoch in his chronicle suggests that he learned about it through an intermediary. See his Annales 228.6–13: “It is said that the an angel positioned among the stars, namely the most divine Uriel, when he came down to Seth and Enoch taught them to distinguish between the hours, months, seasons, and years. According to George, Seth first discovered Hebrew letters and the signs of the heaven and the seasons of the years and conferred names on the stars and the five planets so that they could be identified.” The “George” referred to here is probably George the Monk (see George Mon. 10.5–9). On Uriel’s revelation to Enoch, see also George Syncellus (citing the Book of Enoch), Ecloga Chronographica 34.16–19 (ed. A. A. Mosshammer; Leipzig: Teubner, 1984). 25 If scholars are correct in identifying him with the notorious sorcerer Michael Sikidites, Glycas himself may have dabbled in the occult earlier in his career; on this, see P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 380. At the very least, the subject interested him deeply. A large part of his chronicle consists of a commentary on the Hexaemeron, much of which seeks to distinguish between the legitimate and illegitimate purposes of the celestial sciences; see, for example, Annales 47.15–55.21. 26 In Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.18.1 (420a).

238

william adler

the latter of whom then introduced this discovery to the Egyptians.27 Even the reports by Josephus and the pseudo-Clementines about Abraham’s falling out with the Chaldeans did not amount to a complete renunciation of their teachings. Whatever misgivings Abraham might have entertained about Chaldean learning after his discovery of the one true God did not deter him from teaching it to the Egyptians.28 As Josephus makes clear, Abraham’s dispute with the Chaldeans was not over the objective benefits that stargazing could offer human existence. It had to do rather with his discovery that the stars render these benefits not “in virtue of their own authority (§jous¤an), but through the might of their commanding sovereign, to whom alone it is right to render our homage and thanksgiving.”29 That ambiguity left the door open for defenders of astrology to conclude that Abraham had not abandoned astrology entirely, just the kind that treated the stars as autonomous and sentient agents. Indeed, if Abraham came to an understanding of the creator of the universe through contemplation of the stars, then the acceptable form of astrology might offer an insight into the mind of God.30 Foreclosing this line of interpretation seems to have been uppermost in the mind of the author of this story about Abraham’s dealings with the Egyptian astrologers. To that end, material from the pseudo-Clementines and Josephus’ Antiquities has been purposefully arranged to prove that the astronomy that Abraham taught to the Egyptians had nothing to do with the “Chaldean science” in which he had formerly been trained. To sharpen this distinction, the author has pointedly put into the mouth of Abraham formal denunciations of their teachings on nativity, one of them excerpted from a speech on the same subject originating elsewhere in the pseudo-Clementine literature. The author’s efforts were rewarded when Michael Glycas appealed

27

In Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.17.8 (419c). The distinction is further blurred in some of the witnesses to Josephus’ Antiquities. The version of the Antiquities known to Eusebius, for example, states that Abraham instructed the Egyptians in “astrology” (in Praep. ev. 9.16.8). 29 Jos. Ant. 1.156. 30 In the narrative that immediately precedes his citation from “Clement,” George’s account of God’s revelation to Abraham may be an attempt to anticipate this argument (93.9–94.15). God, he writes, appeared to Abraham not because he “discovered” him through contemplation of the heavens, but rather because God rewarded him for his fervent desire to know him. Indeed, Abraham, “a very accomplished astronomer,” became despondent when he was unable to discover God the creator through observation of the stars or through anything else in the phenomenal world. 28

abraham’s refutation of astrology

239

to the story in a famous dispute between himself and the emperor Manuel Comnenus I (1143–1180). What had provoked the exchange was a letter from an unnamed monk at the Pantokrator monastery, denouncing astrologers as heretics. Manuel, whose devotion to astrology and other occult sciences is amply documented, might easily have viewed this attack as a direct affront. But rather than taking the criticism personally, Manuel decided that a pittakion in defense of astrology would better serve his aims.31 The emperor complains that the unlettered monk who had composed this tirade had unfairly stigmatized all astrologers. The only practitioners deserving condemnation, he writes, are those who treat the stars, “lifeless, unintelligent objects lacking perception,” as sentient beings and causative agents.32 A dangerous belief like that could easily lead to their invocation, the manufacture of charms, and the casting of nativities. But astrology does not always devolve into idolatry and fatalism. Like other parts of the natural world, the stars are signs of divine providence, divinely arrayed in the heavens for humanity’s benefit. Occasionally erroneous prognostications by astrologers are no more indictments of the science than are the misjudgments of physicians. Their failures could be the result either of faulty knowledge, or of God choosing to intervene miraculously in his own creation.33 In pleading this case for a God-centered astrology, the emperor claimed a long tradition of support for the art both in the Bible and the church fathers. He refers quite predictably to Matthew’s story of the magi and the star of David.34 Authorities from the early Church, 31 Text of Manuel’s letter and Glycas’ response in Eustratiades, 1. xz´-py´, 476–500. For an earlier edition of the two documents, see F. Cumont and F. Boll, eds. Catalogus codicum astrologorum Graecorum (Brussels: Lamertin, 1904), 5.1, 108–40. English translation of the two works by D. George, “Manuel I Komnenos and Michael Glykas: A Twelfth-Century Defence and Refutation of Astrology,” Culture and Cosmos, 5.1 (2001): 3–48; 5.2 (2001): 23–51; 6.1 (2002): 23–43. On Manuel’s interest in astrology, see, for example, Nicetas Choniates, Historia 95.29–96.35 (ed. J. van Dieten; CFHB 11.1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975): “Manuel held the reprehensible belief that the retrograde and progressive motion of stars and their positions . . . influence the fortunes and circumstances of human life; and he believed in all those other things that astrologers falsely attribute to Divine Providence while deceptively introducing such phrases as ‘it was decreed’ and ‘the decrees of Necessity are unchangeable and irreversible’ ” (ET by H. J. Magoulias, O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates [Wayne State University Press: Detroit, 1984]). For recent discussion of Manuel’s dispute with Glycas, see P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 377–382. 32 Eustratiades, 1. og ´.11–12. 33 Eustratiades, 1. og ´.17–26; pe´.21–pz´.9. 34 Eustratiades, 1. od´.1–oe´.20.

240

william adler

among them Dionysius the Areopagite, Constantine, and Basil the Great, also figure in his argument.35 Most significantly, the emperor had familiarized himself with some of the same extra-biblical traditions known to the chroniclers. Abraham himself, he writes, viewed the stars as expressions of the divine will. “It is said (fas‹n) that Abraham apprehended the creator from the creations, and also with respect to Seth, son of Adam, that these matters were first taught by an angel, so it is said (l°getai). For it was necessary that knowledge which is at such a distance from us be made known through an angel to this mundane and human nature.” 36 Throughout much of his refutation of the emperor, Glycas charges the emperor with either misrepresenting older sources or using corrupted texts to create a false sanction for astrology. This is very much in character for a monk with a keen interest in exposing what he deemed to be spurious works and textual corruptions.37 But in his reply to the emperor, Glycas cites George’s story about Abraham’s refutation of Egyptian astrologers without a hint of a suspicion that it originated in an expansion of a work falsely ascribed to Clement of Rome. The fact that this story managed to escape his scrutiny attests to a general recognition of its authenticity.38 All that Glycas demands is that the emperor do justice to the whole narrative. If he had, readers would have understood that the patriarch’s experience of the one true God, far from validating astrology, led him to repudiate it altogether. “That man (Abraham) was indeed a notable astrologer,” he writes, “since he originated from the Chaldeans. But when he came to know the creator from his creations, he subsequently came to despise such practices, obviously after receiving

Eustratiades, 1. oz´. 15–oh´. 5; pa´. 2–16; pb´.14–pg´. 23. Eustratiades, 1. p´. 23–pa´. 2. 37 See, for example, Eustratiades, 1.487.22–488.10, where Glycas accuses the emperor of corrupting the text of both Gregory’s funeral oration for Basil and the letters of Dionysius the Areopagite in order to create a false sanction for astrology. In his other writings, Glycas expresses suspicions even about works that were popularly known. On his rejection of the Book of Jubilees (a work widely cited by Byzantine chroniclers), see his Annales 392.18–23; on Glycas’ rejection of the authenticity of the Protevangelion of James, see Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 377. 38 For Glycas’ use of the pseudo-Clementines elsewhere in his writings, see Annales 51.9–13 (= Hom. 14.5.3); Eustratiades, 1.127.12–14 (cf. Hom. 15.1.2); 316.8–14. Note, however, that in his summary of the Abraham story in the Annales, Glycas identifies George (not Clement) as his authority (see above, p. 235, n. 19). Glycas’ use of the pseudo-Clementines needs to be investigated further. 35 36

abraham’s refutation of astrology

241

knowledge of God. At the time of Abimelech, he went down to Egypt and completely put to shame those who hold such beliefs. I do not know, then, whether the narrative about Abraham (t∞w katå tÚn ÉAbraåm flstor¤aw) will advance your stated purpose. I’m afraid that the adage has been borne out: ‘A dog we once owned used to help out the wild animals.’ ”39

39 Eustratiades, 1.480.14–481.2. On this adage, see K. Krumbacher, Mittelgriechische Sprichwörter (Sitzungsber. Bayer. Akad. Wissensch., Phil.-Hist. Kl. 1893, 2.1; Munich: n.p., 1893; rpr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1969), 105.125.

MOTHER JERUSALEM, MOTHER CHURCH: DESOLATION AND RESTORATION IN EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN LITERATURE Theodore A. Bergren University of Richmond It is generally recognized that the theme of “mother Church” in early Christianity has its roots in early Jewish depictions of “mother Jerusalem,” the idea that Jerusalem is “mother” of the Jewish people. This paper examines the origins and development of the image of “mother Jerusalem,” and its application to the “church” by Christians of the early second century.1 It is a privilege for me to dedicate this paper to Professor Michael E. Stone, in appreciation of his tutelage and friendship over the years. The designation of (Mount) Zion, Jerusalem, or Israel as “mother” of the Jewish people occurs first in the prophets and psalms of the Jewish scriptures. Hos 2:2–5 briefly depicts Israel as a mother who has been unfaithful to God, her husband, and threatens her “children” with destruction because “they are children of whoredom” (2:4). Then, in Hos 4:5, God threatens the priests and prophets of Israel, “I will destroy your mother.” Ezekiel 16 is a prophetic discourse featuring extended imagery of Jerusalem as a woman, from her birth through her devoted upbringing and care by God until her rebellious career as a harlot (following in the tradition of Hosea). 16:20–21 refers to Jerusalem’s “sons and daughters” and “children,” whom she abandoned, forsook, and sacrificed. 16:44–55 alludes again to her children, especially her daughters. In a different vein, the Old Greek (LXX) version of Isa 1:26 says of Jerusalem, “You shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful mother-city Zion.” Similarly, the Old Greek of Psalm 86 (87), a paean to Jerusalem, says of the city, “A man shall say, Zion is my 1 The most important reference for this topic is J. C. Plumpe’s Mater Ecclesia: An Inquiry into the Concept of the Church as Mother in Early Christianity (Studies in Christian Antiquity; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1943). See also K. Delahaye, Ecclesia Mater chez les pères des trois premiers siècles: pour un renouvellement de la pastorale d’aujourd’hui (tr. P. Vergriete and É. Bouis; Paris: Cerf, 1964).

244

theodore a. bergren

mother . . . and the Highest himself has founded her” (86:5). Lamentations, apparently dating from the Babylonian exile, continues the imagery of Jerusalem/Israel as a mother, but adopts a new metaphor by depicting her as a woman widowed at the time of the exile (Lam 1:1). In v. 5 we read, “her young children have gone into captivity”; in v. 16, her “sons have been destroyed.” V. 17 states, “Jerusalem has become among them as a removed woman.” Pss. Sol. 2:3–13, from a later period, also features the theme of Jerusalem as an abandoned mother.

2 and 3 Isaiah The most influential source for later Jewish and Christian treatments of “mother Jerusalem” and “mother Church” lies in 2 and 3 Isaiah, especially chapters 49 through 66. Isaiah 49–51, like Lamentations, deals first with the humiliation of Israel in exile, but then moves to an entirely new level, depicting the ultimate vindication of the people through being remembered and returned to their land by a merciful God. In the process 2 Isaiah adopts and develops extensively the metaphor of the female: Israel/Zion is spoken of successively as a nursing woman (49:15), a bride (49:18), and a woman with multiple children, who have been led into exile but are on the verge of return (49:20–23). In 50:1 the metaphor is extended to speak explicitly of Israel as “mother”: “For your transgressions your mother was put away.” 51:18–20 again refers to Zion’s offspring: “There is no one to guide her among all the children she has borne” (51:18). A few chapters later, in Isaiah 54, one of the great consolation songs of 2 Isaiah, Israel (or Jerusalem: see 54:11–12) is likened to a barren and forsaken woman who is suddenly and miraculously about to produce a multitude of children (54:1). God is her husband, and has received her back! 54:11–12 proclaims that the city’s stones, foundations, pinnacles, gates and walls will be constructed of precious stones. Isa 60:4–9 again anticipates the imminent return of Jerusalem’s exiled offspring: “Your sons shall come from far away, and your daughters shall be carried on their nurses’ arms. Then you shall see and be radiant; your heart shall thrill and rejoice . . .” (60:4–5; cf. Bar 4:36–5:5). Isaiah 62 uses feminine nuptial imagery that was later adopted by the author of Revelation 21–22: “You

mother jerusalem, mother church

245

shall be called My Delight Is in Her, and your land Married. . . . For as a young man marries a young woman, so shall your builder marry you . . .” (62:4–5; cf. 49:18; 61:10). Finally, at the close of the book, Isa 66:6–14 again features extended and explicit imagery of Jerusalem as a mother in the midst of parturition. As in 54:1, the sudden and miraculous character of the birth (without labor pains!) is stressed. There are several elements here important for our purposes. First is the extended development of the metaphor of Israel/Jerusalem as a woman and mother and the people as her children. Second is the fact that she is depicted in a narrative sense as being successively forlorn and joyful: forlorn after an initial tragedy when her children are taken away (by their own fault) into exile, and joyful after a dramatic and decisive reversal of fortune when God announces their imminent return. Thus she is a sentient mother and is spoken of in highly emotive terms. The leading emotion is the joy and exultation of the restored mother (Isa 52:8–9; 54:1; 55:12; 60:1–5; 61:10–11; 65:18–19; 66:10–13). Third, in several contexts, the return from exile and repopulation of Jerusalem are themselves described as a sudden and miraculous bearing of children by mother Jerusalem. In 66:10–13 she is a nurse, nourishing her offspring and “dandling [them] on her knees” (v. 12). Fourth, the process of her children’s return is described in extensive and highly charged terms; this is to be an almost eschatological event, one that mirrors the original return of the people from Egypt into the land of Israel. One might even say that, with the return of the exiles and restoration of Jerusalem, 2 and 3 Isaiah envision a new creation that parallels the first creation (cf. 43:1–2, 6–7; 44:1–2; 46:3–4), and one that could be spoken of metaphorically as a (new) offspring of Mother Zion.2

The Book of Baruch The later section of the Book of Baruch (4:5–5:9), a poetic composition influenced strongly by 2 and 3 Isaiah,3 provides another dramatic characterization of Jerusalem as a mother (although the term “mother” is not actually used). Baruch is usually dated around the Maccabean 2 Indeed, several passages read as though God himself were the birthing mother: Isa 43:1, 6–7; 44:1–2; 46:3–4. 3 Especially by Isa 49:10–26 and 60:4–5; cf. Jer 38[31]:8–9; Pss. Sol. 11:2

246

theodore a. bergren

period, between 180 and 100 BCE. The city is mentioned first by the narrator: “You grieved Jerusalem, who reared you” (4:8). Jerusalem herself now launches an extended diatribe against her people, condemning their constant abuse and neglect of her and the commands of God. She alludes to the exile of her “sons and daughters” (4:10; cf.4:16) and refers to herself as “a widow and bereaved of many” (4:12). “Go, my children, go; for I have been left desolate. . . . I will cry to the everlasting all my days” (4:19–20). In 4:21, however, the narrative shifts suddenly toward consolation. Jerusalem says, “Take courage, my children, cry to God, and he will deliver you.” In 4:30, the voice of the narrator returns: “Look toward the east, O Jerusalem . . . look, your children are coming whom you sent away” (4:36–37; cf. 5:5). The book closes with the people’s glorious return from exile. Since this narrative was almost certainly inspired by 2 and 3 Isaiah, several important themes will have already become apparent. First, the basic story of the mother Jerusalem in Baruch 4–5 is structured around a bi-polar contrast between exile and restoration, between desolation and salvation, between sorrow and rejoicing. The mother begins with a bitter condemnation of her children. Midway through the discourse, however, the tone shifts abruptly, first to one of cautious optimism, then to outright jubilation over the certainty of God’s redemption of the people. As in 2 and 3 Isaiah, the mother’s character is emotional and highly charged, in both its sorrowful and joyful aspects. Again, the restoration of the land is portrayed in idealized, almost eschatological terms: the exiles return led by God, “carried in glory, as on a royal throne” (5:6), “walk[ing] safely in the glory of God” (5:7). Likewise, Jerusalem herself is, in a sense, a new creation: she receives a new garment; “the diadem of the glory” of God (5:2); and a new name, “Righteous Peace, Godly Glory” (5:4). The main narrative difference between the two accounts is that, whereas 2 and 3 Isaiah are narrated by God or an anonymous narrator, Baruch 4–5 features extensive discourse by mother Jerusalem herself.

2 and 4 Maccabees Two other important reference points in our discussion of literary “mothers,” though they do not explicitly name “mother Jerusalem,” occur in 2 and 4 Maccabees, in the story of the seven brothers and their mother. The first telling of the story comes in 2 Maccabees 7,

mother jerusalem, mother church

247

dating from the late second century BCE, where seven brothers and their mother die at the hands of Antiochus for refusing to betray their Jewish faith. As the second brother dies, he addresses the king: “You dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life” (7:9). The third and fourth brothers likewise appeal to a hope in resurrection. After six of her sons have died, their mother ties their hopes for rebirth to her own role in their conception: “I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath. . . . Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of humankind . . . will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again” (7:22–23). Defying Antiochus’s blandishments, she covertly urges on her seventh son, the youngest: “My son, have pity on me. I carried you nine months in my womb, and nursed you for three years. . . . Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again” (7:27–29). With this urging, the seventh brother submits to death, followed by his mother. Although 2 Maccabees 7 is on its surface a straightforward story about persecution of Jews, literary analysis suggests that this reading may be too simplistic. G. W. E. Nickelsburg argues in several contexts that this story started as one describing the persecution of a father and his son(s), and that the substitution of the mother and the addition of the stress on resurrection resulted from a reinterpretation of the story through “Hasidic apocalyptic exegesis.”4 These Maccabeanperiod exegetes, Nickelsburg says, read the original story of persecution in the light of both the “mother” imagery of 2/3 Isaiah and their own, relatively newly acquired belief in resurrection. Under this reading, the “parent” became mother Jerusalem, who had been dangerously close to losing her children in exile, and the return from exile described so exaltedly in Isaiah was now interpreted as the process of resurrection, which would remedy the persecuted sons’ undeserved fate. Whether this interpretation is accepted or not, several points central to our thesis remain. First, the story, as in 2/3 Isaiah and Baruch, is one of a woman who, to all appearances, has tragically lost her offspring due to the cruel actions of a foreign ruler. But in the new Sitz 4 G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS 26; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), 97–111; idem, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 119–21; idem, “Resurrection,” ABD 5:686.

248

theodore a. bergren

im Leben of 2 Maccabees, the “crisis situation” is not one of exile but of religious persecution. In a radical turn of fate, this time due to the piety of her and her sons, the tragedy is overturned and the woman rejoices in an imminent reunion with her sons, this time in the form of resurrection. As above, this will be an event of eschatological proportions. Interestingly, as in 2/3 Isaiah, the hope for return from exile/death is linked with the miraculous conception of the children in the womb of the mother herself (2 Macc 7:22, 27). Thus, the act of resurrection in 2 Maccabees, like the return from exile in 2/3 Isaiah, is linked directly with God’s original creations, and is viewed as a rebirth or recreation of these events (2 Macc 7:23, 28–29). As before, the mother is a sentient being whose plight and speech are intended to arouse the readers’ emotions. Finally, as in Baruch (but not 2/3 Isaiah), the mother pleads her own case. 2 Maccabees differs from what came before in that this story is part of a larger narrative framework. 4 Maccabees, dating from the first half of the first century CE, extends this story with philosophical embellishment. Interestingly, the author scrupulously avoids the word “resurrection,” preferring terms like “immortality” and “eternal life.” Still, there is an appeal to the same principles as in 2 Maccabees. The mother “giv[es] rebirth for immortality to the whole number of her sons” (16:13). Her physical act of parturition is also stressed: “In the mother’s womb each of the brothers spent the same length of time and was shaped during the same period of time. . . . When they were born after an equal time of gestation, they drank milk from the same fountains” (13:19–21; cf. 15:6–7). Again there is an appeal to God’s original act of creation: one brother reminds Antiochus that all humans are “made of the same elements as you” (12:13). As in Baruch, the mother seems to have lost all of her children, and could easily have lapsed into self-pity: “O how wretched am I and many times unhappy! . . . I who had so many and beautiful children am a widow and alone” (16:6–10). Yet, as above, her loss is only temporary: “The sons of Abraham with their victorious mother are gathered together into the chorus of the fathers” (18:23). Significantly, 4 Maccabees refers to both the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 30–32) and Ezekiel 37 (the story of the dry bones) in assessing the significance of the brothers’ acts; both of these texts are loci classici for resurrection language and theology. 4 Maccabees then, despite its theological differences from 2 Maccabees, reiterates many of the same points: the mother’s initial tragedy and

mother jerusalem, mother church

249

its subsequent reversal; appeal to the mother’s act of parturition; parallel drawn between this and God’s original act of creation; use of pathos and emotion in portraying the mother’s plight and personality; and at least an implicit appeal to resurrection. As in 2 Maccabees and Baruch, the author mixes the first and third persons in describing the mother’s plight.

Paul There are a number of early Christian writings of the mid- to latefirst century that refer to Jerusalem or the church in ways that anticipate the doctrine of “Mater Ecclesia.”5 Paul (Gal 4:21–5:1) provides the first reference in early Christian literature to Jerusalem as a “mother” and, to my knowledge, the first reference in early Christian or Jewish literature to the heavenly Jerusalem portrayed in that role.6 Paul spins an allegory in which the two women who bore children to Abraham—Hagar and Sarah— represent two “covenants.” Hagar, a slave woman, “is Mount Sinai in Arabia” (4:25) and “bear[s] children for slavery” (4:24); she “corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children” (4:25). Sarah, on the other hand, “corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother” (4:26), i.e., the mother of believers ( just as Abraham is their father). Thus, the two women embody a typical Pauline dualism between spirit and flesh, heaven and earth, freedom and bondage, promise and law. Paul describes the motherhood of the once barren Sarah, or the heavenly Jerusalem, by citing Isa 54:1. Furthermore, Paul says, even in the present time the child born according to the flesh “persecutes” the child born according to the spirit. Consequently, Paul advises the Galatians to “drive out the slave and her child” (4:30), apparently referring to the Judaizers and their doctrines. 5 In this section I am especially indebted to Plumpe, Mater Ecclesia, and to J. Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (tr. and ed. J. A. Baker; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964). 6 Other significant references to the “heavenly” or “new” Jerusalem include 1 Enoch 25; 90:28–29; 2 Enoch 55:2; Tob 13:9–18; 14:5–7; the “New Jerusalem” document from caves 1, 4, 5 and 11 at Qumran; T. Dan 5:12–13; Sib. Or. 5:420–28; 4 Ezra 7:26; 8:52; 13:36; 4 Bar. (Par. Jer.) 5:35; and Heb 11:10–16; 12:22–24; 13:14. Several times in the synoptic gospels, Jesus refers to Jerusalem as having “children” (Luke 19:43–44; Luke 13:34 and its Q parallel in Matt 23:37).

250

theodore a. bergren

This passage, short as it is, signals an important step in the development of the doctrine of “mother Jerusalem” and parturition. The main thing is the fact that there are now two mothers, corresponding to two Jerusalems,7 one present and earthly and the other heavenly (but, in Paul’s view, still present). This sort of oppositional dualism, as noted above, is typically Pauline, and it is not surprising that he interprets his source material in this manner. The dualism set out in this passage accomplishes two things: first, it opens the possibility for Jerusalem to be freed from restrictions of time and place, and thus universalized; and second, it allows “Jerusalem” to be dualized, or separated into aspects of good and evil. Paul takes advantage of both opportunities. First, any believing Christian, even one who has never seen or heard of the earthly Jerusalem, can become a “child” of the heavenly city. Second, those believers who do so are by nature diametrically opposed to the pitiable, enslaved “children” of the earthly Jerusalem, i.e., the Judaizers. Paul thus retains the traditional biblical role of Jerusalem as mother, but doubles the exegetical possibilities. In this case the “Jerusalem” who is endangered is the earthly one, and the possibility for rescue or redemption comes not from her future reconstitution but from the immediate presence of an alternative choice, the heavenly city. For Paul, the present Jerusalem, and all that she symbolizes, is too decrepit and outdated to merit restitution on her own terms. Thus, Paul’s interpretation signals the first time in which the older, former state of the bi-partite Jerusalem is actually deemed negative. Furthermore, due to the new Sitz im Leben under which Paul writes, the crisis undergone or represented by the “present” Jerusalem has nothing to do with exile or persecution of Jews, but rests on a theological point, Christian “freedom” from Jewish law. Still, Paul does quote Isa 54:1, and makes it clear that the heavenly Jerusalem is an eschatological entity; both of these interpretive gestures show his intimate familiarity with the presentation of “mother Jerusalem” in 2 and 3 Isaiah. Moreover, for him, Christian believers are a new creation, newly enfranchised offspring of the heavenly Jerusalem, with all of the accompanying perquisites; this mirrors the depiction of the returned exiles in 2/3 Isaiah and Baruch.

7

Note the dual form of the Hebrew word “Yerushalayim.”

mother jerusalem, mother church

251

Interestingly, in a short passage immediately preceding the allegory of Sarah and Hagar, Paul addresses the Galatians in terms that may have further relevance to our study. Paul has been criticizing the Galatians for their recent move away from him to embrace the doctrines of his opponents. He says, “My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, I wish I were present with you now . . .” (4:19–20). It is tempting to speculate that this reference to stages of 1) an undesirable condition (“pain”), 2) parturition, and 3) the resultant inner formation of an ideal state (“Christ”) in the believers may somehow be related to Paul’s decision subsequently to take up the allegory of the slave and free women and their children. If so, this is yet another example of the thematic confluence between a transition from negative to positive conditions, parturition, and a resultant ideal state. Here the bi-polar opposition between former and future states involves a point of doctrine. In other letters, Paul himself speaks of Christian believers as “the body of Christ,” who individually are “members” of that body, and who corporately are feminine and a potential spouse of the masculine Christ (1 Cor 6:15–17; Rom 7:4; cf. 1 Cor 12:27–28). He also loosely connects this “body of Christ” with the “church” and uses the typology of Adam and Eve to describe the relationship between Christ and believers (2 Cor 11:2–3; cf. 1 Cor 6:16). However, he never speaks of the “church” explicitly in feminine or maternal terms, or uses the language of conjugal union with Christ. Furthermore, the church is not mentioned in connection with Jerusalem, or as a “new Jerusalem.” The situation is different in deutero-Pauline tradition. In Eph 5:23–33 Christ is referred to as the “head of the church, and he is the savior of the body” (5:23). Christ and the church are husband and wife, with the church also as a bride (cf. Revelation 21). The church is the “body” of Christ (also in Eph 1:20–23; 4:12; Col 1:18, 24; etc.). Appeal is made to Adam and Eve as the model for the conjugal union between Christ and the church. Ephesians, then, is apparently the first Christian writing that explicitly refers to the “church” as feminine, and as the bride and wife of Christ. Still, however, the connection with Jerusalem and with the desolation/restoration model analyzed above is not made. Rather, the ruling biblical motif is a comparison between the union of Christ and the church and that of Adam and Eve.

252

theodore a. bergren Late First-Century Apocalyptic

4 Ezra Several other references to the “new” or “heavenly Jerusalem” in the late first century, besides Galatians 4, also use the image of a woman or mother to describe the city. 4 Ezra 9:38–10:59 describes Ezra’s encounter with an unnamed woman who has been barren for a long time and has finally had a son. Now, however, her son has died in his wedding chamber and she is disconsolate and resolved to die: “she was mourning and weeping with a loud voice, and was deeply grieved at heart” (9:38). Ezra impatiently counsels the woman to break off her mourning: “For Zion, the mother of us all, is in deep grief and great distress” (10:7). Furthermore, he says, “if you acknowledge the decree of God to be just, you will receive your son back in due time, and will be praised among women” (10:16). After further consolation, the woman’s appearance is suddenly transformed; she utters a loud cry, after which she disappears, and Ezra sees “a city . . . being built, and a place of huge foundations” (10:27). The angel Uriel informs the terrified seer that the woman was actually “Zion,” the (earthly) city of Jerusalem, and that in this vision of the (new, heavenly) city being built, God has revealed to Ezra “the brilliance of her glory, and the loveliness of her beauty” (10:50), “the city of the Most High” (10:54). “Therefore . . . go in and see the splendor or the vastness of the building . . . and afterward you will hear as much as your ears can hear” (10:55–56). This vision treats in a most creative way a number of the elements that we have encountered above. The story-like nature of the encounter and realism of the characters adds a new element of suspense and drama. The transition between mourning/exile and rejoicing/redemption is accomplished narratively, in an almost “magical” way: the sorrowing, earthly Jerusalem is suddenly and dramatically transformed into her ideal, heavenly counterpart. There are even complex narrative “twists” in the story, as Ezra, unaware of the woman’s identity, ironically counsels her by alluding to the distress of “Zion, the mother of us all” (10:7). The plight and character of the woman, like that of Ezra himself, are presented in an intensely emotional and dramatic way. The references to the woman’s unexpected birth of a son, her “loud cry” (clearly a birth cry), and the suddenness of her transformation all recall the references to parturition in Isa 54:1

mother jerusalem, mother church

253

and 66:6–14, to which the author is almost certainly alluding. 4 Ezra 9–10 also presents a strong eschatological dimension. As in 2/3 Isaiah, Baruch, and 2 and 4 Maccabees, mother Jerusalem might appear to have lost her child(ren), but future events prove otherwise. Here, for the first time, a truly “other-worldly” event, the mystical building of the heavenly Jerusalem on earth, takes the place of the people’s return from exile (or resurrection) as that God-inspired event which will reverse the fortunes of the faithful and provide them with God’s ultimate reward. In the context of the Roman destruction, a solution to the problem of “exile” by conventional means appears futile; thus the author appeals to eschatology in a more dramatic, futuristic sense. As in several of the writings examined above, a new creation is involved: the new Jerusalem must be built on ground “where no house has been built” (9:24). There is even a reference to resurrection: the woman, if she comes to her senses, will “receive [her] son back in due time” (10:16). Revelation The heavenly Jerusalem is also characterized as a woman, though not a mother, in another work of the late first century CE, the book of Revelation. Revelation 21–22 first describes John’s vision of “the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (21:2). An angel addresses John: “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the lamb” (21:9). John is then carried “in the spirit” to “a great, high mountain” (21:10); from that vantage he describes the splendor of the city (chaps. 21–22). Although Revelation does not depict the new Jerusalem as a “mother,” the antitype of that city, the whore of Babylon, does merit this title. In chap. 17 John is carried away “in the spirit” into “a wilderness” (17:3; compare 21:10), where he sees a woman sitting on a scarlet beast; on her forehead was written, “Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth’s abominations” (17:5; cf. Jer 50:12). Between the descriptions of these women, in Revelation 19–20, come the destruction of the two beasts and their armies, the resurrection of the Christian martyrs (the “first resurrection”), the destruction of Satan, and the general resurrection and judgment of the dead. Remarkably, despite an entirely new Sitz im Leben, that of persecution and martyrdom of Christians, this passage fulfills structurally many of the points and tendencies examined above. Although Revelation

254

theodore a. bergren

does not explicitly portray the “present” Jerusalem as being in or representing a state of crisis, this role in the familiar, bi-partite structure is assumed by a different city, “Babylon,” “mother” not of Jews but of “whores and earth’s abominations” (17:5). As in Galatians, the two-part role of mother Jerusalem has been separated in a dualistic manner into elements of good and evil, the evil here being not the Judaizers but the Romans. Again as in Galatians, the “new Jerusalem” is ethnically universalized but theologically restricted: it belongs to Christians, especially martyrs. Although the story has highly developed narrative elements, and both of the two cities are elaborately described, neither city takes on a persona, displays emotion, or speaks in the first person. While the heavenly Jerusalem is the antitype of the earthly one, as in Paul but not in 4 Ezra, it does have a “future” dimension, as it is shown descending to earth, as in 4 Ezra but not in Paul. Because the heavenly Jerusalem is the antitype of the earthly situation, and yet will descend to earth, the present earthly situation must by definition be destroyed first. Thus, Revelation in these chapters evinces a radically dualistic apocalyptic vision. The eschatological situation in Revelation 21–22, inspired largely by 2 and 3 Isaiah, has much in common with them, but the tone and theological implications here are entirely different. This is not the simple transformation of the exiled mother Jerusalem into the restored mother Jerusalem, but a transmutation that occurs on a cosmic level from “mother Babylon,” the embodiment of all that is evil, into the bride Jerusalem, the ideal city, the concretization of all the positive metaphors of 2 and 3 Isaiah. As we have seen so often before, the transition is sudden and unexpected, and involves an entirely new creation. However, this radically dualistic apocalyptic ideology is also rather different from anything we have seen above. This is shown, in one sense, by the way in which the new city “descends” to earth; 4 Ezra and most of the earlier Jewish writings picture not a descent from a higher realm, but a transformation of a situation presently existing on earth. As one might expect, the element of resurrection is strongly represented in Revelation. Interestingly, images of childbirth are lacking almost entirely, to the point where the new Jerusalem is pointedly not a mother, but rather a bride (again following imagery from Isaiah).

mother jerusalem, mother church

255

2 Baruch Another relevant writing, probably from the early second century, is notable largely due to its affinities with 4 Ezra. 2 Baruch, another Jewish apocalypse written in response to the destruction of the Second Temple, features a number of scattered references to mother Jerusalem and the heavenly Jerusalem. In chap. 3, Baruch begs not to be forced to witness “the evils of my mother” (3:1, 3), “my mother’s destruction” (3:2). God replies that the destruction of the earthly city is inevitable, but quickly challenges Baruch’s assumption that this city is all that there is: “Do you think that this is the city about which I said . . . [quote of Isa 49:16]?” (4:2). God informs Baruch that the true Temple, that which was prepared before the foundation of the world, which was shown secretly to Adam, Abraham and Moses, and which will be revealed in the future, is not in danger but “is with me now” (4:3; cf. 4:6). This, of course, is the “heavenly Temple.” Baruch remains disconsolate but follows God’s instructions. On the next day, as he was grieving for the city, “suddenly a powerful spirit lifted me up and carried me over the wall of Jerusalem” (6:3; cf. Rev 17:3; 21:10). From this lofty vantage Baruch sees five angels who are in charge of the city’s fate. Their leader descends and commits to the earth all of the Temple’s valuables: “The time has come when Jerusalem also will be delivered for a time, until it is said that it shall be restored again for ever” (6:9). It is now safe for the other angels to destroy the city. Baruch’s poetic lament in 10:16 again refers to (the earthly) Jerusalem as “mother.” Later in the book, Baruch reminds the assembled Jewish elders that the time will come when God will “renew his creation” (32:6). Although the earthly Temple is destined to be destroyed, afterwards, at the “appointed time,” “it must be renewed in glory and be made perfect for evermore” (32:3–4). Chapters 49–51 discuss how resurrection will function in this process. 59:4 refers again to God’s esoteric revelations to Moses. Although 2 Baruch reiterates the idea of Jerusalem as mother and shows a classic presentation of the theme of the heavenly Jerusalem, these two ideas are not narratively connected, and there is no sense of continuity between desolation and restoration such as we have seen earlier. Thus 2 Baruch is of limited interest for our investigation.

256

theodore a. bergren 2 Clement

An extremely important, pivotal step in the attestation for the concept of the Christian church as “mother” occurs in 2 Clement, written in the first half of the second century, perhaps in Egypt. The first relevant section is in the context of an exegesis of Isa 54:1. 2 Clem. 2:1 reads, “Now when he says, ‘Rejoice O barren one that does not bear,’ he refers to us, for our Church was barren before it was given children.” In 2:3: “And he says, ‘The desolate has more children than she who has a husband,’ since our people seemed to be abandoned by God, but now that we have believed, we have become more numerous than those who seemed to have God.” We first note that Isa 54:1 is precisely the passage quoted by Paul in his allegory about Sarah and Hagar (Gal 4:27).8 It is uncertain whether the author of 2 Clement knew Galatians. In any event, the important step here is that 2 Clement for the first time clearly and explicitly attests to an exegetical connection between (a) Jerusalem interpreted as a (once barren) mother in the Hebrew scriptures and (b) the Church interpreted as a (once barren) mother in early Christian tradition. Thus, exegetically speaking, through an allegorical interpretation of Isa 54:1, a connection between “mother Jerusalem” and the church has been made, although neither the term “mother Jerusalem” nor “mother church” is explicitly applied to the church. According to this exegesis, the church is a woman, a mother, whose “children” are the Christian “people.” This is the first time in Christian literature where the thematic connections church = woman/mother = Jerusalem have been made. Furthermore, 2 Clement for the first time explicitly links the desolation/restoration motif traditionally associated with “mother Jerusalem” with the church (2:3, quoted above). Thus this short passage supplies the requisite elements to establish a connection between the themes dealt with in this paper and the Christian church. Further significant references appear in 2 Clement 14: By doing the will of God our Father, we shall belong to the first church, the spiritual one, created before the sun and moon. But if we fail to do the will of the Lord, that passage of scripture will apply to us which says, ‘My house has become a den of robbers.’ We must then choose to be of the church of life in order to be saved. . . . The 8 Isa 54:1 is quoted only three times in early Christian literature: in these two passages and in Justin, Apol. 53.

mother jerusalem, mother church

257

living Church is the body of Christ, for scripture says, ‘God made man, male and female’ (Gen 1:27). The male is Christ and the female is the Church. Moreover, . . . the church is not [simply] present but is from above. For she was spiritual, as was also our Jesus, but was made manifest in the last days that she might save us. The Church . . . was made manifest in the flesh of Christ to show us that if any of us guard her in the flesh and it be not corrupted, he will receive her back in the holy spirit. For this flesh is the copy of the spirit” (14:1–3). (The passage goes on to shift emphasis slightly in stating that “the flesh is the Church and the spirit is Christ” [14:4].)

This latter section is significant in light of the basic distinctions noted above between the earthly, or present, and the heavenly Jerusalem. We saw in 2 Baruch that the “heavenly” Temple was “prepared beforehand at the time when [God] determined to make Paradise” (4:3); here it is the “spiritual” form of the church that was created by God “before the sun and moon” (14:1). At the beginning of 2 Clement 14 it is the corrupt, earthly Jerusalem (“a den of robbers”) that is the antitype of the heavenly church; as the exegesis progresses, the author chooses to stress the bi-partite separation between the spiritual, heavenly church and the present, earthly church. The author employs Pauline metaphors concerning the “body of Christ,” the sexual differentiation between Christ (male, Adam) and the believers/church (female, Eve), and the distinction between spirit and flesh to underscore his points. The ultimate goal for the believer is salvation, and only by remaining true to the church’s earthly manifestation can one ensure his success when the “fleshly” form fades away and the “spiritual” form remains. The basic distinction between the “earthly” and “heavenly” Jerusalem noted above remains, but the emphasis shifts to a concern for the Christian believer’s present behavior and corresponding fate in the afterlife. If time and space permitted we would consider several other relevant early Christian writings: the Shepherd of Hermas, where the church is consistently depicted as an elderly woman (or a bride) who serves Hermas in a revelatory capacity, and also as a building; Marcion (apud Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 5.4), who in an exegesis of Galatians 4 is apparently the first to identify the church (rather than the “heavenly Jerusalem”) as the “mother” of Christians; the account of the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne in 177 CE embedded in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (5.1–4), wherein Christian apostates who were returning to the fold are described as “miscarriages” of “the Virgin Mother” (church)

258

theodore a. bergren

who are now being “conceived” and brought back to life again, to the joy of their Mother; and 5 Ezra, which pointedly contrasts the old mother ( Jerusalem), who has been deserted and betrayed by her children (2:2–6, alluding to Baruch 4), with the new mother (the church), who is enjoined by God to rejoice over and embrace her children, because they will have the “first place” in the resurrection (2:15–32).

Conclusion Still, from what has been said so far, the main points of our analysis become clear. In Jewish tradition, based mainly on 2 and 3 Isaiah, Jerusalem is described as a “mother” who is consistently depicted as having two aspects: a negative one, based on some misfortune of the past (viz., exile or persecution), and a positive one, wherein that misfortune is rectified and salvation achieved through the intervention of God (viz., return from exile and establishment of an ideal society; resurrection; or establishment of an eschatological situation [like the “heavenly Jerusalem”] on earth). Within this basic, bi-partite structure, certain smaller thematic elements are regularly found: “mother Jerusalem” is generally depicted as lively and displaying emotions; attention is given to her processes of parturition; the transition from desolation to restoration is unexpectedly sudden; and the state following on restoration is described in eschatological terms, often as a new creation. Even in 4 Ezra, where the disjunction between the old and new states is especially dramatic, the new is still basically a transition from the old; there is no qualitative difference between them. The first adaptations of “mother Jerusalem” by Christians (viz., Paul in Galatians, and Revelation) display a rather different aspect. Whereas the basic, bi-partite division between states of desolation and restoration is maintained, we suddenly encounter a qualitative difference between the two as well: the “old Jerusalem” (or its functional equivalent) becomes an evil, negative entity, whereas the “new Jerusalem” is entirely positive, the diametric opposite of the old. This new “opposition dualism” stems from several factors: one is the new Sitz im Leben reflected in the Christian texts; another is the nascent antiJudaism that was inherent in certain forms of early Christianity, which encouraged thinking about the two traditions in oppositional rather than transitional terms (cf. Paul’s allegory of Sarah and Hagar). Still

mother jerusalem, mother church

259

a third factor was the rise of an apocalyptic dualism so radical that the “new creation” was conceived of most readily in terms of complete opposition to the former state; thus “mother Babylon” vs. the “new Jerusalem” in Revelation. Nevertheless, both of these documents hold certain themes in common with previous Jewish expressions: the sudden transition between old and new states is stressed, and the theme of eschatology continues to dominate. As for “mother Church,” the idea of the church as a feminine entity (the wife and bride of Christ) is attested in the late first century (Ephesians), but it is not until the second century, with 2 Clement, that we find expressed for her the same sorts of allegories that were also used for Jerusalem in early Judaism: the mother whose children were sparse at first but then dramatically increased, or the subject of both heavenly (the “spiritual” Church) and earthly (the present church) manifestations. Here, at least, Christians could employ the bi-polar Jewish model of desolation and restoration without resorting to oppositional dualism. Despite these differences between Jewish and Christian expressions, however, what stands out most strongly is the shared basic, bi-polar structure of desolation and restoration that is manifested so distinctly in virtually every writing that we have examined: the mother (“mother Jerusalem” or “mother Church”) loses her children and is disconsolate for some time, but then through the intervention of God receives them back in a show of glory and joy that makes her former loss seem inconsequential. It is this motif that was taken up time and again as Jews and Christians attempted to deal with and explain loss, and express their hopes for the future.

A “PRAYER ALLEGED TO BE JEWISH” IN THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS 1 Esther G. Chazon The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

It is with deep gratitude for thirty years of mentoring and friendship that I present this article to my Doktorvater, Michael E. Stone, on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, with my sincerest wishes for many more fruitful years in good health, “120 d[.” For my contribution to his Festschrift, I have selected a topic that I think well reflects Michael Stone’s dedication to the methodologically oriented training of young scholars as well as his own keen interest in and major contribution to the field of the history of religions in its broadest sense. In this article I will make a case for the Jewish roots of a prayer in the Apostolic Constitutions that usually is not counted among those considered to be of Jewish provenance, and in keeping with the Stone desideratum, I will conclude by exploring possible lines of transmission from the Jewish source to the early Christian context. The Apostolic Constitutions is a manual of regulations for the church evidently compiled in Syria during the fourth century (ca. 380 CE). It incorporates a number of sources only some of which have come down to us, and it is, therefore, an important repository of older, sometimes “lost,” texts and traditions. Comparison with the sources that have survived independently (principally the Didascalia from third century Syria for Books 1–6, the Didache from second century Syria for 7.1–32, and the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus from third century Rome for much of 8.3–41) reveals that the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions was also a redactor, sometimes editing his sources quite extensively.2 For a century scholars have claimed a Jewish origin 1 The title of my article alludes to the major work on this topic by D. A. Fiensy, Prayers Alleged to Be Jewish: An Examination of the Constitutiones Apostolorum (BJS 65; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985). I wish to thank Pieter van der Horst, Adele Reinhartz, and David Satran for their helpful comments on the various drafts of this article. I am grateful to the Institute for Advanced Studies, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for providing me with an office during my sabbatical leave, which facilitated the writing of this article among other projects. 2 Fiensy, Prayers, 19–41.

262

esther g. chazon

for many of the prayers in Books 7 and 8 of the Apostolic Constitutions, in effect suggesting that one of the compiler’s many sources was the synagogue liturgy, perhaps already in a Greek translation for Greekspeaking Jews.3 A lively debate has ensued regarding which of these prayers fall into the “Jewish” category. Recent scholarship, especially since the 1985 monograph by David Fiensy, has taken a relatively minimalist view of Jewish origins and has significantly reduced the number of prayers now “alleged to be Jewish.”4 While endorsing today’s more circumspect and nuanced approach to Jewish sources and Christian redaction, I submit that when new evidence comes to light it is appropriate to reconsider the status of the prayers currently outside the consensus of those “alleged to be Jewish.” This is the situation with respect to the prayer under consideration here, the Prayer for the Catechumens, which is clearly Christian in its present form and context in Apos. Con. 8.6.5–8: 5. Let us all earnestly entreat God on behalf of the catechumens: That the one who is good and loves mankind will kindly hear their prayers; and having received their supplication, may assist them and grant them for their good the requests of their hearts; that he may reveal to them the Gospel of his Christ, illumine them, and give them understanding, educate them in the knowledge of God, teach them his ordinances and judgments, implant in them his pure and saving fear, open the ears of their hearts to engage in his Law day and night; 6. and that he may establish them in piety, unify and number them among his holy flock, grant them the washing of regeneration, of the garment of incorruption, of real life; and that he may save them from all impiety, and give place to no adversary against them; and that he may cleanse them from all pollution of flesh and spirit, and dwell in them, and walk (among them) through his Christ; and bless their comings in and their goings out, and guide their affairs for their good. 7. Let us still earnestly supplicate for them, obtaining remission of their trespasses through initiation, that they may be deemed worthy of the holy mysteries and remaining constantly with the saints. 8. Arise, catechumens, request the peace of God through his Christ, that the day be peaceable and free from sin, even the entire time of 3 An excellent summary of the history of the research is given by P. W. van der Horst, “The Greek Synagogue Prayers in the Apostolic Constitutions, book VII,” in From Qumran to Cairo: Studies in the History of Prayer (ed. J. Tabory; Jerusalem: Orhot, 1999), 19–46. 4 Van der Horst, “Greek Synagogue Prayers,” and Fiensy, Prayers; compare, for example, Fiensy’s chart of the prayers “alleged Jewish” by earlier scholars (p. 11) with his own minimalist conclusions (pp. 150–54; cf. his reconstruction of the original Jewish liturgical source behind Apos. Con. 7.33–38 on pp. 165–87, 198–201).

a “prayer alleged to be jewish”

263

your life, that your end be Christian, that God be gracious and kind, the forgiveness of trespasses. Dedicate yourselves to the only unbegotten God through his Christ. Bow down and receive a blessing.5

New data from Qumran, particularly from the Words of the Luminaries, provide the catalyst for reopening the question of the Jewish roots of this Prayer for the Catechumens.

The Prayer for the Catechumens and the Words of the Luminaries The Words of the Luminaries is a weekly liturgy composed by a single author that consists of communal supplications for physical and spiritual deliverance recited on the six weekdays and a hymn of praise for the Sabbath.6 It is one of the oldest Dead Sea scrolls (first half of the second century BCE), composed prior to the earliest sectarian settlement at Qumran (ca. 100 BCE) and subsequently adopted by the Qumran Community. As such it offers unprecedented evidence for fixed, daily liturgy in non-Qumranic circles during the Second Temple period, a fact of utmost importance for the debate over the nature of the rabbis’ institutionalization of Jewish liturgy after the Temple’s destruction in 70 CE and for the related question of the extent of regular, public prayer while the Temple was still standing.7 Similarly significant is the fact that the prayer-types, liturgical patterns, formulae and liturgical expressions in this scroll (e.g., the distinction between weekday petition and Sabbath praise, the formal closing benedictions, the language of the petitions for knowledge) have much in common with the later, institutionalized Jewish liturgy. Two of the seven prayers in the Words of the Luminaries—those for Sunday and Thursday—follow the liturgical pattern known as petitions for knowledge, repentance and forgiveness.8 As Moshe Weinfeld 5

Fiensy, Prayers, 93 and 95. The Greek text appears in the appendix to this article. E. G. Chazon, “4QDibHam: Liturgy or Literature?” RevQ 15 (1991): 447–55. 7 E. G. Chazon, “Prayers from Qumran and their Historical Implications,” DSD 1 (1994): 265–84. A summary of the debate appears on pp. 279–80. See also n. 31 below. 8 These petitions are found in 4Q504 4 5–13 (overlap in the third copy of this work, 4Q506 131+132 11–14) and 4Q504 1–2 ii 7–17. On the assignment of these large fragments, respectively, to the first and fifth days of the week see Chazon, “Liturgy or Literature?” and my full edition, reconstruction and commentary in “A Liturgical Document from Qumran and its Implications: ‘Words of the Luminaries’ (4QDibHam),” (Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1991; all citations 6

264

esther g. chazon

has demonstrated, this widespread liturgical pattern has its early roots in biblical prophecy and psalmody and its ultimate institutionalization in the first three petitions of the daily Amidah prayer (the Eighteen Benedictions), which lend the pattern its name.9 The Prayer for the Catechumens was a key text in Weinfeld’s study of this pattern, informing his conclusion that such prayers sought “admission” to God’s presence and were recited in a situation of repentance or conversion.10 Although Weinfeld did not discuss the Words of the Luminaries as an example of this liturgical pattern, he did mention it in a crossreference to a single phrase in Apos. Con. 8.6.5.11 This scroll warrants more careful consideration in this context and, in fact, will prove to be of considerable importance for illuminating the Jewish liturgical background of the Prayer for the Catechumens. Within the broad contours of the common liturgical pattern of petitions for knowledge, repentance and forgiveness, the Sunday and Thursday prayers also display a number of close linguistic parallels with the later Jewish liturgy that point to a shared, continuous liturgical tradition (see, for example, “circumcise our heart” in the table below and the subsequent discussion on ‘implanting Torah in us’). Significantly, the Thursday prayer finds an even more impressive set of parallels in Apos. Con. 8.6.5–8, suggesting that the author or redac-

of the Words of the Luminaries are taken from this edition). In the editio princeps, Maurice Baillet presented the texts in simple numerical order based on fragment size, with the largest fragment numbered frg. 1–2 (“504. Paroles des Luminaires [Premier Exemplaire: DibHama ],” Qumran Grotte 4.III [4Q482– 4Q520] [DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982], 137–68). In his introduction he made some suggestions regarding the original order of the large fragments, and there are some differences between his suggestions and my reconstruction (e.g., my placement of frg. 4 near the beginning of the scroll and my identification of frg. 1–2 ii as the petition for Thursday). 9 M. Weinfeld, “The Prayers for Knowledge, Repentance, and Forgiveness in the ‘Eighteen Benedictions’—Qumran Parallels, Biblical Antecedents, and Basic Characteristics,” Tarbiz 48 (1979): 186–200 (Hebrew). 10 See especially Weinfeld, “Prayers for Knowledge,” 195. According to Weinfeld, this Sitz im Leben is also reflected in the placement of the petitions for knowledge, repentance, and forgiveness before the other petitions in the daily Amidah prayer. Weinfeld’s comparison of the Prayer for the Catechumens with New Testament use of this liturgical pattern (Acts 26:18, Eph 1:3–14, Col 1:9–14) makes it quite clear that he is not positing a Jewish origin for Apos. Con. 8.6.5–8 but rather demonstrating a Christian use of this common liturgical pattern. 11 Weinfeld, “Prayers for Knowledge,” 194 n. 44; he compares the expression of ‘implanting’ in both texts. This expression is discussed at length below. At the time of Weinfeld’s study (1979), only a partial, preliminary edition of the Words of the Luminaries had been published in Maurice Baillet, “Un Recueil liturgique de Qumrân, grotte 4: ‘Les paroles des luminaires,” RB 68 (1961): 195–250.

a “prayer alleged to be jewish”

265

tor of the Prayer for the Catechumens had access to Jewish liturgical material that reached him by channels other than what has been transmitted to us as the standard synagogue liturgy. To facilitate the discussion, I first present the relevant data in the form of a table (the full texts in their original languages are provided in the appendix).12 Alongside the Sunday and Thursday petitions from Words of the Luminaries, the Prayer for the Catechumens in Apos. Con. 8.6.5–8, and the abbreviated versions of the Amidah prayer as recorded in the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds, I also include Psalm 155 as another example of this liturgical pattern from the Second Temple period with an afterlife in the Syriac Christian context.13 Psalm 155, which is quoted here from the large Qumran Cave 11 Psalms Scroll (11QPsa), is representative of numerous prayers of this kind from Second Temple times,14 and can also serve as a control for isolating those prayers that seem to stand in a closer literary relationship. For ease of comparison Psalm 155 and the Words of the Luminaries, which place the petition for forgiveness before the requests for knowledge and repentance, have been reordered in the

12 Only the relevant words are presented in the table (elliptical marks are not used). On the sentence order in the table in relation to the original texts see below. 13 The Syriac manuscripts that contain Psalms 151, 154, and 155 (including a Nestorian twelfth century manuscript of the Psalter) are described in J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJDJ 4; Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 53; the 11QPsa text of Psalm 155 appears with notes on pp. 70–76 (my table follows this edition with some minor changes to Sanders’ translation). 11QPsa contains these three psalms as well as most of the biblical Psalms 101–150, three previously unknown psalms, a poem related to Sirach 51, and a prose piece that enumerates David’s compositions. 14 In 11QPsa we also find this pattern in the previously unknown Plea for Deliverance and in the biblical Psalm 119 (for the dating of Psalm 119 on linguistic grounds to the Second Temple period see Avi Hurvitz, The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew [ Jerusalem: Bialik, 1972], 130–52 [Hebrew]). It is used in Levi’s prayer in the Aramaic Levi Document, which served as a source for the Greek Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (M. E. Stone and J. C. Greenfield, “Aramaic Levi Document,” in Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 [ed. G. J. Brooke et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam; DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996], 1–2, 27–32; Levi’s prayer is in 4Q213a/4QLevib ar 1–2), and also apparently in 4QCommunal Confession (4Q393), which quotes Psalm 51, the pattern’s chief “biblical antecedent” (D. Falk, “4Q393: A Communal Confession,” JJS 45 [1994]: 184–207; on Psalm 51 see Weinfeld, “Prayers for Knowledge,” 196). The adaptation of these petitions to the epistolary salutation in 2 Macc 1:1–6 is an outstanding example of the pattern’s wide diffusion during the Second Temple period. Note that the prayers enlisting this liturgical pattern are not all of the same prayer-type (Gattung). Cf. the discussion of Psalms 51, 119, 155, the Plea for Deliverance and Levi’s prayer by David Flusser in his article, “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers,” IEJ 16 (1966): 194–205.

esther g. chazon

266

table according to the sequence found in the rabbinic liturgy and Apos. Con. 8.6.5–8. We should bear in mind, however, that the different sequences might reflect two different outlooks, the one seeing remission of past sins as required first and the other, taking a gift of understanding to be the first step. In the table, underlining is used to indicate all parallels with Apos. Con. 8.6.5–8; the latter’s distinctive parallels with the Thursday prayer are additionally marked in italics; bold indicates a parallel between the Words of the Luminaries and the Amidah that is not found in the Prayer for the Catechumens. Petitions for Knowledge, Repentance, and Forgiveness Psalm 155

Prayer for Sunday

Prayer for Thursday

Apos. Con. 8.6.5–8 5

9

17

Grant me understanding in your Torah and teach me your ordinances

to make us understand the testimonies 8

[teach us] your [ l]aws, the Torah to implant your Torah in our heart [so as not to stray] from right or left 14 [Blessed is] God who has made know[n to us . . .]15 11

12 do not stiffen] our neck again,

Give us understanding to know your ways

Give us understanding

Circumcise our heart to fear you

Desire our repentance16

implant in them his fear, open the ears of their hearts to engage in his Law (cf. 7.26.3: you implanted a law in our souls) 6

establish them in piety;

Circumcise the foreskin of [our heart, lead me not into situations too hard for me.

y. Ber. 4:3, 8a

teach them his ordinances, 13–14

11b

Illumine them give them understanding,

b. Ber. 29a

16

save us from sinning to you

save them from all impiety, and give place to

15 This is the benediction that concludes the Sunday prayer. The concluding benediction typically offers praise for the main benefit requested in the petition that precedes it, which in this case appears to be the knowledge of the Torah and its laws necessary “to walk in your (i.e., God’s) ways.” The reconstruction of a verb such as wndml (“[teach us] your [la]ws”) in line 8 is, therefore, virtually certain. 16 If wnb?yçh¿l (“to [retur]n us”) is to be restored in Thursday’s petition for repentance (4Q504 1–2 13), then this would constitute a parallel with the Palestinian version of the abbreviated Amidah as well as with the full form of the Amidah (in all versions, for an example see the appendix). For this preferred reconstruction and alternative possibilities see Chazon, “Words of the Luminaries,” 237.

a “prayer alleged to be jewish”

267

Table (cont.) Psalm 155

Prayer for Sunday

12a The sins of my youth cast far from me 13a Purify me from (the) evil scourge

strengthen our heart to do [ ] 13 to walk in your ways

8

5–7

Judge me not according to my sins 12b may my transgressions be not remembered against me.

Have mercy on us,17 remember not the iniquities of forefathers Redeem us, forgive our iniquities and sins

Prayer for Thursday

Apos. Con. 8.6.5–8

b. Ber. 29a

y. Ber. 4:3, 8a

no adversary against them; cleanse them from all pollution of flesh and spirit 7–8

Act as yourself, as you forgave our forefathers 11–12 Turn your anger away from your people for all [their] sins

7

obtaining forgiveness18 of their trespasses; 8 that God be gracious and kind, the forgiveness of trespasses

Forgive us

Forgive us

The table shows the liturgical pattern of petitions for knowledge, repentance and forgiveness in all the exemplars as well as the linguistic parallels between the various texts. The linguistic parallels between Apos. Con. 8.6.5–8 and the daily Amidah prayer (whether according to its abbreviated or full version) are neither distinctive nor numerous. They amount to the common verbs ‘make understand’ (cf. (y)wnnybh in Psalms 119:125, 155:8) and ‘forgive.’19 In contrast, the correspondences between the Prayer for the Catechumens and the Thursday prayer in the Words of the Luminaries are more impressive both quantitatively and qualitatively. They consist not only of the same liturgical pattern with some typical language but also encompass two distinctive expressions that are strategically juxtaposed. Proceeding from the more common to the more distinctive, I will first register the typical language that occurs in the petitions of this liturgical pattern:20 1) “to make us understand the testimonies” 17 The text of 4Q504 4 5–7 here overlaps the third copy of the Words of the Luminaries, 4Q506 11–14, giving us a few complete lines. 18 With the exception of this rendering of apheseòs as ‘forgiveness’ (see, e.g., Matt 26:28) rather than ‘remission,’ I faithfully follow Fiensy’s translation of Apos. Con. 8.6.5–8 here. For the Greek text I have used M. Metzger, Les Constitutions Apostoliques (Paris: Cerf, 1987), 3:152–54. 19 The motif of ‘fear of God’ also occurs in the petition for repentance in Apos. Con. 8.6.5 and in the abbreviated version of the Amidah recorded in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Ber. 29a) but, the latter formulates the petition with the metaphor of ‘circumcising the heart’ rather than of ‘implanting.’ 20 In comparing the Thursday prayer to the Prayer for the Catechumens, I give the

268

esther g. chazon

(Thursday), corresponding to “give them understanding . . . teach them his ordinances and judgments” (Prayer for the Catechumens; cf. Sunday’s “[teach us] your [la]ws”); and 2) “act . . . as you forgave our forefathers . . . turn your anger and your wrath away from your people Israel for all [their] sins” (Thursday), corresponding to “obtaining forgiveness of their trespasses” (Prayer for the Catechumens; cf. Sunday’s “forgive our iniquities and our sins”). As noted above, there are in addition two distinctive expressions, and these warrant a separate discussion. It will also prove to be significant that these two expressions are similarly juxtaposed in both prayers. The first expression is ‘implanting God’s Torah/Law in the worshippers’ hearts.’ As Fiensy has amply demonstrated, this expression is a favorite of the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions and, therefore, it is usually attributed to him.21 However, even Fiensy, who systematically treats such favorites as redactional elements and rejects their Jewish origin, admits: “it is remotely possible that the Jewish source could have furnished the compiler with a theme or expression which he favored.”22 I submit that we have before us just such a case. The fact that the expression was already known in early Christian texts (e.g., John 5:38–40, James 1:21, Epistle of Barnabas 9:9),23 and that it suited the Hellenistic concepts of implanted knowledge and innate law,24 could account for its appeal to this fourth century Christian redactor/compiler. parallels in the Sunday prayer parenthetically. Here we should recall that all the prayers in the Words of the Luminaries are composed by the same author, as demonstrated by the chronological progression during the week in the historical recollections that precede each day’s petition (see Chazon, “Liturgy or Literature?”). 21 Fiensy, Prayers, 170, 204 n. 17 and van der Horst, “Greek Synagogue Prayers,” 43, both scholars commenting on Apos. Con. 7.33.3 “by implanted knowledge and natural judgment as well as through the teaching of the Law” (the translation is van der Horst’s, ibid., 39, for which he uses normal type to indicate material whose Jewish or Christian origin is still in dispute; cf. Fiensy, Prayers, 51). On the expression in 7.26.3 and 8.6.5 see below. 22 Fiensy, Prayers, 166–67. Fiensy made this statement in setting out his criteria for identifying editorial activity within Apos. Con. 7.33–38, a passage which even he agrees used a Jewish liturgical source (on this passage see also below). 23 On John 5:38–40 see Weinfeld, “Prayers for Knowledge,” 194 n. 44 and D. Flusser, “ ‘He has Planted It [i.e., the Law] as Eternal Life in our Midst’,” Tarbiz 58 (1989): 147–53 (Hebrew), especially 152 n. 28; Flusser (ibid., 151 n. 21) also notes James 1:21 and Barnabas 9:9. Barnabas 9:1 mentions circumcision of the heart and the ears in the same context as do the Words of the Luminaries (the heart; cf b. Ber. 29a in the chart) and the Prayer for the Catechumens (the ears). 24 See, for example, Fiensy, Prayers, 51 n. 16 and the sources cited by him as well as the recent study by H. Najman, “The Law of Nature and the Authority of Mosaic Law,” SPhA 11 (1999): 44–73.

a “prayer alleged to be jewish”

269

David Flusser had already recognized the close similarity of this expression as it is formulated in Apos. Con. 7.26.3 with the benediction said after the public Torah reading. He suggested that this “Christian prayer” for recitation after participation in the Eucharistic meal here plausibly “echoes an accepted Jewish expression.”25 Flusser cited Apos. Con. 7.26.3, the Words of the Luminaries, and an early rabbinic homily on Qoh 12:11 that likens the Torah’s words to implanted spurs (t. Sot. 7:11), as solid evidence for the antiquity of the version of the Torah benediction that blesses God “who gave us the true Torah and implanted it (the Torah) within us for eternal life.”26 The Words of the Luminaries is by far our oldest evidence for this nonbiblical expression of implanting the Torah within human beings, and documents its liturgical use more than 200 years before the expression resurfaces in the early rabbinic period/first Christian centuries. Significantly, over against the doxological blessing recited when reading the Torah, the Words of the Luminaries attests the ancient, and perhaps original, use of this expression to formulate a petition for knowledge of the Torah whose goal is its observance. Furthermore, the context in the Words of the Luminaries is the liturgical pattern of petitions for forgiveness, repentance and knowledge. This is precisely the usage and the context that we find in the Prayer for the Catechumens, and it would seem that Apostolic Constitutions is not merely echoing a Jewish expression but also faithfully preserving an ancient, pre-rabbinic usage. The correspondences between the Prayer for the Catechumens and the Thursday prayer do not, however, end here. Strikingly, both prayers also juxtapose the request for implanting and understanding the Torah and its laws with a distinctively phrased request to be saved from sin/impiety.27 In contrast, the ‘implanting’ metaphor and the 25

Flusser, “ ‘He has Planted It,” 151 (the translation is my own). For this ancient version, Flusser (“ ‘He has Planted It,” 152 nn. 25–27) cites Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, ‘Ahavah 12:5, and the old Yemenite rite, ˆtn rça wnkwtb h[fn μlw[ yyj tma trwt wnl. Flusser had discussed this Torah benediction as reflected in t. Sot. 7.11 and the Qedushah de-Sidra liturgy, briefly noting the “Words of the Luminaries,” in his earlier article, “Sanktus und Gloria,” in Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gespräch über die Bibel. Festschrift für Otto Michel (ed. O. Betz, M. Hengel, P. Schmidt; AGJU 5; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 129–52, see especially 141–43. The other version of the Torah benediction, used almost universally today, omits the feminine singular pronominal suffix on the verb for implanting (referring to the Torah), thereby creating the impression that what is implanted is eternal life (for an early medieval example see Siddur R. Saadja Gaon [ed. I. Davidson, S. Assaf, I. Joel; Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1941], 329. All citations from R. Saadja’s Siddur use this edition). 27 The Thursday petition here employs the root afj. In the corresponding line, 26

270

esther g. chazon

specific language of ‘saving from sin’ occur neither in the rabbinic benedictions for knowledge, repentance and forgiveness nor in the petitions for knowledge and protection from sin that are more or less contemporary with the Words of the Luminaries (Psalm 119, Psalm 155, the Plea for Deliverance, Levi’s prayer).28 This liturgy from Qumran thus provides a venerable, unequivocally Jewish precedent for the specific request to be saved from sin in a prayer of this type, and as such it sheds light on the Jewish background of yet another phrase in the Prayer for the Catechumens. In sum, the two distinctive parallels, their juxtaposition in both prayers, and the relatively high concentration of correspondences in a short passage all suggest that Apos. Con. 8.6.5–8 made use of a Jewish source like the Thursday prayer: i.e., a petition for knowledge, repentance, and forgiveness that was more similar linguistically to the Words of the Luminaries than to the Amidah liturgy in any of its extant versions. In addition to the two distinctive expressions, this source probably contained additional expressions found in Apos. Con. 8.6.5–8 that occur more frequently in Jewish petitions for knowledge and repentance from both the Second Temple and rabbinic periods (e.g., illumine them, open their hearts to God’s Torah/Law, set no adversary against them and cleanse them from pollution).29

the Prayer for the Catechumens uses the noun asebeia; this Greek word is one of many translation equivalents for afj (see T. Muraoka, Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint Keyed to the Hatch-Redpath Concordance [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998], 49), and may have been selected here to resonate yet contrast with eusebeia, found in the opening petitionary clause. The more common equivalent for afj, hamartia, is reflected in the exhortation to the catechumens that ends this section (anamartètov; Apos. Con. 8.6.8). 28 On these prayers see p. 265 and n. 14 above. They typically favor such language as “Do not let sin/Satan rule over me” and “distance sin/evil from me.” See also the discussion below and the next note. 29 As Flusser (“Sanktus und Gloria,” 143) noted, the request to open the heart to the Torah occurs already in 2 Macc 1:4 and then turns up centuries later in the Qedushah de-Sidra prayer, where it comes right after the benediction for implanting Torah (note the similar juxtapostion in Apos. Con. 8.6.5). On the more common petition for illumination, which is often based on the Priestly Blessing in Num 6:25, see the blessing on God’s love for Israel said right before the recitation of the Shema (e.g., Siddur R. Saadja Gaon, 17; this blessing is discussed below); and see also the additional Jewish and Christian texts cited by Weinfeld, “Prayers for Knowledge,” 194 n. 43. On protection from Satan, an adversary or an evil spirit, see the Plea for Deliverance and Levi’s prayer (nn. 14 and 28 above) and the private prayer recited by R. Judah the Prince in b. Ber. 16b, as well as Flusser, “ ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers.” These various expressions end up in separate prayers dispersed throughout the Jewish liturgy. It appears that the rabbis selected from the rich liturgical tradition

a “prayer alleged to be jewish”

271

Channels of Transmission How could a prayer like the Thursday petition in the Words of the Luminaries from Qumran Cave 4 come into the hands of the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions? In what follows, I sketch three different scenarios that fit the evidence presented in this study, as well as what we know about the historical context and modus operandi of the Apostolic Constitutions, the transmission of ancient texts in similar contexts, and the development of Jewish liturgy during the rabbinic/patristic period. To facilitate the discussion, I present the different scenarios in an ascending order of complexity, from one to three layers or steps from the Second Temple prayer to the Apostolic Constitutions. However, as I weigh the alternate possibilities, it will become quite clear that I consider the second scenario to be the most plausible. The first scenario would be that a prayer like that in the Words of the Luminaries was transmitted directly from the Second Temple period to fourth century Syria. It could have reached the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions via a Jewish source (oral or written), or perhaps through early Christian re-use. The path of the non-biblical (i.e., non-Masoretic and non-Septuagintal) Psalms 154 and 155, which are first attested in the Qumran Cave 11 Psalms Scroll and next turn up in Syriac Psalters, requires us to remain open to this possibility, as do the transmission histories of other Jewish works composed during the Second Temple period.30 This channel of transmission would have been independent of the statutory Jewish liturgy. A second, more likely scenario would be that the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions draws here, as he does elsewhere, upon contemporary synagogue liturgy in a form that preserves genuine Second Temple usage and that differs in its precise wording from the statutory liturgy as recorded in the Talmuds and the earliest Jewish prayer books (ca. ninth and tenth centuries CE). This state of affairs is consistent with the compiler’s purported use of the Sabbath Amidah in 7.33–38, and also with our picture of Jewish liturgical development in the period between the rabbis’ initial institutionalization of the at their disposal when they fixed alternate formulae in separate prayers at different points of the liturgy (see J. Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns [tr. R. Sarason; SJ 9; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1977], 37–71). 30 On this topic our honoree has written extensively; see, for example, M. E. Stone, “The Genealogy of Bilhah,” and “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha,” DSD 3 (1996): 20–36 and 270–95.

272

esther g. chazon

liturgy (ca. 100 CE) and the canonization of the texts in the early medieval prayer books.31 The Jewish source behind Apos. Con. 8.6.5–8, originally in Hebrew but probably translated into Greek by the time it reached the compiler,32 might plausibly, but not necessarily, be a version of the first three intermediary benedictions of the weekday Amidah prayer namely, the opening petitions for knowledge, repentance and forgiveness. In any event, the fact that the order of the petitions in the Prayer for the Catechumens agrees with the Amidah’s order over against that in the Words of the Luminaries and other Second Temple sources might reflect the Amidah’s influence on Apos. Con. 8.6.5–8 or its Jewish liturgical source. The second scenario would also nicely account for the material further on in Book 8 (8.37–39), where a similar relationship to and handling of Jewish liturgical texts appears to be at work. Regarding the prayers there, even Fiensy admits that the correspondences in themes and especially in their order (‘creation and renewal of the luminaries’ followed by ‘God’s love for his people’) suggest they are “curiously reminiscent of the prayers accompanying the Shema” and “may have

31 Rabbinic sources are explicit about the institution of obligatory, daily prayer and in particular, of the Amidah liturgy, under the direction of R. Gamliel of Yabneh (ca. 100 CE). What remains unclear is the degree to which the wording of the liturgy was fixed in this initial phase and indeed throughout the rabbinic period until the later geonic compilation of the first prayer books such as Seder Rab Amram Gaon (ed. D. S. Goldschmidt; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1971) and Siddur R. Saadja Gaon, (ed. Davidson et al). The rabbinic sources themselves never give the full text of the statutory prayers; rather, they refer to them by a name derived from the prayer’s first or last words or from its main theme. The question of whether there was an Urtext or whether the rabbis set only general guidelines (key content, blessing formulae, etc.) is still hotly debated. On this issue and for a critical review of recent research see R. Langer, “Revisiting Early Rabbinic Liturgy: The Recent Contributions of Ezra Fleischer,” Prooftexts 19 (1999): 179–94. A good inkling of the complexity of the problem is the dispute (mustered by both sides in the scholarly debate) between the two leading third century Babylonian sages, Rab and Samuel, in their explanation of the dissenting view in m. Ber. 4:1 (R. Joshua opposing R. Gamliel of Yabneh!) that it is sufficient to recite daily only “an abbreviated eighteen” (lit. “like the eighteen”): “What is meant by ‘AN ABBREVIATED EIGHTEEN’? Rab said: An abbreviated form of each blessing (lit. ‘like each blessing’); Samuel said: Give us discernment, O Lord, to know Thy ways, and circumcise our heart to fear Thee, and forgive us so that we may be redeemed . . .” (Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud: Berakoth [tr. M. Simon; London: Soncino, 1960], b. Ber 29a, cf. y. Ber. 4:3, 8a). Unlike Rab, Samuel requires a fixed text for the abbreviated eighteen (actually for the thirteen intermediary benedictions, which are the petitions), also known as the “Habinenu” prayer and recorded in the table above. 32 See p. 262 above, as well as Fiensy, Prayers, 209–20, and van der Horst, “Greek Synagogue Prayers,” 35–36.

a “prayer alleged to be jewish”

273

been Jewish.”33 Nevertheless, he says they are “different enough” and “edited sufficiently” so that “their original Jewishness is far less likely than in the case of AC 7.33–38. Even if we conclude that they were originally Jewish, we could not get at the original form of these prayers.”34 But, the fact that we cannot longer retrieve the original form, whether due to the compiler’s characteristic, thoroughgoing editing, or to his use of a different version of the liturgy than the ones canonized in our prayer books, or to a combination of these factors, does not mean that the source did not exist! Moreover, contrary to Fiensy’s assessment, Apos. Con. 8.37–39 does indeed display linguistic parallels with the corresponding Jewish prayers,35 and these combine with the striking juxtaposition of themes in the same order and the identical liturgical function as morning and evening praise to indicate the use of the synagogue liturgy as a source here too. For the sake of completeness, I will also explore a third scenario that arises from the implications of Pieter van der Horst’s recent study, “The Greek Synagogue Prayers in the Apostolic Constitutions, book VII.”36 Van der Horst posits that “the most likely Sitz im Leben” for the “prayers alleged to be Jewish” was the Christian liturgy of the church in Antioch, which already incorporated synagogue prayers. Documenting the evidence for synagogue attendance by Christians there, including the “vehement invectives” against it by the compiler’s contemporary, John Chrysostom, van der Horst argues that “the best thing church leadership could do was to see to it that the prayers the members of his community said in the synagogue, could also be said by them in the church.”37 This surely would have been

33

Fiensy, Prayers, 151–53. Fiensy, Prayers, 153. 35 For example, compare (1) “who fashions light” (rwa rxwy, the morning prayer, b. Ber. 11a–12a) and “who creates day and night” (hlylw μwy arwb, in the evening prayer e.g., Siddur R. Saadja Gaon, 26), with “who made day for works of light and night for rest . . . you fashioned the illumination and the sun” (Apos. Con. 8.37.2); (2) “illumine our eyes in your Torah” (in the morning benediction on God’s love e.g., Siddur R. Saadja Gaon, 17), with “cause your face to shine on your people . . . you enlightened us with the light of knowledge” in Apos. Con. 8.37.6; and (3) “Let us rest (lit. lie down, b. Ber 4b) in peace and rise in life and peace, and guard us . . . for you are our protector and savior” in the second benediction after the evening Shema (e.g., Siddur R. Saadja Gaon, 27), with “guard us through your Christ. Grant (that) the evening be peaceful and the night free from sin, and permit us (to have) eternal life” in the evening prayer in Apos. Con. 8.37.3 (cf. 8.39.4, the morning thanksgiving). 36 See n. 3 above. 37 Van der Horst, “Greek Synagogue Prayers,” 35. 34

274

esther g. chazon

a smart “tactical move” to lessen “the danger of loosing (sic) (Christians) to the synagogue.”38 If such a move indeed was implemented historically with the result that the compiler drew upon a Christian liturgy, then the church’s Jewish liturgical source would still be just one short step away.39 Nevertheless, given the reality of Christian synagogue attendance in fourth century Syria and the accessibility of synagogue prayers to Christians there, it is just as likely—perhaps even more likely—that the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions based himself directly upon contemporary Jewish liturgy.

Conclusion The approaches of Fiensy and van der Horst have the advantage of taking seriously the final Christian form of the Apostolic Constitutions, but they run the risk of overlooking some of its Jewish sources. I think it is possible to maximize this advantage without losing precious, sometimes uniquely preserved Jewish material if we hone our sights equally on both strata.40 I conclude, therefore, that while giving due weight to the Christian redaction and context of the Prayer for the Catechumens, we should acknowledge its underlying Jewish liturgical source and keep this prayer on the list of those considered to be of Jewish origin. This new assessment of Apos. Con. 8.6.5–8 thanks to the Words of the Luminaries now meets the strict criteria set by Fiensy for alleging Jewish origin; it is in harmony with the consensus view that the compiler used a form of the Sabbath Amidah in 7.33–38 and even drew, somewhat more freely, upon his knowledge of Jewish liturgy in parts of Book 8 as well. Thus, we have seen that the Dead Sea Scrolls can help us uncover more originally Jewish elements and liturgical sources in the Apostolic Constitutions, which sometimes were obscured or lost in the processes of literary transmission and liturgical institutionalization in both rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity. 38

Ibid. This third scenario would then entail three steps from the Second Temple exemplar to the Apostolic Constitutions: 1) from the Second Temple prayer to the Jewish liturgy, 2) from Jewish liturgy to Christian liturgy, 3) from the church liturgy in fourth century Antioch to the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions. 40 In fact, van der Horst promises to take such an approach in his new commentary on the prayers in the Apostolic Constitutions that he considers of Jewish origin. A sample of this new commentary, to be co-authored with Judith Newman, appears in van der Horst, “Greek Synagogue Prayers,” 38–46. 39

a “prayer alleged to be jewish”

275

Appendix (1) Apostolic Constitutions 8.6.5–8 5. ÑUp¢r t«n kathxoum°nvn pãntew §kten«w tÚn YeÚn parakal°svmen, ·na ı égayÚw ka‹ filãnyrvpow eÈmen«w efisakoÊs˙ t«n deÆsevn aÈt«n ka‹ t«n paraklÆsevn, ka‹ prosdejãmenow aÈt«n tØn flkes¤an éntilãbhtai aÈt«n ka‹ d“ aÈto›w tå afitÆmata t«n kardi«n aÈt«n prÚw tÚ sumf°ron, épokalÊc˙ aÈto›w tÚ eÈagg°lion toË XristoË aÈtoË, fvt¤s˙ aÈtoÁw ka‹ sunet¤s˙, paideÊs˙ aÈtoÁw tØn yeognvs¤an, didãj˙ aÈtoÁw tå prostãgmata aÈtoË ka‹ tå dikai≈mata, §gkatafuteÊs˙ §n aÈto›w tÚn ègnÚn aÈtoË ka‹ svtÆrion fÒbon, diano¤j˙ tå Œta t«n kardi«n aÈt«n prÚw tÚ §n t“ nÒmƒ aÈtoË katag¤nesyai ≤m°raw ka‹ nuktÒw. 6. bebai≈s˙ d¢ aÈtoÁw §n tª eÈsebe¤& •n≈s˙ ka‹ §gkatariymÆs˙ aÈtoÁw t“ èg¤ƒ aÈtoË poimn¤ƒ, kataji≈saw aÈtoÁw toË loutroË t∞w paliggenes¤aw, toË §ndÊmatow t∞w éfyars¤aw, t∞w ˆntvw zv∞w: =Êshtai d¢ aÈtoÁw épÚ pãshw ésebe¤aw ka‹ mØ d“ tÒpon t“ éllotr¤ƒ katÉ aÈt«n, kayar¤s˙ d¢ aÈtoËw épÚ pantÚw molusmoË sarkÚw ka‹ pneÊmatow, §noikÆs˙ te §n aÈto›w ka‹ §mperipatÆs˙ diå toË XristoË aÈtoË, eÈlogÆs˙ tåw efisÒdouw aÈt«n ka‹ tåw §jÒdouw ka‹ kateuyÊn˙ aÈto›w tå proke¤mena efiw tÚ sumf°ron. 7. ÖEti §kten°steron Íp¢r aÈt«n flketeÊsvmen, ·na éf°sevw tuxÒntew t«n plhmmelhmãtvn diå t∞w muÆsevw éjivy«sin t«n èg¤vn musthr¤vn ka‹ t∞w metå t«n ég¤vn diamon∞w. 8. ÉEge¤resye, ofl kathxoÊmenoi: tØn efirÆnhn toË YeoË diå toË XristoË aÈtoË afitÆsasye, efirhnikØn tØn ≤m°ran ka‹ énamãrthton ka‹ pãnta tÚn xrÒnon t∞w zv∞w Ím«n, xristianå tå t°lh Ím«n, ·lev ka‹ eÈmen∞ tÚn Y°on, êfesin plhmmelhmãtvn: •autoÁw t“ mÒnƒ égennÆtƒ Ye“ diå toË XristoË aÈtoË parãyesye. Kl¤nate ka‹ eÈloge›sye. (2) Psalm 155: 1–14

yla hbyçqh hkçdwq ˆw[ml ytlaç ta yl ˆtw ynmm [nmt la hrgmt law μy[çr ynpl tmah ˆyd yj lwk hkynpl qdxy awl yk yndml hkyfpçm taw hkdwbk ta wrdhy μym[w

hkyla ytarq hwhy .1 ypk ytçrp .2 hknzwa fh .3 ytçqbw .4 yçpn hnb .5 [rpt law .6 ynmm byçy [rh ylwmg .7 ytafjk ynfpçt la hwhy .8 hktrwtb hwhy ynnybh .9 hkyç[m μybr w[mçyw .10

esther g. chazon

276

ynmm twçqb ynaybt law yl wrkzy la y[çpw yla bwçl πswy law . . . yb wy?l¿[ wxny law

ynjkçt law ynrwkz ynmm qjrh yrw[n tafj [r [gnm hwhy ynrhf ynmm wyçrwç çby

.11 .12 .13 .14

(3) Words of the Luminaries Sunday (4Q504 4 5–15 + 4Q506 131+132 5–14) (Overlap with 4Q506 is indicated by underlining.)

?wçq rçaw [¿rh μlwmg lwkb μynwçr twnww[ wnl rwk?zt law wnmjr¿ .5–7 . . . ?wntf¿jlw wnnww[l ?an¿ jlsw wnydp hta μprw[b ?tklmm . . .¿ hçwm dyb ? hty¿wx rça hrwt hkyq?wj wndml¿ .8–10 ¿çwdq ywgw μynhwk qzj dw[ wn?p¿rw?[ hçqt la¿ ?wnbbl¿ tlrw[ hlwm trjb rç?a .11Î13 hkykrdb tkl?l . . .¿ twç[l wnbl ˆma ˆma ?. . . wn[¿ydwh rça ynwda ?˚wrb¿ .14–15 Thursday (4Q504 1–2 ii)

wnytwbal htaç?n r¿ça hkjwk lwdgk hkwmk an hç[ ynda hna .7–10 hktbhab hmhyl[ sjtw μdymçhl μb πnattw hkyp ta μtwrmhb ta t[d ˆ[mlw μtafj d[b hçw?m¿ rpk ayk hktyrb ˆ[mlw μtwa ?h¿kdsj bwr taw lwdgh hkjwk l[ larçy hkm[m hktmjw hkpa an bwçy μlw[ twrwdl .11–12 μywg yn[l htyç[ rça hkytwalpn ta htrkzw ?μta¿fj lk wnyl[ hkmç arqn ayk ytlbl¿ wnblb hktrwt t[flw çpn lwkbw bl lwkb wnb?yçh¿l? .13–15 ˆwhmtw ˆwrw[w ˆw[gçm wnaprt ayk lwamçw ˆymym?. . . rws wntrq wny[çpbw wnrkmn wnytwnww?[b . . . bbl¿ hkl awfjm wntlxhw . . . ? .16 twdw[tl wnnybhlw? .17

(4) Abbreviated Amidah B. Ber. 29a

˚ykrd t[dl wnyhwla ùh wnnybh ˚taryl wnbbl ta lwmw wnl jlstw

a “prayer alleged to be jewish”

277

Y. Ber. 4:3, 8a

wnnybh wnytbwçt hxr wnl jls (5) Full Amidah, Siddur Rab Amram Gaon .lkçhw hnyb h[d ˚tam wnnjw hnyb çwnal dmlmw t[d μdal ˆnwj hta .t[dh ˆnwj ùh hta ˚wrb

hmylç hbwçtb wnryzjhw ˚tdwb[l wnklm wnbrqw ˚trwtl wnyba wnbyçh .hbwçtb hxwrh ùh hta ˚wrb .˚ynpl ˆwnj ùh hta ˚wrb .wn[çp yk wnklm wnl lwjm wnafj yk wnyba wnl jls .jwlsl hbrmh

WHY NOT NAPHTALI? Vered Hillel The Hebrew University of Jerusalem “Why Naphtali?” Michael Stone first posed this question in his 1996 article, “The Genealogy of Bilhah,” where he pointed out “the existence of a developed Naphtali tradition in the period of the Second Temple” which had been “nurtured over the centuries” and eventually “reworked and remodeled in the Middle Ages.”1 Stone questioned why Naphtali should be the subject of one text, let alone of one preserved in four different works.2 The Greek Testament of Naphtali (T. Naph.) was published in 1698 by Johannes Grabe in the first edition of the Greek text of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (T. 12 Patr.).3 A Hebrew Testament of Naphtali (henceforth referred to as Hebrew Naphtali) has been known since 1893–94 when M. Gaster published a text that was preserved in the Chronicle of Jerahmeel.4 A further Hebrew parallel to T. Naph., 4QTNaph, was discovered at Qumran. 4QTNaph contains the genealogy, birth and naming of Bilhah.5 Parallel material to the genealogy of Bilhah is found in the Greek T. Naph. (1:9–12)

1 M. E. Stone, “The Genealogy of Bilhah,” DSD 3 (1996): 20–36, specifically 34–35. It is with great joy and honor that I dedicate this article to Michael Stone. He is a wonderful mentor and friend whose encouragement and insights are invaluable. 2 4QTNaph, Greek Testament of Naphtali, Hebrew Testament of Naphtali, and Midrash bereshit rabbati by Rabbi Moshe the Preacher in Narbonne (BR). On the history of and a survey of the relationships between these documents see, M. de Jonge, “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Related Qumran Fragments,” in For a Later Generation: Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. R. Argall, B. A. Bow and R. A. Werline; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 63–77; specifically 69–70. 3 J. E. Grabe, Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum, seculi post Christum natum I, II, & III (2 vols; Oxford: n.p., 1698). 4 M. Gaster, “The Hebrew Text of one of the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs,” Proc. of the Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology 16 (1893–94): 33–49; 109–17. 5 M. E. Stone, “4QTestament of Naphtali,” Qumran Cave 4: XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 71–82. For more information on the Testament of Naphtali from Qumran, see Stone, “Genealogy”; “Some Further Readings in the Hebrew Testament of Naphtali,” JJS 49 (1998): 346–47; and “Testament of Naphtali,” JJS 47 (1996): 311–21.

280

vered hillel

and in an eleventh century work composed in the circles of R. Moses the Preacher of Narbonne, Midrash bereshit rabbati.6 M. E. Stone also asked what there was about this son of Bilhah that justified devoting a document to him. He continued his search for the answer to these questions in a subsequent article, “Warum Naphtali?”7 and in his work on the Hebrew Naphtali material from Qumran.8 Although he uncovered information that helped clarify the prestige of a “Naphtali tradition,” the answers to the questions remained obscure. Since then B. Halpern-Amaru, in her work on Naphtali’s wife in the Book of Jubilees, has revealed another piece of evidence supporting the notion of a “Naphtali tradition” in the Second Temple period.9 The enigmatic nature of the “Naphtali tradition” and of the question “Warum Naphtali?” prompted me to examine the character of Naphtali as portrayed in T. Naph. and T. 12 Patr. as a whole. During the course of my pursuit, Naphtali began to emerge as a type of Joseph or as I dubbed him, a “proto-Joseph.”10 T. Naph. equates Naphtali with Joseph, thereby enhancing the prestige of the traditions about Naphtali. For example, Joseph, as a result of Rachel’s prayer for a son like Naphtali from her own womb, was like Naphtali “in all things” (T. Naph. 1:7, 8). As Joseph is ı égayÚw énÆr, Naphtali is the example of a “man of order unto good,” one who obeys God’s commands. His credentials as a “man of order unto good” are related in his biographical information (T. Naph. 1:1–2:1). He is appointed a messenger, his main role in T. Naph., as part of God’s divine plan and order. In agreement with the main paraenesis of T. Naph., “natural order,” his appointment as a messenger is the purpose for which he was created. It is the source of Jacob’s blessing and not a result of it. The manner in which the events surrounding Naphtali’s birth and genealogy are reworked and redacted to conform to the author’s design is an example of how “Naphtali traditions” support a NaphtaliJoseph comparison and enhance Naphtali’s prestige. 6 M. Himmelfarb, “R. Moses the Preacher and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” AJS Review 9 (1984): 55–78. 7 M. E. Stone, “Warum Naphtali? Eine Diskussion im Internet,” Judaica 54 (1998): 188–91. 8 See n. 5 above. 9 B. Halpern-Amaru, “Bilhah and Naphtali in Jubilees: A Note on 4QTNaphtali,” DSD 6 (1999): 1–10. 10 The notion of Naphtali as a “proto-Joseph” is developed by the writer in “Naphtali as a Proto-Joseph in the Testament of Naphtali” (M.A. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2002).

why

NOT

naphtali?

281

Birth and Genealogy The remarks on ancestry, birth and genealogy in T. Naph. do not focus on the patriarch, but on his mothers. Bilhah bore Naphtali “on Rachel’s knees,” and he was given his name by Rachel. After describing Rachel’s great love and affection for Naphtali and her desire for a son from her own womb who is like Naphtali in all things, T. Naph. relates Bilhah’s genealogy. The expression “she bore me on Rachel’s knees” and the genealogy of Bilhah, which by implication is Naphtali’s own, legitimize Naphtali’s lineage. In order for Joseph and Naphtali to be similar “in all things” (T. Naph. 1:8), it is important to show that Naphtali is a descendant of Abraham on his maternal as well as his paternal side. In the process, Naphtali is confirmed as Jacob’s son, of equal status with the sons of Leah and Rachel. The importance of proper ancestry in Jewish tradition and the use of genealogies to legitimize ancestry stem back to the biblical world.11 Biblical tradition tends to focus on the lineage of the father while, as pointed out by L. Ginzberg, who has subsequently been cited by most scholars dealing with the subject of genealogy, “the tendency of Jewish legend is to make all the tribes related to Abraham, on their maternal as well as their paternal sides.”12 Stone refers to an analogous tradition from T. Job 1:6, “I am from the sons of Esau, the brother of Jacob, of whom is your mother Dinah.”13 This makes Job an inlaw to the twelve patriarchs and “legitimates a testament from one outside the circle of patriarchal worthies.”14 Tobit further illustrates the importance of proper lineage in Jewish tradition when he repeatedly points out that he is a descendant of the tribe of Naphtali (1:1, 4, 5; 7:3).15 11 On the use and function of genealogies in the Bible see, R. R. Wilson, “Genealogy” and History in the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977). 12 H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 299, quoting L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909–1938), 5:295. Cf. de Jonge, “Fragments,” 71. 13 Stone, “Genealogy,” 28, n. 21. For bibliographic references on this tendency, see Stone, “Genealogy,” 28, n. 21 and n. 24, and 34, n. 37. 14 R. P. Spittler, “Testament of Job,” OTP 1:839–68; quote from 839, note m. 15 In an internet discussion on “Why Naphtali,” D. Suter pointed out to M. E. Stone that the Book of Tobit, “is much concerned with family and tribal cohesion” (Stone, Warum Naphtali, 190). How this and the various traditions present in the Greek T. Naph., 4QTNaph, and BR came together or were passed on from generation to generation is uncertain. They do, however, illuminate the importance of proper lineage in Jewish tradition.

282

vered hillel

B. Halpern-Amaru calls attention to the significance of the use of maternal genealogies, stating that the “broader functions of maternal genealogical identification” and the manner in which they were used “may have been employed to lend authority to male figures.”16 In the Book of Jubilees the author is particularly interested in showing that the wives of the patriarchs can trace their lineage to the house of Terah.17 He reworks the Genesis material and traditions to accentuate the matriarchal genealogy and to connect them to the line of Terah. However, detailed genealogical information is given only “for the wife of the biological and/or spiritual head of a given generation”; all others are given a more broad ethnic identification.18 The latter is the case with Bilhah’s genealogy in 4QTNaph and BR, where she is given Mesopotamian/Aramean roots only and not connected to the family of Abraham as in Greek T. Naph. In the same way that the author of Jubilees adapted biblical and traditional material to accentuate the women’s connection with the line of Terah, the author of T. Naph. adapted Bilhah’s genealogy, reworking it to legitimize and lend authority to Naphtali.

“On Rachel’s Knees” The figurative expression “on Rachel’s knees,” based on Gen 30:3 where Rachel offers Bilhah to Jacob that “she may bear upon” Rachel’s knees, simply means that Naphtali was adopted and reared by Rachel as one of her own children. The key to the phrase lies in the symbolic gesture of placing or receiving a child on or between the knees. This action, which is “widely attested in Near Eastern sources, especially Hittite, as well as in the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome,”19 signifies legitimization, whether in acknowledgment of physical parenthood or by adoption.20 In the Bible the phrase is used 16 “Bilhah and Naphtali,” 2. She mentions that Stone in his work on 4QTNaph suggests the significance of matriarchal genealogies. 17 For the significance of the matriarchs in Jubilees, see B. Halpern-Amaru, “The First Woman, Wives, and Mothers in Jubilees,” JBL 113 (1994): 609–26. 18 Halpern-Amaru, “Bilhah and Naphtali,” 7. 19 N. M. Sarna, Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS Translation ( JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 207–8. Cf. Hurro-Hittite tale of Appu. 20 The phrase may have originated from the Akkadian idea that the knee was

why

NOT

naphtali?

283

to signify both types of legitimization: Job asks God why his physical parents acknowledged him as heir ( Job 3:12), and Jacob is said to have adopted or legitimized Joseph’s sons as heirs when he placed them on or between his knees.21 T. Naph. 1:7 legitimizes Naphtali as Rachel’s offspring by relating that Bilhah birthed Naphtali on Rachel’s knees. Although the father normally performed this symbolic act, here the adoptive mother is intent on establishing her legal right to the child. As Rachel’s legitimate offspring, Naphtali is placed on equal status with Joseph and Jacob’s other sons born of Leah and Rachel. Consequently, Naphtali is a legitimate heir of Abraham on his maternal as well as paternal side.

Bilhah’s Genealogy Nevertheless, the writer does not seem to be satisfied with the legitimization of Naphtali as a descendant of Abraham through Rachel alone. He includes Bilhah’s genealogy, reworking the traditions concerning her family origin in an attempt to show that she too descended from Abraham.22 T. Naph. 1:9–12 asserts that Naphtali’s mother Bilhah was Zilpah’s sister and that they were both daughters of Rotheus, the brother of Deborah, Rebecca’s nurse, and Aina, one of Laban’s handmaids.23 Rotheus is described as a “freeborn and noble man” from the family of Abraham.24 This agrees with later Jewish tradition that Deborah was the daughter of Uz, the son of Abraham’s brother the seat of generative power: the “knee” was used as a euphemism for the sexual parts. An impotent man was one who had no knees. Sennacherib speaks of his oldest son as “the offspring of my knees.” 21 Gen 48:12: “Then Joseph took them from his knees, and bowed with his face to the ground.” Cf. Gen 50:23; the children of Machir, son of Manasseh, were born upon Joseph’s knees. The phrase in the LXX is the same as in T. Naph. 1:7. 22 R. H. Charles, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Translated from the Editor’s Greek Text and Edited, with Introduction, Notes and Indices. (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908), 136 notes that the purpose of Bilhah’s genealogy is to show her Semitic descent through Abraham. 23 See Jub. 32:9, which states that Bilhah and Zilpah were sisters, and Gen. Rab. 54.13 and Tg. Ps.-J on Gen 39:24, 29, which say they are both daughters of Laban. For a secondary reference, see G. Friedlander, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1981), 271–72. These traditions are based on Gen 29: 24–29. 24 Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 299, mention that the combination of the words “freeborn and noble” is well-known in Jewish and pagan sources of the Graeco-Roman period.

284

vered hillel

Nahor.25 Through this genealogy, T. Naph. tells us that Bilhah’s father is a descendant of Abraham; as a result she is a descendant of Abraham. The writer of T. Naph. conveys Bilhah’s mother’s lineage by telling us that she was a servant to Laban’s wife. This implies that she is from the household of Laban.26 Consequently, Naphtali is a legitimate descendant of Abraham through his birth mother as well. The absence of this particular biographical material from Hebrew Naphtali is significant, especially since both Hebrew Naphtali and Greek T. Naph. originate from a common source.27 Stone has shown that Bilhah’s genealogy attested in the Hebrew material from Qumran derives from Original Naphtali.28 Although the immediate source of BR is unclear,29 it appears that BR does not derive from Greek T. Naph. but “must have had another source,”30 because it contains elements shared with the Qumran document but not found in Greek T. Naph. Based on the deduction that both Greek T. Naph. and 4QTNaph derive from a common source and on the similarities between the Qumran material and BR, I can infer that the author of Greek T.

25 J. Dan, ed. Sefer Hayashar ( Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1986), Wa-Yeze, 57b–58a, and Hayye Sarah, 49a. 26 On the idea of a female servant being considered as from the household of her master, see Stone, DJD 22.75. 27 De Jonge has clearly demonstrated that there is no direct literary dependence of either Hebrew Naphtali or Greek T. Naph. on each other, but rather that they derive from a common source, probably an earlier testament which he calls Original Naphtali (M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of Their Text, Composition, and Origin [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953], 52–60, esp. 53; Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 296; cf. T. Korteweg, “The Meaning of Naphtali’s Visions,” in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs [ed. M. de Jonge; SVTP 3; Leiden: Brill, 1975], 261–90, esp. 270–82). For a survey of the relationship between the two documents, see J. Becker, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschicte der Testamente der Zwölf Patriarchen (BZNW 36; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 105–12. 28 “Genealogy,” 25–34, esp. 34. 29 Himmelfarb, “R. Moses,” 59, states that the passages in Genesis Rabbah seem to “represent a revision of the Testaments [T. 12 Patr].” However, her statement needs to be reassessed in light of the Qumran findings and H. J. and M. de Jonge’s research showing that Robert Grosseteste brought T. 12 Patr. to the west around 1235 (Stone, “Genealogy,” 24 cites H. J. de Jonge’s article, “La bibliothèque de Michel Choniatès et la tradition occidentale des Testaments des XII Patriarchs,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 53 [1973]: 171–80; repr. in de Jonge, Studies, 97–106. M. de Jonge also addresses the subject in his article, “Robert Grosseteste and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” JTS n.s. 42 [1991]: 115–25). 30 Stone, “Genealogy,” 35. On pages 25–31 of the same article, Stone gives examples of the similarities and differences. He points out that lines 1–5 of the 4QTNaph fragments are generally parallel to Greek T. Naph. 1:9–12 and BR, and lines 7–11 are parallel to BR but absent from Greek T. Naph. (“4QTestament,” 74).

why

NOT

naphtali?

285

Naph. reworked traditional material to suit his purposes to present Naphtali as Abraham’s offspring. The adaptation of Bilhah’s genealogy in T. Naph. is even more striking and pertinent when we note the absence of any specific mention of Abraham in 4QTNaph and BR. No ancestral link is mentioned; only an ethnic identification is implied.31 Both Hebrew texts state that Bilhah and Zilpah were sisters whose father was a brother of Deborah, Rebecca’s nurse, and thus from the household of Laban.32 Their mother, Hannah, was one of Laban’s female servants. This implies that she was also from Laban’s household. As a result, the texts identify both the mother and father of Bilhah and Zilphah as descendants of Laban. This implies an ethnic designation of their Aramean ancestral stock and is not an explicit reference to Abraham. But, why did the author of Greek T. Naph. adapt the existing traditions of the expanded biblical narrative? Hollander and de Jonge see no significant “direct relevance” of Bilhah’s genealogy for the purpose of T. Naph. and contend that it is included simply because the author “had access to traditional material that was thought fit to be inserted.”33 However, they have failed to recognize how Bilhah’s genealogy lends “authority to Naphtali.”34 In Jubilees, the level of a wife’s prestige depends on her proximity to the house of Terah. As stated earlier, precise lineage is given only for the wives of primary figures, the most illustrious heirs. General ethnic designations are used to distinguish the wives of the other brothers. For the author of Jubilees the wife’s lineage lends prestige to the husband.35 In a similar manner, T. Naph. adapts Bilhah’s genealogy to enhance the prestige of Naphtali. T. Naph.’s explicit reference to Rotheus as from the family of Abraham, a Chaldean, god-fearing, freeborn and noble, gives Naphtali

31 See, Stone, “4QTestament,” 75, and Himmelfarb, “R. Moses,” 61. De Jonge also discusses this in “Fragments,” 69–71. 32 Rebecca is presented as a descendant of Nahor and a sister to Laban in Jub. 19:1. See Halpern-Amaru, “First Woman,” 616. 33 Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 299. It should be noted that 4QTNaph had not yet been published when they wrote the commentary, and this might have affected their assessment. 34 Halpern-Amaru, “Bilhah and Naphtali,” 2. 35 Interestingly Naphtali, along with Levi and Simeon (in regard to his second wife), are described in Jubilees as having married someone of Aramean descent: Levi married a descendant of Terah and Simeon and Naphtali women from Mesopotamia ( Jub. 34:20–21).

286

vered hillel

added prestige (T. Naph. 1:10). Naphtali is not identified simply by his ethnic background, Chaldean (Aramean, Mesopotamian) but is connected with Abraham. All vestiges of servitude or discrimination due to Naphtali’s birth by a “handmaid” are removed: he is given equal rank with the brothers born of Leah and Rachel. The absence of genealogical information for Dan, Gad and Asher in T. 12 Patr. accentuates the function of Bilhah’s genealogy to legitimize Naphtali as a descendant of Abraham on his maternal (both Bilhah and Rachel) and paternal sides and to enhance his prestige. No genealogical information, other than the naming, is provided either for the sons of the “concubines,” or for the sons of the “wives,” Leah and Rachel.36 If the tendency to trace the patriarch’s lineage to Abraham on both his maternal and paternal sides is as widespread as it appears to have been, then the omission of genealogical material for the remaining eleven patriarchs and the inclusion of Bilhah’s genealogy serve to increase Naphtali’s prestige. This pattern strengthens the author’s portrayal of Naphtali as a “proto-Joseph.” Naphtali is a true descendant of Abraham through his father and through Bilhah his birth mother, as well as through Rachel his adoptive mother. All vestiges of servitude and discrimination are removed, further enhancing the prestige of Naphtali and the Naphtali-Joseph comparison.37

Conclusions Several conclusions may be drawn from the author’s adoption and adaptation of existing Naphtali traditions in order to enhance Naphtali’s prestige and to equate him with Joseph. First, the events surrounding Naphtali’s birth and genealogy allow us to venture further in defining the contents of Original Naphtali. Second, the inclusion of Bilhah’s genealogy helps illuminate the homogeneous nature of T. Naph.

36 T. Benj. 1:2 gives an abbreviated genealogy tracing Jacob to Abraham through Isaac but simply states that Rachel was Benjamin’s mother. 37 Joseph, a legitimate heir of Abraham, was birthed by Rachel but nursed by Bilhah after Rachel’s death. See F. Petit, ed., La chaîne sur la Genèse: Édition intégrale, vols 1–4 (Traditio Exegetica Graeca 1–4; Leuven: Peeters, 1991–1996), 4: no. 1804, which quotes Jub. 34:15–16 anonymously and in a redacted form.

why

NOT

naphtali?

287

Original Naphtali M. de Jonge and T. Korteweg following him have shown that Greek T. Naph. and Hebrew Naphtali go back to a common source, Original Naphtali.38 De Jonge correctly points out that both documents have been so thoroughly redacted that it is very difficult, if not almost impossible, to define the contents of Original Naphtali. Nonetheless, recognizing the difficulty and ambiguity, de Jonge endeavors to define the contents of Original Naphtali based on its subjects and argumentation.39 He posits that material common to Greek T. Naph. and Hebrew Naphtali, such as the visions,40 the list of body parts and their functions,41 and the exhortation(s) to follow Levi and Judah,42 was contained in Original Naphtali, the source document from which they derived.43 Our research allows us to venture beyond de Jonge’s findings to present additional material that may have been part of Original Naphtali. Interestingly, both Greek T. Naph. and Medieval Hebrew Naphtali convey Naphtali’s Abrahamic ancestry, albeit they exist in totally unrelated passages: Hebrew Naphtali tells how the house of Abraham chose to worship God whereas the other seventy nations chose to worship the angels, and Greek T. Naph. develops Naphtali’s ancestry through the inclusion of Bilhah’s genealogy.44 Nevertheless, they both equate Naphtali and his descendants with the house of Abraham. Based on this related subject matter, we can conclude that some type of reference to Naphtali’s lineage was part of Original Naphtali. It cannot be determined from an examination of the texts themselves which passage is closer to Original Naphtali. However, when we consider that Bilhah’s genealogy as recorded in 4QTNaph can also be traced to Original Naphtali, we can conjecture that Greek T. Naph. is closer to Original Naphtali in the case of ancestry. Based on the conclusion that Hebrew Naphtali, Greek T. Naph. and 4QTNaph derive from a common source, and on the fact that Bilhah’s genealogy is shared by 4QTNaph and Greek T. Naph. and not shared by

38 39 40 41 42 43 44

See n. 27. De Jonge, Testaments, 53–60. T. Naph. 5–7; Hebrew Naphtali 2–7. T. Naph. 2:8; Hebrew Naphtali 10:6. T. Naph. 8:2; Hebrew Naphtali 1:8, 7:5. De Jonge, Testaments, 53. Hebrew Naphtali 8:3–9:5.

288

vered hillel

Hebrew Naphtali, we can deduce that some form of Naphtali’s genealogy through Bilhah existed in Original Naphtali. T. Naphtali, A Coherent Whole The second conclusion is that T. Naph. is not simply a collection of existing Naphtali traditions put together in an incoherent manner: they are intricately woven together to present Naphtali as example of a “man of order unto good” and consequently, as a “proto-Joseph.” The author has clearly reworked existing traditions to fit his framework. The inclusion of Bilhah’s genealogy exemplifies this. It is not simply inserted because the author had traditional material he felt compelled to include, but serves to enhance Naphtali’s prestige by establishing his proper lineage and rank. Bilhah’s genealogy, which by implication is Naphtali’s own, legitimizes Naphtali as a descendant of Abraham on both his maternal and paternal sides. The use of the maternal genealogy lends further authority to Naphtali. An important point gleaned from the genealogy is Naphtali’s status within the family. All vestiges of servitude are removed and he is placed on equal status with his brothers. These inferences concur with the central theme and very essence of T. Naph., tãjiw rank/order). The author, through the genealogy, establishes Naphtali’s ancestral rank and his rank within his family. Naphtali is attributed the highest possible pedigree. He is a descendant of Abraham. In answer to Michael’s question “Warum Napthali?” the author of T. Naph. seems to answer “Why not Naphtali?” The existence of “developed Naphtali traditions” simply provided the author with the impetus and resources for reworking the traditional material to enhance Naphtali’s position and prestige. Not only does the author adapt traditional material like the genealogy of Bilhah to reflect the central theme/virtue of T. Naph., but he also adapts it to correspond to two of the main themes and patterns of T. 12 Patr.: using the patriarch’s life to illustrate the paraenesis, and reference or connection to Joseph. These similarities attest to the integrity of the Testaments as a coherent whole, and to authorial intent to provide some sense and direction to the document, showing that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs has a purpose and plan.

TWENTY-FIVE QUESTIONS TO CORNER THE JEWS: A BYZANTINE ANTI-JEWISH DOCUMENT FROM THE SEVENTH CENTURY Pieter W. van der Horst University of Utrecht

Introduction Probably in the second quarter of the seventh century CE, in the time that witnessed the rise of Islam, an anonymous Christian somewhere in the Byzantine Empire wrote a small manual aimed at helping his coreligionists to gain the upper hand in religious disputations with Jews. The manual has the form of twenty-five arguments, phrased as questions. This little treatise had gone entirely unnoticed until it was recently published by a French scholar.1 The modest aim of this contribution is to present an English translation of the Greek text (without commentary) and thereafter to attempt to situate this document in its historical context. The title of the treatise is not easy to translate: ÉEpaporhtikå kefãlaia katå t«n ÉIouda¤vn. It is clear that it is a treatise against (katã) the Jews which is intended to bring them into an “aporetic” situation (§paporhtikã), i.e., a situation from which there is no way out (hence the verb ‘to corner’ in the title). But what exactly is meant by kefãlaia? The current meaning of the word is ‘chapters,’ but it can also be used for parts or components of a chapter, hence ‘topics’ or ‘subjects’ or ‘passages from Scripture’ etc.2 In certain contexts kefãlaion can develop the sense of ‘argument on a specific subject,’ as here. 1 V. Déroche, “La polémique anti-judaïque au VIe et au VIIe siècle: Un mémento inédit, Les Képhalaia,” Travaux et Mémoires 11 (1991): 275–311. This edition is based upon nine textual witnesses from the tenth to fourteenth centuries. It is on account of the publication date of this edition (1991) that one does not find a reference to this treatise in the otherwise comprehensive work by H. Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1.–11. Jh.) (2d rev. ed.; Frankfurt: Lang, 1990). 2 See G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 748, and H. D. Saffrey and A.-P. Segonds, Marinus: Proclus ou sur le bonheur (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2001), 64 n. 15.

290

pieter w. van der horst Translation: Arguments to Corner the Jews (1) If the Law is a universal good, why then was it not given to every nation but to only one? And if it is not a universal good, then obviously it is a partial good. And if it is a partial good, it is clear that it was given because of a certain need, I mean because of the one who was to arise from the people of Israel. If the promise to Abraham, “In you and in your offspring all nations will be blessed,”3 is not a universal good, is it not obvious then that the promise to the nations will not be realized through the Law but through the coming of him who was expected, namely Christ? So it is of necessity that the Law comes to an end and the promise becomes reality when Christ appears. (2) If God is the God of all people and wants all people to be saved,4 whereas according to you it is through the Law that salvation has been given to all, why then has He not given the Law to every nation instead of only to one? (3) If the Anointed One, i.e. the Christ,5 is, as is written, “the expectation of the nations,”6 then it is obviously through him that there will be blessing for the nations. But if it is through him, then it is not through the Law; and if that is the case, then with the coming of the Anointed One the Law and the Jewish way of life necessarily come to an end. (4) If it is impossible for the nations, especially for those who live far away, to come thrice yearly to Jerusalem, as the Law decrees,7 is it not evident then that the Law is unable to bless the nations but rather declares them to be cursed? For (Scripture) says, “Cursed is everyone who does not remain in all that is written in the book of the Law in order to do that.”8 (5) If it is impossible that all the nations of the world, from East and West, from North and South, should live in the promised country from Dan to Beersheba, is it not obvious then that the nations cannot live in accordance with the Law? And if that is the case, is it not obvious as well that the promise for the nations is not realized through the Law but through a way of life in accordance with Christ? (6) If the Anointed One whom you await—whoever he may be—again proclaims the Law of Moses at his coming, is he not bound to be a

3 Gen 12:3 LXX with some modifications, notably the addition of “and in your offspring.” 4 See 1 Tim 2:4. 5 The first Greek word is ÉHleimm°now, the second one XristÒw. 6 Gen 49:10 LXX. The Greek has ¶ynh, so the semantic aspect of ‘gentiles’ is present as well. In what follows ¶ynh will be translated consistently by ‘nations.’ 7 Deut 16:16. 8 Deut 27:26, freely quoted.

TWENTY-FIVE QUESTIONS TO CORNER THE JEWS

291

figure less than Moses to whom the Law was given? In which respect does this figure, who has been proclaimed by so many prophets, differ from the man who is now your teacher, who explains and proclaims the Law,9 but who has never been able to save or bless any of you or of the nations through the Law? (7) If at every banishment God has ordained a fixed period for the exile of the Jews, such as 215 years in Egypt, 70 years in Babylon, and—let us say—some three and a half years during the reign of Antiochus,10 periods in which they would suffer terrible things but were still considered worthy (to receive) the prophets and divine oracles, what is it that would now prevent God from promising you to call back your compatriots? But lo, six hundred years and more have passed since you were driven from the Promised Land, during which you remain bereft of prophets and divine oracles.11 (8) If it is necessary that at the coming of the Anointed One the Law should disappear and “the expectation of the nations”12 come true, how then is it possible that at the coming of the one who is called the Christ among you—I mean Zerubbabel—he himself (re)built the Temple and validated the Jewish laws; while no “expectation of the nations” came true at all, but rather he himself put his hope in the nations by requesting them to (help him) (re)build the Temple?13 (9) If Moses announces, “God will raise up for you from among your brethren a prophet like me,”14 who is that prophet like Moses, I mean a prophet and lawgiver and miracle worker from the people of Israel? Those who say it is Zerubbabel are mistaken, for he was neither a prophet nor a miracle worker nor a lawgiver, even though he was a Jew. (10) If Moses announces, “God will raise up for you from among your brethren a prophet like me; listen to him in everything that he will say to you,”15 how could the one who does not accept this prophet not be a sinner? (11) If Moses announces, “Everyone who will not listen to this prophet will be extirpated from the nation,”16 how is it possible that a people

9 Who is meant here is unclear. Déroche surmises it is the Babylonian exilarch of the Jews (“Les Képhalaia,” 308). 10 Antiochus IV Epiphanes; the author refers to the years 167–164 BCE. 11 Probably the author reckons the expulsion from the promised country to have taken place not after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 but after the crucifixion of Jesus in 30, as was often done in Byzantine literature. See below, Argument 11. 12 Gen 49:10 LXX. 13 Cf. Ezra 6. 14 Deut 18:15. 15 Deut 18:15, with a very free rendering of the final words (the LXX only has aÈtoË ékoÊsesye). 16 Deut 18:19, again very freely quoted.

292

pieter w. van der horst that pre-eminently has not listened to Isaiah, Jeremiah and the other prophets, has not been extirpated, whereas in the time of our Christ those who did not believe in him were extirpated, all of them indeed? They have been deprived of their country, their city, their Temple, their priests, their sacrifices, their prophets, their scholars,17 and of all other institutions of their laws, so much so that they could not demonstrate in any respect any more that they were Jews. So sober up and learn by what cause you have been bereft of these things, instead of fooling yourselves with idle hopes. (12) If God declares under oath, whoever it may be He is talking to, “You are a priest for eternity according to the order of Melchizedek,”18 and not according to the order of Aaron, how could the order of Aaron be anything but temporary and that of Melchizedek [anything but] eternal?19 (13) If then the priesthood according to Melchizedek and the one according to Aaron are different in kind, let them explain to us how it is possible that the two are identical. And since that is impossible, let them explain to us which of the two is temporary and which is eternal. It is of course obvious that the priesthood according to Aaron, which by reason of its hereditary nature was preserved among the sons of priests, was of a temporary nature because of the dying out of those to whom (this task) was entrusted; whereas the priesthood according to Melchizedek was promised to only one person because of its eternal nature.20 (14) If it is impossible that God should lie and if it is possible to hear him saying under oath, “You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek,” whereas the priesthood according to Aaron is derived from the Law, isn’t it absolutely inevitable then that a change of priesthood necessarily implies a change of the Law as well? (15) If God declares to David, again under oath, that his offspring and the throne of his kingship are eternal,21 then show us or tell us where we have to look for David’s offspring and throne so that, after such a long time, we will not surmise that this prediction was a lie. (16) If, as you say, all nations will perish with Gog22 in the final days before the coming of the Christ you expect, which then are the nations whose expectation is the Christ for their salvation,23 and not for their perdition?

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Or: scribes. Ps 110:4 (109:4 LXX). Cf. Heb 7:11. Ps 110[109]:4 with Heb 7:23. Ps 89:4. Ezekiel 38. Cf. Gen 49:10.

TWENTY-FIVE QUESTIONS TO CORNER THE JEWS

293

(17) If, because of Israel’s exodus from Egypt, the Egyptians were destroyed by the supremely heavy punishment of drowning, and if you, after having received the Law, have totally extirpated many nations as well, and if you have done the same thing again during the reigns of Hezekiah and Zerubbabel and also during the rule of the Macedonians and the Maccabees and on many other occasions with very many nations, apparently because of the customs in your Law and traditions, is it not overly clear on the basis of such deeds that it is not so much a promise that is realized for the nations through the Law but rather a multitude of torments? (18) If God has ordered that in the desert there would come a first and a second tabernacle,24 and the first one is a representation25 of this world but the second one a representation of the heavenly world,26 then is it not obvious that when the first one disappears the second would appear that had always remained inaccessible and invisible for the priests of the Law? (19) If all impiety and injustice done by people is directed against either God or one’s neighbour, is it not obvious then that the commandments in the Law which do not pertain to this27—for example, circumcision, abstention from work on the Sabbath, the rules for food and dress, purity regulations, sacrifices and the like—have been given for another purpose? And if that is true, which it is, it is obvious that they were not given because of God or one’s neighbours but—as has already been said—in order to confine and safeguard the nation until the coming of the one who is expected to arise from its midst. Now that he has come, of necessity those rules of the Law stop being valid and only faith and love of God and one’s neighbour remain,28 that is to say, all that is more pleasing to God and does not abolish a life in accordance with Christ. (20) If the Christ, who had been prophesied by the Law and the prophets, is the expectation of the nations and their rule29 and hope, how is it possible that you do not see that now all the nations have bowed down before the Christ worshipped by us, thrown away their

24

Exod 26:33; Leviticus 16. Gr. typos. 26 Hebrews 8–9. 27 The Greek has tå perittå toË nÒmou, which is hard to render adequately. The adjective perittos can mean ‘superfluous, unnecessary,’ hence Déroche’s translation “les superfluités de la Loi” (306). But that is not what the author wants to say here, for he immediately adds that these laws served to safeguard the people of Israel till Christ’s coming. What he means is that these rules do not pertain to, and hence go beyond, the sins people commit against God or their fellow humans. Only after Christ’s coming do they become “superfluous” indeed. In the background is Gal 3:23–29. 28 Cf. 1 Cor 13:13. 29 Here érxÆ is abstractum pro concreto in the sense of êrxvn, ruler. 25

294

pieter w. van der horst idols because of him while sending up their Amen to God, since all of them regard Abraham as their father; and—in accordance with what is written, “The whole world is filled with the knowledge of the Lord”30—they read Moses and the prophets, and on the basis of these writings depend on Christ since they have distanced themselves from their old superstition? (21) If in each of your captivities every one of your tribes has been preserved, how is it possible that now, after the coming of him whom we believe to be the Christ, not a single one (of your tribes) has been preserved and you have also lost all the institutions of your Law? (22) If according to you the Christ from the tribe of Judah who was proclaimed by the Law and the prophets31 has not come, why do you go on expecting him now that not even one tribe has been preserved or can be preserved any more? (23) If it is impossible for mules to know by themselves to which donkey and which horse they owe their existence, then similarly you cannot know (who your forebears are) after having been fused and mixed for thirty or more generations. (24) If it is because of your individual sins that you have been made bereft of your country, city, Temple, priests, prophets, sacrifices, and the whole worship according to the Law, how then could it be that previously, when you—aside from other individual sins—surrendered yourselves to idolatry, both privately and collectively, and openly demonstrated your impiety towards God by slaughtering your own children for idols, you were not then deprived completely of all these things, but only partially and temporarily, whereas now, now that you no longer slaughter your children nor murder each other or commit idolatry, you have been completely deprived of these things because of your individual sins? (25) If we have been led to Christ by the Law and the prophets as if by a pedagogue,32 then it is a good thing that the Law has been given by a good God who has turned out to be a pedagogue for leading the Jews towards the one who has been raised from their midst and who turned out to be the salvation not only for the nations but for the whole world.33

30 31 32 33

Isa 11:9, quoted freely. Gen 49:10 and Mic 5:1. Gal 3:24–25. I.e., including the Jews.

TWENTY-FIVE QUESTIONS TO CORNER THE JEWS

295

Context This is not the place for an in-depth study of this document, but some provisional remarks are in order here. The heyday of early Christian Adversus Judaeos literature was the three centuries between 150 and 450 CE.34 In those centuries, from Justin’s Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo to Evagrius’ Altercatio inter Simonem Judaeum et Theophilum Christianum,35 anti-Jewish polemics are very much in the air. Thereafter, when Christianity has become the dominant power in the late antique and early Byzantine world, the church can afford to be less worried about the Jews whose rights had in the meantime been drastically curtailed and whose position had for that reason become much weaker.36 AntiJewish polemic then decreases (although it never disappears).37 There is, however, a clearly discernible revival of Christian antiJewish literature in the second half of the sixth and the first half of the seventh centuries, the period to which our Kephalaia belong. From that period we have, for instance, the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae and the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (both second half of the sixth century), the Disputatio Gregentii cum Herbano Judaeo (probably about 600), the Disputatio de religione (also about 600), the Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati (circa 635), the Apologia contra Judaeos written by Leontius of Neapolis on Cyprus (circa 640),38 the Dialogus Papisci et Philonis (the middle of the seventh century), and several other less well-known works of a similar nature.39 It has, moreover, to be kept in mind 34 See on this, apart from Schreckenberg’s magnum opus (Die christlichen AdversusJudaeos-Texte), also the still fundamental study by M. Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations Between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (AD 135–425) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986; French original: Paris 1948), esp. 135–78. 35 See on this author (not to be confused with Evagrius Ponticus or Evagrius of Antioch) C. Kasper, “Evagrius, antijüdischer Polemiker,” in Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur (ed. S. Döpp and W. Geerlings; Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 223. 36 See A. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit: Wayne State University Press; Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987); and K. L. Noethlichs, Die Juden im christlichen Imperium Romanum (4.–6. Jahrhundert) (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2001). 37 It is illustrative of the changed situation that in Schreckenberg’s large survey, the discussion of anti-Jewish literature from the three centuries between 150 and 450 takes more than 200 pages whereas the discussion of the literature in the three centuries between 450 and 750 takes less than 100 pages. 38 This is the only work in this series of which we know the author. 39 In his Introduction to the edition of the Greek text Déroche gives a much more detailed enumeration with bibliography (for the latter see also H. G. Beck,

296

pieter w. van der horst

that probably for the most part this literature has not been preserved.40 What is the Sitz im Leben of these writings? It should not be assumed that these texts, mostly dialogues, are verbatim reports of disputations that had really taken place. What militates against that assumption is, inter alia, the endless repetition in all these works of the same arguments and the same biblical “prooftexts.” These are manuals or textbooks for interreligious polemics, in this case of Christians against Jews, although it has to be added that the ever recurring arguments and prooftexts must inevitably have derived from the practice of actually conducted debates if such manuals were to make any sense. Given that the later works stem from the second quarter and the middle of the seventh century, one could surmise their background to have been the decree which the Emperor Heraclius (who ruled from 610–641) issued in 632, to the effect that all Jews had to be baptized and convert to Christianity.41 In such a situation many Christians inevitably came into contact with Jews who, after their compulsory baptism, still had to be talked out of their old beliefs and practices (in fact many of them became Marranos avant la date).42 But that does not explain the instances of anti-Jewish disputes from the period before Heraclius. It is important to state that at the beginning of the period discussed here, namely in 553 CE, the Emperor Justinian issued his famous Novella 146 (entitled De Hebraeis). In this edict Justinian decrees that in their synagogue services the Jews are allowed, yes even encouraged, to use Greek Bible translations instead of the Hebrew original, preferably the Septuagint, since these translators were heralds of the comKirche und Theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Zeitalter [Munich: Beck, 1959], 332–33 n. 1). Information also in S. Krauss and W. Horbury, The Jewish-Christian Controversy (TSAJ 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 1:46–50. Schreckenberg’s Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte is more informative than most other works. The later character of these works in comparison with earlier ones is most apparent in the greater role of Jewish polemics against veneration of the cross, of relics, of tombs of saints, of icons etc., which was regarded by Jews as idolatry. 40 See B. Blumenkranz, “Vie et survie de la polémique anti-juive,” Studia Patristica I.1 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1957), 460–76. 41 See A. N. Stratos, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, vol. 1: 602–634 (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1968), 305–7; G. Dagron and V. Déroche, “Juifs et chrétiens dans l’Orient du VIIe siècle,” Travaux et Mémoires 11 (1991): 28–32. Cf. A. Sharf, Byzantine Jewry from Justinian to the Fourth Crusade (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971), 53–56. 42 Maximus Confessor (c. 580–662) already stated clearly in his Epistula 8 (in fine) that he feared that this compulsory baptism would lead to very insincere “conversions” on the part of the Jews.

TWENTY-FIVE QUESTIONS TO CORNER THE JEWS

297

ing of Christ, but if need be, also the translation by Aquila.43 Moreover, the Emperor prohibits the use of the primary text of the rabbinic movement, the Mishnah (here called deuterôsis, a term that probably also included the Talmud, which was based upon the Mishnah), and in other edicts he also deprived them of their few remaining rights within the state. Under the emperors after Justinian, “the Jews were increasingly reduced to the position of a very marginalised social and cultural element within a predominantly Christian society.”44 These measures could not but provoke a strong reaction, if not a counterattack, on the part of the Jews (as they did on the part of the Samaritans as well). From several sources of this period, we learn that indeed it was often Jews who initiated debates in which Christians were challenged, especially as regards their untenable interpretations of the Jewish Bible. Exactly in the period in which the Church, by means of the Christian Emperors, curtailed the Jews more and more and cornered them, the Jews launched a counterattack. As early as the beginning of the fifth century CE, Jerome already pointed out the intensity of Jewish attacks on Christian exegesis of the Jewish Bible (Comm. in Isaiam 7.14), for example when it concerned the explanation of the prophetic text about the ‘virgin’ ( parthenos) who would bear a son, where according to the Jews the original text simply spoke about a ‘young woman’ ('almah). And not long after the Council of Chalcedon, in 452 CE, the Emperor Marcianus issued a decree that the decisions taken at that council should not become a matter of public debate because such discussions would only lead to profanation of the Christian mysteries by the Jews.45 It is also in the period under consideration here (sixth-seventh centuries) that one finds very outspoken anti-Christian polemics in Jewish liturgical poetry.46 The continuous attacks on ‘Edom’ in these synagogal poems are very clearly meant as polemics against the Church 43 Text, translation and commentary in Linder, Jews 402–11. See also M. AviYonah, Geschichte der Juden im Zeitalter des Talmud in den Tagen von Rom und Byzanz (SJ 2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962), 250. 44 J. F. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century. The Transformation of a Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 346. 45 Text and translation in Linder, Jews, 337–55. 46 See W. J. van Bekkum, “Anti-Christian Polemics in Hebrew Liturgical Poetry (Piyyut) of the Sixth and Seventh Centuries,” in Early Christian Poetry (ed. J. den Boeft and A. Hilhorst; VCSup 22; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 297–308; and idem, “Jewish Messianic Expectations in the Age of Heraclius,” in The Reign of Heraclius (610–641): Crisis and Confrontation (ed. G. J. Reinink and B. H. Stolte; Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 95–112.

298

pieter w. van der horst

of Rome (= Edom = Constantinople). Also some passages in rabbinic literature point in the direction not only of active Jewish participation but also of initiation of debates with Christians.47 The Talmud tells us that a rabbi in Caesarea Maritima said to his Christian fellow citizens, in a setting of a debate about the meaning of biblical texts, that he and his coreligionists had so much to do with Christians that they studied thoroughly the Christian interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.48 That Christians did not always prevail in such circumstances stands to reason, in spite of what the Christian Adversus Judaeos tractates would have us believe. At the beginning of the seventh century, John Moschus tells in his famous Pratum spirituale (ch. 172) that the monk Cosmas Scholasticus, who owned the greatest private library in Alexandria, spent his days writing polemical treatises against the Jews; John remarks that Cosmas himself never embarked upon or exposed himself to actual debates with Jews in the city but sent out others to perform this task, in which they could gratefully make use of the arguments penned by Cosmas. This man could in theory have been the author of our Kephalaia. The Byzantine patriarch Photius records that in that same city even Samaritans engaged in debate with Christians with an array of anti-Christian arguments.49 This and other evidence50 strongly suggests that it was exactly the weakened position of the Jews within the Christian Byzantine Empire that induced them to challenge the Christians in matters of interpretation of the Bible. It is in this framework that our little treatise with twenty-five questions to corner the Jews finds a credible context, certainly if it could be dated to the years after Heraclius’ edict of 632. It cannot be proved, but nor is it to be excluded, that the problem of the attractiveness of the Jewish religion, as we know it so well especially from the anti-Jewish sermons John Chrysostom delivered in Antioch in the years 386–387 CE,51 still played a significant role in the decades around 600 CE. 47

Simon, Verus Israel, 179–201. B. Avoda Zara 4a. 49 Photius, Bibliotheca cod. 230 (= vol. V, pp. 60–64 Henry). See R. Pummer, Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 425–29. 50 Inter alia from writings of the famous abbot of the St. Catharine monastery in the Sinai, Anastasius Sinaita (seventh century); see Déroche, “La polémique,” 284–85. 51 See P. W. van der Horst, ‘Jews and Christians in Antioch at the End of the Fourth Century,’ in Jewish-Christian Relations Through the Centuries (ed. S. E. Porter and B. W. R. Pearson; JSNTSup 192; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 48

TWENTY-FIVE QUESTIONS TO CORNER THE JEWS

299

Further, it has to be noted that, even if the anti-Jewish polemics in these treatises did not serve the practical purpose of beating the Jews in debate, they were useful within the Church, specifically serving to confirm the beliefs and identity of Christians who came into contact with Jews. Demarcation is, and was, always essential for selfidentification.52 The document discussed here, “un petit manuel offensif,”53 makes clear that Christians tried to be as well-prepared as they could be for possible controversies with Jews. It is unique in so far as it is the only treatise known to us in which only the questions and not the answers are given. This feature is telling, for the implication is, of course, that there are no possible answers (N.B.: epaporêtika!). That is also indicated by the frequently recurring formula that introduces the actual question: “. . . is it not obvious then that . . . ?”54 The Greek formulation indicates even more clearly than the English (by means of the negative particle ou) that any answer other than “yes” is impossible: the Christian is 100% right, the Jew can only say Amen and convert. The questions do not display a clear principle of ordering, but there is a certain clustering. Questions 1–5 deal with the inability of the Law to effect the salvation that was promised to the gentiles. Questions 6–11 argue that it is only Christ who meets the definition of “a prophet like Moses.” Questions 12–15 posit that the temporary priesthood of Aaron and the eternal one of Melchizedek are mutually exclusive. Questions 16–20 emphasize again that the Law does not bring salvation to the gentiles whereas Christian faith does. Questions 21–24 state that in its present situation the people of Israel cannot fulfill the Law any longer and that the Messiah cannot arise from the tribe of Judah because that tribe cannot be distinguished from other Israelite tribes any more. Question 25 is the crowning conclusion. Biblical verses from the Old Testament playing a key role are Gen 49:10; Deut 18:15, 18; and Ps 110:4. (From the New Testament, Paul and the Letter to the Hebrews play an important part.) The well-known Shiloh verse, Gen 49:10, about the ruler from Judah that will not fail and will be the “expectation of the Gentiles” (thus 228–38. The author of the Kephalaia borrowed heavily for his anti-Jewish argumentation from Chrysostom’s sermons. 52 The invariable conversion of the Jewish interlocutor at the end of the debates serves, of course, exactly that purpose. 53 Déroche, “La polémique,” 297. 54 Greek: pôs ou prodêlon hoti . . .; a real “bluff formula.”

300

pieter w. van der horst

the Septuagint version that was used by the author)55 was interpreted in a messianic sense by both Jews and Christians in antiquity, and the same applied to Deut 18:15–18 (“a prophet like Moses”) and Psalm 110[109]:4 (“You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek”). It is no wonder that exactly those texts that both parties interpreted as predictions of the messiah became a source of controversy over the question of who this messiah was. In questions 8 and 9 the author assumes, rather unexpectedly, that from the Jewish point of view Zerubbabel would turn out to be the messiah or the prophet like Moses in Deut 18. This interpretation of the figure of Zerubbabel, based upon Haggai 2:22–24, is not to be found explicitly in Jewish sources, but the fifth-century Christian exegete Theodoret of Cyrrus also polemicizes against the Jewish opinion that (a second) Zerubbabel would turn out to be the messiah.56 And it will certainly not be sheer coincidence that precisely in the seventh century a Byzantine Jew wrote the Sefer Zerubbabel, in which Zerubbabel, though not a messiah, is a portrayed as a great apocalyptic visionary.57 Such a treatise could have been interpreted by malevolent and ill-informed Christian contemporaries as being about a person with a great role in the eschaton, that is, a messiah. Since the author of our treatise seems to be rather well-informed, we certainly cannot exclude the possibility, confirmed by Theodoret, that this idea was favoured in certain Jewish circles.58

55 For the significant differences between the Hebrew and the Greek text here see M. Harl et al., La Bible d’Alexandrie, 1: La Genèse (Paris: Cerf, 1986), 308–9, and J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 826. 56 See, e.g., his Comm. in Isaiam 11.10 (PG 81, 1872). Other passages from his and Jerome’s works are mentioned by R. L. Wilken, “The Restoration of Israel in Biblical Prophecy: Christian and Jewish Responses in the Early Byzantine Period,” in “To See Ourselves As Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, ‘Others’ in Late Antiquity (ed. J. Neusner and E. S. Frerichs; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 454 n. 17. 57 See M. Himmelfarb, “Sefer Zerubbabel,” in Rabbinic Fantasies: Imaginative Narratives from Classical Hebrew Literature (ed. D. Stern and M. J. Mirsky); Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 67–90. See further Wilken, “The Restoration of Israel,” 443–71, esp. 453–61; idem, The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 207–14; and Van Bekkum, “Jewish Messianic Expectations,” 104–6. 58 That the interpretation of Gog and Magog plays a role in both our document (Question 16) and the Sefer Zerubbabel, as well as in other Jewish and Christian sources from this period, corroborates the impression that the themes broached by the anonymous author of the Kephalaia played a role in real life debates. See also on this Wilken, “The Restoration of Israel,” 459.

TWENTY-FIVE QUESTIONS TO CORNER THE JEWS

301

Much more remains to be said about the Kephalaia epaporêtika. In fact the study of this treatise is still in its infancy. In this contribution, written in honour of my friend Michael Stone, my modest aim was to enable readers who may not be familiar with this text to make a first acquaintance with a small but fascinating chapter in the history of Jewish-Christian relations in the early Byzantine era.

SIDELIGHTS ON THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS FROM THE GREEK CATENA ON GENESIS Marinus de Jonge Leiden University

1. Introduction This essay on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, written in honour of Michael Stone, a friend of long standing, appears fifty years after my first publication on this writing.1 In The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin, my Th.D. thesis defended at Leiden University,2 I tried to prove that this document should not be regarded as a Jewish writing subsequently interpolated by Christians, but as a Christian work incorporating Jewish traditions. Recently, looking back on decades of research on the Testaments and other so-called “Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament,” I brought a number of recent essays together in a volume entitled Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The Case of the Testaments 1 The first contacts, from 1969 onward, between Michael Stone and the present writer were on the Testaments. Stone’s work on the Armenian version (see, for instance, his The Testament of Levi: A First Study of the Armenian MSS of the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs in the Convent of St. James, Jerusalem [ Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1969]; and The Armenian Version of the Testament of Joseph [SBLTT Pseudepigrapha Series 6; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975]) was invaluable in the preparation of the new Leiden edition of the Greek text (M. de Jonge [in cooperation with H. W. Hollander, H. J. de Jonge, T. Korteweg], The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text [PVTG 1.2; Leiden: Brill, 1978]). Subsequently, Stone and the late Jonas C. Greenfield contributed the appendix, “The Aramaic and Greek Fragments of a Levi Document,” to H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 457–69. Later studies by these two authors, resulting in their edition of the Aramaic Levi Document in Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (ed. G. J. Brooke et al.; DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 1–72, and Stone’s studies on 4QTNaphtali, resulting in his edition of its text in the same volume of DJD, 73–82, were indispensable in further investigations in the relationship between the Testaments and varied Jewish sources in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. See, as far as the present writer is concerned, chapters 7, “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Related Qumran Fragments” and 8, “Levi in the Aramaic Levi Document and in the Testament of Levi” in Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature (see n. 3 below), 107–23 and 124–40. 2 Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953; second edition 1975.

304

marinus de jonge

of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve.3 In this book I defend the thesis that the great majority of O. T. Pseudepigrapha have to be read primarily as writings transmitted by Christians over many centuries. They were transmitted because they were regarded as relevant for the Christian communities for which they were copied. In early Christianity as well as in the Middle Ages, and even later, Christians were interested in narratives, collections of sayings, apocalypses, etc. connected with figures known from the Old Testament (after all, for them part of Holy Scripture). On this issue I find myself in basic agreement with Michael Stone who, in 1986, wrote: “Before the Pseudepigrapha and similar writings are used in evidence for that more ancient period [i.e., Judaism in the period of the Second Temple, MdJ ], they must be examined in the Christian context in which they were transmitted and utilized.”4 In a very recent essay he writes, commenting on the ongoing discussion of whether the Testaments is a Christian document using Jewish sources or a Jewish document with Christian interpolations: “The present writer finds himself, basically, on Marinus de Jonge’s side of that discussion, i.e., that the present form of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is the work of a Christian author/redactor. This means that a complete Jewish Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs never existed, or at least cannot be argued to have existed from the existing document called Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.”5 For a better understanding of the position and relevance of the Testaments in early Christian circles I have in the past looked for statements about the sons of Jacob and other pre-Mosaic “patriarchs” in early Christian authors, and, more specifically, to commentaries on relevant sections of the Old Testament such as the Joseph story in Genesis 37–50, the Blessings of Jacob in Genesis 49 and those of Moses in Deuteronomy 33.6 In the present essay I 3

SVTP 18; Leiden: Brill, 2003. “Categorization and Classification of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” AbrNahrain 24 (1986): 167–77, quotation from pp. 172–73. 5 “Aramaic Levi Document and Greek Testament of Levi,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S. M. Paul et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 429–37, quotation from pp. 429–30. 6 See M. de Jonge, “The Pre-Mosaic Servants of God in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and in the writings of Justin and Irenaeus,” VC 39 (1985): 157–70, reprinted in Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Collected Essays of Marinus de Jonge (ed. H. J. de Jonge; NovTSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 263–76; “Hippolytus’ ‘Benedictions of Isaac, Jacob and Moses’ and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” Bijdragen 46 (1985): 245–60, reprinted in Collected 4

sidelights on the

TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS

305

return to the search for parallels to features of the Testaments in early Christian exegesis with the help of the new edition of the Greek catena on Genesis by Françoise Petit;7 containing no less than 2270 exegetical fragments on various passages of the Book of Genesis, it yields a wealth of information. Not only does Dr. Petit provide the fullest collection of the available material in a truly critical edition, she has also drawn up a stemma of the extant witnesses and described how the collection came into being. She distinguishes between the primary tradition transmitted in four different manuscripts, and a secondary tradition known through a great number of manuscripts, with at its core a collection of comments of mainly Antiochene authors centred on the Quaestiones in Octateuchum of Theodoret of Cyrrhus. She gives parallel passages from the commentary on the Octateuch (ÉEpitomØ ÉEklog«n) of Procopius of Gaza († by 538), who also selected fragments but combined them into a continuous commentary, omitting the references to the sources.8 In an article published in 1996 after completing her edition, Dr. Petit calls this catena “a mirror of ancient exegesis.”9 It gives a synopsis of the exegetical tradition in its pluriformity, for information and comparison. It includes extracts from the work of Christian authors from the first five centuries (the most recent one is Cyril of Alexandria [† 444]) belonging to different schools, without critical comment. Someone in the second half of the fifth century, with access to a large library (that of Caesarea?), will have brought this collection together as a tool of study for interpreters of Scripture and theologians. In the present essay I shall concentrate my investigations on a few examples taken from T. Joseph, and on some of the most telling parallels among the exegetical fragments in the catena.

Essays, 204–19; and “Two Interesting Interpretations of the Rending of the Templeveil in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” Bijdragen 46 (1985): 350–62, reprinted in Collected Essays, 220–32. See earlier chapter 3, “The Origin of the Testaments,” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1953), 117–28; the Commentary by Hollander and de Jonge of 1985 consistently lists not only O. T. and Jewish parallels, but also early Christian texts. 7 F. Petit, La chaîne sur la Genèse: Édition intégrale (4 vols.; Traditio Exegetica Graeca 1–4; Leuven: Peeters, 1991–1996). Especially vol. 4 (1996), dealing with chapters 29–50, is of importance to the present investigation. 8 For details see the “Introduction” in volume 1 (1991), xiii–xxxvii. 9 “La chaîne grecque sur la Genèse, miroir de l’exégèse ancienne,” in Stimuli. Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum. Festschrift für Ernst Dassmann (ed. G. Schöllgen and C. Scholten; JAC Ergänzungsband 23; Munich: Aschendorff, 1996), 243–53.

306

marinus de jonge 2. T. Jos. 2:2 and 2:7

In the Testaments Joseph is a paradigm of virtue. Faced with envy and death he did not go astray (T. Jos. 1:3). After a long thanksgiving passage (1:4–2:6) in which the dying patriarch thanks God for his deliverance from distress and oppression, v. 7 characterizes Joseph’s attitude as one of makroyum¤a (endurance) and ÍpomonÆ (patience): In ten temptations (peirasmo¤) he showed that I was approved (dÒkimow) and in all of them I endured; for endurance is a mighty remedy, and patience gives many good things.

The first story that follows (3:1–9:5) describes at length the wiles of “the Egyptian woman” in her attempts to seduce Joseph. The following exhortation (10:1–4) praises the power of patience and “prayer with fasting,” and admonishes Joseph’s sons and brothers to follow him in “chastity (svfrosÊnh) and purity with patience and humility of heart.” Earlier, in 2:2, Joseph thanks God for his help while he struggled (±gvnisãmhn) against “a shameless woman.” He says: “The God of Israel my father guarded me from the burning flame.” A second story, in T. Jos. 11:2–16:6, describes Joseph’s endurance when he was brought to Egypt and sold as a slave. The emphasis is on his self-humiliation and his keeping silent about his descent, because he did not want to put his brothers to shame (10:5–6; 17:1–8). Joseph is, indeed in a position to exhort the people at his deathbed, and the readers of the Testaments, to follow the two great commandments as the essence of God’s Law: You also, therefore, have the fear of God in all your work before the eyes and honour your brothers; for everyone who works the law of the Lord will be loved by him. (11:1)10

In their Commentary Hollander and de Jonge have analyzed the picture of the patriarch in T. Joseph in considerable detail, comparing several features of it with Hellenistic-Jewish and early Christian descriptions of Joseph—amongst them the motif of “struggle against

10 See my “The Two Great Commandments in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” NovT 44 (2002): 371–92, slightly revised in Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature, 141–59.

sidelights on the

TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS

307

passions” in 2:2 and that of svfrosÊnh as characteristic of Joseph.11 It will not come as a surprise that a number of general, and even some specific, parallels to the picture of Joseph in the Testaments are found in the twenty-odd catena-fragments connected with the story of Joseph and the wife of Potiphar in Gen 39:7–20. The new edition of the catena gives here, for instance, a number of fragments from John Chrysostom, which paint vivid descriptions of the attacks of the Egyptian woman and Joseph’s brave struggle to preserve his chastity. Chrysostom repeatedly emphasizes that the odds were against Joseph, a young man in a period of life in which passion is prone to govern one’s senses.12 One example: “Look at the courage (éndre¤a) of the noble athlete, at the many things that attacked him. His youth waged war against him, but he kept himself in check by chaste reasoning (éllå s≈froni logism“ •autÚn §xal¤nou); a little further on Chrysostom stresses the difficulty of the test (peirasmÒw) and the heat of the flame of desire (po¤aw kam¤nou ka‹ flogÒw).13 An anonymous comment on Gen 39:9 tells us that Joseph’s refusal to “sin against God” shows that he avoided “the deed” not only as one who loves chastity (filos≈frvn), but also as one who is faithful (pistÒw) and pious (yeosebÆw).14 A striking picture of the struggles (ég«new) of Joseph, fighting in the arena in which he is put to the test (§n t“ skãmmati toË peirasmoË maxÒmenow) is also found in a fragment from De Ioseph et de castitate, wrongly attributed to Chrysostom. Demons which assist the Egyptian woman put up prizes for her (brabe›a), but angels who help Joseph are already plaiting wreaths (stefãnouw) to celebrate his victory.15 A very specific parallel to T. Jos. 2:7 is found in the anonymous fragment no. 1852 which begins with the words: “These are the ten temptations through which Joseph was put to the test” (ofl d°ka peirasmo‹ §n oÂw §dokimãsyh ÉIvsÆf). In their Commentary Hollander and de Jonge refer here to Jub. 19:8 and "Abot 5:3(4) where Abraham 11 See the Introduction to T. Joseph and comments on many individual passages. The Commentary uses freely material from H. W. Hollander, Joseph as an Ethical Model in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (SVTP 6; Leiden: Brill, 1981)—a study that also discusses other passages about Joseph in the Testaments, especially in T. Benjamin. 12 See nos. 1851; 1861; 1862; 1869 (and later no. 1894 at Gen. 40:15) taken from the Epistulae ad Olympiadem; and nos. 1854; 1855 and 1856 from Ad Stagirium a daemone vexatum. 13 From no. 1861. 14 No. 1858. 15 See no. 1860; cf. also nos. 1853; 1859; 1868.

308

marinus de jonge

is said to have been tried ten times.16 They regard the number as symbolical, although ten episodes can be distinguished in the first story about Joseph in T. Jos. 3:1–9:5. Our catena-fragment not only speaks about “the ten temptations” but also proceeds to give a list of them. The first five are connected with the brothers: they envied Joseph and accused him; they thought about killing him, threw him into the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites. The second five are concerned with what happened afterwards. Joseph was sold to the Egyptians and his mistress began to corner him by stripping herself before him and trying to force him to have intercourse with her, after closing all doors. At a loss she finally accused him to her husband who threw Joseph into prison. Individual parallels to the thanksgiving passage in T. Jos. 1:4–2:6 and in the story in chapters 3–9 can be found (see 1:4, 5; 8:2; 9:5) but this is only to be expected. There is no reason to think that our catena-passage is dependent on T. Joseph. Yet it is remarkable that both sources mention ten temptations in connection with Joseph; so far I have not been able to find this connection anywhere else.

3. T. Jos. 18:3 In the final exhortatory passage in T. Jos. 17–18 the patriarch stresses how God saves, blesses, and exalts those who do not exalt themselves in arrogance, but, in true humility, want to be the least among their brothers. “Look,” he says, You see that because of (my) patience (makroyum¤a) I even took as my wife the daughter of my masters, and a hundred talents of gold were given to me with her; for the Lord made them my servants. (18:3)

The author identifies here the Potiphera of Gen 41:45, 50; 46:20 with the Potiphar of 37:36; 39:1.17 This agrees with Jub. 40:10, “. . . the 16 See also Jub. 17:17–18, and the comments on these verses in R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees or Little Genesis (London: Black, 1902); and K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen ( JSHRZ 2.3; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1981). Compare L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, seventh impression 5715/1955), 5:218, n. 52; and J. L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1998), 297–99, 308. "Abot 5:1–6 mentions a whole series of groups of ten in the history of Israel. 17 The LXX reads Petefr∞w in all these instances. In the Testaments, T. Jos. 2:1 has Fvtimãr, but in 12:1; 13:1, 4; 15:6 we find Petefr∞w.

sidelights on the

TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS

309

daughter of Potiphar, the daughter of the priest of Heliopolis—the chief cook.”18 Hollander and de Jonge, in their comment on T. Jos. 18:3, also point to rabbinic sources mentioned by L. Ginzberg19 and to a fragment of Origen known from the so-called Catena Nicephori (which goes back to the text of one of the worst representatives of the secondary tradition, in combination with extracts from Procopius).20 In no. 1940 at Gen 41:45 F. Petit is now able to give the full and more original text, with the help of two manuscripts belonging to the primary tradition. Origen gives the name as Foutifãr21 and remarks that one could suppose that the man mentioned here was somebody else than the person who bought Joseph from the merchants. The Hebrews (ÑEbra›oi) are of a different opinion, he says. They know from an apocryphon (§j épokrÊfou gnÒntew) that Joseph’s master and his father-in-law are one and the same person. Origen adds that Potiphar’s daughter Aseneth had revealed to her father that her mother had made up a false story about Joseph; she had suffered nothing at all from him “because of the man’s chastity” (diå tÆn svfrosÊnhn toË éndrÒw). The father, realizing that his daughter was convinced of the purity (kayariÒthw) of Joseph, gives her to him in marriage. In this way he also makes known to the Egyptians that Joseph had committed no sin against his household.22 In this instance the new edition of the catena gives us a better text than the one previously known; with regard to the question of the “apocryphon” consulted by Origen, however, we receive no further information.

4. T. Jos. 20:3 At the end of his testament Joseph, like the other patriarchs, speaks about the transfer of his bones to Canaan. In his case this will take

18 Translation by J. C. VanderKam in volume 2 of his The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text (2 vols.; CSCO 510–511; Leuven: Peeters, 1989); cf. also 34:11. 19 Legends of the Jews, 5:337, nn. 100–1. 20 So F. Petit, La chaîne sur la Genèse, vol. 1, xxxiv–xxxv; cf. R. Devreesse, Les anciens commentateurs grecs de l’Octateuque et des Rois (Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1959), 38. 21 Compare Origen’s comment on Gen 37:36 (no. 1812) where he mentions Foutifãr (and Foutifar¤) as reading(s) found in Aquila and Symmachos. 22 An exposition of the meaning of the girl’s name follows.

310

marinus de jonge

place at the Exodus (20:1–2). Unexpectedly a command to bury Zilpah follows in v. 3: And carry up Zilpah your mother and bury her close to Bilhah, by the Hippodrome, near Rachel.

Gen 35:16–20 tells about Rachel’s death after giving birth to Benjamin and her burial near the road to Bethlehem (48:7 LXX adds: katå tÚn ÑIppodrÒmon). In 49:31 Leah’s burial is mentioned (in retrospect). Genesis does not dwell upon the death of Bilhah or Zilpah, but Bilhah’s death and burial are mentioned in Jub. 34:15–16. After Jacob received the news that Joseph was killed by a wild animal and started mourning for his son, he also lost Bilhah and Dinah: (34:15) That day Bilhah heard that Joseph had perished. While she was mourning for him, she died. She had been living in Qafratefa. His daughter Dinah, too, died after Joseph had perished. These three (reasons) for mourning came to Israel in one month. (16) They buried Bilhah opposite Rachel’s grave, and they buried his daughter Dinah there as well. (17) He continued mourning Joseph for one year and was not comforted but said: “May I go down to the grave mourning for my son.” (18) For this reason, it has been ordained regarding the Israelites that they should be distressed on the tenth of the seventh month—on the day when (the news) which made (him) lament Joseph reached his father Jacob—in order to make atonement for themselves on it with a kid—on the tenth of the seventh month, once a year— for their sins. For they had saddened their father’s (feelings of affection) for his son Joseph.23

A Greek version of this text (or a very similar one) was used in the composite fragment no. 1804 at Gen 37:29–30. Its first part (called 1804a by F. Petit) is concerned with Reuben’s distress about Joseph. He expects that his joint sorrow with his father will bring reconciliation with him, after his sin against Bilhah (Gen 35:21—an important theme in T. Reu., cf. also T. Jud. 13:3). At this point the fragment continues with a text that closely resembles that of Jub. 34:15–16, followed by an abbreviated version of Jub. 34:18 (1804b).24 For our purpose it is interesting to note an addition: Bilhah is said to have suckled Joseph after the death of his mother Rachel. Joseph is mistaken here for Benjamin; see T. Benj. 1:3 where the patriarch tells 23

Tr. VanderKam, Jubilees. In the manuscripts belonging to the secondary catena-tradition we find only an abbreviated version of 1804b; Procopius gives only 1804a. 24

sidelights on the

TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS

311

his sons: “Since, then, Rachel died in giving me birth, I had no milk; therefore, I was suckled by Bilhah, her handmaid.” In the Testaments Bilhah is also mentioned as mother of Naphtali in T. Naph. 1:6–12, a passage that, as we now know, shows acquaintance with the genealogical information found in the Naphtali-fragment 4Q215. Bilhah, we hear, bore Naphtali “on Rachel’s knees” and Rachel had a special affection for him, hoping to see a son from her own womb like him. Joseph was, indeed, like Napthali in all things (vv. 6–8). Bilhah was the daughter of Rotheus, brother of Rebecca’s nurse, and of the family of Abraham. He became a servant of Laban and married his fellow-servant Aina, who became the mother of two daughters, Zilpah and Bilhah (vv. 9–12). Bilhah was born on the same day as Rachel (v. 9). This special interest in Bilhah, not just a handmaid but a person of noble descent, closely linked to Rachel, in the Testaments and in the source used by its author, may explain the remark about her tomb and the concern for the burial of Zilpah’s remains in T. Jos. 20:4. The link with Jub. 34:15–16 and fragment no. 1804b remains to be explored.

5. The Burial of the Remains of Joseph’s Brothers in Hebron 25 The concluding passages in the various testaments show interesting agreements with the last words of Jacob in Gen 49:29–33 and those of Joseph in Gen 50:24–26. Jacob asks his sons to bury him with his fathers in the cave of Machpelah (the “double cave” in the LXX, and in T. Reu. 7:2), and Joseph orders his brothers to take his remains with them out of Egypt to Canaan (which Moses acted upon, see Exod 13:19). T. Jos. 20:1–2 takes up Joseph’s command of Gen 50:25; the other patriarchs ask to be buried in Hebron with their fathers—see T. Jud. 26:3; T. Iss. 7:8; T. Naph. 9:1; T. Ash. 8:1; T. Benj. 12:2; and compare T. Reu. 7:2; T. Sim. 8:2; T. Levi 19:5; T. Jud. 26:4; T. Zeb. 10:7; T. Dan 7:2; T. Gad 8:5; T. Benj. 12:3, where we read that the patriarch was, indeed, buried there. The Bible does not give any information about the burial of the remains of Joseph’s brothers in Hebron.26 Josephus, Ant. 2.8.2 25 For this topic see already my The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1953), 110–13. Compare the relevant passages in Hollander-de Jonge, Commentary. 26 Compare, however, Acts 7:16 which mentions a burial in Shechem.

312

marinus de jonge

§§ 198–200 speaks about Joseph’s death and that of his brothers after him (Exod 1:6) and adds: “Their bodies were carried some time afterwards to Hebron and buried there.” Jub. 46:9–10 is more explicit; v. 9 mentions a war between the king of Egypt and the king of Canaan. During that war “the Israelites brought out all the bones of Jacob’s sons except Joseph’s bones. They buried them in the field, in the double cave in the mountain.” The next verse adds: “Many returned to Egypt but a few of them remained on the mountain of Hebron. Your father Amram (in Jubilees Moses is addressed!) remained with them.”27 This information is now confirmed by 4QVisions of Amram (see 4Q544 frg. 1 and 4Q545 frg. 1 ii).28 Here we may note that T. Sim. 8:2 speaks of “the war of the Egyptians” and tells that Simeon’s sons brought his bones secretly to Hebron during that war. T. Benj. 12:3 calls this war “the war of Canaan”: And in the ninety-first year of the entrance of the children of Israel into Egypt,29 they and their brothers carried up the bones of their fathers secretly during the war of Canaan; and they buried them in Hebron by the feet of their fathers. (4. And they returned from the land of Canaan . . .)

In this context it is interesting to look for a moment to the last commentary (no. 2270, again anonymous) in the new edition of the catena, extant in one manuscript only. It is a long, composite text, found at Gen 50:25–26 and, according to F. Petit, meant as a connection between Genesis and Exodus. The first part of it (lines 1–23) gives a shorter version of Jub. 46:6–12 and 47:1.30 It omits the dates that are typical of Jubilees and speaks about Moses in the third person: Amram is introduced as “the father of Moses,” and later he is said “to beget Moses.” As in the case of no. 1804b, discussed in the previous section, the differences with the Ethiopic text of Jubilees are considerable. Again it is difficult to determine whether these are due to redactional activity of the Greek commentator, or whether one had access to a different Greek text.31 27

Tr. VanderKam, Jubilees. Cf. 4Q543 frg. 4 and 4Q546 frg. 2. 29 Jub. 45:1 and 46:9 combined give the same date for the war! 30 For the second part (ll. 24–60) one may compare Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos 38–39. 31 At Gen 50:26 we also find a text (no. 2268) parallel to Jub. 46:3, specifying that Joseph lived in Canaan for 17 years, was a slave for 10 years, and spent 3 years in prison, before acting as ruler under the king of Egypt for 80 years (making 110 28

sidelights on the

TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS

313

6. Joseph as a Type of Jesus Christ The Christian interpreters whose work is preserved in the catena are convinced of the unity of Scripture and the continuity of God’s work on behalf of humankind. The Old Testament is read in the light of the New; one delights in typological interpretation. Particularly also the many stories about Joseph lead to a search for parallels between his sufferings and glory and those of Jesus Christ. The fact that Joseph is sold by his brothers elicits many comments. Sometimes very short, as in no. 1802, at Gen 37:28: “So also the Saviour was handed over to the Gentiles.” Another time more elaborate, as in Severian of Gabala’s comment on Gen 39:1 (no. 1844); after comparing the handing over of Joseph to that of the Son of Man in Jerusalem to the Gentiles, he remarks that Joseph was at first oppressed in Egypt, just as Christ was persecuted by the Gentiles before they worshipped him. The fact that the Ishmaelites are introduced as traders in aromatic herbs and spices leads Cyril of Alexandria to compare them to the holy apostles who go to the Gentiles spreading the mystery of Christ as a sweet-smelling savour (see no. 1787 at Gen 37:24 and no. 1791 at Gen 37:27). The Christian addressees of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs will have no doubt been familiar with the notion of Joseph as a type of Christ. The question is, however, whether certain statements in the text were meant to suggest or to support this typology.32 There is at least one clear case: T. Benj. 3:8. T. Benjamin 3–6 sums up the most important features of the paraenesis of the Testaments in a description of “the good/holy man,” and takes Joseph as a supreme example. In 3:6 he is described as asking his father to intercede for his sons and to pray to God for forgiveness for their sins against him. Jacob is overcome by this great love for one’s brothers and declares:

years altogether). Here A.-M. Denis gives a similar text, somewhat shorter and wrongly mentioning a period as a slave of only three years), taken from Cod. Athos Koutloumous 178, 11v., ll. 5–7; see his Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae Supersunt Graeca (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 99, and his Concordance grecque des Pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament (Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut Orientaliste, 1987), 903. 32 For a short résumé of this question see pp. 388–90 (pp. 155–58) in my “The Two Great Commandments in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” (mentioned in n. 10 above).

314

marinus de jonge In you will be fulfilled the prophecy of heaven concerning the Lamb of God and Saviour of the world, that a blameless one will be delivered up for lawless men and a sinless one will die for ungodly men in the blood of the covenant, for the salvation of the Gentiles and Israel, and will destroy Beliar and those who serve him.” (v. 8)

The prophecy concerned is no doubt Isa 52:13–53:12, read by Christians as referring to life and death of Jesus Christ. Other passages are not so explicit; but there may be “hidden typology” also elsewhere. In T. Zeb. 4:4 we read that “Joseph spent in the pit three days and three nights.” This may have reminded readers of Matt 12:40 predicting that the Son of Man would be in the heart of the earth just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster ( Jonah 2:1). Among the fragments in the catena we may point to the comment on Gen 37:24 by Severian of Gabala (no. 1784), who remarks that Joseph went down into the pit because he was “the type of the Living One, of Him who through life harrowed Hades,” and adds: “Joseph went down into an empty pit; also the tomb of the Saviour was empty, without a dead body.”33 We also find a number of comments on this verse by Cyril of Alexandria (nos. 1785–1787). From the last fragment (already referred to above) I mention the following points: a) the pit = Hades; b) it had no water, symbol of life, because Hades is the abode of those who are deprived of life; c) the boy was lifted out of the pit, just as Christ returned to life from the dead; he did not remain in Hades but rather emptied it.34 These parallels render it likely that also the author of T. Zeb. 4:4 portrayed Joseph as type of Christ. Perhaps the same is true of T. Zeb. 4:10, For they had stripped Joseph of the coat of our father when they were about to sell him, and they had put on him an old garment of a slave.

Here the parallels in the catena are, however, far less close. In the fragments at Gen 37:3 (nos. 1755–1760) Jacob’s love for Joseph is

33 F. Petit notes that this presupposes a reading kenÒw for kainÒw in the New Testament (cf. Matt 27:60; John 19:41). 34 Yet another example is found in the anonymous no. 1877 at Gen 39:22, where the Egyptian woman stands for death; the prison for the tomb; and Joseph’s “lordship” over the prisoners for Christ’s lordship over the dead and the living.

sidelights on the

TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS

315

a type of God’s love for his Son, and also the “coat of many colours” receives attention. I mention just one example, from no. 1757 where Cyril of Alexandria tells us: “Also the Pharisees raged against the Beloved, that is: Christ, because he had been clothed, as it were, with multicoloured glory by a God and a Father.” Elsewhere, in fragment no. 1791 (already mentioned) where Cyril meditates on the selling of Joseph as a slave to the Gentiles, he says that the apostles brought him to those who did not know him as “one clothed with the form of a slave” (Phil 2:7). In a few further comments (nos. 1798–1800 at Gen 37:28), Joseph’s humble status is contrasted with future royal glory—see, for instance, the fragment no. 1798 from Ps.-John Chrysostom, De Ioseph et de castitate: “He is sold because of the jealousy of his brothers, into slavery, as they think, but, as predetermined by God, to kingship.” For yet another possible hidden typological detail I have not been able to find any direct parallel. According to T. Gad 2:2 Gad and Judah sold Joseph for thirty pieces of gold, but showed only twenty to their brothers. This may emphasize the greed of the two brothers, or hint at the thirty pieces of silver for which Judas sold Jesus. The catena-fragments nos. 1794–1795 at Gen 37:27 simply connect Judah with Judas.

7. In Conclusion The search for parallels could be continued and the scope of the investigation could be widened. Most of the fragments from the catena would deserve to be analyzed more fully, for instance in the context of other writings of the author concerned or, particularly in the case of fragments of unknown provenance, in comparison with interpretations of contemporaries. Also the transmission history of fragments that seem to be taken from “pseudepigrapha”-like texts (such as the parallels to Jubilees noted above) should be investigated more fully. I hope that the present restricted collection of examples will encourage others to search for further parallels in Christian exegetical texts, in and outside the catenae.

GALEN, PAPIAS, AND OTHERS ON TEACHING AND BEING TAUGHT Jaap Mansfeld University of Utrecht

Batava non leguntur. Michael Stone’s knowledge of Batavian is one of the exceptions which confirm this tag. Nevertheless it is a pleasure to present him on this very special birthday with an abridged, much revised and, as I hope, somewhat improved version of a paper of mine originally published in a Dutch journal.1 1. In his rich and useful paper “Viva vox,” discussing parallels for Papias of Hierapolis’2 use of the expression “from the living voice” (apo zôsês phônês; épÚ zvsØw fvn∞w)3 to distinguish between oral tradition, or rather communication, and written accounts or versions,4 H. Karpp tells us that he has been unable to trace a reference to Galen he found in Ducange.5 L. Alexander, in her excellent paper “The Living Voice” (1990), quotes and discusses one Galenic passage.6 But there 1

J. Mansfeld, “Papias over traditie,” NedTT 49 (1995): 140–53. On Papias see sections 3 to 5 below; the latest edition of the fragments and testimonia with introduction, translation and some comments is U. Körtner, “Papiasfragmente,” in U. H. J. Körtner and M. Leutzsch, Papiasfragmente—Hirt des Hermas (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998), 3–103 (substantial though incomplete bibliography). The treatise is usually dated around 125 CE; arguments for a somewhat earlier date, around 110 CE, at Körtner, “Papiasfragmente,” 30f. Translations in this paper are my own unless otherwise noted. 3 A TLG search produced 41 instances. 4 Aeschylus, Suppl. 946–49 contrasts written communications with a “free tongue.” “Not in writing . . . but with the living voice” is the comment in the Scholia vetera in Aeschylum, ad loc. 5 H. Karpp, “Viva vox,” in Mullus: Festschrift Theodor Klauser (ed. A. Stuiber and A. Hermann; JAC Erg.-Bd. 1; Munich: Aschendorf, 1964), 190–98, p. 191 n. 3. 6 Comp.Med.Loc., XII p. 894.1ff. K., at L. Alexander, “The Living Voice: Scepticism Towards the Written Word in Early Christian and Graeco-Roman Texts,” in The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield (ed. D. J. A. Clines, S. E. Fowl, and S. E. Porter; JSOTSup 87; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 221–47, pp. 224f., 230f. Alexander failed to take Karpp’s paper into account, just as, alas, I overlooked Alexander’s paper when writing my book, Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a Text (Philosophia antiqua 61; Leiden: Brill, 1994. Classicists do not as a rule read theological secondary literature). 2

318

jaap mansfeld

are two such passages in Galen’s works. Both times he emphasizes that the idea that the living voice is to be preferred to the written word has been commonly accepted. Both times, however, he adds the proviso (hardly surprising in so prolific a writer and commentator) that nevertheless written sources may be important, or even indispensable. Let us begin by looking at the passage from the De alimentorum facultatibus, which is lacking in Alexander’s contribution:7 We shall be able to summarize the present argument some other day in a shorter book which will be useful for those to be instructed. For only systematic training and instruction (askêsis kai didaskalia) produces professionals. I therefore believe that people are right in stating that the best instruction (aristê didaskalia)8 is that which comes about from the living voice,9 and that one cannot become either a navigator or a practitioner of any other art from a book.10 Books are meant to remind one of what he has already learned and understood;11 they do not form a complete course for those who lack knowledge.

7

Alim.Fac. VI p. 480.1ff. K. = CMG V 4,2 p. 216.15–27 Helmreich. My italics. didaskalia (‘teaching’; here translated ‘instruction,’ ‘course’) is used as a terminus technicus. Compare the title of Alcinous’ Didascalicus, a brief systematic introduction to Platonic philosophy. See further e.g. below, n. 17 and text thereto, text to n. 40, and Aristotle, Soph. elench. 2.165a38ff.; Plutarch, V. Alex. 7.7; Albinus, Prol. p. 148.16 Hermann; Galen, QAM, Scr. min. II p. 73.3–5 Mueller; Loc.Aff., VIII p. 119.13ff. K.; Diff.Puls., VIII p. 624.4–8 K.; Hipp. Fract., XVIIIB p. 327.1ff. K.; Lib.Prop., Scr. min. II p. 102.14ff. M.; Epictetus Diss. III xxi.19 and xxiii.3; Proclus in Alc. § 236.15ff. Westerink. For aristê didaskalia cf. e.g. X. Cyr. VIII vii.24; the Greek title of Galen’s De optima doctrina; and AA II p. 242.9ff. K.; Diff.Feb. VII p. 373.7f. K.; Di.Dec. IX p. 883.2f. K. For the isagogic tropos tês didaskalias in the Neoplatonic commentators, see I. Hadot, ed. and tr., Simplicius: Commentaire sur les Catégories (2 vols.; Philosophia antiqua 50–51; Leiden: Brill, 1990), 1:25, 45, 157. 9 The formula viva voce docere is found in Jerome, Ep. 126.1; for the current expression viva vox see A. Otto, Die Sprichwörter und sprichwortartige Redensarten der Römer (Leipzig, 1890; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1965), 378. Numerous Latin parallels for Galen’s reference can be cited, e.g. Seneca, Ep. 6.5–6, “I shall therefore send you the actual books. . . . Of course, however, the living voice and intimacy of a common life will help you more than the written word”; see my comment at Mansfeld, Prolegomena, 123, with references to earlier literature. Seneca, Ep. 6.5 and other passages in Latin are also discussed at Karpp, “Viva vox,” 192ff., and Alexander, “Living Voice,” 232 and 227. 10 Proverbial; see Polybius XII 25d, “those who navigate from a book” (quoted Constantinus Porphyrog. Sent. p. 151.28 Boissevain); Celsus Med. pr. 32, “one does not become a farmer or navigator by means of dialectical disputation but through experience” (with P. Mudry, La préface du De medicina de Celse: Texte, traduction, commentaire [Rome: Institut suisse de Rome, 1982], 125f. ad loc.); Galen SMT, XI p. 797.1–2 K.; Medical Experience ix.2 Walzer; and Comp.Med.Gen., XIII p. 605.3–4 K., plus Lib.Prop., Scr. min. II p. 110.25–6 M., both quoted Alexander “Living Voice,” 228. 11 Also commonplace, cf. Clement Strom. I i.11, quoted Alexander “Living Voice,” 221f.; the famous passage, Plato Phdr. 275a–b, may have been on Galen’s mind. 8

galen, papias, and others

319

However, if some of them, especially those who cannot find a teacher, wish to read in a conscientious way books written in a clear12 and detailed manner from beginning to end, like those written by us [: Galen], this will be extremely profitable for them, especially if they do not mind studying them repeatedly.

Next, as our other Galenic passage, we have the first two sentences of the De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos:13 The view stated by the majority of professionals, that (as they say) it is neither the same nor like the same to pick up something from the living voice as from a written source, is of course true. However, those who are willing to work hard ( philoponoi )14 and are really intelligent ( phusei sunetoi )15 often derive a quite substantial profit from reading books written in a clear way.

So the books, that is, in this case, the medical literature, are not rejected out of hand or viewed as absolutely inferior to oral forms of communication; quite the contrary. In one of his last writings, the De ordine librorum, Galen even states that of the two ways of studying his oeuvre the first and best way, viz. through the books (starting with the On the Best Sect and the On Proof ) is only open to the really intelligent ( phusei sunetoi ) “friends of the truth,” who apparently do not need a living teacher.16 In the end he became convinced that his not-living voice would outlast his living voice. Similar remarks are also found elsewhere in his works, for instance in the De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos (again): “those who are really intelligent ( phusei sunetoi) and did train their reasoning power will no longer need my teaching (didaskalia).”17 Ps.-Theodosius, On Grammar p. 11.15ff. Göttling, tells us that Plato in the Phaedrus blamed the invention of the alphabet for the corruption of culture, “because” (as he imagines) “people in ancient times were instructed in philosophy by the living voice.” 12 See Mansfeld, Prolegomena, 242 s.v. “clarification.” 13 Comp.Med.Loc., XII p. 894.1ff. K., emphasis again mine. Alexander “Living Voice,” 224 fails to deal with the second sentence. 14 Often listed by Galen as an indispensable requirement in students (as well as in practitioners in general). For the qualities demanded of the student see Mansfeld, Prolegomena, 164ff. 15 See text to next note and to n. 17, and e.g. MM, X p. 30.10–13 K.; Galen teaches those who are capable of following proof and who are phusei sunetoi, not “Thassalian asses” (for these dumb animals cf. Adv.Jul., XVIIIB p. 274.2–3 K.); further MM, X p. 944.2–5 K.; Comp.Med.Gen., XIII p. 964.13–16 K. 16 Ord.Libr., Scr. min. II pp. 82.20–83.9 M. See my comments at Mansfeld, Prolegomena, 119ff. 17 Comp.Med.Loc., XII p. 703.2–4 K. For didaskalia see above, n. 8 and text thereto, and below, n. 30.

320

jaap mansfeld

In the first passage from this treatise translated above, the successful study of the literature without the help of a “living voice” is, as we have seen, said to be open only to people who possess native intelligence as well as stamina—a point of view close enough to the typically impudent advice formulated in the De ordine librorum. The claim made in the parallel passage in the De alimentorum facultatibus, viz. that people may profit even without the guidance of a teacher if they are willing to work hard, is a bit less strong. It may be placed alongside a passage in Galen’s slightly older contemporary Aulus Gellius:18 I have acquired books about the duties of a judge in both Latin and Greek, in order . . . to study the practice of the law-courts with the help of “voiceless teachers” (ex mutis . . . magistris),19 as they call them, since what people call the “living voice” was not available.

Gellius does not seem to doubt that his enterprise will be successful. A somewhat sharper distinction between oral and verbal communication is found in an Homeric scholium attributed (perhaps wrongly) to Porphyry:20 In the same way one is to understand the expression “to hear with the ears” as meaning that the person present listens to the speaker himself 21 and not to someone else who reports a story, just as in common parlance people are wont to say that they have heard (something) from the “living voice,” and neither learnt it through written accounts nor at second or third hand.

The distinction is less sharp in a rather late instance, found in the Topographia Christiana of Cosmas Indicopleustes. In the proem of the second book the author tells his dedicatee that he fulfils the latter’s desire for a written account of what “I have explained to you in your presence though the living voice.” This account, he adds, is not original:

18

N.A. XIV ii.1, cfr. Karpp, “Viva vox,” 191. Cf. Karpp, “Viva vox,” 193, who however posits that studying these books was merely a preliminary to the real thing. I have found no exact parallel, but cp. Cicero Leg. III 2, “one may truly say that the magistrate is a speaking law, just as the law is a voiceless magistrate” (. . . magistratum esse legem loquentem, legem autem mutum magistratum); quoted by Karpp, “Viva vox,” 193 with n. 23. Also cf. Plutarch Quom.Poet. 19E, “in Homer this kind of teaching is silent.” 20 Porphyry ad Il. p. 434.24ff. Schrader. 21 Reading aÈtÒw with B. For “being all ears” cf. Galen CAM I p. 244.11–3 K., on which see Mansfeld, Prolegomena, 167. 19

galen, papias, and others

321

I have been educated by Holy Scripture as well as by the living voice of that most divine man and great teacher, Patricius [Mar Aba].22

Cosmas had studied the Bible on his own, but clearly also profited from the scriptural exegesis of the future catholicus of Persia. The results, expounded orally on an earlier occasion, have now been put in writing. Compare what Eusebius tells us about Clement’s predecessor as head of the catechetical school of Alexandria:23 Pantaenus . . ., commenting on the treasures of Divine Scripture by means of the living voice and through his writings.

These two Christian figures, quite far apart in time, are indebted to exegetical ground-rules which go back to at least the second or first century BCE; see below, section 4. 2. It will have become clear that the expression “the living voice,” strongly or less strongly contrasted with the written word, may mean somewhat different things at different times. The comment on Pantaenus’ practice and Cosmas’ autobiographical statement are apparently concerned with both oral (“living voice”) and written modes of explanation of texts. Both methods are useful, though presumably it should be easier to follow the oral performance. Galen is in favour of the oral exposition of doctrine, i.e. of the “living voice” without written back-up, or else of the oral explanation of a text (someone else’s, or his own) by a master, but in certain cases ( just like that of Gellius, as we have seen) he nevertheless recommends the study of technical literature without such help. I am reluctant to believe that one should speak here of “scepticism towards the written word.”24 Rather, the views of Galen and others cited above represent a position today’s average teacher or tutor would undoubtedly be prepared to share. Even the distinction made by the Homeric scholiast (Porphyry?) is a matter of common sense, firsthand reports being as a rule more reliable than reports at umpteenthhand. As to the scholiast’s view, it is moreover clear that not only

22

Cosmas Indicopleustes Top. II i. Eusebius, H.E. V x.4. Whether or not this is historically correct (Clement Ecl. 27.1 says the presbuteroi did not write) is irrelevant in the present context. Wrong interpretation at U. Neymeyr, Die Christlichen Lehrer im zweiten Jahrhundert: ihre Lehrtätigkeit, ihr Selbstverständnis und ihre Geschichte (VCSup 4; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 45. 24 Thus the sub-title of Alexander, “Living Voice.” 23

322

jaap mansfeld

is information of written provenance considered less trustworthy, but that this holds also for oral communications which are not firsthand—a point of view which is not conducive to confidence in the kind of oral traditions to be mentioned in the sequel of this paper. Finally, it may be noted that as late as the Novellae of the emperor Justinian we come across a ruling stating that, in some cases, the “living voice” of testimonies given under oath may be more credible than the documents submitted in court.25 3. So far we have only seen references to oral communication, not to oral tradition. An interesting remark about oral tradition is found in Galen too, but in this passage the expression “the living voice” is absent. We may follow Alexander in considering it to be a useful (though, as I should add, a partial) parallel for the preamble of Papias’ work to be discussed below; I quote:26 If not a single book of Erasistratus would be extant (esôzeto)27 but all of them had been lost, as those of Chrysippus28 are in danger of becoming, I would rather trust his pupils (mathêtai ) when they tell this about their teacher than people who have never seen either Erasistratus or a pupil (mathêtês) of his, i.e., neither one of those who used to go to his lectures nor one of those who did frequent those who used to go to his lectures.

The distance between Galen and Erasistratus is no less than five centuries. As this passage makes abundantly clear, Galen believes that a continuous tradition, or rather succession (diadochê, as the Greek term runs), links “today’s Erasistrateans” to the master himself, just

25

Justinian Nov. p. 365.29ff. Schöll and Kroll. Other instances in a legal context at Karpp, “Viva vox,” 193. But note that in some late texts the expression “living voice” may be used metaphorically to refer to what is found in a book, e.g. ps.-Didymus Trin., MPG 39 p. 881.36ff. on the living voice of Jesus. 26 Galen Ven.Sect.Er.Rom., XI p. 221.12–7 K. Discussed Alexander, “Living Voice,” 233; and Alexander, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1–4 and Acts 1.1 (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 84. 27 For the expression cf. e.g. Diogenes Laertius I 119, “the book written by Pherecydes is extant (sôzetai),” IX 55 “the extant books (ta sôzomena) by him [Protagoras] are the following.” 28 Chrysippus of Cnidus, Erasistratus’ teacher, see e.g. I. Garofalo, Erasistrati fragmenta: collegit et digessit (Biblioteca di studi antichi 62; Pisa: Giardini, 1988), 50f. For Galen on the loss of books as well as of “unwritten tenets” (agraphai doxai ) cf. HNG XV p. 67.10ff. K.; for the loss of books alone e.g. HVA XV p. 705.5ff. K., Hipp.Art. XVIIIA p. 512.15f. K.

galen, papias, and others

323

as contemporary Stoics are linked with Zeno, contemporary Epicureans with Epicurus, contemporary Platonists with Plato, and contemporary Peripatetics with Aristotle.29 And Galen hypothesizes that a continuous oral tradition could still have preserved Erasistratus’ teachings even if his oeuvre had been lost (quod non). One would only have had to interview one of the pupils of the pupils etc. of the pupils who followed the master’s courses. This chain of oral communication from person to person (from one living voice to another, so to speak) is thought to authenticate the transmitted contents. The term “pupil” (mathêtes), naturally but still surprisingly, may refer to a chronologically very distant follower. And we have an oral tradition only when the transmission30 has been achieved by pupils who form a continuous series, i.e. a succession. Explicit mention of such pupils is therefore crucial and decisive. We should however note that Galen does not speak here of a tradition which would contain information not to be found in the books; his present point of view therefore is consistent with that of the passages translated in the previous section. The parallel with Papias only concerns the practice of interviewing members of the last generation of “pupils” for information, imaginary in Galen’s case, real enough in that of Papias. And the latter’s informants, unlike Galen’s imaginary interviewees, provide him with information not to be found in the books.

29 “Today’s Erasistrateans” are mentioned at Galen Ven.Sect.Er.Rom., XI pp. 195.13, 197.15 and 214.3 K. Aristotle already spoke of a diadochê in the field of rhetoric, SE 34.183b17–33, and of one in another genre at Metaph. a 1.993b14–17. For the Successions of Philosophers (and others) see J. Mejer, Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background (Hermes Monograph Series 40; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978), 62ff.; J. Glucker, Antiochus and the Late Academy (Hypomnemata, Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben 56; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1978), 345ff., 364ff.; and R. Giannatasio Andria, I frammenti delle «Successioni » dei filosofi (Quaderni del Dipartimento di scienze dell’ anchitá 5; Naples: Arte Tipografica, 1989). Soranus (ca. 100 CE) is said to have composed a Succession of Physicians, see Schol. Orib., CMG VI.3.132. For the appeal to tradition in scientific and other professional literature see Alexander, Preface, 82ff. 30 Cf. the expressions agraphos paradosis, “unwritten transmission” (e.g. Philo, Spec.Leg. IV 150; Eusebius H.E. III xxxix.11; for Papias’ sources of information Eusebius, ibid. IV xxii.9); and agraphos didaskalia, “unwritten teaching” (e.g. Eusebius, ibid. II xv.1; Theodotus Rom.-Philm. MPG 82 p. 848.17ff. speaks of “names Paul learnt not from sacred scripture, but from the unwritten teaching of the Jews”). Hesychius oddly glosses paradosis as agraphos didaskalia.

324

jaap mansfeld

A substantial part of the proem of Papias’ Presentations of Logia Relating to the Lord 31 in five books has been preserved by Eusebius.32 The first sentence seems to be missing, since (1) the first words quoted are “and [or ‘but’: de] I shall not hesitate . . . to set out in an orderly way, in view of the interpretations, what I have learnt . . .,” and in such a sentence a men could have corresponded to the extant de.33 More importantly (2), no (part of a) sentence is found identifying this “you,” viz. the dedicatee; and (3) the fact that further information of an originally oral nature will be forthcoming implies that other, i.e. written, sources had already been mentioned. Even so, the section quoted by Eusebius is clear enough as to Papias’ method and purpose: But I shall not hesitate to set out in orderly fashion (suntaxai),34 in view of the interpretations (tais hermêneiais), also all that I ever learnt well from the Elders ( presbuteroi )35 and remember well, for I can vouch for the truth of this information. Indeed, I did not, unlike most people, rejoice in them who tell many different stories, but in them who teach the truth,36 nor in them who recount the commandments of others, but in them who repeated the commandments given to the faith by the Lord, which derive from truth itself. And if someone who had followed the Elders happened to come along, I asked him about the words of the Elders, what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or 31 My working translation of Kuriakôn logiôn exêgêseis. On the meaning of this title see now Körtner, “Papiasfragmente,” 31ff. Logion means ‘saying,’ ‘parable,’ but also ‘story’; see below, text to n. 43, and e.g. G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), s.v.; H. von Campenhausen, Kirchliches Amt und geistliche Vollmacht in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (2d rev. ed; BHT 14; Tübingen: Mohr, 1963), 155 n. 110; P. Grelot, Évangiles et tradition apostolique: réflexions sur un certain “Christ Hébreu” (Paris: Cerf, 1984), 103. 32 Eusebius H. E. III xxxix.3–4 = Papias fr. 5.3–4 Körtner “Papiasfragmente”; translation with modifications from Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (tr. K. Lake; 2 vols.; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1953). 33 Galen, Hipp.Art. XVIIIA p. 301.2ff. K., tells us that according to some people the “ancients” could begin their treatises with the particle de, and denies this (but see W. J. Verdenius, “Notes on the Presocratics,” Mnemosyne 13 [1947]: 274–75). Late parallels in P. W. van der Horst, “Some Late Instances of Inceptive de,” Mnemosyne 32 (1979): 377–79. 34 Körtner “Papiasfragmente,” 33f. (cf. his note ad loc.) follows Schwarz in reading sunkatataxai, which he translates as ‘einzuflechten.’ The mss. have suntaxai; if this is kept, the interpretations will still be explanations of something else. 35 For the role of “Elders” cf. Acts 16:4; Philo, below, text to n. 47; and e.g. von Campenhausen, Kirchliches Amt, 82ff.; W. R. Schoedel, “Papias,” ANRW Part 2, Principat, 27.1.250ff.; Körtner “Papiasfragmente,” 37f. Hermêneiai here means ‘interpretations’ as well as ‘presentations.’ 36 The contrast between “many different ( polla) accounts” and the “truth” is as old as Hesiod Theog. 26–27.

galen, papias, and others

325

Matthew had said, or any other of the Lord’s pupils (mathêtai ), and what is the account of Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s pupils (mathêtai ). For I did not suppose that information from books would help me so much as that forthcoming from a living and lasting37 voice.

That Papias also used written sources, viz. Mark and Matthew,38 is proved not only by his reference to literature which was of less importance to him than what his spokespersons said, but also by verbatim quotations in the sequel of Eusebius’ chapter. His account of Mark is a blend of information obtained from an unidentified Elder (presumably Aristion or “the Elder John”),39 and literary criticism: And the Elder said this: “Mark had been Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately, but not in orderly fashion (taxei ) all that he remembered of the things said and done (ta lechthenta kai prachthenta) by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, was a follower of Peter, who used to dispense his teachings (didaskalias)40 as the circumstances required ( pros tas chreias),41 but did not compose an orderly account (suntaxis),42 so to speak, of the Lord’s

37 para zôsês phônês kai menousês. Alexander, “Living Voice,” 225 and others cite 1 Pet 1:23 (cf. 1:25). The best pagan parallel I have found is ps.-Scymnos Orb.Descr. 16–8, “Pour la maison royale de Pergame, aujourd’hui éteinte, mais dont la gloire reste auprès de nous tous à jamais bien vivante” (doxa . . . zôsa dia pantos menei, ed. D. Marcotte, Géographes grecs, t. I: Introduction générale. Ps.-Scymnos: Circuit de la terre [Paris: Belles Lettres, 2000], 104). Papias apparently means that the “voice(s)” he heard will go on living even when put in writing. This belief may have been strengthened by his conviction that ultimately, the words and deeds reported are those of the Lord (cf. the later usage of “living voice” cited above, n. 27). 38 See e.g. A. F. Walls, “Papias and the Oral Tradition,” VC 21 (1967): 137–40. 39 To both of whom Papias referred throughout according to Eusebius loc. cit. §§ 7 and 14. 40 Cf. above, n. 8 and text thereto. 41 Overtranslation in R. M. Grant, The Earliest Lives of Jesus (London: SPCK, 1961), 17ff.; J. Kürzinger, Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments (Eichstätter Materialien 4; Regensburg: Pustet, 1983), 51ff.; D. E. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Library of Early Christianity 8; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 66, who take chreia in the sense of ‘significant anecdote’/‘saying.’ There are close to seventy cases of pros tas chreias, all meaning ‘as is needed’ vel sim. Schoedel, “Papias,” correctly renders “as the need arose”; so also Körtner “Papiasfragmente”: “nach den Bedürfnissen.” 42 For this order cf. Schoedel, “Papias,” 256. What, presumably, is meant may be illustrated by quoting the analysis of B. Corsani, “I vangeli,” in Lo spazio letterario della Grecia antica (ed. G. Cambiano, L. Canfora and D. Lanza; 3 vols.; Rome: Salerno, 1992–), I.3:481–516, 495f.: “. . . in Marco . . . troviamo una serie di dibattiti fra Gesú e i suoi avversari al cap. 2 e un altra al cap. 12, una serie di parabole al cap. 4, una serie di miracoli alla fine del cap. 4 e al cap. 5, una collezione di insegnamenti per la condotta dei discipoli al cap. 10. Ciò da l’impressione che Gesú si dedicasse in certi periodi soltanto a discutere coi suoi avversari, in altri invece

326

jaap mansfeld logia.43 Therefore Mark did nothing wrong in writing down, the way he did, some things just as he remembered them. For he stuck to a single aim: to leave out nothing of what he had heard, and to include nothing untrue.”44

I suppose that this literary comment is Papias’ own contribution, or has at least been reformulated by him. Peter according to this report belongs to the first generation of pupils (mathêtai ), Mark to the second, the Elder to the third. Papias here is the fourth in line.45 On Matthew we are told (without, at least in Eusebius’ excerpt, a reference to an Elder as spokesperson, but one may hypothesize that Papias did not invent this): Matthew put the logia together in an orderly way (sunetaxato) in the Hebrew language, and each translated these as best he could.46

So, according to Papias, Peter’s oral teaching in Hebrew (or Aramaic) is available in Mark’s accurate Greek translation in writing; Matthew’s orderly account in Hebrew (or Aramaic) has also been, or is, translated into Greek—in various ways, it would appear. Clearly Matthew is believed to belong with the first generation of pupils as well. We may assume that in both these cases the connection with what, supposedly, is Jesus’ original environment in Palestine47 functions as confirmation of the relative reliability of these two written sources. Thus Mark and Matthew are purportedly translations of oral accounts of pupils of the first generation. Whether this claim about their original language and provenance is correct is irrelevant for the interpretation of Papias’ purpose and method. He may or may not have had knowledge of other gospels—one really does not know— but supposing, for instance, that he had seen Luke and John, he still solo a parlare in parabole o a far miracoli. È piú probabile che nella realtà queste varie forme di attività si alternassero continuamente, ma l’autore di Marco non ha avuto preoccupazioni di carattere storico-biografico, e cosí non ha alterato l’ordine delle raccolte primitive di cui ha fatto uso” (my emphasis). 43 Cf. above, n. 31. 44 Eusebius, loc. cit. § 15. 45 Irenaeus, Haer. V xxxiii.4 = Papias fr. 1 Körtner, “Papiasfragmente” (quoted Eusebius loc. cit. § 1), says he was a contemporary of Polycarp and a pupil of John (i.e., presumably, the Elder). Eusebius loc. cit. § 9 also says (no verbatim quotation here) that he received information from the daughters of “the apostle Philip,” i.e. also interviewed people belonging to the second generation of “pupils,” if Eusebius is right in identifying this Philip with the apostle. 46 Eusebius, loc. cit. § 16. 47 Körtner, “Papiasfragmente,” 45.

galen, papias, and others

327

may have believed that the information provided by Mark and Matthew is closer to the original oral sources. 4. One does not know, for that matter, whether Papias was familiar with any work of the Hellenized Jewish author Philo of Alexandria, but the final paragraph of the proem of Philo’s De vita Mosis is so close to Papias’ introductory paragraph in Eusebius that I have begun to believe in intertextuality: . . . I shall tell the story of Moses as I have learnt it, both from the sacred books, the wonderful monuments of his wisdom which he has left behind him, and from some of the Elders of our nation. For I always interwove (sunuphainon) what I was told (ta legomena) with what I was reading, and thus believed myself to have a closer knowledge than others of his life’s story.48

Both Philo and Papias have been told things by Elders. Philo, like Papias, uses both authoritative written and authoritative oral sources, and like Papias says he will provide a combination of both kinds of information: the terms sunetaxa (or sunkatetaxa) and sunuphainon express the same sort of technique, or procedure. The difference is that for Philo scripture comes first, while for Papias the oral traditions are more important. The reason for this, I believe, is not only that the events Papias writes about are far closer to him in time than those described by Philo are to Philo, but also that, when Papias was inquiring and writing, no canon of Christian scriptures had as yet been established,49 while the Torah had held its canonical position already for a long time. Papias’ descriptive formula ta lechthenta kai prachthenta (“the things said and done by the Lord”) for the reliable contents of Mark’s gospel50 can of course be paralleled rather widely, though not always exactly.51 Alexander submits that “Papias was no intellectual and has 48

Philo Mos. 4; (tr. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; LCL; London: Heinemann and New York: Putnam, 1929–1962), translation slightly modified (for the contents cp. above, texts to nn. 21–22). 49 Cf. e.g. W. C. van Unnik, Oog en oor: Criteria voor de eerste samenstelling van het Nieuwe Testament (Diesrede Utrecht, 1973); Körtner, “Papiasfragmente,” 47. 50 Above, text to n. 44. 51 A good one at Eusebius D.E. III iv.49. See further e.g. Isocrates Panath. 187; Plato Charm. 171b; Resp. 492b; Phdr. 233a, 241a; Xenophon Mem. IV iii.18, IV ii.25 (also ibid., I i.19 and 20; Gellius N.A. XIV iii.5 translates Xenophon’s title as dictorum et factorum Socratis commentarii ); Menander fr. 417.7 Körte-Thierfelder; Polybius XXVII xv.9; Josephus B. J. I 492; Philo Cher. 16 (twice); Ebr. 131; Spec.Leg. II 9; Strabo XV i.63; Plutarch Soll.An. 973F).

328

jaap mansfeld

no links with Platonism.”52 The evidence discussed so far however suggests that Papias may well have had a solid pagan education. What is more, it is in my view hardly possible to deny that Philo as well as Papias was familiar with the rule, already quoted by Cicero, that in order to interpret documents dealing with or deriving from a person, one should inform oneself as fully as possible about “what he did, said, about his mind and way of life.”53 This should help to explain Papias’ efforts to provide not only the fullest possible picture of traditions one could trust, by interviewing and quoting authoritative indirect witnesses,54 but also to provide the best interpretation, as he believed, of (passages in) a selection of documentary sources. 5. I wish to conclude with a Platonic parallel which at the very least is convincing at the exalted level of intertextuality. We may adduce the preamble of Plato’s Phaedo, the introductory conversation of Echecrates and Phaedo.55 First, Echecrates asks Phaedo whether he was present himself the day Socrates drank the hemlock, or has heard about it from someone else. Phaedo confirms that he had been present in person. Echecrates rejoices in this, because so far he has met with no one capable of giving him the information he wants. Phaedo explains why Socrates’ execution was postponed. Echecrates inquires about what is in fact the theme of the dialogue, and wants to know whether there were other witnesses (58c): “What was it that was said and done (ta lechthenta kai prachthenta), and which of his intimates were there with him?” Phaedo tells him who were there, famously adding that Plato was ill. The series Socrates—Phaedo—Echecrates—Plato (the author) is strikingly similar to the series Jesus—Peter—Mark, and the Elders and others who told Papias—Papias himself. Both times the issue is the authentication of an account and its tradition; both Mark and Phaedo are supposed to have correctly reported the lechthenta and

52

Alexander, “Living Voice,” 243. Thus Cicero Inv. II 117, ex factis, dictis, animo atque vita. See further Mansfeld, Prolegomena, 177ff. R. M. Grant, Heresy and Criticism: The Search for Authenticity in Early Christian Literature (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 8ff., in other respects a good brief account, is too cautious. 54 Cf. the appeal to witnesses at Luke 1:2, with the comments of Alexander, Preface, 116ff., esp. 123f. 55 Phd. 57a–59c. Also cf. e.g. Plato Theaet. 142a–143b, the introductory conversation of Euclid and Terpsion. 53

galen, papias, and others

329

prachthenta. This parallel, moreover, is also impressive because both times we are confronted with a role model whose words and deeds, inclusive (as we know) of the acceptance of a cruel death, are admirably in agreement with each other.56

56 Cf. Mansfeld, Prolegomena, 183ff.; also see A. Dihle, Studien zur griechischen Biographie (2d ed.; Abh. Ak. Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Kl., 3.37; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 13ff., who also interprets the Apology in this way.

ISAAC OF ANTIOCH AND THE LITERATURE OF ADAM AND EVE Edward G. Mathews, Jr. Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania

As is clear from the surviving literature, Genesis is the biblical book most commented on by early Christian writers. And in these commentaries the six days of creation and particularly the story of Adam and Eve, the progenitors of the human race, and their subsequent expulsion from the Garden of Eden, have attracted the remarkably preponderant amount of attention.1 But the so-called mainstream commentary and homiletic tradition was by no means the only literature on this subject. In his many publications Michael Stone has brought to scholars’ attention the wealth of apocryphal material concerned with the figures of Adam and Eve, and no one has done as much as he to make these texts available. While his particular interest is in those traditions found in Armenian texts, he has nonetheless tracked down traditions in numerous languages.2 In his History of the Literature of Adam and Eve, Stone further divides the apocryphal Adam and Eve literature into the categories of primary and secondary literature. The first is characterized by those texts that are versions of the Life of Adam,3 while the secondary literature contains works that were clearly inspired by the Life of Adam.4 In his catalogue of primary Adam literature Stone lists no work that has survived in Syriac, and he lists only two Syriac works in the 1 A comprehensive study is a great desideratum, but a brief overview can be found in E. Testa, Il Peccato di Adamo nella Patristica (Gen. III) (SBFA 3; Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1970). One can now consult the texts gathered in A. Louth, ed., Genesis 1–11 (ACCSOT 1; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001). 2 See above all, M. E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (SBLEJL 3; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); and idem, Adam’s Contract with Satan: The Legend of the Cheirograph of Adam (Bloomington: Indiana University, 2002). His numerous editions can be found in the bibliographies of these works. 3 These texts have been conveniently gathered together in G. A. Anderson and M. E. Stone, eds., A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve (2d rev. ed., SBLEJL 17; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999). 4 Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve, 3–4; see also pp. 6, 84, and chap. 2.

332

edward g. mathews, jr.

secondary Adam literature: The Cave of Treasures and the Testament of Adam.5 There is, however, a Syriac poetic text that, while ostensibly belonging to a more mainstream exegetical tradition, actually deserves much closer attention in this context. This text is a Mêmrâ on Adam and Eve attributed to Isaac of Antioch. This work has never been edited, nor has it ever been translated into any other language. So far as I can determine, it has received no attention whatsoever outside of its title being listed in Assemani’s eighteenth-century catalogues.6 It is the purpose of this article, therefore, to provide a short introduction to this text and to highlight certain aspects of its significance for the history of the literature of Adam and Eve.7

Author and Date This mêmrâ is attributed to a Mar Is˙aq Malphànâ, or Isaac the Teacher. This Isaac is usually identified with Isaac of Antioch, whom such notable writers as Severus of Antioch and Bar Hebraeus have lauded as one of Syriac’s greatest writers,8 and who is one of only a very few Syriac authors who are traditionally known by the appellation, “the Great.” Nonetheless, practically nothing is known of Isaac 5

Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve, 90–98. J. S. Assemanus, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementina-Vaticana (3 vols.; Rome: Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, 1719–1728), 1:231. S. E. Assemanus and J. S. Assemanus, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae Codicum Manuscriptorum Catalogus in tres partes Distributus (3 vols.; Rome: Typographia Linguarum Orientalium, 1758–1759), 3.125. In addition to these entries, the incipit of this mêmrâ is included in G. Bickell, ed., Sancti Isaaci Antiochi Doctoris syrorum opera omnia, syriace, arabiceque primus edidit, latine vertit (2 vols.; Gissae: G. Keller, 1873–1877), 1:vii; S. P. Brock, “The Published Verse Homilies of Isaac of Antioch, Jacob of Serugh, and Narsai: Index of Incipits,” JSS 32 (1987): 283; and E. G. Mathews, Jr., “The Works Attributed to Isaac of Antioch: A[nother] Preliminary Checklist,” Hugoye 6.1 (2003): n.p. Online: http://syrcom.cua.edu/ Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1Mathews.html. 7 Prof. Stone has himself already done this in the case of the medieval Armenian poet Yovhannès T'lkuranc'i; see M. E. Stone, “Remarks on Vasn Ste∑cman A“xarhi (On the Creation of the World) by Yovhannès T'lkuranc'i,” in New Approaches to Medieval Armenian Language and Literature (ed. J. J. S. Weitenberg; Dutch Studies in Armenian Language and Literature 3; Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1995), 63–78; and M. E. Stone, “Selections from On the Creation of the World by Yovhannès T'ulkuranc'i,” in Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays (ed. G. Anderson, M. E. Stone, and J. Tromp; SVTP 15; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 167–213. 8 M. Brière, ed., Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Sevère d’Antioche (PO 29.1; Turnhout: Brepols, 1960), 204 [708]: “The Syrian teachers (sc. those whose writings are worthy of diligent study) are Ephrem, Jacob, Isaac, and Philoxenus.” In A. J. Wensinck, Bar Hebraeus’s Book of the Dove (Leiden: Brill, 1919), 124, Bar Hebraeus lists Isaac as one of the great Syriac hymn writers along with Ephrem and Balai. 6

isaac of antioch and the literature of adam and eve

333

of Antioch. Before the end of the seventh century the Syrians themselves seem to have become confused over the question of the number and the identities of early Syriac writers named Isaac. In a letter to John the Solitary, who asks how many Syrian writers known as Isaac there are, Jacob of Edessa replies that there are three.9 In current scholarship, it is the consensus simply to use this name of Isaac to designate the large corpus of works that clearly includes works by several authors of whom there may be three or even four who are named Isaac.10 The present state of scholarship does not allow any more precise details on what each of these authors wrote, so scholarly consensus accords the bulk of the corpus to the archimandrite who flourished in the middle of the fifth century. For our purposes in this paper, this identification and dating will be presumed.11

Manuscripts The Mêmrâ on Adam and Eve attributed to Isaac of Antioch is found in only two manuscripts. The older of the two, Vat. Ms. Syr. 120, is written in an elegant Estrangela of the sixth century.12 This manuscript is of great importance for the Isaac corpus as it is the oldest manuscript that contains only works attributed to Isaac the Teacher. Only one work from this manuscript has ever appeared in any modern critical edition.13 It is very likely that Vat. Ms. Syr. 120 was once part of

9 R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975), 36, speaks of “the problem of how many writers shelter under the name of Isaac of Antioch.” 10 No critical edition of this letter exists, but one version with French translation can be found in P. Bedjan, ed., Homiliae S. Isaaci Syri Antiocheni I (Paris/Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1903), iv–vi. 11 The entire corpus known by the name of Isaac of Antioch is in a deplorable editorial state; less than one third of his works have been edited at all, and only a single text can even remotely be called a critical text. While translations of some of his works into modern languages do exist, these are made from uncritical printed editions. See the relevant sections in E. G. Mathews, Jr., “A Bibliographical Clavis to the Corpus of Works Attributed to Isaac of Antioch,” Hugoye 5.1 (2002): n.p. Online: http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol5No1/HV5N1Mathews.html; secondary work on this corpus, in general, is very sparse. The most recent catalogue of the works included in this corpus is Mathews, “The Works Attributed to Isaac of Antioch.” 12 Assemanus and Assemanus, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae Codicum Manuscriptorum Catalogus, 3:125. 13 S. Kazan, “Isaac of Antioch’s Homily against the Jews,” OCP 45 (1961): 30–53. Kazan claims that this work is found only in Ms. Vat. Syr. 120, but it is also found in Ms. Vat. Syr. 364.

334

edward g. mathews, jr.

a set of two or even three manuscripts, now unfortunately lost, that constituted a first attempt to collect an Opera Omnia Isaaci. This assertion seems plausible because the other manuscript that contains the Mêmrâ on Adam and Eve, Vat. Ms. Syr. 364, which has been dated to the eighteenth century, contains the exact same works as Vat. Ms. Syr. 120, in the exact same order. Vat. Ms. Syr. 364 is one of three manuscripts, the others being Vat. Ms. Syr. 365 and Vat. Ms. Syr. 366, all clearly written by the same hand and together containing some eighty-six works attributed to Isaac of Antioch. Furthermore, the works contained in these three manuscripts neither contain the same works nor follow the same standard order of works as that found in most later collections of Isaac’s works.14 The Mêmrâ on Adam and Eve is one of three mêmrê found in this Isaac corpus that directly treat a theme or figure from the Book of Genesis; the other two are the Mêmrâ on Creation and the Mêmrâ on Cain and Abel. The Mêmrâ on Adam and Eve and the Mêmrâ on Cain and Abel are found only in Vat. Ms. Syr. 120 and Vat. Ms. Syr. 364, and neither has received any scholarly attention, although editions and translations of both are currently being undertaken.15 The third of these texts, the Mêmrâ on Creation, is found in at least four other manuscripts, and a printed text based on a late manuscript, without translation, can be found in Bedjan’s edition of Isaac’s works.16

A Description of the Contents The Mêmrâ on Adam and Eve is composed in a standard 14-syllable line, set out in a 7 × 7-syllable pattern. While this meter is known as the “meter of St. Ephrem,” it is employed much more commonly by other writers, most notably the two great writers of the fifth century, Narsai and Isaac, but it is used by some later writers as well.17 14 In general, later collections contain a very standard group of twenty-four works (= Bedjan, Homiliae S. Isaaci Syri Antiocheni I, 1–295), or of sixty works which include the same twenty-four but in different order. Curiously, due no doubt to the early confusion over the identity of Isaac, some of these collections are even attributed to the seventh-century Nestorian mystic Isaac of Nineveh. 15 The present writer is editing the Mêmrâ on Adam and Eve, with English translation and annotation, while S. P. Brock is in process of doing the same for the Mêmrâ on Cain and Abel. 16 Bedjan, Homiliae S. Isaaci Syri Antiocheni I, 691–711. 17 Other common meters are the 5 × 5, known as the “meter of Balai,” and the

isaac of antioch and the literature of adam and eve

335

The style and vocabulary suggest that this mêmrâ might also belong to the category of “dialogue poem.” Even though one finds such apparently stock phrases as “Adam contended with his yoke-mate” (f. 158v), or “Who then are the hearers who will judge us justly?” (f. 160v), the mêmrâ does not adhere to the strictly formal structure or style of “dispute” or “contention” poems, a very popular style in early Syriac literature.18 This composition of some 713 lines “records” the dialogue between Adam and Eve immediately following their expulsion from Paradise. This dialogue goes on for some length with only minimal narrative interruption. One can briefly describe the dialogue as Adam bemoaning what he has lost, as in the following (ff. 154r–v): How can I have fallen from honor and become an object of speech to generations? A god I had been made upon earth and I was a king in the world. I set down names for reptiles, for carnivores, and for birds. Even the rich will gaze upon me and not put their trust in wealth, For I have trusted in it, and I perished and lost God. Princes too will see me and they will despise their rules. Because I sought to ascend the ladder I fell from it.

Between Adam’s moanings, Eve makes several attempts to convince him that what they now have on earth is also good and will be perfectly suitable to them and their progeny; in fact, it would be much more beneficial to them to accept their present predicament as, she claims, it is the will of God, who in his love is simply chastising them for their own good (ff. 156r–v): O Adam, do not grieve, that you have taken us out of Paradise, for after a time we can return and we will enter into your inheritance. With mercy God is chastising us, not in anger or in wrath. If He hated us, He would certainly have killed us. He who made us without toil can destroy us without fatigue. God is indeed pleased that we should inherit the land with its plenty. 12 × 12, known as “the meter of Jacob of Sarug.” Other Syriac metrical styles, such as the madrà“â and the sugîthâ, employ much more varied syllable patterns. I here use the name Isaac to refer to the literary corpus, not a specific person, as described above. 18 See, especially, S. P. Brock, “Dramatic Dialogue Poems,” in IV Symposium Syriacum 1984 (ed. R. Lavenant; OrChrAn 229; Rome: Pontifical Oriental Institute, 1987), 135–47, and S. P. Brock, “Syriac Dispute Poems: The Various Types,” in Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East (ed. G. J. Reinink and H. L. J. Vanstiphout; OLA 42; Louvain: Peeters, 1991), 109–19.

336

edward g. mathews, jr. On our behalf He made the earth and all that is upon it for He knew that we would sin and that He would cast us out of Paradise.

Adam, however, continues to heap upon Eve all the blame for their newfound predicament; he considers her persistent pleas as yet another “temptation” on her part and thus distrusts her every suggestion. Suddenly, he recounts a vision of Christ that he has had (not otherwise described in the mêmrâ), somewhat reminiscent of the language of Daniel 7, which finally convinces him of the truth of what Eve has been telling him (ff. 164r–165v). After this narrative and his apology to Eve, Adam withdraws and offers a long prayer to God beseeching him to “turn aside His anger against us . . . so that in all generations we might thank you for Your saving us” (f. 168v). The two subsequently resolve to build an altar to God and to worship him with all their being. The mêmrâ concludes with Eve pointing out to Adam the implications of his dream, namely, that while they may be consigned to earth for the rest of their days, it will be their progeny, rich in virtuous deeds and in their love of God, who will one day regain that which they had lost.

Relation to the Syriac Exegetical Tradition This mêmrâ seems to constitute a unique piece in Syriac literature. While Syriac commentaries on Genesis discuss—sometimes, at great length—the subject of Adam and Eve, the particular subject matter found here is not taken up by any of the major commentators in either of the two Syriac christological traditions, Nestorian or Monophysite: Ephrem,19 Jacob of Sarug,20 Narsai,21 I“ô'dad of Merw,22 19 Edition with Latin translation in R. M. Tonneau, ed., Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum commentarii (CSCO 152–153; Louvain: Peeters, 1955); annotated English translation in E. G. Mathews, Jr. and J. P. Amar, Selected Prose Works of Ephrem the Syrian (FC 91; Washington: Catholic University of America, 1994), 59–213. 20 P. Bedjan, Homiliae Selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis (5 vols.; Paris/Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1905–1910), 3:1–223. The first four of these homilies have been re-edited with French translation in K. Alwan, ed., Jacques de Saroug. Quatre homélies métriques sur la Création (CSCO 508–509; Louvain: Peeters, 1989). 21 Text and French translation in P. Gignoux, ed., Homélies de Narsaï sur la Création (PO 34.3–4; Turnhout: Brepols, 1969). 22 Edition in Jacques-Marie Vosté and Ceslas Van den Eynde, ed., Commentaire d’I“ô 'dad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament I. Genèse (CSCO 126; Louvain: Peeters, 1950); French translation in C. Van den Eynde, Commentaire d’I“ô'dad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament, I: Genèse (CSCO 156; Louvain: Peeters, 1955).

isaac of antioch and the literature of adam and eve

337

Jacob of Edessa,23 or Bar Hebraeus,24 to name but the most prominent.25 The entire “scene” of this mêmrâ is the conversation between Adam and Eve immediately (apparently) after their expulsion from the Garden of Eden. With the exception of Christ and an angel in Adam’s vision, Adam and Eve are the only two characters in the mêmrâ. The only change of location is their descent from the mountain, which occurs at the very end of the mêmrâ. There is complete absence of the creation of Adam and Eve, their temptation, their fall proper, nor is there the least mention of Cain and Abel or any other progeny. All the above-mentioned commentators follow closely the biblical narrative, which moves immediately from the expulsion of Adam and Eve to the conception of Cain and Abel. Whether this mêmrâ has left any traces on the later Syriac homiletic tradition remains to be answered.26

Relation to the Apocryphal Adam and Eve Traditions This mêmrâ also shows no sign of influence from the apocryphal Adam and Eve literature. Michael Stone has already noted that many of these apocryphal traditions about Adam and Eve found in so many other cultures are not to be found in any Syriac composition. Apart from the Cave of Treasures,27 which may perhaps antedate this mêmrâ but has left no discernible trace on it, traces of the apocryphal Adam and Eve are almost non-existent in Syriac literature. Standard features of these apocryphal writings, such as the presence of Satan or the rather fantastical accounts of the penances undertaken by Adam and Eve, are simply not to be found in this mêmrâ. This entire mêmrâ may have taken place in a single calendar day, as no elapse 23 The Scholia of Jacob on Genesis and the commentary material that is included in manuscripts with material attributed to Ephrem are all being edited by Dirk Kruiksheer of the University of Leiden. 24 M. Sprengling and W. C. Graham, eds., Barhebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament, t. I: Genesis-II Samuel (University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 13; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1931), 1–101. 25 Comments here and in the next section on the relations of the Mêmrâ on Adam and Eve to various other literatures are not to be considered exhaustive, but rather based on a search through the most representative examples of each genre. 26 It seems very curious that, despite the importance of Isaac and his writings as declared by a number of later writers (see above), there is so little discernible influence on later Syriac literature, although a thorough study has yet to be attempted. 27 Su Min Ri, ed., La Caverne des Trésors. Les deux recensions syriaques (CSCO 486–487; Louvain: Peeters, 1987).

338

edward g. mathews, jr.

of time is mentioned. The primary Adam and Eve literature begins with the pair’s expulsion and subsequent dwelling in huts; only at the very end of this mêmrâ do Adam and Eve make any movement toward finding a dwelling place—and then it seems to have been only a shelter of straw on the ground, with no roof. The Adam and Eve literature generally treats these features at length, as well as their progeny and even the deaths of Adam and Eve, where the various Lives of Adam and Eve in fact end.

The Cheirograph of Adam While the Mêmrâ on Adam and Eve shows no discernible influence from either the commentary or the apocryphal traditions, it does nonetheless offer a rather significant witness to literature concerning the legend of the Cheirograph, and constitutes nearly its only witness in early Syriac literature. As Stone has rightly highlighted, there are two distinct Cheirograph traditions: the one concerning the contract between Adam and Satan, found in the apocryphal Adam and Eve literature, and the one referring to the “deed of indebtedness,” or as we have translated it below, “promissory note,” that Adam is compelled to write as a result of his sin. This latter tradition is based on the notion as found in Colossians 2:14.28 The exegesis of Isaac is clearly based on this New Testament text but reveals some interesting variations from the more traditional interpretation. As it is perhaps most useful here to see the entire context of Isaac’s discussion of the Cheirograph, I provide here a rather lengthy excerpt of the text as found in Vat. Ms. Syr. 120, ff. 170v–171v, together with a preliminary English translation.29 Text:

28

Stone, Adam’s Contract with Satan, 103–4. I would like here to express my profound gratitude to Mr. K. Heal of the Middle Eastern Text Initiative project in Provo, Utah, who very graciously provided me with digital images of the entirety of Vat. Ms. Syr. 120. 29

isaac of antioch and the literature of adam and eve

339

edward g. mathews, jr.

340 Translation:

“Who will repay our debts, O Eve, after our death? I have written a promissory note to God; I owe much treasure. And I wrote ‘Yours is the authority to exact [it] from my sons after me.’ There are some who leave their possessions to their sons after them, And their heirs make for them a memorial at their departures. We who have left a loss, who will make a memorial for us? We have become like beasts and wild animals, not to be remembered. If anyone were mistakenly to remember us, he would do us no favor; He would repeat our shame, our mockery, and the evil name that we have earned. Whenever that manifesto is read which is inscribed with our sins, Everyone will again drive us out [171r] and curse us because we have sinned. Our heirs will say, and one man will recount to his companion, That there is an ancient promissory note of our old first father. Let not fathers become like him, despoilers of their heirs, Lest their sons become objects of shame to their companions at their deaths. There will be some who will leave behind righteousness and a good name, And the young will take pride in the name which their elders left behind. We had not been renowned with a name like the just ones who had been there, Nor with wealth or with riches or with transitory possessions. We are not leaving our sons as an inheritance any delightful portion of the earth, Nor to our selves any boast in any righteousness that we have done. We are among the first sinners and among the first poor people; We have deprived ourselves of truth and we are dispossessed of [our] wealth.” But Eve, after this, opened her mouth and comforted him, She tried to heal his grieving heart with the words of calm that she put to him. “Of your soul, O Adam, hearken and be still, but of your debts do not be concerned, For your heirs will rise up and they will repay your promissory note for you: Your iniquity which is more massive than a mountain, and your sin than a high place. By a pure heart they will be separated like wax by [171v] fire. The promissory note is not a grievous thing if the heirs are wise, Nor is your debtor severe if they know how to appease him. You will have sons who are just and righteous as well as rich. Your loss is not something that they will blot out in one day. Whoever gives a mina receives, and who gives a second one is acquitted. By baiting [you, God] wishes that we repay our debts little by little,

isaac of antioch and the literature of adam and eve

341

And by his long-suffering to trap and turn back to himself those who cheated him. If a tree is preserved on account of [its] sweet fruits, How much more are you Adam to be honored on account of [your] just fruits? Just ones will pray on behalf of your debts that the Good One might forgive your crimes. And righteous ones will entreat him that you enter Eden and be refreshed. The rich by [their] alms will tear up the promissory note of your debt, And the poor will entreat him and by their prayer they will appease him Inasmuch as you had angered him by your sin. Everyone will give according to his power and will repay the Lord your debt, And as for the one who wishes not to repay the watchers will laugh at his ruin.”

The exposition here is clearly dependent on the Col 2:14 passage; the Syriac word Isaac uses in this passage, (elsewhere found also as ), is the word found in the Peshitta New Testament in the passage in question, and this is its only occurrence in the entire New Testament.30 In the Old Testament, several occurrences are found in Jeremiah 32, where the word carries its primary meaning as a note of debt between two parties, in this case, for the field of Anathoth bought by Jeremiah from his cousin Hanamel. In Tob 5:3, the word is used, by contrast, of something like a pledge of money. The term is not all that common in early Syriac literature. It does not occur, for instance, in any of the works of Aphrahat or the anonymous treatise known as the Liber Graduum, and its few occurrences, in such works as early historical texts, the Julian Romance,31 or the Life of Rabbula,32 also reflect its more common mercantile meaning. The word is found in the voluminous works of Ephrem, the great fourth-century poet and biblical commentator, where it does occur with the overtones from the Colossians passage. Since Ephrem is likely to have been one of Isaac’s sources, it might be useful to set out a few passages in which Ephrem treats the concept of the “promissory note.” One such occurrence, already noted by Stone, is in a 30

The Syriac text here reads: . J. G. E. Hoffman, ed., Julianos der Abtruennige. Syrische Erzaehlungen (Leiden: Brill, 1880 [sic]), 210. 32 In J. J. Overbeck, ed., S. Ephraemi Syri, Rabulae Episcopi Edesseni, Balaei aliorumque Opera Selecta (Oxford: Clarendon, 1865), 206. 31

342

edward g. mathews, jr.

Sugîthâ on the Mother of God, where it concerns such a note that the serpent wrote for the debt of Eve.33 It is this single instance that might be considered to show some signs of Ephrem’s acquaintance with the apocryphal legend. Some of the other passages where this word occurs seem to represent a more general debt which remorse,34 tears,35 or even chrismation36 can efface. The remaining few instances, while displaying Ephrem’s poetic imagination and a certain breadth of interpretation, display a very clear dependence on the text of Colossians. One such example can be found in his Homilies on the Nativity. As this passage was not discussed by Stone, we will set out here both text and translation:

Take off your veil, make your face joyful, O Creation, on our feast day! Let the church sing out with a voice, [and] heaven and earth in silence! Sing out and praise the child who has brought deeds of manumission for all. Blessed is He who tore to pieces the promissory notes!37

This passage is of some interest as Ephrem clearly uses the word in the plural, thus referring to multiple promissory notes. With what traditions, apocryphal or otherwise, Ephrem was familiar cannot be deduced from this context, but in his Hymns on Nisibis he does refer to a “testament” that Adam composed to Death and Sin.38 Until further evidence surfaces, it must remain conjecture whether Ephrem is here referring to these two notes or to others. It is rather unlikely that Ephrem is here dependent on the exegesis of Didymus the Blind,

33 Carm. Sog. I.24, in E. Beck, ed., Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Nativitate (Epiphania) (CSCO 186; Louvain: Peeters, 1959), 194. This text is cited and translated in Stone, Adam's Contract with Satan, 105–6. 34 H. de Virg. III.10, in E. Beck, ed., Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Virginitate (CSCO 223; Louvain: Peeters, 1962), 11. 35 H. de Virg. XIII.9, in Beck, Ephraem Hymnen de Virginitate, 46. 36 H. de Virg. VII.11, in Beck, Ephraem Hymnen de Virginitate, 27. 37 H. de Nat. XXII.9, in Beck, Ephraem Hymnen de Nativitate, 111; translation adapted from K. E. McVey, Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns (CWS; New York: Paulist, 1989), 181. 38 Carm. Nis. XLVIII.9, in E. Beck, ed., Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena (CSCO 240; Louvain: Peeters, 1963), 63; text and translation in Stone, Adam’s Contract with Satan, 106. The word that Ephrem uses here is , the Syriac calque on the Greek, diayÆkh.

isaac of antioch and the literature of adam and eve

343

who understands that each sinner has received his own promissory note by reason of his individual sins.39 Although the word is not a common one in the corpus of Isaac of Antioch, in this Mêmrâ on Adam and Eve, Isaac employs it six times, five of which are found in the excerpt just cited.40 It is also clear that for Isaac there was only a single promissory note and that it was clearly composed by Adam—though in a mêmrâ on Adam and Eve, this can hardly be surprising. While it cannot be determined with any certainty to what degree, if any, the exegesis of Ephrem influenced Isaac, there are nonetheless several interesting features of this mêmrâ that merit scholarly attention. It is perhaps due only to Isaac’s theological imagination, but it is useful to highlight the fact that Isaac provides at least part of the text of the promissory note that Adam inscribed to God: “Yours is the authority to exact [it] from my sons after me.” Even in the legendary Cheirograph material, the oath that Adam was made to swear to Satan,“until the unbegotten is born and the undying dies, my seed will be your servants,” is rather an oral oath, sworn—not inscribed—upon a rock.41 Perhaps even more significantly, and unlike the exegesis of Ephrem and most other commentators on this verse, the promissory note is not abrogated by the crucifixion of Christ but instead is paid off by the merits of Adam’s descendants; the crucifixion is nowhere mentioned in Isaac’s mêmrâ. It rather seems to be the purpose of the passage cited above to establish Adam’s heirs as the ones who will repay the promissory note which Adam had written to God. Eve responded to Adam’s anxiety by comforting him with the assurance that it will not be he but their heirs, their “just fruits,” who will repay that promissory note. This notion of Adam’s progeny paying off a debt is consistent with that found in a number of texts in the corpus of Isaac of Antioch, particularly his ascetic works, which emphasize the salvific merits of monks and hermits, although there is no mention of the Cheirograph in these compositions.42 This particular notion of 39

Cf. Stone, Adam’s Contract with Satan, 107. The other occurrence is on f. 164r. 41 The three recensions of this text are set out in Stone, Adam’s Contract with Satan, 78 (with previous bibliography); see also M. E. Stone, “The Legend of the Cheirograph of Adam,” in Anderson, Stone, and Tromp, Literature on Adam and Eve, 149–66, esp., 156–59. 42 I have nearly completed editing these texts, with annotated English transla40

344

edward g. mathews, jr.

salvation as put forth by Isaac, however, stands in sharp contrast to the Christ-centered exegesis not only of early Syriac literature, but of patristic literature in general.43

Conclusion It is quite clear that this Mêmrâ on Adam and Eve, attributed to Isaac of Antioch, shows no acquaintance either with the mainstream Syriac exegetical tradition or with the apocryphal Adam traditions which Michael Stone has done so much to make known. There also, just as clearly, remains much study to be done on this corpus and on this mêmrâ in particular. Nevertheless, even this brief and cursory introduction should make clear that this text presents several new and fascinating features that are of great interest for the history of the literature of Adam and Eve, but particularly for the growing literature on the history of the legend of the Cheirograph. It is a very great honor to be able to present this text in homage and celebration of someone who is not only the recognized authority in the field, but who more than anyone else guided my first steps onto this very long and broad path.44

tions; they will appear in the series Early Christian Texts published by the Middle Eastern Text Initiatives project at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, USA. 43 For the latter, see E. C. Best, An Historical Study of the Exegesis of Colossians 2,14 (Rome: Pontifica Universitas Gregoriana, 1956); a representative sampling of some of the texts can now be found in P. Gorday, ed., Colossians, 1–2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon (ACCSNT 9; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 33–35. 44 I was a participant in Michael’s 1992 NEH Summer Seminar devoted to the Life of Adam and Eve, where I greatly profited from his guidance on this little book. It was also during this time that I was finishing up my translation of Ephrem’s Syriac Commentary on Genesis. In conjunction with this latter project Michael and I began reading the Adam sections of the Armenian “translation” of Ephrem’s Commentary, and we quickly “discovered” that this Armenian Commentary on Genesis had nothing to do with Ephrem or the Syriac Commentary, of which the Armenian had long been presumed to be a translation. This “discovery” led to my doctoral dissertation and subsequently to my first major Armenian publication.

THE ADAM AND EVE TRADITIONS IN THE JOURNEY OF ZOSIMOS 1 Ronit Nikolsky The Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jerusalem

In this paper, I discuss one aspect of the story entitled The Journey of Zosimos, in order to demonstrate its affinities with the Adam and Eve literature. Recognizing these affinities may teach us something about the social context in which the Adam and Eve literature took shape. The story usually circulates under the name The History of the Rechabites. This title is misleading, however, because it accounts only for one section of the narrative, that which tells of the Rechabites’ escape from Jerusalem before its fall in the days of Jeremiah the prophet. This section is an independent passage that has been incorporated into the framework of the Journey of Zosimos.2 The story as a whole does not describe the Rechabites; rather, it tells of the adventures of the monk, Zosimos, who was led to the land of the Blessed Ones, in accordance with his own wish. The tale of Zosimos belongs with other stories about the lives of monks, a literature that developed in the centers of monasticism in Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. During the past two decades, scholarly attention has been directed toward the literature associated with desert monasticism, with many primary sources now translated into English, and not a few academic studies.3 This literary corpus includes the 1 This article is a reworking of one of the chapters of my doctoral thesis, written under the guidance of Prof. Michael E. Stone. I feel fortunate to have been the student of a scholar of such scale and professionalism in working with texts, and of such deep thought in delving into their meaning. 2 This passage was identified as an independent story by J. H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research with a Supplement (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1981), 223–28; E. G. Martin, “The Account of the Blessed Ones: A Study of the Development of the Apocryphon on the Rechabites and Zosimos (The Abode of the Rechabites)” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1979), 203–12; C. H. Knights, “ ‘The Story of Zosimos’ or ‘The History of the Rechabites’,” JSJ 24 (1993): 235–45; and idem, “The Abode of the Blessed: A Source of the Story of Zosimus?” JSP 17 (1998): 79–93; I have studied this independent story, cf. Nikolsky, “The History of the Rechabites and the Jeremiah Literature,” JSP 13.2 (2003): 185–207. 3 Note, for example: A. G. Elliott, Roads to Paradise: Reading the Lives of the Early Saints

346

ronit nikolsky

Apophthegmata Patrum, a collection that preserves early traditions; later, more elaborate works; biographies of renowned desert teachers such as Athanasius’ Life of Anthony and Jerome’s Life of Paulus the First Hermit; collections of stories about the desert dwellers, such as the works of Cyril of Scythopolis, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Palladius, John Moschos and others; and individual stories of a more fantastic nature, such as The Life of Mary of Egypt.4 The Journey of Zosimos belongs in this corpus. It is a story of a monk, meaningful in a monastic context.

Synopsis The monk Zosimos lived in the desert, drank no wine, ate no bread, and had no contact with human beings for forty years. He asked God to show him how the Blessed Ones lived. He went on an arduous journey, with the help of an angel, at the end of which he reached an uncrossable river. Two trees suddenly sprouted on either side of the river, and transported him on their tops from one bank to the other, whereupon Zosimos found himself in a miraculous land. He met a naked man, and though taken aback, started up a conversation with him. It turned out that this man was one of the Blessed Ones whom Zosimos was looking for. The man brought him to them. The Blessed Ones were shocked at the appearance among themselves of a person from “the world of vanity,” and stood in prayer asking what should be done with him. Angels descended from heaven, telling them not to worry, but to allow Zosimos to stay with them for a few days. Zosimos was hosted by one of the Blessed Ones.

(Hanover, NH: University Press of New England for Brown University Press, 1987); B. Flusin, Miracle et histoire dans l’oevre de Cyrille de Scythopolis, (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1983); W. Robins, “Romance and Renunciation at the Turn of the Fifth Century,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8 (2000): 531–57; A.-M. Talbot, Holy Women of Byzantium: Ten Saints Lives in English Translation (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1996); T. Vivian, Journeying into God: Seven Early Monastic Lives (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996); B. Ward, introduction to The Desert Fathers: Sayings of the Early Christian Monks (London: Penguin, 1975 (2003); idem, Harlots of the Desert: A Study of Repentance in Early Monastic Sources (Cistercian Studies Series 106; Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1987); J. Wortley, “ ‘Grazers’ (BoskoÛ) in the Judaean Desert,” in: J. Patrich (ed.), The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church: From the Fifth Century to the Present (OLA 98; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 37–38 and others. 4 For a detailed list of these texts cf. J. Wortley, The Spiritually Beneficial Tales of Paul, Bishop of Monembasia and of Other Authors (Cistercian Studies Series 159; Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1996), 25–28; idem, “Grazers.”

adam and eve traditions in

THE JOURNEY OF ZOSIMOS

347

Many of the Blessed Ones came to Zosimos, asking him about the state of the world and the people in it. Zosimos tired and asked his host to tell the guests that he was not there so that he could rest for a while. The host abhorred Zosimos’ request and cried out for his expulsion from the miraculous land. The Blessed Ones gathered together, discussed Zosimos’ transgression and finally decided to expel him. Zosimos regretted his deed, asking the Blessed Ones to write down their story for him. They agreed happily, and inscribed their story on a stone tablet. This in part is what they wrote: The Blessed Ones were called the Rechabites. In the time of Jeremiah, when the prophet called upon the people to leave the path of evil, they adhered to his words and began to pray to God. God answered their prayers and drew back from his intention to destroy Jerusalem. Afterwards a new king arose in the city, called them to him, inquired after their conduct, and finally threw them into prison. An angel appeared in the prison and, opening the gates, set them free. The angel also led them to the miraculous land. The Blessed Ones also told Zosimos that the land sprouts a fragrant fruit for them, and water emerges from the trunks of the trees, and these are their food and drink. Their custom is to pray all day and all night, to marry and beget two children, and then to separate themselves from their wives. Angels of God live among them, and tell them about the world. They know the approaching time of their deaths, and go off happily with the angels that come to receive their souls. After they wrote down all of this, Zosimos was ready to return to the world. He requested and received the good wishes of the Blessed Ones, and the trees transported him across the river, as they had done before. All of the Blessed Ones called out to him: “Peace, peace upon you, brother!” A storm wind carried him on its wings, calling to him: “Blessed are you Zosimos, for you are considered one of the Blessed Ones.” A beast carried him on its back, and parted from him shouting: “Blessed are you Zosimos.” Finally, an angel appeared and led him back to his cave. Epilogue: Zosimos put the tablet that the Blessed Ones had given him on the altar in his cave. The devil appeared with 1360 demons. They played with Zosimos as if he were a ball. Zosimos withstood all his trials with the help of prayer, and the devil promised that he would not hurt any man so long as Zosimos’ dwelling remained intact. After this, Zosimos lived in the desert for another thirty-six years, instructing the desert fathers in “the teaching of the Blessed Ones.” When the time for his death came, the angels descended to Zosimos, as was the case among the Blessed Ones, and with all the monks gathered round him, he gave his soul to God. The angels of God tended to Zosimos’ body. Seven palm trees grew over his dwelling, hiding his cave. Holy water rose up from the site, healing all who touched it.

348

ronit nikolsky Narrative Structure of The Journey

The monastic character of the story is quite clear: the protagonist is a monk and the description of his life depicts the monastic realia known from other monastic stories—living in a desert cave, fasting, and prayer. The narrative follows Zosimos’ adventures in his journey to the land of the Blessed Ones and back, and the change in his status from a mediocre monk at the beginning of the story, to virtually a saint at its end—a common feature in monastic literature. The story is not a parody and does not, as a whole, carry anti-monastic messages. We may consider it an example of monastic literature. There are disharmonies and contradictions in the story, as well as crude “seams” in how the story is put together. Scholars have pointed out many of them.5 Thus, the third person singular is used in the beginning of the story, and the first person singular in the middle. So, too, there are instances of lexical inconsistency: for example, the word “tablet” in chapter 8 is changed to the word “book” in chapter 19; the Blessed Ones are called “Rechabites” only in chapters 8–10. Research has shown that the story is constructed upon a narrative framework into which two independent texts were inserted: one, The History of the Rechabites, and the other, a version of Palladius’ On the Indian Races and on the Brahmins. Both texts are from the end of the fourth century CE.6 The manner of constructing The Journey of Zosimos exhibits the techniques of literary creativity that were common among authors of late antiquity and the Byzantine era: incorporating one story into another, retelling stories, constructing a longer story from fragments of others, and so forth.7 M. R. James was most critical of this type of literature, and referred to The Journey of Zosimos, along with similar works, in quite derogatory terms. More recent scholarship has 5 For a wider-ranging and more detailed analysis of these issues cf. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, 224; Knights, “The History of the Rechabites,” 239–242. 6 For The History of the Rechabites see n. 2. For the text of Palladius, see A. N. Weselovskii, “K voprosu ob istochnikax serbskoj Aleksandrii, Jurnal Ministerstva narodnava prosveshveniya 233 (1884): 149–197, and later, independent of his work, by J. D. M. Derrett, “Jewish Brahmins and the Tale of Zosimus: A Theme Common to Three Religions,” Classica and Medievalia 34 (1983): 75–90; cf. also Knights, “The Abode” and Nikolsky, The Provenance of the “History of the Rechabites”, 60, 84–86. 7 Cf. compositions such as The Testament of Abraham (two versions); The Apocalypse of Paulus (constructed from other stories); The Lives of the Prophets (incorporating various distinct stories into a single new narrative); as well as 4 Ezra and the variety of primary versions of the Adam and Eve book.

adam and eve traditions in

THE JOURNEY OF ZOSIMOS

349

tried to understand the historical and cultural conditions and the state of mind that allowed for the development of such literary activity, which seems so odd to a modern reader who demands fluency and unity in a literary piece.8 Whether one finds this story likable or not is a matter of personal taste. Nonetheless, we can be quite certain that there was a concerted literary effort on the part of the author to construct a unified and meaningful narrative. The unity of the story is apparent in the even manner in which the plot is constructed. The shift from one geographic area to another and the succession of events in the story build up to and culminate in the transgression scene; and then, in a “last in first out” format, they return to the starting point. This can be shown in the following diagram: (1) Zosimos’ life in the desert; (11) Zosimos’ new status in the desert. ⇓ ⇑ (2) The first dialogue with the angel; (10) The second dialogue with the angel; ⇓ ⇑ (3) the journey to the land; (9) The journey back; ⇓ ⇑ (4) Entrance into the land and the (8) Parting conversation with the Blessed conversation with the naked man; Ones and leaving their land; ⇓ ⇑ (5) Life among the Blessed Ones; (7) Expulsion from among the Blessed Ones ⇓ ⇑ (6) The transgression;

At the same time the protagonist, Zosimos, goes through a linear change, from mediocre monk to saint, the shift in his status occurring at the midpoint of the structure, in the transgression scene.

The Epilogue Looking at the story’s tight construction, the epilogue of The Journey of Zosimos, which relates Satan’s tormenting of Zosimos, presents a problem: in the neatly built structure of the story, the epilogue seems 8 Cf. for example C. M. Thomas, “Stories Without Texts and Without Authors: The Problem of Fluidity in Ancient Novelistic Texts and Early Christian Literature,” in R. F. Hock et al., Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998); Wortley, Spiritually Beneficial Tales; cf. also the introduction to his database of monastic stories: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wortley/intro.html; W. Robins, “Romance and Renunciation at the Turn of the Fifth Century,” Journal of Early Christian Studies, 8 (2000): 531–557.

350

ronit nikolsky

unnecessary. The epilogue tells the story of Satan’s assault against Zosimos and the latter’s victory. Yet Satan does not appear as a character earlier in the narrative,9 while in the epilogue he appears as a full character. Scholars have also pointed out the fact that the Syriac version of the story does away with the epilogue altogether, ending the story somewhere around pericope 10.10 The question of whether or not the epilogue belongs in The Journey may be resolved by studying its content and its relation to the rest of the story. This is what Satan tells Zosimos: (a) I have known that God [would] do for you as ([he had done] for the Blessed Ones; and they are able to be sinless and to be greater than the angels. And because of this, I . . . entered into the body of the serpent, [acting] deceitfully towards a deceitful one. And through this, I caused Adam, the first man, to transgress. (b) And you again, having gone away [to the Blessed Ones], brought [back] this commandment. (c) In order that they may not be sinless, I shall show you how I shall destroy you and all those who receive this commandment so that they may not be sinless, and [how I shall destroy] the book which you brought [back].11

Satan’s speech has to do with the Eden story. Satan tells that he is the one who caused Adam to sin in the Garden: he entered into the body of the serpent, tempted Eve, and by this caused Adam to be deceived. The book, the commandment or the “custom” as it is sometimes called, which Zosimos brought back from the Blessed Ones, has the ability to undo what Satan worked so hard to achieve in the Garden: it can render sinless those who receive it. Satan therefore is angry, and is determined to destroy Zosimos, the book, and those who receive it.

9 There is a mention of the “tempest” (ı peirãzvn), which has no access to the Edenic land of The Blessed Ones. It might be claimed that this represents an appearance of Satan in the book. But this word is probably taken over from the Greek Book of Baruch 2:1, where Baruch is describing the river that he is trying to cross as one which “no one is able to cross, not even one of the foreign winds which God created,” cf. Charlesworth, OTP 1:665. 10 Cf. Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, 224; Martin, “The Account of the Blessed Ones,” 189–90. 11 Journey, 20:2–6; translated by J. H. Charlesworth, The History of the Rechabites: Volume I: The Greek Recension, SBL Texts and Translations 17, Chico, 1982. All quotes from The Journey of Zosimos are from this translation.

adam and eve traditions in

THE JOURNEY OF ZOSIMOS

351

The epilogue gives a new twist to that which precedes it—Zosimos’ journey to the land of the Blessed Ones, his stay with them, his transgression, expulsion and “the custom” he was given. Those events are not accidental, nor a result of the whims of one mediocre monk. They have a deeper purpose: they culminate in the undoing of the Eden story, i.e., in returning the human race to its original state, before the transgression. This was not obvious to the reader of the story before Satan’s speech. Once Satan’s speech reveals the deeper purpose of these events, we realize that without the speech there are some flaws in the logic of the story. Zosimos was not a worthy monk. This fact is bluntly explained to us and to Zosimos by the angel who came to take him on his journey: “And the angel said to him, ‘know also this: that you are not worthy of [partaking in] one of their meals'” ( Journey, 1:7). Why then should he be led into the land of the Blessed Ones? Once Satan makes his speech we realize that this mediocrity is integral to Zosimos’ transgression while living among the Blessed Ones; in fact, this very quality has brought about his expulsion, with the result that regular mortals may now receive the tablet with “the Custom.” Zosimos was not received easily into the community of the Blessed Ones. On his arrival they did not know “what to make” of him, and stood in prayer asking what to do with him. “Do not fear the man,” said the two angels who came to answer the Blessed Ones, “because God has sent him so that he might stay seven days.” Throughout his stay among the Blessed Ones, Zosimos is called by them “the man of vanity”; yet when he asked to receive the tablet with the “custom” of the Blessed Ones, they started calling him “brother.” This change in attitude of the Blessed Ones is not explained in the text. But by realizing the importance of the tablet which Zosimos brings back we understand why he was crowned with this title. Only in the epilogue do we realize why Zosimos was led to the land of The Blessed Ones, why he was let in, and how important the tablet was. With the epilogue, the story becomes, then, quite different than without it. The epilogue is an important part of the plot, regardless of the crude way in which it is attached to the narrative. It is not a later addition, for the story with the epilogue is a coherent and meaningful narrative.

352

ronit nikolsky Adam and Eve Traditions in The Journey

The Eden story which is the basis for Satan’s speech is not the biblical narrative but that reflected in the literary tradition associated with Adam and Eve. The following features appearing in The Journey are from the Adam and Eve literature. 1. Satan as the Tempest—The Snake as his Vessel In The Journey it is Satan (as in the Adam and Eve traditions) and not the serpent (as in the biblical story) that tempts Eve into eating the forbidden fruit. Satan did this by entering into the serpent’s body, and in this form entering the Garden. In The Journey, Satan says that he “entered into the body of the serpent.” In the Adam and Eve story we read in the Greek version (16:4b): “The Devil said to him [to the serpent]:’Fear not, only be my vessel and I will speak through your mouth’.”12 This is paralleled in the Armenian [44]16b: “Be you [snake] in your form, a lyre for me and I will pronounce speech through your mouth”; and in the Georgian [44]16b: “The Devil replied and told the serpent, ‘Be a sheath for me and I will speak to the woman through your mouth a word by which we will trick them’.” These three versions of the Adam and Eve book present the essential theme that Satan used the serpent to gain access to Eve, activating him in some way. The Latin does not have this pericope, and the Slavonic has a different narrative, in which Satan does not enter the Garden at all.13 2. Adam, Not Eve, as Satan’s Target Another point of similarity between The Journey and the Adam and Eve tradition is the stress put on the fact that the target of Satan’s work is Adam and not Eve; Eve was only a vehicle for tempting 12 Adam and Eve, Pericope 18 (Eve’s tale: Satan’s encounter with the snake) 16:4b of the Greek. All quotes of the Adam and Eve traditions are from M. E. Stone and G. Anderson, A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve (2d rev. ed.; SBLEJL 17; Atlanta: Scholars, 1999). 13 The Hebrew version (Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer, 13) presents the snake as having a form similar to that of a camel and Satan (Samael) riding it. This reflects a story different from all the primary versions of the Adam story, because there is no actual fusing of Satan and serpent. In this respect this Hebrew version is closer to the Biblical story.

adam and eve traditions in

THE JOURNEY OF ZOSIMOS

353

Adam. This is the way it is told in the Adam and Eve book (again the Greek version): And I [Eve] opened [it] for him [the gate of the Garden] and he entered the Garden and went before me. He walked a little way, then turned and said to me: “I have changed my mind and I will not give you to eat . . . unless you swear to me that you will give also to your husband.”14

Only after she had promised to give Adam the fruit did the serpent (occupied by Satan) proceed to show Eve the food he promised her. In The Journey it is related: “And through this [i.e., through deceiving Eve] I [Satan] caused Adam, the first man, to transgress” ( Journey, 20:4). In both stories the target of Satan’s work is Adam even though the actual tempting is done to Eve. Again, in the Adam and Eve tradition this is part of the Greek, Armenian and Georgian versions, but it does not appear at all in the Latin and Slavonic. 3. The Reason for Satan’s Hatred of Adam In the Adam and Eve tradition Satan tempted the humans out of the Garden because he himself was expelled from it on account of Adam. Satan was expelled because he refused to bow to the newly created Adam, as he had been commanded by the angel Gabriel. By bowing, Satan would have acknowledged the superiority of the (yet) sinless human over the angels (to whose company Satan belonged before his fall): “Thereupon God became angry with me and commanded to expel us from our dwelling and cast me and my angels . . . to the earth.”15 In The Journey it is mentioned in Satan’s speech in the epilogue: “They are able to be sinless and to be greater than the angels. And because of this, I entered into the body of the serpent. . . .” In this instance, The Journey is consistent with a pericope from the Adam and Eve literature entitled “Fall of Satan,” unlike the previous examples, which had affinities with “Eve’s Tale”; so we can at least conjecture that these two portions of the Adam and Eve tradition were known to the author of The Journey. In all these cases the similarity is always with the Armenian and Georgian versions; in the first two instances (the snake as a vessel and Adam as the real target of Satan’s

14

Adam and Eve, Pericope 21 (Eve’s tale: Eve’s oath), (19):1a–1c. Pericope 5 (Fall of Satan), 16:1; there are Latin, Armenian and Georgian versions, though no Greek. 15

354

ronit nikolsky

temptation), the Greek version also agrees with the Armenian/Georgian versions, and in the last instance (the reason for Satan’s hatred of Adam) the Latin agrees. 4. A Case of Unique Similarity with the Georgian Version One more point of similarity between the Adam and Eve book and The Journey, this time with reference only to the Georgian story of Adam and Eve, is the word play on the term, “deceiving.” In the Georgian story, Eve is referred to as both deceived and deceiver: “The enemy deceived her . . . and she deceived me . . .”16 In The Journey we meet the sentence: “[acting] deceitfully towards a deceitful one [Eve]” ( Journey, 20:3). Although there is no “hard” evidence for any literary dependency between these two sources, we do encounter here a similarity in the characterization of Eve as a “deceiver,” which is not part of the biblical narrative. 5. The Transgression Scene of The Journey and the Adam and Eve Literature Another scene from The Journey is connected to the Adam and Eve tradition, the transgression scene. In this scene, Zosimos commits a sin—he asks his host to lie to his visitors—and is rebuked by The Blessed Ones. Zosimos’ host cries out: Woe to me that [the] story of Adam has been repeated in me. For that [man, i.e., Adam], Satan deceived through Eve, and this man [i.e., Zosimos], through flattery, wished to make me a liar.17

Zosimos’ sin is casual and innocent; yet it caused his expulsion from the land of the Blessed Ones. It is presented as equal in severity to the Edenic sin which caused all humanity to be expelled from the Garden. The sense of this phrase is not entirely clear. It may have one of two meanings: either (1) that just as Eve was using flattery to tempt Adam to eat the fruit, so Zosimos is using flattery to tempt the Blessed One to lie, or (2) that just as Satan was using Eve to tempt Adam, so is he using Zosimos to tempt the Blessed One. 16 17

Pericope 10 (Adam’s Story of the Fall), 32(7):2. The Journey, 7:8.

adam and eve traditions in

THE JOURNEY OF ZOSIMOS

355

The first of these two possibilities, that of the analogous use of flattery by Eve and by Zosimos, has a parallel in the Adam and Eve literature. This is how Eve describes the tempting of Adam: “For, when he [Adam] came, I opened my mouth and the Devil was speaking, and I began to exhort him and said, ‘Come hither, my lord Adam, hearken me and eat of the fruit . . .’.”18 This possibility agrees only with the Greek version, however, in contrast to the previous examples, where we saw agreement across the group of Armenian-Georgian stories, and only occasional agreement with the Greek or Latin. The second possibility is therefore more likely; i.e., that the author meant to equate Eve’s flattery as a vehicle for Satan with Zosimos’ being just such a vehicle, as is the case in the Armenian-Georgian group. The sentence, “the story of Adam is repeated in me,” appears in the Protevangelion of James. One gets the impression that this sentence is used idiomatically: after it is pronounced, the speaker or writer goes on to explain in what way the story of Adam is repeated. In the Protevangelion we read Joseph’s question: “Has the story [of Adam] been repeated in me? For as Adam was [absent] in the hour of his prayer and the serpent came and found Eve alone and deceived her . . . so also has it happened to me?”19 In the story of Zosimos we have a different issue from “the story of Adam”: as Satan lied through Eve, Zosimos wants to turn the Blessed One into a liar. The idiomatic use of the sentence “the story of Adam is repeated in me” indicates how widespread the Adam and Eve traditions were in the Late Antique milieu.

Conclusions The familiarity with the Adam and Eve book that The Journey exhibits is instructive. It shows that this book of Adam and Eve circulated in the same culture in which The Journey was composed. Since we know that The Journey is part of the desert literature of the Palestinian monasteries, we may conclude that the Adam and Eve book was 18

Adam and Eve, 21:3. Only in the Greek. Protevangelion of James 13.1. Translation in E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha (ed. R. McL. Wilson; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963–65), 1:381. 19

356

ronit nikolsky

known in these circles, and was probably preserved and copied there in the early Byzantine period. The evidence we possess refers to the portions, “Fall of Satan” and “Eve’s Tale,” found in the group of stories represented in the Armenian Penitence of Adam and the Georgian Book of Adam. As far as dating is concerned, The Journey is not very useful since in its present form it is dated not earlier than the sixth century CE.20 A desert environment may provide the key to answering major questions that have arisen in the study of the Adam and Eve book: that of the diversity of the primary stories and that of relationship of this diversity to the variety of languages in which these stories are found. One of the models put forward concerning the literacy of the desert society describes it as a culture which was partially literate and partially non-literate: it was literate because some or many of its members could read and write; and it was non-literate because it had an ideology which was a-textual, even anti-textual at times.21 This kind of society may foster a certain fluidity in literary composition. Similarly, the “cosmopolitan” character of desert monastic society is a well-established fact, and may account for the flurry of translation activity which appears to have taken place at an early stage in the development of the Adam and Eve book. I therefore propose that among the other possibilities that have been suggested,22 the context of desert monasticism should also be taken into consideration when trying to evaluate and understand the development of the Adam and Eve book. This corpus may well have taken its present form—that of a multi-lingual, multi-versioned story, together with ascetic overtones (cf. Adam and Eve’s ascesis; the nature-culture antagonism)—in these monastic circles, a cultural milieu fitting for the task.

20 I have not dealt here with the issue of the date of The Journey. I tend to attribute this work to seventh century Palestinian monasticism, though this still needs further study. 21 D. Burton-Christie, “Listening, Reading, Praying: Orality, Literacy and Early Christian Monastic Spirituality,” Anglican Theological Review 83 (2001): 197–222. John Wortley suggests a similar model, cf.http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wortley/intro.html. 22 M. E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (SBLEJL 3: Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), 61–63.

DECEIVING THE DECEIVER: VARIATIONS ON AN EARLY CHRISTIAN THEME David Satran The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden has inspired poets, exegetes, theologians, and scholars for thousands of years. But whereas Milton sang “Of Man’s first disobedience . . .” the honoree of this volume has turned some of his most recent and illuminating efforts to the investigation of an alternative rendering of the events: a tale focusing not on disobedience and sin, but on deception and error. Within the context of his extended research and meditation on the deep cultural influence of the first chapters of the book of Genesis, Michael Stone has asked us to turn our attention to the extra-biblical accounts of the history of the protoplasts subsequent to their expulsion from the Garden.1 In the course of his herculean mapping of the morass of primary and secondary Adam literatures, Stone has devoted especial efforts to one of the unjustly neglected, albeit enormously fecund and lush, traditions featured in that corpus. In his study of Adam’s Contract with Satan (2002), he unfolds in lavish detail “the legend of the cheirograph,” the complex and manifold narrative of the enslavement of Adam and Eve.2 This legend of the cheirograph—the written contract by which Satan binds Adam and Eve and their descendants—features what Stone has designated as the third deception of the protoplasts. The first deception is that in the Garden, as related in Genesis 3; the second is that narrated in the primary Adam books, when Eve’s repentance is prematurely curtailed through Satan’s ruse. The cheirograph legend, in its manifold and widespread versions, describes how Satan deceives our ancestors yet a third time: in this instance by taking advantage 1 For the principal texts, see M. E. Stone and G. Anderson, A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve (2d rev. ed.; SBLEJL 17; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999). The indispensable companion volume is M. E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (SBLEJL 3; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). 2 M. E. Stone, Adam’s Contract with Satan. The Legend of the Cheirograph of Adam (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002).

358

david satran

of their ignorance and promising to restore the natural light of day only if they agree contractually that “until the unbegotten is born and the undying dies, we and our children will be subject to you.” Within the story, however, are two levels of deception: the first of Adam and Eve, the second of Satan himself, who thought he was deceiving Adam and his offspring. Actually, he deceived himself, for the very conditions he thought were impossible to meet were exactly those that Christ would fulfill in his incarnation and crucifixion. The birth of the unbegotten and the death of the undying are the very events that will bring about the end of the contract and of Satan’s dominion over humans. . . . In this way, Satan became the deceived deceiver.3

The significance of this resolution, the loosening of Satan’s binding contract, is not simply the reversal of fortunes; its full force depends very much on the precise nature of the reversal: the ultimate deception of the deceiver. In an effort to describe the theological and cultural locus of the legend, Stone provides an illuminating image: It is as if there are two arches inside one another. The inner arch is composed of the cheirograph leading to subjection to Satan and then Christ’s baptism and liberation from Satan. . . . Outside it, more remote and embracing the arch of the cheirograph legend, is the arch of disobedience leading to the earthly state and death or original sin, which are only atoned for by Christ’s crucifixion.4

The following pages offer a small adumbration of this rich theme. I shall suggest that the “outer arch”—the span of sacred history extending from the Garden to Golgotha—not only serves as the framework of the legend of the cheirograph but also may bear an integral relationship to its most piquant theme: the reversal and undoing of a diabolical deceit. While an indisputably characteristic feature of the inner legend, deception has also been appreciated and cultivated as a key theme of the encompassing arch of the history of salvation. The early Church’s theology of atonement—ultimately repudiated and largely dismissed by a variety of medieval and modern critics— has been aptly described as centered on the doctrine of “ransom.” As articulated by a wide range of authors, Eastern and Western, from Irenaeus of Lyon (late second century) through Gregory the

3 4

Stone, Adam’s Contract with Satan, 3–4. Stone, Adam’s Contract with Satan, 116.

deceiving the deceiver

359

Great (600), the ransom theory presents the death of the Christ as “redemptive” in the most basic sense.5 Humankind had become, through primal disobedience and sin, the “property” of the Evil One; only through the reversal of this binding possession and the nullification of ownership could men become free of this enslavement to Satan. The mechanism of emancipation was the death of the son of God; Christ’s blood served as the ransom necessary to effect the release of human indenture to the forces of evil. In the words of Irenaeus: . . . the powerful Word and true human being, ransoming us by his own blood in a rational manner, gave himself as a ransom for those who have been led into captivity. The apostate one unjustly held sway over us, and though we were by nature the possession of Almighty God, alienating us from our proper nature, making us instead his own disciples. Therefore the almighty Word of God, who did not lack justice, acted justly even in the encounter with the apostate one, ransoming from him the things which were his own, not by force, in the way in which [the apostate one] secured his dominion over us at the beginning, by greedily snatching what was not his own. Rather, it was appropriate that God should obtain what he wished through persuasion, not by the use of force, so that the principles of justice might not be infringed, and, at the same time, that God’s original creation might not perish.6

The transaction itself, as represented in this early stage of the ransom theory, is a straightforward, albeit disproportional, one: the blood of one atones for the blood of many, one life redeems a multitude. The proponents of this theory, naturally (and not without justification) saw its authority in the words of the Apostle: “He has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. . . . And through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.” (Col 1:13–14, 20; cf. Romans 3:24–25; Eph 1:7; Mk 10:45, par. Mt 20:28)

5 The classic study remains G. Aulén, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement (New York: MacMillan, 1969). For a recent overview and revitalization of the question, including full references to the earlier literature, see E. TeSelle, “The Cross as Ransom,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 4 (1996): 147–70. I have learned much on the subject in conversation with Professor Nicholas Constas and from his unpublished lecture “The Last Temptation of Satan: Divine Deception and the Passion Narrative in Early Christianity.” 6 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 5.1.1; ed. A. Rousseau, Irénée de Lyon. Contre les Hérésies (SC 153; Paris: Cerf, 1969), 2:18–20.

360

david satran

More complex, however, is the question of what one might designate the intrinsic “moral asymmetry” of the doctrine. In the above passage, Irenaeus emphasizes the ethically disproportional relationship between the satanic “snatching” of humanity and the divine restoration of the primordial state—“the apostate one unjustly held sway over us,” but the Word of God “acted justly even in the encounter with the apostate one.” Irenaeus is quite insistent on the manner of divine action necessary in order that “the principles of justice might not be infringed”: “not by force, in the way in which [the apostate one] secured his dominion over us at the beginning. . . . Rather, it was appropriate that God should obtain what he wished through persuasion, not by the use of force. . . .” This antinomy is a highly formulaic one—indeed, it appears to have been something of a topos in second- and third-century Christian literature7—and it is far from clear in precisely what sense or manner persuasion plays a role in the ransom of humanity. Despite this uncertainty, the regnant principle of the argument is apparent: in the restitution of humankind, the Logos acts both rationally and justly. Some two centuries later (c. 383), in elaborating what many perceive as the classic form of the ransom theory, Gregory of Nyssa accords the doctrine a central place in his Catechetical Oration (chs. 20–26). In his extended presentation of the incarnation and the atonement, Gregory adheres firmly to the original outline of the theory while substantially expanding and enhancing certain key aspects. The argument for ethical justification serves as the fons et origo of the entire discussion: “It is universally agreed that we should believe the Divine to be not only powerful, but also just and good and wise and everything else that suggests excellence.”8 These attributes, Gregory insists, must all be evident when God intervenes to save humankind which has fallen away from divine likeness “by the deceit of the advocate and contriver of wickedness. . . . Of his own free will man fell into this misfortune, and through pleasure became subject to the enemy

7 Epistle to Diognetus 7:5; Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 10.33.13; Clement, Stromata 7.2.6.1–3; Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah 20.2. I have attempted elsewhere to take the measure of this formula: “By Persuasion and not by Force: a Theme in Early Jewish and Christian Literature” (unpublished lecture; delivered 5 May 2003 at the Pontificia Università Gregoriana). 8 Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration 20; ed. J. H. Srawley, The Catechetical Oration of Gregory of Nyssa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903, 1956), 78.11–14. The translation here and throughout is that of C. C. Richardson in Christology of the Later Fathers (LCC 3; ed. E. R. Hardy; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954), 296.

deceiving the deceiver

361

of life.”9 The undoing of human enslavement to the Devil, therefore, could not be achieved solely through the exercise of divine power: “Once we had voluntarily sold ourselves, he who undertook out of goodness to restore our freedom had to contrive a just and not dictatorial method to do so.”10 The solution lies in the mechanism of the incarnation, by which the divinity of the Son is “veiled” and he is perceived as an unthreatening and desirable ransom for enslaved humankind: Through the covering of the flesh the divine power is made accessible, so that the enemy will not take fright at God’s appearing and so thwart his plan for us. All God’s attributes are at once displayed in this—his goodness, his wisdom, and his justice. That he decided to save us is proof of his goodness. That he struck a bargain to redeem the captive indicates his justice. And it is evidence of his transcendent wisdom that he contrived to make accessible to the enemy what was [otherwise] inaccessible.11

This measured account of God as good, just and wise then gives way to a more colorful rendering of the economy of salvation. Just as the Devil’s deception of the first humans might never have succeeded, according to Gregory, “had not the fishhook of evil been furnished with an outward appearance of good, as with a bait,” so the divine remedy is presented in like terms: “Hence it was that God, in order to make himself easily accessible to him who sought the ransom for us, veiled himself in our nature. In that way, as it is with greedy fish, he might swallow the Godhead like a fishhook along with the flesh, which was the bait.”12 Few images employed in theological discourse have proven as potent or as volatile. Indeed, the image—the bait of Christ’s human nature enclosing the fishhook of his divinity—would appear to be Gregory’s own development (and inversion) of the Platonic motif (Timaeus 69d) of the entrapment of humanity by the bait of evil.13 9

Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration 21; ed. Srawley, 84.1–8; Richardson, 298. Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration 22; ed. Srawley, 85.14–17; Richardson, 299. 11 Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration 23; ed. Srawley, 90.4–14; Richardson, 300. 12 Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration 24; ed. Srawley, 92.16–93.6; Richardson, 301. 13 The imagery of the “fishhook” has a long history which deserves careful investigation. Within a generation of Gregory’s pioneering usage, the motif had been adopted by Latin authors; see Rufinus of Aquileia’s Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 21. For the Platonic image and its subsequent development, see P. Courcelle, “L’Appat du Mal (Timee, 69d),” in Connais-toi Toi Même de Socrate à Saint Bernard (3 vols.; Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1975), 2:429–35; and R. van den Broek, “The Authentikos Logos: A New Document of Christian Platonism,” VC 33 (1979): 266–67. 10

362

david satran

Gregory is fully conscious not only of the boldness of the imagery, but of the problematic (even hazardous) nature of his larger argument; he is quick to address a potential critic: But perhaps someone who has examined the justice and wisdom apparent in this plan is driven to conclude that such a scheme as God contrived for us involved deceit. For in a way it is a fraud and a deception for God, when he placed himself in the power of our enemy who was our master, not to show his naked deity, but to conceal it in our nature, and so escape recognition. It is the mark of deceivers to divert the hope of those they plot against to one thing, and then to do something different from what is expected. But he who penetrates the truth of the matter will agree that we have here a crowning example of justice and wisdom.14

Nor does he hesitate to provide an explanation of the deception in these terms: Now it is the character of justice to render to each his due. It belongs to wisdom, on the other hand, neither to pervert justice nor to divorce its just decisions from the noble end of the love of man. Both must be skillfully combined. By justice due recompense is given; by goodness the end of the love of man is not excluded. . . . So it is with the incarnation. By the principle of justice the deceiver reaps the harvest of the seeds which he sowed with his own free will. For he who first deceived man by the bait of pleasure is himself deceived by the camouflage of human nature. But the purpose of the action changes it into something good. For the one practiced deceit to ruin our nature; but the other, being at once just and good and wise, made use of a deceitful device to save the one who had been ruined. And by so doing he benefited, not only the one who had perished, but also the very one who had brought us to ruin.15

Gregory’s presentation and defense of the ransom theory in this fully developed form was to prove a model for a number of his contemporaries as well as a source of embarrassment for many subsequent theologians. In considering the relationship between Gregory of Nyssa’s catechetical sermon and the legend of the cheirograph, a central question remains: while the ubiquity of the mechanism of deceit in both “high” and “low” soteriological discourse is surely impressive, how could such a mechanism have recommended itself as appropriate in 14 15

Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration 26; ed. Srawley, 96.10–97.8; Richardson, 302. Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration 26; ed. Srawley, 97.8–98.13; Richardson, 303.

deceiving the deceiver

363

sophisticated theological discussion. Why should it have been judged fitting that humankind be redeemed from its state of spiritual incarceration through deception? Why should God have acted with a deliberate “subtlety” reminiscent of that of the serpent? Here, one might argue that there is, in fact, a parting of the ways between theologians and more innocent singers of tales. The beauty and appeal of legends—such as that of the cheirograph—resides almost purely in the reversal itself, the pure satisfaction of evil “rewarded” through a measure-for-measure retribution.16 What could be more appropriate (or pleasurable) than the hoisting of the Devil on his own petard of deception and falsehood? Theologians, one might argue, while surely not immune to the pleasures of retributive punishment, might be expected to be somewhat more chaste in their choice of means. In fact, we can follow the discussion, often heated, regarding the moral and theological status of deception from the writings of Plato in the fourth century BCE until the time of Gregory at the close of the fourth century of the Common Era. Following Plato—who condemned the poetic-mythological attribution of deceit to the gods, but himself prescribed the use of a “noble” falsehood—we observe successive steps by which notable Greco-Roman and early Christian authors gradually yet powerfully advanced an appreciation of deception as a legitimate tool in both ethical and theological discourse. Of especial interest in this regard are the writings of Philo of Alexandria, where Platonic and Stoic notions of beneficial deception are first applied to the exigencies of scriptural interpretation. The early Christian Alexandrian tradition would appear to have been particularly openminded in this regard, as both Clement and Origen demonstrate relatively high measures of tolerance for the theological uses of deceptive speech. Strikingly, it is one of Gregory of Nyssa’s own contemporaries, no less than John Chrysostom, the future (and ill-fated) patriarch of Constantinople, who offers the most consistent argument for the necessity of deception in a wide range of exegetical and ethical contexts.17

16 For the motif of measure-for-measure punishment, see M. Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983), especially 75–105. 17 I am preparing a full-length study of the theme of beneficent deceit in early Christian thought and practice. For a useful survey of the question, see B. Ramsey, “Two Traditions on Lying and Deception in the Ancient Church,” The Thomist 49 (1985): 504–33.

364

david satran

The common reliance on the theme of deceit in the “high” theology of Gregory of Nyssa and in the manifold versions of the narrative of the cheirograph serves as a poignant example of the ultimate unity of an early Christian worldview: not a two-tiered structure where “elite” and “popular” conceptions stand in harsh contrast, but a fluid system in which the two are in constant discourse and hold important basic elements in common.18 The shared theme of primordial deceit and the retributive deception of the deceiver provides an added dimension to Stone’s appreciation of the popular and alternative status of the legend of the cheirograph: popular but not opposed, alternative and therefore aligned rather than alienated.

18 On this question, see especially A. Momigliano, “Popular Religious Beliefs and Late Roman Historians,” in Popular Belief and Practice (ed. G. J. Cuming and D. Baker; Studies in Church History 8; Cambridge: University Press 1971), 1–18; and P. Brown, The Cult of the Saints. Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1981), 12–22.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE WORKS OF MICHAEL E. STONE

Books and Monographs 1. Editorial assistant. Smithsonian Institution, Scrolls from the Wilderness of the Dead Sea. Berkeley: University of California for ASOR, 1965. 2. The Manuscript Library of the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem. Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1969 (pamphlet). 3. The Testament of Levi: A First Study of the Armenian Manuscripts of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in the Convent of St. James, Jerusalem. Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1969. 4. Concordance and Texts of Armenian IV Ezra. Oriental Notes and Studies 11. Jerusalem: Israel Oriental Society, 1971. 5. The Testament of Abraham: The Greek Recensions. SBLTT Pseudepigrapha Series 2. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972. 6. In cooperation with H. Attridge. Texts for the Understanding of Jewish and Pagan Religiosity in the Graeco-Roman Period. Jerusalem: Akademon, 1973. 7. The Armenian Version of the Testament of Joseph: Introduction, Critical Edition, and Translation. SBLTT Pseudepigrapha Series 5. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975. 8. Editor. Armenian and Biblical Studies. Supplements to Sion 1. Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1976. 9. Armenian Inscriptions from Sinai: Intermediate Report with Notes on Georgian and Nabatean Inscriptions. Sydney: Maitland, 1979. 10. The Armenian Version of IV Ezra. University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 1. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979. 11. With B. Narkis. Armenian Art Treasures of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Masada, 1979. 12. With J. Strugnell. The Books of Elijah, Parts 1 and 2. SBLTT Pseudepigrapha Series 8. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979. 13. With B. Narkiss. Armenische Kunst: die faszinierende Sammlung des Armenischen Patriarchats in Jerusalem. Stuttgart: Belser, 1980. 14. Scriptures, Sects and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolts. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Oxford: Blackwell, 1982. 15. The Penitence of Adam. CSCO 429–30; CSCO Scriptores Armeniaci 13–14. Leuven: Peeters, 1981. 16. Editor. Signs of the Judgement, Onomastica Sacra, and The Generations from Adam. University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 3. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981. 17. An Analytical Index of Armenian Apocrypha Relating to Patriarchs and Prophets. Jerusalem: Institute of Jewish Studies, 1982. 18. Armenian Apocrypha Relating to Patriarchs and Prophets. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1982. 19. The Armenian Inscriptions from the Sinai with Appendixes on the Georgian and Latin Inscriptions by M. van Esbroeck and W. Adler. Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 6. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982. 20. With G. W. E. Nickelsburg. Faith and Piety in Early Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. 21. With T. J. Samuelian. Medieval Armenian Culture. University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 6. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983.

366

bibliography of the works of michael e. stone

22. Editor. Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. CRINT 2.2. Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. 23. With S. P. Cowe. Banin Spasaworn: Essays in Honour of Archbishop Norayr Bogharian. Revue des études arméniennes 18 (1984). 24. Features of the Eschatology of IV Ezra. HSS 35. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. 25. With D. Satran. Emerging Judaism: Studies on the Fourth and Third Centuries B.C.E. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. 26. Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia Series. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. 27. A Textual Commentary on the Armenian Version of IV Ezra. SBLSCS 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. 28. Selected Studies in Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha with Special Reference to the Armenian Tradition. SVTP 9. Leiden: Brill, 1991. 29. A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve. SBLEJL 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. 30. The Rock Inscriptions and Graffiti Project: Catalogue of Inscriptions. 3 volumes. SBLRBS 28, 29, 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992–94. 31. With S. Ajamian. Text and Context: Studies in the Armenian New Testament. Papers Presented to the Conference on the Armenian New Testament, May 22–28, 1992. University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 13. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. 32. With G. A. Anderson, A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve. SBLEJL 5. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. 33. With C. Zuckermann. Repertory of Printed Armenian Translations of Classical Works. Jerusalem: Institute of African and Asian Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1995 (booklet). 34. Armenian Apocrypha Relating to Adam and Eve. SVTP 14. Leiden: Brill, 1996. 35. Texts and Concordances of the Armenian Adam Literature. Volume 1. SBLEJL 12. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. 36. With T. A. Bergren. Biblical Figures Outside the Bible. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998. 37. With E. G. Chazon. Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May, 1996. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998. 38. With G. A. Anderson. A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve. 2d revised edition. SBLEJL 17. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. 39. With E. G. Chazon. Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997. STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999. 40. With G. A. Anderson. Studies in the Books of Adam and Eve. Part 1 of Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays, ed. G. A. Anderson, M. E. Stone, and J. Tromp. SVTP 15.Leiden: Brill, 2000. 41. With R. R. Ervine. The Armenian Texts of Epiphanius of Salamis De mensuris et ponderibus. CSCO 583. CSCO Subsidia 105. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. 42. With M. E. Shirinian. Pseudo-Zeno: Anonymous Philosophical Treatise. Philosophia Antiqua 83. Leiden: Brill, 2000. 43. With B. G. Wright and D. Satran. The Apocryphal Ezekiel. SBLEJL 18. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. 44. A Concordance of the Armenian Apocryphal Adam Books. Hebrew University Armenian Studies 1. Leuven: Peeters, 2001. 45. With S. M. Paul and A. Pinnick. 'Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology. Leiden: Brill; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001.

bibliography of the works of michael e. stone

367

46. Adam’s Contract with Satan: The Legend of the Cheirograph of Adam. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002. 47. Editor-in-Chief, with D. Kouymjian and H. Lehmann. Album of Armenian Paleography. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 2002. 48. With R. R. Ervine and Nira Stone. The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land. Hebrew University Armenian Studies 4. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. 49. With G. E. Sterling. Armenian Paradigms. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. 50. With E. Eshel and J. C. Greenfield. The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, and Commentary. SVTP 19. Leiden: Brill, 2004. In Press 51. With Nira Stone. The Armenian Church. Dublin: Chester Beatty Library. In Preparation 52. Adam and Eve in the Armenian Tradition, 3 vols. 53. Critical Edition of the Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Hebrew University Armenian Studies Series. Leuven: Peeters. 54. With Nira Stone. Catalogue of the Additional Armenian Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. 55. Sinai Diary. Articles and Reviews 1959 1. “A Note on Daniel 1:3.” ABR 7 (1959): 67–71. 1966 2. “The Death of Adam: An Armenian Adam Book.” HTR 59 (1966): 283–91. 3. “Paradise in IV Ezra iv.8, and vii.36, viii.52.” JJS 17 (1966): 85–88. 4. “Some Features of the Armenian Version of IV Ezra.” Le Muséon 79 (1966): 387–400. 1967 5. “An Armenian Manuscript in the National and University Library, Jerusalem.” REArm 4 (1967): 57–61. 6. “An Armenian Manuscript in the National and University Library in Jerusalem.” Kirjath Sepher 42 (1967/5727): 269–71 (Hebrew). 7. “Some Remarks on the Textual Criticism of IV Ezra.” HTR 60 (1967): 107–15. 1968 8. “Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts and Associated Works in American Libraries.” JAOS 8 (1968): 456–60. 9. “The Concept of the Messiah in IV Ezra.” In Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. J. Neusner, 295–312. SHR 14. Leiden: Brill, 1968. 10. “Early Armenian Printings in the University and National Library, Jerusalem.” Sion 42 (1968): 473–80.

368

bibliography of the works of michael e. stone

11. “Manuscripts and Readings of Armenian IV Ezra.” Textus 6 (1968): 48–61. 12. “The Testament of Jacob.” REArm 5 (1968): 264–70. 13. Review of N. Bogharian, Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts, vols. 1–3 ( Jerusalem 1966–69). Christian News from Israel 19 (1968): 64–66. 14. Review of G. Delling, Jüdische Lehre und Frömmigkeit in den Paralipomena Jeremiae (Berlin 1967). Interpretation 22 (1968): 277–78. 1969 15. “The Apocryphal Literature in the Armenian Tradition.” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 4 (1969/5730): 59–77 (English); 153–67 (Hebrew). 16. “An Armenian Manuscript in the Library of the Sir Isaac Wolfson Collection of Hechal Shlomo, the Chief Rabbinate of Jerusalem.” Le Muséon 82 (1969): 293–306. 17. “The Manuscript Library of the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem.” IEJ 19 (1969): 20–43. 18. “Two Additional Notes on the Testament of Jacob.” REArm 6 (1969): 103–4. 19. Review of B. Johnson, Die armenische Bibelübersetzung als Hexaplarische Zeuge im 1. Samuelbuch (Lund 1968). Interpretation 23(1969): 391. 1970 20. “An Armenian Translation of a Baraitha in the Babylonian Talmud.” HTR 63 (1970): 151–54. 21. “The Jerusalem Manuscripts of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Sion 44 (1970): 1–7, 29–35. 22. “The Study of Armenian Manuscripts.” Sion 44 (1970): 456–65. 23. Review of C. Burchard et al., Studien zu dem Testamenten der Zwölf Patriarchen (BZNW 36; Berlin 1969). JBL 89 (1970): 487–88. 24. Review of B. Johnson, Die armenische Bibelübersetzung als Hexaplarische Zeuge im 1. Samuelbuch (Lund 1968). RB 77 (1970): 260–64. 1971 25. “Apocryphal Notes and Readings.” IOS 1 (1971): 123–31. 26. “Methodological Issues in the Study of the Text of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” In Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 211–17. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1971. 27. “Bible, Armenian Version of.” Encyclopedia Hebraica ( Jerusalem 1971), 24:309. 28. “Moses of Choren.” Encyclopedia Hebraica ( Jerusalem 1971), 24:51. 29. Review of S. Der Nersessian, The Armenians (London 1970). Sion 45 (1971): 84–86. 1972 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

“Abel Maul.” Encyclopaedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 2:61–62. “Abraham, Other Books of.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 2:127–28. “Adam, Other Books of.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 2:245–46. “Ahikar.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 3:461–62. “Anti-Christ.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 3:60–62. “Baruch, Book of.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 4:272–73. “Baruch, Rest of the Words of.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 4:276–77. “Bible, Armenian Version of.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 5:861–62. “Daniel, Books of (Apocryphal).” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 5:1289. “Elijah, Apocalypse of.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 6:643 [wrongly attributed].

bibliography of the works of michael e. stone 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

369

“Ezekiel, Apocryphal Books of.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 6:1099. “Ezra, Apocalypse of.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 6:1108–9. “Habakkuk, Prophecy of.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 7:1017. “Isaac, Testament of.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 9:10–11. “Isaiah, Martyrdom of.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 9:71. “Jacob, Testament of.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 9:1213. “Lamech in the Apocrypha.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 10:1366. “Noah, Books of.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 12:1189. “Oil of Life.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 12:1347. “Prophets, Lives of.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 13:1149–50. “Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego.” Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem 1972), 14:1255–56. “Astronomy in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” Ma˙anayim 125 (1972): 108–11 (Hebrew). “Jewish Literature from the Period of the Second Temple in Armenian Literature.” In Lectures at Research Meetings of the Israel Historical Society ( Jerusalem 1972), 247–64 (Hebrew). “Researches in the Library of the Armenian Patriarchate, Jerusalem and their Importance for Jewish Studies.” Tarbiz 41 (1972): 157–69 (Hebrew). Review of S. Der Nersessian, L’Illustration des psautiers grecs du moyen age. II. Londres add. 19,352 (Paris 1970). IEJ 32 (1972): 63–64. 1973

55. “Armenian Canon Lists, I: The Canon of Partaw.” HTR 67 (1973): 479–86. 56. “An Armenian Tradition Relating to the Death of the Three Companions of Daniel.” Le Muséon 86 (1973): 111–23. 57. “Judaism at the Time of Christ.” Scientific American 228 ( January 1973): 80–87. 58. “The Old Armenian Version of Isaiah: Towards the Choice of a Base Text.” Textus 8 (1973): 107–25. 59. “Some Observations on the Armenian Version of the Paralipomena of Jeremiah.” CBQ 35 (1973): 47–59. 60. Review of J. Licht, The Apocalypse of Ezra ( Jerusalem 1968). Immanuel 1 (1973–74): 51–56. 61. Review of R. W. Thomson, The Teaching of St. Gregory (Cambridge 1971). JAOS 93 (1973): 591–94. 1974 62. “Apocalyptic—Vision or Hallucination?” Milla wa-Milla 14 (1974): 47–56. 63. “An Armenian Psalter in the Library of Northwestern University.” Le Muséon 87 (1974): 195–205. 64. “Three Armenian Accounts of the Death of Moses.” In Studies on the Testament of Moses: Seminar Papers, ed. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 118–21. SBLSCS 4. Cambridge, Mass.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974. 65. With C. Safrai, “Further Armenian Manuscripts in the National and University Library, Jerusalem.” REArm 10 (1974): 111–17. 1975 66. “The Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs—Selection of Manuscripts.” Sion 49 (1975): 207–11. 67. Review of S. Der Nersessian, Armenian Manuscripts in the Walters Art Gallery (Baltimore 1973). IEJ 25 (1975): 190–93.

370

bibliography of the works of michael e. stone 1976

68. “Additional Note on the Marginalia in 4 Kingdoms.” In Armenian and Biblical Studies, ed. M. E. Stone, 21–22. Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1976. 69. “Armenian Canon Lists II: The Stichometry of Anania of Shirak.” HTR 69 (1976): 253–60. 70. “Lists of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature.” In Magnalia Dei, the Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, ed. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke and P. D. Miller, 414–52. Garden City: Doubleday, 1976. 71. “Pseudepigrapha.” In Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary Volume, ed. K. Crim et al., 710–12. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. 72. “The Study of Armenian Manuscripts.” In Armenian and Biblical Studies, ed. M. E. Stone, 283–94. Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1976. 73. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” In Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary Volume, ed. K. Crim et al., 877. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. 1977 74. “New Evidence for the Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” RB 88 (1977): 94–107. 75. “A New Manuscript of the Syro-Arabic Version of the Fourth Book of Ezra.” JSJ 8 (1977): 183–84. 76. With J. C. Greenfield. “The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes.” HTR 70 (1977): 51–65. 77. Review of J. H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (Missoula, Mont. 1976). RelSRev 3 (1977): 111–13. 78. Review of M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (Philadelphia 1974). Shnaton 2 (1977): 264–65 (Hebrew). 79. Review of R. W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran (Philadelphia 1974). Shnaton 2 (1977): 265–66 (Hebrew). 1978 80. “Armenian Canon Lists III—The Lists of Mechitar of Ayrivank’ (c. 12 CE).” HTR 71 (1978): 289–300. 81. “The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century B.C.E.” CBQ 40 (1978): 479–92. 82. “Concerning the Penitence of Solomon.” JTS 40 (1978): 1–19. 83. “Two New Discoveries Concerning the Uncanonical Ezra Books.” Sion 52 (1978): 54–60 (Armenian). 84. Review of J. Schuepphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos: Ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts (ALGHJ 7; Leiden 1977). RelSRev 4 (1978): 134. 85. Review of R. W. Thomson, Agathangelos’ History of the Armenians (Albany 1976). HaMizrah HeHadash (1978): 326–27 (Hebrew). 1979 86. “Two Leaves of Acts in the Perkins Library, Duke University.” Sion 53 (1979): 24. 87. With J. C. Greenfield. “The Books of Enoch and the Traditions of Enoch.” Numen 26 (1979): 89–103. 88. With J. C. Greenfield. “Remarks on the Aramaic Testament of Levi.” RB 86 (1979): 214–30. 89. With M. J. L. Young. “A Persian-Armenian Manuscript in the Leeds Collection.” Le Muséon 92 (1979): 361–67.

bibliography of the works of michael e. stone

371

90. Review of K. Berger, Die grieschiche Daniel-Diegese (Leiden 1976). JBL 98 (1979): 609–10. 91. Review of O. Wahl, Apocalypsis Esdrae, Apocalypsis Sedrach, Visio Beati Esdrae (PVTG 4; Leiden 1977). RelSRev 3 (1979): 62–63. 1980 92. “Armenian Canon Lists IV: The List of Gregory of Tat'ew.” HTR 73 (1980): 237–44. 93. “Concerning the Seventy-Two Translators: Armenian Fragments of Epiphanius’ De Mensuris et Ponderibus.” HTR 73 (1980): 331–36. 94. “Epigraphica Armeniaca Hierosolymitana.” AArmL 1 (1980): 51–68. 95. “A Rare Armenian Coin from Jerusalem.” Israel Numismatic Journal 4 (1980): 77–78. 96. With Nira Stone. “An Illuminated Armenian Gospel in the National and University Library, Jerusalem.” REArm 14 (1980): 435–41. 1981 97. “Epigraphica Armeniaca Hierosolymitana, II.” AArmL 2 (1981): 73–83. 98. “Report on Seth Traditions in the Armenian Adam Books.” In The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. ed. B. Layton, 2:460–71. 2 volumes. SHR 41. Leiden: Brill, 1980–81. 99. “Sinai Armenian Inscriptions.” BA 44 (Winter 1981): 27–31. 100. “Sinai Armenian Inscriptions.” PBH 95.4 (1981): 88–94 (Armenian). 101. Review of G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. J. Collins, Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism (Chico 1980). RelSRev 7 (1981): 361. 1982 102. “Armenian Inscriptions in Southern Sinai.” In Studies on Southern Sinai, ed. I. Lachish and Z. Meshel, 48–50. Tel Aviv: HaHevra Lehaganat Hateva, 1982 (Hebrew). 103. “Jewish Apocryphal Literature in the Armenian Church.” Le Muséon 95 (1982): 285–309. 104. “The Metamorphosis of Ezra: Jewish Apocalypse and Medieval Vision.” JTS 33 (1982): 1–18. 105. “Reactions to Destructions of the Second Temple: Theology, Perception and Conversion.” JSJ 12 (1982): 195–204. 106. With C. E. Cox. “Guidelines for Editions of Armenian Biblical Texts.” IOSCS Bulletin 15 (1982): 51–59. 107. Review of R. J. Coggins and M. A. Knibb, The First and Second Books of Ezra (Cambridge 1979). JAAR 50 (1982). 108. Review of A. L. Thompson, Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of 4 Ezra (Missoula 1977). RelSRev 8 (1982). 1983 109. “Coherence and Inconsistency in the Apocalypses: The Case of ‘The End’ in 4 Ezra.” JBL 102 (1983): 229–43. 110. “Greek Apocalypse of Esdras.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 1:561–79. 2 volumes. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983–85. 111. “The Greek Background of Some Sinai Armenian Pilgrims and Some Other Observations.” In Mediaeval Armenian Culture ed. M. E. Stone and T. J. Samuelian, 194–202. University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 6. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983. 112. “New Light on the Third Century.” In Visionaries and their Apocalypses, ed. P. D. Hanson, 85–91. Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SPCK, 1983.

372

bibliography of the works of michael e. stone

113. “Questions of Ezra.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 1:591–99. 2 volumes. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983–85. 114. “Why Study the Pseudepigrapha?” BA 46 (December 1983): 235–43. 115. With C. E. Cox. “Guidelines for Editions of Armenian Biblical Texts.” REArm 17 (1983): 627–33. 116. Review of R. R. Hann, The Manuscript History of the Psalms of Solomon (Chico 1982). RelSRev 9 (1983): 169. 117. Review of R. G. Hovhanissian, The Armenian Image in History and Literature (Malibu 1981). MES 19 (1983): 396–97. 1984 118. “Apocalyptic Literature.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M. E. Stone, 383–442. CRINT 2.2. Assen: van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. 119. “Armenian Inscriptions from the Sinai.” In Atti del Terzo Simposio Internazionale di Arte Armena, ed. G. Ieni, and G. Uluhogian, 539–41. Venice: San Lazzaro, 1984. 120. “An Armenian Pilgrim to the Holy Land in the Early Byzantine Period.” REArm 18 (1984): 173–79. 121. “The Armenian Version.” In Bible Translation: An Introduction, ed. C. Rabin, 143–47. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1984 (Hebrew). 122. “Epigraphica Armeniaca Hierosolymitana, III.” REArm 18 (1984): 559–81. 123. “The History of the Forefathers, Adam and His Sons and Grandsons.” JSAS 1 (1984): 79–91. 124. “Introduction.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M. E. Stone, xvii–xxiii. CRINT 2.2. Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. 125. Review of D. G. Burke, The Poetry of Baruch (Chico 1982). JBL 103 (1984): 648. 1985 126. “Four Further Armenian Epigraphs from the Sinai.” JSAS 2 (1985–1986): 73–83. 127. “Three Transformations in Judaism: Scripture, History and Redemption.” Numen 32 (1985): 218–35. 128. With J. C. Greenfield. “The Aramaic and Greek Fragments of a Levi Document.” In The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, 457–69. SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985. 1986 129. “The Armenian Vision of Ezekiel.” In Christians Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl on his Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. G. W. E. Nickelsburg and G. W. MacRae, 261–69. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986 (= HTR 79 [1986]: 261–69). 130. “Categorization and Classification of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” Abr Nahrain 24 (1986): 167–77. 131. “Computer Implementation of Armenian.” In Actes du Premier Colloque international Bible et informatique: le texte. Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgique) 2–3–4 septembre 1985, 323–35. Paris: Champion; Geneva: Slatkine, 1986. 132. “Epigraphica Armeniaca Hierosolymitana, IV.” REArm 20 (1986–87): 465–79. 133. “The Epitome of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” REArm 20 (1986–1987): 70–107. 134. “Holy Land Pilgrimage of Armenians before the Arab Conquest.” RB 93 (1986): 93–110.

bibliography of the works of michael e. stone

373

135. “Notes on the Armenian Aristotle.” In Symposium Graeco-Arabicum I, ed. P. L. Schoonheim and G. Endress, 17–18. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 1986. 1987 136. “Eschatologie, Remythologisierung und kosmische Aporie.” In Kulturen der Achsenzeit, ed. S. N. Eisenstadt, 2:19–37. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1987. 137. “Eschatology, Remythologization and Cosmic Aporia.” In The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations, ed. S. N. Eisenstadt, 241–51. State University of New York, 1987. 138. “Ideal Figures and Social Context: Priest and Sage in the Early Second Temple Age.” Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 575–86. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. 139. “The Parabolic Use of Natural Order in Judaism of the Second Temple Age.” In Gilgul: Essays on Transformation, Revolution, and Permanence in the History of Religions, Dedicated to R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, ed. S. Shaked, D. Shulman and G. G. Stroumsa, 298–308. SHR 50. Leiden: Brill, 1987. 140. With J. J. S. Weitenberg. “The Leiden Armenian Data Base.” LLC 2 (1987): 245–48. 1988 141. “The Armenian Inscription in Awagvank.” REArm 21 (1988–89): 451–53. 142. “Armenian Pilgrimage to the Land of Israel up to the Arab Conquest.” In Jews, Samaritans and Christians in the Land of Israel in the Byzantine Period, ed. D. Jacoby and Yoram Tsafrir, 93–103. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1988 (Hebrew). 143. “The Armenian Book of Esdras.” JSAS 4 (1988–89): 209–12. 144. “Enoch, Aramaic Levi and Sectarian Origins.” JSJ 19 (1988): 159–70. 145. “The Months of the Hebrews.” Le Muséon 101 (1988): 5–12. 146. “The Question of the Messiah in 4 Ezra.” In Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. J. Neusner, W. S. Green, and E. S. Frerichs, 209–24. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. 147. “Two Further Notes on the Epitome of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” REArm 21 (1988–89): 497–99. 148. “The Way of the Most High and the Injustice of God in 4 Ezra.” In Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. R. van den Broek, T. Baarda and J. Mansfeld, 132–42. Leiden: Brill, 1988. 149. With T. A. Bergren. “2 Esdras: A Commentary.” In Harper Bible Commentary, ed. J. L. Mays, 776–90. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988. 150. Review of V. Azarya, The Armenian Quarter of Jerusalem: Urban Life Behind Monastery Walls (Berkeley 1984). MES 24 (1988): 240. 151. Review of J. H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden City 1983–85); and H. F. D. Sparks, The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford 1984). RelSRev 14 (1988): 111–13. 1989 152. “An Armenian Epigraph in Melbourne.” MedArch 2 (1989): 203–5. 153. “An Armenian Epitome of Epiphanius’ De gemmis.” HTR 82 (1989): 467–76. 154. “New Discoveries Relating to the Armenian Adam Books.” JSP 5 (1989): 101–9. 155. “Pilgrims, Computers and Bible Stories.” NAASR Newsletter Winter 1988–89. Reprinted, The Armenian Weekly. July 1, 1989: 1f.

374

bibliography of the works of michael e. stone

156. “II Esdras.” In The Books of the Bible, ed. B. A. Anderson, 2:21–34. 2 volumes. New York: Scribners, 1989. 157. Review of J. Paramelle, Philon d’Alexandrie: Questions sur la Genèse II 1–7 (Geneva 1984). JAOS 109 (1989): 119–20. 1990 158. “Armenian Canon Lists V—Anonymous Texts.” HTR 83 (1990): 141–61. 159. “Armenian Inscriptions of the Fifth Century from Nazareth.” REArm 22 (1990–91): 315–22. 160. “Epigraphica Armeniaca Hierosolymitana V.” REArm 22 (1990–91): 333–49. 161. “Hingerord Taru Hayeren Vimagrut’yunner Nazaraten.” PBH 130.3 (1990): 52–62 (Armenian). 162. “Travaux actuels sur la littérature apocryphe arménienne.” In La Fable apocryphe, ed. P. Geoltrain, J.-C. Picard and A. Desreumaux, 1:303–12. 2 volumes. Apocrypha: Le champ des apocryphes, 1–2. Brussels: Brepols, 1990. 163. With J. C. Greenfield. “Two Notes on the Aramaic Levi Document.” In Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism and Christian Origins, Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins and T. H. Tobin, 153–62. College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5. Lanham: University Press of America, 1990. 164. Review of D. A. Bertrand, La Vie Grecque d’Adam et d’Eve (Paris 1987). Critical Review of Books in Religion 3 (1990): 333–36. 165. Review of A. Kapoïan-Kouymjian, L’Egypte vue par des Arméniens (Paris 1988). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (1990). 166. Review of F. Siegert, Philon von Alexandrien: über die Gottesbeichnung ‘wohltätig verzehrendes Feuer’ (De Deo) (Tübingen 1988). JSJ 21 (1990): 136–38. 1991 167. “Negev Diary, April 19–21, 1990.” Ormond Papers 8 (1991): 100–107. 168. “On Reading an Apocalypse.” In Mysteries and Revelations: Apocalyptic Studies since the Uppsala Colloquium, ed. J. J. Collins and J. H. Charlesworth, 79–90. JSPSup 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. 169. With U. Avner. “Seqer ketobot banegev (Survey of Inscriptions in the Negev).” Hadashot Archeologiot 97 (1991): 87 (Hebrew). 170. Review of T. W. Willett, Eschatology of the Theodicies of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra (Sheffield 1989). JBL 110 (1991): 343–44. 1992 171. “Some Armenian Angelological and Uranographical Texts.” Le Muséon 105 (1992): 147–57. 172. With E. Eshel. “An Exposition on the Patriarchs (4Q464) and Two Other Documents (4Q464a and 4Q464b).” Le Muséon 105 (1992): 243–64. 173. Review of B. Coulie, Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits arméniens (Turnhout 1992). Le Muséon 105 (1992): 392–93. 174. Review of W. Lechner-Schmidt, Wortindex der lateinisch erhalten Pseudepigraphen zum Alten Testament (Tübingen 1990). SPhA 4 (1992): 136–37. 1993 175. “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Biblical Archaeology Today 1990: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984, 383–90. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1993.

bibliography of the works of michael e. stone

375

176. “Assessment of Variants in Armenian Manuscripts.” In Armenian Texts, Tasks and Tools, ed. H. Lehmann and J. J. S. Weitenberg, 15–25. Acta Jutlandica 69:1; Humanities Series 68. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993. 177. Epigraphica Armeniaca Hierosolymitana VI.” REArm 24 (1993): 251–71. 178. “The Fall of Satan and Adam’s Penance: Three Notes on the Books of Adam and Eve.” JTS n.s. 44 (1993): 143–56. 179. “Introduction and Notes on 2 Esdras.” In Harper Collins Study Bible, 1768–1809. New York: Harper Collins, 1993. 180. “Linguistic Aspects of the Sinai Inscriptions.” Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Armenian Linguistics (21–23 September 1987), 176–80. Yerevan: Academy of Sciences, 1993 (Armenian). 181. “The Newly-Discovered Armenian Inscriptions in Jerusalem.” PBH 137–38 (1993): 15–26 (Armenian). 182 “Priorities, Problems and Techniques of Text Editions.” In Armenian Texts, Tasks and Tools, ed. H. Lehmann and J. J. S. Weitenberg, 11–14. Acta Jutlandica 69:1; Humanities Series 68. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993. 183. With E. Eshel. “The Eschatological Holy Tongue in Light of a Fragment from Qumran.” Tarbiz 62 (1993): 169–77 (Hebrew). 184. With E. Eshel. “A New Fragment of 4QDeuth.” JBL 112 (1993): 487–89. 185. With J. C. Greenfield. “The Prayer of Levi.” JBL 112 (1993): 247–66. 186. With J. Mansfeld. “Compte rendu préliminaire sur la traduction anglaise de la composition de Natura attribuée à Zéno stoïcus.” Newsletter of the Assoc. Int. des Et. Arm. 19 (1993): 4–6. 1994 187. “Eight Manuscripts of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” In Text and Context: Studies in the Armenian New Testament. Papers Presented to the Conference on the Armenian New Testament, May 22–28, 1992, ed. S. Ajamian and M. E. Stone, 75–82. University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 13. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. 188. “Jewish Tradition, the Pseudepigrapha and the Christian West.” In The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, ed. D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara, 431–49. JSOTSup 166. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. 189. “Some New Major Tools for Armenian Studies.” Newsletter of the Assoc. Int. des Et. Arm. 20 (1994): 11–18. 190. With J. C. Greenfield. “The First Manuscript of Aramaic Levi Document from Cave 4 at Qumran (4QLevia aram).” Le Muséon 107 (1994): 257–81. 1995 191. “The Album of Armenian Paleography with Some Pickings from Armenian Colophons.” Gazette du livre médiéval 26 (1995): 8–17. 192. “Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts.” In Scribi e Colofoni: Le Sottoscrizioni di Copisti dalle Origini all’Avvento della Stampa, ed. E. Condello and G. De Gregorio, 463–71. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1995. 193. “A New Edition and Translation of the Questions of Ezra.” In Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gittin and M. Sokoloff, 293–316. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995. 194. “Some Remarks on Vasn Ste∑cman A“xarhi (‘On the Creation of the World’) by Yovhannès T'lkuranc'i.” In New Approaches to Medieval Armenian Language and Literature, ed. J. J. S. Weitenberg, 63–78. Dutch Studies in Armenian Language and Literature 3. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi, 1995.

376

bibliography of the works of michael e. stone

195. “The Textual Affinities of the Epitome of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in Matenadaran No. 2679.” Le Muséon 108 (1995): 265–77. 196. With E. Eshel. “464. 4QExposition on the Patriarchs.” In Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2, ed. M. Broshi et al., in consultation with J. C. VanderKam, 213–34. DJD 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. 197. Review of J. Naveh and S. Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity ( Jerusalem 1993). JAOS 115 (1995): 525. 198. Review of J. C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (Cincinnati 1992). AJS Review 20 (1995): 396–99. 1996 199. “The Armenian Apocryphal Literature: Translation and Creation.” In Il Caucaso: Cerniera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia (Secoli I–XI); 20–26 aprile 1995, 612–46. Settimane di Studio dal Centro Italiano de Studi sull’Alto Medioevo 43. Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro, 1996. 200. “Armenian Printed Bibles in the Collection of the Trask Library, Andover Newton Theological School.” Newsletter of AIEA 24 (1996): 13–16. 201. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha.” DSD 3 (1996): 270–96. 202. “The Genealogy of Bilhah.” DSD 3 (1996): 20–36. 203. “The Testament of Naphtali.” JJS 47 (1996): 311–21. 204. “215. 4QTestament of Naphtali.” In Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, ed. G. J. Brooke et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam, 73–82. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. 205. With J. C. Greenfield. “Aramaic Levi Document.” In Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, ed. G. J. Brooke et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam, 2–72. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. 206. With J. C. Greenfield. “The Second Manuscript of Aramaic Levi Document from Cave 4 at Qumran (4QLevib aram).” Le Muséon 109 (1996): 1–15. 207. With J. C. Greenfield. “The Third and Fourth Manuscripts of Aramaic Levi Document from Cave 4 at Qumran (4QLevic aram and 4QLevid aram).” Le Muséon 109 (1996): 345–59. 208. With T. van Lint and J. Nazarian. “Further Armenian Inscriptions from Nazareth.” REArm 26 (1996–97): 321–37. 209. With T. van Lint. “Two Unnoticed Armenian Inscriptions from Noravank’.” REArm 26 (1996–97): 447–50. 1997 210. “Adam, Eve and the Incarnation.” St. Nersess Theological Review 2 (1997): 167–79. 211. “Address at the 10th Anniversary Session of the AIEA.” In Armenian Perspectives: 10th Anniversary Conference of the Association Internationale des Etudes Armeniennes, ed. N. Awde, 1–2. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 1997. 212. “The New Armenian Inscriptions from Jerusalem.” In Armenian Perspectives: 10th Anniversary Conference of the Association Internationale des Etudes Armeniennes, ed. N. Awde, 263–68. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 1997. 213. “The Oldest Armenian Pilgrim Inscription from Jerusalem.” Sion 71 (Bogharian Memorial Volume) (1997): 340–50. 214. “Three Observations on Early Armenian Inscriptions from the Holy Land.” In From Byzantium to Iran: Armenian Studies in Honour of Nina Garsoïan, ed. R. W. Thomson et al., 417–24. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. 215. With D. Amit. “The New Armenian Inscriptions from Jerusalem.” Cathedra 83 (1997): 27–44 (Hebrew).

bibliography of the works of michael e. stone

377

216. With J. C. Greenfield. “The Fifth and Sixth Manuscripts of Aramaic Levi Document from Cave 4 at Qumran (4QLevie aram and 4QLevif aram).” Le Muséon 110 (1997): 271–92. 1998 217. “The Document called ‘Question’.” In La diffusione dell’eredità classica nell’età tardoantica e medievale: Il “Romanzo di Alessandro” e altri scritti: atti del seminario internazionale di studio, Roma-Napoli, 25–27 settembre 1997, ed. R. B. Finazzi and A. Valvo, 295–300. Alexandria: dell’Orso, 1998. 218. “Haykaken Hnagoyn Uxtavorakan Arjanagrut'iwn Erusa∑em.” PBH 147–148 (1998): 159–164 (Armenian). 219. “The Mixed Erkat 'agir-Bolorgir Script in Armenian Manuscripts.” Le Muséon 111 (1998): 293–317. 220. “Some Further Readings in the Hebrew Testament of Naphtali.” JJS 49 (1998): 246–47. 221. “Warum Naphtali? Eine Diskussion im Internet.” Judaica: Beiträge zum Verständnis des Judentums 54 (1998): 188–91. 1999 222. “The Axis of History at Qumran.” In Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997, ed. E. G. Chazon and M. E. Stone, 133–49. STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999. 223. “The Study of the Armenian Apocrypha.” In A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft, ed. B. G. Wright, 139–48. Scholars Press Homage Series 24. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. 224. “Two Armenian Manuscripts and the Historia Sacra.” In Apocryphes arméniens: transmission, traduction, création, iconographie: actes du colloque international sur la littérature apocryphe en langue arménienne, Genève, 18–20 septembre, 1997, ed. V. Calzolari Bouvier, J.-D. Kaestli and B. Outtier, 21–36. Lausanne: Zèbre, 1999. 225. With E. G. Chazon. “4QTime of Righteousness (4Q215a olim 4QTNaphthali ): A Preliminary Publication of Fragment 1.” In The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, ed. D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich, 124–25. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. 226. With T. M. van Lint. “More Armenian Inscriptions from Sinai.” Eretz Israel (Cross Volume) 29 (1999): 195*–203*. 227. Review of Phillip B. Munoa III, Four Powers in Heaven: The Interpretation of Daniel 7 in the Testament of Abraham (Sheffield 1998). JQR 90 (1999): 235–37. 2000 228. “The Angelic Prediction in the Primary Adam Books.” In Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays, ed. G. A. Anderson, M. E. Stone and J. Tromp, 111–32. SVTP 15. Leiden: Brill, 2000. 229. “Amram.” In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam, 1:23–24. 2 volumes. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. 230. “Another Manuscript of the Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” REArm 27 (1998–2000): 93–97. 231. “The Bones of Adam and Eve.” In For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity ed. R. A. Argall, B. A. Bow and R. A. Werline, 241–45. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000. 232. “The Cultural Heritage of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Dead Sea Scrolls, 11–12.

378

233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238.

239. 240. 241.

bibliography of the works of michael e. stone Sydney: Art Gallery of New South Wales in Association with the Israel Antiquities Authority, 2000. “The Fall of Satan and Adam’s Penance: Three Notes on The Books of Adam and Eve.” In Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays, ed. G. A. Anderson, M. E. Stone and J. Tromp, 43–56. SVTP 15. Leiden: Brill, 2000. “The Legend of the Cheirograph of Adam.” In Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays, ed. G. A. Anderson, M. E. Stone and J. Tromp, 149–66. SVTP 15. Leiden: Brill, 2000. “Levi, Aramaic.” In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam, 1:486–88. 2 volumes. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. “Qahat.” In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam, 2:731–32. 2 volumes. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. “Selections from On the Creation of the World by Yovhannès T'lkuranc'i: Translation and Commentary.” In Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays, ed. G. A. Anderson, M. E. Stone and J. Tromp, 167–214. SVTP 15. Leiden: Brill, 2000. With E. G. Chazon. “215a. 4QTime of Righteousness.” In Qumran Cave 4.XXVI. Cryptic Texts, ed. S. J. Pfann; and Miscellanea, Part 1, ed. P. Alexander et al., in consultation with J. C. VanderKam and M. Brady, 172–84. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Review of J.-C. Haelewyck, Clauis Apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti (Corpus Christianorum; Turnhout1998). Le Muséon 113 (2000): 463. Review of K. E. Kvam, L. S. Schearing and V. H. Ziegler, Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender (Bloomington 1999). Interpretation 54 (2000): 206. “Suite of Six Poems.” Ararat 39 (2000): 16–17 (original poetry). (“Aragats,” “Goshavank,” “Haghartzin,” “Masis from Ararat Plain,” “Sevan from the North,” “Eghegnatzor.”) 2001

242. “Armenian Canon Lists VI—Hebrew Names and Other Attestations.” HTR 94 (2001): 477–91. 243. “Epigraphica Armeniaca Hierosolymitana VII.” REArm 28 (2001–2002): 443–64. 244. “Three Armenian Objects in Jerusalem.” REArm 28 (2001–2002): 501–7. 245. With D. Amit. “Tombstones from the Land of Ararat.” Et-mol 26 (2001): 7–9 (Hebrew). 246. With P. Bourjekian. “Three Poems by Frik.” Translated and annotated. Ararat 41 (2001): 47–56. 247. With R. R. Ervine. “Epigraphica Armeniaca Hierosolymitana VIII: Inscribed Candlesticks from Holy Archangels Church, Jerusalem.” REArm 28 (2001–2002): 465–94. 248. “St. Toros’ Keeper.” AIEA Newsletter (2001): 34 (original poetry). 249. “Two Poems.” Ararat 40 (2001): 49 (original poetry). (“Black Beauty,” “Armeniacum.”) 2002 250. “Aramaic Levi in Its Contexts.” JSQ 9 (2002): 307–26. 251. “A Reassessment of the Bird and Eustathius Mosaics.” In The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, ed. M. E. Stone, R. R. Ervine, and Nira Stone, 203–19. Hebrew University Armenian Series 4. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. 252. “Recovering a Lost Jewish Community: The Jews of Medieval Armenia.” In Eshkolot: Essays in Memory of Rabbi Ronald Lubofsky, ed. A. Strum et al., 104–12. Melbourne: Hybrid, 2002.

bibliography of the works of michael e. stone

379

253. With D. Amit. “Report on the Survey of a Medieval Jewish Cemetery in Eghegis, Vayots Dzor Region, Armenia.” JJS 53 (2002): 66–106. 254. Review of L. DiTommaso, A Bibliography of Pseudepigrapha Research ( JSPSup 39; Sheffield 2001). Le Muséon 115 (2002): 470. 255. “Three Poems.” Ararat 43 (2002): 38–39 (original poetry). (“St. Toros,” “On the Road from Eghegis,” “Jerusalem Day.”) 2003 256. “Aramaic Levi Document and Greek Testament of Levi.” In Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Emanuel Tov. Ed. S. Paul et al., 429–37. Leiden: Brill, 2003. 257. “An Armenian Copper Bowl in Cambridge, Massachusetts (Inscription J71).” AArmL 22–23 (2003): 55–57. 258. “Integrating Armenian Studies with Other Disciplines.” Journal of Armenian Studies (Special Issue: Rethinking Armenian Studies) 7.2 (2003): 164–67. 259. “A Reconsideration of Apocalyptic Visions.” HTR 96 (2003): 167–80. 260. “A Profitable and Excellent Poem by Catholicos Grigor T∑ay.” Translation. Sion 77 (2003): 255–59. 261. With K. Damadian and B. Der Matossian. “A Manuscript of Armenian Poetry in Dublin.” JSAS 13 (2003):71–79. 262. Review of R. H. Hewsen, Armenia: A Historical Atlas (Chicago 2001). Slavic Review 62 (2003): 174. 263. “Three Poems.” Ararat 44 (2003): 42–43 (original poetry). (“Judean Hills,” “Clichés,” “Armenia Views.”) 264. “Ice Light” Avocet (2003): 15 (original poetry). Same poem also in Voices Broadsheet. 265. “It was Bright,” “Reflection,” “Walking on Ice.” Mandrake Poetry Review (2003): 14–16 (original poetry). 266. “Prayer.” White Heron (2003). (original poetry). 267. “A Hidden Treasure: The Armenian Adam Epic by Arakel of Siwnik.” Lecture; sound recording. Recorded Oct. 23, 2003, in the Mumford Room, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 2004 268. With B. Z. Kedar. “A Notice about Patriarch Aimery of Antioch in an Armenian Colophon of 1181.” Crusades 3 (2004): Forthcoming. 269. Review of D. Dimant and U. Rappaport, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (Leiden and Jerusalem 1992). http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/ publications/DimantReview.htm. 270. Review of F. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (Leiden 1992); and idem, Textos de Qumrán. Madrid 1992. http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/publications/GarciaMartinezReview.htm. 271. “Cyclamens.” Avocet (Winter 2004): 14 (original poetry). 272. “Daffodils.” Avocet (Spring 2004): 10 (original poetry). 273. “Jerusalem Night.” Voices Israel (2003–2004) 30: 29. In Press 274. “Adam’s Naming of the Animals: Naming of Creation.” Poetics of Grammar and Metaphysics of Sound and Sign, Seminar Proceedings, December 2003. 275. “The Armenian Inscriptions.” Report on Excavations of the Third Wall, ed. D. Amit and S. Wolf. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

380

bibliography of the works of michael e. stone

276. “Armenian Pilgrimage to the Mountain of the Transfiguration in the Galilee.” St. Nersess Theological Review. 277. “The Esdras Apocalypses.” Introduction to Christian Apocryphal Literature. ed. M. Himmelfarb and A. Yarbro Collins. Polebridge Press. 278. “A Manuscript of Arak’el Siwnec’i’s Adamgirk’ in the Library of Congress.” Le Muséon. 279. “The Orbelian Family Cemetery in E∑egis, Vayoc` Jor, Armenia.” J.J.S. Weitenberg Festschrift ed. T. M. van Lint, J. Dum-Tragut and U. Blaesing. 280. “The Reception of Jewish and Biblical Traditions among the Armenians.” From Ararat to Jerusalem: Montpellier Conference Volume. 281. “Some Further Armenian Angelological Texts.” Gagik Sarkissian Festschrift. 282. “The Study of the Armenian Canon.” Proceedings of the Bex Conference, January 2004. 283. “A Translation of Concerning the Creation of the World by Yovhannès T'lkuranc'i.” St. Nersess Theological Review. 284. With D. Amit. “The Second and Third Seasons of Research at the Medieval Jewish Cemetery in Eghegis, Vayots Dzor Region, Armenia.” JJS. 285. With L. Avdoyan and Nira Stone. “A Dated Armenian Textile in the Library of Congress.” REArm. 286. With Nira Stone. “A Pair of Armenian Manuscript Missals in the Library of Congress.” REArm. 287. Review of A.-M. Denis, Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistique (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000). JQR. 288. “Above Yerevan,” “Khor Virap,” “Manuscript.” Ararat (original poetry). 289. “Booms and Birds.” King Log (original poetry). 290. “God Lies in Wait.” Ruach (original poetry). 291. “Layers.” ARC (original poetry). 292. “Seeing.” HazMat Review (original poetry). 293. “Words.” Byline (original poetry).

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Albani, M. 95, 96, 128 Albertz, R. 118 Albright, W. F. 22 Alexander, L. 317–328 passim Allegro, J. M. 28 Alwan, K. 336 Amar, J. P. 336 Anderson, G. A. 331, 352, 357 Argall, R. A. 105–6, 108, 110–11 Assemanus, J. S. 332, 333 Assemanus, S. E. 332 Attridge, H. 134 Aucher, J. B. 199, 204, 207 Aulén, G. 359 Aune, D. E. 325 Austel, H. J. 126 Avi-Yonah, M. 297 Bachmann, J. 97 Baillet, M. 150, 264 Barclay, J. M. G. 3, 15, 16, 19 Barstad, H. M. 127 Bauckham, R. 134 Baumgarten, J. M. 155–68 passim Beck, E. 342 Beck, H. G. 295 Becker, J. 284 Bedjan, P. 333–36 passim Beer, G. 95, 98 Begg, C. 136 Bekkum, W. J. van 297, 300 Ben-Dov, J. 95 Berger, K. 209, 212, 214, 308 Bernstein, A. E. 127 Best, E. C. 344 Betz, H. D. 211 Bickell, G. 332 Bickerman, E. 82 Bietenhard, H. 126 Billerbeck, P. 134 Black, M. 149 Blatz, B. 45 Bloch-Smith, E. 127 Blumenkrantz, R. 296 Bonani, G. 89 Borgen, P. 200 Borger, R. 128

Borse, U. 211 Bosch, J. S. 86 Bousset, W. 132, 134 Boyd, J. O. 94 Brière, M. 332 Brock, S. P. 332, 335 Brodsky, H. 22 Broek, R. van den 361 Broshi, M. 89, 90, 150, 154 Brown, P. 364 Bruce, F. F. 211 Buitenwerf, R. 3–19 passim Burton-Christie, D. 356 Calkins, R. 126 Camp, C. V. 113–15, 120 Capelle, P. 132 Carmi, I. 89 Charles, R. H. 61, 70, 94, 95, 98, 99, 129, 149, 283, 308 Charlesworth, J. H. 345, 348, 350 Chazon, E. G. 150–53 passim, 263, 266, 268 Chilton, B. 98 Cogan, M. 126 Cohen, N. G. 202 Cohen, S. J. D. 81–82 Cohn, L. 200 Collins, J. J. 3, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 53, 64, 65, 119, 128 Colson, F. H. 217 Comstock, S. T. 134 Constas, N. 359 Cosgrove, C. H. 212 Courcelle, P. 361 Cox, M. A. 37, 38 Cross, F. M. 90, 173 Culianu, I. P. 123, 132 Cumont, F. 132 Dagron, G. 296 Dalley, S. 128 Dan, J. 284 Dancy, J. C. 84 Daniélou, J. 249 Davila, J. 42 De Boor, C. 227, 233

382

index of modern authors

Delahaye, K. 243 Denis, A.-M. 45, 313 Derrett, J. D. M. 348 DeSilva, D. A. 75 Devreese, R. 309 Dexinger, F. 149 Dietzfelbinger, C. 209 Dihle, A. 329 Dillman, A. 94, 95, 96, 98, 99 Dimant, D. 25, 29, 150, 154, 192, 193 DiTommaso, L. 42, 45, 46 Donahue, D. 90 Doudna, G. 89, 90 Dunn, J. D. G. 211 Déroche, V. 289–299 passim Elliott, A. G. 345 Elliott, J. H. 57, 68 Elliott, J. K. 41 Enslin, M. 75–79 passim Eph"al, I. 174 Eshel, E. 23 Eshel, H. 22, 150, 154, 188, 189 Eustratiades, S. 236–241 passim Eynde, C. van den 336 Fabricius, J. A. 123 Faierstein, M. M. 134 Feldman, L. H. 82 Fiensy, D. A. 261–74 passim Fishbane, M. 74 Fitzmyer, J. A. 25, 69 Flemming, J. 94, 99 Flint, P. W. 188 Flusin, B. 346 Flusser, D. 265, 268–269, 270 Fraade, S. 120 Frankfurter, D. 134 Freedman, D. N. 187 Friedlander, G. 101, 283 Friedländer, M. 214, 220 Friedman, M. 123 Fuglseth, K. 200 García Martínez, F. 64, 90, 96, 149, 154, 159, 173, 187, 189, 190 Garofalo, I. 322 Gaster, M. 279 Gauger, J.-D. 3, 9 Gaylord, H. 101 Gee, J. 75 Geffcken, J. 4, 11 Gehman, H. S. 126

Georgi, D. 215, 220, 221 Giannastasio Andria, R. 323 Gignoux, P. 336 Gil, M. 129 Ginzberg, L. 39–40, 46, 48, 75, 123, 172, 212, 281, 308, 309 Glessmer, U. 128 Glucker, J. 323 Goodenough, E. R. 200, 201, 219 Goodhart, H. L. 200 Goodman, M. 3, 6 Gordon, S. L. 126 Goshen-Gottstein, M. 188 Grabbe, L. 106, 119 Grabe, J. E. 279 Graham, W. C. 337 Grant, R. M. 325, 328 Greenfield, J. C. 23, 89, 90, 97, 303 Greer, R. A. 74, 75, 81, 83 Grelot, P. 128, 129, 133, 324 Grintz, Y. 77, 80, 81, 83 Grossman, A. O. 200, 202, 207 Gruen, E. S. 3, 4, 6, 9–15, 16, 19 Hadot, I. 318 Haldon, J. F. 297 Hallote, R. S. 127 Halpern-Amaru, B. 280, 282, 285 Hanhart, R. 77 Hansen, G. W. 209, 210, 212 Harl, M. 300 Harrington, D. J. 142–43 Harris, J. R. 200, 202, 207 Harrisville, R. A. 209 Hartman, L. 56 Hauglid, B. M. 75 Hay, D. M. 219 Hays, R. B. 211, 212 Hayward, C. T. R. 26 Heinemann, J. 271 Hempel, C. 155, 161 Hennecke, E. 42, 45 Henning, W. B. 46 Hillel, V. 280 Himmelfarb, M. 35–36, 123, 136, 137, 157, 163, 166, 168, 280, 284, 300, 363 Hoffman, J. G. E. 341 Holladay, C. R. 8 Hollander, H. W. 281–87 passim, 303–11 Holscher, G. 174 Hone, W. 40

index of modern authors Horbury, W. 296 Horsley, R. 116, 119, 120 Horst, P. W. van der 262, 268, 273–274, 298, 324 Houtman, C. 126 Hunger, H. 227, 236 Hurvitz, A. 265 Ivy, S.

89

Jacobsen, T. 128 James, M. R. 37–51, 123, 348 Jensen, H. L. 128 Jeremias, J. 212 Jonge, M. de 279–87 passim, 303–13 passim Jull, A. J. T. 90, 171, 173 Kampen, J. 105, 118, 120–21 Karpp, H. 317, 318, 320, 322 Kasper, C. 295 Kazan, S. 333 Kellerman, U. 133 Kelso, J. L. 22 Kemble, J. M. 47 Kister, M. 26, 31, 141, 145, 164 Knibb, M. A. 92, 94, 129, 149 Knights, C. H. 345, 348 Knox, W. L. 75, 82, 212, 214, 221, 222 Koenen, L. 16 Körtner, U. H. J. 317, 324, 326 Koester, H. 220 Korteweg, T. 284, 287 Kraft, R. 38, 43, 48 Kranvig, H. S. 128 Krauss, S. 296 Krumbacher, K. 241 Kürzinger, J. 325 Kugel, J. L. 22, 33, 74, 75, 81, 83, 101, 102, 308 Kugler, R. A. 89 Lambert, W. G. 128 Lampe, G. W. H. 289, 324 Langer, R. 272 Lemaire, A. 107 Licht, J. 142, 150 Linder, A. 295, 297 Loewe, H. 87 Loewenstamm, S. E. 126 Lohfink, G. 123, 133 Lord, J. R. 75

383

Louth, A. 331 Lubbock, S. G. 37 Machinist, P. 128 Mack, B. L. 219 Mack, H. 74 Magdalino, P. 237, 239, 240 Maher, M. 95, 101 Mai, A. 200, 207 Mansfeld, J. 317, 319, 320, 328, 329 Marcus, R. 200–204 passim Marshall, F. H. 40 Martin, E. G. 345, 350 Martin, F. 94, 99 Martin-Achard, R. 209, 212 Martyn, J. L. 210, 212 Mathews, E. G., Jr. 332, 333, 336 Mathews, K. A. 187 Mayer, G. 209, 214 McBryde, G. 38 Mejer, J. 323 Merkel, H. 3 Metzger, B. M. 211 Metzger, M. 267 Meyer, E. 172 Milgrom, J. 158, 162, 163, 165, 168 Milik, J. T. 32, 34, 46, 89–90, 92, 96, 97, 129, 149, 154, 193 Momigliano, M. 364 Montefiore, C. G. 87 Moore, C. 75, 79, 80, 83, 84 Moxnes, H. 212 Mudry, P. 318 Muraoka, T. 270 Murphy, F. J. 66 Murphy-O’Connor, J. 182–84 Murray, R. 333 Mussner, F. 210, 211, 212 Naeh, S. 144 Naveh, J. 174 Nemoy, L. 126 Neugebauer, O. 95, 99 Neusner, J. 100 Newsom, C. A. 29 Neyrmeyr, U. 321 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 53–68 passim, 91, 105, 106, 107, 110, 111–12, 113, 116, 118, 133, 149, 154, 247 Nikiprowetzky, V. 3, 4, 11 Nikolsky, R. 345, 348 Nitzan, B. 151

index of modern authors

384 Nock, A. D. 82 Noethlichs, K. 295 North, H. F. 132 Olson, D. T. 151–52 Otto, A. 318 Overbeck, J. J. 341

Paramelle, J. 199 Parke, H. W. 6 Patterson, R. D. 126 Pearson, B. A. 69 Peretti, A. 16 Petit, F. 199–200, 204, 286, 305–14 passim Pfaff, R. W. 37–40 Pfann, S. 171, 173, 176, 182, 184, 193 Piccirillo, M. 123 Pietersma, A. 134 Plumpe, J. C. 243, 249 Porten, B. 174 Porter, J. R. 41 Potter, D. S. 6 Preuschen, E. 45 Puech, É. 25, 34, 133 Puech, H.-C. 45 Pummer, R. 298 Qimron, E.

25, 26, 143, 152

Rabin, C. 129 Rambo, L. R. 82 Ramsey, B. 363 Rappaport, S. 83 Rau, E. 98 Ravid, L. 33 Reeves, J. C. 46 Reid, S. B. 150 Ri, Su Min 337 Robins, W. 349 Rofé, A. 22, 31 Rogers, N. 38 Rohde, E. 131 Rohde, J. 211 Roitman, A. 73, 76, 78, 86 Rosenstiehl, J.-M. 134 Rowley, H. H. 174 Royse, J. R. 200–207 passim Rubenstein, J. 29, 30 Saffrey, H. D. 289 Sanders, J. A. 188, 265 Sandmel, S. 73, 82, 209, 212, 216, 221 Sarna, N. M. 282

Satran, D. 360 Schiffman, L. H. 166, 189 Schlier, H. 211 Schneemelcher, W. 42, 45 Schoedel, W. R. 324, 325 Schram, P. 123 Schreckenberg, H. 289, 295, 296 Schürer, E. 75 Schwartz, D. 174 Schwartz, J. 31–32 Segal, A. F. 123, 224 Segal, M. 135 Segonds, A.-P. 289 Sharf, A. 296 Shemesh, A. 155, 157 Shinan, A. 74, 79 Siker, J. S. 212 Simon, M. 295, 298 Skarsten, R. 200 Skinner, J. 94 Smith, J. Z. 119 Smith, N. H. 126 Soubigou, L. 80, 83 Sperber, D. 144 Spittler, R. P. 281 Sprengling, M. 337 Stegemann, H. 195 Steindorf, G. 134 Stern, M. 81 Steudel, A. 28 Stone, M. E. 23, 33, 66, 67, 89, 90, 97, 105–10 passim, 119, 120–21, 123, 271, 279–85 passim, 303–4, 331, 332, 338, 342–44 passim, 352, 356–58 Strack, H. L. 134 Stratos, A. N. 296 Strugnell, J. 5, 89, 123, 137, 142–43 Stuckenbruck, L. 33 Suter, D. 281 Tabor, J. D. 126, 136 Tadmor, H. 126, 128 Talbot, A.-M. 346 Talmon, S. 188, 189 Terian, A. 200–207 passim Termini, C. 201, 202 Terrien, S. 118 TeSelle, E. 359 Teshima, I. 79 Testa, E. 331 Testuz, M. 32, 34 Thackeray, H. St. J. 83 Theisohn, J. 68

index of modern authors Thomas, C. M. 349 Tigay, J. 128 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 90, 96, 154, 159, 187, 190 Tiller, P. 119, 120 Tischendorf, C. 200–207 passim Tobin, T. 219 Tonneau, R. M. 336 Tov, E. 26, 29, 90, 190–91, 194 Travers Herford, R. 172 Tvedtnes, J. A. 75 Uhlig, S. 94 Unnik, W. C. van

327

VanderKam, J. C. 31–32, 65, 89, 90, 124, 128, 129, 134, 149, 150, 309–12 passim Vaux, R. de 182 Verdenius, W. J. 324 Vermes, G. 73, 75 Viteaux, J. 42 Vivian, T. 346 Von Campenhausen, H. 324 Von Rad, G. 109 Vosté, J.-M. 336 Wacker, M.-T. 55 Walls, A. F. 325 Wan, S. 87, 216, 224

385

Ward, B. 346 Weinfeld, M. 263–64, 265, 268, 270 Weingreen, J. 74 Wendland, P. 200 Wensinck, A. J. 332 Werman, C. 155, 157 Weselovskii, A. N. 348 Westermann, C. 94 Wevers, J. W. 96, 300 Wieser, F. E. 209, 212 Wilken, R. L. 300 Wilson, R. R. 281 Wintermute, O. S. 82, 134 Wirth, P. 227 Witt, R. E. 17 Woefli, W. 89 Wortley, J. 346, 349, 356 Woude, A. S. van der 154, 173, 187, 190 Wright, B. G. III 107, 108, 114–15, 116, 118, 120 Wright, J. E. 126, 130 Yadin, Y. 27–28, 187, 188 Yarbro Collins, A. 9, 11 Zakovitch, Y. 74, 79 Zeitland, S. 75 Zenger, E. 80

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

1. Bible Genesis 1 1:15–18 1:14–16 1:14–16 Eth 1:14–19 1:16 1:27 2:1–3 3 5:23 5:24 6:1–4 6–9 10:8–9 11:1–9 11:10–27 11:26–32 11:31 12:1–3 12:1–13:12 12:2–3 12:3 12:3 LXX 12:4–13:12 12:7 12:8 12:10–20 13:3–4 13:14–17 15:5 15:6 15:6 LXX 15:7 15:10 LXX 15:12 LXX 15:18 LXX 15:18–19 15:18–21 17:1–8 17:8 18:18 20:1–7 20:7 22:18

97 96 94–97 94–97 92–100 96, 102 257 92 357 97 124, 127, 130 91 54 48 127 78 73 78, 80, 82, 85 73, 74, 77, 79, 80 85 210–11 224 290 79 211, 213 21, 25 233 21 211, 213 125, 211 86, 210, 223 214, 219 73, 80, 211, 218 218 217 217 213 211 213 211 210, 211, 224 233 228 211

22:22 24:7 28:10–22 28:12 28:22 29:24–29 30:3 35:1–8 35:7 35:14–15 35:16–20 35:21 37–50 37:3 37:24 37:27–28 37:29–30 37:36 39:1 39:7–20 39:22 40:15 41:45 41:45 LXX 41:50 LXX 46:20 LXX 48:7 LXX 48:12 49 49:10 49:10 LXX 49:29–33 49:31 50:23 50:24–26 Exodus 1:6 3:21 9:8 9:10 13:19 25:18 25:18–19 25:20 25:22

78 73, 80 21 125 31 283 282 21 31 31 310 310 304 314 313, 314 313, 315 310 308, 309 308, 313 307 314 307 309 308 308 308 310 283 304 299–300 290, 291, 293, 294 311 310 283 311, 312 312 34 125 125 311 202–3 203 204 205–6

index of ancient sources 26:33 27:1 Leviticus 5:11 6:2 6:7 6:18 7:1 7:11 11–15 11:46 12–15 12:2 12:4–5 12:5 12:6–8 12:7 13:2 13:6–8 13:29–37 13:33 13:51–52 13:59 14:2 14:22 14:30–32 14:32 14:44 14:54–57 15:1–30 15:2–31 15:5–11 15:5–12 15:7 15:13 15:13–15 15:13–18 15:16–18 15:19 15:21–23 15:24 15:27 15:28–29 15:32 15:32–33 16 18:19 19:33–34 LXX 19:36 20:18 23 25:26 25:28 25:47 26

293 203 167 156 156 156 156 156 156–57 156 155–169 158 164–65 158 166 156 157 157 158 157 157 156 156 167 167 156 157 156–57 158 159 165 161 165 162 160 165 158, 160–62 159, 165 165 168 165 165 156 159 293 168 217 144 168 91 167 166 167 176–79

26:39 26:40 26:40–45 26:41 26:45 27:8 27:10 27:33

387 178 176 179 177 176 167 166 166

Numbers 5:29 6:13 6:21 6:25 21:33 28–29 28:15 32:33

156 156 156, 167 270 46 91 101 46

Deuteronomy 1:4 3:1–13 4:19 4:29 4:47 6:5–6 10:15–16 11:13–18 11:14 13:3 15:7–10 16:6 16:13 17:20 18:15 18:15–18 18:18 18:19 24:47 26:5 26:16 27:26 29:7 30–32 30:2–6, 10 30:12 30:14 31:4 33

46 46 125 177 46 177 177 177 181 177 177 290 28 177 291 299–300 299 291 177 76, 77 177 290 46 248 177 125 177 46 66, 304

Joshua 8:20 24:2 24:2–3 24:2–4 24:3

125 76 73 77 80–81

388

index of ancient sources

Judges 2:1 LXX 2:12 2:19 6:8 9:38 13:20 20:26–28 20:40 21:13

26 80 80 76 166 125 21, 26 125 35

1 Samuel 5:12 10:7 12:8

125 166 77

2 Samuel 7:10 21:11 LXX 21:22 LXX

179 77 77

1 Kings 1:17–2 Kings 1 8:22 8:32–49 8:54 12: 29–33 12:30–33 17:1 18:21 18:45–46

124 125 125 125 21 27 124 80 124

2 Kings 2:1 2:1–12 2:3–10 2:11 2:13–16 16:3 17:7 19:31 23:15 Isaiah 1:26 LXX 10:10 10:14 11:2–3 11:9 14:13–15 24:23 27:1 29:22 LXX

126, 133 123, 124 124 124–126, 130, 133, 135 125 80 76 176 22 243 166 166 212 294 127 102 48 73

30:8–17 30:20 30:26 30:26 LXX 32:15 37:30–32 41:25 LXX 43:1–7 44:1–2 44:3 LXX 46:3 46:3–4 49–66 49:10–26 49:15 49:16 49:18 49:20–23 50:1 51:18–20 52:1–2 52:8–9 52:13–53:12 54:1 54:11–12 55:12 59:21 60:1–5 60:4–5 60:4–9 60:21 61:3 61:7 61:10 61:10–11 62:4–5 65–66 65:17–25 65:18–19 65:25 66:6–14 66:10–13 66:22 66:25 Jeremiah 5:23–25 10:2 23:3 23:19 24:5–7 30:23 31:7

97 180 92, 97–103 97 212 176, 178 15 245 245 212 176 245 244–45 245 244 255 244, 245 244 244 244 63 245 314 244–56 passim 244 245 212 245 245 254 179 179 179 245 245 244–45 54 54, 55, 64 245 67 245, 253 245 54, 63 64 181 94 176 125 179 125 176

index of ancient sources 31(38):8–9 32 42:10 45:4 50:12

245 341 179 179 253

Ezekiel 4:4–5 4:4–6 8:3 11:19 16:20–21 16:44–45 17:1–24 20:33–44 36:26–27 37 38 39:29 40:6 44:15 46:7

177 179, 186 125 212 243 243 179 186 212 248 292 212 186 186 167

Hosea 2:2–5 2:7 2:9 4:5 10:12 10:12 LXX 10:15 11:1 11:10 12:10 13:4

243 76 166 243 179–81, 186 181 22 76 80 76 76

Joel 2:23 3:1–2

179–80 212

Amos 2:10 3:1 3:13–14 5:27–6:1 9:7 9:15

76 76 22 178 76 179

Jonah 2:1 Micah 2:12 4:7

5:1 5:7f 6:4 7:15

389 294 176 76 76

Zephaniah 2:7–9 3:13

176 176

Haggai 2:22–24

300

Zechariah 8:11f

176

Malachi 3:22–23

134, 136

Psalms 27:5 37:19 44:2–3 51 62:10 76:3 80:7–19 86(87):5 LXX 89:4 101–150 105 105:9 105:17–22 110(109):4 115:16 119 119:125 Proverbs 8 30:4 31

29 184 179 265 146–47 29–30 179 243–44 292 265 151 77 77 292, 299–300 127, 134 265, 270 267 109 112 127 107

Job 2:12 3:12 31:25

125 283 166

314

Lamentations 1:1, 5, 16–17

244

176 176

Qohelet 9:10 12:11

166 269

390

index of ancient sources

Daniel 7 7:19–22 9 12 12:1 12:1–3

127 11, 64–65 14 9 10–11 14 64–65, 66

Ezra 6 7:10

291 180

Nehemiah 8:14–18

27

9:6–37 9:7 9:7–8

151 73, 76, 80 77

1 Chronicles 1:10 17:9

47 179

2 Chronicles 6:13 7:8 20:6 LXX 21:12

125 27 77 126

2. Apocrypha Baruch 2:1 4 4:5–5:9 4:8 4:10–21 4:30 4:36–37 4:36–5:5 5:2–7

350 111–112, 258 245–46 246 246 246 246 244 246

Judith 1–4 5:1–6:10 5:5–21 5:6–9 6:11 7:23–28 8:24–27 14:10

76 76 76 73–87 86 86 86 86

1 Maccabees 2:52 2:58 9:50

86 133 22

2 Maccabees 1:1–6 1:4 7 7:9 7:22–23 7:27–29

265 270 246–48 247 247–48 247–48

4 Maccabees 12:13 13:19–21

246–49 248 248

15:6–7 16:6–10 16:13 18:1 18:23 Apocryphal Psalms 151 154 155

248 248 248 77 248

155:1–14 155:8 155:8–12

265 265, 271 265–67, 270, 271 275 267 266–67

Sirach 11:14–28 14:11–16 14:16 23:2 23:7 24 24:8–12 24:23–29 24:27 24:30–34 24:32 26:29 33:18 34:21 38:34–39:11 41:14 44:16 44:20 48:1–12 48:9 49:14

105–121 115 115 114 113 113 111–112 114 114 113 114 113 115 113 115 108 113 135 86 133 135 135

index of ancient sources 51 51:23 51:28 Tobit 1:1–5

265 113, 119 113 281

5:3 7:3 Wisdom of Solomon 7:1 10:5 10:10–14

391 341 281 77 77 77

3. New Testament Matthew 5:5 11:7–15 12:40 20:28 23:37 27:60

68–69 136 314 359 249 314

Mark 9:11–13 10:45 13:8

4:13 7:4 8:18–25 8:23

211 251 69 212

136 359 14

1 Corinthians 6:15–17 9:6 12:27–28 13:13 15 15:49–54

251 50 251 293 69 69

Luke 1:2 10:1 13:34 19:43

328 50 249 249

2 Corinthians 1:22 5:5 8:18 11:2–3

212 212 50 251

John 1:9 1:19–23 5:38–40 14:1–3 19:41

68 136 268 68 314

Acts 1:23 4:36–37 7:2 7:2–4 7:2–8 7:8–15 7:16 9:27 11:25–26 12:25ff. 15:38–39 16:4 26:18

50 50 76 74, 79 77 77 311 50 50 50 50 324 264

Galatians 2:11ff 3:1–13 3:1–14 3:6–13 3:6–14 3:8–9 3:14 3:23–29 3:24–25 4:3 4:9 4:19–20 4:21–5:1 4:24–26 4:27 4:30

50 210 223 211 87 211 209–11, 212 293 294 223 223 251 249–51 249 256 249

Romans 3:24–25 4:1–25

359 87

Ephesians 1:3–14 1:7 1:14 1:20–23 4:12 5:23–33

264 359 212 251 251 251

index of ancient sources

392 Philippians 1:21–24 2:7 3:21

69 315 69

Colossians 1:9–14 1:13–14 1:18 1:20 1:24 2:14 4:10

265 359 251 359 251 338, 341 50

1 Thessalonians 4:13–17

69

1 Timothy 2:4

290

Hebrews 7:11 7:23 8–9 11:5 11:10–16 12:22–24 13:14

51 292 292 293 133 249 249 249

James 1:21 2:23

268 87

1 Peter 1:23 1:25 1:3–9 3:18–22

325 325 68 68

2 Peter 2:4 3:5–13

69 69

Revelation 6:9–11 11:1–13 11:3–12 12:15 17:3 17:5 19–20 20:4–6 21 21:1–22:5 21:2 21:9–10 21:10 21–22

10–11 70 134 136 48 253, 255 253–54 253 70 251 70 253 253 255 244, 253–54

4. Pseudepigrapha and Other Post-Biblical Writings Apocalypse of Abraham 1 1–7 1–8 13:14

81 82 74 136

Apocalypse of Adam 64ff.

44 45

Apocalypse of Sedrach 9:1 16:5–7

134 134

Apocalypse of Zephaniah 7:9 8:1–9:5

136 137

Artapanus (see Eusebius) Apocalypse of Daniel 14:1–5

134

Ascension of Isaiah 9:6–9

136 133

Apocalypse of Elijah (C) 4:7 5:32

134 134

Apocalypse of Moses 1:1–2 29:5 37:3–5 40:1

134 134 134 134

2 Baruch 3:1–3 4:2–3 4:3 4:6 6:9 9:6–7 10:16

255 255 257 255 255 101 255

index of ancient sources 32:3–6 49–51 53–69 56:6 59:4 72–74

255 67, 255 67 67 255 67

Cave of Treasures

332, 337

Demetrius the Chronographer (see Clement of Alexandria)

8

51:1 51:1–5 52:1 60:8 61:5 62:1 62:6 62:13–16 62:15–16 63:1 63:12 65:1–5 65:2 66:3 70–71 70:1–4 71:1 71:1–17 72–82

53–71 passim, 68, 105–121, 192 66, 67 56 46, 49, 58, 89, 91, 105–7, 110, 116 110 56 54, 56, 110 56 55 54 57 60 129 110 120 125, 129 116 55 55, 59 116 56, 64 55 249 66 64 110 60–63, 91,133 63 125 60, 62, 70 61 62

72:1 72:4 72:13–14 72:19 72:25 72:31 72:32 72:35–36 72:36 72:37 73:1 73:1–74:9 73:3 74:2 74:3 74:12 75:1–3 75:3 76:14 77:4–8 78:1–2 78:3–4 78:7 79:1 79:2 80:2–8 81:3 81:5 82:1–3 82:1–5 82:3 82:4–6 82:7 82:9

4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou) 5:35

249

Book of Adam (Georgian) 356

1 Enoch 1 15 1–36 1:2–3 5:9 6–11 6–36 10–11 10:1–11:2 10:11 10:21–22 12–13 12:1 12:4 14:8 18–21 20–36 22 22–27 24:2–25:7 24:5–25:6 25 25:4–6 26:1–27:5 32 37–71 38:4 39:2–4 39:4–5 45:1–6 48:8

393 66 61 126 129 62 63 63 62 136 63 63 129 128, 129 129 129 133 136 133 63, 89–103, 105–7, 115–116 92 94 94 94–95 95 95 92 93 94 93, 98 94 92 93, 99 111 93 92 92 93, 96 111 93 99 93, 99 93, 95 111 93 93 93 110 108 111 110, 112 92 91, 93, 96 91

394 82:9–10 82:11–18 82:16 82:19 83–90 85–90 89:52 90:1–5 90:28–29 90:31 91–107 91:1–10 91:11–17 91:12 91:12–15 91:12–17 91:13 91:14 91:15 91:16 91:18 91:18–19 92–105

index of ancient sources

92:1 93:1–10 93:3–9 93:3–10 93:8 93:11–14 94:3 94:8–10 98:3 98:9 98:9–99:10 98:15 99 99:7–8 99:10 99:11 100:6 102–104 102:4–104:8 104:4–6 104:9–105:2 104:12–13 105:1–2 106–7 106:7–8 108:11–13

96 93 95 95 91 59–60 133 149 249 136 91 110 56–58 59 149–54 10 60 60 59 98 117 110 58–59, 105–7, 110–111, 116–118 110 56–58 149–54 10 133 109 117 118 116 116 110 111, 116 117 118 116 118 60 59 62 66 110 112 60 128 129 63

2 Enoch 22:8–10 55:2

129, 133 136 249

3 Enoch 12:1–2 15 18:22

136 126 136

4 Ezra 3:13–16 6:26 7 7:26 8:52 9:24 9:38 9:38–10:50 10:7 10:16 10:27 10:50–56 12 12:22–30 13:5–11 13:36 14:5 14:24

348 77 133 67 249 249 254 252 252–53 252 252–53 252 252 11 14 14 249 17 33

5 Ezra 2:2–6 2:15–32

258 258

Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 5:22

134

Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers (see Apostolic Constitutions) 261–277 History of the Rechabites (see Journey of Zosimos) Jubilees 1:15–18 1:29 4:17 4:23–24 6:15–22 7:17–18 8.1–4 11 11:8 11:14–12:34 11:16–12:14 11:16–17 12:12–15 12:16–17 12:16–18

345–56 65–66, 89, 91, 93, 192 177 65–66 95 129 91 86 237 81 216 74 222 82, 85 83 221–22 82

index of ancient sources 12:16–22 12:21 13:8–9 15:23–34 16:20–31 16:26 17:17–18 19:1 19:8 21:21–24 22:23–24 23:12–31 31–32 31:27 31:27–30 31:29 31:30 32 32:1 32:4–9 32:9 32:9–10 32:10–15 32:17–19 32:17–20 32:20–21 32:21–26 33:21 34 34:15–16 34:15–18 34:20–21 36:6 40:10 44:2 45:1 45:14–16 46:3 46:6–12 46:9 46:9–10 47:1

79 83 25 222 22 177 308 285 307 177 35 65–66 23–24, 31 24 24 24 24 21–36 22, 24 22 283 33 22 23 32 32 21, 30–31, 32–36 33 31 286 310–11 285 177 308–9 36 312 35 312 312 312 312 312

Liber antiquitatem biblicarum (Ps.-Philo) 3:10 6–7 6:2–4 19:12

82 67 74 81 67

Life of Adam

331–32

Life of Adam and Eve 5

344 353

395

10 18 21 21:3 25–29

354 352 353 355 134

Lives of the Prophets

348

Penitence of Adam (Armenian)

356

Ps.-Eupolemus (see Eusebius)

82

Ps.-Orpheus (long recension) 25–31 26–28

74, 82 221

Psalms of Solomon 2:3–13 3:11–12 11:2

244 65 245

Sibylline Oracles 3 3:1–92 3:93–161 3:93–829 3:97–107 3:162–65 3:162–95 3:192 3:192–93 3:194 3:196–98 3.227–28 3:228–29 3.234 3:295–300 3:295–488 3:318 3:319 3:348 3:350–80 3:414–16 3:419 3:489–91 3:489–829 3:545–623 3:586–88 3:590–94 3:601–23 3:608 3:611–14 3:618 3:619–23 3:624–731

44 3–19 6 6, 7 8 5 6 7 14–15 11 15 6 221 5 213 6 7, 12, 17 12, 14 7 19 7, 16 8 8 6 7, 16 7 5 5 13 14–15 16 5 5 7

396

index of ancient sources

3:635–56 3:652 3:702 3:728 3:732–61 3:741–43 3:762–808 3:763–66 3:775 3:788–92 3:813–14 3:815–18 5:420–28

14 15 15 10 7 5 7 5 5 5 5, 17 5 249

13:1, 4 15:6 17–18 17:1–8 18:3 20:1–2 20:3 20:4

308 308 308 306 308–9 310, 311 309–11 311

Testament of Judah 13:3 26:3 26:4

310 311 311

Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs

279–80, 284, 286, 288, 303–15

Testament of Levi 7:4–8:1 9:2 9:6 19:5

22–24 24 24 33 311

Testament of Naphtali 1:1–2:1 1:6–12 1:7 1:7–8 1:9–12 1:10 2:8 5–7 8:2 9:1

279–88 280 311 283 280–81 279, 283–84 286 287 287 287 311

Testament of Reuben 7:2

310 311

Testament of Simeon 8:2

311, 312

Testament of Zebulun 10:7

311

Testament of Abraham 11:1–4

348 134

Testament of Isaac 3:16

133

Testament of Adam

332

Testament of Job 1:6

281

Testament of Moses 10

66

Testament of Asher 8:1

311

Testament of Benjamin 1:2 1:3 3–6 3:8 12:2 12:3

286 310–11 313–14 313–14 311 311, 312

Testament of Dan 5:12–13 7:2

249 311

Testament of Gad 8:5 Testament of Issachar 7:8 Testament of Joseph 1:3 1:4–2:6 1:4–5 2:1 2:2 2:7 3:1–9:5 8:2 9:5 10:1–4 10:5–6 11:1 11:2–16:6 12:1

311 311 306 306, 308 308 308 306–8 306–8 306, 308 308 308 306 306 306 306 308

index of ancient sources

397

5. Dead Sea Scrolls CD 1:1–7 1:1–11 1:3–4 1:4 1:5–6 1:5–12 1:7 1:7–10 1:9–10 1:10–12 1:11–12 3:21–4:4 4:3–4 4:4 4:4–6 4:12–21 5:2–6 5:4–5 6:7–11 7:21 10–12 10:4 10:10 10:14 10:14–11:18 12:19–23 13:7 14:3 14:12 15:7 16:10 16:10–12 16:12 16:13 19:1 19:11 20:1 20:13–15 20:14 20:22 20:32 1QIsaa 30:26 1QpHab 1:2f 2:1–10 7:1–8 7:1–14 11:7

172 176, 178 175, 178 176 176, 178 176–78 186 178 180 178 180 181 178 186 183 174 183 145–47 146–47 180 176 186 157 156 156 155 157 157 157 157 156 157 155 156 156 175, 184 176 180 175, 183, 186 180 175, 184 180 97 182, 195 183 181 181 184 182

1QapGen 2 19:8 21:2 1QS 1:24–26 5:21–24 9:12–16

26 129 25 25 185, 195 178 143–44 141, 143 141–42 195 249

9:13–16 1Q28a 1Q32 1QM 1 11:7 13:8 14:8f 1QHa 14:8 16:16–17 1Q35 2

186 185 176 176, 178 182 176, 178 179, 181 195

4Q17 4Q44 4Q52 4Q70 4Q159 1 ii 6 4Q161–164 4Q166–167 4Q166 1:12 4Q169 4Q171 1–10 ii 6–8 1–10 ii 18 1–10 ii 26–iii 1–10 iii 15 4Q174 2:1–3 4 2 4Q177 1–4 14–16 4Q201 4Q203 7b ii 2–3 4Q208 4Q209 4Q210 4Q211 4Q212

90 195 90 90 157 182 182

2

183 182 182 175, 183 180 175, 184 180 183 176, 178 27–28 90 33 90, 92 92, 96 92 92 149

398

index of ancient sources

4Q213–214

22–24, 89–90, 105–106, 108

4Q213a 1–2

265, 270

Aramaic Levi (ed. Greenfield, Stone, Eshel) 4:9–5:8 23–24 5:8 33 13:13 21 4Q215 279, 281, 284–85, 311 1–5 284 4Q245 195 4Q249 193 4Q249a–i 171, 193 4Q249–4Q249aa 179 4Q249aa 171, 173 4Q249j 176–77 4Q249k 176 4Q249l 176–77 4Q249m 182 4Q249–250 171–185 4QD (266–273) 155–169 4Q266 195 5 ii 158 6 i 158 156, 157 6 i 5 157 6 i 8–9 156 6 i 13 156 6 i 14 159–160 6 i 14–16 168 6 ii 1 167–168 6 ii 2–4 6 ii 3–4 164 158 6 ii 4–5 6 ii 9 165 166–67 6 ii 10–13 167 6 ii 12–13 6 iii 3–4 157 184 11 20 4Q269 157 7 1–2 16 195 4Q270 164 2 ii 15–16 157 3 ii 12 156 6 iv 20 7 195 164 7 i 12–13 184 7 ii 15 4Q271 4 ii 12–13 156 4Q272

1 i 1–2 1 i 13 1 i 17 1 ii 2 1 ii 3 1 ii 3–7 1 ii 7 1 ii 9–10 4Q273 4 i–ii 4 ii 10 4Q274 1i 8 4Q298 4Q317 4Q319 4Q320 4Q329a 4Q334 7 4Q379 26 1–4 4Q390 1 10 4Q393 4Q398 11–13 4 (C21) 4Q399 4Q413 1–2 4Q415 1–9 4Q418 167 4Q418a 15 4Q427 4Q440 3 4Q504–6 4Q504 1–2 ii 7–17 1–2 ii 13 1 ii 7–10 1 ii 8–10 2 ii 3–12 2 v 2–13 2 vii 1–3 (verso) 2 vii 4 3 ii 7–9 4 5–7 4 5–13 4 5–15 6 10

157 157 157 155 156 159–61 156, 158 161 158 156 161–62 193 173, 193 95 95 195 195 28–29 176, 178 265 183 195 265 146 142–43, 146 142 142 154 195 150–54, 263–74 263, 266–67, 276 266 152 152 152 153 153 153 152 267 263 266–67, 276 151

index of ancient sources 4Q505 124 6 4Q506 11–14 131+132 5–14 131+132 11–14 4Q510 1 6f 4Q511 63 4Q522 9 ii 12–13 4Q530 3:3–6 4Q537 1–3 1–6 12 14 2–5 4Q543 1 4Q544 1 4Q545 1 ii 4Q546 2 4Q554–555 5Q13 2 7–13 5Q15 11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 11Q5 19

152 267 266–67, 276 263 183

11Q6 11Q7 11Q8 11Q9 11Q10 11Q11 11Q12

195 25–26, 29 25

11Q13 2:7–8 3:17–18 11Q14 11Q15

129 34 36 35

11Q16 + XQText B 11Q17

312

11Q18 11Q19

312 312

29:7–10 13:8 11Q20 4 9 11Q21 11Q22

312 249 27–28 249 187, 194, 187, 187, 187, 187, 192, 265,

188, 195 188, 188, 188, 188, 195, 270

190, 190–91 190, 194 190, 194 190–91, 265

11Q23 11Q24 11Q25 11Q26 11Q27 11Q28 11Q29 11Q30 11Q31

399 187, 188, 191 187, 188, 191 187, 188, 191 187, 188, 190, 194 187, 188, 190, 195 188, 191, 195 188, 190–91, 192 188, 191, 192 154 154 188, 191, 192 188, 190, 192–93 189, 191, 192 189, 190, 192–93, 195 189, 190, 249 187, 189, 190, 191, 193, 195–96 26–27, 28 178 189, 191, 193 190 189, 190, 193 189, 190, 193–94 189, 193 189, 190 189, 190, 194 189, 190, 194 189, 191 189, 190, 194 189, 190, 193 189, 191 189, 194

6. Philo and Josephus Philo De Abrahamo 5 68–69 68–71 68–88 99 100–102 107–30 276

220 216 215–16 74 207 219 216 220

De cherubim 16

327

De ebrietate 131

327

De fuga et inventione 55 101

202 206

index of ancient sources

400 De gigantibus 12–15 60–67

215 215

Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 96–99 130–32 133–236 166 249–66 265 280–83 314–16

218 218 218 206 217–18 217 222 217–19

Legum allegoriae 1.37 2.32

222 222

De Migratione Abrahami 176ff

74

De vita Mosis 1.4

327

Quaestiones et solutions in Exodum 2:62–68 200–207 2.64 200–201, 203 2.65 200–201, 204 Quaestiones et solutions in Genesim 2:1–7 199 3.1 216, 218 3.9 217 De somniis 1.44ff

74

De specialibus legibus 2.9 4.150

327 323

De virtutibus 68 70 102–4 187 212 212–19 214 217 218 219

214 220 217 213 218 213–16 222 217, 218 214 217, 220

Josephus Antiquities 1.167–68 1.3.1 1.6.5 1.7.1 1.7.1–2 1.9.28 1.13.15 1.19.1 1.19.2 1.55 1.69–71 1.155–57 1.157 1.167 1.256 2.8.2 20.244–51

228 83 83 81, 83 74 136 22 83 86 228 236 233 236 233 213 311 174

Jewish War 1.2.151–58 1.492

136 327

7. Christian and Related Authors and Works Acts of Barnabas Acts of Pilate 15:1, 25 25 Acts of St. Katharine Alexander of Cyprus Laudatio Barnabae 381 Apocalypse of Paul 20, 46–51

50, 51 133 136 44 51 50 348 137

Apocalypse of Peter 13 2, 17 Apocryphon of John 24.15 Apophthegmata Patrum Apostolic Constitutions 1–6 7–8 7.26.3

136 134 45 346 261–75 261 261–62 268, 269

index of ancient sources 7.33–38 7.33.3 7:1–32 8.3–41 8.37–39 8.37.2–3 8.37.6 8.39.4 8.6.5 8.6.5–8

262, 268, 271–74 268 261 261 272–73 273 273 273 264, 268, 270 262–63, 263–75 passim

Athanasius Life of Anthony

346

Bar Hebraeus Book of the Dove

332

Catena on Genesis 1755–1760 1757 (Cyril of Alexandria) 1781 (Cyril of Alexandria) 1784 (Severian of Gabala) 1785–87 (Cyril of Alexandria) 1791 (Cyril of Alexandria) 1794–1795 1798 (ps.-Chrysostom) 1798–1800 1802 1804a–b

314–15 315 313 314 314

313, 315 315 315 315 313 286, 310–11 1804b 312 1812 (Origen) 309 1844 (Severian of Gabala) 313 1851 ( John Chrysostom) 307 1852 307 1853 307 1854–56 ( John Chrysostom) 307 1858 ( John Chrysostom) 307 1859 307 1860 (ps.-Chrysostom) 307 1861–62 ( John Chrysostom) 307 1868 307 1869 ( John Chrysostom) 307 1877 314 1894 ( John Chrysostom) 307 1940 (Origen) 309 2068 312 2270 312

2 Clement 14:1–4 2:1–3 Clement (ps.) Homilies 2.5.1 3.38–39 3.42.4–5 3.42.7–43.1 3.43.4–44.2 4.11.1 4.11.1–13.2 4.12.4 55.3–57 Recognitions 1.32 1.7–13 Clement of Alexandria Eclogue 27.1 Stromateis 1.21.141.1–2 (Demetrius the Chronographer, frg. 6) 2.20 7.2.6.1–3 Cosmas Indicopleustes Topographia Christiana 2.1 Cyril of Jerusalem Catecheses 14.16.25–26 Dialogue of Athanasius and Zacchaeus Dialogue of Papiscus and Philo Dialogue of Solomon and Saturn Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila Didache Didascalia Didymus (Ps.) On the Trinity Disputatio de religione Dispute of Gregentius with Herban the Jew Doctrina Jacobi Ephrem Commentary on Genesis Homilies on the Nativity 22.9 Hymns on Nisibis 48.9 Hymns on Virginity 13.9

401 256–57 256 50 231 231 231 231 234 227, 230 234 231 231 50 5 321 8 50 360 320–21 134

295 295 47 295 261 261 322 295 295 295

344 342 342 342

402

index of ancient sources

3.10 7.11 Sugitha on the Mother of God 1.24 Epiphanius Refutation of all Heresies 2.6 Epistle of Barnabas 9:1 9:9 Epistle of Pseudo-Titus Epistle to Diognetus 7:5 Eusebius Demonstration of the Gospel 3.4.49 Ecclesiastical History 2.1.5. 2.15.1 3.39.3–4 (Papias frg. 5) 3.39.11 4.22.9 5.1–4 5.10.4 Preparation for the Gospel 9.16.8 ( Josephus) 9.17.2–9 (Ps.-Eupolemus) 9.17.3 Ps. -Eupolemus 9.17.8 Ps.-Eupolemus

342 342 342 44 268 268 134 360 327 50 323 324–27 323 323 321 238 74 221 221, 237–38, 238 221 237 74

9.17.9 Ps.-Eupolemus 9.18.1 (Artapanus) 9.18.2. Ps.-Eupolemus Evagrius Controversy between Simon the Jew and Theophilus the Christian 295 George Cedrenus Compendium historiarum 1.53.19–56.8 1.55.10–56.8 1.56.3–4 George Monachus Chronicon 10.12–24 10.5–9 11.1–11 11.9–11 44.4–6 81.16–20 93.16–94.18 93.9–94.15 95.4–100.10

235 234 235 236 236, 237 236 234 236 235 235 238 227–241

95.6–17 96.11 96.14 96.2 96.3–5 96.6 96.7 96.9 97.6–9 98.18–20 98.21 98.22 99.9 100.2–9 366.13–367.19 367.20–26 369.2–11 369.11–370.5 370.13–371.9 371.10–12 371.18–372.7 372.12–373.3 619 George Syncellus Ecloga Chronographica 34.16–19 Gospel of Barnabas Gospel of Bartholomew 1:17 Gospel of Basilides Gospel of Eve Gospel of Philip 68.23 70.20 Gospel of the Hebrews Gregory of Nyssa Catechetical Oration 20–26 Hippolytus Apostolic Tradition Refutation of All Heresies 10.33.13 Hypostasis of the Archons 91.31, 34ff Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.1.1 5.33.4 (Papias frg. 1) Isaac of Antioch Mêmrâ on Adam and Eve 154r–v 156r–v

235 232 233 232 234 232 233 232 232 232 232 234 234 232 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 51 237 51 134 50 44 45 45 49, 50 360–363 261 360 45

359 326 332–44 335 335

index of ancient sources 158v 160v 164r 164r –165v 168v 170v–171v Mêmrâ on Cain and Abel Mêmrâ on Creation Jerome Commentary on Isaiah 7:14 De viris illustribus 6 Life of Paulus the First Hermit John Chrysostom Ad Stagirum a daemone vexatum Epistulae ad Olympiadem John Chrysostom (ps.) De Ioseph et de caritate John Moschus Pratum spirituale 172 John of Damascus [ps.?] Commentary on the Epistles of Paul Journey of Zosimos 20:2–6 20:3 20:4 7:8 Julian Romance Justin 1 Apology 53 Dialogue with Trypho 49:1 8:4 Justinian On the Hebrews Leontis of Neapolis Apology against the Jews Liber Graduum Life of Mary of Egypt Life of Rabbula Lives of the Prophets 135.17

335 335 343 336 336 338–41 334 334

297 51 346 307 307 307, 315 298 50 345–56 350 354 353 354 341 256 295 136 134 296 295 341 346 341 50

Maximus Confessor Epistle 8 Melchizedek (Coptic) 10.1 Michael Glycas Annales 228.6–13 246.7–23 Muratorian Canon Origen Homilies on Jeremiah 20.2 Origin of the World (Coptic) 113.33ff Papias (see Eusebius) Penitence of Origen Photius Bibliotheca 230 Procopius of Gaza Commentary on the Octateuch Protoevangelion of James 13.1

403 296 45 237 235 49

360 45 317–29 49

298 305 355

Rufinus of Aquileia Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 21 361 St. Mary’s Prayer Book Tertullian Against Marcion 5.4 De Pudicita 20 Testimony of Truth 46.3, 8 Theodoret of Cyrrhus Quaestiones in Octateuchum Theodotus Romans-Philemon Theophilus of Antioch Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica IIIa.49.5.2 Twenty-Five Questions to Corner the Jews

44

257 51 45 305 323

137 289–301

404

index of ancient sources 8. Rabbinic Texts

Mishnah, Tosefta m. Abot 5:3(4) m. Baba Batra 5:10 m. Bava Metzia 1:8 2:8 3:4–5 m. Berakhot 4:1 m. Eduyot 8:7 m. Sotah 9:15 t. Sotah 7:11 Talmud b. Avoda Zara 4a b. Berakhot 16b 29a b. Berakhot 11a–12a 29a 4b b. Erubin 45a b. Hullin 60b b. Pesahim 68a b. Sukkah 5a y. Berakhot 4:3, 8a Targum Targum Neofiti Exodus 3:22 Deuteronomy 3:25 Targum Onqelos Deuteronomy 3:25 Targum Ps.-Jonathan Genesis 1:14 1:16 39:24, 29

307 144 134 134 134 272 134 134 269

Midrashim and Other Works Alphabet of Rabbi Aqiba Kaph 136 Chronicle of Jerahmeel (Hebrew Naphtali) 1:8 10:6 2–7 7:5 8:3–9:5

279, 284 287 287 287 287 287

Genesis Rabbah 6:3 25 38:13 48:7 54:13 56:10 99:11

100 126 82 86 283 29–30 134

Maimonides Mishneh Torah Ahavah 12:5

269

Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael Bahodesh 4:45–58

135

298 270 266–67, 268, 272 273 276 273 135 100 102 135 266–67, 272, 277 74 34 25 25 74 95 101 283

Midrash Bereshit Rabbati

279–82, 284–85

Pesiqta de Rab Kahane 23 5

146–47 134

Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 4 13 33

101, 102 352 136

Sefer ha-Yashar Hayye Sarah 49a Wa-Yeze 57b–58a

284 284

Sefer Zerubbabel

300

Siddur R. Saadja Gaon 17 26 27 Siddur R. Amram Gaon

270, 273 273 273 277

index of ancient sources Zohar 2:197a 3:88b

405

126 126

9. Classical Authors and Works Alexander Polyhistor Aristophanes Knights 31 Peace 1095, 1116 Aulius Gellius Attic Nights 14.2.1 Cicero De inventione rhetorica 2.117 De legibus 3.2 Dream of Scipio Galen De alimentorum Facultatibus 6.480.1ff De compositione medicamentorum 12.703.2–4 12.894.1ff De venae sectione 11.221.12–17 Hesiod Theogony 942 943–44 949 988–91 Homer Iliad 18.117–19 20.231–35 Odyssey 1 11.305–20 11:601–4 17.483–87 4.561–68 6.243 6.280–81 7.208–10 Hymn to Demeter

5

Lactantius Divine Institutes 1.6 1.6.13–14

8 5

Palladius On the Indian Races and on the Brahmins

348

Pausanius Descr. 10.2.2

8

18 18

320

328 320 132 317–29 318 319 317, 319 322

131 131 131 131

131 131 131 131 131 131 132 131 131 131 131

Plato Phaedo 115C–D 246E–249D 57a–59c 73c 85E–86D 91C–95A Phaedrus 275a–b 318–19 Philebus 59d Republic 10.614A–621D Theaetetus 142a–143b

132 132 328 222 132 132

222 132 328

Porphyry On the Iliad 434.24ff

320

Seneca Epistulae Morales 6.5–6

318

Strabo Geographica 16.2.35

81

Suda Lexicon 1.10.36–11.7

235

Theodosius (ps.) On Grammar 11.15ff

319